►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 2-2-21 (Part 2 of 2)
Description
Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 2-2-21 (Part 2 of 2)
C
B
E
Yes
greetings,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
board.
My
name
is
chance:
hall,
lima
barbosa,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
a
community
process
was
held
for
this
proposal,
including
multiple
butters
meetings
on
september
21st
of
2020
november
16
of
2020
january
11
of
2021,
and
in
addition,
multiple
presentations
to
the
hancock
street
civic
association.
E
F
F
No
hands
raised
here,
but
I
do
just
want
to
make
note.
People
are
on
the
call
and
they
want
to
leave
a
comment.
Please
raise
your
hand,
john.
It's
really
hard
to
navigate
the
chat
and
also
look
for
raised
hands
here.
So
please,
you
can
press
start
three
if
you're
calling
by
phone
or
raise
your
hand
on
the
tab.
Thank
you.
H
H
I'm
also
a
member
of
the
hancock
street
civic
association,
which
sent
a
conditional
letter
of
support
for
the
project.
We've
worked
with
the
developer,
as
chantal
has
indicated,
to
revise
the
project
and
by
and
large
we
support
the
project.
I'm
surprised
that
the
narrator
for
the
project
indicated
that
the
roof
deck
would
remain,
because
the
agreement
was
that
that
roof
deck
would
not
be
constructed
all
right
come
here
and
say
that
the
roof
deck
was
never
presented
to
the
community.
H
H
I
J
G
Thank
you
very
much
calling
the
next
two
cases
calling
boa
106
26
39
139,
harrish
hoff
street.
It
was
a
companion
case,
boa
106,
9729
135
harris
off
street.
This
is
for
139
harris
hof
street.
It's
a
change
of
ox
from
a
two
two-family
dwelling
to
a
three-family,
drawing
construct.
A
rare
edition
of
the
first
and
third
floor
edition
on
the
existing
footprint
proposed
four-hour
street
parking
access
to
access
through
a
shared
driveway
with
135
harrison
in
conjunction
with
their
six
new
six-unit
residential
building
violations.
Article
50
section
29,
the
four-day
ratio
is
excessive.
G
G
G
G
L
The
original
plans,
as
I
said,
proposed
a
six
unit
building
at
135
karishov
with
the
revised
plans.
Virtually
all
of
the
violations
attributable
to
135
harrison
street
have
been
eliminated.
The
remaining
violation
is
for
the
shared
driveway,
which
is
the
board
knows,
is
always
a
conditional
use
or
variance.
I'm
sorry.
With
respect
to
135.
L
I'm
sorry,
a
three-story
building
that
building
site
would
increase
from
36
and
a
half
feet
to
40
feet,
whereas
the
just
over
40
feet,
whereas
the
maximum
coat
height
is
in
fact,
40
feet.
So
there
is
a
height
violation
there.
The
building
has
existing
basement
living
space,
which
would
remain
there's
actually
a
kitchen
now
in
the
basement,
as
the
building's
occupancy
had
been
legalized
as
a
three
family
back
in
the
1950s.
L
This
is
the
condition
that
my
client,
who
is
tim,
longdon,
bought
the
building
in
unit.
One
would
be
a
high
level
three
bedroom
of
approximately
sixteen
hundred
square
feet.
Unit
two
would
be
a
three
bedroom
unit
of
approximately
thirteen
hundred
square
feet
and
unit
three
would
be
a
one
thousand
square
foot
two
bedroom.
The
maximum.
L
Far
here
is
point
eight,
the
resulting
far
139
harrison
would
be
just
over
that
at
approximately
0.82
the
roof
will
remain
unoccupied,
there'll,
be
three
full-size,
and
one
compact
parking
spaces
in
the
rear
and
with
respect
to
the
other
sided
violations.
The
front
and
side
yard
setbacks,
violations
both
go
to
the
existing
building
footprint.
Finally,
access
to
both
parking
areas
will
be,
as
I
mentioned,
provided
by
a
shared
driveway
utilizing
an
existing
standard
with
curb
cut
I'll
pause
to
take
any
questions.
If
members
may
have.
L
Certainly,
sheet
a2
shows
a
basement
floor
to
ceiling
height
of
seven
and
a
half
feet,
and
obviously
these
plants
were
developed
in
advance
of
the
maturation
of
the
of
the
board's,
pretty
clear
position
on
basement
dwelling.
It's
sheet
a10,
I'm
sorry
basement
bedroom
sheet.
A10
does
show
a
code
compliant
egress
window
and
a
window
well
for
the
for
the
bedroom
in
the
basement,
as
opposed
to.
L
M
A
Yeah,
it's
a
little
hard
for
me
to
exactly
tell
I
mean
I.
I
think
it
is
a
question
on
its
height
and
its
relationship
to
the
grade,
because
the
grade
does
seem
to
rise
up
as
you
move
back.
So
I
think
that's
something
we
should
take
under
consideration
and
maybe
not
allow,
because
I'm
not
sure
I
can
quite
make
a
comprehensive
assessment
of
it
in
terms
of
its
relationship.
I
G
This
is
a
six
unit,
residential
dwelling
with
three
private
roof
decks
and
eight
parking
spaces.
The
violations,
article
65
section
41
insufficient
parking
article,
65,
section,
41,
insufficient
maneuvering
area,
article
65,
section,
42,
conformity
building
of
existing
building
alignment.
Article
6568
mfi
use
is
forbidden,
article
65,
section
9
excessive
far
article
65
section
9,
the
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded.
G
P
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
jeff
brego,
withdrego
and
toscano,
with
an
address
of
11
vegan
street,
representing
melissa
novaco.
The
developer
in
the
project
may
also
have
james
christopher
from
rca,
whose
firm
handled
the
architecture
of
design
again
this
project
has
actually
changed,
so
the
description
has
been
modified
and
the
plans
that
mr
robinson
have
reflect
that
change.
P
This
particular
lot
is
7487
square
feet
it
just
to
go
over
the
the
layout
and
plan,
the
there's,
a
small,
lower
level
or
basement
to
the
front
of
the
project.
There's
the
sprinkler
room,
elevator,
lift
and
the
mechanical
rooms.
As
we
go
to
the
first
floor
that
houses
our
main
entrance,
all
of
the
arcing
is
interior
based
on
community
feed,
but
actually
there
are
eight
parking
spaces
of
which
two
are
handling.
P
P
Two
is
a
thousand
eighty
two
square
foot
unit,
two
bed,
two
bath
with
a
balcony
and
unit
three,
is
930
square
feet:
two-bed
two-bath,
as
we
go
up
to
the
third
floor,
they're
bi-level
units,
so
units
four,
five
and
six,
and
on
the
lower
level,
that's
on
four
three
as
our
living
space
and
a
half
bath
with
balcony
and
then,
as
we
go
up
to
the
fourth
floor,
those
are
two
bed
two
bath
with
an
office
and
a
roof
deck.
Those
units
are
800,
1823,
1825
and
187
square
feet
respectively.
P
A
It
sounds
like
you
reduced
and
pulled
the
rear
yard
to
alleviate
the
rear
yard
setback
violation,
but
it
does
feel
like
the
building
is
too
far
forward
for
that
street
and
I'd
like
to,
I
guess,
understand
that
a
little
bit
most
of
those
houses
seem
to
be
set
quite
a
bit,
and
I
see
you
note
a
15
foot
step
back,
but
is
that?
Can
you
just
talk
to
that
a
little
bit
for
me.
P
I
don't
know
if
james
is
on.
The
call
is
james
christopher
on
I
do.
I
do
know
it
is
a
mix
up,
and
you
did
mention
mr
robinson.
It
is,
some
of
them
are
set
back,
but
some
of
them
are
actually
a
little
closer.
If
we,
if
you
look
at
the
site,
there's
a
three
family
next
to
us
and
then
a
red
house,
that's
pushed
a
little
further
back,
I'm
not
sure
if
james
is
on.
We
did
I'm
on
sorry.
Q
Yeah,
no,
there
is
a
mix.
The
building
some
of
the
buildings
decided
further
back.
Some
of
them
are
are
closer
to
the
street.
One
of
the
reasons
for
the
siding
of
the
building
as
it
stands
was
to
pull
the
parking
in
and
to
create
that
rare
yard
setback.
It
was
a
question
with
the
rear
to
to
see
if
we
can
create
some
additional
open
space
and
that's
where
we
established
that
thirty
foot.
P
So
we
actually
pulled
in
the
back
based
on
our
rear
of
butter
feedback.
They
didn't
want
any
parking
in
the
rear
they
didn't.
They
wanted
as
much
green
space
in
the
back
of
the
projects
we
pulled
where
we're
30
feet,
and
then
we
pull
in
or
we
step
in
on
each
floor
in
the
rear,
as
well
just
to
give
them
as
much
green
space
and
privacy
and
just
a
point
to
know,
there's
also
an
old
garage
back
there
against
their
property
line
as
part
of
this
project.
P
A
Can
you
just
talk
to
me
a
little
bit
as
well
about
the
style
I
mean
the
street
is
really
either
a
triple
decker
or
a
victorian,
and
this
the
mansur
feels
a
little
out
of
place
to
me
from
a
design
aesthetic
of
that
street,
because
I
think
the
victorians
have
relief
in
their
pitches
and
their
dormers,
and
this
feels
big
I'll
be
honest.
Well,
I
understand
sort
of
where
it's
going
and
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
more
of
the
style.
That's
creating
the
aesthetic
of
bigness,
I
think,
associated
with
this
site.
Q
Q
As
far
as
the
aesthetic
of
design,
we
felt
that
the
demand
summit
allowed
us
to
capitalize
on
the
square
footage
while
reorganizing
it
towards
the
front
of
the
roof
to
create
that
rear
step
in
the
building.
And
you
know
we
certainly
appreciate
the
height
and
the
massing
on
the
front
elevation,
but
we
felt
that
it
was
more
appropriate
to
work
on
the
interior
parking
and
pick
up
that
front
level,
and
we
think
it
sucks
nicely,
but
we're
certainly
open
to
reviewing
that
with
the
bpda.
P
Mr
robinson,
if
there's
something
if
this
was
to
be
approved,
in
a
proviso,
if
you
wanted
to
change
that,
I
was
just
texting
with
the
with
the
owner
melissa
and
she
said:
she'd
be
more
than
happy
if
you
think
there's
a
better
design
style.
It
was
something
that
the
abutters
liked,
but
we
did
have
the
support
of
all
of
our
butters.
At
this
point,
thank
you.
A
S
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
patrick
fandale,
mayor's
office
neighborhood
services.
This
did
go
through
a
full
community
process,
including
two
butters
meetings,
one
about
the
original
proposal
and
then
about
the
re
designed
plans.
The
redesigned
plans,
the
applicant
worked
tremendously
with
his
directed
butters,
both
on
the
sides
and
in
the
rear
to
accommodate
a
lot
of
their
design
concerns
the
unit
count,
reduction,
the
green
space
expansion
and
then
just
generally,
the
design
of
the
building
the
columbia
sabin
hill.
S
G
T
G
G
You
spelling
bee
one
one:
zero
six,
four:
three:
zero:
two
oakland
street:
this
erected
new
six
townhouse
unit
proposed
13
parking
spaces.
The
violations
article
51
section
8,
townhouse
use,
is
forbidden.
Article
51,
section
9,
the
fluidity
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
51
section
of
the
building
height
is
excessive
in
stories.
G
Article
51
section
9
the
bill
had
excessive
fee
article
51
section
9
front
yacht
is
insufficient.
Article
51,
section
9
side
yacht
is
insufficient
article
51
section
9,
the
rayon
is
insufficient
in
article
51,
section
9.4,
so
maintenance
of
the
drawing
she'll
face
the
front,
lock
lines
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
K
We
were
last
scheduled
with
the
board.
There
was
a
missing
violation
that
has
since
been
cited.
The
violations
are
used,
townhouses
are
not
in
allowed
use.
Currently,
the
property
is
a
pre-existing
non-conforming
mix,
use
multi-family
and
commercial
property.
There's
four
residential
units
and
a
commercial
unit
on
the
property.
We
propose
constructing
six
new
townhouse
units
with
two
parking
spaces
per
unit,
the
unit
breakdowns,
or
rather
the
units
range
in
size
from
1944
square
feet
to
2
690
square
feet.
K
K
D
D
D
A
A
K
Yep
the
applicant
worked
really
closely
with
the
property
owner
and
the
butter
at
8
oakland
and
has
actually
relocated
the
structure
on
the
parcel,
increasing
the
side,
yard
setback
closest
to
eight
oakland
to
21
feet
and
in
doing
so,
just
with
the
size
and
dimensions
of
the
lot,
it
was
determined
to
put
the
packing
there.
There's
screening
and
buffering
the
applicant
worked
with
that
a
butter
and
walked
the
property
with
the
proposed
landscape
plant
to
maintain
the
large
tree
in
the
rear
and
to
have
the
buffering.
R
O
N
A
similar
question
you
come
in
the
driveway
you've
got
what
looks
like
eight.
Was
it
eight
garage
doors,
there's
a
lot
of
garage
doors
and
which
is
not
something
that
this
board
usually
is
very
happy
about.
So
and,
as
mr
robinson
said,
it
faces
a
single-family
home.
What
what
kind
of
screening
and
buffering
are
you
putting
in
place
to
mitigate
all
of
those
cars
coming
in
and
out.
R
The
topography
of
the
site
is
pretty
severe
so
where
those
car
parking
spaces
are
would
actually
be
a
retaining
wall.
We
could
talk,
I'm
not
privy
to
the
conversation
that
was
had
with
the
uploader
at
8
oakland,
but
if
they
wanted
screening
there
above
that
retaining
wall,
I'm
sure
we
would
be
happy
to
provide
it
well.
R
R
U
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
conor
newman
with
the
mayor's
office
neighborhood
services
electronic
records
for
this
proposal.
We
conducted
a
community
process.
We
had
our
first
abutters
meeting
through
the
city
december
4th
2019,
where
there's
a
lot
of
concerns
raised
by
the
neighborhood
and
continue
to
work
with
the
butters
and
director
butters
came
back
on
july
27th
of
2020.
U
There
was
more
positive
feedback.
We
want
to
go
on
record
support.
We
asked
that
the
app
can
continue
to
work
with
director
butters
regarding
a
landscaping
plan
for
screening
and
buffering,
and
they
also
got
support
from
the
breit
nelson
improvement
association
when
they
presented
them
as
well.
Thank
you.
V
F
W
My
name
is
john
bly.
My
address
is
1970
commonwealth
apartment
number
27.,
I'm
also
the
vice
president
of
the
baia.
I
know
that
it
went
through
our
board
and
was
approved
and
that
people
were
happy
with
the
size
of
the
units
that
it
gave
options
for
families
in
the
neighborhood
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
represented
these
days.
Thank
you.
X
Hi
there
it's
it's
robin
gibbs
and
I
live
next
door
and
I'm
actually
an
immediate
butter
and
I've
never
heard
anything
from
the
developer
whatsoever.
So
if
you
look
at
the
google
maps,
there's
a
land
parcel
directly
behind
that
single
family
that
abuts
this
property,
so
that
land
parcel
abuts
this
property,
and
then
I
have
a
second
parcel
that
goes
beyond
that,
and
then
I
live
in
the
condominiums
beyond
that
and
I'm
out
there
on
a
daily
basis.
What
is
your
well
my
address?
Y
Yep
annabel
gomez,
wright
nelson
improvement
association,
the
bia
voted
to
support
it
and
there
is
a
great
change,
so
the
house
that
you
are
talking
about
with
the
driveway
is
actually
a
little
higher,
so
the
just
the
small
buffering
would
actually
be
fine.
I
believe
with
that,
because
this
the
street
goes
uphill,
as
you
come
from
washington
street.
Y
I
don't
know
if
that
answers
the
question
of
the
board
that
they
were
asking
about,
that.
We
did
feel
that
this
is
a
great
opportunity
for
families
to
be
able
to
live.
There
be
able
to
park
their
cars
off
the
streets,
which
was
one
of
the
things
that
was
raised
with
concerns
with
the
abutters
that
there
wouldn't
be
vehicles
taking
up
more
parking
spaces.
They
provided
two
parking
spaces
per
unit,
so
we
think
it's
actually
a
good
opportunity
to
have
families
move
it.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.