►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 08-28-18
Description
Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 08-28-18
B
Board
of
Appeal
for
Tuesday
August
28th
is
now
in
session.
This
is
a
reminder,
please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
if
you
need
to
have
conversations,
please
take
them
outside
of
the
room,
in
conformance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law
I
am
reminding
you
that
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed
now,
when
you're
here
to
come
to
speak
before
the
board
and
offer
testimony
either
in
support
or
in
opposition,
we're
interested
in
fact,
finding
and
getting
some
new
information
so
use
your
time
wisely.
B
Please
and
give
us
new
information
when
you
are
at
the
podium.
If
somebody
has
already
stated
your
concern,
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
just
state
that
you're
opposed
or
enough
in
the
project.
Okay,
that
will
help
us
be
mindful
of
the
other
applicants
who
are
also
on
this
agenda
and
we'll
make
sure
that
they
don't
need
to
stay
here
until
2
o'clock,
okay
or
we
don't
have
to
stay
here
until
2
o'clock.
So
more
so
please
be
mindful
of
that.
Mr.
fortune.
Thank.
D
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Geoff
Drago,
with
Drago
and
Toscano,
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
before
you
year
and
a
half
to
slightly
over
two
years
ago,
and
we
are
seeking
a
one-year
extension
just
for
financing
reasons
to
get.
Our
final
permit
sets
together
and
we
should
be
back
on
track.
B
E
C
F
With
me
to
my
project
architect,
as
well
as
Chris
curry,
who's,
the
project
manager
for
the
owner
submitted
a
letter
in
this
regard
dated
August
10th,
which
I
think
outlines
the
case,
which
is
very
quickly
for
an
overview.
We
passed
out
the
proposed
revisions.
This
is
an
article
lady
approved
development
project.
It
was
improved
by
the
V
PDA
in
February
of
2016
and
the
board
on
March
in
March
of
2016.
F
It's
an
existing
two-story
former
standard
rivet
factory,
building
on
a
and
Athens
Street
in
the
lower
end
of
South
Boston.
There's
an
existing
out
building
at
the
back
and
what
was
approved
was
a
three-story
addition
and
renovation
to
the
existing
mill
building
and
then
a
rear
extension
for
repurposing
his
office
with
ground-floor,
retail
and
eighteen
parking
spaces.
F
New
owner
is
going
to
be
an
office
occupant
owner.
It
is
the
Council
on
international
educational
exchange.
It's
a
leading
international
organization
that
facilitates
overseas
studies
and
they're,
creating
their
new
Boston
flagship
here
to
create
jobs.
So
so
the
use
is
the
same
as
far
as
the
principal
use
being
office
of
what
you
have
is
a
reduction
in
the
FAA,
our
reduction
in
the
height
and
the
same.
F
Ma'am,
so
if
you
look
just
to
help
illustrate
this,
if
you
look
at
the
third
page
and
the
letter
that
we
sent
there
they're
eliminating
the
rear
extension
altogether,
this
is
the
existing
building.
That's
two
storeys
is
gonna,
go
back
they're,
eliminating
that
altogether
and
they're
also
eliminating
the
sixth
floor
so
now,
rather
than
a
three-story
addition,
it's
a
two-story
addition.
The
result
is
a
reducing.
F
Reduction
in
FA
are
from
what
was
approved
at
four
point,
four,
three
to
two
point:
five:
seven
and
a
reduction
in
the
height
that
was
approved
from
66
to
58,
and
this
is
consistent,
obviously
with
existing
approvals
and
where
that
are
set
to
expire
in
November
of
this
year.
So
the
second
request
here
is
we're
asking
for
the
board
to
extend
that
for
a
year
as
as
we
prepare
for
construction
and
permitting
and
the
like,
which.
B
G
B
H
F
C
Case
the
G
card
calling
boa
8
3
8
4
1
5
to
12
Commonwealth
Avenue.
This
is
a
change
of
oxy
from
8
units
to
two
units,
full
gut
and
remodel
and
penthouse
addition
and
one
rare
story.
Addition
proposed
3
off
street
parking
violations;
article
32
section
32
for
ground
water
conservation,
overlay,
district
name
and
address
for.
B
C
The
next
case
calling
boa
eight
five,
eight
three
eight
zero
one,
sixty
two
Westbrook
line
street:
this
is
a
full
renovation
of
existing
to
family
dwelling,
excavate
basement
for
new
ceiling
height
with
exterior
patio
expand
route,
existing
roof
deck
with
new
roof
hatch
proposed
to
off
street
parking
violations.
Article
32
second
32,
four:
this
is
the
G
Cod
applicability
name,
an
address
for.
H
J
B
C
B
L
B
M
B
C
This
is
to
clarify
oxy
them
and
change
from
office
space
in
to
residential
apartments,
to
three
residential
apartments
violations.
Article
9
section
one:
the
change
of
artists
is
an
extension
of
an
existing
non-conforming
use.
An
article
59
section,
15,
three
family
detached
structure
is
a
forbidden
use
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
for.
B
N
B
N
N
B
B
B
O
B
H
P
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
just
saw
her
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
to
record
and
support.
We
did
close
in
a
butters
meeting
and
residents
came
and
asked
questions
about
the
years
and
we
they
have
no
questions
or
concerns.
They've
also
met
with
the
Civic
Association,
and
there
are
also
no
question
but
concerns
at
this
time.
Thank.
B
B
Q
E
E
R
There
are
so
there.
This
is
a
these
are
two
buildings
as
part
of
a
site
that
was
approved
the
article
ad
process
in
February,
so
the
there
is
one
project
that
has
been
in
front
of
you
in
February
of
this
year.
In
terms
of
the
CBA,
there
is
125
and
125
a
amery
which
are
the
existing
buildings
that
are
affected
by
the
subdivision
of
the
site
and
those
have
pending
appeals.
R
E
E
Gonna
call
this
at
casings
and
record
I.
Just
didn't
want
to
do
that
ahead
of
time.
So
the
purpose
of
this
to
erect
the
six
family
a
six
story,
multi-family
dwelling
147
rental
apartments-
was
57
below
grade
parking.
Spaces
structure
will
be
built
on
a
subdivided
parcel:
a
50
1568
square
feet
in
conjunction
with
ERT,
seven,
nine,
nine,
six,
seven
six.
E
The
violations
are
as
follows:
article
55
section:
nine
additional
lot
area:
insufficient
article
55,
section,
nine
floor
area
ratio,
excessive
article
55,
section,
nine
building
height
excessive,
so
feet;
article
60,
article
55,
section,
nine
building,
height,
excessive
force
stories,
article
55,
section,
nine
usable,
open
space
insufficient
the
next
case.
Okay,.
Q
E
R
Manager,
thank
you.
So
this
project
is
an
existing
six
acre
site
owned
by
the
Boston
Housing
Authority.
It
currently
contains
Umrah
Street
Apartments,
which
is
a
200
unit,
senior
development
for
low-income
housing.
The
Boston
Housing
Authority
put
out
a
request
for
proposals
in
2015
to
redevelop
the
existing
housing
and
then
find
other
housing
opportunities
on
their
site.
R
So
what
is
being
proposed
here
and
it
was
approved
in
the
article
ad
process
in
February-
was
a
renovation
of
the
existing
125,
a
Murray
building
to
improve
the
housing
for
the
seniors
there
and
then
three
new
buildings
on
other
portions
of
the
site
that
are
used
for
non-residential
uses
right
now.
So
there
of
the
three
buildings
137,
a
Murray
Street
has
already
been
before
this
commission
in
February.
It's
in
purple
on
this
map
right
here.
R
Both
of
these
projects
are
intended
as
mixed
income
housing
in
building
a
38
of
the
147
apartments
are
set
aside
for
residents
below
70
percent
of
median
income
in
building
B
or
127
a
Emory
Street.
There
are
37
units
set
aside
for
residents
below
70
percent
of
area
median
income,
so
the
goal
is
that
these
are
true
mixed
income
communities,
with
the
unit's
interspersed
throughout
and
opportunities
for
for
residents
of
all
comes
across
the
property.
S
S
B
S
Each
of
these
buildings
also
has
parking
underneath
we're
building
the
most
efficient
building.
We
can
we're
proposing
two
stories
of
steel
with
five
floors
of
non
combustible:
wood,
above
that,
with
parking
of
the
lowest
level.
The
site
is
sloped
in
a
way
that
really
makes
it
beneficial
and
makes
it
work
to
do
that.
So,
underneath
101
we'll
have
57
parking
spaces
and
under
127
we'll
have
58
parking
spaces.
S
B
S
B
R
So
one
of
the
reasons
for
some
of
the
variances
on
this
are
connected
to
the
infrastructure
proposed
on
the
site,
so
this
site
includes
the
proposal
of
three
private
ways
open
to
public
access.
So
there
are
many
of
the
violations
which
you
know
relate
to
the
fact
that
the
street
that
the
private
street
that
is
intended
in
to
be
the
front
of
this
building
it
does
not
exist
yet.
So
we
intend
to
build
these
three
private
ways
as
part
of
the
phase
master
plan
for
the
project.
V
R
B
S
R
R
W
R
U
S
The
reason
this
building
has
so
many
violations
is
because
there's
no
no
Street
there,
yet
so
it's
landlocked
in
the
middle
of
the
site,
so
even
as
we
were
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
submit
for
zoning
we're
like
well,
you
know
one
day
if
this:
if
this
were
a
street,
if
it
were,
if
it
were
Street,
we
would
measure
this
probably
as
a
front,
and
it
wouldn't
be
a
violation,
and
this
wouldn't
be
a
front.
It
would
be
a
friend.
So
that's
why
a
lot
of
those
came
up.
What
we
are
proposing
is.
S
S
The
parking
is,
is
subgrade
for
open
space.
The
minimum
required
is
twenty-one
thousand
square
feet
and
we
are
proposing
to
almost
19,000.
So
we're
really
just
a
couple
thousand
square
feet
short,
because
we've
got
this
open
space
behind
the
building.
That
number
proposed
is
eighteen
thousand
856,
and
we
touched
on
the
setbacks
and
the
Greenway
protection
overlay
district
applies
as
a
conditional
use
here.
X
H
U
Don't
in
the
RFP
we
didn't
go
to
that
level
of
detail,
and
so
we
did
require
that
the
developer
would
replace
the
existing
units
which
that
building
is
125
and
and
so
they're
gonna
renovate
that
the
additional
units
on
the
site.
We
did
allow
the
developer
to
have
flexibility
in
planning
those
units.
U
S
B
O
U
And
so
the
BHA
will
have
separate
ground
leases
for
the
different
parcels.
We
will
have
strong
restrictions
to
maintain
the
existing
income,
affordability
requirements
for
125,
a
Murray,
that's
the
extremely
low
income
and
low
income
units,
and
then
the
other
buildings
they'll
be
restrictions
that
they
will
have
to
have.
U
Y
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Alexander
Valdez
mayor's
office
and
Neighborhood
Services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
to
support
and
also
state
that
both
director
butters,
as
well
as
the
cheapy
Neighborhood
Council
along
side.
Other
community
members
are
more
than
support
of
this
project.
To
going
to
make
it
plain
good.
X
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
will
pop
Webster
here
with
city
councilor,
madam
Ali's
office.
We
would
also
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
The
partners
have
done
an
extensive
community
outreach
process
with
the
VHA
residents
and
the
wider
neighborhood.
We
think
it's
a
good
model
development
without
displacement
in
this
underutilized
area.
Thank
you.
Good.
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
E
Q
C
The
next
four
cases
calling
boa
eight
three,
eight
nine
to
five.
Seventy
one
call
Street
boa
eight,
three,
eight
nine
to
six.
Seventy
three:
two:
seventy
three,
a
call
Street
boa,
eight,
three,
eight
nine
to
seven.
Seventy
five
275
a
call
Street
boa
a
three
eight
nine
to
nine
77
to
79
call
Street.
This
is
for
71
call
Street.
This
is
built
building
being
new
construction
of
a
three-story
attached
to
family
dwelling,
the
violation
of
article
55
section,
forty
Austrey
parking
is
insufficient
article
55
section:
nine.
C
C
This
is
for
73
to
73
a
Wall
Street.
This
is
new
construction
of
a
three
storey
attached
family
dwelling
parking,
471,
Hall
Street
will
be
located
at
this
address.
The
violation
is
article
55,
section,
8
ancillary
parking
is
conditional.
Article
55,
section
9,
the
lardy
or
additional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
Article
55
section
9,
the
Eider,
claudia
ratios,
excessive
article
55
69,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
55
section
I
in
the
rear
yard,
is
insufficient.
C
77
to
79
call
Street,
it's
also
new
construction
of
three-story
attached,
which
will
be
75
call
street
violations.
Article
50,
section
40
off
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
55,
section
9,
the
Lodi
area
for
additional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
Article
55
section
9
the
floor.
The
ratio
is
excessive
in
article
55
section
9,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
AG
AF
For
the
record,
in
the
room,
our
executive
for
Jamaica
Plain,
Neighborhood,
Development,
executive
director
Richard
ball
real
estate,
director
Ron
Ellis
and
senior
community
organizer
Erica
Rothschild
members
of
the
board.
I
want
to
call
your
attention
to
this
great
project.
We
called
call
Carolina.
It
is
new
construction
on
vacant
land
at
the
corner
of
college
Carolina's
streets
and
Jamaica
Plain.
A
couple
notable
things
one.
AF
This
is
reclamation
of
in
part
of
land
that
was
taken
during
that
the
infamous
highway
project
in
the
70s
along
the
Southwest
corridor,
so
about
two-thirds
of
the
site
was
quite
site.
Control
was
achieved
through
a
site
disposition
process
that
the
other
third
of
site
was
achieved
through
a
site
disposition
process
through
the
city
of
Boston
neighborhood
development.
We
also
have
some
Department
neighbor
development
financing
in
the
project,
as
well
as
Community
Preservation
Act.
For
the
first
time.
As
you
all
know,
this
is
the
first
year
the
CPA
and
we're
glad
to
be
a
recipient.
B
AF
The
project
is
a
home,
a
hybrid
homeownership,
slash
rental,
eight
units
for
new
homeowners
and
each
of
those
homeowners
will
have
a
rental
unit.
It's
100%,
affordable.
We
have
80
percent
affordability
for
the
homeowners,
60
percent
affordability
for
the
tenants.
That's
the
affordability
on
yes,
ma'am.
B
AF
B
AF
B
AF
I
mean
in
general
and
I'd
like
pass
it
on
to
counsel
Joseph
leave
are
from
fine
Horning,
but
in
in
general
we
have
FA
our.
We
have
dimensional
regulations
and
there
was
a
extensive
community
process.
I'm,
not
exactly
not
exactly
your
question,
we'll
get
into
specifics
to
discuss
those
violations
and
to
achieve
really
widespread
community
support
around
asking
for
these
variances
sure.
T
So
let
me
speak
first
two-dimensional
quickly
and
then
I'll
touch
on
parking
which,
which
is
kind
of
pervasive
here,
but
but
has
an
interesting
backstory.
So
these
are
basically
eight
units
in
in
for
two
family
houses
on
four
separate
Lots,
there's
two
pairs
of
adjoining
two
unit
buildings
with
the
parking
and
and
driveway
area
in
between
you
know.
The
two
two
clusters
of
buildings
for
zoning
is
four
separate
Lots,
because
these
are
home
ownership
projects,
they're
not
gonna,
be
under
common
ownership
and
in
general,
the
dimensional
relief.
T
That's
needed
is
a
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit,
FA
our
front
yard,
and
for
some
of
them
rear
yard.
I
would
defer
to
to
my
architect
colleague,
if
you
want
to
get
into
those
actual
numbers
for
each
of
the
four
Lots.
But
let
me
just
speak
to
parking
for
a
moment
and
we
can
so
for
parking.
We
have
0.7
is
required
per
unit
for
affordable
units
in
this
district,
which
would
be
either
you
could
look
at
it
as
1.4
spaces
per
lot
or
you
could
look
at
it
as
5.6
spaces
for
all
four
Lots
together.
T
Either
way
each
of
the
each
of
the
projects
does
comply.
There
are
six
spaces
total
for
eight
units,
which
is
you
know
more
than
five
point
six
and
if
you're
looking
at
it
by
a
lot,
the
one
point
four
would
get
rounded
down
to
one
and
you'd
only
have
four
required.
The
reason
we
have
so
much
parking
relief,
that's
needed
is
because
two
of
the
Lots
don't
have
any
parking.
T
T
AI
For
for
a
lot
one,
which
is
if
you're
looking
at
Z
0
0
1,
we
have
two.
B
AI
AI
AI
O
AI
B
Now
you
know
we
were
just
we
just
had
the
other
project
for
us,
and
I
was
looking
at
the
unit
sizes,
because
there
are
two
bedrooms,
one
900
square
feet
and
you
guys
are
at
7:38
and
I
know:
I
see
that
you're.
No.
This
doesn't
make
sense
so
anyway,
to
tell
us
what
why
there's
such
variance
here
in
the
well.
AF
I
would
begin,
madam
chairwoman,
with
saying
that
the
the
four
bedroom
units
which
are
six
out
of
the
eight
units
are
about
1,500
square
feet,
so
it
was
very
much
our
intent
to
develop
housing
for
families.
There
is
such
a
glut
of
small
units
because
they're
more
profitable
for
affordable
housing.
We
felt
we'd
like
to
develop
housing
for
families,
so
we've
got
very
large
four
units.
The
to
two
bedrooms
are
a
little
bit
smaller
make
them.
You
know
they
build
smaller
than
the
other
project
view
reference,
but
still
fairly.
In.
AF
AF
AJ
H
AF
Yes,
our
intent
is
to
work
and
we
have
had
ongoing
discussions
through
Department
Neighborhood
Development
to
the
Boston
home
center
Boston
Home
Center
is
a
function
of
the
nd.
As
you
know,
we'll
we'll
do
the
marketing
and
we'll
do
the
affordability,
restrictions
and
perpetuity
that
that's
the
intent
I
mean
we
again.
We
haven't
firmed
eyelid
up,
but
the
intent
is
that
those
deed
restrictions
will
be
permanent.
AK
X
B
Y
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
alexander
valdez
mayor's
office
and
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
to
support
and
also
say
that
Jamaica
Plain
Neighborhood
Council
offer
letter
support
alongside
the
director
butters.
They
did
have
an
extensive
community
process.
A
lot
of
great
feedback
was
given
and
the
neighborhood
is
really
happy
with
the
result.
Thank
you.
AC
S
AL
R
AM
AN
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Robin
Corley
I'm,
a
resident
of
Boston
94,
saw
Road
in
favor
of
the
project,
especially
its
unique
use
of
home
ownership
and
affordable
rental,
together
with
the
housing
crisis
and
affordability
crisis
in
the
city.
Seeing
homeownership
develop
in
this
way
is
very
unique
and
something
very
much
in
support
of
I'm,
also
a
member
of
the
Massachusetts
Association
of
Community
Development
Corporation's,
and
we're
very
supportive
of
this
type
of
project.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
W
C
C
Flooring
repairs,
replacement
and
needed
heating
system
violation,
Tonica
50,
section
28,
a
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
They
go
50
section
29
addition.
A
lot
area
for
additional
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient.
Article
50,
section
29
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
50,
section
43
parking
is
insufficient
name
an
ad.
Just
for
the
record.
Please.
B
AF
Would
just
say
this
context
is
a
large
moderate
rehab
of
201
units
in
Roxbury,
Dorchester
Jamaica,
Plain,
Neighborhood,
Development
Corporation
was
approached
by
the
estate
of
the
Lorenzo
Pitts
companies
and
we
have
been
working
diligently
for
a
couple
years
to
do
this
fairly
large
scale,
rehab
and,
most
importantly,
to
preserve
permanent
affordability
for
all
301
units
in
this
portfolio.
This
is
one
building
out
of
that
portfolio.
105
107,
Lawrence
Avenue.
AF
We
found
in
doing
our
diligence
and
going
through
the
permit
process
that
what
I
would
call
some
ambiguity
in
the
building
jacket
between
whether
it
was
whether
it's
a
sixth
unit
or
a
five-unit
building
in
practice
and
in
reality
is
a
six
unit
building
it
has
operated
as
such
since
about
1999,
but
within
the
building
jacket
the
resident
consistent.
So
therefore,
we
got
the
refusal
and
we
filed
the
appeal.
Q
AO
AP
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Destin
garner
with
on
behalf
of
councillor
Campbell's
office,
we've
been
in
communication
with
the
local
Civic
Association
project
right
and
some
of
the
residents,
and
this
project
did
not
go
through
a
community
process.
So,
in
collaboration
with
this
Civic
Association
we'd
like
to
ask
the
project
to
seek
for
a
deferral.
B
AF
Our
intent
was
community
pride.
In
fact,
we
were
advised
by
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
that
community
process
was
not
necessary.
We
did
of
our
own
volition
leaflet
all
around
the
property
about
a
three
block.
Radius
and
I
wasn't
touched
with
councillor
Campbell's
office,
belatedly.
Admittedly,
so
we
again
being
an
administrative
matter.
Our
direction
we
got
from
ons
was
neighborhood.
Meetings
were
not
required.
C
B
C
This
is
to
convert
a
house
of
two
apartments
into
three
apartments:
converted
existing
single
apartment
unit
on
the
second
and
third
floor
into
two
apartment
units.
No
work
is
planned
for
the
existing
first-floor
apartment
unit
violations.
Article
65,
section
41
in
sufficient
parking
designs,
access
article
65,
section,
8,
a
3
family
is
forbidden,
an
article
65
section,
9
insufficient,
open
space
name.
AQ
AQ
The
owner
just
recently
purchased
the
home.
It's
a
existing
two
family
apartment
units
on
this
second
unit,
which
comprises
of
the
second
floor
and
the
third
floor.
That
unit
itself
has
roughly
2,000
some
odd
square
feet
and
the
additional
square
footage.
The
owner
would
like
to
propose
adding
a
splitting
up
into
two
apartments,
making
the
house
a
three
family
home
as
opposed
to
a
two-family
home.
B
AQ
AQ
H
AQ
H
AQ
AO
AP
AQ
C
C
32
1
wood
street.
Sorry,
this
is
directing
new
three
family
dwelling
on
existing
vacant
lot
pros
triage
three
parking
violations:
article
65
section
22
side
guide
with
off
street
parking
driveway,
cannot
be
less
than
10
feet
wide
article
65
section
9,
the
locks
eyes
directed
three
family
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section
9.
A
lot
with
requirement
is
insufficient,
equals
sixty
five
six
nine
lot
frontage
is
insufficient
article
65
section
I
on
the
floor.
Their
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
section
9
of
the
height
requirement,
is
excessive.
C
AK
AK
3571
square
feet
a
lot
with
the
frontage.
The
requirement
is
40.
We
have
thirty
five
point:
seven,
the
FA,
our
Miss
Eyre
is
0.4.
We
have
0.9
the
height.
Is
that
35
feet
we're
at
30
feet?
The
number
of
stories
is
that
two
and
a
half
required
and
proposed
on
the
side
yard
setback
is
10
feet
and
we
have
five
point
two
six
feet
with
regards
to
community
process.
Madam
chair,
we
small.
AK
B
AK
B
Q
C
Q
C
AT
C
C
AT
C
Okay,
calling
VOA
five
nine
one:
nine
nine
fifty-nine
Blake
Street.
This
is
a
building,
a
new
single-family
home
violations,
article
69
section
30,
the
driveway
access
width
is
less
than
10
feet.
Article
69
section
9,
insufficient
front
yard
setback;
article
69,
69,
insufficient,
Raigad
setback,
article
69,
section,
9,
insufficient
lot;
side;
article
69
69
insufficient
lot
with
that
go
69
section
9
insufficient
lot
with
frontage
article
69
69
excess
of
FA.
C
AK
Morning,
madam
chair
members,
the
board
attorney
Derek
small
business,
addressed
at
15,
Broad,
Street,
Boston
Mass
or
to
109
here
with
me,
is
Matt
Miller
who's,
the
architect
for
the
project
from
architects
I'm
sure.
Today
we
are
here
seeking
relief
to
erect
a
one-family
dwelling
on
a
vacant
lot
with
two
parking
spaces.
There's
only
sub
district
is
2f
5000
and
the
violations
are
as
follows:
lot
area
required
as
5000
we
have
1941
front
yard
setback,
that's
20
feet.
We
have
10,
the
rear
yard
is
40,
we
have
23
lot
with
is
35
35?
AK
No
excuse
me
a
lot
with
requirements.
50
we
have
35
sar,
is
point
5
and
we're
proposing
0.75
on
the
side.
Yard
is
1010
two
feet,
we're
proposing
six
point:
five
and
the
open
space
for
the
project
requirement
is
1750
and
we're
coming
in
at
six
with
regard
to
a
community
process.
Madam
chair
for
the
record
I
just
like
to
say
you
know,
someone
once
said
that
one
of
the
hardest
things.
AU
AK
B
AV
AH
Q
B
AX
My
name
is
Joe
Joe,
no
101
rob
the
Frog
101
rapid
road.
Anything
that
I
want
to
bring
new
to
the
tension.
I've
been
living
in
this
house
is
20
years
and
I.
Don't
know
how
Ralph
it's
Road,
but
this
new
apartment
came
up
with
an
address
because
it
was
nothing
but
a
garage.
Therefore,
back
back
of
Lake
Street
I,
don't
know
how
that
become
an
address
and
I've
been
there
ten
years.
That's
the
part.
I
do
not
understand
at
all.
AY
My
name
is
Jani
Porter
Nichols
I
live
at
57,
Lake
Street
and
I'm,
not
a
I'm,
not
in
for
supportiveness
and,
like
he
said,
I've
lived
there
for
20
years
and
I
know
the
previous
owners
that
lived
there
before,
and
this
was
not.
There
was
no
address
for
61
Blake,
Street
and
I'm,
not
for
it
I'm,
not
in
support
of
it.
B
BA
Johnson
43,000
directly
across
the
street
I've
been
43
tiles
in
T,
il
est
when
I
have
been
there
for
over
30
years
I,
as
stated
it
was
a
garage,
it
was
torn
down.
They
subdivided
and
now
they'd
like
to
put
a
two-family
home
there
on
that
side
of
the
street
all
the
way
up
the
street.
There
are
single
families.
B
B
B
B
AZ
AK
C
B
C
Calling
boa
five
nine
one,
eight
five,
two
two
four
Crossman
Street:
this
is
a
new
three
family
with
three
off
street
parking
violations:
article
60,
section
9
insufficient
lot
size,
article,
66
and
I
insufficient;
a
lot
with
article
60
and
sufficient
frontage,
article
60,
section
9,
insufficient
front
yard
setback.
Article
66,
an
EIN
number
of
allowed
stories,
has
been
exceeded:
article
60,
section
9,
excessive
fer
article
60,
section
9,
insufficient
usable,
open
space;
article
60,
section
9,
insufficient
Reyat
setback
in
article
60,
section
8
uses
the
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AK
Turn
to
Derrick
small
15,
Broad
Street
Boston
Mass,
go
to
109
with
me.
Today
is
Matt
Mueller
architect
for
the
project
map
Street.
Before
we
begin,
I
would
like
to
set
the
record
straight
to
clarify.
We
are
here
seeking
relief
for
a
two-family
dwelling
with
pocket,
not
a
3.
That
is
the
result
of
having
meetings
with
the
West
cell,
the
Neighborhood
Association,
and
we
went
back
to
them
and
proposed
a
2,
and
we
also
had
in
the
partners
meeting
with
regard
to
reducing.
B
AK
A
AK
The
zoning
district
here
so
I'll
go
through
it
so
again
we're
here
seeking
any
relief
before
the
direction
of
a
two-family
dwelling
on
a
vacant
lot
with
three
parking
spaces.
The
zoning
sub
district
is
one
F
6000
and
the
violations
are
as
follows.
Rot
here
is
6000.
We
have
four
thousand
eight
hundred
and
thirty
lot
with
its
requirement
is
sixty
feet.
We
have
forty
five
and
a
half
front
yard
setback
is
twenty.
We
have
eleven.
The
height
is
thirty.
AK
Five
we're
coming
in
at
thirty
five
and
a
half
and
two
and
a
half
stories,
the
FA.
Our
requirement
for
this
area.
Metal
chairs
point
six
we're
coming
in
at
point:
nine
yard
setback
is
forty
feet.
We
have
thirty
five
point
three
and
the
open
space
for
the
project
would
be
requirement.
Fifteen
hundred,
we
have
thirteen
seventy.
AK
B
B
B
A
Q
H
Q
AO
Q
B
Z
AR
AR
Violet
on
the
West
Sheldon
Street
committee,
when
this
was
initially
brought
to
us,
it
was
stated
that
it
was
a
one-family.
Then,
when
we
had
a
meeting
with
the
gentleman
it
became
a
three
family.
We
requested
that
it
be
a
two,
but
we
see
that
it's
on
the
paper
as
advertised
this
three
we're
very
confused
and
concerned
about
how
this
is
going
to
be
presented.
So.
AR
BC
AK
BD
Man
good
morning,
madam
chair,
my
name
is
Barbara
Critchlow
and
I'm,
a
member
of
the
West
Selden
street
and
vicinity
Neighborhood,
Association
and
again
also
true.
There
was
a
lot
of
confusion
about
this
development.
I
would
like
to
have
him,
come
back
and
clarify
it
with
the
neighborhood
association,
okay,.
B
Q
BE
Name
is
Jennifer
Brock
and
I
live
at
23,
Crossman,
Street
and
speaking
to
the
neighbors,
my
neighbors
on
23
on
Crossman
Street.
They
are
not
clear
as
to
what
this
is
so
I'm.
Listening
to.
What
is
what
is
being
presented
here?
I
am
opposed
right
now
of
it,
because
the
rest
of
my
neighborhood
is
not
here
to
hear
what
mr.
small
is
mr.
small.
This
saying
so
I'm
at
the
moment
opposed.
B
BE
My
street
did
definitely
opposed
to
the
way
I
went
to
every
body
on
that
street.
Rang
doorbells
everybody
did
not
get
a
fire.
It
would
stated
that
they
got
a
fire
that
they
were
fired
out.
I
went
to
my
streets,
very
small,
went
to
the
street
and
nobody
got
a
flyer.
I
didn't
get
this
wire
in
my
own
mailbox,
so
they're
not
aware
of
what's
going
on,
including
the
people
that
sold
the
property
that
live
at
610.
BE
BE
BE
AK
B
C
B
AK
B
B
B
AK
C
Okay,
this
is
the
renovate
two
unit
residential
building
to
become
a
three
unit:
residential
building
violations.
Article
65
section
41
minimum
space
size
is
insufficient.
Article
65,
section
8
a
3
F
use
and
is
forbidden
the
2f
6000
district
in
article
65,
section
9.
The
rail
yard
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
Stephen.
B
BF
Proposed
as
a
change
of
occupancy
to
3
units,
the
previous
owners
did
occupy
it
as
a
three
family
for
as
long
as
they
lived
there.
When
we
walk
through
the
property,
it
was
three
kitchens.
The
third
floor
was
occupied
separately.
It
was
bathrooms
up
there
as
well,
so
we
decided
that
we
wanted
to
keep
it
the
way
it
was
we're
proposing
to
kick
the
foundation
out
in
the
back
the
retaining
wall
about
another
nine
nine
to
ten
feet.
It's
gonna
allow
it
three
and
a
half
parking
spaces.
B
H
BF
BG
And
members
of
the
board
Bob
D'amico
BTD
I'm,
looking
at
the
plans
for
space
that
doesn't
work,
it's
too
small
confined
I.
Think
three
is
the
most
you
can
fit
in
that
that
space.
B
AO
B
D
B
G
C
This
is
a
change
line
from
a
2
family
to
a
3
family.
Kid
takers
apartment
by
constructing
an
edition
of
accessible
rear
entry.
An
attached
garage
and
renovate
the
first
floor
unit
for
accessibility,
replace
back
porches
and
egress
is
the
violations.
Article
55
section
9,
the
lottery
or
additional
dwelling
units
is
sufficient.
Article
55
section
9,
the
flirty
ratios
excessive
article
55,
section
9
or
usable
open
spaces.
Insufficient
article
55,
section,
9
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
55
section
9,
the
rail
yard
is
insufficient
and
in
article
55,
section
55
40.
AV
AV
Wheelchair
and
in
order
to
get
you
to
this
first
floor
apartment,
we
need
to
do
these
make
these
changes,
in
particular
the
need
for.
We
need
to
replace
the
three-story
porch
with
that
needed
to
be
done
and
we're
just
on
the
first
floor,
creating
an
enclosed
space
so
that
I
can
go
from
my
vehicle
into
the.
B
X
Hi
everyone
good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
will
pop
Webster
here
with
city
councilor,
Matt
O'malley's
office,
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
There
was
a
very
supportive,
a
butters
meeting
for
this
project
that
I
attended.
The
Jaypee
neighbor
council
was
in
support
and
personally
I'm,
also
no
butter
of
the
project
and
in
support
Thank
You.
AO
C
Calling
BOE
a
to
74
76
14
to
16
Alberta
street.
This
is
the
demo
exist
to
50
demoing
existing
to
family
on
existing
lot,
a
directly
to
family
dwelling
on
the
same
lawn
violations,
article
56,
section
7
to
family
12
news,
article
56,
section
8
lot
size
to
erected
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient.
Article
56
section
8.
The
minimum
lot
width
requirement
is
insufficient
ethical
56,
section
8
lot.
Frontage
is
insufficient.
Article
56
section
8,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
C
AN
H
B
B
AN
We're
we're
actually
making
the
foot
bed
a
little
bit
wider
and
we're
making
a
little
bit
shorter
in
depth,
but
it's
relatively
the
same
footprint
and
I
can
explain
each
of
the
violations
if
you'd
like,
but
it's
an
existing
two
family.
So
when
you
tear
down
one
in
a
single
family
zone,
any
single
family
zone
in
west
rocks
where
you
have
to
get
permission
to
build
it
back.
So
that's
the
first
violation.
The
second
is
the
lot
size
which
we're
not
changing.
Obviously,
the
next
is
the
lot
width
and
the
lot
frontage.
AN
Those
are
also
things
that
we're
not
changing
their
their
their
existing
in
violations.
For
the
current
two
family,
the
floor
area
ratio.
We
are
increasing,
so
the
actual
units
are
getting
larger
from
0.57
2.8,
but
I
will
point
out
that
the
actual
footprint
of
the
building
is
slightly
smaller
from
the
front
in
the
rear.
So
the
proposed
building,
actually
without
the
enclosed
former
porches,
is
not
bigger
than
the
other
property
about
the
property
were
demolishing.
AN
Next
is
on
the
violations
that
are
to
the
north
side,
which
is
the
right
side
of
the
property.
That's
going
to
remain
tenth
within
the
ten
feet
setback,
so
there's
no
Buy
in
there
on
the
front,
we're
improving
the
majority
of
the
setback.
The
existing
was
approximately
five
point:
seven
feet
from
the
street.
This
is
a
one-way
street,
very
narrow
street
and
we're
improving
that
condition.
AN
We're
improving
the
front
corner
condition
from
four
point:
nine
to
four
point:
seven
I'm,
sorry
we're
moving
it
the
other
way,
actually
we're
not
improving
it
from
four
point:
nine
to
four
point:
seven
and
from
three
point:
seven
to
three
point:
four:
in
the
back
corner,
just
a
matter
of
inches
on
the
left
side
and
then
life
and
then,
lastly,
to
the
rear.
The
existing
conditions
are
ten
point,
seven
and
eight
point:
six
in
the
corners,
the
proposed
building
will
be
eight
point
three
in
one
corner
and
the
opposite
corner
will
be
ten
point.
AN
V
I
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
board
Jack
Duggan
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
just
like
to
go
on
record
support.
We
held
in
the
butters
meeting
back
in
May
and
Rob
addressed
some
of
the
concerns
of
the
neighbors.
He
then
went
to
the
neighborhood
council
and
in
June
and
received
full
support
from
them.
So
we
just
like
to
echo
that
support.
Thank
you,
madam.
BI
B
AN
B
This
meeting
is
being
live-streamed,
we
are
still
on.
The
case
is
scheduled
for
9:30,
so
it's
a
long
agenda.
Let
me
remind
you
that
if
you
are
here
to
speak
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
the
project,
please
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
give
us
new
information.
Somebody
has
already
repeated
your
concern
or
the
basis
for
your
support.
Just
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
B
C
You,
madam
chair,
calling
the
next
case
for
9:30
boa
eight
to
nine
to
three
641
to
47
current
street.
This
has
changed
actually
to
add
a
tattoo
shop,
adding
walls
and
it's
enhancing.
The
current
layout
work
being
done
is
in
a
vacant
space
at
42:51,
Washington
Street,
the
violation
is
Article
67,
section
11
tattoo
shop
is
a
conditional
use
name,
an
address
for
the
record.
AV
B
K
K
K
BJ
K
BB
K
C
C
56
section
8
lot
with
required,
is
insufficient
out
of
the
56
section,
8
lot
of
frontage
required
as
its
efficient.
This
is
454
birch
wood
street
this
to
demo
an
existing
home
at
54,
Church
wood
and
erect
a
single-family
dwelling
with
one
car
garage
violation.
Article
56
section
8
lot
what's
required
is
insufficient.
An
article
56
section.
A
lot
frontage
required
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
B
I
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jack
Duggan
mayor's
office
in
Haven
services,
I
would
just
like
to
go
on
record
support.
We
held
in
a
butters
meeting
back
in
June
that
was
well
attended.
They
then
went
to
the
neighborhood
council
in
late
June
and
received
full
support
from
them.
Thank
You.
BI
E
G
C
C
L
C
L
B
L
B
L
C
B
B
BK
An
address
to
the
record
please
good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
James
Christopher
Moore,
the
principal's
by
CA
LLC,
with
the
project
architects,
the
business
address
of
415
departed,
AB,
we're
requesting
a
deferral,
so
we
can
meet
with
the
community.
My
wife
had
a
baby
there's
a
massage
on
eternity.
Even
I
wasn't
able
to
finish
the
drawings
so
we'd
like
to
wrap
them
up
and
sit
with
you
butters
to
try
to
resolve
some
outstanding
issues.
B
B
C
BJ
AT
AT
BL
B
B
C
Vol,
a
a
265
to
657
Saratoga
Street.
This
is
demolished
and
exist
instruction
directly
four-story
building
with
nine
residential
units,
nine
parking
spaces
and
three
roof
decks.
The
violation
is
article
53,
section
8,
a
multi-family
dwelling,
it's
forbidden
article
53,
section
9,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
53,
section
9,
a
height
is
excessive
article
53,
section
9,
the
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
I
on
the
rear
yard,
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
56,
our
street
parking
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
thank.
D
V
D
A
two
unit
structure:
it's
a
poor
structural
condition,
now
an
erect,
a
four-story
residential,
nine
unit,
nine
parking
space,
condo
development
on
the
site,
the
particular
lot
size
is
five
thousand
square
feet
and
just
to
go
over
the
layout.
These
are
all
two-bedroom
two-bath
units
with
decks.
The
first
floor
would
house
all
of
the
parking
spaces
so
that
all
the
inside
nine
parking
spaces,
lobby,
elevator
and
trash
room
dedicated
to
the
building
second
floor.
D
Third
floor
and
fourth
floor
all
are
roughly
between
a
thousand
and
eleven
hundred
square
foot,
two-bedroom
two-bath
units
the
violations,
as
was
mentioned,
one
has
been
removed.
We
worked
to
pull
the
building
in
on
the
side,
so
the
side,
yard
violation
has
been
removed.
We
need
the
five
foot
setback
requirement.
It
is
a
2
F
district.
So,
although
there
are
multifamily
up
and
down
this
corridor,
we
are
proposing
9
units.
D
Fa
R,
which
is
allowable
under
the
code,
is
point
8
for
a
two
point:
four
height,
although
it's
allowable
is
35
we're
not
far
off
at
39
feet.
6
inches
rear
yard
is
30
we're
at
5
and
we
do
have
one
for
one
parking
at
9:00,
but
15.75
would
be
required
under
the
code.
During
this
process
we
worked
diligently
to
change
the
design,
making.
This
look
historic
using
brick
bump
outs
on
the
front,
all
wrought
iron
decking
on
the
side.
D
D
B
D
B
D
V
BL
BC
BC
BJ
BN
BN
Don't
know
in
July
if
they
approved
it.
So
what
would
happen?
My
husband
called
today
the
mayor's
office
and
found
out
it
was
approved
and
we
asked
about
the
packing
and
the
height
restriction.
The
Saratoga
Street
is
all
residential
units
and
the
parking
they're
saying
is
deeded.
Indeed,
like
we
had
a
at
43
Saratoga
Street.
There
was
a
gravitated
house
and
you
got
to
let
you
know
they
had
a
build
like
about
three
years
ago
and
they
had
a
structural
damage.
BN
B
BN
BO
You,
my
name
is
Carlos
Guzman
51,
Saratoga
Street.
We
would
like
to
ask
to
postpone
the
meetings
so
that
other
abutters
may
be
able
to
come
and
listen
to
what's
being
said,
as
mentioned
previously,
we've
only
gone
to
a
few
meetings
that
haven't
been
flying
for
so
we
would
like
to
ask
to
postponed
to
a
later
date.
Thank
you.
B
BC
D
Had
to
direct
a
butter
meetings
that
these
folks
actually
attended
either
one
of
them
both
of
the
abutters
that
we
heard
from
we
also
had
to
they
were
in
like
mid
late,
May
mid-may
was
not
Memorial
Day
weekend
and
then
another
one.
They
were
all
sponsored
by
the
mayor's
office
and
another
one
in
July
has
follow
up.
Most
of
these
folks
came
to
one
of
those
meetings.
We
also
had
to
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association
meetings
that
were
not
held
on
holidays,
but
held
during
the
regularly
scheduled
meetings,
which
were
also
flyer
during
that
process.
D
C
D
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jeff
Drago,
an
actress
of
15
Broad
Street,
representing
Keene
Bernstein,
the
owner
of
114
Bennington
Street.
As
was
mentioned,
this
is
a
project
proposing
to
completely
gut
renovate
this
structure.
It's
in
poor
condition
now
as
an
existing
three
family
and
are
asking
to
extend
living
space
into
the
basement,
giving
a
little
bit
more
room.
To
that
first
floor.
It
would
allow
us
to
have
two
additional
bedrooms
in
a
bath.
D
The
ceiling
height
of
the
basement
is
seven
foot,
six
that
that
would
become
a
three-bedroom
two-bath
unit
at
eighteen
hundred
and
forty-four
square
feet.
The
other
two
units
are
existing.
The
second
and
third
floor
they're
two
bed,
two
bath
with
with
decks
and
our
only
violation
was
SAR
and
that's
existing.
It
was
1.11.
It
would
be
going
up
to
one
point:
four
eight
and
what's
allowed
is
1.0
under
the
code.
B
B
BL
B
B
C
George,
this
is
populations,
article
54,
section
10
the
floor.
They
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
54,
section
10,
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
54,
section
10,
the
rear
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
54,
section,
18,
roof
structure,
restrictions
and
article
54
section
21.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient
name
and
address.
Please.
BQ
50
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston,
my
clients
are
the
fee.
Mr,
is
there
sitting
to
my
right,
Chris,
Kamara
and
his
mother.
Madam
chair
members.
This
is
an
application
to
renovate
and
extend
the
building
owned
by
the
PMR
is
located
at
38th,
Fleet
Street.
In
the
north
end,
the
building
the
property
is
somewhat
unique.
It's
a
three-story
building
containing
three
rental
units.
Three
dwelling
units
to
the
left
on
the
same
lot
as
part
of
the
same
parcel
is
a
single-story
commercial
structure.
Combined
is
one
far
burning,
so
it's
actually
a
mixed-use
parcel.
BQ
According
to
the
inspectional
Services
Department,
you
know
that
on
the
refusal
letter
there's
reference
made
to
the
occupancy
committee,
this
permit
application
was
submitted
in
February
to
refuse
a
letter
didn't
get
you
until
sometime
in
June,
because
Special
Services
did
in
fact
have
to
go
in.
There
was
no
long
form
confirmed
record
of
occupancy
for
the
property,
but
it
is,
and
has
been
for
many
many
years,
a
three
unit,
three
residential
unit,
again
with
a
commercial
storefront.
BQ
On
the
first
floor
to
the
left,
the
buildings
are
physically
unconnected,
except
to
the
on
the
sense
that
they're
on
the
same
site,
the
renovation
would
be
to
increase
the
storey
height,
the
vertical
height
of
the
building
by
two
stories.
One
unit
per
floor,
two
additional
units,
so
the
occupancy
would
change
from
three
three
dwelling
units
to
5
dwelling
units.
Maintaining
the
existing
commercial
space
the
building
would
be
entirely
renovated,
would
be
brought
up
to
building
code
standards.
BQ
It
would
be
fully
sprinklered
and
the
new
egress
system
would
be
added
in
terms
of
the
the
units
in
what's
happening
with
them.
There
is
currently
a
unit
on
the
first
floor
in
the
basement,
approximately
1579
square
feet,
that's
a
three-bedroom
two-bath
unit
that
would
become
a
two-bedroom
unit.
There
is
currently
a
basement,
a
basement
bedroom
that
would
be
brought
up
to
the
first
floor,
so
the
only
bedrooms
would
in
fact
be
on
the
first
floor
and
that
would
become
a
two-bedroom
unit.
Unit
2
on
the
second
floor
is
about
900
998
square
feet.
BQ
That's
a
two-bedroom
one-bath
that
would
become
a
slightly
smaller
924
square
foot,
two-bedroom
two-bath
unit.
The
third
floor
unit
extends
somewhat
into
the
attic
space
that
is
about
1606
square
feet.
That's
a
three-bedroom
unit.
The
new
unit
3
again,
would
be
simply
a
floor
through
everything
above
the
first
floor
would
be
full
floor
through
units
for
proximately
924
square
feet,
so
the
other
three
would
be
a
920
foot
square
foot,
two-bedroom
two-bath
same
for
unit
four
same
for
unit
five.
This
is
located
in
the
multi-family
residential
MFR
district
and
in
the
North
End
neighborhood
district.
BQ
The
violations
to
an
FA
are
violation
the
maximum.
If
they
are
on
the
district,
is
3.0.
The
current.
If
they
are,
is
1.9
nine,
it
would
be
a
modest
violation
in
terms
of
the
resulting
at
they
are,
which
would
be
three
point.
Two.
The
there
is
also
a
citation
owing
to
rear
yard
insufficiency
the
floor
plan.
The
floor
print
of
the
building
is
not
changing.
This
is
an
existing
nonconformity
with
respect
to
where
you're
at
setback
it's
zero
at
the
rear.
It
has
been
zero.
Twelve
feet
is
required
to
the
immediate
rear
of
the
building.
BQ
Is
a
mass
highway
department,
then
shaft
building
that's
tied
into
the
Thunder
and
Callahan
tunnels,
there's
a
violation
owing
to
restricted
roof
structure.
Districts,
there's
really
no
roof
structure,
but
there
is
a
projection
above
the
roof
level
and
that's
simply
a
stairway
platform
for
the
egress
system.
So
it
provides
access
to
the
roof
from
the
new
egress
system
and
stairway
on
the
side
of
the
building
and
obviously
egress
from
the
roof
down
the
stairs
and
there's
also
a
violation
cited
for
insufficient
off
street
parking.
BQ
Again,
the
the
building
the
building's
occupied,
the
entire
site
is
the
North
End,
it's
simply
impossible
to
add
parking.
The
building
itself
would
would
match
essentially
amassing
everything
else
that
is
on
Fleet
Street.
The
addition
itself,
the
fee
Amara's
intend
to
do
in
brick
to
match
the
existing
aesthetic
design
of
the
street.
And
finally,
there
is
an
insufficient
usable,
open
space
violation
and
I
mentioned
this
last,
because
it's
important
because
it's
a
important
in
the
context
of
one
of
the
opposition
letters
at
the
opposition
letter
that
the
board
receive
from
the
northern.
BQ
Where
are
different
residents
Association
that
cited
not
opposition
to
the
change
of
occupancy
in
the
new
dwelling
units,
but
to
what
is
termed
a
recreational
deck
space
which
this
is
not
plans
evidence
the
fact
that
there's
an
existing
non-conforming
metal
fire
escape
that's
being
replaced.
This
is
a
new
code
compliant
egress
system.
That's
providing
stairway
down,
as
I
said,
from
the
roof.
These
are
steel,
grate
platforms
on
the
plans
it
says
deck
because
quite
literally
it
is,
is
decking.
BQ
It's
it's
steel,
grate,
decking,
five
as
part
of
an
egress
system,
and
this
is
not
intended
to
be
recreational
backspace,
and
that
is
supported
by
the
fact
that
the
application
in
current
an
insufficient
usable,
open
space
violation,
adding
two
units
under
the
north
end
code,
fifty
square
feet
of
usable,
open
spaces,
probably
by
twelve.
For
each
dwelling
unit,
we
would
have
satisfied
the
insufficient
usable
lock,
the
required
of
usable,
open
space.
If
this
were,
in
fact
a
residential
Decker
wouldn't
excited,
because
a
hundred
square
feet
would
support
the
two
additional
units.
BR
Afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Maria
Lanza
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
we
held
in
a
butters
meeting
for
this
project
on
March
12th,
which
the
abutters
did
come
in
show
their
support
for
the
project.
They
also
have
the
unanimous
support
of
the
northern
waterfront
neighborhood
council.
Thank
you.
B
BS
My
name
is
Joseph
Ghirardelli
own
two
apartment
buildings
within
25
yards
of
this
property,
I've
known
a
few
Myra's
for
many
years,
they've
always
helped
kept
up.
Their
property
have
been
vulnerable.
Neighbors
have
maintained
the
properties
very,
very
well
I've,
never
rented
the
apartment
short
term,
which
we
all
appreciate
and
I
think
adding
two
units
to
the
neighborhood,
where
housing
is
a
critical
factor
going
to
do
it,
aesthetically
and
so
forth.
B
C
BT
Essentially,
I
gutted,
the
entire
interior
myself,
as
I
opened,
the
walls
I
found
a
series
of
structural
problems
somewhere
illegal
work
in
the
past.
Others
were
just
for
maintenance
and
in
doing
so,
I
noticed
that
the
attachment
in
the
back
has
a
pitched
roof
that
has
no
header
running
down.
It's
kind
of
an
architectural
marvel
I
have
no
idea
how
it
stands
and
the
chimney
had
basically
caved
in
and
wait.
BT
AH
B
BT
BT
BT
B
BT
BT
BT
BL
AR
BH
B
BT
B
BH
B
B
B
C
Boa
eight
four:
zero:
seven:
twenty
five
eleven
Isabella
Street.
This
is
a
full
interior
renovation
to
four
residential
units
proposed
three-story
addition,
rear,
balconies
and
penthouse
addition
on
roof
and
roof
deck
installed
a
new
six
foot,
high
fence
and
retaining
wall
and
raised
the
existing
garage
violations.
Article
32
section
four:
this
is
a
G
Cod
applicability,
article
63,
section
24:
our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
63,
section,
20,
Mill,
roof
structure,
design
are
used
for
human
life,
disease
shall
be
erected
or
enlarged
on
a
roof
of
an
existing
building
used
for
residential
use.
C
BU
B
BU
Each
of
the
units
would
have
outdoor
space
to
satisfy
the
open
space
requirement
and
then
on
the
penthouse
unit,
there
is
a
roof
deck.
This
is
a
restricted,
roof
deck
district,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
violations.
I'd
also
just
like
to
put
on
the
record
that
the
rear
of
our
property
is
registered
land,
and
so,
as
such,
the
easement
going
through
it
has
expired
and
we
have
no
access
to
the
garage
coming
out
the
back
of
our
unit.
BU
J
BU
BU
H
BU
AJ
B
AJ
AO
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
faced
a
shriek
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
The
applicants
did
meet
with
Bay
Village
neighborhood
association.
They
have
received
a
letter
of
non
opposition.
We
also
held
on
a
butters
meeting
that
was
really
well
attended
and
they've
worked
out
any
issues
or
remaining
concerns
with
our
brothers
Thank
You.
BV
C
C
B
B
AO
BV
B
B
B
C
The
next
case,
VOA,
eight
four,
six,
three
one,
seven
324
Newbury
Street.
We
also
have
a
companion
boa
eight,
four,
six,
three
one,
six,
three:
twenty
four
Newbury
Street.
This
is
a
change
architect
to
include
a
restaurant
interior,
a
restaurant
fit
out
for
a
floor,
including
a
minor
demo;
no
interiors,
no
mechanicals
the
violations.
Article
eight
section,
seven
restaurant
use
item
37,
is
conditional.
We
also
have
Building
Code.
C
This
is
section
section:
ninth
edition
780
CMR
architectural
access,
any
reference
in
seventy.
Eighty,
two
excessively
shalt
be
considered
to
521
cm
off
the
architectural
access
board.
521,
which
is
enforced
by
the
building
official
plan
submitted,
do
not
provide
a
wheelchair,
accessible
entrance
to
the
proposed
restaurant
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
B
BX
BX
BX
Q
P
Chair
members
of
the
board
just
saw
her
is
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
go
stir
nut
butters
meeting
in
which
one
a
butter
director
butter
came
out
in
full
support.
The
property
owner
is
also
in
full
support.
No
other
residents
share
any
questions
or
concerns
and
I'm
almost
sure
that
Eliot
is
behind
me
on
behalf
of
mob
to
share
his
support
as
well.
So
we
have
no
questions
or
concerns
at
this
time.
Thank
You
felis.
B
W
AU
BV
C
Boa
eight
four
one:
three:
nine
zero:
twenty
one
wouldn't
failed
stream.
This
is
a
volunteer
innovation
through
existing
three
family
dwelling
and
extend
living
space
to
the
basement
for
unit
one
constructing
new
roof
deck
violations.
Article
27
s
section
five-
is
to
the
South
Boston
iPod
applicability
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BY
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Nix
Azula,
McDermott
quilty
and
Miller
xx,
State
Street,
Suite
8:02
in
Boston,
with
me
to
my
meteorite,
is
Jason
Weissman
from
JM
investment
LLC.
They
are
the
appellant
on
this
appeal
and,
to
my
far
right
is
Derek
Rubin
off
from
Derek
Rubin
özil
architects.
I
could
just
give
a
brief
introduction
if
you
like
property,
is
in
South
Boston
between
G
and
H
streets
right
around
the
corner
from
East
8th
Street.
BY
The
proposal
is
to
completely
gut
renovate
and
reconfigure
this
existing
three
family
dwelling
to
remain
as
a
three
family
dwelling.
It's
about
3,500
square
foot
building
amongst
those
three
units
and
the
proposal
is
to
again
renovate
but
also
extend
living
space
into
the
basement
for
the
first
unit.
So
it
would
not
be
its
own
unit.
It
would
be
attached
to
that
first
floor
unit
about
300
square
feet
for
a
family
room,
dan,
Jim,
etc.
No
expansion
is
proposed
at
all
to
this
building,
as
a
part
of
this
exist.
A
part
of
this
appeal.
BY
All
these
changes
are
triggering
the
iPod
as
a
result
of
the
gut
renovation
and
the
cost
of
the
of
the
renovation,
and
the
proposal
also
includes
the
addition
of
a
small
zoning
compliant
roof
deck
which
can
only
be
accessed
from
within
the
third
floor
unit.
So
it's
private
to
the
third
floor.
That's
about
two
hundred
and
sixteen
square
feet.
BY
You
know
again,
it
would
be
private
to
just
that
third
floor.
What
can
only
be
accessed
through
that
third
floor
and
so
basically
much
needed
renovations
to
this
building
and
some
an
interior,
reconfiguration
and
expansion
with
no
expansion
of
the
building
on
the
exterior.
So
there
will
be
no
change
to
the
exterior
of
the
building
from
what's
there
now
other
than
the
addition
of
that
small
roof
deck.
AO
B
C
This
is
to
combine
this
is
to
combine
lots
at
106
out
of
Mount
Pleasant
108
close
a
nap
in
a
vacant
lot
into
one
lot,
building
on
a
total
of
eight
thousand
three
hundred
fifty-one
square
feet.
He
wrecked
in
addition
and
changed
our
keys
to
a
three
family
dwelling
existing
house
to
be
known
as
106
108
rare
Mount,
Pleasant
violations,
article
50,
section,
24
locks
eyes
to
the
three
family
is
insufficient.
C
Article
50,
section
44,
two
dwellings
on
the
same
plot:
article
50,
section
44
two
buildings
on
one
lot:
nickel
50,
section,
44
side
yard
with
driveways,
so
aa
street
parking
cannot
be
less
than
ten
feet
wide.
Article
50
section
29,
the
location
of
the
main
entrance
of
the
dwelling,
shall
face
the
front
lot
line:
article
50
section
29
to
dwelling
on
the
same
lot:
radical
50,
section,
29
lot
side
for
the
three
family
is
insufficient.
Nickel
50
section
29
of
the
Floyd
a
ratio
is
excessive
ethical,
50,
section
29,
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
C
C
This
is
for
108.
Mount
Pleasant
directly
knew
three
family
house
on
the
same
lot
violations
our
article
50
section
44
two
buildings
on
one
lot:
article
50
section
44,
two
dwellings
on
the
same
lot:
article
50,
section,
44,
side,
yard,
Par
street
parking
drivers
cannot
be
less
than
10
feet
wide
ethical
50,
section
29.
The
lot
area
for
additional
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient.
Article
50
floor
day
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
50,
usable
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
50,
the
front
yard
setback
is
insufficient
to
go
50
section
20
and
the
side
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
C
L
Attorney
jonquil,
Jeannie,
Ken,
Forbes
Road
in
Braintree
and
with
me
today
is
true
Alaric,
who
is
the
owner
developer
of
this
proposal?
The
proposal
before
you
as
mr.
fortune
stated.
We
actually
have
three
lots
of
land
here.
This
is
an
existing
two
family
in
the
rear
of
this.
So
it's
a
combination
of
these
Lots.
The
rear
would
be
converted
from
a
two
family
to
a
three
family
and
it
would
be
there's
a
vacant
lot,
because
this
is
very
much
back
in
the
lot.
The
big,
the
front
and
vacant
lot
would
also
be
a
new
construction.
L
Three
family
home
went
to
the
violations.
A
lot
of
the
violations
are
existing
because
of
the
rear.
A
lot
of
sitting
back
the
driveways,
an
existing
driveway.
That
access
is
that
we're
actually
widening
that
driveway
by
three
feet.
Each
unit
in
these
in
106
106
a
was
they're
all
two
bedroom
ones:
2-bedroom
2-bath
984
square
feet
unit,
two
three
bedroom,
two
bath
13:36
square
feet
and
unit
3
is
3-bedroom
2bath
1238
square
feet.
L
L
B
B
L
L
B
L
B
V
L
The
common
passageway:
yes,
so
there
right
now,
that's
an
existing!
What
you're?
Looking
at
on
the
plan
there,
it's
an
existing
common
driveway
that
runs
in
between
104
and
106,
104
108,
and
then
that's
being
expanded
by
three
feet
for
access
to
the
rear.
Even
though
it's
currently
used
it's
just
to
widen.
B
L
V
L
C
L
AO
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
phases
Sharif
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
On
behalf
of
Joshua
Madden,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
proposal.
I
do
just
want
to
add
a
note
that
there
are.
There
has
been
some
contention
in
terms
of
density
and
parking
around
this
issue,
but
they
did
meet
with
the
Civic
Association
at
least
twice.
AO
AG
BZ
Currently
there
are
approximately
25
units
of
low-income
subsidized
in
market
rentals
to
the
immediate
left
and
right
of
this
property.
We,
our
neighborhood,
have
worked
very
closely
with
developers.
In
the
past.
We've
worked
with
the
Department
of
Neighborhood
Development
and
also
Azalea
and
urban
core
to
develop
firehouse
lofts
at
four
nine
Dudley,
which
were
nine
units
and
at
four
seven
Dudley
Street,
which
is
also
a
nine
unit,
commercial
and
residential
project.
We're
asking
that
the
developer
continue
to
meet
with
us
until
we
can
meet
in
the
middle
for
lesser
units,.
BZ
We're
looking
for
more
conducive
number
of
units
that
reflect
to
the
neighbors
commitments,
creating
dwellings
that
reflect
the
wants
of
the
immediate
neighbors.
The
letters
of
support
I
also
represent
the
neighborhood
association
which
andrew
has
met
with
a
few
times,
but
we
are
still
looking
to
speak
with
him
to
come
to
a
number
of
units
that
will
satisfy
the
directors.
CA
The
common
driveway
that's
been
called
driveways,
really
not
a
common
driveways
and
coming
walkway,
which
is
the
access
to
108.
I
am
106
106,
108
Pleasant,
which
is
in
the
rear
of
104
ma
Pleasant
Avenue,
which
was
the
original
structure
some
hundred
years
ago
whenever
he
was
built,
and
this
other
structures
were
built
later
on,
and
that
was
given
access
to
106
and
108
there's
also
a
sewer
problem,
which
is
there's
a
manhole
in
that
driveway
as
well
as
we
discovered
some
25
years
ago.
CA
There
was
an
obstruction
in
the
sewage
system
of
106
in
108,
and
if
we
discovered
that
the
system
goes
through
and
under
mom
Pleasant
Avenue,
so
we
added
then
bring
it
up
to
a
PVC
pipe.
Instead
of
ceramic
piping,
we
noticed
for
them
to
have
some
access
to
unclog
the
whole
system
for
106
at
101
away.
CA
AH
CA
It's
very
tight
ass
is
it's
been
tight
for
as
long
as
I
know
it
for
40
years
and
now
to
have
off
street
parking
and
having
these
issue
with
the
that
common
driveway
we
actually,
there
was
a
stipulation
that
neither
owner
could
fenced
it
gated,
because
otherwise,
we've
been
cutting
off
the
access
to
106
in
one
way,
by
giving
it
or
closing
it
off
I'm,
not
too
sure
if
I
believe
that
wasn't
the
deed
when
the
structure
was
bought,
but
I'm
not
too
sure
about
it.
At
this
time.
Okay,.
B
V
CA
CA
B
L
L
The
big
response
would
be
access
to
the
parking
in
the
back
I'm
saying
mr.
Diaz
classified
it
as
a
walkway,
not
a
driveway.
The
parking
is
existing
and
they're
using
in
the
driveway,
both
properties
at
this
point
of
both
using
that
as
a
driveway.
So
this
is
expanding
that
driveway,
even
wider
than
is
existing
under
its
current
use.
L
L
V
L
It's
a
very
good
question.
It
came
up
a
lot
or
in
the
community
process
with
respect
to
density,
because
the
goal
and
objective
of
a
lot
of
people
that
live
in
this
neighborhood
and
we
heard
through
the
community
process
that
they
would
like
to
have
more
density,
to
get
something
that's
more
affordable,
so
that
the
currently
young
people
who
live
in
the
neighborhood
who
were
renting
could
have
the
potential
to
buy
something.
So
because
the
density
is
the
three
units,
as
opposed
to
a
two
unit.
L
G
C
Calling
you
11:30,
we
discussions
calling
the
first
case
VOA:
seven:
seven:
seven:
zero,
nine,
eight,
twenty
nine
Oak
Street.
This
is
the
change
of
Oxford
from
a
three
family
to
a
four
family
and
then
construct
an
addition.
The
violation
is
article
32,
section,
9,
G
card
enforcement,
article
43,
section
19
residential
conversion
is
conditional
name
and
address
for.
C
Q
J
Madame
Chapman
is
a
Boyd
Christian,
ciminelli,
boss
and
growler
trust.
At
this
time,
I
would
request
a
whole
facility
show
the
plans
at
currently
before
water
and
sewer
I
have
confirmation
that
they
have
been
submitted.
I
also
have
a
copy
of
those
plans,
but
we
do
not
have
the
letters
of
yet
from
water
and
sewer.
B
B
V
B
An
understanding
from
your
perspective
that
you
understand
that
this
is
not
me
requesting
a
conversion
from
a
three
to
four
and
the
sits
here
before
us
just
on
a
technical
basis
on
the
groundwater
recharge.
Is
that
clear
to
everybody
in
the
room
here
who's
here?
Obviously,
obviously,
here
because
of
concerns
about
the
project
or
interest
in
the
project
council,
your
your
is
that
your
understanding
have
you
spoken
with
the
community.
That's
here,
yes,.
CB
CB
B
CB
I
understand,
I,
think
the
groundwater
issue,
water
and
soil
issue.
Critical
they're
important
issues
in
Chinatown
I
need
to
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
documentation
from
the
developer
from
the
contractor
and
to
read
it
I,
don't
think
they're
there,
yet
I
I
think
they
also
need
another
community
meeting.
I
have
heard
from
concerns
from
many
Chinatown
residents
in
organizations
that
this
project
will
also
threaten
Chinatown's,
historic,
small-scale
row
houses.
The
proposed
infill
eliminates
the
back
yard
and
is
out
of
scale
for
the
block.
CB
Finally,
I
have
heard
concerns
that
this
project
will
set
a
precedent
allowing
increased
density
in
Chao
Chinatown
in
the
area
that
is
already
one
of
the
most
densely
populated
neighborhoods
in
Boston
madam
chair,
over
the
last
year,
we
we
saw
so
many
Airbnb
s
in
Chinatown
that
were
taken
off
the
off
the
market.
A
lot
of
low-income
families
were
moved
out
of.
Chinatown
kicked
out
of
Chinatown
a
lot
of
immigrants.
I
feel
that
you
know
Chinatown
should
still
be
a
community
for
low-income
families,
for
our
Chinese
community
and
I
I.
CB
Do
think
this
sets
a
bad
precedent
for
the
community
and
I'm
standing
with
the
community
I'm
in
Chinatown
every
day.
I
listen
to
their
concerns
every
day,
and
they
made
it
very
clear
to
me
that
they're
there,
an
opposition
to
this
project
and
I
stand
with
the
community
and
I
I.
Do
thank
the
chair
and
I
do
think
the
numbers
of
the
board
forgiven
me
enough.
You
need
to
be
here.
It's.
B
A
cancer,
the
only
violation
just
so
that
in
residents
from
Chinatown
also
are
being
informed
here
that
the
only
violation
is
not
related
to
zoning.
It's
just
related
to
the
groundwater,
recharge
and
again,
as
Christian
here,
who
is
our
the
expert
we
rely
on,
has
looked
at
the
plans
and
has
testified
so
just
I
know
I'm
repeating
myself,
but
I
feel
like
I
have
to
okay,
Thank
You
counselor.
Thank.
J
B
V
B
J
B
BJ
C
B
C
H
B
B
C
Wilcox
Pete
calling
boa
eight
zero
six
eight
zero
540
Wilcox
Street,
boa
eight
zero,
six,
eight
zero
848
Wilcox
Street.
This
is
440.
This
is
to
erect
a
new
floor
unit
multifamily,
building
violations,
article
sixty
section,
eight
multi-family
residential
unit
building
used
for
is
in
is
a
forbidden
news.
C
Article
sixty
section
nine,
a
lot
area
for
additional
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient
article
sixty
section
I
in
the
fluid
a
ratios
excessive
article,
sixty
section
nine
in
the
height
requirement
his
excessive
in
stories,
article
sixty
section,
nine,
the
height
requirement
is
excessive
and
feet
article
sixty
section,
nine,
the
front
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
To
go.
Sixty
section,
nine
side,
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
sixty
section
nine
usable
open
space
requirement
is
insufficient.
This
is
for
forty
eight
will
mark
this
direct,
a
new
multi-family
for
dwelling
unit
with
proposed
for
our
street
parking.
C
The
violation
is
article
10
section
one.
Our
street
parking
shall
be
located
no
more
than
five
feet
from
the
side.
Lot
line
article
sixty
section,
eight,
a
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden
news,
article
sixty
section,
nine,
a
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
sixty
section,
nine
additional
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
sixty
section
I
on
the
floor.
The
a
ratio
is
excessive
article
sixty
section,
nine,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
in
stories
that
go
sixty
section
I
on
a
usable,
open
space
is
insufficient,
equals
sixty
section
I.
C
L
John
Puccini
ten
Forbes,
Road
Braintree
and
with
me,
is
Dave
France,
who
is
the
owner
of
this
property?
Just
first
like
to
point
out
that
the
plans
were
submitted
to
Mister
Pazhani
are
actually
through.
The
community
process
has
started
out
as
a
for
you
four
unit
buildings.
It
got
scaled
back
through
the
community
process
to
a
three
unit
to
three
unit
buildings
to
conform
with.
What's
existing
in
the
neighborhood,
the
zoning
in
the
neighborhood
has
three
a
five
thousand.
L
Lots
of
four
thousand
square
feet,
which
is
consistent
with
what
is
existing
in
the
neighborhood.
These
are
for
sale,
condominiums,
three
units
and
again,
as
I
stated,
it
was
at
four.
We
had
several
of
butters
meetings,
all
the
butters
felt
like
if
we
went
to
the
three.
That
would
be
something
they
would
support,
because
it
is
exactly
what's
existing
in
the
neighborhood
just
for
unit
count.
Each
unit
is
so
again.
It
removes
the
height
requirement.
Everything
we're
at
32
feet.
We
conform
with
everything.
B
L
L
So
we
do
the
we
do
have
some
violations.
Obviously,
as
my
mr.
fortune
read
through
them
usable
open
space
again,
it
went
through
a
pretty
robust
community
process,
get
it
bringing
from
a
four
to
A
three
and
also
I,
provided
the
board.
Seven
letters
of
support
from
abutters
in
support
of
this
project.
AO
B
B
C
Chair
we
have
one
more
for
the
1130
from
the
recommendations
that
they're
gonna
be
heard,
so
I'm
gonna
pull
it
out
of
order.
It's
boa
eight
five,
one,
four
five
one:
four
Charles
River
square:
this
is
a
relocation
of
interior
petitions,
cutting
a
new
back
door
window,
Wells,
repair
windows
and
replace
rule
violations.
Article
13
section
13,
one
excessive
fa,
our
name.
B
CC
Correct,
madam
chair,
it's
an
expansion
of
living
space
for
the
family,
that
is
there.
They
have
two
teenage
children
when
they
bought
the
home.
There
was
a
kitchenette
annabet
in
a
bedroom
in
that
basement
there
is
no
new
means
of
egress
or
ingress
being
created
to
that
basement.
It's
simply
a
renovation
to
increase
living
space
for
their
family
we've
since
signed
and
notarized
a
covenant
with
the
homeowners
association
at
Charles,
River
square.
That
confirms
at
each
home
in
the
complex
as
a
single-family
home
and
will
remain
so.
C
So
we're
gonna
hold
the
court
remand
after
I
do
the
recommendations.
This
was
the
subcommittee
meeting
on
Thursday
August
23rd
down
at
10:10
Mass
Ave
case
BOA,
eight
four,
six,
four,
five,
nine
four
crystal
place
was
the
side.
Yeah
I'm
sorry
was
approved
at
be,
are
a
case
boa
eight
five
one,
boa
eight
one:
zero
five,
two
seven
six.
Ninety
four
East
Fifth
Street
was
to
legalize
the
constructed
head.
Elf
was
approved
with
BPD
a
boa
seven.
Eight
five,
eight
eight
one,
thirty
nine
Bailey
Street
was
approved.
C
This
was
to
construct
a
new
rear
deck
12
by
15
by
eighth
of
an
existing
to
family
dwelling.
Boa
eight,
four,
six,
eight
nine
nine
twenty
seven
Beechmont
Street
was
approved,
was
a
six
by
twelve
bone
story.
Addition
mudroom,
boa
eight
four,
nine
five,
three
161
Cleveland
Street,
was
approved
with
BPD
a
this
was
the
adding
second-floor
Dorma
to
an
existing
single-family
residence,
boa
seven,
nine,
five,
zero
seven:
three
forty
seven
maple
street
was
deferred
to
nine
twenty
2018.
Boa
eight
four
one,
three
three
three
seventy-eight
bradwood
Street
was
approved.
C
This
was
the
remodel
addict
living
space.
Boa
eight,
three,
nine
six.
Two
eight
twelve
fern
craft
Road
was
approved,
was
adding
a
ruined
bathroom
to
an
existing
structure
on
the
Regis
fashion
was
boa
eight
one,
four,
four,
nine
four
four
Union
Park
was
an
extended
thing,
a
garage
it
was
approved.
That
concludes
the
subcommittee
advisory
board.
BQ
Boston
I'm
doing
by
my
client
property
owned
by
a
type
of
Sun
Property
Group.
Madam
chair
members,
the
underlying
matter
here
was
an
application
to
erect
a
new
zoning
compliant
8
unit
building
which,
before
this
board
a
few
months
ago
before
the
board,
even
though
he's
only
compliant
on
the
matter
of
Greenbelt
protection
overlay
district
compliance,
only
this
board
denied
the
application
for
the
tpod
permit.
My
client
in
turn
appealed
the
decision
of
this
board
to
the
Superior
Court
for
Suffolk
County.
BQ
Demo,
an
existing
building
in
to
erect
a
new
eight
unit
building
in
an
MFI
district
on
Farragut
Road
in
South
Boston
is
zoning
compliant
in
terms
of
being
an
allowed
use.
It
meets
all
of
the
austria
parking
and
dimensional
requirements.
A
portion
of
the
site
lies
within
the
Greenbelt
protection
overlay
district.
Hence
triggering
the
requirement
for
G
pod
approval
and
again,
the
board
denied
G
part
approval.
The
order
of
the
court
I
can't
give
legal
advice
to
the
board.
BQ
H
B
BV
B
BQ
CD
CE
B
CD
CD
B
CD
My
apologies,
the
the
law
department,
the
way
we
view
this
is
so
in
matters
related
to
litigation
litigation
strategy.
I
totally
agree
that
the
law
department
makes
most
of
those
decisions.
We
represent
the
board.
We
act
in
the
best
interest
of
the
board
and
we
proceed.
Ordinarily,
the
parties
enter
into
settlement
agreements,
it's
usually
the
the
developer
and
whether
it
be
in
a
butter
or
someone
else,
and
what's
asked
of
the
board,
is
only
that
we
stipulate
to
the
dismissal
of
the
lawsuit.
This
circumstance
is
a
little
different.
CD
There
will
be
a
stipulation
of
dismissal
which
the
Zoning
Board
will
sign,
and
ordinarily,
the
law
department
is
involved
with
that.
However,
there
is
an
agreement
that
is
kind
of
you
have
to
look
at
it
as
a
side
agreement
to
the
stipulation
of
dismissal
that
the
abut
er
who's.
The
plaintiff
in
the
action
is
asking
the
board
to
sign
and
because
this
is
in
essence,
a
settlement
agreement
that
the
board
is
signing
on
to
the
law
department
does
not
feel
comfortable
to
make
that
decision
without
the
board
voicing
its
opinion
one
way
or
another.
CE
Absolutely
back
in
September
of
2017,
our
client
received
the
variance
for
10
to
16
Everett
Street
4
for
unit
4
story,
19
condominium
units
and
21
included
spaces
of
parking.
The
back
neighbor
at
189
to
191
maverick
Street,
filed
an
appeal
to
challenge
the
variance
granted
by
this
board,
and
the
parties
came
to
an
agreement
to
settle
that
dispute,
and
it
has
several
terms.
The
first
term
is
a
confidential
monetary
payment
by
my
client
to
the
neighbor.
CE
The
second
set
of
terms
is
a
promise
by
our
client
to
include,
in
the
condominium
documents,
an
agreement
not
to
oppose
any
residential
development
by
the
neighbor
in
the
future.
There
was
no
current
plans
by
the
neighbor
to
4-pole
to
do
in
a
development,
but
that
promise
would
last
for
20
years
if,
for
whatever
reason,
the
my
client
does
not
include
in
the
master
deed
for
the
condominium.
This
promise
not
to
oppose
any
future
residential
development
by
the
neighbor.
Then
the
neighbor
wants
to
restart
the
litigation
and
vacate
the
settlement
agreement.
B
CE
V
B
C
Think
the
City
of
Austin,
obviously,
lawyers
are
here
they
represent
us
on
this
board.
We
shouldn't
have
to
sign
anything.
It
should
be
signed
by
someone
in
the
law
department
on
behalf
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
not
somebody
sitting
up
here.
I
personally,
you
know
I,
don't
want
to
sign
my
name
onto
something
they
have.
H
H
CE
B
CD
CD
It's
signing
on
to
really
what
is
an
agreement
to
dispose
of
the
litigation,
but
if
they
don't
meet
some
other
agreement,
we're
not
going
to
oppose
the
ability
of
the
plaintiff
to
restart
the
litigation,
and
that's
really
the
only
agreement,
that's
being
asked
of
the
board
now,
but
it's
going
to
be
the
Board's
decision
at
that
time,
whether
or
not
to
oppose
and
so
I'm.
If
the
Board's
decision
is
to
put
this
in
the
hands
a
lot
apartment,
that's
fine
and
and
will
and
I'll
take
that
and
I
will
I
will
enter
into
an
agreement.
CD
That
I
believe
is
in
the
best
interest
of
moving
this
along
based
on
the
fact
that
the
board
made
this
approval.
That
being
said,
this
conversation,
based
on
the
sentiment,
seems
as
if
it's
ill
advising
the
law
department
to
enter
into
an
agreement
to
vacate
so
I'm.
Trying
to
understand
am
I
authorized
by
this
board
to
enter
into
something
that
disposes
of
this
litigation
based
on.