►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 4-10-18
Description
Zoning regulates the use and dimensional boundaries of privately owned buildings and land. The Zoning code is in place to protect the neighborhoods from the construction of buildings or structures that do not fit into the context of a neighborhood. The Zoning Board of Appeal hears appeals for varying the application of the Zoning Code and determines when it is appropriate to grant deviations from code restrictions.
A
Let's
just
check
what
the
date
is
for
April
10
2018.
Just
a
reminder:
please
make
sure
all
your
cell
phones
are
off
and
if
you
feel
that
you
need
to
have
a
conversation,
please
take
it
outside
of
the
room,
in
conformance
with
the
Open
Meeting
Law.
This
is
to
inform
you
that
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed.
I
see
that
there
are
a
number
of
new
faces
here,
so
we
are
here
to
get
information
new
information
from
people
who
are
here
to
speak
either
in
support
or
in
opposition.
A
B
C
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
go
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
Toscano,
a
one-year
extension.
My
client
was
approved
two
years
ago
for
six
units
of
a
store
and
restaurant
he's
been
working
to
get
bank
financing.
He
does
have
that
lined
up
now,
so
that
the
construction
should
be
starting
shortly.
Okay,.
A
A
B
Next
case,
4G
Cod
calling
VOA
eight
zero,
two
zero,
eight
eight
sixteen
to
twenty
two
Haviland
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
oxy
of
fifty
two
apartments
and
accessory
services,
a
management
office,
community
room
and
fitness
center
common
area
and
accessibility
renovations
at
the
Burbank
apartments
built
and
work
will
include
the
demolition
of
a
below
street
level
format.
B
Fenway
Health
tenants
base
laundry
room
and
apartment
maintenance
office
shop,
new
construction
of
a
lower
level,
space
of
new
management
office,
tenant
community,
where
own
fitness
on
a
bike,
storage
and
laundry
room,
the
new
building
entrance
and
awning
an
interior
handicap
ramp,
new
elevator,
shaft
and
mechanicals.
The
violation
is
article
32,
section,
four
G
Cod
applicability
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
D
D
E
A
B
B
F
Nix
Azula
McDermott
quilty
and
Miller
28
State
Street
Suite
8
0
2
in
Boston,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
we're
still
working
with
the
community
on
this.
This
would
be
the
first
deferral
we're
still
in
discussions
with
various
groups
in
the
community
and
would
like
some
more
time
to
talk
with
them
about
the
proposal.
A
A
A
B
G
A
G
G
A
H
B
There
any
other
deferrals
of
with
Toronto's
for
11:30,
no
other
deferrals
the
withdrawals
for
11:30
I'm.
Sorry,
9:30,
no
11:30
get
ahead
of
getting
ahead
of
myself
here
all
right,
so
we're
gonna
call
the
first
case
calling
VOA,
seven,
nine,
four,
seven,
nine
one
1225
bennington
Street.
This
is
the
demolish
the
existing
structure
in
erect
a
four-story
building
with
six
residential
units
and
two
parking
spaces,
53,
section
nine
and
sufficient
additional
Lodi
area
per
unit.
Article
53,
section,
nine,
excessive
fa,
a--
article
53
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded.
B
They
go
53
section,
nine
maximal,
allowed
height
is
exceeded
article
53,
section,
nine,
insufficient
front
yard,
lot
line,
step
back
article
53,
section,
nine,
insufficient
side
by
side
yard
lot
line,
step
back
article
53,
section,
nine,
insufficient,
Riyadh,
lot
line,
step
back
article
53,
section,
54,
screening
and
buffering
not
as
proposed
article
53
section
56
in
sufficient
parking
article
53
section
8,
the
MFI
are
submitting
within
a
two-family
stub
district
name.
An
address
for
the
record.
Please.
C
Shir
members
of
the
board,
Geoff
Drago,
with
Drago
and
Toscano,
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
attorney
for
the
applicant
Joe
Ruggiero
and
I
also
have
James
Christopher
from
RCA
as
the
architects
on
the
project.
As
mentioned,
we're
seeking
zoning
relief
for
a
project
at
12:25,
ending
two
Street
to
take
down
an
existing,
an
outdated
single-family
and
erect
a
four-story
residential
building
with
six
condominium
units
and
two
parking
spaces
on-site
in
the
rear.
This
particular
lot
size
is
5032
square
feet.
C
The
lot
is
deep:
it's
a
hundred
feet
deep,
fifty
feet
wide
and
we
will
still
remain
a
25
foot.
Nine
inch
setback.
One
note
to
point
out:
we
are
directly
across
from
Suffolk
Downs
train
station,
so
there
is
commuter
access
by
T,
also
along
this
area.
There's
a
Belle
Isle,
Marsh
Sanctuary,
so
there's
no
building
or
housing
on
that
side.
So
there's
plenty
of
on-street
parking
in
that
area
just
to
go
over
the
unit
layouts
unit.
One
is
a
2-bed
2bath
980
square
feet.
C
Unit
two
is
977
square
foot,
two-bed
two-bath
unit
three
and
four,
roughly
a
thousand
ten
square
feet,
two
bed,
two
bath,
all
with
rear
decks
and
then
the
third
and
fourth
floor
are
going
to
be
the
owners
units.
There's
two
two
of
them:
local
family,
they're,
gonna,
live
in
the
building
themselves.
Those
would
be
three
bed
with
two
and
a
half
bath
with
top
floor.
Private
roof
decks
exclusive
roof
decks.
C
We
did
get
the
full
support
of
the
Orient
Heights
Civic
Association,
as
well
as
support
of
a
butters
meeting
just
to
go
over
a
few
of
the
violations
we
do
trigger
F.
They
are
point
six
is
allow
or
at
one
point
seven
to
a
one
point.
Seventy
two
is
what
we're
at
height
and
stories
is
two
and
a
half
at
thirty-five
or
at
four
stories
and
thirty
nine
feet:
side
yards
ten
or
at
three
foot
six
and
ten
on
the
right
front,
yards
fifteen
or
at
five
I
just
want
to
point
out.
C
We
will
now
be
matching
the
houses
in
that
block.
If
you
look
at
where
that
house
is
set
now
correct,
exactly
in
our
rear
yard
allowable
is
forty
or
a
twenty
five
feet,
nine
inches
parking
required
would
be
nine
we
have
to,
but
we
are
directly
across
from
the
T
station.
As
was
mentioned,
I
can
pause
an
out
for
any
questions
from
the
board.
A
C
C
Yep
the
first
floor
is
nine
hundred
and
eighty
square
feet
at
nine.
Seventy
seven
that
units
one
and
two
three
and
four
roughly
a
thousand
twelve
square
feet
and
then
the
top
floor
units.
The
third
floor
of
them,
was
a
roughly
a
thousand
sixty
six
and
then
another
five
hundred
square
feet
on
the
top
floor.
That
would
add
to
that
it's
all
1600
square
feet.
J
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
were
kisses
Garcia
with
the
mayor's
office
on
tobacco
services.
We
would
like
to
be
in
support
speaking
supporter
to
its
project
during
the
barrios
million.
There
were
no
major
concerns
about
the
proposal
and
also
the
association
or
naxaiites,
both
in
a
support
for
this
project.
Thank
you.
K
B
This
is
the
changelog
C
from
a
three
family
dwelling
to
a
four
family
dwelling
erect
a
fourth
storey
addition
and
rare
addition
with
new
egress
Diaz
index,
also
to
renovate
the
building
and
extend
living
space
into
the
basement
violations.
Article
53
section
56
off
street
parking
and
loading
requirement
in
sufficient
parking
article
53
section
8.
B
53
section
I,
the
maximum
allowed
height
has
been
exceeded,
article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
side.
You
had
setback
article
53,
section,
54,
screening
and
buffering.
None
is
proposed
article
53,
section,
22,
roof
structure
restrictions,
a
reconfiguration
of
the
existing
roof
and
profile
name.
An
address
for
the
record.
Please.
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jeff
Drago,
with
Drago
and
Toscano,
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
attorney
for
the
applicant
to
share
with
me.
Julius
Sokol
and
I
have
TRAI
from
joy
street
design
as
the
architects
on
the
project.
As
mentioned,
we
are
here
seeking
zoning
relief
to
change
the
occupancy
from
a
three
family
residential
which
is
existing
to
four
family
with
an
additional
unit
on
top
I
would
also
include
a
complete
gut
renovation
of
the
project,
bringing
that
fully
up
to
sprinkler
and
code.
C
It
also
includes
an
addition
in
the
rear
of
the
property,
as
well
just
point
of
reference.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
some
of
the
pictures
this
particular
building
has
been
on
the
city's
problem
property
task
force.
For
years
it's
been
uninhabitable,
there's
actually
a
hole
in
the
back.
The
elements
have
gotten
to
the
building.
It's
completely
compromised.
My
client
is
intending
to
create
four
condominium
units
and
a
really
extensive
renovation.
As
part
of
that,
we
have
worked
over
a
period
of
three
abutters
meetings
with
the
director.
C
Butters
and
I
want
to
point
out
that
our
may
hear
some
opposition,
but
we
do
have
the
support
of
both
of
our
butters
on
either
the
left
and
the
right
hand
side
the
units
that
we're
creating
unit
one
is
a
1130
square
foot,
2
bed,
2
bath
unit
unit,
2,
770
square
feet,
unit,
3
715
square
feet
and
then
the
proposed
new
unit
at
615
square
feet,
and
that
would
be
a
1-bed
1-bath.
The
current
units
in
that
building
are
really
not
manageable.
They're
at
four
hundred
and
forty
square
feet.
C
Four
hundred
and
thirty
square
feet.
We
have
a
large
setback
in
the
rear,
and
even
with
that
addition,
we
still
have
51
and
a
half
square
foot
setback
just
to
go
over
some
of
the
project
modifications
on
this.
So
when
we
started,
we
originally
looking
to
have
a
seven
unit
building
building
back
in
the
rare
all
the
way
out,
30
feet,
we've
cut
back
the
size
of
the
addition
from
30
to
20.
C
We
now
have
a
rare
setback
of
51
for
we
directly
aligned
which,
whereas
the
abutters
to
align
with
the
other
buildings
on
that
block,
there's
actually
I
have
a
slide.
One
of
the
drawings
in
the
back
show
that
we're
actually
shorter
or
equal
to
the
size
of
the
buildings.
In
the
rare
with
the
rare
setbacks,
each
unit
has
also
been
reduced
between
55
and
70
square
feet
from
when
we
started
and
unit
for
the
top
floor
unit
has
a
5
foot
pullback
in
the
front
and
a
13
foot
rear
pullback
in
the
back.
L
C
For
us--,
it's
a
three
F
district,
we're
seeking
four
units.
So
that's
a
violation.
Watt
area
for
additional
units
is
a
thousand
were
at
500,
f,
AR
is
1.0
or
at
one
point,
six
height
is
three-story
35
feet,
ret
four
and
forty
two
and
our
parking,
although
we
do
not
provide
any.
There
are
two
municipal
parking
lots
right
on
that
block,
which
is
unique
to
find.
C
A
B
C
C
J
J
It's
some
the
concerns
from
the
bodies.
They
express
to
be
worried
about
the
high
of
the
building,
also
about
the
traffic
in.
However,
it
the
conditions
of
the
current
condition
of
the
building.
It
will
believe
that
they
rehab
on
this
building
is
a
it's
a
good
thing,
so
we
would
like
to
speak
in
support
for
this
project.
Thank
you
so
so.
K
Good
morning
again,
madam
chair
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
little
context
as
well
as
that.
Not
only
am
I
speaking
today
as
a
city
councilor,
but
as
a
director
butter
to
this
project,
and
just
there
were
three
abutters
meetings
and
as
a
result
of
those
meetings
and
I
can
submit
to
the
record,
there
are
17
people
who
opposed
this
height.
They
opposed
the
going
up
to
the
fourth
unit,
especially
in
a
three
in
an
area.
K
K
Since
this
is
a
gut
job
anyway,
you
were
gonna
have
to
find
a
sprinkling
system
and
all
those
other
things
as
well.
We
again
I
have
the
letters
and
I
don't
know.
I
heard
my
counselor,
my
the
council
speak
that
there
was
two
letters
of
support
on
either
side.
I
have
a
science
igner
from
one
side,
one
eight,
nine
London
Street
in
opposition
to
this
so
I
I
was
at
the
abutters
meetings.
K
I've
heard
directly
from
the
abutters
I
have
not
heard
anyone
support
this
project
and
we
have
all
stand
together
quite
firmly
against
it
and
a
result
of
this
project
and
another
project
also
trying
to
raise
the
height.
We
ended
up
forming
a
new
neighborhood
association.
We
are
so
in
opposition
to
this.
So
I
really
hope
that
you
consider
the
concerns
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
the
actual
standards,
for
the
variance
is
not
about
the
profits
to
be
made.
K
A
A
B
Following
the
next
case,
calling
VOA
eight
zero,
six,
six,
zero,
six
106
to
108
maverick
Street,
maverick
Street
here,
okay,
this
is
the
change
largely
from
four
apartments
above
in
offices
to
four
apartments
above
an
office
and
retail.
On
the
first
floor.
This
is
that
petition
wall.
On
the
first
floor,
the
violation
is
article
9,
section
2,
the
change
in
a
mixed-use
building
in
the
3f
sub-district
article
53,
section
56
Austrey
parking
loading,
none
as
proposed
for
this
new
use,
an
article
53
section
8,
the
retail
is
forbidden
in
a
3
F
sub
district
name.
A
N
It's
an
existing
building
that
my
client
just
did
a
full
renovation
of,
and
there
was
there's
four
apartments
above
and
the
first
floor
was
one
space
that
was
used
for
all
offices
previously,
and
we
just
want
to
just
basically
subdivide
the
space
in
half
so
that
it
can
be
part
offices
in
part
retail,
so
that
because
he
was
trying
to
find
a
tenant
for
the
first
floor
space.
And
it
was
tough
to
find
offices
for
that
and
they
had
some
retail
interest.
N
A
N
A
A
J
O
P
A
B
You
Boeing
boah
0
278
236,
Monmouth
Street.
This
is
a
change
like
from
a
two-family
dwelling
to
a
three
family
dwelling,
no
work
to
be
done.
The
violations,
article
53
section
8,
a
3
family-
is
there's
a
forbidden
use.
Article
53
section
I
in
excess
of
FA
are
article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
usable
open
space
for
dwelling
units
in
article
53,
section,
56,
loss
tree
parking
and
loading
requirements,
insufficient
parking
for
the
proposed
additional
unit
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
thank.
C
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Geoff
Drago
with
Drago
in
Toscana,
with
an
address
of
15,
Broad
Street
with
me,
the
applicant
Josh
Federman
from
City
Realty,
and
we're
seeking
to
change
the
occupancy
from
an
existing
to
family
dwelling
to
a
3
family
dwelling.
The
unit
in
question
is
already
existing.
The
LA
SIA
building
has
been
assessed
and
taxed
both
as
a
three
family
since
1985,
as
mentioned,
all
three
floors
are
existing
unit.
One
is
a
two-bedroom
one-bath
at
a
thousand
59
square
feet
unit
2.
C
The
second
floor
unit
is
a
two-bed
one-bath,
a
thousand
square
feet
and
unit
3
is
958
square
feet.
2
bed
2
bath
we
did
like
I'd
mentioned.
Everything
is
existing,
so
there's
gonna
be
some
minor
renovations.
It's
already
occupied
with
tenants
in
the
building.
This
was
approved
by
the
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association,
as
well
as
a
positive
abutters
meeting
as
well.
A
H
A
M
C
Mean
it's
been
taxed,
assessed
and
used
since
the
80s
they've
recently
bought
it
in
the
last
year
and
a
half.
So
it's
it's
been
that
way
as
well,
so
everything's,
rented
and
there's
tenants
in
the
building
so
on
everyone
at
the
abutters,
meaning
identified
it
as
a
three
and
we're
surprised
to
see
that.
Q
C
J
H
A
B
Voa:
seven:
seven
five,
five,
four:
five:
five
twelve
to
five
fourteen
Saratoga
Street:
this
is
a
change
of
our
tea
from
a
beauty
salon
to
to
family
dwelling
with
one
retail
is
to
legalize
the
existing
condition
to
no
work
to
be
done.
The
violations,
article
53
section,
56
Austria
our
feet.
Parking
requirements
is
insufficient.
Article
53,
section
11
to
family
residential
uses
of
forbidden
use,
article
53,
section,
12,
usable
open
space
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
A
J
B
S
We've
done
an
exhaustive
community
process
with
respect
to
this,
including
of
butters
meetings
and
several
news.
Different
Geoffrey's
point:
neighbor
dissociation.
The
vote
before
the
Association
was
relatively
close.
The
ops,
Neighborhood
Services
wanted
a
bit
more
time
to
review
this
and
asked
us
to
consider
a
short
deferral
to
may
eight
that
possible.
We
are
in
somewhat
of
a
timeline
so
we'd
like
to
hopefully
get
the
shortest
deferral.
A
B
The
next
case,
boa
seven,
nine,
eight
three,
seven,
six,
five
Hill
Street.
This
is
Hill
Street,
Hill;
okay,
this
is
a
renovated
kitchen.
Install
new
interior
finishes,
construct
doors
on
the
front
and
rear
of
the
third
floor
and
constructing
new
bathroom,
a
lower
slab,
elevation
of
basement
and
finished
basement
and
all
new
mechanicals.
The
violation
is
article
62,
section,
25,
roof
structure,
restrictions,
article
62,
section,
8,
insufficient,
Riyadh
setback,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
T
A
T
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
The
I've
been
working
with
my
clients,
who
recently
purchased
a
single-family
house.
It's
the
end
row
of
a
row
of
houses
in
Charlestown,
it's
in
bad
repair,
so
we're
looking
to
renovate
the
house
as
part
of
the
work
to
create
some
more
livable
space
on
the
third
floor,
we're
proposing
a
dormer
on
the
front
and
the
back
and
that's
what's
triggering
the
zoning
roof
restriction.
The
height
of
the
ridge
is
still
only
32
feet,
which
is
below
the.
A
A
U
A
H
A
B
The
VOA
seven
eight
eight
to
thirty
nine
twenty
joint
Street.
This
is
to
build
a
head
house
in
place
of
an
existing
bubble,
hatch
to
a
gain
access
to
an
existing
roof
deck.
The
violation
is
article
64,
section,
34,
roof
structure,
restricted,
roof
structure
regulations,
and
this
is
also
to
note
this
as
a
historic
approval
is
required
as
well
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
name.
W
So
our
we
proposed
to
build
the
head
house
in
place
existing
bubble,
hatch
for
safe
access
to
exist
in
roof
deck
landmark,
Boston
landmark
Commission
came
out
exempted
us
because
they,
it
is,
you
can't
see
it
from
the
surrounding
streets
and
it's
below
subtract
butters
roof
lines
by
granting
this
prob.
This
project
would
allow
safer
access
to
existing
roof
deck
and
enhance
the
owners
quality
of
life.
It's
a
private
access
to.
So
it's
only
through
our
owners.
W
The
size
of
the
structure
is
less
than
10%
of
the
whole
roof
area.
This
will
consist
of
architectural
characteristics
of
the
immediate
neighborhood
in
on
February
22nd,
our
butters
meeting.
We
had
no
opposition's,
we
have
in
our
file,
there's
also
90
plus
neighbors
provided
signatures
support,
and
then
we
also
received
vote
of
no
opposition
from
the
offices
of
H
Street
Neighborhood
Association.
Q
W
W
Q
W
W
X
Z
A
A
B
A
next
case
calling
VOA
eight
zero
five
nine
three
four
three
spelling
plays.
There
is
also
building
code,
boa
eight
zero,
five,
nine
three
three
three
Snelling
place:
this
is
a
confirm.
Aquos
is
a
three
family
dwelling
construct
a
fourth
floor
addition
and
roof
decks
and
extend
living
space
to
the
basement
for
unit
one.
B
The
violation
is
article
54,
section,
18,
roof
structure,
restrictions
to
low
roof
deck
below
they
allowed
main
roof
article
54
section,
nine,
excessive,
FAI
3.0
is
the
max
article
54
section:
nine
insufficient,
open
space
article
54,
section,
nine
insufficient,
Rayette
setback
10
feet
is
the
minimum.
This
is
for
the
building
code,
section.
Q
B
A
AA
Absolutely
the
code
requires
that
a
head
house
goes
up
to
a
roof
deck,
which
is
what
we're
proposing,
but
that's
actually
in
conflict
with
the
north
end,
article
54,
which
requires
a
roof
hatch,
so
we'll
be
zoning
compliant
putting
in
the
group
a
and
the
house.
We
believe
it
will
minimize
the
impact
of
the
roof
deck
as
well
as
the
fourth
floor
addition.
A
AA
I
M
AA
Absolutely
the
parcel
has
been
in
the
applicants
family
for
generations
and
it's
an
existing
three-story
building.
That's
on
a
small
630
square
foot
lot.
Currently
there
is
no
residential
use
in
the
basement
unit.
There
is
one
unit
on
each
of
the
above
floors
133
and
what
the
owner
is
proposing
to
do
is
to
renovate
and
modernize
the
property
by
extending
living
space
in
unit
1
down
into
the
lower
level
to
crea.
AA
Duplex
second
floor
remain,
as
is,
and
then
also
adding
a
partial
fourth
floor
addition
which
will
be
set
back
from
the
existing
roofline,
putting
a
private
deck
in
that
setback
area
as
well
as
a
roof
deck
on
top,
so
the
end
result
will
be.
It
will
remain
as
three
units
unit,
one
being
basement
and
first
floor,
duplex,
which.
AB
AA
Be
860
square
feet.
Unit
2
will
be
the
existing
second
floor,
which
law
remain
as
460
square
feet
and
third
unit
will
be
the
third
floor
in
the
fourth
floor:
partial
addition,
which
will
be
900
square
feet
as
to
violations
first,
which
is
excessive
floor
area
ratio.
The
limit
is
3
will
be
having
3.7
for
living
space
and
4.5,
which
takes
into
account
staircases.
Another
second
wish,
which
is
open
space.
Currently
as
it
stands
now,
there's
no
open
space
with
the
roof
deck
addition.
AA
There
will
actually
be
70
square
feet,
added
on
a
small
patio
on
the
fourth
floor
and
200
square
feet
on
the
private
roof
deck
on
top.
Third
violation
is
insufficient
rear
yard.
Again,
currently
the
building
doesn't
have
any
regard
at
all
goes
up
to
the
property
line.
The
fourth
floor
addition
will
be
set
back
nine
feet
from
the
current
building
edge.
AA
The
minimum
is
10
feet,
so
will
be
set
back
to
9
feet
and
the
last
zoning
violation
is
with
respect
to
roof
structure
restriction
simply
adding
on
the
fourth
floor
restriction
whole
bars
conditional
use
permit.
Here
we
maintain
that
it
is
not
an
interference
with
any
of
the
surrounding
buildings.
The
other
buildings
are
largely
four
storeys
five-story
residential
building,
so
it's
an
apartment
building
which
I
believe
is
five
storeys
right
behind
it.
A
AC
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Maria
Lanza
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
Bond
racket
and
support
we
held
in
a
Buddist
meeting
for
this
project
on
December
11th
of
last
year.
They
also
have
the
support
of
the
north
on
waterfront
Neighborhood
Council,
as
well
as
the
north,
on
waterfront
residents
association.
Thank
you.
AE
Morning,
name
is
Kristen
Kahn,
26,
Salem
Street,
so
on
the
neighbor,
that's
directly
behind
the
building
and
we
haven't
been
notified
of
any
of
the
plans,
or
this
was
the
first
time
that
I
have
been
noticed.
So
my
living
space
Matador
living
space
is
within
five
feet
of
that
building.
So
I
have
concerns
about
what
it's
going
to
do
to
my
to
my
living
space
out
back
I
have
a
very
big
patio
that
oversees
that
and
with
the
construction
and
I've
big
concerns
about
that
building,
going
up.
AE
AE
AF
AA
AA
A
AA
There's
been
opportunities
with
the
zoning
subcommittee
of
north
and
water
residents
Association,
as
well
as
the
open
meetings
for
both
the
residents
Association
of
the
Neighborhood
Council.
So
we
have
given
notice
in
the
neighborhood.
So
that's
just
briefly
with
respect
to
that
in
terms
of
the
back
lower
door
that
she
was
speaking
of,
everything
will
be
modernized
and
brought
up
to
date.
I
believe
there
is
a
three
or
four
foot
passageway
between
the
two
buildings
back
there.
So
that's
not
going
to
change.
AA
M
B
Boa
77065
for
1271
to
1275
Boylston
Street.
This
is
a
continual,
long-standing
use
of
premises
for
paid
public
parking
for
approximately
80
vehicles
and
ciliary
parking
and
parking
accessory
to
a
restaurant
use
violations.
Article
6,
section
3a
additional
condition
and
restricted
parking
district
article
66
section
14
parking
lot
is
a
forbidden
use
in
article
66,
section,
14,
ancillary
parking
and
the
conditional
use
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
chair.
AG
Members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Brian
judge
with
the
law
firm
of
bull
Stearns
stores,
I'm
joined
by
Mike
Fitzpatrick
with
Samuels
&
Associates.
It's
an
affiliate
of
Samuels
&
Associates,
that's
the
applicant
here.
The
property
is
the
verb
Hotel
located
at
12,
71
Boylston
Street,
current
uses
of
the
property
are
obviously
a
hotel,
there's,
also
a
restaurant
there
and
then
accessory
parking
and
public
paid
parking
up
to
80
vehicles.
For
larger
events.
This
property
is
located
directly
next
to
Fenway
Park.
AG
AG
Our
appeal
had
requested
that
no
sunset
be
attached
to
the
zone:
II
relief
as
it
had
been
in
the
past,
given
the
recent
restoration
of
the
property
and
the
need
for
the
public
parking
most,
notably
because
of
its
location
directly
next
to
Fenway
Park.
Having
said
that,
after
additional
conversations
with
community
members
and
representatives,
we
had
agreed
to
do
a
to
request
a
five-year
sunset
in
lieu
of
the
of
the
two
years
that
have
been
previously
previously.
AH
AH
H
AG
AG
H
AG
T
AI
AH
Q
A
Q
H
AH
M
AH
AG
Q
I
AG
AG
A
B
A
AG
AH
So
they
will
stack
the
cards
back
there,
there's
always
to
run
cards
to
the
front
from
the
rear.
There's
always
that
aisle
on
the
side
that
remains
open.
Now,
it's
not
to
say
that
you
don't
have
a
situation
where
they're
going
to
have
to
juggle
a
few
cars
around
to
get
to
your
car.
That
always
happens
in
the
valley
type
operation.
Q
I
AJ
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
to
suggar
at
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
we
would
like
to
go
and
record
and
support.
They
have
met
with
the
community
suitable,
but
the
final
Civic
Association
way
back
in
October
and
there
have
been
no
questions
or
concerns.
They
have
been
very
good
neighbors
for
the
time
being
and
we
would
hope
to
continue
their
relationship
with
them.
Though.
Thank
you.
AK
Madam
chair
members,
the
board
Nick
Carter
with
councillors
day
comes
office.
We'd
like
to
go
on
record
echoing
the
mayor's
office.
Comments
and
I'd
also
like
to
add
that,
as
we
push
to
keep
more
people
coming
to
defend
my
Park
events
off
the
street
parking,
we
need
to
have
access
to
lots
like
these
and
provide
spaces
for
them
so
that
the
residents
of
Fenway
have
places
to
park
on
the
street.
Thank
you.
A
I
AB
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
chief
Hampton
BPD,
a
this
is
a
renewal
that
occurs
every
two
years
and
because
it's
an
established
business
with
you
know
an
established
parking
situation
with
the
hotel
in
the
restaurant.
We
believe
upstairs
at
the
BPD.
A
five
years
is
warranted
for
this.
Okay.
I
And
so
I
will
I
will
make
a
motion
for
the
five
years,
but
the
part
I
want
to
say
is
that
it's
October
right
like
when
you
come
in
next
time
and
it's
late
we're
not
doing
this.
Do
you
mean
because
every
parking
lot
comes
in
you've
been
operating
under
your
old
license
with
the
refusal
letter
right
and
it's
just
it's
not
the
way
to
run
out
of
it.
They'll
run
the
business.
Okay,
you've
run
a
good
business.
We
want
you
to
follow
the
rules.
A
Z
B
B
B
AL
Morning,
madam
chairman,
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Francis
Adams,
the
law
office
of
Adams
Amaranthe,
with
the
business
address
of
350,
West
Broadway,
South,
Boston
Mass.
It's
my
understanding,
madam
chair
and
the
board
members
that
this
matter
is
in
front
of
us.
Just
4G
card
approval
only
and
the
Boston
Water
and
Sewer
has
provided
a
compliance
letter
and
that
mr.
Simonelli
will
be
testifying
in
support
of
the
application.
E
A
A
B
AM
A
X
A
B
Boa
eight
zero
four
one:
three
nine
twelve
drydock
Avenue.
This
is
an
addition
to
an
existing
parking
garage.
In
addition,
we'll
include
five
levels
to
match
the
existing
parking
structure.
The
violation
is
article
9,
section
2
existing
garage
is
a
non-conforming
use.
Article
25,
section,
5,
flood
hazard
district,
no
support
of
documents
provided
article
8,
section,
7
booth
in
the
one
all
right
and
I
to
sub-district.
AN
We're
here
today,
we
requesting
put
a
lateral
addition
on
our
existing
parking
garage.
It's
about
625
spaces.
The
whole
purpose
of
all
this
is
a
legislative
mandate
where
we
have
to
promote
economic
development
within
the
industrial
park.
The
Raymond
Elfa
and
Marine
Park.
We've
done
that
to
this
point
now,
it's
just
much
more
beneficial
to
utilize,
the
land
for
development
purposes,
creating
jobs
for
Boston
residents
and
basically
decentralize
our
parking
into
a
central
structure.
We
are
in
the
restricted
parking
district.
AN
We
have
been
before
the
board
other
times
related
to
this
subject
matter
for
the
original
construction
and
some
additions
that
we
added
I
think
it's
in
your
packet.
You've
got
a
documentation
that
relates
to
the
Pollution
Control
Commission.
We
have
a
permitted
license
for
parking
and
the
RAM
in
Oakland
Marine
Park
for
four
thousand
sixty
six
spaces.
So
we
are
under
that
cap.
AN
We
did
a
master
plan
update
now
where
that
was
December
2017,
and
the
review
was
that,
even
with
the
addition
that
we
put
on
was
it'll,
be
approximately
3,200
spaces
within
the
grameen
elf
limit.
Could
you
please
show
that
please
everything
within
the
white
line
is
the
RAM
in
Oakland
Marine
Park
in
the
Senate
location.
They
shows
the
park
garage
and
the
proposed
addition,
so,
even
even
with
a
lateral
addition
that
we're
proposing
we'll
still
have
about
800
spaces
left
in
our
a
PCC
parking
bank.
A
AO
AO
AP
AO
That
packet
goes
through
all
the
articles
that
were
in
violation
of
it,
provides
the
air
pollution
control
letter.
It
also
provides
two
letters
of
support
and
it
also
provides
a
updated
refusal
letter
for
one
of
the
articles.
I
spoke
with
Frank
D'amato
at
the
instructional
Services
Division.
We
went
over
one
of
the
articles,
article
42,
a
section
10
D
and
basically
based
on
our
conversation.
He
found
that
that
article
be
resolved
but
because
the
refusal
letter
was
already
posted,
he
issued
an
updated
refusal
letter
which
has
been
included
as
Appendix.
A
X
A
AN
S
A
AN
Other
thing,
if
I
could
I'm
sure,
we
were
also
asked
by
BTD
to
include
space
for
them
on
the
first
floor
of
the
garage,
because
right
now,
they've
got
about
45
minutes
vehicles
that
are
outside
all
the
time.
They're
the
signage
and
the
signal
shop.
So
we're
utilizing
about
13,000
square
square
feet
for
the
BTD
maintenance
vehicles
to
make
them
more
weather
protective.
A
A
B
This
is
a
change
largely
from
a
three
family
to
a
five
family
erect
a
new
two-story
rare
addition
over
the
open
parking,
a
new
side,
roof
decks
and
new
sprinkler
fire
and
alarm
systems
by
the
violation
of
the
article
68
section
33,
ma
street
parking
design
access
drive
in
maneuverability
article
68
section.
A
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient
article
27
s,
section,
5
position,
the
South
Boston
iPod
app
will
applicability
article
68,
section,
29,
roof
structure,
restricted
district
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AQ
Patrick
Mahoney
the
business
address
of
160
Federal
Street
and
with
me
is
architect,
Tim
Johnson,
as
well
as
our
client,
Brian
murkland,
the
owner
of
the
property.
On
the
outset,
I'd
like
to
correct
a
couple
of
the
violations,
the
project
changed
substantially
through
the
neighborhood
process.
The
only
violations
that
we
are
seeking
relief
on
would
be
usable,
open
space
as
well
as
restricted.
Excuse
me
off
street
parking
design
with
the
vehicle
maneuverability
and
then
iPod
compliance.
AQ
The
proposed
project
is
staying
at
three
family.
It's
there
will
be
work
instead
of
going
into
the
rear
of
the
building
as
proposed.
Initially,
the
corrected
set
of
drawings
is
before
you,
which
is
a
basement
renovation,
to
include
living
space
on
the
by
level
unit.
On
the
first
floor,
the
first
floor
unit
is
approximately
1896.
AQ
AQ
AQ
That's
being
used
we're
confirming
that
the
full
rear
backyard
is
paved
there
was
there
was
a
tree
stump
in
the
middle
of
the
driveway
on
the
left
that
was
prohibiting
vehicle
access,
although
there
is
one
spot
back
there
or
one
car
back
there
now.
So
we
have
four
parking
spaces
that
will
be
proposed
with
this
plan,
but
for
the
existing
three
family,
the
each
unit
consists
of
two
bedrooms
and
two
bathrooms.
The
first
floor.
AQ
Unit
with
the
basement
is,
is
approximately
1896
square
feet
and
the
second
floor
unit
will
be
1123
square
feet
and
the
top
floor
is
1219
square
feet.
The
existing
building
is
not
protected
with
a
fire
protection
system
or
a
fire
alarm
system.
It's
just
a
local
system,
so
that'll
be
improved
as
well,
and
in
the
ceiling
height
in
the
basement
is
eight
feet.
Approximately
from
the
finished
floor
proposed
finished
floor
to
the
ceiling.
AQ
Actually,
the
entire
entire
rear
of
the
building
madam
chair,
just
the
siding,
is
a
different
color.
So
if,
if
you
look
at
the
cover
drawer,
you
can
see
it's
it's
a
flat.
The
three
windows
and
the
three
decks
that
are
stepped
in
a
little
bit
from
the
driveway.
That's
the
existing
building,
that's
maintaining!
AQ
A
AR
AQ
X
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
on
record
in
support
this
started
off
as
a
much
larger
building,
adding
two
units
to
the
existing
structure.
After
hearing
feedback
from
neighbors
that
was
reduced
to
proposing
an
addition
to
the
existing
three
unit
building,
there
was
still
opposition
to
that,
so
the
developer
didn't
change
it
again
to
not
expand
on
the
footprint
of
the
building
and
simply
capture
living
space
in
the
basement.
So
at
this
point
we
are
in
support.
Thank
you.
AS
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
I
am
a
nut
butter
that
lives
on
East
seventh
Street.
We
had
several
meetings
regarding
this
particular
piece
of
property.
With
the
proposals
for
expansion
from
existing
three
family
to
a
five
unit
structure,
the
opposition
was
all
the
lovely
from
the
the
abutters
and
neighbors
within
the
community,
and
I
had
a
petition
here
from
abutters
in
neighbors.
That
was
in
opposition,
and
we
had
several
meetings
as
I've
indicated,
and
apparently
mr.
AS
Johnson,
through
our
meetings,
decided
to
keep
the
structure
as
a
three
family
provide
for
parking
spots
with
the
potential
for
two
in
the
future,
which
I
think
the
neighborhood
would
be
in
support
of
to
alleviate
the
traffic
situation.
Parking
situation
on
these
seven
Street.
That
neighborhood
has
been
under
siege
for
over
a
year
now
with
noise
violations,
not
from
just
mr.
Johnson
but
from
other
developments
that
are
going
forward
there
and
I've
shared
that
with
mr.
John
Allison,
with
encroachment
by
other
developers
on
public
walkways.
Ask.
A
L
A
B
Last
case
for
9:30
calling
boa
seven,
nine
four,
three
seven,
seven,
two
on
West,
8th
Street.
This
is
directly
nude
three
family
dwelling,
which
proposed
five
off
street
parking
on
a
vacant
lot
the
violations,
article
68,
section,
27
s.
This
is
in
the
iPod
applicability
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good!.
AL
A
AL
AL
It's
a
multi-family
residential
district,
it
will
have
the
approximate
size
of
the
units
will
be
sixteen
hundred
and
seventy-five
square
feet.
They'll
all
be
to
bed
two
and
a
half
bathroom.
The
height
of
the
building
is
going
to
be
approximately
thirty
nine
point
one
feet:
there
is
no
roof
deck
and
there
are
three
small
decks
off
the
back.
Approximately
five
by
11.
AL
X
A
A
B
A
AI
Madam
chair,
we
are,
we
had
gone
through
a
couple
of
butters
meetings
at
the
last
butters
meeting.
That
was
a
very
good
meeting,
as
did
I
think
represent
us
from
the
counselor's
office
as
well
as
ons.
However,
they
receive
some
phone
calls
so
the
basket
we
do
further
up
follow-up
meeting
with
them.
Just
what
just
to
clarify
some
issues
that
have
been
raised.
AI
AI
B
A
A
If
you're
here
to
speak
and
support
our
an
opposition
of
project.
Please
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
give
us
new
information,
useless,
use
this
opportunity
to
inform
us
of
something
new.
If
somebody
else
has
already
stated
your
concern,
just
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
Thank.
B
You,
madam
chair,
while
we
were
out
there,
we
are
deferring
for
projects
so
in
a
column
in
for
the
record,
boa
seven,
seven,
seven
one:
two:
two
67
to
69
Sanford
Street,
three
companion
cases,
boa
777,
one:
two:
six
67
to
69,
Sanford,
Street,
boa
seven;
seven,
seven,
one:
three:
six:
sixty
seven,
sixty
nine
Sanford
Street
and
boa
777,
one,
two,
nine.
Seventy
one
Sanford
Street
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AV
A
A
A
B
More
time
and
he
deferrals
it
with
Charles
for
10:30
hearing,
none
we'll
call
the
first
case
calling
VOA,
seven,
nine,
nine
one.
Four
nine
thirty-seven
Iroquois
street
there
was
a
companion
case,
boa
seven,
nine,
nine
one,
five,
zero,
thirty
seven
Eric
way
street.
This
is
a
change
orchestra,
member
one
family,
two,
a
two
family:
the
building
is
currently
being
used
as
a
two
family
and
no
new
work
at
this.
The
violations-
article
59
section
37
Austria
parking-
is
insufficient.
Article
59,
section
8,
dimensional
regulations,
the
location
of
the
main
entrance.
This
is
437.
B
F
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Nix
Azula
McDermott
quality
and
Miller
28
State
Street,
Suite,
8,
0
2
in
Boston
with
me
to
my
right,
is
Adam
Saba,
who
is
the
applicant
in
property
owner
for
this
project.
We
provided
the
board
with
a
brief
handout
summarizing
and
providing
further
background
information
on
the
project.
The
proposal
is
to
convert
the
occupancy
of
this
existing
building
from
a
single-family
to
a
two-family
dwelling
in
order
to
allow
for
separate
occupancy
of
an
existing
walk
out
garden
level
unit
in
the
building,
no
change
to
the
current
building.
F
Envelope
and
again,
the
related
appeal
is
for
an
addition
of
a
parking
space
at
the
premises
to
relocate
an
existing
curb
cut
to
match
the
existing
driveway.
For
some
reason,
the
curb
cut
when
you
look
at
the
existing
building
is
on
the
right
side
of
the
house,
and
the
driveway
is
on
the
left
side
of
those
I.
Don't
know
we're
not
quite
sure
how
that's
happened.
Mr.
F
Starr
bought
purchased
the
property
in
2015
and
we're
looking
to
close
the
curb
cut,
which
leads
to
nowhere
and
open
a
curb
cut
on
the
left
to
allow
for
one
parking
space
for
the
existing
building.
He
does
not.
He
does
not.
He
lives
within
500
feet
of
of
this
of
this
building
and
what
we're
looking
to
do?
It's
a
large
six
bed
single-family
it's!
It
has
six
bedrooms
and
two
levels.
F
That
also
has
two
kitchens
and
we're
looking
to
split
this
into
two
units
to
more
conform
with
the
2f
3,000
underlying
sub
district
that
it's
in
to
make
it
more
in
line
with
the
neighborhood.
It
is
a
2
F,
3000
neighborhood
in
terms
of
the
zoning
relief
that
we're
seeking
the
first
is
for
location
of
the
main
entrance
for
this
second
unit.
The
existing
location
of
the
main
entrance
faces
the
side
lot
line.
It
does
not
face
the
front
line.
F
F
We
are
adding
one
space
now,
so
we
would
be
and
we
would
be
deficient
by
one
parking
space
and
finally,
on
the
related
appeal,
the
the
side,
the
parking
in
the
side
lot
area
requires
a
variance
for
limitation
of
area
of
accessory
uses,
because
it's
within
five
feet
of
the
side
lot
line
again,
that's
an
existing
driveway.
It's
it's
been
there
for
a
long
time
and
we're
just
now
looking
to
actually
use
it
by
moving
the
curb
cut
over
from
the
right
to
the
left.
A
F
H
F
AW
F
In
your
it's
in
your
mountain
chair,
it's
in
the
packet,
it's
the
last
few
pictures.
The
first
picture
is
the
existing
curb
cut
to
the
right,
which
just
leads
to
a
gate
in
a
walkway
there's
no
parking
and
then
the
second
picture
shows
it
a
little
a
little
better
that
there's
no
there's
no
driveway
there,
whereas
in
the
third
picture
you
can
see
that
there
is
a
gate
for
parking
in
an
existing
driveway,
but
there
is
a
closed
curb
and
no
no
open,
curb
cut
there.
AW
Q
AX
A
AW
Q
A
A
AJ
AD
A
B
Tony,
boa
seven,
nine
five,
four
one:
four
sixty
four
alpine
street:
this
is
a
four-story
residential
building
with
14
residential
units
and
roof
deck
and
outdoor
parking
for
seven
spaces.
The
violations-
article
50
section
28,
a
multi-family
dwelling
unit-
is
a
forbidden
use.
Article
50,
section
29,
the
Lodi
area
for
ditional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
Article
50
section
29.
The
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
52
section
29
lot.
Frontage
is
insufficient.
Article
50
section
229,
the
Floria
ratio
is
excessive.
B
Article
50
section
29,
the
height
requirements
is
excessive,
equal
50,
section
20
and
the
height
requirement.
It
doubles
up
on
it.
Article
50,
section,
29,
front
yard:
setback
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
50,
section,
9,
side,
yard
setback
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
50
section
20
and
our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Ethical
50,
section
43,
our
street
loading
is
insufficient
on
article
50,
section
43
off
street
parking
requirement
is
insufficient
in
article
88,
EE
2,
small
project
review
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please,
yes,.
AR
AR
This
is
a
14
unit
development
that's
being
proposed
by
well.
First,
let
me
introduce
the
persons
who
are
joining
me
here
at
the
table.
Next
to
me
is
Troy
tupiza
from
the
Rd
architect
from
dream.
Collaborative
next
to
him
is
Darrel
settles.
Who
is
one
of
the
principals
of
the
firm
catalyst
which
is
the
developer
of
this
project,
along
with
Greg
Janie?
Who
is
also
a
principal
of
that
firm
as
well?
What's
being
proposed
here
is
a
14
unit
consist
consisting
of
studios
one
bedrooms,
two
bedrooms
and
a
three
bedroom
unit.
AR
This
is
a
property
which
combines
property
that
are
owned
by
the
principals
of
this
development
and
a
br,
a
parcel
which
is
adjacent
to
it,
and
the
location
of
the
development
is
on
the
corner
of
Alpine
Street
and
Regent
Street
in
Roxbury.
This
project
will,
as
I
mentioned,
will
have
14
units.
It
is
the
submission
said
that
there
would
be
seven
parking
spaces,
but
in
fact
there
are
eight
parking
spaces
which
will
be
on
this
development.
AR
AR
There
has
been
a
community
process
that
has
taken
place.
This
was
orchestrated
by
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
mr.
McFadden
and
my
madam
cheer.
If
you
would
like
to
hear
more
from
the
architect,
we
can
have
that
or
from
any
of
the
principles,
be
more
than
happy
to
provide
that
information.
A
AY
AY
The
lot
with
minimum
25
feet
on
our
plan.
We
have
39
on
a
region,
we
have
32
the
lot
frontage
minimum
25
feet
on
our
playing.
We
have
76
region,
we
have
56
the
floor
area
ratio
max
is
0.8
and
we
have
1.5
building
height
maximum
three
storeys
935
feet.
We
have
four
storeys
and
45
feet:
the
usable,
open
space,
minimum
per
dwelling
unit,
I'm
640
square
feet
per
unit,
and
we
have
a
total
of
1600
square
feet.
A
AY
A
A
H
AY
A
AR
The
studios
are
the
if
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
board,
the
studios
are
dispersed
throughout
the
building
there.
It's
on
the
ground
floor,
there's
on
the
second
floor
and
the
fourth
floor
when
bedrooms
are
on
the
second
floor,
the
ground
for
on
the
4th
floor
and
the
third
floor,
and
then
two
bedrooms
are
on
the
ground
floor,
second
floor,
third
floor
and
fourth
floor,
and
then
the
three
bedroom
is
on
the
third
floor.
M
M
AY
AZ
Greetings,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Joshua
McFadden
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services
right
to
call
record
and
support.
At
this
time
we
did
have
in
a
butters
meeting
which
which
did
go
well.
We
did
receive
some
feedback
from
one
neighbor
as
it
pertains
to
density
as
a
whole
as
right
now
we
definitely
support
the
project.
I
would.
BA
BA
A
E
AR
A
BA
B
Following
boa
seven,
seven,
three,
eight
three
six
sixteen
James
place:
this
is
extension
of
living
space
into
a
pre-existing
walkout
basement
space
violations.
Article
fifty
section
29
the
floor
da
ratio
is
excessive.
The
proposed
FA
are
increase,
will
be
excessive
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AX
Yes,
mr.
list
is
the
owner
of
the
property
I'm,
the
attorney.
So
this
is
an
existing
row
house
built
a
19th
century.
It's
on
it's
a
row
of
six
on
a
private
way,
not
open
a
public
travel
very
small
lot
about
948
square
feet.
The
basement
is
existing,
it's
a
two
and
a
half
story
building
and
at
the
back
of
the
house,
is
built
into
a
hillside.
AX
A
AX
A
A
AZ
Greetings,
madam
chair
members
of
the
boy
Joshua
McFadden
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services
by
little
recognize
support.
We
did
have
a
meeting
I'm,
just
as
the
applicant
said
nobody
attended.
We
did
get
some
feedback
from
one
of
butter
who
reviewed
the
the
project
as
well
and
said
that
she
had
no
concerns.
A
Z
A
B
O
Single-Family
home
I
purchased
six
years
ago,
I'm
transitioning
it
from
a
single
family
to
a
two
family
to
be
able
to
accomplish
that.
I
need
to
partition
the
first
floor
from
the
second
floor
with
separate
entrances
in
the
front
of
the
building,
as
well
as
on
the
second
floor.
I
only
need
to
add
a
kitchen
on
the
first
floor.
I
need
to
add
a
full
bathroom.
A
A
B
This
is
off
street
parking
for
two
vehicles:
the
violations,
article
10
section,
one
limitation
of
area
of
accessory
uses
article,
fifty
section,
29,
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article,
fifty
section
43,
the
location
of
our
street
parking
article,
fifty
section
43,
our
street
parking
design
and
maneuverability,
an
article,
fifty
section,
44
side
yards
of
certain
narrow,
Lots
name,
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AV
A
A
A
A
AV
AB
Q
Q
A
AO
A
AW
Q
A
I
Q
Q
A
B
BB
BB
H
BB
A
BB
Q
BB
Not
aware
of
a
Board
of
Appeals
approval,
what
I'm
saying
is
in
2006
there
was
a
gut
rehab
of
this
entire
building
and
when
I
went
back
and
looked
at
the
permitting,
it
included
the
basement
bathroom
full
bathroom.
There
was
no
explicit
approval
of
a
new
spiral.
Staircase
that
was
installed
in
2006
and
I
find
no
record
of
an
approval
of
the
spiral
staircase
into
the
basement.
It
was
evidence
that
there
was
a
kitchen
down
there
in.
H
Q
BB
H
A
A
Q
BB
Q
BB
B
I
call
the
next
case:
I'm
gonna
call
for
rediscover
Lerman
30.
Are
there
any
deferrals
or
withdrawals
for
11:30
for
the
three
discussions?
I
believe
I
know
the
address
on
this
one,
so
I'm
going
to
call
it
it
for
the
record
boa
five:
five,
four
six
two
zero
77
are
with
William
T
Morrissey,
Boulevard
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
A
A
B
There
any
other
deferrals
or
withdrawals
for
11:30
hearing
none
we'll
go
back
to
the
10:30,
boa
79
596
444
Orchard
field
street.
This
is
the
demolish
an
existing
roof
and
framing
structure
and
the
raised
framing
in
roof
to
35
feet
to
allow
more
living
space
for
a
bedroom
violations.
Article
60,
5,
6,
&
9,
excessive
FA,
are
article
65,
609
excessive
number
of
stories.
Article
65,
69,
insufficient
front
yard
setback,
article
65-69,
insufficient
side,
yard
setback
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
Michael.
A
A
BD
Madam
chairman,
and
here
in
my
name,
is
Michael
and
I
would
like
to
have
my
roof
demolished
and
basically
the
same
leave
and
stay,
but
we
like
to
have
the
roof
outer
so
kind
of
mess
with
all
the
neighbor
there's
no
additional
leaving
this
way,
because
I
need
an
additional
bedroom
of
my
daughter.
So
you
have
spike
room
study
and
also
turn
to
a
bedroom
for
her.
So
it's
a
single
family,
small,
tiny
house
and
would
like
to
do
that
have
some
picture
of
the
neighborhood
and
you
can
see
everybody
have
the
same.
BD
You
know
diagonal
side
except
my
how
they
go
the
other
way.
So
if
my
by
I
have
my
roof
demolished,
it
will
be
the
same
with
the
neighbor
and
it's
basically,
as
you
can
see
this
picture
right
here
that
you
know
we
haven't,
do
anything
about
how
and
it's
not
getting
brought.
So
instead
of
spending
a
lot
of
money,
you
know
we
didn't
trust.
T
A
B
Bo,
a
seventy
four
seven
one,
one
eight
two,
eighty
seven
Chestnut
Avenue
this.
This
is
an
existing
condition.
Condition
retro
actively
modify
a
two-family
classification
to
a
three
family.
The
violation
is
article
55,
section
55.
Forty,
our
street
parking
is
insufficient
article
55,
section
I
and
the
additional
lotta
areas
insufficient
article
55,
section,
nine,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive
name.
An
address
for
the
record.
Please
Peter.
BE
A
A
BE
Q
BE
Q
BE
Three
family,
since,
before
I
bought,
it
I
actually
bought
it
and
moved
into
the
third
floor
apartment
at
the
one
in
1978
when
I
bought
the
property.
So
it
had
been
used
as
a
three
family
since
before
I
bought
it,
which
was
40
years
ago,
but
how
far
back
that
goes.
Q
P
B
A
B
AP
Madam
chair
members,
the
board
Jack
dog
of
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
just
like
to
go
on
record
of
support.
We
haven't
in
a
butters
meeting
back
in
January,
went
before
the
neighborhood
council
in
February
at
full
support,
neighborhood
council.
We
just
like
to
put
our
support
on
record.
Thank
you.
B
BF
A
A
Okay,
so
the
issue
is
that
you
are
proposing
a
drive
way
as
we
face
the
house
on
the
right-hand
side
of
the
property.
You
have
an
existing
driveway
as
you
face
the
house
on
the
left-hand
side
of
the
driveway,
which
you
share
with
the
owner
at
6:04,
and
you
have
a
garage
in
the
back
and
you
have
an
issue
with
accessing
your
own
driveway
because
of
the
number
of
cars
and
the
wave
residents
for
the
residents
of
604.
BF
A
BF
AD
A
BG
A
BG
BG
A
BG
N
BG
H
BG
BG
BE
A
BG
He
has
the
option
of
towing
so
since
I
purchased
the
property
I
think
things
have
improved
greatly
with
Nick
and
our
communication
from
the
previous
landlord,
who
was
an
absentee
landlord
I'm
I
live
nearby
I'm
on
the
property
several
times
a
week,
I'm!
Never
you
know
at
any
point
in
time.
I
can
visit
it.
So
the
issue
is
is
as
a
shared
driveway,
it's
a
narrow
driveway.
A
M
It's
very
nice
of
them
to
suggest
that
this
is
an
alternative.
It's
possum
on
e,
they
habit
brother,
we
never
garage,
they
can't
get
into
it
and
they
recently
can't
get
into
it
because
of
the
tenants
at
6:04.
That's
your
responsibility!
So
why
I
mean
just
is
beyond
bizarre
to
me.
This
board
would
approve
a
curb
cut
in
a
driveway.
Well,.
BG
BG
BF
A
H
BG
A
Was
going
to
suggest
is
that
ISD
take
a
walk
out
to
604
look
at
the
two
units
that
are
five
bedrooms
and
check
if
there
are
unrelated
individuals
in
there
and
do
an
enforcement
I
know,
because
that
might
help
reduce
the
issue
and
then
the
owner
at
6:04
can
do
what
he
needs
to
do
to
ensure
that
his
tenants
are
what's
reported,
I
mean
because
this
is
going
to
be
something
that
you
as
a
property
owner
have
the
responsibility
for
granted.
People
are
selfish,
but
a
property
owner
does
have
a
responsibility.
A
BH
AT
BI
Chair
members
of
the
board,
Tony
does
the
Doral
representing
the
Austin
Civic
Association.
We
still
believe
that
it
is
a
reasonable
and
appropriate
solution
to
a
very
difficult
problem,
and
certainly
the
board
has
recognized
it
as
such,
but
it
certainly
is
a
quality-of-life
issue
and
when
nobody's
around
in
the
cars
out
walking
that
driveway,
there
are
people
in
Nick's
house
that
have
to
get
to
work
and
it's
a
very
difficult
situation
for
them
to
resolve.
So
we
still
continue
to
support.
It.
Has.
M
Z
A
B
Calling
the
next
two
cases
calling
VOA
seven,
eight
four
five
one:
three
one
Elm
Street
companion
case,
VOA,
seven,
eight,
four,
five,
two,
eight
three
Elm
Street
for
one
elm.
This
is
erect
a
new
six
unit,
residential
building,
one
of
two
buildings
to
be
erected
on
the
same
lot.
In
the
shared
driveway,
the
violation
is
article
sixty
five
six
and
eight
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article
65
section,
forty
two
point,
one
three:
two
or
more
dwellings.
B
On
the
same
lot,
nautical
sixty-five
section,
nine,
the
height,
is
excessive
article
65
section,
nine,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
section,
nine,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
This
is
for
3m.
This
is
an
erect.
A
new
six
residential
building
of
one
of
Coulee
be
like
erected
on
the
same
lot,
combining
two
Lots.
B
AL
Sure,
madam
chair,
if
the
board
recalls
this,
this
project
was
in
front
of
the
board
back
in
February,
and
it
was
requested
that
we
have
a
deferral.
I
think
the
month
was
February,
maybe
incorrect
about
that.
The
original
plans
that
showed
the
project
being
a
12
unit
project
I'd
like
to
point
out
now
that
it
is
actually
a
nine
unit
project.
There
was
some
neighborhood
feedback
and
some
input
and
then
working
with
the
mayor's
office
and
the
clan
point
Civic
Association.
AL
AL
The
zoning
district
is
a
one
F
7,000.
The
cited
violations
are
a
use
violation
for
a
multi-family
dwelling
and
two
buildings
on
a
single
lot,
there's
a
height
violation,
but
it's
only
due
to
the
number
of
storeys.
It's
a
two
and
a
half
story.
District,
the
actual
height
is
of
the
both
buildings
is
34
feet,
six
inches,
so
it
is
actually
a.
It
is
a
height
violation,
mainly
due
to
this
number
of
storeys,
not
the
actual
height
of
the
building.
AL
The
FA
hours
point
four,
and
this
project
has
a
total
fa
hour
of
0.77
and
those
are
the
only
violations,
the
front
yard
setback
violation
has
been
removed.
They
are
both
properties
and
now
15
feet
from
the
front
yard,
so
that
violation
has
been
removed
from
the
building
due
to
the
design
change
parking.
Sure
there
is
the
there
is
18
parking
spaces
to
the
rear
of
the
property.
It's
a
nine
unit
property.
As
we
said,
there's
two
buildings:
one
building
will
contain
five
units
and
the
other
building
will
contain
four
units.
AL
There
was
a
request
that
some
of
the
units
be
enlarged
to
become
four
families
in
the
neighborhood.
For
a
breakdown
of
the
unit
sizes
on
the
one
Elm
Street
property,
there
are
four
two-bedroom
units
in
one
four-bedroom
unit
and
on
the
three
Elm
Street
property.
There
are
four
three-bedroom
townhouse
style
by
level
units.
The
average
square
foot
on
the
Elm
Street
is
between
12
44
and
1280.
A
AL
There
wasn't
originally
in
a
roof
deck,
the
deck
has
been
removed
and
I
would
like
to
let
the
board
know
we
did
meet.
Last
night
with
the
clan
point
Civic
Association,
we
presented
the
revised
plans.
There
was
a
boat
vote
of
support
from
the
Neighborhood
Association
as
well.
Just
want
to
put
that,
in
the
reckoning
also,
we've
submitted
over
25
letters
of
support
for
the
board
for
its
consideration
on
the
vote
as
well.
X
AL
A
B
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members,
aboard
Jeff
Drago
and
Raven
Toscano
15,
Broad,
Street
I
have
the
applicant
Demetrios
here
and
also
David.
O'sullivan
is
the
architect
project.
As
we've
mentioned,
we
are
seeking
zoning
relief
for
one
violation
which
is
use.
We
have
a
sort
of
a
unique
situation
and
this
particular
district,
as
was
mentioned
before
this
particular
you
so
for
a
two-family,
is
forbidden
use,
but
three
units
or
multifamily
or
townhouses
allowable
under
the
code.
C
Our
particular
project,
just
to
refresh
everyone's
memory,
is
to
take
down
the
existing
single-family
home
and
erect
a
three-story
building
with
two
townhouse
condominium
units.
The
particular
lot
size
is
three
thousand
four
hundred
and
sixty-seven
square
feet,
and
the
topography
and
the
shape
of
the
lot,
as
you
can
see,
are
somewhat
unique
and
the
layout
of
that
these
particular
unit
sizes
would
be
fourteen
hundred
and
seventy-eight
square
feet.
They
are
all
three
bed
two
and
a
half
bath
with
identical
layouts
and
our
last
hearing.
C
There
are
a
number
of
recommendations
for
project
modifications
by
both
the
board
that
we
had
heard,
one
of
which
was
lowing
lowering
the
ceiling
height
in
the
basement.
So
that
is
now
six
foot,
eight
on
the
new
plans
that
are
shown.
Secondly,
on
the
third
floor
has
been
redesigned
so
there's
a
staircase
that
leads
directly
into
a
family
room
so
that
you
know
there
was
concern.
I
think
that
that
may
be
later
on
could
be
used
as
a
bedroom
from
the
community.
There's
now
a
staircase
that
goes
directly
into
that.
C
We
also
filed
for
the
article
85
hearing.
We
don't
I,
know,
there's
somewhat
backlog,
but
we
submitted
the
whole
package
to
them.
We've
got
15
letters,
butter
support
and
we
also
just
to
reiterate
we
committed
to
putting
a
broody
very
strict,
not
a
deed
restriction
restriction
in
the
condo
Docs
that
these
would
not
be
rental.
These
are
homeowner
to
be
sold.
A
C
C
A
H
A
AJ
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
just
saw
her
at
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
At
this
time,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition.
While
we
understand
that
there
have
been
significant
changes
and
improvements
made
to
this
property.
The
concerns
of
the
neighbors
are
still
unmet.
I
know
that
they've
changed
the
height
of
the
ceiling
and
that
they've
changed
the
format
of
the
third
floor,
but
still
the
residents
feel
that
it's
not
gonna
change
the
outcome
which,
later
down
the
line,
could
technically
mean
renting
out
to
students
and
other
concerns.
BJ
X
P
BK
Allison
Bolton
is
resident
81
lawn
street
2
issues
that
maybe
have
not
come
up
before,
but
the
East
facade
has
no
windows
and
being
located
on
the
crest
of
a
hill.
That's
a
real
deficit
for
marquetry
condos.
You
would
actually
want
views.
Looking
east
and
the
West
facade
I
believe
only
has
two
small
windows,
not
on
the
first
floor.
The
concern
expressed
if
the
last
hearing
was
that
some
of
the
rooms
not
designated
bedrooms
could
be
converted
to
bedrooms
and
changing
the
basement
to
6
feet.
8
does
not
change
that
concern.
BK
BL
Madam
chair
and
members
of
the
board,
I
am
Kristine.
Curtis
I
lived
on
the
street
at
1:43,
Fisher
Avenue
I
did
speak
at
the
last
hearing.
Nothing
has
really
changed
for
my
opposition.
This
is
a
project
that
has
overwhelming
opposition
from
the
neighborhood
from
Roberta's
in
the
larger
community,
from
elected
officials
and
I
was
happy
to
hear
that.
That
also
now
includes
the
mayor's
office,
a
big
issue
that
is
still
there
is
the
deed
restriction
which
the
developers
claim
would
make
it
Unseld
saleable
other
developers
have
done
this
that
a
request.
BL
BM
Thank
you.
May
it
please
the
board
Camryn
Merrill
from
Maryland
nigiri,
we
represent
the
back
of
the
hill
townhouses
condominium,
it's
a
condominium
which
is
165
units
which
surround
this
single-family
home
in
a
u-shape.
The
condominium
tries
to
ask
me
to
come
to
this
board
and
speak
in
opposition
to
the
same
reasons
expressed
at
the
last
meeting,
as
well
as
in
the
letter
sent
the
board
in
January,
which
I'd
like
to
make
part
of
today's
record.
Please,
the
opposition
essentially
stems
from
the
fact
that
this
is
a
cherished
single-family
home
within
this
community.
BM
The
board
feels
like
a
demolition
of
this
project,
and
the
development,
as
is
proposed,
will
have
a
significant
impact.
Reasonable
use
of
the
property
has
been
as
a
single-family
home
and
the
trustees
do
not
believe
that
a
variance
is
appropriate.
Given
that
circumstance,
they
also
like
to
express
their
gratitude
for
the
architect
before
human
councils
office,
who
did
speak
with
us
and
communicate
diligently.
A
C
We
have
looked
at
and
as
a
write
proposal
on
this
site
and
we
believe
we
can
get
three
townhouse
units
that
be
smaller,
so
probably
not
marketable,
to
sell
with
parking
at
grade
as
an
as
of
right
proposal,
we
felt
that
two
townhouses
of
this
size,
having
made
the
concessions,
is
much
better
in
the
long
run
for
the
community.
We
did
commit
to
the
condo
dock
restriction.
However,
it
seems
to
be
the
one
point:
that's
come
up
as
a
deed
restriction,
with
only
two
townhouses
available.