zoning board of appeal hearing for June >> recording in progress >> for June 16, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new
law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being livereamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of
the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as
attendees, which means you will not see yourself on screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation
materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of elected officials,
and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project. That is those individuals who live closest to
the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes
and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then
can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stebridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that
you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. Mr. Stebridge. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. President, >> good morning. Ms.
Turner. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning. Miss Weell. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Bernell's. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Collins.
>> Morning, Madam Chair. President >> and Mr. Langam. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. President, >> good morning. Floor is yours, Mr. Ste. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin today's meeting with the approval of a
hearing minutes scheduled for 9:30 a.m. These are the hearing minutes for June 2nd of this year. And I will make the motion of approval for those. >> Thank you. May I have a second? Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yeah. >> Mr. Langham. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Wheelo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next, we'll go to the extensions scheduled for 9:30 a.m. There are five cases. There are five extension cases before us. All appear to be reasonable
at their request. I'll read through them and if we have any questions, we can address them to Madam Chair. Go from there. First we have case BOA 1094388 with the address of 1 Street. Next we
have case BOA 128 9178 with the address of 40B street. Along with that we have case we also have case BOA 1521 943
with address of 40B street. Next we have case BOA 1522524 with the address of 79 West Milton Street. to the last extension case we have case
BOA145 063 with the address of 556 Cambridge Street and those are the extension cases before us today. >> Thank you Mr. Stebridge. Any questions from the board
hearing? None. May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? >> Motion of granting extensions as requested. >> May I have a second? Thank you, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes,
>> Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Miss Weell, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next, we'll move on to the
recommendations scheduled for 9:30 a.m. These recommendations are from the subcommittee hearing um for last week for June 11th. All of all of the cases uh before the
subcommittee were approved. I'll read through them and if you have any questions um there we have case first we have case BOA 1822545
with the address of 5 to7 press. Next we have case BOA 1844274 with the address of 68 road. Next we have case BOA 1821584
with the address of 6 Grand Road. Next we have case BOA 1772126 with the address of 31 Melon Street which was approved. Case BA 18231
98 with the address of 682 to 684 East 5th Street was approved. Next we have case BOA 183990 with the address of 306 Northern Avenue
and final for the recommendation case we have case VA1821600 0 with the address of 16 Elm Street which is also madam chair those are all the cases of the sub. Thank you. Any questions from
the board? May I have a motion to approve? >> I make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langel? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes.
>> Miss Weell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next, move on to the hearings scheduled for 9:30 a.m.
And at this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferral from the 9:30 a.m. frame. Is it >> one hand right? >> Yeah.
>> Hello. Yes. We wish to um defer to the next meeting. We need to readvertise. Sorry. >> 78 Bunker >> 78 Bunker Hill Street, Charles Town.
>> What may I ask? >> Yes. that this is this request is for case BO817120 with the address of 78 Hill Street. Go ahead. Please go ahead and >> uh yes. So, uh we had a second
neighborhood meeting and we changed you know we were advised them to appease their butters. Um that was successful but the old drawings uh the new drawings were not updated in time so it needs to
be readvertised cuz the advertisement had the old drawings to which was brought to our attention. >> Caroline, do we have a date already or >> July 28th? >> Okay. Uh may I have a motion? Motion to defer this case until July 28th.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Wheelo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you. Any any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9:30 hearing? Hearing none, we begin with the first
case which is case BOA 171 6446. The access of 178 to 180 Well Street. the applicants and or their representative or present. Would they
please explain the case a little more? >> Hi, can everybody hear me? Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> Hi, my name is Adam Richie and I am here to present 178 Weld Street on behalf of my clients Ingmar and Melissa Sterling.
And sorry, I'm just trying to figure out how to share my screen. >> So, you're presenting from what you sent in. So, just let the ambassador know if you need to scroll. >> Um,
let me go back to Oh, sorry. This is not Oh, you have it up for me. I see. Thank you. So, uh, actually we have since changed the design as per the neighborhood meetings.
Uh, so would you like me to share those? So we can only discuss what's before us. So do we not have the latest plans? >> Um no, but >> Adam, were the updated plans submitted
to ISU to review? >> Uh I believe so >> more than two weeks ago. Yes, we submitted by email everything to the my liazison I believe.
>> To your liaison, meaning you're at ISD or do you mean the mayor's office? >> Correct. At ISD? >> U Madam Chair, might I uh suggest we come back to this case at the end? Um and I can check with ZPA staff. >> That would be great. So, we'll we're
gonna we're going to come back to this at the end of the 9:30s to see if they can locate your updated plans. >> Okay, great. >> Okay. So, so stay tuned. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. So with that, we'll move on to the next
case, which is case BOA 184 08 78 with the address of 2832 Appleton Street. The applicant and or their representative are present. They please
explain to the board. >> I am Joseph. >> Are you here to present on this case? I am and may I share my screen? >> So there's no sharing of screens to all applicants. Whatever you submitted is what we are able to view. So if you do
not if we do not have your current plans, you cannot present today. So is is this plans? >> Plans are current. I just have more. >> Okay. Excellent. >> Okay. So I'm Joseph Aella, 3841 Washington Street in Rosendale. I am the
owner and the manager of Colgate Development LLC. I own this building, this business, and several others here in Rosendale. Uh on this vacant lot at on Street, we intend to build a three family house.
The zoning is 2F, but we're surrounded by three family houses. We think that the use is appropriate, but the difference is that we're doing a townhouse configuration. So instead of stacking the units, we're running them front to back. That allows us to provide
for two parking spaces under the building for each unit for a total of six parking spaces. These will be condominium units. They'll be owner occupied. They'll have three bedrooms, two and a half baths. There'll be an office. There will be open space
provided behind the house and next to the house. Uh we've had two community meetings. One with the the neighbors that was sponsored by the mayor's office and that went very well. We had no opposition and then we went to the west
village group also no opposition there. We did very well. We just we believe that this use is appropriate given the surrounding houses. We have kept the size and um we've kept the size consistent with the
existing the adjacent buildings and we hope that you grant us relief so we can move forward with our project. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none may have public testimony. >> Madam chair members of the for the record my name is Jeremy Ben. I am the
Rosen community engagement specialist with the office of services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abotus meeting facilitated on March 5th with three attendees. During the meeting, a voters raised questions and concerns regarding the requested variances, the anticipated construction timeline, and the overall project management
throughout the construction period. Specific concerns were raised regarding access to the street during construction, including whether work would occur on weekends or require weekend permits. Abot has no doubt the street is narrow and voiced concerns about potential traffic congestion ways and maintaining access to
residential properties throughout the construction process. Following the opponent's meeting, the proponent met with West Village and Neighborhood Association which completed the community process. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the court. >> Thank you.
>> Next, Madam Chair. Next, we have Anthony Rose. >> Uh good morning, Madam Chair. members of the board. Um, awkwardly I'm presenting the next case, but I also represent the owner of the budding property uh to Mr. Visella's proposed project at 26 Aton
Street, and I'd like to go on record on behalf of the owner of that three family uh in support of this proposal. >> Thank you. >> Chair, there are no additional comments. >> Okay. >> I think we have Richard L.
>> Yeah, not so much a comment. I just wanted for clarity um would it be possible um just confirm what the total lot width on that property was and then what the required frontage would be? I'm just cur I I missed it in the presentation. >> The lot width is
60 ft which is the required frontage >> and what I'm sorry there were total of three three units. >> Three units. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board?
May I have a motion? >> Um, I put forward a motion of approval with a provisal that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review. Um, and that the proponent work on enhancing the walkway and lighting and adding
signage that clearly indicates the main entrance of where the units uh the two and three units are located. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stembridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. Miss Willow, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.
>> Thank you. >> Next, we have case no, excuse me. Next, we have case BOA 180456 with the address of 66- 66A Avenue. the applicants andor their representative brethren.
Would they please explain to the board? >> Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Anthony Ross. I'm an attorney with my office at 343 Belrid Avenue in Roslandale, appearing on behalf of the owner, Hong Fang Yang. Uh, this proposal involves the construction
of a new two family dwelling on a vacant lot immediately adjacent to Miss Yang's existing two family home at 68 uh 70 Cedrris Avenue. Uh, the vacant lot um has been assigned uh an address of 66-6A
Cedrris Avenue. Uh both properties are shown on the f photograph which is the first slide. Um the existing two family is to the right at the very end of the dead end and the vacant lot um is immediately to the
left. Uh as shown on the um next slide um the existing two family um is the last house um marked in the blue box. Um and uh as shown on this uh map, which is a portion of the city's
use map, the surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a mix of single family, mostly two family and three family homes. The proposed two family is an allowed use in this zoning district, the 2F5000 zoning district, and is consistent with the majority of the
existing unit uh existing uses in the immediate area. Um the next map u or the next slide after this legend uh is um here. Thank you. Is uh a portion of the city's assessing map um that demonstrates that the subject lot is
nearly identical in size and dimensions to most of the nearby lots on Cedrris Avenue and the parallel uh adjacent parallel streets. The prevailing lot pattern in this area is approximately 44 ft in width by 110 ft in depth with lot
areas roughly 4840 square ft which is the uh lot size of the subject lot. Accordingly, the lot dimensions, the proposed setbacks, the zoning insufficiencies identified in the refusal ladder and the proposed two family use are all consistent with the
character of the immediately surrounding neighborhood. If we could move down to the next slides. Um uh and keep going to the um to the architectural plans, please. Um and uh I I for some reason the
elevations are at the bottom. Um thank you. The proposed two families also been designed to fit the character of the neighborhood context. Although the units are configured internally in a front to back arrangement, the street facing appearance uh which is the next slide I think or the previous one.
Thank you. The street facing appearance uh is similar to that of a single family home with the entrance to the front unit appearing as the traditional front door and the entrance to the rear unit appearing as a typical side entrance along the driveway. Each of the proposed
uh two f uh each of the proposed units in the two family will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. The existing garage at the rear of the property will be retained along with the existing driveway and curb cut. and we would be happy to answer any questions regarding the proposal of the zoning
relief that's been requested. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Madam chair, members of the board for the My name is John Denver. I'm the Rosendale community engagement specialist for the office of
neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on February 18th with three abundance in attendance. Concerns were expressed regarding the sideyard setback, particularly because the area required relief directly abut neighboring property. Questions were
also raised regarding proposed fencing and the preservation or removal of existing trees on the site. Abutters noted that the location of the side eress could create noise impacts for adjacent properties and suggested that it be relocated if feasible. Additional inquiries were made regarding the amount of usable backyard space that would
remain after construction and whether the rear of the property would primarily be utilized for parking. Further concerns included the size of the proposed garage, the anticipated construction timeline, and the overall height and scale of the structure. Abund stated the proposed building appeared taller than the surrounding homes and
expressed concern that it may be inconsistent with the established character of the neighborhood. following the meeting at the Proponent Village Neighborhood Association on April 23rd completing the community process. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board.
>> Thank you. >> Um chair, we don't have additional comments. >> Okay. Would Attorney Ross like to address the concerns that were expressed? >> Yeah. Um so with regard to the sideyard, Miss Yang also owns the now owns uh
since the um the uh brother's meeting the property to the left side of the property. She does plan to retain the fence. Um the garage is existing and with regard to the height uh the building has been designed um so that it is in compliance with the height of 35
ft the height limit in this zoning district. Uh the reason for uh the topmost story with dormers being a full story is just to maximize the living space of each unit. They are three-bedroom units with approximately
1,850 square ft designed for family occupancy. And and the reason the building doesn't have a flat roof, which is similar to some of the other uh um three-unit buildings in the neighborhood is uh she wanted to put a pitched roof
on uh uh to maximize the feasibility of installing solar panels for energy efficiency. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion
of approval. Is >> there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Coner? >> Yes. >> Miss Weell?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. Next we have case BOA
174 9423 with the address of 26 B Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they chair? My name is Ference Gary. I'm an
attorney in Boston and um with a principal address at 299 Gallivan Boulevard. I represent the applicant, the contractor, Mr. David Allen, who's sitting to my right. Um online are the
homeowners, Mr. and Mrs. Best. Also, uh joining with me this morning is the architect, uh Mr. Fred uh Money as well as his uh partner Mr. Joseph Ditto. Um
Madame Chair, before I go into uh the design, may I have an opportunity to lay out the project for you? 26 >> Yes. 2630 Bird Street um is a single family home on two lots uh with the
address of 26 and 30. Uh we are proposing eight condominium units with eight parking spaces um located in the rear. Um the property is located within a residential district roughly a less
than a 3minut walk to Ashmont station and uh it is the very uh definition of a transient development. We seek relief all under um article 65 uh basically for insufficient lot size
um floor area ratio and parking spaces. Uh I will now turn it over to Mr. Dio to go over the design process with you. Before doing so, I should let you know we had an abundance meeting on October
20th, 2025. Um it was wellreceived. We heard from the neighbors and some of their concern. We actually met with the neighborhood association on March 26. Um I point out those dates because it gave us the time to actually work with the neighborhood to address all of their
concern. I'm happy to report to you on March 26 when we presented to the Ashman Hill Neighborhood Association. It was unanimously approved and we have a letter from Vicky Wugo the uh the uh association president in support of this
project. At this time I'd like to transfer the remaining of my time to Mr. Dio or Mr. Mona to go over the design process. >> Thank you. Um good morning everyone madam chair and members of the board. My name is Joseph Dero. I am a staff
architect here with with hierarchy. um to walk you through the design. Um could maybe scroll back to the site plan, please. Are we able to go up? All right. Site
plan maybe down. As mentioned, I think we're good here. As mentioned, we're combining two lots into what will be a larger lot with a frontage of approximately 73 feet. Lot size is uh combined will be
approximately 6,000 um square ft lot. What we are planning to do is to erect a a threestory building um and we'll have a pass through where we'll have parking at the
rear of the property. If you can scroll down to a site plan that reflects that. I think we are good here. Um to go back just a little. All right, let's go here. So, we'll we'll have a pass through in the center of the building and we'll have parking at the rear. The first
floor level will compose of um two two-bedroom uh apartments, one on the left, one on the right, and a pass through for the common space in parking area through the building there. Let's go through the plans.
The second and third floor is um going to have two bedroom two bedrooms um but three units on each floor plate um consisting of a total of eight eight units on the second and third floor. Um we
have two bathrooms per unit. These units are largely and fairly sized and um comparable to a lot of the units that are being built in the area. Let's go through um maybe to the elevation. The elevation
um is composed of uh cementacious sighting with flat roof and um metal windows. Um we are keeping in height with what exists in the neighborhood. We are um targeting around 33 ft. We're not
doing a basement slab and grade so that to um to stay within within the height requirement and um with what in the neighborhood already. Let's go through more elevations.
Um some sections that we shouldn't talk about right now. Let's go through some of the renderings just to give you a flavor of what the view is like at the rear of the building where the parking area is. Um, more
views toward the rear area. As you can see, this is the front entry of the building. Again, I think the architecture is really in kind with a lot of what's happening in the neighborhood um in Ashbond in the Ashmont area, which is again about a a
few blocks away. I'd like to say two or three blocks away. So really keeping in kind with the architecture that is being presented in the neighborhood right now and really the massing and the height I think complement what is um exist and
what is being proposed in the area. So with that I'd like to turn it back to uh to the attorney. All right. Thank you. >> Madam chair just one correction uh the lot size is actually 6,918 square ft. Um
again any questions from the board would we be more than happy to to answer them madam chair. >> So can you you you mentioned this is in scale with other uh buildings in the neighborhood. So so on that street I don't see anything that looks quite that
uh with that many units. Can you just sort of elaborate on that? >> Yes madam chair. In fact, at the beginning of the street, there is a recently approved 9-unit building, and at the top at the bottom of the street, which is right on the corner, there's
approval from the board for a much larger site. Um, uh, this was something that we took into consideration looking at the neighborhood, designing the project to make sure that it was in keeping with what's been previously approved and keeping in the area. And
that was taken into cons consideration in terms of the height. There are a number of three family units. This is an Ashmont Hill. So, uh on the hill itself, there are a couple of three family or six families on the other side. And in the back of the building, there are much
larger properties as well. >> Questions from the board? >> Yeah, I have one small question. I just wanted to know how many condos are located on this street. >> Uh so, good morning, Mr. Langham. Uh, as I stated before, at the beginning of the
street, um, um, there's just been, I think it was a 9-unit condo and and at the end of the street, there's also another condo project. And right on the corner, there's been approved for a much larger, I believe it probably something like 25 or 26 unit. Um, this is again
right across the street from Ashmont Station. This is the very definition of transit oriented development and this will in our opinion provide much stability to the neighborhood by providing housing as well as more home ownership. Thank you for your question sir.
>> Thank you. >> I also have a question. Um we received a comment from our director Butter about how this building would impact the shadows on their property. I know you said you did work um extensively with the community. Were there adjustments
made um because of that those types of concerns? >> Uh Mr. Turner, absolutely. Not only do I do work within that community, um that community actually butts Bailey Bailey Street in 58 Bailey Street is owned by
my wife and I. So, I'm very familiar with the neighborhood, very familiar with the neighbors and everything. Um as I stated, if you remember during my presentation, we had our buddas meeting in October. We didn't have the association meeting until March. That
gave us the time to actually uh rework the plan and the whole nine yard things like fencing, shadowing and stuff like that. We did address them. And in addition to that, I did provide any and all the butters that appeared and if they had any questions to just contact
me. And prior to our meeting and I believe the the um neighborhood association sent out letters to all their voters and it was publicized for them to have another opportunity to come in and address that and we address all of their concern and um and and I'm
happy to report to you at that association meeting. It was unanimously approved. >> Thank you very much. >> I also have a question for the architect. >> Sure. >> Yeah. So looking at your site plan um
there's a striped um area as in the driveway essentially that is would take be taking cars to the back. What is this striped area meant for? >> Can we go back to a site plan? Maybe
>> maybe talking about the walkway here. Is it um the strike that connects both buildings, >> right? Yeah. Right. That it crosses. Oh, the It was a previous drawing, >> right? Was a previous drawing. >> Yes. So, so it's marked as striped
>> pathway. So, so in your plans is the purpose, >> right? So it it's it's basically an access that allows pedestrian to walk over and safely cross the parking area
>> and but it's just mostly a striped uh a striping on the asphalt. >> Correct. Correct. We we need to maintain the asphalt for for uh for the cars. So, it's just a demarcation of a safe
way for for the tenants to go from one building to the other. >> But you're expecting tenants to have a path into their units in and into the stair directly, not not to have to go through the driveway. Correct. >> Correct. Correct. There's direct an entry from um the ground there. As you
can see here, there's a walkway um towards the right that leads you directly into into the unit. And and in the back where where you we have eight parking spots. Um are are we are you filling uh what
what's the dimension between um between the parking spots on the sort of plan left and plan right ju just to make sure that those cars can actually turn around and and and move out. And we actually do have the eight parking spaces. the dimension. We we test out
those dimensions and um a car can comfortably a full-size car can comfortably back up and um exit the property. Again, I I'd like to point out that this is a a a transit oriented development. Um we are targeting eight
parking spaces, but I think um folks that lives here will be using the train system um and relieve the burden of having a lot of parking spaces at the rear of the building. I think one of the things that we want to do and and if it's okay with the community is maybe um
swap over some of the parking spaces for green space. Um I think that's a conversation to be had. Um we are open to to doing that. Um I think we have plenty of parking spaces in the back and we can make that work architecturally. >> So can I ask uh you're showing a lot of
shrubbery outside of the fence the fencing. So is that also your property? Are you providing that green space then? >> Um we we are again I think the the shrubbery is based on conversations to
create a buffer zone between the the two two properties. It could either be the fence can can either be on on the left hand side of the the shrubbery or the right hand side. We just chose to put on the other side of the property just to create a buffer and allowing the
neighbor or or giving them the the the the um the luxury of having um >> Yeah, that's why I just wanted to confirm that that that was part of your property and that you were providing it. >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Chair, it's completely our
property right now. There's a hard fence there and that would be on our property. Thank you. What's the material for the parking? Cuz that is a lot of um looks like asphalt. So I don't know what. >> Right. It will be permeable as >> Yeah.
>> Okay. 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'm the Joester community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which
consisted of an abut being facilitated October 20th. During the meeting of expressed concerns that the proposed building could cast shadows and reduce sunlight to neighboring homes. Abutters also commented that the proposed front setback approximately 5 ft from the street appeared significantly closer to
the sidewalk and surrounding properties and could affect the safety at the corner. Additional concerns included the height of the proposed building which some of brothers felt was excessive as well as the inconsist the consistency of front yard setbacks along the street. Abutas expressed that the proposed setback differed from the established
development pattern of the neighborhood and viewed as out of character with the surrounding properties. Abuas also questioned the driveway configuration beneath the building and expressed concern that the proposed eight parking spaces may be unnecessary given the property's proximity to the Ashmont train station. Concerns were further
raised regarding the building's proximity to the adjacent properties, whether the units would be rental to the ownership, housing, and at what market level, and the anticipated construction timeline. Following the main, the proponent met with Ashmont Hill Association, and to date, our office has received one letter of support from the
Ashmont Hill Association in support of the proposal. Thank you. Time of the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. And next we have Anastasia from city council.
>> Yes, madam chair, members of the board, thank you Anastasia on behalf of council war who represents district 4. Um we're aware that this development does have support from Ashmont Hill um who took the lead on this but we have heard some issues from Ashmont Valley members as
well as neighbors. Um so at this point council would like to defer to the board. Thank you. So, Anastasia, can can you tell us which which association does this property rest in? Is it Ashmont Valley
or Ashmont Hills? >> Yeah, to my understanding, and I I think I'd like to go and confirm that um before giving you the official answer, but I my understanding is that it's um kind of on the line between both. Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Next. We have a mark. >> Did you speak up? I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. >> Thanks. Next, we have Jeff Burke.
Jeff. Um, >> I think we are having >> Okay. Is Jeff Perk attempting to speak or you here on Okay. >> State your name and address for the record and state your position. >> Uh, my name is Jeff Perk. I'm at 20
Fuller Street. Um, and uh I'm opposed to uh this development. As attorney Guerrero should know, since he's on Bailey Street, this property is part of Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association, and the developers have not uh made any
effort to present to uh Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association. And contrary to his assertions, this development is very out of character with the um the the immediate block. Also, it should be
noted that um this is two properties that have been merged and the city when it deeded 30 B Street to the owner of 26 Bert Street did so with the express intent in the deed that it not be
developed so as to preserve green space within a neighborhood that is uh fairly uh uh dense and and lacks green face. >> That is all. >> Thank you. >> Good. Thank you, Madam Chair. There are
additional comments. >> Okay. So, can we hear from the developer about the um >> I'm sorry. I think there is one more person. I'm not sure if he's >> okay. Yep. Last one.
>> Sh. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, ma'am. I just wanted to I'm a neighbor on Bailey Street. I live across from 58 Bailey Street. And I just wanted to um piggyback on Jeff of asking is there
still a restriction on 30 um Birch Street? Is the city ignoring those or removing those? But I'm pretty sure it was sold through the yard lot program that DND has. And so I'd like that to be res um it'd be great if the owner of 58
Bailey would also invest in that site because it's um quite messy. It's dirty most of the time. Um so we'd like to see that owner as being a good neighbor um on Bailey Street as well. Thank you. >> And do you have a position on this this
hearing or are you just asking about whether this the city's um the lot program? Um, I haven't followed it as closely as others, so I'm just primarily wanting an answer on the Yardlock program. >> Thank you. Okay, so I'm going to turn it
back to the applicant. There are quite a number of things that were raised. If you could try to address those. Um, and um, yes. So, uh, I will address the issues for you. Um, uh, number one, um, uh, Jeff, thank you for your
comment. Uh, I would submit to the board that 24th Street is quite a ways away from from Bird Street. That's actually literally three streets away um um from Bird Street uh going the other way and
right on um uh Fuller Street. In fact, in designing the the the building, we actually went and looked at all of the development that was going on in on Fuller Street uh 60 2020 as well as the two other ones that that were
consistent. Um with respect to the uh uh the lot size, um we thought combining the two lots would make uh for an excellent proposed development in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I did not address the
issue of the shadow simply because um this is the first time that that came to us, but I'm more than happy to work with the neighbor to make sure that this is uh an issue that that we can resolve. Um I I I not to be frankly honest with you
that was not presented to us. That's not an issue that we vetted prior to coming to you. So I think the question was regarding a DND program that may have preserved it for open space.
That was the question. And are are you aware of that? Can you answer that question? >> Uh to be uh frank with you, Madam Chair, I am not aware of that. I I believe the two lots have been in the family for quite some time. Um uh
combining the two spaces we were we would be willing to reduce the parkings by the number of parkings in the site. >> Is um is Mr. Hampton perhaps aware of this issue or not or is that something we should
uh >> confirm? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. I'm aware of the program that existed. Um I don't know whether or not um if there is any deed
restriction on 30 uh burnt uh and if there was was there a certain time limit. Um I think it's an important part of this case to make sure that uh there is no deed restriction on this but that's not up to the planning department
to um you know enforce if you will. Um so if there is a question about any sort of deed restriction maybe uh a deferral until that is finalized or you know there is an answer a definitive answer given uh a short
deferral might be in order. >> Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? >> Um I don't have a I don't have a question but I'm looking at the greater Ashmont Main Street. They have a um they
have a map of the neighborhood associations and it looks like Ashmont Hill Association and Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association overlap right over that property. Um so it seems like they would both have been interest and what's going on here.
>> Okay. And only one of them has been approached as we are hearing correct >> from the applicant. Madam Chair, uh just so you know, and and by the way, Jeremy and the city did an excellent job since we had the
Abutters meeting. Um they directed us to um Ashwin Hill. Um so I was not aware that the other the Ashwan Valley would have had an interest. Happy to work with them, happy to to engage them in
discussion and happy to address any concern that they have. But as you know, the city directed us and and that's where we went and presented uh our project. >> Thank you. Is there a motion
in light of deed and and neighborhood issues? >> Um Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of deferral um for those issues that you just cited. Also for the dates there's July 28th,
August 11th or August 25th. >> And I if there is a more convenient date um I guess the the most recent date or the closest date um when is that? July >> 28th. >> 28th. Thank you. Does that give the
applicant sufficious time sufficient time to address the deed issue and the reach out to the the other association? >> Absolutely madam chair. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Weo. >> Uh yeah. And I'll just give the applicant sort of my thoughts on this so
when they come back maybe um you'll be more successful. I do think there needs to be more work done around sort of being more contextual with the neighborhood. I know it's right near the um Ashmont station, but I do think it could go a long way to kind of do some
tweaks that would make it fit better into the neighborhood. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Bernell. Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Next, we have case BOA 1080 6734 with the address of 501 Avenue. If the applicants and or their representative present, please explain to the board.
>> Hello. Yes. Um we're all present. Um it's a pleasure to present to you today, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Sophia. I'm the architect for this project representing our client. Um our contractors are also on this phone call. Um if you just help me please zoom
in into that clouded area over there um to the left, include the photo of the image above. Um the house is um on Talbot Avenue and it's um it's this three-story building that our um client
had purchased about a year ago. Um unit three in that building which is the top unit. Um she had originally bought it with the uh intent of extending into the attic which was part of the kind of purchase documents and we had done some
work to extend the level three unit directly into the attic. So if you just scroll up if it's possible on that image you'll be able to show the um the building itself. Yep. And the attic space would be right up in that roof. So the work that we have done
um is essentially increase the um F um scroll down again. I'm sorry. uh to that uh yep to that table you'll see that in the current zoning the F maximum is 04 the existing is 087
um which is already non-conforming and we are proposing a 1.0 zero um uh F. Um the other thing that I would like to mention and if you can now scroll through the plans um next page is just a
general um go through number three. Yep. Please zoom out. Um you can see that currently there is a unit on the third floor with two egress stairs and the upper level attic is actually just empty. There's it seems like there was
some effort to have some space and rooms in there. We have to get rid of the um the demising walls and what we have to do is uh reinforce the entire attic floor and roof structure in order to um
you know have the correct loading on that floor. If we go to the next page, you'll be able to see that in order to do this, um, we actually have to raise the roof one foot in order to have a
clearance, uh, head space clearance, uh, for a livable habitable space. And for that reason, um, you know, we also have to kind of, uh, do quite a bit of the work on the roof in order to get the the large enough beams and all the structural, um, components into the
space itself. Um, we are proposing skylights along the edge of the roof um, only on the sides of the building, not on the front facade. Um, if you scroll down one more, you will see the proposed
layout of the um, unit space above. Um, and this would include, you know, an additional bathroom, another stair kind of in the middle of a plan, an additional bedroom, and some storage space. This would, um, increase and improve the living arrangements and
living layout for for our, um, client here. Um, she has unanimous approval from the other two uh, units in the building. And we've also um received supporting letter from the Ashmont Hail Association um approving this uh this
project and this design. As far as what this does to um the street front, it actually will not make uh a lot of change. We're not changing the exterior. We're not proposing to change um the look of the building on the outside. Uh
we are simply trying to make this attic space um more livable. And with that um uh the only other thing that I'd like to mention is you know with Dorchester uh I live in Dorchester. I'm right down the street um 10 minutes from this building.
Um I think that this is a great way and opportunity to increase living area and space that is not currently usable and you know improve um the livability of this building as well as uh allow you know the other residents to benefit from
a sturdier and better roof that either way needs um upgrade. Um so with that um I'll I'll leave it for comment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Questions from the board hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Madam chair and members of the board for
recommended memory. I'm the Duchchester community engagement specialist with the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the committee process which consisted of a voters meeting facilitated on March 12th with no guest in attendance. Next, the proponent presented to the Ashmont Hill Civic Association on March 26th where
they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of support from the Ashmont Hill Association and strong support of the proposal. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office. services would like to convert. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. We don't have additional comments.
>> With that, may I have a motion? >> Make a motion to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes.
>> Miss Weel? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Next we have K.
Next we have case BOA 182 8945 with the address of 19 Street. It's the applicants in the board that representative are
the applicant they are presently going through the board. >> Good morning uh members of the of the board. My name is Darwin Fortuna and I am the registered architect representing uh Juan on this project. Um if you could pull up the presentation
that we have All right. So, yes, once again, D for Tuna, business address of 50 Grove Street in Salem, Massachusetts. Um, so this is a pretty straightforward project uh that we are um partnering and serving our client on. Um he currently owns that
property on the right, which it will be uh called 15 uh green, and the lot to the left will be 19 o. um is one of those interesting opportunities to essentially activate missing tooth within uh the fabric of the
neighborhood. Um which is uh you know all of the all of the other properties around there are pretty much the same character size and dimensions. So we thought well why not why not improve this neighborhood by uh one addressing the housing crisis that we have but addressing it in a very much con
contextual way. I mean, we're essentially taking all of the all of the inspirations and look and feel and um you know, elements, architectural elements of the neighborhood. So that um in in terms of that, it really just blends in. Um the only thing we did was
we would like to have a different color other than the beige colors that all of the other properties have. Um this is a triple decker style building um that that addresses all of the needs of of a new of a new time. Um it will be fully
sprinkle building. Um it will provide fully accessible unit at the ground floor um as required and it's uh still dignifying still has decks uh in and volumes that the neighbors could use, the borders could the users could can
use and have access. Again, pretty straightforward um uh uh approach and strategy. Um and the units are three bedrooms for the upper three and the lower unit of the lower floor would be a two-bedroom um open concept and good
size units. Uh again matching and and essentially filling that that missing tooth of the neighborhood. Um and we have Mr. Roberto, Roberto Green and Juan on the call if they would like to talk but um but for the for the most part this is a again a pretty straightforward
um uh project. >> Thank you. >> Questions from the board Mr. Fortuna. I do have a question there. There is a comment from the disabilities commission uh about um your common entry. I I do see that in your plans
that there are there is a ramp that provides an accessible entry to to the first floor unit. Uh however, the disabilities commission is pointing out that the main entrance also needs to be accessible. Are you aware of this
comment? >> I am. Um we're trying to uh figure out a possible way of of addressing that. Um and again, the lot is is is not is not too big. It's just shy of the um uh minimum requirement, but um we we
mitigated it. We've done a similar approach in another project and we kind of had to get a a bit of a variance from the MAB um because of the conditions. I mean um get a ramp up there from the front. It's it's is a very big challenge. I know this is a new
construction instead of you know infilling a new existing building. Um but still is challenging. Uh and it is that kind of balancing act between dignifying uh uh units that that have proper spacing and um a front entrance
to the ram which also dignifies the user to that ground floor. Um all of the other units are convertible to accessible in if we ever do an elevator on this property. But at this point that was the the approach that we could that we could master in the design process.
Um, yeah. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony? >> Madame chair, members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Service.
Mr. Coned of a voters meeting facilitated on April 30th with no concerns raised. Following the voters meeting, no further committee process was required and the proposal was approved to move forward in the process. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board.
>> Thank you madam chair. There are no additional com. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? like to put a motion of approval with a provisor that the applicant submits drawings to
the planning department for design review uh for review in particular for um ade adequate sideyard conditions and as mentioned the accessibility issue uh on the common entrance for all units.
>> May I have a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stanbridge. >> Sorry. Did I hear Miss M? >> Yeah, that's >> Thank you. >> Mr. Lam. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes.
>> Miss Weewell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA
1825902 with the address of 24 Alaska Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Good morning, Madame Chair and uh member of the board. Uh my name is Daniel. I
own 24 Alaska Street. Uh we're looking at it's currently a single family sixbedroom 2 and 1 half bath uh single family. Uh we're looking to make it a two family um with converting the basement. The basement is a walkout
basement towards the rear and u what we're trying to do is uh make it a two family ble units. The second and third floor being one unit and then the basement as well as the first floor being another. Uh we're looking to do uh four bedroomedroom two uh four
bedroomedroom 2 and a half bath uh for the first unit uh within the basement and the first floor as well as a five bed uh two full bath um on the second unit. Uh this particular project that um we're doing um does not change the
layout or how the property looks from the exterior. um every uh the entirety of the work uh we're conducting is going to be within the inside of the property. So like the the layout of the prop the layout of the neighborhood uh the
streets um are not going to change as uh from the exterior basically. Um um uh if you don't mind scrolling down, these are obviously as you can see in front of you, these are uh the plans
that we have um currently and um I am um we did the community meeting with the help of uh Jeremy Bumbrey from uh city hall. Uh we set up multiple uh I believe I did three community hearings. Uh we had uh zero opposition. Everybody
was in support of the project. Um um that's basically uh that's basically what I uh what I'm looking to do. This particular project only adds on about uh 842 I'm sorry 847 footage of living space by converting the basement unit
the basement into a finished uh unit along with the first floor. Um, that concludes my presentation and I'm grateful for your time and consideration of this appeal. I uh hope that the board will find uh favor of granting all
requests that varianes. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm just curious if you're aware the other buildings that are adjacent to yours that that are similar. Are those two two families, single families? Do
they also have basement units? So, um, there are five, to the best of my knowledge, there are five row houses, the brownstones. I am the corner to the left if you're looking at the property in front of us, uh, in front of you. And, uh, I believe two of them, one of them including another one is a single
family and everything else is multi with two of them, I believe, being two family and one of them three family. >> Thank you. Other questions from the board? Yeah. Public testimony. >> Madam Chair and members of the board of
the record, my name is Jeremy. I'm the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on April 8th with one of Butter in attendance. The Abuter expressed support for the proposal citing the anticipated beautifification of the neighborhood
through the through improved property management and enhanced landscaping. Following the ABU's meeting, the proponent presented the proposal to Nine Streets United, which voted in support of the project. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the judge.
>> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Would you have additional comments? >> With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion of approval. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yeah. >> Mr. Lo, >> Miss Turner, >> yes. Miss Weo, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
Good luck, sir. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Next, we have case BOA 1827322 with the address of 35 Notre Dame Street. If the applicant and other representative present, would they
please explain to the board? >> Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Uh, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Mike Ross. I'm an attorney of the law firm of Prince Low Bell. Uh, this is a proposal for 35 Notre Dame, also known as 35-37 Notre Dame in Roxberry, uh, which is
presently vacant land within an MFR subdist. Uh, the plan is to build six home ownership. You can stand there. Uh um Mr. Ambassador, Madam Ambassador, uh the plan is to build six home ownership
units uh within a threetory structure on the site. Um so starting with the site plan, uh this lot you see here is 2983 square ft, which is very typical for uh these size lots uh in this area. Uh one
of the reasons we're seeking zoning relief is the size of this lot. Um, this MFR subdist requires for 4,000 um, minimum square foot for the first three units and then 3,000 for the next
three units. U, while I'm mentioning zoning relief, I might as well go through it. We're also cited uh for um insufficient lot width and frontage, which is 40. Here you see 35. Uh we're
cited for the F which is allowed for 1.0. We're at 1.82. Uh for front yard uh 20 is required and we are at five. Uh for sideyard 10 is required. We're at five. For rear yard, this is a shallow lot. For rear yard, uh
12.5 would be required. We're at 10. And then uh finally, there's no parking with this proposal. So we are required to have one space per unit. We do not have parking, so we're cited for parking. You can sit here at this slide um A001
shows the proposed ground floor uh with Notre Dame, the street on its on the right. Uh the entrance to the building is both at the front, but also at the side. uh front of building allows you access to the front unit which is unit two and then along the side allows you
access to unit two and all the other units the other five units in the building total six uh unit two the front unit is smaller than the other units on account of the mechanical rooms uh there is no basement with this proposal uh and it is uh therefore a two-bedroom one
bath at 596 ft unit one the unit in the rear of that uh previous slide uh is 818 square ft. It's a three-bedroom, two bath. Here you're seeing uh the two other floors with the second floor at the bottom and the third
floor above it. Um unit 4, which is the bottom front unit, is 675 ft. It's a two-bedroom, one bath. And the rear unit, which is the bottom rear unit, is 877 ft. It's a
three-bedroom, two bath. Then above is the same roughly the same configuration uh with a uh two bedroom and threebedroom twobedroom in the front, three bedroom in the in the rear. Uh and each unit has ample roof uh open space and and each bedroom actually has its
own balcony. Um there's nothing on the roof. These are your elevations. The next slide shows the axiomatic uh images uh working with the Egleston Square Neighborhood Association. On the next slide, we worked uh through uh questions
around landscaping and buffering and we provided therefore a landscape plan for this project. You know, even though it's just a six-unit plan that's on the next slide. I don't know, maybe the uh ambassador is not able to pull the uh
Was that the last slide you had there? No, there you go. You have it right there. or the landscape plan above. There it is. We provided a landscape plan to the board for their review. It just shows the um addition of trees and
shrubs on the site and there currently is only one tree on the site. It's a vacant lot. Um, and then if you go to the rear, you have some renderings that we produced. You can zoom in in those if
you'd like. And that's all I have, Madam Chair. Happy to pause. >> Thank you. >> Comments. >> Are there questions from the board? Hearing none. Madam public testimony, >> madam chair, members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roxbury community engagement
specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abotus meeting facilitated on April 13th. During the meeting, several questions and concerns were raised and addressed by the proponent. However, no opposition to the proposal was expressed. The proponent
subsequently presented to Egleston Square Neighborhood Association, which voted in support of the proposal subject to the following conditions. Incorporating landscaping buffers wherever feasible, sharing updated design and landscaping plans as they are developed, and making reasonable efforts to keep neighbors informed of
construction activities that may impact the surrounding area, including weekend work and material deliveries. Today, our office has received one letter of support from Everson Square. Thank you for your time on the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Would like to defer to the board of the judge.
>> Thank you. Um, chair, we not have additional interest. >> Okay. Do you want to speak to any of those uh feedback, Mr. Ross? >> Yeah. I mean, he kind of cut out at the end. We have a letter of support from
the Egleston Square Neighborhood Association. We've cooperated with all their requirements. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. Is
>> there a second? Second, >> Mr. Stanbridge. >> Yeah. >> Actually, can I can we add a provisor to that approval? >> Yes. >> Uh, what would you like to add? >> Well, I I would like to add a provisor
to submit to the sign re to uh Boston planning for design review and I would like to emphasize uh the design of the building. It seems like there is something that the design can actually be improved a lot. Uh so um I I guess
that that's it. >> Acceptable, Mr. Langum. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And who seconded or can someone second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang.
>> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Miss Weel, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. Motion carries. >> Thanks a lot. Have a great day.
>> Next, we have case BOA 1 181 71 32 with the address of 18 Dell Avenue. If the applicant and their representative present their inclusive supply,
>> are you presenting Mr. Carllo? >> Yes, I am. >> So, can you state your name, address for the record and proceed? >> Yep. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Uh, my name is Nick Carvello. I'm from design resource team representing the client and owner
of 18 Delav. Um, here we go. So, here on the left, we have an aerial view of the property shown right at the corner of Dell A and Seaw. On the right, we're showing a proposed rendering of 18 Delav along with 16 and
20 on either side of it, which are both owned by the by the client here. Same client for all three buildings. If you want to scroll down to the second page, we have the zoning code refusal here
stating that we're violating um more than one dwelling on the same lot, floor area ratio, and usable open space for the property. Um the proposed building stays within the setbacks and the height.
Here we have some of the feedback that we've received throughout the community process this far and how we've addressed them. Uh the three main concerns were that the basement level may not receive enough natural daylight. It can feel
dark and our response to that is we've increased the windows in the stairwell leading down to the basement. Um, and then the the first floor was the second and third floor have decks. The first floor did not so that we could create a
well bend to the basement to provide some more light. The second comment was they'd like to see the um we can show the decks on the plans and the elevations when we get further down, but if you want to go back to the
comments page on number three. Um so the second comment was that they'd like to see unit one be a fourbedroom instead of a five. And we went ahead and made that change. And the final comment was that there was some they wanted to
clarify the status of some outstanding code enforcement violations for other properties that the owner um the project property owner owns and he's been working with the city to work through those code violations. There were a few
properties in question that were no longer owned by this property owner and there was a few properties in question that were never owned by this property owner at all. Um, he's been working with the code enforcement office who I believe were supposed to send over a letter to the
ZBA before this meeting stating either that all the codes were resolved resolved or in the process of being resolved. If you'd like to go to the next page that shows this pipeline up number four.
So here we just have the existing and proposed site plan. Um it's empty lot today on the left and on the right you see the proposed building. Uh six total spots in the back. Three of them are existing belong to 16 Delav and then we
have three mirrored on the other side that will belong to 18 del. Here we just have an existing proposed rendering of the site. You can see the empty lot on the left and the proposed building on the right. um consistent
with the surrounding home scope and character. Here we have the floor plans. You can see unit one is basement from first floor. Uh that was a unit that was originally five units. We dropped it to four uh five bedrooms. We dropped it to
four bedrooms. Uh you can see levels two and three have the decks. Level one does not. And level two and three are both three bedrooms, two baths. with decks off the rear. South elevation, you can see those two decks off the rear. None on the first
floor. Uh west elevation, same thing. You can see the two decks. And then north elevation shows the front of the building and the east side elevation shows uh the So, we have a double window there in the stairwell,
which will allow more light down to the basement. Here's just a material sheet showing some proposed materials um to be used on the site consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. A quick 3D view showing both the
buildings on the site 16 and 18 Dell and a shadow study showing the existing buildings and the proposed and how the um the shadows will affect the site and the nearby buildings. Can you uh can you talk about a couple
of things? One is you mentioned um four units, but I think uh not sorry, not four units, four bedroomedroom uh for for one of the units, but I believe what you submitted says five. Uh so that's one question comment. Uh and then uh
there were some feedback about insufficient open space. uh and and uh your and impervious surfaces. Can you talk about that as well? >> So the original submission was on the on unit one was for a fivebedroom and
during the community process that was some of the feedback that we got. Uh they would like to see it reduced to four. So the current proposal in this presentation shows unit one as a as a four metric >> and it will remain a for me. Um
the open space comment uh we we are being called for insufficient open space. I think the required is 400 per unit and we're providing 287 per unit.
That's one of the violations we're seeking. >> And then the parking space surf the surfaces >> um I think The plan is to to look into some sort of pvious material. I'm not sure exactly
what it will be, but we'll um um we'll try to reduce the amount of of total asphalt back there. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Yes. Uh yeah, the the first floor unit, the one that you
mentioned that went from five to four four bedrooms. Uh >> some of the bedrooms are in the basement unit, right? So this is a a two twostory unit. >> Yep. The buses. >> Okay. So um you were the disabilities
commission um commented on this unit as you know this being the first floor unit needing to uh be fully accessible and they have commented on this. Are you aware and do you have a plan to address this? >> Yep. So the first unit is fully
accessible. We have a um well the first ward from the first unit is fully accessible. We have a ramp off the street and the adequate requirements for that first level which also includes two bedrooms to be fully accessible.
>> Well, the unit needs to be accessible, not not just the first floor, the unit. >> Um, okay. I was not aware of the comments from them. Um, but we can look into making
Yeah. Yeah, we can reach out to them and and figure out how we can make those updates. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Did you have Sorry. Did you have any other comments or questions? >> All right. Thank you. >> May I have public testimony?
>> Madame Chair and board members, Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 26th at which there was a question about staging of construction equipment but no opposition is stated. The community alliance of mission hill is supporting this application. With that background ons
defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Any other race hands? >> Madame chair we don't have additional comments. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? >> I'd like to make a motion of approval
with no building code relief. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Langel? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner?
>> Yes. >> Miss Weell? >> Although? Yes. But I was also wondering if Mr. Collins would be amendable to a proviso to um increase open space on site and even if that means removing
parking. >> I think it's from my perspective it's a little inappropriate to remove parking in this area, but I'd be okay with like impervious services or something of that nature. So do you want to add impervious
surfaces I mean to your >> motion? Uh yeah we can do that. So we can add the proviso of parking must be >> unpermeable surface. >> Correct. >> Okay. So we'll continue. That was a yes
from Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Next, we have two companion cases.
The first is case BOA 1834335 with the address of 25 Upton Street. Along with that we have case BOA 1838331 also with the address of 25 off the
street. It's the applicant and with their representative presence with their to >> good morning madame chair John Moran Alpine Advisory Services with the mailing address of 130 Beach Road
Orleans Mass. Madame Chair, we have uh both zoning and building code relief. Uh this is a project the scope of which is to change the occupancy from a two family to a three family with full uh de
uh renov interior renovations fully sprinkled. uh to construct a roof deck for the exclusive use of the third unit and three rooftop condensers and to erect three cantaled rear decks
projecting 6 ft into the rear yard. The revised zoning refusal letter cited three violations. one, the extension of the rear uh
townhouse uh decks. If we could scroll to uh A201, which would show the proposed 2011, I'm sorry, shows the proposed uh rear decks which
extend which are cantaled and extend 6 ft conforming to the accepted design criteria. uh and we request the appropriate conditional use permit for the erection of these decks. Uh next we
were cited for restriction rooftop restriction on the proposed roof deck. Uh we would respectfully suggest uh pursuant to section 34-64-34
paragraph 2 that a roof deck may be constructed as a matter of right if it conforms to certain dimensional uh requirements being set back 6 ft from the roof edges. uh that it be no higher than a foot
above the deck itself be no higher than a foot above the high ridge line uh that it be accessed by a hatch and that it not violate the building code height restrictions. Uh we would respectfully suggest that
A103 and A301 show that the proposed deck conforms to this proviso in section 34 and may be constructed as a matter of right. uh and would ask the board to make a finding that relief is not
necessary that it may be constructed as a matter of righte or what it what the board deems appropriate. Uh last we are cited for reard insufficiency. U does the board want me to review the
proposed deck? >> Uh let's see if we have questions. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, I'll take public testimony. >> Well, if I may, Madam Chair, members of the board, the record, my name is >> We'll come back.
>> Madam Chair, there's one more item that I need to address. >> Okay. Sorry. >> And that's uh we were cited for rear yard insufficiency. If we could scroll to the pro down to the proposed site plan
which would show the setbacks. Up up up one. We were almost there. Here we are. This shows the uh proposed and existing site plan.
The lot is 74 feet in depth. There is a shallow law proviso in the neighborhood code 64 section 34 subsection 7 which provides for every foot that a lot is
less than 100 ft in depth 6 in uh shall be deducted from the required rear yard setback of 30 feet. In this case, the lot is
less than is 74 ft or less than 64 26 ft in depth. Uh adjusting under the calculation of the shallow lot, the required rear yard becomes 17 ft rather
than 30 ft. In the proposed rear yard is 32.8. 8 ft which conforms when adjusted uh and is sufficient uh to conform to the zoning code. And again uh I would request that the board
make a finding that the rear yard is sufficient or whatever the board deems appropriate. During the community process there was broad-based support for this uh project. No opposition was cited and there are letters se five
seven letters of support for the project in reference to the building code relief. Uh the building is four stories which triggers the requirement that a head house penthouse be installed rather
than the proposed uh hatch. It would suggest that the requirement would trigger the need for a variance and would alter the uniformity of the street profile which is one of
the defining historic uh district characteristics. The hatch is a common means of approved access for roof decks. Uh it would not create an unsafe condition. Uh it is an acceptable compliance alternative. The three family
will be fully sprinkled. There's no hazard to the occupants if the relief is granted. Uh the building will remain within all firefighting equipment and safety materials and the granting of the
variance uh would be appropriate with that. I would request that the board in reference to the zoning cited violations that they make appropriate findings in relief. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may have public testimony. >> Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. and the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services completed the
community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on April 30th with the vice president of unit neighborhood association present no issues or concerns were raised with the general request to respect the neighborhood and be mindful of noise with the civic president of the voters meeting the community process was
required and to date our office has received five letters of support from the proposal it goes to note that of the five letters one letter contained three individuals a total of seven individuals in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with their judgment. >> Thank you.
>> Next we have Ashley from Councelor Flynn's office. >> Good morning. My name is Ashley from councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record and support. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And chair we don't have additional comments that may have a motion.
>> Um I'm sorry. Is someone else speaking? >> Yes. >> Hi, Flanders. Yes, you can go. >> Please. >> So, my name is MB Flanders. I'm at a
Butter. I live at 38 Union Park, which is uh Caddyy Corner across the alley from this property. And on um I I understand that there was a meeting on April the 30th that was not made public knowledge. There was no um there was no
posting of this meeting on the doors of the abutters which is usually customary. I don't know where this meeting was posted. Um I will say that the alley is a very congested place and that um these uh lots are I think that this lot in
particular maybe backs up to some garages which would make the turning radius very difficult to um exit and enter from these parking spaces. And um again because there you know I'm not aware that there was a public process. If the Union Park and Neighborhood Association was in attendance, it wasn't
made public to the abutters as far as I know. >> Thank you. Okay. Does the applicant want to address that comment before we make a motion? >> Yes, Madame Chair. The photographic requirements of the posting was sent to
Jeremy. uh the property notices were appropriately posted and within the boundaries required and directed by Mums and that there was a full hearing that the neighborhood association is in
support and that all of the immediate abutters left and right of the property support the relief. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing
none. Is there a motion? >> Motion of approval, Madam Chair. >> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Langel. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes.
>> Misswell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes, >> chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. >> And here um the next case has been deferred
uh until July 28th. And with that, uh, for the 11:00 a.m. hearings, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals at this time from the 11:00 hearing
hearing. None, then we'll return to the 9:30 a.m. hearing. >> I think the gentleman who was part of the 9:30s, I don't know. Are you trying to defer? >> Oh, >> no. I'm not trying to defer. I just wanted to make sure that um >> Oh, okay. Yeah, we're Yep.
>> I only raised my hand to make sure we didn't forget about our case. >> No, no, we didn't. You'll be at the end of the night 30s. >> Okay. Thank you. So with that, we'll move on to case BOA1833678 with the address of 65 to 71 Main Street
with the applicants and or the representative were present. Please explain the case to the board. >> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Ryan Gazd on behalf of the appellent with a business address of 28 State Street, Sweet 802 Boston, Mass. Uh with me on the call as well is
Robert Walsh who is the property owner. Uh we're here this morning to discuss an appeal of refusal letter for a change of use and occupancy for the building located at 65 to 71 Main Street in Charles Town with an AKA address for the rear of 1 to 3 Monument A. Uh presently
the CEO for this property recites a use of retail catering offices for apartments and a Pilates studio which we are seeking to update to retail offices five apartments in a Pilates studio. Um the first floor of this property was
previously a restaurant catering and commercial restaurant space that was operated by the Figs restaurant in excess of 30 years at this site. Um, however, following the restaurant vacating the space, that approximately 1,800 square foot space on the first floor has now been subdivided in half
with a Pilates studio on the front along Main Street with a proposed fifth residential unit in the rear with an access along Monument A. Um, the fifth unit in the rear is technically a conditional use given the frontage along Main Street in the neighborhood shopping
subdist, but it's generally in keeping with many of the other, you know, majority residential units um, in the direct vicinity of the property. Um, so long way to say that by this appeal, we're seeking to legalize the fifth unit in the rear of the property um, with no
other proposed changes at the site. Um, prior to coming before the board today, we did host an O andSA and Butters meeting on April 21st. And as we've come before you all today, we're unaware of any opposition in the neighborhood, but we're certainly happy to answer any questions you might have.
>> Thank you. Questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Madame Chair and board members, Sigar Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abuters meeting on April 21st, which had no attendees. With that background, ONS
defers judgment to the board. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments >> with that. May I have a motion? >> I put forward a motion of approval. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? Yes, >> Miss Wero. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins.
>> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA excuse 1817787 with the address of 450 William Carway. If the applicant and or the
representative are present will please explain to the board. >> Madame chair members of the board good morning. My name is Timothy Fraser from the law firm of Dane Torpy 175 Federal Street in Boston. Uh I'm here today representing my client Dent Wizard
International uh which is seeking approval for a variance to update the current use at 450 William F. McClennon Highway uh to include minor dent and cosmetic repair of vehicles in the hurt fleet of uh rental cars. Uh we're in the
East Boston neighborhood. So we have uh one violation uh that was cited on our proposal which is that the vehicular service use and particularly the cosmetic repair of vehicles is forbidden in this area. Um but by way of some
background uh Hertz already operates a satellite rental car uh uh location at 450 mlen. Um, these Hertz operations are located, you probably have never seen them as you drive by the site because they're located behind existing commercial and airport support business
operations. It doesn't actually uh front on ML Men Highway. Uh, uh, so what Dent Wizard is seeking is permission to perform minor cosmetic uh, dent work at the location. So this would be like fixing door dings and minor scrapes to
the Herz vehicles. uh it would not be collision repair or any kind of body work or things like that. Uh we also won't be establishing a a customerf facing um uh you know we won't be you uh open to the public uh so to speak. This
is just only to service the herds fleet of rental cars. Uh so we've worked with the mayor's office of neighborhood services to meet the community process requirements and to date we haven't received any comments or opposition from the abuters or neighborhood groups and
I'll just also add that uh BPDA in reviewing our proposal has recommended it. Um with that I can turn it to the board if you have any questions. Um I do have I believe folks from Dent Wizard uh online on on on the line if there's any specific uh technical questions. Thank
you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 450 ML mlen highway. Our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was
included was conducted including the distribution of a subcommittee flyer on 41026. During the community comment period, I did not receive any emails expressing any comments or concerns regarding this proposal. This proposal is not in the catchment area of any civic association and therefore was not
required to meet with any group. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> With that, may I have a motion?
>> Motion to approve. May >> I have a second? Back in. Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Rhino. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Weel. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bernell. Mr. >> Yes. Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the board. So at this point, Madam Chair, uh we'll
return to the first case for the 930s, which is case BOA 171 6446 with the address of 178 to 180 Wild Street.
I believe the gentleman was inquiring about a couple minutes ago. And madam chair, is UBA staff to check they did not receive any updated plans? >> Uh, I'm sorry. I sent Wednesday, March 11th at 4:08 p.m.
>> Yes. >> The person who I the person who I sent it to is is present today. Who did you send them to? >> Uh, Siggy Johnson. >> So, so that's the concern I had earlier. Yep. I asked you if you sent it to ISD
or to mayor's office. So, that's two different things. So, that means what what that sounds like is ISD does not have it. >> Okay. Well, I wasn't aware that um that's what I was supposed to do. So, what's the next steps?
Um, so submit the updated plans, yeah, to ISD board of appeal atboston.gov. Um, and then I will have to review those plans. >> Okay. >> So, I would suggest uh we defer until
August 11th to give enough time for plans review and for advertising. >> Okay. What do you mean by advertisement? So it has to be placed in the newspaper the zoning violations as well as the purpose of the project. So if you
receive notice you know etc. >> Correct. Yeah. >> So with the updated plans there could be additional zoning code violations and so we have a duty to state those in our advertisements under open meeting law. >> Okay. And then do we go right back to
this meeting because we've already neighborhood meetings, right? >> So that's the August 11th. Yep. So, if you could please uh submit those plans uh uh to the appropriate place, we will see you then. So, uh with that, can I have a motion?
>> Go ahead, Katie. >> I'm sorry. Someone >> motion to defer to August 11th. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Lang? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner?
>> Yes. >> Miss Weell? >> Yes. Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. So, please do submit those to the appropriate spot in ISD and we will see you on August.
>> Can you please, just to be clear, can you please tell me the appropriate spot in ISD to make sure I don't make a mistake? >> Yep. ISD boarded appeal at boston.gov. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. With that, we'll move on to the hearing
scheduled for 11:00 a.m. We'll ask quickly again if there are any requests for withdrawal for deferrals from the 11 a.m. hearing. Hearing none, we'll move on to case BOA 182 466
with the address of 61 Brookline Avenue. against the applicants and or they representative president of the board. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams of Morancey, business address of 1688 Street, First
Flor South Boston. I am here today on behalf of my client, Broadway Restaurant Group. The proposal in front of you today is seeking to add live entertainment after 10:30 to its current occupancy. This establishment is known as Loco Fenway, which is directly across
the street from Fenway Park and Landsown Street. Loco Fenway has been applying for one-day licenses for nearly 3 years without any known issues with the city of Boston. The licensing board has now requested the proponents to add this live entertainment after 10:30 to its
current occupancy. The operator has a stellar reputation in this community as well as many other neighborhoods in the city of Boston. The live entertainment after 10:30 is a conditional use in this subd district, but it will not be any different than any of the other establishments with live entertainment
in this neighborhood. The operators proposing live entertainment from Thursday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. and then again on Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Our windows will be closed by 10:00 p.m. with the live entertainment occurs. Live
entertainment will consist of a DJ and up to four vocalists. The plans clearly designate the DJ live music locations within the floor plan at four different locations demonstrating thoughtful placement consistent with egress and patron flow. At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to the board
for any questions or comments. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none, can I have a public testimony? >> Madame Chair and members, Sigi Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on March 25th at which residents
of 61 Brooklyn a were opposed to the application citing concerns about noise with the existing one-day licenses. Although a number of residents expressed an openness to a permanent entertainment license only on weekends if weekdays were excluded. The operator made a concession that the live entertainment
would only be Thursday through Sunday and on Sunday would cease by 10 pm. We request that the board consider adding a proviso that recognizes this compromise that was made as part of the community process. The applicants engaged in a dialogue with the Fenway Civic Association and they have no opposition
to this proposal in light of the compromise. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Okay, next we have Tony Bayas. >> Uh, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Tony Bayas,
speaking on behalf of Councelor Sharon Durkin, and she'd just like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Can the applicant express uh respond to the the comment about the time limit?
>> Yes, we we did in the presentation. We did agree to that. Um, again, as I, you know, stated earlier, so a Thursday through Saturday would be, uh, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. and then Sunday would be from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
And again, um, anytime that the music um, live music is is going to occur, windows will be shut by 10 p.m. >> Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the board?
with that. May I have a motion? >> I put forward a motion of approval with the proviso um that Thursday through Sunday. Um the live entertainment will be Thursday through Sunday. Um up until 1:00 a.m. and then
Sunday will stop at 10:00 p.m. >> Okay. So, may I have a second? >> That's it. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Lango. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Weel.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good. >> Thank you. >> Next we have case two two companion cases. The first being case BOA
181 00052 with the address of two Hopkins place. Along with that we have case BOA 181 00051 with the address of one Hopkins court.
The applicants andor their representative present. They please explain the cases to the board. >> Uh good morning uh madam chairwoman and members of the board. My name is Steven David. I'm an attorney with an address of 436 Washington Street in Westwood.
With me today is Mark Sullivan from Chewin Associates. Uh I represent both parties both at one and two Hopkins. Uh these uh properties of both vacant land and we propose a six-unit uh uh dwelling
uh on uh one Hopkins and a three unit dwelling where my clients are going to reside on two Hopkins. Uh I think it's best now I turn it over to Mark Sullivan who's going to go through our project and at the end obviously I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you
>> Mark. >> Thank you Stephen. Uh Mark Sullivan with Joint Company Architects. Um so to start we'll go through the proposed three family. Um this we are seeking a total of three violations. Um one is for the
lock coverage, one is for um yard requirement and one is for also the um the the building use. Um so the design of this is in such a manner that it is um take a look at the plot plan here but that it is three stories with one unit
on each floor. Um we do have a small basement space that um is dedicated to the first floor unit as well with a small uh utility area at the front as you can see on this plan. This is the basement plan. If you go to the next floor plan,
uh so Hopkins Place comes down um off of Font Road kind of at the bottom of the street and turns into a current deadend corridor. Um and again the um this current proposal um is showing three stories with the um each uh unit being
one being a fourbedroom unit and the other two being three-bedroom units. Um we are also providing four parking spaces for the units. Um ample enough for what's required at this location. Uh next slide please. If you could just scroll down to the
typical unit plan just to give you an idea of units. Again this this showing three unit with a office area. This is a typical upper floor. So, the second and third floor um units um right around or just south of uh 1500 square f feet.
Next slide, please. Um and then we really tried to emphasize the the materiality that's found in the in the neighborhood around us. Um very traditional kind of residential materiality, fiber cement, lap siding, um changing exposure from the ground
floor to the upper floor. um having a bay on the the kind of front side as you get come down Hopkins Place and turn the corner um which you can see at the bottom of the screen there. Um again fiber cement siding um with some fiber cement paneling detail um 4-in window
trim and and corn that's found very typically in the neighborhood surrounding us. Yeah. >> And then if um I'm not sure if you want us to go through the six unit as well at the same time as units, but
>> that's fine. We can go through both. >> So jumping to one Hopkins place. So this this sits directly to the left of that proposed uh three family we just looked at. Um so this the only violation that we are requesting is for the use um
being a multifamily um within the single family zone. Um, this is set up so that there's three units on each side. Again, three stories mirroring the building we just saw on Two Hopkins Place. Um, and then if you scroll down, we can kind of give an idea of the the site on the site
plan. Um, yeah, one more, sorry. Um, so the three unit that we just saw, the proposed building is on the right side here. So, as you come off of Fonts Road and down Hopkins Place, again, the six unit we set uh purposely back as we have a
decent amount of sight to work with on um what appears to be the rear side here, but by definition actually the sideyard. Um again, ample parking for this, including um additional parking for um guest parking spaces. Um our our
attempt was at least in the uh site plan design was to incorporate new street tree plantings and landscaping around the site to further enhance um that buffering area but also the outdoor space for the units. Um, and then very similarly to the
3-unit as well, uh, we kind of use very similar styles in the elevation to include, um, the fiber smment lap siding, some bays on the front with fiber smment paneling, um, uh, kind of more traditional fiberment um, corners found in flat roof typologies. Um, but
again, very similar in design to the 3unit to to almost coincide with both projects together. And that concludes our presentation, but I'd be happy to answer any questions from the board. >> Thank you. So, can I ask uh so is there
is there an IDP unit in this since there are nine units? >> No, the these are uh Madam Chairwoman, the these are owned by two separate uh owners. Um Dr. Richard Harris owns the six uh family parcel and Justin Harris
and Tiana Currant own the three family parcel. So these have been permitted separately. For purpose of the presentation, we thought it would be easier for the board to just um locate both units and we could explain them. So the they are they are separate uh
buildings owned by separate people. >> Okay. Well, we should probably not be voting on them together then. I I >> I agree. >> It appeared that they were together. That's that's >> presentation package did have them both together. Madam Chairwoman, again
because we felt it would be easier for the board the board to uh sort of uh look at that. >> Okay. So they're different owners that are using the same development team. >> That is correct, Madam Chair. That's the best way to explain it.
>> Okay. Other questions from the board, >> Madame Chair, um if someone if Mr. Hampton is available, we explain the uh request from the So, you can parking up.
>> Mr. Hampton available? >> I am. I'll have to pull up the uh the plans. Um Mr. Stebridge, could you uh give me a minute, please? >> I should make them do that. >> And Mr. Stebridge, are you talking about
the parking layout for this uh sixth unit? Both? Um, well, we looked at them as companion cases, unfortunately. And >> well, it sounds like we shouldn't sounds like we shouldn't be so that I they should not have been submitted together. That's where our confusion
>> and and there are comments about the parking lot both. >> Madam Chair, if I could also throw out a question. I'm not sure if anyone will know the answer. I know with some um inclusionary policies if two sites are
be on contiguous lots are being developed together that will sometimes trigger that. I'm not as familiar with that here in Boston but I'm wondering if anyone has a quick answer for that. >> I already I already asked that question so he answered it. They are two
separately owned parcels that for convenience he submitted together. >> Right. But may Yeah, I was maybe wondering if Caroline knew or something. I know. I guess >> your question whether two owners should be required.
>> No, like if like locationwise and they're submitting everything together. There's I think some >> Well, if I may, if I may, these weren't submitted together. These are two separate um ERT permits and they are two
separate uh BOA uh applications. So um again the presentation me uh memorandum and plans were submitted for purposes of convenience um but they are definitely separate owners and separate properties.
>> Right. I I'm just aware of other inclusionary policies that look at contiguous parcels meaning they share a boundary. >> Yeah. Contiguous parcels can merge. I I I understand what you're trying to say. I don't believe that's applicable in this in this scenario.
>> Katie, I can look into that and get back to you. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Okay. I know. Are you still looking at the plans, Mr. Hampton? Can Are there other questions? >> Yeah. So, I'm sorry, Mr. Stebridge. What
exactly is your question? it I at first it didn't since they are separate I didn't um was trying to see which which comments applied to which but I guess I didn't actually see that now then
>> okay so so you're withdrawing your question >> yeah I will withdraw my question >> okay any other questions or comments from the board may have public testimony Madam chair, members of the board, for
the record, my name is Jeremy Memory. I'm the MP community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on April 8th with no robotics present. No concerns or issues were raised. Preceding the aboters meeting, the
opponent met with Berber Street Civic Association where the vote remained divided. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with their judgment. Uh I would like to note for the record that our office too was under the impression that these were companion cases due to the verge of the producer.
>> Thank you. And I'm sorry. Can the applicant So who who are the owners of >> So the owner of the the owner of the six family lot is Dr. Richard Harris. Um and the owners of the um three family lot
are Tiana Curran and Justin Harris. Tiana Curran and Justin Harris live in a two family next door to this property. Their their intent is to occupy one of the units in the three family as their home. >> And the other one you I heard a Harris
also. >> That is correct. That's Justin's father, Richard. >> Okay. So, what we have in front of us seems to list both Justin Harris and Tiana Corin for both. So
>> that's just a that must be a administrative mistake, Madam Chairwoman. That that's not >> Okay. Well, we we we definitely want to clarify that because that that that affects the IP question. Uh Mr. Hampton. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston
Planning Department. Uh I would like to get an answer from Caroline first before the board actually votes on this for that question because article 79 does say uh you know, a series of proposed projects. Um, so this is kind of confusing, especially
when it says please review with one Hopkins or please review with two Hopkins. And if they are related, you know, th this does sound like it could trigger inclusionary zoning. So I I prefer to wait for an answer from ISD on whether or not it does indeed trigger
article 79 or even if there's some sort of consultation with uh the mayor's office of housing on this. >> Thank you. I would agree with that. Uh, is there a motion? >> Yeah. Madam Chair, can I also point out
the agenda? And I'm sure this is what you picked up on, but the agenda lists the same owner for both. >> That's what I Yes. Second. >> Okay. So, motion to defer. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Mr. Ste, >> sorry, just for a date for this motion. Um, could we do it for August 11? >> Uh, is the applicant available? >> We're We're available. Um, we're
available. >> Okay. So, where was I? Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Langam. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss. We >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. >> Next we have case veto. Sorry, Madam Chair. Uh we have passed
the 11:30 hour. Um there are a number of notations for uh the bill. I'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals with roughly 11:30 time frame.
>> Yes, Mr. Stebridge. Um, good morning. It's Richard Lind's um 87 Morris Street, East Boston that two I believe two companion cases. First being case VA 1482368
with the address of 87 Mar Street. Along with that we have case VA 148 2374 also with the address of 87 street. Would you go ahead and explain it to anyone?
>> Yes. Uh good morning madam chair, members of the board. Uh for the record, Richard Linds with the business address of 245 Sum Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, um Madam Chair, we we just recently got back updated refusal information, uh including building code items that I'd
like a little bit more time to go through because I believe there's some compliance that can be achieved on the building code. So, we'd like to avoid having to do the building code relief uh request if at all possible. And so, I'm hoping perhaps July 28th would work. I know I have a number number of matters
on that day. >> Okay, Caroline, >> we do July 28th. >> Thank you. >> Okay, may I have a motion? >> Motion to defer this case these cases till July 20th.
>> Madam second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Weell? >> Yes. Mr. Bernell, >> yes.
>> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then. Thank you. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> 34 Spring Garden Street, please.
So that this request is for case BOA 179. Excuse me. Case BOA1794725 with the address of 34 Spurn Garden Street. Would you go ahead and explain?
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Matt Eckle, and I'm an attorney with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. Uh, here this morning seeking a deferral for the proposed project at 34 Spring Garden Street. This deferral is being requested
based on revised plans being submitted through ISD which have been reviewed. Uh but this case will need to be readvertised. It's our understanding that the case will be reverted for July 28th. So at this time I'd respectfully request uh the case is deferred until
that time if that's uh if that works for the board. Happy to take any questions if the board has any. >> Thank you. Does that >> is that correct? >> Yes. Um, so I will make I will make a motion to defer this case until July
28th. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yep. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Weell? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you very much. >> Mr. Stembridge 163 Hillside, please
spits. We have that as case BOA 1814618 with an address of 163 to 165 hills. Could you go ahead please? >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Steenbridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adam Zaransy, business address of 168 H Street, First Fore
South Boston. Um, as you can probably see that this is the second time requesting a deferral. The first time was based upon the revised set of plans were not reviewed yet. However, they've been reviewed, but unfortunately, the updated refusal was missing an F violation. So, this will have to be
reverted. So, we'd like to request a short deferral, please. >> Okay, Caroline. uh July 28th. >> Perfect. >> Okay. Uh with that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to defer to July 28th.
>> Have a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Weo. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There is um there are two additional notes, one for uh one for
deferral and one for withdrawal. >> Okay. uh for case VA1575425 with an address of 62 L Street. There is a note and I don't know if anyone is
present to explain that. >> Sorry, I >> I can >> Yes, I'm uh this is David Luciano. I'm the Sorry. Yes, this is David Luciano. the owner of 62L Street.
>> Uh yeah, I I I was contacted this morning by um the the zoning board, ZBA office uh indicated that the advertisement on the DBA website was
incorrect uh for the and did not reflect the updated refusal uh letter. Um, but I I did want to point out that uh it was properly fired. Uh, we did go through the letters process. Uh,
Councilman Flynn's office and our local civic group, the City Point Neighborhood Association has been informed um, in ample time uh, prior to this this meeting of the changes. Um, and it's just simply the what was
posted on the ZVA website that that was outdated. >> Okay. Um, Caroline. >> Um, so we have we'd like it to be deferred till July 28th. >> Are you available then, sir?
>> Sorry. I I I understand the um the request. This is the fourth time we'll have to defer this and this is we've just been going through this process for three years now for this one permit. I I just respectfully asking if um the fact
that all of our abutters and >> understand what you're asking so I'm going to defer to our to our legal counsel. >> Uh Caroline >> July 28th is the earliest date in terms of notice requirements for us to get it out unfortunately.
Can you confirm that you will be available? I understand your frustration, but I we're that's that's what legal says. >> Uh yeah, we'll be we'll be available. >> Okay. May I have a motion? >> Motion to defer to July 28th.
>> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. Miss Weel, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes.
>> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. We'll see you then. >> Thank you. >> And I don't see any hands raised, but the note I have is for one more case to
be withdrawn. Okay, >> that is case VA 181706 with the address of 360 Princeton Street. The last one for the uh 11:30. Do Caroline does the person need to be
here or >> not if they're withdrawing. >> Okay. In that case, may I have a motion? >> Motion to withdraw this case. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Weell? >> Yes. Or is that person for this case 360? >> Okay. So,
>> yes, I I think somebody just >> there seems to be some confusion about 360 Princeton. So, this person says they're not withdrawing. So I Caroline I don't know what uh happened.
>> Um I guess if the person saying they're not withdrawing we can go back to the other hearing and then when it's time but we received not they were withdrawing. >> All right stick around then. >> Okay. Please proceed then. So, with that, we'll return to the cases
scheduled for 11:00 and we'll go to case BOA 1 184 9154 with the address of 1526 to 1530 Dorchester Avenue. If the applicants and
their address are present, they explain to the board Okay. >> Someone available for 1526 to 1530 Dorchester Avenue. >> I think that person is just join as a
panelist. Samantha. >> Hello. Can you guys hear and see me? >> Uh yes ma'am. >> Okay. Hi. Good morning madame chair, community and board members. Uh my name is Samantha Rivas. I'm the founder of
Modern Party Art. Um we're seeking to appro uh seeking approval to operate a creative art studio at 1526 to 1530 Dorchester Avenue. Um we're adding we're seeking to add three accessory uses to the existing occupancy. Uh food
accessory food service, art gallery, and live entertainment. um will be open daily for walk-ins for um after school programs, programming for kids, school vacation workshops, birthday parties and celebrations. Um we
have an existing community uh organization partnerships in a track record um of operation through our previous locations including our old Bowden Street location um and our current uh Canton location as well as
traveling events in the community. Um, this use fills an underutilized commercial space on that very busy corner and fields corner on Dorchester 7 Park Street. Um, will generate local employment for the youth and serve uh
the surrounding neighborhoods directly. Um, we're ready to operate responsibly and we're excited. We're asking for your approval today and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board? hearing none. May I have public
testimony? >> Yes, madam chair, members of the board, Conor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. At this time, the mayor's office like to defer to the judge from this board some back information from the community process. Um, we had subcommittee flyers circulated to a butters within 300 ft.
Uh, we also connected the applicant with the Fields Corner Civic Association. Uh, we're unaware of any concerns presently. Uh, with that, I'll defer to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mix. Uh we have Gideon Remis.
>> Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Ramos from councelor Fitzro's office. Council like go on record support this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you >> Madam Chair. There are no comments. >> With that, may I have a motion? >> Make a motion to approve.
>> Have a second. Second. Mr. >> Stebridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Miss Weo, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes.
>> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have case B81 9749 with the address of 439 Walden Avenue.
If the applicant and or their representative present, will they approve to support the board? >> We have the applicant for 439 Walnut Avenue, Sean Wesley. >> Yeah, we have James Solo.
I'm not sure if this person is trying to present for this case. Good afternoon. I'm James Soul. I'm representing the applicant for 439 Walnut A. >> Great. Please proceed. Right. Uh our project is a proposed change of use from
an existing two family house to a four family uh central. Um working with the existing footprint and site conditions. Uh we're requesting relief for a couple items, suspicion pl area, floor area ratio, building height, and usable open
space as well as sad during and rear yard setbacks. Um we are not expanding the footprint of the building. Uh we're proposing a two-tory addition on the rear uh above an existing volume of the building uh to provide four separate
colon units on site. Cool. Questions from the board hearing none. May I have public testimony? Madam chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Benbury. I'm the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services.
The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on March 4th during questions regarding ownership versus rental occupancy. the requested variances, existing violations, and long-term property management. The
majority of inquiries were addressed during the meeting and no opposition to the proposal was expressed. One of also a member of civic association the propos excuse me expressed no opposition to the proposal. My apologies. The majority of inquiries
were addressed during the meeting and no opposition to the proposal was expressed. Wonder who was also a member of the civic association noted that the building is currently in need of substantial improvements and expressed support for the proposal rehabilitation in addition to two residential units. Next, the proponent presented to
Eglesson Square Neighborhood Association which voted in opposition. While Everson's Grand Neighbor Association stated that it had no objection to the proposed increase in building massing and acknowledged that the installation of a sprinkler system would improve occupant safety, the organization expressed concerns that several important health and life safety issues
have not been adequately addressed and should be resolved for the projects. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition from Square Neighbor Association maintaining their closed. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighbor services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.
>> Thank you. Any other raised hands? >> Sorry, Madame Chair. Um, we don't I'm not sure if Elizabeth want to speak about this case.
No. Okay. So, we don't have additional comments. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> May I have a motion? Madam chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval uh with a proviso that plans are submitted to the planning department
for design review with particular attention to the design of the dormers. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner?
>> Yes. Miss Weo, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good. >> Thank you for your time, >> Madam Chair. We next have I do believe
two companion cases. The first is the case BOA 1842341 with the address of 612 to 612A Shamad Avenue. Along with that you have case BOA
1842339 with the address of 610 to 610A Shaman Avenue. If the applicant andor their representative present, they please explain the case to the board and let us know if these are branding cases.
>> Thank you, Miss Stembridge. Uh thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Tusano with business address of 11 Beacon Street. Um it these are both two companion cases at 610 A and uh 612-612A
as well. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Mark Oakran and with me I also have Chris Drew from 686 Architects. What you're looking at um for the two companion cases is the building on the left uh which has been vacant uh for a
number of years my client purchased um and then next to it is an empty parcel. So the existing structure that's attached to the other brick building is 610-610A. The empty parcel uh with the fenced in area is 612-612A
and we have uh two uh very similar projects uh being constructed. Um one as I had mentioned is a is a vacant building uh and that is the 610. So I'm going to begin with that although the designs are almost identical. Uh the
idea is to change the occupancy uh which is an existing if you could go back if you could go back if you could stay on this slide that's fine or this slide is fine. Thank you. Um, we changed the occupancy from an existing zoned as a three-unit building with a commercial
storefront. Uh, there was a uh Roxbury Men's Club uh that's no longer in existence that was uh at the ground level. Uh, and the idea is to add a rare addition onto the back of the property, keeping the height uh, which is very
similar up and down the streetscape uh, the same, which is four stories, which is allowed in this district. adding the the rear edition and going from three units to now seven residential units but keeping a retail storefront at the
ground level. The uh next we can go to the next slide, Mr. ambassador. The um similar project next door which you can see on this site in the aerial view uh is the empty parcel also falls within an
MFR district and that would be to create next door to this project uh another 7 unit residential uh building with a commercial storefront on the uh ground level. This area has uh mixed use. It's
an MFR. There's apartment style complex or condo buildings up and down this streetscape. Large style uh buildings. And as we go through the slides, I'll show a height context chart as well. Four stories, as I mentioned, is allowed. We would be at four stories for
both buildings, but at 42 feet, which is allowed, the 45 foot uh height requirement for the area. um as part of this project because even though it's two separate buildings, it's being treated as uh one total aggregate project. This would create two
affordable units on site. One unit at 610 and one unit at 612. All of the units are two bed, one bath in both buildings. Um, and they all range from
high 700s to high mid 600, 650 to almost 800 square feet. And both of the affordable units would be two bed uh, one bath units as part of this proposal. Uh, this particular area, although we're
not creating any parking, um, it falls within the squares and streets uh, district and is mentioned in the BPDA's recommendation for approval as well. It is a very short 10 to 10 to 15 minute walk uh to Rugle Station. It's
surrounded by multiple bus routes which makes it great uh for for those folks that would be uh commuting as well. Um if we could go to the next slide please be uh and this just gives you some context. You can see sort of that
fourstory streetscape. There are some uh smaller buildings and some higher across the way, but you can see that we're we're matching sort of the building landscape up and down that street. If you can go to the next slide, please.
And this is just a height context chart. So you can see all in that clustered area all of the fourstory buildings but then as you sort of go a little bit broader and 3 to 500 ft you can see um there's many more and even higher uh apartment style complex buildings
directly behind us. Uh we are maintaining about a 17 12 uh foot rare setback in the back of the buildings. There are no houses in the rear of us. There's a park and a skating rink area, so it is open in the back. Um, but you
can just see some of the hike contacts and other buildings in the area. Next slide, please. And these are just again some neighboring uh all within uh 50 to 200 ft. You've got projects on Shamadav and
431 Melnia Cast that are ranging from four to fivetory buildings as well. Go to the next slide, please. And again, just just more of the same just so the board can have an idea. And and as you can see, there's storefronts on many of these buildings and that was
important for us. We wanted to keep that um retail space for this particular district because it is in a main thoroughare area and there were store there was an existing uh commercial use on the ground level as well. Um just to
quickly go over uh GCOD was cited. We did submit everything to groundwater and water and sewer. Uh additional lot area, um sideyard, rear yard as I had mentioned, but we are close. 20 ft is what's allowed under the code. We're at
17 1.5 roughly. Uh we did get cited for off- streetet parking as I mentioned, but we're very close to Rugles and major bus routes. Um we do have um F um as well. So, we would be proposing
3.25. Um, and just to note, the two storefronts that we're proposing are roughly 361 square foot um commercial spaces at that level. Uh, with that, I can pause and
answer any questions that the the board may >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy
Benbury. I'm the Roxbury community engagement specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an above orders meeting facilitated on April 22nd with nobody present. No issues or concerns were raised and no further community process was required. Thank you for your time in
the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Next, we have Christine Simonelli. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. Christian Simmonelli, Boston Rawwater Trust, and we have both GCard letters from the applicant.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And um I'm not sure if this is the case that Elizabeth wants to provide public input. Elizabeth Sher, >> no. >> Well, if not, there's no additional
comments, manager. >> Yeah. Any any questions from the board? May I have a motion? >> Make a motion to approve. >> There a second. >> Second.
>> Mr. Stembridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Langum. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Wow. >> Yes. Mr. Bernell, >> yes.
>> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> And here um we're past 12:00. Um and we do have some hearing scheduled.
>> Do we jump? Are we jumping to the interpretation? Uh we're going to jump to the 12:00 hearings first. >> Okay. Okay. >> So that will go to the hearing schedule for 12:00 noon.
First we have case BOA 1 185 00 8 08 with the address of 3 to 4 Avenue. If the applicants and or their
representative are present, could they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Thank you. Uh Mr. Stebridge and good afternoon again, Madam Chair, members of the board for the record. My name is Richard Lind. I'm an attorney with the business address of 245 Summer Street, East Boston. I'm here on behalf
of the Appellant, uh who is Ridge Data LLC, the owner of the property at 3-4 Folsam. Um, if I may, I I believe I provided a um a slide deck. If we could open that up to page two, that would be
very helpful. Um, there was that was a letter. I believe there was a deck that I provided as well. Yep, this is it. Perfect. If we just go to page two on that, we'll start at page two. Yep. Perfect. Okay. So, Madam Chair, um
we're before the board uh today under section 8 of chapter 665 of the Act 56 or enabling act. Uh and this is with respect to a decision that was uh rendered by the Boston Landmarks Commission on May 12th of 2026. and the decision was to invoke a 90-day
demolition delay on the property at 3-4 folsome. Uh this is not unlike the next two appeals. So I will spend the time on this particular one to outline uh some specifics, but I don't need to get into that detail in the next two appeals. Um just simply to make the record. Um I do understand that these next these three
appeals may may not be as common as the type of appeals the board is typically hearing. Uh so I do want to take a moment to quickly just outline for the board how and why we're here today. Uh this board may be generally aware that uh under its enabling act any person that's agreved by reason uh or an order
of a decision of either the building commissioner or other administrative official uh in violation of any provision of the zoning regulations can appeal that decision to the board of appeal uh within 45 days of such order or decision. Um, as I mentioned, um,
this case was, um, uh, heard by the Boston Landmarks Commission on May 12th. At that time, they rendered a vote to invoke 90-day demolition delay. Uh, and in doing so, um, uh, created essentially the appellet issue that we're before the
board uh, today. Under the enabling act under section 8, this board does have the power uh and has done so in the past to reverse or reffirm and hold or in part modify any order or decision and make such order or decision as ought to be made and to that end has the powers
of the board or officers from who the appeal is taken may direct uh any issuance of permits. So in this particular case uh the landmarks commission uh making its determination is the officer administrator that is um uh making the determination. my client
is agrieved by that decision and therefore before the board. Um, with respect to article 85, madam chair, members of the board, as this board may also be aware, article 85 uh is a demolition delay provision that is administered by the landmarks commission. When an application for
demolition uh is re for review is filed, uh the commission has 10 days to determine whether that building is significant under the criteria set forth in article 85-5. And that's critical because the 10-day window uh is specifically defined in
article 85 and the action that must be taken by the landmarks commission has to occur within that 10 days. Most significantly as part of that 10day is that the written determination as to whether or not it's significant must be provided by the landmarks commission to
the inspectional services department, the Boston planning department and the Boston Civic Design Commission. Um we've done a public records request. that we requested those communications to determine whether or not that 10-day um notification was met. Um we've also
specifically and repeatedly asked for that from the Boston Landmarks Commission staff uh to provide evidence that they made that notification as required under the 10day uh provision in article 85. Uh we were met with silence from the commission. We were never provided a response. Uh hence our public
records request uh revealed uh the reason very likely as to why we didn't get a response. Uh there is no evidence in the record the public records at least the response that we were provided that notification of the significance determination was made uh certainly with
respect to 34 wholesome but with respect to the uh other ones that you'll hear shortly. um that in and of itself uh is a jurisdictional prerequisite to continue with the demolition delay process. The failure to even issue the 10-day notice uh would be significant
enough to not allow the commission to then hold a hearing and make a further determination. And certainly uh the inspection inspectional services commission would not be barred from issuing a demolition permit in the event uh that they were instructed that uh
delay would be imposed. But even with that said, um once a determination is made that would find significance, uh then a public hearing is supposed to be held and the determination made final determination made on demolition delay
within 40 days of the filing of the petition under article 85 filed. Uh so that means uh when that clock starts, they have 40 days not to just hold a hearing, but to issue the determination. And we're on slide uh two right now. And as you can see here, the notice of final
determination was issued on May 21st of 2026. That's 9 days after they held the hearing, which we contend was already out of time. But the 9-day delay from the time that the hearing was held to the time the determination was issued is further evidence and probably enough
evidence that the um the timing of the determination was uh was late and certainly not uh a basis to bar the inspectional service department from issuing uh any demolition permits. Um I want to point out to the board that when
it comes to article 85, the commission can't outright prohibit demolition. That's not what article 85 says. they can only delay it briefly and if the applicant chooses uh then they could explore alternatives and they could end the demolition delay sooner. But it's important to also distinguish I think
for board members because this does often get conflated and I want to make sure it's clear that article 85 and the landmarks designation process are two independent separate processes. Uh even though the landmarks commission does administer article 85, it has nothing to
do with designating a property as a landmark. It simply has to do with the process in which demolition can occur in the city for buildings that are older than 50 years. Um and what I think is most important relevant for today's hearing um is that artic 5 does contain
a self-executing safeguard. In other words, uh so where the commission misses either the 10day or the 40-day deadline, article 85 provides that any prohibition of the commissioner inspectional services would have uh is no it no longer applies and simply stated if you
miss the deadline, you can't tell this the commissioner not to issue a dental appointment. And that's exactly what's happening here. And that's exactly what the commission did. and they intended to uh inform ISD that they would no longer or they certainly would have the ability to issue a demo delay a demo permit
until the delay period was over. Um so these appeals turn on the commission's failure to honor the statutory limits uh that are set forth in in article 85. Uh these deadlines and as I mentioned before the commission these aren't procedural nicities. These are substantive limits on the commission's
authority which are designed to balance the public's interest in historic preservation against property rights and due process interest of applicants. So while uh I certainly can appreciate that the commission would like to advocate in advance for demolition delay in
instances where uh neighbors seek to preserve buildings. You can't forget that the property owner also has a right to due process in their certain uh property rights that are included. So, if we could jump down to slide eight, I think this is probably the easiest
illustration for the board to follow. Um maybe zoom in a little bit uh just to give the timeline here of what's what's happening. Um so, our appeal presents the board with a very clean dispositive question of statutory interpretation. Uh
and I do note that I believe we do have uh people here from the landmarks commission. I'm not sure if they're going to speak, but I'd like to say that whatever theory they advance about when the 40-day clock for article 85 began to run. It's the written determination that's required by article 85 that's
dated May 21st, 2026, which is unquestionably outside every conceivable measurement of that 40-day window. And this time, this timeline that I provided with the board, which I've done for each case, you know, illustrates exactly how this is done. So when you have a filing
and in this case for Folsome it was filed on February 25th 2026 um technically that's when the 40 days starts. So you would have until April 6th to issue determination in this case after 40 days. You had only until March
7th to issue your preliminary determination and then there's that additional window that occurs. They didn't issue the determination at least in writing to the applicant until April 6th. So, by doing that, what ends up happening is they've already ran out of
time to uh actually schedule or hold their public hearing and issue their determination since they weren't issuing their determination uh until after they were allowed to do so. Even even so, even if that were cured, it wouldn't matter because the public hearing that
was required uh wasn't held until much later on May 12th. And by doing that, you really see how far along they've gone from the time in which the application was supposed to be deter made a determination to be made and a hearing supposed to be held to the time
when they actually made the determination and in that case I feel as if it's important to understand that the property owner has an expectation to have some conclusion of this process and that's why arability 5 is pretty strict about the guidelines and I think that in
looking at sort of how this overall uh process works. Uh we can certainly even give the benefit of the doubt to the commission. And if we go to our next slide, um we go with what I call the um uh the completeness date, which I want to point out for the board, artifacts
commission permission to decide when an application quote unquote is complete. There are very basic items that need to be provided. Uh, it's probably a separate discussion, but the landmarks commission asks for many other items that have nothing to do with what article 85 requires. Article 85 requires
two things, the address and the assessor's parcel number. And when those two things are submitted with a request for a demolition uh, analysis for significance, um, that application is complete at that time. Um I do note and just for the board's edification that
the landmarks commission makes a very um uh involved process out of the article 85 submitt including things like uh the plans for any new project being proposed or the status of any permanent application that's pending or uh
information about uh ownership structuring LLC. All of those things don't exist in article 85 and I think for the most part most practitioners um voluntarily cooperate with the billing marks commission to do this. However, I do want to point out none of that's required. So this issue of completeness
uh is somewhat of a red herring when we're talking about when the commission says they received a complete application. But even that, even based upon when they say it's it's complete, in the case of 3-4 Falsome, um assuming that the application was complete when they said it was on April 1st, uh once
again, you can see they're out of time. They held the hearing a day later than they should have held it, and they didn't issue the determination in writing, which article 5 requires, until 9 days after the hearing. In both cases, they're beyond the statutory limit of the 40-day requirement and cannot impose
demo delay. And I believe that the boards probably say to themselves, well, why does this matter? If it's just 90 days, it's just 90 days. What's the big deal? Uh the big deal is a a few different reasons. Not not to mention the fact that in the event that a property owner is ready to demo the
property, this becomes an unnecessary delay that is being imposed by the commission that is not exercising appropriate statutory authority. But more importantly, and I think this is probably the most significant reason that the board should consider holding the commission to its its statutory time
limits, is that uh and board members not be aware of this, but there is a requirement that when demo delay is imposed that a property owner is ordered uh and required to secure the property. So things like uh what we call demolition by neglect become a factor
during the demo delay period and it is an avenue by which the landmarks commission can impose sanctions on a property owner. So therefore having this 90-day hangover hanging over somebody's head uh even though you know certainly the time may run out and they have you know enough time to go get a demo
permit. The fact is that they are being subjected to a requirement or regulation that puts a burden on them to ensure that they are not uh subjecting themselves to sanctions and penalties by the landmarks commission during that period. The commission can only do that
if they follow the procedure set forth in article 85. It's our position it didn't do that and in this case their audit time. So I'll wrap up briefly on this particular one. We can make the record on others and I'm happy to answer any questions. Um, but a couple of just quick points I I do want to make. First,
under article 85, it's it's clear. Article 85, uh, part 5.4a says the landmarks commission shall issue its determination pursuant to such hearing within 40 days after the application filing date. It doesn't say within 40
days after the hearing. It doesn't say 40 days after some other measurement. It's after the filing date. So whatever date we want to say is the filing date uh if it's not done within 40 days then it's it's a very specific uh result that's set forth in article 85. Article
A5 says a defi the determination that is ultimately made has to specify the reasons and specify the date on which the delay period would expire. Um and it also and probably most importantly must be transmitted in writing to the applicant with copies to ISD the Boston
planning department and this Boston Civic Design Commission. If that's not done, then they don't have the power to impose delay or to hang over the owner's head the obligation is secure. So, I think this it's important to like look at the second point as well that this
really isn't a legal argument, but it's a simple math equation. And under three theories depending on however you want to measure it, you get the same result. And first of all, if you base it on the application filing date, which we think is the most accurate standard, they're way out of time based upon the timeline you provided. Even under the
completeness practice, if they want to say, well, it wasn't complete by a certain date, they're still out of time. The date, the 40 days is well beyond any completion date and I've provided the information as to what the commission's position is on that. And last is probably the most conceivable there is that it starts on the preliminary
determination. Even if we said April 6th, which is the date that they issued their written point determination was the date it started still out of time. They still did not act within the 40 days and therefore under any conceivable theory they do not get to impose delay
or place those burdens onto the uh the owner. Second point um that article 85 expressly provides that the bar on ISD commissioners issuance of a demo permit doesn't apply uh when they have not received such notice within the time
period set forth in 85-5.4. In other words, if you don't send the notice to ISB within 10 days originally or the 40 days, which is obvious that they didn't, then there's no bar to issuing a demo permit and certainly no
ability to impose those regulations. Um, and that's a self-executing provision within article 85. There's no requirement that we have to have a hearing on that. The board doesn't even have to make that determination. But we think it's important that the board reverse this decision simply because it
doesn't uh meet the requirements in RFA 5. And second, the owner the owner should not be burdened with any requirements especially where the landmarks commission has not had the ability to do so within the required time frame. So I'll finish up with this madam chair. Uh we do have uh specific
relief that we are requesting. First and foremost is to reverse and vacate the commission's May 12th decision in its entirety. uh the 90-day delay, the direction ISD, and any direction to the ownership, they have to secure the property. Second, we're asking you to declare the time periods in sections
85-5.2 and 85-5.4 as having lapsed and that therefore the bar in issuing the demo permit is no longer in effect. And lastly, that you direct the commissioner inspectional service to issue any demo permits upon satisfaction of all the applicable codes
requirements. Um, and just I'll close with this. Uh, this appeal and these three appeals don't require the board to break any new ground or resolve any close questions of interpretation of the law. Um, the commission has missed a hard statutory deadline. Article 85
provides a clear consequence. The bar an issuance of a demolition permit is lapse by operation of the provisions and the impellant respect request of the board apply the ordinances written reverse the commission's decision including any obligation to owner secure the property and direct issuance of any permits that
are requested without delay. I'm happy to address any comments or questions from the board. I know that was a lot of information and I thank the board for their time to allow me to get into that and explain it. >> Okay. Are there questions from the board? All right. Is there public comment?
>> Jesus. Looks like they're >> I'm not sure if she is going first or neighborhood services. >> I don't know. But let's keep it moving. Got two more. >> Alison.
Alison, you can um unmute yourself now. You mean Elizabeth? >> I There is one person on the telly section, Alison Putin. >> Oh, yes. Hi. Um I uh Allison Ptonis, 81
Lawn Street, uh Roxbury. Uh the obligation to secure the property. >> M this is this I believe this interpretation hearing. This is an appeal. This is I don't believe public comment. I I believe only the landmarks commission to be speaking. >> This is a hearing, not an interpretation.
But please keep your comments brief. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. I Allison Ptonis, Mission Hill, 81 Lawn Street. Uh the obligation to secure the property should not be a burden. Uh it's uh uh something that any uh property owner should be uh
taking care of their property and um I I think uh trying to avoid that seems very uh curious right now. Uh thank you. Thank you for the 90 seconds. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. >> I believe that Elizabeth Preston has
been leading. >> Um, hello, Elizabeth Sherva. I am the deputy director of the Office of Historic Preservation. Uh, the Boston Landmarks makes a determination of significance once a complete application is submitted. Once a building has been determined
significant, article 85 applicants are provided a hearing date in which the Boston Landmarks Commission will be presented with information regarding the building proposed for demolition. At this BLC hearing, the commissioners hear testimony from the applicant and from the public. They then can take a
vote to invoke the 90-day demolition delay. The purpose of article 85 is to establish an appropriate waiting period during which the city an applicant can propose and consider alternatives to the demolition of a building of historical,
architectural, cultural or urban design value to the city. provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the issues regarding the demolition of a particular building and minimize the number and extent of building demolitions where no immediate reuse of
the site is planned. Mr. Lind accepted the date of May 12th for a hearing date and distributed notices to the property of Butters. Prior to the May 12th BLC hearing, BLC staff received 18 written comments in support of invoking the demolition delay. At the May 12th
hearing, the owner's representative, Mr. Lind, spoke in opposition to invoking the delay. Three people spoke in support of invoking the demolition delay. More comments were received by BLC staff following the hearing. In total, BLC staff received 26 written comments in
support of invoking the demolition delay. The BLC vote to invoke demolition delay occurred on May 12th and the 90-day demolition delay will expire on August 11th, 2026. Under article 85, the commissioner of inspectional services
can then issue a demolition permit once the demolition delay period has expired. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Lens, any >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, first of all, I appreciate the comments
>> by um by Director Sherva. Uh if we can jump down to my slide 13, please. I think that is relevant to the um comments I'm about to make. And certainly, while uh Miss Sherba um articulated what occurred at the
hearing, I do want to make a couple of clarifications. Um first of all, we didn't accept the May 12th um date. We objected to it. uh we objected to it because it was unkindly. We objected to it because uh the commission did not follow the procedure set forth in art 5.
And sure, we we provided notice because we didn't want the commission to state that we were avoiding uh any appearance of participation, but we did so under a complete reservation of rights uh to our objections that the commission had no authority to proceed with that hearing
on May 12th. Um, I wouldn't classify my comments during the commission's hearing as opposition. My comments were objections to procedure, uh, which were not, uh, wellreceived, it seems, because they proceeded to go ahead and invoke demolition delay regardless of the fact
that they were out of time in doing so. I agree with Miss Sherva that, you know, the demolition delay process is very well defined and certainly sets forth requirements for having that hearing. And again remembering that we do have owners of properties that are involved.
Um this that's on the screen now is an extension form that is provided by the commission when uh a notification of significance has gone out and a hearing is scheduled. I think the board should take into consideration that this
particular document is required in the event that a extension of the time to hold a public hearing is being requested by the applicant. The commission is well aware that the timelines are binding and that they certainly have to be adhered
to in order to impose the demolition delay that is being uh imposed on this particular property. Our client never signed the extension and never agreed to an extension. The intent was to proceed in accordance with article 85 provided that the commission had the jurisdiction
did. With respect to the other comments that were made about securing the building, uh, nobody's saying that my client doesn't want to secure its building, it's the obligation and the penalties that go along with it in the event that a determination's made by the commission, which they've done in the
past, that there's been quote unquote demolition by neglect, including the slightest removal of any portion of the building or changing of a window or some information that gets back to the commission that says that they're not nec necessarily adhering to the securing
requirements of the 90-day delay. Um, our client should not be subjected to regulations and rules and requirements when the commission uh who is certainly able to understand the role and responsibilities it has in art 5 doesn't
do so within the time limits that are set forth in black and white in article 5. It's pretty simple and again this isn't a complicated legal question, Madam Chair. This is a math question. You have 40 days to make your determination. Miss Shurva doesn't dispute that the decision was written
and issued on March May 21st. That's well beyond 40 days of any calculation of when that application was submitted, including when a complete application was submitted. So I I again respectfully request that the board uh look at this for what it is. It's a simple question.
Did they issue the determination within within 40 days of the filing? And I would even go so far as to say you can look at April 6th and count the days. April 6th was the day that nobody nobody would question was the date that the initial determination was made. The
commission was clearly in possession of a of a completed application. As early or as late, how we going to look at is April 6th. 40 days after April 6th is not May 21st and therefore they are out of time to impose delays. Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Okay. Are there questions from the board? May I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to grant the appeal because to grant the appeal because the Boston Landmarks Commission issued its final determination more than 40 days after the applicant filed a demolition
application. I think that deadlines are extremely important to the process. The development process is very complicated as is. So the um dates and times need to be adhered to.
>> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langome. >> Yes. Miss Turner. >> Yes. Miss Weall.
>> Yes. Just, you know, it's unfortunate the situation happened, but I see this as sort of a constructive grant or approval of an application. So, yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Now, Mr. Lind, you have two more of these. We need a break. How pathy are you willing to be? I I if I may, Madam Chair, I don't the record is very simple for the next two because I believe I've outlined the framework and I believe MH
>> Let's proceed and be pissy. >> We'll do. >> Next, we have case BO8185006 with the address of 595 East 7th Street. Yeah. Um, at this point, Madam Chair,
where would we like to go? >> If we if we could go to my slide deck, I think the easiest place to go would be um slide nine of the deck with the um with a timeline based upon completeness. One one slide back from that. We go one
slide back. >> Eight. >> Maybe eight. Yeah, maybe it's eight. Yeah, perfect. Great. We just zoom in on that. Uh for the record, madam chair, again, members of the board, Richard Linds, 245 Summer Street in East Boston, half a petitioner, three Carter Court
LLC. Uh this is likewise an appeal under uh appeal the decision under article 85 pursuant to the enabling act. Um and once again uh without getting into all the details that we simply covered in the last hearing uh I will point out
very quickly uh that the application completeness date in this particular case was March 31st 26 and that was per the Boston Limarks Commission's own staff acknowledgement as the date that they had a complete application. Therefore they had 10 days to issue their determination. Uh it appears if
you want to assume 331 was it they did so within the 10-day period. Uh, however, they held a hearing beyond the 40-day limit and they issued the determination well beyond almost 51 days after they deemed it complete. For the same reason cited in the last um case,
uh, I take the position that once again uh, this determination was made out of time and not in accordance to art 5. We respectfully request that the board reverse the commission's decision in this matter. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Public testimony. >> Madame chair, I don't see any hands receive a moment. >> May I have a motion? >> I will make a motion to grant. Sorry, just getting my bearings here.
I will make a motion to grant the appeal because the Boston Landmarks Commission issued its final determination more than 40 days after the applicant filed a demolition application. And again, for the same reasons as last time, I think that the development process is very
complicated. So, you know, dates and times need to be adhered to. >> May I have a second? >> Second. Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner.
>> Yes. >> Miss Greenwell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. And next we have case BOA 1 185
0007 with the address of 744 East for 11. >> Yes. Thank you again, Mr. Stebridge. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Lyn's business address 245 Summer Street, East
Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, 744 East Fort Street LLC. Um, I believe we had uh the different deck for this one. I think we're still looking at 595 to 7. We just go to 744
for that timeline. Perfect. Yeah, maybe jump down to slide eight on that one. That's not the back. There it is. Yep. Perfect. Uh let's go to slide 11. Sorry. Thank
you. Um okay, so once again, not to belabor of what we've already covered. Uh in this particular case, uh based upon a staff email from the Boston Landarks Commission, the application was deemed complete on March 23rd, 2026. Uh the 10-day window for determination
would have been April 2nd. it wasn't issued until April 6th. And therefore, on the preliminary determination alone, it was out of time. However, in looking at when the uh hearing was held, a public hearing was required to be held on May 2nd, 2026, uh it was not held
until May 12th, 10 days later. And the determination, written determination was not made until 9 days after that, which would be 59 days after the application was deemed complete. And therefore under any reading uh this would be out of time as well beyond the 40 days as required by article 85
asking for the same relief to reverse the decision of the landmarks commission and to no longer have any bar on the issues of the demo permit if requested by the applicant. >> Thank you. Question is from the board.
public testimony. >> Chair, we have additional >> We don't have any comments. >> Thank you. Hearing none. Is there a motion? >> I'll make a motion to grant the appeal um for the same reasons as before,
violations of the uh previously agreed upon timeline. >> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. Mr. Langum. Mr. Langum.
>> I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. >> Thank you. Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss. We will. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernardo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. 15
minute break. Um, sorry. Madam Chair, I'd like to just say that um I will not be back after the break. I need to end my time on the >> Okay. board at 12:45. >> We'll be a six member board then. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. I can withdraw I'm going to withdraw the other interpretation that's
on your be able to resolve that with ISD. I don't know if you want to do that now or after the break. >> Uh if if all you're doing is withdrawing it, then let's just do it right now. Finish it off. Yep. Mr. Sbridge >> for the interpretation case scheduled at
noon time. That's that is case BOA1689794 with the address of 62-6 Conwell Street. Mr. L. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stembers, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard L 245 Summer Street, East Boston. We have
a petitioner. Uh we've resolved the remaining violation concerning the interpretation on the height of the building uh and therefore uh no longer require interpretation. Um that's been resolved favorably for the applicant. So we will withdraw the petition to interpret.
>> Okay. May I have a motion to withdraw? >> Motion to withdraw. >> Second. >> Yes. Thank you. Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Oh, thank you. Miss Wall. Yes,
>> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes, >> chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. Thank you, Mr. And now we will take a 15-minute break. Mr. Stembridge, are you back?
>> Present, madam. Sure. >> Thank you. Mr. Langum. Ms. Turner. Oh, no. Sorry. >> Mr. Lang's here. >> Okay. Mr. Lang's here. Miss Weell >> present.
>> Mr. Bernell, >> present. >> Mr. Collins, are you on mute? Mr. Collins. Okay. Well, while we wait for Mr. Collins, just a reminder, we are a six member board now.
See where M. Let's give Mr. Collins a second. Okay, we've lost Mr. Collins. Um, all right. Well, let's wait a second till he returns. Otherwise, we're going to be I'm going to have Mr. Stimber start in a in a minute and
hopefully he'll jump back on. Otherwise, it's down to a five member board. Sorry, Madam Chair. >> All right, we are a six member board. So, uh, Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes, Madam Chair. Uh we'll now go to the
red discussion hearings scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Uh we'll ask ask again if there are any requests for further withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame hearing none. We'll go to
the first case for 11:30 case BOA 177 68 22 with the address of 29 Plain Street. If the applicant and their representative are present, they please
explain the case to the board. >> Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of the board. This is Eric Zacherson, architect for the project. Um, apologies. My camera seems to not be working right now, but uh, I like to proceed to the slide deck and and show
you the 29th Lane Street project. So, if you want to scroll down to the Yeah. site plan there. Um, Plain Street is on the left side of the the drawing and and the lot that you see in front of you is a little over 20,000 square ft um
in the Dorchester uh Popes Hill uh neighborhood uh district. One thing that we'll highlight, talk about a little bit as we go, if you notice on the right side of the drawing, the very rear yard, there's about there are um about a 12 foot drop off. You see those contour
lines bunched together. Uh there's we we sometimes refer to it as the hole or the the um the lower area in the backyard. There's a number of trees back there. uh that created something of a kind of uh opportunity and challenge in the project. But uh as we move through it,
we'll refer to that area in the rear where we see those 12 um contour lines. Next slide, please. Uh next slide to the site plan. Um so the again, Plain Street is on the left side of this drawing. What's being
proposed is uh five um single family town homes in a row. Uh a driveway along the bottom of the page and then uh each of the five town homes would have a parking space off of the the driveway and there would be uh four additional spaces in the rear yard with the um
trash or with the um snow storage area. Um, and in the rear in that area I was just talking about where there's the drop off, you see a an 8,000 square ft uh green uh green area that would be uh
common to the units. Um, at the on this site plan, I would highlight that each of these five units is facing uh the the one is facing the street and four of them are facing towards the driveway. Each of them has a private 400 square foot um green space at the top of the
page in that 16 foot um setback there. So uh on the next slide we show the the landscape plan which uh shows the trees in green are the ones that are able to be preserved in this in this strategy. Um there are uh would be four trees
removed, but you can see that vast majority of the existing mature trees are are able to be to be retained in that rear yard, which would be a real amenity for ourselves and for our uh neighbors. Um next slide, please.
Um so on this one, you see across the top you see the first floor plans, five um the five first floors, and these are designed to be single family homes. Each of the first floors shows a living, kitchen, dining on the first floor, a
single parking uh garage space. Uh very traditional um single family orientation. As I said at the top of the page, each of them has that small patio that you see. And behind beyond that patio, uh a 400 ft green yard. On the lower portion of this drawing, you see
the second floor of each uh unit. And each unit would have three bedrooms and two bathrooms on this upper floor as well as an open to below space that connects the second floor to the first floor um and makes and and kind of ties the the home together. And then on the
next page you see the top floor which is a kind of designed to be a half story within a gabled uh roof. It is technically mathematically a little bit more than a half story, but uh the idea is we're going to have a gabled roof area and each of these u family homes
would have a family room with a walk out deck. Um each of the walkout decks uh for the rear four units is about 400 or is about 200 ft² and the one for the front uh building is about 100 ft². So, a little bit of private um space on the
upper deck, a little bit of private space in the rear, and then uh as I said, the 8,000 ft common green space at the right side of the project. Um, next slide. So, one of the things that um we talked
about uh before and with the neighbors was that this is uh a lot of single family, two family, and three family uh buildings on this street. wanted to make sure that the expression on the street fit in. And as you can see in the drawing at the top, this is the the expression that would be on Plain
Street. And then if we uh sl go down two slides, I have an older um one more slide. If I have an older rendering, which isn't quite up to date, but shows kind of the the project in the context and scale of the neighborhood. We've uh
reorganized the gable dormers a little bit to match one of the uh other projects, but generally speaking, this this gives you a feel for how that the project that's proposed is kind of designed to enhance the uh and fit in with the fabric of this particular
stream. Um want to uh switch gears a second to talk about the zoning that is being asked relief that's being asked for. There are six var or six violations cited. Um one is for uh use number of
units. Um the uh what's interesting or what uh we have seen and uh is kind of backed up by the BPD's recommendation is that a couple of these including um uh lot
frontage insufficient which we were cited for. Uh the BPD agrees with us that the frontage uh of 50 feet which is required is provided. Uh the site is 89.8 ft wide. Um for some uh reason we were cited as
if the project should require more like 250 ft. Um the BPD agreed that that should be disregarded. There also is a um front yard insufficient um violation that is cited. The BPD also agreed that that should be disregarded
because the project was pulled forward to be as you can see in the renderings here in conformance with the adjacent neighbors. The other uh four violations that are listed are um the floor area ratio where we are proposing 78 and the
um uh what's allowed is.5 but the 78 as the BPD noted in their recommendation is pretty consistent with what is built in this particular neighborhood. Um, as I said, we are uh cited for building height in stories because mathematically
this is a three-story building, but uh as you can see, we've used gable roofs and dormers to try and make it feel very much like the um 2 and 1/2tory typically built in this zone. Um and the last one that we were noted for is conformity
with existing building alignment. as the BPD pointed out, we might actually comply with that if we uh provide a calculation, which was not provided um when when the um drawings were cited. So, with that, I'd like to turn it over
to questions and answer and answer some of your concerns. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none, I'll take public testimony. >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood
services regarding 29 to31 clean street. A community process was conducted including two of betterers meetings held on 101425 and 33126 attended by several Dorchester community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant concerns and opposition
regarding density parking and emergency vehicle access. Uh for this proposal, two different projects were presented to the community, a six-unit version and a five-unit version, where after extensive conversations with the community, the five-unit proposal was preferred.
Additionally, our office received five letters expressing support and eight letters in opposition to all versions of the proposal, as well as calls from residents opposed to the proposal. While some residents submitted multiple letters throughout the process, those submissions were reflected continued
engagement and consistent concerns regarding the proposal. The concerns raised were largely consistent throughout the process and included the property density as it fits within the existing neighborhood character, traffic parking, and the culminative impact of recent development in the area and
emergency vehicle access and overall public safety concerns. The proposal was also reviewed by the Popes Hill Civic Association and the Cedar Grove Civic Association. Communication throughout the process has been challenging and the civic associations have both expressed a number of concerns. Conversations remain
ongoing. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have Liam from Council Officer. >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Lean Ramis from councelor Fitz's
office. Um after working with the community to get to this version of proposal, the council would like to go in favor of this version with uh five units and nine parking spots. The parking spots have seen it's help useful to deal with the community's concerns with parking and due to lack of direct
public transportation in the area as the uh closest T station is 20 minutes away at Ashwan station. Uh thank you. >> Thank you madam chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. Does the would the applicant like
to address any of the comments that were raised? >> No, I I thank them uh both the community groups and the um councelor for uh working with us to arrive at this five-unit proposal and um kind of reduce
the overall scale of the project and uh save some more trees. So, we we feel like this is a good proposal. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? >> Motion to approve.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Weo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. Chair >> votes? Yes. The motion carries. Thank you. >> The next two cases have been deferred. So that will take us to case BOA 183 3514
with the address of 176 L Street. If the applicant and their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Chris Drew 686 Architects. >> You proceed? >> Yep. I'm on. I don't see the plans
though. And the ambassador pull up the plans. Who's running the slides? Can you pull up the plans? Sorry, Madam Chair. I actually need to recuse from this. >> Okay, that makes us a five member board
for this case. >> Uh, thank you. Um, so the project's pretty simple. It's a uh it's an existing three family. Um, that will remain a three family. Uh, what we are going to do is add a um an addition to the fourth story. Uh so the unit three
which is a third floor will be a ble unit uh third third floor and fourth floor. Can we go down to the proposed floor plan please probably around slide nine. Uh perfect. Um so uh the existing uh
first and second floor pretty much remain as is with the exception of um the existing deck itself. that's off the rear will become a secondary egress stair um for the third floor by level unit. Uh the third floor itself will get reworked. Um the existing is a
three-bedroom, one bath unit and the proposed uh final layer will be three bedrooms plus a home office and three baths. The overall scope of the project is to have um on the fourth floor have a master bedroom suite with a little family room and you'll be a walkout
balcony at the front of the building and at the rear of the building. uh the front of the building. Um can we have one more slide please for the front elevation. We're doing a a car fit along the front elevation um that'll be about 4 ft high so that the proposed balcony will be uh
screened from the um from the room so you will not see it. Um as well as people on that uh fourth floor balcony not being able to really see the street down below. Um the it had a robust uh community process. Um we're going to do
the uh parapit to kind of keep the uh decor decorative and all that stuff intact. Um we will have a new secondary gear off the rear. Um and the the balconies themselves is to really to
increase um views of the of the water. Um, basically to the if you're looking at the project, it to the right um down towards the water. I believe that's it. Um, I'll open it up to any questions or comments.
>> Can you can you speak to the the sort of how this how this fits with the neighborhood because it seems like it's mainly triple deckers. >> It is and it is it is remaining a triple decker. Um and the the overall project is being done, you know, for the for the family that's there so that they can
they're growing the family to be able to um stay in the city. Um that's why it's, you know, we're not changing to a fourth unit itself. Um as far as the zoning violations go, uh we were cited for off street parking. Um which typically since we're not adding an additional unit
wouldn't get cited. Um but F, the allowed F is 1.5. The existing F is about a 1.74 and the proposed will be about a 2.15. Uh the height of the building we allowed to be 40 uh or about 45 ft um just the
way the neon side and all that stuff worked. Um and then we have a rear yard insufficiency. So the building itself is about 24 um.3 ft off the real property line that will remain but basically the existing deck because we're kind of
altering to the stairs. the existing deck will stay where it is um is about 15 uh five feet. So that's kind of where that rear yard violation is coming from. Again, the where the rear decks are for the uh first, second, and third floor
will remain where they are. Uh but it's just adding in that secondary stairwell. And then of course, we have the roof structure modification uh violation. Um, in terms of context, we, you know, we did the man side to kind of step the building back, um, so that that way from
the street it don't really appear as a three-story building. Um, and have the have the walk out in the front and then have a a small walk out in the in the rear. Um, >> other questions from the board hearing none, may have public testimony.
Madame Chair and members, Sigy Johnson at the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abutters meeting regarding this application on October 29th of 2025 where in a better expressed support for the application and three other community members expressed concerns about the violation for
excessive building height and how it could create precedent in the area. Our office received one letter of support which has been forwarded to the board. The applicant met with the City Point Neighborhood Association which voted to oppose this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
>> We have Ashley from the office of consular f. >> Good morning. My name is Ashley from councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record and support. Thank you. >> Next we have Luan. >> Good afternoon members of the board. Lan
O' Conor, president, City Point Neighborhood Association. Um we had two of us meetings on this. The first one was uh looking at the I call it a trailer that was dropping on the on the roof. They did come back and they did a
mansard roof. Um we voted on this with a quorum present of over 20 people and the vote was pretty much unanimous to uh oppose the project based on the changing of street. Uh I know board member Better Barazzi is able to go on Google view. If
any of you are able to do that, uh you can go on there and see that this is out of character for this particular area. Now is this idea um possible to work with? It is for a fourthstory mansard I
believe. And I specifically asked uh James Christopher who is the architect as well as Matt Hogan who is the owner um of the building and to come back and remove a front roof deck uh is on the L street corridor. That would be like
putting a roof deck on um East Broadway and our other main streets in South Boston. But I would like further discussion uh for them to remove that roof deck and for them to come back to the neighborhood with just the
fourthstory edition and see if there's something that we can do because that will in fact set precedent and that means all of L Street will then look like that at some point or another. So I think this has to be a discussion with our elected officials. I think it has to
be a discussion with uh a planner at BPDA which I don't believe we currently have but we can't do this particular type of building one by one and with that um City Point will stand in opposition. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any other raised hands? >> Madame Chair, we don't have additional comments. >> Can the applicant speak to the concern around the the roof deck versus the manser? So my my understanding is that um yes there was that was kind of the
one sticking point I guess um was that front balcony um Matt he was actually on call as well you know it was very important to him to have the front um balcony as far as as well as the rear um typically when we hear this you know they're larger depths these aren't these
are like 10 by 10 by six in the front and I believe it's about 4 by 10 in the rear um approximately but they're trying to maximize the the views and stuff of the water. Um as well as having some open space. Um this isn't like a walk up
roof deck. We understand the concerns. That's why we have the parapit. That's why everything is recessed back. Um we also did get a favorable um recommendation from the BPD as well um on this that they felt that it you know was in line with with the character of
the neighborhood and everything else um and you know their their vision if you will for this area. How far back is the uh roof deck set >> with the with the power pit? The way we usually do the power we step back by about three three and 1/2 ft. So we
would do a a um a par like a power that come up do about 3 ft back and then step down to the roof deck. So that the power would be come up with like a hypothetically 6in wall and have the roof deck behind it. It would be set back about 3 ft or so from the roof edge.
So, sorry. There is there a drawing showing where the this roof deck is because I I'm I'm having a hard time finding it in here. >> It should be on >> I believe it was slide eight, I believe.
>> Can Can Ambassador pull that back up? >> You already have a rare roof deck, correct? And everybody else has rear decks. Is that correct? >> Rare decks. Yes, existing rare decks. on the fourth floor there would be you can see it right here. Um, so where is the front?
>> Where's the front? >> The right the left side of the page. So you see where the um uh power paper stuff is. So >> can you go back to that or something that shows it more clearly?
>> But there is no you don't have a roof plan showing the the front deck and the go back one. Keep going. Keep going down here. This is all existing though. I >> think the fourth floor plan is on A4.
>> Yes. Yeah. I'm just one one more slide please. >> Yes. You can see it right here. So you can see the the deck right here and obviously you can see my closer but then the parapit itself you know is
stretching around the roof deck itself. Can I ask a question? Um, are you are there any other examples of this additional kind of height and bulk in the neighborhood off the top of my head? I'm not sure to
be honest. Um, I know in the area, you know, most of it is three. Um, but again, this is we're not adding a unit. We're trying to get additional living space um for the family so they can stay um and have that additional space that they need. Um even
bedroom count stuff like the bedroom count isn't going up from what the existing is. Um it's just getting more getting more room for the family itself. >> I'm sorry. Did you say the bedroom count is not changing? >> Correct. The existing was three. And so basically what happens is you have two
you two bedrooms on the on the third floor and then there's a master suite basically in the back and the front room if you will is more of like a a family you know family rep room >> right but now you'll have a fourth story whereas looking looking at Google
doesn't appear really anybody has more than three on that stretch >> which is again why we why we recessed everything back um again so that at the you from L Street. It will be recessed back and it won't appear to be a
fourthstory addition. You know, obviously you see it from the side, you're going to see it um you know, as you go down the road, but as you you know, look at it from the front of the building that it's recessed back with the parapit wall that you know, it gives nice context and compliments to
the existing building as well as, you know, the surroundings. be very careful not to bring that fourth, you know, fourth story out to the, you know, of the facility because we wanted to >> and are you amendable to this without
the front uh route? That seems to be a sticking point. >> If that was the discretion of the board, then we would certainly move those. It was the board's recommendation. If the board's recommendation was to lose the front balcony, yeah, then we would lose the front balcony.
>> Okay. We're definitely we're definitely amendable for that. >> Any other comments or questions from the board? >> Yeah, I don't you know I think it's an attractive design. I'm just questioning
the variances sought for height um and the you know additional sort of floor area and whether it's appropriate you know with I think I heard the maximum height is 40 ft but they're going to 45 ft and I just I I also looked at Google
Maps and it it it doesn't seem like there's any other sort of examples of this in the neighborhood. No, doesn't appear to be. >> Yes. >> Hi. Um, my name is Katherine Hogan and I'm the wife of Matthew, um, the owner
of, um, >> I'm I'm sorry. Can Are there any other comments? I just want to make sure. >> Okay. Please, please go ahead. >> So, I just wanted >> You're the owner of the property, right? >> Yes. I just wanted to point out as we're
talking about um you know the neighborhood and this fitting within the neighborhood that there are multiple um units or buildings um in the area in the City Point area that do have this type of design. There's one specifically on N Street. There's one on L Street that
does have a parapit. There's one on Fifth Street. There's one on Farragate. Um, we do have photos to support and I just wanted to also um point out the fact that we're not looking to have a a roof deck um but rather just it's a front balcony.
>> I'm not sure what the distinction is to be honest with you, but uh other comments or questions from the board? Is there a motion? We've talked about the character of the block. We've and the L street. We've
talked about the height, the balcony. Is there is there a motion? Katie, are you leaning towards a motion? I I'm not fully comfortable, but I also realize we have a five member board, but
so I don't know if the best option would be to defer. Um I think that's what the community would like. Um, and I'm wondering whether there's any um room for improvement. And to me, that may be the
best possible outcome for the applicant at this point if we're not all yeses. So, >> well, are you putting a motion to defer? >> Sure. I'll put forward a motion to defer >> for Yeah. additional community input and
perhaps a revised design. Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes, >> Mr. Lang. >> Yes,
>> Miss Wu. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bernell. Yes, >> the chair votes yes. The motion carries. I would encourage the applicant to go back to the community around those
sticking points. Do we have a date, Caroline? >> Hey, Madam Chair, we have days of August 11th, August 25th, and um September 8th. Caroline had to step up.
>> That's okay. Uh any of those states preferred by the applicant? >> Uh let's go with the 11th, please. >> Okay. We'll see you then. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. >> To case view. Um the last one for we
discuss for 11:30. Um that would be case BO811 706 with the address of 360 Princeton Street. So it's the applicant and they represent
you present. >> I'm present. My name is Conan Lee. >> Okay. Please uh please proceed. >> Thank you. Thank you very much madam and thank you board for hearing me. Uh this is in regard to building a rear deck at
360 Princeton Street. Now 360 Princeton is a a triple- decker building and in that neighborhood it's surrounded by triple deckers. Uh I want to build a deck off of my building. The yard is 19 ft deep and um because of uh this deck
is a actually a second means of egress for the building as well. Uh it extends 15 ft from the building and therefore it uh extends a bit into the allowed backyard setback space. Uh the setback
that is allowed is 6'3 in. Okay, it's one/ird of the distance from the building to the uh property line and um my deck would extend roughly 2' 5 in into that space. And so I'm seeking the
board's permission to uh proceed with constructing this deck. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board? May I have public testimony? >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Zeba Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 360
Princeton Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 21726 that was not attended by any East Boston community members. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 22526
and the association expressed support and has voted eight yes and zero nos regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you >> Madam Chair. No additional comments.
>> With that, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, did we have plans for this? I didn't see them pulled up and I don't have them in my folder unless they came in late. >> Yeah. Hi Katie. It's Conan again. Um, you know, for some reason I'm kind of
new to this process as you all can tell. I for a while thought that the plans could be presented at the meeting, you know, by sharing my laptop, but that is not the case and uh therefore I didn't uh send in any plans in advance.
>> Okay, we should have led with that. Uh so you do need to submit plans. Uh who? Not Caroline, but uh the person sitting there with Norm. Can you tell him the the email address again that he needs to send them to and we can try to find the
earliest date for you to come back? >> Hi. Yes. The um the email address um that she'll need to send your um board of uh board of appeals material to is um
ISD board of appeals boston.gov. >> Uh, excuse me, Norm. Is that board of appeal ending in L or board of appeals with an S? >> Uh, board of appeals with an S.
>> Okay. All right. So, can you just repeat that to make sure Mr. Lee heard that? ISD >> is Board of Appeals at Boston.gov. >> Excellent. >> Yeah, I asked because I've also sent
stuff to without the S and it's gone through. So, I'll I'll make sure that maybe I'll just send it to both. That's okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh do we have a date? Do we have a date you can provide?
>> You're muted. >> Oh, I'm not muted. >> Is there take July 28th? I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt. Uh >> yeah. Um unfortunately, uh the dates that we have now are August 11th, August
25th, and September 8th. >> All right. No, nothing left in July because you heard uh ever the first uh >> well you probably heard meeting was in February but okay >> we were adding lots of dates already to
lots of stuff to July so August 11th I think is the earliest. Are you able to do that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So with that may I have a motion to defer? >> Motion to defer to August 11th. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah.
>> Mr. Lang. Yes, >> Miss Weo. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. We'll see you then. Thank you everyone for your service today. See you next
time. >> Have a good day, folks. >> Thank you. >> Recording stopped.