##VIDEO ID:XkQHmfxWpcA## e e e e e e okay uh Mr stbridge pres Mr Valencia present Mr like President oh no present and Mr [Music] langum present thank you Mr aen pres all right the floor is yours Mr stbridge thank you madam chair if you don't mind I'll um announce the folks and remind them that we are a six member board today and and before we go into the red discussion scheduled for 11:30 we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals and deferrals oh go ahead sorry Mr stbridge ATT ran Spitz uh requesting uh 275 Gold Street please 275 gold stre which is case boa 163 0349 again with the address of 275 Gold Street would you go ahead and explain please great thank you Mr stbridge Madam chair members of the board attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Mory business address of 1688 Street first floor South Boston uh we're looking to seek an administrative deferral to be heard in front of the full seven member board we're actually going to request a further uh date probably about 3 months approximately um as we are aware of the planning Department's recommendation to resolve the accessibility issu so again we're restructuring those um in the meantime and having conversations with the architectural access board about obtaining a variance prior to moving forward or another alternative method um in order to get rid of the building Cod relief uh that has been cited as well thank you uh Caroline yeah so just to clarify it will just be a deferral um and the latest we can do for the end of the year would be December 10th sure we we'll take this December 10th please okay for that made a motion I make a motion to defer till December the 10th have the second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr valenci yes Mr Langham yes ma'am Miss W yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries see you great thank you and I believe there was at least one other party that spoke up yes uh Mr secretary Madam chair attorney Nick suula mcder M Miller Hanley uh 46 High Street Mr secretary so that would be for case boa 159 9326 with the address of 46 High Street would you also go ahead and explain yes sir um so uh in talking with uh staff um M Madam chair and uh looking to also address the planning board recommendation we made some project changes uh however um our understanding is uh we need to read advertise um in order to come back to the board because of some of those changes to the language uh we also want to make sure we have time to bring those changes back to uh the child St neighborhood and the Butters as well so I think in speaking with staff um December 3rd was an option for read advertising and that would give us plenty of time to be able to Circle back with all so uh thank you okay Caroline does that work yes sir okay would that me have a motion I make a motion to defer till December the 3D is there a second second Mr srid yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss we yes Mr Ain yes chair votes yes motion carries you then thank you yes um I have a defer a request as well um good morning Madam chair members of the board Mary Kate Campbell with the law firm dgo and Tuscano um we're um here asking for deferrals on three applications um 36 Laden 36 a laden and 20 Hinkley uh due to their not being a full board okay so that uh those requests are for case boa 161 6380 the address of 3 6 Laden Street also for case boa 161 6384 with the address of 36a Laden Street and for case boa 160 3160 with the address of 20 Hanley Street would you go ahead and put well she just she did administrative deferral um are what dates are you how far out are you looking um the earliest available is fine okay um so again just to clarify it's just a deferral um the earliest we have is November 19th okay that works thank you okay may I have a motion make a motion to defer all three of those cases to November 19th is there a second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr L yeah Miss weell yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you I have a defer as well please it's 27 Dudley so that would be for case boa 155 2298 with the address of 27 Dudley Street uh would you go ahead please yes thank you Cameron Marl on behalf of the applicant this was a matter on last month and planning staff had requested we submit some plans with some clarifications of questions they had uh those uh plans and in the letter of clarification were submitted on 920 uh but unfortunately there was a miscommunication and they did not me make it to the appropriate staff person for review uh therefore they ask for a quick uh date to review them and report back to the board which we're okay with carine um we could do December oh sorry November 19th November 26th or December 3rd do 1119 please okay with that may I have a motion motion Willer until November 19th have a second second second Mr sambridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss weo yes Mr Akin yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you any further request for withdrawals of deferrals in this time frame then with that we will go to case boa 158 8133 the address of 190r Paris Street if the applicant Andor their representative presid would they please explain to the board yes good morning Madam chair Mr secretary and members of the board attorney Matt EO with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant also with me is Eric zerson from Context the project architect uh just uh brief background this case was previously deferred so it could be retied to include the gcod violation which it now has been uh the proposal itself we're seeking to renovate the existing single family dwelling including erecting a side Edition Dormers and a sprinkler system the zoning subd district is a 3F 2000 and this lot as you can see here on the screen currently contains a 3 family structure fronting on par Street as well as the existing single family structure towards the rear of the lot the overall lot size is 3,300 square ft uh as part of the renovation we're proposing dormers on the third floor to provide some additional living space additional Windows to allow more light and air and a small addition on the left side as you can see where on the um top left there or you can scroll down to the next one there you can scroll back down thank you yeah so you can see where the building uh bows out a little bit both in the front and the rear right in the middle of the screen there that addition is proposed to be between two and 4 ft and provide a uh better entryway foyer and some additional living space in the two bedrooms above that addition is proposed to be only on the first and second floor uh I would note you can see very faintly there the outline of the existing deck and deck above so even though we're proposing a slight addition on the left side of the structure we're actually increasing the side yard set back to about 7 1/2 ft by taking away that previous deck uh entryway and and deck above in terms of the floor plans what you're looking at right now uh we are uh proposing no living space in the basement this is an A C fra District so it's just be unfinish storage and utilities the first floor would contain the kitchen living and dining room as well as a half bath the second floor which you can see there on the bottom left is proposed to be two bedrooms two bathrooms with laundry facilities and on the third floor which you can see on the kind of middle right there uh bottom bottom of the page is the primary bedroom as well as bathroom uh you can see even with the Dormers the footprint of that third floor is not as as big or as wide as the floors below it because the the dormas don't extend quite as far and the addition does not carry to the third floor uh so that's just going to be the primary bedroom suite on the third level uh as mentioned this project will include the inst station of a sprinkler system which should improve the safety of the structure as well as upgrades to the Landscaping uh we went by it already but on one of the prior slides uh the site currently contains a lot of concrete in the form of walkways and just concrete areas we're proposing to remove that and replace it with grass and permeable pavers which you can see there in the middle of your screen providing the access way from Paris Street to the structure so we're proposing an overall reduction in impervious area on the site uh the cited violations are all pre-existing and for the most part wouldn't apply to the current zoning today with the exception of the gcod violation and for that we did submit our approved plan from water and sewer and our no harm letter through the board as part of this process we met with the Maverick uh Central neighborhood association as well as the abutters and the association did vote to support the project with that I'll pause and take any questions the board may have thank you are or there questions from the board Madam chair I have a question I had a a hard time following the changes in the plans from the planning memo with the plans that were submitted and what I think happened is that increase in uh permeability was shown but only on the architectural site plan and not on the um uh survey um can you confirm that and can you take us through where the ch changes um from concrete to permeability are and then I guess my next question is to planning how how do we address discrepancies between surveys and Architectural plans and which plans govern sure so for the first part if you could uh Madam Ambassador go back up to I believe slide two yeah here and the coloring is a little a little tough to see here but um maybe if you can zoom yeah you can zoom out the bottom shows the existing and you can see that concrete pathway from Paris Street all the way to the rear of the property extends you can see how it's kind of outlined in the the Shaded purplish color and then on the top of that the bottom half of the screen but top little portion there's also a little concrete almost patio area right on the property line so those are proposed to be removed and infilled with grass and you can see the new walkway is less overall space and is also proposed to be permeable papers so that's that's the change we're proposing okay so is the I don't think that's on the survey it is still largely showing as concrete so how I guess is the expectation that that survey is changed I mean I I just always rely on the survey for that information versus the architectural site plan but um I don't know if Mr Hampton is around to jump in how that's handled Mr Hampton with us waiting for the mice to get everything going uh thank you madam chair members of board Jeff Hampton uh City Boston planning department uh yes M we well we had actually seen these plans uh we do share your concern however we were going through the architectural drawings and as you saw in our our original recommendation that was back in September our recommendation was to deny it without prejudice so that they can exre the permeable area um our recommendation this time we had already seen these plans at the time I don't know if ISD had had seen or stamped the plans for this site um we are satisfied with the increase in permeability um um and um that's why our vote has changed to approval with design review um we would have recommended deferral if ISD had not seen this um so I know it's a little confusing on our part um especially with that vote but uh we're satisfied with the increase of the permeability and we recommend and it's okay that that's not shown on the survey I mean we can ask them to submit a new survey okay you know well we the board could ask them to submit a new survey showing these changes Oh thanks thank you any other questions from the board with that may have public testimony good morning Madam chair members of the board my name is z Jones representing the mayor's office and Neighborhood Services regarding uh 190r Paris Street our office will defer to the board judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including an a Butter's meeting held on 52 2024 which was lightly attended by two constituents the feedback from this meeting was primarily from the melee family which are direct the butters to the property some concerns cited were construction noises disturbing the elderly matriarch of the family and setback say uh and setbacks they also did submit a letter of opposition opposition to the proposal while the other constituent expressed support for the proposal and was happy to see a building that was run a rundown isore being beautified the applicant explained that the setbacks were existing violations and that there was nothing they could do about that and that due to tight space of the project many machine construction vehicles would not be able to fit and therefore the construction would actually be quieter than usual but take a little bit longer uh Additionally the proposal was reviewed by Maverick Central uh civic association which convened on 6 1924 the uh Association expressed support regarding the project and voted yes to the proposal and they did also provide a letter of support at this time the mayor's office Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment thank you for your time and consideration thank you okay Chris Christian good morning Madam chair members of the board Christian simell Boston gr trust and we have both G card letters from the applicant thank you have no additional okay do that may I have a motion motion to approve um with planning department um design review is there a second I'll second and can I um add the Proviso that um the survey be updated to reflect the architectural site plan in terms of areas with a perme permeable um surfaces the short answer is yes okay with that Mr brid if if I can remember um no I mean you just have to say yes mad I'm sorry thank youor can we actually I'm sorry could we repeat both provisors one more time would you like to try it Mr stbridge I give it a shot we can do the abbreviated version planning department review and updated survey how's that um make motion of approval with planning department review and I I I apologize the second part again updated survey update with survey survey approv okay can we get a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr Lang yes as we well yes Mr aen yes CH votes yes the motion carries thank you very much next we have case boa 15426 5 with the address of 226 Magnolia Street with the applicant and or the representative presid would they please explain to the case of the board I am Mr secretary hello Madam chair members of the board good morning to this is Mike Ross on behalf of the applicant uh attorney at uh one international Place Prince Bell I'm here with the architect Beth McDougall uh this project has gone through numerous very uh versions and and and probably six or seven revisions to date um the initial project was an article 80 project with 28 units back in 2021 it was reduced to a 14 unit building that was denied by this board um on February 28th 2023 we spent the last year and three qus replacing the architect and working through the community process uh where we presented an 8un plan in November of last year to the community followed by a six-unit plan that we were prepared to share with the board uh at the our last appearance on this matter in August front of this board uh however uh we reviewed the comments by Boston planning at the time uh which spent a lot of time talking about the rear yard and the open space in the rear and so now we're presenting a five unit plan down from six units to accommodate those concerns that were raised by uh Boston planning uh the other items incidentally uh raised by Boston planning uh they they generally uh supported the otherw Lea uh stating that the immediate area is characterized with pairs of attached 3unit buildings that present as sixun multif family dwellings um sorry mam Ambassador that was a long preamble to go right back to where you were on the site page uh site plan on page one uh which if you look at this carefully so what you see here it shows an existing 11 Bay brick garage building in the gray diagonal hash marks on the screen there and it runs the entire length of the building with just a two and a a 3T 2.9 ft uh rear yard uh existing uh the black the darker black hash marks on top of that uh show the envelope of what we're proposing which is the five unit building that would create a 16 and A4 uh rear yard setback from the rear of the property um and that was the adjustment that was the main adjustment that we made uh since our August scheme when we came out here U wanting to have that larger rear yard set back in the open space in the rear uh if you look at the width of this parcel from side to side uh on the left hand side of the property as you face the property so on the right hand side of your screen um you can see that there's a 16 ft setback from the property 16 ft uh where only 10 ft is required and this was deliberately done in order to allow a generous setback to our neighbor who's at 220 uh Marginal Street and then there's an easement of that Shar driveway where it's it's our it's the property of the of the petitioner but the easement is on the property to allow for the uh access to the 220 Marginal Street along that shared driveway and then I just want to point out that the lot sticks out itself 15 a full 15 ft longer than the other lots that are to its right or to your left as you're looking at this plan so it it's not an Apples to Apples comparison of where the rear yard uh of the building or where the rear building of of the neighbors are versus where the rear building of ours is since it it it it runs longer than the other lots to its left uh page two please Madam Ambassador uh this is an existing condition photo showing that 11 Bay parking garage structure that's existing and the existing driveway uh and then you can see there's a red car so that red car is roughly sitting within that easement I mentioned whereas the white car is outside the easement and it's on the petitioner's property um Boston planning points out that the plan to replace parking with housing is a goal that's illuminated in the housing a changing City 2030 planning document as well uh and then the building to the right you can see it there um on the left and you can see a little bit on on the right photo that building to the right comes right out to the property line uh similar to what we're proposing and the heights are very close uh between what we're proposing as well uh let's go to page four actually we'll skip this next the title page and go directly to page four uh there you go oh I think yeah all right so what we see here is these are the uh first floor plans with uh garage parking uh for one parking space for each unit it also shows Landscaping uh on the rear and the front of the building building as well as Standalone trees which are represented by the squares there's three of them in between the parking portals and then the driveway itself is built on a porous Cobblestone like um grade to allow for maximum groundwater retention next slide please so this this shows that same parking area with now the second floor of living above it uh and for the units these are all three bedroom 2 and 1 half bath townhouse style units the interior units the three on the inside units 2 three and four are approximately 1375 Square ft not including the garage and then the two end units unit one and unit five are just under, 1500 square ft each next slide please um so this shows you uh floors uh uh three so the third floor where you have two bedrooms and a bath and then the the 23 floor if you will uh above where you have the third bedroom and the bath full bath next slide so here what what you have is the is the left side elevation this SP is 220 Marginal Street you can see this gradual decreasing uh per unit of um 1 and 1/2 ft per unit so it starts at the cornice line at the sidewalk at 41 and2 at the top top of the building so technical height might be slightly less um but that cornice line is shown at 412 um which is close to the building to the right and then um as a result of the grading of the slope of this site which slopes backwards as I mentioned it drops to all the way down to the top of that being about 35 uh feet 35 1/2 ft and the architect made sure that the window placement was deliberately placed in such a way that it does not line up with Windows from the other the the the abing property which is still probably about 20 20 feet away from from this this uh this face next slide please then this is the other side of that building uh as viewed from the other building um again windows were laid out to not align with the abing property um so this is an elevation so the the front uh on the left and as you can see here um that step back or that setback of that 23 floor there uh was deliberate again so as to step back from the neighbor at 220 Marginal Street and then on the other side that's that's from the rear of the building next slide please here we've roughed in the the other buildings to to show you i' note that substantial distance between the building to the left and the proposed building uh next slide please and here's a rendering of of how the property will fit you know into the site uh with the Landscaping to further assist that I'll just mention the Zone real quick share um the use this is a uh multif family within a 3f1 mountain District uh the additional lot area uh that's required per unit was triggered uh the F here is only 1.33 but the F for the uh code is is A8 in this area uh the building height we are uh triggering uh height and stories so we're at three and 2/3 stories and we would need to be at three for this area and uh the height I mentioned was 412 at the topmost corners in a 35 uh open space now open space we were able to increase that uh but we still are only at 300 per unit um where 650 is cited in the code per dwelling unit uh the front yard uh we were cited for um we probably close to modal but we didn't provide a modal study uh the side yard on one side we're well over that side yard uh and we step back only three on the right hand side in order to make a substantial setback on that leftand side and normally a 10 is required and so again the rear yard we were cited for the rear yard we just you know this site requires a 30 but I'll point out that at 16 and A4 we're pretty close to um to the 20 that cited for multif family subdistricts I think that's worth mentioning the final thing to say here is that the Boston is for today is still for the six unit building so I'm not sure how they would respond to the five unit building that we're presenting here to you um they we did listen to them we didn't get all the way you know we didn't get to 30 we couldn't this building probably wouldn't be buildable in that case but um we we really did pull this back in order to reflect on those comments that they made um and and uh but still there comments are still relating to the older uh six unit and not this five unit bill I'll pause there thank you Mr Hampton would you like to weigh in because that was my first question thank you madam chair members of the board Jeff Hampton City Boston planning department um it this is something where I don't think the plan's really caught up because even looking through what I have now I do not have a stamp set from ISD showing the five I only have it for the six which is why we still based our recommendation on the six I I wouldn't want to guess how we would uh weigh in on a 5unit building uh I will say for the record though we that we do appreciate uh the developers effort to take all of our uh recommendation on our previous uh previous recommendation and integrate that into the new plans uh but not having a Stamp Set from ISD I'd be weary to offer any change in our recommendation so right now I'm going to stand with our original recommendation and recommend Deni without prejudice thank you questions from the board I have a question um this isn't really particularly oriented to the street you know with all the ground level as garage was there any consideration to sort of make that front elevation a little bit more uh attractive along the street skate or pedestrian friendly yeah I mean through the chair Miss we well it's a fair observation all the other schemes that we presented were front-facing schemes I mean this is a situation where you have a long narrow lot and in those situations it's not a surprise that we're in front of your board you know it's just a completely different uh lot than any of the other Lots around it in this subdistrict district and um given its length and it's I mean you saw that 11 Bay garage given its length it it really became the only way we could create more units but in you know increase the setback from the Butters and respond to some of the concerns that they were presenting um all the other uh schemes that did have front facing they they sort of landed with a thud they just they didn't work and we we couldn't get there uh this is the closest we've been and and while it doesn't face the street like the like some of the other houses you do see these types of buildings throughout Boston uh particularly when you have these long narrow Lots uh in this situation Mr Ross can you can you comment on whether you've gone back to the community with this updated proposal uh you know we received a lot of continue to receive a lot of opposition on this and it's unclear to me whether they're well they've seen this version or the last version yeah I mean we did I mean as recently as after that meeting with with you in August uh thanks to the uh good offices of council warell he hosted a meeting with the director butter where we represented these plans and um we probably had six or seven Community meetings uh on uh the last one being the six unit and then this was an effort to just pull back that fifth uh to the fifth five units uh and then that meeting was held with the most affected uh a butter the owner of that house you see in front of you 220 marginal where we presented this plan and I don't I don't think we got there we we had tried but this is really this is the best that the team could do in terms of you know whittling this down to the most buildable lot that we can that we can build okay so just to clarify only the it sounds to me what you said is only the direct the butter has seen this version is that accurate Yeah well yeah I mean on did not require A fifth or or sixth uh a butter meeting on this on this removal of that back unit they did see the six unit plan uh we read vertis this uh with the Zoning Board of appeal so the advertisement you see in front of you today says five units we're not here on the six unit scheme any other questions from the board uh yes yes I have one go ahead da go ahead Alan I just have one small question in the near future will this be ownerships or rental property I believe I believe I'm almost no this is absolutely ownership um this is ownership and the reason why that's I'm I had to remember because I have a couple projects before you today um is because questions like where to put out the garbage for example came up and that's something that can be worked through in the condo docks and exactly how people can put their garbage out also parking that no one can park in front of the uh in front of the driveways that's going to be put into the condo docks as well those were uh issues that came out and with condos you can control that a lot better than with rentals I got just one more question is is it any more uh tow houses on Magnolia Street there are a range of everything on Magnolia Street you know from the building to our right which is that kind of typical apartment building in Brick to this a two family almost uh more residential more uh uh to our left across the street there's I think a one family but then there are multifamilies all up and down the street you have literally everything and I I would suspect that somewhere up there there are the townhouse uh design as well but I cannot completely recall but if you take a little Google Walk you'll see there's there's almost every every kind of property out there okay thank you thank you Mr aen yeah I think I just wanted to understand a little bit more the the the lot width and that part of the challenge it looks like you have a 46t wide lot it looks like you do give me you have a what 8ot easement so I guess I'm just trying to understand when you're talking about uniqueness of the lot being very deep and narrow I'm struggling with the narrowness of it in terms of why that's uh preventing Street Frontage it seems like it's just a desire to address the the the unit typologies unless the street unless the actual narrowness of a lot so just to walk us through that please yeah well I mean the the easement itself and the driveway do not help uh the narrowest of this of this condition it might be 46 but but we have to maintain Ain that easement worthy of budding property so our desire to say retool that driveway that for example that's off the table so now we have to preserve the driveway that you see right there so the real space that we have to work with is not the full 46 width of that lot it's minus you know in the end that will be about 10 or 12 feet that's really what we're working with and going all the way down um with every scheme we had to leave that open and um the easement itself does not allow um building above it so that further complicated um the Dynamics of this particular parcel thank you any other questions from the board hearing none can I have public testimony Madam chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy bbery I am the Roxbury Community engagement specialist for the office of Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an AB but's meeting on May 22nd where the was there was heavy heavy opposition from all the voters uh the major concerns were the size of the project saying it is too large uh for the neighborhood uh as well as congestion parking Rings uh the direct of butter uh has voice concerns of the surrounding Foundation uh the project was presented to the Civic group Roxbury neighborhood Council where again the project was met with heavy opposition referencing the Sid of the project uh who also voted to oppose the project uh they were asked to come back if there were any changes to the unit count uh which I don't believe that has um been set up at this time uh we have also received approximately 13 letters of opposition uh from director B Jone received in sent of the Z board uh thank you for your time in the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services like to defer to the board for their judgment at this time thank thank youan good morning Madam chair members of the board my name is Del um with City councel Brian warell regards to 226 Magnolia Street having received many letters of opposition U from the better neighbors due to the excessive height the Council on record as deferring to the Judgment of the board thank you T and then Mike hi my name is Tama I'm actually the director butter about this project I'm definitely in opposition of part of this project this five unit never went on to the community process so a lot of the neighbors didn't even know nothing about the five units including myself so I'm kind of appalled that he even said that I knew about this when it was proposed for six um units and six parking spaces and and we did not go through the direct um Community process correctly also I have safety environmental concerns I also have a family member that has a disability so I feel like he's trying to encroach my driveway that's been utilized for my family for many years and try to um consider five units and also six I mean five units and five whatever it is now since he kind of drastic changed these these plans at the last minute and not go through the formal process the fact that the fact of the matter is seon Park is definitely behind um where where I live since since we're bringing this up the fact that there's environmental concerns a best those concerns the fact that the park recreation should be aw of this proposed project consider the fact that if they're going to start doing any kind ofu around here that's going to be imposing on seon park or contaminating the grounds that needs to be addressed there's a fire hydrant also in front of that parcel as well and and not only that I'm concerned about aesto since that garage is old and like I said my family's been living here for many many years as far as the parking spaces go we've been the one taking care of that driveway for many many years on down on so I'm just speaking on behalf of my family members since my my my family don't want to be on this meeting because they're too disgusted about this whole process so I'm speaking on behalf of myself since I am the director butter that he's referring to that did not know anything about those five units in those five plans being changed as quickly thank you ma'am Mike my name is Michael koser project right 32A blua Avenue uh we hosted several meetings uh and worked with sever sever neighbors expressing their concerns um in addition we still feel that the building is still significantly higher because of the upslope over the two family house that um the budding House of the Johnson's we feel that there's questions about what's the water run off coming in off of the slope from from that property down their driveway down into the uh abing property the as you notice the uh garages all fac the abing property all the headlights will be phed right into the property several of the windows despite the realignment still will be able to appear into um the abiding property with no um no privacy as well so we feel that um there's still significant issues they have not completed the follow through um with this new project with the community process plus if they don't have the stamped approval of these designs with planning then how can we respond and interact with how planning department has expressed their concerns from before so we still stand in opposition to this proposal thank you L sent a request to unmute you oh sorry sorry I I thought that I had to go online and and so I was filling that out at the mean okay so we have no addition ways okay okay um this is levette Coney on behalf of M Pleasant forest and Vine Association and we are also opposed uh we honestly believe that the process has to be adhered to and people who live in the neighborhood should have a say because of the fact that if they're going to change anything if they did as of right that' be one thing but I don't believe that it's it's a garage so um they the fact that that hasn't happened is um very concerning so we thank you thank you no additional raised hands Mr Ross can you address that so it doesn't sound like uh people are aware of these changes and can you also just uh comment on the uh driveway issue as to whether that impedes on 220s driveway um well it does not um the uh the easement is a shared easement both parties are allowed to use it it is on the land that is owned by um the petitioner the white car I showed you in those plans is uh the ab Butter's uh car being parked on the petitioner's property outside of the easement that red car was in the easement the only part of that driveway that's shared is that red car part but nonetheless we kept that parking uh area completely open um this has been an acrimonious process as you might have picked up uh the the developer uh uh lives within a mile of this proposed location yet he's been accused over and over as being some out of town person who's coming into this neighborhood to build something as the plans evolved and changed they were specifically designed to um respond to the comments that you heard to the extent where we're now left with comments that really don't no longer bear on the on the on you know on the massing of the structure talking about water runoff and those things in fact the basement was removed from this property which was previously the location of the parking so as to not provide any further disruption to the foundations which was an issue that came up over and over again and that substantial setback from U from the ab Butter's property was designed to accommodate the concerns I will also swear to you as a attorney and an officer of the court that we met with the abutter and showed her these plans the five unit plans um in terms of the um and we had probably like I said six or seven Community meetings several of them were these advertised a butter meetings that were uh held I don't think it's uncommon for uh a petitioner to appear before the board with a lesser included plan essentially removing that floor uh to accommodate and meet the concerns that were raised in the uh neighborhood process that's the exact circumstance we find oursel here what we're providing is a lesser included version of what was initially proposed in order to meet those Community plans it was done in an effort not to be wielded as a weapon but to be used as a bridge uh to get there and what you're hearing is that that's now become the basis for which this plan uh shouldn't properly be before you which I suggest it should be so it's just was a very acrimonium process I I wasn't pleasant but you know we tried to make the best of it we tried to present something that was respectful the headlights will not hit the other a butter the the prop the the cars will pull into the parking and pull out of the parking and leave the parking without hitting the butter the entire plan was designed in such a way to try to meet the concerns but every time we tried to meet one concern a new concern popped up and at this point the petitioner just said look let's just go forward and there's nothing else he can do and we tried every iteration I will say though to uh um member wew Well's comment we could put a front door on that um on the front of that building that could be that could be placed and that would be a a very easy Proviso to add because I do think that that's a fair point Thank you Jessica does look like there are additional Community raised hands sure do you want to go back to public comments uh yes this Holly Shepard second H and then the Garrison Charter neighborhood association thank you uh Madam chair I'm uh a member of the Roxbury neighborhood Council and we did meet with this project after hearing from Butters about their disapproval of the project and its oversiz um we invited the proponent to come back with a reduced plan if there was going to be one and have not heard from them this um really seems like a slide of hand to not give the the new plans to bpda and all of the other parties that were trying to to get this project and again we we um disagree with the height and the oversized structure thank you and ma'am just to confirm the last the last version you've seen is the six unit version yes thank you okay um it's this a calling for us from AR neighbor Council speaking um and yes there are no stamp plans and the fact that the it's nice that one resident was involved with the change in the number of units but as a when you change a project there should be a process for you go back to the abutters and the community to let them know it shouldn't be just one meeting so I think that the entire process has been um just ineffective in communicating with residents and I don't understand why headlights would not be if a car is pointing to a building would not be seen in a a budding neighbor's home so this product is it it I I believe denial without prejudice is a good situation until they can go before the community have the review done and come back with an explanation I I still don't know if the abutter is still going to be a be able to park as they have for years in their driveway that's not clear and the curb cut that's being shown I don't believe we'll allow cars to go um into the other side I there's still questions and I think that we need to have answers before we approve this project thank you thank you okay any other questions from the board hearing none can I have a motion Madam chair um I I want to make one note that the board does have stamped plans from SD it just sounds like perhaps they didn't make its way to planning um but I'm going to put forward a motion of denial without prejudice um I think this needs a little more work you know as members of the board were always considering can things be fixed in design review but I think the issues driving this site sort of outweigh anything that can be fixed in design review so I'm going to make a motion to deny without prejudice is there a second second Mr stanberg yeah Mr Valencia um I am okay with the five units I think they may change it from eight to to six and then to five so I'm okay with the number of units but I agree with with we that they need to just go back to the the planning department share the new drawings and go back to the residents in the area the BS and show them the that they already made based on the request I'm okay with the the number of units but I am going to vote Yes to the motion that we will present it thank you Mr yes Miss we yes Mr a sorry noise um yes I agree with we's motion I vote Yes for that I do understand that the lot has certain constraints that uh make it a different width and different depth than others but there's real issues to deal with on the street uh Frontage here the orientation of the buildings uh the height and setback from the property line uh and there are likely ways to do that uh to achieve an outcome that's reasonable um and so I will uh that's my motion to defer without prejudice deny without prejudice uh the chair votes yes the motion carries next we have case vaa 163 2317 with the address of 61 Linden Street if the applicant and their representative Ando they represent pres would they please explain the case to the board uh I am uh Mr secretary this is Mike Ross again uh one international Place princial Bell I'm here with on behalf of the uh property owner Phoebe NN a longtime dester resident who lives across the street from this property uh I'm also here with the architect arton sadiku um So the plan here is to replace an existing ranch style one family home uh with a three story six unit building with balconies and parking um I was initially in front of the board one month ago but we pulled the plan in order to pull the building back just slightly in order to allow for buffering around the parking area there was no buffering around the parking area and I know it comes up from time to time here so we did that uh and we came we came back um this rendering here uh shows an existing one family uh Ranch to the right so the the proposed is would have been one of two ranches that were uh in succession so there's that other Ranch is to the right and then but you see a a pretty high uh three family to your left um roughed in there I think we have a photo that we'll show you in a second the parking will be accessed where that red car is using the existing driveway on the right hand side of the building uh next slide please um so here what you see is the site plan um you'll see the five parking spaces uh behind the building and you'll now see that 5 foot buffer along those parking spaces uh that wasn't there previously that we've since added next slide please so this is that photograph it shows the existing property that ranch um with the existing driveway curb cut uh as well as that taller building uh with the gable roof to the left of the property and then in the foreground you can't see it is another Ranch roughly the same shape and dimension of what you see in that photo next slide please so here we have that landscape plan um uh where there's a diverse planting of trees and bushes uh and then uh there's also a zoning chart on this page okay next slide please uh the basement is just all storage uh accessible along the side and also through the main stair uh and it also has a bike storage room as well next slide please uh so here's here's on the first floor uh units one and two uh they're both two bedroom two baths and they're both just over a th000 square feet each and the next slide please um you'll see uh the second and third floor plans these are units three and four and five and six um they're also two bedroom two baths uh they're around 11:42 uh and um you can see that there are balconies off of each of the living rooms of these units so there's a total of four balconies coming off of the um those four units next uh slide please here you have the front elevation with protruding days um the Height's consistent with the 35 height limitation we're at 312 ft you can see those balconies coming off the sides uh here we have the side elevation this actually reveals that kind of first floor pulled back in order to allow for that buffering accommodation that we made uh to the um parking area and that reduced that resulted in the slight reduction in the um square footage as well um yeah next slide and this is just the uh the rear of the elevation um yeah and so just on zoning mam chair um off street parking this we have five spaces but s and a half are required uh there's a maneuverability site uh these spaces are 8 and 1 12 by 15 probably go to the site plan Mass the um building alignment we were cited for for the front yard um for article 658 for use this is a multi family in a 2f district uh F here is a 05 in this neighborhood we're at a 1.17 uh Building height is fine but stories is not we're three and a 2.5 the sidey yard we're close we're 7.8 on one side and 12.5 on the other in A1 I'll pause that sure questions from the board one quick question what has informed having just a 15t deep parking spot that maneuverability or something else yeah um I looked for aort I came up here I could couldn't lay my hands on it tin's on the call the architect of he wants to to uh to chime in he we couldn't get that full Zone required Dimension and so that triggered the uh maneuverability I believe yes to add to that uh thank you Mr aen the Bost and transportation department is recommending the removal of one parking space I think they are recommending to remove from one so 5 to4 and to design the parking in 45° angle I'm not Mr is here if he wants to add any more to his comment but Mr Ross do you have any did you have any conversation with the transportation department about changing the parking configuration um no I mean we assume that if we had to do that we would do that and accommodate that um that requirement um but we did want to try to get at least close to the one unit per uh one space per unit but we we understand the comment thank you thank you any other questions from the board Mr Deo did you want to add to that uh yes Madam chair lady and members of the board Bob Deo BD uh 15 ft is much much too small uh the minimum we have is uh usually 18 ft so uh there's no way five spaces can fit uh based on the plans that have been submitted however um if the parking spaces are placed on a 45° angle then you can't fit for but um 15t in length and uh five spaces it it it just won't work so I just wanted the board to know that thank you thank you any other questions from the board hearing none can I have public testimony yes Madam chair members of the board Conor Newman with the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services this time the mayor is obious to defer to the Judgment of this board I due to Personnel changes we don't a lot of information from the initial abon's meeting but the applicant did go on to meet with the Fields Corner civic association which was supportive of this proposal uh with that we'll defer to the board at this time thank you thank you any other raised hands hearing none may I have a motion I'm I make a motion of approval we riew uh with plan Department review and a provise the project removes one parking space and improves parking configuration is there a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr Langham yes is weo yes Mr Akin yes CH votes yes the motion carries thank you next we have Cas boa 15756 with the address of 214 Norwell Street the applicant end their representative of present would they please explain the case to the board yes Mr stbridge uh good afternoon Madam chair members of the board attorney Justin burns from Virginia Norton business address 10 Forbes Road Tre Mass I'm here on behalf of the proponent and owner of this project Daniel Rose also with me today is Chris Drew 686 architects who will present the plans just to provide a quick overview this is a proposal to construct a three-story 3unit apartment building with three off street parking spaces Upon A currently exist uh existing vacant lot at 214 Norwell Street in Dorchester uh this lot is currently paved with asphalt and is being used as a parking lot for 212 Norwell uh the mix of the building would be as follows unit one would be the first floor unit that would be three bed one bath at 769 ft unit 2 would be the second floor unit 3 bed two bath 177 ft and unit 3 would be the third floor unit uh 3 bed two bath 1,77 ft I just want to note that this property is deed restricted as a yard sale property and accordingly the proponent has entered into a preliminary agreement with moh to provide one of the three units as an affordable unit uh that agreement has been signed by both parties and has been provided to zba additionally as part of our conversations with moh we updated our initial floor plans from the first time that we came to the board and deferred for that reason uh back in September originally that first floor unit had two beds after talking tooh we wanted continuity amongst the units so that the affordable unit would be uh the same as the two units above uh so now all units are three beds uh these updates had no impact on our violations and reviewed by ISD uh prior to coming to the board and they were also supplied to CPA uh I will now pass it off to Chris Drew to go over the plans Chris thank you Justin um so again as um Justin had already gone over unit one which is the ground flool plan is a three bedroom one B the second floor is a three-bedroom two bath as well as the third floor is a two-bedroom two bath um the two bed the unit 2 and unit 3 are just over 1,000 square ft and unit 1 is about 700 is just down 800 ft about 700 and uh 68 ft um the elevations themselves are pretty pretty generic of a typical three Decker um we also you know paid attention to have some parking but also take away a lot of the paving that currently exists on the L to um get more green space um at this point happy to answer any questions and go through them thank you are there questions from the [Music] board hearing none can have public testimony Madam chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy bbery I am the mid doorchester Community engagement specialist for the office of Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abuts meeting on June 13th no abuts attended and no concerns were voiced the project then went before the Civic west of Washington who voted to support the project with the letter of support which was received and sent to the zoning board thank you for your time and the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services would like to refer to the board with the Judgment at this time thank you okay we have no B hands the moment okay with that may I have a motion make motion go ahead nor go you thank you I make a motion of approval with the planning department foreview may have a second Dr second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes ma'am Miss weell yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you very much thank you next we have case boa 139 8736 with the address of 5 Warren Avenue if the applicant and or the representative of President would be please explain the case to the board good afternoon Madam chair and members of the board this is attorney John D Barry from the larmes of John D Barry located at 10 Forbes Road West uh suet 210 in Branch Tre Mass with me on this particular project is James Christopher the principal manager of 686 Architects um we share a similar office at us of 10 Forbes Road essentially um what this proposal is is to erect a new structure alog together uh and convert the occupancy of the existing site from a two family to a nunit structure uh the proposed parking would be entirely enclosed below uh at at grade below the building this is uh 5ar AB located in High Park uh it is a 3s 4000 zoning subd District of the High Park neighborhood um and um if we could actually highlight the not this particular Slide the one that is one more down Ambassador if you could yep um what I wanted to highlight here for the board is just the a little bit of the context of history of this particular proposal so this proposal was filed in July of 2022 the reason for the time that it's taken for us to get in front of this board is actually the amount of work that we've done in the community and with uh various engineers and uh architectural firms actually uh were changed as we were going through this process and the concom aspect of this particular proposal um we have not gone before concom not out of a desire to come to the zba first but rather that concom requested that we get approvals from the Zoning Board in order to complete that process uh what I would like to highlight though is I think this picture right here this um survey actually tells the story of how we got to where we got uh so ultimately this was a 10un project we ultimately had to shrink it to nine in order to make the building as tight as possible and out side of that 25 ft buffer line um there was initially a bpda recommendation um more so related to how close the building sits right now to the front of the lot um and also we shifted the building in order to accommodate bpda recommendation and moving it um in this picture to your right ultimately at the site it is as far west as the building can be placed uh just for context as well for the board all of the sites surrounding this particular site uh it's a very commercial U-Haul uh facility and to the north of the picture that you're looking at right here uh there's a roughly four story um 45 unit uh apartment building owned by Mr G or the G company um I bring all that up to say we understand the context this is a a larger building for a three or 4,000 neighborhood but when you take into account that this is roughly a 9,000 foot lot and what is going on around this particular site uh we feel that this is actually a good proposal for the community uh it's a huge enhancement to the site and actually if this was to be approved and after concom it will make the conditions at the site better than it currently exists um moving through the plant we can move forward to the next slide uh this lays out the parking U so there is a bpda recommendation that some of the parking there may be maneuverability or size issues the reason why we left this as is is as this board's aware all that could be addressed during uh the planning uh Department review uh we were trying to keep as many parking spots as possible both underneath the building and off the site to allow for as much green space as possible uh which right now there's roughly 5,300 ft of Green Space on this particular site if the planning department has some issues with maneuverability or the size of any of these spots they can certainly amend that during their review of this particular site um moving forward go to the next page please uh this is just the roughly the basement is going to be just simple storage and um for the Elevator Shaft next slide please if we could go one more that's the same as the the site plan um essentially all of the floors mimic each other uh each floor right now consists of a one a two and a three bedroom um the one the unit number one in this particular floor is a one-bedroom one bath that's 742 ft unit two is a two-bedroom two bath that's 996 sare ft unit 3 is a three-bedroom two bath that's 1224 ft each floor FL mimics each other as you go up ranging the one-bedrooms range from 742 ft to roughly 98 ft on the third floor uh the two bedrooms range from 971 ft to 996 and the three bedrooms range from 117 ft to 1224 uh going through the um zoning code violations that we're addressing here um the code in this particular area would request 18 parking spots nine was the amount that we could uh fit underneath the building without having to put parking uh on the site and take away any of the Green Space the F that the code uh requires is8 here we are at 1.1 uh we did run into violations for both height and stories uh so the building sits at 51 ft and at four stories to accommodate that first story of parking and there is um the front yard in this particular area would recommend 20 ft uh the final rendition that we put before this board has I believe maybe 5T or six a 6ot front yard in order to accommodate um the Boston's plan as far as the open streets plan uh but if the bpda would would like the building to be shifted back we wanted to show something that was as far outside of that buffer zone as possible that we previously highlighted and there is um a rear yard step back in a sidey yard the side yard was triggered by moving the building as far to the west of the site and keeping it away from the river as far as possible so with that I'm going to pause and see if there's any questions from the board thank you any questions from the board I have a couple but I'll just start with one madame chair um my first question is just that the you have two you have two uh plot plans or surveys here and it looks like the 25 foot wet L buffer line is in very different locations on both of them can you just explain that because obviously that informs the design of the building so initially the the first one I believe was done um the second one is the one that we did have checked both by the engineer that is producing all the plans for uh hopefully our concom application um I promise you that that is the correct one we actually did refile the set of plans and made sure that it got for the board that had the corrected one with the 25t buper line sitting outside of this structure Conservation Commission has not yet agreed to that though yet you have not F because you have not filed them is that right we tried they said that they wanted to see some set of final plans in us to come before the zoning board before we could file with them thank you any other questions hearing none can I have public testimony is anyone on for this case Okay hearing none is there Madam chair members of the board Conor Newman with the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services uh at this time mayor's office defer to the Judgment of this board uh previously ones had run an abish meeting um you know there had been a desire from residents to try to have as much parking as possible for this site uh during the process uh with the High Park neighborhood association as you heard from the applicant uh there was a desire that for them to reach out to the Conservation Commission uh which they did make contact with uh and the commission uh just asked that if approved uh the applicant returned back uh to the commission and continue to work with them on the final uh design uh with that we the first rep at this time thank you thank you any other raised hands sorry madam I have no additional raised hand at the moment okay um may I have a motion uh how about a motion to approve with bpda design review there second second Mr thrid yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr Lang yes ma'am M weo yes Mr Aken yes the chair votes yes the motion gares thank you madam chair members in support okay so it looks like are we waiting until one to hear the reconsideration yes we all right see everyone then e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Mr stbridge recording in progress yes Madam here Mr sorry just do a roll call Mr Valencia yes on me president Mr langum President Madam chair thank you Miss weo present Mr Akin present okay the floor is yours Mr stbridge thank you madam chair um as we go to the reconsideration uh case for one schedule for 1 p.m. uh will remind folks that we are a six member committee today uh and if there are no requests for withdrawals of the FS then we will move on to the case boa [Music] 15426 57 with the address of 548 East 3r Street if there are if the applicants and or attorney Ross are present uh would they please explain the case to board I'm here Mr secretary thank you for that uh this is Mike Ross uh from uh Prin Bel one international place and this is a reconsideration I just want to refresh everyone's recollection of this this is a three family Residential Building uh with two parking spaces in an MFR subdistrict in the South Boston uh neighborhood District we were before this this board on March 26th of this year and we were denied without prejudice and we're now seeking uh reconsideration for several points I I provided the board with a letter from my July 25th on July 25th but I just want to hit the high points of that letter and then open it up if that's okay m'am chair uh the first reason is Administrative goes to the fact that the petitioner was unaware at the time that there was a six member board as no announcement was made at the 11:00 a.m. call uh and as as was made here actually at the at the 1:00 call at the 11:30 call the secretary did reiterate that um but that did not happen uh when we met uh initially on this um we are unaware of that we lost by one vote and believe then and now that the seven member board would have actually approved this project now I recognize the irony in that I am speaking to a six member board uh right now um but in this case the petitioner is he's just out of time and resources to continue to delay on this project uh having first appeared on this project without me but uh previous Council uh all the way back in May of 2021 almost three and a half years ago on this project um so on that I would ask for the board's sense of fairness on considering approval even on that point but maybe even the more relevant reason um is uh why goes to the um I think I I think the level of collaboration that does in fact occur between the board and the development community and I'm glad member we well is here and in this case member wew well asked the petitioner if they would be willing to replace parking for living space um and the petitioner took that concern seriously uh and um then revetted uh this concept uh with the Gate of Heaven neighborhood association but the neighborhood association felt very strongly about the need for parking in this area and they changed their previous position of neutral to one of support and cited the importance of parking in their letter which I submitted to this board um I do want to point out however that the um two parking spaces are actually half of what is required for this proposal there's actually uh it would require four spaces by code so I mean that right there alone does represent uh some forward momentum to I think where the board was trying to go and and I understand that there's not always un unanimity uh between the board's position the code and the neighborhood association but here there was a true effort made to consider the alternative plan proposed and not withstanding the fact that the plan was not ultimately adopted I would just ask the board to reconsider their position uh given the the very good faith effort that was made here to try to get there by the petitioner and then the third and final reason is that this is a shallow lot and this is the exact type of lot that uh zoning was made for I guess um it the zoning contemplates um uh it's its relief based on uh shallow lots and other type of lots like that and that's why that's why we were here in the first place so I'll pause there um mam Sher I hope that I hope that these arguments uh have moved the board a little bit thank you attorney are there questions from the board okay I hear no questions from the board uh is someone prepared to put put forward a motion also Madam chair just to clarify um the vote is just whether or not it can be reconsidered not whether or not to support the project just as a reminder thank you thank you for the reminder so yes uh we are just voting on considering rehearing the case uh are there any questions from the board is there a motion from the board um motion to approve um motion for approval is there a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum Mr Lang yes thank you m we will yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you I appreciate it all right thank you everyone see you next time thank you have a good day folks e --------- ##VIDEO ID:93eTEMsMHRU## e e e e e e e Boston Zoning Board of appeal hearing for October 8 2024 is now in session this hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting recing in progress including the updated Provisions enacted by the legislature last year this new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings until March 2025 this hearing of the board is being held remotely via the zoom webinar event platform this hearing is also being live streamed 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 this information the information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda which is posted on the Public Notices page of the city's website boston.gov members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment board members applicants and their attorneys or Representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board as with our in-person meetings comments and support will be followed by comments and opposition the order of comments is as follows elected officials representativ 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 move closest to the project if you wish to comment on an appeal please click the raiseed 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 comment uh then provide their comment in the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so please raise your hand as soon as Mr St reads the address into the record do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time Mr stbridge good morning Madam chair good morning Mr Valencia morning M pres good morning Mr langum good morning Madam chair present good morning Miss weow good morning Madam chair presid good morning Mr Ean morning Madam chair president good morning uh and just to note that we are a six member board uh the floor is yours Mr stbridge you madam chair we'll be we'll begin with the approval of the hearing minutes these hearing minutes are from September 19th and September 24th of this year I'll make a motion that for the minute uh for approval of the minutes there a second second second thank you Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes M we yes Mr Akin yes shair votes yes motion carries next we will move on to extensions the extension schedule for 9:30 a.m. uh I'll read all of the extensions in as they are uh similar looking for oneyear extension and are pro deemed reasonable um and then we'll take a make have motion taken at the end and vote on them all one uh together first we have case bo8 133 9798 with the address of 67 Appleton Street next we have case boa 985 935 the address of 705 VFW Parkway then we have case boa 122 848 with the address of 69 Reedville Street case boa1 122 8404 with the address of 71 reille Street case boa 13415 38 with the address of 2196 Washington Street case boa 13415 28 address of 2154 Washington Street case boa 1341 1524 the address of 1121 Harrison Avenue is BOA 1341 1518 address of 1105 Harrison Avenue case boa 9445 917 with the address 1203 to 1211 doorchester Avenue case boa 94589 address of 24224 to 250 Hancock Street case boa 103 569 address of 820 William T Mary Boulevard and finally case boa 13 07730 with the address of 306 suar Street any questions from the board may I have a motion Madame chair I do have one question yes um for the for uh 1203 to 1211 doorchester and 224 250 Hancock not sure if the proponent is here I I'm not clear from the letter it's requesting a 2-year extension um but through February looks like of 2025 so I'm just not clear as part of this backdating or is it a request to go through 2027 I don't know if our Council or the proponent is here attorney Lee is available okay can she is she she a panelist can she answer the question I can make her one made M our panelist Rebecca you should be able to speak yes uh can you hear me now yes ma'am yes good morning Madam chair and members of the board um the February 2025 uh um reference in our uh extension request is a reference to the existing building permit which expires in February 2025 the request for an extension is for two years because um the project is subject to State financing uh for the Hancock building and that is a process that's going to wind its way well into 2025 and uh and gearing up again to uh build the project means that uh it could be more than a year from now before the project um starts construction so this was a 2-year extension request thank you for you're welcome thank you any other questions from the board may I have a motion I have a motion to approve the extensions as requested motion to approve the extensions as requested is there a second second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss W yes Mr Akin yes chair votes yes the motion carries next we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. at this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame hearing none EXC uh first case is BOA 160 3116 with the address of 319 to 327 Chelsea Street if the applicant and were their representative of present would they please explain the case to the board yes than thank thank you uh good morning Madame chair and members of the board for the applicant this is Michael gimo Robinson and Cole LLP with business address of one Boston Place Boston 02108 um I have with me um my colleague matal LEF and some others who are available to provide uh technical answer technical questions if there are any this application concerns a building mounted Wireless facility at 317 319 to 327 Chelsea Street um Verizon's proposing this in order to provide better coverage and additional capacity to meet increased demands on Verizon wireless network in this part of East Boston and avoid a substantial Gap in service the building is a multif family residential condominium um it's shown in the center of that uh picture that's up on the presentation screen it's on a lot that fronts on both Breman and Chelsea streets the building is five stories high on the section facing brem Street three stories high on the section facing Chelsea Street and it's in the East Boston Neighborhood district and for purposes of this application it's um in the 3F 2000 District um the purpose and if you could go to presentation page four um if you have that um yes perfect thank you um this map shows the current breakdown of which areas are served by which of the existing Verizon Wireless facilities in and surrounding Boston and the area colored red on this map is the area that's currently served by a Verizon Wireless facility on the roof of a building at 183 Orleans Street the corner of Orleans and Porter streets that existing facility currently faces high and growing demand and some of that demand needs to be offloaded for the um system to function properly if you could go to the next page uh the map on the next page thank you so this page shows the proposed after condition um the area colored green on this map is the area that would be primarily served by the proposed new facility at 319 327 Chelsea Street and as the uh RF engineer Keith valente's aad David filed as part of this application says the proposed facility will improve coverage and provide additional capacity in the green area it's also going to improve cover service within the red arag plan that's served by the existing site because it will offload some of the demand that that facility would otherwise have had to handle um if you could go to page seven of the president ation please um as shown on the plans and this is the roof plan um the applicant proposes to install four antenna SE each with five antennas mounted on the facade of the fivestory part of the building one on each side of that part of the building um the antenas will be colored to match the building walls behind them as shown on the photo simulation uh study that we submitted with the application and what we're looking at here is a roof just to give you an orientation of where the components of this facility are going to be um the taller part of the building facing brem street is at the bottom of this plan the four antenna sectors are shaded yellow on this plan you can see there's one on each side of the building the one in the lower left hand corner is a little hard to see um that's a sector where the antennas are going to be uh installed one above the other but still theide mounted still below the roof line um on the roof behind each antenna sector is a 4 10 in tall ballast frame which will hold uh remote radio heads and over voltage protection equipment that needs to be near the antennas and these are shaded light green on the plans it's the four uh rectangular areas behind each of the antenna sectors um on the roof of the lower three-story section of the building set well back from Chelson Street and the other edges of that roof will be a 35 ft equipment area with one equipment cabinet and one battery cabinet and this are shaded light blue on this on this plan um and then the lines connecting those are um Power and fiber optic cables that will run across the roof to connect the various parts of the equipment this project requires the following relief that we're seeking conditional use for building mounted wireless communication antennas in a residential district a conditional use to wave the requirement of a 50ft setback of the facade Mount antennas from a building and residen use to allow the antennas as shown on the plans and um the violation letter also cited the requirement that roof mounted antennas be set back 10 ft or 10% of the roof roof depth there are no roof mounted antennas as that determines defined in article 86 but if that setback requirement is applied to the power and radio equipment on those Balance mounts um then we also require that relief and request that relief to allow the um the equipment to be as shown on the plans design review will also be required um for this project building mounted Wireless facilities for the reason stated in our memorandum file on May 16th it satisfies the standards for conditional use approval and short it is an appropriate location for the use buildings taller than the nearby buildings which which allows the antennas to transmit and receive signals to the area that needs improve service without obstruction from other structures it's designed to minimize visual impact it will comply with all appable regulatory requirements for radio frequency it will not create noise interfere with electrical devices or have other negative effects and the improved service will be a benefit for residences businesses and visitors to the neighborhood and to the city as a whole um article 86 also includes additional findings for granting relief from the dimensional requirements and as also addressed in our May 16th mandum the proposed facility satisfies those findings um the applicants designed that facility to comply with the greatest extent possible with the conventional requirements given the location and configuration of the building um The Proposal will be subject to design review and it will not have any greater impacts than it would if it complied fully with the dimensional requirements and at this point I'm happy to conclude the formal presentation and um answer any questions that Bo may have thank you are there questions from from the board I'm sure one question sorry um so I noticed that the facade mounted antennas do have screening from the elevations do the roof mounted ones have screening proposed or is that something to be um settled in design review they don't have that proposed now that would be something we could address in design review yes okay thank you any other questions from the board Madam chair I would just a second what uh a member we well said I know the area well I can understand why the building is suitable for this um but given the the location near a park the screening definitely needs to be part of it and I know the BPD recommended that so we can certainly come back to that in the motion thank you with that may have public testimony good morning Madam chair and members of the board my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services regarding 319 Chelsea Street our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including an a Butter's meeting on July 11th 24th which was attended by three constituents primary feedback from this meeting was constituents only had light concerns about interference with their other or with their Wi-Fi or other connectivity devices that was assuaged by the attorney additionally I did receive a letter of opposition from a concerned resident citing Visual and aesthetic clutter health concerns and the oversaturation of cell towers in the area The Proposal was reviewed with the Maverick Central neighborhood association which convened on August 21st 2024 the association has expressed opposition regarding the proposal and provided a letter of opposition at this time the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board's decision thank you for your time and consideration have a good day everyone thank you okay any other elected special office if not Debbie you looking to give a testimony here Debbie hi good morning my name is Debbie raso I am a resident and I'm also part of the Mavericks Central neighborhood association board when they came to us there was multiple questions that were left unanswered um I believe this is cell site number five for Verizon in East Boston and when I asked um why we would need so many they just said that because if one went down they would need another and my opposition was well if this one goes down then we go into say number six number six goes down then we go into number seven so on and so on and so on we wanted to know why we needed so many in East Boston I mean we're a small little town small little part of East uh Boston itself so we definitely oppos this when I asked about the abds meeting I was told that there were quite a few people now um the May Le is on there just said that there was only three people so I don't know what was truth and what was false when they came in front of us but hello any other raised hands I have no additional way answer okay other questions from the board may I have a motion motion to approve um with the recommendations from the planning department that specific attention should be made to minimizing the visibility of rooftop equipment with screening and increased setback from the roofs Edge as much as possible and that the facade mounted antennas are designed in such a way they match the color material facade is there a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss we well yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you next we have case boa 164 9869 with the address of 1020 to 1022 Bennington street if the applicant Andor their representative of presid would they please explain the case to the board yes thank you Mr strid good morning Madam chair members of the board for the record Richard Linds for the business business address of 245 Sumer Street uh in East Boston on behalf of the petitioner um JB Capital um we can probably jump down to slide four maybe there some context for the area um so mam chair this is a pre-existing uh mixed use building uh located in the orient Heights section of East Boston directly across from Orient Heights te station uh the building currently is occupied as a ground level retail nail salon with residential units above there's a total of four existing residential units The Proposal would change the legal occupancy from the ground level retail and four residential to ground level retail and five residential by proposing a renovation on the lowest level uh to add one additional unit we can jump to the next slide please uh just a bird's eye view of the building we're not making any modifications to the exterior the footprint of building so the pre-existing conditions will remain and I'll run through the zoning in a moment but we can jump down perhaps to the next couple of slides that's a couple of different views next slide please building is off to the left in that slide this is the Orient height Square section next slide looking back towards Ori height station next slide and probably can jump down to slide 11 uh start comparison of the floor plans as you can see the upper levels there's no uh work being proposed and any of the upper levels all the work will be located at the lower level uh that lower level does have a full walkout condition as the grade from Bennington street to the back of the building does uh decrease uh we do maintain as you can see and I do have a better illustration of this uh on the right side of that lower level we do maintain all of the utilities as well as the appropriate uh Heat if we can jump down to slide 13 that's probably a better view of the lower level plan uh so you can see here that we do incorporate the two bedrooms that do have appropriate windows that are in compliance with State Building Code uh then this living area bathroom facilities towards the front of the building uh this lower level will be mechanically ventilated and there will be uh the ability for borrowed light to access the living area as well again all in accordance with the building code requirements you can see on the right hand side that we do maintain the separate utility area as well as the additional means of erress uh next slide please I could probably jump down to slide 16 I believe uh so you can see here that the building again the existing conditions remain um uh for most of the building the rear portion as we can see on the lower left side does have the addition of those windows uh as well as the access point for egress the building next slide please and just our section plan again showing that walkout condition as well as the clear sailing height is required under the building um Madam chair this was filed under the prior version of article 53 and therefore the refusal that was cited and the public notice that was provided uh sites a number of items under the prior zoning uh specifically uh forbidden use insufficient lot area uh additional lot area being insufficient the flid area ratio and the usable open space uh as I've mentioned in Prior hearings and I believe we'll start seeing uh fewer and fewer of these coming before the board but uh within the new uh designated EBR for district uh all of those items are no longer zoning violations um specifically there is no longer a floor are ratio requirements so any additional Flor space that is proposed would not be in violation of a code uh in addition there is no usable open space requirement uh that is um that has been cited as well uh and there is no minimum loot area or additional lot area for uh proposed dwelling units we were also cited for off street parking being insufficient um as the code requires any additional dwelling units that are provided uh to a pre-existing non-conforming building uh you're only required to provide parking for the additional unit that's being proposed in this case that would be one parking space in order to achieve compliance I'm sure as the board is well aware uh the city's policy even if it were possible to add off street parking to this site uh would uh would would favor against that because it does create a curb cut to create one private parking space so I think based upon the proximity to public transit uh as well as the minimal amount of relief that would be needed for the one additional parking space uh we would uh request the variance for uh the one parking space uh at this time I will pause and ask if there any questions from the board that I can address thank you so can can you address the uh forbidden use the basement uh use and uh yeah yeah I believe the Forbidden use being cited um was was uh again under the prior code I believe that uh the concern obvious VI ly is sea level rise as well as um proximity to the flood zone this is not I do believe we have it on the upper slide I slide uh three shows the actual location of the flood zone um and I do believe this was uh uh cited originally is both gcod and um Coastal flood but as you can see uh the proximity of the flood zone is actually the MBTA rideway and I think based upon the fact that it is located in close proximity uh it is you know has raised some concern over that however I would point out that 1022 benington Street's elevation uh is much higher than the elevation of where the track bed lies where the flood zone uh is located so I think we can address all those concerns uh as well as having that full walkout condition to the rear property other questions from the board uh yes madame chair um attorney ly uh can you be clear is this a fourth unit adding a fifth is that in an EBR for zone or yes so through the chair mistaken this is um pre-existing retail with four units we're proposing to add a fifth unit U multif family use is allowed in the ev4 so that would not be a forbidden use and what is the purpose of adding the fifth unit and in that basement level in an EBR 4 Zone um other than just adding an additional dwelling init that's essentially the The Proposal okay so there nothing otherwise unique about the property that requires adding another unit to it um if that's the question on whether the variance standard is met um the additional fifth unit isn't allowed use so I don't believe there's a requirement to demonstrate the variance standard on that okay thank you thank you any other questions from the board hearing none we have public testimony good morning Madam chair and members of the board my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and Neighborhood Services regarding 1020 to 10:22 benon Street our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including a Butter's meeting on July 17th 20124 which was not attended by any constituents Additionally the proposal was reviewed with Orient Heights neighborhood association which convened on September 16th 2024 the association has expressed support regarding the proposal and ultimately ohna has voted 12 in favor uh four opposed and one abstaining at this time the mayor's office would like to defer to the board's judgment thank you for your time and consideration thank you we do have a raised hand here second okay elain good morning Madam chair members of the board Elaine dunan with Council Keta Z's office the councel would like to go on record in support at this time thank you thank you and I have no additional R yes thanks with that may I have a motion I'll make a a motion to approve uh based upon uh the the uh fact that it's adding another unit within the existing EBR 4 Zone which is allowed and that the uh parent elevation of the building uh seems all right even though it's within the ca fraud District say okay Mr strige yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr Lang yes ma'am Z yes Mr aen yes chair vs the motion carries thank you very much have a good day next we have case boa 163 9678 with the address of 30 Fenway if the applicant Andor the representatives are present would they please explain to the board yes hello we can hear you okay my name is Tom Baars I am the owner of unit one which is the unit that's under consideration here and the architect of the project uh 30 Fenway is a five unit mixed use condominium building and the building permit application includes work to the common area of the building the and units one 2 and unit five the zoning code violations are only due to the work proposed for unit one which is to split it into two units the um the my primary reason for doing this is to gain uh the elevator currently opens in directly into unit one and I would like the elevator to open into the common hallway to increase the accessibility of that floor could we have page five yes that's the page you can see the proposal here or perhaps there's some supplemental materials where there's a floor plan that's labeled 4-30 Fenway unit one existing proposed drawing I don't know if you have that yeah it would be that drawing that you just passed I think yes right there you can see the existing conditions down at the bottom where the elevator opens directly into the unit and the proposal above where the elevator opens into a hallway that then Works its way to the common Hall this provides accessibility to the basement floor the rear door the garbage areas the service areas of the building and most importantly to the garage you unit that's in the back I the garage unit is currently part of unit one but I'm going to transfer the ownership of that to unit five which is the top floor which is another part of the project uh that's an office currently and we're going to be converting that to residential and um I'm going to be living in that unit so and using the garage so the accessibility of that is very important when you add that commond hallway in there it does a good job of destroying the two middle rooms there and turning them just into hallways with you know deep closets on either side or something and it seemed to be produce much better for plans to divide the unit in two the when the building was made a condominium in in 1985 this was originally two office units so it has two electric meters two service two of every service and as you can see the Black Walls that are shown in that upper plan uh very little has to be built to have this become two units again it also has two air uh air conditioning systems in it um um so like makes it very easy to split um so that's pretty much the the project thank you are there questions from the board hearing question um on the new uh layout I only see one bathroom if there are two units I only see one bathroom at this moment I'm not sure something no there's the there's an existing bathroom that's right to the left of where it says Unit B 1B that's the existing bathroom and that's staying and then right opposite the elevator is a new bathroom so in addition to those walls to make this two units you have to add one bath and one kitchen okay the kitchen is right below where it's labeled one the new kitchen is right where it's labeled below one B and then the new bathroom is right below the elevator okay yeah see it thank you may have public testimony Madame chair members of the board sigy Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services this proponent has completed the community process our office hosted in a Butters meeting on September 4th during which no concerns were raised the Fenway civic association has submitted a letter of support for this proposal that's the active civic association in this area with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you thank you okay and Jonathan I sent a request to mute you yes good morning can you hear me yes yes yes good morning my name is Jonathan Knox I'm the abutter immediately above uh unit one at 30 Fenway unit 2 and I just wanted recorded my support of this application thank you and we have no additional raise P at the moment okay with that may I have a mam can I make a motion of approval with two provisors the first one is that the pl should be submitted to the planning department for review the second is that there is no building code allowed for the basement units no billing code relief um okaye relief thank you um Mr Valencia would you consider um just having um Boston planning review and then the build Department with then ISD will do a separate review okay that is okay so only one provisor for the planning department go thank you okay is there a second second Mr srid yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yeah Miss weo yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you I'm sorry is that Jeff Jeff Hampton your hand was raised yeah thank you madam chair uh Jeff hampon City of Boston planning department uh we asked for design review just to make sure that there was no building code issues but since this is all internal I don't want it so it could be straight approval from our point of view uh we were concerned about building code issues but if Council thinks that the that ISD will review this I don't want it for design review are you making us revote or will you just punt it when it gets to you well no because ISD is going to make us St the plans because there's a a motion so I would ask for a revote Please Mr Valencia would you like to okay motion make a motion is there a second second second all right Mr s yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss weo yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes motion carries Mr Hampton needs to raise your hand faster next time all right you know we we got the mice in City Hall the uh the internet's slow over here okay Mr stbridge next we have case vaa one 64 9572 with the address of 471 West Broadway if the applicant and or their representative present would they please explain to the board good morning Madam chair members of board my name is Charlie tevan I'm an attorney with the business address of 15 Broad Street Boston I'm here on behalf of the applicants Dana nenton hung lamb both of are logged on to this here the proposal is to convert the formal former T-Mobile retail Cellular store to a small casual restaurant play of bows with takeout 471 West Broadway is located in a multi family residential local Service District a restaurant with takeout at this location a conditional use play of bows is a quick service restaurant which serves healthy fresh assai Superfruit bowls smoothies juices and coffee this is a mature franchise with locations in 22 states and which entered Massachusetts in 2019 there are now 10 Boston area locations all of which are owned and operated by the applicants who are former Boston College classmates this will be the team's third location in Boston their first location is located on kav in near Boston College their second location on Huntington Avenue near nor Eastern an abutters meeting was held on August 12th via Zoom no one appeared in opposition the applicants reached out to councelor Flynn and we believe his office is in support of this application we respectfully ask the board to Grant this conditional use permit thank you any questions from the board hearing none may have a public testimony Madame chair members of the board Sig Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services this proponent has completed the on community process our office hosted in a Butter's meeting on August 12th at which no concerns were raised the Saints Vincent lower end neighborhood association chose not to take a position on this proposal with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you y good morning Madam chair and members of the board Laura here from C Flynn's office at this time the council would like to go record in support of this proposal thank you okay madam CH I have no raised hands at the moment thanks thank you with that may have a motion make a have a motion make a motion to approve I have a second second second Mr strige yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Mell yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you madam chair members of the board and thank you madam Ambassador thank you next we have case boa 156 [Music] 5204 with the address of 534 Massachusetts Avenue if the applicant and do their representative of President would they please explain the case to the board good morning Madam chair members of the board my name is Ivan Hernandez um the proposed project is for a uh 24 uh 10 in by 7t uh deep uh rear deck uh at U 534 massav um there are very similar decks in the uh in the neighborhood and basically that plan that that's on the screen right now uh there's an existing if you look at the uh lower left side rear elevation of the house is an existing wood structure uh on the uh um believe that's the uh second second level of the U of the uh building and uh right up above that structure we're proposing a um a deck uh as I said 2410 by 7t Deep uh it would be constructed uh mainly of uh steel rad iron railings to match the uh the surrounding balconies and um Steel Ste columns uh coming down to a load bearing points below um the um if you go over to the next page or the next sheet it would show the proposed deck and um and that decking actually there he goes uh on the upper right side you'll see the uh the proposed floor plan of the deck um what the proposed uh the access to the proposed deck better yet would be replacing an existing window with a door um that uh door would actually open into a bedroom um there we would also connect the existing uh fire escape to the uh new deck to maintain obviously uh emergency uh materials would uh used would all be fire rated but on either side of the deck to conform with building code requirements um if you go to the next page you'll see uh proposed materials on the back of uh for the deck itself um that's an elevation of the proposed deck on the in the middle and then side elevations on either side um as you see there's the existing a wood frame deck um on the lower level and we would uh construct the new deck above it would not extend as far as the existing deck it would just extend out 7 ft from the house uh materials on the floor the decking would be a tongue and groove material uh in order to avoid um debris in or or any anything from up above coming down to the lower deck we we want to try to uh keep the uh lower neighbor is happy as possible by minimizing anything falling down to the lower deck area yeah um the uh proposed door would uh be a four panel um door kind of tie in and compl the architectural details of the existing Windows it would be a a wood door um the uh middle lower area there shows the proposed um decking and then over to your to the right uh the windows there would be actually a window a couple of Windows that would be replaced that uh would be Marvin window units but um that that's just guess more for uh the um uh uh other board there to review uh landmarks there we goes uh that's pretty much the scope of the project uh we had a neighborhood meeting and um there was support for the project thank you are there questions from the board hearing none can I have public testimony Jessica is there any raised hands don't see any raised hands I want see [Music] you1 okay hearing none may I have a [Music] motion M should I make a motion of approval with appr provide so that plans should be submitted to a stound and landmark landmarks commission is there a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr L yes m w yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you very much thank you m next we have case boa 162 23 21 with the address of 751 to 7 57 W Street this is this is an article 80 case it's the applicants and or their representative pres would they please the case to the board yes morning Mr hold on good morning Mr secretary uh attorney Joseph fer with my associate uh Patricia Flanigan from the law firm of Dane torpy 175 State Street in Boston I want to wish the the board members and the panelists and attendees a Happy fall joining me as well on here are the the applicants for the developers Mark and Stewart salsburg our consultant Miss Fishman from L MLF Consulting LLC the person who's going to make the presentation is Douglas Stephano uh who is from Stephano Architects as this project is this is a a of a project as was mentioned by the secretary that went through article 80 with an extensive Community process many letters of support have been filed both with the now mayor's office of planning but then bpda previously B and to erect a six story mix use building on a newly created 9,98 SQ foot lot it will include 48 residential units one General retail space parking garage roof deck and amenity spaces with bike rooms um I will ask at this time for Mr stepanov to take the board through the project Doug yes um Madame chair members of the board uh thank you very much for your time today uh thank you Joe for the introduction um I'd like to present to you a proposed uh mixed use development um on the corner of Dudley and uh Virginia streets and the upam corners uh neighborhood District uh on Dudley Street this building uh the salsburg family have owned the property for several decades it's current currently a single story retail uh building as you can see yes in the site plan you can proceed and we propose a commercial uh and parking on the first floor and then on Floors two through six uh Apartments this would be a rental uh building with a roof deck for common amenity uh the mix of the units are variety of one a studio one two and three bedroom units uh which we thought would be a good mix uh for the neighborhood we have uh ample or um both bus and train uh Transit options available the upams corner uh MBTA stop being but a very short walk and uh bus lines running down Dudley Street um as uh Mr Feer mentioned we have met with uh six of the community groups uh with favorable um um reports we've been through uh bpda planning uh review and uh suggestions and updates on the exterior you can proceed through the drawings please uh the next ones who go to the floor plan um yeah that's just the uh next please if you would uh we have a proposed Street trees um both on Virginia and Dudley Street um there's really there's a bus stop right in front of the building so we're a little limited there but preserve we W re retracted the building uh from the property line to provide ample space on the sidewalk that actually is greater than the complete streets program as you can see in the gray area there at the bottom 3500 ft of commercial space 52 bikes and a bike room immediately off The Dudley Street um parking is accessed yeah that's our typical uh floor Central uh um elevators and Corridor with units wrapping around the perimeter we're able to get balcon on the back and on Virginia Street to provide some outdoor space um we have a brick this if you stop there for a second um a combination of brick and Terra Cotta first floor picking up the brick uh materials that are commonly found on Dudley Street now this is with our bpda planning review and then a mixture of terracotta and metal panel uh exterior um there there are several buildings of this scale on the street the street is um mixed with lower retail and then some larger residential units uh comparable uh to to the our proposed building um I as you have in front of you we are seeking relief from us a number of zoning um items being parking um the obviously the use is conditional off Street loading would be per the tenant which is not specified or known at this time um FL a ratio height and rear yard um and I um open the question open the table up to any questions you may have before we go to questions matter I just uh one thing uh there was much discussion in the community about the uh the the Bike Room obviously we as the my my client as a developer comply with what uh the uh mayor's office of housing was requiring but I wanted to note that for uh for the board as uh at this time so with that we'll take it questions from the board thank you are questions from the board yes I have a question for Mr stefanov your project is uh providing six IDP unit is that correct um I think we have more than that let me just see I think that is what I saw the yes that's correct you are correct so six and the question is maybe Jeff H Hampton can help us with this as well the IDP requires 30% of the units to be affordable in this case it should be no less than 6.24 units so sometimes it's seven or more so what is the r that your project is providing less than the 30% required by the IDP Well normally if the ra if the number is 6.5 or less the rest of the um um allocation is turned into a contribution to the fund so if it was 6.6 yes that would be rounded up to seven but as we're below5 just to speak about Community benefits as well which I think didn't get mentioned we are proposing um a contribution to improve the blue bike program on Ramsey Street so there's a half seasonal blue bike um installation that gets dismantled in the winter uh for uh snow removal and the salsburg have offered to provide for enlarged curb to allow for a year round presents uh for that so that in addition to the the monies that would be paid uh to complement the six units that comprises our affordable housing um offer thank you yes I I appreciate that usually we see projects providing a lot more than the 133% 14 15 20% depending on how they negotiate with the housing uh off office of housing but I appreciate your explanation thank you very much thank you other questions from the board yes I have one small question cuz concerning the roof decks i' like to know how many roof decks is in that area I there's a new development um kind of kitty corner across the street I believe they have a small roof deck there aren't any others in the area and we've retracted this from The Edge so it's almost 15 to 20 ft back from the edge of the building this roof deck will be invisible practically from the street and it's for residents only it's not a public you know roof deck so we the the views and the south is to the back of the building we think this would be actually very nice for the tenants and not a nuisance to the neighbors and Mr langum if I might add this is an attorney Feer uh there was definitely genuine support within the community both from the abuts there's a church that's adjacent to this property there are many um uh AB Butters Al Virginia Street and as Mr stephanov said there is one new new uh structure that was built uh recently uh within the past year or so that has roof deck and we have set this back just to be sensitive to I'm sure the concerns which you you might have thank you okay thank you may have public testimony yes Madam chair members of the board Conor nman with the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services this this time the mayor is Dos to defer to the Judgment of this board uh this went through a bpda Le Community process involving a public meeting um early in uh January of 2024 uh there was a mix of comments I received from the community um somewhere supportive really liking that there was going to be um retail space on the ground floor that would keep the part of the neighborhood active uh there was some concerns raised by Butters regarding uh the proposed density of the project uh the design some felt that there was not enough architectural features on it as well as concerns regarding the roof deck um they were in contact I understand with the up West Side who although having some concerns ultimately did not take a stance on this proposal uh with that with defer to the board at this time thank you thank you hello Madam chair members of the board Liam Reis from Council Fitzgerald's office our off would like to on record and support of this proposal thank you any other elected official offices no okay then I'll go to Joan hi y okay um um I've never done this before online only in person so I'm a little confused but um with your name and um address and briefly tell us the curent support opposition thank you my name is Joanne Tuller I live at six man adock Street which is basically a block from the proposed project um and um I'm in support of the project although as one of the uh board members raised I would like to see a higher proportion of the pro of the of the apartments be affordable you may know that upam corner is um was uh featured in The Globe as um uh uh being an an example of development without displacement and affordable housing is very important to us in the neighborhood in general um but other than that I the the salsburg brothers have um you know uh done their their their work to communicate with the neighborhood which is important and I think this building is you know in scale with not so much the older parts of the neighborhood but with what you know what's been getting built around uh in recent years so um as I said I I support the project with the Proviso that I would like to see more affordable units thank you men I have no additional R thank you with that may I have a motion mam I make a motion of approval with review from the planning department there a second second second M Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes M we yes Mr Aken yes I think this is a good project project has been proposed um consistent with a number of other things have happened in the community and all of the planning efforts that have been underway for a number of years there so I'm proud happy to support it yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you very much Madam chair members of the board thank you all next we have case boa 162 5894 with the address of 5:30 to 542 Washington Street the applicant and representative were present the cas for hello everyone uh I am d and I am in the process of the taking over China Station Chinese restaurant at uh 532 Washington Street dester thank you for being here today before the ownership transfer is complete I'm applying for the takeout service permit remove proval this is just AAL procedure and no changes will be made to the restaurant we will continue Ser serving the same American style Chinese food that the community community loves thank you for your support thank you any questions from the board hearing none can I have public testimony yes Madam chair members of the board Conor Newman with the mayor off Neighborhood Services this time we'd like to defer to the Judgment of this boards um with no real operational changes we're unaware of any uh con with that will defer to the board thank you thank you actually I have no raise P at the moment that may I have a motion motion to approve may have a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yeah yes Mr Lam yes m w yes Mr Aken yes the chair votes yes the motion carries good luck next we have case boa 164 4871 with the address of 108 Florence Street if the applicants end or the representative of pres would they quickly explain to the board yes uh good morning Madam chair and members of the board my wife Michelle and I are owners of 108 floring Street today we're presenting our proposal to maintain the property as a 4unit building while adding an additional floor to expand the top two units so our plan is to keep the property as four units with the first floor units remaining as one bedroom one bathroom apartments with an office approximately 800 ft each which you can see on slide two thank you the top two units on slide three units three and four located on second and third floors will be expanded to three bedrooms three bathroom apartments roughly 1500 square feet providing larger familyfriendly spaces the completed exterior design is available for review here on slide four the property currently includes a driveway with five parking spaces which is sufficient to serve all four units as longtime residents of Rosendale we understand the growing demand for larger Family siiz Apartments in preparing for this proposal we hosted both uh a Butters and neighborhood meetings and we receive positive feedback particularly about the increase unici size for families uh regarding the current property as shown on slide 10 it consists of four one bedroom room units which we believe do not meet the needs for the families uh trying to live in the area this expansion will help meet the uh community's demand for larger Living Spaces by enhancing the opportun units um that currently uh concludes my presentation and I just wanted to thank you for your time and I'd be happy to address any concerns or questions you may have and um I have additional support uh with me um my architect with there any technical questions that you may have thank you are there questions from the board hearing none can I have public testimony Madam chair members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy bbery I am the Rosendale Community engagement specialist for the office of Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abd's meeting on August 5th for ab but's voice concerns regarding whether the property would be owned or occupied or for rent uh they also voice concerns with affordability and the time frame of the construction uh the project then presented to the civi Healey 2 Cummins neighborhood association who voted neutral uh on the project thank you for your time in the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment at this time thank you I have no hands will that may I have a motion Madam chair I'll put forward a motion of approval I have a second there Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr Ram yes Miss weow yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you next we have a boa 163 1620 with the address of 4228 to 4230 Washington Street if the applicants and or the representative of present would they please explain the case to the board ISD legal apologies for the interruption um the applicant um went to City Hall unknowingly and so cable and myself are trying to set them up with technology to be able to present um they the attorney for this case we would ask that we would please punt this to the last case of the 930 section just to give them appropriate time to get set up that sounds good thank you so much um so let's move on to uh 35 Glen Ellen Cas boa 163 2893 with the address of 35 Glen Ellen Ro if the applicant Android there de representative of pres would they please explain the case to the board yes good morning Madam chair and Mr member of the board thank you for having us today my name is Floren Lua and I'm the architect of the project um this is this is an an existing single family Family Residence in in West Roxbury as you can see in this first slide um and if I can jump you a little bit around for slide number six to show you what we're propos intending to do um the current house is a three-bedroom one b um house and we are one more down please thank you yes so we intend to we proposing an addition at the rear of the the house consisting of an office and second bathroom and of entrance Vesti in within the existing coverboard porch so um and if I can jump you to the to the last um last slide please um just to give you an idea how um the current house the very last one you don't oh there were some pictures there uh the elevations are good so basically uh on the upper right corner you see the rear elevation with the addition at the back and right below it it's the proposed front elevation with that added entrance vesu the the zoning violations for which we we been cited are mostly dealing with dimensional um dimensional um requirements um the if we can go to the first page so we can take a look at the the zoning table the existing lot is just a little bit over 3,000 square ft in a in a in a zoning area with the U minimum level Lots is 6,000 s ft at the first page if you go on one more up please so the zoning thata table there as you can see the existing the existing property is 3,168 Ft while the allowable minimum loss is 6,000 so right there is the is the we have the the problems with the floor area ratio and the open space because the house is fairly small size is 1300 ft but um in basically half the allowable lot so we do ask for relief for U the F and the usable open space um while we have been cited for the setbacks um as you can see the side setbacks are existing non-conforming but we do not plan to to change those while the rear setback since this is a small lot under the article um 5640 section 5640 um we we can have a reduction of the rear rear y setback um down to 19 and 1/2 ft so we were currently uh proposing 20 ft so um um the only remaining the setback is it's in the front which we're existing nonconforming at 12 ft right now and since we enclose we would propose to enclose a corner of that existing porch that will bring down the um setback to 6.5 ft so um that's these are the these are the facts of the of the project I can ask any other questions i' be more than happy to okay questions from the board hearing none can have public testimony Madam chair members of the board sigy Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services this applicant has completed the community process our office had the applicant distribute an informational flyer to ABS which solicited no comments they also presented to the West Roxbury neighborhood Council who supported the application with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank mam we have no may have a motion motion to approve we have a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes ma'am this we will yes Mr aen yes the chair votes yes the motion carries thank you next we have case boa 162 8644 with the address of 154 Brook Farm Road if the applicant and a representative pres would they please the case Vernon onor just sent a request to unmute me Veron yes hello can you hear me yes we can okay thank you very much members of the board uh this is a proposal for a single single family home on an adjacent lot on Farm Road in West Roxbury the owners Lima and B Abbe live in the adjacent building at 772 of Grange in a home that uh they find oversized and proposed to move to a new home with a habitable floor area 1,867 squ ft with a lot area of 4374 square ft this results in a floor area ratio of 42 just 02 uh over the minimum or maximum floor area allowed of4 and uh the proposed building is 2 and 1 half stories three bedrooms with an attached two-car garage uh the violations for usable open space floor area ratio and setbacks are based on the size of the lot uh not on the size of the project we believe that the proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood and will uh contribute to the streetcape where currently a vacant Lots used only for off street parking uh exists are questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony Madam chair members of the board sigy Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services this applicant has completed the on community process our office hosted in a Butter's meeting on August 8th at which a butter spoke in opposition to the proposal on the basis of insufficient lot size and insuff I setbacks they also presented to the West Roxbury neighborhood Council which was which voted to oppose the proposal on the same basis uh with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you thank you okay and sure we have no ways to okay are there any other questions from the board hearing none may have a motion is there a motion M should I make a motion of approval with a provis of attemp should be submitted to planning department for review and also to Department of par Recreation is there a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes we yes Mr Aken Mr aen yes here votes yes the motion carries thank you very much chairman and uh members of the board next we have case boa 162 8698 with the address of 179 Church Street if the applicants and though they representative president would they please in case the report hi can you raise your hand hello I am leing my hand are you here for 179 Church Street yes okay can you stay turn name and address for the record hi uh can you hear me okay so this is you on I'm the owner of the house and um we are requesting extending our liveway so we have uh one car driveway now and uh we would like to extend it to two cards okay what can you what does that entail as far as the curve cut uh we are not requesting a curve cut it's just expanding the driveway so the curve cut does not need to be widened [Music] no okay question are there questions from the board yeah Madam chair I have a few questions I mean it does look like they are widening it from about 11.7 ft to 6 but my concern is with the most Le left um parking space how how will that maneuver out if both spaces are occupied it doesn't even look like the width of the curb cut extends to that space I so I asked uh Ben um the the neighborhood Council I think and I was told that cut is only allowed up to 14 ft and uh 14 ft is not going to change any anything that you describing so um that is that is a situation now it's really hard for me to get any answer to what I can do so I just uh you know in that case um we will we will figure it out I think okay yeah I think I I question how this will work but I'll just leave that for my colleagues and our our neighborhood quite a few housing in our neighborhood they did the same thing oh does that require one stall backing over the curb or do you need to you need to move that uh right vehicle in order to get the left out and by you know and to get in if it is occupied so it to me it just seems like this isn't right for this site but I that's how I um see this but I see Mr Hampton has his hand raised as well Mr Hampton uh thank you madam chair M of the board Jeff Hampton uh city of auson planning department we recommended Denial on this um we're not in favor of front yard parking to begin with I understand that it's already existing for the one space uh we also have concerns about I think there's a pretty mature tree where they want to put this parking spot that will have to come down um and the other thing if they have to expand this curve cut I think there's a sewer uh right next to the expansion I don't know how that plays out with public works or BTD or anybody else but uh for us we're on the record recommending denial it's just not something that we support and we also know that there's street hking so uh we recommend to that thank you thank you can can the applicant address the the concerns around the mature tree and sewage I guess uh the tree uh by the way has been torn down uh there was a storm about a year ago I believe and um there was a tree there but then you know we need to cut it down because it's it was damaged after the storm okay so no tree um other questions from the board I I think it's a question also a comment I guess I also don't understand how this functions with the curb cut there and not driving over the the curb and uh so that's not working for me and I agree that there some some Dimension doesn't work here especially with that curve cut and making it much larger um so I guess one question is is there is there not a is there not street parking available so people Ed our street as um uh you know it's it's not a quiet street and like two weeks ago maybe last month there was a major accident that somebody just just you know St the car parked on the street and um you know it's it's a little bit you after the Co it is a little bit busy in the morning people use it as um how do you call it are they use it for commuter parking no uh it's not for the parking but um on the cars just passing by just you know we have a West Lock Parkway and but but people don't use it anymore Mr R there is on street parking there yeah okay uh thank you um and I see Traditions it look like in the neighborhood where people do have you know some side by side but not necessarily when you have to go dig down and build a whole uh retaining wall and excavate for the parking so it's not sure what the need really appears to be for this that's all for me thank you all right any other questions hearing none can I have public testimony Madame chair members of the board sigy johnso at the office of Neighborhood Services this applicant completed the on community process they distributed an information flyer to a Butters which solicited no comments to our office uh proponents also presented to the West rockbury neighborhood Council which voted to support this application with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you neighborhood going to give testimony under the name neighborhood no low the hand we have no additional rais hands okay with that may I have a motion Madam chair I'm going to put forward a motion of denial I think for the reason stated earlier this site just doesn't lend itself to this configuration and they're not showing adequate um you know access to the site via the curb cut it's subar and can't accommodate both vehicles is there a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes yes yes M yes yes Mr Aken uh yes the chair also votes yes the motion carries next we have Cas boa 1 15 8455 with the with the address of 10 to 12 Len road if the AF their representa would they please explain the case to the board hi my name is uh can you hear me okay yes good morning Madam chair and members of the board uh the pro is located at 10 12 lro in Brighton and the proposal is to um be buil a two level deck in the back of the property uh the the existing deck is about 17 ft wide and 5 ft deep so we proposing to re buil and increase the depth to 10 ft that would allow the occupant to uh give more space to um to spend some time Outdoors um so the the de would be made up of the compressed wood Poe and composite material uh so if you look at the uh the drawing from the deck when it's built to the back of the property you still get UL space I mean 21 ft uh the kind Ste will will remain the same so the only thing we request to expand depth of the depth of the uh deck from 5 to 10 ft um I mean it's uh it's a pretty simple project um right now I me 5 ft of dep there not not enough space for the folks to move around um yes that's pretty much it okay other questions from the board none can I have public [Music] testimony there any public testimony anybody stands I guess Geral go ahead I don't know where our staffer is um we had the applicant circulate Flyers to Abus within 300 ft we did not receive any feedback I understand that they connected with the uh Brighton Austin Improvement Association I don't believe there was any concerns regarding that either with that we refer to the board thank you thank you uh any other raised hands with that may I have a motion motion to approve I have a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes M we yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you everyone good Lu thank you uh how are we with um the case that we had to for 28 Washington 4228 to 4230 Washington Street I'm I'm here I'm ready to present ready to go yes is anyone present what's case yes this is Adam rogoff as the applicant okay okay great thanks case boa 163 11620 the address of 4228 4230 Washington Street I believe the applicant is now present so would you go ahead pleas yes uh madam chair and members of the board I uh realize I I've presented to this board before I'm an attorney by training um but I've crossed the line to being old school because I came downtown uh thank you for accommodating me U with this change um I am also the owner of the substation which is in Rosendale if you're not familiar with it it's a building that was a former MBTA substation was boarded up from 1971 to 2016 when it went through a big renovation uh it has had a number of failed uses over the years uh since then because it was hard to find a sustainable business model that would support the very expensive historic building so with my business partner Laura Charles uh we have U developed a business which really essentially Works to activate the building at all times so so we do three things we run co-working during the day we have a beer hall which is a legacy use of some prior uh Brewers that had set up popups in there and uh we run events both public events uh and private events and and our on the event side we do a lot of community events we do a lot of Arts and Cultural programming we have performances circus performances Open Mic nights we have a spoken word Fitness Wellness dance comedy we've even hosted the mayor's office hours when they were rained out in Adams Park uh and in addition to that we donate um every quarter the space for um any Mission driven organ certain Mission driven driven organizations so we have in order to run this been doing um on the Alcohol side with one day alcohol licenses and we've applied to the city we've been approved for an all alcohol license and now with the state law we are uh positioned to go before the state for an all alcohol license um but on the entertainment side we've been pulling One Day entertainment licenses uh which is cumbersome and um and costly for us into the to the city uh so in order to make that change to be able to get an annual entertainment like we need to have the zoning change so simply what we're asking for today is zoning relief um to have a bar with live entertainment added um I will say that a second thing we would like is that over the years the various uses have um been added and um applied to different parts of the building so we're hoping at the same time we can clean up the uses so um and the letter the proposal that came from ISD is not how we envisioned it but um I would like the if the board will allowed the ability to work with the legal staff to have something that is a little shorter and clearer um but essentially what we're looking for today simply is a bar with live entertainment use which was a conditional use um and then I should say that also what was provided um from ISD also shows that we are looking looking to increase the size of the the capacity of the building that is not something that requires any zoning relief um but it is um apparently on the proposal thank you questions from the board G can I have public testimony yes Madam chair members of the board Conor Newman with the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services this time the mayor is off to defer to the judgement of this board some background information on the community process on hosting a Butter's meeting on August 19th uh there were no concerns raised in that meeting uh the applicant then went on to connect with the West Village neighborhood association which also did not express any concerns to our understanding uh we understand that this is a very popular establishment in the community uh with that we'll defer to the board at this time thank you thank you m I have no additional raised hand okay with that may I have a motion mam sh I think this is a good proposal I know they have been doing a lot of work to activate the site and activate the area and with that I make a motion of approval is there a second Mr strige yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss weo yes Mr Aken yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you okay uh with that uh I will see everyone at 11:30