►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 07-25-17
Description
Zoning regulates the use and dimensional boundaries of privately owned buildings and land. The Zoning code is in place to protect the neighborhoods from the construction of buildings or structures that do not fit into the context of a neighborhood. The Zoning Board of Appeal hears appeals for varying the application of the Zoning Code and determines when it is appropriate to grant deviations from code restrictions.
A
A
Very
difficult
for
us
to
hear
people
presenting
at
the
table.
Can
you
guys
hear
us?
Yes,
okay,
all
a
reminder
that,
if
you're
here
to
before
this
board,
please
address
the
issues,
the
zoning
issues
that
are
listed
on
there
on
the
violation
letter
we
take
the
advice
of
the
VRA
and
and
the
mayor's
office
under
consideration,
but
we'd
like
to
hear
from
you.
A
D
You,
madam
chair,
the
first
order
of
business
is
the
approval
of
the
hearing
minutes.
We
did
not
get
them
so
we
will
take
care
of
them
at
the
next
next
month's
meeting.
So
we'll
call
the
first
case
for
extension,
calling
BOA
for
six
four
one.
Three,
seven
twenty
Ashburton
place
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
E
F
E
Alex
Leventhal
is
partner,
Jeremy
Leventhal.
The
project
was
approved
here
two
years
ago
for
an
extension
hiding
for
height
variance
and
two
conditional
use
permits
regarding
the
parking
and
the
reason
I'm
before
you
today.
Asking
for
an
extension
is
frankly
because
it
was
a
very
strong
economy.
The
entire
project
was
released
by
my
client
quickly
after
he
just
did
some
minor
improvements
to
the
building
20
Ashburton
up
kind
of
near
the
Statehouse,
an
older
property
that
he
put
a
little
capital
into
and,
as
a
result,
was
able
to
release
the
entire
building.
E
They
wanted
me
to
come
back
and
seek
an
extension
because
they
do
believe
that
they
might
be
able
to
still
go
forward
the
three
floors
on
top
of
the
building.
They
would
require
an
agreement
with
the
tenant
that's
currently
in
there,
but
he
thinks
that
he
can
do
that.
Move
them
down
a
floor
and
actually
do
some
of
the
work
while
the
while
the
tenants
are
still
in
the
building
and
we're
looking
at
that.
Right
now
may.
G
D
I
Had
gone
through
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
for
a
previous
project,
but
because
of
some
economic
difficulties,
we
had
to
scale
back
the
project
over
the
past
six
months
and
during
that
time
our
project
is
no
longer
within
the
South
Boston
interim
planning
overlay
district
and
the
underlying
zoning
has
changed.
So
we
are
requesting
an
approval
for
the
parapet.
Setbacks
of
our
project
is.
A
I
J
L
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
as
recommended
by
the
board,
there
was
additional
community
process
to
clarify
the
uncertainty,
whether
they
were.
The
neighborhood
was
supportive
of
the
removal
of
the
proviso.
Neighborhood
services
notified
all
the
director
butters
and
hosted
a
community
meeting,
and
there
was
no
community
opposition.
Okay,.
M
N
P
Jackson
with
vh
v,
99,
High
Street,
so
we're
here
to
propose
an
existing
loading
dock
at
95,
Brookline
Avenue
and
we're
replacing
the
existing
dock
with
the
new
one
and
repaving
the
vehicular
area.
And
now
with
that
trip
the
article
32
and
we're
providing
one-inch
infiltration
over
the
entire
loading
dock
and
paved
area
which
that
we
have
PwC
approval.
As
well
as
a
letter
confirming
article
32
compliance.
Q
A
D
We
call
for
the
Reckitt
constructing
new
roof
deck
with
hatch
access
group
access
where
stairway
is
provided
to
occupied
rule
for
a
four-story
building
access
is
said
to
be
said:
occupied
roof
must
be
through
a
penthouse,
1021
number
of
eggs
and
continuty
all
spaces
within
each
story
shall
have
an
approved
independent
number
of
exits,
specified
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
my.
R
R
There
was
there's
already
a
roof
hatch
there.
Existing
and
I.
Don't
know
if
you
have
the
our
whole
submitter,
but
we
have
photographs
of
the
existing
roof
hatch
and
we
also
go
into
some
detail
about.
You
know
what
the
issue
is
by
code.
If,
if
the
building
is
four
storeys,
it
triggers
the
requirement
for
a
penthouse.
However,
what.
S
R
It's
only
for
this
for
the
for
the
top
unit.
You
are
correct,
it's
not
common
space
at
all
and
at
what
you
know
on
record
with
the
city
of
Boston.
This
building
is
classified
as
a
three-story
building,
not
a
four-story
building,
and
we
also
have
some
some
drawings
in
our
submittals
that
show
you
know
that
the
is
actually
three
stories
above
the
finish
grade
from
East
Concord
Street,
but.
J
R
T
R
R
Yeah,
so
we're
basically
put
in
between
these
two
worlds
right
now
and
we
think
that
the
hatch
it
I
mean
it's
a
very
safe
setup
that
we
have.
We
are
providing
a
stair
up
to
the
roof
deck.
It's
just
the
penthouse.
We
can't
build,
but
we
do
have
a
hatch,
it's
one
of
those
hatches
with
with
a
mechanism
that
you
know
with
Springs
that
opens
up.
You
know
very
easily,
so
we
believe
it's
safe.
We
are
updating
the
building
with
new
sprinklers,
so
we're
looking
to
get
some
relief
to
see
what
you
guys
did.
V
D
A
D
That's
a
first
we'll
call
the
first
case
calling
boa
seven
zero.
Four
three
nine
44281
Washington
Street.
This
is
to
raise
the
existing
wood
structure,
erect
a
new
four-story
12
unit
residential
building.
There
will
be
an
at-grade
parking
garage
built
under
the
building
violated
Article
67,
section
11
accessory
parking
for
residential
uses
located
on
the
first
story
is
conditional,
Article
67,
section
32.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
67,
section
12.
The
Florida
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
67,
section
12
the
building
hated
success
of
Article
67,
section
12.
X
X
Sure
so
the
zoning
in
this
neighborhood
is
neighborhood
shopping.
A
few
familiar
with
the
area.
It's
kind
of
commercial
currently
sits.
A
furniture
with
here
upholstery
store
5,700
square
foot
lot.
The
zoning
under
neighborhood
shoppings
35
feet
the
proposal
for
you
this
morning,
it's
40
feet.
Zoning
is
three
stories
before
you
is
four
stories
parking
in
Roslindale
two.
We
have
parking
up
one
to
one
ratio
of
twelve
parking
spaces.
Total
square
footage
of
the
building
is
12
22,500.
X
Thousand
five
hundred
and
their
other,
the
layout
of
this
there's
going
to
be
four
units
per
floor
to
one
bedroom
units.
Those
will
range
in
size
from
600
to
763
square
feet
with
one
full
bath
and
the
two
two-bedroom
units
on
each
floor
will
be
approximately
950
square
feet
with
two
full
baths.
We
went
to
through
neighborhood
services
had
in
the
butters
meeting.
That
was
very
supportive
from
the
neighborhood
and
I
think.
The
mayor's
office,
as
well
as
some
city
councilors,
are
here
to
speak.
Coming
up.
A
X
I
printed
that
so
it's
kind
of
unusual
that
that
would
actually
come
up.
I've
done
some
research
on
that,
the
because
it
hasn't
come
up
on
other
projects.
The
under
David
shopping
was
always
believed
through
at
least
to
ISD,
that
the
violation
was
that
you
could
not
have
residential.
On
the
first
floor,
you
could
have
accessory
parking
to
it,
but
I
think
what
you're
doing
is
extending
it
over
saying
that
accessory
parking
is
a
conditional
use
for
residential
units,
but
in
all
the
other
projects
that
I've
done
I've
done
enough.
A
L
Madam
chair
members
aboard
damn
right
from
the
mayor's
office
the
Neighborhood
Services
has
recently
mentioned.
They
did
have
community
process
all
supportive
of
their
proposal
in
the
neighborhood
I
would
just
like
to
echo
some
of
the
community
sentiments
about
allocating
the
available
parking
to
the
people
that
reside
in
in
the
building.
L
Y
M
D
This
is
vertical
addition
to
extend
living
space
to
the
attic
and
the
existing
single-family
residential
dwelling
construct,
the
front
deck
grid,
deck
and
bay
windows
in
an
interior
renovation,
the
violations
Article
67
section
9,
the
excessive
fluid
a
ratio;
Article
67,
section
9,
the
excess
of
building
height
of
stories,
article
67,
69,
insufficient
side
yard,
Article,
67,
insufficient
area
name.
An
address
for
the
record
please
morning.
AA
AA
Stevenson's
live
in
my
neighborhood
several
years,
they've
lived
across
the
street
in
a
very
small
home
they
bought
this
home.
This
is
somewhat
larger.
The
house
is,
if
you
look
at
the
very
last
page
of
the
papers,
we
gave
you
the
existing
condition.
Is
it's
a
blue
home.
There
was
a
addition
put
on
a
front
porch.
AA
What's
triggering
is,
is
the
biggest
the
biggest
problems
are
number
one:
the
floor
area
ratio
after
they
finish
the
attic
there'll
be
0.65
and
the
violin
and
the
loud
floor
area
ratio
and
that
zone
is
point
five,
so
be
slightly
over
afluria.
The
other
bigger
problem
is
this
is
a
two
and
a
half
story
zone.
The
height
you're
allowed
is
35
feet.
They
will
be
under
that
they'll
be
at
31
feet,
but
it's
a
two
and
a
half
story.
AB
L
AC
AC
My
name
is
bill:
coin
I
live
at
fifteen
Heathcote
Street,
so
I
look
I'm
right
across
the
street
I'm
looking
right
at
the
house,
I've
been
there
since
1985
and
I
would
just
want
to
say.
Joel
and
Kathryn
have
been
wonderful
additions
to
the
neighborhood.
The
block
party,
neighborhood
kids
are
always
going
over
their
house,
so
the
house
is
until
to
them
really
a
lot
of
the
neighborhood
kids.
Are
there
too?
It
is
a
large
house,
it's
always
been
large.
It's
surrounded
on
either
side.
AC
D
Boa
seven
one:
five,
five,
eight
one,
forty
four
lock
Dale
Road:
this
is
a
three-story
addition
to
land.
Forty,
nine
thousand,
eight
hundred
and
twenty-two
square
feet
will
be
added
to
the
existing
self
storage
building.
At
forty
four
lock
Dale
Road
violated
Article
67,
section
67
15.
The
claudia
ratio
is
excessive
in
Article
67,
section
67
15,
a
height
of
successor,
name,
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
AD
K
AD
We're
here
before
you
this
morning,
the
seek
your
approval
for
a
proposed
three-story
addition
to
an
existing
self
storage
facility
located
at
forty
four
lock
Dale
Road
and
the
Roslindale
neighborhood
of
Boston.
The
addition
would
be
approximately
forty,
nine
thousand
eight
hundred
and
twenty-two
square
feet
in
size.
Subject:
properties
bounded
on
the
north
by
lock,
Dale
Road
on
the
south
by
malla
Road
on
the
west,
by
an
MBTA
way
align
into
the
East,
the
properties
to
Watson
from
Washington
Street.
The
property
contains
an
existing
self
storage
facility.
That's
two
stories
it
has
existed
since
2004.
AD
The
proposed
addition
will
be
located
on
the
model
road
side
of
the
property
in
the
existing
parking
area
and
connected
to
the
existing
storage
building.
The
property
is
located
within
a
local
industrial
zoning
districts
under
Article
67
of
the
code.
The
area
immediately
adjacent
to
the
property
contains
a
number
of
other
industrial
commercial
uses,
including
Cataldo
ambulance
in
Boston,
Animal,
Care
and
Control,
while
the
underlying
use
is
allowed
as
a
right.
AD
The
project
will
greatly
help
enhance
the
aesthetics
of
the
street
by
providing
the
new
facade
will
also
be
a
white
roof
and
certain
other
lead
improvements
to
help
again
approve
the
aesthetics
of
the
streets.
Finally,
the
appellant
has
made
a
grant
to
the
livable
streets,
Alliance
and
connection
with
walk-up
Rosen
Dale
to
help
create
new
walking
paths
to
the
adjacent
Arboretum.
That's
the
east
of
the
property.
AD
AD
L
AE
J
D
This
is
to
extend
living
space
in
the
attic
for
unit
three
in
the
existing
three
family
dwelling,
construct
a
new
front
door
and
add
new
skylight.
The
violations,
article
55,
section,
nine,
the
floor:
ta
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
55,
section,
nine,
the
building
height
number
of
storeys
is
excessive
and
article
55
section
9.
The
Reyat
is
insufficient
name
of
the
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
H
H
The
three
unit
building
with
unfinished
attic
space,
which
is
deeded
to
Todd
and
his
wife.
What
we're
proposing
is
finishing
off
that
existing
attic
space
into
a
master
suite.
The
variances
that
we're
seeking
are
for
the
excessive
floor
area
ratio,
a
height,
excessive
height
and
rear
yard,
insufficiency.
H
In
terms
of
if
they
are
they're
required
at
point,
six,
our
limit
is
0.6.
The
building
itself
right
now
is
at
one
point
two:
nine,
the
finished
space
that
we
would
like
to
add
pushes
it
up
to
one
point:
five,
two
in
terms
of
the
height,
they
are
capped
at
three
stories
and
thirty
five
feet.
We're
actually
at
thirty
three
point:
nine
five
feet,
but
because
we
don't
meet
the
half
story.
H
Definition
the
this
space
that
we
hope
to
finish
in
in
the
attic
section
counter
this
important
story,
but
we
don't
excuse
actual
height
and
on
the
back,
the
rear
yard
setback
we're
required
to
have
20
feet.
The
existing
structures
at
ten
point
eight
feet.
The
dimmer
that
we're
proposing
is
at
thirteen
point
two
feet
and
that
dormer
is
mainly
to
get
on
the
80
inch
clear,
head
height
above
the
existing
stair
for
access.
Okay,.
A
AF
D
AH
U
D
Is
the
six
laughs
Beale
Street?
This
is
a
construct,
a
ten-foot
easement
driveway
between
houses
to
propose
for
our
three
parking
violations:
article
65,
section
65,
41,
Austria
loading
and
requirements,
and
this
is
for
ten
lab
field.
This
is
to
construct
a
10-point
easement
driveway
between
two
houses.
Pearls
fall
off
street
parking,
the
violations,
article
65
section,
41,
Austria,
parking,
loading
and
requirements
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
foster.
AI
AH
A
AJ
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
David.
Carter
from
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood.
Services
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
We
held
an
on
side
of
waters
meeting
that
was
supported
by
those
in
attendance
and
they
also
have
a
support
of
the
st.
mark,
Civic
Association.
Thank
you,
madam.
AK
AL
AL
AH
AH
D
The
next
case
calling
boa
six
six
six
six
two
to
1607
Dorchester
Avenue.
This
is
to
install
a
canopy
over
a
pump
Ireland
pump
island
violation,
article
9
section,
one
extension
of
a
non-conforming
use,
article
65,
69
front
yard.
Setback
is
insufficient
in
article
65,
section
8,
preexisting,
non-conforming
name
and
address
for.
C
AM
U
D
This
is
to
combine
the
subdivide
of
two
Lots
directly
to
two
story:
to
to
family
dwelling
on
a
new
five
thousand.
Nine
hundred
twenty
three
hundred
square
foot
proposed
project
is
part
of
the
DND
neighborhood
housing
initiative
program
violations,
article
10
section,
one
limitation
of
area
of
accessory
uses,
article
60,
section,
40,
speed,
parking,
design
and
maneuverability
name
and
address
for
the
record
lee
juil.
AN
Is
didi
owns
two
apostles
about
9,000
square
feet
Dean
these
work
extensively
with
the
abundance
on
this,
and
so
we're
going
to
combine
the
two
parcels.
Indeed,
over
about
3,300
Square
feet
to
the
apana
four
side
yard
we're
going
to
place
the
new
house
that
we're
building
under
the
new
homes
initiative
only
approximately
fifty
nine
hundred
square
foot.
Why
is.
AN
The
the
design
of
these
houses
has
does
not
have
a
garage
Heslov
street
pocket.
We
have
one
curb
cut,
we're
gonna
have
two
ten
two
parking
spaces
and
this
this
is
really
it's
a
two
family
house,
no
problems
in
parking
in
the
area,
there's
a
community
garden
around
the
corner,
and
so
this
was
the
layout
that
didi
and
I
agreed
upon
with
the
community.
How.
A
AO
N
D
F
AQ
D
D
D
The
next
case
calling
blla
7
1
9
0
to
7
114
to
120
Brookside
Avenue.
This
is
new
construction,
mixed-use
building
the
nine
residential
units,
eleven
parking
space
and
three
commercial
spaces.
The
violations-
article
55
section
55
40
off
street
parking-
is
insufficient.
Article
55,
section
19,
multi-family
residential,
is
forbidden
in
l1
sub
district,
equal
50,
55,
section
20,
the
Florida
ratio,
Florida
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
55,
section
20,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
Thank.
AR
You
Madame
chair
members
of
the
board,
Geoff
Drago
attorney
for
the
applicant
of
drag
on
sconul,
with
an
address
assisting
Broad
Street.
My
also
I'm
Cheryl
Tobias
architect
with
me,
we're
here
seeking
zoning
relief
to
demolish
an
existing
one-story,
very
outdated
structure
at
114,
120
Brookside
to
erect
a
four
and
a
half
story.
Mixed-Use
building
that
will
include
nine
condominium
units
and
three
commercial
spaces.
Two
of
the
three
commercial
spaces
will
be
affordable:
commercial
as
part
of
an
MoU
with
the
existing
tenants
of
the
building.
AR
We've
actually
had
an
extensive
community
process
outreach
process
on
this
project
over
a
year
period
coming
down
from
19
units
down
to
the
nine
units
that
you
see
the
lot
size
is
nine
thousand
eight
hundred
and
twenty
square
feet.
This
particular
zoning
district
is
zoned
for
local
industrial.
The
proposed
gross
square
footage
is
sixteen
thousand
640
square
feet.
The
highest
point
is
42
feet,
seven
inches
to
the
top
of
the
fourth
floor,
and
then
we
have
a
free.
A
AR
Inches
42
feet
seven
inches
to
the
fourth
floor,
and
then
we
had
also,
as
part
of
working
with
the
community,
put
a
community
room
for
the
residents
on
the
top
floor
that
goes
up
to
53
feet.
One
chin
height
this
these
violations,
as
mentioned
because
it's
local
industrial,
a
mixed-use,
is,
is
triggered.
AR
The
unit
sizes
are
mixed
between
3-bed
2bath
and
then
some
2-bed
2bath,
the
commercial
spaces
that
are
located
on
the
first
floor,
go
into
the
basement
as
well,
and
they
are
770
square
feet,
650
and
965.
As
I
mentioned.
The
tenants
that
currently
are
housed
in
that
building
would
get
first
preference
and
they're
set
at
an
affordable
rate
as
well.
I
can
pause
now
to
answer
any
questions.
What
may
have.
AR
AB
AR
N
AR
AB
S
We
have
it
in
order
to
have
the
roof,
deck
be
accessible,
the
elevator
goes
up
and
the
means
of
egress
the
two
stairs
go
up,
so
we
had
the
two
volumes
already
there
and
we
felt
it
would
be
a
nice
amenity
just
to
connect
those
volumes
and
have
that
enclosed
space
for
people
using
the
roof.
Deck
could
come
inside
and
it
provides
the
vestibule
for
the
elevator
as
well.
AB
AR
Yes,
but
that's
not
our
intention.
It's
strictly
commercial!
We've
made
that
loud
and
clear
to
the
community
as
a
whole,
and
if
one
of
the
particular
tenants
or
none
of
the
tenants,
because
there's
ten
that
are
in
that
building
now
did
not
want
it,
we
would
offer
it
to
the
community
somebody
else
up
that
same
way.
AR
AF
AQ
The
board's
over
heck,
120,
brookside
I'm,
actually
a
tenant
in
this
building
and
I'm
here
in
support
of
this
project
and
in
a
very
brief
note,
is
a
project
that
shows
that,
with
some
creative
use,
displacements
in
new
development
in
Jamaica
Plain
can
be
mitigated
or
minimized
by
offering
some
kind
of
benefits
exist.
Existing
tenants
for
lower
rent
residents
commercial
tenants.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
AS
A
A
If
you
could,
please,
oh
I,
just
put
the
artist's
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
summarized
for
us.
What's
the
concern
is
and
then
put
the
letter
into
the
record.
Okay.
AS
Sheila
Gallagher
and
she
works
at
128,
Brookside
F
and
it's
the
residence
of
thirty-one
Oakview
terrorists
in
Jamaica
Plain.
The
proposed
residential
use
is
not
permitted
under
current
zoning.
The
zoning
exists
specifically
to
protect
tenants
who
rely
on
availability
of
industrial
space.
The
proposed
use
does
not
conformed
to
the
recent
adopted
JT
rocks
plan,
which,
after
extensive
community
process
and
approval
by
the
PPD,
a
word
reaffirmed
light
industrial
uses
on
this
site,
in
particular
citing
support
of
artists
and
artisans.
AS
The
parcels
is
not
qualified
for
status
as
a
residential
development
area,
which
is
one
of
the
mechanisms
the
Jaypee
rocks
plan
has
buys
to
both
allow
and
limit
residential
use
conversions.
The
proposal
is
not
undergone
article
80
review
or
other
proper
community
reviews.
In
the
absence
of
any
such
process,
the
Jaypee
rocks
land,
which
involves
deep
community
engagement
and
which
will
be
the
basis
for
changing
the
zoning
should
be
the
guide
to
the
outcome
of
this
appeal.
Many
an
artist's
craftspeople
whose
primary
place
of
work
is
in
the
building
will
be
displayed.
AS
The
tiny
work
state
was
offered
in
proposal
are
a
fraction
of
the
existing
space
and
will
not
support
meaningful
artist
activity.
Lastly,
the
proponent
is
not
complying
by
entering
the
proponent,
is
not
compelled
by
any
legally
recognised,
hardship,
Geographic,
financial
or
otherwise,
to
demolish
a
structure.
Housing
legally
permitted
used
to
erect
a
building
intended
for
non
conforming
ones
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
existing
zoning
and
a
contradiction
to
a
detailed
plan
recently
ratified
by
the
BPD.
A
to
this
end,
I
respectfully
request
the
developer
be
denied
the
variance
thank.
N
AT
N
D
AU
AU
A
AU
J
AV
A
A
AU
If
you
turn
to
the
third
page,
the
second
floor
currently
has
a
bathroom
that
doesn't
have
a
window
and
the
Lehrer
room
is
small,
twelve
by
twelve
with
the
kitchen
and
there's
really
it's
really
hard
to
configure
a
living
room
up
there
so
be
hopefully
combining
the
second
and
third
floor.
Family
room
would
be
on
the
third
floor.
AF
AW
D
V
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
mark
the
Catholic
house,
la
75,
Arlington
Street
Boston,
represents
the
developer
of
this
project.
The
project
is
a
two
units,
complete
kind
of
gut
renovation
of
what
was
an
existing
single-family
last
lodging-house
that
has
been
turned
into
two
units.
The
proposal
for
you
today
simply
seeks
approval
of
two
rear
decks
above
the
first
floor,
thereby
requiring
conditional
use
permit
under
article
64
nine
we
held
in
a
butter
meeting,
and
there
was
no
opposition.
There
were
some
questions
about
the
structural
component
parts
of
the
decks.
A
AX
AY
G
V
A
A
We
are
ready
to
proceed
with
the
meeting
for
July
25th
2017,
again,
just
a
reminder
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
take
any
conversations
outside
of
the
room.
If
you're
here
to
speak
in
support
or
in
opposition
of
the
project.
Please
give
us
new
information.
We
like
to
know
more
more
details
about
a
project
and
we
take
everybody
so
news
and
information
under
consideration
when
we
make
a
decision
fortune.
Thank.
AZ
AZ
D
This
is
a
pipe
for
the
Union
demo,
an
existing
building,
erect
a
73
thousand
square
foot
pipe
for
this
training
office
and
a
four-story
65
foot
tall
steel
frame
structure
re
the
project
also
includes
approximately
120
parking
spaces.
The
violations-
article
25
section
5
flood
hazard
district
article
65
section
15
trade
school-
is
conditional,
equals
65
section
16.
The
height
is
excessive
article
65,
section,
16,
front
yard
of
the
street
clap
street
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BA
A
O
BA
BA
Proposing
65
feet
in
a
45
foot
sound
and
to
accommodate
parking
on
sites
and
the
facilitator
for
the
building
the,
although
we
comply
with
FA,
are
and
are
largely
dimensionally
compliant
going
a
little
bit
taller
was
the
way
to
fit
that
needed
program
into
the
building
space.
I
should
mention.
We've
had
a
very
successful
community
process.
It's
gone
very
smoothly.
We've
got
a
lot
of
support
for
the
neighborhood.
AO
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we'd
like
to
on
record
and
support
his
project,
has
been
through
a
lengthy
community
process
that
has
been
very
positive.
People
are
happy
to
see
the
pipe
fitter,
staying
and
investing
in
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you,
madam.
AK
A
M
D
The
next
case
calling
seven
to
zero
BOA,
seven
to
zero
five,
nine
zero
to
87
to
291
Old
Colony
Avenue.
This
is
a
proposed,
a
new,
a
two
built
to
build
a
new
seven
unit,
condo
building
consisting
of
seven
residential
units
and
one
retail
commercial
space
in
parking
under
the
violations.
Article
13
section
4
dwelling,
isn't
a
non
in
a
non
residential
district.
Article
14,
section
14
1
minimum
lot.
Size
requirements
is
insufficient.
Article
14
section
14,
lot
area,
traditional
drawing
units,
article
15,
section,
1,
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
D
Article
23,
section
1
RC
parking
requirements
is
insufficient.
Article
16
section
1
maximum
height
requirement
is
excessive.
Article
16
section
1.
The
maximum
number
of
stories
exist
is
excessive.
Article
17,
section
1
useable
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
18,
section,
1
front
setback
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
18,
section,
1,
front
yard,
setback
and
client
along
Jenkins
Street
is
insufficient
and
article
18
section
3
traffic
visibility
across
the
corner
name,
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
Patrick.
AZ
Mahoney
of
atoms
and
Meranti
with
the
business
is
at
350
West
Broadway
on
the
young
scent
before
I
begin
I'd,
just
like
to
say,
I
have
a
full
set
of
drawings
that
will
be
submitted
to
the
board
by
the
end
of
the
day,
the
submitted
handout
which
reflects
that
set
of
drawings
that
you
should
all
have.
Additionally,
there's
a
zoning
analysis.
AZ
AZ
AZ
Front
yard
violation
has
been
remedied,
buying
the
existing
building
alignment
but
in
essence
the
rest
of
them
still
remain
and
the
reason
for
that
is
it's
a
2700
square
foot
triangle-shaped
lot.
There
is
still
a
rear
yard
violation
with
the
shallow
exception.
10
feet
is
allowed
and
we're
right
up
against
the
lot
line,
but.
A
AZ
AZ
Traffic
visibility
around
the
corner
is,
is
a
no
plantings
or
building
within
the
first
two
and
a
half
feet.
It's
going
to
be
a
transparent
retail
space,
glass,
building
on
either
side
and
also
Jenkins,
Street
Old
Colony
is
a
main
thoroughfare.
Jenkins
Street
is
a
one-way.
Exiting
out
onto
cold-calling
is
a
stop
sign
in
place
in
condition
to
high
traffic
area.
How.
AZ
AU
AZ
AO
AY
BB
The
Dodd
AB
South
Boston
plan
is
done
and
we're
trying
to
you
know
put
the
word
out
that
the
proposals
that
were
already
in
the
cute
don't
conform
to
what
the
plan
was
adopted
by
the
BRE
board
and
the
zoning
that
we're
currently
writing
right
now.
So
for
us
to
be
consistent
with
our
plan,
we're
recommending
denial
without
prejudice.
AU
D
Boa
seven
one:
nine
eight,
four,
nine
two:
seventy
eight
West
fifth
Street,
there's
a
companion
case,
boa
seven,
twenty
five
one:
three:
five:
five,
thirty,
nine,
two,
five,
forty
one
I'm
sorry!
This
is
separate,
boa
seven,
one,
nine,
eight,
four,
nine
two:
seventy
eight
West
fifth
Street
this
is
to
change
a
single-family
house
to
a
to
family,
make
an
addition
to
the
side
of
the
house
as
well
as
the
third
floor
violations.
Article
68,
section,
29,
roof
structure,
restricted
district,
unequal,
68,
section,
a
front
yard
setback
requirement
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
A
AZ
Q
AZ
Actually,
the
room,
so
if
you're,
looking
at
the
cover
page
of
the
handout
you'll
see,
the
building
is
set
back
three
feet
on
the
third
level
from
the
the
other
building
and
that's
to
conform
with
the
dimensional
requirements
of
article
68.
The.
However,
the
one
thing
that
we
can't
change
rezoning
really
is
the
change
of
profile
of
the
roof.
So
if
you
have
a,
for
example,
of
single
story,
building
in
article
68
section
29,
the
restricted
roof
structure,
provision
says
that
it
would
be
conditional
relief
to
alter
the
profile
in
any
capacity.
So.
AZ
AZ
AZ
AO
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
we're
not
able
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
proposal
because
it
does
need
variances
under
article
68.
However,
it
does
appear,
the
building
is
dimensionally
compliant
and
the
proponent
does
have
many
letters
of
support
from
the
community
and
the
butters
meeting
did
go
well.
Thank
you.
AY
Z
A
D
The
next
case
calling
VOA
725
135
539
to
541
East
Third
Street.
There
is
a
companion
case,
VOA
six,
seven,
four,
one:
zero
five:
five,
forty
three
East
Third
Street.
This
is
for
543
East.
Third,
miss
erecting
new
three-story
to
family
dwelling
over
an
open
parking
with
roof
deck.
The
violation
is
article
57,
section,
nine,
a
lot
area
for
the
other
throwing
units.
Is
it
sufficient
article
57
section:
nine.
The
ploidy
ratio
is
excessive:
article
57,
section
nine,
the
height
and
success
of
article
57,
section
nine,
the
required
front.
Yet
setback
is
insufficient.
D
Article
57,
section
nine
required
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
57
section
nine,
the
required
really
odd
setback.
Is
it
sufficient
nickel,
57
section
9
the
require
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
59,
section
37,
RV
parking
design,
article
57,
section,
22,
the
roof
structure,
restricted
district
lickle,
57,
section
27
two
buildings
on
the
same
lot:
go
57,
section,
27,
two
dwellings
on
one
lot.
This
is
for
539
to
541
Eastern.
This
is
an
existing
to
family
dwelling
and
will
share
its
lot
with
another
new
dwelling.
D
The
violations-
article
68
section
34,
two
dwellings
on
one
lot-
equals
68
34,
section
34
to
building
two
buildings
on
the
same
lot
equals
68
section
8
for
the
ratio
is
excessive.
Equal
68,
section
8,
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient
and
article
68
section
a
side
yard
setback
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
morning.
B
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George
Moran,
see
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address,
350
West
Broadway
in
South,
Boston
I'm
joined
by
Tim
Johnson,
the
project
architect.
Madam
chair
members,
to
reflex
sorry
refresh
the
recollection
of
the
board.
This
is
essential,
Laoghaire
discussion.
This
matter
was
substantially
heard
on
the
merits
a
few
weeks
ago.
It
was
riad,
vert
eyes,
which
is
why
it
is
not
in
the
rediscovers.
B
Today,
a
few
weeks
ago,
tim
was
here
with
this
client
on
behalf
of
his
client
Frank
Mulligan,
in
the
for
the
purpose
of
getting
approval
for
a
two-family
dwelling,
which
would
be
located
on
to
the
left
of
an
existing
mixed-use
building,
consisting
of
two
apartments
above
Frank
Mulligan's
construction
company
office.
On
the
first
floor
to
further
refresh
the
board's
recollection,
there
were
some
concerns
from
the
board
about
why,
in
fact,
this
building
in
the
proposed
new
building
were
not
put
onto
a
consolidated
loss.
B
There
were
also
concerns
about
exposed
parking,
it'd
be
a
ground
level
of
the
new
building.
I
was
at
the
hearing
a
few
weeks
ago.
Actually,
as
a
representative
of
my
clients,
who
are
the
approved
developers
of
an
eighteen
unit
project
at
five,
forty
five
East
Third
Street
I,
was
here
only
to
offer
support
for
the
project.
B
Obviously,
now
I've
been
retained
by
mr.
Mulligan
to
Representative
this
hearing.
Since
that
initial
hearing,
we
did
in
fact
confirm
what
I
believe
I
stated
at
the
time
of
the
hearing
that
this
isn't
a
consolidated
loss.
So
there
was
concern
about
the
advertising
when
the
tearing
first
came
before
the
board,
whether
or
not
this
was
a
consolidated
law
or
two
separate
lots.
I
had
represented
mr.
B
Mulligan
in
2011
when
the
existing
building
was
approved
and
that
application
was
to
in
fact
combine
Lots
erect
the
mixed-use
building
with
two
parking
spaces
on
the
vacant
portion
of
the
Lots
of
the
left.
This
application
is
hoping
to
achieve
the
purpose
of
getting
approval
for
a
three
story:
two
unit
building
on
that
vacant
portion
of
the
lot.
There
would
be
a
four
parking
slots,
eight
tandem
spaces.
So
even
if
these
spaces
were
not
tandem,
the
two
parking
spaces
that
do
exist.
B
Therefore,
the
two
residential
units
to
the
right
remain
in
existence
and
two
additional
parking
spaces
are
being
added
for
the
two
units
in
the
new
building
to
the
left.
When
Tim
went
in
and
clarified
this
with
the
plan's
examiner,
the
result
is
that
second
application
was
required
to
be
submitted
for
the
existing
building.
Hence
there
is
a
refusal
letter
arising
under
article
68,
it's
important
to
know
we're
really
seeking
no
effective
relief
under
article
68.
B
Nothing
is
changing
with
respect
to
the
existing
building,
the
violations
Oh
to
the
fact
that
the
law
had
in
fact
been
consolidated
and
is
decited
incorrectly
the
first
time.
Otherwise,
this
entire
application
would
still
be
under
article
57
in
terms
of
the
merits
of
the
project.
Again,
it's
it's
simply
a
two
unit
building
with
ground-floor
parking.
The
revised
plans
that
are
submitted
address
the
other
issue
that
I
think
was
significant
for
the
board
to
which
objection
was
raised,
which
was
there
was
exposed
parking
at
the
ground
floor
level.
B
That
parking
is
now
concealed
by
garage
doors
as
to
the
violations.
There
are
violations
occurring
to
the
lot
owing
to
the
fact
that
there
are
now
essentially
two
structures
on
the
lot
that
has
a
consequence,
be
useful,
open
space.
But
the
portion
of
the
lot
being
used
for
the
new
building
was
never
used
for
usable,
open
space.
It
was
a
surface
parking
lot
for
two
vehicles
and
sometimes
overflow
in
terms.
B
A
B
B
B
B
Side
yard
setback
again
different
under
Article
57
under
the
I
just
want
to
point
out
in
terms
with
respect
to
the
side
yard,
to
the
left
of
the
proposed
building,
where
the
side
yard
violation
accrues,
is
a
driveway
entrance
for
the
proposed
building
at
5:45
East
Third
Street.
So
there
is
no
proximity
thereto
in
a
budding
building
or
windows
or
anything
of
the
sort
with
respect
to
the
rear
yard
violation.
B
This
is
a
this
building
goes
to
the
rear
lot
line,
as
the
existing
building
does
to
the
rear
of
the
site
is
five.
Forty,
five
East
Third
Street
approved
project
my
clients,
therefore
the
abutters.
They
have
no
opposition,
in
fact,
they're
building
five,
forty
five.
What
may
remember
was
setback
on
all
sides
in
consideration
of
future
development
of
this
parcel.
In
fact,
in
terms
of
there's
a
height
violation,
that's
cited
under
article
57,
that's
when
this
is
thirty
five.
What
maximum
height
district
this
building
was
just
over
thirty
seven
feet.
B
A
B
This
even
under
article
57,
this
was
a
restricted
roof
structure
district.
There
is
one
proposed
deck
for
the
new
building
centrally
located
modestly
sized
the
same
size
as
the
the
two
decks
on
the
building
at
right.
The
plans
do
show
a
head
house
again.
I
was
not
involved
this
project
from
from
the
inception,
but
it
does
show
a
head
house
access
to
that
roof.
AB
B
AB
B
B
J
AB
AB
J
J
J
B
And
again,
to
hypothesize
about
this,
if,
if
it
were
approved,
is
only
a
four
unit
garage,
the
ultimate
practice
would
would
be
that
people
would
fit
as
many
cars
that
they
could
in
the
garage.
This
is
I,
think
shown
as
being
the
maximum
number
that
could
be
fit
in
under
ideal
circumstances,
but
the
fact
is
I
believe
we
satisfy
the
Audrey
Parker
requirement
by
fact
of
that,
it's
incontestably
for
parking
spaces.
AO
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Allison
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
the
new
building
building
being
built.
We
did
hold
Anna
butters
meeting
for
that
building.
There
were
no
objections
raised.
It
is
consistent
with
the
building
next
to
it.
Thank
you.
AY
Visible
at
Lauren
Military,
Council
Dylan
hands
office.
We
too
wish
to
wand
record
in
support
of
the
new
building
and,
as
mr.
Moran
sees
faded,
539
fell
under
article
68
kind
of
on
a
technicality.
The
council
feels
that
it's
consistent
with
the
other
houses
on
the
street.
Thank
you.
J
N
D
Finally,
calling
the
next
case
calling
boa
seven:
zero,
seven,
nine,
eight,
nine
three:
seventy
seven
West
first
Street
West,
first
Street
here,
okay,
this
is
a
wrecked.
A
five-story
mixed-use
building
on
the
ground
level
would
be
parking
garage
with
a
commercial
space
on
the
up.
Coppola's
will
be
nine
residential
units.
There
will
be
a
common
roof
deck
for
all
tenants
in
the
building
violations.
Article
68,
section
8,
claudia
ratio,
is
successful,
name
and
address
for.
D
B
B
I'm
joined
shortly
by
my
clients,
the
purchaser
and
developer
of
the
of
the
property
Greg
Donovan,
madam
chair
members,
this
matter
has
been
before
the
board
has
been
denied
previously
it's
a
case
that
arises
under
Article
68
and
has
been
denied
in
the
past
by
this
board,
based
largely
at
night
on
objections
to
grants.
Only
relief
in
article
68.
B
The
board
is
likely
aware
that
self
awesome
zoning,
which
is
now
all
article
68
but
for
the
study
area,
is
being
re-examined
under
recently
imposed
interim
Planning
overlay
district,
which
I
think
is
the
result
of
a
consensus,
certainly
that
article
68
is
not
perfect,
something
that
we've
been
saying
for
some
time.
This
site
is
currently
a
loss.
That
is
a
part
of
the
Don
Clancy
and
sons
demolition
company.
Mr.
Clancy
just
joined
us
at
the
hearing
table.
Mr.
Clancy
has
had
this
business
there
for
many
many
years.
B
A
B
B
In
terms
of
the
units,
it's
a
nine
unit
building
with
a
commercial
unit,
very
small
ground-floor
commercial
space.
The
ground
floor
is
a
442
square
foot
commercial
unit,
entry,
vestibule
entry
vestibule
in
a
lobby.
There
are
also
13
garage
parking
spaces
second
floor.
There
are
two
two-bedroom
units
of
just
over
1,800
square
feet,
a
three-bedroom
unit
of
just
about
2,300
square
feet.
The
third
floor
same
two
two-bedroom
units
just
over
1,800
square
feet,
a
three-bedroom
unit
of
just
under
2,300
square
feet
the
third
floor.
B
There
are
two
three-bedroom
units,
one
is
a
bi-level
unit,
3-bedroom
3800,
54
square
feet,
there's
also
a
single
floor,
three-bedroom
unit
of
30
450
square
feet.
And
finally,
on
the
fourth
floor,
there
is
one
three-bedroom
unit,
also
very
450
square
feet,
plus
the
upper
level
of
three
bedroom
units
below
for
a
total
of
nine
units.
Open
space
is
provided
on
the
roof.
There
is
an
exclusive
use,
roofdeck
of
500
feet
for
the
bi-level
three-bedroom.
B
There
is
an
exclusive
use,
deck
for
the
top
floor,
three-bedroom
unit
of
965
square
feet
and
then
there's
a
common
roof
deck
for
the
other
seven
units
of
1,300
square
feet.
All
in
all,
this
comes
in
an
FA
are
3.0.
The
maximum
FA
are
here
under
Article
68
is
2.0.
The
additional
f
AR
is
related
to
my
description
of
the
site
as
the
current
use
of
the
site
as
Clancy
Brothers
demolition
company.
B
Mr.
Clancy,
faced
with
residential
encroachment
around
him
residential
development
around
him
and
on
a
piece
of
land
that
was
Rees
owned.
While
his
business
was
operating,
there
needs
to
relocate.
My
client
is
paying
mr.
Clancy
enough
money
so
that
he
can
relocate
his
business,
and
so
the
my
client
can
undertake
to
clean
the
soil
required
for
the
excavation
to
keep
the
building
under
the
maximum
building
height.
All
of
this
results
in
the
fact
that
the
maximum
amount
of
gross
floor
area
needs
to
be
put
into
the
building
to
make
Anani
economically
viable
project.
A
AO
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
proposal.
It
is
somewhat
unique
within
article
68,
in
that
it
is
on
contaminated
land.
It
is
dimensionally
compliant
with
article
68,
except
for
the
SAR
and
the
proponent
is
giving
part
of
the
site
sort
of
back
to
the
city
to
be
to
create
a
compliant
sidewalks
in
this
area,
which
is
desperately
needed.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
T
My
name
is
Anne
Mary
Hogan
I
live
a
few
doors
from
the
project.
I
have
182
letters
and
affidavits
that
wanted
support
the
Challenger.
Please
put
it
in
the
record.
We
feel
that
mr.
Donovan,
the
last
meeting
we
had
adjust
the
problem
that
we
were
all
concerned
about.
Nellis
high,
we're
not
concerned
about
what
goes
on
in
the
building
school,
and
we
appreciate
if
they're
got
approved.
Okay.
A
BF
My
name
is
Kathleen
Regan
I
actually
bought
a
three-bedroom
unit
on
4th
Street
in
a
previous
building
and
I
just
want
to
voice
my
support.
I'm
moving
from
a
suburb
with
my
14
year
old,
and
my
other
son,
who
attends
college
and
I
was
surprised
mostly
walking
down
being
new
to
the
area
on
first,
the
condition
of
the
sidewalk
and
I
believe
the
sidewalk
is
going
to
be
similar
to
the
building's
previous
and
there's
a
vast
difference.
So
it
is
a
safety
issue
for
me.
That's
why
I
support
it.
Thank.
A
W
Hi,
my
name
is
Ashish
mother.
We
moved
to
South
Watson
from
being
insulted
in
two
years.
Back
with
on
fourth
grade,
we
expanded
her
family
in
South,
Boston,
we'd
love
to
stay
there
we'd
love
to
actually
help
that
aided
a
lot,
especially
on
the
first
screen,
subscrive
lighting
and
we
see
the
development
was
a
suit
under
and
the
sidewalks
I
think
they
really
create
health
to
the
community
at
the
society
around
there.
With
this
done,
the
support
development.
BH
Hey
my
name
is
Billy
Quezada
I'm,
the
owner
and
operator
of
workers,
jewelry
and
floral
fries
West,
first
requites
building
I'm
here
to
speak
up
good
right
because
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
I
was
suddenly
and
unexpectedly
evicted
from
where
any
additional
forty
eight
years
prior
to
that,
and
when
no
one
else
could
help
out
a
would
help
out.
Right
came
through
and
I
didn't
go
Gregg
before
this
day
and
offered
me
a
place
of
his
building
at
zero
wrench
for
two
years
to
help
me
get
reestablish
and
settled
in
the
new
neighborhood.
A
BH
AY
Z
A
AB
B
BI
BE
I
can
speak
on
others,
so
the
the
common
area
has
to
have
the
access
for
second
means
in
an
elevator
for
a
DA,
the
single
one
was
for
common
access.
We
have
four
individual
access
from
the
unit,
and
that
was
a
walk-up.
So
just
instead
of
you
know
people
trying
to
get
out
of
a
hat,
it
was
just
it's
minimal
and
there's
no
FA
are
in
terms
of
extra
square
footage
in
it.
BE
A
BE
D
BJ
BJ
And
operating
a
liquor
store,
yes,
man,
if
enemy
and
retail
industry
for
15
plus
years,
except
to
existing
locations,
one
in
four
point
and
one
in
Seaport,
both
at
the
time
that
he
went
into
both
stores
as
part
of
the
revitalization
of
both
neighborhoods
he's
done
an
exemplary
business.
There
was
no
violation
to
speak
of
and
he's
seeking
to
do
essentially
the
same
thing
in
this
location
as
the.
A
BK
M
D
AI
The
phone
we're
seeking
the
board's
approval
today
or
the
construction
which
is
set
out
we'll
also
add
the
caveat
that
is
C
determined
that
this
was
subject
to
TCO
D,
Google
and
I
wanted
the
board
to
understand
that
the
plants
have
been
filed.
They
have
not
been
fully
signed
up
yet
by
Boston
Water
and
Sewer.
Commission
I
would
ask
the
board
to
approve
this
application
today,
subject
to
the
receipt
of
that
approval.
AI
Q
A
AI
Might
have
gone
to
all
the
requisites,
Association
they've
been
to
a
neighborhood
association
they've
been
to
Wyndemere.
They
give
voters
meetings.
You
should
have
in
the
package
over
20
letters
of
support
for
this
proposal,
which
we
believe
will
actually
enhance
the
neighborhood
we
as
far
as
I
know,
I've
had
numerous
approval
from
every
organization
which
has
overseen
these.
There
have
been
some
design
reviews
based
on.
AE
BL
S
BK
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
just
over
at
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
who
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support,
we
did
hold
in
a
butters
meeting
where
we
had
several
of
the
neighbors
come
out.
Some
of
the
serious
concerns
were
the
decrease
in
value
of
the
property,
because
it's
going
to
block
the
sight
of
the
Hancock
Tower.
Others
are
concerned
with
the
aesthetics
of
the
neighborhood.
Rather
than
that,
we
have
received
letters
of
support
on
various
ends
and
the
Civic
Association
is
also
support.
So
thank.
U
BM
BM
I
am
also
here
as
treasurer
of
the
same
Fattah
Weber
hood
association,
which
is
in
full
support
of
this
project,
partially
and
partially
on
the
approvals
by
Boston
landmarks
and
the
neighborhood's
architectural
review
committee,
and
also
because
the
owners
of
Penn
Durham
worked
very
hard
to
be
up
to
date
with
everybody
in
the
neighborhood
on
the
project
and
worked
very
hard
to
get
input
from
residents
in
the
area.
Thank.
BO
BB
D
Voa,
seven:
two:
two:
zero
zero
one,
two,
fifty
two
friends
tree
this
is
a
restaurant
with
takeout
remove
provisos
a
previous
establishment.
You
create
a
takeout
for
the
new
establishment,
no
work
to
be
done;
violations
article
6,
section
four,
just
to
remove
proviso,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
If.
AH
BD
A
AB
BP
D
A
D
D
A
next
case
give
up
so
next
case
calling
VOA
7
2
2
6
6
1
8
401,
Main
Street.
This
is
to
change
the
legal
argument
from
a
two-family
dwelling
to
a
three
family
dwelling.
The
violation
is
article
10,
section,
1
limitation
of
area
of
accessory
uses,
article
62,
section,
8
location
of
the
main
entrance
article
62
6,
&
7,
we
use
is
forbidden,
basement
units
are
forbidden,
article
62,
section,
8,
a
thousand
square
foot
unit
requirement.
An
additional
lot
is
insufficient.
D
BI
BI
Today
we
are
here
seeking
relief
to
change
the
legal
occupancy
from
a
two-family
dwelling
two
or
three
families
love
creating
an
850
square
foot
basement
unit
subject:
the
sub
district
is
blue
house
2000
and
the
violations
are
the
accessory
use
the
parking.
We
have
two
parking
spaces
in
the
grand
property
and
it
takes
up
more
than
25%
of
the
new
yard.
The
main
entrance
for
the
unit
is
on
the
side
of
the
building,
whereas
the
first
two
units
the
managers
in
the
front
of
a
divot.
BI
So
that's
why
we're
setting
for
that
so
forbidden
use
in
this
district,
the
additional
lot
area
of
thousand
square
feet.
We
have
825
two
folks,
f,
AR
I
had
met
with
Senator
Frank
D'amato
and
he
said
that
he
issued
that
violation
and
error.
As
we
had
just
been
low.
We
have
eh
Griffin
under
the
required
at
there.
So
it's
two
point
no
max
we're
coming
in.
At
one
point:
nine:
the
number
of
habitable
stories.
A
BI
A
AB
BI
BQ
A
BE
B
A
D
Is
a
change
actually
to
include
a
wireless
telecommunications
facility
and
installed
nine
new
wireless
antennas
and
six
I?
Are
you
conceals
behind
a
screen
wall
enclosure
on
an
existing
roof
of
the
church,
rectory
and
paint
it
to
match
the
building,
install
equipment,
cabinets
gas
generator
and
associated
cables?
The
violations
article
86
section
six
any
antenna
in
a
residential
district
is
a
conditional
use
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
hi.
AT
AL
BR
BR
AT
J
J
AT
A
AO
U
A
AW
D
Calling
VOA
six
nine
nine
zero,
nine
five
to
74
to
76
summer
Sumner
Street.
This
is
a
renovated
building,
including
adding
living
area
addition
of
24.8
in
feet
by
twenty
eight
point:
four
feet:
three
storeys
in
height
and
the
rest
in
ground
level
and
seven
parking
spaces
in
the
rear
at
rare
violations.
D
Article
9
section
one:
six
units
in
the
three
F
sub
district
article
53,
section
56
street
parking
design
and
maneuverability
article
53,
section:
nine
reduction
of
an
insufficient
open
space
per
unit;
article
53,
six
and
nine
excessive
FA,
our
article
53
section
54
screening
in
Bufferin.
None
is
proposed
article
53,
section,
52
alteration
of
an
existing
roof
profile
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
thank.
AR
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jeff
Drago,
with
Drago
in
Toscana,
with
matress
of
15
Broad
Street
I,
have
Tonya
carrier
here
from
cults
design,
and
my
client
Boris
Carnac
mr.
curtain
purchased
this
built
the
building
at
to
74
to
76
as
an
existing
six
unit
building.
It
was
in
disrepair
when
he
purchased
it,
and
our
plan
is
to
completely
gut
renovate,
bring
up
to
code
and
add
an
addition,
28
28
foot
by
16
8
D
addition
in
the
rear
of
the
property.
AR
AR
AR
So
for
the
units
one
and
two
they
would
be
3
bed
3
bath
proposed.
Those
would
be
the
first
floor
with
some
additional
space
in
the
basement,
4
bedroom
and
bath,
and
those
would
be
1,000
937,
the
second
floor
units,
988
square
feet,
3
bed,
2
bath
and
then
the
top
floor
units
988
square
foot,
3,
bed,
2
bath
units
as
well.
We
had
an
extensive
community
process
getting
the
support
of
the
Jefferies
Point
neighborhood
council,
because
they
also
wanted
to
see
this
area
revitalized.
We
are
also
adding.
AR
AI
U
AO
G
A
D
AW
BS
G
F
D
The
next
case
calling
VOA
seven
two
one,
five,
four
one,
one:
forty
no
lien
Street.
This
is
a
raising
existing
building,
an
erect
five-story
residential
building
with
twenty
three
units
in
25
indoor
parking
spaces
with
twelve
stackers.
The
violation
is
article
53,
section,
56
insufficient
parking
to
unit
requirement
article
53,
section,
56
point:
five
bike:
maneuverability
and
stackers
equal
53,
section,
8
m
FR
is
provision
a
3f
sub-district
article
53
section.
D
I
insufficient
additional
lot
area
per
unit,
22,000
square
feet
required
article
53,
6,
&,
9,
excessive
fa,
yah
1.0
and
there's
no
max
article
53
section,
9
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded.
Three
storeys
max
article,
53,
6
and
9,
and
the
height
is
exceeded.
35
feet
is
max
equal
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
usable,
open
space
300
feet.
The
unit
is
required.
Article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
side
that
step
back
two
and
a
half
feet.
Little
require
article
53,
section
9,
insufficient
rail
setback.
30
feet
is
required.
Article
53,
section,
54
training
in
Bufferin.
D
AR
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Geoff
Drago,
Drago
and
Toscano,
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
para
Titanian
Brown
was
the
architect
in
the
project
from
inbox
and
city
realty
that
are
the
owners
and
developers
of
114
Orleans
Street.
My
client
purchased
this
piece
of
property
at
the
7,500
square
foot
lot.
It
was
always
used
as
an
industrial
automotive
use
was
clear
that
folks
wanted
a
that.
These
gentlemen
wanted
to
do
something
that
was
conducive
to
this
neighborhood.
AR
It's
surrounded
by
multi-family
residential,
a
seven
story,
building
on
our
right
and
a
mix
of
four
and
five
throughout
that
neighborhood.
We
in
working
with
the
gostrey
Association
and
the
abutters
over
a
period
of
the
year,
we
came
to
from
six
stories
to
five
stories
and
reduced
our
unit
count
from
25
to
23
units,
and
we
have
a
25
parking,
25
space,
dedicated
spaces.
This
will
be
a
condo
project
at
the
gross
square.
Footage
is
twenty
nine
thousand
three
hundred
and
eighty
five
square
feet.
This
was
approved
recently
this
month.
AR
At
the
last
VP
da
Board
hearing
in
July,
we
had
supplied
a
number
of
other
letters
of
support,
but
we
can
go
over
the
bedroom
count,
it's
23
units,
as
mentioned,
and
that's
a
mix
of
one
in
two
beds.
The
one
bit
beds,
ranging
from
550
to
850
square
feet,
the
two
beds,
ranging
from
950
to
1,100
square
feet
and
then
on
a
recommendation
would
be
PDA.
We
have
one
handicap-accessible
three-bedroom
unit
at
a
thousand
square
feet.
AR
We
really
worked
with
the
community
on
more
of
a
traditional
design.
There's
no
there's
decking
of
exclusive
decks
for
the
units
as
you
go
throughout.
I
can
go
over
the
violations
that
were
mentioned,
use
violation
because
it
is
a
3f
district.
Although
we
are
more
conducive
to
many
of
the
buildings
around
us
with
our
unit
count.
Additional
lawdy
area
is
seventeen
thousand
four
and
five
5510
FA
ours.
One
for
that
area.
AR
AR
One
point
to
note
is
in
working
with
folks:
we
pulled
this
building
in
to
give
less
massing
from
the
sidewalk
and
on
our
second
from
fourth
floor,
we're
pulled
in
five
feet
in
the
rare
eight
feet
on
the
left
and
five
feet
on
the
right
and
then,
as
we
go
to
the
top
floor,
we're
pulled
five
feet
and
the
front
five
feet
in
the
rare
13
feet
on
the
left
and
ten
feet
on
the
right.
We
are
close,
walking
distance
to
both
Airport
station
and
maverick
to
station
as
well.
J
AM
A
AO
AU
D
AR
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jeff
Drago
Drago
Toscana,
with
an
address
15
Broad
Street
representing
mr.
Olivera
Flavio
Oliveira,
he's
the
owner
occupant
at
138,
Falcon
Street,
we're
seeking
to
legalize
an
existing
area
in
his
back.
That's
been
used
since
he
purchased
the
property
since
before
he
purchased
the
property
as
kind
of
an
off
street
parking
spot
in
the
rare
on
the
corner
of
both
Putnam
and
Falcon
Street.
There's
no
legal
curb
cut!
That's
there!
If
you
look
at
some
of
the
photographs
in
the
back,
you
can
see
that
does
have
rear
space.
AR
The
only
violation
was
for
lack
for
open
space
in
the
back.
The
proposed
spot
would
be
eight
point:
five
eight
feet:
five
by
20,
it's
for
his
wife,
she's,
severely
disabled.
He
had
wanting
to
do
this
for
a
while
since
parking,
and
that
area
was
difficult
and
even
with
handicapped
signage,
there's
so
many
folks
in
that
area
it
is
very
difficult
to
park.
It
would
allow
him
to
have
on
a
special
van
that
he
could
back
into
that
spot.
AU
AR
BG
AB
AR
AO
A
V
BQ
BQ
A
AK
A
Just
waiting
to
see
the
photo
simulations
I'm
sure
you
teen
touchdown,
informed
you
often
correct.
In
the
meantime,
any
of
the
applicants
to
us
who
are
requesting
overdraw
or
a
deferral
for
a
lot
of
saudis.
If
you
can
please
line
up
behind
the
podium,
go
ahead,
mrs.
Inez
so
give
every
a
minute
to
look
at
the
photos
Jennifer,
because
the
fact
was.
Our
question
was
how
how
these
antennas.
BT
Yeah
applicants
proposing
to
enclose
all
nine
proposed
antennas
within
a
faux
chimney:
setback
from
the
roof.
The
appropriate
distance
is
a
minimum
of
10
feet
on
one
incidence
and
17
at
the
other,
they'll
be
connected
via
coaxial
cabling
that
goes
bronze
actually
along
the
side
of
the
building
and
into
the
basement,
where
they'll
hold
the.
Where.
J
U
BT
Believe
that
they've
decided,
but
typically
it's
fiberglass
screen
and
it
will
be
painted
to
match-
and
this
chimney
is
consistent
with
guidance
and
direction
that
we've
gotten
from
the
BPD,
a
VP
BA
in
other
similar
installations.
There
are
others
in
East,
Boston,
similar
to
this.
In
fact,
just
down
the
street
Noreen
Heights
there's
a
typical
installation
with
the
dimensions
that
are
almost
exactly
the
same.
Are
they.
BT
The
intent
is
that
one
of
the
antennas
that
we'll
be
installing
is
a
6-point
antenna,
but
they
will
have
the
they
need
about
a
foot
and
a
half
of
clearance
for
the
bend
radius
for
the
cabling
when
it
comes
down
from
the
antenna
plus,
they
typically
install
the
remote
Radiohead's
just
underneath
that
which
are
just
over
a
foot
and
a
half
as
well.
So.
But
when
you
mount
the
equipment.
J
BH
A
BT
BU
The
record
please
attorney
Larry
Pitino
from
Richard
Linda's
office,
1216
Bennington,
Street,
East
Boston.
We
here
today
just
asking
for
a
deferral
on
this
project.
We're
still
doing
some
community
outreach
and
working
with
the
neighbors
regarding
the
height
on
this
project
and
we're
trying
to
address
those
concerns.
AB
A
M
A
A
BV
Michael
there's
a
San
Jose
for
15
Broad
Street
in
Boston
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
Peter
Vanko
speaking
of
deferral
this
morning
to
spend
significant
community
outreach.
However,
there's
been
a
major
reduction
in
the
unit
count
and
we
unfortunately
were
not
able
to
meet
with
the
neighborhood
group
to
present
that
project.
So
we'd
like
that
opportunity,
the
children
are
the
most
updated
plan.
This.
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
D
D
Calling
the
next
case
calling
boa
664
792
44h
244,
Mauser
Street.
We
got
a
winner.
This
is
to
change
artsy
from
an
existing
single-family
to
a
three
family
and
square
up
the
building
and
change
the
third
floor
from
a
pitch
room
to
a
flat
rule
with
a
third
floor.
They
have
some
foot
caddy
new
stair
and
a
roof
new
roof
deck.
On
a
third
floor
unit.
Only
the
violation
is
article
65,
section,
60,
eight
three
family
detached
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Equal
sixty,
five
section,
41
parking
is
insufficient,
equals
sixty
five
section.
D
Nine
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section
9
is
a
lot
frontages
insufficient
article
65
section:
nine,
the
ploidy,
a
ratio
is
excessive:
equal
sixty
five,
sixty
nine,
the
height
is
excessive,
equal
65,
section,
nine.
The
side
yard
is
insufficient
and
article
65
section
9
Reyat,
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
morning.
BW
Madam
chairman,
my
name
is
James
Creek
icl2.
The
project
occupies
the
business
present
for
15
opponent,
adapt
I'd
like
to
give
a
little
background
to
the
board
of
this
project,
as
we
want
through
the
neighborhood
process.
There's
a
couple
of
miscues
with
the
abates
notification
and
that's
of
confusion
as
in
regards
to
which
civic
group
is
actually
fell
under,
so
we
were
able
to
present
the
st.
BW
mark,
civic
group
and
receive
their
support
and
then
do
some
scheduling
this
tap
the
second
civic
group,
the
Melville
path
group
I,
actually
missed
the
schedule
too,
but
the
Civic
meeting,
which
was
a
couple
weeks
ago
because
I
had
in
my
calendar
wrong.
That
being
said,
the
project
has
changed,
naturally,
based
on
our
two
or
three
budget
meetings
that
we
did
have
on
site.
The
proposed
project
now
is
for
a
two
unit
building
with
extension
of
living
space
into
the
basement
with
two
by
level
units
and
a
man
sod
roof.
Those
can
I.
Please.
A
BW
BW
BW
Maximum
allowable
height
of
the
building
is
35
feet
with
the
new
man.
Taught
design
will
only
be
over.
That
will
be
right
in
that
window
of
35.
Feet
is
35
foot
to
the
farc-ep.
Inquired
is
point
five.
Our
color
proposed
is
0.9
currently
within
the
existing
footprint
of
the
building
will
be
adding
approximately
two
thousand
and
nine
square
feet.
BW
BW
AB
BW
BW
A
BW
AP
Madam
chair
members
aboard
Sean
Cheatham
councillor
Andrea
Campbell's
office.
The
council
is
a
while
this
group
we
need
to
be
received
a
letter
from
one
of
the
civic
associations,
nearby
student.
They
were
opposing
the
project
because
they
have
yet
to
see
the
newest
plans.
However,
the
council
believes
that
the
community
process
was
adequate.
We
had
a
very
well
attended
abutters
meeting.
The
second
numbers
may
be
that
we
had
where
a
lot
of
neighbors
were
in
support
of
the
project.
AP
AJ
Morning,
madam
chair
members,
the
board,
my
name
is
David
Cotter
from
the
mayor's
office.
Neighborhood
Services
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition,
so
just
for
clarity,
so
this
particular
property
falls
under
the
jurisdiction
of
two
separate
civic
associations:
the
st.
Mark's
Area
Civic
Association
in
the
Melville
Park
Civic
Association.
The
proponents
did
meet
with
Saint
Mark's
and
they
did
not
meet
with
Melville,
partly
as
James
mentioned,
they
had
a
scheduled
meeting.
There
was
a
mixup
and
they
didn't
attend.
AJ
Proposal
was
for
a
three
family
which
was
not
well
received
at
all.
Following
the
comments
received
at
the
abutters
meetings,
they
brought
it
down
to
a
two
family
and
the
abutters
meeting
we
had
for
the
two
family
was
well
received
and
was
supported
by
the
abutters,
however,
because
they
have
yet
to
meet
with
Melville
Park
we
can't
or
to
sing
good
conscience.
Thank
you.
G
D
D
They're,
looking
for
relief
on
a
pre-existing
condition,
pass
work
done
without
a
permit
that
is
being
considered
a
code
violation
at
a
roof
deck
to
the
top
of
the
building.
The
violations,
article
13
13,
one,
the
reconfiguration
of
space
in
the
basement
and
the
proposed
addition
creating
excessive
FA,
our
article
13
section
13
1,
the
new
addition
at
the
rear
of
the
side
yard
setbacks,
violation,
article
13,
section,
13
1,
the
new
addition
at
the
rear
is
a
Reyat
setback
violation.
D
A
BX
It
just
to
update
you,
as
you
requested,
the
the
we
have
had
extensive
interaction
with
the
neighbors
in
the
neighborhood,
and
they
they
have
essentially
been
opposed
to
almost
everything
we
suggested.
We
are
to
this.
Building
original
right
now
is
legally
zoned
as
an
11
unit
building
it
was
used
as
a
nine
unit
building.
We
have
reduced
the
number
of
units
to
four
units.
In
our
proposal
we
have
a
building
permit
for
the
four
units
and
are
progressing
with
it,
and
we,
this
is
this
appeal-
is
not
an
amendment
to
that
building
permit.
BX
BX
BX
BX
A
BX
BX
BX
A
A
BX
So
so,
essentially,
what
we're
doing
we
are
not
creating.
There's
no
additional
space
within
the
footprint
of
the
building
being
created,
where
we're
repurposing
some
storage
and
utility
space
and
relocating
it,
and
essentially
we're
because
that
space
is
not
calculated
apparently
into
the
FA.
Our
calculation
on
Beacon
Hill,
because
we
are
reducing
the
amount
of
storage
by
a
hundred
and
thirty
three
feet.
It
becomes
living
space,
which
is
an
increase
in
the
FA.
Are
yes.
BX
BX
J
Drawings
are
continue
to
be
evolving
and
interesting.
Content
is
simply
the
use
of
the
fire
escapes
and
I
mean
I,
do
not
recall,
seeing
building
a
sense
of
fire
state
and
might
understand
house
versus
we
have
to
move.
So
the
question
is
how
to
get
that
and
what
I'm
looking
at
I
guess
the
existing
rear
perspective
that
I'm
looking
at
the
perspective
proposed
at
June
15
that.
BX
Mr.
Prosise,
under
the
Building
Code
section,
eight,
oh
five,
point
three
point:
one
point
two
entitled
fire
escapes
fire
escapes
are
required
existing
building
code
and
the
they
are
allowed
as
a
means
of
egress
in
an
existing
building.
This
is
not
new
construction.
This
is
a.
We
have
an
existing
building.
J
BX
J
A
BX
BK
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Barbara
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
mostly
contending
on
the
fact
that
proposed
El
addition
and
the
roof
that
back
has
been
all
cause
of
the
community
concerns
that
they
have
conceded
to
that.
However,
there
are
still
concerns
regarding
the
HVAC
systems
up
on
top,
which
could
be
fixed
with
the
PDA
review
design.
We
have
received
both
concerns
from
residents
who
came
out
to
the
community
association.
BK
BY
AK
BY
Of
them,
we
do
know
that
were
concerns
expressed
at
the
BHT
a
meeting
about
some
things
that
were
being
done
as
well,
and
there
is
concern
about
a
lack
of
internal
fare
and
whether
it's
out
of
compliance
with
safety
reasons
and
the
size
of
fire
escape
being
unusually
large
and
finally,
the
roof.
Deck
is
also
large
and
could
have
noise
and
privacy
issues
for
the
neighbors
behind,
and
so.
BY
BR
BR
U
BR
The
problem
here
really
is
the
interpretation
that
this
gentleman
is
making
of
the
code
and
I
think
what
the
code
really
says.
So,
let
me
let
me
just
go
back
if
I
may.
I
also
think
that
IFP
probably
wasn't
clear
in
citing
the
building
code
violation
as
well,
what
they
did
was
they
emphasize
the
elevators
code
violation,
but
there's
two
issues
that
are
somewhat
tangential.
BR
We
the
elevator
code
and
the
building
code,
but
it
basically
boils
down
to
the
fact
that
you
have
a
four
or
five
storey
building
which,
by
code
by
building
code,
says
that
a
building
existing
building
or
a
new
building,
which
is
more
than
four
stories
four
stories
and
more
and
in
a
multi-family
situation,
needs
to
have
a
major
stair
and
then,
as
a
amazig
rest
has
to
be
affair,
and
then
it
can
be
supplemented
secondary.
You
guys
can
be
supplement
by
another
stair
or
fire
escapes
now.
BR
BR
The
other
problem
is
that
this
gentleman
went
after
you
guys
rejected
the
the
elevator
code
and
what,
if
they
went
to
the
actually
the
building
code
to
Atlanta,
but
I
would
include
that
point.
They
basically
went
said
they
were
going
to
take
it
to
the
State
Building
Code
and
the
State
Building
Code
supersedes.
AJ
BR
We
didn't
know
what
happened
except
it
had
a
meeting
that
he
can
he'll
architectural
Commission.
He
announced
that
he'd
been
told
that
and
you
should
ask
him
himself
for
the
meetin,
but
what
he
said
was
that
he
was
told
by
somebody
the
code
state
code
Commission
not
to
bother
a
sore.
Sometimes
I,
don't
know
because
he
said
you.
BR
A
BR
BJ
BR
It's
just
been
a
continual
thing
where
we
haven't
been
told
what
we
have
to
find
out
what
you
doing
you
didn't
tell
doesn't:
even
he
has
even
filed
drawings.
He
does
it
after
the
fact,
because
it's
been
a
problem
all
the
way
through
this,
and
so
anyway.
The
point
is
we're
down
to
the
point
now,
where
I
think
we
really
need
to
talk
about
things
which
are
basically
basic,
which
is
the
building
code,
and
he
can't
he
doesn't.
He
doesn't
pass
the
building
code,
requirements
and
I
think
that's
something
that
can
be
determined.
AB
BR
AB
BR
BR
Let
me
think
this
week,
as
a
group
we've
been
having
to
beat
over
and
over
in
this
thing,
so
the
other,
the
zoning
calculation
which
they're
asking
in
the
basement
we're
asking
it
to
legalize
the
situation,
because,
first
of
all,
this
building
was
basically
done.
Ad
hoc,
I
would
say,
and
and
but
the
main
thing
that
occurred
was
that
they
actually
cut
off
the
major
scale.
BR
That's
why
I
think
the
major
problem
it
was
the
stairs
that
started
from
the
bottom
went
all
the
way
up
to
the
elevator,
penthouse,
etc,
and
what
they
did
was
they
cut
off
the
top
portion
so
that
you
can
get
up
there,
and
so
what
they're
saying
is
they
want
to
use
the
fire
escape?
And
the
code
clearly
says
the
fire
escape
cannot
be
used
as
main.
BR
BR
J
N
D
You
next
case
calling
boa
6
6
2
2
2
4
1
91
Condor
Street.
There
is
a
companion
case,
boa
6,
6
2
2
2
2
to
11
Condor
Street.
This
is
the
one
91
Condor
this
to
construct
new,
a
new
9
unit,
residential
building
with
11
parking
spaces
violation.
Article
53
section,
8
MFR,
is
submitting
the
to
family
sub
district
article
53
6
&
9,
insufficient
real
setback,
article
53
section
I
on
excessive
FA,
our
article
53
section
9
number
of
allowed
storeys
in
height,
has
been
exceeded.
D
Ethical
53,
section
9
in
the
front
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
53,
section
54,
screening
and
buffering.
None
is
proposed
legal
53,
section
56
insufficient
parking
to
go
53
section,
57
point
three:
three
and
five
Provisionals
the
corner
Lots.
This
is
4
to
11
Condor.
This
is
a
build:
a
new
14
unit,
building
14
parking
spaces.
The
violates
article
53
section
9,
excessive
fer
article
53,
69,
maximum
allowed
heightens
have
been
exceeded,
equal
53,
section,
9,
front
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
53,
section
9,
raya
setback
is
insufficient.
D
V
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
mark
Lacasse
lake
house
law,
75
Arlington
Street
in
Boston
with
me,
is
Joe
hassel,
who
is
the
owner
and
the
developer
of
these
two
proposals
before
you,
and
we
were
last
here
on
July
11,
which
time
we
put
on
our
entire
case
on
the
merits
and
submitted
various
documents
to
the
record.
But
the
matter
was
deferred
at
the
end
of
the
hearing,
based
on
some
community
opposition,
which
has
since
been
resolved,
and
we
believe
that
the
there
is
now
rightly
before
you
for
decision
on
the
merits.
The.
A
D
A
D
Calling
the
next
case
for
interpretation
there's
two
cases
same
address:
I'm
going
to
call
them
both
in
for
the
Reckitt
calling
boa
seven
one,
one:
nine,
nine,
seven,
eight
twenty
three
East
Broadway
and
case
boa
seven,
one:
five,
eight,
six,
seven,
a
twenty
three
East
Broadway
for
the
record.
This
is
the
petitioners.
Both
seek
a
determination
that
the
inspectional
services
erred
in
issuing
the
permit
permit
was
issued
as
a
loud
use.
U
A
BZ
BZ
BZ
I,
wasn't
he
ate
25
for
Belle
OCONUS
821
for
the
mr.
barber
in
a
you
know,
nose
also
with
me
I
make
is
next
to
me
mr.
Michael
Clifford
professional
land
surveyor
with
eg
cheese
survey
group
of
Boston
and
to
his
left
mr.
Peter
sugar
registered
architect,
member
of
AIA
and
the
Royal
Institute
of
British
Architects
and
a
former
partner
with
an
baya
architectural
firm
here
in
Boston.
BZ
A
BZ
They
also
share
common
grounds
for
the
appeals,
with
one
exception,
that
in
the
appeal
for
a
25,
which
is
boa
seven,
one,
one,
nine
nine
seven,
the
matters
relating
to
the
State
Building
Code
need
not
be
addressed
at
this
meeting.
Insofar
as
a
permit
amendment
has
addressed
the
maintenance
of
the
existing
fire
balcony.
That
adjoins
eight
twenty
three
and
eight
twenty
five,
so
that
at
the
time
was
made
part
of
the
appeal,
but
is
moot.
If
you
will
for
today's
purposes,.
BZ
Are
two
common
grounds
for
both
appeals?
The
first
one
is
that
the
building
permit
was
issued
in
violation
of
municipal
code,
section,
seven
dash,
4.11
otherwise
known
as
the
hundred-foot
rule
for
the
parks.
Commission.
It
varied
by
its
terms
specifies
that
review
an
approval
of
a
project,
the
lot
line
of
which
is
within
a
hundred
feet
of
a
public
park,
requires
application
and
approval
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
building
permit.
In
this
instance,
not
only
was
that
not
undertaken,
but
conveniently
the
project
description
and
the
building
permit
application
makes
no
reference.
A
I
want
a
second,
the
second
issue,
the.
BZ
Second,
is
that
in
each
appeal
is
stated
that
certain
of
the
plans
and
specifications
submitted
with
the
building
permit
application
were
either
deficient
and
or
materially
inaccurate,
specifically
the
elevations
and
the
building
sections
which
are
in
your
handout
sample,
and
we
have
a
full
set
of
plans
for
mr.
Pazhani.
BZ
A
BZ
BZ
A
BZ
BZ
BZ
BA
BA
Is
a
rehab
at
there's
no
changes.
Basalt
is
an
internal
rehab
with
an
extension
out
the
back.
So
it's
the
addition
is
invisible
from
the
park
because
it's
behind
the
building.
Nonetheless,
the
project
did
get
reviewed
by
parks
and
Parks
has
reviewed
it
and
determined
that
there
was
no
impact
from
their
standpoint.
A
AZ
AZ
BA
BA
Parks
is
able
to
interpret
its
own
statute
in
cases
like
this.
Presumably
they
assume
it
because
there's
no
visible
change
the
buildings
from
the
park.
This
addition
field
to
the
rear.
It's
a
solid
wall
of
brown
stones
that
they
didn't
need
any
pro
review,
but
that
was
parks
decision
interpreting
their
own
jurisdiction.
BA
BA
Is
in
fact
we
have
a
diagram
we
might
as
well
pass
it
out
right
now,
then.
What
is
that
I
I'm?
Sorry?
What
is
that
height,
so
the
required
Maxim
building
on
is
40
feet.
We
are
38
feet.
8
inches
I'll,
give
the
diagram
to
mr.
McCarthy
here
as
well
and
we'll
pass
the
same
for
the
board.
The
height
board
should
be
where
the
Hyper's
measure
from
the
sidewalk,
which
is
as
the
code
requires.
A
BZ
Quickly,
examine
that
and
we'll
do
this
in
and
all
all
due
haste
I
like
to
clarify
or
ask
the
permit
holder
to
clarify
the
mic
conversation
with
the
Parks
Commission
and
their
review
of
their
records,
and
this
was
well
past.
The
issuance
of
the
permit
was
actually
at
the
time
of
the
filing
of
the
citizen,
appeal
that
they
had
no
record
whatsoever
of
an
application.
Having
been
made.
The
inference
I
draw
from
the
comments
I
heard
is
that
perhaps
something
was
done
after
the
issuance
of
the
permit.
BZ
However,
that
is
not
how
musical
code
section
7
4.11
reads:
prior
to
the
issuance
of
building.
There
was
some
remedial
approach
again
to
the
point
being.
It
should
have
happened
before
and-
and
it's
all
for
the
purpose-
that,
in
the
event
that
someone
proposes
a
project
that
would
have
an
impact
on
the
park,
it's
essential
for
the
Commission
to
review
it
beforehand
and
not
after
the
fact.
So
that's
speaking
to
that
issue
in.
BZ
BZ
BZ
AB
BA
Clarify
two
things:
we
passed
out:
seven
4.11,
which
is
the
statute
in
question,
which
sets
out
the
100-foot
rule.
Mr.
crook
has
a
copy
as
well.
It
doesn't
mention
a
building
permit
at
all.
It
doesn't
set
any
time
line.
Trilling
building
permit
does
say
that,
prior
to
work
beginning,
there
needs
to
be
approval.
However,
the
proponent
did
reach
out
to
parks
in
advance
of
the
building
permit
being
issued
and
certainly
advanced
work
starting.
It
may
be
that
mr.
BA
McCarthy
is
not
finding
a
record
of
an
application,
because
parks
does
not
bring
every
project
in
the
city
of
Boston
within
100
feet
of
the
park
to
its
board.
That
would
be
an
impossible
volume
of
cases.
They
wouldn't
be
able
to
manage
that
they
make
the
administrative
decision
about
which
cases
need
to
come
before
the
board.
There
was
a
discussion
with
the
executive
secretary
Kerry
Marsh
is
a
longtime
staff.
BA
Are
there
with
a
lot
who
experience
in
their
jurisdiction
in
which
issues
parks
cares
about
from
an
institutional
standpoint,
parks
determined
whether
they
would
want
to
bring
to
the
board
whether
they
saw
any
impacts,
and
they
informed
the
proponent
of
this,
and
that
that
decision
was
made
before
Department
in
question
issued?
We
just
want
to
clarify
this
did
take
place
before,
although
again
the
real
key
is
the
parks
make
this
decision
before
work
starts.
As
the
statute
says,.
BZ
BZ
BZ
BC
BC
U
BC
U
BZ
U
AX
BS
What
is
the
thickness
on
the
ceiling,
the
top
of
the
group
members
in
structural
members
that
is
required,
but
that's
what
they
could
mention
with
section
building
high
mass
action.
There
is
about
1
foot,
2
inches
of
lying
about
couple
of
inches
for
feeding
production
and
the
to
be
taken
by
choice
of
choice.
So.
BS
BS
Not
be
makers
all
together,
we
laugh
with
the
same
information
or
businesses
for
six
inches
of
his
back,
the
sidewalk
and
58
to
mr.
Griffith
presented
for
the
finish
personal
elevation.
That's
one
good
step
to
take.
150,
take
an
active
at
the
39,
nine
and
a
half
inches
which
I
talked
about
the
go
and
add
that
to
1,
plus
2
plus
or
minus
2
also
just
demonstrated
and
got
wounded
herbal
for
approximately
49
pieces
that
dimension
rather
than
30,
because
30
indicated
mention.
A
BZ
It
seems
that
part
of
this
differential
lies
in
having
different
elements,
starting
elevation
points
from
which
to
measure
the
vertical
height,
as
defined
in
article
to
a
the
garden
represented,
shows
55
with
this
5.63,
as
opposed
to
56
feet
six
and
a
half
inches.
So
we
have
a
discrepancy.
I
know
that
the
board's
architect
as
auditors
understands
these
nuances
quite
clearly.
BZ
What
it
all
comes
down
to
is
that,
with
a
40-foot
maximum
allowed
as
a
right
building
height
in
that
sub
district,
a
measured
building
height
in
excess
of
that,
we
believe
his
grounds
for
revocation
of
the
permit,
insofar
as
had
it
been
presented
and
refused
by
ISD.
There
would
be
the
need
to
come
before
you
for
a
variance
from
the
building
height
requirement
than
the
code.
BG
BZ
The
distinction,
sir,
being
that
the
definition
of
building
height
varies
depending
on
what
the
type
of
roof
of
the
structure
is,
so
we
have
a
sloped
roof
existing
building
and,
if
I
recall
it's
the
midpoint
of
the
vertical
triangular
area
above
the
roof
beams
in
a
flat
roof
building,
it
is
to
the
top
of
the
roof
beams.
So
it
here.
BS
BZ
Interesting
point,
if
I
may
is
that
the
plans
of
the
addition
marrying,
if
you
will,
the
existing
structure
show
the
roof
beams
lining
up
and
if,
indeed,
as
you
point
out,
the
existing
building
is
in
excess
of
the
building
height
as
defined,
and
we
have
an
addition
that
is
matching
beam
to
beam.
As
part
of
how
mr.
surer
came
to
this
conclusion
that,
in
any
event,
the
height
is
in
excess
of
40
feet,.
BZ
M
BZ
It's
in
both
cases
in
excess
of
the
zoning.
The
distinction
here
is
the
measurement
in
michael
kiske,
because
what
he
measured
with
his
measurement
instruments
goes
to
a
certain
point
and
the
roof
of
the
building,
and
what
mr.
trigger
is
talking
about
is
in
the
addition
where
the
height
of
the
roof
beams
is,
and
that
happens
to
be
higher
than
the
the
forty
six
forty
foot
six
inches
that
that
the
survey
measurement
take.
BZ
A
BA
U
BA
The
sidewalk
is
called
out
with
shading.
It
is
from
the
red
line
we
made
it
from
which
is
at
the
curb
back
to
where
the
stupid
begins.
For
the
building
is
the
area
that
shaded
there
that's
the
sidewalk.
We
took
our
elevation
point
conservatively.
We
took
it
from
the
curb
the
sidewalk
Rises.
The
sidewalk
is
sloped
to
shed
water,
it's
actually
higher.
At
the
house
side.
It
appears
that
they
took
elevation
of
what
they're
coming
the
back
of
the
sidewalk,
which
is
higher
than
where
we
took
it.
BA
So
we
actually
use
a
conservative
measurement
that
would
bring
our
height
down
and
we
use
their
ike.
We
actually
could
have
built
slightly
higher.
They
are
comparing
the
adjoining
buildings,
the
adjacent
buildings
ours.
What
they
may
have
overlooked
is
the
fact,
if
you
look
on
that
plan,
the
first
floor
doesn't
have
that
extremely
high
ceiling
height
of
the
original
buildings
for
comfort
and
one
floor
living.
The
revised
plans
have
a
consistent
floor
level.
BA
All
the
way
through
the
original
joists
have
been
removed
from
the
existing
building
and
the
ceiling
heights
will
be
lowered
at
the
lower
levels
in
the
existing
building.
So
going
to
the
adjacent
buildings
and
basically
drawing
lines
across
and
making
estimations
about
what
the
height
would
be
for
the
floor,
our
building
is
an
accurate.
You
can
see
it
in
this
diagram
with
the
red
line.
BA
If
you
just
look
at
how
the
the
window-eyes
line
up
the
fact
that
the
floors
are
relatively
regular
in
height,
so
there's
some
assumptions
being
made
about
how
the
height
carries
over
that
are
not
accurate
and
all
we
can
tell
you
is
we
measure
this
very
conservatively
from
the
low
point
right
at
the
curve
we
could
go
with
a
saw,
the
higher
point.
We
have
four
stories
of
a
more
modern
ceiling
height
rather
than
the
old
style
of
building,
with
a
real
like
our
first
floor
and
then
shrinking
pices.
A
Looking
at
this,
the
plan
that
you
submitted
that,
in
fact
the
addition
because
of
the
beam
because
it
negates
the
variances,
the
variance
is
the
variance
in
height
at
8:25
and
823,
as
shown
in
this,
the
middle
by
by
the
abutters.
In
fact,
your
height
you're,
maintaining
is
still
38
for
8
inches
because
of
the
levelling
of
everything.
That's.
BA
Correct
and
what
that
does
they
do
count
two
things:
man
Tier
one
is
we
remove
the
roof
deck
that
would
have
originally
brought
the
height
higher,
and
it's
also
called
out
here
on
our
drawing
as
part
of
the
perceived
height
as
a
parapet.
That's
above
the
top
roof
beam.
There
isn't
there's
a
parapet
that
she
is
the
upper
edge
of
the
roof.
That's
not
part
of
the
calculated
building
height.
That
is
part
of
what
may
be
seen
on
the
plans
there.
AB
BA
We're
at
the
low
point
miserly,
because
if
we
move
towards
the
building
that
red
line
would
start
at
a
slightly
higher
point,
if
you
measured
40
feet
from
a
higher
point
on
the
lot,
we
could
actually
go
higher.
We
take
a
conservative
number,
but
it
looks
like
we
have
essentially
the
same
points,
because
all
of
our
survey
points
agreement
that
this
the
great
rises
from
the
curve
to
the
edge
of
the
property
line.
AB
BA
They're
working
off
the
existing
building,
which
has
very
high
Florida
ceiling
heights,
particularly
the
lower
levels
and
they're
simular,
carried
all
the
way
through
the
original
existing
building,
is
quite
a
bit
taller
than
40
feet.
In
fact,
you
can
see,
we
don't
have
a
measurement
here,
but
you
can
tell
looking
about
the
red
line.
It
must
go
up
to
45
feet
or
so
and
we
have
not
carried
those
sites
through.
It's
simply
a
lower
building
in
the
back
and
in
the
lower
floors
go
all
the
way
through.
BA
So
it's
not
accurate
to
look
at
the
neighboring
buildings
which
have
the
original
hundred-year-old
floor
ceiling,
height,
add
those
up
and
then
say
we
must
be
building
to
those.
So
I
said
some
assumption
and
it's
understandable
why
they
made
that
assumption.
But
that's
not
how
we've
designed
this
building
better.
A
BZ
I'd
like
to
ask
mr.
sugar
to
comment,
but
we
have
different
starting
grades
according
to
definition
in
the
zoning
code
or
grade,
and
what
is
also
important
is
that
the
only
grade
that
matters,
whether
we're
talking
about
the
addition
in
the
back,
where
the
land
slopes
down
or
the
addition
or
the
existing
building
is
the
L
is
the
grade
at
the
front
of
the
building
at
the
sidewalk
level
and
the
average
of
the
grades.
Mr.
BZ
BS
BS
Your
concern,
mr.
because
he
implies
that
there
are
some
extreme
Heights
in
the
existing
building
that
are
not
as
being
the
same
as
in
the
contemporary
way.
Today
we
would
not
build
drawers
that
high
talking,
if
you
like,
of
the
seven
second
floor,
that
is
eleven
foot.
Eight
the
third
floor
stand
for
the
eleven
are
asked
to
lower
those
you
could
derive
at
thirty
eight
foot,
eight,
the
factual
problem
is
you
looked
at
the
elevation
of
the
building
and
you
saw
that
earlier.
BS
The
sill
heights
of
the
existing
buildings
are
going
to
stay
where
they
are.
If
you
start
dropping
the
floors
you're
going
to
have
sill
Heights,
that
could
be
two
or
three
feet
or
two
feet
up
where
they
from
where
they
normally
would
be
in
a
normal
building.
So
Stevenson
said,
when
you
sit
in
your
living
room,
you
try
and
look
up
until
I
fall
five
feet.
That
is
not
going
to
be
very
attractive
to
inside
so
I
question
that
particular
approach
and
I.
Don't
believe
it
really
can
be
achieved.
It.
BA
A
AZ
BA
And
these
are
assumptions
using
hundred-year-old
adjacent
buildings
and
what
their
rights
on
a
building
that
we
agree
is
well
over
the
building
height
today,
the
original
buildings
about
45
feet
high
and
that's
why?
If
you
add
up
all
those
four
Heights,
you
get
something
that
would
be
higher
than
40
feet.
If
you
carry
that
through
to
our
building,
even
assuming
that
our
top
floor
were
lower,
that's
not
how
this
building
has
been
designed.
All
the
internal
joists
have
been
removed.
BA
It's
going
to
be
rebuilt
on
interior,
with
a
consistent
floor
height
for
one
level
living
which
a
number
of
buyers
are
looking
for.
I
want
to
traverse,
there's
even
small
stairs.
You
can
age
in
place
with
what
the
completely
consistent
floor
level.
That's
what
these
units
will
have.
So
it's
simply
not
correct
to
make
assumptions
based
on
the
GS
and
buildings
that
have
not
been
got
renovated
about
what
the
hell
is.
This
is
what
we
submit
is
D
is
what
we're
authorized
for.
BA
A
A
D
R
D
The
first
case
boa
673
65
952,
Murdock
Street.
It
was
a
proposed
deck
within
the
required
side.
Yeah
that
was
approved,
boa
7,
175
416
hobbit
Avenue
was
a
off-street
parking
requirement.
It
was
approved
case
BOA,
7203
65
to
certain
Avenue.
It
was
a
building
height.
Excessive
addition,
28
by
28
dition
rear
of
the
house,
was
approved.
Boa
72
to
371
657
West
Roxbury
Parkway.
It
was
combined
Lots,
it
was
approved
with
BPD
a
case.
Boa
7:07,
666
144
Aldridge
Street
to
his
two
dormant
in
the
second-floor
remodel,
was
approved.
D
Boa
seven
one
one,
two,
five,
sorry,
that's
the
case
we
were
supposed
to
hear
today.
I
will
go
back
to
that
one
case:
boa
seven:
zero,
zero,
nine,
six,
seven,
nine
Valley
Road!
It
was
one
story.
Addition:
the
river
single-family
residence.
It
was
approved
with
VP
da
Boa
7
174
610
National
Street.
It
was
reframed,
reinforced,
exterior
walls
and
floor
systems.
It
was
a
pro
the
building
code
that
really
this
was
built
in
Kota
was
denied
keys,
boa
seven
one.
Seventy
four
five
ten
National
Street
building
code
was
denied
yeah.
A
D
Boa
seven:
two,
two
five
nine
three
one
Ringgold
Street
was
the
extension
of
it
due
to
an
erection
extension
of
an
a
structure,
restricted
roof,
riggers
regulations
and
open
roof
deck.
It
was
approved
with
VPP
a
case
boa
seven,
one,
seven,
five,
nine
six,
six
on
Murray
Street
was
a
installation
of
a
new
shed-dormer,
a
new
roof
deck.
It
was
approved
his
boa
seven,
zero
one,
nine
two,
seven
106
Elm
Street.
D
It
was
a
change
of
artists
from
a
newspaper
stores
office,
so
it's
not
finished
basement
a
finished
basement,
a
playroom.
It
was
approved
and
the
reason
tree
discussion
was
boa
six,
six,
four,
nine
five,
seven
two,
eighty
nine
Washington
Street
it
was
deferred
till
eight
twenty
four
2017,
and
it
was
the
lady
course
the
applicant
for
Seymour
Street
was
here,
madam
chair,
but
I
think
we
took
so
long
at
that
last
case
that
she
had
a
lathe
okay.