►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 11-13-2018
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
You
just
a
reminder:
please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
off,
in
conformance
with
the
mote,
open
meeting
law
I'm,
reminding
you
that
this
meeting
is
being
live-streamed.
I
would
request
that,
when
you're
here
to
speak
either
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
the
project,
you
give
us
a
reason
what
you
are.
Why
you're
the
basis
on
what
your
support
our
opposition
is
based
on,
if
you
have,
if
somebody
else
has
already
stated
your
concern,
please
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record.
A
B
A
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George
branch
I'm,
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
of
350
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston.
Madam
chair
members,
this
matter
I'm
here
to
request
a
short
extension
I.
Think
six
months
would
be
adequate.
My
clients
are
close
to
permit
issuance
they've
been
working
with
the
Boston
Water
and
Sewer
Commission
that
took
about
six
months,
but
I'm
advised
that
the
permit
is
is
ready
to
issue
a
motion.
E
B
F
A
H
F
A
A
B
The
third
case
of
4G
card
calling
boa
eight
nine
zero
three
five
one
sixty
six
wet
West
Rutland
square.
This
is
the
change
of
options
from
a
single
family
and
four
largest
to
a
two
family
construct:
three-inch
baby
drink
three-foot
window.
They
on
the
street
level
to
the
third
storey
excavate
basement
slab
to
provide
additional
head
height
and
construct
rear
balconies
on
parlor
and
second
and
roof
deck
violations.
Article
32
section
four:
this
is
the
chief
caught
applicability
name
and
address
for
the
record
place.
G
A
G
B
A
I
B
A
L
N
J
M
J
B
L
A
B
O
B
B
There
any
other
deferrals
or
withdrawals
barring
them
to
call
the
first
case
calling
boa
835
a
to
a
277
border
street.
This
is
the
raise
the
existing
structure
combined
law.
It's
an
directly
makes
use
consisting
a
retail
and
first
law
and
18
residential
units.
Above
with
parking
for
ten
vehicles,
the
violation
is
article
53,
section
56
RV
park
needs
in
sufficient
article
53
section
56
ostry
loading
is
insufficient.
Article
53,
section
9,
the
larger
traditional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
B
Article
53
section
9
in
the
Florida,
a
ratio,
success
of
article
53,
section
9,
the
height
of
success,
of
article
53,
section
9,
the
usable
open
space
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
on
the
side
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
53,
section
9
of
the
rail
yard
is
insufficient.
They
have
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
A
P
We
we've
had
a
robust
community
process,
madam
chair,
and
we
did
hear
a
very
strong
support
about
this
use
eliminated,
which
has
become
characteristic
for
this
section
of
Water
Street.
Looking
at
just
outside
of
Central
Square.
As
I
said,
this
proposed
is
a
total
of
18
units.
It's
a
mix
of
four
Studios
11,
one
bedrooms,
two
bedrooms
slow.
P
One
bedrooms
two
bedrooms
and
one
bedroom
unit
we're
proposing
a
total
deep
parking
spaces
which
we've
enclosed
at
the
garage
level.
We
did
originally
have
some
additional
parking
proposed
for
this
site.
However,
there
was
a
desire
to
see
some
small
retail
located
at
the
ground
level.
We've
incorporated
that
into
what.
P
Don't
believe
this
side
of
Porter
Street
has
a
base
flood
elevation
issue.
However,
the
parking
that
we're
proposing
in
the
retail
use
was
based
upon
feedback
that
we
heard
both
from
the
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association,
as
well
as
the
BBB.
A
this
project
is
subject
to
article
80
based
upon
the
number
of
units
and
the
gross
for
what
is
being
proposed.
We
have
had
an
opportunity
to
vet
this
with
the
BPD,
a
urban
design
staff,
and
this
has
been
presented
to
the
BPD
board
for
approval.
P
P
So
the
proposed
lot
area
with
the
combined
two
laws
is
50
170
total.
We
require
a
thousand
square
feet
per
unit,
so
we
would
require
relief
of
the
minimum
lot
area.
The
proposed
frontage
is
greater
than
20
feet.
The
required
minimum
is
20,
so
we
don't
require
remix
to
that
rear
yard.
We're
proposing
that
to
be
less
than
14
feet,
ruff-ruff
around
14
feet.
16.7
5
will
be
the
required
step
back
based
upon
the
shall
a
lot
exception
under
article
53.
P
As
you
can
see
from
some
of
the
photos,
the
site
is
pretty
built
out
now
presently,
with
the
auto
repair
use
the
directive
butters
to
the
rear,
there's
enough
of
a
buffer
between
the
apartment
building
to
the
rear
and
what
we're
proposing
behind
the
building
allowable
height
limit
is
three
stores
35
feet.
The
proposed
height
is
53
feet
at
five
storeys
I
would
point
out.
The
property
parcels
across
the
street
are
located
in
the
waterfront
manufacturing
district.
The
height
limit
is
55
feet
across
the
street.
P
Many
of
the
projects
they're
being
proposed
along
this
quarter
of
Water
Street,
which
do
eliminate
the
industrial
uses,
are
proposing
heights
around
50
feet
and
above
a
flirty
ratio
that
we're
proposing
is
3.8.
1.0
is
the
max
again
very
consistent
with
the
type
of
development
that's
happening:
Street
on
the
open
space
minimum
a
300
square
feet
per
unit.
We
obviously
have
less
than
that,
and
the
parking
requirement
would
be
36
message
that
we're
proposing
a
total
of
8
spaces
in
connection
with
the
article
eating
process.
P
A
I'm,
looking
at
the
two
abutters,
the
brick
buildings,
they
have
sided
side,
windows.
A
P
I
believe
on
the
right
side,
there
is
sufficient
room.
We
understand
that
there's
an
ongoing
review
of
a
project,
that's
happening
there.
We've
worked
and
spoken
to
that
developer
and
agreed
to
work
in
conjunction
with
coordinating
efforts
for
design
as
well
as
construction
on
the
left-hand
side.
I
believe
that
we're.
R
R
P
P
A
R
T
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
ESU's
Garcia,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services
he
based
on
the
community
process,
I,
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
the
project.
It
was
presented
to
the
Neighborhood
Association
three
times
and
also
we
have
to
a
community
meetings,
put
up
our
meetings
and,
at
the
end,
they,
the
body,
was
in
support
for
this
project.
I.
Think
the
the
concerns
that
were
addressed
through
the
Border's.
U
N
N
V
A
B
An
XK
spelling
boa
eight
four,
eight
five,
six,
seven
398
Bremen
Street.
This
is
a
raised.
An
existing
dwelling
erect
a
new
four-story
four
unit
residential
building.
This
in
violation
article
53,
section
56,
r3,
parkings,
insufficient,
Article,
III,
Section
8,
a
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden.
Article
53,
section
9,
the
lardy
heir
additional
dwelling
units
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
9
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
P
Also
with
us
is
eric's
a
christen
use
the
architect
for
this
project.
Madam
chair,
by
way
of
context,
this
property
is
located
on
the
outside
edge
of
day
square
in
Boston.
Actually,
this
is
probably
one
of
the
few
properties
that
does
not
necessarily
lie
within
the
jurisdiction
of
any
applicable
community
group.
We
did
have
an
opportunity
to
try
to
present
this
to
both
the
two
creators
which
we
understood
would
be
most
likely
to
be
exercising
jurisdiction
over
this
area.
Each
of
them
indicated
this
does
not
fall
within
their
boundaries.
P
We
did
have
an
opportunity
to
present
this
at
a
butters
meeting
we
did
hear
from
the
butters
on
both
sides
of
the
property
of
the
butters
to
the
right
of
this
proposal
are
actually
in
favor
of
the
proposed
project.
One
of
the
things
that
did
come
out
of
that
abutters
meeting
was
the
fact
that
we
are
not
proposing
off
street
parking,
which
I
know
at
some
point
can
seem
somewhat
contentious
in
the
neighborhoods.
P
The
fact
that
there
is
an
existing,
auto
repair
place,
the
very
large
curved
pipe
to
the
right
of
these
properties
impacts
the
on
street
parking
availability.
So
one
of
the
issues
and
concerns
was
whether
or
not
we
would
be
adding
an
additional
fare
cut
to
this
section
of
raymond
street.
So,
as
you
can
see
from
the
proposal,
this
would
demolish
the
existing
single-family
proposed
a
four-story
four
unit
building
to
be
used
as
condominiums
for
homeownership.
P
Mr
Beliveau
has
successfully
approved
permit
of
the
number
of
projects
any
spots
on
both
the
ground
up
as
well
as
rehab,
and
he
has
received
a
very
good
recommendations
from
the
director
butters
for
this
proposal.
I
do
understand.
There's
a
butter
to
the
left
of
the
property.
I've
had
an
opportunity
of
a
conversation
with
I
know.
There
are
some
concerns
about
construction,
which
we
are
committed
to
working
with,
with
Babs
buyer
relative
to
any
approvals
that
are
granted
by
this
board.
These
are
all
two
bedrooms.
P
The
minimum
square
footage
is
900
square
feet
up
to
about
a
thousand
seventy
square
feet.
The
total
height
of
this
building
would
be
at
thirty
nine
and
a
half
feet.
The
height
limit
in
this
particular
neighbor's
35
feet.
I
would
point
out
that
in
a
square
there
are
a
number
of
four-story
buildings
which
are
consistent
with
the
height
of
this
building
that
we're
proposing
and
the
fact
that
we
are
located
equally
distant
between
both
Airport
station
and
what
Island
Station
presents
good
public
transportation
opportunities
for
this
location.
P
A
N
I
A
P
Don't
believe
so,
madam
chair
I,
think
under
the
building.
This
is
the
conundrum
I
think
this
board
is
presented
with
when
a
building
is
proposed
to
at
four
storeys
with
it
with
a
deck
where
it's
optimally,
having
it
accessed
by
hatch
would
make
the
most
sense
architectural
standpoint
from
a
building
code.
Standpoint
I
think
mr.
Hasani
could
enlighten
us
on
this
as
well.
I
think
you're
required
to
have
a
head
house
once
you're
above
the
fourth
storey.
The.
N
R
P
S
P
A
T
We
hosted
a
public
meeting
in
August
9
for
this
project
between
the
average
meeting.
Some
of
the
concerns
is
the
same
in
East
Boston
about
parking.
However,
some
of
the
opera's
they
express
that
they're
happy
that
they
were
building
this
a
small
house
and
they
make
it
better
in
that
a
something
better
than
in
that
area.
A
O
A
A
P
P
A
P
The
number
of
windows
that
are
on
her
existing
property
already
at
within
the
height
limit
of
what
already
exists.
Presently
the
zoning
code
allows
for
up
to
35
feet
at
this
location.
We
could
not
determine
if
there
was
additional
impact
based
upon
that,
because
it
would
seem
that
any
light
that
she's
already
experiencing
loss
of
this
caused
by
the
existing
property.
That's
already
there
and.
A
R
A
R
A
P
B
Boa
eight
seven
zero
four
seven
one
135
Chelsea
Street
direct
in
addition
and
change
box
from
retail
use
to
retail
use
the
first
level
for
residential
units.
Above
the
violation
is
article
9
section
to
changing
use
for
the
existing
non-conforming
office.
The
proposed
forbidden
retail
article
53
section
56,
insufficient
ostry
parking
article
53,
section
8
retail
is
forbidden
news.
B
Article
53
section,
8
multifamily,
is
of
a
video
article,
53
section
9,
the
location
of
the
main
entrance
shall
face
the
front
lot
line:
article
53,
section,
I,
insufficient
additional
area
for
dwelling
unit;
article
53,
section
9,
excessive
fai
article
53,
section
9,
insufficient
usable,
open
space
for
dwelling
unit,
article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
front
yard
setback,
article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
side,
yard
setback
in
article
53,
section
9,
insufficient,
rear
yard
setback
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
P
Richard
Lin's,
245,
Sumner,
Street,
east
boss,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
with
me,
is
paul
Noviello
who's,
the
owner,
along
with
his
wife.
This
property
also
has
trail
around
with
joy,
Street
design,
the
architects
for
this
project
I'm.
Madam
chair.
This
property
is
located
close
to
airport
station
and
adjacent
to
c1
McCullen
highway,
weird,
which
enters
the
tunnel.
It's
an
existing
single-story,
non-conforming
retail
use.
Our
proposal
is
to
create
an
addition,
two
stories
or
a
total
of
three
story,
building
and
add
four
residential
units.
P
As
you
can
see
from
the
packet
that
we
provided
the
board,
the
goal
was
to
design
something
that
was
within
context
of
that
section
of
Chelsea
Street,
which
has
a
number
of
row
house
style
triple
Decker's.
There
are
some
excuse
properties
along
that
side
of
Chelsea
Street,
including
lower
level
retail
with
other
level
residential
use,
because
this
is
a
corner
lot.
There
are
a
number
of
violations
that
likely
would
occur
regardless
of
what
gets
proposed.
P
The
fact
that
the
existing
structure
occupies
most
of
the
lot
presently
will
not
change
the
increases
generally
confined
to
the
vertical
addition
located
above
the
main
level.
As
for
zoning
violations,
the
use
of
retail
multifamily
would
be
would
require
relief
as
multifamily
would
not
be
allowed.
Three
half
mm
district
additional
total
la
tarea
would
require
will
be
four
thousand
square
feet.
We
would
be
below
that
and
require
various
as
well.
The
side
yards
we're
proposing
zero
feet
both
on
the
left
and
the
right.
The
right
would
be
the
street
line
along
George
Visconti
Road.
P
With
respect
to
the
rear
yard,
again,
the
existing
condition
would
already
be
non-conforming
in
order
to
propose
forty
foot
setback
for
a
lot
that
is
relatively
shallow
in
this
particular
neighborhood
would
would
require
us
to
eliminate
a
good
portion
of
the
building
that
presently
exists,
with
respect
to
open
space,
again
being
the
location
that
this
property
is
at.
With
the
present
amount
of
open
space
that
presently
exists
be
somewhat
limited
as
for
parking,
and
the
proposed
parking
for
the
site
would
be
zero.
P
This
is
located
within
close
walking
distance
about
Central
Square,
as
well
as
the
airport
station.
One
of
the
things
that
we
did
look
at
was
the
addition
of
possibly
using.
The
rear
portion
of
the
lot,
which
is
accessed
by
a
private
way,
would
not
make
a
lot
of
sense
for
backing
out
into
the
private
way,
there's
not
enough
room,
certainly
for
for
having
any
cardiac
myocyte.
So
our
proposal
would
be
to
not
include
any
parking
presently
with
the
retail
use.
P
P
P
A
R
X
Y
M
D
B
Boa
eight
five:
three
three
nine
three
113
to
115
Cottage
Street:
this
is
a
combined
two
lives
into
a
single
ought
to
be
113,
115,
cardistry,
1617
square
feet,
total
lot
area,
the
change
of
oxygen
from
two
unit,
residential
dwelling
in
social
club
to
a
four
unit,
residential
dwelling,
reconstruct
career
inside
one-story
edition,
with
roof
deck
and
construct
roof
deck
on
the
existing
main
building
violations.
Article
9
section
to
annex
six,
existing
non-conforming
use
changes
conditional
article,
53,
section
56
off
street
parking
and
loading
in
sufficient
parking
article
53
section
8.
B
The
proposed
MFR
is
conditional.
The
article
53
section
9
insufficient
additional
lot
area;
a
thousand
square
foot
unit,
53,
section
9,
excessive
FAL
1.0
is
the
max
article
53
section:
9,
insufficient,
open
space
per
unit,
300
square
feet
unit,
article
53,
section,
9,
the
rear
yard
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
53,
section
9,
the
side
yard
setback
is
insufficient
and
53
section
54,
screening
and
buffer.
None
is
proposed
article
53,
section,
52,
roof
deck
on
a
one-story
addition
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
P
With
joy
street
design
venture,
this
is
an
existing.
The
existing
non-conforming
nuzen
structure
located
in
the
Jeffries
Point
section
of
East
Boston.
The
proposal
would
eliminate
a
ground
ground
floor,
social
club,
which
was
met
with
very,
very
strong
support
from
the
local
neighborhood
to
eliminate
this
use.
It's
been
somewhat
of
a
problem
over
the
years
with
prior
owners,
something
they
were
very
much
in
favor
of
the
proposal
would
change
the
use
and
occupancy
to
a
four
unit
multi-family
residential
dwelling.
P
The
proposal
would
result
in
a
preservation
of
the
existing
building,
at
least
the
better
parts
of
the
front
facade
while
incorporating
and
changing
the
lower
level
which
had
some
prior
commercial
retail
units
as
well
to
be
better
integrated,
architectural
II
with
the
entire
building,
the
proposal
would
actually
reduce
the
rear
portion
of
the
building.
So,
although
the
rear
yard
setback
is
presently
non-conforming,
we
would
be
improving
that
condition
to
the
rear.
P
This
was
presented
both
to
abutters,
as
well
as
the
go
street
citizens
association,
who
is
offered
a
letter
of
support
for
this
proposal,
especially
because
of
the
goal
to
preserve
the
existing
facade
in
to
incorporate
the
existing
or
the
historical
details
that
are
located
in
this
building
and
bring
those
as
well
with
respect
to
the
violations.
Use
for
multifamily
would
be
forbidden
in
the
3f
district.
I
would
point
out
that
this
property
does
share
the
border
with
the
MF
Art
District.
The
left
property
line
is
actually
the
boundary
for
the
MF
r.
P
There
are
numerous
multi-family
residential
within
this
area,
so
this
use
would
not
be
unusual
for
this
particular
neighborhood.
Respect
to
the
lot
size
again,
we're
not
changing
that
the
building
itself,
it's
more
of
a
reprogramming
the
existing
structure.
The
minimum
lot
size
would
be
four
thousand
square
feet
presently
at
1627.
But
again,
that's
the
existing
building.
That's
not
being
altered
with
respect
to
this
proposal,
so
parking
again,
there's
pre-existing
parking,
or
at
least
a
pre-existing
exemption
for
parking
for
the
two
residential
units
in
the
social
club
that
presently
exists.
P
Our
goal
to
change
that
to
a
four
unit
building
would
essentially
require
one
additional
parking
space
for
which
we're
seeking
of
areas
this
section
of
Cottage
Street
actually
does
not
have
similar
impacts
for
parking.
So
we
don't
believe
that
that's
necessarily
going
to
be
an
impactful
issue
for
this
particular
neighborhood.
There
were
other
items
cited,
I
think
based
upon
the
fact
where
the
building
is
presently
non-conforming.
Those,
in
fact
what
we
believe
that
the
change
from
all
residential
is
something
that
is
strongly
supported
by.
Q
N
N
P
Point
out
for
the
board:
during
our
butters
meeting,
there
was
some
concern
raised
by
the
director
butter,
which
you
can
see
on
the
rendering
to
the
right.
We've
agreed
to
incorporate
some
screening
and
buffering
along
that
deck,
including
maybe
some
plantings,
etc,
to
create
a
privacy
Robert.
Absolutely
we've
committed
to
that.
V
T
Was
Garcia
with
the
mayor's
office
or
network
or
services?
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
for
this
project.
I
think
the
project
received
a
strong
support
from
the
Association
and
also
from
the
Abarth
I'd
know
better
than
the
average
median.
There
was
commitment,
as
Richard
mentioned,
just
to
make
a
commitment
with
the
apartment
on
the
right
side
about
the
design.
A
Z
Name
is
Jim
McManus
at
2:42,
maverick
Street,
so
on
to
the
right
of
that
building,
I,
just
I
guess
my
concern
is-
has
been
addressed.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
going
forward
that
my
concern
about
noise,
a
my
concern
about
other
people
using
that
deck
aside
from
those
tenants,
want
to
make
sure
that
my
concerns
continued
or
continue
to
be
addressed
and
I'm.
Just
scared,
I'm
scared
that
that
deck
is
going
to
cause
a
problem
for
my
mom
who
lives
on
the
first
floor
and
will
be
there
probably
for
the
next
20
years.
Z
P
A
D
A
B
To
582
763
Falcon
Street,
this
direct
a7
unit
force
the
four-story
dwelling
play
combining
parcels,
a
total
of
2430
square
feet
with
parcel
2430
square
feet
for
a
total
of
four
thousand
eight
hundred
and
sixty
square
feet,
demolition
of
an
existing
three-story
building
to
be
known
as
63
Falcon
Street.
The
violations,
article
53
section
56-
are
insufficient
parking,
13
spaces
required
article
53,
section
56.5,
a
parking
maneuverability
article
53,
section
8,
the
MFR
use
and
the
family
sub
district.
It's
forbidden
article
53,
section
9.
B
The
number
of
allowed
stores
exceeded
two
and
a
half
stories
max
article
53,
section
9,
the
maximum
allowed
height
has
been
exceeded.
35
feet
is
the
max
to
go
53
section,
9,
insufficient
Riyadh
setback
in
article
53,
section
54,
screening
and
buffering
nunn
of
nunn
is
proposed
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AA
Right
now
there
is
a
legal
five-unit
building
an
empty
lot
at
the
premises,
we're
proposing
to
tear
down
the
five
units
as
a
as
opposed
to
just
adding
two
more
in
the
empty
lab
for
a
total
of
seven
units,
we're
proposing
to
tear
down
what's
there
and
build
a
nice
seven
unit,
four-story
building
with
one
parking
space
per
unit,
it's
similar
in
design
to
a
prior
project
put
up
in
East
Boston
at
sixty-five
Lexington
Street.
We
will
be
adding
a
mansard
roof
and
other
details
to
fittest.
AA
AA
A
A
AA
AA
AA
AA
A
AB
AA
AB
A
AB
T
With
the
office
of
neighborhood
services,
I
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
during
the
community
process
a
they
addressed
the
concerns
about
the
cat
house
on
the
top
of
the
the
building
and
also
the
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association.
They
they
both
in
support
for
this
project,
and
they
mentioned
that
they
appreciate
that
they
offering
parking
spaces
in
that
area.
Thank
you.
A
B
Boa
8300
9:04
Mystic
street:
this
is
reconstruction.
The
extension
of
existing
two-story
rayel,
a
new
kitchen,
will
be
installed
along
the
half
bath,
the
new
stair
to
a
newly
excavated
storage
basement.
There
will
be
an
extension
of
third-floor
bathroom.
It
is
in
a
new
internal
staff
to
the
head
house,
by
24
by
15
by
4
inch
roof
deck.
The
violation
is
article
62,
section
8
insufficient,
where
you
had
setback
and
iwell
62,
section
25,
roof
structure,
restrictions
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AC
AC
John
has
what's
really
a
two-family
house
now,
what
they
living
at
it
as
a
single
and
there's
a
rear,
L
two-story,
where
L
on
the
three-story,
brick
masonry
building
and
his
L
stopped
seven
feet
short
of
the
rare
property
line.
So
he'd
like
to
extend
those
two
floors,
the
bottom
floor,
all
the
way
to
the
property
line,
the
house
next
door
and
then
the
second
floor,
where
his
small
kitchen
is
we'd
like
to
extend
it
back
to
within
about
five
feet
of
the
rare
property
line
and
have
a
small
deck
there.
AD
A
So
this.
AC
A
A
AE
H
B
AF
Shaffer
and
mark
Cole
thought
we're
homeowners,
65,
Winthrop,
Street,
actually
I
think
it
was
read
out
incorrectly
the
hatch
and
stair
existing
we're
just
proposing
a
roof
deck.
On
the
third
floor,
we've
been
through
the
community
process.
We
have
with
Christopher
Breen,
who
I
believe
is
not
within
this
position
anymore.
We
did
that
in
the
beginning
about
2
August,
we
did
I
think
he
collected
some
letters.
We
have
I
think
additional
letters,
I,
don't
know
which
letters
of
support
you
have
from
our
director.
AF
AF
A
AE
S
A
B
AG
AG
V
X
AG
AG
AI
From
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
this
application.
We
have
held
nut
butters
meeting
with
the
proponent
August
23rd,
where
they
received
support
from
Darrell
butters.
They
also
communicated
with
the
rough
district
council.
So
at
this
point
we
feel
comfortable
go
on
record
and
support.
Thank
you.
Thank.
AJ
AG
AG
D
B
B
The
Sisto
had
three
living
units
on
the
sixth
floor,
an
existing
units
no
work
to
be
done;
violation,
article
23,
section
7;
a
this-
is
pre
code
structures,
Hocking,
Creek
straight
off
street
parking
for
free
code
structures;
one
parking
required
for
dwelling
unit;
name
an
ad
just
for
the
record,
please.
My.
AM
AL
A
AK
A
AK
601
is
481
square
feet.
It's
listed
on
the
right
and
the
legend
here.
Unit
602
is
464
square
feet
and
unit
603
is
584
square
feet.
The
building
is
fully
sprinkled
and
updated
fire
alarm
system.
So
it's
all
noted
here.
The
sprinkler,
heads
and
fire
extinguishers,
emergency
exit
lights,
two
means
of
egress
there's
a
west
side,
exterior
fire
escape
and
a
stairwell
that
wraps
around
the
elevator.
R
AK
Upon
our
taking
over
the
management
of
the
building,
we
were
doing
some
investigation
work
about
the
proper
permits
and
we
discovered
that
the
sixth
floor
doesn't
have
a
certificate
of
occupancy
for
residential
use,
but
it
was
already
built
out
so
I
had
an
architect
come
by
and
build
it
out.
It
is
an
exact
copy
of
the
fifth
floor.
N
A
R
AK
AN
AK
N
AK
AI
My
name
is
century
from
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
We
did
hold
an
abutters
meeting
for
this
project
on
September
early
September,
where
there
was
no
opposition,
Sean
boys
in
the
meeting,
and
also
we
encourage
them
to
talk
to
local
stakeholders
at
the
same
time
since
the
there
is
no
additional
work
will
be
conducted
at
this
application
and
these
are
existing
units.
We
have
no
concerns
at
this
point
and
will
like
to
go
on
record
and
support.
Thank.
AJ
The
chair
members
of
the
board
on
a
kaliram
from
councillor
Flinx
office
at
this
moment
we're
now
posting
the
project,
but
we
would
like
to
ask
for
a
deferral
Chinatown,
Restaurant
Association
has
reached
out
to
us.
They
were
not
aware
of
what's
going
on
and
they
would
like
to
have
a
presentation
before
the
board
takes
a
decision.
AO
B
A
A
B
There
any
other
deferral
with
Ferraro's
for
10:30.
This
is
deferrals
or
withdrawals.
Only
hearing
none
go
back
to
the
9:30,
calling
boa
eight
four
four
zero,
two
one:
thirty
three
north
Majin
street.
This
is
seek
a
minor
rate
of
renovations
to
the
building
to
include
enclosing.
First-Floor
entryway,
increasing
living
space
of
a
fourth
floor
unit,
an
existing
fifth
floor
also
to
complete
complete
a
small
addition
to
the
fifth
floor,
install
a
new
roof
deck
exclusive
use
of
the
top
floor
unit.
B
F
My
name
is
Daniel
Toscano
from
dragwon
Toscano
LLP
attorneys
at
law
located
at
15,
Broad
Street
Boston
Mass
over
to
109
to
my
immediate
right
is
Scott
Dabney
who's,
the
owner
of
33
non-modern
Street,
we're
seeking
you
are
respectfully
we're
seeking
your
support
for
minor
renovations.
What
we
like
to
do
extend
the
living
space
at
the
first-floor
residential
unit
and
also
the
fourth
floor
residential
unit
by
adding
some
living
space
to
the
roof.
This
is
a
existing
four
family
residential
unit
building
it's
in
a
multi-family
residential
dwelling.
F
If
you
look
at
page
two
of
your
packet
you'll
see
the
existing
conditions
of
the
building.
The
main
entrance
is
on
non-modern
street.
As
you
can
see,
the
double
doors
to
you
are
really
to
your
left
of
the
photo
on
page
two
there's
a
small
doorway,
which
is
on
Cooper
Street.
That
doorway
was
used
for
the
candy
store
back
in
the
70s,
maybe
early
80s.
F
But
what
we
like
to
do
is
fill
in
that
doorway
for
the
first
floor
of
residential
living
space,
and
if
you
turn
to
page
three
of
your
packet,
you
can
see
the
doorway
as
it's
filled
in
with
some
new
windows,
and
the
main
entrance
will
always
remain
on
non-modern
street.
So
all
four
units
to
enter
and
exit
the
building
would
be
one
one
common
area
on
an
armada
street.
F
The
second
part
of
this
proposal,
as
you
can,
if
you
turn
to
page
four
of
your
packet,
the
existing
roof
conditions,
you
have
a
an
existing
head
house
which
is
encompasses
the
stairs
and
there's
also
a
storage
room
as
we'll
call
it
really
use
really
not
used
for
much.
What
we
like
to
do
is
renovate
the
existing
head
house
and
renovate
that
room
and
make
that
living
space
for
the
exclusive
use
of
the
fourth
floor
throughout
residential
unit
and
also
add
a
roof
of
a
hundred
square
feet
for
the
roof
deck.
F
There
will
be
minor
changes
to
that
existing
structure.
That's
on
the
roof!
If
you
turn
to
page
five
right
now,
the
height
of
it
is
7
feet.
10
inches.
We
like
to
add
almost
2
feet
of
hide,
really
1
foot
11
inches
to
the
height
of
that
to
almost
9
feet.
It's
all
the
existent
height
of
the
building
is
49
6,
I,
believe
and
by
add
in
this
addition
would
be
at
51,
51
5,
so
we're
below
the
requirement.
That's
in
the
multi-family
residential
sub
district
in
the
NOC
then
of
55
feet.
F
We
want
to
extend
the
left
portion
of
the
the
living
space
out,
2
feet,
3
inches
to
provide
a
little
more
living
space
in
the
roof
deck
the
roof
deck.
Like
I,
said
it's
about
a
hundred
square
feet,
existing
square
footage
of
that
without
the
addition
is
about
a
hundred
ninety
square
feet
by
adding
that
square
footage
by
extending
it
out
2
feet,
3
inches
and
extending
it
up
about
one
foot,
11
inches
we're
getting
to
about
230
square
feet.
The
violations
are
an
FA.
F
The
current
FAI
requirement
in
the
multi
in
the
North
End
is
we
are
currently
at
without
these
additional
at
four
point:
zero:
nine,
with
the
additional
living
space
that
we'd
like
to
add
we're
going
to
be
a
four
point.
Two
three
and
the
other
violation
is
a
roof
structure
violation,
but
we're
altering
the
roof.
Here.
We
believe
because
of
the
dilapidated
condition
of
the
existing
structure.
This
will
be
exclusive
use
of
the
fourth
floor.
We
can
is
already
exist
in
firing
States.
F
F
AP
Maria
lands,
a
man's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
support
we
held
in
a
butters
meeting
for
this
project
on
august
27.
They
also
have
the
support
of
the
north
and
waterfront
neighborhood
council,
as
well
as
the
north
and
waterfront
residents
association.
Thank
you
good.
M
F
B
Bo,
eight
five:
three:
zero:
nine
zero;
forty
one
to
forty
three
edge:
Lee
Road.
This
is
a
change
of
Oxford
for
39
units
to
forty
five
units.
The
violation
is
article
32,
section
34
for
ground
water
conservation,
overlay,
district
applicability,
article
66,
section,
eight,
the
basement
units
of
obidon
article
66
section.
Forty
two
point:
five:
our
street
parking
is
insufficient
article
66
section
nine
in
excess
of
FA,
our
article
66
section;
nine
insufficient,
open
space
in
article
66,
section;
nine,
insufficient
rail
yard
setback
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
AQ
Share
the
mr.
Mellor
is
zone
the
building
all
of
his
life
in
in
his
father's
most
of
his
father's
life
and
they're,
seeking
to
upgrade
some
of
the
interior
life
safety
measures
in
the
building
the
fire
protection
system,
as
well
as
fire
alarm,
and
in
addition
to
that
they're
seeking
to
add
residential
dwelling
units
to
the
lower
level.
AQ
The
lowest
level
here
in
the
building
is
that
great,
the
building
and
there's
seven
steps
on
the
exterior
the
building
to
get
up
inside
the
building
and
then
another
seven.
So
the
first
level
is
a
is
actually
the
first
living
level
being
used
now,
with
the
exception
of
one
unit,
it
is
a
approximately
the
second
storey
so
with
that
they're
seeking
to
propose
five
studios
in
the
lower
level
of
the
building,
which
again,
is
that
great,
an
decorating
the
rear
in
the
side.
It's
a
rental
building.
A
AQ
AQ
AQ
V
R
AQ
A
G
E
AR
B
Calling
VOA
eight
four
six,
seven,
four,
three
five
Rutland
square
and
this
had
built
a
new
two-story
addition
off
the
rear
facade
of
the
house
violations
article
32,
section
6:
this
is
in
the
gee
card
and
applicability
article
64,
section,
9,
townhouse
rojo,
extensions
into
the
rail
yard
or
conditional
in
article
64,
section
9,
the
Floyd.
A
ratio
is
accessible,
maybe
an
ad.
Just
for
the
record.
Please.
A
A
A
A
A
A
AS
A
E
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
phases
Sharif,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood,
Services
I
did
hold
an
extensive
community
process
regarding
this
project.
They
have
met
with
their
abutters.
There
are
concerns
from
there
were
concerns
at
the
initial
meeting
about
how
close
the
addition
was
to
the
property
line
on
both
sides.
They
have
agreed
to
set
it
back
a
bit
to
meet
the
concerns
to
mitigate
some
of
those
concerns
from
the
neighbors
I
know.
There
are
other
neighbors
that
have
concerns
about
construction
management.
E
AT
M
AU
AU
AU
AU
Ok,
we've
asked
for
construction
plans
that
are
approved
in
and
to
see
how
they
affect
the
foundations
of
the
neighbors
that
the
piles
of
the
neighbors
and
how
it's
going
to
be
supported,
laterally
from
away
from
the
building.
Essentially,
when
you
remove
an
entire
wall,
the
rear
wall,
which
is
what
is
expected
in
this
project
as
far
as
I
can
see
they
they
put
at
risk
the
structure
of
the
abutting
buildings.
AU
My
building
is
an
end
building
and
it
could
it
could
lean
into
you
know
it's
the
end
of
the
block,
so
it's
a
particular
I
think
it's
only
fair
for
the
gutters
that
this
applicant
have
as
a
as
a
as
a
condition
of
the
variance
to
provide
structural
plans
and
I
would
like
my
structural
engineer,
to
be
able
to
review
them
and
come
to
a
proper
meeting
of
the
minds
as
to
how
this
is
going
to
transpire.
To
date,
the
plans
don't
show
any
understanding
of
what
the
issues
are
with
these
row.
Houses.
Thank.
S
AV
AV
Asked
to
speak
for
her,
the
and
I
have
reviewed
the
plans
for
her
request
and
I
find
the
same
findings
that
she
stated
that
there's
really
not
a
reflection
in
the
plans
or
a
structural
approach
to
address
the
fact
that
they
were
moving
to
stories
at
the
back
wall,
essentially
putting
it
up
on
stilts
on
the
abutting
walls
and
proposing
to
leave
an
opening
that
doesn't
include
the
back
wall
at
all.
What
I
would
what
I
think
as
it
would
be
reasonable
is
for
you
to
ask
add
a
condition
to
this
appeal.
AV
I
think
the
design
is
fine
and
the
FAA
are
is
fine,
add
a
condition
to
the
appeal
that
has
two
aspects
to
it:
one
being
that
they
engage
a
structural
engineer
and
have
that
review
with
the
abut
or
structural
engineers
on
both
sides
of
this
building
because
of
the
severe
nature
of
the
removal
of
the
back
wall.
And
the
second
thing
is:
is
that
I
would
also
request
that
there
be
no
at
risk
permit
granted
until
such
activities.
A
A
AS
The
structural
engineering
plan
has
not
been
done.
We
were
waiting
to
get
approval
for
the
additional
fa
r.
We
have
engaged
a
structural
engineer
and
in
principle
we
have
a
concept
that
will
relieve
any
concern
from
any
neighbor
as
well
as
ISD.
The
plan
reviewer
at
ISD
is
going
to
is
not
going
to
approve
this
project
until
there's
a
stamped
structural
set
of
plans
that
satisfy
them.
R
R
W
S
AS
We
we
don't
intend
to
add
any
additional
load
to
the
party
walls.
If
anything,
we're
gonna
be
removing
load
from
the
party
walls.
We
intend
to
drill
helical
piles
for
the
addition,
as
well
as
any
load
transfer
that
comes
down
from
the
steel
where
we're
removing
the
wall.
It's
going
to
be
from
a
helical
pile
in
a
pile
cap,
so
they'll
be
less
load
on
that
party
wall.
When
we're
done.
A
A
R
AS
A
B
This
is
erecting
new
three
family
dwelling
with
three
parking
spaces.
On
the
first
floor,
no
roof
deck
violations,
article
27
s
section
five:
this
is
in
the
cell
Foss
and
iPod
applicability.
Article
68
section,
33,
RV
parking
is
insufficient.
Article
68
section,
eight,
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
68
section,
eight,
all
usable
open
space
is
insufficient
in
article
68.
Section
eight
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
68
section,
eight,
the
side
yard.
Is
it
sufficient
medical
68,
section
8?
The
rail
yard
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
C
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George.
Moran,
see
an
attorney
with
the
business
address
at
350,
West
Broadway
in
South,
Boston
manager,
members.
This
is
an
application
to
demolish
an
existing
commercial
garage
at
33,
O
Street
in
South
Boston
to
erect
a
new
four-story
three
unit
building.
The
lot
is
2,000
square
feet.
The
zoning
district-
this
is
an
MFR
multi-family
residential
sub
district
of
the
article
68
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
proposed
building.
First
again,
it
would
be
three
units
with
three
garage
parking
spaces
unit
sizes
ground
floor
unit.
C
One
would
be
eleven
hundred
forty
nine
square
feet.
That
would
be
a
two-bedroom
unit
units
two
and
three
are
both
1129
square
feet,
also
two-bedroom
units
the
violations
are
attributable
to
insufficient
off
street
parking
as
two-bedroom
units
under
Article
68.
The
requirement
is
one
point:
five
spaces
for
two
or
more
bedroom
units.
Therefore,
there
would
be
requirement
here
of
four.
There
are
three
parking
spaces:
there's
an
F
AR
violation,
the
maximum.
If
they
are
under
article
68,
is
2.0
were
approximately
10%
over.
That
is
an
insufficient
usable,
open
space
violation.
C
Each
unit
would
have
a
170
square
foot
rear
porch.
The
minimum
required
is
200
square
feet
again,
north
to
170
feet
per
unit.
There's
a
sighted
front
yard
insufficiency.
This
is
a
three
foot
setback.
The
building
is
essentially
or
it
is
in
modal
alignment
with
all
buildings
to
the
left
of
it.
As
one
regards
the
building.
The
building
to
the
right
is
on
the
corner
of
East
Third
Street
within
East
3rd
Street
address
that
is
built
out
to
the
lot
line,
because
that's
actually
a
zero
setback,
side
yard
on
the
right,
not
a
front
yard.
C
There
is
a
sited
side,
yard
violation.
The
side
yards
bought
vary
from
zero
to
three
feet
on
the
right.
There
is
an
indentation
at
the
rear
of
the
building
where
there
was
a
three
foot
setback
on
the
left.
It
varies
from
one
foot
to
three
feet:
the
minimum
side
yard
setback
in
article
68
is
3
feet.
Finally,
there
is
a
rear
yard
insufficiency.
The
the
radioed
setback
for
this
building
would
be
the
minimum
of
15
feet.
C
The
shell
a
lot
exception
in
the
area
behind
the
the
building
wall
and
in
the
area
of
the
decks
there's
on
the
upper
levels,
there's
a
there's,
an
eight-foot
setback,
but
at
the
ground
floor
level.
It's
right
to
there
a
lot
line.
The
reason
being,
of
course,
is
because
there
is
a
garage
which
needs
to
accommodate
staircases
in
the
three
parking
spaces.
A
C
A
C
There's
a
the
zoning
code
refusal
letter,
references
of
building
code
refused
the
letter
when
not
seeking
relief.
This
board
cannot
grant
accessibility
relief.
There
is
a
Lulla
lift
proposed
which
would
provide
access
from
the
ground
floor
to
unit.
One
I
believe
that
that's
gonna
require
a
variance
from
the
architectural
access
board
as
a
compliance
alternate,
but
we're
requesting
no
such
relief
from
this
port.
C
AW
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Allison
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services
we'd,
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
We
did
hold
and
on-site
a
butters
meeting.
There
wasn't
really
any
opposition
at
that
point.
This
is
also
not
inconsistent
with
some
of
the
other
buildings
on
o
Street.
Thank
you,
madam.
AJ
Chair
members
of
the
board
and
I
call
their
own
from
councillor
Flinx
office,
who
will
also
like
to
go
recording
support.
There
was
antibodies
meetings
with
no
concerns.
We
also
reached
out
to
the
City
Point
neighborhood
association.
Then
they
they
have
heard
no
concerns
about
the
project
either.
Thank
you.
Thank.
AX
AX
A
AX
A
AX
C
C
Members
have
to
certified
plot
plans,
one
its
existing
conditions,
one
is
proposed.
Existing
garage
building
is
built
essentially
two
to
the
lot
line.
The
proposed
building
has
a
three
foot
setback
side,
yarding
performance,
which
side
yard
setback
requirements
for
the
length
of
the
of
the
building
at
37,
which,
as
I
say,
is
a
very
similar
building.
C
So
the
passageway
width
between
the
two
buildings,
from
from
the
37
in
what's
current
in
37
in
proposed
at
35,
would
actually
be
greater
upon
this
building
being
completed
than
what
currently
exists
in
terms
of
construction
of
management
and
construction
hours.
That
would
be
standard
is
four
for
any
new
construction
in
the
city,
who's.
C
A
B
Boa
zero
four
nine
five
six
317
319
West
Third
Street.
This
is
to
renovate
an
existing
eight
unit,
residential
apartment
building,
Andrea
and
constructed
new
deck
and
egress
tis
off
of
the
ramp.
Constructing
new
addition
at
floors,
Judah
for
off
the
front
of
the
building
violates
nautical
27s
drivers
in
the
iPod
applicability
equals
68
Section
29
the
roof
structure,
restrictions,
an
altered
profile
of
the
roof,
equals
68
section,
34.1
conformity
of
an
existing
building
alignment.
Article
68
section,
a
Claudia
rain-
shows
excessive
article
68
section
8.
B
AY
AY
AY
AZ
Yeah
just
to
clarify,
there's
existing
eight
units
in
the
building
and
we're
reducing
the
three
bedroom
units
to
two
bedroom
units
on
two
of
the
floor
is
to
reduce
the
bedroom
count
by
a
total
of
four.
So
there
to
answer
the
question
directly:
they're,
a
mix
of
two
bedrooms
and
two
bedrooms
with
ones.
AY
For
40
years
as
rentable
housing
in
South
Boston
would
be
the
same
for
all
those
years.
It's
just
a
chance
to
basically
renovate
the
building's
not
safe,
as
it
is
today
really
for
egress
purposes.
So
this
was
an
opportunity
to
redo
and
make
more
safe.
The
building
we've
had
many
meetings
in
the
neighborhood,
some
of
which
we
mayor's
office
of
our
meetings.
AW
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Ellison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
They
have
been
through
a
extensive
community
process
and
they
have
agreed
to
make
changes,
mainly
the
reduction
of
the
decks
to
eight-foot
decks
to
appease
the
neighbors.
Thank
you.
AJ
AY
D
B
Voa
872
five,
three
six,
two
two
Gifford
place:
the
state
constructing
new
fourth
floor,
erudition
with
decks
and
roof
decks.
It's
full
interior
renovation
of
an
existing
to
family
dwellings,
violations,
article
27
essence,
five
s
and
then
iPod
applicability,
article
68,
section,
29,
roof
structure,
restrictions,
article,
68,
section,
8,
front
yard,
isn't
sufficient
article
68,
section,
8
side,
job,
isn't
sufficient
article
68
section,
8,
gray
yachts
is
insufficient
name
an
ad.
Let's
pull
the
record
please
morning.
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
George
Moran
Singh,
the
attorney
with
the
business
address
at
350
West
Broadway
in
South
Boston
revised
plans
are
being
handed
to
board
members.
Madam
chair,
reflecting
a
fairly
dramatically
revised
approach
to
this
building.
There
is
now
no
proposal
to
erect
an
addition
of
any
kind.
There
is
no
fourth
floor.
Addition
there's
no
rear
addition.
The
building
envelope
is
going
to
remain
identical.
The
only
changes
made
are
rehabilitation
of
the
property,
both
interior
and
exterior
and
extension
of
living
space
into
the
basement.
Even
with.
A
C
Which
is
not
a
violation,
but
I
saw
Boston.
I
heart
applicability
still
stands
because
of
the
addition
of
in
a
more
square
feet,
which
is
pretty
close
in
terms
of
the
basement
level,
but
other
violations
are
eliminated.
As
I
say,
this
is
even
with
the
extension
of
living
space
into
the
basement.
The
fa
r
comes
in
at
2.0
2.0.
A
C
A
C
On
the
don't
know,
if
the
cyclamen
is
embedded
into
the
into
the
plan
sheet,
but
there's
a
window
well
in
the
rear,
there
are
no
decks
of
any
kind.
There
is
a
six
by
six
area
in
the
rear
which
shows
indicated
as
deck
on
the
drawings.
It's
essentially
a
stair
platform
for
exiting
the
rear
of
the
building.
Again,
it's
about
six
feet
by
six
feet.
AW
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
John
Allison,
mayor's
office
neighbourhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support.
As
the
proponent
mentioned,
we
held
an
initial
abutters
meeting
where
there
was
a
proposed
addition
to
the
rear
and
the
top
of
the
building
the
butters
were
opposed
to
that
they
removed
the
additions
so
they're
keeping
it
within
the
existing
footprint
and
keeping
it
at
2
units.
Now
we
are
in
support.
Thank
you.
W
Sullivan
we
have
to
counsel
as
Michael
Flaherty.
Although
the
council
is
unable
to
go
on
record
and
support
this
project.
Do
the
efforts
that
went
to
draft
an
article
68.
He
does
recognize
that
there
are
part
that
the
parties
that
do
have
merit
and
we'll
leave
it
to
the
infinite
wisdom
of
the
board
in
this
project.
N
B
Tara
Street:
yes,
this
erect
a
new
four-story
artist
living
work
building
and
the
existing
vacant
lot
there'll
be
a
total
of
seven
affordable
residential
units
on
the
ground
floor
via
public
art
display
space
violations.
Article
59,
six
to
nineteen
the
floor
area
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
59
section,
nineteen,
the
building
height,
is
excessive
article
59
section.
Nineteen,
the
rail
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
59,
section,
nineteen
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
59,
section
37,
RC
parking
is
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BA
B
BA
BA
As
mentioned,
there
are
ground
floor,
communal
workspaces
for
the
artists
that
would
be
part
of
their
ownership
in
both
buildings
so
there
well,
we
do
not
have
usable
exterior
space,
we're
asking
for
a
zoning
variance
there.
We
would
have
approximately
75
square
feet
per
unit
of
interior,
shared
space
that
the
artist
I'm.
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
R
BA
BA
A
N
V
N
N
BB
BA
BA
A
The
bre
still
keep
track
of
those
units,
artists,
livable
space
units.
They
do
Brian,
okay,
because
we
had
on
Tara
Street.
What
does
it
was?
A
nine
artists
live
workspace
that
came
through
not
so
many
months
ago
too.
So
it's
pretty
pretty
interesting.
Okay.
Is
anybody
here
to
speak
in
support
of
this
proposal.
E
If
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
fisa
Sharif
with
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
full
support
of
this
project.
It
is
a
DND
project
and,
as
the
apple
can
explain
it,
it's
something
that's
much
needed
throughout
the
city.
We're
really
excited
it's
coming
to
Mission
Hill
and
it
it's
something
that
the
neighbors
have
been
asking
about
in
terms
of
affordable
and
deep
restricted
and
income
restricted
housing
in
Mission
Hill.
Thank
you.
BC
BC
For
this
project,
we're
going
to
have
an
affordability
and
homeownership
restriction
with
an
artist
preference.
So
we
are
going
to
be
selling
these
units
through
the
Boston
home
center,
with
the
dedicated
preference
towards
artist
housing,
where
the
city
of
Boston
is
kind
of
a
new
process
in
terms
of
home
ownership
with
artists
housing.
So
we're
working
closely
together
with
the
Boston
Home
Center
and
the
mayor's
office
of
art
to
try
to
structure
this
in
a
way
where
we
can
make
sure
that
it
stays
dedicated
towards
artists,
talisman
and.
A
BC
We're
trying
to
take
a
holistic
approach
towards
this
artists,
housing
where
we're
recognizing
that
different
forms
of
art
have
developed
over
time.
We,
you
know
that
they're
painters,
they're
dancers,
they're
people
who
do
you
know
graphic
design
on
their
computer,
there's
welders,
so
we're
doing
our
best
to
incorporate
as
many
features
as
we
can
in
the
project.
Again.
This
is
kind
of
a
newer
undertaking
that
the
city's
really
trying
to
push
for
into
develop
so
we're
we're
doing
the
best
we
can
to
incorporate
as
many
aspects
as
possible.
Thank.
BC
A
B
Pounding
VOA,
eight
five,
seven,
three,
six,
seven,
seven,
twenty
five
Harrison
Avenue:
this
is
the
change
of
art
from
an
art
gallery
to
ad
studio
and
general
youth
office,
uses
on
the
ground
floor.
No
work
to
be
done.
The
violation,
article
64
section,
8,
the
odd
studios
forbidden
article
64,
section
8
office-
is
forbidden
in
article
9.
Section
2
of
the
change
in
a
non-conforming
use
may
be
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BD
B
AO
BC
BD
This
is
a
existing
commercial
unit
in
a
condominium
project
that
was
developed
twelve
years
ago.
The
listing
unit
is
being
used
as
an
art
gallery
and
was
permitted
to
be
an
art
gallery
at
that
time.
In
2006
the
plains
are
seeing
right
now
are
as
built.
There's
no
work
being
done
in
connection
with
this
appeal
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
permit
a
non-profit
dance
company
operating
in
Boston
to
use
the
gallery
unit
as
a
dance
studio
and
as
supporting
office
for
that
East.
BD
BE
So
it'll
primarily
be
used
as
an
office
space
during
typical
working
hours,
nine
to
five
Monday
through
Friday
and
then
from
about
5:00
to
9:00
p.m.
so
5:00
to
9:00
p.m.
Monday
through
Friday.
It
would
be
dance,
dance
classes,
dance,
rehearsals
and
then
on
Saturday
and
Sunday,
probably
around
nine
to
six.
A
S
BD
Unit
at
the
bottom,
that's
that
just
the
square
open
space,
that's
all
we're
talking
about
the
other,
the
other
stuff,
on
that
our
other
condo
units
in
the
building.
This
is
a
separate
unit,
totally
separate
in
the
sort
of
center
of
the
lot.
It's
the
sort
of
open
square
there
in
the
middle
I.
Don't
I,
don't
know
this
rare
footage
offhand
to
be
honest
right.
It's
a
couple
thousand
square
feet
at
the
most
now.
BD
A
BE
R
E
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
phases
Sharif
with
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
strong
support
of
this
project.
That
C
has
been
part
of
the
South
End
community
for
a
very
long
time.
They've
had
a
lot
of
different
spaces
in
the
south.
Then
we,
you
know,
the
neighborhood
supports
urbanity
dance.
I
also
want
to
reference
the
fact
that
in
the
previous
project
we
were
talking
about
artists
living
spaces.
This
space
was
actually
created.
A
B
The
next
case
calling
Bo
a85
two-for-one
for
225
Washington
Street.
This
is
to
erect
a
new
three
family
violations.
Article
65
section
41,
equal
Austrey
parking
Loudoun
required
parking
is
insufficient.
Zero
spaces
are
provided
nautical
sixty
five,
six
and
nine.
The
lobby
area
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section
nine
additional
lotta
areas,
insufficient
article
65,
section,
nine.
A
lot
width
is
insufficient
article
65
section
nine.
The
lot
frontage
is
insufficient
article
65
section
I
and
the
floatie
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
section
9
of
the
building
height
is
excessive
and
stories.
B
BF
Morning,
attorney
John
Paul
Jeanne
on
behalf
of
the
proponent
with
me,
is
Allen
Dillon,
doc,
who's,
the
owner
of
the
property.
So
the
proposal
here
is
to
build
a
new
three
unit,
building
similar
to
the
existing
row
houses
on
either
side
of
this
lot.
It's
a
stretch
of
row
houses.
It's
actually
a
missing
two,
that
back
in
the
city
records
in
1987.
This
was
a
three
family.
There
was
a
fire
and
it
was
taken
down,
and
this
is
to
rebuild
it.
The
lot
size
is
1741
square
feet.
BF
Zoning
in
this
neighborhood
is
3f,
five
thousand,
which
is
twenty
five
hundred
for
the
first
unit
and
twenty
five
hundred
for
the
third,
the
proposal.
It
will
be
a
two
bedroom,
one
batts
averaging
674
square
feet
as
mr.
fortune
read
through
the
violations
parking.
There
is
none
required
and
there
is
none
offered
and
there's
a
requirement.
However,
its
existing
row
houses
right
now,
so
there
is
no
capability
of
putting
parking
on
site
and
all
the
other
existing
row.
Houses
that
are
located
on
this
property
do
not
have
parking
lot
size.
The
whereat
1733
square
feet.
A
BF
N
BF
AM
BG
Morning,
madam
chair
members,
the
Lord,
Dustin
and
Gardner
on
behalf
of
council
president
Andrea
Campbell's
office,
we'd
like
to
go
on
record
in
opposition,
primarily
because
we
have
word
from
the
local
civic
associations
that
they
have
not
been
presented
with
the
plans
for
this
project.
And
so
they'd
like
to
ask
for
deferral.
S
BF
We
we
actually
followed
OH&S
his
lead
on
this.
We
met
on
an
on-site
at
butters,
meeting,
I
think
around
August
20th
and
the
first
time
we
heard
about
the
Civic
Association
wanting
plans.
The
plans
were
electronically
forward
to
everybody,
as
well
as
what
very
well
attended
director
butters
meeting.
There
was
11
people
present.
A
BF
BH
BD
A
B
V
S
A
A
A
A
BI
R
BI
R
A
BJ
V
V
D
B
Is
the
demolished
and
existing
to
family
dwelling
replaced
with
a
new
three
family
townhouse
dwelling
on
an
existing
5,600
soybean
74
square
foot
lot
the
violations,
article
65
section
8:
he
used
the
three
family.
Connells
dwelling
is
forbidden
article
65,
section
9.
A
lot
frontage
is
insufficient
article
65
section
9,
a
fluid.
A
ratio
is
excessive
article
65
section
and
the
building
height
number
of
stories
of
success
of
article
65,
section
9.
The
front
yard
is
insufficient.
An
article
65
section
9,
the
Reyat
is
insufficient.
They
even
Advil
directed
please
good.
BF
It
does
madam
chair
and
it's
being
switched
to
an
Street,
so
it
will
lease.
It
comes
off
of
monetary.
It's
almost
like
a
side
street
that
comes
down.
Currently
it's
unpaved
as
part
of
this
project
that
will
be
asphalted
and
it
will
be
a
street
laid
in,
and
the
new
address
according
to
is
wheat.
Isd
will
be
two
four
and
six
and
Street.
A
A
BF
A
BF
Obviously,
first
is
mr.
fortune
read
out
his
use.
It's
a
three
family
in
a
1f
zone,
as
I
stated
before
we're
knocking
down
a
two
family
to
build
this
we're
good
on
settlers
front
yard
was
50
feet
required
we're
at
52
feet.
Fai
was
a
point
five
where
to
1.11
the
number
of
stories
on
height
is
2.5,
we're
at
3.5,
so
we're
a
violation
on
number
stories,
not
an
actual
height
front
yard
is
15
we're
at
14,
which
is
matching
mess.
BF
Matching
the
existing
of
the
building
to
the
to
its
left
and
rear
yard
is
40
and
we're
24
feet.
This
project
went
through
a
robust
community
process.
As
the
original
proposal
that
was
presented,
the
community
was
four
units
through
the
negotiations
with
the
neighbors
and
abutters.
The
project
was
scaled
back
to
three
units.
I
provided
the
board.
This
morning.
Eleven
letters
of
support
from
director
butters,
as
well
as
support
letter
from
the
Cedar
Grove
Civic
Association,
which
itemized
listed
unanimous
support
the
project.
BJ
A
A
AR
A
AR
R
A
BF
B
BF
John
Puccini
ten
Forbes,
Road
and
Braintree.
This
had
been
once
before,
madam
chair.
The
reason
for
that
deferral
was
when
the
plans
were
initially
filed.
They
referenced
the
wrong
lot.
The
architect
tried
to
clean
that
up
in
between
time
of
this
notice,
that
was
mailed
out
still
reference
the
incorrect
lot.
It
was
no
no
fall
to
go
and
s
it
was.
They
had
to
get
a
new
refusal
letter,
so
the
refusal-
and
they
were
working
off,
was
in.
BF
B
D
A
J
B
BF
B
B
AR
BF
Working
with
ons,
as
well
as
constantly
to
McCarthy's
office,
this
property
is
located
near
school.
They
actually
go
through
the
efforts
now
hiring
a
traffic
engineer
and
the
reason
being
is
the
school,
because
when
they
do
drop
off
and
pick
up,
they're
actually
putting
cones
down
in
there
working
with
house
sent
Hudson
to
see.
If
there's
a
way,
they
can
do
it.
It's
a
single-family
proposal.
N
A
A
B
BF
We're
working
with
counselor
Maxie
Elmo
his
office
on
this
we
had
the
initial
plan
was
three
units.
They
scaled
it
back
to
two
units.
They
needed
some
more
information
about
that.
So
I've
been
having
conversations
with
the
butters
and
also
with
the
counselor's
office,
and
as
of
yesterday,
they
asked
that
we
would
do
a
deferral.
Sorry
to
do
that,
so
they
could
be
I
sit
down
between
the
counselor
and
some
of
the
abutters.
A
BK
B
A
A
B
A
B
Back
to
sorry
into
10
30s,
following
ba
eight
five,
eight
three,
four
five
54
Halladay
streak:
this
is
arthi
parking
for
two
vehicles
of
violations,
article
10
section,
one
no
parking
shall
be
located
with
the
five
foot
beside
the
ID
buffer
article
54
section
21
party
parking
is
insufficient.
Tenant
spaces
do
not
permit
proper
maneuvering
article
34,
section
21
parking
spaces
do
not
meet
the
minimum
dimensions
required
for
parking
spaces
in
article
55,
section
55
party
parking,
Shelby
and
Ty
Lee
shall
be
entirely
in
the
front
yard
for
the
forward-most
spot.
B
AH
A
A
A
AH
A
AH
AH
R
AH
AH
N
BL
A
BK
Good
afternoon
Joe
Kopp
in
shiraz
and
a
liaison
out
of
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
project.
The
street
is
a
tight,
one-way
street,
where
parking
is
only
on
the
right
hand,
side.
The
house
is,
on
the
left
hand,
side
on
the
street,
which
would
take
two
cars
off
the
road
benefiting
benefiting
the
street
as
a
whole.
Thank.
BM
BN
BO
BO
What
for
what
reason,
what
reason
I
don't
think
the
space
is
enough
for
two
cars?
Okay,
because
my
driveway,
when
I
bought
a
house
30
years
ago,
was
a
little
bit
extended
today
to
my
backyard.
This
is
not
extended.
I'm
there
I'm
not
here,
to
fight
with
them,
but
they
have
a
big
yard
in
the
back.
They
paved
it.
So
they
could
there's
a
road
that
comes
right
into
the
backyard.
Did
he
want
to
do
it?
The
gentleman
I
was
his
father
and
his
uncle
right
across
the
street.
BO
BP
Holiday
Street
we've
lived
there
for
30
years
area
developed.
Basically
it's
the
same
as
it
was
the
same
houses
the
same
driveways.
Everything
is
the
same.
What's
happened
now
is
some
houses
are
renting
rooms,
so
there's
more
traffic.
Each
new
neighbor
living
in
the
rooms
is
making
four
more
people
on
the
street
and.
BP
V
BP
A
AH
BQ
We're
trying
to
put
the
driveway
just
to
clarify
we
had
access
to
that
road
when
we
first
bought
the
house.
That
was
an
easement
that
belonged
to
our
neighbor
behind
our
house.
She
she
has
registered
rights
to
that
easement
and
she
had
asked
us
to
no
longer
use
that
easement.
We
came
into
the
city.
We
confirmed
that
that
is
her,
so
we
respected
that
that's
her
easement.
She
doesn't
want
us
using
it.
Therefore,
we
put
our
fence
up
to
block
and
put
our
backyard
out
and.
AH
A
R
R
R
AV
B
Following
the
next
case,
calling
boa
eight
four,
three:
nine
nine
eight
twenty
four
sell:
Creek
Road.
This
is
a
change
of
oxygen.
Coming
to
family
dwelling,
to
a
four
family
dwelling
and
construct
a
25
foot
by
70
foot
three-story
addition
on
the
existing
building
in
the
rear
yard,
the
violations
article
51,
section
8,
the
multi-family
dwelling-
is
forbidden,
Article,
51,
section
9,
the
location
of
the
main
entrance
shall
front
they'll
face
the
front
lot
line:
article
51,
section
9.
The
lot
width
is
insufficient
article
51
section
9,
the
flow
in
a
ratio
is
excessive.
B
BF
BF
It
is
use
because
it's
a
four
unit
and
if
the
three
family
multi-family
dwelling
front
doors
facing
the
street
lot
with
it's
55
feet.
This
is
a
pie
shaped
lot,
as
you
could
tell
by
the
plans
that
are
forwarded
to
you.
So
this
it
satisfies
in
frontage,
but
in
a
lot
with
in
some
areas
it's
not
FA.
Are
we
comply
with
that?
They
are
it's
0.8
where
0.763
side
yard
we're
fine,
there's
an
X
on
the
other
side
of
the
property.
BF
BF
A
A
BF
Be
quite
possible,
as
I
stated
mr.
Berfield
I
just
recently
purchased
this
process,
property
I
think
back
in
June.
He
lives
in
the
neighborhood.
It's
a
house
that
is,
although
two
houses
away
from
his
own
house.
If
I
could
address
the
parking
first
because
I
know
that's
a
concern
to
all
the
board
members
when
parking
is
in
front
of
the
property.
This
area
is
somewhat
unique,
is
a
plan
that
is
circulated
in
that
package.
That
will
have
a
graph
of
what's
existing
in
the
neighborhood
and
it
will
be
colored
that
shows
you
can
see.
A
A
BF
BF
It's
the
unique
situation
as
I
stated
people
either
don't
have
parking
in
front
of
the
house.
Don't
have
parking
at
all
or
have
parking
in
front
of
the
house,
and
if
you
can
see
on
this
plan,
some
of
them
actually
have
garages
in
the
front
of
the
house,
because
the
significant
elevation
changes
and
that
elevation
is
entirely
ledge.
A
BF
I
stated
it's
to
add
you
two
units
to
an
existing
building
and
it
so
be
four
units
in
three
families
own
the
unit
sizes
themselves
will
vary,
which
is
an
existing
will
be
eighteen
hundred
and
thirty
nine
square
feet.
Unit
two
is
twenty
one.
Fifty
one
square
feet:
you
know
threes
28:43
square
feet
in
Unit.
Four
is
twenty
three
ninety
seven
square
feet:
they're
all
three
bedroom
three
and
a
half
bath
units,
and
these
are
for
sale,
condominiums.
BF
I
went
I
started
to
go
through
those.
We
are
we
comply
with
that
they
are.
We
comply
with
a
lot
of
frontage,
a
lot
with
we're,
not
as
I
said
it,
because
it's
pie
shape
lot.
Obviously,
the
parking
where
yard,
where
24
feet
existing,
is
forty
there's
a
very
large
apartment
building
when
you're
looking
at
this
property
to
the
right,
it's
a
probably
a
forty
unit,
direct
building
that
we
all
grew
up
with
to
the
right
of
it.
BF
It
went
to
an
extensive
community
process
working
with
the
director
butters,
specifically
the
butter
on
the
left,
because
they
would
be
most
impacted
by
this.
He
is
here
today
to
testify
in
support
of
the
project.
It
also
went
through,
in
addition
to
the
seventeen
letters
to
support.
It
also
got
the
approval
of
the
brightness
and
Improvement
Association
as
well.
BR
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Connor
Newman,
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We'd
like
to
give
our
support
for
this
project
speak
with
members
of
the
community.
My
predecessor
had
abutters
meetings.
They
were
very
excited
about
that.
It's
going
to
be
owner
owner
occupied
these
units,
so
we
feel
this
is
the
right
fit
for
the
neighborhood
afternoon.
BT
Probably
about
three
to
four
feet:
that's
not
paved
because
it
actually
belongs
to
the
houses,
so
cars
still
Park
on
those
which
make
it
really
hard
for
my
car,
which
is
all
to
get
by
vehicle
so
actually
allowing
them
to
park
inter
is
actually
a
safer
for
that
street.
So
I
would
say
that's
more
of
a
private
road
than
an
actual
official
street.
So,
okay.
AN
The
property
we've
had
a
chance
to
work
with
a
development
team
over
the
last
several
months
and
in
discussing
the
project
and
some
of
the
improvements
we
thought
would
enhance
the
property
and
provide
for
the
buffer
between
the
two
properties,
14
Selkirk
Road,
my
house
and
the
project
24
Selkirk,
and
they
worked
with
us
very
very
closely
and
spent
several
meetings
with
us
and
we
were
happy
to
have
a
seat
at
the
table.
We
were
not
expecting
it.
We
were
pleasantly
surprised
at
the
process.
AN
S
A
B
BF
A
BU
We
my
company's
MP
Murphy
builders,
we
work
with
Steve
Sugarman
to
renovate
this
three
family
at
60
and
62
Mapleton
Street
we're
just
wrapping
up
that
now
and
what
we're
proposing
to
add
five
parking
spots
in
the
rear
yard,
and
we
were
cited
for
an
existing
extension
of
non-conforming
use
because
we're
three
family
in
a
two
family
sub
district.
This
is.
A
BU
BU
A
A
BU
Now,
there's
a
driveway
where
you
can
get
to
tandem
spots.
One
of
them
is
probably
in
the
front
yard.
The
second
is
probably
side
yard.
We're
gonna
eliminate
those
two
and
approach
down
the
hill
and
put
five
spots
at
a
90
degree
angles
to
the
house
with
no
tenant
parking,
they're
all
waiting
half
by.
BU
A
BU
N
BU
BB
A
BB
A
A
A
BB
A
A
BB
BB
R
R
BB
I
BB
N
BB
R
BB
A
B
A
B
B
An
existing
two
family
into
a
six
family,
a
one-story
vertical
addition,
a
three-story
side
addition
and
a
new
roof
deck
parking
at
ground
level.
The
violations
article
53
section
8,
a
multi-family
residential
dwelling-
is
forbidden.
Article
53,
section
9,
the
front
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
53,
section,
9
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
9,
the
rear
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
9
the
floor.
The
a
ratio
is
excessive
in
article
53,
section
I
and
the
height
of
success
of
two
and
a
stories
is
maximal
loud
name
and
add.
P
Afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lin's,
245,
Sumner,
Street,
East,
Boston
and
behalf
of
petitioner
with
me
as
Scotch,
we
have
been
shoeing
humbly
also
with
these
dog
methods
from
PhD
Holmes,
who
was
the
owner
of
the
property.
Madam
chair,
this
property
is
located
at
the
lower
end
of
the
Eagle
Hill
neighborhood.
Actually,
it
is
the
probably
furthest
one
of
the
furthest
points
in
East
Boston.
What
I
would
describe
as
an
emerging
waterfront
neighborhood
this
this
property
actually.
P
Yeah,
fortunately,
we've
got
good
elevation
here,
as
you
can
see
from
the
context
of
the
abstract
that
I
provided
it
shares
a
border
with
the
maritime
economic
Reserve
District.
There
is
some
substantial
industrial
uses
that
separate
the
waterfront
from
this
property,
so
it
is
a
bit
of
a
challenge
for
a
developing
neighborhood.
However,
unfortunately,
condo
street
has
seen
a
lot
of
activity
over
the
last
year
and
a
half
with
a
number
of
projects
and
proposals
that
have
come
through
both
the
BPD
a
and
this
board,
which
has
brought
some
excitements
of
the
Eagle
Hill
neighborhood.
P
With
respect
to
this
project
existing
to
family
dwelling
that
we
proposed
to
partially
demolish,
but
to
add
an
addition
and
change
the
occupancy
from
a
two
family
to
a
six
unit
dwelling,
the
project
would
be
intended
for
home
ownership
for
six
condominium
units.
We
carefully
worked
with
the
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association
to
ensure
that
the
design
that
we
were
proposing
was
consistent
with
the
standards
that
the
Eagle
Hill
seeks
to
adopt
for
new
development
in
that
neighborhood,
and
we
feel
that
the
proposal
based
upon
the
response
legal
association
is
one
that's
worthy
of
consideration.
P
With
respect
to
the
best
of
the
unit
sizes,
the
units
range
for
about
892
square
feet
up
to
about
1324
square
feet.
All
our
two-bedroom,
with
the
exception
of
one
the
smaller
unit,
90
92
square
feet,
is
a
one-bedroom.
We
are
proposing
a
total
of
seven
parking
spaces,
even
though,
even
though
there
are
six
units,
the
configuration
of
this
lot
would
allow
allow
for
a
garage
under
the
building
to
provide
one
additional
space
than
the
units
that
are
proposed.
With
respect
to
the
zoning
relief
that's
necessary.
P
This
property
is
located
to
f2000
district
multifamily
use
which
we're
proposing
would
be
forbidden
and
therefore
variance
would
be
necessary.
I
would
point
out
that
around
this
particular
site
there
are
a
number
of
multifamily
dwellings,
including
properties
that
mr.
medve
--ts
has
been
involved
with,
as
well
with
some
rehabilitation.
That's
gone
on
in
Eagle
Hill
there's
been
received
very
favorably
for
the
work
that
he's
done
in
this
particular
neighborhood.
P
With
respect
to
the
rear
yard,
we
are
proposing
a
very,
very
shallow
step
back
in
the
rear
yard,
but,
as
I
indicated,
the
what
lies
beyond
the
rear
yard
boundary
is
not
necessarily
something
that
would
be
impacted
by
our
project.
In
fact,
we
have
proposed
to
do
a
substantial
amount
of
screening
for
this
property
so
that
we
can
shield
at
least
some
of
that
industrial
use
from
the
proposed
uses.
BA
R
P
Mean
I
think
we
could
get
to
based
upon
the
design.
I
think
we
can
get
to
an
accessible
unit
act.
Great
I
think
the
question
might
come
up
relative
to
the
actual
garage
and
the
access
from
the
garage
up
to
the
level.
So
we
could
look
at
possibly
eliminating
a
space.
We
have
one
per
unit
and
go
with
the
lift
for
that
unit
from
the
garage,
but
I
think
there's
certainly
ample
room
to
address.
A
P
Is
a
roof
deck
the
height
of
the
building,
as
viewed
from
Condor
Street,
three
storeys
Eagle
Hill
has
been
very
sensitive
to
the
head
house.
We
are
proposing
a
head
outs
for
access,
but,
as
you
can
see,
the
head
houses
push
to
the
rear
of
the
property,
barely
visible
from
the
front
side
of
the
property.
P
T
T
AW
BV
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
Matilda
Herrera
and
I
am
a
resident
over
at
471
Meridian
Street.
We
live
pretty
much.
The
the
building
will
be
located
behind
my
parents,
property,
which
is
four
seven
one
Meridian
Street.
We
are
in
our
position
because
of
the
size
of
the
units.
We
believe
it
is
extremely
excessive.
It
will
have
an
impact
on
my
parents
property,
especially
within
their
garden,
which
they
have
Crowley
invested
in.
We
think
that
the
height
of
the
building
would
have
a
great
impact
on
that
during
two
seasons.
BV
P
That's
the
first
we've
heard
of
any
opposition
with
respect
to
this
project.
We
presented
this
project
on
the
least
four
occasions
in
the
neighborhood
I've
not
heard
from
when
we
did
have
the
director
butters
meeting
I
know
there
were
a
number
of
a
butters
present
who
had
no
objection
to
this.
If
I'm
hearing
the
speaker
correctly,
it's
the
building
to
the
left
of
our
property,
the.
BV
P
As
you
can
see
from
the
elevations
madam
chair,
our
height
of
our
building
is
actually
lower
than
that
building
on
the
corner.
I
believe
that
is
a
multi-family
use
on
the
corner.
I,
don't
believe
they
have
any
parking.
So
the
impact
don't
disagree
that
there's
a
perceived
impact
by
having
a
larger
building
on
this
site,
but
the
impacts
would
be
minimal
based
upon
what
could
be
actually
constructed
by
right.
On-Site
is.
BV
S
A
BV
V
N
I
P
B
Next
case,
calling
boa
582
5
951
chappy
Street.
This
is
a
demolition
of
an
existing
two
family
home
and
construct
a
new
three
unit
building
violations,
article
62
section
29,
Austrey,
Park
and
design
of
maneuverability
accessory
parking
article
62,
section,
7,
3
family
uses
forbidden
article
62,
section
8,
the
number
of
allowed
stories
has
been
exceeded.
2
and
a
half
is
the
max
article.
B
AD
AD
So
we're
here
before
you
today,
seeking
relief
for
the
demolition
of
the
existing
two
family
home
and
the
redevelopment
of
the
property
into
a
new
three-story.
Three
family
home
with
two
surface
parking
space
spaces
on
a
roof
deck.
This
is
located
in
the
2f
3000
district,
so
we
would
need
zoning
relief
to
go
from
the
two
family
used
to
the
three
family
use.
The
existing
lot
is
3883
square
feet
with.
AD
So
we
need
to
mention
illyrians,
as
just
noted
for
insufficient
usable
open
space
per
unit
which
is
allowed
us
450
and
according
to
the
plans,
are
proposed
as
2561.
So
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
where
the
where
the
violation
was
we've
got
a
roof
deck
we've
got,
we've
got
a
sizeable
backyard
as
well.
So
I
didn't
necessarily
raise
this
issue
with
the
plans
examiner,
but
you
know
we're
willing
to
seek
the
relief.
We've
got
an
insufficient
side
yard,
which
is
five
feet
allowed,
and
it's
it's
two
feet
on
one
side
and
six
on
the
other.
AD
And
then
a
number
of
allowed
habitable
stories
2.5
is
allowed
and
we're
seeking
three
maximum
allowed
height
is
35
in
this
district
and
we're
seeking
37
to
the
top
roofline
and
in
47.
If
you
count
the
head
house
and
then
off
street
parking
for
technically
four
point,
five
spaces
would
be
required
to
move
up
to
five
and
we're
proposing
to
and
then
there's
the
parking
loading
with
the
location,
design
and
maneuverability
of
my
general
understanding
is
that,
as
due
to
the
location
of
the
parking
to
the
front
side
yard
of
the
of
the
existing.
AD
AD
V
BW
A
BW
E
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
faceis
Sharif
with
the
mayor's
office
of
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
strong
support
of
this
project.
My
colleague,
Chris
Breen,
did
Holden
abutters
meeting,
in
which
there
was
a
overwhelming
support
by
all
the
abutters
that
attended.
Thank
you.
BX
R
B
Sixteen
in
wall
street
parking
violation
that
equal
twenty
seven
s,
section
5s
in
the
South
Boston
applicability,
article
68
section:
twenty
nine
roof
structure
restrictions,
article
68,
section,
33
la
Street
parking
is
insufficient
article
68,
section
33,
Street
parking
lot
and
maneuvering
area
in
sufficient
article
68
section.
Eight,
the
building
height
is
excessive
and
feet.
Article
68
sex-linked
front
yard
is
insufficient.
An
article
68
section
8,
the
side
yard
is
insufficient.
AY
Just
a
little
bit
we
were
here
about
a
month
ago
and
were
deferred.
We
had
a
meeting
in
the
corridor
was
the
number
of
immediated
letters
in
the
building
next
door.
We've
provided
you
with
a
number
of
letters
of
support.
I
have
more
of
them
to
provide,
but
on
that
day
that
people
in
the
building
next
door
were
concerned
about
some
of
the
setback,
issues
and
other
items.
We
asked
for
the
deferral
on
at
the
request
of
mr.
Allison
team.
BY
BY
AY
BY
A
AD
A
BY
A
V
AW
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Ellison
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services.
We
would
like
to
run
record
in
support.
As
the
proponent
noted,
we
did
hold
a
meeting
after
the
last
deferral
with
the
butters
to
the
right.
They
did
make
a
lot
of
progress,
agreeing,
among
other
things,
to
extend
the
fence,
put
up
a
gate
as
well
as
increasing
the
setback.
So
at
this
point
we
are
in
support.
Thank
you.
AJ
The
chair
members
of
the
board
I'm
mark
Alyn
from
councillor
Flint's
office.
We
would
like
to
go
recurring
opposition
to
this
project.
This
is
a
massive
project
and
is
too
big
for
the
car
for
the
neighborhood,
we'll
reach
out
to
city
side,
Neighborhood
Association,
and
they
inform
us
that
they
will
never
support
something.
This
big,
thank
you.
AY
We
literally
had
the
meeting
on
site
was
extremely
well
attended.
Everybody
was
extremely
positive.
We
had
we
were
here
before
you
as
I
said
in
less
than
a
month
ago,
there
were
individuals
immediately
next
door
who
had
particular
problems.
We
worked
with
them
to
resolve
those
problems.
He
took
to
my
knowledge,
I,
think
both
offices
were
represented
at
that
abutters
meeting.
It
was
during
the
summer
we
were
out
in
the
back.
A
B
The
next
case
calling
boa
8
4
2
2,
4
7
75
to
77
Cedar
Street.
This
is
a
change
art
from
a
single-family
dwelling
to
a
temporary
shouts
of
the
boys
12
to
17.
There
are
no
construction
changes.
The
violations,
article
50
section
28
temporary
shelter-
is
conditional
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
Rob.
BZ
A
A
BZ
AJ
BZ
The
model
the
program
we're
using
for
the
site
is
identified
as
a
star
program.
Star
stands
for
short-term
assessment
and
rapid
reintegration
and
what
our
agency
does.
We
provide
residential
services
through
kids
in
DCF,
dys
and
DMH
services
care
and
specifically
for
this
program.
It
will
be
youth
ages,
12
to
17,
who
are
looking
to
reunify
with
family
or
at
least
find
a
an
appropriate
level
of
care
within
the
Boston
area.
A
A
BZ
A
BZ
So
it's
its
25
24
hours
a
day.
We
have
a
clinician
on
staff
in
addition
to
the
two
other
staff
present
a
program
director,
as
well
as
additional
supportive
services.
The
agency
offers
other
wraparound
services
with
its
access
to
a
a
mental
health
clinic,
as
well
as
our
collaborations
and
our
partnerships
within
the
community
itself.
A
BZ
The
the
model
the
program
is
to
assess
the
needs
of
the
the
kids
that
are
coming
into
DCF
care.
So
the
idea
behind
the
program
is
a
youth
who
are
open
the
department
suddenly
or
abruptly
you
have
to
be
moved
out
of
their
current
programs
or
placements.
They
have
to
have
a
like
a
Waystation
and
what
the
program
temporal
typically
does
is
assess
their
specific
needs
and
identify
the
most
active
supports
that
are
close
to
the
family
of
that
child
and,
if
not
the
family,
then
to
identify
program
that
would
meet
the
kids
needs.
BZ
So
initially,
one
of
the
main
services
provides
is
assessing
what
those
needs
are
and
to
providing
a
safe
and
secure
placement
for
the
kid
without
tearing
them
and
mitigating,
or
rather
to
mitigate
the
trauma.
One
of
the
reasons
why
we've
identified
Roxbury
as
a
location
is
because
a
lot
of
the
youth
come
from
the
Boston
area
within
the
city,
and
it
helps
mitigate
the
idea.
The
removal
of
the
kid
from
known
areas
that
they
are
now
used
to.
BZ
N
N
A
BZ
S
BH
BZ
Actually,
promote
I
mean
so
in
its
in
the
name
of
our
agency
communities
for
people
we
actually
promote
the
use
of
community-based
services,
which
is
actually
why
we're
there.
So
one
of
the
you
know
recently
as
we've
as
we've
settled
into
that
location,
we
went
met
with
the
Highland
Park
community
neighborhood
Community
Coalition,
as
well
as
we've
gone
to
anywhere
such
as
would
a
health
center
we've
met
with
a
local
community
officer,
Michael
or
work.
We
actually
want
to
integrate
fully
within
a
community.
BZ
BZ
A
CA
Board
members
in
the
chair
council,
my
name
is
Jessica
Thomas
I'm
from
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
Joshua
McFadden,
who
was
the
previous
neighbor
liaison,
did
go
to
the
abutters
meeting
and
he
supported
it.
There
were
no
outstanding
concerns
and
they
think
would
be
good
for
the
neighborhood.
M
A
J
B
Thank
you
calling
your
last
case.
Thank
you.
So
much
VOA
6
9
3
3
8,
6,
13,
Saginaw
Street.
This
is
erect
a
new
single-family.
The
violations,
article
65
section
41
velocity
pockys,
insufficient
article
65,
section
9,
a
lot
areas
insufficient,
not
equal,
65,
section
I.
On
the
fluid
every
what
nobody
says:
that's
mommy's
coming
up.