►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 2-13-18
Description
Zoning regulates the use and dimensional boundaries of privately owned buildings and land. The Zoning code is in place to protect the neighborhoods from the construction of buildings or structures that do not fit into the context of a neighborhood. The Zoning Board of Appeal hears appeals for varying the application of the Zoning Code and determines when it is appropriate to grant deviations from code restrictions.
A
B
C
Board
of
appeal
for
Tuesday
February
13th
is
in
session
just
a
reminder.
Please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
all
off
and
in
conformance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law,
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed.
If
you
have
conversations,
please
take
them
outside
of
the
room,
because
the
acoustics
in
here
are
terrible.
C
Let's
see
finally,
I
see
a
lot
of
new
faces
here,
if
you're
here
to
speak
either
and
support
or
in
opposition
of
a
project
when
you
come
up,
give
us
new
information,
because
you
may
have
gone
through
a
community
process,
so
the
community
opinion,
the
VRA
is
opinion.
Everybody's
opinion
is
advisory
to
us.
C
We
want
to
hear
some
new
information,
so
when
you
come
up
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
give
us
some
new
information,
if
somebody
has
already
stated
your
concern,
just
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record:
okay
that'll
help
us
get
more
information
when
it
when
the
cases
is
before
us
to
make
a
smart
decision.
Okay,.
C
E
C
F
G
To
the
record,
please
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Paul
Ruffo
smith
doug
and
Buell,
and
Ruffo
99
Summer
Street
in
Boston
I'm,
an
attorney
representing
the
applicants
to
you
family
trusts.
This
is
a
request
for
one
year
extension
the
board
previously
granted
a
one-year
extension
which
is
expiring,
March
31st
2018.
G
During
the
last
year,
we've
had
hearings
and
meetings
with
the
Aberdeen
Commission.
They
actually
ran
into
a
snag.
We
ended
up
in
litigation
and
now
the
parties
are
discussing
a
resolution
of
that
litigation,
we're
very
hopeful
that
that
will
be
resolved
in
that
the
project
will
move
forward
within
the
next
year.
So
if
it
please
the
board,
we
would
request
a
one-year
extension
of
I'll.
C
A
A
I
D
J
C
C
K
D
L
L
The
owner
was
dealing
with
a
death
in
the
family
where
he
had
to
travel
back
to
Europe,
and
then
he
was
involved
in
trying
to
arrange
for
finance
and
it's
too
adjacent
to
family
projects
and
he
applied
for
residential
loan.
They
was
told
he
had
to
go
for
a
commercial
loan,
so
it
was
extended
period
of
time.
When
we
finally
went
to
eyes
D,
they
told
us
boa.
He
had
expired.
M
C
That's
the
second
track.
We
just
need
to
make
sure
that,
as
far
as
the
process
is
concerned,
that
we
are
not
giving
comments
to
expired,
two
moments
at
a
veneks
spot
that
are
expired.
People
need
to
understand
it's
a
two-year
to
your
process.
They
had.
The
permit
is
alive
for
two
years:
I'm,
not
not
until
unless
senior
police.
F
D
N
O
D
P
P
C
D
Q
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
mark
Lacoste's
liqu
house
law,
75
Arlington
Street
in
Boston
I'm,
the
attorney
for
the
applicant.
The
sole
zoning
issue
in
this
matter
is
installation
of
a
groundwater
recharge
system
under
article
32.
The
project
is
a
conversion
of
a
single-family
to
a
two-family
which
is
an
allowed
use
in
the
st.
batalov
district,
and
so
we
seek
approval
of
a
conditional
use
permit
for
installation
of
the
groundwater.
Recharge
system
and
I
have
the
letter
from
Boston
Water
and
Sewer
Commission.
Yes,
we're
gonna
need
that
we
don't
have
one.
D
D
This
is
tui
record
22
unit
residential
with
two
offices
face
running
created,
8,000
square
foot,
law
violations,
article
25,
section,
five,
flood
hazard
districts,
article
55,
53,
section
56,
R,
Street
loading
is
insufficient.
Article
53,
section
56,
our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
section
8
for
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article
53
section,
8
officers
are
forbidden.
Article
53,
section
9,
the
Lodi
area
for
additional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
9,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive
out
of
53
section
I
and
the
height
is
excessive.
D
S
Morning,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lin's,
245
Sumner
Street,
East
Boston,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
with
me,
is
James
Christopher
RCA
LLC,
the
architect
on
the
project
also
to
his
right,
is
Jean
Goodman,
who
is
the
principal
of
the
entity
that
owns
the
property?
Madam
chair,
this
proposal
would
combine
two
Lots
to
create
a
new
8,000
square
foot
lot,
demolish
the
existing
two
to
family
structures
that
exist
on
a
lot
and
propose
a
multi-family
22
unit,
multi-family
residential
with
two
small
office
spaces
located
at
grade.
S
This
would
include
a
total
of
11
parking
spaces
on
the
site,
I'll
run
through
the
zoning
relief.
That's
necessary
shortly.
I
just
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
location
in
the
context
of
this
particular
area.
This
area
is
located
between
Central
Square
and
Mavericks.
We're
in
East
Boston,
it's
within
close
walking
distance
to
both
Mavericks
square
make
maintains
an
MBTA
Blue
Line
station,
which
provides
for
dependable,
reliable
public
transportation.
This
also
is
within
close
walking
distance
Lopresti
Park.
So
there
are
a
number
of
amenities
in
the
immediate
area.
S
This
area
is
under
ongoing
change.
Presently,
two
projects
this
board
recently
approved
the
coppersmith
village
project,
is
located
directly
across
the
street.
That's
a
mixed
income
project
which
structures
up
to
five
storeys
in
height.
Also
sixty
Porter
Street,
the
Boston
each
site
is
located
less
than
a
block
away.
That's
a
200
plus
unit
residential
development,
with
retail.
At
the
lower
level.
There
are
a
number
of
other
projects
in
this
area
in
between
central
square
Mavericks,
where
that
are
proposed
to
be
coming
down
the
pipeline
relatively
soon
because
of
the
size
of
this
project.
S
This
was
subject
to
article
82
small
project
review
with
the
Boston
Planning
and
Development
Agency.
We
had
an
opportunity
to
vet
this
with
the
urban
design
team
at
VP
da
I
made
a
number
of
changes
to
this
project
based
upon
input
from
both
BPD
a
and
community
comments
that
we
heard
we
ultimately
appear
before
the
VP
DA
and
received
our
certification
approval
from
the
BPD
board
for
this
project.
With
respect
to
the
zoning
relief
that's
necessary.
This
is
located
than
3
ft,
2000
doning
districts.
S
Accordingly,
a
multi-family
use
would
be
forbidden
as
well
as
the
use
of
the
lower
level
4,
which
was
intended
for
professional
offices.
The
number
of
units
are
the
number
of
total
amount
of
square
footage.
That's
required
for
additional
number
units
I
would
also
be
violated,
as
one
thousand
square
feet
per
unit
would
be
necessary.
We
do
meet
the
requirements
for
lot
width
and
lot
frontage
at
100
feet.
S
This
floor
area
ratio
that
we're
proposing
is
a
2.5
where
the
maximum
in
the
district
as
a
1.0
I
would
point
out
that
it
is
consistent,
if
not
lower
than
the
FA
RS
that
are
being
currently
constructed
on
the
two
sites
that
I
mentioned
previously
Abbasid
East,
as
well
as
proper
summit
Village.
Now
the
height
of
the
building
is
49
and
a
half
feet
total
of
five
stories,
quite
consistent
with
the
height
of
congressman
village,
but
and
actually
lower
than
Boston
East.
There
is,
if
you
have
any
context,
photos
for
the
site.
S
The
Sumner
tunnel
vent
shaft
building,
which
is
roughly
a
seven
or
eight
story.
Building
located
in
close
proximity
as
well.
The
total
useable
open
space
is
about
1615
square
feet
that
would
be
below
the
requirement
under
the
three
f2000
district.
I
would
point
out
that
it
is
adjacent
to
the
Veterans
Memorial
Park,
which
provides
an
opportunity
or
a
substantial
amount
of
open
space.
We
do
understand
that
they're
likely
parks,
commission
review
associated
with
that
and
we're
prepared
to
make
a
contribution
to
the
parks
commission
with
respect
to
the
use
of
that
open
space.
S
Now
the
front
yard
setback,
we
are
proposing
a
modal
setback
which
we
believe
is
consistent
with
the
alignment
along
Liverpool
Street.
So,
although
we
do
not
meet
the
five-foot
setback,
we
do
meet
the
modal
setback
requirement.
Those
side
yard
setbacks
vary.
We
paid
special
attention
to
the
abutted
to
the
left
of
the
property
and
shifted
the
building,
approximately
twelve
feet,
which
will
act
not
only
as
a
driveway
but
an
additional
buffer
between
the
property
to
the
left-hand
side.
S
In
the
proposed
structure,
it
does
get
out
of
1.2
feet
on
the
right-hand
side,
which
we
require
variance
for,
as
the
requirement
is
2.5
feet.
The
rear
yard
setback
that
we're
proposing
is
a
total
of
17
feet,
which
is
less
than
30
feet.
That's
required
and
again,
the
total
number
of
parking
space
to
being
proposed
is
11.
The
mix
of
the
unit
count.
This
is
a
mix
of
two
bedrooms
and
Studios.
S
There
are
total
of
16
Studios
and
six
two
bedrooms
with
the
as
I
mentioned,
the
two
smaller
commercial
spaces,
the
size
of
the
two
bedrooms
range
from
800
to
900
square
feet,
and
the
studios
are
roughly
474
to
80
up
to
about
670
square
feet.
This
will
include
a
total
of
3
ITP
units
based
upon
the
fact
that
we're
in
excess
of
10
units
requiring
zoning
relief,
we
will
provide
a
mix
of
group
to
units
with
the
three
IDP
notes
that
we're
proposing
and
mr.
Christopher
could
speak
to
that
as
well.
I
happened
in
sir.
C
T
O
S
So
the
requirement
is
out
13%
that
would
be
roughly
5
for
the
22
units.
We're
rounding
up
to
3,
so
total
3
units
it'll
be
a
mix.
My
guess
is
we'll
probably
be
two
Studios
in
one
two-bedroom,
as
DN
d
requires
a
mix
of
the
units
and
they'll
be
located
at
different
floors.
Who've
not
selected
with
those
units
are
at
this
time,
but
we
can
work
with
D
and
V
PDA
on
the.
T
U
S
T
U
S
Mix
of
twos
and
threes
as
you
get
closer
to
the
street
at
the
cross
street
at
Decatur,
there
are
some
four-story
buildings,
but
again
the
bulk
of
the
developer.
That's
happening
mr.
Ehrlich,
at
that
location
directly
across
the
street
is
five
storeys
with
the
commercial
level
at
the
lower
level.
So
this
build
the
building
across.
There
has
to
be
taller
once.
X
C
Y
D
S
S
At
the
time
we
initially
filed
this,
the
intent
was
to
go
with
a
restaurant
or
some
type
of
retail
use
about
that
location
throughout
the
community
process
and
through
the
BPA
process,
I
was
determined
that
that
was
probably
not
the
best
use
for
that
and
it
was
changed
to
a
professional
office.
I'm
sure
you'll
recognize
the
address
from
what
I
put
on
the
record.
This
is
a
technical
change.
X
Z
D
AA
In
Sandwich
Massachusetts
representing
the
applicant,
the
Juicery
is
located
at
66
cross
street.
They
are
being
forced
to
relocate
or
actually
move
out
of
the
building
due
to
redevelopment
up
their
property.
58
Salem
Street
is
roughly
just
less
than
a
block
away
same
use,
same
tenant,
block
away.
I
do
have
two
letters
of
support
from
the
North
End
waterfront
neighborhood
council
and
North
End
waterfront
residents
Association.
This.
AB
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
maria
Lanza
man's
office,
Neighborhood
Services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
the
businesses
already
established
in
the
community
and
they
have
the
support
of
the
north
on
waterfront
Neighborhood
Council,
as
well
as
the
North
End
waterfront
residents
Association.
Thank
you.
D
Boa
seven:
three:
five,
eight
six,
six,
three
eighty-three
Commonwealth
Avenue:
this
is
a
change
Locker
from
a
five-unit
building
to
a
six
unit
building
and
build
out
a
new
unit
in
the
basement.
The
violation
is
article
15
section
one
the
floor:
the
a
ratio
is
excessive.
3.0
is
the
Mac
article,
2
section
2-1
the
floor
e
area,
gross
name
and
add
notes
for
the
record.
Please
good.
N
Morning,
madam
chairwoman,
mr.
secretary
members
of
the
board
attorney
Andrew
Cara
I'm,
an
attorney
here
in
Boston
at
Rubin
&
Rudman
at
53,
State
Street
with
me,
the
managing
agent
for
the
owner,
Scott
Kirkwood
from
Boston
real
estate
collaborative
having
an
address
at
1904,
Washington
Street
before
you
this
morning
to
seek
your
approval
to
add
one
units
to
383
Commonwealth
Avenue,
383,
Commonwealth
Avenue
is
located
on
the
westbound
side
of
Comm
Ave.
Seven
lot
sent
from
the
corner
of
massive
and
Comm
Ave.
N
The
current
legal
occupancy
for
the
property
is
for
five
units,
we'd
be
proposing
to
add
a
sixth
unit
at
the
garden
level
basement
level.
The
proposed
unit
would
be
a
large
one-bedroom
unit,
approximately
900
square
feet.
The
proposed
ceiling
height
would
be
8
feet,
10
inches.
The
unit
would
have
three
large
rear
facing
windows
and
two
smaller
front
facing
windows.
Once
the
unit
was
completed,
it
would
look
substantially
similar
to
the
unit
at
the
sister
property
located
at
3,
seven
Commonwealth
Avenue,
which
you
can
see
on
your
handout.
N
The
owner
of
the
property
previously
received
approval
from
the
inspectional
Services
Department
in
1987
to
construct
seven
units
at
the
property,
but
five
units
were
only
completed
most
likely
for
cost
reasons,
as
you
can
see
again
in
your
handout.
This
unit
was
framed
out
but
never
completed.
That's
the
sixth
unit
we
propose
to
be
adding
the
property
is
located
in
an
H,
365
zoning
sub
districts.
The
proposed
addition
of
the
six
unit
would
require
a
variance
for
excess
of
floor
area
ratio.
The
allowed
fer
is
3.0.
N
We
would
exceed
that
limitation
with
the
six
unit
that
we
would
be
adding.
We've
once
completed
that
you
know
what
lay
out
well
as
the
floor
through
unit
would
have
put
natural
light
on.
Both
sides
would
also
be
in
harmony
with
a
number
of
other
basement
and
garden
level
units
that
exist
in
the
area
that
you
can
see
at
the
bottom
of
your
handout.
That's
about
five
or
six
garden
basement
level
units
in
the
immediate
area
on
comment.
F
AC
F
AC
AD
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
just
saw
her
at
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
At
this
moment,
we
would
like
to
bond
a
record
of
support
by
the
time
I
had
my
butters
meeting,
we
already
had
a
letter
of
non
opposition
from
the
Civic
Association,
and
there
were
also
no
great
concerns
against
this
proposal
at
the
abutters
meeting.
Something
thank
you.
AE
C
D
AF
AF
C
O
AF
AF
F
A
F
AF
AI
D
This
is
constructing
six
storey,
54
unit
residential
building
the
violations,
article
8
section
7,
the
multi-family
dwelling
unit
uses
conditional
use
particle
13
section
4
dwelling
in
a
non
residential
district.
Article
14,
section
14
lot
area
for
additional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
Article
15
section
1
the
floor
da
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
19,
section,
1,
side
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
24
section
1
bar
Street
loading
is
insufficient.
Article
80,
section
80,
B
2
lies
product
review,
applicability,
article
16,
section
1,
the
height
is
excessive.
Two
and
a
half
stories.
D
A
maximum
allowed
article
16
section
one:
the
required
building
height
is
excessive.
Article
17
section
one
that
required
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
18
section
1,
the
minimum
front
yard
requirement
is
insufficient
in
article
20
section
1,
the
minimum
grade
requirements
is
insufficient.
They
have
an
address.
AJ
For
the
record,
please
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Johanna.
Moran
see
an
attorney
with
the
business
address,
350
West
Broadway
in
South,
Boston,
I'm
joined
by
Tim,
Russell
Tim,
along
with
Thomas
Broderick,
or
the
principles
of
Trinity
green
development
and
my
clients.
Tim,
is
also
the
project
architect
ik.
Madam
chair
members.
This
is
an
article
80
large
project
that
was
approved
by
the
da
ward.
A
couple
of
weeks
ago,
project
commenced
in
April
of
2017.
AJ
When
letter
B
letter
of
intent
was
filed
to
develop
this
site
into
what
is
now
resulted
as
it
254
a
unit
residential
project,
the
site
of
20
West.
Fifth
Street
is
bounded
to
the
west
by
a
street
to
the
north
bite
Gould
Street,
which
ends
on
the
easterly
side
of
the
site.
At
the
South
Boston
Hall
Road,
the
southerly
side
of
the
site
is
West
fifth
Street,
which
is
the
project
address.
It's
currently
the
home
to
a
light
industrial
use,
colmar
belting
company
is.
AJ
Sixteen
eighteen
thousand
nine
hundred
ninety
one
square
foot
site
colmar
belting
company,
is
as
being
is
relocating
to
a
different
site.
The
building
would
be
residential
e
developed,
as
I
say,
four
fifty
four
units.
This
is
within
the
cells,
boston,
Dorchester,
Avenue,
planning
initiative,
the
commonly
known
as
the
growth
zone
and
the
the
project
is
entirely
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
growth
zone.
It
is
in
an
area
where
ground-floor
retail
is
is
preferred.
AJ
There
is
no
ground-floor
retail
here,
because
there
was
an
agreement
that
it
wasn't
necessarily
an
appropriate
site
for
that,
given
its
close
proximity
to
Broadway,
the
building
would
be
approximately
78,000
just
over
78,000
square
feet.
I
would
be
a
six-story
residential
building
again
with
54
units
at
41
garage
parking
spaces.
The
garage
would
be
accessed
from
the
Gould
Street
side
of
the
study
site.
AJ
It
does
not
connect
across
the
haul
road,
of
course,
and
the
proposal
will
be
a
taking
and
then
it
conveyance
in
fee
to
my
clients
of
gold,
Street
Gold
Street,
would
then
be
tabled,
which
will
provide
for
both
the
hick
Euler
access
and
enhanced
pedestrian
access
on
the
Gold
Street
side
of
the
site
will
also
provide
for
a
significant
amount
of
public
open
space
at
the
end
of
Gold
Street.
The
the
project
would
also
feature
1080p
units
which
exceeds
the
requirements.
It
represents
approximately
19
percent
of
the
project.
AJ
There
is
an
additional
commitment
in
the
growth
zone
for
of
bonus
density,
which
would
bring
it
up
to
approximately
17
percent.
My
clients
are
exceeding
that
by
another
2%
again
for
total
of
10
units
or
19
percent,
affordable
commitment
in
the
project
with
that
sort
of
description
and
procedural
history.
AK
C
AJ
AK
AK
AH
AN
AN
Is
that
they're
building
a
six-story
structural
building,
much
of
South
Boston,
as
you
know,
in
the
article
new
zoning
laws
asking
for
requiring
no
more
than
forty
feet,
which
is
about
four
storeys
in
height,
and
this
is
to
keep
more
parking
and
slow
growth.
Development
in
South
Boston,
so
were
very
concerned
about
that
concerned.
About,
as
I
said,
the
height
violation
increased
in
Minden
parking
in
that
area.
Parking
is
very
limited
as
it
is.
AN
Sorry
about
that
yep
and
another
concern
was
by
B
Street,
50,
B
Street
and
the
units
along
there
a
lot
in
the
condos.
There
are
the
four
forty
feet
height
max
as
it
is
so
there
already
is
a
bunch
of
condo
buildings
there
that
are
within
the
appropriate
height.
So
our
concern
is
this
excess
of
height
that
is
happening
in
our
neighborhood.
AN
AO
AP
C
AJ
To
the
previous
testimony,
madam
chair,
at
point
code
again
under
the
final
plan,
a
South
Boston
Dorchester
Avenue
planning
initiative
plan.
This
is
a
120-foot
zone.
It's
been
identified
by
the
BPD,
a
as
his
own,
that
would,
in
the
future,
allow
for
120
feet
of
building
I
word
70
feet
and
also
with
respect
to
parking
under
the
guidelines
and
planning
recommendation.
The
parking
ratio
in
the
growth
zone
is
to
be
a
minimum
of
zero
and
a
maximum
of
one
we're
at
41
spaces
for
54
units,
we'll
also
within
four
blocks.
U
AJ
U
AJ
AK
C
AQ
AK
AK
C
D
Boa
seven,
eight
four
or
five,
two
seven
eleven
Springer
Street.
This
is
to
combine
a
lot
eleven
with
pasta,
pasta,
love,
1074
square
feet,
two
lot:
thirteen
with
pasal
of
1095
square
feet
to
create
one
lot
of
2169
square
feet
at
a
three-story
addition
with
two-car
garage
parking
in
roof
deck
to
an
existing
three-story
building.
The
violation
is
article
68
section:
33
asti
parking
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
68
section
8,
the
front
yard
setback
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
68
section
8,
the
rear
yard
setback
requirement
is
insufficient.
D
AR
Madam
chair,
we
have
an
existing
three
family
building
at
11,
Springer
Street,
and
the
proposal
here
today
is
to
increase
the
same
three
family
to
the
right
and
a
little
bit
to
the
rear.
Their
rear
yard
will
be
10
feet
and
will
otherwise
comply
with
article
68.
The
FA
are,
is
that
is
required
in
this
area
is
what's
provided?
The
height
of
the
building
proposed
is
34
feet.
40
feet
is,
what's
allowed.
Initially,
there
was
a
roof
deck.
There
is
no
roof
deck
on
this
proposal,
nor
is
there
a
roof
hatch.
C
AR
Front
yard
requirements
is
an
existing
building
alignment.
We
have
a
1.4
to
2
feet
as
the
building
slopes
at
a
mild
angle
with
Springer
Street.
It
I
do
have
a
building
alignment
plan.
It
should
be
within
the
full
set
and
it
shows
all
the
front
yards
on
Springer
Street,
the
majority
of
which
is
1
feet
or
existing
building
alignment.
AR
Two
parking
spaces
that,
with
this
proposal,
there
is
a
lot
to
the
right
without
a
use
of
premise.
Permit
cars
do
park
there,
however,
so
the
parking
will
remain
the
same.
It's
sufficient
size
for
two
parking
spaces,
although
again
not
currently
legally
permitted
as
parking
this.
With
this
proposal,
it
will
have
two
legal
parking
spaces.
C
AR
AR
C
AI
AR
C
D
Boa:
six:
six
one
zero,
two:
six:
two:
thirty
six
to
256
Dorchester
Street:
this
is
the
raising
existing
structure
on
apostle
to
create
a
new
24
unit.
Five-Story
mixed-use
development
with
below
grade
parking
in
commercial
ground-floor
violations.
Article
13,
section,
4
dwellings
in
an
onerous
residential
district
article
14,
section,
14,
2
water
area
for
additional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
Article
15
section
1
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
17
section
1,
the
useable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
18
section
1,
the
front
yard
requirement
is
insufficient.
D
C
AR
C
AR
C
AR
Is
yeah
often
times
the
unit
count
is
reduced
since
advertising,
because
the
initial
proposal
had
24
units
and
through
the
neighborhood
process
they
tell
the
the
feedback
was
appropriate
that
there
would
be
additional
units
added
oftentimes.
It's
the
other
way
where
someone
would
propose
a
larger
number
and
by
the
time,
it's
advertised
at
the
larger
number,
and
we
come
to
the
board.
AR
That's
a
good
point:
it
is
an
article
80
project.
There's
a
comment
period.
We
have
a
hundred
and
seventy
letters
in
support.
I
have
probably
20
people
in
the
community
that
took
taxis
to
come
to
City
Hall
and
miss
work
to
support
the
project.
I
would
say,
there's
more
support
for
this
project
in
any
project.
I've
ever
done.
AR
The
existing
zoning
here
is
the
underlying
zoning,
which
is
H
150
and
also
a
it
goes
through
the
sub
district
line
of
l1
and
which
is
a
local
sub
district
and
it
will
revert
to
the
nearest
residential,
SR
or
H
district,
which
would
be
H.
So
the
with
a
height
of
50
feet
is
what's
proposed
in
the
but
the
height
for
this
building
as
we're
advancing
it
through.
The
article
80
process
is
60
feet
to
match
the
Dorchester
Ave
planning
initiative,
the
side
yard
violation
for
the
first
70
feet.
AR
There
is
no
side
yard
again,
it's
an
exception.
Within
the
base
code,
the
front
yard
is
existing
building
alignment
and
there's
a
rear
yard
requirement
of
10
feet
with
a
shallow
odd
exception,
and
we
are
seeking
relief
for
that.
The
parking
requirement
is
0.92
every
residential
unit
and
we
are
somewhat
less
than
that
and.
C
AR
AR
AS
AA
AQ
C
AQ
AS
AS
A
AT
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Stephen
Moore,
with
see
councilor
head
Flint's
office,
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
of
support.
The
developer
was
personally
engaged
in
the
community
process
worked
closely
with
the
community
throughout.
This
is
a
project
that
the
community
is
looking
forward
to.
AU
C
AQ
C
V
D
V
V
Nice
for
their
current
CBA
approval
expires
on
April,
8th
of
2018,
and
we
are
in
partnership
with
Boston
Department
Neighborhood
Development
Johnathan
Spillane
is
in
there
in
the
room,
and
the
project
is
very
close
to
closing
finance
closing
is
underway.
Now
we
expect
to
close
so
my
request
for
an
extension
is
to
hedge
against
the
possibility
of
unforeseen
delay.
We
may
well
it
flows
in
March
and
start
construction.
C
C
C
C
D
C
H
D
Is
demolishing
existing
structure
and
erect
a
six
story
building
with
six
residential
units,
the
violations,
article
32
section,
four
G
caught
applicability,
article
64
section,
ten
density
limitation
to
any
dwelling
converted
for
more
families.
As
a
separate
dwelling
unit,
article
64
section
16,
the
Florida.
A
ratio
is
excessive:
article
64,
section
16,
the
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
64,
section
16,
the
rail
yard
setback
is
insufficient
in
article
64,
section
36.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
thank.
AV
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jeff
Drago
with
Reagan
when
Toscano,
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
I'm,
the
attorney
for
the
applicant
City
Realty
Josh
Federman
to
my
right.
D'artagnan
Brown
from
embark
is
the
architect
in
the
project
we're
seeking
zoning
relief
at
587
Albany
Street,
as
was
mentioned,
to
take
down
the
existing
three-story
structure
and
erect
a
six
story
building
with
six
condominium
units.
This
particular
area
is
zone
economic
development
area
in
the
south
end,
it's
a
1833
square
foot
lot.
AV
The
zoning
code
is
pretty
relaxed
in
the
area
and
way
of
dimensional
records
and
so
just
to
go
over
a
layout
first
floor.
There
is
a
studio
unit
from
floors
2
through
6.
It
would
be
one
unit
per
floor,
roughly
1400
and
30
square
foot
units
to
bed
in
two
baths,
just
to
go
over
the
violations,
as
mentioned
obviously
there's
G
Cod,
which
we
have
submitted
plans
to
water
and
sewer
if
they
are
in
this
particular
areas.
AV
AV
AV
C
R
AE
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
face
the
shareef
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
their
proposal.
They
did
meet
with
Blackstone
Franklin
Neighborhood
Association
Neighborhood
Association
was
very
enthusiastic
about
the
plans
we
also
held
an
about
us
meeting
I
and
the
director
butters
were
in
support
of
it.
We
would
like
the
proponents
to
keep
the
neighborhood
updated
about
demolition
and
construction
management,
and
things
like
that.
Thank
you.
AT
U
U
C
A
C
AQ
So
we
based
our
decision
purely
on
the
planning
process
that
we
went
through
with
Harrison
Albany.
We
had
extensive
conversations
with
property
owners
down
in
the
southern
part
of
the
Harrison
Albany.
If
you
notice
residential
units
are
specifically
not
allowed,
we
tried
to
focus
all
the
residential
units
up
on
the
northern
portion
of
the
Harrison
Albany
corridor,
so
the
underlying
zoning
right
now
there
are
no
residential
and
I
was
intimately
involved
in
that,
and
that
was
the
B
PDAs.
C
AV
AQ
AJ
C
C
D
D
This
succumb
by
an
existing
parcel.
Seventeen
thousand
one
hundred
sixty
four
squeeze
square
feet:
there's
an
existing
townhouse
dwellings
with
a
vacant
parcel
and
subdivide.
This
combined
lot
of
twenty
five
thousand
four
hundred
sixty
nine
square
feet
into
two
new
Lots,
this
new
latte
to
have
one
twenty
one
thousand
three
hundred
and
seventeen
square
feet
and
erect
a
new
semi
attached
to
family
dwelling,
the
dwelling
to
be
fully
sprinkled.
This
would
be
one
of
two
dwellings
on
the
same
lot.
B
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Chris
Tracy
senior,
directed,
are
at
O'neill
and
associates
in
Boston
with
a
business
address
of
thirty
one
new
Chardon
Street.
My
client
is
Anthony
Delicia
of
CAD
builders
at
two
hundred
Revere
Street
in
Canton.
He
is
on
his
way
should
be
parking
now,
but
I
think
we
can
continue
without
him.
If
that's,
okay
with
you
guys,
we
are
here
seeking
relief
for
a
proposed
four
unit
building
in
the
fort
Hills
section
of
Roxbury,
with
eight
parking
spaces
associated
with
it
violation
is
article
50
section.
B
B
B
B
The
parking
works,
it's
a
common
driveway,
so
my
client
built
an
8
unit,
building
right
next
door
here,
sorry
here
and
we're
proposing
a
common
driveway
between
the
two
buildings
when
they
built
the
8
unit
buildings.
This
was
always
considered
the
phase
2
of
the
project
to
do
4
units
on
this
lot.
I
can
speak
to
this
in
greater
detail
in
a
moment.
If
you
want
me
to
give
the
context
in
the
background.
F
B
But
there
is
a
bit
of
history
in
context,
though
this
board,
my
client
came
forward
in
April
2016
with
this
plan.
Okay,
they
came
here
while
facing
some
stiff
resistance
from
the
community
and
it
was
denied
by
this
board.
Okay.
Since
that
time,
CAD
builders
has
undertaken
a
sincere
and
thorough
effort
to
both
explore
other
development
options
on
the
site
and
work
in
cohesive
harmony
with
this
community.
Okay
cat
explore
different
development
options
on
the
site
via
an
extensive
research
and
analysis
exercise.
B
At
the
end
of
this
exercise,
they
have
concluded
that
the
original
option
is
the
best
to
move
forward
with
and
I
will
articulate
that
why?
Okay,
this
plan
was
done
hand-in-hand
with
the
urban
design
staff
at
BPD
a
we
think,
it's
the
most
aesthetically
pleasing
for
the
site.
We
think
it
provides
for
the
maximum
amount
of
on-street
parking
in
the
neighborhood
on
what
is
already
congested
street
with
parking
it
provides
for
the
most
amount
of
off
street
parking
for
future.
B
Residents
of
the
proposal
provides
for
the
maximum
amount
of
green
space
on
the
site
and
therefore,
better
drainage
and
water
retention
on
site.
During
this
due
diligence
period,
my
client
also
worked
closely
with
the
community
and
exhausted
every
possible
option
to
save
what
was
the
existing
home
on
the
property.
The
I
tried
to
find
a
partner
to
move
the
house
to
another
site
in
the
neighborhood.
They
couldn't
find
anything
that
worked
landmarks
imposed
a
90-day
delay.
B
They
eventually
deemed
that
it
was
not
significant
and
they
have
since
demolished
the
home
again
we're
here
respectfully
seeking
this
board's
relief
after
we
feel
we've
had
a
positive
and
productive
dialogue
with
the
community
on
January
18th,
we
had
an
abutters
meeting
at
the
Hawthorne
community
center
that
was
hosted
by
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
I
personally
dropped
over
100
flyers
in
the
community,
notifying
folks
of
that,
we
felt
it
was
a
very
warm
reception
from
the
community,
an
amicable
dialogue
that
happened
with
those
abutters.
No
one
voiced
opposition
to
the
plan.
B
Okay,
some
people
had
some
questions
made
a
request
for
a
community
benefit
which
we
have
since
done,
or
committed
to
doing
and
again
after
researching
multiple
iterations
on
what
could
have
been
done
on
this
site,
including
this
option
to
your
right.
That
has
two
driveways
that
we
received
a
speed
letter
on
from
ISD
we're
told
we
could
do
as
of
right.
This
is
the
plan
we
hope
to
move
forward
on
because
of
the
reasons
I
stated
earlier.
A
B
C
B
Is
and
it's
a
bit
confusing,
because
when
they
came
before
this
board
in
2016,
they
were
flagged
for
a
violation
of
Trevor
of
cars,
traversing
the
two
property
lines
we,
after
the
denial
they
and
again
we
after
we
went
through
that
exercise.
They
resubmitted
the
same
plan
flagged
once
again,
but
for
a
different
violation.
Two
dwellings
on
one
lot
as
I
understand.
This
is
a
new
violation
that
is
D
has
deemed
on
it.
In
the
City
of
Austin,
legal
department
has
concurred
what
they're
really.
AY
F
AG
C
AW
AZ
Chair
members
of
the
board,
Joshua
McFadden
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
Madam
chair,
at
this
time
we've
held
in
the
budgets
meeting
on
the
18th
of
January
about
nine
individuals
who
are
butters
came
out.
No
one
articulated
excuse
me,
don't
want
articulated
that
they
were
in
full
support
at
the
time.
However,
at
this
time,
our
offices
in
support
I
know
the
applicant
has
also
reached
out
and
mentioned
they
will
be
doing
a
community
benefit
which
we
are
in
support
of.
I
know.
AZ
At
the
time
of
the
abutters
meeting
applicant
also
mentioned
they
will
be
able
to
present
in
front
of
the
Holland
Park
Neighborhood
Council.
As
of
now
we
are
in
support
based
on
these
plans.
However,
I
know
the
the
Island
Park
Neighborhood
Council,
also
reiterated
about
to
spend
good
neighbors
with
the
development
team
and
that's
something
that
our
office
is
strongly
in
support
of
as
well
I'm,
so
that
we
asked.
You
know
that
the
that
the
abutters,
the
neighborhood
council,
as
well
as
the
developers
and
the
applicant
just
work
that
out.
AZ
BB
It's
ridiculous,
if
you
want
to
make
us
whole
just
put
back
what
you
had
There
the
densities
too
much
they're
there
they're
trying
to
get
and
and
by
the
way,
the
the
idea
that
they've
gotten
no,
no,
no
opposition
is
nonsense,
because
I
was
at
the
meeting
and
they
got
no
support
for
the
abutters
meeting.
You
can
check
that
and
there
was
a
meeting
last
night
where
we
voted
14
to
nothing
for
no
support,
so
the
Highland
Park
Neighborhood
Coalition
is
going
on
record
as
not
supporting
this
project
still.
AG
C
C
U
A
C
B
The
meeting
on
January
18th,
no
one
voiced
opposition
to
four
units.
Again
they
had
some
questions.
They
had
some
concerns
that
we
we
felt
like.
We
left
that
meeting
at
a
good
place,
we've
taken
the
guidance
of
Neighborhood
Services
and
we
were
under
the
X.
We
were
under
the
impression
that
we
did
not
have
to
appear
at
last
night's
meeting.
Okay
and
Josh
McFadden
has
been
wonderful
to
us
guiding
us
through
this
process.
U
C
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
several
recession.
Sorry
I
just
want
to
do
a
clarification.
I
missed
a
project
at
the
end
of
the
ten
30s
that
is
being
postponed,
so
February
27th,
so
I'm
going
to
call
it
in
for
the
record
case,
boa
794
741
88
to
94
Lincoln
Street
is
being
postponed
to
227
at
9:30,
so
February
27th
at
9:30.
So.
C
C
D
Chair
we're
gonna,
go
back
up
Fisher
average
here,
so
we're
gonna
call
boa
741,
372
174
Fisher
Avenue
this
sued
demolish
an
existing
single-family
erect
a
new
two
unit,
townhouse
of
three
storeys
in
basement.
The
violation
is
article
59,
section,
7
family
semi-attached
dwelling
unit
is
the
forbidden
use
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
thank.
AV
You,
madam
chair
members
of
ward,
Jeff
Drago
with
Drago
and
Toscano,
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
I'm,
also
here
with
David
O'sullivan,
the
architect
on
the
project
as
well
and
Matt
echo
from
my
office
as
mentioned.
This
is
a
proposal
that
174
Fisher,
Street
and
Mission
Hill.
The
proposed
project
is
to
demolish
the
existing
single
family
structure
and
erect
two
townhouse
style
three-story
condominium
units.
This
particular
lot
size
is
three
thousand
four
hundred
and
sixty-seven
square
feet.
This
particular
zoning
district
is
zoned
for
row
house.
AV
AV
It
could've
been
rental
or
condo,
but
we
went
with
the
two
townhouses
with
a
commitment
to
the
community
that
these
would
be
sold
and
they
would
remain
townhouse
three
bed,
three
bath,
we've
heard
we
went
through
the
pretty
extensive
community
process
as
we
went
forward
and
just
to
give
you
a
little
idea
of
the
layout
basement
will
be
strictly
storage,
utility,
washer/dryer,
our
first
floor,
kitchen,
living
dining
and
a
half
bath.
Our
second
floor
is
two
bedroom
one
bath
and
our
third
floor
is
one
bedroom,
one
bath
with
a
family
area.
AV
If
you
take
a
look
at
the
packet
of
information,
you
can
see
sort
of
the
one
house
as
it
stands
out.
All
of
the
surrounding
structures
are
made
of
a
brick
structure,
they're
all
condo
development
surrounding
the
area
on
the
front
and
the
back
as
you
go
down.
This
is
really
a
different
shape.
Topography.
If
you
look
at
the
law,
the
shape
of
the
law
is
abnormal
dips
down
in
the
back
along
Ellingwood
Street,
and
it
actually
extends
almost
the
point
behind
the
abutters
property
as
well.
It's
a
very
unique
topography
to
the
lot.
AV
U
AD
AD
They've
met
with
the
Civic
Association
twice
they've
met
with
back
of
the
hill
CDC
once
for
a
special
meeting
and
I
also
hosted
in
a
butters
meeting,
and
while
there
is
wide
opposition
to
the
case,
we
would
still
like
to
our
record
and
support
recognizing
that
the
applicants
have
done
their
due
diligence
to
work
with
the
community,
and
some
of
the
greatest
concerns
have
been.
You
know
the
the
fence
on
one
end,
which
they
have
agreed
to
work
with
the
director
butter
to
take
down
and
put
up,
may
put
up
a
new
one.
AD
There
are
concerns
with
director
butters
just
down
the
street
on
lawn
Street
in
regards
to
their
French
drainage.
They
have
agreed
that
they're
not
changing
the
topography
on
this
project.
They
have
also
agreed
to
drop
one
of
the
units.
The
first
proposal
was
to
have
four
bedroom
units
and
it
was
actually
a
resident
at
the
Civic
Association
who
proposed
that
they
drop
a
unit
which
they
have
done
so
at
this
moment
we
would
like
to
go
and
record
and
support.
Thank
you.
C
BC
C
BC
BD
BE
BE
I
have
testimony
which
I'll
hand
in,
but
you
know
we
have
a
very
big
problem
on
the
back
of
Mission
Hill
with
student
rentals
and
in
effect,
a
lot
of
families
have
been
persuaded
to
leave
the
neighborhood
and
investors
have
purchased
many
properties
and
rented
them
to
students.
We
appreciate
the
fact
that
this
is
being
billed
as
a
condo
ownership
opportunity.
The
we
have
asked
the
developer
to
put
deed
restrictions
in
requiring
owner
occupancy.
He
has
refused
to
do
that.
BE
BF
BF
We
worked
very
hard
to
save
that
house,
as
it
was
the
only
one
left
in
that
area
after
the
after
the
area
had
been
totally
destroyed,
but
we
oppose
this
at
this
point
for
all
the
reasons
that
Maggie
gave,
what
they're
saying
is
changing
it
from
a
four-bedroom
for
a
three
as
far
as
I
can
tell
they
just
changed
the
name
of
one
of
the
rooms.
This
the
fact
that
it's
called
the
family
room
versus
a
bedroom
makes
it
no
less
likely
that
it's
going
to
be
turned
used
as
a
bedroom,
so
I
oppose
it.
BF
For
all
the
reasons
the
student
housing
is
clearly
still
going
to
be
student
housing.
The
refusal
to
do
a
deed
restriction,
they
think
they're,
trying
to
claim
that
putting
it
in
the
condo
documents
is
the
solution.
It
is
not.
Those
can
be
changed
at
any
time
by
the
condo
association
that
is
in
there.
It
needs
to
be
a
deed
restriction
and
they're
absolutely
refusing
to
do
that.
BF
A
deed
restriction
which
does
not
allow
undergraduate
students,
yeah
I,
have
one
more
comment
to
make
which
I
have
not
heard
I
understand
that
they
are
talking
about
renting
it
out.
In
the
meantime,
before
the
demolition
they've
been
claiming
that
this
house
is
beyond
repair,
if
this
house
is
beyond
repair,
why
are
they
talking
about
renting
it
out?
Thank
you.
BG
My
name
is
Alison
Colton
SAT,
one
long
straight
lawn
straight
is
parallel
to
Fisher
one
block
away.
My
opposition
is
new
information.
I
think
that
coming
to
the
CBA
before
they
submit
a
demo
application
and
are
heard
at
the
Boston
Landmarks
Commission
related
to
article
85
is
premature.
It
puts
the
two
boards
in
conflict
and
takes
away
some
of
the
responsibility
that
Landmarks
has
and
doesn't.
BG
BH
Good
morning,
members
of
board
Cameron
Merrill
on
behalf
of
the
back
of
the
health
townhouses
condominium
trust
the
condominium
Trust
is
in
opposition
to
this
project,
for
reasons
which
you've
heard
on
that
neighborhood
perspective.
While
I
do
applaud
council
for
attending
various
meetings,
the
concerns
of
the
road
and
butters
were
not
met
at
the
meetings
to
a
substantial
point
where
they
were
willing
to
support
this
project.
Besides,
for
the
elements
of
the
variance
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
state
that
this
property,
is
you
not
not
unique?
BH
We
have
not
heard
reasons
why
this
apparently
or
allegedly
unique
property
does
generate
a
hardship
for
this
owner
and
why
the
property
cannot
reasonably
use
that
single-family.
Clearly
in
1987,
when
this
board.
Obviously
other
board
members
adopted
the
original
variances
to
allow
for
this
development.
They
found
that
a
single-family
house
was
reasonable
and
worth
salvaging
on
this
property,
and
it
remains
worthy
of
Salvage.
To
this
date,
I
did
mail
the
board
a
letter
on
19.
BH
This
building
is
at
the
top
of
the
crest
of
the
hill,
there's
significant
drainage
problem
that
was
addressed
by
a
French
drain,
which
runs
between
this
property
and
the
lower
properties
to
support
the
fact
that
any
development
of
this
site
will
not
have
detrimental
effects
on
those
developments
beneath
it
and
to
address
other
neighborhood
concerns
such
as
placement
of
HVAC
other
mechanicals
along
that
nature.
So,
therefore,
in
summer,
we'd
like
to
oppose
this
project
for
further
study
at
least
and
hear
what
the
article
85
results
are
before
this
matter
goes
any
further.
Thank
you.
C
AV
AV
I
just
want
to
be
clear,
so
what
is
allowed
is
multi-family
residential.
So
we
have
the
ability
to
design
this
project
to
be
a
larger
scale
project
with
parking
meet
the
requirements.
As
of
right.
We
didn't
want
to
pursue
that
option
because
one
we
felt
on
house
for
marketability
and
to
actually
sell
these
units.
We
were
not
proposing
to
make
this
a
rental
building.
We
were
quite
clear
with
the
community.
The
issues
that
we
heard
was
the
basement.
AV
AV
C
C
AV
Some
of
the
other
issues
that
have
come
up
the
drainage,
we're
going
to
put
a
full
water
and
sewer
plan,
which
we
said
will
be
submitted,
an
installation
of
a
catch
basin.
We've
promised
the
fencing
around
the
property
and
the
deed
restriction
has
come
up
now.
We
had
said
we'll
put
in
the
condo
docks,
but
to
restrict
the
deed
could
affect
financing
and
the
marketability
of
the
units
which
could
actually
be
counted
intuitive
of
selling
these
units.
So
we
were
more
than
happy
to
put
a
restriction.
The
condominium
dogs.
AV
C
But
I
think
that
you
guys
have
clearly
heard
is
that
there's
concern
about
an
as
in
every
project
in
Mission
Hill
about
student
rentals.
That's
one
thing.
Second
thing:
is
this
the
fact
that
one
bedroom
was
just
renamed
as
a
family
room
so
that
there
might
be
ways
that
you
could
actually
work
it
down?
So
it's
more
of
a
traditional
three-bedroom
family
type
house
and
of
course
you
know,
everybody
knows
about
you,
know
people
doing
whatever
they
do
with
basements.
AV
AV
C
AV
AV
C
D
Calling
you
next
case
calling
do
a
78664
935,
Cushing
Avenue.
This
is
a
new
ten-foot
wide
curb
cut
in
previous
driveway
for
two
compact
electric
car
parking
spaces
violation
is
article
9.
Section
1
proposed
parking
is
an
extension
of
an
existing
non-conforming
multi-family
home
in
a
3
family
sub
district
I,
think'll
65,
section
41.
D
The
location
is
not
permitted
if
exceeding
10
feet
with
article
65
section
41,
the
two
proposed
parking
spaces
do
not
meet
the
minimum
dimensional
requirements
for
parking
spaces
in
article
65,
section
41
delayeth
for
the
two
proposed
parking
spaces
does
not
provide
proper
maneuvering
name.
It
had
just
for
the
record,
please.
My.
C
We
I
just
before
you
go
into
the
merits.
We
just
have
to
remind
everybody
here
that
our
approval
is
not
based
on
the
current
proposal,
but
on
on
the
long
term,
installation
of
this
driveway
or
whatever
it
is
so
so
we
always
have
to
look
at
it
in
that
way.
So
these
are
violations
that
talk
about
the
minimum
dimensions,
the
location
and
maneuverability.
So
can
you
please
talk
through
those
yeah.
BJ
Sure
so
the
one
thing
on
the
on
the
size
of
the
parking
spaces
and
Billy
I
have
a
certified
plot
plan,
which
shows
the
driveway
coming
in
and
two
parking
spaces
directly
coming
in.
In
one
space
is
a
twenty
by
eight
and
a
half,
and
the
other
is
a
seven
and
a
half
by
18.
So
those
two
meet
the
minimum
parking
space
requirements
and
they
come
straight
in
so
that
I
think
that
addresses
the
those
two
issues
as
far
as
location
in
the
front
of
the
building
that
there's
really
not
a
whole
lot.
BJ
I
can
do
about
it.
Work
like
I,
said
we're
on
a
corner
lot
and
there's
there's
no
access
to
get
around
to
the
back
to
have
a
parking
in
career,
but
I
did
I'm
sorry.
So
I
did
a
Potter's
meeting
back
in
December
and
there
was
no
opposition.
I
met
with
the
local
Civic,
Association
and
I
had
100%
support
for
the
project.
I
have
signatures
from
many
of
the
abutters
in
particularly
a
butter
where
the
driveways
coming
in
all
three
of
those
owners
sign
and
said
they
were
in
support
of
of
the
driveway.
C
BJ
BJ
F
BJ
M
C
BK
F
F
F
U
D
C
D
Yep
the
next
case
calling
VOA
seven
two
six
three
three
to
four
to
six:
Auckland
Street
cut
to
access
parking
for
two
parking
spaces
for
residential
parking
violations.
Article
10
section
one
limitation
of
accessory
uses
an
article
66
section,
unusable
open
space
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record,
please
my.
C
C
BM
AG
C
BM
BN
Morning,
madam
chair
members,
the
board,
my
name
is
David.
Carter
from
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
held
an
on-site
abutters
meeting
in
which
three
abutters
attended
and
expressed
their
support.
The
proponent
also
I
went
to
the
Columbia
seven
mile
Civic
Association,
who
offered
their
support
for
the
proposal
as
well.
Thank
you,
madam.
Y
D
C
BO
BK
S
U
BO
D
C
U
D
Call
calling
the
next
case
calling
boa
seven,
seven,
nine
three
seven
one
one,
ninety
one
to
one:
ninety
five
Bowdoin
straight:
this
is
to
construct
new
forty
one
apartment
building,
twenty-one
apartment
building
with
ground-floor
retail,
to
be
known
as
190
195
Boden
Street
violations,
article
65,
six
to
fifteen,
a
multi-family
dwelling
is
conditional.
Article
65
section:
fifteen
accessory
parking
is
conditional
article
65
section,
sixteen
in
floor
da
ratio
is
excessive,
equals
65,
section
16,
the
height
is
excessive
article
65
section
216.
The
rail
yard
is
insufficient.
D
Article
65
section
16
at
the
front
yard:
65
21.1
street
wall,
continuty
unbowed
in
the
street
article
65,
section,
16,
the
front
yard,
65
41.1
street
wall
continuty
from
top
blue
street
and
odd
65
section
41
street
parking
is
insufficient
in
article
65,
section
41,
our
street
loading
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BP
The
purpose
of
the
appeal
is
to
seek
zoning
relief
to
develop
two
vacant:
lots
located
in
Dorchester
boat
engine,
even
neighborhood,
that's
in
local
convenience,
sub
district
of
the
Dorchester
neighborhood
district
located
at
191
boat.
The
street
was
currently
owned
by
the
city
of
Boston
Department
of
Neighborhood
Development,
and
the
adjacent
parcel
at
195
Bowden
Street
owned
by
the
Dorchester
Bay
Economic
Development
Corporation
Viet
ade
proposes
to
acquire
both
parcels
and
develop
the
site
as
a
mixed-use
project
with
41
one.
BP
Two
and
three-bedroom
affordable
residential
apartments,
approximately
6000
square
feet
of
ground
floor,
retail
space,
900
square
feet
of
meeting
space,
approximately
3500
square
feet
of
open,
plaza
and
46
off
street
parking
spaces.
Let's
introduce
Liz
that
to
tell
you
folks
a
little
bit
about
what
VNA
does.
BP
They
first
of
all
the
multi-family
use
under
article
65
table
B
conditional
use
permit
is
required
to
conduct
41
residential
uses
in
one
building
the
floor
area
ratio,
section,
65,
16,
table
D
Macario
maximum
floor
show
of
1.0.
Therefore,
variance
is
required
for
the
proposed
floor
area
ratio
of
1.4.
BP
Building
height
the
40
feet
is
required
in
this
district.
The
proposed
is
approximately
46
feet.
The
rear
yard
setback
requires
a
20
feet.
Therefore,
we
need
a
variance
for
the
proposed
14
and
for
a
quarter,
rear
yard
setback.
The
street
wall
continuity,
article
65,
section,
31,
38.1.
A
variance
is
required
where
the
building
will
not
conform
to
the
established
street
walls
along
Bowden,
Street
and
top
left
Street
off
street
parking
requirements.
BP
C
BP
Off
street
parking,
sixty
two
spaces
would
be
required
for
forty
one
residential
units.
Therefore,
a
variance
is
required
to
allow
twenty
two
spaces
for
the
residential
units.
In
addition,
fifty
percent
of
the
parking
spaces
are
to
be
compact
stalls.
Therefore,
a
variance
is
required
for
the
deviations
from
the
standard
for
manoeuvrability,
light
of
the
tight
dimensions
and
then,
finally,
off
street
loading
table
g.
Article
65
requires
one
off
street
loading
bay.
Therefore,
variances
required
to
allow
for
an
off
street
loading
area
as
opposed
to
an
off
street
loading
bay
in
terms
of
community
outreach.
AL
BK
AM
BR
BS
BT
BU
Madam
chair
and
the
board,
my
name
is
Alison
brown
on
the
board,
chair
of
the
Dorchester
food
co-op
I
made
on
behalf
of
the
700
member
owners
of
the
Dorchester
food
co-op.
We
are
highly
in
supportive
of
this
project
and,
if
you
haven't
heard
Dorchester
food
co-op
is
a
grassroots
initiative
to
build
a
community
and
worker
owned
grocery
store,
with
the
focus
of
food,
justice,
economic
development
and
sustainability
and
support
of
local
businesses,
and
we
are
the
prefer,
a
retail
tenant
of
the
retail
space
for
this
development.
BU
BV
Madam
chair
members
of
board,
my
name
is
DeVito
andleman
at
94
Clarkson
Street
in
Dorchester,
in
the
vote
in
Geneva
neighborhood,
the
great
bond
journeyman
Neighborhood
Association
has
already
gone
on
record
and
being
support
of
this
project.
These
two
parcels
have
been
problem
areas
in
the
bone,
Geneva
area
for
over
30
years.
So
this
is
a
wonderful
opportunity
to
put
these
parcels
back
into
a
more
positive
use
for
affordable
housing
and
6,000
squeak
6,000
square
feet
of
commercial
development.
Thank
you
very
much.
BE
Madam
chairman,
my
name
is
Maggie
cone
I
live
at
129,
Fisher
Avenue
in
Mission
Hill,
but
I
work
as
a
loan
officer
for
the
cooperative
fund
of
New
England,
and
we
have
been
working
with
the
food
co-op
since
its
inception
out
of
four
or
five
years
ago,
and
we
have
found
this
to
be
a
really
thoughtful
well-planned
enterprise
and
we
look
forward
to
making
them
a
loan
for
equipment,
purchase
and
build-out
at
this
location.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
BW
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Joseph
anis
from
Dorchester
Bay
Economic
Development
Corporation,
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
strong
support
of
this
project
due
to
its
bringing
much-needed,
affordable
housing
to
the
area
and
reinvigorating
this
space
for
commercial
use,
which
will
be
a
positive
contribution
to
the
local
economy.
Thank
you.
C
BX
BX
Oh
sure,
Jeffrey
bacon,
they
could
be
a
Kalyan
and
I
live
at
e3
Morton
Street
in
Dorchester,
which
abuts
the
proposed
property
and
at
83rd
Street
I
own.
It
I've
owned
it
for
since
2000
and
I
took
over
the
property
after
my
father
passed
away
and
he
wanted
1978
I
mean
the
property
has
been
an
eyesore
for
a
number
of
years,
and
it's
been
many
problems
over
the
course
of
years.
I
mean
I
would
like
to
see
something
done
with
the
property
I.
Don't
think
this
is
the
proper
solution.
BX
I
think
that
having
there's
already
heavy
traffic,
that's
in
the
in
the
area
and
parking
is
really
tight.
I
think
what
they're
proposing
for
parking
is
not
going
to
be
sufficient.
I
think
that
it's
going
to
be
another
eyesore
for
the
neighborhood.
I
I'm
not
impressed
by
what
I've
seen
so
far
I
think
there
could
be
a
better
solution,
so.
BP
Terms
of
the
parking
we
feel
it
is
adequate
based
on
the
devote
the
VNA's
experience
developing
other
similar
type
properties.
We
feel
we
have
provided
an
adequate
number
of
spaces
for
the
commercial
use
in
terms
of
the
residential
use.
It
is
again
consistent
has
located
directly
adjacent
to
bus
routes,
as
well
as
within
the
close
vicinity
to
to
both
MBTA
red
line
and
the
MBTA
commuter
rail.
It
has
been
the
experience
of
VNA
that
the
parking
is
adequate
for
this
type
of
use.
C
Z
D
D
This
is
demolition
of
the
existing
Chapman
waterproofing
structures,
a
new
construction
of
a
forty
three
thousand
square
foot
charter
school.
The
violations,
article
66
section:
eight
elementary
secondary
schools
conditional
article
66,
section:
nine,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
66,
section,
nine,
the
height
is
excessive.
Article
65
section
forty-one
aa
street
parking
loading
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section,
nine.
The
front
yard
is
insufficient:
article
65,
section,
nine,
the
front
yard,
other
Street
65-42
point
two,
then
the
carnot
65-42
point:
five:
the
corner
Lots
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section,
nine
sixty
five.
D
BY
W
C
BY
BY
BY
The
height
is
35
feet,
maximum
we're
seeking
a
variance
to
permit
about
a
42
foot,
building
slight,
very
slight
increase
there.
We
are
not
providing
a
loading
dock
at
the
site,
front
yard.
We
have,
in
consultation
with
the
BPD
a
oriented
the
building
to
basically
come
flush
to
both
Quincy
and
Columbia
at
the
corner.
In
order
to
maintain
the
street
wall
and
for
other
purposes,
the
building.
That's
actually
there.
BY
That's
going
to
be
demolished
is
in
the
same
location,
and
because
of
that
we
violate
the
front
yard
minimums
which
are
15
feet
on
both
Quincy
and
Columbia,
and
then
the
final
violation
is
traffic
visibility
across
that
corner.
We
have
a
violation
of
that
requirement.
We
have
building
that's
going
to
be
in
that
triangular
space.
BY
C
BZ
BZ
BZ
O
BZ
C
C
O
Maybe
that's
what
my
head
was:
how
many
buses
are
you
gonna
be
able
to
what
do
they
call
that.
BZ
AG
BK
BL
CA
BS
BV
BR
D
C
AJ
C
AJ
C
D
C
BN
Madam
chair
members,
the
board,
my
name,
is
David
Carter
for
the
mayor's
office.
Neighborhood
Services
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
We
held
an
on-site
abutters
meeting
the
only
a
butter
who
attended
expressed
his
support
and
mike
also
has
the
support
of
the
lower
mill
civic
association.
Thank
you,
madam.
D
BX
D
You
mama
next
case
calling
seven
seven
zero,
five,
nine
nine
eighty
five
Maryknoll
Street
this
proposed
renovations
in
addition
to
annex
single-family
home
violations,
article
sixty
section
I
in
front
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
60
section
eye
on
the
side.
Dad
setback
is
insufficient,
an
article
sixty
section
nine.
The
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded,
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
CC
C
CC
C
CC
CC
CB
Is
an
addition
and
renovation
of
an
existing
one
family,
going
from
approximately
3,500
square
feet
to
4400
square
feet,
we
will
be
extending
all
else,
both
horizontally
in
terms
of
a
addition
for
a
second
garage
bay
and
enlarged
living
area
and
master
bedroom,
and
also
vertically,
by
raising
the
roof
line
to
create
a
new
family
room.
On
the
third
floor.
C
C
A
A
U
AS
AH
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
for
Muskaan
solace
mayor's
office
in
Neighborhood
Services
would
like
to
go
record
and
support
the
proponent.
The
applicant
had
one
abutters
meeting
where
he
in
the
architect
way,
but
to
address
a
lot
of
neighbors
concerns,
and
he
also
attended
the
Apple
Grove
neighborhood
association,
where
he
also
received
support
there.
So
we
were
also
like
to
go
on
record
of
support.
BR
C
D
C
CD
C
C
CE
BC
BS
C
C
D
Boa
seven:
seven,
three,
three:
two:
two:
nine
six,
forty
one
Albert
Street:
this
is
a
renovation
of
existing
third
floor.
An
addition
of
two
dollars
build
new
staircase
from
the
second
to
third
floor
replaced
or
an
existing
deck
with
a
larger
door
violations;
article
55,
section,
9,
excessive
fa,
our
medical
55
609,
excessive
number
of
stories,
article
55,
section,
9,
insufficient
side,
dad
setback
name
an
address
for
the
record,
please
Rick,.
CF
We've,
given
you
a
brief
handout
that
there's
full
drawings
in
your
packages,
but
it's
a
pretty
modest
project.
The
house
is
built
as
a
two
family
always
has
been
there's
an
existing
third
floor.
Stair.
That's
the
old
domestic
stair
in
the
back
corner,
which
is
illegal
in
common
den
owns
the
top
two
floors
unit.
Two
is
two
and
three
and
is
fully
occupied,
but
you
go
up
this
back
staircase.
The
petition
is
to
add
a
dormer
on
the
left
side,
a
very
small
stairwell
dormer.
CF
This
side
is
non-conforming
existing,
so
we're
matching
it
and
putting
a
little
shed-dormer
on
there
to
allow
up
to
the
third
floor.
The
other
variants
is
required
for
its
its
f.
Ar
is
0.6
in
the
neighborhood.
The
existing
is
0.7
by
adding
the
other
dormer
on
the
other
side,
we're
adding
a
hundred
and
fifty
square
feet,
basically
in
the
form
of
headroom,
and
this
is
the
f
AR
issue.
CF
It
also
triggers
the
the
two-and-a-half
story
we're
over
to
be
considered
a
two
and
a
half
story,
we're
occupying
more
than
fifty
percent
of
that
floor,
which
has
been
the
case
since
before
they
bought
it.
So
they're
trying
to
legalize
and
put
in
a
stair
that
they
can
get
insured
the
current
insurance
there's
sort
of
a
rumble
on
in
them
using
this
common
back
stair
to
get
to
their
upstairs
and
the
dormer
is
basically
trading
out
some
skylights
to
provide
some
more
Headroom
up
in
some
rooms
that
are
already
occupied,
very
minor
interior
renovations.
CF
C
BC
C
D
A
BI
D
Is
this
project
is
seeking
to
combine
lots
in
the
occupancy
of
a
3
family
at
number
63
and
with
the
3
family
occupancy
at
number
65
to
a
total
unit,
6
units
that
would
be
erect
and
a
rare
addition
and
add
Norman's
at
fully
renovate
the
existing
structure?
The
building
is
to
be
fully
sprinkled.
The
violation
is
article
55,
section
9,
excessive
F.
May
our
article
55
section
9
insufficient
open
space,
article
55,
section
9
additional
required
lot
e
areas,
insufficient
article
55,
section,
55
40.
D
AV
AV
This
is
proposal
at
63-65,
Sedgwick,
Street,
Jamaica
Plain,
we're
seeking
to
combine
two
Lots
and
to
existing
attached
three
family
dwellings
at
63
and
65
Sedgwick,
we're
proposing
to
make
a
six
unit
building
to
erect
a
rare
addition,
dormers
on
either
side
of
the
third
floor
and
completely
gut
renovation
and
sprinkler
the
building,
we're
also
as
part
of
the
proposal
in
the
rear,
adding
six
parking
spaces
to
the
project
right
now,
there's
roughly
around
four
of
them.
Although
it's
not
paved
very
well,
this
particular
lot
size
is
7580
square
feet.
AV
The
zoning
sub
district
is
3.
F
5,000,
our
height
of
the
building,
will
remain
the
same
at
34
feet.
The
reason
for
the
addition
and
dormers
is
currently
as
the
as
the
building
stands:
they're
small
units
in
their
units,
5,
&,
6
or
roughly
550
and
564
square
feet.
The
rest
of
units
are
on
the
low
a
hundred
square
foot
range.
We've
worked
with
both
the
abutters
and.
C
C
I
C
I
Very
long
because
it's
side-by-side
so
right
now,
there's
therefore
room
one
bed,
shotgun
sort
of
style.
If
that's
the
right,
a
railroad
style
and
with
the
rear
addition,
we
were
able
to
reconfigure.
It
turn
those
big
ones
into
a
well.
You
know
good
twos
with
and
we
think
we
get
long-term
tenants
there,
but
in
this
kind
of
long
thin
layout
the
three-bedroom
didn't
work
with
without
a
bigger
addition.
C
AV
Required
is
7.5,
and
that's
because
we're
combining
this
becomes
a
six
unit
building.
We
have
those
six
legal
spots
that
we're
proposing
right
now,
there's
a
roughly
four
as
part
of
that
plan
we're
paving
the
whole
driveway
area.
It's
a
common
driveway
entrance
to
the
abutters
next
door
were
paving
that
all-over
paving
the
yard
and
it's
a
shared
driveway.
C
I
AV
One
thing
that
we
worked
with
because
we
heard
concern
about
the
rare
addition
from
some
of
the
abutters
what
we
try
to
do
when
we
originally
had
set
this
project.
It
was
a
20-foot
rare
addition
we're
now
at
six
feet,
which
is
really
the
minimum
to
give
us
a
little
bit
of
extra
room.
What
that
does
is
it
matches
the
houses
in
that
exact
area?
AV
F
F
CE
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Alexandra
Valdez
mayor's
office
and
Neighborhood
Services
after
an
extensive
neighborhood
process,
I
would
like
to
go
on
record
to
support
also
stating
that
the
Jamaica
Plain
neighborhood
council
zoning
committee
also
offer
the
support.
They
also
had
various
meetings
with
a
Sumner
Hill
Neighborhood
Association,
and
they
work
very
diligent
with
the
neighbors
good.
BC
CG
CG
CG
Extreme
has
been
scaled
back.
Our
opposition
is
because
of
just
the
actual
alignment
of
the
back
of
the
property,
with
the
windows
on
the
adjoining
houses
and
just
the
way
they
are
aligned.
Any
addition
cuts
off
our
views
and
our
sunlight
in
the
in
the
kitchen,
which
is
where
most
of
us
spend
pretty
much
all
of
our
time.
Another
factor
on
it
is
even
without
the
addition.
The
back
stairwell
to
the
house,
which
is
currently
inside
the
house,
is
going
to
be
moved
to
the
back
porch.
It's
gonna
go
from
interior
to
exterior.
CG
So
what
is
currently
an
area
that
you
can
see
past
is
going
to
be
blocked
even
without
an
addition
and
in
the
additional
addition,
that's
being
proposed
has
a
real,
a
real
effect.
We
also
just
want
to
point
out
that
all
that
the
addition
is
going
to
be
comprised
of
is
one
additional
bathroom
per
house
per
unit,
so
the
whole
addition
is
just
six
new
bathrooms
in
these
units
that
are
I,
think
they're
800
to
1000
square
feet.
So
in
terms
of
providing
housing,
you
know
you
could
do
the
exact
same
without
any
addition.
CG
C
C
There's
one
issue
that
perhaps
you
guys
could
address:
can
you
it's,
which
is
the
first
one
I,
just
wonder
if
there's
a
way
that
you
can,
you
can
make
sure
that
this
doesn't
feel
as
intrusive
as
some
of
the
if
I
just
feel
it
could
be.
AV
C
AV
But
I
think
at
this
point
we've
really
scaled
it
so
the
view
in
the
back
or
the
rear
patio
everything
they
can
see
right
out.
We've
also
done
the
whole
landscape
plan
because
they
wanted
us
to
preserve
the
trees
that
were
in
the
back
along
with
the
parking.
So
if
you
look
out
that
window
now,
it's
you
know,
I
mean
we
didn't,
have
a
shadow
study
because
one
wasn't
needed.
It's
not
gonna
cause.
Any
addition.
Additional
shadow
will
certainly
work
with
them
during
construction.
U
D
The
next
two
cases
calling
seven
seven
nine
three
six
one
forty-three
Royal
Street
companion
case
building
code,
boa
seven,
seven,
nine,
three,
six
243
Royal
Street.
This
is
the
changelog
from
a
two
family
to
a
three
family
and
legalized
existing
third
unit.
On
the
third
floor,
no
work
to
be
done:
violations,
article
51,
section,
eight,
three,
family
dwelling,
it's
a
vid
news,
article
51
section
56
off
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
51,
section
9
the
floor
area
ratio
is
accessible.
This
is
for
building
code
43
street
8
to
distance
70.
D
70
cm
are
903
mass
automatic
sprinkler
systems,
automatic
sprinkler
systems.
A
new
building
of
the
structure
shall
be
provided
in
location,
subscribing
to
the
table.
903
point
2
eights
additions
to
780
CMR,
the
International
Building
Code,
91
2.2
fire
protection
systems,
where
a
change
in
our
Qin
C
classification
occurs.
That
requires
an
automatic
fire
sprinkler
system
to
be
provided
based
on
the
new
occupancy
and
in
accordance
with
chapter
9
of
the
International
Building
Code.
Such
system
shall
be
provided
throughout
the
area
where
the
change
of
Ocwen
c
occurs
name
and
address.
For
the
record.
CH
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Nix
Azula,
McDermott
quilty
and
Miller
28
State
Street
Suite
8:02,
here
in
Boston
with
me
to
my
immediate
left,
is
David
O
Sullivan
from
O'sullivan
architects,
who's,
the
architect
on
the
project
to
my
right
and
far
right
are
Richard
and
victoria
Rogers.
They
are
the
property
owners.
C
BI
C
BI
What
our
convention
is
that
it
is
make
wheat
from
a
building
code
standpoint.
There
has
been
living
space
up
there
with
two
two
means
of
egress
and
kitchen
facilities,
so
we're
really
not
changing
the
use
of
the
building
under
the
building
code.
It
is
purely
we're
changing
the
use
under
a
zoning
situation.
C
BI
BI
BI
CH
F
A
CH
CH
Is
correct
so
just
a
little
quick
background,
Richard
and
Victoria
they've
they
own
this
house,
they've
owned
it
since
2006
they
own
47
and
53
Royal
Street
as
well.
They
lived
at
47,
Royal
Street
for
15
years.
They
owned
8
units
on
the
street
right
on
that
one
side
of
Royal
Street
this,
if
becoming
a
third
unit
on
this
property,
would
be
nine
units
on
the
street
and
what
they'd
like
to
do
is
they'd
like
to
change
the
occupancy
to
add
this
as
a
third
residential
unit.
It
basically
wasn't.
CH
Existing
I
would
categorize
it
as
an
in-law
suite
or
its
own
living
space
in
the
third
floor,
and
they
want
to
just
make
it
its
own
unit.
It's
about
less
than
six
hundred
square
feet.
They'd
like
to
add
some
cabinets
in
a
kitchen
range,
basically
make
this
space
that's
been
occupied
for
living
purposes,
its
own
unit,
there's
no
change
to
the
existing
building
envelope.
CH
There's
no
additions
to
the
house
in
order
to
allow
this
in
the
average
total
occupancy
of
the
house
in
terms
of
the
number
of
people
who
would
be
living
in
there
wouldn't
change
it
is
and
if
I
can
just
address
the
zoning
I
can
address
each
one
individually.
As
far
as
the
use
is
concerned,
it
is
a
forbidden
use.
It's
a
two-family
5,000
zoning
sub
district,
however,
both
of
their
other
houses,
47
and
53,
are
three
families.
Three
family
occupancies.
CD
C
CH
CH
It's
the
oven,
yeah
I
would
care
I
would
say
it's
a
kitchenette,
it's
yeah.
As
far
as
the
floor
area
ratio
is
concerned,
this
would
put
them
over
the
allowable
FA
hour
of
0.6
by
a
hundred
and
seventy
six
square
feet.
I
would
argue
that
this
space
has
already
been
there
and
there
again
they're,
not
expanding
the
unit
or
making
it
any
bigger,
they're
just
capturing
some
of
the
space
to
make
it
livable
and
as
for
the
parking,
the
house
has
a
two-car
garage
now
and
three
tandem,
driveway
parking
spots.
CH
CH
BI
CH
Never
been
rented
as
a
separate
unit.
It's
always
been
attached
to
the
second
floor
unit,
so
this
this
unit
has
never
been
rented
as
its
own
unit.
It's
been
vacant
this
whole
time
since
the
current
a
long-term
occupant,
his
kids
moved
out,
but
they
were
always
attached.
There
was
always
rented
to
two
separate
occupants.
Z
BI
BI
BI
CA
CJ
C
BI
D
This
is
a
change
of
our
tree
to
include
a
wireless
telecommunication
facility
violations,
article
9
section
2
changing
a
multi-family
structure
in
a
three
F
sub
district
article
51
section
8
boil
the
wireless
communications
is
a
conditional
use
and
a
preexisting
non-conforming
structure,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
CK
C
C
So
we
had
asked
the
the
representative
here
to
bring
to
you,
because
we
were
wondering
about
was
we
had
asked
him?
Was
there
any
other
other
property
in
the
neighborhood
that
would
meet
the
requirements
of
this?
This
meets
the
needs
of
the
carrier,
but
we
want
to
ask
you
about
how
this
whole
whole
situation
would
work.
Having
this
this,
this
thing
on
your
building.
P
CK
Just
jump
in
quickly,
we
have
made
some.
We
have
proposed
some
additional
design
changes
to
this
facility,
so
if
I
may
I'd
be
happy
to
walk
the
forward
through
what
we're
proposing.
So
what,
if
handed
you,
have
three
documents
in
front
of
you?
One
is
a
news:
the
top
document
being
the
newest
set
of
photo
simulations
with
our
currently
proposed
design,
the
second
set
of
photo
sims
being
the
previous
design
and
then
a
set
of
plans
showing
the
current
design.
We
initially.
C
CK
So
if
you
just
flip
really,
even
just
to
the
first
page,
where
you
get
the
overview
of
where
we
took
the
photos
from
what
we've
done
here
is
originally,
we
were
proposing
three
faux
chimneys,
each
of
which
we're
going
to
contain
three
antennas
for
a
total
of
nine
antennas.
The
chimneys
were
nine
feet
in
height,
we've
significantly
reduced
that
we've
removed
two
of
the
faux
chimneys
and
at
this
boards
direction.
We've
pushed
all
of
the
antennas
into
this
Center
penthouse
on
the
roof
of
the
building.
CK
We've
removed
all
the
satellite
dishes
that
were
previously
attached
to
that
penthouse,
and
so
we
feel
we've
significantly
improved.
The
proposed
design
of
this
you'll
actually
only
be
able
to
see.
Now.
The
only
view
you'll
be
able
to
see
is
from
the
the
second
photo
location
which
is
along
Mansfield
Street,
looking
up
at
the
back
of
the
building,
and
although
the,
if
so
that
would
be
on
page
page.
AF
CK
CK
The
so
the
the
new
stealth
wall
matches
the
height
of
the
existing
penthouse
at
six
feet.
Ten
inches
I,
don't
have
the
exact
square
footage
of
of
how
much
it
is,
but
it's
just
enough
to
accommodate
the
antennas
themselves.
We've
reduced
the
number
of
antennas
from
nine
to
six,
so
there
are
actually
only
four
antennas
in
there
and
one
proposed
dish.
F
F
F
CK
Be
happy
to
paint
the
new
stealth
enclosure,
whatever
color
the
board
deems
appropriate.
We
wanted
to
match
the
existing
shingled
penthouse
there,
because
it
only
actually
wraps
half
of
the
penthouse.
So
on
the
other
side
of
the
penthouse,
it
will
still
remain
the
portion
of
the
penthouse,
and
there
is
still
one
of
the
three
proposed
faux
chimneys.
That's
on
the
other
side.
It's
just
not
visible
from
any
of
the
locations
that
we
took.
F
CK
C
C
C
CK
F
CK
Hudson
Design
Group
is
the
engineering
and
architecture
firm
that
designs
this
so
they've.
Their
engineering
team
is
the
team.
That's
designed
it
in
a
little
additional
information
on
the
boxes,
we're
not
able
to
install
the
antennas
directly
on
to
the
penthouse.
It
can't
support
them.
So
there
is
a
small
amount
in
front
of
the
existing
penthouse
and
then
wrapped
with
you.
C
CK
Were
unable
to
find
another
building
that
would
meet
the
requirements
of
t-mobile,
we
did
submit
an
alternative
site
analysis
to
the
board
provided
by
the
prepared
by
the
site,
acquisition
firm,
but
we
are
unable.
This
was
the
the
only
building
that
we
were
able
to
find
and
again,
as
I
initially
stated,
it's
designed
to
provide
additional
capacity
and
coverage
to
this
miss
neighborhood
in
this
residential
area
and.
CK
CK
The
the
t-mobile
and
the
property
owner
have
respectfully
requested
to
keep
the
actual
monetary
amount
of
the
rental
agreement,
confidential
they're,
bound
by
confidentiality
agreements
and
their
leases.
T-Mobile
has
over
400
leases
in
the
city
of
Boston,
and
it's
not
their
practice
to
provide
the
specific
specifics
of
each
lease.
Every
lease
is
different.
It's
a
dependent
on
the
need
and
the
location
may
range
typically
anywhere
from
$1,500
to
$2,500
a
month
in
rent.
F
A
CK
Really
a
space
issue,
and
at
this
point,
if
another
carrier,
where
it
to
be
on
the
roof,
they
would
have
to
be
taller
than
t-mobile's
antennas,
because
t-mobile
is
broadcasting
over
pretty
much
the
entire
roof,
so
I
would
I
would
think
it'd
be
very
difficult
to
fit
another
carrier
on
the
rooftop
here.
What.
G
D
CK
CK
D
CI
CJ
Chair
members
of
the
board,
tonydd
Isadora,
representing
the
Austin
Civic
Association
I,
can't
stand
here
and
tell
you
that
there
was
enthusiastic
support
for
this
proposal.
The
vote
was
very,
very
close.
We
did
spend
the
time
with
them
at
the
Executive
Board
meeting
in
at
the
membership
meeting.
Reviewing
the
concerns
that
were
raised
by
the
board,
the
first
go-around
I
think
for
some
members
of
the
Association.
This
is
obviously
territory
that
they're
not
very
familiar
with.
So
this
was
like
a
whole
new
type
of
discussion.
What
have
you
so
doing?
C
F
U
U
F
C
D
Your
next
case
calling
boa
seven
eight
zero,
two,
seven
nine
one.
Thirty
two,
the
134
Holton
Street.
This
is
change
Arjun
from
a
two-family
to
a
three
family.
The
violations,
article
51
section
9,
the
law
dear
for
additional
dwelling
unit-
is
insufficient.
Article
51
section
I
on
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
51,
section,
9,
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
51
69,
the
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
51
section
56
Austria
parking.
You
loading
packing
design,
an
article
51
section
56,
a
street
parking
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
Q
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
mark
Lucas
Lacasse
law,
75
Arlington
Street
in
Boston
with
me,
are
the
project
owners
and
proponents
mike
becker
dan
Botwin,
ik
and
Ian
Hislop.
This
is
a
proposal
to
convert
an
existing
two
family
to
three
family
units
by
extending
living
space
into
the
basement
and
adding
a
shed-dormer
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
property
when
you're
when
you're
facing
it.
Q
The
three
units
would
consist
of
a
duplex
unit
which
would
be
the
ground
floor
in
the
basement
with
four
bedrooms.
Each
of
these
units
would
be
condominium
ownership.
We
heard
a
lot
in
the
neighborhood
about
the
desire
for
homeownership
in
Allston
Brighton,
given
the
very
low
homeownership
rate
in
that
neighborhood.
The
second
and
third
floor
would
be
occupied
by
two
bedroom
units.
The
zoning
sub
district
is
3
F
4,000,
so
the
three
family
residential
dwelling
use
is
an
allowed
use.
We
don't
need
any
relief
for
that.
The
relief
relates
to
dimensional
requirements.
Q
C
Q
Q
Q
However,
in
response
again
to
our
butter
meeting
and
our
meetings
with
BA
IA
and
the
Austin
Civic
Association,
there
was
an
express
desire
to
create
more
usable
open
space,
so
we
reduced
the
parking
from
five
to
four
and
I've
handed
out
to
you.
The
revised
parking
option,
which
shows
the
four
cars
and
the
addition
of
green
space
along
the
side.
If
you're
facing
the
building
on
the
left-hand
side
of
the
building,
we
turned
that
into
a
green
buffer
zone.
We
added
some
trees
in
the
back
yard.
We
also
are
doing
and.
C
D
C
D
Chair
before
we
do
that,
if
we
do
that,
I
just
had
a
quick
question
for
the
counselor
and
the
owners
here,
so
you
show
the
parking.
Did
you
sent
out
here?
Can
you
show
this
dear
the
means
of
egress
to
get
out
you
have
a
vehicle
parked
right
in
front?
How
how
do
people
gonna
jump
all
over
the
vehicle
to
get
out
or
know.
Q
That
that
staircase
was
actually
part
of
a
change
that
we
made
in
response
to
the
butters.
There
was
a
desire
to
deactivate
that
side
walkway.
So
instead
of
the
stairway
going
toward
the
front
toward
Holton
Street,
we
turned
it
around.
So
it's
just
a
secondary
access
point
in
the
back
of
the
building
eliminating
activation
on
the
side
on
the
side
yard
there.
So
it.
D
A
A
BY
F
CI
CJ
We
appreciate
the
homeownership
opportunity,
that's
being
presented
and
the
size
of
the
project
we're
hoping
that
it
will
attract
families
to
this
project.
As
was
mentioned,
we
have
a
serious
owner
occupancy
problem
in
Austin
and
Brighton
and
we
all
have
asked
not
as
part
of
the
support,
but
we
have
asked
the
developers
to
take
a
look
at
being
creative
and
possibly
doing
some
deed
restrictions
to
guarantee
that
the
units
are
occupied
by
residents.
Thank
you
and.
Q
On
that
point,
madam
chair,
the
owners
have
committed
to
placing,
in
the
master
deed,
a
restriction
that
would
require
that
two
of
the
three
units
be
owner
occupied
and
only
allowed
that
one
of
the
unit
would
be
rental
with,
of
course,
extenuating
circumstances
for
things
like
job
relocations
or
illnesses.
And
mr.
de
Sidra
was
kind
enough
to
provide
me
with
an
example
of
another
master
deed
in
Austin
Brighton,
which
satisfied
this
very
same
goal.
C
F
C
H
C
F
AG
F
C
D
This
is
a
change
of
our
key
from
a
guest
house
since
1946
and
confirm
a
three
family
dwelling
in
existing
condition.
Request
occupancy
no
work
to
be
done.
Violations
article
65,
section,
eight
three
family
use
is
forbidden
in
A
to
F
five
thousand
sub-district
article
65
section
forty-one,
our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Maybe
an
address
will.
M
M
Being
proposed
now
is
that
there's
no
changes
being
done
to
the
building.
The
problem
is
that
the
legal
occupancy
is
is
really
is
an
error
and
it's
not
an
error,
but
it's
it's
never
been
brought
to
the
current
legal
occupancy.
So
there's
a
lot
of
opposition
to
this,
so
I'll
need
a
moment
to
explain
why
this
should
be
allowed
in
nineteen
in
1927.
Miss.
M
C
M
Is
no
parking
presently
because
none
of
the
tenants
have
vehicles,
but
if,
if
parking
was
needed,
if
that
was
a
condition,
if,
if
the
board
sought
to
approve
this,
we
do
have
room.
It's
it's
a
5800
square
foot
lot
and
my
client
could
create
some
parking
in
there.
If
that
was
what
was
the,
if
there
was
an
objection
to
that.
C
M
I
could
go
back
a
little
a
little
history.
Here
is
its
short,
but
it's
important
as
to
why
this
is
why
it
is
miss.
Evans
purchased
the
property
in
1927,
seven
years
later,
how
her
husband
died.
She
was
a
widow
with
two
children
and
her
mother
living
in
the
house.
She
wanted
to
maintain
her
life
in
the
house.
M
She
started
taking
in
roomers
boarders
back
in
the
1930s.
There
was
a
law
called
the
old-age
pensioners
Act.
They
wanted
to
get
people
out
of
nursing
homes
and
have
them
live
more
in
a
home
setting.
She
eventually
obtained
the
permit
in
1940
to
have
five
boarders.
So,
ultimately,
there
were
nine
bedrooms.
In
the
house
there
was
a
bedroom
for
mrs.
Evans,
a
bedroom
feature
her
two
children,
a
bedroom
for
her
mother
and
bedrooms
of
five
boarders
that
I
have
attached
to
the
two.
The
pictures
I've
attached
the
board
of
Appeal
decision
from
1940.
C
M
Client
can
only
tell
you
that
they
purchased
the
house
in
2015
at
a
foreclosure
sale
for
a
reverse
mortgage.
The
Evans
family
finally
lost
the
house
in
2015
at
a
reverse
mortgage.
It
was
in
dilapidated
and
poor
condition
permits
were
pulled
to
renovate
it.
There
were
nine
bedrooms,
so
it
was
renovated.
As
a
three
family
house
erroneously,
they
didn't
look
back
enough
at
the
permits
and
see
that
it
was
a
boarding
house.
So
let
me
get
to
why
I
think
this
should
be.
C
C
BK
M
There
are
full
three
meters
and
then
the
public
meter,
if
I
could
explain
why
I
think
this
should
be
allowed.
There
was
a
lot
of
opposition
and
and
I
want
to
talk
about
Nixon
Street
as
a
whole.
On
this
side
of
Nixon
Street
to
the
right
is
a
three
family
house.
This
house
is
now
being
used
as
a
three
family
to
the
left
is
a
four
family
house.
There
are
seven
houses
on
Nixon
Street
on
the
even
side,
six
of
them
off
three
or
four
family.
There
is
one
single
family.
M
It
is
a
2
F
zone
across
the
street.
There
are
many
to
family
houses.
The
neighborhood
is
predominantly
too,
but
this
side
of
Nixon
Street,
where
this
house
is
six
out
of
seven
houses,
are
three
family
allaha
and
my
client
when
they
pulled
the
short-form
permit,
which
they
probably
was.
You
know
the
wrong
permit.
The
only
thing
they
really
did.
If
you
look
at
the
picture
of
the
right
side
of
the
house,
you
can
see
there's
some
brick
underneath
they
closed
the
back
staircase.
M
C
M
Tried
to
do
some
neighborhood
meetings
and
I
went
to
st.
Mark's
at
st.
Mark's.
There
was
opposition
from
a
couple
of
people,
but
other
people
spoke
out
and
said:
look
the
house
was
really
rundown,
it
was
in
very
dilapidated
condition.
The
Evans
were
not
wealthy
people
and
they
didn't
upkeep
the
house.
So
when
this
gentleman,
what
the
house
he
had
to
fix
it
up
and
spent
a
lot
of
money
fixing
it
up
and
some
of
the
neighbors
said
gee
we
walked
by
it.
It
was
rundown.
Now
it's
nice.
M
M
M
C
To
speak
in
support
of
this
proposal
is
anybody
here
to
speak
in
opposition?
Yes,
and
please,
if
you
speak
in
opposition,
we
started
this
meeting
at
9:30
and
I
reminded
everybody
to
give
us
new
information
when
they
speak.
Okay,
so
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
give
us
new
information
that
the
previous
speaker
has
not
covered.
Go
ahead.
Good.
BN
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members,
the
board,
my
name,
is
David
kata
from
the
mayor's
office
in
Neighborhood
Services
elective
on
record
in
opposition,
we've
held
a
number
of
community
meetings
for
this
proposal.
For
the
last
several
months,
the
abutters
and
the
various
civic
associations
are
in
almost
unanimous
opposition
to
this
project.
A
number
of
them
are
here
and
I'll
allow
them
to
speak
for
themselves.
Thank
you.
BN
AW
BR
BS
Q
AW
AW
Neighbors
have
been
complaining
about
this
since
2015,
when
he
bought
it
pulled
only
an
electric
and
plumbing
permit
did
not
pull
a
permit
for
expanding
the
space.
It
did
not
expand
the
footprint
but
expanded
the
second
and
third
floors
by
what
seems
to
be
at
least
a
thousand
square
feet
did
not
consult
members
of
the
neighborhood
of
butters
and.
AW
Several
other
properties,
where
there's
a
lot
of
congestion
and
and
we've
had
other
properties
where
the
same
going
around
the
neighbors
happened
and
the
mayor's
office
can
confirm
and
appreciate
the
mayor's
office
and
Andrew
Campbell's
office
helped
and
that
we
are
concerned
about
this.
Setting
a
precedent
and
the
neighbors
I
would
just
say
the
abutters
are
agreeable
to
it
being
returned
to
a
two-family.
But
we
do
not
want
to
see
a
precedent
where
someone
just
completely
ignores
and
dismisses
rules
or
the
concerns
of
the
community.
But
we
are
not
against
him
building
a
house.
CL
My
name
is
Greg
Sorenson
I
live
at
12,
Nixon
Street,
I'm,
directly
next
door
to
this
property.
When
construction
began,
many
of
us
began
asking
questions.
What
is
the
zoning
of
that?
We
learned
that
it
was
a
rooming
house.
My
neighbor
asked
that
can
be
contractors.
What
are
you
building
we're
building
a
three
family?
Our
first
question
was:
why
is
this
happening?
Why
is
there
no
abutters
meeting.
C
CL
CL
That
was
perplexing
to
me
because
there
had
been
no
abutters
meeting,
so
it
was
a
matter
of
a
lack
of
due
process
on
the
lack
of
not
being
heard
by
inspectional
services
and
beyond
that
their
heating
system,
the
the
furnace
system-
this
is
personal-
is
so
loud
that
with
our
windows
closed
we
are
woken
up
in
the
middle
of
the
night
as
their
furnace
turns
on
and
so
to
me.
There's
also
a
noise
pollution
issue,
but
that's
something
else.
So
thank.
AY
AY
It's
not
true,
we
don't
we
don't
mind
the
frizzy
Emily,
but
we
don't
want.
We
don't
mind
a
tooth
in
there,
but
a
three
family
no
and
to
come
in
without
a
permit
and
build
a
house
on
it
where
we
taking
care
of
the
area.
It's
not
right,
because
what
everybody
else
decide
they
want
to
make
their
one
family
two
and
three
families
we
have
and
everybody.
AY
CM
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
Sally
Graham
I'm
here
representing
the
Melville
Park
Neighborhood
Association
I,
attended
the
abutters
meeting.
I
also
was
at
the
Neighborhood
Association
meeting,
where
the
attorney
and
the
owner
presented
their
their
case.
The
Melville
Park
voted
to
oppose
this
request
for
variances,
because
the
owner
bought
the
property
in
January
of
2015
immediately,
as
already
stated
pulled,
the
permits
construction
workers
told
the
butter's
that
it
was
going
to
become
a
three
family.
CM
The
argument
that
the
current
tenants
don't
have
any
automobiles
could
be
argued,
is
may
or
may
not
be
true,
but
they
certainly
have
visitors
who
have
cars.
It's
a
very
narrow
street.
It's
a
two-way
street,
it's
congested
as
it
is
so
Melville
Park
voted
to
oppose
it.
They
voted
to
support
the
abutters
that
they
would
going
through
the
correct
process.
A
two-family
would
be,
you
know,
would
be
acceptable
to
the
neighborhood.
I
also
want
to
add
that
st.
Mark's
Civic
Association,
while
they
did
come
to
the
first
meeting
in
December.
CM
It
was
before
the
abutters
meeting
st.
Mark's
met
on
January
30th
and
they
also
voted
to
oppose
and
the
and
the
owner
did
not
appear
at
that
meeting,
but
they
voted
to
oppose
for
very
similar
reasons
to
Melville
park
that
the
process
was
not
followed
and
I
would
just
add
on
a
person,
not
a
personal
note,
but
one
of
the
members
of
Melville
Park,
who
was
at
the
meeting,
has
been
trying
for
several
years
to
make
an
modification
to
her
home.
She
has
followed
all
the
rules
of
ISD
had
a
butters
meetings,
etc.
CM
She
keeps
getting
pushed
back
was
having
to
make
more
modifications
at
the
neighborhood
meeting.
She
was
very
upset
that
someone
who
had
not
followed
the
rules
and
was
reaping
the
benefits
of
it,
where
she
has
followed
the
rules
and
is
unable
to
provide
for
her
own
family,
so
I
think
it's
that's
a
very
dangerous
precedent
to
allow
this
to
be
approved
by
the
Zoning
Board.
Thank
you.
M
M
C
Watch
walk
in
the
neighborhood.
Obviously
you
can
walk
something
out
where
this
can
work,
because
you
know
you
know,
there's
an
issue
honestly.
You'll
agree
with
this
about
fairness,
about
people
having
a
process
following
the
process
and
doing
the
right
thing.
If
there's
parking
that
can
be
accommodated,
come
in
with
a
proposal
with
parking,
you
know
the
neighbors
have
given
you.