►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 09-12-17
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
The
Zoning
Board
of
appeal
for
Tuesday
September
12th,
is
now
in
session.
Just
a
reminder,
please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
if
you
need
to
have
any
conversations,
please
take
them
outside
of
the
room.
If
you
are
here
to
speak
and
support
are
in
opposition
of
a
project
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
We
are
here
on
a
fact-finding
mission,
so
give
us
new
information,
use
your
time
well
and
give
us
new
information.
A
B
A
C
Morning
probably
Connolly,
it's
hurting
for
Bayside
Club,
Hotel,
Mon,
Fernan
Street
here
for
the
board's
final
arbiter,
as
you
notice
the
project,
an
expansion
of
the
existing
Bayside
Double
Tree,
Hotel,
that
this
board
previously
approved.
We've
made
some
minor
revisions
to
the
plans
based
on
review
with
our
operator.
No
new
relief
is
being
requested
from
the
board.
Isd
has
reviewed
the
plans
and
recommended
that
we
submit
to
you
for
review
and
approval
for
its
final
arbiter,
and
can
we
turn
over
to
our
project
architect,
Larry
Spang,
to
describe
two
minor
changes,
good.
D
Morning,
Larry
Spang
from
arrow
street
architects
we're
working
with
the
folks
on
the
hotel
expansion.
There
have
been
some
minor
changes
to
the
plan,
which
has
resulted
from
discussions
with
the
hotel
operator,
as
the
project
has
developed.
We
as
a
result
of
those
moving
of
bits
and
pieces.
We
have
slightly
increased
the
number
of
guest
rooms
and
the
amount
of
meeting
space
we've
slightly
reduced
the
number
of
seats
in
the
restaurant,
and
we
have
very
slightly
increased
the
size
of
the
expansion,
a
little
less
than
2%
total.
D
D
D
E
F
D
D
C
G
H
D
I
E
B
B
This
is
in
regards
to
a
build,
a
new
roof
deck
for
unit.
Three
eighth
edition
of
CMR
chapter
ten
means
of
egress
in
buildings
for
more
stories
about
great
one
stairway
shall
extend
to
the
roof
surface
article
one:
zero,
zero,
nine
one,
three
point:
one:
roof
access
where
a
stairway
is
provided
to
a
roof.
Access
to
the
roof
shall
be
provided
through
a
penthouse
complying
with
section
1509
point
to
the
eighth
edition
of
CMR
chapter
ten
means
of
egress
Headroom
stairway
shall
have
a
minimum
Headroom
clearance
of
80
inches,
measured
vertically
from
the
line.
B
Ten
to
twelve
point.
Four
continuing
of
a
handrail
gripping
services
shall
be
continuous,
ten
twelve
point:
six,
a
handrail
extensions.
The
handrail
shall
shall
return
to
a
wall
god
or
walking
surface
or
shall
be
continuous.
Ten
thirteen
point,
one
where
we
quiet
God
shall
be
located
along
an
open
side
of
walking,
walking,
services
and
2406
point
one:
the
human
impact
loads,
individual
glazed
areas,
including
glass
mirrors,
name,
an
address
to
the
record.
Please
good.
K
K
Good
morning,
madam
chair
good
morning,
so
we
have
here
a
conflict
between
the
zoning
code
and
the
building
code.
So
we
are
in
one
of
the
historic
districts
on
Gloucester
Street
in
the
Back
Bay,
the
Back
Bay
architectural
Commission
has
approved
a
roof
deck
and
they
much
prefer
a
hatch
instead
of
a
head
house
for
historical
reasons.
We
applied
to
ISD
for
the
hatch,
and
it
is
my
experience
that
sometimes
these
hatches
are
approved
in
the
historical
district.
K
K
A
K
L
So
it's
a
it's
a
mostly
flat
hatch,
but
it
has
railings
that
extend
up
when
you
open
it.
So,
in
other
words,
as
you
open
the
door
of
the
hatch,
the
railings
go
into
place
to
allow
you
to
get
up
once
you
get
onto
the
roof
deck,
there's
a
permanent
railing
for
your
safety
around.
So
your
safety
on
the
stairs
resolved
by
the.
L
I
M
B
A
N
I
had
my
community
meeting
and
I
have
two
neighbors.
That
would
like
view
renditions
to
see
how
the
addition
looks
and
I
also
had
a
meet
with
the
BPD
a
because
this
is
previously
a
Braa
parcel
and
the
architect.
Alexa
Pinard
wants
us
to
narrow
the
slope
of
the
man
side
a
little
bit
so
I
have
to
do
new
drawings,
then
do
the
view
renditions
and
then
have
another
community
meeting.
A
B
There
any
other
deferrals
or
withdrawals
for
9:30.
Madam
chair,
we
do
have
a
case
that
is
withdrawing
so
I'll
call
it
for
the
record
calling
boa
six:
five:
nine
nine
zero,
zero
twenty-eight
hand,
Clark
Street,
so
I
make
a
motion
for
denial
without
prejudice.
We
have
a
letter
felicito,
oh
I'm,
sorry.
A
P
Q
A
B
B
This
is
to
change
ours
from
a
two-story
structure,
eighteen
by
forty
five,
with
dry
cleaners
to
a
three-story
structure
of
eighteen
foot
by
35,
with
dry
cleaning
on
the
first
floor
and
two
residential
units
above
the
violations,
article
53
section
trawl,
insufficient
Riyadh
setback,
article
53,
section,
twelve,
excessive
FA,
our
article
53
section
56,
our
street
parking
known
as
proposed
in
article
53,
section
11
to
family
on
a
second
storey
and
above
is
forbidden
and
Assisi
just
sub
district
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
Patrick.
R
It's
an
existing
two-story
commercial
unit
with
a
mezzanine
level
being
changed.
The
existing
buildings
of
drycleaners
is
no
longer
will
be
in
use.
The
first
floor,
as
proposed,
will
be
commercial
space
of
approximately
seven
hundred
and
seventy
five
square
feet,
and
then
two
residential
units
on
each
level
above
so
there'll,
be
a
one-story
addition
to
this
to
this
building
and
the
two
residential
units
consists
of
two
bedroom,
two
baths
ones
526
square
feet
and
the
other
is
537
square
feet.
A
R
R
The
floor
area
ratio-
it
is
a
violation,
one
is
what's
required,
it's
a
community
commercial
district
and
we
are
in
excess
of
that.
At
one
point.
Five.
The
open
space
is
essentially
met
by
the
top
floor.
It's
180
square
feet
provided
in
a
hundred
square
feet
is
what's
required,
so
that
is
met.
The
the
rear
yard
violation
is
the
second
means
of
egress
and
deck
from
the
units
are
right
on
the
rear
lot
line.
There
is
a
passageway,
so
a
shallow,
a
through
lawd
exception
could
apply,
but
we
were
cited
for
rear
yard.
S
A
B
This
is
a
change
of
opportunity
from
a
single-family
dwelling
to
a
three
family
dwelling
and
complete
renovation
of
the
existing
single-family
home,
constructing
new
three-story
addition
on
the
existing
drawing
the
violations,
article
62,
section,
25,
roof
structure,
restrictions
in
article
62,
section,
a
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
B
G
T
Madam
chair,
the
current
proposal
at
seven
Parker
Street
is
to
convert
with
an
existing
single
family
to
a
three
family
dwelling.
We
have
met
with
members
of
the
community,
after
speaking
with
the
community
liaison
and
in
special
services.
We
do
believe
that
members,
the
community
after
that
meeting,
are
in
support.
T
Madam
chair,
so
as
to
the
first
sighted
violation,
article
62
section
25
the
roof
structure,
the
proposed
plans
show
that
the
applicant
now
is
not
making
the
roof
line
in
the
proposed
addition,
any
larger
than
what's
already
existing,
and
that
the
proposed
addition
in
the
rear
of
the
structure
which
can't
be
seen
from
the
street
will
now
be
the
same
height
as
what's
existing
on
the
current
structure.
We.
A
T
T
A
T
Ma'am
I'm
sure,
so
the
other
violation
is
as
to
the
dimensional
regulations
and
usable
open
space.
The
revised
plans,
as
submitted
when
we
did
meet
with
inspectional
services,
now
include
the
roof
deck
as
open
space,
which
is
shown
on
the
plan
for
total
square
footage
of
about
792
square
feet.
Additionally,
there's
an
area
in
the
front
of
the
property
which
is
with
and
within
the
mineral
requirement
of
10
feet,
and
that
area
consists
of
open
space,
258
square
feet.
T
V
X
E
A
B
For
the
record,
calling
it
replace
the
existing
roof,
roof
decks,
stairs
and
roof
head
house
the
violations,
article
15
section,
one,
the
polluting
a
ratio
is
excessive:
article
16,
section,
8,
roof
structure,
restricted
district
and
article
16
section
1.
The
building
height
is
excessive
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
O
Home
at
28,
1/2
country
he
his
family,
the
application
is
to
improve
and
replace
an
existing
roof
access,
roof
head
house
stairs
to
that
and
the
existing
roof.
We
had
a
long
series
of
meetings
with
the
Beacon
Hill
Civic
Association
went
back
to
back
months
to
the
rezoning
and
licensing
committee,
the
result
of
which
was
a
vote
of
that
committee
to
not
oppose
the
application.
That
vote
was
ratified.
If
you
will,
by
the
Beacon
Hill
Board
of
Directors
that
a
following
meeting,
we
then
have
an
abutters
meeting
on-site
on
August
21st.
Mr.
Y
O
A
Z
O
A
large
wall,
its
South,
said
couple
that
hides
the
entire
structure.
This
was
done
in
large
part
to
do
to
a
fire
in
the
property
where
they
escaped
serious
injury
and
were
requested
by
the
fire
department
to
create
a
better
access
to
the
area,
because
it
provides
the
only
means
out
of
the
building
from
that
level.
One
of
the
most
direct
means
out
of
the
building
at
that
level.
Again,
we
had
a
number
of
meetings.
He
went
door-to-door
with
every
one
of
his
abutters.
Every
one
of
them
was
in
support
of
the
application.
I
S
O
B
Calling
boa
seven
three:
nine
zero,
six
five
53
to
55
Bromfield
street:
this
is
the
remove
proviso.
The
previous
petitioner
of
Pedro's
tacos,
to
become
the
Barracuda
on
the
fly,
no
work
to
be
performed.
The
violations,
article
6
section
four
applicant-
seeks
to
remove
revisal
from
the
previous
petitioner
Pedro's
tacos
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
X
We're
just
trying
to
change
the
names
on
we
bought
a
building
last
year,
Pender's
tacos
with
franchise.
They
wanted
to
get
out
of
the
franchise,
so
they
left
and
we
own
a
barracuda
tab,
which
is
on
a
second
floor.
So
we
just
trying
to
expand
their
business
and
do
a
little
takeout
shop.
On
the
other
side,
I.
AA
B
AB
AA
AB
AB
I
A
AB
A
AC
B
The
a
ratio
is
excessive
article
68
section,
a
thought:
frontage
is
insufficient.
Article
68
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
68,
section,
8
side
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
68.
Section
8
is
insufficient.
This
is
for
building
code.
70
80
cm
are
on
20g
flawed
flood
resistant
construction,
enclosed
spaces
below
the
base.
B
R
R
The
building
code
violations
as
cited
can
be
withdrawn
at
this
time.
The
the
flood
is
regarding
the
flood
zone
and
living
space
in
the
first
areas.
It's
a
zone,
X
I,
believe,
according
to
FEMA
map,
in
which
case
this
wouldn't
be
a
building
code
violation.
That
would
only
be
for
you
in
AE
area
regarding
the
route
that
was
part
of
it.
The
other
one
was
the
roof
structure
so
that
the
roof
deck
has
been
removed
and
also
with
it.
The
need
for
relief
for
the
second
means
of
egress
from
a
common
roof.
R
Similarly,
one
of
the
violations
was
article
68,
29,
restricted
roof
structure
will
also
not
be
seeking
relief
for
that
as
there's
no
roof
deck
being
proposed
on
the
on
a
new
or
existing
structure.
So
it
is
an
existing
to
family
building
and
a
proposed
addition
to
the
right
side
of
it
as
you're,
seeing
it
on
the
cover
of
the
plans
with
the
proposed
unit.
There's
two
parking
spaces:
1.5
is
required
under
article
68,
because
it's
in
odd
number,
it
will
be
rounded
up
to
two
and
two
spaces
are
provided
clarification.
R
The
first
floor
unit
is
a
bi-level
unit
and
which
was
also
the
cause
of
the
incorrectly
cited
building
code
violation.
The
it'll
be
a
one-bedroom
unit,
812
square
feet
with
a
living
area
on
the
lower
level.
Bedroom
will
be
on
the
first
level
and
then
for
unit
two
and
three,
and
then
to
the
right
of
that
on
the
same
level.
Is
the
parking
above
the
parking
in
on
the
second
level.
R
Each
unit
will
just
span
that
second
floor
in
unit
3
will
also
span
the
third
floor
unit
is
a
2-bed
2bath
as
well
as
unit
3
787
square
feet
for
unit
2
and
800
square
feet
per
unit.
3
there
isn't
it.
There
is
a
rear,
deck
and
means
of
second
means
of
egress,
although
not
required
with
3
stories,
because
the
building
will
be
sprinkled
but
open
space
is
not
met
because
200
square
feet
per
unit
is
required
and
we're
insufficient
of
that.
R
A
AD
A
G
G
S
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Ellison
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services.
We
can't
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
proposal
due
to
it
being
within
article
68.
I
would
like
to
note
for
the
record.
We
did
hold
a
community
meeting
and
there
was
support
for
the
project
without
the
roof
deck.
Thank
you.
AE
I
B
New
three-story
residential
building,
comprising
of
six
units
and
underground
parking
for
nine
vehicles,
the
violations,
article
29
section
four:
this
is
in
the
Greenbelt
protection
overlay
district
article
68,
section
34
conformity
with
the
existing
building
alignment
of
the
block
article
68
section,
29,
roof
structure,
restricted
district
article
68,
section
8,
the
height
requirements
is
excessive
and
article
68
section
8
to
require
a
side
yard.
Is
it
sufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record?
Please
good.
AF
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George
Moran,
see
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
in
350,
West,
Broadway
and
South
Boston
I'm
joined
by
the
client,
the
owner
and
developer
of
the
project.
David
Winnick,
madam
chair
members.
The
plans
that,
before
the
board
today
are
somewhat
revised
from
the
original
application
plans,
the
cited
violations
have
all
been
eliminated.
AF
The
zoning
violations
what's
before
the
board
today,
is
simply
a
matter
of
G
part
approval
on
the
originally
cited
violations.
There
was
a
sighted
side
yard
setback,
which
was
the
result
of
a
transcription
error
on
the
site
plan
by
the
surveyor.
The
front
yard
violation
was
in
fact
an
error.
This
is
a
modal
alignment
that
conforms
with
code
setback,
requirements
for
front
yard
and
etc.
The
violations
again
have
all
been
eliminated,
either
by
fact
that
they
were
in
error
or
a
minor
violation
that
was
corrected.
A
U
AF
At
sheet
a
4.1,
the
so
what
what
all
it
is
before
the
board
today
is
green
belt
protection
overlay
districts.
We
are
not
seeking
any
zoning
relief
in
to
the
extent
that
zoning
relief
or
zoning
violations
were
read
into
the
record.
I
want
to
go
on
there.
I
could
officially
stating
that
we
are
not
seeking
and
we
do
not
need
any
variances.
All
we're
seeking
today,
a
site
plan
approval
pursuant
to
article
29
three
belt
protection
over
the
district,
so
the
building
is
completely
zoning.
Compliant
it's
six
unit.
AF
AF
Again,
the
parking
is
zone,
II
compliant
and
it's
by
an
existing
curb
cut.
The
second
criteria
is
that
provision
of
landscaping
treatment
ensures
the
natural
and
aesthetic
quality
of
the
Greenbelt
area
will
be
maintained
again.
This
is
only
compliant.
We
exceed
the
amount
of
usable,
open
space
required
by
the
code
by
twelve
and
a
half
percent.
AF
AF
A
AA
AF
It's
in
the
back
after
you
loop
around
on
the
right
hand,
side.
If
you
look
at
the
the
second
elevation
page
and
in
color,
you
can
see
how
the
driveway
slopes
down
and
then
the
access
is
provided
in
the
lower
level
in
the
rear
via
that
garage
door.
I'm.
Sorry,
the
third
criteria
I
just
want
to
get
it
on.
The
record
is
that
provision
for
the
design
of
all
structures
which
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood
again
presumptions
through
through
court
cases.
Is
that
once
a
matter
is
in
fact
zoning
compliant.
AF
S
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Ellison
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
strong
opposition.
This
project
has
been
met
with
a
lot
of
opposition
in
the
community
for
many
reasons,
both
the
height
and
density
being
out
of
scale
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
which,
though
it
may
be
technically
zone
and
compliant
I,
think
may
be
something
that
needs
to
be
looked
at
through
the
iPod
process,
as
well
as
the
negative
impacts
on
the
Greenbelt
roadway
by
adding
an
additional,
possibly
five
or
six
vehicles
to
the
site.
S
AE
AG
What
Paul,
Sullivan
I'll
be
opposite:
council-lodge,
Michael
clarity.
The
council
stands
with
the
neighbors,
the
entire
neighborhood
in
opposition
to
this
project.
The
proponent
has
failed
to
work
with
the
neighborhood
others
projects-
and
this
is
a
product
of
me-
benefit
for
a
deferral.
But
at
this
particular
point
the
councillor
is
an
opposition
standing
with
the
neighborhood.
AH
Madam
chairwoman,
members
aboard
NYX
apparatus
from
congressman
Stephen
Lynch
his
office.
The
Cosmosphere
would
like
to
be
recorded
in
opposition
to
this,
we've
been
to
several
meetings,
there's
over
300
signatures
from
the
neighborhood
opposed
to
the
design
and
the
size
of
the
building
it
just
does
not
fit
into
the
fabric
of
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
AI
853
and
we'd
like
to
go
on
on
the
record
in
opposition
of
the
proposal,
be
the
plans
that
the
trust
had
seen
did
require
zoning
relief.
We
were
given
copies
of
these
new
plans.
Just
last
night
we
haven't
had
the
opportunity
to
review
and
to
provide
feedback
and
strongly
are
against
this
proposal
as
it
currently
stands.
Thank
you.
M
A
And
will
will
the
rest
of
the
people
who
are
here
in
opposition
who
have
not
had
a
chance
to
speak?
Please
raise
your
hands
so
just
for
the
record,
we
all
acknowledge
as
one
two
three
four
five
six
seven,
eight
nine
ten
eleven
twelve
people
here,
also
in
opposition
Hey,
given
that
information
cimarron
see
yes,.
AF
To
address
a
couple
of
the
matters,
I
need
to
reiterate
again
for
the
board:
we're
not
here
seeking
zoning
relief.
This
is
only
compliant
project
plans
and
I
have
I,
don't
have
it
printed
out,
but
I
have
an
updated
refusal
letter
that
was
reissued
by
the
special
services
department
setting
G
pot
holy.
So
we
are
not
seeking
any
zoning
relief
whatsoever
in
terms
of
there
was
a
mention
made
of
the
iPod
we're
not
subject
to
the
iPod.
This
appeal
was
filed
before
the
iPod
was
advertised.
AF
There
was
a
reference
to
vehicular
impacts
to
the
Greenbelt
roadway.
We
meet
the
zoning
code
requirements
by
that
logic.
Any
project
located
within
a
d-pod
the
meets
off
street
parking
requirements
would
have
an
you,
couldn't
have
a
project
to
comply
with
off-street
parking
requirements
in
that
interpretation
of
G
particular
impacts.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
this
is
simply
a
six
unit
project
with
Ken
cars.
An
existing
curb
cut,
it's
not
even
located
on
the
Greenbelt
roadway,
which
is
in
fact
a
Boulevard
we're
located
on.
E
E
AF
E
E
AF
G
bar
just
to
reminder
to
the
board
this
court
I
believe,
has
denied
G
part
approval
twice
to
my
recollection
in
its
history
both
times
it
was
overturned
by
in
one
case
to
Massachusetts
appeals
court
in
the
case
of
KCI
management.
One
case
it
was
my
case
Mulligan
versus
Court
of
Appeal,
just
a
reminder
that
the
KCI
case
the
appeals
court
has
held
that
with
proposed
use,
is
one
permitted
by
Wright,
and
this
is
direct
quote
from
the
court.
A
AJ
B
The
next
case
calling
boa
7
3
2
4
6
7
1
Linden
Street.
This
is
to
add
to
residential
parking
spaces
to
the
rear
of
the
property
which
is
situated
on
a
corner
lot.
Parking
spaces
will
be
9
19
and
a
half
feet
deep.
The
violation
is
article
10,
section,
1
limitation
of
off
street
parking
areas.
Article
68,
section
33,
must
be
parking,
design,
8
and
a
half
by
20
feet
per
regulation
in
article
68,
section,
8,
useable,
open
spaces,
that's
sufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
A
R
R
A
R
It's
it's
in
the
furthest,
most
point
of
the
rear
lot.
So
it's
approximately
57
feet.
It
is
the
location
the
this.
The
two
violations
cited
were
for
parking
size.
The
four
required
parking
in
this
section
of
the
neighborhood
section,
article
68,
it's
a
50%
of
the
spaces-
have
to
be
eight
and
a
half
feet
by
20
feet,
but
that's
for
required
parking
where
it's
an
existing
single-family
building.
It's
not
required
parking
and
therefore
I
would
say
not
required
to
meet
these
parking
dimensions.
R
A
R
S
Chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Alice
and
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
project.
We
did
hold
an
on-site
abutters
meeting.
I
do
just
want
to
acknowledge.
There
were
some
concerns
raised
around
the
length
of
the
curb
cut,
as
well
as
possibly
damaging
pipes
that
are
buried
under
the
yards.
Thank
you,
madam.
AE
B
W
I
I
B
W
A
A
A
On
for
a
minute,
just
a
reminder
to
everybody
because
I
know,
there's
been
a
change
of
the
number
of
people
and
who's
in
the
room
just
to
remind
to
please
have
your
cellphone's
off
and
if
you
have
any
conversations,
please
state
them
outside
of
the
room.
We
are
here
on
a
fact-finding
mission,
so
to
speak.
So
if
you're
here
to
talk
either
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
the
project,
please
be
succinct
and
tell
us
exactly
what
your
concern
is.
If
somebody
else
has
already
stated
what
your
concern
is.
A
B
This
is
the
subdividing
existing
lot
at
1575
Tremont
Street
containing
88,000
454
square
feet
into
two
Lots
1575
chemistry,
with
a
lot
of
fifty
thousand
seven
hundred
and
twenty
square
feet
and
the
remaining
area
to
become
95,
st.
Alphonsus
street
law
with
a
lot
area
of
37,000
734
square
feet,
the
violation
of
article
9,
section,
2,
non-conforming,
use
change
in
article
59,
section
37
mob
street
parking
is
insufficient,
instant,
insufficient
parking
for
an
existing
147
units
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
AK
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
James
Greene
I'm,
an
attorney
with
the
firm
of
Reuben
M
Redmond
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
blue
stone,
1575
trauma
on
Street
Realty
Trust
and
with
me,
is
Ralph
Cole,
a
member
of
the
blue
stone
project
team.
This
application
was
filed
in
connection
with
a
project
at
95,
st.
Alphonsus
Street,
which
is
to
be
the
new
lot
after
the
subdivision.
AK
In
accordance
with
ISD
requirements,
we
are
required
to
file
a
subdivision
plan
and
because
the
existing
lot,
which
is
about
88,000
square
feet
at
the
corner
of
Tremont
Street
and
st.
Alphonsus
Street
in
Mission
Hill
across
the
street
from
Mission
Church,
has
presently
a
14-story
147
unit
apartment
building,
which
is
owned
by
my
client.
A
AK
Units
and
the
existing
building
and
it
behind
that
building
is
a
175
space
parking
garage.
These
were
all
built
in
1964,
I
believe
under
the
old
Whitney
Street
urban
renewal
project
plan
by
the
VRA
at
the
time,
approved
by
the
Bay
Area's
time
it's
privately
owned.
My
client
intends
to
subdivide
the
lot
to
make
both
Lots
available
for
HUD
financing
and
to
develop
on
the
real
lot.
AK
A
A
A
AK
AK
That's
correct
and
therefore
the
citation
that
is
decided
was
a
change
in
the
resulting
in
non-conforming
youth
because
we're
subdividing
the
garage
technically
from
the
tower
147
units.
However,
as
set
forth
in
the
appeal
in
a
set
forth
in
the
VRA
documentation
under
article
80,
there
will
be
an
easement
agreement
between
the
two
Lots,
which
will
provide
parking
in
the
news
below
grade
one
level
garage
plus
above
level,
in
the
new
building
for
both
147
Commonwealth
Tremont's
tree,
achieving
1575
trim
on
streets,
147
units,
as
well
as
the
hundred
and
15
units
at
95,
st.
AK
AK
A
S
AL
I
I
AK
A
AM
B
Providing
in
this
case
calling
VOA
six
nine
eight
nine
one,
three
seven
to
eleven
y
street.
This
is
the
raise
the
existing
single-family
home
and
construct
a
new
three
unit,
townhouse
style
residence.
This
is
a
combined
parcels
at
7y
street
15,
1514
square
feet
and
9y
stewey
of
1240
square
feet
an
11
wide
street.
It's
1340
square
feet
which
equals
four
thousand
nine
hundred
four
thousand.
B
Ninety
four
square
feet:
the
violations,
article
10
section,
one
design,
yeah
insufficient
yard,
accessory
parking,
buffers,
five
feet:
side
yard,
be
quiet,
article
55,
609,
insufficient,
lot,
size,
7,000
square
feet
is
required.
Equal
55,
section,
9,
insufficient,
open
space.
1,750
square
feet
is
required.
Article
55,
section,
9,
excessive
FAI
2456
square
feet;
the
maximum
allowed
name
an
ad.
Just
for
the
record.
Please
good.
AN
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lin's
1216
Bennington
Street,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner,
a
seven
Realty
Trust
with
me
to
my
right-
is
James
Christopher,
RCA,
architects,
the
architect
of
the
project,
as
well
as
Chris
de
Matos,
who
is
the
principal
of
the
petitioner.
This
is
a
proposal
to
raise
an
existing
single
family
property
combined
three
Lots
and
construct
three
townhouse
units
with
parking
one
for
each
unit.
AN
We
had
an
opportunity
to
present
this
to
the
neighborhood
through
both
an
abutters
meeting,
as
well
as
the
Jamaica
Plain
neighborhood
zoning
subcommittee,
which
voted
to
support
this
proposal.
The
proposal
would
call
for
a
total
of
three
units
all
having
three
bedrooms,
roughly
about
1,700
square
feet
per
unit
and,
as
I
indicated,
one
parking
space
with
respect
to
the
zoning
relief.
That's
necessary.
This
isn't
a
3f
5000
district.
One
family
requires
a
minimum
of
three
thousand
square
feet
which
this
lot
would
contain.
AN
A
AN
A
AN
Respect
to
the
floor
area
ratio,
the
limit
is
a
0.6
max
we're
proposing
one
point:
four:
requests:
no
variance
for
that,
as
well
as
the
rear
yard.
The
limit
is
20
feet.
Minimum
as
a
7.5
is
the
proposed
to
the
closest
point
of
the
building.
I
would
point
out.
These
are
relatively
shallow
Lots,
and
this
is
an
issue
that
we
specifically
discussed
with
the
director
butters,
which
there
was
no
objection.
AN
The
open
space
requirement
is
750
square
feet
per
unit,
we're
proposing
a
total
of
850
square
feet
total
and
then
with
respect
to
design
of
the
parking
spaces.
One
of
the
parking
space
that
we're
proposing
is
located
on
the
left
side
yard
and
therefore
would
require
over
I
think
there's
the
possibility
of
moving
that
space
back
a
little
bit
further
to
get
it
out
of
a
plane
in
the
front
front
yard.
But
those
are
the
items
that
were
requesting
really
before.
A
E
AO
AQ
A
AO
They
wouldn't
be
visible
from
the
street
so
from
the
rear.
You
might
be
able
to
see
the
edge
of
it
going
up
with
that.
The
overall
height
is
only
8
feet
so
from
the
front
of
the
property,
that'd
be
virtually
invisible
from
the
rear.
If
you
are
on
the
in
one
of
the
neighboring
about,
as
you
would
just
see,
an
8-foot
extension
for
that
small
section
of
the
head
house.
X
B
A
B
Following
the
next
case,
boa
seven,
three
six,
four:
eight
zero,
fifty
five
Hutchings
Street.
This
is
erect
a
new
multi-family
residential
four
unit
dwelling
with
four
off
street
parking
in
existing
eight
thousand
five
hundred
and
forty
six
square
foot
vacant
lot.
The
violations
article
fifty
section
28,
a
multi-family
dwelling-
is
forbidden
news.
Article,
fifty
section
29
additional
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
56,
429,
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article,
fifty
section,
twenty
nine,
the
building
height,
is
excess
of
article
fifty
section,
twenty
nine
usable
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
thirty
section.
B
AS
A
AS
So
the
site
is
about
eighty
nine
hundred
square
feet,
we're
proposing
to
construct
a
four
unit
building
for
homeownership
opportunity.
These
are
townhouse
units
within
the
building.
The
building
is,
is
next
door
to
a
building
that
my
client
also
owns.
That
was
a
concern
of
the
neighborhood
that
was
dilapidated
over
a
long
period
of
time
and
is
now
being
brought
back
to
life.
We
had
extensive
meetings
with
the
with
the
local
civic
association.
AS
A
result
of
the
meetings
that
we
had,
we,
we
changed
the
design
of
the
building
which
is
before
you.
Today.
We
brought
the
roof
height
down,
even
though
it
was
only
one
foot
higher
at
36
feet.
We
brought
it
down
to
about
28
feet
and
even
though
parking
is
not
a
violation,
we
added
a
turnaround
you're
in
the
backyard
so
that
the
vehicles
could
back
around
and
not
have
to
back
down
the
driveway
and
not
be
ending
each
other's
way.
That
came
up
as
a
result
of
discussions
with
the
abutters
and
the
neighbors.
AS
AS
AS
On
the
side
yard,
we
also
shrunk
the
building
to
make
the
building
a
little
bit
narrower
so
that
we
don't
have
that
violation.
So
we
do
not
need
relief
for
the
height
of
the
side
yard
that
it's
it's
an
interesting
neighborhood
in
that
many
of
these
houses
have
large
apartment
buildings
who
some
of
them
before
families
or
whatever,
but
directly
behind
this
building
is
a
37
unit.
AS
Style
buildings,
it
would
be
home
ownership
and
it's
with
regard
to
the
conformity
of
the
building
alignment,
which
is
that
which
is
also
a
violation.
You
can
see
on
the
drawings
that
this
building
was
lined
up
with
the
building
next
door,
which
is
a
pre-existing
condition
and
I
think
we're
very
much
close
to
20
feet
from
the
sidewalk,
but
lining
up
straight
with
the
building.
Next
door
made
an
awful
lot
of
sense.
As
far
as
the
look
of
the
building
on
you
from
the
streets
and.
AS
Full
parking
spaces
in
the
rear
area
and
a
place
to
turn
a
car
around
or
back
into,
which
could
also
be
used
for
someone
who
was
delivering
something
or
making
a
quick
visit
are
getting
into
an
uber
or
something
like
that.
There's
a
spot
there
and
because
we
just
even
though
the
drivers
can't
feed
wide
and
this
good
line
of
sight,
it's
never
a
good
idea
to
be
backing
out
of
any
driveway
if
you
can
avoid
it.
So
this
gives
you
ample
turnaround.
Space.
S
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
on
behalf
of
Josh
McFadden
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
It's
our
understanding,
the
proponent
presented
to
the
Neighborhood
Association
and
has
support
from
many
director
butters,
as
well
as
a
petition
from
some
abutters.
Thank
you,
I.
AT
Am
Marilyn
Chase
I'm
Anna
butter
at
47,
Hutchings
Street
I'd,
like
to
speak
in
support.
We
also
submitted
a
letter
in
support
signed
by
many
of
the
homeowners
and
residents
on
the
street.
I
have
an
additional
letter
from
my
husband
and
I
there's
one
point
that
I'd
like
to
make
for
many
of
the
residents
in
our
street
parking
is
a
problem.
It's
been
an
increasing
problem
for
the
last
several
years.
I
think
it's
a
direct
result
of
the
improving
economy
and
the
fact
that
everybody
seems
to
be
buying
a
car.
AT
The
last
occupant
of
51:55
Hutchings
Street
had
one
car
which
he
parked
off
street
and
we
still
had
a
parking
problem,
so
we
appreciate
the
fact
that
the
owners
of
this
property
have
agreed
to
put
for
parking
units
on
their
site.
However,
we
understand
and
recognize
that
that's
not
going
to
fix
the
parking
problem
on
our
street.
Thank
you.
AU
Good
morning
my
name
is
Bridget:
Wallace
I
live
at
43,
Hutchings
Street
and,
as
previous
residents
had
said,
the
the
desire
to
build
is
ambitious
but
I'm
concerned
about
parking,
because
we
have
an
enormous
parking
problem
with
cars
going
through
that
area,
and
if
you
have
visitors,
if
you
have
delivery,
if
you
have
a
whole
host
of
things
that
will
disrupt
again
the
quality
of
life
on
the
street
I
think
that
needs
to
be
taking
up
as
an
issue.
That's
concerning
the
the
residents.
AU
It
also
didn't
go
through
the
garrison
Trotter
Neighborhood
Association,
which
is
sort
of
the
governing
body
of
what's
happening
in
the
neighborhood
and
as
the
neighborhood
is
growing
and
developing,
so
we're
a
bit
concerned
about
it.
Truncating
that
process
or
usurping
that
process,
I
should
say
and
also
green
space,
and
they
did
address
the
height
issues
that
we
had
concerning
the
project.
So
it's
mainly
parking
and
going
through
a
process
that
we
want
to
maintain,
which
is
going
through
the
garrison
neighborhood
charter
Association.
Thank
you.
AV
Good
morning
board,
my
name
is
Karen:
oh
and
I'm,
at
3500,
Street
I
as
well
stand
in
opposition
of
this
project.
I
am
for
development,
but
there
are
some
significant
impacts
that
we
need
to
consider,
such
as
assessing
property
taxes
and
abutting
homes.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
that
live
on
a
street
that
are
seniors
and
there's
going
to
be
a
direct
impact
to
that.
AV
So
I'd
like
to
understand
what
the
city
is
prepared
to
do
in
terms
of
how
do
you
balance
things
out
so
I
also
support
the
opposition
of
the
person
before
me
in
terms
of
traffic
as
area,
so
whether
you
have
a
garage
space,
that's
on
the
property
doesn't
make
a
difference
because
cars
have
to
move
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is.
You
got
to
come
out
of
your
driveway
and
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
are
flying
down
that
street.
AV
AS
Isn't
the
violation
we
meet
the
requirements
of
the
parking,
certainly,
and
with
regard
to
the
opposition
that
spoke
about
garrison
strata,
when
we
filed
we're
told
by
the
mayor's
office
where
to
go,
when
we
went,
we
were
told
to
go,
which
is
the
touching
sets
their
own
association
and
they
conducted
three
meetings
and
they
sent
in
a
letter
of
support
and
the
people
that
run.
That
association
feel
very
comfortable
about
controlling
the
destiny
of
their
own
neighborhood.
Are
they
or
they
would
have
sent
us
on
to
garrison
Trotter?
So
we
did.
M
A
B
Boa
7
1
7
2
7
8
46
to
48
Maywood
Street.
This
is
new
construction
of
a
two
family
structure
of
the
violations.
Article
15
section
43,
our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
50
section
29
lot
with
is
insufficient
in
article
50
second
229
lot.
Frontage
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record
lace
row.
AC
16
Russell
Wood
Road,
West
Roxbury.
This
is
a
two-family
that
we're
doing
with
the
Department
of
Neighborhood
Development
for
affordable
home
ownership.
The
lot
is
6
feet.
The
frontage
is
a
45
foot
requirement.
We
have
39
feet
in
this
particular
parcel
and
the
reason
of
the
parking
is
the
site
is:
has
a
lot
of
ledge
and
the
expense
to
be
able
to
bring
the
pocket
down
behind
the
houses.
A
A
A
AC
S
A
B
A
B
Calling
next
case
calling
boa
7
0
1
4
8
4
3
31,
Columbia
Road.
This
is
a
wrecked
Inu
3
family
3
parking
space
at
garage
on
ground
floor
and
construct
a
red
deck
an
existing
vacant
lot.
The
violation
is
article
65,
section,
42,
point
2:
before
new
and
existing
building
alignment,
article
65,
section
8,
3
family,
detached
dwelling
in
Safavid
news,
article
65,
section
9,
the
lot
areas
insufficient
illegal
65.
The
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
65,
the
lawn
frontage
is
insufficient.
Article
65,
section
I
and
the
floor
to
a
ratio
is
excessive.
B
AF
Gym
members,
before
my
name
is
George
Moran
see
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
at
350
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston
I'm
joined
by
my
client
carrion
carbonara,
madam
chair
members.
This
is
an
application
for
a
new
free
family
dwelling
in
329
331
Columbia
Road,
which
is
at
the
corner
of
Hamilton
Street
in
Richfield.
Actually,
with
the
streets
merged
in
wood
15
in
Dorchester,
the
building
is
in
a
2f
zoning
district.
It
would
be
a
three
family
dwelling.
Hence
the
use
violation.
AF
Three
units
would
be
2-bedroom
2-bath
units
unit,
one
would
be
1123
square
feet,
as
would
be
unit
2
unit
3
is
slightly
larger
at
1263
square
feet
whose
own
requirements
of
the
district
aside
from
the
forbidden
use,
I,
have
a
maximum
building
height
of
two
and
a
half
stories
in
35
feet.
We're
weld
with
under
the
maximum
vertical
feet
for
the
building
our
vertical
height
limit
for
the
building.
AF
The
building
is
itself
30,
feet
five
inches
and
is
located
on
a
plot
that
is
pronounced,
Li
sloped
up
from
all
of
the
surrounding
streets,
but
the
building
itself
is
just
over
30
feet.
Hice
there
was
an
F
AR
violation.
This
project
would
commit
an
empire,
but
both
points,
southern,
the
maximum
fer
this
to
F
district
is
is
0.4.
The
lot
is
fairly
generously
sized.
The
parcel
is
five
thousand
three
hundred
fifty
nine
square
feet,
but
for
even
a
one
unit
building
in
this
district,
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement
is
six
thousand
square
feet.
AF
The
Billy
needs
to
be
set
back
sufficiently
on
Columbia
Road
to
allow
for
a
stair
up
to
reach
the
grade
of
the
of
the
building
plain.
There
was
a
community
process.
My
understanding
is
that
there
is
community
support
for
the
project.
My
client
advised
that
both
the
butters
were
in
support,
as
well
as
words
of
support
from
the
main
streets
program.
Finally,
there
are
three
off
street
parking
spaces
for
the
three
units
parking
is
indicated
on
your
sheet.
AF
A
AX
AY
AG
A
AZ
I
am
region
the
suicide
suicide
I,
wouldn't
that
corner
kill,
that
is
the
worst
corner
in
Boston
I,
see
six
children
Florida
in
the
stream.
That's
why
the
light
is
up.
There
I
see
I
I
can't
describe
cuz
I'm
on
the
corner
and
I
I
see
everything
now
and
I,
even
see
more
since
I
retired
32
years
with
the
federal
government.
AZ
AZ
Suzie
Suzie
had
had
that
company
the
trucks
come
and
use
the
crash
under
that
bridge.
They
raised
that
bridge,
so
they
could
asked
us
to
Suzie,
but
what
they
did.
They
built
a
pillow
with
whole
lot
like
Stadium
I
seen
a
motorcycle
man
get
crushed
and
you
could
go
right
down
to
the
records
and
I'm
telling
you
now
it's
nothing
wrong
with
having
good
neighbors.
It's
nothing
wrong.
Cut
that
builds
up
the
neighbor,
give
them
more
be
people
to
develop,
but
I'm
telling
you
now
bill.
AZ
A
BA
Good
morning
my
name
is
Barbara
Garlington
and
I
live
at
number.
16
Hamilton,
Street
I'm,
opposed
to
this.
This
building
up
of
Hamilton
Street
with
those
suggestions
that
they
have
in
front
of
you,
I
speak
for
the
children
I'm
a
school
teacher.
Those
terms
have
to
come.
Hamilton
Street
is
very
congested
going
and
coming.
Those
children
have
to
come
down
Hamilton
Street
and
to
Columbia
Road
to
the
junior
high
up
there
and
it's
a
lot
of
them
coming
in
the
morning
and
that
Street
is
very
congested
up
and
down.
I
am
a
senior
citizens.
BA
I
need
medical
transportation.
If
you
build
in
an
underground
railroad,
how
are
we
going
to
get
it
probably
gonna
get
in
and
out
of
that
underground,
underground
garage
without
blocking
that
means.
My
medical
people
I
have
congestive
heart
failure.
My
medical
people
can't
get
through
to
take
me
to
the
hospital
line
because
they
have
taken
the
few
parking
places
that
we
have
that
we
know
are
not
legally
ours,
so
to
speak,
they
have
taken
those
and
they
have
replaced
with
those
garages
and
what's
under
the
garage,
is
the
cars?
BA
I
I
B
Boa
79924
251
Borden
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
arguments
here
on
computer
training,
lab
and
three
apartments
to
compute
a
training
lab
for
transient
lodging
on
the
second
and
third
floor
violations.
Article
65,
section
15
transient
lodging,
is
forbidden,
use
an
article
65
section
41
insufficient
our
street
parking
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
Z
The
owners
business
plan
continues
to
evolve.
He
has
occupied
the
ground
floor
with
a
business
he's
on
the
premises.
The
upper
two
floors
are
still
vacant,
as
he
researches
the
opportunities
for
that
floor.
He's
determined
that
transient
lodging
would
be
preferable
to
his
revenue
sources
and
he
has
appeared
before
in
the
neighborhood
group
and
received
support
for
this.
This
project
will
involve
fully
sprinkler
in
the
building
and,
finally,
the
building
will
be
fully
occupied.
A
BC
I
E
Z
F
BD
V
BB
A
So
from
what
so,
so
let
me
just
see
if
I
get
this
right
there
look.
This
is
going
to
be
four
bedrooms.
Four
studio
units
in
the
range
of
four
hundred
two
four
four
something
square
feet:
there
will
be
no
management
proposed
right
now
of
the
of
the
building
stays
will
be
under
ninety
days.
Each
unit
will
be
furnished
and
there
will
be
a
business
website
to
market
this,
this
business
anything
else
you
want
to
add
to
that.
Well,.
BF
E
BB
Z
G
AX
A
B
BG
BG
BG
E
I
AX
AY
AG
Does
the
board
paul
sullivan,
I'm
guess
it
comes
out
loud
to
michael
flurry
and
select
you
on
record
support.
It's.
A
G
D
D
AS
B
An
application
to
change
a
use
of
possibly
area
3,900
square
feet
from
a
1f
5,000
residential
zone
to
ancillary
use
of
135
graded
Avenue
for
15
parking
spaces,
the
address
to
be
137
granite
Ave
in
the
Dorchester
district.
The
violation
is
article
65,
section
8
in
similar
E
parking
is
a
conditional
use
in
a
1
F
5,000
district
in
article
65
6
239
screening
in
buffered
is
required.
They
have
an
address
to
the
record.
Please
attorney.
AS
So
we
went
through
that
process
and
got
the
map
change,
and
this
particular
small
strip
of
land
is
now
1,
F
5000,
which
is
the
most
restrictive
zoning
in
that
neighborhood.
We
then
petitioned
to
have
this
and
zoned
as
ancillary
parking
for
the
benefit
of
the
condominium
association
in
that
building,
so
that
we
could
legally
lease
them
the
15
parking
spaces
in
an
arrangement
that's
been
going
on
for
about
35
years.
AS
The
cemeteries
desire
is
to
continue
to
use
this
space
as
a
perpetual
income
stream,
because
they
do
have
an
obligation
for
perpetual
care
of
the
graves.
It
also
gives
a
tremendous
benefit
to
the
neighborhood,
because
without
this
being
legally
ancillary
parking
to
the
building,
if
those
15
units
didn't
have
a
parking
space
that
would
push
those
15
cars
out
into
the
neighborhood
and
since
there
is
no
parking
on
granite
Avenue,
it
would
further
impact
on
the
street
further
away.
And
we
had
substantial
number
of
sidewalk
meetings
and
community
meetings
joining
me
as
Charles
Devlin.
A
Go
back
to
your
violations,
so
you
have
two
violations.
One
is
the
conditional
use
for
ancillary
parking
and
the
second
is
the
screening
and
buffering,
what's
preventing
the
screening
and
buffering
from
occurring
cos,
it
doesn't
look
like
you,
have
much
frontage
and
granite
AB
well,
what's
preventing
that
I
think.
AS
What
the
the
idea
of
the
screening
of
buffering
would
be
that
that
would
be
a
design
review
with
BPD
a
after
approval,
because,
right
now
the
screening
is
the
natural
leaves
on
the
trees
and
things
like
that
and
I
think
what
they
were
talking
about.
Is
they
wanted
to
make
sure
that,
as
in
the
future,
because
the
cemetery
has
expanded
closer
to
these
carrots,
that
no
one
who
was
attending
a
graveside
ceremony
would
see
someone
bringing
their
groceries
and
all
those
for
a
sir.
AS
So
the
cemetery
has
an
ambitious
plan
to
put
fencing
around
the
whole
perimeter
of
the
property
at
this
in
this
area
would
start
a
defense,
but
they
do
know
that
they
need
design
review
approval
and
that
they
couldn't
get
that
approval
until
we
got
the
ancillary
use.
So,
although
it
is
a
violation,
the
current
screening
has
been
vegetation
because
for
the
last
35
years
you
could
not
see
any
graves.
It's
only
within
the
last
year
that
the
cemetery
came
somewhat
close.
BI
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
David
Cotter
for
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood.
Services
would
like
to
on
record
in
support.
We've
had
a
pretty
robust
community
conversation
regarding
this.
What's
before
the
board,
today
is
a
smaller
piece
in
a
larger
plan
for
the
cemetery,
some
of
the
cemeteries
other
plans
are
rather
controversial,
but,
what's
before
you
today
to
legalize
a
parking
situation
that
has
been
in
place
for
the
last
several
decades
is
supported
by
both
the
abutters
and
the
city
of
Roma
Civic
Association.
Thank
you,
madam.
A
B
F
Been
Hernandez
111,
Baker,
Street,
West
Roxbury,
we're
proposing
an
expansion
of
the
existing
kitchen
5x7
kitchen
and,
as
you
stated,
proposing
a
10
by
17
addition,
which
increases
the
floor
area
by
a
hundred
square
feet.
Currently,
current
building
is
slightly
skewed
to
the
property
line,
so
it's
also
existing
non-conforming
with
four
and
a
half
foot
setback.
A
BJ
B
Via
a
seven
three,
five:
zero
zero,
two
six,
four
thirty-eight
River
Street:
this
is
the
changing
organ,
see
but
one
day
care,
senator
a
body
I,
Paula
and
unit
one,
no
signage
on
this
applet
and
no
work
will
be.
No
work
will
be
done.
Other
than
painting
violations.
Article
sixty
section
45,
Street
parking
parking
is
insufficient.
An
article
60
section
8,
but
body
art
is
a
forbidden
you.
They
have
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
hi.
A
A
E
E
BL
A
A
AD
Cassandra
Cato
Louis
seven
riverbanks
place
in
Mattapan
I'm
the
director
butter
behind
the
building,
which
is
currently
operating
as
a
daycare
center,
with
extremely
limited
parking
on
my
way
out
here
today
they
were
parked
across
my
driveway.
So
as
far
as
the
community
process,
I
never
received
a
flyer.
The
word
I
got
was
from
the
owner
and
the
gentleman
when
he
came
to
look
at
the
building
one
time
I
happened
to
be
there.
He
knocked
on
the
door.
I
have
never
received
a
flyer,
never
received
an
email.
AD
AD
Also,
the
the
fact
that
it's
actually
operating
as
a
daycare
center
and
it
hasn't
been
approved.
The
the
the
original
daycare
center
has
been
closed
for
about
four
or
five
years,
and
now
a
church
is
up
there,
creating
noise
and
there's
no
mention
of
the
church.
So
is
the
church
still
allowed
in
the
building?
So.
AD
So
the
the
body
art
I'm,
for
it,
the
community
process
flawed.
It
should
stop
and
restart
I
mean
I'm
not
opposed
to
the
young
man
having
a
business
as
the
lady
from
Hyde
Park
who
will
not
be
affected
by
the
tattoo
parlor
parlor
isn't
supportive,
but
the
parking
is
definitely
a
problem.
The
building
next
door
has
a
parking
lot,
but
the
two
owners
are
not
can
and
then
there's
going
to
be
another
building
of
137
units
at
the
tea
station.
AD
BK
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
there
was
a
community
meeting.
It's
a
tough
situation
up
at
this
point.
We
would
probably
were
opposed
because
we
would
definitely
think
that
the
neighborhood,
as
you
can
see,
could
probably
weigh
in
a
little
bit
more
in
the
business
at
this
particular
time.
There's
enough
questions
that
we
can't
go
and
record
as
support
in
the
process,
I'm
sure,
with
more
meeting
more
time
and
more
clarity,
they
probably
could
come
to
an
agreement,
but
at
this
time
we
can't
support
it.
Can
I.
B
BK
BK
AD
AJ
BM
Chairman
and
members
of
the
board,
Tina
particular
executive
director
of
Matapan
Square
main
streets,
and
we
are
coming
in
opposition
because
we
have
absolutely
had
no
interaction
with
this
gentleman.
We
wouldn't
have
enough
problem,
giving
him
an
opportunity
to
own
a
business
in
the
square,
but
this
is
the
first
time
I'm
laying
eyes
on
him.
He
hasn't
reached
out
to
the
Main
Street.
Therefore,
our
businesses
and
abutters,
who
some
of
my
board
members,
are
businesses
that
abut
the
property,
have
had
absolutely
no
knowledge
of
this
business
coming.
So
we
would
love
to
process.
G
BN
Chairman
and
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Gwendolyn
Middleton
and
I'm,
a
resident
of
three
Bloomfield
terrorists
in
Mattapan
here
in
opposition
for
the
main
reason
it
was
stated
as
body
art,
and
we
all
know
that
it's
a
tattoo
parlor
and
if
that's
going
to
be
adjacent
with
children
as
far
as
day
care,
I'm
opposed,
but
not
only.
For
that
reason,
the
real
reason
that
I'm
really
opposed
is
because
I
work
with
the
substance
abuse
community
and
when
they
receive
their
SSI
checks,
they
go
and
they
have
tattoos
put
on
their
body.
BO
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
for
your
time.
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board.
My
name
is
Shelley
McLeod
and
I
live
at
26.
Merola
Park
in
Mattapan
I
feel
that
the
process
has
been
disingenuous.
I
received
a
notice
for
miss
Georgia's
office
two
weeks
ago
and
about
the
body
art
product
/
daycare
center,
and
some
of
my
neighbors
asked
around
77
years
of
age.
In
my
neighborhood
asked
me
what
a
body
out
parlor
was
and
when
I
said
it
was
a
tattoo
parlor.
BO
They
got
really
upset
so
I'm
sort
of
representing
residents
of
rural
a
park
today
I
feel
that
the
process
is
sort
of
again
disingenuous.
Also
there's
a
meeting
on
the
20th.
Mr.
James
is
coming
to
speak
to
Matapan
residents.
It's
on
the
agenda
and
the
notice
from
Miss
Georgia
said
it
talked
about
the
new
tattoo
parlor,
as
if
it's
a
done
deal
and
I
felt
that
that
discovered
a
lot
of
people
been
coming.
I
would
like
to
respectfully
request
that
we
don't
have
a
good
objection.
BO
I
don't
have
an
objection
to
the
parlor
per
se,
but
that
we'd
be
denied
until
mr.
James
comes
to
the
community.
But
there's
more
time
for
the
community
to
understand
that
the
tattoo
parlor
and
he
answered
any
questions,
especially
on
the
meeting
on
September
20
and
then
maybe
come
back
and
give
the
community
well
clarity.
Thank
you.
BP
Morning,
I'm
Sierra,
Conn
and
creative
director
of
Mattapan
cultural
arts
development.
Ordinarily,
we
would
be
big
boosters
of
anything
related
to
the
creative
economy,
but
I
also
just
want
to
voice
objections
regarding
the
community
process,
which
was
lacking
and
also
concerned
about
the
parking
pressures,
as
well
as
public
health
questions
about
the
mold.
The
problem
that
was
in
that
building
that
I
don't
have
any
indication
that
that
was
ever
eradicated.
Thank.
E
AN
A
BD
AH
A
B
There
will
be
aa
street
parking
for
four
vehicles
in
the
rail
yard.
All
three
have
different
violations
but
I'm
going
to
read
into
the
wreck
at
the
bio.
The
purpose
on
the
62
starboard
its
demolish
the
existing
to
family
dwelling
on
a
fifteen
thousand
four
ninety
square
partner,
newly
created
five
thousand
four
hundred
ninety
square
foot
rot.
The
violations
for
58
is
Article
67,
section
8
the
to
family
dwelling
is
of
a
bid
news,
article
67,
section:
nine,
the
law
Thierry's
insufficient
Article,
67,
section
9
a
lot
with
isn't
sufficient
Article
67
section
9.
B
A
lot
of
frontage
is
insufficient.
Article
67
the
ploidy
ratios
excessive
Article
67,
the
usable
open
spaces
insufficient
in
Article
67,
section
I
in
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
This
is
460
starboard
the
violations,
Article
67
section
9.
A
lot
of
your
traditional
dwelling
in
is
insufficient
Article
67,
section
9.
The
fluidity
ratio
is
excessive.
In
Article
67,
section
I,
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
The
same
violation
is
for
62
starboard
Avenue
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BQ
A
BQ
BQ
A
A
BQ
AH
BQ
We're
proposing
to
demolish
the
existing
structure,
replace
it
with
three
separate
structures.
Each
is
a
two
family,
one
located
on
each
of
the
different
Lots
for
the
two
lots
that
are
in
the
two
family
zoning
district,
which
is
the
two
F
5,000.
That's
lot
60
and
and
number
62.
We
comply
with
the
front
yard,
rear
yard
and
side
yard
and
hight
dimensional
requirements.
BQ
BQ
The
structure
as
its
sighted
we
proposed
on
58
starboard
to
have
it
have
the
same
front
yard
setback
as
the
as
the
other
two
structures
in
part,
because
you
have
that
to
family
zone
next
to
it
and
as
we've
provided
in
the
appeal
and
analysis
that
the
almost
all
of
the
existing
structure
is
up
and
down.
Starboard
out
as
well
as
charm.
Street
had
similar
setbacks
to
what
we.
A
BQ
Fa
R
is,
is
a
point:
five
zero.
As
a
result
of
the
community
meetings
that
we
had.
We
have
redesigned
the
property
that
the
structure
to
reduce
the
fa
r,
so
that
on
62
starboard,
which
has
fifteen
thousand
five
hundred
forty
seven
square
feet
of
land
area.
The
revised
plan
complies
with
fa
r
and
that's
shown
in
the
in
the
revised
plan
that
was
provided.
We
submitted
it
to
inspectional
services,
and
I
understand
that
there
was
a
revised
letter
that
was
submitted
into
the
board
from
inspectional
services.
BR
BR
wass
key
had
addressed
on
the
revised
plans,
so
the
mayor's
office
and
Neighborhood
Services
would
like
to
go
on
record
support
with
consideration
to
the
fact
that
they
comply
with
the
fa
r
and
a
continuum
BPD
design
review
in,
in
addition
to
community
concerns
regarding
privacy,
fencing
on
the
deck
and
around
the
area
in
general.
Thank
you.
BH
BS
BS
Concern
is
that
is
the
one
family
house
stand
in
there
now
and
they
want
to
turn
it.
It's
a
two
family
one
building
and
they
want
to
make
three
families
two
stories,
and
that
is
gonna
cause
a
lot
of
problems
as
far
as
traffic
and
we
live
in
a
cul-de-sac,
and
we
are
already
getting
a
lot
of
cars
that
come
through
there.
They
have
to
turn
around
because
it's
literally
a
dead-end
and
there's
also
the
the
problem.
There's
there's
some
type
of
water
damage.
BS
A
A
B
AO
Name
is
James
Christopher
with
the
business
address
of
415
upon
sedap.
At
this
time,
we've
got
the
request.
The
mayor's
office
requested
deferral.
We've
made
some
design
revisions
based
on
our
first
community
meeting,
would
like
to
go
back
and
share
them
with
the
community.
Before
we
come
back
to
the
board.
B
B
As
they
come
in
all
right,
I'm
gonna
go
back
to
the
10:30
calling
boa
7
3
2
9
9
3
34
Maple
Street
is
also
building
code,
BL
a
7:30
to
9:00
9:00
334
Maple
Street.
This
is
the
change
of
oxygen
from
a
2
to
3
family
dwelling
and
legalize
the
existing
three
family
dwelling,
no
existing
off
street
parking
or
fire
sprinkler
system
and
no
work
to
be
proposed.
The
violation
is
article
56,
section
39.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient
in
article
56,
section
7
3
family
dwelling
is
forbidden
use.
B
789
12.2
1
fire
sprinkler
system.
We're
a
change
in
our
2d
classification
occurs.
That
requires
the
fire
nine
12.2
to
the
fire
alarm
detection
system,
where
a
change
in
our
classification
occurs.
That
requires
a
fire
alarm
and
detection
system.
It
means
of
egress
on
higher.
Has
it
at
nine
twelve
point?
Four
one
means
of
egress.
Would
change
the
height
when
a
change
of
alarcón
c
classification
is
made
to
a
higher
hazard
and
nine
twelve
point?
B
BT
Morning,
madam
chair
and
the
rest
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Rashi
Mangla
time
with
McDermott
quality
and
Miller
to
my
left.
I
have
Lucio
Trabuco
with
who's
the
architect
on
the
premises
to
my
right
is
Paula
Nikki
gianopolous,
who
the
owner
of
the
premises
and
to
my
far
right
is
father.
Peter
Gianna
colas,
who
is
her
son
I,
will
address
the
the
package
you
received
in
a
second
but
I
do
want
to
address.
The
transaction
today
is
to
bring
this
premises
up
to
the
code.
It's
been
existing
for
several
years.
BT
The
owner
has
owned
the
premises
since
the
1970s
almost
50
years,
and
so
we're
really
bringing
this
premises
up
to
code,
which
is
already
in
existence.
We
wish
to
change
the
occupancy
from
two
family
to
three
family,
as
well
as
address
the
off
street
parking
that
it
already
contains
the
owner.
As
I
say
it
stated
miss
Panucci.
She
has
lived
there
for
several
years,
she's
a
Stallworth.
We.
AM
AM
The
stairs
right
now
the
existing
stairs
there's
a
half-inch
plywood
around
the
enclosure.
We
need
one
hour.
Fire
rating
will
install
5/8
inch.
Plywood
I
mean
private
since
fire
rated
drywall
around
the
steering
closure.
Also
the
the
front
stair
dumps
from
the
Eric
dumps
into
the
second
floor
unit.
We
modified
their
area
so
that
there
is
no
interference.
Dumping
into
the
Singapore
unit
be
brand
new
firearm,
as
well
as
a
brand
new.
A
AM
AM
D
A
BT
So
currently
the
article
56
table
I,
as
you
have
on
page
2
of
your
package
states
that
up
to
three
parking
spots
are
allowed
because
there
are
three
units
in
the
premises
and
there's
one
space
for
the
ramen
unit.
Exactly
you
can
see
that
on
page
two
of
your
package
that
you
received-
and
so
we
just
wish
the
owner
currently
has
two
parking
spaces,
and
so
we
just
wish
to
bring
that
up
to
code.
Currently,
there
are
a
lot
there's
an
allotment
for
three
parking
spaces.
We
just
want
to
and
no
more
increase
than
that.
A
BT
So
the
first
floor
has
two
bedrooms:
one
at
about
110
square
feet
and
the
second
bedroom
at
approximately
160
square
feet.
The
second
floor
has
three
bedrooms
with
the
first
being
at
110
square
feet.
Second,
at
160
and
third
at
about
90
and
then
the
third
floor,
which
we
wish
to
bring
into
the
into
compliance,
has
one
bedroom
simply
and
at
about
90
square
feet.
I
AM
BT
AM
A
I
G
I
Q
I
I
E
I
AJ
AQ
AG
B
U
U
A
AL
AS
X
AS
AL
BC
AS
A
AS
A
AJ
Morning,
madam
chair
members
aboard
Jack
Doug
in
earbud
services,
just
like
the
one
regular
support
we
had
the
butters
meeting
back
in
July.
You
know
the
businesses
directly
next
door
and
support
along
with
West
Directory
Main
streets.
They
also
went
before
the
council
last
month
and
received
support
from
the
neighborhood
council
as
well.
Thank
you.
AQ
G
A
B
Next
case
finally,
BOA
seven
zero,
three,
four
nine
to
nine
Sawyer
Terrace-
was
also
building
code,
boa
seven,
zero,
three,
four,
nine
one,
nine!
So
it's
Terrace!
This
is
for
a
construct,
a
new
three-story,
three
family
dwelling,
an
existing
2,900
square
foot
lot
there
will
be
take,
be
grass
decks
built
in
the
rare.
The
the
building
will
be
fully
sprinkled.
The
violation
is
article
51
section:
9
lotteries
insufficient
article
51
lot.
Width
is
insufficient.
Article
51
lot
frontage
is
insufficient.
Article
51
Florida
a
ratio
is
excessive.
B
Uncle
51
usable
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
51
front
yard,
isn't
sufficient
legal
51,
section
9
side
yard?
Is
it
sufficient
article
51
section
9
Reyat?
Is
it
sufficient
article
51
section
56?
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient
article
51,
section
56,
austrie
parking
design
and
maneuverability.
The
existing
building,
a
lot
of
encroachment
interferes
with
a
motor
vehicle
getting
out
to
a
proposed
parking
spaces.
B
AI
P
BB
P
B
A
P
G
A
I
P
I
A
E
I
AN
B
The
next
case
calling
do
a
7:30
to
9:00
for
8:30
Willoughby
Street.
This
is
a
rebuild
and
extent
existing
doors
and
close
the
front
porch
front
porch.
On
the
second
floor,
there
any
made
bedrooms
bathrooms
and
kitchens.
On
the
second
floor
unit
violations,
article
51
section
9
the
floor.
The
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
51,
section
9,
the
bill
in
height
is
excessive.
The
stories
article
51
section
9,
the
front
yard-
is
insufficient.
In
Article
51,
section
9,
the
side
yard
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
hi.
BU
AR
AG
A
A
A
B
Madam
chair,
before
we
do
the
first
case,
you
get
a
little
housekeeping
here.
The
first
two
cases:
boa
six:
six,
eight
zero,
two
three
fifteen
to
seventeen
short
street
and
boa
six.
Six,
eight
zero,
two
one,
eleven
short
Street
are
on
four
nine
nineteen
at
ten
thirty,
so
they've
been
deferred
to
while
rehab
Atty
for
nine
nineteen
subcommittee,
I
believe.
A
B
B
Which
was
to
combine
parcels
into
one
vacant
total
one
vacant
lot,
totaling
4266
square
feet
and
they
reckon
eight
residential
residential
building.
Eight
residential
units
with
two
roof
decks.
The
violation
of
article
14,
section
14,
one.
A
minimum
lot
size
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
14,
section
14
lot
area
for
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient.
Article
15
section
1
the
floor
day.
Ratio
is
excessive.
B
AF
Afternoon,
madam
chair
minister,
for
my
name,
is
George
Moran,
see
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
at
350
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston,
I'm
joined
by
my
client,
the
owner
and
developer
of
the
project.
James
Muldowney,
madam
chair
members.
The
plan
submitted
to
the
board
here
show
an
8
unit,
building
on
a
double
lot
currently
vacant
located
in
148,
West,
9th
Street
in
South
Boston.
The
lot
is
approximately
4266
square
feet.
The
building
would
be
4
storeys.
It
would
rise
to
a
maximum
building
height
of
40
feet.
AF
BC
AF
The
relevant
zoning
figures
we
use
a
letter
and
for
purposes
of
this
hearing
and
the
and
the
variances
that
are
being
sought
is
H
150
zoning.
The
violations
accrue
from
the
fact
that
the
lot
does
not
meet
the
5000
square
foot
minimum
lot
size
under
the
old
zoning
H
150
we
have
an
FA,
our
violation.
The
proposed
FA
are
here,
is
2.6
in
the
rear
setback,
violation.
Also,
minimum
usable
open
space
violation.
There
are
two
proposed
roof
decks
one
to
each
one
for
a
private
use
of
two
units.
On
the
top
floor.
A
AF
AV
AF
E
I
AF
BB
AF
AF
Am
NOT
subliminally
signaling?
The
one
aspect
of
this
that
is
somewhat
out
of
the
ordinary
is:
there
are
eight
units
in
separate
parking
spaces
that
is
a
reflection
of
the
fact
that
it
has
to
be
ground
floor
living
space
for
accessibility
requirements.
The
thought
was
that
the
one-bedroom
600
square
foot
one-bedroom
on
the
ground
floor
would
be
an
entry
level
marketed
entry
level
unit
marketed
to
somebody
who
doesn't
have
a
motor
vehicle
who
takes
alternate
modes
of
transportation.
AF
There
is
a
citation
on
the
refusal
letter
for
insufficient
off
street
parking
and,
and
that's
the
other
interesting
part
of
that.
This
is
that
there
is
no
wall
street
parking
violation
because
under
H
150
the
curious
requirement
is
point
nine
spaces
per
unit.
So
point
nine
times.
Eight
is
seven
point
two,
so
seven
spaces
actually
needs
code
requirements.
A
AF
I
AF
I
I
AF
S
AE
H
Name
is
the
board
and
madam
chair
I'm,
Cathy
Muldowney
I
lived
at
185
East
Street
directly
around
the
corner
and
my
husband
and
I
owned
the
condo
that
abuts
this
property
and
we
are
in
support
of
it.
We
think
it
fits
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
We
think
it'll
enhance
the
neighborhood
and
it
lines
up
with
delegate
houses.
So
we
we
think
it
will
be
good
for
our
neighborhood.
A
G
B
A
B
We
have
two
cases
left
I'll
be
calling
VOA,
seven,
one,
nine
five,
one,
seven
two
sixty
five
Hancock
Street.
This
is
a
demo
of
the
existing
structure
and
building
new
new
construction
of
a
three
family
wood
frame
building
quietly
article
65
section,
41
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section
9
a
lot
areas
insufficient
article
65
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
65
lot
frontage
is
insufficient.
Article
65
for
the
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65.
The
maximum
stories
is
excessive.
B
BE
In
we
were
deferred
because
the
Neighborhood
Association
approved
a
two-family,
we
proposed
a
three
family
and
we
came
back
with
a
two
family
design.
We
submitted
at
10:10
mass
AB.
So
basically
it's
a
two-bedroom
on
the
first
floor,
which
is
about
850
square
feet,
there's
a
new
place
upper
unit
which
is
about
1,700
square
feet
and
contains
four
bedrooms.
There
is
a
driveway
on
the
side
of
the
property.
A
A
BE
BE
E
AX
B
This
is
a
change
like
to
a
3
family,
drawing
updating
electrical
mechanical
plumbing
systems
of
Kate
interior,
exterior,
build
a
three-story
red
deck
and
exterior
egress,
and
a
full
shed-dormer
on
the
side
to
increase
the
two
and
a
half
story
to
a
three-story
violation:
article
65,
section,
9,
a
wide
area
for
each
additional
dwelling,
particle
65-69,
building
height
and
success
of
article
60,
5
6,
&
9
front
yacht.
Is
it
sufficient
an
article
65,
section,
9
side
yacht
is
its
official
name
and
address
for
the
record?
Please
good.
BC
A
G
BC
A
BC
So
this
was
an
existing
illegal,
three
family.
It's
a
multi-family
neighborhood.
It
was
a
terrible
eyesore
in
the
community.
The
proposal
here
is
to
in
the
zoning
here
is
a
3
F
5,000
the
lot
size
before
you
with
6,000
square
feet.
The
proposal
is
to
have
three
two-bedroom
two-bath
units.
We
have
watching
just
right
out
the.
X
BC
BC
BC
A
BC
So
the
parking
in
this
neighborhood
is
one
per
unit,
so
there's
four
parking
spots,
provided
we
had
an
abutters
meeting
that
was
very
well
attended.
The
neighbors
were
very
supportive
of
this
is
specifically,
as
it
relates
to
parking
on
that
street,
as
well
as
a
meeting
with
the
civic
organization,
and
again
they
were
very
supportive
of
this
project.
This
house
has
been.
There
was
a
terrible,
rodent
infestation.
BC
BL
Madam
chair
members,
at
the
board,
with
George
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
this
will
be
my
last
case
from
our
office
as
I'll
be
going
to
be
cyf
when
I.
Thank
you
all
for
your
service
and
our
office
would
like
to
go
on
record
her
support.
We
had
nut
butters
meeting
that
was
well
attended
and
abutters
came
and
discussed
their
support
and
concerns,
and
their
concerns
were
around
transportation
and
we
communicated
with
them
that
we
can
assist
them
with
potentially
getting
resident
parent
parking
on
that
street.