►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 8-27-19
Description
Zoning regulates the use and dimensional boundaries of privately owned buildings and land. The Zoning code is in place to protect the neighborhoods from the construction of buildings or structures that do not fit into the context of a neighborhood. The Zoning Board of Appeal hears appeals for varying the application of the Zoning Code and determines when it is appropriate to grant deviations from code restrictions.
A
B
B
Any
conversations
that
you
need
to
have
please
take
them
outside
of
the
room.
The
acoustics
in
here
make
it
very
difficult
for
us
to
hear
any
testimony,
that's
being
presented
or
are
the
applicant
at
the
table.
If
you
are
here
to
speak
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
a
project,
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
give
us
new
information,
as
you
can
see,
we'd
like
to
hear
from
as
many
people
as
possible,
but
that
that
can
only
happen
if
you
keep
your
part
of
the
deal
and
just
give
us
new
information.
C
D
I
am
the
attorney
with
the
business
address
at
350,
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston
I
represent
Francis
Barnes,
the
owner
of
the
property
at
twenty
nine,
a
street
in
South
Boston.
This
matter
was
approved
by
the
board
in
August
of
2017.
This
relief
would
expire
on
September
16
2019,
if
not
extended,
I'm
advised.
My
client
has
a
title
issue
that
has
prohibited
him
from
getting
financing.
That
issue
has
to
be
resolved
for
he's
able
to
get
construction
financing
now.
Would
that
be
the
case
me.
C
C
C
G
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
John
Paul
Jeanne,
ten
Forbes,
Road
and
Braintree.
This
matter
came
before
you
back
on
February
27
2018.
It
was
a
true
unanimously
by
the
board.
There
was
kind
of
dealing
with
a
directive
letter
we've
been
trying
to
work
with
in
good
faith,
to
try
to
negotiate
some
design
changes.
It
would
be
acceptable
to
them.
G
C
H
B
B
C
You,
madam
chair,
the
first
case
for
G
card
I'm,
gonna,
call
into
the
record
call
me
boa
nine:
seven,
five,
zero,
six,
five,
seven
beaver
place
that
is
being
realized
to
an
updated
refusal
letter.
So
we
have
a
date
of
October
hazy
to
the
dollar,
to
October
8
2019
at
9:30.
It's
gonna
make
a
motion
of
a
deferral
I'll.
Second,.
B
C
B
C
Calling
the
next
case
calling
boa
9704
six
112
71
Boylston
Street.
This
is
an
expand.
The
number
of
hotel
rooms
at
the
VirB
hotel
by
adding
ten
modular
structures
at
the
rear
of
the
property.
The
modular
structures
will
look
like
mobile
home
trailers,
but
will
be
permanently
affixed
to
the
ground
in
utilities.
C
B
B
M
M
We
actually
that
was
part
of
the
vision
and
part
of
the
another
way
to
create
an
interesting
atmosphere
for
that
area,
and
so
it
was
an
extension
of
the
brand
that
we
have
with
the
verb
hotel
and
we
thought
that
it
was
a
great
way
to
activate
Van,
Essen
and
add
something
interesting
so
another
throwback
to
a
Motor,
Lodge
and
music-themed
connections
to
the
neighborhood.
The
airstream
they're
going
to
look
like
here.
Things
are
not
Airstream,
so,
okay.
C
M
L
B
C
F
B
F
C
N
B
L
A
C
C
J
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Nix
Azula
McDermott
quilty
and
Miller
28
State
Street
Suite
8:02.
Here
in
Boston,
it
would
like
to
ask
for
an
administrative
deferral.
We
are
also
working
with
the
BPD
a
on
in
a
voluntary,
affordable
unit
and
the
details
of
that.
For
this
matter.
We
just
need
a
little
more
time
to
figure
that
out.
R
B
C
C
S
This
is
a
wrote,
relocation
of
an
existing
music
studio,
studio
52,
which
is
somewhat
of
an
institution
and
Alston.
It's
gonna
move
about
half
a
mile
across
Cambridge
Street.
So
currently
the
operations
of
52
Everett,
it's
gonna
move
to
138
Harvard.
The
conditional
use
is
required
because
music
is
not
mentioned
in
the
in
the
table
of
uses.
If
it
were
an
arts
use,
it
would
be
by
right,
but
we're
here,
because
it's
gonna
be
music,
recording
it's
about
the
same
size
as
the
existing
facility
25,000
square
feet.
It's
set
back
from
Harvard
Avenue.
S
B
T
We
have
an
existing
studio
52,
which
we
wanted
go
through
soundproof
testing
and
the
same
will
be
in
this
new
building
constructed.
It
is
a
masonry
structure,
so
we
expect
the
the
soundproofing
to
be
already
better
than
than
our
existing
facility,
but
you
know
willing,
install
soundproofing
and
whatever
we
need
to
to
make
sure
that
happens.
Does.
Q
Chair
members
of
the
board
corner
Newman
with
the
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services,
let
go
record
support
of
this
proposal.
We
conducted
abutters
meeting
on
May
2nd.
It
was
a
large
turnout
there
and
then
my
office
later
received
a
numeral
amounts
of
emails
from
artists
that
depend
on
studio
52.
They
went
on
to
the
Austin
Civic
Association
received
support
as
well.
One
of
the
tenants
of
our
administration
is
fostering
arts
and
culture,
so
we
view
this
as
a
huge
boom
for
the
neighborhood,
an
essential
preserving
than
the
unique
spirit
of
Austin.
Thank
you
morning.
V
W
S
R
C
You
for
calling
the
next
two
cases:
falling
BOA,
nine,
seven,
zero,
two
six,
nine
three
sixty
Cory
Street.
It
was
a
companion
case,
vo
a
nine
seven
zero,
two
seven
one
one
Milan
Road.
This
is
the
360
Cory
Street.
This
is
to
construct
one.
A
single-family
home,
assist
a
project
to
dwellings
on
one
line,
the
violations,
article
56
section,
forty
point,
one
to
two
or
more
dwellings.
On
the
same
lot,
article
56
section,
eight
lot
frontage
is
insufficient.
Article
56
section
8
below
Florida
Horatio
successor,
radical
56,
section
8.
C
The
usable
open
space
is
insufficient
medical
56,
section
8,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
56
section
III
yacht
is
insufficient.
Article
56,
section
8,
the
side
yard
is
insufficient.
This
is
for
one
mile
in
row.
This
is
to
construct
two
new
single-family
residential
buildings
on
one
lot:
violations:
article
56,
section
241
to
two
or
more
drawings
on
the
same
law,
article
56,
section
8
for
the
ratios,
excessive
article
56,
section,
8
usable
the
spaces.
It's
a
fish
article,
56
section
8,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Nautical
56
section
near
a
yacht
is
insufficient.
C
X
X
Whole
block
leaving
7,000
and
48
square
feet.
That's
not
a
part
of
this
project,
but
indicated
on
the
other
lands
by
incredible.
The
current
iteration
of
design
is,
after
a
very
expensive
neighborhood
process.
The
original
proposal
was
a
two
three
unit
townhouses
and
then
for
two
new
to
town
houses.
They're,
taking
a
lot
of
can
decide
the
buildings
and
to
try
to
address
the
much
of
the
neighbors
concerns
as
possible,
including
attracting
single-family
houses
and
relocating
deciding
to
create
open
space
and
buckles
between
the
property.
X
B
B
X
The
the
side
yard,
the
throughput
to
violation,
is
on
the
358
quarry
Street
building,
which
addresses
the
lot
which
will
be
created
in
the
subdivision.
So
there
will
still
be
sufficient
open
space
between
that
building
and
whatever
happens
in
the
future.
On
that,
my
client
has
left
that
lot
tuned,
as
indicated
on
the
plan
to
potentially
instruct
and
has
bright
single
family
project
in
the
future
and
is
willing
to
do
restrict
that
to
say
as
much.
B
AA
For
the
record
I'm
Bryant
Glasscock,
Boston
planning
and
development
agency,
the
BPD
a
board
recommended
denial
without
prejudice,
because
the
proposal
crates
to
single
single-family
dwellings
on
a
single
lot,
and
we
would
urge
the
opponent
to
consider
a
parcel
ization
strategy
that
produces
independent
Lots
with
wholly
independent
dwellings.
We
think
there
may
be
an
opportunity
to
do
that.
AA
B
B
AB
AC
Barbara
Davis,
5,
Marlin,
Road
and
I
would
just
say
exactly
the
same
thing.
This
has
gone
through
a
number
of
iterations.
The
Builder
has
been.
The
developer
has
been
very
open
to
listening
to
all
the
concerns
and
have
addressed
the
concerns
of
the
immediate
of
butters,
so
that
we
all
feel
as
though
this
is
really
a
project
that
we
would
welcome
in
the
neighborhood.
B
So
please,
everybody
who's
in
opposition,
raise
your
hands.
Okay,
let's
hear
from,
let's
see
that's
five
of
you,
we
can.
We
can
accommodate
you,
but
please
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
give
us
new
information.
Otherwise,
just
put
your
name
and
address
in
the
record,
and
it's
just
state
that
you
are
in
support.
Okay,
go
ahead
morning.
U
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jack
Duggan
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
just
like
to
go
on
record
of
opposition.
You
know,
as
you've
heard,
that
it
has
been
an
extensive
community
process
and
the
project
has
changed
from
the
initial
proposal,
so
it
does
have
some
support
from
neighbors
as
you've
heard.
But
overall
we
feel
the
majority
of
neighbors
are
against
this
proposal.
Due
to
the
density,
three
directive,
butters
are
opposed
to
the
project.
The
applicant
went
before
the
West
Roxbury
Neighborhood
Council
in
June,
and
received
a
vote
5o
against
the
proposal.
AD
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Shannon
Murphy
from
city
councilor,
Matt
O'malley's
office.
Our
office
has
also
been
present
in
all
of
the
community
meetings,
thus
far,
including
last
night's
meeting
that
was
hosted
by
the
developer
himself.
There
were
about
thirty
neighbors
present
and
the
majority
were
in
strong
opposition
to
this
project.
With
that
being
said,
our
office
stands
with
the
neighbors
and
will
close
this
project
as
well.
Good.
V
AE
B
C
AI
C
S
B
AK
Good
morning
Larry
Lucas
31
cricket
Lane.
The
developer
is
not
the
owner
of
the
property,
they
are
merely
the
developer.
With
a
proposal,
there
are
seven
variances
at
two
addresses
and
they
want
to
take
7651
square
feet
and
divide
it
in
half
to
three
thousand
eight
hundred
and
sixty
and
put
two
houses
one
on
each
floor.
The
requirement
is
six
thousand
square
feet
per
house
lot.
So
if
this
is
allowed,
it
would
set
a
precedent
that
anybody
could
sell
their
property
and
two
could
be
put
in
its
place
with
inadequate
square
footage.
Thank.
A
AB
B
AL
AM
AM
AM
The
information
I
want
to
tell
the
board
is
that
the
developer
did
not
provide
any
evidence
to
the
claim
that
he
has
no
intention
to
bust.
The
Trustin
will
take
place.
That
is
a
huge
ledge
there,
but
five
years
ago,
another
developer
blasted
this
area
for
two
years.
I
listened
to
this
blasting
two
years
each
day
across
the
corridor.
AN
X
C
B
C
179
Ruskin
DL
Road.
This
is
new
construction
of
a
two-story
to
family
dwelling
on
a
current
vacant
property
in
Hyde
Park.
The
violations,
article
69
section
9
lot
size,
direct
nanoo
dwelling
is
insufficient.
Article
69,
section
I,
the
larvae
area
for
additional
unit
is
insufficient.
Article
69,
a
section
on
the
Floyd.
A
ratio
is
excessive.
At
equal
69,
section,
9
Heidi's
success
of
article
69,
section
I
usable
with
spaces,
insufficient
article
69,
section
9,
the
Raigad
setback
is
insufficient.
C
B
AO
B
AO
AR
AF
B
C
C
AP
B
AP
R
AP
B
R
R
B
AS
C
Okay,
this
is
a
change
of
use
from
a
two
family
to
a
three
family
proposal
missed
additional
living
space
in
the
basement
for
unit
one
in
renovate
the
violations-
article
65
section,
eight
three
family
dwelling
is
forbidden,
use
and
a
2f
4,000
sub-district
article
65,
section
9,
the
Floyd.
A
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
section
9
villain,
heightened
success
urban
stories,
nautical
sixty
five,
six,
nine,
the
villain
height,
is
excessive
and
V.
An
article
65,
section.
Nine
side
yard
is
education
name
and
address
for
the
record
good
morning.
AT
B
AT
Proposed
proposed
is
we
have
an
existing
two
family
house?
What
is
it
worth
to
family?
It
does
already
have
three
there's
an
interior
front,
staircase
and
an
interior
back
staircase
they're,
proposing
to
the
old
military
back
staircase
and
put
a
set
of
porches
that
contain
stairs
on
the
back
of
the
house
and
make
the
third
floor
into
this,
and.
AT
AT
The
first
one
that
planned
on
going
down
into
the
basement,
they
have
a
point
of
the
ceiling
height
they're,
playing
on
two
little
square
feet
of
the
basement,
with
one
bedroom
and
a
living
area.
This
is
about
200
square
feet
of
the
basement.
That's
to
finish
the
first
floor
unit
will
be
a
thousand
of
28
feet.
The
second
floor
will
be
2033.
AT
Sorry
first
was
twelve
hundred
and
twenty
eight
feet
one
two,
two
eight
second,
twenty
one
thousand
thirty
three
and
the
third
floor
that
helps
in
33
two
miles
long
as
the
plans
hopefully
connect
set
of
plans.
We
originally
had
gone
to
the
Neighborhood
Association
asking
for
for
family
Neighborhood.
Association
asked
us
reduce
it
to
three,
which
my
client
agreed
to
do.
June.
A
AU
The
board
Patrick
Randall
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services,
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
project
proposal.
The
neighborhood
asks
that
this
go
down
from
a
four
year
into
a
three
unit
proposal
and
the
applicant
was
quick
to
respond
to
those
concerns.
They
have
met
a
lot
of
the
other
concerns,
including
design
and
green
space
in
the
rear.
However,
we
would
ask
for
continued
BPA
design
review
in
reference
to
the
screening
and
buffering
in
the
rear.
Madam.
V
AW
Hello,
thank
you
for
letting
me
speak
hi.
My
name
is
Eileen
boy.
I
live
at
82,
Auckland,
Street
and
I'm,
also
with
Columbus
Avenue
Civic
Association,
and
have
attended
all
the
meetings.
I
have
given
five
pages
of
petition
that
was
signed,
we're
not
an
opposition
of
the
property
being
converted
from
a
2
to
a
3
with
the
dome
is
on
the
third
floor.
Where
we
have
concerns
about
is,
as
the
petition
states
is,
that
the
paving
in
the
backyard
we're
in
a
flood
zone,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
concerns.
AW
AW
We
at
the
end
of
the
street
is
Bay
Street,
which
technically
is
called
Bay
Street
for
a
reason
before
the
expressway,
we
have
a
neighbor
that
can
can
actually
state
actually
in
our
youth
that
the
water
came
right
up.
So
there's
a
lot
of
concern
in
the
neighborhood.
We,
when
I
sit
on
my
back
porch
our
neighbors
have
decided.
We
really
don't
want
to
be
looking
at
parking
lots.
Okay,
we
have
good
Lots.
Thank
you,
we'd,
like
the
board
to
consider
this
so.
AW
AT
B
AW
AW
A
stream
that
runs
off
with
meetinghouse
Hill
and
Jones
Hill
and
two
houses
over
from
this
existing
house.
They
constantly
get
flooding
in
my
neighbor
across
the
street,
constantly
gets
flooding.
So
we
not
only
have
this
existing
stream
that
comes
through
the
neighborhood
off
the
hills.
That's
that's!
On
the
books.
We
also
are
close
to
the
water.
Okay,.
AT
B
R
R
AY
C
C
AZ
R
AN
C
B
B
B
C
D
Man
in
fewer
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George
Moran,
see
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
of
350
West
Broadway
install
flaws.
Madam
chair
members,
I
had
intended
to
go
forward
with
this
matter.
I
was
texted
by
my
client
and
he
asked
me
to
defer
there's
a
little
bit
of
explanation
involved
here.
This
matter
is
on
the
agenda
twice
today.
D
This
was
before
the
board
a
couple
of
months
ago,
and
this
was
the
project
that
had
five
townhouses
with
five
garage
door
on
Bradshaw
Street
and
everybody
was
in
agreement
that
there
should
be
a
driveway
coming
off
Gleason
and
have
all
the
garage
entrances
in
the
back
from
the
site.
Once
my
client
submit
a
revised
plan
suit,
inspectional
Services
Department,
they
determined
that
because
of
those
changes,
the
original
application
should
be
abandoned
and
he
should
submit
a
new
application
which
he
did.
He
received
a
new
refusal
letter,
which
is
this
appearing.
D
This
same
matter
still
appears
on
the
11:30
read
discussions
and
I
will
withdraw
that
application.
Once
we
get
to
the
11:30
s,
when
notices
went
out
for
the
present
hearing,
this
was
realized
there,
because
of
that
there
have
been
some
late
expressions
of
concern
to
the
mayor's
office
from
abutters,
and
in
light
of
that,
my
client
would
like
to
defer
at
this
matter
so
that
you
can
have
another
reporters
meeting.
Thank.
D
C
AR
B
C
Your
next
case
calling
VOA
nine
three
six,
seven,
six,
eight
sixty
two
sixty
to
follow
street.
This
is
a
change
of
arts
from
a
two
family
to
a
three
family.
Existing
condition,
no
work
to
be
done;
violations,
article
60,
section,
40,
love
to
be
parking
and
loading
insufficient
parking,
nautical
sixty
section,
I
insufficient
additional
dwelling
unit
area
per
unit
and
article
60
section
I'm,
insufficient,
open
space
per
unit
name
and
address
seller
ethically.
BA
AN
BB
R
R
C
The
next
case
calling
VOA
nine
four
seven,
five,
two
zero
one:
twenty
one
Brookside
Avenue.
This
is
to
consolidate
fossils
for
combined
eight
thousand
six
hundred
and
seventy
nine
square
foot
directly
mix
use
twenty
three
unit.
Building
with
to
live,
live
workspaces,
twenty-one
residential
condominiums
violation
thousand
fifty
five
section.
Nine,
a
multi-family
unit
is
forbidden.
You
when
article
55,
section
xx,
employed
a
ratio
is
excessive
article
50,
section
20,
the
height
of
success,
of
article
55,
section
20,
the
rail
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
55,
section
40,
Street
loading
is
insufficient.
BD
James
green
I'm,
an
attorney
proven
at
Redmond
at
53,
say
Street
here
on
behalf
of
scott
johnson
and
121
brookside
ab
LLC.
What
I've
submitted
and
the
board
members
have
is
a
a
sheet
of
the
illustrations
of
the
project.
I'd
also
like
to
submit
a
memorandum
in
support,
also
a
copy
of
the
BPD,
a
board
vote
approving
the
project
in
May
of
2019
and
a
letter
from
the
Jamaica
Plain
Neighborhood
Council,
indicating
in
support
of
the
variance
request.
As
shown
on
your
the
illustrations,
which
was
submitted
to
you.
BD
This
project
is
located
in
the
Jamaica
Plain
section
of
Boston
at
121
Brookside
Ave.
There
are,
it
is
a
vacant
parcel
of
land,
there
was
no
displacement
of
industrial
use
or
any
business
use
will
be
displaced.
It's
used
as
a
temporary
parking
lot.
My
project,
my
client
intends
to
develop
the
site
for
23
homeownership
condominium
units,
two
of
which
will
be
artists,
live
work
units
and
they
will
be
an
affordable.
Those
both
will
be
affordable
to
artists
and
two
additional
units
will
be
affordable.
B
BD
The
average
is
a
thousand
square
feet.
The
project
will
have
11
garage
spaces
on
the
first
level.
It's
four
storeys
45
feet,
there'll
be
a
penthouse
for
the
elevator
for
access
to
a
roof
deck.
The
roof
will
also
have
solar
panels
in
conjunction
with
the
PR,
a
review
of
a
green
building.
Our
goal
is
a
Silver
LEED
certification,
all
in
compliance
with
the
Jaypee
rocks
plan,
which
is
a
plan,
but
not
the
zoning
for
neighborhood.
BD
B
BD
The
site
is
located
within
the
local
industrial
district
of
Jamaica
Plain.
The
violations
are
a
youthful
ation
for
multifamily
use,
but
not
for
the
artists
live
work.
An
artist
lived,
work
unit
isn't
allowed
use
in
the
local
industrial.
The
other
violation
is
an
FAA
violation.
The
underlying
zoning
is
one.
The
FAA
will
be
2.15.
BD
BD
B
BD
Be
using
the
street
or
the
side
of
the
building
so
like
other
places
in
Jamaica,
Plain,
there's
very
little
space
for
allo
New
York.
Additionally,
the
parking
ratio
requires
us
to
provide
31
parking
spaces,
even
though
we're
within
walking
distance
of
the
orange
line
at
the
Green
Street,
Station
and
Brookside
is
parallel
to
a
Murray
Street,
Washington
Street
and
as
well
by
transit.
So
those
are
the
basic
zoning
violations.
There
is
no
minimum
lot
requirement
here.
BD
When
my
client
started
this
process,
he
had
originally
proposed
a
nine
unit
building
which
would
have
been
basically
compliant
but
would
not
have
provided
any
affordable
housing.
When
we
met
with
the
Brookside
Neighborhood
Association,
their
concern
was
affordable,
housing
and
more
residential
units.
We
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
after
talking
to
the
neighborhood
and
talking
to
the
VPD,
a
and
redesigned
Sherrill
redesigned
the
building
for
23
units.
We
also
addressed
the
Jaypee
Rox
plan,
which
is
not
the
zoning
but
is
of
major
importance
to
JP
and
rural
residents.
B
B
BD
Have
for
affordable
units
we
have,
two
of
which
are
affordable,
work
views
of
work,
artists
live
work
units.
The
other
units
are
note
there,
a
second
floor
unit,
which
is
a
one-bedroom
unit
as
that
80%
AMI.
There's
a
one-bedroom
unit
on
the
third
floor,
which
is
at
a
hundred
percent
ami.
The
artists
live
work
units
of
both
an
80%
ami
and
the
sales
price
is
set
forth
in
the
VRA
memorandum
in
approval
and
of
the
memorandum
I
submit
it
to
the
bullet.
I
can
go
through
those
if
you
like.
B
B
R
BC
Roof
deck
be
accessible
and
have
the
elevator
not
open
up
to
the
exterior
and
have
the
shaft
exposed
to
the
elements.
There
is
a
vestibule
outside
the
elevator
and
the
stair,
but
that's
purely
to
provide
the
enclosed
access
to
the
roof
deck.
So
it
was
reduced
in
size
to
that
180
square
feet
through
the
discussions
with
the
BPD
a
as
a
result
of
concern
that
it
had
been
a
little
bit
bigger
before.
BD
P
BD
Client
intends
what
I
was
trying
to
point
out
is
my
client
intends
to
incorporate
in
the
project
documents
a
statement
to
all
of
the
intended
occupants
and
all
the
intended
purchases.
These
are
condominium
units
that
this
is
an
industrial
area
that
there
is
commercial
and
industrial
use,
his
truck
traffic,
there's
odor,
there's
emissions.
BD
B
I
R
BE
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Enrique
Pepin
from
office
neighbor
services-
we
are
here
in
support
of
this
project
we
conducted
in
a
butters
meeting
on
June
17th,
in
which
the
butters
were
there
in
full
support
other
than
one
of
the
companies.
One
of
the
sprinkling
companies
was
concerned
about
the
industrial
zone,
but
thankfully
developer
and
the
company
did
listens
to
the
concern
and,
as
you
can
see,
they
incorporated
into
the
contract
and
Brooks
and
Roberta
sociation
has
approved
in
the
jpn
C
as
well.
AD
BF
I'm
support
Steven
green
down
two
hundred
High
Street
in
Boston,
representing
the
direct,
a
buyer
to
this
project,
Carlyle
engineering
at
132
Brookside.
We
are
unalterably
opposed
to
this
project,
in
fact,
the
reasons
which
an
attorney
greens
so
articulately
expressed
carlisle
engineering,
which
has
been
in
existence
since
1946,
has
been
at
this
location
for
more
than
50
years
in
in
industrial
zone
as
trucks
which
run
its
place
beginning
at
5:00
in
the
morning
at
5:30.
In
the
morning.
They
make
a
lot
of
noise.
BF
We
will
be
directly
abutting
a
residential
condominium
and,
with
all
due
respect
to
the
applicants,
the
fact
that
so
many
signs,
an
agreement
that
they're
not
going
to
complain
about
noise
is
not
going
to
affect
us
at
all,
because
this
noise
is
clearly
going
to
affect
these
residents.
They
are
going
to
complain.
BF
My
clients,
business
could
very
well
be
put
in
jeopardy,
and
we
believe
that
if
this
project
is
approved,
we
will
suffer
a
real
and
particular
harm
as
a
result
of
this
project
going
up
and
residents
being
directly
next
to
a
place
where
it's
an
industrial
zone
where
there
will
be
trucks
going
in
and
out,
they'll
be
making
a
lot
of
noise.
People
are
going
to
get
woken
up
early
in
the
morning
in
no
matter
what
they've
signed
they
I'm
not
going
to
like
it.
BF
We
feel
strongly
enough
about
it,
but,
quite
frankly,
we're
going
to
take
this
to
court
because
we
do
believe
once
this
project
is
established
once
this
residents
are
in,
the
complaints
will
be
coming
in
will
be
dealing
with
the
city
and
we're
in
a
position
where
we're,
literally
and
again,
with
all
due
respect
to
attorney
green,
we
are
going
to
be
displaced,
no
matter
what,
because
the
city
is
simply
not
going
to
tolerate
this
kind
of
noise
directly
next
to
a
residential
project.
For
those
reasons,
we
would
strongly
urge
the
board
to
deny
this
project.
BF
B
B
C
P
B
L
B
C
B
E
C
B
C
B
C
D
B
C
C
Calling
VOA
six
zero.
Two
two
three
eight
two:
twenty
three
Northampton
history:
there
is
a
companion
case,
VOA
six
zero,
two
two
four
zero
527
Massachusetts
Avenue.
This
is
for
223
Northampton
Street.
This
is
subdivide
existing
lot
at
527
mass
Avenue
to
lock
directly
new
four-story
residential
unit
building
with
rear
and
front
decks.
The
violation
article
50
section
29,
the
required
height,
is
excessive
in
stories.
Article
50
section,
29,
the
fluid
a
ratio
of
successive
alkyl
50,
section
29,
the
height
requirement
is
excessive
fees.
Article
50
section
29,
the
required
front
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
C
C
W
W
W
1987
the
subject
parcels
unique,
and
that
is
part
of
a
through
lot.
It
was
frontage
on
Massachusetts
Avenue
at
Chester
Square
and
also
is
frontage
on
North
Hampton
streets
and
other
life
through
lots,
I'm
Chester
square.
It
is
long
enough
to
contain
two
principal
structures.
The
Lada
was
172
feet
long
with
the
Northampton
Street
side
of
the
lot,
but
85
feet
long.
Thus,
the
north
entrance
street
side
of
the
parcel
is
as
large
as
many
of
the
larger
complete
Lots
to
be
found
in
the
South
End.
W
In
fact,
the
Northampton
Street
side
of
the
lot
is
shown
as
a
separate
lot
on
the
original
Justice
Square
subdivision
plans.
It
seems
that
there
is
ample
evidence
that
historically,
this
portion
of
this
lot
can
sustain
the
building
of
this
size,
given
especially
that
that
facility
made
for
a
larger
building
I
would
love
to
fast
forward.
The
project
began
when
mr.
Christopher
mr.
Boyd
purchased
2015
and
proposed
a
five
and
a
half
story:
nine
years
development
on
the
site.
W
A
W
AY
W
BH
BI
B
W
You
I
can
only
suggest
that
other
than
the
off-street
parking
insufficiency,
which,
of
course
is
a
situation
that
would
face
any
project,
any
development
on
the
street.
Everything
else
is
technical
violations,
which
again
would
affect
every
other
building
for
day
to
be
constructed.
Today,
we
are
completely
in
alignment
as
Marie
in
the
Landmarks
Commission
letter
of
support
completely
in
alignment
with
the
other
properties
on
the
street
in
every
respect.
Okay,
so.
B
X
B
B
BJ
B
BK
A
B
AF
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
face
Ashraf
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
opposed
to
this
proposal.
I
do
understand
that
the
neighbors
had
had
quite
a
few
comments
and
had
chances
to
work
with
the
developers
are
off
has
held
a
community
meeting.
I
was
trying
to
gather
feedback
from
the
abutters.
There
were
a
number
of
changes
that
were
suggested
to
the
developer
I
requested
that
they
do
hold
another
abutters
meeting
to
respond
to
the
feedback.
AF
Given
the
developer
did
not
want
to
proceed
that
way
and
they
wanted
to
take
their
chances
where
the
board
was
the
exact
quote
that
was
given
to
our
office.
We
are
opposed
based
on
the
decks,
both
the
front
decks,
the
rear,
decks,
there's
a
bunch
of
decks
happening
up
front
and
in
the
rear,
which
we
don't
think
actually
conforms
with
everything
else.
That's
on
that
Street
or
also
posts.
AF
Density
and
then
the
biggest
issue
actually
is
our
office
is
asked
to
facilitate
conversations
between
the
community
and
the
developers
and
when
we
give
advice
in
terms
of
hey,
you
have
issues
in
front
of
you.
We
would
like
for
you
to
work
with
your
neighbors
and
your
responds
back
to
our
office.
Is
you
want
to
move
forward
with
the
design?
As
is
we
don't
think
that
that's
a
good-faith
effort
to
work
with
the
neighbors
and
you
will
hear
directly
from
their
concerns?
Thank
you.
A.
BL
B
W
AG
Me
four
neighbors
who
are
prepared
to
testify
on
the
specifics
of
what
I
will
tell
you.
First
Chester
Square
neighbors
have
diligently
reviewed
and
responded
to
plans
and
revisions
by
going
Realty
LLC
since
2016.
The
concerns
we
raised
then
still
apply
for
the
most
part,
going
requests
experiences
to
subdivide
the
property
at
5:27
Mass
Ave,
and
build
more
than
6000
square
feet
of
floor
space.
They
did
not
indicate
a
need
for
a
variance
for
parking
and
I
note
that
there
is
parking
immediately
adjacent
on
the
next
massive
property.
AG
I
do
not
see
a
reason
why
they
could
not
put
parking,
although
that's
not
what
I
would
recommend
it's
just
a
matter
of
straightforward
truthfulness,
facts
the
proposed
building
would
be
taller
wider
and
deeper
than
its
neighbors
approximately
twice
the
square
footage.
The
project
would
remove
four
mature
trees
and
attempt
to
meet
open
space
requirements
by
attaching
decks
to
both
front
and
rear
of
the
building.
The
historic
backyard
pattern
behind
Chester
Square
would
be
lost,
has
offered
no
commitment
to
much-needed
repairs
for
their
existing
historic
building
on
the
on
the
line.
AG
AH
Good
morning
my
name
is
David
house
I'll,
be
the
butter
at
5:29,
Mass,
Ave,
adjacent
to
the
property.
There's
new
comments,
527
MSF
will
lose
its
second
means
of
egress.
No,
now
they
go
out
to
Northampton
Street.
They
intend
to
use
an
alley
which
is
adjacent
to
the
back
of
527
MSF.
However,
it
that's
not
a
legal
alley,
it's
only
60
wide.
It's
a
private
alley
code
requires
a
10-foot
public
alley
to
the
back
of
527s.
I
will
have
the
second
means
of
egress.
AH
B
B
BH
BN
AQ
B
AQ
AQ
Okay,
the
the
last
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
is
that
is
that
I'm
very
interested
in
the
fact
that
you
know
so
many
neighbors
are
in
the
Chester
Square
neighborhood
association
and
came
out
today,
and
support
spoke
in
opposition
and
I.
Think
many
of
us
actually
were
trying
to
be
positive
at
the
beginning
of
this
process,
but
at
the
end
of
it
it
just
it
hasn't
gone
in
a
way
that
is
possible
for
the
community
to
support
it.
Thank
you.
W
B
B
BJ
Submitted
that
the
building
of
5.7,
for
me
is
a
historic
building,
not
proud
of
the
conditions
in
we
don't
like
it.
We
have
completely
gutted
and
redone
the
inside
in
a
historic
fashion.
The
outside
we've
submitted
to
get
the
tax
credits
for
historic
renovation.
That
process
is
ongoing.
We
have
received
some
of
them
the
tax
relief
we
submitted
as
you
do,
so
that
there
is
no
doubt
that
building
would
be
redone,
and
if
we,
if
we
had
the
opportunity
to
do
the
other
building,
you
move
the
same
crews.
At
the
same
time.
Thank.
BJ
Roof
was
the
roof
was
done
this
just
before
the
wind
at
the
top.
The
front
that
you
see
on
the
pictures
is
the
part
that
would
be
subject
to
the
historic
reviews
right
now.
Obviously,
it's
asphalt,
shingles
and
I'm
sure
that
the
historic
a
review
would
like
the
grant
not
to
grab
the
slate
put
back
on.
So
we
didn't
touch
the
front,
but
the
roof.
The
top
was
the
redundant
so.
AA
B
AA
W
BO
C
Calling
boa
nine
four,
eight
three:
seven:
zero:
seven
sixty
eight
two
seven:
seventy
two
tremolo
industry,
this
is
to
add,
to
story
vertical
addition
to
an
existing
building
and
change
arcs
from
dental
offices
to
apartments,
restaurant,
three
736,
a
potential
offices,
six
apartments,
breast
restaurant,
thirty,
seven,
thirty,
six,
eight
and
terror
invasions
install
new
elevator
violations,
article
32
section
32,
for
this
is
in
the
G
card
article
64,
section,
nine
usable,
open
spaces,
intermission
article
64,
section,
36,
asti
parking
is
intrusion.
Article
64,
section,
9
of
the
phylidia
ratio,
is
excessive.
D
D
D
Yes,
exactly
the
current
units
patinas
their
one-bedroom
units
of
approximately
700
700
square
feet.
He
proposed
six
units
would
be
two
units
per
floor.
Of
course,
two
three
and
four
on
each
floor.
There
would
be
a
unit
of
1424
square
feet
and
a
unit
of
1518
square
feet.
Each
of
those
would
be
two
bedroom
units
with
respect
to
the
zoning
relief
first
item
cited
is
groundwater
and
I
believe
that
mrs.
Simonelli
is
preparing
to
speak
on
ground
changed
his
testimony.
First,
what.
D
You
probably
don't
miss
fortune,
I
got
it
late
yesterday
and
I
emailed
it
to
Christian
other
violations
in
species.
Usable
open
spaces
building
essentially
occupies
the
entire
into
the
waters.
Never
open
space
mouth
to
birth
and
addition
in
my
client
did
not
want
to
put
the
roof
deck
or
roof
decks,
so
the
open
space
situation
is
not
changing.
This
is
also
a
sign.
You
cannot
introduce
off
street
parking,
there's
no
parking.
Now.
We
know
our
key.
The
site
is
located
approximately
two
blocks
from
Massachusetts
or
the
orange
line.
D
My
clients
also
committed
to
subsidizing
Charlie
cards
for
both
the
residents
and
his
employees
on
site.
There's
a
citation
access
memory
area
ratio.
This
is
an
MF
fire
district
in
article
64,
this
stuff
end
maximum
NPR
is
to.
This
is
never
3.9
up
into
this
dining
area
and
inefficiency
cited
again,
the
building
is
all
bridges
you,
a
real
real
live
setback,
news
and
filling
in
the
second
story
and
the
third
story,
so
it
would
be
no.
AY
B
AF
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
faces
Shrieve
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
Again
for
this
one,
we
also
held
a
community
process
and
they
have
met
with
the
Chester
Square
neighborhood
association.
They
do
have
support
from
their
butters
and
we
do
appreciate
their
willingness
to
work
with
their
neighbors.
Thank
you.
A
AG
Name
is
Carol
Blair
I
live
at
222,
Northampton
Street
and
the
president
Chester
neighbors
owner
dr.
al-khatib,
has
provided
dentistry
dentistry
services
in
our
neighborhood
for
many
years.
His
proposal
would
expand
the
building
at
770
tremon
Street
to
14,800
40
square
feet
on
four
floors.
Dr.
Conti
has
heard
neighbors
concerns
and
has
agreed
to
work
with
south
and
pizza
to
address
double
parking
and
speeding
to
create
trash
room
in
the
building
in
order
to
keep
the
alley
clear
for
egress
to
subsidise
MBTA
passes
for
tenants
and
to
conform
to
groundwater.
AG
BH
BO
B
C
The
last
case
tonight
dirty
calling
VOA
nine
three
six,
two
137
West
Newton
Street.
This
is
a
new
roof
deck
on
the
rear
elevation.
Replacing
an
existing
window
would
tour
the
new
rear
deck
violations
on
equal
64
section
9.
The
Reyat
is
insufficient
article
64,
section
34,
roof
structure
restrictions,
an
article
64
section,
nine
point:
four
townhouse
row
house
extension
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BP
AF
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
phases
Sharif
with
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
this
proposal
by
the
owners.
It
is
owner-occupied
it's
a
modest
proposal.
It
does
have
the
support
of
both
their
neighbors
and
also
the
Civic
Association
in
that
area.
Thank
you.
R
B
BN
R
AF
BO
C
This
is
a
confirm
octa
as
a
single
family
with
barbershop
and
change
doctor
to
a
three
family
dwelling
with
renovation,
including
new
rear,
egress
decks.
The
violation
is
article
68,
section
33
street
parking
requirement
for
the
new
units,
article
68,
section,
8,
useable,
open
spaces
insufficient
and
article
27
s,
section
5.
This
is
in
the
South
Boston
I
bought
name
and
address
for
the
record
place.
AX
B
B
AX
R
AX
B
BS
B
BQ
V
AE
AY
I
C
Boa
95525
8
383,
K
Street.
This
is
a
remove.
The
existing
groov
build
a
new
man
side,
roof,
no
change
in
height
will
change
employ
a
ratio
current
their
employ
has
two
bedrooms:
one
bathroom
between
applause
for
a
new
porous,
concrete
slab
of
the
basement.
This
is
storage
and
mechanical
violations.
Article
68,
section
8
side
guide
setback
is
insufficient
medical
27
s,
section
5.
This
is
in
the
South
Boston
iPod
and
I
go
68,
section,
29,
root,
structure,
restriction,
name
and
add
just
for
the
record
book.
Madam.
BT
BT
So
the
roof
is
going
to
change
a
pitched
roof,
otherwise
known
as
an
apex
roof
to
a
mansard
roof.
So
if
you
look
at
the
second
sheet,
you
can
see
the
difference
between
existing
and
proposed
and
it
doesn't
create
any
additional
floor
area.
It
does
not
create
any
height
violation.
The
only
violation
is,
as
the
roof
goes
up
to
a
man's
eye.
It
gets
closer
to
the
lot
line,
which
is
the
street.
We
don't
have
three
feet
along
marine
Road,
because
the
house
was
constructed
before
the
zoning
code
and.
BT
BN
BS
BQ
V
AE
F
C
AZ
AZ
Rejects
are
really
really
describe
them
as
a
fight
a
balcony.
Basically,
that
is
the
main
issue.
The
common
building
setback
requirements
2015
the
existing
building
foundation
is
located.
Nineteen
feet,
six
inches
to
six
inches
into
the
setback.
We'd
like
the
fight
value
to
extend
another
10
feet,
ain't
we
half
inches,
should
know
they're
el-sheikh.
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
R
B
BS
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Haley
Dillon
mayor's
office,
neighborhood
services,
I'd
like
to
go
and
record
in
opposition.
All
the
directors
have
expressed
that
this
has
never
been
a
three
family.
It
does
it's
not
consistent
with
the
neighborhood
and
not
wandering
the
butters
in
support.
Thank
you.
BQ
Ourselves,
a
board
on
Italian
from
counselor
thinks
office.
The
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition
to
this
project
due
to
the
overwhelming
neighborhood
opposition
of
their
brothers
meetings
regarding
concerns
about
density
and
impact
to
parking
as
neighborhood
as
neighbors
knows
it.
This
has
been
a
single
family,
not
a
tree
family.
Thank
you.
V
AE
C
This
is
a
demolished:
an
existing
building,
directly
new
six
storey,
mixed-use
building
commercial
space
in
20
residential
units
with
17
parking
spaces
front
and
rear
roof
decks
violations,
25
flood
hazard
districts.
This
is
in
the
flood
hazard
district
article
8,
section
7,
a
multi-family
residential
is
a
conditional
use.
Article
50
section
1,
the
ploidy
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
16,
section,
1
required
height,
is
excessive
and
stories
out
of
16
section
1,
the
required
height
is
excessive
and
feet.
Article
17,
section
1
usable
in
space,
is
insufficient.
C
Article
18
section
1
that
required
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
23
section
1,
our
street
parking
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
23,
section
9,
the
Osprey
packed
and
design
access,
drive,
maneuverability
and
out
of
for
section
1
Street
lowing
is
insufficient.
Maybe
the
address
for
the
record.
Please
the.
BU
BV
C
B
BU
BU
BU
A
result
of
that
the
second
floor
would
any
of
the
units
fall
below
the
state
of
every
unit
sizes,
15
square
feet
per
unit
of
the
building.
We
shall
make
upon
its
things
to
the
VRA
Authority,
with
the
VRA,
through
small
private
review
of
the
second
floor.
The
cemetery
is
square
root
of
Commons
baseball.
BU
B
BW
BU
BU
BU
BU
BQ
The
chair
members
of
the
board
on
a
column
from
councilor
flings
office,
the
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
project.
Due
to
the
positive
dialogue
between
the
neighbors
and
Superboy
has
came
from
the
angel
square,
Civic
Association,
the
project
is
now
19
units
and
14
parking
spot.
They
reduced
the
highway.
BQ
AO
V
BU
BU
P
B
C
This
is
a
change
of
walk
from
a
single
family
to
a
three
family
proposed
third
story
edition
with
Dharma
Riddick
roof
deck
and
exterior
egress
stay
away,
violated
article
27s
section;
five:
that's
in
the
South
Boston
iPod
in
article
68,
section,
29,
mu
structure,
restrictions
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BX
BX
A
BX
BX
Tyrel
before
a
fire,
another
confirmed
that,
in
fact,
this
building
made
some
divine
information.
They
were,
but
it
was
a
three
family
hall
was
recently
as
1954
and
a
free
family
mall
is
a
permitted
use
in
this
district
around
that
time,
the
family
name,
Georgian
purchased
it
and
it
became
a
single
family
with
water
in
the
rooms
above.
BS
BX
BW
BN
BX
BV
Brown
brown,
Fenollosa,
architects,
arlington
mass,
the
deck
is
on
the
third
level.
The
roof
of
the
third
level
is
accessed
by
the
fourth
storey
tower,
which
already
exists.
We
want
to
take
a
window
out
and
put
a
door
to
that
roof
deck
it's
425
square
feet
and
will
be
about
four
and
a
half
feet
off
of
the
side
yard
directly.
Next
to
it.
B
BV
B
BS
V
AY
A
BQ
The
chair
members
of
the
board
on
a
Calderon
from
councillor
Flinx
office,
the
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition
due
to
the
concerns
of
the
abolished
meetings
and
their
position
from
the
Gate
of
Heaven
Neighborhood
Association
regarding
them
city,
impacts
on
parking
and
concerns
about
trash
removal
on
Silverstream.
Thank
you.
BY
A
BY
A
disinfectant
sorry
about
that
morning,
Madame
chair
moves
board,
Matt
Ethel
from
draggling
Toscano,
with
the
business
address,
15
Broad
Street
here
in
Boston
here
seeking
a
deferral
this
morning
to
continue
some
community
efforts.
We've
met
multiple
times
with
the
butters,
as
well
as
the
local
community
groups.
We
did
here
just
at
the
end
of
last
week
from
the
community
group
about
some
some
further
input
from
the
community
and
therefore
we'd
like
some
time
to
implement
that
into
our
plans.
So
we're
actually.
BY
B
C
B
C
Now
we'll
go
back
to
the
10:30
s,
calling
the
next
two
cases
calling
BOA
nine
six:
two:
five:
three:
nine
five.
Fifty
nine
he's
history.
There
is
a
companion
case,
boa
962
by
four
to
five.
Fifty
nine
rear,
East
Fifth
Street.
This
is
building
one
got
renovation
to
an
existing
tree.
Family
dwelling
extend
living
space
to
the
basement,
construct
a
new
rear,
exterior
stay
away
and
new
roof
decks.
The
violations
article
27
s,
section
5.
This
is
in
the
South
Boston
iPod
article
28,
section
29,
it's
the
roof
structure
restriction.
C
G
B
B
B
B
R
B
B
R
B
R
C
Telling
VOA
nine
five
six
four,
two,
eight
six,
seventy
seven
or
a
second.
This
is
an
extent
living
space
in
the
basement,
extend
existing
first
flow
porch.
The
second
floor
add
roof
deck
and
create
two
by
level
units
the
violation,
article
27s
section
five:
this
is
in
the
South
Boston
I
thought
article
68
section,
eight
side
yacht
is
insufficient
in
article
68,
section
8,
the
Reyat
isn't
sufficient.
They
have
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
new.
CA
B
CA
Current
existing
Tao
said
677
are:
was
it
originally
a
first
second
and
third
floor
building
single-family?
The
proposal
is
to
turn
that
into
a
2
by
level
units
unit.
One
would
consist
of
a
two-bedroom
and
two
and
a
half
baths
located
in
the
basement
and
on
the
first
floor
and
unit
number
two
would
be
a
two-bedroom
in
a
two
and
a
half
baths
located
on
the
second
and
third
floor.
B
B
CA
B
A
BQ
B
C
CB
We're
proposing
to
add
a
curb
cut
to
525
526
East
Third
Street,
so
we
currently
share
that
space
with
our
family
and
we
park
for
vehicles.
So
we're
asking
to
have
a
curb
cut
so
that
we
no
longer
have
to
move
the
cars
back
and
forth,
so
it
will
no
longer
be
tandem
and
instead
we
can
just
drive
out
of
the
parking
spot.
B
CB
B
AA
R
R
BR
Both
D'amico
Boston
Transportation
Department
from
a
planning
perspective,
it
does
work,
but
the
ones
in
the
front
I
have
been
there
for
quite
a
while.
This
is
obviously
a
new
pocket
request,
but
the
ones
that
are
there
have
been
there
so
I
think
this
sort
of
I
would
think
grandfathered
in.
So
it's
strictly
more
or
less
a
zoning
issue
rather
than
a
bgd
issue,
because
it
does
work
from
a
bgt
planning
perspective.
BQ
A
R
CC
C
You
next
two
cases
calling
VOA
nine
four,
seven,
four,
six,
six
four
Ringo
street
case:
boa
nine,
four,
seven,
four,
six,
eight
four
Ringo
Street
on
building
code.
This
is
a
renovate
the
top
floor
of
the
house
with
roof
deck
violations,
how
to
go.
64
section,
34,
roof
structure
restriction,
and
this
is
for
the
building
code.
C
B
R
BU
Issue
here,
mr.
Lee
is
any
building.
That's
over
four
storeys
requires
a
penthouse
which
a
walk-up-
yes,
you
know
6
foot
8
inches,
that's
just
occupy
of
a
living
occupiable
space,
it's
beautiful,
really,
zoning
Lee
that
we're
seeing
here
is
the
alteration
of
existing.
Well,
our
group,
which
is
for
a
roof
deck
and
career
partner
here,
because
it's
over
four-story
it's
building
code,
would
require
the.
BU
BX
R
R
BU
BU
R
A
AF
Chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Fei
scenario
mayor's
office
at
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
strong
support
of
this
proposal.
The
building
is
owner-occupied
and
the
neighbors
next
door
support
it,
and
we
also
want
to
thank
the
applicants
for
working
diligently
and
taking
into
consideration
of
thoughtful
comments
of
their
neighbors.
Thank
you.
My.
BQ
B
C
Boa
9
6
3
9
7
9
35
to
37
Elm
Street.
This
is
installed
addition
in
the
rear
of
35,
the
sack
on
the
second
and
third
floor.
37
helmet
new
pocket
configuration
new
roof
deck
on
37
L
violates
article
62,
section
29,
honestly,
backing
design
size
access
to
maneuverability
article
62,
section,
62,
25,
roof
structure,
restrictive
district
and
article
62
section
8,
useable,
open
space
is
insufficient.
They
even
addressed
full
erected.
Clay.
D
AQ
D
Project
this,
a
mental
patient,
would
make
all
the
modifications
to
the
to
the
buildings
in
the
work
that's
already
in
progress.
It
would
have
a
rear
addition,
which
would
be
essentially
a
kitchen
area
on
the
first
floor
of
35
Elm
Street,
with
decks
on
the
second
and
third
floor
levels
above,
and
it
would
also
add
a
new
roof
deck
on
number
37,
Elm
Street.
D
Issued
owing
to
design
of
Austria
parking,
because
part
of
this
application
is
to
end
to
contact
parking
spaces
behind
the
addition
on
37
Elm
Street
portion
of
the
parcel
apartment
had
always,
there
is
an
existing
current.
My
clients
thought
to
an
additional
parking
space
here
says
my
neighborhood
concerns
about
off
street
parking
in
the
neighborhood,
but
there
is
also
a
violation
that
ruling
owing
to
insufficient
usable,
open
space
and
that
counts,
of
course,
with
the
addition
of
apartment
space
in
an
area
that
didn't
serve
as
a
rear
yard.
D
B
D
Addition
is
between
seven
and
a
half
eight
feet.
If
you
look
on
the
survey
plan
plan
on
the
cover
you
can
see,
and
then
it
varies
from
just
over
19
feet
to
about
22
feet
going
to
plant
seeds
a1
the
lower
part
building
is
35,
Elm
Street,
you
can
see
on
the
right
and
you
can
see
the
kitchen
area
there.
That
is
what
the
addition
is
on
the
first
floor
flipping
the
page,
you
can
see
how
it
is
become
the
deck
on
the
second
floor.
Third
floor
provides
usable
open
space.
D
D
Opens
for
the
the
open
space
437
is
the
is
the
roof
deck
and
then
there
is
the
rear
deck
open
space
for
the
35.
It
is
one
structure,
but
it's
not
that
not
two
separate
buildings.
It's
an
addition
to
the
change
of
occupancy,
but
the
the
rear
deck
start
will
be
used
at
35
to
roof
decks.
But
we
use
a
37.
CD
One
of
Madame
chair
members
of
the
board,
Quinlan
Locke
with
the
mayor's
office
Neighborhood
Services,
would
like
to
go
on
records.
This
project
did
up
Anna
barters
meeting
is
widely
attended
by
neighbors
in
that
area.
There
was
one
concern
about
the
currently
approved
plans
of
the
property
which
I
have
fully
about
four
teased
out
letter,
but
most
in
attendance
below
the
border
of
the
project,
especially
in
keeping
the
existing
curb
cut.
Thank
you.
AT
My
my
opposition
is
based
on
the
lack
of
wall
street
pocket,
especially
the
time
it's
two
large
houses.
It
would
be
three
or
four
more
cars
on
the
street
as
I've
seen.
So
that's
my
opposition.
Fine,
the
building,
looks
very
nice.
It
do
me
a
nice
job,
but
the
off
street
parking
is
a
big
concern
and
move
decks
also
because
of
the.
B
C
B
CF
This
is
an
existing
unpermitted
basement
apartment,
that's
four
than
their
40
years,
at
least,
and
we
are
converting
it
to
habitable
area
as
part
of
the
existing
three
family.
So
it
won't
be
a
separate
apartment
anymore.
There's
some
windows
we
have
to
enlarge
to
make
it
meet.
The
building
code
will
have
eight-foot
ceiling
height
when
it's
finished,
or
very
close
to
that
it'll
be
about
five
hundred
square
feet
and
it's
gonna
be
a
family
room,
entertainment
around.
CF
It's
just
the
way
the
house
is
now
it's
a
single
family.
It's
about
3,500
square
feet.
It's
on
the
books.
It's
a
three
family,
but
right
now
with
the
illegal
basement,
apartment
was
a
two
but
the
eager
estate
that
doesn't
work
so
we're
just
gonna
make
it
1-1
house.
Basically
it's
still
on
the
books
is
a
three
family,
though.
C
CG
B
CG
Yes,
Johanna
is:
she
has
the
top
unit
of
the
three
unit
building
in
Winthrop
Street
she's,
proposing
a
roof
deck
that
has
an
existing
catch.
It's
presently
in
place,
so
there's
no
head
house
being
proposed
and
doing
that
also
has
exclusive
rights
and
uses
of
the
roof
significantly.
She
has
no
use
to
the
small
yard
down
below
so.
CH
B
CD
B
CI
C
Before
I
go
to
the
last
couple
of
cases,
I'm
gonna
go
jump
ahead.
Here,
though,
the
recommendations
read
them
into
the
record
and
then
we're
going
to
need
an
approval
for
them.
The
hearing
was
held
on
Thursday
August
22nd
2019
at
10:10
Mass
Ave
at
5:00
p.m.
case
boa
a
five
one,
one,
seven
nine.
Seventy
nine
School
Street
was
approved.
It
was
an
open
car
over
the
roofs.
All
28
for
DOMA
and
at
bathroom
BOA,
942,
0,
31
Milford
Street
was
approved,
was
the
renovation
of
the
rear
yard,
31
Milford,
boa
nine.
C
Six,
seven,
nine
eight
nine
753
East
Broadway
was
approved.
There
was
a
change
of
occupancy
takeout
and
delivery.
Boa
nine
five
zero.
Four
eight
nine
forty
three
Elmont
Street
was
approved,
was
a
building
ignoring
missing
attic
space.
Do
a
960
three
to
six
939
Carew
Street.
It
was
approved
extending
an
existing
roof
deck,
adding
a
canopy,
boa
954
988
551
Park
Street
was
approved
with
BPD
a
there's,
a
converted,
a
single-family
to
us
to
family
residential,
to
meet
to
vehicle
parking
bo,
a
nine
six,
four
zero
zero
to
121
Warren
Avenue
was
approved.
C
There
was
extensions
of
living
space
into
the
Attic
VOA
955
for
nine
0:35
l
bono
street
was
approved.
This
was
a
finished.
Existing
attic
went
to
the
third
floor
bo
a
nine
four
one,
one
four
nine
six,
sixty
Taunton
Avenue
was
approved.
It
was
a
change.
Locks
were
one
drawing
unit
to
two
dwelling
units
bo
a
nine
five
zero
one.
Three
seven
nine
Rockwood
street
was
approved
with
installed
skylights
and
finished
attic
space
bo,
a
nine
four
seven.
C
Do
a
955,
180
792
Redlands
Road
was
they
proved
at
BPD
a
was
a
renovation
of
an
unfinished
attic
and
include
three
bedrooms
and
one
bath,
the
VOA,
nine
six,
seven,
seven,
four
one
one
forty-five
Westmore
Road
was
approved.
It
was
a
full
bathroom
family
room,
mechanical
room
in
the
basement.
You
know
the
rediscover
a
93
one,
274
220,
Chelsea
Street
was
deferred
to
the
board
today,
no
I'm,
sorry
on
919
2019,
madam
chair.
That
concludes
the
subcommittee
Anita
Moshe,
like.
C
Call
the
next
case
and
30
calling
VOA
nine
three
seven,
six,
five,
three
one
sixty
six
to
one
sixty
eight
Falcon
Street:
this
was
the
very
model
all
bathroom
kitchen
and
electrical
plumbing
upgrade
violations.
Article
9
section
one:
the
extension
of
a
non-conforming
use,
article
53
section
nine,
yet
they
are-
is
excessive.
Radical
53:6,
a
nice
I
got
is
insufficient
an
article
53
section
either
Riyadh
is
insufficient.
Naman
adversely.
BO
Preexisting
non-conforming
structure,
look
is
little
section
of
East.
Boston
proposal
is
very
simple
to
allow
the
rear
decks,
because
this
is
an
existing
pre-existing.
Non-Conforming
use
the
requirements
or
court
approval
or
necessary
an
addition
of
the
bearings
of
every
required,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
plans
submitted.
This
property
sits
in
a
lot
that
is
about
eighty
seven.
A
half
feet
depth
would
qualify.
P
BO
The
proposal,
as
I
said,
would
include
the
rear,
decks
they're
shown
to
the
plan,
which
triggers
a
great
setback
violation,
even
though
the
lot
would
be
considered
shallow
and
qualify
the
shall
a
lot
exception.
We
are
slightly
within
the
setback
that
would
be
permitted,
which
is
around
twenty
four
feet
so
with
respect
to
the
side
yard
as
well,
because
of
the
existing
condition
of
where
the
building
sits
on
the
property
line,
the
proposal
to
construct
decks
would
also
trigger
the
side
yard
setback
of
Mario,
which
is
at
five
feet.
AI
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Lena
travelling
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
and
I,
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
support
during
the
community
process.
There
were
not
concerns
from
the
ybarra
and
also
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association
already
in
support
of
this
proposal.
Thank
you.
CI
V
B
C
C
16
spaces
I
require
article
53,
section
56
off
street
parking
loading,
the
design
size,
article
53,
section,
57,
3,
traffic
visibility
across
the
Conner
article
53
section
57
special
provisions
for
corner
Lots,
article
53,
section
57
conformity
within
an
existing
building
alignment,
article
53,
section
8:
we
use
the
uses
forbidden
Wow
there
were
53
section,
9,
excessive
FAI
1.0
is
the
Mac
article
53
excessive
height
35
feet
is
the
max
article
53
excessive
number
of
stories
and
3
stories.
As
the
max
article
53,
section
9,
insufficient
Riyadh
setback.
30
feet
is
required.
C
Radical
53,
section,
9
insufficient,
open
space,
300
square
feet.
A
unit
is
required,
article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
side,
yard
setback.
Two
and
a
half
feet
is
minimum
article
53
section
I
insufficient
additional
on
area.
A
thousand
square
feet
unit
is
required
and
article
53
section
54
screening
in
Bahrain
name
and
address
for
the
record
place.
BO
BO
BL
BO
With
this
project,
they
would
all
be
combined
for
purpose
of
this
proposal
with
the
family
dwelling
demolished,
along
with
the
garage
is
located
in
to
the
left,
which
I
actually
looked
in.
A
separate
law
proposal
would
then
result
in
the
creation
of
a
multi-family
dwelling
that
would
be
construct
a
total
of
five
thousand
seven
six
square
feet.
We
are
proposing
parking
for
a
total
of
nine
vehicles.
BO
Number
of
parking
spaces
that
was
based
upon
a
lot
of
the
community
event
occurred.
How
this
building
should
be
design
upon
completion.
This
project
would
be
intended
for
home
ownership.
This
is
located
at
Jeffrey's,
Point
neighborhood
seconds
on
mat
at
the
corner
of
a
street
in
hardening
Street
rd
Street
actually
has
one
other
building
location
live,
that
was
a
project.
I
was
bored.
Sometimes
we've
used
that
for
some
of
the
others
based
upon
comets
that
we
heard
from
community
when
neighbors
associated,
exciting
accepted.
BO
Based
upon
the
comments
that
we
heard
there
have
been
changes
to
this
project
over
time.
The
board
does
have
those
updated
plans
for
the
project
that
we're
presenting
today.
Those
have
been
silenced
as
well
with
respect
to
design
again
indicated.
This
would
be
designed
for
home
ownership
on
the
based
upon
the
community
input
that
we
heard
marking
the
access
from
our
D
Street
Rd
is
actually
a
one-way
off
of
Maverick,
so
all
the
traffic
would
essentially
enter
the
building
by
access
with
three
seconds
break
down
the
units.
BO
There's
a
mix
of
two
and
three-bedroom
units
again
based
upon
input
that
we've
aired
over
a
very
extensive
process
with
Jefferies
Point
neighborhood
association.
The
unit
sizes
range
about
870
square
feet
from
the
smallest
two-bedroom
up
to
about
fourteen
hundred
forty
square
feet
for
the
largest
three-bedroom
and
that's
located
on
the
four
floors
of
the
building.
Two
of
the
units
are
looking
at
grade,
which
would
a
lot
of
for
accessibility
buildings.
There
is
no
necessity
for
an
elevator.
BO
BO
May
be
exclusive
to
those
units,
our
access
by
head
house.
We
did
have
a
very
lengthy
conversation
with
the
Planning
and
Zoning
subcommittee
for
deference
point.
They
have
no
issue
with
the
head
house
for
this
particular
project,
provided
you
located
on
the
right
side
of
the
building
where
it
is
the
shield.
Will
you
it's
not
just
possible?
So
that's
that's
another
change
that
we
made
to
this
project.
We
did
receive
ultimately
received
the
support
of
Geoffrey's
point.
A
risotto.
A
BO
BO
Is
now
been
terminated
and
therefore
that
block
becomes
part
of
a
building
or
can
be
assemble
for
purpose
of
the
building
a
lot,
so
we
do
require
a
relief
for
multifamily.
I
would
point
out
that
the
neighborhood
does
have
a
number
of
multi
families
in
the
immediate
vicinity,
including
a
large
thirty-two,
get
a
project
that
leads
directly
across
the
street
at
five
stories.
The
minimum
lot
width
is
compliant
at
20
feet.
BO
Now
we
have
161
feet
total
we
can
comply
with
the
setback
for
the
front
yard
based
upon
modal,
for
both
the
RD
street
condition,
as
well
as
a
marriage
street
condition.
I
assume
that
if
this
is
approved
that
there
will
be
some
design
review
to
address
the
corner
based
upon
the
typical
design
recommendations
from
BPD,
a
staff.
BO
The
number
of
stories
aloud
as
three-story
35
feet,
we
are
proposing
four-story
forty
point:
seven
five
feet.
We
specifically
kept
this
in
line
with
the
building
that
is
now
constructed.
We
do
show
the
renderings,
that's
the
only
other
building
on
hardy
Street,
so
it
is
in
line
consistent
with
the
height
and
scale,
are.
BO
BO
BR
Chili
yeah
I
have
review
the
plans
and
the
parking
doesn't
work,
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
site,
because
I
lived
across
the
street
from
it
and
it
does
work.
There
was
always
a
garage
there
with
three
doors.
So
it's
a
something:
that's
not
unusual
for
cast
to
come
and
golf
from
hardy
Street.
So
at
the
plan
that
I
did
look
at
does
work.
AI
Good
afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
berlina
Tommy
Lee
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
I,
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
support
during
the
community
process.
There
were
no
concerns
from
the
ybarra,
and
this
project
also
got
the
support
from
Jeffrey's
point
Neighborhood
Association.
Thank
you.
CI
V
B
BN
B
C
B
C
You
going
to
the
last
case
for
10:30
calling
VOA
nine
five,
six,
seven,
six,
nine
eight
54th
Saratoga
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
use
for
a
two
three
family,
a
three
family,
the
violation,
title
25,
section:
five:
this
one
has
a
district,
III,
Section
56,
insufficient
parking.
Now
the
53
section,
eight,
you
should
submit
an
article
53
section,
any
excessive
FAA
name
and
address
effectively
good.
CJ
B
CJ
The
baseline.
We
haven't
conducted
that
certification
at
this
moment,
but
I
would
say
that
in
the
area
that
which
the
building
is
located
that
has
been
for
other
properties,
namely
the
butter
at
8:52
that
has
been
awarded
the
location
of
the
basement,
build
it
is
about
50%
above
grade.
It
has
a
walkout
in
the
back.
B
B
Your
back
about
ears
I,
want
to
just
hear
about
this
proposal.
Butters
they
might
have
done
something
illegal,
I,
don't
know
so.
I
just
need
to
know
about
this
proposed
property,
so
the
base
flood
elevation
has
not
been
determined
yet
okay
and
so
tell
us
you're,
proposing
extension
into
the
basement.
Yes,.
B
R
CJ
R
CJ
R
CJ
B
CJ
AA
BN
AI
CK
B
Is
anybody
here
to
speak
in
opposition?
Just
have
a
basic
question.
Is
that
if,
if
this
isn't
a
in
a
flood
hazard
area,
why
should
this
even
come
to
us
because
isn't
that
an
uninhabitable
space,
then,
if
I
and
I'm,
just
going
back
to
my
memory
of
flood
zones
going
back
30
years,
where
that
was
habitable,
space
in
flood
zones
were
not
allowed,
were
not
permitted.
Correct.
B
B
CJ
B
BI
I
C
C
This
is
directly
to
family
residents
on
a
vacant
law
to
include
basement
and
two
separate
driveway
parking
spaces.
The
violation
is
article
65,
section,
nine,
the
lot
size
direct
to
families
insufficient
article
65,
section,
nine.
The
flirty
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65
69,
the
front
yard
setback
is
insufficient
in
article
65,
section
39,
OSP
parking,
the
quiet,
buffering
name,
an
address
to
the
record.
Please.
B
O
You,
madam
chair,
we
would
like
to
go
forward
and
for
the
record,
my
name
is
Kevin
Cloutier
from
the
Cloutier
law,
firm
located
at
1990,
Center
Street,
and
what
Roxbury
and
joined
by
Steven
Connolly
the
owner
of
the
subject
lot,
and
what
we're
proposing
here
is
to
build
a
two
family
home
in
a
lot
that
is
vacant
that
sits
at
the
corner
of
Nelson,
Street
and
Maxwell
Street
in
Dorchester.
This
proposal
would
be
two
units
that
would
be
subject
to
being
converted
to
condos
and
sold
and
that's
a
it
wasn't
the
original
intent.
O
But
it's
an
agreement
we
reached
through
our
interaction
with
a
local
neighborhood
council,
the
redefining
our
community
organization,
with
respect
to
the
zoning
relief
necessary
there's
three
primary
points,
one
being
that
the
FA
are
is
excessive.
Minimum
Farr
is
0.4.
We
have
FA
our
0.58,
though
I'd
suggest
that
the
average
Farr
on
Nelson
Street
of
that
neighborhood
0.68
and
then
Maxwell
Street
point
nine
six,
so
we're
well
below
the
average
of
the
existing
home.
So
it's
consistent
with
the
fabric
of
the
neighborhood.
O
Another
violation
is
the
front
setback
which
is
15
minimum
and
we're
out
14
sore
just
a
kind
of
a
de
minimis
violation
where
one
foot
off
there
finally
lot
size.
The
minimum
lot
size
per
the
code
is
six
thousand.
We
have
five
thousand
two
hundred
sixty
nine
feet,
though
out
of
21
Lots
in
that
neighboring
area.
Our
lot
is
larger
than
16
of
those.
So
again
the
use
falls
within
it's
a
two
family.
This
is
a
three
family
zone.
O
O
R
CL
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Whitney
Celestin,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
we
held
in
the
butters
meeting
for
this
project.
They've
had
multiple
conversations
with
the
rock
organization
and
finally
they've
reached
some
agreements,
and
the
walk
organization
also
sent
a
letter
of
support.
So
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
supports
his
project.
CL
BB
B
C
This
is
a
change
of
arts
from
a
two
family
to
four
requirements
as
a
rare
edition
and
making
for
apartments
within
the
existing
building
into
addition,
the
violations,
nautical
50
section
28
a
multi-family
residential
use,
the
forbidden,
use
radical
50
section
29
the
lot
area.
Traditional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
Radical
50,
section
29,
the
Floyd,
a
ratio
is
excessive,
equal
50,
section
29,
the
height
is
excessive.
Article
50,
section,
29
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
50
section
29
really
add,
is
insufficient.
C
CM
Yes,
what's
being
proposed
is
an
addition
on
to
what
is
an
existing
historic
building
that
front
part
of
the
building
is
sits
back
a
bit
from
the
sidewalk
and
it
is
has
an
entrance,
that's
existing,
so
the
front
on
the
left
that
would
enter
into
that
historic
part
of
the
house.
There
is
a
unit
there
as
well
as
a
unit
at
the
rear
that
goes
that
shares
part
of
the
lower
area,
so
those
two
units
and
then
there's
a
unit
on
the
second
floor
and
then
a
unit
on
the
third
floor.
CM
CM
There's
a
elevation
on
the
drawings
I
submitted
the
very
last
page
of
the
lower
level
which
ground
floor
garden
entrance
such
is
shared
with
the
first
floor
space.
So
it's
it
like
a
townhouse
unit
at
that
point
and
then
the
second
floor
is
another
unit,
as
well
as
the
third
floor
being
the
top
floor.
These
are
four
for
sale
apartments,
so
they'll
be
condominiums
and.
CM
9,
it's
the
smallest
of
the
units.
It's
a
two-bedroom
unit
at
980
square
feet
to
the
rear
of
it.
We
have
a
1730
square
foot
unit
which
is
first
floor
and
the
lower
level
and
on
the
second
floor,
it's
2,000
square
feet
and
the
third
floor
is
mirrored
at
another
2,000
square
feet.
So
they're
very
nice
size
good
for
families
to
be
here.
B
BW
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Jessica
Thomas,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood,
rec
neighborhood
services
and
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
to
support
the
project
they
met
with
the
butters
in
April,
and
they
also
met
with
the
Civic
group
in
May
and
June.
They
did
reduce
the
size
from
seven
to
four
and
again
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
to
support
continued
that
they
continue
to
meet
with
the
community.
B
BL
Afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
board
councillor
Daniel
like
to
go
on
the
record
and
support
this
project
that
the
developer,
finalizes
community
benefits
with
neighborhood
association
and
also
council.
Jenny,
would
like
to
appreciate
the
development
preserving
for
preserving
the
historical
building
in.
CH
My
name
is
lavet
coney
I'm,
the
president
of
the
Mount
Pleasant
forest
and
vine
Neighborhood
Association,
and
we're
at
3
3
9
Dudley
Street.
So
we
would
like
to
provide
conditional
approval
of
this
project
to
move
forward
with
the
understanding
that
the
proponents
and
the
Association
will
continue.
Conversations
to
negotiate
finalize
community
benefits
prior
to
the
permit
being
granted.
B
BH
C
C
Only
existing
building
to
be
raised
under
a
separate
permit,
the
violation,
article
54
section,
1348
ratio,
success
of
article
54,
section
13,
the
building
hated
successor,
article
54,
section
13
years
of
local
spaces,
insufficient
equal
fifty-four,
section
13,
the
rear
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
54,
section
18,
roof
structure
restrictions,
article
54,
section,
21
bar
street
parking-
is
insufficient.
Navin,
add
just
for
the
record.
Please.
CN
B
B
AM
B
AM
B
B
CN
B
CN
Far
as
the
other
violations
open
space,
the
only
open
space
being
provided
us
with
one
top
floor
unit,
that's
part
of
a
neighborhood
situation
where
they
don't
want
public
groups
thanks
for
the
rest
of
the
building,
so
we're
not
providing
it
for
the
other
units.
Pocket
violation
is
this:
is
existing
residential
using
one
commercial
space,
no
parking,
and
you
can
see
from
this
location
packing,
there's
not
a
possibility,
even
if
at
the
construction,
intersecting
busy
streets,
Princeton
seal,
the
other
violations
are.
That
is
really
on
violation.
That's
an
existing
condition
of
the
building
number
where's.
CN
A
footprint
now
toughest
lot
size,
but
for
a
little
bit
of
space
in
the
back
and
the
next
is
the
roof
structure
which
will
take
me
to
the
issue
with
those
roof
structures.
The
conditional
use
permit
is
required.
Anytime,
you
go
up
the
height
of
the
building.
You
exceed
the
building
from
1985.
In
this
instance
the
building
151.
Will
you
see
those
windows?
The
butter
will
speak
for
that
their
attorneys
here.
Those.
CN
Windows
that
were
originally
actually
a
side
yet
meaning
that
there's
no
setback
requirement
for
that
bat
site.
I
would
also
point
out
that
those
windows
in
a
party
wall
and
then
the
firewall,
both
of
which,
if
not
legal
this,
is
don't
leave
the
private
file
for
151
Salem
Street.
That
building
there's
no
evidence
that
they've
ever
applied
to
put
windows
in
that
wall.
CN
R
BJ
B
Is
that
we
would
prefer
that
people
don't
but
placeholders
as
far
as
a
design
that
come
in
with
something
something?
That's
that
will
in
fact,
to
look
like
what
that
building
will
eventually
look
like
you
know,
because
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
placeholder
designs
and
in
some
cases
they
get
approved
by
the
B
PDA
and
they've,
seen
some
pretty
interesting
structures
go
up
and
in
other
cases,
when
the
star
BPD
in
design
review.
If
you
can
see
it
any
questions
from
the
board,
is
anybody
had
to
speak
in
support
of
this
proposal?.
AF
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
face
the
truth.
With
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
of
this
proposal.
My
colleague
Maria
lands
held
on
a
butter's
meeting
on
April
8th.
There
are
over
a
dozen
people
in
attendance.
I
know
that
there
were
concerns
related
to
density
or
the
height,
but
the
vast
majority
of
abutters
and
attendants
were
in
support.
AF
CO
My
name
is
Joseph
broad,
again
I'm
an
attorney.
My
address
is
at
40
Broad
Street
in
Boston
Mass
I
represent
pf'
Holdings
Inc,
who
is
the
owner
of
153
Salem
Street,
which
immediately
abuts
this
project
on
Salem
Street
as
you're
familiar
the
street.
It's
the
project,
not
only
Prince
Street,
but
it
wraps
around
onto
Salem
Street
as
to
the
mayor's
office,
saying
that
the
abutters
or
the
neighborhood.
CO
Reason
for
my
opposition
is
that
this
building
is
in
a
substantially
restrict
the
light,
the
airflow
and
the
views
to
my
clients
building.
My
client
has
three
windows
on
the
side
of
the
building,
which
it's
my
clients,
building
of
these
four
storeys,
the
property
right.
Next
door
is
only
one
story:
they
want
to
build
it
up
and
it's
going
to
block
those
windows
or
substantially
in
case
those
windows.
CO
The
proposal
that
we
also
saw
I
had
bump
outs
from
out
onto
the
sidewalk,
which
will
also
shade
and
cause
restrictions
on
the
airflow
in
the
lighting
into
the
front
windows
of
my
clients,
building
no
contention
at
all
from
ISD
that
these
windows
are
in
violation.
My
client
bought
this
property
in
1990
in
1994.
These
windows
were
fully
in
place
at
that
time
have
been
in
place
for
over
twenty
eight
twenty
four
twenty
five
years
in,
even
probably
more
substantially
beyond
that
point,
without
interruption
whatsoever.
CO
CC
P
B
CC
There
is
also
existing
fireplaces
that
are
right
next
to
the
wall
that
are
gas,
so
he
had
concerns
of
a
damage
or
so,
if
that
that
would
that
would
cause
any
things,
as
well
as
my
death
and
the
tenants
that
lived
in
now
of
the
restaurant
they're
concerned
of
rodents
and
such
if
that
was
going
to
be
controlled
when
the
building
gets
took
them
down,
or
so
as
well
as
that
something
else.
Okay,.
B
B
B
CE
B
C
The
last
case
of
the
day
calling
boa
nine
zero
zero
five
eight
eight
seven.
Ninety
nine
East
Third
Street.
This
is
to
raise
the
existing
building
directly
new
six
townhouse
tiled
Welling.
It
proposed
garage
parking
on
the
door
here
on
each
dwelling.
The
violations
article
27
s,
section
five.
This
is
in
the
South
Boston
iPod
article
68,
section
33.
Our
street
parking
is
in
submission
article
68,
section,
eight
Musil,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
68,
section,
eight
front
yard
is
insufficient.
C
CE
Are
my
clients
are
proposing
to
wipe
a
ass
like
a
site
clean
that
had
some
previous
bad
history
in
his
proposal
now
for
town
houses
which
are
zone
and
compliant,
the
only
relief
were
seeking
is
for
the
iPod
based
on
neighborhood
concerns.
We've
dropped
the
original
proposal
from
six
roof
decks
to
four
units
without
roof
decks
and
have
put
in
a
proviso
that
the
roof
we
will
not
apply
for
roof
decks
for
the
next
ten
years.
James
Christopher
can
walk
us
through
the
plans.
B
X
Been
waiting
on
Jim
Evans
ago
James,
Christopher
RC
LLC,
the
parking
is
outraged
accessed
by
a
common
driveway,
Tahoe
style
buildings
front
to
back
each
garage
can
have
two
vehicles.
The
first
living
level
would
be
living
space
with
the
second
with
the
third
and
fourth
wall
as
housing
bedrooms.
The
yeren
square
footage
is
from
200
in
2004,
240
square
feet,
mm
144
square
feet,
three:
men,
three
and
a
half
bath
units.
This
project
had
an
extensive
neighborhood
process.
We
originally
started
at
six
years
with
much
smaller
setbacks.
X
After
going
back
and
forth
with
recent
is
we
could
go
on
Monday
with
the
abutters?
We
believe
it
was
resolved
all
the
outstanding
issues.
The
proposal
has
changed
from
six-year.
That's
down
five
units
down
before
we've
increased
the
rail
yard
setback
to
meet
the
requirement
of
20
the
fa
r
sm.
We
originally
had
the
building
site
to
follow
the
modal
on
the
street.
We
know
we're
able
to
increase
that
setback
to
five
feet
so
largely
the
zoning
compliant
project,
I.
BS
Really
dull
mayor's
office
Neighborhood
Services
like
to
go
market
in
support,
and
we
also
want
to
emphasize
on
the
abutters
who
I've
spoken
to,
who
were
in
opposition,
want
to
express
their
support
due
to
the
no
roof
decks
for
10
years,
with
the
a/c
on
the
roof
and
proper
engineered
drainage,
so
with
all
those
that
they
have
agreed
to
they're
all
the
opposition
that
I've
spoken
to
is
now
in
support.
Thank
you.
My.
BQ
Other
chair
members
of
the
water
under
Calderon
from
councillors
resurfaced.
The
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
to
this
proposal
due
to
the
considerable
work
that
was
calling
to
addressing
quality
of
life
issues
and
concerns
of
the
neighbors
and
members
of
the
City
Point
neighborhood
association.
BQ
We
support
the
new
plans
that
are
sown
in
compliance
with
four
units,
two
parking
spots
per
unit
and
no
roof
decks
neighbors
and
the
civic
group
also
us
have
also
requested
that
we
respectfully
ask
for
a
proviso
to
prevent
any
future
roof
decks
at
this
property
that
the
AC
units
be
placed
on
the
roof
and
that
the
propylene
continue
to
work
closely
with
our
borders
during
construction.
However,
in
their
interest
of
transparency,
we
will
also
ask
that
this
be
deferred
briefly
assume
some
president
receives
no.
BQ
AE
AE
The
counselors
here
to
support
the
second
set
of
plans
that
that
are
now
zone
and
complaint
without
it'll
68
for
four
units
to
two
parking
spots
per
unit
in
no
roof
decks
after
hearing
from
neighbors
in
their
concerns,
council
would
also
ask
for
a
proviso
to
prevent
any
decks
ever
being
built
on
the
property,
as
this
was
an
important
issue
to
gain.
Neighborhood
support
comes
with
us
class,
the
AC
units
replacing
roof.
And,
lastly,
the
council
encourages
the
performance
to
continue
working
with
the
neighborhood
throughout
the
construction
phase.
B
If
anybody
else
to
speak
in
support-
and
you
just
few
anybody
else-
anybody
any
support-
please
line
up,
but
I'd
like
to
hear
from
for
individuals
for
abutters
and
if
anybody's
here
in
opposition
I'd
like
to
hear
from
Cora
abiders
in
opposition,
as
I
asked
before.
Please
give
us
new
information,
otherwise,
just
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
Okay,
let's
go
thank.
Z
CP
Name
is
John
O'toole
I
live
at
90
nice
party
and
the
director
of
butter
to
this
project.
I
will
not
oppose
this
project
as
written
at
the
four
units.
If
the
ten-year
proviso
of
no
objects
be
written,
Zazi
be
a
decision
decision
with
the
timelines.
The
ten-year
timelines
thought
after
completion
of
the
project.
CQ
Hello
members
of
the
board,
Jim
Johnston
I'm,
a
director
for
butter
I've,
been
there
I,
grew
up
in
the
house,
and
I
have
three
generations
of
family
right.
There
myself
and
the
group
were
originally
opposed
to
the
six
units
and
the
five
units,
and
now
with
the
provisos,
have
been
added
to
the
project.
The
four
units.
We
have
no
objection,
Thank
You.