►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 12-12-17
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
I'm,
sorry,
then
I
say
November
for
December
12th
is
now
in
session.
Just
a
reminder,
please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
if
you
need
to
have
conversations,
please
take
them
outside
of
the
room.
It's
very
difficult
for
us
to
hear
the
applicants
at
the
table,
just
in
conformance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law
I'm,
also
reminding
you
that
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed
and
will
be
available
publicly
will
be
available
publicly
when
you
come
here
and
speak
on
behalf
or
in
opposition
to
a
project.
Please
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
A
Tell
us
what
your?
What
your
concerns
are:
zoning
wise
and
if
somebody
else
has
already
stated
your
concern
just
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
We
are
here
to
find
new
information,
so
please
give
us
as
much
new
information
as
possible.
Also
final
reminder
that,
on
the
opinions
of
Boston,
Redevelopment
Authority,
those
of
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
and
the
community
are
all
taken
under
advisement.
This
board
will
make
its
decision
based
on
what
we
hear.
A
B
B
E
A
F
A
B
H
A
G
A
I
J
F
Patrick
Mahoney
Nevadans
Imran
see
the
business
address
at
350,
West
Broadway
I've,
submitted
to
the
board
and
I
do
have
copies
being
printed,
but
mr.
Pazhani
has
the
only
full
set
is
the
request
to
change
to
automated
parking,
so
the
parking
spaces
we
were
cited
previously
for
a
vehicle
maneuverability,
which
is
the
same
violation
that
would
be
cited
for
automated
parking
and
the
the
current
design
allows
for
an
additional
five
parking
spaces.
F
408
Street
I
did
come
before
you
to
request
deferral
last
time,
because
the
planes
examiner
Lisa
Hahn
had
a
couple
of
questions.
I
attend
to
met
with
her
and
resolve
those
questions,
and
we
did
in
fact
confirm
that
vehicle
maneuverability
is
the
only
zoning
violation
that
result
of
this
and
we
received
relief
for
it.
But.
F
F
K
F
J
F
A
B
This
is
a
great
existing
frame.
New
stairs
down
to
the
basement,
install
groundwater,
recharge
particle
32.
We
restore
existing
facade
the
violations,
article
32
section
for
groundwater
applicability
for
basement
excavation
and
the
substantial
rehabilitation
name,
an
address
for
the
record,
please
my.
A
A
L
Is
Zachary
said
luck
with
Holland
construction
and
the
address
is
163
Newbury
Street.
Also,
this
is
a
project
with
groundwater,
where
we
sent
in
we're
looking
to
do
a
groundwater,
recharge
and
storage,
and
we
sent
our
plans
into
Boston
water
and
sewer
for
approval
and
we
plan
to
comply
with
their
suggestions.
A
A
A
B
Call
the
9:30
hearings:
are
there
any
deferrals
or
withdraw
rolls
for
9:30?
This
is
deferrals
or
withdrawals
only
all
in
the
first
case,
calling
boa
765
84
to
152
152
Bay
Water
Street.
This
is
a
proposed
project,
is
seeking
to
change
the
Archie
from
a
two-family
dwelling
to
a
three
family
dwelling
and
renovate
the
building
install
dormers.
The
violation
is
article
53
section
8
tree
family
is
forbidding
in
A
to
A
to
F
sub
district,
fifty-three
section.
B
Eight,
the
basement
units
are
forbidden,
article
53,
section,
nine,
the
location
of
the
main
entrance
to
the
basement
draw
line
unit
must
feet
must
face
the
front
lot
line:
Attica
53,
section,
nine,
excessive
fer,
the
article
53
section,
nine
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded.
Article
53
section,
nine
Maximo,
allowed
height,
has
been
exceeded:
article
53,
section,
nine,
insufficient,
usable,
open
space
per
unit,
article
53,
section,
nine,
insufficient
side,
yard
setback,
article
53,
section,
nine,
insufficient,
riad
setback
in
article
53,
section
56,
insufficient
parking
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
thank.
N
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Geoff
Drago,
with
Drago
in
Toscano,
with
the
business
address
of
15
Broad
Street
here
representing
Michael
Cimino
is
representative
Derrick
Grodin
is
here
and
James
Christopher
from
RCA.
That's
the
architect
and
the
project
we're
here
today
seeking
Zoni
relief
to
change
the
occupancy
from
an
existing
to
family
dwelling
to
a
three
family
dwelling
legalizing
a
garden
level
unit,
or
also
this
project
would
include
a
complete
renovation
of
the
facility
and
also
adding
dormers
to
the
top
floor.
N
This
particular
district
is
a
2
F
4,000
or
it's
very
common
place
for
3
families.
We
have
a
list,
you
know
from
174
Bayswater
all
the
way
to
114
Bayswater
where
they
were
existing
3
families,
the
particular
unit
sizes.
The
new
proposed
unit
is
a
2-bedroom
1-bath,
1133
square
foot
proposed
new
unit,
7
foot
6
height
for
that
bottom
level,
and
if
you
look
at
the
grading,
it's
about
a
hundred
percent
above
grade
in
the
front
in
in
around
60%
total
unit.
N
That's
an
existing
unit
is
a
2-bedroom
1-bath,
twelve
hundred
and
seventy-six
square
unit
bed
one
bath
and
then
the
third
floor
would
be
a
penthouse
unit.
2,000
square
feet,
two
bed,
one
bath
on
the
second
and
then
a
master
bed
and
bath
on
the
third.
That
would
also
include
some
front
and
enclosed
rare
decks
just
to
go
through
the
violations,
the
new
violations
use.
It
is
a
two
f
district,
and
this
is
a
three
family
proposed.
N
The
SAR
is
point
eight
we're
seeking
1.10
the
stories,
although
we're
at
thirty
four
feet,
eight
inches,
which
is
below
the
thirty
five
foot
height
requirement.
The
stories
are
at
three
and
two
and
a
half
is
required
all
of
the
other
violations.
Oh
and
then
parking,
so
three
parking
spaces
would
be
required,
they're
not
able
to
fit
any
parking.
However,
if
you
look
in
the
site,
pictures
provided
on
site
picture
to
all
along
massport
owns
all
of
the
property
on
the
right-hand
side
of
the
street.
There
is
parking
up
and
down
that
area.
N
These
are
going
to
be
condominium
units
to
be
sold.
We
did
work
with
the
abutters
I
submitted
to
I
spent,
submitted
multiple
letters
of
support,
but
two
in
particular,
which
are
abutters
on
our
right
and
left
side
that
signed
support
letters
and
one
of
the
requirements,
or
one
of
the
asks
that
we
had
before
we
went
to
the
community
was
to
make
sure
that
the
roof
and
dorm
has
remained
pitched
was
the
style
in
that
area,
as
opposed
to
a
full
third
story,
flat
roof
structure.
J
N
A
A
N
O
Q
A
R
S
S
P
A
B
Ii
boa
seven
zero,
eight,
nine
one
one
to
twenty
one
Tara
Street.
This
is
a
demolish.
An
existent
single-family
dwelling,
an
erect,
a
four-story
three
unit
residential
building
with
garage
violations.
Article
53
section,
56,
austrie
parking
design,
article
53
section
9,
maximum
allowed
height,
has
been
exceeded.
Article
53,
insufficient
side
setback,
article
53,
insufficient
large
size,
article
53
in
sufficient
additional
lot
area
per
unit.
B
Article
53
insufficient
a
lot
with
article
53
insufficient
a
lot
with
article
53
section,
9
insufficient
lot
with
frontage,
an
article
53
section
9
excessive
fer,
the
article
53
section,
9
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded
in
article
33,
section
9,
insufficient,
open
space
naming
ad
vessel
directed.
Please.
U
Johnson
architect,
190
Old
Colony
Ave
in
Boston,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
we're
proposing
to
demolish
a
two-and-a-half
story,
structure
and
erect
a
four-story
three
family
over
a
garage.
This
is
a
three
family
zoning
sub
district
and
the
unit
break
down
to
2-bedroom
1-bath
at
the
top
floor
at
906
square
feet,
the
middle
unit
or
this
third
floor,
one-bedroom
one-bath
unit
at
6:37
square
feet
and
the
second
floor
is
a
three
bedroom
one
and
a
half
bath
at
913
square
feet.
A
A
U
V
U
40
stories
35
feet.
Yes,
madam
chair,
we're
at
four
stories
39
feet.
So
this
side
of
Paris
Street
is
a
lot
of
older
housing
stock
wood
frame,
which
is
dilapidated.
We're
starting
new
buildings
at
four
storeys
39
feet,
37
to
39
feet
on
this
side
of
Paris
Street
in
terms
of
a
lot
with
its
20
foot
lot
with
we're
at
eighteen
point
two.
So
we're
close
to
the
lot
with
in.
U
Eighteen
point
Oh
two
and
then
four
usable
open
space,
three
hundred
square
foot
per
dwelling
unit
we're
at
less
than
three
hundred
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit.
Although
the
top
floor
does
have
a
roof
deck
access
by
a
bulkhead
site,
the
the
yards.
We
have
a
modal
front
yard
side
yard
is
two
and
a
half
feet.
We're
at
zero
and
or
six
inches,
and
the
rear
yard
is
10
feet.
We're
at
six
inches.
U
U
U
J
U
A
U
J
J
W
J
X
U
U
In
the
rear,
there's
a
three
and
a
half
foot
passageway,
which
comes
right
to
the
corner
of
our
property.
My
clients,
property
and
my
client
is
negotiated
with
you
butter
to
get
3
feet
3
by
3
foot
easement
over
their
property.
So
we
can
access
that
passageway
and
that
would
be
our
second
egress
to
street,
and
then
we
would
get
be
able
to
get
rid
of
driving
No
a
passageway,
and
that
means
our
rear
stair
can
aggressively
and
we
can
get
rid
of
that
interior
court.
X
J
Q
A
R
A
U
B
A
Z
Takeout,
not
incidental,
but
it
was
specific
to
the
previous
tenant
specific
to
tasty
key
light
did
frozen
desserts.
My
client,
with
the
authorization
of
the
landlord
cafe
hero,
has
a
broader
menu.
We've
agreed
to
some
provisos,
suggested
by
an
app
Association
and
I'd
like
to
summarize
those
the
exhaust
would
only
be.
J
Y
Normally,
restaurants
would
have
black
iron
and
used
gas
appliances.
We
don't
do
so.
We
use
most
of
our
stuff,
comes
pre,
packaged
and
ready
to
serve
other
than
has
to
be
reheated.
So
we
have
an
electric
oven,
but
the
electric
oven
creates
quite
a
bit
of
heat
in
the
kitchen,
so
we
we
just
put
an
exhaust
into
exhaust
off
that
heat
so
that
it
doesn't
overheat
in
the
kitchen.
J
Y
J
Y
Z
A
It
looks
like
this
peel.
D
Neighbor
Association
Back
Bay
first
proviso
was
very
important
to
us,
because
the
this
restaurant
is
on
the
side
of
Newbury
Street
that
backs
up
to
the
residences
on
Commonwealth
Avenue,
and
so
they
agree
that
they
weren't
going
to
be
any
cooking
fumes
coming
out
that
that
would
impact
on
the
people
across
the
alley.
We
have
no
objection
now
based
on
the
provisions
that
they
agreed
to,
and
we
appreciate
their
cooperation
with
us.
D
J
J
A
B
The
next
case
calling
boa
seven,
seven,
two
nine
five
five
one
thirty
one
in
street.
This
project
hopes
to
change
the
Arkansas,
may
2
to
a
single-family
dwelling
and
include
the
fall
and
replacement
of
existing
gable
roof
and
window
DOMA
with
a
new
mansard
roof.
Addition
of
the
wrists
deer
head
house
and
remodel
of
the
existing
third
floor
master
bedroom
level
violation
is
article
68
section
8
afford
a
ratio
is
excessive
article
27
s,
section
5.
B
AB
Warp
suite
600
with
me
this
morning
and
seated
to
my
left,
is
chelsea
blanchard
of
blanchard
design,
studios
and
also
the
home
owner
of
131
entry
for
the
past
10
years,
as
well
as
a
south
boston
resident
for
the
past
20
years.
The
proposal
before
you
this
morning
is
for
a
350
square
foot
vertical
addition
of
livable
space
in
the
rear,
a
lot
of
this
location
as
well
as
a
roof
deck
in
the
front
that
would
face
end
street.
AB
The
particular
relief
that
we're
looking
to
be
granted
is
for
an
FA
are
increasing
the
existing
2.3
proposed
to
2.6
for
the
roof
structure,
restricted
district
and
for
the
ipod
applicability.
The
initial
and
main
reason
for
this
proposal
is
to
accommodate
the
existing
single-family
residence
of
this
location,
where
miss
Blanchard
lives
with
her
two
children
who
attend
the
nearby
Perry
school.
As
you
can
see
from
the
larger
package
that
was
distributed
to
you
this
morning,
it
is
one
of
the
four
smallest
homes
in
both
lot
size
and
height
on
the
block.
AC
J
AB
AD
AA
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Ellison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
because
this
is
within
the
article
68
zoning.
We
can't
go
on
record
and
support.
However,
I
do
want
to
acknowledge.
We
did
have
a
very
positive
abutters
meeting.
We
have
received
many
letters
of
support
and
this
project
is
consistent
with
a
lot
of
the
other
buildings
already
on
the
street
and
in
the
area.
Thank
you,
madam.
AE
Chair
members
of
what
paul
sullivan,
I've
actually
consult,
lodge
michael
clarity
due
to
the
fact
that
this
falls
into
article
68
in
the
community
effort
that
went
into
went
into
drafting
article
68.
The
council
is
unable
to
support
this
particular
time.
However,
knowing
that
there
are
products
that
have
merit,
the
counselor
would
leave
it
to
the
discretion
of
the.
AG
X
A
AA
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition
both
because
of
the
article
68,
restricted,
roof
structure
issue,
and
we
have
received
opposition
from
abutters
to
the
project.
Additionally,
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
hardship
in
this
case
that
would
prevent
the
property
from
being
used
without
the
roof
deck.
Thank
you.
I'm.
AE
A
B
You
calling
boa
seven
six,
seven
one
nine
five
six
Kemble
place.
This
is
a
new
detached,
single-family,
home
1,700
square
feet,
three
stories,
one
bedroom
office
and
two
and
a
half
baths
with
one
car
garage.
The
violations,
article
68
section
8
required
lot.
Width
is
insufficient.
Article
68
section
8
the
required
lot,
frontages
insufficient
article
68,
section
8,
the
side
yard
setback
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
68
section
8,
the
Reyat
setback,
the
climate
is
insufficient
in
article
68,
section
8
in
this
residential
zoning
sub
district.
AI
The
record
please
yes,
Ron
Cavallo,
70,
Victoria,
Street,
Somerville,
mass
I'm,
with
Tony
Esposito's,
my
engineer
and
Dave
garage.
He
is
my
architect
and
project
manager.
We
proposed
to
build
a
single-family
house
on
a
lot
at
six
Kimball
pace.
Kimball
place
is
a
private
way.
There
were.
There
was
an
1860s
townhouse
there
that
burned
down
somewhere
along
the
line.
It's
adjacent
to
a
parcel,
it's
owned
by
Anna
butter
on
the
right
who
uses
it
for
parking
and
on
the
left.
Buying
a
butter
who
has
it
has
that
parcel
is
open
space.
AI
This
is
an
infill
parcel.
We
think
that
there's
an
argument
for
a
Nazarite
replacement
of
the
existing
structure.
However,
we've
designed
a
contemporary
structure,
that's
1,700
square
feet
with
the
a
one-car
parking
space.
It
is
a
one-bedroom
house
with
a
study,
a
master
bedroom
on
the
third
floor
and
a
roof
deck
there's
a
solar
component
and
also
an
electric
vehicle
component
to
the
structure.
It's
a
slab
on
grade
structure
because
of
the
the
fact
that
this
parcel
is
a
narrow
lot
and
it
is
close
to
adjacent
structures.
AI
As
part
of
our
proposal
for
the
construction
of
the
house,
we
proposed
a
complete
replacement
of
the
infrastructure.
The
road
is
in
severe
disrepair.
We
are,
including,
as
part
of
our
proposal,
a
complete
removal
of
the
existing
road
system
and
a
full
replacement
of
the
road
correction
of
drainage,
addressing
a
number
of
safety
issues
that
pertain
to
some
of
the
residents
that
include
issues
of
lighting
and
safety.
With
regard
to
a
manhole.
AI
That's
in
disrepair
that
is
not
the
under
the
purview
of
the
city
of
Boston's
DPW,
the
road
infrastructure
replacement
will
be
supervised
and
controlled.
By
my
engineer,
who's
present
today,
we
are
also
including,
in
addition
to
lighting
consideration
for
the
elderly
woman
that
lives
at
the
end
of
the
the
private
way
who
is
blind
and
in
a
wheelchair
and
and
the
passes
at
issues
in
terms
of
access,
so
we're
creating
a
pathway
for
her
wheelchair
access
to
the
main
street.
A
A
AI
A
J
J
AI
J
AI
AJ
Hi,
my
name
is
Kathleen
Santeria
I'm
here
representing
my
mother,
barber
Santry
and
the
condo
trust
for
a
three
Kemble
place,
we're
fully
in
support
of
this
effort,
and
we
think
it
would
be
a
betterment
to
the
street
and
the
neighborhood
in
general,
and
also
address
some
safety
issues
for
the
street
and
lighting
as
well.
There
been
some
concerns
of
people
loitering
in
the
open
lot.
Some
youngsters
around
and
I
think
this
would
be
a
great
thing
for
the
street.
AA
Right,
madam
chair
members,
the
board
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
can't
go
on
record
and
support
due
to
this
being
article
68.
However,
we
do
want
to
acknowledge
that
we
did
have
an
abutters
meeting
with
the
proponent.
He
does
have
support
from
some
of
his
neighbors
and
if
this
project
were
to
go
forward,
he
would
repave
the
road
which
has
been
a
big
issue
for
many
years.
Thank
you.
I'm.
AE
A
AK
So
there
is
a
fence
that
separates
our
property
from
the
proposed
property
that
has
been
runs
along
the
property
line,
and
has
it's
been
in
place
for
27
years?
There
is
information
in
the
package
I
presented.
The
developer
conducted
a
survey
which
we
are
disputing,
which
claims
that
this
fence
actually
encroaches
his
property
by
about
a
foot
and
a
half.
Therefore,
he
was
proposing
of
removing
this
fence
that
divides
our
properties,
which
has
been
in
place
for
27
years
without
informing
us
or
proposing.
AK
We
are
we
want
this
plot
to
be
developed.
We
want
it
to
be
done
with
proper
setbacks
on
all
sides,
as
of
today
does
not
have
the
support
of
four
of
the
five
director
butters,
which
are
the
three
that
I
am
representing
on
the
piece
tree,
one
that
you'll
be
hearing
next,
the
butters
he
does
have
support
is
because
he
is
repaving
a
private
way.
Understandably,
last
but
not
least,
we
weren't
present
for
the
first
of
butters
meeting
on
site,
unfortunately
was
out
of
the
country
for
working
and
my
wife
upon
our
return.
AK
A
A
AK
AK
Just
read
two
lines
from
the
email
that
referring
to
my
wife
from
the
developer,
that
claim
I
suspect
she
will
be
made
to
look
foolish
at
the
Planning
Board
meeting
and,
in
my
kind
and
honest
way,
make
her.
Look
like
an
idiot.
I
love
a
challenge.
So
we
just
think
that
this
speaks
to
the
character
developer
and
not
the
right
foot
to
enter
this
proposal.
So
I
will
speak
in
opposition.
A
AH
AH
P
AH
What
his
plans
were,
it
seemed
as
if
it
falls
over
if
it
gets
approved,
it
won't
afford
our
family
this
opportunity.
Mr.
Covello
wants
to
put
up
a
structure
which
will
be
directly
on
the
property
line
between
us
he's
building
wider
than
the
footprint
he's
encroaching
on
the
setbacks.
He
wants
to
do
a
cantilever
right
up
to
the
property
line
on
the
second
level.
If
you
look
at
the
plans,
so
the
setbacks
in
that
zone
I
believe
a
three
foot.
AH
The
foundation
is
already
six
inches
from
one
side,
two
foot
six
inches
from
the
other,
we're
on
the
other
side,
which
is
two
foot
six
inches.
So
if
he
goes
to
the
property
line
on
the
second
level,
how
does
that
affect
our
opportunity
for
future
development?
So
we
we
plan
on
moving
up
into
the
home
with
all
of
us,
because
there's
two
lots:
we
have
seven
and
E
so
does.
J
AH
J
A
AH
AH
A
A
P
AH
A
A
AH
AH
A
J
AI
J
AI
J
AI
AI
J
A
B
Next
case,
calling
boa
seven,
six,
nine
two
one,
seven
one:
forty
nine
West
Eden
Street
West,
8th
Street.
This
is
a
full
interior
renovation
of
an
existing
three
family
dwelling
and
extend
living
space
to
the
basement
for
unit
one
violations:
article
68,
section,
27,
s5,
it's
in
the
South
Boston
iPod.
P
AM
AM
We
met
with
plans
and
zoning
in
July.
We
verify
the
zoning
violations,
at
which
point
we
pulled
a
demolition
permit
to
the
project
Wow.
We
went
and
finished
up
the
architects
and
engineers.
Once
we
submitted
those
drawings,
iPod
applicability,
I
picked
into
place.
We
were
stuck
in
a
position.
We
had
already
sacked
out
all
the
demo
permit.
With
that
being
said,
we,
this
is
a
full
renovation
of
an
existing.
AM
AM
AA
AK
AN
A
A
Those
who
are
requesting
deferrals,
we
are
to
remind
everybody,
are
not
I'm,
not
inclined
to
approve
very
many
ongoing
deferral.
So
when
you
ask
for
the
Perl
better
make
sure
there's
a
community
process
in
place,
we
meet
we
meet
regularly.
We
need
to
ensure
that
with
the
holidays,
community
groups
are
meeting
regularly
so
that
there
is
less
need
for
the
pearls
when
projects
come
before
us.
No.
AO
AP
A
B
30Th,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
deferrals
or
withdrawals
for
10:30
hearing?
None
we'll
call
the
first
case
calling
boa
75043
369
Rutland
Street.
This
is
a
construct,
a
bracket
support
at
balcony
of
the
rare,
an
existing
building
for
the
second
floor
unit,
revert
window
to
door
opening
and
installing
new
door.
The
violations,
article
64,
section,
nine
point,
four
townhouse
for
a
house
extension
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AQ
A
AQ
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
present
my
client
is
a
schoolteacher
Abigail
Huber.
She
could
not
be
here
tonight
she's
in
school.
She
lives
on
the
middle
level
of
a
three
unit
condominium
in
the
South
End.
She
has
no
exterior
space
so
we're
proposing
this
small
balcony
on
the
rear
of
the
building
to
provide
her
some
outdoor
area.
A
AQ
J
AR
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
face
of
Sherif
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
are
in
support
of
the
applicants
project.
We
did
hold
an
abutters
meeting.
Unfortunately,
there
weren't
any
attendees,
but
it
does
fit
in
with
the
character
of
what's
happening
in
the
back
of
that
building,
it's
a
very
straightforward
project
and
we're
not
in
opposition
to
decks
in
the
South
End.
Thank.
B
Washington
Street,
okay:
this
is
new
construction
to
a
house
programs,
Pro
spaces
daycare
for
thirty-two
affordable
residents
for
the
Elizabeth
stone
house
site
to
include
twenty
parking
spaces.
The
violations
article
50
section,
nineteen
offices
on
basement
of
first
floors
are
conditional
article.
Fifty
section:
twenty
building
height
is
excessive
article,
fifty
section
twenty
the
floor:
they
ratio
is
excessive
in
article
fifty
section,
43
number
of
off
street
parking
spots
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record,
please
my.
B
AS
AS
AS
A
AS
J
AT
J
AS
AA
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
on
record
in
support
on
behalf
of
judgment
Bennet.
They
went
through
an
extensive
VRA
process
and
they
also
held
in
a
butters
meeting,
which
went
very
well
all
of
the
butters
who
were
present
have
expressed
support
to
date.
Thank
you.
AS
B
Bo,
a
seven
five,
seven,
five,
four
two
31:47
two
3149
Washington
Street:
this
is
the
change
the
lachman's
from
a
three
family,
drawing
to
a
four
family
dwelling
and
renovate
the
top
floor
and
create
four
parking
spaces.
The
violations,
article
9
section,
2,
non-conforming,
use
change.
A
variance
is
required
to
change
from
an
existing
non-conforming
use
to
another
non-conforming
of
article
55,
section
17.
The
proposed
attic
unit
creates
an
excessive
FA,
are
an
article
55
section
40,
our
street
parking
design.
B
N
Seeking
to
change
the
occupancy,
as
mentioned
from
existing
three
family
dwelling
to
a
four
family,
drove
willing
renovating
in
the
top
floor
and
creating
four
reader
parking
spaces
for
a
shared
driveway
in
the
right
hand,
side
the
double
also
be
fully
sprinklered
as
code.
The
particular
unit
is
actually
framed,
but
was
never
legalized
when
my
client
purchased
the
property,
it's
a
multi-family
district
in
the
area,
although
its
local
convenience
own,
there
are
a
number
of
multifamily
complexes.
The
unit
sizes
unit,
one,
is
1400
square
feet.
Unit.
N
2
is
1400
square
feet
unit
three
one
thousand
three,
seventy
two
and
then
the
new
proposed
units,
a
thousand
roughly
square
feet.
We
did
get
the
support,
both
JP
NC
and
the
Egleston
square
group
from
the
community
butters
meetings
directive.
Letters
just
to
point
out
the
fact
that
new
account
will
actually
remain
the
same.
So
it's
currently
at
11
bedrooms
and
unit
3.
It's
an
actual
reform
bedroom
right
now
and
I'm
a
reconfiguration
we're
getting
rid
of
that
three
and
with
the
one
Devon
Ewing
the
top
floor,
the
unit
count
would
stay
the
same.
N
We
are
creating
those
four
parking
spaces
in
the
rear
of
property.
I
can
go
over
the
violations
as
well
as
mentioned
it's
a
multi-family
residential
proposed,
so
which
triggered
a
violation
and
then
SAR
1.0
is
required.
Although
we're
preexisting
non-conforming
are
1.6
and
then
our
parking
design,
because
of
the
shared
driveway.
P
A
N
AU
AV
P
A
B
Just
new
construction
of
a
four
unit:
multi-family
building
on
vacant
land
violations,
article
10
section,
one,
the
limitation
of
area
of
no
Osprey
parking
allowed
and
the
required
front
yard
setback
on
bernad
Street
article
sixty
section,
a
multi-family
dwelling
unit
is
a
forbidden
use.
Article
60
section
forty
auspey
parking
designed
to
size
a
minimum
of
eight
by
five
2204,
a
fifty
percent
at
seventy
feet
and
eighteen
feet
for
50
percent
violations.
Article
sixty
section
nine,
the
height
of
success,
of
a
35
feet,
article
sixty
section
9,
a
lot
area
for
additional
drawing
units
is
insufficient.
B
T
AE
X
AX
A
P
A
AW
J
P
AW
AX
P
AW
Can
have
one
curb
cut
since
we
have
enough
area
back
here,
one
curb
cut
and
sort
of
do
some
combination
of
the
four
parking
spaces.
The
problem
with
the
parking
upfront
is:
this
is
a
very
busy
street
Warner
Street.
This
is
a
very
quiet
street,
so
we
don't
want
to
be
parking
out
and
running
in
the
cars
there,
so
this
can
be
redesigned
since
we
have
enough
open
space
back.
AW
AW
AW
AW
AW
AW
J
AY
B
This
is
a
proposed
five
unit,
residential
townhouse
building
the
violations,
article
60
section
I,
the
lardy
area.
Our
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient.
Article
60,
section
I,
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
60
section
9,
the
fluidity
ratio
is
excessive.
In
article
60,
section
9
front
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
60,
section
8
more
than
three
units
is
forbidden,
article
60,
section
9.3.
The
main
entrance
must
face
the
front
lot
line
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BA
A
BA
A
BA
I'll
just
go
down
the
refusal
letter.
The
the
first
violation
was
a
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit,
violation,
it's
a
nine
thousand
square
foot
law
and
there's
a
3,000
square
foot
minimum
per
unit.
So
we
have
nine
thousand
and
we
need
15,000.
So
we,
the
law,
is
too
small
to
accommodate
five
units
which
we
think
based
on
two
abutters
meetings,
and
a
community
meeting
are
something
that
the
community
is
excited
about.
BA
Opens
space
we're
providing
four
hundred
square
feet
of
usable
open
space
per
dwelling
unit.
We
also
have
roof
decks
or
third
level
open
balconies
for
each
of
the
units,
and
the
minimum
is
six
hundred
per
unit.
F.
Ar
is
essentially
at
a
very,
very
minor
technical
violation.
I
think
our
calculation
is
point.
Eight
two
and
point
eight
is:
is
the
requirement.
A
BA
BB
J
BB
J
A
BB
Roof
decks
are
on
the
on
the
third
floor.
Each
unit
has
its
own
individual
roof
deck.
The
roof
deck
is
access,
it
can
be
accessed
from
from
the
living
area
spaces,
but
it
also
has
direct
access
with
the
master
bedroom
above,
in
addition
to
the
roof
deck.
Each
unit
has
a
small,
defensible
yard
space
off
the
back
side
of
the
property
as
well.
X
BB
P
A
BB
AL
BC
A
B
Boa
7
6
3
3
1
8
233,
Hancock
Street.
This
is
a
demolished
and
existing
one-story,
auto
repair
shop,
construct
a
new
five-story
steel
in
wood
structure
containing
36
residential
units,
22,
surface
parking,
spaces,
retail
and
knock
gallery
violation
is
article
65,
6
&
8,
a
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden,
article
65,
section,
8
retail
is
forbidden.
Article
65,
section,
8
art
gallery
is
forbidden.
Article
65
section
41
in
a
posh
street
parking
is
insufficient.
B
Article
65
section
41
Street
loading
is
insufficient.
Article
65,
section
I
and
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
the
height,
is
excessive
article
65,
the
front
yard
insufficient
article
65
section
I
on
the
side
yard,
is
insufficient
in
article
65
section
9,
the
rear
yard
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record
place
a.
K
Good
morning
attorney
John
Paul,
Jeanne,
10
floors.
Road
Braintree
with
me
this
morning
are
Dan
and
Benjy
mall,
as
well
as
their
architect
Eric
Robinson
from
Rohde
architecture.
So
the
proposal
for
you
is
take
an
existing
lot,
which
currently
has
two
auto
body
shops
on
it.
The
lot
size
is
thirteen
thousand
362
square
feet.
It
has
a
right-of-way
access
of
two
thousand
three
hundred
and
fifty
two
square
feet
which
we'll
be
using
to
access
the
parking
at
grade
concealed
within
the
building.
K
These
two
auto
body,
repair
shops
with
a
five-story,
29,000
square
foot,
mixed-use,
building,
36
residential
apartments,
clown
ground-floor
retail
space,
as
well
as
a
lobby
and
gallery
space
which
will
have
access
to
the
public
with
21
parking
spaces.
The
unit
break
down
our
12
studio
units,
approximately
400,
75
square
feet,
twelve
one-bedroom
units,
approximately
620
square
feet,
8
two-bedroom
units,
approximately
830
square
feet
and
four
three-bedroom
units
approximately
950,
we're
feet.
This
proposal
went
through
an
extensive
article,
80
process
with
the
BPD,
a
approximately
26
meetings,
including
20
meetings
with
the
butters
and
neighbors.
K
K
The
FA
are
in
this
sub
district
is
one.
The
proposed
before
you
was
to
point
to
height
allowed
is
35
feet.
The
proposal
before
use
56
feet
parking
is
1.5
which
would
equal
sixty
spots.
We're
at
21
spots,
which
is
0.58
front
yard,
is
five
feet
or
modal
we're
at
one
feet,
ten
inches,
and
that
was
by
design
to
the
D
to
the
design
process,
where
yachts.
A
K
K
You
have
our
the
director
butter
to
support
letters
as
well
as
both
the
Columbia
Sabadell
Civic
Association,
as
well
as
the
Joan
Joan
tale.
Civic
Association
support
letters
the
additionally.
This
proposal
will
provide
five
affordable
housing,
which
is
in
excess
of
the
IDP
requirement,
as
well
as
a
picture
they're
removing
to
blighted
billboards
that
currently
sit
above
the
current
auto
body
shops
and
are
an
eyesore
to
the
neighborhood.
A
W
W
W
BD
Addition,
the
current
the
the
right-of-way
currently
is
being
used
as
parking
by
both
ourselves
and
our
neighbors.
So
there
would
be
potential.
It's
a
park,
they're
two
more
more
more
spaces
there
as
well,
because
there's
the
right
of
way
does
go
through
it.
It
backs
up
into
wedge,
so
there
will
be
no
one
else
using
that
right
of
way.
A
A
BD
Here
we're
trying
to
build
middle-income
housing
and
the
goal
essentially
was
to
keep
total
rents
of
the
project
below
comparable
class
a
product
in
both
Dorchester
in
the
Greater
Boston
area.
In
order
to
do
that,
we
believe
that
we
can
have
smaller
units
and
rent
them
for
a
lower
price
point,
so
that
the
rent,
essentially
per
square
foot,
will
generally
come
out
in
line,
so
that
we'll
be
able
to
get
the
financing
for
the
project.
BD
AU
X
X
AY
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
floppy
the
Vega
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
its
application.
As
mentioned,
we
have
had
many
meetings.
The
applicant
were
very
responsive
to
address
in
the
community
concerns
we'll
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
application.
Thank
you,
madam.
BE
A
B
The
next
case
calling
VOA
seven
five,
three
four
nine
six
37
to
39
Deptford
Deptford
Avenue
is
also
Building,
Code,
VOA,
seven,
five,
three
four
9
5
37
to
39
Thetford,
Avenue,
Stefan
Avenue.
Here,
ok,
this
will
extend
living
space
from
the
second
floor
to
the
basement.
The
violation
is
article
65,
section
9
the
floor.
Ta
ratio
was
excessive.
B
This
is
the
building
code
chapter
3
definition
of
a
dwelling
unit.
A
unit
must
be
completely
independent.
Note
that
the
extension
of
the
second
floor
to
the
basement
does
not
make
the
unit
independent
since
the
stair
connecting
the
second
floor
to
the
basement
is
a
common
steer.
It
serves
both
units
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BF
BF
A
BF
BF
J
A
B
A
B
The
next
case
calling
VOA
seven
six,
nine
one,
nine
four,
nine
fifteen
Hyde
Park
Avenue.
This
is
a
change
legal.
Our
can
see
from
a
three
family
to
a
full
family
violations.
Article
69
section
29
packing,
is
insufficient.
Article
69,
section
8,
the
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article
69,
section
8,
you,
the
basement
units
are
forbidden.
Article
69
69,
the
floridian
ratio
is
excessive.
How'd,
it
go
69
section
9,
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient
article
69,
section
9.3.
The
main
entrance
must
face
the
front
lot
line
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
morning.
K
K
The
9:15
hi
Pacquiao
lays
in
2002
f
5,000
the
zoning
the
prior.
This
is
when
he
purchased
the
property.
It
was
used
as
a
for
family
with
an
illegal
studio
apartment
in
the
back.
So
this
is
was
an
existing.
So
it's
the
proposal
here
is
to
legalize
that
it
is.
The
neighborhood
itself
is
very
mixed.
Use.
A
few
people
are
familiar
with
it.
BG
A
BG
The
area
where
it's
highlighted
for
the
proposed
fire
suppression
tanks,
ideally
I'd
like
to
keep
the
furnaces
where
they
are
to
give
access
to
the
other
units
with
that
stairwell
that
comes
down
and
I
would
basically
expand
out
that
space.
You
know
from
from
a
drawing
perspective
the
way
you're
looking
at
it
to
the
right
of
the
furnaces
and
drop
the
bathroom.
A
BG
There's
two
exterior
exit
doors,
one
on
the
left-hand
side
of
the
building
that
comes
down
along
the
driveway
side
and
one
in
the
very
rear
of
the
building.
There
is
a
third
exit
point
that
leads
out
from
this
layout.
That
goes
into
the
basement
here
as
well,
where
that
you
and
it
would
have
access
to
storage.
BH
B
Next,
two
cases
calling
boa
seven:
six:
three:
five:
six
to
75
to
79
Lamartine
Street
companion
case
boa
seven,
six,
three,
eight
six:
zero
to
81
Lamartine
Street.
This
is
the
279
Lamartine.
This
is
erect
a
new
three
family
residential
structure
with
biking
on
a
vacant
lot.
The
violations,
article
55,
section,
9,
a
lot
area,
perdition
dwelling
unit,
insufficient
article
55,
section,
9,
a
lot
frontages
insufficient
article
55,
section
9
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
55,
section,
9,
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
B
This
is
for
281
Lamartine
to
select
a
new
two
family
residential
structure,
two
and
a
half
stories
with
parking
in
basement
on
rate
on
vacant
land,
an
existing
structure
to
be
razed
violations,
article
55,
section
9,
the
waterfront
is
insufficient.
Article
55
section
9
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
55
section
9
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
55
69,
the
height,
is
excessive
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
AP
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Nix
Azula,
with
McDermott
quilty
in
Miller,
28
State
Street,
here
in
Boston
to
my
immediate
left,
is
it
Joe
Handley,
also
from
McDermott
cruelty
and
Miller
to
my
far
left
is
David
O
Sullivan
from
O'sullivan
architects?
Who
is
the
architect
on
the
project
in
to
my
immediate
right?
Is
Nick
Lee
Grace,
who
is
the
property
owner
and
appellant
in
this
matter?
AP
We've
passed
out
to
the
board
this
morning,
a
memorandum
and
some
handouts
with
the
plans
detailing
our
variance
case,
as
well
as
the
substantial
modifications
and
outreach
that
this
product
that
these
two
projects
have
gone
through
over
the
past
year
to
79
and
281
Lamartine
are
situated
between
Lamartine
place
and
Biltmore
Street
in
Jamaica
Plain
right
up
near
the
Southwest
corridor,
Park
Nick
in
his
LLC
owned
both
of
these
parcels
of
underutilized
land
279,
letting
is
about
six
thousand
seventy
four
square
feet.
It
is
a
vacant
property
and
281.
AP
Latin
is
approximately
5,500
square
feet
and
that
as
an
existing
single-family
dwelling,
as
you
can
see
from
the
plans
and
the
memo
that
we
passed
out,
there
is
a
significant
grade.
Change
from
the
rear
of
the
site
to
the
front
of
the
site,
roughly
25,
to
30
feet
on
each
individual
site.
The
immediate
area
on
Lamartine
is
a
mix
of
single
two
and
three
family
residential
buildings,
varying
sizes,
varying
architectural
design.
AP
Although
some
of
the
newly
built
and
approved
projects
on
Lamartine
are
of
a
four
or
five
unit,
variety,
and
so
what
we're
proposing
today
is
again
two
separate
projects
on
279
Lamartine
is
a
three
family
residential
structure
with
three
on-site
parking
spaces,
approximately
60
100
square
feet
of
gross
floor
area
and
on
281
lamb
are
teen
a
two
family
residential
structure,
again
with
three
on-site
parking
spaces
with
approximately
forty
683
square
feet
of
gross
floor
area.
This
is
a
three
F
5,000
zone,
so
there's
no
use
variance
required
for
the
two
or
three
family
structure.
A
AP
Ma'am,
so
on
the
three
family
at
279,
Lamartine
Street,
we
have,
we
were
cited
for
six
six
variances.
The
first
is
for
a
lot
area
insufficient.
In
order
to
have
three
units
on
that
lot.
You
need
to
have
7,000
square
feet
of
lot
area.
That
lot
is
6070
four
square
feet,
so
we're
a
little
over
900
square
feet
off
of
that
third
unit.
Lot.
Frontage
and
lot
with
insufficient
are
both
forty
feet
and
the
279.
AP
Let
Marty
niz
39
foot
existing,
so
we're
one
foot
off
and
that's
an
existing
condition,
which
is
typical
up
and
down
Lamartine.
A
lot
of
these
Lots
are
under
40
feet
in
width
and
frontage
in
terms
of
floor
area
ratio
0.6
is
what's
required
and
on
the
three
family
we're
currently
at
an
F
AR
of
one
and
the
building
height
excessive
is
35
feet.
Although
we
are
34
feet,
7
inches
at
average
grade,
we
are
41
feet
from
the
sidewalk
to
the
roof,
because
this
lot
is
significant
grade
change.
AP
If
this
was
a
flat
lot,
we
would
comply
with
building
height
because
of
the
grade
change
from
the
front
from
the
rear
to
the
front.
We're
requesting
a
variance
for
height.
Finally,
we
were
cited
for
off
street
parking
and
sufficient
for
the
three
family,
but
we
are
providing
three
parking
spaces
for
the
three
units,
which
is
in
compliance
with
the
zoning
code.
By
the
time
we
had
noticed
this.
AP
We
had
already
filed
the
appeal
and
in
our
discussions
with
ISD,
they
said
we
couldn't
revise
the
refusal
letter
after
we
had
filed
the
appeal,
so
we
actually
are
compliant
moving
on
to
the
other
lot,
which
you
had
asked
about
very
similar
to
81
LEM,
our
team.
This
is
the
two
family
again
lot.
Frontage
is
40
feet.
Lot.
Width
is
40
feet,
we're
at
38
feet,
5
inches
on
lot
frontage
and
36
feet
2
inches
on
lot
with
again
existing
condition
that
anything
we
built
on.
AP
The
lot
would
have
those
violations,
floor
area
ratio
again
points,
and
this
is
only
at
0.8
for
so
a
minimal
variance
of
0.2
for
over
the
requirement
and
again
the
building
height
excessive.
This
one
is
only
a
foot,
one
foot
four
inches
above,
what's
what's
allowed,
but
again.
This
lat
also
has
that
25
to
30
foot
grade
change,
and
we
would
submit
that
if
this
was
a
flat
lot,
the
the
the
buildings
would
be
compliant
with
height.
A
AP
No
ma'am
well
so
we've
not
this.
This.
These
properties
have
not
been
heard
by
the
board
before
we
had
a
six
unit
development
on
a
combined
lot,
where
we
combined
the
two
lots
to
279
and
281
to
make
one
lot
after
a
lot
of
discussion
with
the
community,
that
was
that
was
asked
to
be
separated
and
reduced.
So
we
withdrew
that
and
I
think
it
was
in
the
summer
and
we
refile
the
zoning
board
with
with
the
city
with
a
two
and
a
three.
AP
So
the
parking
and
David
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
the
parking
is
as
part
of
this
redesign.
The
parking
at
one
point
was
to
be
underneath
the
building
the
six
unit.
Building.
What
we're
doing
is
we're
using
a
center
curb
cut
between
the
two
properties.
There's
only
one
curb
cut,
and
each
respective
sets
of
parking
is
on
their
own
lot,
but
there
will
be
one
means
of
access
in
and
out
of
the
lot
in
terms
of
the
center
kind
of
corridor
with
two
garage
spaces
under
the
building
in
one
spot.
K
AP
The
unit
sizes
vary,
the
two
family
I
believe
the
two
family
is
about
2500
square
feet
and
the
other
one
is
a
little
bit
less
than
that
and
the
three
family,
the
two
of
the
three
family
units,
are
1735
and
I
believe
that
the
the
the
other
unit
is
25
for
25
49,
and
we
actually,
in
our
memo,
we
provided
at
a
floor
area
ratio
study
in
a
unit
size
study
in
those
studies.
You'll
see
that
you
know
these
units
are.
The
bigger
units
are
on
the
larger
size
of
the
spectrum.
AP
BI
J
AP
BI
So
what
we
have
is
Davos
all
architect
from
the
street.
We
have
steps
going
up
to
the
first
floor
level
and
from
the
front
porch.
The
two
family
has
two
doors,
one
through
each
unit
and
there's
a
rear
steering
unit.
They
also
have
access
out
to
the
rear
yard.
The
three
family
has
a
similar
stair
going
up
and
there's
a
one
door
for
the
first
floor
unit
and
a
second
door
for
the
two
third
second
and
third
floor
units.
We
also
as
part
of
the
neighborhood
thing
they
had
talked
about
privacy.
A
J
BI
J
AU
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Alexander
Valdez
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
have
had
a
total
up
for
our
butters
meeting
throughout
the
year
into
79
to
81
Lamartine
I'm
and
due
to
a
couple
of
community
feedback,
the
applicant
went
from
one
building
to
two
buildings,
which
is
a
two
family
in
a
three
family,
also
chopped
150
square
feet
from
each
of
the
units
making
it
smaller
than
their
original
planning.
At
this
time,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
to
support
good.
AV
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
will
pop
Webster
with
city
council
met
O'malley.
The
councillor
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
the
project.
The
councillor
asked
the
applicant
to
reduce
the
square
footage
during
the
design
review
process
to
be
more
in
line
with
the
neighborhood
unit
sizes,
and
he
supports
the
project.
With
that
caveat,
and
we
encourage
the
applicant
to
work
with
the
community
of
the
project
is
approved.
Thank
you.
AT
I'm
Barbara
Saku,
Yanis
and
I'm
a
director
butter
at
283,
Lana,
teen,
Street
I
support
this
project,
I.
Think
small
units
instead
of
there
was
issue
about
the
three
bedrooms
and
smaller
units
I
think,
would
have
more
of
a
turnover
I.
Think
it's
more
family
orientated
and
I
feel
from
what
these
developers
have
talked
about.
They've
compromised
tremendously
with
the
community
and
trying
to
meet
all
of
their
concerns.
But
you
can't
make
everybody
happy,
but
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
do
support
the
project.
A
BJ
Morning,
madam
chairwoman
and
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Quintin
Pearson
also
trace
Pearson
I
am
a
director
butter
to
this
property.
I
live
it
to
seven.
Seven
Lamartine
Street
I
live
in
a
modest
single-family
home
on
a
property
that
is
more
or
less
the
same
size
as
each
of
the
Lots
that
is
under
under
question
here.
I
want
to
say,
first
of
all
that
we're
talking
about
concessions
that
the
developer
has
made.
What.
A
A
BJ
I
understand
that
zoning
he
has
to
first
demonstrate
hardship
which
I
believe
he
has
done
with
this
with
the
layout
of
the
Lots.
But
then
he
also
should
be
granted
the
minimum
number
of
variances
and
we're
looking
at
an
excessive
number
of
variances.
Here.
From
my
perspective,
the
minimum
number
of
variances
would
be
to
allow
him
to
build
anything
on
these
Lots,
which
are
non-conforming
I,
do
as
I
said,
I'm
a
director
but
er
I
should
enjoy
the
same
property
rights
that
mr.
BK
My
name
is
Monica
Seles
excuse
me:
I
live
at
278
de
Lamartine
Street
and
directly
across
from
the
Lots
in
question
in
general.
The
process
has
taken
over
a
year
while
some
meaningful
changes
have
taken
place
within
the
last
two
months.
To
grant
these
many
variances
at
this
point
would
take
away
any
impetus
you
would
have
to
continue.
Negotiations
with
us
I
feel
we're
making
headway
and
getting
to
a
design,
but
it's
something
everybody
would
be
able
to
say
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
with.
BK
A
BK
AN
AN
AN
That
particular
property
I
mean
I
feel
like
we're
lucky
to
have
a
group
of
neighbors
who
are
very
committed
and
involved
and
I
know
the
abutters
know
a
lot
more
about
the
specific
zoning.
My
concern
is
about
size
and
and
and
just
over
packing,
every
and
no
piece
of
property
in
their
neighborhood
in
recent
years.
So
those
are
my
main
concerns.
Thank
you
very
much.
BL
My
name
is
Carolyn
Engels
I
live
at
244,
Chestnut
Avenue
I'm,
a
director
butter
in
the
back
of
the
building
I'm,
echoing
everything
that
everyone
said,
15
bedrooms
too
much,
not
enough
parking.
There's
not
enough
space
between
these
two
giant
units
for
enough
parking
enough
trash
enough
snow
removal
and
also
I
object
to
a
statement
that
was
made
earlier
by
the
development
team
about
two
underutilized.
The
odd
lots
there
are
two
family
homes
on
those
Lots.
That's
hardly
underutilized.
BM
Develop
can
a
little
more
negotiate
for
the
butter
because
the
people
who've
been
lived
there
and
they
they
have
must
be,
and
they
can
look
around
and
now
to
develop
those
building.
Maybe
to
talk
and
the
budget
boat
could
not
I
mean
I,
don't
know
what
to
say,
but
forgive
me,
that's
all
I
can
say
I
wish
they
can
happen
more
negotiate
and
thank
you
very
much.
A
A
This
is
what
happens
and
we're
seeing
this
more
and
more
frequently
here
when,
when,
when
there's
a
proposal
that
comes
in
too
large
that
gets
kind
of
stuck
in
people's
heads,
so
you
know
perhaps
the
strategies
got
to
be
a
little
bit
different
than
that,
because
then
you
know
it
continues
to
being
an
issue.
This.
AO
Is
just
the
one
thing
I
would
say,
and
first
of
all,
the
developer
deeply
appreciates
the
input
and
the
ability
that
we've
had
to
work
closely
with
the
neighbors
in
your
packet.
You'll
see
support
as
well.
You
heard
obviously
from
the
elected
officials
and
one
of
our
butters,
but
you'll
also
see
letters
of
support
of
their
including
one
from
Anna
butter
at
271.
AO
Lat,
our
teen
and
the
other
thing
I
would
say,
is
at
this
point
making
this
fit
heard
about
preserving
the
neighborhood.
We
think
that
something
that
complies
with
all
the
setbacks
and
that
would
essentially
comply
with
a
height
but
for
the
grade
has
a
negligible
impact
if
any
on
with
cutting
structures.
A
AO
AN
X
X
A
B
B
N
A
N
AE
B
B
B
BO
B
BN
BN
B
BN
BP
Rudd,
sir,
my
office
is
at
546
East
Broadway
in
South
Boston,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board.
This
will
be
our
second
request
for
a
deferral.
This
is
that
the
suggestion
of
the
mayor's
office,
this
project
has
been
to
a
number
of
community
meetings
and
we
continue
to
work
with
the
community
to
try
to
generate
support
for
the
proposal.
B
A
B
We
can
go
back
to
calling
VOA
seven
six,
four
five:
six
zero,
thirty
Casper
Street.
This
is
constructing
new
second-floor
addition
on
an
existing
footprint,
an
existing
single-family
dwelling
and
constructing
new
rear
deck.
The
violation
is
article
56
section.
Eight,
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
36
section,
eight,
the
side
yard.
Is
it
sufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record?
Please.
T
T
A
BQ
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jack
Doug
and
Neighborhood
Services
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
being
a
butters
meeting
back
in
October,
few
neighbors
came
out
there
all
in
support
and
then
November
28th.
They
went
before
the
West
Roxbury
Neighborhood
Council,
and
they
you
know
the
motion
passed
unanimously.
Do
you
support
this?
Thank
you,
madam.
B
A
next
cage
calling
VOA
seven
three:
four:
nine
four:
three
33
to
35
knoll
Street:
this
is
constructed
parking
air
for
two
vehicles
and
associated
curb
cut
and
retaining
walls
construct
new
steps
in
the
front.
Porch
violations,
Article
67,
section,
32,
front
front
yard
parking:
it's
not
a
log
Article
67,
section,
9,
open
space
is
insufficient.
They
have
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AQ
A
A
AQ
E
A
BS
J
B
B
Only
next
case
calling
vo
a
seven
four,
nine,
eight,
seven
876,
East
and
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
arch,
include
a
wireless
telecommunications
facility.
All
work
to
be
done
pursuant
to
the
plans
provided
the
applicant
proposes
to
constructing
new
wireless
telecommunication,
silly
on
the
roof
and
existing
building.
The
violation
is
article
9
section
to
change
in
a
multi-family
structure
in
a
three
F
sub
district
article
51
section
8
wireless
communications
is
a
conditional
use
in
a
preexisting
non-conforming
structure,
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BT
They
do
yes,
so
we're
here
on
behalf
of
t-mobile
Northeast
t-mobile
is
proposing
to
install
six
wireless
antennas
on
the
roof
of
76
Eastern,
Street,
1760s
and
Street,
and
it
is
an
existing
six
family,
approximately
thirty
seven
foot
tall,
building
to
preexisting
non-conforming
building,
so
we're
seeking
conditional
use
for
the
extension
of
a
preexisting,
non-conforming
building
and
the
wireless
use
in
a
residential
area.
We
have
reduced
the
size
of
the
proposed
chimneys,
we're
proposing
three
faux
chimneys,
each
of
which
will
contain
two
wireless
antennas.
BT
Of
the
the
reason
for
this
site
is
to
provide
additional
data
capacity
for
t-mobile's
users
and
so
being
in
this
residential
areas
is
as
much
of
the
region
that
we
need
to
sort
of
decongest
and
add
additional
capacity
to
that
being
said
within
this
area.
It's
it's
primarily
three
story:
three
family
buildings.
It
isn't
until
you
get
much
closer
to
store
a
drive
where
you
have
I,
believe,
there's
a
hotel
building
and
a
couple
of
Harvard
owned
properties,
none
of
which
were
interested
in
hosting
our
proposal.
A
BT
Existing
penthouse
already
has
a
number
of
dishes
on
it,
so
we
were
unable
to
attach
to
those
and
based
on
the
the
size
of
the
roof
and
the
carry
that
the
antennas
need.
We
had
originally
proposed
nine
antennas
with
nine
foot
tall,
faux
chimneys
and
we've
reduced
them.
They
were
originally
four
feet
by
five
and
a
half
feet
by
nine
feet.
BT
We've
gone
down
to
two
antennas
and
in
each
with
by
three
and
a
half
feet
three
and
a
half
feet
by
eight
and
a
half,
so
we
have
gone
down
in
size
and
we're
going
with
a
faux
chimney,
which
you
know
we
we
have
alternatives.
We
can
utilize
standing
seam,
siding
like
we've
done
in
the
past,
but
for
this
building
we
felt
the
fact
that
we
have
three
separate
chimneys
off
which
are
smaller,
they're
much
more
in
keeping
with
this
building
and
the
residential
nature.
A
J
J
J
BU
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Warner
Riley
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
conducted
it
a
butters
meeting.
We
had
a
handful
of
residents
come
out
that
concerns
were
mostly
thinking.
It
was
a
development
and
when
they
found
out
it
wasn't
I,
wouldn't
change
the
course
of
the
conversation.
I
know
right
now
that
the
construction
schedule
came
up,
but
other
than
that,
we
would
like
to
do
a
record
in
support.
BV
J
BT
BT
They
basically
give
them
an
area
that
says
this
is
where
we
need
our
coverage
and
they
go
out
and
really
pound
the
pavement
and
reach
out
to
all
the
property
owners
and
they're
responsible
for
ensuring
that
you
know
all
the
none
of
the
stones
are
left
unturned
in
terms
of
what
potential
areas-
and
in
this
case
it
did,
that
search,
ring
included
the
industrial
areas
and
the
larger
commercial
areas.
Council.
G
P
G
BT
G
A
BT
A
B
This
is
directed
to
family
dwelling
on
a
recently
created
lot
violations.
Article
51
section
9,
the
Florida
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
51,
section
9
the
front
yard
at
Rogers.
Park
Ave
is
insufficient.
Article
51,
section
9,
the
front
yard
at
Lake.
Street
is
insufficient.
They
have
an
address
for
the
record
place
going.
E
A
A
A
E
E
That's
one
of
the
violations
is
therefore
you're.
The
other
violation
is
front
yard
setback.
The
required
is
minimum
twenty
feet,
we're
proposing
twenty
one
feet,
but
because
there
are
two
existing
houses
on
the
block
already
were
directed
to
the
modal
setback
which
come
in
at
about
47
square
feet
due
to
the
one
property
on
the
street,
which
is
mr.
Keens
existing
home,
which
is
little
bit
unreasonable.
I
think
it
would
take
up
most
of
a
lot
of
be
able
to
do
that,
and
second
house
in
the
block,
has
a
front
yard
of
11
square
feet.
A
P
BU
BV
E
B
This
is
commercial
parking
for
39
vehicles,
the
violations,
article
6,
section,
3a,
additional
conditions
in
restricted
parking
district
article,
25,
section
5,
a
flood
hazard
district
applicability
until
68
section
13
the
paid
parking
lot.
It's
a
conditional
use.
They
have
an
address
to
the
record.
Please.
AO
AO
Also
principle
with
the
appellant
Dave
polgár
else
is
with
us
as
well
handing
out
for
the
board
presentation,
materials,
including
project
site,
and
plans
to
orient
you
towards
the
to
the
location,
as
well
as
our
random,
which
was
submitted
earlier,
but
another
copy
for
you
of
the
community
outreach
and
the
compliance
with
the
required
findings
for
the
relief
requested.
We
also
have
in.
AO
Was
deferred
for
community
process,
and
since
we
are
now
returning
you'll
see
that
there's
a
letter
of
support
that
came
in
this
morning
from
one
of
the
members,
the
leadership
representative
Collins.
We
also
have
received
a
favorable
response
from
the
neighborhood
group,
which
is
the
st.
Vincent,
Neighborhood
Association,
and
we've
worked
closely
with
abutters
and
folks
in
the
area
as
well.
To
address
this.
A
AO
Ma'am,
and
so
you
have
the
VRA
BPD,
a
recommendation
for
approval
as
well,
so
part
of
that
is,
that's
actually
required
as
part
of
the
relief,
not
just
the
conditional
use,
but
the
flood
zone
flood,
and
so
we
would
go
through
a
you
know,
buffering
and
landscaping.
This
used
to
be
a
contaminated
site,
and
now
it's
been
remediated.
It's
now
clean.
J
X
AO
AO
So
larger
plans
not
before
the
board
have
been
put
together
and
have
been
processed
for
the
community
in
a
positive
way
and
discussions
have
been
had
with
the
BPD
a
but
there's
been
no
formal
filing
to
initiate
that.
As
you
know,
that
could
take.
You
know
a
year
or
two
before
a
permit,
so
we'd
like
to
make
this
property
productive
and
help
take
the
burden
a
little
off
the
neighborhood.
AO
Nothing
so
placing
in
haze
on
the
abutting
site
had
used
at
the
same
use
for
some
of
their
parking
and
lay
down
area,
which
is
also
owned,
that
of
unexcited
somabai,
the
same
ownership
team,
and
so
again
it
also
was
formally
contaminated.
And
now
it's
gone
through
a
full
21e,
and
so
it's
essentially
unutilized.
Okay.
AA
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Ellison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support,
even
though
this
has
been
cited
under
article
68,
due
to
the
sort
of
fluid
nature
of
Zoning
in
South
Boston
with
the
iPod
right
now
they
are
comfortable
supporting
variances
to
68.
When
the
iPod
ends,
we
will
return
to
our
position
of
opposing
all
variances.
We
do
want
to
recognize.
We
have
gotten
a
letter
of
support
from
the
st.
Vincent's
Neighborhood
Association,
and
this
this
is
consistent
with
the
current
use
of
the
sites.
AA
AA
AM
C
BX
BY
BS
AN
BY
This
is
property
owned
by
the
cantos
family.
All
the
property
been
in
business
for
long
a
long
time
about
50
years
in
this
area,
mr.
cantos
purchased
his
property
in
advance
of
the
construction
of
a
haul
road
and
many
of
the
public
activities.
Decades
ago,
his
daughter
Anastasia,
who
now
speaks
for
the
family,
is
unable
to
join
us
who
just
delivered
a
baby
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
and
is
not
able
to
join
us.
AN
BY
BY
Getting
to
that
okay
at
this
time
there
was
no
use
for
that
site
correct
and
when
the
matter
was
before
the
board
some
months
ago
to
provide
for
the
storage
of
trucks
on
the
other
side
of
these
Street
by
the
same
owner,
similar
use,
similar
relief.
She
did
not
eject,
but
because
of
the
strange
relationship
between
these
two
parcels
and
I've
been
around
a
long
time.
I
have
no
idea
what
the
origins
are
for
how
the
two
parcels
are
on
this
one
block,
but
but
they
are.
BY
She
does
not
believe
that
this
site,
which
is
immediately
adjacent
intertwine
with
her
site,
is
an
appropriate
use.
Now
the
other
handouts
show
the
preliminary
plans
prepared
by
Stantec
that
she
has
made
and
his
preliminary
as
these
things
take
a
long
time
for
the
construction
of
an
office
building
on
this
site.
So.
A
BY
AY
AY
BY
BY
BZ
Of
law,
if
you
look
at
the
exhibit
that
was
submitted
with
our
December
8th
letter,
this
is
the
applicant
smiley
first
LLC's
own
Alta
survey.
That
is
incorporated
by
reference
in
its
title
insurance
policy
and
notes
explicitly
that
the
property
is
subject
over
60%
and
the
easement
boundaries
are
shown
to
mascots
record
eastman.
BZ
That
easement
is
reported
in
the
record
in
the
Registry
of
Deeds
and
there's
a
long
chain
of
title
evidencing
that
and
then,
if
you
compare
the
applicants
parking
plan
for
39
parking
spaces
that
was
submitted
earlier
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
that
was
subject
to
change,
I
will
note
that
we
mast
out
has
never
once
been
notified
of
this
project
by
the
applicant.
So
I
may
be
working
off
of
incomplete
information.
But
if
you
compare
a
prior
parking
plan,
it
shows
something
in
the
neighborhood
of
20.
BZ
Certainly
double-digit
parking
spaces
within
the
boundaries
of
mascots
easement
mascots
use
of
its
easement
has
been
well
publicized.
The
easement
will
soon
be
used
and
it's
subject
to
an
order
of
conditions
from
the
Boston
Conservation
Commission,
the
property
to
test
the
new
redline
vehicles
that
have
been
procured
by
mascot.
BZ
In
the
MBTA,
that's
critical,
federal
safety
testing
for
those
vehicles-
that's
a
495
million
dollar
procurement
of
those
which
is
on
schedule
and
on
budget,
and
the
MBTA
in
a
project
sponsored
by
mascot
will
be
using
that
rail,
right-of-way
and
constructing
a
testing
facility
for
those
vehicles
before
they
can
be
placed
into
service.
So.
AW
BX
All
denied
10
st.
James
Avenue,
madam
chair
members
of
board,
in
addition
to
the
letter
of
opposition
submitted
by
CSX
Transportation
I,
speak
on
their
behalf
in
opposition
to
this
proposal
today
for
two
primary
reasons:
proposal
with
unreasonably
interfere
with
CSX
T's
easement
rights
to
use
the
trackage
on
the
property
for
a
free
for
freight
rail
service.
Some
of
the
parking
spaces,
as
you
might
have
noted
from
the
drawings
of
the
plans,
appear
to
be
about
one
to
two
feet
from
the
mainline
track.
BX
Those
easements
rights
are
also
subject
to
a
pending
Land
Court
action.
That
action
needs
to
be
resolved
before
this
proposal
can
be
considered
in
the
addition,
I
will
note
that,
as
my
brother
has
stated,
CSX
as
well
was
not
notified
of
these
plans.
So
the
extent
counselors
stated
they
work
closely
with
the
butter's
to
address
this
I
would
disagree
with
that.
Are.
BX
P
BX
B
AO
AO
AO
A
X
AO
Mascot
is
there's
a
fundamental
disagreement,
as
counsel
indicated
title
policies
than
issue
to
my
client
and
we
dispute
T's
rights
and
there's
a
pending
matter
in
land
court,
which
has
nothing
to
do
with
zoning.
So
the
way
this
works
is,
if
we
don't
have
title
it,
you
know
it
can't
be
permitted,
but
I
will
also
say.
You
know:
counsel
mentioned
the
Conservation
Commission,
the
city
of
Boston
mister,
my
brother
Takara.
His
client
has
a
superseding
order,
challenging
the
conservation
committees
grant
as
it
impacts
cantos,
as
does
my
client
as
well.
AO
AO
AN
AO
I
would
just
say
to
our
contest
very
quickly
if
you
look
at
this
plan
out
of
respect
for
the
relationship
with
the
vacant
Kanto
site,
the
egress
for
this
parking
area
is
on
the
far
side
of
that
off
cypress
tree,
and
then
there
will
be
a
robust,
buffering
and
landscaping
program
along
the
edge
with
the
cantos
condition.
So
we
look
forward
to
continue
to
work
with
contests.
They
are
our
butter.
AO
I,
don't
know
if
someone
who
claims
railroad
rights
isn't
a
butter,
but
we've
certainly
been
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussions
with
mascot
and
we
dispute
their
rights
based
on
a
pretty
good
case
law.
In
the
fact
we
have
title
insurance,
but
it's
it's
not
a
zoning
issue
and
something
that
you
guys
have
never
to
my
knowledge,
gotten.
AO
A
BZ
You
I
appreciate
it
quickly.
I
would
just
like
to
dispute
the
notion
that
this
is.
It
seems
like
there's
a
reversal
of
the
burden
here.
There's
a
record
easement
filed
in
the
Registry
of
Deeds.
The
applicant
has
brought
an
action
to
quiet
title
until
our
title
and
that
easement
is
quieted
in
a
judicial
proceeding.
There
are
no
rights
here
they
can
be.
We
certainly
acknowledge
that
they're
disputed,
but
I
think
that
the
the
burden
may
be
a
little
bit
reversed
here.
BX
Up
regarding
the
ten
and
a
half
feet
that
ten
and
a
half
feet
from
the
title
policy
is
actually
ten
feet
and
it's
a
number
made
up
by
counsel
for
the
applicant.
It
is
not
a
requirement
is
not
a
CSX
requirement
and
to
comply
with
that
would
be
a
farce.
It
is
not
the
actual
requirement
or
required.
Setback
from
the
rail
CSX
has
their
own
setback
requirements,
and
that
is
not
it
so
the
extent
there's
a
suggestion.
They
could
back
it
up
10
feet
and
complies
any.
X
B
Probably
do
a
seven
five,
seven,
four,
five:
three
six:
fifty
three
cummings
highway,
the
new
five-story
building
with
thirteen
residential
units
and
nine
parking
spaces,
the
violation,
the
article
60
section
I
the
floor
da
ratio
is
excessive:
article,
six
to
section
nine
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
66,
a
nine,
the
height
of
success
of
article
60,
section
9,
the
Reyat
isn't
sufficient.
Article
60
section
on
the
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
60
section
8,
a
multi-family
construction
is
forbidden.
F
F
Chairing
this
in
this
area
on
long
comings,
I
way
there
is
a
wide
range
of
uses
from
apartment
buildings
is
a
liquor,
store
a
church
diagonally
across
the
street,
a
funeral
home
all
within
it.
The
2f
5000
sewing
sub-district,
and
it's
for
this
reason
that
the
that
the
Zoning
Board
is
he's
here
to
look
at
the
urban
planning
in
the
landscape,
with
the
proposals
before
them
and
decide
what
fits
and
we
did
go
through
the
community
process
and
a
larger
project.
F
Initially,
we
were
here
to
get
that
approved
and
then,
at
the
last
minute
there
was
a
couple
of
changes
that
needed
to
be
addressed.
Some
were
the
density
and
height
which
has
been
been
removed.
The
building
height
dimensionally
is
compliant
it's
less
than
35
feet.
It's
a
violation
only
for
a
number
of
stories
today,
because
two
and
a
half
feet
is
what's
required
for
this
area.
F
The
the
rear
yard
in
the
rear
of
the
yard,
there's
a
bit
of
ledge
and
in
a
in
elevation,
lies
significant
elevation
difference
between
the
lot
behind
it,
so
we
feel
it
would
be
appropriate
to
be
within
these
rear
yards
as
it's
there's.
A
significant
buffer
between
the
buildings
as
it
is,
it's
a
corner,
a
lot
and
both
front
yards
would
apply,
although
we
still
would
be
seeking
relief
for
that,
and
that's
what
we're
here
for
today.
F
It
is
a
unit,
one
is,
is
the
smallest
unit
to
studio
on
the
first
floor
in
the
front
of
the
building,
it's
371
square
feet
from
that
they
range
up
from.
There
is
a
one
bed
in
three
two-bedroom
units
which
range
from
a
625
square
feet
to
one
bed
and
the
two
beds
range
from
860
square
feet
to
1134
square
feet.
F
A
O
A
O
Could
certainly
reduce
the
size
of
the
of
the
lobby
and
perhaps
shift
to
step
back
a
little
bit
and
we
would
absolutely
be
willing
to
that.
We
were
trying
to
do
with
the
layout
was
accommodate
the
parking
and
the
entry
and
egress
from
the
garage
onto
to
riddlin
street
long
road,
but
there's
certainly
space
within
that
to
revise
that
and
try
to
pick
up
a
little
bit
more
square
footage
for
that
studio.
Upgrade.
AL
Good
morning,
madam
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Whitney
Celestin
from
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
so
I
inherited
this
case
here
from
the
previous
lady's
on
I'd
like
to
go
and
record
in
support
of
this
project.
However,
there
is
a
big
concern
about
the
rock
on
this
property,
so
the
6:53
plot
there
is
a
rock
and
there
are
some
homes
on
top
of
the
rock,
and
there
is
an
issue
where
the
community
is
worried
that
excavating
the
excavation
of
these
rocks
will
affect
the
homes
on
top
of
the
property.
AL
This
is
a
step
that
they
cannot
assure
the
property,
I
mean
the
abutters
of
until
it's
and
construction
phase.
So
after
this
year
they
were
gone
and
there's
another
where
I'm
concerned
about
the
traffic,
because
riddlin
Road
is
a
one-way
street,
and
that
is
where
the
interest
of
the
building
would
be.
X
X
X
X
CA
My
name
is
Candice
Lampson
I'm,
a
director
butter
of
6:53
Ward
18.
My
house
is
located
on
the
top
of
the
boulders,
and
my
major
concern
is
just
a
compromising
the
integrity
of
my
home
as
a
homeowner
I
have
the
rights
to
force
up,
Jason
and
lateral,
support
and
construction
of
said
property
compromises.
My
rights
and
stated
proposal
indicates
underground,
excavation
and
removal
of
under-five
portion
of
the
boulders
and
since
the
last
meeting
that
it
was
deferred,
we
were
never
met
by
either
the
developers
as
a
community
process.
CA
BC
For
the
same
reason,
to
be
a
part
of
this
process
is
that
there
it
is
a
large
retaining
wall
and
there's
a
lot
of
land,
that's
sort
of
in
the
topography,
other
plans
and
there's
considering
considerable
concerns
about
the
removal
of
that
land
and
how
it's
going
to
affect
the
properties.
Next,
that
are
sitting
on
top
of
the
hill,
from
my
understanding
from
the
community
meetings
that
that
was
not
addressed
to
at
least
a
level
of
comfort
from
the
people
whose
houses
have
been
there
20-something
years.
BC
There's
also
we're
concerned
about
traffic
exiting
onto
riddlin,
because
R
Islam
is
a
very
small
street
that
sits
on
the
hill.
So
traffic
would
be
you
know,
sort
of
exiting
and
taking
and
right
coming
down
the
hill
where
we,
the
previous
council
I,
had
to
get
traffic
light
installed
at
that
intersection
because
of
school
buses
and
traffic,
and
all
of
that
so
right
now
that's
a
small,
empty
parking
lot
and
and
the
introduction
of
traffic
at
the
intersection
would
be
tremendous.
BC
CB
A
F
Chair
first,
one
thing
that's
worth
bringing
to
the
attention
and
we
did
several
times
through
the
community
I
think
we
had
six
or
seven
of
butters
meetings
and
community
meetings
and
expressed
this
very
thoroughly
it
more.
So
as
it
progressed
as
the
ledge
became
an
issue
to
the
community.
Geotech
is
required
for
any
building
over
two
and
a
half
stories,
and
what
that
does?
O
BA
O
In
conjunction
with
our
project
that
wall
will
be
removed
and
replaced
and
the
necessary
structural
bracing
will
be
applied
to
that
land
behind
it.
As
far
as
the
blasting
and
removal
of
ledge,
obviously,
there's
ledge
on
site,
the
the
impact
is
not
entirely
known,
but
since
we
are
working
with
the
slab
on
grade
and
we're
not
going
to
be
excavating
a
full
basement
of
foundation,
we
believe
that
it's
a
reasonable
amount
of
ledge
to
remove
and
can
be
done
so
without
impacting
me
budding
properties.
X
X
B
P
A
CC
We
were
here
before
you
on
October
31st,
and
we
would
defer
to
in
order
to
develop
a
landscape
plan
for
the
parking
lot
and
also
to
reach
out
to
the
Neighborhood
Association,
both
of
which
we
have
before
you
that's
being
handed
out
before.
You
was
a
letter
sum
of
support
from
the
Bay
Village
neighborhood
association,
with
conditions
that
my
client
will
abide
by
as
well
as
a
plan
showing
the
planters
and
landscaping.