Good morning everyone. The city of Boston zoning board of appeal hearing for recording in progress for August 26, 2025. Now 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 holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed live stream. 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 agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the
public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will
appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of the 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 board of the public who are most impacted by a project. That is those
individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button on along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a
request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will ask 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 Miss Panado 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. Okay. Miss Weell. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning, Mr. Valencia. Good morning, madam chair. Present. Good
morning, Miss Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair. President, good morning, Mr. Langum. Good morning, Madame Chair President. Good morning, Miss Ponado. Good morning, Madam Chair. President, and feel free to uh help in my inaugural
clerk duties today. Well, well, thank you for stepping up. We appreciate it. Um, with that, uh, just a a note that we are a six member board and I will turn it over to Miss. All right. The first item on the agenda
is approval of the minutes for August 12. May I have a motion? Motion to approve the minutes as read. Second. M Miss Ho. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes.
Ms. Turner. Yes, Mr. Langum. Yes, Miss Ponado. Yes, chair votes yes. The motion carries. Uh, next item on the agenda is extensions. Um, I read all of these or
do we call them up? We're going to read uh all the BOAS and uh if no one has any questions, I will make a motion to grant the extensions as required. Okay. Uh first we have case BOA1494349 with the address of two Dexter Row. Uh
second we have case BOA1393487 with an address of 174 Norfol Street. And we have case BOA 667111 with an address of 151 Liverpool Street. Any questions from the board?
If not, may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? Motion to grant the extensions as requested. May I have a second? Second. Miss Weo, yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Turner,
yes. Mr. Langum, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Jer, yes. The motion carries. Okay. Next we have recommendations from the zoning subcommittee. Um
I will repeat those cases. The subcommittee hearing was on August 21st. Um we have case BOA1706519 [Music] with the address of 1 to3 center plaza.
It was approved. Case Boa 17141 with an address of 633 to 633A Traremont Street. It was approved. Next we have case 173
934 with an address of 67 Appleton Street. It was approved. We have case BOA1 1732098 with an address of 218 to 220 Old Colony Avenue. It was approved. Case BOA
1725220 with an address of 24 Edge Hill Street. It was approved. Case BOA1 1720605 with an address of 13 Marian Street. It was approved. And finally, case
BOA1684116 with the address of 51 Mosley Street that was approved. Thank you. May I have a motion? Motion to approve all the recommendations. May I have a second?
Second. Miss Weedwell. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Langum? Yes. Miss Pado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
All right. Uh so before we start the 9:30 agenda, is anyone here requesting a deferral or withdrawal for the 9:30 agenda? All right. Reminder, we're a six member board.
All right. Um the first case is BOA 1717047 with an address of 132 Sycamore Street. There are companion cases BOA 1717051
with an address of 132R Sycamore Street. Case BA171 Z 1717054 with an address of 134 Sycamore Street and case BOA1717056
with an address of 134R Sycamore Street is the applicant here and name and address for the record. Good morning. Thank you, Miss Panado. Attorney John Puljini on behalf of these proposals at 132134 Sycamore Street.
With me this morning is Antonio Ferrara who is the owner of these vacant parcels. Uh thank you for the upto to present this morning. Uh 132 and 134 Sich are located in a two family 5000 zoning subdist. These lots have always
been separately assessed in tax. Uh lot 132 is 6,234 ft. Lot 134, 6,79 ft. The proposal for you is to build a single family on each of these vacant lots with the detached garage. As Mrs. Pinado read out, you
will see from the plans, ISD required two separate applications for the detached garages, 132R, 134R. Both houses are designed for family ownership, uh, providing four bedrooms, two and a half baths. As far as as far as violations, we have a lot width and
lot frontage, which in this case is the same violation. Um the lots on the street are primarily 40t wide. Uh in the zoning when the zoning when change went through, it required a 50-ft uh frontage. That said, these lots are the same size or bigger than of the built
lots on the street, and many of the similar sized lots have two and three family homes on them. The only other violation is a sideyard setback and that setback is between these two houses that are being proposed. Um the setback proposed is 6 feet. However, the houses
themselves will be se separated by 12 ft. I feel the best indicator of the size of these homes is that we do not have an F violation for either property. Evidence of these single family homes will be in context with the existing built environment. The proposals underwent a full community process with
an abuters meeting as well as a meeting with the Prospect Hill Civic Association and we received very little feedback. Uh we feel that these propos proposals provide an opportunity for family home ownership in this great neighborhood. And with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have.
Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Madam chair, members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Rosdale community engagement specialist for the Office of
Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on June 2nd with a very few of us in attendance. A few concerns were raised regarding the distance between the two buildings, feeling they would be less than 6 ft apart and would be too close. A concern
for the trees on the property was raised in construction time frames and a suggestion that a duplex would be better fit would be a better fit in two buildings in the neighborhood. Next, the proposal was presented to the Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association was approved to move forward in the process. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would
like to defend. Thank you. Any other madam chair? We don't have additional comments. Okay. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second.
Second. Mr. Ms. We Yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Langley, yes. Miss Panado, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
Good. Thank you, everybody. And next on the agenda is case 1719009 with an address of 77 Blake Street and a companion case uh B 0 BOA
1719016 with an address of 79 Blake Street. Is the applicant or it's their representative here to speak on this case? Name and address for the record, please. Hello, Madam Chair and board members. Uh my name is Jennifer Ha. I'm the
principal architect at Hugh Architecture located at 53H Harbor Street in Dorchester. I'll be presenting the project at 779 Blake today. Um which Yes, please. On the first page, uh 79 Blake Street hosts a single family on
3,816 ft lot. 77 Blake is currently on record as 3561 ft² vacant lot. And these lots were previous divided this way. Um, and but what we're trying to do is create uh a new subdivision to respect the house
geometry on the home on 79 Blake Street. Um, you can go to the next slide. Uh, so the new corner lot will now be 3,482 ft measuring around 87 ft x 40 ft. Um, and it's in the 2F5000 zone and its ton AB as well as Blake
Street. The proposal is to build a new two family dwelling facing Blake Street with four ongrade parking spaces entering from Tottenham a which is an existing curb cut and in this picture you will see the curb cut. Um you can go to the next um Thank you. Here is a site
plan showing the proposed building massing which fits in um scale compared to the neighboring buildings. This is um you can go to the next. Oh, so yes. Okay. Um and then the houses in this neighborhood are comprised mostly by
single families with a few two families and three families. Therefore, we feel the proposed two family fit well in this compact. Um here's a proposed site plan. The front porch is entered on Blake Street and the driveway is entered from Cotton A on the side and there is a side
stair so you can easily access the parking directly to the unit. Um the the new driveway entering from Taton app will be an easement for 7079 Blake Street so that they can access their parking. Um can go to the next slide.
Okay. So the the refusal letter will show the violations for both the lots. Um and then we can go to the next page. Uh here you will see that the first floor and the basement make up unit one. Uh you enter from the porch and then uh
that's how you have two bedrooms and two bathrooms on the first floor with an open kitchen, dining room. And in the basement we have a family room um and the game room and mechanical space. On this next page, you'll find the second floor and the attic make up unit 2. And
it's a similar layout with two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and then upstairs. You also have a family room and a guest room and a laundry space. Um, unit two is a bit smaller at 1330 ft² while unit one is 1680 ft. Um, go to
the next page. Yep. We designed a traditional gabled facade with dormers to resemble the neighboring 2 and a half story dwellings on the street. We also designed front porches, front yard landscape, and large front windows and New England trim and shingle sighting to offer a more attractive, desirable
neighborhood appeal. Um, and that's the end of the presentation. Thank you. Questions from the board. Um, the planning department has cited front yard parking. Can you address that concern? Um, that is a good question. Um there I
guess it's because the driveway is very close to Taton A and so uh it's considered a front yard since it is on along the street. Um so you can see on the site plan maybe a little bit better. Yes. Right there. So um the the lower
right parking space that's against Thompson Avenue. Um that may be considered a front yard because it is a corner lot. Yeah. I I think that with design review they're going to recommend an increase in open space. Are you amendable to
that? And perhaps you're going to lose a parking space in that process. Yes, I think that that can be compromised. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Yes, just to clarify, you have six parking spaces in total
for the two uh buildings. Yes. And for the two buildings, how many units are in total? Uh the 79 Blake Street is a single family and then 77 Blake Street is a two family. Um there was a lot of discussion in our neighborhood meetings of as well
as neighborhood association for uh more parking on our project and because we offered uh parking on our project uh for two per unit in our side um that's how they had uh given us support for the project.
Okay, I I agree with Miss Pin about the parking configuration because the parking and the driveway are taking almost the entire open space that could be used by the residents. So also my recommendation will be to work with the planning department to reduce the
parking and increase uh open space. No more questions, madam chair. Thank you. And with that, may I have public testimony? Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jar Member. I am the hide park community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has
completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting on May 21st very lightly attended with a few concerns regarding the parking driveway ement past ownership and suggestion for benefits around the property as well as construction garbage disposal plans with one of our voicing support. Next, the
proponent was the proposal was presented to Roseberry Rustin Road Neighborhood Association on June 10th where they voted to support the proposal. To date, our office has received two letters of support from the civic Roseberry Rusk and Durwood Neighborhood Association and City Council Evergate Pepin's office
supporting the long-term members of the neighborhood investing in their community. Thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.
With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve with a proviso that um the plans are submitted to the planning department for desired review. I have a second second we will
uh yes I was should we be more specific that the design review is for the parking? I think the buildings are fine. I just don't want it to be misinterpreted for specificity specificity towards the parking. Great. Thank you. Uh, yes.
Okay. Miss Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Lango, yes. Miss Panado, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you, board members and madam
chair. Have a great day. Next, we have case BOA172185 with an address of 494 to 496 Popular Street. applicants available. Uh yes. Um good morning, Madame Chair
and members of the board. My name is Laura Moss and I am the architect representing Joseé Michael Rodriguez and his family who have lived at 494/496 Popler Street since 1977. The eldest son, Joseé Michael, wishes to live in the same building as his aging
mother and her special needs daughter so that he may assist them in their continuing medical care. The existing two family house contains multiple existing non-conforming zoning conditions. It has an insufficient sideyard setback which is undersized by 4 ft and an insufficient front yard
setback undersized by an average of 11 ft on both popular street and glenthood row. This is a corner lot. I would also like to note that the letter we received by ISD states that there is an insufficient rear yard setback when in
fact that this is in compliance and it should note instead front yard instead of rear yard. The property's lot area is undersized by 860 ft. Therefore, we are seeking relief from the open space requirement.
The owners maintain a lovely fire garden. Actually the um this property is located in a single family zone run off 6000. Uh so we are seeking relief from F and off streetet parking which are currently there are two spaces.
I would also like to note that the majority of residential buildings along CO street are multif familys although they are in a 1 6000 zone. The proposed project you want to scroll down actually to the last page please.
Thank you. The proposed project seeks to add an additional unit to the existing added space of the house, turning the property into a three family building, which contains enough space for a one-bedroom apartment. In order to maintain the necessary headroom in this attic apartment, we are
proposing two bedrooms to the existing attic, which will not add any overall height to the building. This would add a complete third story which exceeds the allowable story height of 2 and a half in its current zone. Therefore, we are also seeking relief from the liable stories. Uh with that, I am happy to
answer any questions from the board and thank you for the opportunity to present today. Thanks so much. Questions from the board hearing none. May I have public testimony? Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Rosendale community
engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on June 5th with one abutter in attendance. No concerns were raised. Following the abundance meeting, the proposal was approved to move forward with no further community process. At this time, our office has not received
any letters of opposition or support. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office neighborhood services would like to defer to the board position. Thank you, Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. Thank you. May I have a motion? Motion to approve.
There second question. Miss Weell, yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Langum, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Chair votes, yes. The motion carries.
Good. Next, we have case BOA 1465030 with an address of 41 Leroy Street. Is the applicant or other representative here to speak on the case? Jonathan Bradshaw.
I don't think they're here. Okay, you keep going. Okay, the next case is KOA1692050 with the address of 14 M Street. Is the applicant or the representative here to speak on this case? Good morning, Attorney Lawrence Catino.
Um, on behalf of the owner, Jose Hartnett, please proceed. Um, very quickly, this is a very straightforward um, application. If you could just go to page two. The proposal is to change the owner to
change the occupancy to a three-unit residential dwelling, which is an allowed use in this neighborhood. The um current use has a commercial space at the bottom. So the idea is to do internal re renovations only and the footprint is
remaining the same to just have this be a three-unit dwelling. You can continue down. This just shows you some view of the project. Um as you can see it needs some TLC. So the idea would also be to add some landscaping and some more grass area and to include three parking
spaces. The um when meeting with the neighborhood group, they asked us to try to include as much grass as possible around these areas. So we have agreed to do that. And each of these units would be a threebedroom unit. Um so it's designed
for family living. You can keep going. So, the only change to the facade um would be on the first level. There's currently a large garage door opening and that would be changed to larger
windows um to avoid the um having the garage door at a unit. and we would be keeping the same um curb cut that is already existing on the street to access the parking. So with that I can take questions.
Thank you. Any questions from the board hearing? None. May I have public testimony? Madam chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Jamaica plane community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process consisted of an abundance meeting
facilitated on March 25th that was very likely attended. Of the seven guests, two abund while others inquired about owner occupancy and the current and future status of basement work. Mexican proponent presented to both Stony Brook neighborhood association and Jamaica plane neighborhood council on June 9th
and June 18th respectively and both associations approved the proposal with SNA Stony Brook Neighborhood Association in support. To date, our office has received one letter of support from the Stonyie Brook Neighborhood Association as they support the increase in housing in the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of labor services would like to defer to the
agenda. Thank you. Thank you. U Madame Chair, there was Okay, we don't have additional comments. I thought I No, was I thought I saw someone. Okay. Uh would that
Poland Lost Good morning. I'm a director of butter to the property and the applicant has met with me from the beginning and we are in total agreement. This is a wonderful project. Adds a lot to the
community, the neighbors and I feel he's done a beautiful job with uh meeting our request and requirements for making the property aesthetically pleasing and having some great green space. So we I'm we're in favor.
Thank you. You and with that uh there are no additional comments. Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? Motion for approval. Is there a second? Miss Ruo? Yes.
Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Langum? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries the vote. Thank you very much.
Next we have case BOA1 1677984 with an address of 781 Dorchester Avenue. Is the applicant are there a representative here? Yes. Good morning. Attorney Zachary Wall for the applicant. Please proceed.
Thank you Madam Chair. Good morning. With me um this morning is the project architect David Freed as well as uh Matthew Johansson um from uh the applicant Fazio Enterprises. Um this uh 781 Dorchester Street is located in a uh
triple decker residential subdist in Dorchester. Um it's surrounded by a mix of two family and multifamily residential um buildings. um project site is currently uh comprised of an existing um if you stop right there,
it's an existing um three and a half story three unit residential building on the southern portion of the project site at 783 Dorchester Avenue. Um also owned by the applicant um Fazio Enterprises. As you can see uh in the the current
conditions there um the top center photo where that uh tree can be seen is where um the applicant is proposing constructing a two family uh residential building with two parking spaces uh in the rear. Uh we believe uh that this
would be a strong improvement and addition um to the neighborhood. Uh if you can keep scrolling down please. Um just to advise where we did uh perform a density study which can be seen here on this slide. Um you can see
that uh the proposed project is consistent with the density of the neighborhood. Um and in many cases in fact less dense than uh neighboring properties on Dorchester Avenue um and Bellflower Street. Um if you could go to the next page please. I I'll walk
briefly um through the plans. The proposed project has both a front unit and a rear unit. Um, each unit does have a separate entrance. The front unit on Dorchester Avenue, the rear unit, you walk through a a gate on Dorchester Avenue to uh that down a well lit uh we
call it an alley to the rear um entrance. Uh if you keep going, the basement of the proposed project has uh utilities as well as storage. Um just again briefly running through the plans.
Each unit is a three bedroomedroom two and a half bathroom um layout. Uh the first floor of the uh front unit uh has a kitchen, dining, living area along
with a half bath, a closet. Um on the first floor of the rear unit, there's a home office and a closet. Uh you also have on the second floor of the front unit, two full-size bedrooms with bathrooms uh along with closets and a full bath. On the second floor of the rear unit, there's the kitchen, living
area, dining area, and half bath. Um third floor of the front unit, you have the master bedroom with the onsuite bathroom and walk-in closet, home office, and laundry. On the third floor of the rear unit, you have two full-size bedrooms and a full bathroom along with
laundry. Um the half floor on the uh rear unit again uh that's situated behind the roof deck. It's not visible from the street. It will have no impact on pedestrian experience. Uh that's where you have the master bedroom in the rear unit as well as a bath walk-in
closet and a small uh roof deck. Uh if you scroll down a little bit, um you can just see the proposed renderings and the elevations of the proposed project. I would just point out for the board that the the uh site to the immediate right
of the proposed project 779 Dorchester Avenue um recently received relief uh from this board for a two family mixed juice building which again you can see um in the renderings there. We are seeking a conditional use permit,
excuse me, to allow um for the construction of a second structure on the lot. We'll have independent street fronts that's um non intrusive to the surrounding area. We also seek uh relief for certain dimensional violations largely triggered um by the unique parcel shape of the proposed project.
The lot area certainly does provide sufficient space um for the proposed project and the nonconformities are similar and in fact in many cases less um less severe than the surrounding lots. Um with board approval, we do think that this project will fit in
nicely with the context of the neighborhood. Uh, Fazio Enterprises, a family-owned business that owns several properties um, in the neighborhood, including two properties um, immediately adjacent to uh, the proposed project at 781 Dorchester Avenue. Um, they had a
strong commitment to the neighborhood. Uh, take a lot of pride in home ownership. This is not a project that they're going to flip. Um, they're committed to the neighborhood and to being good owners for the long haul. Um we did go through the community process received strong support from the civic
assoc civic association district council constra and the city councilors at large. Um and with that I will conclude my presentation and open up for any questions. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none. May have public testimony.
Madam chair, members of the board for the record my name is John Bereley. I am the George 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 4th where abunders raised concerns regarding the usage of the property as rentals for
sale or as an Airbnb and a concern for the fourth floor being a party deck. Following the abundance meeting, no further community process was required and the proposal was approved to move forward. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for your attention. Thank you. Thank you.
Hello madam chair, members of the board. Liam Ramos from councelor Patel's office. I would like to go on record and support this proposal. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Anthony Gulardi. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Anthony Gardi from city
councelor Aaron Murphy's office. The council would like to go on record in support of this application. Thank you. Thank you. And we have Indis Johnson. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh my name is Indis Johnson,
director of constituent services from councelor at large Henry Santana's office and we would like to go um on record in support. Thank you very much. We don't have additional comments. Okay, with that may I have a motion?
Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Misswell? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Lo, yes. Miss Panado,
yes. Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, we have case BOA1 1724519 with the address of 275 Gold Street. Is the applicant or the representative here
to speak? Yes. Good morning, uh, Madame Chair, members of the board, attorney Nick Soula, McDermac, Cruelty, Miller, and Hanley. Um, here on behalf, uh, as zoning and peritting council uh, for Kyle Parsons in 275
uh, Gold LLC. Um, if Madame Ambassador, if you could just zoom in on the top left um, of this screen. Um this is just the zoning set, but you could see here on the top left uh that this is a an existing single family um in the uh kind
of tan in the middle of the top left and then the proposed view uh will be replaced with the new single family um which is on the right hand side. Um, also with me today, uh, is Derek Rubenoff, who's, uh, the project architect from Derek Rubenoff
Architects. And, um, Kyle and his family purchased the property a little under two years ago, uh, at 275 Gold. Um some of you may recall uh if you were on the board or attending about a year ago um they had proposed a three family
building here about a year ago but ran into uh some issues with accessibility uh in building code. So what they're now pivoting to do is just replace the existing single family with a more modern larger up-to-date new single
family. And so they're proposing to demolish uh that building on the left side uh which is again you know an outdated single family home built over a hundred years ago uh and construct a more modern uh larger uh single family to be in more more in line with you know
asbuilt conditions in in uh in the neighborhood. Um, it will include a semi-finished basement, uh, at grade twocar garage, a family room at street level, and the upper floors will include living space, uh, and bedrooms. And you'll also see on the plans that there
is a small roof deck accessed by roof hatch in order to provide uh, open space for the single family. And of course, uh, the new single family will be uh, sprinkled. And if I can, Madam Ambassador, to go to the third page, I just want to quickly go through the
zoning. Um, or actually, you could go back to this page just quickly. You could see the footprint. Um, yep, thank you. I'm sorry. This is just the footprint of the the new building. Uh, matches a lot of the same side and front setbacks of the existing and the and the
asbuilt conditions of the street. You can also see uh on that uh survey just where the roof deck is situated uh on uh on the roof. So now if you could, Madam Ambassador or Mr. Ambassador, I apologize, if you could go to the to the third page, there's a zoning
chart. Um and I'll quickly just go through the zoning. Um what we don't need uh is use. Uh the single family isn't allowed use. Uh we comply with the open space. Uh and we are proposing two uh at grade garage parking spaces which
is compliant um with with the parking requirements uh in South Boston at this location. Gold Street is a very narrow uh street with no on street parking. So um you know we wanted to make sure that we weren't exacerbating any parking issues in the neighborhood. Um not
having any on street parking specifically on gold. So we're compliant with that. Um, we do need lot area minimum. Um, this is an existing nonconformity. Um, the lot is small. It's 1389 square ft. 2,000 square ft is
required, but few if any of the lots on this block of Gold Street meet this requirement. They are all uh a lot of them are all this uh this size around this size. Floor area ratio um two is allowed and we're proposing uh roughly
three. Uh this would be attributed again to the small size of the lot. It's only 1389 square ft. Uh it's also uh 24 feet wide by 55 ft deep. Um so it is uh a smaller site and um so we require F uh
relief as a result of that. But again this um we would suggest to the board this does match the existing context of the street where many other uh many other buildings are above the F requirement. Um building height excessive is uh is required. Um 40T is
allowed. Um and we are proposing 45 ft but that is really just because of the deck railing and the roof hatch um for the roof deck. The roof itself or the main portion of the building is actually 40 ft. So the main portion of the
building is compliant um with u building height. Uh and this again is um you know really contextually appropriate with a lot of the structures uh right around the site including uh several of the abing properties. Um we need sideyard
setback insufficient. Uh this is again an existing nonconformity with what's there. Now 3 ft is required. We're proposing 1 ft. Again it's only a 24t wide site. Um so complying with 3 ft on both sides would only allow an 18 foot
wide uh floor plate and that's um very uh difficult um to have anything that's feasible. Um and you know if we adhere to to the setbacks on this lot um it would permit you know really only allow a footprint of like 35% smaller than the
block's typical build condition. Um so it it would cause a hardship to comply with u the setbacks. uh rear yard. Um 15 feet required, 7 feet proposed. Again, small size of the lot, only 55 ft deep.
Um and then we need roof structure restrictions for two reasons. Uh which is a conditional use permit. Uh one because uh we are exceeding the size of the the height of the building that's on the lot now. Uh but also because of the small roof deck. Um the roof deck's
about 400 square feet, but this is prim the primary open space um for the single family. There will be no head house. It will be a compliant roof hatch. Um and you'll you know contextually there are a lot of other roof decks uh right abuing
this property. Um and some of these are actually accessed through headous with larger visual impacts uh than what we're proposing. Um, so we would suggest that a roof deck really is the main open space for the project. It is a single family. Um, and so we we would suggest
that it's compliant with the conditional use standards um, for that. And then the final one I'll just highlight is we were cited for some reason for conformity with the existing building alignment uh, with the front yard. Um, we would suggest that this was probably
incorrectly cited. Um the proposed front yard setback uh we think matches the the building alignment. Um and actually the planning recommendation uh which is different this time than three family about a year ago. The planning recommendation uh to the board um
highlighted this uh incorrect citation for building alignment and was a recommendation of approval. Um happy to pause here madam chair. Happy to go through the plans. Derrick can run through the plans if you'd like, but again, at the end of the day, it's a it's a larger single family modern
replacing an existing single family uh in a multifamily subdist on Gold Street. So, happy to go through the plans if you have questions or I know that was a lot of information on the zoning. So, happy to pause. It would have been great to just like scroll while you were talking, but are there questions from the board? Are
there any slides you wish to see? Uh, can you just address the curb cut? The plane department, as you probably know, has recommended a reduction in the curb cut from 16 to 12 ft. Can you address that? Absolutely. Yeah, we're kind of stuck
between That's a great question, Miss Piano. You know, we're kind of stuck between wanting to um provide the required two spaces for this larger single family and the fact that Gold Street is such a narrow street. It's a
one-way narrow street, so making the the maneuverability into the garage um with only a 12T curb cut um we thought would be difficult. Um that being said, we did read the the recommendation from the planning department. We are more than
happy to work with them uh through the process to make sure that, you know, everybody's on the same page and that it works uh both from from their standpoint, but also from a maneuverability. So, thank you. Yep. Thank you. Any other questions?
Hearing none, may I have public testimony. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Sigi Johnson with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on June 24th at which Abutters had some comments regarding the proposed building height, but no opposition was
stated. Our office has received 22 letters of support of which 13 signed an address in a 300t abutters radius. The Cityside Neighborhood Association took no position on this proposal. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning, madam chairs and members of the board. Laura here from council's office. This time, council would like to go on record in opposition due to feedback for neighbors who would like to see compromise to remove the proposed roof deck. Council of Fle also has a long-standing policy against roof decks
in residential areas of the neighborhood. With South Boston having become a destination for young people on the weekend, neighbors continue to report complaints related to lay parties on roof decks that disturb the quality of life of our seniors, persons with disabilities, and young families. As
well as trash removal issues impacting nearby residents. Roof decks have no impact have no impact on solving our housing crisis and proponents are free to view as of right instead of seeking relief from the zoning code. The opinion of existence taxpaying residents on
quality of life issues should be respected and taken seriously. Moreover, with this persistent quality of life issues over many years in mind, residents do not believe roof decks should be legitimately considered as open space and relevant to meet Sony
requirements. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. Mr. Zill, do you want to address that? Yeah. Um, you know, I think we're we're well aware of of of Laura's office,
Maladano's and Councelor Flynn's um long-standing opposition to roof decks. I think in this case um this is a single family home. Um the proposal is for this to be home ownership. Um the roof deck
is 400 square ft. Um it because of the size of the site and the need to provide the parking it's very difficult for us to do any atgrade open space. Um so you know if this was a multifamily building with a lot of units I totally understand. I think you know we're we're
seeking the roof deck because of the the constraints of the site. Um we don't have we have some accurate open space but not a lot. And um we're again kind of stuck between the rock and the hard place of trying to do open space and
parking on a small site. Um and so you know I do feel like this is we would respectfully respond that this is a you know a location that that should allow for a roof deck because of those site constraints. Nick, if I can just
add, it's Derek Rubenoff from Derek Rubenoff Architect, 82-84 Spring Street in West Roxberry. Um, uh, we did design the roof deck, uh, to conform with the zoning stipulations for roof decks in this district, so it's set back
appropriately from the street. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion of approval with design review to look at the U proposed curb cut and and potential
reduction of that curb cut. Is there a second? Second. Miss We will. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Mr. L. Uh, yes. Miss Panado.
Yes. Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is Kaba 1733081 with an address of 20 Shaman Street. Is the applicant or the representative here to speak?
Good morning, Madame Chair, members of the board. My name is Luis Santana and uh I am here on behalf of Alexander Hmanov, which is the owner of this property. If you don't mind, uh, ambassador, I would like to start with
the plans and use that presentation as a supplemental information for the members of the board. If you may please. So basically we are looking for uh a variance in conditional use permit uh
from the G-code. We have obtained uh approval from the Boston water and sewer on the infiltration system. We have a letter of no harm and we also presented this to the Boston Grow Trust which is in agreement uh with our uh project.
This is a small addition in the rear and uh you will you will get a better picture of the proposal once you see the pictures after the plans presentation. Uh essentially this is u an unusual uh uh rowhouse
because it does extend all the way to the rear uh lot line. So there is a small uh yard or courtyard if you wish which is enclosed by uh a brick wall about 6 ft in height and that space is
about roughly 15 ft by uh just under 6 ft and you can see that from the existing condition plans. So that area on the top uh rear is the area uh where we are proposing uh to infill that it will be a basement and first story. In
addition to that we will be adding some uh roof decks. Uh the other violation is the floor area uh which will be exceeded by about 10%. Uh the existing gross floor area is in excess of what the court requires for that area. And the
other violation is the rear yard which is currently uh basically non-existent. Uh so that uh addition will trigger the extension of the row house into the rear yard which is a provision in the Bay Village neighborhood will also be
triggered because the proposed addition will be in excess of 50 square ft. Uh basic variances and and and that's the proposal. uh if you go to the the plants I want to give you some context
because it's very hard for the plants to get to assess uh the conditions and this is the as you can see that red dot from the Google maps uh that is the property in question this is a a three and a half story uh row house uh
adjacent to two other uh row houses on either side of it Now if you go to the next slide uh that gives you an idea of what has happened uh basically in this area and how those four houses have been uh
literally buried under these large structures around for example uh 212 uh Steuart Street is a 19story uh uh tower that was completed in in 2022 to the right of that and all that is basically
uh on the adjacent blocks of the soy property. 23 Stewart Street is a story garage with a 24 stories tower and uh right behind uh the property which actually the rear rear lot line above uh
1725 Pitman Street is a new construction is a fourstory uh row house built in 2015 and is about 45 ft over uh highway with roof decks. To the left of that on that block there is an existing four to seven stories also a structure
behind North Pitman Street we have couple of recent developments. Uh there is 16 Bitcoin street in which two stories were added or will be added since it was recently approved. And that we have also uh large buildings on
a larger building on Church Street in which an additional story was permitted uh back in 2017. If you can go please to the next slide. So that is the area uh of the proposed addition. As you can see there is
enclosed by walls and and our addition will basically include the basement and the first story. So that first story will be at the level of that window on the left hand side, the open window. Uh there is a common alley to the right between that fourstory building I
believe 67 Church Street which has two stories were added. It's a relatively large building and that alley is shared uh for emergency between the two buildings. So just to confirm the addition here
that you're showing this picture, it's only going up to the existing wall that we see. No, it will be uh the it will cover the as you can see, madame chair, the two windows on the left side looking down the addition will be there. So portions
of that addition will be uh behind that existing wall. boats going up to the second floor. And so the windows that we see on the right will whatever sunlight they had is minimized further. Correct. Because because of the
topography, the basement is almost fully exposed in the rear and then the first floor is a little bit higher at that at the rear location. So basically is there a picture that shows the decks? I understand there's if you can go to the next
view. Yeah, that is a view from the towards the rear. Uh that is the recent uh large house built behind this building and and as you can see that wall will pretty much cover the entire basement edition and then the first floor
addition if I I'm answering your question correctly it will be above that wall. Um, I'm just trying to understand there there was some uh comments uh public comments submitted that referenced like three three decks as part of this
project. I just want to understand if that's accurate and where where they will be located. For that we'll go back to the plans and I would glad to show that. Uh if you just you know for the sake of time if you Yeah, we can go to that
then. Let's go to the plans please. If you can scroll down to the proposed floor plans that's existing. Uh so this is these are the proposed plan basically. Uh on the second floor on top of the proposed addition there will be a roof
deck. Uh you can see there to the right rear right and there will be a small deck on the uh third floor. uh that will be on top of that second floor deck but it's significantly smaller from the bedroom.
And then finally uh there is a roof deck that currently exist on top of the second floor uh and we'll have direct access from that area core uh half a story uh section of the building deck. If you go to the next slide I can show
you the rest of the elevations and you will be able to see that. So here here you have the decks. Uh that's a view from Church Street 6769 Church Street. And you have actually you can visualize the three decks on that proposed right
side renovation. Other questions from the board. I I would like to go if you allow me please a few more minutes a couple more minutes into the uh pictures so you can have a better idea of uh any other questions on these. Well,
okay. Keep on. Now that is a picture of the alley between the two properties which is partially shared between the two and uh if you scroll down uh one more uh this is another video of that area where the field is going to take place and to the
right hand side you can see an existing deck which is the one that we are planning to build on that uh third floor. So one two of those decks are existing uh just for information and context. Uh next slide please. Uh this is the view from uh the second
floor roof deck uh to the adjacent building on Church Street. Uh next please. And that is the view from the real property line of the subject property to that connecting balconies of the new row house behind
and then existing connecting balconies. You can just go to those pictures. That is another view of the rear. Uh and that is a view of 22 Shamut which is adjacent building uh is shorter than our building.
And there are interior pictures in which I just want to show them to you and you can scroll quickly to them uh to show the existing condition. You have corridors that are 20 in uh wide. Uh you have certain cases that are less than 24 inches uh wide. Uh
okay. or the the the the building is so narrow at 20 feet plus the party walls uh that the spaces inside are extremely nonfunctional. Uh so that's one of the reasons for this uh development. And finally and I will not take more of your
time. Uh the last slide show an in-depth study uh shadow study which was one of the concerns of the neighborhood uh in which is uh demonstrating that the light uh uh impact on this addition will
be uh almost non-existent and the resol and actually that is taking in consideration only our proposed project not taking in consideration the extremely large buildings that are present in the area and obviously I don't want to is an extensive study for
shadows. Uh but the conclusion and the comparative analysis included in there uh shows that uh the effect on uh shadows is uh practically non-existent. And with that I'll be happy to take
additional questions. Thank you. Other questions from the board? Hearing none. We have public testimony. Hello madam chairman. The board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 20 shamat. Our office refers to as the board's judgment on this matter. A
community process was conducted including on a butters meeting held on 51225 which was attended by several community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant opposition due to the noise level of the construction and the disruption to the neighborhood as well as the local small businesses. One of them being a therapy
and counseling business in which this owner expressed significant concern about the noise and disruption to her business. Uh constituents also expressed the ongoing effect that construction is having on their neighborhood including trash like rusty nails and other dangerous materials that expose the residents to possible dangerous accidents and the emotional stress of
the constant construction in the neighborhood as well as the cohesion with the neighborhood of this proposal. Uh additionally we received four letters expressing opposition to the proposal citing many of the concerns also expressed in the abutters meeting. The proposal was reviewed by the Bay Village
Neighborhood Association and they expressed opposition for this proposal. They also submitted a letter in opposition citing the significant com community opposition, the failure to meet variance criteria, excessive S f and the rear expansion, the lack of adequate hardship and the negative
impact or the negative precedent this sets for the neighborhood as the reason that they have submitted the letter in opposition. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Thank you. Muslim would like to go record in
opposition due to feedback from both neighbors and the Bay Village Neighborhood Association. He sent an opposition letter to the board as well. Neighbors expressed concerns about this project seeking Sony relief and not being in line with the criter of the community. Moreover, residents
highlighted that the development at this site will undoubtedly exacerate the existing quality of life issues that they have endured with terrible nearby projects in the recent years, such as the jackhammers at 7:00 a.m. every day, roing and pest control issues, water
damage to nearby nearby homes, persistent dust, negating outdoor activities, construction um dies on sidewalks. Lastly, residents noted public safety, drug activity, needles, and mental and behavioral
health issues from the presence of the near nearby Scout Folding. Council Flint respectfully request that the forum takes the concerns of the neighbors and civic groups seriously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Anthony Gilardi.
Morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board. Um, for the record, Anthony Jati from City Council, Eron Murphy's office. The council would like to go on record in opposition to this project. Thank you. And we have Sara Shirley. Hi. Good. Good. Uh morning councelor uh
council members um or board members. I am at 54 Pedmont Street in Boston just around the corner from this project and I'm speaking on behalf of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association as the long-term co-chair of planning for that organization. The Bay Village Neighborhood Association runs its own
independent process um to review planning projects of this nature. We had an extremely robust process on this proposal including numerous um subcommittee meetings, numerous executive committee meetings. The opposition from the residents was strong
and it was uniform. Um and the vote of the executive committee was to oppose this project. The concerns of the neighborhood are outlined in our letter and I won't repeat all of them, but this is a project that is in an area where F is 2.0. The building is currently
already exceeds F at 3.5 and they are looking to nearly double the allowed F to 3.9. They meet none of the criteria for um for exceeding zoning and getting a variance. This is not a unique lot. Um
there is no hardship to develop it and there is no inability to make a reasonable use of the project. Most homes in Bay Village are of this character and an appropriate renovation can address all of the issues they have with narrow staircases etc. The one item that was cited by the applicant was the
small bathroom on the first floor which I would um say exists in nearly every single family townhouse in Bayville. It's a small powder room. um there simply is no meeting of the criteria for a variance here and there's going to be litigation if if it is granted because there is absolutely no no way that they
satisfy the criteria for a variance. We would ask that the board um reject this proposal. Thank you. No additional comments. Madam Chair, yes the applicant like to briefly respond.
Yes. Uh thank you Madame Chair. with respect to the uh variances. Uh so the bathroom was not the only criteria and the f is not been doubled. We are adding 386 square ft to the property. I just want to clarify that and the three
criterias uh to in order to grant a variance uh uh the neighbors uh focus on uh the lot only uh and the conditions uh of the structure of lot are the one to
be taken in consideration on the first uh list of conditions to grant the variance and in this case this structure is quite unique. it has been buried between these older buildings and in uh the lot is extremely narrow. So it does
comply with one of the uh with the condition for the uh variance for the first condition for the variance. And finally, in terms of uh we the the impact of this addition is is
an improvement because instead of uh negating uh the owner uh open space, we are actually creating additional open space. That area that is exist is not usable. It's damp, it's dark and it's wet. And uh by adding those roof decks
in that addition, it will bring light and open space uh to the area and it will definitely be a hardship if that interior conditions are not improved by means of this addition. So I think I think that there is there are ample basis uh within the conditions uh for a
variance uh for this to be granted by the board. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none. Is there a motion? Um, hello. Uh, my name is Alex
Alexander. Can I Are you providing public comment or are you the Who are you? No, I am the owner of 20 sh. Can I add something to the presentation or briefly? Yes. Yeah. Um, so I'm uh just to let you know
I'm planning uh planning on living uh at this property. Initially I intended to move uh to 40 48 kayet property that I also own but because I can't extend it to accommodate my large family duty of
recognition from Bay Village I planning I planning to move to Dish. So right now it's like a existing uh existing house. It's narrow and u not probably comfortable uh to leave there.
Thank you. Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? Do we need to deal separately with the GC? Just a question. Uh we can if your yeah questionions may deviate
and by sorry by the way um I will say that Mr. Simelli is away but did uh uh you know has the no harm letter etc. So okay that's all I was I was asking. Yeah. Sorry. Yes. And and Landmarks has
the uh Landmarks also has to review this right? Yeah. According to the BPD recommendation. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Is is there a motion?
Uh madame chair I will put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that plans are submitted to landmarks commission. And you know, I'm just noting, you know, the massing um is consistent with the area. The lot
size is pretty small at 850 square ft. So that's going to exacerbate a lot of these existing conditions and maybe make them appear to be higher than you know what's contextual. So I am in support of
this. Is there a second? Second, Miss Weo, yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Turner, no.
Mr. Langum, no. Miss Pado, yes. The chair votes no. The motion does not carry. Is there another motion?
Um, I'd like to put forward a motion of denial without prejudice simply because I'm concerned about um the neighbors like the community process. I'd like to see a better community process. Is there a second?
Second. We will. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Langum, yes.
Miss Ponado, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. All right. Next, we have um BOA case 17184844. So, case 1718844 with an address of 7
Wellington Street and a companion case BOA173601 [Music] with an address of 7 Wellington Street. Is the applicant or their representative here to speak? Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair, members
of the board. Mark Lass, Lcast Law, 75 Arlington Street in Boston, attorney for the property owner. Um this is a uh application to change the occupancy from existing single family use to a two
family use with a full gut renovation, installation of a groundwater recharge system, addition of one rear deck and a new roof deck with access through a hatch. Um, there's also a proposal that's not subject to zoning, but nevertheless important and will be
reviewed by the landmarks commission, which is to restore the front stairway to the original historic condition up to the parlor level. Um, there are before you today three conditional use permits and one variance on the zoning code
appeal and then I'll separately address the building code appeal. First is applicability of the groundwater conservation overlay district under article 32 and we have received from the Boston water and sewer commission the
article 32 compliance letter and also have submitted the no harm letter from the engineer um both of which have been reviewed by the Boston groundwater trust which has indicated its agreement with those conclusions. The next item is
the addition of a rear deck at the second floor in the back in the south end. An extension into a rear yard for such a deck is a conditional use requiring applicant to comply with the design standards that have been set forth by the planning department over
the years which is that the rear deck be no more than 6 ft projecting from the rear facade and supported by cantalver brackets. This proposed roof deck is actually smaller than that design standard. It projects 5 ft from the rear
of the back facade and is supported by cantal lever brackets. The third item is a conditional use permit for a roof deck. Uh the south end is a restricted roof structure district and any roof deck constructed thereon requires u
review by this board um as well as landmarks commission which will follow the zoning review and that constitutes a conditional use permit for a roof deck. Uh last item on the zoning code appeal is floor area ratio is excessive and I
wish to point out that the BPD uh the Boston planning department memo indicates that the maximum F in the multif family residential subdist in the south end is 1.0. That is actually not
accurate. The table D of article 64 shows that in the MFR subdist in the south end the maximum F is 2.0. know. Um, and the math for this project is that this is a 280 ft lot, which means
it could have a gross living area of up to 4,160 ft. And with the addition of uh living space in the lowest level on one floor of the duplex unit, uh the total will be 4,171
square ft or 11 ft exceeding the maximum F which is 0002%. So it's a very minor increase in F. And further there is an exception in the sub and zoning code when converting existing space from
non-livable to livable space. Um so that's the F violation. Turning next to the building code appeal in the peculiarities of conflicting code provisions. The zoning code for the south end requires that access to roof
decks B via a hatch. Um, as do the standards and guidelines of the South End Landmarks Commission require access to roof decks B via hatch. On the other hand, the building code requires that access to roof decks um be via a
penthouse. Uh therefore, when roof decks are proposed in the south end, we need to seek a variance from the building code for the head house requirement and instead provide access to the roof deck consistent with the zoning code and the landmarks commission um via a hatch. So
that is what is being proposed. Um the net result of this project is uh two units. one. Unit one is the duplex on the lower two levels, 1765 ft. And unit two is a triplex on the upper three levels of 2572
square ft. There are three parking spaces in the rear yard off public alley 5 private alley 534. Uh one is a single spot for unit one and the other is a uh tin spot for unit two. There's also a
rear yard patio for unit one. Um, as well, we conducted a community review process and had support from the Claremont Park Neighborhood Association. And I will leave it at that and be happy to take any questions from the board.
Thank you. Other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I call the testimony? Hi, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Emma Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 7 Wellington. Our office defers to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including at a Butters meeting
held on 61025 which was well attended by several community members. The feedback from this meeting was concerns about the deck expansion with the impact to the shared back alley area. While one butter did also express that they had no problem with the proposal and especially like that they are restoring the front stoop of the property to historical
standards. The proposal was also reviewed by the Claremont Neighborhood Association at two of their meetings, one that was held on 51525 and they expressed support because the proposal aligns with the neighborhood citing the restoration of the stoop. CNA has also provided a formal letter of support submitted to the board. At this time,
the mayor's office neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Uh, next we have Don Chikon. Yes, thank you. Actually, it's Charles Redmond, three Wellington Street, two to
two doors down. May I express my concern for the rear deck for uh uh not only for the views and light that blocks, but also uh as a precedent that it would set. We do not have one here at three Wellington. I would not want one at
seven leading to the same sort of arguments that we heard earlier. Hey, everybody else in the block is doing it. Thank you. Yeah, we don't have additional comments. Okay, Mr. Lass, do you want to briefly respond to that?
Uh, yes. Just again, as stated in my presentation, um, an extension into the rear yard in the form of a deck in the south end is a conditional use, not a variance. And there are literally probably 10,000 such rear decks um, in the south end. And so there's certainly
precedent has already been set um in the form of incorporating into the code conditional use requirement for rear decks. Uh not not a prohibition. Any other questions from the board hearing? None. Is there a motion?
Um I'll make a motion of approval with the proviso that um um land it be submitted to landmarks commission is by landmarks. Thank you. Yes.
Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Turner. Miss Turner. Sorry. Uh yes. Mr. Langum. Uh, yes. Miss Pado,
yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thanks Kindly. Should we try to go back to Yes. case BOA? Uh, going back to case BOA 1465030
with an address of 4 Ly Street. Is the applicant or their representative here to speak on this case? Going once, going twice. Is there a motion? Can defer? Deny. Dwall. Motion to defer.
Is there a second? Second. As we will. Yes, Mr. Valencia. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Mr. Lango. Yes, Miss Ponado. Yes,
Chair. Yes, the motion carries. With that, we'll take a break until Oh, I'm sorry. Do we need a date to defer to? Sorry. I apologize for interrupting. Um, we could do September 23rd or October 7th. Well, they're not here to uh reply, so
please reach out to them which with whichever one you decide. Do we have to make a motion for a date, particular date, or Yeah, we can put on for October 7th, and we'll contact the applicant. Thank you. Motion to Yeah. Thank you.
All good. All right. So, I'll see you back at 11. Recording stopped. Present. Mr. Valencia. Present. Miss Turner. Present. Mr. Langum.
Present. Mr. Panado. Present. Quick reminder, we are a six member board. Miss Ponado. Um uh before we start, is there anyone here requesting a deferral or withdrawal
for the 11 a.m. agenda? Hello, uh Madame Chair, members of the board. This is Mike Ross, and I am asking for a deferral for 6 Almont Street, please. Okay, let me read it to the record. It's
case BOA 1748759 with the address of 6 Almont Street. We made some changes to the rear of the property. Uh that allowed us to eliminate the rear yard setback and uh
required the site plan to show same and we were waiting for the site plan. It just arrived yesterday basically. So we have it. We're ready to go. But we obviously would like to uh do a quick deferral if we could so that we could get it back in the zoning board to be able to get it back in front of you
folks in a timely manner. Caroline, do you have any dates? Is Caroline here? Sorry, I was on mute. Um I reviewed the plants already. Oh yeah, they did. Um we we we removed
the rear yard setback and so Okay. Yeah. So, we just want we have to recirculate it through you guys and just get back in front of the board. Okay. Uh we could do September 23rd. Yeah. If that's your earliest, I will take it. Okay. May I have a motion?
Motion to defer till September the 23rd. May I have a second? Second. Second. Miss Rubell? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Langam? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes,
chair votes. Yes. The motion carried none. Thanks so much, Mr. Spitzer. Yes. 18 Interville Street, please. Uh, yes. Uh, case BOA1 1707353 with an address of 18 Intervil Street.
Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey, business activist of 1688 Street, First Floor, South Boston. Uh we are here today seeking an administrative deferral. And what date are you looking how far out are you looking?
Um if the 23rd is available, we'll take we'll take the 23rd as well. We could do the 23rd. Perfect. Great. With that, May I have a motion? Motion to defer to the 23rd. Is there a second? Miss Ruo,
yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Langum, yes. Miss Panado, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you.
All right. We will go back to the 11:00 a.m. agenda and case BOA1698820 with an address of 74 to 76 Rose Street. Is the applicant or the representative here to speak? Okay, there is one person. One second.
Yes, Jill. to send to you the invitation. Hello. Um, our our architect should be here. Um, but there was just a slight delay, so I I raised my hand quickly so that we didn't get skipped. Um, I'm the
I'm the owner, not the architect. Is the architect on and or is he coming on? He he should be because I just was emailing with him earlier this morning. Um what's what's the name? Andrew Falenstein. Andrew, I just sent to you the
invitation. Please make sure to accept it. Thank you. Um I can give a a a non-archchitect summary quickly if that is helpful. Does everyone hear me now? There he is. There he is. I'm sorry. I I
I didn't have I Yeah, sorry. Yes. I'm um This is Andrew Faulenstein, architect applicant for 7476 Rose Street. Okay, please proceed. And we are here for relief only on one
matter and that is sideyard setback. And what we are asking relief for is not any increase in the existing to the existing side setback but really the um extension of an existing non-conforming use because we are not changing the
footprint at all. Um we are simply raising the roof uh with dormers. Um and we're only raising the roof for 11 linear feet. Um the walls remain the same and we're raising the the dormers 3
ft um higher than they were previously. So um that enacted the sideyard uh relief. Um and um we would uh we would ask at this time that that relief be granted. Thank you. Are there questions from the
board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Madam chair, members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Beverly. and the Roslandale community engagement press for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abbras meeting facilitated on June
12th very lightly attended where brothers made inquiries that were addressed during the meeting and one of voice support for the proposal. Following the meeting, no further community process was required and the proposal was approved to move forward. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to
defer to the board for the judgment. Thank you. Any other raised hands? Um, we don't have additional comments with that. May I have a motion?
Motion of approval with approvise that plans should be submitted to the planning department for design review. There a second. We don't need You don't need it. Okay. Okay. Would you like to revise to approval? Approval.
Is there a second? Second. Miss Misswell, yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Lang, yes. Miss Panado,
yes. Chair votes. Yes. The motion is good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have case BOA1657736 with the address of 3 to11 Bowden
Street. Is the applicant or their representative here to speak? There is Jerome. Are you here for this project? Yes. Hello. Yes. I'm I'm Jerome Naz. I'm here um from five Bowden Street Mish
and I believe um my partner uh Jillian House is on on here as well. Okay, who's presenting? Believe Jillian is she should have raised her hand. Is this Do you see another raised hand?
No. What is her name? I'm I'm sorry again. Mish. Mish. That's going to be um one mu Julian. Okay. Yeah, that's you now. Jillian, please send the invitation. Okay.
Please proceed. Julian, please. I sent you an invitation. be a little be a little in tech savvy. Um, it looks like she's not accepting. Is he on Do you
Yeah. Okay. Now she should be in the public place. No. Hello. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. Oh, so sorry about that. Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and board members. Sorry about that. a little technical
difficulties. I am Julian Niles, own part owner along with my son Jerome Niles of Mumish Restaurant located at 5 Boulder Street in Dorchester. We're Trinidadian fusion restaurant along with a a array of foods of other cultures and
so on and so forth. Uh we are open Tuesday through Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Uh we serve breakfast um lunch and dinner and we are solely a takeout restaurant only. We opened on July 5th
of 2025 and um yeah so we're looking to bring a lot of Trinidadian and various cultures to the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Thank you. Any questions from the board
hearing? None. May I have public testimony? Madame chair, members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy B Memory. I'm the Joe Tesla community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting
facilitated on excuse me which consisted of an office of neighborhood services notification flyer informing the community of the proponent's intent for takeout. Next the proposal was presented to UNA where they approved to move the project forward. No
vote was taken as an opposition or support. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the work for the job. Okay. Now, Brian, you can proceed. Morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh Timothy Gimman on behalf of
city councelor Brian Warrell, District 4. Uh just wanted to go on the record uh supporting this uh CPA of Heel. Uh we'd like to see more businesses with a local mentality here and forward to seeing
this business move forward. So, happy to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And next we have Kevin Higgins. Thank you so much. Hi everyone. My name is Kevin Higgins. Senator Miranda's chief of staff. Uh the senator would like to go on the record in support of
this uh project. Thank you so much. And Marcos. Good morning uh Madame Chair, members of the board. This is Marcos Bel for Main Street. I want to express my support for
this uh restaurant and uh the Miles family. I I believe that they bring a unique sort of uh cuisine to the to the space and to our neighborhood and so we're very much supportive of their uh case. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments with that. May I have a motion? I got a little comment about that restaurant. I heard a lot of great things about that restaurant. I never ate there, so I'd like to make a motion to approve.
Okay. Is there a second? Second, Miss Hu? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Langum? Yes. Miss Pado? Yes.
Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Appreciate you all. Thank you so much. God bless you all. All right. Next, we have case POA 1676254
with the address of 40 Dudley Street. Is the applicant or their representative here to speak? Eric Zack on. Sorry, I think there is one person here. Cindy Eric says yes.
Eric Zacherson is on. Jesus, if you can. Yeah. When um please when I send to you an invitation, make sure to accept it. There you go. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the board, um I'm here representing the
homeowner, Clyde Nesbbit, a longtime resident, um who lives in the existing two family and is uh would like to convert it to become a three family project. Okay, please proceed.
So the the uh modifications to the plan are all internal. the the building is is large enough to be three uh three units. And so um you scroll up one more you'll see the the plans um the areas you can
just scroll up one more page please. Um the oh sorry this is the mortgage plan. Uh could you um continue down I guess to the to the plan page.
One more. And that's the cover. Okay. Uh up one. Up one more. So you see um the only modification is shown here is would be at the rear where he is proposing adding decks. And you can see by the large X's
that just how little work actually needs to happen in order for this to occur. Um the uh the drawing on the left shows that there's no changes on the top floor. The the reality is he's able to kind of uh segment off a portion of the
front unit uh with by adding a bathroom and adding a few demising walls on the second floor. So, it's a very minor interior change to but it does create change the building's occupancy from being a two family to a three family and
and um in that way be able to continue to stay in the uh stay and living in the building in one of the units instead of having a very large unit this unit would become two. Okay. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none. May I hold the testimony?
Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury and the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an Ambuters meeting facilitated on May 12th where Abuas voiced overwhelming support for the proposal. Next, the proposal was
presented to Highland Park Neighborhood Coalition on July 8th where they voted in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with their judgment. Thank you. Madam chair, we don't have additional comments.
With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. There a second. Second. Miss Weedwell? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner?
Yes. Mr. Langum? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Chair motion carries. Good. Next we have case BOA1731956 with the address of 85 Chandler Street.
Is the applicant or their representative here to speak? Uh good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Michelle Edar and I'm here with my husband Carl Hedigger who is also the licensed contractor on the project. We're joint owners and we come before you today to ask for relief on three items. Um, first
was the groundwater recharge system in a flood hazard district. We've submitted our compliance letter from Boston Water and Sewer as well as the approval from the Boston Groundwater Trust along with the engineers no harm letter. Um, and that was completed uh May 26th.
Um, our second item is a restricted roof. Uh, and actually if you just go up one more, one more. There we go. So, plans currently are to maintain the building as a two family um, and restore it. We're actually going to be reducing the size of the back decks. Oh, sorry.
We're in our current uh reducing the size of the current back decks. They're currently over 6 ft out. We're going to be reducing those to 6 ft out. And then we're going to be building a roof structure and I apologize. Go down a little bit further
to the proposed. There we go. Um so we're going to be reducing those. We'll be at having those three decks on the off of the back. um off of our street level, our parlor where there are currently decks. Those
will be reduced to about 6 ft by 18. And then we're proposing adding two roof decks. One on the third floor that's about 8 ft out and it's over 6 ft from the rear of that extension as well as a roof deck plan which is over 10 ft from
the front of the building as well as over 15 ft if we include the extension from the rear. Are there questions from the board? May I have public testimony? Well, madam chair, members of the board, my name is Evan Jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services
regarding 85 Panley Street. Our office def's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including at a butter's meeting on 7825 which was attended by several community members. During the meeting, no opposition was expressed, while there was significant collaboration with the
community in reference to plans, the proposed roof deck, and the conditions of the alley, which often floods. Additionally, I received one email following the abutters meeting expressing concerns about the portaotties being used by the construction team. The constituent was connected with the applicant and communication was also collaborative
with efforts being made to to work with the residents concerns. Additionally, the proposal was connected to the Ellis Neighborhood Association where they expressed that they did not involve themselves in residential proposals. At this time, the mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and
consideration and thank you board member Ponado for being a wonderful secretary today. Good morning, Madam Chairs and members of the board. At this time, council would like to go a record in support um given that we haven't received any concerns.
Thank you. Okay, next we have a I think it's Bill. Bill Short, you can unmute yourself. Bill,
hey, let's go to Leah with Leah. Sure. Um, thank you so much. I would like to express opposition. I live directly next door at 79 Chandler Street and I am very concerned about the decks
going in primarily because of the security risk. Um the proximity of the decks are right next door to all of the decks, myself included. It just poses a real um a very alarming security risk
for me. Our building has already been uh broken into more than once. And the roof deck provides direct physical access to my patio area, which is just a few feet away from physical entrance to my unit.
It raises concerns about trespassing, accidental or intentional entry, uh and just general loss of control over who is near and around my property. Um you know, I'm a single woman living alone. I feel deeply concerned that it it just creates a very vulnerable access point
to my home and especially when the patio door is maybe open or unlocked or unattended. It just it goes beyond the point of inconvenience. But beyond that, there's also the question of noise and congestion. There's also loss of a lot of loss of
privacy and livability for me. The plans indicate right now that the proposed roof deck is going to be just a couple of feet away from my unit. This means that individuals standing on that deck are going to be really within arms reach of my patio and they're going to have a
clear and direct view into both my outdoor but also my indoor living space. It's, you know, creates a pretty big problem for me and how I live my life. And finally, it obstructs a great deal of my existing and current
view and replaces uh quite a bit of my natural light. And so um for all of that as well as the development process um you know I just I would like to express strong opposition. Thank you.
Okay. Now Bill. Hi my name is Bill Shortell. I live at 79 Chandler. Also there is a plan to build a deck that would directly above ours. I'm concerned about security, privacy and sunlight. Um I don't know how these issues are going to be addressed. Um, security. If the deck is
abiding mine, they can simply walk over the wall and kick in my door. Uh, privacy. I'd like to be able on my deck, be on my deck, and enjoy privacy. If there is a privacy wall, I don't know how high it's going to be. I don't know what's going to be made out of. I don't know how much sunlight is going to be
taken away from my deck. I have concerns about this project impacting my life. I do not like this project. Thank you. Yeah. There are no additional comments. Can the applicant respond to these
security safety and security concerns? Sure. Uh my name is Carl Hediger, Madam Chair, members of the board. Um certainly respect their concerns. I haven't heard these concerns before. Um and we're definitely willing to discuss with them
and work on, you know, some solution to it. uh the decks that we're proposing are completely, you know, within our property boundary, uh within building code, within landmarks compliance. Um, and there's
precedent for them in the in the, you know, in the district, thousands of decks. Uh, and I think, you know, respectfully, the the the people objecting here, it sounds like, you know, they're worried about their decks being blocked. Um, so you know they have
a deck in a similar situation. Um, and I'm assuming, you know, we could come to some kind of agreement on uh privacy concerns. Yeah, I I think we're happy to uh both Bill and Leah, we're happy to discuss with you guys. Um, and you know, if I know Leah, you
were on the call for the neighborhood meeting and um, we haven't heard these concerns yet and I understand them. You know, also living well, I'll also caveat we live in the neighborhood. We're down the street. So, we're happy to have these discussions um
you know and kind of work with you guys in terms of what you're looking for in sense of you know security. Um I think as the decks are currently built now I think they definitely pose more of a secure um question for you guys. There's a full staircase coming in from the
alleyway that can be easily broken into walked up those stairs. So if anything actually the proposed is a drastic improvement from a sense of security to those upper floors that you guys are referring to. I disagree. Yeah. I also disagree.
Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Yeah. Madam Chair, can we just Oh, I'm sorry. Um, could we just confirm that you are removing the stairs, the external stairs? Looking at the plans
and it looks like the size of the actual deck that you're kind of using and um it's comparable to what's there today except for the stairs which are being removed. Correct. So, we are basically just taking off the stairs. Okay. Thank you.
Miss Turner, did you have a question? Sorry, I did not mean to be unmuted. Okay. Uh, any other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion? Mer, I think I don't have issues with
the project, but it seems that the proponent needs need to have a conversation with the data borders to solve those issues. So, I make a motion of defer to defer. Is there a second? Second. Yes, we will.
I'm going to vote no. You know, I'm taking a really close look at the plans. This seems very comparable. Um, I hear what the neighbors are saying, but I'm hoping that could be worked out following this meeting. Um, Mr. Valencia, yes.
Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Lang, yes. Miss Pado, I'll vote no too. The chair votes yes, but the motion does
not carry. Is there another motion? I mean I'll put floor you know for the reasons I stated um the dimensions of the deck are comparable and they are removing that um access from the ground
level to the deck area. So, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the plans are uh submitted to the landmarks commission and reviewed and approved by Boston Water and Sewer due to the location within GCO
and have that BWSC approval. Yeah, I was just going to say sorryelli did submit the note uh the the the letter of no. Okay, then just landmarks. Yeah. Is there Is there a second? Please stop.
Yeah. Is there a second? Second. Miss Weel? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? No. Mr. Langum?
No. Miss Pado? Yes. The chair votes yes. The motion does not carry. Is there another motion? And what's the alternative? Carol Caroline.
Uh DWOP or denial. Oh, we need another motion. I put forward a motion of denial without prejudice um for the reasons miss Mr. Valencia stated Miss Weel
um folks don't shift about it all day. Okay. Yes, Mr. Valencia. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes,
Mr. Langum. Yes, Miss Ponado. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. All right. Next, we have case uh BOA 1733.
No, I don't know if you wanted. Sorry, we've hit the 11:30 hour. I don't know. Yes. Thank you. Uh, is there anyone here requesting a deferral or withdrawal for the 11:00 hearings? 11:30 hearings or rediscussion?
Anyone requesting a deferral or withdrawal for the 11:30 rediscussion? We don't have any hands raised. Okay, there is one person in the attendance section. Let me Eric,
I just sent you an imitation. Eric Eric Maro. Okay, we're going to keep going. Okay. um uh case uh BOA 1733648 with the address of 34 to 34A Tremont
Street. Is the applicant or the representative here to speak? Yes, I'm the applicant Rob Gatnik. Um my architect DRT is also present. Who's presenting?
Are you presenting or is your architect presenting? Uh, I'm going to start and then he's going to walk through the plans. Great. Thank you. But basically, we have a um existing three unit building located at 34 Turmont Street, Charles Town. Um,
as part of this team, DRT has been the architect on dozens of these projects that we've redeveloped over the past 20 years. Uh we are proposing uh to gut renovate an the existing three-unit building into three condominium units.
Part of the project includes uh rebuilding a proper head house at the roof level for access to the roof deck. Um our violations are basically um usable open space existing like 150.
Um we are providing 60 to 460 ft of usable open space depending on which unit. Um we have a building height um excessive violation. Uh where the building's existing three stories. The
proposed uh rebuilt head house is I guess technically the fourth story although it's only partial uh on the roof. Um and that then translates as well into the building height. Uh the existing is 35 with the head house being
built uh proposed uh at 45 ft. And we have a floor area ratio um changing from 2.3 to 3.8 uh as we're proposing to uh square the building off. It's a typical 1800s um
three-unit building with a main building with an L up the back. Uh to the right of the building is a public elementary school and we are uh infilling the area where the L is off the back of the building. So we're just squaring the
building off so that the main building just continues all the way to the back of the existing building. Um, and as I said, just the full gut from the three existing three uh apartments to three condominium units.
Okay. Are there questions from the board? Hearing if I could just if I could just jump in for one second. Um, good good morning madam chair, members of the board. My name is Nick Landry from DRT. We are the architect project. Um I think
what what Rob you know were the F if we could go back to that presentation you just had um the third the third slide the site plan um so the the F um is is being increased. We are finishing the basement. I think that's a major chunk
of of why it's it's jumping from the the um the two um the 23 to the 38. And then we're also infilling that that small L on the back there which is about 7 1/2 ft by 30 ft. And currently in that L there's there's
just a small deck that only services one of the units. We're proposing to put decks off the rear that will service all of the units. And and the reason for it felling the L is currently the the room layouts they're pushed to the front. Um and and we don't the the the common
space for each of the units isn't isn't very good because of how narrow the building is. So, by widening it, we can push the bedrooms more to the back. We have the passageway on the right hand side that creates a a good buffer between us and the school. Um, and if you go and if we can go back to um, as
Robin mentioned, we're putting that at house on on the top so that we can add some space that could be used for um, you know, working out office space with everyone working from home nowadays because these units are a little tight. If we scroll down a little bit toward the I mean it's the that page right there. You can see we've we've pushed
that head house back so that it's not, you know, the the elevation kind of makes it look like it's right on the street. It's pushed back so you can't see it from the street. And as the hill kind of slopes down, we're on the lower part of the hill as well. Um that's that's it. I just wanted to
clarify those those boards. Thank you. Questions from the board hearing? None. May I have public testimony? Yes, madame chair and board members. CD Johnson with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our
office hosted an abuts meeting on July 10th at which no concerns were raised. Our office has received seven letters of support that have been forwarded to the board. With that background, we defer to the board's judgment. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. We don't have a hands
raised at the moment. Okay. With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval with the provisor of the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review with attention to that visibility
of the addition and reducing the height as necessary to minimize visibility um from the public way. Second. Miss Weel. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Turner,
yes. Mr. Langham, yes. Miss Parado, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much. Have a great day. All right. Next, we have the 11:30 read
discussion uh case BOA 1695772 with an address of 7 Tiptop Street. Is the applicant or their representative here to speak? Okay. Um I think we have something. Good morning, Madam Chair. Uh I'm Don
Wuest. Uh pardon me. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. I'm Don Wuest with the Boston firm of Dan Torby at 175 Federal Street representing property owner Persona Lagari. Uh Persona and I will um share the presentation this morning. Persona will
lead off and then I will uh uh pick up from there. Good morning everyone. Thank you everyone for joining today. I'm personal and I'm the um owner of the um property and uh I bought this property with an
intention to uh renovate with the intention to move in in one of the units. I renovated it uh fully and added central layer to the other unit and at the end of the renovation the property got into a fire accident and that's where my property is located in Oak
Square. Uh it's very walkable and uh to the transit it's a couple minutes walk away to several buses and also many restaurants. Um, and uh the this is what the property uh looks like right now.
And it got into a major fire accident um last year. And I'm trying to convert the two family into a four family by adding one unit into the attic, which I have to
rebuild anyways, and one unit into the basement. um which is a walk out basement because of the slope I'm able to walk out. Um I had a good tenant before and would like to rent it to a good families. Um this is what I'm
trying to build and my representative Don will take it forward from here. Thank you so much for listening. Thanks Pasana. Uh so again I'm Don Whis. What you see on the screen in front of you is persona's concept for the reconstructed building. Um, in
particular, as Presana mentioned, the fire damage in the building uh was extensive uh uh just immense damage right as she was about to pull her certificate of occupancy because she has to rebuild the attic level. Anyway, she
has redesigned it uh so that it can be occupied space. You'll see as we move forward through the presentation, it makes for a particularly lovely unit. Next slide, please. Uh this was the original design for the rear of the unit. Uh members of the
board will notice that um there's a bump out on the back that takes up about twothirds of the back. We'll show you in a future slide that has been modified since the last uh presentation at the prior hearing. Next slide, please. So
um we uh the board uh had mixed opinions on uh Presa's presentation when we were before you in July. We were asked to go back and re-examine the project and see what modifications uh Persona would be willing to make and uh uh talk further
with neighbors. So before getting into the specific modifications, I want to mention that Persona has 74 letters of support for her project. um she met extensively with councelor Green's office and made modifications to the project based on those discussions and
discussions with other neighbors. So um uh she had a a a two family residence that was essentially complete uh when fire struck uh a year ago. As we mentioned last time, it was a lengthy investigation. The city examined the
property, the insurance company did. Um, no cause of the fire was ever determined, but it just took a long time for that process to wrap up. And so, Brisan has essentially been stuck since that time. Um, I should also mention she stayed for about 5 years to buy her
future home. Um, so she's been um just enormously um set back by this fire. And so her plan has been to because she has to redevelop the entire building and rebuild the entire building to add density to help uh offset the economic
hardship uh she has suffered and the loss of time etc through this fire um but also um to create lovely housing units. So when we look at the floor plans, um a concern originally that what was that um the building was going to go
from six bedrooms to depending on how folks counted as many as 13. Let's go back to that prior slide, please, if you don't mind. Um and so um what Persona has done is a couple things. Um she's eliminated a bedroom,
um from the uh the basement level and from the first floor level. That's what you see here today. Next slide, please. And then on a prior slide, um I referenced the fact that the original design of the of the building had a bump out in the back that was about 2/3 the
width of the back. There are uh home offices on the second and third floor level of this building. Uh Presa believes that with the prevalence of remote work and split schedules, people working uh downtown part of the week from home part of the week, uh with the
county tenants, she wants to attract having home offices uh is a real plus. At the same time, there seem to be a concern that the home offices, which you see on both of these floor plans from the upper leftand corner, um those home offices uh were were
pretty generously sized. And there was a concern from some people that those might be used as bedrooms. There's been a lot of um question about whether this is is really just a student housing project. And so what Persona has done is
she has notched out um the rear corner uh in the upper left hand and made that outdoor space always a plus for good quality tenants. She has retained the home office. Again, that's an important part of her vision for the building. It's much smaller now. it obviously
could not be used as as an additional bedroom. Um, and so that's in addition to limiting uh reducing the number of bedrooms here, she has reduced the size of these home offices. Uh, some folks uh were concerned that there might be as many as 13 bedrooms in this building
originally. I should mention that was that's only a few people have this concern. But to to address those concerns, um what she's now doing is changing this from a sixbedroom property into a 9-bedroom property. Um she has retained the home offices, but again
they're they're much smaller. She's changed the design of the exterior, reduced the interior square footage uh accordingly to create smaller units. Next slide, please. And you can see the difference here um in the rear how um instead of that bump
out in the back taking up about 2/3 of the back of the building, it's now only about half the back of the building. There's a deck on either side. Uh the building is smaller and that results in uh in smaller home office spaces. Next slide, please. Further elevations of the building. Um,
you can see that in rebuilding, Pres's goal has been to keep the lines of the original architecture and to softly modernize the look of the building from the exterior. Next slide, please. Uh, again, this is a straight-on view of
the revised rear elevation. Next slide. Um, the goal is to have uh highquality long-term tenants at this property. persona uh will live her herself and she's looking for low turnover and to attract uh ideally young professionals.
Uh she had tenants before a couple with a baby. Um it's that kind of longerterm tenant she's hoping to have here. Folks who maybe rent for several years as they save up to buy their own place, but she's looking for uh good quality tenants who um will stay uh for a
considerable period of time. She wants low turnover uh and folks she can be friends with and the design of the building reflects her goals. Next slide please. This is uh Pres's proposal for the rebuilt third level unit. You can see um
by uh opening up the space. There is going to be extraordinary light and flow through this unit. If you look at the sliders at the front, there's actually a view out across the entire neighborhood. This is going to be a really lovely unit. Oak Square is one of the nicer
places to live in all of Boston. Um, and what Persona is going to be able to offer is a modernized building with brand new um, utilities, services, and really beautiful light filing units. Next slide, please.
This is another view of the third floor looking into the unit. Again, you can see with the high ceilings uh and the large windows, it's going to be light flooded uh and very appealing place uh to live. Next slide, please. There's a view from the outside of the
third floor unit. Um because the building is on the high side of the street. It has a high basement. This is the unit Pana has designed for herself. You can see there's great light, great window light there. Thank you. Next slide, please. It's another view looking into that
unit. Next slide, please. Um, these are the locations of the 74 letters of support that Presa got. A number are from Tiptop Street, uh, but they, uh, they come from all around the surrounding area. Uh, Persona has gotten
to know a number of people in the neighborhood. Uh, she's owned the building, uh, worked on it. She was sometimes there late at night uh painting uh uh and having dinner with her her prior tenants. She's gotten to know a bunch of people in the neighborhood. Uh she's very induced to
uh move into this building once it's completed and as her uh support letter show uh there are a lot of people enthused about her proposal as well. Next slide please. And you can see here um there is greater density in the neighborhood. Um there
are a number of uh six family buildings close to the site. There are also much larger commercial projects uh that have come through the port in recent years. There's quite a variety of density uh in this part of Oak Square. Next slide, please.
And that concludes our presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, I'm going to take public testimony. Yes, madame chair and members of the board. Sigy Johnson with the mayor's office of neighborhood services.
This petitioner completed the ONS community process following a deferral at the last CBA hearing. Uh they made some changes to their proposal which were presented at an a Butters meeting on August 21st. Butters remained divided on their proposal. Five individuals identifying themselves as a Butters
supported and six were opposed. Those supporting cited their belief that the design is contextual. Those opposed believed generally that four units was not typical and represented out of character density on tiptop street. Our office has received 76 letters of support. 37 of these letters signed an
address within the 300t abutters radius with the rest giving addresses in Brighton or no address. A petition in opposition with 24 signatures in the abutters radius has been received by our office and forwarded to the board. Also received six letters of opposition with three addresses in the abutters radius.
The Bright and Alustin Improvement Association is in opposition to this proposal due to the basement unit and bedroom count. That's the active civic group in this area. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Okay. Um, next we have Barbara
Parmentor. Hello, my name is Barbara Parmentor and I live at 77 Harriet Street in Brighton. I strongly support the proposed renovation. I've served on a number of article 80 impact advisory groups and the Harvard Alustin task force and I've
been a longtime advocate for better planning in the neighborhood. I also own a two family and live in one of the units. The Harvard Alustin task force requested an Austin Brighton community needs assessment which was released last year. It identified housing as a critical need in our neighborhood listed
first among four central findings. Numerous surveys before and since have also listed housing as a primary need for Alston Brighton. As a task force and I agend residents of Brighton say they want more owner occupied and more family housing.
This project provides exactly that. We need more owner occupied familysiz rental units. At a renter resource fair just last night leading up to our September 1st moving day. I asked the 25 renters attending how many lived in owner occupied housing. Only one person
raised their hand. Please, please wrap up. Yes, I know that about students. People think that Austin Brighton is all that, but we have so many wonderful early career professionals here. We have a homeowner who wants to expand her number of units who will live there and who has
created a thoughtful, lovely design. This is the exactly the kind of gentle expansion that we need in our neighborhood. Thank you. Okay, next we have a Hessen Faruki. Yes. Hi. Uh, thank you all for the opportunity to testify. My name is
Hassan Faruki. I'm the executive director of the Boston Climate Action Network and I live on Albany Street in the south end. And uh, I also want to uh, you know, voice my support here for 7 Tiptop Street. I deal with green buildings all day, every day, and speak with owners of those buildings of all
different sizes from single families all the way to large skyscrapers and help them understand what a good green building looks like. And this project is a great example of that. It is uh of the highest quality, I think, when we're thinking about so many of the attributes
we want to see in green buildings. And we want to see green buildings everywhere. Not just because of course we want to address climate change as you might imagine, but also because it ultimately leads to better indoor air quality, fewer health issues, more people under wrap up and I want to make sure get get a chance to speak. Please
wrap up. And um so ultimately I think this is a great project and I chuckled when I heard that this would be student housing. I think that you know having been a student at Austin Brighton this is far from what students are living in. This is a high quality development and I think it should be improved. Thank you. But please, please, if you're not in a
butter, I'd like to hear from our butterers first. Okay. Uh, next we have Elia Samura. Elia, please say your name. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. My name is
Yes. My name is Elia. I'm on Traymond Street and I am for this project as well. I think it's a really good idea. I live currently in a new Butters building on Traymont Street. It's a six-unit building and we're starting with like three families, four families and six
units in large condo buildings. I think Rosanna's proposal for a full family dwelling in the design of the scale fits perfectly in the neighborhood. And in general, I just feel like that building staying there burned down. It just needs to be rebuilt and made into something
more beautiful. And I've been trying to support this project for a while. And I feel like there's many confusions on what kind of building this is going to be. So I'm for this building. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh we have next Marcia Lander.
Marcia, if you can can you hear me? Yep. Okay. Uh my name is Marcy Lee and I live at 11 Tiptop Street. I'm an immediate butter. Immediate a butter. and live right next door. A couple of things that um I want to say. One, I would request that the
board consider when you hear that there are 74 people who have approved this that as a repres as as an on tiptop street butter and was people who had tal someone who's talked to many of the people signing the petition. I like us to consider that people who are in
Brighton Center or down on Clement Street are not a Butters and it's Bright and Center could be a very different uh uh neighborhood. Um I think that no one objects to uh creating a beautiful building. We have no opposition to the
design, to the look, to the um improvement. No one wants to keep it a burned out building. No one wants it to be abandoned. What we do object I object to is the variance for um get allow moving it from a two family
to a four family. The street is not for multi-units. When you looked at the uh developers map there were three buildings that had six family. None of them are on tiptop street. One is in Oak Square and one is down on Termont Street. They are not related to the
tiptop street is primarily one and two family units. It is a stable neighborhood. It is owner occupied. We're all in favor of that. I think as someone who has a three-bedroom unit myself, I would love to have um the
we're all looking for the best tenants. We're not looking for students and doesn't need to be students, but creating if you approve the variance for a fourbedroom, there seems to me that there's no way you can deny anybody else on the street the same variance. So what
is now 12 buildings of one and two families in in a short number of years with more increased developer interest you could have four to five four unit buildings on the street which completely changes the uh nature of the neighborhood the stability of the
neighborhood and it's very narrow and it increases using public transportation or not it can it will increase the use of ride sharing services delivery services Amazon trucks which is just going to put an a very big
burden on this street which cannot be denied. I do want to say one thing about the um uh developers presentation and the uh support of the BBDA that the idea that we need more family housing, more larger housing is true, but if you look
at today's list of apartments for rent in Brighton in the greater Oak Square neighborhood, there are upwards of more than a thousand units available. What it is not the challenge is not the number of larger units. The challenge is the affordability and there is nothing and I
don't expect this developer to be um looking at affordability but the challenge is affordable family units not just family units and I think um if you see there are many family units as again as somebody who has three a threebedroom unit that is rented I know the
challenges in getting those out there so that I I really stress that it's the building is lovely we're very happy that she's going going to do it. We're thrilled that it's green, but it's the change of use that we are now then
saying this neighborhood, which is people love, as he said, it's one of the nicest neighborhoods in in the city. We are changing it from what it is. So in four years, it could be like, and it could be overcrowded, it could be dense. And that if you want to do that, if we want to do that, we should have a
planning process that is equitable, that includes community members and professionals so that we are have uh responsible zoning. And that that's my wrap up. Thank you. Thank you.
Keep all other comments brief. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next, Megan, please name and address. If not, okay, next. Carl T. Hi, I sorry I was having trouble unmuting. Um, hi, my name is Megan
Thrasher. I live at 19 Tiptop Street. Um, I oppose this project. Um, I rented in Oak Square for 20 years before I saved up enough money to buy my dream house on this residential street, a little bungalow,
uh, a single family. Um I I think turning it into a four family will just cause too much congestion on the street and really it's going to push people like me out because um just four units uh with nine bedrooms um nobody wants to
hear about the cars but you know it's just going to make living here impossible. um and and and I don't find the process to have been that collaborative with her close neighbors who all feel this way
and um Thank you. Thank you. Please be brave. Okay. Next, Carl T, please. Hi, Kraman. I own uh 15 tiptop street. I want to start by
saying that lawyer whis's map of supporters also lists my property that's in a butter on Washington Street, which is not true. I own two properties over there. That's two more in oppositions to this horrible idea. So, um that said,
there is no benefit to Boston or the neighborhood as Marcy put out, Marcy Leen pointed out, there's no affordable benefit. That's what the house cry of Boston has been for years. That's not the case. And everybody is burying the
headline here. And the headline is that there are people who have lived in this neighborhood like myself for 60 years. Okay? I'm an older resident here. I have older relatives, family members, some of our parents are still alive. And if you
have to drop them off, if you have to uh park on Tmont Street and walk up an icy hill for Christmas, New Year's, anytime you would have visitors coming here, or if they move here, you're in trouble because it's hazardous no matter how well the city takes care of things. And
everybody seems to be putting that apart. It's not necessarily the building that uh the developer wants to build. It's the the unintended consequences. And when you come out, the first thing that uh the developer said was, "Oh, what a walkable neighborhood." Because
she knows that the problem here is the parking, and it will always be the parking on a street like this. Nobody should be able to change the the uh the complexion. Thank you, Paul. Please wrap up. Thank you, Kurt. All right.
Okay. Uh next, we have Eric Mao. Please name an address and be brief. Hi. Oh, thank you so much for uh letting us speak. I think Margie uh I live with Marcy. We look right into the
project which did a great job summing up my position. I also um I think on the other side the butter director Butter on the other side echoing Carl's point. She is a very old lady. Um, she has very limited mobility
and um, she doesn't park so good either and uh, you know, I say maybe about it. She's going to be fine. And um, you know, I'm concerned about where uh, how she's going to how she's going to be able to stay in that apartment with a
lot more parks. U, I try to I talked to persona. I understand her what she wants to do. Um, and I think I'm being I'm trying to be completely fair about our conversation. She has the insurance
company is going to pay for her to rebuild this building, two family house. Uh, what she wants to do is make the money back that she put into renovations. And I understand that. I don't know why insurance isn't paying
her. It's not my business. And uh but it's not our business also to have a four unit building so she can have the profit to get her initial investment back. She never lived there and so um I understand where she's coming from and I
I don't want to be heartless about it but that's what I don't know that this right thank you for thank you Eric. Uh next we have Moira Prey. Please name and address and be brief.
Good afternoon. My name is Mlan. I'm a member of city office. Um the council that took on record my support of this project. Uh as the proponent in the publication, she did reduce the number of bedrooms from 11 to 9. She also
reduced the or eliminated office space. The councelor understands that this does not address or resolve all the uh concerns of the butters. However, the counselor is conscious that an alternate removal um or by another opponent or this component might have additional
bedrooms or even more bedrooms and that is um that might have an even greater potential impact on. So um she would like to go uh on record in support. Thank you. Madam chair, we have two more testimony. Sarah,
last two. Okay. Sarah Randall, please name and address. Yep. Thank you. Um, my name is Sarah Randall. I live at 116 Tremont Street, which is about 600 ft away from the site. Um, I'm in support of this project. Um, to respect the time limit,
uh, I'll just restrict my comment to parking. Um my partner and I share one car very comfortably in this neighborhood because we both heavily utilize buses. The the 57 bus is the um the lifeline for all for the neighborhood really. Um and to be
transparent, my building does provide me with one parking spot. However, we would uh not consider ever getting a second car because we already aren't using our car every day. Um I know many people who similarly only need one car per unit or none. Uh considering that these units are geared towards families, I think
it's reasonable to assume that there these would be the sort of people who would be sharing cars rather than each bringing their own, which might be more common in a a student situation. Um and yeah, to close, I strongly support this project. I think it'd be a great addition to the neighborhood. And thank you for trying.
Thank you. Okay, the last person that we have is Anabella Gomez. Please name my nutr. Madam Chair, members of the board, Annabelle Gomes from the Brighton Austin Improvement Association. Um, as we said last time, we want we opposed the project due to uh the basement unit
mostly. Um, the basement unit only has one means of egress. Um, it is in the slope where it has height. The other sides, the window wells are lower. The entrance to the unit is also on the side, not in the front, which is um
should be in the front of the house uh especially for a fire. So, we have a problem with that. Article 51 doesn't allow basement units and such a basement unit with one only one means of egress. We have issues with the height of the building being three and a half stories
uh on a hill uh being over the other houses and again there is no parking with this building as it is. There still will be no parking with this building. Um so we do have some issues with that but mostly the basement unit issues are dangerous situation in our eyes
especially with a building that's been in the fire. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I'll turn it back over to the applicant to address the plethora of issues that have come up briefly. Yes, Madam Chair. Um, uh, just a few
quick comments. Um, there have been a few references to a developer here. Uh, Pres's a homeowner. She's going to live in the building. It's it's it's her house. She saved up for five years to buy this. And, um, I just want to stress she's she's an owner occupant. Um, we've
heard uh from neighbors that there's excellent public transportation in the area. Croissant does not have a car. Um, will the third floor unit occupant bring a car? They might, but that's a that's a relatively minor impact on the area. Um, the concern about the neighborhood
changing uh is a constant around the city. We have the u great blessing of growth and people wanting to live in Boston. We need to find ways to add uh density uh gradually and moderately across the city into desirable residential neighborhoods. This is a
perfect particular concerns that people raised, the basement unit, the lack of parking, the height. Can you just address those specific questions that were concerns that were raised? Yes, sure. So, um concern about the height. Uh Persona has actually designed
this building uh to not be taller than the surrounding buildings. Um so it will not tower over the buildings. It will not be as tall as the adjacent uh uh buildings. Um the basement issue uh there are two response to that. One is the city has been uh very encouraging on
a policy level of of of creating additional housing and basement because this building is now going to be fully sprinklered. There's no safety issue. Boston Fire Department is going to review all the plans and they will ensure that the egress is proper. These are high windows. Uh there'll be plenty
of egress from the small unit in the basement and uh given the uh exceptional transit resources which the promote square there is no concern. Sorry, someone else speaking. Jesus, can you mute others who are not
supposed to be speaking? Thank you, Mr. West. Yeah, thank you. Um there really is no concern with parking here. Uh public transit takes folks to all the employment centers in Cambridge, downtown Boston, Back Bay, Watertown, etc. from this area and um we don't see a concern. We're looking to add uh just
two units to this street. That will have a very minimal impact. Uh as the board knows, there's no precedent uh for this type of decision. Uh and a house fire, particular house fire when a when a when a renovation was essentially complete is a very rare and unfortunate event. If
that's not a hardship, I'm not sure what is. Thank you very much. Questions from the board. May I have a motion? Um, I'll make a motion of approval with uh no building code relief.
Is there a second? Second. Miss Weel? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Langum?
Yes, Miss Ponado. Yes, chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. Um before we proceed, are there any
um withdrawal deferrals or withdrawals for the 12:00 interpretation or rediscussion? Good afternoon. an attorney Lauren Scatino covering for attorney Richard Lind today just seeking a deferral. Um we believe we have just give I need to read into the
record. Just give me the address. Put your address. Yeah. 6066 Condor Street and uh calling case BOA1689794 with the address of 62 66 Condor Street.
Uh please proceed. Hi. Um, we are just seeking a shot to curl. We believe we have this issue worked through. We're just waiting um for ISD to confirm they're resending the refusal letter on this one. Okay. Caroline
Lorine, are you looking for September or October? As soon as I we're ready to as soon as we have the um confirmation that the refusal letters are withdrawn. Mhm. Um, so September is fine if we could get
those. Okay. Could we do September 23rd? Does that work? Yes. Okay. May I have a motion? Motion to defer till September the 23rd. May I have a second? Second.
Miss Leewell? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Lango? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Airport votes. Yes. The motion carries.
All right. We're also seeking to defer 265269 Maverick Street. Okay. Let me call case BOA 1685296 with the address of 265 to 269 Maverick
Street. Please proceed. Um for the same reasons as Condor Street, we are just trying to work with ISD to um work on getting that refuse over sended. So a September date would be fine. Yeah, we can take September 23rd.
Okay. May I have a motion? Motion to defer to September 23rd. Second, we will Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Langum, yes.
Miss Bonado, yes. Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you. Okay. Returning to the 11:30 red discussion. Uh, case BOA172505 with the address of 571B Washington
Street. This is a cannabis case. Is the applicant available? Uh, I am. Can you hear me? It's Phil Silverman. Yes. Name and address for the record. Sure. 571B Washington Street in Dorchester.
Okay. Please proceed. Okay. Thank you. Again, I'm Phil Silverman for the applicant. My client um is is known as Legal Greens. They're a man I don't want a retailer. Actually have a a retail operation uh in Brockton, Massachusetts. and they're
seeking to operate uh a retailer as as well as a delivery operator and delivery courier business at 571B Washington Street in Dorchester. Um they just last week uh received approval of host agreements uh from the Boston Cannabis
Board uh for all three of those operations at the facility. And uh I'm here today uh with Mark Bouet and Vanessa Jean Baptiste who who would be available to answer any questions. Um, but if that address looks a little familiar to the board, uh, it's because
there was a prior company that also obtained a conditional use permit to operate a marijuana retailer there, uh, and did operate that retailer up until about May. I think, uh, there were some financial issues with that company. Uh, the property has since changed hands.
And so what we're really effectively proposing is sort of a a change of the tenant for previously approved conditional use. Um the the only difference between the prior uh you know operation and now is that we're adding those delivery courier and delivery
operator businesses uh which you know are typically fact it's more more or less just uh having a dispatch uh operation within that facility. Um but beyond that, no uh new construction, no changes to the exterior or interior of
the property from the previously approved conditional use permit. Um and my client's just looking to sort of continue to be have the same success it's had in in uh uh Brockton and offer that same, you know, quality of customer experience to Austin.
Thank you. Questions from the board. I have one. Um given that you're planning on doing delivery, do you have a plan for how those deliveries will be carried out like is it going to be mostly you think mostly bike where the car is going to go things like that? it
it's probably vehicular, but um you know what would probably what's most likely to be happening is that that vehicle will be stored down at their Brockton facility and when there's a delivery uh you know that that's called and they come up and pick up product very quickly
obviously uh you know at this facility and and and that's how it'll be used. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, I may have missed it. What hours of operations? Uh
if uh I don't have that. I I do. Um yeah, 10 10 to 9. 10 to 9 daily. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's for the That's for the delivery part. Okay. And then what about the retail? The retail 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
8:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. Yep. Dave, other questions from the board? May I have public testimony? Yes, madam chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time the mayor's office to defer to the judge
from this board some background information the community process, excuse me, held two of Butter's meetings. uh the first on April 18th uh discussing uh the courier and delivery operation uh and the second meeting was uh July 30th uh regarding um a retail
dispensary at that location. At the first meeting there were variety of opinions expressed. Um a number of residents were supportive of this proposal feeling that the use was appropriate for this location. Uh there were some residents who expressed concerns what they felt were too many dispensaries in the Dorchester area. Uh
there were also other residents that expressed concerns regarding uh the displacement of a previous business at this location and other dispensary. Um on July 30th that meeting uh those concerns did not materialize in the second meeting. Those in attendance were overwhelmingly in support of this
proposal. Uh the applicant received support from the Coben Square Neighborhood Council as well as councelor Warell. Um and we received sever several letters of support from residents. Uh with that we defer to the board. Thank you. Thank you. And next we have Brian.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh Timothy Gimmon on behalf of District 4 city councelor Brian Morell. As mentioned, uh the councelor is in support of this project. Uh in particular, he wanted to highlight the extensive uh community outreach that has
been done. Um and we have also received a variety of residents who would like to see the continued use uh of the previous business um just with a new ownership. So with that the counselor supports and thank you very much. Thank you Madame Chair. There are no additional
comments. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none. Is there a motion? Can I make a motion of approval? Is there a second? Second.
Miss Weall? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Langum? No. Miss Bonado? Yes.
Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Good job on your inaugural uh duties, Miss T. All right. Have a great afternoon, everyone, and happy.
All right. Good job.