►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Public Hearings 4-26-22
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
A
A
Members
of
the
public
will
enter
the
virtual
hearing
as
attendees,
which
means
you
will
not
see
yourself
on
the
screen
and
you
will
be
muted
throughout
unless
administratively
unmuted.
When
asked
to
comment
board
members,
applicants
and
their
attorneys
or
representatives
will
participate
in
the
hearing
as
panelists,
and
they
will
appear
alongside
the
presentation
materials
when
speaking
panelists
are
strongly
encouraged
to
keep
your
video
on
while
presenting
to
the
board.
A
A
A
A
Those
called
upon
to
comment
will
be
asked
to
state
their
name
and
address
first
and
then
can
provide
their
comment
in
the
interest
of
time
and
to
ensure
that
you
have
enough
time
to
do
so.
Please
raise
your
hand
as
soon
as
mr
fortune
reads.
The
address
into
the
record
do
not
raise
your
hand
before
the
relevant
address
is
called
or
the
ambassador
will
not
know
the
call
on
you
at
the
appropriate
time.
A
A
A
A
Mr
ruggiero.
Are
you
on.
C
A
Good
morning,
mr
robinson,
good.
D
A
Good
morning,
miss
panato
good.
A
Good
morning,
miss
dong
are
you
here
yet.
A
Yes,
she's,
no,
no
she's,
just
at
another
meeting
and
it's
just
double
booked,
so
she
will
be
on
as
soon
as
she
can,
but
do
let
me
know
when
she's
on
so
this
is
a
reminder
that,
as
of
now,
this
is
a
six
member
board,
we
will
proceed,
but
once
we
get
to
the
cases,
should
ms
dong
not
be
able
to
join
us
at
that
time,
I
will
have
to
advise
everybody
that
they
can.
A
They
need
five
members
in
support
of
their
proposal
for
it
to
carry,
but
in
the
meantime
we
are
working
on
under
the
best
case
scenario
that
she
will
be
joining
us
when
we
get
to
the
full
cases.
G
H
Good
morning,
mr
secretary,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
joe
hanley
mcdermott
colton
miller,
28
state
street
in
boston.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you,
mr
family.
The
board
originally
granted
this
relief
on
may
11
and
it
granted
its
first
extension
of
relief
until
may
11
2021.
However,
that
extension
was
unnecessary.
Withdrawing
the
original
grant
of
relief
remained
valid
until
august
16th
of
2021.
However,
the
board
granted
an
extension
on
relief
of
may
11
2021
until
may
11
2022.
G
G
G
Thank
you,
mr
hutchinson.
Regarding
71
most
attributes
the
board
originally
granted
this
relief
on
march
1st
of
2019
and
it
granted
the
first
extension
of
relief
until
march
1st
of
2022.
However,
that
extension
was
unnecessary
with
tolling.
The
original
granted
relief
remains
valid
until
june
6th
of
2022.
G
G
G
A
G
The
extension
was
unnecessary
with
tolling
the
original
grant
that
remained
valid
until
august
2nd
of
2021.
However,
the
board
granting
the
extension
of
relief
on
april
27
of
2021
until
april
27
2022,
I
recommended
the
board
confirm
for
the
record
that
this
extension
encompassed
all
applicable
coming.
G
G
N
G
G
I
recommended
the
board
confirmed
for
the
record
that
the
relief
remains
valid
for
that
date.
The
applicant
now
also
requests
an
additional
extension
until
september
19
2023.
I
recommend
that
the
board
grant
that
additional
extension,
if
it
determines
that
it's
appropriate
under
the
circumstances,
taking
into
account
that
this
would
only
be
the
applicant's
first
necessary
extension.
G
Thank
you,
mr
cass,
regarding
7989
west
broadway,
the
board
originally
granted
this
relief
on
may
11th
of
2018
and
granted
the
first
extension
of
relief
until
may
11th
of
2021.
However,
that
extension
was
unnecessary
with
tolling.
The
original
granted
relief
remained
valid
until
august
16th
of
2021.
G
However,
the
board
granted
an
extension
of
relief
on
may
11
2021
until
may
11
2022
this
extended
the
expiration
of
relief
past
the
total
expiration
date.
I
recommend
that
the
board
confirm
for
the
record
that
this
extension
covers
all
applicable
polling.
The
applicant
now
also
requests
an
additional
extension
until
may
11
2023.
B
K
G
O
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
derek
small,
our
business
address
of
d1
dobson
road,
adam
chill
we're
here
today
or
granted
relief
for
this
project
to
erect
a
seven
unit,
building
with
seven
parking
spaces
and
in
the
pda
design
review.
O
The
we
checked
in
with
the
boston
church
retention
department,
and
they
also
agreed
that
six
spaces
were
suitable
in
applying
for
the
permit.
The
plans
examiner
at
inspectional
services
department
want
us
to
come
back
to
the
board,
just
to
confirm
with
the
board
that
the
reduction
in
space
was
sufficient.
So
that's
why
we're
here
today.
P
G
Q
Thank
you
good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
josh
statham
10
tremont
street
boston
for
the
proponent,
so
we
are
here
before
you
today.
This
is
a
recreational
cannabis
dispensary
located
at
boylston
street
in
mass
ave.
The
board
gave
approval
for
this
over
just
about
a
year
ago,
with
the
one-year
sunset
proviso
we
have
been
going
through
significant
delays
related
to
covet,
as
well
as
the
state,
cannabis
control,
commission,
architectural
review
and
approval
of
the
plans
and
are
here
asking
for
an
extension
or,
alternatively,
removal
of
the
proviso.
Q
I
know
when
the
board
added
this
to
the
relief
it
was
based
on.
Seeing
how
operationally
this
facility
would
struck
would
would
interact,
I
guess
with
the
surrounding
area
and
the
buildings
and
obviously
given
these
delays,
we're
here
asking
for
for
that
extension.
G
You,
the
next
case,
is
in
regards
to
the
green
belt
protection
overlay
district
case,
boa
128,
1020
160,
william
t
morrissey
boulevard.
This
is
an
exterior
fence,
construction
along
morris
e
boulevard
to
grandstand
reconstruction
of
existing
location
and
an
addition
of
the
maintenance
building
between
the
carter,
stadium
and
moan
empire.
The
violations
article
29
is
in
the
green
article,
29
section
4,
the
green
belt
protection
overlay,
district
applicability,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
R
My
name
is
paula
devereaux,
I'm
an
attorney
at
pierce
outwood
at
100
summer
street
in
boston,
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
boston
college,
high
school
bc,
high
for
approval
within
the
greenbelt
protection
overlay
district.
This
is
within
the
community
facilities
sub-district
and
this
use
is
allowed
in
this
area
and
there
are
no
dimensional
violations
that
have
been
noted
by
isd
on
the
turndown
letter.
So
we
are
requesting
approval
for
this.
We
have
met
with
the
boston
conservation,
commission,
yeah.
A
Just
hold
on
for
a
minute,
please,
okay,
so
we
don't
see
green
belt
protection
overlay
districts
very
much,
and
basically
this
is
the.
If
the
uses
are
allowed,
there
are
no
dimensional
requirements.
Just
like
the
the
c
pod.
We
are
an
administrative
body
and
and
just
just
basically
look
at
it.
There
are
other
checks
and
balances
in
place,
for
example
on
this
one.
It
needs
to
go
to
the
parks
department
and
I
notice
that
the
bpda
also
has
a
recommendation.
I
S
A
S
B
G
O
Mr
fortune,
69
saratoga
street.
O
Good
morning,
mountain
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
derek
small
I'm,
a
business
address
on
51
dobson
road.
Madame
care
we're
here,
seeking
a
deferral,
because
we
were
informed
by
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
office
that
this
project
has
to
be
re-advertised.
G
T
Yes,
good
morning,
I
have
a
request
for
a
deferral
for
seventy
one
street.
This
is
attorney.
G
T
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
request
for
the
deferral
is,
I
was
just
brought
on
to
represent
the
owner
of
the
property
and
we
just
need
a
handful
of
weeks
to
figure
out
some
differences
between
plans
between
the
owner
of
the
property
and
the
tenant
applying
for
the
cannabis
establishment
use
and
that's
the
reason.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
may
I
have
a
motion.
T
G
Are
there
any
other
deferrals
or
withdrawals
for
9
30
only
hearing
them?
Madam
chair
call
the
first
case
calling
doa
128
2958
228
hob
street.
This
is
completely
replace
the
roof
and
construct
a
new
roof
deck.
The
violations
article
27g.
This
is
in
the
east,
boston,
ipod
and
article
53,
section
52,
room
structure,
restriction,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
W
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
board,
mike
smith,
228,
harvard
street
the
owner
of
the
property
and
resident
at
t20,
half
right.
W
Okay,
so
this
is
you
you
controlling
the
screen
round
chair
all
right
perfect.
So
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
erect
a
the
roof
deck
on
my
property
at
228
hawaii
street.
I
have
a
contract
online,
matt
palmer
from
mmc
construction
as
well
as
an
architect
who
has
written
up
these
plans,
dan
kais,
merrick
who's.
Also
on
the
line.
The
the
goal
is
to
you
know,
erect
the
structure
on
a
flat
roof
in
east
boston.
I
have
worked
with
the
maverick
central
neighborhood
association.
A
We
will
hear
all
that
from
from
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
What
I
want
to
hear
from
you
is
first
who
will
have
access
to
that
deck?
How
is
it
going
to
be
accessed?
And,
finally,
is
it
visible
from
the
street.
W
Yes,
so
so
a
few
things
it
will
be,
the
access
will
be
for
the
third
floor
unit
itself.
That
access
goes
off
of
an
exis
existing
deck
structure
that
is
already
in
place,
so
it
will
be
an
extension
out
from
the
backyard
and
have
a
a
large
staircase
that
you
can
see
here.
That'll
go
up,
you
know
to
the
left
and
then
take
a
right
and
go
up
onto
the
the
roof
itself.
We
have
pulled
the
dimensions
back
to.
W
A
And
one
last
question,
and
just
for
the
record,
let
me
note
that
ms
dong
is
on
so
we
have
a
full
board.
Okay.
So,
let's
just
see
when
was
this
building
construction
constructed.
W
There's
a
you
know,
a
number
of
improvements
that
have
happened
to
the
property,
including
to
the
third
floor
unit
back
in
2015
to
2016.
Z
W
A
How
are
the
plans,
mr
robinson.
S
Plans
are
fine,
no
question,
I
guess.
Well,
I
guess
I
have
one
question
the
the
addition
of
the
stair
to
the
roof.
Is
it's
sort
of
a
little
different
because
you're
doing
it
outside
of
the
existing
stairwell
is?
Did
you
guys
look
at
potentially
putting
that
on
the
inside
I
mean
I
see
you
have
a
roof
cover,
but
just
wondering
if
you
know
you're
pushing
back
towards
there's
some
large
trees
back
there
I
didn't
know
there
was
a
another
alternative
for
that
access
up,
encroaching
out
further
into
the
backyard.
W
Yeah
so-
and
maybe
I
can
let
dan
and
matt
talk
on
this,
but
from
our
perspective,
when
we
looked
at
it,
we
did
think
of
potentially
having
the
stairway
go
up.
You
know
erase
that
roof
and
go
up.
I
think
there
was
a
couple
things
one
with
the
the
potential
of
the
landing
and
not
having
the
applicable
amount
of
stairs
to
get
to
that
height
was
was
a
bit
of
a
challenge
without
us
extending
out
beyond
the
the
left
side
of
the
building.
Okay,.
S
AA
AA
The
maverick
center
neighborhood
association
in
february
2022.
feedback
was
positive
and
the
association
voted
in
favor
of
the
project.
The
applicant
also
had
an
abutter's
meeting
scheduled
for
march
1st
and
there
were
no
attendees,
so
at
this
moment
our
office
would
like
to
defer
judgment
to
the
board.
Thank
you.
AC
A
Okay,
so
I'll.
S
Second,
that,
with
with
design
review.
A
A
Sorry,
jeff,
okay,
yeah,
okay,
so
it's
it's
a
dull
day,
so
I
know
we're
all
in
the
slow
lane
in
some
ways:
okay,.
A
Yes,
I
did
see.
Mr
d'amico,
are
you
on.
A
Okay,
there
it
goes
okay,
so
if,
if,
if
okay
so,
let's,
let's
continue
sorry
go
ahead.
G
A
AF
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
richard
lin's
245
sumner
street
east
boston,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
madam
chair,
this
is
a
property
that
is
a
pre-existing
non-conforming
structure
located
in
the
jeffries
point
section
of
east
boston.
Our
proposal
would
modify
the
existing
two
unit
building
back
to
what
we
understand
to
be
the
original
programming
for
this.
This
building.
We
would
change
the
lower
level
from
a
residential
use
to
a
professional
office,
commercial
use
while
maintaining
the
upper
level
as
a
residential
unit.
AF
This
is
located
at
3f,
2000
neighborhood
district,
while
the
two
family
isn't
allowed
use
the
change
to
the
commercial
use.
The
lower
level
is
not
permitted
in
the
three
f
2000
district
I
would
submit,
and
the
board
can
see
from
many
of
the
photos
here
that
a
lot
of
the
character
along
this
section
of
summer
street
actually
does
have
ground
level
commercial.
AF
A
Mr
lynch,
may
I
ask
you
a
question.
I
think
the
zoning
is
aspirational,
that
this
become
residential.
Is
there
no
and
stay
residential?
Is
there
no
options
for
office
space
on
on
the
commercial
districts
in
proximity.
AF
Y
AG
AH
AD
AF
Sorry
about
that
yeah,
if
we
can
just
jump
to
that
next
next
slide,
that
actually
shows
the
rendering.
So
I
was
saying
that
maverick
square
is
the
nearest
commercial
district.
There
is
not
a
lot
of
available
commercial
space
in
that
square.
Most
of
it
is
already
currently
occupied
and
not
you
know
not
really
subject
to
any
further
development
right.
Now,
this
being
a
very
modest
space,
we
presented
this
obviously
to
the
community
I'll.
AF
A
They
are
forbidden,
use,
correct,
okay,
because
it's
always
hard
for
us
to
justify
a
a
residential
use
swapping
over
to
commercial
use.
AF
I
do
appreciate
that
I
think
just
this
section
of
sumner
street
certainly
is
a
distinction
with
a
difference
that
first
block
of
sumner,
as
you
commit
to
jeffrey's
point,
does
have
commercial
character
at
the
ground
level.
Many
of
these
properties
were,
as
I
said,
mostly
commercial
at
the
lower
level,
with
residential
above
and
many
of
those
have
been
either
converted
back
or
just
maintained.
AF
I
I
agree
with
you
that,
as
you
get
deeper
into
jeffrey's
point,
certainly
this
would
not
be
a
consistent
type
of
use
of
the
surrounding
residential
area,
but
this
first
block
of
summer
street
is
has
a
good
amount
of
commercial
space
at
the
lower
levels.
We
feel
this
would
be
a
consistent,
consistent
use.
AA
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
of
taya,
benitez
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
the
applicant
met
with
the
jefferson
point,
neighborhood
association
in
november
and
december
of
2021
members
stated
that
it
was
really
nice
to
see
a
creative
use
of
the
space
without
changing
the
footprint
and
the
association
voted
in
favor
of
the
project.
The
advisers
meeting
was
scheduled
for
march
2022.
AA
P
Support
morning,
madam
chief,
here
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
danino
from
concert
edward's
office
city
of
boston.
We
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
support
of
this
project.
AI
A
AF
G
On
the
next
case,
calling
doa
one,
two,
eight
nine,
two,
eight
eight,
ninety
five
bonds
avenue
villain
is
carrying
a
two
story:
two
two-family
building
with
partially
finished
attic
spade
on
the
third
floor.
They
would
like
to
add
a
dormer
to
complete
the
interior
remodel
in
the
third
floor,
attic
space
and
also
at
a
roof
deck,
the
violation,
article
53,
section,
9,
the
dimensional
regulations.
The
number
of
allowed
habitable
stories
has
been
exceeded:
article
53,
section,
2
group
structure,
restrictions
and
article
2017-5.
AF
Good
morning
again,
madam
chair,
richard
lin's,
245
sumner
street
east
boston,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner,
this
is
a
pre-existing
two-family
dwelling,
a
two
f-4000
district,
so
a
conforming
use
generally
a
conforming
structure
is
owner
occupied.
AF
The
owners
with
their
expanding
family
are
looking
to
create
some
additional
living
space
in
the
upper
level
and
have
proposed
a
dormer,
the
top
top
level
of
the
building
that
triggers,
I
believe,
two
violations.
The
first
is
the
roof
rooftop
restrictions,
as
well
as
the
height
of
the
building,
even
though
the
design
that
our
architect
has
approached
for
the
site,
pretty
much
keeps
the
character
of
the
building.
When
I
was
saying
the
dormers,
it
is
considered
a
three-story
building
and
therefore
requires
relief
for
the
half-story
in
the
2f
district.
A
AF
Yep,
the
next
page
here
does
show
the
proposed
dormers
so
again
maintaining
most
of
the
roof
design.
We
are
proposing
a
roof
deck
above
the
upper
level
that
would
be
accessed
not
by
head
house
and
again
this
would
be
part
of
the
second
level
unit,
just
expanding
the
total
floor
space
in
that
upper
level
for
the
owner
occupant,
again
we're
not
proposing
to
change
anything
with
respect
to
the
occupancy
of
this
building
or
the
physical
footprint
beyond
its
current
boundaries.
All
of
the
changes
and
modifications
will
occur
within
the
envelope
of
that
third
level.
A
Can
you
please
speak
to
the
roof
deck?
What
is
the
dimensions?
How
exactly
is
it
access
and
invisible
from
the
street.
AF
Sure
we
could
probably
slide
down
to
the
plan.
I
do
have
a
roof
plan.
I
think
included
with
our
with
our
plans
here.
That's
like
actually
a
good
photo
to
show
the
the
actual
roof
deck
as
it
would
appear
from
the
street.
AF
There
we
go
so
it
is
accessed
by
hatch,
it's
located
within
the
middle
most
portion
of
the
of
the
dormered
area
above
the
above
the
attic.
I
don't.
I
can't
really
see
the
actual
dimension.
On
my
laptop
I
apologize.
It
looks
like
it's
about.
S
The
plans
are
fine,
no
no
question
on
the
proposed
dormers
or
addition.
I
think
the
the
roof
deck
is
visible
because
of
the
character
of
the
house
from
the
street.
I'm
not
sure,
that's
hidable,
but
I
think
if,
if
this
is
approved,
I
think
bpda
could
maybe
help
them
with
the
visual
sort
of
aspect
of
that,
but
no
other
real
questions.
AA
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
foreign
italian
venezuela
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
the
applicant
met
with
the
orion
heights,
neighborhood
association,
neighborhood
council,
part
of
me
in
february,
and
received
a
vote
and
support
the
inviters
meeting
took
place
in
march
and
the
butters
like
the
roof
and
believed
this
project
would
be
a
good
addition
to
the
neighborhood.
At
this
time,
our
office
would
like
to
defer
judgment
to
the
board.
Thank
you.
P
G
Calling
your
next
case
calling
voa
126
245018
quartus
street.
The
second
firm
is
a
one
family
and
change
to
a
two
family,
existing
condition
and
replace
the
existing
sun
room
and
deck
and
kitchen
renovation.
The
violations,
article
62,
section,
8
side
yards
insufficient
and
article
62,
section
8.
The
rare
yard,
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AB
AB
AJ
This
is
scott
vaughan,
I
am
the
architect
of
vaughn
associates
architecture
won
mifflin
place
in
cambridge
and
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
owners.
As
noted,
this
request
has
two
parts.
The
first
is
to
convert
from
a
single
family
to
a
two
family.
This
is
a
three
f-2000
district.
AJ
A
AJ
AJ
You
can
see
it
in
the
the
plan
that
you're
showing.
A
Can
you
hold
on
a
second,
mr
robinson?
Are
these
plans
adequate.
S
No,
I
was
going
to
try
to
step
in.
I
agree
that
I,
with
the
bpa
assessment,
that
the
plans
are
inadequate
to
review
or
propose,
because
we
don't
have
the
full
plans
of
the
building.
We
don't
understand
the
studio
unit.
I
didn't
even
know
there
was
a
studio
so
with
the
bpa.
I
would
recommend
a
deferment
of
this
case
for
more
information.
May.
G
Hold
on
madam
chair,
we
are
into
june
21st.
A
S
I
think
we
need
full
plans
of
the
of
the
building
and
including
elevations
in
sections,
so
we
can
understand
the
relationship
and
it's
a
little
hard
to
understand
exactly
the
proposed
addition
in
relationship
to
a
reference
of
a
greenhouse.
So
I
think
we
just
need
more
information
in
the
in
the
drawing
set
to
better
assess
the.
A
G
K
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
mark
lucas,
lacasse
law,
75
arlington
street,
in
boston
attorney
for
the
homeowners,
eric
and
dara
walkoff.
This
is
a
request
for
conditional
use
permit
for
a
single
rear
balcony,
projecting
off
the.
What
is
the
essentially
parlor
level
first
story:
there
shown
on
the
plans,
the
middle
diagram.
AK
Yes,
I'm
good
morning,
man,
I'm
chair
members
of
the
board
kim
crusoe
for
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
The
mayor's
office
like
to
defer
to
the
board
on
this
matter
and
about
his
meeting
was
held
on
march,
8th,
where
support
was
shown
by
the
voters,
as
well
as
the
five
block
neighborhood
association.
Thank
you.
AL
C
AL
K
G
The
next
case
calling
voa
129
9341
27-29
isabella
street.
This
is
an
installation
of
a
10-foot
by
25-foot
cedar,
pergola
structured
with
an
open
slat
wall
consisting
of
four
posts
and
beams
rafters
and
brackets,
and
a
retractable
shade,
canopy,
the
violations,
article
63
section,
20
booth
structure,
restrictions
and
article
9,
section,
1
extension
of
a
non-conforming
building,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
H
Thank
you
very
much
so
this
it's
an
existing
five-story
building
that
was
constructed
in
2018
in
the
bay
village
neighborhood,
it's
a
nine
unit
building
my
client,
the
applicant
owns
unit
nine.
H
On
the
top
floor,
there
is
an
existing
roof
deck
with
an
existing
head
house
and
what
we
are
proposing
is
to
place
a
open
pergola
that
was
right
into
the
record
is
about
225
square
feet
of
area
that
would
be
tucked
next
to
and
back
on
the
roof
next
to
the
existing
head
house
and
would
be
done
in
a
way
that
is
consistent
with
the
historic
district,
a
four-post
structure
and
in
the
presentation
you
have
the
next
page
down,
shows
you
where
this
would
be
located
on
the
roof.
H
We
also
did
a
walk
around
in
the
neighborhood
as
consistent
with
that.
A
H
Yes
ma'am,
so
the
second
zoning
issue
that
is
required
is
the
extension
of
the
non-conforming
structure.
This
is
an
mfr
district
that
limits
the
height
at
35..
It's
a
five-story
building
that
obviously
exceeds
that
so
you're
correct.
They
got
relief
for
the
height
and
this
pergola,
because
it's
going
on
top
of
the
roof
requires
relief
for
that
it
is
a
residential
use.
Obviously,
it's
also
situated
in
a
way
that
doesn't
have
any
visual
impacts
and
there's
also
an
existing
head
house
of
similar
height.
A
Okay?
Okay,
how
are
the
plans,
mr
robinson.
S
Plans
are
good,
I
think
it's
actually
a
very
nice
proposal
just
to
confirm
the
roof.
Deck,
however,
was
approved
and
that
that's
existing
correct
we're
currently,
okay,
because
there's.
G
S
Lifting
access
point
is
the
existing
stairhead
house
correct?
Yes,
sir
okay,
I
have
no
other
questions
thanks
any.
H
Yeah
I
mean
so.
If
you
look
at
the
plan,
it's
it's.
The
deck
is
obviously
much
larger.
This
is
a
a
corner
building,
if
you
will
there's
a
kind
of
a
private
courtyard
and
so
the
deck
is
actually
include
sort
of
a
triangular.
I
mean
the
pergola
excuse
me
has
a
small
triangular
section
and
then
a
rectangular
section
so
that
it's
sort
of
broken
up
and
situated
in
a
way
that
doesn't
have
visual
impact.
H
AK
Yes,
good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
kim
crusoe
from
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
the
mayor's
office
would
like
to
refer
to
the
board
on
this
matter,
and
a
butters
meeting
was
held
in
march
of
2022,
where
no
opposition
was
shown
by
the
inviters.
They
also
received
a
letter
of
non-opposition
from
the
bay
village,
neighborhood
association.
Thank
you.
AL
AD
AD
Thank
you,
madam
chair
multitasking.
Today,
on
my
apologies,
we
are
on
the
record
for
approval
with
design
review.
We
had
a
case
like
this,
I
think,
a
couple
of
months
ago
in
dorchester,
where
the
pergola
was
very
large.
AD
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
is
going
to
be
a
pergola
we'd
like
to
do
some
sort
of
design
review
on
it
and
if
it's
subject
to
any
review
by
the
bay
village,
historic
district
commission
we'd
like
to
have
them,
take
a
look
at
it
as
well,
but
we're
in
the
record
for
approval.
S
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
with
bpda
design
review.
That's
noted.
AM
G
Follow
your
next
case
calling
voa
128
7036
1759
1763
washington
street.
This
is
a
change
of
arctic
to
a
multi-family
residential
76
units.
Commercial,
restaurant
use
on
the
ground
floor,
restore
the
historic
facade,
an
existing
building
construct
a
new
addition
above
the
existing
structure
up
to
13
floors
and
then
fill
the
adjoining
castle
two
possible
to
be
combined.
The
violations
article
50
section
28,
the
restaurant
use
is
conditional
article
50
section
29,
the
additional
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
50,
section
29
the
floor.
The
air
ratio
is
excessive.
G
Article
50
section
29,
the
building
heads
accessory
stories,
article
50
section
29,
the
building
height
is
excessive
in
feet.
Article
50,
section,
29,
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
5628
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
50,
section
29,
the
side
yards
insufficient
and
article
50
section
29
in
the
real
yacht,
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
K
I'm
sure
this
building
is
familiar
to
everyone
on
the
board.
It
is
the
former
alexandra
hotel
at
the
corner
of
washington
street
and
massachusetts
avenue.
It
was
last
before
this
board
in
september
of
2019,
when
the
same
zoning
relief
before
you
today
was
approved
by
the
board,
except
at
that
time
the
proposal
was
for
a
158
room
hotel.
A
K
K
33
of
those
are
under
the
compact
unit
policy
and
43
of
those
are
regular
sized
units
for
a
total
of
76.
There
are
10
idp
units,
and
that
is
subject
to
our
bpda.
Approval
of
the
notice
of
project
change
and
the
idp
units
are
described
in
the
bpda
board,
memo
which
is
part
of
the
record
approving
the
notice
of
project
change
on
october
14
of
2021,
the
idp.
A
So
can
you
talk
to
us
please,
because
you
did
say:
33
were
under
compact.
Living
and
43
were
regular
yeah,
that's
the
breakdown
in
each
category.
K
A
Y
AC
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
so
within
the
breakdown
of
these
studio
units
out
of
the
15,
eight
are
under
the
compact
out
of
the
one
bedrooms
37
of
those
24
compact,
the
one
bedroom
pluses
we
have
11
of
those
zero
are
compact
and
out
of
the
two
bedrooms,
the
13
count.
One
is
compact.
AC
Certainly,
the
compact
studio
describing
my
charge
preparing
for
one
second-
is
410
square
feet.
Typically,
so
we
can
go
to
the
plans,
so
they
just
they
are
410
square
feet.
P
AC
The
one
bedrooms
are
around
533
square
feet,
this
two-bedroom
there's
one
of
those
is
692
versus
the
average
of
960.
A
Versus
the
average
of
960
is,
is
the
normal
size
and
the
two
items.
So
there
were
13
two
bedrooms,
so
12
of
them
are
and
was
there
any
thought
to
larger
units
for
families?
Three
bedrooms.
AC
K
AC
K
Yeah
the
the
tower,
if
you
will
that
rises
above
the
existing
historic
building,
is
a
very
narrow
floor
plate.
So
converting
the
previously
approved
hotel
footprint.
You
know
nothing
has
changed
about
the
size
or
the
dimensions
of
the
building
and
given
the
size
of
the
floor
plates,
the
larger
unit
was
was
not
part
of
the
mix
and
to
satisfy
some
of
the
transportation
demand
management
issues.
K
Thus,
the
43
of
the
units
being
compact
to
sort
of
also
satisfy
a
desire
expressed
by
a
lot
of
the
community
in
the
in
the
very
many
meetings
that
we
had,
that
there
be
some
more
affordable
units
in
addition
to
the
idp
units.
So
some
of
the
compact
units
satisfy
that
goal
as
well.
So
it
really
was
trying
to
balance
all
of
the
competing
interests
that
were
brought
to
bear
arriving
at
the
mix
that
we
have.
K
K
Fifty
percent
are
at
up
to
eighty
percent
of
ami
and
50
are
up
to
100
ami
and
those
those
numbers
are
all
established
by
our
bpda
approval
memo,
which
was
arrived
at
in
consultation
with
the
idp
program
manager
at
the
bpda
and.
A
How
does
the
compact
price
point
compare
the
idp
price
points.
E
K
K
Yes,
let
me
get
the
bpda
board
memo
which
spells
that
out.
AC
I
do
not,
but
I
can
look
grab.
It
could
be
an
airport.
A
I
S
On
the
amenities
space
is
the
under
compact
living
is
the
compact
living.
I
understand
if
you
have
one
unit
in
a
building,
it
triggers
the
nest.
The
requirement
of
the
amenity
to
cover
the
all
of
the
units
can,
while
you're
explaining
the
amenity,
can
you
show
us
where
they
are
and
is
the
totality
of
the
amenity
space
covering
all
of
the
units
in
terms
of
the
square
footage
requirements?
So
it's
a
it's
a
build
on
mark's
question.
That's
right!.
A
Okay,
so
let's
let's
get
to
the
idp
units
and
then
let's
get
to
the
common
space.
AC
Of
manager,
I
could
answer
the
common
space
while
mark
pulls
up
the
go
ahead
and
is
it
possible
to
have
camera
at
all?
Sorry.
Can.
AC
A
panelist,
absolutely
if
you
don't
mind
going
to
the
floor
plans,
so
to
answer
both
questions
raised.
We
do
meet
the
full
requirement
of
amenities
space
following
the
guidelines
off
the
entry
lobby
and
then
throughout
the
building
for
the
entire
unit
count
we
actually
exceeded.
I
can
pull
up
exact
numbers,
but
if
we
go
down
to
the
first
floor
up
another
page,
a
couple
more
pages.
AC
There
we
go
so
off
on
the
right.
That's
a
that's
a
good
page!
Thank
you!
So
when
you
enter
through
the
lobby
right
off
of
the
south
of
the
page,
I
can
right
where
the
entry
point
is
to
the
vestibule.
There
is
building
amenities
right
there
in
addition
to
concierge
and
then
requirements
for
high-rise
etcetera.
So
we
have
entry
right
upon
entry
sequence.
AC
AC
So
we
have
a
on
the
top
floor.
We
have
a
a
lounge
center
recreation
outdoor
space
off
of
the
deck
that
was
in
the
previous
design.
So
none
of
those
components
have
changed.
AC
A
Hey,
mr
lacasse,
are
you
ready
with
those
idp
numbers.
K
Indeed,
madam
chair
and
sorry
about
that
members
of
the
board,
I
have
the
bpda
board
memo
which
shows
the
breakdown
of
the
idp
units.
There
are
four
studios:
five
one
bedrooms
and
one
two
bedroom,
and
indeed
the
ami
split
for
those
are
eighty
percent
up
to
eighty
percent
for
half
of
those
and
up
to
100
for
the
other
half,
and
I
can
be
more
specific
if
you'd
like
and
the
sales
prices
are
again
expressed
in
the
board
memo
and
based
on
the
the
hud
and
bpda
prices.
A
So
let
me
let
me
just
let's
see
if
we
can
understand
how
these
compact
units
fit
into
the
scheme
here.
A
K
Well,
I'll,
let
my
clients
address
that,
but
those
will
be
based
on
you
know,
market
rate
at
the
time
the
building
is
built
and
it
would
be
reflective
of
the
price
per
square
foot
for
similarly
similar
units
in
the
neighborhood,
but
tom
or
jazz.
Do
you
want
to
give
just
an
example.
AM
Yes,
hi
tom
kalas
here.
Thank
you.
The
units
are
going
to
range
between
half
a
million
dollars
and
the
larger
ones
will
be
closer
to
a
million
dollars.
E
I
don't
understand
the
formula
so
there's
15
studios
and
then
48
one
bedrooms,
but
there's
four
studio,
idp
units
and
and
five
one
bedrooms.
Why
aren't
there
more
one
bedrooms,
given
the
proportionate
number
of
one
bedrooms
in
the
building.
A
And
mr
lacasse
just
clarify
because
you
might
have
given
us
numbers
just
for
the
compact,
and
so
we
need
to
understand
that
or
just
for
the
standards
I
don't
know,
everything's
wrong.
A
Yeah
so
just
give
us
a
breakdown.
Please.
K
Okay
again,
the
the
idp
unit
mix
is
determined
by
the
bpda
staff,
so.
A
What
we're
trying
to
understand
is
that
you
know
we're
trying
to
connect
the
dots
and,
if
there's
an
issue
with
connecting
the
dots,
we
just
need
to
know
that,
and
perhaps
the
pda
needs
to
know
that,
but
you
know
we'll
we'll
leave
it
at
that
for
now
miss
pinata
you're
going
to
be
doing
some
math
over
there.
In
the
meantime,.
A
K
K
K
Sidewalks
the
street
of
commonplace
and
those
agreements
were
separately
entered
into
with
tenants,
development
corpus,
the
direct
and
immediate
butter.
The
loading
dock,
which
was
originally
proposed,
was
going
to
be
a
high
impact
loading
dock
for
hotel
use,
which
would
have
entailed
multiple
deliveries
a
day.
Of
course,
the
residential
use
will
have
a
much
lower
impact
for
the
loading
dock,
just
for
trash
bi-weekly
and
ordinary
move
in
and
move
out
for
the
residents,
and
this
is
a
kind
of
building,
not
rentals.
K
There
there
was
going
to
be
a
restaurant
on
the
top
floor
with
an
outdoor
patio.
Now
the
that
the
floor
area,
the
floor
area,
I'm
sorry.
AC
O
AC
S
A
AK
Yes,
good
morning,
madam
tran
members
of
the
board
kim
crucioli
from
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
the
mayor's
office
would
like
to
defend
the
board
on
the
sponsor
yep.
A
AE
A
Okay,
nick,
can
you
please
I
I
think
you
might
have
heard
what
our
comments
were.
Can
you
clarify
some
something
for
us
on
the
idps.
AE
They
agreed
to
provide
all
idp
units
on
site,
exceed
proportion
of
two
bed
units
that
are
present
in
the
community,
increase
the
number
of
fully
built
group,
two
units
accessible
to
persons
with
disabilities
and
to
provide
a
preference
for
first
generation
home
buyers
in
the
idp
units.
So
we
felt
that
this
was
an
appropriate
mix
and
designation.
AE
AE
E
AE
There
are
more
one
beds
in
the
idp
count.
We
do
typically
try
and
have
advocate
for
bigger
units
in
that
idp
mix,
but
you
know
obviously
studios
are
an
important
part
of
that
as
well.
But
again,
in
this
case
there
are
more
one
beds
than
studios.
AE
Oh
yes,
I
I
yeah,
I
understand
the
question
again,
it
does
depend
on
the
the
building
and
the
project.
But
again
we
do
feel
like
this
is
an
appropriate
mix
for
this
project.
A
And
again,
nick,
I
think
you've
understood
from
us
that
we
have
kind
of
issues
about
compacts
the
number
of
compacts
and
the
lack
of
three
bedrooms
is
there?
Can
you
just
talk
through
the
rationale
behind
this
because
well
and
good
to
deal
with
couples
and
maybe
a
couple
with
a
baby?
A
But
you
know
if
we're
looking
for
long-term
residential
living,
you
know
what
what
was
the
thought
behind
the
lack
of
three
bedrooms
in
this
in
this
building.
AE
I
Madame
chip,
madam
chair
on
that
point,
this
was
originally
a
proposal
for
a
hotel
where
obviously
rooms
are
smaller.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
what
the
project
team
decided
to
do
was
to
try
to
minimize
to
try
to
basically
not
change
the
footprint
of
the
rooms
they
had
because,
but
they
were
hotel
rooms,
they
weren't
residential
living,
and
I
think
we
have
a
problem
there.
AE
That
was
part
of
the
the
calculus.
Yes,.
A
Okay,
so
right
now,
let's
go
back
to
to
hear
from
people
and
support
our
opposition.
I'm
sorry
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
and
then
I'd
like
to
hear
from
state
representatives,
santiago,
mayor's
office
and
and
and
yes
and
then
we'll
hear
from
civic
council
too,
go
ahead.
AK
Thank
you
good
morning,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
board
kim
crusoe
from
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
The
mayor's
office
would
like
to
defer
to
the
board
on
this
matter.
We've
received
both
letters
of
support
and
opposition
for
this
project.
The
support
comes
mostly
from
the
south
end
and
some
roxbury
residents
who
would
like
to
see
this
area
develop
as
it's
been
abandoned
for
many
years,
and
the
opposition
is
mostly
from
roxbury
regarding
the
community
process.
AK
AN
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board.
I
want
to
go
on
a
record
and
support
this
project,
as
was
stated
previously
that
this
particular
area
is
not
only
the
district
that
I
represent,
but
I
also
live
nearby.
It's
been
one
that
has
effectively
been
dead
for
decades
and
for
a
whole
host
of
reasons.
There
have
been
challenges
to
develop
this
area,
and
I
would
argue
that
this
project
over
the
course
of
its
many
years
that
it's
been
in
discussion
with
the
community.
There
have
been
multiple
many
meetings.
AN
I
think
there
have
been
about
40
up
to
50
and
from
my
experiences
in
these
community
meetings.
Talking
to
neighbors
working
with
different
stakeholders
is
the
robust
amount
of
support
for
this
project,
particularly
given
the
consideration
of
what
washington
can
be
moving
down
from
south
end
to
roxbury,
and
so
that's
why
I'm
here
today
in
support
of
this
project
and-
and
I
hope
members
of
the
board
will
feel
the
same
way.
Thank
you.
G
AO
Madam
chair
jeremy,
kecker
and
city
council,
frank
baker's
office,
although
this
project
isn't
directly
in
the
council's
district
and
it
butts
very
close
to
our
district
after
conversations
with
constituents
in
the
area
in
worcester
square
and
some
of
your
budding
neighborhoods
the
council,
I'd
like
to
go,
I
reckon
in
support
of
the
application.
AB
Gonna
explore
up
to
people
whose
hands
are
raised
here,
carol,
blair
I'll
start
with
you.
Can
you
give
your
name-
and
I
just
forgot
to
please.
AP
AP
I
appreciate
the
work
you
all
are
asked
to
do
without
the
zba
improvements
to
my
home
would
not
be
possible
because
our
19th
century
row
house
does
not
conform
to
20th
century
zoning,
but
I
understand
there
are
limits
to
what
you
can
approve
zoning
article
7-3
allows
the
zoning
board
of
appeal
to
grant
a
variance
if
it
is
the
minimum
variance
necessary
and
it
will
not
be
harmful
to
the
community.
Here
we
must
ask:
is
the
proposed
150
foot
tower
in
a
historic
district,
allowing
70
feet
necessary
for
reasonable
use
of
the
property?
AP
I'm
here,
because
new
information
challenges
the
widespread
belief
that
the
alexandra
hotel
is
structurally
unsound
and
should
be
replaced
with
a
tower
to
finance
preservation
of
the
size.
On
march,
31st
2022
alexander
partners
shared
a
link
to
hundreds
of
photos
of
the
exterior
and
interior
of
the
alexandra.
AP
This
email
has
been
shared
broadly,
I
am
surprised
at
how
good
the
interior
looks
and
videos
showed
people
without
hard
hats.
Not
watching
their
step,
I've
also
learned
that
the
south
end
landmarks
commission
requested
a
structural
report
and
the
landmark
files
do
not
include
such
a
report.
Is
the
structure
reasonably
sound?
Could
it
be
gutted
and
rehabbed,
possibly
adding
a
couple
of
stories?
Perhaps
the
lesser
variances
could
could
be
considered,
but
I'm
aware
of
substantial
financial
support
on
the
develop
financial
pressure
on
the
development
team
and
of
zealous
support
for
the
project.
AP
First
to
minimize
car
ownership
and
competition
for
scarce
parking,
rent
or
condo
fees
will
support
a
variety
of
transportation
benefits,
including
a
choice
of
mbta,
passes,
zipcar
blue
bikes
and
the
like,
and
second
to
guarantee
that
the
historical
facade
survives
this
ambitious
and
severely
constrained
construction
project.
Alexandra
partners
must
repair
or
reconstruct
the
facade
to
mitigate
any
damage
during
construction.
M
Attention
all
right
good
morning
now
bill
unl
r,
yes
unl.
Our
support.
They've
made
an
effort,
a
good
effort
to
reach
out
to
the
community
for
the
benefits
in
this
area
with
their
development.
M
We've
seen
this
structure
for
many
years,
not
redeveloped,
and
I
understand
the
concerns
of
other
groups
that
are
closer
to
it,
and
I
really
would
like
to
you
know
say
that
I
think
they're
trying
to
accommodate
those
concerns
as
best
as
possible,
but
I
feel
that
progress
is
best
made
with
getting
something
on
that
corner
after
20
years
or
more
looking
at
it
and
not
seeing
anything
developed.
M
I
like
the
development
team.
They
have
been
responsive
and
they've
made
efforts.
They
can't
do
everything,
but
they've
tried
many
things
and
we
would
like
to
strongly
support
them.
I'm
president
of
the
united
nations,
laura
roxbury,
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
miss.
Thank
you,
mr
singleton.
Can
we
move
on?
We
have
a
number
of
raised
hands.
So
can
we
just
move
on
please.
A
People
who've
spoken,
please
lower
your
hand,
and
can
I
ask
everybody
whose
hands
are
raised?
Please
give
us
new
information
as,
as
you
know,
we
still
have
a
number
of
cases
ahead
of
us,
but
we
don't
want
to
rush
through
this,
but
we
feel
like
we
need
to
have
adequate
information
in
making
our
decision
so
use
your
time
to
give
us
new
information.
Please.
AQ
AQ
Madam
chair,
you
and
the
zba
approved
excessive
height
for
the
hotel
in
2019,
and
that
decision
was
based
on
the
conditions
that
were
relevant.
At
that
time.
You
approved
a
lack
of
open
space.
In
fact,
there's
no
open
space
in
your
approval.
You
approve
minimal
parking,
but
those
conditions
no
longer
exist.
Now,
there's
a
there
now
it
is
residential,
not
a
hotel,
but
we
have
no
financial
data
supporting
the
continuing
of
the
excessive
height
that
was
approved
originally
only
to
satisfy
hotel
requirements.
AQ
AQ
The
bra
failed
to
find
the
change
major
and
thus
require
the
developer,
to
submit
the
chain
project
to
south
end
district
landmarks
to
bcdc
and
to
the
neighboring
community
for
the
required
review.
I
respectfully
urge
you
to
defer
approval
until
a
complete
review.
Has
been
conducted
in
compliance
with
the
law,
the
pressure
for
speed,
I
understand
that
I'm
well
aware
of
that,
but
it
is
still
not
sufficient
reason
for
making
a
bad
decision.
Thank
you
very
much.
AR
Good
morning,
lloyd,
fillion,
my
address
is
563
massachusetts,
avenue,
boston,
I'm
also
a
nearby
property
owner.
AR
The
only
thing
that
I
would
add
to
the
prior
statements
by
carol
strife
is
that
the
application
or
the
approval
by
the
design,
I'm
sorry.
The
approval
by
landmarks
committee
appears
to
be
void
at
this
point,
because
it
has
a
sunset
clause
which
it
was
given
in
2000
in
2019
the
end
of
october,
and
it
is
well
past
the
two-year
sunset
provision,
so
it
appears
that
they
would
need
to
reapply
to
landmarks,
which
was,
as
has
been
mentioned,
very
concerned
about
a
13-story
150-160
foot
tower
in
a
zone
that
has
a
maximum
height.
AT
AB
AS
Of
nubian
square
also
the
owner
of
private
parking.
We
are
a
parking
solution,
company
based
in
roxbury.
This
group
has
reached
out
to
us,
I
believe
about
two
years
ago,
regarding
the
parking
I
know
parking
is
an
issue
and
also
a
challenge
within
this
development,
but
we
are
working
closely
with
this
group
once
until
once
it
gets
approved
to
come
up
with
a
parking
solution
that
will
accommodate
tenants,
guests
and
also
other
developments
regarding
around
the
area.
So
I
just
want
to
state
that.
A
Ricardo,
my
hope
is
that
nubian
square
and
the
vicinity
of
nubian
square
doesn't
end
up
being
the
storage
space
for
for
cars
and
vehicles
from
this
development.
I'll
just
put
that
out
there,
but
thank
you
next.
Can
we
hear
from
garrison
trotter.
AT
AT
So
connie
forbes
and
47
womback
street
so
from
day
one.
This
project
was
designated
as
being
south
end,
rather
than
rock
spray,
which
is
where
it
actually
does
fall
and
residents
were
excluded
for
the
first
few
meetings.
The
bpda
did
that
intentionally,
because
that
was
what
was
brought
up
in
the
meetings.
The
raspberry
neighborhood
council,
which
is
a
designated
legal
entity
that
represents
the
roxbury's
article
50
area.
That's
been
defined
by
a
map
was
I
in
2018
they
were.
AT
You
know
we
told
the
developer
to
reach
out
to
our
training
council
and
it
wasn't
until
this
year
that
they
reached
out
to
council
to
my
knowledge,
because
we
we
try
to
work
with
them
and
ask
them
the
questions
like
how
has
the
alexander
hotel
been
going
and
this
year
they
rejected
them
after
I'm
being
told
in
2018
that
this
was
one
under
article
50
and
two
should
be
brought
before
the
broad
street
neighborhood
council.
AT
So
there's
a
lot
of
issues
in
the
russian
neighborhood
council
is
important
to
roxbury
residents
because
they
have
zoning
knowledge
and
they
have
the
legal
knowledge
that
perhaps
typical
residents
in
the
area
do
not
have
and
residents
rely
on
them
and
and
so
they
were
cut
out
of
the
process.
You
know
pretty
much
all
together.
The
iag
has
not
met
since
this
new
project
notice
change
was
made,
so
we
told
the
iag
members
and
they
were
not
told
there
was
an
iag
meeting
being
held.
AT
So
how
can
you
move
forward
with
a
project
and
the
bpda
defines
it
as
a
minor
modification
as
mentioned
earlier,
and
if
you
look
at
the
guidelines
for
minor
modification,
this
does
not
qualify
for
minor
modification.
So
the
request
is
today:
please
defer
this
until
the
rnc,
which
has
scheduled
a
meeting
with
the
developer,
is
able
to
represent
the
community
in
which
this
project
is
legally
located
as
part
of
the
boxbury's
chicken
master
plan,
which
is
signed
between
the
city
and
the
rock
square
community.
Thank
you.
A
No,
no,
I
think
we're
good,
let's
just
see
so
does
does.
Does
the
representative
for
the
applicant
want
to
put
anything
in
the
record
in
response
to
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised.
K
Yes,
ma'am
just
a
few
items
with
respect
to
the
concerns
raised
by
chester
square
to
minimize
car
ownership.
Part
of
our
compact
unit
policy
requirements
under
the
bpda
approval
is
a
transportation
demand
management
program
that
includes
some
of
the
items
that
were
suggested
and
there
is
agreement
to
do
to
do
just
that.
K
Respect
to
the
facade
of
the
building
in
its
structural
condition.
There
have
been
countless
structural
engineers
that
have
toured
and
made
report
on
this
property,
and
all
of
those
were
in
fact
part
of
the
southern
landmarks
record.
Previously.
K
Everything
is
exactly
has
been
previously
approved
and
on
that
score
there
were
11
different
hearings
by
three
different
bodies
that
approved
of
this
project
in
its
configuration
as
exist.
The
only
thing
really
that
is
changing
members
of
the
board
is
that
we're
going
from
a
conditional
use
hotel
to
an
allowed
use,
multi-family
residential,
but
all
in
all
the
respects.
K
On
the
the
parking
and
working
with
mr
luis's
group,
there
are
a
number
of
commercial
parking
garages
that
are
part
of
the
bu
medical
center
facility
that
have
lower
utilization
rates
and
those
are
the
ones
that
would
be
nearby
and
available
for
the
valet
service
that
is
being
proposed
for
the
residential
use,
and
I
think
that's
that's.
It.
A
A
Thank
you
discussion
by
board
members,
I
what
the
okay,
so
we
we
know
there
are
a
number
of
people
in
support.
We've
all
gotten
the
letters
in
both
in
support
and
in
opposition,
but-
and
it
sounds
like
in
our
discussion,
the
outs,
the
issues
that
we've
heard
very
clearly
are
levels
of
community
involvement.
This
is
the
article
50
zoning
district,
which
is
the
roxbury
zoning
district,
and
I
remember
clearly
when
we
had
the
discussion
the
first
time
around
on
this
proposal.
A
Second,
I
hear
from
the
board
concerned
about
the
the
num,
the
the
compact
versus
the
regular
size
units
and
the
break,
and
so
I
think
it's
it.
It
falls
into
not
only
that,
but
the
breakdowns
of
the
one
twos
and
threes
and
the
number
of
idps.
A
You
know,
as
counselor
said,
because
it
had
gone
through
a
bcdc
review,
for
the
initial
design
is
not
enough
reason
to
continue
maintaining
the
shell,
and
so
you
know
it
seems
to
me
that
those
are
the
issues
any
anything
else
that
you
guys
want
to
add,
or
any
other
conversation
that
we
need
to
have.
I
Oh,
I
I
would
just
affirmed
much
of
what
you
said.
I
actually
think
the
original
design
the
exterior
is
quite
attractive,
and
that
has
been
sitting
vacant
for
a
long
time.
So
I
really
understand
why
people
want
to
moving
forward
to
liven
up
the
neighborhood,
but
the
issue
of
the
number
of
compact
living
units.
I
think
there
was
frankly
a
desire
not
to
redesign
the
interior
once
it
became
clear.
It
was
not
going
to
be
a
hotel
and
that's
really
not
that's,
not
appropriate.
S
I'll
I'll
just
step
in
you
know,
I
think
I
agree
with
mr
earl
in
terms
of
the
design
and
and
sort
of
the
nature
of
where
it
is,
I've
been
in
the
building
actually
before
I've
driven
by
it
for
a
lot
of
years.
As
everybody
has,
I
I'm
taking
a
little
bit
of
my
cue
from
the
district
city
councilor
and
the
ref.
I
think
they
have
listened
and
are
part
and
active
in
the
community.
S
It's
obviously
not
a
perfect
project
in
terms
of
the
proposal.
I
hear
some
of
the
concerns,
but
I
think
addressing
the
compact
units.
I
don't
have
a
a
large
issue
with
that.
I
think
these
are
for
sale
units
and
I
think
they
are
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
compact
living
units
as
set
up
by
the
city
with
the
supporting
amenities
space.
S
So
there
is
a
choice
to
go
into
this
building
as
a
buyer,
and
I
think
that
the
the
number
of
idp
units
I
will
I
will
I
understand,
and
certainly
echo
the
discussions
that
I
wish
there
was
more.
But
I
think
at
this
point
this
is
where
we
are
in
terms
of
the
project.
A
I
A
I
toom
in
support
of
that
anybody
else
emotionally.
So
sherry,
that's
one,
two,
three
four
is
there
anybody
else
to
support
this
motion
does
not
carry.
May
I
have
a
second
motion.
F
A
So
that
was
four
I
lost.
My
math
here
was
that
four
people,
in
up
in
support
of
the
motion.
F
Yes,
ma'am
jared
was
you
partner,
like
sherry,
dawg
and
eugene.
A
Okay,
so
I
need
a
second.
The
motion
did
not
carry
so
I
need
a
second
motion.
I
don't
know
if
a
deferral
would
work
better,
but
a
deferral
for
a
timeout
for
a
period
of
time,
so
that
these
community
issues
and
other
issues
can
be
worked
out.
F
The
batman
chair,
what
I
was
saying
is
that
only
only
four
members
need
to
be
in
support
of
a
motion
to
deny
for
it
to
carry.
There
were
four
members
in
support
of
the
motion
to
deny
that
prejudice.
F
C
AQ
A
So
sherry
made
the
motion
mark.
Oh,
it
is
in
support
of
the
motion.
I
am
in
support
of
the
motion.
Anybody
else
in
support
of
the
motion
for
deferral.
A
Pardon
gene
so,
okay,
some
motion
carries
man,
let's
have
a
date
so
that
it
gives
the
community
and
the
applicant
enough
time
to
sort
through
the
issues.
A
Oh,
is
that
around
okay,
that's
the
week
after
right.
D
K
F
A
But
but
the
rest
five
five
were
in
support,
so
it
carries
okay.
Mr
mr
fortune,
mr
secretary,
can
we
go
to
the
1030s
please.
G
I
was
hoping
that
we
could,
madam
chair
before
we
hit
the
one
o'clock
day
time,
I'm
going
to
call
the
10
30
hearings
for
any
deferrals
or
withdrawals
at
10
30.
Only
if
you.
G
O
Madam
chairman,
mr
board
attorney
derek
small
I'm
a
business
address
at
51
dobson
road,
madam
chair.
We
are
here
secret
deferral,
this
matter
again
being
in
contact
with
the
cpa
office.
This
project
needs
to
be.
A
AU
AU
G
AU
Y
G
During
that
I'll
go
back
to
the
930
cases
following
case
voa
129,
109,
3,
41
williams,
avenue
this
is
renovation
to
change
october,
2,
family,
to
a
poor
family
and
a
small
addition
above
the
structure
for
an
additional
bedroom
on
third
floor,
the
violation,
article,
nine
section:
two,
a
non-conforming
use
change
article
69,
section
23:
this
is
in
the
neighborhood
design
overlay
district
article
69,
section.
Nine.
The
bill
has
accepted
stories:
article
69,
section,
9,
usable
open
spaces
and
sufficient
article
69,
section
9
of
the
side
yard
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
G
AV
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
eileen
rosa
from
rosa
design
and
construction
on
behalf
of
the
owner
miguel
sanchez.
Our
proposal
here
is
to
to
do
some
interior
renovation
with
a
small
16
by
16
addition
on
the
third
floor
to
change
the
occupancy
from
two
family
dwelling
or
to
four
units.
AV
The
current
conditions
on
unit
one
it's
on
the
first
floor
with
two
bathrooms:
one
bath,
one,
one
thousand
five
hundred
and
thirty
four
square
feet
unit,
two
on
the
second
floor
and
third
floor
with
two
thousand
2
233
square
feet:
three
bathrooms
and
one
bath
what's
being
proposed,
is
four
units
with
unit
1a.
At
the
front
first
floor,
two
bedrooms,
two
baths
971
square
feet
at
the
rear.
We
have
unit
1b
with
two
bathrooms
two
bath,
and
then
you
need
two.
AV
On
the
second
floor,
two
bathrooms
two
bath:
a
three
bath
and
unit
three.
On
the
third
floor
with
three
bedrooms,
two
bathrooms.
AV
The
site
is
it's
big
enough
to
provide
parking
at
the
rear
by
extending
the
existing
driveway.
X
A
And
the
zoning
district
is
one
of
six
thousand.
How
large
is
the
lot
area.
AV
Yeah
so
there's,
as
you
can
see
in
this
plants
on
the
left
side,
it's
the
existing
schematic,
cyclone
there's
a
existing
driveway
on
the
left
side.
The
intention
right
now
there's
plenty
of
space
at
the
rear,
where
we're
proposing
to
extend
the
existing
driveway
towards
the
back
to
provide
six
parking
spots
at
the
same
time,
maintaining
a
green
belt
all
around
the
parking
area
providing
more
green
space,
specifically
at
the
rear
of
the
of
the
lot.
A
AV
Yeah
well,
there's
currently
a
couple
of
developments
going
on
in
the
street:
there's
actually
one
in
the
right
in
front
of
41
williams,
app
where
they
are
erecting
a
two
family,
dueling
and
more
towards
down
the
street
and
and
up
in
the
hill.
There's
it's
it's.
Basically,
all
mixed
with
single
families,
two
family
and
even
three
families
ones
throughout.
AV
Correct
keeping
in
mind
that
we
are
maintaining.
AQ
AV
Existing
building
footprint
and
perimeter.
A
Okay,
how
are
the
plans,
mr
robinson.
S
The
plans
are
good
there.
There
is
no
living
space
per
se
proposed
in
the
basement.
There
is
a
connection
to
I
think
it's
unit,
one
with
storage.
It
is
a
a
sort
of
a
rambling
house.
It
is
consistent
in
some
ways
in
size
to
the
butters,
but
you
know
I
do.
I
guess
have
a
general
question
about
four
units
here,
but
I
will
we
can
take
discussion
from
the
board
in
terms
of
the
use.
A
AX
AX
G
Madam
chair,
we
do
have
those
letters
as
well.
We
do
have
those.
E
AV
No,
the
trees
are,
the
purpose
is
to
keep
them
and
save
them.
The
good
luck
is
that
they
are
basically
by
the
property
line
throughout.
So,
as
you
can
see,
we're
proposing
a
green
belt,
so
we
won't
interfere
with
the
existing
trees.
E
I'd
make
a
motion
to
approve
a
bpda
design
review
with
special
attention
to
the
parking
layout
and
and
and
look
at
the
number
of
parking
spaces
to
see
if,
if
they
could
be
re
reduced
and
and
have
additional
open
space.
D
G
A
So
that's
what
my
opposition
is
based
on.
However,
motion
has
carried
with
those
provisos.
G
Calling
your
next
case
calling
voa
129
63519
little
deal
stream.
This
is
directly
one
family
on
existing
residential
lot.
The
violations
article
67
section
9.
The
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
67
section
on
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
67,
section
9
side
judge
insufficient
in
article
67,
section
9,
the
rare
god
sufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
N
Good
morning,
once
again,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
matt
eckel,
with
drago
and
toscano,
with
the
business
address
of
11
beacon
street
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
and
homeowner
christopher
gray,
who
was
also
on
the
call
with
us
today.
As
mentioned,
this
proposal
is
to
erect
a
new
single-family
home.
The
existing
structure
on
the
property
is
also
a
single-family
home.
N
However,
it's
been
heavily
damaged
and
is
beyond
salvaged
in
a
in
a
recent
house
fire,
so
we're
seeking
to
essentially
rebuild
along
the
same
outline
of
the
existing
structure.
However,
we're
filling
in
a
few
areas
as
well
to
make
this
home
more
functional
as
the
previous
home
was,
was
an
older,
build.
The
zoning
sub
district
itself
is
a
one
f.
A
Counselor,
can
you
tell
us
so
the
applicant
would
have
been
able
to
build
completely
as
of
right
because
of
the
fire.
Can
you
tell
us
what
specifically
it
is
that
makes
this
different,
very
specific.
N
Absolutely
madam
chair,
the
biggest
difference
is
currently
on
the
back
right
portion
of
the
existing
structure.
It
juts
out
a
little
bit
to
the
right,
so
we're
essentially
filling
that
in
to
provide
some
more
living
space
on
the
on
all
levels.
Really,
we
are
matching
the
rear
and
left
side
setback
and
we
are
not
violating
the
right
setback,
but
the
right
side
is
where
we're
kind
of
in
filling
a
little
bit
to
provide
more
adequate
living
space
and
accommodating
hallways
and
things
of
that
nature.
AY
N
AH
S
A
AZ
Madden
chair,
my
name
is
uj
nochi
and
I
am
the
rossendo
liaison
for
this
meeting.
We
hosted
an
abutters
meeting
on
april
26th
for
this
project.
My
office
has
received
six
letters
of
support
and
they
did
contact
the
neighborhood
association
dale
streets.
They
had
no
opposition
for
this
and
didn't
require
a
presentation
from
the
property
owners.
AH
G
The
violations,
article
51
section
56
off
street,
blocking
article
51,
section
19,
the
use
is
forbidden
of
multi-family
residential
use
and
it's
forbidden
news.
Article
51
section
20.,
the
floating
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
51,
section
20
maximum
height
is
excessive.
Article
51,
section
20,
the
re
required
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
51,
section
20
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
51
section
20
ray
yard
is
insufficient.
G
AI
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
john
palgini,
with
the
business
address
at
10
forbes
road
with
me
this
morning
is
peter
vanko
who's,
the
team
architect.
AI
So,
by
a
way
of
context,
this
proposal
of
plus
new
balance
campus
is
approximately
a
six
minute
walk
to
boston,
land
and
trans
train
station.
It
is
located
in
the
corner
of
hitch
one
street
in
new
balance
way.
As
mr
fortune
stated,
the
proposal
is
to
build
a
five-story
bill
story,
building
with
24
residential
units,
one
commercial
space
of
800
square
feet.
On
the
first
floor,
eight
off
street
parking
spaces,
29
bike
spaces
with
an
1800
square
foot,
roof
deck,
I'm
going
to
address
the
violations.
AI
Madam
chair,
if
that's
okay,
we
have
an
far
allowed
far
as
a
two
we're
at
four
point.
Seven
two
parking
is
two
spaces
per
dwelling
unit.
We
are
eight
total
height
is
45.
We
are
at
59.
open
space,
we've
removed
the
violation
to
the
addition
of
the
roof
deck
front
yard
is
five.
We're
at
zero
worry
out
is
12
we're
at
zero,
but
we're
complying
with
the
complete
streets
guidelines
through
bpda
design,
review
unit
sizes.
AI
We
have
studios,
they
are
average
size,
studios,
463
square
feet,
one
bedroom,
610
square
feet
and
two
bedrooms
are
750
square
feet
as
far
as
process.
It
went
through
a
two
and
a
half
year,
article
80
process
which,
as
you
may
imagine,
was
interrupted
by
the
kobit
pandemic,
and
it
was
finally
approved
on
the
bpda
on
february
10
2020..
AI
As
part
of
this
proposal,
there
will
be
three
affordable
units.
70
ami
those
units
will
encompass
all
the
makeup
of
the
different
unit
sizes.
It
would
be
one
studio,
one
one
bed,
one
two
bed.
Additionally,
there
will
be
a
cash
contribution
in
addition
to
that,
there'll
be
another.
Fifteen
thousand
dollar
contribution
to
the
boston
parks,
plus
blue
bikes.
Memberships
will
be
provided
to
all
residents.
AI
Mata
chair.
You
know
this
area
very
well,
it's
located
in
the
guest
street
study,
which
allows
higher
greater
height
and
density
around
the
turnpike
core,
and
this
proposal
is
consistent
with
that
study,
which
calls
for
60
feet
to
110
feet
in
height
and
also
we'll
be
adding
with
new
balance,
adding
a
new
road
which
will
be
helpful
to
traffic
flow
in
both
new
balance.
The
neighborhood,
as
well
as
a
nearby
stop
and
chop
both
peter
vancouver
and
myself,
are
here
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
all
may
have.
AI
I'm
sure
peter
could
you
want
to
opine
as
to
the
roof
deck.
J
Certainly
yes,
madam
chair
member
of
the
board,
thank
you
peter
vanco
here
and
cassidy
architects,
407
dudley
street.
We
are
providing
roughly
1800
square
feet
of
open
space
via
a
shared
common
roof
deck
which
has
elevator
access
and
two
stairwells
that
come
up
with
two
means
of
egress
coming
off
of
them.
It
has
yet
to
be
programmed
from
the
standpoint
of
if
there
will
be
any
types
of
amenity
up
there,
but
as
of
now
it's
it's
just
strictly
1800
square
feet
has
been
budgeted
for
that
open
space.
A
AI
So
the
bpda
really
pushed
on
that,
madam
chair,
they
thought
it
was
really
important
that
we
would
have
a
commercial
space
on
the
first
level,
as
I
stated
it's
basically
on
the
new
balance
campus,
where
this
building
is
located
and
they
felt
that
you
know
that
would
activate
the
street
similar
sized
buildings
all
around
it.
As
you
know,
that
area
has
changed,
which
was
designed
to
change.
That
was
something
they
felt
was
important
for
street
activation.
AI
Outside
of
the
roof
deck,
there
is
a
residence
base.
I
believe,
on
the
first
floor,
peter.
J
There
is
no
common
space
we're
out
of
compact
living,
so
we
don't
have
any
common
spaces
except
for
the
roof
deck,
and
we
do
have
a
generous
lobby
for
the
size
of
the
of
the
units
and
type
of
building.
We
definitely
have
a
generous
lobby,
the
intention
being
that
residents
will
gather
there.
We
do
have
common
space
in
the
sense
of
a
bicycle
room,
shared
bicycle
room
that
is,
of
course
being
provided
as
a
component
of
the
transportation
approval
here.
A
And
is
this
anticipated
to
be
rental
or
purchase
a
condo.
AI
You
know
it's
it's
the
the
lot
size
itself
is
pretty
tight
as
far
as
doing
that,
we
did
meet
with
council
of
breeden,
and
we
had
that
discussion
with
her.
She
asked
the
same
question.
It
was
just
because
of
the
the
size
of
the
building
it
just
wasn't
functional
in
order
to
do
that.
S
Plans
are
fine,
can
you
just
I
I
don't
see
a
commercial
space
called
out
on
this
plan.
This
is
the
plan
I'm
looking
at.
Can
you
just
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
missing,
I
see
a
residential
lobby
tenant
space
bike
room
trash?
Can
you
just
explain
to
me
the
difference
of
the
ground
floor
plan
so
how.
S
The
re,
those
those
if
there's
a
conversion.
J
AI
Mr
robinson,
I
believe
the
that
may
be
mislabeled
as
the
tenant
space
is
the
commercial
space.
On
the
first
floor.
S
Got
you
okay,
so
the
rest
remain
intact.
So
it's
quite
a
small
commercial
space
800.
I
believe
eight.
C
I
think
approximately
800
square
feet:
yeah,
okay,
got
you
okay.
I.
S
Understand
no
other
questions
on
the
proposal.
I
think
it
fits
within
the
context
that
is
now
this
area.
E
I
think
I
heard
there's
one
studio,
one
one
bed
and
one
two
bed
idp
units.
What's
the
affordability
target
for
those
units.
I
The
mr
puccini
was
there
any
discussion
with
the
community
about
rental
versus
for
sale.
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
concern
about
churn,
and
you
know
in
in
that
part
of
also
brighton
and
and
just
tran
transients,
so
wondering
whether
there
was
any
opportunity
for
for
sale.
AI
Yeah,
we
that's
a
good
question,
mr
ehrlich.
We
presented
to
the
abutters
as
well
as
the
baia
which
the
bia
supported
it
as
a
rental
proposal.
I
do
understand
that
in
much
of
wilson,
brighton
there's
a
tremendous
pressure
because
of
exactly
what
you're
stating
transient
people
in
the
the
glut
of
apartments.
AI
This
area,
because
of
where
it's
located
there's
a
lot
of
rental
units
around
it,
and
there
is
some
condominium
units
mixed
in
there
as
well.
But
despite
that,
we
did
gain
the
support
of
the
brighton
house
improvement
association,
which
the
writers
attended
in
support
of
this
proposal.
A
I'm
sorry
there's
a
lot
of
streak
noise
out
there,
so
it's
very
distracting
so,
okay
I'll
just
let
it
go
any
other
questions
from
the
board.
Mr
d'amico,
you
have
your
hands
raised.
A
Miss
ambassador:
can
you
help
mr
damiko
follow
mr
damica
sure.
AB
A
Okay,
well,
mr
demiko,
you
know,
while
we
figure
that
out
in
the
meantime,
madam.
G
Okay,
go
ahead,
hold
on
two
seconds
here
regarding
3638
hitchbound.
The
parking
plan
for
this
project
regarding
the
number
of
spaces,
as
well
as
the
access
and
egress
are
very
unclear.
Btd
would
like
to
request
a
parking
plan
that
resolves
these
issues.
A
Okay,
let's
thank
you
in
the
meantime,
can
we
go
and
see
if
anybody's
here
to
speak
either
in
support
or
in
opposition
of
this
proposal.
BB
Adam
chair
members
of
the
board,
conor
newman
with
the
mayor's
office
neighborhood
services.
At
this
time,
the
mayor's
office
like
to
defer
judgment
to
the
board
some
background
information
on
the
project.
They
went
through
a
new
day-led
small
project
review
community
process.
They
also
went
to
the
brighton,
austin
improvement.
AC
BB
Z
Trying
members
of
the
board
annabelle
gomez,
zoning
chair
for
brighton,
also
improvement
association,
the
bia
voted
to
support
this
project.
I
was
also
on
the
guest
street
study
and
the
study
is
consistent
with
the
height
of
the
building
for
the
area,
and
the
opponent
did
work
to
make
the
street
connection
from
guest
street
to
north
beacon
on
there.
So
we're
very
much
in
support
of
this.
This
does
help
really
make
the
street
connections
and
everything,
and
also
consistent
with
the
hype.
Thank
you.
S
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
with
bpda
design,
review
and
bpd
btd
parking
review.
B
A
G
Sure,
madam
chair,
absolutely
I'm
going
to
call
the
11
30
rediscussions.
Are
there
anybody?
Is
there
anybody
deferring
or
withdrawing
their
11
30
rediscussion?
If
you
give
me
the
address
first,
please.
G
O
Good
morning,
ma'am
chairman
who's,
the
board
attorney
derek
small,
I'm,
the
business
of
chief
of
adoption.
We
are
seeking
a
deferral
for
the
address,
166
168
sales
stream.
O
G
Can
we
have
one
date
open
on
may
24th
at
11
30.
G
G
Hearing
none
I'll
go
to
the
recommendations
was
the
recommendations
that
were
heard
at
1010
mass
ave
case
boa
one.
Two,
eight
three,
eight
four
zero
102
high
street
was
installing
a
12
by
12
roof
deck.
It
was
approved
with
bpda
relief
for
the
roof
deck
only
case,
one.
Two,
eight
three,
two,
nine
four.
Forty
seven
to
forty
eight
snow
hill
street
was
deferred
to
six.
Sixteen
twenty
two
at
five
pm
for
the
community
process
case
boa
one:
two,
nine,
nine,
two,
nine
seven
one,
forty
nine
h
street
was
denied
without
prejudice.
G
Article
case
boa
one:
two,
six
one:
six,
four:
seven
fifteen
million
street
was
deferred
to
six
six,
seven.
Twenty
two
at
eleven
thirty
am
case.
Boa
128,
7825
14
victoria
street
was
a
was
an
extended
existing
dormer
to
an
exterior
wall
and
stairway.
The
second
and
third
floor
was
approved
with
vpda
case
boa
one.
Two,
eight
eight
three
one,
seven,
sixty
nine
rich
view
street
was
remodeled
kitchen.
First
bat
bathroom
in
addition
was
approved
case
boa
129,
5401,
19-21,
cheverus
road
was
denied
case.
G
G
Excuse
me
case
boa
one:
two,
eight
nine,
seven,
three
three
thirty
eight
wellesley
park
because
increased
living
space
and
renovation
finished
space
on
the
third
floor
was
approved
with
bpda
case
voa.
One
two,
five,
eight
zero.
Three
two
nineteen
webster
street
was
denied
without
prejudice
case
boa
one.
Two,
eight
two,
eight
nine
eight
eighty
pointer
street
was
a
renovation
of
the
first
unit
conversion
in
single
family
to
a
two
family
residence.
It
was
approved
with
bpda
and
attention
to
the
spiral,
stairway
and
size
of
the
dormer
and
exterior
materials
case.
Boa
one.
G
Two,
eight
eight,
nine
eight
nine
160
austin
street
was
they
had
a
second
floor.
Addition
to
the
home
cantilever
it
was
approved
with
bpda
show
the
plot
plan
file
with
isd
case.
Boa
128
3265
26
hawthorne
street
hotdown
street
was
denied
case
boa
128
1381
99
to
101
a
franklin
street
was
the
roof
revised
to
this
owner,
an
argument
it
was
approved
and
the
rediscussion
case
boa
one.
Two,
eight
nine
four
five
four
four
cherokee
street
was
deferred
to
six
seven
twenty,
two
at
eleven
thirty
and
an
update
for
an
updated
refusal
letter.
A
Second,
second,
all
those
in
favor
any
opposed
they
carry
the
board
is,
will
adjourn
until.
A
AY
B
L
A
Now
you
let
us
know
when
bob's
on
please,
mr
fortune,
why
don't
we
go
ahead.
G
BD
Like
this
is
stephen
pasek
and
tilly,
representing
sandy
russo
regarding
121
salem
street
in
the
north
end,
I
believe
miss
russo
is
on
the
on
the
call
as
well.
BD
She
is
in
the
process
of
opening
up
a
an
ice
cream
shop
in
the
north
end
on
salem
street,
and
she
is
seeking
zoning
relief
to
change
the
occupancy
to
include
ice
cream
shop
with
taco.
BD
No
problem,
currently,
it
is
used
as
a
candy
store
that
was
its
prior
use.
Prior
to
that
it
was
a
tailor
shop.
Miss
russo
does
have
extensive
history
in
the
business
community
locally.
She
previously
owned
a
lulu
sweet
shop
which
started
at
227
hanover
street
and
most
recently
was
located
at
28
per
minute.
A
Gonna
miss
that
candy
store;
okay,
we're
gonna,
miss
that
candy
store.
How
are
the
plans,
mr
robinson.
S
Plans
are
good,
no
questions,
look
straightforward,.
A
BB
They
also
received
a
letter
of
no
objection
from
the
north
end
waterfront
residents
association,
which
was
held
on
march
22
and
then
from
the
north
end
waterfront
neighborhood
council.
They
attended
a
meeting
on
march
14th
and
the
members
voted
to
support
the
proposal
with
that
we
defer
to
the
board.
Thank
you.
S
Actually,
I
have
one
question.
Sorry,
madam
chair,
one
question
is
eric:
there
are
there
greats
currently
shown
on
this
the
facade
and
will
those
be
removed
as
part
of
this
change.
BD
I
believe
there
are
greats,
but
I
believe,
they're
going
to
be
removed,
like
I'm,
not
100
sure
I
can
get
you
that
answer,
though
very
shortly.
That's.
A
A
AB
B
A
motion
to
approve
a
bpd
design
review
for
the
greats
and
the
usual
takeout
proviso.
Language.
B
G
BE
BE
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
we
are
here
before
you
today,
seeking
the
addition
of
14
outdoor
seats
to
the
space
located
at
755
boylston
street
in
this
b690a
zoning
district.
The
restaurant
use
is
conditional,
however,
in
december
of
1978,
the
board
of
appeals
allowed
for
the
restaurant
use
at
this
location
without
a
proviso
that
it
was
limited
to
that
applicant.
Only
the
previous
operator
at
the
location
had
a
patio
of
12
seats
and
we're
here
before
you
today,
seeking
to
have
14
seats
on
the.
AX
BE
Square
foot
patio:
this
would
not
be
and
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
back
bay
community.
It's
an
appropriate
location
and
it
would
will
not
cause
any
serious
hazards
to
the
vehicle
pedestrians
or
create
a
nuisance
in
the
neighborhood.
BE
Raising
canes,
it's
a
chicken
finger
chain,
restaurant.
A
Okay,
okay
and
the
previous
use
was
12
seats.
Was
that
so
you're
increasing
requesting
an
increase
from
two
seats?
Yes,
how
are
the
plans,
mr
robinson.
S
A
BC
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
molly
griffin
with
the
mayor's
office
neighborhood
services.
At
this
time,
our
office
would
like
to
defer
judgment
to
the
board.
There
was
an
ons
abutters
meeting
held
on
march
8th
and
no
concerns
were
raised
by
any
neighbors
who
attended
and
the
applicant
did
meet
with
the
neighborhood
association
of
the
back
bay,
who
gave
their
stance
of
non-opposition
as
well.
Thank
you.
AO
G
G
As
shown
the
violations,
article
10
section
1,
the
limitation
of
our
street
parking
area,
article
50,
section
29,
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
50,
section
20
of
the
lot
area
is
insufficient.
Article
50
section
43
off
street
parking
requirement
article
50,
section
29.
The
lot
area
is
insufficient.
G
BF
I
like
to
propose
to
convert
my
single
family
home
to
the
to
two
units
and
with
the
roof
deck
that
that
that's
not
the
yes,.
BF
Y
B
AU
BF
BF
Okay
on
that,
first
page
is
the
plan,
and
what
we're
seeing
on
the
left
is
the
existing
house
footprint
and
on
the
right
is
the
as
the
proposed
footprint
and
the
the
main
addition
to
the
the
footprint
is
the
24
by
24
section
towards
the
back
of
the
house.
A
That's
that's
a
huge
addition.
Can
you
tell
us
what
so
so
you
have?
Let's
just
let
me
just
get
thee.
Have
a
lot
of
violations
tell
us
what
the
breakdown
is
of
the
unit's
size?
How
what
will
the
proposed
size
be
unit
one
and
then
unit
two.
BF
A
BF
P
BF
Okay,
so
the
first
floor
is
one
thousand
five
square
feet.
Second
floor
is
one
thousand
forty
square
feet
and
then
third
floor.
One
thousand
seven,
seven.
BF
A
Okay
and
tell
us
about
how
the
parking
is
proposed
to
be
to
to
to
work.
BF
So
I
I'm
limited
on
space,
so
I
I'm
proposing
tandem
parking
to
to
satisfy
the
two
space
requirements.
One
per
unit,
and
essentially
you
know
the
I
live
on
a
dead-end
road
which
is,
and
also
I
have
a
small
lot
and
you
know
there
is
on
the
road.
It's
a
quiet,
road,
there's,
no
traffic
or
anything.
So
you
know
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
like
we
may
park
on
the
side
of
the
house.
BF
You
know
for
a
few
hours
here
and
there
and
work
out
the
tanned
embarking
situation.
A
And
what's
the
dimension
of
that
roof
deck.
BF
It'll
span
the
the
whole
house.
A
Okay,
okay,
have
you
seen
the
bpda
recommendation.
A
Okay,
I'll
I'll
read
it
to
you
that
if
they
recommend
a
denial
without
prejudice,
they
can
that
that
you
should
consider
the
excessive
s:
f,
a
r
flow
area
ratio
and
insufficient
lock
area
in
the
rear
yard.
A
So
just
for
your
information
from
a
planning
perspective,
that's
where
they're
coming
from
is
the
real
yard,
the
your
impact
on
your
rear
neighbor
and
the
the
huge
the
the
size
of
the
the
building.
How
are
the
plans?
Mr
rob,
mr
robinson.
S
You
know,
unfortunately,
I
think
the
plans
are
the
bpa
picked
up
a
lot
of
the
issue.
I
I
have
even
an
issue
with
so
there's
actually
a
third
floor
edition.
That's
the
entire
length
of
the
building
as
well.
There
is
the
24
by
24
in
the
back,
but
they're
also
proposing
a
full
third
floor.
That
I
just
think,
is
it's
just
it's
too
excessive.
It's
it's
just.
It.
AD
Say,
mr
robinson,
in
addition
to
on
drawing
a
dash
zero,
it
says
you
know
it's
kind
of
confusing
because
they
say
they're
going
to
convert
it,
but
on
e
0
it
says
they're
demolishing
the
existing
building
so
they're
creating
these
issues
by
themselves
by
creating
by
demolishing
the
existing
structure.
A
You
understand
what
the
concerns
are,
so
I
think
you
have
two
choices
either
to
defer
or
we
can
play
it
through,
but
you've
heard
what
our
concerns
are.
A
A
G
Following
the
next
two
cases
on
case
boa
129,
5593,
30,
claxton
street,
there's
a
companion
case,
voa
129,
5590,
38
clarkson
street.
This
is
the
30
to
erected
two
family
dwelling
on
a
vacant
lot.
This
is
a
dnd
project.
The
violations
out
of
65
section
22,
conforming
to
an
existing
building
alignment.
Article
65,
section
9,
the
large
width
is
insufficient.
G
Madam
chair
for
38
clarkson
street
is
the
same
purpose
and
it
is
the
same
violations
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
N
As
mentioned,
we
are
seeking
to
erect
two
separate
two
family
homes,
one
at
30
clarkson
street,
and
one
at
38
clarkson
street.
Both
of
these
properties
are
currently
vacant.
These
projects
are
part
of
the
neighborhood
homes
initiative,
in
collaboration
with
the
mayor's
office
of
housing.
N
The
zoning
district
for
these
properties
is
a
3f
5000
and
again
we
are
proposing
two
families
at
both
parcels
in
terms
of
the
violations.
As
mr
secretary
read
into
the
record,
they
are
both
identical
violations.
They
are
both
sided
with
conformity
with
existing
building
alignment.
However,
we
are
proposing
a
15
foot
setback
which
meets
the
front
yard
requirement.
N
N
As
for
the
units
themselves,
again,
both
buildings
will
be
two
family
units,
so
the
first
floor
will
house
unit
one
it's
a
825
square
foot,
two
bed,
one
bath
with
a
deck
and
then
unit
two
will
be
located
on
the
second
and
third
floor
for
a
total
of
approximately
1500
square
feet,
three
total
bedrooms
and
two
bathrooms
with
both
front
and
rear
decks
with
that
I'll
pause
and
take
any
questions
or
comments
from
the
board.
A
Yeah,
you
can't
help
it
that
like,
but
the
lot
is
insufficient
and
the
frontage
and
the
width
etc.
But
can
you
tell
us
about
the
existing
building
alignment.
N
Sure,
madam
chair,
so
I
think
if
you
actually
look
at
I'm,
not
sure
if
there's
a
picture
included
on
this
presentation,
I
don't
believe
there
is,
but
on
google
or
other
mediums
like
that,
we
are
fairly
consistent
with
the
street.
We
are
proposing
a
15-foot
setback.
I
believe
we
were
cited
for
this
only
because
there
wasn't
a
formal
site
plan
turned
in
for
the
whole
street,
showing
up
existing
building
alignment.
S
N
BG
Good
afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
denise
de
santos
from
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
the
applicant
has
met
with
the
community
a
few
different
times
and
has
met
with
the
association
a
few
different
times
to
kind
of
meet.
The
community's
needs
around
affordability
and
what
they
wanted
to
see
within
this
neighborhood,
and
they
have
support
from
direct
the
butters,
as
well
as
the
association
that
letter
of
support
might
have
gone
to
you
guys
later.
So
I
don't
know
if
it's
on
file
it
was
sent
over
today.
G
Thank
you
well,
the
next
case
calling
voa
1
2
8
0
1,
2,
0
76
brent
street.
This
is
the
build
a
third
floor,
grout
floor
addition
to
an
existing
one
family
extend
living
space
into
the
basement
area
and
chain
dogs
to
make
one
family
on
the
record
to
a
three-family
dwelling
construct.
The
third
floor
addition
renovate
the
entire
dwelling.
The
violations,
article
55
665-41,
odd
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
65,
section
9,
insufficient
side
guide.
Article
65,
section
9
insufficient,
open
space,
article
65,
section
9.
G
AW
AW
Friends,
you
can
your
chest
things.
V
AB
AW
Okay,
my
my
name
is
good
afternoon
chair
and
the
members
of
the
board,
I'm
luisa
centeno.
I
live
at
76th
grand
street
and
for
29
years,
and
I
would
like
to
stay
in
my
house
for
years
to
come,
I'm
aging
and
with
the
rising
of
cost
in
boston.
AW
I
would
like
to
make
my
my
converse,
my
residence
in
a
three
residence
unit
and
so
to
give
me
the
affordability
to
stay
in
in
my
home
that
I've
been
for
a
long
time.
I'm
convenient
bus,
stop
and
five
minutes
to
at
the
station,
and
I
have
the
support
of
the
abutas
and
many
of
my
neighbors
and.
A
Thank
you,
mr
silva,
can
you
stop
for
a
minute?
I
have
a
few
questions
for
you
because
it
looks
like
that.
What
we
have
in
front
of
us
is
an
application
for
a
subdivision
of
the
plants,
and
it
looks
like
an
and
and
what
we
have
before
us
is
only
one
address.
We
do
not
have
both
addresses
because
it
looks
like
this
is
a
two-family
5000
zoning
district
and
you
have
about
7
000
square
feet,
and
so
usually,
when
there
is
a
proposal
for
a
subdivision
and
a
construction,
we
look
at
it
together.
A
So
we
make
sure
that
the
existing
house
isn't
in
some
way
to
compromise
so
that
you
know
down
the
road.
They
cannot
do
anything
with
it.
Okay,
so
if
you
can
respond
to
that,
that
would
be
helpful.
BH
Hello,
yes,
this
is
caesar
the
silver,
the
architect
for
the
centennial
family.
The
lot
that
we
got
here
was
subdivided
to
one
lot
now,
which
I
know
we
are
in
the
2f
5000
and
right
now,
the
total.
Together
we
have
close
to
4
000
square
feet
so.
BH
I
think
it
was
subdivided
excuse
me
last
year,
I'm
not
sure
it
was
the
annex,
the
land
that
belonged
to
her.
She
got
a
portion
of
the
land
for
the
neighbor
that
we
needed.
For
extension,
I
didn't
know
we
needed
to
go
over
the
board.
BH
Please
direct
me
here
when
I'm,
where
I
don't
have
the
knowledge
at
christmas.
A
Yes
yeah,
so
this
is,
is
this
a
subdivision
or
did
she
initially
own?
What
is
on
this
map
is
lock
b
and
then
did
she
purchase
lot
c.
Y
A
Okay,
so
we're
looking
so
basically
we're
looking
at
lot
a
and
lot
c
right
and
that's
that's
where
the
proposal
is
to
change
the
occupancy
from
a
one
to
a
three
family
right
now,
mr
de
silva
you've
been
before
this
board
many
times.
Can
you
quickly
describe
to
us
how
this
is
proposed
to
occur?
A
And
I
know
miss
mr
silva,
you
you,
you
have
not
had
the
experience
with
us,
so
I'm
just
going
to
have
mr
de
silva
respond
to
that,
and
also,
if
you
can
talk
to
us
about
basement
living,
because
this
board
has
not
been
keen
on
basement
space
or
occupancy
for
a
very
long
time.
Okay,.
BH
Okay,
we
are
the
situation
here
is
that
her
family
has
moved
grown
and
the
kids
left.
She
has
a
lot
of
square
footage
in
the
basement
and
then
the
attic,
so
we
we
will
follow
the
life
and
safety
and
the
construction
code
that
we
will
have
the
windows
in
the
area.
Ways
and
she
has
enough
height
in
the
basement
to
have
above
ground.
Do
you
need
enough
light
for
the
basement
for
the
ground
floor?
BH
So
if
you
see
the
plants,
the
plants
as
whatever
the
bedroom
has
that's
the
window
wells
and
the
excess
for
emergency
access
to
the
basement
and
the
attic
is
she
wants
to
on
the
attic,
take
the
roof
and
add
mr
disney.
BH
Floor,
okay,
go
keep
going
down;
this
is
the
existing
condition.
Go
here
is
the
basement.
Now
this
is
the
ground
floor.
You
see
the
ground
floor.
Has
two
bedrooms
in
each
bedroom
is,
if
you
see
spacious,
of
11
feet
by
lava
feet
in
another.
Excuse
me,
I
can't
read
it
so
well
here
because,
but
if
you
bear
with
me,
I
got
another
plan.
BH
A
BH
There,
okay,
let's
this-
is
the
proposed
unit.
On
the
top
floor,
we
have
again
the.
BH
The
front
bedroom
is
11
8
by
12
5.
The
rear
bedroom
is
eleven
by
eleven
by
ten
eleven,
let's
say
almost
eleven
by
eleven,
so
we
have
again
a
great
roma
family
room
of
twelve
by
ten,
some
and
a
kitchen
of
eight
by
nine,
and
we
have
two
means
of
regress.
We
have
a
closet
with
a
laundry
and
a
bathroom.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
How
are
the
plans,
mr
robinson,
I'm
just
going
to
toss
all
the
detail,
questions
to
you
and
mr
oleg,
please.
S
Thank
you.
You
know,
I
think
it
is
a.
It
is
a
basement
unit.
Unfortunately,
how
we
typically
don't
agree.
It
does
have
the
window
well
shown.
However,
there
does
seem
to
be
plenty
of
height.
However,
it
is
basically
subterranean.
S
I
don't
have
an
issue
necessarily
with
the
third
floor
edition
I
mean
it,
it
would
be,
it
seems
to
be
the
only
flat
roof
in
the
whole
area.
All
the
other
houses
are
pitched
roof,
so
I'm
not
sure
if,
if
maybe
a
two
family
is,
is
more
consistent
with
the
community
and
then
a
pitch
roofed
approach,
but
I
I
guess
I
can
leave
that
up
to
the
discussion
of
the
board.
BH
I
Are
there
any
elevations
in
these
plans.
S
It
there's
a
lot.
The
last
page,
I
believe
or
sorry
second
to
last
8
12
shows
a
section.
The
basement
is
approximately
eight
and
a
half
feet
below
grade
or
that's
what
it's
dimensioned
right
there.
On
the
left
hand
side
there
are
sort
of
3d
renderings
on
the
last
page.
If
you
want
to
roll
to
that
page,
madam
ambassador,
so
you
sort
of
see
the
sort
of
context
but
yeah.
Basically,
the
the
basement
is.
BH
Yeah
we
would
try
to
follow
with
the
city
the
adu
smooth,
but
because
we
were
changing,
we
were
like.
We
thought
the
city
is
encouraging
additional
dwelling
units
in
the
basement.
That's
how
she
came
to
me
with
the
concept
of
doing
adu,
but
we
couldn't
follow
because
we
were
changing
the
shape
of
the
roof.
Okay
hold
on.
BH
BH
We
have
a
space
day
of
the
garden
that
there
is
a
five
six
feet
still
on
the
side,
with
grass
I
think
or
where
the
windows
are.
But
if
you
see
on
the
left
side
all
the
way
to
the
garage
or
to
the
shed
to
the
shed.
A
BG
There
was
a
few
concerns
around
just
the
neighborhood
being
a
2f
neighborhood,
but
the
neighborhood
association
sided
with
the
applicant
in
support,
because
there
are
a
few
three
deckers
in
this
neighborhood
now
as
well
and
she's
been
a
part
of
this
neighborhood
for
a
long
time,
and
is
so
they
did
want
to
see
this
occur,
so
they
do
have
support
from
some
direct
the
butters
as
well
as
the
association.
A
Okay,
so
let's
just
look
at
this,
may
I
have
a
motion.
Please
we've
done
this
before
where
we
have
approved
the
applicant
may
ask
for
more
than
what
we
approve
for
so
may.
I
have
a
motion.
Please.
I
Well,
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
the
applicant
is
prepared
to
accept
this,
but
I
would
make
a
motion
for
approval
with
the
elimination
of
the
basement
as
living
space.
S
A
So
so
the
motion
is
to
eliminate
basement
bedrooms.
Is
there
a
second.
Y
A
AY
A
It's
approval
with
vpda
design,
review
for
two
family
with
no
basement
dwelling;
okay,
good
luck,
mr
silva
and
and
and
the
applicant.
G
Call
the
next
case
calling
doa
one
three:
zero:
five:
seven:
eight
five:
seventy
seven
ble
street.
This
is
directly
new
three
story:
nine
nine-unit
multi-family
dwelling
proposed
twelve
off-street
parking
spaces
at
grade
level.
An
under
building
footprint.
We
have
the
property,
a
nine
foot,
privacy
fence
along
the
rail
lot
line
and
portions
of
the
sideline
line.
G
Article
65
section
41
rs3
requirement
article
65,
section
8,
the
mfr
use
is
forbidden,
article
65,
section
22.2
conforming
to
an
existing
building
alignment;
article
65
section
9,
the
fourier
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
section
9..
The
building
has
excessive
stories:
articles
65,
69
side
yards
and
sufficient
article
65
section
9,
the
rare
yard's
insufficient
damon
address,
I'm
sorry.
Besides
insufficient
for
nine
foot
fence
article
65
section,
nine,
the
real
yacht
is
insufficient
for
a
nine
foot
fence
and
article
65
section.
BI
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
brendan
wilbur.
I
am
the
applicant
at
110
k
street
in
south
boston,
for
an
address,
and
this
proposal
is
to
raise
an
existing
three
family
and
erect
a
three-story
nine-unit
building
with
12
parking
spaces,
and
that's
one
of
those
nine
units
I
agree
to
dedicate
to
an
idp
unit.
BI
The
unit
count
is
six
two
bed
units
three
three
bed
units
all
ranging
from
approximately
nine
hundred
to
twelve
hundred
square
feet.
There's
open
air
parking
behind.
A
Our
city's
planning
agency
has
recommended
denial
without
prejudice
because
of
a
number
of
reasons,
one
insufficient
open
space.
A
A
BI
Just
a
quick
question
so
you're
saying
bpda:
are
you
saying
that's
separate
from
the
refusal
letter
from
isd
there's
comments
and
then,
where
would
that
have
come
to
me
in
an
email
or
a
letter,
because
I'm
new
to
the
bpda
comments
before
zbi.
A
A
decent
amount
of
projects:
well,
we
always
receive
recommendations
from
the
boston
planning
and
development
agency.
A
So
you
know
these
are
a
lot
of
violations.
It
looks
like
you
cover
a
lot
of
the
lot
and
also
we've
we've
gotten
a
fair
number
of,
or
not
some
some
letters
from
to
the
board.
BI
A
I
think
you
might
need
to
wait
a
year
before
you
can
come
back
to
us
if
it's
purely
denied,
if
it's
denied
without
prejudice,
you
can't
come
back
earlier,
but
with
another
proposal,
and
you
know
so,
you
know
you
need
to
make
a
decision
whether
you
want
to
just
defer
it
and
see
us
at
a
later
date
or
have
it
walk
through
our
conversation
today.
BI
I
guess
I
would
just
like
to
go
through
the
conversation
today
and
cover
the
cover.
The
items.
BI
It's
six
two
bed
units
three
three
bed
units
they're
all
range
from
900
to
1200
square
feet;
there's
open
parking
behind
and
under
the
building.
There's
no
basement,
so
it's
you
know
proposes
conventional
slab
on
grade.
These
are
for
home
ownership.
Condos!
BI
That's
why
I
went
for
two
and
three
beds
and
a
building
that
meets
the
parking
requirement.
There'll
be
nine
storage
units
in
the
main
lobby,
bicycle
parking
on
site,
some
units
have
in-unit
decks,
there's
no
roof
decks
and.
BI
A
BI
Yeah,
it's
a
2f5
000,
so
obviously
nine
units
in
in
violation
of
that.
A
And
tell
us:
what's
the
the
the
what
what
these
the
rest
of
the
street
looks
like,
because
if
it's,
if
the
zoning
says
five
to
two
families
and
you're
coming
in
with
nine,
you
know,
that
is
something
we
need
to
take
into
consideration.
A
BI
Yeah
so
directly
surrounding
it's
it's
mostly
three
family
three-story
flat
roof
classic
triple
deckers
on
the
director
budding.
The
rear
lot
is
1943.,
which
is,
I
believe,
that's
six
stories
with
64
units
and
then
recently
69
and
6963
bayley
was
approved.
It's
that's
about
double
the
size
for
19
units
and
I
believe,
that's
four
stories.
I'm
I'm
actually
not
sure
not
sharing
that
one.
So
that's
kind
of
how
we
came
to
this
this
building,
just
looking
at
things
that
have
been
approved
directly
next
door
and
mixed
with
yeah.
A
And
tell
us
how
you
you
have
side
yard
insufficiency
sounds
like
you're
too
close
to
your
neighbors.
So
can
you
tell
us
what's
required
and
what
are
you
proposing.
BI
Yep,
so
for
side
yard
what's
required
is
ten.
We
have
six
three,
which
is
matching
the
existing
side,
setback
for
the
existing
property
and
then
on
the
right.
The
other
side.
We
have
twelve
and
a
half,
because
that's
where
our
ten
foot
plus
ample
room
on
the
other
side
of
the
driveway
we'll
be
running
along
that
side
of
the
lot.
A
Okay
and
then
tell
us
about
that
nine
foot
fence
we,
we
don't
usually
approve
nine
feet,
fences.
BI
Yeah,
so
that
was
kind
of
just
an
aesthetic
move
just
but
and
if
you
see
that
juts
up
to
nine
feet
about
halfway
down
the
lot,
so
the
front
of
the
lot
has
the
shorter
fence,
and
then
we
decided
to
jut
that
up
to
nine
feet
in
the
back.
Just
because
that's
where
the
parking
area
will
be
so
from
a
privacy
visibility
standpoint,
we
did
that
you
know.
But
if
that's
something
that
you
know,
we
have
to
be
a
designer
discussion.
You
know
that's
open
to
that.
A
Okay,
so
let's
see
mr
robinson,
how
are
the
plans.
S
The
the
plans
are
fine
in
terms
of
what
they're
they're
depicting
I
I
I
will
tend
to
agree
with
the
bpda.
I
think
it's
just
too
large,
although
I
appreciate
the
two
and
three
bedroom
units
home
ownership.
I
think
the
it's
just
too
much
lot
coverage
along
with
the
12
parking
spaces,
which
is
very
close
to
a
local
t
station.
I
just
think
there's
too
much
density
going
on
the
site
and
I'm
thinking
about
general
density
in
terms
of
the
site
plan
and
the
building
the
plan.
S
So
I
I
don't
have
any
other
questions,
but
I
just
feel
like
it's.
It's
I'm
consistent
with
the
bpa
on
this
in
terms
of
its
density
on
this
site,
particularly.
BB
Speaking
on
behalf
of
george,
who
ran
the
community
process,
our
office
hosted
a
butters
meetings
for
the
proposal
in
january
and
february
of
2022
a
few
of
waters
expressed
interest
in
the
building
as
a
historical
landmark,
while
other
abutters
believed
that
the
proposal
would
be
an
improvement
upon
the
neighborhood,
especially
given
the
voluntary
voluntary
inclusion
of
an
idp
unit.
Our
office
received
24
letters
to
support
and
with
this
we'd
like
to
defer
judgment
to
the
board.
Thank
you.
AB
I
see
that
box
handed
through
this
bob.
Did
you
want
to
wait
on
this.
D
I
like
to
bob
d'amico
btd
magnum
chair
and
members
of
the
board,
I
like
to
see
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
parking
spaces
tonight
to
improve
maneuverability
and
also
allow
for
more
screening
and
buffering.
AB
BJ
Orlando
de
pass
84
bailly
street
gorgeous
good
afternoon,
madam
chairman
and
members
of
the
board
I
live
directly
across
the
street
from
this
property
hasn't
been
very
well
maintained
over
the
years,
and
I
agree
that
if
this
development
were
to
go
across
the
street
from
wyoming,
it
would
be
a
great
addition
to
the
neighborhood.
It's
a
beautiful
neighborhood
and
a
lot
of
the
homes
in
the
area.
You
know
in
this
area
have
nice
home
either
in
front
of
them
or
next
one
beside
them.
BJ
It
would
just
overall
be
a
great
addition
to
the
to
the
neighborhood
here.
In
my
opinion,
there's
been
some
issues
here
over
the
past
couple
of
years.
I'm
not
going
to
speak
to
that,
but
I
think
something
there
rather
than
sorry.
BJ
Just
just
yeah
issues,
issues
with
just
it
being
inviting
to
criminal
elements
around
on
and
around
the
property.
Thank
you.
That's
all
we
we
just,
I
think
something
being
done
with
it,
rather
than
nothing
would
be
a
great
addition
to
the
neighborhood.
AB
BK
AB
BK
Me
I'm
in
a
butter
directly
across
the
street,
even
though
my
my
property
goes
from
ashmod
street
to
bayley
street.
I've
been
here
for
16
years
and
I
my
husband,
have
been
fighting
to
try
to
preserve
that
section
of
bailey
street,
because
the
current
building
that's
there
has
deteriorated
quite
a
bit
in
the
last
16
years
and
has
been
used
for
drug
dealings
and
all
sorts
of
crazy
stuff
and
special
services
even
had
the
occupants
moved
out.
BK
So
it's
unoccupied
right
now,
it's
in
a
row
at
the
end
of
a
row
of
triple
deckers
that
take
up
most
of
the
locks.
So
I
understand
that
in
in
regards
of
maybe
a
neighborhood
that
has
only
you
know:
single
family
and
two
and
two
family
homes
that
this
might
be
inappropriate,
but
it's
a
half
a
block
from
the
ash
monty
and,
as
I
said,
there
are
triple
deckers
right
next
to
this
location
that
take
up
the
entire
lot.
BK
BA
Yes,
I'm
william
canty,
better
known
as
chip
canty,
I'm
also
I'm
the
immediate
buttered
to
the
west
of
this
property.
I
noticed
brendan,
did
not
mention
my
house
in
describing
the
the
surrounding
lines
of
victorian
three
family
victorian
immediately
next
door
as
a
homeowner.
I
understand
wanting
to
do
whatever
you
can
with
your
property
and
I
as
a
neighbor
to
orlando
and
ronald
and
others
who
have
witnessed
some
of
the
problems
we've
had
with
criminal
elements
on
the
street
and
and
which
have
been
they've
been.
BA
There
were
a
couple
of
tenants
of
the
of
this
building
until
recently,
who
were
too
friendly,
shall
we
say
with
the
problem
elements
on
the
street.
However,
one
of
the
bigger
issues
for
the
community
as
a
whole
has
been
the
state
of
development
proposals
where
people
want
to
come
in
and
tear
down
existing
housing
and
cram
apartments
and
condos.
As
put
as
much
as
I
can
on
the
law.
I
very
much
agree
with
the
bpda's
recommendation
that
this
is
far
too
large
for
the
lot.
BA
I
also
want
to
it's
barely
been
mentioned
here,
that
there
is
an
active
petition
that
the
landmarks
commission
did
accept
to
consider
historical
status
for
this
building.
It's
a
200
year
old
building.
There
aren't
many
of
those
left
in
the
area
old
buildings,
don't
always
they're,
not
always
pretty,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
this
one
can
be
preserved.
BA
It
doesn't
it's
been
compromised
over
the
years
I
lived
next
to
it
for
40
years
and
and
did
not
know
its
history
did
not
even
recognize
that
it
used
to
be
a
center
entrance
colonial
facing
onto
dot
ab.
I
don't
know
whether
it
can
be
saved
or
not,
but
it
seems
premature
for
the
developer
to
be
given
permission
to
raise
the
building
before
you
know,
while
there's
still
a
pending
petition
before
the
landlocked
submission
first.
BA
So
for
those
reasons,
and
as
I
said,
the
fact
that
it's
just
too
large
for
the
lock,
I
would
ask
that
the
petition
be
denied
with
prejudice
or
deferred.
A
Hey,
do
you
have
anything
to
say
in
response.
BI
So,
as
you
can
see,
there's
you
know
been
a
lot
of
discussion
with
the
abutters,
for
the
parking
that
was
mentioned.
12
is
what
is
required
by
zoning,
which
is
why
we
did
that
to
meet
the
parking
requirement
and
it
was
brought
up
less
parking
and
ultimately
it
seemed
that
more
people
than
not
wanted
more
the
more
parking
option.
BI
As
far
as
the
historic
stuff
that
has
definitely
been
a
very
hot
topic
that
there
was
a
petition
filed
by
someone,
and
there
is
a
lot
of
opposition
to
that.
I
guess.
BI
So
I
have
not
been
started
that
process,
yet
I'm
used
to
that
okay,
so
yeah
being
private.
So
I
haven't
started.
I
haven't
been.
A
It
sounds
like
there
are
a
lot
of
issues
that
you
haven't
applied
for
demo
delay.
In
the
meantime,
you
know
we
are
asked
to
to
comment
on
a
proposed
development.
Jeff.
Do
you
want
to
just
go
on
the
record
I
mean
I
know
I
try
to
to
summarize
what
the
bpd
has
said,
but
do
you
want
to
go
on
the
record.
AD
Yeah,
I
don't
want
to
repeat
what
a
lot
of
people
on
this
on
this
hearing
have
already
stated:
jeff
hampton
boston
planning
development
agency,
I
mean
it's
just
too
big.
It's
you're,
taking
a
three
family,
knocking
it
down
a
three
family,
that's
already
non-conforming,
because
it's
a
two-family
district
and
now
you're
creating
a
nine
family,
so
we're
on
record
denial
without
prejudice.
It's
just
way
too
big,
not
saying
that
something
shouldn't
go
there.
Nine
units
is
not
appropriate.
BL
A
Any
opposed
motion
carries
good
luck.
G
Follow
your
next
case
calling
voa
711-945-19,
regina
road.
This
is
a
driveway
or
curb
cut
composing
two
parking
spaces
violation:
article
9
section
1
extension
of
the
non-performing
use,
article
10,
section
1,
the
limitation
of
error
of
accessory
usage
and
article
65,
section
9.,
dimensional
regulations,
open
space
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AB
BG
A
AB
Would
it
be
under
a
different
name
than
the
you
know,
any
other
name
related
to
this
case.
The
names.
A
In
the
meantime,
why
don't
we
call
arlington
street
please?
Mr.
G
G
Further
calling
the
next
case
calling
boa
130,
6240
26
arlington
street,
just
to
confirm
oxy,
is
a
single
family
building
and
changed
to
a
three-family
residential
building
with
three
parking
spaces.
In
addition
to
the
rear
of
the
structure,
the
violation,
article
51
section
56
rsd
parking
and
loading
article
51,
section
8,
the
use
is
forbidden,
article
51,
section
9,
the
large
areas,
insufficient
article
51,
section
9,
the
florida
area
area
ratio
is
excessive.
G
AI
AI
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
john
palgini,
with
the
business
address
at
10,
forbes
wrote
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
with
me
this
afternoon
is
eric
zacherson,
who
is
the
architect
together
with
jake
simmons
who's
representing
the
developer
as
mr
forts.
Instead,
this
proposal
to
construct
a
new
three
family
with
three
off
street
parking
space,
not
a
new
three
family,
in
addition
to
an
existing
house,
to
change
the
use
to
a
free
family
with
three
off
street
parking
spaces.
AI
This
change
will
be
done
through
a
rare
edition.
I
will
address
the
violations
parking
under
the
code.
Two
per
unit,
we're
proposing
one
per
unit
use.
We
have
a
three
family
and
a
two
family
zoning
sub
district
lot
area
is
five
thousand
we're
at
four
thousand.
Seven
hundred
and
seventy
seven
square
feet
far
point
six
is
allowed.
We're
0.96
height
is
two
and
a
half
stories
35
feet.
We
have
30
and
we
have
three
stories.
35
feet.
2
inches
front
yard
is
20.
We
are
at
six
foot
eight
that
is
existing.
AI
We're
not
touching
the
front
of
the
house.
Side
yard
is
10.
We
are
at
2
feet,
10
inches,
which
again,
which
is
existing
and
rare
yacht.
We
removed
the
violation,
so
we're
at
30
feet
the
unit
sizes.
Madam
chair,
our
unit,
one,
is
a
three
bed,
two
bath
1074
square
feet
unit.
Two
is
a
three
bed
two
bath.
That
is
also
a
thousand
seventy
four
square
feet
and
unit.
Three
is
a
three
bed:
two
bath
1148
square
feet
as
part
of
the
proposal.
There
are
no
roof
decks
and
the
basement
is
for
utilities.
Only.
N
I
I
am:
if
you
go
back
to
the
site
the
proposed
plan
there,
you
can
see
that
it.
AI
You
say
the
parking
is
on
the
left
of
the
building
as
you
look
at
the
building,
and
there
is
two
spaces
in
the
back
and
one
space
on
the
side.
If.
S
A
A
Okay,
mr
demiko,
any
any
opinion
on
this.
A
Okay,
then
counselor,
can
you
talk
about
the
rear
edition?
What's
the
dimension
of
that
rare
edition.
A
So,
basically,
it's
changing
its
style
from
a
you
know,
from
a
pitch
to
family
pitched
double
story
to
the
equivalent
of
the
three
stories.
That's
what
I'm
understanding.
AR
N
We're
planning
to
keep
the
front
of
the
building
in
intact
so
that
it
still
has
the
some.
U
Of
that
pitch
expression.
S
It's
about
I'm
gonna
guess
because
it's
not
quite
it's
about
20
feet.
It
looks
like
there's
14
for
the
bedroom
four
feet
and
I
see
a
dashed
line
that
I
think
is
the
existing
house
approximately,
but
so
18
plus
walls.
I
think
it's
20
feet
toward
the
back
yeah.
I'm
I'm
getting
21
feet.
Yes,.
S
A
S
BB
Yes,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
conor
newman
with
the
mayor's
office
neighborhood
services.
At
this
time,
we'd
like
to
defer
judgment
to
the
board,
the
applicant
went
through
an
ona
sled
community
process
and
a
butters
meeting
was
held
june,
2nd
2021.
We
did
not
hear
any
concerns
from
director
butters.
BB
AZ
Z
AB
G
A
G
I'm
gonna
call
a
case
we
called
earlier.
Madam
chair
case.
Boa
711-945-19,
regina
road
is
19,
regina
road
on.
G
This
is
a
change
of
arc
from
a
two
family
to
a
three
family,
renovate
the
interior
and
add
11
foot
by
seven
and
a
half
foot
two
story:
infill
of
165
square
foot
and
had
a
roof
deck
on
the
first
of
the
on
the
roof
of
the
first
floor,
rare
edition,
accessible
from
the
second
floor
unit
and
creating
four
parking
spaces
in
the
rare
yard
violation.
Article
68,
section,
29
group
structure,
restriction,
article
68,
section,
33,
austrian
parking
and
loading
article
68,
section,
8,
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
G
K
A
K
Yes,
so,
as
I
said,
this
existing
structure
is
owned
by
the
cathedral.
If
we
could
stop
at
this
slide,
that's
a
great
rendering
of
it.
Nope
sorry,
it
keeps
going.
A
It's
late
in
the
day
for
us,
we
still
have
projects
ahead
of
us,
so
please
get
directly
to
to
tell
us
exactly
how
this
this
will
be
subdivided,
how
the
units
are
going
to
be
created.
K
The
first
floor
unit
would
be
1
590
square
feet
and
the
second
and
third
floor
units
would
be
1
375
square
feet
each
the
deck
that's
shown
here
that
you're,
seeing
on
that
little
out
wing
in
the
back
that
that
is
being
removed
and
we
will
accept
a
proviso
for
no
roof
deck.
That
was
part
of
the
agreement
with
the
rear
of
butter.
So
no
deck
is
proposed,
showing
here
on
the
side
of
the
building
is
the
little
infill,
the
two-story
infill.
That
creates
a
second
bathroom
for
each
of
the
units.
K
On
the
first
floor
and
the
second
floor,
there
are
four
parking
spaces
shown
on
the
site
plan
behind
the
building
accessed
by
a
driveway
between
the
cathedral
and
this
building,
and
behind
that
there
are
six
spaces
that
are
used
by
cathedral
staff,
as
shown
on
the
site
plan.
So
there
are
four
parking
spaces
for
the
three
units
and
the
infill
is
a
total
of
165
square
feet.
Otherwise,
the
building
remains,
as
as
shown
and
they're,
going
to
put
significant
effort
into
restoring
and
preserving
this
very
important
historic
structure
adjacent
to
the
cathedral.
K
We're
going
to
do
the
church
will
essentially
do
a
cross
easement
with
itself
because
it
owns
both
structures
but
to
ensure
that
that
driveway
is
always
accessible
to
the
three
units,
which
will
actually
be
rental
units
still
owned
by
the
church.
But
we're
going
to
do
a
cross
easement
so
that
the
driveway
is
accessed
by
each
of
the
parcels
and
each
of
the
parcels
will
have
access
to
the
four
spaces
for
the
residential
and
the
six
spaces
for
the
cathedral.
BB
Yes,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
conor
newman
with
the
mayor's
office
and
neighborhood
services.
At
this
time,
the
mayor's
office
like
to
defer
judgment
to
the
board.
We
are
aware
of
some
concerns
regarding
the
increase
in
density
and
just
concerns
around
parking,
that's
fairly,
typical
for
south
boston.
Thank
you.
AB
AB
U
Okay,
there
we
go
yes
good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
john
yepman.
I
reside
at
538
east
4th
street
south
boston.
I
also
own
a
property
at
542,
both
properties
which
are
in
direct
abutment
to
the
proposed
project
at
525..
U
The
albanian
church,
through
their
attorney
mark,
has
done
a
great
job
in
working
with
all
the
all
the
issues
that
we
had
and
they've
said
they've
since
been
resolved,
and
we
we
look
forward
to
a
better
tenancy
coming
along
with
the
three
units,
because
there
were
some
history
that
I
won't
get
into,
but
I'm
I'm
happy
what
they
proposed.
AL
AL
Good
afternoon
of
the
year,
members
of
the
board
from
council
residents
link's
office,
the
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
recording
support
based
on
feedback
from
neighbors
and
the
gate
of
heaven,
liverpool
association
and
a
true
community
process,
with
good
faith
compromises
on
both
sides
from
the
neighbors
and
development
team
which
which
resulted
in
the
removal
of
dex
and
addressing
other
quality
of
life
concerns.
Thank
you.
S
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
plans,
do
still
show
the
rear
roof
deck,
but
I,
without
the
approval
of
the
roof
deck,
I
guess,
or
the
removal.
A
K
G
G
C
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
mr
fortune,
the
next
case
is
a
companion
case.
If
you
wish
to
read
that
into
the
record
as
well.
My
name
is
george
moran,
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
at
350,
west
broadway,
okay,.
G
Yeah
sorry
about
demonstrating
next
case
with
the
companion
case,
boa
115,
3868,
152
west
3rd
street.
This
was
to
combine
it's
the
same
purpose
as
the
127
bolton
street.
I
believe
the
violations
of
the
same.
Just
let
me
double
check
it.
G
The
violations
are
the
same
so
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
C
I'm
sorry,
let
me
switch
headphones.
I
apologize
give
me
one
moment
if
you
would.
BL
Thank
you.
These
are
companion
cases
of
two
vacant
lots
connected
in
the
rear,
one
fronting
on
west
third
street
and
the
other
on
bolton
street
first
as
a
housekeeping
matter.
I
do
wish
to
point
out
that
each
application's
description
of
work,
references,
a
combination
and
subdivision
of
the
lots.
There
will
be
no
combination
and
subdivision.
BL
That
is
from
the
very
initial
proposal.
Over
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
when
the
buildings
were
connected,
each
lot
will
remain,
as
is
additionally,
the
proposal
of
a
bolton
street
is
now
a
single
family
dwelling
rather
than
a
two-family
dwelling.
The
updated
plan
sets
reviewed
and
approved
by
isd
on
april
7th
reflect
these
facts
and
there's
no
effect
on
the
zoning
or
the
refusal
letters,
but
for
the
elimination
of
the
usable
open
space
violation
from
bolton
street.
BL
A
So
a
counselor
on
bolton
street
since
it's
a
one
family,
the
violation
for
additional
dwelling
unit
is
removed
and
is
there
violation
for
lot
size
also
removed?
No.
BL
No,
the
violation
for
lot
size
remains
I'll
begin
with
127
bolton,
since
the
chair
did
question
that,
with
respect
to
the
proposal
for
127
volt
and
what's
being
proposed,
is
a
single
family
home.
The
two-car
garage
located
between
several
connected
row,
houses
to
the
left
and
three
connected
town
houses
to
the
right.
The
lot
size
is
typical
for
both
developed
and
undeveloped
lots
in
the
area.
BL
BL
The
relief
is
needed
for
the
lot
size.
The
far
which
here
is
2.64
2,
is
allowed
under
article
68
and
side
and
rear
yard
setbacks.
The
rear
setback
here
is
5
feet,
which,
in
combination
with
the
setback
of
152,
was
thorough.
It
allows
for
15
feet
of
separation,
distance
between
the
rear
walls
of
both
buildings.
BL
A
Hold
on
hold
on
one
minute,
can
he
go
tell
us
which
page
we
should
look
at?
Is
this
a
two
and
a
half
story
or
a
three-story
building?
What's
the
zoning
district,
the.
BL
Yeah,
what's
being
shown
on
the
screen
now
madam
chair
is
127
bolton
street.
That
is
actually,
I
think.
Second,
in
the
list
of
plans,
I
I
was
prepared
to
begin
with
152
west
3rd
street
with
respect
to
152
west
3rd
street.
A
very
similar
looking
nearly
identical.
Looking
building
what's
being
proposed
is
a
new
two-family
dwelling
on
a
vacant
lot
of
1380
square
feet.
Unit
1
would
be
a
bi-level
3
bedroom
unit
of
approximately
1447
square
feet.
Unit
2
would
be
a
bi-level
2
bedroom
unit
of
approximately
1505
square
feet.
BL
It
would
be
a
two-car
garage
with
again
regulation
size
spaces
accessed
again
by
an
existing
curb
cut
as
to
the
zoning
violations
for
west
3rd
street.
The
lot
size
here
is
1380
square
feet,
whereas
2
000
square
feet
is
required
again.
This
is
a
typical
lot
size
for
both
developing
and
undeveloped.
Lots
in
the
area.
The
far
here
would
be
2.24
with
the
maximum
under
zoning
again
2.0
three
parking
spaces
would
be
required
for
two
units.
Well,
two
would
be
provided
in
the
garage,
the
parking
area.
BL
There
is
20
feet,
10
inches
wide,
so
there's
easily
room
to
accommodate
the
two
vehicles.
There
would
be
a
roof
deck
with
ash
access
for
the
use
of
unit
2
only
but
not
unit
1,
which
results
in
the
usable,
open
space
violation,
there's
a
side
yard
setback
violation,
as
the
lot
is
only
21
feet
wide.
Finally,
there's
an
11
foot,
radiant
setback,
whereas
the
code
requires
a
15
foot
setback
with
the
application
of
shallow
lot
exception.
BL
A
Okay?
Okay,
how
are
the
plans,
mr
robinson.
S
BB
Yes,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
conor
newman
with
the
mayor's
office
neighborhood
services-
I
just
went
through
an
extensive
community
process
where
the
applicant
worked
closely
with
a
number
of
neighbors.
I
was
able
to
secure
support
for
many,
however,
there's
still
fewer
butters
who
remain
in
opposition
due
to
concerns
with
height
and
density.
With
that
we
referred
to
the
board's
judgment.
Thank
you.
AL
Good
afternoon,
members
of
the
board
anna
calderon
from
council
president
flink's
office,
the
councilor
would
like
to
call
recording
opposition
based
on
feedback
from
many
neighbors
regarding
the
size
and
density
of
the
project
as
well
as
quality
applies
each
praise
during
the
community
process,
along
with
the
need
for
additional
public
process.
Thank
you.
AG
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
paul
sullivan
on
behalf
of
city
council,
elijah,
michael
flaherty,
the
council
is
unable
to
go
on
recorded
support
due
to
the
violations
under
article
68,
for
which
a
lengthy
community
process
went
through
in
drafting,
but
does
acknowledge
that
there
are
certain
projects
that
fall
under
article
68
that
do
have
merit.
Thank
you.
AB
BM
Hi,
I'm
chairman
this
is
greg
simekonis.
I
am
the
direct
a
budding
neighbor
at
154
west
3rd
street,
and
we
have
been
in
direct
opposition
to
this
project
from
the
onset
when
neo
had
recommended
to
build
the
direct.
You
know,
units
handling
from
block
to
block
we're,
definitely
against
the
the
the
height
density
and
rear
and
side
back
side
yard
setbacks.
BM
We
just
recently
had
a
massive
assessment.
You
know
for
painting
our
units
and
it's
going
to
be
impossible
to
paint
our
units
with
his
0.5
foot
setback.
As
I've
said
to
neil
numerous
times.
We
would
support
the
project
if
he,
you
know,
had
something
a
bit
more
reasonable.
You
know
single
families
on
each.
You
know
if
he
agreed
to
the
side
and
rear
setbacks,
he's
just
asking
to
build
too
much
on
too
small
a
property.
AB
BN
Paul
o'brien,
150
west
third
street,
I'm
the
director
butter
to
the
west
6th
street
side.
His
setback
is
incredibly
unreasonable.
We've
dealt
with
this
in
the
neighborhood
trying
to
come
up
with
some
appeasement.
He
has
basically
shut
down
everything
I
think,
he's
being
very
aggressive
with
it.
His
setback
is
going
to
drastically
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
value
of
my
property.
My
property
is
undeveloped.
So
it's
really
going
to
limit
what
I
can
do
with
my
property
in
the
future.
With
that
type
of
encroachment
I'm
not
willing
to.
BN
Nor
should
I
suffer
a
loss
for
his
game.
Also,
the
number
of
parking
spaces
he
has.
He
is
going
to
be
using
these
units
as
rentals
and
in
south
boston.
We
all
know
one
bedroom
equals
one
car
and
the
number
of
bedrooms
he's
proposing
a
build
is
very
unreasonable,
especially
when
you
can
sit
on
the
boulton
street
side
ties
no
unlocking,
so
any
parking
on
bolton
street
that
does
not
fit
in
the
units
will
be
on
third
street.
There
is
no
parking
on
bolton
street.
Thank
you.
V
I
think
that's
me
yeah,
okay,
so
I'm
kim
walsh,
I
own
125
bolton
street,
I
directly
about
127
bolton
and
152
west
third
diagonally
behind
me.
I've
been
insulting
my
whole
life
born
and
raised.
V
BO
My
name
is
tristan
taylor.
I
live
with
my
wife
and
two
boys,
henry
and
elliott.
Eleven
and
eight
on
110
bolton
street.
I've
lived
on
the
street
for
20
years.
You
know
definitely
similar
to
kim
in
support
of
the
project.
You
know
it'll
definitely
help
out
with
the
neighborhood
having
a
single
family
on
bolton
street,
we'll,
hopefully
bring
other
families
to
the
area
because
we
we
own
a
single
family
there
as
well,
so
definitely
in
support
of
the
project
and
the
the
benefits
that
it
brings
to
the
to
the
street.
A
Okay,
getting
that
information
and
I'm
wondering
if
it
makes
sense
to
split
up
the
votes
on
these
two
properties,
miss
ambassador.
Can
you
mute
everybody
please
and
can?
Can
we
have
a
discussion.
A
Okay,
go
ahead.
What
do
you,
what
do
you
guys
think.
P
S
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
with
bpa
design,
review,
152
west
third
street.
Y
G
Zone
article
50,
section
43
odd
street
blocking
isn't
sufficient
article
50
section
9
29
additional
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
50,
section
29,
the
floatie
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
50
section
29
the
bill
that
has
excessive
stories.
Article
50
section
29,
the
building
has
accessibility,
article
50,
section
29,
the
use
of
local
space
is
insufficient.
G
AV
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
are
you
rosa
from
rosa
design
and
construction
on
behalf
of
the
owner,
elizabeth
fernandez,
so
in
our
previous
hearing,
where
a
deferral
was
requested
due
to
a
concerns
about
the
roof
back,
that
we
were
proposing
and
most
important
that
the
neighborhood
association
was
not
informed
in
regards
to
this
application.
So
this
time
we
got
the
opportunity
to
present
the
project
to
the
neighborhood
association,
where
we
received
their
support.
AV
In
this
case
we
removed
for
other
people's
concern.
We
removed
the
head
houses
and
the
roof
decks,
the
common
area,
roof
deck
that
we
were
proposing
and
instead
we're
proposing
a
accessible
space
for
future
solar
panels.
AV
AV
A
AV
The
current
conditions
of
the
lot
it
allow
us
to
have
a
unit
without
window
wells.
We
located
the
bedrooms
towards
the
front
where
it's
our,
where
we
are
at
grade
level
and
the
ceiling
height
there
in
this
basement
is
seven
foot
nine
feet.
That's
seventy
feet.
Nine
inches!
Sorry.
A
S
The
plans
look
good,
thank
you
for
the
updates.
I
I
do
see
some
more
information
as
well
on
the
lower
level
unit.
The
the
grade
does
slope
toward
the
front,
so
both
those
bedrooms
are
sort
of
full
height
windows
and
the
grade
is
sloping
up
toward
the
back
and
and
the
common
area
in
terms
of
kitchen
and
is
pushed
toward
the
back
where
there
are
some
higher
windows
and
there's
a
full
walk
out
to
the
front
for
that
lower
level
unit.
S
BP
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
this
is
jason
gant
from
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
defer
this
matter
to
the
expertise
of
the
board,
but
I
do
want
to
highlight
that
one.
The
applicant
has
been
at
the
stanwood
street
oldsfield
road
and
columbia,
roads
resident.
BP
Meeting
that
was
held
by
project
right
on
march
3rd,
and
they
have
been
back
to
that
meeting
to
once
again
gather
more
support.
The
association
and
project
right
have
both
written
letters
of
support
for
this
actual
proposal.
Those
should
be
held
by
secretary
here,
and
then
I
just
want
to
highlight
the
project.
Right
has
definitely
one
maintain
a
lot
of
communication
with
this
applicant.
It
does
also
request
that
they
come
back
to
another
meeting
just
to
follow
up
after
you
know
today's
date.
BP
Well
today's
decision
and
then
also
just
maintaining
all
sense
of
communication
with
the
applicant
in
which
they
have
been
very
forthcoming
in
doing.
BO
AB
I
do
have
a
few
ways
to
dance
here.
I'll
start
with
mike
mike,
I
sent
a
request
to
mute.
You,
you
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AH
My
name
is
michael
closely
of
project
wright,
320
letter,
a
blue
hill
avenue,
as
jason
mentioned,
the
applicant
has
come
to
several
neighborhood
association
meetings.
They've
received
the
support,
especially
given
that
they
removed
the
rooftop.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
this
homeowner
as
we
move
forward.
We
also
want
to
thank
the
board
for
your
thoughtful
comments
to
begin
with
that,
helped
to
shape
the
redesign
of
this
project.
We
look
forward
to
working
forward
with
this
homeowner.
BQ
A
All
those
in
favor
aye
any
opposed
motion
carries
what
we're
going
to
do.
Is
it's
1
30
we're
going
to
take
a
10
minute
break
and
we
will
resume
with
the
last
case,
which
is
the
court
rematch
stopped?
Okay,.
BK
A
And
miss
bonado
here,
mr
hampton,
are
you
on.
G
BR
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
stephen
miller,
mcdermott,
quilty
and
miller,
I
have
next
to
me,
anthony
pazzani.
The
architect,
along
with
bill.
Paquette,
should
be
on
as
a
panelist
associate
of
mr
pizzani
as
the
architect.
A
So
before
we
proceed
into
any
great
detail,
I
need
a
couple
of
questions
answered
on
the
july
27
2021
hearing.
What
was
the
board's
decision
at
that
time
and
do
you
have
a
sense
of
which
board
members
sat
that
day.
BR
Yes,
madam
chair,
as
of
the
hearing
on
july,
27th
was
a
unanimous
decision.
You
sat
madame
chair
also
mark
fortune
mark
ehrlich,
joe
ruggiero
rogerio
tyrone,
kindle
junior
hanzi,
better
barraza
and
sherry
dawn
with
sat,
and
there
was
a
unanimous
decision.
A
Okay,
so
haron
sat
tyrone,
candel
and
I'm
sorry
ponzi
exactly
okay,
and
so
the
question
is
mr
robinson:
have
you
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
plans.
A
Okay,
okay,
so
everything
is
in
order.
Let's
proceed.
BR
Hey
madam
chair,
if
I
might,
I
did
file
a
memorandum
in
support
of
the
zoning
code
relief,
which
was
acknowledged
to
receive,
along
with
the
plans
which
have
not
changed
from
july
27th.
Hearing
and
also
copies
of
the
shadow
study
and.
BR
F
Chair
this
is
tom.
I
don't
believe
christian
simonelli
is
on
for
this
one.
BR
M
A
BR
So,
madam
chair,
we
did
submit
on
the
july
27th
and
christian
was
there.
At
that
time.
We
submitted
a
letter
from
boston,
water
and
sewer
that
we
were
in
full
compliance
with
the
g-cod
requirements
in
with
section
five
of
article
32
of
the
zoning
code.
The
the
requirements
under
that
and
and
christian
did
testify
at
that
point
that
that
we
had
met
all
those
requirements.
A
BR
This
is
a
boston,
neighborhood
zoning,
it's
a
multi-family
residential
sub-district,
as
well
as
the
groundwater
conservation
overlay
district.
The
building
currently
is,
has
two
non-conforming
uses
in
it.
The
building
was
constructed
in
1940,
there's
two
non-conforming
uses
as
a
parking
garage
and
it's
listed
as
a
private
club.
It's
most
used
most
recently
used
as
a
dog
walker
facility.
BR
The
violation
building
was
built
prior
to
the
zoning
code,
but
the
existing
uses
that
listed
a
non-conforming
uses.
We
are
changing
the
to
a
conforming
use,
fully
conforming
use.
So
therefore,
the
section
of
the
zoning
code
files
has
it
as
a
violation
as
a
conditional
use,
so
that
is
an
interesting
way
of
looking
at
it,
but
we're
going
from
non-conforming
to
conforming
and
therefore
require
a
conditional
use
permit
from
the
board.
BR
The
as
we
address
the
g-cod
in
the
final
violation
is
the
height
and
I'd
like
to
address
some
of
the
others
before
I
get
to
that
and
and
let
bill
pacat
show
the
the
plans
on
that
and
how
we
how
we
came
to
the
the
65
foot
height,
but
can
I
can
I
address
some
other
issues
prior
to
that?
Madam
chair.
BR
So
the
the,
as
I
said,
the
context,
the
project
complies
with
the
zoning
code,
we're
not
seeking
any
variances.
We
comply
with
floor
area
ratio
and
it's
an
allowed
use.
We
do
not
require
any
zoning.
BR
Any
variances,
as
isd
has
done
in
their
in
their
refusal
letter.
This
project,
as
we
said,
just
merely
requires
the
three
conditional
uses,
the.
If
I
might
on
to
comply
with
the
conditional
uses.
We
should
show
that
it
will
not
is
appropriate
for
the
location.
We
contend,
that
it
is
appropriate,
since
it's
a
multi,
multi-family
residential
area
and
with
which
is
exactly
what
we're
doing.
It's.
A
An
election
so
counselor,
let's
start
here,
okay,
so
if
I'm
looking
at
this
page
4.1,
the
the
garage
space
which
appears
to
be
on
the
right
is
proposed
to
stay,
how
many
spaces
are
being
provided
in
there.
BR
No,
it's
strictly
strictly
residential,
it's
four
residential
units,
one
of
which
would
be
occupied
well
they're,
condominium
units,
so
they
will
be,
they
will
be
home
ownership.
One
of
the
occupants
will
be
is
the
the
applicant
today.
A
A
BS
Okay,
okay,
well,
the
current
drawing
shows
it
should
show.
This
is
the
basement
plan,
which
would
be
strictly
mechanical
in
in
nature.
If
you'd
like
us
to
go
through
the
the
floor
plans.
A
BS
Yes,
each
there
are
four
units.
Each
unit
is
a
two
bedroom
plus
study
unit.
The
the
second
floor
unit
is
thirteen
hundred
square
feet,
units
two
and
three
or
fourteen
hundred
square
feet,
and
the
top
most
unit
is
a
duplex
unit.
That's
seventeen
hundred
forty
square
feet.
BS
BS
It's
actually
the
the
deck
at
the
topmost
level
is
off
to
the
side
of
the
the
octopus
space.
Okay,.
A
BB
Chair
members
of
the
board
cloning
him
with
the
mayor's
office
neighborhood
services.
It's
time
the
mayor's
office
like
to
defer
judgment
to
the
board.
This
proposal
went
through
a
complete
community
process.
The
north
end
waterfront
residents
association
held
a
meeting
july
8
2021.
They
voted
to
oppose
this
appeal.
BB
A
With
paul
any
other
representatives
of
elected
officials-
okay,
then,
let's
go
now
to
the
four
neighborhood
people
that
we
need
to
hear
from.
AY
207
endicott
street
in
the
north
end,
I've
been
in
the
north.
A
AY
Old
mori
at
207
endicott
street
mount
samino's,
I
own
a
building
at
79
and
84
north
margin.
I
am
in
support
of
the
project.
I
would
love
to
see
that
building
become
a
beautiful
new
building
that
we
can
eliminate
the
eyesore.
That's
presently
there
now.
Thank
you
very
much.
AT
BT
Hi
I'm
lisa
pacic
in
chile.
I
grew
up
in
the
north
end,
I'm
in
support
of
the
building.
BT
BU
Yes,
paul
pasquintilli,
born
and
raised
in
the
north
end
my
entire
life.
I
I
followed
this
project
right
from
its
genesis
and
seen
the
developer,
make
unlimited
concessions
in
regards
to
the
some
of
the
initial
pushback
four
units
or
four
parking
spaces,
oversized
units
that
would
satisfy
families
who
can
take
advantage
of
the
wonderful
school
system
as
well
as
just
the
you
know,
this
amazing
historic
neighborhood.
I
you
know,
I
you
know
again.
I
can't
stress
enough.
You
know
how
simple
this
this.
BU
A
F
Manager,
this
is
tom
attorney
kelly
frey
is
here
representing
the
advisers
for
the
building.
So
I'd
like
her
to
speak.
AB
A
BV
BV
North
margin
street
born
and
raised
my
mother-in-law
owns
the
building.
We
all
live
there
we're
a
block
from
this
development.
We
are
in
favor
of
it.
Like
previously
said,
it's
come
a
long
way
from
the
original
plans
and
the
owner
is
a
neighborhood
guy,
just
trying
to
develop
and
stay
in
the
neighborhood
and
make
families
have
an
opportunity
to
stay,
and
I
don't
see
any
issues
with
this
development.
So
I
fully
support.
A
BW
Madam
chair,
this
is
kelly.
Frey
am
I
able
to
speak
in
opposition
now.
BW
Yes,
my
name
is
kelly
frey.
I
have
a
business
address
of
at
mince11
of
one
financial
center
in
boston,
and
I,
along
with
my
colleague
dan
conley,
represent
marketplace
limited
marketplace:
loss,
limited
partnership
which
owns
the
historic
residential
building
at
10,
thatcher
street
commonly
known
as
the
vermont
building,
and,
as
you
can
see
in
this,
this
photo
it
directly.
It
busts
the
projects
and
wraps
around
the
project
on
two
sides.
BW
But
in
addition
to
those
reasons,
I
also
just
want
to
make
clear
on
the
record
today
that
the
proponents
application
before
the
board
requires
the
board
to
answer
two
questions
in
its
favor,
the
first
question's
purely
legal
in
nature,
and
it
relates
to
whether
the
proponent
must
obtain
a
variance
for
the
project's
proposed
65-foot
building
height.
And
the
second
question
is
factual
and
relates
to
whether
the
project
satisfies
the
requirements
for
a
conditional
use
permit
under
article
six
of
the
code
and
additional
requirements
under
are
under
section
54-18
of
the
code.
BW
The
board
should
find
against
the
proponent
on
both
questions.
With
respect
to
the
legal
question,
the
reasons
why
variance
is
necessary
are
simple
and
straightforward:
section
54-18
allows
the
board
to
approve
building
heights
subject
to
the
height
limits
applicable
to
the
sub-district,
in
which
the
lot
is
located
for
this
project.
The
lot
at
51
north
margin
is
located
in
the
north
end's
mfr
sub-district,
which
has
a
maximum
55-foot
building
height,
set
forth
in
table
c
of
article
54..
BW
But
despite
that,
55-foot
building
height
maximum
provided
for
in
table
c,
the
proponent
is
seeking
to
develop
a
65-foot
building.
Thus,
the
proponent
needs
a
variance
because
it's
asking
the
board
to
approve
a
building
height,
that's
higher
than
the
maximum.
The
board
can
improve
under
the
express
provisions
of
the
code.
Now
the
developer
has
stated
repeatedly
that
no
variance
is
necessary.
What
do
you
mean?
What
the
developer.
A
BW
I
I
can't
met
unchair.
Just
let
me
make
a
few
closing
comments
here,
just
that
for
in
addition
to
the
to
the
reasons
within
the
text
that
this,
the
developer's
interpretation
of
the
code
is
untenable
and
must
be
rejected.
BW
BW
Well,
I'm
done
with
the
first
point
on
the
legal
question.
The
second
question
relates
to
the
factual
question
that
I
can
move
to
now
with
respect
to
the
factual
question.
The
board,
in
addition
to
the
requirements
for
a
conditional
use,
permit,
would
need
to
find
that,
pursuant
to
section
54-18
of
the
code,
the
board
needs
to
make
a
finding
as
to
whether
the
project
quote
has
the
potential
for
significantly
restricting
light
and
or
airflow
to
adjacent
structures
and
or
significantly
restricting
views
from
roofs
windows,
doors
and
balconies.
BW
Here's
one
illustration
and
there's
also
another
here
which
shows
where
those
would
be
located
at
eye
level
relative
to
the
vermont
building
and
I
won't
walk
through
all
those
diagrams
now,
but
I
just
wanted
to
provide
a
few
of
them
so
to
so
that
the
public
and
the
board
can
see
for
themselves
how
severely
this
project
will
intrude
on
their
protective
zoning
interests.
And
I
don't
you
don't
just
have
to
take
my
word
for
it
in
the
record
before
you.
There
are
written
objection.
BW
You,
if
I
might
conclude
just
a
couple
brief
points
here,
those
letters
cite
a
number
of
issues,
one
of
which
is
that
the
vermont
building's
residents
are
concerned
about
privacy
and
safety.
There
are
multiple
residents
from
the
vermont
building
that
have
stated
that
as
single
women
living
alone,
they
fear
they
will
be
less
safe
and
have
decreased
privacy
if
the
board
allows
the
developer
to
construct
a
project
that
would
allow
observers
from
51
mark
margin
to
peer
into
their
bedroom
and
living
room
windows.
BW
Similarly,
the
residents
are
also
concerned
about
light,
airflow
and
views
that
will
be
blocked
if
the
board
allows
the
proponent
to
develop
a
new
building
at
51
north
margin
that
exceeds
the
maximum
building
height
expressly
allowed
in
the
code.
And,
finally,
another
concern.
That's
frequently
cited
in
these
letters
is
noise
nuisances,
as
shown
in
the
first
illustration
here.
A
Okay,
so
I
have
a
couple
of
questions,
for
you.
First
is
how
many
units
are
in
the
thatcher
building.
BW
I'm
not
sure
about
the
number.
I
know
the
number
of
residents
is
a
little
over
a
hundred.
A
I
just
need
to
understand
it
this
proposal
in
context
of
your
opposition
and
and
your
statements.
So
so
so
you
said
there
are
a
hundred
residents.
Okay,
I'm
gonna
just
take
that
at
face
value.
When
was
this
building
constructed.
BW
All
these
are
provided
in
our
written
objection,
letter,
which
I
will
reference
here
initially
constructed
in
1904.
A
BW
When
a
marketplace
purchased
the
vermont
building
in
the
1980s,
this
was
in
significant
disrepair,
and
so
what
marketplace
did
was
rejuvenated
this
old
of
this
old
building.
That
is
a
historic
landmark,
that's
on
registered
with
the
national
registry
of
historic
places
and
it
preserved
it
and
turned
it
into
the
unique
lifestyle
building
that
it
sits
today.
So,
in
connection
with
those
those
efforts
to
refurbish
and
obtain
landmark
designations
for
the
vermont
building,
I'm
I'm
certain
that
some
form
of
zoning
relief
was
likely
necessary.
BW
A
Okay,
yeah,
I
was
just
asking
if
there
was
any
relief.
I
didn't.
I
wasn't
specifically
asking
about
hype,
so
zoning
relief
was
likely
sought.
Okay,
okay,
and
so
we
understood
that
okay.
So
let's
go
to
the
other
three
hands
that
are
raised
to
see
to
to
get
testimony.
AB
X
Yes,
my
name's
whitney
taylor
and
I
live
at
10
thatcher,
street
apartment,
516.
I've
been
a
happy
and
proud
resident
resident
in
the
vermont
building
for
17
years.
Just
so
folks
know
there
are
80
units
in
the
building
and
the
u-shape
that
mr
kelly
was
talking
about
of
the
echo
chamber
that
is
created,
impacts,
22
units
in
the
building.
X
As
I
said,
I
have
lived
in
the
vermont
building
for
17
years.
You
will
see
testimony
from
some
of
my
neighbors
who
have
lived
in
the
building
for
up
to
30
years,
so
we
are
members
of
this
community,
even
though
we
happen
to
be
renters.
X
I
also
just
want
to
point
out
that
I
am
a
direct
of
butter.
I
would
be
able
to
reach
out
my
window.
This
is
actually
one
of
the
ones
that
you
can
see.
I
would
be
able
to
touch
the
building
as
it's
being
proposed,
and,
and
so
it
greatly
impacts
not
only
my
privacy
and
my
sense
of
security,
but
this
proposal
significantly
restricts
light,
airflow
and
view
as
per
what
the
requirements
were.
X
We're
looking
at
you
know,
I
am
not,
and
most
people
are
not
against
development
in
the
north
end,
there's
a
difference
between
taking
water.
A
Right
can
I
can,
I
can
hold
on,
can
everybody
mute
themselves
and
thank
you,
ms
stella,
because
I
think
you've
made
your
point
about
the
proximity
and
light
and
air
anybody
else.
X
A
AB
L
L
L
In
cancun,
here's
a
local
guy
that
lived
on
47
north
margin
street
that
just
you
know,
looking
to
develop
something.
You
know
bending
over
backwards
for
everybody
and
they're,
getting
a
hard
time
that
man
when
he
came
here,
no
one
gave
him
a
hard
time.
Nobody
gave
him
a
hard
time.
Every
single
unit,
80
units,
no
one
said
anything
and
those
temporary
renters
are
rent
they're,
worried
about
a
view.
The
people
when
they
build
this
other
thing.
A
AB
Y
A
Okay,
then
we
need
to
hear
from
another
person
in
our
position
and-
and
please
give
me
new
information
that
I
have
not
heard.
A
AB
There's
only
one
hand
left,
that's
the
caller
on
the
line.
Are
you
in
support
or
opposition
for
this
project?
Sir.
A
Okay
and
I've
lost
count,
do
I
need.
Maybe
I
need
two
people
in
opposition
so
that
the
the
deck
is
balanced.
A
Okay,
there
are
no
more
raised
hands
in
opposition.
We
have
letters
in
the
record,
the
one
thing-
oh
yes,
so
the
one
thing
that
I
had
a
question
about
that
has
now
been
clarified.
Is
these
this?
This
marketplace
is
all
attention
street
it's
80
units
of
rentals
that
came
before
this
board
for
relief
in
the
past.
Okay.
Now
I.
BW
Is
derived
from
comments
that
I
personally
made
I,
I
will
tell
you,
I
have
not
researched
the
history
of
what's.
A
Going
on
before
so
far
can
I
can
I
make
sure
that
everybody
is
muted,
please
so
that
there's
no
interruption
when,
when
I'm
speaking
or
when
the
board
is
speaking.
So
what
I
need
to
find
out,
then
is:
have
you
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
plans?
Mr
robinson.
S
Y
B
B
A
comment
you
know,
pursuant
to
what
the
court
is
asking
us
to
look
at,
we
have
the
g-card
letter
and
approval
no
harmless.
We
have
all
of
that,
and
the
conditional
use
is
very
consistent
with
the
uses
of
buildings
in
the
north
end.
So
you
know
I
don't
see
why
we
would
not.
A
And
I'm
sure
that
this
did
it
come
with
any
clarification
on
design
review
about
height
or
anything
else.
A
Okay,
so,
okay,
so
now
we
need
to
put
on
the
record
that,
with
the
height,
this
is
the
usual,
and
I'm
going
to
put
this
on
the
record
that
we
are
responding
to
the
violations,
as
cited
by
the
isd
that
we
have.
We,
as
the
board
of
appeal,
have
not
varied
in
any
way
in
the
way,
our
procedures,
how
we
proceed
on
our
projects,
so
in
in
in
to
echo
mr
rajiro,
we
have,
there
is
no
exception
in
the
way
that
we
are
approaching
this
on
the
55
versus
65
issue.
A
The
second
thing
is
on
restriction
of
light
and
air,
mr
regiro
and
and
other
members
of
the
board,
who
said
this
is
something
we
all
consider
in
our
decision
and
the
fact
that
this
is
a
six
story,
building
with
with
enough
space
between
the
buildings
that
it
is
that
that
we
are
in
support
of
it.
So
and
just
if
anybody
has
any
other
thoughts.
Please
pop
in
madam.
S
Chair
this
is
eric
again.
I
I
just
wanted
to.
I
did
not
sit
on
the
first
hearing.
Hanzi
was,
and
you
know
I
went
through
and
reviewed
it,
and
you
know
I
agree
with
those
assessments.
I
think
the
building
does
it's
a
it's
a.
It
is
a
complicated
site,
but
I
think
the
building
does
a
good
job
of
stepping
back
away
from
the
residents
at
thatcher.
S
I
look
at
it
from
almost
a
completion
of
the
courtyard
if
it
was
a
rectilinear
courtyard.
The
way
the
architecture
of
the
proposed
edition
is
actually
not
a
straight
on
view
of
those,
so
it's
an
asymmetrical
view
and
it
steps
back
away.
So
I
actually
think
there's
been
some
sensitive
moves
to
be
respectful.
It
is
a
tight
urban
condition
which
we
all
understand,
and
you
know
I
think
that
I
reviewed
the
notes
of
the
the
board
before,
and
I
think
I
I'm
I'm
in
support
of
the
original
review
of
this
as
well.
S
So
there
were,
there
were
provisos.
I
just
want
to
clear
the
record.
I'm
reading
the
stamp
just
so
we
are
all
on
the
same
page
from
ponzi.
It
was
the
bpd
design
review
with
the
garage
door,
review,
materials
and
roofline
exterior
and
top
floor
setback
where
the
pieces
of
the
proviso,
which
I
think
are
consistent
with
the
bpa
design
review
and
what
we
typically
look.
So
I
agree
with
the
previous
review
and
assessment
as
since
today,
so.
A
Okay,
so
in
essence,
through
the
design
review
and
our
specific
comments
on
the
design
review,
we
did,
we
did
respond
to
the
height
issue
and
to
the
conditional
use
and
5418
on
the
conditional
use.
So
if,
if
I
may,
if
I
may
summarize,
then
what
is
that
right?
Anybody
who
doesn't
agree,
let
me
know.
I
So,
madam
chair,
this,
I
totally
agree
with
that
summary
and
I
would
make
a
motion
that
we
affirmed
the
decision
of
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
from
on
the
previous
date,
which
I
can't
for
the
record.
You
probably
put
the
date,
and
I
forget
what
it
is.