►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 8-29-23 (Part 3 of 3)
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.
Boston City TV
A
A
A
A
A
Yeah
right
and
just
as
a
reminder,
we
are
currently
a
seven-member
board
and
we
will
become
a
five-member
board
at
2
pm.
So
I'll
ask
our
applicants
to
recording
in
progress.
Thank
you.
Mr
sunbridge,.
B
Yes,
Madam
chair
at
this
point,
we'll
move
into
the
hearings
from
1pm
the
first.
We
we
have
two
companion
cases
for
us
to
be
in
case
boa
146
8696,
with
the
address
of
82
Baxter
Street.
Along
with
that,
we
have
case
boa
146
8697.
B
C
Good
afternoon
Madam
chairman
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Francis
Adams
I'm,
an
attorney
at
law,
office
of
Adams
and
morencia.
We
have
a
business
address
of
350
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston.
My
client
Ann
arleskis,
is
also
a
South
Boston
resident
this.
This
is
a
proposal
for
infill
residential
construction,
consisting
of
a
true
family
located
82
Daxton
Street.
It's
a
this
project
aligns
with
the
city's
goals
of
increasing
residential
density,
especially
on
vacant
Lots.
C
The
lot
in
question
is
a
1278
square
foot
lot
and
it's
zoned
for
multi-family
residential
to
be
ground
floor
parking
with
two
vehicles
accessed
by
means
of
an
existing
curb
cut
on
back
street
I'd
like
to
address
the
building
code,
violation
first
and
get
to
the
other
violation.
Afterwards,
with
respect
to
the
building
code
violation,
the
roof
in
question
that's
shown
on
the
plans,
is
provided
only
to
provide
roof
access
for
maintenance
and
repairs,
there's
no
roof
deck
being
proposed.
It
can
be
seen
on
the
proposed
roof
plan.
C
That's
on
sheet,
a1-1,
that
it's
a
guide,
rail,
that's
on
the
roof,
and
it
is
not
for
a
roof
deck.
It's
just
a
small
area
where
the
hatch
egress
is,
and
if
the
guide
rails
there
simply
for
safety
purposes,
it's
not
a
it's,
not
an
actual
roof
here,
but
out
of
the
abundance
of
caution,
we
still
are
asking
for
the
building
code,
variance
for
the
hatch,
even
though,
as
I
said,
it
won't
be
accessing
an
occupied
roof.
C
We
don't
believe
it's
necessary
since
there
is
no
roof
deck,
but
we
don't
want
to
if
this
project
were
ever
approved,
run
into
any
problems
with
ISD
down
the
road.
That's
with
respect
to
the
building
code
violation,
as
you
can
see
from
the
plans
the
ground
floor
is
the
main
building
entry
to
the
garage.
The
second
floor
consists
of
unit,
one
which
would
be
an
806
square
foot.
Two
bedroom
unit
unit
two
would
be
a
1600
square
foot
bilateral
three-bedroom
unit
occupying
the
third
and
fourth
floor.
C
There
would
be
three
small
balconies
and
approximately
30
Swift
each
of
the
back
of
the
building
providing
needed
open
space.
This
is
a
vacant
lot.
There
are
three
contiguous
vacant
Lots
in
a
row.
My
client
only
owns
one
of
the
Lots,
so
they
could
not
combine
the
loss.
The
zoning
violations
arise
mainly
from
the
pre-existing
dimensions
for
this
lot
and
include
insufficient
lot
size,
excessive
Building,
height,
insufficient
God
setbacks
and
open
space,
as
well
as
an
insufficient
parking,
the
violation,
retainment
spaces
setbacks
are
needed
in
order
to
provide
the
workable
lands
of
the
unit.
C
The
far
is
2.7,
which
is
only
2.0,
is
allowed,
but
it's
consistent
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood
development
of
one
two
and
three
family
units.
We
are
aware
of
the
bpda
recommendation
and
the
concerns
about
the
side
setback
on
the
right
side.
I
wish
to
point
out.
There
is
no
building
code
violation
at
all
because
of
the
side.
Setback
on
the
ground
see
what
you
can
see
on
the
plans.
The
setback
is
three
feet
which
complies
with
Zone.
C
This
three
foot
setback
allows
for
cold
compliant,
cleopath
to
travel
from
the
rear
of
the
property
to
a
public
way
or
a
Baxter
Street,
and
the
windows
on
the
right
side
of
the
building
are
at
the
three
foot
setback
Point.
Therefore,
there
are
no
building
code
violations
as
it
relates
to
the
building
and
seller.
That
being
said,
you
know
we.
We
are
aware
of
the
bpga
recommendation,
but
we
believe
strongly
and
would
be
happy
to
work
with
the
BPD
and
design
review
on
the
setbacks,
as
it
appears.
C
That's
really
their
only
issue,
including
on
the
right
side,
can't
believe
them
again
if
this
is
approved
in
relation
to
the
project.
It's
a
density
of
only
two
units
and
this
proposal
is
reasonable
and
should
be
improved,
and
the
concerns
of
the
bpda
and
design
review
can
be
easily
addressed
at
that
point
with
the
project
and
project
architect
and
with
that
for
questions.
C
C
E
Questions
the
first
one
is
that
there
is
a
court
code
at
this
moment.
So
the
question
is:
are
you
keeping
that
good
code?
Are
you
extending
or
losing
decided
Dimensions?
Your
second
question
is
I
see
on
the
Google
Maps.
There
are
some
tree
some
trees
on
the
left
side
of
the
property
are
those
trees,
part
of
part
of
this
property,
and
if
there
is
a,
if
there
is
a
yes,
are
you,
what
are
you
doing
with
the
trees?
E
C
You
Jim
with
respect
to
your
first
question
that
is
an
existing
curve
cut.
As
I
said
to
you
earlier,
there
are
three
contiguous
Lots.
This
is
only
one
lot,
I
think
if
you
look
at
the
agenda
and
the
two
other
watts
are
off
the
eoa
relief
after
this
one,
so
the
curve
cut
itself
is
only
going
to
service
this
particular
property,
the
trees.
This
is
a
vacant
lot
around
no
trees.
F
F
I'm
sorry
I
just
wanted
to
see
the
alignment
of
the
curb
cut
with
the
garage
door
opening
because
it
seems
skewed
from
what
I
can
see.
F
F
Well,
that
doesn't
show
me
anything.
I
I
would.
F
I
would
like
to
ask
the
the
board
if
they
could
put
in
a
Proviso
for
BTD
review,
just
to
make
sure
that
there's
no
problem
with
the
driveway
not
lining
up
with
the
garage
door.
It.
H
Looks
like
the
curb
Cut's
too
wide,
yes
or
the
garage.
The
dimension
on
the
curb
cut
is
not
called
out,
though,.
F
I
would
say
10
feet
would
suffice,
probably
because.
C
I
Good
afternoon
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
I'm
Anna
white,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
ons,
hosted
a
Butters
meeting
for
82
Baxter
Street
on
July
11
2023
wanna
butter
vocalize.
Their
support
for
the
project
and
ons
has
received
one
letter
in
support.
The
Cityside
neighborhood
association
supports
82
Baxter
Street
because
in
their
words
there
is
no
roof
deck
and
there's
parking
for
each
unit
using
an
existing
curb
cut
at
this
time,
we'd
like
to
defer
judgment
to
the
board.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
J
Good
afternoon
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
here
on
Stapleton
from
councilor
Murphy's
office.
The
applicant
has
completed
a
direct
Community
process
with
supporters
because
of
this
account,
so
we
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
Thank
you.
L
Chair
members
of
the
board,
Paul
Sullivan
city
council
at
large
Michael
Flaherty,
the
consulate
to
go
on
record
and
support
by
this
project
went
through
a
robust
communal
process.
There
is
a
ample
support
throughout
the
South
Boston
Community.
This
is
a
a
long,
lasting
soap
awesome,
family
and
they've
worked
well
with
me.
So
that
being
said
by
Johnson,
Funeral
recording
support.
D
M
A
A
Okay
may
I
have
a
second
okay.
O
D
G
C
Yeah
and
again
respectfully
Madam
chairman,
is
we
don't
believe
there?
Is
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
roof,
that's
being
there's
no
roof
deck
being
proposed,
and
it's
it's
for
maintenance
and
repairs.
Only
it's
not
it's
not
actually
being
done.
You
know
to
have
a
roof
deck,
so
we
don't
even
believe
it's
necessary,
but
we're
doing
it
because
we
don't.
If
we
were
being
improved,
we
don't
want
ISD
to
suggest
we
didn't
get
the
appropriate
relief
here.
There
is
absolutely
no
intention
to
have
a
roof
deck.
C
H
I,
remember
correctly,
all
right
so
motion
to
approve
with
bpda
design,
review,
BTD
design,
review
and
ISD
release
only
in
respect
to
the
roof,
hatch.
G
A
N
My
apologies
I'm
chair,
I
I,
had
missed
the
earlier
public
comment,
but
I
I
just
want
to
put
it
in
record
that
council
president
Flynn
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
82
Baxter
Street,
based
on
a
good
Community
process,
and
he
respectfully
requests
that
the
proponent
continue
to
work
with
neighbors
during
the
construction
phase.
Thank
you
and
my
apologies.
N
B
Next,
we
have
I've
been
doing.
We
have
someone
trying
to
speak
to
these
case,
boa
one
two
and
nine
three
one,
three:
five,
it's
the
address
of
80
Baxter
Street
and,
along
with
that,
we
have
case
boa
149
3138,
with
the
address
of
84
back
to
the
street.
B
P
You,
madam
chair,
this
is
Kyle
Smith
of
statero
law,
business
address
of
359
Newbury
Street
in
Boston,
Back
Bay
I
do
also
have
the
owner
on
the
line.
Matthew
Pratt
and
the
project
architect,
Christopher
Advanced,
to
help
facilitate
answer
questions
not
to
confuse
the
board,
but
we
are
sister
companion
cases,
but
not
a
companion
case
to
the
case,
just
pre-deceased
us
or
the
prior
case
of
82
Baxter
Street.
So
we
are
proposing
two
three
family
structures
on
80
and
respectively
84,
Baxter
and
I
want
to
be
terribly
redundant.
P
We
do
have
you
know
some
notes
from
the
prior
matter
of
82
Baxter,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
zoning
related
matters
because
of
the
size
of
these
Lots
being
kind
of
non-conforming
sized
Lots.
So
80
Baxter,
which
is
on
the
left
side
of
your
screen,
has
a
lot
size
of
1279
square
feet.
84
backstrips
to
the
right
has
a
square
footage
of
1429
square
feet.
P
It
should
be
noted
that
in
the
city's
prior
history,
there
were
pre-existing
structures
on
these
sites
that
were
as
well
the
fire
burnt
at
some
point,
so
we're
trying
to
kind
of
rebrink
to
this
neighborhood
in
these
Lots
pre-existing
structures.
You
know
three
families
similar
in
Conformity
and
height
to
what
you
see
up
and
down
in
the
street
and
in
Southie
just
to
kind
of
give
you
a
brief
rundown
in
having
proposed
three
family
structures.
P
We
do
have
to
both
have
our
units
being
ADA
Compliant,
and
we
also
have
to
deal
with
in
this
case,
an
overlay
district
for
coastal
flooding.
Coastal
flooding
necessitates
the
slight
increased
height
of
the
plane
of
livable
square
footage
of
the
first
floor,
slightly
elevated
ADA.
Compliance
then
also
requires
having
a
fully
integrated
and
ready
to
use,
lift
for
our
first
floor
being
Ada
compliant.
We
have
had
Communications
in
meetings
with
bpda
to
both
discuss
the
change
of
Prior
design
to
current
design,
implementing
and
using
the
lift.
P
So
we
have
had
Communications
with
our
elected
officials
the
bpda
already
on
this
matter,
just
to
try
to
get
their
blessing
and
oversight
as
they're
related
to
our
retooling
of
these
current
plans,
calling
for
three
family
again
with
Coastal
flood
compliance
as
well
as
ADA
compliance
they're,
very
similar
mirrored
properties
left
and
right,
80
and
84
Baxter
first
Force
proposed
to
be
a
one
bed,
one
bath
again,
ADA
Compliant
of
approximately
780
square
feet.
P
Floor
2
would
be
its
own
self-contained
unit
of
approximately
790
square
feet
being
a
one
bed
and
1.5
Bash
and
then
also
a
third
floor
of
living
proposed
to
be
a
two-bit
two
bath
of
approx,
180
square
feet,
the
only
fundamental
between
80
and
84
Baxters,
that
there
are
images
of
each
other
in
relation
to
the
project
that
you
just
discussed
at
82
bash,
we'll
try
to
keep
some
Maximum
setback
internally
so
that
between
two
feet
on
there,
a
lot
line
and
two
feet
on
hours.
P
I
just
want
to
note
for
additional,
Clarity
and
and
the
elected
officials
can
talk
about
our
process,
but
we
did
start
with
the
design
that
very
much
assembly
mirrored
that
of
82
Baxter,
which
the
board
just
discussed
and
approved
calling
for
ground
floor
parking
as
a
result
to
a
result
from
Community
feedback.
We
struck
the
proposal
for
the
creation
of
curb
cuts,
the
removal
of
public
parking
in
the
favor
of
what
you
see
now,
which
is
just
no
off
street
parking
and
three
floors
of
living.
P
We
do
lie
within
about
a
half
mile
of
public
transit.
Both
you
know
the
red
line
t-stops
and
we
do
have
a
bus
thoroughfare
that
runs
up
and
down
West
Broad.
So
we
built
these,
you
know
smaller.
You
know
one
and
two
bed
units
will
run
to
themselves
nicely
to
people
looking
to
Prevail
themselves
of
public
transit.
I
Good
afternoon,
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
I'm
Anna
way
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
ons,
initially
held
in
the
butters
meetings
with
these
addresses
on
February
6
2023,
and
the
project
was
not
well
received
by
the
community.
The
proponent
also
presented
multiple
versions
of
this
project
to
the
Cityside
neighborhood
association
and
has
adjusted
the
project.
I
After
all,
of
these
Community
outreaches,
they
have
reduced
the
height
the
density
in
the
far
they
also
changed
the
building
materials
to
better
fit
in
with
the
neighborhood
based
on
feedback,
ons
hosted
another
of
utter's
meeting
for
this
version:
version
of
The
Proposal
on
July
6
2023,
a
handful
of
residents
attended.
The
meeting
concerns
are
raised
about
parking
and
questions
were
asked
about
the
windows,
the
proponent
addressed
all
questions.
I
We
have
received
10
letters
of
support
for
this
proposal,
including
from
the
direct
debutter
at
78,
Baxter
Street,
the
Cityside
neighborhood
association
opposes
80
and
84
Baxter
for
the
following
four
reasons.
These
are,
in
their
words,
the
developer
purchased
lots
that
he
knew
were
deemed
unbuildable
because
of
their
small
size.
Two,
they
could
not
include
parking
for
the
units
without
taking
existing
spaces
off
the
street
three.
They
made
the
lot
in
between
number
82
unusable
for
parking,
leaving
no
room
for
maneuverability
and
for
the
neighborhood
loss.
I
Q
N
Members
of
the
board-
this
is
Vanessa
Wilson,
councilman,
President,
Clinton's
office,
Council
president,
and
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
based
on
a
good
Community
process,
which
included
good
faith,
compromises
on
the
reduction
of
height
number
of
bedrooms
and
curb
cuts
of
the
request
of
neighbors.
They
have
provided
support.
N
L
Okay,
I'm
sure
members
of
the
board,
Paul
Sullivan
City
concert,
lives,
Michael
Flaherty,
acknowledging
the
commitment
that
went
into
drafting
article
68,
but
acknowledging
that
there
are
parties
that
do
warrant
in
that
Council
feels
that
this
is
one
of
them
haven't
gone
through
a
robust
Community
process.
The
council,
with
global
record
and
support.
J
F
Yes,
I'm
Madam
chair
members
of
the
boardwalking
city,
I'd
like
to
see
the
parking
layout.
Maybe
I
missed
it,
but
I
really
didn't
see
any
vehicles
on
the
plan.
J
Chair
members
of
the
board,
TNC
Portugal
counselor
Murphy's
office
yeah,
you
can
ask
the
theater
of
our
community
process
and
has
worked
with
the
veterans
to
gain
support,
because
for
this
the
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
Thank
you.
I
have
no
additional
reasons.
P
I'm,
mad
I'm
sure
that's
correct.
I
only
made
the
comment,
because
that
was
the
initial
version
of
our
plans
was
to
call
for
off-trip
parking,
which
was
not
well
received.
Our
plans
have
been
modified
significantly
to
help
appease
the
concerns
of
the
neighborhood,
one
of
which
was
to
remove
parking
from
site.
D
P
Certainly
so
we
have
had
an
arborist
on
site.
We
have
provided
the
report
of
that
arborist
to
both
the
local
neighborhood
group,
the
other
constituents
at
our
Butters
meetings.
There
are
three
really
three
trees
in
question,
two
of
which
are
invasive
species.
Those
should
be
removed.
The
last
and
the
most
rear
most
setting
tree
is
a
silver
maple.
We
are
able
to
maintain
there's
two
trunks
effectively.
One
is
kind
of
leaning
forward
and
one
is
the
vertical
most
substance,
trunk
or
portion
of
the
tree.
P
We're
able
to
remove
that
leaning
forward
portion
and
save
the
majority
of
the
tree,
which
you
know
we're
told
it
shouldn't
affect
its
lifelong.
You
know
longevity,
so
we
have
an
arborist
on
site
and
our
intent
is
to
remove
the
invasive
species
and
to
maintain
in
the
majority
of
the
beautiful
silver
maple
that
is
on
site.
G
D
S
A
D
Oh,
oh,
this
is
the
Jew
car.
This
is
the
first
flood
resilience.
Oh
okay!
Yes
all
right!
Sorry,
that's.
A
G
B
At
this
time,
ask
if
there
are
any
requests
for
withdrawals
for
referrals
for
from
any
of
any
of
the
cases
of
1pm
side
print.
A
M
B
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
We
requested
the
referral
we're
deep
into
successful
negotiations
with
council's
office
to
settle
the
matter.
The
matter
went
before
the
landmarks
commission
earlier
this
week
and
was
approved
on
a
unanimous
vote
pursuant
to
our
understanding
with
Mr
Coburn's
office
and
we're
just
waiting
for
the
clock
to
run
on
the
appeal
period
and
we
should
be
all
set,
and
these
matters
will
be
then
mooked.
A
E
T
A
B
You,
okay,
that
the
next
set
of
cases
that
we
have
three
companion
cases,
which
are
case
boa
1476094,
the
address
of
96
Prince
Street.
Along
with
that
we
have
case
boa
1476095,
which
also
has
an
address
of
96,
Prince
Street
and
the
last
one
with
that
is
case.
Boa
147
6097,
with
the
address
of
98,
10th
Street
the
applicant
and
know
their
representative.
S
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Jeff
Drago,
with
drego
and
Toscano
the
business
address
of
11
Beacon
Street
here
on
behalf
of
Federal
Investments
Corporation
and
its
owner,
and
president
Barbara
Ann
julo,
and
we
also
have
Alita
from
shoe
design.
As
the
r
was
mentioned.
This
is
a
proposal
to
combine
two
existing
buildings.
The
this
is
a
rendering
of
The
Proposal
if
to
be
completed,
but
to
combine
two
separate
buildings
and
to
create
I
know
in
the
agenda
mentioned
19
units.
That
was
the
original
proposal.
S
We
are
at
14
to
combine
the
buildings
and
create
14
residential
units
with
a
fifth
floor
addition,
which
is
common
in
the
North
End,
and
a
rare
addition
on
the
property
and
the
plans
that
you
see
before
you
and
the
ones
that
Mr
Collins
should
have
all
read
as
the
updated
14
unit
plan.
S
We
go
to
the
next
slide.
Please.
This
is
just
shows
you.
The
surrounding
areas
of
this
building
lies
along
print
Street
at
96
and
98,
so
they're
two
separate
structures
they've
been
abandoned
since
2015
and
sad
Idol,
my
client
wants
to
revitalize
them.
One
of
the
buildings
is
just
a
shell.
It
was
completely
gutted
years
ago.
It
has
a
storefront
on
the
ground
level
and
the
building
next
to
it,
has
three
units
and
then
the
fourth
floor
was
completely
gutted
out.
So
it's
really
a
shell
of
a
building
we
are
proposing.
S
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide-
and
this
is
just
a
height
composition-
shot
so
that
the
board
can
see
sort
of
the
surrounding
buildings,
we're
looking
to
match
the
size
of
the
building
to
the
right
of
us
and
you
can
see
that's
the
building
behind
us
is
five
stories
at
10
Thatcher,
three
Thatcher
at
the
corner
directly
next
to
us
is
five
stories
and
also
has
a
rear
back
addition
that
goes
back
where
we're
proposing
to
match
92
princes
five
stories,
88
prints
and
then
all
the
buildings
directly
across
from
us.
S
This
particular
district
is
a
55
foot,
height
allowable
under
the
code.
We
are
still
proposing
to
be
lower
than
that
at
52
feet.
One
inch
just
to
go
over
the
U
breakdown
that
we're
proposing
so
we're.
If
you
go,
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
Madame
Ambassador
we're
proposing
Eight
studio
units
on
average
of
500
square
feet,
one
one
bedroom
unit
at
600,
180
square
feet
and
five,
two
bedroom
units
at
945
square
feet.
S
The
building
lot
size
is
2436
square
feet
and
because
we're
now
creating
these
additional
units,
we've
worked
out
with
the
bpda
and
have
been
in
contacts
with
them
about
two
of
the
units
being
set
for
affordability
and
those
two
units
have
already
been
identified
and
proposed.
That
would
bring
us
up
to
a
14
affordability
that
is
Unit
101,
it's
a
one
bedroom
unit
and
then
Unit
202,
which
is
a
studio
in
universe.
S
The
plans
just
to
go
through
the
layout,
the
basement
would
just
remain
as
storage
and
mechanical
everything
in
the
inside
would
be
completely
gutted
out
and
obviously
adding
the
additions.
New.
The
exterior
would
be
cleaned
up,
keeping
that
brick
facade.
That
is
there
now
the
first
floor
with
hose
units,
one
and
two,
and
it
would
have
our
lobby
and
front
entrance
just
to
be
clear
right
now.
The
the
building
has
fire
escapes,
those
would
come
down
and
it
would
be
a
full
second
means
that
egress
of
the
back
of
the
building
along
Lombard
Place.
S
The
second
floor
would
house
units
three
four
and
six
third
floor
unit,
six,
seven
and
eight.
The
fourth
floor
would
house
nine,
ten
and
eleven
and
then
the
fifth
floor.
Finally,
units
12,
13
and
14..
S
We
did
through
this
process,
get
support
from
all
of
our
surrounding
budding
buildings
that
are
similar
in
height,
and
you
know
and
wanted
to
see
this
building
utilized
and
cleaned
up
as
well.
S
R
Good
afternoon
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
I'm
Sierra
D'amico,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
applicant,
has
completed
the
community
process
on
behalf
of
my
office.
There
wasn't
about
us
held
on
May
24th
at
6
PM.
The
applicant
didn't
meet
with
the
two
North
End
groups,
new
right
and
Munich,
and
they
did
receive
a
letter
of
support
from
nura
in
a
letter
of
opposition
from
Munich.
At
this
time,
our
office
would
like
to
defer
to
the
board's
judgment.
Thank
you.
K
B
S
I
would
like
to
have
a
leader
who
is
on
the
call
I'm
sure
we
can
take
care
of
it,
I
just
she's
with
the
Arthur
Chu's
office,
so
she
designed
the
plant
I
know.
I
saw
her
on
him.
Q
Q
We
did
not
receive
so
far
any
refusal
from
ISD
and
a
violation
for
because
it's
an
existing
building.
But
if
that
comes
up
we'll
work
with
ISD
to
resolve
our
problem,
we
can
put
a
list
and
we
can
resolve
that
problem.
Q
D
A
U
K
U
Sure
so
this
is
a
hearing
on
whether
the
board
should
reconsider
his
decision
at
our
prior
hearing,
but
more
accurately,
we're
seeking
today
a
vote
on
whether
to
reconsider
the
board's
results
on
April
11th,
because
no
vote
was
actually
taken
at
that
hearing.
So
in
effect
there
was
no
decision
made
specifically
at
the
April
11th
hearing.
U
There
was
a
motion
to
approve,
which
you
may
recall,
Madam
chair,
and
that
motion
to
approve
failed
to
reach
a
quorum,
but
no
further
motion
was
made
or
voted
on
by
the
members
of
the
board,
so
it
left
that
matter
without
a
vote.
U
In
other
words,
it's
not
clear
to
the
applicant
whether
the
matter
was
denied
or
denied
with
prejudice
or
for
that
matter
you
know,
as
as
often
as
the
case
may
be,
it
could
have
passed
under
a
new
motion
where
certain
restrictive
covenants
supervisos
would
have
garnered
the
necessary
support
for
passage,
but
because
of
what
was
taken,
the
position
of
the
board
is
unknown.
U
So
this
hearing
is
actually
a
vote
on
whether
or
not
they'd
be
a
re-hearing
us
that
the
applicant
can
present
the
project
in
a
manner
that
produces
a
recordable
board
vote.
In
our
request
for
reconsideration
Madam
chair,
the
we
outlined
a
number
of
other
reasons
why
the
board
should
Grant
the
reconsideration.
U
There
was
some
confusion
at
the
last
hearing,
Madam
chair
with
regard
to
the
conservation
protection,
sub-district
I,
believe
during
the
public
testimony
a
member
of
the
public
erroneously
informed
the
board
that
the
CPS
District
prevents
development
in
this
area,
but
actually,
as
the
board
I
think,
is
aware,
the
the
CPS
District
actually
just
outlines
and
and
stimulates
some
requirements
in
order
for
development
to
occur.
U
Second,
also
at
the
hearing
Madam
chair,
there
was
some
confusion
on
the
legal
standard
for
the
variants
and
whether
or
not
it's
a
variance
or
a
conditional
permit
in
either
case
Madam
chair,
our
project
meets
the
criteria
for
granting
a
variance
or
as
as
well
as
granting
a
conditional
permit,
and
we
think
that,
with
what
secretary
to
help
would
be
able
to
clarify
which
one
of
the
procedures
that
the
board
will
be
voting
on
at
our
upcoming
re-hearing,
also
because
of
the
scheduling,
scheduling
delays
during
that
particular
day.
U
The
numerous
support
from
the
community
and
from
most
importantly
from
our
elected
officials,
was
not
able
to
be
heard
by
the
board.
The
applicant
submitted
over
382
letters
of
support
and
107
emails
from
East
Boston
residents
and
the
bulk
of
those
were
oriented,
Heights,
neighborhood
residents
and
at
Butters.
However,
because
of
the
scheduling
we
were
not
able
to
present
the
the
support,
nor,
most
importantly,
the
city,
councilor
and
state
senator
unable
to
speak
and
again.
U
And
finally,
you
know
the
board's
action
on
11,
April
11th
didn't
seem
to
be
consistent
with
its
most
recent
and
prior
actions
regarding
projects
of
this
type,
particularly
there's
there's
been
identical.
Projects
that
were
approved.
U
Ours
is
slightly
different
than
that.
We
we
actually
have
overwhelming
support
from
the
community
as
well
as
zero
residential
impact.
There's
no
residential
impact
to
our
project.
The
the
sign
is
physically
impossible
to
be
viewed
from
a
from
a
residence
So.
Based
on
those
reasons.
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
we
respectfully
request
that
the
board
do
reconsider
a
grant,
a
reconsideration
of
this
hearing
of
this
matter,
so
that
we
can
produce
a
recordable
vote.
A
Okay,
hearing
none
Javier
any
any
suggestion
on
your
end.
R
O
Say,
as
the
motion
for
approval
of
the
original
hearing
was,
that
pass
is
currently
a
denial,
a
straight
denial,
so
whatever
the
board
decides,
if
they
approve
that
it
would
be
a
straight
denial
from
the
original
thing.
U
And
if
that
is
the
case,
Madam
chair,
then
we
would
respectfully
request,
as
we
were
waiting
for
another
vote
to
be
offered
to
the
board
a
motion
for
Denial,
in
which
we
could
have
requested
denial
without
prejudice.
So
if
that
is
the
case,
then
we
would
respectfully
request
denial
without
presence.
If
that's
the
case,.
O
A
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear
that
the
the
interpretation
of
a
non-vote
is
not
a
or
a
not.
A
second
vote
is
not
a
non-vote
which
I
think
you
answered
any
other
discussion
or
questions
from
the
board.
T
B
A
H
E
A
A
U
O
As
the
medicine
did
not
ask
for
approval
and
denial,
and
it's
split
four
to
three
both
ways
at
this
point-
it
would
be
a
straight
denial
and,
as
upheld
of
the
original
decision,.
U
A
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you,
everyone
and
thank
you
Mr
Valencia,
for
pitching
in
appreciate
it
have
a
good
day.