►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 09-19-17
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
Good
morning,
the
board
of
Appeal-
but
you
say
September
1919-
is
in
session
just
to
remind
to
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
if
you're
here
to
speak
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
the
project,
we
are
really
here
to
get
new
information.
So
please
add
new
information
to
any
testimony
that
you
give.
If
somebody
has
already
stated
your
concern,
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record,
in
conformance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law
I'm,
informing
you
that
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed.
A
C
D
C
F
F
H
Requesting
an
extension
for
this
variance,
I'm
working
right
now
with
Tom,
wait
to
finalize
the
building
permit
and
we've
been
working
ardently
we
have
the
demolition
permit
issued
and
we've
been
back
and
forth,
so
he
could
to
get
it
the
permit,
approved
and
start
working.
But
it's
just
been
a
lot
of
steps.
Make.
A
I
Attorney
John
Poole
Jeannie,
10,
Forbes,
Road
Braintree
Massachusetts
good
morning.
The
reason
for
this
deferral
request
is
this
was
an
article
80
project
which
is
approved
by
the
BPD
a
last
month
where
there
is
actually
to
be
OAS
associated
with
this,
the
one
that
mr.
fortune
had
referenced
and
then
there's
also
a
14
Sydney,
which
is
boa
738
153
into
inadvertence.
That
was
not
advertised,
so
we
thought
it
would
be
much
more
productive
for
the
board
to
hear
both
of
those
because
their
companion
cases
at
the
same
time,
the
motion
for
deferral.
Second,.
F
C
F
C
A
J
A
Anybody
here
to
speak
on
on
behalf
of
this
project
that
we
just
deferred.
We
we
generally
when
the
applicant
requests
a
deferral.
We
grant
it
to
them.
So
we
will
see
you
here
on
the
full
case
on
October
31st
at
11:30.
You
and
you
can
speak
with
counsel
or
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
are.
A
K
C
K
K
K
B
E
L
N
C
C
P
A
Something's
a
gee
card
and
they
meet
the
requirements.
Then
we
go
ahead
with
it
because
really
all
we
are
here
is
for
the
G
Cod,
the
G
card
process,
to
ensure
that
all
the
requirements
of
jihad
is
being
met.
We
do
not
look
at
any
other
many
other
issues
related
to
the
case.
So
what
is
what
is
the
address
who's
the
applicant
for
this
I
just
hold
on?
Who
is
the
applicant
and
what
is
the
address.
C
This
is
a
change
use
from
a
nursing
home
to
a
multi-family
residential
building,
46
units
and
renovate
violations.
Article
29,
section
4.
This
is
in
a
Greenbelt
protection
overlay
district
article
69,
section
9
the
floor.
Their
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
69,
section
9,
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
69
section
29,
our
street
parking
requirements
is
insufficient.
An
article
69
section
8,
a
multi-family
dwelling
unit
is
the
forbidden
use
a
man
addressed
directly.
My.
Q
C
This
is
to
erect
a
two-family
dwelling
on
an
existing
vacant
lot.
The
violations,
article
69
section,
twenty
nine
point:
four
la
street
parking
design
access
drive
and
maneuverability
article
69,
section
eight
to
family
dwelling
is
forbidden,
use
in
a
single
zoning
district,
ethical
69,
section,
nine,
the
lot
size
to
erected
noon.
Twirling
building
is
insufficient.
Article
69
section
nine,
the
la
tierra
ditional
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient.
Article
69
lot
width
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
69
lunch
ages,
insufficient
radical
69,
Floria
ratio
is
excessive.
C
F
Small
have
a
business
adjust
at
15,
Broad,
Street,
Worcester
Mass
or
to
109.
My
client
is
not
here,
he's
supposed
to
be
on
his
way
in
stuck
in
traffic,
but
will
continue.
We
are
here
seeking
relief
to
erect
a
two-family
dwelling
on
a
vacant
lot
today,
each
unit
and
the
two
families
approximately
1500
square
feet.
The
doctor
zoning
sub
district
is
one
F.
6000
and
I
will
hold
the
violations
off
street
parking
location.
We
are
providing
two
officers
parking
spots
in
the
prayer:
nine
by
18
through
a
10-foot
driveway
access
and.
A
F
Size
of
6000,
we
have
3,200
square
feet,
lot,
width
is
60,
we're
proposing
for
40.
Lakh
frontage
is
20,
we
have
15,
FAI
was
0.5,
we're
increasing
the
far2
1.16
open
space
is
1800
per
unit.
We
have
15
approximately
1500
per
unit.
The
front
yard
setback
is
25
25
feet,
we're
going
at
a
reusing,
a
modal
setback.
A
F
I
think
it's
15
feet
back
side
yard
requirement
is
10
feet.
We
have
3
feet,
we
have
setback,
that's
40.
We
have
20
feet
on
August
31st.
We
had
a
community
meeting
sponsored
by
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
and
which
a
number
of
residents
came
out
and
support
of
the
project.
I'll
stop
there
and
take
any
questions
so.
R
S
E
P
C
Boa
five:
nine
six,
six,
five,
four
875
I'm!
Sorry,
that's
wrong!
Don't
even
call
me
boa
seven,
one,
nine!
Ninety
six
for
18
Sylvester
Road!
This
is
directly
vertical
addition:
the
violations,
article
9
section
1,
2
F,
and
a
1
F
sub
district
article
65
section
9
number
of
stories
allowed-
has
been
exceeded.
Article
65
section
9
is
submission
side
guide,
article
65,
section,
9,
excessive
FAA
name
an
address
for
the
record,
please
my.
U
T
T
V
Morning,
madam
chair
members,
the
board,
my
name
is
David
cotta
Flynn
mayor's
office
in
neighborhood
services
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
I
held
an
on-site
abutters
mean
for
this
property,
all
of
the
abutters
and
attendants
express
their
full
support
with
plants.
Support
know
of
also
met
with
the
Cedar
Grove
Civic
Association,
who
likewise
expressed
their
support
for
the
project
as
well.
Thank.
C
B
B
A
X
X
A
C
Toa
726
151
148,
hillside
Street.
This
is
the
change
of
our
kids
from
a
three
family
dwelling
to
a
full
family
dwelling
and
renovate
the
existing
Godding
level.
The
violations
article
59
section
37
aa
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Radical
59,
section
7
a
multi-family
is
forbidden
use
in
a
3f
2000
district
article
59
section
8,
the
ploidy.
A
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
59,
section
8
to
usable,
open
space
is
insufficient
in
article
59
section
8
additional
law
area
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
morning.
Y
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
matthew:
eckle
I'm,
an
attorney
with
traigo
in
Toscano,
with
the
business
address
of
15
Broad
Street
here
in
Boston
with
me,
is
Mark
Thayer
he's
the
owner
of
the
property
at
148,
hillside
Street.
As
mentioned
we're
here
before
before
you
today,
seeking
to
change
the
occupancy
from
a
three
family
to
a
four
family
dwelling
and
renovate
the
garden
level.
The
project
will
also
include
the
installation
of
a
full
sprinkler
system.
The
zoning
sub-districts,
a
3
F
2000
watt
area
is
2025
square
feet.
A
Y
1230
the
unit
will
be
over
sixty
percent
above
grade
with
the
ceiling
height
of
76
in
terms
of
the
violations,
the
use
it's
a
free,
F,
sub
district
and
we're
proposing
a
four
family
parking.
One
additional
parking
spot
is
needed
for
the
extra
unit
which
we
do
not
have
that
they
are
allowed,
is
1.0
and
we're
at
2.7
to
minimum
watt
area
for
dwelling
unit.
We
need
a
thousand
square
feet
and
we
have
25
square
feet
and
open
space.
Y
Four
hundred
square
feet
is
required
per
dwelling
unit
and
we're
at
150
square
feet
in
terms
of
the
community
process.
We
had
a
very
productive
abutters
meeting.
We
also
appeared
before
the
community
alliance
of
Mission
Hill,
who
voted
to
approve
the
project
I've
submitted
to
the
board
that
letter,
as
well
as
21
letters
from
a
butters
supporting
the
project.
With
that
all
pause
and
take
any
questions
to
board
my
house.
Y
X
X
Y
A
A
A
A
C
T
C
I
get
a
quick
crushed.
It's
just
how
it's
gonna
look.
Is
this
how
it
looks
right
now?
That's
how
it
looks
right
now.
That's
gonna,
that
front
is
gonna,
be
all
renovated.
Okay,
so
it
does
have
an
existing
sprinkler
system.
You
just
said
was
gonna,
be
what
it
is.
This
already
done,
just
work
already
done.
No,
no.
X
E
Y
X
X
X
Y
X
T
AA
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
saw
her
at
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
at
this
time
and
that
they
met
with
the
abutters
in
which
only
one
person
showed
up,
and
there
was
no
opposition.
They've
only
they've
also
met
with
the
curry
Alliance
of
Mission
Hill
and
they
voted
in
support.
So
we
would
like
to
go
on
record.
X
A
You
it's
anybody
yet
to
speak
in
opposition
okay,
so,
given
the
I
have
just
one
additional
question
as
I'm
looking
at
the
plans,
it
looks
like
the
proposed
kitchen
is
right
beneath
it's
right.
It's
right
currently,
where
this
door
is,
which
should
there
be
a
kitchen
fire
or
something
would
eliminate
that
main,
that
main
entrance
to
the
building.
A
C
A
seven
four
five,
seven
eight
zero
one
Cedar
Street.
This
is
erect
a
one-family
dwelling
on
a
vacant
lot
violations
article,
fifty
section,
44
point
to
the
front
yard.
Existing
building
alignment
on
the
block
is
not
met.
An
article
50
section
29
decide
yet
setback.
We
claim
it
as
insufficient.
Article
50
section
29,
the
Raigad
setback
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
50
section
29,
the
lot
size
directed
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient.
Article
50
section
29
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
50,
section
20
and
a
lot
of
frontage
is
insufficient.
C
Article
50
section
29,
the
fluid
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
50,
section
29,
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
50,
section
43
la
street
parking
requirement
is
insufficient,
an
article
a
de
section.
This
is
applicability
of
Boulevard
planning,
neighborhood
Design,
Review
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
morning.
F
F
Today,
we're
seeking
relief
to
erect
a
one-family
dwelling
on
a
vacant
lot.
The
size
of
the
one-family
dwelling
is
approximately
2200
square
feet.
The
zoning
sub
district
is
a
3f
4000
and
I
will
go
to
violations
the
existing
building
alignment
and
building
up
to
the
lot
line
in
the
front.
It's
a
corner
lot
by
the
Rizal
building
up
to
the
lifeline.
Beside
your
requirement
is
10
feet.
We're
proposing
three
really
odd
setback.
Its
third.
F
F
There
is
a
requirement
of
one
parking
space,
but
we
do
not
have
that
bond
us.
With
regard
to
community
process.
Madam
chair,
we
had
a
novartis
meeting
on
July
20th,
sponsored
by
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
Joshua
McFadden,
and
we
had
a
second
about
its
meeting
on
September
13.
We
have
the
support
of
all
of
the
director
butters
with
regard
to
this
project
and
we
think
it's
a
reasonable
request.
We'll
stop
there
and
ask,
though.
A
AB
Good
morning,
Madame
chair
Bieber
to
the
boy
josh'll,
the
Fed
mayor's
office,
never
services
vital
record
in
support,
as
the
applicant
had
mentioned.
We
held
to
about
his
meetings
in
which
all
the
butters
director
butters
excuse
me
we're
in
support,
and
since
then
we
had
one
letter
of
young
woman
who
was
not
in
support
but
as
of
now
we're
definitely.
A
AC
Given
the
number
of
zoning
violations,
we
felt
like
this
would
set
a
precedent
in
the
neighbourhood
for
such
a
small
lot
on
a
very
busy
corner
of
Washington
Street
with
no
parking.
It
is
an
excessive
amount
of
violations
that
we
felt
was
would
set
a
precedent
in
the
neighborhood
for
small
Lots,
given
what
is
going
on
in
the
neighbourhood
at
this
moment
with
development,
and
so
we
would
request
that
this
postponed,
so
that
the
neighbourhood
could
fully
discuss
the
project
with
the
developer.
Thank.
F
That
this
this
lot
is
the
result
of
a
form
of
Victorian
duplex.
The
left
side
which
we
are
building
on
was
caught
on
fire.
What's
the
set
of
fire
years
ago
in
third
down
the
side,
that's
the
lot.
Next
to
it
is
owned
by
Miss,
Mary,
Ann,
Bailey
and
mr.
Frank
Williams,
and
who
are
the
support
of
the
project
we
met
with
them
continuously
with
regard
to
expire,
and
there
are
other
one.
F
A
F
And
I'm
glad
this
came
up
because
it
definitely
needs
to
be
responded
to
we
reached
out
to
HP
NC
in
May
we're
not
able
to
get
on
the
agenda
reached
out
again
in
June.
As
she
said,
agendas
are
full
people
don't
meet
during
summer
months,
so
we
went
from
May
so
now
and
we
still
haven't
gotten
on
the
agenda
because
it's
been
full
and
I
understand
that
there's
a
lot
going
on,
but
we
think
this
is
a
very
modest
and
reasonable
project.
C
AD
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Nix
Azula,
McDermott
quilty
and
Miller
28
State
Street,
Street
8:02,
here
in
Boston
with
me
to
my
left,
is
Eden
Rd
from
Crescent
Realty.
He
is
the
property
owner
and
developer,
and
the
proposal
before
you
this
morning
is
to
relocate
a
roof
deck
on
this
fully
approved
article
80
large
project
review
project
on
the
corner
of
Wareham
and
Albany
Street
in
the
south
end.
This
is
to
provide
improved
elevator
and
stair
access
via
to
stairwells.
AD
So
since,
since
the
boat,
this
product
was
in
front
of
the
board
in
2014,
the
project
was
redesigned
to
accommodate
a
new
building
that
is
being
constructed
next
door,
54
Wareham
street
46
Wareham
street,
that
building
and
the
crested
realty
building
share
a
party
wall.
So
in
order
to
accommodate
that
building
the
roof
deck
and
the
access
was
redesigned
in
order
to
provide
more
appropriate
access,
but
also
to
move
the
roof
deck
away
from
that
new
building
to
make
sure
that
they
were
on
top
of
each
other.
T
AD
AD
T
AF
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
face.
Sharif,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
held
Anna
butters
meeting
regarding
the
applicants
proposal.
Several
director
butters
were
in
attendance
and
they
were
in
full
support
of
the
project.
So
we
would
also
like
to
support
that
position.
C
Going
back
to
the
first
case,
you
called
today
calling
VOA
seven
three
three
three,
seventy-five
seventy-five
Truman
Parkway.
This
is
a
change
from
a
nursing
home
to
a
multi-family
residential
building
of
46
units
violation,
article
29,
section
4,
the
Greenbelt
protection
overlay
district,
equal
sixty,
nine
section;
nine,
the
flirty
a
ratio
is
excessive:
article
69,
section,
I,
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
69,
section
29
on
street
parking
requirements.
Is
it
sufficient
in
article
69,
section
8,
a
multi-family
dwelling
units
of
the
venues
name,
an
address
for
the
record.
Q
AG
Name
is
Todd
Norville
I'm
with
norblom
company
the
developer
at
71
third
Avenue
in
Burlington,
so.
A
Q
Is
a
former
nursing
home
that
was
allowed
to
be
built
by
the
Board
of
Appeals
in
1966,
and
additional
relief
was
granted
in
1978
the
nursing
home
went
out
of
business.
My
client
purchased
it
and
is
seeking
to
reuse
the
existing
building
with
no
additions
or
extensions
for
multifamily
use,
which
is
a
use
that
is
in
violation
of
the
use
in
this
district
multi-family
use,
is
not
allowed
the
there.
A
Q
As
the
chairperson
noted,
this
did
go
through
the
article
80
small
project
review
process
with
BPD
a
and
was
approved
by
the
VP
da
for
that
on
the
violations
there
is
a
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive,
0.5
is
required
and
we're
at
0.9
off
street
parking
is
insufficient
in
this
district.
It
requires
two
spaces
per
dwelling
unit,
we're
providing
which
would
require
ninety
two
we're
providing
sixty
two
spaces.
This
is
actually
a
compromise
with
both
the
neighborhood
and
with
the
BPD.
A
the
BB
GA
initially
wanted
less
parking.
Q
AH
A
AG
X
X
AI
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Brian
Flynn
with
the
mayor's
office
at
Neighborhood,
Services
I,
just
go,
want
to
go
on
the
record
and
support
with
this
proposal
and
abutters
mean
was
held
which
garnered
up
favorable
results
from
the
community
and
I
so
want
to
say.
Congratulations
to
mr.
Jim
and
thank
you
fee
as
a
service.
AJ
A
L
Hi,
my
name
is
Bruce
Kraske
7:38
to
embark
way.
I
live
directly
across
the
street
from
nursing
home
phone,
the
property
for
30
years
and
I'm
opposed
to
everything
that
they're
doing
I
think
there's
enough
parking.
It
was
a
nice
quiet
neighborhood
with
the
nursing
home
there.
I.
Don't
think
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
AK
AL
A
A
E
AC
AC
Please,
until
the
developer
meets
with
the
neighborhood
assess.
C
Do
you
just
walk
out
340
K
Street?
This
is
renovating
a
three-story
plus
basement
wood
frame
billing
as
a
two-family
home,
approximates
three
thousand
eight
hundred
and
sixty
square
feet
about
four
levels
with
the
new
dormer
deck
new
rare
addition:
an
open
basement
violations,
article
27
s,
section
5.
This
is
the
ipod
applicability
in
article
68,
section
29,
dr.
restricted
district
name,
an
address
for
the
record
place,
Patrick.
AL
It's
also
a
bi-level
unit
as
it
was
before,
and
that
units
1998
square
feet
into
the
restricted
roof
structure
violation.
It's
a
the
Roofus
steps,
so
the
highest
roof
is
on
the
main
part
of
the
house
and
then
the
rear
of
the
house.
There's
a
2-story
roof
and
a
part
of
the
addition
to
the
by
level
unit
in
unit
2
is
to
expand
that
the
third
level
over
the
existing
second
level
roof
so
any
alteration
to
an
existing
building.
AL
A
A
A
The
South
Boston
iPod
requires
that,
should
the
void
have
not
agree
with
the
VRA
recommendation
that
we
should
basically
put
a
reasoning
on
the
record,
so
I
just
would,
in
the
meantime,
like
to
draw
the
board's
attention
to
the
VRA
recommendation
of
this
project.
Are
there
any
questions
from
the
board?
Is.
AM
R
Chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
looked
at
one
record
in
support.
We
did
hold
Anna
butters
meeting
on
this
project.
There
were
no
issues
raised.
This
would
be
consistent
with
the
surrounding
area
and
I.
Think
from
a
planning
perspective
as
well
would
make
sense.
Thank
you.
AN
X
X
A
C
Vo
a7
3
0
4
5
3,
46,
Wood,
Wood
Street.
This
is
adding
a
spiral
staircase
to
act
as
a
second
means
of
egress
for
unit
1,
&
2,
and
also
allow
unit
2
access
to
the
roof.
The
violation
is
article
68,
section
8.
The
side
yard
requirement
is
insufficient
in
article
68,
section
29,
the
roof
structure,
restricted
district
name.
A
AO
We
have
plans
to
do
we
are
you
have
approval
to
do
an
addition
on
top
of
the
existing
floor
plan?
Just
on
the
third
floor
and
on
the
right
side
we
have
the
approval
to
build
in
five
inches
and
build
up.
I
was
hoping
to
get
a
various
just
to
build
up
flush,
it's
about
a
10
by
8
addition,
and
then
we
have
approval
for
the
roof
deck.
I
just
wanted
to
use
a
spiral
staircase
for
access,
rather
than
a
hatch
from
the
inside.
T
T
AO
T
T
A
R
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
simply
because
this
is
within
the
article
68
zoning
district.
We
cannot
fully
go
on
record
and
support.
However,
we
did
hold
in
the
butters
meeting.
There
were
no
issues,
I
believe
the
applicant
has
cited
for
side
yard
setback
and
on
the
existing
building.
The
side
yard
actually
narrows,
as
as
you
go
towards
the
back
yard,
so
that
I
think
that's
the
reason
it's
not
in
compliance.
Thank
you.
AN
A
C
Poa:
seven:
three
zero
three:
four:
three
105
West
first
Street:
this
is
demolition
of
an
existing
warehouse
building
to
offer
new
construction
of
a
ground-up
seven
story
office
building
with
one
level
of
parking
in
basement
space
retail
space
on
the
first
law
violations,
article
6,
section,
3a,
additional
conditions
to
be
restricted
parking
district
article
15,
section
1,
the
Florida
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
25,
section
5,
the
flood
hazard
districts,
article
16
section
1,
building
height,
is
excessive
article
16,
section
1,
the
building
height
is
success
up
the
number
of
storeys
is
excessive.
C
AQ
Name
is
Rebecca
I'm,
an
attorney
with
mints
Leben.
We
represent
the
applicant
here,
105
west
street,
owner
LLC.
It
is
a
party
that
has
this
particular
property
under
purchase
and
sale
agreement,
and
we
are
making
this
application
with
the
consent
of
the
owner
of
the
property
to
my
right
is
Richard
Galvin
who's,
a
principal
with
the
owner.
This
proposal
is
for
the
demolition
of
an
existing
RCN
vehicle
dispatching
facility
and
the
construction
of
a
new
seventh
storey
office,
building
with
ground
tore,
ground-floor
retail
and
into
a
restaurant
and
convener
and
innovation
space.
AQ
The
project
has
received
article
80
approval
from
the
VRA
and
boston
Civic
design,
Commission
approval
subsequent
to
to
our
application
to
the
board.
The
proponent
has
reached
an
agreement
in
principle
with
Massachusetts
Department
of
Transportation,
that
it
will
would
allow
certain
ground-floor
changes,
and
so
we
have
submitted
a
memorandum
of
support
for
all
of
the
reasons
stated
on
the
various
zoning
violations
cited,
some
of
which
we
do
not
actually
think
are
applicable
to
the
project.
AQ
But
if,
in
to
the
extent,
we
need
that
zoning
relief
we're
asking
for
it,
and
so
we
have
submitted
the
alternative
design
which
would
allow
certain
ground-floor
active
spaces
to
be
placed
closer
on
first
Street.
This
is
completing
a
suite
of
buildings
around
West
a
street
park
in
South
Boston.
The
park
has
the
State
Street
building
on
the
left.
A
public
garage
on
the
east
side
to
the
south
is
artist
for
humanities
and
then
will
be
this
new
building.
AQ
So
now
this
public
park,
which
this
development
team
actually
developed
for
the
city
it's
now
owned
by
the
city
but
maintained
privately,
will
complete
the
suite
of
buildings.
The
project
has
gone
through.
Numerous
public
meetings
had
the
support
of
the
IAG
and
would
go
into
construction
after
the
vacancy
of
the
building
by
the
existing
tenant.
A
A
AQ
Well,
they,
the
greater
the
building,
is
being
increased.
A
total
of
right
here
there's
a
big
great
change
from
the
back
to
the
front
of
the
building
from
West
first
Street
to
West
second
Street,
so
the
greater
the
building
is
being
changed
and
the
mechanical
equipment
is
also
being
increased.
This
is
David
Lenny
from
Stantec
architects,
who
can
speak
more
precisely
to
the
grading
of
the
site.
AH
AH
R
AN
AJ
X
AQ
Before
you
make
a
motion
manager,
man
I
just
like
to
enter
into
the
record,
we
submitted
with
a
memorandum
to
support
an
architect's
certificate
attesting
that
the
project
fully
complies
with
article
25.
We
also
have
an
engineer's
opinion
from
niche
engineering.
The
civil
engineer
so
I'd
like
to
just
enter
that
in
the
record.
If
I
may.
C
Follow
your
next
case
calling
VOA
7
8
8
0
217,
Newbury
Street.
This
is
to
change
our
view
from
retail.
It's
a
sit-down
ice-cream
shop
with
takeout
violations.
Article
8
section
7
used
to
vitam
36
a
take
up
as
conditional
article
8
section
7.
The
use
of
item
number
37
is
conditional
name
an
address
to
the
record
place
good.
AE
Morning,
madam
chair
of
the
board,
an
attorney
Jim
Heffernan
for
rich
may
to
my
right
is
my
colleague,
80
desta,
and
to
my
left
is
being
dung.
Lee
of
the
tenant
LNG
Corp,
the
requests
the
days
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
the
change
office
e
from
retail
space
to
an
ice
cream
shop
with
takeout.
To
give
you
a
background
of
mr.
Lee's
business
is
a
franchisee
of
a
company
called
IC
e
New,
York
or
NY.
It
is
a
Thai
ice
cream
franchise
started
in
Southeast,
Asia
and
2011.
AE
Its
first
shop
was
in
New
York
in
stay
NY,
and
this
will
be
the
first
shop
in
in
Boston.
It's
a
smashed
and
rolled
ice-cream,
so
it
provides
a
different
experience
for
ice
cream
lovers.
The
process
of
the
permit
this
started
in
April
through
a
neighborhood
association
meetings,
the
Back
Bay
business
associated
meetings
and
meetings
with
abutters.
AE
We've
come
to
the
point
here
today
with
support
of
both
the
Neighborhood
Association
of
Back
Bay
and
the
Back
Bay
Business.
Association
I
will
note
for
the
board
and
Neighborhood
Association
of
Back
Bay
requested
that
we
bring
forth
three
provisos
for
the
board's
consideration,
which
we
have
no
objection
to.
The
first
is
that
the
the
permit
is
limited
or
prohibits
heated
preparation
of
food,
meaning
cooking.
We
are
fine
with
this
proviso,
since
it's
an
ice-cream
shop
and
that
stems
from
their
concern
about
a
restaurant
being
open
at
this
location.
AE
The
second
was
limited
to
the
approval
to
the
tenant.
Only
since
this
is
a
conditional
use
permit,
we
have
no
objection
to
that
either
and
the
third,
to
the
extent
that
you
agree
and
the
Board
of
Health
also
agrees.
They
request
that
we
store
trash
and
compact
trash
in
the
premises.
We
also
have
no
objection
to
that.
A
A
AA
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
just
saw
her
at
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
at
this
time.
We
got
a
butters
meeting
that
was
very
favorable
and
the
clients
have
both
agreed
in
accordance
to
the
conversation
that
they've
had
with
the
Civic
Association
that
they
will
not
be
doing
any
cooking
on-site,
which
is
fitting
because
they're
an
ice-cream
shop.
So
who
would
also
like
to
help
hold
that?
And
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
support.
AR
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Eliot
laugher
from
the
Neighborhood
Association,
the
Back
Bay-
we've
worked
closely
with
the
with
the
applicant
and
are
pleased
that
we
were
able
to
come
to
an
agreement
that
allow
us
to
not
oppose
this
application.
It's
important
that
the
prevent
proviso
about
no
cooking
be
included.
Our
concern
is
simply
that
that
side
of
Newbury
Street
backs
up
to
the
residential
side
of
Commonwealth
Avenue
cooking
can
lead
to
odors
and
other
issues,
and
so
generally
we'd
prefer
to
see
cooking
on
the
other
side
of
Newbury
Street.
AR
O
Madam
chairman,
members
of
the
board,
Mike
Colby
from
the
Back
Bay
Association,
we're
here
to
speak
in
support
as
retail
continues
to
change.
We
support
looking
at
what's
happening
on
Newbury
Street,
trying
to
diversify,
what's
happening
where
you
need
to
bring
new
experiences
and
bring
out
a
tenant's
like
the
people
in
front
of
today,
so
we're
in
support.
Thank
you,
but.
AM
C
Very
much
calling
the
next
case
calling
BOA
seven
three:
seven:
five:
six:
five:
nine
eleven
to
eleven
Belmont
Street,
there's
also
building
code
for
911
VOA,
seven,
three:
seven:
five:
six:
six:
nine
to
eleven
Belmont
Street:
this
is
a
new
to
single-family
townhouse,
with
one
car
garage
on
each
town
owes
to
the
existing
vacant
lot.
The
violations,
article
62
section,
eight
additional
lot
areas:
insufficient
article
62,
section,
eight,
the
floor:
EA
ratios
excessive
article
62
section:
eight,
the
building
height
is
excessive.
The
number
of
storeys
equals
62
section.
C
Eight,
the
bill
and
height
is
excessive
and
fee.
This
is
for
the
Building
Code
section,
eight
edition
estate
780
CMR,
one
zero,
zero,
nine
point:
thirteen
point:
one
roof
access
where
a
stairway
is
provided
to
a
roof.
Access
to
the
roof
shall
be
provided
through
a
ton
towels
complying
with
this
section.
15:09
point
chill
payment
address
for
the
record.
Please
dr.
AS
Lewis
MacDonald
3a
Longwood
plays
child's
down
mass
I,
wanted
to
defer
this
had
a
community
meeting
a
couple
weeks
ago.
A
great
support.
There
was
a
couple
of
neighbors
who
weren't
able
to
make
the
meet
and
they
wanted
to
reschedule
it,
and
then
one
of
the
abutters
just
wanted
an
agreement
signed
so
I'm
just
waiting
to
to
do
that.
A
AS
C
C
Calling
the
next
case
calling
boa
seven
three:
six:
five:
zero
nine
220
Bunker
Hill
Street.
This
is
proposed.
Two-Story
addition,
an
attached
garage
violates
with
article
62
section,
25,
roof
structure,
restrictions,
article
9,
section,
91
extension,
reconstruction
of
non-conforming
use,
building
in
article
62,
section
14,
the
rail
yard
is
insufficient.
They
even
addressed
for
the
record.
Please.
Z
W
Z
Because
of
the
increased
capacity,
they
have
a
problem
with
the
size
of
the
embalming
room
and
they
need
a
garage
so
that
they
don't
have
to
transport
the
bodies
through
the
parking
lot.
Do
that
so
they'd
like
to
had
a
garage
with
enlarged
embalming,
room
and
reconfigure
the
sitting
room
to
make
that
larger.
With
that
they
produce
a
meeting
room
and
office
upstairs.
That
would
also
like
to
increase
the
size
going
into
the
back.
It's
on
the
back
of
the
building
and
because
of
a
lot
configuration
it
does
a
rear
yard
setback
problem
and.
Z
A
AS
E
AT
AJ
A
C
The
next
two
cases
calling
POA
six
six
eight
zero,
two
one
eleven
short
Street
companion
case,
boa
six,
six,
eight
zero,
two
three
fifteen
to
seventeen
short
Street.
This
is
411
short
street.
This
confirm
our
key
and
existing
to
family
dwelling.
Subdividing,
seven
thousand
five
hundred
forty
four
squeak
square
feet
of
line
eleven
to
thirteen
shastri
tuna
Lots
lot,
one
to
be
known
as
eleven
thirteen.
It
contained
four
thousand
seventy
five
square
feet
and
law
to
be
known
at
fifteen
to
seventeen
short
street
that
contained
three
thousand
four
hundred
sixty
nine
square
feet.
R
A
AV
A
AV
We
got
one
more
review.
We
have
one
more
violation:
it's
two
houses
on
it.
It's
it's
two
structures
on
the
same
lot;
otherwise
they
architecture.
The
project
itself
is
the
same.
But
when
we're
here
in
July
the
board
didn't
like
the
shape
of
the
site,
they
basically
want
the
site
subdivided,
so
we
were
told
to
come
back
and
just
submit
with
all
the
structures
on
the
same
parcel.
If.
C
I'm
an
interrupt
a.
Let
me
just
read
this
into
the
record,
because
the
page
was
not
there
now
I
just
found
it.
This
is
for
15
to
17
short
street
violations.
Article
62,
section
8,
lock
frontsies,
is
insufficient
article
62
section
8,
the
Reyat
is
insufficient.
Article
62,
section
8
usable
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
62,
section
8,
the
flutie.
A
ratio
is
excessive,
equals
62,
section
29.
A
street
parking
is
insufficient
in
article
62,
section
34
for
new
and
existing
building
alignment.
AV
AV
AW
AV
New
house
I
can
speak
to
the
new
one.
One
of
the
20
foot
wide
house
will
have
three
via
three
plus
B
three
bedrooms
and
a
den
be
about
eighteen.
Fifty
square
feet
finished.
The
smaller
17-foot
townhouses
will
will
be
three
bedrooms
about
1,700
square
feet.
Each
will
have
a
roof
deck
and
each
will
have
a
basement
with
a
half
the
basement.
We
finished.
AV
T
T
AT
Madam
chairman
I
was
the
boy
Christopher
Breen
from
the
mayor's
office
and
neighborhood
services.
Speaking
in
support
of
this
proposal,
the
applicant
has
completed
their
community
process.
Members
of
the
community
have
indicated
support
for
the
family,
continuing
to
grow
and
stay
in
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
AX
Morning,
Madame
chair
members
of
the
board.
My
name
is
Damon
SELEX
and
I'm.
An
attorney
with
an
office
here
in
Boston
I
represent
various
residents
that
about
this
proposed
parcel.
Probably
the
project
at
this
proposed
parcel,
including
Christian
and
Christian
Kiley
at
one
hundred
Baldwin
Chris
and
Sarah
piaseki
at
a
hundred
Baldwin
unit,
one
Jeff
and
Jenny
Erin
at
ninety
eight
Baldwin
Mary
goin
at
ninety
eight
Baldwin
Mary
McGuire
at
a
hundred
and
two
Baldwin
Audrey
and
Greg
Burgi
at
a
hundred
and
two
Baldwin.
The
all
of
these
people
are
direct
about
us.
AX
They're
all
opposed
the
project,
as
proposed
before
when
it
came
before
the
board
in
July,
is
substantially
similar
in
terms
of
its
violations.
Nothing
has
been
corrected.
The
in
fact
is
DS
zoning
refusal
later
as
an
additional
violation.
Now,
so
not
only
does
the
existing
proposal
that
the
board
had
concerns
with
has
not
been
addressed,
but
now
there's
an
additional
violation.
A
AX
AX
The
the
proposed
building
is
going
to
be
right
up
against
my
clients
at
Baldwin
it
is
there
is.
It
is
a
substantial
violation
of
frontage,
substantial
violation
of
the
setbacks.
It's
going
to
cut
off
it's
going
to
max
out
the
lock
there's
going
to
be
density
issues
all
of
the
things
that
the
zoning
scheme,
yet
in
that
area
wasn't
intended
to
protect.
AV
He's
talked
about
number
17,
the
proposed
a
smaller
townhouse
102,
Baldwin
Street,
the
main
four-story
portion
of
the
building
will
be
30
feet
back.
The
building's
will
be
30
feet
apart,
but
102
Baldus
tree
also
has
a
one-story
addition,
which
will
be
about
17
feet
back
from
it,
because
there's
the
10
feet
yard
and
we're
setback
for
so.
But
you
won't
see
it
because
there's
a
fence
there,
but
the
buildings
are
about
30
feet
apart,
which.
T
X
AV
A
T
X
AP
G
T
AX
AH
AV
A
C
A
C
This
is
to
build
a
new
three-story.
Three
family
dwelling
on
lot,
101
a
Morris
tree,
the
violations,
article
53,
section;
nine
insufficient
lot
size;
article
53,
section,
I,
insufficient,
additional
lot
area
unit;
article
53,
section,
I,
insufficient,
open
space;
article
53,
section
I
on
excessive
fa;
our
article
53
section
9,
insufficient
side,
yard
setback,
article
53,
section
9,
insufficient,
Raigad
setback,
article
53,
section
56,
insufficient
parking
in
article
53,
section
57
point
to
roofing
upper
storeys
projection
over
the
city.
Sidewalk
is
two
feet:
name
an
address
for
the
racket
place.
AU
AU
AU
AU
X
E
AY
Monument
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
mrs.
Garcia
from
the
neighbor
of
his
Neighborhood
Services,
the
first
of
all
in
meetings
concerns
about
the
parking
were
presented
in
Florida
next
door
about
her
who
actually
has
a
driveway.
Since
that
boring
meetings,
we
have
received
letters
and
Senators
in
support
and
an
addition.
The
local
civic
association
bar
is
in
favor.
T
AU
T
AR
A
AZ
A
A
G
AZ
Schettino
from
Richard
Linda's
office,
1216,
Bennington
Street,
we're
asking
for
another
deferral
today,
madam
chair,
because
the
Neighborhood
Services
has
asked
us
to
try
to
meet
with
the
ax
butter
is
one
more
time
to
see
if
we
can
meet
some
of
the
concerns.
So
we're
asking
for
a
shot
deferral
too.
Just
to
try
to
do
that
again.
AZ
A
T
AZ
G
A
AZ
C
AL
Mahoney
of
Adam's
Amaranthe,
with
the
business
address
at
350,
West
Broadway,
be
we
mem
chair,
and
then
that
was
the
board.
We
came
in
today
with
a
revised
set
of
plans
with
the
three
storeys
above
grade,
which
is
what
he
was
in
contention
up
until
this
point,
and
we
have
been
asked
by
the
mayor's
office
to
request
a
deferral
that
the
plans
have
just
been
produced
yesterday.
AL
A
A
A
C
Have
the
date
of
November
28th?
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
deferrals
or
with
Charles
hearing
none
we'll
call
the
first
case
the
1130
discussion
re
discussions.
Boa
six
is
0-3
585
168,
Bigelow
Street
this.
This
was
a
proposed
to
erect
a
true
family
on
a
vacant
lot.
The
violations,
article
10
section,
1
limitation
of
area
of
accessory,
uses
article
51
section,
a
the
to
family
dwelling
is
forbidden
by
devil,
51,
section
9,
the
water
is
insufficient
route,
51
section
9,
the
Colonia
ratio
is
excessive,
51
section
9,
the
height
is
excessive.
C
AU
AW
Ma'am,
this
is
a
proposed
two
unit
condominium
on
our
currently
on
a
vacant
lot
on
the
street.
That's
primarily
two
families
in
Brighton.
The
relief
is
needed
primarily
do
the
topography.
It
sits
up
on
Bigelow
Hill,
so
the
back
is
a
pretty
steep
hill
in
the
back
two
units
three-bedroom
for
one
with
two
and
a
half
baths.
Yeah,
there's
three
bedroom
with
two
baths:
they're,
both
between
1500
and
1600
square
feet.
There'll
be
two
parking
spaces
per
unit
for
this
lot.
AW
A
AW
I
think,
with
respect
to
the
location
currently
because
it's
a
vacant
lot,
there's
a
single
curb
cut.
This
would
be
two
curb
cuts,
because
the
parking
would
be
on
each
side
of
the
two
family
and
be
tandem
parking,
two
parking
spaces
on
each
side,
so
each
unit
would
have
two
off
street
parking
spaces.
A
AW
AW
Were
working
with
the
City
Council's
office,
they
asked
us
to
hold
another
abutters
meeting,
which
we
did
last
week
and
city
councilor
co-moh,
attended
himself
I,
say
the
representative
officer
of
Neighborhood
Services
real
to
meet
with
a
number
of
neighbors
who
came
out
that
night
and
then
asked
questions
particularly
around
parking
consciously
almost
subsequently
met
with
them
as
well
as
I
understand
it.
So
it's
really
at
the
request
of
the
councilor
to
go
back
and
talk
to
the
neighborhood
again.
AW
E
T
Is
that
correct?
Yes,.
T
AW
BB
BC
AJ
A
C
A
BA
BA
V
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members,
the
board,
my
name,
is
Dave
Carter
from
the
mayor's
office.
Neighborhood
services
would
like
to
on
record
in
support.
We've
held
an
on-site
abutters,
meaning
for
this
project.
Everyone
who
attended
the
meeting
expressed
their
support.
This
location
falls
under
the
jurisdiction
of
two
different
civic
associations.
He
did
meet
with
st.
Mark's.
He
has
not
yet
met
with
Melville
Park.
That
was
the
reason
that
we
deferred
previously
Melville
Park
couldn't
accommodate
him.
Before
this
hearing,
we
asked
them
to
schedule
a
moving
over
the
summer
where
they
traditionally
don't
meet.
V
T
E
C
Do
a
5
to
6
6:03
33
to
39
Ward
Street.
This
is
erect
a
new
five-story
residential
condominium
on
24th,
walk
of
22:24
dwelling
units
of
great
parking
garage
accommodating
19
car
19
vehicles.
New
buildings
were
currently
wood
frame.
Construction
except
her
eyes
to
be
to
our
rated
violations.
Article
14
section
14
to
a
lotta
area
for
the
additional
units
is
insufficient.
In
article
15
section
1
the
floor,
the
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
17,
section
1,
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
18
section
1,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
C
Article
19,
the
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
20
section
1,
the
rail
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
23
section
1.
Our
street
parking
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
23
section
9,
the
Osprey
parking
design,
the
access
drive
and
maneuverability
the
nautical
80
80
II.
It's
in
the
small
project
reveal
applicability.
They
even
address
for
the
record.
Please
attorney.
BD
BD
After
many
and
numerous
neighborhood
and
Civic
Association
meetings,
this
project
has
now
been
reduced
to
a
four-story
building,
14
dwelling
units
and
15
parking
spaces,
the
drawings
that
you're
currently
looking
at
and
have
before.
You
are
dated
the
15th
through
September
2017
and
should
serve
as
the
record
drawings
for
this
project.
At
this
time,
I
would
also,
in
conclusion,
like
to
thank
the
members
of
the
for
your
indulgence
and
granting
as
the
many
deferrals
over
the
past
two
years.
BD
A
BD
BD
BD
X
R
AN
A
C
Calling
boa
seven
two,
two
five:
nine
two:
five:
oh
two
East
Third
Street.
This
is
erect
a
new
two
family
building
with
four
parking
spaces.
The
violations,
article
68,
section,
8,
the
quiet,
rail
yard
setback.
Is
it
sufficient
an
article
68
section
8
in
the
zoning
residential
sub
district?
The
main
entrance
of
the
dwelling
shall
face
the
front
rot
line
and
article
68,
section,
33
off
street
parking,
design,
access,
drive
and
maneuverability
name.
An
address,
fuller
I
could
clean
Patrick.
AL
Mahoney
of
Adams
and
Moran
C,
with
a
business
address
of
350
West
Broadway
now
I'm
cherry
I
just
submitted
a
new
set
of
plans
to
the
board.
This
was
the
initial
set
that
was
was
filed
and
then
another
set
was
amended.
So
all
the
already
recommendations
were
based
on
the
previous
set.
What
you
have
before
you
is
two
townhouses
same
as
before.
The
difference
from
this
set
that
triggered
the
refusal
letter
was
the
rear
yard
violation.
AL
AL
Project,
it
is
a
two
townhouses
over
four
storeys.
The
first
floor
will
be
for
parking
three
parking
spaces,
two
of
which
are
eight
and
a
half
feet
by
twenty,
as
required
in
one
compact
space
per
article
68,
the
unit
size
is
a
unit.
One
is
nineteen
hundred
and
twenty
square
feet
with
a
again
a
three
bed
three
bath
in
Unit,
two
is
eighteen
hundred
and
eighty
square
feet
is:
it
is
dimensionally
compliances
within
an
FA
are
of
two
below
a
height
of
forty,
including
a
small
roof.
AL
Deck
access
by
catch,
the
rear
yard
is
fifteen
feet.
The
side
yard
is
three
feet.
It's
a
corner
lot
in
a
modal
alignment
or
existing
building
alignment
on
each
block
is
the
front
yard
is,
as
shown
the
these
plans
have
to
were
just
completed
yesterday,
because
we
were
trying
to
proceed
with
the
seeking
rear
yard
relief
because
of
a
zoning
change
in
this
area.
What
we
do
have
to
present
these
plans
to
the
board,
although
they
are
dimensionally
and
zoning
compliant.
A
AL
R
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
cannot
support
variances
to
article
68.
For
that
reason,
we
cannot
support
the
project
as
it's
on
the
agenda.
However,
we
do
understand
that
there
may
be
new
plans
being
presented
to
the
board
as
well.
Thank
you.
AN
BE
A
AM
She
told
me
to
to
Debra:
wait
we
own
504
Easter
Street,
that
directly
abuts
502
East
Third
Street
and
we're.
Firstly,
we
just
learned
of
the
changes
to
these
to
these
plans,
not
more
than
five
minutes
ago.
We
weren't
aware
of
these
changes,
so
we
would
ask
that
you
do
not
support
this
at
this
time.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
AL
They
were
yes,
they
were
madam
chair
in
the
specifically
the
change
to
eliminate
the
rear
yard
violation
was
to
date
butter
to
the
right,
and
there
was
a
break
in
communication
for
a
period
of
weeks
and
I
recommended
going
before
with
the
zoning
compliant
plan.
The
architect,
under
short
notice,
would
be
able
to
produce
this.
What
you
have
in
front
of
you
again,
there's
only
decision.
We'll
just
say
the
plans
were
submitted
to
the
board
and
with
the
proviso
that
no
zoning
relief
is
granted
and
also
an
addition.
X
AL
X
AL
AL
A
A
AL
A
AL
M
AL
AR
A
AR
H
AL
C
Boa
697
zero,
seven,
eight
eleven
Fayette
Street
this.
This
is
a
new
rear
portico,
which
has
been
built
to
the
rear
entrance
in
the
eggs
on
the
first
floor
level,
without
a
permit
or
inspection,
along
with
the
installation
of
array
out
over
sick
over
a
yard
over
six
feet,
tall
offense,
six
feet
tall.
This
is
also
the
change
artisan
from
a
single-family
to
a
two
family.
The
violations,
article
32
section,
nine,
the
G
cod
enforcement
article,
63
section,
eight
Reyat,
isn't
sufficient
article
63
section.
Eight
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
AD
A
AD
Madam
chair
first
off
I
believe
there
is
a
G
Cod
violation.
I
know
that
okay
I
wanted
to
just
make
sure
that
mr.
Simonelli
had
had
previously
given
a
letter
so
that
nothing
has
changed
since
our
last
hearing
date.
The
reason
why
we
had
the
deferral
was
strictly
because
of
the
G
Cod
relief.
We
did
not
have
that
letter
from
boss
and
water
and
soar.
We
now
have
it.
We've
provided
plans
and
it
has
been
approved
by
by
the
soar
Commission.
AD
Ma'am,
so
we're
actually
here
before
the
board
for
two
issues:
one
is
the
conversion
of
this
single
family
in
existing
building
from
a
single
family
to
a
two
family.
This
is
a
long-standing
actual
occupancy
of
the
building.
Today
is
Gustavo
and
Francoeur
the
property
owners.
They
have
owned
the
property
for
about
20
years.
It
has
been
habitat
inhabited
as
a
two-family
for
20
years.
A
AD
Has
been
taxed
as
a
two-family
since
2005
I
have
the
assessing
records
here,
so
it's
been
over
a
decade.
So
what
we're
trying
to
what
you
know?
What
we're
attempting
to
do
is
to
just
allow
that
occupancy,
and
the
second
reason
why
we
before
the
board
today
is
to
permit
properly
a
rear
portico,
which
was
mistakenly
built
at
the
rear
of
the
building
on
the
first
floor
level.
Without
a
permit,
it's
no
new,
no
new
floor
area.
AD
The
other
two
violations
in
front
of
the
board
today
are
for
usable,
open
space
and
sufficient
going
from
a
single
family
to
a
two
family
requires
300
total
square
feet
of
open
space,
the
lots
of
thousand
square
feet.
It's
16
feet
wide.
It's
a
small,
typical
South
End
lot
there.
It's
it's
almost
built
lot,
lined
a
lot
of
line.
Besides
the
rear,
they
have
open
space.
AD
They
just
do
not
have
300
square
feet
of
open
space
and
finally,
there
is
a
conditional
use
permit
due
to
the
density
limitation
regulations
again
because
of
the
move
from
the
single-family
to
the
two
family.
There
is
no
change
at
all
in
the
way
the
building's
laid
out
or
any
addition
of
floor
space
whatsoever.
T
AW
X
AD
K
AD
It's
a
it's
eight
feet.
It's
a
few
feet
over
what
it's
allowed
again
the
issue
here
is
they
built
the
fence
and
thought
that
it
was
compliance.
The
plan,
as
communicated
with
the
neighborhood,
is
to
drop
it
to
the
allowed
height.
The
issue
is
when
they
would
to
get
a
permit
from
ISD
from
plan
examiner
Santana.
AD
They
were
not
allowed
to
do
so
pending
the
conclusion
of
this
matter,
so
the
plan
that's
been
communicated
with
the
neighborhood
and
the
abutters
is
that
we
will
hopefully
gain
approval
of
the
board
today,
go
through
the
process
and
then
close
out.
This
permit
deal
with
the
fence
as
soon
as
possible.
After
that,
from.
C
AD
AD
AD
BF
A
P
Madam
chairman
and
commissioners,
my
name
is
Bill
Nighy
green
I
live
it
for
23
years
at
number,
7
Fayette,
two
doors
down
and
have
been
through
this
whole
process
from
a
15-foot,
brick
fence
in
the
back
yard,
to
the
quartic
o
to
the
offense,
which
I
thought
I
heard
eight
feet.
I
have
a
picture
of
it
here.
P
R
AG
G
C
A
C
Has
created
a
new
lot
to
be
known
as
38
P
646
6412
square
feet,
erecting
new
8
unit
building
for
two
bedrooms
for
one-bedroom
apartments,
with
parking
I
combined,
two
Lots
6412
12
square
feet
raised
the
existing
one
family
dwelling
and
combined
laws.
The
existing
structure
that
we
raised
on
a
separate
permit.
The
violations,
article
68
section
33
off
street
parking
requirements,
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
Nicolas.
A
BH
A
He's
gone
the
record
and
tell
us
what
why
why
you
think
I
asked
the
Denisha
in
this
moment.
Yes,.
BG
That
sign
the
petition
today,
based
on
knowledge
and
review
of
project
plans
and
public
records
made
available
by
inspectional
Services
Department.
The
program
has
they
have
issued
improperly
in
violation
of
Sony
calls
off
street
parking
requirements,
demolition,
delay
and
violation
of
State
Building
Codes
egress,
and
when
I've
discovered
that
there
was
a
permit
issued,
I
saw
the
developer
at
another
meeting.
37
Farragut,
Road
and
I
asked
him
to
discuss
what
he
was
building,
but
I
did
not
get
a
call
back.
BG
A
BG
Yes
and
I
asked
them
to
interpret
the
animal
68
he's
at
a
series
of
meetings,
there's
some
stuff
to
me
that
was
unsure
and
the
permit
was
issued
based
on
my
public
review
of
the
records
for
for
two
bedroom
units
for
one-bedroom
units
intent
off
street
parking,
which
under
Article
68,
is
sufficient.
But
in
review
of
the
plans
when
I
sat
down
with
ma,
canonical
and
others,
the
plans
that
were
approved
actually
have
five
two
bedrooms
and
three
one
bedrooms
and
then
I
discovered.
BG
That's
right:
okay,
the
error
that
I
found
the
main
error
and
foremost
era,
where
there
were
five
two
bedrooms
instead
of
four
and
three
one
mess
so
under
Article
68,
which
was
explained
to
me.
That
creates
another
parking
spot.
Okay,
so
I
dumped
further
and
I
found
a
letter
of
refusal
that
was
issued
on
May
30th
to
the
developer,
telling
him
to
appeal
within
45
days
and
the
violations
were
insufficient
parking.
An
article
85
reviewed
delay.
BG
BG
In
my
appeal
already,
it
should
be
in
the
appeal.
15
days
later,
a
permit
was
issued
without
an
appeal
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
So
that's
my
main
and
foremost
reason
for
being
here
today
and
in
viewing
the
plans
I'm,
not
an
expert
architect
or
anything
else
and
I
question
the
egress.
You
know
in
the
front
steel
way,
there's
a
garage
door.
A
BH
BH
By
way
of
introduction,
it
was
the
goal
of
the
property
owner
to
develop
a
compliant
project
here,
so
cost
of
design
did
the
architecture
we
did
zoning
review
and
then
the
proponent
hired,
an
independent
code
reviewer
and
that's
Walter
Adams-
to
commend
essentially
check
the
code
issues
that
the
petitioner
has
raised
will
address
those
we
might
want
to
touch
the
zoning
topics.
First,
there
were.
There
was
a
letter
from
ISD
early
on
the
process
asking
for
additional
detail
about
the
project.
One
question
highest:
he
had
was
about
article
85
demolition,
delay,
sir.
BH
A
BH
It
looks
like
3
1
bedrooms,
and
that
is
correct.
The
plans
were
reworked
a
little
bit
as
it
went
through
the
process,
but
you're
correct.
We
can
output
with
your
final
count.
So
there's
a
requirement
under
the
revised
zoning
that
for
each
two-bedroom
apartment
there
be
1.5
parking
spaces
and
for
each
one-bedroom
apartment
there
be
a
total
of
1
parking
space,
and
so
that
comes
out
to
total
of
10.5
parking
spaces.
The
code
has
a
provision
that
governs
how
rounding
is
done
in
that
provision,
which
is
called
the
rule
for
rounding
numbers.
BH
We
have
copies
here
for
the
petitioner
and
for
the
board
explains
that
where
decimal
must
be
rounded
to
the
nearest
whole
number,
as
in
the
case
of
Austria
parking
requirements
and
when
the
only
digit
dropped
is
0.5,
and
in
this
case
we
have
10.5.
If
the
last
digit
retained
is
an
even
number,
it
should
be
left
unchanged,
so
10.5
becomes
10.
But
if
the
last
digit
retained
is
an
odd
number,
it
should
increase
the
next
higher
digit,
which
means
that
11.5
would
become
12th.
BH
A
BI
BI
Adams
I'm
an
architect
and
code
consultant
for
30
years.
I
was
retained
by
the
property
owner
to
do
a
peer
review
of
the
project.
In
anticipation
of
the
permit
review,
I
spent
a
number
of
years
as
the
chief
plant
examiner
for
the
City
of
Boston
I'm,
very
familiar
with
the
Boston
zoning
bylaw
and
the
building
code
enforcement
and
I
spent
17
years
total.
As
a
chief
building
official.
A
BI
The
appellant
raises
to
code
issues.
One
is
the
so-called
remoteness
criteria
that
establishes
under
the
code
how,
how
far
separated
the
two
exit
doors
have
to
be
from
each
other,
and
it
was
the
opponents
believe
that
they
are
too
close
together,
but
he
didn't
provide
any
specific
measurements
to
address
that
in
the
Packer
that
just
passed
out.
There's
a
diagram
at
the
back
all
the
code,
sections
that
I'm
referencing
are
also
included
in
that
package
and
if
one
looks
at
the
diagram
in
the
back,
you
will
see
that
there
is
a
thirty
nine
point.
BI
Five
foot
separation
between
the
two
egress
doors,
the
longest
diagonal
of
the
building,
which
is
the
basis
that
the
coda
step
dictates.
Is
that
the
basis
on
which
you
determine
whether
exits
are
separated
adequately
from
each
other?
The
long,
the
bigger
the
building
this
diagonal,
it's
a
way
to
identify
how
big
a
building
is
and
the
bigger
the
building,
the
farther
apart.
The
exit
doors
have
to
be.
In
this
particular
case,
the
the
largest
diagonal
of
the
building
is
a
hundred
and
3.5
feet.
Excuse
me,
one
hundred
and
thirteen
point
five
feet.
BI
Two
to
that
section
establishes
that
that
minimum
separation
of
the
two
exits
can
be
reduced
to
one
third
of
that
diagonal
distance
in
a
building
that's
equipped
throughout
with
an
NFPA
compliant
automatic
speaker
system.
This
building
does
have
an
automatic
sprinkler
system
and
such
it's
allowed
to
have
its
two
remotely
located
exits,
located
a
required
that
have
them
located
at
least
a
minimum
of
one
third
of
the
maximum
diagonal.
Well,
the
one
third
of
the
maximum
diagonal
is
37.8
four
feet.
Our
exit
doors
are
separated
centerline
to
centerline
of
the
doors.
BI
Thirty
nine
point
five
feet,
which
is
greater
than
the
third,
so
we
believe
that
the
code
we
comply
with
the
letter
of
the
code
in
that
regard.
Thank
you.
I
have
one
other
code
issue
that
was
raised,
and
that
is
the
code
issue
of
travel
distance
and
again
they
didn't
establish.
They
actually
cited
a
section
that
limits
the
ability
for
one
tenant
to
travel
through
another
and
it's
space
in
order
to
get
to
an
exit.
BI
In
fact,
every
tenant
in
this
every
occupant
of
this
building,
all
the
eight
units
have
direct
access
to
the
exit
access
corridor
that
none
of
them
have
to
go
through
a
another
tenant
space
to
get.
There
I
think
that
perhaps
the
applicant
was
thinking
of
a
different
section
and
I
looked
at
two
of
them.
One
is
the
maximum
allowable
travel
distance,
which
is
included
in
the
last
of
the
three
Code
section
pages
that
I
provided
and
you'll
note
in
the
diag
in
the
table.
BI
Table
ten
16.1
that
the
maximum
allowable
travel
distance
is
two
hundred
and
fifty
feet
in
a
fully
sprinklered
building.
And
if
you
look
at
the
diagram
again,
you'll
see
that
the
maximum
actual
the
longest
actual
travel
distance
in
the
building
from
the
furthest
corner
of
one
of
the
units
to
the
closest
exit
is
only
one
hundred
and
one
hundred
and
eight
point
five
feet.
That's
the
dimension
to
the
right.
It's
in
the
blue.
A
BI
And
the
other
issue,
just
a
no
finish
up-
I'm
sorry
to
take
them
into
your
time.
Is
that
there's
another
provision
that
says
that,
when
you're
required
to
have
two
exits
serving
each
floor,
which
this
building
is
that
a
maximum
allowable
travel
distance?
To
the
point
where
you
have
your
choice
of
two
days,
I
shall
be
no
greater
for
a
department
or
a
multi-family
dwelling,
no
greater
than
125
feet.
So
in
our
case,
the
actual
travel
distance
to
the
point
where
they
have
a
choice
of
whether
to
use
that
first
exit
or
keep
going
to.
BI
BG
In
that
meeting,
I
met
with
with
kim
tae
and
mob
joseph
buddy
Christopher
joined
in
as
well,
and
when
I
first
went
into
the
office.
Mr.
Christopher
said
what
are
you
doing
here
and
I
explained
why
I
was
here
and
I
explained
the
parking
issue
and
the
number
of
bedrooms
and
I
said.
You
know
why
I'm
here
is
under
Article
68
and
it
was
explained
to
me
by
Mike,
McGonagall
and
others
in
the
BP
Boston
Planning
and
Development
I
call
it
VRA
I'm.
Sorry.
AK
BG
That
in
ten-and-a-half
pocket
spots
again
I'm
going
to
the
source
who's
been
meeting
with
the
neighborhood
and
relaying
this
new
article
68,
which
is
no
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
I'm,
a
layman
and
I'm.
A
name
and
I
only
know
what
I'm
told
so
in
the
meeting
with
buddy
Christopher,
I
explained
and
I
said
ten
point:
five
parking
spots,
there's
an
error
in
the
permits
and
in
the
plans-
and
he
said
Nick,
let's
sit
down
and
talk
about
this
because
Mike
Joseph
and
you
know
says:
there's
no,
no
error
in
the
plan.
So
we
sat
down.
BG
They
had
the
exact
same
plans
that
I
got
the
week
before
that
escaped
by
the
city
and
approved
for
for
two
bedrooms
and
three
one
bedrooms
and
ten
parking
spots
and
I
said
you
know.
Mr.
Commissioner
I
said
the
plans
actually
show
five
two
bedrooms
and
it
should
incorporate
ten
and
a
half
parking
spots
which
should
round
up
to
eleven
and
he
said
correct,
and
that
is
the
Commissioner
of
ISD,
who
told
me
that
I'm
not
aware
of
any
rules
and
I.
BG
Take
that
you
know
as
the
truth
and
again
it
was
displayed
in
community
meetings
as
well
public
record.
So
that's
one
one
issue:
the
second
issue
on
the
audible,
85
I
grew
up
there,
my
whole
life
that
single-family
was
renovated.
Yes,
before
I
think
in
the
80s
I,
don't
have
the
exact
they
with
me
and
they
add
an
addition
onto
the
house.
The
original
dwelling
there
was
over
50
years
old.
Article
85
delay
requires
any
house
over
50
years
old
to
trigger
community
meeting
in
cases.
Any
significant
historical
significance
in
the
meeting
mr.
A
BG
In
that
meeting,
you
know
we
sat
down,
we
looked
at
the
plans
and
they
said
there's
nothing
wrong
with
these
plans.
The
plans
signify
from
the
architect
for
two
bedrooms
for
one
bedrooms
and
ten
pockets
plus
and
then
I
pulled
my
notebook
on
I,
said:
okay,
no
disrespect,
let's
count
the
bedrooms
and
the
plans
that
you
certified
to
be
correct
and
we
get
to
the
fifth
two-bedroom
mr.
Joseph
and
an
epiphany
excuse
my
disrespect
and
said:
oh
I
know
what
happened.
BG
A
A
E
A
A
X
X
A
BG
You,
the
last
comment,
was
just
responding
to
the
violation
of
the
building
codes.
Again,
I
looked
up
into
the
mass
building
codes
and
780
CMR
1014
2.1
the
project
with
a
sprinkler
system
where
the
two
exits
or
exit
doorways
are
required.
The
exit
was
my
exit.
Access
doors
shall
be
placed
a
distance
apart
equal
to
not
less
than
one-third
of
the
length
of
the
maximum
wall
or
diagonal
dimensions
from
the
steel
waves.
When
I
took
out
a
ruler,
would
you
know
that,
based
on
their
code
and
I,
measured
again,
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
an
architect?
BG
I'm,
not
a
cop
in
there
I'm,
not
I'm,
just
a
layman
and
I'm
just
going
by
the
rules
and
based
on
you
know,
building
codes,
I
kind
of
measure
to
their
scale
and
not
going
through
separate
apartments.
You
know
the
law
kind
of
based
on
what
I
understand
from
the
far
corner.
Now
this
building
goes
for
P
Street.
Is
it
a
butter's
law
in
the
back
and
the
building
goes
like
this?
So
it's
about
20-something
feet
here,
60-something
feet
here
and
60
feet
that
way.
BG
So
if
you
are
in
the
far
corner
and
the
stairwells
are
over
here
and
there's
a
unit
here
unit
here,
coming
from
the
back
corner
from
my
understanding
going
through
the
apartment
as
if
they
were
furniture
there,
okay,
you
have
to
zigzag
into
a
public
common
area
down
the
hallway
into
the
stairwell
down
four
flights
of
stairs
to
a
public
access
and
I.
Think
that's
incorrect.
If
somebody
took
a
ruler.