Boston Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing – May 19, 2026: Multiple Cases Approved
Boston Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing – May 19, 2026
The Boston Zoning Board of Appeal held a virtual hearing on May 19, 2026, starting at 9:30 a.m. (with a brief break at 11:30 a.m.) to consider a consent calendar, extensions, subcommittee recommendations, and 14 appeal cases. The board, consisting of Chair Madam Chair, Mr. Valencia, Ms. Turner, Ms. Barraza, Ms. Penado, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Stembridge (who made motions), approved nearly all items, often with provisos for design review or community commitments. The meeting was conducted remotely via Zoom under the updated open meeting law.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of minutes: Unanimously approved minutes from the April 16, April 28, and May 5, 2026 hearings.
Extensions
- Seven extension requests were granted unanimously. One case (193-1980) was questioned by the board due to its fifth extension; the applicant explained delays were caused by a property line dispute now resolved. The board granted the extension.
Subcommittee Recommendations
- Four cases recommended by the subcommittee were approved unanimously, one with a proviso for site plan filing.
Discussion Items
Case 1: 94B Rockland Street (BOA 183-7594)
- Applicant: James Guerrera proposed a three-unit townhouse on a vacant lot, scaled down from six units after community input.
- Public testimony: Frank Holmes (abutter) requested a 25-year owner-occupancy lock-in and landscaping screening. The applicant agreed to fund screening.
- Outcome: Motion to approve carried unanimously.
Case 2: 101 Edgemere Road (BOA 180-5281)
- Applicant: Attorney Francis Adams proposed two townhouses on a vacant 6,200 sq. ft. lot. Five variances sought (FAR, height, side yard, open space, forbidden use).
- Public testimony: Rachel (abutter at 95 Edgemere) expressed concern about damage to old trees. Applicant pledged to work with her.
- Outcome: Approved with a proviso for BPD design review on a single curb cut. Unanimous.
Case 3: 55–57 St. Mark's Road (BOA 180-6951)
- Applicant: Kyle Smith proposed adding dormers to create a third unit in an existing two-family home. Owner-occupied. St. Mark's Area Civic Association supported.
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 4: 2038 Dorchester Avenue (BOA 179-745)
- Applicant: Ernest Guerrier proposed a 12-unit, four-story building with ground-floor retail (originally 24 units, scaled down). Nine variances. Elevator added for accessibility.
- Public testimony: Thomas Weistros (Lower Mills Civic Association, 30-year resident, registered architect) voiced strong opposition citing excessive density, height, parking (only 3 spaces), and lack of setbacks. Applicant noted transit-oriented design near Ashmont station.
- Outcome: Approved with provisos: BPD design review for site planning/parking, and a housing agreement with MOH for two affordable units. One member recused; vote was 6-0.
Case 5: 42 East Street (BOA 180-5913)
- Applicant: Bonnie Tan sought approval for three units and six garage parking. Previously approved in 2023, but three variances were missed by ISD. Plans unchanged.
- Outcome: Motion to defer to July 14, 2026, to clarify plans. Unanimous.
Case 6: 1195–1199 Dorchester Avenue (BOA 154-3093)
- Applicant: Attorney Derek Small proposed a three-story building with ground-floor retail and office space. 12 parking spaces off Greenmount Street.
- Public testimony: Residents expressed concerns about parking congestion. Columbia Seven Hills Civic Association requested a drop-off area.
- Outcome: Approved with a proviso for BPD design review on screening. Unanimous.
Case 7: 169 Gale Street (BOA 182-467)
- Applicant: Alex Topkov sought to add a fourth unit on a pre-existing fourth floor. Previously approved in 2023; one variance (parking radius) missed.
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 8: 18 Drone Street (BOA 183-6018)
- Applicant: Attorney Derek Small proposed a three-family dwelling on a vacant lot. No off-street parking. Dead-end street with illegal dumping.
- Public testimony: One abutter supported; Dudley Square Neighborhood Initiative opposed due to lack of parking and affordability.
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 9: 73 Sanchum Street (BOA 182-414)
- Applicant: David Hassman proposed adding four units to an existing two-family (total six). Maintains historic wall and oak tree. Mission Hill Community Alliance supported.
- Public testimony: Elizabeth Benham opposed citing density and student rentals. Applicant noted five of nine units are rented to professionals.
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 10: 49 Vine Street (BOA 182-768)
- Applicant: James Basso proposed a carport over existing parking for aging priests. BPD recommended denial due to pedestrian impact.
- Public testimony: Support from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office. No opposition.
- Outcome: Approved with a proviso to work with BPD on vegetation screening. Unanimous.
Case 11: 19–21 Milk Street (BOA 170-02)
- Applicant: Steve Bartlett (CuraLeaf) sought to change the name on an existing conditional use permit for a cannabis dispensary. No buffer zone issue.
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 12: 47 Farragut Road (BOA 182-363)
- Applicant: Nick Landry proposed finishing a basement for an exercise area (260 sq. ft. FAR increase). No exterior changes. City Point Neighborhood Association supported.
- Public testimony: Support from Councilor Flynn's office and neighborhood association president.
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 13: 16 Monument Square (BOA 181-1934)
- Applicant: Sarah Matusa proposed a roof deck extension (2 feet closer to street) with reduced height. No opposition.
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 14: 70 Auckland Street (BOA 182-1678)
- Applicant: James Christopher proposed a rear two-story addition with five units and five parking spaces. Columbia Seven Hills Civic Association opposed due to density.
- Outcome: Approved with a proviso for BPD design review on open space. Vote was 5-1 (Ms. Barraza dissented).
Key Outcomes
- 13 of 14 cases approved (one deferred to July 14, 2026 for clarification).
- Provisos often included BPD design review, parking reduction, or affordable housing agreements.
- Votes were largely unanimous except for the 70 Auckland Street case (5-1).
- Two remaining cases were withdrawn before the 11:30 a.m. portion concluded.
- The board adjourned after completing the 11:30 a.m. schedule.
Meeting Transcript
Boston zoning board appeal hearing for May 19, 2026 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 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, Austin.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives participate in this hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again, and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes, and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star nine 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 to provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so. 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. Good morning. Mr. Valencia. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning, Ms. Barbraza. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning, Ms. Panada. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning, Mr. Collins. Morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. I'll turn it over to Mr. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to the rest of the board members. We'll begin today's hearing for the approval of a hearing that's scheduled for 9 30 a.m. These hearing minutes are from April 16th. April 28th, and May 5th of this year. I'll make the motion on the proof. May I have a second? Second.
openpublica.com