►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 1-28-20
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
Appeal
for
Tuesday
January
28,
is
now
in
session.
Just
a
reminder.
Please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
in
conformance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law
I'm,
reminding
you
that
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed,
just
a
reminder
that,
when
you're
up
here
to
speak
either
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
a
project,
please
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
We
are
here
to
fact
find
so
give
us
new
information.
A
A
D
C
E
A
F
Morning,
attorney
Laureen
Schettino
to
45
Sumner
Street
in
East
Boston,
requesting
a
one-year
extension
on
98
102
white
street.
This
case
was
actually
subject
to
litigation.
So
that's
why
it
is
such
an
old
case.
However,
the
case
was
not
finalized
until
February
16th
of
2018,
so
we're
expect
we're
requesting
a
one-year
extension
from
February
16th
of
this
year
to
next
year.
We
anticipate
construction
to
begin
sometime
in
the
summer,
we're
just
finalizing
the
last
couple
of
approvals,
one
of
which
is
Parks
Department.
Yes,.
B
B
G
Seek
a
two-year
extension,
this
board
granted
a
conditional
use
permit
to
Verizon
to
install
antenna
on
the
rooftops
at
34
through
30
37
from
41
Bowden
Street
August
16th,
the
Beacon
Hill
architectural
Commission
issued
a
denial
of
the
application
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
in
on
September
12th
Verizon
filed
a
complaint
in
the
federal
court
under
the
telecommunication
Act
that
is
ongoing
in
Discovery.
The
filing
of
that
complaint
does
not
toll
the
running
of
the
zoning
relief
and
we
see
a
two-year
extension
matter.
B
B
A
B
H
Here,
because
originally
the
board
on
November
19
approved
a
subdivision
planned
which
revives
the
property
lines
between
the
two
separate
properties:
ninety
63
and
65.
However,
that
plan
indicated
a
lot
to
see
lot.
C
is
actually
the
area,
that's
that
includes
the
actual
common
driveway,
so
as
one
driveway
between
the
two
properties,
the
way,
the
rear,
I'm.
Sorry,
the
right
side
of
the
lot,
one.
A
H
The
title
lawyers
suggested
that
that
driveway
has
to
be
divided.
Some
of
the
driveways
should
be
square
foot,
it
should
be
assigned
in
63,
and
some
of
that
driveway
should
be
assigned
in
65.
So
that's
the
reason
for
the
violation.
The
new
subdivision
plan
actually
takes
that
driveway
and
give
portion
that
driveway
to
63
and
portion
of
the
driveway
to
65.
H
A
A
H
Yes,
that's
the
only
way
we
could
accomplish
one
driveway
and
be
able
to
access
could
create
parking
spaces
for
both
63
and
65.
Again.
That
lot
is
again
not
a
sign
of
square
foot
is
not
assigned
to
either
one
of
those
properties.
So
what
the
subdivision,
as
suggested
by
the
title
lawyer,
what
it
does
it
assigns
portion
of
that
Lots
square
footage
to
63
and
a
portion
to
65
with
us
what
it
also
does.
It
actually
makes
63
lot
size
increases
and
65
block
square
footage
increases
as
well.
A
D
H
H
D
H
B
J
J
J
J
A
J
So
as
we
got
into
our
construction
drawings,
we
noticed
that
we
needed
more
windows
for
the
newly
created
building,
and
so
by
doing
that
we
had
a
fire
separation
distance.
Then
we
had
to
accommodate
780
cmr,
and
then
we
also
had
to
put
a
transformer
in
an
electrical
transformer
that
required
some
setback
distance
from
the
buildings.
If
you
look
at
so.
J
A
E
A
B
A
B
B
K
A
K
Application
was
filed
in
June,
the
community
process
started
in
August
or
September.
We've
got
before
the
field
torna
civic
association,
both
in
november
and
in
december,
and
they
were
conversations
had
this
week
with
members
from
OH&S
as
far
as
some
work.
That
should
be
done
in
the
community
to
continue
working
with
the
community,
and
that
is
why
we
are
requesting
a
deferral
at
this
point.
D
K
D
A
L
D
K
A
J
Attorney
Jeff
Drago
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street.
We
are
here
today
seeking
a
deferral.
We
had
a
number
of
mutter
meetings
on
this
project,
a
Civic
Association
meeting
we
just
last
week.
We're
finally
call
was
made
back
to
us
from
one
of
the
civic
associations
to
Neighborhood
Services,
asking
that
we
appear
before
them
at
the
next
meeting.
So
we
agreed
through
OH&S
to
defer
or
ask
for
a
deferral
if
we
could
to
continue
to
work
with
the
civic
associations.
A
N
B
N
Manor
from
new
oyster
comunidad,
the
owner
at
fifty
six
Warren
Street
in
Roxbury,
so
tell
us
why
you're
requesting
a
deferral
we
as
we
were
preparing
for
this
hearing
and
comparing
the
zoning
code
refusal
letter
with
our
plans
that
we've
submitted
with
ISD.
We
realized
that
a
few
variances
that
we
needed
were
not
included
on
refusal
letter.
We
went
back
to
ISD.
They
issued
a
new
refusal
letter
last
Friday
to
us,
but
we
understand
from
Stephanie
Haines
that
this
needs
to
be
deferred
to
March
10th
we've
had
extensive.
O
B
Any
other
deferrals
of
withdrawals,
the
930
hearing,
none
call
the
first
case,
calling
VOA
nine
seven.
Eight
three
zero
256
hill
hillock
street.
This
is
demolished
in
existing
two-story
single-family
residence,
construction
of
a
new
two
and
a
half
story
to
family
residence.
The
violations
Article
67,
section
9,
the
additional
lawdy
areas,
insufficient
Article
67,
section
9,
the
fluidy.
A
ratio
is
excessive,
Article
67,
section
9,
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient
in
Article
67,
section
9
side
yard
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
P
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Kevin
Cloutier
from
the
Cloutier
law
firm
located
at
1990,
Center
Street
in
West
Roxbury
to
my
right,
I'm
joined
by
Roberto
de
Oliveira
and
Ryan
pink
I'm.
Mr.
de
Oliveira
is
the
owner
of
the
property,
but
also
part
of
the
design
team
along
with
mr.
Pinkham,
and
what
we're
seeking
to
do
is
demolish
an
existing
single-family
home.
That's
been
vacant.
P
For
some
time
the
home
was
built
in
1892
and
there's
in
significant
disrepair
we
submit
and
we
seek
to
replace
it
with
a
two
family
structure
that
would
be
sold
as
condos
and
we'd
suggest
that
the
use
is
certainly
appropriate,
as
this
is
a
two-family
zone
and
the
design
is
similarly
appropriate.
As
far
as
community
process
goes,
we
did
hold
another.
P
A
P
Q
Q
P
Sorry,
I'm,
sorry,
I'm,
sorry,
mr.
Peckham,
the
the
structure
would
include
underground
garage
for
vehicles,
so
we
have
two
for
off
street
parking
spaces.
Two
per
unit
first
floor
living
space,
second
floor
living
space,
and
then
we
do
have
an
attic
with
a
proposed
bedroom
with
some
living
space
in
that
attic
as
well.
The
specifics
of
the
zoning
code
violations
is
first,
would
be
lost
size
and
for
two
family
would
be
minimum
of
eight
thousand
square
feet.
P
We
have
50
500
square
feet,
though
a
mitigating
factor
may
be
that
and
on
page
four
of
the
packet
I've
sort
of
highlighted
the
neighborhood
and
the
average
lot
size
in
this
neighborhood
has
highlighted,
is
five
thousand
one
hundred
and
ninety
four.
So
we
do
exceed
that
by
over
three
hundred
feet
and
in
fact,
in
this
area
in
that
neighborhood
there
are
no
two
families
that
are
on
a
conforming
lot:
open
space
violation
and
minimum
required
for
this.
P
Two
family
would
be
3,500
square
feet,
we're
providing
3,200
square
feet
and
to
mitigate
that
by
way
of
comparison
on
an
8,000
square
foot
lot
open
space
would
be
3,500
square
feet
which
would
provide
only
43%,
open
space
coverage
with
3,200
square
feet
which
we're
providing
on
our
lot,
which
is
5,500
square
feet,
were
providing
55%
open
space
coverage
on
that
lot.
What's
actually
just
is
a
appropriate
for
that
area.
P
P
Mitigating
factors
are
that
we're
not
seeking
any
height
variance
or
within
the
height
restrictions
and
were
on
the
rear
of
butter
and
the
side
of
butter
were
within
setback
restrictions
and
the
step-back
violation
which
I'll
get
to
next
is
along
this
street
as
the
corner
Lots,
or
not
that
the
structure
won't
be
imposing
in
any
way
on
its
abutting
neighbors
and
be
imposing
by
way
of
height,
and
that
brings
me
to
the
fourth
violation,
which
is
a
side
yard
setback.
That
setback
is
along
the
corner
street,
so
we
are
subject
to
the
corner.
A
C
R
P
A
A
P
S
T
A
U
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Joe
carpenter
from
the
mayor's
office
and
Neighborhood
Services,
would
like
to
go
on
record
support
of
this
project.
They
completed
the
community
process
on
August
6
2019.
Originally
there
were
some
concerns
about
parking,
but
they're
not
seeking
relief
on
a
variance
for
parking.
They
do
have
four
to
four
spaces
per
coat
at
this
time.
We
have
no
further
questions
or
concerns
we'd
like
to
go
and
recommend
support.
Thank
you.
A
W
A
D
A
A
Y
B
Their
next
two
cases
calling
VOA
one
zero:
two,
nine
six,
eight
to
twenty
nine
Rock
Hill
Road.
There
is
a
companion
case,
VOA
one
zero,
two,
nine
six,
eight
zero
twelve
Rock
Hill
Road.
This
is
for
twenty
nine
Rock
Hill
Road.
This
is
direct.
An
addition
provides
two
ancillary
parking
to
twelve
Rock
Hill
Road
the
violations,
article
55
section:
nine,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
55,
section,
nine.
The
side
yacht
is
insufficient.
Article
55
section
either
rear
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
9
section,
one
extension
of
a
non-conforming
use.
This
is
for.
B
This
is
a
combined
three
existing
Lots
into
one
ten
thousand
one
hundred
thirty-eight
square
foot
lot
land
at
twenty
nine
Rock,
Hill,
Road
and
lot
B
31
Rock,
Hill
and
lot
C
to
be
known
as
twelve
Rock
Hill
Road
direct,
a
new
four-story
15
unit
residential
building
proposed
to
ancillary
parking
for
29
Rock
Hill
Road.
This
is
the
violation,
is
article
55
section
40
Austria
parking
is
insufficient.
B
Article
55,
section
40
Austria
parking
design,
maneuverability
tandem,
packing
article
55,
section
8,
a
multi-family
dwelling,
it's
forbidden
nautical
55
section,
8
ancillary
Parkins,
conditional
article
55,
section
9
large
area
for
additional
drawing
units
is
insufficient.
Article
55,
section
9,
the
for
aeration
is
excessive.
Article
55,
section
9,
the
building
height
is
excessive
in
feet.
Article
55,
section,
9,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
in
stories.
Article
55
section
9
lot:
frontage
is
insufficient.
B
Z
A
Z
Z
Z
We
leave
to
combine
the
Lots
in
a
rector
building
of
14
residential
units
with
26
parking
spaces
share.
The
current
existing
site
consists
of
reasons,
dilapidated
garages
and
one
storage
building
which
which
need
to
be
torn
down.
Zoning
some
district
missed.
We
have
5,000
and,
as
the
secretary
said,
the
lot
size
is
ten
thousand
one
hundred
and
thirty-eight
square
feet.
Violations
are
as
follows.
So.
Z
Z
The
building
height
requirement
is
35
feet
or
3
stories.
We
are
proposing
36
feet
at
4,
storeys
lot
frontage.
We
think
that
we
are
erroneously
excited
on
that
at
the
requirement
is
45
feet
and
we
have
92
feet.
You
look
at
PD
1.1
that
will
show
a
lot
size
and
the
dimensions
of
the
usable
open
space.
Madam
chair,
the
requirement
is
1,250
square
feet
per
lot.
Z
With
regard
to
the
side
yard,
Sagnol
requirement
is
10
feet
on
the
east
side
of
the
property,
we're
proposing
approximately
6
feet
on
the
south
side,
7
feet,
8
inches
on
the
west
side.
Five
for
the
radii
requirement
is
20
feet,
we're
proposing
16
and
17
feet
as
it
varies,
as
the
back
of
the
property
is
slanted
just
a
little
bit.
The
building
setback
is
further
from
the
property
line
than
the
existing
structures
that
exists
on
the
front.
AA
Madam
chairman,
my
name
is
ed:
forte
I'm,
the
architect
for
the
project.
Can
you
hear
me?
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
name
is
Ed
Forte
I'm,
the
architect
for
the
project.
The
unit
mix
we're
proposing
again
we're
proposing
14
units
there'll
be
four
two
bedrooms
units
on
the
second
floor
in
two
one-bedroom
units
on
the
second
floor,
five,
two
bedrooms
on
the
third
floor
and
three
two-bedroom
units
on
the
fourth
floor.
Two
of
these
units
are
designated
as
affordable
units.
Matt
has
been,
has
met
with
the
BPA
and
they've
identified.
A
AA
Z
AB
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
of
my
name
is
Lindsey
Santana
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
The
applicant
worked
closely
with
community
and
abutters
to
address
concerns.
They
received
support
from
the
Jamaica
Plain
neighborhood
council.
The
mayor's
office
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
AC
W
AD
My
name
is
David
hemming
I
live
at
38,
Paul
Gore,
we
also
own
21
Rock
Hill,
that's
the
entire
other
end
of
the
street.
I
think
the
project
speaks
for
itself.
I've
been
looking
at
these
derelict
buildings
for
40
years.
I'd
love
to
see
this
go
up
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
shame
if
it
weren't
built
fully
support
anybody.
A
AE
Furthermore,
as
very
large
vehicles
such
as
fire,
trucks
cannot
make
the
turn
off
fog
or
Street
on
to
rock
Hill
Road,
and
you
can
check
with
our
local
fire
station
to
verify
that
I.
Imagine
that
during
construction
of
this
project,
there
would
be
many
large
vehicles
competing
for
the
limited
parking
on
Palmer
Street
I.
AE
Believe
that,
contrary
to
what
seems
to
be
policy,
the
wishes
of
residents
who
have
lived
here
and
been
taxpayers
to
the
City
of
Boston
for
years
and
decades
should
be
considered
more
important
than
providing
more
housing
to
outsiders
who
are
trying
to
move
to
the
city.
Also,
the
so-called
two
new
units
of
affordable
housing
provided
by
this
project
is
a
joke.
AE
A
You
so
now
thank
you
ma'am,
so
so
far,
I've
heard
quality
of
life,
I've
heard
public
safety,
I've
heard
congestion,
I've,
heard
context
and
proximity
to
the
auto
body
shop.
If
you
have
please
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
if
you
have
new
information,
give
it
to
me
otherwise
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
please
have
a
seat,
so
we
can
hear
some
more
from
the
rest
of
the
abutters
okay.
A
AF
A
You
hear
what
I
just
said:
please
give
me
new
information.
I've
heard
about
quality
of
life,
I've
heard
public
safety,
I've
heard
congestion,
I've,
heard
context
of
the
neighborhood
and
proximity
to
auto
body
shop.
I
have
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
Please
give
me
new
information.
If
not
it's
okay,
you
can
have
a
seat.
It's
fine,
because
this
first
speaker
gave
us
a
lot
to
consider.
AF
AG
AG
One
of
the
people
from
the
Boston
Climate
Action
Network
was
going
to
try
to
come
to
express
my
concern
and
her
concern
about
the
the
number
of
gas
hookups
that
will
be
required
for
this.
Rather
this
two
large
project
and
and
the
proximity
to
an
auto
body
shop
with
all
of
those
vehicles,
all
of
the
you
know,
I
mean
the
vehicles
nowadays
are
internal
combustion.
AG
This
is
a
great
risk
for
fire
and,
furthermore,
I
don't
have
my
own
handicapped
parking
spot,
it's
very
difficult
to
get
and
the
congestion
and
the
traffic
and
the
parking
difficulties
makes
it
so
I
can't
even
go
out
for
groceries.
Sometimes
if
I
don't
leave
soon
enough-
and
you
know
I've
already
lost
11
pounds
to
doing
without
meals,
because
I
can't
you
know
I
just
can't
safely
get
in
and
out,
I
want
to
continue
living
there
and
I'm
speaking.
I
have
to
speak
in
opposition
to
this
project.
Thank
you.
AH
Bailey
at
69,
Paul,
Gore,
Street
I've
lived
in
Jamaica
Plain
for
over
50
years,
and
my
only
new
piece
would
be
I
didn't
hear
and
I
know
that
may
not
be
related
directly
to
the
multiple
zoning
violations.
We're
talking
about
but
affordability
and
fitting
into
the
neighborhood
in
the
Affordable
issue.
Is
we,
you
all
have
I
believe
a
copy
of
the
hundred
signatures
against
this
project?
Do
you
have
you
all
seen
that
yes,
okay
and
what
people
have
talked
about?
AH
There
are
many
elderly
on
that
street,
as
well
as
young
people
and
there's
a
lot
of
concern
about
when
retirement
happens,
reduced
income
and
not
being
able
to
afford
this
kind
of
rent
and
I.
Don't
know
if
rent
comes
up
here,
but
affordability
and
lack
of
affordability
in
this
project,
including
even
the
to
quote
affordable
units,
is
a
big
concern.
Thank.
Z
M
Matthew
Hayes
I'm,
the
owner
of
the
properties
at
29,
12
and
27
Rock
Hill,
Road,
Rock,
Hill
Road
is
a
private
way
and
yes,
we've
had
fire
trucks
on
Rock,
Hill
Road.
It's
not
an
issue.
The
body
shop
next
door
to
this
project
is
a
full
sprinkler
building.
There
has
never
been
any
issue
with
that.
The
new
proposal
of
this
new
building
would
be
also
a
full
sprinkle
wood
building
in
the
new
construction.
As
far
as
affordability,
we
have
proposed
to
affordable
units
and
a.
A
Z
A
N
AJ
Z
B
B
Change
of
Arc's
term,
a
two
family:
two,
a
three
family
and
remodel
existing
two-car
garage
into
a
studio
apartment
data
street.
There's
a
violation:
Article
67
section,
32
auspey
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
60
7,
section
8,
a
3
family
dwelling
use
is
forbidden,
Article,
67,
section
8.2
dwelling
units
in
a
basement
are
forbidden,
Article,
67,
section
9
the
floor
day.
Ratio
is
excessive
in
Article
67,
section
9,
the
usable
if
from
space,
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
James.
AI
AI
AI
D
U
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Joe
carpenter
from
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
we
completed
the
community
process
on
December
11
2000
19.
At
that
meeting
there
it
was
met
with
no
concern.
So
at
this
point
we
have
no
further
questions
or
concerns.
It
would
like
to
go
and
recognize
support.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
AK
Venini
26
Brown
Ave,
we
were
not
around.
We
were
out
of
town
for
that
Billis
December
11th
meeting,
so
we
weren't
there
to
voice
our
opposition.
Our
grounds
for
opposition
are
every
single
variance
request
here.
The
density,
the
off
street
parking,
the
fact
that
there
is
going
to
there's
another
project
on
49
to
51
Brown
Ave,
which
impacts
there's
going
to
be
a
brand
new
non
existent
now
to
be.
AL
A
AK
A
V
D
B
B
A
A
AM
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
James
Christopher
of
RCA
LLC
with
project
architects,
with
the
business
address
at
4:15,
the
pons
and
AB
joined.
Am
I
right
by
Brendan
and
Pat
Newell
they're
the
owners
of
Pat's
Pizza
on
Dorchester
Avenue.
The
proposal
is
to
expand
the
restaurant
to
the
existing
budding
abutting
commercial
space.
The
only
violation
is
an
extension
of
a
non-conforming
use.
The
net
increase
would
be
used
to
increase
the
kitchen
size,
it's
about
375
square
feet
and
to
increase
the
seating
count
from
19
to
34.
AM
A
D
D
AN
Madam
chair
members,
the
board
patrickv
and
L
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
full
support
of
this
proposal.
As
the
applicant
said,
they
met
with
the
lower
mill
Civic
receiving
their
full
support.
We
just
like
to
go
on
record
in
this
historic
institution
in
a
vibrant,
commercial
district.
AO
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Omega
current
city,
councillor,
Frank
Baker's
office,
would
like
to
go
and
record
his
strong
support.
These
gentlemen
have
run
a
fantastic
business
in
our
community
for
years
and
been
very
generous
to
the
community,
and
we
look
forward
to
them
serving
us
for
a
very
long
time.
W
A
B
Boa
one:
zero
two
zero
two,
two
one
thirty-nine
melon
Street:
this
is
a
change
of
oxygen
to
include
accessory
family
day
care,
the
home
serving
five
children.
Children
no
work
to
be
done.
The
violations,
article
65
section,
eight
accessory
family
day
care
home
use,
is
conditional
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
my.
A
AP
AP
We
have
a
sort
of
get
around
parking
spot
a
spot-
that's
generally
left
empty
so
that
the
person
has
parked
in
the
back
of
it
can
get
around
to
the
one.
That's
at
the
bottom
of
it
of
the
driveway,
which
would
be
an
easy
place
to
for
children,
for
parents
dropping
off
children
to
park
temporarily
to
bring
the
child
in
I.
Also
have
it
it's
going
to
be
about
two
hour
period
of
time
during
which
up
to
five
children
will
be
arriving
or
leaving.
D
AN
Madam
chair
members,
the
board
Patrick
Randall
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services.
There
was
a
community
process
around
this
proposal,
including
an
on-site
abutters
meeting,
and
the
applicant
met
with
the
Ashmont
Hill
Civic
Association,
receiving
their
full
support.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
proposal.
We
would
just
ask
that
the
applicant
continue
maintaining
conversations
regarding
operations
with
the
other
unit
in
the
building
in
reference
to
the
transportation.
I.
AN
AQ
AR
AR
On
the
opposition
is
based
on
the
fact
that
this
home
has
that
these
that
the
applicant
has
four
boarders
in
the
house
and
is
introducing
five
more
families
into
the
home.
It's
a
1-1
car
parking
space.
It's
there
is
no
parking
and
in
there
and
we're
concerned
with
our
legal
liabilities.
This
is
a
condominium,
a
condominium
association.
We
are
concerned
with
the
fact
that
there
has
been
a
significant
rodent
infestation
in
one
month.
20
mice
were
caught.
There's
trash
concerns
is
rodent,
infestations
and
just
Agenor
with
just
a
general
public
safety.
This.
AR
A
lot
of
people,
the
seven
people
there's
a
lot
of
people
in
its
introducing
a
daycare,
and
those
concerns
have
not
been
addressed.
On
top
of
that,
so
an
hour,
the
legal
liability
we
have
asked
to
be
indemnified,
and
that
has
also
not
not
happen,
but
I
challenge.
The
legal
I
have
no
I
have
another
concern.
That's
probably
the
most
pressing
one
is
that
since
we
purchases
all
of
this
property
in
2017,
they
have
transferred
their
their
legal
residence
toward
Island.
They
also
have
a
home
there.
AR
Their
daughter
goes
to
school
there,
they
insure
their
car
in
Rhode,
Island,
Providence,
Rhode,
Island,
okay.
So
in
order
to
be
an
accessory
family
daycare,
it
is
presumed
that
you
are
a
permanent
primary
resident
of
Boston.
That's
the
basis
of
the
licensing
as
well,
but
that's
outside
of
this
remit,
so
I
have
real
concerns
about
the
legal
nature.
This
is
not
accessory
family
daycare.
This
is
a
commercial
business
and
that's
not
what
the
zoning
request
was
for.
Thank.
AS
The
record,
my
name
is
brenda
davis
and
I
live
at
53
ocean
street,
the
owner
of
the
property.
I
am
opposed
to
this
for
some
of
the
very
same
reasons.
The
other
unit
owner
stated.
The
street
is
a
one-way
street,
heavily
congested,
thickly
settled
and
in
the
mornings
when
people
are
going
to
work
and
dropping
off
their
children.
AS
It's
going
to
be
a
nightmare
on
that
street
also
because
we're
close
to
the
tea,
the
potential
for
people
dropping
off
their
five
children,
they're
likely
to
park
on
the
street
or
seek
parking
in
the
community,
and
we
already
have
parking
issues
and
concerns.
This
is
just
going
to
add
to
the
nightmare.
Okay,.
A
AP
AP
A
D
AP
D
AP
AP
AP
E
B
A
B
This
is
a
change
of
our
to
include
performance
on
center.
A
new
tenant
fit
out
space
located
on
the
second
floor,
work
to
include
sprinkler
alteration,
a
lot
of
demolitions
of
sailing
violations,
article
65,
section,
eight
Performing,
Arts,
any
uses,
forbidden
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AT
A
AL
The
quick
history
of
the
the
property-
it
was
an
old
movie
theater
that
was
decked
over
in
the
90s
to
allow
for
expanded
retail
space.
On
the
first
floor,
which
left
the
second
floor
vacant
for
the
past
25
years
and
we're
hoping
to
occupy
that
space,
the
use
of
the
block
of
buildings,
which
is
15
24
to
1530
Dorchester,
have
also
132
to
134
Park
Street
they're.
All
connected
is
retail
offices.
A
AL
AU
AU
AU
Our
mission
is
to
provide
affordable
work,
space
to
artists
and
educational
program,
programming
for
all
ages,
all
abilities,
goals
and
intentions
in
the
Performing,
visual
and
healing
arts.
We
we
will
strive
to
tap
into
all
the
creativity
and
history
and
culture
in
fields
corner
as
a
cooperative.
We
are
capable
of
creating
and
recreating
ourselves
to
meet
the
needs
of
our
members
and
the
needs
of
our
community
we've
already
immersed
ourselves
in
the
community.
We're
collaborating
with
be
at
aid
right
now
with.
AU
AU
S
AU
AX
I'm,
the
director
of
field
corner
Main
Street,
my
name's
Jack
us
divine
from
twelve
Buttonwood
Street
I
am
fields
corner
Main
Street
has
the
expressed
mission
of
supporting
small
businesses
and
creating
a
secure,
environ
district
and
drawing
visitors.
We
feel
that
iPAQ
will
certainly
provide
dynamic
and
new
programming
that
will
serve
our
community
well
and
will
also
draw
visitors.
A
AY
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
quad
fan
from
mayor's
office
and
nervous
services
would
like
to
reckon
support
this
Performing
Arts
Center,
it's
gonna,
add
another
dynamic
to
the
neighborhood
and
as
well.
They
receiving
support
from
the
local
Main
Street
and
the
Civic,
and
another
thing
is
to
activate
the
under
lute
utilize
space
for
20-25
years.
Thank
you.
I'm.
AQ
AZ
A
B
B
F
A
A
A
B
B
This
is
to
construct
a
ten,
never
gets
to
construct
the
two
new
family,
residential
building,
a
new
lock
Rita
and
the
subdivision
of
45
tree
the
violation,
article
65,
section
9.
The
lot
size
requires
to
erect
a
new
dwelling
is
insufficient
article
65
section
9
the
floor.
The
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Nautical
65
section
9
using
the
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section
9,
the
rear
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
65
69,
the
height,
is
excessive.
This
is
for.
BA
B
Is
subdividing
existing
7730
square
foot
law
245,
creating
two
new
Lots
consisting
of
4988
square
feet
at
45,
my
know
and
to
not
2944
at
ten
Narragansett,
the
violation
is
article
65
section
42
Osprey
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section
and
a
lot
size
to
accommodate
the
toiling
is
subdivision
is
insufficient.
Article
65,
section,
I
useable
open
space
is
insufficient.
An
article
65-69,
the
Riyadh
setback,
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
my.
AM
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
James
Christopher
of
RCA
LLC,
with
the
business
address
of
415
Neponset
out
and
Dorchester
I'm
joining
my
right
by
William
Maloney
lifelong
resident
owner
of
the
property.
So
the
proposal
is
to
subdivide
the
existing
lot,
creating
two
new
Lots,
a
new
two
family.
AM
No
change
to
the
building
itself
at
Street
family.
It
is
ok,
we
will
be
at
the
request
of
the
abutters.
We
will
be
seeking
a
new
curb
cut
on
my
nat
street
to
create
directs
act,
direct
access
to
two
parking
spaces
that
came
about
as
the
as
a
part
of
the
community
process,
the
other
than
that
there's
no
change
to
the
existing
property
at.
D
AM
If
you
look
at
the
plans
off
of
Narragansett
Street,
the
driveway
there
was
where
mr.
Maloney
parked
his
cars.
So
after
meeting
with
the
neighbors,
we
we
included
the
curb
cut
on
line
it
to
create
two
new
parking
spaces
on
the
side
of
the
property
so
as
to
not
interfere
with
the
maneuverability
of
the
parking
of
the
new
proposed
lot
and.
A
A
AM
Proposal
is
to
construct
a
tuna
building
with
parking
in
the
rear.
The
rear
portion
of
the
building
be
cantilever.
With
that
we
need
some
zoning
relief.
The
FA
are
the
required
is
point
four.
We
would
be
at
point
eight.
Seven
three
stories
with
the
pitch
proof
requires
two
and
a
half
stories.
The
rear
yard
setback
is
the
requirements.
Twenty-Five
feet
were
at
nine
foot.
AM
A
A
A
AM
Roof
decks.
It's
a
pitched
roof
as
a
part
of
the
community
processes
is
originally
a
flat
roof
building.
The
neighbors
had
requested
that
miss
Maloney
take
a
look
at
the
existing
context
of
the
neighborhood,
so
we
did
and
we
were
able
to
create
this
pitch
roof,
which
we
believe
fits
in
a
little
more
seamlessly.
Mr.
Maloney
also
reduced
the
square
footage
of
the
building
to
try
to
accommodate
the
neighbors.
A
AM
AM
A
Because
looking
at
the
plants,
now
it
looks
like
the
residents
of
minot
Street
might
be
losers
because
they
they
will
be
losing
that's
what
I
mean
to
say
losing
with
the
subdivision,
because
their
rear
entrance
and
rear,
balconies
or
rear
windows
are
looking
right
into
another
dwelling
and
a
driveway
in
proximity,
and
they
gain
nothing.
Deep.
A
You
know
we,
we
know
that
the
relief
goes
with
the
property,
and
so
is
there
any
anything
proposed
to
put
some
kind
of
well
I.
Don't
know
fencing
something
like
that
that
will,
in
fact
you
know,
keep
street
as
preserved
as
possible,
because
it
feels
that,
yes,
you
know
the
maneuverability
is
is
planned
so
that
if
everything
works
for
Narragansett,
you
know,
but
nothing
works
really
for
minor.
A
AM
AN
Madam
chair
members,
the
board
Patrick
van
nelle
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
This
went
through
a
robust
community
process,
including
an
on-site
of
butter's
meeting,
followed
up
by
two
informal
meetings
held
by
the
applicant.
The
applicant
also
met
with
the
Pope's
health
Civic
Association
discussed
his
plans.
There
were
initial
concerns
when
this
process
began,
but
he
worked
hard
to
come
to
the
current
iteration,
which
met
most
of
the
abutters
concerns.
AN
AO
Chair
members
of
the
board,
Jimmy
Garren
city
councilor,
frank
baker's
office,
would
like
to
go
a
wreckin
and
support
the
Maloney
family
has
lived
in
Dorchester
for
decades,
they've
kept
a
beautiful
property.
They
work
very
closely
with
the
neighborhoods
and
very
well
liked
family
and
we'd
like
to
support
them.
Thank
you.
L
W
B
BB
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
boards,
my
name
is
Derrick
Joyner
119
be
Wrentham
Street,
Boston,
Mass,
I'm,
seeking
relief
to
renovate
and
renovate
a
residential
three
family
in
the
great
amount
of
pan
zone
in
district
and
3f
5000
sub
district.
The
existent
third
floor.
Porch
is
a
balcony
without
a
second
means
of
egress
right
now,
as
it
stands
and
it
doesn't
meet
the
code,
this
proposal
would
be
to
rebuild
the
dilapidated
porch
with
the
similar
style
in
the
dimensions,
and
it
would
give
it
a
second
means
of
egress
that
wouldn't
create
a
violation.
A
A
AN
W
A
B
BB
A
BB
This
one
is
it's
a
gable
domer
the
basement
will
be
finished.
The
height
in
the
basement
is
9
feet,
3
inches.
D
A
BB
AN
AQ
W
B
On
their
last
case
for
9:30
calling
boa
9,
9
9
0
8
7
62
to
64
Boynton
Street,
this
is
seeking
to
raise
the
existing
garage
directed
three
story.
Building
with
three
residential
units
and
three
parking
spaces.
The
violations-
article
55
section
9,
the
la
tierra
for
additional
12
in-
is
insufficient
article
55,
section
9,
the
Floyd.
A
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
55,
section,
9,
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
55,
section,
9
and
front
yard-
is
insufficient
in
article
55,
section
9,
the
side
yard
is
insufficient.
They
even
addressed
for
the
record.
Please
thank.
J
Jeff
Drago
Drago
in
Toscano,
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street,
representing
Thom,
foul
coochie
who's
with
me,
the
owner
of
62
64,
Boyd
Street,
and
as
this
mentioned,
the
proposal
is
to
raise
the
existing
garages
and
to
erect
a
three-story
building
with
three
condominium
units
and
three
rare
parking
spaces
on
the
site.
This
particular
so
nning
district
is
located
in
a
3f
5000
district.
Our
lot
size
is
three
thousand
seven
hundred
and
forty
square
feet.
Our
unit
layouts
unit,
one
is
1100
square
feet.
J
Two
bed
two
bath
unit:
two
is
a
1110
square
foot
2
bed
2
bath
with
a
rare
deck
and
unit
3,
is
12
hundred
and
99
square
foot
2,
bed
2
bath.
Also
with
a
rare
deck.
The
violations
mentioned
additional
lot
area
required
to
be
2,000.
We
have
740
square
feet,
our
Farr
is
1.08.
What's
allowable
is
0.6,
we
meet
the
side,
setback
on
the
right
side
with
12
feet.
10
is
required.
We
are
short
on
the
left
side,
which
is
7
and
we
have
5
and
our
minimum
front
yard
is
15.
J
We
have
8
Motul
with
the
other
buildings.
We
actually
went
through
a
number
of
changes
on
this
project.
We
originally
had
two
townhouses
proposed
and
working
with
the
neighbors
and
the
J
PNC.
We
got
their
support
to
change
us
to
three
condominiums
with
parking
in
the
rear
and
some
design
changes
with
the
bump
outs
on
the
front.
We
also
increased
our
side
setback
in
doing
so
and
reduced
our
F.
They
are
from
one
point
two
down
to
one
point:
oh
eight
I
can
pause
to
answer
any
questions
the
board
may
have
and.
A
A
J
AB
Good
morning,
when
I'm
sharing
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Lindsey
Santana.
With
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
my
predecessor
conducted
a
community
process
for
this
proposal.
The
applicant
works
closely
with
the
butters
to
address
concerns.
They
have
received
the
support
that
should
make
a
plain,
neighborhood
council.
The
mayor's
office
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
Thank
you
morning.
W
B
A
A
B
D
B
D
X
A
E
R
A
A
BD
Hi
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Haley
Dillon
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services
we
held
and
about
his
meeting
on
January
6
and
which
none
of
the
abutters
seem
to
care
or
show
up,
and
we
haven't
seen
anybody
emailing
me
that
they
couldn't
make
the
meeting
so
go
and
record
and
support.
Thank
you.
It's.
D
D
D
B
A
A
B
Your
next
case
calling
VOA
nine
five,
four
five
one,
four
one:
ninety
four
to
two-hundred,
shammed
Avenue.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
The
applicant
seeks
to
continue
use
premises
for
an
opening
a
public
park
and
parking
lot
for
fee.
The
capacity
of
eighty
nine
vehicles
beyond
the
existing
boat
of
Appeal
decision,
which
was
granted
to
expire
on
July
1st
of
2019
violations,
article
6
section,
zero.
Three,
a
additional
conditions
in
restricted
parking,
district
relief
is
required
from
the
board
of
appeal
may
be
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
T
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Timothy
Burke
I'm,
the
architect
for
the
project.
My
business
address
is
142
Berkeley
Street
in
Boston
on
my
far
right
is
Christian
Moran
who's,
the
landscape
designer
for
the
project
in
my
office,
and
next
to
me
is
David
Gottlieb,
who
represents
the
owner
of
the
property
so.
A
A
Happened
to
be
walking
in
the
South
End
yesterday
and
your
parking
project,
the
one
that
we
had
an
issue
with
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
popped
to
mind
and
did
that
ever
come
back
to
us,
because
it
was
supposed
to
be
a
project
that
you
were
supposed
to
be
working
with
the
owner
to
do
landscaping
and
come
back
to
us
with
a
landscaping
plan.
This.
BE
Well,
we
actually
went
before
the
board
and
you
said
to
come
back
to
us
and
that's
what
we
did
but
wait
took
correct,
because
if
you
look
at
the
past
decision
there
was
no
mention
that
we
had
to
go
through
Landmarks
Commission
review.
But
when
we
went
to
ISD
they
said
no,
you
have
to
go
through
landmarks.
So
then
we
went
through
landmarks
and
we
had
two
public
meetings
at
landmarks.
BE
A
A
BE
And
that
was
in
response
to,
as
you
remember,
I
think
in
December
of
2018,
we
had
a
meeting
here
in
a
neighbor
wrote
a
letter
regarding
trash
at
the
premises
presence
of
trash.
So
me,
working
with
the
architect
and
the
tenant
which
I
represent
Stanhope
garage.
We
put
together
a
plan
for
a
dumpster
enclosure.
We
took
it
before
the
Landmarks
Commission
and
they
approved
the
plan,
but
they
wanted
the
color
of
the
dumpster
enclosure
to
be
Essex
green
per
the
Landmarks
Commission
requirements,
so
it
fits
in
with
the
neighborhood.
BE
So
in
April
5th
2019
we
got
a
Landmarks
Commission
approval
for
the
fence
in
the
dumpster
enclosure.
Nicholas
Omata
then
told
us
come
back
with
the
landscaping
plan.
We
working
with
Timothy,
Burke
and
Christian
put
together
a
thorough
landscaping
plan.
We
then
had
another
Landmarks
Commission
meeting
at
City
Hall
with
the
plan
we
spoke
to
the
commission
members
regarding
the
plan
and
they
said
we'll.
You
know,
make
a
few
improvements
which
we
did
then
Nicholas
said.
I
would
like
to
come
down.
I
think
it
would
be
easier.
BE
Let's
come
down
in
person
with
two
other
commission
members
which
they
did
I
believe
that
was
mr.
Sanborn
and
Katherine
Katherine
hunt
and
they
came
in
person
that
was
in
June.
They
told
us
exactly
what
they
wanted
to
do
in
terms
of
the
plantings,
how
they
wanted
a
cedar
board
on
shammed
Avenue
and
on
East
Berkeley
Street,
a
cedar
board
to
hold
in
the
mulch
and
the
plantings
on
shammed
Avenue
in
East
Berkeley
Street,
which
we
installed
and
that's
basically
been
the
process.
A
BE
A
BE
Other
key
point,
madam
chair,
is
that
per
the
December
2018
decision.
It
just
said:
BPD
a
Design
Review
worked
with
Matthew
Martin
extensively
throughout
this
whole
process.
Matthew
Martin
approved
us
in
July
of
2019,
so
we've
actually
gone
through
two
to
two
agencies.
Here
we
went
through
Matthew
Martin
for
being
PDA.
He
approved
us
July
of
2019.
We
then
went
through
the
Landmarks
Commission
deal
working
with
the
design
people.
They
are
both
Nicolas
ahmadiya,
now
Mary
serba,
and
that
was
approved
in
the
fall.
BE
T
Centered
around
the
color
of
the
fencing
that
we
created
around
the
dumpster
and
then
mostly
the
planting
plan,
which
was
carefully
reviewed
with
landmarks.
The
plants
are
designed
to
be
Hardy
without
a
lot
of
watering
since
there's
no
water
on-site
and
they
also
are
most
like
pollinators,
so
it'll
have
benefit
the
community
gardens
across
the
street.
Yes,.
BF
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
faces
shriek
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
were
also
very
concerned
and
making
sure
that
this
was
done
right
and
that
no
corners
were
cut
and
that
we
wanted
clear-cut
standards
around
how
the
types
of
garages
that
this
operator
is
operating
across
different
neighborhoods
also
matches
what
was
here.
So
thank
you
for
working
with
us
on
that
and
at
this
time
we
have
no
further
concerns.
Thank
you.
BF
BG
A
BE
D
BE
B
Call
me
next
case
calling
VOA
one
zero:
two,
nine
seven,
seven
three
ninety-seven
to
115
Beverly
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
octave
from
a
hotel
residential
retail
parking
garage
to
a
hotel
with
live
entertainment,
residential
retail
parking
garage,
so
violations,
article
49,
section,
9.1,
a
live,
entertainment
use
is
a
forbidden
use
in
the
zoning
sub
district
name.
An
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BH
My
name
is
rocky
mongolic
with
McDermott
quilty,
ed
Miller,
and
she
is
for
the
applicant
at
97
to
115
Beverly
Street.
This
is
an
appeal
for
the
Courtyard
Marriott
at
North,
downtown
northern,
to
add
live
entertainment
as
a
pretty
standard
offering
for
a
hotel.
Similarly
situated
in
the
area
and
throughout
the
City
of
Boston.
There
is
no
construction
or
any
plans
that
are
changing.
We
did
extensive
well
when
voting
was
gone
through
the
article
a
process.
BH
D
D
A
BF
E
B
The
last
case
for
10:30
calling
VOA
one
zero:
two:
nine
six:
zero
nine
567
to
569
Bennington
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
use
from
a
two-family
and
store
to
a
two-family
and
seating
with
restaurant.
Let's
go
with
to
go
the
violation:
article
53,
section,
8,
restaurant
used
to
submit
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
Madam.
A
BI
We
are
proposing
how
this
came
about.
Is
we
decided
to
start
serving
dinner
at
the
same
location,
so
Sammy
Carlos
delicatessen
has
been
operating,
it's
the
oldest
deli
in
East
Boston,
since
1927
it
moved
locations
to
567,
Bennington
Street
in
October
of
1974
and
opened
up
as
a
delicatessen
and
a
sit-down
restaurant.
BI
Was
correct,
however,
it's
been
operating
as
a
sit-down
restaurants
since
1974
when
we
went
ahead
and
put
in
paperwork
to
apply
for
a
common
Vic
on
behalf
of
the
licensing
department.
They
discovered
that
there
was
a
clerical
error
where
the
city
of
Boston
has
been
down
they've
granted
outside
seating.
Everyone
knows
it's
been
a
sit-down
restaurant
for
46
years
and
we
just
discovered
that
it
had
never
been
granted
that
ability.
So
we
discovered
this
and
wanted
to
immediately
fix
that
issue.
BI
A
D
BI
BF
AJ
W
E
S
A
A
AL
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Tuesday
January
28
2020
is
back
in
session.
Just
a
reminder,
please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
if
an
in
performance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law
I'm
informing
you
that
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed,
if
you're
here
to
speak
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
a
project.
When
you
have
your
turn
at
the
mic,
please
give
us
new
information.
We
are
here
fact-finding
and
we'd
like
new
information
from
you.
A
We
periodically
get
projects
that
defer,
which
I
see
there's
a
couple
of
people
lining
up
for
deferral
and
that's
the
prerogative
of
the
applicant
to
request
that
that
deferral.
So
let
me
make
that
clear.
I
see
some
some
t-shirts
here,
just
a
reminder
that,
after
we
hear
your
particular
case,
we
have
other
cases
on
the
agenda.
We
have
had
a
full
day
and
it's
not
done
yet.
So
we
do
ask
that
you
leave
the
room
quietly,
so
we
can
proceed
with
the
rest
of
the
agenda.
Okay,
thank.
A
G
B
G
B
BK
Jo
Han
Lee,
McDermott,
Colton,
Miller,
28
State
Street,
here
in
Boston
here
to
request
a
deferral,
as
is
the
common
practice.
This
is
an
article
80
case
that
is
still
under
review
with
the
BPD
a
we
were
last
before
this
board
for
the
first
official
deferral
of
this
on
August,
8th
and
since
that
time
we're
pleased
that
there
has
been
some
progress
with
respect
to.
BK
A
BK
A
You,
the
the
fact
of
the
matter
is:
maybe
the
paperwork
for
our
appeal
was
filed
too
early,
so
I'm
thinking
that
maybe,
instead
of
having
you
come
here
time
and
again,
bringing
all
the
students
out
here,
bringing
residents
that
perhaps
what
we
do
is
actually
have
you
reapply
at
a
date
that's
closer
to
when
you
actually
think
the
BPD.
A
will
hear
your
case,
so
I
think
it
might
be
in
you
know,
might
be
judicious
of
us
to
have
to
make
to
have
a
motion
for
denial
without
prejudice.
BK
A
BK
BK
What
has
changed
now,
if
you
will,
although
myself
and
my
client
feels
like
this-
has
been
protracted,
we
are
reminded
upstairs
that
it
hasn't
necessarily
been
protracted
and
the
BP
DA
has
said
that
they
are
still
processing.
This
you've
now
have
a
new
district
city
councilor,
whose
staff
is
here
who
is
written
and
indicated
its
support
for
this
project,
and
so
me,
in
my
view,
in
mic
and
for
my
clients,
rights.
We
are
asking
for
for
one
final
deferral
of
a
couple
months
so
that
we
can
finish
this
process.
Hopefully
I,
don't
control.
BK
A
Respond
to
that
there
is
nothing
unfair
about
the
process.
What
we
need
to
look
at
is
our
docket
and
our
project
and
the
number
of
times
we
request
that
people
come
out
here.
You
know
either
here
or
at
the
BP
DA,
so
I
think,
instead
of
us
just
taking
a
protracting.
This
may
I
have
a
motion
for
denial
without
prejudice.
D
B
B
A
B
B
E
B
A
BL
BL
BL
S
B
B
BL
B
B
This
is
to
confirm
it
Octus.
He
has
a
three
family
dwelling
store
and
changed
to
a
four
unit.
Multifamily
demolish
a
single-story
manchak
merchant
building
attached
to
the
main
house,
move
and
exist
an
accessory,
stable
and
garage
to
the
back
of
the
lot
and
build
a
new
one
unit
build
and
attach
to
an
existing
main
house
violations.
Article
68
section,
29,
roof
structure,
restricted
district
article
68,
section
8,
the
front
yard
setback
is
insufficient:
medical,
tent,
section
1,
the
limitation
of
air
accessory
structures.
Canopy
cannot
occupy
more
than
25%
of
the
required
radioed
setback.
B
BM
So
this
process,
so
no
on
the
description
is
to
confirm
it
as
a
three
family
residential
dwelling
in
a
store
this
process
back
in
June
of
2018.
So
well
over
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
occupancy
committees
went
out.
They
had
done
their
expection.
I
do
have
confirmation
that
it's
already
confirmed
there's
a
three
family
in
the
storefront.
So
we
don't
need
confirmation
for
a
three
family.
It's
already
an
existing
in
the
storefront
and,
in
addition
to
the
existing
stable,
there's
a
stable
that
sits
behind
the
one-story
storefront.
BM
That's
done
on
this
property
that
the
original
plan
was
to
demolish
that
stable.
However,
working
with
landmarks
and
some
city
officials,
it
was
recommended
because
there
was
stable
and
the
stable
doors
were
over
a
year,
a
hundred
years
old,
that
we
would
relocate
that
stable,
so
we're
gonna
move
that
relocate
that
stable
to
the
back
of
the
property.
By
doing
so,
we
trigger
two
of
the
five
zoning
violations
that
you
see
on
a
zoning
code.
BM
Refusal
one
is
the
accessory
building,
is
more
than
25%
of
our
yard
and
the
second
one
it's
within
65
feet
of
our
front
yard.
So
by
taking
the
recommendation
of
landmarks
and
city
officials
by
moving
that
we
trigger
to
two
zoning
code
violations
moving
forward.
So
simply,
what
are
we
doing
here?
We're
changing
the
storefront
which
has
been
vacant
for
many
years
and
it
was
vacant
at
the
time
mr.
de
souza
purchased
the
property
and
we're
changing
that
to
a
residential
unit.
BM
So
we
want
to
go
from
a
three
family
residential
unit
in
commercial
space
to
full
family
residential
unit.
They're
gonna
be
condominiums
for
sale
and
we
also
have
to
talk
about
the
other
violations
by
filing
our
long-form
application,
so
we're
gonna
demolish
the
existing
storefront,
which
is
the
one-story
building
and
we
add
a
3
story
single
unit
to
that.
To
that
location,
the
three-story
property
is
not
going
to
be
doesn't
violate
any
height
restrictions,
but
it
does
trigger
a
roof
structure,
violation.
BM
I'll
talk
about
the
existing
three
family
when
we
renovate
that
so
I'm
just
talking
about
the
storefront
and
it's
talking
about
the
storefront,
we're
gonna,
demolish
the
existing
storefront
and
build
a
a
single
unit
and
that's
gonna
be
three
storey
unit.
2,000
square
foot,
two-bedroom
two-bath
and
that's
gonna
be
consistent.
High,
there's
gonna
be
about
33
feet.
High
height,
it's
gonna
be
consistent
to
what
you
see
on
G
Street
and
there's
also
going
to
be
open
space.
BM
That's
not
on
the
roof
but
kind
of
another
walkout
patio
to
meet
our
open
space
reclaims
in
regards
to
the
existing
spree
family.
What
would
what
we're
doing
we're
renovating
the
existing
floor
plan
were
changing
them
to
two
bedrooms,
two
baths
and
we're
creating
some
open
space,
we're
creating
putting
some
zombies
on
the
top
on
the
left
hand,
side
which
overlooks
Thomas,
Bach
and
creating
some
living
space
for
for
that
particular
unit,
so
that
units
gonna
be
a
two-bedroom
two-bath
about
nine
hundred
and
thirty-some
square
feet.
BM
A
BM
BM
If
you
go
to
seventy
three,
seventy
one
and
69,
they
all
have
zero
front
yard
line
so
we're
being
consistent
with
what's
currently
what's
their
existing
and
what's
in
that
neighborhood,
as
you
go
further
down,
G
Street,
they
do
have
a
setback,
but
right
our
avocados
were
at
zero
long
line,
so
we're
keeping
the
same.
We
can
go
forward
and.
A
BM
AT
A
A
AT
A
AV
AT
AT
A
So
it's
parking
one
of
your
violations.
It's.
BM
A
AT
A
BM
AT
AT
Y
BN
This
is
a
very
historic,
beautiful
neighborhood
and,
as
development
pressures
come
in
to
all
neighborhoods,
we
are
seeing
demolitions
that
we
don't
were
not
happy
with
so
I
do
feel
like
the
developer
has
taken
our
concerns
about
demolition
very
seriously.
So
I
just
want
to
go
on
the
record
and
say
that.
Thank
you.
BD
The
board
Haley
Dillon
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services
we
like
to
go
market
in
opposition.
We
know,
there's
been
a
lengthy
process
and
he's
worked
with
the
abutters
over
the
time
over
the
I
think
almost
three
years
now,
but
as
of
our
record,
we
have
no
record
of
people
and
support
who
are
direct
about
us.
Thank
you.
Y
BG
Over
the
chair
members
of
the
board
on
a
column
from
councilor
Flinx
office,
the
counselor
would
like
to
go
on
recording
opposition
to
this
proposal,
as
he
we
have
heard
from
neighbors
and
about
us
who
remain
opposed.
We
are
knowledge,
short,
a
work
that
was
done
by
the
team
and
the
compromises
that
were
made
on
both
sides.
It
was
originally
six
units
then
down
to
five,
then
now
it's
down
to
four
units.
BG
W
L
A
BO
My
name
is
John
John
Cara
I
grew
up
across
the
street
from
the
project
I've
lived
in
the
house
for
59
years,
I've
always
known.
This
is
a
two
family
house
and,
as
the
previous
people
stated,
they
went
from
six
to
five
to
four
and
I.
Had
some
questions
as
to
how
it
became
a
trade.
I
went
downstairs
at
the
last
meeting
that
got
deferred
on
technicality.
BO
BO
Well,
if
it
was,
if
it's
a
two
family
like
it's
been
my
whole
life,
then
they
would
have
to
have
pocketed.
They
want
to
take
the
store
down
and
build
a
building
and
equal
size
to
exist
in
building
they've
reduced
the
number
of
units,
but
not
the
size
of
project.
It's
a
busy
neighborhood.
He
got
South
Boston
high
there
with
20
buses
in
the
morning
and
in
the
afternoon
you
got
Mary
and
me
around
the
corner
and
Georgia
sights
to
the
historic
site.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Man.
BP
My
name's
Jackie
cherry
I'm
gonna
butter,
I've
lived
in
the
naval
549
East
4th
Street
I
live
right
around
the
corner,
I've
lived
there.
My
whole
life,
as
you
people
well
know
that
the
parking
is
a
serious
problem
here
and
if
you,
if
you
look
at
the
plans
and
you
actually
went
out
and
looked
at
the
law,
it's
almost
that
one
car
on
the
side,
the
I,
don't
know
how
it's
going
to
get
in
or
out
the
it
just
doesn't
make
sense.
BP
Okay,
one
other
point
that
I'd
like
to
make
is
that
when
we
had
an
about
his
meeting,
we
were
told
that
they
could
put
seven
cards
there
and
we
were
given
the
plans.
Okay
by
these
gentlemen,
so
myself
and
mr.
kite
I
went
over
to
ISD
and
on
the
plants
there
were
four
cars,
so
I
thought
it
was
very
unfair
for
the
neighbors
to
be
given
a
bill
of
goods
that
you
put
seven
cars
on
the
plans.
So
as
it
stands
right
now
those
four
cars
at
best,
you
could
probably
put
two.
BM
BQ
A
BR
BR
BR
B
This
is
an
increase,
TRP
low
and
I'm,
an
existing
restaurant
from
88
to
136,
installing
new
fire
sprinkler
system
installing
new
side
door.
The
violation
is
article
65,
section
41.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient
article
9
section
one
extension
of
non-conforming
use,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
A
BA
Mr.
Villar
has
obtained
the
support
is
actually
in
front
of
you
in
November
on
a
that's
right.
That's
right!
That's
right!
He
bought
the
property
and
I
mean
he
bought
the
business
in
2015.
He
rents
the
property
from
the
owner
of
the
property.
This
is
the
old
Venetian
garden
for
so
some
of
you
may
remember
that
one
and
in
2015,
converted
to
the
home,
run
cafe
with
the
with
the
88
seats,
he's
since
done
the
requisite
amount
of
work
to
allow
for
the
increase
in
capacity
by
adding
sprinklers
and
egress
to
comply
with
the
code.
BA
That
was
actually
why
he
was
in
front
of
you
in
November
kind
of
oddly
I.
Don't
think
that
that
building,
which
you
the
board,
rightfully
dismissed
right
away
and
asked
him
to
return
here
with
just
a
little
bit
more
information.
That's
when
I
ran
into
mr.
Villar,
and
we
are
now
here
on
those
to
zoning
matters.
We
also
have
a
lot
of
support
from
the
McCormack
Civic
Association
that
I'd
like
to
provide
to
the
board
as
well.
A
BA
A
C
BA
Well,
yeah
some
of
the
work
that
he
did
also
on
the
front
door.
Improving
the
access
points.
I
actually
went
out
there
myself
to
take
a
look
at
it.
It's
a
it's
a
nicely
put.
They
did
a
good
job
on
the
build-out
and
he
hasn't
received
complaints
from
his
neighbors.
In
fact,
he
has
had
support
from
his
his
abutters.
D
AN
Madam
chair
members,
the
board
Patrick
Finnell
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services.
This
did
go
through
a
robust
community
process,
including
the
on-site
of
butter's
meeting
and
the
applicant
meeting
when
the
McCormack
Civic
Association
he's
done
an
incredible
job,
working
with
the
neighborhood
on
everything
from
parking
to
his
operations.
On-Site
we'd
like
to
go
out
and
record
in
full
support
of
this
proposal.
Madam.
B
This
is
a
confer
markers
as
a
six
family,
interior
and
exterior
renovation
of
an
existing
six
unit,
building
construct
a
new
rare
addition
and
third
floor
in
the
existing
second
floor
footprint,
exterior,
rear
deck,
exterior
stairway
and
roof
deck
extend
living
space
to
the
basement
violations.
Article
27
s,
section
5:
this
is
in
the
South
Boston
iPod
article
68,
section,
29,
roof
structure
restriction,
article
68,
section,
8,
claudia
ratio
is
excessive
in
article
68,
section
8.
The
side
yard
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
Greg.
BS
BS
BS
BS
B
BS
A
BS
No
rear
addition
there's
the
third
floor
is
a
little
bit
smaller
than
the
first
and
second
floor.
So
we're
extending
the
footprint
onto
the
existing
and.
BS
BS
BS
S
A
A
And
then
the
roof
deck,
how
the
plans
was
to
work.
BS
D
E
BS
BD
BG
A
E
B
Your
next
case
calling
boa
one:
zero:
zero,
five,
nine
zero
six
one;
thirty
five
Mount
Vernon
Street.
This
is
a
remodel
kitchen,
kitchenette
bathrooms
install
new
HVAC
systems,
update
electrical
paint
violations,
article
32,
section,
9g,
cost
applicability,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
135
Mount.
U
B
B
Following
the
next
case,
calling
boa
nine
four,
two
six
one
one
one,
ninety
three
two
one
95
Chelsea
Street:
this
is
a
change.
Oxford
from
three
tenants
distorts
a
lodging
house.
This
is
a
three-story
building
outfit.
The
safety
every
unit
is
equipped
with
fire
escape
sailing
sprinklers
violation,
article
53,
section,
eight
lodging
houses
the
conditional
use
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BT
BT
The
only
way
to
falafels
e
and
permissibly
operate
such
a
building
in
this
manner
would
be
to
change
the
zoning
to,
in
this
case,
a
conditional
use
which
not
necessarily
forbidden
under
article
53
news,
mottos
and
mr.
Lazzaro
have
experience
in
operating
buildings
such
as
this,
but
based
upon
the
change
in
what's
occurring
with
the
city
ordinance,
they
would
need
to
properly
have
this
zone.
In
order
to
please.
A
BT
A
BT
Correct
the
model
here,
six
months
out
of
the
year,
this
property
could
be
rented
typically
as
a
30-day
month.
Two
month
rental.
There
is
a
window
during
the
course
of
the
year
that
they
would
operate
this
business,
that
there
is
potential
for
less
than
28
days,
as
I
said,
I
think
that
you
know
with
the
change
in
the
Airbnb
and
short
term
rental
regulations.
My
guess
is:
there
are
many
who
either
won't
go
through
the
process,
but
in
this
particular
case
they
want
to
ensure
that
they're
do
complying
with
the
requirements.
BT
So
the
fact
that
you
cannot
register
a
non
owner
occupied
building
under
the
regulations
would
require
a
change
in
use.
So
in
order
to
ensure
that
they're
in
compliance
with
the
zoning
regulations,
that's
the
request.
We
did
have
an
opportunity
to
present
this
robustly
through
the
community
process.
The
maverick
central
Neighborhood
Association
had
a
full
presentation
on
this.
There
were
two
about
hers
meetings.
We
deferred
this
last
time
at
the
request
of
the
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services,
because
there
were
a
number
of
residents
who,
in
the
immediate
area,
had
some
specific
concerns
over
the
use.
A
S
BU
A
BU
Two
bedrooms:
one
bath
in
each
floor,
uh-huh
the
first
unit.
So
when
people
come
and
stay,
they
are
occupying
that
space
for
their
privacy.
It's
usually
a
family.
They
want
space
for
their
kids
to
play.
They
want
to.
You
know
they
want
to
be
able
to
cook
and
make
meals,
professionals
working
on
an
executive
program-
professor,
that's
traveling
for
a
short
period
of
time.
What's
the
difference.
S
BT
BT
BU
BU
Y
BU
BT
BT
BT
BT
There's
no
no
change
being
proposed
to
the
actual
existing
structure.
Now
this
is
use
only
there
is
no
roof
deck
on
the
building.
The
only
change
that
would
occur
based
upon
the
commercial
nature
of
the
use
when
you
change
from
residential
the
logic
would
be
to
upgrade
the
life
safety,
so
the
building
would
be
sprinkled
and
would
have
to
have
the
updated
central
system
alarm.
So.
BT
BT
Petition
this
petitioner
only
they're,
not
in
the
business
of
Airbnb,
mean
they're,
not
owning
hundreds
of
properties
across
the
city
that
looking
to
do
this.
This
is
one
specific
property
they're
doing
so.
The
prevention
to
flip
that
to,
for
example,
an
Airbnb
company
could
be
applicable
of
this
petitioner
only
which
I
believe.
A
That
waters
have
with
that
is
that
that
is
just
in
our
experience
anyway,
that
that
is
not
necessarily
red
flag.
When
there
is
a
change
of
ownership,
you
know
not
just
people
just
go
ahead,
buy
the
property
assuming
what
it
is,
and
you
know
continue
the
use.
So
that's
that's
not
enough
protection
for
the
community
deed.
BT
A
BV
Good
afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
lynitra
Mele
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
were
recognized
that
this
proposal
got
some
support
from
the
operation
as
well
from
the
Neighborhood
Association,
but
based
on
an
administration
policy.
We
can
support
this
proposal
at
this
time,
so
we
will
get
to
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
opposition.
Thank.
B
The
next
case
calling
BOA
nine
four
eight
four,
two
six
115
Layton
Street.
This
is
demolished
an
existing
structure
and
erecting
new
eight
residential
unit
building
with
nine
parking
spaces
violations.
Article
25
section:
five,
the
flood
hazard
district
article
53
section;
eight,
a
multi-family
dwelling
unit,
the
good
news.
BT
BT
BT
Richard
Lane
is
245
Sumner,
Street,
East,
Boston
I'd,
be
that
petitioner,
madam
chair,
we
were
prepared
to
go
forward
today.
We
were
informed
of
additional
opposition
that
was
brought
to
the
attention
of
office
Neighborhood
Services.
We
understand
they
would
support
a
deferral
to
give
us
an
opportunity
of
further
outreach
on
this.
We
think
that
would
be
helpful
since,
in
the
past
we've
been
successful
in
having
conversations
with
a
butters
and
neighborhood
people.
So
we're
asking
for
a
brief
deferral
on
us.
A
B
Gonna
gonna
go
back
to
a
couple
of
cases.
I
called
earlier
with
Sprague
Street
Sprague
Spezia
come
on
up
move
it
forward.
Okay,
I'm
gonna
call
them
into
the
record,
calling
boa
one
zero
one.
Eight
three,
four:
seven.
Thirty
six
to
forty
Sprague
Street
companion
case
boa
one
zero
one,
eight
three:
five:
zero
38
to
40
Sprague
Street.
This
is
36
to
40
Sprague.
This
is
erect
a
new
five-story
101
unit
apartment
building
with
parking.
On
the
first
floor,
an
existing
vacant
warehouse
will
be
removed.
B
The
violations
article
69
section
14
of
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article
69,
section
14
accessory
parking
is
forbidding
article
69
section
15,
a
forty.
A
ratio
is
excess
of
article
69,
section
15,
the
building
height
of
success
of
article
69,
section
29
Osprey
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
69,
section
29
off
street
loading
is
insufficient.
Article
69
section
30
conformity
when
an
existing
building
alignment,
article
69,
section
32
or
more
dwellings
on
the
same
lot.
B
BJ
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
John
Paul,
Janey,
10,
Forbes,
Road
and
grand
jury
with
me
is
Steve
shelter,
who's.
The
team
architect,
together
with
Sanjeet
Sato
Lee,
who
is
representing
the
developer
in
this
project,
36
to
40
Sprague,
is
on
high
pockets
in
High
Park.
It's
on
the
denim
line
of
High
Park
and
it's
directly
adjacent
to
the
rail
commuter
rail.
BJ
The
project
is
located
on
Sprague
Street
in
High
Park,
which
is
on
the
Dedham
border,
and
it's
directly
adjacent
to
the
readville
commuter
rail
station.
The
zoning
in
this
neighborhood
li1
and
Li
236
Brackett
Reed,
is
located
in
Li
138
Sprague,
it's
in
a
lie
to
violations
use
multi-families,
forbidden
Li,
a
local
industrial
district
use
of
parking
accessory
is
forbidden,
fa
r.
A
BJ
Our
street
loading
is
insufficient.
Our
street
parking
in
High
Park.
As
you
all
know,
it's
two
parking
spaces
per
unit,
we're
a
little
over
one
or
unit,
and
then
we
have
continuity
with
the
existing
alignment,
which
was
moved
throughout
the
community
process
in
two
more
dwellings.
In
the
same
lot,
this
proposal
is
to
demolish
two
and
three
industrial
buildings
and
construct
two
buildings
connected
by
a
shared
podium
in
residents,
community
space,
the
gross
square
footage
of
this
new
development
in
its
three
hundred
and
eighty
six
thousand
one
hundred
and
eighty
five
square
feet.
BJ
A
A
BJ
Studios
range
in
size,
from
480
to
660
square
feet,
one
bedrooms
range
from
six:
twenty,
two
twelve
forty
square
feet,
two
bedrooms
range
from
850
to
nineteen
thirty
square
feet
and
the
three
bedrooms
range
between
twelve
forty
and
fourteen
hundred
and
seventy
square
feet.
This
is
obviously
it
was
an
article
IDI
process.
A
large
project
review
went
to
a
very
robust
process.
Part
of
that
is,
there
will
be
32,
affordable
units
offered
at
70%.
Ami
I
could
give
you
those
current
prices.
If
you
would
like
those
stated.
BR
BJ
This
one
of
the
violations
was
height,
we're
at
77
feet.
Five
storeys
only
three
storeys
have
visible
from
the
street
because
the
podium
sits
down
below
of
you're
familiar
with
the
area.
This
project.
This
process
has
been
going
on
for
about
four
and
a
half
years.
If
this
project
started
out
at
500,
I.
S
A
BJ
A
BJ
BJ
BJ
BJ
It's
do
the
cleaning
process;
they
wanted
that
this
is
something
that
they
felt
was
they
didn't
want
it
just
just
a
residential
building.
They
felt
if
you
built
a
residential.
As
you
all
know,
High
Park
hasn't
had
any
developments
significant
of
this
size.
They
wanted
something
that
would
be
a
higher-end
type,
development
and
so
with.
That
was
the
amenities
that
was
attracted
to
the
the
butters.
A
BW
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Brian
Flynn
with
the
mayor's
office
in
Neighborhood
Services,
representing
hi
PAC,
we
do
want
to
go
on
record
in
full
support
of
this
proposal.
There
was
a
lengthy
community
process
involved
this
that
was
initiated
by
my
predecessor
Dave
multi
years
ago.
Since
then,
there's
been
multiple
community
meetings
and
our
office
wishes
to
offer
a
full
support.
Thank
you.
BC
BX
A
A
BX
BY
A
BY
D
B
Back
to
the
other
two
cases
that
I
called
earlier
is
Trenton
Street.
Here:
okay,
calling
boa
one:
zero,
zero,
three
five,
nine
four
one
38
Trenton
street,
there's
a
companion
case;
VOA
one
zero,
two,
eight
zero
one,
four
one:
thirty
eight
Trenton
Street.
This
is
the
138
construction
of
a
new
roof.
Deck
violation
is
article
53,
six,
nine,
insufficient,
Riyadh
setback.
Fifty
three
section:
52,
roof
structure,
restrictions,
access.
B
BZ
A
BZ
A
A
A
BZ
A
BZ
Roof
deck
can
be
built
by
right.
What
we're
actually
looking
for
is
the
app
we're
here
to
talk
about
the
access.
The
current
rear
decks
are
existing
decks
accessed
by
an
existing
spiral,
staircase
we're
seeking
to
add
and
one
additional
flight
to
that
spiral.
Staircase
we're
actually
not
gonna
stack
the
spouse
staircase.
On
top
of
the
existing
unit,
we're
gonna
set
on
the
third
floor
deck
the
roof
deck
will
be
exclusive
to
the
third
floor.
A
D
BZ
D
BV
Afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
Berlin
and
Ramallah
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
I
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
support
during
the
community
process.
This
proposal
received
a
strong
support
from
the
herb
butter
and
there
were
no
concerns
from
Eagle
Hill
silica
sociation.
Thank
you.
AJ
W
E
BZ
A
BZ
A
D
D
A
A
D
S
B
A
Don't
we
dispose
of
those
hold
on
one
minute
in
the
meantime?
Well,
while
mr.
fortune
is
going
through
the
list
of
the
recommendations
and
hearings,
the
property
owner
on
River
Street,
can
you
please
come
to
the
table
and
the
butters
who
are
bringing
in
the
request
for
the
interpretation
also
come
to
the
table
and
I
need
a
representative
from
ISD?
Also
at
the
table,
in
the
meantime,
is
the
fortune
to
go
ahead.
Thank.
B
You,
madam
chair,
so
this
this
is
the
zoning
advisory
subcommittee,
which
met
on
Thursday
January
23rd
down
at
10:10
mass
M
5th
floor.
These
are
the
recommendations
and
I'm
going
to
call
them
into
order.
This
case
boa
one
zero,
two,
five,
six,
six
one.
Seventy
one
Lexington
Street
was
renovations
of
an
existing
basement.
It
was
approved
with
no
building
code
relief
case,
boa
one
zero
one.
Four,
four
six
one,
ten
Austin
Street
was
to
build
a
roof
deck
one
existing
rubber
roof.
B
It
was
approved
case
bo
bo,
a
nine
nine,
eight,
two,
two
four
three
five
to
seven
thornton
the
street.
What's
a
confirm
option
is
a
two-family
third
floor
addition:
it
was
approved
case
bo,
a
one,
zero
two
four
five,
three
932
jamaica
Street
was
rebuilding
a
enclosed
new
porch
in
existing
ports
location.
The
six
by
eighteen
was
approved
case.
B
Boa
one
zero,
two
one,
three,
two,
two
twenty
one,
Virginia
Street,
was
deferred
to
the
subcommittee
on
February
13th
he's
boa
one:
zero,
zero,
four,
zero,
five,
five,
twenty
two
twenty
two
Spaulding
Street
was
a
excuse
me
extend
living
area
to
the
Attic,
instructing
knew
left
and
right
doorman.
It
was
approved
case
boa
one:
zero,
zero,
nine
to
zero
676
Wheatland
Avenue
was
extend
living
space
into
the
basement.
Family
room
was
a
pro
case,
boa
one
zero
one.
Four,
three,
six
nine
ten
Hill
Street
was
denial
without
prejudice.
B
It
was
a
no-show
case,
boa
one
zero,
two
three
two,
two
four
one:
seventy
Sharon
Street
was
constructing
new
two-story.
Sixteen
by
thirty
addition,
it
was
approved
case
bo
a
companion
case,
boa
one:
zero,
zero.
Three:
three
five:
three
forty
eight
st.
John
Street
companion,
cage
boa
one:
zero,
zero.
Three
three
five
five,
forty
eight
st.
John
Street,
was
to
extend
living
space
to
the
basement
and
a
curved
cut
for
two
parking
vehicles.
It
was
approved
case
boa
one
zero,
one,
seven,
two,
five,
eight
one,
sixty
six
Bellevue
Street
was
the
house.
B
Renovation
exists
instruction
at
demolition,
demolition
and
new
living
air
was
approved
with
BPD
a
review
case,
boa
one:
zero,
zero,
seven.
Seventy
two,
seventy
to
ninety
five
Bellevue
Street
was
they
thought,
was
a
constructing
new
two-story
side.
Addition
garage
below
rare
addition
was
approved
at
BPD
a
case
boa
one:
zero,
zero,
seven,
four,
three
four
forty
Church
Street
was
a
living
extend
living
space
into
the
basement,
remodel
existing.
B
Hbo
a
1
0
1
291
to
46
Bellamy
Street
was
hurt
today
today,
0
2,
6
6
5,
9
53
Coolidge
roads.
This
was
the
renovation
of
two-family
dwelling
expand
living
spaces.
The
basement
was
approved
with
VP
da
Boa
1
0
1
3
4
7
5
24
Winship
Street
was
confirm.
Arches
a
single
family
drawing
construct
a
new
addition.
It
was
deferred
to
213
on
the
subcommittee
in
case
boa
1
0
0
9
85
for
135
School
Street.
It
was
proposed
to
convert
an
existing
one
family.
B
A
C
A
Opposed
motion
carries
okay,
so
I
just
need
everybody
to
identify
themselves,
there's
a
whole
lot
of
Picasa
characters
at
the
table.
Thank
you.
So
first
I
need
to
see
who's
representing
ISD.
Can
you
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
Y
B
CA
A
A
So
can
I
talk
to
the
abutters,
now
tell
us
on
technical
tones
as
far
as
the
zoning
school
son,
because
mr.
Moran
si
put
on
the
record
the
square
footage,
the
zoning
district,
the
FA
are,
and
the
nd
the
four-story
11
unit
use.
Can
you
please
tell
us
some
technical
terms?
Why
why
this
is
in
violation
of
the
zoning?
It
should
not
have
been
a
no-judgment
I'm.
Just
asking
for
facts,
understood.
CC
CC
A
CC
A
S
CC
A
CC
A
A
CC
It's
about
a
four
and
a
half
foot
strip
of
land
that
runs
from
number
five
Taylor
terrorists
to
number
nine
Taylor,
Terrace
yep,
the
red
roof.
The
red
roof
is
number
nine
Taylor
Terrace
in
the
white
roof.
Next
to
it
is
number
five
Taylor
Terrace.
You
can
also
see
that,
given
the
zero
lot
line,
that
they
are
literally
building
to
the
abutters
fence
line.
A
A
A
A
A
CC
Also
believe
that
there's
an
over
burdening
of
an
easement
there's
a
1946
easement
in
place
that,
of
course,
given
the
times,
would
probably
be
looking
at
a
couple
of
cars
in
recent
memory.
That
easement
has
been
used
to
garage
three
to
four
vehicles
and
the
developers
are
now
proposing
31
vehicles.
That
also
goes
off
a
blind
curve
off
of
River
Street,
where
there's
been
no
traffic
study
or
impact
study
on
how
that
will
affect
the
neighborhood
nor
the
safety
of
the
people
in
the
neighborhood.
A
A
A
CC
The
the
zoning
code
speaks
specifically
to
having
the
community
involved
in,
what's
going
to
happen
in
their
neighborhood
and
specifically,
what
should
be
the
neighborhood
parcels
should
be
used
for
it
includes
affordable
housing,
housing
for
the
elderly
green
space,
and
it
also
talks
about
a
quality
of
life.
It
also
talks
about
preserving
the
environment,
as
you
know
that
strip
of
those
two
parcels
are
feet
from
the
deposit
river.
We
believe
that
these
two
parcels
specifically
54,
which
we're
talking
today,
are
in
complete
violation
to
article
65
point
one.
CC
We
also
believe
that
the
developer
is
crossing
property
lines
with
their
footing,
they're
using
a
t,
footing,
type
of
building
material,
and
so,
as
they
go
into
the
earth,
they're
actually
crossing
over
the
property
lines,
they
also
haven't
include
any
shoring
in
their
building.
So
each
day
there
is
settling
from
the
abutting
properties
and
it's
weakening
the
two
abutting
direct
abutting
properties.
CA
CA
CA
With
respect
to
the
piece
of
land
that
the
butters
have
referenced
there,
it's
our
understanding
that
there
is
an
adverse
possession
claim
that
is
occurring
in
land
court
concurrently.
However,
we
have
reviewed
it
and
that,
even
if
they
are
successful
with
the
adverse
possession
claim
that
it
has
no
bearing
on
this
building
permit,
because
there
is
a
zero
setback
for
side
yard,.
CA
So
I
submitted
a
copy
of
the
approved
plans
to
the
board
on
a
site
plan.
It
shows
that
at
the
elevation
and
it's
dotted
so
you
may
not
see
it
clearly,
but
there's
two
points
that
are
the
closest
points
to
the
rear
yard,
rear
yard
lot
line,
and
it's
at
twenty
point.
Eight
feet
is
the
closest
distance,
with
the
second
one
being
at
26
feet.
A
CA
CD
Share
hiden
Ashera
Burrell,
with
five
Taylor
Terrace
there's
about
a
4-foot
piece
of
land.
That's
disputed
right
now
in
land,
court
and
butters
are
fighting
for
adverse
possession
to
a
chain-link
fence
that
has
been
there
for
over
25
years.
So
what
the
footing
is
under
the
chain-link
fence,
but
to
the
their
argument
is
not
such
in
the
survey
line,
and
so
we
are
currently
disputing
that.
A
CB
Not
really
manicure
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
clearly
enunciated
zoning
violation.
Here,
that's
supported
by
fact,
with
respect
to
section
1
of
article
65,
that's
preamble
language.
It
really
goes
more
to
the
process
for
engaging
the
community
in
drafting
article
65
with
respect
to
the
land
court
dispute.
It's
not
a
zoning
matter.
There
is
an
ongoing
case
in
the
land
court,
I
think
the
latest
hearing
date,
and
that
matter
was
yesterday,
I'm,
not
hearing
it
that
this
stands
on
its
own.
A
CC
CB
Mount
red
is
on
the
issue
of
overburdening
of
an
easement
there's,
no
standing
among
the
the
petitioners
in
this
matter.
This
is
an
easement
that
is
shared
with
another
property
owner
who
is
not
a
member
of
the
petitioner
class
here
issue
of
overburdening
of
an
easement
as
alleged
is
a
private
legal
matter
between
property
owners
has
nothing
to
do
it's
owning
or
this
board.
So.
A
CB
CC
It's
not
true,
madam
chair,
and
that's
why
it's
incredibly
important
to
hear
the
full
story
and
why
52
and
54
inextricably
linked
52
has
no
easement.
52
is
a
landlocked
parcel
with
no
easement,
no
egress
and
no
frontage.
The
reason
this
is
very
important
is
because
it
pushes
54
mr.
Aherne
and
mr.
Langdon
to
have
to
buy
54,
because
54
has
an
easement
with
number
50.
Mr.
Paul
Clarke
who's
here
with
us,
and
what
you
also
need
to
know
is
52
has
no
way
to
get
utilities
on
to
its
property
without
their
developer.
A
CA
Thank
you.
There
are
two
recordings
of
an
easement
as
well
as
an
explanation
for
mr.
Langdon
when
we
issued
52
River
Street
with
respect
to
the
easement,
granting
a
20-foot
access
right
of
way
into
the
back
lot.
It's
based
on
that
access
that
we
deemed
the
property
to
be
as
right
with
respect
to
the
frontage.
There
is
no
requirement
for
a
lot
minimum
lot:
width
or
minimum
lot
frontage
and
a
none
s
to
be
as
I
say
that
the
easements
are
recorded
and
they
are
noted
in
the
site
plan.
BQ
BQ
Half
of
that
driveway
is
my
land,
but
Samford
over
from
the
center
of
the
driveway
over
is
the
easement
and
seven
feet
over
from
the
center
of
that
driver
over
to
their
property
that
belongs
to
50
to
54
is
the
arrangement
and
they
are
planning
an
open
up
that
easement
to
32,
to
make
it
commercial.
That
I
was
told
that
last
week,
from
20
to
32
to
open
up
that
easement
and
I
was
not
notify
about
whose
share
in
that
easement.
A
CA
According
to
the
site
plans
that
were
submitted
Tuesday
for
both
permits,
it
shows
the
access
going
over
the
easement
and
that
the
easements
are
legal
from
ISD
zoning
perspective.
All
we're
looking
for
is
access
into
the
property
and
overburdening
an
easement
is
not
a
zoning
issue
that
is,
as
attorney
Morenci
indicated
as
a
legal
issue.
That's
in
dispute
between
the
two
landowners
and
I
believe
that
is
actually
in
court
right
now
and
okay.
A
CA
CE
Gary
tone
were
217
temple,
I'm
gonna
butter
on
the
other
side
of
River
Street
and
I
just
wanted
to
comment
a
little
bit
on
some
of
the
the
easement
verses
the
frontage.
This
was
one
large
parcel
t-shaped
at
one
point
1946
there
was
a
part
of
the
parcel
was
split
off
which
is
50
to
our
River
Street.
It
was
given
a
private,
narrow
easement
from
that
parcel
to
River
Street.
The
52
hour
does
not
have
frontage.
CE
It
has
a
private
easement,
but
there's
a
difference
between
an
easement
and
frontage
and
I
think
that
I
think
it's
being
represented
that
in
a
way
that
it's
a
losery,
frontage
and
I,
think
that
that's
something
that
we
raised
back
when
we
got
the
abutters
notices
from
Rosa
Herrera
road
Andheri
from
B
PDA,
and
we
commented
on
these
issues
back
then
in
March
and
that
was
March,
19th,
plus
or
minus.
We
raised
these
issues.
CE
We
did
not
hear
anything
back
from
B
PTA
on
this,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
point
at
that
point
has
been
out
there
for
a
long
time,
and
it
was
part
of
this
part
of
this
question.
The
other
thing
I'd
like
to
just
mention
on
54
is
the
building
code
requires
that
if
there's
an
excavation
between
zero
and
five
feet
to
be
shoring,
what's
happening
is
the
spread
footing,
which
is
symmetrical
the
outboard
side
of
that
footing.
CE
Even
if
the
wall
is
zero,
lot
line
the
outboard
side
of
that
footing,
16
inches
or
so
is
underneath
the
neighbor's
property.
So
I
think
that
needs
to
be
understood
relative
to
where
we
are
on
this
and
then
the
third
point
I'd
like
to
make
is
we've
done
a
lot
of
research
in
terms
of
the
plans
and
going
back
to
the
original
survey
plans
took
it
all
the
way
back
to
the
1889
easement,
the
map
that
was
done
by
Dorchester
athenais
and
the
parcels
on
tarantella
tariffs
have
not
changed
at
all.
A
S
A
River
Street
I
want
to
contain
it,
because
what
I'm
hearing
here
is
a
combination
of
issues
with
52,
54,
50
and
everything
else
in
between
so
I
want
to
make
it
very
clear.
We
are
limiting
it
to
only
54
River
Street
to
this
analysis,
so
that
should
not
be
difficult
for
the
for
the
for
law.
Department
to
look
this
over
and
come
up
with
some
information
for
us.
Okay,
so
may
I
have
a
motion
to
that.
I'm.