Boston zoning board of appeal hearing from May fifth, twenty twenty-six is now in session.

This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year.

The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 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 the 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're not seeing yourself 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 panels, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking.

If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the zoom up.

Then your hand should go down.

When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself.

Select yes, then you should be able to talk.

If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star nine and to raise and lower your hand.

You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host.

Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then provide their comment.

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

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.

Okay, Mr.

Stembridge.

Morning, Madam Chair, fellow board members present.

Good morning, Mr.

Valencia.

Good morning, Madam Chef present.

Good morning.

Mr.

Lang.

Good morning, Madam Chair present.

Good morning.

Ms.

Wewe.

Good morning, Madam Chair Present.

Good morning.

Ms.

Turner.

Good morning, Madam Chair Present.

Good morning.

And Mr.

Brunell.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Present.

Good morning.

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

Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We will begin with the extensions scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

today.

I'll read all the and all the extensions in one after the other.

If there are any questions afterwards, we can um we can ask Madam Chair and the representative.

We'll begin with case BOA 763 614 with the address of 7 Cleveland Street.

Next we have case BOA 152 1916 with the address of 15 to 17 Brack Street.

Next we have case BOA 119457 with the address of 29 Southwell approval.

Next we have case BOA 1432486 with the address of 46 to 48 Leo.

Leo and Birmingham Park.

Next we have case BOA 156, 1862 with the address of 353, 359, Blue Calab.

Next we have case BOA 1561863.

Next we have case BOA 14 6752 with the address of 16R Maths.

Next we have case BOA 15279 with the address of 26, the fonts of that.

Next we have case BOA 156834.

The address 134 to 140.

Next we have case BOA 932.

The address 192.

Next we have case BOA 154 801B with the address of 2729 Tower.

Next we have case BOA 1254 10 with the address of 192.

And finally we have case BOA 213 2476.

Sorry.

213, 247.

The address of 76 days.

All of the extension requests appear to be reasonable.

And I'll try to back up this matter chair.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

Hearing none, may have a motion to grant the extensions as requested.

Motion to grant the extensions as read.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencio.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Are you on mute, Ms.

Wewell?

Oh, no, I'm here.

Yes.

I couldn't hear you.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Now we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 9 30 a.m.

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

Hearing none, we'll move on to the first case, which is case BOA 179 5439 with the address of 133 to 135 North Washington Street.

If the applicant and whether they're representative or present, will they please find the case of the board?

I am Mr.

Secretary.

Good morning, members of board, Madam Chair.

This is Mike Ross with the law firm of Prince Lair with uh James Christopher for the architect for the appellant.

Um go to the next page, Mr.

Ambassador.

Uh so this is a proposal to build six home ownership condominiums within a mid-block, oddly shaped parcel uh at 133 North Washington Street, uh within the North End neighborhood zoning district within the North Washington Street Community Commercial Subdistrict.

And what you see on the above, actually, uh, Mr.

Mbess, sorry, uh, just go one more up for me if you would.

This existing site plan.

Uh, this is a one-story um industrial building.

It's an oddly shaped parcel.

My name is there.

Spans it spans from North Washington Street and reaches through the through the block to on the upper portion of the um survey to Endicott Court, uh, which is a small court uh off of Endicott Street.

Uh the current structure meets the rear abutting property, and you can see it it it kind of uh diagonally hits that rear abutting property property line, creating a zero in that area, a zero rear yard setback, and the abutting property also has a zero rear yard setback.

This is for the existing condition.

Uh and so at some point the two buildings uh nearly touch each other, and that's the existing condition of this current one-story structure.

If you go to the next slide, this is our proposed site plan.

What we are proposed uh uh what we're proposing to build, and what you can see here is there's now an eight-foot rear yard setback in that same rear yard property line that I just directed your attention to on the lower five floors, and then it steps back an additional four feet to make a 12-foot rear yard setback on the six four twelve-foot is actually what's called for by zoning, but it's not present in virtually uh well, this entire block in virtually anywhere in in this zoning subdistrict.

Um also uh regarding this abutting Endicott Court uh street.

It initially it was proposed that we would bring parking up Endicot Court and into the structure to create ground floor parking uh within the building.

The neighborhood felt strongly that bringing cars up and a cot court were neighbor door neighboring doors, are they literally right on the curb would not be a good condition, and so we we uh eliminated all parking within the project uh completely.

There's no parking.

Uh that's one of our reasons why we're here.

Uh next slide, please.

Um next slide, please.

Uh this is the basement, it's only storage worth mentioning, however, that this project is within the G Cod.

Uh, we've been working with Christian Simonelli and the Boston Water and Sword Commission.

We have our letter and um the appropriate analysis there.

Next slide, please.

So on the left, you see slide you see floor one, um, which is a single unit, and then floors two through five.

Each floor is a single unit reaching the six units.

Initially, there were 13 units proposed for this building.

The neighborhood again felt strongly that fewer units and home ownership would be more desirable.

And so, you know, creating more permanent residents, less transient residents.

So the uh Colin shifted the plan, and we did the six units.

And then here you see that eight-foot rear yard setback off the rear property line.

Units are 1419 on the ground floor and 1597 square feet, each have three bedrooms.

And the next slide here will show you the uh final floor, the sixth floor, and that's the final unit.

Um, here you see that 12-yard uh I'm sorry, 12-foot rear yard setback.

Uh we dropped it down to two bedroom units.

Uh, it's 14, 12 square feet.

And then on the right is a roof deck dedicated and only available to the sixth-floor unit.

Um next slide shows the elevations.

It's kind of difficult to follow these elevations because again, it's a it's an oddly shaped building, and there are other buildings nestled within uh the building to the right uh to the left.

So, but uh the upper left uh image is the shows the front uh elevation, the upper right image shows it from the right side.

You can see partially covered by an existing building.

The lower left is the from the rear, and the lower right is the view of the elevation from the left slide, uh left side.

All right, next slide, please.

So we created this this one slide just to kind of explain the height because it's different.

Um this is our height slide.

So it's so there's it's the front portion along um north Washington Street sits at 60 feet to meet the cornice line of the building to the left of it, and then the building drops in height to 50 feet closest to Endicott Street, closest to the neighborhood to meet the scale of the neighborhood.

Uh next slide, please.

So this is the existing building today.

It's that one-story building you see there.

That's what's there today.

Um, and then the next slide is showing a rendering of what we would you know what this building looks like.

If you go to the next slide, Mr.

Mbesser.

Uh, you know, here what you have is the existing building on the left, that 60-foot corner slide I referenced to you.

Um, our proposed building immediately to the right of it, and then at night, what it looks like.

The zoning, as I mentioned, we're here for G COD.

I also mentioned we're here for parking.

Uh residential use on ground floor creates a conditional use.

FAR for this building, uh, which Boston Planning noted in its memo is not uncommon, is 5.1.

This is a 3.0 FAR district.

Uh we are cited for height because of that front cornice line issue I referenced.

Um we are cited for open space.

Not sure exactly why, because we do have the roof deck, the entirety of the roof deck is allowed to be counted towards open space.

We also have the rear yard, that eight-foot setback there should have been allowed to be counted for open space.

The requirements 50 uh square feet for each unit, so that would equal 300.

We have 650.

Uh we also had balconies on each of the units, but the neighbors asked us to remove the balconies because it would create unwanted noise in the neighborhood, so we removed those balconies, but even still with roof deck, we have 650, but we were citing for the open space violation nonetheless.

We were, of course, cited for the rear yard violation, as I mentioned.

I spent some time talking about the rear yard.

Um, that's required to be at 12 feet.

Um, and then we were cited for a side yard.

This is a zero side yard setback, but there are windows and vents on one of the buildings, uh, and they they cited us for a side yard setback.

Uh I'll pause there, madam chair, and see if there are any questions for me or um architect Christopher.

Thank you.

Uh, can you address the C fraud issue?

You've mentioned G COD several times, but um part of the recommendation talks about uh uh elevation and habitable space below.

Yeah, we're we're aware of it.

We are um I think I think two feet we need to make up.

Uh we we can make that up uh through design review.

We can get the uh lower floor to be above the uh flood level, and it will not be uh within the within the confines of the building.

It it will not be an issue.

It's something we can handle it.

Got certainly not a zoning issue.

Um, and it's something that we'll be able to remedy through uh design.

Questions from the board.

Hearing nine mayor of public testimony.

Hello, madam chair members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office in neighborhood services regarding 133 to 135 North Washington Street, our office defers to the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2025.

That was attended by several North End and West End community members.

The feedback from this meeting was significant concern of the impact and the scale of the proposal on the small private way behind the building and the impact on sunlight of many of the buildings uh and decks that may fall in the shadow of the structure.

The applicant continued conversations with neighbors and made significant concessions, including removing access to the private wing, introducing a new rear set bet of eight feet uh for floors one through five and twelve feet for floor six to better accommodate abutters and reducing the unit number from 13 to 6.

The proposal has received 29 letters of support.

The proposal was also reviewed by the North End Waterfront Neighborhood Council on January 20th, 2020, or 12th, 2026, after requesting further discussion discussions and concessions to a butters.

Munich voted to unanimously support the project and has submitted a letter in support to the board.

The proposal was also reviewed by the North End Waterfront Residence Association on 2126 and has voted tenant support and 10 to oppose.

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

And next we have Christian Simonelli.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board, Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G-Card letters from the applicant.

Thanks.

Next we have uh Minor Fitz.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Rombassolo.

My chair and members of the board.

This is mine up or I'm representing Honduras of Enoch Carpenter's living ward price.

You have also want to go on record in support of this break.

Thank you.

Next, we've got a great panesi.

Um good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board.

Um I'm here with my wife Sarah Duncan.

We're the owner spout of 186 Endicott Street, directly behind the proposed project.

Um, after um several meetings with the development team, um, we have withdrawn our opposition to the project and now support it.

Um the team has um has worked with your frozen.

I think so.

Ums Banisi.

Did you want to finish comment, Ms.

Messi?

You were frozen.

Oh, okay.

Sorry about that.

Uh yes, so we are in support of the project up to we got up to you withdrew your opposition.

Oh, we withdraw our opposition based on um several meetings with the development team in which they um increased the rear the initial rear yard set back uh to the eight feet on floors one through five and then uh twelve feet on the sixth floor, so that um addressed our concerns about the project and we now support it.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair comments okay.

Uh is Mr.

Hampton available.

Can you address the comments about the um seatbot issue?

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

Uh our recommendation on projects like these have uh historically been to ask for denial without prejudice because we don't want the project to be below the designated floodplain.

Uh we had a very similar case like this at 105 North Washington, uh, where we recommended denial without prejudice.

Uh this was back in January 2025.

Uh the opponent then came back with a different design, and we actually went on the record to recommend approval.

Uh I heard what Mr.

Ross had said about being willing to uh deal with this during the design review uh uh process.

If the board does approve this, I would just ask that that be put as a proviso if the board does uh vote to approve this that they do work with us to make sure that uh the first floor unit is not in the uh flood zone.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put for a motion of um approval of the provisor for design review to ensure that um no livable spaces below the design flood elevation.

Is there a second?

Second Mr.

Stembry.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Lap.

Hang on.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewo.

Yes.

Ms.

Tarner.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

On next day.

Next, we have two companion cases.

The first is K BOA 181 33 29 with the address of 139 West Camp Street.

Along with that, we have case BOA 1813 17.

With the address of what also with the address of 139 Camp Street.

Would they please explain the case of the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

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

Also with me this morning is Joseph Connard from Connard Architects, the project architect.

We are seeking to renovate the existing structure at 139 West Canton Street and erect a roof deck as well as a rear deck.

The roof deck is proposed to be accessed by an internal stairs and through a hatch.

Just to give a little bit of background, the zoning subdistrict is an MFR.

This is an existing single family, and that occupancy will remain.

There's no change proposed to the occupancy.

And the lot is just over 1,100 square feet.

This property is in a series of row houses along West Canton Street between Warren Ave and Tremont Street.

The proposal includes, as I mentioned, renovation, predominantly an interior renovation of the existing single family structure, as well as erecting that new uh rear deck and roof deck.

Uh the project does include some exterior work to fix the facade and update some of the windows to bring the building back to its former condition.

Uh we are actively working with the South End Landmarks District Commission on that, and we'll need their approval for the exterior work should this board approve our proposal this morning.

Um we are seeking the relief for an extension into the rear yard as a result of the proposed rear deck.

Uh I would point out this rear deck has been aligned with uh the director butter's rear deck to promote consistency and will provide uh the homeowner some additional and much needed usable outdoor living space.

Uh we're also seeking relief for G COD as we are in a broadwater conservation overlay district uh due to the cost of a rehabilitation.

We submitted uh through water and sewer and uh submitted through the zoning board our no harm letter as well as the Boston Water and Sewer letter.

Uh finally, the roof deck as proposed does comply with zoning.

Uh however, we are seeking uh building code relief uh for a violation which was cited due to the fact that the access to the roof isn't proposed through a headhouse, it is proposed uh through that hatch, which is very typical.

As as the board knows a lot of the roof decks you see now, there is a trend to propose access via a hatch to not alter the profile of the building and and the neighborhood.

However, that does trigger the need for building code relief through this board.

Uh I would note we've also, as we scroll through the plans and get to the top level, we've uh set back the roof deck approximately seven feet from both the front and the rear to limit any impacts on the streetscape or or the rear.

Um in addition to the South End Landmarks District Commission, we've been in touch with representatives from Montgomery Park, which directly abuts us in the rear.

Uh they were supportive of the proposal and felt that the construction and plan was keeping a context with the neighborhood.

With that, I'll pause and take any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board hearing nine mayor public testimony?

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 139 West Canton Street, our opposite the first of the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including an abutter's meeting held on Thursday, March 12, 2026, that was well attended by South End community members, where some concerns were voiced about construction vehicles parking in uh parking spots and rodent mitigation.

Additionally, the proposal was also connected to the Ellis Neighborhood Association where they reviewed the plans and expressed that they did not to meet need to meet with the applicants regarding this proposal.

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

Thank you, Ever Thank you.

Okay, I think so.

Next, we have Christian Simonelli.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Seminoli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both Chi Card letters from the application and uh we have Ashley from Council Sophie's Flynn.

And we have Ashley from Councillor Sophie's Flynn.

Good morning.

My name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office.

Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

I don't see any additional hints raised at the moment.

Okay.

Any any other question is from the board?

Yeah, I have one quick question.

I'd like to know how how are you gonna handle the pocket of a construction vehicles?

Yeah, it's a it's a great question, and uh certainly this is can be a congested street, so we will be putting together a construction management plan.

Uh, and we'll be working with our abutters for any uh perceived disruptions.

Uh but we will be working hand in hand with our neighbors to make sure that we are uh not disruptive uh outside of what we have to do to access the the property.

Uh it's it's a fairly the majority of the work is interior and obviously the two decks.

Um so there shouldn't be much much disruption outside uh of the property, and there should only be uh one or two trucks you know per day max.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, may I have a motion?

Mom, should I make a motion on top of the wall?

Is there a second back at Mr.

Stunbridge?

Yes, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Y Yes.

Ms.

We will.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA, 1828, with the address of 149 Newbury Street.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board.

Skin Farm is a clinically focused cosmetology or cosmetic dermatology and medical spa that's funded by nurse practitioners.

And we provide clinic non-invasive treatments and professional skin care products.

Um we're just seeking approval to change the current occupancy of an existing third floor tenant space to accommodate our news.

Our services are appointment-based, low impact, and consistent with similar professional and health care oriented uses.

So we appreciate your consideration and we welcome any questions.

Any questions from the board?

Hearing public testimony.

Good morning, board members and Madam Chair Siggy Yotzler with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process of associated and abutters meeting on April 2nd, at which no concerns were raised.

The neighborhood association or the back bays in non-opposition to this application.

That background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Tony on behalf of Councillor Sharon Kirkin.

She'd just like to go on record in support of this proposal.

Thank you.

I don't see additional comments.

Okay.

Have a motion.

Okay.

Uh motion approved.

Madam Second.

Second.

Mr.

Stunbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Mr.

Murnell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck, ma'am.

Thank you so much, everyone.

Next, we have case BOA 182510 with the address of 154 to 170 Commonwealth Avenue.

If the applicant and with representative present, would they please fund the case of the board?

Hi, Mr.

Secretary.

Good morning.

Uh Madam Chairman's board.

This is Mike Ross, welcome to Prince Old Bell International Place.

I'm here with Denise Dennis Ferrandchi, the architect.

This is a tenant build-out only.

It's currently an existing medical office space that spans two floors, garden level and first floor.

It's accessible by a primary entrance off of Commonwealth Avenue.

The property you can go to the next slide.

Ambassador for people to look at.

Yeah, it's just a tenant build-out, so there's not there's not a lot there, but you know, you see it in front of you.

Um the property sits on the corner of Dartmouth and Commonwealth.

Uh it's known as the Vendome Building, um, well-known building in the back bay.

There are a number of commercial uses on the two bottom floors uh today, uh, in addition to this medical office, uh, as well as around over a hundred condominiums on the floors above.

Uh this proposal is for um uh a private club, uh, which is a conditional use, which in it within an H365, which would be dedicated to a fitness use fitness center.

Uh it'll contain several treatment rooms for uh traditional spa type services, two larger rooms for classes such as yoga uh and general fitness equipment, which will mostly be placed on the first floor.

There will also be a refreshment counter on the first floor and the locker rooms uh downstairs on the garden level.

Uh the appellant has worked very closely with the trustees of the Vendome building uh to work out things like hours of operation, the con agreed to not operate beyond 10 p.m.

You know, noise mitigation and the like as a result.

A letter of support was submitted by the trustees to the board.

Uh and um I'll pause there to see if there are any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

Hearing none, ma'am, the testimony.

Good morning, madam chair and board members C Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on March 23rd with some logistical questions.

No concerns were raised.

The neighborhood association of the back bays in non-opposition to this application with that background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Um, Councillor Drick and Wood like to go on record of support.

Next week.

The person with the name, if you can use it, please.

Yes, uh, Madam Chair, it devolved 160 Commonwealth Avenue.

Um, I've been a member of uh a resident of the building for over 10 years.

Um the trustees, as they said, have had many meetings uh alerting their residents, and um I am extremely supportive of this project.

I think it's gonna be a great addition to the neighborhood as well as our building.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next uh with a minor.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Rambasolo.

My line chair, members of the board.

This is Minor Bores, representing the Carpenter's Union.

On behalf of thousands of union members of Living War of the City of Boston, we want to go on regular support of this proposal.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Make Minzer Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association.

We're long-term supporters of the Quinn since day one.

The they've been a tremendous benefit to the neighborhood, and we appreciate um this minor change where they're moving the gym to a different location, and I very much appreciate that the Vendome is also in support of it.

That's super important to us.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, the unweditional commons.

Thank you.

Have a motion.

Second.

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Boncia, are you on you?

Yes.

Yeah, quite here.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Mr.

Bonell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you all.

Good.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 177 2580 with the address of 94 West Cedar Street.

If the applicant and other representative were present, will they please explain it?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitzmouth, Adams and Marancy, address of 168 H Street, first floor, South Boston.

Joining me today is the project architect Tim Johnson.

This is a proposal to change the use from an existing two-story commercial residential building to a five-story, six-unit residential building by way of a three-story addition.

The lot size is approximately 1,520 square feet within an H265 subdistrict on West Cedar Street.

The existing building sits on the lot lines with no front rear or even side yards.

The proposed project also falls within the groundwater conservation overlay district.

Applicant has provided both letters to the Boston Groundwater Trust.

If I can um turn over to page A101, please.

Basement will consist of just utilities.

Page A102, first floor will consist of a bike trash room located in the front of the building, along with a unit one, approximately 679 square foot studio.

A103, please.

Second floor will consist of units two and three, both one bedroom units, page A104.

Third and fourth floor will consist of units four and five, both duplex units with two bedrooms.

A106 is the fifth floor, which will consist of a two-bedroom.

This unit will also have an exclusive roof deck.

We have the following violations.

We have a flurry or ratio violation, maximum FAR is a 2.0.

The proposed addition would bring the FAR to a 4, but aligns with the FARs of the abutting buildings.

We have a side yard rear yard and projections into the rail yard violation.

All our pre-existing non-conformities, and despite no changes to the footprint of the building, we have been cited for such due to the vertical additions.

We have open space violation requirement in the subdistrict is 150 square feet per unit.

Despite being an existing non-conformity, the new proposal allows for small decks on the rear of the property to allow for some open space.

Lastly, we have a parking insufficiency.

The requirement is 0.7 per unit, and the proposal doesn't provide any parking.

But this neighborhood is in very close proximity to transit, is highly walkable, making it more aligned with the mayor's initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles.

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

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and board members with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office held an abutters meeting on September 22nd, 2025.

A concern was raised about the loss of a community amenity of commercial space for more housing, a concern about what was thought to be a large increase in the floor to area ratio and concerns about the type of masonry and other physical characteristics of the building.

The Beacon Hill Civic Association voted to oppose this application.

Our office understands they felt that the FAR was too substantial an increase for them to support.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Here on behalf of Councillor Sharon Dirkin.

So we spoke to the proponent.

We read the letter from BACA and then we spoke to the landmarks commission.

Um our office thinks that there is more work to do before going to the ZBA.

Um at this time, um, Councillor Dirkin defers to the judgment of the board.

Next we have Christin Simonelli.

Good morning, madam chair members of the board, Christian Seminoli, and we have both G-Card letters from the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Phillips Street.

Hi, my name is Andrew Henson.

I'm an abutter to this project and in great support of it.

No abutters that I have spoken to are in opposition to this project, and we can't figure out why the Beacon Hill Civic Association has gone the direction they have.

We are very disappointed in the counselor's office.

You were in support of that CVS project at a much worse location, and that developer gave you money to your coffers.

So we would suggest in this very specific case that you approve this project.

This um this developer has been nothing uh but operating in good faith with the neighbors, ensuring that they're all in line with the buildings, and they're offering a great building that we can see in dedicated housing on the hill, and we'd hope that you would see that the addition of the housing for this particular project is needed in the neighborhood, and that the abutters are in support of this project, despite what the um civic association thinks.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

What's your approval?

Is there a second?

Back back again.

Mr.

Sembridge.

Yep.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr.

Valencia.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

We'll Mr.

Murell.

Yes.

Chair Motes, yes.

The motion carries.

Come on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Members.

They'll still notice that this is my end.

The sound coming from your computer is breaking up.

I'll go to weeks.

Okay.

Thank you for letting me know.

It's probably my Wi-Fi.

I like everybody else's.

Next.

We have case BOA 183.

3689.

What's the address of 6971A Street?

This is an article 80 case.

And if the applicants can't do their representative case 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 a business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston.

I represent the petitioner, the Council on International Educational Exchange, or CIEE, with respect to this application to convert the second through the fourth floors of the existing building owned by CIEE and located at 69-71A Street in South Boston.

This would convert the occupancy from vacant office space to 24 residential units, while retaining the existing ground floor and basement gym and retail uses, the fifth floor office space and amenity area, and adding a new rooftop amenity area.

Joining me today are Mariella Ebrew and Matthew O'Connell of DBI Projects, the project manager, as well as Jack Moriarty, the project's permitting consultant.

Madam Chair members, I wish to start with a brief word about the petitioner because the nature of CIEE's mission is central to understanding why this project is before the board in the form that it is.

CIEEE is a nonprofit, non-governmental organization founded in 1947, just after World War II, with the mission of promoting international understanding through educational and cultural exchange.

They're widely known as the oldest and largest nonprofit international educational exchange organization in the country.

Over more than seven decades, CIEE has developed and administered study abroad internship and professional exchange programs operating in more than 30 countries and serving tens of thousands of participants annually.

They played a significant role in shaping the modern framework of international educational exchange, including their long-standing participation programs administered by the U.S.

Department of State's J1 visa program.

CIEEE as part of this project will be relocating its world headquarters to 69A Street in South Boston.

The project relates to the fully constructed five-story building at 69A Street, which sits upon a 17,749 square foot lot that is walking distance from Broadway Station on the red line.

The second through fourth floors, floors that have been substantially vacant or entirely vacant since the building was completed, would be converted to 24 residential units.

Nothing would change about the building's height, footprint, or gross floor area.

This is purely an interior change of occupancy with the addition of some rooftop amenity space.

These 24 units will not be rented to the general public.

These are recent graduates and young professionals from abroad who will be here in Boston on structured time-limited internship placements.

This residential use is thus tied directly to CIEE's educational mission.

It is supervide supervised housing for federally authorized exchange program participants.

The site was originally approved in 2016 for redevelopment into a commercial office building.

CIEEE acquired the property in 2018 with the attention of establishing its headquarters here.

They obtained approval for a revised project and constructed the building envelope, which was completed in 2021.

Then, of course, the COVID pandemic hit.

The intended office occupancy was materially disrupted with the disruption to the operations of CIEE and their business model, and the building has remained largely vacant above the ground floor.

In 2021, some members may remember that CIEE explored converting the building into a life science RD use.

That proposal went through a notice of project change but was ultimately denied by the ZBA.

The present application is the next chapter.

Rather than a new building program or expansion of the structure, CIE is proposing to activate the upper floors for a residential use that is directly connected to its core institutional mission with absolutely no changes in the building's height of footprint or expansion of gross floor area.

The variance is being sought arise from the change in occupancy, not from any new construction.

Converting office space to residential use triggers per dwelling unit dimensional and parking violations under Article 68 that did not apply to the previously approved commercial program.

Specifically, we're seeking board approval on three items.

One lot area per dwelling unit.

The deficiency arises entirely from introducing residential units into a building whose lot size and footprint are fixed.

Full compliance would require eliminating a substantial number of the proposed units.

This would undermine the viability of the project and defeat the reasonable use of the property.

This is a hardship that is not self-created, but is inherent in the fact that this is an existing building that was approved originally for non-residential use.

Second violation is insufficient usable open space.

And while the project might not meet the strict numerical standard of 200 square feet per dwelling unit, it might.

And what I mean by that is it will depend on the final design of the rooftop amenity space, which creates meaningful uh rooftop terrace space in the many amenity areas, providing functional and necessary outdoor space for the residents.

And finally, there's an off-street parking violation.

The building currently maintains an 18 space surface parking lot.

One of these spaces is going to be converted into an enclosed, secured and screened trash and recycling area, basically standard residential programming.

This will leave 17 spaces, parking spaces for the use of the building.

No additional parking can be added to the site, but this building is, as I mentioned at the top, located steps from Broadway Station on the red line.

And perhaps more significant, the residents here will all be exchange program participants who, by the nature of the Bridge USA program, will not be bringing private vehicles to Boston from overseas and are highly unlikely to be buying or even renting a motor vehicle during the periods of their internships, which range on an have an average length of approximately 11 months.

Additionally, the project will include a dedicated bike room with a minimum of 24 long-term covered and secured bicycle parking spaces.

The parking relief, therefore, is appropriate and is consistent with transit oriented development principles.

The city has been advancing for years.

Before I conclude, it is important that I address the inclusionary zoning requirements and how they apply to this proposed change of occupancy and future use.

Owing to the nature of that use, the building will not include on-site income restricted IZ units.

That's a departure from the standard framework, and I want to explain why.

These 24 units are reserved exclusively for bridge USA program participants and the on-site CIEE building manager.

The income eligibility and tenancy requirements for conventional IZ units are simply incompatible with this program structure.

This is not an effort to avoid an obligation.

Rather, it is a direct and understandable consequence of the mission-driven nature of this particular residential use.

In lieu of on-site affordable units and in full compliance with the requirements of Article 79 and as approved by the Mayor's Office of Housing, CIEE has committed to a one-time cash contribution of just under one million dollars to the city's inclusionary development fund to be used for the construction and preservation of affordable housing units across Boston.

Finally, the project has undergone comprehensive Article 80 review by the Boston Planning Department, including public notice and community input.

And on March 19th of this year, the BRA BPDA Board of Directors voted to approve this third notice of project change for this project and to recommend approval of the required zoning relief.

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

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Did you have a question?

I do.

I have two questions.

Um you said there are 17 parking spots.

How many how many staff members will work here?

Uh there will be uh some very good uh question, um uh Ms.

John of B.

Uh there will be one unit of this building for a dedicated CIEE building manager.

In terms of the office use on the fifth floor, uh that is a good point of distinction.

There will not be people in office cubicles working for CIE in the fifth floor.

Most work is conducted remotely around the world, actually.

The primary intended use for the fifth floor office area is for periodic meetings of the board of directors of CIEE that happen a few times per year, but there will not be a five-day week uh corporate presence there in terms of people, for example, working in cubicles.

It will only be periodically occupied and for, as I said, things like corporate meetings and board of directors meetings that are held periodically throughout the year.

Thank you.

And then my second question is what's the average length that someone will live here?

It's approximately 11 months, and it's uh it ranges from several months to sometimes a couple years.

Uh, there are currently CIEE program participants living all over Boston.

So this is not a new, this is not newly being introduced to the city.

It's just that these are people who are essentially private housing units uh uh distributed around the city.

So this provides an opportunity to have a dedicated residential use for the Boston program participants, and again, the average length, and that is across Boston and across the nation for that matter, is approximately 11 months uh for these business interns.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board caring none?

Mayor public testimony.

Yes, madam chair members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Service.

This is the Senate Mayor's Office to defer to the judge from this board.

Some background information on the community process as you're aware.

This went through a Boston planning led community process with the notice of change for the project starting their process uh in February of this year.

Uh I'm including the public meeting that was held on February 24th, um, as well as the solution uh soliciting public comments uh from residents.

Um these conversations were very positive.

We ended up receiving two letters of support uh that were uh glowing about um how this applicant and the representation has worked really closely with the community to explain what changes are being proposed and as well as engaging with direct abutters to make sure they're comfortable with this project.

Uh we receive those support letters from the West Broadway neighborhood as a association as some members of the Board of Trustees for Port 45, which is a neighboring building.

We're presently unaware of any concerns without deferred to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Consulate Flynn's office.

Morning, 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.

The team has worked closely in recent months with nearby civic groups and abutters to be responsive to any concerns and quality of life issues.

They have also worked in good faith to also provide a full-time live-in building manager on-site as well.

Councilor Flynn respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any quality of life issues.

Thank you.

Thanks.

We we have a minor pleasure.

Minor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Rambazalman, Chair members of the board.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Chair, I'll make a motion of approval.

There is second.

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett.

Oh.

Yes.

Chair Motes.

Yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 183.

Excuse me, 65 with the address of 87 Heath Street.

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

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

For the record, my name is Richard Lindz, I'm attorney with a business address of 245 Summer Street in East Boston.

On behalf of the petitioner, Carlos Arias.

With me is Nick Landry from DRT, who's our project architect.

Mr.

Ambassador, we can jump right down to slide three.

That traditionally is held a mix of industrial commercial and residential uses.

I'm not sure if we can get down to slide three, Mr.

Ambassador.

Next slide, please.

Perfect.

So in connect for the creation of this new lot, the proponent is proposing to construct a new 14-unit multifamily residential building.

This will include uh two inclusionary zoning units as required by Article 79 of the code.

The project also proposes to include a total of seven off-street parking spaces located at grade.

The units for this project will range in size from anywhere from 760 square feet up to about 1800 square feet.

If we can jump down to slide four, just to give the board an idea of the context, the surrounding neighborhood, as you can see here, Heat Street does have a commercial industrial building located immediately adjacent to our site.

In addition, there's a relatively newer multifamily residential building located at the corner.

So it's a good place to stop right here.

So just a street view illustrating the uh vacant condition of the lot.

Uh our client is the owner of uh the vacant area as well as the building immediately adjacent.

Uh and as I indicated, this involves a redivision of the lots to create a new lot for the proposed structure.

If we can jump down to slide 10, I can review the zoning relief that's necessary.

Slide 10, please.

Perfect.

Um, so Madam Chair members of the board, this property actually straddles two zoning subdistricts.

We have the 3F 2000 district for Mission Hill as well as a local industrial subdistrict.

Uh because we are within two zoning districts.

Uh Article 6 uh relief is necessary, so a conditional use permit is being requested with respect to having the property in two zoning districts.

Uh regardless, uh ISD applied the more restrictive zoning to this this uh area based upon how uh transitional zoning is applied under the Boston Zoning Code.

Uh so we are operating under the controls for the 3F 2000 district.

Um, so we do require relief from several provisions of Article 59.

Uh and beginning with off-street parking, our proposals includes seven spaces, which is less than the one space per unit as required in Article 59.

Uh, I will note that uh in the recommendation uh which was for approval by the planning department, uh they do cite that this uh locations in close proximity to rapid transit and bus lines, including the Jackson Square um uh transit stop, which is in relatively close proximity.

Uh planning department believes this would be appropriate for a reduction in the minimum required parking, and certainly they felt that the seven parking spaces being proposed was appropriate for this development.

I would add that we do include uh bike storage room at grade as well, which is located just outside of the garage.

Uh, within the 3F2000 and MFR multifamily use, uh, anything more than three units is a forbidden use.

However, once again, the planning department recognizes the character of this section of Heat Street includes uh a mix of the multifamily uh type uses.

There is commercial and industrial as well, and they uh believe that this would be an appropriate uh use for this location.

Uh, with respect to the height in the FAR, uh, in both instances, uh, this project would exceed the maximum allowed under Article 59.

Uh, we are proposing an overall height all the way to the top of the elevator over under 59 feet.

Uh total of 40 feet is allowed uh with respect to the FAR 2.0 is the max.

We have a 2.98.

Uh once again, the planning department uh's recommendation views these as acceptable uh for this area because it is consistent with the planning goals for the city, uh especially with respect to future planning and modifications along this corridor of Mission Hill for Heat Street.

Uh lastly, with respect to the rear yard open space and the buffering requirements, the planning department also recommended relief for this based upon the location and size of the project.

Uh they did note that the 10-foot setback in the rear, uh, although was less than the minimum required, uh, was appropriate based upon the spacing for light and air.

In addition, they did uh note that the uh open space uh which can be achieved through balconies, roof decks, etc., uh, should be looked at in connection with the uh design review that would be proposed as part of any approval.

Uh we can jump to slide 11, please.

I'm gonna ask Nick Landry to very quickly just go over the materials and design uh so we can talk a little bit about what this building would look like uh from uh from their perspective.

Nick, if you could just jump in quickly on that, that would be helpful.

Great, thank you, Richard.

Um good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Nick Landry from GRT.

Um so on the left hand side here, we're looking at the front elevation.

We're gonna have a um full face of black or dark brick kind of from the bay windows down.

Um that's where you'll see the residential entry on the left, the garage door in the center, and then the um there's a bike entrance kind of hidden behind a tree on the right.

The both of the bays will the the plan is of the um either some sort of um cement board material uh with any black material or possibly aluminum, and the windows will all be black uh two over two in the in the center.

And we intend to work with design review on on both of those details.

The rear elevation, you can see we have um uh lot of glass in the center, the decks on either side.

All of the units have some sort of access to outdoor space, whether it's a deck or um the units in the front have um Juliet balconies on the sides.

Perfect, thanks.

Um quickly, I'll just run through the plans.

If we can you go to slide 13, Mr.

Ambassador.

Uh so this is our proposed uh site plan showing uh the rediffision of the lots uh with respect to the location of the building.

Uh, as you can see, we do meet the side yard setbacks in both instances.

A minimum would be five feet or a little above five feet for both.

Uh, we do propose a modal alignment for the front of the building.

So, although uh the front setback may vary based upon uh where the location would be, uh we do intend to align this building uh consistent with the modal setbacks for that section of Heat Street.

Next slide, please.

Jump next slide, please.

Uh one more.

Just our architectural site plan uh showing the orientation of the building as it relates to heat with the entrance off to the right.

Uh we have that uh garage entrance off to the right with the total of seven parking spaces located beneath the building to grade.

We do identify areas uh around the building that would be available for permeable space as well as some buffering.

Again, I know that was a specific concern of the planning department, and we're certainly happy to work with them through design review to address any buffering concerns or questions they might have.

Next slide, please.

Uh we just have the floor plans illustrated.

If we have any specific questions on that, we can always get back to that.

I'll be jumping down to slide 22 just to incorporate the uh elevations into the presentation.

Slide 22, Mr.

Ambassador.

Perfect.

As you can see here, the elevations we do show that the garage space is located towards the rear.

As you can see, there is somewhat of a great separation between Heat Street and the back of the property.

Uh we do have that as an open condition under the back of the building.

However, that is identified as the parking area, just so that the board can see where that's located.

Uh again, as I mentioned, the height, uh, although we are in excess of the 40 feet that is allowed, uh, planning believes that is uh acceptable height based upon future planning objectives for this section of Heat Street.

Um I believe that said I can pause there, uh Madam Chair, if there's any specific questions, we do have reference to other plans if there's any specific questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, Madam Chair.

With the lens figure, I think I'll think of 79, the IVP.

Could you clarify the game?

What are the titles of the conversations about the IDP units that uh the project would make uh continuation for?

Yes, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Lancey, so the requirements under Article 79 is that 17% or at least 17% of the floor space would need to be uh dedicated to uh I Z units.

Uh that comes out to 2.38.

Uh we will uh because it's less than 2.5.

Uh we will commit to the two units as required article 79, and the balance of the 0.38 uh would be paid into the affordable housing fund uh as required by article 79.

Thank you.

And for what incomilos could be those units.

Um so if this were a rental building, the average AMI would have to be 60 percent.

I believe we are proposing home ownership at this time.

Uh so it's a range between uh we need 100% AMI.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board members see the answer with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on September 18th, 2025, at which a number of attendees expressed opposition to the proposal for reasons that included not enough parking being provided.

Which units would have the parking assigned to them that a new curb cut would eliminate currently existing public parking on Keith Street, concerns about rodents on the parcel and desire for more affordability.

The applicants met with the community alliance of Mission Hill, which is supporting this application with that background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Tony Bays from Kozul Durka.

Good morning, madam chair.

Um Councillor Jerkin would like to go and support this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Okay, we have minor credits.

Thank you, Mr.

Rombazo.

With a carbon or senior, we'd like to vote on record and support of the project.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no determinable comments at the moment.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Yeah.

Motion.

I'll make a motion.

Oh, that's right.

I'll make a motion of approval with a proviso.

Um that plans be submitted to the planning department for design review uh with respect to the usable open space buffering and the proposed year rear yard depth as well as um the housing agreement to be executed by the mayor's office of housing.

Is there a second now?

Second.

Mr.

Snebridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair World.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have next we have case BOA 1810466 with the address of 94 to 96 St.

Mark's Road.

If the applicant and the representative president would they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address of Ten Fords Road and Braintree.

I'm here today on behalf of Ray Butler and 94 to 96 St.

Mark's Road in Dorchester.

The proposal before you is to uh construct a to extend an existing curb cut uh to allow for two off street parking spaces for 94 to 96 St.

Mark's Road, and then to legalize an existing third floor unit.

Um so uh you can just uh scroll through the plans, uh Mr.

Ambassador.

Um there is no construction to take place on the project other than uh a new uh these are existing floor plans.

So that the first floor is a unit, the basement is currently storage out or remain storage.

Next slide, please.

Um again, second and third floors.

The third floor unit exists that way, uh, and it has existed that way uh since prior to Mr.

Butler purchasing it.

He's always operated it as a two-unit building.

Um, but we we are here to legalize it today as a three-unit building.

This is our existing building section and roof plan, and then uh the existing elevations.

Uh next slide, please.

So here's our proposed site use plan again, extending the existing curb cut, our abutter is a corner lot, uh, so there's no parking from that curb cut to the corner.

So at that extent, we are able to get two parking spaces to the rear of the property.

We are aware of the BPDA's recommendation for approval with design review uh with attention to the parking layout.

We're happy to work with the BPD on that.

Um next slide, please.

So again, that's our architectural site use plan there.

Next slide.

The building itself remains exactly the same.

There's no interior construction to take place.

On the roof of the second floor, which is this plan right here for the porch, we're going to add a small balcony for unit two just to create a little bit of outdoor space towards the front of the property.

But that's the only change to the exterior of the building.

We will be adding a full fire alarm and fire sprinkler system.

And that just shows the front elevation and side elevation there.

Show the addition of the small balcony.

And that's it.

With that, we held an abundance meeting with the project received support, and uh the same accent association provided support as well.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing that public channel.

Pastor Horning.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Abbott Jones representing the mayor's office in Neighborhood Services.

Regarding 94 to 96 St.

Mark's Road, our office refers to the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on Monday, March 2nd, 2026.

That was attended by two Dorchester community members where the feedback they gave was supportive, and they mentioned some struggles with parking in the neighborhood, but we're happy to see a plan that helps alleviate these issues, and by someone who has been a good neighbor to them.

The proposal was connected with the St.

Mark's Area Civic Association where they expressed that a vote was taken, resulting nine in support and zero in opposition.

All of Butters present, including non-members were also in support.

Additionally, six letters of support were submitted by direct abutters who are unable to attend the civic association meeting.

As a result, the civic association is in support of this proposal and provided a formal email submitted to the board.

At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment on this matter.

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Madam Chairman, no additional comments.

Okay.

May I have a motion?

Are you adding the provisals from the planning department?

Yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry about that.

Yes.

Okay, so to review uh uh uh with attention to redesigning parking layout and to preserve existing trees.

Is there a second?

I'm sorry.

Seconds.

That's all thank you.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Barnell, Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you for your time.

Next, we have KOA.

170 39 37 with the address of 2 to 8 Dyer Street.

If the applicants and those are representative are present, will they approve this one?

I think this is off the window.

We have you now.

Yes, sir.

Okay, great.

Okay, Mr.

Ambassador, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Joseph Mooner.

I'm the principal design group architects.

Dyer Street.

Can we go to the next slide, please?

This project actually was a single this parking was originally a single parcel, approximately 6,926 square feet on the corner of Capan and Dyer Street.

12 Kapan, which is the building to the left, is it's been renovated and the subdivision.

And that project has been sold.

We are now talking about the new parcel to the right, which is approximately 3,416 square feet.

Well, we plan on constructing a four-unit townhouse with approximate total area of around 9,500 square feet on a 2,300 300 square foot footprint.

Um we are providing uh ground floor parking which with two car garages and a tandem configuration across across that.

Uh we will flag for parking on the zoning violation, which one well five is required.

We actually these garages are able to accommodate two, so I don't know specifically why we're flagged on that.

Um but you can see that the you those are standard sized cars that can't fit inside there.

Uh next slide, please.

Um we will then have three stories um on top of that, which will include four bedrooms, two and a half baths with rooftop decks.

Um this is family style housing, and again, we're we're trying we're trying to maximize the number of bedrooms inside this to for this project to um basically accommodate uh family uh families in the area.

Um next slide, please.

Keep going.

We've got to go to the elevations.

Okay.

Um you can see the parking on the lower level.

Um it's a contemporary style building with a combination of holy law and vertical sliding with a lot of windows along along the dire street facade because of the proximity to the side yard, the amount of windows is very much limited.

Um, but we feel it's an attract an attractive building for the building to the neighborhood.

Um it provides much needed family housing inside the city of Boston, and I'll be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing that may have public testimony.

Good morning, madam, madam chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bembery.

I am the Jochester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abodes meeting held on January June 24th, during which no aborts were in attendance.

Next the proposal is presented to the redefining our community organization on September 18th, complete of the community process.

Following this the organization requested a point of return for a second presentation, the opponent firmly have satisfied the civic aspect of the community process, declined, after which the civic association issued a position in opposition to the proposal.

Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services.

Would like to defer to the board for the future.

Thank you.

And then two, we don't have a leash on hands for a set of the movement.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

I actually do have a question.

Yes, ma'am.

Um so there's a note from the planning department that this should be in line with the um the neighboring buildings.

Can you just show on the site plans once again what the what that looks like?

Please go back to the slide.

Thank you.

Okay, the first second slide in the helpful.

Yeah, we don't have uh a modal set.

Um there's a rendering um separate slide.

I'm wondering if that can be pulled up.

Um no, it's a it's a separate file.

I don't know if it's in the presentation here when we submitted it to zoning.

But they're not they're not in line with the neighboring buildings.

Oh no, they're not.

Okay, thank you.

Do you I do you know what the the distance is from the property line to the building?

The property line to the building.

Um we are right now about two and a half feet.

This is on Cape or on Dyer.

On Dyer.

And Dy.

And the two and a half feet is to uh this actually can you go to the next slide, slide number three?

So I should point out that's the cantilever condition.

Let's go to the next slide over.

The two and a half feet is actually at the upper floor.

You can see how the cantilever is over on the angle.

Okay.

So you so you have uh a larger setback on the larger setback along along the front.

Okay.

So if you go back to the first slide, you'll see how it's offset for the parking.

That's approximately six feet.

Okay.

Other questions on this or anything else.

Okay, are we ready for a motion?

Yeah, madam chair.

Yeah, Madam Chair, uh like to put a motion of approval with a provisor that no relief be granted for the front yard so that uh front yard that so we uh there is at least a front yard of five feet on dire street we have no objection okay may I have a second second Mr.

Stambridge Yes Mr.

Valencia Yes Mr.

Langham Yes.

We will Ms.

Turner yes Mr.

Vernell Yes Chair Most Yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

Are you you're on mute, Mr.

Stembridge?

Okay, let me try this again.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh this is case BOA 180 0604 with the address of four Adams Street.

This is a mayor who offers housing housing project.

And if the applicant and their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Allen Zimmerancy, address of 168 H Street, first floor, South Boston.

Uh joining me today is the applicant, Reggie Woods, as well as the project architect Jacob Levine.

This was a mayor's office of housing property where an RFP was issued, and Mr.

Woods was awarded the parcel.

The proposal is to raise the existing structure and erect a new three-story, three-unit residential building on a 6,001 square foot lot located within a 2F5000 sub-district.

This triggers the need for insufficient lot size as this proposal is considered in other use which requires an 8,000 square foot lot rather than the 5,000 square foot typical requirement.

It has also resulted in a use violation, but the relief being sought is very similar to the lot sizes and density patterns in this area.

Further, the site is located adjacent to Clary Square and commuter rail, which makes it well suited to accommodate additional housing.

Unit one will be located on the first floor, consisting of approximately 1,391 square foot two-bedroom unit.

Unit two will be located on the second floor, consisting of approximately 1,414 square feet, another two-bedroom unit.

Unit three will be located on the third floor, consisting of approximately 1,414 square feet, which will be a three-bedroom unit.

Each unit will also have a small deck located in the front in the rear of the building that is set within the building itself.

We have the following additional violations.

We have a floor error ratio violation, the maximum is a 0.5, and the proposal calls for approximately a 27, which is aligned with many of the other neighboring buildings.

We have a height violation both in feet and stories.

A three-story building is consistent in this area with many of the other triple daggers.

We have a side yard and rear yard violation, 40-foot rear yard and the 10-foot side yard is the minimum.

The proposal calls for 36 feet in the rear and 15.5 feet on the side.

And on the other side, it is five feet.

But consistent with other neighboring properties, such as 6 Adams Street, 16 Adams Street, and as well as 1426 River Street, just to name a few.

Parking via insufficiency, two parking spaces required per unit, and the proposal provides one parking space per unit again, which aligns with the mayor's initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles in a neighborhood that is very close to transit.

At this point, Madam Chair, I'm gonna pause for any questions or comments from the board.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yes, I do have a question.

Mr.

Spitz, I believe there was a question uh a letter submitted by uh the accessibility commission in regards to accessibility of the first floor unit.

Uh is there any plans to to make sure that the first goal unit is accessible?

I am not aware of the letter as such.

But I'm sure, you know, if if it, you know, I mean, if you want to make a couple of statements, and hopefully I can just try to help address it.

Yeah, I um I'm sorry, I don't I don't I don't have it available to me right right now.

I I think I did notice that, but you know, to typically a building this size would require the first floor unit to be accessible.

I mean, we're happy to work together with that accessibility letter.

Uh, we do have the project architect here as well.

So again, you know, further in the process itself, again, we're we're happy to work together in addressing the accessibility.

Uh what what uh what Andres is referring to, excuse me, is that the disabilities commission says the building entrance, the building entrance is not accessible since it is a three-unit building, a common entrance and the ground floor unit must be accessible, and then it cites the um the um what what uh where that comes from.

Great.

No, we're happy we're happy to comply you know with the credit request.

Um we do have Jacob Levine here if if you would like some input on the possibility of how he could make it um more accessible as well.

He would just have to be elevated as a panelist.

I believe he's under SL House.

I'm here.

Thank you, Ryan.

Uh, my name is Jacob Levine.

My address is 27 Congress Street.

Um, and I'm the owner architect on the project for SL Haas Group.

We were working with Carl Heckmave from the Mayor's Office of Housing.

He's one of the city architects on the project, and he was asking essentially to have the first floor be accessible with a long walk or a ramp.

Um, so he was looking at either a one to 20 ramp or a one to twelve ramp.

So he wanted us to lower the first floor entry to 18 to 24 inches.

I had it originally about three feet above grade, and we never actually discussed though the first floor unit itself being a uh ADA qualified unit or handicap ready in the future unit.

Uh, we just discussed that the main entry itself into the building be accessible uh via a ramp instead of steps, and that would actually set the building back further, which was something else that we were kind of talking about.

Um just one other thing to note working with with Carl was also the uh height of the building.

He he actually proposed the gable being a little bit uh taller, so that's how we ended up on the 39 feet over the 35 feet.

So the entryway being at uh at a slope ramp up was coming from the city.

And that is all they're mentioning as far as I can tell.

So great.

But again, you know, just to show you we'll continue to work on the accessibility issues.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board.

May I have public testimony?

Yes, madam chair, members of the board, but calling them with the mayor's office of neighborhood services.

This time the mayor's office would like to go on record in support of this proposal.

Some background information in the community process, uh, ONS conducting a butters meeting on January 7th.

Uh, there were some abutters who raised concerns regarding uh the proposed parking ratio and also worried about the proposed density, uh might be a burden on the electrical grid.

Uh, there was also a neighbor on that meeting who voiced support for the proposal.

Uh, prior to the abutters meeting MOH had solicited feedback from abutters in the fall of 2024 and also put out an RFP for this parcel.

Uh we understand that the HPNA voted in opposition to proposal citing concerns regarding the electrical capacity as well.

However, we feel these type of income restricted units are going to be positive uh addition for the Hyde Park neighborhood and ensure that families are gonna have uh an opportunity to own these properties uh and contribute to the community.

Um we also feel that improvements continue to be made uh throughout the city, uh boosting the electrical grid.

Um, and we do not worry that capacity will be a long-term issue.

Um, at this time, Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services like to reiterate their support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

I don't see any short comments.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put a motion of approval with proviso that the proponent works with uh planning to accommodate all their accessibility requirements.

Is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Tembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

I see you.

I just didn't hear a yes.

Yes, Mr.

Burkle.

Thank you.

Chair votes, yes, the motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have two companion cases.

The first is case BOA.

180, 77, 67, with the address of 1904 River Street.

Along with that, we have case BOA, 180763, with the address of 1900 River Street.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Pugini here on behalf of this proposal in 1900-1904 River Street in High Park.

With me this morning is Lucio Trubuco, who is the project architect.

We want to thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal.

I'll go over a brief uh overview and then turn it over to Lucio.

Uh the existing lot at 1900-1904 River Street holds two one and a half story multifamily residential buildings with each containing eight units.

Uh they are one bed, one bath, and with 14 off off uh street parking spaces.

The proposal before you is to change the occupancy of each of these buildings from eight to twelve units.

This will be accomplished by adding one story addition upon uh the two buildings with four units to be located in the new floor.

The building itself presents as a one and a half story building, it's a bi-level building.

Those old buildings, when you walk in, you can either walk down or walk up.

All the new units uh contemplating this project will also be one bed, one bed, one bath, and the footprints of these buildings will remain as they currently are today.

Uh additionally, with this proposal, we'll uh create 10 additional off-street parking spaces, so that will allow one-to-one uh parking ratios.

The proposal allows for increase of much needed housing, and the developers able to accomplish this with no prolonged displacement.

The rent at these two buildings are actually lower than IVP units.

The only strategy is to avoid vacancies by uh providing lower than market rate rents.

The plan is to renovate each building separately so the building residents will be allowed to remain while the other one building uh is being worked on.

Luckily, between the owner having other properties in this area as well as other colleagues of his, we can temporarily relocate the tenants and then bring them back when the work is completed.

He's owned this building for 26 years.

Uh some it has all the units have to be refreshed.

So this proposal will allow for the rehabilitation of the existing units uh as well.

Just want to go over.

We have uh provided this board with the uh the only three were on a corner of Ernest Street and River Street.

The only three of others have all signed letters of support of this proposal, um, as well as the Boston Planning Department has recommended approval with uh housing agreement and design review.

At this point, I'll just turn it over to Lucio Trubuco just to go through the plans, and we're happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thanks again.

I don't know if he's a panelist, uh Jesus.

Is he do you see him on?

What is the name again?

Let me uh Lucio Trabuco Yes, Lucio.

You are allowed to speak now.

You can unmute yourself.

Thank you very much.

What can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

Yes, sorry.

Sorry.

No, I'm just I guess I can't see me on the screen.

That's why I was a little bit concerned.

I apologize.

Um good morning.

Um yes, the project says in the existing uh condition right now is basically two at one and a half stories, two and one and a half stories structures containing 16 units.

Uh the units are one bedroom units, one bed, uh, and there are roughly 550 square foot each.

Um the it's a brick linear building which then the you know sliding windows.

Uh the site uh needs a lot of uh upgrade as well as the the existing units of upgrade.

So part of the project uh is to upgrade all the units, uh, landscape, provide new landscape, as well as adding two uh one floor in each structure consisting of four units, 500, the same configuration, same footprint of the existing uh units uh for each building, and also introduce uh uh eighth roof, which is basically the same A proof that uh exists there right now on the the existing buildings.

Uh the new the new structure will be around uh 34 32 feet from the peak of the roof to the grade um and it'll be two and a half it'll consist of two and a half uh uh floors of uh residential structures.

Um the the elevations, I mean if you can go to the rendering.

I mean, the I can you know just show basically that what we're proposing, there'll be the the the one of the last slides, please.

I think he wants you to keep going.

I'm sorry.

That's it's near the near the end.

Just did the rendering so that you can visualize our proposal.

Yes, yeah, that's fine, that's fine.

No, the other one.

Yeah, that one.

Uh so basically again, this existing brick veneer uh with there will remain.

Uh, we'll introduce a stone band to cap you know to to end the brick veneer, and then above that would be a bottom uh board embedded lost system.

Um just to cap the building and uh just distinguish, you know, differentiated between the base building as well as the top building.

Again, the roof would be a hip roof, as far as shingles, uh be all new windows, uh the existing will be replaced on the existing as well as in new windows on the new.

Uh so it'll be except total upgrades of all the units in addition to that uh top floor addition.

So any questions on the I do have a question.

Do you are you is there any uh uh landscape work or that is kind of that is being done, or is the existing uh asphalt paving stain as it is?

There is asphalt paving, but also if you see along the river streaming in between the units, uh there'll be additional landscaping.

Um so they'll you know, there'll be landscaping on you know, in be in between the units, the courtyard, as well as along uh River Street.

Uh, the also the other thing we're doing, they proposing a screen, this is electric meters, which is basically uh it's kind of uh uh vent to find a nice word for it, but we'll provide a screen so that there will be you know uh away from the view of the uh street.

That would be part of the you know, part of the construction as well.

Any other questions from the board?

Yes, um, and some of the letters of opposition and they cited issues with trash.

Can you walk us through how you manage trash for this complex?

Thank you for that question.

So that came up at the uh the abutters meeting.

And one thing I will say, you know, working with the neighbors, we have all the abutters who would be impacted by any sort of trap trash or rodents supporting this project.

This property located, I don't know if you guys know the area, it's uh located on the corner of Earnest and River Street, almost on the high park databine.

Directly across the street is a strip mall, uh which has a um a commercial strip mall which has a restaurant in it.

So there was some dispute of where any of this is originating.

But what we've done is we have uh push the trash to uh one side where it will be contained inside a uh a smaller tight dumpster that will be secure so that there will not be any possibility that anything is associated with this proposal.

Thank you.

Oh, you're welcome.

Yeah, thank you.

One uh additional comment from the neighbors.

There is concern about existing tenants within the housing during the renovations.

You mentioned that there is a commitment to keep the tenants in place or move them to uh temporal space and bring them back.

Yes, create a commitment.

Are you not going to create any displacements?

No, no, so that's our plan.

It's a very good question.

We have, and I think I put that in my initial um presentation.

These tenants have been with him a long time.

They're below market rates, rents, um, and so what he wants to do is upgrade them, move them out temporarily.

That's why we have a plan to do one building first where those tenants can remain, then when the other one is, they can move over to the new building, and then the other people can move back in.

So, yes, we are working with them.

There'll be five uh a minimum of five-month notice to them.

They're all tenant at will, but they're all invited back, and he will assist them in finding housing as I stated between other properties that he owned in the area and as well as other of his colleagues that own property.

Thank you.

And you also will be uh making a contribution of at least one affordable unit to the unit of housing.

Correct.

Totally uh an affordable unit as well as a significant contribution to the IDP fund.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, may we have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board of record, my name is Jeremy Bembery.

I'm the Hyde Park Community Change Agent Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutter's reading held on February 19th, where a few concerns were raised about us expressed dissatisfaction with the current condition of the property, citing issues with maintenance, including overflowing dumpsters and trash extended onto neighborhood properties.

A butters expressed dissatisfaction with the current condition of the property, citing issues with maintenance, including overflowing dumpsters and trash extended onto neighborhood properties.

Concerns were also raised regarding ongoing rodent activity attributed to improper waste management.

But the butter is indicating that the area is already impacted by ongoing construction.

They said that construction related to the proper proposal may further limit parking availability and that the proposed one-to-one parking ratio may contribute to continued congestion after the project completion.

Next proponent presented the High Carbon Neighborhood Association on March 5th, where they voted to oppose the proposal.

To date, our office has received two letters of support and one letter of opposition from High Park Neighborhood Association.

The association maintained the aborted oppositions with an additional concern regarding tenant displacement.

Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services.

Next we have my note for this.

So I stated, my main two I got two concerns, one of them being uh the rats and rodents, and uh the current lawyer stated that they might be uh coming from those strips.

But um, I just had I've been having an exterminator coming to my property uh since about November, December, and uh he just came last week and we found about four new boroughs, boroughs that are leading to that dumpster because the dumpster dumpsters always overflowing with trash, and um not only the dumpster, but every time I've walked my dog around that property, there's trash in the front of the building, the one that's currently on uh River Street, and then um they're proposing 10 parking spots behind uh the one closest to me, and I'm I'm looking at it right now, and there's no way they could put 10 parking spots there unless they're taking land away from the property that's in between those two buildings and my house, which um if I'm not mistaken, um the owner that's wants to do this project also owns that property.

So uh right now they have what is it, 12 tenants?

Those 12 tenants, there's one that always parks on the sidewalk, which is illegal.

So I'm pretty sure one bedroom right nowadays, a lot of how households usually have two vehicles.

That's not gonna be enough parking.

So um usually I've had uh tenants from there park on my on my sheet, which is a private way, which is in communities for me now because I have to find parking elsewhere.

But um my business issue.

Can you wrap up the concerns?

Go ahead, I'm done.

Can I just address that just quickly, uh, Madam Chair?

Sure, I just want to focus on your own.

Are there any other res?

Okay, go.

Okay.

Um, with respect to the rodent issue, the um uh that was brought up initially at the abutters meeting by another resident.

And the person who lives directly behind us with above the fence, that is uh she has submitted a letter of support for this proposal.

We have a uh rodent remediation plan in place and we'll continue with that and continue to work with the abutters as well as the city.

And the parking issue mentioned parking, it's one-to-one parking, right?

I mean, it's it is that you know it's in total alignment with the city's goals of reducing um uh auto dependency and one-to-one parking.

If I do this we're an article of any process project, it would not even allow anybody to probably get to one-to-one and never mind exceeding it.

It's just a uh hypocrisy uh two to one parking ratio under the current zone.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

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

Any turn.

So uh are we talking about the uh the provisos as well or just approval?

I I'm asking if we oh I'm sorry, I add with provisos.

Um that the housing agreement be issued prior to issuing permits and plans being submitted to the planning department for design review um of the parking design.

You want to add Mr.

Brunell anything about of the uh green space you concerned about screening about from the uh what Ms.

Turner said is it's the first okay.

Then may I have a second second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

We will.

Ms.

Ernell, yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chairman's yes, the motion carries.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Next we have case BOA.

One eight one, two four, three four.

What's the address of three four to three ninety orange street?

If the applicants and/or they're representative.

Hi, good morning.

Madam Chair and in the board.

My name is Patricia Patricia Pailino.

And we are hoping that today you will allow a change of occupancy to include body out in a body art in our hair salon, which will allow us to offer permanent makeup services only.

Not tattooing.

Any questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and board member Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant has completed the community process or office of oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all abutters which solicited no comments to our office.

The West Roxbury neighborhood council is supporting this application.

That background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

May I have a motion?

Ma'am Child Board, a motion of approval.

Ma'am second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair Boltz, yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck, ma'am.

Thank you very much.

Okay, with that, uh, we will take a break until one thirties.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Present, Madam Chair.

Mr.

Valencia.

Mr.

Langham.

Present, Madam Chair.

Ms.

Wewell.

Present, Madam Chair.

Ms.

Turner.

I yeah.

Oh.

Sorry, present.

Thank you.

Mr.

Murno.

Present.

Thank you.

Back to you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We'll now go to the rediscussion schedule for eleven thirty AM.

Uh we'll ask at this time if there's any request for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame.

Uh yes, we'll be seeking a deferral for one eighty-three Saint Patol Street.

Oh, right into the record, sorry.

Yeah, that's okay.

Um, so this request will be for KOA one seven four one seven seven seven with the address of one eighty three Saint Patal Street.

Yes, would you go ahead and fly?

Uh yes.

Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Justin Burns.

I'm an attorney with Pulgenia and Norton Business Address Ten Forbes Road, Braintree Mass.

Uh, we'll be seeking a deferral for this project as we are in an ongoing discussion with landmarks as to some design components of the project, as we have been for the past few months.

We believe that we are currently moving in the right direction, might have um settled the issue soon, but we just need another month or two um to iron out the final details of that process.

A month or two?

Um suggest I look more for June, July or August.

Um just to give ourselves a bit of a runway.

Can we can we do July?

Yeah, we have July fourteenth or July twenty eighth.

We'll do July twenty eighth.

Okay, okay.

Mr.

Stambridge.

Mr.

Malencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Lionham.

Yes.

We will miss turn.

Yes.

Mr.

Reno.

Yes.

Yes, the motion carries you then.

Thank you all.

If you have no further request for withdrawals and deferral from eleven thirty, then we will go to case BOA one seven nine.

Yes, I believe my architect is uh is joining now.

I think he's so punally now.

Yeah.

If you can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

These people.

Thank you.

I think the camera is a little dark here.

I'm gonna turn around and get a little bit better light.

So sorry about that.

Sorry.

Hello everyone.

Thank you for uh having us today.

Um I want to say thank you to Chairman of the Board.

Um so this project is uh it's a five-unit building, and uh we're proposing uh where we'll have uh uh one unit on the ground floor, which is elevated a little bit so we can provide parking in the back of the building, and the other two floors will have to uh um four you four units, two in two units on each floor.

This project, the the units are basically identical with two bedrooms, two baths, about a thousand square feet.

Um we try to keep the building in terms of height comparable to the to many of the buildings that we see on the streets.

Um there are there are a lot a lot of large tree families uh that are possibly maybe the same the same height and scale.

Uh we we we we have we are dealing with a with a slope where uh where we will I think when we when we get to uh final uh permitting that we may need to make some adjustments to, but I think what what we're doing here is uh okay, thank you.

So as I this is the segment showing the unit on the ground floor and the parking being provided uh uh and the in the back inside of the building by by by using the current curve card and and and and going to the back for parking.

Here are the units on the on the ground floor, two bedrooms, two baths, and the upper floors with two floors two and three, identical again, two bedroom, two baths.

And these are the elevations elevation on Bullden Street and elevation on Ballard Street.

Right now, so we have weirdness.

Sorry, there's there was a note here.

Um if you can go in the last in the very last page.

Okay, these pages show some rendering that we did kind of show the scale of the building, height facing to the neighborhood.

There are a lot of flat roof buildings.

As a matter of fact, there's a building right next door to us, kind of on the back of a building, which is a much larger uh apartment building, but that's but in terms of uh but in terms of height, our building would probably be uh slightly smaller, while at the same time, maybe being in the same scale as the building across the street.

Uh, you can see those wood frame uh three families across the street uh that uh prevalent uh to our neighborhood.

And uh and the final slide is just a foot elevation of the building on buttons.

Actually, that'll be on Bowland Street.

Thank you.

With that, we'll be open to any questions that you may ask.

Questions from the board here and then we'll take public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bembery.

I am the judge of the community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process with consistent of an abundance meeting held on December 4th, as well as a civic meeting with the Mount Odin Betriment Civic Association.

The civic and the neighbors opposed due to poor relationships between proponent and the neighborhood not satisfied with answers the proponent gives, for example, unclear about location of trash and trash management, as well as no green space.

Lastly, our butters did specify that they were concerned about the character of the building being in line uh with the alignment with other buildings uh on the street.

Uh today our office has received one letter of opposition from the Mount Odin Betterment Civic Association maintaining the previously mentioned proposition.

Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighbor services.

I'd like to defer to the board for the agenda.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we look at this more comments.

Okay.

Any any other comments or questions from the board.

Is there a motion?

Um before motion, Madam Chair, um, can the uh applicants uh the representative respond to the comments that we've just made?

Yeah, I would like to resonate to that if I may um we've been have uh uh few meetings uh with the neighborhood and uh and one of the comments that we we heard was regarding um maybe reaching the building back a little bit uh to have some a little bit of more green space in the front.

Also the location of the of the uh the trash and how you would be picked up.

Uh we have since uh uh uh figures that there are there are multiple ways we can do it.

Uh I know there were there was some conversation about some folks not wanting large uh uh dumpster where where you'll have a truck come in and making noise and picking up the track.

Some people will prefer uh to have individuals just really it's a fairly small building for you this will have individual bins where they can actually come down and use for their own purposes.

So these are all items.

I mean, from from from the comments that we see from the neighborhood, they were pretty pleased with the building as it as it looked.

There were some issues about maybe providing a bit more green space, and also regarding the trash location area, and it and and I think one of the first one of the uh issues that one of the things we promised the neighborhood is well while if we are sent to work with BPDA, these are the items that we will be glad to work out with the work with the BBDA design officials and trying to modify the design to to satisfy those concerns.

We don't think these are hard.

This is the talk to ask.

We can easily accommodate some of the concerns that we've heard from the neighborhood meetings.

Uh again, I think we thought they were well received.

There were a couple of minor comments regarding those the lines that I mentioned, but we don't think uh uh we don't think those are issues that we'll have any problem addressing.

I think we would I think the the size and number of units and the fact that we're providing uh is five pocket spaces for five units.

I think those were well received.

So we felt like the major hurdles we're able to accomplish and satisfy.

So these minor items, I think through the VBDA review process, we should be able to get to uh to a satisfactory uh uh conclusion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll make a motion of approval with provisions from the planning department.

Um that the front yard depth be increased to at least four feet on the front on the lot frontages facing Bullet Street and Bowdoin Street, and that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review with special attention to the site plan and parking design.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Well.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good vote.

Okay.

Next we have case BOA 180 0610 with the address of 1740 High Park Avenue.

Um, I need to recuse myself in this case.

Uh be accusing myself in this case too.

Okay, we will be a five-member board.

I think Mr.

Stemridge, when you're done reading it into the record.

Uh yes, madam chair.

Um, there is a note.

It does have a uh something from the planning department.

So I would say this is our employees case.

And with that, if the applicants and the representative are present.

Thank you, Mr.

Emberid.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Attorney John Pelgi on behalf of this proposal is 1740 High Park Avenue.

With me today is uh John Garland, the team architect, and we appreciate this opportunity to uh present this proposal.

Um yes, it is in Article 80.

Um, 1740 High Park Ave.

The zoning is local industrial.

This lot size is 11,251 square feet.

The proposal before you is to develop the currently underutilized construction yard at 1740 High Park Ave and construct a new five-store, new five-story, 42-unit residential building with on-site parking.

The unit mix of the new building will be 18 one-beds, 22 two beds, and two, three bedrooms.

Seven of these units will be affordable under the city's inclusionary development policy, it's zoning policy.

Excuse me.

Uh residents will have access to outdoor patios and roof decks, amenity space.

Additionally, there'll be 19 garage spaces along with one-to-one residential park bike parking.

This project is a result of an intensive pre-file process with input from both the BPDA as well as the META.

And it was approved by the Boston Planning Department Board on September 18, 2025.

The proposal will live in the stretch of High Park Avenue, which is located in the corner, defined by aging industrial uses with new residential opportunities to provide a great boost to the city's housing stock while having minimal negative effect on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Additionally, the proposal is located adjacent to the rebuilt commuter rail station, an area that has been identified as a residential growth corridor by the city's planning study.

I will now pass it over to John Garland to go through the plans, and I'm happy to answer any questions at the conclusion of his presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

I'm Jonathan Garland with JGE Architecture and Design.

We're the architects for the project.

I'll walk you through a brief slide presentation.

So here you see to the middle right-hand side of the slide the site location.

We're bounded by the MBTA commuter rail yard to the right, as well as High Park Avenue, the main thoroughfare here, and then the Reedville residential district to the left of the plan.

This is a series of photographs just looking at the uh curvature of the of the hill along High Park Avenue.

Our site is just uh south of that in this drawing.

Uh this is uh an image from uh down at the lower edge of the site, directly adjacent to the rail tracks.

Uh, we're experiencing what is currently a 17-foot grade change between the lower aspect of the site and what's up at the street level uh high park gap just over this stone wall.

Uh these in the in this image, these three images in the bottom show what has recently been approved in the area and what's currently going through the city's process.

In fact, the building to the far right is uh pretty nearly complete in terms of construction.

Um and then again, just for context, our project is in this uh beige color in the in the lower middle here, just to give you a sense of what's planned for the area, and then uh comparatively the size and scale of our project.

This is a site survey that just shows a lot of the meets and bounds and uh site logistics of the current day condition.

We also wanted to show the elevation, uh the straight-on look of the building in the context of uh our neighbors to the left, the two projects to the left 1702 and 1690 are going through the city's permitting process, and again, comparatively we're a much smaller building to the far right on this image.

As far as open space and streetscape improvements, we've worked really diligently with the Boston Planning Department, the landscape urban design uh team there to provide uh street trees, uh realignment of the street network to incorporate a bike lane as well as uh visitor bike parking on the street, uh, and that's been uh a collaboration with our abutting properties as well.

Uh and then we're showing what is ample vegetation and uh a furnishing zone right in front of the entrance of the new building.

This is a streetscape section that shows again vehicles on High Park Avenue, the bike lane, uh street trees, walkable sidewalks, and then a planting zone right right in front of the building.

Some of the pallet uh exterior material pallet that we're considering.

Uh this is the the site section looking through the site.

So again, High Park Avenue is higher.

Um then there's a grade drop of about 1617 feet to the MBTA access road.

The building itself above grade will be approximately 58 feet.

Uh the lowest level of the plan is the parking level, which is down adjacent to the MBTA rail yard, uh, flush with that condition, and we're showing uh parking that lines the perimeter, bike access is also down at this floor, and elevator and stair access comes down to this lower level.

Up at street level, High Park Avenue, we're showing the main entry, uh, common living room space as far as amenities, and then a balance of one, two, and three bedroom units around the perimeter.

Up at the very top, uh, we are showing a roof deck that looks out uh back toward the city skyline.

And then a couple of exterior images, so our building is right here in the foreground.

Uh and then you can see seven uh 1702 just off uh in the distance there.

We're also working creatively to restore and retain the WPA wall uh that's on the site and part of a historical element uh within the neighborhood.

The shot looking back the opposite direction toward Reedville, uh, where our building is is further back in this uh cream color and and warm tone metal accent.

As far as the material palette, we're looking at an artisan fiber cement siding, composite metal panel in this brown warm color, uh a warm gray uh full depth brick at the base of the building, storefront glazing where the entry is, and then punch windows uh at the residential floors.

That concludes our presentation.

I'll turn it back to uh John and to members of the board for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yeah, I have I have one small question.

I might have missed some.

Will there be any handicapped units in this building?

I guess there will be.

Oh, go ahead, John.

I didn't hear you.

Yes, there will be.

Okay, how many units?

Uh there will be uh uh five.

Sorry, I'm gonna do the math right now.

Uh five percent.

Okay, thank you.

Sure, yep.

About two units.

Other questions from the board.

Mayor 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 judge from this board to back information.

Uh, this went to a Boston planning life community process of the summer of 2025, ultimately receiving board approval in the fall of 2025, September, I believe.

Um they did meet with the Reedville watch uh city in this area, uh, which was opposed.

Um I understand their primary concern uh was the parking ratio.

They would have liked to have seen more on site parking uh with that information deferred to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Chairman Commons.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Do you want to speak to the parking comment, Mr.

Bogini?

Sure, Madam Chair.

So as I stated my presentation, this proposal is literally on the community rail station.

Our back out is the community rail station.

So we went through uh a planning study with the BPDAs associated with the article E process, and they thought the ratios of parking were um uh adequate, and working with them, that's how we came up with uh these parking ratios.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I have a motion?

Is there a second?

Sorry.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Chair Wolves, yes, the motion carries.

Thank you, everybody.

Enjoy your day.

Thank you.

Okay.

And with that, it looks like uh we'll take a break again until 12 until the 12 p.m.

interpretation.

Okay,

Mr.

Standridge.

Mr.

Malacia.

Mr.

Langham.

Present, Madam Chair.

Present, Madam Chair.

Ms.

Connor.

Present.

Mr.

Bernard.

Present, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sandbridge.

Um we are here for the interpretation case for this is for case BOA one eight three.

With the address of eighty-seven website.

If the applicant and representative from the special services present with the clear games, I'm gonna elevate this ready to meet yourself.

You're available to me yourself.

Are those folks able to get back in or what happened?

Okay, James is on the bottom of the section.

I'm not sure.

Hey, Madam Chair, this is Attorney Nick Sula.

Sorry, Joe Hanley and I were having trouble.

I don't know why.

Maybe we joined a little too late.

If you could move him up and apologies to the board on our behalf for the technical issues.

He should be on, there you go.

And I believe Attorney Hamley should be now on with myself shortly.

I think he's on now as a panelist.

Okay, see the best one, so don't disappoint.

Understood.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sorry about that, members of the board.

With you now, I assume this has already been called into the record, and I maybe have an opportunity to present.

Yes, please.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Um so uh again for the record, attorney Joe Hanley, McDermott Quiltee Miller and Hanley.

I'm here with my partner, Nick Zazula as well as attorney Mike Ford, uh, and our client who is the owner and uh applicant here, Jim O'Donahu.

Um so this is a uh a pretty simple uh interpretation matter.

Um we uh previously we had submitted what you're going through now, which is basically a ninety-two uh page submission, but really it's encompassed in the three page three to four pages of uh our letter and outline, and the exhibit shows some really helpful information.

So existing property site at eighty seven uh West 7th Street in South Boston.

It is a long lighted and distressed three-story residential building.

Um that has been on uh the record with inspectional services and the housing board is a derelict property.

Um my client uh acquired uh the property um recently, just recently, totally unrelated from the previous owner, uh, and uh went to the assessing department in the city uh at that point um to have an inspection uh done by them because there was some sort of a confusion as to the records with assessing uh as to whether uh it's assessed as a single family or a three family.

Um the facts of the matter are clearly shown in the attached as well as in all the city records that this is a pre-code uh three family.

Uh it is we believe that it's it's remained as a three family since probably nineteen fifty-four.

Uh, and there are uh records to support this, and there's also uh a March 2026 um inspection report by James Sullivan, uh noting that the three family building is uninhabitable and needs quite a bit of work.

Um we petition ISD through its occupancy committee, uh, and this request is uh to ask for reconsideration of their determination in compliance with the commissioner's bulletin.

Um we were told that it should instead be a two-family uh that is not supported by either the facts in the field nor any uh filings with the city, and most importantly, it would be uh contrary to established land use practices in the city of Boston and this board.

So very quickly, um this three-story building, there are existing units on each floor.

Uh they all, each of which have their own doors, their own kitchen, their own bath, their own, they each have their own uh separate gas and electric service connections.

If you go into the basement of the building, uh there are three former gas main hookups in the basement and an old fuse box with three separate sockets, again uh for the three units.

Uh the condition of the property had our architect in addition to uh the assessor and Mr.

Sullivan, and there was another recent inspection uh by ISD yesterday, clearly shows that uh there has been no work done to this building uh for several decades.

There's no question uh that it that it was never uh made into a single family, and that it has been a uh a three-family.

What's at issue here is in 1981, uh it appears as if there was a uh filing to change occupancy to a three-family by the prior owner uh and to install uh a stove in the basement.

That work was never done.

There was never a uh permit issued, there was never any inspections, and there was never a CO issued.

Umsequently, in 2003 to 2013, it was taxed uh uh reverted to a three-family for taxation, and there was a property card in those records that noted that the owner then needed to uh convert uh to a three-family for approximately 200,000 in order to take advantage of a single family taxation.

Again, that work was never done.

There's no records in the city, there's no inspections.

And so the point being here, Madam Chair, members of the board is it's my understanding that, for example, if I have a piece of land and I come to you and I ask for approvals for a new six-story building and a hundred units.

Um, I don't get that occupancy unless and until uh I do the work, uh I have it inspected and I have it certified.

So this building is a three-family, it has been, it's been recognized as such on uh in 1954, 1964, 1981 in the ISD building jacket, which is part of the exhibit.

Um the commissioner's bulletin does not the assessing categorization, while it looks like maybe the prior owner at one point was able to take advantage of a lower tax basis without doing any work.

That does not change the occupancy, and it's also not provided for in the commissioner's bulletin.

And so our final conclusion is that uh you know, this is a property where the public in the city has a strong interest in seeing its derelict condition removed and restored.

All my client is looking to do is take advantage of uh the as is conditions and the pre-code use uh and to improve this building so that it is productive uh for three-family housing.

Uh, if it was uh deemed to be a single or a two, that would cost significant uh resources and take structural modifications to retort it, restore it to something that we don't believe uh ever existed.

And and with that I'll I'll arrest and let this speak for itself.

But thank you.

And ask when uh it was last occupied and how was it occupied?

Yeah, so um the family that so my client uh closed on it in November of uh 25.

And prior to that, there was my understanding is the gentleman who lived there passed away, and so this was through through some sort of an estate, and due to its condition and some of these aspects, it was a you know, and it stayed on the market for a while because not every buyer could get their hands around it.

Um I will say that before my client closed on the transaction because we noticed this issue with it with assessing.

Uh he went down and visited the assessing department, and that's when they did uh an inspection, and that's when we went through this process of seeking occupancy committee review through the commissioner's bullets.

And I I do think that you know we had several discussions with ISD uh counsel for ISD in particular, uh noting the numerous housing court actions, and apparently this building prior to my clients' ownership of it was source of a lot of uh nuisance and headache uh for the city and the neighborhood.

On either side of the building are three-story buildings.

Is this a three-family, three-family district, or do you know?

It's it's actually, yeah, I'm sorry, Mr.

Stenberg, if I understand you correctly.

Uh yeah, three-story building.

Uh each floor has a unit that seems to have been there unchanged and certainly unimproved for several decades.

Um, and the underlying zoning.

So three families are common in the neighborhood.

I'm sorry, so like the like 85.

Is 85 a three bedroom, uh three family or a two-family?

It's it's a butter eighty five.

What is that?

Sorry, I'm not I'm not I'm losing the the volume, the uh it's it's a butter 85.

Are they a also are they a three-family?

I have no idea what they are.

Maybe Mr.

Donahue does uh they're not so I can't madam chair, Mr.

Stemridge.

Yes, it's a condo building next door, and we are in a multifamily residential sub-district, and so the use isn't allowed to use as a three-fam.

You're welcome.

Other questions from the board?

I have a question, Madam Chair.

Um, so my understanding is non-conforming uses are abandoned after two years if they're not sort of maintained.

So if this wasn't a three-family for the last two years, how can we sort of deem it a three-family to maintain that sort of non-conforming use or structure that it, you know, there's no doubt it was at some point, but it seems like the use has been a mix over time.

But can you speak to the kind of two year?

Yeah, it I and respectfully, it hasn't been a mix over time.

It's it's never been anything but a three-family.

So the prior owner was trying to take advantage of lower taxes without doing any work and without getting a new occupancy.

So it's not a question of abandonment.

It would be arbitrary and totally illogical to establish any other occupancy because there's no there is no certainly no record of a single family that hasn't been abandoned.

Again, if you look at the exhibits, this use in occupancy goes back to 1954, it's recognized again uh in the 60s and again in 1981, which is when I assume they tried to take advantage of the less taxes, and then um you know, was again categorized as a three because this is about revenue to the city, right?

And uh you have you have records in there where uh the owner um was directed and apparently suggested that it was going to change the occupancy, but that work was never done.

And again, you can't so it it can really only revert to one thing, and that would be you know, it's established existing use.

There is no um recent history for a single family or anything else, and then if you look at the field conditions, um it's pretty clear, you know, you have three separate devising units with no recent work done in several decades.

I mean, I think it speaks for itself, and you also have a report from the inspector that confirms that as well as a visit from the assessing department.

So I don't think it's an issue of abandonment.

I think it's uh again that what would be the legal basis to call it anything else, but which it has been as a pre-code structure under the zoning code.

Well, can I ask a question?

Did what when was the last time somebody lived there?

Because it did you say the owner lived there and passed away?

That indicates one person living there.

So maybe my related question is when was the last time or three different occupants in the since you're saying it was a three-family, when was the last time all three units were occupied by different families?

I do not I do not know how many people lived with him, but certainly you can you can live in a three family and live on one unit.

If you look at that 1981 uh notation in the assessing card, it said that he was staying in the first floor.

I'm sorry, 2018.

He was um he died in late 24, and there was people in the house until then.

Yeah.

So they made so I think the question is prior to this owner when because you're saying it was a it it's it was a three family.

When was the last that was occupied as a three family?

So not this current person who obviously is in one unit right up until the point it was you know until he passed.

Go ahead, Jim.

Jim O'Donnell is the proponent.

Yeah.

So yes, so uh the gentleman passed in late 24.

So and I bought it, the gentleman passed away in late 2024, and then it went into probate, and then I purchased it in November of 25.

So it was on the market from like August until November.

Well, and it appears to be have been on the market as a single family because I I I've looked it up on several different places, Redfin, Zoo, whatever they're calling it a single family.

That is a fair statement because the broker looked it up on the tax record and called it a single because that's what the tax record, but as Joe explained, there's some underlying conditions there that make that.

Yeah, and it was purchased as is, and you know, there was citation by the with all due respect by the commissioner of um the NLS marketing sheet, which uh also is not um is not um part of the commissioner's bulletin, and it's it's really not determinative at all whatsoever.

So this this was purchased as is, and I mean, you know, you had a three-family where the owner was living in one of the units and certainly never did the work to um convert it.

I think there would be a huge injustice if you were to just arbitrarily suggest that this is some other use, that there's no record um certainly after adoption of the code to support that.

We know what pre-code structures and how they're governed after the adoptment of the uh uh zoning code in 1967.

And I um just to clarify myself purchasing the property, I did not proceed to PS until the assessor visited the property in person and confirmed it was a tree family, because there was some confusion as to the occupancy by the tax people.

So I went and talked to the assessor, they came out and looked at it and said, no, this is a tree family, and they readjusted the assessing for the first of January 2026 to reflect that fact that it's a tree family.

I understand that.

I just I don't think assessing can determine zoning.

I think it's very common for people to have units that aren't legalized and then they're taxed or in the assessor's database as such.

But but how could you keep that meeting?

I'm sorry.

I guess the question is how could you change this to a single if no work was ever done in the pre-code occupancy is unchanged, and you're seeing these conditions with no work that was ever done.

What else?

I guess what else could it be?

I think you go back to my original question, because no one's answered my question about prior occupancy.

So you you keep talking about the most recent owner, but I I'm just asking when are you aware if there was a time when there were in fact three separate uh occupants in the units?

Isn't that any evidence of that?

Well, you can see from the you can see from the conditions that everything is there, and it was like remnants of people's lives, like you know, piece of furniture, the stove, a lot of stuff was being removed, but like there was pictures on the walls, that type of stuff.

Yeah, and it the other thing I might say is we don't have any evidence, nor does the city to suggest that it wasn't.

And and what's important about abandonment under the code is that it's not atomatic, it's a determination that's made by the building commissioner.

So you know, Commissioner Joseph never made that determination unless he's making it now as part of our occupancy committee, but nobody ever came in to say, well, the three family is abandoned.

Uh and there are other circumstances that extend that, how you're marketing it, whether you're using it, right?

Um so I I don't think that has changed.

So with that, uh, is Mr.

Joseph on to speak to ISD's um perspective?

Yes, he's on the 10th section, but he's able to unmute himself.

Okay, could he give you Commissioner Joseph?

Hi, Commissioner Joseph.

Uh, if you can unmute yourself, you are you have the ability to mute yourself.

No sophere.

I see another person with the number uh one of six.

Yes, you can if it's you can Commissioner Joseph.

We're not taking public testimony, is that is that Commissioner Joseph?

Yeah, he's coming right now to make the whole of the world how to bring it out.

Yes, you are.

Good morning, everyone, good morning, board members, good morning, Madam Chairs, good morning, Joe, good morning, Jim's Danahoo.

Uh Smack Joseph Building Commissioner ISD.

I am the one that been working on this for the last past few months.

Uh and I have done my due diligence to be always fair, and my determination was fair to this.

Uh my determination was based on documents and data that was on front of me without having the permits of 1981.

The permit of 1981 came yesterday, and if I knew that there was a permit for one family, uh the occupancy committee would have would have done anything about this right here.

But since I did not have that permits, and when Mr.

O'Donnell applied for this, he said no record of occupancy, and it was my duty and others to ask to give an occupancy to this.

What we did, madam chair, we sent from the uh accessing department, we sent inspectors there, and we checked the records.

This is what accessing department taught us from 1919, from um 2019 to 2025, it was one family accessing department from 2018 to 2002 to 2018, he was two family.

From 1985 to 2001, he was a two-family.

So my decision to allow it to be a two-family when I combined the two family for 16 years, and I combined the one family for one year, and I thought it was very fair to give it a two-family.

But what we learned, we learned that Mr.

Jim, this house was advertised as one family.

He was purchased also as one family.

Mr.

Donner who came here, this is information I got yesterday.

Before he applied for the permit, and the document room advised them, told him that it's a one family, and there is one mailbox.

And my team went there a couple of times, they could locate gas location.

They could locate uh electrical mirrors.

Of course, there are some panels there, but those mirrors are not there.

And we said three kitchens, we cannot see three kitchens there.

I was able to see two kitchens based on the all the plot plans, all the photos that they provided was two kitchens, and means of egress become a problem.

They have a fire escape that goes to some of the units, but they're not go to all of them.

So this is something that needs to be totally rebuilt, and this department is not comfortable to allow it as a three family since it was not a three-family from 2019 to 2025.

It was when it was purchased.

The no owner run to assessing department because he was coming here to apply for a three, and then he told assessing department is a three family.

But assessing department at that time get it as a one family.

So that's the true matter of the problem of the thing here.

I believe I was extremely generous for giving this two family.

And if I've known before yesterday, there was a permit, remember number 1981 issued 1981, permit number 1182 that allow it to be only one family.

That's part of the record here.

To legalize occupancy as a one-family dwelling, and one person was living there for the time at the time, Mr.

Dunho bought the place, advertised as one.

When I asked them for the for the paper that he bought it, he didn't want to provide that to me.

I had to do my own research to get this information.

So when they claim that I did make a mistake there, there was no mistake made.

I think it was extremely thorough and generous and allowed this to be a two-family.

And based on what I see here, I might have to revoke the two family and keep the permit that was issued in 1981 as a one-family.

Because, and then he can go to the process of applying for to change from one to three.

As the building commissioner, I can do that.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

I'm sorry.

I just see if there are questions.

Yeah, Commissioner Gilson.

I guess, Madam Chair, so now we're here.

We hear from the commissioner that, you know, do you have information yesterday?

The 1981 permit was closed out as a single family.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

I guess I just defer to the law department as to whether you know, do we defer this to let the commissioner revoke that determination he made as a two, or how should we proceed here?

We would like to object based on the the um 1981 permit, which we include, which we actually provided to the board.

There was no CO2.

Joe, I provided that this morning to the board, not you.

I did.

So we'll take a continuance or something.

You can't, I if I'm here representing my client, I need to have the opportunity to see the government's uh supposed to document.

We I have a 1981 filing that was never closed out, and there was never a CO issued.

So the 1985, they have a COE there.

Okay, so you're saying in in your comments that all you have is assessing records, not occupancy records establishing a single.

Uh was ever done, Madam Chair.

Let me respond to that.

Yeah.

Often, when there is no record, we go to the accessing department to help us to make a determination on the on on the true occupancy.

Usually we go back 25 years.

From 1985 to 2000, 2020, that give us 25 years.

If someone has been paying taxes on an occup on a number of dwellings for 25 years, we think it's fair to give that person that occupancy.

But this one here has been zigzagging.

Three family, two family, one family, playing games.

So we don't, and then you purchase the gym as one.

It was advertised as one.

We have record now that just came to light, it was one.

We have one mailbox in front of the buildings.

So all these things, as building officials, I have to make decisions.

These are the reasons those decisions were made.

One mailbox.

Where are the three mailboxes?

Since the last time three people leave there.

Yes, yes.

So, Mr.

Commissioner, you're talking about 25 years ago.

Um, and then you're also saying that you are relying on the assessing records.

So the assessing records, and you'll see this in our exhibit from 2003 to 2018.

You don't have to go 25 years back, shows it as a three family.

And then in 2018, their property card notes that it needs to be converted, uh the work needs to be converted to a single in order to take advantage of that.

So it follows that from 1981, while there was a permit issued, the work was never done because clearly we know that 2003 is later, and up to 2018, Madam Chair and members of the board, it's still a three-family, it's never been converted.

So, and then to answer just quickly, because I think this is important.

If we can go back to uh the presentation, exhibit A.

Um, Mr.

Uh the Commissioner talked about one mailbox.

Um it's an interesting fact, it's clearly not if you look at the preponderance of the conditions, it's very clear that a single mailbox doesn't establish uh a single unit.

This is the photos that are very clear.

Um of the things that wasn't included in in the commissioner's occupancy committee was his own inspector's report, which found this to be in Mr.

Uh O'Donague was there when that inspection was happened.

If you can go back, um and we can provide an affidavit where the his own inspectors suggested this is a long-existing tree.

So you let the ambassador know where you need them to go.

Yeah, Mr.

O'Donahue, why don't you take us through the photos here?

Okay, the next page.

Yeah.

Yep.

Next page.

There you go.

What are we seeing here?

Jim.

So if you uh enter the building and you start in the basement, there's three meter, there's three gas lines.

And so let me just back up.

The buildings have been vandalized several times over the last year for scrap, and people have removed everything of value from the building, including a lot of the piping, the appliances, the uh electrical wiring, the copper pipe, and the pull stuff out.

The neighbors have stopped them from entering the building several times, and we've stopped people going in and out several times trying to steal more pieces.

So if we start in the building in the basement, we have tree gas meter bars, and some of them are vandalized, but you can see tree connections there.

Then on the next one, if you move on, you should see three fuse boxes.

So there's the meter bars, you can see them.

One, two, three.

One to three.

And actually, there's one medicine now.

Somebody broke in last week and they were stealing again, and um we stopped them.

They were taking more pipe out.

We stopped them from taking more out of the building.

And if you roll on, please.

So these are again the three fuse boxes, the gray box on the bottom is a fuse box that goes to each apartment, and then there's electric meters, but one has been stolen, and that uh again happened when we were there, but before we got to take the pictures and that.

Yeah.

So the other photos, which clearly show a single unit with demising walls with kitchen and bath on each floor.

Now, if you have one mailbox, I think what you need to do is weigh that uh based on your own inspector's report and and our live account of that ass testation that is this is clearly uh an uninhabitable three family.

And I I just think if if you're gonna rely on a 1981 permit that was never uh certified and the work was never done, and you have records in front of you in 2018 that show that's a a clear dereliction of of the duty of the city here in.

Can I raise my hand?

Yep.

Are you sorry again, uh Madam Chair?

The 1981 permit number 1982, it was to legalize occupancy as one family dwelling.

It was not to do work, it was to just to legalize it from what it was before to a one family, so the one person can stay there and live there.

So that's the thing.

So you cannot move back in time to get occupancy, even though you understand.

And after two years, you lose your occupancy if you do not use it.

So that single family was abandoned, and then in 2003 to 18.

You let the commissioner finish?

Yeah, yeah.

Allow me.

It was not abandoned, Joe.

The man died, they sold the property, and then they sold it as a single family.

It was purchased as such, a single family.

Uh the no owner came here to tent and Massav, went to our document room, they give them the occupancy of the building as a single family, went to the assessing department, he made them change it as a three-family in 2026.

After he persisted in November 2025, few weeks later, he realized that what he wanted to do, you went to the assessing and told him, Oh, okay, you changed it to three family.

I said I want to start paying three.

That's what we're doing.

Yes, so that so that we can pay more taxes.

But he was one family.

Commissioner, Commissioner, you you are right.

You can't go back to establish occupancy, but you can go forward.

And what you're doing is you're jumping from 81 to 2025, and you're jumping over.

This is right in my letter.

Hold on, let me answer your question.

No, no, but that's 2003 to 2018.

It is taxed as a three-family.

No, not so you're I want to correct that, Joe.

Please allow me to allow me to correct what you just said.

What happens then?

I received this permit yesterday.

I just told you that.

If I knew there was a permit to legalize one, the process of the occupancy will have never occurred.

That's when I went to the assessing department.

In 2009 to 2001, he was two family.

From 2002 to 2018, he's three family.

In 2019 to Oraz 125, it's one family that gives you a spell of time of about 30 years.

Within 30 years, and I take the two family for 16 years, the one family for six years that give you 17 years, that's a little bit more than three family.

So the single family would have been abandoned.

That's how I I allowed the two family to be.

When you want to do that, I think you gotta read our documentation.

I was very generous to give it up, too.

Yes, I think you gotta look at the 2018 assessing records in the permit, and if you would had read that.

I did.

I did so there's something.

So can I see if there are other board members with questions?

Yes, well, I am wondering if it seems seems that there is a big conf confusion here about what documents are available to review.

I wanted to ask maybe Caroline if it's uh an option for us to defer this conversation so the two parties can review uh any additional documentation that they have not seen and come back more prepared because I used to feel that we are going in around in circles, and I'm not getting any new information that can help me make a decision at the moment.

So if there is an recommendation from uh legal or overboard members, I would like to know what are our options at this moment.

Caroline.

Yeah, um, so there is an option.

Um, as you were saying, if you want to defer to see if there's more discussion that can happen.

Um, as always, like I defer to anyone getting board members, their judgments.

And I have a question.

Um, maybe it's a point of clarification for the process, but um, I guess I would like to know what the homeowner is planning to do with this property, and then what's the process, like depending on what they're trying to do with it, what would be the process after that?

Yeah, thank you for that.

So um Mr.

O'Donahue plans to renovate it as is um to clean it up.

It's a terrible derelict building that you know inside, and so we want to take the three family and make it into a renovated three family.

And to force us to go to the board of appeal would uh subject him to unfair um you know, an unfair process, it's really just unjustified for that.

So really the the public wants to see this and and has a strong interest in seeing the existing conditions here improved, and that's all we're looking to do.

It's not a two, it's not a one.

You can look at the photos, it's it's very clear.

Um occupancy has never been established.

You know, someone tried to evade taxes in the 80s that had nothing to do with us, and um my client, you know, opened it all up and is willing to pay more taxes now and just wants to clean it up as is.

Can I can I say something?

Uh sure.

So there is no subduce here or anything.

I'm not sure what Mr.

Joseph is saying.

I've known Mark for 25, 30 years.

I've been going over there, and um I bought the building as a tree family with the tax office.

If you go through the complete ISD jacket, 100% there is no mention of anti-occupancy.

The last pilot was 1981, and it was never closed out.

I'm not sure what Mark is talking about.

I have never been over an ISD in the plan room.

My only call to ISD, because everything is online on the record.

My only call was to Bridget last two weeks ago, and I asked her about the occupancy process, and we had a conversation.

That's my one and only ever call or visit to ISD.

I'm I'm confused as to his statement.

I I run a very honorable business, and I I keep everything above board.

Like I said, there's no subdiffuse.

I looked up the record, there was no occupancy whatsoever.

I said, Why is this a single family?

I went to the tax assessor office, they said they came and looked at it to say it was a tree family.

I did that because there was no record of occupancy ever.

Okay.

Yes, none of that probably says the fact that there was no.

Okay, thank you, guys.

Thank you.

We submitted the purchase and sale agreement, which said as is.

I just want to really say one second.

Thank you.

He said that it wants to rebuild it as a three family.

If you get as a three family, it does not have to put sprinkler system on it.

That's exactly what all this evasion is about.

So if you say two.

Sprinkers are put sprinklers in.

Okay.

From two to three, you have to make code, you have to do everything that needs to be done there, and then we have the record that says that's a one family.

As the police are here in child of this department.

So I issued a permit and error, thinking that there was no record, and there is a record for it.

My I am leaning on if we can decide for the dual family and leave keep the one you have from 1981 as a single family, then you can go to the process to change the occupancy from one to three, as you always wanted, and that's the way you got it.

That's the way it was in the accessing department.

So that's the way I would like to keep this at this point.

Okay, that's really my right to do that under the disagree.

So may I just keep say something?

I don't want to because of my clients' rights.

So wrap it up.

The ramifications of this.

So it this could go the other way, correct?

Where someone in all sense says, gee, that basement unit, uh, there was there was a permit that was applied for, but there was no CO.

So therefore I get a two-family versus a single.

Okay.

So if it is the position of this board, I don't think it's that difficult.

Um that um there's no established occupancy for a pre-code structure when there's been no change and no closed-out CO, then bring forward all sorts of other stuff.

It can go in the other direction, and no one's gonna like it.

But I do reserve the right.

Um I I question that 81 permit.

We have it, we disclosed it, it was never closed out, and it was also uh time past with further changes to a three-family, and it's always remained as a three-family.

All right, thank you.

We have not heard anything else new.

So uh any comments from the board before we make a motion.

I mean, I have a just a question for procedures.

I'm hearing the commissioner wants to change his determination to a single family.

So, how what's in front of us is to um determine whether they were right in deeming it as a two or if it's a three, but we don't have the question in front of us of if it's a one, so I'm how do we proceed?

Yeah, so right now um it's up to the board to determine um if the board sees it as a three family versus a two-family.

Um that's that's the board's authority on this.

However, yeah, Ms.

Ms.

We will mention that the commissioner is now suggesting something different than their based on the no information I go yesterday.

I know understand.

So our question to Caroline is yeah, how does that affect any potential uh vote?

So if the board determines that it's a two-family, it's a two-family.

If the board determines that it's a three-family, it's a three-family.

The board has the right to challenge the building commissioners determination, which is why we're here.

Yeah, that's what we're asking for.

So we'd love a vote.

Um, we do think that land court is the next avenue, and and that's it's not to go back and forth and continue to have a discussion uh when the thing speaks for itself.

Caroline, if we deferred this to could the commissioner submit a new determination as a single.

I can do that.

I want to do that because I want to base on the 1981 private the asked and it was used as one, and we got that yesterday that has no informations.

First, it was in no record of occupancy.

Now we know there was a record.

So we can use that.

If I know that from the beginning, so this could have never gone to occupancy committee.

We could use that as a single family.

And we're going to be able to do that.

We can we dispute the accuracy.

Correct.

We dispute the accuracy of the commissioner's uh you know, reliance, and and we reiterate our request for interpretation that this be considered as a three-family based understand what you're requesting.

Any other comments from the board, and or is there a motion?

Madam Chair, if there's no other comments, I can make a motion.

Any other comments?

Okay, let's make a motion.

Uh Madam Chair, I'm gonna put forward a motion of deferral.

Um, I give a lot of deference to the commissioner here.

He's in this work every single day.

Um, and any time we are being asked to overturn the commissioner's decision, at least for me, it's a really high standard of review.

Um, it sounds like there's some new information where the commissioner wants to um change the determination, and I think we should have that in front of us.

And then I also think to the attorney's point, each case is so different.

We've been asked to make this determination a couple of times now, and every single time there's just a different set of facts and evidence that we need to consider and be very careful about considering.

So I'll just say that I don't think this will set a precedent, but that's sort of where I'm um landing right now.

I want to hear more about where the commissioner's new determination will be.

So we have a okay.

We have a motion to defer.

Is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

We will.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

Chairman's yes, the motion carries.

We will move to Caroline to what discussed dates.

Oh, we have to, yeah, for the record.

Um, so for dates, uh, Joe, what date are you thinking?

Still in May, June, or July?

Um yeah, the sooner the better at the pleasure of the board, of course.

We would just appreciate the slides discuss this further.

Yeah, no, I think it's pretty simple.

We're we got most of this information.

Uh we could do May 19th, June 2nd, or June 16th.

Mr.

Uh O'Donahue, James.

Any and May 19th's good.

I I think, Commissioner, if if you could be so kind as we could have a conference between ourselves and present the facts in a civilized manner, I think we can uh the uh absolutely again just we can optimized it with our show and can and schedule the meeting for we have to go ahead and conference with you.

Thank you, everyone.

Have a good day.

You next time.