Good morning.

Of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for June 2nd, 2026 is now in session.

This hearing is being conducted with the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislator 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 remotely via the Zoom right now platform and is also being live streamed.

Normally, this hearing of the board is open to the public.

Members of the public may access this hearing through teleoction for connecting to this hearing listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public's page of the city's website Boston.gov.

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

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

They will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking.

Address is called or the meeting host will not go to call on you at the appropriate time.

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

Okay.

Mr.

Thembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Present.

Good morning.

Mr.

Guncia.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning.

Mr.

Lacome.

Good morning, Madam Chair Present.

Good morning.

Mr.

Burnell.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Present.

Good morning.

So we are a five-member board.

With that, I will turn it over to Mr.

Stembridge.

Oh, what happened now?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

These minutes are from May 14th and May 19th of this year.

I'll make a motion that approved.

May have a second.

Second.

You broke up there, Madam Chair.

Oh, sorry, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

But.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

Chairman's the motion carries.

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

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

If we have any questions, um after that, get direct those to Madam Chair, and then we'll go from there.

We begin with case BOA 156-7009 with the address of 13 Alexander Street.

Next we have case BOA 143-657 with the address of 110 to 118 Terrace Street.

Next we have case BOA 143-5582 with the address of 110 to 118 Terrace Street.

Next we have case BOA 157058 with the address of 2 to 10 Hitchborne Street.

And finally, for the extension that we have case BOA 129-9109 with the address of 252 to 252A Shaman Avenue.

And those are the extensions before us today.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

I have a motion to grant the extensions as motion to grant the extensions.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carried.

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

At this time.

We'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals.

Yes, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes, Mr.

Mall.

Yes, um, the address is 841-847 Morton Street.

Okay, so that would be so this request was for case VOA 183-9863 with the address of 841 to 847 Morton Street.

Would you go ahead and explain, Mr.

N Small?

Sure.

So good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Derek Small.

Have a business address of 51 to Opson Road.

We're today seeking a deferral of the case for 841-847 Morton Street.

Um the advertisements and the notices went out incorrectly, so it does have to be readvertised, as well as a uh NPC notice of project change has to be filed with the planning department.

Okay, uh Caroline, can we admit?

So for this one, um, if the voyage is uh move to defer it, um, and then we'll schedule a date at a later time.

Please, okay.

Uh may have a motion to defer.

Motion to defer to a later date.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia?

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

I think that.

Next request for deferral, withdrawal deferral.

Mr.

Samber, three more three more street, please.

Did I have my hand up before Mr.

Spitz?

Uh with me for the motion.

Uh so this I'm sorry, said three more trees.

Correct.

So this is for case BOA 183 7592 with the address of three more streets, which go ahead and explain to anyone.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair members of the board.

Richard Lynn's business address of 245 Summer Street, East Boston, on behalf of petitioner.

Requesting a deferral, I believe you have a five-member board today.

We would like the full board for that hearing.

Okay.

Do we have dates, Caroline, or do you want to wait?

We could we could do July 14th, July 28th or August 11th.

Uh why don't we do July 28th?

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to grant a deferral to July 28th.

May I have a second?

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia?

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

And which case do you have your hand up for attorney Smith?

163 Hillside Drive, please, Mr.

Stonebridge.

So this would the request is for case BOA.

181-46-18 with the address of 163-165 Hillside Street.

Go ahead, attorney Spitz.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz.

Um, business address of 168 8th Street, First Floor South Boston.

Um, we are looking just for a short deferral uh to allow the plans examiner a little bit more time to review the revised set of it.

So for this one, uh we can do June 16th.

That's perfect, great.

Thank you.

Okay, can I have a motion?

Motion to refer to until June 16th.

Can I have a second?

Second, sorry.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Mr.

Langham, are you with us?

I think we've lost Mr.

Langham.

Are you there, Mr.

Langham?

I see him, but he disappeared.

Okay, I don't know if Caroline, if somebody can also ping him.

I'm sure he's trying to jump back on.

Bear with us.

We are a five-member board, so we need to meet him.

Yes.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Burnell.

My pile is shut down.

Let's hope that was truly temporary.

Okay, where's Mr.

Brennell?

Yes.

Okay, the chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

We'll see you then.

Thank you.

Any further request?

I do have a note on something, Madam Chair, but I'll ask if there are any further requests for withdrawals of the throws.

Uh, do you have a note for another one?

Should we just continue and then do that when we get to it?

Or uh you tell me, Caroline, what should we do?

Um we can just do it now at the top of that.

Then this would be for this request would be for case BOA, 183-35-14, with the address of 176 L Street.

And the note that I I see here, Madam Chair, is that uh it will it will be deferred to June 16th at 11:30 a.m.

Okay.

Uh what with that may I have a motion to defer?

Motion to defer this case till June 16th.

I have a second.

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yes, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

So with that, turn to the cases scheduled for the hearing scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

We'll begin with case BOA 182-46-53 with the address of one Westminster Terrace.

If the applicant andor the representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Hello, good morning.

My name is Rachel Fabish.

I live at 1 Westminster Terrace.

We are trying to hoping to finish our basement.

The basement was existing and built at the time that the house was built.

We are not looking to expand the footprint or raise the ceiling.

It's just to turn an unfinished empty space into something livable for our family.

We hope to include a playroom, a guest room for our family when they come from out of town to visit, a bathroom, and a hobby shop, like a hobby space for our family.

And that is what we are seeking to do.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

Hearing none, may have public testimony.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius.

We solicited one letter of support to our office.

The Brighton Alston Improvement Association is supporting this application.

With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Ben.

Hi, good morning.

I am the Fabish's next door neighbor.

I'm so close that we share a party wall.

I am wholeheartedly in support of this.

I think I think that finishing attics and basements should be by right without having to bother the CBA.

Thank you.

Thanks.

And next we have Anna Bella Gomez.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Annabella Gomes from the Brighton Elson Approvement Association.

The Brighton Elson Association voted to support this.

Uh we are very happy supporting family staying in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I know the short comments.

Sorry.

I didn't want you to hear me coughing.

Uh with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

I have a second.

Okay.

Mr.

Tembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 182-55-52 with the address of 5 to 7 Aldi Street.

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

Hi, I'm Robert Busunyang.

And uh you could see we wanted to convert a two-family to a three family house, and also you want to uh request some additional parking space in the property.

This does not expand the footprint.

You know, we just wanted to uh separate the uh third floor into another unit because it has all the elements going for it in terms of staircase up and down from front and back, and uh and you can see from the picture and also so that's about it though, is and it it basically involves uh uh enlarging the bathroom, you know, from the on the third floor to uh the measurement of uh uh forty roughly 40 square feet, uh 40 square feet eight times.

Yeah, 40 square feet.

Right now it's small if you look at the uh the uh yeah.

If you look at the third floor, it's very small, and you can see the one below, which is expanded.

So basically, uh proposal from two to three family and to add additional uh parking spaces, two parking spaces.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, I have one small question.

What would the parking be exactly located?

It's on the side of the house.

You can see from the the third page, yeah.

That that page, you can see the first two, and then we have we want to extend it to the next uh ahead of it.

So basically, the parking parking spaces are already there, and you're just adding two more.

I think we're more speakers, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Member C.

Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on March 26th, where no comments were made.

The applicant has met with the Alston Civic Association and they have sent a letter of support to the board with that background ONS deferred judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Anthony Isitolo.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Tony Desidoro representing the Austin Civic Association.

Uh the proponent appeared before us with a very reasonable and appropriate uh floor plan and design in keeping with the surrounding community.

Uh we only ask that no building code relief uh be granted, and that uh hopefully they refrain from renting to undergraduate students, but the ACA is in support of this proposal.

Thank you.

Uh see additional things raised for comments, sir.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

There's a second.

Second, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Rennell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 183-8237 with the address of 393 Cambridge Street.

This is an R 480 case.

And if the applicant andor the representative was uh explain to the board, please.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is George Morancy.

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

I represent the petitioner, 393 Cambridge Street Nominee Trust, whose principals are Fred Starikov, Steve Whalen, and Josh Fetterman.

Joining me today is Jacob Simmons, representing the owners and developers, and Tanya Carrier of Calsa Design, the project architect, who will walk the board through the plans once I conclude my summary and address the requested zoning relief.

This is a proposal to construct a seven-story hotel with 96 guest rooms at 393 Cambridge Street in the Boston Landing section of Alston.

The project site is an approximately 8,220 square foot parcel at the corner of Cambridge Street and Wilton Street in Alston.

It is currently occupied by a single-story advanced auto parts store with prominent surface parking.

What the BBDA itself describes in its board memorandum as an unattractive commercial site.

The project will replace that surface parking lot and Lowires retail structure with a productive transit-oriented hotel that will activate this important segment of Cambridge Street.

The site is directly adjacent to two parcels, 8 Wilton Street and 415 Cambridge Street, that together form the approved Alston Square Project, which is a seven-story mixed-use development of rental housing and commercial space that was approved in 2021.

The scale and massing of this hotel is fully consistent with what the city has already endorsed in the immediate surrounding parcels.

What is being proposed at 393 Cambridge Street is a building that fits the trajectory the city itself has set for this corridor.

The site is also within the area of the 2021 Alston Brighton Mobility Plan, with Cambridge Street being identified as the future AB transit corridor connecting Oak Square, Brighton, and Union Square.

The planning board's memorandum notes that this section of Cambridge Street is a key neighborhood connector and active edge, and that transit-oriented development of this character is consistent with city planning goals for the district.

The site is zoned CC1 Community Commercial, and on January 15th of this year, the BBDA board voted to unanimously approve the project.

With respect to zoning relief, the hotel use is conditional in the Harvard Avenue CC1 Community Commercial Subdistrict.

And the code itself does anticipates by not making this a forbidden use, but rather a conditional use that hotels can in fact be appropriate in this district under the right circumstances, and we certainly believe that to be the case here.

This location on Cambridge Street with its transit connections, proximity to Boston Landing, and the evolving Boston Landing Development Area, as well as the dense mixed-use character of the surrounding approved projects, provides an appropriate setting for a hotel use, which we think is very much needed here.

With respect to the dimensional relief being requested, the CC1 zoning subdistrict imposes a maximum and somewhat unreasonable in hindsight FAR 1.0 and a maximum building height of 35 feet.

Being proposed here is an FAR 5.68 and a height of 93 feet, as well as no proposed rear yard setback against a 20-foot minimum required by code.

I would note that the BBDA board's planning memorandum or board memorandum provides the planning rationale for these variances, with the Boston Planning Department staff explicitly acknowledging that the proposed dimensions, while not aligned with existing zoning, are in fact reflective of the evolving context of the neighborhood and the activation of the Cambridge Street section of the CC1 sub-district.

Thus, the base dimensional standards of Article 51, I think the conclusion is and not really calibrated to what this corridor has become and is becoming since this zoning was originally enacted.

The 35-foot height limit in FAR 1 belong to, as I say, a prior generation of planning assumptions for Cambridge Street in this location.

The adjacent Alston Square project, which was approved by the city, as I say, in 2021, is also seven stories.

The Brighton Guest Street area planning study, which frames the planning vision for this stretch of Cambridge Street calls for transit-oriented mixed-use development of precisely this character and density.

As to the rear yard, obeying a 20-foot rear yard setback here on a total parcel that is approximately 8,220 square feet would be a direct severe and site-specific hardship.

It would effectively preclude any meaningful development of the spot.

What is being proposed here is four drop-off spaces.

This is not a failure to provide necessary parking.

This was a conscious decision.

It's a deliberate planning consistent and BTD endorsed decision not to construct automobile infrastructure in a transit served urban location.

Cambridge Street will carry the future Alston Barton Transit Corridor.

The site is proximate to multiple MBTA bus routes and to Boston Landing Commuter Rail Station.

The project will provide bicycle storage for 18 bikes for employees and guests at five exterior public bicycle parking spaces consistent with the 2021 bike parking guidelines.

Hotel guests arriving in this location, it's predicted would be overwhelmingly arriving by transit, ride hailing apps, ride share, taxis, etc.

Not in privately owned motor vehicles requiring long-term storage.

So constructing a 67-car garage on the site wouldn't be feasible and would be fundamentally contrary to the transit oriented nature of this project, which will be primarily serving people, or almost exclusively serving people from outside of Boston.

There are numerous community benefits associated with the project.

If a board member requests me to recite them, I will, but I don't want to prolong my testimony before turning it over to Tanya Carrier to walk the broad board briefly through the plans.

So at that time, unless there's any uh question uh immediately on something I just said, I propose to turn the presentation over to Tanya, who will, as I say, take the board briefly through the plan set.

Thank you.

Yes, briefly, please.

Great, thank you.

Tanya Carrier from Culsa Devine.

Uh, the project aims to significantly improve the streets along Cambridge Street and Wilton Street.

Currently, there is over 100 feet of curved set.

Can you move us through slides so that we can see detail that you're talking about?

I don't have access to that, but whoever's controlling the slides.

Well, you need to tell them where to go.

Oh, okay, sure.

Next slide, please.

Um, this is our existing condition site plan.

Um, as I was mentioning, the project site has currently over a hundred feet of curb cut along Cambridge Street with front yard parking, and over 30 feet of curb cut on Wilton Street.

So basically, all right.

Our project aims to include to close that existing curve cut fully on Cambridge Street, providing a better pedestrian experience, and then close all but a single uh 10-foot driveway on Wilton Street, providing access to our valley drop-off parking area.

Our proposed site plan um our fund setback we've aligned with the adjacent uh proposed development, and working closely with the BPDA on developing that.

Next slide.

Our landscape plan.

Um, as I mentioned, we propose to improve the streetscape by adding um a pedestrian walk uh sidewalk.

We also have four street trees proposed where there are currently none of frontage area with with uh visitor bike parking, seating benches, and additional landscaping features.

Yes, we don't need you to go through every slide, but can you think of any slides that would be helpful?

Sure.

We can go down to the floor plan.

Keep going.

One more.

So here is our proposed floor plans.

We have 96 total rooms proposed, a mix of king suites and double suites, and double full rooms.

The ground floor is all lobby area with our parking in the rear, including some bike parking for employees.

And to our exterior slides about slide 13.

So for our exterior design, uh we work closely with the VPVA abutters and other um neighborhood groups to develop something that fits in with the proposed and existing developments.

Um seven stories tall, 93 feet.

We've stepped back the top floor and provided a um generous storefront area at the ground floor for interactive experience.

And I'll leave it at that.

Okay.

Questions from the board?

Hearing Garden and public customers.

Actually, I'm sure they have a question for Attorney Moransi.

And I I'm looking at uh around the block, and there are two other projects that you mentioned that we're approved before, like 2021.

Is your team or the development team also engaged in those projects or are those two different developers?

Uh it is still the um uh the current uh current team for that.

They are still working on financing like many projects in the city.

Uh it's an approved project that my clients are trying to get underway, and they've been um they're in pre-construction planning right now, but it is the same development team, and they do intend to complete those uh approved projects.

Thank you.

So they want to put up in 2021, right?

That is correct.

So if approved this this hotel, well, what will be the timeline for the will open for actually building this building since the other project has been waiting for many years?

Uh it's an excellent question, which uh obviously I don't have the answer to.

I mean, for project like this, uh, just to get to building uh permit issuance after a CBA hearing is typically a minimum of uh 12 months, uh, and then it would be uh a matter of getting construction financing in line.

And I think everybody is hoping that certainly within the next year or after the next uh year that uh conditions will be improving both in terms of uh uh finance market and uh and uh you know construction material pricing.

So hopefully it's something that could commence uh sometime in 2027.

Thank you, Dr.

Moranzi.

I was just thinking about that scenes the the weather uh development team is the same if they are going to prioritize the other project in terms of getting the finance in place or if they are going to try to do both at the same time.

And what question is do you have to provide linkage fund, linkage contribution?

No, no, there's no linkage, Mr.

Valencia.

This is an article eighty small project, but uh there are a lot of major streetscape improvements to Cambridge Street and Wilton Street that are being required, including sidewalk widening, new street trees, uh planting beds, uh new uh street lighting, uh public seating.

Uh there's going to be a $30,000 contribution to the city's fund for parks.

There's going to be uh new uh raised uh high visibility ladder crosswalk at the Wilton Street, Cambridge Street intersection, uh closing of the curb cuts that are currently fronting on Cambridge Street, which will improve pedestrian continuity.

Um so there are a number of uh of benefits that are being provided, but not formally under what is known as linkage under Article 80.

All right, thank you, Dr.

Moranzi.

Thank you, sir.

Any other questions from the board?

Mayor public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of neighborhood Services.

This time the mayor's officer to defer to the judgment of this board.

Some background information this community process.

Um this was overseen by Boston Planning, which I'm sure they'll be able to elaborate further on.

Uh, involved a public meeting that was held uh in September of 2025.

Uh there were concerns uh which were also echoed by the Austin Civic Association about the lack of parking being provided.

Concerns contributed to um congestion for this particular node of uh the corridor that connects uh Alston all the way over to um Oak Square and Brighton with a number of projects coming online and the Boston landing area as well as the um Great Scott project.

Uh they were worried that um there was not adequate uh off-street parking, which would lead to just a buildup of people doing pickup and drop off and double parking on campus street.

Um I believe you should have a letter from the Allston Civic Association um expressing those concerns but deferring to the board ultimately with that information.

We'll defer to this board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Anthony Di Sidono.

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Tony Desidoro representing the Austin Civic Association as ONS has just expressed.

The Yalton Civic Association will defer a judgment to the board on this project.

Uh, there is still a lot of concern and confusion regarding the uh direction the city is taking in projects like this in the community of Alston.

As you know, the Boston Landing Hotel project is currently under construction, and they have they will be providing up to 45 parking spaces and 3,000 square feet of loading space.

It's a project directly adjacent to the Boston Landing commuter rail station and MBTA bus routes, so that's a little confusing.

Uh and like I said, there are still well-founded concerns regarding circulation in the area, the impact on available on street parking for residents and small business, adjoining projects with little or no parking, traffic and congestion, uh assessing uh accessing the Massachusetts turnpike, and a lack of specificity of mitigation of are they going to provide off campus parking?

So we're going to defer judgment to the board.

Um, and I also want to express the uh the board brought up the Austin Square project.

That's that's another project that has been granted numerous concessions in order to get the shovels into the ground, including reducing parking significantly and eliminating condominiums.

The city has been very generous in granting those concessions.

I have to be honest with you.

The response from Attorney Morancy uh was a bit disappointing.

This community has been waiting a long, long time for the development of Austin Square, which is uh all graffitied and really a negative impact on our community.

Uh so uh it's it's unfortunate uh what that project has been going through as well.

But again, the community sees very uh a lot of inconsistency allowing uh Boston Landing 34 parking spaces right next to the commuter rail station, and yet this one here is in a uh uh transit oriented corridor for some reason that qualifies for no parking, but we have a number of projects around there in the pipeline with either no parking or very little parking.

So we are going to defer judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Nates we have Soya.

Morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Zoe Deval.

I'm a project manager in the development for V Division Planning Department here, Express Planning Department supports the project, um, filling into the previous project manager on this project.

Um, this project filed their small project review application with that as an Article 80 law project on August 11, 2025.

The planning department was a virtual public meeting on September 30th, 2025, and then the project was approved by the BPDA board on January 15, 2026.

Um, we're happy to see the project move forward and progress to the design review phase of Article 80 um for continued evaluation, and we did part of this board for the action.

Mr.

Bauk, can you speak a little bit more to the parking issue that was raised and just how you came to your decisions?

Um, unfortunately, Madam Chair, I was not the project manager on this project.

I'm filling in for the previous project manager, but I'm happy to take it back to the team and try to get some more information on this.

I was just not part of the review process, so I unfortunately cannot speak to that.

Thank you.

Next, we have Maynard Perez.

Thank you, Jesus.

Madam Chair, members of the board, this is Minor Perez, representing the Carpenter's Union.

We'd like to go on record and strong support of the project.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Any additional response from the applicant?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Uh, just on the issue of the parking, uh, again, being a hotel project, it is not projected that this is going to be um a use that is going to generate a lot of um need for parking.

Uh people will be certainly arriving uh by both public transportation and motor vehicle.

Uh typically, as I said, uh by ride hailing services to the hotel with very little need for on site parking.

Uh, anecdotally, I think most people who come to Boston don't believe that it's a good idea to uh you know rent the motor vehicle while they're here or drive here from uh another state anticipating that there's going to be parking.

In fact, with the hotel, it is not providing on street, um, sorry, on site parking that would disincentivize anybody bringing a motor vehicle here.

So with the four Essential Valley uh drop-off spaces that the hotel would be providing.

We're confident that the use wouldn't contribute to exacerbating any on street parking conditions.

Thank you.

Um, a follow-up question for Attorney Moransi.

Okay.

Do you have uh or your team?

I'm not sure if you have a sense of what would be the cost for every parking space that you are providing for the loading parking spaces that are underground if I understand.

What is the hour as cost for area of parking space for this project if you have that number handy?

You mean to to create a garage?

To create every parking space, but would be the cost.

Uh I'm gonna ask Jacob Simmons, who is here, but uh uh in terms of what the cost for space would be uh for excavation.

Uh there would need to be a ramp down.

The site is just over 8,000 square feet, so it would be very little uh parking that I think would be able to be provided on site.

Uh the cost would uh you know probably be um, it would be very harmful, I think, to developing course costs of the project.

I don't know what a parking space is is costing these days in terms of an underground garage.

Uh Jacob, do you have uh any information you can share on that?

Hi, good morning.

Uh Jacobson and City Realty Group.

I, in this particular project, it's harder to quantify because it's such a small uh maneuvering area.

So I you know it would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per space.

Thank you.

I was thinking about you're trying to figure it out the financing for both projects and how much money you will have to add to the project to the financing if you want to create additional parking.

Thank you.

That was just for my own information.

Certainly.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

I think this project is going to create several hundreds of jobs for Boston residents, and I really hope that in combination with this project that they have next door, they can build as soon as possible and create jobs and housing.

So with that, I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stambridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 176 0086.

With the address of 57 to 59 Riversdale Street.

If the applicants andor their representative are present, will they please respond to the board?

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

My name is Timothy Burke.

I'm the architect for the project.

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

And I'm representing the owner, John Bannon, who is also on the call.

John has owned this property for several years.

He uh takes care of his properties very well and um rents them only to uh graduates or young professionals, and um, you know, is uh very aware of uh being a good neighbor.

The uh existing building has three units, and the proposal, since the site is almost twice the size of the minimum for this neighborhood, the uh proposal is to add three two-bedroom, one-bath units on the rear of the existing building, and uh as part of that we're taking advantage of um creating a new stair to make the egress better for the uh the original uh kind of back stair that's there now, and also we would be adding a sprinkler system to um for every for the entire building to improve safety.

We did uh during the community process, um, there were two neighbors on Raymond Street.

If we could back up one slide, please to the uh site plan.

Um, the Raymond Street is at the bottom of that sheet.

Uh, actually, what back to the illustrative one, thank you.

And so um we agreed to uh add some fencing and landscaping along the space between the properties, and also to do the driveway in a permeable paver, so it will be uh more like a patio kind of look.

Uh there are six parking spots in this area, and also the um the addition is to the north of the uh neighbors, so we will not be casting any shadows or or blocking their light in any way.

So we feel that the um additional units are much needed in the neighborhood and a great use of the property, and um uh think this is a great uh project for the neighborhood, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Uh can you talk about the green space that uh will be eliminated to expand?

Yes, we are uh short on open space, but there will still be a decent sized uh rear yard and uh and about the equivalent of what's existing for the main house on the side yard.

So there are some decent amount of green space there.

We also feel with the permeable pavers, you know, that that area would be could be used for recreation by the residents as uh it'll look a lot nicer than uh being uh black top.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board.

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, C.

Johnson at the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant underwent the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on September 29th, 2025, where two direct abutters were opposed to the proposal, citing loss of open space, the proximity of the rear parking area to the lot line and recent ongoing construction, excessive construction in the area.

Our office received two letters of opposition that were forwarded to the board.

The applicant met with the Alston Civic Association where there were similar concerns raised, but the applicant worked with that group to make some revisions to their plans, including to the setbacks, and the president will also testify in more detail as to their position with that background.

ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Next, we have Anthony Isidori.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

The proponents appeared before us on three separate occasions.

The last one being the owner of the property, and uh John did a great job of addressing all the key concerns that direct butters uh had and was uh uh very interested in making whatever changes uh that were required in order to achieve that again.

We were asking that no building code relief uh be granted.

Uh if a sprinkler system is required, we would uh obviously be supportive of that, and again, we hope that as was expressed that uh he will not run down to undergraduate uh students, so uh we want to go and recognize support.

Thank you.

No additional comments.

Okay, that would have been uh I had one more question.

Uh sorry, for the architect.

Um, so the units in the back.

How are they gonna?

How do you access those units if I'm a pedestrian walking and uh trying to access those units?

The uh stair tower that is on the side of the house.

Um, it sort of breaks up the massing, so it doesn't seem like one long run.

So that the back units would be a single exit uh via the sprinkler system.

So, so I'm walking through the this uh so I'm looking at the side plan, and what it seems is that uh um residents in the back would actually be walking through this driveway essentially.

So the driveway serving it to purposes, is that correct?

That is correct, yes.

So that's another reason to use the permeable pavers there.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, I may have a motion.

By uh the uh planning department uh for site you know to review this the site to sign uh this you have to side the sign.

Is there a second?

Okay, Mr.

Stembridge, yes.

Mr.

Valencio.

Yes, Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chairman's yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next we have case BOA, 183, 9746, with the address of 80 Gar Street.

This is an Article 80 case.

And if the applicant and or their representative will please explain to the board.

Thank you, Mr.

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

My name is Johanna Schneider with the law firm of Hemoway and Barnes Business Address 75 State Street.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

With me are Dennis Greenwood from SUSE Design, the project architect, and Robert Allen, the owner's representative.

We are here today to seek approval of an infill residential project at Indie Gardner Street in Alston.

The site, which is approximately 25,500 square feet, is currently developed with an existing 28-unit residential apartment building.

The new building, which is six stories at approximately 39,642 square feet, will be constructed on what is currently an asphalt parking lot, and will replace an accessory garage structure.

The new building will have 36 units with the following unit mix: one studio unit, three one bedroom units, 16 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units.

Six of the units will be income restricted in accordance with Article 79 of the code, and that will include three bedroom units.

The existing site has eight uh vehicular parking spaces, which will remain at an additional 18 new parking spaces are proposed.

Combining the existing and a development, there will be a total of 64 residential rental units and 26 parking spaces at the site.

We will be providing 38 long-term bicycle parking spaces in an interior bike room on the ground level with direct access to the exterior and eight short-term bike spaces.

In support of the city's green building and carbon neutral rolls, the building will be all electric.

I think one of the things that our team is most proud of with this project are the significant upgrades to the site.

Under existing conditions, there's only around 2,500 square feet of open space on the site.

The project will provide approximately 3100 square feet of new residential amenity open space and approximately 1,500 square feet of private patio open space for 14 of the units.

The project will also provide significant landscape and vegetation, including several new trees, permeable pavers, along with a courtyard between the existing and new building, and a small entry plaza and seating for residents.

The project will also provide significant public room improvements, including closing an existing curb pack in front of the project site, granting a pedestrian easement to the city for a portion of the parcel that currently serves as a public sidewalk along Gardner Street already, installing one new street tree on Gardner Street, and we will be making a financial contribution to the city's fund for parks intended to support Ranger Park.

The BPDA board unanimously approved the project under small project review in October of 2025.

In their approval memo, the BPDA board noted in particular that the project site is located within easy walking distance to nearby public transit and retail.

It is less than half a mile from numerous bus lines and the MBTA green line and the MBTA commuter rail is just over a mile from the site.

The BPA board also found that the project aligns well with the area's existing use.

As I hope you can tell from the presentation slides before you, our team has really taken care to design a building that is consistent with its surroundings, both in terms of scale and character, and we think it's a really unique project in that it manages to add much needed housing without displacement of existing residential tenants and businesses.

With that, I am happy to turn this over to Dennis Greenwood, our project architect, to walk through the plans, or we are on hand to respond to any questions that the board may have.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, call on our newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services.

This time the mayor's office to defer to the judge from this board some back information on the community process.

This went through a Boston planning led community process involving uh public meetings as well as engagement with the civic associations in this area.

Um the public meeting was had uh in July of 2025.

Uh and our residents were pleased that there would be no displacements of current uh tenants.

Uh they went on to meet with the Austin Civic Association as well as the uh the Brighton Austin Improvement Association.

Both were supportive of this proposal, but that'll defer to the board.

Thank you.

Next, we have Anthony DiSidoro.

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, turning to the door representing the Austin Civic Association.

We'd like to go and work in support as standard.

We uh would appreciate that there's no building code relief granted, and given the challenges of the Gardner Ashford, Pratt Street area with the high concentration of students and the challenges expressly to law enforcement.

We asked uh very strongly in this case that uh the proponent refrain from renting to undergraduate students, but we do support the project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Sawyer Dubon.

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

Zoe de Balligan with the planning department um here to express express planning department supported this project as well.

Um, the project filed their small project review application with us as an article ADE small project on June 27, 2025.

The planning department hosted a vertical public meeting on July 23rd, 2025, and the proponent also conducted an independent community outreach as well as Mr.

Newman noted.

The project was approved by the BPDA board on October 16, 2025.

We're happy to see this project move forward and progress to the design review phase of Article 80, and we've deferred this board for further action.

Thank you.

Next we have minor credits.

Thank you.

There are no additional comments.

Okay.

Any questions from the board?

Any additional comments from the applicant?

May I have a motion?

Well, I'm going to make a motion of help for a lot.

Is there a second?

So, Mr.

Stambridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Valencia, yes.

Mr.

Lionel.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries the law.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have two Article 80 cases.

One to as far as the mayor's office housing.

These are companion cases.

And the first one is case BOA.

182 69 2.9 with the address of 11 B4 Group.

Along with that, we have case BOA 182 69 39 with the address of 434 to make away.

Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Jeremy Vieira, Director of Real Estate Development for Rogerson Communities.

We are a nonprofit focused on senior housing with a 160 year history in the Boston area.

I want to introduce my uh legal counsel Joe.

Lieberman, so Lieber, sorry.

He is uh and uh Dot Joyce, uh from Dot Joyce Communications, along with our architect DeVilla Schaefer in representing them is Philippe Sott.

Uh with that I'll hand it over to Joe.

Joe.

Uh Madam Chair, members of the board.

Joseph Lieber from Klein Hornig LLP with the business address of 101 Arch Street in Boston.

Um will you please turn to the page called Existing Conditions planned?

Should be the next page.

Yeah.

So this is the um the Rogerson House, which which many of you may know on the Jamaica Way with the big uh uh setback from with that big front lawn of the Jamaica Way.

Um it is a uh building with 66 beds of memory care and a social day program.

The the proposal is to uh create a new building uh behind the existing building and and eventually to um undertake a phase two on the site of the existing building, but that's not uh before the board now, that's still in the in the planning stages.

Um this particular uh project will involve um the subdivision and consolidation of the parcel to create two legal parcels.

Um if you go to the next page, uh we could show that.

Next page, please.

Yeah.

Okay, so um uh lot one in the rear will be the site of the new project, which we're calling uh for these purposes Rogerson Beaufort.

Um, lot two in the front will be the existing Rogerson House.

Um the site had been is 139,500 and or so square feet.

Um the new lot in the rear will be 47,000 and change, and the existing lab will become 92,000 in change because of the uh subdivision.

There will be some relief needed for the existing project as well, which will um, you know, be on a smaller and and reconfigured parcel.

Um I should say the article the project we've gone through Article 80 approval.

Uh I meant to say that at the outset.

Um, and um parking and loading was determined through the Article 80 process.

There will be a 35-space garage under the new proposed building, as have approved by the BPDA.

The relief we need for the new building are additional lot area, insufficient, um area ratio excessive, building height excessive.

Um, in addition to two uh uh use elements, um congregate living facility is conditional and daycare center for elderly is forbidden.

The new project will consist of 41 affordable units, uh, 100% affordable units, um, which don't exist at the site now, separate apartments, um, a memory care facility and a social day program.

Um yeah, I think that about sums it up.

If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Otherwise, I would turn it over uh to Doc Joyce to speak next.

Can you talk about uh how loading and unloading is happening now, both of like supplies, but also you know, people, uh vans, whatever you're using, and how how that would change with this addition?

Yeah, definitely.

I think that Philippe's the architect who's gonna speak after Joyce.

We would be better positioned to address that than I would say.

I'm sure he has a lot to say about it.

Yeah.

Quickly, we just wanted to let you know that we went through the significant community process starting in 2024.

Um Rogerson has been a member of this community for decades and wanted to go out early.

We did a lot of informal meetings, filed our Article 80, then engaged with an informal process, received 150 pieces of feedback over the course of the year, incorporated that feedback through meetings with our elected officials and uh representative of the planning department, and came back with a significantly changed um project that has been approved uh by the BPDA board, um, and we have received some letters of um non-opposition from our community, the Jamaica Pond Association Association and the Jamaica uh Plain Neighborhood Council Zoning Committee, as well as our elected elected officials.

Um with that, I'll turn it over to Philippe so you guys can see how this comes to life, but it has been significantly changed to fit more of the fabric of the community, density, height, parking deliveries, all of the things that you can expect to bring more beauty to the space.

Philippe?

Yes, thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

If we can go to slide number four or five, I don't see the thing on the left hand side, please.

My name is Philippe Saad.

I'm the architect for Rogerson House.

I'm a principal at the Monschaefer, and my office is at 24 Farnsworth in the seaporting boston.

And someone open back up the file.

I don't know if that's Jesus or someone else.

Can you open it back?

Thank you.

So if we can jump to slide number six.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

So this is the current condition.

The existing memory care uh is what Joe has mentioned, um, is aged and is very hard to renovate, and hence the need to build a new replacement building and then add 41 units of assisted living on top of it.

And if we go to slide number seven, you'll get a sense of the the context itself, the building or the site is bordered by the forest building, a seven-story building.

There's the Bolford Road condominium to the south, three-story buildings, and then uh single and two family homes around the locks that have in Jamaica Court.

Uh could we go to slide number eight?

Thank you.

So the overall plan uh will will materialize in this way.

The red house on the left-hand side is the Rogerson House itself that will be maintained and renovated.

However, Madam Chair, what's in front of us today is the six-story building on the right-hand side.

The shorter building attached to the Rogerson House is what will become phase two later on, and it's still in the very, very early stages of planning.

Uh so the the new building on the right-hand side of the site is in two tiers.

There's a four-story portion that borders overgrowth, and there's a six-story portion that is re-re that recedes behind the lower portion of the building to accommodate the additional 41 units of affordable housing.

If we go next, because this is a to slide number nine.

Because this is a replacement project, so we have to build first phase one to move the memory care residents from the existing memory care into the new builds, and then continue later on with the completion of the site as phase two.

If we can go to next, is a landscape plan showing how the whole site will be um real landscaped.

There's a street front along Beaufort Road.

There will be a pedestrian entrance along this road right there at the center of the building.

However, to answer your question, Madam Chair, the drop-off and the pickup will happen just like it is right now off Beaufort Road and along that circle where it says thermeable pavers.

This will be re-engineered and repaved to really accommodate um the new design of the site.

The access to the parking, which is below the building labeled phase one, will be on the right-hand side of the building, right next to the setbacks between our buildings and the Forbes.

There will be a ramp that takes you uh half half a level below grade for a full 35 parking spaces below the phase one building.

The sidewalk will be landscaped, has been reviewed by the Boston BCDCs, trees and permeable pavement again and bicycle uh racks for uh building residents.

There's also an internal bike storage inside the building for the building residents and the staff.

If we can go to the next slide.

We've worked very much with the neighborhood and the BPDA and the BCDC to really create an exterior appearance of the building that really sits well in the masonry fabric of Jamaica Plain, echoes the building across the street from it, and really uh creates that low height density streetscape along Beaufort Road, and then set back behind the masonry building is the additional two stories where the affordable housing uh unit will will happen.

If we go to the next slide, this is a section through the site again to explain how the building that is labeled the six story will not appear as a six-story from Beaufort Road and will be receding towards the four-story masonry volume.

Next.

Some angles because this is a memory care facility, daylight and outdoor access is crucially important.

So this building has many outdoor courtyards uh that are secure for the residents so they can be outside uh unattended as needed for their dignity and uh freedom uh as well as their safety.

Next, these are renderings from Bulford Road and uh looking back at the building.

You can see the four-story buildings appear along Beaufort Road.

It has this scalloped facade that echoes the building across from it, and uh an archway at the front at the first floor that also signifies the archways uh that are across the street from it, what we some of us call the stoops of the Boston Historic Architecture.

Next.

That's another view from the other angle.

The Forbes building is uh right at the edge of the image on the right-hand side, and the Beaufort Road condominiums are the one on the left-hand side, and our building is right in the center.

If we go to the next, it's a close-up view of the building entrance, the landscaped uh front of the building, and uh the tree line streetscape that will be planted uh to continue the tree line uh from the Beaufort from the Forbes building all the way up to the Jamaica Way.

And the last image is a view back from the Jamaica way.

If we go to the next slide, thank you.

This is the Rogerson house on the left-hand side built in 1957 that will be maintained and renovated, and then phase two, which sits quietly behind it, and what's in front of you today is phase one towards the rear.

Uh, this Magnolia tree is currently existing and will be the center of that uh surface parking lot for uh visitors.

And with this, I conclude my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, the question, um, so currently all vehicular accesses from Beaufort, there's none from the Jamaica Way.

No, there's not.

And none contemplated.

No, other questions from the board?

Yes, thank you, ma'am.

Sure.

I first of all a comment I appreciate the creation of the affordable housing in the area.

I like the design of the building as well and the the materials are materials that are related to the buildings in the area.

Now, the question is about parking.

I want to pick you back on a comment or a question I made for a project earlier today.

This is affordable housing, and I'm really interested in getting information from your team about parking.

You have uh on the ground or below podium parking spaces, and also you have surface space uh parking space.

So, do you have a sense of how much money will the project have to spend to build that parking the underground in the surface?

You also have a sense of better unit, better space in terms of how that affect the creation of our affordable housing here.

So I can take that uh the parking spaces that are below grade will be for staff only.

Um, it was several million dollars.

Uh, I can get an exact uh number for you.

Uh, be happy to provide that information.

It is significant, but we do require it for our staff parking.

Um, for the 41 units of affordable housing, we're not providing um uh parking specific for those 41 units.

So those units will be coming in, they will not have available parking.

We focus on uh senior housing, so our folks tend to be on the older side of residents.

Um, they tend not to have vehicles, especially when coming over to a location uh like this with great transit and um in a very walkable neighborhood.

So um those parking spaces will have the visitor parking, that will be the surface lot, um, and then the below grade parking would be for staff only, and it is um I would say about 350,000 per unit of parking to build below grid.

350,000 per unit.

Okay, thank you.

We received some comments from others who are concerned about traffic.

So, since parking will be mostly for the staff, what will be the peak hours for the traffic movement for this building?

So, our peak uh for the additional 41 units uh of parking, it is approximately uh five unit uh uh five trips per peak hour in the in the um evening, and I believe it's four during the day.

So, because it's only forty-one units of additional parking, the delta in uh additional trips per day is fairly limited.

So, do you believe that that will not create a huge impact on the abolors?

Correct.

Uh, we've worked really closely with BPDA.

We will continue to work closely with um the traffic uh the BTD, the bus for Boston Transportation Department to implement no parking zones along Beaufort Road to make sure that all drop-offs and and pickups are happening in that uh visitor parking area, that surface lot where all our deliveries will be occurring as well.

Um, so we're working very very hard to make sure both operationally and with signage that all drop-offs and pickups are occurring in that current surface lot.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Vieira.

Madam, she has no more questions.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

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

This time the mayor's officer to do that on this board, some back information and community process.

Uh, this went through a lengthy Boston planning led process over a year uh involving uh a handful of uh community meetings.

As you heard, originally it was proposed for 71 units of uh uh income-restricted affordable uh housing units for seniors.

This was dramatically scaled back to 41 after feedback from neighbors uh related to concerns about heights as well as the proposed density.

Uh the applicant worked very closely with uh these neighbors over the course of this lengthy process, ultimately securing non-opposition um from the Jamaica Pond Association uh and support from the uh Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council.

Uh with that, we'll defer to the board.

Uh, we said many recognize in the community this is a vital project uh for providing uh affordable housing for seniors that stay in the neighborhood, stay in the city.

Thank you.

Next, we have sort of the vote.

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

So we developed your standing and for my colleague, Mill Plat the Costa, the planning department this morning.

Um, submitted their PNF on December 20th, 2024.

They filed they held two Article 80 public meetings.

The first on February 6, 2025, followed by a subsequent meeting on November 12th, 2025.

Both meetings were extremely well attended, and in the interim, the project was greatly shaped and improved based on community feedback that included comments regarding massing height and design and the circulation of the site as mentioned in parallel with the community process.

The project went in front of BCDC for review and received a vote of approval on November 18, 2025.

Project received approvals from the BPTA board on January 15, 2026.

Thank you.

Next we have Nora Lutz.

We can't hear you.

Can you hear me now?

There it is.

Yes.

Working Madam Chairman member of the board.

My name is Nora Latson and the development office, and within the housing division, the mayor's office of housing.

The register team is applied to emotions in funding them during our two-throughs life cycle and emulation of this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have a Sally Cameron.

Yes, thank you.

Um I'm Sally Zimmerman, Sixth Beaufort Road.

I'm appearing on behalf of my neighbors at 6 Beaufort Road, and in recognition of a letter, we submitted opposing dimensional variations, particularly height and parking for the Rogerson projects at 11/31 Beaufort and 434 Jamaica Way.

We respectfully request the ZBA's consideration of their authority under the conditional use provisions of the code, and noting that the conditional use has been in place since the 1950s and the forbidden use of adult daycare since the 1990s.

We support both uses, but note the board's capacity to attach conditions and safeguards necessary to assure harmony with the code.

We further note that this project is phase one of a two-phase project that will substantially expand the existing character and extent of Rogerson's operations and structures.

A modest, modest, further reduction in height and an increase in parking will greatly enhance the harmony of this valuable project with the character of our low rise neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have.

Oh I'm not sure if I've thrown at present.

He was going to comment about this.

If not.

Yes, approval.

You can unmute yourself now.

Alfredo, if you can mute yourself, if not.

Okay.

I don't think that he's going to comment on this, Madame Jim.

Okay.

Is the applicant want to respond to any of the concerns?

The height and the parking.

Yes, so we have uh as mentioned by a few folks in this call.

We have birthed significantly to significantly reduce the height from seven and significantly reduced the unit count as well from 71 to 41.

So we have worked very hard to address a lot as many of the concerns as we possibly can from the neighborhood.

Um we feel that the current the project is currently designed um takes a balance between size and delivering affordable units into the city and also taking in those concerns.

Okay.

Any additional comments from the board?

Yes, uh, just to confirm, Mr.

Vieira.

You mentioned that the project initially had 71 units, and then was reluctant to 41.

Correct.

It was based on community process or financing.

The community process.

Thank you.

Okay, so that may have a motion.

Well, sir, I would like to make a motion of approval.

I think this project already went through uh very robust community process, closing the unit count.

We'll provide less affordable units for seniors, but still some uh units that could be, I mean used by the people that we really try to support the most in our town in our city.

So with that, I'll make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1810476 with the address of 69 Rent Street.

If the applicant andor the representative present, would they please respond to the board?

Hi.

My name is Mauricio Bayensi.

I'm a project model for Wolf Carpenter's and represent 69 Grand Street of Ado.

It's a Dorchester project.

Good morning, ma'am.

Good morning, Chair members.

The project is improving existing unfinished basement to a livable space.

We're gonna create an area for a uh family room, uh watching TV, relaxing, uh bathroom, and uh one small closet.

Um we're not adding anything on the footprint of the existing house.

Uh, it's just improving what already is there.

Um, and that's basically the project.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Hearing none, may have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bembery.

I serve as the Door Trusted Community Engagement Stress for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which has to set up an abundance meeting facilitated on March 10th with two guests present.

The proponent presented the details of the project and responded to questions from attendees and one of the voice support for the proposal.

Following the above us meeting the proponent was connected to creative comments for a neighborhood council where they voted in support of the proposal, which completed the community process.

Thank you for your time in the mayor's office on the services would like to refer to the board for the judgment.

Next we have William Drimas.

Well, Madam Chair, members of the board, William Remus, Council Fitzgerald's office, I'd like on record and support this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, with no additional comments.

That may have a motion, motion to approve.

May I have a second?

Sir.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Come on.

Thank you very much, ma'am.

Because I'm a nice day.

Thank you, you two.

Madam Chair, the next case has been deferred.

So that will take us to case BOA.

182982 with the address of 102 9th Gale Street.

It's the applicant, and though they represent a present.

Would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Maransi.

Business address of 168 H Street, First Floor, South Boston.

Joining me today is the owner Augustine Kim and the project architect Tim Johnson.

The application in front of you today is to erect a new three-story, three-family residential building on a vacant lot.

This type of use is allowed in this subdistrict of a 3F5,000 and is entirely consistent with the surrounding neighborhood fabric.

The parcel is approximately 3,230 square feet, measuring approximately 30 feet, four feet wide and 95 feet deep.

A tild of law configuration for this block.

The lot is presently vacant, and the proposed development would bring three new housing units to an underlies underutilized parcel in a residential neighborhood.

Proposed building is three stories and a three-family, the predominant building type within this immediate neighborhood.

The immediate adjacent lot is the same dimensions as this subject parcel and already contains a building of similar massing in use.

This project simply fills the gap.

One unit will also be offered as affordable through the mayor's office of housing.

We have violations for lot area, lot width, frontage, and additional lot area.

Again, the lot is 3,230 square feet where 7,500 square feet is required for a three family, 5,000 for the for the first two units, plus 2,500 square feet per additional unit.

The lot width is 34 feet, where 35 feet is required.

These are pre-existing conditions that are common violations in the surrounding context.

We have a floor area ratio violation.

The proposed FAR is a 1.5 against the maximum of a 0.8, but again, it's a common violation of the surrounding context due to the sizes and the masses of the buildings already built in the in this neighborhood.

Side yard violation proposed side yard is four feet, where 10 feet is required and is a common violation of the surrounding context arising from the narrow width in the lot.

Front yard depth is in line with the neighboring homes as a moral setback, noting that we shouldn't have been citing for zoning relief regardless.

Any front yard variation is consistent with the established building line of the street.

Parking, we have two off-street parking spaces are required.

None are being provided here.

However, it is aligned with the mayor's initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles.

And the last violation we have is for screening and buffering due to the mechanical coral cleaning department's recommendation is approval with the single proviso that the plans be submitted for design review to minimize the visibility of the rooftop mechanical coral.

The rooftop plan already incorporates a 30-inch parapet cornice, and the mechanical coral is set back from the street facing the parapet.

The team here is prepared if approved to address any sort of screening to the department's satisfaction.

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

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair, members of the board for the recommended Johnny.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of underbutters meeting facilitated on the box 24th and with no robot is present and no additional community process required.

The proposal was approved to reproduce.

The proponent has a violence now, office has to have a one of the three units will be offered as a portal through the mayor's office of house.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next dacia from Consular World's Office.

Hi, yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Um, from Council Wells' Office of District 4.

Um Council Wallace would like to defer to the board but express um his concern about the project not offering any homeownership units, despite that being um along us from the community.

Um, so we'd like to defer to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, if I just rebuck, these are home ownership units too.

Great, thank you.

Would that may I have a motion?

May I have a motion?

Uh Madam Chair, motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Seconds.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Murell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carried.

Yes.

Good.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair, the next case has also been deferred.

So that would take us to case BOA 181, 19, 10, with the address of 24 newly.

If the applicant and the representative present.

Would they please explain the case to the board.

Yeah, this is.

Yeah, this is Jing Zhou.

Um, we are uh leaving in 24 kneeling high cent.

Uh we have um sorry I'm the homeowner uh of this house.

Uh we are requesting approval of a uh second floor and uh rear uh action addition to our existing single family house.

Uh our family has uh lived in this house uh and with over two growing um children.

Uh so we are seeking for additional leaving space, um a second full bathroom uh to better meet our family need.

Um so this is over floor plan, and if you uh can see uh this plan that uh to mitigate um some uh privacy concerns.

So we don't have the uh in our back uh in the addition or over back side.

Um we don't have the a win uh window uh on our uh right side uh and uh that that will be a closet, um, and on the uh right left side we are seeking for a minor relief of the uh set yard uh variation uh because uh the current house is already like this 6.5 uh eight feet uh to our uh set back and by removing the uh like upstairs the stairs we are actually uh extend that to uh about 10 feet.

So uh yeah, this is uh any questions?

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair, members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bembery.

I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Species for the Office of Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a part of this meeting facilitated on March 3rd and was attended by two guests.

No issues or concerns were raised during the meeting.

Next number one representative the proposal to Jamaica Hills Association on March 11th and Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council on April 15th, but the proposal received approved.

Thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services.

We'll have to take approach to the board with the judge.

Thank you.

Next we have Avi Algasi.

Yes, I hope you can hear me.

Yes, sir.

Um, um in neighbor of uh Nyland 24.

Um concern about the extension to the south, which is basically uh two study uh building in front of my uh one story bedroom.

So that's my concern.

Okay, thank you.

Um additional comments.

The applicant like to briefly address that concern before we go.

Um yes, uh so uh in over uh uh as I mentioned previously.

Uh that will we will uh we have a closet uh at the back back uh extension so we don't have a window to like over to look to our neighbors.

Um and uh yeah I think that's uh my address this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Mr.

Sambridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Valencia.

Yes, Mr.

Langham.

Yes, Mr.

Brunell.

Yes, chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Good luck, ma'am.

Thank you.

Adam Chair, the next two cases have been deferred.

So that takes us to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m.

Yeah.

Um, at this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m.

time frame.

And just a reminder, we are a five-person five-member board.

And with that, we will go to case BOA, 184, 2748 with the address of 33 Hawthorne Street.

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

Thank you.

Members of the board.

Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street here on behalf of the applicant.

The project in front of you is 33 Hawthorne, Hawthorne Street.

Don't know if we could pull up the plans.

The ambassador?

There we go.

Great.

Thank you.

This is a pretty straightforward proposal.

We're looking to change the occupancy.

It's an existing two-family dwelling to a three-family dwelling.

And that would be by adding a dwelling unit in the basement that has a ceiling height of seven that will have a ceiling height of seven foot six and two full means of egress.

We're also there is some attic space that exists now.

So we're proposing putting a dormer on the building to add some to make that space more livable, and it would create some additional bedrooms for the building, but all of the work would be contained within the existing building itself, and that is why BPD recommended an approval as well.

If we could go for the next slide, please.

This just shows uh composition uh of buildings in the area.

You've got uh some a lot of twos, some threes, uh some larger buildings as you go uh down the street as well.

If you can go to the next slide, please.

These are just street views, next slide.

We'll get into the site plant, I believe.

And we get into the plans now.

So uh what the uh the the new layout or the the basement which is unit B would be a 685 square foot unit in it.

Uh first floor uh 1136.

Uh the uh basement would have two bedrooms, one bath uh unit one uh would have two bedrooms, two baths at 1136 square feet, and then unit two would be a four-bedroom family size unit, uh three bath uh one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six square feet.

Uh the uh we we also have two tandem spaces now as we worked with community process.

Uh we added an additional space.

So there would be three uh parking spaces on the left side where the driveway uh is existing uh now.

There would also be also be a separate area in the basement for utility room with its own entrance, and as I had mentioned, this would have two full means of egress.

Uh my clients really looking to utilize the space uh within the building.

Uh this does is a very 10-minute walk uh to the Rosalindale Village MBTA and multiple bus routes, so great for those folks commuting.

Uh the areas that did require or were asking for zoning relief is FAR, uh slightly, so going from a.55 still under one to a.99 with the dormers, it it raises the height of the building half a story, so uh this would become 35 feet uh three and a half inches, but a three-story building because of because of the dormer, and then parking.

Uh we would need relief for that, although we do have the three created spaces, and it's a great MBTA or location for MBTA type of use.

With that, I can answer any questions that the board may have.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Uh yes, Madam Chair.

Um, Drago, I think I've heard you say though for the basement, it would be seven foot six, and I.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

With two means of uh as for living space, does that include bedrooms?

Yes.

So there would be two bedrooms uh in the in the basement uh itself in the basement space.

That area is six hundred and eighty-five square foot unit.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Is it wondering is this uh owner-occupied or or just uh it has housed families?

Um there's a uh a long-term tenant that's there that will remain in the building as well.

Uh, family has lived in it uh over the years, yes.

Okay, thank you.

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bemberry.

I'm the Roslandale Community Engagement specialists with the Office of Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutter's moving facilitation on March 12th.

But several attendees raised concerns regarding the proposal.

Parking was the most frequent discussed issue with multiple attendees expressing concern about the proposed development university, system property shortages in the area.

Residents noted that parking is already limited due to nearby community usage, such as the public school and the lack of direct rapid transit access.

Any questions about the post-office parking would be sufficient to accommodate future residents.

Attendees also require whether the proposed units would be rental department to put convoys, uh condominiums, as well as the availability of affordable housing units.

But several attendees inquired about the impact of the project on the existing long-term tenants.

Additional concerns included the overall size and scale of the proposal, but some attendees thinking that they felt the project was excessive and out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, as well as the potential impact of exterior lighting on the adjacent properties.

One attendee expressed support for the proposal while similarly requesting information regarding again the future of the government long-term resident, uh, as you've heard.

Uh David Willow be remaining on the property.

Next up, I presented to request village neighborhood associations, which included the community process.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, we have both.

Uh yes, um, I'm a resident uh living on Hawthorne Street.

Um I understand that um the proposal was to say there's numerous other three families.

Uh this neighborhood is a single-family, two-family neighborhood.

We do have a community center, the old Rosendale High School.

We have been inundated with uh numerous traffic now, as stated by Jeremy, with the um Washington Irving School becoming the South Roberts School, which has combined two schools.

Parking is tight.

We have people who park from the Social Security Office uh around the corner when they make visits there, employees to the library.

The street is very dense at this time.

Um understanding that um the space will be rented in the basement.

Um I don't know, does the basement get uh single use or is it something that's supplied to the tenant on the first floor?

And um also to uh stated uh we've had uh rentals there before.

It seems like we have um a rental to um traveling nurses, so the street does get inundated with uh numerous cars, people from Maine, New Hampshire, people traveling in, working six months a year, seven months a year.

Um, understanding that the city does need uh more residencies.

Um I don't know if a three-family fits the fabric of this neighborhood.

Um, and it is dense at this time already.

Um, so that would be my comment to this.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

If I may respond, Madam Chair.

Yes, just uh a couple of points.

Uh one on the tenant.

Uh, we actually submitted a letter from the tenant that they will be uh remaining uh on the property, and they've been very happy at the site.

Um, and and that's our plan is to keep uh any tenants that are there in the property, uh, or if they so choose another property that the owner does own.

Uh two, we actually uh created an additional parking spot just to address some of the neighbors' concerns about parking as well, even though this is as I had mentioned, 10 minutes uh walk to the uh Rosalindale village station as well.

Uh in the BPD recommendation, it even mentions that eventually it's likely these basement units would be as of right.

Now they're not, um, because it's a good use of creating housing with uh with keeping a building uh footprint as it is.

So the uh attic space is already existing, has living space up there.

All we were looking to do was make it more functional.

Uh we do not use that now, but by making the dormer it actually creates some additional space as well.

Um everything in the basement would be sprinklered, uh, have uh full egresses, egress windows, um, and all of these plans were prepared by David Freed from True, and he's also on the call as well.

So uh thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

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

There is second, second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries come up.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1813 09 with the address of 36 to 44 Broad Street.

If the applicant or their present would they please explain to the board.

Yes, thank you.

I think about that.

Anything else?

I've got some, we've got some.

I mean, you know, is not speaking.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh this is Michael Jamo uh representing Verizon Wireless from Law Firm Robinson and Cole and my colleague Madeline Newman.

Uh Celco Partnership, which does business as Verizon Wireless is seeking relief under Article 6 to install a rooftop wireless facility.

Um we can go to the next the next slide.

It's um the facilities at 34 36 to 44 Broad Street, which is the building that occupies the downtown block surrounded by broad central India and Milk Street.

Um the proposed facility consists of, and if we could go to slide six at this point, um thank you.

So it consists of three sectors of four antennas each.

And if you look at the yellow highlighting there, um all the antennas are fully enclosed within canisters that will be painted or wrapped to match the appearance of the building facade so that the antennas themselves are not visible.

There's a total of nine canisters, three for each section sector.

Um in the right lower quadrant of that plan, you can see two of the sectors, one's facing Milk Street, one's facing Broad Street.

In those sectors, the canisters will be mounted to the back of the building parapet on pole mounts.

Um, and for these two set for these two sectors.

Um, pardon me.

Uh for these for these two sectors, the uh relief is required from the roof setback, uh the 10-foot setback from the edge of the roof provision under uh article 86.

Um, and these antennas need that relief because they need to be able to see over the edge of the building to operate properly.

The third sector consists of three antennas on pole mounts uh to the existing penthouse on the building roof.

Those are the other three yellow highlighted circles in the left middle of the plans.

These require relief from the provision, which limits the height above the roof to 20 feet or 20% of building height.

The canisters exceed that standard, but they are only eight feet above the level of the existing penthouse roof.

Um the installation will also include battery cabinets and other equipment needed to operate the wireless facility that will be on a platform mounted on the roof, and that's the green highlighted area up there.

Um you turn to slide four, please.

Um, Verizon wireless needs this proposed facility in order to maintain high quality wireless service in the downtown area.

Um the proposed facility will handle some of the demand on the wireless network in the busy area east of Post Office Square, enhancing the performance of the surrounding Verizon Wireless sites that are operating at or near capacity.

So the targeted area is the area with the hatching uh in the picture, and as you can see, that will offload um demand on the surrounding sites and post office square, government center, the site called central artery, and will provide better service.

Um the proposed facility uh is needed in order to uh proposed proposed relief is needed in order to allow the antennas to function properly.

Facility will have minimal impacts, it will not have any greater impacts um then uh then uh conforming application would be because the antennas will be hidden within the cylindrical enclosures to present a neat appearance.

Um the proposed facility will benefit the neighborhood and the city as a whole, it will provide improved wireless service for residents and others working and traveling in the downtown area.

Um the application includes a narrative addressing all the standards for relief, and we would have be happy to answer any questions you might have.

I have Keith Valenti, who's a the RF engineer on this site uh available by phone.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Mayor public testimony.

Um chair members of the board, my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding thirty-six to forty-four Broad Street.

Our office differs to the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including the distribution of a subcommittee fire mailed on February 25th, 2026.

This outreach generated three responses from community members.

Two respondents sought additional information regarding the proposal, and after receiving clarification, one indicated that they um would voice non-opposition to the project.

Uh, one letter of opposition was also submitted citing concerns about the visual impact and it was of the proposed antennas on top of the building.

This letter has also been submitted to the board.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Wharf District Neighborhood Association, which voted in support of the project and has also submitted a formal letter to the board.

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

Thank you.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

I couldn't.

Mr.

Stumbridge.

Sorry about sorry about that, Madam Chair.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Valencia.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Okay, with that, it looks like we have a break until 12 p.m.

for the court remound.

I see you all then correct.

How do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a hug Roll call again, Mr.

Stambridge.

Present, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Valencia.

I have Madame Chair.

Mr.

Langham.

Present, Madam Chair.

And Mr.

Rennell.

Present, Madam Chair.

All right, the floor is yours, Mr.

Stambridge.

So thank you, Madam Chair.

Next, we will be going to a court remand hearing scheduled for twelve PM.

This is KBOA one three five, nine, four, three, with the address of twenty two Hanover Street.

Yes.

May I speak?

Yes, please.

Okay.

My name is Park McDowell.

I am the architect for this project.

I'll advise you when to advance the slides, but if you could start on the first page, please, that would be helpful.

As the stated, we are here today for a remand hearing at the direction of the Suffolk Superior Court and to provide a little background.

In 2022, this project was approved by community groups, by the Board of Appeals, by the ISD, by PIE.

Subsequently, and a butter appealed this board's decision, granting zoning relief.

And recently, the Suffolk Superior Court denied that plaintiff's request for summary judgment, but it did ask the BOA to review its decision specifically regarding rooftop structures.

So on behalf of my client, I respectfully ask this board to affirm their previous decision as our process was appropriate and consistent with all governing regulations.

If you go to the second slide, please.

The timeline.

Wonderful.

So this project timeline it validates the BOA's previous approval.

Ruth May 21.

We followed the required process for seeking zoning relief.

The mayor's office notified all neighbors about the project.

We secured the support of both community advisory groups, that's new Raw and New Nick.

The BOA then approved our petition for zoning relief with proviso required in BPDA design review of the rooftop and the head house and screen.

And this is important because the court specifically asked the BOA to confirm that these rooftop features have been reviewed thoughtfully.

This is why we are here today.

And they have been reviewed thoughtfully.

After several months of design review, the BPDA asked us to remove a six-foot privacy fence that we had in our original proposal.

We did that, and the BPDA approved the design, including all the top features.

Next slide, please.

The subsequent slide shows the BPDA approved design documents.

Note the existing condition of the building shown in the left, which already features a roof deck and head house, the very things that are up for discussion today.

I have got other slides that indicate the overall project, but at this time I'm happy to relinquish the floor and answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

What were the um I understand what the judge is asking for?

What were the objections that were raised?

I tried to get us those one.

Um the abutter objected to everything about the project, uh, including pre-existing conditions over which we have no control and which aren't under the purview of any of the decision makers here today.

So a boilerplate um rejection of the project from a an abutter who has a track record of of uh filing many lawsuits.

Yes, it did, I'm sure.

Okay.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Yeah, I have one quick question.

I just like to know why did the abutter object to this project.

Um it's a little bit difficult for me to speak without to that without without addressing the character of the abutter.

Um, I think the the most general way to say it is the abutter owns a deceased, so it's his estate which is carrying on this this lawsuit.

They own many different properties and file many different lawsuits.

Um we were the recipient of this particular one.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Um, sir, we just asking questions or making comments as well.

Well, eventually we're getting to a motion, but you can yes.

Questions andor comments.

Thank you.

It's not a question.

I'm just I I was looking at the site plan and the documents and also the location on Google.

I am familiar with the street.

I see that the several similar structures in the area, different roof rooftop structures.

There is not a lot of open space like in the area for families, and I don't see how these uh change to the property or dissolution is going to risk and safety or increase any traffic mobility or increase traffic at all.

And I'm just trying to stand what are the motives from the person who is opposing the project.

I don't think we're here to question other people's motives.

We're just here to we're just here to focus on what the applicant uh is requesting.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Caroline, is public testimony required for this?

I would take public testimony.

Yes.

Okay, anything else from the applicant before we do so?

No, my statement is complete.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh may I may I have uh public testimony?

If there is, I'm not sure if they're open, but I don't see what for Glenn is, but then we can go with the problem.

I'm an attorney who represents the butter issue.

Okay, briefly, 90 seconds.

Of course.

So uh my client owns the property at 374 376 north street, located directly behind the property that's been permitted.

The reason we objected and continue to object is because the project contemplates a two-story addition to a one-story portion of the project of the property, which addition is going to cut off a lot of light and air, which to our patio, which is located directly behind the project.

So we continue to oppose this project as detrimental to my client's property.

Uh, particularly to decrease privacy, increased shadowing, massing and scale.

We appeal the prior decision to the superior court.

Uh that is now on appeal to the appeals court, the portion of the variance that the judge we believe incorrectly said wasn't needed.

Um, and now we're here on remand for the conditional use permit portion of the project, which we asked that the court did not.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Any other raised hands?

Uh I'd like to speak to that if I could.

After we go through any other public testimony.

I don't see any other hands raised.

All right, thank you.

So please, the applicant?

Yes.

I just want to clarify that the issue that Robert Hopkins cited is not the issue up for debate today.

The judge ruled that that was something that we could do by right.

That is the two-story extension.

It is not something we have to decide today.

You're directed as the zoning board of appeals by the Suffolk Superior Court to consider the rooftop structures.

Thank you.

All right, any other questions on that aspect?

On the board hearing none, is there a motion?

Or Madam Chair.

So if the board has any comments as well, this is also the time, or they have any follow-up questions.

Of course.

Well, just to continue my previous comment.

I think this is the structure is appropriate for the area.

This is a very dense area that has similar structures.

You can see that on just on Google maps.

So I think this is uh this project is a good fit for the building.

I don't see any challenges about this.

And I would like to second uh Mr.

Valencia's comment.

You know, look, you know, uh knowing the area, and uh, you know, just uh noting that there's you know, it's a multifamily dense area of the city.

I think this is pretty much in line with what uh we would want to see okay.

I'll go back to is there a motion?

Um, there's a I'll make a motion of approval.

Um, basically to go along with all this said um the roof deck is intended for typical residential use um in this area.

Um, and I don't see it why it wouldn't be allowed.

So I'll make a motion of approval on the on that basis.

Okay, is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes, Mr.

Valencia?

Yes, Mr.

Langham.

Did we lose Mr.

Langham?

Yeah, yes, yes, okay.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Burnell.

Yes, chair chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you each very much for your time.

Okay, so the last item on the agenda is the adoption of proposed rules and regulations.

I'm not sure if Mr.

Stembridge is supposed to read that in or what I'll do that, Madam Chair.

Okay.

There was a long awkward pause, so just checking.

No, it was wrong.

Next on the agenda we have.

Okay.

Uh has everyone had an opportunity to review the proposed rules and regulations?

Yes.

Excellent.

Any any questions or concerns?

No, no question no concerns, just a comment that we have to we should follow and review those regulations and make in the future make appointments for positions that are still vacant.

Thank you.

Noted.

Any other comments or questions?

May I have a motion?

A motion out to approve the rules and regulation.

Thank you.

May I have a second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Valencia?

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

The chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

All right.

I think that's it.

Is that it for today?

Are we anything else?

All right.

There's nothing else on the list, manager.

All right, excellent.

Well, thank you very much.

Have a great day, everyone.

Have a great day.

See you too.