For June 16, 2026 is now in session.

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

The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027.

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

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

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

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

Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking.

As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition.

The order of comments is as follows elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public.

The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require.

For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project, that is those individuals who live closest to the project.

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

Click it again and your hand should go down.

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

So, yes, and you should be able to talk.

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

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

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

Good morning.

Good morning, madam chair, present.

Good morning, Mr.

Collins.

Morning, Madam Chair, present.

And Mr.

Langham.

Good morning, Madam Chair President.

Good morning.

Floor is yours, Mr.

Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We'll begin today's meeting with the approval of appearing minutes.

Scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

These are the hearing minutes, June 2nd of this year.

And I will make a motion of approval for those members.

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wheelow.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Next, we'll go to the extension scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

There are five cases.

There are five extension cases before us.

All appear to be reasonable.

And their request.

I'll read through them.

And if we have any questions, we can address them to Madam Chair.

Go from there.

First, we have case BOA 109-438 with the address of one effort street.

Next we have case BOA 128-9178 with the address of 40B Street.

Along with that, we have case, we also have case BOA 152-1943 with address of 40B Street.

Next we have case BOA 152-2524 with the address of 79 West Milton Street.

For the last extension case, we have case BOA 145 0603 with the address of 556 Cambridge Street.

Those are the extension cases before us today.

Thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Any questions from the board?

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

Motion of granting extensions as requested.

May I have a second?

Thank you.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham?

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Next we'll move on to the recommendations scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

These recommendations are from the subcommittee period.

For last week from June 11th.

All of all the cases before the subcommittee were approved.

I'll read through them.

And if you have any questions, go there.

So we have case.

We have case BOA 182-2545 with the address of 5-7 Prescott Place in Buzz approach.

Next we have case BOA 184-4274 with the address of 68 at this room.

Next we have case BOA 182 1584 with the address of 6 Rambo Road.

Next we have case BOA 177 2126 with the address of 31 Bellow Street, which was approved.

Case BOA 182-3198 with the address of 682-684 East 5th Street, which was approved.

Next we have case BOA 183-3990 with the address of 306 Northern Avon.

And finally for the recommendation cases, we could have case BOA 182 16 00 with the address of 160 Elm Street, which is also Madam Chair, those are all the cases of the subject.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

May I have a motion to approve?

I make a motion to approve.

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

That we'll roll it to the hearing.

Schedule for 9 30 a.m.

And at this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferral from the 9 30 a.m.

time.

Is it one hand right?

Yep.

Yes, we wish to um defer to the next meeting.

We need to readvertise.

I'm sorry.

So sorry.

78 bunker.

78 Bunker Hill Street, Charlestown.

Uh the uh what may I have?

Ah.

Yes, that this was the request is for case VOA 181 71 20.

The address of 7800.

Go ahead, please go ahead and uh yes, so uh we had a second neighborhood meeting, and we changed we were advised them to a pays their buttons.

Um that was successful, but the old drawings, uh the new drawings were not updated in time, so it needs to be re-advertised because the advertisement had the old drawings to which was brought to our attention.

Caroline, do we have a date already or July 28?

Okay, uh may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until July 28th.

Is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Langham?

Yes, Ms.

Turner?

Yes, Ms.

Wewell.

Yes, Mr.

Burnell.

Yes, Mr.

Collins.

Yes, chair votes yes, motion carries.

See you then.

Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawals or referrals of the 930 hearings?

Hearing done, we begin with the first case, which is case BOA, 171-6446 for the access of 178 to 180 Wells Street.

The applicants and the other representative or present would they please slide the case that we will?

Hi.

Can everybody hear me okay?

Yes, sir.

Hi, my name is Adam Ricci, and I am here to present 178 Wells Street on behalf of my clients Ingmar and Melissa Sterling.

And so I'm just trying to figure out how to share my screen.

So you're presenting from what you sent in, so just let the ambassador know if you need to scroll.

Um we go back to the oh sorry, this is not.

Oh, you have it up for me.

I see.

Thank you.

So uh actually, we have since changed the design as per the neighborhood meetings.

Uh so would you like me to share those?

So we can only discuss what's before us, so do we not have the latest plans?

Um, but were the updated plans submitted to ISC to review?

Uh I believe so.

More than two weeks ago?

Yes, we submitted by email everything to the my liaison, I believe.

To your liaison, meaning your at ISD, or do you mean the mayor's act?

At ISD?

Um Madam Chairman I suggest we come back to this case at the end, and I can check with ZPA staff.

That would be great.

So we'll we're gonna we're gonna come back to this at the end of the 930s to see if they can locate your updated plans.

Okay, great.

Okay, so stay tuned.

Okay, thank you.

But with that, we'll move on to the next case.

The applicant and other representative were present.

They would like to report.

Yeah, Joseph is allowed.

Are you here to present on this case?

I am and may I share my screen?

So there's no sharing of screens to all applicants.

Whatever you submitted is what we are able to view.

So if you do not we do not have your current plans, we cannot present today.

So is this the plans?

No plans are current.

I just have more excellent.

Okay, so I'm Joseph Vizella, 3841 Washington Street in Rosendale.

I am the owner and the manager of Colgate Development LLC.

I own this building, this business, and several others here in Rosendale.

On this vacant lot on Averton Street, we intend to build a three-family house.

The zoning is 2F, but we're surrounded by three-family houses.

We think that the use is appropriate, but the difference is that we're doing a townhouse configuration.

So instead of stacking the units, we're running them front to back.

That allows us to provide for uh two parking spaces under the building for each unit for a total of six parking spaces.

These will be condominium units, they'll be owner-occupied, they'll have three bedrooms, two and a half baths, there'll be an office, there'll be open space provided behind the house and next to the house.

Uh we've had two community meetings, one with the the neighbors that were sponsored by the mayor's office, and that went very well.

We had no opposition, and then we went to the West Village Group, also no opposition there, we did very well.

We just we believe that this use is appropriate given the surrounding houses.

We have kept the size and um we've kept the size consistent with these in the adjacent buildings, and we hope that uh you grant us relief so we can move forward with our project.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing then, public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jarra V.

Van Gary.

I am the Rosalind Deputy Agent Specialist for the Office of Input Services.

The applicant has alluded to the community process, which consists of an abortive meeting facilitated on March 5th with three attendees during the meeting of voters raised questions and concerns regarding the requested variances, the anticipated construction timeline and the overall project management throughout the construction period.

Specific concerns are raised regarding access to the street directly, including whether work would occur on weekends over cloud weekend permits.

Above is no doubt the street is narrow and voice concerns about gentle traffic congestion about the agrees and maintaining access to residential properties throughout the construction process.

Following the abortive meeting, the proponent methods village and neighborhood association, which completed the committee process.

Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of maybe what services would like to differ to the court.

Thank you.

Next Madam Two, it's with Anthony Dross.

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

Um awkwardly I'm presenting the next case, but I also represent the owner of the abutting property uh to Mr.

Vizella's proposed project at 26 Avanton Street, and I'd like to go on record uh on behalf of the owner of that three family uh in support of this proposal.

Thank you.

I think we have Richard Links.

Yeah, not so much a comment.

I just want to for clarity.

Would it be possible to just confirm where the total lot width on that property was and then what the required frontage would be?

I'm just sure I missed it in the presentation.

The lot width is 60 feet.

Which is the required frontage.

Well, I'm sorry, there were a total of three units.

Three units, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Um I put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review.

Um, and that the proponent work on enhancing the walkway and lighting and adding signage that clearly indicates the main entrance of where the unit uh the two and three units are located.

Okay, is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham?

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Wewall.

Yes.

Mr.

Bernell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Yes.

The motion carries.

The book.

Thank you.

Next, we have Kate.

Next we have Kate BOA 180456.

With the address of 66 to 66Avenue.

The applicant, the other representative of Brooklyn.

They please plans to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board.

My name is Anthony Ross.

I'm an attorney with my office at 343 Belgrade Avenue in Roslendale, appearing on behalf of the owner, Hong Kong Fang.

This proposal involves the construction of a new two family dwelling on a vacant lot immediately adjacent to Ms.

Yang's existing two-family home at 6870 Cedris Avenue.

The vacant lot has been assigned an address of 66-66A Cedris Avenue.

Both properties are shown on the fur photograph, which is the first slide.

The existing two family is to the right at the very end of the dead end, and the uh vacant lot is immediately to the left.

As shown on the um next slide, um the existing two family is the last house marked in the blue box.

And uh as shown on this uh map, which is a portion of the city's use map, the surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a mix of single-family, mostly two-family, and three-family homes.

The proposed two family is an allowed use in this zoning district, the two F5000 zoning district, and is consistent with the majority of the existing unit uh existing uses in the immediate area.

Um the next map, uh the next slide uh after this legend, uh, is uh here, thank you, is uh a portion of the city's assessing map um that demonstrates that the subject lot is nearly identical in size and dimensions to most of the nearby lots on Cedrus Avenue and the parallel uh adjacent parallel streets.

The prevailing lot pattern in this area is approximately 44 feet in width by 110 feet in depth with lot areas roughly 4840 square feet, which is the uh lot size of the subject lot.

Accordingly, the lot dimensions, the proposed setbacks, the zoning insufficiencies identified in the refusal ladder, and the proposed two-family use are all consistent with the character of the immediately surrounding neighborhood.

If we could move down to the next slides, um uh and keep going to the um to the architectural plans, please.

Um, and uh I I for some reason the elevations are at the bottom.

Um, thank you.

The proposed two families, also have been designed to fit the character of the neighborhood context.

Although the units are configured internally in a front-to-back arrangement, the street-facing appearance, uh, which is the next slide, I think, or the previous one.

Thank you.

The street-facing appearance uh is similar to that of a single-family home, with the entrance to the front unit appearing as the traditional front door, and the entrance to the rear unit appearing as a typical side entrance along the driveway.

Each of the proposed uh two family uh each of the proposed units in the two family will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths.

The existing garage at the rear of the property will be retained along with the existing driveway and curb cut, and we would be happy to answer any questions regarding the proposal of the zoning relief that's been requested.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

Hearing none, ma'am, public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the bar.

Okay, my name is John Remery.

I'm a browsing directly engagement specialist for the office of the quote service.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on February 18th with three abutters in attendance.

Concerns were expressed regarding the side yard setback, particularly because the area required relief directly above the neighboring property.

Questions were also raised regarding proposed fencing and the preservation or removal of existing trees on the site.

Additional inquiries were made regarding the amount of usable backyard space that would remain after construction and whether the rear of the property would probably be utilized for parking.

Further concerns included the size of the proposed garage, the anticipated construction timeline, and the overall height and scale of the structure.

I've understood that the proposed building appeared taller than the surrounding homes and expressed concern that it may be inconsistent with the established character of the neighborhood.

Following the one, present meeting the proponent for the neighborhood association on April 23rd, completing the committee process.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Um Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, would attorney Ross like to address uh the concerns that were expressed?

Yeah, so uh with regard to the side yard, Ms.

Yang also owns the uh now owns uh since the um the uh abutters meeting the property to the left side of the property.

She does claim to retain the fence.

Um the garage is existing, and with regard to the height, uh the building has been designed um so that it is in compliance with the height of 35 feet, the height limit in this zoning district.

Uh the reason for uh the topmost story with dormers being a full story is just to maximize the living space of each unit.

There are three bedroom units with approximately 1850 square feet designed for family occupancy.

And and the reason the building doesn't have a flat roof, which is similar to some of the other uh um three-unit buildings in the neighborhood is uh she wanted to put a pitched roof on uh uh to maximize the feasibility of installing solar panels for energy efficiency.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair.

There are a second, so Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Langham.

Yes, Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Wewall, yes, Mr.

Brunell.

Yes, Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1749 for two three with the address of 26 Bird Street, if the applicant and the other representative of the one.

Chair, my name is Ferenc Guerrier.

I'm an attorney in Boston, and uh with a principal address that's 299 Gallagher Boulevard.

I represent the applicant, the contractor, Mr.

David Allen, who's sitting to my right, um, online are the homeowners, Mr.

and Mrs.

Bess, also uh joining with me this morning is the architect, Mr.

Fred Manigat, as well as his partner, Mr.

Joseph Diderot.

Madam Chair, before I go into the design, may I have an opportunity to lay out the project for you?

26.

Yes, 26-30 Bird Street.

Is a single family home on two lots with the address of 26 and 30.

We are proposing eight coming condominium units with eight parking spaces located in the rear.

The park is located within a residential district, roughly uh less than a three-minute walk to Ashmont station, and uh it is the very uh definition of a transient development.

We seek relief all under um Article 65, uh basically for insufficient lot size, floor area ratio, and parking spaces.

Uh I will not turn it over to Mr.

Didio to go over the design process with you before knowing, so I should let you know we had an abutter's meeting on October 20th, 2025.

Um it was well received, we heard from the neighbors and some of their concern.

We actually met with the neighborhood association on March 26th.

Um, I point out those dates because it gave us the time to actually work with the neighborhood to address all of their concern.

I'm happy to report to you on March 26th when we presented to the Ashmon Hill Neighborhood Association, it was unanimously approved, and we have a letter from Vicky Rugo, the uh association president in support of this project.

At this time, I'd like to transfer the remaining of my time to Mr.

Didiero or Mr.

Monegat to go over the design process.

Thank you, Erns.

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

My name is Joseph Diderot.

I am a staff architect here with hierarchy.

Um, to walk you through the design, um, could maybe scroll back to the site plan, please.

Are we able to go up?

All right, site plan, maybe down.

As mentioned, I think we're good here.

As mentioned, we're combining two lots into what will be a larger lot with a front edge of approximately 73 feet.

Lot sizes uh combined will be approximately 6,000 um square feet lot.

What we are planning to do is to erect uh three-story building.

Um, and we'll have a pass through where we'll have parking at the rear of the property.

If you can scroll down to a site plan that reflects that, I think we are good here.

Um to go back just a little, all right.

Let's go here.

So we'll we'll have a pass through in the center of the building and we'll have parking at the rear.

The first floor level will compose of um two two-bedroom uh apartments, one on the left, one on the right, and a pass through for the common space in parking area through the building there.

Let's go through the plans.

The second and third floor is um going to have two bedrooms, two bedrooms, but three units on each floor plate, um, consisting of a total of eight units, and the second and third floor.

Um we have two bathrooms per unit.

These units are largely and fairly sized and um comparable to a lot of the units that are being built in the area.

Let's go through.

Um, maybe to the elevation.

The elevation um is composed of uh cementatious siding with flat roof and uh metal windows.

Um we are keeping in height with what exists in the neighborhood.

We are um targeting around 33 feet.

We're not doing a basement slab and grade so that to um to stay within within the height requirement and um with what's in the neighborhood already.

Let's go through more elevations, um, some sections that we shouldn't talk about right now.

Let's go through some of the renderings, just to give you a flavor of what the view is like at the rear of the building where the parking area is, um, more views toward the rear area, as you can see.

This is the front entry of the building.

Again, I think the architecture is really in kind with a lot of what's happening in the neighborhood in Ashmont and the Ashmont area, which is again about uh uh few blocks away.

I like to say two or three blocks away, so really keeping in kind with the architecture that is being presented in the neighborhood right now, and really the messing and the height, I think complement what is um exists and what is being proposed in the area.

So with that electric train back to uh to the attorney.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, just one correction.

Uh the lot size is actually 6,901 eight square feet.

Um, any questions from the board would we be more than happy to answer them, Madam Chair?

So can you you you mentioned this is in scale with other uh buildings in the neighborhood.

So on that street, yeah, I don't see anything that looks quite that uh with that many units.

Can you just sort of elaborate on that?

Yes, madam chair.

In fact, at the beginning of the street, there is uh recently approved a nine-unit building, and at the top at the bottom of the street, which is right around the corner, there's uh approval from the board for a much larger site.

Um this was something that we took into consideration looking at the neighborhood and designing the project to make sure that it was in keeping with what's been previously approved and keeping in the area, and that was taken into consideration in terms of the height.

There are a number of three family units.

This is on Ashmo Hill, so uh on the hill itself, there are a couple of three family or six families on the other side, and in the back of the building, there are much of larger properties as well.

Questions from the board?

Yeah, I have one small question.

I just wanted to know how many condos are located on the street.

Um, good morning, Mr.

Langham.

Uh, as I stated before, at the beginning of the street, um uh there's just been, I think it was a nine-unit condo, and and at the end of the street, there's also another condo project, and right around the corner, there's been approved for a much larger, I believe it probably something like 25 or 26 unit.

Um, this is again right across the street from Ashmont Station.

This is the very definition of transit-oriented development, and this will, in our opinion, provide much stability to the neighborhood by providing housing as well as homeownership.

Thank you for your question, sir.

Thank you.

I also have a question.

Um, we received a comment from a director butter about how this building would impact the shadows on their property.

I know you said you did work um extensively with the community.

Were there adjustments made um because of that those types of concerns?

Uh Ms.

Turner, absolutely.

Not only do I do work within that community, um, that community actually abuts Bailey Street and 58 Bailey Street is owned by my wife and I.

So I'm very familiar with the neighborhood, very familiar with the neighbors and everything.

Um, as I stated, if you remember during my presentation, we had our butters meeting in October.

We didn't have the association meeting until March.

That gave us the time to actually uh rework the plan and the whole nine yards things like fencing, shadowing, and stuff like that.

We did address them.

And in addition to that, I did provide any and all the butters that appeared, and if they had any questions to just contact me.

And prior to our meeting, and I believe the the um neighborhood association sent out letters to all the abutters, and it was publicized for them to have another opportunity to come in and address that.

And we address all of their concerns and um and I'm happy to report to you at that association meeting, it was unanimously approved.

Thank you very much.

I also have a question for the architect.

Sorry.

Yeah, so looking at your site plan, um, there's a striped um area as uh in the driveway essentially that is would take me taking cars to the back.

What is this uh striped area uh meant for?

Can we go back to a site plan, maybe maybe talking about the walkway here?

Is it uh the stripe where that connects both buildings?

Right, yeah, right.

It crosses uh the previous drawing.

Right, was a particular drawing.

Yeah, so it's marked as striped pathway, so in your plans is the right.

So it's it's it's basically an access that allows pedestrian to walk over and safely across the parking area.

And it but it's just mostly a striped uh uh striping on the asphalt correct, correct.

We need to maintain the asphalt for for uh for the cars, so it's just a demarcation of a safe way for for the tenants to go from one building to the other.

But you're expecting tenants to have a path into the units in and into the stair directly, not to have to go through the driveway, correct?

Correct, correct.

There's direct an entry from um the ground there, as you can see here.

There's a walkway um towards the right that leaves you directly into into the unit, and and in the back where you you we have a parking spots.

Um are you feeling uh what's the dimension between um between the parking spots on the sort of planned left and planned right?

Just just to make sure that those cars can actually turn around and and move out, and we actually do have the eight parking spaces.

The dimension we we test out those dimensions and um it a car can comfortably a full-size car can comfortably back up and um exit the property.

I'd like to point out that this is a uh trends oriented development.

Um we are targeting a parking spaces, but I think um folks that lives here will be using the train system and uh relieve the burden of having a lot of parking spaces at the rear of the building.

I think one of the things that we want to do and and if it's okay with the communities maybe um over some of the parking spaces for green space, and I think that's a conversation to be had.

Um we are open to to doing that.

Um I think we have plenty of parking spaces in the back, and we can make that work architecturally.

So can I ask?

Uh you're showing a lot of shrubbery outside of the fence, the fencing.

So is that also your property?

Are you providing that green space then?

Um we we are again.

I think the the shrubbery is based on conversations to create a buffer zone between the two two properties.

It could either be the fence can either be on the left hand side of the shrubbery or the right hand side.

We just chose to put on the other side of the property just to create a buffer and allowing the neighbor or or giving them the the the um the luxury of having um yeah, that's right.

I just wanted to confirm that that that was part of your property and that you were providing it.

Yes, madam chair, it's completely our property right now.

Right now there's a hard fence there, and that surely would be on our park.

Thank you.

And what's the material for the parking?

Because that is a lot of um looks like asphalt, so I don't know what to do.

Right, it will be permeable as well.

Yeah, okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

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

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

The applicant has completed the community process, which can upon the button.

But has also commented that the proposed front setback approximately five feet from the street appeared significantly closer to the sidewalk than surrounding properties and could affect the safety at the corner.

Additional concerns included the height of the proposed building, which some of what is felt was excessive, as well as the inconsistent and consistency of front yard setbacks along the street.

But has expressed that the proposed setback differed from the established development pattern of the neighborhood and viewed as out of character with the surrounding properties.

Whether the units would be rental or ownership housing, and at what market level and the anticipated construction timeline.

Following the aborted appointment met with Ashmont Hill Association, and to date our office has received one letter of support from the Ashmont Hill Association in support of the folks.

Thank you for time in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, and next we have Anastasia from City Council of Worlds.

I guess Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you.

Anastasia, on behalf of Council Rural, who represents District 4.

We're aware that this development does have support from Ashmont Hill, who took the lead on this, but we have heard some issues from Ashmont Valley members as well as neighbors.

So at this point, Council of Well would like to defer to the board.

Thank you.

So Anastasia, can you tell us which association does this property rest in?

Is it Ashmont Valley or Ashmont Hills?

Yeah, to my understanding, and I I think I'd like to go and confirm that before giving you the official answer, but I my understanding is that it's um kind of on the line between both.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have the mark move.

Did you speak up?

I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

Next we have Jeff Burke.

Um, I think we are coming.

Okay, is Jeff Park attempting to speak?

Or can you aren't?

Okay.

State your name and address for the record and state your position.

Okay.

My name is Jeff Perk.

I'm at 20 Fuller Street.

Um, and uh I'm opposed to uh this development as attorney Guerrero should know.

Since he's on Bailey Street, this property is part of Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association, and the developers have not uh made any effort to present to uh Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association and countrary to his assertions, this development is very out of character with the uh the immediate block.

Also, it should be noted that this is two properties that have been merged, and the city, when it deeded 30 Bird Street to the owner of 26 Bird Street, did so with the express intent in the deed that it not be developed so as to preserve green space within a neighborhood that is uh fairly uh uh dense and and lacks green space.

That is all thank you, thank you, Madam Chair.

There are no additional comments.

Okay, so can we hear from the developer uh about the uh I'm sorry, I think there is one more person.

I'm not sure if he's okay.

Yep, last one.

Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

I just wanted to, I'm a neighbor on Bailey Street, I live across from 58 Bailey Street, and I just wanted to um piggyback on Jeff of asking, is there still a restriction on 30 um Bert Street?

Is the city ignoring those or removing those?

But I'm pretty sure it was sold through the yard lot program that DD has, and so I'd like that to be.

Um it'd be great if the owner of 58 Bailey would also invest in that site because it's um quite messy, it's dirty most of the times.

Um, so we'd like to see that owner as being a good neighbor um on Bailey Street as well.

Thank you.

And do you have a position on this hearing, or are you just asking about whether this the city's um the lot program?

Um I haven't followed it as closely as others, so I'm just primarily wanting an answer on the yard lot.

Thank you.

Okay, so I'm gonna turn it back to the applicant.

There are quite a number of things that were raised.

If you could try to address those, you um and uh yes, so uh I will address the issues for you.

Um, uh number one uh uh Jeff, thank you for your comment.

Uh I would submit to the board that 24th Street is quite a ways away from Bird Street.

That's actually literally three streets away um from Byrd Street, uh going the other way, and right on um uh Fuller Street.

In fact, in designing the the building, we actually went and looked at all of the development that was going on in on Fuller Street uh 6020, as well as the two other ones that that were consistent.

Um with respect to the uh uh the lot size um we thought combining the two lots would make uh for an excellent proposed development in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

I did not address the issue of the shadow simply because um this is the first time that that came to us, but I'm more than happy to work with the neighborhood to make sure that this is uh an issue that that we can resolve.

Um, uh I I not to be frankly honest with you, that was not presented to us, that's not an issue that we that it will have to come into you.

So I think the question was regarding a D D program that may have preserved it for open space.

That was the question.

And are are you aware of that?

Can you answer that question?

Uh to be uh frank with you, madam chair.

I am not aware of that.

I I believe that two lots have been in the family for quite some time.

Um uh combining the two spaces, we were we would be willing to reduce the parking spot in the number of parking in this site for what is um is Mr.

Hampton perhaps aware of this issue or not, or is that something we should?

Um confirm?

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh, members of the board, Jeff Hanton City of Austin Planning Department.

I'm aware of the program that existed.

Um I don't know whether or not um if there is any deed restriction on 30 uh bird, uh, and if there was, was there a certain time limit?

Um, I think it's an important part of this case to make sure that uh there is no deed restriction on this, but that's not up to the planning department to um you know enforce uh if you will.

Um so if there is a question about any sort of deed restriction, maybe uh deferral until that is finalized, or you know, there is an answer, a definitive answer given uh a short deferral might be in order.

Thank you.

Are there other questions from the board?

Um I don't have a I don't have a question, but I'm looking at the Greater Ashmont Main Street, they have a um they have a map of the neighborhood associations, and it looks like Ashmont Hill Association and Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association overlap right over that property.

Um, so it seems like they would both have an interest in what's going on here.

Okay, and only one of them has been approached, as we are hearing, correct?

From the applicant, Madam Chair.

Uh just so you know that by the way, Jeremy and the city did an excellent job since we had the abutters meeting.

Um they directed us to um Ashwin Hill.

Um, so I was not aware that the other the Ashmont Valley would have had an interest.

Happy to work with them, happy to to engage them in discussion and happy to address any concern that they have.

But as you know, the city directed us, and and that's where we went and presented uh our project.

Thank you.

Is there a motion?

In light of deed and and neighborhood issues, um, madam chair.

I'd like to put forward a motion of deferral um for those issues that you just cited.

I'll separate dates.

There's July 28th, August 11th, or August 25th.

And I, if there is a more convenient date, um, I guess the most recent date or the closest date.

Um is that July 28?

28th, thank you.

Does that give the applicant sufficient time sufficient time to address the deed issue and the reach out to the the other association?

Absolutely, madam chair.

Okay, is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes, Ms.

Wewell.

Uh yeah, and I'll just give the applicant sort of my thoughts on this, so when they come back, maybe it'll be more successful.

I do think there needs to be more work done around sort of being more contextual with the neighborhood.

I know it's right near the um Ashmont station, but I do think it could go a long way to kind of do some tweaks that would make it fit better into the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Burnell.

Yes, Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

See you then.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next, we have Kate BOA 180 6734 with the address of 501 top of that.

It's the applicant and other members that are present.

If we supply the board, hello, yes.

Um, we're all present.

Um, it's a pleasure to present to you today, madam chair, and members of the board.

My name is Sophia.

I'm the architect for this project representing our client.

Um, our contractors are also on this phone call.

Um, if you just help me, please zoom in into that clouded area over there to the left, include the photo of the image above.

Um the house is um on Talbot Avenue, and it's um it's this three-story building that our client had purchased about a year ago, unit three in that building, which is the top unit.

She had originally bought it with the intent of extending into the attic, which was part of the kind of purchase documents, and we had done some work to extend the level three unit directly into the attic.

So if you just scroll up, if it's possible on that image, you'll be able to show the um the building itself.

Yep, and the attic space would be right up in that roof.

So the work that we have done is essentially increase the FAR.

Scroll down again, I'm sorry, to that uh, yep, to that table.

You'll see that in the current zoning, the FAR maximum is 0.4, the existing is 0.87, which is already nonconforming, and we are proposing a 1.0 uh FAR.

Um, the other thing that I would like to mention, and if you can now scroll through the plans, next page is just uh general, um, go through number three, yep.

Please zoom out.

Um, you can see that currently there is a unit on the third floor with two egress stairs, and the upper level attic is actually just empty.

There's it seems like there was some effort to have some space in rooms in there.

We have to get rid of the um the demising walls, and what we have to do is uh reinforce the entire attic floor and roof structure in order to um you know have the correct loading on that floor.

If we go to the next page, you'll be able to see that in order to do this, um, we actually have to raise the roof one foot in order to have a clearance uh head space clearance uh for a livable habitable space.

And for that reason, um, you know, we also have to kind of uh do quite a bit of the work on the roof in order to get the large enough beams and all the structural um components into the space itself.

Um we are proposing skylights along the edge of the roof, only on the sides of the building, not on the front facade.

Um, if you scroll down one more, you will see the proposed layout of the unit space above.

Um, and this would include you know an additional bathroom, another stair kind of in the middle of the plan, and additional bedroom and some storage space.

This would increase and improve the living arrangements and living layout for for our client here.

Um she has unanimous approval from the other two uh units in the building, and we've also received supporting letter from the Ashmont Hill Association approving this uh this project and this design.

As far as what this does to um the street front, it actually will not make uh a lot of change.

We're not changing the exterior, we're not proposing to change um what the look of the building on the outside.

Uh we are simply trying to make this attic space um more livable.

And with that, um, uh the only other thing that I'd like to mention is you know, with Dorchester.

Uh I live in Dorchester, I'm right down the street, um, 10 minutes from this building.

Um, I think that this is a great way and opportunity to increase living area and space that is not currently usable, and you know, improve um the livability of this building as well as uh allow you know the other residents to benefit from a sturdier and better roof that either way needs um upgrade.

Um, so with that, um I'll I'll leave it for comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Hearing none may have public testimony.

Madam Chair, members of the board of recommended general remember, I'm the Dodge Community Agent Specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the committee process with sensors on the book is meeting.

Facilitated on March 12th with no guests that attendance next to the proponent presented to the Ashmont Coast Civic Association on March 26th, where they voted the support of the proposal.

To date our office, as we'll see one lateral support from the Ashmark Association and strong support proposal.

Thank you for your time in the members of the services we have to report to the public agenda.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Is there a second?

Okay, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Lynham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair Both, yes.

The motion carries.

Goodbye.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have K.

Next we have K OA 1828, 45 with the address of 19, run off street.

If the applicant and the board representative are the advocate.

Good morning, members of the board.

My name is Darwin Fortuna, and I am the registered architect representing Juan on this project.

If you could pull up the presentation that we have, all right.

So yes, once again, uh Darwin Fortuna business address of 50 Grove Street in Salem, Massachusetts.

So this is a pretty straightforward project that we are partnering and serving our client on.

He currently owns that property on the right, which it will be uh called 15 uh green out, and the lot to the left will be 19 green out.

Um it's one of those interesting opportunities to uh essentially activate missing tooth within uh the fabric of the neighborhood, um, which is uh, you know, all of the all of the other properties around there are pretty much the same character size and dimensions.

So we thought, well, why not why not improve this neighborhood by uh one addressing the housing crisis that we have, but addressing it in a very much concept contextual way.

I mean, we're essentially taking all of the all of the inspirations and look and feel and um you know elements, architectural elements of the neighborhood, so that um in in terms of that it really just blends in.

Um the only thing we did was we would like to have a different color other than the base colors that all of the other properties have.

Um this is a triple decker style building, um, that addresses all of the needs uh of a new of a new time.

Um it will be fully spring cool building, uh we will provide fully accessible unit on the ground floor um as required, and it's uh still dignifying, still uh has decks uh in and volumes that the neighbors could use, the abortion could uh that the user could can use and have access.

Again, pretty straightforward um uh uh approach and strategy.

Um, and the units are three bedrooms for the upper three, and the lower unit of the lower floor would be a two-bedroom um open concept and uh good size units uh again matching and and essentially filling that that missing tooth of the neighborhood.

Um, and we have Mr.

Roberto Green and Juan on the call if they would like to talk, but um, but for the for the most part, this is uh again a pretty straightforward um uh project.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Mr.

Fortuna, I do have a question.

Uh there is a comment from the disabilities commission uh about um your comment entry.

Uh I do see that in your plans that there are there is a ramp that provides an accessible entry to to the first floor unit.

Uh however, the disabilities uh commission is pointing out that the main entrance also needs to be accessible.

Are you aware of this comment?

I am um we're trying to uh figure out a possible way of addressing that.

Um again, the lot is is it's not as it's not too big, it's just shy of the my um uh minimum requirement.

But um we we mitigated it.

Uh we've done a similar approach in another project, and we had to get a bit of a variance from the MAB because of the conditions.

I mean, get a ramp up there from the front is is a very big challenge.

I know this is a new construction instead of you know uh infilling a new system building, but still it's challenging.

Is that kind of balancing act between dignifying uh uh units that have proper spacing and uh a front entrance to the ramp which also dignifies the user to that ground floor?

Um all of the other units are convertible to accessible in if we ever do an elevator on this property, but at this point that was the the approach that we could that we could monster in the design process.

Um yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bembery.

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

This is the opposite consistent of the budget's meeting facilitated on April 30th with no concerns raised.

Following the abortion meeting though, for the community process was required, and the proposal was approved to move forward in the process.

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

We'd like to defer to the board.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

I'd like to put a motion of approval with a proviso.

That the applicant uh submits drawings to the planning department for the sign review.

Uh for review, in particular for uh other adequate side yard conditions and as mentioned the accessibility issue uh on the common entrance for all units.

I have a second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Sorry, did I hear Mr.

Yeah, that's sure.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lynham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewall.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair Motes, yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next we have case BOA 182 5902 with the address of 24 Alaska Street.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair and uh member of the board.

My name's Daniel.

I own 24 Alaska Street.

Uh we're looking at it's currently a single family, six-bedroom, two and a half bath, uh single family.

Uh we're looking at make it a two-family, um, with uh converting the basement.

The basement is a walkout basement towards the rear.

And uh what we're trying to do is uh make it a two-family bi-level units, a second and third floor being one unit and then the basement as well as the first floor being another.

Uh we're looking to do uh four-bedroom, two uh four-bedroom, two and a half bath, uh, for the first unit uh within the basement and uh first floor, as well as a five bed at uh two full bath um on the second unit.

Uh this particular project that um we're doing um does not change the layout or how the property looks from the exterior.

Um every uh the entirety of the work uh we're conducting is gonna be within the inside of the property.

So like the the layout of the property, the layout of the neighborhood, uh, the streets um are not gonna change as uh from the exterior, basically.

Um if you don't mind scrolling down, these are uh obviously uh as you can see in front of you.

These are uh the plans that we have um currently, and um I am um we did the community meeting with the help of uh Jeremy Bunbury from uh City Hall.

Uh we set up multiple uh, I believe I did three community hearings.

Uh we had uh zero opposition, everybody was in support of the project.

Um that's basically uh that's basically what I uh what I'm looking to do.

This particular project only adds on about uh eight hundred and forty-two, um sorry, eight hundred and forty-seven square footage of living space by converting the basement unit at the basement into a finished uh unit along with the first floor.

Um that concludes my presentation, and I'm grateful for your time and consideration of this appeal.

I uh hope that the board will find uh favor of ranting or requests that uh variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm just curious if you're aware the other buildings that are adjacent to yours that are similar, are those?

Two families, single families.

Do they also have basement units?

So um there are five to the best of my knowledge.

There are five row houses, the brown stones.

I am the corner to the left.

If you're looking at the property in front of us, uh in front of you, and uh I believe two of them, one of them including another one is a single family, and everything else is multi-with two of them, I believe, being two family and one of them three family.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yeah, public testimony.

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

I'm the Roxbury committee to engagement specialists for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abortive meeting facilitated on April 8th, with one of those in attendance.

The above expressed support for the proposal citing the anticipated beautification of the neighborhood through the three approved property management and enhanced landscaping.

Following the meeting of the proponent presented the proposal to 9 streets united, which voted in support of the project.

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

We'd like to defer to the board of the judge.

Thank you.

Well that may I have a motion?

Motion of approval.

Matt, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair Most.

Yes, the motion carries.

Come on, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, we have KOA 1827 322.

With the address of 35 notched there, street.

If the applicant and the other representative present, will they go to the board?

Thank you, Mr.

Stanbridge.

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

Uh my name is Mike Ross.

I'm an attorney of the law from Prince Low Bell.

Uh, this is a proposal for 35 Notre Dame, also known as 35-37 Notre Dame in Roxbury, uh, which is presently vacant land within an MFR sub-district.

Uh the plan is to build six homeownership.

You can stand there, uh Mr.

Ambassador.

Madam Bass.

Uh the plan is to build uh six homeownership units uh within a three-story structure on the site.

Um so starting with the site plan, uh, this lot you see here is two nine eight three square feet, which is very typical for uh these size lots uh in this area.

Uh one of the reasons we're seeking zoning relief is the size of this lot.

Um this MFR subdistrict requires 4,000 um minimum square foot for the first three units, and three thousand for the next three units.

Uh well I'm mentioning zoning relief, but I might as well go through it.

We're also cited uh for um insufficient lot width and frontage, which is 40.

Here you see 35.

Uh we're cited for the FAR, which is allowed for 1.0, we're at 1.82.

Uh for front yard uh 20 is required, and we are at five.

Uh for side yard 10 is required, we're at five for rear yard.

This is a shallow lot for rear yard uh 12.5 would be required, we're at 10.

And then uh finally there's no parking with this proposal, so we are required to have one space per unit.

We do not have parking, so we're cited for parking.

You can sit here at this slide, um a 001.

Shows the proposed ground floor uh with Notre Dame, the street on its on the right.

Uh the entrance to the building is both at the front, but also at the side.

Uh front of the building allows you access to the front unit, which is unit two, and then along the side allows you access to unit two and all the other units, the other five units in the building.

Total six.

Uh unit two, the front unit is smaller than the other units on account of the mechanical rooms.

Uh there is no basement with this proposal.

Uh, and it is uh therefore a two-bedroom, one bath at 596 square feet.

Unit one, the unit in the rear of that uh previous slide, uh, is 818 square feet.

It's a three-bedroom, two bath.

Here you're seeing uh the two other floors with the second floor at the bottom and the third floor above it.

Umit four, which is the bottom front unit is six hundred seventy-five square feet, it's a two-bedroom, one bath, and the rear unit, which is the bottom rear unit is eight hundred seventy-seven square feet to three bedroom, two bath, and uh above is the same, roughly the same configuration, uh, with a uh two-bedroom and three bedroom, two bedroom in the front, three bedroom in the in the rear.

Uh, and each unit has ample roof uh open space, and and each bedroom actually has its own balcony.

Um there's nothing on the roof.

These are your elevations.

The next slide shows the axiomatic uh images.

Uh working with the Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association on the next slide.

We worked uh through uh questions around landscaping and buffering, and we provided therefore a landscape plan for this project.

You know, even though it's just a six unit plan that's on the next slide.

I don't know, maybe the uh ambassador is not able to pull the uh was that the last slide you had there?

No, there you go.

You have it right there, the uh landscape plan above there.

It is we provided a landscape plan to the board for their review that just shows the um addition of trees and shrubs on the site, and there currently is only one tree on the site.

It's a vacant lot.

Um, and then if you go to the rear, you have some renderings that we produced.

You can zoom in on those if you'd like, and that's all I have, Madam Chair, happy to pause.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing that, maybe I'm public testimony.

Madam Chair, members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bembery.

I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Service.

The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of a new voters meeting.

Facilitated on April 13th.

During the meeting, several questions and concerns were raised and addressed by the proponent.

However, no opposition to the proposal was expressed.

The proponent subsequently presented to Eggerson Square Neighborhood Association with supporting the support of the proposal, subject to the following conditions.

Incorporating landscaping buffers wherever feasible, sharing updated design and landscaping plans as they are developed, and making reasonable efforts to keep neighbors informed of construction activities that may impact the surrounding area, including weekend work and material deliveries.

Today our officers will see one letter of support from Emerson Square Neighborhood's board.

Thank you for your time on the mayor's proposal of neighborhood services.

We'd like to defer to the board with a judgment.

Thank you.

Okay, do you want to speak to any of those uh feedback, Mr.

Ross?

Uh yeah, I mean I he kind of cut out at the end.

We have a letter of support from the Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association.

We've cooperated with all their requirements.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Actually, can I can we add a proviso to that approval?

Yes.

What would you like to add?

Well, I I would like to add a provider to submit to the sign review to uh Paulstone planning for design review, and I would like to emphasize uh the design of the building.

It seems like there's something uh that the design can actually be improved a lot.

Uh so uh I guess that that's it.

Acceptable, Mr.

Langham?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, and who seconded?

Or can someone second it?

Thank you.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Vernell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

Motion carries.

Thanks a lot.

Next we have case BOA.

181.71.

Three, two, with the address of 18, Dell F.

If the applicant and the other representative, this point.

Are you presenting, Mr.

Carvalho?

Yes, I am.

So can you state your name address for the record and proceed?

Yep.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board.

My name is Nick Carbello.

I'm from Design Resource Team representing the client and owner of 18 Del Ave.

Here we go.

So here on the left, we have an aerial view of the property shown right at the corner of Dell Ave and Seawall.

On the right, we're showing a proposed rendering of 18 Del Av along with 16 and 20 on either side of it, which are both owned by the client here.

Same client for all three buildings.

You want to scroll down to the second page.

The first floor did not, so that we could create a weld down into the basement to provide some more light.

We can show the decks on the plans and the elevations when we get further down, but if you want to go back to the comments page on number three, um so the second comment was that they'd like to see unit one be a four-bedroom instead of a five, and we went ahead and made that change.

And he's been working with the city to work through those code violations.

There were a few properties in question that were no longer owned by this property owner, and there was a few properties in question that were never owned by this property owner at all.

Um he's been working with the code enforcement office, who I believe were supposed to send over a letter to the CPA before this meeting stating either that all the codes were resolved, resolved, or in the process of being resolved.

Okay, let's go to the next page that shows the site plan.

I think it's a few up, number four.

So here we just have the existing and proposed site plan.

It's empty lot today on the left.

On the right, you see the proposed building, six total spots in the back.

Three of them are existing, belong to 16 Del Av, and then we have three mirrored on the other side that will belong to 18 Delav.

Here we just have an existing proposed rendering of the site.

You can see the empty lot on the left, and the proposed building on the right consistent with the surrounding home's scope and character.

That was the unit that was originally five units.

We dropped it to four uh five bedrooms are dropped into four bedrooms.

Uh you can see levels two and three have the decks, level one is not, and level two and three are both three bedrooms, two baths, with decks off the rear.

South elevation, you can see those two decks off the rear and one on the first floor.

Uh west elevation, same thing, can see the two decks, and then north elevation shows the front of the building, and the east side elevation shows uh the, so we have a double window there in the stairwell, which will allow more part where they got to the basement.

Here's just a material sheet showing some proposed materials to be used on the site consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

Uh quick 3D view showing both the buildings on the site, 16 and 18 Dell.

And a shadow study showing the existing buildings and the proposed and how the um the shadows will affect the site and the nearby buildings.

Um can you talk about a couple things?

One is you mentioned um foreign units, but I think uh not sorry, not four units, four bedroom uh for one of the units, but I believe what you submitted says five.

Uh so that's one question comment.

Uh and then uh there were some feedback about insufficient open space.

Uh and uh your an impervious surfaces.

Can we talk about that as well?

So the original submission was on the on unit one was sort of a five-bedroom.

Um during the community process, that was some of the feedback that we got.

Uh they would like to see it reduced to four.

So the current proposal in this presentation shows unit one as of as a four-bedroom.

Okay, and it will remain a four-bedroom.

Um the open space comment, uh, we are being called for insufficient open space.

I think the required is 400 per unit, and we're providing two eighty-seven per unit.

That's one of the violations we're seeking.

And then the parking space effort, the surfaces.

Um, I think the plan is to look into some sort of pervious material.

I'm not sure exactly what it will be, but we'll um we'll try to reduce the amount of total asphalt back there.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the barn?

Yes, uh, yeah, the uh the first floor unit, the one that you mentioned that went from five to four four bedrooms.

Uh some of the bedrooms are in the basement unit, right?

So this is uh uh a two-story unit.

Yep, repeat buses.

Okay, so um you're the the disabilities commission um uh commented on this unit as you know, this means the first floor unit needing to uh be fully accessible, and uh they have commented on this.

Uh, are you aware, and do you have a plan to address this?

Yep.

So the first unit is fully accessible.

We have a uh for the first floor when the first unit is fully accessible.

We have a rim off the street and the adequate requirements for that first level, which also includes two bedrooms to be fully accessible.

Well, the unit needs to be accessible, not just the first floor, the unit.

Um, okay.

I was not aware of the comments from them, but we can look into yeah, yeah, we can reach out to them and figure out how we can make those updates.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah.

Did you sorry?

Did you have any other comments?

Or no?

All right, thank you.

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Member City Johnson with the office of neighborhood services.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 26th, at which there was a question about staging of construction equipment, but no opposition stated the community alliance of Mission Hill is supporting this application with that background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Any other raised hands?

Madam Chair.

We don't have additional comments.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion of approval with no building code relief.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Lionel.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

We will.

Always yes, but I was also wondering if Mr.

Collins would be amenable to provide uh increase open space on site, and even if that means removing parking.

I think it's from my perspective, it's a little inappropriate to remove parking in this area, but I'd be okay with like impervious services or something of that nature.

So do you want to add impervious surfaces?

I mean, to your motion.

Uh yeah, we can do that.

So we can add the proviso of parking must be on permeable surface.

Correct.

Okay, so we'll continue.

That was a yes from Ms.

We will.

Mr.

Bernal.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

We have two companion cases.

The first is case BOA, 183, 4035, with the address of 125 off to the street.

Along with that, we have case BOA 183, 8331, also with the address of 25 off the street.

It's the applicant and the other representative at all presents.

Well, they have two exploits and board.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

John Moran Alpine Advisory Services with the mailing address of 130 Beach Road or Lane's Mass.

Madam Chair, we have uh both zoning and building code relief.

Uh this is a project, the scope of which is to change the occupancy from a two-family to a three-family with full uh interior renovations fully sprinkled uh to construct a roof deck for the exclusive use of the third unit and three rooftop condensers and to erect three cantileved rear decks projecting six feet into the rear yard.

The revised zoning refusal letter cited three violations.

One, one the extension of the rear uh townhouse uh decks.

If we could scroll to uh A 201, which would show the proposed 201, I'm sorry.

Shows the proposed rear decks, which extend, which are cantilevered and extend six feet, conforming to the accepted design criteria, and we request the appropriate conditional use permit for the erection of these decks.

Next, we were cited for restriction, rooftop restriction on the proposed roof deck.

We would respectfully suggest pursuant to section 34-64-34, paragraph two, that a roof deck may be constructed as a matter of right if it conforms to certain dimensional requirements being set back six feet from the roof edges, that it be no higher than a foot above the deck itself be no higher than a foot above their high ridge line, that it be accessed by a hatch and that it not violate the building code height restrictions.

We would respectfully suggest that A 103 and A301 show that the proposed deck conforms to this proviso in section 34 and may be constructed as a matter of right, and would ask the board to make a finding that relief is not necessary, that it may be constructed as a matter of right, or what the board deems appropriate.

Last, we are cited for rear yard insufficiency.

Does the board want me to review the proposed deck?

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, I'll take public testimony.

Well, if I may have members of the board of direct, my name is.

And that's uh we were cited for a rear yard insufficiency.

If we could scroll to the down to the proposed site plan, which would show the setbacks.

We were almost there.

This shows the proposed and existing site plan.

The lot is 74 feet in depth.

There is a shallow lot proviso in the neighborhood code 64 section 34 subsection 7, which provides for every foot that a lot is less than 100 feet in depth, six inches shall be deducted from the required rear yard setback of 30 feet.

In this case, the lot is less than 74 feet or less than 64, 26 feet in depth.

Adjusting under the calculation of the shallow lot, the required rear yard becomes 17 feet rather than 30 feet in the proposed rear yard is 32.8 feet, which conforms when adjusted and is sufficient to conform to the zoning code.

And again, I would request that the board make a finding that the rear yard is sufficient or whatever the board deems appropriate.

During the community process, there was broad-based support for this project.

No opposition was cited, and there are letters, five seven letters of support for the project.

In reference to the building code relief, the building is four stories, which triggers the requirement that a head house penthouse be installed rather than the proposed hatch.

It suggests that the requirement would trigger the need for a variance and would alter the uniformity of the street profile, which is one of the defining historic district characteristics.

The hatch is a common means of approved access for roof decks.

It would not create an unsafe condition.

The building will remain with an all-firefighting equipment and safety materials, and the granting of the variants would be appropriate.

With that, I would request that the board, in reference to the zoning cited violations, that they make appropriate findings in relief.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are the questions from the board?

Hearing none, public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is John R.

Bembery.

I'm the Roxbury Community specialist for the office.

Neighborhood services completed the community process, which consists of an abundance meeting facilitated on April 30th, with the Vice President of United Neighborhood Association present.

No issues or concerns were raised with a general request to respect the neighborhood and be mindful of noise.

With the civic president of the abortion, meaning no further community process was required.

And to date our office has received five letters of support from the proposal.

It goes to note that of the five letters, one letter contained three individuals where a total of seven individuals in support of the proposal.

Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to refer to the board for the judge.

Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Consular Flynn's office.

Good morning.

My name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office.

Counselor Finn would like to go on record and support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That may have a motion.

I'm sorry, is someone else speaking?

Yes.

Hi.

Yes, you can go.

So my name is MB Flanders.

I'm an abutter.

I live at 38 Union Park, which is uh Caddy Corner across the alley from this property.

And on um I understand that there was a meeting on April the 30th that was not made public knowledge.

There was no um there was no posting of this meeting on the doors of the abutters, which is usually customary.

I don't know where this meeting was posted.

Um I will say that the alley is a very congested place, and that these uh lots are.

I think that this lot in particular maybe backs up to some garages, which would make the turning radius very difficult to um exit and enter from these parking spaces.

And um, again, because they're you know I'm not aware that there was a public process.

If the Union Park and Neighborhood Association was in attendance, it wasn't made public to the abutters, as far as I know.

Thank you.

Okay, does the applicant want to address that comment before we make a motion?

Yes, madam chair.

The photographic requirements of the posting were sent to Jeremy.

Uh the property notices were appropriately posted and within the boundaries required and directed by MOMS, and that there was a full hearing, that the neighborhood association is in support, and that all of the immediate abutters left and right of the property support the relief.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Hearing none.

Is there a motion?

Motion of approval, madam chair.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Lionel.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

We will.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That here.

Um, the next case is deferred.

Uh till July 28.

And with that, uh, for the 11 a.m.

hearings, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferral at this time from the 11 o'clock hearing.

Hearing done, then we'll return to the 9 30 a.m.

hearing.

I think the gentleman who was part of the 9 30s.

I don't know if are you trying to defer?

Oh.

No, I'm not trying to defer.

I just want to make sure that I'm.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, we're yep.

I raised my hand to make sure we didn't forget about our case.

No, no, we didn't.

You'll be at the end of the 930s.

Okay, thank you.

So with that, we'll move on to case B08 183 3678 with the address of 65 to 71 Main Street.

The applicants and the other representative were present.

Okay, please explain the case to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Attorney Ryan Gazda on behalf of the appellant with a business address of 28 State Street, Suite 802, Boston Mass, with me on the call as well as Robert Walsh, who is the property owner.

We're here this morning to discuss an appeal of a refusal letter for a change of use and occupancy for the building located at 65 to 71 Main Street in Charlestown with an AKA address for the rear of 1 to 3 Monument F.

Uh presently the CEO of this property recites a use of retail catering offices for apartments in a Pilates studio, which we are seeking to update to retail offices five apartments in the Pilates studio.

The first floor of this property was previously a restaurant, catering and commercial restaurant space that was operated by the Figs restaurant in excess of 30 years at this site.

However, following the restaurant vacating the space, that approximately 1800 square foot space on the first floor has now been subdivided in half with the Pilates studio on the front along Main Street with the proposed fifth residential unit in the rear with an access along Monument Av.

The fifth unit in the rear is technically a conditional use given the frontage along Main Street in the neighborhood shopping subdistrict, but it's generally in keeping with many of the other you know majority residential units in the direct vicinity of the property.

So long way said that by this appeal we're seeking to legalize the fifth unit in the rear of the property with no other proposed changes at the site.

Um prior to coming before the board today, we did host an ONS abutters meeting on April 21st.

And as we've come before you all today, we're unaware of any opposition in the neighborhood, but we're certainly happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

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

Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on April 21st, which had no attendees with that background.

ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval.

May I have a second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Lionel.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA.

181787 with the address of 450 William F.

Clark Highway.

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

Madam Chair, members of the board, good morning.

My name is Timothy Fraser from the law firm of Dane Corpy, 175 Federal Street in Boston.

I'm here today representing my client Dent Wizard International, which is seeking approval for a variance to update the current use at 450 William F.

McClendon Highway to include minor dent and cosmetic repair of vehicles in the HERT fleet of uh rental cars.

Uh, we're in the East Boston neighborhood, so we have uh one violation uh that was cited on our proposal, which is that the vehicular service use and particularly the cosmetic repair of vehicles is forbidden in this area.

Um, but by way of some background, uh Hertz already operates uh satellite rental car uh uh location at 450 McClellan.

Um these Hertz operations are located, you probably have never seen them as you drive by the site because they're located behind existing commercial and airport support business operations, and it doesn't actually uh uh front on the Cloan Highway.

Uh uh so what Dent Wizard is seeking is permission to perform minor cosmetic uh dent work at the location, so this would be like fixing door dings and minor scrapes to the Hertz vehicles.

Uh it would not be collision repair or any kind of body work or things like that.

Uh we also won't be establishing a customer facing um uh you know we won't be uh open to the public uh so to speak.

This is just only to service the Hertz seat of rental cars.

Uh so we've worked with the mayor's office of neighborhood services to meet the community process requirements, and to date we haven't received any comments or opposition from the abutters or neighborhood groups, and uh just also add that uh BPDA in re-reviewing our proposal has recommended it.

Um with that, I can turn it to the board if you have any questions.

Um, I do have I believe uh folks from Red Wizard uh online on on the line if there's any specific uh technical questions.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Hello, madam chair, members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 450 McClellan McClellan Highway.

Our office differs to the board's judgment.

The community process was included or was conducted, including the distribution of a subcommittee flyer on 410 26 during the community comment period.

I did not receive any emails expressing any comments or concerns regarding this proposal.

This proposal is not in the catchment area of any civic association and therefore was not required to meet with any group at this time.

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

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Rhinel.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnell.

Mr.

Burnell?

Yes.

Yes.

Sorry.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, members of the board.

So at this point, Madam Chair, uh, we'll return to the first case for the 9 30.

450, which is case VOA.

171, 6446.

Yeah, address is 178 to 180 Well Street.

That believe the gentleman will require about double minutes to go.

And Madam Chair is UBA staff to check they did not receive any updated points.

I'm sorry, I sent Wednesday, March 11th at 4.08 p.m.

The day one?

Yes.

That we would ask that.

The person who I sent them to is present today.

Who did you send them to?

Uh Siggy Johnson.

So that's the concern I had earlier.

Yep, I asked you if you sent it to ISD or to mayor's office.

So that's two different things.

So that means what that sounds like is ISD does not have it.

Okay.

Well, I wasn't aware that's what I was supposed to do.

So what's the next steps?

So submit the updated plans, yeah, to ISD Board of Appeal at Boston.gov.

Um, and then IC will have to remove those plans.

Okay.

So I would suggest uh we defer until August 11 to give it enough time for plans review and for advertising.

Okay.

What do you mean by advertisement?

So it has to be placed in the newspaper, the zoning violations as well as the purpose of the project.

So, but if you have a bonus, you know, etc.

Correct, yeah.

So the updated plans, there could be additional zoning code violations, so we have a duty to state those in our advertisements under open meeting law.

Okay, and then do we go right back to this meeting?

Because we've already neighborhood meetings, right?

So that's the August 11th, yep.

So if you could please uh submit those plans uh uh to the appropriate place, we will see you then.

So uh with that, can I have a motion?

Motion to chair.

I'm sorry, some of the motion to defer to August 11.

May I have a second?

Second, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Langham.

Yes, Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Wewell, yes, Mr.

Brunell?

Yes, Mr.

Collins, yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

So please do submit those to the appropriate spot at ISD and we'll see you on August.

Okay, can you please just for declare?

Can you please tell me the appropriate spot in ISD to make sure I don't make a mistake?

Yep, ISD board of appeal at Boston.gov.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m.

We'll ask quickly again if there are any requests for withdrawal for deferrals from the 11 a.m.

hearing hearing done.

We'll move on to case BOA 182, 466, with the address of 61 Brookline Avenue.

If the applicant is or they represent a route, would that please reply to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Smith, with the opposite marancy, business address of 168 A Street, First Floor, South Boston.

I am here today on behalf of my client Broadway Restaurant Group.

The proposal in front of you today is seeking to add live entertainment after 1030 to its current occupancy.

This establishment is known as local Fenway, which is directly across the street from Fenway Park and Lansdown Street.

Local Fenway has been applying for one-day licenses for nearly three years without any known issues with the city of Boston.

The licensing board has now requested the proponents to add this live entertainment after 10 30 to its current occupancy.

The operator has a stellar reputation in this community as well as many other neighborhoods in the city of Boston.

The live entertainment after 10:30 is a conditional use in this subdistrict, but it will not be any different than any of the other establishments with live entertainment in this neighborhood.

The operator is proposing live entertainment from Thursday through Saturday from 10 a.m.

to 1 a.m.

And then again on Sunday from 10 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Uh windows will be closed by 10 p.m.

with the live entertainment occurs.

Live entertainment will consist of a DJ and up to four vocalists.

The plans clearly designate the DJ live music locations within the floor plan at four different locations, demonstrating thoughtful placement consistent with egress and patron flow.

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

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

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

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on March 25th, at which residents of 61 Brookline Ave were opposed to the application, citing concerns about noise with the existing one-day licenses, although a number of residents expressed an openness to a permanent entertainment license only on weekends if weekdays were excluded.

The operator made a concession that the live entertainment would only be Thursday through Sunday and on Sunday would cease by 10 p.m.

We request that the board consider adding a proviso that recognizes this compromise that was made as part of the community process.

The applicants engaged in a dialogue with the Fenway Civic Association, and they have no opposition to this proposal in light of the compromise with that background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have Tony Baez.

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

My name is Tony Baez, speaking on behalf of Counselor Shandurkin, and she'd just like to go on record in support of this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are another show of comments.

Can't we apply?

Can express uh response in the comment about the time limit?

Yes, we we did in the presentation, we did agree to that.

Um again, as I know, stated earlier.

So a Thursday through Saturday would be uh from 10 a.m.

to 1 a.m.

and then Sunday would be from 10 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

And again, um any time that the music uh live music is going to occur, windows will be shut by 10 p.m.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the board?

With that, may I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval with the proviso um that Thursday through Sunday.

Um the live entertainment will be Thursday through Sunday up until 1 a.m.

and then Sunday will stop at 10 p.m.

Okay.

So may I have a second?

Mr.

Stambridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Wewall.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell?

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair moves yes.

The motion carries the vote.

Thank you.

Next, we have case two companion cases.

The first being case BOA 181, 0052, with the address of two Hopkins Clays.

Along with that, we have KOA 181, 0051 with the address of one Hopkins.

The applicant and other representative president that we blend the cases to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the board.

My name is Stephen David.

I'm an attorney with the address of 436 Washington Street in Westwood.

With me today is Mark Sullivan from Chewin Associates.

Both at one and two Hopkins.

These properties of both vacant land, and we propose a six-unit uh dwelling uh on uh one Hopkins and a three-unit dwelling where my clients are gonna reside on two Hopkins.

Uh I think it's best now I'll turn it over to Mark Sullivan, who's gonna go through our project and at the end.

Obviously, I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Mark?

Thank you, Stephen.

Uh Mark Sullivan with Chewing Company Architects.

Um, to start, we'll go through the proposed three family.

Um, this we are seeking a total of three violations.

Um, one is for the lock coverage, one is for um the art requirement, and one is for also the um the the building use.

Um, so the design of this is in such a manner that it is um take your look at the plot plan here, but that it is three stories with one unit on each floor.

Um we do have a small basement space that um is dedicated to the first floor unit as well with a small uh utility area at the front, as you can see on this one, and this is the basement plan.

If you go to the next floor plan, uh so Hopkins Place comes down off of Fonts Road, kind of at the bottom of the street and turns into a current dead end corridor.

Um, and again, the um this current proposal um is showing uh three stories with the um each uh unit being one being a four-bedroom unit and the other two being three bedroom units.

Um we are also providing four parking spaces for the units, um, ample enough for what's required at this location.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh if you can just scroll down to the typical unit plan just to give it an idea of units again.

This they're showing three unit with the office area.

This is a typical upper floor, so the second and third floor um units um, around or just south of uh 1500 square feet.

Next slide, please.

Um, and then we really tried to emphasize the materiality that's found in the neighborhood around us.

Um very traditional kind of residential materiality, fiber cement lap siding, um, changing the exposure from the ground floor to the upper floor, um, having a bay on the the kind of front side as you get come down Hopkins Place and turn the corner, which you can see at the bottom of the screen there, um, again fiber cement siding, um, with some fiber cement paneling detail, um four-inch window trim and corner core that's not very typically in the neighborhood surrounding us.

Yeah, and then if um I'm not sure if you want us to go through the six unit as well at the same time as that units, but that's fine, we can go through both.

Uh so definitely go one Hopkins place.

So this sits directly to the left of that proposed uh three-family we just looked at.

Um, so this the only violation that we're requesting is for the use, being a multifamily within the single family zone.

Um this is set up so that there's three units on each side, again, three stories mirroring the building we just saw on two Hopkins Place.

Um, and then if you scroll down, we can kind of give an idea of the site on the site plan.

Um, one more, sorry.

Um, so the three unit that we just saw the proposed building is on the right side here.

So if you come off Fonts Road and down Hopkins Place, again the six unit we set uh purposely back as we have a decent amount of site to work with on um what appears to be the rear side here, but by definition actually the side yard.

Um again ample parking for this, including um additional parking for um guest parking spaces.

Um our attempt was at least in the uh site plan design was to incorporate new street tree plantings and landscaping around the site to further enhance um that buffering area, but also the outdoor space for the units.

Um and then very similarly to the three-unit as well.

Uh, we kind of use very similar styles in the elevation to include um the fiber cement flap siding, some bays on the front with fiber cement paneling, um, uh kind of more traditional fiber cement um corners found in flat roof typologies.

Um, but again, very similar in design to the three-unit to to almost coincide with both projects together.

And that concludes our presentation, but I'd be happy to answer any questions from the board.

Thank you.

So can I ask uh, so is there is there an IDP unit in this?

Is there nine units?

No, these are uh madam chairwoman.

The these are owned by two separate uh owners.

Um uh Dr.

Richard Harris owns the six uh family parcel, and Justin Harris and Tiana Current own the three family parcels.

So these have been permitted separately for purposes of the presentation.

We thought it would be easier for the board to just uh locate both units and we could explain them.

So uh they are they are separate uh buildings owned by separate people, okay.

Well, we should probably not be voting on them together then.

I I agree.

It appeared that they were together.

That's uh that's what we're doing.

So you didn't presentation package did have them both together, madam chairwoman.

Again, because we felt it would be easier for the board the board to uh sort of uh look at that.

So they're different owners that are using the same development team.

That is correct, madam chairman.

That's the best way to explain it.

Okay, other questions from the board, madam chair.

Um if someone if Mr.

Hampton is available to explain the uh request for the slide about the parking layout, Mr.

Hampton available.

I am.

I'll have to pull up the uh the plans.

Um Mr.

Stembridge, could you uh give me a minute, please?

I certainly couldn't do that.

And Mr.

Stembridge, are you talking about the parking layout for this uh sixth unit both?

Um, well, you will get them as companion cases unfortunately.

Well, it sounds like we shouldn't.

Sounds like we shouldn't be, so that that I they should not have been submitted together.

That's where our confusion is and there are comments about our both of the Madam Chair.

I could also throw out a question.

I'm not sure if anyone will know the answer.

I know it's um um inclusionary policies.

If two sites are being on contiguous lots are being developed together, that will sometimes trigger that.

I'm not as familiar with that here in Boston, but I'm wondering if anyone has a quick answer for that.

I already already asked that question, so he answered it.

They are two separately owned parcels that for convenience submitted together, right?

But maybe yeah, it's maybe wondering if Caroline knew or something.

I know I'm asking whether two owners should be required now, like if like location-wise, and they're submitting everything together.

There's I think some well if I may if I may, these weren't uh submitted together.

These are two separate um ERT permits, and they are two separate uh BOA uh applications.

So again, the presentation uh memorandum and plans were submitted for purposes of convenience, um, but they are definitely separate owners and separate properties, right?

I I'm just aware of other inclusionary policies that look at contiguous parcels, meaning they share a boundary.

Yeah, and contiguous parcels can verge.

I I understand what you're trying to say.

I don't believe that's applicable in this in this scenario.

Katie, I can look into that and get back to you.

Sure, thank you.

Okay, I know are you still looking at the plans, Mr.

Hampton?

Can are there other questions?

Yeah, so I'm sorry, Mr.

Stanbridge.

What exactly is your question?

It I at first it didn't, since they are separate, I did um I was trying to see which which comments applied to which, but I guess we can absolutely see that then.

Okay, so so you're withdrawing your question.

Yeah, yeah.

All right.

I will withdraw my question.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chairman members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bemory.

I'm the man and community engagement specialist for the Office of neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the committee process which consistent of an abundance meeting facilitated on April 8th with no robot as present.

No concerns are issued were raised preceding the aborted as meaning the point of members of River Street Civic Association where the vote were main divided.

Thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services, would like to defer to the board with their judgment.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry, can the applicant so who are the owners?

So the owner of the owner of the six family lot is Dr.

Richard Harris.

And the owners of the three family lot are Tiana Cumran and Justin Harris.

Tiana Curran and Justin Harris live in a two-family next door to this property.

Their intent is to occupy one of the units in the three family as their home.

And the other one, I heard a Harris also.

That is correct, that's Justin's father, Richard.

Okay.

So what we have in front of us seems to list both Justin Harris and Tiana Corin.

For both.

So that's just a that must be an administrative mistake, Madam Chairwoman.

That's not well.

Mr.

Hampton.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

This is the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department.

I would like to get an answer from Caroline first before the board actually votes on this for that question because Article 79 does say uh, you know, a series of proposed projects.

Um, so it this is kind of confusing, especially when it says please review with one Hopkins or please review with two Hopkins.

And if they are related, you know, this does sound like it could trigger inclusionary zoning.

So I I prefer to wait for an answer from ISD on whether or not it does indeed trigger Article 79, or even if there's some sort of consultation with uh the mayor's office of housing on this.

Thank you.

I would agree with that.

Uh, is there a motion?

Yeah, madam chair.

Can I also point out the agenda?

I'm sure this is what you picked up on, but the agenda lists the same owner for both.

That's what I yes, sorry.

So, motion to differ.

Is there a second?

Second, I could.

Sorry, just for a date for the motion.

Um, could we do it for obvious the letter?

Uh is the applicant available?

We're we're available.

Um, we're available.

Okay, so where was I?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yep.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner?

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

See you then.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Next, we have case video.

Sorry, Madam Chair.

Uh, we have past the 1130 hour.

Um, there are a number of notations for the role.

I'll task if there are any requests for withdrawal, roll the 1135 part.

Yes, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Um, good morning, it's Richard Lynn's.

Um, 87 Mars Street, East Boston.

That would be four.

Okay.

I believe two compared to K.

First being case VOA 148, 2368 with the address of 87 Barr Street.

Along with that, we have case VOA.

148.

2374 also with the address of 87 Barr Street.

Would you go ahead and explain to anyone?

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

Uh, for the record, Richard Lynns with the business address of 245 Sumner Street, East Boston.

On behalf of the petitioner, Madam Chair, we we just recently got back updated refusal information, including building code items that I'd like a little bit more time to go through because I believe there's some compliance that can be achieved on the building code.

So we'd like to avoid having to do the building code relief uh requests if at all possible, and so I'm hoping uh perhaps July 28th would work.

I know I have a number number of matters on that day, okay?

Caroline?

We need the right.

Thank you.

Okay.

May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case, these cases to July 28th.

Yeah.

Madam Second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

We will.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

Motion carry.

See you then.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Yes.

34 Spring Garden Street, please.

So that this request is for case BOA.

179.

Excuse me.

Case BOA 179 4725 with the address of 34th Spring Garden Street.

Would you go ahead, Ms.

Blake?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary, and good morning, Madam Chair.

Members of the board.

For the record, my name is Matt Eckle, and I'm an attorney with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant.

Here this morning seeking a deferral for the proposed project at 34 Spring Garden Street.

This deferral is being requested based on revised plans being submitted through ISD, which have been reviewed, but this case will need to be readvertised.

It's our understanding that the case will be readvertised for July 28th.

So at this time, I'd respectfully request uh the case is deferred until that time if that's uh if that works for the board.

Happy to take any questions if the board has any.

Thank you.

Does that is that the okay?

Yes.

Um I will make I will make a motion to defer this case until July 28th.

I have a second, second, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yep.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

Wewell, yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

You then.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Stembridge 163 Hillside, please.

Jeremy Spitz, we have that as case BOA 181-4618 with address of 163 to 165 Hillside Street.

Would you go ahead for it?

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adam Zimmeranty.

Business address of 168-8th Street First Floor South Boston.

As you can probably see that this is the second time requesting a deferral.

The first time is based upon the revised set of plans were not reviewed yet.

However, they've been reviewed, but unfortunately, the updated refusal is missing an FAR violation, so this will have to be readvertised.

So we'd like to request a short deferral, please.

Okay, Caroline.

Uh July 28th.

Perfect.

Okay.

Uh with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to July 28th.

We have a second.

Second.

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yep.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

See you then.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

There is two additional notes.

One for the uh one for deferral and one for withdrawal.

Okay.

Um case VOA 157.5425 with the address of 62L Street.

There was a note.

And I don't know if anyone is present to explain that.

Sorry, I can.

I think that.

Yes, I'm uh this is David Luciano on the.

Sorry, yes, I'm this is David Luciano.

I'm the owner of 62L Street.

Yes.

Yeah, I I was contacted this morning by the zoning board.

CBA office uh indicated that the advertisement on the TBA website was incorrect for the and did not reflect the updated refusal of letter.

Um but I I did want to point out that uh it was properly fired.

Uh we did go through the abutters process, uh councilman Flynn's office and our local civic group, the city point neighborhood association has been informed um in ample time uh prior to this this meeting of the changes um and it's just simply that what was posted on the CBA website that that was uh outdated.

Okay.

Um Caroline?

Um so we have we'd like it to be deferred till July 28th.

Are you available then, sir?

Sorry, I I understand I understand the um the request.

This is the fourth time we'll have to defer this, and uh this is we've just been going through this process for three years now for this one from it.

I I just respectfully asking if um the fact that all of our of others and uh understand what you're asking, so I'm gonna defer to our to our legal counsel, uh Caroline?

July 28th is the earliest date in terms of notice requirements for us to get it out, unfortunately, and you confirm that you will be available.

I understand your frustration, but I we're that's that's what legal says.

Uh yeah, we'll be we'll be available.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to July 28th.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham?

Yes.

Ms.

Turner?

Yes.

Ms.

Weewood.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell?

Yes.

Mr.

Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

We'll see you then.

Thank you.

I don't see any hands raised, but the note I have is for one more case to be withdrawn.

Eh?

Which that is case VOA.

181 1706 with the address of 360 25th Street.

The last one for the uh 1130.

Do Caroline, does the person need to be here or not?

They're withdrawing.

Okay, in that case, may I have a motion?

Motion to withdraw this case.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner?

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Uh or is that person for this case 360?

Okay, so.

Yes.

I think somebody just.

This seems to be some confusion about 360 Princeton.

So this person says they're not withdrawing, so I.

Caroline, I don't know what uh happened.

Um, I guess if the person's saying you're not withdrawing, we can go back to the RAVR.

So now that's all right, but we received something with it.

All right.

Stick around then.

Okay, please proceed then.

So with that, we'll return to the cases schedule for 11 o'clock, and we'll go to case VOA 184 9154, with the address of 1526 to 1530 Dorchester Act.

If the applicant and other representative are present, therefore, supplying to the board.

Someone available for 1526 to 1530 doorchester avenue.

I think that person is just join us a panelists.

Samantha.

Hello.

Can you guys hear and see me?

Uh yes, ma'am.

Okay, hi.

Good morning, madam chair, community, and board members.

Uh my name is Samantha Reeves.

I'm the founder of Modern Party Art.

Uh, we're seeking to approve uh seeking approval to operate a creative art studio at 1526 to 1530 Dorchester Avenue.

Um we're adding, we're seeking to add three accessory uses to the existing occupancy uh foods accessory food service, art gallery, and live entertainment uh will be open daily for walk-ins for um after school programs, programming for kids, school vacation workshops, birthday parties and celebrations.

Um we have an existing community uh organization partnerships in a track record um of operation through our previous locations, including our old Boating Street location and our current uh can location, as well as traveling events in the community.

Uh this use fills an underutilized commercial space on that very busy corner in Fields Corner on George South and Park Street.

Um, we'll generate local employment for the youth and serve uh the surrounding neighborhoods directly.

Um we're ready to operate responsibly and we're excited.

We're asking for your approval today, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Hearing none, ma'am, public testimony.

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

At this time, the mayor's office to defer to the judge for this board, some back information to the community process.

Um we had subcommittee flyers circulated to about this within 300 feet.

Uh we also connected the applicant with the Fields Corner Civic Association.

Uh, run away of any concerns presently uh with that, defer to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Leon Remus.

Well, Madam Chair, members of the board, Liam Remus from Council Fitzero's office, counselor might go on record support of this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no short comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Make a motion to approve.

Second.

I again.

Ms.

Dembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 181.

9749 with the address of 439 Walmart Avenue.

If the applicant and or the representative present, will they approve supply to the board?

We have the applicant for 439 Walnut Avenue.

Sean Wesley.

Yeah.

We have James Solo.

I'm not sure if this person is trying to present for this case.

Good afternoon.

Jim Sowell, I'm representing the applicant for 439 Walnut A.

Great.

Please proceed.

All right.

Our project is a proposed change of use from the existing two-family house to a four family central.

Working with the existing footprint and site conditions.

We're requesting move for a couple items in the law area, floor and reasonable building height and useful open space, as well as uh Saturday and RER setbacks.

We are not expanding the footprint of the building.

We're proposing a two-story edition on the rear above an existing volume of the building to provide four separate clone units on site.

Okay.

Questions from the board.

Hearing none, ma'am, public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Bembury.

I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Testament for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, but it consisted of an abode meeting, so intended on March 4th, John Richard Bundesra.

Questions regarding ownership versus rental occupancy, the requested variances, existing violations, and long-term property management.

The majority of inquiries were addressed during the meeting, and no opposition to the proposal was expressed.

One of the also a member of civic association to the proposed uh, excuse me, expressed no opposition to the proposal.

My apologies.

The majority of inquiries were addressed during the meeting and no opposition to the proposal was expressed.

One of voter who was also a member of the civic association noted that the building is currently in need of substantial improvements and expressed support for the proposal rehabilitation in addition to two residential units.

Next, the proponent presented to Egerson Square Neighborhood Association, which voted in opposition.

While since Grand Neighbor Association said that they have no objection to the proposed increase in building massing and acknowledged that the installation of a sprinkler system would improve occupant safety, the organization expressed concerns that several important health and life safety issues have not been adequately addressed and should be resolved for the project presence.

Today, our office has received one letter of opposition from Agerson's Grand Neighborhood Association maintaining the approach.

Thank you for your time.

And the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Any other reason?

Sorry, Madam Chair.

Um we don't I'm not sure if Elizabeth wants to speak about this case.

No, okay.

So we don't have additional comments.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval uh with a proviso that plans are submitted to the planning department for design review with uh particular attention to the design of the dormers.

May I have a second second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Lionel?

Yes.

Ms.

Turner?

Yes.

Ms.

We will.

Yes.

Mr.

Brunell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries the book.

Thank you.

Madam here.

We next have, I do believe two companion cases.

First is the case.

BOA 184.

2341.

With the address of 612 to 612A Shaman Avenue.

Along with that, we have case BOA 184 2339 with the address of 610 to 610A Shaman Avenue.

If the applicant and those are representative are present, they please explain the case to the board.

And let us know these are branding case.

Thank you, Ms.

Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street.

These are both two companion cases at 610A and dash uh 612-612A as well.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Mark Oakren, and with me I also have Chris Drew from 686 Architects.

What you're looking at for the two companion cases, the building on the left, which has been vacant for a number of years.

My client purchased, and then next to it is an empty parcel.

So the existing structure that's attached to the other brick building is 610-610A.

The empty parcel with the fenced in area is 612-612A.

And we have uh two uh very similar projects uh being constructed.

Uh one, as I had mentioned, is a vacant building, and that is the 610.

So I'm going to begin with that, although the designs are almost identical.

Uh the idea is to change the occupancy, uh, which is an existing.

If you could go back, if you could go back, if you could stay on this slide, that's fine.

Or this slide is fine.

Thank you.

Um, we change the occupancy from an existing zone as a three-unit building with a commercial storefront.

Uh, there was a uh Roxbury men's club uh that's uh no longer in existence that was uh at the ground level, uh and the idea is to add a rear addition onto the back of the property, keeping the height, which is very similar up and down the streetscape, uh, the same, which is four stories, which is allowed in this district, adding the rear addition and going from three units to now seven residential units, but keeping a retail storefront at the ground level.

The uh next, you can go to the next slide, Mr.

Ambassador.

The um similar project next door, which you can see on this site in the aerial view is the empty parcel, also falls within an MFR district, and that would be to create uh next door to this project, uh, another seven-unit residential uh building with a commercial storefront on the ground level.

This area has uh mixed use, it's an MFR, there's apartment style complex or condo buildings up and down this streetscape, large style uh buildings, and as we go through the slides, I'll show a height context chart as well.

Four stories, as I mentioned, is allowed.

We would be at four stories for both buildings, but at 42 feet, which is allowed the 45-foot uh height requirement for the area.

Um, as part of this project, because even though it's two separate buildings, it's being treated as uh one total aggregate project.

This would create two affordable units on site, one unit at 610 and one unit at 612.

All of the units are two-bed, one bath in both buildings.

Um, and they all range from high 700s to high mid 600, 650 to almost 800 square feet, and both of the affordable units would be two bed uh one-bath units as part of this proposal.

Uh, this particular area, although we're not creating any parking, um, it falls within the squares and streets uh district and is mentioned in the BPDA's recommendation for approval as well.

It is a very short 10 to finite 10 to 15 minute walk uh to Ruggle Station.

It's surrounded by multiple bus routes, which makes it great uh for for those folks that would be uh commuting as well.

Um if we could go to the next slide, please.

And this just gives you some context.

You can see sort of that four-story streetscape.

There are some uh smaller buildings and some higher across the way, but you can see that where we're matching sort of the building landscape up and down that street.

If you can go to the next slide, please.

And this is just a height context chart so you can see all in that clustered area, all of the four-story buildings, but then as you sort of go a little bit broader and three to five hundred feet, you can see um there's many more and even higher uh apartment-style complex buildings directly behind us.

Uh, we are maintaining about a 17 and a half uh foot rare setback in the back of the buildings.

There are no houses in the rear of us.

There's a park and a skating rink area, so it is open in the back.

Um, but you can just see some of the high contacts and other buildings in the area.

Next slide, please.

And these are just again some neighboring uh all within uh 50 to 200 feet.

You've got projects on Shaman Ave and 431 Melnia Castle are ranging from four to five story buildings as well.

Go to the next slide, please.

And again, just just more of the same, just so the board can have an idea.

And as you can see, there is storefronts on many of these buildings, and that was important for us.

We wanted to keep that um retail space for this particular district because it isn't a main thoroughfare area, and there were store, there was an existing uh commercial use on the ground level as well.

Um, just to quickly go over uh G-Card was cited.

We did submit everything to groundwater and water and sewer, uh, additional lot area, um, side yard, rear yard, as I had mentioned, but we are close.

20 feet is what's allowed under the code, we're at 17 and a half, roughly.

Uh we did get sighted for off-street parking, as I mentioned, but we're very close to ruggles and major bus routes.

Um, we do have um FAR as well, so we would be proposing 3.25.

Um, and just to note the two storefronts that we're proposing are roughly 361 square foot um commercial spaces at that level.

Uh, with that, I can pause and answer any questions that the the board may thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none may have public testimony, madam chair, and members of the board for the record.

My name is John B.

Bembery.

I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process.

It consisted of an above is meeting facilitated on April 22nd with no abutters present, no issues of concerns are raised, and no other community process was required.

Thank you for your time.

The mayor's office of services would like to defer to the board with their judgment.

Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the board, Christian Simonelli, Boston Brownwater Trust, and we have both key card letters from the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And um, I'm not sure if these the case that at least have it wants to provide put it input, please.

No.

Well, if not, there's no uh additional comments, madam chair.

Okay, any uh any questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Take a motion to approve.

There's second, second.

Mr.

Stembridge, yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Ms.

We will, yes.

Mr.

Brunell, yes, Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Votes yes, the motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And here, uh we've 12 o'clock.

Um, you have some hearing schedule.

Do we jump?

Are we jumping to the interpretation?

Uh, we're gonna jump to the 12 o'clock hearings first.

Okay.

Okay.

So with that, we'll go to the hearing schedule or 12 o'clock, no.

First, we have case BOA 185, 00, 8, 08.

With the address of 3 to 4, Wolf and Avenue.

If the applicant and or their representative or present, they're putting the point of the board.

Yes, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Stanbridge, and uh good afternoon again, Madam Chair, members of the board for the record.

My name is Richard Linz.

I'm an attorney with the business address of 245 Sumner Street East Boston.

I'm here on behalf of the appellant, who is uh ridge data LLC, the owner of the property at 3-4 Folsom.

If I may, I I believe I provided a slide deck.

If we could open that up to page two, that would be very helpful.

Um there was that was the letter.

I believe there was a deck that I provided as well.

Yep, this is it, perfect.

If we just go to page two on that, we'll start at page two.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, so uh madam chair, um, we're before the board uh today under section eight of chapter 665 of the Act 56 or enabling act.

Uh and this is with respect to a decision that was uh rendered by the Boston Landmarks Commission on May 12th of 2026, and the decision was to invoke a 90-day demolition delay on the property at 3-4 Folsom.

Uh, this is not unlike the next two appeals, so I will spend the time on this particular one to outline uh some specifics, but I don't need to get into that detail in the next two appeals, just simply to make the record.

Um, I do understand that these next these three appeals may not be as common as the type of appeals the board is typically hearing.

Uh so I do want to take a moment to quickly just outline for the board how and why we're here today.

Uh, this board uh may be generally aware that uh under its enabling act, yeah, any person that's aggrieved by reason uh or an order of a decision of either the building commissioner or other administrative official uh in violation of any provision of the zoning regulations can appeal that decision to the Board of Appeal uh within 45 days of such order or decision.

Um, as I mentioned, um this case was uh heard by the Boston Landmarks Commission on May 12th.

At that time, they uh rendered a vote to invoke 90-day demolition delay, and in doing so uh created essentially the appellate issue that we're before the board today.

Under the enabling act under section eight, this board does have the power and has done so in the past to reverse or affirm uh and whole or in part, modify any order of decision, can make such order or decision as ought to be made, and to that end has the powers of the board or officers from who the appeal is taken, may direct uh any issuance of permits.

So in this particular case, uh the landmarks commission uh making its determination is the office or administrator that is uh making the determination.

My client is aggrieved by that decision, and therefore we're before the board.

With respect to Article 85, Madam Chair, members of the board, uh as this board may also be aware.

Uh, Article 85 uh is a demolition blade provision that is administered by the landmarks commission.

When an application for demolition uh is for review is filed.

Uh, the commission has 10 days to determine whether that building is significant under the criteria set forth in Article 85-5.

And that's critical because the 10-day window uh is specifically defined in Article 85, and the action that must be taken by the landmarks commission has to occur in that 10 days.

Most significantly, as part of that 10-day, is that the written determination as to whether or not it's significant, must be provided by the landmarks commission to the inspectional service department, the Boston Planning Department, and the Boston Civic Design Commission.

Um, we've done a public records request that we requested those communications to determine whether or not that 10-day notification was met.

Um, we've also specifically and repeatedly asked for that from the Boston Landmarks Commission staff to provide evidence that they made that notification as required under the 10-day provision in Article 85.

We were met with silence from the commission.

We were never provided a response.

Uh, hence our public records request uh revealed uh the reason very likely as to why we didn't get a response.

Uh there is no evidence in the record.

Uh, public records, at least the response that we were provided, that notification of the significance determination was made, uh, certainly with respect to three or four folesome, but with respect to the uh other ones that you'll appear shortly.

That in and of itself is a jurisdictional prerequisite to continue with the demolition delay process.

The failure to even issue the 10-day notice would be significant enough to not allow the commission to then hold a hearing and make a further determination.

And certainly the inspection or inspectional services commission would not be barred from issuing a demolition permit in the event that they were instructed that delay would be imposed.

But even with that said, once a determination is made that would find significance, then a public hearing is supposed to be held and the determination made, final determination made on demolition delay within 40 days of the filing of the petition under Article 85.

So that means when that clock starts, they have 40 days not to just hold the hearing, but to issue the determination.

And we're on slide two right now, and as you can see here, the notice of final determination was issued on May 21st of 2026.

That's nine days after they held the hearing, which we contend was already out of time, but the nine-day delay from the time that the hearing was held to the time of determination was issued, is further evidence and probably enough evidence that the timing of the determination was uh was late and certainly not a basis to bar the inspectional service department from issuing any demolition permits.

Um I want to point out to the board that when it comes to Article 85, the commission can't outright prohibit demolition.

That's not what Article 85 says.

They can only delay it briefly, and if the applicant chooses, uh then they can explore alternatives and they could end the demolition delay sooner.

But it's important to also distinguish, I think for board members, because this does often get conflated, and I want to make sure it's clear that Article 85 and the landmarks designation process are two independent separate processes.

Even though the landmarks commission does administer Article 85, it has nothing to do with designating a properties and landmark.

It simply has to do with the process in which demolition can occur in the city for buildings that are older than 50 years.

And what I think is most important, relevant for today's hearing, is that Article 85 does contain a self-executing safeguard.

In other words, so where the commission misses either the 10-day or the 40-day deadline, Article 85 provides that any prohibition of the Commissioner Inspectional Services would have is no it no longer applies, and simply stated if you miss the deadline, you can't tell the commissioner not to issue a demo permit.

And that's exactly what's happening here, and that's exactly what the commission did, and they intended to inform ISD that they would no longer, or they certainly would have the ability to issue a demo delay or demo permit until the delay period was over.

So these appeals turn on the commission's failure to honor the statutory limits that are set forth in Article 85.

These deadlines, and as I mentioned before the commission, these aren't procedural niceties, these are substantive limits on the commission's authority, which are designed to balance the public's interest in historic preservation against property rights and due process interest of applicants.

So while I certainly can appreciate that the commission would like to advocate in advance for demolition delay in instances where neighbors seek to preserve buildings, you can't forget that the property owner also has a right to due process, and there's certain uh property rights that are concluded.

So if we could jump down to slide eight, I think this is probably the easiest illustration for the board to follow.

Um maybe zoom in a little bit uh just to give the timeline here of what's what's happening.

Um, so our appeal presents the board with a very clean dispositive question of statutory interpretation.

Uh, and I do note that I believe we do have uh people here from the landmarks commission.

I'm not sure if they're going to speak, but I'd like to say that whatever theory they advance about when the 40-day clock for Article 85 began to run, it's the written determination that's required by Article 85 that's dated May 21st, 2026, which is unquestionably outside every conceivable measurement of that 40-day window.

And this time this timeline that I provided with the board, which I've done for each case, you know, illustrates exactly how this is done.

So when you have a filing, and in this case for Folsom, it was filed on February 25th, 2026.

Um technically that's when the 40 days starts.

So you would have until April 6th to issue determination in this case after 40 days.

You had only until March 7 to issue your preliminary determination, and then there's that additional window that occurs.

They didn't issue the determination, at least in writing to the applicant until April 6th.

So by doing that, what ends up happening is they've already ran out of time to actually schedule or hold their public hearing and issue their determination since they weren't issuing their determination until after they were allowed to do so.

Even so, even if that were cured, it wouldn't matter, because the public hearing that was required uh wasn't held until uh much later on May 12th.

And by doing that, you really see how far along they've gone from the time in which the application was supposed to be determined, a determination was supposed to be made, and a hearing is supposed to be held, to the time when they actually made the determination.

And in that case, I feel as if it's important to understand that the property owner has an expectation to have some conclusion of this process, and that's why Article 85 is pretty strict above the guidelines.

I think that in looking at sort of how this overall uh process works, uh we can certainly even give the benefit of the doubt to the commission.

If we go to our next slide, um, we go with what I call the um uh the completeness date, which I want to point out for the board.

Article 85 does not give the landmarks commission permission to decide when an application, quote unquote, is complete.

There are very basic items that need to be provided.

Uh it's probably a separate discussion, but the landmarks commission asks for many other items that have nothing to do with what Article 85 requires.

Article 85 requires two things the address and the assessor's parcel number.

And when those two things are submitted with a request for a demolition uh analysis for significance, um, that application is completed that time.

I do note, and just for the board's edification, that the landmarks commission makes a very um uh involved process out of the Article 85 submittal, including things like uh the plans for any new project being proposed, or the status of any permit application that's pending, or uh information about uh ownership structuring LLC.

All of those things don't exist in Article 85, and I think for the most part, most practitioners um voluntarily cooperate with the landmarks commission to do this.

However, I do want to point out none of that's required.

So this issue of completeness uh is somewhat of a red herring when we're talking about when the commission says they received a complete application.

But even that, even based upon when they say it's it's complete, in the case of 3-4 Folsom, assuming that the application was complete when they said it was on April 1st, once again you can see they're out of time.

They held the hearing a day later than it should have held it, and they didn't issue the determination in writing which Article 85 requires until nine days after the hearing.

In both cases, they're beyond the statutory limit of the 40-day requirement and cannot impose demo delay.

And I believe that the boards probably say to themselves, well, why does this matter?

If it's just 90 days, it's just 90 days.

What's the big deal?

The big deal is a few different reasons, not to mention the fact that in the event that a property owner is ready to demo the property, this becomes an unnecessary delay that is being imposed by the commission that is not exercising appropriate statutory authority.

But more importantly, and I think this is probably the most significant reason that the board should consider holding the commission to its statutory time limits, is that uh, and board members not be aware of this, but there is a requirement that when demo delay is imposed, that a property owner is ordered uh and required to secure the property.

So things like uh what we call demolition by neglect become a factor during the demo delay period, and it is an avenue by which the landmarks commission can impose sanctions on a property owner.

So, therefore, having this 90 day hangover hanging over somebody's head, uh, even though you know certainly the time may run out and they could have, you know, enough time to go get a demo permit.

The fact is that they are being subjected to a requirement or regulation that puts a burden on them to ensure that they are not subjecting themselves to sanctions and penalties by the landmarks commission during that period.

The commission can only do that if they follow the procedure set forth in Article 85.

It's our position that didn't do that, and in this case, their audit time.

So I'll wrap up briefly on this particular one.

We can make the record on others, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

But a couple of just quick points I do want to make.

First, under Article 85, it's it's clear.

Article 85 Part 5.4a says the landmarks commission shall issue its determination pursuant to such hearing within 40 days after the application filing date.

It doesn't say within 40 days after the hearing, it doesn't say 40 days after some other measurement, it's after the filing name.

So whatever date we want to say is the filing date, uh, if it's not done within 40 days, then it's a very specific result that's set forth in Article 85.

Article 85 says that the determination that is ultimately made has to specify the reasons and specify the date on which the delay period would expire.

Um, and it also, and probably most importantly, must be transmitted in writing to the applicant with copies to ISD, the Boston Planning Department, this is Boston Civic Design Commission.

If that's not done, then they don't have the power to impose delay or to hang over the owner's head the obligation to secure.

So I think it's important to look at the second point as well, that this really isn't a legal argument, but it's a simple map equation.

And under three theories, depending on however you want to measure it, you get the same result.

And first of all, if you base it on the application filing date, which we think is the most accurate standard, they're way out of time based upon the timeline provided.

Even under the completeness practice, if they want to say, well, it wasn't complete by a certain date, they're still out of time.

The date, the 40 days is well beyond any completion date, and I've provided the information as to what the commission's position is on that.

And last is probably the most conceivable theories that it starts on the preliminary determination.

Even if we said April 6, which is the date that they issued their written preliminary determination, was the date it started, still out of time.

They still did not act within the 40 days, and therefore, under any conceivable theory, they do not get to impose delay or place those burdens onto the owner.

Second point, that Article 85 expressly provides that the bar on ISD commissioners' issuance of a demo permit doesn't apply when they have not received such notice within the time period set forth in 85-5.4.

In other words, if you don't send the notice to ISD within 10 days originally, or the 40 days, which is obvious that they didn't, then there's no bar to issuing a demo permit and certainly no ability to impose those regulations.

And that's a self-executing provision within Article 85.

There's no requirement that we have to have a hearing on that, and the board doesn't even have to make that determination.

But we think it's important that the board reverse this decision simply because it doesn't meet the requirements of Article 85, and second, the owner should not be burdened with any requirements, especially where the landmarks commission has not had the ability to do so within the required time frame.

So I'll finish up with this, Madam Chair.

We do have uh specific relief that we are requesting.

First and foremost is to reverse and vacate the commission's May 12th decision in its entirety.

Uh, the 90 day delay, the direction ISD, and any direction to the ownership, they have to secure the property.

Second, we're asking it to clear the time periods in sections 85-5.2 and 85-5.4 as having lapsed, and that therefore the bar and issuing a demo permit is no longer effect.

And lastly, that you direct the commissioner and special service to issue any demo permits upon satisfaction of all the applicable codes requirements.

Um just I'll close with this.

This appeal and these three appeals don't require the board to break any new ground or resolve any close questions of interpretation of the law.

Um, the commission has missed a hard statutory deadline.

Article 85 provides a clear consequence.

The bar and issuance of a demolition permit is lapsed by operation of the provisions, and the impellent respectfully requested the board, apply the ordinances written, reverse the commission's decision, including any obligation to owner secure the property, and direct issuance of any permits that are requested without delay.

I'm happy to address any comments or questions of the board.

I know that was a lot of information, and I thank the board for their time to allow me to get into that and explain it.

Okay, are there questions from the board?

Is there public comment?

Okay, this looks like there.

Um Shurif One is going first or anybody who says this.

I don't know, but let's keep it moving.

Alison?

Alison, you can um yourself now.

You mean Elizabeth?

I there is one person on the 36th Alison Putinas.

Oh, yes, hi.

Um, I uh Alison Poulton is 81 Lawn Street, uh Roxbury.

Uh the obligation to secure the property.

I'm not sure this is this.

I believe it's an interpretation hearing.

This is an appeal, this is I don't believe public conduct.

I believe only the landmarks commission that we speak.

This is a hearing, not an interpretation.

But please keep your comments brief.

Yes, thank you.

Uh uh Alison Poultiness, uh, Mission Hill 81 Lawn Street.

Uh the obligation to secure the property should not be a burden.

Uh it's um uh uh something that any uh property owner should be uh taking care of their property.

And um, I think uh trying to avoid that seems very uh curious right now.

Uh thank you.

Thank you for the 90 seconds.

Thank you, ma'am.

Chair, there are no additional comments.

That Elizabeth Preston has been waiting.

Um, hello, Elizabeth Sherva.

I am the deputy director of the Office of Historic Preservation.

Uh the Boston Landmarks makes a determination of significance once a complete application is submitted.

Once a building has been determined significant, Article 85 applicants have provided a hearing date in which the Boston Landmarks Commission will be presented with information regarding the building proposed for demolition.

At this BLC hearing, the commissioners hear testimony from the applicant and from the public.

They then can take a vote to invoke the 90-day demolition delay.

The purpose of Article 85 is to establish an appropriate waiting period during which the city, an applicant, can propose and consider alternatives to the demolition of a building of historical, architectural, cultural, or urban design value to the city.

Provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the issues regarding the demolition of a particular building, and minimize the number and extent of building demolitions where no immediate reuse of the site is planned.

Mr.

Lins accepted the date of May 12th for a hearing date and distributed notices to the property of Butters.

Prior to the May 12th BLC hearing, BLC staff received 18 written comments in support of invoking the demolition delay.

At the May 12th hearing, the owner's representative, Mr.

Linz spoke in opposition to invoking the delay.

Three people spoke in support of invoking the demolition delay.

More comments were received by BLC staff following the hearing.

In total, BLC staff received 26 written comments in support of invoking the demolition delay.

The BLC vote to invoke demolition delay occurred on May 12th, and the 90-day demolition delay will expire on August 11th, 2026.

Under Article 85, the Commissioner of Inspectional Services can then issue a demolition permit once the demolition delay period has expired.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Lins.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

So first of all, I appreciate the comments by um by uh Director Sherva.

Uh, if we can jump down to my slide 13, please.

I think that is relevant to the um comments I'm about to make.

And certainly, while uh Ms.

Sherva um articulated what occurred at the hearing, I do want to make a couple of clarifications.

Um, first of all, we didn't accept the May 12th um date.

We objected to it.

Uh we objected to it because it was untimely.

We objected to it because uh the commission did not follow the procedure set forth in Article 85.

And sure, we we provided notice because we didn't want the commission to state that we were avoiding uh any appearance or participation, but we did so under a complete reservation of rights uh to our objections that the commission had no authority to proceed with that hearing on May 12th.

Um, I wouldn't classify my comments during the commission's hearing as opposition.

My comments were objections to procedure, uh which were not uh well received, it seems, because they proceeded to go ahead and invoke demolition delay regardless of the fact that they were out of time in doing so.

I agree with Ms.

Sherva that you know the demolition delay process is very well defined and certainly sets forth requirements for having that hearing, and again, remembering that we do have owners of properties that are involved.

Um this that's on the screen now is an extension form that is provided by the commission when a notification of significance is gone out and a hearing is scheduled.

I think the board should take into consideration that this particular document is required in the event that an extension of the time to hold the public hearing is being requested by the applicant.

The commission is well aware that the timelines are binding and that they certainly have to be adhered to in order to impose the demolition delay that is being uh imposed on this particular property.

Our client never signed the extension and never agreed to an extension.

The intent was to proceed in accordance with Article 85, provided that the commission had the jurisdiction to do.

With respect to the other comments that were made about securing the building, uh nobody's saying that my client doesn't want to secure its building, it's the obligation and the penalties that go along with it in the event that determinations made by the commission, which they've done in the past, that there's been quote-unquote demolition by neglect, including the slightest removal of any portion of the building or changing of a window or some information that gets back to the commission that says that they're not necessarily adhering to the securing requirements of the 90-day delay.

Um our client should not be subjected to regulations and rules and requirements when the commission, who is certainly able to understand the role and responsibilities it has on Article E5, doesn't do so within the time limits that are set forth in black and white in Article 85.

It's pretty simple.

And again, this isn't a complicated legal question, Madam Chair.

This is a math question.

You have 40 days to make your determination.

Ms.

Sherva doesn't dispute that the decision was written and issued on March uh May 21st.

That's well beyond 40 days of any calculation when that application was submitted, including when a complete application was submitted.

So I again respectfully request that the board uh look at this for what it is.

It's a simple question.

Did they issue the determination within within 40 days of the filing?

And I would even go so far as to say you can look at April 6th and count the days.

April 6th was the day that nobody nobody would question was the date that the initial determination was made.

The commission was clearly in possession of a completed application as early or as late as are we gonna look at as April 6th.

40 days after April 6th is not May 21st, and therefore they are out of time to impose delay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, are there questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to grant the appeal because to grant the appeal because the Boston Landmark Commission issued its final determination more than 40 days after the applicant filed a demolition application.

I think that deadlines are extremely important to the process, the development process is very complicated as is.

So the um dates and times need to be adhered to.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

And is we all?

Yes, just, you know, it's unfortunate the situation happened, but I see this is sort of a constructive grant or approval of an application.

So yes.

Mr.

Vernell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Now, Mr.

Lins, you have two more of these.

We need a break.

How pithy are you going to be?

If I may, Madam Chair, I don't the record is very simple for the next two because I believe I've outlined the framework.

Very good.

So let's proceed and B50.

Yeah, we'll do that.

Next, we have case B08 185 00 06 with the address of 595 East 7th Street.

Yeah.

At this point, Madam Chair, where would we like to go?

If we if we could go to my slide deck, it's the easiest place to go would be slide nine of the deck with the um with a timeline based upon completeness.

One slide back from that.

We can go one slide back.

Maybe eight, yeah.

Maybe it's eight.

Yeah, perfect.

Great.

We just zoom in on that.

But for the record, Madam Chair, again, uh, members of the board, Richard Lynn's 245 Summer Street, East Boston, after the petitioner, uh, three court LLC.

Uh, this is likewise an appeal under uh appeal of the decision of Article 85 pursuant to the enabling act.

Um, and once again, uh, without getting into all the details that we simply covered in the last hearing, uh, I will point out very quickly uh that the application completeness date in this particular case was March 31st, 26th, and that was per the Boston Landmarks Commission's own staff acknowledgement as the date that they have to complete application.

Therefore, they had 10 days to issue the determination.

Uh, it appears if you want to assume 331 was it, they did so within the 10-day period.

Uh however, they held a hearing beyond the 40-day limit and they issued the determination well beyond uh almost 51 days after they deemed it complete.

For the same reasons cited in the last um case, uh I take the position that once again uh this determination was made out of time and not in the corner start 85.

We respect the request of the board reverse the commission's decision in this matter.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Public testimony, Madam Chair, I don't see any hands for someone.

May I have a motion?

I will make a motion to grant uh sorry, skip my bearings here.

I will make a motion to grant the appeal because the Boston Landmarks Commission issued its final determination more than 40 days after the applicant filed a demolition application, and again for the same reasons as last time.

I think that the development process is very complicated, so you know dates and times need to be adhered to.

Ma'am, second, second.

Mr.

Stembridge, yes, Mr.

Langham.

Yes, Ms.

Turner, yes, Ms.

Bluewell.

Yes, Mr.

Burnell.

Yes, Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

And next we have case BOA, 185, 00, 07, the address of 744 east for journey one.

Yes, thank you again, Mr.

Stembridge.

Madam Chair, members of the board for the record, Richard Lynn's Business Address 245 Summer Street, East Boston.

On behalf of the petitioners, 744 East Fourth Street LLC.

Um, I believe we had uh the different deck for this one.

I think we're still here at 5957.

We just go to 744 East Fourth for that timeline.

Perfect.

Yeah, maybe jump down to slide eight on that one.

That's not the fact.

There it is.

Yep, perfect.

Let's go to slide 11.

Sorry, thank you.

Okay, so once again, not to belabor uh we've already covered uh in this particular case.

Uh, based upon the staff email from the Boston Landmarks Commission, uh, the application was deemed complete on March 23rd, 2026.

Uh, the 10-day window for determination would have been April 2nd.

It wasn't issued until April 6th, and therefore on the preliminary determination alone, it was out of time.

Uh, however, looking at when the uh hearing was held, a public hearing was required to be held on May 2nd, 2026.

Uh, it was not held until May 12th, 10 days later, and the determination written determination was not made until nine days after that, which would be 59 days after the application is deemed complete, and therefore, under any reading, uh, this would be out of time as well beyond the 40 days as required by Article 85, asking for the same relief to reverse the decision of the landmarks commission and to no longer have any bar on the issuance of demo permit if requested by the applicant.

Thank you.

Question is from the board.

We have public testimony, you know.

We have additional any comments.

Thank you.

Hearing none, is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to grant the appeal for the same reasons as before, violations of the previously agreed upon timeline.

Is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Stembridge, yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Mr.

Langham.

I'm sorry.

Yes, I'm sorry, yes.

Thank you.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

We will.

Yes.

Mr.

Bernano.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

15-minute break.

I'm sorry.

Madam Chair, I'd like to just say that I will not be back after the break.

I need to end my time on the okay.

Thank you for it at 145.

We'll be a six-member board then.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I can withdraw.

I'm gonna withdraw the other interpretation that's on your able to resolve that with ISD.

I don't know if you want to do that now or after the break.

If all you're doing is withdrawing it, then let's just do it right now, finish it off.

Yep.

For the interpretation case scheduled at noon time.

That's that is case VOA 168 9794 for the eight address of 6266 Pondboard Street.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lance 245 Summer Street, East Boston.

We have a petitioner.

We've resolved the remaining violation concerning the interpretation on the height of the building, and therefore uh no longer require interpretation.

Um that's been resolved favorably for the applicant.

So we will withdraw the petition to interpret.

Okay, may I have a motion to withdraw?

Motion to withdraw.

Back as.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Oh, thank you.

Ms.

Wewall.

Yes.

Mr.

Vernell.

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you, Ms.

Turner.

And now we will take a 15-minute break.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Are you back?

Present, I'm sure.

Thank you.

Mr.

Langham.

Ms.

Turner.

Oh no, sorry.

And Mr.

Langles here.

Okay, Mr.

Lion's here.

Ms.

Wewell.

Present.

Mr.

Burnell.

Present.

Mr.

Collins.

Are you on mute, Mr.

Collins?

Okay, well, while we wait for Mr.

Collins, just a reminder, we are a six member board now.

See where this let's give Mr.

Collins a second.

Okay, we've lost Mr.

Collins.

Um, let's wait.

Wait a second till he returns.

Otherwise, we're gonna be, I'm gonna have Mr.

Stembridge start in a in a minute, and hopefully he'll jump back on.

Otherwise, it's down to a five-member board.

Sorry, madam chair.

All right, we are a six-member board, so uh Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes, madam chair.

Uh we'll now go to the rediscussion hearings.

Schedule for eleven thirty a.m.

Uh we'll ask ask again if there are any requests for further withdrawals or deferrals from this time for it.

Here we are done.

We'll go to the first case for eleven thirty, case BOA, one seven, seven.

Six, eight, two, two.

What's the address of twenty-nine point street?

If the applicant is the other representative, present.

They're closed as well.

Good afternoon, madam chairman, members of the board.

This is Eric Zackerson, architect for the project.

Um, apologies, my camera seems to not be working right now, but uh you'd like to proceed to the slide deck and in and show you the twenty-nine plain street project.

So if you want to scroll down to the site plan there, um plain street is on the left side of the the drawing, and the lot that you see in front of you is uh a little over twenty thousand square feet uh in the Dorchester uh Coats Hill uh neighborhood uh district.

One thing that we'll highlight, uh, talk about a little bit as we go.

You if you notice on the right side of the drawing, the very rear yard, there's about there are um about a twelve foot drop-off.

You see those contour lines bunched together.

Uh there's we we it is sometimes referred to as the hole or the the uh the lower area in the backyard.

There's a number of trees back there.

Uh that created something of a kind of uh opportunity and challenge in the project, but uh as we move through it, we'll refer to that area in the rear where we see those twelve uh contour lines.

Next slide, please.

Uh next slide to the site plan.

So again, Plain Street is on the left side of this drawing.

What's being proposed is five single family town homes in a row, a driveway along the bottom of the page, and then each of the five town homes would have a parking space off of the driveway, and there would be four additional spaces in the rear yard with the trash or with the snow storage area.

And in the rear, in that area I was just talking about where there's the drop-off, you see an 8,000 square foot green, green area that would be common to the units.

Each of them has a private 400 square foot green space at the top of the page in that 16-foot setback there.

So on the next slide, we show the landscape plan, which uh shows the trees in green are the ones that are able to be preserved in this in this strategy.

There are uh would be four trees removed, but you can see that vast majority of the existing mature trees are uh are able to be retained in that rear yard, which would be a real amenity for ourselves and for our uh neighbors.

Um next slide, please.

Um so on this one, you see across the top, you see the first floor plans, five um the five first floors, and these are designed to be single family homes.

Each of the first floors shows a living kitchen dining on the first floor, a single parking garage space, uh very traditional single family orientation.

As I said at the top of the page, each of them has that small patio that you see, and behind beyond that patio, uh a 400 square foot green yard.

On the lower portion of this drawing, you see the second floor of each uh unit, and each unit would have three bedrooms and two bathrooms on this upper floor, as well as an open to below space that connects the second floor to the first floor, and makes the and kind of ties the home together.

And then on the next page, you see the top floor, which is a kind of designed to be a half story within a gabled uh roof.

It is technically mathematically a little bit more than a half story, but uh the idea is we're gonna have a gabled roof area.

Each of these uh family homes would have a family room with a walkout deck.

Um, each of the walkout decks uh for the rear four units is about 400 square or is about 200 square feet, and the one for the front uh building is about a hundred square feet.

So a little bit of private uh space on the upper deck, a little bit of private space in the rear, and then uh as I said, the 8,000 square foot common green space at the right side of the project.

Next slide.

So one of the things that we talked about uh before and with the neighbors, was that this is uh a lot of single family, two-family, and three-family uh buildings on this street.

Wanted to make sure that the expression on the street fit in, and as you can see in the drawing of the top, this is the the expression that would be on Plain Street, and then if we uh go down two slides, I have an older um one more slide.

If I have an older rendering, which isn't quite up to date, but shows kind of the the project in the context and scale of the neighborhood.

We've uh reorganized the gable dormers a little bit to match one of the other projects.

But generally speaking, this this gives you a feel for how that the project that's proposed is kind of designed to enhance the uh and fit in with the fabric of this particular street.

Um I want to uh switch gears a second to talk about the zoning that is being asked for uh relief that's being asked for.

There are six variant or six violations cited.

Um, one is for uh use and number of units.

Um, uh what's interesting, or what the uh which we have seen and uh is kind of backed up by the BPD's recommendation is that a couple of these, including um uh lot frontage insufficient, which we were cited for.

Uh, the BPD agrees with us that the frontage uh of 50 feet, which is required is provided.

Uh, the site is 89.8 feet wide.

Um, for some uh reason we were cited as if the project should require more like 250 feet.

Um, the BPD agreed that that should be disregarded.

There also is a um front yard insufficient um violation that is cited.

The BPD also agreed that that should be disregarded because the project was pulled forward to be as you can see in the renderings here, in conformance with the adjacent neighbors.

The other uh four violations that are listed are um the floor area view ratio where we are proposing 0.78, and the um uh what's allowed is 0.5, but the 0.78, as the BPD noted in their recommendation, is pretty consistent with what is built in this particular neighborhood.

Um, as I said, we are uh cited for building height in stories because mathematically this is a three-story building, but uh as you can see, we've uh used the gable roofs and dormers to try and make it feel very much like the um two and a half story typically built in this zone.

Um, and the last one that we were noted for is conformity with the existing building alignment, as the VPD pointed out, we might actually comply with that if we uh provide a calculation, which was not provided when the ums were cited.

So, with that, I'd like to turn it over to questions and answer and answer some of your concerns.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, I'll take public testimony.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones, representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 29 to 31 Plain Street.

A community process was conducted, including two abutters meetings held on 1014 25 and 331 26, attended by several Dorchester community members.

The feedback from this meeting was significant concerns and opposition regarding density parking and emergency vehicle access.

Uh, for this proposal, two different projects were presented to the community a six-unit version and a five-unit version, where after extensive conversations with the community, the five-unit proposal was preferred.

Additionally, our office received five letters expressing support and eight letters in opposition to all versions of the proposal, as well as calls from residents opposed to the proposal.

While some residents submitted multiple letters throughout the process, those submissions were reflected continued engagement and consistent concerns regarding the proposal.

The concerns raised were largely consistent throughout the process, and included the property density as it fits within the existing neighborhood character, traffic, parking, and the culminate impact of recent development in the area, and emergency vehicle access and overall public safety concerns.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Pope's Hill Civic Association and the Cedar Grove Civic Association.

Communication throughout the process has been challenging, and the civic associations have both expressed a number of concerns.

Conversations remain ongoing.

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

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board and the environments from Councillor Fitzero's office.

Um, after working with the community to get to this version of the proposal, the council would like to go in favor of this version with uh five units and nine parking spots.

The parking spots are seen it's how useful to deal with the uh community's concerns with parking and due to lack of direct public transportation area as the uh closest D station is 20 minutes away at Ash one station.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

I don't know the show of comments.

Okay, does the would the applicant like to address any of the comments that were raised?

No, I I think them uh both the community groups and the um counselor for uh working with us to arrive at this five-unit proposal and um kind of reduce the overall scale of the project and uh save some more trees.

So we we feel like this is a good proposal.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr.

Lionel.

Yes, Ms.

Wewell, yes.

Mr.

Brunell?

Yes.

Mr.

Collins.

Yes.

Yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

The next two cases have been deferred.

So that goes to case BOA 183, 35, 14, for the address of 176 Mell Street.

Yeah, it's answer with the representative of present with their close explanation board.

Yes, uh Chris Cruise 686 architects.

You can see it.

Yep, come on.

I don't see the plans, though.

Can the ambassador involved the plans?

Who's running the slides?

Can you pull up the plans?

Sorry, Madam Chair, I actually need to replace the test.

Okay, that makes us a five-member board for this case.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Um, so the part is pretty simple.

It's a uh it's an existing three-family, um, that will remain a three family.

Uh what we are going to do is add a um addition to the fourth story.

Uh, the unit three, which is a third floor, will be a five-level unit, uh, third third floor and fourth floor.

Can we go down to the proposed floor plan, please?

Probably around slide nine.

Uh perfect.

Um, so uh the existing uh first and second floor will pretty much remain as is, with the exception of um the existing deck itself that's off the rear, will become a secondary egress stair uh for the third floor by-level unit.

Uh the third floor itself would get reworked on the existing is a three-bedroom, one bath unit, and the proposed uh final row will be three bedrooms, plus the homework and three baths.

The overall scope of the project is to have um on the fourth floor, have a master bedroom suite for the little family room, and it will be a walkout balcony at the front of the building and at the rear of the building.

Uh the front of the building, um, we have one more slide, please, because it's front elevation.

We're doing a uh parapet along the front elevation.

Um, that'll be about four feet high so that the proposed balcony will be uh three from the um from the road, so you will not see it, um, as well as people on that uh fourth floor balcony not being able to really see the street down below.

Um the it had a robust uh community process.

Um we gotta do the uh parapet to kind of keep the uh decorative coins and all that stuff in hand.

Um we will have a new security years off the rear.

Um, and the data is themselves if you're ready to increase um views of the water, um basically because if you're looking at the project to the right, um down towards the water.

I believe that's it.

Um, we'll bring up to any questions or comments.

Oh can you speak to the the how this how this fits with the neighborhood because it seems like it's mainly triple deckers.

Yeah, it is it is remaining a triple decker, um, and the whole the overall project is being done, you know, for the family that's there so that they can have around the family to be able to stay in the city.

Um that's why it's you know, we're not carrying to a fourth unit itself.

Um, as far as the zoning violations go, uh we were citing for off-street parking, um, which typically, because we're not adding an additional unit, wouldn't get cited.

Um, FAR, the a lot of FAR is 1.5, the existing F AR is about a 1.74, and the proposal will be about 2.15.

Uh, the head of the building you allowed to be 40 uh or both 45 feet, um, just the way the new side and all that stuff worked.

Um, and then we have a rear yard insufficiency.

So the building itself is uh about 24 um.3 feet off the rear property line.

That will remain, but basically the existing deck because we're kind of altering to the stairs.

The existing deck will stay where it is um is about 15 point uh five feet.

So that's kind of where that rear yard violation coming from.

Again, the where the rear decks uh for the uh first, second, and third floor will remain where they are, uh, just adding in that secondary stairwell, and then of course we have the roof structure modification uh violation.

Um, context, we you know, we did the manside to kind of set the building back, um, so that way from the street don't really appear as a three-story building, um, and it has to have the walkout in front and then have a small walkout in the in the rear.

Um the questions from the board.

Hearing none, may have public testimony.

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

Our office hosted an abutters meeting regarding this application on October 29th of 2025.

We're in a butter expressed support for the application, and three other community members expressed concerns about the violation for excessive building height and how it could create precedent in the area.