►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 4-24-18
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
A
The
Board
of
Appeals
for
Tuesday
February
24th,
is
now
in
session.
Just
a
reminder.
Please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
if
you
need
to
have
a
conversation,
please
take
it
outside
of
the
room.
The
acoustics
in
here
are
terrible,
so
any
whisper
you
have
back.
There
affects
us
all.
So
if
you're
here
to
speak
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
a
project,
please
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
Give
us
new
information
when
you
are
up
at
this
at
the
speaker
podium.
We
want
to
hear
more
information.
A
If
somebody
has
already
mentioned
what
your
concern
is
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record,
so
the
next
person
can
come
up
and
speak
as
you
can
see,
we
have
a
long
agenda,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
we
hear
from
you.
Finally,
in
conformance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law,
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed
mr.
fortune.
Thank.
B
B
C
It's
because
the
my
contract
to
submit
the
copies
of
the
drawings
and
the
one
and
they
issue
a
permit,
but
the
permit
the
issues
like
a
show
form.
He
had
appeal
for
the
long
form.
So
now
in
my
possession,
I
have
three
different
permit,
but
not
exactly
the
wander
had
been
approved
here
by
the
Board
of
Appeals
I've
been
having
extremely
hard
time
to
getting
those
drawings
done
and
I
gave
it
to
him
and
when
I
find
out,
they
had
no
record
of
it.
I
just
submitted
last
week
and
new
copies
of
and.
B
E
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
nyle
Sutton
I'm,
the
architect
for
the
subject
project.
My
address
is
190
708
Street
from
Charlestown
mass.
This
is
a
project
which
was
approved
by
the
board
of
approximately
a
year
ago,
with
the
caveat
of
design
review
during
the
year.
The
EPA
has
requested
that
we
make
major
changes
to
the
design,
and
so
the
drawings
which
are
before
you
today
are
the
culmination,
though
of
the
redesign
and
these
drawings.
These,
this
redesign
has
been
approved
by
BPD
a
recent
you.
E
Sorry,
what
can
you
summarize,
what
the
changes
were?
The
quickly
BP
da
asked
that
we
revised
the
entrance
point
to
the
garage
so
that
it
shared
Sharon
Court
which,
as
you
can
see,
is
between
two
buildings
and
we
had
previously
had
the
entrance
to
the
parking
garage
on
the
front
of
the
building.
The
four
plans,
which
were
originally
approved,
BP
da,
asked
us
to
simply
reverse
the
floor
plans.
E
E
A
E
The
unit
sizes
have
not
changed.
We
still
have
nine
dwelling
years.
I
do
need.
You
request
the
board,
though,
to
approve
the
addition
of
one
parking
space.
You
you
previously
approved
seven
parking
spaces.
There
are
now
eight
in
the
new
design
and
before
the
record,
if
you
would
approve
the
drawings
of
this
date,
twelve
eighty
2017.
B
G
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
James
Christopher
RC
LLC,
with
the
project
architects,
with
the
business
address,
a
415
upon
sedap
joined
by
Ben
Goodman,
the
property
owners.
This
project
was
heard
before
the
board
and
approved
to
include
roof
decks.
The
only
change
at
this
time
is
because
of
the
foot
the
four
storeys,
the
roof
decks
need
to
be
accessed
by
a
head
house
and
not
a
hatch.
As
was
approved,
the
head
house
is
approximately
seven
foot
eight.
There
is
no
living
space
in
it.
A
G
H
H
H
J
J
G
H
A
B
You
call
the
930
hearings:
are
there
any
deferrals
or
withdrawals
for
9:30
no
deferrals
or
with
Charles
for
9:30?
Okay
call
the
first
case
calling
boa
seven:
nine,
nine
five,
nine
zero
27
to
29
Everett
Street.
This
is
to
legalize
an
existing
basement
living
space,
be
an
extension
of
abital
space
for
the
first
law
unit.
B
L
K
Proposing
to
finish
the
existing
basement,
my
clients
are
looking
to
expand
their
family.
They
have
their
parents
from
China,
come
to
visit
for
months
at
a
time
and
we're
proposing
a
couple
bedrooms:
small
kitchenette,
with
just
a
sink
and
a
bathroom
and
a
spiral
stair
that
connects
the
first
unit
to
the
new
finished
basement.
A
H
H
K
N
K
H
H
H
A
S
T
U
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Daniel
Polanco,
we
have
a
councillor
mark
siamo.
We
like
to
go
record
support,
but
we
would
just
want
to
make
sure
that
at
the
circus,
OCA
ssin
did
not
mention
a
a
kitchen,
a
full
kitchen.
They
mentioned
a
wet
bar,
so
I
just
want
to
go
on
the
record
and
make
sure
that
they
they
clarify
that.
Thank
you.
V
W
X
Does
a
door
representing
the
Austin
Civic
Association
we
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
We
have
the
proviso
that,
of
course,
the
new
living
space
had
to
be
up
to
code.
We
also
under
the
understanding
that
it
was
going
to
be
a
wet
bar
and
not
a
kitchen,
but
obviously
we're
very
supportive
of
young
families
who
want
to
own
or
occupy
multi-family
homes
and
Alston
and
Brighton
as
a
serious
need
for
that.
So
thank.
B
The
next
case
calling
Bo
a
7200
6-3
81
Chestnut
Hill
Avenue.
This
is
direct
a
new
15
unit,
residential
building
with
parking
below
the
violations.
Article
51
section
8,
a
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden,
Article,
51,
section
9,
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
51,
section
9,
the
height,
is
excessive.
Article
51,
section
9
front
yard.
51
52
2
is
insufficient.
The
article
51
section
9,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
51,
section
9
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
51
section
56.
B
Y
Chestnut
Hill
with
a
old
vacant
home
on
earth
sitting
on
a
lot,
and
the
proposal
is
for
his
or
her
family
to
develop
these
into
a
multi-family
dwelling.
I
would
like
to
make
one
amendment.
Verbally.
This
morning
we
filed
at
15.
We
have
been
approved
by
the
BIA
and,
in
fact
had
worked
out
with
the
neighbors
to
reduce
that
to
14
units.
Y
H
Y
Y
Dimensional,
it
is
clearly
the
the
building
side,
although
the
lot
is
very
large.
The
building
size
requires
we
leave
on
the
various
setbacks.
We
have
a
very
generous
setback
in
the
rear
of
the
building
to
satisfy
the
uphill
neighbors
on
William
Jackson
Boulevard,
and
one
of
them
is
here
this
morning
and
they
speak
on
that.
But
it's
the
the
side
yard
on
the
Jackson
side
is
very
narrow
and
very
limited
well
in
order
to
make
room
for
garage
openings
and
the
like.
So
it's
it's
the
single
to
multi,
of
course,
and
then
the
dimensional
variation.
Y
Y
Units-
and
that
is
of
course
less
than
these
code
requires-
there
was
a
Supriyo
sorry
to
praetor
I
apologize
1.5.
So
we
are
beneath
that,
but
we
do
provide
as
much
as
we
could
in
terms
of
keeping
it
on
the
property
line
and
below
grade
so
that
it
didn't
affect
the
height
of
the
building,
which
was
again
a
major
concern
of
the
up
hill
neighbors
I'm,
leaving
Jackson,
who
spent
a
great
deal
of
time
meeting
with
the
folks
out
there
and
had
a
very
successful
Vai.
A
butters
mean.
A
Y
A
Y
H
Y
Z
Z
T
U
U
AA
Jackson
Avenue,
there
were
three
concerns
of
the
neighbors
during
this
process.
They
were
density,
height,
noise
and
traffic,
and
to
a
number
of
meetings
that
the
applicant
had
with
the
abutters.
They
were
very
good
about
meeting
lowering
the
density
to
14.
We
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
the
40
units
that
are
proposed
are
the
15
or
reduced
to
14,
by
reducing
the
rear
but
reducing
the
height
in
the
back.
AA
Also
the
noise
they
they
agreed
to
have
decorative
balconies
instead
of
balconies,
where
people
can
have
parties
on
on
the
balconies.
The
only
thing
that
they
didn't
can
address,
because
traffic
is
already
a
problem
around
that
turn
that
you
mentioned
I,
don't
know
what
can
be
done
about
that
with
the
traffic
congestion.
A
AC
AC
Just
two
concerns
one:
a
process
and
one
of
proposal
a
during
the
process.
We
would
like
to
confirm
that
this
work
would
in
the
prior
development,
would
not
use
our
property
in
the
process
of
living
here
so
that
using
the
driveway
I
think
one
of
the
variants
this
show
she
was
proposing
is
cutting
the
curb
and
building
her
own
driveway
to
build
the
property,
and
we
would
like
to
ask
that
not
all
the
construction
equipments,
don't
and
in
the
case
of
the
big
dig
and
there's
consequential
damages
that
she
would
consider
them
because.
AC
The
second
process
concern
is
whether
there's
any
consequential
damages
when,
when
you
build
something
Rad's
things
of
that
comes
out,
and
in
that
case
we'd
like
to
ask
that
she
I
think
she's
willing
to
I'm
hoping
she's
willing
to
take
care
of
any
rats
or
any
sort
of
the
images
that
come
out
from
digging
the
poppy
in
terms
of
the
proposal,
our
biggest
concern
is
the
emphasis
is
the
insufficient
side
yard.
It's
currently
listed
at
six
feet,
which
is
essentially
this
is
between
you,
madam
chair
and
mr.
fortune
or
mr.
AC
AC
The
side
yard
being
that
it
doesn't
give
enough
space
and
it
actually
blocks
excessive
light.
As
you
can
see,
the
probably
setback
that
essentially
you
have
six
feet
away
from
you:
a
120
foot
wide
wall,
that's
45
feet
high,
and
so
between
this,
you
essentially
have
build
an
entire
walk
from
around
the
entire
property.
As
you
can
see,
the
way
it's
set
back,
the
entire
property
would
become.
AC
A
A
AD
AD
AD
A
A
AD
H
H
AD
H
H
H
A
AD
AF
The
question
was
posed
by
the
city
that
they
were
concerned.
We
would
be
eliminated
parking
on
the
street,
which
is
not
the
case
in
our
revised
plans.
We've
provided
for
those
two
parking
spaces
that
was
the
concern
of
the
city,
would
be
eliminated,
with
a
curb
cut
or
with
making
our
entryway
a
little
bit.
Bigger.
We've
showed
in
our
revised
plan
that
that's
not
the
case
that
we
still
are
going
to
be
able
to
provide
for
parking
spaces.
D
H
AG
AG
H
A
W
Or
opposition
they're
in
support,
but
they'd
like
us
to
help
with
their
antenna
to
raise
their
antenna
on
their
okay.
AH
AH
AB
AB
AH
AH
AH
A
AI
AI
Concern
is
that
it's.
You
know
there
are
a
lot
of
variances,
it's
a
small
lot
that
this
structure
will
go
up
ten
feet
from
my
home
and
basically
block
all
of
all
of
my
windows,
an
entire
side
of
my
house.
All
of
my
light
and
I
also
feel
like
it
will
devalue
my
home
because
it's
going
to
be
a
large
structure,
ten
feet
from
my
home
in
on
a
lot.
That's
too
small.
A
We
just
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mister
Pazhani.
What
is
the
F
AR,
because
I'm
not
sure
I
got
it
correctly.
It
looks
like
it
might.
The.
A
AJ
H
H
AJ
Gonna
make
a
motion.
Can
I
make
a
motion.
Madam
chair,
okay,
I'm
gonna
make
a
motion
that
we
defer
this
until
you
guys
figure
out
this
front
yard
parking
issue
right
because
I
I,
don't
I
I,
don't
want
to
redesign
your
plans,
the
neighbors
don't
know
anything
about
it.
I
think
you
need.
You
have
some
work
to
do.
B
The
next
case
calling
boa
seven
six,
eight
seven,
four
zero,
two
zero
eight
Neponset
Valley
Parkway.
This
is
a
combined
law
day
with
lot
lot
V
to
become
one
lot
and
erect
nine
unit
building
and
under
garage
parking
violation.
Is
article
sixty
nine
section
twelve
floor.
The
a
ratio
is
excessive
article
sixty-nine
section,
twelve,
the
height
of
success
of
thirty
five
feet
is
the
maximum
allowed
equal,
sixty
nine
section,
twelve,
the
height
is
excessive.
Two
and
a
half
stories
is
allowed
maximum
allowed
article
sixty-nine
section
twelve,
the
front.
Yet
setback
is
insufficient.
B
Article
sixty-nine
section,
twelve,
the
Riyadh
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
sixty-nine
section,
twelve
Austria
parking
design,
an
eight
by
five
by
20
feet,
article
sixty-nine
section
21.
This
is
in
the
Greenbelt
protection
overlay,
article
69,
section,
25,
design,
review
guidelines.
This
project
is
more
than
750
square
feet.
Article
69
section
29,
our
street
parking
requirements
is
insufficient
in
article
69,
section
29.5,
our
street
parking
design
name
and
add.
Just
for
the
record
please
morning.
AK
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George
Moran
cm
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
at
350,
West,
Broadway
and
South
Boston
I'm
joined
by
my
client,
Karen
McKinney,
who
is
the
petitioner.
Madam
chair
members,
a
revised
set
of
plans
has
been
submitted
to
the
board,
depicting
a
downsize
to
seven
unit.
Project
has
been
a
reduction
from
the
originally
proposed
nine
units.
As
a
result,
there
is
one
fewer
variants
being
sought:
one
fewer
violation:
there
is
no
longer
a
height
violation
with
respect
to
vertical
feet
above
grade.
AK
This
is
a
an
LC
district
which
has
a
maximum
building
height
of
two
and
a
half
stories
35
feet.
The
building
and
the
plans
in
front
of
the
board
rises
to
a
maximum
height
of
30
feet.
It
is
a
three
storey
building,
so
there
is
a
height
violation
owing
to
number
of
stories.
Madam
chair
members,
this
is
an
application
to
combine
two
lots
to
form
a
new
lot
of
approximately
sixty
three
hundred
six
square
feet
into
erect
this
new
seven
of
unit
residential
building.
AK
It
is,
as
I
said,
Elsie
local,
convenient,
owning,
there's,
currently
a
two
and
a
half
story.
Single-Family
and
a
garage
in
the
rear
on
the
site,
the
required
relief
is
four
FA
are
the
maximum
FAA
are
in
the
sub
district
is
point
five.
This
project
would
come
in
at
one
point
two,
as
I
mentioned,
there
is
a
story:
high
violation.
There
is
a
sighted
front
setback
violation.
The
code
requires
a
15-foot
front
setback
or
call
force
modal
existing
building
alignment.
AK
The
fact
is
that
a
portion
of
the
building
in
stairway
section
is
in
fact
in
a
modal
alignment
with
the
street
is
then
setback
for
the
15
feet
or
another
portion
of
the
building,
which
is
the
the
main
residential
entry
in
Lobby
area,
and
then
there's
a
15
foot
side
yard
running
along
a
circle
which
is
a
dead-end
road
to
the
right.
That's
a
15-foot,
landscaped
side
setback.
That
was
done
also
in
response
to
concerns
about
the
Greenbelt
protection
overlay
district.
AK
The
original
plans
depicted
in
a
partially
open
garage
where
the
vehicles
were
visible
from
the
street
that
has
been
changed
so
that
it's
enclosed
vehicles
in
the
garage
and
not
visible
and,
as
I
said,
there's
a
15-foot
landscaped,
a
green
side
yard.
There
is
a
rear
setback
violation.
It's
approximately
1
foot,
it's
just
off
the
rear
lot
line.
The
required
under
the
code
is
20
feet.
AK
This
is
the
garage
area
of
the
building
at
the
ground
floor
to
the
rear
of
this
property
is
essentially
an
outdoor
industrial
storage,
use
the
there's,
no
side
setback
violation,
but
as
I
mentioned,
there
is
a
substantial
side
setback
on
the
right
side
of
the
property-
and
this
was
done
in
deference
to
the
Greenbelt
protection
overlay
district
concerns
in
terms
of
parking.
There
is
a
violation
in
this
sub
district.
There's
a
requirement
of
two
parking
spaces
per
unit
for
residential
uses.
AK
This
project
would
achieve
a
one
to
one
ratio:
seven
parking
spaces
for
the
seven
proposed
units,
there's
also
a
violation
attributable
to
the
design
of
the
parking
spaces,
specifically
the
size,
as
the
board
is
aware
of
minimum
required
sizes.
The
first
standard
space
is
8
and
a
half
by
20.
The
seven
spaces
are
8
feet
by
20
feet,
each
in
terms
of
the
building
layout.
On
the
ground
floor.
There
is
a
main
entrance.
AK
There
is
one
unit:
that's
an
832
square
foot
two-bedroom
unit,
the
rest
of
the
ground-floor
is
a
utility
area
and
the
garage,
the
second
and
third
floors
are
virtually
identical.
There
are
three
two-bedroom
units
on
each
floor
on
each
floor.
Those
unit
sizes
are
818
square
feet,
822
square
feet
and
827
square
feet.
AK
AL
AK
AK
A
AB
AG
AP
AG
A
AQ
Martinique,
old
Chester,
Street
I'm
right
in
the
neighborhood.
We
were
told
that
our
recent
Greenville
neighborhood
watch
monthly
meeting
by
Brian
Flynn
neighborhood
services
that
indeed
he
was
seeking
deferral
and
the
reason.
What
main
reason
is
the
refusal
letter
was
improperly
presented.
It's
missing
the
key
zoning
variance,
which
is
a
forbidden
use.
The
attorney
has
been
presenting.
I
went
to
a
first
informal
meeting.
AQ
AQ
I
understand
he
presented
it
the
same
way
that
this
was
a
right
of
use
to
have
the
multiple
apartments
there
and
it's
not
I'll,
be
with
an
absence
of
all
local
convenience,
for
it
is
not
and
as
of
right
and
it
was
improperly
presented
to
the
apotres
and
we
just
figured.
Let's
do
the
process
right
come
right
before
the
neighborhood
meeting,
that's
in
May
and
just
do
it
over
again
and
then
more
problem.
We
shouldn't
be
speaking
for
their
butter.
AQ
As
a
bright
and
done,
I
tried
to
correct
him
twice
and
he
had
months
to
go
back
to
the
plant
exam
and
say:
hey,
let's
revise
this,
let's
just
you
know
get
this
done
right,
didn't
do
it
and
so
I,
maybe
are
a
consultant
PRA.
They
all
deem
that
than
deed
a
deferral.
Slight
deferral
would
be
most
appropriate.
AK
Madam
cheer,
with
respect
to
previous
testimony,
there
were
two
of
butters
meetings.
I
actually
wasn't.
The
attorney
was
my
colleague
attorney
Adams,
who
handled
both
meetings.
Up
until
literally
an
hour
ago,
we
were
under
the
impression
that
we
had
fully
satisfied
community
process,
which
is
typically
a
precondition
of
these
hearings,
even
being
scheduled
through
the
mayor's
office
and
the
CBA.
With
respect
to
the
violations
among
unaware
of
any
missed
violations,
side
yard
setback.
There
is
none
required
in.
A
AK
I
would
respect
to
this
idea.
There
is
no
side
ad
requirement
than
in
LC
I
understand
the
argument.
That
is
a
corner
lot.
The
front
yard
setback
is
applicable,
as
I
mentioned,
the
front
yard.
Setback
in
this
district
is
15
feet.
There's
a
15-foot
side
setback
here,
which
I
also
mentioned,
because
that's
it
it's
it's
either
modal
or
it's
15
feet
on
the
right
side.
AK
J
AK
D
AK
J
B
This
is
a
change
ox
feet
by
extending
living
space
into
the
basement
into
an
in-law
palm
with
full
kitchen
and
change
from
your
two
family
to
three
family.
The
violations,
article
65
section
41,
our
street
parking
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
64,
section
8,
the
three
family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article
65,
section,
9,
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Naming
the
address
for
the
record.
Please.
Yes,.
A
AR
A
A
AR
A
A
AR
H
H
H
AR
H
H
A
H
H
H
AR
H
AR
AR
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
AR
H
AJ
AR
J
AB
Q
AT
J
A
B
A
B
B
Just
called
10:30
stuff
arose
over
throttles.
There
are
none,
I'm
gonna,
go
back
to
the
930
cases,
calling
the
next
case
calling
VOA
eight
zero.
Six
eight
zero
zero
one
thirty-six
Neponset
Avenue.
This
is
to
raise
an
existing
two-and-a-half
story,
funeral
home
and
erect
a
new
five
story.
Six
unit
residential
building
with
ten
parking
spaces
violations.
Article
65
section,
eight,
a
multi-family
dwelling-
is
forbidden
in
a
two
F
5,000
sub-district
article
65
section
I
on
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
section
99,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
number
of
stories.
B
B
Try
to
trick
me
finally
Bo
eight
zero,
six,
seven,
nine,
nine
eleven
to
fifteen
tiles
borough
Street.
This
is
to
raise
an
existing
to
two-story
building
erect
a
new
four-story
three
unit.
Townhouse
with
six
are
three
parking
spaces
violations:
article
65
section,
8,
3,
f3
family.
In
a
to
F
5000
sub
district
is
forbidden.
Article
65
section
I
the
floor
near
a
she
owes
excessive
article
65-69
that
building
height
is
excessive
in
stories
equals
65
section
9
of
the
building
height
is
excessive
and
feet.
AO
AO
These
two
contiguous
parcels
of
land,
first
one
being
ties,
Bello
Street,
it's
a
proposal,
there's
three
townhouses
each
townhouse
will
be
approximately
two
thousand
eighty
square
feet:
three
bedroom
three
and
a
half
baths.
The
FA
R
is
0.5.
The
FAA
for
this
proposal
is
0.5
to
the
height
in
this
area
is
35.
The
height
on
this
is
thirty,
nine
point,
seven
two
and
a
half
stories
allowed.
We
are
in
four
stories
and
we
have
two
parking
spaces
per
unit.
AO
I
provided
the
board
letters
the
support,
including
a
letter
of
support
from
the
Pope's
Hill
Civic
Association,
as
well
as
the
butters
and
neighbors
the
lot
size
on
this
is
eleven
thousand
nine
hundred
and
thirteen
square
feet
getting
into
136
deposit.
It's
a
six
unit
building
unit
one
and
two
will
be
1,900
square
feet.
Those
will
be
two-bedroom
two-bath
unit,
3
and
4
will
be
1,350
square
feet.
Those
would
be
2
bedroom
2
bath
in
units
5
&
6
will
be
1700
square
feet.
Two-Bedroom
two-bath,
the
height
required
is
35.
The
high
proposed
is
41.8.
AO
It's
four
stories.
Zoning
calls
two
and
a
half
front
yard
violation.
We're
following
the
modal
and
rear
yard.
We
are
at
18
feet.
Zoning
is
20
the
lot
size
on
that
is
ten
thousand
seven
hundred
and
ninety
three
square
feet.
As
I
stated,
we
went
to
a
robust
community
process
met
with
all
the
neighbors
had
several
community
meetings
and
the
letters
before
you
support
that
I
believe
we
have
no.
AG
AN
AW
Flanders
I
am
the
Secretary
of
the
1:45
Neponset
Avenue
condominium
trust
and
we
also
live
there.
It's
a
three
unit
condominium
building,
it's
a
triple
decker.
That's
been
split.
First
I
have
a
procedural
concern.
We
are
the
building
that
will
be
most
affected
by
the
construction
of
building.
We
received
no
notification
whatsoever
of
any
abutters
meeting,
so
we
didn't
know
it
was
a
meeting
somewhere.
AW
E
AW
AB
AW
AW
AB
AW
AW
AW
AW
A
D
AV
Not
it's
two
feet
higher
in
the
footprint
at
that
story
is
quite
a
bit
smaller,
so
we
just
have
a
with
that.
Height
includes
the
head
house,
which
is
a
very
small
portion
of
the
building
footprint.
This
this
height
is
the
whole
footprint
of
the
building,
so
the
actual
height
is
only
two
feet
and
it's
quite
a
bit
smaller
in
terms
of
volume.
AV
AX
AO
A
G
AY
AW
A
A
A
B
I
B
Boa
seven:
eight
six,
nine
five,
seven
twenty
one
woodward
street:
this
is
to
construct
a
new
three-story
building
for
six
homes,
with
ten
below
great
parking
spaces
and
exterior
porches
for
each
each
home
violations.
Article
65
section,
seven
residential
sub
district
maximum
number
of
dwelling
units
in
a
two
F
5000
sub
district
shall
be
to
article
65
section.
Nine,
the
flirty,
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Nautical
65,
section
9,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
in
stories.
Article
65,
section,
9
of
the
front
yard,
is
insufficient.
B
N
Morning,
madam
chairman,
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
John
Lyons
I'm,
an
attorney
with
an
office
at
80,
Colton,
Street
Quincy
mess
with
me
as
a
grouch,
the
architect
and
send
the
principal
owner
of
the
property.
This
is
a
79
hundred
square
foot
lot,
which
has
been
vacant
as
far
back
as
the
record
show
into
the
1800s.
N
It's
got
a
particularly
unique
set
of
circumstances
and
that
it
was
once
completely
out
grade,
but
as
the
railroad
which
is
adjacent
to
the
site
was
enhanced
to
the
years
the
adjacent
trangent
Redfield
Street
was
increase
in
height
substantially
it's
now
height
of
22
feet.
In
order
to
accommodate
that
height,
the
grade
at
both
Woodworth
Street
in
Redfield
Street
had
to
be
substantially
improved,
increased
which,
which
caused
two
things.
First
of
all,
there's
a
substantial
drop
off
along
the
Woodworth
street
grade
within
this
property,
the
adjacent
home
there's
a
photograph
collection
of
four
photographs.
N
The
third
photograph
shows
the
conditions
of
the
adjacent
home
which
the
first
forum,
which
now
sits,
seven
steps
below
the
sidewalk
that
was
constructed
circa
1880
in
the
early
1900s
when
the
grade
was
was
changed.
The
front
stairs
of
the
house.
The
front
door
of
the
house
became
seven
steps
below
the
grade.
That
condition
exists
throughout
the
subject
parcel
and
it
becomes
an
even
greater
drop
the
grade.
As
you
approach
the
corner
offer
it
feels
traceless.
A
A
N
F
F
Edmund
Roach
architect
good
morning,
there's
currently
a
driveway
that
runs
off
of
pretty
much
in
the
middle
of
Warkworth
street
and
currently
there's
a
45-degree
slope
more
or
less
from
the
top
of
the
grade
at
at
the
bridge
and
then
over
to
the
corner
of
site.
Augustana
WA
a
grade
of
about
22
feet.
So
we've
actually
we'll
have
a
significant
hardship
with
excavating
the
site
to
create
off
street
parking
and
that'll
be
accessed
by
a
driveway
abutting
the
exist
as
owners,
existing
owners,
property
abutting,
the
building
and
basically
you'll
get
out
of
the
grade.
A
N
First,
violation
is
the
building.
Height
is
excessive,
it
is
three
stories
and
there
was
a
photograph
in
the
in
the
attachment
and
also
I
believe
on
the
plans
which
show
that's
in
conformity
with
the
existing
streetscape.
The
building
across
the
street
is
virtually
identical.
The
lodger
building
the
building
adjacent
is
a
tentacle
in
the
larger
building,
further
down
what
where
the
street
is
identical.
N
Debris
god
is
insufficient.
That
is
the
same
condition
as
in
every
adjacent
property.
In
order
in
order
to
effectively
build
on
the
site,
it's
just
required
to
go
deeper
into
the
site
to
create
usable
units.
At
the
same
time,
the
building
will
step
back
from
Redfield
Street
to
allow
for
some
open
space
and
to
all
clearance
at
the
corner,
for
a
ratio
is
excessive.
The
FA
are
in
this,
neighborhood
is
0.5.
This
is
just
over
1.0,
but
you
get
is
consistent
with
virtually
every
other
property.
In
that
section,
important
all
form.
N
AB
A
BA
AG
A
AN
H
B
Calling
the
next
four
five
cases
actually,
this
12
total
but
I'm
gonna
call
five.
First
here,
boa
eight
zero,
seven,
zero
three
221
angel
Street,
VOA,
eight,
zero,
seven,
zero,
three
six:
twenty-two
angel,
Street,
VOA,
eight,
zero,
seven,
zero,
three,
eight
twenty
eight
angel
Street,
boa
8
0
7,
0,
4,
0,
37
angel
Street,
boa
8,
8,
0,
7,
0,
4,
139
angel
Street
call
these
in
the
order,
as
I
just
read
them
out.
This
is
421
angel.
B
This
will
be
subdivided
into
two
equal
five
thousand
square
foot
Lots,
where
the
right
side
of
the
lot
will
be
considered
at
19
angel
and
the
left
side
will
be
considered.
21
angel
a
single-family
attached
home
will
be
constructed
on
each
of
these
Lots.
This
potty
of
the
walls
of
either
the
two
homes
on
the
lot
line.
This
project
is
part
of
the
city
of
Boston's,
Department
of
Neighborhood
Development,
the
middle
income
housing
program,
the
violations,
article
10,
section,
1
limitation
of
area
accessory
uses.
B
This
is
for
22
angel.
Well,
22
angel
will
have
a
single-family
home
constructed
currently
vacant
5300
34
square
foot
lot
56
square
feet
of
the
lot
will
be
subdivided
out
and
given
to
the
neighbor
at
20
angel
Street,
due
to
the
a
walkway
that
is
currently
located
in
the
area.
The
violations,
article
10
section,
1
limitation
of
ear
accessory
uses,
article
60,
section,
9
side
yard
is
insufficient.
B
This
would
be
428
angel
street
28
angel
angel
Street
is
currently
a
vacant
parcel
of
land.
A
single
family
home
will
be
constructed
on
five
thousand
four
hundred
and
twenty
square
feet.
This
project
is
also
part
of
the
city
of
Boston's
neighborhood
development.
The
violations,
article
10
section
1,
a
limitation
of
area
accessory
uses
and
article
60,
section,
9
side
yard
isn't
sufficient.
B
This
is
437
angel
street
37
age
will
be
subdivided
into
two
equal-sized
3313
square
feet:
lots
where
the
right
side
law
will
be
considered,
37
angel
and
the
left
side
law.
It
will
be
considered.
39
angel
construct
a
single-family
attached
home
in
each
of
these
locks
with
the
potty
wall
divided
into
homes.
In
the
lot
line,
the
violations
are
the
same
as
previously
read,
and
this
is
full
of
39
angel
Street.
This
is
37
age.
B
39
angel
will
be
subdivided
to
two
equal-sized
3313
square
feet
on
the
right
side,
lot
and
37
angel
on
the
left
side,
the
same
violations
so
council.
What
we're
going
to
do
is
call
these
out
because
we
have
12
of
them.
I'll
call
them
out
by
their
address,
and
then
we
can
go
from
there.
So
we'll
do
angel
first
number
2
one
name
an
address
for
the
record.
We
can
do
that
once
good.
BC
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Nix
Azula
McDermott,
Cole
T
and
Miller
28
State
Street,
Suite,
8,
0,
2,
Boston
Mass
with
me
to
my
left,
is
Kevin
Maguire
from
ox
bile
urban
LLC.
The
proposed
developer
to
my
right
is
Denisha
mcdonald,
also
from
ox
bile
urban
I'd
like
to
apologize
to
mr.
secretary
for
all
the
reading.
He
has
to
do
on
our
behalf,
but
we
did
pass
out
a
summary
of
each
one
of
these
and
we'll
try
and
make
it
as
short
and
sweet
as
possible.
BC
All
12
these
5
projects
are
all
part
of
Neighborhood
Housing
initiative
program
where
vacant
lots
that
are
owned
by
the
city
are
revitalized
with
newly
constructed
single-family
or
two
family
homes,
they're
available
made
to
sale
to
a
range
of
middle-income
buyers
and
provide
affordable,
homeownership
opportunities,
in
this
case,
all
five
of
the
ones
that
mr.
secretary
just
wrote
into
the
record
and
all
12
of
them
overall
are
all
single
family
homes,
either
standalone
or
attached.
All
of
these
properties
are
located
in
either
Mattapan
or
Dorchester,
seven
of
them
in
these
first
five
that
mr.
A
BC
Ma'am,
so
for
all
of
these,
there
is
a
variance
required
because
of
Article
ten,
which
does
not
allow
parking
within
five
feet
of
the
side
yard
lot
line.
These
are
all
narrow,
smaller
Lots
or,
in
some
cases
being
subdivided
and
as
a
result,
the
parking
for
all
of
them
is
within
that
five
yard.
Buffer
of
the
side,
side
yard.
A
BD
A
BD
BC
Not
designed
for
that
under
this
I
mean
the
purpose
of
this,
is
this
for
sale
ownership
with
a
3
not
with
not
occupiable
space
in
the
basement.
However,
after
the
program
and
the
properties
being
sold,
I
mean
that
person
would
need
to
come
back
in
front
of
the
board,
as
others
have
done
today,
to
propose
that
it's
not
being
fitted
out
for
that
purpose.
It's
not
being
it's
being
fitted
out
for
a
basement
for
storage,
not
for
occupiable
space.
R
For
the
affordable,
you
news
those
will
be
going
through
the
Boston
home
Center,
so
there
will
be
a
lottery
process
for
the
market
rate
units.
Those
will
be.
We
do
a
lot
of
community
outreach
to
see
if
any
members
of
the
community
would
like
to
purchase
the
homes,
in
addition
to
general
marketing
from
a
real
estate
professional.
J
BD
BC
BC
BD
Q
AT
O
J
BD
J
A
B
Five:
three
to
forty
two
Norwell
street
VOA:
eight:
zero,
seven,
zero,
five
476
Spencer
street
boa
eight
zero,
seven,
zero,
five:
five
one:
thirteen
Wheatland
Avenue
boah,
zero,
seven,
zero,
five,
six,
one
fifteen
Wheatland
Avenue:
this
is
four
twelve
lon.
Twelve
one
is
currently
3214
square
feet.
Vacant
lot
is
a
contract,
a
single-family
home
with
a
potty
wall
in
between
12
and
14
lawn
street.
The
violation
is
article
60,
section
9.
A
lot
with
is
insufficient
article
66,
a
nine,
a
lot
of
punches.
B
Isn't
it
sufficient
article
60,
section
9,
a
building
height
of
number
of
stories
is
excessive,
14
lawn
street.
This
is
currently
3214.
Vacant
lot
constructed
single-family
home
with
12
Lawrence
Street.
The
violations-
article
10
section
1
of
the
limitation
of
area
accessory
uses
article
60,
section
9
lot
areas
insufficient.
B
This
is
for
240,
normal
Street
240,
Noah's,
subdivide,
Atlanta,
located
to
the
rear
of
the
parcel
that
was
given
by
240
to
normal
to
be
combined
as
one
law
to
be
considered
at
214
or
well.
The
street
we
sub
the
street
will
be
subdivided
into
the
rare
of
the
providing
3
point.
8
foot
wide
strip
of
land,
totaling
112
feet
to
be
given
to
the
river,
but
the
remaining
2846
square
feet
will
have
a
single-family
attached
home,
constructed
on
the
potty
potty
wall
and
located
between
240
and
242.
BC
A
BD
J
BD
AG
AT
BE
A
AY
Ever
since
the
city
was
given
away
how
the
property
for
a
dollar
I've
taken
care
of
that
property
until
about
maybe
maybe
five
or
six
years
ago,
shovel
snow
cut
the
grass
and
did
everything,
and
at
that
time
they
said
anybody
that
that
took
care
of
piece
of
property
for
a
certain
amount
of
years.
Then
that
probably
would
go
automatically
go
to
them
that
we
would
get
the
first
shot.
AY
Now
we
we
came
down
to
the
city
and
spoke
to
people
down
here
during
the
time
that
this
property
was
that
not
this
project
but
other
properties
around
the
city
was
being
given
away.
They
told
us
to
hold
off
and
they
would
let
us
know
when
they
come
up.
We
we
held
off
for
about
810
years
and
spoke
to
them
again.
They
said
no,
it's
not
up
yet
we'll.
Let
you
know,
go
back,
let
you
know
it
didn't
happen.
A
S
A
BF
113
115
property.
Okay,
if
you
would
see
on
the
end
property,
it's
a
dead
end
private
way.
So,
currently,
a
couple
years
ago,
the
city
came
and
put
a
fence,
as,
as
the
last
person
said,
they
they
put
that
fence
on
my
property
as
it
is
now.
So
it's
about
about
six
feet
on
the
property
now
so
I'm
looking
to
get
that
removed
and
then
I
have
concerns
about
the
height
where
I'm
the
last
property.
BF
BF
R
BF
He
got
no
notification
on
certain
things.
He
also
took
care
of
the
property
next
door
for
years
it
was
a
garden
and
for
years
he
fought
the
does
the
the
building
of
the
MBTA,
but
he
got
sick
and
that
property
was
used
for
a
garden.
For
you
know,
over
100
years,
so
I'm
not
sure
there
was
a
law
somewhere.
BF
AL
A
A
J
BD
A
D
BG
BE
AJ
B
An
ace
case
calling
BOA,
seven,
nine,
nine
one,
four,
eight
nine,
fifty
one
to
nine
fifty-nine,
a
Dorchester
Avenue.
This
is
construct.
A
new
five-story
mixed-use
bill
in
on
the
ground
floor
will
be
two
commercial
spaces
on
the
upper
floors
over
38
residential
units.
There
will
be
parking
located
under
the
building
a
level
426.
B
The
violations,
article
65
section
41.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section
41,
our
street
parking
design,
the
new
Murrah
Building
tandem
parking
article,
65,
section
8
use
of
a
resident
restaurant
is
conditional.
Article
65,
section,
9
lot
area
for
additional
drawing
units
is
insufficient.
Article
65
the
floor.
The
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
article
65,
building
height
number
of
storeys
as
excessive
article
65,
section
9
usable
open
spaces.
Insufficient
article
65,
69
front
yard
is
insufficient.
B
BH
BH
You
also
have
the
BPD
a
article
80
board
memo
which
I
think
is
instructive,
especially
as
it
relates
to
the
uses
and
the
zoning
just
to
give
you
a
brief
overview
and
then
touch
on
the
zoning
for
the
case.
This
site
is
we're
excited
to
be
here
for,
for
what
is
undoubtedly
a
community-based
development
development
without
displacement?
If
you
will,
this
existing
site
is,
has
been
long
occupied
by
the
Dorchester
market,
which
family
has
operated
it
for
sixty
years
used
to
be
Jean
and
Paul's
back
in
the
day.
BH
Peter
McGee,
who
is
the
operator,
is
here
with
us,
and
mr.
Saba
is
working
very
closely
with
him
to
make
a
new
home
for
him
as
part
of
this
new
mixed-use,
retail
and
residential
development
will
enable
Peter
his
employees
and
his
family
to
continue
to
operate
as
a
staple
in
the
neighborhood
with
new
space,
the
restaurant
space
itself
has
Tom
English
bar.
That
has
been
there
for
a
long
time
and
mr.
BH
Szabo's
been
working
with
the
community
that
enterprise
will
shut
down
and
will
be
looking
for
a
new
neighborhood
based
restaurant
operator,
probably
more
on
the
food
side
and
less
on
the
bar
side,
the
housing.
So
this
is
really
the
first
opportunity
to
really
create
a
gateway
experience
here
at
this
part
of
Dorchester.
As
you
come
into
Savin
Hill,
Columbia,
Savin
Hill,
and
we
are
looking
at
introducing
38
units
of
residential
housing,
which
would
be
rental.
Their
bedroom
size
is
commensurate
with
kind
of
residential
above
retail,
on
the
main
corridor.
BH
Street
like
this
twenty-six
parking
spaces
in
the
garage
and
you'll
see
in
the
plans
and
mr.
dealers
work
very
hard
on
this,
and
we
thank
the
BPD.
A
urban
design
staff
for
their
help.
We
work
really
closely
with
activating
the
streetscape
setting
the
building
back,
introducing
Complete,
Streets
and
introducing
public
realm.
Almost
a
third
of
the
site
will
have
a
new
public
realm
that
will
support
the
market
for
outdoor
seating
and
display
of
produce,
and
things
like
that.
That
modern.
A
BC
BH
A
restaurant
use
has
existed
for
time,
English
and
that
relief
is
necessary
to
continue
it
essentially
and
there'll
be
more
opportunity
for
public
dialogue,
as
as
we
pursue
license
transfers
and
things
like
that.
For
that
new
operator.
The
second
piece
is
the
minimum
lot
area.
It's
a
thousand
per
unit
that
would
allow
for
11
units
and
considering
the
condition
of
the
two
buildings
and
the
site
that
really
can't
be
adapted.
We
would
suggest
that's
impractical
to
comply
with
the
FA
are,
is
required
as
one
and
we're
at
three
point.
BH
Seven,
eight
taken
great
from
the
massing
standpoint.
Great
care
has
gone
into
shaping
this
new
building.
It's
really
an
area
that
can
support
this
being
on
a
Main
Street,
but
as
you'll
see
in
the
plans,
it
presents
itself
as
a
four-story
building,
setting
that
to
a
5th
story
edition
in
the
back
and
there's
also
a
great
opportunity.
The
site
actually
elevates
as
you
go
back
on
the
rear
side.
So
we've
shown.
AX
O
BH
A
BH
So
we'll
have
four
thousand
two
hundred
and
sixty
square
feet
of
usable
space
open
space,
and
that
includes,
if
you
look
at
the
floor
plan
again,
this
is
a
this
is
an
LS
MFR
district.
It's
not
a
single-family
district
right,
we're
on
a
Main
Street.
So
a
lot
of
that
is
happening
at
the
street
scape
and
it's
a
huge
improvement
from
once.
There
now.
AV
BH
BH
A
BH
BH
BI
BH
A
BH
A
A
AX
BH
Correct
yeah
the
size
of
the
site,
also
kind
of
constrains
what
we
can
do
and
the
topography
so
we're
doing
one
tray
of
structured
garage
parking
and
we
we
look
pretty
hard
about.
You
know
how
could
we
address
that,
maybe
add
more,
and
if
you
were
to
do
another
tray
by
the
time
you
eat
up
circulation
with
the
smaller.
The
lot
doesn't
necessarily.
A
AX
A
AX
Those
there
would
be
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
evidence
and
new
projects
in
Dorchester
about
the
the
usage
and
and
that
point
7
ratio
that
you're
seeing
some
of
those
units.
Probably
people,
would
have
to
two
spaces
per
you
nurture
some
several
will
have
no
cars,
they
live
in
this
area.
They
choose
to
live
here
because
it's
close
to
the
T,
and
this
actually
promotes
that
type
of
life.
BH
A
A
BH
Cousin
a
lady
project,
we
need
to
go
back
for
a
notice
that
keen
to
a
notice
a
project
change
through
the
PPD,
a
we're
bound
by
a
50-year
deed
restriction
for
affordable
housing,
and
you
have
to
select
which
type
of
housing
that's
going
to
be.
We
actually
started
a
very
open
dialogue
with
the
community.
J
BH
BH
With
the
median
of
the
building
so
up
the
38
of
courses
five
affordable
and
we
have
a
mix
of
11,
Studios
19
once
and
eight
two
bedrooms,
and
so
those
affordable
units
would
be
commensurate
with
you
know
it's
part
of
our
affordable
house.
The
agreement,
most
of
them
are
one
bedrooms.
There
you
go
thanks,
yeah,
so
page
six
of
the
board
memo.
BH
BH
AG
A
B
Boa
seven:
nine
three
five
three
three
forty
nine
Copeland
Street.
This
is
to
extend
living
space
from
the
first
floor
to
the
basement.
Install
new
stairs
for
the
first
load
of
the
basement,
install
a
twenty
by
thirty
basement
window
for
emergency
escape
from
violates
nautical.
Fifty
six
to
twenty
nine,
the
ploidy,
a
ratio
is
accessible
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
AU
Morning,
madam
chair
and
members
and
secretary
and
my
name
is
douglas
lon
architect
for
the
plans
record.
I
have
occupant
owner
who
lives
in
the
first
floor,
catherine
service
and
who
needs
to
be
taken
care
of
by
her
husband
and
two
sons
and
the
grandkids,
and
one
of
two
sons
are
here
he's
here
and
her
husband
is
working
at
this
time,
and
this
is
two
to
request
to
legalize
existing
habitable
space,
about
not
more
than
three
underscore
feet.
That
has
that
has
been
there
before
she
bought
purchased
in
the
year
2005,
and
she
has
sorry.
A
AU
AU
AM
A
AS
A
AU
A
BK
AT
A
AU
H
H
AU
AU
H
A
A
A
B
This
is
the
complete
removal
and
existing
MEP
systems.
Interior
and
exterior
finishes
demo
installed
new
MEP
systems,
fire
alarm,
sprinkler,
new
interior
layouts
that
requires
structural
work,
new
interior
finishes,
remove
roof
and
construct
a
third
floor
with
roof
deck,
three
off
street
parking
spaces
and
changes
from
an
existing
two
family
2/3
of
five
months.
The
violation
is
article
55,
section,
9
additional
Lahti
areas,
insufficient
article
55,
section
9,
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
55,
section,
9,
usable
open
space
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BL
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
marks
Lacoste's
Lacasse
law,
75,
Arlington,
Street,
Boston,
Massachusetts,
Zoning
attorney
for
the
appellant
with
me,
Tim
McGovern
and
James
custodial
the
owners
of
the
property
who
are
proposing
this
renovation.
This
is
a
proposal
to
gut
renovate
an
existing
two
family
which
was
substantially
damaged
by
fire
in
November
of
2016,
actually
James
custodial
one
of
the
owners
and
developers
here
lived
in
the
property
grew
up
in
the
property.
BL
His
mom
lived
in
the
house
until
the
fire
and
he
has
purchased
it
from
the
rest
of
the
family
and
it's
going
to
develop
it
with
mr.
McGovern
got
renovate
the
building
removed,
damaged
portion
in
the
rear
of
the
property
that
was
damaged
by
the
fire
square
off
the
third
floor.
To
create
a
complete
third
floor.
There
are
three
parking
spaces
in
the
rear
yard
which
are
accessed
by
an
existing
curb
cut
on
Hall
Street
and
the
driveway
along
the
side
of
the
house.
BL
It
is
a
three
F
sub
district,
so
the
proposed
use
of
converting
it
from
two
to
three
isn't
allowed
use
our
zoning
issues
our
dimensional
in
nature.
The
additional
lot
size
requirement
for
the
additional
dwelling
unit
is
insufficient.
The
FA
are
the
existing
F
AR
is
0.61,
the
proposed
F
AR
is
0.9,
the
requirement
is
0.6
and
finally,
the
third
violation
is
insufficient.
Usable
open
space,
1750
is
required,
790
is
being
provided
and
that's
sort
of
in
exchange
for
losing
some
of
the
rear
yard
space
for
the
required
parking.
BL
A
A
BL
A
BL
P
Q
BN
B
A
B
A
A
The
Court
of
Appeal
is
back
in
session.
Just
just
a
reminder,
please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
all
conversations
are
taken
outside
of
the
room,
in
conformance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law.
This
meeting
is
being
live-streamed
just
for
your
information
and
if
you're
here
to
speak
in
support,
are
in
opposition
to
a
project.
Please
give
us
some
new
information
when
you
have
your
turn
at
the
mic.
Mr.
fortune.
Thank.
B
B
The
violation
is
article
13,
section,
4
dwellings.
In
a
non
residential
district
article
15
section
1,
the
phylidia
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
16,
section
1,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
article
16,
section
1,
the
building
height
number
of
storeys
is
excessive.
Article
20,
section
1,
the
Reyat
is
insufficient
in
article
a
section
7,
the
use
of
Hotel
15
is
forbidden,
use
our
ste
parking
and
on
street
loading
to
be
approved
by
BPD
a
an
article,
80
large
project
approval
name,
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BH
By
made
madam
chair
I,
passed
out
a
little
earlier,
some
presentation
materials
for
the
board,
showing
you
the
context
of
the
site
and
the
conditions
existing
conditions,
as
well
as
the
proposed
project
memorandum.
Speaking
to
the
compliance
of
the
zoning,
the
VRA
then
b
ra
s,
2014
hotel
study,
which
supports
the
requested
use,
as
well
as
the
article
lady
large
project
review
board
memorandum
approving
this
project
earlier
this
year
and
a
strong
record
of
public
support.
BH
Give
you
a
little
background
on
the
site
246
to
248.
Ev
is
between
West
5th
and
West
6th
Street.
It
abuts
the
haul
road
at
the
rear,
the
South
Boston
bypass
road
and
is
in
manufacturing
one
zoning
district,
but,
more
importantly,
or
more.
Currently,
it's
in
the
South
Boston
Dorchester
AB
planning
initiative
area,
which
was
commenced
in
2015
mother,
beat
PDA
as
a
so-called
growth
zone
study
area
and
the
BPD
A's
adopted
guidelines,
which
we've
worked
very
closely
with
as
part
of
this
overall
review.
BH
Article
ad
large
project
review,
approved
in
January
and
you'll,
see
in
the
letters
of
support,
support
from
ihe
members,
as
well
as
the
West
Broadway
Neighborhood
Association,
which
is
the
neighborhood
group
that
we
worked
with
the
case
before
you
is
obviously
under
the
existing
zoning,
which
is
contemplated
to
be
changed.
So
the
request
is
for
an
FA.
Our
change,
one
is
a
allowance
of
one
this.fa.
Our
is
3.9,
for
the
height
is
35
and
our
total
height
is
just
a
little
under
110
and
eight
stories
with
a
70
foot
base
a
rear
yard.
We
need.
BH
Final
thing,
I'd
say
is:
we've
worked
very
hard
to
develop
this
program
as
very
much
in
line
with
the
community,
as
well
as
economic
and
job
development
for
the
area.
Mister
tsukada
has
particular
experience
in
south
boston
and
one
of
the
key
attributes
here
is
this:
hotel
will
have
a
pretty
robust
amount
of
amenity
space
for
folks
from
the
neighborhood
and
the
public
at
large
as
a
paced
place
of
public
accommodation,
of
course,
to
enjoy
the
amenities
within
the
hotel
itself.
BH
So
156
rooms
eight
stories.
The
base
is
around
70
feet,
which
is
consistent
with
the
context
of
what
you're
seeing
down
in
the
lower
end
around
the
Broadway
train
station,
which
were
only
a
few
blocks
away.
We
have
a
60
valet
parking
spaces,
which
we
also
think
is
consistent
and
was
set
through
the
article
80
large
project
review
process.
BH
BO
AP
The
stretch
code,
obviously
you
get
to
certifiable
silver,
we're
planning
to
go
a
little
bit
above
that
I.
Don't
know
that
we'll
go
through
the
process
of
official
lead
certification.
It's
an
expensive
consulting
process
for
a
plaque.
I
would
say
that
you
know,
as
developers
were
committed
to
and
interested
in
doing
what
we
can
to
comply
with
the
best
practices
in
building
construction
today,
and
that
means
an
environmentally-friendly
building,
and
so
that's
that's
a
big
and
important
part
of
our
design
that
we've
got
in
front
of
you.
BN
Above
70
feet
we
have
a
restaurant
and
an
outdoor
deck
space
on
the
east
and
that's
the
seventh
floor.
On
the
eighth
floor.
We
have
an
event
space
which
can
be
used
for
meeting
spaces
wedding,
small,
very
small.
Ladies,
it's
not
a
large
space
and
then
above
that
we
took
the
facade
of
the
building
up
so
that
we
could
screen
the
mechanical
space
above
it.
So
we
didn't
want
there
to
be
a
separate
mechanical
screen
up
there,
which
doesn't
have
the
same
attention
that
the
rest
of
the
facade
does.
A
BH
AP
Not
yet
selected
it
to
get
the
best
operators,
you
have
to
be
through
this
part
of
the
process,
and
we
find
that
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
come
into
Boston
and
want
to
do
a
hotel
few
people
get
to
shovel-ready
and
in
order
to
attach
the
best
people
to
the
project
we
wanted
to
get
through
this
part
of
the
process.
First,.
J
AP
Know
spill
over.
Yes,
there
are
nights
where
there
is
not
adequate
rooms
to
serve
the
convention
center
for
the
most
part
yeah
most
nice,
but
you
know,
there's
obviously
not
a
convention
going
on
in
the
convention
center
every
night.
You
know:
we've
contemplated
things
like
shuttle
service
over
to
the
convention
center
we've
had
discussions
with
you
know
the
BCC
to
you
know,
make
sure
that
we're
doing
what
we
need
to
do
to
serve
their
needs,
and
but
you
know,
we
think
that
for
the
most
part,
this
is
not
a
conventions
than
our
hotel.
Yeah.
BH
You
look
at
150
960
rooms
classified
as
a
boutique
hotel,
where's
that
thousand
room
Omni.
That's
come
online
booked
out
for
a
decade
in
advance.
We
think,
though,
that
the
amenity
space
you
know
up
top
where
you
see
the
element
there.
It's
got
a
lot
of
intrigue
and
it's
it's
of
a
size
that
first
smaller
spit-up
spin-offs
of
conventions
and
things
like
that
could
be
pretty
neat
space.
But
there's
also,
you
know
in
South
Boston
there's
a
big
population
increased
the
demographics
there.
There
is
one
hotel
that
you
have
approved,
that's
underway.
BH
BN
We're
hopeful
that
track
61,
which
is
the
which
is
the
track
which,
which
right
along
the
haul
road
connects
back
to.
Excuse
me,
the
main
Providence
line
that
goes
into
South
Station
and
then
connects
over
towards
Back
Bay
and
the
convention
areas
over
there.
There's
been
a
plan
in
place
or
not
a
plan,
I
guess
more
of
a
vision
in
place
for
a
long
time
that
that
that
that
track
could
be
resurrected
and
become
part
of
the
public
transportation
system
of
the
city.
AG
AZ
BJ
Boy
Jamie
McNeil
from
local
26,
the
hotel
workers
union.
We
represent
hundreds
of
members
in
South,
Boston,
hotel
and
food
workers,
I'd
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
this
project
by
Jason.
Scott
has
done
everything
possible
to
be
a
true
community
partner
to
making
sure
that
this
hotel
benefits
self
Boston
South
Boston
residents.
We
need
good
jobs
in
the
city.
This
hotel
is
gonna,
provide
them.
Please
support
this
project.
Thank
you.
AJ
BP
B
Work
includes
converting
an
existing
tandem
garage
to
a
two
count,
wide
side-by-side
garage,
replace
all
existing
windows,
replace
existing
roof
deck
on
first
floor
and
add
a
new
roof
second
floor
deck
with
new
exterior
doorway
in
masonry
wall,
the
violation
article
20
section,
one
rayon
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
Aaron.
A
BK
AV
BR
B
B
This
is
a
proposed
fifth
story:
vertical
addition:
roof
deck,
cantilever
dread,
decks
and
interior
renovations
to
the
third
and
fourth
floor
violation:
article
13
section
one:
the
building
height
is
successive
at
feet.
The
article
16
section
8
roof
structure,
restrictions,
article
41,
section,
18,
Cloutier
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
14,
section
18,
Raigad
setback
is
insufficient
in
article
41,
section
6
the
rooftop
additions
and
protected
areas
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
Madam.
AO
131
signatories
in
existing
four
family
plus
lodging,
we
are
adding
a
724
square
foot
addition
to
the
fifth
level,
with
a
roof
deck
and
rear
balconies
we're
not
increasing
the
unit
count
that
will
just
go
to
the
unit.
It
will
go
to
unit
4
the
violations
FA.
Our
zoning
in
the
neighborhood
calls
for
to
existing
304
we're
going
to
333.
AO
A
AV
A
AO
B
AO
AV
B
E
H
AO
BS
H
A
AH
H
H
BR
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
just
saw
her
at
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
who
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
We
did
hold
on
a
butters
meeting
where
a
significant
number
of
residents
came
out,
but
everyone
was
in
favor.
The
few
that
did
have
questions
have
already
been
addressed
by
the
opponent
here,
and
it
was
in
regards
to
like
a
balcony
would
try
to
do
with
the
landmarks
issue
and
that
had
been
resolved.
BR
A
O
B
B
A
A
A
BT
A
AG
AB
B
Call
the
next
case
calling
vo
a
six
eight
one,
two
one:
nine
nineteen
Wally
Street.
This
is
a
wreck
t45
unit
residential
dwelling,
the
violation
of
article
53,
section,
25,
multi-family
residential,
is
a
vid
news.
Article
53
section
56
insufficient
off
street
parking
article
53,
section
56,
insufficient
R
Street
loading,
article
53,
section
26,
excessive
FA,
our
article
53
section
26,
excessive
building
height
in
article
53,
section
26,
insufficient,
Riyadh
setback
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BU
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members,
the
board
Richard
Lin's,
245,
Summer,
Street,
East
Boston
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
energy
to
with
me,
is
d'artagnan
Brown
from
Embarq
studio.
Also
with
me,
is
Connor
McCormack
project
manager
for
M
G
to
battle
chair.
This
is
a
property
site.
That's
located
in
the
Orion
Heights
section
of
East
Boston,
directly
adjacent
to
the
MBTA
blue
line,
Suffolk
Downs
train
station,
most
recently
used
for
industrial
purposes,
auto
repair
and
garage
and
storage.
BU
Our
proposals
to
take
that
15,000
square
foot
site
and
redevelop
it
for
multifamily
use
of
the
which,
which
would
service
the
Orient
Heights
community.
The
original
petition
said
45
units
through
the
community
process,
as
well
as
the
BPD,
a
art
ability
process,
we've
reduced
the
total
number
of
units
from
45
to
38.
This
project
would
be
located
in
the
Saratoga
Street
economic
development
area.
Ironically
within
the
EDA.
BU
Even
though
there
is
a
number
of
residential
uses
that
do
exist,
residential
use
is
forbidden,
so
a
multi-family
use
would
require
a
variance
with
respect
to
the
setbacks
and
dimensional
controls
that
are
applicable.
The
EDA
it's
rather
generous.
The
2.0
fer
is
applicable
in
all
EDA
districts
and
therefore
our
proposal
would
be
relatively
consistent
with
the
type
of
densities
that
normally
would
be
seen
in
the
EDA
I
would
point
out.
BU
This
serves
as
sort
of
the
gateway
or
sort
of
the
entrance
or
the
rear
entrance
to
the
Suffolk
Downs
racetrack
site,
which
was
currently
undergoing
review
with
the
Boston
Planning
and
Development
Agency
for
significant
amount
of
development.
So
this
this
building
here
would
actually
be
located
just
outside
the
boundary
of
the
Suffolk
Downs
racetrack
site,
with
respect
to
the
breakdown
of
units,
as
I
indicated,
a
total
of
38
units
with
25
parking
spaces
with
respect
to
the
mix,
it's
a
mix
of
1,
2,
3
and
actually
4
bedrooms.
BU
The
mix
would
be
12
one
bedrooms,
11
two
bedrooms,
12
3
bedrooms
and
3
4
bedrooms.
The
reason
we
were
actually
asked
to
consider,
including
four
bedrooms
into
this
project,
was
a
combination
of
things.
A
few
comments
from
the
neighborhood
indicated
that
they
wanted
to
see
larger
units
to
service
families.
We
felt
that
the
number
of
three
bedrooms
that
we
were
proposing
was
sufficient
for
that
they
actually
wanted
to
see
larger
units
as
well.
This
is
proposed
as
a
rental
project.
BU
We
did
take
this
through
the
article
80
process
with
the
Boston
Planning
and
Development
Agency,
which
granted
approval
recently.
This
will
also
require
32
sent
IDP
for
the
affordable
units
that
are
required
under
the
city's
inclusionary
development
policy.
I'm
habbit
happy
answer
any
questions
regarding
the
project.
H
BU
This
would
be
the
site
of
the
former
Logan's
yeah,
where.
BU
BU
I
can
I
can
speak
to
probably
both
of
those
issues.
The
first
issue
involved
the
proximity
to
MBT
right
away
under
state
statute,
generalized
chapter
40,
section
54,
a
any
proposal
to
construct
within
an
area
that
was
either
formerly
owned
by
a
railway
or
adjacent
to
requires
sign-off
by
Department
transportation
that
would
occur
after
zoning,
but
before
permit
issuance.
The
second
issue
is
a
licensing
requirement
with
the
MBTA
as
part
of
our
due
diligence.
BU
We've
been
engaged
with
the
MBTA
throughout
this
planning
process
to
talk
about
methods
of
construction,
specifically,
their
concerns
usually
involve
the
type
of
equipment
that
we're
using
and
the
method
in
sequencing
of
construction
to
ensure
that
it
doesn't
interfere
with
the
MBTA's
right-of-way
and
the
rapid
transit
system,
so
we're
in
negotiations
with
MBTA.
Regarding
that.
BV
Long
again,
d'artagnan
brown
tree
bark
along
Wally
Street,
there's
about
a
nine
foot,
great
drop,
starting
on
the
south
end,
going
down
to
the
North
End
coming
in
underneath
my
garage
entry
you'd
enter
into
25
spaces,
no
stackers,
all
surface
spaces,
plus
handicapped
spaces
and
access
directly
into
a
vestibule
up
through
an
elevator
into
the
residential
building
being
open
air
garage
again.
Given
the
grade
slope,
there's
only
really
one
in
two
exposures
that
are
concealed
so
from
Wally
Street.
BV
AG
I
AJ
A
AB
B
B
BK
It's
an
existing
three
family
dwelling
that
we're
proposing
to
convert
it
to
five
units
and
put
an
addition
onto
the
back
of
the
building
on
the
second
and
third
floors
and
we're
just
expanding
it
to
meet
D
to
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
that's
allowed,
and
on
top
of
that
addition,
in
the
back,
there
is
also
a
a
deck
that
will
be
accessible
from
the
third
floor.
You
can
units
we're
adding.
BK
A
BK
A
A
BK
A
BI
So
the
on
the
first
and
second
floor,
there
are
two
units
on
each
of
those.
On
the
first
floor,
it's
unit,
102,
is
945
square
feet.
Second
unit
on
the
first
floors,
850
square
feet.
Those
are
both
two
bed
two
baths.
On
the
second
floor,
one
of
the
units
is
950
square
feet.
The
other
unit
is
820
square
feet.
H
AG
AB
BE
B
This
is
a
new
ten-foot
wide
curb
cut
pervious
driveway
for
two
compact
electric
vehicles
violations,
article
9,
section
1.
The
proposed
parking
is
an
extension
of
an
existing
market
for
multi-family
home,
a
free
family
sub
district
article
10,
section,
1
limitation
of
parking
areas.
No
parking
is
permitted
within
5
feet.
The
side
lot
line
buffer
from
parking
within
the
front
or
side
yard.
Article
65,
section,
41
parking
located
in
the
front
yard,
is
not
permitted
if
exceeding
10
feet
in
total,
with
an
article
65
section
41.
B
BX
Gave
me
my
vs.
14
up
Avenue.
A
BX
I
plan
I
had
presented
that
time
had
one
parking
space
straight
in
and
another
one
just
turned,
and
then
I
presented
a
plan
showing
the
two
parking
spaces
straight
in
which
met
the
requirements
and
but
I
left
a
5-foot
space
between
the
parking
space
in
the
property
line.
And
it
was
suggested
that
if
I
moved
two
parking
spaces
over.
BX
H
BX
H
BB
A
B
B
This
is
direct
a
new
three
unit,
townhouse
building
with
parking
Bini
violations,
article
50
section
29
additional
a
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
50,
section,
29
of
the
fluid
EA
ratio
is
excessive:
article
30,
section
29,
the
building
height
and
success
of
a
beat
article
56
to
29
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
50,
section
29.
The
front
yard
is
insufficient
article
50,
section
29.
The
side
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
50,
section
29
of
the
Reyat.
Is
it
sufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record?
Please.
L
Peter
van
Co
architect,
407
Dudley
Street,
here
in
Boston,
we're
coming
to
you
this
morning.
Back
with
this
project,
there
was
question
it
was
well
received
at
our
first
pass.
However,
those
question
on
the
title
lane
and
owning
ownership
of
the
Salvation
Army
field.
We
have
definitively
found
that
it
is
indeed
owned
by
the
Salvation
Army
and
it's
not
necessarily
under
Park
and
Rec
control.
L
That
was
part
of
the
chili,
the
intention,
but
the
idea
now
is
that
we
needed
to
pull
the
building
back
so
the
packets
I've,
given
you
I,
think
managed
this
managed
this
now
that
we
know
that
we
really
do
need
to
pull
back.
If
you
go
to
page
3
with
me,
we
have
moved
back
any
wall
surface
that
has
any
openings
within
it.
We
have
at
least
five
feet
back
from
the
property
line.
L
H
H
L
A
L
L
H
L
H
A
A
Z
L
H
L
H
AG
AA
L
A
B
You
very
much
the
next
case
is
the
interpretation
at
12
o'clock
case
POA,
seven,
eight,
nine,
eight,
seven
to
144
to
146
maverick
Street.
The
petitioner
seeks
the
Landmarks
Commission
erred
in
its
determination
to
impose
a
two-year
moratorium
on
to
article
85
with
respect
to
those
properties
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BU
BU
So
madam
chair
I
provided
the
board
with
a
copy
of
a
statement
in
support
of
our
position
for
reversal
of
a
decision
by
the
Boston
Landmarks
Commission
that
was
entered
on
November
14th
2017,
linear
retail
is
the
owner
of
two
properties
located
in
Boston
section
of
the
city,
specifically
a
maverick
square,
linear
retail
purchased
those
properties
back
in
2015
for
the
purposes
of
combining
those
with
other
Lots
in
which
it
proposed
to
do
a
retail
commercial
development
in
Mavericks
Square.
Just
a
little
bit.
BU
By
way
of
brief
background
over
the
linear
is
linear,
owns
and
operates
approximately
85
retail
properties
throughout
Massachusetts
New,
Hampshire,
Rhode
Island
24
of
those
properties
are
located
here
in
the
city
of
Boston
and
representing
about
137
thousand
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
It
was
Linear's
intention
in
a
quick
acquiring
these
premises
to
combine
them
for
the
purposes
of
creating
what
we
consider
much
needed,
retail
in
the
East
Boston
community.
As
part
of
that
process,
linear
began
its
process
of
reaching
out
to
the
community
and
engage
in
the
community
very
early
on
and
going
through.
BU
The
development
process,
which
is
typical
for
any
development
proposal,
included
with
that
process
as
part
of
the
due
diligence
entitlements
for
this
proposal.
Part
of
it
would
involve
the
demolition
of
these
buildings,
which
would
trigger
the
requirement
to
file
under
article
85
of
the
Boston
zoning
code.
Linear
did
in
fact
file
under
article
85
of
the
Boston
zoning
code.
BU
Two
of
these
buildings
on
the
floor
were
designated
as
significant
by
the
Boston
Landmarks
Commission
I
would
point
out
to
the
board
that,
prior
to
linear,
announcing
any
plans
for
development,
this
site
or
demolition
of
these
buildings,
these
buildings
appeared
on
no
preservation,
summary
or
survey
never
was
identified
as
properties
that
should
be
preserved,
that
includes
by
either
the
Boston
Landmarks
Commission
the
Boston
Preservation
Alliance
of
historic
Boston,
Inc,
mass,
historic
or
National
Register.
Just.
BU
BU
To
be
significant,
current
and
the
Landmarks
Commission
did
invoke
the
90-day
delay
at
that
time,
when
the
90-day
delay
would
have
expired
in
on
November
20th
of
2017.
During
that
90-day
period.
However,
as
the
petitioner
had
presented
its
a
project
to
the
community,
there
was
apparent
that
several
residents
were
opposed
to
the
plans.
The
chief
amongst
the
opposition
had
to
do
with.
They
didn't
like
the
design,
the
building,
and
they
didn't
like
the
fact
that
included
no
residential
use.
But
there
was
also
some
conversation
about
preservation
of
these
two
buildings.
BU
Would
be
zoning
relief
for
this
property?
It
is
in
the
neighborhood
shopping
district.
There
could
be
in
as
of
right
scenario
that
would
permit
the
construction,
because
we
are
over
the
total
in
size
about
18,000
square
feet,
we're
proposing
about
22,000
square
feet
of
retail
space
as
a
result
that
would
trigger
both
article
18
for
small
project
review,
and
there
were
several
variances
that
would
be
necessary
that
is
pending
actually
before
this
board.
BU
A
BU
I
wait
a
procedural
background.
You
know
we
participated
in
the
hearing
before
the
Landmarks
Commission
for
the
article
85
demolition
delay.
During
that
hearing,
it
was
apparent
to
linear
that
there
was
a
strong
preference
by
the
Landmarks
Commission
for
preservation
of
these
buildings.
We
were
asked
to
explore
alternatives
to
demolition,
which
is
required
under
the
article
85
process.
As
part
of
that
process,
we
did
meet
with
landmark
staff
to
review
our
our
alternatives,
demolition.
Those
those
alternatives
were
deemed
adequate
for
purposes
of
proceeding.
BU
BU
Happened
in
August,
August,
22nd,
okay.
At
that
time,
the
Commission
made
a
determination
that
the
demo
delay
would
be
imposed
and
that
the
alternatives
adequate
all
traitors
are
not
presented,
and
therefore
there
was
no
reason
to
lift
the
delay
and
essentially
linear
would
have
to
wait.
The
90
days
before
I
could
proceed
with
demolition,
which
is
very
typical
for
an
article
85
process.
However,
it's
important
it's
important
for
context
and
things
that
I've
included
in
the
brief.
BU
That's
been
submitted
to
this
board,
but
during
that
hearing
some
unusual
comments
we
feel
were
made
at
that
time,
that
sort
of
suggested
the
position
of
the
Landmarks
Commission
with
respect
to
these
buildings,
one
comment
and
based
upon
sir
certainly
the
comments
made
from
the
neighborhood
as
to
the
desire
to
see
preservation
was
to
suggest
to
the
neighborhood
that
perhaps
they
consider
filing
a
Landmarks
petition
to
protect
these
buildings
beyond
the
90-day
demolition
delay.
We
felt
that
was
inappropriate
because
the
context
of
an
article
ii
v
hearing
is
not
a
Landmarks
Commission
hearing.
AB
BU
That
that
was
an
inappropriate
comment.
In
addition,
it
was
expressed
by
another
commissioner
again,
I
outlined
this
in
the
brief,
where
a
Commissioner
requested
or
inquired
as
to
why
we
weren't,
including
any
residential
with
this
proposal,
Lanier's,
not
the
business
of
residential
development.
This
is
a
neighborhood
shopping.
BU
Is
correct
article
we
feel
article
80
as
well
as
the
zoning
process
deals
with
USand
design.
The
issue
before
the
Commission
at
that
time
was
whether
or
not
the
90-day
delay
will
be
lifted
or
not,
and
the
only
question
before
the
before
the
Commission
at
that
time
was
that
we
felt
that
there
was
additional
questions,
and
certainly
the
opinions
of
the
commissioners
were
that
they
were
disappointed
that
we
had
made
what
they
figured
a
very
inadequate
effort
at
trying
to
preserve
these
buildings.
BU
Based
upon
the
proposal
that
linear'
sought
to
put
forth
for
this
project,
the
buildings
did
not
work
for
the
proposal.
The
only
way
to
make
these
work
we'd
have
to
integrate
those
buildings
into
the
design,
our
engineer
and
architects
that
provided
information
to
the
Commission
and
that
just
would
not
work.
We
understand
we
understand
the
goal
of
the
Landmarks
Commission
in
the
process,
but
it
didn't
work
for
this
project
and
therefore
waiting
the
90
days.
BU
H
BU
During
the
90
days
that
was
on
well
interesting,
new
laughs
and
I'm
sure
so
it
appears
it
was
filed
on
October,
2nd
in
between
October
2nd
October
31st.
There
was
no
information
provided
to
linear
that
a
petition
had
been
filed.
It's
the
obligation
under
statutory
requirements
of
the
Landmarks
Commission
to
hold
a
preliminary
hearing
within
30
days
of
accepting
a
petition.
The
30
days
would
have
expired
on
November
2nd
and
they
had
not
held
or
scheduled
the
preliminary
hearing.
BU
It
wasn't
until
October
31st
that
we
were
notified,
that
a
petition
had
been
filed,
a
petition
that
existed
as
early
as
October,
2nd
based
upon
information
that
we
were
provided
through.
Our
public
records
request.
We
determined
and
learned
that
the
properties
did
not
even
meet
the
criteria,
as
required
under
the
statutory
provisions
of
the
landmarks
commissions
enable
legislation.
As
a
result,
the
Commission
would
not
even
be
able
to
accept
the
petition
until
such
time
as
it
met
the
minimum
requirements
of
local
significance
with
further
study
or
higher.
Until
such
times
that
happened.
BU
The
Commission
technically
could
not
accept
the
petition
and
therefore,
by
accepting
in
October
thirty-first,
set
into
motion
a
Landmarks
process,
the
earliest
that
they
could
hear
that
was
November
14th.
Ironically
November
14th
was
the
last
possible
day
before
the
demolition
delay
would
expire
and
therefore,
somehow
have
have
some
impact
on
whether.
A
BU
I
A
BU
So
the
petition
that
was
filed
was
scheduled
for
a
hearing
on
November
14th.
The
way
the
land
might
I
know
that
the
board
is
probably
not
as
familiar
with
the
landmark
landmark
and
process,
which
is
separate
for
the
article
85
process.
Once
a
petition
is
submitted,
the
Landmarks
Commission,
if
it
qualifies
for
the
requirements
under
the
statutory
enabling
legislation,
is
required
to
hold
a
plenary
Gambhir
than
30
days.
Our
first
objection
is,
they
didn't
hold
the
hearing
within
30
days.
They
held
it
after
30
days.
So
therefore,
there
should
have
been
a
new
petition
filed.
BU
The
only
issue
with
that
is,
it
would
not
have
been
able
to
be
heard
before
the
expiration
of
the
20-day
are
the
90-day
demolition
delay.
Secondly,
when
they
did
accept
the
petition
or
sent
the
petition
for
the
hearing,
we
raised
an
objection
as
to
the
procedure
that
was
used
to
elevate
the
criteria
for
this
particular
for
these
particular
properties.
We
felt
that
that
was
not
including
the
agenda
and
therefore
was
not
permitted
under
the
Open
Meeting
Law
to
be
considered
that
evening.
BU
If
that
were
true,
and
they
had
not
considered
to
elevate
the
landmark
status
for
that
building
or
the
the
survey
stands
for
that
building,
then
they
would
not
be
able
to
proceed
except
that
petition.
Instead,
they
voted
to
expel
of
8
the
rating
for
that
particular
those
particular
buildings
and
then
accept
the
petition.
We
substant
filed
a
complaint
under
the
Open
Meeting
Law
and
the
Commission
reversed
itself
and
rescinded
its
vote
to
designate
those
as
a
petition
as
a
or
to
accept
those
as
landmarks
with
further
study.
H
BU
First
issue
was:
there
was
a
determination
of
significance
in
a
90
day.
Delay
imposed
that
is
expired.
The
90
days
expired
on
November
20th
during
the
90
days,
a
petition
to
landmark
the
premises
was
submitted.
It
was
voted
on
by
the
Landmarks
Commission
to
accept
that
petition.
We
raised
an
objection
to
that
that
has
since
been
rescinded
so
for
from
a
technical
standpoint.
Presently
these
are
not
pending
landmarks,
so.
A
BU
AZ
BU
Is
included
in
the
brief
that
we
provided?
We
have
a
real,
significant
issue
with
the
notice
says
that
demo,
the
Commission
is
determined
that
demolition
has
occurred
at
the
building.
Now
we
understand
the
Commission
has
a
very
broad
definition
of
what
demolition
may
mean,
but
it
was
important
for
us
at
that
time,
considering
that
this
was
being
sent
to
us
on
the
last
possible
day
when
a
notice
of
a
public
hearing
could
be
held
to
determine
that
before
the
expiration
of
the
90
day
demolition
delay.
BU
As
a
result,
we
immediately
requested
the
details
underlying
that
allegation
to
which
we
received
no
response.
I
mean
a
follow-up
phone
call,
no
response.
I
actually
physically
went
to
the
Landmarks
Commission
staff
office
to
request
a
meeting
with
mr.
sadder
was
told
I
couldn't
have
without
an
appointee.
J
BU
Not
say
what
it
was
at
that
time,
so
the
notice
that
was
issued
on
the
3rd
was
the
simple
units
included
in
the
brief
mr.
Ehrlich.
That
indicates
what
the
specific
notice
was.
We
had
wondered.
What
was
the
what
was
the
basis
of
the
allegation,
and
certainly
we
were
entitled
to
know
that
before
we
were
supposed
to
were
carefree
caring.
BU
Ultimately,
we
appeared
at
a
hearing
on
November
14,
and
it
was
the
first
time
that
we
saw
any
of
the
information
or
the
evidence
that
was
being
presented
to
the
Commission,
as
outlined
in
our
statement,
our
supporting
statement,
a
lot
of
the
information
that
was
provided
and
a
good
deal
of
it
and
we've
provided
specific
examples
of
it
was
either
inaccurate,
misleading
or
unreliable.
The
basis
of
the
accusations
was
that
demolition
have
begun
because
of
some
asbestos
abatement
that
was
occurring
in
the
building.
BU
BU
Want
to
point
out
that
during
significant
that
during
the
hearing,
the
information
that
was
provided
to
the
Commission
and
when
it
was
provided
to
the
Commission,
we
feel
deprived
us
of
the
opportunity
of
a
fair
hearing
before
the
Commission,
first
and
foremost
prior
to
the
hearing.
Mr.
sadder,
although
he
is
this,
our
staff,
architect
of
the
Commission,
communicated
the
entire
Commission
via
email.
His
opinion
as
to
what
his
motivations
are.
A
BU
So
we
didn't
have
the
opportunity
to
rebut
what
we
were
being
shown
for
the
first
time
to
the
best
we
could
information
that
was
shown
to
the
commissioners
included
photographs
of
buildings
that
were
not
even
subject
to
article
85
buildings
their
own
by
linear,
but
we're
not
subject
to
demolition
delay,
including
removal
of
siding
and
removal
of
materials.
On
the
exterior,
there
were
allegations
that
we
remove
windows
from
the
premises.
BU
Yes,
there
was
a
decision.
The
decision
at
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing
was
to
vote
to
impose
a
two-year
moratorium
and
we
were
provided
a
written
notice
of
that
several
days
after
the
hearing,
the
written
notice
provided
no
findings
of
fact,
there
were
no
information.
No
evidence
supporting
the
decision
was
based
strictly
on
the
hearing
that
occurred
on
the
17th
again,
to
which
we
had
no
information
and
very
inadequate
notice
received.
So.
BU
Is
correct
and
that
is
a
provision
under
the
Boston
zoning
code
under
article
85,
that
the
Landmarks
Commission
has
as
an
option
if
it
is
determined
that
demolition
has
occurred
so
the
finding
by
the
Commission
that
demolition
had
occurred
combined
with
the
punitive
requirements
of
imposing
a
two-year
moratorium
was
the
decision
they
made.
I
would
point
out
to
the
board
that
the
Commission.
BU
They
could
have
taken
no
action
based
upon
the
evidence
they
have
I,
provided
a
transcript
of
the
entire
hearing
for
this
board.
In
that
transcript,
you
will
note
that
there
was
actual
comments
that
the
information
that
was
provided
was
confusing,
that
they
felt
that
there
was
a
need
to
get
more
information
or
more
details,
but
there
wasn't
certainly
a
clear
indication
that
all
the
information
that
was
presented
was
somehow
led
to
the
conclusion
that
demolition
occurred.
What.
BU
A
A
BU
AB
BU
BY
BY
A
BY
Talk
about
what
is
happening
after
demolition,
the
commissioners
will
ask
about.
So
what
is
the
what's
the
project
that
is
planned
for
the
site?
That's
that's
pretty
common.
It's
not
unusual
the
statement
that
the
attorney
mentioned
about
when
the
petition
was
accepted
and
how
it
you
know,
didn't
come
forward
for
a
preliminary
hearing.
It
wasn't.
BY
It
was
incomplete
and
everything
about
the
petition
process.
I
have
a
lot
of
information
about
that.
But
I
didn't
feel
that
that
was.
This
is
the
appropriate
place
to
talk
about
that,
but
I
can
provide
that
information.
Certainly
lots
of
details.
The
other
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
our
staff
architect
is
on
vacation
this
week.
So
Todd
was
actually
present
at
the
hearing
that
we're
discussing,
but
he's
he's
not
able
to
be
here
obviously
too
to
state,
but
actually
thank
you.
So
thank.
BU
Add
one
more
thing
from
the
record
battery
I'm
sorry
I
just
want
to
point
out
it's
important
again
for
process
and
I
think
that
a
fair
process
is
one
in
which
not
only
do
we
get
an
appropriate
notice
of
the
hearing,
but
we
also
have
a
meaningful
opportunity
for
that
hearing
and,
unfortunately,
based
upon
the
way
this
process
worked.
It's
our
position
that
we
were
deprived
of
that
and
there's
one
significant
thing
to
point
out
here.
A
BU
Feel
that
we
were
deprived
of
that
opportunity
to
have
a
meaningful
hearing
on
this
issue,
because
we
were
presented
with
the
information
that
day
and
did
all
due
respect
to
Director
Foley.
This
is
this
was
filed
on
December
29th.
This
appeal,
it's
been
on
for
multiple
occasions
for
hearing
before
this
board.
We've
deferred
it
on
numerous
occasions
to
attempt
to
continue
working
with
the
Landmarks
Commission.
BU
We
feel
that
we've
reached
an
end
and
that's
why
we
decided
to
proceed
today,
but
I
wanted
to
point
out
that,
ultimately,
we
did
receive
the
records
and
the
information
for
the
underlying
complaint
and
we
didn't
receive
those
voluntarily.
We
had
to
make
a
public
records
request
to
do
so.
We
just
received
those
some
four
months
after
the
hearing
was
hell
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we're
here
today
wasn't.
BU
It
was
the
as
I
call
the
the
last
three
the
CD
and
you
know
not
not
National
Register,
not
pending
landmarks.
You
know
a
period
of
architecture,
potentially
significant
individuals
who
may
have
resided
there,
but
I
think
it's
to
that
point.
The
only
reason
I
bring
this
up
is
the
communications
between
landmark
staff
and
the
survey
director
actually
found.
They
didn't
even
meet
the
level
of
significance.
It
was
a
real
push
to
get
it
over
the
edge,
so
to
speak,
to
even
accept
the
landmarks
petition.
BU
We
feel
that
that's
significant
for
purposes
of
how
we
approached
this
site
and
certainly
before
linear,
actually
even
purchased
this
property
or
made
any
announcement
of
his
intentions
for
this
disappeared.
Nowhere
there's
several
surveys
of
preservation
properties
in
around
Mavericks,
where
these
show
up
nowhere.
This
is
not
listed
National
Register,
it
wasn't
even
surveyed
as
part
of
the
landmarks
Commission's
comprehensive
survey.
So,
while
I
don't
disagree
and
I've
said
this
at
plenty
of
community
meeting
that
these
are
old
buildings
and
they
certainly
have
some
charm
and
character.
BU
A
BY
I
just
said
a
little
bit
of
clarifying
information.
Article
285
requires
that
the
Boston
Lamar
Commission
staff
established
significance
based
on
language,
that's
contained
in
the
zoning
code,
and
that
does
not
include
having
it
on
some
sort
of
map,
or
we
can
do
research
and
find
significance
based
on
other
sources.
Our
preservation
planning
documents
are
outdated,
we're
in
the
process
of
getting
them
updated,
so
not
every
single
historic
resource.
That's
significant
in
the
city
is
documented
today
and
therefore
we
have
to
do
further
research
to
establish
significance,
as
as
is
laid
out
in
article
85.
J
J
BY
What
we
have
is
a
two
step
process
for
accepting
a
petition
to
their
marker
building.
The
first
part
of
the
process
is
to
establish
that
it
is
at
least
local
significance
pending
further
study.
This
building,
this
set
of
buildings
didn't
have
any
kind
of
rating
within
our
system,
and
I
won't
go
into
the
details,
because
it's
a
little
complicated
but
again
I
can
give
you
all
that
information
once
it
reaches
the
threshold
of
local
pending
further
study.
BY
J
H
BY
J
BY
A
BY
Community
presented
my
staff
with
some
photographs
that
indicated
to
them.
The
demolition
was
going
on
my
staff,
architect
and
I'm.
Sorry,
I
wasn't
there
for
for
all
this,
because
I
was
I
had
surgery
and
personal
issues,
but
he
did
look
into
it.
He
felt
that
there
was
enough,
probably
from
the
community,
about
demolition
going
on
and
the
buildings
being
opened
that
he
established
that
there
had
been
a
violation.
The
Commission
makes
a
decision
whether
or
not
a
violation
has
happened,
make
the
determination
that
a
violation
of
demo
delay
has
happened.
BY
BY
AJ
BU
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
just
want
to
point
out
and
I
appreciate
director
Foley,
bringing
up
the
fact
that
this
was
presented
through
the
staff
architect
as
part
of
our
public
records
request.
We
did
receive
a
number
of
documents.
It's
our
position,
and
we've
outlined
this
very
clearly.
In
our
brief,
the
staff
architect
expressed
bias
against
the
NIR
and
Lanier's
project.
There
are
notes
and
comments
that
he
calls
it
an
epically
flawed
design
for
the
building
and
that
it's
just
lazy
again.
We
feel
that
Todd's
comments
are
opinion
rel
to
that.
No,
it's
important.
BU
It
was
that
that
that
information
being
presented
to
the
Commission
was
being
presented
through
the
lens
of
somebody
who
didn't
like
the
project
as
it
is,
and
that
process
we
feel
is
flawed.
And
we
feel
that
that
process
deprived
us
of
an
ability
to
have
a
fair
objective
and
meaningful
hearing
before
the
Commission
before
they
went
ahead
and
basically
stopped
us
from
developing
the
site.
For
two
years.
A
BZ
BU
A
D
BU
Thank
God,
so
that
indicates
so
that's
that's
a
photo
that
was
provided
by
a
neighbor
who
has
spoken
in
opposition
to
this
proposal,
indicating
that
work
was
ongoing
at
the
premises.
The
only
information
that
that
photo
shows
is
information
that
there
were
people
on
the
exterior
of
the
building.
There's
a
subsequent
follow-up
photo
showing
that
the
siding
was
intact.
That's
Exhibit,
X,
an
exhibit
act
shows
that
there
was
no
work
being
done.
BU
Although
the
allegation
that
was
presented,
the
Commission
that
there
was
work
being
done
as
early
as
August
23rd
and
therefore
the
suggestion
was,
we
would
disregard
in
the
article
85
process.
If
you
look
at
exhibit
y
exhibit
Y
shows
a
photo
of
a
window
at
148,
maverick
Street.
That
was
suggested
to
the
Commission
that
we
removed
the
windows
in
the
building,
the
wind,
the
only
window
that
was
removed,
the
only
evidence
of
a
window
being
removed
was
from
the
building
that
was
not
subject
to
article
85.
BU
In
addition,
you
see
other
photos
that
show
that
alleged
flashing
was
removed
from
the
building.
There's
also
allegations
that
sightings
would
move
of
the
building.
The
siding,
that's
shown
in
the
photos
is
actually
the
back
of
the
Rapinoe
funeral
home,
which
is
not
subject
to
article
85.
So
again,
these
were
this
is
information
that
we
feel
was
unreliable
and
again
this
is
goes
to
the
process,
not
necessarily
the
motivation,
but
in
this
particular
case
we
feel
that
the
Commission
did
not
get
a
full
and
accurate
depiction
of
what
was
occurring.
A
A
A
AJ
BO
A
AV
B
I
wasn't
with
a
quarter
of
man,
so
this
is
chains
art
for
me,
single
single
family
that
build
or
miss
construct
an
edition
in
rear,
install
front
porches
reconstruct
front
entrance,
build
attached
garage
with
office
over
and
renovate
all
flaws
violations.
Article
65
section
42
application
for
dimensional
array
requirements,
65-42
point
8
accessory
buildings
inside
Oh
Riyadh
article
65,
section
9,
the
Floyd.
A
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65
69,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient,
equals
65,
69
side
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
65
section
either.
Rear
yard
is
insufficient.
B
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
There
is
a
the
deck
was
not
part
of
it's,
not
what
I
wanted,
but
it
was
what
the
community
suggested
that
I
add
on
to
it.
But
in
my
original
petition
was
just
three-car
garage
and
an
office
above.
They
saw
that
where
we
were
asking
that
the
bottom
was
a
little
bit
larger
than
the
top
office
that
we
had
a
deck
on
top
of
it,
which
made
all
the
sense
in
the
world,
because
the
office
would
have
been
smaller
than
the
garage.
BZ
CA
A
CA
Its
existing
non
performing
a
violation,
and
we
added
on
to
that.
It
was
very
small
and
insignificant
for
the
fa.
Our
it
was
very
small
I,
don't
remember
the
exact
number,
but
it
was
very
small.
The
biggest
hurdle
with
the
community
was
the
garage
in
the
office
all
over
it
I,
don't
believe
I.
We
had
any
opposition
on
the
structure
itself.
The
the
addition
that's
being
spoken
of
is
actually
on
the
back
side
of
the
building,
which
is
from
on
top
of
the
first
floor.
That's
existing
building
three
decks
above
that.
A
CA
There's
a
slope
there's
a
huge
there's,
a
good-sized
slope
on
the
property.
If
you
were
in
front
of
the
property,
you
are
on
the
left
side,
it
starts
at
about
four
feet
that
inclines
to
about
six
to
eight
feet
on
one
side
from
the
property
itself.
At
one
point,
they
dug
that
whole
entire
area
to
put
a
pool
there
and
they
never
put
the
pool
there,
but
that
inclination
in
the
rocks
and
everything
else
are
in
in
Chambal
and
that's
where
to
one
side
on
the
left
side
of
the
building.
CA
H
CA
AB
BZ
AG
A
H
CB
H
CB
B
CB
A
A
A
AN
AN
B
AK
AK
A
CC
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
members
of
the
board,
we're
not
changing
the
first
proviso.
Obviously,
design
review
is
something
that
we
would
want
on
this
particular
project,
but
knowing
that
we
can't
stop
people
from
doing
their
constitutional
rights.
The
language
that
council
Meranti
and
I
have
proposed
for
the
board
to
be
attached
to
that
proviso.
CC
Just
they
they
accept
that
they
are
in
the
new
market
area
and
that
there
are
not
or
that
there
are
commercial
and
industrial
surroundings,
and
that
they
acknowledge
that,
even
though
this
is
a
residential
zoning
sub
district
that
they
are
indeed
in
the
new
market
business
area
just
provide
so
that
we
would
like
to
have
point
within
the
rental
agreements
are
in
the
condo
tax
doesn't
take
away
any
of
their
rights,
but
it
does.
They
do
acknowledge
that
the
area
that
they
live
in,
it's
not
a
typical
residential.