►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 5-8-18
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
A
There's
not
a
lot
of
people
in
the
room.
So
I
expect
that
you
will
keep
your
testimony
either
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
the
subject
and
if
there's
somebody
else
is
speaking
ahead
of
you
that
who
has
already
stated
your
concern
that
you
will
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
mr.
fortune.
Thank.
B
A
C
C
C
D
The
record
Marvin
see
any
of
Goldstone
stores.
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
as
you
may
recall,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
South
Boston
Neighborhood
Development
Corporation,
a
Caritas
communities
Inc.
As
you
may
recall,
the
BH.
The
African
has
been
designated
by
the
PHA
to
develop
forty
six
income,
restricted
housing
units
in
South
Boston.
Given
the
complexity
of
the
project,
it's
taken
longer
than
anticipated
to
procure
the
state
federal
approvals
as
well
as
project
financing.
A
A
E
A
H
A
I
I
B
B
Work
includes
modified
and
he
drives
parking
areas
containing
a
total
of
approximately
two
hundred
ninety-ninth
vehicles,
spaces
and
pedestrian
walks,
landscape
and
lighting.
This
addition
project
has
completed
the
article
80
review
and
is
being
submitted
to
ISD
a
violation,
thought
achill,
53,
section
26,
dimensional
regulations.
The
building
height
is
excessive
name
and
address.
J
J
2013,
at
which
point
eager
tide
we've
got
approval
for
the
initial
hotel
construction,
which
slightly
exceeds
the
Matheny,
sponsored
its
Boston
area.
The
hotel
has
been
completed.
It's
a
great
success.
There
were
two
retail
pods
that
were
proposed
for
code
development
at
the
time
that
has
not
received
as
much
traction
in
the
community
and
business.
So
we
come
back
before
you
to
do
in
addition
to
the
existing
hotel
because
it
which
will
be
similar
in
height
to
existing
structure.
Therefore,
we
require
a
height
variance.
K
J
L
M
N
A
B
Next
case,
calling
VOA,
seven
nine
four
nine
two
three
288
Chelsea
Street:
this
is
to
remove
the
existing
porch
and
rebuild
an
enclosure
violation,
article
53,
section,
nine,
insufficient,
Riyadh
setback.
Twenty
two
point:
five
feet
is
required
proposed
to
seventeen
point
five
name,
an
address
for
the
record.
O
M
B
The
next
case
calling
BOA
seven
eight
three,
six,
five,
two
seven
forty
Saratoga
Street,
the
seven
forty-seven
Street
here,
I'm
off
to
the
side
calling
the
next
case.
Finally
BOA:
eight
zero,
three,
four:
two:
nine
nine
Hill
Street.
This
is
a
new
front
and
rear
doors
and
remodel
the
third
floor
that
and
extend
living
space
into
the
finished
basement
violated
article
62
section:
twenty
five
roof
structure,
restricted
istic
article
62,
section:
eight,
the
Florida,
a
ratio
is
excessive
in
article
62,
section,
eight,
a
side
yard
setback
requirement
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
A
A
R
S
T
T
B
A
A
U
T
U
A
A
M
A
T
T
B
B
The
next
two
cases
bombing
VOA,
eight
one,
two,
nine
one:
seven,
five,
thirty
five
to
541
Boylston
Street
companion
case
VOA,
eight
one,
two,
nine
two,
one:
five,
thirty
five
to
541
Boylston.
This
is
the
renewal
revise
off
what
petitioner
only
averts
has
changed
its
name
to
noon.
The
seedings
already
exists,
no
work
to
be
done.
The
violations,
article
6,
section,
4
change
to
a
previous
cessation
of
the
board
of
a
pale.
B
This
is
the
remove
the
proviso
for
this
petitioner.
Earlier
this
petition
only
burns
Mediterranean,
Grill
change
the
same
to
noon.
Mediterranean
Grill
no
work
to
be
done;
violations,
article
6,
section,
4,
other
protection
additions
to
change
the
decision
of
the
board
of
Appeal
named
an
ad
just
for
the
record.
Please
Paul.
U
A
T
M
A
Y
U
Y
A
B
Z
Yes
ma'am:
this
is
a
very
famous
location.
It's
actually
the
former
Daisy
Buchanan
Ciao
Bella
space
under
Newbury
Street,
248,
Newbury
Street,
mr.
Norton
and
his
partners
brought
the
property
some
years
ago
and
it's
been
under
renovation
ever
since
the
tenant.
Is
that
the
cause
of
the
suit
supply,
which
is
a
European
clothing
manufacturer,
which
will
take
almost
the
entire
building?
In
that
space?
They
would
like
to
have
an
accessory
cafe.
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
M
AB
Y
Y
Z
The
license
will
be
utilized
by
the
clothing
store,
the
license
which
mr.
Norton's
entity
owns
will
maintain
in
his
ownership,
we'll
be
applying
for
a
management
agreement
between
e
for
the
operation,
which
has
to
be
approved
by
the
licensing
board.
But
that
license
has
been
in
place
for
four
years.
But.
A
B
The
next
case
calling
boa
eight
one,
one,
six,
two
five
250
Newbury
Street.
This
is
the
remote
the
provider
for
this
petitioner,
only
white
puppy,
while
having
the
same
name
as
we're
changing
ownership.
The
new
ownership
is
relevant.
Revelator
coffee
company,
no
work
to
be
done.
The
violation
of
the
article
6
section
for
other
protection
of
petitions
petitions
to
remove
a
proviso.
This
/
previously
named
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
Paul.
U
Rev
related
coffee,
corporate
corporate
entity,
purchase
beans
and
machines
which
operated
wired
puppy
last
year,
wired
puppy
has
been
operating
this
location
for
ten
plus
years
so
basically
and
Revelator
coffee
purchased
the
entire
assets
of
beans
machines.
So
these
are
the
dissolved
beans,
machines
and
a
change
in
the
corporate
name
to
Revelator
coffee.
No
changes
no
work
to
be
done,
they're,
just
the
corporate
ownership.
U
Y
Y
M
B
This
is
the
proposed
to
oo
street
parking
at
120
volts
and
located
at
the
backyard
of
223
West,
2nd
ancillary
parking
use
for
223
West.
Second
Street,
the
violations,
article
10
section
1
Austrey
parking
shall
not
be
located
less
than
5
feet
from
the
side.
Long
line,
article
68,
section,
7
and
ciliary
parking
is
a
conditional
use.
Public
Works
Department
approved
the
curb
cut,
but
will
require
a
sign-off
on
the
system
and
Parks
Department
approval
may
be
required
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AD
A
AD
AD
Well,
there's
no
parking
there,
the
one
family
now
so
they
when
house
was
purchased.
It
was
purchased
with
both
Lots
because
that's
sort
of
how
the
neighborhood
runs
like
the
house
beside
us
has
a
lot
behind
and
on
two
to
three
seconds
feet:
yeah
the
house
kaha.
You
know
the
neighborhood
has
adjoining
Lots
behind
it
and
so
I'm,
just
asking
for
what
the
other
neighbors
have.
AF
A
AD
M
AG
AH
B
AI
Also
Doug
Stepanov,
who
was
the
architect
on
the
project,
as
was
mentioned,
we're
seeking
simply
to
legalise
to
existing
rare
decks.
Both
decks
are
pre-existing
pre-existing
when
my
client
purchased
this
property
over
eight
years
ago
in
the
packet
of
information
I,
provided
it
shows
a
google
map
view
of
the
two
decks
where
they're
laid
out
on
the
property.
A
AI
A
AI
T
T
AI
A
AI
I
If
I
can
speak,
we
have
records
of
the
decks
always
being
there.
This
back
of
the
building
was
once
a
store,
actually
a
bakery
I,
don't
have
any
graphic
representation
of
anything
from
1978
or
earlier
there's
the
the
neighbors.
These
decks
have
been
rebuilt,
the
rebuilt
a
different
shape
than
what
you
see
on
your
drawings.
So
that's
really
the
issue.
A
A
T
I
T
AI
A
I
AJ
A
AJ
A
M
Chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
These
are
existing
decks.
We
do
want
to
acknowledge.
There
is
a
lot
of
support
within
the
community.
I
do
also
want
to
acknowledge
that
there
are
abutters
who
were
opposed
to
the
decks,
and
we
understand
their
concerns
that
the
decks
are
too
close,
but
given
the
support
in
the
community
and
the
fact
that
these
decks
are
existing
and
have
existed
for
a
long
time,
we
are
in
support.
Thank
you.
AK
Good
morning
my
name
is
Ashley
Brown
I'm,
a
director
butter
at
1:59,
M,
Street
I'm,
here
to
speak
in
support
of
the
legalizing
both
deaths.
The
current
owner,
MS
Pazhani,
has
been
in
the
property
since
2011.
She
hasn't
done
anything
to
the
decks,
they
haven't
changed
and
this
is
only
coming
up
now
for
reason
by
one
neighbor
complaining.
The
decks
are
typical
to
South
Boston.
We
all
have
small
Lots.
There
are
lots
of
rear
decks.
The
decks
are
shown
it
plans
going
back
and
she's
a
good
neighbor.
We
live
in
a
nice
neighborhood.
Let's.
AK
And
there's
just
one
note:
they're
maintained
in
good
condition.
She
puts
flowers
out
it's
it's
not
a
blight
on
the
neighborhood
by
any
means.
A
For
the
rest
of
you,
if
you
have
new
information,
please
now
had
it
otherwise,
but
leave
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
Please
hi.
AL
AM
AN
P
AO
Good
morning
my
name
is
Mary.
Lou,
Macari
and
I've
been
this
since
1961
and
I
saw
before
when
it
was
the
bakery
in
what
the
building
looked
like.
It
was
in
not
a
very
good
place
to
live
and
I
was
very
uncomfortable
over
the
years
when
they
renovated
it
and
they
did
the
work
on
the
house.
It's
great.
It's
beautiful
and
Tyra
and
her
husband
have
done
a
wonderful
job
with
their
house
and
I
hope.
It
maintains
a.
A
AA
AG
AQ
AQ
AQ
About
two
feet:
I
submitted
photographs
and
actually
an
illustration
with
a
tape
measure
to
indicate
exactly
the
distance.
On
the
last
page
of
those
signatures
in
opposition
that
I
submitted
to
you,
folks,
you
will
find
a
photograph
of
mrs.
toes
second
floor
unit
with
a
working
wood
burning,
fireplace
in
that
building.
What
six
units
has
no
fire
suppression
system?
It's
a
major
concern
of
mine
and
it
should
be
a
concern
of
everybody
in
the
building.
AQ
A
AQ
Would
be
there
Rhea
my
side
wall
of
my
building?
There
be
a
wall
with
a
deck
of
putts
out
over
the
old
bakery,
which
is
brick.
If
you
look
at
a
photograph
in
the
enlarger,
all
of
the
photographs
you'll
see
a
roofline.
That
was
an
addition
to
that
structure
and
I.
Don't
know
exactly
when
that
took
place,
and
then
they
added
on
to
that
rear
door
where
there's
a
deck
now,
as
you
can
see,
with
those
lean
tool
to
buy
aids.
AQ
And
in
a
quality
of
life
in
terms
of
tranquility
peace
of
mind-
and
it's
not
just
for
her
because
in
the
event
that
she
does
move-
which
he
probably
will-
because
it
is
a
six
unit
building
and
she's
trying
to
nurture
children
and
I-
can
appreciate
that,
but
she'll,
probably
move
on
and
I'll
be
dealing
with
somebody.
That's
going
to
be
doing
something
else
with
that
property,
so
will
be
a
revolving
door
for
me
to
be
before
you
people
again.
AQ
We
beloved
we
already
addressed
this
last
year
in
terms
of
her
down
on
the
deck
and
putting
an
addition
on
you
and
going
all
the
way
up
to
the
roof.
As
you
can
see,
there
is
a
roof
deck
there.
So
if
it's
a
question
of
amenities
for
a
roof
deck
or
a
deck,
if
you
will
does
one
right
in
the
building.
Okay,.
A
AR
A
AQ
A
P
AI
I
A
AI
Also
want
to
point
out
the
roof.
Deck
is
another
units
exclusive
roof
deck.
So
that's
not
Terrace.
She
has
access
to
this
this
deck.
Besides
that
they
have
a
very,
very
small,
limited
amount
of
open
space.
This
literally
just
gives
her
her
only
open
space
for
for
the
building.
The
other
point
is
in
the
condo
docks.
It
directly
prohibits
any
propane
gas
products
or
anything
on
that
deck
and
that's
right
into.
U
A
B
Boa
seven:
nine
five,
two
three
seven
one,
eighty
four
to
lore
Street:
this
is
adding
parking
for
one
on
the
side
of
the
bill.
One
vehicle
on
the
side
of
the
building
violations,
article
68,
section,
33,
aa
street
parking
requirement
side
of
the
parking
space
does
not
meet
the
minimum
dimensions
required
by
zoning
name.
An
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AS
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members,
the
board,
my
name,
is
James
Christopher
of
RCA
LLC
project
architects.
This
proposal
is
to
construct
a
new
curb
cut,
with
a
parking
space
for
one
vehicle,
there's
currently
no
parking
on
to
the
street.
It's
pretty
now
a
street
I've
included
some
photographs
of
abutting
buildings
with
very
similar
parking
conditions
and
just
about
every
building
that
has
a
curb
cut
on
the
street
is
very
similar
in
size
and
scale,
so
it
felt
appropriate
it
will
relieve
some
parking
on
the
budding
streets.
It's
a
single-family
structure
so
well.
AS
A
Interesting
happening
at
174,
okay,
the
board
is
anybody
here
to
speak
in
support
of
this
proposal.
M
AG
K
B
B
A
A
We
are
here
to
hear
testimony
from
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
and
he's
any
comments
from
the
BR,
a
the
Boston
Planning
and
Development
Agency,
and
we're
also
here
here
to
hear
from
you
from
residents
from
from
neighbors
and
abutters.
If
you
have
new
information,
please
put
it
on
the
record.
A
B
AI
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jeff
Drago,
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street,
seeking
a
deferral
for
both
of
those
applications.
We
were
advised
by
both
the
mayor's
office
and
the
city
councilors
office
that
they
would
like
to
hold.
Another
community
meeting
discuss
a
few
items
that
have
come
up
in
the
last
few
hours.
A
B
Q
B
Is
on
a
vacant
parcel
erect
a
three-story
three
family
dwelling
with
rear
and
roof
decks
violations.
Article
fifty
section
43
parking
is
insufficient
article.
Fifty
section
twenty
nine
lot
areas
insufficient
article.
Fifty
lot
area
for
additional
unit
is
insufficient
article.
Fifty
lot
width
is
insufficient
article,
fifty
section
twenty
nine
block
frontages
insufficient
article
50
section
twenty
nine,
the
floor:
the
ratio
is
excessive
ethical,
fifty
section,
twenty
nine
open
space
is
insufficient
article,
fifty
section
twenty
nine
side,
jawed
isn't
sufficient
in
article
50
section
29
Reyat
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record
place.
G
G
You
the
application,
is
for
a
new
three-story
three
family
dwelling.
This
is
classic
infield
construction.
This
is
a
1730
square
foot
watch
at
the
corner
of
Norfolk
Avenue
and
shetland
Street.
The
Board
may
remember
that
several
weeks
ago
or
a
couple
months
ago,
actually
an
identical
building
by
the
same
architect
was
approved
at
180
to
Norfolk
Avenue.
This
is
again
the
same
building.
Continuing
the
infill
of
some
vacant,
lots
on
Norfolk
Avenue,
the
building.
A
G
This
is
that
chatlin
street
parcel,
which
the
board
also
saw
when
the
thirteen
shetland
street
project
of
mr.
holland's
project,
was
approved
several
months
ago.
This
is
a
three-story
tree
family
building
unit.
One
occupies
portion
of
the
basement
in
the
first
floor
would
be
two
bedroom
three
bath
unit,
1499
square
feet.
Second
unit
would
be
on
the
second
floor,
two
bedrooms,
one
bath,
993
square
feet.
Third
floor
would
be
the
third
unit,
2
bedrooms,
1
bath,
1034
square
feet.
Their
rear
porch
is
providing
open
space.
That
would
also
be
a
roof.
G
Deck
dimension,
12
feet
by
16
feet
for
the
exclusive
use
of
unit
3.
The
height
of
the
building
is
32
feet,
6
inches
from
grade
there's
a
height
violation
attributable
to
storey
height.
Only
the
lot
area
in
this
district,
which
is
a
three
or
four
thousand
required
for
a
three
family
dwelling,
would
be
six
thousand
square
feet.
As
I
mentioned,
this
law
is
1730.
G
This
lot
is
essentially
identical
to
the
other
Lots
on
this
side
of
Norfolk
AB,
which
is
why
I
say
this
is
classic
and
build
construction.
So
there's
a
violation
for
lotta
area
and
a
lot
area
for
additional
dwelling
units.
There's
a
lot
within
frontage
violation.
25
feet
is
required
by
code.
This
law
is
23
feet
wide.
There's
an
F
AR
violation,
we're
at
point
8
maximum
under
Article
50
is
0.5
usable,
open
space
violation,
650
square
feet
per
unit
is
required.
G
As
I
mentioned,
there
are
porches
off
the
rear,
there's
a
deck
on
the
roof
and
the
site
is
actually
about
a
block
and
a
half
from
the
Clifford
playground.
The
side
yard
violation
ten
feet
is
required,
a
three
foot
setback.
This
is
also
a
three
foot
setback
on
the
building
on
the
lot
at
182,
which
hasn't
been
built
yet
so
there's
a
six
feet
of
separation:
distance
between
buildings,
rear
yard,
violation
with
the
shell
a
lot
exception.
The
required
rear
yard
here
is
10
feet.
G
This
has
a
rear
yard
of
9
feet
and
then,
of
course,
there
is
no
parking
and
mr.
Holland
is
intending
to
use
this
as
a
as
a
rental
property
who
be
rental
units.
He
has
the
ability
in
the
future
should
the
need
arise
to
have
parking
here
to
potentially
use
a
couple
of
spaces
associated
with
a
thirteen
shadowcery
project.
That
would,
of
course,
require
use
of
premises.
Permit.
A
G
So
thirteen
shetland
there
are
57
rental
units.
There
are
52
parking
spaces.
Mr.
Holland
again,
we
don't
even
think
that
those
52
spaces
will
be
used
by
the
rental
units
he's
also
thinking
of
putting
some
Zipcar
ride-sharing
in
there
he's.
Also
thinking
about
with
the
introduction
of
ride-sharing
services
may
be
doing
stackers.
So
if
anything,
we
think
it
may
be
an
overflow
of
parking
if
parking
becomes
an
issue
of
118
or
forks.
Obviously,
we'd
have
to
come
back
to
this
board
for
conditional
use
permit
for
ancillary
parking,
but
again
as
a
rental
building.
G
It's
a
about
an
eight
minute,
walk
to
to
the
new
Market
Square
station,
on
on
commuter
rail
and
with
mr.
Holland's
other
experienced
rental
properties.
He
does
not
think
that
that
this
building
will
attract
tenants
who
are
driving.
If
that
is
the
case,
and
if
they
need
parking,
then
he
will
explore
options
on
the
thirteen
shetland
street.
A
A
G
A
G
AU
A
B
You
calling
your
next
case
calling
boah
zero.
Five.
Eight
eight
one,
eighty
terrorist
street
mystic
construct
a
five-story
mixed-use
building
on
the
ground
floor
will
be
parking
garage
under
the
building.
On
the
second
floor,
the
office
space
on
three
through
five
will
be
nine
residential
condo
units.
There
will
be
a
common
roof
deck
for
the
building
tenants.
This
is
to
combine
lots
on
to
be
known
as
eighty
Terence
Terrace
treat
the
violation
article
59
section
18,
multi-family
dwelling
it's
to
bidden
article
59,
section
19,
the
floor
area
ratio
is
successful.
B
AV
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Nix
Azula,
McDermott
quilty
and
Miller
20
State,
Street,
Suite
8:02,
here
in
Boston
with
me
to
my
far
left,
is
David
pills
in
to
my
immediate
left
is
Jenny
Shen,
both
from
general
development,
the
project
applicant
we've,
provided
you
a
handout
today
with
some
background,
some
images,
some
existing
conditions,
site
photos
and
things
of
the
like
the
property
itself
is
about
fifty
one
hundred
square
feet.
It's
located
at
the
corner
of
terraced
Street
and
Allegheny
Street
and
Mission
Hill.
AV
It's
right
across
from
the
train
tracks
from
Roxbury
Community
College
existing
on
the
property
site.
Right
now
is
a
small,
dilapidated
and
vacant
single-family
dwelling
of
about
1,200
square
feet.
It's
situated
at
the
front
inside
lot
lines.
Besides
an
adjacent
unpaved
side
yard
that
has
often
been
used
for
storage
in
off
street
parking.
AV
That's
going
to
be
geared
towards
kind
of
21st
century
artists,
you
know,
but
it
will
be
a
shade
office
based
environment
and
finally,
on
the
top
level,
there's
a
proposed
roof
deck
amenity
space,
which
there
are
images
of
in
the
handout
that
we
provided
to
you
today,
which
will
provide
open
space
not
only
for
the
co-working
space,
but
also
for
the
nine
condominium
units.
It's
about
1,100
square
feet.
A
A
AV
Ma'am,
it's
a
local
industrial
but
Tara
Street
is
transitioning
more
and
more
towards
mixed-use.
There's
a
lot
of
residences
going
in
across
the
street.
As
the
art
park
sebastian
mara
scales,
development,
the
oliver
lofts
are
down
the
street
Allegheny
street
is
residential
as
well.
So
the
hope
the
idea
here
is
with
the
design.
AV
That's
in
front
of
you,
is
to
kind
of
draw
from
the
industrial
you
know
kind
of
history
of
the
street
so
that
the
building
blends
in
with
what's
there
now,
but
also
provides
for
the
residential
use,
so
the
residential
use
is
forbidden
even
though
there's
a
lot
of
residential
on
Tara
Street.
So
we
we
were
acquiring
and
requesting
a
variance
for
the
multi-family
residential
floor
area
ratio
excessive
to
is
allowed
and
we're
proposing
three
point:
four:
seven
building
height
excessive.
It
is
allowed
forty
feet
and
we're
proposing
fifty
nine
feet.
AV
Six
inches
so
just
under
sixty
feet,
there's
no
rear
abutters
to
this.
That's
about
it
by
the
train
tracks.
There's
a
significant
grade
change
going
up
on
the
other
side
of
terraced
street.
So
the
hope
here
is
that
the
the
height
is
not
and
wasn't
seen
as
an
issue
with
the
neighborhood
usable,
open
space
and
sufficient.
We
were
cited
for
it.
AV
It
requires
fifty
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit,
not
entirely
sure
why
we
were
cited
for
that,
because
we
have
nine
units
which
would
be
450
square
feet
and
the
roof
deck
which
is
accessible
to
everybody
in
the
building
is
over
square
feet,
but
we
were
excited
for
that.
We
would
suggest
that
we're
compliant
with
that
in
terms
of
minimum
rear
yard.
Three
foot
setback
on
the
rear
is
proposed
and
15
is
required.
AV
However,
again
we
would
suggest
there's
no
rear
of
butter,
I
just
trained
tracks
and
then
from
there
open
space
until
you
get
to
Columbus,
Avenue
and
finally,
off
street
parking
and
sufficient,
we
are
compliant
with
the
residential
parking.
We
have
nine
parking
spaces
for
nine
condominium
units,
so
they
each
will
have
their
own
parking
space.
However,
we
would
need
a
austrie
parking
relief
for
the
commercial
parking.
The
the
co-working
space
requires
six
spaces
and
we
are
suggesting
not
to
provide
any
based
on
the
fact
that
we're
within
a
quarter-mile
walk
of
Roxbury
crossing
T
station.
AV
We
are
within
very
close
proximity
to
Columbus
Avenue
and
numerous
bus
routes,
and
there
is
off
street
parking
I
believe
come
on.
Current
street
parking
on
Terra
Street
is
to
our
minimum,
so
there
is
the
opportunity
for
on
street
parking
for
those
who
would
be
using
the
co-working
space.
Finally,
we
did
go
through
a
robust
community
process.
We
did
meet
with
the
Mission
Hill
neighborhoods
Housing
Services
Community
Alliance
Mission
Hill.
We
received
support
letters
from
both
which
we've
submitted
in
advance
Iowa.
AV
S
AW
T
L
AV
L
AV
AN
AV
There's
no
there's
no
expectation
for
our
twelfth
not
for
the
residences.
The
idea
here
is
rezoning,
compliant
with
a
parking
space
for
each
two-bedroom
likely
for
the
shared
working
space.
If
somebody
were
to
drive,
there
would
be
on
street
parking
for
those
individuals,
because
we
don't
have
parking
for
them,
but
the
hope
is
what
the
shared
working
environment
and
the
type
of
folks
that
they're
looking
to
attract
to
use
this.
The
artists-
and
you
know
21st
century
artists-
that
they
would
not
necessarily
need
a
vehicle.
AV
AL
AY
A
B
You
very
much
calling
boa
eight
one:
zero
zero
six
one
43
to
45
Waverly
Street.
This
is
an
addition
of
two
studio
units.
The
lower
level
and
repair
see
the
exterior
envelope
of
the
existing
building.
The
violation
is
article
51
section,
8
5
units
is
forbidden,
Article,
51,
section,
9,
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
51
section
9
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
51
section
951,
nine
point:
four
main
entrance
must
face
the
front
line:
article
50
on
section
nine.
B
AZ
AZ
A
AZ
We
are
here
today
seeking
relief
to
change
the
legal
occupancy
of
the
building
from
six
residential
units
to
eight
residue
two
units
creating
two
garden
level
units,
basically
we're
here
to
legalize.
What's
already
there,
my
client
purchased
a
property
to
finish
the
basement
or
existing.
This
is
in
conjunction
with
an
overall
renovation
of
the
building
interior
and
exterior.
AZ
AZ
Additional
lot
area
is
two
thousand
per
unit.
We
have
none
and
parking
it
insufficient.
The
requirement
is
one
pre
additional
unit
and
we
have
none
with
regard
to
community
process.
In
november
we
met
with
project
right
and
then
in
december
we
had
an
abundance
meeting
sponsored
by
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
on
which
a
number
of
the
abutters
came
out
in
support
of
the
project.
I
have
about
seventeen
letters
here
from
director
butters
and
supporting
project.
A
W
A
A
BA
B
Q
K
AZ
W
BA
Y
W
If
you
don't
mind,
I
can
just
speak
this.
They
exist
in
BC,
partial
development.
If
you
will-
and
this
is
a
pattern
of
the
prior
owners,
history
of
doing
unpermitted
and
unprofessional,
work
and
I-
think
legalizing
these
two
units
and
is
just
part
of
one
component,
important
component
of
rehabbing,
really
the
entire
building-
and
you
know
to
date-
we've
probably
spent
about
sixty
thousand
dollars
on
exterior
improvements
and
believe
with
the
improvement
of
the
units
on
the
inside.
We
will
be
able
to
present
a
dramatically.
K
BA
When
you
enter
to
the
building
off
of
a
way
of
relief,
you
would
go
down
the
stair
and
then
you
enter
into
a
vestibule,
which
then
gives
you
the
option
of
either
going
into
the
mechanical
room
or
into
your
unit.
So
the
mechanical
room
is
separate,
separate
from
the
unit
just
for
service
purposes.
And
then,
if
you
need
to
exit
that
unit,
you
can
exit
in
the
rear
onto
grade
onto
existing
grade.
Y
BA
BA
A
T
T
W
A
Y
AW
W
AT
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
boy
Joshua
McFadden
mayor's
office,
neighborhood
services
like
congregate,
and
support
this
project.
We
had
in
the
putters
meeting
back
in
December
on
December
5th,
approximately,
where
all
of
the
above
is
expressed
support
and
since
then
we
actually
have
about
seven
letters
of
recommendation
on
the
project
as
well.
AE
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
might
even
seen
a
man
from
district
set
District
seven
city
councilor
to
Jamie's
office,
and
we
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
opposition
to
this
project
due
to
complaint
from
the
nine
Street
United
Association,
which
includes
Waverly
Street.
They
said
they
oppose
this
project
to
do
density.
BC
A
A
B
A
7
9
6
6
3
1
3
41
2
3
43
Savin
Hill
out
this
is
the
change
mean
to
family
to
a
three
family
violation:
6
nautical
65
section
42
our
feet.
Parking
requirements
is
insufficient.
Article
65,
section
60,
a
3
family
detached
dwelling
is
forbidden,
article
65,
section,
9,
a
flaw
da
ratio
is
excessive
and
article
65,
section
I
and
the
height
is
excessive.
Naman
ad
does
full
Arachne,
please
my.
BD
It's
an
existing
family
home
right
now
with
three
floors.
The
first
floor
is
a
two-bedroom
unit.
The
second
and
third
floor
combined
are
four
bedrooms
and
they
make
up
a
unit
two
bedrooms
on
the
second
floor
and
to
bed
on
the
third
floor,
we're
in
the
middle
of
a
complete
renovation
now
and
moving
forward.
BD
We
like
to
change
the
six
family
home
to
a
five
Hammond
family
home,
with
the
first
floor
at
five:
sorry,
sixth,
bedroom
to
a
five
bedroom
with
the
third
floor
being
its
own
unit,
a
one
bedroom
unit,
the
first
floor
to
remain
as
a
two-bedroom
unit.
The
second
floor
would
remain
as
a
two-bedroom
unit
occupied
by
myself
and
my
fiance
who's
behind
me
in
the
first
floor
and
my
brother
and
his
fiancee
in
the
second
floor,
and
we
like
to
get
the
third
fluorescently
so.
A
A
BE
BF
Q
Q
A
B
Boa
7
6
5
1
2
8
10
14
to
1026
a
Blue
Hill
Avenue.
This
is
a
change
largely
to
include
the
proposed
second-story
addition
for
a
three
new
dwelling
units
and
in
renovate
violation.
Article
60
section,
17,
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
67
7,
section
17,
the
Floria
ratio
is
excessive,
conical
60,
section
40
parking
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BG
BG
BG
BH
A
AF
A
B
Six:
two
four
three
23
to
25
Borden
Avenue:
this
is
renovation
in
addition
and
change
oxygen
from
two
residential
units
to
six
residential
units.
The
violation
is
article
65
section.
Eight,
a
multi-family
dwelling
unit
is
a
forbidden
news.
Article
65
section
nine,
the
floor.
Da
ratios
excessive
article
65
section,
nine,
the
height
of
success
of
thirty
five
feet
is
the
maximum
allowed
article
65,
the
height
of
success
of
two
and
a
half
stories
is
the
maximum
allowed
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
Madam.
AS
Chairman
of
the
board,
my
name
is
James
Christopher,
with
the
business
address,
a
415
upon
sedap
RCA
LLC,
with
the
project
architects
joined
to
my
right
by
John
Pham,
the
project
owner,
just
as
a
matter
of
record.
As
just
a
note
for
the
record.
The
proposal
now
is
currently
for
a
five-unit
building.
A
AS
Currently,
it's
an
it's
a
two
family
residential
building
on
an
11,000
758
square
foot
lot.
There
is
minimal
change
to
the
footprint
of
the
building,
there'll
be
some
bows
at
the
front
of
the
building
and
then
there'll
be
a
third
storey
addition
where
it's
currently
a
two
and
a
half
story,
building
with
a
man,
sod
style,
roof.
The
unit
breakdown
is
units
one
and
two
to
bed.
AS
Three
bath,
two
bed,
two
bath
980
square
feet,
units
three
and
four,
a
3-bed
2bath,
one
thousand
four
in
at
twenty
nine
square
feet
and
1317
square
feet
respectively
and
unit
five
is
1077
square
feet,
two
beds,
two
baths
with
a
home
office.
There
is
interior
parking
at
grade
in
the
rear,
which
is
existing
and
there's
no
change
to
that.
A
AS
One
garage
spot
and
we've
also
committed
to
the
neighbors
that
we
would
create.
We
have
an
access
of
open
space
at
the
rear
of
the
property,
to
create
some
more
on-site
parking,
a
great
in
the
rear
three
at
a
minimum
of
three,
so
that
we
would
be
proposing
seven
parking
spaces
which
meets
the
requirement.
BK
BJ
A
B
This
is
adding
a
rear
stairwell
from
the
basement
to
the
second
floor,
remodeling
the
first
floor
kitchen
with
new
cabinets,
flooring,
countertop
and
associated
plumbing
electrical
minor
renovation
to
the
second
floor,
kitchen,
the
violations,
article
65
section
I
and
the
floor
area
ratio
is
accessible
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
A
A
BH
The
main
thing
we're
doing
is
for
the
first
floor.
We
heavily
in
rear
stairwell
that
leads
a
basement
first
floor
second
floor
and
it's
outdated.
So
we
like
to
remove
that
and
add
a
stairway
outside
and
down
once
we
remove
that,
we'll
give
it
a
space
more
space.
On
the
first
floor,
the
tenant
and
fresh
flow
right
now
is
my
mom,
which
is
very
hard
to
go
back
and
forth
on
that
narrow,
stairway
Styria
to
go
upstairs
or
to
go
to
the
basement.
BH
A
A
BH
Y
BH
A
BK
B
Calling
VOA
nine
seven
nine
zero,
nine
zero,
nine
fifteen
Whitford
Street.
This
is
a
change
arcs
from
a
two-family
dwelling
to
a
three
family
dwelling,
existing
condition,
no
work
to
be
performed.
The
violations-
Article
67,
section
32
octi
parking-
is
insufficient.
Article
60
7,
section
8,
the
basement
apartment
is
forbidden,
Article,
67,
section
8,
a
3
family
dwelling
is
forbidden,
Article,
67,
section
9.
The
lot
area
is
insufficient,
Article
67,
section
I
and
the
floatie
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
67,
section
9,
the
building
height
number
of
storeys
is
excessive.
B
E
E
The
again
the
existing
building
is
a
two-family
dwelling
unit
by
crew.
The
creation
of
the
the
subdivision
of
unit
2,
which
will
as
proposed,
consists
of
unit
2
entry
on
the
second
floor
in
the
third
and
attic
level
floor
by
making
that
level
its
living
space
or
legalized.
In
that
areas
living
space,
it
would
be
a
height
violation
for
a
number
of
stories.
The
it
is
a
2f
district,
so
it
is
a
useful
agent.
The
basement
apartment
as
its
cited
isn't
a
violation,
its
existing.
It's
part
of
the
legal
use
as
a
two-family.
A
E
E
A
E
A
E
A
A
E
BL
E
Y
E
The
existing
two-family
building
consists
of
a
basement
apartment
in
the
lower
left.
The
second
unit
2
consists
of
the
first
floor
or
excuse
me
the
second
floor
third
floor
and
part
of
the
Attic.
The
work
has
been
completed
under
a
short-form
Carmen.
This
part
of
this
process
is
to
legalize
the
floor
area
in
network
which,
on
drawing
a
101
and
the
upper
right
figure,
three
and
four
you
can
see
where
the
subject
the
proposal
to
subdivide
unit
2
into
unit
2
and
3
would
be
the
applicants
mother
lives.
E
On
the
second
floor,
which
is
the
first
level
of
unit
2
and
my
client
lives
upstairs
in
the
third
and
fourth
floor
of
unit
to
which
we
are
proposing
to
make
unit
3,
the
kitchen
is,
the
second
kitchen
has
been
installed
under
a
short-form
permit,
which
is
sufficient
and
perfectly
legal,
provided
they
don't
change
occupancy,
which
now
they
are
seeking
to
do,
and
thus
requiring
zoning
work.
Putting
me
here
before
you
today.
Y
M
BM
A
K
A
BM
BM
BM
BN
BM
Q
B
Gonna
call
the
next.
Actually,
it's
11
33
I
want
to
call
the
11
30s
for
deferrals
or
withdrawals
rich
of
addresses.
Please.
B
BB
The
chair
members,
the
board
Richard
Lenz,
245,
Summer,
Street,
nice
boss
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner.
This
matter
has
been
deferred.
Previously.
This
is
sort
of
stuck
in
a
article
80,
slash
landmarks
review
process.
We
are
hopefully
making
some
progress
on
that
and
would
ask
for
a
relatively
medium
control.
B
BB
A
AV
Please
attorney
Nix
Azula
McDermott
quality
and
Miller
28
State
Street
Suite
8:02
in
Boston.
The
initial
hearing
for
this
was
back
in
February
27th.
Since
then,
we've
engaged
in
constructive
discussions
with
the
abutters
in
the
Civic
Association
in
regard
to
requested
project
revisions.
They
are
now
actually
in
support
of
a
revised
project.
The
Andrew
square,
Civic
and
I
have
a
letter
from
them
today
in
support
of
that
project.
AV
But
as
a
result
of
those
discussions,
we
need
to
file
new
plans
in
order
and
in
order
to
obtain
a
variance
for
parking
and
so
we're
asking
for
some
time
in
order
to
do
that.
We've,
the
new
plan
should
be
filed
this
week
and
we
don't
want
to
lose
the
ERT
number
and
go
back
to
the
route
to
a
new
project
and
in
discussions
with
the
city,
that's
what
was
decided
upon.
A
AV
A
A
A
K
F
AV
Attorney
Nix
Azula
McDermott
quilty
and
Miller
28
state
street
suite
suite
8:02
here
in
Boston,
madam
chair.
This
was
in
front
of
the
subcommittee
on
April
26
that
you
may
recall.
The
subcommittee
asked
us
to
provide
revised
drawings
or
new
drawings,
showing
the
driveway
on
the
other
side
of
the
property
in
between
that
time,
and
now
they've
done
a
site
visit
at
the
property
the
building's
been
built
already,
and
it
appears
that
they
are
very
close
to
being
in
compliance
with
the
10-foot
setback
and
so
what
they're?
A
B
AV
B
AV
B
Calling
a
mix
two
cases
for
1130
calling
BOA
75455
to
34,
to
36
Williams
Avenue,
there's
companion
case
boa
75455
338,
Williams
Avenue.
This
is
subdividing
a
lot
at
36
Williams
have
in
High
Park.
This
lot
will
have
a
total
of
eight
thousand
seven
hundred
and
three
square
feet.
The
new
subdivided
a
lot
at
38
Williams
will
contain
a
total
of
six
thousand
firing,
an
85
square
feet
to
accommodate
the
new
construction.
The
violations,
article
69
section
8.
The
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
69,
section
8,
a
side
yard
is
insufficient.
B
This
is
for
38
Williams
Avenue.
This
is
a
construction
of
a
new
two
family
house
on
a
lot
next
to
an
existing
single-family
home.
The
violations-
article
69
section
8
family
dwelling-
is
forbidden.
Article
69,
section
9.
The
lot
width
is
insufficient.
An
article
69
section
9.
There
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
bias.
AP
A
A
A
A
AP
A
AP
A
AP
A
A
BO
T
BO
Y
AP
Y
Y
Y
K
K
BO
A
K
B
E
A
A
E
E
My
client
Mike
dwarven
who's
here
today
had
requested
rather
had
agreed
to
put
in
pervious
pavers.
It
was
just
something
that
came
out
of
the
abundance
meeting,
a
request
that
was
done,
there's
a
fence
on
the
left,
but
it
is
sufficient
space
to
fit
a
vehicle.
You
have
feet
of
what
zoning
requires
and
that's
what's
proposed.
BE
BQ
BC
Y
E
Not
only
possible
it's
common
practice,
but
what
isn't
possible
is
the
curb
cut
without
zoning
approval,
so
there
there
are
two
independent
applications
that
are
required
to
achieve
the
desired
result,
so
one
can
be
approved
while
the
other
is
pending
either
as
EBA
I'm.
Sure
Bob
can
clarify
this,
but
but
cannot.
The
work
cannot
be
performed
without
zba
approval.
But
it's
two
separate
permits.
One
is
a
use
of
premise:
application
for
the
parking
from
inspectional
services.
BP
A
B
B
This
is
all
section:
nine
insufficient
minimum
lot
size
article
51
insufficient
additional
a
lot
area
for
dwelling
unit,
article
51,
it's
a
fishing
minute,
a
lot
with
article
51
insufficient
and
a
lot
frontage,
article
51
excessive
fa,
our
article
51,
insufficient
usable,
open
space
for
dwelling
unit,
article
51,
insufficient
front
yard
setback,
article
51,
insufficient
rail
yard,
setback,
article
51,
insufficient
side,
yard,
step
back
in
article
51,
section,
56,
Austria,
parking
requirements,
design
proposed
parking
spaces
do
not
meet
the
minimum
dimensions
required
for
parking
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AD
AW
I
had
with
me
mister
dang,
who
was
the
owner
of
the
property
mister
bangs
contract.
It
was
before
you
in
September.
I
was
not
representing
mr.
dang
at
the
time,
and
the
blood
had
questions
and
denied
his
proposal
without
prejudice.
There
was
a
request
for
building
code
relief,
which
has
been
removed,
and
also
there
was
a
question
about
the
two
lots
mr.
ding
retained
my
firm
a
couple
of
weeks
ago.
We've
done
homework
on
this,
provided
you
with
the
issue.
This
was
not
subdivided
that
well
that
we're
aware
of
when
mr.
AW
A
A
A
AW
You
look
at
the
assessing
plan.
This
is
on
a
private
way
and
this
is
the
last
lot
at
the
end
of
a
dead-end,
the
obviously
the
abutting
lot.
If
you
look
at
the
assessing
plan,
so
a
terrace
I'd
hide
it
other
two
months
that
mr.
tang
owns
one
which
has
his
house
on
it
in
the
abutting
lot.
Next
to
it,
which
is
the
end
of
a
dead-end
which,
on
a
private
way,
so
the
the
minimum
lot
area
would
be
required.
Six
thousand
and
we
have
twenty
nine
hundred
feet.
AW
The
minimum
lot
width
would
be
forty
five
we
have
forty
lot.
Frontage
would
be
forty
five.
We
have
forty
floor
area
ratio
is
point
eight.
We
have
0.87
no
building
height
a
maximum
height
seeking
minimum
front
yard
setback
is
twenty.
We
have
five
and
a
minimum
side
yard
setback
is
ten.
We
have
three
point:
seven
rear
yard
setback
is
thirty
feet
and
we
have
twenty
nine
point
nine
feet.
AW
K
A
AW
Basically,
his
in
talking
to
mr.
Doral
in
the
Austin
Civic,
they
were
absolutely
fine
with
supporting
this
again.
They
were
going
to
support
last
time,
except
for
this
technical,
difficult
of
issues,
and
so
this
is
not
a
proposed
subdivision.
It
exists
as
two
separate
Lots.
The
deed
shows
two
separate
Lots,
and
he
his
position
was
that
we
did
not
have
to
go
back
again
before
him,
provided
that
the
design
was
the
same
as
presented
to
them,
which
it
is.
AW
AW
A
AW
A
AW
Was
denied
without
prejudice,
because
in
watching
there
was
a
question
of
us,
the
subdivision
was
it
a
subdivision
that
did
not
come
before
the
board
appropriately
or
how
did
it
become
with
two
Lots?
The
contractor
that
was
representing
mr.
day
at
that
point?
Had
no
knowledge
of
any
of
those
issues
was
also
an
issue
of
Building
Code,
which
mr.
Pazhani
explained
to
the
contractor
that
a
new
construction
that
the
board
doesn't
grant
relief
the
building
codes.
So
we've
we've
taken
care
of
that
issue.
A
A
BL
Chair
members
of
the
board,
Werner
I
leave
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we'd
like
to
go
and
record
in
support.
We
had
both
two
rounds
of
abutters
meetings
and
both
were
very
positive
from
director.
Butters
who've
lived
there
for
many
years
and
the
also
Civic
Association
for
his
support
at
both
times,
we'd
like
to
go
and
get
it
record
his
support.
Thank
you
morning.
O
BC
V
B
Gonna
call
for
on
the
rediscover
1130.
Are
there
any
more
deferrals
or
withdrawals?
Okay?
Madam
care,
we
do
have
one
that
the
counselor
sent
in
I'm
gonna
call
it
it
for
the
racket.
They
are
withdrawing,
so
boa,
seven,
five,
seven,
one:
five:
zero,
three,
twelve,
two,
three:
twenty
hundred
two:
now
we
have
a
letter
withdrawing
their
case.
I'll
make
a
motion
for
denial
without
prejudice.
A
B
V
B
V
B
In
the
first
case,
three
discussions:
boa
seven,
nine,
eight,
eight
five,
four
to
twenty
eight
Webster
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
oxygen
from
a
three
unit:
residential
dwelling
to
a
five
unit,
residential
dwelling
and
renovate
four
new
units,
the
construction
of
the
fourth
storey.
On
top
of
the
existing
dwelling
to
include
a
fourth
storey
addition
in
the
rare,
the
violations,
article
10
section,
one
limitation
of
parking
accessory
use,
25%
of
the
rear
yard
space,
article
53,
section,
56,
insufficient,
required
number
of
spaces,
design
and
manoeuvrability.
B
Article
53
section
eight
uses
forbidden
article
53,
section,
nine,
a
sufficient
additional
lot
area
per
unit;
article
53,
section
9
and
excessive
FA.
Our
article
53
section,
nine
building
height,
has
been
exceeded.
Article
53,
insufficient,
open
space.
Article
53
insufficient
really
got
a
setback.
Article
53
location
of
the
main
entrance
article
53
section,
nine
number
of
a
lot
of
stories
has
been
exceeded:
their
fifty
three
section:
nine
insufficient
side
yard
setback
in
article
53,
section
54
screening
in
buffering
quiet,
not
as
proposed
name
an
address
full
erected
place
good.
BB
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lin's,
245,
Sumner,
Street,
East
Boston,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
with
me,
is
Caitlin
Osborne
from
embarked
studio.
She
is
the
architect
for
this
project.
Also,
with
me,
is
Brendan
O'hare
and
Joshua
a
while
they
are
the
proposed
developers
and
builders
for
this
particular
project.
As
the
secretary
indicated,
our
proposal
here
is
to
completely
renovate
an
existing
three
family
dwelling
located
the
Jefferies
Point
section
of
East
Boston.
BB
We
were
proposed
to
change
that
occupancy
from
three
units
to
five
units,
with
an
addition
that
both
goes
vertically
into
the
rear
of
the
building.
I
provided
the
board,
with
a
packet
of
the
information
that
we
presented
over
several
meetings
to
the
community
and
the
Jeffries
Point
Neighborhood
Association,
as
well
as
the
butters.
This
proposal
would
result
in
a
total
of
five
units
with
five
parking
spaces,
and
this
will
be
intended
as
home
ownership.
So
these
would
be
converted
to
condominiums.
BB
Each
unit
would
have
one
parking
space
assigned,
as
shown
in
the
plan,
with
respect
to
the
unit
proposed
sizes.
They
range
from
anywhere
from
950
square
feet
up
to
about
1,700
square
feet.
For
the
proposed
by
level
units
that
are
part
of
the
addition,
it's
a
mix
of
two
and
three-bedroom
units
when
this
originally
was
presented
to
the
neighborhood.
There
were
a
couple
of
issues
that
we
did
here.
The
first
was
whether
or
not
we
would
consider
expanding
the
number
of
three
bedrooms
for
this
particular
project.
BB
We've
went
back
to
the
plans,
took
a
look
at
it.
It
added
one
additional
three
bedroom
converted,
one
of
the
two
bedrooms
to
a
three
bedroom.
The
purpose
of
that
and
some
of
the
concerns
that
we
do
here
in
the
neighborhood
is
that
units
that
are
typically
a
two
bedrooms,
don't
necessarily
offer
an
opportunity
for
family
ownership.
You
certainly
recognize
that
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we
made
a
change
on
one
of
the
things
I
think
the
board
will
note,
is
the
architectural
detail
of
the
existing
structure,
a
228,
Webster
Street.
BB
The
goal
very
early
on
from
both
Brendon
and
Josh
and
embark
was
to
preserve
that
architecture,
understanding
that
this
neighborhood
certainly
has
a
lot
of
character
and
a
lot
of
interesting
elements
from
architectural
detail
standpoint.
Keeping
the
existing
architecture
of
the
building
and
trying
to
complement
that
with
the
design
of
the
facade
as
we're
proposing
in
the
front
was
a
significant,
an
important
concern.
I'm
sure
the
board
will
hear
from
the
neighborhood
about
how
this
particular
area
is
sort
of
being
targeted
for
inclusion
of
the
National
Register
of
Historic
Places.
BB
Certainly,
we
have
no
objection
to
inclusion
of
this
property
within
that
and
we'll
be
sensitive,
certainly
to
the
design
and
the
elements
that
would
go
along
with
that.
As
you
can
see
from
the
plans
that
have
than
presented
with
respect
to
the
zoning
relief
that's
necessary.
The
first
issue
would
be
multifamily
use
because
we
are
proposing
more
than
three
units
on
this
site,
which
is
located
at
three
f2000
district.
We're
required
to
seek
relief
for
a
multi-family
use.
I
would
point
out
that
this
is
not
the
only
multifamily
use
in
that
section
of
Geoffrey's
point.
BB
Multi
families
do
exist
along
that
portion
of
Webster
Street
by
way
of
context
and
I,
provided
this
in
the
in
the
packet
as
well
our
rear
of
butter
as
these
Boston
social
centers.
It's
a
community
center
that
has
a
parking
lot
located
directly
to
the
rear.
This
building
would
have
very
minimal
impact
on
the
social
centers
property
to
the
immediate
right
of
this
properties,
the
form
of
narrow
gauge
railway
site
that
is
currently
a
12,000
square
foot
vacant
lot.
BB
We
do
actually
have
a
letter
that
we've
supplied
to
the
to
the
board,
along
with
11
other
letters
of
support
that
there's
no
objection
to
this
proposal
from
that
particular
butter.
If
you
look
at
the
height
of
the
building
that
we're
proposing
when
you
look
at
the
context
of
the
neighborhood,
the
height
is
consistent
with
Heights
along
Webster
Street,
and
we
feel,
although
we
are
proposing
a
height
that
is
above
the
allowed
limit,
is
slightly
above
that
that's
just
over
40
feet,
but
the
total
height
would
be
for
four
storeys.
BB
Our
proposal,
based
upon
the
design,
would
actually
bring
that
fourth
storey
back
a
bit,
so
we
feel
that
the
context
of
this
building
certainly
would
fit
with
the
the
flow
and
the
rhythm
of
that
section
of
Webster
Street.
With
respect
to
the
other
relief,
that's
necessary
on
the
right
side.
Again,
because
it's
a
three
f2000
district
2.5
feet
is
a
setback.
We
would
be
within
the
less
than
the
to
put
2.5
foot
setback
on
the
right
side
and
therefore
request
a
variance
for
that.
BB
BB
With
respect
to
the
rear
yard,
because
we
are
proposing
to
utilize
portion
of
the
rear
yard
for
some
of
this
addition
to
the
rear,
we
would
require
variants
for
that
as
well,
and
the
required
required
setback
is
30
feet.
We're
proposing
22
feet
the
floor
area
ratio
proposed
is
1.8
3,
the
maximum
allowed
is
1.0.
We
feel
that
is
consistent
with
and
although
you
may
hear
other
opinions
on
that,
we
do
feel
that
is
consistent
with
the
floor
area
ratio
that
exists
throughout
a
good
portion
of
Geoffrey's
point.
BB
A
lot
of
the
newer
projects
that
have
been
built
certainly
would
have
an
FA
are
within
that
net
range
I
mentioned
the
height
and
the
parking
restrictive
parking
out
there.
There
is
existing
three
units.
Already
we
are
proposing
two
additional
units.
We
feel
that,
under
article
53,
the
only
required
parking
additional
parking
will
be
the
two
spaces
for
the
two
additional
units
we
do
have
the
ability
to
accommodate
five
spaces.
One
of
the
questions
that
did
come
up
in
the
process
was
the
manoeuvrability.
BB
BB
It's
about
a
body
millons
it'll
left
yeah,
so
our
setback
I
believe,
is
that
three
feet
on
the
Left
property
line.
There
is
additional
space
in
between
that
property
line
and
the
abutting
property
to
the
left.
It
looks
like
there's
actually
a
full,
almost
a
full
driveway
space.
So
I'd
say
it's
about
nine
feet:
additional,
so
12
foot
pole
to
buildings
where
the
intended
setback
at
a
3f
district.
It
would
be
five
feet
at
2.5%.
T
BB
This
property
is
not
a
National
Register
property.
There
is
an
effort
in
that
section
of
Geoffrey's
point
to
create
a
National,
Register,
District
I
know
that's
in
the
very
early
stages
of
that.
That's
one
of
the
issues
we
did
hear
as
to
a
reason.
A
reason
to
oppose
this
project
is
because
it
would
not
be
consistent
with
the
design
of
National
Register.
T
BB
So
National
Register
would
have
no
jurisdiction
or
control
over
the
design
of
the
building
at
all.
It's
simply
more.
It's
a
designation,
more
or
less
there's
no
restriction,
that's
administered
through
the
Landmarks
Commission,
or
any
preservation,
easements
or
covenants.
It's
simply
a
designation
in
a
National
Register.
There
is
certainly
some
merit
to
having
that
in
the
community.
We
don't
feel
that
this
would
have
any
impact
on
that
at
all,
and
we
certainly
wouldn't
object
to
inclusion
with
that.
If
that
were
to
occur
in
the
future,.
L
X
M
BS
Members
of
the
board
I'm
Mary
Cole
from
251
Webster
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
Jefferies
Point
Neighborhood
Association,
for
which
I
serve
as
the
vice
chair.
This
proposal
came
before
us.
It
was
voted
on
March,
12th,
15,
voted
in
support
and
18
voted
in
opposition.
Those
in
favor
appreciated
the
retention
of
the
existing
structure
and
the
design
of
the
addition.
Those
opposed
feel
that
the
proposed
building
is
just
too
large
and
out
of
character
for
the
neighborhood,
as
evidenced
by
the
floor
area
ratio,
the
height,
the
setback
and
other
violations.
BS
AJ
My
name
is
Dan
Bailey
I
live
at
177,
Webster
Street
and,
while
I
appreciate
the
effort
to
retain
the
existing
townhouse
in
this
project,
I'm
concerned
with
the
overall
size
and
scope
of
the
proposed
addition.
This
is
one
of
the
best-preserved
Victorian
townhouses
in
a
neighborhood.
It's
a
beautifully
maintained
building,
as
was
mentioned,
it's
located
in
a
design.
R
AJ
District
and
it's
been
found
eligible
for
the
National
Register
by
the
Massachusetts
Historical
Commission,
the
proposed
addition,
more
than
doubles
the
size
of
the
building.
In
fact
it's
about
150
percent
larger
than
the
existing
building
and
will
overwhelm
the
existing
architecture
permanently
altering
the
proportions
massing
scale
and
roofline
up
the
building
and
compromising
the
historic
character,
not
just
if
the
building
itself,
but
of
the
entire
block.
It's
located
prominently
as
a
Tate
in
Webster
Street,
which
means
that
the
side
elevations
and
the
entire
proposed
addition
will
be
highly
visible
from
the
street.
AJ
The
imagine
Boston
2030
plan
calls
for
development
that
matches
the
scale
and
character
of
its
surroundings,
and
in
this
case,
this
block
of
Webster
Street
is
made
up
almost
entirely
of
two
and
three
family
homes.
There
are
two
and
a
half
and
three
stories
high.
His
proposal
doesn't
align
with
that
character
and
finally,
there's
doesn't
seem
to
be
evidence
here
that
the
legal
requirements
for
zoning
relief
have
been
met.
This
is
a
size
of
a
lot
with
an
existing
house.
AJ
A
BT
Name
is
Cindy
Baxter
I
live
at
539,
a
Sumner
Street
two
specific
points
I
like
to
bring
up
in
appropriate
size
and
massing
for
the
neighborhood
I
am
among
the
majority
of
neighbors
who
voted
against
this
proposal.
The
second
point
I
would
like
to
bring
up.
So
the
first
point
is:
it's
just
overwhelming
extremely
overwhelming
for
the
neighborhood
not
characteristic.
The
second
and
last
point
I'd
like
to
bring
up
is
regarding
precedent-setting
that
is
eroding
the
zoning
code.
I
know
mr.
Lynch
has,
but
it's
consistent
with
the
neighborhood
it's
in
precedent
with
the
neighborhood.
BT
However,
when
he
presented
to
us
as
a
neighborhood,
he
reassures
us
that
new
buildings
or
a
building
one
by
one,
does
not
set
a
precedent.
However,
it
seems
to
I'm
concerned
about
that
as
a
resident
and
I'm
concerned
about
it
for
our
future
East
Boston
is
an
amazing
neighborhood.
It's
a
treasure.
Thank
you.
A
AH
Everybody's
talking
about
the
historic
nature
of
our
neighborhood
and
my
building
is
one
of
the
more
prominent
buildings
in
the
neighborhood
I
was
built
in
1830.
It
used
to
be
Boston,
Public,
Library
branch,
and
now
it's
a
signal.
Residence
and
this
building,
as
has
been
said,
is
gigantic
for
that
lot.
The
lot
line
between
that
the
proposal
and
my
mind
is
zero.
They've
they're
extending
that
their
driveway
or
it
was
it
right
to
the
long
line.
The
other
side
of
the
building
is
one
foot,
the
rear,
I,
don't
know
any.
AH
If
anybody
took
this
into
consideration,
but
the
rear
of
all
of
our
properties
is
an
old
stone
and
masonry
retaining
wall.
I
think
that
this
addition
and
the
parking
and
all
that
stuff
I
don't
know
if
anybody
has
thought
what
this
is
going
to
do
to
that
retaining
wall
and
that
definitely
affects
my
property.
BI
My
name
is
Ron
Stoia
183,
Webster,
Street,
East,
Boston
I
live
a
little
bit
further
down
the
street
from
this
property.
It
seems
to
mean
living
in
this
neighborhood
for
quite
a
while
that
the
attempt
has
been
to
squeeze
more
and
more
building
into
smaller
and
smaller
areas,
which
is
exactly
what
this
is
doing
and
you'll
probably
be
hearing
more
about
that
in
the
next
coming
weeks.
When
other
people
try
to
do
that,
you
take
a
small
lot
and
you
just
over
build
it.
BI
BB
I
think
we
heard
from
a
few
neighbors
would
point
out
that
they
are
somewhat
distant
from
this
property.
I
think
it's
important
based
upon
when
a
butter
brings
up
context
as
a
reason
for
objecting
to
a
proposal
that
they
understand
the
context.
Mr.
story,
mr.
Bailey
I
pretty
familiar
where
they
live.
They
live
in
a
five-story
building
just
further
up
Webster
Street.
So
by
way
of
context
you
know,
five-story
buildings
do
exist
along
that
porch
of
Webster
Street
miss
Baxter,
very
familiar
with
her
property.
I
permitted
it
myself.
BB
But
I'm,
but
I
will
say
that
it's
important
again
by
way
of
context
that
these
buildings
do
exist
in
this
neighborhood.
Some
older
some
newer,
but
I
would
suggest
that
you
know
a
three-story
or
two-story
building
is
not
simply
the
the
makeup
of
the
entire
portion
of
Webster
Street
is
certainly
that
section
of
Geoffrey's
point.
A
B
The
next
case
calling
VOA
seven
nine
six
five,
four
two
179
London
Street.
This
is
an
erect
in
addition
to
change
our
number
three
to
a
four
unit:
residential
dwelling,
the
violations,
article
25
section,
nine
section:
five
flood
hazard
districts,
article
53
section
eight
for
family
is
forbidden.
Article
53,
section,
52,
roof
structure,
restriction,
article
53,
section
56,
our
street
parking
and
loading
requirements;
article
53
section:
nine
additional
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
53,
section,
nine,
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
53,
section,
nine,
the
building
height,
is
excessive.
B
In
storeys
article
53,
section,
nine,
the
building
height
is
excessive
and
feet.
Article
53
section,
nine
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
53,
section
I
in
the
front
yard,
is
insufficient.
Article
53
side
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
53
section.
Nine,
the
rail
yard
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BB
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lin's,
245,
Sumner,
Street,
East
Boston,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
with
me,
is
Jason
deep,
is
the
owner
of
this
particular
property
and
has
owned
it
for
close
to
a
decade
and
maintained
it
for
that
period
of
time,
as
time
has
gone
on,
mr.
Deane
understands
that
this
building
is
in
need
of
some
upgrades
and
certainly
a
lot
a
lot
of
lot
more
maintenance
to
continue
with
this
operation.
BB
Of
this,
existing
building
has
made
the
decision
to
do
a
complete
rehabilitation
of
the
building,
including
upgrades
to
all
of
these
systems
and
life
safety
for
the
building.
As
the
secretary
indicated,
one
of
the
violations
certainly
concerns
flood
hazard
district
and
to
look
at
this
building
very
some
of
the
way
to
build
this
board
looked
at
a
building
further
up
the
street
at
its
last
meeting.
This
probably
would
not
qualify
for
any
additional
space
in
the
basement
based
upon
flood
hazard.
A
BB
So
vertical
is
the
only
the
only
option
at
this
point,
so
we
did
have
the
opportunity
to
present
this
to
the
neighbor
this
one
of
the
reasons
we're
here
on
deferral
is:
there
is
a
new
community
group
that
has
been
formed
for
this
neighborhood.
We
were
asked
to
consider
a
deferral
the
last
hearing
in
order
to
make
a
presentation
to
them.
Unfortunately,
they've
not
formulated
their
bylaws
or
their
voting
procedures,
yet
so
we're
unable
to
make
that
presentation.
I
know
that
you
know
continued.
Deferrals
of
these
is
probably
not
favored
by
the
board.
BB
So
we
wanted
to
proceed
today.
We
do
recognize
that
that
community
group
is
getting
organized.
We
certainly
understand
some
of
the
concerns
based
upon
the
apotres,
meaning
that
we
we
heard
chief
among
those
concerns
were
twofold:
one,
the
rear
stairwell
that
comes
off
the
back
portion
of
this
building.
The
orientation
of
that
seemed
to
have
an
impact
on
a
neighbor.
Further
up,
the
street
we've
agreed
through
the
design
review
process
to
modify
that
stairwell
and
to
ensure
that
that's
not
impacting
any
of
his
view.
The
second
issue
was
any
consideration
on
roof
deck.
Mr.
A
BB
Showed
us
stairwell
I
believe
on
the
left
side
of
the
building.
We
could
certainly
slide
that
over
to
the
right,
and
we
think
the
line
of
view
would
be
affected
positively.
Based
upon
that,
we've
made
that
commitment
through
the
community
process,
because
this
is
a
preexisting
non-conforming,
dimensionally
non-conforming
structure.
I
would
be
conforming
use
wise.
It
is
in
the
three
f2000
district,
some
of
the
violations
that
we're
incurring
are
based
upon
simply
the
existing
non-conforming
that
we
prefer
the
the
largest
of
the
the
relief
that
we
need
involves.
BB
The
use
changing
from
a
three
to
a
four
family
would
be
a
multi-family
use.
I
would
submit
that
there
are
numerous
multi
families,
including
a
number
of
them,
located
just
further
down
London
Street,
as
you
get
close
to
the
central
square.
So
this
is
not
an
unusual
use
for
this
area.
The
height
of
the
building
would
be
increased.
However,
we
are
setting
that
fourth
level
back
to
keep
the
uniformity
of
the
triple-deckers
along
that
portion
of
London
Street.
BB
That
is
something
that
again,
we
heard
through
the
community
process
and
something
that
we've
committed
to
from
a
design
standpoint.
Based
upon
those
comments,
the
floor
area
ratio,
the
increase
based
upon
the
amount
of
square
footage
that
we're
proposing
with
the
additional
unit,
as
well
as
the
requirement
for
an
additional
parking
space,
because
there
is
no
parking
presently
for
the
three
units.
This
would
require
one
additional
parking
space,
we're
requesting
a
variance
for
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
BB
A
BU
BU
A
M
A
BV
B
Voa
754
0
to
113
Concord
square
within
the
private
garden,
adding
a
shore
retaining
wall
and
backfill
to
create
two
parking
spaces.
The
violation
is
article
64,
section,
9,
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
64,
section,
36,
off-street
parking
design,
sized
access
and
drive
maneuverability
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please,
yes,.
BW
Difference
was
pertaining
to
a
city,
light
pole
that
we
had
asked
that
we
had
asked
the
city
to
move
and
to
locate
and
in
the
in
the
property
line.
So
there
was
a
difference
between
what
the
neighbor
wanted
and
what
we
wanted.
Since
that
time
we
have
come
to
to
an
agreement
between
us
and
the
neighbor.
We
we
have
considered
many
different
proposition.
One
of
them
would
be
to
put
the
light
pole
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
on
an
existing
pole.
A
BW
BP
These
parking
space
will
be
in
a
public
alley
and
they're
only
16
foot
in
length
and
I'm
just
afraid
that
they're
gonna
overhang
the
public
way.
If
there
would
be,
if
it's
possible,
if
they
can
make
them
a
little
bit
longer,
it
could
work,
but
at
16
feet
is
a
very,
very
shot
and
it's
a
the
public
ways.
Public
Alex
I
mean
our
to
begin
with
and
I
missed
afraid
there
might
be
an
overhang
of
the.
I
BX
BE
BY
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
phases
Sharif
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
ask
the
board
to
deny
this
application
without
prejudice
and
for
the
applicants
to
reapply.
There
is
an
issue
around
that.
City
pole
street
lighting
has
requested
that
that
hole
be
moved
to
the
location
that
they
approved
it
at,
which
is
highlighted
in
the
photos
that
were
submitted
to
you
guys.
BY
The
pole
has
not
been
relocated,
since
the
point
of
the
deferral
originally
was
to
have
that
pole
moved
to
have
new
plans
drawn
up
which
shows
the
maneuverability
and
access
based
on
the
new
pole
location
and
to
be
able
to
discuss
that
with
the
neighbors
that
has
not
happened.
It's
been
incredibly
difficult,
getting
the
applicants
to
communicate
with
the
neighbors,
and
we
don't
have
faith
that
if
the
board
approves
the
two
parking
spaces
that
that
will
actually
happen
and
then
there's
also
a
lot
of
concern
about
maneuverability.
BY
Since
the
pole
was
moved
into
the
location
that
was
not
approved
by
the
city.
There's
been
a
lot
of
issues
with
the
neighbors
digging
up.
You
know
their
cars
right
up
against
that
pole.
We
also
agree
with
BTD
in
terms
of
there's
real
concerns
about
design,
maneuverability
and
access
in
that
public
way.
Thank.
B
This
is
to
extend
living
space
on
the
first
floor
to
the
basement
and
install
new
stairs
on
the
first
floor
of
the
basement
and
a
stall,
a
twenty
by
thirty
basement
window
for
the
emergency
escape
for
the
dwelling
unit,
the
violations,
article
50,
section,
29
the
floor.
Ta
ratio
is
excessive
name
an
address
for
the
record,
please
my.
A
BZ
A
T
A
BZ
BZ
A
BZ
Y
A
AE
AE
AT
B
The
violations
article
51
section
19,
the
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article,
51,
section,
19
accessory
parking
is
forbidden,
Article,
51,
section
20,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
51,
section
20,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
article
51
section
20,
the
rail
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
51,
section
56
off
street
parking
is
insufficient
in
article
59
section
56
ostrich
loading
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
CA
Good
morning
my
name
is
Dan
Toscano
from
Drago
and
Toscano
LLP
attorneys
at
law,
we're
located
at
15,
Broad,
Street,
Boston,
Mass,
Oh,
2,
1
I'm,
here
representing
Hichborn
partners
to
my
far
right
as
Joseph.
The
Genji
was
one
of
the
principal
partners
of
the
Hichborn
partners
in
to
my
immediate
right
is
James
Christopher,
representing
RCA
architectural
front,
who
conducted
the
drawings
on
the
plans,
we're
seeking
your
approval
today
to
erect
up
a
six
story
building
which
is
46
condominium
units.
We
were
here
before
this
board
not
too
long
ago.
CA
The
matter
was
deferred
to
consider
work
with
the
community
and
the
director
butters.
We
have
worked
with
the
community,
in
particular
to
be
AIA,
which
I
believe
which
has
supported
the
project.
We
did
resolve
one
of
the
last
issues
that
was
requested
of
us
and
we
come
to
an
agreement
and
they
will
participate
their
support
today
they
did
phone
and
support.
The
other
was
a
direct
butter.
Add
new
balance,
which
is
directly
behind
our
particular
proposal.
CA
Working
with
our
New
Balance
in
particular,
working
on
future
infrastructure
of
the
guest
Street
extension
so
make
sure
that
we
work
together,
make
sure
we
do
the
guest
Street
extensions
for
to
alleviate
any
profound
potential
traffic
in
the
area.
So
this
project
is
46
our
condominium
units.
It's
made
up
of
a
combination
of
the
units.
That's
two
six
studios.
This
eight
one-bedroom,
seven
one-bedroom
plus,
is
24
two
bedrooms
in
one
single
three-bedroom
unit.
They
all
have
adequate
size,
the
average
size
of
the
studios
of
525
square
feet.
CA
The
one-bedroom
is
approximately
715
square
feet,
the
one
bedroom
plus
approximately
815
square
feet.
All
the
two
bedrooms
are
over
a
thousand
square
feet
of
living.
Space
in
the
three
bedroom
is
approximately
1,300
square
feet
of
space.
We
do
have
some
violations,
madam
chairman,
one
this
being
in
the
guest
read
local
industrial
district,
which
is
multi-family,
is
a
forbidden
use.
So
we
are
at
in
the
red
Tosa
we're
asking
for
relief.
CA
That's
at
least
condominium
units
in
an
area
that
has
been
a
guest
building
and
there's
more
development
here
and
there's
a
more
high
demand
for
residential
units,
in
particular
home
ownership.
For
the
as
for
the
parking,
we
are
supplying
59
parking
spaces
for
46
units,
which
is
a
little
more
than
one.
The
requirement
is
two
parking
spots
per
for
a
unit,
but
we
have
sufficient
pockets
for
at
least
one
per
unit,
but
this
is
close
to
the
new
station
Boston
Landing
and
also
walking
distance
and
to
LA
the
local
public
transportation.
CA
The
FA
are
in
this
areas
is
to
proposed
FAA
hours,
3.26,
not
out
of
character.
Looking
at
the
guest
read
study
that
was
conducted
a
few
years
ago,
the
faa
recommendation
was
about
one
point,
two,
five
to
three
point:
two
five,
so
we're
just
slightly
over
but
we're
at
three
point.
Six,
five
for
this
project
at
the
height
of
the
requirements
in
this
district
is
45
feet.
We
are
at
sixty
five
point
five
feet.
This
is
a
six
story
building,
but
the
sixth
floor
is
a
community
room
on
the
roof.
CA
Is
a
community
room
which
hosted
yoga
room?
There
is
a
pool?
Is
outdoor
patios,
13,
private
patios
on
the
outdoor,
provide
sufficient
open
space
for
all
the
residents
each
of
the
units,
as
well
as
all
patio?
So
they
have
sufficient
open
space
for
each
of
the
residential
units.
The
last
violation
that
was
seeking
release
for
is
the
rear
yard.
The
rear
yard
is
12.
Foot
setback,
we're
proposing
a
full
foot
setback.
So
this
proposal
I'm
happy
to
hear
any
questions.
I
can
turn
him
over
to
mr.
Christopher
hockey
basement
level
and
ground
level.
A
CA
Understands
will
work
so
one
of
the
biggest
issues
working
with
the
community
weather,
even
though
we're
proposing
that
this
would
be
condominium
project.
This
was
a
condominium
project,
but
they
wanted
a
concern
that
it
was
gonna,
be
really
home
ownership,
so
we're
proposing
in
icon,
Ladakh
50%
owned
owned
home
ownership
in
the
condom
dogs.
So
we
agreed
that
that
we
put
that
in
the
condo
dog,
so
I
think
that
was.
CA
We
haven't
really
worked
out.
The
language
I'll
be
honest
for
you,
I
know
this
is
an
issue.
That's
been
going
back
and
forth
quite
some
time,
but
really
haven't
prepared
our
condo
Doc's.
Yet
so
I
don't
know
what
language
will
be
put
in
there,
but
the
goal
is
to
have
the
goal
is
to
have
100%
home
ownership.
That's
why
we
created
a
lot
of
amenities
in
this
building.
There's
plenty
of
storage.
We
restructured
the
units
to
have
plenty
of
closet
space,
Zorich
the
amenities
community
room
parking,
so.
AS
T
T
A
BL
O
A
A
A
B
This
is
the
change
of
our
fee
as
a
single
family
that
bill
dormice
construct
an
addition
in
reinstall
front
and
rear
porches
reconstruct
front
entrance,
build
attached,
garage
with
office
over
and
renovate
all
floors.
The
violations,
article
65
section
42,
65-42,
eight
accessory
buildings,
aside,
Oh
Riyadh
particle
65,
Rizal,
section
nine
floaty
ratios
excessive
article
65
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
65
side
gathers
insufficient
in
article
65.
Riyadh
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
A
CB
Time
that
we
were
here,
we
didn't
have
the
plans,
I
guess
was
lost
somewhere,
so
I
replaced
it
with
the
board
and
I
also
brought
a
copy
for
you
guys
to
look
at,
and
we
have
five
violations.
Article
65
42
a
which
requires
the
garage
that
were
proposing
to
be
four
feet
off
the
side
in
15
feet.
High
on
the
side
were
proposing
one
foot
from
the
property
line
in
the
rear
side.
One
foot
off
the
property
line
in
the
height
of
the
garage
and
office
about.
AD
A
A
CB
No
matter
how
we
look
at
it,
it
was
already
it
was
already
past
because
the
FAA
are
in
this.
Originally,
when
we
started
the
application
was
0.4
has
changed
the
last
couple
years
to
0.5
and
we're
still
the
the
building
itself
is
existing
non-conforming.
It's
just
actually
picking
up
more
violation.
On
top
already,
the
violation
that
existed.
CB
A
A
CB
A
CB
Was
the
one
that
we
went
over
the
there's
only
one
article
65
42,
that
was
the
the
garage
that
we
just
went
over.
Then
we
have
article
65,
section,
nine,
which
covers
the
other.
Three
witches
are
the
side
yards
and
the
frontage,
the
back.
It
picks
up
pretty
much
all
within
that
same
realm,
so
the
the
next
full
violation
is
essentially
the
same
violation
which
is
65
section
9,
which
gives
you
the
the
54
that's
required
on
the
route
on
the
side
and
we're
I'm
not
sure
actually
on
the
side
of
the
building
itself.
CB
I
have
enough
for
requirement.
As
far
as
the
because,
on
one
side
on
the
right
hand,
side
we
have
15
feet,
that's
enough
to
pass
the
requirement
on
the
right
hand,
side.
We
have
26
feet
that
does
the
front
yard,
however,
its
existing
on
conform
and
also
on
the
existing
porch,
but
we
like
to
stretch
it
out
to
be
like
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood.
So
that
puts
us
into
a
violation
also
and
where
I
asked
him
for
the
variance
on
that.
A
CB
A
A
A
A
CB
A
CB
Only
it's
only
a
single
family
basement
first
for
second
and
third,
so
the
third
level
we
use
it
exclusively
for
class,
because
my
wife
actually
teaches
all
the
kids
at
home.
The
second
is
bedroom
and
first
floor
is
pretty
much
all
open
kitchen
living
room,
dining
room
where
you
know
the
kids
just
run
around
basement.
This
room
is
there
to.
A
CB
H
M
CC
BN
CD
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
I'm
Joann
teller,
I,
live
at
six
Monadnock
Street
and
I
am
also
I'm.
Speaking
on
my
own
behalf,
I'm
also
speaking
on
behalf
of
8-minute
Street,
which
is
owned
by
a
trust.
My
mother
is
the
sole
trustee
and
I
am
the
sole
beneficiary
and,
on
behalf
of
the
author,
the
owner
of
12m
dad
knock
Street,
who
is
Jon,
presen
house
key?
He
helped
prevents
him
from
being
here
and
he
has
given
me
a
letter
and
how
I
need
to
speak
to
him
and
everything
I'm
going
to
say
is.
A
CD
I'm
going
to
summarize
the
points
that
I'm
making
in
my
longer
statement
and
in
the
documents
that
I've,
given
you
first
so
we're
very
concerned
about
the
size
and
the
placement
of
the
of
the
garage
and
office
building
I
have
no
objection
to,
nor
doesn't,
mr.
president
I'll
ski
to
the
the
porches
and
the
other
additions
that
you
know
to
them
to
the
main
house
that
mr.
CD
Podesta
Clara
wants
to
build,
but
and
I'll
say
more
about
the
reasons
that
why
we're
concerned
about
the
other
building
later,
but
first
of
all,
I
want
to
say,
there's,
there's
no
special
circumstances
or
conditions,
as
is
required
to
justify
a
variance
under
the
code.
The
lot
size
for
a
live
in
Virginia
is
8,000
square
feet,
that's
bigger
than
86%
of
the
Lots
on
Virginia
and
monogatari.
The
lot
is
completely
rectangular
and
the
house
itself
is
also
of
a
typical
size
for
single-family
houses
in
the
neighborhood
as
it
is,
and
mr.
CD
He
could
add
existing
square
footage
to
the
existing
house
without
violating
the
boundary
issues,
although
he'd
still
need
a
variance
for
the
fer
I.
Think
and
I
did
put
in
a
recalculation
at
the
F.
They
are,
but
it
sounds
like
Vargas
actually
be
calculated
at
which
I
very
much
appreciate,
because
the
original
plans
that
I
saw
had
a
much
lower
if
they
are
on
it,
the
as
far
as
it
reasonable
use,
which
is
also
required,
that
the
variance
being
necessary
for
reasonable
use.
Mr.
CD
Dussel
vera
and
his
family
have
been
living
in
the
house
since
January
of
last
year.
So
that's
sixteen
months
and
the
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
Division
of
corporations
also
lists
his
office
as
being
or
as
both
businesses
being
located
in
that
property
since
the
middle
of
last
year.
So
he's
making
reasonable
use
of
the
house
without
the
additional
garage
and
office
outside
the
house.
CD
And
most
houses
on
Virginia
and
amount
of
seventy
three
percent
of
the
houses
on
Virginia
and
on
next
week's
have
no
garage
at
all
and
those
that
do
there's
one
four
car
garage:
that's
a
single-story
and
a
flat
roof,
and
there
are
the
others,
are
all
one
or
two
car
garages
with
low
roofs,
there's
also
a
few
original
carriage
houses.
But
none
of
those
would
hold
more
than
two
cars,
I
believe
and
I,
don't
know
of
any
separate
office
spaces
in
the
neighborhood.
CD
CD
But
all
the
way
across
and
civil
engineer
thought
that
whenever
there
aren't
plans
for
how
he
plans
to
do
the
construction
of
the
footings
for
that
wall
and
the
civil
engineer
felt
that
there
would
be,
you
know
stated
that
there
would
be
damaged
from
the
digging
you're
going
to
dig
a
foot
from
the
property
line.
That
damage
is
going
to
go
over
the
line
and
also
possibly
from
water
runoff.
Because
there's
no
indication
that
plans
about
what
people
had
plans
to
do
about.
A
CD
And
it's
the
garage
in
the
office
that
I'm
concerned
about
because
that
garage
that
garage,
although
it's
a
three
car
garage,
is
actually
the
size
of
a
four
car
garage
up
before
forty
feet.
Long
and
from
the
backside,
which
is
the
Monadnock
street
side
virginia
and
knock
knock,
are
extremely
sloped
from
one
to
the
other,
there's
a
extreme,
quite
a
grade
there,
and
so
from
the
back.
It
would
be
over
two
stories
high
about
two
and
a
half
stories
high
and
mr.
Chris
and
house
keys
property.
CD
If
he
stands
at
his
backyard
or
in
his
windows
would
be
about
50
percent
right
in
the
center
of
his
view
would
be
blocked
and
about
25
percent
of
the
view
looking
upward.
But
again
it
would
be
the
view
right
in
front
of
him
that's
blocked,
and
so
we
expect
soil
damage.
We
expect
runoff.
We
expect,
at
this
view,
view
blockage
and
there's
also
a
shading
analysis
that
shows
considerable
shading
to
both
the
eight
Virginia
Street
and
the
twelve
Virginia
Street
properties.
We
wrote
to
mr.
CD
Dussel
there
when
you
know
when
this
came
up
before,
and
we
asked
it
suggested
him
that
we
could
talk
about
a
compromise,
that
we
were
open
to
a
compromise,
the
neighborhood
people
who
have
signed
an
opposition
and
myself
and
mr.
now,
ski
and
my
mother.
The
trustee
would
all
be
open
to
a
smaller
garage
say
like
a
one-story,
two
or
maybe
even
three
car
garage.
Something
like
that,
but
not
something.
That's
this
big
and
this
close
to
the
property
line.
It's
not
necessary
for
the
purpose.
CD
It
doesn't
meet
the
criteria
for
the
zoning,
as
I've
explained
and
in
terms
of
the
neighborhood.
The
last
thing
in
the
packet
is
a
statement
of
signers
and
mr.
Dussel
vera
has
said
in
the
past
that
most
of
the
neighborhood
supports
me,
and
he
does
have
you
know
about
50
people
who
signed
when
she
once
you
actually
take
out
people
who
have
moved
and
other
things.
There
are
48
neighbors
who
signed
in
favor
and
35
who
are
opposed.
CD
But
if
you
look
at
the
actual
number
of
properties
represented
because
the
ones
in
favor
in
some
cases,
were
several
people
from
a
household
or
from
building,
there's
thirty
properties
represented
in
support.
Thirty,
four
against
and
of
the
immediate
butters
there's
one
for
and
two
against,
and
then
two
have
not
expressed
an
opinion.
One
of
them
is
victory.
CD
So
that's
basically
again.
A
summary
is
that
that
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
believe
that
this
meets
the
requirements
for
a
variance
nor
do
I
believe
it's
necessary
and
there's
considerable
neighborhood
opposition,
particularly
from
the
people
who,
on
the
Monadnock
Street
side,
who
would
be
seeing
sort
of
the
bulk
of
the
building
from
the
Virginia
Street
side,
it's
kind
of
behind
and
not
as
visible.
CC
CC
A
AZ
A
B
AR
A
A
A
B
Final
thing
is
the
Thursday
April
26th
mini
Zoning
Board
at
10:10
mass
app,
a
hammer
at
5:00
p.m.
calling
the
first
case
boa
8
0
3
4
1
3
8
80,
st.
Stephen
Street
was
approved.
This
was
to
construct
a
roof
deck
and
head
out
and
create
access
to
unit
to
buy
every
case.
Poa
7
9
6
6
5
0
160
K
Street,
was
approved
with
full
interior
innovation
existed
to
family
dwelling
case
boa
8
0
8,
1,
7,
9
1
97
to
203
Humboldt
Avenue
was
approved.
B
This
petitioner
only
to
change
the
Arden
from
a
restaurant
with
9
seats
and
take
out
boa
7
9
4
9
3
0
33
Robinson
Street
was
approved
with
BPD
a
converted.
One
single
family
into
a
two
family
case.
Boa
7,
9,
3,
5,
3
6
was
approved,
would
removed
an
existing
side,
deck
and
repair
wood,
shingle
siding
at
the
same
and
proposed
a
new
red
deck
violation
case.
Boa
8,
0
7,
0,
9,
113
Thompson
Street
was
approved
with
BPD.
A
if
remarks
is
a
one-family
construct
new
doors.
B
In
a
rare
edition,
boa
794
to
6
160
Catherine
Street
was
approved
with
BPD
a
adding
a
shed-dormer
to
match
the
existing
dorm
on
the
opposite
side
case:
boa
7,
9,
9,
0,
8,
9,
2,
216
Belgrade.
This
was
approved
with
BPD
a
change
larks
who
had
a
bar
and
existing
premises
case.
Boa
eight
one:
five:
zero,
zero
3,
156
Church
Street
was
approved.
This
direct
in
addition
over
a
Sun
porch
and
installed
dormer
in
the
last
case
case,
boa
seven,
eight
five,
six
to
5:21
Tolman
street
was
approved.
This
was
the
floor.