►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 2-25-20
Description
*Due to technical difficulties the audio for this meeting begins around 1:00*
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
E
C
F
Three
fifty
West
Broadway
and
South
Boston,
madam
chair
members.
This
was
an
application
for
five
story.
Thirty-Two
residential
unit,
mixed-use
building
in
South
Boston,
was
approved
by
this
board
in
February
of
2018.
The
decision
would
expire
March
2nd
of
this
year.
2020.
The
reason
for
the
delay
is
that
property
sits
virtually
in
the
midst
the
nm
Lynch
Holmes
at
the
Oconee
Boston
Housing
Authority
development.
That
project
is
currently
in
Phase
three
of
its
redevelopment
master
plan,
so
two
sides
of
the
site
are
public
ways.
F
C
C
H
B
G
B
B
C
C
I
J
B
C
J
B
C
L
Warning
Denis
quilty
attorney
and
maternal
Kofi
Miller
representing
the
property
owner
here
to
request
a
deferral.
We
had
a
snafu
in
scheduling
with
the
local
neighborhood
association.
That
meeting
was
rescheduled
for
March
5th
coming
up
very
quickly.
We
suggested
to
them
at
that
meeting
that
we
would
ask
for
a
referral
today
to
attend
that
meeting
and
come
back
to
you
at
the
earliest.
B
C
C
B
B
M
C
M
Name
is
Timothy
Burke
I'm,
the
architect
for
the
project.
My
address
is
142
Berkeley
Street
in
Boston
we
are
seeking
a
deferral
in
order
to
schedule
one
more
community
hearing
with
the
Community
Alliance
we
weren't
able
to
meet
with
them
in
February.
We're
gonna
meet
with
them
next
week
and
ask
for
permission
to
defer,
make.
B
N
B
H
C
There
any
other
deferrals
will
withdraw
roles
for
9:30
only
hearing,
none
we'll
call
the
first
case
calling
VOA
one
zero
one,
four
one,
one:
six:
thirteen
Greylock
Road.
This
is
a
change
of
art
from
existing
single-family
residential
dwelling
dwelling
to
a
five
family
residential
dwelling
with
five
parking
spaces,
also
to
a
deer
inside
edition's
and
renovate
the
violations.
Article
51
section,
56
austrie
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
51,
section
8,
the
MFR
is
the
forbidden
use
in
a
2f
5,000
sub-district
article
51,
section
I
on
the
floor.
C
N
N
We're
proposing
to
change
from
the
existing
occupancy
of
a
one-family
to
five
units,
keeping
the
building
so
we're
not
raising
the
building,
but
adding
an
addition
to
the
side
and
rare
and
also
renovating
the
entire
building
as
well.
The
floor
plan
layout
has
two
duplex
units
with
lower
levels
for
an
average
of
1208
square
foot
units.
Those
would
be
two
bedroom
units
units
three
and
four
one-bedroom
units
at
6:55
on
average
and
unit
five
is
a
three-bedroom
unit
at
thirteen
hundred
and
fifty-six
square
feet.
N
The
zoning
violations
use
was
triggered
and
A
to
F
District
and
we
are
proposing
five.
Our
FA
are
is
0.91.
What's
allowable
is
point
six
for
this
district,
a
height
we
do
meet
the
height
in
feet
at
34,
feet
seven
inches.
However,
we
are
going
up
to
add
dormers
to
make
that
third
floor,
so
that
would
trigger
a
height
violation
and
stories.
Two-And-A-Half
is
allowed
and
we're
proposing
three.
N
B
N
One
we're
proposing
extensive
renovation
and
this
would
help
ease
that
burden.
Secondly,
around
us
has
them
to
the
left
of
us
as
a
six
unit
apartment
complex,
and
there
are
apartment
complexes
in
and
around
the
area.
I
believe
we
have
a
list
you
can
read
just
across
from
us
and
next
door.
In
our
immediate
area,
we
are
able
to
provide
five
parking
spaces
in
the
rear
of
the
property
and.
Q
N
R
R
R
B
B
N
N
S
B
T
T
T
B
U
The
record
yes,
sorry,
Connie
Bala,
Dimas,
I
owned
15,
Greylock
Road,
the
building
right
adjacent
to
it.
I
was
extremely
opposed
to
this
initially
and
I
know.
I
wrote
a
letter
to
you
guys
and
just
for
the
abutters
meeting.
We
were
not
notified
of
any
abutters
meeting,
but
that's
a
different
point,
but
we
have
worked
out.
I
have
had
a
lot
of
issues
with
the
trash
in
them
trespassing
on
my
property.
B
U
Hoping
with
these
changes
that
they
will
I
I
do
not
you
know,
I
had
called
them
many
times
with.
For
the
last
and
I
know,
I
sent
you
guys.
Letters
with
pictures
for
the
last
nine
months
and
I
got
no
responses
from
them.
Since
then,
I've
been
in
contact
with
someone
else
who
is
eager
to
show
me
that
they
will
address
the
issues.
I
have
installed.
Seven
thousand
dollars
worth
of
cameras
around
my
property
I've
installed
a
locking
dumpster
within
my
property
to
try
to
fix
the
problems
that
I've
had.
B
V
Not
supportive
you're,
okay,
for
what
reason
I'm
the
crisis
really
Grail
a
troll
and
twelve
Grail
RO.
Since
you
know,
if
they're
at
their
property
is
not
managed.
So
we
are
the
trash
across
the
street
with
my
house
for
the
earth
for
over
one
week
that
the
trash
the
papers
blow
all
to
my
property
I
have
a
visitor
complain
all
the
time.
So
the
constant
has
sent
the
letters.
V
I
told
you
if
he
said
I
I
need
to
come
here
to
I,
have
the
right
to
against
this
projects,
because
once
they,
the
landscape,
they
they
are,
is
higher
than
my
house.
You
know
any
construction
purposes
damage
my
house
or
cost
the
landscape
Kruschev
damaging
my
house
a
foundation.
They
need
a
responsibility
for
fix.
Any
construction
issue,
damage
damage
you
to
my
house
and
a
cleaning
issue
by
the
attendance.
Thank
you.
It's
just
one.
Family.
B
W
B
B
N
B
B
C
C
Y
B
Y
B
Y
Ma'am
yeah,
so
we
have
14
a
little
bit
over
49
feet
because
of
the
location
at
the
end
of
that
cul-de-sac,
as
you
can
see
from
the
site
plan,
it's
a
very
unique
lot
because
of
that
the
the
positioning
at
the
end
of
the
cul-de-sac
we
have
49
feet.
60
feet
is
required.
However,
we
do
have
a
seventeen
thousand
six
hundred
and
four
square
foot
lot.
B
Y
R
Z
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jack
Duggan
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
just
like
to
go
on
record
support.
We
have
a
butters
meeting
on
December
12,
no
neighbors
came,
they
went
then
went
before
the
West
Roxbury
Neighborhood
Council
received
unanimous
support
from
their
council
and
I
just
like
to
reiterate
that
support.
Thank
you.
AA
AA
AC
B
AD
C
Voa
1
0
1
4
2
6
753,
Greenbrier
Street.
This
is
a
change
in
oxygen
for
me:
2
2,
a
3
family,
no
work
to
be
done
kitchen
in
the
third
unit
on
third
unit.
Only
violations,
article
65
section
41,
our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
65,
section
8,
a
3
family
dwelling
use
is
forbidden,
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
B
M
M
R
R
P
C
The
next
case
calling
VOA
nine
five,
eight
four
six
to
18
you
Slits
treat
the
sick
infer
market
is
a
single
family
and
change
of
architect.
2.
A
three
family
dwelling
constructed
addition
for
two
units
on
the
existing
structure
violations.
Article
65
section
of
forty
two
point:
two
conformity
with
an
existing
building
alignment:
article
65
section:
forty
two
point:
three:
traffic
visibility
across
the
corner:
article
65
section
nine
maximum
allowed
height,
has
been
exceeded.
B
AH
B
AH
B
B
B
AH
AH
B
AH
B
May
suggest
Ofuro
illness
so
that
we
can
understand
how
the
building's
fit
on
the
lock,
because
we
are
looking
at
the
at
the
detailed
design
here,
but
we
cannot
see
what
your
side
yard
is,
what
your
rear
yard
is
and
how
everything
works
together,
where
your
parking
is
for
the
existing
building.
Maybe
there
is,
maybe
there
isn't
parking
so
may
I
have
a
motion
for
deferral
on
this,
so
that
and
please
hire
an
architect-
and
this
is
supposed
to
be
stick
built.
Yes,.
AH
AD
B
C
Calling
the
next
case
calling
vo
a
nine
nine
two,
eight
eight
four
sixty
two
sixty
two
Cottman
Hill
Avenue.
This
is
extend
the
living
area
into
the
basement
and
attic
and
close
the
front
rear.
Porches,
add
enormous
to
the
top
floor.
Replace
one
interior
wall
with
beam
new
kitchen
bath
pour
a
new
slab
in
the
basement
for
a
living
area.
The
violations
article
65
section
I
and
the
phylidia
ratio
was
excessive.
Article
65
section
nine.
The
building
had
his
excessive
in
stories,
an
article
65
69.
F
F
Primarily
this
is
an
application
to
add
a
dormer
to
the
top
floor
level.
This
would
converted,
for
zoning
purposes,
from
a
two
and
a
half
story
to
a
three-story
dwelling
because
of
the
additional
living
space
on
the
top
floor.
The
half
story
that
leads
to
the
violation
for
excessive
building
height.
That's
a
story.
High
file
asian.
Only
the
building's
height
is
30
feet.
Three
inches
width
in
the
35
maximum
the
floor
area
ratio
would
go
from
point.
F
Eight
five,
two
point:
eight
seven,
the
maximum
at
they
are
on
the
district
is
0.8
as
the
fa,
our
violation
and
there's
a
side
yard
insufficiency.
The
side
yard
insufficiency
is
attributable
to
the
addition
of
the
dormer
on
the
side
of
the
building
that
is
preexisting
non-conforming.
With
respect
to
the
side
setback,
the
dormer
itself
has
inset
a
couple
of
from
the
edge
of
the
existing
building
and,
what's.
F
F
F
R
AJ
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Whitney
Celestin,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
I,
held
in
a
butters
meeting
for
this
project.
We've
also
received
letters
of
support
from
neighbors
in
the
back
in
the
rear
and
also
neighbors
on
the
side,
especially
regarding
the
dormer
being
added,
and
also
this
property
will
be
meeting
with
done
association
tomorrow.
Just
so
they're
aware
of
this
change,
thank
you
would
like
to
go
and
record
and
support.
Yes,.
F
AK
AK
C
On
the
next
case,
calling
boa
one
zero,
two
seven
five,
two
one,
eighty
one
to
81
a
Wrentham
Street,
rent
them
Street
here
this
is
constructing
new
to
family
dwelling
on
lot,
B
for
a
subdivision.
The
exist
instruction
to
be
raised
in
a
separate
demolition.
Permit
the
violations,
article
65,
section
40.
Why
do
you
want
our
street
packing
loading
article
65
section
42,
conforming
an
existing
building
alignment,
article
65,
section
8?
The
use
is
forbidden.
Article
65,
section,
9
insufficient
lot
with
article
65
section
9,
sufficient
rad
setback
in
article
65,
section
9.
AL
AL
AL
H
B
B
C
C
The
violations,
article
59
section
37
off
street
parking-
is
insufficient.
Article
59,
section,
seven
of
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article
59
section.
Eight,
a
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
59
section,
eight
law,
frontages
insufficient
article
59
section,
eight,
the
building
height
number
of
storeys
is
excessive.
Article
59,
section,
eight
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
59,
section,
eight
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive.
C
This
is
420
sunset:
it's
just
changed:
October
3
family
to
a
poor
family
and
the
violations
are
identical.
Well,
say:
sorry,
with
its
exceptions,
I'm
not
to
change
it.
The
violation,
article
59
section
37
Austria
packings,
insufficient
article
59,
section
7,
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article
59,
section,
8
lot
width
is
insufficient.
Article
59
section
8
law,
frontages
insufficient
article
59
section
a
deployed:
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
59,
section,
8,
building
height
number
of
explorers
is
excessive,
an
article
59
section,
8
usable
open
spaces,
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AN
Members
of
the
board
attorney
Matt
echo
from
Drago's
Cano,
with
a
business
address
of
15
Broad
Street
here
in
Boston
with
me.
This
morning,
is
Laura
Maris,
the
owner
of
unit
18
unit
4
sunset,
as
well
as
Gina
louisia,
the
owner
of
the
unit
24
sunset,
as
the
secretary
mentioned,
we're
seeking
to
change
the
occupancy
at
both
of
these
structures
from
a
three
family
to
a
four
family
which
reflects
the
existing
conditions,
we're
not
proposing
any
work
to
be
done,
except
to
implement
additional
fire
protection
measures.
AN
The
zoning
sub
district
is
a
three
F
mm
and
the
total
lot
size
is
four
thousand
four
hundred
and
fifty
five
square
feet
just
to
give
a
little
further
background
on
this
case.
This
has
been
existing
conditions
since
the
1930s.
According
to
some
of,
is
these
records?
There
was
never
an
official
Co
which
labeled
these
as
four
individual
units.
However,
throughout
the
years
1936,
1958-59,
etc,
there
were
short
forms
electrical
forms,
other
ISD
forms
that
label
this.
B
AN
The
more
recent
history
is
in
1981,
the
two,
so
eighteen
and
twenty
or
two
separate,
distinct
buildings
with
a
firewall.
That
goes
all
the
way
up.
However,
it's
on
one
lot
and
was
under
common
ownership
in
1981,
a
master
deed
was
filed
to
create
officially
eight
condominium
units.
This
was
recorded
with
the
Registry
of
Deeds.
The
units
are
eight
eight
separately
owned
units
they're,
not
under
common
ownership
at
all,
miss
Marsden,
miss
Alessio
both
purchased
their
units
in
the
year
of
2018.
AN
B
AN
The
unit's
themselves
are
the
two
top
units
18
for
sunset
and
20
for
sunset.
Both
of
them
are
1-bedroom
1-bath
units
at
just
under
1,100
square
feet.
They
are
the
top
floor
of
the
building
of
a
structure.
Formerly
they
were
attic
space
as
I
mentioned
into
the
1930s
and
then
at
some
point.
They
were
converted
and
recognized
as
legalized
units.
So
all
the
violations
that
were
mentioned
go
back
into
the
30s
and
we
just
never
formally
approved
just
to
run
through
them
quickly.
B
AN
AN
It's
a
little
hard
to
distinguish
because
of
the
great
change,
but
you
can
see
the
front
dormers
there
and,
as
as
you
move
back
through
the
units
that
the
ceiling
height
does
raise
to
provide
adequate,
adequate
head
height,
the
violations
just
to
run
through
them
quickly,
as
mentioned,
they
are
all
just
brought
up
brought
upon
by
this
formal
request
to
change
the
occupancy.
However,
no
work
is
being
proposed,
except
for
additional
fire.
Measured
fire
protection
measures.
The
use
allowed
on
each
is
a
3f
we're
proposing
to
legalize
the
fourth
unit.
B
AN
The
second
there
never
has
been
a
second
means
of
egress
for
that
unit.
What
we're
proposing
is
to
install
a
brand
new
fire
alarm
panel
system.
It
will
be
two
distinct
panels,
one
for
eighteen
and
one
for
20,
but
they
would
be
connected,
and
so
basically,
the
system
we're
proposing
and
we're
working
with
BFD
to
finalize
this
is
to
because
their
separate
systems,
if
a
teen
were
to
trigger
the
door
to
access
the
deck
and
to
access
unit,
24
would
unlock.
So
you
could
traverse
through
the
neighbor's
property
just
as
a
means
of
emergency
egress.
AN
AN
In
some
regards,
because
the
existing
stairwell
would
then
have
to
fully
be
brought
up
to
code-
and
it
would
so
that's
kind
of
what
we
worked
on
with
is
D
as
a
simplest
way
to
rectify
a
second
means
of
egress.
Again,
it
is
reflecting
existing
conditions.
There
never
was
one
and
and
working
with
BF
d.
That
was
the
best
way
to
have
an
alternative
compliance.
All.
B
AN
AO
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
SHINee's
women's
Hall,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
the
applicant
received
full
support
from
the
community,
including
the
Community
Alliance
of
Mission
Hill
and
Mission
Hill
Neighborhood
Housing
Services,
and
the
abutters
meeting
I
conducted
at
the
end
of
this
December.
At
this
time
we
have
no
questions
and
concerns
and
the
mayor's
office
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
Thank
you.
AP
AC
AQ
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
members
Richard
Johnson
I,
live
in
the
building
at
20
sunset
Street
unit
3
downstairs
from
Lauren
Gina
and
all
the
reasons
for
my
support
have
already
been
stated.
I've
been
there
for
17
years,
and
these
units
have
been
in
this
condition
and
Lauren
Gina.
Both
phenomenal
neighbors.
AB
B
B
C
This
is
to
construct
a
new
six
storey.
Mixed-Use
building
structure
will
consist
of
a
total
of
74
residential
units,
62
rental
apartments,
12
for
sale,
condos
condominiums
12800
is
57
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
Local
retail
business,
restaurant
public
artists
play
abuse,
artists,
mix,
use
and
accessory
parking.
There
will
be
one
level
of
underground
parking.
The
new
building
will
create
it
possible
combining
hernia
fossils
in
rely
upon
a
ground
lease.
C
AR
H
AR
We're
proposing
direct
a
new
six
story,
building
on
three
distinct
parcels,
with
a
combined
square
footage
of
23,000
square
feet,
we're
building
in
Roxbury
on
these
three
parcels.
It's
a
zoning
self
district
of
Roxbury,
neighborhood,
sub
district
of
dr.
square
EDA
and
that
breaks
down
to
subject
Rick
type
on
overlays
of
economic
development
area.
They
were
design,
review
and
boulevard
planning
district.
We
are
seeking
relief
for
a
conditional
use.
AR
Haley
house
who
is
neighbourhood
anchor
is
a
current
neighborhood
anchor
will
be
part
of
the
project
and
we're
seeking
relief
for
conditional
use
to
expand
hailey
houses
footprint
with
a
new
cafe,
which
would
double
their
seating
capacity.
We're
also
seeking
to
have
artist
space
shared
maker
space
on
the
ground
floor
of
the
building
to
catalyze
entrepreneurship
in
the
area
and
we're
seeking
a
variance
for
that
conditional
use
for
shared
studios
on
the
ground
floor,
we're
also
seeking
relief
for
fer.
AR
Z
B
AR
AR
B
AR
B
AR
AR
AR
AS
B
AS
AR
And
I'll
also
provide
an
update
on
the
unit,
the
unit
counts,
but
the
average
sizes
saugus
or
the
rental
first
average
for
studios
is
501
square
feet
average
for
their
actually
for
the
rent.
Oh
sorry,
I'm
gonna
revise
these
numbers.
We
had
original
submission
and
we
had
a
revised
submission.
So
I'll
just
update
for
the
record.
The
rental
for
the
one
bedrooms
is
thirty.
R
AS
R
AS
R
I
think
it's
important
and
I'll
say
just
say
this
in
general,
that
when,
when
we
get
proposals
come
for
us
that
are
in
violation,
city
guy,
that's
an
important.
It's
it's
important
to
say
what
the
rationale
is
and
that
you
that
that's
a
conscious
decision
as
opposed
to
just
screwing
up
right.
So
I
appreciate
that
and
I
very
much
appreciate
the
fact
that
Haley
house
will
have
a
new
home
for
free.
AS
B
AS
Much
it's
much
more
than
that.
The
rental
units
are
a
hundred
percent
affordable,
a
quarter
of
them
to
extremely
low
income.
The
rest
are
below
forty,
forty-five
are
below
60
percent
and
seventeen
are
below
eighty
percent,
so
those
are
all
affordable.
The
home
ownership
is
the
third
a
third,
a
third
structure:
seventy
percent,
a
hundred
percent,
and
so
there
are
four
market
rate
units
we've
actually
made.
The
the
smaller
studio
and
one-bedroom
units
that
are
small
in
the
home
ownership
are
actually
going
to
be
market
rate
units.
R
AS
A
fully
subsidized
project,
we
will
have
an
affirmative,
fair
housing,
marketing
plan
and
tenant
selection
plan
approved
by
d
ND
and
the
state
and
the
Fair
Housing
Commission.
That
preference
will
be
advertised.
So
there
will
be
a
lottery
process
for
these
units.
We'll
probably
have
thousands
of
applications
right.
We're
going
to
have
will
we're
going
to
have
a
local
preference
as
long
as
well
as
the
artists,
preference.
R
B
AR
D
AT
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
facies
Sharif
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
The
mayor's
office
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
full,
enthusiastic
support
of
this
project.
It
was
a
BPD,
a
project
that
has
had
extensive
community
review,
we're
excited
to
see
additional
artists
units
and
also
and
can
restricted
units
coming
back
to
Nubians
square
and
also
a
permanent
home
for
Haley
house.
Thank
you.
AU
AC
AV
AK
AW
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
for
minor
press
representing
the
Carpenters
Union,
on
behalf
of
hundreds
of
Union
carpenters
that
live
over
cross
City
Oh
boss,
I,
want
to
go
on
record
in
support
in
particularly
our
residents
from
Roxbury,
and
we
appreciate
the
developer
being
sensitive
to
our
needs.
Thank
you
is.
B
K
B
K
K
AX
B
C
Gonna
go
back
to
two
cases.
They
called
earlier
calling
boa
one
zero.
Four
one:
four
seven
zero
52
Withington
street
is
Whittington
Street
here
this
directly
nine
residential
units
with
fifteen
parking
spots,
the
violations,
article
65
section,
forty
two
point:
two
non
cannot
in
conformity
with
the
other
two
building
on
the
same
side
of
the
block.
Conforming
to
the
building
alignment.
Article
65
section:
eight
nine
units
uses
forbidden
article
65
69
to
maximum
zero
for
proposes
one
point:
four
seven,
article
65
69,
the
building
height
is
excessive.
In
stories.
AX
AY
Yeah
we,
the
violations,
are
largely
fa.
Our
and
unit
count
related.
We
we
meet
the
front
and
rear
yard
setbacks
and
side
yard
setback
on
on
the
driveway
side,
in
order
to
avoid
the
neighbors,
but
the
in
order
to
have
the
families,
the
family
units
that
we
were
asked
to
try
and
provide
the
three-bedroom
units,
the
two
large
two-bedroom
units
we
have
a
large
building
and
that's
where
the
fa,
r
and
FA
are
comes
from.
What's.
R
AY
AY
AY
AJ
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Whitney
Celestin,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
we've
had
an
abutters
meeting
for
this
project.
Residents
were
very
vocal
about
their
need
for
parking
because
of
a
lack
of
in
that
area.
The
CI,
a
Community
Improvement
Association,
also
reviewed
this
project
thoroughly
and
they
were
very
vocal
about
the
parking.
So
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
and
up.
Excuse
me
in
support
thanks
Madame.
AJ
BA
H
BA
AC
C
B
C
Non-Conforming
use
this
conditional
article
10
section
one
no
accessory
use
allowed
to
required
in
the
front
yard
setback
a
swimming
pool,
article
10
section,
one,
no
AA
street
parking
is
a
lot
in
required
front
yard
setback
not
equal
to
a
section,
one
god,
regulations.
Defense
cannot
be
more
than
five
feet
and
they
were
quiet
front
yeah.
It
setback
nautical
65-69.
Phylidia
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65
six
and
I
on
the
front
yard
setback
is
setback,
requirement
and
berkshire.
B
BB
F
My
name
is
George
Burns
I'm,
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
at
350,
West,
Broadway
and
South
Boston.
Madam
chair
members,
this
is
a
renovation
of
an
existing
three
family.
Building
no
pool
is
being
added.
There
is
an
existing
swimming
pool.
Actually,
that's
being
taken
out.
The
pool
is
going
to
be
removed,
the
neighbors
weren't
in
favor
of
the
pool
remaining
there.
It
was
there
since,
before
my
client
purchased
the
property,
the
the
entire
building
is
going
to
be
renovated
from
top
to
bottom.
F
The
will
be
a
third
floor,
rear
addition
to
provide
some
additional
living
space
for
the
top
floor
unit
3,
which
is
presently
936
square
foot,
two-bedroom,
counts
now
so
unit
1
is
actually
a
four-bedroom
unit
of
1888
square
feet.
Two
of
the
bedrooms
are
in
the
basement.
My
client
will
be
entirely
renovating
the
basement,
eliminating
the
bedrooms
down
there
in
living
space.
The
basement
is
going
to
be
converted
to
a
unit
storage,
a
laundry
room
for
the
building
and
utilities.
F
B
F
Opposed
to
four
nothing
in
the
basement,
Unit
two
is
the
second
floor
unit.
That's
a
1360
square
foot,
three
bedroom
that
will
remain
a
three
bedroom
and
then
the
rear
addition
of
the
rear
left
edition
on
the
third
floor
would
increase
unit
three
from
a
936
square
foot
two
bedroom
two
also
a
two-bedroom
unit,
but
about
1,200
square
feet.
Visit
pick
up
on
the
third
floor,
which
leads
to
of
space
which
leads
to
the
FA
our
violation.
This
is
a
3f
5000
district.
The
maximum
at
there
is
0.5.
F
F
That
was
a
decidedly
bad
idea.
I
became
involved
in
the
project
after
my
client
proposed
that
that
was
one
of
the
V
major
issue
with
the
butter.
As
my
client
has
agreed
that
there
will
be
no
front
yet
parking,
that's
not
required
parking,
there's
no
change
in
occupancy
in
the
building.
He
just
thought
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
add
parking.
Unfortunately,
he
chose
the
front
yard
for
it,
which
created
its
own
violation.
The
neighbors
didn't
want
it
there.
There
will
be
no
parking
in
the
front.
F
F
B
B
F
Think
it's
a
six-foot
fence,
it's
it's
there.
It
can
be.
If
assume
this
would
be.
If
it
were,
a
pro
would
be
approved.
The
are
a
design
review.
We
would
look
at
the
fence
again,
it
was
an
existing
fence.
My
client
purchased
the
property
as
part
of
the
renovation
he'll
do
whatever
is
required
in
order
to
make
that
fence
comply
and
the
front
yard
violation
just
for
the
record
is
actually
not
in
the
Belmont
Street
side.
A
AF
R
B
BC
BC
R
C
N
Attorney
Jeff
Drago
and
Drago
and
Toscano
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
here
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
seeking
a
deferral
we
were
asked
by
the
bid.
They
were
not.
They
weren't
active
for
a
few
months
to
come
before
them
again
and
as
well
as
working
with
the
counselor's
office
in
the
district.
So
we
would
respectfully
ask
for
deferral.
B
C
N
C
N
Q
N
C
R
C
B
C
B
C
Thank
you,
Matt
okay,
I'm
gonna
call
the
first
case
for
10:30
calling
POA
one
zero.
Three
six
one:
four,
eight:
five:
nine
nine
to
five:
ninety
nine,
a
East
Broadway.
This
is
direct
a
once
too
rare
addition
to
an
existing
one-story
portion
of
the
building
with
red
deck,
the
violations,
article
68
section,
twenty
nine
roof
structure,
restrictions
name
and
address
full
director
blue.
Madam.
BJ
Johnson
architect,
599
East,
Broadway,
South
Boston,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board.
This
is
an
existing
mixed-use
two
unit
building
at
599,
East
Broadway
the
ground
floor
is
a
commercial
unit
and
the
second
and
half
story
is
a
residential
unit.
Both
are
currently
occupied.
We're
proposing
a
rear
addition
to
the
residential
unit
above
the
rear,
one-story
portion
of
the
building
the
building
is
within
the
zoning
envelope,
except
for
roof
structure
restriction,
we're
changing
the
profile
of
the
building
and
that's
what
we're
cited
for,
and
we've
met
with
the
abutters.
B
BJ
R
B
BK
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
hailey
Dylan
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services
like
to
go
record
in
support.
We
held
on
site
of
butters
meeting
on
January
13th,
in
which
they
addressed
all
the
butters
concerns,
including
eliminating
the
roof.
The
decorated
on
the
at
the
abetters
meeting,
Thank
You.
BL
Chair
members
of
the
wanna
column
from
councillor
Flinx
office
that
councillor
would
like
to
go
on
record
support.
There
was
a
good
community
processing
work
within
our
borders
and
neighbor
since
removing
the
rear
deck.
We
also
contacted
the
Gate
of
Heaven
Neighborhood
Association
and
they
did
not
report
any
issues
as
well.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
BJ
R
BH
C
BH
Good
morning,
mr.
secretary
madam
chair
members,
ward
attorney
Joe
Hanley,
McDormand,
quilty,
Miller,
28,
State
Street
in
Boston
with
me,
is
the
principle
of
the
applicant
business
Miyazaki
also
with
us
are
fellow
partners.
This
is
a
request
for
a
use
change
in
a
commercial
building.
The
property
is
at
427,
West,
Broadway
and
South
Boston
and
seat.
The
intersection
of
F
and
West
Broadway,
known
as
the.
B
BH
For
up
sorry
for
23
for
for
17
for
23,
and
so
this
building
is
a
long,
existing
commercial
building.
The
space
is
on
the
fourth
floor.
It's
an
existing
office
space
they'd
like
to
fit
out
into
a
beauty
salon
use
their
business
concept
rise
and
glow
is
eyelash
extension
in
tanning
salon
business.
They
have
experience
operating
the
partnership
in
to
other
locations,
one
in
Newbury
Street
one
in
Watertown,
and
this
use
request
is
also
consistent
with
sort
of
the
evolution
of
services
along
West
Broadway
in
the
commercial
corridor,
so
I
think
appropriate
for
commercial
building.
BH
R
R
Q
BK
BM
H
P
C
C
Next
case
filing
boa
one:
zero,
three,
five,
six,
four,
nine
four,
seventeen
two
for
23c
West
Broadway:
this
is
a
change
of
auction
from
office
to
hair
salon
and
second
floor
and
installed
sinks
and
Fernet
to
the
violations.
Article
67,
section,
8,
hair,
salons
and
second
floors
for
business
name
and
address
for
the.
BH
Record
place
again
for
mr.
secretary,
madam
chair
members,
ward
attorney,
Joe
Handley,
Germany,
LT,
Miller,
28,
State,
Street
Boston
with
me,
is
Troy
Showa,
who
is
the
principal
of
of
chile's
salon
and
the
applicant
for
the
use
change
in
this
existing
commercial
building
at
417,
423,
C,
West,
Broadway.
BH
So,
just
a
little
bit
of
background
on
this
applicant,
this
is
a
family-run
hair
salon,
business
of
Choa.
They
have
years
of
experience
at
two
other
locations
in
western
mass.
This
is
their
first
location
in
the
city
of
Boston.
This
building
is
educated.
Previous
case
is
an
existing
commercial.
All
commercial
building.
The
space
is,
on
the
second
level,
existing
commercial
unit
of
about
2,300
square
feet
that
they
would
like
to
fit
out
for
this
beauty.
Salon.
BH
BK
BM
H
BB
R
Q
BO
B
BK
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Haley
Dylan,
mayor's
officer
Neighborhood
Services,
like
to
go
record
in
support
I,
also
want
to
point
out
the
fact
that
city
side
neighbor
Association,
is
in
opposition,
but
they
say
that
the
meaning
that
they
oppose
all
those
decks
so
just
to
stay
to
their
standard.
Thank
you.
BL
C
Q
BP
Q
AT
AC
C
The
next
case
calling
vo
a
1
0
to
9
2,
to
6
to
20
Clarendon
Street.
This
is
a
storefront
bump-out
and
renovate
the
entry
and
patio
on
Clarendon
Street
side
remove
the
existing
facade
repair.
We
point
masonary
and
the
large
window
openings.
The
violation
is
article
15,
section
1,
the
Floyd.
A
ratio
is
excessive
article
32,
section
9.
This
is
in
the
G
cod
enforcement
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BD
Basta
beyond
linear
retail
with
me
is
Lauren
Rodgers
who's.
The
assistant
vice
president
for
asset
management,
also
with
me,
is
Ralph
perlis.
The
senior
vice
president
for
construction
management
for
linear
retail.
As
the
secretary
indicated
madam
chair,
this
is
a
very
straightforward
proposal
for
an
existing
commercial
building
located
the
corner
of
new
Bri
and
Clarence
Street
we're
proposing
a
renovation
of
the
retail
space,
which
will
also
result
in
a
bump
out
for
the
front
portion
of
the
building
to
add,
you
know,
add
available
space
for
outdoor
cafe
as
well.
BD
BD
BD
BD
B
J
J
A
AO
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
she
needs
women's
health
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
have
no
concerns
from
this
proposal.
They
received
a
letter
of
non
opposition
from
the
Neighborhood
Association
of
the
Back
Bay,
and
the
mayor's
office
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
Thank
you.
AP
AC
BQ
C
The
next
two
cases
calling
VOA
nine
seven
six,
four,
three
four:
ninety
nine
Nashua
Street.
There
is
a
companion
case,
VOA
one
zero.
Three,
eight
one,
eight
three
one
hundred
Nashua
Street.
This
is
a
continued
existing
for
than
80
commercial
No
Fee
parking
for
patients,
visitors,
guests,
employees
of
Mass,
General,
Hospital
violations,
article
6,
section,
zero,
3a,
additional
conditions
required
in
a
restricted
parking
district
article,
39,
section,
12,
the
use
of
conditional.
C
BR
Jessica
Camino
I'm
here
from
Golson
and
stores,
400
Atlantic,
Avenue,
Boston
Massachusetts
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
Massachusetts
General,
Hospital
or
MGH,
to
request
that
the
board
reaffirm
its
interpretation
that
use
of
the
property
located
at
99,
Nashua
Street
for
up
to
480
parking
spaces
for
the
employees,
guests,
patients
and
visitors
to
NGA
ssin.
Its
affiliates
is
a
lawful
pre-existing
conditional
use
and
that
no
zoning
relief
is
required
to
be
clear.
Mgh
is
not
proposing
any
the
current
use
at
99
Nashua
Street.
So
why
are
you
here?
What's
as
the
use
expired?
BR
B
BR
Stipulation
100
is
different
in
the
sense
that
it
was
not
a
pre-existing
conditional
use
at
99
Nashua.
They
use
predated
the
adoption
of
the
restricted
parking
overlay
district
and
the
North
station
district.
Where
is
at
100
Nashua
Street?
There
are
two
conditional
use
permits
issued
that
we
would
like
to
be
renewed
in
order
to
continue
the
parking
use.
M
AT
AP
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Emily
from
Council
box
office,
we
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
and
support
the
existing
use.
We'd
also
like
to
flag
that
these
parking
lot
assets
may
be
important
to
consider,
as
the
city
continues
to
review.
The
major
proposed
redevelopment
of
MGH,
the
weka,
the
Boston
Preservation
Alliance,
and
the
councillor
are
currently
seeking
ways
to
avoid
the
demolition
of
three
remaining
historic
West
End
buildings
on
the
MGH
campus
for
the
purposes
of
parking.
Thank
you.
AE
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
board,
J
Walsh
and
behalf
of
the
Downtown
North
Association,
we've
been
working
with
Mass
General
as
they're
going
through
this
process,
as
well
as
their
updated
master
planning
process
which
I
know
that
they're.
In
the
midst
of
with
the
BPD
a
so
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
K
X
B
BS
C
This
is
seeking
to
change
the
Arkham
5
residential
units
to
aid
residential
units,
renovate
destruction,
erect
a
roof
deck
for
any
exclusive
unit
of
in
unit
seven
violations;
article
54,
section,
10,
the
fluid
a
ratio
is
excessive:
article
54,
section,
10,
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
54,
section,
18,
roof
structure;
restrictions
in
article
54,
section,
21,
Austria
parking
loading
required
off
street
parking
is
insufficient
name
an
address,
fuller
ethically.
Madam.
BC
Chair
and
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Daniel
Tosh
Connell
from
traigo
and
Cisco
LLP,
located
at
15
garage
Street,
Boston,
Mass
I'm,
here
representing
to
my
right,
is
Peter
McGinnis
and
once
the
property
at
27
chief
tree
to
my
far
right,
is
out
the
trooper
to
an
associates
who
conducted
the
the
architectural
drawings.
What
we
respectfully
requested
is
to
change
the
occupancy
from
a
five
residential
existing
built
into
eight
residential
units
and
add
a
roof
deck
for
the
exclusive
use
of
unit
number
seven,
which
would
be
on
the
front
portion
of
the
plans.
BC
Currently
you
have
a
one-bedroom
on
the
ground
level
and
then
close
number
one.
Two
three
and
four
have
there:
are
nine
hundred
square
feet
three
bedrooms
units?
What
we
like
to
do
is
change
that,
so
the
ground
level
and
first
floor
would
be
have
two
units.
Will
L
be
two
duplex
units,
two
bedrooms
at
853
square
feet
which
will
be
duplexes
on
the
first
floor
in
ground
level
on
the
second
third.
Fourth
floor
will
have
studio
units
at
450
square
feet,
except
for
number
unit
number
seven,
which
is
the
front
of
the
building.
BC
Roof
deck
will
be
for
the
exclusive
use
of
unit
number
seven,
which
is
gonna,
be
approximately
ten
by
fourteen
140
square
feet.
The
access
to
it
is
gonna
be
from
the
existing
head
house,
which
would
be
interior
stairwell
to
the
existing
head
house.
That's
there
and
there's
dimensional
changes
to
the
existing
head
house
for
access
to
the
roof
deck.
No.
B
BC
And
what
happened
so?
It
was
denied.
Madam
chair
2018.
There
was
some
concerns
of
the
concerns
where
one
was
the
utility
the
utility
room
was
accessed
from
the
an
outside
door.
We
made
some
changes,
so
the
utility
room
is
accessed
from
interior
from
the
interior
and
also
those
two
other
concerns.
One
was
the
existing
head
house.
Those
concern
whether
the
existing
head
house
was
there
any
modifications
to
it.
There
are
absolutely
no
modifications
to
the
existing
house.
It's
gonna
encompass
the
existence.
Did
that's
gonna,
be
internal
to
unit
number.
BC
BC
Well
from
sheep
street
setback
22
feet
and
the
building's
about
eighty
feet
long,
seventeen
point
eight
feet
wide,
so
that
is
gonna
be
on
with
not
quite
in
the
middle,
but
we
won't
be
able
to
see
it
from
the
street
and
the
other.
The
other
concern
was
certainly
changing
from
five
units
to
the
eight
units
making
the
studio
units
we
feel
by
doing
so.
We've
done
something
in
the
past
to
an
existing
building
that
mr
McGuinness
owns
on
Hall
Street,
which
is
behind
behind
Chief
Street,
and
it
works
in
terms
of
getting
more
long-term
tenant.
BC
It
works
a
lot
better.
The
current
flow
of
the
floor
plan
at
nine
hundred
square
feet
it's
long
and
really
cutting
through
a
lot
of
rooms
to
get
from
one
room
to
the
next,
so
it
feel
that
the
studio
units
will
have
long
term
tenants,
total
renovations
of
the
unit's,
fully
sprinkled
and
the
new
second
second
stairwell
within
the
within
the
building
and.
BC
R
BC
Q
R
B
You
looked
at
other
options
because
I
as
I
recall
that
which
was
an
issue
when,
when
this
first
came
to
this
board
the
size
of
the
units
and
the
configuration
have
you
looked
at
other
methods.
You
know
you
may
not
get
your
eight
units,
but
you
may
get
your
betta
sides
duplexes.
That
would
work
better
in
the
space
I.
BC
BC
We
are
decreasing
the
number
of
bedrooms
because
it
the
floors,
number
one,
two,
three,
four
three
bedrooms,
so
we
are
decreasing
the
amount
of
sleeping
areas,
so
we
feel
that
with
decreasing
the
amount
of
people,
the
amount
of
trash,
that's
gonna,
be
in
the
property
and
it
actually
makes
the
property
actually
flow
a
little
bit
better
rather
than
walking
through
from
the
front
through
every
single
room
to
get
to
the
back
of
the
property.
Like
I
said
it's,
it's
seventeen
point,
eight
feet
wide
and
80
feet
long.
AT
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
phases
Sharif,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
My
former
colleague
Maria
Lanza
conducted
the
community
process
related
to
this
most
recently
and
a
butters
meeting
this
past
December.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
The
issue
of
density
continues
to
be
concerned
among
abutters,
but
they
do
have
support
from
their
direct
next-door
butters.
Also,
the
previous
use
of
this
property
was
a
rectory,
an
essential.
AT
AC
B
BC
So
we
did
address
the
utility,
the
head
house.
The
concern
was
what
they're
gonna
be
modifications
we
were
making
it
larger
and
when
not,
there's
no
modifications
to
that
house.
Its
remaining
the
same
just
gonna
close
this
day
well
and
you're
correct.
There
hasn't
been
any
significant
changes
to
our
changes
to
the
unit
sizes
square
feet.
We
just
feel
that
that's.
BC
AW
BI
C
The
next
case
calling
boa
one:
zero:
two,
nine
six,
six,
five
nineteen
white
Street.
This
is
no
construction,
be
done
currently
used
as
a
three
family.
The
building
is
listed
as
a
two
family.
The
violation
is
article
53,
section
56
Austria,
packing
loading
requirement.
Article
53
section
8
uses
forbidden
article
53,
section
9,
the
excessive
fa,
our
nautical
53
section,
9,
a
number
of
a
lot
of
capital
stories
has
been
exceeded.
They
have
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
Gerald.
BU
Just
to
bring
alignment
with
the
public
record,
the
building's
been
taxed
for
almost
two
decades.
It's
a
three
family.
It's
been
bought
and
sold
four
times
over
the
last
two
decades
as
a
free
family,
I
purchased
it
in
2015
as
a
three
family.
That's
my
understanding.
I
inherited
the
tenants
in
the
other
two
units
by
I,
purchased.
It
and
I
just
want
to
bring
it.
So
it's
correct
getting.
B
A
quite
a
turnover
four
times
and
in
the
last
two
decades
so
tell
us
about
the
third
that
the
third
unit.
BU
B
B
BU
BU
BU
R
BV
C
BD
C
BD
C
F
F
I'll
have
to
give
the
long
version,
so
this
was
here
in
December,
Niles
Sutton
was
here
with
the
property
owner.
At
that
time,
the
matter
was
deferred
owing
to
the
discovery
of
a
land
disposition
agreement
with
the
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
that
affected
the
property.
Mr.
Sutton,
that
was
intended
to
be
his
final
hearing.
He
retired
he
emailed
me
and
asked
me
if
I
would
take
over
I
worked
with
the
VRA.
We
discovered
that
the
land
disposition
agreement
for
the
property
required
that
the
property
be
developed
at
the
time.
F
B
F
F
I,
unfortunately,
it
is
a
bit
more
complicated
than
that.
The
land
disposition
agreement
requires
that
the
building
be
used
entirely
for
residential.
The
action
before
this
boards
convert
the
the
sorry
to
convert
the
daycare
center
on
the
ground
floor
into
residential
to
residential
units
would
bring
the
property
in
back
into
conformance
with
the
LDA
two
issues
before
us.
One
most
important.
The
initial
refusal
letter
incorrectly
cited
article
53,
these
Boston
zoning
code,
so
the
original
adverse
advertising
was
defective.
F
The
property
owner
wants
to
go
back
to
garrison
Trotter
with
Niles
Niles
will
not
be
returning
from
Florida
until
May
I've
been
asked
to
seek
a
deferral
to
allow
for
two
things
for
the
matter
to
be
riad,
vert
eyes
with
the
correct
reference
under
the
zoning
code,
and
also
to
allow
my
client
denials
to
go
to
a
meeting
garrison,
Trotter,
Neighborhood
Association,
which
unfortunately
cannot
occur,
perhaps
until
June.
They
need
the
first
Sunday
of
every
month.
Therefore,
I'm
requesting
that
this
matter
be
giving
a
rehearing
date
in
June
a.
F
C
You
are
there
any
other
deferral
with
Charles.
Madam
chair.
We
have
two
cases
we
have
to
pull
in,
that
are
being
withdrawn,
so
I'm
going
to
call
actually
to
compan
one
companion
in
one
other
case,
so
I'm
gonna
call
him
in
for
the
record,
calling
VOA
nine
seven.
Eight
eight
four,
two
nine
to
eleven
Catherine
Street,
there's
companion
case,
boa
nine,
seven,
eight
four,
eight
four,
thirteen
to
fifteen
captain
Street
they
are
withdrawing
their
product,
so
I
make
a
denial,
make
a
motion
for
denial
without
prejudice.
B
B
C
This
is
a
renovate
change
oxygen
for
you
in
a
residential
dwelling
erected
edition
with
roof
deck.
The
violation
is
article
27,
T
5.
This
is
in
the
East
Boston
iPod
article
53,
section
56
in
off
street
parking
low
demand
quite
insufficient
parking
in
article
53,
section
8,
we're
used
to
regulations.
C
It's
forbidden
article
53,
section
9,
excessive
FA,
our
article
53
section,
9
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded:
article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
side
yard
setback,
article
53,
section
9
in
excess
of
height
article
53,
section
54
screening
in
buffer
requirement;
article
53,
section,
52,
Bruce,
structure,
restrictions,
access,
name,
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BD
BD
H
BD
You,
madam
chair,
this
is
the
proposal
for
the
preservation
of
an
existing
structure
located
the
Eagle
Hill
section
of
East
Boston.
We
would
be
proposing
to
do
a
complete
rehabilitation
of
the
entire
structure
and
change
the
occupancy
upon
completion
to
a
four
unit
dwelling,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
plans
and
the
renderings
special
attention
has
been
paid
to
the
standards
for
the
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association
neighborhood,
even
though
this
does
not
lie
within
the
historic
district.
BD
Great
efforts
have
been
made
to
preserve
the
existing
exterior,
as
well
as
improve
the
conditions
on
the
exterior
of
the
building.
By
way
of
relief,
we
require
first,
by
way
of
use
for
family
would
not
be
allowed
in
the
in
the
in
the
district.
This
is
an
existing
I
just
folks
that
two
families
is
existing
three
family
dwelling,
so
we
be
changing
them
with
three
to
a
four.
BD
The
lot
size
would
be
sufficient,
as
well
as
the
lot
with
in
the
front
yard,
which
is
a
existing
condition
at
modal.
We
would
be
requesting
relief
for
the
side
yard
because
of
the
proposed
addition
that
we're
adding
to
the
rear
of
the
building,
as
well
as
the
dormers
that
we're
adding
to
the
top.
We
don't
require
relief
for
the
rear
yard,
because
the
condition
of
30
feet
would
be
sufficient
under
article
53.
There
is
a
pre-existing
fa,
our
condition
of
1.01,
which
is
an
excess
of
the
0.8.
BD
That's
allowed
under
Article
53,
with
the
increased
living
space
we'd,
be
increasing
the
F
air
to
1.3
3,
and
therefore
variance
would
be
necessary
for
that.
The
building
has
it
existent,
as
it's
viewed
from
the
street
line,
doesn't
change
much
other
than
the
dormers.
That
can
be
seen,
however,
because
we
are
filling
in
a
portion
of
the
back
portion
of
the
building.
That
would
result
in
a
violation
for
the
height
at
stories.
2.5
is
the
maximum
be
considered
through
story
building.
BD
We
would
only
be
required
under
the
code
to
add
one
additional
parking
space,
because
this
is
a
pre-existing
three
family
dwelling
with
no
parking
article
53
provides
an
exception
that
requires
only
parking
for
the
additional
units
being
proposed.
I
would
certainly
make
no
sense
to
try
to
incorporate
a
driveway,
thus
eliminating
one
and
a
half
parking
spaces
on
the
street
in
favor
of
one
private
space
for
the
building.
We
did
an
opportunity
to
present
this
to
the
Eagle
civic
association
who
supported
the
proposal,
including
the
relief
for
the
parking.
The
bedroom
sizes.
BD
Are
you
to
count
better
sizes?
They
range
from
at
a
thousand
twenty
square
feet,
but
the
smallest
and
that's
a
two-bedroom
up
to
about
twelve
hundred
thirty
square
feet
for
a
three
bedroom,
which
I
understand
are
quite
consistent
with
the
recommended
units
of
unit
sizes
for
those
sized
bedrooms.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
of
the
board.
BW
B
B
B
BV
BT
AC
BX
B
BX
B
B
H
BX
Why
I
live
over
there
for
40
years?
They
go
crazy
for
the
park
of
the
night.
I.
Take
this
at
the
city
of
desert,
see
I
have
all
the
tired
American
agency,
the
people,
the
city,
the
total.
You
understand,
I
understand
you
are
talking
about
now.
Adame
represent
the
city,
the
poster
new
for
me,
and
the
people
delivered
my
neighbor.
B
B
C
Gonna
call
it
case:
I
called
earlier
calling
boa
nine
seven
four
one:
zero
nine
one:
thirty
Bremen
Street
Bremen
Street.
It
does
extend
the
first
floor
unit
living
space
into
the
basement,
installed
new
windows
build
new
egress
here
and
deck
renovate
interior
new
finishes
violation,
twenty-five
section
five:
this
is
in
the
flood
hazard
district
article
53,
section:
nine,
the
footie
a
ratio
is
excessive
article
53,
section
I
on
the
side
yard
setback.
It
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
I
on
the
rear
yard
setback
is
insufficient
and
there's
article
2017
five.
BY
Essentially,
renovate
an
existing
three
family
unit,
the
building
itself
will
pretty
much
stay
as
it
is
the
exterior
of
the
building.
However,
we
are
proposing
a
rear
stair
on
the
back
and
deck.
The
reason
for
that
is
that
the
existing
stair,
the
rear
exit
egress
there's
insufficient.
Does
it
be
code,
so
our
intent
is
to
build
a
new
stair
on
the
back
and
also
a
duct
a
deck
as
well.
BY
B
BZ
BY
BG
B
B
BV
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Lena
Tommy
Lee
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
I,
would
like
to
run
the
record
in
support
during
the
community
process.
There
were
no
concerns
from
their
parents
and
also
this
proposal
received
the
support
from
maverick
Central
Square
Neighborhood
Association.
Thank
you.
B
Anybody
here
to
speak
in
opposition,
so,
given
the
information
that
we
have
may
I
have
a
motion,
it
sounds
like
the
extension
into
the
basement
is
not
going
to
work
so
that
that
piece
of
the
proposal
will
be
need
to
be
denied.
However,
the
rear,
deck
and
stairs
seem
like
they
are
appropriate.
So
how
may
I
have
a
motion
to
that
effect?.
R
B
AD
Q
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
You,
madam
chair
I'm,
gonna,
call
the
first
case
for
be
discussion,
calling
Bo
a
1
0
1
3
4,
7,
5
24,
rare
Winship
Street,
this
second
property
as
a
single-family
dwelling
and
constructed
new
addition,
the
violation
article
51
section
9,
the
Floyd.
A
ratio
is
excessive
article
51,
section
9,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
An
article
51
section
9
for
area
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record
player.
BZ
B
For
the
to
bring
the
rest
of
the
board
up
to
date,
we
had
this
case
at
the
subcommittee
last
week,
where
the
applicants
were
proposing.
In
addition,
I
think
from
this
this
aerial
photograph.
You
can
see
the
acts
being
the
subject
property
towards
the
rear.
There
is
a
house
and
the
owner
of
that
house.
The
owners
of
the
house
were
interested
in
extending
screening
and
buffering,
and
there
could
not
be
a
meeting
of
the
minds
at
them
at
the
meeting
on
that
Thursday.
B
BZ
B
B
X
B
C
A
next
case
calling
boa
nine
eight
zero,
zero,
seven,
five,
thirty
seven
Kohlberg
Avenue.
This
is
a
change
in
use
from
a
two
family
residential
to
three
family.
The
change
of
use
will
component
to
the
existing
additions,
which
were
present
at
a
time.
You
want
to
purchase
a
property.
The
violations
Article
67,
section
32
Austria
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
60
7,
section
8
3
units
and
a2
F
5000
sub
district
are
forbidden,
Article,
67,
section,
9,
lot
areas,
insufficient
Article,
67,
section
I
in
the
phylidia
ratio
is
excessive.
B
CA
BS
You
graciously
allowed
a
deferral
for
the
purpose
of
us,
providing
some
more
dimensional
information,
in
particular
you're.
Looking
for
the
precise
fa,
our
numbers
and
we
I
have
had
attorney
my
phone
prepare
a
summary
of
Zoning
summary
with
that
information
and
just
as
a
way
of
background
remind
the
board.
My
clients
were
Albanian.
Immigrants
came
here
and
then
bought
this
house
in
2004
and
its
current
condition
with
as
a
practical
three
family
over
the
years.
BS
BS
B
B
BS
If
you
look
on
the
under
Tab,
2
you'll
see
there's
a
layout
of
the
of
the
building
on
the
third
floor,
which
is
blown
up
in
the
last
two
pages.
It
works
out
to
be
900
and
38
feet,
allowing
for
the
five
foot
knee
wall
it
has.
It
would
have
a
kitchen
and
two
means
to
means
of
egress,
and
it
would
allow
a
use
of
the
of
the
of
the
third
floor
that
is
as
consistent
with
I
know.
B
R
BG
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Joe
carpenter
from
the
mayor's
office
at
Neighborhood
Services,
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
of
this
project
to
meet.
It
did
receive
a
lot
of
support
from
his
directive,
but
as
well
as
people
surrounding
the
neighborhood
at
our
community
meeting.
So
again,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
Thank
you.
Good.
BO
AM
CB
H
C
C
C
This
is
a
confirm
our
fee
as
a
single-family
installed:
wood,
stockade
fence.
On
top
of
the
new
perimeter
wha
block
wall,
the
total
height
of
the
wall
and
fence
is
6
foot,
6,
violation,
article
50,
section,
229,
the
front
yard,
5-foot
maximum
fence
height
side
yard
is
6
feet,
maximum
height
name,
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
CC
H
B
BT
B
CC
Welcome
if
I
may,
the
petitioner
is
a
real
property
trust
owned
by
the
Barsoomian
family.
They
purchased
this
property
16
shetland
Street
almost
two
years
ago.
It's
a
single
family
home
in
need
of
renovation
and
repair
is
bounded
almost
entirely
by
commercial
properties.
On
one
side
is
a
twosie,
auto
repair.
CC
On
the
other
side,
abutting,
the
side
yard
is
a
parking
lot
used
by
a
twosie
to
store
cars
that
are
the
subject
to
prepare
directly
across
the
street,
is
the
rider
rental
truck
yard
and
that
property
is
surrounded
by
fence
at
least
eight
feet
tall
with
the
barbed
wire
top
on
the
top
of
that
fence.
The
rear
yard
abutting
properties
to
this
parcel
are
tourist
packing
company,
which
is
a
business
owned
by
the
petitioners.
CC
This
part
of
the
neighborhood
that
this
property
is
is
in
has
faced
its
fair,
shall
challenges
over
the
years.
It's
a
relatively
high
crime
area
in
the
city
within
Boston.
It's
within
several
blocks
of
what's
affectionately,
referred
to
as
a
methadone
mile.
This
property
in
the
short
two-year
time
period
that
has
been
owned
by
the
petitioner,
has
had
a
fair
number
of
trespassers
enter
the
property
and,
on
one
occasion,
a
trespasser
who's
asked
to
vacate
the
property
I.
B
B
CD
CC
CC
R
I'm,
in
some
ways
a
little
unfortunate
that
this
was
already
built.
There
are
plenty
of
good
reasons
to
have
built
this
fence
and
a
defense
was
nicely
constructed
and
nicely
designed.
The
problem
is
that's
in
violation
of
height
requirements
and
I
can't
see,
no
matter
how
well-intentioned
it
may
be,
how
we
could
approve
a
fence
that
is
above
the
six
foot
limit.
So
you
know
that,
would
that
would
be
what
I
would
suggest
that
it
get
adjusted.
O
B
AD
AT
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
faces
sri,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
the
support
only
because
we
didn't
get
any
negative
feedback
from
the
neighbors
on
this.
I
do
understand
that
the
fence
was
already
built
up,
but
we
would
have
asked
for
BPD
a
design
review.
Thank
you.
CE
AT
CE
B
B
That's
irrelevant
because
I
I
mean
it's
relevant,
because
Robert
is
very
well
respected
and
very
well
liked.
However,
we
have
our
own
concerns
here,
receive
hundreds
of
projects
and
thousands
of
projects,
so
we
need
to
figure
out.
Is
there
a
solution
that
you
are
proposing,
or
are
you
proposing
to
go
ahead,
as
is
I'm,
giving
you
an
opportunity
to
to
think
this
through
and
perhaps
offer
us
some
kind
of
solution
to
this.
BO
B
Okay,
so
let's,
let's
figure
this
out,
we
have
two
options.
One
is
a
motion
to
deny
so
that
the
entire
fence
comes
down
to
that.
You
modify
the
fence
to
six
feet.
Okay,
all
three,
that
in
fact,
where
that
gate
is,
you
do
not
have
something
that
that's
that
that's
solid.
Maybe
you
put
something
else
in
there
that
doesn't
padlock.
That
is,
but,
however,
is
a
gate.
You
know
that's
your
third
option
so
either
offer
us
something
or
we'll
offer
you
something.
CF
R
R
R
C
BR
D
D
So
Jen
is
the
owner
of
the
top
floor
unit
at
210,
Lincoln
Street
she's,
proposing
a
roof,
deck
and
roof
house
space
for
her
family
of
4,
going
on
5
the
project
yep.
So
it's
there
was
a
walk
up.
Stair,
that's
going
from
her
unit
to
a
private
space.
It's
about
14
by
14
feet
that
leads
onto
a
roof
deck.
B
D
Q
CG
BL
C
This
is
seeking
to
change
jobs
from
a
six
family,
residential
dwelling
to
a
seven
family,
residential
dwelling
legalize
the
existing
basement
living
space
and
renovate
the
building
to
have
footage,
sprinkled
system
violation,
article
54,
section
10,
the
Floyd,
a
ratio,
success
of
article
54,
section,
10,
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
an
article
54
section
21.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient.
BC
9
I
represent
the
petition
I'm
dr.
sim
wella
apologizes,
not
being
here.
We
had
some
medical
patients
that
he
could
not
transfer
scheduled
conflict
and
scheduled
I'm.
Introducing
the
chick
who's
did
the
design
for
the
property.
This
is
an
existing
six
family
residential
dwelling.
What
we'd
like
to
do
is
change.
The
arguments
is
a
seven
family.
BC
What
we
want
to
do
is
confirm
the
upload
I'm,
sorry
add
one
more
residential
Union,
which
is
existing
in
the
lower
level,
which
is
the
Godin
unit,
currently
right
now
that
the
prior
owner
of
the
property
currently
was
living
at
that
particular
space
when
dr.
Weller
purchased
the
property
part
of
the
agreement
was
to
keep
the
current
owner
and
give
him
a
life
Tennessee
at
that
property.
The
goal
was
to
maybe
move
him
into
one
of
the
existing
residential
units
that
are
above,
however,
due
to
some
is
some
impairments.
BC
He
prefers
to
stay
where
he
is
so.
What
we
like
to
do
is
renovate
the
existing
space
create
a
further
509
square
feet.
Studio
unit,
the
height
of
ceylon
high,
will
be
7
feet,
11
inches
tall
of
the
full
windows
on
the
side
of
the
property
as
the
property
slopes
front
on
Chad
Reed
as
it
slopes
down
onto
fostering.
So
you
have
full
windows
on
the
side
and
we
could
add.
If
we
want
there's
no
more,
we
could
add
a
window
on
the
front.
BC
There
is
several
means
of
egress
for
that
particular
unit,
madam
chair,
so
by
filing
we
did
encounter
some
violations.
The
existing
the
required
FAA
are
in
this
particular
area
is
three.
We
are
at
two
point
six
six
right
now
by
adding
the
additional
living
space.
We're
at
three
point,
one
five,
so
a
little
bit
over
than
the
free.
The
other
violation
is
the
open
space,
we're
not
providing
any
open
space
in
this
particular
property,
it's
existing,
so
we
have
to
because
it's
in
a
multi-family
residential
sub
district.
BC
We
have
to
put
a
hundred
square
feet
of
open
space,
we're
asking
for
a
relief
for
the
open
space
requirement
in
the
off
street
pocket
because
we're
asking
to
increase
it
from
a
six
to
a
seven
family
residential
unit,
we're
required
to
have
one
additional
parking
spots.
We
have
no
popular
on
this
side.
This
isn't
about
the
neighborhood.
We
don't
have
any
means
to
provide
parking,
but
we
are
close
to
public
transportation,
so
we're
hoping
that
we
can
get
relief
from
the
pocket.
BC
AT
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
face:
a
shriek
with
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services,
my
former
colleague
Maria
Lanza
conducted
the
community
process
related
to
this.
The
reason
why
it
was
deferred
was
around
abutters
concerns
about
that
one
story
edition
that
has
since
been
resolved,
and
at
this
time
we
have
no
further
concerns.
Thank
you.
BT
AC
E
B
C
The
next
case
calling
boa
one:
zero:
zero
six,
three
four
nine
125
Addison
Street.
This
is
a
raise.
The
existing
dwelling
and
erect
a
new
building
consisting
of
nine
executive
suites
with
parking
for
ten
vehicles.
The
violations
article
53
section
25,
the
use-
is
conditional,
an
article
2017
five
was
in
the
East
Boston
iPod
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BD
C
BD
B
BD
I
think
that's
important
to
the
context
of
the
presentation
Adam
chair,
because
when
the
application
was
submitted
in
July,
this
was
a
primitive
use.
It
is
still
a
permitted
use,
that's
just
conditional
as
of
January
of
2020,
and
that
was
based
on
his
owning
amendment
that
was
submitted
through
the
Zoning
Commission
back
in
December
of
2019,
which
would
have
been
after
our
initial
public
notice
for
this
hearing.
That
was
originally
an.
BD
BD
BD
Our
zoning
are
we
executive.
Article
2
way
for
the
record
is
any
dwelling
other
than
a
boardinghouse
dormitory
fraternity.
Lodging
house
are
already
house,
Hotel,
Motel
or
apartment
Hotel,
in
which
living
space
with
kitchen
facilities-
that's
the
condense.
The
key
element
here
is
led
to
few
the
10
persons
who
are
not
related
by
blood
or
marriage,
adoption
or
other
analogous
family
Union,
and
it's
primarily
a
temporary
abode
of
persons
living
elsewhere.
So
the
10,
the
the
limitation
on
10
persons,
is
satisfied
by
not
doing
more
than
9
units
in
this
particular.
BD
So
when
the
application
was
filed,
madam
chair
back
in
July
with
Boeing
when
they
purchased
the
property,
the
intent
was
to
in
to
develop
executive
suites
for
that
purpose,
as
it
isn't
allowed
use
in
the
district,
the
building
was
designed
to
be
completely
compliant
with
article
53
in
the
dimensions
set
forth
in
the
EDA,
and
that
includes
a
45
foot
height
limit,
a
20
foot,
rear
yard
setback
and
FA
are
of
2.0.
A
lot
itself
is
five
thousand
square
feet
and
therefore
we're
compliant
with
each
of
those
requirements.
Doctor.
B
BD
B
BO
B
BD
Yeah
so
I
think
just
for
way
of
context.
I
know
the
board,
since
the
zoning
amendment
has
not
probably
had
a
lot
of
these
to
address,
I
think
it's
critical
to
point
out
that
the
PDA,
unlike
other
districts
throughout
the
city
of
Boston,
actually
forbids
residential
use.
So
in
order
to
permit
an
executive
suite
structure
in
the
EDA
district,
asking
for
the
relief
that
we're
asking
for
is
the
least
amount
of
relief
that
would
be
necessary
for
that
use.
If
we
were
to
propose
residential
use,
you'd
be
requesting
a
variance
instead,
but.
BD
Is
a
mix
actually
there's
commercial
along
Addison
Street,
there's
a
substantial
amount
of
commercial
directly
across
the
street,
and
there
is
an
executive
suites
actually
being
built
directly
next
door
to
this
property
at
120,
120,
121,
121,
Addison
Street
as
well
nine,
and
that
was
that
was
permitted
by
Wright
mr.
Ehrlich,
and
that
was
that
is
under
construction
when
the
property
was
purchased
by
mr.
BD
BD
So,
with
executive
suites,
they
are
professionally
managed.
Mr.
Beliveau
has
a
substantial
experience
and
not
only
real
estate,
development
of
a
property
management,
and
these
would
be
managed
in
a
corporate
for
corporate
type.
Rentals.
This
isn't
intent
to
be
built
for
an
Airbnb
type
operation
is
specifically
geared
towards
having
an
account
with
a
corporate
placement
agency
if
their
executives,
attorneys
doctors,
students
or
others
who
need
short-term
housing,
not
something
that
would
require,
or
certainly
wouldn't
require
them
to
go
and
have
a
hotel
room
for
that
period
of
time.
BD
It
also
provides
for
a
living
accommodation
by
allowing
this
type
of
use
and
to
maintain
it
in
the
eda
actually
does
take
some
of
the
pressure
off
the
you
know,
underground
Airbnb
or
other
executive
suite
type
of
ranges
that
may
be
occurring
elsewhere
in
the
neighborhood's
executive.
Suites
are
not
allowed,
obviously
in
the
in
the
3f
or
to
every
one-f
districts.
B
AY
BD
Notice
indicates
manager
that
there
are
10
parking
spaces,
the
zoning
code
and
the
eda
only
requires
seven
parking
spaces.
We
actually
are
providing
8
so
we're
ahead
of
the
what
the
zoning
code
require,
but
the
notice
actually
indicated
more
there's
not
any
additional
zoning
relief
that
would
be
necessary
to
have
that
number
of
parking
spaces
on
site.
You.
CF
R
B
BD
My
understanding
through
the
chairs
that
the
executive
suites
is
not
going
to
be
subject
to
the
restrictions
on
short-term
rental
same
as
for
lodging
house,
but
in
this
particular
case
the
executive
suites
is
a
specific
use
that,
along
with
that,
requires
the
professional
management.
Unlike
if
a
lodging
house
were
to
be
established,
there's
not
the
same
oversight
or
requirement
from
the
building
code
standpoint
and
from
I'm
sure
the
city's
enforcement
standpoint.
BD
CF
B
Let's,
just
let's
just
spend
a
moment
on
that,
so
so
you're
not
gonna
have
an
on-site
person.
How
many,
how
many
units
do
you
have
in
the
local
area
so.
CF
AD
B
R
B
BV
Of
the
board
Lynette
ramela
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
I
would
like
to
go
in
the
record
on
opposition
in
this
proposal.
At
this
time,
the
ABARES
have
many
concerns
regarding
this
proposal
also
based
on
an
administration.
The
mayor's
office
is
strongly
opposed
to
new
conversions
from
existing
houses
to
shorter
term
rentals
and
executive
suites.
Thank
you.
B
BD
That
one
comment
I
feel
it's
important
and
I
do
a
good
deal
of
work
with
mr.
Malley
in
the
new
spots
neighborhood.
The
abutters
concerns
were
not
about
the
executive
suites
he
fighters
concerns
or,
if
it's
executive
suites
will
it
be
professionally
managed.
That
was
a
commitment
we
made
through
the
community
process.
We
did
explore
the
conversation
of
doing
residential
use
at
this
site
and
the
neighbors
specifically
stated
that
they
were
they
were.
They
were
fine
with
executive
suites
provided
was
professionally
management.
That
was
the
the
reaction.
We've
gotten
a.
B
Chicken-And-Egg
deal
here
is
because
yeah,
because
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
that.
BD
B
B
B
So
you
know
what
I
think
what
we
might
need
to
do
is
have
the
law
department
help
us
on
this.
I
mean
we've
never
done
this
before,
but
to
really
consider
consider
what
what
the
check
is,
because
there
is
going
to
be
I'm,
assuming
an
increase
in
the
number
of
requests
for
executive
suites,
but
we
need
to
just
make
sure
there's
a
protection
in
place
now.
B
R
This
is
this
is
the
first
one
I
believe
that
we've
had
since
junk
January.
First,
there
was
another
one
on
the
agenda
today
that
either
withdrew
or
deferred.
So
it's
clearly
something
that's
going
to
come
and
I
would
agree
with
the
chair
that
we
need
to
have
a
consistent
policy
on
how
we're
going
to
approach
it.
So
I
would
make
a
motion
that
we
refer
the
this
case
to
the
law
department,
for
their
advice
and
review.
B
BE
B
AF
AF
BO
BD
245
Sumner
Street,
East
Boston
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
Frank's
Rippa
who's,
the
owner
of
the
property
along
with
DNR
Tisha's,
who
is
the
architect
with
Embarq
studio.
Madam
chair,
we
were,
if
we
deferred
this
matter
at
a
total
of
three
separate
occasions.
Actually,
two
of
the
most
recent
reasons
for
the
deferral
were
to
work
with
the
director
butter,
who
has
an
adjoining
building
to
the
left
of
this
property
for
purposes
of
understanding
the
construction
and
the
impacts
this
would
have.
BD
We
did
have
a
chance,
since
the
last
deferral
to
have
a
meeting
that
was
facilitated
by
the
district
city
councilor,
at
which
time
a
number
of
items
were
set
forth
as
two
concerns.
I
believe
my
client
has
responded
that
we
are
prepared
to
do
any
and
all
things
reasonable
to
ensure
that
any
concerns
that
were
raised
relative
to
construction
activities
and
demolition,
including
delivery
of
plans
to
an
engineer
that
we
would
pay
for
as
well
as
addressing
concerns
during
construction.
BD
BD
The
proposal
would
involve
the
demolition
of
the
existing
there's,
an
existing
one-story
commercial
that
occupies
the
entire
lot.
Madam
chair,
we're
proposing
to
replace
that
with
a
three-story,
mixed-use
building
ground
level,
retail
at
a
smaller
scale,
to
allow
for
some
building
amenities
and
six
residential
units.
BD
Above
each
of
those
units
are
one-bedroom,
those
units
would
be
about
625
square
feet,
average,
some
a
little
a
little
bit
larger,
and
this
building,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
photos
that
we've
provided
the
board,
is
on
a
prominent
corner
that
enters
day
square,
the
southern
tip
of
day
square.
So,
as
you
can
see
from
the
photos,
the
existing
building
now
is
some.
What
would
be
somewhat
out
of
scale
with
everything
that's
happening
around
it.
BD
This
board
has
approved
number
of
projects
in
and
around
this
area
directly
across
the
street
directly
behind
this,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
were
asked
to
do
during
one
of
our
deferrals
was
to
consider
lowing
our
original
proposal
from
four
storeys
to
three
to
be
consistent
with
the
height
of
the
buildings
that
were
recently
approved
around
us,
and
we
did
that
gladly
and
readjusted
our
building.
Eliminating
a
number
of
units
as
well
I
would
point
out
that
this
isn't
located
in
the
neighborhood
shopping
district,
which
is
defined
by
article
53.
BD
Neighborhood
shopping
specifically
specifically
encourages
these
types
of
uses,
including
ground-level
retail
and
residential
at
the
upper
levels,
and
the
height
limit
is
35
feet.
So
I
want
to
just
point
that
out
early
on
in
this
presentation
that
we
are
consistent
with
the
use
and
complying
with
the
use
on
article
53,
we're
not
asking
for
any
relief
for
that
and
we're
consistent
with
the
height
that
is
acceptable
on
article
53
in
the
district.
Despite
the
fact
that
there
are
buildings
taller
than
our
proposed
building
so.
BD
CH
Further
for
the
FEMA
guidelines
we
will
have
to
be,
we
have
to
be
compliant
with
the
freeboard
elevation,
which
I
believe
is
at
this
location.
One
foot
above
finish,
elevation
will
mitigate
that
within
the
building.
We
have
an
entry
corridor
that
allows
us
to
mitigate
the
the
foot
inside
the
building,
as
well
as
with
the
retail
space.
BD
So,
with
respect
to
the
relief,
that's
necessary,
this
being
located
a
neighborhood
shopping,
district,
ground
level,
retail
and
multi-family
residential
is
allowed
because
a
matter
of
right,
no
variance
necessary
for
that.
There
is
no
minimum
lot
size
in
neighborhood
shopping,
sub
district.
We
have
2,500
to
square
feet
and
therefore
are
compliant
with
article
53
as
well.
Our
minimum
lot
width
is,
we
have
25
feet.
There
is
no
requirement
for
any
lot
with
in
the
neighborhood
shopping
district.
BD
So
therefore
compliant
our
front
yard
would
be
a
modal
setback
consistent
with
what's
presently
existing
on
the
site,
we
actually
have
pulled
the
corner
that
building
back
based
upon
some
comments
that
we
heard
the
community
process
to
ensure
that
the
transition
around
the
corner
is
sufficient.
There
is
no
side
yard
requirement,
no
side
yard
proposed
and
I
want
to
stop
there
for
one
moment,
because
that
is
the
issue
that
we
did
take
a
deferral
for
last
time.
The
adjoining
of
butter
is
a
business
known
as
Mario's
restaurant.
BD
The
specific
concern
that
was
originally
raised
was
relative
to
our
wall
and
whether
or
not
our
wall
would
interfere
with
their
wall.
When
we
removed
our
wall,
there
was
a
specific
concern
over
damage
to
their
property.
Our
architect
has
had
a
chance
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
original
building
plans
for
both
buildings
and
can
state
specifically
on
the
record
what
the
conditions
were
that
were
observed
and
how
demolition
this
building
can
be
accomplished
without
any
any
specific
concern
for
the
abutting
property.
So.
BD
That's
before
us
sure,
with
respect
to
the
Florida
area
ratio.
Two
point:
three:
nine
is
what's
proposed
where
at
one
point
Oh
I
mean
1.0
is
the
maximum
two
point.
Three
nine
is
consistent
with
all
of
the
surrounding
properties.
Each
of
those
pretty
much
fill
out
the
entire
lot
because
they
are
corner
lot
condition.
BD
We
are
at
35
feet,
which
is
the
maximum
height
limit
and
again,
we've
reduced
this
building
down
from
46
feet
down
to
35
at
the
request
of
neighbors
through
an
18-month
community
process
for
this
project,
we
do
have
some
open
space
that
can
be
accessed
through
balconies
and
other
openings.
One
of
the
other
requests
that
we
did
respond
to
in
the
community
process
was
not
to
include
a
roof
deck
on
this
building.
We
specifically
remove
that
from
the
plan
again
in
response
to
direct
of
utter
concerns.
B
R
R
BD
O
BD
BD
AZ
Ahead
counselor.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
I'm
here
today
to
discuss
the
process
that
I
support
and
the
end
result
and
conversation
that
I
hope
will
happen.
As
you
may
recall,
last
time,
I
was
here:
I
opposed
this
project
in
hopes
that
the
concede
continue
their
conversations.
Since
then,
my
office
has
been
deeply
involved.
Actually,
in
this
case
starting
cent
mid-january,
we've
concerned
ourselves
in
conversations
and
good-faith
work
with
both
sides
to
try
and
come
to
a
deal
a
consensus
deal.
Yes,
they
to
the
proponents
point.
AZ
We
actually
asked
them
to
come
down
to
35
feet
so
they're
within
the
surrounding
zoning
to
their
ramona's
also
point
they
are
in
a
commercial
district
and
they're,
proposing
a
mixed
use.
Property.
Also,
we
are
in
the
middle
of
planning.
Boston
in
that
area,
is
planning
for
and
will
be
very
likely
up
zoned,
so
their
plans
are
consistent.
That
being
said,
the
abut
er
has
expressed
valid
concerns
about
the
structural
impact
on
her
building.
We
sat.
AZ
AZ
This
is
all
very
important
because
it's
the
first
time
our
office
got
this
intimately
involved
in
and
moved
back
and
forth,
and
that's
a
deal
that's
still
on
the
table,
I
hope
and
that's
what
I
support
that
going
forward
when
speaking
with
you
but
ER.
She
is
not
opposed
to
growth
in
terms
of
the
building
itself.
She
is
absolutely
am
rightfully
concerned
about
its
direct
impact
on
hers.
The
walls
there's
no
breathing
room
between
them.
Her
back
deck
is
literally
built
into
their
buildings,
they're
gonna
tear
down
which
they
also
agreed
to
fix
for
her.
AZ
R
AZ
I
actually
did
some
research
and
looked
at
the
square
historic
square
space,
and
there
was
at
the
time
before
large
fire
and
a
square.
There
was
a
building
of
this
height.
Actually,
all
of
days
score
was
much
higher
than
there
was
a
large
fire.
So
it's
not
out
of
context
to
have
this
height
and
to
have
mixed-use.
We
are
doing
everything
actually
to
bring
up
the
square
to
have
additional
commercial
space.
We're
doing
also
at
these
Boston
tax.
AZ
Excuse
me
transit
plan
and
that's
going
to
directly
impact
this
area
so
in
terms
of
its
design,
and/or
use
it
at
least
it's
consistent
in
that
area.
What
I'm
hoping
for
again
is
the
continued
conversation
that
they
agreed
to
that
before
it
comes
to
ISD,
with
that
design
from
the
BPD
a
that
the
butter
would
have
again
direct
impact
and
perspective.
AZ
P
The
Board
Paul
Sullivan
I,
guess
it
accounts,
lodge
Michael
Flaherty.
The
council
like
to
go
on
record
support.
He
believes
this
is
a
good
project.
That's
been
deferred
three
times
already
in
the
past.
The
hang-up
on
the
project,
as
the
council
so
eloquently
put,
has
been
a
business
term
between
neighbors
that
the
consulate
is
at.
This
point
is
not
in
the
business
of
dealing
with
are
those
specific
business
terms.
The
product
is
consistent
with
five
recent
projects
within
close
proximity
to
this
one
that
has
been
approved
by
this
board
in
the
past.
BV
Afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Lynette
ramela
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services
I,
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
opposition
for
this
proposal.
At
this
moment,
we
didn't
receive
enough
support
from
the
apparels.
They
still
have
many
concerns,
especially
regarding
design
and
the
parking
and
how
it's
going
to
affect
their
business.
I
have
a
petition
of
a
position
and
also
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association
voted
against
this
proposal.
Thank
you.
B
CI
B
B
B
CJ
Here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
my
mom,
the
main
concern
is
the
zoning
and
the
density
of
the
project
in
days
square
does
not
meet
the
current
zoning
that
the
laws
that
are
in
place
at
this
time.
In
addition
to
the
concerns
she's
already
expressed
in
the
last
meeting
due
to
the
the
distance
between
walls
and
the
fact
that
it
may
jeopardize
a
structure
and
possibly
collapse
and
affect
our
business,
where
we've
been
for
36
years,
that
is,
that
has
always
been.
CJ
B
J
O
CJ
Had
discussions
after
the
last
meeting
we
did
have
a
meeting.
We
sat
down
about
potential
solutions
to
try
to
find
a
path
and
try
to
make
things
work
and
come
to
agreeable
terms
for
both
parties
in
their
best
interests
and
I
feel
like
we
haven't,
made
any
progress
since
then,
there's
been
some
communication,
we've
tried.
There
was
some
last-minute
responses
as
late
as
last
Friday
at
4:10
p.m.
so
at
4
o'clock.
On
a
Friday
going
into
a
weekend,
we
were
supposed
to
get
to
built
the
proposed
building
plans
of
the
new
project.
CJ
CJ
B
Ehrlich
I'm
gonna
address
this
to
you,
mr.
mr.
porch,
and
likewise
to
you,
because
we
have
had
this
issue
about
building
and
building
stability
where
the
issues
were
were
very
similar.
We
looked
at
a
project.
Was
it
on
federal
Street,
where
everybody
was
concerned
about
0.0001
movement?
Is
that
did
I
have
enough
decimal
places
and
in
place
on
that
one?
You
know
where
we
know
that
the
this
the
ISD
monitors
these
very,
very
carefully
and
so
I
think
we've
had
a
bit
of
experience
in
this.
B
So
let's
look
at
it
from
a
youth
perspective
and
say
that
this
is
a
neighborhood
shopping
district
and,
as
the
attorney
has
said,
the
neighborhood
shopping
district.
The
intent
of
it
is
to
have
ground-floor
retail
and
upper
floor
residential,
and
that
is
across
the
city.
So
it
appears
that
the
violations
are
you'll
meet,
you're
actually
meeting
with
the
with
the
FEMA
flood
flood
zone
requirements.
You're
you're
working
your
way
through
that
sounds
like
your
fa
are,
is,
is
what's
triggering
this
and
your
open
space
essentially
and
the
and
the
iPod.
AZ
R
AU
B
C
Next
case,
calling
boa
nine
nine,
eight
nine
six
three
one
hundred
Lexington
Street.
This
is
to
raise
the
existing
building
indirectly,
nine
unit
residential
dwelling
with
nine
parking
vehicles
a
newly
created
lot.
The
violation
is
article
53
section.
Eight,
a
multi-family
dwelling
unit
is
a
forbidden
use.
Article
53,
section
I.
In
the
fluid,
a
ratio
is
excessive
article.
Fifty
three,
six,
nine,
the
height,
is
excessive.
Its
stories,
article
53
section,
nine,
the
height-
is
excessive
in
feet.
Article
53
section
I
in
the
front
yard
setback
requirement,
is
insufficient.
C
Article
53
section
I
on
the
side,
yet
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
I
on
the
rear
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
56
Austria
parking
requirement
is
insufficient.
Article
53,
section
56,
Austria
parking
design,
the
size,
the
access
drive
and
manoeuvrability
an
article
2070
five.
This
is
in
the
East
Boston
iPod
name
and
address
for
the
please
good.
BD
BD
BD
Are
proposing
to
erect
a
nine
unit
residential
dwelling,
the
nine
units
would
also
have
nine
parking
spaces
located
on
site
the
process
for
the
design
of
this
building
again
based
upon
working
through
the
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association
was
to
ensure
that
the
standards
for
architecture
design
materials
are
consistent
with
the
expectations
that
Eagle
Hill
season.
These
types
of
projects
I
believe
we
do
have
a
rendering
included,
showing
what
the
finished
product
would
look
like
trying
to
demonstrate
what
it
would
look
like
in
context
or
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
BD
With
respect
to
the
relief
that
would
be
necessary
for
this
project,
because
this
would
be
a
multi-family
variance
would
be
necessary
for
use.
We
would
have
sufficient
lot
size
at
five
thousand
square
feet,
because
the
minimum
requirement
is
two
thousand.
We
would
have
sufficient
lot
width
at
50
feet,
seeing
that
the
minimum
requirement
is
25
and
we
would
have
a
modal
setback
that
would
be
in
alignment
with
all
buildings
along
that
side
of
Lexington
Street.
BD
We
do
meet
the
side
yard
requirement
as
well
three
foot
in
each
side
that
would
allow
for
both
the
sufficient
amount
of
setback,
that's
necessary
in
article
53,
as
well
as
the
building
code
for
hunter
tected
openings.
We
are
proposing
a
rear
yard
at
this
point.
A
modified
rear,
220
feet,
which
is
an
increase
from
10
feet
that
originally
proposed
based
upon
feedback
that
we
heard
throughout
the
community
process.
Sorry.
Q
BD
BD
Correct
there
is
one
one
or
two
spaces
located
under
the
building
or
three
three
space
looking
under
the
building
the
height
of
the
building.
Madam
chair
and
again,
this
is
been
reworked
based
upon
community
processes
for
stories
at
40
feet.
The
maximum
height
is
35
feet
in
the
district.
One
of
the
things
that
we
did
also
include
with
the
adjustments
to
this
project
was
eliminating
the
head
house
and
the
roof
deck
based
upon
community
concerns
and
comments.
BD
H
B
C
B
So
we
just
need
to
make
sure
that
and
so
yeah
voluntarily
providing
one
IDP
unit.
So
this
is
proposed
as
condos
give
us
the
unit
breakdown,
yeah.
BD
You
know
understands
and
respects
the
need
for
affordable
housing,
and,
although
every
project
can't
include
that
especially
the
ones
that
are
under
ten
units,
he
was
motivated
in
part
by
comments
from
the
district
City
Council
recently
relative
to
these
the
criticism
over
nine
units.
So
one
of
the
ideas
here
is
to
include
an
IDP
unit,
although
not
required
in
exchange
for
the
relief
that's
being
requested,
and
we
think
that
that's
hopefully
going
to
set
an
example
for
projects
throughout
the
neighborhood
going
forward.
BD
BD
B
Q
H
H
BD
S
BJ
Q
B
B
AZ
AZ
The
mayor
came
out
basically
saying
he
was
no
longer
going
to
be
doing
that
in
East,
Boston
right
now,
we're
also
dealing
with
people,
or
we
have
an
issue
of
some
individuals
claim
who
feel
that
they're
being
displaced
from
this-
and
we
also
have
many
people
who
are
looking
at
the
design
and
believing
that
the
tearing
down
of
these
particular
units
is
goes
against
the
historic
nature
and
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
So
I
I
do
not
support
this
project.
BV
Chair
members
of
the
board,
lynitra
Mellie
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
opposition
during
the
community
process.
This
proposal
didn't
get
enough
support
from
their
partners.
They
have
a
lot
of
concerns.
We
receive
many
letters
of
opposition
from
the
Eagle
Hill
community
and
as
well.
They
will
hear
Civic
Association
voted
against
this
proposal.
Thank
you.
B
B
BV
B
AV
AC
C
CA
B
B
CK
B
BI
Do
my
name
is
Dan
Bailey
I
live
at
73
Utah
Street
in
East
Boston
I
want
to
point
out
that
the
legal
requirements
for
zoning
relief
have
not
been
met
here.
There's
clearly
no
hardship.
These
houses
are
currently
occupied
and
in
use
the
proposal
also
isn't
in
line
with
the
person
and
a
tenth
of
article
53,
which
states
you.
BI
So
this
is
clearly
a
nine
unit.
Building
that's
in
a
block
of
sort
of
smaller
workers,
cottages
that
are
historic
buildings.
It
clearly
doesn't
meet
the
purpose
intent
the
code
in
terms
of
advocating
for
buildings
that
match
the
scale
of
their
surroundings.
It
also
involves
demolishing
two
workers
cottages
that
were
built
in
the
1840s
that
are,
of
course,
currently
occupied.
His
family
housing
they've
served
his
family
housing
for
like
180
years
in
East
Boston.
BI
That
could
go
on
serving
his
family
housing
for
another
hundred
eighty
years,
if
we
let
them,
even
though
there's
simple
vernacular
homes
that
we're
saving,
they
contribute
to
the
walkable
scale
and
the
character
of
this
block
of
Lexington
Street,
and
although
this
will
be
reviewed
by
landmarks,
I
want
to
remind
you
that
landmarks
only
has
the
power
to
impose
a
90
day
demolition
delay.
They
don't
have
the
power
to
prevent
demolition
of
the
buildings.
So
I
ask
that
you
keep
that
in
mind.
BI
Part
of
the
stated
purpose
of
article
53
is
also
to
protect
the
environment,
so
this
kind
of
demolition
and
replacement
of
houses
has
a
steep
environmental
cost.
Of
course,
when
we
demolish
a
house,
we
waste
everything
that
went
into
it.
We
will
replace
that
house
we're
committing
to
all
the
carbon
emissions
and
pollution
that
come
with
that
the
city
has
a
goal
to
become
carbon
neutral
by
2050,
and
this
kind
of
development
and
practice
works
in
direct
opposition
to
that
goal.
BI
BI
Is
it
can
take
up
to
80
years
of
more
efficient
operations
for
a
new
building
to
overcome
the
carbon
emissions
associated
with
its
construction?
So
we
really
don't
have
80
years.
You
know
to
wait
until
we
start
reducing
our
carbon
emissions
in
the
city.
This
is
also
a
proposal.
This
proposal
is
also
an
example
of
land
speculation.
That's
playing
out
right
in
front
of
us,
so
blowing
capital
has
these
houses
under
agreement.
They
don't
actually
own
them
yet,
but
they're
under
agreement
for
seven
hundred
thousand
each
and.
CL
BI
B
CM
Thank
You
chairwoman
I
was
very
conveniently
behind
Dan
I
guess
my
name
is
Leonard
Olsen
I
live
at
97
Lexington
Street
right
across
the
street,
from
the
proposed
development
apartment
that
is
I
also
work
with
a
community
nonprofit
in
the
East
Boston
called
empower,
East
Boston,
but
I'm
here
today,
as
a
resident
as
our
entire
group
of
folks
here,
we're
all
standing
in
opposition.
I
hope
you
will
listen.
All
of
them.
I
also
have
a
petition
that
I'd
like
to
put
on
on
the
record.
CM
CM
CM
Specifically,
as
I
just
listed,
we
spoke
with
a
lot
of
people
in
Lexington
Street
and
every
single
one
of
us
values
highly
the
quality
of
life
in
a
family
based
lifestyle
on
the
block.
Lewis
is
a
great
friend
of
mine,
a
very
respected
community
member
as
well
I
celebrate
birthdays
with
his
family.
We,
we
have
a
lot
of
basically
neighborhood
life.
BX
B
CM
I
would
argue
that
that
is
a
fact
that
this
proposal
is
going
against
these
special
qualities
of
East
Boston,
of
Lexington
Street
and
of
the
design
of
that
block,
specifically
of
single-family
homes,
and
the
idea
that
families
will
be
living
on
this
block
right
yeah.
So
that
is
my
main
and
I'll
just
again
point
to
the
fact
that
this
building
is
in
use
being
occupied
by
a
family
who
values
it
and
their
well-being
deserve
relax
on
its
own
Thank
You,
charlie
mm-hmm.
B
BD
B
BD
BD
Including
director
butters,
we
didn't
have
an
opportunity
butters
meeting
on
this.
There
was
one
director
butter
who
did
appear
that
did
not
have
any
objection
of
the
project
and
so
hearing
all
of
this
and
understanding
how
the
genesis
of
this
opposition
was
generated.
We
certainly
understand
how
this
is
how
this
came
to
be
first
and
I'm
certain
to
this
over
social
media.
BD
The
we
keep
hearing
about
the
historic
nature
of
the
buildings
that
gets
tossed
around
in
this
room
a
lot,
and
we
certainly
had
these
conversations
before
I
have
to
stay
for
the
record,
because
I
think
it's
important
for
the
consideration
of
the
board
that
we
are
careful
in
looking
at
historic
properties
in
determining
whether
or
not
those
are
ripe
for
redevelopment
or
should
they
be
preserved.
This
particular
property
appears
nowhere
on
the
state
or
National
Historic
Register.
It
is
not
landmarked,
it
is
not
pending
landmark.
BD
It
is
not
even
in
the
Eagle
Hill
historic
district
so
to
state
their
historic
is
another
way
of
just
saying
that
their
older
buildings
sure
they
have
charm
and
character,
and
that's
why
they're
likely
been
inventoried
with
the
Boston
Landmarks
Commission.
But
that
does
not
create
any
special
status
for
these
buildings.
And
we
hear
this
time
and
time
again
in
this
community.
BD
On
the
record,
second,
with
respect
to
this
placement
and
that
we're
displacing
people,
these
are
two
when,
when
put
under
agreement
to
owner-occupied
structures,
where
the
agreement
was
made
with
the
owners
who
chose
to
move
on,
who
chose
to
sell
their
properties
to
mr.
Beliveau,
they
weren't
forced
to
do
so,
and
these
are
not
tenement
housing
where
there
being
these.
BD
The
information,
the
information
that
we
have
from
the
real
estate-
these
are
owner
occupied
properties.
I've,
looked
at
the
agreement
with
the
gentleman
whose
first
name
is
Luis,
it
was
occupancy
as
of
September
30th
30th,
that
was
during
the
pendency
of
this
transaction.
That
was
according
to
our
conversations
with
the
owner.
BD
That
was
something
he
understood
was
happening
as
part
of
this
process,
and
this
was
not
a
long-term
rental,
and
that
is
certainly
not
the
quat,
the
the
classic
case
of
displacement
that
we
constantly
hear
from
many
of
the
advocates
here
who
I
respect
what
they
do,
but
let's
not
make
this
something.
It
isn't
just
for
the
sake
of
making
that
argument
occupancy.
BD
With
with
respect
to
the
building
itself
and
the
adjustments
that
we've
made
to
the
building,
it
was
specifically,
we
have
a
copy
of
the
lease.
It
was
specifically
requested
at
the
through
the
Eagle
Hill
process
to
consider
a
number
of
items,
including
making
the
building
smaller,
which
we
did
I
again.
Mr.
Mellie
has
indicated
that
there
were
concerns
over
specific
issues
and
that
the
Eagle
Civic
Association
voted
against
this
project.
BD
There
were
subsequent
changes
made
and
a
subsequent
of
butters
meeting
held
where
a
number
of
those
issues
were
addressed,
so
I
jus
want
to
make
sure
the
record
is
clear
that
we
pay
attention
to
the
process.
In
fact,
the
process
is
extensively
long
lately
any
spots,
and
we
take
great
pride
in
going
through
that
process.
So
we
have
made
changes
in
this
project
based
upon
those
comments
when
we
have
that
about
us
beating
you.
BD
So
we're,
including
that
and
not
obligated
to
do
so
so
I
think
that
you
know
those
changes
in
those
concessions
that
were
agreeing
to
should
be
considered
as
part
of
this
process
and
that's
the
give-and-take.
That's
happening
right
now
with
development,
not
only
just
in
East
Boston,
but
throughout
the
city.
B
S
Chair
and
members
of
the
board
well
Tamiko
BTD.
This
parking
plan
does
not
work,
there's
at
least
five
spaces.
That
would
be
very,
very
difficult
of
the
nine
spaces.
Five
of
them
are
very,
very
poorly
located
and
they're
very
hard
to
maneuver
to
get
in
and
out
of
number
one
number
two.
The
photograph
that
I
see
has
parking
where
it's
not
reflected
on
the
parking
plan.
So
I
don't
understand
that
so.
S
B
CN
CN
B
C
Me
the
next
case
calling
nine
case
nine.
Three,
two,
eight
four,
four
one:
ninety
two
Gladstone
Street.
This
is
demolish
an
existing
structure
located
at
192
Gladstone
and
wrecked
a
three-story
five-unit
building
with
seven
parking
spaces
violations,
not
equal
2017.
This
is
in
the
East
Boston
iPod
article
52,
section
25
Austria
parking
Loudoun
requirements
in
sufficient
parking
article
33
section
8.
They
MMF
are
forbidden
in
a
two-family
sub
district
article
53,
section
9
and
sufficient
rail
yard
setback.
C
Article
53
section
I
on
excessive
a
FA
are
article
53,
section
I
in
the
front
yard
setback
conformal
in
the
existing
building
alignment;
article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
side,
yard
setback,
article
53,
section,
I,
a
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded
in
article
53,
section,
54
screening
and
buffering
none
as
proposed
name
and
address
to
the
record.
Please
chair
members.
BD
BD
Were
asked
to
take
a
deferral
with
ons
to
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
opposition
that
we
were
provided?
We
were
provided
that
day
of
the
hearing,
I
did
have
an
opportunity
to
meet
with
ons
relatives
of
that
we
questioned
some
of
the
opposition
that
was
submitted,
including
people
that
we
knew
were
in
favor
of
the
project
that
were
appearing
as
opposition.
So
we
want
to
get
that
straightened
out
before
we
look
forward.
I
have
submitted
eight
support
letters
to
the
board
for
this
project.
It's.
BD
Well,
just
quickly
he's
an
existing
two
family
home
on
a
5200
square
foot
lot.
We
would
demolish
that
and
construct
a
five-unit
building,
and
that
is
also
in
direct
response
to
concerns
that
we
heard
from
ons
in
the
neighborhood
as
the
number
of
units
that
were
being
proposed,
we
actually
reduced
this
from
an
original
proposal
of
more
units.
This
is
located
to
a
four
thousand
district.
The
residential
structure
would
have
a
total
of
5,300
square
feet
and
would
be
intended
for
home
ownership
upon
completion
with
respect
to
the
relief
that's
necessary.
BD
Madam
chair,
this
would
be
a
multi-family
use
which
is
not
allowed
in
the
district.
However,
not
the
only
multifamily
loose
in
the
immediate
area,
we
do
have
the
minimum
lot
size
map,
as
well
as
the
lot
frontage
in
the
front
yard.
We
do
require
a
variance
on
the
left
side.
We
do.
We
do
have
sufficient
on
the
right
side.
We
do
have
a
rear
yard
proposed
condition
of
twenty
four
feet.
Twenty
seven
and
a
half
feet
would
be
the
requirement
because
we
do
have
a
shallow
a
lot
exception
existing
on
the
car
lot.
BD
We've
done
a
good
job
of
trying
to
keep
the
density
of
this
structure
down
as
close
to
the
point.
Eight
that's
allowed
so
we're
at
0.99,
and
that
was
based
upon
the
lot
size
that
we
have,
as
well
as
how
we've
managed
to
adjust
the
inside
of
the
property.
Our
open
space
is
at
about
2,800
square
feet
based
upon
a
use
of
multifamily.
That's
who
have
4,000.
There
is
no
open
space
requirement.
However,
I
do
point
out.
There
is
a
sufficient
amount
based
upon
the
calculation
of
2100.
BD
We
only
require
to
have
a
total
of
six
parking
spaces.
Seven
spaces
are
being
provided.
This
will
also
create
an
opportunity
for
the
director
butter
who
we've
worked
very
closely
with
on
adding
driveway
access
to
his
property
to
address
some
of
the
on-street
parking
concerns,
so
we
will
grant
an
easement
to
the
joining
property
owner
to
allow
for
access
to
his
parking
as
well.
BW
BD
Now
should
all
units
are
two
bedrooms,
two
baths
and
their
average
of
about
a
thousand
square
feet
plus
per
unit,
so
they
are
consistent
with
the
minimum
size
requirements
for
units,
as
recommended
by
the
VP
da.
We
originally
proposed
this
as
a
larger
project.
We
did
go
before
the
Orion
Heights
neighborhood
council,
who
voted
to
the
negative
on
this.
We
did.
B
R
B
BW
BT
B
BV
Afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
in
a
drama
with
the
mayor's
office
on
Neighborhood
Services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
the
record
in
opposition
during
the
community
process.
We
feel
that
there's
still
many
barriers
that
have
concerns
specially
regarding
the
excessive
of
floor
area
ratio,
the
number
of
units
and
the
number
of
stories
that
are
going
to
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
BD
BD
B
B
C
Chair
the
final
thing
for
today
is
the
zoning
advisory
subcommittee,
which
met
on
Thursday
February
13th
2020
at
10:10
massive.
On
the
fifth
floor,
the
following
hearings
were
heard
case
bo
a
one,
zero
one,
eight
four,
nine
one.
Eighty
eight
Chelsea
Street
with
the
roof
proviso
from
the
previous
BOA
decision.
Petitioner
only
was
approved
with
takeout
case
boa
one
zero.
Three,
five,
three
88888.
C
1584
from
a
single-family
to
a
two
family
was
approved
case,
boa
one
zero
one,
seven,
two,
six:
five,
four:
nineteen,
two
for
twenty
nine
Bowden
Street
changing
operates
from
a
body
out
establishment.
It
was
approved
with
note
with
beef
with
BPD
a
cage,
boa
one:
zero,
zero,
eight
one,
five,
six,
fifty
six
locks,
Ted
Avenue,
it
was
finishing.
The
approximately
two-thirds
of
the
basement
was
approved
case,
boa
one
zero:
three:
six:
zero
5
for
21
Homewood
Road.
It
was
a
small
one
story.
Addition
was
approved
with
BPD
a
case,
boa
one:
zero.
C
Two
three
five,
two
six
three
sixty
three
Vermont
Street
was
adding
a
second
story
to
a
single
family
was
approved
with
BPD
a
case,
boa
one:
zero,
two,
nine
four,
six,
six
seven
willnett
court
was
a
construct.
A
new
shed-dormer
on
the
second
floor
was
approve
of
BPD
a
case
boa
one
zero.
Two,
two,
two:
nine
for
nine
Pratt
Street
through
the
existing
porches
dig
footings.
It
was
approved
case
boa
one:
zero,
zero,
nine.
Eighty
five
for
135
School
Street
was
proposed.