The Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for May 20th, 2025 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new
law allows the board to continue its practice according virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being livereamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the
public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is also 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 their in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments and opposition. The order of
comments is as follows. elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board
prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by the project. That is, those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click raise hand button along the bottom of the screen in the Zoom webinar
platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 to raise and lower
your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to
ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Sebridge 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. Thank you.
Yes. Uh Mr. Stebridge. Morning madam chair present. Good morning Mr. Valencia. Good morning madam chair present. Good morning Miss Benza. Good morning madam chair present. Good morning Miss Turner.
Good morning, Madam Chair. President Good morning, Mr. Collins. Morning, Madam Chair, president. Good morning, Miss Ponado. Good morning, Madam Chair. President Good morning. The floor is yours, Mr. Sim. Thank you, Madam
Chair. We'll begin this morning with the approval of the hearing minutes scheduled for 9:30. These minutes are from the following dates: April 8th, April
17th, April 29th, and May 6. I'll make a motion for all these minutes to minutes from those hearings to be accepted. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Spebridge?
Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Bettera? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next, we'll move on to the extensions
scheduled for 9:30. Um, there is a long list of them. I'll read through them and then if there are any questions, you can uh mad chair contain those um and move forward from there. First we have case
[Music] BO8121 5340 with the address of 96 Beach View Road. Next we have case 30 VA146
4017 with the address of 76 Frankfurt Street. Then we have case BOA 1029221 with the address of 837 Saratoga Street. Next we have case BOA
903 635 with the address of 235 Leen. Now Leighton Street. Next we have case BOA 903 636 with the address of 237
W. Next we have case BOA 143 64 63 with the address of 132 Central Avenue. Next we have case BOA 143
3649 with the address of 554 to 562 Columbia Road. Next we have excuse case BC 32279 with the address of 315 to 319
West Broadway. Then we have a [Music] BOA1351164 with the address of 170 Old Colony Avenue. Next we have case BOA 983485 with the address of 6 Len Street.
Next we have case BOA 1224197 with the address of 73 Stanwood Street. Then we have case BOA 946259 with the address of 30 C Street.
Next we have case BO8 144 3837 with the address of 10 Salem Street. Then we have case [Music]
BOA1015905 with the address of 296 Columbus Avenue. And finally, we have case [Music] BOA1142276 with the address of 79 C
Street. And those are the extensions that are requested for today. Any questions from the board hearing? None. Is there a motion to grant the request as
requested? agree to request as requested. Is there a second? Mr. Ste, Mr. Yes. Uh, Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Better Brazo, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr.
Collins, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next, we have two board final officer cases scheduled for 9:30. The first is case BOA 153
6310 with the address of 18 and and 22 Gardener Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, will they please explain to the board? Is Mr. Smith with us? Evan
Smith. Lisa, do you see him in attendees? Evan Smith? No. If you're here, raise your hand. I don't see anybody raising their hand and I don't see Evan Smith. All right, let's move on to the next one. Then
we will go to the next board final operative case which is case BOA1268636 with the address of 167 Maverick Street. If the applicant can do their representative pres going to the board.
Yes. Uh thank you um madam chairman, members of the board. U Eric Sacerson, architect for the project. Uh this project was approved um by the by the board in May of 2022 as an 11 unit residential project. Um at the time the
project had two private roof decks. Uh there's been some issues with ISD requesting or requiring us to have a uh common stair access as a second means of regress for those two roof decks. So we
um we've added a uh or extended the common stair to the roof. Um and then the two roof decks are still private. The um common stair extended to the roof has been reviewed by the BPDA or BPD for
design review has been reviewed by the parks department and both of those have signed off on it. We took it back to ISD and they asked us to bring it here because the um the that stair is on the right side of the building and extends
up and um makes the um sideyard violation which we were granted makes that violation go up one more story for the kind of extent of the footprint of the um head house for that um second means of egress for these two private
group decks. So that is why we're here today. Thank you. Any questions from the board? No questions. Hearing none. Is there a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to call for a motion of
approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Better Barazza? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Chair
votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. We'll ask again if there is anyone that represents uh 822 Garden Street. And madam chair, if no one speaks, um an option is to defer it until a future
hearing date. Okay. Is there a motion? Motion to affair. There a second. Mr. Spebridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Bzazza?
Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Chair? Yes. The motion carries. It will be deferred to our next hearing which is Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025. Great.
Please, someone please notify the applicant. Yes. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to the recommendations from the subcommittee recent subcommittee scheduled for
9:30. There are there were 11 cases heard. All were approved. I'll read through them um and we will then make motion after that. Um we'll begin with case
[Music] BOA170 5409 with the address of 8 conquered street which was approved uh was approved with BPD planning
department review. Next we have case BOA 169 3892 with the address of 28A Shaman Avenue which was approved. Case
BOA69 911 Case BOA 169 9132 with the address of 150 Huntington Avenue which was approved. Then we have case [Music]
BOA1704531 with the address of 76 to 84 Oilson Street which was approved. Next we have case BOA 1695221 with the address of 43 Pre Street. This was approved with the
provisor to submit the plans to plane department for review and for the averages. Next we have case BOA 1689389 with the address of 8 Greenly
Place was approved. Next we have case BOA1564124 with the address of 21 Water Street which was approved. Next we have case [Music] BOA1612451 with the address of 1251 to
1269 River Street. It was approved. Then we have case BOA 1669983 with the address of 109 Baitman Street. Next we have case BOA
165 5919 with the address of 4014 Washington Street. And the final recommendation is case BOA16825 27 with the address of 56
Willow Street which also was approved. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations. Is there a second? I hear you. Mr.
Stebridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Vetera. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Mr. Collins. Sorry. Yes.
Miss Panado. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next we have two groundwater conservation overlay district cases scheduled for 9:30. First is first one is B case
BO8 1679628 with the address of 9 Johnny Court Ward John Johnny John Johnny Court Street I believe is the nine Johnny Court that's nine Johnny Court. Thank you, Madam Chair. If
there are any if the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain? Yes. Good morning. Uh, thank you. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project and representing the owner. It's a
renovation of an existing uh brick rowhouse on Johnny Court at the end of Johnny Court. And u the drawings you see here show the uh the building's in fairly bad condition at the moment. It's been abandoned for a while. So, we're looking to uh do a full renovation of
the building and bring it back to life. Any questions for the board? Any question? Hearing none, I'll open it up to public testimony. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Christian Simonelli, Boston Water Trust, and we have both GC card letters from the
applicants. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have Karen Chen. Please state your name and address for the record. Hi, Karen Chen. Uh, I'm the executive director for the Chinese Progressive Association. It's located at
28 Ash Street, Boston, Mass, uh, 021. Um and um you know the Chinese Progressive Association uh would like to oppose this um this uh uh Bozo. I mainly because you
know there are they have been concerns of displacement in Chinatown and we know that this building you know has been left unattended for over 5 years mainly negligence from an investor for an investor and um there are concerns and
letters of opposition from um neighboring um uh buildings um and so Johnny Court 1 357 and 9 they're connected they have share walls sewer system, fire escape. So any sort of alteration will have significant
impacts in the surrounding area and um you know especially uh seven uh Johnny Court um I believe that the owner of 7 Johnny Court has um um submitted um testimony for a position as well and
uh also Oak Street is a parallel street and that's also um you know uh underground water. So um there was really uh great concerns from budding owners and um you know so the whole idea around kind of like the you know the
ground waters to prevent deterioration of wood piles. So there are concerns for you know not just Johnny Court but Oak Street and then Harrison A and um we uh I think that 2020 2019 I think many
owners had shared you know similar concerns and we just uh got heard of this hearing last minute and uh able to uh notify some of the owners in the surrounding area has concerns. Thank you. Thank you.
There's no other hands madam chair. I'm sorry. Oh, no other hands. U can the applicant uh respond to those concerns? Yes. Yeah. My uh the client, the person who's bought the building is much interested in restoring it and well, he will do a great job. The uh we have
designed a infiltration system to recharge the soil there cuz we have those same wooden piles. We also have the same desire to maintain that uh system in good working order. and we think this project will be a great improvement and remove an ice word from
the neighborhood. Other questions from the board? I just what are the violations on this? It's a renovation. It's because we're in the groundwater uh conservation overlay district and that we are lowering basement floor by about
a foot. Right now the headroom is is very low in the basement and so any work that um like that triggers the groundwater conservation overlay district review. Understood. Other questions from the board? Yes, I
have a question. Um can you talk about the community process and how you have engaged the neighbors? Um I'm just concerned given the the previous testimony that the neighbors don't know what the solutions to these problem their concerns
are. This the particular GCOD doesn't include a community outreach part to it. So we will have to do that on our own. I'll talk to the owner and try to uh ask you know ask him to meet with the neighbors so that he can uh explain
what's happening on the project. Mr. Selli. Yes, Madam Chair and members, just a point of clarification. So, the purpose of the no harm letter is to address these concerns that are currently being raised about groundwater and the lowering of the basement and the um for
additional living space. So that the no harm letter that the applicant provided that all applicants have to provide within the G-code certifies that the below grade work will not have a negative impact on the groundwater table that there won't be any sump pumps. If they're going to be elevators that
they're going to be waterproof. This no harm no harm letter states there won't be any elevators. So there's nothing below grade that's going to have a negative impact um to their building or abing properties again. And that's what that no harm letter certifies. I just wanted to make that make that clear.
That is very helpful, Mr. Simmonelli. Thank you. And as a reminder, we we are only uh addressing GCOT. That's the only violation. Uh any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? [Music]
Go ahead. Go ahead, Norm. I think you were going to put a motion forward. Um I believe David just did. So Oh, it's David. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'll make a motion to approve. I second.
Thank you. Mr. Stebridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Better Brazo? Yes. Miss Turner? No. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss
Panado? Yes. The chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much. Next we have case BOA 1706873 with the address of 75 Blue Beck Street. If the applicant and or their
representative was present, would they please explain to the board? Uh yeah, how you doing? Uh my name is Garrett Hogan. I am the um builder and developer for this project. Good uh morning members of the board. Uh this
project is a um gut renovation of an existing uh six-unit building in East Boston. Uh the project is as of right we are in a GCOD district. So that is why we are here today um just to ensure that
we comply with all of the GCOD requirements on the project. Questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Madam chair, members of the poet, Christian Simmonelli, Boston trust, and
we have both GCOD letters from the app. Thank you. There's no other hands. May I have a motion? Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stumbr.
Yes. Mr. Valencio. Yes. Miss bedazzo. Yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you.
Next, we have the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Before we begin, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9:30 time frame. Yes, Mr. Sbridge uh 31 Notre Dame Street
please with me please. So that this request is for case BOA 168 5149 431 no truth dam street. Would you
go ahead and explain please? Yes. Thank you Mr. Sanbridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adam Barancy, business address of 1688 Street, first floor, South Boston. Um, we're asking for a short deferral as there was a revised set of plans sent in
over on this proposal well over 4 weeks ago, but we're still waiting um to get the stamp drawings back from the examiner. So again, we're just asking for a short deferral. Thank you, Caroline. Um, we could do June 24th or July 8th.
We'll take the 24th, please. Okay. May I have a motion? Motion to a federal 24th. There a second. Second. Thank you. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Better
Barazzo? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries you then. Thank you. Any further any further requests for
withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame? Hearing none, we'll go on to case [Music] BO8169 7121 with the address of 32 Chester Street. If the applicant and or their
representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? Uh yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Nick Suzula, McDermac, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley, 28 State Street here in Boston. Uh with me today
is Anat Beck Nocttagal, who is our project architect. Uh and uh from the property ownership team, 32 Chester Street, LLC, its principles, Earl Henry, and Kevin Ler. Uh if uh Madam Ambassador, if you could actually go up to the the first slide. Yeah, this is
perfect. This is helpful. Um just going to give a brief overview of the site. Uh you can see on the map uh bottom mid right there uh 32 Chester Street. It's located between Brighton Avenue and Comm. Um um 32 Chester Street LLC. The
owners also own two buildings uh consisting of 18 units across the street. Uh so they're very familiar with the neighborhood. Um you can see top left of screen, this is the existing three family uh at 32 Chester Street from Street. uh the white the white
building there. Um we are in a 3F4000 uh zoning subdist but the immediate area uh is characterized by really a mix of triple decker residential buildings uh but also larger multifamily residential structures including uh right next door
uh many of which incorporate uh belowgrade uh dwelling units or garden level apartments which is what's being proposed here. Uh, Madame Ambassador, if you skip down a few pages to page A1, uh, I think it's
A1.1. Uh, keep going one more. One more from here. Here you go. Perfect. This one right here, madam. Thank you very much. Um, this screen, uh, is on the left side. You'll see, um, the plan for the lower level. So, what's being proposed is to change this from, uh, the
existing, uh, three family to a four family. Um, this is an older uh triple- decker. So, uh, like a lot of these buildings in in many parts of the city, there's a lot of underutilized space in the basement uh, in the lower level. And so, this is unfinished space. Um, and
they're looking to propose an additional fourth unit in that space, which you could see here on the left hand side. It is a three bedroomedroom uh, two bath unit. It's a 925 square ft. And the ceiling height down there is just about 8 feet. Uh which is above the minimum
requirement of seven feet. So there's adequate ceiling height down there. Uh light and air as well. Um because uh we are proposing an expansion uh of the front common stair to that previously unfinished basement area which you can see uh on the left hand side of the
screen, but the bottom right of that basement plan shows you that common stair. Uh we're also on the left hand side you could see uh kind of top left there's an expansion of an existing window well uh to provide uh egress light and air as well into the unit. Um
this basement space will be sprinklered as a result. Uh but there will be no other changes uh to the existing building envelope or footprint. Everything else is just in the unfinished uh basement area. Uh and then if you go up a few slides madam uh ambassador uh a little bit further up.
Keep going. Uh, one, one more up, please. Uh, right here on the top left, if you could zoom in a little bit, there is a zoning summary. Um, um, but I can briefly speak to it. Uh, we do need zoning relief for the multifamily residential use. Um, which, uh, we are
again a four units and a three uh, three families zone and actually the basement dwelling unit requires zoning relief uh, under the zoning code in Brighton. These are again very very um common conditions in this immediate neighborhood. Um all
the dimensional rel relief is uh in the parking um relief our existing nonconformities. So we need additional lot area insufficient floor area ratio excessive because we uh are recapturing unfinished space in the basement. Um and off street
parking uh there are two tandem spaces but there's no availability to add more uh to accommodate the extra unit. Um but these are all existing nonconformities for the building. The F specifically at 08 is allowed. Uh.99 is what's there
now. Uh and 1.28 is what propo is what is proposed just again by recapturing um that basement uh uh space. Um and I'll just wrap up. Um we did uh hold an abut meeting on March 18th. Uh no attendees
were there. Uh no questions obviously no issues with no attendees but we did go through a presentation. Uh we did meet with the Olympic Association on April 16th. Uh there were no major questions or issues at that time. Um we did submit 11 letters of support to the board all
within an immediate radius of 32 Chester including director Butters. Uh and then I'll just note for the board as well finally that we did uh receive a planning uh department recommendation of approval uh for this project. Um, so a lot of information, Madam Chair, but in
essence, it's a pretty simple project. Um, but happy to pause here and and we can answer any questions if you have. Thank you. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony. Madame chair and board members. Good morning. S Y Johnson with
the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on March 18th of this year at which no concerns were raised. The Alston Civic Association is the active civic group in this area which is in support of the application. Our office has also received nine form
letters of support that have been forwarded to the board. With that background, we defer judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you. There's no other hands raised. Is there a motion
for a motion to second? What was the motion just to be clear? Uh motion of approval. Mr. Mr. Stebridge. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Better
Brazo. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Miss Ponado. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Next we have case
BOA 168 5123 with the address of 75 Maple Street. The applicant and or their representable present. Would they please explain to the board? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge, Madam Chair, members of
the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams of Morancey, business address of 168 Street, First Lor South Boston. Uh joining me today is the applicant Matthew Barack and as well as the project architect Treya Lariah. This is a proposal to preserve the existing
structure and erect a new vertical and rear edition to contain a total of eight units with 10 parking spaces located in the rear. One unit will be offered as affordable as through the mayor's office of a housing agreement. This is a very large parcel consisting of over slightly
over 20,000 square ft a lot size. The property is one block away from the Fairmont MBTA commuter rail station. The property also lies generally within the study area of the ongoing clarity squares and streets planning initiative. Proposal falls within a 2F5000 NDOD in
which if approved, there is a mandatory design review from the planning department. Despite a 2F subdist, the erection of a multifamily dwelling is in line with the planning goals of 2030 while increasing the city's housing stock. There will be two onebedrooms and six twobedrooms ranging from
approximately 640 ft to 1120 ft. If I could just uh Madam Ambassador direct you to page 13 of the plans. Keep going. Great. Y perfect. So this basement floor of the existing
structure will remain utilities while the basement floor of the addition is a full walk out due to the elevation grade. Changes will consist of the two bedrooms uh of the two one-bedroom units on this level. The first floor plan will consist of units three and four which
will each contain two bedrooms. Page 14, please, Madam Ambassador. The second floor will consist of units five and six which will contain two bedrooms. The third floor will consist of units seven and eight which will also contain two bedrooms. Each floor will be a carbon
copy of one another as one unit will be located on each side of the existing structure running through the addition. We have violations for use. We are proposing eight total units in a 2F subdist but the proposal is in line with the planning goals of Boston 2030 of
increasing the housing stock as well as providing more affordability home ownership opportunities. Hype we have a violation in stories and feet. The maximum building height is 2 and a half stories and 35 ft in this subd district. The existing structure does meet those limits but the addition creates the
violation at approximately 40 ft and four stories. The building is approximately 7 ft higher than the existing structure but the site slopes downward in the rear. So majority of the height is actually below grade from the street. This can be clearly seen from uh pages 16 and 18 of the drawings which
show the elevations and the drop in the grade as well. We have a parking insufficient violation. Code requires two spaces per unit and this proposal calls for 10 total spaces which is aligned with the mayor's initiative of reducing dependency on private vehicles. There is
also a violation for parking design. However, we feel that we shouldn't have been cited for such but if present uh this could be addressed during the design review phase. Uh we we lastly have a violation for open space. uh 1 1750 ft is required for each dwelling
and this proposal calls for 1627 square ft per unit which still provides ample open space for a project in the scope. Uh Madam Chair, before I turn it back over to you and the board, I would just like to notate last minute uh we received a letter of opposition uh which caught us by surprise from the High Park
Neighborhood Association uh which was supposed to take a a non uh stance on this property. The the reason why I'm bringing this up, their their letter of opposition is is derived from the fact that there was a missing violation from the refusal letter, uh, which is
inaccurate. What they're alleging, they're alleging that there was an additional, uh, lot area insufficiency. However, um under the the the zoning charts under article 69, we're considered an other use which requires 8,000 square ft of lot size which we
have over 20,000 square ft and non-applicable is is the additional lot size. So again, just wanted to clarify that for the record. Uh now I'll turn it over to the board for any questions or comments. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?
Yes. Sorry. Go ahead, Jean. I was going to just address parking. Um why 10 spaces? It looks like this is a resident parking street. So you residents could get permits and um you know why why so many parking
spaces? Yeah, Miss Mado, good great question. So uh during the abuters meeting um and again it was the original proposal, the applicant took the um initiative and was proactive before to speak in some of the abutters. The concerns that they had were was pocketing. So during the abutters meeting it was lightly attended. uh
there were no issues with the massing or the size of the project. In fact, one of Butter recommended that we provide a much larger size scale project, but parking was the big issue. They were asking us to be compliant and again trying to um balance the mayor's initiatives of reducing dependency
considering how close proximity we are to that rail station and balancing the needs of the abutters and the request for parking. We felt that 10 was a reasonable choice. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Braza. Did you have any other questions? My same
question with Okay. with Jean in regards to um parking. I you're probably aware that the BPD recommendations is advocating for less parking. Um how how do you feel about reducing it? I know that it was a concern for some of the
butters. Um but it's more of like impact on the street now that you're increasing density on the 2F5000 uh district. Yeah. No, again, you know, just we try to balance both the needs of the mayor's initiative, reducing dependency being close proximity to the the real station
and and the neighbors needs. Um, again, that's if it is decided during design review to to reduce, we do understand the planning department's recommendation, which was for approval. Um, if in fact that they do reduce the park to provide more of a permeable surface, it's not going to create a new zoning violation as we've already been
cited for it. Thanks. Let's open it up to public testimony. I actually have one question before we do. I'm sorry, Miss Connor. No worries. Um, can you talk a little bit about how many affordable units how many of the units will be affordable? Yeah. So, we will
have so the the it's 17% of any of any more than seven units that going to be erect on this property. Um, we are proposing eight units. So, we will be offering one unit as affordable. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, may I open up to
public testimony? Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Member. I am the Hide Park neighborhood community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on February 13th
that was very lightly attended whereas made inquiries regarding ownership and adding more off- streetet parking. Next, the proposal was presented to High Park Neighborhood Association on May 1st. Uh to date, our office has received one letter of opposition from the High Park Neighborhood Association stating the proposal 20,000 square ft is an
insufficient lot size requiring an additional 3,000 ft per additional dwelling unit and the proposal is insufficient by approximately 6,000 square ft. Uh we have also received one phone call in opposition again citing the lot insufficiency. Uh thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to
defer to the board with their judgment. Councelor Uh, Murphy's office. Mary Kowski. Yeah, I'm sorry. It's just unmuting. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Mary Ksky. I'm with Council Murphy's office. The council
would like to go on record in support of this project. This project would increase housing from 2 to eight units um on a 20,000 square foot lot, affordable units, and something we know is urgently needed
throughout the city. And she said at the recent butters meeting, the tone was constructive. Some neighbors expressed to the desire for even more units as long as parking was met. So, the council would like to go on
record in support. Thank you. Thank you. We have one hand raised. I'm unmuting you. Go ahead and speak. Please state your name and address for the record. It's a cell phone number.
3641445. You're unmuted if you want to speak. Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Craig Martin with the High Park Neighborhood Association. I want to clarif I want to correct and clarify the earlier testimony from for the real estate attorney. Um the lot
size. This is in the neighborhood design. This parcel is in the neighborhood design overlay district and we expect the board to have an accurate rejection letter in which in which to make a decision and the lot size is sufficiently. And we're not necess we're not necessarily requesting
an you know pressing opposition because of the lot size but we expect it to be presented immunity in their but properly the lot size table C and article 69 dictate that 5,000 for the first unit and two family 5,000 when it 3,000 for
each additional unit. Thus simple math will tell you 26,000 square ft is required and the lot size is sufficiently under size 20. We expect it to be on record. We we we requested we request a short deferral for the ISD to
present an accurate re um revi rejection letter. Uh there's they're also missing another setback there. Their their plans would show you that the parking lot overlaps the setback boundary. We are not we not um requesting that this
parking lot be reduced. We just want it to be recognized in the rejection letter. And so a short deferral because the board should have an accurate rejection letter is requested by Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There's no other hands raised. Madam Chair,
Madam Chair, would you like me to to respond? I know I did um for Mr. Craig Smith's um words. You'd like me just to just to reiterate again. Uh we are considered under the the graphical chart. We're we're considered under other use. Uh so that 5,000t lot doesn't
apply to us. Again, the lot size requirement is 8,000 square ft and no additional lot is uh is needed for this proposal as it is not applicable. So again, uh we have over 20,000 square ft. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Yeah. So you you're taking down
um a lot of greenery, a lot of trees for the addition, but I didn't hear any feedback on whether you're going to um plant additional trees. Um it it probably doesn't even fit because you're
fully vegetated at the rear. You can see in the site plan. Um but I just wanted to the for the board to note that um there's a substantial amount of trees that are being removed to incorporate the surface parking lot. Uh so no further no further comment.
Great where and Miss Ferza do um understand uh your concern surrounding the trees. Um yes um you know we feel that there's there's a there's a need for you know the the housing crisis we're rent to provide more units. However um the the applicant and owner is is willing to comply if anything
during design review suggested as far as replanting is happy to do so and work together with the planning department. Y I do see some areas at the front where that could be possible to plant some smaller trees. But thank you enough for the questions. Thank you. Is there a motion? I like I'd like to put forward a
motion um of approval with um three provisals. One that the project undergoes site planning review by the BPD. Uh second for the project to reduce its parking by two to allow for there to
be more connection to the addition at the rear to the open space at the back back. Currently, um, all of the surface parking lot is not allowing for safe kind of access to that beautiful open space at the rear. So, this this is what
I'm recommending to remove two of the parking spaces. And then um third is for the site planning uh review by the BPD to look at the preservation of also um
as much as some of the trees that are existing or the replanting uh um just to kind of offset the the additional construction that's being put on the site.
Is there a second? Uh, just a second. I think they also are required to execute. I'm sorry. The affordable unit that that was really So, the fourth provisor would be that the project also includes one affordable
unit and to undergo an agreement with Mo. Okay. Mr. Lencia, are you seconding? Second. Okay. Mr. Stanbridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia, yes.
Mazzo, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Missado, yes. Votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Great. Thank you. Next we have case
[Music] BOA1681741 with the address of 79 Redford Street. If the applicant andor their representative present, would they please explain to the board? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Sebridge. Uh Madame Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan
Spitz with Adams and Morancey, business address of 1688 street, first floor, South Boston. Uh joining me today from the development team is Anthony Monahan and Ryan Maguire. Also joining us today is the project architect Eric Zacherson. This is a proposal to raise the existing
structure and erect a new three-story building containing 12 units with 10 parking spaces. Two of those units will be offered as affordable through the mayor's office of housing agreement. The proposal falls within a 1 5000 subd district. Therefore, the use is forbidden which requires relief.
However, the surrounding neighborhood includes several larger structures along with a mix of housing typologies in this area. This is parcel consists of slightly over 14,000 square ft. The property is located4 miles away from Ashwan Station and as well as Dorchester
Avenue. The erection of multifamily dwelling is in line with the planning goals of 2030 while increasing the city's housing stock near area service by transit. There will be two onebedrooms, eight twobedrooms, and two threebedrooms ranging from approximately
840 ft for the onebedrooms to 1370 ft for the three bedrooms. If I could direct Madame Ambassador, page three, um, which will be the ground floor. Perfect. Ground floor will consist of parking for 10 vehicles, four
compact spaces, and six full-size spaces. in the rear access by re relocating the existing curb cut to the right side of the property. There will be storage for all units as well. Units one and two will be located in the front of the building which both units will be
two bed, two bath, fully accessible units. Uh if I can direct your attention, madam, page four, please. Level two will consist of units 3 through 7 containing one threebedroom, two bath, one onebedroom, one bath, and two two beds, two bath. The front two
bed and the one bed will have an office space as well. Uh again, madam ambassador, next page, please. Page five. Level three will consist of units 8 through 12 containing containing one threebedroom, two bath, one onebedroom,
one bath and two two beds, two bath. The again the front two bed and the one bed will have an office space as well. Uh we have additional violations for lot area insufficient despite the use being forbidden. The lot area requirement in this subdist is 5,000 square ft with no
additional lot requirement. It's our opinion that this proposal should not have been cited for this relief. We have a floor area ratio violation. We're proposing a 1.2 and a.5 is the maximum allowed. The proposed F is consistent with many of the other buildings found throughout the surrounding
blocks. Height. We have a we have a violation in stories but we are compliant as to the feat. The proposal calls for three stories, but again is consistent with other three-story buildings within the neighborhood. We have a front yard violation. 15 ft is the actual requirement. The proposal
calls from 15 ft to the structure, but 10 ft to the bay window projections which resulted in that violation. However, the setback is consistent with many other buildings on this street. We have a sideyard violation. 10 ft is what is required and the proposal calls for
10 ft to the structure and 5T to the sideyard decks. Again, this type of setback is similar in this neighborhood. We have a rear yard violation. A 40ft setback is compliant with the code and the proposal calls for 40 ft to the structure, but 35 ft to the decks.
Again, this type of projection are very similar within this neighborhood. We have an open space violation. As this project falls within any other dwelling or use within the 1 F5000 subdist, there is no open space requirement and we believe we should not have been cited for this. However, there is
approximately 4,500 ft of open space total uh for the proposal. And lastly, we have a parking insufficiency code requires 1.5 spaces per unit. And this proposal calls for 10 total spaces, but again is aligned with the initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles
in an area that's very close to transit. At this point in time, Madam Chair, I'm going to pass it over to you and the board for any questions or comments. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? May I 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 79 Rentham Street. Our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 2325, which was attended by about seven constituents. The primary feedback uh from this meeting was opposition regarding the proposal, citing many concerns such as
the density of the neighborhood, increased stress on parking, the oversized feeling of the building, and how it didn't feel cohesive with the neighborhood. Constituents were also very concerned with the loss of green space and trees on the property. Uh my office has also received eight letters in support regarding this proposal.
Additionally, the proposal was reviewed with the St. Mark Civic Association. The association has expressed overwhelming opposition to the proposal, noting that the proposal is far too large for the lot size and ultimately they have voted in opposition for the proposal. At this time, um the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to
defer to the board's general on this matter. Thank you. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Le council's office after hearing support from director Butters, our option like record. Thank you. Okay, we have two hands raised and
as a reminder, state your name and address for the record. We'll start with Alana. Good morning. Um, my name is Alana Wald Pope and I live at 80 Franklin Street right across the street. Um, I have spoke to Ryan personally. he has come
and introduced himself and introduced the proposal and he's been very um forthcoming about what he wants to do and living here I I totally agree. I agree that it should be
allowed. Um I think it's much needed. Um parking isn't too bad over here. This is it's a smaller street, but everybody pretty much has a driveway or parking. There is enough parking. And he's been great. Ryan's been great. been great in the neighborhood, great to us, great to
the people surrounding us, and I I am not opposed all of this. Thank you. You're welcome, Christian. Christian Highland, 17 Bruce Street. For the record, just sanity check, everyone can hear me. All right? Yes. Wonderful.
Uh, so good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Christian Highland. I'm a Dorchester resident living directly next to this proposed project. Uh you and the board voted to deny a different proposed construction for this area uh without prejudice on October 17th, 2023, and I'm asking you
to make the same decision today. Uh that previous proposal was for smaller construction that did entail even a shorter list of violations. I and my family are voicing our opposition to this proposed construction. Main areas of concern are really the decrease in natural uh light as well as a lack of
parking. Look, my wife and I take public transit to and from work, but we still require a vehicle and our neighbors own multiple vehicles in this area. Perhaps the parking is different on Rentham Street where they have driveways, but the perpendicular street, Brew Street, where we live, does not have any uh off-
streetet parking or driveways on the immediate abutters. Also, the Civics Association voted overwhelmingly uh against this proposal, and we're confident that we can find a happy middle ground for all parties. This proposed construction really just feels like the largest possible construction for this lot. Why not explore an option
that will garner full support from the community for this? It really is just a beautiful green lot that will eventually just become one giant building if this proposal is approved. I'm asking you all to think about our family, our expectations of privacy, the dozens of other residents who will be negatively
impacted by this. Uh it really is hard to get time out of your day in order to come on on a call like the us. I know that there's some folks to be able to join that weren't able to, but thank you all for and I know that we'll make the Thank you. We have two more hands.
Shane, briefly and please add more information. Hi. Um, my name is Shyen Karthy. Uh, I'm in support of this project. Uh, I know the previous person there mentioned parking, but when I saw this project, they have 14 parking spaces. Um, I think
the area is very up and cominging and I think adding more housing is is key to what we need in the city of Boston. So, um, yeah, I'm definitely in favor of this. Thank you, Daniel. So, uh, good morning. Can I Am I audible?
Yep. Yes. Uh, madam chair, members of the board, thank you for your time. Uh, my name is Daniel. I live on Florida Street. I am a director of butter. I am speaking in opposition to this project. I, um, agree with pretty much everything that Christian said earlier, so I will
not restate all of it, but I do want to reiterate that in general, this project feels like they're really just putting the largest possible building that they can onto this lot. This point was made many times both during the above meeting and during the civic association
meeting. In the latter um to my recollection, I'm paraphrasing, not quoting, the response from the proponents was, "Well, we could have come to you with a 40 unit proposal and let you talk us down to 12." To me, this shows a complete disregard for the
feelings of the neighbors. Such a large building would greatly intrude on our privacy and the open space that we have behind us and I ask that you deny the project as written. We would be happy to discuss a smaller building but not a large 12-unit building like this. Thank
you. There's no other hands. Yes. Uh so I'd just like to respond. So um we as the project team met with a lot of the abutters and as you could probably see from the letters of support from immediate brothers as well as
surrounding neighborhood there were close to 30 letters in support. So at the beginning yes um and again that's why the revised plans that you're seeing today are being presented uh the project team did work together with the abuters and in that sense in return again they have submitted close to 30 letters if
not 30 letters I can't remember the specific number that has been received by the board. Um, I'm not quite sure why Eva Jones didn't receive those from the mayor's office and it was just inadvertently um not sent to her. Uh, but again um I'm sure that someone um here can attest to that that those
letters have been submitted and added to the record uh from immediate director but the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you. Any other questions from the board hearing? None. Is there a motion? Ma madame chair um I find the the
proposal um uh very dense for the neighborhood. Um I think that you know to go to go twice uh 1.2 from the 0.5 um I find
it too excessive in terms of it density in terms of the overall uh footprint of the law for these reasons. I don't find it to be contextual. I think there could be a balance between building and open space and still provide an additional
housing. Um, for these reasons, I'm going to say uh a motion of denial without prejudice. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Stanbridge. No. Um I think they've negotiated in
good faith. Um and there seems to be a lot more support as opposed to object to Mr. Valencia. I'm going to vote no for the same reasons. I think there still the benefit of the additional housing
created uh is important for the city. Miss Benza. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes, Miss Panado.
Yes. The chair votes no. The motion does not carry. Is there another motion? Let's m make a motion of approval with planning the department review and approvise for the proponent to execute a
housing agreement with the mayor of housing for affordable affordable housing units. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Better Barazzo?
No. Mr. Turner, no. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. The chair votes yes. The motion carries. Great. Thank you. Next, we have two companion
cases. First is case BOA 16900 38 with the address of 20 Hamilton Street. Along with that case BO81681973 with the address of 20 R
Hamilton Street the applicants and or their representative are present please explain to the board. Thank you Mr. Secretary Vernal Woodworth Urban Determination LLC 9 Elizabeth Street in
Madan. Uh we'll look first at the 20 Hamilton an existing triple decker in a 2F6000 zone, 7500T lot area. Uh there is an
existing abandoned former parking structure at the rear of the property which is an eyesore and endangered. Uh 20R Hamilton has been assigned as the proposed address for two new townhouse units, one and a half stories each
uh to be used by the owner's family members. The violation for 20 Hamilton, the first of the two cases is two uh buildings on the same lot. No other work is proposed. 20 Hamilton has three existing
parking spaces. Citations for 20R Hamilton are off- streetet parking. Uh two dwellings on the same lot, excessive F, this is a point4 F zone, usable open space and side and rear yard
uh setbacks. The setbacks are actually improved over the existing structure and u there is uh the potential for one additional parking space. It has yet to be laid out. This was the major concern
in our meeting with the neighborhood association. Uh however, it's our my understanding that uh the current tenants of the triple decker do not all own cars and that some of the existing spaces are also available for future
tenants. Questions from the board? hearing. None. Ma'am, public testimony. Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Doorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which
consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on March 18th with no aboters in attendance. No concerns or inquiries were made. Next, the proposal was presented to Greater B and Geneva Neighborhood Association. And to date, our office has not received any letters regarding the proposal. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of
neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with their agenda. Are you able to speak? Brian, you've muted yourself. You're mute. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Now we can hear you. If you can state your name and address for the record and whether you're in support or
opposition. Timothy Gimmon. Uh officer, city councelor Brian Morel. Just wanted to uh state our support uh for this project and thank you uh to the group for uh continuing the community process. Thank you.
There's no other hands, Madam Chair. With that, may I have a motion? A motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia?
Yes. Miss Better Barazzo? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Chair? The motion carries. The vote. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the board.
The next case has been deferred. So that will take us to case BOA 168 5754 with the address of 34 Clemson Street. If the applicant andor their representatives are present, would they
please explain to the board? Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Mike Chavez. I'm architect representing the client. uh John and Nicole Lopkin, the owners of the unit at this uh three unit building uh address 26 Anhill Park in Dorchester.
Uh so this project is a uh an existing threeunit uh condo building in in South End. Uh the owners are the owners of the third floor unit. There's one unit per floor and they're proposing to put a bedroom uh on the uh kind of on the roof. They have the roof rights of the
building. are proposing to put a bedroom uh on the rear third of the existing roof uh to expand their livable area for their growing family. Uh the variances that are being uh requested uh actually there was a updated version of the the
letter uh a reconstruction/extension of a non-conforming building. I think when the building was originally converted to condos it was run from a commercial or industrial building to a residential building. Uh so any addition to that requires that review. Uh there is a restricted roof structure regulation in
this particular portion of Southoun. Uh this uh proposal went in front of the south and landmarks commission. They issued a letter without us seeming to be presenting for it uh stating that they were uh fine with the proposal. This was done last summer. And then also there's a uh dimensional regulation that they
they're asking for a minimum rear yard requirement of 20 feet for rear yard. However, uh residential buildings uh don't require rear yard setbacks. So, we disagreed with that um uh that that violation. Um but it's it's still listed
here. Uh so, we can go on to the next uh few plans. So, we had in the butters meeting. Uh again, there's just this is the addition there in the back third. Um we can keep going down. That's the existing condition. We're demoing a section. There's already a roof deck up there with some structure. So, we're
taking part of that down and then adding up uh the the new addition on on top of the roof at the rear third there and leaving uh sections of the existing uh roof deck and its related structure that are there. Now, again, it'll be a bedroom, a closet, and an onsuite bathroom upstairs. We're also updating
the stair to get from the main unit on the third floor up to the up to the space. Um the building's already sprinkler, so we're just continuing the sprinkler um up to that space as well. Uh we keep going down to the next slide. So we had the butters meeting. There was
some uh questions about shadows that might be presented by the addition by the uh some some uh there's some rental tenants in the building behind this behind 34 Clemson Street. So we did a number of uh shadow studies. We hosted the second of Butters meeting to be able to do our due diligence. Um the next
couple slides just showing some of the uh shadow and sun studies that we provided for the uh the tenants. No one showed up to that second of Butters meeting but it was recorded and distributed uh and folks were able to uh take a look at that and we found that essentially I think it's almost the
second to last slide on here uh that is the uh impact in the winter was only about 20.25% 25% uh with any negative uh sun impacts and then also in the summer it's about.16% of an impact. Um so not not very much at all not with this
addition on the roof. Um and I will stop there. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Have you um met with the landmark commission and um for any kind of design feedback? We were outside of any
landmarks review needs. We did the South End Landmarks Commission did we did submit it to them last summer and they did review it as an admin review and approved it as it was since we weren't violating any uh height restrictions from the zoning side of things. Um so they they didn't ask us to come into
present on it. They issued a letter stating that they were fine with what we were proposing. Okay, great. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Other questions from the board here? None. Mayor's public testimony. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Abby Jones representing the mayor's office of
neighborhood services regarding 34 Clipton. Our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including two of Butter's meetings held on to 425 and 32625. The first meeting was attended by about three constituents and had and the
second had no attendees. The primary feedback from the first meeting was concerns about the roof line of the property and the shadows being cast on an artist's loft adjacent to the property. Additionally, the proposal was heard or additionally the proposal heard the community concerns and conducted a
shadow study uh and requested a second meeting to present the negligible effects the proposal would have to to its neighbors. The civic association was also notified about the proposal but declined to meet with the applicant considering the minor nature of the project. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers
to the board's general on this matter. Thank you everybody for your time and consideration. Thank you. There's no other hands raised. With that, is there a motion? [Music] Um, Madam Chair, I'm going to put for a
motion of approval with BPD design review. There second. Mr. Spebridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Benza, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr.
Collins, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Okay. Thank you for your time. Next, we have case BOA [Music] 1575425 with the address of 62 L Street.
The applicant and or their representative are present. they please. Hi. Um, my name is David Luciano. I'm here today as owner and applicant for BOA575425. Uh, submitted for the
property located at 62L Street, South Boston, a three family home, one unit on each floor, which I own with my partner Andrew Army, also in attendance. I appreciate your time today. Uh we're here because uh the uh
proposal is to build uh rebuild an existing rear staircase on the back outside part of the building and construct a new roof deck on the topmost roof. Um the stairs violate side and rear arc restrictions and we're seeking
a variance for that. Additionally, a violation for the restriction in the roof deck must be via a roof hatch, which we're also seeking a variance for. Um, while we originally prepared to present today, uh, given the length of time since the last meeting in July of
2024, we've been asked to, uh, defer today in an effort to conduct a third of meeting before returning to the board. We will respect the request to do so if the board agrees. Uh we want to ensure that we follow the necessary protocols in an effort to
maintain good relations with our community um and defer to the board on next steps. Got it. Okay. What um time frame are you looking for? Uh do you have early August?
Caroline, we do August 12th. Uh that would that would work for us. Okay. Is there a motion? Make a motion to defer this case until August 12th. Is there a second? Second.
Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Berza? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Chair votes? Yes. The
motion carries. We'll see you then. Next we have case BOA 1691822 with the address of 688 East Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Yes. Good morning madam chair, members
of the board. Mark Lass Lass law 75 Arlington Street in Boston representing the proponent. Also with me is Julian Miller, who is an owner's representative and the project manager for this project. Um, this proposal is to change the occupancy from an existing two
family to four family by adding a third floor to the building and converting uh underutilized basement space into a living unit. I would note that the conversion from 2 to 4 is multif family
and this is in the multif family residential subd district. So the use itself is an allowed use. Um the addition of the third floor as noted in the planning department memo is entirely consistent with the context of the neighborhood and although there is a
conditionally use permit required when you are adding a structure on the roof of an existing building under article 68. Um the third floor is within the height limit which is 40 ft in this subdist and this proposal is 35 ft. So
the third floor is within the height limits of the MFR subdist. Um also adding three porches to the rear of the building for each of the units to have usable open space um together with a
landscaped rear yard area. The basement has a sliding door with a walk out condition at the rear of the building given the some slope of the land back there. There are also windows on both sides of the foundation uh to create a
very nice basement space. Also, the ceilings in the basin are 9 ft high and as noted in the planning department memo, the egress is code compliant and the building is fully sprinklered and has a fire alarm system throughout as
part of the renovations. Um, the rear decks create the rear yard insufficiency. Um the required setback is 20 ft but the edge of the rear deck is uh 11 ft 10 in from the adjacent
property line. But also as noted in planning department memo this is along a stretch of second street which is somewhat industrial and a buffer between um some industrial uses and residential uses and there's not much of an impact
on any of the others. Um the lot itself was a combination and subdivision of a much larger parcel owned by Yankee Bus Company um of which this property is a subsidi owned by a subsidiary. Um there are two existing
parking lots on either side of the building and the lot combination and subdivision is creating a lot for the residential building and seven parking spaces for the four units. And under the code here, six spaces would be required.
So we just have one extra. But again, as noted, those are existing parking spaces and no additional paving is being conducted to create the parking spaces. Um uh lastly, I'd note that the planning department memo recommends approval and
following our community review process, a revised set of plans was submitted removing the roof deck from the um from the top floor of the of the new addition. And following the removal of the roof deck, we are not aware of any
opposition um to this proposal. And with that, I'll happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the board? Can you go over the parking again and and sort of the ratio that you're
suggesting? Yes. Um so under article 68 the requirement is 1.5 per dwelling unit. So that would be a total of six and we're proposing seven which is one extra. But if we go to the site plan um
you'll see that the the parking is already existing. [Music] Um, no. Scroll down a couple more. Yeah, here we are. Right here. So the you can see the existing parking lot
is quite large and the right hand image shows that dotted line is the portion of the subdivided lot and the combination with the house parcel to create parking for this building. But the parking is already there. It's part of a much
larger surface parking lot owned by Yankee Bus that is being subdivided to attach this house. We have one extra space uh than the code requires which is six. We're doing seven. Yeah. But it's a it's a very industrial
area and um with a real lack of green space. So was there any thought to sort of add any kind of permeable space or green space? Yep. So you see there in the red circle in the back that's the area behind the patio area for the
basement unit. So there's green space which is common area. The basement unit has its own patio and then each of the three units on the upper floors are getting large open decks for outdoor space for each of the dwelling units.
Yeah. How big is that green space? Uh the area beyond the patio is 300 ft. 300 ft. It's pretty decent little little pocket there in an otherwise industrial area. trying to maximize both, you know, the comfort of each of
the dwelling units and again the the balance of neighborhood wanting parking. Parking is very tight in South Boston. It's already there. Six are required, seven opposed. We thought it was a reasonable proposal. Thank you. Thank you.
Other questions from the board? Then public testimony. Madame chair and board members C. Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abunders meeting on March 27th at which concerns were raised about the proposed
roof deck on the proposal. Uh the petitioners committed to removing the deck. There were no other concerns raised at the meeting. Uh the Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in non opposition to this proposal. With that background, we defer judgment to the board. Thank you. Good good morning, Madam Chair and
members of the board. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and good faith compromises with neighbors and civic groups on removal of the roof deck. Councelor Flame respectfully requests that the development team continue to work closely with neighborhood on any quality of life
issues to limit construction. Thank you. And there's no other hands, Madam Chair. M Madam Chair, can I ask another question? I'm sorry. Question just for clarification. I'm try I was trying to wrap my head around with the existing parking space. Um Mark, um so the the
boundaries um are to those eight parking spaces that you said it's existing and it belongs to this residential structure. Um what happens, you know, you're you're a lawyer and is only lawyer. what
happens in the future. Um if that parking lot wants to be developed um uh but those parking spaces kind of are with that structure um uh is there you know how did they get
preserved or Yeah. Sorry have your question. Nope. So that you know I'm looking I'm trying to you know you're getting the parking ratio is you know it's fine. You don't necessarily need a variance per se. Um so I I just I'm
trying to preserve like that ownership of parking to that structure and and thinking through in terms of future development what can happen. You know just because you're surrounded by all this open land is going to balance happen certainly. So just like we had to
do to create this parcel um in Boston subdivision and combination of lots is not controlled by the state subdivision control law but rather it's controlled at ISD as a building permit application process. So you have to submit a
building permit application to propose a lot combination and or subdivision and it requires ISD to review it and to site it for any zoning violations. So, for example, in the future, addressing your hypothetical concern, if someone came
along and said, "Ah, look at this open space parking lot that goes to this um building next door, let's just subdivide the lot." That would draw a raft of oppos of citations from ISD on an application to subdivide because it would be it would render the residential
lot non-compliant in terms of parking. So it would have to come back before this board and this case obviously would be part of the record and you could point to this case and say okay it's up to then our board in the future that we can look at that as a case by case to
see if it can be um another proposal can occur. Okay, you answer. Yeah, in short, any subdivision would require approval of both ISD and this board because it would create zoning violations, right? And and also the owners of the property would would have a say in in that
process. Okay. Thank you so much, Mark. My pleasure. Thank you. May I have a motion? Yeah. So, with that, um, Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr.
Stebridge. Yes, Mr. Valencia. Yes, Miss Better Braza. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Miss Mr. Collins. Yes, yes, Chair votes. Yes. The motion
carries. Thank you kindly. Next we have case BOA 169 5168 with the address of 469 East 33rd Street. If the applicant andor their
representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Simbridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey, business address of 168 Street First Lor South Boston. Uh joining me today is the applicant
Anthony Monahan and the project architect Mick Landry. The proposal here is is seeking to erect a new three-story single family dwelling with groundf flooror garage for two vehicles on a vacant lot consisting of approximately 1369 square ft which is a pre-existing
non-conforming use. Uh the proposal falls within an MFRLs subdist. U madame ambassador if I could direct you to page six the ground floor please. Okay. Um, if we could keep scrolling. I'm sorry. I might have the wrong page. Or
go back. You know what? We could just go back up. That would be great. I'm sorry. This is a little bit different from the the plans that we had in there. Um, great. One more. One more up. Nope. You had it. So page Yep. So page six on these on on
this set right here, please. Thank you. Yeah, I'm I'm not quite sure. So I think the other drawings were were accurate on on it. Um just the page numbers are slightly off, but if you could just keep scrolling through and I'll just go through this a single family. Um and I'll just discuss a little bit. So um ground floor will
contain parking and approximately 162 ft of living space. Uh second floor will contain one bedroom, two bath, an open concept living room, kitchen and dining room. Um third floor will contain three additional bedrooms, two baths, and a
laundry room. Yeah. So that's that's the ground floor. Um and then just if you keep scrolling down, we'll get to the second floor, then the third floor, um which we just went through. And then um the following page will be the actual Yep, there's the third floor plan. And if we go to the next page, will be the
roof plan, which we're on now. The roof will contain a small roof deck of approximately 350 square ft accessed by a rear spiral case. Um, next page please. These are the elevations in which you'll notice each floor has small decks that will also be used for egress
in the rear. We have violations for floor area ratio as the proposal calls for a 1.87 as compared to what is compliant in an MFL MFRS subdist at a 1.5 but is aligned with the neighborhood's floor area ratios. uh consistent as well. Uh we have a
sideyard violation. Three feet is required by code. This structure will be built on the property lines on both sides. If approved, design review can adequately ensure proper light and air for the abuing neighbors. Uh we do have a rear yard violation. The rear yard requirement is 15 ft. As this proposal
falls within the shallow lot exception, the stairwell primarily used for egress is proposed to be built to the rear property line. Therefore, it is our opinion that a variance is appropriate in this instance. However, we understand the planning department's recommendation on this type of setback and if approved,
it can be addressed during design review. Um, at this point in time, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to to you and the board for any questions or comments. Thank you. Quick question. One of your butters looks like they have windows on their side and this appears to be like right up against them. What
What is the what? Yeah. So, so their their windows are not up to the actual property line, but our building is and our our building won't on that side that the butter has windows. Our building does not have the windows there. Questions from the board.
But how much space is there between your building and those windows? Um I'm going to have to defer to um the project architect Nick Landry um on there um as far as the actual distance between the space. But again, um, those type of issues can actually be addressed during
design review to factor in more for light and air for the neighbors. Thanks, Ryan. Um, yeah, I think we're when we're looking at the building, it's the building on the right that has the windows figure. Yes. So, those windows are actually Yeah, they're too close to
the property line today. The owner of this property also owns the neighboring property. Those windows are in a in a common staircase, so we're going to just be removing them. I see. Okay. Other questions from the board? Yes. Um, in regards to access to the
roof deck, um, is that a common roof deck for all the units? This is only one unit. Um, Miss Ber Barza, it's a single what? It's only one unit. It's a single family structure, right? So, um, it is possible to have roof deck access from
the last unit at the top. Yes, it would it would it would be possible. Okay, great. Thank you. And another question a question about the the deck. Um are the stairs built right to the property line? Yes, where
where the decks where the spiral staircase comes out and comes directly onto the actual property line itself. And again, um that's what the planning department's recommendation was to review that um actual setback as well. Okay. May I have public testimony? Madam
Chair and board members, CD Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on March 26th at which there were three supporters and no concerns were raised. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in non opposition. With that background, we
defer judgment to the board. Thank you. Madam chair and members of the board, councelor Flynn would like to go record. Oh, sorry. I'm reading the other one. Sorry. Okay. Good morning, Madam Chairs and members of the board. Councelor F would like to go on record in opposition. This is a project he would
normally like to support as a single family and two parking spaces. However, in this case, he has a long-standing policy against the presence of the roof deck due to the quality of life concerns that it causes in the community. Thank you.
There's no other hands raised. Madam, um Madam Chair, if I could just respond to that and just just just remind every board that council Flynn, all due respect to Council Flynn, um Flynn's approach is is a blanket statement regarding roof decks. Um and again, um I think it's a good reasonable project as
she said that he would like to support. However, I just don't think it's just to um oppose an entire project based upon a blanket statement of opposition on roof decks throughout the entire South Boston neighborhood. Thank you. Any other questions from the
board? May I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a a motion of approval uh with a provisal that the access to the roof deck is from the interior uh third level. Um and that
it the project undergo BPD design review to review um the extension of the of the rear deck. Is there a second? Second. Second. Mrs. Simbridge.
Yes. Mr. Valencio. Yes. Miss Bzo? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.
Before we go to the case for the last case of the 9:30 hearings, um, we'll ask, and since it's past 11:00 a.m., we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:00
a.m. hearing. Yes, Mr. Secretary, Attorney Joseph Feaster, 75 and 86 Marthella Street. So those would be two companion cases. The first being case BOA
170 4660 with the address of 75 Marcelo Street. Along with that we have case [Music] BOA170 4664 with the address of 86 Marcelo
Street. Would you go ahead and please explain attorney feast? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Madame Madame Chair, members of the board, Joseph Faster from the law firm of Dane Torpy, um 175 State
Street, um I'm thinking my old office, 175 Federal Street of Boston. Uh I'm here as the attorney for the applicant and at the request of demand's office of housing because of discussions that they
are having with the Butters about some issues around parking. They have requested of my client that this matter and I beseech the board um and encourage the board for a deferral of this hearing
if possible until June 3rd. Caroline, is that the Yes, it is. Do Okay, with that, uh, we have a motion. Make a motion to defer this case until June 3rd. The second. Mr. Stebridge.
Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Benab Brazza. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes, Miss Bonado. Yes, chair votes. Yes, the motion carries. See you then. Thank you very
much. Members of the board, if there are no further requests for withdrawals of deferrals from the 11:00 a.m. hearings, we'll return to the last case of the 9:30 hearing, which is case BOA1692098 with the address of Fort
Liberty Square. And this is also an article 80 case. So if the applicants and their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Uh hello members of the board. Greg
McCarthy uh here for Ford Liberty Square. Uh should I go ahead? Uh yes, please proceed. Sorry. Um so we're here uh today we have a a building sevenstory
building at for Liberty Square which we have applied to participate in the uh office to residential pilot program. Um so the proposed project is uh the conversion of floors 2 through 7 from
offices to 36 apartments. Um, and the ground level would stay. It's currently a restaurant bar. Um, and that would stay as the same use. Um, there aren't any violations on
this project, but we do need approval for uh ground GCOD, groundwater conservation, and uh coastal flood resiliency for seafood. Um, we had the
uh the Boston water and sewer plan approved in the letter of no harm uh and have taken steps to meet the coastal flood resiliency. [Music] U overall it's a we're hoping that it's
a a great uh project for the neighborhood. Um it's going to provide six uh affordable homes. Um all those are IDP. Um and that is basically the
overall overall project. Thank you. Questions from the board. [Music] Mr. Simonelli. Good morning madam chair, members of the board. Christian Simmonelli, Boston Grower Trust and we have both GCOD letters from the applicant.
You Thank you, Mr. North. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. Dylan Norris. I'm a project manager with the development review division of the planning department. Uh as well as the project manager for the proposal before you today. Uh proponent
team for for Liberty Square uh filed a small project review application under article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code on December 9th, 2024. The public comment for this filing was open until January 13th, 2025, in which the planning department hosted a virtual public
meeting via Zoom on January 7th, 2025. The public meeting was advertised in local newspapers and posted to the planning department's calendar, and an email notification was sent to all subscribers of the planning department's downtown distribution list. The project
was reviewed for its compliance with the coastal flood resiliency overlay district and then brought before and approved by the BPDA board on February 13th, 2025. I'm happy to answer any questions uh for members of the board may have related to the article 80
review process. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Par. Good morning madam chair members of the board from councelor Kolaata's office. At this time the council would like to go and support of this project. Thank you. There's no other hands raised madam
chair. Okay. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? I'm sure motion approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stanbridge.
Yes. Mr. Vinska. Yes, Miss Bter Browson. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes, Miss Ponado. Yes. Chair Moses, yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much.
[Music] Next, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 11:00 a.m. We'll start off with KC BOA 1688 6 with the address of 19 Sheshshire
Street. If the applicant andor their representative present, will they please explain to the board? Yes. Hi everyone. Uh hello Madam Chairperson and and hello to the board. Um, thanks for having me today. Um, we are here today requesting um, a variance
uh, in order to remodel our attic in Jamaica Plane at 19 Cheshire Street uh, on the right side unit. Um, we're seeking relief for an excessive uh, floor area ratio under article 55. And our our goal of this project is really to expand our living space for use by our own family uh, so that we can
continue to live and contribute to the Jamaica plane neighborhood. I'm a pediatrician, my husband's a doctor at the Veterans Affairs Hospital. We have two young kids uh in the Boston public schools and are looking to expand our space uh to live into. Um a key part of this project is that it will not include
any exterior work to the building. Um there's no increase in the living area other than what's inside the current shell of the building and the building uh is currently owner occupied uh and will remain as such uh with this change. This uh the attic that we currently have
uh in our unit had been built with the possibility of expansion if it were ever permitted by the city of Boston and already has the windows uh needed on the gable ends of the attic where we will be uh hoping to build uh bedrooms. And again, just to be very clear, no exterior work is going to be performed
here. Um if you could scroll down to what I believe is the third page, uh that's it. Um what you can see is on the left the existing floor plan which is basically um uh just to orient you there are two units here in our building. They are side by side left and right units
that are mirror images. This is the top uh current floor of our building um listed here on the left and on the right uh you can see what we propose to do with our side of uh the top floor which is to build out the attic space into
livable space. Um this will generate um uh 477 square feet of uh new livable space. Um uh again without adding on to the building, just using the space that's already inside the shell. Uh and
we'll make this a a um a building or rather a uh a floor plan that has two additional bedrooms and a bathroom added. One uh bedroom is viewed at the top of the image. Uh another bedroom small in the bottom right. and then a bathroom uh sort of in the the middle
bottom of the uh the image. Um we have support from our abuters. Uh our immediate abuters in the other unit that you see pictured um here uh have provided a letter of support that we provided to uh the zoning board. And then we also have uh letters of support
from uh butters that immediately look onto our unit, including uh individuals at 14 Cheshure Street immediately across the street, 22 Cheshure Street immediately across the street and 23 Cheshure Street, which is the building sort of next to ours that uh that faces
ours. Um and uh we I believe have also received some additional support from Abutters um that have contacted the city directly. Um thanks so much for the opportunity to present today. I'm happy to answer any questions about the project. Thank you so much. Are there
questions from the board? May I have public testimony? Madam chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Jamaica Plane community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an employers
meeting facilitated on March 12th. The proposal was very wellreceived with no concerns raised during the meeting. Next, the proposal was presented to Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council on April 2nd where they voted to support uh the proposal. And to date, our office has received one letter of support. Thank you for your time and the
mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with a Thank you. There's no other answer, Madam Chair. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a
second? Second, Mr. Stumbrbridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Bazzarazzo. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Miss Ponado. Yes.
Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. The abstension. Thank you. Next we have case BOA [Music] 1634773 with the address of 22 Evelyn Street is the applicant and their
representative present. Yes. Yes. Mr. Stri. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of board. Attorney Derek Small. I have a business address at 51 Doppson Road. Uh with us on the call today is the owner of the property, Mr. Jose Bney. And today we're here seeking relief to
erect a building for five residential units with five parking spaces on a vacant lot. Um the zoning subdist here is a 36000. Um and our lot size is uh 6,50 square ft. Um however the zoning
has changed in Matapan and this is now in an R2 uh zoning subdist. Um, this application and this proposal was submitted to the inspection services department prior to the zoning change.
So, there's been a lot of back and forth with regard with the city with regard to um which um zoning subdist it was going to fall under um because again it was applied for prior to the zoning change
in in in Madapan. So, our proposal again is for five units um on a on a vacant lot. Um the units will be condominiums, home ownership. Um they consist of two bedroomedroom, two baths at about approximately 1,200 square
ft. Um the length of the lot is approximately 150 square ft. The length 150 feet and the width of the the lot is uh 42 uh feet which is a pre-existing non-conforming because under the zoning for both the lot width requirement would
be 50 ft. Um we can stop there and open it up to any questions the board may have. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Uh Shila Del Tilton um made a comment
regarding uh the roof deck and the accessibility issue on that. Can you just walk us through how uh your roof deck is accessible? I if I recall um the plans show a head house on the
top of of of the building. So it would be a staircase up to um the head house but madam madam bit Barazza we are open to uh hatch access as well that yeah so I think I think with multi-unit um
residential if it's a common roof deck you need to provide accessibility meaning like an elevator um so it's this is more we're we're reviewing zoning issues but it's something that uh your architect would need to look at. Okay,
understood. No, no further questions. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Public testimony. I don't Oh, yes, ma'am. Um, I want to go back to parking. Um, there was a concern about screening and buffering around the parking area, maybe
shrubs or something. Can you speak to that, please? Sure. So, one of the things that we had um discussed um in meetings was you know hiring a landscape architect to do some screening and buffering around the
parking which is located in the rear of the property and it will be can levered the the first row be caned over the over the parking in the rear. So, we will we will be doing uh plantings plantings um by hiring a landscape architect and
doing screening and buffering um around the parking. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board hearing? None. We have public testimony. Yes, madam chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services.
At this time, the mayor is offered to defer to the judge for this board. some background information on the community process. Uh ONS hosted an abutters meeting on April 19th, 2023. Uh due to some personnel changes, we don't have a ton of information from that abutddish meeting. Uh the applicant was connected
to the civic association's Wellington Hill. Um Wellington Hill ultimately voted to not support the proposal uh citing concerns with height and density um as well as uh they felt it did not fit in with the character of uh mostly three families on that street. Uh we
also received an opposition letter from the Greater Madapan Neighborhood Council. Uh with that information, we'll defer to the board. Thank you. Thank you. Are they raised hands? There is no other hands raised right now. Chair, if I may,
just in response to the height of the building, we still we are at three stories. Make sure we go through. We have one hand raised. Okay. I'm sorry. No. Um, I own the property directly behind it and I noticed that in the
Abutters meeting the the architectural drawing showed my garage and in this particular one my garage is not being shown, but the garage of the property directly
beside it. I believe that is where the um current owner purchased it from. And my concern has been about the parking in the rear up against my property line because
my property line is about 4 ft behind my garage and I feel like their parking is encroaching on that and I made that clear in the abuters meeting but evidently
um Mr. Connor just said that there isn't a lot from that abuters meeting. So I don't know what happened with that. So, I just feel like that's why I'm here to make sure um as the owner of 27 Clarkwood Street, which abuts up against the back of 22 Evelyn Street,
um that that 4 ft behind my garage, which is not shown, um has been taken into account because it didn't look like that in the Abutters meeting drawings. It looked like it went all the way up against my garage. And I know I have 4
feet behind my garage. Great. Thank you. Let's Are there any other raised hands before the applicant addresses that question? No, there isn't. Mr. Small. Yes. And so we we did have uh several conversations in there about as many and
we had um you know conversations with Mrs. Clinton, excuse me. Um with regard to the space behind um separating the properties in the rear. Um again we are we are going to be planting you know our trees and but there is adequate space
between her property and um where the parking will be in the in the rear of the property. So can you just uh remind us what is the space between just so that we're you bring up the plan I think it's approximately
the it's like seven 7 ft. Okay. Are there other questions from the board? If it shows, can you confirm the height of the building? The height of the building I believe is at three stories 38 ft. But
um I would imagine 35 ft is required for height, but you weren't seems like you weren't flagged for that variance. Is your architect on? I don't but I don't believe so. Jose Jose Felony was the owner of the
property worked directly with the architect on that. Um I don't know if he has a comment on that. Jose, are you available? I believe it's I think the extra um height is being measured to the head house.
I mean, it's an IED. Uh, well, actually, it's it is a zoning issue. Is Caroline on? Yes. Hi, Caroline. The project was not um flagged for any height violations. Is that correct?
I believe so. I'm looking at the what was cited right now. Okay. I'm looking at uh both of the uh refusal letters. Um Madam Bad Raza and height
was not cited on either uh because they did issue two refusal letters. one with regard to the old zoning which is a 3M6000 subd district and the new zoning which is the R2 in Mata pen and neither
have stated um a violation for for the hype. I can I'm looking at both of them right now. Okay. Um I'm just going to speak on what you've been cited so I don't have any further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the [Music]
board? May I have a motion? Um, I'll make a motion for approval with um planning department design review with special attention to the design of that off- streetet parking. Is there a second?
Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Bavarza. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Miss Ponado. Yes. Chair votes yes. The
motion carries the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Have a good day. Next, we have case [Music] BOA1704816 with the address of 226 Magnolia Street. If the applicant and or
their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Uh, good morning, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Mike Ross, attorney from the law firm at Prince Lobell with the business address of one international place. And I'm here today with architect
Steven Kaufman on behalf of the petitioner Shanty Acquisitions LLC and manager Solomon Shaduri, a Dorchester resident. Madam Ambassador, this is a good slide just to sit at for a second. Uh so this project
began as a 28 unit building in November of 2021 and now after four appearances before this board uh and eight public meetings uh we have something I believe that works um and I would add has been
recommended by for approval uh by the Boston planning. Um the most current proposal is a five townhouse plan each with a garage parking space uh to be sold as individual uh condominiums.
on this slide here which is the existing conditions photo. Uh just to refresh the board's recollection and also for the new member. Uh this is an existing one-story 11 bay garage that spans
almost the entire length of the property, the 125 ft deep property uh and sits next to an existing six-unit structure that is roughly the same size uh or height rather uh as what's being proposed. There's an easement on the
shared driveway where you can see in the right hand photo uh where the red car is approximately within the easement and the white car is approximately outside the easement. Boston Planning's recommendation included the note that uh this project would help further the
city's goals of increasing the housing stock by proposing smallcale residential infill development on land that previously was used solely for parking as as is here. Uh next slide please Madame Ambassador. Uh I'm going to bring
up the site plan here. Um and so to orient you the uh Magnolia Streets at the top of the page uh and the proposed structure if you look very closely maybe you zoom in just a teeny bit uh is the black hashed rectangle uh which is shown
on top of the existing 11 bay garage which is shown here as the gray hashed rectangle and then to the right uh is that shared driveway between uh 226 Magnolia and 220 Magnolia. And I would just point out
that there is a 16.3 ft setback from the building to the property line of 220 Magnolia where only 10 ft is required. So a extra setback to create space for
the abuing property on 220 Magnolia. The biggest change here from when I last appeared in front of the board in October of last year was uh the pulling back of the rear of the building uh something we heard from both the Boston planning as well as the board um to
support a fully compliant rear yard setback uh from the abuing Salon Park, city of Boston Park which is behind it. And then, you know, as you can see in the green oval, there's it's 30 feet now, which is consistent with required zoning and substantially improved from
the garage that sits there right now, uh, which is only a couple several feet from the property line. Next slide, please. Uh, uh, next slide, actually, page seven, please. Thank you. So, here's the floor plan. uh at the top uh
shows unit units one through five with unit one on the right hand side closest to Magnolia Street. Uh you can see that there is now uh an entrance to unit one on the front of the building which was not previously there accessible from
Magnolia Street side. And then at the bottom you'll see uh second floor units uh showing the kitchen, half bath, living, dining room, and you can see right off of unit one a Juliet
balcony which is now facing Magnolia Street create additional penistration. Unit one is a 1300 square ft unit which doesn't include the garage. So larger with the garage. Units 2, three, and four are 1325 square ft and unit five is
1330 square ft. Next slide, please, Ambassador. So, continue on the floor plans. These are now showing the third and fourth uh floors. The third floor includes two bedrooms and a full bath. Um, and there are now windows facing Magnolia Street. And at the lower uh
plan shows that fourth and final floor. Uh it's a partial floor uh which steps back again from 220 Magnolia. Um and uh it contains the main bedroom and the the bath and it provides a small outdoor
area for the residents. I would note that here we have a deck only at the bedroom level and not at the main living level. And generally any kind of activity on a deck at the bedroom level is substantially less than say a deck
that fronts off of a main living area where all the uh uh participants can access. Uh next slide please. These are the elevations I'm showing you. This is the front elevation. So here what we have is uh it's it's approximately 42
feet at the roof beam uh and it steps down with each unit following the grade with the last two units being just at and just below the allowed zoning height of 35 ft measuring 35 ft and 34 ft
respectively from the sidewalk. And this profile also shows at the right you can see a simple awning off the front of the building. um as well as that protruding Juliet balcony. Again, just to create um a presence of the front of the building,
something we heard uh last time from the board. Next slide, please. Uh here is the rear elevation. I'll just point out that there uh is a back door to each of the units which will provide access for the trash and the recycling. And then uh the next
slide, please. uh the the uh right elevation no the the elevation on the on the on the left is the magnolia yeah I'm sorry magnolia facing
um street side facing uh elevation and you can now see substantial fenestration along the building the door the windows balcony uh to liven up uh that front front door if you will. And then in the
back you'll see um again additional fence. You also see uh two protruding bays at the second floor. All to take advantage of the um you know the views of Saleon Park which are just behind it but 30 now 30 ft from the property line.
Uh can the next slide will show you uh kind of with the rendering of what it will look like. uh basically and you know this is also showing pvious pavers uh along the entry and then
um planter boxes both along the front of the building and also in between each of the units. And then um if you just want to quickly um mad ambassador go through slides 13 to 19. I just wanted the board to to be able to see uh some of the
nearby buildings. There are variety of nearby buildings that um that just there's a there's a whole bunch of mambassor if you want to just scroll uh to the next slides. Yeah, maybe just one at a time beginning with
um slide 13 and go to slide 19. These are these are just a smattering of the nearby buildings that show different shapes, sizes, configurations, all multif family. Um maybe with the exception of that one building on the
left. All the others are six uh unit structures. Um some might be adjoining. Um some are wood, some are brick, some are uh rowhouse, some are traditional apartment. Um you get the picture. And then there's a map at the end that just shows its proximity to the to the to the
proposed project. Um, if you want to just scroll to the end there, Madame Ambassador, here's another couple types of bill. You have the double stack triple decker on the right. You have the rowhouse. You have the apartment building. Next slide, please. You know, you have very
different kind of types of buildings. Next slide, please. a lot much larger buildings very nearby. Um some larger projects uh I think a small project review by BBDA. Next slide please. And then these are just where
they're present uh based on the the project. And then just quickly um chair I'll just go through the zoning if Mbassor if you want to just go back to the slide one that that has the that should have the zoning refusal. Um, so we have the insufficient lot per unit.
Uh, this is, you know, we're in a three4,000. So it's an additional 2,000 square ft per unit over two. So that'll be three additional. So that would be 6,000 required. We have 5,775 ft. F in this subd district is8.
We are at 1.14. Number of stories are at three. We are at four or technically just below four because it's a partial but four nonetheless. Um the max height is at 35. We are at a maximum of 42 and then we
step down. Open space requirement for this subdistrict is 650 per unit and we've gotten uh as close as ever with um of all the other proposals. We're now at 426 uh open space per unit. Front yard is
either 20 or modal. Uh, we were cited for this, but we are extremely close to the modal. We're at 2.6. Uh, the sideyard. Sideyard. I don't know why we got cited for that. I kind of had a debate with the plans examiner on that one. But sideyard, you can have 5t and
10 ft on either side. Plus, as long as you're not within 10 ft of the nearest building, which we're not, but um we're at 5t and 16 feet, as I mentioned, over 16 feet on both sides, but we were cited
for that. So, Uh and then use um so the use we would be allowed three plus one for conditional and we are four we are five so instead of four we're five which is considered multif family and so we recited for the use I'll pause right
there and see if there are any questions at chair thank you other questions from the board can you go over what's happening in the rear yard yeah maybe the site plan is the best to to do that Um, but the rear yard is is
30 ft. There's no parking in the rear yard. The rear yard is all um grass and it's um open space. So maybe the next slide there will show you, Madam Ambassador. There you go. The oval if you want to
just zoom in a bit. And are you you're taking down trees to build this? Are you planting new trees? No trees um are being taken down for this. There are no trees on the lot. Um Okay. We could build trees. We absolutely
could. Yeah. I mean, back the plan here was just to keep it open. There was a note in the Boston planning that, you know, work with design review and try to figure out landscaping a little tighter, but you know, we're happy to include trees if that's something the board desires.
Thank you. Any other questions from the board? I mean, it it looks like you're just working with the existing kind of um asphalt type of driveway. Uh you know, you do have a very wide, you know, 16 foot three. And so, I think I think what
BPD is probably looking at is are there ways to not, you know, you're it it's cost effective to work with existing, but are there kind of other ways to do that aisle so it doesn't look like it's half of the property? Um, so I do agree
with some of the the comments from BPD on that. Yeah, member Bever, I understand the comment as well. Um, if you go to the site plan, uh, you have this 8ft easement, uh, that allows the other property at 220 to access the driveway.
So, it's a shared driveway, right? I mean, you make it pvious, which is helpful. Um, but I think you can work with BPD on other kind of landscape strategies to not make that look so um uh you know to kind of driveway aisle per
sees residential maybe a strip or some sort of landscape. Yeah, we'll we'll leave that to site planning. Great. Thank you. May we have public testimony? Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Roxbury community engagement
specialist for the office for neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of three abutters meetings facilitated on May 22nd and December 19th of 2024 and March 12th of this year. The first meeting was met with heavy opposition from majority of abutters. A major concern voiced was the
size of the project stating it is too large for the neighborhood. Other concerns voiced were congestion, parking, rodents and the surrounding foundation. The second and third meeting of voters are still openly opposed to the project saying the size of the project for the lot is too large. Environmental concerns such as water
runoff, privacy, driveways allowing light to the neighborhood uh the neighbors homes and the immediate and butter concern for privacy with the building overshadowing her home with one suggestion to construct the four units that is permitted under the zoning code. Next, the proposal was presented to the
Roxbury Neighborhood Council who voted to oppose the proposal. To date, our office has received 15 letters of opposition maintaining the previously mentioned opposed theme. There have been changes. There have also been changes made to the number of units over the course of this uh community process. Thank you for your time and the mayor's
office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. You Thank you, Ryan. You want to unmute yourself? Hi again. Timothy Geon here from uh city councelor Brian Warell, District 4. Uh
we would like to go ahead and acknowledge our support uh for this project. Uh we want to thank uh not just all of the constituents for their feedback uh but also the willingness of the project team to uh work with uh
those suggestions. This project has gone uh from over 20 units down to down to like you said five. Um they've acknowledged uh home ownership is a major factor um that we're looking for. Um and they have also again been responsive to things like uh this the
rear and front setback as well as uh green space. So uh with that we appreciate everyone's uh input in this project but we would like to go ahead and voice our support. Thank you. Okay, there's two hands raised. So state your name and address
for the record. Tama go first. Good um morning members of the zoning board appeals. My name is Tama Johnson. I live at 220 Magnolia Street. I am the director board of the proposed development of 226 Magnolia Street and I'm here to express my strong opposition
to this project. The project also violates eight article 50 zoning regulations. And yet the developer continues to seek relief including encroachment of my driveway which is a shared easement that my family has been utilizing and accessibility for many years and also taking care of the
grounds, the foundation and also making sure that we put salt and everything else when we have our winter months is also very impactful because we also have near many nearby schools. We also have Rocktory Prep Charter School. There's also the concern with that drive, the
five driveways directly to towards my home because not only has I stressed this in many meetings as I have opposed this with many other neighbors nearby about this large assessive project, they're not actually being transparent and actively listening to the constituents that have to live in the
neighborhood and deal with the stress of the project because the driveways are actually going to be facing directly where I also parked where that red car he showed you in that um in in that in the um based on his plans is right there where they're supposed to be trying to
get in and out, which is that doesn't even make make any sense, logical sense or even feasible. Also, the the the current lot is also on a slope. The area is also very small and very too steep and very dense. Is not sustainable for something that's five unit building or
five pocket spaces. The buildings that he was showing you, they probably have the space for that. But this lot, I'mma tell you based on that picture, it is not that big. It's very constrained and it's very dense and it's also on a
slope. Um us nearby, before I finish, us nearby residents, um yes, it's flooding, foundation damage, environmental damage. As he said before, there's Cineon Park right there. There's also a consistent concern about it overshadowing my home.
I also know that me and my mother has my mother who's also elderly been living in this house for many years and has been causing a lot of frustration and stress of us being either displaced or even forced out and we don't feel safe with that large pro close proximity to my home. Thank you.
Okay, Mike Kosu. Hi, my name is Michael Kosu with project right. We've hosted a number of meetings. We should note that the first meeting with this property owner was on July 22nd, 2020. There was strong opposition to that big box proposal uh
that they presented at that time. Um it was ironic that when they presented their proposals to BPD, BRA or BPD at that time that there's no mention of that work with project right and the budding association. They instead put in
Bowden Geneva was the association they met with which is half a mile away and that group representative told them to go uh work with project right but that was not part of their BPD bar initial submission for this project that you're
now talking about. The zoning board needs to put a strong message to experienced developers that they cannot window shop for community development for community input. they cannot bypass a butters. By supporting this proposal, you're you're sending a message to um
developers. You're sending a message to planning department staff, BPDA and BRA former staff that it's okay to bypass and to not hold developers accountable to the community process. The major problem with this is that the side uh
way um facing of of this project is going to impact the abuted that you mentioned about the water runoff is going to flood into their basement the way they have their project. We still go on record to oppose this project. Thank you.
Any other raised hands? No other raised hands. Can the applicant briefly address those concerns? Yeah, I will. Thank you. Um just with regard to the last comment um I was not the attorney uh for that uh PPDA's filing that was referenced. Uh we
have met with uh the Fast and Street Resident Associations, Lawrence A group, Intervail, Normandy Group, three neighborhood associations of which Mr. Kos was present uh as well as the four butter meetings. I believe he was present at all but certainly most of those meetings. Um so we have we have
I'm sorry there were five butter meetings. Uh so we've met a lot with this community. uh we know there were some concerns and so as a result of those concerns particularly from the abuing property owner moved this property 16.3 ft from the property line
when only 10 is required and as you uh I showed you the uh we set back the fourth floor so that the balcony the the uh open space is the mass that chunk of mass that we removed uh closest to the
abuter at 220 U Magnolia. So what when you actually add the distance so it's it becomes a 30 foot high building at that corner next to the Abutter the additional mass is
actually 24.5 ft from the Abutter's property line. 24.5 ft from the abuter's property line. The closest we get to the utter is at 30 feet at 16.3 feet high at 16.3
distance from the abuter property line. So all of that was done to to steer well clear of the abuing property owner intended to reflect the comments and concerns that were raised. Thank you. questions from the
board. Hearing none, is there a motion? Madam Chair, um I would like to make a motion um a motion of approval uh with a provisal that the project undergoes BPD
design review paying special attention to two issues. One is uh the site planning in regards to uh landscaping um to make it a little bit more residential friendly. And the second provisor would
be for the BPD design uh design reviewers to look at the frontage of the building uh mostly uh the fourth story um so that it works more in context with
the neighborhood neighboring structures currently is looking like the side of a building. Is there a second Mr. Stanbridge? Yes, Mr. Valencia. Yes, Miss Bterza. Yes,
Miss Turner. No, Mr. Collins. Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much. Next. Um the next two cases have been deferred.
Are we asking about 1830s? Uh that that would be a good idea, Madam Chair. Um are there, as Madam Chair has mentioned, are there any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:30 time frame? Uh yes, Mr. Stebridge. 155
and 155 are Princeton Street. Is that also with 157 Princess Street? That is correct. Yes. Companion cases. There's like four cases. So that so attorney small that would be for four cases as Madam Chair noted. Um the first
being HBO [Music] 167781 with the address of 155R Princeton Street. Along with that we have case BOA
1621 0 which is also also the address of 155R Princeton Street. Next we have case [Music]
BO81677882 with the address of 157 Princeton Street. And along with those we have we also have case BOA 167786 which also has this address of 157 Princeton Street. Would you go ahead
and please explain attorney Small? Yes. Good morning madam chair, members of the board. Attorney Derek Small Business Just Doppson Road. We are here today seeking a deferral of this case as the plans have been review revised and the
plans examiner um at ISD has not had a chance to um fully review them yet. Okay. What are you looking for as far as dates? Um I think the second hearing date in June would be sufficient.
Caroline. Um, yeah, we could do let's see June 24th or July 8th. June 24th is fine. May I have a motion? Motion to defer until June 24th.
There a second. Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Bterzel? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes, Mr. Collins.
Sorry. Yes, Mrs. Ponado. Yes. Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, have a good day. Mr. Linds. Yes. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, um 81
Lexington Street, please. So that would be for case BOA575584 with the address of 81 Lexington Street. Go ahead. Attorney. Yes. Thank you again, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lens, 245
Summer Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, um we're requesting a deferral. Madam Chair, I did relatively newer to the case here. I did take a look at the notice uh that's on the agenda published today for the board and I do note an error in the project description. Um in the interest of
ensuring that we have the most accurate notification, we would ask for deferral. If I can get the June date, I know that uh we're probably running tight on that. Uh I'm away on July 8th and we're hoping to get this back on the agenda as soon as possible. Thank you, Caroline. We
could do June 24th. Excellent. Okay. With that, may I have a motion? [Music] Motion for defer case till June 24th. I have a second. Second. Mr. Stebridge.
Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Benzraza, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carry. See you then. Thank you very much.
M madam chair, can I raise a question regarding the deferrals of these past two cases? Sure. Um and maybe Caroline can assist us. Um what what is BPD recommendations is
to the public and some of the some of the recommendations have been kind of denied without prejudice um you know etc. And what is to keep the case load coming in front of us and projects being deferred because it's
been revealed that BPD is providing a recommendation of potentially denial or denial without prejudice. how you know is this typically we ask for what are the reasonings for denial and so most often
I typically hear that we have a five member board and so those are adequate reasoning for that and I it seems like Jeff Hampton can maybe respond to that I see a hand raised yes Mr. Hampton. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I
don't want to step on Caroline's toes, so I I don't want to sound out of place, but I think specifically for 81 Lexington, if you look at the project description today, it's the change to a three family when they are proposing a seven family. So, I think that's more of
a notice legal issue uh more than anything. And I think that, you know, is really an easy deferral for the board. Um the other one uh 155 and 157
Princeton this has been deferred a couple of times like you said Miss Benza but they've submitted new plans to ISD. So uh for them to move forward on something that we haven't seen uh a new rejection letter or new plans on and to
base our recommendation on old plans I don't think would be prudent. Um so you know we may take a look at that address uh coming forward in a couple of months. I you know I don't know what ISD's timeline is going to be
in terms of turning it around. Um but you know I don't think it would be you know wise to proceed on old plans when new plans are sitting on a plans examiner's desk over a 1010. Right. So I
guess I was just looking for context. Um Jeff and thank you so much for providing that context and I just wanted to make the board just to to see that and and it's just helpful to get some context and we're seeing a couple of them being deferred. Thank you. I don't have any
further questions. Oh, and it's also Caroline. Um, so I agree with what Jeff's saying, but also if there's any like future project where you don't see a reason like the following that we just had for a deferral, it's to the board's discretion to grant a deferral or to
proceed with the hearing. Thank you, Carol. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Any other requests for deferrals? Mr. December. So with that, we'll return to the last case scheduled for
11:00, which is case BO8 1691 17779 with the address of 10 Chandler Street. Well, this is also an article 80 case. So if the applicant andor their
representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Lisa, do we have any raised hands for this? I just promoted one person. Kelly, are you
presenting or Mark? Um Bob Baldwin um from the project team is here to present. Bob, are you can you raise your hand? Uh he is. Okay, great. He's got his hand raised. And then there's Mark. Is Mark need to be in
there, too? Uh I believe only Bob. Okay. Uh good morning. I'm not sure. Why I can't get my video going. We're happy to hear you proceed if you'd like. Did Bob disappear?
Here I am. Sorry about that everybody. Okay, great. Okay. Sorry. Um, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh, my name is Bob Baldwin, 216 South Under Mountain Road, Sheffield, Mass. I am the owner's representative, project manager for the Animal Rescue
League of Boston, who is the uh, owner of this property and the proponent. Uh, the Animal Rescue League is a 501c3 nonprofit celebrating their 125th year in business here in Massachusetts. uh 70 of which uh by the way have been
at this very site uh at 10 Chandler Street in the South End. Um they provide shelter services, adoption, surrender, and uh animal care to dogs, cats, and other pets at this site and have been
doing so again for about 70 years. Uh the facility itself is currently about a 28,000 square foot uh building uh built 70 years ago or or 67 years ago and it's uh obsolete uh and per today's animal
care standards. Uh the proposed project is to construct a new 31,000 square ft three-story state-of-the-art facility on the property facing Tremont Street. uh the uh use of the building will be
the same all the same services uh and really the same capacity. Uh they're not looking to uh significantly increase the amount of um animals they serve uh but to serve them again uh up
to today's standards. Uh the uh first floor will be sort of mostly dogs. The second floor cats and other small animals with some animal care and the third floor uh will be utilized primarily as a veterary clinic open to
the public. Uh the project will be done in phases because they have to remain in full operation on the site throughout the construction. Um and uh it'll take about two years to finish the entire project which we hope to start in the
month of July. Uh we have uh uh gained approval uh from uh the Boston Planning Department, the South End Landmarks District Commission and held uh meetings with the Ellis Street
Neighborhood Association, contacted all of our abutters and had a public meeting uh sponsored by the planning department. U let's see last 25 parking spaces uh in the project which is the same as uh the existing facility has. So, no more, no
less. Um, we have uh been uh cited for the groundwater uh conditional use permit and we have also been cited uh for lack of a loading uh off- streetet loading facility which uh we believe was cited erroneously and we uh sent uh some
information over to ISD. But in any case, be happy to show you uh where we do have a loading dock. There will be one off of the uh existing private alley. Uh it's important for us to have one. It is actually an indoor garage.
It'll be utilized uh for animal transport uh for uh supplies and uh from time to time to house a mobile veterary medical clinic. Um and I think with that
I will open it up to questions. I do have uh with me uh Kelly Frey who is our legal counsel. Questions from from the board. The the accessibility uh commission sort of noted that it wasn't clear there was
an accessible route from the designated parking space um to the front door. Uh we have two parking areas, one off of Chandler Street and one off of Tremont Street. And
uh we do have accessible uh pathways coming from both of those uh parking spaces. So I'm not quite sure to which you reference. Okay, that's that was their note. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the
board? May we have public testimony? Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Abby Jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 10 Chandler Street. Our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter. A community was conducted uh for this
proposal by the planning department in December of 2024 and approved by the South End Landmarks Commission in January of this year. Additionally, the proposal was discussed with the local civic association, Ellis Southn Neighborhood Association, and we are aware of the civic association support on this matter. At this time, the
mayor's office neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Good morning, managers and members of the board. Well, good afternoon. At this point, um, I will read the letter of support that councelor Flynn provided for this proposal. Manager and members
of the board, I write in support of the Animal Rescue League of Boston, ARL, plan redevelopment of its facility at 10 Charer Street in the South End. A Arirl proposes to replace their current facility and construct a new 30,000 ft²
three-story building providing a stateofthe-art animal care in a truthfully designed facility. AR's programs and capacity will be maintained, but the new project will improve their operations and standards for pets and their families in our
community. AR is a strong and valued member of our community, serving neighbors and their pets for 58 years at this location. They are committed to helping animals in need, providing them a place to stay and giving them new opportunities to live happily and safely
in homes. In 2023, AR took over took took in over 2,000 animals and helped over 1,300 to be adopted. They continue to provide quality care for animals and remain a re reliable outlet for families and residents. R is an established part
of the city of Boston and the south end community. I fully support R3 through development and ask the planning department advance this to advance this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us at 617-6353203 or email at ed.freeboston.gov. Thank you for your
time. Thank you, Christian. Good morning. Uh, good afternoon, madam chair, members of the board. Christian Selli, Boston Railway Trust, and we have both G-Cod letters from the applicant. Thank you. And then we have Mark. Please state your name and address for the
record. Uh, Mark Jagger, 3 Appleton Street, Sweet 305, Boston, Mass 02116. Are you here to speak in support or opposition?
Position. I'm sorry. Opposition. Okay. If you want to briefly let us know why. Sure. Um, you know, if if anyone is in a butter to the Animal Rescue League, it's me. Uh I am in the back of the building
that addresses Three Appleton. My my uh view is the alley and then the animal animal rescue league. Um I have a very nice apartment, beautiful views, eight windows, six of them overlook the
building. And so I'm sorry to come now for this, but this is the first I've heard about it. Apparently they've been there were hearings back in the fall. I sorry I missed that. Um but when adding the third floor as
far as the impact that will have in the community, I may be the only one who really my property loses value because I lose a few and I'm not happy about that. Thank you.
Any other raised hands? There is no other hands. Any other comments from the applicant? Um yes on council for the applicant Kelly Frey. I'm just responding to um the public comments in opposition. Just reminding the board
that this citation was for loading dock um not due to building height proximity to a butters or or any of of those concerns. Um I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Um not really. I
just wanted to um just give some clarity to what Jean had brought up in regards to uh Sarah Tilton's remarks about accessibility. It it's more for the applicant. Um what is just noted is that whenever you have an accessible parking
space, it's not very clear whether there's a ramping to the pedestrian sidewalk. So that was really kind of the concern and I gather that these are schematic drawings at this point. Um but it was just the intention that there would be no
obstructions coming from the parking lot to the either the main entrance or the rear entrance of the building. Um but I I'm sure that that could be resolved uh in the development of the project. So thank you. Understood. Thank you. Yeah. With that, may I have a
motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Spebridge, yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Berza, yes.
Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Mado, yes. Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Moving on to the rediscussion cases
scheduled for 11:30. We'll begin with case BOA [Music] 1564330 with the address of 296 Summit Avenue. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they
please explain to the board? Thank you, uh, Mr. Stebridge and good morning again or good afternoon madam chair, members of the board. Uh Richard Lind, the business address at 245 Summer Street, East Boston here on behalf of the petitioner, David Yoshi. Um this is
a quick slide overview. I jumped out. It's probably better to look at the street view. If we can go to maybe slide seven. Uh we can always look back at these for reference. Um so Mr. Yoshi owns the property at um here we got a good one to start with. Lefthand side is
296 Summit. Uh the property immediately adjacent to the right is also owned by that's where he resides. Uh this proposal uh would change a request to change the legal occupancy from the pre-existing three-unit building to four units. Uh with the fourth unit being
located uh in the lowest level of the building. Uh there is no proposal to expand the building footprint or the height of the existing building. All the work that we are proposing uh is being done internally. Uh if we want to jump down to maybe the um site plan page 12,
Madam Ambassador, that would probably help bring context some of the uh specific issues that we're looking at here today. Um this is originally proposed to have six parking spaces. Um we actually were showing parking space in a different orientation. Uh during
the community process, we went and made a bit of a revision to locate the parking space across the back. Uh we have read the planning department's recommendation and uh my understanding is that uh while there's no particular objection to the change of occupancy to
add just one additional unit, they did have an issue with the number of parking spaces we're proposing. Uh so we are prepared to reduce the parking to four. Uh and we believe if the board is inclined to grant the relief that we are requesting here today that we can certainly address that within the uh
design review process. Um, one of the other things I will point out is that um, although not required, um, this particular project will include on-site storm water management uh, as well as um, uh, some sustainability uh, respect
to the permeable conditions on the site uh, and something that uh, has already been approved by the Boston Sword Commission uh, to include the uh, cult system on site. Um, one of the things that we uh also would be able to do by modifying the parking and reducing it
down to four spaces is that we actually eliminate a number of the violations that were cited by ISD and specifically the limitation of the parking area uh that requires a 5ft side buffer. Uh our proposed uh we were talking about accessory parking for the site. If we
had excess parking uh we would not necessarily be allowed to have more parking that was particularly required. So we've again adjusted this to address not only the concerns of planning but the parking uh maximum parking requirements that would be allowed on
site. Uh lastly the parking maneuverability areas would be improved based upon the reduction in the parking to allow for only uh four parking spaces. Um we would be increasing usable open space and as I mentioned we already are incorporating permeability measures
on site for uh the proposed change. Um, we were also cited for a few other items, um, that I will point out to the board. Uh, one of the other items that, uh, dealt with the, uh, insufficient rear setback. Uh, we're not expanding the existing building. Uh, it's all staying within pretty much the same
footprint. We do have a new stairwell uh, and the rear, but it's with an existing setback. So, we're not necessarily increasing any non-conforming with the rear yard. Um there was another violation that was cited by ISD and we're somewhat um confused by it. We've asked them to
review that. Uh however, we since we're before the board and asking for relief for a few items, we figure we address this as well. Um the number of allowed habitable stories has been exceeded. Um but there is no expansion of the existing height. Uh and our proposed renovation doesn't change the percentage
of the actual first story. So by uh incorporating habitable living space into the basement uh that doesn't create a new story habitability and I've been through this with the board of interpretation other matters uh the habitability or use of a level uh doesn't change whether or not it becomes
a quote unquote story the definition of story or at least first story in the Boston zoning code uh deals with the amount of um area that is above grade and this in this case anything above 65% above grade would then be considered a
story. Generally, that's not triggered unless you're adding something to the top of the building. Uh the existing pre-existing conditions of the building uh would would maintain whatever number of stories it is. So, we don't believe that is a violation. Uh that would be appropriate, but since we were cited, we're going to ask the board to
interpret grant relief. Um we do have two areas that relief is required. The first is use. uh article 51 section 8 it says that the proposed main use u is uh forbidden uh because we would change occupancy to a 4-unit building uh that
is something that uh would not be permitted in the zoning district. However, I would point out that um this certainly meets all the other criteria requirements. For example, if this were ADU, uh this would be an allowable use anyhow. So we do believe it meets with the purpose, intent and spirit of the
code even though not specifically qualifying under ADU requirements. In addition to F dimensional regulations were cited uh for being excessive. Um the non-conforming condition that already exists uh is a 81. Our proposal
would increase this to a 0.98 and therefore we would be uh increasing the F because that space is actually uh being added to the existing pre-existing space that that's already there. So we do require relief from that. If we could jump to the next slide, I'll move quickly through just a couple of other
slides so the board can understand what the proposal involves. Um so uh we do show our um I believe this is our existing conditions. If you jump down I think further there's a uh better view of the proposed conditions at the lowest
level. Uh so kind of jump back a bit. One more slide. There we go. So this is a layout that we are showing. Uh all of the um uh requirements under the building code including egress and egress windows uh
can be complied with. We're not anticipating being cited for any building code relief for this. Uh we do have the appropriate egress as well as the uh window wells that uh have already been authorized and incorporated. Uh there is an existing permit to modify the space. Obviously we can't complete
it until a change of occupancy has been approved by the board uh that would allow that to move forward. Next slide please. Uh next slide. No work being proposed there above. Yeah. So included here is just some of the photos of the lowest level and again that we did have
a permit to allow for the framing the additional window wells uh just so the board can understand uh the layout and how this looks. Next slide please. Uh showing the window and again these are conforming with the building code requirements for appropriate eress
windows. Next slide and next slide. uh just showing the incorporation of where those window wells will be relocated. That was a concern that was raised during the community process and we did indicate uh to the community that these were uh approved and appropriate
and fit within the requirements of the building code. Uh I'll pause there and answer any questions of the board with respect to the relief that we're asking for uh today. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Can you mention the ceiling height in
the basement? Uh, seven 7 and 12 minimum. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? You mean 7 foot 6 in? I'm sorry. 7 and 12. Yes. 7 and 1/2 ft. Yeah. 76.
Thank you. With that, may I have public testimony? Madame chair and board members. C. Johnson with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted at a mutters meeting on March 13th of 2024 at which no comments were made. The Brighton
Alustin Improvement Association is in opposition to this application due to quality of life and life safety concerns with the basement unit. With that background, we defer judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you. There's no other hands raised, Madam Chair. Okay. With that,
may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a proposal of approval with a provisal that the parking be reduced by two so that you allow for more open space um and improvement of ability. Is there a
second? Second on second. Mr. Stebridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Better Braza? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr.
Collins, yes. Miss Bonado, yes. Chair votes, yes. Motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much. Can we take a 15-minute break? Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Let's do roll call. Mr.
Stebridge, Madam Chair. Mr. Valencio, President Valencia. Miss Better Braza, present. Miss Turner, Madam Chair. Mr. Collins, present.
Miss Bonado, present. Madam Chair, thank you. Floor yours, Mr. Smbridge. Thank you, Madam Chair. Returning to the rediscussion cases scheduled for 11:30 a.m. We'll begin with case B, two
companion cases. Case BA 16352 with the address of 77 Bailey Street. Along with that we have case BOA [Music]
1632750 with the address of 79 Bill Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please respond to the board? Hi, good afternoon madam chair and the board. My name is Shad Mars Army of
Sahir Law Group. Address of 40 Salem Street, Lynfield, Mass 01940. I represent the applicant 77 Bailey Street LLC. Joining me today is the owner Patrick Tarek and architect. The project architect is Jennifer Ha. We
are proposing to raise the existing multif family structure at 77-79 Bailey Street, Doorchester, which currently sits on two parcels and erect two threestory multif family building with six units. So, it's actually three
stories, not the three and a half that's mentioned. Um, and it will be a total of 12 home ownership units. I also want to note that this is a transit oriented development as we're 2 minutes walk from Ashmont Station. Before I introduce our architect to run through the
presentation, I want to add that this is our third reiteration of the plans um, which is why it was previously deferred two other times. Um, based on the feedback we've received from the community, the changes include removing the positioning of the front balconies.
We changed the front um building outline. We removed the penthouse. We added rear balconies and we removed the roof deck. As you will see, this um home, these buildings, they fit well with the existing homes in the neighborhood. And it is an appropriate use of the lot and it will not adversely
affect the community or create any detriment for abuing residents. Now, I will like to introduce you to Jennifer who um discuss the specific violations and run through the plans. Hello, Madame Chair and members of the board. My name is Jennifer Ha, principal
architect at Hugh Architecture located in Dorchester. I'll be presenting u the proposed design for a project at 77 79 Bailey Street. On this first page, um you can see a locust map of the site showing that the project is a 2-minute walk from Ashmont Redline Station. Um
can you go to next page, please? The lot currently hosts an existing three family dwelling with a rear garage. The existing structures will be demolished to host the two new six-unit dwellings. The lot is in a
2F5000 zone. The direct abuters left and right of the lot are three families. The homes across from the lot are are triple deckers. And immediately abuing behind the building is a 64 unit multif family building. Next slide, please.
This is the image of the um existing three family as it currently sits on the lot. Um and then next slide please. This is um the beginning of Bailey Street taking a picture from the subway stop. Um, and you can see uh the
mouth of the street is uh the triple deckers um along that runs along the the lot, the lines of the street, the front lines of the street. And you can go the yellow house behind the pink house is the is the site. Next slide,
please. Here's a picture um from the yellow house on the right. The two-story building is the existing uh house and then in front of us is Ashmont T station. Um and then you can see the the neighboring buildings around us. Next, um you can see the garage behind the
yellow building as well. Um next slide, please. Um next slide, please. Thank you. Um this is the the pink house is the direct butter and you can see how um our building sits um uh right next to the building. Um just to show some
existing context. And next slide please. So 77 Bailey Street Lot is a trapezoid shaped lot. It's 9,197 square ft measuring 94 ft by 105 ft. Um the proposal is for 12 dwelling units divided between two buildings with
six rare ongrade parking spaces. Um you can see that in this uh plot plan that the proposed two buildings are overlaid all over the existing structure. So you can see that very faintly in the back and there's a garage in the on the back
of the building as well. Um please see the next slide. Um the two buildings are identical and they will have a driveway between them that leads to the parking in the rear. The buildings will be three stories and will match the style and height of the neighbor at 87 Bailey. Um
can you go to the next slide please? Thank you. This is the colored site plan. We are proposing landscaping and plantings in the front and the side of the building. We also designed private balconies in the rear and the front of the building to provide more open space for the residents. The total
unit makeup is two threebedroom units, eight two-bedroom units, and two one-bedroom units. Uh, next page, please. Um the refusal letter lists the violations being on off streetet parking
requirements, parking size maneuverability, two or more buildings on the same lot, uh conformity versus uh with the existing building alignment, uh the use regulation of multif family dwelling being forbidden, the lot area insufficient, lot width insufficient,
lot frontage insufficient, F excessive, building height excessive in terms of stories. We're in a two two and a half story zone. um site insufficient. Uh next slide, please. Yes, the that was the next. Yes, that that would be great. Thank you. Um
the the three this um basement, we will host a small basement for the mechanical and sprinkler room. On the first floor will be a three-bedroom unit on the left side and the right side is a one-bedroom unit. Um know that the building plans
will be identical. So, this is just for one building plan. And then you can imagine the other one being the same. On the second floor, you can see there's two bedrooms, two bathrooms on either side uh of the building. Um and then on the you can go to the next slide as
well. Thank you. On the third floor is also two bedrooms and two bathrooms per unit. Uh there is front balcony and a rear balcony uh for for the units. And then the roof the roof will just hold mechanical space. There's no other use
in the in the roof. Um the three bedroomedroom uh unit size um average around 1,074 ft. The two-bedroom bedroom size is 820 ft and the onebedroom is 566 ft. Um next slide
please. Uh you can see the elevations of the project. We are a two-tone um party plank uh material design and you can see that we have if you go to the next slide we have matched the bay design to our neighbor and uh we have also referenced
the front decks um to our neighbor as well. Um the next slide please. This is a visual of how the buildings would look on the site. You can see it matches the rhythm of the streetscape and also the density and scale of the of the neighborhood. You
can go to the next slide please. We wanted to also match the the cornice details and um basically the height of the cornice and um other kind of like um bay details uh from the neighbor. Um next slide please.
Um and this is just a short diagram showing the design changes um that we have made um in response to the neighborhood feedback. Um so the original design we actually had it more uh triple decker style. It's more boxy. Um which was uh the neighborhood didn't
really like that. They wanted something where it's more octagonal uh similar to the neighbor. Um so in the second revision you can see that we had changed that. So it it actually does match with the neighbor much better. So that was very good feedback. Um and we limited
the the decks um so that they're they're not so um basically prominent in the facade. Um we also had feedback to remove the penthouse as well as the roof decks. So that has been removed in this last iteration. Um and I think that's the end of the presentation.
Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Yes, because you have more than 10 units. You are required to provide some affordable some some IDP units. How many are you providing?
We are going to provide the the um required amount. So, two I believe it's two units, but most likely it's going to be all affordable. But definitely the required amount. All all affordable. All the units affordable. Most likely. So
we're most likely it's going to be all affordable but definitely at least two to three units of these two. So you don't have a you still don't know if the whole building is going to be affordable or not. The you said the entire Yes. He's
confirming your your kind of comment about whether or not all of them will be affordable. So it's not 100% sure that they're all going to be affordable at this time, but definitely at least three units. Yeah. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Maybe we public testify. Actually, I would love some feedback from BPD. Uh if Jeff Hampton's still on where um you know, they're recommending
uh that it would be desirable if it was made into one building versus versus two buildings. And I'm not necessarily understanding the um the logic behind that. uh just and so it would be nice if we heard from
BPD what was motivating comment. No, I can't answer that. I wasn't the one who wrote the recommendation and I wasn't aware of that. So, okay, I can't comment on that. Okay, great. Thanks, Jeff. Thank you. I think there were questions about whether they were eliminating the
existing curb cut or there were going to be one curb cut or two, but it looks like in the plans there's only one curb cut and the the other one will be closed. Is that correct? That is correct. Let's uh take public testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 77 to 79 Bailey Street. Our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting on 102924 which was attended by about five
constituents. The primary feedback from this meeting was support for the affordable housing in the proposal and concerns about construction noise and trash. Additionally, the proposal was also reviewed with the Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association which convened on 121024. The assoc association has
noted some compromises were made, including the removal of front decks, roof decks, and diversifying the bedroom makeup of the unit to include three-bedroom units as well. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's decision on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.
Thank you, Council's office. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the board. Um Timothy Geimman from councelor uh Brian Warl's office uh just want to share our support for this project and would like to highlight
again the uh community process in which uh the builders have been very responsive with making changes uh to to better fit constituent concerns. Um so we appreciate the input from all members and with that we'd be happy to support and there's no other hands
raised madam chair. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? hearing. None. May I have a motion? Madame Chair, I would like to put forward a proposal um a motion of approval with a proviso um that the
project includes uh the minimum that's required which is two for the project and that they enter into an agreement with um may of housing. So just to confirm a minimum of two affordable units, IDP units. Correct. That's the requirement. That's the only
provisor that I would have on the project. Is there a second? Thank you. Mr. Stenbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Bzazza? Yes.
Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Duck. Thank you. Next we have two additional uh companion
cases. The first case is BOA 1658677 with the address of 55 to 57 River Street. Along with that we have case BOA 1658685 which also has the address of 55
55 57 River Street. If the applicant and their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Good afternoon. Um, madame chair, members of the board, Joseph Festern from the law
firm of Dne Torpy, 175 Federal Street, Boston. Um, a few things before I have the architect, Mark Shrier, walk through the plans with the board. I just wanted to clarify in
the notice there have been several first and foremost there have been several changes and as you will hear from the man's office of neighborhood services that there have been several meetings with the abutters and with the neighborhood association from whom we do have the support there has been a
reduction in the number of units from 14 to 10 there's been reduction in the number of parking spaces there's there will you will see that there's been added green face to this. So, the community has been totally engaged in this particular project and my client
has adjusted uh the project to those concerns that were raised by the neighborhood association and the abusers. So, with that, I just want to give you that overview of some changes that in in the notice and I'll ask for Mark Shrier to walk you through the
project. The applicants are Mark and Cynthia Edwards. they are on but they will not comment unless uh the board has a direct question to them madam chair. So Mark it's I give it to you. Uh thank
you Joseph. Uh good morning madam chair and board. Um we uh we've we've done a lot of uh changes to the projects as Joseph has referenced. Um we we we've bumped up the uh the landscape. Mark, you may want to speak up because you're a little bit low at least on my end.
Yes. Okay. Is that Is that better? Uh, not really. No. Okay, let me see. I think you just need to get closer to the mic. Get closer to your mic. All right. Is that any better? Yes. Okay,
great. Okay. So, we've uh increased the square footage of the landscape area to 2670 square ft. As Joseph mentioned, we've gone from 14 parking spaces down to 10. We've also included a bike rack area within the um the garage itself. Um
so, essentially what we've done is we've um put the new addition directly behind the existing building in front. uh that it's more of a historic property that we're going to uh retain and add some dormers to that we'll see later in the presentation and we've now reduced it
down to one residential lobby and one stair. Uh given the fact that we only have four units in the back edition per floor. Um so that being said um we can go to the next slide. Uh so this again is the the site
plan referencing the the new building addition area which we have an addition of 4,275 square ft and um we're taking down a small um one-story portion in back of the existing structure that accounts for
the differential between 40 4420 square ft which is the current garage size or the proposed garage size. Uh we've increased the setback from 7.8 8 to 9 ft on the right side of the property. And we've increased the
setback on the left side um from uh on the previous set we had roughly 10 ft 9 and a half 10 ft uh to 24 plus feet um and which represents a large portion of the landscaping area. Um next page
please. Um these are the existing plans for the front unit. Um so we can see kind of on the left side um you can see the area um in back of the existing structure that we're demolishing which is basically the roof area. Um next page
please. And so that these are the proposed plans for the front building. Um again on the upper left you can see that we're adding a dormer um on onto those third floor areas for that unit. Um other than that everything pretty
much remains the same. Um next page please. Uh this is the first floor of residences which would be at the second level as the parking garage is below this. So on the upper right side you can see the egress stair/ lobby that we have
going down. We have onebedroom units uh on each floor that are 758 square ft. We then have two two-bedroom units which are 727 square ft 970 ft and we added uh the third the third or sorry the fourth
unit on this floor which is in back we increased it to a threebedroom unit which is 1340 square ft. Um in and the red represents the change that we made reducing the two units per floor in the back. Um so you can receive we reduced
by 6630 square feet per floor. Um next page please. Um and this is basically stacking of the units. So this would be the third floor which is a replication of the second floor. Next page please.
Uh this is the simple roof plan showing um we have a flat roof so that we don't really want to distract or or try to mimic the historic colonial in the front. Um and you can see the red area again is the reduction in roof area that we previously had on a previous
submission. Next page please. Um these are the elevations. So the lower right is the existing the lower left is the new front elevation. So basically you can see that we've got three new dormers added across. We have
our residential entry on the right side of of the uh the building and on the left side you can see where we've reduced um the the proposed um building addition by 21 ft. Um the upper right is
the existing rear elevation and the upper left is the proposed rear elevation. And to satisfy the uh the building code, what we're doing is proposing louvers which will give us a nonventilated open air garage of 50% or
more uh square feet of opening uh or there's more than 50% opening. Sorry. Um next page please. And these are the the remaining elevations. So this would be the uh the left elevation showing the new garage
entry door. Uh again, louvers on the first level and then the two floors of residential above. Next page, please. And this would be the right side elevation again showing the louvers at the first level. Um and there's there's
a there's a property drive which we'll see and a fence along this elevation. So there isn't very much view angle between the corner building um and and our structure. So you're not really going to see much of this elevation. Next page,
please. So, these are the proposed um perspectives of our building. Uh the upper left is the new right front street view and the upper right is the new left rear view, which again um there's very
little um property area to actually walk between the fence and our property. So, you know, that view is really for reference only and it's ne never going to be a a perspective of the building that will be seen. Um, the lower left is you can see we've added some trees, um,
a little bit of shrubbery and just left the remaining area open for, you know, resident area, picnic table, planting, just a softcape area. Uh, in the lower right is you can see the existing building at the front with the three dormers added. And then
we've aligned the addition um to that face of the existing building. Uh you can see the park the parking aisle or the the the the driveway to get to the parking garage and then the um the new entry uh to the garage has likewise a
sidewalk to access the door. Next, please. Um so that's basically the presentation. I'll pause for questions. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Yes. What's the reasoning of preserving
the front of the of the property? Uh so it's it's uh more of a historic structure in the neighborhood and there was a lot of resistance as far as um you know demolishing that and creating something new. Um which has happened a lot on the streetscape um you know
across the way and around the the area. um you know people are demolishing the front buildings um which are have a historic presence um so we tried to preserve that that look and feel of the the small character but it's not a historic designated um building it's not
designated I mean it looks pretty you know uh pretty contemporary in terms of its building in terms of the construction um so it's mostly that neighbors just has been in the neighborhood for a while so there's an attachment to that building
that would be accurate. uh Miss Benaza uh that would be the case through the whole community process. The preservation of that front building was something which they felt very very strongly about and uh we felt from the standpoint of a project design that we
could acquies to that and uh not only preserve um a property that fits into and fits into the character of the neighborhood that you will see from some majority buildings but would also satisfy um the the the neighborhood the
abutters and the association. Okay. I mean, the only reason I bring this up is because in all the renderings, uh, it it feels like it does not fit like there's just two different characters, um, on the proposed law. So I I just wanted to
understand what motivated um just kind of the you know why not build new uh completely um rather than c masquerading or camouflaging something that um you know two different systems to different kinds of interior layout
just for efficiencies purpose. Okay. I don't have any uh I would like I would love to hear from the mayor's office like just what that community feedback was. Thank you. I don't have f further questions. Any other questions from the board? Can you speak to affordability?
The uh well, as you know, there's only uh there's only going to be 10 units here. There have I have had discussions with my client and with the community on that. That is uh first and foremost uh my clients have decided did decide in
conversation with the community and again something which was raised by the abundance of neighborhood association and looking at the ownership aspects of it. So uh originally they were talking about rental units change made the change to condominiums. Um, as far as
the affordability issue, my client might have that conversation with the neighbor. They aren't prepared to commit to that at this particular point in time. That wasn't something that was made a demand. It doesn't come under the uh uh under any of the requirements, but
that would be something that they may take under consideration uh as we go forward. One other question that if no one else has four members just to follow up about the affordability. I think the IDP is a
requirement. It's not a conversation, right? You are you are obligated to provide 13% of the units as affordable. No, no, no. Uh uh Mr. Valencia, we're already talking about we're we're
talking about uh 10 units here. Um u and we're and we're talking about creating because there's two present units and there's uh and there are eight that are being proposed. So are you saying that that falls within the IDP 10 units or or
more if I'm not? I'm sorry. Well, when is your when was this proposal first brought forth? So as you know there was an inclusionary IEP update uh last fall for seven units or more. So was this predating that? Uh
yes, but in charge like I said it if if that's something which the um which is being presented by the board now and would certainly then I would say uh I will uh take attorney privilege here and
say that my clients will uh will abide by what the IDP requires. Thank you. Thank you Mos. Yeah. Um I mean there's um in regards to um
setbacks for the rear setback you're required 20 ft and I'm I don't understand the justification of going only 4 foot one. um you know you could you could build on
the property but I'm not understanding why you're coming in front of us to build more but to provide less uh setback or open space you know that the other issue I'm having is the maximum building area is 25% but your
your proposal is 52%. It seems to me it's almost occupying um majority of the site. So I guess why are you requesting a variance? What what is not a what why is there a special condition that we
should give you? Uh what is the case for that relief? Mark, could you uh can you respond to it that in the design discussion that we had because we did make modifications uh with regards to that. So, can you
elaborate on the modifications as far as the lot use of the lot? Uh, sure. So, there's an existing garage that's being demolished um which is outside of the footprint of this. Um but there's there's really um as far as the open space, we felt that it was better
positioned to have the open space next to the addition then try to locate that in the rear. As well as um trying to maintain one parking space per unit um is really the driving factor that that kind of gave us that depth that we were
required to have. there was no other way to create enough parking um to have a one per unit um without going toward the back park property line and uh um what was mentioned in the opening of
the presentation better Barza was certain things that did were taken into account with this conversation as you know the community process often time does influence uh what is ultimately built
But the building was was reduced u by um 1,630 square ft per floor. The building was reduced because we changed the entry for the entry door for the garage by by
21 uh it went by 21 uh uh feet. Um, so we tried to address some of that and u I can just say to you that with regards to the residents that were or the owners uh behind the property, there was no
objection that was made and as I pointed out uh through a extensive butter process and the neighborhood association process who um neighborhood association has supported as as well as the abuters that all of all of that was considered
and they felt satisfied that those dimensions that we were seeking, the variances that we were seeking here uh would be appropriate for a project that would fit nicely within the neighborhood. Thank
you. Let's open it up to public testimony. Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bember. I'm the Mata Pan community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of two of Butters meetings facilitated first
facilitated on October 24th which was not wellreceived uh by Abutters and neighbors. Abut has voiced concerns regarding the size of the proposal with many feeling the proposal is too large for the neighborhood and will increase issues the neighborhood already faces such as increased traffic uh traffic congestion parking and a concern for the
water and excess drainage. The second meeting facilitated on April 9th whereas again voiced concerns regarding the size of the project. Although abuters were appreciative of the first reduction from 14 to 10 units, Abuas did suggest another reduction down to six units. Other concerns were trash and
encroachment on property lines. Next, the proposal was presented to River Street Civics Association on April 10th, and to date, our office has received seven letters of opposition and two letters of support. One letter of proposed support from the Civic Street uh civic association following
addressing inquiries. Uh those questions were would the project uh be totaling two buildings or one building connected to the original two family structure uh and will the development consist of the two original family units with an additional eight units or the two original family units plus 10 units.
Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Councelor Waro. Hi, Timothy Eman here on behalf of city councelor Brian Warell uh 317 Belgrade
out of Rosdale. Don't think I've said my address yet. Um the councelor would like to go on uh record um of supporting this project. Uh he wants to thank uh attorney Feaster and uh not only the entire project team but also uh the
robust uh community engagement process that has happened uh with this. Uh we have confirmed with the River Street Association um that they are uh they're in approval and with that we would like to share our support.
Um Gary please state your name and address. Yes. Gary Toron Butter at 17 Temple Street uh two houses away. Um I did want to say that um the summary of the uh butters meetings and the civic
association meetings was accurate as early earlier stated. Uh there were a number of comments at the Butters meetings and the civic association meeting about the size of the project. people felt that the big box aspect of the back building was um really very
much oversized for the site and and our our concerns were um this project is located in the historic section of Matapan lower mills which uh in which housing was built for the people who worked in the Baker Chocolate Factory. Most of the houses in the neighborhood
are historic. This house is a early 18th century very historic building. It's in the proposed lower mills west uh document that was written by the um Boston Redevelopment Authority a while back proposing that this neighborhood be
a local historic district. So although some of the River Street buildings on the other side of the street are more big box, this is still a residential neighborhood. It's own 2F6000. Our concern was is that the proximity of the garage and the big box
building 3 ft from the the the uh north lot line would effectively shade the yards the rear yards of the 2 and 1/2 story uh three and four family buildings that um abut this building. Uh we were trying to propose an al alternative
approach where perhaps they could look at a rowhouse kind of a development 2 and 1/2tory sloped roofs with dormers uh similar to the the shape of the historic house in front but put it on as an L in the back so that then the yard would would not the buildings would not shade
uh the adjacent uh yards. And although all of us in the neighborhood are very supportive of the uh of the Edwards group's initiative in terms of the work in lower mills, they're doing some good work on uh renovating some his a historic house or two in the
neighborhood. Our concern is that the context of this is just too big. Uh um we were proposing that perhaps you could have two units in the front and six in the back and do three three townhouse type units in the back and put the
parking underneath the townhouse units. One of the concerns that the abutters have is that the structure of the garage being a podium building, uh, a concrete deck, you know, 10 ft clear, um, elevates in the height of the building in terms of the two floors above, but
also creates a shape that's really more more kind of commercial, more more urban, not really in context with this neighborhood. Um we had hoped that they'd consider an alternative proposal where they could shape of the building and plan where they could get the kind
the kind. Yeah, sure. So I just wanted to say that we um wanted to confirm that the current proposal is 10 units, not 14 as advertised in the um in the public hearing advertising uh notice. Um and
then secondly, just wanted to go on record that um we really like the project to be smaller and um aren't aren't satisfied with the current size of it and the current impact, loss of shading and what have you. And neighbors, great. Thank you. There's no
other hands raised. Mr. Feaster, can you address these comments? Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Those are certainly those are all comments that have were heard by some of the butters
and certainly uh Mr. Thorn Dick raised those during the community meetings that we did have certainly uh had conversations with my client thereafter. But as I've mentioned uh while there will there will always be differences of
opinions with regards to what might be the appropriate project. It's just like Miss Better Barazza had mentioned a question about why we would retain the the front building as as as it is. Uh just you just heard from Mr. Toddorf
Dick that they like the idea of the historic project not necessarily like the rear building. We built this project because we want to be consistent with what the city's u objectives are and that is to increase more housing. They want more um housing which will provide
for for home ownership which my clients chose to change to and as I committed uh at this hearing that they will address the affordability and compliance with the IDP. So uh while I know that there
may not be uniform support in every aspect of this project in terms of design, there were those who wanted parking and even I had discussions with my client because I know the BPDA is not necessarily or this board uh obligating
projects to have one uh parking but this was something that was felt very strongly in the neighborhood and we wanted to be consistent with it because that is on a major traveled street such River Street. We wanted to not affect the parking and so therefore we we built
the project this way. In order to address that, we had to have this box shape, if you will, for the uh addition on the back. So the only way I can address this, Madam Chair, is to say that my client throughout the community
process wanted to be responsive to some of the community needs. We believe that we've addressed it here. I just hope that the board will grant the variances that have been uh sought. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
May I have a motion? Madame Chair, I'm going to put a motion uh forward and that motion is going to be a motion of denial without prejudice. Um the reason the reason is I I think I've stated that the the lot coverage
seems excessive. Um the the density seems excessive for the lot. Uh the owner can use appropriate, you know, use of the property. Um I believe with lesser units, uh seem six seems more
doable. Um, I would also kind of recommend that the applicant works more with typology versus, let's say, um, trying to historically preserve just the front. I think looking at the the
adjacent property of the town houses where there's multiple, but they're building off on a typology that kind of worked with the neighborhood character is is better. Um uh I just find that the project needs to go back to the drawing board to not make these two um buildings
be in contrary but to be more in complimentary with one another. So looking more at the typology that that's the reason I'm putting forward uh the motion. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Steambridge.
Yes. Mr. Valencia. No. Miss Betterazzo? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes.
Miss Panado? Yes. Chair votes no. The motion carries. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to case BO8 59 1
933 with the address of 36 AAR. Um, with that, Madam Chair, I will let you know that I'm excusing myself in this case. So with that if the applicants andor their representative are present will
they please for the board. So just just uh due to the recusaler we are a six member board. Thank you very much madam chair. U the I am aware that that is occurring here. I'm a little bit uh uncertain how I want
to proceed but I think I'm going to forge ahead. Uh, Joseph Faster, um, the attorney with the law firm of Dane Torpy, 175 Federal Street, Austin, um,
representing the applicant, uh, Anthony Frugate um, and the after a brief presentation, I will have turn it over to the architect, either um, Andrew Melton or Carlos Feray to walk the uh,
boards through the plans. This has been a case that has again uh I wanted as I stated with the with the matter that just was concluded. I wanted to u raise with the board that in terms of the notification as to the the changes that
have been made in the project are not reflected in the notices uh that was presented but nonetheless uh we could proceed forward when we give the presentation. This is a project that has been deferred several times uh dating
back to excuse me a board of appeals hearing uh back in October of 2024. Um throughout this process there has been an extensive community process
that my client has undertaken and as a result of that has decided and present to the board today a project which has nine nine units, nine residential units. They will be uh uh uh uh condominiums.
uh they will have a uh one affordable unit uh um and will proceed forward uh with the project. Um they have looked at in terms of design, the character, the fitting into the neighborhood. All of that has been discussed and explored and
as we know they have we have submitted um over 40 something letters of support. some from persons within the neighborhood of Roxbury, but also from many of the abutters. So with that, I'm going to ask Mr. Melton if he will uh
present the project to the board. Yeah. Thank you, Joseph. Um if we could go back to the um the refusal letter uh to start, please. So, as Joseph mentioned, we we've um deferred this uh quite a few
times and had quite a few refusal letters. There were initially, if you can blow that up, blow that up a little bit. Um there were initially uh uh 10 different variances that were required. The most recent one, which is this one
here, uh there's nine. one being that uh was removed was the traffic uh visibility across the corner. So that one was resolved uh by uh ISD inspector. Uh the second one had to do with
parking. Originally we had seven uh well actually six uh first rendition we had six garage parking then we had seven garage parking. Now we have nine garage parking. So nine units uh and uh nine
garage parking. So the the issue that ISD had uh and the variance was Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Oh, sorry. Yeah. So we had 18 ft for the the length of the car and we've changed that. Uh
you don't have the documentation, but we can I easily make it 20 ft. um each each car at least 50% of the nine spots or five of the nine will be 20 ft in length. So that that variance will will
you know uh not be a variance uh needed any longer. The rest are are in fact uh variances F uh open space per unit etc. Um so if we can now go to the um page
304 the first page of the uh architectural presentation that yeah the first one uh one one back one back keep going keep going. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So th this is just the uh uh the cover page and uh this is the
most recent design and I'd like uh Carlos Beret to discuss the uh um the the sequence of design from for the last year and a half. Yes. Good afternoon all and um and thank
you Joseph and thank you Andrew. Um uh as Andrew had mentioned we had started this uh if you can go to the next slide please. Thank you. Uh we had started this and we looked at um a a
contemporary design based on on sustainability and also based very much on passive solar passive and active solar gain. um materials we're thinking about were, as mentioned, sustainable,
but also we were trying to um um design a unit that would take great advantage, if you will, of the sites um uh viewing to the back bay into the downtown of Boston. Um after community meetings, we
we uh we looked at u how to how to reduce the project. Um and next slide please will show the same uh idea of the contemporary uh design um now reduced to
four stories and uh nine units. So that's a 20% wholesale change from the prior. Um we also have uh are we're now introducing an affordable unit. Uh at the time we were looking at um how to
create seven secured parking spots and um and a building height of 38 ft uh from uh Akran Street. Next slide please. Next slide. Yes. So, uh, after again more community meetings, we looked
at same design but looked at how to, uh, um, have it fit more characteristically with with some aspects of the neighborhood, mostly Lancard roofs and the use of brick. Uh, next slide, please, or next two slides. It's it's
some of the same. Uh finally what we've done is uh we looked at the project uh looked at how to increase the parking maintain the the four stories the nine uh u um u units one affordable
uh and we increased the parking um down below. Um and in so doing u u made this project uh uh easier um again for for parking and accessibility. Um next slide
please. Um in all in all cases uh we were looking at a project also that has an open space ratio that's similar to its adjacent properties. So we felt that uh important to maintain that even though as Andrew had mentioned u we're
going to need some relief on the setbacks mostly on the side. Next slide please. Uh that's that's the existing condition. Next slide. The is the proposed with the setbacks. Uh next slide is uh going to show really the
location and existing uh building in the corner. Uh, next slide please. Okay. And that's the that's the existing condition now. Uh, next slide please. Okay. Uh, upon really reviewing and looking at the neighborhood, we saw
that within 500 ft of our site that there are six uh, buildings that have greater if not equal density to our proposal. that all these corner buildings all either were four or five stories and had uh F of uh
uh 2.5 to 1.87. Okay. And um the next series of slides are basically going through those six buildings of uh uh within 500 ft. So uh the next slide please.
um 16 Akran uh four stories as you can see and uh F 1.5 for next slide 36 uh region street uh six units that's uh under renovation now but uh my our understanding is that that stays f
is 2.66 next slide um is 42 44 regent uh again four stories density of 3.2 23 or F um Alpine Street. Next, uh that has a density of 1.8
uh 14 units and u um yeah, next slide please. uh 25 fountain place has more land so more units as well but more land so the density is one f is 1.32 next
slide is the last of the six is uh 125 Warren Street uh again that's absolutely equal to what we're trying to uh create which is a density of 1.8 eight um nine and that has 28 plus units. Okay. And
our proposal, next slide please. Um four stories, nine units and an F of 1.89. Next slide, please. Uh that's just just the site plan how it sits. Um, I want to note
that the the hard part of the hardship on this site is the fact that uh there's a 14 foot grade from east to west. Um, that's pretty significant for a tight site. The site is also um has an odd
configuration. So something that we needed to work with to to accommodate this and therefore um need the the variances on the setbacks. Next slide, please. The the nine um parking units
down below, uh we can make the adjustment um um of creating 20 foot um parking uh stalls. So, that should not really be an issue. Um that's an adjustment that's that's very doable on our part. Next slide,
please. The next series of slides are just the the plants and the elevations. So if we can just go to the elevations. Um these are how the units lay out. And go ahead next slide. Next slide. Again
elevations. Um next slide. Next slide. And next slides. Okay. There. Um that's now the corner that that that's been proposed. The the wholesale change on the design
is that is we're we were trying we are trying to fit more in the character of the neighborhood by the use of gable ends um um dormers shed dormers as well as uh the use now of
collaborate siding and um um um w the windows and fenistration would be uh mostly single uh single hung uh and again in character with the neighborhood. Next slide
please. And view of the of how the project would look from u looking at down on Akran Street. Uh we're um we're at that corner next to the next to the trees that you see. Next slide, please.
the the view looking up from Regent Street. So it's showing 21 and 23 Regent uh next to us. Next slide please. And again a study of the massing
um and the the the use of collaborates and patent board sighting and u Andrew is there anything that you want to speak to on the hardship issues? Uh sorry I think you addressed it Carlos if we go to the next slide. Um basically
the configuration of the uh of the site it's very irregular. The site topography uh there's quite a drop uh um from the corner of Akrine Street to um down Regent Street. Um there is a retaining
wall that we will need to uh basically rebuild and underpin uh and brace uh in order to you know prevent that from from collapsing that uh basically extends uh throughout you know the greater part of
the back of our property. Um so I think you know those those are some of the the you know hardships uh that we that we have to deal with as well as uh ledge uh potential ledge uh under uh the site. Uh we don't know how much exactly until a a
uh soil borings are done but uh under the existing house that uh that we saw uh there's a basement so there's no ledge there. There was a previous house uh uh on the uh Roxberry
1931 Atlas that had a basement. So, we're making an assumption that there was not much if any ledge under that building. So, between those two buildings, uh it was a good amount of ledge that had already been removed. Uh
so there'll be some mudge that we anticipate and we would uh you know use uh uh excavate a whole ram basically to break it up minimize the amount of uh vibration. Uh there'll be liability
insurance uh for neighbors. Some that was some of the concerns that uh that folks had about uh foundations, their foundations and so forth. Uh but there'll be uh liability insurance. There will be also a bond which will cover, you know,
any any uh any any cost that is maybe not covered by insurance. Um, so I I think that pretty much uh that pretty much wraps up the presentation. Uh, Joseph, I don't know if there's anything else that
you would like to uh to uh discuss. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Um, can you speak to um usability of the open space given the slope of the land and whether or not there are some trees
that you are taking down on the site and and what you're preserving in terms of trees? Uh yeah, sure. Um so the um there were quite a few larger uh deciduous trees uh at the back of the property uh that uh
at least according to uh Google Maps um was there until uh 2022. Uh there were some issues with um uh some of the branches coming down and so forth. So Mr. Fugate uh the owner of the property
uh had at the request of of the uh butter 2123 regent um he had that removed. Uh so we anticipate uh uh after we do the underpinning of the uh retaining wall at the back. Uh we
anticipate uh planting trees in the back as well as uh streetscape having having uh uh trees along along Ariv as well. Yeah, ma madam chairman the the tree um that you see in photograph uh slide
number 17 that uh is has been taken down. that tree was also in um was in in bad shape and was going to be a um a hazard to the to the existing house. And what about usability of this open
space? The usability would be uh primarily as private to uh to the uh to the property. Uh the back of the the the north west corner would be a private garden for the
for the uh uh for the nine units and would be a flat. So if we go to um let's see slide 26 please. Yeah. Lisa or someone, can you reopen the slides? Is this what you're looking
for? I think he muted. I think the Yeah, the speaker disappeared. Am I unmuted now? Can you hear? Yes. Yes. My apologies. Let's see the this slide shows you that on the left side
um on the east side uh that is fairly flat. Uh and we would the retaining wall on the north would would help to uh um to retain that earth and that u below that would be basically the parking but that would be used as a private garden
for the um uh for the units. Uh on the on Akran street we have to u have a ramp at that point that ramp will be fairly flat. Um we we need to um rise about six feet uh from Akran Street to the entry.
Uh um we are anticipating the use of two private um uh screens or terraces for the units down below and that would be landscaped. And we we anticipate using
fencing there, some kind of um um u a slot wall that would allow uh greenery to grow. Um then on the east on the excuse me, on the east side and the and the southeast side, you'll see now
um the the transition uh and that would be almost a six-foot drop. Uh we would plant trees corner and try to look for vegetation as well uh to the uh um to the u u uh um driveway. The driveway we
see as a permeable surface. Uh and then on the back side on the along the uh uh north uh corner the north northeast corner uh going to the northwest. Um the that we see as also fairly flat. uh we
would rebuild a uh um a small we would actually build a retaining wall there and and and the possibility of of again uh more of a slat wall fencing. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions from the
board? May we have public testimony? Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of two of Butter's meetings held on February 6th of 2023 and
February 11th of 2025. The second meeting uh was excuse me the meeting was well attended but not very well received. Uh changes were made to the project with the reduction of one unit from the proposal. Buddies did voice their opposition to the proposal regarding the height of the building and the number of stories as well as the
shadows and the propo and the the proposal will cause excuse me. uh voters felt 10 units were excessive for the area due to current congestion and the use of the easement for all the voters would be negatively impacted uh by adding two parking spaces. Throughout
the process, changes were made uh again uh to the project including that same reduction to the one unit and increasing to the project. Following the abuters meeting, the proponent did continue to engage with the community by hosting additional meetings such as the one on April 21st with the Roxbury Neighborhood Council and a
buddy were mentioned. Next, the proponent presented to Tommy's Rock Neighborhood Association and Roxbury Neighborhood Council where Tommy's Rock voted to in opposition to the proposal and Roxberry Neighborhood Council recommended reducing the height down to three stories as well as the unit count with the required site visit by ZBA and
if not then a vote of deny without prejudice would be suggested. To date, our office has received 39 letters of support and 30 letters of opposition, including one from Roxbury Neighborhood Council and Tomy's Rock Neighborhood Association, maintaining the opposed theme regarding height and shadows, including concerns for the retaining
wall and the historic nature of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with their judgment. Thank you, Reggie Stewart. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of
the board. My name is Reggie Stewart. I am representing councelor Tanya Anderson's office from district 7 and I would like to read her letter of opposition to whom it may concern. I am submitting this letter regarding the proposed development at 36 Akran Street
in District 7 to provide a consolidated summary of community feedback. I fully recognize the pressing need for new housing to address our city's ongoing housing crisis. While the developer has reported receiving 40 letters of support
for the project, it is important to note that many of these letters were submitted by individuals outside the immediate area and many of them were conditional. In contrast, our office has received 67 letters from constituents predominantly from neighboring residents
expressing their opposition to the development. Residents have raised concerns about the building's incompatibility with the neighborhood's character and have provided references of recent successful projects and hope to see the feedback incorporated. At the same time, I acknowledge the proposal
includes certain features and community benefits such as inclusion of one affordable unit and funding for open space projects and scholarships for district 7 residents as promised by the developer. Should you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact my office. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay, we have three hands raised. We'll start with Liz. Please state your name and address the record. Good afternoon. Uh chairwoman and board members. My name is Liz Boswick and I'm an attorney and I represent the Abutters
at 21 and 23 Regent Street, the Rochelle family. My business address is 100 Summer Street in Boston. And I'm asking the board today to deny the request for this project. Um, primarily I would say
to the board that they're really seeking multifamily residential use here, which is a prohibited use in this area. Um, this is not it's zoned for three families. Um, and I will also say that
if we I don't know if you can pull up their slides again, but the back of the building that faces my client's residence is going to be four stories and about 47 ft high and there's going to be eight balconies facing their
property. Um, I would also say that the the shadow study even submitted by them showed significant shadow on my my client's property. Um I would also say I noticed a flaw at least in the planning development that I saw and if you see
their site plan there is no um allowance for a rear yard a rear yard setback um contained within the planning department's opinion to the board is they suggest that this is bordered by
three public ways and that is in fact not true. Akran Place is not a public way. It's a private way. Um therefore, this development would be required to have a 30 ft rear yard depth, which is
not accounted for in the plans at all. Um they're building very close to the the property line. um as well as what was brought up about tearing down this retaining wall um that borders my client's property and is
based on if you've been to the area you'll know that there's a lot of very old pudding stone in the area. Um and there are strong concerns for adding nine cars exiting onto region streets.
You're adding congestion. You're also digging up very old rock and it does not match the character of the property. Um the the neighborhood does have some larger buildings in it, but I would suggest that those are not true
comparators because in fact a lot of them are older and have been pre-existing to the zoning code. Um please wrap up. Yes. So, we would just ask the court I ask the board to deny any uh relief to this
project. Thank you. Joanie. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Um, hi. My name is Joanie Tobin. I'm a director of butter at 3 AN. Um, I'm a former vice president of the board of Washington Gateway Main Streets when I lived in the
south end. So, I just want to note that I'm a wellocumented supporter of development and I've worked um with a lot of responsible developers. Uh the community really wants affordable housing in our area and we provided examples of recent successful projects in the neighborhood including the renovation and expansion of a very
similar historic rowhouse at 17 Akran Street for reference. Um but I will say that this developer has consistently refused to integrate our feedback into their design and has been very difficult to work with. They claim the support letters they submitted are from abutters, but as the district counselor's letter states, the support letters are primarily from people
outside the immediate area. And they've received 67 letters of opposition from closely neighboring residents and abutters. They'll say they've met with us and acted on our feedback and congratulate themselves for making inconsequential changes that don't address our concerns. But as you can see from the overwhelming community opposition, the reality is they haven't
even done the bare minimum to address our concerns. They also emphasize community benefits, but I want to be clear that community benefits are not a substitute for incorporating our feedback. I'll just quickly summarize some of the main issues. Obviously, the project is too big for the lot. It exceeds the max height and the number of stories allowed in the neighborhood, and
it would tower over all abuing structures. Um, in addition, it doesn't leave enough room for open space, as we've already seen. Um, two solar energy assessments I've received show the building will reduce light to the abing buildings on a place by at least 5 to 10%. Two of these buildings, including mine, only have windows on the front and
back. So, mean this means that the amount of natural light I get will be significantly diminished. The law is in a neighborhood design overlay district. Um, and this project violates the regulations outlined in section 5039, which state that new residential construction shall reflect the traditional location and relationship of
buildings on their sites and that projects should respect standards of scale. The existing building is a historic rowhouse on a corner lot on a street lined with historic peaked roof houses. The proposal is wildly out of scale with the neighborhood. Even urban renewal project Warren Gardens across the street respects the roof line,
streetscape, and character of the neighborhood. They haven't given us comprehensive construction plans detailing how the process will adversely affect neighboring structures. Blasting through ledge in such a close proximity to other historic houses is bound to end badly. I'm a video producer and I work from home and blasting so close to my house will severely limit my ability to
do my job. Um, lastly, the comps in the neighborhood, including those referenced by the developer, indicate a lack of demand for this type of market rate condo. There are several projects that haven't fully sold even after years on the market. As I mentioned, the community overwhelmingly opposes this project. And if the ZBA approves this project, our only option for continuing
to fight requires spending thousands of dollars um to hire a lawyer, money we do not have. Please listen to the community and oppose this project until the developer agrees to collaborate with us to revise these plans in a way that respects zoning regulations and abutters's input. We very much want to work with them on a win-win project for this lot. Thank
you, Kyle. Um, good afternoon, Madam Chair and distinguished members. My name is KL Tedesco. I live at 60 Winthrup Street, but prior to my living on Winthre Street, I lived at Regent Place, which
is in the shadow of this development and and the land abuts of the development. And I'm here speaking out of experience because I lived there 20 years and I know the impact negative impact a
building like that would have on the last remaining pudding stone row houses in Tommy's Rock which is set back in back in back of 2123 regent. And if I
also may add, right next to this development, which is two houses away, excuse me, is the earliest federal house still left in Roxbury, right on the corner of St. James and
Regent. This construction does not fit into the historical nature of the landscape at all. That's I've seen numerous proposals that they've come back to us with and it's just not
it's just not acceptable. Um I feel badly for the my former neighbors in Regent Place because this development would cause runoff from water going into the back of their homes and also on a
place they're going to be shuttered in. When you look at the pictures that they propose, it looks like like they built a wall there and it's going to block out like it's going to cause shadows. It's just it's like Thank you. Please wrap
up. Okay. So, I I'm just opposed to it because it's not it's not right for the area. Thank you. And finally, we have Betty Can you unmute? Yes. Can you hear me now? Yes, I can. Okay. Thank
you. Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Reverend Betty Tony and I am deeply opposed to this grossly inappropriate proposal for the Roxbury Neighborhood Design Overlay District for the following reasons. The planning
board's three recommendation for approval are based on mislication of Akran Street zoning and misrepresentation of criteria used to assess Akran Street for example
buffering and grandfathered buildings some some grandfathered buildings which some are actually um appropriate for their um for their um footprints being a a building approved
I'm sorry with the one exception being a building approved by the formally sadly disgraced removed zoning board of appeal. The planning board's recommendations are in violation of
Boston Zoning Code Article 50, section 26, and section 38 with respect to a 14-day public comment period, which of apprised
of. Sadly, the planning board's recommendations are tantamount to a gentrification displacement strategy. This planning board's assessments are an affront to and a violation of the due process of a butter's impacted residents
and all the residents of Tommy's Rock. Finally, shame on the new Boston Planning Board and any other agency complicit with this developer's harmful and and detrimental proposal. Thank you.
Thank you. There's no other hands, Madam Chair. Okay. Would the applicant like to briefly address these concerns? No, Mr. Dong. I think that uh again, both Mr. Melton, myself, and Mr. Ferrer
have presented the project uh as was discussed with the with the neighborhood. Uh certainly as I stated with the previous project, there's not always going to be tacid agreement, uh changes were made, things were
discussed, and we will just leave it uh at this particular point in time. I'm not sure we can add anything to the board's deliberation, your folks, and I will leave that to your deliberation. Mr. Hampton, are you available to weigh
in? Mr. Uh thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff An uh City of Austin Planning Department. Uh we recommend approval with uh significant design review specifically with fenistration uh some screening and buffering just try
to minimize um the height uh of this building. However, uh we do understand the uh the trepidation of the neighborhood, but uh we are on the record uh in support of
this with significant design review. Other questions from the board hearing? None. Is there a motion? I'll put for a motion. Um I I'd like to put for a motion of approval with a proviso that um it goes extensively
through the BPD design review. Um just kind of a comment. I think the gable roof makes your structure look uh much taller. um because of the typology I think you were on the right um avenue when you
were proposing the kind of the version before where it didn't have that gable it seemed much lower uh and also your the color um it should be reviewed by BPD when the base uh and so the fenistration and the color of the
previous proposal when it was lighter and it had much more glass when it steps down into the topography it won't look like um a large retaining wall which we heard some of the community feedback um that was given that it was um the latest
proposal doesn't make it very pedestrian friendly. So I think with BPD design review it should begin to address some of the concerns of the of the neighborhood in relation to height and that ground floor kind of pedestrian experience. Um and and this why this is
why I'm supporting project. Is there a second? Well, does our recommendation need to reflect the new unit size because the the our agenda has very different numbers in it. Um so that's more a question about
whether our vote needs to be for nine units, one affordable, nine parking spaces, four stories, cuz what we have in front of us is different than that. We could put it as the Are you asking if I may miss dog? Are you asking what do
you No, I'm not asking you. I'm asking that the Yeah, I can make sure that the with the that the that the um proposal is what Jean just mentioned, which is and Jean Carton if I'm wrong, that it it it's a fourstory, nine condo, one
affordable unit, nine parking spaces. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. All right. With that, is there a second? Second. Mr. Stumb. Oh, sorry. Mr. Valencia, yes.
Miss Benza, yes. Miss Turner, no. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Panado, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much and good. Have a good afternoon.
With that, we have one case left. We'll choose a case um an interpretation case scheduled for 12 12 noon. That would be case [Music]
BOA70440 with the address of 944 Saratoga Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge, and good afternoon again, members of the board. Um, Richard Linds, 245 Summer
Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, and as Mr. Ste said, this is a request for interpretation. I think if we could start with the refusal letter, that's probably the best place to start. Madam Ambassador, um we by way of very brief context and
background. Um Madam Chair, members of the board, this is for a project uh that was approved by the Boston Planning Department under article 80. It was submitted uh under the new amended zoning for East Boston and uh consistent with all of the requirements that um the
Boston Planning Department uh requests for our league projects. especially in East Boston, uh it was intended and designed to be by right and completely compliant with the amended provisions of article 53. Um we uh through the
permitting process in connection with this project uh we did uh ultimately receive a refusal letter and as the board can see um there were several items cited. The first is flood hazard districts which is not a zoning violation. It's more of a notation. Um
and we do agree this is subject to um a flood claim. Uh and we are u you know going to go through that process as well including uh order conditions from the conservation commission. Uh the second item uh which is probably the most significant for two of the violation is
uh that the examiner cites us for seaf applicability. SER of course for coastal flood resiliency overland district article 25A uh which uh is an important element of our request for interpretation. The third item is conform with existing building alignment
and then the last two uh deal with the height of the building as well as the number of stories. Um, so I'll take the um conformity with existing building alignment first and and I know that I've been before the board on other interpretations and I I believe some of
the other ones that we've had have been a bit more complicated. I think these are very straightforward. Uh, and I'm not even sure if somebody from ISD is here to um oppose this or speak on it, but I we did request that ISD simply review and remove these violations and
uh we did get no response on that. So uh we're we have to come to the board. Uh, so if we could um perhaps go down a couple of slides to the um slide that has a a map of the neighborhood. There we go. From the back. Yeah. Okay. So, uh,
as I'm sure as this board is aware, um, when you have in a particular district, um, uh, a front yard requirement that is obviously the minimum front yard requirement that is, uh, to be applied for the dimensions, uh, when proposing
new buildings. Our lot is located to the uh far left of the screen here. And what we're illustrating is uh essentially all of the other buildings uh along that particular block. If we go back one slide, I do have the text from article
18 that instructs ISD on how to determine uh the modal setback. And uh I'll just briefly review that. Uh essentially what you do is you take all of the developed lots on that side of the block and you come up with uh the various setbacks for each address like
what where are the existing buildings and what their setback looks like and you can use and it actually indicates you can use things like an assessor's path as long as they're properly scaled. So in this case we went we looked at all of the buildings along that side of the block. We come up with how much frontage
they have, what their setback is, and essentially you add them all up and you find which buildings or which uh properties with the most frontage um have a certain setback and that's the that's the governing setback. So in this case, it's 4 ft and that's exactly what
we're proposing for our our building. Um and we believe that this complies with the interpretation under article 18 because that is essentially black and white on how it's calculated. uh and as you see that we did submit this to the inspection service department as well uh
and showed our work and provided the map and uh the violation was not removed. So uh I we believe that this is a simple interpretation on the application of article 18. I would stress that the Boston planning department uh obviously with an article 80 project has been
engaged in a vigorous uh review of our project and our layout. uh we've made a number of changes to ensure uh that this project is zoning compliant and the planning department uh is comfortable uh with our setback that has been proposed
from the article 80 context. I don't want I don't I don't want to suggest that planning speaks for ISD but in this particular case this meets the requirement for um for uh the alignment setback. So, uh, with respect to that item, we're requesting that the board
reverse the determination of ISD as it relates to the violation for, uh, alignment and that that, uh, violation, uh, no longer be included in refusal. If we could scroll down to the actually scroll up to my letter, I'm going have
to zoom in maybe a little bit further up to the footnotes. Next page. Um, this deals with the Yeah, look at look at footnote one. Uh if you can just zoom in just so we can read footnote one a little bit better. Uh and this is from my letter that I typically submit to the
um inspectional service and connection especially with the mass right project to show the city uh that we understand what the requirements are for uh the particular um zoning regulations that are in in effect for that district. Um so the other two violations that were
said about ISD involve height of buildings. uh one is for the number of stories and the other is for the overall height. Um in this district this is a MU4 which a newly created zoning district. The maximum building height is 50 feet and the maximum number of
stories is four. And as I said earlier in the early part of the presentation, the fact that it is in a coastal flood resiliency overlay district is significant because that is how inspectional services is supposed to uh
calculate height. And we find that in article 25A- 6.2. Uh and if we see here in the footnote that I site, it says the building height shall be measured from the higher of grade or 2 ft above the
sea level rise base flood elevation. SLR BFE is the uh acronym for that and what we call that the SLR 2T above the SLR BFE is also known as the designed flood elevation or the DFE. So it's important
because the way buildings are measured outside of the seafront district is different because you measure from the sidewalk. So in this case, if we scroll down to the elevations that we've included, I think they're uh either page six or [Music]
seven. Maybe six or seven. Yeah, we can just zoom in. That's a perfect one to go there. We see these lines that we included. So, please go a little a little tighter just so we can see the actual heights that we're looking at. So, as you can see, our building
height as measured from the sidewalk and building height is measured to the roof rafters is uh I believe it's just over 55 ft. So, maybe 55 ft 6 in. Um, and that would be uh at first blush above
the height limit that's permitted in the MU4 district because the MB4 district max has a maximum height of 50 ft. However, because SER is involved, height measurement is not taken from the sidewalk. It's taken from the DFE. So,
in this case, the red line represents where that DFE is. is 2 ft above sea level rise base elevation which we identified by the blue line. And as you can see, the height above the VF is less than 50 ft and therefore complies with
uh article 53 as amended to permit u a building up to 50 ft in total height. I I'm not telling the board ignore that head house. There's a whole separate conversation on that. But that's not what we're cited for. We're cited for overall building height uh at 55 ft because that's where the measurement
should be. We're permitted to have a head house. There are provisions under article 53 that allow for that provided it meets certain dimensional requirements and our understanding based on the communication with ISD is that the building height measured to the roof factors is above 50 ft. Therefore,
that's the violation. So based upon the review of how article 25A tells us that when measuring height seaf fraud uh or how that should be calculated, we're compliant and we've indicated this on
multiple projects that we have going on many multi many article 80 projects that we have going on uh in East Boston where we're respectful of what that height limit is because we understand that the planning department won't even advance the project if we're seeking relief for these items.
As I said, this was advanced and already approved by the Boston Planning Department under article 80 uh at this height limit. So, we're we're not uh acting contrary to what the planning department's um recommended uh design
work was and we're certainly consistent with what our approval was under our lead. Now, the second issue deals with the number of stories. And this is always an interesting and complicated discussion, I think, but I'm going to do the best I can to simplify it. Um, as
this board is aware, uh, number of stories certainly can be limited by the particular zoning regulation for that district. In this district, the number of stories is four. And I'm sure the members are looking at this saying, well, that's a five-story building. How could that comply? Our answer is that
isn't a five-story building. is that the term story is a zoning term not a physical term. So the physical building layout is five levels but the term story is defined in article two of the zoning code and more importantly the term first
story is defined very specifically and that says the portion or the level if you will that is 65% or more above grade. Um, so again, you would look at this building and say, well, that first level appears to be 65% more above
grade. And if this weren't in the seaf fraud, I would say that's correct and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But once again, article 25A provides guidance on measuring height of a building and for good reason. I mean clearly the intent of the seafood is to
address sea level rise and resiliency and therefore uh having that lowest level being within the seafood really limits the usefulness and what we can do at that level. There's no habitable space of permitted. There is certain requirements for wet proofing the
building. In addition uh you know what we can do with mechanicals and other uh uses at that level become much more limited. So read in conjunction with the zoning code with the article 53 amendments as well as where 25A
instructs us to measure a building. It's logical that you would measure from the design flation, not grade. And the term grade is used in article 25A very specifically. So if we do our math and
look at the building, um 12 ft is that first level from from sidewalk to the top of the first level is 12 ft. And so 65% or more above grade, uh you know, it's 7.8 ft. Yeah. The answer would be if you were measuring from the sidewalk, that would be the first story, and this
would be a five-story building. But when we're measuring from the designed flood elevation, we subtract out that difference from the sidewalk up to the DFE. And the DF the difference between the sidewalk and the DF is 5.6 ft. So if
that if that 5.6 ft is subtracted from the uh total uh height of 12 ft, that leaves you with only about I believe it's uh let's see 53. Yeah, it's only 6.4 ft. and therefore it's 53% above the
DFE because that's below 65% that does not constitute the first story of this building. The first story is actually the second level and is only essentially four stories above the ground level and therefore complies with
article 53's limit on a four-story building. Now once again um if that had not been how the Boston planning department interprets this, this would not have advanced for an article 80
certification and the resiliency uh staff person with the planning department has reviewed this and agrees with this measurement. Uh I will reiterate to the board that we've done this on multiple other occasions and it's been determined that it's as of
right. It just depends. Unfortunately, I think sometimes we get differing interpretations depending on who the examiner is. And in this case, this examiner believes it's a different interpretation. So we're asking the board is to I think in the interest of getting some of these projects to move
forward and to ensure once again this is an as of right project as required by planning that we settle this issue on the design flood elevation coastal flood resiliency measurements and height of building and we're asking the board to
uh reverse the commissioner's decision to site height and stories in the seafront based upon on where the design flood elevation is. Um, with that, I I appreciate the board giving the time to really get into the weeds on this. I know it's been a long day, but I think
it's an important issue, especially because we have new zoning in East Boston and East Boston has a good deal of seafood areas uh that are likely to be developed in the coming, you know, coming years. So, happy to answer any questions of the board. Thank you. Is
there anyone from ISD on who can uh speak to this? Are there any questions from the board? Yeah, I mean we usually um uh madam chair, we usually do have ISD
or the commissioner present to make kind of their case. And so I I found that to be extremely insightful um uh because we hear both sides. Um I'm
pretty much kind of comfortable with the first ask which was it dealt with building alignment. Um but in regards to um to the definition of grade um which I thought was uh explained really well um
by Mr. Lynn. Uh I don't have it in like in front of me, but is a definition is there a definition of grade as it relates to um the being in a cost flood resilient
district? Is that defined in the building code? Um great question through the chair because because we're the building code is really specific on how it constitutes um first story in relationship to grade
but the question I have is is there a definition as you know within the context of flood resiliency so and through the thanks for the question I think that's uh that was important and that's one of the reasons why we have defined or worked to define
that with ISD article who defines grade um when measuring the building, you know, average grade uh of the sidewalk. Correct. Is what's used to determine building height and I and I respect the question about building code, but zoning
code, this is a zoning issue of how to measure the height of the building. Um and our zoning code says that a absent of seaf fraud, grade is the average grade of sidewalk and that's where we measure from. We do that on every
project that's not in the sea fraud. If we go back to I'm Madam Ambassador can bring up my um letter again. I I do quote um article 25A. It's very specific and it makes the distinction. It says the higher of grade or was essentially
the DFE. So there are instances missza where the DFE I have one on Condor Street that we're going to process down. Yeah. I guess I I'm clear with the I'm clear with the height. I'm I'm I need more information on the definition of
grade as it relates to story. And so I so I would you know unless other wants to comment on um I would like to ask um our kind of council to be able to look into this and provide
recommendation as well uh in order to be able to make a decision on all the items versus two of the item two of the three items that that you have brought in front of us. Uh, you know, I don't know if other board members want to chime in
or if Caroline question from the board. Am I can I respond? I'm sorry. I mean, I'm sorry. I just want to see if other question other board members have questions or comments. Oh, okay. Go ahead, Mr. Turner. All
right. It's just a comment. I want to say that I agree with um Miss Fazler about having ISD to kind of help us through all of this. Um yeah, to be honest with you, like it
wasn't very well explained. Um but I still don't know. Um like I I wish we had other side. Madam Chair, if I may, and I we we do a good deal of these interpretations. We've done before you a number of times
and ISD typically does participate and I I understand they're aware of this. I'm not sure why they're not present today. I I I want to believe that my argument is so strong they decided to wave the white flag, but I can't I can't speak for them. However, um we've been at this
for some time where we've spent a lot of time, resources, and effort to get this uh to where it is. And I think it would be um maybe insightful to have Amber Galo, who is the um resiliency officer,
if you will, with the planning department, speak to this because they I feel understand how this provision of article 25A works in conjunction with local zoning or the local specific zoning district in the regulations. But
to Miss Better Marza's point about grade, I I think the issue here is 25A I don't believe define does a special definition of grade which means grade goes back to whatever is in
article 2, you know. So if if there are certain articles that make new definitions, I don't believe 25A does that. Instead, we go to article 2. We see it's the sidewalk and article 25A is very
clear where it says you use higher grade or the DFE. There are instances where the design flation just depend on the topography of the land maybe less than grade and therefore grade then becomes the sort of standard for how we're
measuring the building but it's much more common where we have buildings like this especially those in the flood zone where the DF is going to be higher than the sidewalk because the sidewalk's definitely going to be the flood zones below base flood elevation and it follows that the height of the building
would be or or would be essentially enforcing the habitable area or the useful area of the building higher as a result and seaf fraud is intended to recognize that we want to you know get that area of the
building out of out of the the flood plane or at least out of the um you know threat of sea level rise. So I I don't know that it's something that and I I respect that you want to have council review that. Yeah. So I think I think I'm following you with the height. It's
very explanatory and my issue and my where I need some um additional context from Caroline is kind of our for our legal department to take a look at uh specifically on the issue of grade as it
applies to um the seaf fraud district. That's what I'm requesting personally. I don't know what the other board members are are going to be requesting, but in order for me to determine a decision personally, I would need just the grade
definition as it applies to C fraud, our legal council to take a look at that and then sure if if the commissioner or IC wants to be in in in front of us to to to say you are correct Mr. Lynn, you know, we support it or they have another
kind of um definition. I would like to hear that it's not to delay. So, you know, I think we can do this as soon as possible. Um, but we have in the past received some legal counsel from our department as well that has informed our decision-m and that's what I'm
requesting. I and I I fully respect that. I I just for context, we have three other interpretations this board has heard and we've received no response. They're they're unfortunately in limbo. Um I I have been successful
depending again on who the examiner is. I this is a last and I think Mr. Lynn, I'm glad that Jeff Hampton is here and what you have pointed to has been uh that the two departments need to speak to one another, BPD and ISD.
And meanwhile, my client unfortunately and I not blaming the board for this, but we get lost in limbo in the project, you know, the projects becomes more costly and now I understand that. So that's what I'm saying for us to review your project as soon as possible to make
a decision. Yeah, good. I think from Caroline, I would I would ask to make sure that someone from ISD is available for these interpretations because uh it's a disservice uh to the applicant uh to not have them available to uh either, you know, white flag it or whatever
they're, you know, whatever they're doing, rebutt it. Um, so I would please ask to make sure that someone is available. Uh, and to also again, you know, Attorney Linds mentioned several other interpretations that are still in limbo and it would be uh a shame to add
this one to the pile. Uh, with that, let's uh see if Mr. Hampton can help us uh move this along. Oh, also, Madam Chair, um, we we did request someone from ISU to be here. We've called this person.
Um, we've emailed um also in reference to the prior interpretations. Um, I have spoken to council who is doing those interpretations. They're not in limbo, I promise. Um, we're just waiting for the final memorandum, but all the
preliminary research has been done. That sounds great. Thank you. And Mr. Sometimes we've also have heard in uh a a code or fire protection. Not not fire protection in this case, but sometimes we all have also heard like um
um you know a code consultant as well that can provide uh additional input as well. Great. Sorry, Jeff. Mr. Hampton. No, no worries at all. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Uh, I just wanted to state
for the record, I know Miss Better Barazza, you've been asking for a definition of grade as it pertains to sea fraud. There is none in 25A. Um, so I don't know whether or not that money's
the waters. Uh, so basically it's an interpretation of Mr. Lynn that applies. Um, it's an extension from already being referenced in relationship to height. Correct. So, okay. So, it's an interpretation. So, I think it is fair
to say that we need our legal counsel to provide us input on um if they agree with Mr. Lynn's interpretation as well, how it's being applied with it with the intention
um of considering the the base kind of flood level in relationship to how to determine height and story. Um great. Thank you so much, Mr. Hampton. And attorney Linds, I'm assuming there's no benefit to breaking up your
requests since I mean we've Yeah, I mean we we've already advanced this project through design review. Um we're at PIC and you know we we felt pretty confident. You know, as I said, I've got other
projects where ISD's I mean, there's just inconsistent interpretations happening at ISD on this issue, which, you know, I think needs the board to rule on it because unfortunately, depending again, depending on who we get as an
examiner, some examiners say we agree this is how it's interpreted and others say, well, we think it's a violation and there's just no continuity. So as I said this is our last resort. We try to resolve as we've been at this for some
time with ISD to say this is black and white. I mean it's grade or DF like which one is it? And we identify both for ISD and we feel that it's a very straightforward review of article 25A
that that's how it's applied. Um, and we know that's how planning applies it because as I said, they review that as compliant as far as they're concerned. That that's how they view this this interpretation of article 25A
as it applies to hype. So, um, I I just can I ask another Can I ask another question? Um um it it would require for you to um resubmit if there was to be a new
violation in relationship to story. So you're trying to avoid that and you're you're also suggesting that this whole project went through the article 80. They have you know perview. So it's more of a uh of time an issue of time to get your
project move forward. So I I think you know we we could make a decision right away. I think we just need uh what I requested and we understand the urgency of your client to move this as as soon as possible.
Any questions from anyone else? Quickly if Mr. Valencia is a if there is a violation at this moment Mr. lens, would you be required to file the project again with the VPDA and ISD and especially if there is a violation,
would you be required to comply with IDP? It's a great question. So, um, no, the project the project was filed prior to, um, October 1st. It was at the
instruction of planning was was a as of right project. The project originally was submitted um with a rear yard setback uh that was
less than the required 10 ft. It was around 8 ft just the way the building was designed. And we were prepared to come to the board and asked for relief. Uh we were instructed to make the project fully zoning compliant by planning. We redesigned the project. We
dropped four units and we even expressed to planning if we do that based upon where we are in time because it was prior October 1st that that would exempt us from the IDP requirement because article 79 has not kicked in yet. And so
in doing that we we left it to planning said you tell us we we'll ask for relief on the yard and do I think it was three or four IDP units and planning said no we prefer that it be fully compliant and we
disclosed that to planning. We said if that's the case we'll lose units but you know we would do it as a fully compliant project. no IDP and the reason being is the the loss of units that we had to give up from the original design, you know, certainly impact the project. So,
we don't have to refile because we would f we would be filed under the original plan or the the original permit number that has gone through the process that's been working its way through ISD. But we believe this is a um very straightforward issue with respect to um
the interpretation of crat. Okay. Okay, I think we need a motion. Is someone prepared to make one? So, um the motion here is a motion of deferral and to allow us to um Caroline
provide us with legal counsel feedback and to give ISD one more opportunity to move to be in front of us in order for us to make a decision. and as soon as possible. So motion to defer to to the next hearing. Is there a second?
Second. Mr. Pembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Brazza. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Miss
Panado. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. We have a date, Madam Chair. Can we Caroline? The next hearing is June 3rd. Is that enough time? Um yeah, Caroline. Um yeah, I want to make sure that the
the legal can can interpret it and uh the ISD staff can be present. Um, I'd like to schedule it for June 3rd. Um, and if for some reason more time is needed, I then to defer again,
but I'd like to put June. Yeah, sure. Shortly should be and Miss Dong, I think if we have um, you know, one or the other, that would be sufficient. Uh I think if it's you know with with uh schedule challenges I would just advocate that one or the other
would be sufficient because we've heard Mr. Lynn and we want to help him and his team you know move the project forward. All right. Thank you. We'll see you then. Thank you very much. Have a good day. All right. Have a good day everyone.
Thank you.