►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 5-22-18
Description
Zoning regulates the use and dimensional boundaries of privately owned buildings and land. The Zoning code is in place to protect the neighborhoods from the construction of buildings or structures that do not fit into the context of a neighborhood. The Zoning Board of Appeal hears appeals for varying the application of the Zoning Code and determines when it is appropriate to grant deviations from code restrictions.
A
B
A
B
The
first
extensions
calling
Bo
a
four
four:
eight:
six:
four
zero
for
Norfolk
Terrace,
the
companion
cases
bo
a
four
four;
eight
six,
three:
seven:
five:
two:
five:
a
North
Park
Terrace
bo,
a
four
four:
eight:
six:
three:
nine
six
Norfolk
Terrace
and
Bo;
a
four
four,
eight
six,
three
eight
2:07
Norfolk
Terrace
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good!.
C
A
A
B
D
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George
Moran,
see
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
at
350,
West
Broadway
and
South
Boston.
Madam
chair
members,
I'm,
covering
today
for
my
colleague
attorney
Richard
Lin's,
whose
project
this
is.
This
is
a
three
family
development
project
in
East
Boston.
It
was
approved
by
the
board
in
June
of
2016.
A
B
E
E
A
F
B
G
A
H
B
D
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George
Moran,
see
I'm
an
attorney
of
the
business
address,
350
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston,
madam
chair.
This
is
AG
Cod
only
matter
I
have
in
my
possession
and
I
believe
the
board
was
copied
on
this
letter
from
the
Boston
Water
and
Sewer
Commission,
indicating
cheek
on
compliance
at
the
project.
We
do
have
a
lot
of
twenty-minute.
A
A
J
B
C
Morning,
mr.
secretary
madam
chair,
members
of
the
board,
Joseph
Feaster
from
the
law
firm
McKenzie
associates,
183
State,
Street,
Suite,
6,
Boston
0
to
1
0
live
madam
chair
and
members.
I
am
before
the
board,
because
this
is
a
situation
whereby
we've
been
going
through
the
article
80
process
and,
most
recently
the
water,
the
BPD
a
wanted
to
extend
the
time
or
did
extend
the
time
as
to
when
this
matter
would
go
before
they
avoid.
We
originally
thought
that
they
would
have
been
gone.
C
C
They
are
in
agreement,
but
we're
looking
at
a
date
and
all
due
deference
to
the
schedule
of
this
board
looking
at
to
see
if
this
matter
can
be
deferred
to
June
26
because
of
Finance
and
considerations.
This
particular
project
is
what
I
call
in
the
gateway
leading
to
Roxbury.
This
is
in
lower
Roxbury.
It
is
across
from
where
we've
done.
The
city,
state
and
others
have
put
considerable
funds.
C
The
project,
which
is
right
on
the
projects
on
the
corner
of
Melanie
or
Cass
on
Washington
Street,
this
particular
project,
is
on
thorn
Knight
Street,
it's
a
residential
complex
that
is
being
proposed
here.
So
if
the
board
in
his
in
its
wisdom,
would
be
able
to
give
us
the
date
of
June
26,
that
would
be
much
appreciated.
A
C
B
This
is
a
change
of
oxygen
from
a
2
family
to
a
3
family
third
unit
the
attic
floor
and
extend
living
space
to
the
basement
for
unit
1,
construct
a
new
red
deck
and
rear
addition
with
roof
deck.
The
violation
is
article
55,
section,
55
40.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
55,
section
9
additional
lot
area
is
insufficient
article
55
section
I
on
the
floor.
Tahir
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
55,
section
9,
the
building
height
is
excessive
and
feet
equal
55
section
on
the
is
excessive
in
stories.
B
K
K
A
A
A
L
M
L
L
L
L
N
Q
A
L
J
B
A
R
R
L
S
O
A
B
T
T
A
T
L
S
A
B
The
sake
Moore
Street
here,
okay,
this
is
a
confirm.
Extending
living
space
basement
was
finished
in
2007.
The
violations
article
9
section
one-
the
proposed
expansion
to
the
basement-
is
an
extension
from
an
existing
non-conforming
three
family.
In
the
tooth
to
family
sub
district
article
65
section,
nine,
the
proposed
expansion
worsens
the
existing
non-conforming
excessive
FAI
name.
An
address
for
the
record.
Please.
V
V
A
W
X
W
A
B
Boa
seven:
eight
four,
nine
three:
nine
forty
one
Mount
Everett
street
41
Mount
Everett.
Okay.
This
is
off
street
parking
for
six
residential
vehicles.
The
violations,
article
9
section,
one
extension
of
a
existing
non-conforming,
three
family
and
a
two
family
sub
district
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
A
Z
Z
A
AA
N
B
Your
next
case
calling
BOA,
seven
seven,
two
six
one,
six,
six
Berry
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
oxygen
coming
one
to
two
family,
in
addition
to
the
existing
residents
and
improvements,
the
violation
of
article
80
section,
a
de
this
is
a
small
project
review.
In
the
end
article
65
section,
nine,
the
front
yard
setback
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section,
nine,
the
flirty
a
ratio
is
excessive
article
65,
section
9.
The
really
odd
step
back
requirement
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
George.
AB
AB
A
H
H
AC
A
B
Your
next
case
calling
boa
seven
nine
zero,
seven,
two
seven,
fifty
nine
ones
deal
Street.
This
is
a
full
renovation
to
a
three
family
dwelling
which
is
damaged
during
fire
violations.
Article
65
section,
nine,
the
flirty
a
ratio
is
excessive
nautical.
Sixty-Five
section,
nine,
the
billing
hide
the
success
of
adding
normas,
creates
a
new
third
poll
story,
an
article
65
section
I.
The
side
yard
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
59th.
A
AD
A
Q
AF
A
AG
AI
A
A
A
AJ
B
The
next
case
is
a
companion
case
as
well
boa
eight
one,
four,
six,
nine
six,
forty
eight
West
Tremlett
Street,
boa
eight
one,
four,
six:
ninety
seven,
fifty
West
Tremlett
Street.
This
is
448
West
Tremlett.
This
is
erecting
new
to
family
dwelling
on
an
existing
vacant.
Lot
proposed
three
on
street
parking.
B
Violations-
article
65
section,
nine
institution,
large
size,
article
65,
section,
nine,
that's
efficient
a
lot
with
article
65,
section:
nine
insufficient
lot
frontage
in
article
65,
excessive
FAI.
This
is
450
West
Tremlett,
directing
new
to
family
dwelling.
An
existing
vacant
land
proposed
Rio
street
parking
violations.
Article
65
insufficient,
lock
size
article
65,
section,
9
insufficient
a
lot
with
article
65
insufficient
a
lot
with
frontage
equals
65,
section
9,
insufficient
side.
You
had
setback
in
article
65,
section
9,
excessive
FAI
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AK
AL
A
AL
AL
AL
L
L
AL
AL
A
Sure
that
this
think
about
a
shared
driveway
and
there's
got
to
be
protections
for
the
eventual
owners.
Should
it
change
hands,
and
so
we
need
to
make
sure
that
you've
had
the
app
that
has
had
two
years
to
get
it
registered
and
do
whatever
they
need
to
do,
and
it
hasn't
happened
that
you
know
makes
us
a
little
bit
worried.
AL
No,
it's
not
to
cut
you
up,
I'm.
Sorry,
the
the
project
engineer
who
had
an
emergency
today
that
was
supposed
to
be
here
would
have
probably
know
in
time
Rivero
and
I'm,
almost
certain
that
he
told
me
everything
was
fine,
the
only
thing
Boston
and
water,
so
it
took
very
long
time
as
well
as
curb
cut
and
that's
why
it
expired
by
the
time
to
when
to
Tenten
mess
Avenue
to
pull
the
permit,
they've
told
them.
Unfortunately,
this
is
a
2015
and
therefore
you'd
have
to
go
back.
L
A
A
B
Bo
a
six
eight,
five,
nine
two
one
eight
to
ten
lowering
place.
This
is
directly
new
to
family
residential
building.
With
garage
parking
on
grade
violations.
Article
sixty
nine
section
29
austria
parking
is
insufficient
article.
Sixty
nine
section,
eight
to
family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article
6969,
the
law
areas
insufficient
article,
sixty
nine
section,
I
of
the
floaty
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
sixty-nine
section,
nine,
the
height
is
successive
article
sixty-nine
section,
I
usable
open
spaces.
Insufficient
article
69,
section
of
the
front
yard,
is
insufficient.
An
article
69
section.
Nine.
AN
The
boy
Daniel
Toscana
during
the
sky,
no
attorney-at-law,
located
at
15,
Broad,
Street,
Boston,
Mass
Oh
to
109
I'm
here
representing
the
owner
of
8
to
10
lowering
place
to
my
immediate
left,
is
at
the
Bernardin
who's.
One
of
the
owners
of
the
property
to
my
right
is
James
Chris
Christopher,
representing
the
RCA
architecture,
firms
who
conducted
the
drawings
today
we're
seeking
your
approval
to
erect
a
two-family
dwelling
on
an
empty
lot
in
the
High
Park
area.
AN
This
Vlad
is
a
1
F
6000
in
right
now,
the
the
lot
size
is
4,200
square
feet,
so
we
have
an
insufficient
one
side.
We
want
our
rector
to
family
I'll
go
over
some
of
the
we've
made
some
changes
to
the
plans
since
the
last
one.
So
you
see
in
your
packet,
so
we
addressed
some
of
the
violations
based
on
numerous
some
meetings
with
our
abutters
they'll
go
over
the
violations
and
then
we'll
go
over
the
floor
plan.
AN
If
that's
ok
with
the
board,
so
the
off
street
parking
we,
although
I,
believe
it's
still
a
violation.
So,
under
the
new
plan,
the
goal
plan
we
had
one
pockets
bought
for
a
unit,
we're
required
to
have
two
parking
spots
per
unit,
so
we
pushed
the
home
back
about
25
feet
and
we
added
tandem
parking
spot.
So
we
are
putting
in
four
parking
spots
two
for
each
unit
and
which
will
be
on
the
side
of
the
residence.
AN
So,
although
I
believe
we
meet
the
requirement
of
having
the
two
parking
spots
per
unit,
I
believe
the
manoeuvrability
still
may
be,
a
violation
of
that.
So
we
see
can
relief
the
use
regulations.
This
is
a
like
I
said
this
is
a
1f
6000
sub-district.
Now
we
are
proposing
the
two
family
in
a
4,200
square
foot
lot,
as
you
can
see
in
the
back
pages
of
the
second
to
the
last
page,
a
packet
into
the
last
page
of
your
packet.
AN
It
shows
some
of
your
directive
butters
that
have
similar
or
smaller
size,
loss
that
have
to
family
up
three
family
and
in
the
back
pack
page
a
packet
everything
outlined
in
yellow
the
orange
with
represent
Lord
eight
to
ten
learning
place
and
the
yellow
is
two
or
three
family
residential
dwellings.
In
that
particular
area,
so
having
the
two
family
is
not
out
of
character
in
this
particular
area.
The
lot
we
went
over
the
lotta
area
insufficient
the
floor
area
ratio.
We
did
have
a
violation
under
the
original
plans.
Under
the
new
plans.
AN
We
we
are
in
compliance,
we
are
at.
The
requirement
is
0.5.
We
are
at
45,
FA
ratio,
so
mean
with
the
abutters.
We
did
make
the
unit
and
the
home
smaller.
So
we
compliance
with
that
violation,
the
height
excessive.
We
were
over
about
three
feet
on
the
original
plans.
We've
taken
the
house
down,
so
we
are
it's
a
35
foot
height
limit
two
and
a
half
thirds.
We
did
take
it
down,
so
we
are
in
compliance
with
the
regulations
of
the
height
the
open
usable
space.
AN
It
requires
1,800
square
feet
of
open
space
per
unit,
which
is
a
total
of
36
hundred
square
feet.
We
are
proposing
over
2,300
square
feet
of
open
space.
Although
we're
not
at
that
3600.
We
provide
a
significant
open
space
for
the
two
residential
units,
the
front
yard
and
sufficient.
The
original
plans
had
the
proposed
home
that
we
were
in
violation.
I
still
think
they
are
in
violation,
but
we
did
push
the
house
back
25
feet,
which
is
the
requirement.
According
to
the
zoning,
however,.
A
AN
So
we
are
I
believe
we're
in
violation,
because
the
front
of
the
home
has
a
four
foot
front:
Bell
Pat
patio
for
additional
open
space,
so
I
believe
that
patio
would
be
being
violation
because
the
structures
coming
out
about
21
feet
but
to
the
home
is
25
feet.
The
Reyat
insufficient
is
40.
We
are
since
we
pushed
the
home
back.
We
are
only
at
13
feet
to
the
back
of
the
the
abutting
property
which
is
owned
by
mr.
Adler
and
his
partner.
A
AN
AN
AO
L
AP
AQ
Members
of
the
board,
Brian
Flynn
with
the
mayor's
office
and
Neighborhood
Services,
want
to
go
on
record
in
opposition
of
this
proposal
at
this
time
due
to
the
size.
I
do
also
want
to
say
that
the
paternity
and
the
developers
were
excellent,
with
working
with
the
community
on
this
project
that
they
go
back
relook
at
it
and
we're
able
to
eliminate
some
of
the
variances
it's
great,
but
we
still
have
to
oppose
it
at
this
time.
Thank
you.
AR
AS
AS
When
the
lady
had
passed
away,
the
original
one
family
that
was
vaughn
38
Garfield
out
she
lived
with
her
son,
it
was
sold
separately
and
the
gentleman
had
bought
it
from
somebody
piece
by
piece,
so
the
backyard
is
actually
eight
to
ten
Loring
place.
We
actually
just
did
construction
on
11
Loring
place,
which
we
abided
by
all
of
the
rules.
We
did
not
have
to
go
to
the
appeal
board.
We
have
10,000
square
feet.
Our
house
would
directly
all
the
kids
bedrooms
would
be
blocked.
AS
AS
H
A
AT
Chairman,
madam
and
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Javier.
Perez
I
also
live
at
11
lowering
place,
and
just
if
we
can
the
go
on
record
to
for
the
proposal
that
says
to
erect
a
new
family
they're
proposing
a
two
family
yeah.
It
says
new,
a
a
new
family,
residential
building
which
they're
proposing
the
two
family
which
I
don't
know
how
they
get
away
by
saying
to
family
because
in
actuality
it's.
AT
It's
it
exceeds,
it
exceeds
all
the
other
zones
as
dine
violations.
It
exceeds
the
the
back
because
they
are
owners
of
the
the
rear
property.
They
are
they're
trying
to
get
away
with.
You
know,
probably
going
into
the
other
to
the
other
person's
property
also,
but
which,
which
they're
our
owners
of
it.
It
is
definitely
too
big
the
violations,
the
clear
the
setback
is:
not
it
doesn't
it's
not
uniform
with
the
with
that
Street
on
the
private
way.
Ma'am
I
just
hope
this
isn't
now
going
on
any
deaf
ears.
AT
A
AN
The
director
butters,
as
you
heard
from
mr.
and
mrs.
Perez,
they
are
at
11:00
lowering
place
which
is
directly
across
the
street.
They
have
a
single
family
and
they've
been
expressed
their
opposition
from
the
beginning,
even
when
we
were
proposing
god-filled,
which
we
did
our
best
to
try
to
work
with
them.
Try
to
itself
but
directly.
Around
has
myself,
along
with
I'm
a
deco
mile
or
associated,
went
around
the
area,
and
we
looked
at
some
of
the
apostles
and
there's
a
majority
of
the
two
family's.
AN
One
directly
to
our
right
is
as
a
smaller,
that's
a
two
family.
It's
a
smaller
lot,
very
it's
very
similar
home
directly
behind
us
on
which
is
8
Garfield,
which
was
confirmed
at
38
Garfield,
which
is
confirmed
as
a
two
family.
If
you're
looking
at
their
Matt
Garfield
to
the
to
our
left
is
also
a
two
family
which
is
smaller
size
law,
so
I'll
direct,
the
butters
all
helps
as
you
can
see
from
the
second
to
last
page
in
a
packet
all
a
two
family
and
three
families
with
smaller
size
Lots.
AN
J
Madam
chair,
we
have
spoken
to
the
director
butters
to
our
right.
One
of
our
butters
is
mr.
Sebastian
and
he
has
no
opposition,
but
he
does
not
want
to
go
on
record
because
of
the
name
of
that
just
spoke
and
to
our
left
are
about
her.
Mr.
Ian
does
not
have
opposition
either
we
have.
We
have
been
working
with
them
very
closely
with
the
property
we're
renovating
at
38
Garfield
and
keeping
them
informed
about
this
property
as
well,
and
they
had
composition.
A
B
AG
A
AG
Ma'am
she
both
of
them,
has
explained
to
me
and
showed
me
their
plans
and
I
do
feel
more
comfortable.
It's
just
that
when
I
received
a
letter,
I
wasn't
understanding
a
lot
of
stuff,
but
she,
both
of
them,
show
me
their
plans
and
explain
to
me
that
it's
not
going
to
interfere
with
my
property
on
the
other
side
of
them,
so
I
feel
comfortable
good.
Yes,.
A
AP
B
As
we
talk,
we
quiet,
Article,
67,
section,
9,
insufficient
additional
lot
area
unit,
11
thousand
square
foot
total
is
required.
Article
67,
section
9
in
sufficient
minimal
lot
width
50
feet
is
required
in
Article
67,
section
9,
insufficient
minimal
lot
with
frontage
50
feet
is
required.
Article
67,
section
section,
9,
excessive
fer
0.5
is
the
max
Article
67
section.
B
9
number
of
allowed
stories
is
seated
two
and
a
half
feet
is
the
max
Article
67,
section
I
and
maximal
allowed
high
to
succeed
at
35
feet
is
the
max
Article
67
section
9
is
sufficient
open
space.
1,750
a
unit
is
required
in
Article
67,
section
9,
insufficient
side
got
set
back
10
feet
is
required,
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AU
A
three
family
house
on
this
lot,
which
is
consistent
in
size
and
shape
with
other
Lots
in
the
neighborhood
part
of
the
subdivision
from
1960.
The
three
family
were
proposing
is
similar
in
terms
of
size
and
appearance.
With
the
other
three
family
houses
on
Colgate
Road,
we
did
have
a
community
meeting
that
went
well.
We've
heard
no
opposition
in
that
meeting.
A
B
You,
madam
chair,
calling
a
first
case
for
10:30
calling
VOA
eight
one,
four,
nine,
seventy
seven.
Seventy
two
Washington
Street.
This
is
a
gut
renovation
of
an
existing
tree
family
dwelling,
the
demolition
of
the
existing
three-bay
garage
construct,
a
new
three-story
addition
to
replace
the
garage,
the
new
addition
to
have
three
garage
spaces
extended
living
space
to
the
basement
for
unit
one
construct,
a
roof
deck.
B
The
violation
is
article
62,
section,
25,
roof
structure,
restrictions
and
open
roof
deck
may
be
erected
on
the
main
roof
of
the
building,
provided
the
access
is
by
a
roof
hatch
or
a
bulkhead,
no
more
than
30
inches
in
height
above
such
deck.
The
violate
article
62
section,
eight,
forty,
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
62
section,
eight,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
and
feet.
Article
62
section
eight
usable
open
spaces
at
sufficient
article,
62
section.
A
side
yard
is
insufficient.
They
go
62
section
8.
The
rail
yard
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
D
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George
Moran,
see
I'm
an
attorney
with
a
business
address
of
350,
West,
Broadway
and
South
Boston
I'm
joined
by
to
my
right,
the
project,
architect,
Timothy
Burke,
and
to
Tim's
right
Michael
Davis,
who
is
the
petitioner?
Madam
chair
members?
This
is
an
application
to
cut
renovate
an
existing
three
family
dwelling.
It's
at
72,
Washington
Street,
which
is
at
the
corner
of
Union
Street.
It's
on
the
part
of
Washington
Charles
found
that
dead
ends
just
before
Austin
Street.
D
The
proposal
here
is
to
take
the
existing
three
family,
as
I
say,
gut,
renovated
to
the
side
of
the
existing
building
facing
both
Washington
Street
and
it's
a
corner
structure
facing
Union
Street
is
a
three-car
garage,
a
single-story,
concrete
block
structure
that
would
be
demolished.
There
would
be.
It
was
essentially
a
side
addition
here,
not
a
rear
addition,
but
a
side
addition
to
the
existing
building
to
increase
living
space
on
the
footprint.
Essentially,
the
footprint
of
the
existing
garage
structure.
The
result.
A
D
The
result
is
that
the
renovated
newly
renovated
building
as
extended
will
continue
to
have
three
units
unit.
One
would
be
a
basement
and
first
floor.
Duplex
the
basement
has
an
eight-foot
ceiling
height.
That
would
be
a
three-bedroom
unit
of
2060
square
feet.
Unit
two
would
be
a
1950
square-foot
four
bedroom
unit
unit
three
would
be
a
2235
square
foot
four
bedroom
units
the
building
would
become
fully
sprinklered.
The
garage
spaces
will
essentially
be
rebuilt.
They
will
between
the
basement
and
the
first
floor.
D
There
will
actually
be
a
lift
system,
so
the
parking
for
the
building
will
be
increased
from
the
existing
three
spaces
to
two
spaces
per
unit.
So
it'll
be
a
total
of
six
spaces
for
the
three
units.
In
terms
of
the
the
violation
letter
there's
citation
for
roof
structure.
Restrictions
I
do
want
to
point
out
with
respect
to
the
head
house
that
is
shown
on
the
plans.
That
is
an
existing
head
house
that
is
remaining.
That
is
not
a
new
proposed
head
house.
A
D
L
D
Currently,
one
point:
seven
one
point:
seven,
the
there's:
a
violation
here
for
excessive
building
height
a
three-story
35
foot
district,
the
height
of
the
existing
building,
is
thirty
five
and
a
half
feet.
So
the
existing
building
is
half
a
foot
out
of
compliance.
The
addition
obviously
is
matching
the
existing.
Hence
the
citation
for
the
building
height
there's
a
citation
for
insufficient
usable
open
space
which
would
pause.
It
is
incorrect.
D
No
usable
open
space
here
is
being
removed.
There
is
no
yard
area.
This
is
in
fact,
a
garage
structure.
There's
no
deck,
there's
no
usable
open
space
above
the
garage
there's
no
change
of
occupancy.
Therefore,
there
is
no
diminishment
of
any
existing
usable
open
space.
In
fact,
all
it's
happening
here
is
an
increase
in
open
space
because
of
the
roof
deck.
Finally,
there's
a
side
yard
and
a
rear
yard
insufficiency
cited
with
respect
to
the
side
yard
insufficiently
insufficiency
and
I
pointed
out
earlier
that
this
is
a
corner
lot.
D
So
the
side
lot
line
of
a
corner
lot
is
effectively
a
front
lot
line
per
setback
purposes.
There
are
two
buildings
on
the
block
in
question
on
that
side
of
Austin
Street,
which
means
that,
rather
than
what
would
normally
be
the
applied
side
yard
setback
requirement,
you
have
a
modal
front
yard
requirement
on
the
Austin
Street
side.
D
I
can
understand
why
it
was
cited,
but
I
believe
that
the
code
exempts
this
building
because
of
its
situation
from
the
from
the
actual
side,
yard,
setback
requirements
and,
finally,
there's
a
rear
yard
insufficiency,
and
this
is
once
again
an
existing
condition.
The
rear
yard
setback
requirement
here
is
ten
feet,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
plans
on
Tim's
plans
on
sheet
a
1.1
for
approximately
80%
of
the
width
of
the
side.
D
Addition
in
the
rear,
there's
a
nine
foot
setback
and
the
reason
why
it
can't
just
simply
just
be
made
ten
feet,
because
the
all
the
space
is
required
to
be
able
to
accommodate
the
three
side-by-side
vehicles.
There
is
a
small
notch.
That
is
one
point.
One
seven
feet
off
the
rail
lot
line,
but
again
80
80
percent
of
the
addition
is.
AV
X
X
H
AV
AW
Jeff,
madam
chair
members,
the
board
Christopher
Breen
from
the
mayor's
office,
a
neighborhood
services
would
like
to
speak
in
support
the
applicant
hosted.
We
hosted
a
meeting
for
the
applicant
on
about
a
month
ago
there
about
five
or
six
people
there.
That
also
spoke
in
support.
A
few
people
have
reached
out
recently
and
the
applicant
has
met
with
them
and
he's
pledged
to
continue
to
work
with
them.
Thank
you.
AX
AX
AX
Across
from
this
building
and
we
are
in
support
of
its
overall
development,
our
main
concern
specifically
to
our
house
is
that
there
is
shadow
impact
to
our
house
that
we
don't
feel
that
the
developer
I
know
is
working.
We've
met
with
the
developer,
but
has
fully
given
us
an
understanding
of
how
those
shadows
will
now
affect
our
front
yard.
AX
Both
Nate
Blanche
Jena,
myself
are
particularly
concerned
that
the
building
is
massive
and
out
of
character
for
the
neighborhood.
If
you
look
at
the
bit
neighbor
the
area
around
the
house
you'll
see
that
the
typical
frontage
for
a
house
in
that
area
is
24
feet
in
length
pretty
much
all
the
surrounding
houses,
the
longest
building
and
the
entire
two
blocks
of
Washington
Street
is
about
45
Street
45
feet.
This
building
would
essentially
now
be
60
feet
in
length
with
one
with
one
door
to
look
at
it.
AX
We
do
have
concern
essentially
as
well
with
the
stackers
for
the
garage,
and
it
isn't
necessarily
that
the
amount
of
cars
there
it's
if
by
putting
the
stackers
in
essentially
the
first
floor,
looks
like
it
will
be
greater
in
height
than
it
the
typical
first
floors
of
any
other
dwelling
on
the
street.
So
essentially
that
also
adds
to
the
this
essence
of
this
building
mean
at
a
character
for
the
neighborhood.
It's
not
in
character.
D
Just
say:
yeah
I'll
turn
this
over
to
ten
to
talk
about
his
design,
I
mean,
obviously
this
would
go
through
design
review.
I
think
tim
has
actually
done
a
good
job
in
terms
of
sort
of
distinguishing
between
the
existing
building
and
the
new
addition
to
give
it
less
of
an
appearance
of
being
one
structure
but
I'll.
Let
Tim
talk
about
his
design
concept.
For
this,
with
respect
to
the
the
shadowing
I
do
have
to
say
and
I've
been
advised
by
my
client
and
Tim.
D
X
Yes,
we
are
continuing
the
existing
stone
foundation.
There's
a
granite
foundation,
it's
quite
nice,
so
we're
bringing
that
along
the
band,
and
we
talked
with
the
neighbor
about
putting
in
some
blind
openings
to
give
it
some
modulation
and
then
the
siding
would
be
continuously
probably
using
hardiplank
would
work
with
the
BPD
a
on
the
that.
AC
X
L
B
This
is
the
change
of
our
currents
from
11
residential
units
in
one
room,
212
residential
units,
all
existing
conditions,
no
work
to
be
done.
The
violations,
article
13
section,
1,
useable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
and
nautical
23
section
1
off
street
parking
is
insufficient.
A
man
had
just
other
equity.
AZ
Jeff
Drago
with
Dre
go
into
scale
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
representing
mr.
Andy
Constantine
and
I
also
have
who's
the
owner
of
the
property
and
author
qu
was
the
architect
and
the
property
mr.
Constantine
purchased
this
building,
and
it
was
zoned
as
11
residential
units
in
a
room
that
particular
zone
where
the
word
mentioned,
room
is
actually
a
unit
in
the
building
that
was
pre-existing.
It's
a
406
square
foot
unit
and
it's
in
the
first
floor,
rare
I
provided
part
of
the
building
docket
that
just
actually
highlights
where
it
mentions
that.
AZ
So
it's
a
it's
a
406
square
foot
unit.
It
is
occupied
currently,
so
it's
one
bedroom
kitchen
living
room
in
the
building
itself
and
it's
on
the
first
floor.
It
has
separate
meters,
separate
utilities
somewhere
along
the
line.
It
was
just
never
zoned
properly.
It
was
in
the
family,
it
was
a
family
building
since
before
the
20s,
I
believe
and
mr.
Constantine
bought
it
and
wanted
to
legalize
it
properly.
We're
also
planning
on
sprinkling
the
entire
building.
Now.
A
L
AZ
A
AZ
AZ
AZ
AS
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
just
saw
grow.
The
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
I
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
in
support.
We
did
have
a
nut,
butters
meeting
where
a
couple
of
a
butters
came
out,
but
there
were
not
standing
questions
or
concerns,
and
everyone
was
very
happy
that
the
building
would
be
restored
back
to
its
historical
purpose
or.
B
The
next
case
calling
VOA
eight
one,
six,
four,
two
eight
one,
eighty
two
West
Seventh
Street.
This
is
a
full
interior
renovation
of
an
existing
tree
family
dwelling
and
replace
existing
siding,
roof
and
rear
deck.
Constructing
new
exterior
egress.
This
violations,
article
27s
1-5,
send
the
iPod
applicability
in
article
68,
section
8
side
yacht.
Is
it
sufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record?
Please
Barry.
A
N
B
Next
case,
calling
VOA,
seven
nine
four
seven
92
92
G
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
oxygen
from
a
three
family
to
a
four
family,
an
additional
unit
in
basement
and
construct
a
fourth
floor
addition.
This
is
a
full
renovation
violations.
Article
68
section
27a,
sh
s;
five,
it's
in
the
ipod
applicability
article,
68,
section,
29,
roof
structure,
restrictions,
radical
68,
section,
33,
auspey
parking
and
loading
requirements.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
B
AN
15
garage
street
610
in
boston,
mass
arrow
to
109
I,
represent
out,
can't
tell
my
father
right
was
the
owner
of
92
G
Street,
located
in
South
Boston
to
my
immediate
right
is
Pete.
Evancho
is
the
architect
from
the
Vanco
studios
who
conducted
the
plans,
we're
seeking
your
approval
to
change
the
legal
occupancy
of
this
residential
property
from
a
three
family
to
a
full
family
residential
district.
AN
AN
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
when
we
file
this
we
did
have
some
violations
of
so
we
have
gutted
up
the
building,
so
we
are
completely
renovating
the
units
and
making
them
larger
bed
bedroom
sizes,
but
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
The
current
zoning
code
is
2.0.
We
are
currently
in
violation
anywhere
about
2.2,
where
put
the
increase
in
the
foyer
area
ratio
to
2.5
4,
so
we're
going
up
a
little
bit
because
we're
at
in
that
one-story
addition
for
that
for
the
property,
the
height
of
the
the
zoning
code
is,
is
40
feet.
AN
We
are
going
to
42
feet,
we're
asking
request
for
an
additional
2
feet,
which
will
be
in
line
with
number
90
G
Street
in
number
88
G
Street.
If
you
can
look
on
your
front
page
and
also
on
your
your
second
page
and
then
there's
the
aerial
view
of
on
your
third
page,
which
will
be
the
exact
height
of
90
and
88
at
42,
it's
going
to
be
identical
to
what
what
they
have
have
done.
The
side
yard
insufficient
3
feet
on
each
side.
We
are
at
the
property.
AN
Unit
breakdown,
so
we're
going
with
we're
actually
decreasing
the
number
of
bedrooms.
So
there's
gonna
be
two
one
bedrooms.
The
Godin
unit
is
gonna,
be
about
a
twelve
hundred
square
foot
one-bedroom,
which
will
walk
right
out
into
the
backyard
the
unit
number
with
the
garden
level.
The
unit
number
one
will
be
over
a
thousand
square
foot
one-bedroom
unit,
3
and
unit
four
are
gonna,
be
duplexes
unit.
Three
is
gonna,
be
a
duplex.
The
two-bedroom
two-bath
isn't
too
bad
two
and
a
half
baths
unit.
Three,
which
is
about
forty
I,
believe,
is
1,400
square
feet.
Correct.
AY
AN
A
AY
L
H
AN
N
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
application.
We
have
had
two
abutters
meetings
on
this
project.
The
second
one
there
were
abutters
there
in
support
and
we've
also
received
letters
of
support
from
abutters.
Thank
you.
BB
AF
Nemesis,
what
Paul
Sullivan
will
be
absolutely
counsel
on
Michael
clarity
constantly
to
go
on
record
in
opposition.
The
council
has
heard
from
neighbor
from
the
neighborhood
group,
and
the
counselor
is
not
in
favor
of
converting
basement
space
into
living
space
for
separate
units
like
to
go
right
now,
position.
A
A
A
Just
a
reminder,
please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
if
you
need
to
have
conversations,
please
take
them
outside
of
the
room,
we're
having
a
hard
time
today.
Hearing
the
testimony
in
front
of
us,
also
in
conformance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law
I'm,
informing
you
that
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed.
A
Finally,
we
are
here
to
gather
information
we're
here
to
gather
new
information.
Every
every
process
that's
occurred
before
is
advisory
to
this
board,
so
it
when
your
chance,
when
you
have
a
chance
to
speak,
either
for
or
against
the
project,
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
tell
us
why
you're
in
support
or
not.
If
somebody
prior
to
you
has
already
stated
your
concern,
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
just
so
that
we
can
be
sure
we're
getting
new
information
that
will
help
inform
our
decisions.
Okay,
thank.
B
B
L
BC
A
BD
BC
BC
B
Hearing
none
I'll
go
up
to
the
first
case:
hurry
discussions,
boa
seven:
twenty
five:
seven,
eight
nine
87,
293
maverick
maverick
Street.
This
is
a
raise.
The
existing
building
combined
Lots
indirectly
mix
you
structure
consisting
of
retail
in
the
first
law,
37
units
above
laws
and
parking
for
30
vehicles.
The
violation
is
article
53,
section,
56,
insufficient
parking
2.0
unit
is
required.
Article
53,
section
56
point
two,
fifty
six
point:
five
point:
a
hockey
maneuverability
and
stack
as
tandem
article
53,
section,
eight
MF
iris
bidden,
article
53,
section
8,
the
retail
is
forbidden.
B
Article
53,
section
9,
excessive
fai
article
53
maximum
will
allow
building
height
is
exceeded
35
feet
as
max
article
53
insufficient
a
lot
for
a
dwelling
unit.
A
thousand
square
feet
unit
is
required.
Article
53,
section,
9,
usable,
open
space,
300
square
feet
per
unit,
article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
side,
dad
setback,
2
and
a
half
feet
is
required.
Article
53,
section,
9
number
of
allowed
stories,
has
been
exceeded.
Three
storeys
max
article
53,
6
and
9.
Insufficient
rail
yard
setback
dirty
feet.
Minimum
required
in
article
53,
section
54.
BE
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lin's
245,
Sumner,
Street,
East
Boston
on
behalf
of
mg,
choose
the
petitioner
for
this
application
with
me
is
Tim
Miller
Angier.
He
is
the
architect
with
embarked
studios
for
this
particular
project.
As
the
secretary
indicated,
this
is
a
proposal
to
combine
Lots,
create
a
new
12,000
square
foot
lot,
roughly
12,000
square
foot
lot
and
replacing
the
existing
industrial
use,
which
is
located
that
Jefferies
Point
section
of
East
Boston.
BE
Our
proposal
is
to
erect
a
mixed-use
building
with
retail,
located
the
ground-floor
and
37
new
units
of
residential
housing,
because
this
project
is
both
subject:
IDP
as
well
as
article
80,
we
went
through
a
process
with
the
BPD,
a
as
well.
Five
of
these
units
will
be
designated
as
IDP
out
of
the
total
of
the
37
units
that
are
proposed.
This
process
had
an
extensive
community
outreach
process
which
lasted
more
than
a
year.
BE
We
held
over
10
community
meetings
in
the
East
Boston
section,
including
meetings
of
both
the
Jefferies
point,
Neighborhood
Association,
the
go
Street
Citizens,
Association
I
provided
letters
to
the
board
indicating
both
of
those
groups
actually
supported
this
project.
A
number
of
changes
were
made
throughout
the
process
as
well
in
order
to
address
a
number
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
by
the
neighborhood
I
do
have
a
breakdown
of
the
number
of
units
and
what
the
total
number
this
is.
BE
A
mix
of
one
and
two-bedroom
units
average
size
on
the
one
bedrooms
about
706
square
feet
on
the
two-bedroom
average
size
about
912
square
feet.
The
total
gross
floor
area
for
the
building
was
about
37,000
square
feet.
Our
garage
space
does
include
stackers
so,
but
we
did
propose
a
total
of
30
spaces
which,
which
is
consistent
with
the
percentages
that
would
seem
to
be
appropriate
for
that
neighborhood.
We
did
hear
from
people
that
were
concerned
both
about
the
number
of
parking
spaces,
as
well
as
too
many
parking
spaces.
BE
They
feel
that
projects
like
this
and
this
section
of
East
Boston,
should
be
looking
focusing
on
less
parking
actually,
and
we
did
hear
that
from
a
number
of
residents.
I've
also
suppressed
supplied
the
board
with
letters
from
four
of
the
director
butters
to
the
rear
of
the
property,
all
who
are
in
favor
of
this
project.
This
existing
site
has
been
an
industrial
use
for
probably
the
better
part
of
40
years.
They
are
thrilled
with
the
possibility
that
this
will
be
redeveloped
residential
use.
BE
We've
worked
out
appropriate
mitigation
with
each
of
those
neighbors,
including
landscaping
for
each
of
their
yards,
as
well
as
some
fencing
that
that
they're
gonna
have
an
opportunity
to
select
and
have
some
input
on.
We
did
have
a
chance
to
present
this
to
the
BPD
a
board
on
Thursday
the
BPD
BPD,
a
board
approved
that
under
Article
80
and
I'm
happy
to
walk
through
the
zoning
relief.
That's
necessary.
The
board
deems
that
appropriate.
BE
So
that
would
be
the
right-hand
side
of
the
building,
so
at
the
lower
level
you're
seeing
the
garage
space
and
then
the
upper
level
sets
back
to
allow
for
openings
and
windows.
There
isn't
you
can
look
at
some
of
the
aerial
photos?
There's
an
existing
parking
lot
located
to
the
right
of
this
property,
which
I
don't
have
a
crystal
ball,
but
I
would
guess
that
that's
likely
to
be
target
for
potential
future
development
as
well.
BE
BE
This
area
has
a
portion.
This
area
is
in
baseball
elevation
below
the
base
flood
elevation.
The
retail
actually
was
a
comment
that
we
did
hear
from
the
neighborhood.
There
are
a
number
of
developments
in
this
section
of
Geoffrey's
point
in
that
further
section
of
Maverick
Street.
Most
recently,
the
one
that's
now
being
presently
occupied
is
320
maverick
Street,
which
proposed
all
residential.
They
feel
the
number
of
units
they're
being
proposed
in
this
area.
BE
We
did
hear
from
a
number
of
residents
that
having
a
retail
use,
including
the
used
concept
that
we're
proposing,
which
is
a
sort
of
casual
restaurant
cafe,
was
it
was
an
acceptable
use
for
this
area.
It
would
create
activity
along
the
streetscape
rather
than
just
having
either
a
residential
unit
or
just
a
garage
space
at
that
level.
How.
BF
AI
BG
A
B
B
This
is
the
constructing
third
floor
edition,
with
Raya
roofdeck
on
existing
to
family
dwelling
violations.
Article
68
section:
27
s
dash
5,
it's
in
the
iPod
applicability
article
68,
section,
29,
roof
structure,
restrictions,
article
68,
section,
8
side
yacht-
is
insufficient
in
article
68.
Section
83
yacht
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BI
BI
Size
of
each
unit
unit,
one
which
we're
relocating
to
the
second
and
third
floor,
is
a
duplex
unit,
is
a
two-bedroom
two-bath
unit.
Two
and
a
half
baths
about
1,200
square
feet
bless
you
unit,
2,
which
again
is
going
to
be
on
the
second
third
floor
as
a
duplex
unit
is
a
three-bedroom
two-and-a-half-bath
at
1,700
square
feet.
BI
A
A
AV
BI
BH
It
just
makes
for
two
better
units
right
now:
the
lower
level
unit
candidly
is
it's
an
older
building.
The
structure
itself
just
needs
to
be
renovated
and
in
creating
one
lower
level
unit
two-bedroom
versus
creating
two
nice
units,
it
just
yeah
for
a
habitable
space,
mean
it's
just
a
much
better
layout,
it's
much
better
living
area
for
people
in
the
city
and
it.
BI
BH
H
N
Members
of
the
board
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
At
this
time,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
As
the
proponents
mentioned,
they
have
agreed
with
the
neighbors
to
eliminate
one
of
the
roof
decks
and
make
the
other
roof
deck
a
12
by
12
deck
accessed
by
a
hatch
with
no
grills,
and
we
would
also
just
like
to
ask
that
they
continue
working
with
the
neighbors
on
the
issue
of
the
garage.
Thank
you.
BJ
About
the
current
garage,
it's
been
used
as
storage
area
up
until
this
point
not
really
as
a
live
brush.
So
we
want
to
discuss
further
about
the
incidence
of
cars
going
in
and
out
of
that.
The
second
issue
that
I
wanted
to
bring
to
your
attention
is
that,
although
he
purchased
it
that
it
was
a
two
family
home,
the
assessing
records
with
the
city
of
Boston
still
indicated
to
one
family
and
has
always
been
one
family.
So
I
think
before
anything
gets
approved,
that
we
should
really
have
the
assessing
records
updated.
A
BK
AF
BL
Chelsea
Blanchard
I
live
at
1:31
End
Street
I
think
that
there
are
very
serious
issues
about
the
entering
and
exiting
of
this
garage
design
and
I
think
that
that
would
be
better
suited
for
it
rather
than
design
review.
I
think
there
are
some
very
serious
concerns
about
the
neighbors
on
either
side
of
that
garage.
Thank
you
and
I
would
also
like
to
note
that
this
applicant
has
gone
to
great
lengths
to
work
with
the
neighbors.
So
we
really
appreciate
that
I.
BM
BI
B
BN
B
X
D
A
D
George
Moran
say
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
of
350
West
Broadway
in
South,
Boston
I
represent
the
applicants
and
the
property
owners
Jodi
and
Joe
in
long
ago,
who
are
in
the
back
of
the
room.
They
are
here
today,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
of
board
members
of
being
provided
with
revised
plans.
This
matter
was
deferred
a
few
weeks
ago.
The
result
of
that
deferral
has
been
a
further
redesign
of
the
building
that
the
plans
in
possession
of
the
board
now
depict
a
five-unit,
a
five-unit
building
here
at
844
East
Third
Street.
D
D
There
ten
parking
spaces
so
two
per
unit.
These
are
traditional
full-size
garage
parking
spaces.
There
would
be
two
two-bedroom
units.
These
would
be
1525
square
feet.
There
would
be
three
three-bedroom
units
ranging
from
2105
to
the
owners
unit.
My
clients
do
intend
to
stay
at
the
property
to
the
owners
unit,
which
will
be
3098
square
feet.
That's
the
large
top
floor
unit
with
respect
to
the
zoning
code.
Again,
this
is
an
MFR
district
under
Article
68,
the
there's
no
minimum
lot
size
requirement.
D
This
law
is
seven
thousand
two
hundred
ninety
four
square
feet
which
results
in
a
density
of
one
proposed
unit
for
1495,
1459
square
feet
of
law
area.
The
minimum
lot
width
and
frontage
here
is
20
feet.
The
lot
in
question
has
57
feet
of
width
and
frontage.
The
maximum
FA
are
in
the
district
is
to
the
FA
are
being
proposed.
Is
one
point
two
seven,
seven,
the
maximum
building
height
is
forty
feet,
which
is
where
the
proposed
building
would
be.
D
It's
also
approximately
the
height
of
the
existing
building
to
the
roof
of
the
the
ridge
line
of
the
roof
required
front
yard.
Setback
here
is
five
feet,
but
this
building
would
have
an
eight
foot
front
setback.
There
are
three
foot
side
yard
setbacks
on
each
side
which
matches
the
setbacks
required
by
the
code.
There's
two
hundred
square
feet
of
usable,
open
space
for
dwelling
unit
required
by
article
68,
resulting
in
a
requirement
of
one
thousand
square
feet
of
open
space.
D
D
The
building
is
the
same
size.
The
units
became
larger
as
they
were,
as
the
number
was
reduced
from
seven
to
five,
the
on
the
color
sheet
that
I
hand
the
note
of
taking
an
aerial
or
taken
from
the
web
and
aerial
which
shows
the
existing
building
and
then
superimposed.
The
footprint
of
what
approximate
footprint
of
what
the
new
building
would
be.
A
D
The
backside
of
the
pool
you
can
see
I
actually
took
the
property
line
of
the
building
of
the
new
building
at
9:33
East
second
Street,
which
was
a
20
unit
building
approved
some
time
ago
by
this
board,
and
the
dotted
line
on
that
on
that
red
block
indicates
the
area
of
that
of
that
parcel.
So
844
goes
essentially
to
the
beginning
of
that
parcel
in
the
rear.
A
N
Members
of
the
board
John
Ellison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition.
We
have
held
a
few
abutters
meetings
on
this
project
and
even
at
five
units,
it
is
very
large
there's
a
lot
of
opposition
in
the
community.
It's
not
really
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
buildings.
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
is
this
better?
It's
it's
not
really
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
buildings
on
the
block,
which
are
primarily
single
and
two
families
with
possibly
some
three
families.
So
for
that
reason
we're
in
opposition.
Thank
you.
A
Hold
on
all
of
you,
butters
can
you
line
up,
and
this
is
just
a
reminder
that
if
somebody
has
already
stated
your
concern
just
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record,
because
I
think
we'll
get
a
sense
pretty
clearly
what
the
what
the
issues
are
so
give
us
new
information
if
you're
speaking.
BO
Before
P
Street
I
live
Yamina,
but
I
live
in
a
world
v
single
family
homes
fought
for
40
years
to
keep
them
single
families
built
in
1863.
This
new
development
does
not
go
with
the
neighborhood.
What
they're
talking
about
on
Second
Street
was
a
commercial
building.
That's
behind
all
the
wine
goes
out.
AC
H
BQ
AE
M
A
D
A
A
B
B
Following
the
next
case,
calling
boa
7
7
8
3
2
6
8
Dee,
Dee's
Lane.
This
is
directiy
new
four-story,
single-family
dwelling
with
garage
rest,
air
front
and
roof
decks
on
a
newly
created
loss
violations.
Article
29,
section
4,
it's
in
the
green
Greenbelt
protection
overlay
district,
article
27
s,
section
5,
it's
in
the
South,
Boston,
iPod
applicability,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BI
BI
190
old
colony
out
south
boston,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
there
are
eight
through
lots
between
marine
road
and
Deedee's
lane,
with
the
crossroad
of
K
Street
on
one
side,
two
of
the
eight
Lots
have
existing
dwellings
fronting
on
Dee
Dee's
Lane.
And
if
you
look
at
the
contextual
images
I
submitted
to
the
board
on
page
one
and
two
you'll
see
the
proposed
building
with
the
context
of
the
other
buildings
fronting
on
Duty's
Lane.
BI
A
BI
A
through
lot,
this
is
a
zoning
compliant
building.
However,
with
two
abutters
meetings,
we
conceded
the
fourth
story,
which
was
zoning
compliant
and
we
reduced
it
down
to
a
3
story:
single
family
dwelling.
We
went
from
four
stories
to
three
stories:
five
bedrooms:
three
and
a
half
baths
to
two
bedrooms:
two
and
a
half
baths.
BI
A
BI
A
A
A
BI
Would
say
all
the
entire
property
is
affected
by
the
GPA
I.
Don't
have
a
G
pod
map,
but
I
would
say
it
is
so
we
we
proposed
a
zoning
compliant
single-family
dwelling
who
took
a
story
off
the
building
to
hopefully
the
neighbors
would
be
in
support
and
we
still
have
a
zoning
compliant
owner-occupied
3
story,
single
family
blowing.
H
A
BI
A
A
L
L
BI
H
N
To
the
board
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition.
At
this
time
we
did
hold
to
abutters
meetings.
I
would
like
to
recognize
that
the
proponent
did
take
a
story
off
the
building,
so
it
is
now
a
three-story
building,
but
there
is
still
a
lot
of
opposition
to
this
project
and
really
to
having
anything
built
in
this
backyard.
For
many
reasons,
thank
you.
BK
Q
A
BS
Name
is
Paul
Berg
I
live
at
35
marine
Road
I'm
gonna
direct
butter
to
a
Teddy's
language.
Last
37
marine
road,
hundreds
of
signatures
and
letters
have
been
sent
to
the
board.
Previously.
One
thing
I
would
like
to
submit
to
the
board
now
is
a
signed
letter
from
the
Gate
of
Heaven
Neighborhood
Association,
opposing
that
was
not
presented
to
the
board
previous
to
that.
Thank
you.
BS
This
project
splits
a
small
parcel
into
two
smaller
Lots
as
such
the
nature,
size
and
scope
are
in
direct
conflict
with
the
budding
properties.
Speaking
to
mr.
Johnson's
argument
about
the
number
of
buildings
that
are
on
Daddy's
Lane,
a
bond
that
has
been
there
for
over
a
hundred
years,
it's
two
stories
rebuilt
building,
it's
much
smaller
in
height.
Also,
it's
much
shorter
in
depth,
quality.
AT
BS
AI
AE
A
AC
H
BD
Colleen
me
41
Marine,
Road
I'm,
opposed
to
this.
For
the
same
reasons,
I
was
stated,
but
also
for
the
precedence
that
this
would
set
because
the
developers
are
speaking,
but
this
two
Lots
this
is
one
lot
of
Liat
lived
as
a
direct
about
it
for
45
years.
It's
one
lot
that
they
direct
their
cutting
into
so
one
small
backyard.
One
house
will
now
have
no
backyard
and
the
other
one
will
have
what
10
feet.
Perhaps
so
it's
a
totally
against
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
A
A
B
The
next
case
calling
boa
seven
nine
six
three
four
one
63
to
65
Moreland
Street.
This
is
a
construct,
a
new
8
unit,
building
the
violations,
article
50
section
28,
a
multi-family
is
forbidden
news.
Article
50,
section
29
additional
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
50,
section
29,
the
40.
A
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
50,
section
29,
the
building
height
is
excessive
and
feet
equal
50,
section,
29,
usable,
open
spaces.
It's
sufficient
in
article
50,
section
29
of
the
front
yard
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
A
AH
AH
AH
The
additional
lot
area
is
two
thousand
for
each
the
FA.
Our
madam
chair
is
point.
Eight
we
are
coming
in
at
0.8
for
just
a
little
bit
over
the
required.
Fa
are
the
building
height.
The
requirement
is
35
feet
from
the
sidewalk.
It's
38
feet,
proposals
38
feet,
but
from
grade
it's
35
the
open
space
which
is
required
as
5859
we're
coming
in
at
three
thousand
two
hundred
and
forty
square
feet
and
with
regard
to
the
front
yard,
the
requirement
is
20
feet.
We
have
thirteen
point.
AH
BV
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Travis
Anderson
police,
Taylor,
108,
Warren
streets,
I'll,
just
talk
through
the
initial
sighting
and
massing
of
the
building
upon
early
and
site
analysis.
We
decided
to
use
an
existing
curb
cut
for
the
building
and
that,
in
order
to
do
so,
made
us
push
the
building
forward
toward
Moreland
Street.
So
we
could
accommodate
the
the
nine
parking
spaces
in
the
back.
That's
the
reason.
A
BV
BV
We
actually
shifted
the
building
more
to
the
other
side
yard,
to
try
to
keep
that
green
space
along
there
and
with
the
intent
of
maintaining
some
of
the
trees
that
are
existing
on
the
site
are
some
nice,
older,
pines
and
whatnot,
and
then
in
terms
of
the
overall
massing.
We
know
that
this
is
a
historic
neighborhood
by
Nature,
so
we
looked
at
breaking
down
the
massing
our
party
into
three
distinct
building
typology
x'.
The
first
is
a
mansard
unit
that
sits
directly
on
the
corner.
BV
The
middle
is
a
brick
row
house
so
to
say,
and
then
the
end
unit
is
a
bay
front
that
keeps
with
the
ties
in
the
in
vernacular
of
the
entire
neighborhood.
We
also
talked
with
the
Boston
Preservation
Alliance
about
the
historic
qualities
of
the
of
the
building,
and
they
actually
are
on
board
and
support
as
well.
During
one
the
community
meetings
issue
about
fencing
and
screening
came
up
so
we're
looking
at
you
know
doing
a
wrought
iron
type
fence
that
fits
more
within
the
context
of
the
neighborhood.
BV
Along
the
front
facing
moorland,
because
when
you
walk
down
Moreland
Street,
there
is
a
lot
of
nice
kind
of
old
iron
work
and
whatnot.
So
it
is
our
intent
to
really
kind
of
hold
true
to
the
to
the
neighborhood
and
in
the
style
of
the
building
and
to
also
accommodate
parking
concerns.
And
as
far
as
green
space
goes,
there
is
a
park.
That's
diagonal
to
the
lot.
I
actually
live
in
the
neighborhood
and
use
the
park
with
my
daughter
all
the
time.
It's
a
green
space.
A
BV
BV
That's
part
of
the
reason
why
we
want
to
maintain
that
landscape
buffer
and
why
could
also
do
a
privacy
fence
well,
of
course,
enclose
any
trash
or
anything
like
that?
There's
a
privacy
screening
yeah,
there's
one
for
the
three-bedroom,
so
the
unit
breakdown
is
a
seven
800
square
foot
two-bedroom
units
and
then
there
one
three-bedroom
unit,
that's
approximately
1400
square
feet
that
one
has
a
roof
deck
that
faces
kind
of
the
back
yard.
AV
BW
Are
gonna
be
for
sale
units
and
part
of
where
we've
reached
some
opposition
with
the
neighborhood
has
been
on
the
unit
count
as
of
right,
we
can
do
five
units
and
we're
asking
for
eight
units.
The
reason
specifically
that
we're
asking
for
eight
units
is
that
we're
trying
to
build
condos
that
are
selling
below
400
thousand
right
now.
You
know
if
we
were
to
try
to
build
the
five
as
a
right,
we'd
end
up
with
16
1700
square
foot
units
that
we'd
have
to
sell
somewhere
in
the
700,000.
There's
a
lot
of
that
happening.
BW
A
AH
Sure,
with
regard
to
the
community
process,
we've
had
a
couple
of
meetings
with
pathways
Roxbury
pathways,
Neighborhood
Association,
and
we
had
a
Buddist
meeting
sponsored
by
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
Unfortunately,
there
there
is
some
opposition
to
the
project
and
we
do
have
support
for
the
project
as
well.
AH
BT
BX
Chair
Boston
city,
councillor,
Kim
Janie,
representing
Roxbury
I,
do
not
come
to
this
decision
lightly.
After
careful
consideration
after
hearing
from
several
of
my
neighbors
residents
who
live
in
this
area,
I've
heard
definitely
strong
opposition,
but
I've
also
heard
from
residents
who
support
this,
and
they
do
so
for
a
number
of
reasons.
BX
These
are
all
home
ownership
units
again,
I
don't
take
this
lightly.
I
know
that
there
is
support
and
I
know
that
there
is
also
opposition.
The
other
things
that
I
looked
at
as
a
City
Council,
which
is
very
important
to
me,
is
the
equity
piece.
The
piece
around
MBEs
and
W
BES
and
making
sure
that
they
are
not
only
workers
on
this
job
but
are
also
owners,
so
I
know
that
place.
Taylor
is
a
co-op
that
has
40%
minority
ownership,
and
that
is
also
important
to
me.
BX
Our
challenges
around
traffic
patterns
parking
are
very
problematic,
I
think
for
us,
as
a
city
that
we
really
need
to
tackle
so
I
would
encourage,
because
of
the
MBE
because
of
the
price
point
of
these
units
because
of
the
process,
and
that
there
is
support
I
would
recommend
your
support
as
well.
Thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you.
I'm
happy
to
speak
with
any
of
the
residents
who
are
here.
I
know
that
there
are
mostly
residents
here
in
opposition
and
in
support
I'm
happy
to
speak
with
anyone
after
let's.
Thank
you.
BR
Q
A
BY
Lorraine
wheeler
and
I
organized
the
Neighborhood
Association.
You
know
that
organizes
the
neighborhood
cleanup
and
all
of
these
other
processes,
and
we
met
at
a
community
of
others,
meeting
that
Joshua
organized
and
we
met
at
the
Neighborhood
Association
and
at
none
of
those
meetings
where's
their
support
for
this
project.
So
we
haven't
talked
to
any
of
the
people
who
are
here
from
the
city
and
support
this
project.
Although
we
help.
BY
For
us
that
and
we're
appealing
to
you
today
to
enforce
the
zoning,
because
these
black
neighborhoods
they
cannot
exist
if
all
the
time
they've
got
to
go
to
Superior
Court
before
the
legal
zoning
is
enforced,
the
legal
zoning
is
five
units
and
we
have
offered
them
six.
Eight
is
too
much
it's
in
the
middle
of
a
two-way
street
that
is
a
very
busy
street.
It's
surrounded
by
these
three
family
buildings
and
we
are
simply
before
they
bought
it.
BY
They
should
have
looked
at
the
legal
zoning,
so
I
have
60
signatures
on
a
petition
there's
at
least
40
letters
in
opposition.
That's
been
sent
to
your
office
and
so
I'm
gonna
give
you
those
as
well
as
the
ownership
of
the
law,
and
we
are
just
going
to
pray
that
you
were
going
to
support
these
neighbors
before
we're
all
pushed
out
at
Roxbury
and
I
have
one
other
thing
to
say.
One
of
the
people
that
came
here
in
support
of
it
is
a
developer.
BY
BZ
You
Charles
Spence
I'm
gonna
butter,
33,
Montrose,
Street,
Union,
3
I'm,
also
speaking
on
behalf
of
Jose
Rodriguez,
who
is
33,
Mott
Rose
Street
unit
1
he's
not
able
to
be
here.
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
am
opposed
to
these
six
variances
I
live
on
the
third
floor,
I'm
opposed
to
the
height
variance
of
5
that
5
feet
above
grade.
It's
a
lack
of
privacy
to
myself,
there's
a
lack
of
green
space.
All
these
things
have
to
be
met.
BZ
There's
criteria
for
the
board
of
Appeals
and
I'm
sure
you're,
aware
of
it
that
therefore
criteria
to
be
met
all
to
be
met.
They
meet
none
of
them.
The
only
variance
thing
that
they
did
not
they
came
here
that
they
don't
need
is
for
parking.
It's
an
insult
to
the
community
to
come
with
six
variances
to
build
something
that
is
legally
not
supposed
to
be
there.
According
to
our
zoning
rules,
we
have
rights
as
of
butters.
Lack
of
privacy
and
I
really
am
opposed
to
this
project.
BZ
I'm
opposed
to
roof
decks,
there's
no
roof
decks
in
that
area.
Okay.
I
also
like
to
say
that
it's
just
really
a
shame
that
we
did
come
together
as
a
community
and
agreed,
and
it
wasn't
until
two
or
three
days
ago
that
there
came
this
opposition
from
Kim
Jamie's
office.
I.
Don't
understand
why
everybody's.
BZ
CA
A
CA
Thank
you.
What
was
referred
to
as
a
vacant
lot
is
sort
of
not
right.
It
was
a
beautiful
garden
flower
trees
that
were
very
well
maintained
by
the
adjacent
owner,
the
ones
the
developer
bought
this
from
so
you're,
going
from
what
was
a
very,
very
beautiful
piece
of
property
in
terms
of
the
landscaping
there,
two
neighbors
are
going
to
look
out
at
parking
and
back
porches
garbage
cans
whatever
to
enter.
They
say
they
have
nine
province
paces.
CA
CA
Also
with
visitors,
it's
not
enough
parking,
I
live
I,
don't
have
a
driveway.
I
live
at
number
nine
for
many
many
nights
coming
from
shopping
at
all.
I
have
to
talk
one
two
blocks
down
and
lug
my
bags
up,
because
already
the
difficulty
of
getting
into
the
parking
behind
that
building
is
going
to
mean
there's
going
to
be
more
parking
on
the
street.
CA
A
You
now
so
far
for
the
rest
of
you,
you
who
are
going
to
be
giving
testimony
in
opposition
I've
heard
about
the
concern
that
or
the
statement
that
this
is
a
historic
district,
the
concern
about
the
trees,
the
density,
the
privacy.
If
you
have
please
add
more
information
to
that
otherwise
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
Okay,.
BF
A
A
CB
Charlotte
Marie
patella
I
reside
at
29
Montrose
Street
I'm
in
a
butter.
I
oppose
this
addition
to
all
the
reasons
previously
cited,
including
density,
green
space,
lack
of
privacy
I
want
to
address
safety,
as
some
of
the
folks
here
have
mentioned.
This
particular
lot,
a
Buxton
intersection
that
abuts
apart
is
a
very,
very
dangerous
intersection.
CB
CB
A
CB
BN
Name
is
Sarah,
I
reside
under
29
Montrose
Street
and
I
strongly
oppose
this
this
project,
it's
a
beer.
Besides
the
the
points
that
has
been
raised
and
then
the
issue
of
the
not
only
high
density
in
the
in
the
in
the
community,
but
also
the
the
nature
of
the
the
housing
that
would
be
smaller,
a
housing
that
is
not
going
to
be
creating
families
who
move
they're,
not
people,
gonna,
move
they're,
not
gonna,
create
routes,
because
it's
it's
very
small
apartment,
so
this
is
in
impact
at
our
livelihood
of
becoming
so.
AJ
A
AG
A
AJ
AB
Q
A
You
commercially
you've
heard
you've
heard
all
the
with
statement.
So
far,
can
you
please
address
some
of
the
open
space
issues,
the
preservation
of
trees,
whatever
it
is,
and
how
is
the
parking
going
to
work
because
they
don't
hear
that
that
the
street
is
one
way
that
Mark
Rose
is
one
way.
So
how
will
that
look
correct.
BV
Yeah
and
so
that's
why
we
look
at
maintaining
that
curb
cut
along
Montrose
relate
to
act
as
more
of
a
buffer
to
the
amount
of
traffic
flow
through
there
and
in
regards
to
open
space.
Unfortunately,
when
you
add
cars,
you
take
away
green
space.
If
we
could,
we
would
put
any
parking
there
and
have
more
green
space
and
position
the
building
back
further,
but
we
just
had
to
accommodate
the
parking
as
a
result,
but
we
did
as
I
mentioned
earlier.
We
did
keep
the
building
positioned
off
of
Montrose
to
maintain
that
buffer.
BV
That's
there
in
the
hopes
of
keeping
some
of
the
trees
on
the
site.
We
actually
went
out
there
early
on
and
did
a
little
site
excavation,
there's
putting
stone
on
the
sites
or
it's
another
reason
why
the
building's
coming
on
the
ground
a
bit
more
as
to
minimize
the
impact
of
construction,
and
it
was
also
another
reason
that
kind
of
positioned
the
building
where
we
did,
because
we're
up
against
the
ground
also.
BW
It's
worth
noting
that,
even
if
we
did
the
five
units,
the
as
a
right
move
here,
the
size
of
the
building
wouldn't
really
change.
Cuz
we
are
just
slightly
over
the
FA.
Are
we
can
easily
bring
it
under?
The
FA
are
with
five
units
again,
this
is
about
you
know
the
type
of
housing
we
want
to
be
selling.
We
don't
want
to
be
selling
high-end
units,
we're
trying
to
do
workforce
housing
and
we're
trying
to
do
it
without
tax
density.
A
F
X
AH
B
Next
case,
your
calling
boa
seven
six,
six,
six,
nine
one,
two
twenty
two
hobbits
dream:
this
is
a
change
of
artists
from
three
to
six
apartments:
the
new
egress
stairways
of
three
level
porch
violations,
article
60
section,
eight,
a
multi-family
residential-
is
have
been
use
in
a
three
F
five
thousand
to
sub
district.
An
article
60
section
is
sufficient
additional
lot
area
for
dwelling
unit
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
A
A
A
M
M
I'm
sure
simply
the
front
is
occupied
for
30
or
more
years
now
available
and
so
all
through
capital
spaces.
This
third
floor
second
floor,
including
basement
from
here
to
all
the
way
to
the
front.
Those
are
all
approved,
habitable
space,
that's
very
big
space,
quite
a
lot
that
we
want
to
create
more
housing
units
and
he
lives
in
this
building,
and
he
want
to
occupy
to
have
a
little
studio
in
the
ground
floor
that
is
or
completely
open
to
the
real
yard
and
one
another
units
that
come
for
another
really
in
the
first
war.
M
A
M
A
A
A
M
A
M
M
M
A
M
BF
CD
Chair
members
of
members
of
the
board
Whitney
Celeste
in
here
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
had
an
extensive
community
process
for
this
project.
This
bus
this
project
was
deferred
because
we
wanted
to
have
more
community
process.
Harvard
blue
circle,
I'm
devoted
association
into
the
cotman
Square
neighborhood
council.
The
council
did
not
take
a
position,
but
the
Harvard
Neighborhood
Association,
that
give
me
a
letter
of
opposition
I,
feel
like
this
project
should
have
came
to
the
community
beforehand.
This
structure
is
built
on
the
land.
Already
it's
already
there.
A
CD
AV
AV
M
M
AV
AK
F
AK
BN
M
M
A
A
A
P
AG
A
M
A
A
B
A
B
BG
BT
BT
A
A
A
H
AC
BG
BG
BG
BG
The
principal
prepare
report
for
us,
which
we've
submitted
to
you
and,
with
your
permission,
I'd
like
him
to
walk
through
the
report,
we've
also,
which
will
explain
just
in
some
way
to
explain
how
they
did
the
calculations,
how
he
approached
the
project,
how
we
determine
whether
the
groundwater
recharge
system
would
comply
with
32
requirements.
How
just.
A
BG
And
mr.
Giuliani
again
at
the
time
in
August
of
2016,
that
this
application
firstly
came
before
the
board
niche
engineering
ensure
the
board's
familiar
with,
had
performed
all
the
calculations
for
the
system
that
was
ultimately
constructed
and
near
the
architect.
I'm.
Sorry,
the
engineer
of
record
on
this
project
and
specifically
with
regard
to
this
groundwater
recharge
system.
But
for
purposes
of
this
hearing
we
had
an
independent,
see
he's
paid
by
my
client
but
independent
in
the
sense
of
you
asked
him
to
come
back.
Recheck
everything.
All
of
that.
I
I
There
were
two
versions
of
the
letter.
The
first
version.
Excuse
me:
the
June
3rd
2016
version
had
a
capacity,
the
system,
capacity
at
232
cubic
feet
and
the
updated
August
22nd
2016
letter
had
an
updated
capacity
of
225
cubic
feet,
still
exceeded
the
224
for
cubic
foot
requirement.
That
was
essentially
just
a
revision
of
the
capacity
of
the
system.
Just
enough
data
that.
A
AC
CF
CF
J
B
CF
H
A
CF
CF
CF
CF
AW
BG
AV
CE
AI
A
BG
CE
BG
BG
AV
BT
CE
Is
that
data
is
well
data
from
groundwater,
trust
which
is
available
on
your
website,
which
shows
historic
levels
that
they've
monitored?
There's
two
wells
nearby,
one
at
the
corner
of
mom
role
in
Fayetteville
and
another
well
at
the
corner
of
5th
built
in
public
alley
417
and
when
it
shows
at
the
time
in
October
of
2016,
that
the
ground
water
elevation
was
approximately
between
4
and
4.5.
In
elevation.
CE
A
CE
CE
I
On
this,
the
data
that
they're
referencing
is
from
our
website
under
our
monitoring
well
page,
and
that
is
our
data
logger
information
for
that
area.
So
we
data
log,
those
three
wells
in
that
area
for
the
purpose
of
monitoring
or
a
pair
that
was
made
by
Water
and
Sewer
in
November
of
2017,
and
you
can
see
a
massive
spike
around
that
time
right
before
about
the
week
before
Thanksgiving
there
was
a
leaking
sewer
in
the
area,
water
and
sewer
fix
the
sewer.
I
Grommet
levels
came
up
to
2
now,
in
some
cases,
3
plus
feet
over
a
period
of
about
6
months.
So
that's
the
cause
ultimately
for
that
rapid
jump
and
now
we're
starting
to
see
essentially
a
spread
out
effect
about
a
block
in
either
direction
so
in
referring
to
the
highest
levels
ever.
That
was
really
the
main
driver
of
that
big
jump
and
groundwater
levels
in
that
area.
AV
AV
H
AV
AU
A
CF
H
CF
Anticipate
any
impacts
dictation
properties
make
associates,
denies
admit
that
he
will
not
take
more
ownership.
They
were
shocked
when
I
met
with
Mitch
in
Harry
Harry
from
Vail
associates
that
the
property
that
the
carriage
house
to
a
lower
level,
because
everything
worked
great
if
there
was
no
lower
level
of
carriage
house,
because
you
have
plenty
of
area
for
this
water
all
over
the
place.
But
unfortunately
we
have
bedrooms
in
lower
level.
So
this
will
flooding
it.
If,
if
the
city
sewer
surges.
V
A
Y
A
What
I'm
getting
is
that
we
have
to
to
groundwater
technicians
who
have
looked
at
this.
We
have
water
and
sewer
hose
approved
it.
We
have
groundwater
trust
who
who
concurs
that
all
the
above
works
and
then
and
then
we
have
an
engineer
who
who,
who
is?
Who
is
an
opposition
in
their
opinion
to
to
the
other,
to
groundwater
engineers?
Okay,
so
thank
you
so
I
think,
just
like
a
regular
hearing,
we've
heard
the
proponent
on
on
the
property
we've
heard
the
abutters
concerns.