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.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Berta Barraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Next we'll move on to the extensions schedule for 9 30 a.m.

All extensions appear to be reasonable.

Um should be it would be supportive.

If there, if anyone has any questions, I'll read them all in whatever result.

And then we can entertain the questions about the chair.

First, we have case BOA 156-3584 with the address of 2 Hillsbone Street.

Next we have case BOA 154-8022, the address of 1029 Tremont Street.

Next we have case BOA 153-0242.

The address of 1512.

Next we have KBOA 104.114276 with the address of 79 Pro Street.

Next we have case BOA 155-0107, the address of 451 East 7th Street.

Next we have case BOA 101 901 with the address of 22 24 11 Street.

Next we next final we have case BOA 92.435 with the address of 193, which will have, and those are the extension.

But over there.

Thank you, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Any questions from the board?

Here, my share about the last case, 1980.

If Attorney Small is here, I'm just uh wondering about this is the fifth uh extension.

I wanted to ask ator the small allow this and so the first question is when was this project approved the first time at Ornes Mall?

The project was originally approved in 2020, I believe, and since then we was held up in litigation.

There was a uh property line dispute with the neighbor that 196 would draw out.

So that was in land court uh for a little while, but that has since been resolved.

But wasn't it was it was challenged property?

Thank you.

So at this moment, the project is ready to move forward.

Project is ready to move forward with another extension.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Move processes manager.

Thank you.

With that, uh may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested.

Motion to grant the extensions as requested.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Badabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Next, go to the recommendations.

Getting for 9 30 a.m.

These are the recommendations from the recent subcommittee meeting.

Um they were all approved, one with the proviso, which I would point out.

First, we'll have Kate BOA 179.

7694 with the address of 4431 Chusett Street, which was approved.

Next, we have case BOA 1A1.

3812 with the address of 59 Dellview Bill of Road, which was approved.

Next is case BOA 1823 with the address with is the work revealed road.

This was approved with the proposal for site planning.

You file the plan advised that we have this could uh have case BOA 172 1164 with the address both 20 Fairmont after which was for Madam Chair's own call for the submitted thank you.

Any questions from the board?

We have a motion.

Motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations.

May have a second second.

Just with beverage.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Barbara.

Yes.

Ms.

Canado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair books.

Yes.

The motion carries.

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

At this time we'll ask if there are any questions withdrawals or referrals from the 9 30 a.m.

time frame.

Well, it will be, but hearing none now, what do we do?

Um so the first case is case boa 183 7594 with the address of 94, the 94b rock.

If the app defense and though they're a representative president, they please explain board.

I'm sorry, did I sorry can you hear you clearly board?

Are you the applicant?

Yes, I am.

Great.

Can you state your name and address for the record and please proceed?

Yes, my name's James Guerrera.

Address is 4255 Washington.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Okay, um, so we've we've gone through a uh very long community process here to um construct a three-unit building.

Uh this project had started off in its in its primary iteration or first iteration as a six-unit structure, and after a very long community process and working um side-by-side with the neighbors, uh, came to realize that the density may have been too large for this lot.

Uh, this is a vacant parcel that's been vacant uh for quite some time, and uh so what we had done was we went and um worked with did a very long community process and decided to scale this back, and so what we're designing here is we're designing a three-unit parcel, I mean a three-unit uh townhouse building side by side, um, under a lot of um guidance from the neighborhood as far as making into one simple building, uh creating adequate parking space, um, being able to uh reduce the sort of density and scale as far as the roof by creating a mansard structure here to be able to um really make it fit within the neighborhood character of the site, and um we're we're looking to uh get approved for a three-unit dwelling here.

Questions from the board?

Yes, I have a couple of questions.

Um is the owner planning to live on this property?

No, not currently, no, okay, and then um I saw that some neighbors had concerns about flooding.

Do you have anything to say uh in regards to that?

I know that we're going to be pursuing um approval from Boston Water and Sewer Commission after this.

So we had actually taken that into great consideration.

Obviously, this is going to be through state and federal law that we have to manage all the stormwater on site.

Uh so we will be mitigating any type of stormwater and runoff as well.

The other thing too is the way that we've designed the site is to go with the natural grade of the site as well.

So bringing the building forward towards the build towards the street and allowing it to grade to uh slope down as well.

In addition to that, uh that's another reason why we didn't add any underground parking just due to the fact that it would have to change the grade significantly of the site, and we'd have to bring a lot of fill in and raise it.

So we didn't want to really disturb the natural grade of the site.

So we designed it this way um to really mitigate stormwater and runoff and flooding, and we gone through a very large uh very long uh design process with the community at several meetings uh outside of uh the schedule means that we have a neighborhood council and um have shown them at least four different iterations of this plan.

Okay, thank you.

And then lastly, can you just walk us through um the parking plan once again?

Yes, thank you.

Um parking's been a major concern, and so what we did here was that we really took um parking into consideration specifically for the neighborhood because that's a tighter street.

What we've done here is that we've paved back a little bit so that we can have two parking spaces per unit.

It's a three-unit building.

We feel as if three parking spaces per unit would really be suffice for this for this site specifically, just due to parking being really tight for the street and not to disturb uh the neighborhood.

But being a church across the street, Sundays is uh is a day that there's high traffic there when we're thinking through snow and snow removal, having all that parking off-site and being in allowing two parking spaces per unit is something at the request of of the neighborhood, and and we fully agree with them regarding that.

Thank you.

Can you confirm is this uh condos or uh rentals?

It is condos.

Condos, thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

So pick your background is towards comment about the parking.

Did you receive any feedback from the planning department about how much space you are allocated for parking in the right way?

Just looking at the site plan, it looks like you are using probably more than 30 percent of the whole um site for parking and pavement.

So did you get any feedback about reducing parking or um reorganizing the parking to provide more open space?

Um we we didn't we didn't get any um provision from the planning department, um, but really what we were thinking through is really for the neighborhood, and we what we did was we talked, we had some feedback from neighborhood council and also uh the neighbors to design the parking plan.

And due to the fact that this is a fairly long site and larger site, um the whole back area will remain open space.

Thank you with that now.

I don't know.

Is your architect on by any chance?

He's not on, he was in.

Um I think it's a pretty, you know, straightforward project.

You have and a tremendous amount of site work on the on the lot with the amount of trees that you have.

Um but I the only thing that I would say and to like work with the neighborhood's character is that the front facade almost looks like the back of a building, and um, and you know, I'm not sure if I should recommend like a BPD design review just for the kind of the front, um because I know that you've gone through a very elaborate process, but you know, just by switching the stairs uh to the other side and really having the kitchen face to front, you'll be able to have better kind of symmetry with windows to work with the residential frontage.

Um so it's not necessarily a uh a zoning, but it's more of the character of the neighborhood.

Um, but I just wanted to make that comment to my colleagues.

Uh, right now it's just the front, looks like the back of the building.

Yeah, we would we'd definitely be amendable to uh working through that front facade more to make it work.

Yeah, yeah, that way that way you're not putting all the windows at the corner because you're let you're trying to accommodate your your stair, your stairwell.

I think you could do it, you can have it more um, you know, the kitchen space, the social space out to the front.

Okay, no further questions.

Thanks.

Thank you.

That may have public testimony, madam chair and board members Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This petitioner has completed the community process.

Our office hosted on a butters meeting on June 9th, 2025 for a different version of this proposal, which was very lightly attended, but at which direct a direct abutter expressed opposition due to density.

The applicant then made a number of changes, reducing the density and met with the butters privately, as well as three times with the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council, which ultimately voted to support this proposal, but requested in proviso that there be sufficient screening on both sides of the property.

That background ONS the first judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Frank.

Thank you.

Uh Frank Holmes here own the property with my siblings at night to Rockland Street, so direct the butter uh to the property.

Um I did submit a letter to the to the board uh last night.

Um, I'm hoping that that's been received, but just very briefly summarize uh we'd had uh several discussions uh with uh Mr.

Gary regarding uh ownership of the property.

We requested that there be a condition if any decision that the ZBA makes that the that the units be owner-occupied and that their um that uh the documents for the condo include a lock-in provision uh for 25 years, so that they will need to be owner occupied for a minimum of 25 years, and that can't be changed.

We would request that that lock-in provision you know be a condition of any decision the ZBA make.

Um second, two other points uh briefly, we did raise at or I raised at the neighborhood council meeting.

I I didn't see listed as part of the relief being requested here for use as a multi-family.

It's my understanding that the zoning here is for single family residential, and so the neighborhood council didn't feel that that was um to be addressed uh by them, but I I'm asking the question here.

I I believe that that relief is also required, and then my third point is in discussions with Mr.

Gary, are we at um in consistent with the council's recommendation for screening?

We had requested uh that he uh provide a budget for us for our property um for landscaping uh and I just want to I'd like to hear from James.

You know, uh I sent you an email yesterday, James, regarding the amount of that.

I not don't know if you can comment if you are committed to what we're asking for here.

Our support is um dependent on on that.

Thank you.

Um so Frank, I I did actually respond to your email.

Okay, I didn't see that.

Sorry about that, and we did commit to um doing that.

As we said.

We were we worked really um elaborately and a very long process with the neighbors, and we were amendable to that.

We understand that screening was important to you, so we did concede to um uh fund that budget towards that.

So we did email you and we we responded to that.

Thank you.

I didn't see that.

Any other comments?

Any other raised hands?

Also, that with beef.

I'm sorry, sir.

Okay, sorry.

Two with relational comments.

Any other response from the applicant?

Uh yes, regarding the relief.

Uh, I do believe when looking at my zoning co-refusal letter, the one that was has been updated, has been updated and submitted to the board.

Um, that use variance is listed as one of the violations.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Make a motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Stunbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Benabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair wrote yes.

The motion carries the muxo.

Thank you.

Next, we have Kate BOA 1805281.

With the address of 101 Edge Mere Road.

If the applicants have other representative or present, would they please respond to case of the quote?

Uh good morning, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I'm apologizing.

Members of the board, my name is Attorney Francis Adams with a business address of 350 West Broadway in Boston Mass.

I represent the owners of the vacant land at 101 Edgemere Road in West Roxbury.

The property is located in a multifamily residential subdistrict, which allows townhouse development as well as other properties.

There has never been any development on the parcel.

The lot size of the parcel is 60, almost 6200 square feet.

Each townhouse will be approximately 31 feet high, uh, three-bedroom, two bath, um, over uh grade slab uh parking with the first and second floor and an unfinished attic.

Um the application is consistent with the Boston planning goals, and Imagine Boston 2030, which is promoting infill development.

As I said, this is but a vacant parcel of land.

Um, for the for the members of the board, uh the property is surrounded almost entirely on the left and rear by uh a Jewish cemetery association, and to the right, there isn't a butter's property.

Um that leads uh into a housing development at the end of the road.

This particular side of the road, as I said, there's no uh residential development after the property on the right-hand side.

Uh, we are seeking relief for five uh very violations.

Uh FAR is excessive, height is excessive only because of the number of stories.

Um, this is a two and a half story district, but the height of the property is uh 31 feet, which is well below the 35 foot limit.

Uh side yard is insufficient, usable open space, and the use is forbidden.

Uh for the record, the use is forbidden because the property is located in a one F6000 district.

As I said though, this is uh consistent with the it's in an MFR multifamily residential subdistrict, which allows for row house or townhouse development.

Um, just uh a couple of points.

Um as I said, we met we've had a good community process.

We met with the uh butters in the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council.

We voted to support the project.

We also were aware of the uh planning department recommendation for approval.

Um the only other issue again is the height, because we said it's it's uh it's only a height violation because it's two and a half stories, not not of any any height of the property.

Uh we believe this is a reasonable development consistent with the mayor's goal uh to create infill housing on vacant lots of land, and it's consistent with the surrounding housing stock.

There are variations of housing, one-family, two-family, as well as multi-family large apartment buildings at the end of Edgemere Road.

Uh, we believe this is a good application.

We're using not using the whole whole lot.

There's uh going to be green space, there's going to be rear yards, and there's also going to be rear decks to increase the uh open space for each of the two units.

Um, and parking for the units will be at grade and under the building, so there'll be no uh parking in the front of the property.

Uh, with that, uh, we will uh take any questions from the board.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

Yes.

Um, can you walk us through the curb cut for the parking?

Yes, so um that's one of the planning uh department's recommendation.

Uh it was for design review consistent.

Uh they will they are recommending that there only be one curb cut.

There is no curb cut on on Edge Mere Road right now.

This is a vacant parcel of land.

So we are familiar with the planning's recommendation.

My client is amenable to having a single curb cut, which will branch off to the left and the right to allow access uh to the property.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair, board members C.

Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services, petitioners completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on January 27th, at which one abutter raised questions, but no opinions were stated.

And abutter at number 95 was not able to attend the meeting, but wrote a letter of opposition to our office, which was forwarded to the board.

The applicant met with the West Rock Play neighborhood council, which voted to support this application with that background ONS to further judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Next we we have Rachel.

Oh yeah.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Um, I live at 95 Edgemere Road.

I am right next door to where the proposed building is, and my concern is that this is an overbuilt for the size of the lot, and I have several old trees along the along the fence line on my property, and I've concerned about damage to those trees with an overbuilt.

Thank you.

Um, chair will have additional comments.

And the applicant address the rule of that feedback.

Sure, uh, thank you.

Um, we we're not aware of uh the tree line, but as as the board may know, we we will not be able to uh attach or touch anyone's trees uh on their own lot.

I we believe this application is a very reasonable development for a 6200 square foot lot.

Um at the at the meetings that we had with the community group, we did an analysis of the surrounding properties in the average, that's all of Edgemere Road, as well as Willow Street in DeSoto, which about the you know surround this area, and the average square foot is approximately 3600 for all of the properties in that area, which is just above what we're proposing here.

We don't believe at all that it's uh uh an overreach, it's a two and a half story building and on vacant land, it's uh consistent with the housing stock as the planning department states in their recommendation it's it's very consistent with the size and scope of all of our surrounding properties.

And again, with respect to the trees, we have no problem working with the abutter if there's a concern with the trees.

This has not been raised as an issue to us, but uh respectfully uh if there's an issue with trees, we'll work with the abutter to make sure that they're pruned and trimmed and we don't borrow them.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Motion for approval with a proviso that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review with a focus on consolidating the singular curb cut on the lot that preserves maneuverability.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

Mr.

Stunbridge, yes, Mr.

Malencia, yes, Ms.

Turner, yes, Ms.

Benabraza, yes.

Ms.

Penado, yes, Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you, members.

Appreciate it.

Next, we have case BOA, 180 69, 51, with the address of 55 to 57 St.

Mark'shall.

The applicants and voted recommended are present with their 26 supply to the board.

Thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Uh Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Kyle Smith of Statero Law Business Address of 359 Newbury Street of Boston's Back Bay.

I do have the owner on the call as well and the project architect.

We have a pre-existing two family that is currently occupied by the owners to sons.

The proposal is merely to add dormers to the current third floor to add uh usable living space to create a third unit.

Uh 934 net additional square feet, three bed, one bath, increasing a pre-existing non-conforming FAR of 0.67, rendering it a proposed 0.84.

There's an existing curb cut.

There's two current off-street parking spaces.

The proposals to add a third space, with two of them being in tandem to provide one space per unit.

They're gonna reside in the third floor, so the entire uh proposed three family structure will be owner occupied.

Uh we did present to the SMACA on the 31st of March, and we do have a vote of support.

That's been provided to Stephanie Haynes for your review.

So I think uh any existing non-conformity is pre-existing, so by going vertically, we do have a further exacerbation of a non-conf uh preexisting side yard setback.

Um but otherwise I think it's relatively self-explanatory.

Uh, and happy to defer and turn it over to the board for questions and or commentary by the architect or owner.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

You're in none, they're in public testimony.

Hello, madam chair members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones, representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 55 to 57 St.

Mark's Road.

Our office refers to the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including an abutter's meeting held on 1126.

That was well attended by several Dorchester community members.

The feedback from this meeting was concerns of density where the community members mentioned that ongoing parking issues at this proposal.

Uh, they are worried will increase if um and if the uh condo unit will still be owner-occupied in the years to come instead of turning into a rental.

The proposal was also reviewed by the St.

Mark's Area Civic Association at their meeting on 331 26.

The association expressed support at this time.

The ray's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter.

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Well, I'm the chairman's board, maybe Mr.

Council Fitzrell's office.

I also like on record in support of this proposal.

Thank you.

Okay, I can like to respond to that feedback.

Yes, just briefly.

Uh at the abutter meeting the original proposal was for two off-street parking spaces, or the pre-existing uh number of spaces in response to the question about additional parking.

That was where the third additional parking space was entered, and that updated site plan was kicked back to ISD, which ultimately removed our violation for non-conformity for parking.

So we did work to try to address the concerns of the community from the initial butters meeting and then the updated number of parking spaces presented to the SMACA on the 31st of March, for which we do have the SMACA's approval.

So we think that we have tried to accommodate and uh work with the community on the original current number of parking spaces to add a third.

Thank you.

Any further questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

I'm sorry.

Sack present.

Thank you, Mr.

Stenbridge.

Yes, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes, Ms.

Turner?

Yes, Ms.

Benavraza?

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries the vote.

Thank you, kindly.

Next, we have case BOA, 1797 45, with the address of 2038 to a chest grab.

Um I vote the one of our members will be recusing themselves.

Yes, I need to recuse myself in this case.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So we will be a six-member board.

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

My name is Ernst Guerrier with an office address of 299 Gallagher Boulevard.

Amazingly, it's just right down the street from this property.

I have the pleasure of representing the owner of the property sitting to my left, Marie Gurrier, who also happens to be my wife.

So I have to do a good job this morning, Madam Chair.

In front of the building, is 10 bus lined.

The proposal is for a four-story building with ground floor retail space.

I should um submit to you that the project we started way back in 2025, and originally it was for 24-unit building.

We engaged the community by my office sending out letters to abutters as well as uh members throughout the community.

We heard from them, and thank you for all who may be online today.

After hearing back from them, we scale it back to 18.

We also engage all of the stakeholders, including our elected officials, and then we scale it back against to 12.

Um, during the process, I should point to you there was a fire in the back of the building that damaged part of the building, and then as a result, the building now sits vacant.

And um, and while the the fire took place, I should report to you no one um was uh badly injured even though the tenants were displaced.

We had the opportunity to engage with the BPDA who assisted in the design and made some recommendations.

So what we have for your approval is this um project, and we're seeking relief from nine variances, uh predominantly um Article 65, which is multifamily forbidden.

This is an existing two-family, so it was already um uh forbidden, and I should let you know that historically this building has been a mixed use where the previous owner used the first floor for his law office and the second floor residential.

Uh general forbidden uh use for retail space, in keeping with the characteristics and what we heard from BPDA is that um most of the newly designed uh project in Dorchester have a first floor retail.

We have not made the determination what we will ultimately do with the first floor.

I intention probably is move our law office there and keep the um rest of the building residential.

Off-street loading, there is, in fact, um a driveway and existing parking lot.

So again, depending on what goes in the first floor, we would uh uh modify that an off-street parking.

Um I would submit to you generally, and my office again is right down the street.

It's not an issue for Dorchester, and they have plenty of off-street parking.

Uh uh, as I pointed out earlier, it's right down the street from Ashmont and the bus line.

Um the floor and um the height uh what we've heard throughout the process uh from most of the the community members in uh butters is that they wanted an all-access building that would accommodate everyone, including those who may be physically challenged.

And as a result, Marie decided to uh um put an elevator in the building, and um that's the height restriction.

Um my architect is also in line, uh Fred Money got who will walk you through the design process, and I should just say to you, uh, for your review, I'm happy to support more than 42 letters of support.

Um, uh most of them directly from uh neighbors to the left, neighbors to the right, um, as well as uh our elected officials, we were able to get letters of support from uh Madam uh uh counsel Bootsy LeJern, uh Julia Mejia, uh Minut Culpepper, and we've worked with the office of Brian Umell, uh, who may or may not be online.

So I at this point I'll turn it over to Fred Money Guy to walk you through the design.

And if you have any questions, uh happy to listen to to address them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, I'll keep it very brief.

I think uh uh Mr.

Gaye alluded to a lot of the points that I was planning on making.

The basic fact of the building is there with presenting 12 units, uh six one-bedroom, one bath, and two one two bedrooms, two baths.

It's a transit-oriented design, so we uh uh look headed on what we feel is a is a very uh accessible uh address in terms of uh transportation.

We're proposing a four-story building that that is in keeping with a lot of the uh structures already on Dorchester Ave and a lot smaller than a lot of the new construction that have been uh put up in the last uh couple years.

So uh it's it's a basically a building that we think is gonna be in keeping in scale and style with West in the neighborhood, keeping the vernacular intact uh and and keeping the units uh to a point where they're small enough that they they actually fit the transit oriented model in terms of one and two bedrooms.

We are providing three parking spaces that have not been dedicated to anyone in particular that can be decided at a time.

Maybe they'll support the the the off the the with the retail office space that could be in the ground floor, or maybe they can be assigned to to maybe uh three tenants that may have some special needs.

So and uh having said that I I'm open to any questions you may have on the design.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

How much um green spaces there?

I guess I'm I'm not seeing bushes or trees on the site.

Uh uh, I don't know if you can bring the site plan.

Uh uh one of the things that we uh uh comments that we received from the uh neighborhoods and and in the main uh uh community meetings we've had was was an issue regarding uh uh lack of green space.

And one of the things we are committed to doing is uh is assuming that we probably will need to uh have some sort of review of BPDA is is to actually uh bring these uh uh issues to front and and address them.

We feel like it's the it's very easily tackled by by uh by me uh by providing some uh some green space in the front of the building and also towards the back.

We will have a driver that'll be a permeable space, and then maybe there'll be maybe there'll be some opportunities there to have some green line bushes on the alongside the properties.

So there's some work to be done in that's in that sense, but we we do intend to to make some uh progress towards that goal.

Thank you.

Other questions from reform?

This is rental or homeownership and and how you comply with um the inclusionary development policy.

Well, I don't know if Ernest wants to answer that.

I know we are obligated to meet the uh the ordinance in terms of affordable uh set aside.

So that would be that would be done, and I do believe that is intending to go above and beyond that.

Yes, yes, thank you.

Uh thank you for the questions.

And uh again, um during my brief um presentation, I mentioned uh extensive uh community engagement.

Originally when we started, we intended to make those all rentals.

And when we engaged uh civic leaders, uh there was a very strong desire to just for home ownership, and they educated us on the need for that.

And what we would like to do with permission of the board is to make them condos, but reserve two of them simply because we have two kids uh who no longer want to live with us and uh have a desire to move back into the city.

Um we with approval from the board, we'd like to keep at least two of the units for ourselves so that we can uh uh pass them on to our children, but the remaining would be common those to promote homeownership in the community.

I think as long as it does not uh interfere with the IDP requirements, like you're not using those two off of the 12.

Um, no, no.

Well, how many units are affordable?

Is that really the question of this project?

Two.

Two units.

Okay.

Yes.

Two, okay, thank you.

Okay, we have a public testimony.

Hello, madam chair, members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 2038 Dorchester Av.

This refers to the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including an abutter's meeting held on 12125.

That was well attended by several Borcaster community members where the feedback from this meeting was overall productive, although there weren't some concerns expressing uh density and parking.

Additionally, we received uh letters of excuse me, letters of support from Councillor Many Eric Culpepper, Counselor Julia Mahia, and Counselor Ruthie of Lugen.

We also received 20 letters expressing support and two letters expressing opposition to the project.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Lower Mill Civic Association, and the applicant had had some difficulties in conversation where the civic association had significant concerns, including density, parking, setbacks, as well as height, and requested the applicant make major changes and return to meet with them at a later meet.

The applicant wished to move forward with their proposal at this time.

The mayor's office of neighborhood services differs to the board's judgment on this matter.

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Madam Chair, we don't have a leash enough hands raised at the moment.

Thank you.

Can you comment again on the ground floor uses?

Yes.

So you go ahead and yes, so the uh ground floor, my office again is at 299 Gallagher Boulevard.

And in terms of just giving you geographic location, it's just one and a half blocks away.

Um, our intention is to move the office to the ground floor, and that was again um born out of the community concern.

Um, they just didn't want a lot of um people coming in and lack of pocket, and the way we operate, we are able to schedule those who visit our office.

Um, uh, and we do a lot of zoom meeting, and we think that would be uh represent the least amount of disruptive to our neighbors and the community.

Okay, Mr.

Hampton, are you on just to can you clarify the the use piece, the general retail versus the law office?

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

Um general retail is a completely different use in a professional office.

Um I think if uh the opponent were to put his law office on the ground floor of this building, uh they need a change of occupancy because, like I said, general retail is a very different use uh than a professional office.

So I just want that as a point of clarity and just an FYI for the appellant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um is someone named Thomas.

Are you looking to speak?

Uh I am, Madam Chair.

Okay, briefly.

Yes, please.

Um, my name is Thomas Weistros.

My address is 1049 Adams Street in Dorchester.

I'm representing the Lower Mills Civic Association, of which I have been a board member for approximately 30 years.

I am a 39-year resident of Laura Mills.

I'm a registered architect, and I've spent 14 years, also spent 14 years working as a design review architect with the BRA.

Well, I had the opportunity to prepare and present projects like this for the board's consideration.

I'm here today to voice that Lower Mill Civic Association's strong objection to the proposed variances.

The opposition to is based on excessive release being sought.

Um, the comments that we uh moving forward on what those points would be.

The proposed plan places 12 units on a site where three, I repeat, three are allowed.

Um there's not another, there are very there's one with the exception of one property, there's not another multifamily building with 70 uh foot radius of the building, um, with the exception of the Boston Home, which is across the across the street, and that's on a five-acre lot.

The proponent plans for a four-story structure in a neighborhood of approximately two and a half story structures, single uh single and uh two-family structures, and uh, but although there are a few three family dwellings to the south between this property and um more of the street, Galvan Boulevard.

Um the proponent plan uh plans commercial use on the ground floor, forbidden use in the 3F subdistrict.

As the board is aware, these commercial uses have been a problem to rent even in the popular community commercial subdistricts.

So parking without uh stand uh a good chance of uh with without parking this space, uh stands a very good chance of not being able to be leasable.

Uh the proponent plans only three parking spaces for 12 units, um, uh or a uh two-point, about point two five parking ratio.

Uh it's not clear how the spaces will even be accessed by their plan.

Is there sufficient spaces being provided for maneuvering?

Even the TOD2 development is up in Ash right at Ashmont Station has a two-to-one parking ratio, so this ratio um uh we but we don't even believe that the project could be financial with so few parking spaces.

The proponent proposes no front yard setback, although they had come to us indicating that there would be.

Can you please wrap up your points?

Please wrap up your points.

So no front yard.

Uh the project has no usable open space.

The FARA is almost double the allowable FAR.

Um, the underlying F3D residential subdistrict is established to maintain the character of the U.

Which is thank you.

Okay.

Can the applicant uh briefly respond?

Yeah, uh, yes.

Uh Madam Chair, um, I think there are a few points that were made that I maybe I can address very quickly in terms of the scale of the building.

I think if you stand in front of a proposed building, I think within viewing distance, you will notice uh a few addresses that is 910 Duchess of AB, 1943 Duchess Ave, 1955 Duchess that have, we need 45 just to have.

That's just four of them that I can think of right now.

There are a much larger scale than what we're proposing.

Uh, and if anybody was familiar with Duchester Ave uh a this corridor does have uh several uh four to five story buildings, uh, and and what we're proposing is not uh a falling to what's been uh in the neighborhood for a while, uh, also what's been presented and built in the last few years.

As far as a setback, uh, there is there is a little bit of setback being prevented right now uh at the site uh where there will be opportunity to print some uh bushes and some greenery, but we are open to pushing the building back a little bit uh uh to create a even more of that if if if desired.

Uh regarding the parking, uh I think we were very frank on the unsettled disquisition that this is a transit oriented design.

Uh we don't we uh with a with a project that is within uh walking distance to Ashman Station with 12 bus lines right in front of a building.

So we feel that uh the parking issue, while we understand how important it is to the community.

Uh, we feel that because of the nature of this building, we we can we mitigate that quite a bit.

Thank you very much.

Now you you'll need Madam Chair, sorry.

Sorry, that's okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Yeah, I just um in regards to the BPD recommendations of uh providing some front yard setback that would ensure kind of elimination of the three parking spaces in the rear.

I do see problems with the maneuverability of getting in and out with the with the one of the parking spaces right at the end of the driveway.

Um, and so the question really yields, you know, would the project still work without any without any um parking spaces if you were to really include some front yard setbacks of you know, based on what BPD is recommending.

So a question for the applicant, would you be would it be would it still work if you were to eliminate one or two spaces to accommodate yards?

Yes, we we believe that uh the project will still stand on its own merit if we were to reduce the number of parking.

And as I mentioned, this part uh this project is a transit or unit uh uh proposal.

We're not relying on parking for the viability of the project.

This uh we we we expect and actually would encourage many of our uh uh inhabitants to actually take advantage of public transmittion on the uh the the parking spaces were being proposed.

Uh uh, we would still have as a uh sort of bonus uh uh amelioration on the site.

Uh, and and I think if we needed to push back the building uh sacrifice one parking space, I think to me it's a it's a it's a valuable and and uh uh straight off, and that I will be willing to, and and and again, uh we are very flexible in terms of our uh uh arrangement with whatever you guys propose into the uh um uh uh engagement with BPDA and making some changes in the building or to the cycling site plan.

But I think when you look at the building overall, this the scale, the number of the the number of units, the tactical units are being proposed.

I think that's very in keeping with what's being proposed up and down, they're just a half, and I think we would think we're very excited about this project.

Yeah.

Um I don't have any further further questions.

So we're not going back and forth with public comment, so now is the time for the board to speak.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review for site planning on the overall location of the building to kind of work with its context uh setbacks, and the other proviso is to allow for the BPD to determine um the amount of parking if any, but to increase open space, which I feel would be needed for 12-unit uh to accommodate dumpsters trash.

Uh that would be my motion, and the housing agreement to be executed.

I'm sorry, and then to also uh a third proviso that the applicant enters into a housing agreement with MOH to provide affordable units per the IDP regulations.

Thank you.

Uh is there a second?

There it comes.

Mr.

Stunbridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes, Ms.

Turn.

Uh sorry.

Uh Ms.

Benabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes.

Yes, the motion carries the vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Shew.

Thank you.

Um about sure.

The next two are the two cases are the case of uh I have a note that the first one would be withdrawn and the second will be the first.

With that, we have case BOA 1776 with the address of 31 Plain Street.

Um this is the one that uh have no being withdrawal.

And also, along with that, we have case BOA 1776 with the address of what nine points.

And Caroline, do they already have a new deferral date?

Yes, so for 29th Plain street for June 16th at 11 38.

Do you need two separate motions?

Or one?

No.

What is that?

Okay, so may I have a motion?

Motion to defer until June 16th of this year at 11 30 a.m.

To defer 29 Plain Street.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Badabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Bonato.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes.

Yes, the motion carries.

So with that, we'll move on to the next case, which is case BOA 180-5913.

With the address of 42 East Street.

If the applicant had no representative of present, they're doing responding to the board.

Good morning, Chair, Madam Chair and members of the board.

My name is Bonnie Tan with JCBT architect.

We have came in to the board a couple years ago for the uh variance of 42E Street.

And at the permit stage not realized the last plan exam or miss a couple of uh items on the refusal letter.

So the drawing layout hasn't been changed since after BPDA.

So the added um item that was missing, including additional insufficient lot for drawing unit, use regulation, and main door being on the side.

So these actually, the doors we have been discussed at the first meeting, but it wasn't on the refusal letters, and we're seeking um to see if the board can um approve this uh matter today.

Questions from the board, Mr.

Hampton?

Just to confirm about you have three units.

The project is for three units and nine parking spaces.

The parking spaces hasn't been changed and it's the three unit.

Um yes, we have uh plenty of parking spaces.

Why are they gonna need nine parking spaces for three units?

We have actually reduced the number of parking space to put more two for six.

Six parking spaces.

From the first meeting, um, the board was seeking we have a couple of um visitor parkings in the front from the very first of the uh zoning hearing that the board suggests to reduce those parking and push the building forward and have more green space.

So we don't have outdoor parking anymore, it's just uh six garage parking.

There's no outdoor parking.

Okay, just on the uh planning department recommendation.

They uh they notice uh six garage spaces and three sort of spaces.

So we have here perhaps you can use spaces anymore, yeah.

There's no more outdoor parking spaces.

Okay, thank you.

I'll miss it.

Hampton, Mr.

Hampton?

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

Um, as the appellate stated, they do have stamped approved plans by the BPDA for uh six garage parking spaces.

Um, we were a little confused on why this was coming back when they did have stamp plans, and we were wondering why all of a sudden these three um violations were now being cited after the ZBA had approved this back in 2023, and the appellant had received our stamped approved plans.

We were curious if the design is changing and what else might be happening.

So uh we just want to have some sort of confirmation that this was an error by ISD and that because I don't see any new plans, they are still using the ones that were stamped by us to be presented to the inspectional services department, correct?

There's no changes since BPDA approval.

It was um ISD error, the missing three items of the violation on the refusal letter.

And this was brought after you had tried to bring the plans to ISD?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions from the board may I have public testimony madam chair members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Bamberry I have the Q Trust the Community Asian specialist for the Office of the Board Services yeah I guess completed the community process which consists of a subcommittee project distributed to a bonus as well as encouraging report to reach out to the civic association and with no community feedback was approved to move forward thank you for your time we resolved the neighborhood services would like to defer to the thank you and chair we don't have any more comments okay may I have a motion uh mad sorry I just have a clarification can you go to the the front the front uh the parking spaces please the front elevation where you see the garage so um I'm reading uh the front for the front elevations page six yep keep going okay I see um so this this garage is internal to the driveway correct correct okay so um I'm still a little bit um confused in regards to what we're approving so maybe madam chair you can just clarify one more time what we're approving I see Mr.

Hampton's hand up I think you can uh yeah yeah this may be very splitting of hairs but the design that is being shown here is different than what is on the stamped plans uh was per BPDA request when because we have stamped plans from 2024 that do not show these changes um can I make a I'm sorry can I make a motion of deferral so that um we know uh we have just a clear picture what we're approving um because you're seeing that would be that would be uh helpful since the again the project description also seems slightly off right with these spaces and then it seems like the plans are different than what BPD approved so uh we have a motion is there a second they could okay Mr.

Stembridge yes Mr.

Valencia yes Ms.

Turner yes Barbara yes Fernado yes Mr Collins yes chair votes yes the motion carries it's definitely numbered uh the next date would be july 14th okay and I can I make a recommendation that the applicant if you if you can provide a submission of what BPD um stamped as the approved plans and um and submit that with then the these design and outline what what is being changed or what we are approving just a little bit of context would be helpful in the explanation of the project understand okay thank you thank you thank you eighty uh our next case is case boa one five four three zero nine three with the address of 1195 to 1199 to it just wrap and before we go any further ballot chair we have some recurs themselves from this case yes I need to recuse myself from this case thank you okay thank you we are again a six member board so with that we will have with the applicant the door the representative who's supposed to case to the board for sure good morning madam chair members of the board attorney Derek Small from the business adjuster of 51 Dopson Ruby.

With me today is the architect for the project, Mr.

Anthony Pizzani.

And so today we're here seeking relief um to combine parcels uh demolish the existing structure at two green mouth street, and erect a three-story building for offices and retail spaces um at the address on Dorchester Avenue uh the zoning subdistrict here is straddled, Straddles II's only subdistrict, property does, which is the neighborhood shopping district and the three FD 3000 subdistricts.

We are with the combined lot size of about 12,001 square feet, we're seeking to erect the three-story building for offices of retail.

With regard to zoning violations, inspectional services department has cited us both in both zoning subdistricts, and so we are seeking relief from this board for those violations.

And our proposal is at 1.6.

The accessory parking in the residential is forbidden use and the use in the retail in the residential, we're also seeking relief for.

Yes.

If you could go back to the front elevation, I'll simply describe those.

What the section through or okay, one more?

No.

This is trying to okay.

So this was the first scheme.

And the first scheme shows, and the major change was that this scheme shows Brisolet across the front elevation.

The neighbors thought that that was a little bit aggressive.

And what we did was we subsequently eliminated the brisolat, and we used a larger cornice line that is a curved cornice line.

The project, other than that, the plans.

If we go to the plans now, scroll down again.

Okay, so we can describe the project well from here.

Consists of retail on the ground floor and small scale office space on the second and third floor.

One of the needs that has been developed over time in this neighborhood is there are very little, there is very little space for small time commercial.

And the community and the owner have discovered that there's a need for small-time office space, for everything from accountants to perhaps dentists to uh.

Yeah, and so we we've worked extensively with the community with regard to um the retail space and the office space.

The current um occupant of the building is a nail bay um salon and businesses that will be moving into the building as well, and um we've heard extensively from the community that um they would like to see a bank or in or a credit union on the retail um ground level um, you know, going for the retail space, and so that's what um we are seeking to seeking to do.

If you um scroll down a little bit further, Madam Mr.

Depp, you can stop right there.

Um, this shows the parking plan.

Um the parking will be um off of Green Mount Street.

Uh we are proposing 12 parking spaces in the rear of the building, um, and the traffic flows from Pleasant Street in Dorchester down to Dorchester Avenue.

There is an existing curb cut on our Green Mount Street, and then folks would turn right onto um the street and then take a right onto Dorchester Avenue.

So the traffic blows um pretty steadily.

Um, we work with the community again extensively.

Um we sought a curb cut off of Dorchester Avenue, but um the Transportation Department Um did not agree with that, as there is a very large curb cut um which supports the dot block building on Dorchester Avenue within that block.

Um, so um the parking again will be off of Green Mount Street 12 spaces, um, and we will be using the existing curb cut on that site.

Um we can stop there and take any questions that folks may have.

Thank you.

Uh are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, maybe public testimony.

Hello, Madam Chair.

Members of the board, my name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services regarding 1195 to 1199 Dorchester Act, our dark our office defers to the board's judgment.

A community process has been ongoing, and a meeting was hosted more than two years ago.

Considering the time passed, we requested another meeting that was hosted on 318 26 that was well attended by several Dorchester community members and mostly residents from Green Mount Street.

Uh, the street that this proposal intersects.

The feedback from this was residents had significant concerns in regards to parking as they were unsure how called spaces would accommodate both ground floor retail and office spaces above.

They also expressed that their street received significant congestion during rush hour, and we're worried that this proposal would only exacerbate that issue.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Columbia Seven Hill Civic Association where they requested changes for the proposal to include a drop-off area and additional curb cut for the traffic to flow better.

The association planning and zoning committee recommended support for the general membership vote.

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 consideration.

Thank you.

Hello, Madam Chairman's and Board, Mayor members from Council Pitserell's office.

So just looking forward to how they continue to work with the residents just kind of address and alleviate the concerns.

Madam Chair, we won't have additional comments.

Can I just add, Madam Chair, that um prior to the sponsored abutters meetings, we have been working with and we will continue to work with the residents on Green Mount Street.

Um we've had several meetings with them, and we will continue um to do that as the project move forward if if approved.

Also, we are amenable to um the recommendations of the BPD with regard to this project as we move forward.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I like to put forward a motion of approval that the project undergoes BPD design review to pay special attention to the screening that's required along the parking area.

Um and uh and also just for site planning for you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Better Barraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Have a good day.

Next we have case BOA 182467 with the address of 169th and Gale Street.

If the applicants and the other representative were present, they please explain the case to the board.

Sure.

My name is Alex Topkov.

I'm the owner of the property, and Dmitry is my general contractor department on this.

This case was actually approved in 2023 already.

Not previous, but the case site before that was mentioned, and we went through the same thing.

So it is a transit oriented development as well.

We're not adding any, like we're not changing the building envelope aside from adding the balcony in the back.

And uh the fourth floor was already pre-existing prior to the fire damage.

It was used as attic space.

We just asked to convert that to a habitable unit, the fourth unit.

Again, nothing has changed since 2023.

This is identical to what was presented in 2023 and was already approved.

Uh the difference and meet you can speak uh speak more on this was in that one of the variances was missed at that time, which did not surface until we uh were going ahead to actually build uh um later on.

So what was the violation that was missed?

Uh it was sparking radius.

Uh Dimitri, do you want to speak more of that?

No, I'm so sorry, I'm having trouble by video, so I apologize for them trying to get that in order, but I believe it was instead of five feet, it was down to the reference to the three feet.

Um, and that was the only difference is the two feet difference.

But um the inspector when we applied for the building permit, still requested us to come back.

But it was approved by the ZBA.

Thank you.

Are there other questions from the board?

Hearing that, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board for the market.

My name is Jeremy Bembary.

I'm the judge of the community engagement specialist for the office of paper services.

The append has completed the community process, which consisted of notification file, distributed to a voters.

The date our office has received one letter of concern regarding proper direct construction as the resident goes properly would be disrupted for his family in the area to construction.

So that has consent to the board for thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Madam Two, we don't have a leader hands race at the moment.

Okay.

May I have a motion?

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

Is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Stunbridge.

Yes, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Better Barraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair of Ches, the motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next, we have case B08.

183 6018 with the address of 18 drones.

If the applicants and the other representative are present, but they're pleased to find to the board.

Yes, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Good morning, madam chair.

Members of the board, attorney Derek Small.

How about the Address of 51 Dobson Road.

I'm here today, seeking relief to erect a three family dwelling on a vacant lot.

The zoning subdistrict here is a 3F 5000, so it is a three-family zoning subdistrict.

Our violations are FAR, the required FAR is 0.8.

We are proposing 1.9.

Side yard violation requirement is five feet.

We have five on one side and three on the other.

The requirement is 30 feet.

With regard to parking, the required parking is three spaces, and we are providing none no off-street parking.

So the violations are the dimensional violations in this zoning subdistrict, which are very common on all of the lots.

If we go back up to the site plan, that would be great.

As this section of Drone Street is a dead end street.

That dead end, if you want to go back to the site plan, that dead end street, that section of Droney Street, there are a number of vacant parcels, all of which are kind of small in nature.

But historically, this section of Droney Street has been the site of a lot of illegal dumping, a lot of nefarious activity, and so what we're trying to do as well is trying to create housing on vacant lots, keeping in consistent with the mayor's plan for creating housing on the vegan lots in the city of Austin, as well as getting rid of the blight of these vacant lots in this section.

Again, we are seeking to create uh three family dwelling in a three uh family subdistrict um at Dromey Street again.

So we met with the fire department.

The fire department has cleared the way for access on that section of the dead end street.

We've had uh several meetings with abutters and neighbors who are welcome uh some some activity down on that section of droney stream.

Um, and so uh we are seeking your approval for this today.

I could stop there and answer any questions that folks may have.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing nine ma'am public testimony, madam chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Charlie V.

Marie.

I have the community engagement specifics on the George of Security Engaging Specialist, the Office of Liquid Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of the voters' meeting facilitated on January 7th, which one voter attended in a support of the proposal expressive favor for additional housing in the development, the current vacant lot.

The proposal was then presented to the Square Neighborhood Association, Dunley Square Neighborhood Initiative.

Uh, February 26th concerns raised included the lack of proposed parking and submission setbacks and the potential impact of market rate development on local property taxes, which may create financial burdens for fixed income families.

Additionally, W Street neighborhood initiative expressed the opposition to the proposal due to the absence of portable house and to date our office and number three them over to me.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Madam King just if if I may.

These are two bedroom, one bath uh units.

Um, they will be um homeownership opportunities.

Um, and again, I think um there was some concern with the meeting at D SNI that there were no affordable units, quote-unquote affordable with regard to the IDP, and I, you know, and I expressed them that it was a required um on a project of this size.

So with that, um, I'll turn it back over to you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Sorry, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Beta Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Or yes.

Chair won't yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman of the Board.

Have good days.

Next, we have KOA 1824.

14.

The address of 73 Sanchum Street.

Yeah, again, the other representative of president.

Supplies on the board.

Good morning, asked David Hassman here.

Thank you.

My name is David Hassman.

I'm a Mission Hill resident.

I live at 13 Worthington Street.

And I am presenting this.

This is a two family property.

And I'm proposing the addition of four units utilizing the adjacent lot, which was previously purchased from the city of Boston through the RFP process.

Part of this process was in a commitment to maintain the historic wall at the front of the property and a large oak tree.

Through careful design with my architect, my architectural team, Joresco Associates, we're able to design a property where we could develop units that are uh feasible and find to be a good fit for the neighborhood.

Uh the total unit count will be six.

Um we are within the the height requirement of this addition.

Uh we will have four, we are proposing to have four two bedroom units and then three, uh sorry, two uh duplex three bed units.

Um, our areas of relief needed are insufficient parking, uh use forbidden, excessive FAR, insufficient additional law area per unit, insufficient front yard setback, and insufficient rear yard setback of the shallow lot.

Um, with that, I will turn it over to the board for comment and questions.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing non-man public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board members, Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

Petitioner completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 4th, which no opposition was raised.

The community allies of Mission Hill is supporting this application.

With that background, ONS deferred judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Benham.

I live at one El Doris Street in Mission Hill.

I was unaware of the meeting.

Um we have trouble getting mail here because of never mind, it's the post office.

We don't get our mail.

At any rate, I am concerned because this is not housing for people who are not students, and we are surrounded by students, and we are also live in a place that is gets we can hear Fenway's um concerts from here.

So my concern is I have to walk around and find out so I can ask the kids to please go inside or turn down the music.

Well, but three and four, and then it's just density for me, it's density.

And we have another place that's just being built now that they're gonna have like 12 kids in there, 12 more kids.

So this isn't for affordable housing or for people who live in the city that want to have a community.

I don't we don't have a neighborhood anymore on the street, it's just taken over by rentals and the rentals, they make a lot of money because they get four or five kids in one apartment, and then it working people cannot afford the rents in contrast to the students, and so this to me is is like this isn't helping with housing other than for students.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have uh the person with a in this iPhone, Madam Chairman of the Board.

My name's Adam Sarbach.

Um Mission Hill Resident Community Alliance Board Member.

Um speaking in support of it as um the ONS reference Dave has been did bum multiple times to the community alliance um took feedback from the um engagement and the meetings and actually changed his design accordingly eliminating some outdoor space and some patios from other neighbors' concerns um about a neighbor concerns of that um he did mission hill is a tough neighborhood for development and uh Dave has been through with uh flying colors in the vote on approval and support I think the community alliance which is which is an a uh rare defeat so I just wanted to point that out both as a mission hill resident and as a um board member of community alliance to support the project thank you thank you next we have Tony Bayes morning madam chair and members of board um any bias behalf of just like the go on record I'm sorry you're going in and out um counselor Durkin would like to be um record in support of this thank you thank you there are no additional comments okay are there other questions from the board and the applicant touch on the concerns that were raised sure um I appreciate Adam's uh comments and to reiterate that so based on after initial meeting which was March 18th uh we went back to the drawing board and we removed a single outdoor space for the unit um and that was in recognition of uh any potential noise from the single uh outdoor space to our abutting neighbors um I've met with resident the abutters um uh directly on site there um and uh I'm happy to address um the the comments from from today's meeting but I feel like removing the outdoor space was appropriate um and also mentioning that um five of the nine units that I do have are rented to professionals so I'm not I'm not targeting students on this uh I am a uh by trade a property manager and so I have a good track record of maintaining units as well as maintaining our our residents uh within the community thank you any any questions from the board may I have a motion motion to approve there are second second Mr.

Stembridge and you unmute Mr.

Stunbridge sorry about that madam chair yes thank you Mr.

Valencia yes Turner yes Ms.

Benabraza yes penado yes mr collins yes chair most yes the motion carries good luck thank you uh chair at this moment uh since we asked the 11 o'clock hour we will I'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m.

Hearing done we'll return to the 930 hearings to case B08 one eight two seven through six eight with the address of 49 by the street if the applicant and order representative present please explain the case in the board.

Good morning everyone um I think it's James Basso I'm representing 49 Vine Street in Charlestown and what we're looking to do is uh build a car court where the existing parking spots are uh for the aging priests that are living um in that building.

There's been existing parking there, and we're just looking to add coverage um due for weather.

Uh we had a pre-straw last year, and we've been using temporary uh tents almost um to cover the lot, and we're just looking to put a more permanent structure there.

Yes.

Questions from the board?

Can you explain um uh uh in terms of the parking?

What what is there now?

Is it just open space?

Yeah, it's just an open lot that can fit.

I believe it's four uh full size cars and two compact cars.

Right, but um, that's what you're proposing.

So existing what I don't those spots exist currently, those spots do currently exist.

Okay, carport spots exist, you're not adding more parking.

Correct.

No, I'm just looking to add the coverage over the top of it.

Correct, yes.

Okay, and um, and what is the reason again to do that?

Um there's just age and priests that are living there, and um it's been just a struggle in the winter uh for them.

Um, and uh we've used temporary structures um and like tent like structures, and the this came up uh someone suggested it, so we said let's look and see what it takes to to do that, right?

So it's for it's for an aging population you said, yes.

For coverage, yes.

Okay, um, I don't have any further questions.

I'm just I would like to um I'm trying to find out uh why the Boston Planning Department is their recommendations denial, and I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that, but um if Mr.

Hampton would like to weigh in, that's fine.

I mean, we have a so we have the summary here, so I I'm wondering clear that these were the same spots that exist.

Uh are there other questions?

I don't have any further questions, thank you.

Public testimony?

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

This petitioner completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on April 1st when the butter supported the application, citing the good community uh based organization and the positive work they do in the Charlestown community office also received two letters of support with similar sentiments for building a carport over the existing parking.

We're not aware of any concerns from the community with that background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Madame Chair, next week of the Steven Marine from City Council of Coleta.

Hi, Madam Chair, members of the board, um, here on behalf of Councillor Coletta Zabata, and uh our office would like to go on record in support of the requested zoning relief for harvest on vines for porous carport at 49 Vine Street.

This improvement will strengthen food distribution operations and support an organization that provides essential services to residents across Charlestown.

Uh we respectfully urge uh favorable consideration.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Any other questions from the board?

Um can you just go ahead?

Yeah, I would address the issue of screening.

Is there any plan to do any landscaping on this site?

In front of where the cars are, there are existing trees and uh and bushes there, um, but uh it's right now it's all asphalt.

Um, so I don't I don't there's nothing planned currently to add, um, and there's a little island behind that also has some greenery in it.

Yeah, would you be open to um removing one of the compact space to allow for some green kind of vegetation screening along tough street because, you know, reading the BPD recommendation, it's they're proposing denial because it's impacting the major kind of pedestrian street experience, and so um you know, would you be willing to rem reduce one of the spaces to allow for vegetation?

We can look at that.

Um, I'm not opposed to any of that.

Um we can definitely we can definitely look at that.

Um, all along Tufts Street there, up to where the parking lot is, too.

There's this green space and trees and bushes, and right now when you walk up there, just it's asked all.

Okay, have a question too.

Just to uh from some of some of the comments, people are mentioning that this cohort is going to support the fourth institution program.

You mentioned that these is two held uh or their residents who use those uh parking spaces.

So which one of those two are the main reasons for these um proposed?

There are two food with distributions a month that are happening in the parking lot right now.

The residents live there 365 days a year.

Um so it it would do both.

Um the there are 25 food distributions a year that are right now since COVID happening in the parking lot.

Um, so they're both they both would happen.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any further questions?

Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the applicant works with BPD on the size of the port to allow sufficient vegetation to um reduce the the impact on uh on the public way.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Barbara, yes.

Ms.

Penado, yes.

Mr.

Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 170.

Oh, to with the address of 19 to 21 miles.

If the applicants are representative present, we could supply the case and board.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board.

Uh, I'm Steve Bartlett of Fully Hoag LOP counsel for the applicant in this appeal, Cure Leaf, Massachusetts Inc.

This appeal requests board approval to change the name of the petitioner on an existing conditional use permit for the cannabis dispensary located at 19 to 21 Milk Street in downtown Boston.

Then the name of the petitioner on the existing permit is John Moriarty, and the only change to the permit for which my client is seeking approval from the board today is to replace that name with CuraLeaf Massachusetts Inc.

The board should be aware that my client has completed the Boston Cannabis Board licensing process on March 25th of 2026.

The BCB voted to approve a cannabis license for cure leaf at this location.

Then on May 11, 2026, Cure Leaf and the City of Boston executed a host community agreement authorizing Cure Leaf to operate a co-located medical and adult use cannabis dispensary at this location.

So in other words, the BCB and the City of Boston have already vetted and approved Cure Leaf Massachusetts Inc.

as an operator of a cannabis dispensary at this location, and therefore we respectfully request that the board grant this very narrow relief requested in this appeal, which is again simply changing the name of the petitioner on the existing conditional use permit from John Moriarty to Cure Relief Massachusetts Inc.

That is the long and short of this appeal, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Before I do that, I would like to briefly address what I believe may have been a clerical miscommunication related to a revised refusal letter that ISD issued on April 22nd.

After the BCB provided ISD with confirmation of its vote to approve a cannabis license for cure relief, ISD issued a revised refusal letter, noting that this location 19 to 21 Milk Street was within the buffer zone of another cannabis establishment.

But to be absolutely clear and for the reasons that we set forth in the supplemental letter that was filed last week.

Uh this appeal does not raise any buffer zone issues, and that is because there is an active conditional use permit for a cannabis establishment at this site, which has been operated as a cannabis establishment for almost a decade.

Uh the board might be aware that this location is actually the site of the very first cannabis location in downtown Boston in April of, I'm sorry, excuse me, in August of 2016, uh Patriot Care, now known as the Cannabis, opens it, opened its doors and began dispensing medical cannabis products to registered patients.

Then in 2021, the conditional use permit for the site was amended to allow for both medical and adult use cannabis sales.

Uh it is this conditional use permit that remains valid, and this location has already been cited and approved by the board as a cannabis dispensary.

Uh so as a matter of law, there is no buffer zone issue that the board needs to address here today.

Um it might be helpful for the board to know that I've discussed this very point with Ed Coburn and Caroline Burkard in the IST general counsel's office, and I I won't presume to speak for them today, but I have my understanding is that they see this issue in the very same way and have concluded that this appeal does not give rise to any buffer zone issues.

Um for that reason, if the board believes it would be appropriate to make an express determination that no buffer zone issue exists here and that no variance is required for this very narrow relief that has been requested.

Uh, my client and I would certainly support that resolution as a way of clarifying the record.

Um, thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, honor to move the mayor's office of neighborhood services.

This time the mayor's object to defer to the judge from this board.

Some background information on the community process.

ONS had hosted a community meeting on April 3rd of 2025.

It was lightly attended.

Uh, in that meeting, the applicant was able to answer questions that the downtown business association's representative had uh for the establishment.

They went on to present to the Boston Cannabis Board where they were approved.

There was concerns from the Wharf District Neighborhood Council that wanted to engage more with the applicants, as well as concerns from a another uh dispensary operating in the downtown area.

Uh but as you heard, um, the uh Boston Cannabis Board did approve this proposal uh and worked out a host community grant with them.

That information uh with no further concerns that we're aware of the further board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chur, we don't have a leader of hands raised for comments.

Okay, may I have a motion?

The chair motion approval.

There's second, back in.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Ben Baraza, yes.

Ms.

Bernardo.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you all.

Vote to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m.

Uh well to usually I ask if during request for withdrawals will just vote.

Hearing done.

We're launching case VOA on eight to two three six three, with the address of 47 Farragut Road.

The applicant and the order of representative were present.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

I'm Nick Landry from DRT.

We're the architects for the project.

Um, and I'm joined today by Andrea Higgins, the owner of the property.

Um so we're here today.

Um, we've got a quite small project, but we're just looking to finish some space in the basement to create a uh an exercise area.

Um, we sent in a presentation.

I don't know if we can pull that up.

Well, well, that's getting pulled up.

Um, so what we've been cited for um is an FAR violation.

We're increasing the um inner square footage in the basement by about 260 square feet.

Um, perfect.

All right, great.

So um, so the project's located at 47 Farragut Road, right on the corner there.

If it can we go back to the last presentation, perfect.

Um, and if we just pull up for a second, um, to the first slide.

So we're looking the project's located at 47 Farragut Road.

Here it's here.

It's on the corner of Geese Third and Farragut in South Boston.

Um, we're working on on just the the scope of the work will just be on the first floor and in the basement.

Um, none of this work will be visible from the exterior.

I go to the next slide, please.

You can get on the next slide here.

We can see the so the zoning violation, there's an FAR violation.

Um, what's allowable is is 2.0.

Currently, the building as it sits is about 2.6, and with these changes, we'll be at about 2.72.

And again, that's just gonna be finishing some some space in the basement.

If we can go down to the next page and zoom in on the plans on the on the left-hand side there, um, and just scroll down a little bit.

Um so the so we're looking at right here that the top, the upper left-hand corner of basement.

You can see there's currently some finished space in the basement, it's highlighted in blue.

We're just gonna be increasing that space to make that uh exercise area a little more usable and the bathroom also a little bit more functional.

And that that unit currently, in order for Andrea to access that space, she needs to exit the building, go around the back of the building down a stair.

Now we'll be adding a stair that will directly connect her first floor space to that basement space to make it a lot easier to use.

Um, with that, that's the scope of the project.

Um, do any questions?

I'm gonna have an answer.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing then, man, public testimony.

Yes, the answer with the office of neighborhood services.

This petitioner completed the community process, office hosted in a buyers meeting on March 19th, at which no opposition was stated.

City Point Neighborhood Association took no position on this application with that background ONS defer as judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, Nick, we have Ashley from the Consulate office.

Good morning.

My name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office.

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

You request that proponent continue to work closely with neighbors in a butters.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah, no additional comments.

That may have a motion.

Sorry, I am sorry.

Can you hear me?

Yes, my hand is up.

You didn't call on me.

You unmuted me.

So my name is Loran O'Connor, president of the City Point Neighborhood Association, and I just want to go on record that the abutters meeting did happen.

There was no opposition.

This particular expansion is considered a good project, it's positive.

It does not um change the look of the house and/or Farragut Road, which is one of our better looking streets in South Boston.

And with that, um, we decided they did not need to come into City Point and could proceed straight to ZBA.

So we will take no position on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Mr.

Stunbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Barbaronza, yes.

Ms.

Penado.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes.

Yes.

The motion carries.

The box.

Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA.

181.

1934.

That's the address of 16 monuments for the applicants.

Yes, good morning, Madam Chairperson and board members.

My name is Sarah Matusa.

I am the owner of 16 Monument Square.

And alongside me, I have my architect Elena Rosato to help answer any technical questions that you may have.

In essence, I am the owner of the top floor unit of a five units uh dwelling on Monument Square.

Collectively, we are in need of a new front half of the roof due to leakage.

I am the lucky recipient of those uh leaks and have had those for the past six or so years uh since I purchased in 2020.

The roof predates me from the late 80s, and uh the roof deck also predates me by a few um owners.

With the demolition and redo of the roof, I would like to get a new roof deck.

I was told it would be cheaper to actually do an entire rebuild than to reuse all of the existing materials that are up there, and so I am asking for the ability to extend the uh footprint of the roof by two feet closer to the streets.

I will be in the same breath, reducing the total height of the roof deck and total height over on the right.

You can see that, and additionally, I'm making a design change to the structure itself.

Today they are wooden slats that are about an inch and a half to two inches wide each, up and down, and it will be a much more minimal design of a cable wiring for um less presence, so to say.

Um view to the street.

Each of the two sides are uh concrete uh structures of my neighbors at both 15 and 17.

So with that, I'd love to take any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, we have public testimony.

See you also with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This petitioner completed the community process office hosted in a butters meeting on April 14th, at which no comments were made.

That back on ONS to for his judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, like to put for a motion of approval.

There are second second, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes, Ms.

Turner, yes, Ms.

Bernabraza.

Yes, Ms.

Penato, yes, Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Good luck, ma'am.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, uh, we'll take off five minute break to eleven thirty.

Recording stopped.

Mr.

Stembridge.

You're on mute.

Okay, I'm not now.

Thank you, Mr.

Valencia.

Present.

Ms.

Turner.

Present.

Ms.

Bedabraza.

President.

Ms.

Pinado.

Present.

Mr.

Collins.

Present.

Thank you.

Right back to you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, I need to review from this case.

Hasn't even been read yet, but okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, yes, we will read the discussion cases here before 11 30 a.m.

We begin with case BOA 182, 1678, with the address of 70 off of the street.

If the uh we can't oh, sorry, Madam Chair, but I was just gonna say we're a six-member board.

Yes.

I believe we're ready.

Ready?

I am a secretary.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Uh, my name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address at 10 Floor's Road.

I'm here behalf today on behalf of Niamh Wen and 70 Auckland Street.

Um, the proposal before you is to construct a rear two-story addition with parking at grade.

Um, we need some zoning relief, which include the use itself.

This will be a five-unit building.

It's currently a three-unit building.

We'll be adding two units to the addition.

Uh lot width and frontage.

The existing lot is 40 feet wide.

Uh, the requirement is 50.

Um, FAR, the existing FAR is 0.64, and we are proposing 1.05.

Um, building height and front yard, which are pre-existing non-conformances.

We will be matching the existing height at 36 foot two.

Um, the side yard is uh both left and right.

Uh pre-existing non-conforming, but we'll be extending that pre-existing non-conformance on the left side, but not where it's uh and then the rear yard is um currently 76.5 feet uh and it's required to be 30, and we are proposing 17.7 feet.

Um as we go through the plans, the the proposal is to continue, it's pretty straightforward.

It's a three unit building.

There's no work to happen to the front building.

We construct a two-story rear edition with five covered parking spaces to the rear.

Uh the there was a change during the community process to the building shape and design as we had had a flat roof, uh, and the comments came up that they would prefer a little pitched and uh so we were able to accommodate that.

Um and uh five parking spaces accurate while maintaining uh a 17-foot rear yard open space, so with that I'll answer any questions I can.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yes, could you please provide more information about your landscape and open space plan?

We got a couple of comments allowed, concerns that you don't have enough good in a space, open space, uh, and also what is your plan for parking?

One of your one of the mothers is mentioning that the park is going to negatively impact their property.

So if you can just cover those two items, sure.

Currently, there is uh uh two parking spaces at grade to the rear of the property.

Uh under the new addition, uh, we will have five spaces uh to the rear of the property.

We will have a 17 foot by 40 foot, a little bit less because we have a turnaround area of uh open space, which uh we're certainly happy to work with the BPD to provide some planting and uh usable space uh to that area.

Uh but the parking is accessed off of the driveway, five spaces one per unit.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions from the board?

Mayor public testimony.

Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board.

My name is Eric Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services.

Regarding somebody else and three in our office to further to the board's judgment on this matter, a community process was conducted, including an abutter's meeting held on 414-26th.

I was well attended by the Dorchester community members.

The feedback from this meeting was mostly productive community conversations where some concerns were also expressed regarding the parking and the height of the building.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Columbia Seven Hill Civic Association where they oppose the proposal with concerns related to density.

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

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Okay, any additional response from the applicant?

Um, I think you know, this area is just a combination populated area while adding the much-needed housing uh close proximity to two train stations.

We are still maintaining a yard that is larger than most of our abutters.

So I think that this is uh an appropriate use of this site.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Um, should I make a motion of what we have a license of the plan undergoes planning departments?

Um review special attention to increasing and improving open space.

Is there a second?

Well, second, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Ms.

Durbancia.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Better Braza.

I'm gonna I'm gonna say no.

I think that um the project is too dense as it is.

I think you could fit five units if you were to um occupy half of that edition, rework some of the uh existing building, and there and therefore then increase the open space.

Uh Ms.

Bobby.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

The uh note I have is that the remaining cases have been uh withdrawn.

I'm sorry, did you say this case is being withdrawn?

Uh we have two remaining cases and both have been withdrawn.

Okay, so thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I'll thank you, everyone.

Can you have a good day?

Recording stopped the other.