►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 03-06-18
Description
Zoning regulates the use and dimensional boundaries of privately owned buildings and land. The Zoning code is in place to protect the neighborhoods from the construction of buildings or structures that do not fit into the context of a neighborhood. The Zoning Board of Appeal hears appeals for varying the application of the Zoning Code and determines when it is appropriate to grant deviations from code restrictions.
A
Your
cell
phones
are
off
and
if
you
need
to
have
conversations,
please
take
them
outside
of
the
room.
I
see
a
lot
of
new
faces
here,
if
you're
here
to
speak
in
support
or
in
opposition
to
a
project.
Please,
when
you're,
when
you
have
a
chance
at
the
mic,
give
us
new
information,
that's
really
important
to
us
as
a
board.
We
take
every
every
every
piece
of
information
under
advisement
before
we
make
a
decision,
so
your
voice
is
important
but
give
us
new
information.
A
B
C
Lin's
245
Sumner
Street
East
Boston,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
madam
chair,
requesting
a
brief
deferral
on
this.
We
requested
to
appear
before
a
newly
formed
community
group
at
the
request
of
the
district
city.
Councilor
we've
agreed
to
do
that.
So
we
probably
need
about
two
months
or
going
to
make
this
presentation
to
that
group.
D
C
B
B
B
B
B
Realistic
niches
may
8th
as
well.
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
deferrals
or
throttles
for
9:30
hearing?
None
we'll
call
the
first
case
calling
POA
seven
nine
zero.
Four,
eight
five.
Seventy
one
border
street.
This
is
a
combined
lots
to
create
a
new
block
consisting
of
one
thousand
three
hundred
seventy
eight
square
feet
and
erect
a
new
five-story
eight
unit
residential
building
with
common
roof
deck
violations.
Article
53
section,
eight,
a
multi-family
dwelling
is
forbidden
article
53,
section,
nine,
the
law
tiaras
insufficient,
a
33
section,
I
on
the
floor.
The
a
ratio
was
excessive.
B
Article
53,
section,
nine,
the
building
height
is
excessive
article
53,
section
nine
building
height
number
of
stories
as
excessive
article
53,
section,
nine
usable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
article
53,
section
I
in
the
front
yard,
is
insufficient.
Article
53
section
I
on
the
side
yard,
isn't
fair
and
article
53
section
9
Riyadh
is
insufficient
in
article
53
section
56
off-street
parking
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
C
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lin's
245
Sumner,
Street,
East
Boston,
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner,
with
respect
to
the
property
69
71
Porter
Street.
This
is
a
proposal
to
demolish
the
existing
two
family
dwelling,
combine
it
with
a
vacant
lot
next
door
and
to
construct
a
five-story
eighth
unit.
Building
I
provided
the
board
with
a
copy
of
information,
but
is
the
presentation
that
we
presented
to
the
neighborhood
to
show
the
context
of
this
particular
neighborhood?
C
Just
so,
the
board's
familiar
border
street
actually
shares
a
number
of
zoning
districts,
including
the
waterfront
maritime
reserve,
located
directly
across
the
street,
where
the
height
is
about
55
feet
directly.
To
the
left
of
this
property
is
the
ongoing
congressman
village
project,
which
is
100-plus
unit
multifamily
development.
At
about
five
stories,
there
are
numerous
other
projects
in
the
immediate
area
at
five
and
six
stories,
so
this
proposal
is
within
context
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
That
is
rapidly
changing
this
located
within
walking
distance
of
the
Maverick
T
station.
C
The
present
condition
of
the
property
is
not
very
good
and
requires
substantial
rehabilitation
and
investment.
Our
proposal
is
to
create
a
workable
unit.
Sized
mix
of
studios
and
two
bedrooms
for
total
eight
units,
we
did
have
an
opportunity
to
present
this
to
the
local
of
others
in
the
neighborhood
I
believe
there
are
butters
here
who
will
speak
in
favor
of
this.
We
do
have
an
opportunity
to
reach
out
to
director
butters
we're
not
aware
of
any
objections.
We
did
hear
concern
from
the
butter
further
down.
C
Bedroom
countin,
sighs,
as
I
indicated,
six
of
these
units
will
be
studios.
These
are
consistent
with
the
recommendations
of
the
BPD,
a
relative
to
metropolitan
sized
units.
This
is
located
well
within
walking
distance,
as
I
mentioned
of
Maverick
T
station.
The
larger
units
which
would
be
located
on
the
fourth
and
fifth
floors
and
duplex,
are
about
1,200
square
feet
total
and
those
are
each
two-bedroom.
We
are
proposing
no
parking
on
the
site.
That
was
something
that
we
did
talk
about
with
the
neighborhood.
C
F
C
A
C
Coppersmiths
about
immediate
left,
mr.
Pazhani
is
58
feet
and
to
the
right
is
a
three
story
story
presently
under
construction.
My
understanding
is
that
is
intending
to
go
up
at
some
point
in
the
future,
as
well
in
height
limit
directly
across
the
street.
For
all.
Essentially,
these
buildings
are
usually
ultimately
blocked
with
future
development
across
the
street.
The
minimum
height
is
55
feet
directly
across
from.
G
A
H
I
A
B
Next
case,
calling
seven
eight
nine
four
two
five
three
thirty
one
Chelsea
Street
this
is
to
raise
an
existing
building
erect
a
four
unit,
residential
dwelling
violation,
article
53
section
54
screening
in
Bahrain,
equal
53,
Section,
56
off
street
parking,
article
53,
section,
8,
forbidden
article
53,
section,
9,
insufficient
lot
size,
article
53,
section,
9,
excessive
FA,
our
article
53
section
I,
and
the
building
height
is
excessive.
Article
53,
section
9,
a
maximum
allowed
number
of
storeys
has
been
exceeded.
B
C
Chair
members
of
the
board,
Richard
Lenz
245,
some
mystery
he's
boss
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
with
me,
is
Ricky
Ricky,
Beliveau,
who's,
the
principal
of
phoney
capital
and
the
owner
of
this
property.
This
proposal
is
to
demolish
existing
family
dwelling
located
right
outside
of
the
day
square
business
center
in
East
Boston,
and
to
propose
a
four
unit
four-story
building
in
its
place
for
by
way
of
context
and
I,
provided
a
sketch
of
some
of
these
surrounding
properties.
C
As
this
neighborhood,
like
many
neighborhoods
I,
think
in
East
Boston
at
this
point
is
growing
and
rapidly
changing.
There
are
a
number
of
projects
that
have
been
approved
in
this
area,
including
a
five-story
building,
located
immediately
to
the
right,
a
four-story
building,
get
immediately
to
the
rear
four
and
a
half
story,
15
unit
building
diagonally
to
the
rear,
as
well
as
an
eighth
unit.
Four
story
building
located
further
down
the
street.
C
So
our
proposal
was
to
propose
something
that
is
relatively
in
scale
with
what
we
see
is
the
changing
face
of
this
particular
neighborhood
that
would
be
lower
than
the
immediately
adjacent
building
at
McGrath's
funeral
home,
which,
as
I
mentioned,
will
stand
at
five
stories
and
36
units.
Our
proposal
is
to
this
is
intended
for
home
ownership
with
unit
sizes
of
roughly
about
a
thousand
square
feet
plus
or
minus.
C
These
are
all
2-bedroom
2-bath
units,
with
the
fourth
level
being
set
back
a
bit
based
upon
some
comments
that
we
did
hear
from
the
neighborhood
relative
to
trying
to
keep
some
of
the
character
of
the
height
of
the
existing
three
stories
located
along
Chelsea
Street.
We
did
have
an
opportunity
to
present
this
to
both
the
neighborhood,
as
well
as
the
Eagle
Hill
Civic
Association
I
do
have
a
letter
in
support
showing
Bigelow
civic
association.
Didn't
overwhelmingly
support
this
proposal.
They
view
this
as
a
reasonable
development
for
this
particular
neighborhood
based
upon
what's
been
happening
in.
C
A
A
C
This
is
AE
where
our
understanding
is
as
of
March
of
2016.
This
was
added
to
the
flood
zone.
It's
a
newly
added
site.
We
are
certainly
intent
on
complying
with
flood
design
regulations.
There
is
no
habitable
space
below
below
the
first
level.
All
utilities
are
self
contained
in
the
unit
and
the
architect
is
working
with
the
engineer
to
discuss
compliance
of
the
base.
Flood
elevation
to
ensure
there's
no
living
space
below.
G
In
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
a
mrs.
Darcy
from
the
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
for
this
project
and
abolish
milling
the
concern
that
the
people
mentioned.
It
was
about
a
parking.
However,
the
train
station
is
pretty
close
to
this
property
and
we
go
healbot
in
support
for
this
project.
Thank
you.
B
This
is
seeking
to
change
the
are
confirming
existing
killing
from
a
one-family
dwelling
to
a
two-family
dwelling,
also
to
renovate
the
building,
create
two
new
red
decks
and
one
roof
deck.
The
violations,
article
25
section:
five
flood
hazard
district,
article,
53,
section,
52,
roof
structure,
restrictions,
article
53,
section,
56,
Austria
parking
loader
is
parking-
is
insufficient
and
I
fifty-three
section
I
on
additional
lot
areas,
insufficient
article
53,
section,
nine
usable,
open
space
is
insufficient,
an
article
53
section,
nine,
the
rear
yard,
there's
insufficient
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
thank.
M
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jeff
Drago,
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
representing
the
owner
and
proposed
developer
team
Bernstein
of
23
Everett
Street.
We
have
a
proposal,
as
was
mentioned,
seeking
zoning
relief
to
change
the
occupancy
from
an
existing
one
family
to
a
two-family
dwelling
and
completely
renovate
the
structure
itself,
also
creating
some
rare
decks
in
the
back
and
a
roof
deck
on
the
top.
I
just
want
to
point
out
the
current
bedroom
count
of
the
building.
M
Now,
as
it
stands
as
five
bedrooms
with
the
new
two
proposed
condos,
this
will
be
reduced
to
a
three
bedroom
project
so
one
on
the
first
floor.
Two
on
the
talk,
the
particular
zoning
district
is
a
three
f2000
and
the
photos
that
I
had
submitted
to
you
you'll
see
that
the
area
is
comprised
of
many
threes
and
twos,
which
we're
just
trying
to
replicate
with
two
condominium
unit.
M
We're
trying
to
we'll
keep
the
height
under
the
allowable
35
feet
or
slightly
over
27
feet,
which
would
match
the
building
directly
to
the
right
of
us
just
to
go
over
the
unit
sizes
first-floor
unit
would
be
a
535
square
foot.
One-Bedroom
one-bath
condominium
in
unit
2
at
1200
and
4
square
feet
would
be
a
2-bedroom
2-bath
condominium.
The
top
roof
deck
would
be
exclusive
to
the
top
floor
and
the
head
house
is
roughly
about
60
to
65
feet
just
provides
room
for
the
spiral
staircase
to
come
up.
M
Yes,
correct
to
the
deck
usable
open
space
is
300
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit
or
slightly
under
at
215
square
feet
for
dwelling
unit,
although
we
do
not
provide
any
parking
because
we
keep
the
structure
remaining,
we're
not
touching
the
we're
not
taking
down
the
building.
So
there's
no
way
to
create
any
parking.
We
are
walking
distance
directly
to
Maverick
tea
station
and
we
are
reducing
that
bedroom
count.
As
I
had
mentioned
from
the
current
building
itself.
I
can
pause
now
for
any
questions.
K
K
M
G
H
A
B
Boa
788
7:04
164
Laden
Street.
This
is
a
change
of
oxygen
from
a
2
to
a
3
unit.
Residential
dwelling
violations,
article
53,
section
a3
family
is
forbidden,
use
and
the
2
family
sub
district
article
53
section
9
the
location
of
the
main
entrance
for
unit
3,
article
33,
section,
54,
screening
and
buffer.
None
is
proposed.
Article
53,
section,
56,
insufficient
parking
garage
drive
is
dedicated
to
Union
unit
to
only
aim
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
N
The
board
attorney
Lorene
Schettino,
2:45,
Sumner,
Street,
East,
Boston,
Massachusetts
and
with
me,
is
the
owner
of
the
property,
Cynthia
Wilcock,
just
a
brief
description
of
this
property,
we're
seeking
to
go
from
a
2
to
a
3.
This
is
a
pre-existing
condition
when
my
client
purchased
the
property
in
2014.
N
This
unit
was
built
the
we're
now
seeking
to
just
legalize
the
unit.
There
is
no
one
occupying
it
at
the
time.
This
is
an
owner
occupied
building
as
well
along
the
street
of
lead
and
Street.
By
way
of
history,
there's
a
mix
of
two
threes
fours
and
even
some
six
unit
buildings.
We
are
within
walking
distance
of
both
Orion
Heights
and
Suffolk
Downs
train
station.
N
So
the
first
violation
is,
we
are
in
a
true
family,
residential
neighborhood
and
we're
seeking
to
go
to
a
three
family,
as
I
mentioned
up
and
down
Laden
street
there's
quite
a
few
Cretu,
even
six
unit
buildings,
the
location
of
the
main
entrance
for
unit
number
three
is
actually
in
the
back
of
the
building.
Laden
street
is
on
a
hill,
so
the
building
is
actually
set
into
the
land
and
screaming
and
buffering
we're
willing
to
do
whatever
complies
with
BPD
a
design
review
on
that.
N
And,
finally,
our
last
violation
is
armed
parking.
We
do
have
parking
for
one
vehicle
on
the
property
already,
but
Leighton
Street
doesn't
seem
to
be
necessarily
an
issue
at
parking.
We
met
with
the
Orion
Heights
neighborhood
group
twice
as
well
as
had
in
a
butters
meeting,
and
they
didn't
seem
to
be
any
opposition
to
the
issue.
I
have
a
letter
from
the
Orion
Heights
neighborhood
association
as
well.
H
N
A
N
I
N
I
N
I
I
N
N
G
H
B
This
is
the
demolish:
an
existing
single-family
structure
in
erecting
new
four-story
single-family
dwelling
with
red
decks
and
garage
the
violations,
article
62
section,
30
application
for
the
dimensional
regulate
requirements;
conformity
with
an
existing
building
alignment
in
the
front
yard
setbacks
article
62,
section,
8,
insufficient
lot
size,
article
62,
section,
8
insufficient
a
lot
with
article
62,
section,
8
insipid
insufficient,
a
lot
frontage
with
article
62,
section,
8,
maximum
of
allowed
number
of
storeys
has
been
exceeded
and
article
62,
section
8,
maximum
allowed
height
has
been
exceeded,
may
have
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
O
This
is
an
existing
single-family
house
in
Charles,
in
which
there
was
a
long-term
owner
who
has
since
died.
The
house
is
in
serious
disrepair,
it's
a
three
storey
house
and
what
we're
proposing
to
do
basically
is
to
tear
down
the
existing
house,
because
it's
in
such
disrepair,
in
fact,
there's
a
brick.
The
first
floor
has
a
brick
facade,
which
you
can
pretty
much
put
your
hand
through,
because
the
trick
is
all
crumbling.
But
besides
that
the
the
house
really
occupies
the
lot
it
does
not
go.
O
It
comes
almost
right
to
the
front
lot
line,
as
does
all
the
other
houses
on
Bunker
Hill
Street.
It
is
what
we're,
basically
there
we're
squaring
it
off.
In
the
back.
There
is
a
small
rear
yard
existing
which
we're
keeping,
but
it's
not
regulation
sizes.
Nothing
here
is
regulation
size.
So
one
of
the
things
we
had
in
the
butters
meeting
on
February
13th
that
was
very
well
attended,
with
lots
of
comments
and
concerns
about
a
number
of
things,
one
of
which
was
the
height
of
the
building.
O
We
are
going
from
a
three-story
building
to
a
four-story
and
what
we're
doing
is
putting
in
interior
parking
on
the
first
floor,
so
we're
putting
two
spaces
inside
and
we're
done
we're
taking
away
one
space
on
the
street.
But
it's
not
really
a
full
one
space,
because
there
is
a
fire
hydrant
that
has
you
have
to
have
dimensional.
You
know
with
us
to
stay
away
from
it,
and
part
of
that
will
be
in
front
of
that.
O
Open
area
will
be
in
front
of
the
garage
door
in
any
event,
so
there'll
be
two
spaces
inside
and
what
happens
when
you
from
the
comments
that
were
made
at
the
meeting
and
the
architects
going
to
go
into
the
real
detail
about
it.
But
one
of
the
comments
were
about
the
height
of
the
building
and
we
were
exceeding
the
35
feet
allowed
and
we've
now
reduced
some
of
the
interior
floor
levels
so
that
we're
now
below
30
at
that
we
are
at
the
35
feet.
O
So
if
you
look
at
the
plans
you'll
see
there
is
a
three-story
but
very
tall
building
to
the
left.
We
are
not
exceed
works.
It's
going
above
that,
but
now
we're
below
that
and
on
the
right-hand
side
there
is
a
school
that
was
converted
to
condominiums
and
then
immediately
adjacent
to
us.
There
was
what
I'd
call
a
Mews
house
built
with
two
units:
that
is,
if
either
one
story
or
one
and
a
half
stories
there,
that
news
house
has
no
windows
on
our
side
of
the
buildings.
O
Q
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board
Christopher
Breen
from
the
mayor's
office,
the
neighbourhood
services
we
are
speaking
in
support
with
Design
Review.
Our
office
did
host
a
meeting
February
13th
that
was
widely
attended.
The
applicant
has
worked
with
the
butters
on
the
issues
raised,
such
as
the
height
the
rare
decks
and
the
placement
of
the
curb
cut.
We
have
in
fact
received
one
letter
of
opposition,
but
our
supporting
as
long
as
they
continue
to
work
with
the
butter.
H
A
R
R
We
do
actually
have
windows
on
that
side
of
the
building,
in
addition
to
skylight.
So
we
are
concerned
about
our
privacy
as
it
relates
to
access
to
our
upstairs
living
room
and
bedrooms.
A
major
concern
for
us
has
been
the
issue
of
the
back
outside
deck
again
because
it
would
allow
access
to
sort
of
reviewing
into
we
believe
viewing
into
our
dwelling
and
and
on
top
of
that,
we're
concerned
about
the
potential
for
outside
gatherings
and
noise
that
would
affect
our.
You
know,
ability
to
enjoy
our
property.
You
know
the
deck
is
fairly
large.
R
I
I
agree
with
the
testimony
before
that.
There
have
been
some
reductions
to
it.
I
guess
our
preference
would
be
that
it
be
more
of
a
about
bait
for
the
outside
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
folks
would
want
to
be
able
to
have
direct
sunlight,
come
in
and
be
able
to
view
outside.
But
you
know
the
idea
of
having
a
a
deck
outside
our
upstairs
living
corner
and
bedrooms
is
is
concerning
to
us.
R
In
addition,
you
know
the
current
building
is
about
two
stories
and
looking
to
go
to
35
feet,
something
that
we
were
certainly
supportive
of
with
the
idea
of
reducing
it
from
the
37,
which
would
have
put
the
building
out
of
character
for
the
area.
Our
concern,
however,
is
the
number
of
floors
within
the
building,
and
you
know
it's
it's
there
going
from
a
two
and
a
half
to
a
four
story.
Building.
R
We
think
that
you
know
that
additional
height
additional
space
will
possibly
relate
to
additional
dwellers
in
the
building,
which
will
then
relate
to
parking
issues
outside
for
our
neighborhood
and
our
neighbors.
The
parking
is
less
of
an
issue
for
us
because
we
have
parking
on
our
side.
However,
I
think
if,
when
we've
looked
at
the
plans
and
again
I'm
not
an
architect,
but
they
do
allow
for
a
curb
cut
that
would
allow
for
two
parking
spaces.
R
We
just
find
it
difficult
review
it
to
say
how
you
would
actually
get
two
cars
in
there
to
be
able
to
move
around
in
a
convenient
manner.
More
likely.
The
scenario
from
my
perspective
is
that
they
would
use
one
space
and
another
parking
space
would
be
outside
it's
a
complaint
that
the
neighborhood
has
heard
from
the
large
school
building
next
door
that
there
is
parking
inside,
however,
that
the
users
use
spaces
out
on
the
street.
So
we
are
opposed
to
the
plan
as
currently
proposed.
B
S
R
R
R
A
O
P
P
We
moved
windows
and
deleted
windows
and
show
that
no
windows
on
our
building
would
align
with
theirs
and
we
emailed
him
these
drawings,
which
I'd
like
to
submit.
We
also
the
existing
building,
is
two
feet
from
the
property
line,
we're
back
another
foot
and
in
the
rear,
a
deck
which
mr.
Neal
on
is
talking
about.
At
the
fourth
floor,
we
pulled
it
back
three
feet
and
centered
it
in
the
rear
of
the
building.
That's
on
the
rear
elevation.
K
A
B
Following
a
next
case,
calling
boa
seven,
eight
nine
nine
eight
zero
107
Pembroke
Street,
there
is
a
companion
case
on
building
code,
boa
seven,
eight,
nine.
Ninety
four
107
Pembroke
Street,
one
Oh
107
Pembroke
street.
This
is
installing
new
roof
deck
and
a
new
rear
balcony.
A
new
hatch
has
was
installed
within
the
scope
of
the
work.
Locus
is
for
the
Sultan
Lemax
district
and
a
contribution
to
structure
to
the
historic
district
and
designated
as
historic
landmarks
has
approved
the
roof
deck
hand.
Hatch.
B
The
violation
is
article
64,
section,
9
conditional
use
for
the
new
balcony
above
the
first
floor.
It's
quite
a
bit
of
building
code,
we're
going
forward.
I'm
gonna
read
into
the
record
means
of
egress
one
on
zero,
zero,
nine
point:
two
Headroom
stairways
shall
have
a
minimum
Headroom
clearance
of
80
inches,
measured
vertically
from
the
line
connecting
the
edge
of
the
nosing.
Such
Headroom
shall
be
continuous
above
the
COA
to
the
point
where
the
line
intersects
the
landing
below
one
tread
depth
beyond
the
bottom
riser.
B
The
minimum
clearance
shall
be
maintained,
the
full
width
of
the
stairway
and
landing
means
of
egress
on
roof
access.
One
zero
zero
point:
nine
one,
three
stairways
to
and
buildings
for
more
stories
above
grade
plane.
One
stairway
shall
extend
the
roof
surface
unless
the
roof
has
a
slopes
deeper
than
four
units
in
12
units,
horizontal
33%
slope
in
buildings.
Without
an
occupied
roof
access
to
the
roof
from
the
stop
soaring
shall
be
permitted
by
an
alternating
tread
device.
B
One
zero,
zero,
nine
point:
one
three
point:
one:
roof
access:
where
a
stay-away
is
provided
to
a
roof
access,
the
roof
shall
be
provided.
Roof
shall
be
provided
through
a
penthouse
compliant
with
section
one:
five:
zero,
nine
point:
two
means
of
egress
a
handrail
continuity,
handrail
gripping
services
shall
be
and
continuous,
without
interruption
by
newel,
post
or
other
obstructions.
Handrail
handrail
extensions,
one,
zero
one:
two
point
six
hand:
rail
extensions,
handrail
shall
return
to
wall
god
or
walking
surface
or
shall
be
continuous
to
the
handrail
of
an
adjacent,
stair
flight
or
ramp
run
well.
B
Handrails
are
not
continuous
between
flights.
The
handrail
shall
extend
horizontally
at
least
12
inches
beyond
the
top
riser
and
continue
to
the
slope
for
the
depth
of
one
tread
be
on
the
bottom
rise
off
at
ramps.
Where
handrails
are
not
continuous
between
runs,
the
handrail
shall
extend
horizontally
above
the
landing
12
inches
minimum
beyond
the
top
and
the
bottom
of
the
ramp
runs.
B
Chip
I
apologize
counsel
I
got
to
continue
because
there
was
another
page,
but
it
was
not
that
good.
The
grade
below
any
point
within
36
inches
horizontally
to
the
edge
of
the
open
side.
God
shall
be
adequate
in
strength
and
attachment.
This
is
the
last
one:
safety
glazing,
human
impact
loads,
individual
glaze
damage,
including
glass
mirrors
and
hazardous
locations,
as
defined
shall
comply.
U
I
may
madam
chair,
the
Building
Code
site
is
triggered
by
the
fact
of
a
four-story
building
triggering
the
State
Building
Code.
If
it
was
a
three-story
building,
the
hatch
would
be
allowed
as
a
matter
of
is
a
common
exit.
Entry
to
the
roof
in
numerous
buildings
in
the
south
end
I
would
suggest
the
hatch
as
design
opens
to
the
side.
So
there
is
continuous
Headroom
compliance,
handrail
I've
filed
with
mr.
bert
mazzani,
a
detail.
Photograph
of
the
hatch.
The
railing
is
continuous
to
the
deck.
U
I
I
I
K
U
Rear
deck
is
requires
a
conditional
use
permit.
It
is
the
standard
six
foot
projection
supported
by
brackets.
We
had
a
community
meeting
and
there
was
no
opposition.
I
have
filed
with
the
board
a
petition
signed
by
immediate
about
us.
We
hadn't
sent
an.
I
sent
a
notice
to
the
pilot
block
association.
They
did
not
deem
it
necessary
to
have
a
placed
on
their
agenda.
It
was
the
past
president
of
the
pilot
block
association
who
did
attend
the
mom's
meeting
and
he
supported.
I
V
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
faces.
Sherif
with
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
did
hold
an
abutters
meeting.
It
was
an
opportunity
for
neighbors
to
have
their
concerns
heard.
It
was
not
a
controversial
issue.
Everyone
in
attendance
was
in
support
of
the
design.
I've
also
reached
out
to
the
pilot
block
neighborhood
association
and
I've
received
a
letter
on
record
from
them
saying
that
they
support
this
application.
Thank.
I
I
B
W
W
Yes,
there
is
an
existing
rear
yard.
Deck
on
this
property
is
in
bad
shape
and
falling
apart.
We
would
it's
an
eyesore
as
well.
We
proposed
to
replace
that
it's
currently
supported
by
three
steel
columns,
we'd
like
to
maintain
those
same
three
columns
and
rebuild
the
deck,
extending
it
three
feet:
nine
inches
to
the
rear
of
the
lot.
A
W
W
X
F
F
B
You
following
your
next
case:
BOA:
seven,
eight
three,
three:
nine,
nine
166
West
Brookline
Street,
there's
also
Building
Code,
boa
seven,
eight,
three:
four
zero
one
166
West
Brookline
street.
This
is
to
add
a
red
deck
and
roof
deck
to
violations.
Article
64,
section,
nine,
a
balcony
above
the
first
floor,
is
a
conditional
use.
B
Code,
another
long
one
home
to
read
into
the
record,
chimneys
and
vents
event.
Termination,
mechanical
draft
systems
or
either
forced
or
induced
draft
design
shall
comply
with
section.
Eight,
oh
four
point:
three:
through
eight,
oh
four
point:
three:
seven
horizontal
terminations
shall
comply
with
the
following
requirements:
we're
located
adjacent
to
walkways
determination
and
mechanical
draft
systems
shall
be
not
less
than
seven
feet
above
the
level
of
the
walkway.
B
Eight
zero
four
point:
three
five
vertical
termination
shall
comply
with
the
following
requirements:
we're
located
adjacent
to
walkways
the
termination
mechanical
draft
system
will
not
be
less
than
seven
feet
above
the
walkway
for
roofs
near
Headroom,
one,
zero,
zero,
nine
point:
two
stay
away
shall
have
the
minimum
Headroom
clearance
of
80
inches
and
measured
vertically
from
a
line
connecting
the
edge
of
the
nosing
such
Headroom.
Shell,
a
continuous
above
the
stairs
stairway
to
the
point
where
the
intersects,
the
landing
below
one
tread
death
beyond
the
bottom
Raisa.
B
The
minimum
clearance
shall
be
maintained,
the
full
width
of
the
stairway
and
landing
roof
deck
access,
one,
zero,
zero,
nine
point,
one
three
stay
away:
two
roof
and
buildings
for
more
stories
above
grade
plane.
One
stairway
shall
extend
the
roof
surface
unless
the
roof
has
a
slope
steeper
than
four
units
vertical
in
12
units,
horizont
horizontally
and
33%
slope
in
buildings.
Without
the
occupied
roof,
access
to
the
roof
from
the
top
story
shall
be
permitted
to
be
by
an
alternating
tread
device.
B
One
zero,
zero,
nine
point,
one
three
one:
roof
access
where
a
stairway
is
provided
to
a
roof
access,
the
roof
shall
be
provided
through.
A
pen
tell
is
compliant
with
section
one:
five:
zero
nine
point:
two
handrail
continuty
101.4
handrail
gripping
surfaces
shall
be
continuous
without
the
interruption
by
newel,
post
or
other
obstructions.
B
Handrail
extensions
one
zero
one,
two
point:
six
handrails
shall
return
to
the
wall
guide
or
the
walking
surface
or
shall
be
continuous
to
the
handrail
of
an
adjacent,
stair
flight
or
ramp
run
where
handles
are
not
continuous
between
flights,
the
handrail
shall
extend
horizontally
at
least
12
inches
beyond
the
top
riser
and
continue
to
the
slope
for
the
depth
of
one
tread
be
on
the
bottom
riser
at
ramps,
where
handrails
are
not
continuous
between
ones.
The
handrail
shall
extend
horizontally
above
the
landing
12
inches
minimum
beyond
the
top
bottom
of
the
ramp
runs.
B
A
U
Y
V
B
Spelling
boa
seven,
nine,
nine,
nine
three
870
to
Peterborough
Street,
there's
a
companion
case,
boa
seven,
nine,
nine,
nine,
three,
seven:
seventy
six
Peterborough
Street!
This
is
a
change
of
occupancy
to
include
wireless
communication
facility.
The
applicant
proposes
to
construct
a
new
wireless
facility
on
the
roof
and
facade
of
an
existing
building.
The
applicant
will
be
installing
12
panel
antennas
together
with
supporting
equipment
and
proposed
8
foot
high
fence.
All
work
will
be
done
pursuant
to
the
plans
the
violations,
article
86
section
6,
any
antenna
in
a
residential
district
is
a
conditional
use.
E
Don't
I'm
not
aware
of
a
wireless
site
that
was
denied
by
this
board
I
believe
AT&T
is
so.
This
is
a
row
of
buildings,
all
one
building
owned
by
the
Peterborough
Housing
Association
I
believe
there
is
already
wireless
on
the
other
end
of
the
building,
but
I'm
not
aware
of
a
proposal
that
was
rejected
by
this
board.
E
Is
proposing
to
install
12
new
panel
antennas
on
the
roof
of
the
existing
building
at
72
and
76
Peterborough
Street,
three
of
which
will
be
facade
mounted
to
the
existing
penthouse?
Those
three
antennas
we
had
initially
proposed
to
be
facade
mounted
on
the
side
of
the
building.
So
actually,
if
you,
if
you're
looking
at
the
photo
Sims
that
I've
handed
out
page
three
and
four,
you
can
see
the
existing
side
of
the
brick
building,
we
had
initially
proposed
to
install
three
panel
antennas
there.
E
However,
after
some
feedback
from
the
community
and
further
design
review,
we
have
opted
to
move
them
back
up
onto
the
roof
and
over
20
feet
away
from
the
roof
edge
there
they're
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
see.
The
one
piece
of
the
installation
that
you
can
see
from
this
viewpoint
is
one
of
the
foam
knees
that
will
house
three
antennas.
It's
a
ten
foot
height
three
foot
by
eight
foot,
faux
chimney
that
will
hold
three
antennas.
E
The
larger
faux
chimney
to
the
left
will
be
posting
six
antennas
and
the
more
narrow
chimney
to
the
right
will
host
three
antennas.
We
believe
this
installation
is
consistent
with
the
design
desire
of
this
board
to
try
and
have
minimal
visual
impact
from
these
installations.
It's
installed
in
a
relatively
tall
building
to
service
the
residential
community
nearby
and
I'm.
Happy
to
answer
any
questions
by
the
board.
K
E
X
L
F
A
B
This
is
the
change
of
Archer
from
to
store
at
the
restaurant
36
a
and
four
apartments
to
one
slower,
restaurants,
36
a
and
five
apartments.
So
this
is
an
existing
condition
of
many
years.
We
reframed
real
wall
to
accept
new
six-foot
sliding
door
violations.
Article
68,
section,
33,
Austria
parking
is
insufficient,
equals
68,
section,
8,
useable,
open
spaces,
insufficient
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please.
Z
Z
Z
Z
I
I
I
Z
I
Z
About
that
was
when
the
store
was
legalized
as
a
store
EBA
deli
and
the
four
apartments,
but
the
mr.
de
Matos
father
had
who
was
probably
ill
at
that
time
was
mainly
so
delighted
that
he
got
the
store
because
he
was
doing
the
first
three
sons
that
he
accidentally
overlooked.
The
the
wage,
the
deed,
was
set
up
on
the
property,
because
it's
all
on
one
D.
You
can't
sell
one
building
without
selling
the
whole
set
up.
A
X
AA
AB
B
D
A
A
B
B
Calling
boa
seven
eight
six,
two
five
four
six
sixty-two
East
Fifth
Street:
this
is
a
renovating
existing
three
family
resident
and
expand
living
space
on
each
floor
and
red
decks.
Four
units
two
and
three
and
roof
decks
ass
access
from
the
penthouse
with
a
third
floor.
Only
the
violations,
article
68
section
33
off
street
parking
requirement-
is
insufficient.
Article
68,
section
8,
the
Reyat
setback
is
insufficient.
Article
27
s,
section
5!
It's
in
the
ipod
applicability
article,
68
section,
29
the
roof
structure,
restricted
district.
They
have
an
ad
just
pull
the
record.
Please
Patrick.
AC
AC
Share
we
have
here
is
an
existing
three
family.
There
have
been
a
number
of
violations
eliminated,
the
restricted
roof
structure.
Violation
has
been
eliminated,
there's
no
structure
going
on
the
roof
as
a
result
of
the
community
process.
Additionally,
there
is
no
parking
violations.
It's
an
existing
three
family,
that's
remaining
an
existing
three
family
and
the
only
violation,
or
rather
a
citation
that
we're
here
to
present
before
you
is
I,
find.
AC
A
AC
AC
On
the
upper
portion
of
the
first
floor
and
the
third
floor,
it
shows
a
setback
of
approximately
sixteen
and
a
half
or
seventeen
feet,
and
and
that's
where
the
proponent
is
seeking
to
extend
that
existing
setback
across
the
rear
of
the
building
and
and
then
push
it
out
again,
an
additional
three
feet,
which
would
be
a
total
of
sixteen
point.
Eight
feet
from
the
rear
yard.
15
feet
is
what's
required.
AC
A
A
X
Well,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
John
Ellison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
we
would
like
to
one
record
in
opposition.
We
have
held
a
couple
of
abutters
meetings
on
this
project
and
though
the
development
team
has
made
concessions
to
eliminate
the
rear
yard
violation
and
the
head
house,
we
understand,
neighbors
still
have
concerns
about
the
size
of
the
building.
You
know
shadow
effects
and
the
proximity
to
their
buildings.
Thank.
AA
AD
AF
A
All
of
you
are
in
opposition.
Okay.
Can
we
get
a
count
of
how
many
people
are
in
opposition?
That's
two,
four:
six!
Seven,
ten
people
in
opposition,
please,
if
you
could
put
your
name
and
address
on
the
record
and
as
I
had
said
earlier,
if
you
have
new
information
on
that,
but
otherwise
just
put
your
name
on
the
record.
Okay,
go
ahead!
My.
AB
Name
Stephen
look
out,
they
would
have
butter
at
the
rear
of
the
property
313
Emerson
Street,
my
wife
and
I,
are
in
opposition
of
the
project.
We
just
feel
it's
too
big
and
too
close.
My
neighbor,
the
Mulligan
family,
at
311,
Emerson
Street,
who
couldn't
attend
today,
also
is
a
very
much
opposition
of
the
projects
and
we
did
ask
for
a
deferral
for
that
reason,
but
the
bill
to
decline
that
that's
that.
AH
AH
We
have
a
couple
of
objections
to
the
project,
one
to
clarify
something
that
the
gentleman
said.
He
said
that
the
current
structure
is
going
from
less
than
10
feet
from
the
property
line
to
16.8
feet
from
the
property
line,
but
that's
not
entirely
accurate.
The
ten
feet
is
a
current
stair
egress
that
was
built
sometime
in
the
last
bunch
of
years.
We're
not
sure
whether
it
was
a
legal
construction
or
not
the
actual
building
structure.
This
project
would
expand,
so
it
would
expand
it
back
further
toward
the
back
property
line.
AH
It
would
expand
it
part
of
it
to
the
right
so
closer
to
another
side
of
butter,
and
it
would
expand
it
upwards.
Part
of
it
would
expand
up
by
one
floor
and
part
of
it
would
expand
up
by
three
floors
so,
where
there's
currently
ground
and
open
space
that
would
go
to
three
floors.
We
believe
that
it's
a
dramatic
expansion
of
the
footprint
and
density
of
the
current
property
and
a
neighborhood
that
is
already
experiencing
problems
with
us.
AH
As
Steven
mentioned,
it
will
shade
the
and
yards
of
at
least
five
property
owners
in
the
area,
many
of
them
longtime
residents.
This
project
will
significantly
reduce
open
space
in
the
neighborhood.
Those
of
us
on
the
rear
side
of
our
building,
currently
look
out
into
open
space
for
the
most
part
and
trees
and
instead,
we'll
be
looking
into
the
bedrooms
of
people
less
than
20
feet
away.
AH
Finally,
we
would
appeal
to
the
stated
purpose
of
the
South
Boston
iPod
to
help
preserve
the
neighborhood
character
quality
of
life
for
residents.
Lastly,
to
conclude,
we
we
are
not
obstructionists.
We
are
very
happy
to
see
the
project
and
the
property
renovated,
but
we
feel
that
further
changes
are
necessary
to
reduce
the
negative
impacts
on
longtime,
neighbors
and
abutters.
We
think
we
can
come
to
agreement
and
find
something
that
we
could
support,
but
I
think
it
will
take
some
further
changes
to
the
plans
as
they
currently
are,
as
they
currently
are.
I
stand
in
opposition.
AH
A
A
AI
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
for
this
opportunity
just
to
speak.
My
name
is
Jennifer
Heilig
I
live
at
311
Emerson
Street
in
unit
15
I've
lived
there
for
20
years
and
to
add
to
what
Stephen
and
Heather
have
said,
the
project
is
proposing
to
add
several
bedrooms
and
without
adding
any
of
parking,
so
I
extend
an
opposition
to
it
because
we
are
already
in
a
very
serious
parking
shortage
in
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you
very
much.
AL
AM
George
Pablo
to
91
Emerson
Street
I've
been
a
resident
I've,
looked
at
that
residency
for
over
59
years,
I
stand
in
opposition
to
this
project
because
it's
the
size,
the
congestion,
there's
no
parking
and
there's
just
far
too
many
decks.
There's
he's
alleging
three
decks
in
his
proposal.
We've
just
had
four
decks
installed
over
the
last
two
years.
This
would
be
seven
decks
in
under
three
years.
It's
just
way
too
much.
Thank
you.
Y
AC
Ma'am
sure,
thank
you.
A
lot
of
the
opposition
that
we've
heard
today
is
from
309
311
Emerson
Street,
which
is
a
preexisting
non-conforming,
just
below
a
high-rise
at
57
feet
less
than
ten
feet
off
my
clients,
rear
yard,
and
we
feel
respectfully
that,
with
their
lack
of
open
space
and
their
rear
yard
shouldn't
detract
our
client
to
be
able
to
build.
What's
within
the
zoning
code,
they
over
15
feet
required.
We
have
over
600
square
feet
of
open
space,
which
is
what's
required
through
the
neighborhood
process.
AC
There's
been
concessions
to
in
taken
into
a
design
and
neighborhood
feedback.
We
have
presented
a
shadow
study,
little
or
or
no
additional
burden
on
the
neighbors.
In
fact,
it
a
minor
shadow
on
our
clients,
own
land,
I
guess
in
some.
The
opposition
is
related
to
open
space
on
my
clients,
property
which
shouldn't
be
allowed
to
make
up
for
the
absence
of
open
space
that
would
have
been
required
on
their
property
in
a,
and
we
also
submitted
ten
letters
of
support.
There
are
10
people
in
opposition
of
all
voters
within
100
feet,
150
feet.
Scuse
me.
AO
U
I
A
AP
Previously,
this
actual
building
had
dissipated
space
from
the
previous
owner
permit
for
the
basement.
When
the
proponent
took
over
the
building,
he
wanted
to
decrease
the
size
of
the
debt
off
the
decks
from
40
feet,
16
feet.
This
was
reviewed
and
and
but
a
BB
TA,
and
got
approval
we're
just
here
back
today
to
get
the
Zoning
Board
approval.
A
AP
AQ
My
name
is
Douglas
George
I'm,
the
owner
of
32
may--you,
Street
Dorchester,
the
permit
for
the
building
that
is
shown
in
that
picture
over
there
was
purchased
out
of
bankruptcy
court
and
the
only
plans
they
had
that
had
been
approved
by
ISD
had
to
be
changed.
The
building
wasn't
buildable
the
dimensional
regulate,
dimensional
size
of
the
building
did
not
change
at
all.
A
AQ
It,
the
intent
of
the
use,
will
be
to
put
bedrooms
in
there
when
the
building
was
approved
through
the
first
ISD
to
the
first
CBA
process.
The
units
in
the
first
floor
were
noted
as
being
small,
smaller
than
750
square
feet
in
a
comment
that
came
out
of
that
was
that
the
unit
size
needed
to
be
increased.
The
way
that
that
was
increased
was
to
go
into
the
basement
and
it
makes
the.
I
AO
AQ
I
AQ
So
what
we
did
is
we
came
back
before
the
board
at
that.
At
the
recommendation
of
inspectional
services,
we
got
a
temp
Co
for
partial
use
of
the
building.
First
of
all
units
were
held
open.
We
went
back
to
the
community
process,
we
had
multiple
community
meetings,
we
submitted
documents
from
every
one
of
the
abutters
we
submitted
I.
A
AQ
A
AR
AQ
AS
A
AQ
I
said
I
did
not
permit
the
initial
project,
the
project
was
fully
permitted
and
then
the
person
lost
it
in
bankruptcy,
I
bought
it
out
of
bankruptcy.
I
had
no
cooperation
from
the
former
architect
or
any
of
the
professionals
because
they
had
not
been
paid
apparently
for
their
work,
so
I
had
to
stop
and
scratch
the
building
that
was
approved
by
got
his
D
and
B
PDA
obra
at
the
time
does
not
even
remotely
coordinate
with
it.
It
was
not
buildable
like
this.
AQ
A
AQ
A
AQ
AQ
B
AQ
I
AQ
Z
X
B
The
9:30
calling
boa
seven
nine,
two
five
one,
six
two,
oh
two
L
Street:
this
is
a
gut
renovation
of
an
existing
three
family
dwelling
and
reconstruct
an
existing
rear.
Forges,
extend
living
space
for
unit
one
from
the
ground
floor
to
the
basement.
We
move
aluminum
siding
installing
siding
on
the
exterior
violated
article
68,
section;
27
s,
dash
5,
it's
in
the
iPod
applicability
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
AU
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
mark
Lacoste's
Lacasse
law,
75
Arlington,
Street,
Boston
Mass
with
me,
is
Mitchell
counselor
from
Edgewater
properties,
which
is
the
owner
of
the
property.
This
is
a
complete
gut
renovation
of
an
existing
three
family
dwelling
that
will
remain
a
three
family
dwelling.
One
of
the
violations
was
the
roof
deck
accessibility
by
a
spiral
staircase
at
the
rear
deck.
However,
as
a
result
of
the
butter
meeting
and
community
process,
both
the
roof
deck
and
that
rear
stair
have
been
removed
from
the
plans
and
revised
plans
have
been
submitted.
AU
AU
So
unit
one
is
being
extended
into
the
basement
at
approximately
700
additional
square
feet
of
living
space,
which
still
keeps
the
building
below
the
maximum
f
AR
of
2.0.
The
existing
living
area
is
3510
square
feet
with
the
extension
of
the
living
space
into
the
basement.
The
gross
floor
area
is
four
thousand
to
twenty
one
as
against
a
maximum
allowable
of
four
thousand
seven
sixty
s
so
we're
still
about
five
hundred
feet
below
the
maximum
f
AR.
A
AV
Windows,
we're
proposing
in
the
basement
are
to
keep
the
existing
and
make
no
change
and
the
basis
for
that
is.
We
are
installing
a
sprinkler
system
in
accordance
with
NFPA
thirteen
AR
and
the
section
of
the
building
code
section
ten
to
twenty
nine
point,
one
which
sets
forth
the
requirements
for
emergency
escape
and
rescue
openings
in
the
basement.
There
is
an
exception
for
buildings
that
are
equipped
throughout
with
an
automatic
sprinkler
system
in
accordance
with
13
R
and
an
r2
occupancy.
Okay,.
A
X
Madam
chair
members,
the
board
John
Allison
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
We
would
like
to
on
record
in
support.
We
did
hold
Anna
butters
meeting
for
this
project
and
there
was
opposition
to
the
roof
deck.
The
developer
agreed
to
remove
that.
So
at
this
point
we
are
in
support.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
AA
I
AU
B
AW
A
X
B
The
next
case
calling
boa
seven
nine
zero
zero
one,
eight
five
Crockett
Avenue.
This
is
a
constructing
new
16-foot.
By
25-foot
we
reached
up
one-story
addition
in
the
back
of
the
house
violations.
Article
65
section
I
in
the
Floyd,
a
ratio
is
excessive.
Article
65,
section
9,
the
side
yard
is
insufficient.
Article
65
69
through
a
yard,
is
insufficient.
They
have
an
address
for
the
REC
in.
AY
AZ
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
David.
Cotter
from
the
mayor's
office
in
Neighborhood,
Services
would
like
to
on
record
in
support.
I
helped
an
on-site,
a
butter
I'm,
sorry,
not
on
site
I
held
in
a
butters
meeting
for
this
project.
We
had
about
four
or
five
a
butter
show
up.
They
all
expressed
their
support
for
the
project,
and
the
proponents
also
have
the
support
of
the
CEO
of
a
Civic
Association.
Thank
you.
BA
A
A
B
You,
madam
chair
I'm,
gonna,
call
deferrals
or
withdrawals
for
10:30
one
more
time.
Okay,
hearing
none
I'm
gonna
go
to
the
next
three
cases:
their
companion
cases,
boa
seven,
six,
nine,
nine,
seven,
nine
thirty
Milton
Avenue,
boa
seven.
Ninety
one,
four,
seven,
eight.
Fifty
two,
fifty
two
Peaceville
Road,
boa
seven,
nine
one,
four,
seven:
seven
15
to
15
a
Whitman
Street.
This
is
30
Milton.
B
Now
this
is
the
subdivide
log
to
3
small
apostles,
relocate
new
single-family
structure,
the
violations,
article
65
section,
9,
a
lot
of
areas,
insufficient
article
65
section
la
la
la
yard,
is
insufficient.
Article
65
section
9
Riyadh
is
insufficient
for
52:52
peace
fail
to
extend
living
space
through
the
attic
space,
a
newly
constructed
two
family
residential
dwelling,
the
violations,
article
65,
section
9,
the
ploidy;
a
ratio
is
excessive
and
this
is
for
15
to
15
a
Whitman
Street,
we're
doing
all
three
together
correct
long
ago.
In
the
same
page,
okay,
this
is
attic.
B
Bathroom
was
constructed
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
attic,
which
was
an
original
architectural
drawing
show.
In
addition,
a
walk-in
closet
was
constructed,
violation
is
article
65,
section
9
the
floor.
Da
ratio
is
excessive
and
article
65,
section
9,
the
building
height
number
of
storeys
is
excessive
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
AN
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
attorney
Nick
Zazula,
McDermott
quilty
and
Miller
28
State,
Street,
Suite
8:02,
here
in
Boston
with
me
to
my
immediate
left,
is
Denisha
McDonald
and,
to
my
far
left
is
Kevin
Maguire,
both
of
Oxbow
urban
LLC,
whose
the
property
owner
in
project
appellant.
We
have
provided
a
brief
handout
just
to
summarize
what
we're
here
in
front
bored
for
this
morning
and
try
and
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
to
digest.
These
are
all
three
projects
are
part
of
DMD
s:
neighborhood
housing
initiative
program.
A
A
AN
So
30
Milton
was
actually
approved
in
2016,
but
it
was
approved
for
to
be
a
subdivided
lot
into
two
Lots.
That's
why
you
see
the
two
Lots
on
that
brought
on
that
the
summary
in
front
of
you,
but
during
after
the
building
permit
issue
and
state,
wouldn't
did
a
site
visit
and
talk
to
the
are--or
abutters,
who
this
has
been
a
vacant
lot
for
some
time
their
rear
butters
were.
They
had
actually
been
using
some
of
this
lot
for
their
own
purposes
for
walkways
and
a
fence
and
things
of
that
nature.
AN
So,
subsequent
to
those
discussions
and
the
approval
they
have
since
carved
out
some
of
those
rear
parcels.
As
you
can
see,
that's
outlined
on
the
on
the
map
in
front
of
you,
they
have
carved
out
and
provided
deeded
over
some
of
this
parcel
to
the
rear
of
butters,
because
they've
been
using
them
for
a
long
period
of
time
because
of
that
they've
gone
from
a
a
subdivided
lot
with
two
attached
single-family
dwellings
to
now
just
one
single-family
dwelling
as
a
result
of
that.
A
AN
That
is
correct
and
it's
a
single-family
dwelling
now
the
the
variances
we
actually
for
a
lot
area
insufficient.
We
did
receive
relief
in
2016
the
law.
It's
actually
gotten
bigger,
because
we're
not
subdividing
anymore
5,000
square
feets
required
four
thousand
three
hundred
and
thirty-two
square
feet
is
what
we
have
left
after
this.
These
carve
outs
in
the
rear,
rear
yard.
Insufficient
again
we
received
that
in
2016,
but
it's
gone
less
of
a
rear
yard
because
of
those
car
votes,
20
feets
required.
A
AN
Both
50,
Peaceville
and
15
whitman
are
the
are
very
similar.
450
peace
fail.
What
the
proposal
is
is
to
extend
the
living
space
into
the
attic
to
provide
an
extra
bedroom
and
additional
living
space
so
for
50
piece
fail.
The
only
variance
that's
required
is
floor
area
ratio.
When
we
were
approved
for
that
project
in
2016,
we
did
not
need
fer,
it's
0.5
we're
adding
approximately
969
square
feet,
and
so
that
puts
us
at
an
FA.
Our
0.63.
AN
AN
A
AN
Whitman
is
same
thing,
extending
living
space
into
the
Attic
again
969
square
feet.
For
this
one.
We
again
require
floor
area
ratio,
it's
a
smaller
lot,
so
the
floor
area
ratio
is
0.7
9.
Where
point
5
is
required
as
maximum.
We
did
receive
in
2016
a
variance
for
fer,
but
it
was
only
four
point:
five,
seven,
so
we're
increasing
the
variance.
As
a
result.
We
also
need
building
height.
It's
four
stories
because
of
extending
the
living
space
into
that
attic.
It
technically
is
now
a
three
storey
building
and
not
a
two-and-a-half
storey
building.
A
AS
BB
BC
BD
L
A
BE
B
This
is
a
partially
finished.
The
basement
of
both
units,
the
basement
at
36
wyvern.
The
front
unit
will
have
a
finished
family
room
along
with
laundry
&
utility
areas.
The
basement
at
38
wyverns
will
have
a
finished
family
room
and
bathroom
along
with
utilities.
The
violations
article
55
section
9,
the
ploidy-
a
ratio
is
excessive
name.
An
address
for
the
record.
Please
good.
BF
X
B
You
next
three
cases
calling
BOA,
seven,
nine
one:
seven,
six,
eight
1208
seat,
VFW
parkway
case
POA,
791
775,
1208
d,
VFW
parkway
case
boa
791,
773
1208
rear
our
V
FW
Parkway.
This
is
for
mobile,
wait,
see
this
is
erect
a
new
three-story
eighteen
unit,
residential
building
with
off
street
parking
garage
partially
below
grade.
This
will
be
one
of
two
dwelling
unit
dwellings
located
on
the
same
lot.
B
The
violations
article
56
section
18
multi-family
dwelling-
is
conditional
on
article
56,
section
4
ID
conforming
with
an
existing
building
alignment,
article
56,
section
42,
more
dwellings,
located
on
the
same
lot,
nautical
56
section,
39
osprey,
parkies
insufficient.
This
is
for
1200
ad
DFW
Parkway.
This
is
erecting
new
three-story
42
unit
residential
bill.
Three
parking
garage
by
still
be
a
little
great.
This
would
be
one
of
two
dwelling
was
located
on
the
same
wat.
The
violation
article
56
section
15
multi,
feelin
multi-family
dwelling
is
conditional
Article
56,
section
40
conformity
wouldn't
exist
in
building
alignment.
B
Article
56,
section
42,
ammo
dwellings,
located
on
the
same
lot,
56
section
39.
Our
street
parking
is
insufficient
out
of
the
56
section.
39
off
street
loading
is
insufficient.
This
is
for
1208
our
VFW
Parkway.
This
is
a
subdivision
of
existing
lot
of
270
Baker
Street
of
one
hundred
and
twenty
four
thousand
seven
hundred
twenty
square
feet
of
2.86
acres
into
two
separate
Lots
new
lawn
age.
B
BG
Dennis
quilty
attorney
at
McDermott
cruelty
and
Miller,
representing
270
Baker,
Street
LLC,
the
property
owner
to
my
right
is
Rick.
Old
Steve
was
one
of
the
owners
of
the
of
the
property,
our
project,
architect
Linda
and
the
Shenton
to
my
far
right
and
Tom
maestro's,
the
Quadra
consultants,
a
two
just
behind
me.
It
probably
makes
sense
to
just
go
through
these
in
reverse
order.
The
first
one
is
the
subdivision
of
the
existing
lot
known
at
the
beginning
of
this
process,
as
270
Baker
Street,
which
was
suggested
suggest
as
the
124
thousand
720
square
foot
parcel.
BG
BG
AO
BG
A
F
AO
AO
There
is
a
residential
component,
but
actually
not
on
this
parcel.
This
parcel
has
a
small
office
building
that
are
relatively
newer
medical
building
and
then
there's
a
we
have
an
existing
office
building
in
the
back
of
the
parcel,
which
will
remain
on
one
part
of
the
subdivided
land.
The
balance
of
the
subdivided
land
is
proposed
for
60
new
residents.
AO
BG
BG
Today,
it's
at
60,
which
resulted
from
our
last
IAG
meeting
where
we
had
Catholic
Memorial
on
board
the
Parkway
Little
League
on
board.
We
had
a
bunch
of
neighbors
and
ieg
members
on
board
to
that
number
and
the
parking
which
was
provided
and
the
entry
and
exit
on
VFW
Parkway.
So
we
are
here
with
full
support
of
the
IAG.
We.
AB
AO
BG
AO
BD
A
A
A
AY
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jack
Duggan
mayor's
office,
neighborhood
services
I
just
like
to
go
on
record
support.
Obviously
this
project
went
through
article
80
large
project
review.
There
was
an
extensive
community
process
for
well
over
a
year.
The
development
team
worked
well
with
the
neighbors
to
address
their
concerns,
including
taking
away
the
Baker
Street
entrance
and
also
decreasing
a
number
unit
significantly,
as
mr.
quilty
had
said,
this
did
was
be
PDA
approved
back
in
September
and
we'd,
just
like
to
put
our
record
support.
Thank
you.
BH
Good
morning,
members
of
the
board,
my
name,
is
Michael
Rooney
senior
project
manager
with
the
Boston
Planning
and
Development
Agency.
After
over
a
year
going
through
the
audibility
review
process,
the
proposed
project
at
270,
Baker
Street,
was
approved
by
the
BPA
aboard
in
September.
2017
I
want
to
commend
the
development
team
as
they
worked
well
with
the
community
and
made
a
number
of
changes
to
the
project
based
on
community
and
city
agency
feedback
BPD,
a
staff
fails.
A
BI
A
BI
BI
BJ
BJ
A
BJ
Madam
chair
members
aboard
Bill
McGregor
with
City
Councilman
O'malley.
The
council
appreciates
the
applicant
meeting
with
the
residents
for
the
last
two
years.
It's
definitely
I
think
they
mentioned.
There
was
about
eight
meetings
or
so
the
neighbors
still
have
concerns
over
traffic,
particularly
the
ease
of
taking
a
legal
turn
onto
Gardiner
Street
and
then
onto
helvin
Street,
and
we
ask
that
applicants
continue
to
work
with
Transportation
on
that
concern.
BJ
A
L
Make
a
motion
to
approve
with
continued
BPD
a
design
review
at
Council
and
applicants
I'd
like
to
make
you
know
I'd
like
to
make
us
strongly-worded
sentiment
that
you
work
together
with
the
neighborhood
to
make
sure
that
that
works.
It
seems
to
so
you're
almost
all
the
way
there
and
it
needs
a
little
bit
of
the
edges
need
to
be
rounded
off.
So,
if
you
could
do
that,
I
think
that
we
could
support
that.
B
The
next
case
calling
boa
seven,
seven:
three:
nine
zero
one
1465
VFW
parkway.
This
is
a
combined
two
Lots
into
one
law
to
construct
a
new
42
foot
by
51
story,
gas
station
convenience
store
structure
in
new
gasoline
dissipate,
dispensing
canopy
it's
to
raise
the
existing
building
on
lot.
The
violations
article
56
section
15
gasoline
station-
is
conditional.
Article,
56,
section,
16
front
yard,
56-42
insufficient
article
56,
section
16,
a
side
yard
is
insufficient
in
article
56,
section
16,
the
rear
yard
is
insufficient
name
an
address
for.
BK
The
record
player
good
morning,
Steven
Miller
McDermott,
Colombian,
Miller
28
custom
house
Street
in
Boston
I,
have
with
me
mark
and
Peter
Tia
Berkeley
to
the
owners
of
the
property
and
also
Allen
McCauley
who's.
Vice
president
of
a
engineering
answer,
any
questions
by
way
of
background
I
did
pass
out
to
the
board.
BK
This
project
was
approved
exactly
as
we're
presenting
it
today
by
you
in
March
of
2010.
Oh
and
what
happened
is
my
client
spent
approximately
three
and
a
half
years
unbeknownst
me
working
with
Boston,
Water
and
Sewer
to
come
up
with
a
plan
for
where
the
project
came
back
to
me
in
2017
and
said
he
was
surprised
that
he
went
to
the
get
his
permit
and
found
out
that
the
zoning
had
expired.
Obviously,
it's
something
we
could
have
come
back
to
you
at
that
time.
AU
A
BK
The
time
that
we
came
before
you
in
2010,
which
were
presented
again
behind
the
property,
there's
a
apartment,
building
and
off
to
the
left
of
the
property.
There's
a
trailer
park,
there's
a
petition
that
I've,
given
you
with
the
majority
of
the
people
in
both
of
those
units
that
are
supporting
this.
So
we
started
again
in
2017
have
gone
through
the
process
again
when
we
were
going
to
get
a
permits,
we
had
already
gotten
the
sign-offs,
as
required
by
the
zoning
decision
in
2010
for
VP
da
at
that
time,
BR
a
design
review.
BK
A
BK
BK
BK
AY
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
Jack
Duggan
mayor's
office,
Neighborhood
Services,
just
like
to
go
on
record
support
back
in
late
November.
They
went
1465
VFW,
Park
I
went
before
the
West
Roxbury
Neighborhood
Council,
and
they
voted
1200
in
favor
of
the
proposal,
with
a
condition
that
the
only
allowed
use
for
the
new
retail
structure
be
as
a
convenience
store
sorts
like
to
record
support.
Thank
you.
BK
BL
Chair
members
of
the
board
Shannon
Murphy
from
city
councilor,
madam
Ali's
office,
the
council
like
to
go
on
record
in
support
of
this
project.
The
councillor
is
aware
of
some
of
the
neighbors
concerns
in
malade
for
the
applicant
to
meet
the
needs
and
requests
that
were
vocalized.
The
West
Roxbury
neighborhood
council
meeting,
which
was
held
on
Tuesday
November
28th
2017.
The
Neighborhood
Council,
requested
that
the
existing
store
stay
a
convenience
store
and
asked
that
they
promise
not
to
change
its
current
occupancy.
AD
BE
The
blowing
directly
supporters
right
thank.
A
A
B
Seven:
six
zero
three
one:
eight
106
Academy
Hill
Road.
This
is
creating
access
parking
for
existing
to
family
home
located
on
both
sides.
Each
side
will
have
two
additional
parking
spaces
for
a
total
of
six
vehicles
violations:
article
10
section
one
limitation
of
area
accessory
uses,
article
51,
section,
56,
location
of
off
street
parking
in
the
front
yard;
article
51,
section,
56,
off
street
parking
design,
maneuverability
article
9,
section,
1
extension
of
ignored,
conforming
youth
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
BM
Currently
it
has
two
parking
in
front
of
the
house
next
business
to
the
street,
also
on
the
ramp
as
two
cars
parking
and
I
have
green
land
on
the
both
sides.
Each
side
is
about
12
feet
wide,
so
I
I
hope
can
get
per
me
to
cut
the
curb
and
create
to
drive
away
each
and
each
side
either
to
additional
parking
so
that
my
son,
the
family,
can
have
parking.
Also
that
will
reduce
the
pressure
of
parking
pressure
in
in
present
area,
but.
BM
A
BM
K
K
BM
K
BM
I
A
A
A
K
BM
K
A
X
BO
B
This
is
to
change
oxy
from
a
one-family
dwelling
to
a
two-family
dwelling
in
an
existing
condition,
violation:
article
51,
section
9,
insufficient
additional
lot
area
per
unit
to
go
51,
section,
9,
location
of
the
main
entrance
article
51
section
and
56
asti
parking
aquaian,
none
as
proposed
name
and
add
just
fill
erected.
Please.
My.
J
J
Almost
as
a
Roman
host,
the
house
was
divided
into
rooms
with
locks
on
the
doors
we
removed
one
of
the
kitchens
and
took
out
two
of
the
bedrooms
I'm
requesting
that
we
changed
legal
occupancy
from
a1
to
a2,
simply
because
the
size
of
home
is
attract
and
undergraduate
students.
We
don't
want
to
be
a
party
house,
we
don't
want
to
own
a
party
house
I
think
if
we
were
able
to
divide
it
just
too
small
you
would
be
able
to.
J
A
J
I
AF
F
A
BP
BP
A
A
A
B
Last
case
for
10:30
calling
boa
794
zero
four
zero
69
North
Beacon,
this
is
building
cold.
Only
this
is
the
structure
would
prepare
to
install
an
eight
foot
round
window
and
existing
brick
wall
violation.
Seven,
oh
five,
point:
eight
opening
it
in
exterior
walls
name
an
address
for
the
record.
Please
che.
A
AR
Far
as
the
building
type
is
a
former
auto
body
shop,
it's
tucked
behind
30
at
Everett
Street
adjoining
stop
and
shop
close
to
Boston
Landing.
There
are
technically
no
abutters
about
the
butter
on
the
backside.
Stop
and
shop
has
no
opposition
of
the
window
going
in
its
for
the
building
is
still
used
for
auto
repair
and
showroom.
A
A
A
I
AR
I
F
I
B
B
M
Jeff
Drago,
with
an
address
of
15
Broad
Street
based
on
mayor's
office
recommendation,
there's
community
agreements
and
some
Greg
changes
that
are
imminent,
so
we're
seeking
it
deferral
for
this
particular
billboard.
If
there's
anything
available
in
the
1st
April
date,
that
would
be
ideal,
if
not
them
yeah.
I
I
M
A
BQ
BQ
Bpd
has
the
original
that's
an
initial
one
for
the
four
units
that
compared
to
what
we
sit
in
six
minutes,
we
may
try
to
ask
five
minutes
for
that
happen.
We
rather
go
through
the
triangle:
hover
Devon,
trataba,
Rev
and
Bowie
lab
their
neighborhood.
We
didn't
make
a
presentation
to
us,
so
we
discuss
with
the
mayor's
office.
We
agree
to
make
that
presentation
to
that
neighborhood
when.
A
A
A
S
B
S
A
S
S
B
S
BR
BR
This
lot
was
this
lot
has
been
a
vacant
piece
of
land
for
a
long
long
time,
and
as
a
result
of
that,
there
was
some
community
opposition
to
the
development
of
the
piece
of
land
and
I
think
during
that
period
of
time,
we've
been
able
to
address
some
of
it,
and
so
that
was
the
basis
of
our
deferrals
on
this.
As
far
as
substantively
the
project
I'd
like
to
address
what
I
think
are
perhaps
some
of
the
more
lightning
rod
issues
but
I
think
that
it
upon
explanation,
you'll
see
that
they
aren't
really.
BR
My
experience
before
this
board
is
to
not
is
to
any
time
that
there's
the
structure
above
the
third
level
to
refer
to
it
as
a
story.
So
if
you
look
at
the
plans,
although
the
plans
and
the
rejection
letters
see
that
it's
a
four-story
structure,
the
only
thing
that's
above
the
third
full
story
is
this
head
house.
That
is
approximately
a
hundred
120
square
feet,
and
it's
only
for
access
to
a
roof
deck.
There
is
no
habitable
space.
There
isn't
a
solarium,
a
recreation
room
or
anything
of
the
type,
but
as
an
excess
caution.
BR
We've
decided
to
refer
to
those
structures,
not
as
head
houses,
but
rather
as
stories,
but
I
would
just
draw
your
attention
to
how
limited
in
size
and
scope
it
is
again.
This
property
sits
in
a
1f,
5000
district,
but
I
would
point
out
that
of
the
surrounding
45
properties
on
Lally,
Street,
port
Norfolk,
Street,
22
of
them
are
two
or
three
families.
P
P
Chair
the
both
are
two-bedroom
two-and-a-half-bath
units
and
they
are
duplex
units
they're
unit
1
at
the
lower
level
or
1st
and
lower
level
will
be
1649
square
foot,
1649
square
feet
and
then
the
second
and
third
floor
will
be
1961
square
feet
again.
Both
are
two
bedrooms:
two
and
a
half
bath
units.
How.
P
A
P
P
I
I
I
P
AZ
F
AZ
I
B
The
last
case,
every
discussions
are
11:30,
calling
boa
seven,
six,
three
zero
three
one:
the
101
Milton
Avenue.
This
is
an
erect,
a
new
single-family
dwelling
on
an
existing
garage
and
driveway
on
a
vacant
lot.
The
violation
is
article
69,
section,
29,
Austria
parking
loading
requires
as
I'm
maneuvering
areas
with
the
qalaat
article
69
section
I,
on
insufficient
width
of
what
an
article
69
section
9,
insufficient
lot,
width,
frontage
name.
T
T
We
have
done
an
initial
meeting
with
a
family
hill
neighborhood
association
and
they
requested
that
we
come
back
to
the
full
board
and
through
OH&S
they
asked
mr.
Stallings
to
defer
the
last
meeting
until
he
had
an
opportunity
to
do
that.
He
did
have
the
opportunity
to
go
back
before
the
family
Neighborhood
Association
and
they
voted
to
support
this
project.
A
T
A
single-family
dwelling
zoning
in
Fairmont
Hills,
one
of
9,000.
The
proposal
before
you
is
nine
thousand
four
hundred
and
sixty
six
square
feet
the
zoning
violations
they
were
listed.
Three,
it
is
the
zone
of
the
frontage
needed,
is
seventy
feet.
The
frontage
provided
is
fifty
three
point,
one
three
feet
and.
T
A
T
A
T
You
can
see
the
parking
on
the
most
recent
plans
which
I've
provided
to
you.
Parking
was
gonna,
come
in
the
left
side
of
the
yard,
there's
a
turnaround
and
there's
an
existing
barn.
That's
in
the
back
that
will
be
used
for
parking
I've
also
provided
to
the
bent
up
to
the
board
fourteen
letters
of
support
from
abutters
and
neighbors,
which
you
have
in
there
and
as
I
stated,
family
neighborhood
associations
supported
the
project
so.
A
BS
AX
BC
A
BC
BU
BU
Also,
a
resident
Oh
Bob
excuse
me:
125,
Milton,
Avenue
and
I
support
this
project.
It's
gonna
nothing
much
better
than
a.