►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 1-26-20 (Part 2 of 2)
Description
Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 1-26-20 (Part 2 of 2)
A
A
So
webster's
meeting
the
butter
to
the
rear,
mr
devo
correct
yeah.
I
believe
they
have
a
standard
setback
of
30
feet
and
again
that
that
butter
to
the
rear,
I'm
not
sure,
what's
specific
about.
I
know
there
are
two
butters
that
we
dealt
with
the
major
concern
they
had
was
one
the
materials,
the
fencing
that
we
were
closing
we'll
work
closely
with
them
to
ensure
whatever
fencing
you
know
suits
them
is
something
that
we
we're
happy
to
do.
A
The
second
was
the
the
reconstruction
of
the
retaining
wall
at
the
developers,
expense,
and
that
is
something
we've
also
committed
to,
in
addition
to
potentially
some
landscaping
if
they're
amenable
to
that
as
well.
But
those
those
were
the
concerns
the
director
butters
behind
us
the
existing
building.
Now
is,
you
know
it
is
already
an
existing
condition,
so
I
believe
there's
about
a
three
foot
setback
from
our
building
to
their
property
line.
Okay,
our
proposed
building
is
about
60
feet
from
the
property
line.
Okay,.
B
I
mean
I
want
to
I'll
commend
the
applicant
for
wanting
to
keep
the
building.
That's
something
we're
just
not
seeing
a
lot
of
in
east
boston,
historical
significance,
but
maybe
some
consideration
for
the
purposes
of
light
and
air
that
there's
a
reconfiguration
where
it
faces
cottage
street,
where
there
is
the
existing
garden
right
out
in
some
space.
So
with
the
space
behind
it
and
the
space
to
the
side.
I
think
it
should
just
be
a
focus
on
allowing
for
that.
A
We
can
certainly
incorporate
that.
Mr
devoe,
that's
you
know
again.
The
focus
was
to
at
least
mark
the
preservation
of
that
building
and
not
necessarily
disturb,
what's
there
and
to
try
to
work
around
that
with
a
with
a
workable
project
that
we
felt
fit
with
the
character
of
marginal
street,
while
preserving
the
two
family.
C
D
C
D
Can
I
just
have
a
moment
please?
I
know
that
mr
fortune
has
to
leave
in
a
few
minutes
and
I
do
want
to
make
sure
kevin
and
mr
fortune
is
the
only
one
at
10-10
massab,
so
kevin.
I
might
need
you
to
help
us
be
secretary
and
put
the
information
in
the
record,
because
this
this
project
is
obviously
raised
a
lot
of
interesting
issues
and
comments.
Okay,
just
want
to
put
that
out.
There
go
ahead.
E
Man,
madam
chair
yeah,
actually
question
for
mr
robinson,
since
I'm
just
seeing
the
drawings
for
the
first
time
in
this
rendering
that's
up
on
the
screen
now
and
looking
at
google
maps
it
I
mean
it's
a
very
contemporary
kind
of
flat
look
in
a
neighborhood
that
doesn't
appear
to
share
those
concerns.
Is
it
look?
How
does
it
look
to
you
for
context.
B
B
The
board
has
approved
some
ultra
modern
on
the
ultra
modern
buildings
on
the
other
side
of
module
street.
If
you
go
down
module
street,
you
enter
the
shipyard
beyond
the
shipyard,
I
believe
there's
some
ultra
modern.
These
seem
to
be
a
mix
typically
some
older
homes
and
and
some
with
some
historical
context
and
character.
A
A
Being
a
rear
block
somebody
proposing
something
in
the
in
the
front,
so
there
is
a
little
distinction.
I
think
in
this
particular
case.
Secondly,
the
issue
with
a
concern
relative
to
sort
of
you
know
shielding
or
hiding
this
this
particular
building.
That's
already
on
the
lot
was
raised
during
the
community
process
and
we
did
and
again
I
I
apologize
you
might
be
able
to
see
from
google
view
at
the
corner
of
cottage
and
marginal.
Is
that
I
believe
it's
called
the
champa
garden.
It's
a
community
garden.
A
It
is
a
deep,
restricted
parcel
that
can't
be
built
on
and
provides
a
pretty
significant
view
of
the
entire
building,
so
the
building
remains
visible
and
will
likely
remain
visible
as
long
as
that
restricted
parcel
remains
in
effect,
and
I
don't
I
don't
see
the
city
lifting
that
restriction
anytime
soon,
so
the
community
garden
will
likely
remain
and
provide
a
provided.
You
know
ample
view
of
the
structure
and
we
think
again,
you
know
the
opportunity
here
to
provide
a
restoration
of
this
building.
You
know
is
a
win-win
for
the
neighborhood
as
a
whole.
D
C
H
I
members
of
the
board
lina
tramelli
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
opposition.
At
this
moment.
This
proposal
didn't
receive
enough
support
from
the
community.
The
avaya
still
have
many
concerns
regarding
density
number
of
units
having
two
buildings
in
one
lot,
the
design
that
doesn't
fit
the
neighborhood
and
lack
of
parking
and
congestion.
Also,
we
receive
a
vote
on
opposition
from
the
jefferson
point,
neighborhood
association.
Thank
you.
J
L
Hi,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
rachel
bloomer
184
webster
street,
here
representing
jeffrey's
point
neighborhood
association.
Our
organization
voted
against
this
project
with
a
vote
of
14
in
favor
and
24
opposed,
whereas
the
reasons
residents
gave
for
opposing
or
adding
six
units
without
providing
off-street
parking
will
increase
competition
for
parking
in
the
area.
Only
access
to
the
building
at
the
rear
of
the
property
is
via
public
alley.
2001.
This
presents
a
number
of
concerns
regarding
snow
removal
and
deliveries,
and
setback
proposed
from
the
new
building
in
the
public.
L
D
K
A
The
comments
we
hear
you
know
I
understand
the
sentiment
of
the
mayor's
office,
neighborhood
services
and
the
various
councillors
opposing
this.
I
I
want
to
just
point
out
for
the
board
again
this
isn't.
This
is
unlike
a
lot
of
different
closes.
I
bring
before
before
this
board.
There
was
the
better
part
of
two
years
working
on
this
and
to
listen
and
try
to
respond
to
specific
comments
and
concerns.
A
I
do
understand
that
there
is
one
abutter
who
is
just
not
satisfied
with
the
amount
of
distance
between
our
building,
we're
happy
to
continue
working
with
them,
but
we
think
we've
done
yeoman's
work
and
trying
to
get
direct
to
butter
support
for
this
and
for
issues
that
you
know
that
otherwise
would
not
be
addressed
for
them,
including
things
like
the
retaining
wall.
The.
D
D
D
G
Call
your
next
case
calling
voa
102
9221
837
saratoga
street.
This
is
a
change
of
argument
with
three
family
drawings
or
multi-family
dwelling
eight
units
directly
rare
edition
and
fourth
edition
story
edition
and
propose
six
parking
spaces.
The
violation
article
10
section
one:
our
street
parking
should
not
be
located
less
than
five
feet
from
the
side
lot
line:
article
2017-5:
this
is
in
the
east
boston,
ipod,
article
53,
section
8,
a
multi-family
dwelling
use
is
forbidden.
Article
53,
section,
52,
roof
structure
restriction,
article
53,
section,
56,
off-street
parking
is
insufficient.
G
Article
53
section
9
additional
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
53,
section
9,
the
floridian
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
53,
section
9,
the
bill
in
height
is
excessive.
In
stories.
Article
53
section,
9,
the
build
head
is
excessive
in
feet.
Article
53,
section,
9,
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
15,
3,
section
9,
the
side
yards
insufficient
and
article
53
section
on
the
radio
is
insufficient.
We
have
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
A
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
richard
lynn's
245
standard
street
east
fox,
on
behalf
of
petitioner,
nelson
de
oliveira
with
me,
is
treya
lorrea
from
joy
street
design.
She
is
the
architect
for
the
project,
I'm
out
of
chair,
we're
back
before
the
board
after
a
deferral
at
the
last
meeting.
I
know
that
the
secretary
read
this
into
the
record
as
a
proposed
eight
unit.
This
is
now
a
proposed
six
unit
and
the
most
up-to-date
plans
should
be
before
the
board.
A
A
I
believe
the
board
has
the
correct
violations
before
it,
and
I
can
explain
a
little
bit
about
the
program
and
how
we
we've
arrived
at,
where
we're
at
so.
This
is
a
five
thousand
square
foot
lot
located
at
three
up
to
2000
street.
It
does
say:
change
from
three
family
to
six
units,
there's
actually
a
review
of
the
building
jacket.
There
is
a
fourth
unit
located
on
this
site,
that
is,
it
is
a
lawful,
but
it
has
a
different,
separate
address
of
837a.
A
This
will
also
result
in
the
reprogram
of
the
entire
building,
which
obviously
leads
to
an
upgrade
to
the
life
safety.
We
are
proposing
convertible
addition.
This
would
be
consistent
in
height
with
the
recently
approved
building
to
our
left,
which
is
again
a
six
unit,
building
with
six
parking
spaces
based
upon
that,
we
have
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three.
D
A
I
think
that's
con
rendering
should
be
coming
next.
Here
we
go
so
with
rece.
You
can
see
here
in
the
back
portion
of
the
building
where
we're
elevating
that
unit
from
the
lower
ground
level,
which
would
be
clearly
in
the
flood
zone
up
to
above
grade.
So
that's
one
of
the
changes
that
we've
we've
proposed.
We
do
have
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedrooms:
the
two-bedroom
average
about
920
square
feet.
A
The
one
average
is
about
615
square
feet
and
the
three
bedrooms
about
a
thousand
thirty
square
feet.
Our
use
being
proposed
is
multi-family
and
again.
This
is
a
pre-existing
non-conforming
use
based
upon
our
revenue,
the
jacket
and
therefore
extending
that
non-conforming
use
by
proposing
to
change
it
to
a
six
unit.
Dwelling
the
minimum
wage
area
for
the
district
is
two
thousand
square
feet.
We're
well
above
that
five
thousand
square
feet
and
would
comply
with
the
code.
A
In
that
respect,
our
proposed
far
would
be
slightly
above
the
1.0
that's
allowed
at
1.04,
the
head
of
our
building
would
be
increased
to
46
feet,
2
inches.
I
would
point
out
there
is
an
existing
head
house
in
the
building.
Already.
I
know
that
that's
not
necessarily
determinative
of
what
the
height
of
the
building
is,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
for
reference
and
the
change
would
result
in
an
addition
that
is
set
back
from
saratoga
street.
To
preserve
the
existing
facade
of
the
building.
D
A
There's
no
basement
living
space
being
proposed,
in
fact,
as
I
said,
we're
elevating
one
of
the
existing
units.
Now,
what
we're
seeing
here
is
the
existing
conditions
plan
on
our
lower
level
plan.
We
show
no
livable
space
in
the
basement
currently,
but
we
do
show
livable
space
to
the
rear
of
the
building,
which
is
below
the
crate
of
saratoga
industry
and
obviously
in
the
flood
zone,
our
first
second
and
third
floor.
Existing
conditions
have
relatively
large
size
units.
A
As
you
can
see
here,
we
do
propose
where
the
where
the
I
would
call
the
non-compliant
unit
for
flood
purposes.
We
are
proposing
a
total
of
three
parking
spaces
and
those
will
be
full-size
spaces
in
a
garage.
We
do
propose
to
have
three
compact
spaces
on
the
left
side
of
the
property
and
again
you
can
see
here
we
are
not
proposing
any
living
space
in
the
lower
basement
level.
D
H
Members
of
the
board
lena
cameron,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
medical
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
the
recurring
support
during
the
community
process.
The
applicant
address
many
of
the
concerns
of
the
abandons,
reduce
the
number
of
units
and
increase
the
parking
ratio
one
to
one.
Thank
you
so
much.
E
D
G
On
the
next
case,
calling
voa
106
0
1,
one
nine
thirty
mayfield
street.
This
is
a
change
of
arc
from
a
single
family
home
to
three
executive.
Suites
extend
living
space
into
the
basement.
The
violations-
article
65
section,
eight
executive,
suites
use-
is
forbidden.
Article
65
69,
the
florida
ratio
of
the
excessive
article
65
69
usable,
open
spaces
sufficient
at
article
65,
section
9.
The
site
yacht
is
insufficient.
Leave
an
address
for
the
record.
M
Madam
chairman,
chairperson
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
edward
roche,
architect,
158
walnut
street
dorchester
begin
with.
Thank
you
for
your
service.
I
just
want
to.
This
is
a
property
that
was
derelict
for
over
20
years
that
had
been
a
had
been
just
a
complete
particular
property
caused
all
kinds
of
problems
in
the
neighborhood.
M
The
owner
of
the
property
was
stepped
in
and
purchased
the
property,
and
rather
than
to
tear
it
down,
as
had
been
suggested
by
a
number
of
people.
His
policy
has
always
been,
as
he's
been,
the
developer
of
many
projects
in
his
own
in
his
own
neighborhood.
He
actually
lives.
Two
blocks
away
from
this
property
would
be
to
preserve
the
existing
housing
stock
and
not
to
create
another
teardown.
M
D
No,
but
that's
that's
an
important
distinction
to
us,
because
I
think
I
grow
would
be
to
see
that
there's
long
term
occupancy
in
these
units,
as
the
first
as
first
can,
can
everybody
make
sure
that
they
are
in
yes.
Thank
you,
long-term
tenancy
in
these
units
is
the
first
thing,
and
the
second
thing
is:
there
are
always
issues
with
us
with
dwelling
dwelling
space,
specifically
bedrooms
and
things
like
that
in
the
basement.
N
N
Like
mr
roach
said
I
I
had
so
many
different
developers
trying
to
buy
it
from
me
and
realtors
and
and
that
they
wanted
to
try
and
tear
it
down
and
and
do
what
everybody
does
and
just
do.
A
bunch
of
you
know
townhouses
in
a
row,
and
you
know
with
this
much
space
the
7200
square
foot
lot,
but
I
didn't
want
to
do
that.
N
I
I
wanted
to
preserve
the
beautiful
old,
victorian
shingle
home
and
that's
what
I
did
with
every
intention
of
of
using
it
for
executive
suites,
because
that
that
that's
the
only
way
that
that
I
could
maintain
this
property
properly
and-
and
that
was
that
was
my
goal.
So
I
took
two
full
years
to
to
restore
the
place.
N
To
be
perfectly
honest
with
you,
if,
if
that
was
the
only
thing
that
was
going
to
hold
up
my,
I
need
to
keep
this
place
moving
I
need
to.
I
need
to
keep
doing
what
I'm
doing
so
if
the
basement
was
a
deal
killer,
I
guess
I
could
take
it
off
off
the
off
the
plan,
but
I
I
I
I
can't
keep
this
property
in
in.
D
N
Yeah
well
to
be
to
be
clear.
The
the
basement
space
is
part
of
the
first
floor
unit.
It's
not
a
whole
separate
unit.
By
itself
I
mean
if,
if
I
could
reconfigure
that
for
just
living
and
not
not
bedrooms
and
just
living
space,
obviously
it'll
comply
to
all
the
safety
regulations
and
it'll
be
the
right
height
and
I'll,
have
the
right,
egresses
and
light
and
air
and
everything
else.
N
D
N
Well,
I
I
I
I
really.
No,
I
don't
want
you,
I
mean
I
don't
want
you,
but
I
mean
I
would
be
willing
to
back
off
the
basement
use
if,
if
I
could
get
my
executive
tweets,
I'm
just
being
perfectly
honest,
I
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
run
this
property
the
way
I
know
it
will
work
and
the
way
it
will
work
best
for
my
neighbors
for
myself
and
for
me
to
be
able
to
like,
for
instance,
I
can
block
out
weeks
at
a
time
if
I
have
to
repaint
the
place.
J
D
D
How
what
percentage
of
the
year
do
you
expect
it
to
be
occupied
and
who's?
How
is
this
going
to
be
managed
so
that
you
know
if
we
and
because
in
some
cases,
for
example,
a
place
in
jp
that
went,
you
know
ex?
You
know
illegal
executive
suites
had
some
some
significant
drama
there,
and
so
so,
can
you
just
kind
of
walk
us
through
and
tell
us
what
the
checks
and
balances
are
for
this
late
night
parties,
whatever
it
is,
so
talk
us
through
it?
Yes,.
N
Okay,
so,
first
of
all,
the
people
that
have
problems
doing
airbnb
are
people
that
honestly
it's
it's
only
the
dollars
and
cents.
That's
all
they
care
about
the
operators
that
just
leave
everything
wide
open
and
they
accept
every
single
reservation
they're
going
to
have
problems.
Okay,
so
the
first
big
one.
Is
you
don't
rent
for
one
night?
Okay,
if
you
rent
for
one
night,
you
get
young
people
that
are
going
in
there
strictly
to
have
a
party
all
right.
The
second
one
is
you.
N
If
someone
is
local,
if
they're
from
boston
or
even
massachusetts,
what
I
do
is
I
put
down,
do
not
auto
book
my
place.
You
have
to
tell
me
why
you
want
to
stay
in
boston.
If
you
live
in
boston
now,
I've
had
people
say
I
live
in
the
south
end.
My
bathroom
is
being
done
over.
I
need
a
place
to
stay
for
for
a
week,
and
then
I
verify
that
and
then
I
let
them
in
I'm
hands
on
completely.
This
place
was
airbnb
the
whole
time
before
the
regulations
hit
and
my
neighbors
love
it.
N
D
N
D
J
D
K
Process,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
board,
this
is
samantha
bennett
on
behalf
of
city
councilor,
michael
flaherty's
office.
We
echo
the
comments
of
the
mayor's
office
and
would
like
to
note
that
the
direct
butters
are
in
support
of
the
proposal
and
thus
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
offer
our
support.
Thank
you.