►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 2-5-19
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
A
B
A
Just
a
reminder,
please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off.
If
you
have
conversations,
please
take
them
outside
of
the
room
and
in
accordance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law.
This
meeting
is
being
live-streamed
again.
I.
Ask
that
if
you're
here
to
speak
either
in
support
or
in
opposition
of
the
project,
please
do
not
repeat
any
issue
or
any
anything
else
that
somebody
ahead
of
you
has
already
stated,
give
us
new
information,
if
you,
if
your
concern
has
already
been
addressed,
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
A
C
D
E
A
C
G
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
mark
Lacasse
Lacasse
law,
seventy
five
of
Arlington
Street
in
Boston
attorney
for
the
applicant
for
T
B,
Street
LLC.
This
is
an
application,
I
request
for
a
one-year
extension
for
a
decision
which
was
became
final
after
a
signature
by
this
board
on
March
6
2017.
So
it's
still
valid.
We
have
been
working
with
the
BPD,
a
on
Design,
Review
and
various
other
matters
related
to
the
article
80
approvals.
Also,
this
a
subdivision
of
a
parcel
of
land
which
is
registered,
which
required
land
court
approval.
A
C
H
C
C
Is
installing
new
roof
deck
going
to
plant
walk
out
skylight
to
provide
install
violations?
The
ninth
edition,
seven
to
80
cm,
are
10
11,
stairways,
10
11
point
one
to
point
to
roof
access
where
a
stairway
is
provided
to
a
roof.
Access
to
that
roof
shall
be
provided
through
a
penthouse
complying
with
section
15,
10.2
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
yeah.
J
Request
so
the
roof
deck
itself
is
actually
that's
by
right,
so
there
was
no
request
for
the
roof
that
could
simply
just
for
the
access
to
the
roof
deck.
So
it's
a
four-story
single-family
structure
had
a
existing
roof
deck
that
we're
replacing,
which
was
access
just
but
via
a
small
hatch,
and
so
we
are
in
Beacon
Hill
and
the
issue
with
the
access
is
a
full
penthouse
would
be
visible
from
a
public
way
and
not
adhere
to
the
guidelines
of
the
architectural
Commission
and
I
would
not
be.
K
K
C
A
L
The
record
please
good
morning:
Attorney
Nix
Azula,
McDermott
quilty
and
Miller
28
State
Street
Suite
8:02.
Here
in
Boston
we
had
a
second
of
butter
meeting
scheduled
for
this
past
Thursday
that
was
cancelled
due
to
extreme
cold,
and
we
were
unable
to
get
into
the
room
where
we
were
supposed
to
have
the
meeting.
It
was
locked
and
unavailable,
so
we
actually
have
a
rescheduled
of
butter
meeting
the
week
of
February
25th
that
we're
working
with
John
Allison
at
the
mayor's
office.
As
a
result,
we
asked
for
the
quickest
deferral
you
could
give
us.
L
N
N
A
A
A
A
O
P
Q
C
A
A
C
There
any
other
deferrals
or
withdrawals
hearing
no
I'm
going
to
call
the
first
case
calling
boa
862
277
337
Chelsea
Street.
This
is
raising
existing
building
erect
a
four
unit
residential
dwelling,
the
violation
of
article
53,
section,
56,
auspey
parking
alone
requires
none
is
proposed.
Article
53,
section,
8,
MF,
I
used
is
forbidden.
Article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
large
sized
2,000
square
foot.
Minimum
is
required.
Article
53
section
ion
is
efficient
additional
lot
area
per
unit,
a
thousand
square
feet
unit
minimum
is
required.
Article
53
section
I
an
excessive.
C
If
a
1.0
is
the
maximum
loud
article
53
section
9,
the
building
height
is
excessive.
35
feet
is
the
maximum
allowed
equal
53
section,
9
insufficient,
open
space.
300
square
foot
unit
is
required.
Article
53,
section
9
insufficient
side,
yet
setback
two
and
a
half
feet
the
minimum
required
article
53
section,
9,
insufficient
Rea,
add
setback
25
feet
at
the
minimum
required
article
53
section
9.
The
number
of
us
explore
each
as
you
can
exceed
it.
C
R
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lin's
245
Summer,
Street,
East
Boston,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
to
my
right.
This
tree,
Lorena
she's,
the
architect
with
joy,
Street
design,
the
architectural
project
also
with
me,
as
Brad
kids
ability
or
the
property
proposed
proponent
for
this
proposal
and
share.
R
Just
in
the
edge
of
the
square
in
this
positive,
it's
an
existing
single-family
structure,
as
you
can
see
from
the
photos
of
it
provided
the
building
is
structurally
unsound.
We've
had
an
engineer.
Look
at
this
building.
It
is
likely
in
need
of
demolition
and
relatively
quickly.
Our
proposal
is
to
rebuild
a
four
unit
building
on
this
site,
based
upon
the
plans
that
we've
provided
here
upon
completion.
R
This
project
would
be
intended
for
home
ownership,
so
the
decree
for
additional
condominium
units
for
this
neighborhood
by
way
of
just
brief
context
for
this
area,
there
been
a
number
of
projects
as
of
late
that
have
been
presented
and
approved
in
and
around
the
edge
of
the
square,
including
buildings,
similar
character,
height
and
size
at
both
331
and
348
Chelsea,
both
of
are
actually
under
construction
presently,
along
Bremen
Street
to
the
rear
of
this
property.
There
are
also
a
number
of
multi
families
that
have
been
proposed
and
approved.
R
This
would
be
a
consistent,
both
height
and
scale
and
size,
its
proximity
to
public
transportations
within
walking
distance
to
both
Orion
hi
I'm,
sorry,
Wood
Island
station,
as
well
as
the
airport
station
and
Freeman
Street
Park
as
well.
The
unit
sizes
range
from
930
square
feet
up
to
about
1,100
square
feet
and
it's
a
mix
of
three
two
bedrooms
and
one
with
one
bedroom
by
way
of
zoning
I
can
run
through
the
relief
that's
necessary
first.
This
is
located.
R
T
R
1875,
with
respect
to
the
side
yard,
we
do
have
a
side
yard
one
set
of
three
feet:
the
other
set
at
zero:
the
requirements
2.5
feet.
In
addition,
we're
requesting
a
variance
with
a
floor
area
ratio
which
we're
proposing
at
2.1,
which
is
an
excess
of
the
1.0,
our
building
beyond
thirty
seven
and
a
half
feet
tall
totaled
at
a
total
of
four
stories.
That's
to
allow
for
the
duplex
upper
level
units
that
we've
proposed,
the
maximum
height
limit
is
35
feet
for
this
district.
R
U
R
M
T
V
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
mrs.
Garcia
with
the
mayor's
office
under
worker
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
the
applicant
present
a
project
in
a
neighbor's
meeting
back
in
September
and
also
in
front
of
the
eco
keen
Civic
Association.
So
when
the
Paris
meeting
the
concerns
were
more
about
the
traffic
and
parking
in
the
area,
but
a
know
really
anything
concerns
about
the
thank
you.
W
A
O
R
3:31,
which
is
further
towards
the
middle
of
the
block,
has
more
of
its
property
within
the
flood
zone.
It's
it's
a
close
call,
I
believe
the
the
maps
that
we've
reviewed
actually
showed
the
flood
zone
creeps
towards
the
back
of
the
property.
So
we
think,
as
you
get
closer
to
the
square,
the
elevation.
A
C
Next
two
cases
calling
boah
79012
one
coppersmith
way
the
companion
case-
boa
eight
seven,
nine
zero
one,
zero
six
coppersmith
way.
This
is
for
one
progress
Smith.
This
is
erect
a
new
three
family
house
and
roof
rear
decks
violation,
article
53
section.
Sixteen
the
excessive
FA
are
1.0
is
the
max
article
53
section.
Sixteen
insufficient
a
lot
with
35
feet
is
required.
Article
53,
section
15,
a
three
family
detached
use
is
forbidden.
Article
53,
section,
56
off
street
parking
loading,
climate
and
others
proposed.
C
This
is
for
six
coppersmith
Ricci
knew
three
family
house:
the
roof
and
red
decks.
Riley
statical,
53,
section
56,
must
be
parking
loading
and
sufficient
parking.
One
space
per
unit
is
be
quiet,
section.
Nine.
The
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded.
Three
stories,
as
the
max
article
53
section,
9
of
the
maximum
law
height
has
been
exceeded.
35
feet
is
the
max
article.
53
section:
9
is
sufficient
a
lot
size.
2,000
square
feet
is
required.
Article
53
section
I
on
excessive
fao
1.0
is
the
max
article.
C
R
Morning,
chair
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lin's,
245,
Summer,
Street,
East,
boss,
I'll,
be
have
a
petitioner
with
these
done
med
bits,
the
owner,
the
properties
at
one
in
six
coppersmith
way.
Madam
chair,
these
are
companion
cases
in
the
sense
that
they
are
very
similar
in
design,
style
and
ownership.
Interestingly,
they
both
lie
in
two
separate
zoning
districts.
One
is
in
the
waterfront
commercial
district,
as
well
as
the
other
being
in
the
three
of
mm
district.
While
the
proposals
are
identical
and
the
lot
sizes
are
similar.
R
Certainly
the
zoning
relief
that's
necessary
for
each
would
vary
based
upon
of
the
two
districts.
By
way
of
context.
This
is
located
immediately
adjacent
to
the
coppersmith
village
project,
which
is
a
five-story
multifamily
project
being
done
by
the
neighborhood,
affordable
housing.
There
are
a
number
of
other
projects
along
both
coppersmith
way,
which
are
under
construction
now,
as
well
as
border
street.
We've
done
outreach
to
the
director
butters,
especially
the
ones
along
border
street,
who
support
this
proposal
based
upon
the
amount
of
development
that's
occurring
in
and
around
this
immediate
area.
R
It
makes
sense
that
these
properties
are
improved
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
we're
proposing
what
we're
proposing,
just
by
weave
summary
for
the
unit
sizes,
again
identical
in
size,
a
unit
three
being
the
lives
of
three
bedrooms,
is
about
1,500
square
feet,
because
it
is
a
duplex
style
unit.
The
lower
levels
contain
what
we
call
single
bedroom
units,
but
they're
on
555
square
feet.
These
easily
could
be
modified
to
studio.
However,
we're
asking
the
board
to
consider
the
unique
nature
of
this
building
for
purposes
of
the
minimum
unit
size
as
a
one-bedroom.
What.
A
R
Both
buildings
are
proposed
at
four
storeys
forty
feet:
eight
inches
maximum
height
in
the
water,
commercial
district
is
actually
55
feet,
so
it'd
be
lower
than
the
allowable
height.
However,
it
does
exceed
the
height
limit
at
3
f2000
district,
because
that
maximum
is
three
storeys
35
feet.
There's
no
story
limit
in
the
waterfront
commercial.
But
again
these
buildings
are
located
directly
across
from
one
another.
A
R
A
R
We're
proposing
no
para
games
for
either
either
site.
We
did
have
a
conversation
with
the
neighborhood.
The
Maverick
Central
Neighborhood
Association
actually
reviewed
this
project
twice.
There
was
a
extensive
discussion
about
parking
and
whether
or
not
it
made
sense
to
allow
for
one
parking
space
under
the
building,
the
neighborhood
actually
felt
that
that
was
not
an
appropriate
use
of
the
site
based
upon
its
proximity
to
Maverick
energy
station
and
therefore
encouraged
not
putting
the
parking
on
the
site
and
to
use
it
completely.
For.
A
R
Vaguely
familiar
with
a
coppersmith
project,
I
didn't
I,
didn't
work
on
that
I
think
that
was
subject.
Our
article
80
and
I,
don't
believe
they're
in
a
one-to-one
parking
ratio.
I
think
it's
more
of
a
maybe
a
75
percent.
Thereabouts
based
upon
just
my
experience
with
those
types
of
projects
in
the
neighborhood.
R
U
R
X
R
Y
V
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
guess
who's
Garcia
with
the
mayor's
office
on
a
worker
services.
He
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
for
this
project
a
we
present
the
project,
a
with
a
nebari
spinning
on
back
in
October,
and
also
the
project
on
the
proposal
received
the
support
from
the
Maverick
Central
Square
association,
with
no
questions
about
the
project.
Thank
you.
Thank.
W
A
C
Next
case,
calling
vol
875
174
35
Layden
Street.
This
is
the
raising
existing
billing
erecting
new
a
nine
unit,
residential
dwelling
with
11
parking
spaces.
The
violations
of
article
53,
section
56,
insufficient
park
and
1.75
unit
is
required
in
article
53,
section
56,
the
location,
the
front
yard
parking
does
not
allowed
article
53
section,
8,
Emma
fire
use
is
forbidden.
Article
53,
section
9,
excessive
fer
point
8
is
the
max
article.
53
section,
9,
building
height
is
excessive.
R
And
chair
members,
before
ever
since
245
Summer
Street
East
Boston
on
behalf
of
petitioner
with
me
as
Brad
Kim
Jamila,
the
artist's
property
lady
with
respect
to
this
proposal,
is
an
existing
six
unit.
Multi-Family
dwelling
on
the
site.
Presently,
historically,
this
property
has
been
somewhat
problematic
for
the
neighborhood.
We've
done
a
proposed
a
proposed
project
immediately
next
door
on
the
right
hand,
side
for
a
similar
number
of
units.
At
that
time,
the
neighborhood
had
requested
that
we,
if
we
could
possible,
start
looking
at
the
project
at
this
at
this
site.
Mr.
R
Ken
Jamila
put
this
property
under
agreement
with
the
intention
of
redeveloping
it.
We
did
very
fairly
how
each
with
the
community
to
come
up
with
the
design
we
felt
was
appropriate.
The
first
issue
that
we
heard
was
to
ensure
that
no
parking
would
be
accessed
from
Lady
Street.
All
of
the
parking
for
this
project
would
be
access
from
the
rear
of
the
property
along
gorban
street,
which
provides
for
a
little
bit
more
traffic
flexibility.
If
you
will,
as
opposed
to
congestion,
that's
typically
noticed
on
Main
Street.
The
proposal
would
add
a
total
of
nine
units.
R
The
lot
size
of
a
eighty
two
hundred
square
feet,
however,
in
looking
at
the
building
from
the
lady
Street
side,
it's
consistent
in
both
height
and
size,
with
a
lot
of
the
other
buildings
along
that
side
of
lake
the
street,
because
the
property
does
sloped
down
towards
the
rear
the
the
levels.
The
number
of
units
number
of
storeys
on
the
Boardman
Street
side
would
actually
be
a
total
of
four.
R
R
One
of
the
things
again
that
we
heard
from
the
neighborhood,
especially
in
orient
Heights,
is
that
the
purpose
unit
sizes
should
be
accommodating
more
for
families,
and
so
one
of
the
reasons
why
we've
included
a
number
of
free
bedroom
units
in
this
project,
the
size
of
the
units
range
from
other
960
square
feet
for
the
true
bedroom
up
to
around
1300
square
feet.
For
the
three-bedroom,
we
are
providing
a
total
of
11
parking
spaces,
even
though
we're
proposing
a
total
of
nine
units.
So
this
would
involve
at
least
one
parking
space
for
each
unit.
R
We
would
have
the
option
to
have
two
flexible
spaces
for
visitor
parking
or
additional
parking
for
the
units.
Again,
that
was
in
response
to
issues
that
were
raised
throughout
the
community
process.
We
did
have
a
chance
to
present
this
to
the
Orion
Heights
neighborhood
council
on
several
occasions,
as
well
as
the
director
butters
Victorians
neighbor
Corrine
Heights
neighbor
councillor
to
support
this
proposal
based
upon
these
plans.
A
R
The
roof
decks
again.
This
is
part
of
the
process
with
the
neighborhood.
The
roof
decks
are
pushed
more
towards
the
foreman
Street
side
and
barely
visible
from
the
latest
reach
side.
They
would
be
visible
for
Morgan
Street,
but
the
concern
that
we
heard
was
from
the
director
fighters
across
the
street
on
Leigh
the
street
as
to
the
impact
plus
roof
decks,
might
have
on
the
lane
street
properties.
Pushing
them
back
towards
Boardman
Street
would
minimize
that
impact,
and
the
remaining
about
hers
have
no
issue
with
that.
F
F
R
A
R
R
F
V
Door,
hisses
Garcia,
with
Amelia
surface
under
worker
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
The
proposal
received
a
support
from
the
virus
and
also
from
the
Civic
Association,
based
on
the
parking
spaces,
and
also
it
with
the
currently
conditions
of
the
building.
So
they
they
were,
they
happy.
They
are
doing
something
with
this.
W
F
C
Following
in
extreme
cases,
following
boa
9:04,
zero-five,
two-nine,
Webster,
Avenue
companion
cases,
boa
nine
zero,
four
zero,
four
six
eleven
Webster
Avenue
in
boa
nine
zero,
four
zero,
four
eight
eleven
to
fifteen
Webster
Avenue.
This
is
for
nine
Webster
Avenue.
This
is
the
newly
created
lot,
consisting
of
eight
hundred
eight
hundred
and
one
square
feet,
erect
a
new
three-story
to
family
attached
building
two
eleven
and
fifteen
Webster.
C
This
violation
of
the
article
53
section
56
r35,
insufficient
parking.
One
per
unit
is
required.
Article
53,
section,
nine
inch,
fish
and
lot
size.
Two
thousand
square
feet
is
required.
Nautical.
Fifty
three
section:
nine
insufficient
additional
lot
area,
a
thousand
square
feet.
The
unit
is
required,
equal
thirty,
three
section:
nine,
excessive
FAO
one
point:
zero
is
the
max
article,
53
section:
nine
insufficient,
open
space.
We
have
a
square
feet
unit
is
required,
article
53,
section,
nine,
insufficient
side,
yard
setback.
Two
and
a
half
feet
is
required.
C
An
article
53
section,
nine
insufficient
array
add
set
back
20
feet:
minimum
Andrew,
quiet,
low,
53,
section,
nine
insufficient
parking
one
per
unit
is
required.
This
is
411
Webster
Avenue.
This
is
confirmed
as
an
existing
one
family,
dwell
and
and
combine
lots
at
eleven
Webster
780
eighty-seven
square
feet
with
lot
feet
at
fifteen
Webster
of
787
square
feet
to
an
equal,
a
two-family
dwelling
with
a
new
address
to
be
known
as
eleven
to
fifteen
Webster
Avenue
then
allocate
100
square
feet
to
number
nine
Webster
Avenue.
C
The
remaining
lot
size
then,
shall
equal
hop,
1474
square
feet
and
nine
webs
Avenue
on
vacant
land
shall
have
801
square
feet:
violation:
article
53,
section,
nine
dimensional
regulations,
reduction
of
open
space
at
20
square
feet
unit
is
required.
Article
53,
section
9,
the
reduction
of
required
large
size,
2,000
square
feet
is
required,
article
53
section
I,
and
the
reduction
of
an
insufficient
lot
area
per
unit,
equal
53,
section,
I
and
excessive
FAI
due
to
the
reduction
and
the
lot
size.
C
C
The
MFI
are
bidden
equal
53,
section,
9
insufficient
a
lot
area
per
unit,
article
53,
section
9
insufficient,
open
space
per
unit;
article
53,
section
9,
excess
of
FA,
our
article
53
section
9,
insufficient
Riyadh
setback,
an
article
53,
section,
52
alteration:
a
reconfiguration
of
a
roof
profile
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
G
This
project
involves
the
restoration
of
two
existing
single-family
home
brick
buildings,
which
you'll
see
on
slide
6
in
the
photographs
of
the
handout
and
construction
of
a
new,
very
similar
structure
on
the
vacant
parcel
at
number
9
Webster
Ave,
the
first
application
before
you
was
to
combine
Lots
number
11
and
15,
which
is
where
the
existing
building
stand
and
to
allocate
100
square
feet
of
the
combined
lot
to
the
vacant
parcel
so
that
the
new
structure
could
be
right
up
against
the
existing
structures.
So
that
was
just
a
lot
Minh
that
was
recommended
by
ISD.
G
The
existing
buildings
are
two
and
a
half
stories
gable.
Roof.
The
roof
will
be
elevated
to
create
a
full
third
storey.
On
the
existing
two
structures,
the
the
new
structure
will
be
similar
at
three
storeys.
Each
of
the
buildings
will
have
two
duplex
units
basement
and
ground-floor,
and
the
upper
two
floors,
the
Tama
duplex
units
will
have
access
exclusive
access
on
each
of
the
roof
areas
on
each
of
the
three
buildings
and
in
response
to
community
concerns,
the
roofs
will
be
green
and
that
we
had
access
by
hatch
instead
of
head
house,
which
was
permissible.
G
Given
the
height
of
these
buildings,
we
had
a
very
extensive
community
process,
resulting
in
a
favorable
favorable
vote
from
the
JPA
Association
of
twenty
seven
to
five,
and
we
have
letters
of
support
from
abutters
worked
closely
with
our
butters,
especially
in
the
rear
yard.
Web
strive
is
a
very
small,
narrow,
non
vehicular
street,
so
tight
conditions.
A
A
A
G
You'll
see
on
the
last
slide,
it's
strictly
a
vegetation.
We
provided
a
lot
more
material
during
the
community
process
about
the
types
of
materials
that
are
used
for
this
type
of
roof
surface.
The
mcallen
building
in
South
Boston
is
one
example
that
has
a
terrace
roof
with
green
space
on
each
of
the
levels
you.
U
G
F
V
When
members
of
the
board
kisses
Garcia
with
the
mayor's
office
under
worker
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
the
proposal
he
was
presented
in
front
of
them
a
bothers
and
several
of
meetings
with
the
Jeffress
point,
Neighborhood
Association
I
think
they
are.
They
address
several
of
the
concerns
during
this
community
process.
V
A
C
This
is
a
change
early
to
family,
drawing
to
a
three
family,
drawing
extended
living
space,
an
additional
unit
at
Godin
level
and
add
two
new
windows
at
the
garden
level
front
about
the
new
kitchenette.
We
build
interior
stair
from
the
main
hallway.
The
violation
is
article
62,
section
29,
our
three
parking
requirements,
article
62
section
62,
7-2,
basement
unit-
is
forbidden
in
article
62,
section
8,
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
Z
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
anne-marie
Callahan
I
am
the
owner
and
current
resident
of
17
Parker
Street
Charlestown,
we're
here
before
you
today
for
seek
zoning
relief.
Basically,
for
a
three
family
designation,
we
are
in
a
three
family
neighborhood
and
it's
very
much
in
keeping
with
our
neighborhood.
We
I
presently
live
at
the
home,
with
my
husband
and
four
children
and
intent.
It
is
a
family
home
and
intend
to
be
owner-occupied
for
a
long
time
to
come.
A
Z
T
A
C
AA
AB
M
Z
M
A
M
B
Q
C
AC
A
AC
AD
A
AE
Is
a
rendering
of
the
site
that
has
it's
been
approved
by
the
BPD?
A
the
second
floor
of
the
building
is
currently
a
parking
level.
A
portion
of
the
first
floor
is
parking
and
retail
and
the
entry
to
the
office
bill
in
that
son
levels.
Three
and
four,
the
modification
that's
being
requested
to
simply
take
the
garage
st.
panel
system,
same
MO,
lien
system
and
replace
this
garage
screen
with
glass
and
convert
the
garage
level
on
the
second
floor
into
office
space
as
opposed
to
parking.
The.
A
AG
AC
N
AC
The
last
time
the
Apple,
this
project
was
before
you
under
no
different
ownership.
Dlj
bought
the
project
after
that
was
approved,
and
at
this
particular
time
conceived,
Lee
is
building
out
what
mr.
Bergman
was
showing
you.
So
now
we're
asking
we're
here
as
a
new
ownership
that
took
over
that
a
pool,
and
it's
carrying
that
out,
asking
for
the
conversion
of
the
second
floor
to
parking
now.
AF
A
M
AE
F
AC
AH
Yes,
and
if
I
may
just
speak
to
the
parking
ratio,
the
space
is
4,000
square
feet,
that's
currently
being
provided
with
the
current
project.
It's
at
2.53
currently
and
zoning.
Of
course,
this
2.0
and
what
we're
looking
for
is
something
closer
to
one
and
I
would
just
comment
that
if
this
were
a
new
project
subject
to
be
TD
parking
guidelines,
1.0
would
actually
be
above
what
they
would
recommend
for
an
office
space.
So
we
feel
that
this
is.
A
AH
Correct
in
in
the
if
this
project
were
part
of
a
large
project
review
through
the
BPD,
a
which
it
is
not,
but
if
it
were
a
new
project
and
subject
to
those
requirements,
we
would
be
providing
somewhere
between
0.7
and
1.0
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet
and
that's
reflective
of
the
trends
with
lower
auto
ownership.
More
reliance
on
public
transportation,
bicycle
commuting.
So
we're
coming
before
you
saying
that
we
feel
that
this
project
and
the
users
of
it
are
more
technical.
AH
A
AC
AC
F
AC
Well
that
had
those
concerns,
so
we
reached
out
to
those
folks
to
tell
them
we
could
accommodate
them
with
parking
overnight
was
really
overnight
weekends
that
that
what
seems
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
concern
of
those
for
folks.
In
addition
to
that,
there
are
two
parking
lots
in
the
area.
One
is
a
parking
lot
and
one
is
a
garage
that
have
open
spaces
and
they're
looking
for
monthly
folks
to.
A
AC
AC
B
Members
of
the
board
putting
the
lock
with
the
mayor's
office
Neighborhood
Services,
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
proposal,
and
a
barda's
meeting
was
held.
December
13th
was
largely
attended
by
residents,
as
suggested.
One
of
the
concerns
was
parking
for
those
residents
out
which
they
had
reached
out
to
those
residents
in
regards
to.
We
also
got
a
lot
of
levels
of
support
in
regards
to
the
building
itself.
Right
now,
a
lot
of
butters
think
it's
kind
of
an
eyesore
and
they're
looking
forward
to
being
rehab.
W
K
A
nearby
resident
would
like
to
go
on
resident
or
go
on
record
in
support
of
the
project.
I
do
not
see
parking
as
a
concern,
given
its
primary
commercial
use
in
daytime
parking.
Nighttime
parking
is
the
issue
within
the
neighbourhood,
and
currently
the
garage
is
underutilized.
I've
lived
in
the
neighborhood
for
over
a
decade
and
it's
an
eyesore
and
never
full.
From
my
perspective,
so
I
was.
A
AI
T
AI
Sure,
yes,
I
I'm
Kennedy,
Flynn,
30,
Pike,
Street,
City,
Square,
Charlestown
I,
have
been
directed
by
over
this
property
for
34
years.
Signing
in
all
eleven
I
would
say
six
times
over
six
years
to
oppose
the
previous
owners.
Development
plans
on
April
11
2017
I
appear
here
to
approve
his
set
of
plans
at
that
time.
All
right,
you
that
point
granted
variances
for
that
set
of
plans
which
I
supported
in
which
I
have
meant
a
lot
of
the
my
Lda
to
be
amended
to
support.
AI
He
then
flipped
the
property
to
these
gentlemen,
I
should
say
sold
it
even
flippin
soldier
put
some
amount
of
money
and
I
had
a
meeting
this
past
March
when
I
found
these
people
fought
it.
I
spent
$50,000
leaked
personally
illegal
fees,
with
my
attorneys
going
through
every
document
of
what
took
place.
I
had
an
hour
and
a
half
meeting
with
the
director
of
the
BIA,
his
general
counsel
and
the
head
architect.
David
Collison
was
signed
off
on
these
plans
very
special.
AI
A
AJ
Noah
Clint
ACK
I
lived
at
21
main
street
directly
behind
the
building.
I
think
parking
is
very
difficult
already
in
the
area.
I
have
been
on
the
list
for
three
years
to
try
to
get
parking
in
this
building
and
haven't
heard
anything
about
a
vacancy
I.
Think
it's
very
difficult
street
parking
already
is
very
difficult
and
I.
Think
removing
35
spaces
will
only
make
it
more
difficult.
A
So
it
sounds
like
you,
you,
your
team
needs
to
have
a
conversation
with
this,
but
ER
if
you
still
have
vacancies
at
night
and
weekends.
So
thank
you.
AC
I
C
G
A
AK
C
I
I
C
I
A
See
what
I
had
mentioned
before
is
that
we
are
really
taking
a
hard
look
at
these
deferrals
because
they
are
just
spinning
out
of
control
here.
So
please
make
up
when
you
make
a
request
for
a
date,
make
sure
that
it's
reasonable,
because
we're
not
you
know
considering
any
more
deferral
talk
to
the
pearls,
so
they
have
a
motion.
Please
of
the
deployer.
Is
there
a
second.
I
A
I
C
T
I
C
There
any
other
deferrals
over
Charles
for
10:30.
Okay,
go
back
into
the
next
case,
calling
boa
9,
0
5
3
5
5,
2,
34,
West,
Newton
Street.
This
is
to
correct
the
violation
to
build
a
deck
without
a
permit
for
unit
2
on
top
of
the
existing
garage
at
the
rear
of
the
rear
of
the
building.
This
is
an
exterior
connection
of
a
main
entrance
to
a
detached
garage
for
roof
access.
It
also
needs
the
Stork
approval
required
violation.
C
T
X
I
am
representing
my
clients
in
project
contractor.
We
are
winter
feeding,
we'd
like
to
rebuild
the
deck
that
was
on
this
garage
structure
that
was
detached
from
the
building.
Is
there
when
they
purchased
the
property
over
12
years
ago,
their
parenting
adults
in
violation?
It
is
their
second
means
of
egress,
and
the
reason
basically
is
that
they
purchased
the
property
about
12
years
ago.
So
I
guess
it
came
into
consideration
when
the
roof
had
to
be
replaced
in
the
garage
and
therefore
the
dominoes
fell,
and
we
had
to
right
this
wrong.
U
F
A
AL
AL
However,
we
have
received
maybe
two
phone
calls
from
residents
that
live
one
directly
below
and
her
concern
is
that
she
just
wants
access
to
the
roof
in
case
there
needs
to
be
any
repairs
which
chris
has
has
been
contact
with
with
the
young
woman
and
has
stated
that
it's
already
written
into
their
condo
dock,
so
that
concern
should
be
taken
care
of,
and
then
there
was
just
one
other
butter
that
mentioned
that
she
is
concerns
for
the
safety
or
not
of
the
of
the
deck
other
than
that.
No
one
else
had
any
concerns
or
questions.
U
D
D
A
C
The
next
case
calling
vo
a
nine
zero,
eight
nine
nine
seven,
five
sixty
nine
Boylston
Street.
This
project
consists
of
attending
fell
out
of
an
existing
five
thousand
tone
and
eighty
square
foot,
the
local
restaurant,
with
takeout
and
outdoor
patio
seating
with
twelve
thirty
two
seats
for
seasonal
use
and
converting
it
into
the
new
chick-fil-a
restaurant
and
take-out
and
outdoor
patio
seating
with
fourteen
seats.
Four
seasons
of
the
use.
The
proposed
work
also
includes
the
construction
of
ground
floor
addition
onto
the
front
of
the
building,
an
additional
usable
space
added
to
the
third
floor.
C
The
work
will
also
expand
the
restaurant
and
takeout
uses
to
include
the
entire
second
floor
of
the
building
currently
used
for
office.
The
existing
outdoor
patio
seating
is
being
reduced
from
32
to
16
seats
to
accommodate
the
new
ground
floor
addition,
the
violation
is
article
6
section
for
take-out,
issued
the
petitioner
only
with
below
co
article
9
section
1
extension
of
a
non-conforming
use
in
the
article
32
section
32
floor.
This
is
in
the
ground,
water
conservation,
overlay,
district
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
AM
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Michael
Scott
I'm,
a
partner
at
nutterman
clarinet
fish
located
at
155,
Seaport
Boulevard
in
Boston
I'm.
Here
today,
representing
kick
play
with
me,
is
Steve
Martorano
from
bowler
engineering
or
engineer
for
the
project,
we've
Scott
Goodson
from
chick-fil-a
behind
me
and
Pierce
Haley
with
Sharon
and
Haley.
AM
A
AM
Sure
the
relief
we're
seeking
is
the
conditional
use
permit
for
the
uses
and
in
or
removal
the
proviso
that
would
have
been
previously
provided
to
below
Co.
Limiting
the
use
to
the
below
go
approval,
the
extension
of
a
non-conforming
use
for
the
changes
to
the
structure
and
a
conditional
use
permit
for
for
the
the
G
Cod.
We
believe
we
meet
to
the
standards
for
the
approvals
and
section
6-3
of
the
code.
We
believe
the
properties
appropriate
for
this
use.
A
A
AM
T
H
Morning,
madam
chair
members,
the
Boyd,
Christian,
Simonelli,
bus
and
growler
trust
I
have
been
in
touch
with
the
applicant
at
this
time.
We're
requesting
a
holdfast
signature.
The
plans
were
submitted
to
boss
wants,
or
at
the
beginning
of
January
and
they're
still
in
the
review.
But
I
have
received
confirmation
from
Water
and
Sewer
that
the
plans
in
Pennsylvania.
A
A
AN
AO
Chairman
was
the
board
Eliot
laugher
Neighborhood
Association,
the
Back
Bay.
They
came
to
our
licensing
building,
use
committee
meeting
and
the
one
concern
that
we
had
beyond
when
they
laid
out.
The
proposal
was
that
they
were
planning
to
keep
their
storage
and
dumpsters
outside,
and
you
know
in
the
alleys
in
the
Back
Bay
we
have
rodent
issues.
We
asked
them
to
stop
indoors
for
storage
of
trash.
They
agreed
to
do
that,
and
so
we
are
not
opposed.
Thank.
AN
F
A
N
C
Follow
next
piece
calling
boa
nine
zero
nine
one,
three
one:
twenty
five
to
twenty
seven
Dorchester
Street:
this
is
a
change
of
artists
from
a
two-family
dwelling
and
tavern
to
a
two-family
dwelling.
Constructing
new
roof
deck
five
hundred
square
feet
for
unit
to
the
violation
is
article
68,
section,
29,
roof
structure
restrictions
access
is
required
by
a
roof,
hatch
or
bulkhead,
no
more
than
thirty
inches
in
height
above
the
such
deck.
The
violation,
articles,
68
section,
eight
Reyat,
isn't
sufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record
place.
AD
A
AD
A
AP
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Alice
and
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition.
We
have
held
a
couple
of
meetings
on
the
subject
of
the
roof
deck.
There
are
significant
concerns
about
the
roof
deck.
The
building
does
well
all
of
the
units
have
outdoor
space
in
the
form
of
back
decks
already
I
guess
there
have
been
many
issues
with
parties
and
grills,
and
things
like
that,
including
many
911
calls.
So
we
cannot
support
the
roof
deck
at
this
time.
A
F
A
AD
F
A
AQ
One
of
the
chair
members
of
the
board
on
a
column
from
Council
of
free
surface,
the
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition.
If
the
previous
a
Potter's
meeting,
there
were
many
concerns
coming
from
the
director
borders
and
the
people
who
live
in
the
area.
Also,
the
st.
Vincent's
Neighborhood
Association
is
very
opposed
to
this
proposal
as
well,
because
of
the
same
reasons
that
Jones
stated
earlier.
Thank
you.
AR
Paul
Sullivan
will
be
able
to
house
a
large
Michael,
Flaherty
constituent
record
in
strong
opposition
to
this
project.
Aside
from
the
numerous
phone
calls
and
letters
that
we
received
from
a
butters
and
neighbors
in
opposition
to
this
project,
this
property
has
no
less
than
12.
Violations
cited
by
the
are
12
phone
calls
from
the
Boston
Police
between
May
and
December
of
last
year.
This
is
what
we
would
call
a
problem
property
and
for
those
reasons,
the
councillor
in
opposition.
Q
AS
Second
Street:
the
property
in
question
has
already
two
back
porches
that
face
face
my
my
property
complaints
on
loud
parties
and
things
like
that.
The
square
footage
of
the
property
I
mean
the
living
space
in
the
property
is
about
800
square
feet.
They
already
have
to
back
decks
that
are
loved
234
square
feet.
So,
if
they're
five
hundred
square
foot
roof
deck
is
being
proposed,
it's
almost
the
exact
same
square
footage
in
your
living
property.
So
we
just
don't
understand
the
the
concept
of
that.
AS
T
C
X
case
calling
boa
9
0
4
0
4
4
47,
Thomas
PI.
This
is
a
change.
The
auctioneer
made
to
family
to
a
three
family
and
excavate
the
lowest
basement
level
and
add
living
space
in
a
red
deck
at
ground
level
and
roof
deck
with
spiral
stair
from
the
red
decks
to
the
top
level
violation.
Article
68,
six
to
twenty
nine,
the
roof
structure
restricted
just
a
medical
68
section,
33
Osprey
parking
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
27
s,
section
5s
in
the
South
Boston
iPod
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
G
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
marks
the
Catholic
hasla
75
Arlington
Street
Boston
Mass
with
me,
is
Ryan
noon
from
embark
studio
to
my
right,
the
architect,
and,
to
my
far
right
is
David
O'connor,
the
owner
of
the
property.
This
is
a
proposal
to
convert
an
existing
two
family
by
adding
one
additional
unit
to
make
it
a
three
family
excavating
the
basement
to
create
additional
living
space
unit
number
one
will
occupy
the
newly
finished
basement
space
and
the
ground
floor
unit.
Two
is
on
the
second
floor
and
unit
three
occupies
the
third
floor.
G
If
you
look
at
the
elevations
because
of
the
slope
of
the
land
here
on
thomas
park,
the
building
reads:
is
a
two-story
in
the
front
and
in
the
rear
yard,
is
a
full,
fully
exposed,
four-story
building
with
a
very
large
back
yard,
based
on
the
configuration
of
the
lot.
The
sole
zoning
violations
before
you
today
are
number
one
is
insufficient
parking
for
the
additionally
created
dwelling
unit.
There's
simply
no
place
to
possibly
put
parking.
None
of
the
adjoining
properties
have
parking
again
because
of
the
slope
of
the
land
behind
the
homes.
G
Second,
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
the
roof
deck
at
the
up
letter
meeting,
there
was
some
concern
expressed
about
the
roof
deck,
so
two
things
were
done.
It
was
reduced
in
size
to
200
square
feet
and
it
was
pulled
further
back
from
the
parapet
at
the
front
of
the
building
to
be
more
in
the
rear
of
the
property
again,
which
is
consistent
with
the
other
roof
decks.
F
AP
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Ellison
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
We
do
understand.
There
are
concerns
with
parking
with
adding
the
additional
unit,
but
there
was
generally
positive
feedback
about
the
project.
With
the
exception
of
the
roof
deck,
we
would
like
to
ask
if
the
board
does
grant
relief
that
there
be
a
proviso
restricting
the
roof
deck
to
two
hundred
square
feet
in
size.
Thank
you.
AQ
Chair
members
of
the
board
on
a
column
from
councilor
Flinx
office,
the
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition
to
this
proposal.
We
are
aware
that
they
work
with
their
butters
on
the
size
of
the
roof
deck,
but
we
heard
back
from
they
don't
yester
Heights
neighborhood
association
and
they
have
concerns
on
the
parking
and
how
they
are
not
providing
any
parking
on
this
new
unit.
Thank
you.
A
C
C
AU
AU
AV
AU
AU
AU
AW
AX
Morning,
madam
chair
members
accord,
my
name
is
faces
reef
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
This
will
help
take
additional
vehicles
off
of
the
street,
making
it
easier
for
most
of
the
budding
neighbors
to
also
park
on
the
street.
Additionally,
there
is
a
letter
of
support
from
the
Neighborhood
Association
in
that
area.
P
And
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Michaela
Parkin
I'm
here
from
City
Council
camp
Jamie's
office.
We
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
support
of
this
proposal.
The
developer
met
with
abutters
and
came
to
agreement.
We
also
suggest
that
he
continues
these
discussions
with
the
butters
just
to
make
sure
that
everything's,
okay
along
this
process.
Thank
you
thank.
A
P
AY
Angela
pie-o-my
I
live
at
18,
Fairland
Street,
the
proposed
driveway
is
we'll
run
along
the
back
or
bad
or
back
fence,
and
unfortunately,
the
rest
of
the
the
batsmen
west
of
the
driveway
is
is
proposed.
Renee
is
nine
point
nine
zero
feet
and
then
the
driveway
naren's
by
our
fence,
where
they
are
eating
fair
ls3,
the
between
his
death,
Ventura
and
18
Fairland
now
is
to
now
point
one
nine
eight,
and
we
only
have
we
have
a
very
small
back
yard.
We
have
waited
five
feet.
AY
It
took
five
feet
between
our
back
yard,
between
our
back
porch
and
our
fans
and
also
from
at
the
start
of
Eddie
went
wrong.
There
are
vents
vents
and
also
there
is
a
piper
truly
against
the
building,
so
the
pipe
the
West
right,
tran20
for
3x3,
so
on
a
the
base
or
a
maximum
of
nine
point.
Nine
actually
barrels,
because
of
the
pipe
and
because
of
the
heating
vent,
there's
steam
coming
out
so
when
it's
sorta
steam
turns
into
one
and
then
when
it's
really
constant,
the
water
turns
into
ice.
AY
AY
AY
AY
F
AZ
A
A
BA
C
This
is
packing
for
three
residential
vehicles:
yada
violations,
article
10
section-
one
no-
shall
be
within
five
feet
of
the
side
line
line.
Article
59,
section
37,
the
proposed
parking
spaces
do
not
meet
the
minimum
dimensions
in
article
59,
section,
37,
10
spaces
do
not
provide
proper
maneuverability.
They
even
had
just
for
the
record.
Please
attorney.
AV
The
proposal
here
is
to
add
a
curb
cut
for
a
driveway
for
two
cars.
The
driveways
ten
feet
wide
the
violations.
As
mr.
fortune
read
out,
our
tandem
parking
is
forbidden
dimensions
and
the
parking
is
within
five
feet
of
the
lot
line.
The
we
went
to
a
long
community
process.
We
had
Anna
butters
meeting
with
full
support
and
also
alter,
is
giving
out
a
letter
of
support
from
the
community
Alliance
of
Mission
Hill.
It's
worth
noting
that
the
proposed
curb
cut.
AV
A
AV
A
AV
U
M
AV
M
AL
Members
of
the
board
just
saw
her
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
and
record
and
support
we
held
in
a
butters
meeting
where
we
had
some
butters
came
out
just
to
kind
of
figure
out
where
the
parking
was
no
one
had
any
questions
or
concerns
or
opposition,
and
they
also
received
unanimous
support
at
the
Civic
Association
when
they
went
before.
A
U
C
BB
BB
A
T
BC
A
BD
A
F
C
Calling
the
HBO
a
9
0
8
2
8
0
41,
Winthrop
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
our
currency,
from
a
single
family
to
a
for
family
and
renovate
the
extend
living
space
into
the
basement.
New
Damas
rear
windows
for
our
condition,
violations.
Article
50
section
28
for
units
as
a
condition
of
3f
4060.
Twenty
nine
additional
lobby
area
is
insufficient
ethical.
Fifty
section
29,
the
phylidia
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
50,
section,
29,
building
height
is
excessive
and
feet
in
article
50,
section
29.
The
rear
yard
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
AV
AV
The
zoning
in
this
neighborhood
is
3f
4000,
with
a
lot
size
of
6700
and
square
feet.
The
proposal
is
to
change
occupancy
from
a
one
family
to
a
four
family
unit.
One
is
eleven
hundred
and
fourteen
square
feet,
two
beds,
two
baths
unit,
twos
1214
square
feets,
2-bed
2bath,
and
just
so
you
know
those
are
duplex
unit.
So
that's
incorporating
extending
living
space
into
the
basement.
The
ceiling
heights
in
the
basement
at
eight
feet
six
inches
unit.
Three
is
fourteen
hundred
and
six
square
feet.
AV
That's
two
bedrooms,
two
baths
and
unit
four
is
thirteen
hundred
twenty
seven
square
feet
and
that
again
is
two
beds.
Two
baths.
The
violations
on
this
is
FA
are
the
violate.
The
zoning
allows
for
a
point,
eight
we're
at
a
point.
Ninety
two
maximum
height
is
three
stories.
Thirty
five
feet:
we
had
three
stories:
41
feet:
rear
yard
is
six
feet.
Seventeen
is
required,
six
foot
seven
is
proposed
and
all
of
those
violations
which
I
just
laid
out
are
all
existing
violations.
So
the
footprint
of
this
building
is
not
changing.
AV
If
you
look
at
the
plans
on
the
rear
of
the
building,
you
will
see
that
they're
just
building
up
above
a
space
behind
it,
which
would
increase
the
that
is
increase
in
the
SAR
we
went
to
a
great
community
process,
have
full
supply.
We
provide
you
with
letters
of
support,
as
well
as
a
letter
from
the
Civic
Association
approving
the
requested
change
in
occupancy.
G
BC
P
Members
of
the
board-
my
name
is
Michaela
Park
and
I'm
here
from
City
Council,
Kim
Ginny's
office,
the
developer
met
with
the
butters
and
the
community
neighborhood
associations,
and
they
discuss
this
project.
This
is
a
historical
building
and
the
developers
have
agreed
to
put
a
historical
plaque
in
front
of
the
building
to
commemorate
that,
and
as
long
as
those
discussions
are
going
along,
we
support
we
are
supported
this
project.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam.
AV
AV
J
F
C
C
A
BE
BF
Madam
chairman
was
the
board
Patrick
fin
Dell
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
There
was
a
butters
meeting
held
on
December
19th,
where
there
was
no
opposition
from
the
neighborhood
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
young
vibrant
business
in
the
exit,
Avondale
commercial
district.
BG
A
U
U
C
A
F
F
F
BH
Sir,
because
most
of
the
vehicles
that
will
house
are
actually
an
overflow
from
inside
of
our
edifice,
and
currently
we
are
good
neighbor,
with
the
Boys
and
Girls
Club
and
across
the
street
on
any
given
day.
There
are
11
to
18
vehicles
that
we
put
there
only
because
of
the
work
space
inside
of
our
building
so
in
front
of
our
building.
There
are
only
eight
potential
spaces
before
you
get
to
a
no
parking
zone
and
on
Harvard
Street
behind
the
building.
BH
There
are
only
three
eligible
spaces,
because
there
is
eight,
as
you
can
see,
in
the
diagram,
a
no
parking
zone
which
really
restricts
us.
So
the
natural
thing
for
us
to
do
was
to
make
this
more
useful,
some
of
the
vehicles
or
personal
vehicles,
and
rather
than
shuttle
them
in
and
out
of
the
VIP.
The
building.
Every
single
day
we
figured
it's
a
natural.
BH
BH
Of
our
facility
yeah
well
any
any
building.
Any
space
inside
of
our
building
man
would
be
used
for
parking
of
clients,
cars
or
personal
vehicles,
but
where
it
relaxes
itself
is
to
be
able
to
utilize
the
land
next
source,
which
would
then
reduce
the
amount
of
vehicles
and
the
boys
and
girls
parking
lot.
Take
cars
off
the
street.
Leave
them
open
for
the
community
at
large
because
it
is
the
Boys
and
Girls
Club
and
there
is
an
evident
flow
of
traffic
there
and
it's
a
pretty
natural,
because.
A
You're
just
looking
at
the
plans
and
just
wondering
if
there's
a
a
happy
compromise
in
there,
because
you
know
first,
you
know
generally
when
there's
a
parking
lot
proposed
we'd
provide.
We
request,
screening
and
buffering,
not
just
a
simple
chain-link
fence.
We
look
for
something
a
little
bit.
You
know
some
plantings
and
things
like
that
and
then,
if
you
look
at
the
the
way
the
parking
you
know
it
sounds
like
you're
gonna
have
the
equivalent
of
valet
parking
or
you
know
somebody
attending
it.
A
AE
BH
So
all
of
those
vehicles
are,
and
there
are
16
cameras,
will
we
protect
our
property
and
on
an
ad
neat
as
needed
and
selective
basis,
will
we
go
in
and
get
a
client's
car
when
we're
ready
to
come
on
in
and
begin
work
on
and
the
other
ones
that
have
been
done
or
been
fixed
will
go
into
the
rear
of
the
shop?
If
there's.
BH
The
primary
focus
of
this
right
now
is
to
make
sure
that
we
accommodate
each
and
every
one
of
our
clients,
so
that
there's
no
nervousness
they
want
to
know
where
their
vehicle
is.
They
look
across
the
street.
We
have
cars,
piled
up
at
the
boys
and
girls
parking
lot.
We
don't
think
that's
a
place
and
we
think
over
the
years
we
have
been
a
good
neighbor.
We
do
help
them
with
snow
removal
is
to
put
it
on
our
property,
since
it
is
adjacent
to
it,
and
it's
not
going
too
far
from
where
we
are.
A
F
BI
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Whitney
Celestin
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
here
to
speak
in
support
of
this
proposal.
This
group
met
with
Common
Council
on
January,
2nd
the
tht
group
table
at
Harvard.
Triangle
group.
BI
That's
right
across
the
way
was
not
able
to
confirm,
though,
for
their
agenda
for
January
4th,
so
they
requested
that
they
move
them
to
February
7th,
so
don't
meet
with
them
this
week
and
we
support
the
idea
that
they
should
reduce
the
number
of
spots
if
you
feel
adequate
and
we
should
we
also
what
asked
for
BPD
a
design
review
for
screening
and
buffering
for
this.
We
support
this
proposal.
There
was
no
opposition
at
that
meeting.
BI
BJ
C
C
BJ
Name
is
George
Moran
see
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address.
It
was
350
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston.
Madam
chair
members,
I'm
aware
that
this
is
a
second
deferral
request.
This
will
be
the
final
one.
White
client
has
been
in
earnest
negotiations
with
direct
butters
for
for
all
winter.
Essentially,
we
are
close
to
a
point
where
either
we're
gonna
have
an
agreement
that
has
the
support
of
the
abutters.
What
we
will
be
withdrawing
and
refiling
as
a
zoning
compliant
alts,
but
I
would
ask
for
one
more
deferral
at
this
time.
So.
I
U
C
The
record
calling
VOA
1
2,
8,
0,
0,
66,
Cambridge,
Street
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
L
D
D
C
Are
there
any
other
with
Charles
for
a
deferral
zone
with
Charles
for
11:30?
Hey
ring
numb
I'm
gonna
go
back
to
the
1030
cases,
calling
boa
8
8
5
6
0
5
83
to
87
Boden
Street.
This
is
a
proposed
curb
cut
the
two
off
street
parking
spaces
for
an
existing
tree
family.
The
violation
is
article
9,
section
1
its
extension
of
a
non-conforming
use
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
87.
A
AK
AK
I'm
asking
to
get
the
curb
cut
for
the
driveway
and
I:
have
a
driver
already
existed
right
way
and
next
door
get
next
by
5
borden
Street?
That's
access
I've
been
getting
tickets
because
I
park
over
there.
They
told
me
that
you
need
to
have
a
curved
cut.
If
you
don't
have
cracker,
we
gotta
keep
soon.
AK
AK
F
BE
A
C
A
Y
Y
BF
BG
BG
F
A
F
C
D
C
A
C
A
C
C
This
is
to
create
a
new
lot
subdivision
and
construct
a
new
three
unit,
residential
building
the
violations,
article
65
section,
eight
three
families
forbidding
in
a
one
F
5000
district,
equal,
sixty,
five,
six
and
I,
and
a
lot
areas
insufficient
article
65
section
I
on
the
lot
width
is
insufficient
article
65
section
I
on
the
lot
frontages
insufficient
article
65,
section:
nine,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
section,
nine,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
in
stories.
Article
65
section
9
of
the
others,
insufficient
article
65,
section,
nine.
C
C
This
is
a
subdivision
of
existing
lot
at
114
Milton
Street
into
two
Lots.
The
violations-
article
9
section
1,
the
existent
building-
is
in
a
non-conforming
to
family
dwelling.
Article
65
69,
the
lawdy
area
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section
9
of
the
floor.
Da
ratio
is
excessive,
an
article
65
section
9,
the
Reyat
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
morning.
BL
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
James
Christopher
of
rclc,
where
the
project
architects,
with
the
business
address
of
415
upon
to
that
joining
my
right
by
Michael,
Dorsey
the
property
owner,
and
he
is
actually
he
lives
at
114,
Milton
Street.
The
current
proposal
is
to
subdivide
the
existing
lot,
which
presents
some
violations
with
the
114
milton
lot,
but
we
are
keeping
two
parking
spaces
to
be
an
extension
of
non-conforming
use,
keeping
it
a
two-family
creating
a
new
jr.
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
Proposal
is
to
construct
a
three-story
residential
building
with
a
small
residential
unit,
a
grave
which
is
about
697
square
feet.
One
bed,
one
bath
with
the
two
upper
level
units
being
1062
square
feet;
two
bed,
two
bath
units
with
driveway
access
off
of
granite,
Street,
a
great
enough
we're
about
50
feet
beyond
the
intersection.
We
have
three
parking
spaces
with
the
building
being
cantilever
at
the
rear
of
the
property
and
the
front
yard
setback
follows
the
model
of
the
existing
Street
alignment.
What's.
BL
BL
A
X
BF
BG
BB
A
C
D
A
BJ
M
BL
C
BF
Madam
chair
who's,
the
board
Patrick
van
del
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
they're
in
as
a
budgeted
meeting
held
on
December
12th,
and
the
applicants
subsequently
met
with
the
Pope's
Hill
neighborhood
association,
receiving
their
full
support.
We'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
expansion
of
a
great
local
business
can.
BG
X
BJ
C
A
mixed
case:
golly
Bo
a90,
a
276
872
Morton
Street.
This
is
to
build
a
four-story
wood-frame
residential
building
for
40
units
on
one-story,
steel
frame,
Brown
parking
structure
within
30
with
30
spots,
violated,
Article,
60,
section
16
dwelling
units.
In
the
first
floor,
a
conditional
article,
60
section
17,
a
height
requirement,
is
excessive
article
60
second
section
17
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
60,
section
17,
the
rail
yard
setback
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
60
section
17
the
floor.
The
a
ratio,
successive
article
60
section,
37
Austrey
park,
RFC
loading
is
insufficient.
AV
AV
Proposal
is
to
construct
a
new
building
housing,
40
units
and
30
parking
spaces.
The
zoning
in
this
neighborhood
is
neighborhood
shopping.
The
lot
size
is
34
thousand
square
feet.
This
used
to
be
the
Mattapan
police
station,
and
now
it's
just
vacant
land.
The
34,000
square
foot
lot
is
subdivided
under
a
different
alt
to
allocate
more
than
8,000
square
feet
for
the
creation
of
the
Steven
Steven
Odom
serenity
garden.
This
is
something
that's
been
a
long
time
in
the
process
too
in
the
community.
AV
To
get
to
this
point,
the
parks
department
actually
Boston,
Parks
Department,
actually
designed
the
serenity
garden
and
also
will
maintain
serenity
garden
once
it
is
constructed.
The
proposal,
as
you
could
tell,
is
a
joint
venture
between
the
planning
officer
urban
affairs
in
the
Caribbean
integration
Community
Development
Corporation,
madam
chair.
The
violations
is
dwelling
units
are
forbidden.
On
the
first
floor,
there
is
residential
on
the
first
floor.
AV
As
you
know,
it's
violation
and
us,
however,
what
they
did
is
they
move
them
to
the
mid
to
the
back,
so
the
front
of
it
is
Lobby
and
not
the
entranceway.
So
it
looks
more
like
a
storefront.
The
proximity
of
this,
the
location
of
this
project,
is
right
on
the
bridge
on
Morton
Street,
so
if
they've
determined
there
initially,
their
proposal
did
include
some
commercial,
however,
the
community
and
through
the
community
process
they
determined
that
was
not
appropriate.
Based
on
that,
the
height
zoning
allows
for
35
feet,
we're
at
42
feet.
AV
Open
space
is
50
suite
50
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit
as
we're
allocating
over
8,000
square
feet
to
the
Steve
Steven
Odom,
serenity
garden.
That
would
obviously
count
toward
open
space,
but
because
we're
subdividing
it
does
not.
Fer
is
a
one
and
where
to
1.67
off
street
parking
it
complies
actually
because
this
is
a
deeply
affordable
units
and
under
the
zoning
code,
normally
would
be
one
which
would
what.
A
A
AV
AV
AV
There
is
a
there
is,
there
would
be
31
rental
units
that
would
be
range
between
30%
AMI
and
100%,
and
I
am
I.
There
are
nine.
This
is
also
makes
you
so
there
when
I
say,
makes
you
some
and
there's
some
apartments,
but
there's
also
home
ownership
opportunities
for
people,
and
there
are
nine,
affordable
home
ownership.
S--
five
of
those
are
at
80%
of
ami
and
four
of
those
or
100%
ami.
AV
This
proposal
resulted
from
an
RFP
that
was
sent
out
from
DND.
The
community
process
was
over
nine
months,
countless
meetings,
and
this
was
actually
are
obviously
an
article
80
project
that
was
approved
by
the
PPTA
at
their
October
board
meeting,
including
in
the
packages
which
I
have
provided
to
all
the
board.
Members
are
letters
of
support
from
neighbors,
as
well
as
elected
officials
in
the
community.
This.
AV
BI
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Whitney
Celestine
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
here
to
speak
in
support
of
this
project,
they've
done
a
lot
of
work
with
the
community,
especially
the
rock
group
that
overlooks
this
area
and
they're
very
happy
about
the
units
of
ownership
that
were
added
to
this
project.
We
support.
Thank
you.
I'm.
S
BA
A
C
C
AG
Chair
the
proposal
here
is:
there's
an
existing
three
family
home
at
41
Westminster
with
parking
in
the
rear.
The
existing
footprint
will
remain
the
same.
The
top
floor
of
the
existing
structure
will
be
expanded
to
the
rear
part,
so
the
third
floor
will
be
expanded
to
match
the
the
same
footprint
and
floor
plate
as
floors.
One
and
two
each
are
now
as
proposed
three-bedroom
units
initially
unit
one
in
two,
as
shown
on
the
plans,
are
two
bedrooms
in
a
living
room.
That's
been
used
as
a
bedroom
and
the
top
floor
unit
is
a
existing
one-bedroom.
AG
AG
The
existing
home
is
it's
it's
currently,
it's
been
abandoned
and
dilapidated
state
it'll
be
restored
to
its
historical
luster.
The
design
will
be
brought
right
back
to
its
initial
character,
with
the
wraparound
porches
and
the
mansard
roof
will
be
continued
around
the
rear.
That's
the
bulk
of
our
leader.
We
are
the.
BN
BO
C
This
is
a
combined
20,
Mount
Hood
40
Mount
Hood
and
six
Egremont
into
one
75074
square
foot
fossil
demolish
the
existing
hotel
in
constructing
new
180
2023
swift.
What
multifamily
building
with
up
to
one
hundred
and
fifty
one
dwelling
units
and
approximately
one
hundred
and
fifty
one
accessory
parking
spaces
and
parking
for
up
to
50
vehicles
that
is
answer
to
houses
of
worship
and
a
multi-family
residential
uses
off-site
violations.
Article
51
section
9,
the
lobby
area
of
traditional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
Article
51
section
9,
the
fluidy.
A
ratio
is
excessive.
C
Article
51,
section
9,
the
height,
is
excessive.
Article
51,
section
I
in
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
51
section
9
in
the
front
yard,
Mount
Hood
Road
is
insufficient.
Article
51
section
9
in
the
front
yard,
Egremont
Road
is
insufficient
in
article
51,
section
9.
The
rail
yard
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
attorney.
BP
BP
BP
Don't
believe
so,
there
was
another
project,
that's
right
on
in
front
of
us
at
1650,
but
this
is
a
it
does
business
as
the
hotel
Boston.
It's
a
motel
built
in
the
50s
big
site,
1.7
acres,
it's
unusual
at
all!
So
it
slopes.
There's
a
there's.
A
20
foot
drop
off
the
current
motel
is
about
73.
74
guest
rooms
has
93
parking
spaces.
The
proposal
that
BK
will
take
you
through
is
for
151
dwellings
with
201
parking.
BP
A
BP
Yes
and
then
there,
but
there
are
other,
there
are
other
abutters
who
have
rights
as
well,
so
they
have.
They
have
up
to
18
spaces.
There's
a
condo
with
56
dwelling
units
at
35,
Mount
Hood
across
the
street.
We
have
an
agreement
with
the
board
of
managers
of
the
HOA
to
provide
them
34
spaces
there
in
four
spaces.
A
BP
Well,
the
one
on
Comm
Ave
in
front
of
us
that
1650
is
recent
that
isn't
with
in
recent
years.
It
may
not
even
have
a
certificate
of
occupancy,
yet
that's
a
seven
story
multifamily
this.
This
is
one
door
in
on
Mount
Hood.
It
used
to
be
that
I
believe
that
was
a
gas
station,
and
so
there
was
visibility
of
the
hotel
Boston,
but
it
will
be
blocked
now.
BP
BQ
We
have
151
units,
we
have
6
studios
that
average
about
four
hundred
seventy
square
feet.
We
have
88
one-bedroom
units
that
average
around
720
square
feet.
There
41
two
bedrooms
around
1,100
square
feet.
We
have
six
three-bedroom
units
that
are
1,200
square
feet,
and
then
we
have
ten
three-bedroom
townhomes,
that
front
Egremont
street,
that
Everage
around
1450.
A
A
A
F
BP
F
BP
F
T
BR
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Connor
Newman
with
the
mayor's
office
and
Neighborhood
Services,
will
it
go
on
record
of
support
of
this
project?
They
went
through
extensive
community
process.
They
had
3i
AG
meetings
met
with
director
butters
met
with
community
religious
leaders
in
the
area
they
received
a
favorable
vote
from
the
bright
Nelson
Improvement
Association
August,
2nd.
Excuse
me
the
third
time
they
had
met
with
them.
BR
They
increased
the
ratio
of
affordable
units
to
16%
I
believe
they
also
worked
with
the
Civic
to
provide
funds
to
a
shuttle
service
that
a
number
of
developments
in
that
area
can
be
consuming
to
a
shuttle
service
to
ensure
that
there's
less
cars
on
the
road
and
we
beat
some
of
the
traffic
issues
we
have
in
the
neighborhood.
So
we
think
that
they.
F
BR
F
BR
AB
BF
AB
A
BA
BP
BP
You
know
the
we
have
one
we're
gonna
maintain
one-to-one
parking
on
the
site,
so
we'll
have
151
dwelling
units
with
a
hundred
151
parking
spaces
and
then
the
50
ancillary
for
our
butters.
There
is
pretty
good
Green
Line
we're
actually
within
walking
distance
of
two
different
lines
that
be
in
the
sea.
F
D
A
C
Me
the
next
case
for
11:30
discussion
read
discussions
Calvillo
eight
three
one:
six:
nine
353
F
Street.
This
is
demo
an
existing
single-family
dwelling
erecting
new
six
unit
building
violated
Article
27
s
in
the
South
Boston
iPod
article
68,
section
8
fluid
a
racial
is
excessive
article
68,
section
8,
the
usable
open
space
is
an
insufficient
article.
68
section,
8
side
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
68,
section
8.
The
Reyat
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good
afternoon.
Madam.
BJ
Chair
members
of
the
Boylan,
it
is
George
Moran
cm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
of
350
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston,
I'm
joined
by
my
client
mark
littell,
owner
and
developer
of
53
F
Street.
Madam
chair
members,
plans
before
the
board
show
a
revised
smaller
building
through
community
process.
BJ
The
original
proposal
has
been
reduced
to
what
is
now
a
proposal
for
a
new
five-unit
building.
This
is
article
68,
M,
MFR,
multi-family
residential
zoning
district
in
South
Boston.
The
building
would
be
four
storeys.
There
would
be
four
one-bedroom
units
and
one
two-bedroom
unit
at
the
top
floor
because
of
the
reduction
in
the
size
and
density
of
the
building.
All
zoning
violations,
but
one
that
we
read
into
the
record
have
been
removed.
The
building
the
project
is
now
zoning
compliant
with
respect
to
all
dimensional
and
use
requirements,
with
the
exception
of
reguard
setback.
BJ
The
rear
yard
setback
here
with
the
shallow
lot
exception,
is
15
foot
minimum
rear
yard.
The
proposed
rear
yard
is
7
feet,
7
inches.
There
are
six
parking
spaces
within
the
garage.
The
garage
is
entered
from
the
tudor
street
side
of
the
building,
as
I
mentioned
for
one-bedroom
units
a
two-car
floor
for
the
first
and
second
floors.
This
is
a
three
storey
building.
It
may
have
misspoke
a
four-story
building
the
three
three
three
residential
floors
above
garage
on
the
the
first
residential
floor
plan.
There
are
one-bedroom
units
of
sizes,
853
and
890
square
feet.
BJ
AB
A
F
AP
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Ellison,
mayor's
office,
neighborhood
services
we
would
like
to
on
record
in
support,
has
initially
started,
as
the
proponent
stated
is
a
larger
building.
There
was
opposition
to
aspects
of
that,
so
they
did
make
changes
to
address
concerns,
including
reducing
the
unit
count
replacing
some
of
the
windows
on
the
side
with
block
windows
to
eliminate
privacy
concerns
and
making
it
fit
in
better
with
the
surrounding
area.
Thank
you.
AQ
Chair
members
of
the
board
I'm
a
comment
from
councillor
Flinx
office.
The
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
There
were
some
concerns
at
the
beginning
of
the
community
process.
They
worked
there
with
the
director
waters
and
also
since
I
labeled
Association.
Now
what
bodies
are
happy
with
their
proposal.
Thank
you
is.
C
The
next
case
calling
boa
8
6
7
2
0
0
4
47
West
4th
Street.
This
is
a
demolished
inexistent,
single-family,
building
new
construct
to
family
dwelling,
the
violation,
article
68,
section,
33
off
street
parking
employments
insufficient
article
68,
section
8,
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
68,
section,
8
hide
his
excessive
40
feet
is
the
max
article
68
section
8,
the
rail
yard
setback
is
insufficient
in
article
27
s,
section
5.
This
is
in
the
South
Boston
iPod.
They
have
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BJ
Afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
to
a
variance
of
an
attorney
for
business
address
so
350
West,
Broadway
and
South
Boston.
Madam
chair
members.
This
is
a
proposal
to
demolish
an
existing
single-family
building,
replace
it
with
a
new
four-story
to
family
building.
The
ground-floor
would
be
a
two-car
garage.
Are
there
two
bi-level
units
unit?
One
would
be
a
two-bedroom
I'm,
sorry
three-bedroom
unit
of
approximately
1394
square
feet,
a
split
between
the
first
residential
floor
in
the
second
and
Unit.
BJ
Two
would
be
at
1359
square
foot,
building,
also
split
split
between
the
second
residential
floor
in
the
third
residential
floor.
That
would
also
be
a
three
three
three
bedroom
unit.
There
would
be
a
one
roof
deck
of
per
unit
for
exclusive
use
of
each
unit.
The
approximate
sizes
are
12
feet
by
11
feet.
This
is
also
an
MFI.
Our
district
multi-family
within
article
68,
the
f
AR,
is
2.13.
BJ
The
maximum
allowed
in
article
68
is
2.0.
There
is
no
height
violation.
The
maximum
height
of
the
building
is
a
39
just
under
40
feet.
It's
thirty,
nine
point,
nine
three.
As
shown
on
the
a
dimensional
table
attached
to
the
plans,
there
is
a
15-foot
rear
yard
setback
requirement.
Here.
The
proposed,
where
yard
setback
is
five
feet.
BJ
There
to
clear
two
decks
page,
a
two
point:
one:
there
is
a
head
house
access
to
the
roof.
This
is
a
four-story
occupied
roof
airport
building
code
requires
penthouse
access.
There
is
screening
of
the
roof
deck
shown
on
on
on
the
proposed
elevation
on
eight
point,
two
one,
which
shows
essentially
a
3-foot
wall
around
the
roof
deck.
This
was
at
the
request
of
abutters
and
neighbors
I
admit
it
looks
a
bit
odd.
BJ
BJ
A
BJ
AP
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Ellison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
There
were
at
the
initial
meeting.
There
were
some
concerns
around
the
roof
profile
of
the
building
is
an
area
that
typically
is
not
supportive
of
roof
decks
and
the
concern
is,
is
typically,
noise,
I
think
that's
where
the
wall
is
coming
from.
Thank
you.
U
M
D
C
Hk,
spelling
VOA
eight
five
zero
zero.
Two
three
175
Howard
Avenue
is
directly
due
to
family
dwelling.
The
violations
article
50
section
29.
The
lot
of
the
air
additional
drawing
in
is
insufficient
article
56
229.
A
lot
width
is
insufficient
article
50
section
29.
A
lot
frontage
is
insufficient
article
50
section
29,
the
Floria
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
56
to
29
in
the
front
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Michael,
50,
section
20
in
the
side,
yard
setback
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record
place.
Huell.
BT
BT
BT
F
BT
A
A
BC
C
Your
next
case
calling
boa
seven
six:
nine
two
zero
seven
32
to
34
it's
Tolman
street.
This
is
to
extend
existing
three
family
dwelling
at
the
Rhea
repair
in
existing
internal
stairs
and
add
a
new
egress
stair
and
construct
the
poles
22
by
24
addition
to
the
rear
of
the
property
extend
living
area
to
the
basement.
From
the
first
floor
for
violations,
article
9,
section,
1
extensive
life
for
me-
use
3f
in
a
to
F
sub
district
article
65
section,
39,
screening
and
buffering
then
is
proposed
article
65,
section
41.
C
The
design
of
the
proposed
parking
spaces
are
encroaching
into
the
required
front
yard
of
this
corner
lot.
Article
65,
section,
41
law
street
parking
is
insufficient
and
loading
article
65
section
9.
The
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded
two
and
a
half
stories.
As
the
max
article
65
section,
nine
excess
of
FA
are,
and
article
65
section,
nine
insufficient
Riyadh
setback
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
what.
BU
BU
BU
There
were
concerns
expressed,
and
we
appreciate
in
respect
the
immediate
abutters
opposition.
His
concern
was
that
the
proposal
originally
was
too
big
yeah
and
in
looking
at
it,
we
agree
that
it
was
too
big.
There
were
also
concerns
expressed
by
some
people
in
the
neighborhood
that
the
addition
of
four
family
rooms
for
three
family
dwelling
quickly,
two
additional
bedrooms
being
constructed,
so
that
concern
has
been
alleviated
by
removing
the
third
floor
family
room
that
the
configuration
as
proposed
here.
BU
BU
The
earliest
thing
I
can
find
in
the
jacket
is
a
confirmation
of
occupancy
in
1919
as
a
three
family
and
like
many
other
houses
that
were
converted
in
Boston
through
the
years,
it
doesn't
meet
current
standards
and
we're
not
seeking
to
change
the
occupancy
in
any
way.
Just
give
each
unit
a
little
more
breathing
space
make
it
a
little
more
habitable.
This
there's
no
other
way
to
describe
it.
We
do
meet
the
Austrey
popular
climates,
it
has
met
those
from
the
beginning
and
the
building
is
located
on
a
corner,
Tallman
streets,
a
fairly
busy
street.
BU
BU
So
now
we're
at
the
point
where
the
immediate
of
butter
is
opposed
to.
We
don't
deny
that
and
again
we
respect
it.
We
understand
it.
We've
had
ongoing
discussions.
We
thought
when
we
reduce
the
size
of
the
proposal,
that
we
were
responding
to
the
concern
that
it
was
too
big.
He
felt
it
was
a
looming
over
his
yard
and
I
can
understand
that,
but
I
think
now
a
two-story
addition,
which
is
drawn
I,
daresay
by
a
confident
artic
architect.
BU
It's
compatible
with
the
existing
colonial
architecture,
the
architecture
of
the
building
and
the
streetscape
and
I
think
with
with
proper
landscaping
treatment,
the
the
privacy
of
the
next-door
neighbor
could
be
respected
and
the
proponent
could
be
allowed
to
grow
into
her
own
home
and
remain
there
comfortably
beyond
that.
It's
essentially
a
case
of
a
simple
addition
of
family
rooms
onto
an
existing
tree
family
house.
BV
BV
M
BU
BF
Chair
members,
the
board,
patrickv
and
L
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
although
this
did
go
through
a
robust
community
process,
including
multiple
abutters
meetings
in
meeting
with
the
Pope's
Hill
Civic
Association.
We
still
feel
that
the
overall
scale
and
design
of
this
project
is
not
conducive
to
the
neighborhood
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition
to
this
project.
BW
BW
BW
There's
several
opposition
letters
on
file,
including
that
of
the
Pope's
Hill
Neighborhood
Association,
and
my
parents
have
also
submitted
a
letter
of
opposition,
but
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
a
few
of
the
main
points
you
wanted
to
highlight
that
the
variance
is
proposed
or
excessive
for
a
five
thousand
square
foot
lot
in
our
in
characteristic
of
the
neighborhood.
The
new
building
essentially
consumes
the
existing
backyard
and
removes
all
green
space
from
the
property
it
encloses.
My
parents
yard
giving
a
fortress-like
effect
and
represents
significant
privacy
issues.
BW
My
parents
are
next
to
a
corner
lot
and
therefore
have
a
home
at
the
rear
of
their
property,
and
this
addition
will
essentially
block
them
in
on
three
sides,
including
their
own
property,
32:12,
it
being
a
court
a
lot
if
this
building
will
block
the
ocean
breeze
and
expensive
expansive
views
currently
enjoyed
by
surrounding
properties
of
both
Bloomington
and
Morrissey
Boulevard.
We
have
concerns
about
precedence,
density
in
the
impact
to
our
property
values.
We
also
have
had
legitimate
concerns
around
the
impact
of
foundation
digging
and
water
table
disruption
to
our
basement.
BW
We
have
endured
several
years
of
unsightly
conditions
as
a
result
of
the
indoor
work
that
has
has
occurred
and
the
impact
and
safety
conditions
of
this
addition
whereby
the
owner
is
planning
to
do
the
construction
himself.
Prior
work
has
been
cited
by
the
city
for
code
violations
and,
although
mr.
Lee
has
modified
the
plans,
I
believe
it's
important
to
note
that
the
original
plans
were
outrageously
egregious.
We
believe
this
was
a
tactic
of
demonstrating
compromise
to
gain
vain
favor
with
the
board
we're
not
unreasonable
people.
BW
BU
Very
briefly,
this
building
is
currently
in
compliance.
It's
been
inspected.
All
work
has
been
done
to
code.
There
was
some
structure
work
done.
There
is
structural
engineers,
staff
drawings
in
the
jacket.
If
you
wish
to
look
at
them
again,
I
do
understand
and
respect
the
objection
of
the
immediate
of
butter.
BU
BU
They
just
wanted
to
try
to
maximize
the
use
of
the
lot
and
understood
as
the
process
unfolded,
that
that
was
not
acceptable
to
the
neighbors
that
did
not
fit,
but
I
think
that
once
they
now
really
does
fit
reasonably,
not
only
with
what
immediately
puts
this
property,
but
what
most
of
the
properties
became
that
in
a
neighborhood.
It's
simply
a
matter
of
improving
the
habitability
to
current
standards.
BV
BV
Or
five
adjustments
to
the
plans
that
you'll
see
on
drawing
x2
and
ultimately
we're
here
about
the
latest
iteration,
which
was
developed
on
the
18th
I'm.
A
fitness
December
of
this
past
year
and
I
would
say
that
absent
the
illustration
of
parking
that
the
overall
site
hasn't
really
changed.
One
bit
the
proposed
addition
on
the
on
the
especially
on
the
second
level
would
be,
if
you
consider
that
there's
an
existing
porch
in
the
back.
BV
A
BF
AA
A
C
A
BX
BX
Last
time
was
because
our
previous
plan
actually
had
a
portion.
The
driver
was
two
side
by
side
vehicles,
so
pre-portion
up
with
what's
in
front
of
the
house.
So
what
we've
done
is
we
taken
the
advice
of
the
of
the
group
and
we
did
a
redesign
with
a
tandem
parking
design
and
landscape
I.
Think
we've
addressed
well.
AB
F
BX
BX
BA
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
C
AZ
A
BM
BM
A
BY
BM
BM
This
is
a
matter
of
great
importance
and
I
will
refer
with
your
permission
to
the
owner
as
rock
point
for
short,
that
the
legal
name
of
the
owner
of
the
building
of
that
abuts,
the
Winthrop
Center,
is
75
101,
fed
LLC,
but
I'll
use
Rock
point
because
it's
easier
to
say
and
I'm,
referring
then
to
the
owner
of
the
75
101
Federal
Street
property
submitted
to
the
board.
Today
a
memorandum
supported
by
three
affidavits
one
from
mr.
Dom
that
describes
the
history
of
his
involvement
and
the
discussions
of
his
concerns.
BM
A
BM
I
neglected
to
say
at
the
outset
that
our
strong
preference
would
be
to
continue
this
for
30
days,
so
that
the
board
need
not
wade
into
these
technical
details
and
make
a
decision
and
the
parties
have
been
making
good
progress
on
an
agreement,
and
a
concern
has
been
expressed
in
what
the
developer
filed
today
that
they
need
to
push
forward
because
their
lender
won't
fund.
Well,
they
have
a
pending
permit
appeal.
BM
My
suggestion
is
that
the
fastest
way
to
make
this
permit
appeal
go
away
is
to
give
us
a
short
period
of
additional
time
so
that
we
can
continue
to
negotiate.
We
we
have
been
negotiating
in
good
faith
and
made
excellent
progress,
but
because
we
don't
have
a
signed
agreement
here
today,
we
have
no
choice
but
to
go
forward
and
place
before
you.
The
error
that
I'm
now
going
to
describe
so
that's
the
first
request.
Okay,.
BM
We
don't
believe
we
have
the
appropriate
protections
in
place
and
we
are
presenting
a
very
small
modest
ask
for
an
essential
protection
against
the
kind
of
catastrophic
harm
that
could
happen.
That
would
threat
that
threatens
the
structural
integrity
of
our
building,
which
is
fully
leased
with
many
tenants
whose
business
operations
depend
on
being
able
to
come
to
work
each
day.
So
I
won't
tell
you
what
the
request
is
is.
A
M
A
A
A
BM
What
we're
asking
for,
specifically
by
way
of
an
amendment
of
the
foundation
permanent
I,
do
want
to
make
clear.
We
are
not
challenging
the
fact
of
the
foundation
permit.
We
are
not
challenging
what
is
in
the
foundation
permit.
We
are
here
on
an
appeal,
because
something
essential
is
missing
from
the
permit
and
we're
asking
this
board
to
consider
our
our
information
and
the
materials
we've
presented
and
to
remand
this
back
to
the
ISD,
with
directions
to
the
Commissioner,
to
impose
a
very
specific,
very
narrowly
tailored
special
condition
that
should
be
added
to
the
permit.
BM
That
requested
condition
is
set
forth
at
page
10
of
the
memorandum
before
you
and
I
will
just
tell
you
why
you
look
at
it.
It's
very
simple.
It
says
that
if,
despite
all
of
the
fancy
modeling
and
all
of
the
expert
work,
that's
been
done
by
a
team
of
prep
professionals
on
the
developers
side
it.
Nevertheless,
during
the
course
of
construction,
the
sensors
that
we
have
placed
in
our
building
detect
movement
that
exceeds
three
tenths
of
an
inch
at
certain
locations
and
up
to
six
tenths
of
an
inch
in
other
locations.
BM
If
those
margins
at
the
specified
locations
which
are
detail
in
a
site
plan,
that's
attached
to
our
brief
as
well,
if
those
thresholds
are
breached,
all
we
want
is
an
immediate
and
very
temporary.
Stop
work
to
be
to
be
put
into
effect
so
that
the
developer
can
talk
to
ist.
The
developer
can
talk
to
us.
Everyone
can
huddle
and,
on
an
expedited
basis,
decide
what
needs
to
be
done,
but
we
don't
have
from
the
developer.
Unfortunately,
a
voluntary
agreement
to
stop
work.
BM
If
we
get
into
what
our
experts
tell
us
are
the
danger
zone,
and
so
we
need
that
relief
to
be
provided
by
the
city
we
are
entitled
to
have
our
building
protected.
I
think
it's
inappropriate
for
the
building
owner
to
bear
this
huge
risk
that
something
bad
happened:
mistakes
of
this
kind,
with
fancy,
nonlinear
modeling
of
structural
engineering
with
exceedingly
fine
margins
for
a
700
foot,
Tower,
that's
going
to
be
four
storeys
below
ground,
much
deeper
than
our
our
buildings.
For
us
mistakes
do
happen.
BM
If
you
consider
the
consequences
of
not
requiring
this
necessary
protection
to
us,
then
we
are
all
just
crossing
our
fingers
and
hoping
and
trusting
that
the
developers
team
got
their
design
right
and
that
everything
goes
perfectly
during
construction.
I,
don't
think,
that's
reasonable
for
us
to
bear
that
risk.
No
one
hopes
more
than
we
do
that.
They're
modeling
is
right.
They
say
this
is
all
unnecessary.
We're
never
going
to
get
to
the
danger
zone
so.
A
BM
The
monitoring
is
in
place,
their
team
has
installed
sensors.
Our
team
has
installed
sensors,
we're
sharing
information.
We
want
them
to
have
every
bit
of
knowledge
we
have,
because
if
there
is
any
settlement,
we
want
them
to
know
right
away.
So
it's
it's
not
about
establishing
the
monitoring
it's
about
what
to
do.
If
the
monitoring
shows
results
above
a
certain
threshold.
A
U
BM
U
A
BM
U
U
U
BY
Just
to
take
a
step
back
to
address
some
of
the
issues
that
council
has
brought
up
with
respect
to
requesting
a
continuance
is
DS
position.
Is
that
whether
or
not
the
appellant
and
the
applicant
are
in
a
private
agreement
is
outside
of
IU's
jurisdiction
and
it's
not
relevant
to
the
issue
that
was
raised
in
this
particular
interpretation
as
to
whether
or
not
the
building
department
erred
in
issuing
foundation
permit.
So
that's.
U
BY
Yes,
with
respect
to
the
second
discussion
of
the
protections
of
the
adjoining
property
ist
has
a
very
consistent
process
and
policy
regarding
the
issuance
of
foundation
permits.
Typically,
an
applicant
has
submitted
to
us
sufficient
plans,
as
well
as
certified
engineering,
drawings
and
affidavits,
to
conclude
why
they
should
be
able
to
move
forward
with
a
foundation.
Permit
I
know
that
Commissioner
Christopher,
as
well
as
myself,
and
the
plans
examiner's
did
meet
with
the
design
professionals
reviewed.
All
of
the
information
that
the
applicants
submitted
to
us
and
we
also
met
with
the
abutters
design.
BY
Professionals,
read
their
certifications
as
well.
Aia
steed
does
not
take
a
position
regarding
construction
methods
so
long
as
it's
in
compliance
with
the
building
code,
where
there
are
two
conflicting
construction,
certifications
between
an
appellant
or
in
a
butter.
That's
at
issue.
The
applicant
does
assume
all
liability
with
respect
to
any
damage
that
they
create
to
a
property,
to
be
more
specific.
BY
With
respect
to
what
councils
talking
about
about
a
stop-work
order,
our
position
would
be
that
it
would
be
premature
to
issue
a
stop
worker
at
this
point
is
d
is
confident
that
we
issued
the
foundation.
Permit
correctly
with
the
correct
approvals
and
reviews,
and
that,
if
there
is
any
indication
from
either
the
applicant
or
from
anna
butter,
that
there
is
a
regular
settlement
that
we
would
naturally
issue
a
stop
work
order
as
we
have
with
any
other
project
in
the
city
of
austin.
So.
BY
A
A
BY
BM
S
BM
U
A
AA
Now,
before
M
caf,
Winthrop
LLC,
with
my
partner
john
rhadigan,
we
have
an
engineering
dispute.
They
have
the
engineering
firm
of
McNamara
Sylvia,
which
did
the
design
for
the
building.
We
have
our
design
engineers.
We
have
structural
engineers
whose
who
did
a
nonlinear
analysis,
which
is
different
than
designing
a
building
which
determines
what
stresses
an
existing
building
can
take,
because
this
still
the
disagreement,
even
though
we
showed
them
our
star,
appropriate
nonlinear
analysis.
AA
We
had
a
peer
review
done
by
structural
engineers,
Simpson
Gumpert
renowned
in
the
field,
and
we
have
a
representative
Pedro
sipper
here
today.
If
you
want
to
hear
from
him,
he
is
determined
that
the
impacts
that
will
be
experienced
by
101
federal
are
normal
typical
for
construction
in
Boston
and
will
not
cause
damage
to
the
building.
We
obviously
have
higher
limits
that
we
say
would
be
a
problem.
The
problem
with
putting
a
tying
our
hands,
putting
a
handcuff
on
us,
is
that
their
limits
are
artificially
low
and
I
have
engineers.
AA
Today,
I
have
Elizabeth
malls
from
Thornton
Thomas
Eddy,
who
performed
the
nonlinear
analysis.
I
have
Damian
Seaver
from
Haley,
&,
Aldrich
and
again
I
paid
reciprocity.
Want
to
delve
into
the
engineering
details,
but
they
are
they're.
My
new
they're,
the
effect
of
the
weather
on
on
a
given
day,
the
foundation
wall
next
to
their
property,
that
they're
most
worried
about
is
65%
complete
and
the
sophisticated
monitoring
systems
that
we
agreed
to
share
with
them
show
negligible
impacts
that
are
nowhere
near
the
levels
that
they
say
are
dangerous.
They
admit
that
so
far,
so
good.
AA
So
what
they're
trying
to
do
is
tie
our
hands.
We've
heard
from
from
this
tie
that
the
building
Commissioner,
of
course,
always
has
the
authority
to
issue
a
stop
work
order.
But
what
they're
trying
to
ask
you
today
is
completely
unprecedented
and
they
admit
it,
but
they
say
it's
a
very
unusual
situation.
It's
not
an
unusual
situation.
This
is
a
situation
common
to
every
big
building
that
goes
up
in
downtown
Boston.
AA
This
is
what
the
building
commissioner
is
supposed
to
do,
to
call
on
his
experience
to
see
whether
the
building
code
has
been
complied
with
or
not.
There's
no
instance
that
we
have
found
where
Anna
butter
those
come
to
this
board
with
this
type
of
appeal.
There
are
no
court
cases
about
it;
they
cite
none,
they
are
going
to
tie
our
hands
in
a
way
that
makes
it
impossible
for
us
to
build
our
building
in
a
way
that
we're
entitled
to
build,
because
it's
a
permitted
use.
BM
Yes,
first
of
all,
it
actually
is
an
unusual
project
in
the
sense
that
this
is
the
largest
tallest
building.
That's
ever
yet
than
have
been
built
in
mint
in
a
dense,
Midtown
block.
Okay,
there
are
other
tall
buildings,
but
right
close
to
the
building.
This
is
very
different
than
usual.
Second,
what
we
we
don't
know
what
the
city's
thresholds
are.
I
suspect
that
if
we
came
to
them
with
our
numbers,
they'd
have
to
do
some
analysis.
We
know
that
the
developers
numbers
are
higher
than
ours.
What.
BM
Do
it-
and
it
is
my
first
preference
to
complete
that
process
and
we
are
here
because
we
don't
have
agreement
to
seek
a
continuance,
and
so
it's
incumbent
upon
me
to
present
our
case
perfect.
Our
record
go
the
court
if
I
have
to,
but
my
first
preference
would
be.
Can
we
have
a
timeout
and
have
you
reserve
your
judgment?
While
we
continue
that
good
favor
process,
because
I
think
that
would
lead
to
a
resolution
of
the
whole
thing
and
a
withdrawal
of
the
appeal?
If.
BY
I'm,
if
I'm,
a
with
respect
to
establishing
thresholds,
would
be
unprecedented
for
the
building
department
to
adhere
to.
We
use
our
judgment
as
building
officials
that
to
make
sure
that
any
construction
is
being
done
in
compliance
with
a
building
code.
The
other
thing
is
that
it
has
not.
It's
not
unusual
we're
in
an
emergency
situation
where
we
issue
a
stop
order
to
order
first,
and
then
we
do
the
investigation
to
determine
whether
or
not
we
should
allow
them
to
continue.
BY
The
third
point
that
I
would
make
is
whether
or
not
the
applicant
and
the
appellant
here
come
to
an
agreement
with
respect
to
those
thresholds.
That
does
not
mean
that
the
building
department
will
adhere
to
those
particular
thresholds,
because
we
ultimately
have
the
authority
to
make
that
determination
as
to
whether
or
not
those
methods
and
construction
is
safe.