OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Boston, Massachusetts/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Boston Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing – October 6, 2026

City Council — Tuesday, October 6, 2026
BodyBoston, Massachusetts
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, October 6, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 10:00:00

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:01

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

0:06

The order of comments is as follows.

0:08

Elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public.

0:12

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

0:19

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

0:24

That is those individuals who live closest to the project.

0:28

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

0:35

Click it again and your hand should go down.

0:37

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

0:40

Select yes and you should be able to talk.

0:42

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

0:47

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

0:52

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

0:59

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

1:04

Stembridge reads the address into the record.

1:06

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

1:13

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

1:19

Okay, Mr.

1:20

Stembridge.

1:22

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

1:24

Good morning.

1:26

Ms.

1:26

Turner.

1:28

Good morning, Madam Chair.

1:30

Good morning.

1:33

Ms.

1:33

Verbraza.

1:34

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

1:37

Good morning, Ms.

1:38

Wewell.

1:39

Good morning, Madam Chair President.

1:41

Good morning, Mr.

1:42

Langham.

1:43

Good morning, Madam Chair Present.

1:45

Good morning, and Mr.

1:47

Collins.

1:48

Morning, Madam Chair Present.

1:49

Good morning.

1:50

The floor is yours, Mr.

1:51

Stembridge.

1:52

Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:54

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

2:03

These hearing minutes are from September 17 and September 22nd of this year.

2:11

Um that Madam Chair, I'll make a motion of approval for the minute.

2:16

Thank you.

2:16

Is there a second?

2:18

Second.

2:20

Mr.

2:20

Stembridge.

2:22

Yeah.

2:23

Ms.

2:24

Turner.

2:26

Present.

2:27

I mean sorry, yes.

2:28

Thank you.

2:29

Ms.

2:29

Bebraza.

2:31

Yes.

2:32

Ms.

2:32

Wewell.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Community Engagement███████████████15%
Zoning Board of Appeals███████████11%
Public Safety██████████10%
Public Education█████████9%
Public Engagement███████7%
Public Health██████6%
Animal Welfare██████6%
Procedural█████5%
Environmental Protection█████5%
Summary of Proceedings

Boston Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing – October 6, 2026

The Boston Zoning Board of Appeal convened virtually at 9:30 a.m. on October 6, 2026, to consider a consent calendar, five extension requests, and multiple development projects. After hearing public testimony, the board approved nearly all items, with two cases deferred and one withdrawn. The meeting ran for several hours and included extensive discussion on two larger Article 80 projects.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes Approval: The board approved the minutes from the September 17 and September 22, 2026 hearings (unanimous).
  • Extension Requests: The board approved five extension requests for cases at 616, 25 Entry Street, 25 West Hall Street, 751–757 Dudley Street, and 50 Rogers Street (all unanimous).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • For the 269 East Cottage Street (Inn at Little House) project, the Office of Neighborhood Services reported 72 letters and emails, with 63 in support (85% support) and 9 opposed. Several direct abutters and community leaders testified in support, while the Columbia Savon Hill Civic Association and Dorchester North Neighborhood Association opposed.
  • For the 350 Athens Street project, abutters testified in strong opposition, citing concerns about scale, shadows, parking, and privacy. Six abutters spoke against the project at a June 22 meeting. The applicant submitted 14 letters of support, but direct abutters remained opposed.
  • For the 90–94 Revere Street project, one abutter expressed opposition, but the Beacon Hill Civic Association offered non-opposition.
  • On 31 Melmont Street, 5 Long Street, and 44 Granger Street, no public opposition was raised.

Discussion Items

  • 3328 Washington Street (Board Final Operative): Attorney Jeff Drago presented modifications to a previously approved project, increasing units from 43 to 46 and square footage from 40,176 to 43,825 sq. ft. No questions from the board. Approved unanimously.
  • 80–82 Shawsheen Road, East Boston (Board Final Operative): Attorney Drago presented changes to an all-affordable housing project to convert ownership units to rental to secure state funding. Unit count increased from 57 to 62, with minor changes in FAR and parking. Approved unanimously.
  • 239–245 Causeway Street: Jacqueline Demenez requested removal of a special provision for the Penalief Cafe to allow a new operator. No community issues. Approved unanimously.
  • 125 Newbury Street (Joe and the Juice): Attorney Dennis Quilty presented a change of tenant for a restaurant and outdoor cafe. The Back Bay Neighborhood Association did not oppose. Approved unanimously.
  • 90–94 Revere Street: Attorney Kevin Butler proposed reducing eight rental units to five condominiums, adding a roof deck and elevator, and restoring the historic exterior. One abutter opposed, but the Beacon Hill Civic Association did not oppose. The board approved with a proviso requiring review by the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission.
  • 31 Melmont Street: Andrea Boitz requested a variance for a 7'×13' wooden pergola within 4 feet of the lot line. Abutters had no concerns; the Highland Park Neighborhood Coalition supported. Approved unanimously.
  • 5 Long Street: Adam Rosa proposed a rear addition for a single-family home, exceeding the FAR by 0.1 (proposed 1.1, allowed 1.0). The Community Alliance of Mission Hill supported. Approved unanimously.
  • 269 East Cottage Street (Inn at Little House): Attorney Joe Hanley presented a plan for a 42-room extended‑stay inn with an expanded restaurant, connected to an existing mixed-use building. Required variances for hotel use, height (69 ft vs. allowed 40 ft), FAR, and parking. After extensive Article 80 process, the BPDA board had approved in July 2026. Public testimony was mixed; the board approved unanimously.
  • 742 Truman Street: Deferred to November 17, 2026, to allow re‑advertisement for a conditional use permit that was not originally included.
  • 412 Washington Street: Deferred to November 10, 2026, for updated views and re‑advertisement.
  • 196 Maverick Street (Rediscussion): Attorney Jeff Drago presented a plan to convert a three‑unit building to seven units by adding a fourth story and rear addition. Variances needed for groundwater (GCOD), roof structure, parking, and existing non‑conformities. The East Boston community process included a letter of non‑opposition from Maverick Central and support from GOAT Street Citizens Association. Approved unanimously.
  • 350 Athens Street: Attorney Ryan Spitz presented a revised proposal for a four‑story, six‑unit building with six parking spaces, reduced from an earlier ten violations. The planning department now recommended approval. Abutters voiced strong opposition regarding scale and shadows. Councilor Flynn’s office recommended support. The board approved with a proviso that the project undergo BPD design review and consider increasing the setback or adding windows to the blank facade.
  • 44 Granger Street: Attorney Ethan Ritter presented a three‑family house in a two‑family neighborhood, requiring multiple variances (lot area, width, frontage, FAR, stories, side yard). The Fields Corner Civic Association supported. The board approved with provisos for an accessible entry and a revised plot plan showing parking at the rear.
  • 263 (26–30 Bread Street, Ashmont): Attorney Ernest Guerrier presented an eight‑unit, eight‑parking‑space building near Ashmont station. Variances for lot area, side yard, rear yard, FAR, and stories. After a July continuance, the board found that a lot restriction had been released. The Ashmont Valley Association and Councilor Brian Worrell’s office supported. Approved unanimously.
  • 151 Lenox Street: The applicant withdrew the case; the board approved the withdrawal.

Key Outcomes

  • All votes were unanimous (7‑0) unless noted.
  • Deferrals granted for 742 Truman (to Nov 17) and 412 Washington (to Nov 10).
  • Case 151 Lenox Street withdrawn.
  • Several approvals included provisos: 90–94 Revere Street (Beacon Hill Architecture review), 350 Athens Street (BPD design review), 44 Granger Street (accessible entry and plot plan revision).

Meeting Transcript

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 cop 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 appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star nine to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then provide can 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 host 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. Okay, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning. Ms. Verbraza. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Ms. Wewell. Good morning, Madam Chair President. Good morning, Mr. Langham. Good morning, Madam Chair Present. Good morning, and Mr. Collins. Morning, Madam Chair Present. Good morning. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin today's hearing with the with the approval of hearing minutes because it's 9 30 a.m. These hearing minutes are from September 17 and September 22nd of this year. Um that Madam Chair, I'll make a motion of approval for the minute. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yeah.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com