We just wanted to make sure that we were able to make testimony.

Thank you.

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 his practice of holding virtual hearings through June twenty twenty-seven.

This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed.

In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing.

The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, Boston.gov.

Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen, and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists.

Elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public.

In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr.

Stembridge reads the address into the record.

Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called, or the meeting hosts will not know to call on you at the appropriate time.

We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Good morning.

Mr.

Valencia.

The vote of Madam Chair present.

Good morning.

Ms.

Turner.

Good morning, Madam Chair President.

Good morning.

Good uh Ms.

Barbraza.

Good morning, Madam Chair President.

Good morning, Ms.

Penado.

Good morning, Madam Chair President.

I'm working on video.

Understood.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Mr.

Collins.

Good morning, Madam Chair Present.

Good morning.

Okay, I'll turn it back over to you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh morning, members of the board in public.

We'll begin today's meeting.

We'll begin today's hearings with with a approval of the hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

These hearing minutes are from April 7th, 2026.

And I will make a motion of approval.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Berbraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Next, we have the extensions scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

This morning we have two extensions before us.

To request for extension of course works.

I'll read the I'll read both of them in and we can go from there.

First, we have case BOA 147 or 9 with the address of 10 Bellville Avenue.

Along with that, we have case BOA 78768 729 with the address of 79 to 89 West Broadway.

Those are the student extensions in front of us.

And if we have any questions, you could direct them to Madam Chair.

Any questions?

What are the reasons for the extension?

Because this is the fifth request for an extension.

So just wondering if the project is feasible or not at this point after so many years.

So if anybody is from this project, they would love to hear it to the summons.

Is Mr.

Attorney Small here.

Okay.

Let's move on.

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Uh may I have a motion to grant the request as requested?

The motion.

Yep.

Grant the extensions as requested.

Okay, you grant the extensions as requested.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Bera Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Panado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Next, we have a court remand discussion.

I'll read this in and then turn it over to Caroline to inform us what needs to be done.

Remand discussion.

Superior court case number 2384 C V 00459 with the address of 22 Hanover Street.

This is also identified as case BOA 135 9438.

The applicants are Stefan and Jenny Balado.

And I'll turn it over to Carolyn.

So this project was originally approved by the uh Boston Board of Appeal on December 6, 2022.

The proposal included the renovation of an existing single family dwelling with a two-story partial edition within the existing footprint as well as the construction of a root deck and associated headhouse.

The board's decision was subsequently appealed, and the Massachusetts Superior Court has remanded the case to the board in order to make specific findings of fact regarding the requested conditional use permit for the roof deck and headhouses.

There will not be a vote today.

Do any of the board members have any questions?

Okay, Mr.

Stembridge, you may proceed with the next item on the agenda.

Thank you, Carol.

You will go on to the recommendation schedule from 930 AMT.

At this point, I will read into the record.

Um two cases uh which one of our members must recuse themselves from those two cases are case BOA 18076 with the address of 7R to 7 Monument Street.

Along with that, we have case BOA 1825198 with the address of 61 Rockney Avenue.

Mr.

Collins One.

Oh no, I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Lab Chair.

Is Mr.

Collins accusing yourself on these two?

Yes.

Okay.

So we have a six-member board.

Uh may I have a motion?

Uh oh, sorry, uh Mr.

Stembridge.

I think usually you let the board know what the outcome was of those.

Uh these were approved, ma'am.

Okay.

So may I have a motion?

Motion to open.

May I have a second?

Better Braza second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Bella Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

With that, we'll move on to the rest of the recommendation cases scheduled for that was scheduled for April 16th.

The let people know that this point all of the all of the cases will approve.

So with that, we'll go on to we'll move on to case BOA 180 6384 with the address of 215 to 221 Hanover Street.

Again was approved.

Next we have case BOA 181-3278 with the address of 5 Colebrook Street.

Again approved.

Next we have case BOA 170-1102 with the address of 3141 Washington Street, which was approved.

Skipping over the next one and going to case BOA 172-3161 with the address of 37 Mather Street, which was approved.

Next we have case BOA 180971 with the address of 1 Parrott Street.

Next we have case BOA 179-8927 with the address of 109 Hogle Street.

Next we have case BOA 182-6464 with the address of 384 West Roxbury Parkway.

Next we have case BOA 1710494 with the address of 168 Dana Avenue.

Madam Chair, those are all of the cases from the subcommittee, which were all approved.

Thank you.

That's what's any questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stambridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Bella Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Has she been eliminated back to a panelist?

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Ms.

Pinato.

So then that Madam Ambassador needs to elevate her back to a panelist.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

With that, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 9 30 a.m.

At this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 930 AM here.

Yes, good morning, Mr.

Secretary.

34 Spring Garden Street, please.

So this request is for case BOA 1794725 with the address of 34 Spring Guard Street.

Would you go ahead and explain?

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board for the record, attorney Matt Eccle with Quester Tilton on behalf of the applicant.

We have made some changes to the plans that need to be resubmitted through inspectional services and re-reviewed by our plans examiner.

So at this time we are seeking a short deferral.

We could do June 16.

Or Matt, have they been submitted to plans yet or no?

They they have not yet been submitted.

We expect a quick turnaround though.

So June 16th would certainly work, or there's something probably not sooner, but June 16th would be fine.

Okay.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until June 16th.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Bella Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

See you then.

Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawal or deferrals of the 930 hearing?

Hearing none.

We will go to the first case, which is case BOA 181706 with the address of 360 Princess Street.

If the applicants and the representative are present, would they put as much space in the board?

Jesus, do we have anyone?

Laura Costa?

Laura.

I don't see anybody.

Laura Costa.

No, Madam Chair.

I don't see the Madam Chair will wait and return to that.

Um we have to read the others out.

Yep.

Thank you.

So we're on to case BOA 173 0471 with the address of 109A to 1090.

It's the applicants and their representative present.

Will they please explain?

Yes.

And Madam Chair with me, but that's this is uh this will be one of two companion cases.

The other one with that will be case BOA 173 0467 with the address of the 11a to 11 Sailing Street.

Hello?

Are you here to speak to the 109 salon?

Thank you.

Yes, yes, good morning, madam chair, members of the board.

My name is Joseph Bono, the owner and manager of 109 and 11 Sound Street.

Um request is to um have an outdoor patio for 14 seats at each restaurant that we have operated for the last six years under the Boston outdoor dining program and both locations are on private property, so we want to alleviate having to do this annual um request EGM.

And both locations are on private property, so we want to alleviate having to do this annual request EGM.

So we respectfully request your approval to this.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any any questions from the board?

Mayor of public testimony.

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services.

This time the mayor is obviously to defer to the judgment of this board.

Some background information.

Our office did not require community processes.

We normally do not hold a public process for outdoor dining proposals on private property.

The applicant has worked with the outdoor dining team.

They have been operational for a number of years in the north end.

Our office is unaware of any uh concerns uh from direct abutters uh with that information with the front of the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have a Steven for the Consulus Coleta's office.

Hi, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Stefan from Councillor Coletta Zapata's office, and at this time we'd like to go in support of this uh case.

Thank you.

There are no additional comments.

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Back in.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Rolancia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Betta Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Sorry, yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck, sir.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1806142 with the address of 7 Smith Court.

If the applicant and other representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, uh, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

My name is Timothy Burke.

I'm the architect for the project.

I have a business address of 142 Berkeley Street in Boston.

And thank you for the opportunity to present this project.

I've been working with the uh this is a single family owner-occupied house on Beacon Hill.

It's a beautiful house and has a roof deck, but the existing access to the deck is very poor and uh borders on dangerous.

You have to kind of crawl on your knees to get up to the deck.

So we're asking permission to install a head house that would increase the FAR by 43 and a half square feet.

And uh this is already a very small lot at 545 square feet.

And the um the penthouse has been designed to be similar to many on Beacon Hill.

It will be covered in copper, and we've designed it to be as small as possible to still get a decent and safe access to the roof deck.

And um the owner is also with us here, Michael Robertson, and be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Good morning, madam chair and members C.

Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant has completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutterist meeting on January 29th, at which there were questions and concerns about the dimensions of the deck and the appearance of the head, as well as opposition from a direct rebuilding the deck in this location.

The applicant met with the Beacon Hill Civic Association, which agreed to provide their non-opposition, subject to a good neighbor agreement or officer's team letter of opposition from a director butter that has been forwarded to the board.

That background ON has deferred judgment to the board.

Thank you.

I don't see any additional fence for the shotgun.

Any other comments from Mr.

Burke?

Uh no, thank you.

No.

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval.

May I have a second?

Second, exactly.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Badabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penano.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 179878 with the address of 61 Farrell Good Road.

If the applicant and/or their representative are present, will they please respond to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Marancy, business address of 168 H Street, First Floor, South Boston.

Joining me today are the owners, Molly and Mike Shaw, as well as the project architect, Nick Landry.

This is a modest owner-occupant project.

The Shaws live in this building and intend to raise their young family here.

The proposal converts an underutilized three-family building into a larger two-family home and converts in an existing but unimproved roof deck and head house into functional living space with two outdoor decks.

The conversion of the roof deck and head house will be approximately 391 square feet of livable space serving unit two with a front-facing deck and a rear facing flanking with the new headhouse edition.

We are here seeking two forms of relief, a conditional use permit under Article 68, Section 29 to alter the profile of the roof line within the South Boston restricted roof district.

We're also seeking a variance for the 40-foot maximum building height under Article 68, Section 8 to allow the proposed structure an overall height of approximately 46 feet nine inches.

The underlying main roof remains at 36 feet 5 inches, well within the 40 feet limit.

Critically, the proposed headhouse and decks are substantially set back from the front and the rear property lines, limiting street level visibility.

The release sought will not substantially derogate from the purpose of the restricted roof district.

The district restrictions are principally aimed at preserving the visual character of the streetscape, as the street elevation drawing demonstrates the proposed addition is invisible from the Farragut Road.

The head house is set back well behind the main parapet, and the solar study confirms that the new shadow impact on the abutters is minimal.

Significantly, 35 Farragut Road, a neighboring building, visible in the submitted street elevation reaches 50 feet, well above the Shah's proposed 46.

The proposal does not set a precedent that would undermine the district's purpose.

It is consistent with the actual built form of this block.

We are aware the planning department has recommended consolidating the two proposed decks into a single location.

We respectfully request that the board decline to impose that condition, or in the alternative that any proviso be framed to allow the additional living space to be pushed back further while retaining an enlarged front deck and the proposed location.

The rationale for the two decks is practical and family oriented, not cosmetic.

The Shaws have young children.

The rear deck provides shaded outdoor space suitable for children, critical in the city where private outdoor space at the upper level of a narrow building is limited.

The front deck in turn captures the elevator views toward the ocean that make this level of the building distinctive.

These are not interchangeable functions.

A single consolidated deck cannot simultaneously provide both shade and ocean views.

Are you aware?

Thank you, Attorney Smith.

Are you aware of uh feedback from the city's parks and recreation department with concerns?

No, as as this is located, we will have to go if approved by the planning department.

We'll have a most likely if there is a proviso of design review, we'll also have to go through the uh review with the parks department as well.

But I am not aware of any sort of concerns that have been mentioned to this point as of right now because we have not formally submitted for that review.

Okay.

Other questions from the board.

I I um are there any very similar decks that overlooked the waters, the waterfront as well?

Yes, so as I mentioned, there is uh 35.

So if you pull up the um Nick Landry's here, he could probably you know defer the exact page, but um one of the one of the roof decks here, just on this block here is the ones that I wanted to mention.

Uh as you can see is it now, yeah.

Yeah, it has the same simulates and even higher again.

You know, that's at 50 feet uh total as well.

Okay.

And there, and again, if we go further outside the scope of the block, I try to keep it just within that one block.

There are other uh precedent setting, you know, roof deck structures on those buildings as well.

So currently the roof deck does not is not accessed by headhouse, is that correct?

Correct.

Yep, there's a there's a rear staircase in the existing photo uh elevation drawing showing that there's a staircase that that comes up through the back, and it's a very long walkway uh that gets to the actual deck itself.

So as you're proposing two, it why is that not?

So option.

Yeah, so so there the reasoning behind that is more of the rational house practical and family-oriented.

They they have young children, uh, they're gonna continue to raise their children, and they think you know that the preference is to have some shade, and you're gonna get mostly the shade in the rear of that deck versus the front side, but again, the views from the front uh are very distinctive to this property.

Other questions from the board.

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Member Bertie E.

Johnson at the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed community process.

Our office hosted at a butters meeting on January 8th, which a director Butter had had a concern about the impact of construction.

The applicant met with B-Point Neighborhood Association, which opposes this application due to the building height, roof decks, and Pergola.

That background or office defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Council of Flynn's office.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office.

Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process.

While Council Flynn acknowledges concerns from neighbors and civic groups and maintains a policy against new deck construction, he has supported proposals with existing roof decks that gain the approval of neighbors and abutters as this one has done.

He respectfully asks the proponent to continue to work closely with the neighbors on any of quality of life issues that arise during the construction phase.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Oh no, we have another person, I think.

Luan you can if you can unmute yourself.

Yes, good morning, board and members.

Um Liliano Connor, president of the City Association.

Uh the proponent did come in, I believe it was March 10th, um, to present um to the neighborhood association, and a quorum was present.

The vote was taken, and the vote came back to oppose based on the height.

Um the BPDA recommendation for East Broadway is 45 feet, and this is on Farragut Road going above that 45 feet.

They are directly across the street from Greenspace, uh, it's a park, and a little bit further is the beach itself.

So the coverage of the roof is uh way beyond the percentage that BPDA usually likes to see, and they have agreed to move the properly to the back, but again, front and back roof decks, I think is just a little absurd.

Um and based on 35 Farragut, which keeps um coming up as an example.

Um, that roof deck itself has been grandfathered in years and years ago.

Um so with that we stand on in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I see the I see another person.

Betty.

You if you can use yourself.

Yes.

Um I'm Betty Daly, and I live next door.

I'm an abutter, and I think it's wonderful that um I'm in full support in the Shaw in the Shah's are an asset to the community, and I think on Farragut Road, it just beautifies the um neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Madam Chair, before you turn over the board, I just if I can just have two seconds.

I'd just like to note what wasn't um stated by the mayor's office is that we submitted 14 letters in support of this project from all the immediate direct abutters.

There was one abutter who originally just had concerns with the shadow, but when the Shah's um had a further discussion with them, they did submit a letter of support.

Um again, there was no opposition that we were aware of.

The only opposition came in from the actual civic group.

But again, I'd like to highlight the fact that 14 letters were submitted to this board in support from all the immediate director butters.

Thank you.

Is um is Mr.

Hampton on?

I just want to confirm uh that design review would uh would include uh you know review from parks and rec or is that a that's a separate proposal.

Yeah, thank you, madam chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department.

Uh the Parks and Rec re uh review is completely separate process from ours.

Okay, thank you.

So that would require a separate proviso.

Uh any other questions from the board.

Um, can you just clarify?

I'm looking at on Google image and I see on 61 Farragut Road that there is already a front front deck.

Um so I'm a little bit now a little bit unclear.

Yeah, so no, there is there there is there is an existing deck again that that is not improved and it's in pretty tough shape.

So that deck is actually said that it has been approved, that it's uh you know has been that's already yes, yeah.

So that's yeah, so exactly.

So it's gonna be actually renovated in the size of that deck is actually in the front will be shrunken down a bit.

Okay, so it's already kind of existing.

Correct, yeah.

Okay, great.

I don't I don't need any further clarification.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh with that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion.

Given that the deck is already existing, um, I'm gonna put forward a motion of approval.

Are you including design review?

No, because I think that um uh a proposal of a rear deck and the size of the size of it is uh is adequate to the area of the roof deck.

Um this is a homeowner that wants to just add an additional roof deck to the rear, which is out of public view, and the one that is being proposed in the front, it's already kind of existing, it's just going to be decreased.

So I don't I don't see for any design review.

So I I'm gonna request the the provisal with park parks and rec review given they submitted uh a letter, and this falls within their purview.

Any concerns with that?

Sure, we can add that, but typically that would be earmarked in the ISD permitting process, but I can include that.

So I will I can revise um uh the motion to approve with a proviso that it received that it reviewed it's being reviewed by uh Boston Parks and Recreation Department.

Isn't there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Volancia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Badabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chairman's yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have case VOA 177 4632 with the address of 744 East Fourth Street.

If the applicant andor the representative president, will that please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Maranty, business address of 168 8th Street, first floor, South Boston.

Uh joining me today from the development team is Andrew Shennah, John Collins, and Darren Swain.

Also joining us as the project architect Eric Zacherson.

This is a proposal to raise the existing structure, which has been filed on a separate permit and to erect a new four-story six-unit residential building with nine vehicular parking spaces along with the dedicated bicycle parking room.

Umbassador, if I could direct your attention to page A102.

Uh A102, the level one plan consists of the mechanicals, trash room, law lobby, storage in the front.

In the rear, as the elevation drops, will contain the garage for nine parking spaces.

Level two will contain units one and two, which both will be three bedrooms.

Level three will contain units three and four, which will also be three bedrooms.

Level four will contain units five and six, which will also be three bedrooms.

All units will have balconies in the front, eight feet deep, sixteen feet wide, that will be flushed with the building.

We only have two violations.

We have an FAR violation, 2.0 is applying in this subdistrict, and the proposal calls for a slight increase at a 2.03, which is also very similar with other FARs within this neighborhood.

We have an additional lot insufficiency.

The proposal of this scope would require 7,000 square feet of lot size, and our lot size is just shy at 6,400 416 square feet.

The typical lot in this area is approximately 750 square feet for an average of three units on a lot, which is also non-compliant.

One thing that I'd like to, I think it's worth mentioning to the board is that if we just reduce the unit count keeping the floor layouts and slightly reduce that FAR, we could have a zoning compliant project here.

But again, we put a lot of work together with the immediate director butters.

Uh we've come to grips with some neighborly agreements.

Um, hence the reason why you're seeing us go forward with the proposal of this today.

We are also aware of the recommendation of the planning department for a deferral based upon the Article 85 process where the landmarks commission has made a preliminary determination of significance, which may impose a delay.

The board should reject the planning department's recommendation to defer this matter pending resolution of the Article 85 landmarks review process.

A defer is needled is neither legally required nor appropriate at this stage.

Article 85 of the Boston Zoning Code and the ZBA's variance relief jurisdiction operate entirely separate on set statutory tracks.

The Board of Appeals derives its authority from Chapter 665.

The landmarks commission is Article 85, preliminary determination of a significance, triggers a design review process.

It does not confer upon the landmarks commission any authority to veto stay or condition a zoning determination by this board.

There is no provision in Article 85, the enabling act, or any applicable authority that requires this board to hold its zoning determination in abeyance while a separate administrative review proceeds before a separate body.

The proper legal sequence is well understood.

Zoning relief is obtained from this board, and then the issuance of a building permit is conditioned upon the satisfaction of any applicable Article 85 review.

That is exactly how the process should work today.

The applicant is not asking for a building permit.

The applicant is simply asking for zoning relief.

The landmarks jurisdiction attaches at the permitting stage, not at the zoning stage.

Deferring the zoning determination accomplishes nothing substantially and simply prolongs the applicant's inability to move forward through the regulatory process in this correct order.

The board grants relief, the permit does not issue until Article 85 is resolved.

That is the appropriate mechanism, not a deferral of this hearing.

Secondly, uh we'd also like to not take that the landmarks has only made a preliminary determination of significance under Article 85, Section 4.

That is the threshold screening step.

It does not mean the property will be designated, that a certificate of appropriateness will be denied, or that the proposed design isn't compatible with any applicable standards.

A preliminary determination simply opens the review process.

To defer a zoning matter every time the landmarks commission issues a preliminary determination would effectively give the body a de facto veto over ZBA proceedings.

A result that that finds no support in the text of either Article 85 or Chapter 665.

The applicant filed this application in August 2025.

The matter has already been before the neighborhood and updated.

An open-ended deferral tied to an Article 85 review would impose a serious and continuing hardship on the applicant without any corresponding benefits of the public interest.

The zoning violations at issue are narrow, a minor FAR overage of 0.03 above the 2.0 standard, and an insufficient additional lot area per unit, both of which this board has ample authority to address under the variance of relief standards applicable in the NFR subdistrict.

This point, Madam Chair, I am going to pause, turn it over to the board for any questions or comments.

I also do have attorney Richie Lynz uh who is who is present here today if there are any specific questions relating to the Article 85 process and application as he is the attorney on record handling that for the proponents.

So again, uh thank you, madam chair, and I'll turn it over to you and the board for any questions or comments.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yes.

Um just just so I can understand you are planning to demolish the existing building to just currently four unit and uh propose a new structure to add two additional units, which is six units, correct?

Yes.

And um can you tell me what is your um hardship because you you didn't, you know what is not allowing you to build two units within the existing structure?

So can you just claim to let us know what is your hardship because that's why you're in front of us requesting a variance?

Yeah, yeah.

So I mean that the hardship here again is the best and reasonable use.

And most likely, as you're seeing with the law size there, if we were to able to erect five units, we could do that zoning compliant.

Just a slight decrease in the in the 2.03 FAR, and just reducing that unit count from six to five would make it a zoning compliant project.

The building is in uh pretty bad condition and in some disrepair.

Uh, hence the reasoning why that the Article 85 application was submitted rather than preserving the existing structure and building out.

Uh it would be it wouldn't be feasible to add the parking, where we again we know take that parking is one of the biggest critical issues in South Boston, hence the reasoning why that a whole new project starting from scratch would be a bigger benefit than trying to preserve it and adding on additional units.

Okay, and just one other additional question.

Do you have a structural report stating that um it's in poor condition and it's not salvageable?

Uh I would have to I would have to go back and see if the proponents do actually have one themselves.

Okay, I just wanted to know if if you've done a structure or I don't think I don't think they have at this point.

Okay, if you don't, that's no further questions.

Thank you so much.

Yeah.

Any other questions from the board?

Maybe a public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Member Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on October 27th, 2025, at which a previous iteration of this proposal was presented.

A large number of utters were opposed to the height, demolition of the building and parking ratio.

The applicants made changes in direct response to this feedback, which reduced the violations, although their proposal still calls for demolition of the building.

Our office received three letters of opposition from abutters.

An attempt to mitigate some of the concerns raised.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office.

Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition based on feedback from neighbors in abutters during the community process.

Several neighbors and abutters highlighted the exact exact division and concerns on the potential for damages to their property.

Others pointed to the size, density, and salt bossing's existing parking crisis.

Some neighbors mentioned the design not fitting with the character of the surrounding buildings, while others noted removal of established trees and water drainage.

At this time, Councillor Flynn remains opposed due to these outstanding quality of life concerns from his neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next we have the Kelly DiAngelo.

Good morning.

My name is Kelly D'Angelo.

I'm the owner of 7670s Broadway, so I'm a direct abutter of this project, and I wanted to voice my support for this project.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Next we have Todd D'Angelo.

I uh also an owner at 767 East Broadway, uh direct abutter in the rear of the project.

Uh and I would like to voice my support for the project as well.

Thanks.

And next we've got Matt Juset.

Hi, Matthews at 142 P Street.

Um, as a member of the City Point Neighborhood Association, I was denied the ability to learn about the project and vote by Luann O'Connor.

After reviewing the project, I want to make sure that my voice and opinion was heard in support of this project moving forward.

Thank you.

Thanks.

And we have Luan.

Good morning, board.

Um Madam Chair.

There were two direct debuters that had that expressed extreme concern.

One of them was the Angelo family.

So the property backs up to their backyard, and their concern was soil displacement during excavation.

The other direct abutter is Elizabeth Rhodes, who is actually moving her daughter from Arizona to Washington today.

So she could not be here.

She did submit a lot of historical information working with Lynn Edmarks, and her major concern again is excavation.

Her house was built, I believe, in 1860.

Any type of damage to that home cannot be replaced.

The brick is special.

So she is still in opposition to this until there is an agreement worked out with the uh proponent.

So it appears they've worked out an agreement with the D'Angelo family, but have not worked out an agreement with uh Elizabeth Rhodes.

So at this point, I do suggest um strongly that the BPDA recommendation is taken into uh consideration.

I think it's a bit premature uh for this project to move anywhere until the eyes are dotted and the T's are crossed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madame Chair is one more person in the attending section.

Okay.

Uh the person with the phone number, uh 30562.

A two, I'm sorry.

Can you unmute yourself now?

Once again, the the the person with the number 30582.

You have the hands raised.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yes, if you can unmute yourself with the number um with the three numbers 582 at the end.

Um you are allowed to unmute yourself now.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, maybe you want to put your comment in the chat if you're raising your hand for this proposal.

Uh any other feedback from attorney's goods.

Yes, yes, just one thing I want to do add is is after we heard this the statements um from the City Coint Neighborhood Association, I want to let you all know that we still are in working dialogue with Elizabeth Rhodes.

Neither was any support or opposition ever voiced to us from her concerns uh with her traveling.

We will continue again to come to an agreement.

There's been an agreement, and it's again it's just upon final review.

So again, first to our knowledge that she was actually opposing it.

I haven't seen anything written or any confirmation from her to my clients or myself stating such.

So at this point, I'm gonna turn it back over to you, Madam Chan.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Uh Madam Chair, I'm uh like to know how long the process would be expected to um take uh the to the end.

Uh and if Mr.

Hampton has any uh comments on this.

Mr.

Stimbridge, are you referring to the Article 85 process?

Yes, I am.

Uh attorney Richie Lenz is here, and I'm who is handling the the application or the opposition.

So, Richie, I'm gonna let you uh handle that question.

Sure.

So um has the process started?

Is it uh has it not?

What yeah, what are we looking at?

Sure.

If I may, I I thank you, uh, Madam Chair, and through the members of the board, Richard Lynz 245 Summer Street on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the Article 85.

Um, a couple of things I think just contextually, uh, first of all, I I did read the recommendation uh from planning, and I'm not sure where it came from, uh, but that there was a suggestion that because uh there's potential for alternatives to be required by the landmarks commission, that that should uh invite this board to delay action on the zoning matter.

I want to be very clear for the board.

Uh there is no requirement under Article 85 that alternatives to demolition be provided.

Essentially, an applicant can submit a request for demolition delay review, uh, and the uh commission has uh really only two options.

First option is to invoke delay, or the second option is to not invoke delay.

The issue of um alternatives uh gets a bit confusing, I think, for a lot of uh applicants that go before landmarks commission article 85.

Um, and it's clear and it's been verified with the commission uh that there is absolutely no requirement that any alternatives be provided.

So again, the narrowness of the commission's jurisdiction in these matters is that they can invoke delay or not invoke delay.

Uh, I think it's important for this board to understand you may be hearing this again.

Um, that uh in this particular case for this particular project, uh, we've filed an objection with the commission on timeliness.

Uh this board may be aware that R85 is very strict timelines.

Uh, the first of which is that the determination that needs to be made by the landmarks commission has to be done within 10 days of an application filing date.

Uh, our position on this, and not to get too far in the weeds of the board, but our position is uh the 10 days had uh come and pass with the uh time frame for when this application was filed, and the determination that was required on Article 85 was never even made.

Uh it was made after the 10 days, and then a uh public hearing was noticed for May 12th in this matter.

Uh on May 12th, uh the Commission at that time is required by Article 85 to make its determination as to whether or not delay would be imposed.

However, Article 85 again has a very strict timeline that says that must be done within 40 days of an application filing date.

Uh, that was not done in this case.

Uh, May 12th will be beyond the application, will be beyond the application filing date.

Uh, and we've raised this objection with the landmarks commission uh that they will have no jurisdiction to even hear the matter for Article 85 demolition delay, and uh we've requested that the hearing be withdrawn.

Uh if in fact uh the commission decides to go forward, uh, in spite of the fact that we've uh raised a very valid objection to their jurisdiction.

Uh the most they could do is impose a delay on demolition of the building for 90 days.

We intend to contest that vigorously.

We believe they don't have the power to do that, but even if they were, it would be 90 days from May 12th for demolition delay.

That doesn't necessarily mean that there is any other special um uh protection that's afforded to this this property.

This is not a landmark designation.

Just because it's administered by the landmarks commission does not give the commission the power to invoke protections other than a 90-day delay uh instructed to the special service department to not issue a demo permitt.

Uh, in practical reality, uh Mr.

Stanbridge, we wouldn't probably be ready to demolish the building at 90 days anyhow.

Um that is a process as well that would have to go through uh uh short form permit with demo uh demolition requirements, uh including submittal of materials that would be necessary for ISD issue of the demo permit.

Uh, between the design review that would go on that's likely to happen with this project if the board is to grant relief, um, the 90 days would long expire regardless.

Uh but from a principal standpoint, uh, we don't even believe the commission has jurisdiction in this instance because of their failure to uh render its decision within the 10-day uh mandatory requirement of Article 85 and to hold its public hearing within 40 days.

So I just want to make sure that that is clear for the board that we may be uh in the red herring area here where the uh imposition or the suggestion that a demo delay may be imminent uh somehow affects this board's ability to grant starting buildings.

Uh they're completely independent of each other, and one has nothing to do with the other.

How can answer any questions on that?

Mr.

Stembridge, did that answer your first question?

Uh more, yes.

Okay.

Did you still want to hear from Mr.

Hampton?

Uh at this point, not necessary.

Uh anyway.

Thank you.

Any other I I would like to hear from Hampton.

Okay, Mr.

Hampton.

Just in terms of um, in terms of his uh recommendation.

What would you like to hear?

It's uh not to sound very blunt, but our recommendation is very you know simple.

We're asking for a deferral.

How long would that deferral?

Yes, it's simple, but how long is that?

Your guess is better barraza.

I just don't know what this time frame would look like.

Okay, that's what I was gonna ask.

Yeah, I don't know.

We it's uh is very difficult to but this isn't the first time we've made a deferral like this on any sort of recommendation, whether it be uh demolition delay or anything like that.

Like we we can ask for a deferral for anything that we feel is important to this case.

And we've never been asked to come up with well, what's a good time frame, right?

That's how the processes play out in this city.

So um it's very uh a very simple recommendation to the board.

And that's all it is is a recommendation.

No, I understand that, and and I think um I think this case is different in terms of the deferral.

Typically, deferrals are to allow for more community process.

I think this comes back to uh norm Stembridge original question in regards to timeline, but I think the legal representation explained already um uh that the timeline has been also expanded.

So um thanks again.

I don't have any further questions.

Okay.

I have a motion.

I think that if the planning department is staying symbolic in the project, they will have time and opportunity to deal with any issues with the garden demolition.

So that is my motion.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yep.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Kern.

Yes.

Ms.

Badabraza, yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1805937 with the address of 30 to 328th Street.

If the applicant and/or the representative of present, would it please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Marancy, business address of 168 8th Street, first floor of South Boston.

Uh joining me today are the from the development team is Tim Wilson and Luke Fallon, as well as the project architect Catrial Julian.

This is a proposal to raise the existing commercial structure and erect a new four-story six-unit residential building with a six-car parking garage.

The lot size is approximately 4,271 square feet, which resulted in a zoning violation for insufficient lot area as a project of this scope would require a 7,000 square foot lot.

But this proposal is in line with the neighboring properties and will allow for a better utilization of the land.

Further, there is a roof structure restriction violation, which resulted from the existing commercial structure being raised.

The proposal is located within an MFR zoning subdistrict.

All units will be two bedrooms.

The ground floor plan will consist of the garage parking for six vehicles, lobby, trash error, mechanicals, and elevator access.

First floor plan will contain units one and two, second floor plan will contain units three and four, third floor plan will contain units five and six.

We have additional violations.

We have a side yard setback violation.

Minimum of three feet is required.

As this proposal is located on a corner lot, this applies to both the south and east lot lines, where they are adjacent to multifamily buildings.

The east lot line is approximately 1.5 feet at the garage level and three feet for all upper stories.

The south lot line is two inches from the lot line.

The adjacent building is set back approximately six feet from the common lot line, and the separation between the two is common in this area.

Further, we believe the rear yard setback violation was an error due to the fact of being a corner lot with two front yard and two side yards.

FAR violation code requires a 2.0 proposal, calls for a 2.6, but again, it's consistent and appropriate for this area of second street.

Height violation, 40 feet is required by code, and this proposal calls for 41.42 feet, but the increase is not unreasonable in this area.

Due to the slope of the site, the building height will be reduced by three feet at the south end of the site.

We have an open space violation, 200 square feet per unit is required, and the proposal calls for 78 square feet per unit in the form of balconies, which again is consistent in this area.

Parking violation, 1.5 parking spaces per new unit of housing, and the proposal has seven total parking spaces.

However, this proposal is aligned with the transportations guidelines and reducing dependency on private vehicles.

Lastly, we have a violation for traffic visibility across the corner lot.

Despite being a corner lot in the building being constructed to the property line, Article 68-34, section two, and Article 18 section three clearly states that whenever a front yard is required in the lot as a corner lot.

In this instance, there is no front yard required on both sides.

Therefore, this should be inapplicable to this proposal.

The building design maintains the appropriate sight lines at the intersection while maximizing the building envelope.

The garage access has been carefully designed to ensure safe ingress and egress.

And lastly, typically a violation like this is just automatically cited if an analysis is not provided, such as a mobile setback.

Again, so one wasn't provided for here, so we will automatically cite it.

So at this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to the board for any questions or comments.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Member Consuming with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 3rd.

Three abutters supported the application.

Our office received 10 letters of support, all of signed addresses in the 300-foot abutteress radius.

The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in non-opposition to this application.

We're not aware of any other concerns with that background.

Our office defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Consul Fleet.

Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process.

He respectfully requests that the proponent work closely with neighbors on any of quality of light issues during the construction phase.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have uh Joseph and Sunno.

Hi no, and I'd like to speak in support of this project.

Uh I think it fits well with the neighborhood.

And uh the design of the building is nice.

The sufficient parking, the large units will provide an opportunity for families like mine to remain in South Boston.

Uh I ask that you please approve the project.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Roncia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Badabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Bonato.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes, yes.

The mountain carries.

Thank you.

We have T BOA.

One in zero.

Nine seven nine two with the address of 36 to 42 O Street.

Is the applicant getting to end those representative present?

Please explain to the board.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is George Morancy.

I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston.

I represent Greg Dunavan in this matter.

This property is an existing two-story, four-unit residential building located at 36-42 O Street within an MFR multifamily residential zoning sub-district under Article 68.

This proposal is rather straightforward, consisting of a two-story vertical addition, including two areas in the rear of the building currently occupied by porch structures, bringing the building to four stories and 40 feet, which is fully compliant with the height regulations in this zoning subdistrict.

The rear additions convert the porches in the back into living area with no further encroachment into the rear yard.

The expansion from four units to six units total would bring with it full life safety upgrades, including a complete NFP, a 13-hour sprinkler system.

The architectural drawings reflect a contextual design consistent with surrounding row house structures, maintaining the rhythm and scale along O Street.

The refusal letters cites several violations, but when viewed in context, this is at hard a typical South Boston infill rehabilitation.

With respect to the violations, there's a rear yard setback violation.

The existing nonconformity on the right side of the lot continues, I'm sorry, in the rear of the lot continues under the applicability of Section 6834.10, the shallow lot exception, meaning that the minimum setback distance here is 15 feet.

The existing condition is 10.3 feet to the rearmost portion of the building, where there are, as I mentioned, two rear porch structures.

The areas of the rear porches will be used to create additional living space with in the building without further encroaching into that rear setback area.

There's thus no increase in nonconformity.

In fact, the enclosed portions at the rear of the building will actually be set back slightly farther from the rear lot line than the existing porch structures.

So while it is present on the refusal letter, I actually question whether the rear setback violation cited here is actually valid.

The existing rear yard will be fully upgraded with new landscaping and enclosed trash storage area, and no trees importantly will be removed from the site.

There is a side yard setback violation pertaining to the right side of the lot only, but it is important to note that there will be no change to the building's side setbacks, either right or left.

The violation is triggered solely by the vertical addition of the building.

There's an FAR violation.

The FAR increase here is driven by a vertical addition, not lot over coverage.

And approximately 3.3, the proposed FAR is, as the planning recommendation notes, consistent with nearby three and four-story residential buildings.

There's a usable open space violation that provided usable open space, which is essentially not changing.

Enclosed porches with roofs don't really count as usable open space.

So the amount of usable open space in the rear yard, as I mentioned, is not being decreased.

It will remain at approximately 470 square feet.

So while relief is technically required, this open spee space is actually typical for this block pattern, as the planning recommendation notes.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that the site is located one block from the open space of Middle Bonner Park, which is just over a block from the s excuse me, from the site, as well as Thomas Butler Memorial Park and Marine Park, which is approximately two blocks from the site.

Additionally, there are 57 private off-street rental parking spaces located nearly next door at 32-34 O Street.

In conclusion, and as the planning department recommendation confirms, this area is predominantly residential.

It is characterized by two to three in some four-story buildings with moderate to high density with a consistent row house streetscape pattern.

This is a relatively small lot at approximately 2,521 square feet, although the building is a typical South Boston row house condition with limited side yards and shallow depth.

The height is code compliant, the massing is consistent with neighborhood scale.

The rear setback is not being reduced, and the building would be brought into full code compliance with modern life safety systems.

The fourth floor apparent balconies are purely decorative and not functional.

But that being said, my client would be happy to work through design review with the planning department to either modify or eliminate the overhang should the board grant the requested relief.

With that, Madam Chair, I'll pause and uh take any questions or comments that board members may have.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process are office and a butters meeting on February 5th, at which there were questions about the design, its suitability with the surrounding context.

The applicants have also met with the City Point Neighborhood Association, which is supporting this application.

That background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Nextly from Consular Flynn's office.

Councillor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and feedback from neighbors in the City Point Neighborhood Association.

Councillor Flynn respectfully requests that the development team work closely with neighbors and the civic group on any quality of life issues that arise during the construction phase.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Luan.

Good morning.

The proponents came in and presented before City Point.

Some of the conversation that happened with Attorney Moranzi and Greg Donovan was that there are two trees that apparently the city has uh deemed dead out in front of those properties.

And uh Greg Donovan agreed to uh replacing those trees.

He was not opposed to that.

Uh so that was uh a good thing in our minds.

There are no roof decks.

That's a better thing, and uh the height is high, however, it is zoning compliance.

So with that, we think that it's a good project.

Uh they also agreed for the balconies to be decorative, uh so sort of like a Juliet balcony versus um actual decks that are hanging over the building.

Insofar as the overhang, again, like attorney Morancy said, um, they are willing to go through BPDA design review for that.

So, with all of that, form was present, those was taken, and we are supporting the project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'll no additional comments.

Okay, any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I would like to prefer a motion of approval with uh BPD design review, uh paying is paying it special attention to the contextual surrounding as it applies to the exterior.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia?

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Metabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penato.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

The next case has been deferred.

So that will take us to case BOA 179078 with the address of 58 Bullet Street.

If the applicant and/or the representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Is Charles Robson on for 58 Butler Street?

Okay, if you guys I think I see someone says they're here.

Yeah.

I don't know.

Uh Charles, if you can speak now, you you are allowed to unmute yourself.

Yes, today.

How are you today?

Good.

Are you here to speak to 58 in Ballard Street?

Actually, my architect uh wasn't able to make it due to a health situation.

So I I based on the communication.

Um we will probably have to, I guess, reschedule or okay.

So you need to defer.

Yes, please.

Okay.

Uh Stephanie.

Uh how long of a deferral would you like?

Uh I would like uh the next meeting if possible.

We can do May 5th.

May 5th?

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to May 5th.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencio.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Beta Brazzo.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

We'll see you then.

Yeah.

Norms that is.

That we'll take us to see.

It's not called DOA.

182 1678 was the address of 70 Oklahoma Street.

If the applicant, yeah, and will they represent of the present?

Will they please explain to the board?

Thank you.

We're a six-member board.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Glory, Madam Chair and Mrs.

Board.

Madam Chair, in light of the recusal, um, we would like to request a brief deferral so that this project may have the opportunity of a full bullet.

A question about the ship and full point.

Yeah.

Please proceed.

I'm sorry, can you hear me, Madam Chair?

Yes.

Um in light of that recusual, we would like to request a brief uh deferral so that this project may have the opportunity of a full bullet.

Uh Stephanie?

I mean Caroline?

Okay.

Uh we can do May 5th.

Uh what's the following after that?

Yeah, so we have May 5th, May 19th, June 19th.

May 19th is perfect.

Okay.

So can we confirm Stephanie who's sitting since uh the same issue may occur before you give that date?

Uh I'm not sure.

I'm not uh it's Caroline.

I'm not I don't do this.

Okay, so I can follow up with the ZBA offline, madam Chair.

Yes, so with that, may I have a motion?

We'll do a motion to defer, and Mr.

Christopher can coordinate the dates.

Yes.

Okay, so uh yeah, is there a motion?

Motion to defer to May 19th.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Badaraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Oh, sorry.

Chair votes, yes, motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the time.

So next we have case BOA.

18103 10 with the address of 34.

At the Wall Street.

If the applicant and the other representative of present, will they please reply?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Matt Mueller of Hugh Architecture, and I will be presenting this project today.

But first I'd like to pass it to Alex Edwards, who's the owner and developer of the property, just to say a few words.

How are you doing, everyone?

I'm um happy to be here.

I just want to take um a minute of your time to explain how how amazing this project is.

Um we've before we went to the city, we went to the neighborhood and we actually designed this project with the neighborhood with um everyone involved on our neighborhood meetings, uh met with the neighborhood about four times before went into the city, and um we know what the economy, the type economy we're in today.

Um, and we also reached out to um companies like BJ's, Wayfair, um, YMCA, which agreed to give free memberships, um, lower gas and lower grocery costs for people in um that purchase in this particular building.

So this is the first time we not only developed us um a building, but we also built develop a community, a lifestyle, and reached out for uh national help to give uh people in this neighborhood um lower cost in living.

We also create our own down payment assistance as well, and also receive some funds from private funding for police, um, but in law enforcement, um, anyone in the medical field, and also um educators.

So I'm excited about this project.

Uh Matt, you could take it away.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alex.

Um, okay, just a little bit about the project.

Uh the site, the site is currently a vacant 4,665 square foot lot, approximately 80 feet by 58 feet, located near the intersection of Athelwall Street, Noel Street, and Miller Street.

Uh the property's in a 3F 6,000 zoning district, and is located within a block made up primarily of triple deckers, along with some one and two one and two family homes.

Many existing three-family properties in the media area sit on lots ranging from 2,000 to 3,600 square feet.

So the proposed scale is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern.

The site is also very transit accessible, located about three-minute walk from the Talbot Avenue Fairmont Line Commuter Rail Station.

Um, the proposal is to construct a new six-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces and six bicycle parking spaces.

A new 10-foot curb cut will provide access to the driveway and three parallel parking spaces.

The proposed building in massing has been designed to fit comfortably within the scale of the surrounding homes and neighborhood context.

Um, if you can go to the next slide, please.

Uh the project will require zoning board of appeal approval for several items, including uh six-family use in a three-up district, insufficient lawn size, excessive FAR, insufficient front side and rear yard back setbacks, excessive building stories, insufficient parking, parking located within the required side yard, and insufficient parking maneuverability.

Uh next slide.

Oh, this is fine, yeah.

The building is organized with two units per floor across the residential stories with a small basement used only for mechanical and maintenance access.

Uh the unit mix includes two one-bedroom units at averaging approximately 520 square feet, two two-bedroom units averaging 850 square feet, and two three bedroom units averaging 1200 square feet.

Uh next slide, please.

Um this isn't the latest thing we submitted, but it's fine.

It's it's close enough.

Um the exterior design takes cues from the traditional triple decker context of the neighborhood.

The facade includes front yard, front decks, a layered cornice, bay panel detailing, and two-tone material strategy to help break down the scale of the three-story building.

The design is intended to relate to nearby homes, including neighboring properties along Athelwell Street and Norwell Street abutters, while creating a new building that feels attractive, residential, and appropriate to the streetscape.

Um the project includes a combination of private and shared outdoor amenities.

Two units will have front balconies, two units will have rear balconies, and the first floor family-sized unit will have dedicated access to rear yard space.

The building is set back approximately eight feet from the front property line to create a more generous and attractive streetscape.

The front yard will include landscaping such as dogwood trees, flowering shrubs, stone pavers to emphasize the primary interests and walkway.

Overall, the goal is to create a well-designed transit-oriented residential building that fits within the existing neighborhood fabric.

The proposed six-family trailing provides a thoughtful mix of unit sizes, off-street parking, bicycle parking, and meaningful outdoor space.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Uh I have a question regarding the BPD recommendation in regards to the transformer.

Um you have a sense of where the transformer would be located and how that would affect or impact your building footprint.

Uh we did ask an MAP engineer for a preliminary estimate, and he believes we can have a pole-mounted transformer for this for these units.

A pole-mounted transformer.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks for thanks for your response.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record, my name is John B.

Bembery.

I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on January 28th with no attendees present.

Prior to and outside of the formal community process, the proponent went with the community members approximately seven times to develop, refine, and revise the proposal in response to the community feedback.

Following the abundance meeting, the proposal was presented to Western Washington Civic Association, which voted in support of the project.

Today our office has not received any further community feedback at this time to my knowledge.

Thank you for your time in the members' office neighborhood services.

We'd like to defer to the board for the job.

Next we've had Anastasia from a consular.

Hi, I guess uh Madam Chair, members of the board.

Um Anastasia speaking on behalf of Council Well who would like to go on record in support of this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And there's one person who Lakisa Burke.

If you can thank you guys very much.

I would like to say uh thank you, number one, for hearing out the project on Athal Street.

I am not only a member of the WoW community, but um I was also the president and the founder of the West of Washington Coalition from original foundation.

And I what I really appreciate about 34 at the Wall Street is how Alex came to the community to help to let us help design this particular project.

Like this wasn't a situation where he already had something pre-made and came in and spoke to the community, but it was also like a joint venture of what the building should look like and what people will want to see there.

So I want to give my hats off to Alex as being a great developer, and as well as um supporting all of the down payment assistance programs and things like that that he has brought to uh WoW at the time, and let's not forget that he's also contributed to many community um events, um, supplying bikes and laptops and different things like that for the kids.

So I want to say I do support 34 at the Wall Street.

I think it's a great project, and I think the WOW neighborhood is really gonna benefit from this particular project, including the seniors who may be living in the area that are looking at the downside, so thank you.

Okay.

Um I have a motion.

Madam Chair, I'd like to put for a motion given the support of the community and the care that the developer has taken to develop this project.

I'd like to go for a motion of approval.

Thank God.

Mr.

Stambridge.

Uh Madam Chair, I'd like to uh follow up those comments made by Ms.

Bedarazza.

Um, this appears to be um a project that uh a lot of people could follow the lead off for sure.

So with that, yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Stember.

Uh Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Badabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Hanado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes, yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Next.

Um next.

I believe there will be a reviewable for this, but I was gonna let you read it, but okay.

Okay.

Um case BOA, 1814, with the address of 190 to 200 Cummins Highway.

Um, go ahead.

Madam Chair, I'd like to I'd like to recuse myself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we are a six-member board for this case.

And with that, um, if the applicant andor the representative of prison, will they please go into the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Um, good morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board uh for the record Richard Lynns for the business address at 245 Summer Street on behalf of the Burke Charter School with me is uh Sarah Humphrey and Anthony Permarini.

I believe he needed to be elevated to a panelist.

Uh there with Studio Loose, and they have a project architect uh for this project.

We may also have with us um uh Mark Warren, who is the executive director of charter school.

Uh, I did provide a slide deck.

If we could jump to slide three of our slide deck, uh yeah, perfect.

Yeah, so quick overview.

Um, this proposal uh involves a relatively small addition, Madam Chair, to the existing Brook Charter School located in Rosendale.

Uh Brook Charter School serves approximately 600 students in grades K through eight, uh, and it's located at 190 Cummins Highway in Rosalie's I mentioned.

Uh it's operated at this location for more than two decades.

Um, so just a quick overview.

This site involves um about 65,000 or 65,000 square feet uh with an existing uh pre-existing non-conforming structure uh proposal would add about 3400 square feet to the uh actual building, uh increasing our total FAR up to about 1.06.

This would involve new elevator, new staircase, improved accessibility to the building and the site, as well as uh adding some resource rooms, break room, uh, and then we're also looking at some uh exterior improvements which aren't really zoning related, but uh involving upgrade and entry plaza, the playground in the courtyard.

Um we are actually adding one additional uh parking space for a total of two accessible parking spaces.

Can we jump to slide four, please?

Um so with respect to the items that uh ISD has cited us for uh with respect to Article 67.

Um we are cited for two uh particular issues, and these relate directly to the pre-existing non-conforming conditions on the building.

Uh the first involves the floor to area ratio.

Uh the district allows a maximum of 0.5 uh under Article 67.

Uh we are already at a 1.01, so uh an exceeding uh uh condition already, which makes this uh non-conforming condition.

The increase up to the 1.06 uh would require relief and the form of variance in order to accommodate this uh relatively modest addition to the building.

Uh the second issue involves the height.

Uh once again, the building already uh being pre-existing, non-conforming at a height of at some points three stories and over 35 feet.

Uh our addition does not exceed three stories, uh, and although it does exceed 35 feet, uh it doesn't exceed the uh highest point of our building, which is just slightly over 38 feet.

So, once again, a relief for that would be required.

And again, we believe this is the minimal relief that would be necessary to accommodate uh this uh proposed addition, which would uh greatly improve accessibility uh for the building.

If we can jump down to slide six, uh just a quick overview of some of the benefits that go along with this looking at you know how much um uh new space is being proposed, including faculty work and break space, uh the outdoor improvements that we're making to the grounds would be a huge improvement for the students that are operating that that go to school here, as well as uh some new trees that are being uh added to the site, uh, and of course the elevator, which is the chief reason for uh this addition.

Uh jump down to slide uh seven, please.

Uh I think there's actually slide.

Can we go back one slide?

Probably easier.

Perfect.

Yeah.

So what we're showing here, uh, members of the board is the uh existing condition on the left with proposed changes on the right.

Uh the green area labeled letter E identifies uh again, you can see it's a relatively small addition to the uh existing building itself.

Uh the impact of this addition would be extremely minimal, uh including uh upon the uh visual or uh appearance of the building itself that is uh sort of tucked into that alcove uh in between the recording stopped recording in progress.

There you go.

Yeah, sorry.

Uh you can see uh some of the changes uh for circulation for parking, the new playground area, entry plaza, etc.

Uh so an overall uh improvement to site access uh as well as the addition for the accessibility to the building.

Uh if we could jump down to slide uh 12.

Um so this is probably a good uh illustration of the uh the scope of this uh addition that we're proposing.

As I mentioned, uh the height of the building at its highest point, as you can see in the top portion of this uh slide, uh shows that we are at three stories already pre-existing.

The building does step down uh and at various points gets down to one story.

Uh and as you can see in the lower section are recording stopped.

You want me to, I assume you want to.

Recording in progress.

Sounds like a technical issue.

Sorry about that, Mr.

Robert.

Don't worry.

Um, as you can see here, to the lower portion of this slide, you can see the scope and extent of the addition again uh in line generally with the highest point of our building and not exceeding uh the overall existing height we're at.

Uh we go to slide 13, please.

Uh student loses a great job of uh identifying how this uh would relate to the existing conditions, and as you can see here, this uh illustrates uh what this uh addition would look like uh in connection or with respect to the uh existing building connection with the so just to clarify this addition is um popped inside like basically in like an open space between two existing sections of the existing footprint.

That is correct.

It doesn't expand, you know, the the extent of the existing footprint, the five points of the existing footprint are not changed.

This is really infill or very partial infill of the uh of the area that's open between the uh two main portions of the building currently.

Um and I believe that's it on this point.

I'm happy to answer or address any questions or comments, and again, we do have uh our architects here as well that could address any specific comments or concern to the board.

Thank you.

Um would you be able to address concerns uh that we received from abutters about noise?

Noise levels being um excessive and I guess continuous.

Uh with with respect to the proposed construction or the operation of the school itself.

Um I believe it's well, both, but operations uh of the school itself, I think is the long-term concern.

Yeah, I I I participated in the community process on this.

We did uh have uh a good number of um uh neighbors participate in those meetings as well.

Uh and I know that uh Mark Loring, who is the director of Burke Charter has a very good working relationship with the surrounding community.

Uh and I believe during the community process, uh, those questions were uh similarly raised, and then we continue dialogue with uh Mr.

Warren and the community on those issues.

Uh as to any noise related to construction, I mean this would be you know subject to all the same ordinances and requirements that the city um puts in place for any uh permanent project uh in the city of Boston.

So I I don't anticipate that the this would be any different than any other uh construction project would be happening.

We feel this is a uh relatively again small addition to the building, uh, and that the impacts should be well temporary, I would say, but also minimal uh to the surrounding neighborhood as well, especially based upon uh where the most of this structure will be taking place.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board.

Yes, um share.

Just to piggyback on your comments, uh Mr.

Linz, the comments that we received from uh residents in the area uh allowed the regular performing of the school, and I'm glad you host up community process, but the comments are allowed double parking, and traffic control, noise, um leaf blowers at one in the morning.

So those are things that are not related to your project.

I like the project, but I wanted to mention this for the school members in the school team to try to work close within a books if you go out how to create a weird quality flight for everybody.

Yes, indeed.

And I I think um uh to your point, Mr.

Valencia, um, the questions regarding uh, you know, certainly the traffic and parking were also raised during the community process.

And I believe that the changes and the improvements that they're making to the site will help alleviate some of those concerns.

That certainly is part of this process as well.

Uh circulation for the site, access to the site, uh, all of that is uh is part of this project Zoe project, even though the exterior changes to the site don't necessarily have zoning implications.

Uh the addition certainly would uh those issues were also raised during community process, and Mr.

Loring uh is well aware of those uh those concerns.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May we have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bembery.

I'm the Roslanddale community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutter's meeting held on February 18th, during which abutters expressed numerous concerns primarily related to the construction phase of the project.

While there was limited opposition to the proposal itself, significant concerns are raised regarding construction impacts, including noise levels and hours of operation.

Abutter decided prior experiences with construction activity occurring after before 8 a.m.

and after 6 p.m.

and on weekends and requested that work be limited to standard weekday hours with no weekend activity regarding noise.

Recording stopped.

Recording in progress.

Noise from construction equipment, including reversing alarms, general co-worker activity, and increased traffic from vehicles access on the site.

These issues were raised repeatedly, and abutters requested assurances that appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented.

Next, the proposal is presented to Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association, where they remain neutral, but understand Brooke School to be a good neighbor.

Thank you for your time at the Mayor's Office of Labor Services would like to defer to the board for the judge.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

I would like to make a motion of upload.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes, yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Well, we move on.

Um the first case that we call where we didn't get a response, I'll return to that.

And say case VOA 181706 with the address of 360 Princeton Street.

And ask if there is if the applicant and or their representative were present.

We have Laura Costa or anyone else for 360 Princeton Street.

I don't see anyone in the chair.

Okay.

I think we may want to make a motion to defer.

Motion to defer this case.

Is there a second?

There calls.

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Better Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Pinado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Caroline, if someone can call this applicant to find a new date, that would be great.

Thank you.

11 o'clock, Mr.

Stunbridge.

That we'll go to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m.

And this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock hour.

Hearing none, we'll go to the first two cases, which are companion cases.

These are K these will be case BOA 182 557 with the address of 100 Beachview Road.

Along with that, we have DOA 182 5581 with the address of 102 Beachview Road.

If the applicant and the representative approval for these cases, will they please plan to the board?

Yes, thank you again, Mr.

Stembridge, and good morning again, Madam Chair members of the board for the record.

Richard Lynz at the business address of 245 Summer Street, East Boston.

On behalf of the petitioner, with me is Eric Zacherson, who is our project architect.

If we could jump right down to slide five, uh Madam Ambassador, that would be a good place to start.

So quick overview, if we can zoom in a little bit.

This involves uh pre-existing 5,000 square foot vacant lot.

Uh we are proposing a subdivision of the lot into two 2500 square foot parcels.

Our proposal involves the construction of two separate uh two-family dwellings.

We could probably stop right at the screen right here.

Uh, two separate two-family dwellings, and these will be semi-attached.

Our proposed structures are designed to be uh in compliance completely with the relatively newer regulations for the EBR 2.5 zoning subdistrict governed by Article 53 and applicable east boss.

Um so the use and dimensional controls that would be in place uh for this proposal uh all in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 53.

The only item uh that we were cited for uh was for the height of the building.

Uh and I think this is a good place to start.

Uh we believe, and this isn't often, um, this is one of those instances where the uh shape of the lot and the topography actually matter.

Uh as you can see here that I have it on the screen, uh, there's an existing uh elevation of the site uh from the sidewalk.

It looks like it's approximately four to five feet.

Uh there's an existing two-family dwelling to the left side of the property, uh left side of our lot.

You can see it here, uh, and that uh building is set higher because of the topography of the site uh on this section of B tree road.

Uh our proposal would involve uh maintaining the topography rather than uh eliminating this retaining wall uh and bringing the site down to grade, which would put us uh at the sidewalk level.

Uh, we believe that the continuity of the way uh buildings along this side of Beach View uh are aligned.

Uh, this would be a more appropriate design to have it as we propose it versus excavating the site down and eliminating the topography uh in a way that would uh really disrupt I think the rhythm of the section of uh beach view.

Uh if we could jump down to slide six and seven, I think that would be going at slide six, yeah, uh seven, eight.

Yeah, actually, but let's go to slide um slide 15.

I apologize.

Uh one thing I will point out is I did have a chance to review the um recommendation of the planning department for both of these projects.

Uh I'm sure the board is the board is aware the planning department has recommended approval, straight approval on both of these, uh, based upon the substantial compliance EDR 2.5 requirements.

Uh, and even though we do and we are requesting relief for height, we believe that relief is based uh in large part upon the interpretation of how height is measured, and certainly the uniqueness of this particular site and the topography that we have.

As I'm showing here, uh, this is the uh building that would be on the right side.

This would be 102 Beach View.

And as you can see on the site, uh, we do uh set our building back appropriately from uh the street side of Drumlin Road as well as Beach View Road.

Next slide, please.

Uh here you have the semi-attached condition of 100 Beach View, and again uh designed to be uh completely compliant with all the dimensional regulations and uses for Article 53 and EBR 2.5.

Next slide, please.

Uh just including our architectural uh site plans as well, just so that the uh items including open space, permeable area, etc.

can be shown, and all of that area outside of the um uh dark shaded area, including the green hatched area includes uh open space and permeable space on the site.

Next slide, please.

Uh again, just showing our uh relationship at the building located immediately next door.

Next slide.

And just our typical floor plans, and again, being a semi-attached building, uh we uh are showing these as uh by-level units, so you'd have uh uh lower level uh unit one and unit two would be uh two upper levels as seen here.

Next slide, please.

Uh showing it again.

Uh again, we have this uh two two separate units.

Uh so showing the elevations of our building here, we show it at the um uh the left side, this would be a hundred um the hundred beach view side.

Uh it's a little difficult to tell from this elevation.

Um, this is a two, this would be considered two and a half story as measured from the grade of the site as opposed to the grade of the sidewalk.

And as I mentioned earlier in the presentation, the grade of the sidewalk will require us to excavate our eliminate that retaining wall and to bring the building down.

Uh, we believe that this being in line with our our neighbor immediately next door uh would be more consistent with the rhythm and flow for the section of beach view road.

Next slide, please.

Uh this is the 102 side, uh, again, semi-attached condition, uh showing the rear.

You can go to the next slide, please.

This shows the rear of 100.

Next slide, please.

And the rear of 102.

Next slide, please.

Uh, this is uh an important slide because this I think shows the uh the difference between the sidewalk at Beach View Road and the slope of our site.

And again, rather than excavating out the site and bringing the site all the way down to the sidewalk, we would maintain the existing topography.

And as you can see from this elevation here, this would be considered a two and one-half slowly building, which is permitted as a matter of right in the EBR 2.5 district.

Next slide, please.

Uh just showing our opposite side here.

This would be on the drummer road side, showing the right side of the building.

Next slide, please.

Uh again, the section condition showing level one is the main level for unit one, the lowest level, and then unit two would be uh all of the second level and a portion of that uh half story up above.

Next slide, please.

And just our section plan again from the other side.

Next slide.

Uh and this would show the uh elevation uh in the rendering, and again, this shows it in relationship to the building located immediately to our left.

Uh and this once again would be two and a half story, and as measured from grade at the site, uh, would be compliant with the EBR 2.5 height limit.

Uh, however, because this is higher than the sidewalk and the site is higher than the sidewalk, relief from the physical height uh requirements for Article 53 is necessary.

Um, and we can go one more slide, I believe with comparisons.

Okay.

Uh so this shows uh a comparison of this this side of Beach View Road, as you can see.

Uh our building uh is highlighted here with the red bubble, uh, and showing that in relation to the building that is located in the adjacent, uh, which is also owned by uh the proponent uh would be consistent in both height and scale, uh, and then obviously maintaining that elevation as you can see as you move down Beach View Road, uh, those retaining walls continue, and that is all based upon the slope and grade separation between uh the back portions of those lots and the lower portion where the sidewalk is on Beach View Road.

With that, I would pause and answer any questions of the board uh for this matter.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none.

Maybe testimony.

Hello, madam chair and members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones, representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services.

Regarding 100 Beach View Street, our office deference to the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 1030 25, attended by several East Boston community members.

The feedback from this meeting was significant concern from community members that prior to Plan East Austin, this proposal had upwards of 10 plus violations.

And following Plan E C, all but one of these violations were removed.

Community members felt that this was a gift to the developer and believed that the proposal should adhere to the intent of Plan East Boston.

They expressed concerns that the applicants, as of right proposal, would remove the retaining wall, which is cohesive throughout the neighborhood and contributes to its character rather than revising the plans to remove the half story, which is the only remaining violation.

There were also some community members who did not oppose the proposal in the meeting.

Additionally, we did receive one letter in opposition expressing many of the same concerns from one of the direct abutters.

And the proposal was also reviewed by the Orient Heights Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 1215 25, and who voted on 2926, which resulted in a vote in non-opposition.

That was four yes, four no and two abstain.

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.

We have Stephen from Consulus Coleta Zapata's office.

Hi Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Stefan from Councillor Coletta Sapata's office.

At this time, we defer to the judgment of the board.

We did want to note that we uh requested the official vote count from uh Orient Heights NC at gmail.com, who we believe is the uh who runs the organization of the neighborhood association, uh excuse me, and we did not receive a response uh when we were trying to uh deliberate a recommendation on this case.

Um that being said, we defer to the judgment of the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have the Bron Orlando.

Hi, everybody.

My name's Ronnie Orlando.

I'm an abutter to the property.

I've lived in this neighborhood my entire life, and my family has been here for decades, including at 43 C V U Aven 45, which directly abuts the property.

I have several concerns with this proposal that I'd like to make sure clearly heard on the record.

From what I understand, the project is requesting a height variance and is proposing a level of density that appears to exceed what the lot is intended to support.

I have not heard a clear explanation of a hardship that would justify it.

If the issue is soil or excavation, I don't see how the necess how this necessitates additional height as opposed to a design that complies with the current zoning.

I also understand the pres that the proposed height is being justified by a neighboring structure that predates the current zoning.

I also review the assessor's record, which lists the lot at 4,978 square feet.

My understanding is that 5,000 square feet is required for this level of density.

So I like clarification on how that requirement is being met.

Taken together, this reads is multiple forms of zoning relief to support a project that is larger than what the lot is reasonably can reasonably accommodate.

Um the proposed height and massing are out of scale with the surrounding homes and will have real impacts on the abutting properties.

Well, I appreciate the community process.

I do want to note that my experience with outreach on this project felt more combative and dismissive than constructive.

I asked the board to take these concerns seriously and closely consider whether the standard for granting of variance has actually been met with this case.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Gay Millennium.

Gail.

Um you can unmute yourself now.

All righty.

Thank you.

Ums Gail, I'm an active member of the Orient Heights neighborhood uh council.

Um the vote on this project uh I might uh suggest was very low due to the off-week meeting date.

Um it often throws people off when you know it we meet the week before.

So that number does not reflect the usual numbers uh in attendance.

Um the neighborhood council last time was mentioned was very enthusiastic about and engaged in the East Sebaster Plan, which embraced the one in two faces zoning in Orion Heights and its character.

Um that character is not what is not what is being presented here, stated as a semi-attached to me.

My understanding is either attached or it isn't.

The two lots are not fully 2500 square feet each.

Um, so that should perhaps uh I think insignificantly be addressed.

You were shown the abutting property sitting higher on the lot, which has a building permit currently, but has been left to rack and ruin for the past five years, windows open, and um all kinds of animals in and out of that building.

Um there have been complaints filed, of course, um, with your departments.

Um, and also left to rack and ruin is the formerly beautifully designed landscaping on the site.

Um, I offer my objection to the height.

I don't think it it's um warranted and the massive sizing um the the map.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Um, with respect to the first speaker uh who is indicated Director Butter.

Uh first of all, uh Plant East Boston, um, not to keep the dead horse here.

Uh Plenty Boston made significant changes in East Boston zoning, including uh density requirements, uh floor year ratio uh in the EVR 2.5 is something that uh is the one of the only residential neighbors that does a maximum.

We're well below that.

So this does this does meet with the density requirements for EVR 2.5.

Uh up to two units are allowed a lot on a single lot.

That also uh is consistent with our proposal.

Uh more importantly, uh we did hear a uh comment that there's a 5,000 square foot minimum.

Uh the board may be well aware of this already.

There is no minimum lot size requirement, a minimum front requirement any longer in any of the residential districts uh in the East Boston neighborhood.

So therefore, the 5,000 square foot uh issue is uh irrelevant.

Uh as to whether or not we're just under 5,000 square feet, the subdivision of the lot into roughly two 2500 square foot lots uh is permissible under zoning.

We're not cited for that.

It's not a violation that's before this board.

Uh, and with respect to uh the height that we are proposing, um, this may be one of those instances where the hardship actually can be demonstrated.

Uh, in this particular case, in order for us to meet the height requirement, a significant amount of excavation for the site would be required.

We think that would be uh a probably not so uh good results for a director butter, including Mr.

Orlando, uh, who spoke uh first this this uh morning here on this project.

Um having their uh property abutting highs, there is a small encroachment that is onto our property.

We have no issue allowing that encroachment to remain.

However, if we had to excavate our site down to the sidewalk level to comply with the height, uh that would actually be detrimental uh to that abutting property owner.

We're happy to work with them on allowing that encroachment to remain.

We have no interest in having them remove uh a portion of their patio or their driveway as a result of this, uh, and therefore um that's something that we're happy to work with them on.

I've reached out to them to do that.

Uh we were met with uh uh some hostility as to whether or not this project would be going forward.

Um but we will continue to do that, and we believe that hardship uh is pretty self-explanatory based upon the topography of the site.

Uh, with respect to um the second uh speaker who spoke uh about the building, uh sorry, about the uh Pooring Heights Neighborhood Council.

I believe the vote has been conveyed.

I think Miss Jones uh conveyed the vote was four uh four in favor, four against, and to abstain.

Uh we don't have control of who shows up at these meetings.

If people choose not to show up or choose not to vote, that's not really our issue.

We go through the process as prescribed by the mayor's office neighborhood services.

If the vote uh was not something that you know reflected a larger community uh involvement, uh perhaps there wasn't as much interest in this project as others uh that we certainly presented to that community group.

So I think those are all important elements here.

I think certainly uh based upon a recommendation of the planning department, and that this project uh in all other respects complies with EBR 2.5 uh zoning regulations.

Uh this is a uh worthwhile and meritorious project that uh should receive.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

May I have a motion of a bullet?

There are second Mr.

Stemberge.

Yeah, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Metterbraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penato.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Goodbye.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA.

180 538.

With the address of 109 Prince Street.

No.

Um the applicant and the representative were present.

Would they please case through the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stenbridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Marancy business address of 168 8th Street, first floor, South Boston.

Uh joining me today are the owners Carroll and Sean Muniz.

This is also a modest owner occupant project.

The Munices live in this building and intend to raise their young family here.

The proposal converts an existing head house into functional living space with an outdoor deck.

The conversion of the existing head house into approximately 355 square feet of livable space and 487 square feet of roof deck space exclusively serving their unit.

We are here seeking two forms of relief for conditional use permit under Article 54, Section 18 to alter the profile of the roof line within a restricted roof district, and we're also seeking a variance for an increase to the pre-existing non-conforming floor area ratio.

We are aware of the planning department's recommendation, uh, but we believe their recommendation was based upon the original file set of plans and not the revised set of plans stamped and dated February 24, 2026.

Those are the plans that are in front of you here today.

First, the proposed scope of the plan includes adjustments to the roof deck geometry to achieve a minimum of a three-foot setback from the property line along Prince Street and the DeFilippo playground.

This further exceeds that stated minimum of 2.5 feet on the playground side that was stated within the planning department's recommendation.

Ambassador, if I could direct you to now sheet A5.

Secondly, it was noted that the third floor alcove deck would extend at least one additional foot beyond the existing building edge, which itself already encroaches approximately 2.5 feet into the playground lot, resulting in private residential space overhanging city owned land.

This revised architectural set incorporates a revised debt footprint and confirms that the debt deck setback from the playground lot line is maintained.

The plans confirm that the debt does not extend beyond the existing building's legal footprint relative to the property boundary.

To the extent any existing nonconformity in the building's relationship to the playground lot predates this application, that is a pre-existing condition not created by the applicant and not properly chargeable against the proposed improvement.

The proposed work does not exasperate any such condition.

Further, there is an abutters wall owned by the city that is directly abutting the building itself as well as the DeFilippo playground, which we believe created the confusion.

However, there is no overhang into the park area.

Thirdly, it acknowledges that rooftop structures are prevalent in the immediate vicinity in that nearby four and five-story flat roof buildings commonly feature head houses and roof decks.

The objection is not to the roof tech structures categorically, but to the asserted scale of this one.

The applicant respectfully submits this characterization characterization overstates the departure from the neighborhood norms.

The architectural plans include a neighborhood contacts and design compatibility sheet.

If I can direct you to A101, documented comparable rooftop structures throughout the North End.

These include 96 Prince Street, new headhouse constructed December 2025, directly on the same block.

Each of these comparable structures, either a headhouse or rooftop addition in the north end, several abutting public open space that has received approval.

The proposed solarium at 109 Prince Street is proportional to the building's footprint and consistent with the scale of improvements visible throughout the neighborhood.

The total roof addition is only 394 square feet with an associated roof deck of only 487 square feet.

This is not the profile of an oversized opaque headhouse that would dominate the roof scape.

It is a glazed residential scale addition appropriate to the building in the neighborhood.

The zoning code refusal identifies it an existing FAR of 4.9 against the permitted maximum of 3.0, with the proposed addition increasing the FAR to 5.5.

The board should note that the existing building is already substantially non-conforming as to the FAR.

The existing 4.9 FAR represents a pre-existing condition, not of the applicant's creation.

The proposed rooftop addition results in an incremental FAR increase of a 0.6 above an already non-conforming baseline.

Lastly, uh the shadow analysis confirms no material impact on the D Filippo playground across every time increment studied morning, midday, and evening at Bolt Spring Equinox in Summer Solstice.

The proposed head house cast no incremental shadow on D Filippo Playground.

The planning department's concern about the impact of the project on the public improvement is not supported by the shadow analysis.

And lastly, um in and if if in fact there are other further changes that would be recommended from the planning department.

Uh, this will have to go through two extensive reviews.

If in fact you decide to choose so that it went through a planning department review, but the mandatory review would also be conducted through the parks department.

So at this point, Madam Chair, I'm gonna turn it over to you for any questions or comments from the board.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing that may have public testimony.

Uh hello, madam chair members of the board.

My name is Emma Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 109 Print Street.

Our office defrays because the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including an update's meeting held on 1146.

That was well attended by North End Community members.

The feedback from this meeting was positive from the community.

Uh they were in support of this proposal.

The proposal was also reviewed by both of the civic associations, the North End Waterfront Residence Association on 3126 that expressed non-opposition through a formal letter submitted to the board and the North End Waterfront uh neighborhood neighborhood association at their meeting date on 3926 who voted to support the proposal.

At this time, the mayor's office and neighborhood services different to the board's judgment on this matter.

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next we have a third email button.

Yes.

Good morning.

My name is Katarina Patras, and I live at 51 Commercial Worth.

I'm here to support the Munis family.

They've been great neighbors in the kind of family I think represents the best of our neighborhood.

And I just want to say that I'm confident they will respect the park and that there will be no misuse of that space.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have Stephen for Consulita Sabata office.

Hi Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Stefan from the counselor's office, and uh we want to go in support of this project at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rowan Green.

Hi, uh, my name is Robin Reed, and I am the president of the Friends of the De Filippo Playground and a butter, a director of butter to the Municius family uh home, and I want to express my support for this project.

Um I've looked extensively at uh the plans, and I don't see any reason why uh there should be a denial of these improvements to the property, and if it will keep this wonderful family that participates in the community and in the playground uh so positively and and adds so much to the neighborhood.

Um I definitely would support any um uh movement forward on this without uh any restrictions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have a Nicole.

Hi, my name is Nicola Rosa.

I live at number four pond Street Place in the North End.

I have known uh the Menace family for at least four or five years.

Our children play in the De Filippo park together.

Um they're very respectful to the park.

Um I'm support, I'm in support of them to continue their plans to seek more outdoor space in their in their building.

Um I looked at it visually in the playground.

It does not the construction will not impede any visual or um or it will not do any harm to the playground.

Um like I said, our children play in the park almost every day together.

They're very respectful neighbors, and they contribute to the wealth of our neighborhood, and it's a privilege to um be their friends and uh believe that they should be able to continue their plans to expand their outdoor space.

Thank you.

There are no additional comments.

Okay, any questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll make a motion of approval.

There's second seconds, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yes, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Berta Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Service on mute.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Um, Madam Chair, we've passed the 1130 hours, so I will ask at this point if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 hour.

Yes, Mr.

Stanbridge 87 Morris Street, please.

So this request is for two companion cases.

Case BOA 1482368 with the address of 87 Mara Street.

And also for case BOA 148-2374, also with the address of 87 Barrett Street.

Would you go ahead, attorney Linson?

Yes, again, uh Madam Chair members of the board, Richard Lynns, business address of 245 Summer Street East Boston on behalf of petitioner.

Madam Chair, we've taken some deferrals on this.

We are actually still awaiting G Hot.

This still involves a G High conditional use permit, and I know those materials need to be completed before we can finalize this.

There are some building code matters as well that we uh have the uh design team working on.

Uh we think a deferral uh would be uh necessary at this point.

So ask them for uh perhaps maybe six weeks.

Okay.

Caroline.

Um we could do June 16th, July 14th, July 28th.

Uh why don't we do June 16th?

I hope to have this resolved by then.

Okay, would that may I have a motion?

Motion to defer these cases to June 16th.

There's a second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Beta Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries to you then.

Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawals from the 1130 hour?

Yes, good morning, Mr.

Stembridge.

Um, Germin here for 62 L Street.

Or 62, so that would be case VOA 157-5425 with the address of 62 L Street.

Which is possible.

Go ahead and explain, please.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board.

My name is Gerard Meen, owner and applicant along with Dave Luciano for 62 L Street.

Our original permit was seeking variances for insufficient side and rear yard for the reconstruction of an existing exterior staircase and access to a roof deck other than a roof hatch.

After going through the community process, we submitted updated plans to ZBA for review by an ISD plans examiner, which we have shared with our local civic association and direct butters.

At this time, we have not yet received an updated refusal letter from the plans examiner.

Therefore, we request a short deferral until ISD is able to complete the review of the new plans.

Thank you.

May 19th.

Oh June 2nd.

Or June 16th.

Oh, let's let's do June 16th, just so we have plenty of time.

Thank you.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until June 16th.

May I have a second second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Betta Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

See you then.

Thank you.

So with that, we'll return to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m.

And that takes us to case BOA 171 6926 with the address of 1258 to 1262 Massachusetts Avenue.

If the applicants and order Attorney Moransi are present.

Please explain to the board.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair members of the board.

My name is George Morancy.

I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston.

Madam Chair members, this is uh nothing new.

It's a uh frankly a bit of housekeeping uh related to and cleaning up for the record uh this board's approval last July of the 45 unit 1274 Massachusetts Avenue small project.

I represent Douglas George, who owns both this piece of land as well as the immediately abutting 1274 Massachusetts Avenue parcel.

As part of that project, the 1274 approved project, a piece of my client's land uh on this parcel, 1258-1262 Mass Ave, uh was subdivided off and combined with other parcels to form the site where the new 1274 Massachusetts Avenue building will be.

In January of uh 2025, ISD issued its only refusal letter pertaining to this parcel for two violations created by virtue of the fact that the lot size was being reduced by uh approximately 4,000 square feet for the subdivision and consolidation.

That refusal letter, uh, which was issued at the same time with the 1274 refusal letter was appealed at the same time of the 1274 companion application through oversight, including my own.

The two cases were not scheduled and heard at the same time.

The fact which I finally figured out uh several weeks ago, uh which time I worked with Stephanie uh and ONS to schedule this hearing.

So nothing is happening with respect to this petition besides an unused portion of this lot being subdivided and consolidated with other parcels to create that 1274 Massachusetts Avenue lot, which was again uh already approved by this board last summer.

Questions from the board may have public testimony.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Callonar Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood service.

This time the mayor's office deferred to the judgment's board as you heard from the applicant's representation.

Uh they went through a Boston planning-led community process uh for small project review.

I understand they also engage with the local civic association, McCormick Civic as well.

Uh we're unaware of any we're unaware of any concerns presently.

Uh with that will defer to the board.

Okay, thank you.

Um Madam Chair, members of the board, Liam Remus from Council Fitzgerald's office, uh let go on record and support this proposal.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, the no additional comments.

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

There's a second.

Better Barraza, second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Better Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair of Lotz.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have two companion cases.

The first is case VOA 180 9584 with the address of 11 Benson Street.

Along with that, we have case BOA 181, 1 through 48, with the address of 13 Fifth Street.

If the applicant and with the representative were present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Maransi Business Address of 168th Street, First Floor, South Boston.

Join me today are the owners Stephen Flaherty and Pete Burke, as well as the project architect Kevin Monese.

This proposal seeks to convert an existing two-family to a three-family by way of an interior renovation in a rare addition on a 2,198 square foot lot.

The primary physical changes are a rare addition, extending the building's footprint at all three levels and into a newly finished basement.

Proposal will also provide two off-street parking spaces via shared driveway easement with 13 Venton Street access by an existing opening.

Due to the shared driveway, it creates the need for relief at 13 Venton Street to legalize its use of a one-car parking in the rear of the property.

Unit one will be approximately 1,180 square feet, free bedroom located on the first floor in the basement level.

Ambassador, Madam Chair, if if I can just pause, I'm noticing now that the correct set of drawings you do not have visible on the screen.

We're aware of the planning department's recommendation after speaking with uh Stephanie a few days ago uh that the drawings were actually located.

They were just saved under a different file under refusal, hence the reason why we're we were going to go forward uh today.

Um but it doesn't seem like you guys have the correct set of drawings, so I'm gonna defer to you, Madam Chair, if it's if it's best if we defer to ensure that we we uh actually here's here's the drawing.

So I can continue on if you prefer.

Um and then just knowing that the planning department's recommendation was just on the previous set, as you saw because they weren't able to see the full elevations.

Uh but uh would you like me to continue on, madam chair?

Yes, please.

Okay, so V Vin uh unit one will be approximately 1180 square feet, free bedroom located on the first floor in the basement level.

Uh Ambassador, if you could just continue to scroll down to page um four through seven, those will show the actual building layouts.

Unit two will be approximately eight hundred and forty-eight square feet, a two-bedroom located on the second floor.

Unit three will be approximately one thousand forty-six square feet, two bedroom located on the third floor.

Eleven vintage street has violations for insufficient lot size as the lot consists of two thousand one hundred and ninety-eight square feet, and the code requires four thousand square feet, but again, similar in scale and s to the surrounding neighborhood.

We have a side yard violation, three feet is required by code.

The proposal has a pre-existing at zero feet, but is cited for such relief as the addition maintains that zero foot setback.

Open space violation.

We're required to provide 200 square feet of open space per unit, but the addition eliminates that open space.

However, the property is a very short walk to a very large park, Mokley Park, and as well as Carson Beach.

Parking violation proposal proposal provides two parking spaces in the zoning calls for 1.5 parking spaces per new unit of housing.

However, this proposal is aligned with the mayor's initiative reducing the penalty on private vehicles.

The parking space locations are also located very close to the property line, which creates the need for the screening and buffering.

Lastly, um there is there is actually not lastly.

There is another violation of the design as the proposal uses the shared driveway of the abutting property at 13th Vintage Street.

This is what also triggered the need of relief for 13 Vinton Streets, which requires that relief for design and maneuverability, screening and buffering, and insufficient width of the driveway.

Even though this project exceeds the dimensional regulations for the site, it adds housing units while maintaining the small footprint of the parcel while assisting the city city's planning goals of the housing supply.

At this point, madam chair, I'm gonna turn it over to you and the board for any questions or comments.

Thank you.

Questions from the board.

Um are you uh we between the two properties?

It's really two parking spaces, correct?

It would be three.

So two will be located for this.

Um if you if there's a side plan at the beginning.

Two on the left and then one.

Yeah, two on the left, and there was one existing on the right-hand side as we discovered through the process they never had a use in occupancy to do such, so we're here legalizing it on top of creating the design maneuverability for not being able to function and maneuver strictly on our own property as well as theirs.

And and for existing, how many parking spaces do you have between the two properties currently?

It'll be three parking spaces total.

Right, that's proposed, but what's existing right now?

So they would only so there's no existing on the on our property itself.

There was one that was pre-existing.

Okay, so you go on to the right hand.

Correct.

From one to three.

Thank you.

Yes, I just needed clarification.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Public testimony?

Madam Chair and board members, so you also at the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 5th, at which no comments were made.

Our office received two letters of opposition and one letter of support.

The two opposed cited issues wanting more parking.

That background or office defers to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from the Consulator Feelings Office.

Council would like to go on record and support based on positive feedback from neighbors in the Andrew Square Civic Association during the community process.

He respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with the neighborhood on any quality of life issues during the construction phase.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chiller, we don't have additional compliments.

Okay, with that may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Back in.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yep.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes, sir.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Better Baza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penardo.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Um we have a interpretation case schedule for noon time.

Should we just go ahead with the next case that we normally would?

I yes, because we have to wait until noon.

Okay.

Fair enough.

With that, we'll go to case BOA 178 1953 with the address of one Bayside Street.

If the applicant and other representative were present, would they put the support in the case to the board?

Thank you, Mr.

Stanbridge.

This is Woodworth.

And I'm with urban determination, a consultant to the applicants.

Dennis and Gavin Matscorn, who are online.

And project architect as well, Bob Pointon from the Colwell group, is available to answer any questions.

The proposed project is a three-story multifamily building with six dwelling units and four garage bays at the basement level.

The site is located in a 2F5000 zone in the Dorchester neighborhood district with 4,215 square feet on the corner of Bayside Street and Silent Hill F.

Project has been cited for use.

The site is within walking distance, approximately seven minutes of the red line Savmon Hill T stop.

One Bay side is actually one of the larger lots in the immediate area, which is made up mostly of multi-family buildings in excess of the current two family zoning limit.

The corner lot configuration results in a calculation of lot width and frontage, which really does not reflect the actual condition of the lot.

With a corner lot, the applicant has the choice of street for front yard designation.

Bayside street was chosen for the building entry and front yard with a modal setback consistent with adjacent properties.

A Savan Hill front yard would have complied with lot frontage, but would have been less sensitive to the existing context.

The current maximum allowed FAR is 0.5.

Less than many of the existing properties in the neighborhood.

The project proposes an FAR of 1.5.

The proposed height is no greater than the adjacent three family properties.

Despite four meetings with the Butters and the Neighborhood Association, there was no consistent or coherent critique of the proposed design.

But the revised design before you today has a reworked basement plan to increase maneuverability into the four parking spaces and has deleted a proposed roof deck and head house.

We look forward to resolving any further concerns regarding the building design during a design review process, but would respectfully ask that the board focus deliberations here on the considerable benefit this project offers to potential residents in the city of Boston seeking access to a welcome, human-scaled and highly desirable neighborhood.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

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 judgment of this board.

Some background information on the community process.

ONS had hosted two abutters meetings the first and October 20th of 2025, as well as the additional one on January 20th, 2026.

Both meetings were well attended.

Feedback from these meetings, residents were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal, citing concerns related to the loss of uh green space, uh setbacks to other properties, uh the proposed density, um, as well as to the parking ratio.

Um the applicant also met with the Columbia Savage Hill Civic Association, which unanimously voted to oppose the proposal.

Uh I believe 26 members voted to oppose, zero in support and zero abstaining.

Uh there was also concerns raised by Butters regarding other properties that the proponents uh owed or owned in uh in Massachusetts uh in the condition of those properties, um doubting uh the sincerity or the intentions of the applicant.

Um at this time we have six letters in opposition.

Uh we have no letters in support.

With that, we'll defer to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Andrew from the Office of Consular Murphy.

Next we have Andrew from the Office of Consular Murphy.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Andrew Galvin from Councillor Murphy's office.

Uh at this time she would like to go in opposition of this project.

Thank you.

We have a Leon Dreamus.

Well, uh Madam Chairman of the board.

Liam Ramus from Council Fitzgerald's office at the start of the council would like to go on record and strong opposition as proposal due to the concerns of director butters and the size of the plot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Donald Welsh.

Yeah, thank you.

Um so I'm a Savannah resident.

I'm active in the Columbia Savannoe Civic Association.

I absolutely oppose this.

Uh it's it's literally uh part of changing the character of the neighborhood where they squeeze as much building in every space possible.

I mean, literally, they're trying to turn us into South Boston.

Now, having said that, I do want to say that the Civic Association had recognizes that we're facing 10,000 new housing units in and around our area, and after a year or two of debate and discussion, we're supporting that.

So we are not completely NIMBEs here.

We're supporting new housing in the right place.

For example, Marr Sea Boulevard and the Mary Ellen McCormick Housing project.

So we we want the city in the zoning board of appeals and everybody to uh not have a very simplistic approach that says we need new housing, we're gonna put it anywhere we anywhere any developer wants to put it.

We want the housing in the right place, and we want to preserve the character of our neighborhood in this project is totally against the character of our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mick.

So we have Christine.

Christine, you can unmute yourself.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that, and I appreciate your time today.

I just a couple points of um that I wanted to mention.

First, the vote um at the general membership meeting was actually 56 to zero.

Um there is overwhelming neighborhood opposition to this proposal.

There were two of Butters meetings, primarily because the proponents were uh relatively unwilling or unable to describe the full uh nature of the proposal.

We had encouraged them to consider three units on uh a three family on that particular lot.

They declined.

Um we asked them to reconsider the layout of the parking um and the driveway, which seems um sort of um, I don't know, because he didn't go through the plans at this particular hearing, but if you look at the driveway, you can see that it's a two-way driveway that runs parallel to a sidewalk on a one-way street, um, which uh also seems uh untenable.

So um we appreciate the fact that the proponent would like to develop a bike vacant lot.

He you know owns the three family next door.

Um we appreciate the need for housing, but this particular request uh is uh not within the character of the neighborhood.

If you look at uh what they described as um, you know three families on that street, it's actually single two and three families.

This isn't an uncharacteristically large lot, and the idea of putting six units using that entire space, which is the gateway to our neighborhood, it just seems out of um whack with our streetscape and neighborhood.

Sorry, this is a stressful process.

This particular project in particular we're used to having people come and feeling confident about a project being approved.

But in this particular case, the the hubris of this this proponent um has been uh breathtaking.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Uh we have a ding dollar team.

Janie, if you can mute yourself, you can press start seats.

Jeannie Doherty, are you speaking on this case?

And you can unmute yourself.

Okay.

Well, in the meantime, could the applicant address these concerns?

Uh, you know, there do seem to be generally triple deckers or less.

I can you point out other areas uh nearby with with uh up to six units, and can you talk about the green space that's on the property right now and what's gonna happen to that?

Uh yes, thank you, madam chair.

The the it is a vacant lot, and I understand that it's appreciated as such.

Uh the request to scale down to three units would not have been financially possible, and we did uh address the parking maneuverability issues that Christine brought up.

Uh they were not presented, that revision was done after the final abutters meeting.

Um but that's the sort of thing also that is typically resolved in design review, and the we had a hard time making the community understand that.

Madam Chair, is it okay to ask a question or should I wait?

Please.

Okay, I think um my big concern is that you currently have an existing curb cut, and the four um parking spaces that you're proposing is going to enlarge um that curb cut significantly.

I mean, I almost feel like potentially even 40 feet.

And my concern is that you that the neighborhood would be impacts impacted significantly because now you're removing a pedestrian kind of walkway.

Uh and and there could be like safety concerns as well.

So is that accurate?

That how how big is your curb cut that you're proposing?

I think if Bob on you should answer that question.

I I do want to just point out again that that's just for four four vehicles, that that would take place.

I can't see I don't have a sir.

Um the survey plot plan does not know the proposed curb cut.

It's not noted on the uh survey plot plan.

So that to me that's more significant than whether the parking maneuverability works or not internally.

I'm looking at more of the public impact of the neighborhood.

Um, you know, to have a huge and and also removal removal of off-street parking.

I don't have any further comments.

That's that you know it'll be interesting to hear my colleagues, but that to me is the biggest kind of urban design, I would say flaw of the of the proposal.

Thank you.

Well, I the folks who wanted to speak are able to unmute themselves, so I'm gonna move it back to public comment and then shift it back to um my colleagues.

Uh so I think it was Ms.

Doherty who was speaking.

Well trying to hear me now?

We can.

So we have a number of hands raised if you all can limit your comments to 90 seconds.

We'd appreciate it.

I will.

Okay.

Um, so I'm also in a butter and uh speaking in opposition to this.

Um we know that the six units on this lot is just not tenable for our neighborhood, but I also just wanted to point out a couple other things.

This project will remove some trees and some hedges, and here we are, we're on in lilac season, and they're at least it doesn't line like bushes, that line this lot.

Um obviously, one of the joys of that property and our neighborhood is that we have a lot of lilac trees if we have a lot of dog woods, and that would just you know destroy the happiness and the joy that we have as we walk our streets.

I'd also be concerned about stormwater or when it rains, it's a neighborhood that already has flooding, and so that is also one of my concerns.

Um, you know, this particular parcel has three streets that converge together.

Three, you know, place uh Denny Streets, Grampian Way, and Sabinela.

It's a triangle right there, and this would create um hazards for all of us, whether you're a pedestrian or someone driving a car.

We could this neighborhood is a cut through street um for people coming off from RC to Dorchester Ave.

Listen, I'm well aware that at some point this lot will end up being developed, frankly, this number of units is way too much.

I appreciate all of our local elected officials for speaking in opposition to this, and uh thank you all for your consideration board members, and I strongly urge you to vote no on this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next we have Elisabeth.

If you can yourself, Elizabeth.

Yes.

I did send written comments.

My main point being that this is totally out of character with all of the rest of Seven Hill Avenue and in fact the main streets of Dorchester and even Quincy and probably other towns.

Where corner lots, where they have houses, the house is oriented toward the more major street.

The comment that one of the previous speakers made that this how this structure that is proposed would overwhelm this the landscape there is entirely true.

One has only to look at the three-family house facing Savon Hill Avenue from the Bayside Street side, which is what one would get with this proposed house.

It is a large wall, unrelieved by greenery, because there won't be any room left to plant a tree.

The other concern is of course density.

Others have spoken to that, so I will not.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you.

And I want to I want to clarify my note.

I now am I looked very carefully on the plans, and I'm in I'm I want to correct myself.

There is is it they're actually using one curb cut to then make like a 90 uh degree turn to those four parking spaces.

So I just want to clarify that it's actually one curb cut.

I was misreading the drawings because I didn't see on the survey plot plan.

Thank you.

Thanks for whoever commented on the chat to clarify uh some of my assumptions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

Uh I'd like to make a motion of um approval with uh BPD design review to work with the applicant on the access uh to those parking spaces uh and to work with the contacts in regards to the uh exterior elevations.

Is there a second second?

Mr.

Stembridge, yes, Mr.

Valencia, yes, Ms.

Turner.

No, I don't believe that the community process is working on this one.

Um so I'm gonna say no.

Thank you, Ms.

Badabraza.

Yes, Ms.

Penato.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

The chair votes no, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next uh, yes, we are uh okay, yeah.

Yeah.

Um which is interpretation case schedule for noon time, which is case boa one six eight nine seven nine four with the address of sixty-two to sixty-six Condor Street.

If the applicant um is is available, they please explain.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stubbridge.

Good afternoon.

Madam Chair members of the board, Richard Lynn's business average at 245 Summer Street, East Boston.

I'm actually going to defer this once again.

Uh we finally were able to get a new um examiner assigned uh to review our request, and we believe that we should be able to work this out uh rather quickly, not an examiner's been assigned uh to review this.

So we're gonna request it for the referral on this.

Okay.

Uh any time horizon?

Um perhaps that same date that we deferred the other matter to me.

Is that June sixteenth now?

Yes.

Is it available?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

May I have a motion?

Motion of the first case.

So June sixteen.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Miss Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Barbaraza.

Yes.

Miss Panata.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes.

Yes, the motion carries.

I'm going to ask for a fifteen minute break.

See you back at Folks.

Stembridge.

President, Madam Chair.

Mr.

Valencia.

Present.

Miss Turner.

Present.

Miss Badabraza.

President.

Ms.

President with video.

Woohoo!

Collins.

President.

What is yours, Mr.

Stembridge?

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair.

With that, we will go back to the case we schedule for eleven thirty.

If I could have a five month push on the agenda.

Uh 1950, but I'm the next is case BOA.

One eight two five or with the address of 1954 Commonwealth Avenue.

Um, I do need to recuse myself in this case today.

Okay, thank you.

We've got our six member report for this case.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Smith with Adams and Marancy, business address of one sixty-eight eighth street, first floor, South Boston.

Joining me from the development team is the owner, Patrick McKenna, as well as the project manager, Brian McGrath, along with Project Architect Mark Sangiolo.

This is a proposed twenty-six unit residential condominium development at 1954 Commonwealth Avenue in the Brighton neighborhood.

I'd like to mention that there was an earlier iteration of the proposed project that was previously approved by the planning department as well as this board under a different owner.

Project site is approximately 13,368 square foot parcel located along Commonwealth Avenue.

The site is zoned MFR two, multifamily residential under Article 51 of the Boston Zoning Code consist with the Bullet Aberdeen Architectural Conservation Commission in the Green Belt Protection Overlay District.

Together the project will yield 26 residential condominium units.

We acknowledge the following dimensional variance required.

The lot area falls short of 20,000 27,000 square foot requirement for a project of this size at approximately 13,368 square feet.

Though this is consistent with many properties in this area that similarly do not meet that requirement.

The building height of five stories above grade, reaching approximately 53 feet at the existing house and 56 and a half feet at the rear, exceeds the three-story 55-foot zoning limit, though we know this is meaningfully reduced from the previously approved six-story 77-foot project that held a variance on this side.

Open space comes in at 173 square feet per unit against the 200 square foot requirement.

Again, a substantial improvement over the 107 square foot per unit approved under a prior variance.

The front yard setback of 21 feet to the building with 14 feet to the reconstructed porch is largely compliant.

The side yard is four feet with the one foot overhang against the 10 foot requirement, consistent with other developments in this neighborhood.

The rear yard is 12 feet where 20 feet is required.

However, the planning department staff.

Oh, I just bear with me one second.

My screen is am I frozen, Madam Chair?

I see you.

Okay, good.

It just felt it just for some reason I thought it was frozen.

Open space comes in at 173 square feet per unit against a 200 square foot requirement.

Again, a substantial improvement over the 170, over the 107 square feet per unit approved under the prior variance.

The front yard setback again 21 feet to the building with 14 feet to the constructed porch is largely compliant.

Side yard is four feet with a one-foot overhang against the 10-foot requirement, consistent with other development in the neighborhood.

The rear yard is 12 feet where 20 feet is required.

However, the planning department staff specifically noted that this non-compliance is mitigated by the grade change at the back of the site in the location of the Chestnut Hill Drive, which physically separates the parcel from the reservation.

Parking provides nine spaces against a requirement of two per unit.

This area is well served by public transit, and we will note that the project provides 27 secure interior bicycle spaces in addition to the parking.

Finally, no off-street parking loading bay is provided, which is a technical deficiency.

In closing, the project delivers meaningful public benefits, 26 new home ownership units in the neighborhood facing document housing pressure, four affordable units under the IDP, approximately 60 construction jobs, and an increased property tax revenue for the city.

Project also preserves a locally significant historic structure and makes a streetscape improvements along Commonwealth Avenue.

At this point, I'm going to turn it over to the project architect Mark Sangiolo, who's going to do a quick run through the drawings for the board.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan.

You did such a great job.

I don't know really what how much I can add.

Everyone loves this project, I know that.

So if we go back maybe to the floor plans.

This will, yeah, the lower here's the lower level plan.

We have parking uh on the left-hand side, we drive under parking nine spaces.

There's one unit in the uh this ground uh floor level, basement level, and then um some bike parking as well.

It'll go up to the next plan.

Here you can see the first floor plan.

We have a um uh ADA access on the on the right hand side of the site to try to get it out of the way uh blocking the um so it wouldn't block the existing uh historic building and the other ramps could be the other excuse me, walkways to the to the building could be uh two percent slope and not a handicap slope, which can be quite uh dangerous in the uh winter time.

Next slide, please.

Typical floor plans, the the two and a half story mission style uh structure in the front uh has six is renovated to six units.

The elevator is in the center, everything kind of works on the same levels.

The five-story building in the back has uh four units per floor.

Uh next slide, please.

And uh the next slide, please.

You can see on the roof plan, we have some um green green roof areas that would be accessible for by the residents, and uh the building section, how the floors work together.

Why don't we go to the first uh page and we can kind of see what the building really looks like?

If we go back like to slide one.

Or sorry, four.

So here uh you can see that uh the starting point for this project really was the uh historic structure, which the neighborhood really wanted to preserve as well as some of the elements of the garage, which we did do that.

Uh and uh what we're doing is um the new architecture kind of complements it without getting overly um uh involved in too much uh mission style detail.

It kind of alludes to it.

We're proposing that we do the addition all in uh ground floor in a um a cement board on the uh and the top floors in a stucco with some um red tile uh fenestration on the facade.

All the units have um uh uh balconies, and um that's really about it.

Um I'm happy to take any questions.

Great.

Thank you, Mark.

Uh Madam Trier, we're gonna turn it over to you for any questions or comments.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, Mr.

SPSIE.

I saw a different saw a little bit of a document from the BRA from 2016.

Is this the same project?

Yeah, so that was uh yes.

So as I noted, in some of uh my sentiments, there was a previously approved project here for 16 units under a different ownership.

Um a lot of the zoning dimensions were you know exceeding what we're actually proposing.

So we come in and we revised the proposal, had to go through a whole new Article 80 process, uh, which we did receive again.

We did receive the planning department's board of approval on those differences changes rather to the uh those original set approved plans.

Okay, we just critically a why project that was put out in 2016, they would have got billed.

And 10 years later, we had here with another project that it's not so good and interesting, but I would just wanted to know more about the history.

Mr.

Valencia, that's it.

That's a great question.

I don't know because it was under different ownership.

Um, and in my client here, Patrick McKenna from Glen Chain Properties, he purchased the actual approval, and just from a construction point of view, it just the the project wasn't making sense or working.

So he assembled another team, and we contacted the planning department to see if it was just an amendment to the actual approved set of drawings, but they preferred that we went through uh a full small project review application.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for the right.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the from the board?

Hearing none.

May 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 obviously deferred to the judgment of this board, some background information on the community process.

Uh, so this was originally there was a proposal here approved uh by the at the time the BRA back in 2016.

Uh since then, there's been a few iterations of of different proposals for this site where they've gone back to the community and engaged with neighbors.

Someone I was a neighborhood liaison many years ago.

Um there's always been some concerns about if this unique building would be preserved and if you know any type of new construction occurred.

I think at one point they wanted to shift the building itself and move that, and people were worried about um you know, would that building be lost and not be able to survive that transition?

And then there was also proposals about increasing the density.

Um so this iteration back again, um, to jump forward to the present.

Um they went through a Boston uh planning uh led community process uh involving um uh a public meeting, uh meeting with the Brighton Elsen Improvement Association and also receiving public comments.

I understand that the Brighton Elson Improvement Association is in support of this project.

Uh, there were some of others who raised concerns about um the proposed density just with um competition for parking on Commonwealth Lab, which is already pretty tight.

Um people also alluded that you know, while the property has been vacant for um the better part of a decade, you know, there's been some issues with vagrancy conditions of the property, etc.

So I think some residents would also like to see something happened with this site here.

So um mix of concerns and just questions over what is being proposed.

Um, but as mentioned, Brighton Hallson Improvement Association is in support.

With that, we'll defer to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nick's move notice from the planning department.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Um, my name is Dylan Norris.

I'm the project manager with the development review division of the planning department and the project manager for the Article ADE small project before you today.

Um, as Connor from ONS has alluded, this project does have a long history in the uh Alson Brighton community dating back to a 2016 BRA approval.

Um the current proponent team had filed their small project review application with the design uh before you today in relation to the 1954 Commonwealth Avenue uh project on June 30th, 2025, which was distributed through the Alston Brighton neighborhood distribution list.

The planning department then sponsored and hosted a virtual public meeting on September 25th, 2025.

Public meetings were posted on the planning department calendar.

Notice uh was advertised through local newspapers as well as email notifications sent out to all subscribers of the Alston Brighton neighborhood email update list.

Local elected officials and their staff were also notified of the meetings.

Uh the comment period on this uh filing concluded on October 2nd, 2025.

During the comment period, the project received seven letters of support, seven letters of opposition, and three of a neutral position outside of the BPDA sponsored review process.

The proponent conducted additional outreach with the Balsa Brighton Alston Improvement Commission, abutters, and local elected officials to solicit feedback and address comments and concerns.

The project was then brought before and approved by the BPDA board on January 15th, 2026.

And um, you know, some comments were uh brought up during the public review process as far as transportation access uh and concerns over traffic, as well as uh visa viability of the uh preservation of the existing structure.

Um I do want to just note that the uh proposed project is still subject to ongoing design review and approval from the Aberdeen Architectural Conservation Commission or district, as well as uh parks department design review uh for the any potential impacts uh to the uh abutting park and DCO DCR-owned property.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions uh related to the project or previous iterations um or whatever questions you may have to the Article 88 review process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have another number, Miss.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Annabella Gomes and the Brighton Austin Improvement Association.

We'd like to go and record and support this project.

Uh changes are all improvements from the previous project, and uh we welcome the changes and would like to be gone rapid and support.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Next we have Inez meeting.

Hi, am I on mute?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Uh so uh yay, more housing.

Definitely everybody's happy to get more housing here.

Uh I think as a direct abutter, just want to voice a little concern and disappointment at the lack of community engagement for direct abutters.

The one touch point for this project was the presentation on September 2025, and then pretty much that's it.

Unless you're part of a community group like the ABAI, there has been nothing.

So we don't even know if the feedback was incorporated or anything changed from anybody's comments that were submitted.

So expressing that disappointment.

And also the um I sent a letter also that was entered.

I don't know where that went.

Um comments about just basically the property line.

And maybe that goes under the design review.

But again, with one touch point, we don't have any information if things were changed or what the correct avenue is.

But um there's like an outdoor space that would uh affect the people in 1960, the echoing of acoustics there.

Uh and there was also issues about the trees.

I'm a member of the Chestnut Hill Reservoir Conservancy, and we have spoken to the landscape architect for DCR, who at that point was not aware of the plans to preserve and protect the trees on the rear side a lot.

Um, for example.

Anyway, I just wanted to starter comments.

I mean, there's a lot of other little things, but it's the lack of communication and community engagement with the abutters, direct abutters that we are in a blackout.

Thank you.

Okay, and we have Gene uh Bruinceno.

Gene, if you can unmute yourself.

You can unmute yourself, pressing uh start six.

Are you raising your hand for this, Gene?

If so, can you please unmute yourself?

Okay, well, in the meantime, uh can the developer, does the developer wish to respond or trying to spare?

Yeah, sure.

Madam Chair, um, you know, there were many avenues um or channels rather uh for for abutters to further conversation and dialogue during the Article 80 meeting.

Uh was known information was exchanged.

Um we never heard back from any sort of person um relative or any questions sent directly to us or through the planning department.

Any sort of you know, communication was always filtered through the Article 80 process itself.

Uh and again, hence we moved on to the community as well.

And uh we went through you know and met with the the local civic group where we're presentation was well perceived as and hence the reason why uh we were provided with a recommendation of support from the civic group too.

Thank you.

But given the fact that abutters, you know, during during this phase, uh I'll be sure to um advise my client to continue to reach out to these neighbors to be good neighbors and kind of continue and facilitate conversations moving forward as well.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

There are a motion.

Up before a motion of approval.

There are a second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Oh, sorry.

Ms.

Vebabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That we will move to the cases scheduled for 11 30 a.m.

The first two cases have been deferred as the last case in that time frame.

So that will take us to case BOA 17474 with the address of 142 P Street.

If the applicants andor their representative were present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you.

Um thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board.

My name is Kirathi Sugamarin, and I am one of the proponents of the 142 P Street project.

I will be presenting alongside Eric Zacherson from Context Architects.

As you may recall from the last time we met, this proposal seeks to add five roof decks to an existing five-unit residential building in South Boston.

The decks will be accessed through existing roof patches that are completely hidden from public view by an existing four-foot parapet wall that screens the rooftop mechanicals.

In other words, this is a minimally invasive project as it does not penetrate the building, nor does it seek to add height to the building.

The architectural plans, as I mentioned, were prepared by Context Architects, a licensed architecture firm, and reviewed by the City of Boston Planning Department, which has issued a formal recommendation of approval.

The three zoning violations at issue in this case are Article 68, Section 29, requiring a conditional use permit.

Article 68, Section 8, front and rear yard uh insufficient.

The deputy director of zoning noted explicitly that the front and rear yard violations are existing conditions not proposed to be extended or worsened by this project, and that their impact on the proposal is negligible.

As owners, we have also been thoughtful in our design goals to minimize impact on our neighbors.

For example, the decks are concealed behind the existing parapet.

They will not be visible from the street or the public right of way.

There is no change to the building's appearance from any public vantage point.

And in working through the community process, we elected to remove a pergola that was originally proposed due to our neighbors' concerns regarding visibility.

The planning department confirmed that roof decks and upper story balconies are common throughout City Point as shown on page two, the third page of this PDF.

This project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood's character, not a departure from it.

Eric, if I could just ask you to flip to that third page with the um aerial view of the decks in the neighborhood.

Yeah, the ambassador, please scroll.

Who's in who's the ambassador?

Can you scroll up to the next page?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um the addition of the roof decks provides each of the five owner occupant families with private outdoor space, reducing pressure on shared public parks and green spaces.

The condo association is also governed by our own bylaws that have appropriate noise restrictions in place to ensure future owners comply with the reasonable expectations of our neighborhood.

The owners have selected a tile system to minimize construction impact on the surrounding properties.

The tiles are placed onto the roof itself and are environmentally friendly as they repel heat, which significantly reduces the heat island effect created by black rubber roofs in the city.

In addition, the board has before it letters of support from more than 35 South Boston residents and abutters, including several direct abutters on P Street, East Fifth Street, and East 6th Street.

The owners have engaged in a community process in good faith from the start.

Our application was filed on uh in June of 2025, and an abutters meeting was held on October 9th, 2025, consistent with the standard neighborhood review process.

The owners made meaningful concessions, including removal of the Pergola.

Um we had the project reviewed by the City Point Neighborhood Association and engaged with ONS throughout the process, including voluntary meetings in um November with CPNA to hear community feedback and a formal vote on April 14th.

Um the CPNA raised concerns about noise, which we've addressed in our bylaws and fire safety, which we've confirmed our plans are compliant with applicable regulations.

Um and we are specifically sourcing um stationary grills that are properly insulated to comply with fire safety requirements.

Um the CPNA um, as you know, had requested a second abutters meeting um and um and that request had been reviewed by the Office of ONS.

Um they determined that uh the changes to our plans were not substantial enough to require a second formal meeting.

Um that was a discretionary judgment made by city staff with expertise in this process, and the owner should not be penalized for the city's reasonable decision not to conduct a second abutters meeting.

Um, one of the concerns raised at the last meeting was a provision prohibiting roof decks at 142p.

And as you may recall, the City of Boston's planning department confirmed that no such agreement or proviso um was ever made in writing.

And significantly, when the proponents purchased their condos, we did so with the understanding that we could seek permission to build roof decks when we felt comfortable to do so.

Um lastly, I'll just point out that we've received broad genuine community support that speaks for itself.

The volume and quality of support letters from immediate abutters from parents who know families through their children's school, from longtime South Boston residents reflects that this ownership group has built genuine support and goodwill in the neighborhood.

Um while we recognize the CPNA opposes the project, um, you know, we would just note that there was a bit of um lack of transparency in the process as we were only advised whether the motion would pass or fail.

Um we had approximately 15 individuals who came to support us and vote on our behalf, um, some of which reported back to us that they were kicked out of the Zoom meeting as voting was called, or um were told they were not allowed to vote because they were presenting proposals the same day, eliminating um uh supportive votes in our favor.

In closing, we would ask that the ZBA grant the variance and conditional use permit for a modest, well-designed improvement to a residential building in City Point.

The decks are invisible from the street, the building height is unchanged, the planning department recommends approval consistent with the decks that have previously been approved in the neighborhood.

Um, and in fact, this is even consistent with, in fact, less impactful than some of the other South Boston roof deck proposals that were approved earlier today.

I'll just turn it over to Eric in case he'd like to add anything.

I think you hit it on the head.

Um we'll go back to the chair.

Okay, thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Uh, just a comment.

Last time we hosted the heating for this project.

The whole idea of the was that somebody from your team mentioned that you have not been able to schedule a meeting with the local neighborhood association.

So the referral was for the team to have your own meeting.

I know, regardless of if only is uh opinion was that it was no necessary the no necessity to have a meeting or not.

The whole idea of the was for you to organize your own meeting with the residence correct feedback.

So that's my comment.

I'm not sure if you want to respond to that.

Just to clarify, there were sort of two requests for meetings.

One was with ONS, um, and ONS had declined to hold a second abutters meeting, and then the deferral was for us to go back and meet specifically with the City Point Neighborhood Association.

We did so on April 14th.

Um, we met with the C Point Association, they conducted a vote, um, and um, I believe they're here, you know, they'll be here to report on on that process as well.

And I believe they were here, you know, they'll be here to report on that process as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there other questions from the Borough Board?

I um I had brought up the concern of grilling uh on the roof deck, and have you looked into requirements and and have you done any alterations due to those requirements?

Yes, Andy.

We we went back through the regulations of obviously we'll have to go through it with fire department at the end of the permitting.

But what we um have confirmed is that there are a number of um stationary grills when installed that can be uh that are rated to be adjacent to the building parapet.

However, we haven't specified the grills, so in this set of plans, we've relocated them all to be away from the parapets and and towards the center of the building, which would be allowed even if they were um not the the rated kind that we would like to kind of conf we will confirm as we uh review this with the fire department.

Okay, thank you so much for looking into that.

No further thank you.

Let's have uh public testimony.

Good afternoon, madam chair and board members you're also with the office of neighborhood services.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on October 9th of 2025.

I would provided on the proposal.

Those are deterioration of the public nuisance issues associated with roof and during the community process for construction of this building that the building would not include roof decks.

Office received 46 letters of opposition, all from abutters in the 300 foot radius.

Office also received 35 letters of support.

Six have signed an address in the abutters radius, the rest signed addresses in other areas of South Boston.

As a result, the feedback from the abutters meeting, the applicants agreed to remove any pergola on their proposal.

The applicant also formally met City Point Neighborhood Association on April 14th, and that group has voted to oppose the application.

That ground our office defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

We have Ashley from the Office of Consulate Foon.

I'm sorry, did you say Ashley?

Ashley?

Thank you.

Council of Flynn would like to store a record again in opposition based on overwhelming feedback from direct abutters, nearby neighbors, and the City Point Neighborhood Association on the lack of community process in a second city of Boston run abutters meeting.

Just weeks ago, this board agreed that the community process was not fulfilled, and the proponent was sent back to the City Point Civic meeting.

However, neighbors who are not members of the C PNA may have not attended, and those who did were not allowed to speak or vote on the proposal.

Councilor Flynn believes the second abutters meetings should have been coordinated by the city so that all neighbors can have a say in what takes place in their community.

Councilor Flynn maintains a policy against construction of new roof decks based on eight years of meetings and feedback from our seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and young families on quality of life issues, parties at all hours, trash removal with pizza boxes falling into the street, our pest control crisis, and public safety issues with the presence of cooking grills on decks.

Council of Flynn believes this is public service.

Another meeting was in no way unreasonable with the amount of meetings much lower in the city for years now, and ability to quickly schedule a zoom.

Lastly, a major compromise in 2021 that garden support of neighbors was specifically the removal of new of the roof decks.

South Boston neighbors continue to support addressing the housing crisis, only to have the rug pulled out years later in bad faith on proposals that have no bearing on it.

Council of Flynn believes we cannot call ourselves the most family-friendly city in the country if we continue to willfully disregard the quality of life issues of many of many residents and families in favor of projects that do not improve the housing crisis.

Thank you.

Next, we have Amy Walsh from Senator.

And Madam Chair, members of the board, Haley Walsh from Senator Nick Collins' office.

Um like to echo um Councillor Flynn's um testimony, and you would like to go on record in opposition to this.

Thank you.

And now we have uh Monica.

Good afternoon, thank you for hearing from me.

My name is Monica Santos, I'm a direct abutter living on East Fifth Street.

Um I echo, of course, what's already been um uh expressed in terms of general abutter opposition to the project.

Uh I will say what is not being stated so far is the proposal for five roof decks is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood.

Yes, there are roof decks, as was noted in the presentation.

Uh what is being left out is that none of those roof decks are designed for individual units.

I personally am not opposed to the homeowners having a roof deck if it's potentially one common roof deck, one grill, etc.

Um, but to set the new precedent of individual floors now having individual roof decks is a brand new precedent for the neighborhood that has not been set previously.

Again, there is a significant safety concern with the potential for five gas grills.

I believe original proposals had potential fire pits as well.

That's obviously very concerning for direct abutters, along with all just the general quality of life.

Does it meet the standard for zoning remote print concerns that exists?

I would also like to add that the existing homeowners do get the benefit of the variances that have already been approved for this project of the lack of side yard and rear yard setback.

Obviously, they had nothing to do with that, but they still reap the benefit of the additional living space that um now occurs for them, and they get to experience uh as the new homeowners.

This project has already had two variances for the rear in your rear and yard setback.

This potentially is another variance for the individual roof decks, and then finally, I'd like to add that the current uh units have decks already in the front with unobstructed water views, a significant front yard, over 2200 square feet of living space.

There is, in our opinion, those that are opposed, not the necessity now for specific unique livable space per unit.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have Christine.

Hi, thank you for your time.

I'm opposed.

Um my question to the board is has the standard for zoning relief been met here.

The answer is no.

The reasons for the relief are frankly absurd.

One is we need a place for our children to play.

Um, I think you all know we live about 200 feet from Marine Park in Castle Island.

Another person says he needs a place for his elderly parents to come sit in the sun.

Um, and the third is that everyone else has one.

Why can't we?

You can't sleep here at night in the summer with your windows open due to all the ambient noise and the way it travels.

The community has repeatedly told this group we do not want roof decks.

They told the developer, and I would argue that um despite the uh, you know, I don't know if she's a plaintiff or the the proponent's comments about trying to be a good neighbor.

This whole process has been just a callous disregard for the neighbors and the community process.

Um, and I ask you to please consider the impacts on the neighborhood when you vote today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Luan.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, good afternoon, board.

Uh this has been a really tedious process.

Um, so I can say uh I'm glad that it's coming to an end uh at this point.

So I want to first address um the letter count by ONS.

Um City reported um the numbers of 45 in opposition.

Those 45 letters came just from Lennon Court and Tuning Court, which is directly across the street.

That was the complex over there that was not part of the process because they didn't know about the abutters meeting.

They didn't know about the Progola being removed.

So that was the community process.

They have since been informed.

A few of them have, in fact, joined CPNA, and they produced 45 signatures of opposition.

That is on top of the direct abutter opposition.

Um the signatures that you have are in fact all direct abutters from Keith Street, 6th Street, 5th Street.

So we did not go outside of the area because that's not really fair.

It's for people who actually um live there and will be affected by the project.

It is um it's a tough one, but everything that the proponent is asking for, they already have.

It's on the first floor.

Um beautiful um manicured lawn, um, plantings is wonderful.

They used to have grills out there, they have outdoor furniture out there, the view of um the ocean is right there.

And they do have uh Farragut Park, Morning Park, uh, literally within 200 feet.

So this is a project that is not wanted in this community in City Point.

Um there is something similar, but it's down by Broadway Station and borders the South End and Broadway Station.

It's called the McCallum Building.

But none of that exists here in City Point.

So we're going to ask the board to please reject this project based on uh a better feedback, uh overwhelming opposition of a better feedback.

And um hopefully um, you know, these proponents have in fact recently joined City Point specifically for this project, and um, you know, welcome, welcome.

You've been in our neighborhood for a year or two.

Uh, we love having new people move in, but we just can't allow this type of quality of life issues um to move forward because it's not really fair on the rest of us.

So, with that, we ask that you um deny this project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

There is one more comment.

Yeah, okay.

There are two more people.

Please be brief.

And then hello, madam chair, members of the board.

My name is John Collins.

I uh own at 820 Eastern Street, and I would just like to say that I am in uh full support of this project.

I've got to meet um a few of the owners over the last year or so.

Um, particularly Misher and Shep, who just had their second child, and I know with a growing family being born and raised here, there's nothing like your own outdoor space.

Having your front lawn is one thing, but having some private space upstairs to yourself is another thing, and I think it's just an extension of their living area.

So I would just like to go on record and support uh voice my support.

Thank you.

Next we have Indian.

It's great.

Hello, uh good afternoon.

Um I'm sorry, can you hear me, folks?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Uh 776 Broadway, Eileen Smith.

I want to um uh say that our new uh neighbors uh seem quite graceful and and you know wonderful to have uh in our neighborhood.

However, the big concern for all of us is the precedence that would be set uh for having five decks, five grills.

I currently live beside a house that has a roof deck, and it has been nothing but problems uh with the police, the mayor's office constantly have to intervene.

So I find it very difficult for the residents that are so adversely affected with the um current proposal.

I did want to add a fact, just uh what I thought on the McCallan building.

You know, they have a hundred and forty-four units, and of course, the size of the development is is quite large, and I believe they only have three to five grilling stations.

Um, and uh that's not a divided uh roof deck property, but just for the record, I I I know the people are very nice new neighbors, however, unfortunately living beside uh a roof deck uh and I can't imagine five is uh terrible as far as quality of life.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, uh with that, I'll turn it back over to uh the members for questions.

Any last comment from the developer?

I mean the applicant briefly okay.

We've got may have a motion just a clarification.

Um, the last time this was presented, was it um a deferral or was it denial without prejudice?

It was a deferral in order for them to meet with the civic group.

Any other board questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

Is there a second second?

Mr.

Stambridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.