Good morning, Madam Chair Present.

Good morning, Ms.

Wewell.

Good morning, Madam Chair President.

Good morning.

So just a note to uh applicants.

We are uh a six-member board today.

Uh and with that, I will turn it over to Mr.

Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

These are the minutes from the June 16th hearings this year.

Uh I'll make a motion of approval for this map.

Oh no, sorry, second.

Uh Mr.

Stembridge.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Benabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Sorry, I didn't hear Miss Turner.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes, thank you.

Mrs.

Wewell.

Yes.

Excellent.

And the uh chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

So I'm so sorry.

I was so excited to get us going.

I forgot to read the thing we're supposed to read at the beginning.

If uh if uh the pastor wants to rewind to that.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Good morning.

The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for July 14, 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 the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

Or 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.

Select yes and you should be able to talk.

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

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

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

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

Stembridge reads the address into the record.

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

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

All right.

All right, we'll turn it back over to you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh with that, yes, we'll go to the extension schedule for 9 30 a.m.

There are nine extension cases of the day.

So we'll vote on uh altogether.

And if there's any question, you can deal with that.

We'll begin with case boa one five nine zero five zero two with the address of eight burn street.

Next we have case boa one one seven five seven six seven with the address of sixteen six one three two street.

Next we have case boa one one seven five seven nine three with the address of six Pride Street.

Next we have case boa one five five four six zero one with the address of 1662 North Beacon Street.

Stream next we have case BOA 117 57 with the address of 162 next we have case boa 117 5793 with the address of 6 private street next we have case BOA 155 4601 with the address of 1662 North Beacon Street next we have K BOA 142 6452 with the address of 68 Terrace Street next we have case boa four three one five with the address 268 to 26 to 274 friends next we have case boa one two zero zero five with the address 238 to 240 macro street next we have K C O A 1480 with the address one for Rive on Avenue and finally we have case BoA 134 10 one spot with the address of 146 again street Madam Chair the exception will go to that thank you are there any questions from the board may have a motion to grant the extensions as requested motion to grant the extensions as requested may have a second okay mr stembridge yeah mr langham yes better braza yes turner yes we will chair votes yes the motion carries with that we'll on to the hearing schedule for 9 30 a.m at this point we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 930 a.mr.

Stanbridge uh one for one H Washington Place thank you attorney Spitz so this request is for case BOA 184 6713 with the address of one to 1H Washington place um you'd like to explain yes thank you Mr.

Stembridge Madam Chairman's the board attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams Maransi business address of 168 8th Street First Floor South Boston uh we're here requesting an administrative deferral to allow the applicant to have a hearing in front of a full seven member board okay uh do we have any dates for Mr.

Spitz um we'll take the soonest date is that we are expected to have a full seven member board asking uh Caroline who's in there with you Mr.

Stembridge is it Caroline or is it Stephanie do we have a date that that we can provide Sharney Spitz can folks hear me I can okay so okay just confirming so is is someone in there with you Mr.

Stembridge who can provide us with a date can you hear us Mr.

Stanbridge okay I'm not sure okay so you cannot hear us so can someone come back and assist uh mr stembridge with uh sound sorry about that term oh madam chair yes apologies so there's they're having some technical difficulties um but august 11 would be the next available date okay okay so with that may I have a motion motion to grant the first to August 11th may have a second second oh I don't know if Mr.

Stembridge can respond Mr.

Sembridge he probably we can't hear you okay we'll keep going mr langham yes miss better braza yes miss Turner yes Ms.

Wewell yes chair votes yes the the motion carries thank you we'll see you then are there any other requests it looks like we have to for deferrals okay well it looks like we're waiting on uh technical support for Mr.

Stambridge, so we're going to need to pause again.

Caroline, can you check in with uh with folks to see if they can when they can provide the support?

Yes, madam chair.

I believe um two people from IT are on the way right now.

Okay, because we sure need our secretary.

Yes, we do.

All right, all we're we're for those who are just joining, please uh please uh have patience.

There are some technical issues uh over in our secretary's office, so let's let's give him a moment.

But someone should probably stand by in case there's another issue.

Uh yes, in case you remote turn control.

Um we were asking if there were any more requests for withdrawals of the project AM here.

Hearing done.

Uh the first case is referred if I have it correctly until August 11.

Uh yes, sir.

So we will move on to case VOA.

One eight to five nine zero eight.

With the address of two twenty-nine Paris attack.

Is the applicant here to present for two two nine Harrison F?

Yes.

Um address for the record.

This is a Kyle.

I'm the architect uh for this project.

Also Rich Chen, um is owner.

He's also here.

Uh do you mind I use my so we cannot share your screen?

So whatever you submitted is what we're going by, so please guide the ambassador as to where you want what page you want.

Um also uh share with the ambassador uh PowerPoint.

Is is he open uh uh okay to open that or not?

I share another PDF.

PowerPoint.

Yeah, uh like um maybe 20 minutes ago.

I don't think they're gonna be able to share anything from 20 minutes ago.

You needed to observe.

Okay, that that that's fine.

If you um go to you know next page.

Um so the address is uh two twenty-nine uh Harrison Avenue.

The current yours is um two family um with no parking.

So our project is to you know change yours to a four family unit.

And you can see like this is uh um existing uh Bessemon plan, just utility space.

If you go to next page, um the top left is um existing um plan.

You know, we we the existing use is uh two uh two families um with like uh each unit has uh four bedrooms.

Uh our proposal is to you know change each level to um to a different unit.

So each unit has uh two bedrooms with uh full kitchen and two bathrooms and an even dining area.

So basically for the first floor is unit one, second uh you know second floor you need two, third floor is um unit three, and then top floor will be unit four.

If you go to elevation, please.

If you go to elevation, please you know, essentially each um floor is uh has uh same layout.

If you go down to the elevation page, yeah, as you can see, the existing fourth floor is uh has a pit roof.

So our plan is to uh demo the domers and then uh rebuild the roof.

So the ceiling height is the same, but we are keeping the footprint, the area unchanged.

Uh and also the building height remains the same.

Uh I think that's the on the our project, you know.

We also try to uh I have some existing photos on my apartment.

Um, you know, existing condition uh is not very good.

So we try to um use better installation, you know, make the this building more energy efficient, and then existing building interior finish is also not good.

So we also you use the opportunity to improve the interior environment so the future occupants uh can have a better living um condition.

Um we also you know during construction we also you know follow all the uh requirements um by the city and then by the building code to you know respect the neighborhood to make the you know the the job site clean and safe for everybody.

So this is what I our presentation today.

You know, we uh you know if you have any questions, please let me let me know.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Hello, madam chair, members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones, representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 229 Harrison F our office the first to the board's judgment.

The community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 4926 that was lightly attended by the community.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Chinatown neighborhood council on 42726, where some concerns were expressed about the plans not being conducive to families, and that the Chinatown Residents Association on 4126 as well.

Following the feedback from CNC, the applicant has updated their plans from three bedrooms to two bedrooms and an office, and at this time the mayor's office of neighborhood services the first is the board's judgment on this matter.

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next we have Alice for Councillor Flynn.

Good morning, my name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office.

Councillor Flynn likes to go on record and support based on a lack of any negative feedback from neighbors in nearby civic groups.

You respectfully ask the proponent to work closely with the community on any quality of life issues.

Thank you.

Can I this is Councillor Murphy?

Can I speak in supports, please?

Yes, ma'am.

I just wanted to go on record and support and echo for Councillor Flynn's office and uh work closely with the community going forward, but likes the plans and looking forward to the additional housing in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council.

Okay, next we have David.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board, Chin Town Main Street.

Um we are in support of this project.

Um I have a long history of knowing this building since I was young.

Uh it's been over 60 years since any type of renovation has been done inside the building.

Uh I'd like to go on the record to a pr um to support this, and I would like to request the members of the zombie board to um grant their request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Thank you.

Any questions from from the board?

Hearing that go ahead.

I'm just trying to understand the front elevation.

Um I can put forward a motion, but uh it would be good for the BPD design review to take a look at the front elevation.

I just see kind of uh stairs kind of floating, and I'm just trying to understand uh if that's just a cat error because I the plans are not uh detailed enough.

Do would the architect like to the RP4 that would be great?

Just clarify.

Which uh I think that's uh fire scab, let's work uh fire scap.

You are referring to the fire escape.

Yeah, the lattice work let is uh work.

I think I think maybe you're cutting off the uh stairs because on your plans it shows that you have stairs leading out.

Yes, arrow fixed.

What was pointing out?

This was on egg one because here I see the same thing.

Yeah, that's our arrow.

Um we will, you know, yeah, fixed and resubmit.

Right.

So um, so basically you have stairs going all the way to the landing, correct?

Right.

Yeah, and if you notice you see that your proposed door is conflicting with your um subgrade uh window.

I understand.

Yeah, so um I'm gonna make a motion of uh approval without any um code violation with no building code relief.

Uh is is there a second?

Back in Mr.

Stembridge, you're on mute, Mr.

Stembridge.

You just need to unmute yourself, Mr.

Stembridge.

I see it.

I'll agree.

Ah, trying to yes, okay, perfect.

If you can hear me, it's a yeah, that oh boy, those technical folks need to stay close.

All right, Mr.

Langham.

Yes, Ms.

Barbaraza, yes, Ms.

Turner, yes, Ms.

Wewell, yes, chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Good luck.

Good luck, and please do um hire an an architect to do uh detailed drawings for you.

Okay, thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1840986 with the address of 500 boils.

If the applicants and other representative were present, and if the equipment keeps working, would you please explain to the board?

Uh yep, my my name's Daniel Brennan.

I'm here uh with BPC 8 Stone Gate Lane, Salem, New Hampshire.

I'm a consultant handling the just salads permits and licenses.

Um also joined with Jennifer Richter, director of construction uh for just salad.

Um they currently operate two other locations in the city, uh, one in four point, one in post office square.

Um we're here today seeking relief for the takeout use.

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

Um so that's our our our layout.

Um so this space was formerly a retail space, Talbot's over at 500 boilstone.

It was demised into separate ten spaces, and uh we'll be taking one of them if this is approved.

Um our space is just under 2,000 square feet, so 1,830 square feet, uh consisting of a dining area service counter, back kitchen, and two public restrooms.

Uh the current design has 12 stand-up dining counter spaces, uh, but it may become 12 seats.

Um exterior work is just signage and it will be on separate permits.

Um we feel that it it fits in well with uh the community.

There's many other quick service restaurants, and this will give a nice uh healthy option to the area.

Uh happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

May I have may I have public testimony?

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

This applicant has completed the community process.

This proposal is located in a commercial area where this use is common.

The applicants have met with the neighborhood association of the back bay, and that group is in non-opposition with that background.

Owen has defer his judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Council of Foon's office.

Thank you, Councillor Flynn would like to go on record and support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Oh, sorry.

Um I would like to go on record and support off the so for the record.

This is Councilor Ann Murphy.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

Okay.

Any other uh comments?

I don't see additional hands right.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Beta Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

We will.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

Motion carries.

Go back.

Thank you.

Have a great meeting.

Next we have case BOA 183.

3097 with the address of 62 to 64 back street.

The applicants and the other representative present.

Yes, good morning.

My name is Thomas Cracolicy.

I am the architect for the project.

And I'll be representing Kelly and Nick, the owners.

We are seeking approval of a new construction roof deck on a four-story multifamily 40-foot height over one story summing enclosed parking structure.

The existing conditions.

Respect the neighborhood scale and materials.

And then we're trying to improve the visual appearance and cohesion.

So just a brief summary of the proposed work.

Looking to have a seamless integration with the existing roof structure using hurricane ties and heavy-duty twisted structural straps that are secured to the existing I joist roof framing.

So that's sort of a breakdown of the structure, and then there'll be composite decking that'll be securely fastened, fully code compliant.

So it'll be open, non-enclosed, uh, with minimal visual impact.

We have design consultants on board, including a structural engineer.

Um wasn't able to submit the plans in time for this meeting, um, but we do have a certified structural engineer who has provided plans and details and notes as to how this will uh be achieved structurally.

Um we also have a certified existing and proposed plot plan from a certified professional licensed land surveyor as well.

Um I think that's mostly a summary of the project.

Um, and we've been in um in contact with the neighborhood association, um, and we're uh uh granted support uh from them from their representative as well.

Thank you.

Talk about the Progolo.

How how far set back is that?

Is it visible from the street?

Uh yeah, it's about it's about two feet set back.

There's a small parapet that sort of obstructs it.

So when you're when you're standing on the street, you will be able to see it, it'll be sort of clipped off.

Um but it's it's it's a it's approximately two feet set back from the parapet.

And do you have uh any issues with possibly moving it?

That was uh just like uh beyond visibility uh view from the street.

That was a comment from BPD.

See that again, I'm sorry.

Would there be any concerns about the moving the set back further?

Uh there was a comment from BPD about uh the pergola and visibility.

Uh it's I mean the uh I think the the building was constructed, they they needed to uh seek a variance in order to uh build within the setback, but it's it's not encroaching any pergola itself, not anything else, yeah.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the the question fully.

We'll move on.

Are there other questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

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

This applicant completed the community process.

ONS hosted an abutters meeting on May 7th, where no abutters chose to speak.

The City Side Neighborhood Association chose not to meet with this applicant with that background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Oh, we have Ashley from the Consular.

Thank you.

Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition based on his long standing policy against new roof deck construction in residential areas of South Boston.

Due to years of quality of life complaints from neighbors, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and young families with South Boston having become a destination for young people on the weekend.

Neighbors and civic groups continue to call attention to roof decks as a source of disturbances and loud noise at all hours, as well as concerns on public safety with gas grills or tracks removal issues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, and C additional answers at the moment.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I like to put for a motion of approval with a provisal that the project undergoes BPD design review, um, paying special attention to the location of the deck and the setback from the uh all building sides, so that it is not visible from the street.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Beta Braza, yes.

Ms.

Turner, yes.

Did you hear me?

I said yes.

No, I heard you, I didn't hear Ms.

Weewall.

Um, sorry, I didn't hear you.

Um, yeah.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have VOA 183 4696 with the address of 556, 556 East Broadway.

It the applicant representative present that we're going through the board.

How's it going?

My name is Nick Schiffer.

Uh I am the owner of the property uh as well as a contractor.

Um we had previously got an approval to add an additional floor to the building, which we have since abandoned, and we are simply asking to convert the building from a three-family to a two-family.

All the the renovation work will be within the confines of the existing structure.

No exterior changes will be made.

Okay, are there questions from the board?

They have public testimony.

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

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius, which solicited no comments to our office.

The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is supporting this application.

With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Council Flynn's office.

Thank you.

Council Floom likes to go on record and support.

He respectfully requests the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any of quality of life issues during the construction phase.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I um thank you.

I'd like to go in support and just wish the owner luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Yeah.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Beta Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yeah.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have HOA 183 824 wait.

With the address of 59 East 8th Street.

Good morning.

My name is Jeff Gannon.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board.

I'm the architect and representative for David and Jill Demello, the owners of 590 East Eighth.

Just showing here on the slide is an existing condition.

We can go to the next slide that will also show the plans and the elevations.

This is a two and a half story home.

There is a minor renovation at the second floor, and then an expansion at the third floor.

If we could go to the next slide.

For that reason, there was also unbeknownst to them.

It is on record as a two-family, so we are looking to change that to a single family, as that is how it is laid out and being used.

And then we have a side yard setback relief request to basically expand on an existing condition and then a roof modification.

Here is the proposed design.

You can see in the street rendering and the front elevation.

It's dormering out the existing half story at the third floor.

And then you can see on the site plan, we're calling for a full story at the smaller addition area on the back.

Next slide.

We'll just show the plans.

Again, you can see the third floor, which will be able to uh house the bedrooms and the bathroom and a laundry area, and then the roof modification of the plan on the left.

In the last slide, please.

The upper left is just showing the neighbors buildings, uh, also residences, and then showing uh the roof modification and the expansion upward.

So happy to hear any questions or comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, may have public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members CG Johnson at the Office of Neighborhood Services.

This applicant completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on May 7th, where no abutters chose to speak.

The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association chose not to take a position on this application.

With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Ad Lee from Council Food's office.

Thank you, Council Floon likes to record and support.

He respectfully requests the proponent work closely with the butters on any of quality of life issues during the construction phase.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam.

Madam Chair.

I don't see Additional Hans Race.

I sorry, I didn't raise my hand.

Could I go on record and support also?

Thank you.

Yes, Councillor Murphy.

Please identify yourself.

Thank you.

Uh with that, may I have a motion?

Chair of motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stavridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Beta Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

You're on mute, Ms.

Wewell.

Yeah.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have BOA 1850 37 with the address of 100 Magazine Street.

This is an article 80 case.

And if it's an applicant or the representative present, with one through the board.

Are you re is someone recusing themselves on this one?

Um, yes, I'm sorry, I'm I'm repeating myself on this.

Thank you.

So just to confirm we are now a five-member board for this case.

Is there someone to speak to 100 magazine street?

That would be me, Madam Chair Pat Rofi.

Okay.

How are you?

Madam Chair, Mr.

Secretary, members of this and staff of the zoning board of appeals.

Good morning.

My name is Pat Brofee, and I serve as the Vice President of State and Local Government Affairs at Suffolk.

We're proudly headquartered at 65 Alden Street in Roxbury, and I'm joined this morning by my colleagues from Suffolk, Suffolk Design, and High Point Engineering.

As you know, for over 40 years, Suffolk has been a collaborative partner in Boston and Anchor Business in the New Market District.

Our CEO John Fish is very proud to call Boston and Roxbury home, and this renovation will support our anticipated growth, making it one of the largest employees in New Market District.

We employ almost 500 people at our national headquarters, and we're encouraged by recent city investments in Clifford Park, Roxbury Prep, and the increased public safety presence in the district.

This morning I'm here to introduce a major investment in our headquarters.

This project was approved by the Boston Planning Board in December of 2025, and we're currently in construction and plan to finish by October of 2026.

This 30 million dollar renovation of 100 Magazine Street will transform our office and warehouse space into state-of-the-art office that will house Suffolk's technology innovation research and product development teams.

When complete 100 Magazine Street will be the epicenter of artificial intelligence in the construction industry.

This plan reflects years of collaboration, collaboration with the planning department, transportation department, the Boston Police, the New Market Bid, and local stakeholders.

We've listened very carefully to community concerns and incorporate feedback into every aspect of our design.

It sub directly supports the goals of planned new market, including the preservation of traditional industrial commercial uses, pedestrian safety, and public realm conditions, especially along magazine in Kemble Street near Roxbury Prepper and Clifford Park, enhancing climate resilience through increased landscaping, which includes a significant public improvements of 48 canopy trees and a 1500% increase in campus green space.

We're installing dark sky compliant lighting, additional security cameras at the request of Boston Police Department, and we're increasing our sidewalk widths.

As part of the design process, we're proposing an eight-foot-high steel picket black fence.

This fence will be screened by new mature street trees and significant plantings within the campus.

The scope item has been reviewed and approved by the city's planning urban design team, and the fence will mirror the rest of the Suffolk campus and its height is consistent with adjacent businesses and institutions within the new market area.

Um we are respectfully requesting your approval for the eight-foot fence.

And in conclusion, I'd like to thank Stephanie Haynes, the city's planning department, ISD, and the ZBA staff for their guidance and professionalism throughout this process.

We're hopeful that this uh that this will demonstrate our commitment to the improved aesthetics in the neighborhood, and we look forward to your feedback and approval.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembery, Oxbury Gagment Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

At this time, our office will defer to the board for its judgment.

The proponent has completed the required Article A group process, including the public meeting held on November 20th, 2025, and received board of 2025.

The required Article A to community process has been completed.

Our office is not aware of any outstanding community concerns or issues related to the proposal.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Jeremy.

Thank you.

Next, we have the consular.

Hi.

Um, thank you.

This is Councillor Murphy.

Just want to thank you, Pat, for coming on and also to Suffolk for all you do in the neighborhood, so I'm here to support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor.

Next, we have a Nick Carter.

Thank you.

Uh Nick Carter here at the planning department.

Wanted to echo uh ONS's sentiments and also go on record in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nick.

And next we have the Leon Rimas from Consul.

Hello, uh Madam Chairman's board.

Liam Remus from Council Fitzgerald's office.

The council would like you on record and support this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I think we have somebody from the public, Mark DeLazio.

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Michaelassio.

I'm a business agent for Capitol's local 327 in Boston.

And we just want to go on record as being in uh full support of this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Chair, we don't have a leash now come.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, um, I'd like to make a motion of approval as Suffolk is a long-time good neighborhood in the Roxbury neighborhood and uh a good business partner for the city wall.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Thank you, Mr.

Stembridge.

Back in Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Better Braza.

Yes.

Is we well?

Yeah.

Chair Wells, yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 182 16 67.

The address is 610 610A Trump Street.

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

Anyone available for 610 to 610A Trump office?

I think I see the person on the 10 section.

Michelle, Angel, and Michelle, if you can unmute yourself, please.

Mana.

Leite and Mayo Bakery.

And our proposal is that um barbarians for my drugstore to a bakery.

Good morning, members of the board.

Thank you.

First of all, for your time and consideration.

My name is Michelle, and I'm here with my father Angel, who is the owner of Le Chamia Bakery and Cafe.

Due to a temporary disability following a serious accident, I've been helping him to manage the project throughout the permitting process, and on the advice of ISD.

The contact information for the application was updated to my name, so that there would be a consistent point of contact and just to keep things flowing while he's temporarily unable to move things along.

But the ownership and the vision of the project remain unchanged.

Before it became vacant, the landlord surveyed members of the Puerto Rican community to ask what type of business they wanted to see in this location.

And the community chose a traditional Puerto Rican-style paneleria, which is in Spanish, it's um it's just a bakery slash cafe, and our family was selected to bring that vision to life by the residents.

Um and we respectfully ask for your approval so we can bring this vision to life and serve the South End community.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Hearing none and public testimony.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 610 to 610A Tremont Street.

Our office differs to the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including the distribution of a subcommittee fire on 52026, which I did not receive any community comments.

Um the proposal was also not in the catchment area of any civic associations and therefore was not required to meet with any.

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

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Next, we have Ashley from Consular Speeding's office.

Thank you, Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have a consular Murphy.

Hi, good morning.

Yes, this is Council Murphy.

I want to go on record in support and just want to thank the owner and his daughter for doing like just family work and seeing it forward and looking forward to visiting soon.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have uh Nicolas Armanta.

Nicolas.

Thank you, CBA.

My name is Nick Armada.

I am the senior planner with the Boston Landmarks Commission.

Just a reminder to this applicant that this um application uh we will um require review by the South End Landmark Commission because this project is located in the South End Landmark District.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, well that may I have a motion?

Yes, madam chair, I'd be happy uh to put forward a motion for Legchain, uh, which would be a really nice addition.

Uh the motion is uh approval.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Sembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

We will.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next.

Next, we have a five five, six, zero, zero.

With the address of three or advocate.

The applicant and the representative of president.

They're please explain to the board.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Secretary, and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board for the record, attorney Matt Eckle on behalf of the applicant.

Joining me today is Eric Zackerson from Contacts, the project architect, as well as Steve Dedario, the project applicant.

We're seeking to erect a new residential building at Three Glines Ave with three units and two parking spaces on a currently vacant lot.

The project sits on Glines Ave, which is in the Eggleston Square neighborhood of Jamaica Plain.

Glines Avs at Dead End Street accessed from School Street, and this would be the first lot on the right as you're going down Blinds Ave.

The site is just uh approximately a tenth of a mile away from both Washington and Columbus Ave, which are served uh by MBTA bus services, as well as half a mile from the MBTA Stony Brook Station, providing future residents multiple means of transportation to go along with the two parking spaces we are providing.

Uh these three new residential units will be offered for home ownership.

Uh and just to go through the floor plan floor plans briefly, the basement is common mechanicals and storage as well as the sprinklers.

Uh the first floor would have the main entry, which accesses all uh provides access to all three units.

The unit one located on the first floor is 810 square feet, a two-bat two bedroom, one bath with a walkout rear patio.

The second floor will house unit two, which is a 975 square foot two-bedroom, two-bath unit.

And the third floor is designed the same as the second, so house unit three, which is also 975 square feet with two bedrooms and two bathrooms.

Uh, this project went through an extensive community process, and the applicant worked closely with both the butters as well as the local civic associations.

Um, some changes were made throughout the process, including to the design of the building as well as the location of the building.

And at one point we had proposed a roof deck, which has now been removed from the plans and is no longer part of the proposal.

Uh based on these changes, we did submit four letters of support, including one from the Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association and one from the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council.

Uh, with that, I'll pause and happily take any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

Hearing none, may have public testimony.

Madam Chair, may the board for the record.

My name is Jeremy Burry.

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

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a new brother's meeting, uh facilitated September 23rd.

Two abutters expressed support for the providing the addition of much needed housing while recommending the inclusion of bicycle parking and an additional first.

Other abutters raised concerns regarding access to the rear yard for second and third floor residence, sidewalk repair replacement of windows and in addition to the proposed setbacks and whether a shadow study had conducted.

One of what is stated they would support a but express strong opposition to the proposed three from the use, citing concerns that it could establish a precedent for future development in the neighborhood.

Following the aborter's reading, the proposal was presented to Eggles and Square Neighborhood Association with Bitcoin.

To date, our office has received four letters of support, including one from Edwardson Square Neighborhood Association approving the proposal.

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

I can defer to the board for their judgment.

Next, we have a consular Murphy Yes, good morning.

Yes.

Good morning.

Aaron Council Murphy here.

Just wanted to go on record in support of this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Nicolas Marta.

Good morning.

My name is Nick Armada.

I am a member of the Boston Landmarks Commission, uh staff association, and I'm just speaking on record in support of this project.

Um I've worked with Matt on several occasions and his team.

And we're confident that he will come up with a beautiful project.

Madame Chip, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, would that may have a motion?

Chair, I'd like to uh pose the portion of approval.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Better Raza.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Chair Wilson.

Yes, the motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case B08, 184 8048, with the address of 1442 to 1444 Dorchester Avenue.

If the applicant and representative present is a couple of people who's displayed.

I also need to excuse myself in this case too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So just a reminder, we are now a five-member board.

Because this is a companion case.

It has a companion case.

Okay.

Which also which is case VOA.

184 8052 with the address of 22R, the 24R, one of the street.

And these are this one is an authority.

Oh, both are thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Um, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Joe Hanley, McDermott, Quilty Miller and Hanley representing Bean Town Companies, who is the uh proponent uh of this project.

Um next slide.

I'd just like to introduce you real quickly to our team.

Um, Big Dot Realty Trust is a subsidiary of Bean Town Companies, Mark Resnick, who's the principal.

Um, David O.

Sullivan and Arian uh Nicola are here as the project architects.

This is a historic uh restoration and expansion project.

So we are also working with uh local historic consultant uh William Young as well as um uh historic tax credit consultants for this project.

Next slide, just to bring you to the site.

Um, you'll see the white building.

This is at the intersection in the heart of Fields Corner in Dorchester at the intersection of Dorchester Ave and Adam Street is uh the building uh which also runs along towards its rear along uh Leonard Street.

Next slide shows you a little more in closer context.

This is looking at the existing building on Dorchester Avenue at that intersection.

Uh the building is the uh former uh Hearns uh warehouse building that was uh built around on the early 1900s and became music hall at one point.

Um we have existing retail, including the post office that's remaining uh on the ground floor and underutilized um uh office and commercial on the upper levels, which will be integrated into the addition, which we'll show you.

Next slide, please.

Um this is the view uh looking at um the corner, you'll see the the post office that is remaining, and the next slide takes you uh for a view looking if you will, um Adams Street.

I don't know if you go to the next slide.

Um this is uh the view looking up uh towards Adam Street.

You'll see uh up Adam Street towards Dorchester Avenue.

Excuse me, you'll see uh part of this existing building in the music hall.

There are once these grand windows that are being restored.

You can see them in the facade there, and and that's a huge driver of the existing renovation.

Uh next slide, please.

And uh a view from Leonard Street uh in the rear.

So plan right.

You can see Mr.

Sempert indicated there are two cases.

These are two parcels that are being combined.

And the existing Leonard Street parcel in the rear is an unimproved surface lot that we are seeking to construct an addition for a new residential.

And you will see in the foreground the an existing building, which is known as the Clapp Field House.

It's believed to be built around the 1700s and relocated at the site.

It's part of the Article 80 approval as well as the landmarks commission to maintain and integrate that structure into the development, and we suggest that supports the zoning as well.

Next slide, please.

So just quick project overview.

The amount of land for the combined site, a little over 26,635 square feet.

The gross floor area is broken up between about 40,000 existing for the building and a 35,000 addition for 47 new residential units, both in the addition and in the underutilized upper levels of the existing music hall.

Nine of the units will be affordable.

There's a mix of ones, twos, and threes.

We have 18 parking spaces and 72 bicycle parking spaces.

Project benefits, we're very excited to obviously be to restore the music hall, but also retain the clap house to provide much needed affordable and market rate housing.

You can a sustainable development, which will be all electric, and to uh remediate the heat island effect by removing the surface lot and creating uh usable open space and a new uh public realm and the like.

Uh next slide just takes you through the zoning real quickly.

Uh we are in a neighborhood shopping community commercial district.

Uh the principal relief that is necessary is a conditional use permit to allow for residential on the main level, uh which you will see in the addition at the back to the right.

And um, as well as the floor area ratio, it's an existing non-conforming building today.

Uh we're combining the lots.

Uh one is allowed, 2.5 is proposed.

Uh, the height, both stories and uh the elevation, uh four stories allowed and 40 feet.

Uh we're proposing six at the rear that is set back and um approximately 68 uh feet in height.

I will note that there's a one is about a 12 and a half foot brain change uh that goes back towards the site, and that helps to mitigate the height as well.

Uh we're in a walkshed, uh, which you saw the early on, uh less than a quarter mile to the Fields Corner Rapid Rail Red Line uh train station along the bus routes uh helps to mitigate.

Uh we are creating parking, but helps to mitigate uh the relief for 18 spaces and the base code is two per unit is the requirement.

The neighborhood design overlay went through Article 80.

We were approved uh in August of last year, and uh we now have two buildings on one lots by virtue of combining these two parcels, and that is the result of keeping the Clapp Field House as the new building, if you will, as an addition uh to the existing.

So you see this now in the next slide how this all comes together with uh the relief that's requested, and I have David O'Sullivan here if you'd like him to take you through uh the plans and renderings.

Only briefly, please do not go through every slide.

Thank you.

David or Arian from most.

Hi, uh Arion Mikola from Southern Architects.

Uh we can quickly go through the floor plans.

I'm not gonna go into too much detail, but if you go to the next slide, uh you'll see this is again just a top-down view of the entire site, the streets and the and the courtyard and the adjacent uh parking lots.

Uh the next slide will show you the parking level on the left-hand side is the new building.

On the right-hand side is the basement of the existing storage building, which will uh be occupied by the new bike room and some storage.

Uh next slide will show you the first floor.

Um these colored um uh units are the residential units, and then we have a residential lobby coming off of Adam Street and Dorchester Avenue intersection, and then uh plan south there.

There you'll see the two-story existing historic house to also be sort of like restored into a renovated into two uh two separate units.

Uh next floor up is the second floor.

Um again, the left-hand side is the new building, uh, the historic house in blue as well.

Detached on the right hand side, the uh storage building with the existing commercial space to remain.

The next slide.

Um, this one we could quickly skip is the mezzanine level of the second floor, and then now we're looking at the third floor.

Um, at this point, it's all residential units left hand side new building, the right hand side the uh um existing storage building.

And then the floor above is uh the same as um as this one is the four floor, and then finally, um if you go to the fifth floor, you'll see um now the um new building has one fewer units.

Um the top floor is pulled back a bit, and on the right-hand side, you'll see the um the roof deck proposed and some of the amenity space um in on top of the existing storage building.

And then the next slide is the just the roof plan of the entire development.

If you can go to the next slide.

Yeah, here you'll see everything top down, and then finally um this um the A401, which was right before this is the side section just to see to sort of like show the relationship between the two buildings, and then what you're seeing on the screen is side-by-side, so like real image versus um a rendering of what the new um project will look like.

Uh sort of like keeping the same angle.

And that's this presentation.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you, Erin.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam World.

I have one question.

I just wanted to follow up on our materials and the memo.

Um kind of nine plus IDP units, and I didn't see any explanation for what CLUF stands for is the very one that you know what the plus signifies.

So um we're the IDP requires 17%.

We're doing a little over 19%.

Uh and so the the that equates to nine units plus um they they round so if you're like under the point five, in other words, going to ten, you you pay in based on a pro rider for that.

So that that's what that refers to.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Ma'am public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jared B.

Bembury.

I am the community and specialist schools of neighborhood services.

At that time, our office will defer to the board for its judgment.

The proponent has required auto-grade or review process, a public meeting held on June 24th, 2020.

Community feedback reflected mixed reviews.

Many of others expressed support for the proposal, particularly the present existing.

However, concerns were raised regarding parking.

While some residents of the addition of new housing units, they did not support the proper spaces.

Next, the proposal was presented to Fields Connor Civic Association, but the proposal was gender but well received.

Following the community meetings, the proposal was approved by the board on August 14, 2025.

This time our office is not aware of any outstanding community concerns or issues related to the proposal.

Thank you for your time.

We'd have Councilman Morphe.

Thank you.

Um, I just want to thank Joe and his team who came to um my office over a year ago now, I think, and really explained what their vision and plan was as a neighbor here in Dorchester.

I'm excited to see this investment and looking forward to what it will bring to this neighborhood.

So thank you for trusting our neighborhood, Joe and team, and just want to go on support and full support of the project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Liam Drimas from Consulu Futuro.

Well, Madam Chair, members of the board, William Remus from Council Fitzgerald's office, the counselor like going record support of this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have a Mark Delazio.

Yeah, uh Madam Chair, members of the board, thanks for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Michael Asio.

I am a uh business representative for the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Cabinet, and we just want to go uh on record as being in support of this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have the Nicolas Armata.

Madam Chair, my name is Nicholas Ramada, senior planner for the Boston Landmarks Commission.

The proposed work at uh 1442, 1444 Dorchester Avenue combines two elements which are essential to Boston.

One much needed housing for Boston residents, and two, the preservation of two historic central uh to Fields Corner Development, the 1772 Clapp Field House and the 1886 Dorchester Music Hall, O'Horn Storage Building.

The development team worked diligently with the Boston Landmarks Commission staff to change their initial design to pivot from demolition of the Clapp Field House and instead embrace the preservation and adaptive reuse of both of these historic structures.

Therefore, the Office of Historic Preservation enthusiastically supports the zoning variances requested by this applicant.

Thank you.

Next we have tightly rules.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Allow me to speak here.

Um just want to come go on record and support or check the uh project manager from the planning department.

We had public uh attended um our open newspaper.

Um the counselor is on record and so we'll go um on record in support of this project.

Thank you.

And then chair, we don't have a leaf number comments.

Okay, any other questions from the board.

I I just have a comment.

I know that um the project has been undergoing BPD design review.

I just want to make a comment here under record, and hopefully the project manager's is uh listens to some of this feedback.

I just I find um the base along Leonard Street um to be um uh very barrier like, and what I mean by that is that you have uh almost a full story of just uh masonry.

I know that there's bikes right in front.

Um if there's a way to make it a little bit more pedestrian friendly, um, so you don't feel like you're walking by a 10-foot wall along Lennon Street.

Other than that, I don't have any other problem uh other comments.

Can I make a quick comment um to that?

Um, the architect, please uh this has actually been addressed uh very briefly.

We have actually a planting right along uh the building.

We have added details in the break, and also with a new stair coming down, we have addressed that moment we enter the building.

So all three of that helps.

We have updated drawings that we share with you at some point.

Okay, that's that's great.

Just because there's a huge gray drop.

Um I just find your I want to I think detailing would benefit the project a lot.

Thank you.

Thank you very well.

Any other comments from the board?

May have a motion.

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

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Stunbridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Lynham.

Yes.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Oh, sorry.

Ms.

Ruell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Next, we have case BOA 1835904 with the address of 105 Pleasant View Street.

If the applicant representative present, if they would explain to the board.

Yes, uh, good morning, madam chairperson, members of the board.

My name is Laura Moyo.

I'm a Sumbody General Contractors representing our client.

Uh Victor Maxwell, the owner of Honor Five hasn't bear.

We are requesting zoning relief to convert uh the existing owner occupied one-story single-family home into a two-family residence with the addition of a second story.

Uh we're seeking relief for three zoning issues.

The first one is excessive floor area, insufficient front yard, uh, insufficient ray yard.

Um, these conditions are largely the result of older zoning regulations and uh dimensions of the existing lot um and not an attempt to overdevelop the property.

Um also many homes uh throughout the neighborhood share a similar setbacks and uh lot characteristics.

The property will remain owner occupied.

Um we have consulted immediate arbiters and they've expressed support for this project.

Uh can I have she's there one, please?

I don't know that is if that's easier.

All right, so the this is what it will look like.

So currently those single family, but this is why it would look like uh with the addition of um uh the second floor.

So the existing full point floorprint of the house will remain essentially essentially unchanged.

Uh we're building vertically rather than significantly expanding outward.

Um the existing driveway access is maintained.

Um existing side circulation remains the same.

Um, the project is designed to be a traditional two family uh consistent in the surrounding development.

Sneed a one-one, please.

Uh I think it's the next one.

Um so here we have the existing first floor unit.

Um, the first floor unit dwelling remains substantially intact.

Yeah.

Um improvements will include uh code compliance egress, uh what a nice living space, and structural upgrades to support the second floor.

Sheet A102, please.

All right, so the second floor will be approximately 1140 square feet.

It'll include two bedrooms, a full bathroom, open living room, kitchen, and dining area.

So the layout will provide comfortable family sized housing while remaining compatible with the scale of the neighborhood.

Sheet A201.

All right, elevations here.

Um you'll see simple residential architecture, pitched roof, consistent siding materials, balanced window placement, uh, modest exterior still locations, and it will resemble uh the neighborhood and many existing two family homes, uh, Fawn Guard High Park.

And the 301 phase 8313.

Um here's the new structural floor system, fire radiator separation from drilling units.

We have sound insulation, roof construction, uh foundation relationship, and sheet S001, which is the last one, and here is just the structural uh part, uh new L VLB needs reinforced floor framing, engineered uh roof framing, new bearing walls, and upgraded uh structural support.

Um, and that's it.

Um so we respectfully ask the board to grant zoning relief uh for this family piece.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing may have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembery, and I am the Hawk Community Engagement Specialist with the Office of Nickwood Service.

That's completed the required community process which consists of his meeting facilitated on May 14th.

One of the stating that it is a logical expansion of the existing home.

No additional community process.

Our office has not received any further community feedback.

Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services referred to the board.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have a least community at the moment.

Well, that may have a motion.

I put forward a motion of approval.

There's a second, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Is that a browser?

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Lewell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

Next we have Kate BoA 183.

With the address of 17 R.

Belt and Roads.

If the applicant or their representative both present, they put it flying to the board.

Hi, um, my name is Steve Fine, and I'm the contractor um for this project.

Thank you for your time.

So this is uh a building owned by a local charity, and uh they have had this garage since the uh building was built.

Uh the garage um is in terrible shape and needed to be redone.

And uh the proposal is to rebuild it in exactly the same place as the original, exactly the same size, same height, um, just taking down the one that was there in a poor shape and replacing it with a new one.

Are there questions from the board?

They have public testimony, madam chair and board members with the office of neighborhood services.

This petitioner completed the community process.

Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300 foot radius, which solicited no comments to our office.

The Brighton Alston Improvement Association is supporting this application.

With that background, Owen asked for his judgment to the board.gov forward slash landmarks and receive a determination from the landmarks commission staff.

No demolition permit can be issued until the Article eighty five process is completed.

Yes, wanting to go on record in support.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, we will take a five minute break.

See you then.

Present, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Mr.

Langham.

Present.

Thank you, Miss Bedarza.

Present.

Ms.

Turner.

Present.

Ms.

We will.

Present.

Great.

Thank you.

Please proceed, Mr.

Stuffridge.

Certainly, Madam Chair.

Uh we'll begin by asking if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the eleven AM here.

Hearing done, we'll move on to the first case.

Oh sorry.

There is one person who's looking for a referral.

Ethan and key if you can mute yourself, please.

Oh, I can.

Can everybody hear me?

Uh yes.

What case are you going to do that?

Um we still need to set up in the button of the city of others meeting.

Oh, hold on.

Oh, Mr.

Stemmerge needs to read it into the record.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

This request is for case of BOA one eight three.

Would you go ahead?

Uh yeah, the next slide, please.

Uh certainly.

Um, so an initial city of Butters meeting was held on the um initial plans that were approved, but since they have since changed, and no abutters meeting was um held.

So I've been um interfacing with Mr.

Newman as of last night.

Um so with ONS, we're going to be setting up that city of the first meeting.

Um we should only need a brief deferral uh in order to finish coordinating that.

Okay, uh Caroline.

August eleven, August twenty-fifth, uh September eighth.

Let's aim for the twenty-fifth.

I want to get my song more time than I need, if that's acceptable to the board.

Okay, uh may I have a motion.

Motion to defer this case until August twenty-fifth.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stambridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Yes.

Turner.

Yes.

We will.

Thank you very much.

You all have a nice day.

If there are no more requests for withdrawal with throws, we'll go back to case BOA.

Four eight six nine.

Is anyone present for 231 Princeton Street?

I see somebody.

Zach Jones, you can unmute yourself now.

And you can you hear me?

Yes, yes, we can.

Yes, I'm I'm the homeowner at 231 Princeton Street.

Great.

Can you state your name and address for the record and please uh tell us what you're looking for?

Yep, my name is Zachary Johnson.

My address is 231 Princeton Street.

And I hired the contractor whose name is on the application, Aggie de Souza, to help me basically add a flat landing to the back of our home, and that would become a deck, and then we are looking to enclose the deck underneath as well for some usable space in the back.

Okay.

Questions from the board.

Hearing none, may have public testimony.

Is there any public testimony on this?

Um chair members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones, representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 231 Princeton Street.

Our office defers supports judgment.

A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 52026.

That was lately attended by the East Boston community members where conversation was amongst neighbors and very productive.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 927-25, and the association expressed support.

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.

We don't have additional hands.

Well, that may I have a motion.

Motion to approve.

Sorry.

Mr.

Stampridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Beta Braza.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

We will.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Good buck.

Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA 1704408 with the address of 1910 Street.

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

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Stambridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is George Morancy.

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

I represent the owner of 191 Main Street, Sing Ming Chan, who is proposing to temporarily relocate the liquor store.

He owns and currently operates at um uh Charlestown Liquors, uh, 10 Thompson Square, which is nearby to the first floor of the building that he owns at 191 Main Street.

The reason for doing this is because the uh 10 Thompson Square site where his current liquor store is located was approved in September of 2024 for a new three-story mixed-use building.

Uh, after construction of the uh Thompson Square building is completed, my client would plan to relocate this liquor store use back to Thompson Square.

At this time uh zoning approval is required because the liquor store use at 191 Main Street is a conditional use.

There's also a sighted off-street parking violation on the zoning refusal letter, but it's worth noting that uh the 1910 um building was approved by this board in um 2022, at which time it received an off-street parking variance for a ground floor retail use.

There's been no use in there uh since the building uh received its certificate of occupancy.

This proposed use is in fact a retail use under table E of Article 62 off-street parking requirements, uh, which leads me to conclude that the current off-street parking violation was erroneously issued and unnecessary because the property already benefits from a barrier.

That being said, um, in conclusion, as noted in the planning department recommendation, um, we strongly believe that this site is an appropriate location for the proposed use.

It will not adversely affect the neighborhood, constitute a serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians, or create a nuisance.

Mr.

Chan is an experienced owner of this type business and will maintain adequate and appropriate facilities for the proper operation of the use.

Uh, with that said, I'll pause and take any questions that members may have.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, I have a few questions.

Um, back in 22 when this building was first proposed.

Um, it seems like there were concerns, first of all, about how it got passed, but one one of the stipulations was that there would be no liquor sold at this address.

Um, and so I'm just wondering a little bit of the history of this property, um, and a little bit about what why back then there was that concession made about no liquor being sold at this address, and then second, there are concerns about loading zone and trash, and if you can address those as well.

Thank you.

Certainly.

Uh, I actually, and to be honest, I have no recollection of a conversation at the time when 191 Main Street was proposed of a liquor store use on the ground floor.

I don't recollect that, and again, I I don't remember why that would have come up because as I said, my client at that time and still does own a liquor store at Thompson Square, which is very close, so I don't know why there would be any concern that he would be opening a liquor here.

I don't remember that.

I I am aware that there are no provisos uh on the ZBA decision.

Um if I had any recollection, I would certainly let the board know, but I don't.

Uh and in terms of um uh trash and deliveries, uh, like any uh neighborhood business on on Main Street or or anywhere in the city, uh, and like the current liquor store at Thompson Square, which is actually three times the the physical size of this uh particular location, uh deliveries uh in and trash would be handled on on Main Street, uh, like again, like any other business.

Thank you.

So just to be clear though, uh there's no point where where there would suddenly be two liquor stores.

No, because uh uh to be uh clear, the um uh my client has one retail package store license, uh, and that has to go through the Boston Licensing Board uh for transfer to 191 Main Street, and as I said, the uh the Thompson Square location, that is a much larger location now.

The new liquor store there is is about 3,000 square feet as opposed to about 1,000 square square feet here.

So this is a bit of a stopgap measure.

Uh this license will would be going back.

My client is not applying for a second license here.

It's the same license.

Any other questions from the board?

May have public testimony.

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

This petitioner completed the community process.

Our office hosted Anna Butters meeting on April 15th of 2025, at which Anna Butter was concerned about the representation of the proposal as temporary and requested the applicant agree to a sunset provision to ensure the store does move back to its original location as they represented.

Another abutter raised concerns about a buildup of trash and mattresses behind the property, which the applicant stated would be addressed shortly after the abutters meeting.

The applicant did meet with the Charlestown neighborhood council, which determined at its May 5th meeting to take no position on this change in use.

Our office received two letters of opposition, which have been forwarded to the board with that background ONS defer his judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Well, Madam Chair, we don't we don't have any real comments.

Okay, and Madam Chair, I'm sorry, just to address once again Ms.

Turner's questions.

I actually went back while uh Siggy was uh testifying to my saved notes from uh my presentation to the board back in 2022.

Uh I made no mention of of the liquor store in my main presentation.

Um, and uh I don't know if there was testimony, but there was nothing in my presentation about no liquor store going into 191 Main Street, and as I say, there was no proviso on the decision.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um, I just want to bring up some of the concerns of the abutters.

No, I understood, and and that that was the first that I heard that there may have been a representation made at that time, so I just wanted to double check.

Thank you.

And certainly a proviso could be added to ensure that uh only one of those locations uh has a liquor store moving forward.

So uh with that uh may I have a motion.

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

I'll second that, and yeah, I'm not sure we could earn another properties kind of liquor license or kind of properties separately, so I would not do the property that Mr.

Stunbridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Yes, Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

We will.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next we have KOA.

1857 27.

With the address of 769 Columbia Road.

If the applicants do the representative present.

Thank you.

Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board.

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

Here in behalf of the applicant, the 15th Fenton Street LLC and Fernando Delfiore, who is the owner of 769 Columbia Road.

This is a straightforward proposal.

The description is to renovate, completely gut renovate uh the interior of the building.

And right now, this building is an existing large three family uh double wide uh three unit building uh in Dorchester.

Uh the proposal is to add a small rear addition to each unit, and then change the uh occupants.

If you could just remain on this uh slide, please.

But yeah, that's fine for now, thank you.

Um, to uh change the occupancy from three units to six condominium units, and also add living space in the basement.

Um, besides the small rear addition, all of the existing structure uh would remain, and all of the work uh would be within the interior of the building, and this uh gives us the ability to create some additional units.

Uh, there's also, if you go to the next slide, please, Mr.

Ambassador, thank you.

Um there's also an existing curb cut, 12 foot curb cut on the property that leads to a very dated uh uh garage structure in the back.

Uh, we would uh also propose to remove that uh existing garage that only houses one spot, uh, and that would create three rare parking spaces uh as well.

Uh this uh slide uh is is actually uh helpful slide.

It just shows sort of uh the building layouts along Columbia Road, and you can see, and that is why uh we we got the uh uh recommendation of approval from the BPD.

Uh and their recommendation is the if you look at the streetscape, you can see many of the buildings in this area uh go back in the rear of the property farther in the the rear than our building.

And so um what we're proposing in that three-story rear edition, it's just 228 square feet in the back of each unit for a total of 684 square feet uh of the rear edition.

Uh the lot size is 5,310 square feet, and you can see it.

Uh we have a very large uh front yard area with green space that will remain, and we'd put a new landscape plan together as well.

Um the uh uh composition uh of this area is mixed.

If we could go to the next slide, please.

You can just see in this slide that I provided there's condominium uh units and rental buildings multifamily up and down this corridor, many of which are similar, utilizing the large basements and also utilizing of converting from three units to six units as a number of six unit buildings within the immediate area that have been conduized as well.

Um if you go to the next slide, please, Mr.

These are existing three bedroom uh one bath units.

Uh what we would be creating is utilizing uh additional uh space in the basement, and that would have seven foot six inch ceiling height minimum.

Uh the unit one and two would be three bedroom, two bath proposed at a thousand one hundred and fifteen square feet and a thousand one hundred and thirty square feet.

So we'd be making those family-sized units.

Uh units three, uh four, five, and six would all become two-bedroom, uh one bath unit.

Um, even with uh the uh the addition of the uh the small rear addition, our FAR would still be under uh the allowable FAR for this area, which is 1.3.

We would be at 1.11.

Our height would still remain um and be allowable under the code.

Uh the areas we would be seeking variances for is additional lot area.

We would be about 700 square feet under uh open space would change slightly in the formula, so we would need a variance for open space and then off-street parking as well, although we're creating more parking, and uh we are in a great spot for public uh transit.

Uh we were 500 feet from Dorchester Ave, which has multiple MBTA bus routes on it, and we're also approximately 500 feet from the JFK UMass MBTA station, which houses the red line, which makes this great for those folks uh that would be uh commuting as well.

With uh that we can I can pause and answer any questions that the the board may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yeah, public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the program.

My name is Jerry B.

Bembery, and the Roxbury Community Engaged Specialist Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutter's meeting facilitated on April 23rd, where concerns were raised regarding the size and proximity of the proposed building to the adjacent property at 771 Columbia Road, which with a butters expressing concerns about private overall scale of the proposal.

Residents also voice concerns about construction related noises and the potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood throughout the duration of the project, but is also expressed a lack of confidence in the current property owners' ability to responsibly manage the property.

A butter's noted that the property has approximately 27 recorded valley, that this reflects a long-standing pattern of poor maintenance and inadequate property management.

But it's further described persistent issues, including excessive trash, fire safety concerns, and the significant road infestation is expressing concern that these existing conditions have not been adequately redressed.

Several residents said that the proposed development would improve conditions given the property's current state.

Thank you for your time, and the mayor's opposite neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the ingredients.

Due to uh show concerns expressed through our office that how LA previously from both uh neighbors of project and the local civic association are officers like on record in opposition to the this proposal.

Thank you.

Um we don't have additional comments.

If I may receive yes, please so there was a prior property manager.

First, my client was unaware of the of the tickets, they were not being sent uh, they were trash tickets.

Uh and uh the moment they found out about it, they actually removed the prior property manager.

They hired a new property manager.

Um they also have an exterminator that has come by the property.

There is no uh rodent issue directly caused from this building.

There seems to be a rodent issue in the general area, but uh he also hired the company.

The exterminator has been a baiting just as a precaution as well.

Um, as part of this proposal, we were our we are converting these to condominiums.

Um so this will be if I know there was just concern about uh the folks had to ask, you know, could we update the property?

And that is part of the um is the as the general plan as well.

This will be uh completely changed uh to a new building as well.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Memory, are you do you want to add comment?

I yes, ma'am.

I uh failed to add that the proposal was also seen by the Columbia Savanhoe.

Uh the received overwhelming opposition uh at that time.

So if I if I may also point out the uh Columbia uh Savin Hill Group has a zoning subcommittee that we first presented to the recommendation of the subcommittee was for approval based on the zoning variances needed being minimal and the project being reasonable, it then did get denied by the full group.

Um but uh again and and based on uh the variances we're asking for, which are minor, it's uh uh it's very commonplace to have this kind of a building up and down the corridor.

And I know it was mentioned that some folks said the development was excessive.

Um this is a minimal uh addition in the back to 284 square feet.

Uh it also keeps family units and adds some additional space, and as the BPD mentioned, all of this uh we we maintained the building, and there is a uh strong recommendation on the architectural integrity of this area.

Uh it was mentioned, I know in their proviso of uh uh if approved of a proviso uh for BPD design review would be kept on because this is uh historical area because of the uh design of the buildings up and down the corridor, but we are keeping right in line with the other buildings in this area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the board?

Um I only have concerns with uh a little bit of lack of open space uh given that you're increasing the occupancy, and you have a very tight driveway of eight close to nine feet, eight foot ten, and I'm concerned with the maneuverability of a car getting into parking three.

Um so if this project moves forward, we should we should ask BPD to review uh the amount of parking uh and to ensure safety maneuverability for the for the cars and for people.

Understood.

We are removing the garage, Miss Beta Baraza.

So um we we do open up that area, but uh we you know obviously it's uh it's sure it's asphalt, right?

It's all for parking.

It it would and it is now as well.

Um uh mostly back there.

So but yes, we would be happy to uh change the parking scheme in the rear um as suggested.

We just wanted to try to get uh additional parking spaces in for the community.

And you're open to reducing it to two parking space if the BPD determines that it's it's a safe to issue in regards to my meeting.

Absolutely.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I don't have any further comments.

Thank you.

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with BPD design review on the amount of parking and balance with open space, and to also review um the exterior to comply with mid characteristics of the neighborhood.

Second, Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah, Mr.

Langham.

Yes, Ms.

Bedabraza, yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Um, yes, but I would encourage the applicant to really reach out to the neighbors and make it clear um that their concerns will be addressed.

Thank you.

Understood, and we will do that.

Thank you.

Yes.

The motion carries the motion.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have K B08 1834 79 with the address of 128 G Street.

If the applicant is whether it represented our present, please work.

Anthony, I think you can yep.

You guys hear me all right?

Yes, we can.

All right.

I would throw my camera on here.

I don't know.

Um, where I have the ability to do that.

And would you guys mind unmuting my dad as well?

We're we're co-owners in this property, so um, I'd appreciate it if you guys could find him in the so can you let Azus know his name?

Bob Reynolds.

Okay.

Are you ready to proceed?

Yes.

Yep.

Okay, please do.

Um, okay.

So I had some slides here, but we can work off of this that uh my architect had provided it.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is AJ Ronaldi.

Um, as I mentioned, I'm the owner of 128 G Street with my father.

Um and our ask today is to approve a basement unit um that is fully furnished right now.

Um it would put us from a two-unit house to a three-unit house.

Um as I mentioned, the unit as it stands right now, as we had bought the house, is fully furnished with a bathroom, kitchen, um, and a place where you could put a bed as well, so it would be identified as a studio unit.

Um on top of that, we would be adding the necessary utilities as well.

So that would be its own electric meter and um uh water heater as well.

Um as well as that I did go through the process and I worked with SIGI um to get approval from the necessary communities, uh Gate of Heaven community and Dorchester Heights, where I went in person and met with these these groups, presented these plans, and I received um nothing but positive feedback from them as well as that.

I did do an abutters meeting on April 7th, where um we received um support from them as well.

So no opposition up to this point.

Hopefully, we're we're able to gain your guys' support.

And like to point out to you, my father and I were not we're not developers, nor are we architects.

So if I'm missing anything in this process, um, please, you know, I'm happy to answer any questions, but please point it out and we'll we'll uh you know get everything cleared up.

So it's really how all I have for today, Dad.

I don't know if you are just gonna yeah, I was just gonna add a couple of things if I could to what AJ said.

So uh as the records indicate, this this property that the previous previous owners had owned for quite some time, had been recognized, I think, from the tax from a tax record standpoint for uh a three family for 2025 plus years.

I'm not sure if that's consequential in any way, but it has been recorded again tax-wise as a three-family uh three-family property.

Maybe the other thing that AJ and I could should call it's really more AJ than me.

He lives up the street at 62 G Street, so he's he's not an investor, but he's really a member of the G Street community as a young 26-year-old person, you know, really wanting to make the best out of the neighborhood and improve it in any way that he can.

So we yeah, and maybe just the last thing in closing.

We're just it it's it could probably go without being said, but the approval from you all to get this third unit um approved would allow us not just as property owners, but for people that are seeming to badly need a place to live in South Boston, we would have the ability obviously to provide that to them, which we think we like to think is you know, sort of a win-win.

Good good for us as property owners, but also good for the city of Boston to have a fully ready unit that someone could move into, you know, tomorrow or whenever you would provide such approval to us, and that I think is all we have to say.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Uh so this is moving forward.

You like to convert from a two-family to a three-family?

Correct.

Yes.

So as a three-family, and you're adding sprinkler systems.

Well, we don't we don't we come to this call not knowing whether or not that needs to be done.

So the answer is we we don't know.

Okay.

Um what's the ceiling height in the basement?

Is it called out, AJ, on the on the diamond?

No, I'm trying to see.

I can pull up our permit set too.

Um when we had the architect through there, there wasn't any indication that that he thought there was gonna be any issue with ceiling height.

Uh I uh as any basement, it it differs in certain areas.

Um, but it's it's it seemed like it was maybe uh eight and a half feet of ceiling height.

I don't want to I don't want to put a number out there that I can't stand by, but it wasn't uh it wasn't a drastically low ceiling height.

Yeah, AJ.

Um sorry, Madam Chairman members or this is Eric Zackerson, the architect.

Um I happen to be on but couldn't find my mute button.

Um, yes, the ceiling height is uh varies quite a bit, but it it's at least eight feet in places.

And Eric going you answer the question because when you're going to a three-family, you have to have a minimum of seven foot six.

So thanks for that.

What about um going to three family and adding sprinkler?

We uh we understand that we will add a minimum be uh sprinkling the new unit and the sprinkler equipment um and are not asking for any uh fire code or building code or at least okay, great.

Thanks, Eric.

Glad you were on.

Thank you.

That may have public testimony, madam chair and board members with the office of neighborhood services.

This petitioner completed the community process.

Our office hosted an abutters meeting on April 7th, at which no concerns were raised.

The applicants met with Gate of Heaven and Dorchester Heights neighborhood associations, and we're not aware of any concerns from either group with that background.

ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Consul, please.

Thank you.

My name is Ashley from Council Flynn's office.

Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and positive feedback at the meeting with the Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association.

He respectfully request the proponent continue to work closely with the community on any quality of life issues.

Thank you.

Next, we have a consular murphy.

Thank you.

Um wanted to go on record in support of this project.

Followed the community process and happy to see that.

And also just want to go on record to um thank my staff is on a well-deserved summer vacation.

So thank you for bearing with me on this.

Now I know how hard our staff works on these Tuesdays, so thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, may I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval.

There's a second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Benabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Is we low?

Yes.

Chair Motz.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 183.

5485 with the address of 63 Telegraph Street.

If the applicant and the representative of the present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

I'm Nick Landry from DRT.

We're the architects on the project.

The owner of Mike Michael Norton wasn't a it isn't able to join the call today.

So I'll be running for the dissertation.

So we're we're here today for 63 Telegraph Street, which is the white building shown here in a rendering.

It's located toward the top of Telegraph Street near Dorchester Heights.

We go to the next page.

So the um if you want to, I don't know if you can zoom into the zoning code refusal letter, but so the first violation we have is off street parking.

We have an existing two-family building here.

We're we're going to be keeping it as a two-family.

We're just doing a small addition off the rear of the building, so the use doesn't change.

So the existing two family has no parking in the in the new project at the end, we'll have no parking.

There's a roof structure restriction because we are changing the profile of the roof line and extending the third floor back about four and a half feet.

There's a side yard violation.

We're because again, because we're extending the rear of the building, we're just continuing the the profile of the existing footprint, which creates a side yard violation on the left-hand side of the building.

And there's a rear yard violation here.

Um I think we have a shallow lot, so I think that violation may be an error.

Um we're keeping the existing footprint of the building and the deck.

We're staying within the existing footprint of the um building and the deck.

So the the left-hand side here, we have an existing uh the existing survey.

You can see there's so there's a um there's a deck in the rear and a stair in the rear, and then there's a second story uh bump out in the rear, and the third floor kind of steps back.

What we're proposing to do is just rework the existing stair.

It doesn't connect all the way up to the top floor.

So we're gonna be removing the stair, running that all the way up to the top floor, and then installing two new decks, but we'll sit we're not getting any closer to the property line and the existing deck.

Um you go to the next sheet, please.

So the as I mentioned, it's it's an existing two family.

The jerk drawings on the top show one unit on the first floor and then a second unit on the second and third floor.

The unit on the first floor will say unchanged the basement is unfinished, and mechanical space down there.

Um the second and third floor unit will change.

We're gonna be in filling the uh back right portion of of the second floor.

You can see on the on the upper plan, there's a stair coming down.

We're gonna rework that stair so we can square off the back of the building, which is causing that side yard uh violation, and then on the top floor, we're gonna be pushing that the rear wall back about four and a half feet and creating uh an exterior walkout um deck, which would which will access that second address stair.

Go to the next page, please.

So again, there's this is uh the existing view of of a building on the left-hand side, so you have that first floor unit, uh then the second, third floor is the second unit.

We're gonna be changing the roof to a man start and adding some dormers and and resigning the entire house.

See that on the right hand side.

We're gonna go to the next sheet, please.

I'll go through these elevations quickly.

I think this is a good one where you can really see the the dashed line on the left-hand side, that's the proposed elevation.

You can see we're extending that top floor about like I said, four and a half feet, and there'll be a walkout deck that'll connect to that new egress there, and where you see the two windows on the east elevation, uh the existing elevation, we're gonna be boxing that area in, and there won't be any windows on that side because we are so close to the property line.

But I think if we want to flip through the next few slides, do you want to go to so again on elevation?

We are going to be raising the roof height, but we're still about four feet below what's allowed.

Go to the next slide.

Again, this isn't this is a view from the um west side of the left side of the house.

You can see that extension on the third floor.

If we go to the next slide, you can kind of see so here.

We can see the back, so you can see there's that the third floor uh deck with that with their egress stair that we'll be playing, connecting all the levels down.

Go to the next slide, please.

I think this is the last one that's relevant for today.

You can kind of see that's so that's the finished product.

We have a uh third floor extension, the new man started the dormers, uh, and some decks on the rear over the new EVS start connecting us, the brown level.

And that's all.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

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

This petitioner completed the community process.

Our office hosted N abutters meeting on May 12th, at which abutters were supportive.

The applicant met with the Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association where the proposal was well received with that background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Nick's becomes approved.

This is Sydney from Councillor Flynn's office.

Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and positive feedback at the meeting with the Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association.

Do you respectfully request that the proponent continue to work with the community on any quality of life issues?

Thank you.

Thank you.

We don't have additional comments.

Okay.

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Lionel.

Yes.

That a process?

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Lee Well.

Yes.

Chair votes.

Yes.

The motion carries go up.

Thank you.

And here we have at the 1130 um.

So I will ask if there is a request.

There's any request for a withdrawal or deferral from the 1130 a.m.

time.

Hearing done.

That takes us to case BOA 185, 79, 36, with the address of 1513.

And I need to recuse myself for this one.

This is the last time today, things.

Okay, thank you.

So for this case, we are now a five-member board.

This is also an article 80 case.

And we'll ask if if the applicant is really representative or present to play.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Jacob Taylor here from Klein Hornig.

I represent uh Tenants Development Corporation.

Uh Klein Horning's business address is 101 Arch Street.

Um, and uh we represent Tenants Development Corporation with respect to the 151 Lenox Street project.

Uh Tenants Development Corporation is a local nonprofit developer and owner with a 50-plus year history of providing affordable housing in both the Roxbury and South End neighborhoods.

Uh and the 151 Lenox Street project represents an opportunity to turn a vacant city-owned parcel into 38 units of affordable housing for local seniors.

Uh the project's on a corner lot at the intersection of Tremont and Lenox Streets, uh, and it's located in the multifamily residential and local services subdistrict within the Roxbury neighborhood district.

It's also in the uh coastal flood resilience overlay and the Bulgar Planning District.

Uh the surrounding area contains a mix of commercial and residential uses, uh location is close to the retail and commercial hub at Mass Ave and Tremont.

We're before the ZBA today seeking uh dimensional relief under Article 50, section 29 with respect to additional lot area per dwelling unit, floor area ratio, building height, usable open space, and front side and rear yards.

As I mentioned, this building is on a corner law.

Um we're also seeking uh relief under Article 50, Section 43 for off-street parking and loading.

Um we are in the G card, so we need a permit there, uh, and we need relief with respect to screening and buffering and traffic visibility across the corner.

The applicant has incorporated community feedback into the design and presented the project to neighbors at three communities meetings, all of which were well attended.

Uh it's received overwhelming support, uh and we're submitting over 30 letters from neighbors and members of the community in support of the project.

Uh the project triggered small project review that's been completed by the BPDA in December of last year.

Um, and we have submitted the engineer certification and the Boston Water and Sewer letter for the G COD approval.

Um I'll turn it over now to our project architect, Laura Chella Moet from Davis Square Architects, and she's going to provide more information regarding the program and the design of the project.

Thank you, Jacob.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Laura Cholamoet.

I'm a principal at Davis Square Architects, and we are the architects for 151 Lennox Street.

Um Jacob described the context a little bit, but I wanted to show the proposed building in context right here at the corner of Tremont and Lenox Streets.

The parcel is 4,700 square feet.

And with the project, we're proposing sidewalk improvements for the for the site.

The proposed building will total just over uh 30,000 gross square feet and will be seven stories, which allows us to fit 38 affordable apartments for seniors and the support programs that that are needed on site.

I'll quickly run through the plans and elevations.

This is the ground floor where we have uh the main entry and support spaces, including a community room, office, package room, laundry, and bike room.

There are two units on the first floor, two sets of stairs and two elevators to get you up to the upper floors, each of which have six units and a mix of one bedrooms and studios.

So the total is 38 units with 32 one bedrooms and six studios.

In addition to the units themselves, the project will offer enhanced accessibility, which will promote aging in place by local seniors and the support services needed for them.

The building is proposed to be seven stories.

We worked closely with the city, and as Jacob said, had many community meetings to achieve the two important goals of providing affordable rental housing for seniors within a building that is contextual to the environment.

So here's the view, the east elevation and the view on Lenox Street, and then I'll just flip back to the view on Tremont Street and the north side.

Um I'll hand it over to the board to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

Public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the book for the record, my name is Jarvee Bevery.

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

At this time of office will defer to the board for its judgment.

The proponent has completed the BPDA community engagement process with included a public meeting held on September 29th, 2025.

The proposal will seek 34 letters of support, including two from elected officials, Senator Mirando, Representative Moran, and Councillor Call Peppers, excuse me, three from elected officials, including Costello Copper.

And was approved by the board on December 11, 2025.

The project proposes 38 units of 100% affordability for senior housing, providing opportunities for aging residents to remain in the city and continue to vital to be a part of vital part of the neighborhood.

There is no civic association within the project area, and at this time our office has received one letter of opposition from the legal representative of the abundant neighbor.

The letter of opposition states that the proposed seven-story 84-foot building is significantly larger than the surrounding neighborhood, exceeds the zoning code's district's height limits, and is incompatible with the area's existing scaling character.

The abutter also objects to the building's location along the shared property line, assigning concerns regarding this lack of setback, loss of natural light, increased shadow impacts, reduced property value, and potential safety issues resolved from the height difference between the buildings.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, we have a Christine Simonelli.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Seminoli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G-Card letters from the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nick.

Next, we have the call.

Okay.

So I was I'm on here for a different project on 46 M Street.

My apologies.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

From the public, we have a Grover Moran.

Grover, if you can use so.

Good morning, board.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Uh my name is Robert Moran.

I'm an attorney at Gilman McLaughlin and Hanrahan.

My office is at 101 Merrimack Street in Boston.

And I represent 888 Tremont Street LLC, the the abutter in Frank Williams, the principal of the abutter.

Basically, this project is the applicant is trying to put an enormous project, enormous building, on a tiny lot.

The lot is 4,079 square feet.

Or a 38 unit building in this district, you would need about 38,000 square feet.

That's that's not that's talking about an enormous difference.

This lot is tiny, and there are there's almost no dimensional requirements that the project complies with.

Each additional unit that would require, as I said, uh somewhere around 38 38,000 square square foot lot.

So can you can you keep it tight and get to your point?

We we can tell your opposed.

So the point is the the project is very large, and it's not compatible with the district, and the applicant hasn't met the requirements for a variant.

There are no special circumstances.

This is just a tiny lot.

There are plenty of tiny lots in the area.

792 794 Tremont Street, just down the road.

It has all the aspects that the applicant complains about.

It is on the corner of a couple streets, and it's a small lot in it, it's attached to another building.

So there's not so there's no special circumstances.

Two, this isn't the minimum relief.

The reasonable use of the site could put a much smaller building here.

This is an unreasonable use of the site, and it affects the neighborhood, and the building is is enormous, and it and the applicant has tried to downplay the size of it by comparing it with the smokestacks of the of adjacent buildings, the church steeple, but we're talking about 84 feet.

45 is allowed in this.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have a Jason Farin.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Jason Farrell, and I'm a project assistant at the planning department.

I'm here on behalf of Himil Plata Capasta, the project manager of the planning department for the 151 Lennox Street Article ADE small project.

The project filed their small project review application with us on September 8th, 2025.

A virtual public meeting was held on September 29th, 2025, which was well attended.

The project was approved by the BPDA board on December 11th, 2025.

The planning department is in support of the project moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Mark Delassi.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Michael Azio.

I'm a business representative for the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carboners, and we just want to go on record as being in support of this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we'll have a mission of the companies.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Does the applicant want to address concerns that were raised?

I'll just note that the applicant has worked closely with the abutters.

We understand they have some concerns around the scale of the project, but they they did work with them and incorporate some feedback into the design, trying to try trying to space out their building from uh from the abundant building as best they could while still providing a significant number of units of senior board prices.

Thank you.

May I have a motion?

All of the flu approved.

There's a second.

Second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Lionel.

No.

Is that a braza?

Yes.

We will.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion does not carry.

Is there a different motion?

Chair, I'm wondering if the appropriate next step is to defer, given that a member had to recuse herself and maybe one members.

You can feel free to make that motion.

All right, motion to defer.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Benavraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yes.

Care votes yes.

The motion carries.

Is there August 25th or September 8th?

Mr.

Taylor.

Sorry, it was August 25th, you said?

Yes.

Or September 8th.

Yeah, I think we would prefer the earlier meeting, so August 25th.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll see you then.

All right.

Thank you.

The next case has been deferred.

And we do have an interpretation case coming up at any time.

They'll wait.

We'll show it.

We'll see.

Okay.

I mean, we should just hear the next case and then we'll take the interpretation.

Okay.

Is there anything?

Yeah.

With that, then we will go to case BOA.

183 7040 with the address of three Bruce Street.

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

Good morning.

Almost afternoon, uh, members of the board.

Madam Chair, this is Mike Ross, attorney of the law from Prince Lell.

I'm here on behalf of the appellants, Brian Jason Chavez, Dorchester residents who are seeking to add basement living space to an existing non-conforming two-family home located at 3 Brew Street in the Dorchester neighborhood zoning district in a 1F5000 subdistrict.

The project was originally approved by this board in May of 2024 and then later amended through the board of final arbiter.

The appellant pulled a building permit earlier this year and began construction of the project.

During construction, it occurred to the team that the vast basement area, which is not very submerged, would be a good candidate to convert the ground floor one bedroom unit into a family-sized four-bedroom duplex.

And so that's what the team pursued through the community process and now is back here in front of the board.

We're here on one single violation, FAR as it relates to the additional living space in the basement.

And you can see that's perfect.

Thank you, Mr.

Ambassador.

Slide seven.

Yeah, that's right.

So what you see here is the conversion of basement from storage to living space.

The net increase is 1290 square feet, resulting in an FAR 0.67 or 0.5 is allowed.

Here the basement floor is being lowered an additional 12 inches, which will result in a nine-foot ceiling height.

New full-sized windows will be installed in the basement, and then the internal stairwell leads to the upper floor of the duplex, which you'll see on the next slide.

This is showing the before and after.

The right is what we're proposing, uh showing the first floor of the plan now connected to that lower level of the duplex, which will result in this four-bedroom unit, which will be 2,588 square feet from what was I mentioned, a previous one bedroom that was 1290 square feet.

If you go to slides 9 and 10, uh it shows the upper second unit, uh, which is just slightly reconfigured, uh, which uh is an existing will be a five-bedroom unit.

And it will remain a five-bedroom unit.

Um slide 11, which is called Z6.0.

Uh actually you were just on it, uh, Mr.

Brasser.

Uh one back, please.

Uh these axons there, small changes to the existing external stair of the building, uh as well as an open air patio that's coming off the side of the building.

You can see right there.

Next slide, please.

Here on the south and east elevations, you can see minor changes to window fenestration throughout the building, as well as that full-size basement window at the basement level.

The next slide shows you the uh north and west elevations, and you'll see the uh the basement's a walkout basement, it's not deep into the ground, and uh the additional full-size windows that will be created, as well as other minor fenestration of the windows.

Also, the board should have received a notice unanimous support from the St.

Mark's Barrio Civic Association, and with that I'll pause if there are any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Hearing none of public testimony.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board.

My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services.

Regarding three boots street, our office defers to the board's judgment.

A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 5116.

That was well attended by the Dorchester community.

One attendee expressed support for the proposal's bedroom count, noting that the inclusion of family-sized units was preferable to a greater number of smaller units.

Uh the proposal was also reviewed by the St.

Mark's Area Civic Association at their meeting on 526-26 and have expressed support at this time.

Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

I um thank you.

I just wanted to go on record in full support.

I live in the neighborhood and have been driving by the renovation, and it looks beautiful and happy to hear that they're taking this opportunity to extend and expand living space in the neighborhood.

So want to go on record in full support.

Thank you.

We don't have additional comments.

There is a second back in Mr.

Stambridge.

Uh yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Barbara.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Muell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Have a great day.

So at this point, we will go to the interpretations case because we'll never talk.

And this would be case BOA 185.

240.

With the address of 142 Hollywood Street.

If the applicants and the other representative will be present.

They could case the war.

Michael.

The person who was just I am here.

Are you here for 142 hours in the street?

Yes, I am.

Okay.

Please state your name address for the record and proceed.

It's Michael Kim registered architect.

It's Michael Kim registered architect address of one Holden Street, Brookline Mass.

Okay, please let us know what your presenting.

Okay, we have we have a rejection from ISD on three points.

And we feel the three points are inaccurate.

As uh stated in my um in my appeal and uh letter uh or memo, um uh the first violation cited is off-street parking insufficient.

Uh this uh this permit is simply to make the um uh make a former uh now uh um abandoned uh illegal park basement apartment uh a living space for the owner of the building.

Uh it is essentially a man cave.

Um therefore there is no change of use and the parking on the site has a two-car garage.

Um there is a requirement in the two R5000 zone for 1.8 spaces in the property, the garage suffices.

So we don't we believe the parking is sufficient, and with this permit, uh there's no change to the parking.

Um the second is uh related.

Uh they say the use is forbidden.

Uh it is currently a two-family house.

The basement space is finished but abandoned.

Uh this simply uh changes it to uh usable space.

Uh it's still a two-family.

Uh so uh a two-family isn't allowed use, so how the use is forbidden, um we don't quite understand.

And then uh finally, uh usable open space and sufficient.

We had the site uh uh we plotted uh or a new uh plot time uh set out, we measured the outside uh growth square footage of the site, we've stamped it there as sufficient uh open space.

So we feel that these three um uh uh violations are in fact uh not correct.

Okay.

Is uh Mr.

Joseph, Commissioner Joseph, or someone else available from ISD to speak.

He's on in some person elevate him.

Is this can you elevate Mark Joseph?

Is someone able to elevate Mark Joseph so they can speak?

Yes, can you hear me?

Now we can, sir.

Uh thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone's here.

Uh I just heard partially what uh uh the applicant said, and check with the violations.

He's not changing from a two-family to a three or something else.

Uh technically, if he has the space, he can't increase or enlarge the size of any of the units.

That shouldn't be a violation.

The use is not forbidden because two family is two family.

The only thing that could have been triggered here is uh, but is not there, it's FER, but that has not been triggered.

And for the parking space, I I agree with uh the advocate that uh off-street parking should have been triggered, so is open space.

If the open space 800 square feet per dwelling unit he has more than 1600 square feet, that that means that those violations, if I had to ride them today, I would have ridden them.

So can you confirm?

So my understanding, our understanding is that uh ISD inspected the property and noted that the space was a separate unit with separate, you know, kitchen and all that.

Is that what we're here to discuss, correct?

No, that is not what we're here to discuss.

ISD two years ago didn't inspect it, and there was in fact an illegal unit done 25 years ago by the previous owner.

That is not in dispute.

Uh immediately the owner uh uh kicked the tenant out and uh uh dismantled the kitchen.

So it is no longer and has not been an illegal unit uh for the last year and a half.

Uh so we are not here to discuss that.

We're simply here to discuss the three points that are keeping them from using the space to invite their friends over to watch the World Cup.

So that means that, sir.

Um, if I had an ask a question about this, that means you combine the two spaces, the the first floor and the basement together.

Uh yeah, or we are that the owner's unit is in fact on the second floor, but he wants to use this, there's adequate e-grass, there's nothing perfectly uh uh conforming to both zoning uh uh sanitary and building code.

Um it's it's just space that they can use.

Um the three articles cited as violations of the zoning code uh are not correct.

So uh about the space itself.

What is the use of that space?

Where can that space be classified as the which is a it is a family room, it's a man cave.

Well, I don't think it has no kitchen, it it is not a unit.

Sorry?

Uh it it it it will be for the second floor unit.

So the two spaces are not contiguous.

There is no requirement for that in any code.

Of course, there is because you cannot jump from one space uh to another space by using a common area.

Uh I disagree with that, and uh well A we had AI search for that, we had my MIT assistant search for that, and it's simply there's no requirement for that.

Well, the the two spaces must be contiguous, sir.

So if that contents to the same unit, uh sir, if you would cite a requirement for that, we'd be happy to comply.

There is no requirement in any code for that.

Well, that means either it's uh dwelling unit or it's a space by itself for the use.

You did not specify the use, uh therefore it might be a forbidden use because the zone is a two-family zone.

So if you have a different use, men cave, it's a use, if that's the way you want to see it, the term forbidden is appropriate for this because there is no use for this.

I I would ask the the board to intercede because I don't believe that to be the case.

Because you still would be able to go forward with the building codes because the contiguity of the spaces matter.

Because I might be contiguous.

I would love to agree to you if you would cite uh the portion of the building, the sanitary or the zone.

Are there bedrooms in this uh space?

No, there were there were a few code violations, those have been removed.

It's just play space.

Are there questions from the board?

Um I do have a question.

Is there a modern or a current floor plan?

Because the floor plan that you showed us, it does show like three bedrooms and a kitchen.

Um I just want to have an understanding of what it looks like now.

Yes, uh that was submitted.

Uh the the plan that was shown on screen was the existing floor plan uh uh before uh before uh the existing floor plan uh as when it was an illegal apartment.

There is a plan accompanying the um the permit uh which has it all as uh family room and and uh study and so forth.

Furthermore, all the doors in the space have been removed, therefore it's one contiguous space.

Okay, so we don't we don't have the current floor plan to look at though.

I don't know why it doesn't since that uh that was submitted in the whole package.

I can put it on screen if you would like.

The ambassador I can pull, but it was um in where I'm looking at it's right after the existing condition.

It's isolated, it doesn't have the second floors.

I I see what Shamia has, which is just the existing and proposed basement plan.

Right, there's no there's no proposed work in uh any of the other floors.

Uh also there's a diagram to show the FAR including in the attic.

Um you submitted suggesting that it's being removed the kitchen net and you're using it as extended living space from the floor.

I think we're missing the first floor to understand how the first floor is connected to that extended use.

So I think I don't have enough information for me to create my interpretation because you and the can and Mr.

Joseph were going back and forth with not really um having common grounds in terms of understanding the whole project.

So I I think the issue.

Let me just let you know.

If you are submitting this, you're then saying that ISD gave you the wrong violation, which ISD gave you a violation for off-street parking requirements.

Um, and you're saying you don't need it because you're extending net use.

So I would recommend that this gets deferred until we have complete drawings and understanding of your proposal.

That is what I'm recommending.

Uh okay, with respect, there's a misunderstanding.

Uh it is not to be uh uh contiguous space, it is as if it was above the garage or something.

I see and it's not and it's not attached to the ground floor, it's attached to the second floor.

But this is not part of the contiguous unit.

There's a unit in between, is that correct?

Correct.

And my argument my argument is there is no written requirement in any code that space be contiguous.

I see.

Can we hear Mr.

Joseph speak?

Because he's trying to.

Yes, please.

Uh now if you see the configuration of the space itself, you'll see uh they remove the term bedrooms, they use guest area, but the same thing.

You have closets here, you have the space itself, and also you have the windows that makes the floor.

This is the case.

No, that's the problem.

That's the no, that's the proposed.

You have a guest room, guest area, you have study.

There's 38 foot 10.

You have the same configuration space.

You have the closets there, you have, and then you have a kitchenette.

Everything's that makes con that makes a bedroom, a dwelling unit, is there.

And also you have a mechanical rooms there inside that unit.

So everything is there, not contiguous.

The print examiner viewed it as a third unit.

That's why the forbidding is there.

That's why all street parking is there, that's why open space is there.

Because if you have to go open space, it tends to be given you 2400 square feet, you don't have that.

If you have to go for the third unit, the the zone is 2F, therefore cannot accommodate it third family.

And also all the violations, you need also one-street parking per dwelling units.

If it's dwelling units, all the violations cited by the plant examiners are legit.

And uh Mr.

Joseph, thank you so much.

I think I have enough information to put forward.

Excuse me.

Um my screen is not showing the proposed plan.

It is okay.

Well, in any case, it sounds to me like the board is ready to make a motion.

So I make one more.

Uh could I make one more point?

If you're adding new information, yes, I guess uh the uh the proposed plan, which I unfortunately I can't see, um, removes the doors to the bedroom and expands the openings to five feet.

Per the sanitary uh code for uh habitation, those do not conform to uh the definition of a bedroom.

Furthermore, the kitchenette does not have an oven nor a refrigerator of uh of 11 cubic feet, therefore, by the state sanitary it does not qualify as a dwelling unit.

This uh this space as it's drawn, it it cannot be defined as dwelling unit because it does not meet the requirement.

So why does it dwelling unit?

Can we please go to page three?

As defined as a unit.

Can someone move us to page three?

As Mr.

Kim is speaking.

Okay, great.

This is the proposed okay.

This is the proposed a kitchen that is allowed as long as it does not meet the requirements of the state sanitary code, which it does not.

Uh the other studies do not have adequate privacy to qualify as bedrooms per the sanitary code.

Therefore, as if this space does not meet those requirements, it cannot be classified as an additional unit.

Therefore, the three zoning violations are known void.

The dwelling unit must have four components.

I disagree.

Exactly as we want before.

And guess what?

Those two rooms are bedrooms.

Okay.

Um, I like to put forward a motion of denial, the denying the interpretation request.

Um would like to make a recommendation if this was to move forward, it has to be put forward as an appeal to the building to the Massachusetts Building Code Commission.

There, a second.

Mr.

Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Yes.

Turner.

Yes.

We will.

Yeah, that's where I heard it sounds like a dwelling unit is contained and can't be split or sort of sandwiched between board.

So I I uphold the commissioner's decision.

So yeah.

Let's take the fifteen minute break.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Langham.

Here.

Miss Turner.

Miss Lou.

Is Miss Turner back?

Well, you can start reading, but won't be a five member board until uh Miss Turner returns.

Okay, that's yeah.

So we will return to the eleven of block cases.

Yes.

Good morning, uh Secretary can hear me already.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair members of board squilty attorney representing the applicant, the business address of twenty-eight State Street.

Um, my client, Mr.

Latif seeks to open and operate his uh kebab style uh restaurant in this location, which is housed a similar takeout food operation for many many years.

But there is a proviso from the existing use of a previous use rather, which limited the relief to this petitioner only.

We seek simply to uh remove that proviso so that Mr.

Latif can operate his business on site.

Um he is um a well uh known and respected restaurant operator.

We did meet with the local neighborhood organization, the Mount Hope Canterbury Street Neighborhood Association on March 14th.

They were fully supportive of our application.

Uh we were not uh required by ONS to host an abutters meeting given the uh support of the local neighborhood organization.

Um we are happy to take any of your questions, Mr.

Latif and his um partner, Mr.

Azim.

I hope are both on board.

Uh I can't see them, but okay.

Any questions from the board?

Hearing none, may have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record.

My name is Jared B.

Bembery.

I am the Brosdale Community Engagement Specialist, the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant was not required to complete a full community process.

If opponent did present to the Mount Hope Canterbury Neighborhood Association have received one letter of support from the Mount Holyok Canterbury Neighborhood Association supporting the full operation of the ground.

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

Would like to defer to the board for the judgment.

Thank you.

Next we have the Martinelli.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we do have additional comments.

Okay, we that may have a motion.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Mr.

Stanbridge.

Yeah.

Mr.

Langham.

Yes.

Ms.

Badabraza.

Yes.

Ms.

Turner.

Yes.

Ms.

Wewell.

Yeah.

Chair votes yes.

Motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Next we go to case BOA 183.

9907.

The address of 81819 to 1829 Center Street.

If the applicant is a representative or the representative president, would they please fly?

Hi, yes, I am here.

Can you state your name and address from the record and let us know what you're applying for?

Hi, my name is Alisa Subot, and I am owner of Super Putin Space at uh 1819 Center Street in West Roxbury.

We are requesting uh approval to add a cosmetic permanent makeup service to our existing license beauty salon.

This service included eyebrow lips and eyeliner.

They are uh cosmetic procedure preferred by appointment only.

Uh in a clean quiet professional.

We are not uh opening uh a tattoo shop.

We are not changing the building and we um explaining the uh business.

Uh our uh noise uh or traffic.

We were uh grateful uh to uh receive the support of the West Roxbury neighborhood uh council and uh landlord and local community.

We are respectful, ask for uh your approval.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

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

This petitioner completed the community process.

Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius, which solicited no comments to our office.

West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application with that background ONS defers judgment to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have the Natasha uh Natasha is my it's my friend who uh can help me for translator, but uh I see Nica.

Ah, yes, good afternoon, the board.

Okay.

Great.

So if with that I am also a client, so as a public uh for the public hearing, if you'd like to hear my corner, let me know.

If you want to state uh support our opposition, please feel free.

Okay.

Sandbridge Yeah Mr.

Langham Yes Bedabraza Yes Ms.

Turner yes is we well yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck ma'am thank you so much for the days with that we move on to rediscussion schedule for 1130 a.m and with that we have case boa 180 59 13 with the address of 42 East Street the applicants and though the representative were present with their choice by the case of the board good afternoon my name is Bonnie Tian with JCBT architect we have presented this uh case in back in August 2023 with the ZBA approval of six of the violation and somehow my clients file for a building permit and realize there were three missing violations on this matter including Article 65 section eight use regulation section nine additional law area per dwelling unit section 9.2 location or main entrance uh we submitted back in October for BPDA approval uh and we received the approval up to data October 17 2024 and the changes included shifting the building back to obtain more front yard setback increase open spaces we do three additional guest parking in the rear to increase where you are open spaces change the facade style from contemporary to match adjacent properties and change window styles and siding materials and combining two garage doors into one for each one of the units we're here to seek approval for the three missing violations and we have completed um all community meetings as required to thank you are there any questions from the board hearing then public testimony madam chair and members of the board the record my name is Jared B.

Bembery I'm the Rochester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services the applicant was not required to complete a vocality process and said the opponent proponent was provided with a mayor's office of notification flyer to be distributed to the community to date our office has not received any further community feedback at this time and our office refers to the board for their judgment thank you for your time thank you next we have a Jeff Campton uh thank you madam chair members of the board Jeff Hampton City of Boston Planning Department uh this was deferred um from the last meeting on it was May 19th because the plans that were being shown to the board uh did not have the BPDA stamp that uh was done uh back in October of 2024 they were different plans that were being shown to the board rather than the ones that were stamped by Seth Risman here at the uh at the agency um so I just wanted to confirm to the board that this project even though it has new zoning violations um already has a set of stamped plans by the agency um but they were not the ones that were being shown to the board and that's why I had asked for a deferral back in May so if we could pull up what uh the board has I'd like to make sure that we are all on the same page because the plans that were shown originally had two garage doors and the stamp plans have one garage door apologize I would like to clarify that I spoke to Stephanie Hanksover at the B08 after the last May hearing and she said because the case has been closed and that we cannot upload new drawing into the portal unless we file a new BOA case matter right but my point is your client already has stamped plans from uh the city's planning department and the plans that were shown back in May were different so we are in support of the zoning relief that's being asked uh we are just asking that the board put a proviso on it um that the new plans that have been submitted to the board for this review get sent over to the planning department to ensure that the previous design is consistent understood thank you

So we are in support of the zoning relief that's being asked.

Uh we are just asking that the board put a proviso on it.

Um that the new plans that have been submitted to the board for this review get sent over to the planning department to ensure that the previous design is consistent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project be submitted to BPD for their design review and insurance that the approved BPD stamp drawings are indeed what is being proposed to be built.

Okay, is there a second?

Mr.

Sunbridge.

Yes.

Yes.

Turner.

Yes.

We will.

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, everyone.

Have a good one.

Thanks.

We're good there.

Recording stopped.