This is a lightly edited transcript of the Chelsea Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of Tuesday, October 13, 2026, made from the Chelsea Community Cable recording. Speech recognition software produced the text and separated the voices; we then labeled speakers from context, corrected names and misheard words from the meeting agenda and filings, and removed filler and repeated words. Otherwise the words are as spoken. Because the software could not reliably tell board members’ voices apart, members other than the chair are labeled “Board member,” and short remarks we could not attribute are marked “Unidentified speaker.” Home addresses of residents and petitioners have been removed, and words we could not make out are marked [unclear]. Timestamps count from the start of the livestream; the meeting begins about seven minutes in. For anything you plan to quote or rely on, check the video.
Our reports on this meeting: Walmart depot case moves to November 10; Sauna Suites, Broadway storefront split approved and Recupero and neighbors oppose 15 apartments on Essex Street.
Agenda: Opening; Walmart case continued to November 10 · Roll call and minutes · 2026-17: 14 Cheever Street (one-family to two-family) · 2026-18: 58 Lash Street (new two-family house) · 2026-19: 311 Eastern Avenue (Sauna Suites) · 2026-20: 320 Revere Beach Parkway (opened, then paused) · 2026-21: 426 Broadway (splitting the lot) · 2026-20: 320 Revere Beach Parkway (60 units) · 2026-22: 139-141-143 Essex Street (15 units) · 2026-23: 471 Washington Avenue (two-family to three-family) · 2025-11: 816-818 Broadway (affordable units modification) · Adjournment
Opening; Walmart case continued to November 10
Board member [0:07:48] Make a motion.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:07:49] Sec. Made by Marilyn. Second by Joe. All in favor, Press your button and say aye. Okay, sure.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:07:59] And just to add some context to that continuation, it is because the petitioner is holding a community meeting on Thursday, October 29th at 6pm in the library. That information will get sent out again. But just to make sure everyone knows
Roll call and minutes
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:08:12] about that here just now for some formalities. I’m first. I’m going to take a roll for who is here and I will announce your name. Could you please say recognize your president? Hugo Perdomo.
Board member [0:08:23] Aye. Oh, here.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:08:25] Arthur Arsenault.
Board member [0:08:26] Here.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:08:27] Joseph Mahoney.
Board member [0:08:28] Present.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:08:28] Marilyn Vega-Torres.
Board member [0:08:29] Present.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:08:30] Janice Tatarka. We will be joined later by Joan Cromwell, but we will get started for now. I have. There are two motion again, two orders before us. We have a request to vote on the minutes from the October 11th meeting. But I mean, excuse me, the August 11th meeting got October. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes from our August meeting?
Board member [0:08:54] I’ll make a motion to approve the minutes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:08:55] Do I have a second?
Board member [0:08:56] Second.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:08:57] All in favor?
Board member [0:08:57] Aye.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:08:58] I would like to have a motion to continue the. Before we vote on the September minutes Motion. Continue.
Board member [0:09:07] Continue. Second.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:09:09] All in favor?
Board member [0:09:10] Aye.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:09:11] Okay, so we will. We’ve already taken care of 2026-14, 121 Webster Avenue which will be being moved to our November 10th meeting. And you’ve heard from Mr. Cecio that there will be a public hearing on this on the 29th at the public. At the public library. A notice will be going out.
2026-17: 14 Cheever Street (one-family to two-family)
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:09:11] The next case in front of us is 2026-17, 14 Cheever Street, Ildefonso Lainez, for special permit and variance seeking approval for the conversion from a one family to a two family structure which must not meet the minimum requirements for parking spaces, lot size and usable open space. Can you please come up and introduce yourselves again for the purpose of this hearing? Thank you.
Petitioner Ildefonso A. Lainez [0:09:58] My name is Ildefonso Lainez.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:10:03] And your address?
Petitioner Ildefonso A. Lainez [0:10:05] [address removed].
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:10:07] Okay. And you are?
Interpreter [0:10:09] My name is Jonathan Gallegos. I am the interpreter for tonight’s. Event.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:10:12] Okay, so this is what we heard you on last week, last month. And this went to the planning board. Will, what did the planning board have to say about this proposal?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:10:23] The planning board recommended approval of this proposal. It was a pretty quick kind of short discussion as this project is really just trying to formalize, you know, this sort of current use of the project or of the property going from a single family to a two family. So planning board recommended approval.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:10:40] Okay, so just for the quick purposes of this, just describe for us again briefly what you’re doing. Excuse me. We’ve been joined by Joan Cromwell. Thank you. Go ahead, sir.
Interpreter [0:11:13] What I wanted to do is to convert the house [unclear] from a one family to a two family home.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:11:20] Okay. And are you doing anything structural outside? Don’t shut the door, please.
Board member [0:11:29] There you go.
Petitioner Ildefonso A. Lainez [0:11:29] No.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:11:31] And inside, describe the change that you’re proposing inside.
Interpreter [0:12:01] What I would do is I will add two doors, one to the bathroom and one to the room. And an extra closet on the main room.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:12:15] So there are two kitchens. So you are your. You want to convert one area into a full kitchen, is that correct?
Interpreter [0:12:44] Yes, that’s correct. There used to be another kitchen there before. What I’m doing is just adding a kitchen.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:12:51] And is this going to be family or are you renting it out
Petitioner Ildefonso A. Lainez [0:12:58] now for our family.
Interpreter [0:13:00] Our family, yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:13:02] All right. Do we have any questions before I open it up to the public?
Interpreter [0:13:08] So there hasn’t been any changes since last time we met. So the plans that he has, there hasn’t been any changes. Everything is the same.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:13:24] Any questions before I open it up?
Board member [0:13:26] Where’s the new closet? You say.
Interpreter [0:13:37] In the new room. It’s gonna be there.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:13:43] So this. So again. Well, Will, before I open up to the public, could you just tell us what the planning department had? Just thoughts on this.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:13:51] Yeah, I mean, the department recommends approval of the special permit.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:13:56] And the variance.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:13:57] And the variance, you know, it’s again, sort of a formality. It’s structured as a two family, but legally is a single family. And the changes that he is proposing are quite small. Converting a living space into a bedroom, extending some of the wall space for the kitchen on the first floor, which I think is what he’s referring to when he mentions adding a kitch. So, yeah, the department feels like there are very little detriments from this proposal. And so we recommend.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:14:28] And I assume that they would not. They won’t be getting parking. Anybody else cannot be getting a parking.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:14:33] Yeah, that’s one of the conditions that we propose is that the residents of the new unit of the second unit are ineligible for on street parking status.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:14:44] So I’m going to open this up to the public. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this? There being none. I’m closing the public participation portion of this. Will. Can we go through the variance and special permit requirements as you know now this is a discussion that’s internal and that opens for the. So it’s a more likely than not scenario for most of this. So let’s go through special purposes again first. Social, economic or community needs are served by this proposal.
Board member [0:15:20] yeah, I think it does. It’s really just formalizing and submitting what’s already been used by and it’s. So I think it Definitely social.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:15:32] Do we agree?
Board member [0:15:32] Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:15:35] Traffic flow and safety including parking and loading. I think that’s a non issue.
Board member [0:15:39] Correct.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:15:41] Adequacy of utilities of other public services. Again, I think. Neighborhood character and social structures looks completely consistent with the area.
Board member [0:15:54] Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:15:57] Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage. Again, they’re not making any changes. So true. Okay. Potential fiscal impact including impact on city services. Fact based and employment. Kind of a non issue.
Petitioner Ildefonso A. Lainez [0:16:11] Yeah, non issue.
Board member [0:16:12] Right.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:16:13] Okay. So we’ve met the special permit criteria. Let’s look at the variance criteria. So a strict enforcement would result in practical difficulty. I mean it’s not, you know, the benefits to the petitioner and to the public interest. Actually I would say were more important for the second one. The benefits to the petitioner and the public interest including the interest to the production of housing outweighs the detriment system.
Unidentified speaker [0:16:39] Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:16:39] Do we agree. And that’s really all we have to consider at this. Right?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:16:43] Yeah, basically. Again, because I learned there were new
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:16:47] requirements on the variances. They’re all trying to understand exactly how they work.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:16:51] Yeah. And because it’s. The structure is kind of currently used as a two family. There’s no like new detrimental impacts and those impacts are quite small anyways.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:16:59] And the benefits would be to the petitioner who would be able to have family live there.
Board member [0:17:03] Yeah.
Unidentified speaker [0:17:03] Okay.
Board member [0:17:04] Okay.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:17:05] So then do. Does the department have any recommendations for conditions.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:17:12] You know, standard conditions as applicable. And then the usual, you know, tenants of the new unit would be ineligible for on street parking stickers. But nothing.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:17:24] So you’re aware that the new people cannot get parking stick.
Interpreter [0:17:37] Thank you.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:17:38] Hey, do we have a motion to on this?
Board member [0:17:42] I’ll make a motion to approve Case 2026-17 for the conversion of one family to two family structure. Second.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:18:01] All in favor?
Board members [0:18:02] Aye.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:18:03] Okay, you’re good.
Unidentified speaker [0:18:05] Thank you.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:18:05] They have to write it up. Talk to them. You can’t do anything until you get the formal approval. And so talk to Adam and he’ll let you know when things are moving. Okay.
Petitioner Ildefonso A. Lainez [0:18:14] All right, thank you.
2026-18: 58 Lash Street (new two-family house)
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:18:17] The next case is 2026-18, 58 Lash Street, Henry Bladimir Pinto Escobar for special permit and variant seeking approval for the construction of a new two family home which does not meet the minimum requirements for lot area front yard setback, frontage off street parking, side yard setback and combined yard setback.
Board member [0:18:36] Hello.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:18:36] Can you introduce yourself again?
Attorney, Drago & Toscano, LLP [0:18:38] Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is [name unclear]. I’m an attorney at Drago & Toscano, llp and I’m here on behalf of Henry Pinto Escobar, the proponent and the architect on the project, [name unclear], is running a few minutes late, so he may jump in while talking. But thanks for having us here again. And we’re here to present what we presented last time. But we plan on erecting a new three story two family residential building with a finished basement level and four off street parking spaces. And essentially it’s going to be providing family size units on a currently vacant taxable parcel. And we believe that as a two family project, it’s comparable to the R1 district. As two families are allowed in the R1 district, the entry is really going to deliver needed housing to the city of Chelsea. And truly utilizing a currently underutilized lot. And as we can see here, this is just a perspective rendering 3D image. And you can go to the next slide, please. Will, in this here, as you can see by the red drop icon, that’s where the parcel is58 Lash. [Unclear.] And this picture next to it is another existing site photo condition, as you can see. So it’s a vacant wooded parcel. And that’s. We talked about this in the last meeting. That’s not even really good wood. That’s mostly junk, soft wood and weeds. But we will be trying to preserve any hardwoods and actual sustainable trees. Next slide, please. And these here are just other contextual photos. So you can see the existing fabric of Lash Street. As I mentioned before, in this area we have a lot of two family homes. There’s commercial businesses on the other end of the street. And this particular area, Chelsea, is very close to Everett. And next slide please. Well, and next slide and [name unclear], if you want to take a minute, but we can go through the drawings if you guys would like us to as well.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:20:34] Well, are there any changes from your previous.
Attorney, Drago & Toscano, LLP [0:20:36] No changes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:20:37] Do you guys want to go through it again or just.
Board member [0:20:39] We good? Yeah, just a quick.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:20:50] So two things. Sir. Pick up your. Introduce yourself and your name and address and use the microphone.
Project architect [0:21:02] Design studio architect on the.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:21:07] I’m happy to have you. Get out. I just want you to bring the microphone with you. Thank you.
Project architect [0:21:15] Thank you everyone. So this is existing survey of the site. There is an existing two family home to the right. This is the Everett Chelsea border. I think the lot was subdivided sometimes in 2024 the process started and then I think was finalized last year. We’re proposing a two family in the lot. And I think the main items that we’re asking really for are the frontage which is 45ft as well as the minimum lot area per dwelling unit which is 3500 and the lot total is 6012. This is the proposed plot plan. Actually let’s go to the architectural site plan and we can come back to if we need more explanation. So this is the architectural site plan. We have located the building to comply at least the main building phases with all of the required setbacks. So we have 8 foot 3 on this side. We have 12ft on the driveway side. We have taken advantage of the calculated average front set back by taking the front side back of the building to the left with the front side back of the building to the right. And we had the civil engineer calculate that and came down to about 10 foot 3 from the actual. I think the required one is 15. And show us again the parking.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:23:03] How you get your parking structure.
Project architect [0:23:05] So we have located the drive on the left. You go all the way to the back and we have 1, 2, 3, 4 parking spaces located. These two parking spaces comply with all of the distance required from the property line. These two are closer than 5ft and that is one of the items that we also require a special permit for just because of that proximity. We are screening the entire property with a six foot high fence to provide privacy and provide screening as required by zoning the building itself. It’s two side by side units for a two family structure. We’re providing a main entry on the side and we’re creating the two front doors here. And as noted on the notes from the ISD the actual setback of those this private entry patios which are two to three steps we get to the front door. Those are the 4 foot 5 distance that were mentioned. But we are complying with the main building face at 8 foot required which is a quarter of the building height which is total at 32 as we’ll see.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:24:30] Are those the only entrances?
Project architect [0:24:32] No, these are the front entry to the units. But we do have two other side entries and I believe one of the comments from the planning board was to see if we can get this entrance on the front to relate more to the structures on the outside. And we promise that if that is one of the conditions we will address it at the time of submitting for a permit. So pretty much entering I think the first floor is all common living areas. You enter you have entry closet, a small foyer, a half bath on the right and then you have kitchen, dining and living over here. And then you have a stair that circulates through it’s single flights there, one over the other that goes to the basement all the way to the third floor. Can we go to the floor plans briefly unless you have any questions on the side planning?
Board member [0:25:32] No.
Project architect [0:25:35] So as I said, the first floor foyer, kitchen, dining and living and then you have the stairs up and the stairs down. On the basement we’re locating a family room and an office and we’re providing two area ways to provide some light on the side. So these areas going up on the second floor we have a master or primary bedroom setting with an ensuite bathroom and the second bathroom with a shared second bedroom with a shared bathroom and the laundry. And then going up on the third floor the rooms are slightly smaller because of the roof slope. But it’s more or less the same idea trying to fit ensuite bedroom with a second bedroom with a shared bath. If we could go briefly to the. So this would be Lash Street and this would be the front entrance to the building where you come to common point and then you split on both of them you have the two areaways and on the front we have just this open stair, sorry patios that led you to the second means of access to the unit on. So this would be the view from Lash Street. This would be the view from the rear. As you can see the side slopes away so you have a few additional stairs. But at this point we’re far away from any setback required and is within between the setbacks. And this is the view from the driveway. Part of the reason why we’ve located the driveway on this side of the building is because at the other end of the property there is a light pole that makes it impossible to locate the building on that side. As you can see here we’ve had the civil engineer calculate the average grade and we’ve measured the building height from that average grade for a total building height of 32ft. The primary materials of the facade are pretty much relating to all of the surrounding context. It’s more of like clapboard siding and then board and batten with asphalt shingle roof and metal gutters. If you have any questions
Board member [0:28:22] on the driveway and the on the parking spaces, do we have any lighting in the driveway?
Project architect [0:28:31] I think we’re just going to have the security lighting that is against the building. We do not want to put anything close to the property line given how tight the property is. So I think we will rely on some lighting here that lights the driveway but not trespass on the abutting properties.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:28:49] I expect to require the dark sky standards that we’ve been asking for. Usually, you know, so nature that they’re not wearing, they usually ask for those kind of lights that don’t really.
Board member [0:29:04] So they enter and exit the same,
Project architect [0:29:07] the same way they enter and exit from this. It’s a 12-foot-wide driveway from here. And as you can see here was the light pole which made it impossible to put it on this side. And then here we have an 11 foot wide with a one foot planting bed that we can put some greenery next to the fence.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:29:27] Do you have any mirror or anything? So that if somebody’s pulling in they would not. They would know that somebody isn’t trying to pull out.
Project architect [0:29:35] We do not have at this point, but this being a dead end, it’s very low circulation.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:29:40] No, but I’m still talking about somebody’s trying to get in the parking lot and somebody’s trying to get out. They elevate in the middle.
Project architect [0:29:47] Yeah, we could locate that one, I think.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:29:50] I mean I don’t know what that would be but it just seems as though you should have something there so somebody can tell. Sure, somebody’s coming out.
Project architect [0:29:56] We could have that. Absolutely.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:30:01] Before I ask Will, what did the planning department’s planning board say?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:30:04] The planning board recommended approval of this project. Some of their comments sort of were reflected in the comments here. Now around like how can you make the sort of front entrance facade or the front facade look more like a front entrance. We have some proposed conditions in there to do design review with the department and there were some comments around trying to save some of any of the trees that don’t they kind of pointed to which we also, you know, are proposing a condition that they would consult with our department list.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:30:35] The department wants you to list the conditions that you think the department looking for.
Unidentified speaker [0:30:39] Yeah.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:30:39] So the conditions. Standard conditions as applicable. Installing an opaque fence, which I know the petitioner has agreed to do, but just making sure that that’s condition on there. Any installed lighting must comply with dark sky standards. The project has participated in design review with the department. The petitioner must consult with the department regarding the use of permeable pavement and consult with the department regarding the trees on site and any proposed landscaping for the project.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:31:05] So the public. This meeting is still open. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on this? There being none, I’m closing the public participation portion of this. So we’ll be ready to debate this one. Guys, should we go through these variance and special permit requirements?
Board member [0:31:22] Sure.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:31:24] Okay, let’s go back. We’ll go to this. We’ve done this earlier. Social, economic or community needs that are served by this proposal. Housing is good.
Board member [0:31:34] Yeah. I mean it increases the housing. So I think it’s a good. That’s a good.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:31:42] Do we agree traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading. I think, you know the biggest thing for me just. We just talked about. And maybe work with the department. It might. To just figure out how to make sure that the people coming in and out of the building are safe. If even if it’s a dead end street, we still want to make sure that.
Board member [0:32:00] I agree.
Unidentified speaker [0:32:01] Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:32:03] Adequacy of utilities and other public services. I don’t think it’s neighborhood character and social structures. It seems consistent.
Board member [0:32:12] Yes.
Unidentified speaker [0:32:12] Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:32:13] Impact on natural environment, including drainage. I think we heard that there’s a requirement to look at the possibility of permeable pavements. I think that makes sense.
Board member [0:32:21] Yes. Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:32:23] And impacts and potential fiscal impact, including impacts on city services, tax base and employment. It’s an increased tax base, but I don’t see any other negatives.
Board member [0:32:33] Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:32:35] Let’s go to the variances. So we’ve got the special permit requirements. Okay. So again, benefits to the petitioner and to the public interest, including the interest to support housing, outweigh the difference.
Board member [0:32:51] Housing.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:32:52] It says housing. You know, they’re. Yeah, they’re. Yeah.
Board member [0:32:57] I mean there’s just.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:32:57] It seems to me that. Yeah, it’s. It’s a good size, it’s consistent and we haven’t heard any negatives from the neighbor. Right now. And we. Again, we haven’t heard any negatives. Okay, so we’re good on that. Do we have a motion? Go ahead.
Board member [0:33:28] I’ll make a motion to accept 2026-18, 58 Lash Street, Henry Bladimir Pinto Escobar for Permanent Variance. What’s the conditions that were articulated?
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:33:43] Do we have a second, Joe? All in favor?
Unidentified speaker [0:33:46] Aye.
Board member [0:33:47] Aye.
Attorney, Drago & Toscano, LLP [0:33:48] Thank you.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:33:49] Do a nice job.
Project architect [0:33:49] Thank you very much.
2026-19: 311 Eastern Avenue (Sauna Suites)
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:33:52] Okay, the next case is 2026-19, 311 Eastern Ave. For special permit, seeking approval for a sauna therapy. This has already gone to the planning department, the planning board. And so it’s in reverse. So they will. So we can decide on this even though it’s the first time we’re hearing it. And I think, and correct me if I’m wrong, that this is sort of. This is. We put it in a name because we don’t know. Is this one of those who don’t quite know what to. Well, explain to me the basis by this. But you did something unique by bringing it to the planning board.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:34:28] I like to know why. Yeah, because this is sort of a technicality, sort of a formality here. There was a gym or there is a gym and a sauna that was operating at 311 Eastern Ave. And then I believe the gym portion of the operation was sold to a different owner, but the sauna is remaining. And so there’s technically two ownerships, two uses with only one occupancy permit. So he is seeking another.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:34:53] So absolutely no change in use. It’s just where they’re sort of like splitting the. Like when we split out a lot.
Unidentified speaker [0:34:59] Yeah.
Board member [0:34:59] And.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:35:00] And we brought it to the planning board of first. Just because this has been ongoing for a few months now, they are unable to operate. So we felt it was a relatively straightforward case.
Unidentified speaker [0:35:08] Yeah.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:35:09] Could you introduce yourself and give your name and address, please?
Steven McDonough, Sauna Suites [0:35:12] Steve McDonough with Sauna Suites, 311 Eastern Ave hello.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:35:16] So tell us, why don’t you just reiterate what he just said? What are you looking to do?
Steven McDonough, Sauna Suites [0:35:20] So we’ve been there for about 10 years at this point. I moved on from the gym and we’re just trying to reopen the sauna. Not sure why we got shut down so suddenly, but we just want to reopen. No changes are being made.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:35:34] Do we have any questions? Push your button.
Board member [0:35:37] Push button. Sorry.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:35:41] Is the sauna in the gym or is there still a [unclear]?
Board member [0:35:46] Yeah. Okay.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:35:47] Separate space. But it was operated under one license before.
Steven McDonough, Sauna Suites [0:35:51] Before, yeah, Because I was running both.
Unidentified speaker [0:35:53] Okay.
Steven McDonough, Sauna Suites [0:35:54] But now I’m not.
Unidentified speaker [0:35:55] Okay.
Board member [0:35:56] The entrance for the gym. So the sauna will be different. Is different. What will the hours of operation.
Steven McDonough, Sauna Suites [0:36:03] 10:00pm 10:00am to 10:00pm Is that what
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:36:06] is that what it is now?
Board member [0:36:07] Now?
Steven McDonough, Sauna Suites [0:36:08] Yes. What’s the capacity of the sauna? It’s only for individuals and couples.
Board member [0:36:15] By appointment only?
Steven McDonough, Sauna Suites [0:36:18] Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:36:19] Is there any change in operation in the way it’s been operating for 10 years? No? Before I open it up, this is a public hearing. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on this? There being none. I’m going to close this down because we can vote. Are we inclined to vote on this today?
Board member [0:36:38] Have there been any issues with the operations of the space?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:36:42] No, it just was shut down because there were all of a sudden two uses here happening. Health and exercise or.
Unidentified speaker [0:36:50] Yeah.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:36:51] Health and exercise Fitness club is allowed by special permit in the Light Industrial 2 district, which is where this property is located. So they’re really interesting. Another special permit for that use. As he said, they aren’t changing anything and we haven’t heard anything from our inspection services that there’s been any issues with the operation of the sauna.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:37:10] So the planning board said yes.
Board member [0:37:11] Yeah.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:37:12] And the department recommends as well. Yes.
Board member [0:37:15] What will be the outcome if they decide to sell it to someone else? Will it come from us again or does it permit?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:37:24] I mean they could.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:37:25] So it’s the same use.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:37:26] Yeah, if it’s the same use. If it’s the same use, then that’s. That would be fine. Like they would not come before the board unless they were making exterior changes and trying to, you know.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:37:40] Okay, so do show you what the criteria for this. It’s just a special permit. Social, economic or community needs which is served by the proposal. It’s not hurting anything. It’s been there for 10 years.
Board member [0:37:55] Yeah,
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:37:58] for some people. Exactly. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading. Again, it’s been there for 10 years. Adequacy of utilities and other public services not issue.
Board member [0:38:07] Right.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:38:09] Neighborhood character and social structures definitely been there. Impacts on the natural environment including drainage. They’re not making any structural changes at all. Potential impact including impacts on city streets, tax base, employment.
Unidentified speaker [0:38:24] No.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:38:24] Yeah. Okay. Do we have a motion?
Board member [0:38:28] I’ll make a motion to Approve case number 2026-19, 311 Eastern Ave. Sauna suites with the standard conditions as.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:38:38] Second.
Board member [0:38:39] Second.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:38:39] All in favor?
Board member [0:38:41] Okay.
Unidentified speaker [0:38:42] Okay.
Steven McDonough, Sauna Suites [0:38:43] Thank you. What’s that next step? To reopen.
Unidentified speaker [0:38:46] Yeah.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:38:46] So we’ll. We have about 14 days to write up this decision and file it with the city clerk. We’ll get that done pretty quick. And then once that’s filed with the clerk, there’s a 20 day appeal period where yourself or anyone can appeal the decision. And once that is over, you can then start meeting any conditions that were placed on the decision and kind of securing the rest of your occupancy.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:39:09] All right, Greg, thank you.
2026-20: 320 Revere Beach Parkway (opened, then paused)
Unidentified speaker [0:39:11] Okay.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:39:12] 2026-20. Sounds a little familiar. 320 Revere Beach Parkway, 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC, for special permit and variance seeking approval for the construction of a 60 residential dwelling unit structure which does not meet the requirements for minimum lot size off street parking spaces, minimum side yard setback, maximum density, maximum height, maximum. Yeah, max. Maximum number of stories, minimum rear yard setback and minimum usable open space. They’ve also requested extension for authorization for extension alteration or change to a non conforming structure. Even though. Come on in. Even though we have heard one. We won’t be deciding this today because it will go to the planning board on the 27th. You need a minute, please? So that’ll go. So when we’ll be deciding to stay, it’ll go on the 27th. Even though we have in theory heard this before, we have not heard this before. This is a brand new case coming before us. So you will be asked to answer all the questions that you may feel as though you were asked in the past. So please be prepared to do that. And could you introduce yourselves and tell us what you’re proposing?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:40:25] Sure.
Peter Piantidosi, owner, 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:40:26] My name is through the board. My name is Peter Piantidosi. I’m one of the owners of the property. We are being joined by attorney Rossi who was actually coming from another meeting and was late. I’d be glad to.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:40:37] Do you want us to wait till he gets here?
Peter Piantidosi, owner, 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:40:39] That would be great if we could. Thank you very much. Sit down. That’s fine. We will let this.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:41:02] Just taking a few minutes for the board members to collect themselves.
2026-21: 426 Broadway (splitting the lot)
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:41:49] We’re going to get started again. So we’re going to move to case 2026-21, 426 Broadway, Gerald Sneirson, For a variance seeking approval to subdivide the lot containing a one story commercial structure into two completely independent structures which does not meet the minimum requirements for required frontage for lot A and B. This was originally thought to require special permit relief. It does not. Have a seat. It does not require special permit relief. So we can, if we are so inclined to find this today. Could you explain what your. Introduce yourself please and disclose. Describe what you’re proposing.
Petitioner Gerald M. Sneirson [0:42:24] Sure. This Is where the Rainbow building used to be.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:42:27] What’s your name and address?
Petitioner Gerald M. Sneirson [0:42:28] Jerry Sneirson, [address removed]. And this used to be the Rainbow Building. They were there for 30 or 40 years and they just recently moved out about six months ago. The years and years ago, when I grew up here, there used to be two stores. But that neither here nor there.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:42:49] Just a bit of information.
Petitioner Gerald M. Sneirson [0:42:51] I’m having trouble getting two electric meters in there because you can only have one electric meter for the whole building. And accordingly I’m having trouble renting it because it’s a big store, it’s a double store. And although I have some smaller stores on the thing, there’s no problem. And about the biggest one. This economy nowadays, it’s a little tougher. So. But one of the main reasons is bringing a second electric meter, to be honest with you.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:43:27] So you’d have to redo the front. You’d have to redo the whole front.
Petitioner Gerald M. Sneirson [0:43:30] First of all. Have to redo the storefronts and the. And upgrade the storefronts actually to double insulated glass doors. The whole thing.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:43:41] And two doors. Rather than will do they need if. Did they have to come in front of us? Assuming we. I don’t know where we stand. But if we do approve this, do they have to come in front of us again for approval and what the front storefront would look like?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:43:55] It depends on the use. If it’s an allowed use to come in to slot into one of the new spaces. If you guys do approve this, then it would not need any sort of review by the board. If someone wanted to come in for. And maybe exterior changes to the extent that the storefront like the building footprint’s expanding, then yes, likely before the board,
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:44:13] but so because clearly, I mean they’d have to do something. They’d have to turn this one entrance into two entrances.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:44:17] Yeah, that.
Board member [0:44:19] That would matter for us.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:44:20] Yeah, that would definitely be irrelevant if it’s. If it’s not changing any of like the building footprint.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:44:25] Any questions? Will does the. Before you open it up to the public, what’s the plan? Planning department’s thoughts on this?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:44:38] Yeah, I mean looking at the variance criteria because his proposal would technically separate the lots into two. So he needs a variance for the frontage requirement. And so thinking about the practical difficulty, you know a strict enforcement would pretty much prevent the petitioner from it sounds like he’s already struggling to rent it out. We’ve seen that like commercial uses are struggling to find spaces and larger spaces are harder to rent as they require more rent. And so a strict enforcement would likely prevent them from being able to fully rent it out. That would be a detriment to the petitioner. And there is a benefit to the public interest in that this would create two smaller commercial spaces that could be filled up to bring either more jobs, more services to residents, or any.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:45:26] And it’s completely consistent with the area.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:45:28] Yeah, this is our downtown or the start of our downtown Broadway area. So we do want to see more commercial activity.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:45:36] Yeah. Okay. I’m going to open this to the public. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on this? There being none, I’m closing the public participation portion of this. Could we look do. Are we prepared to discuss the various requirements on this? Okay. So strict enforcement would result in practical difficulties which seems, as we just heard articulated. And the benefits to the petitioner and to the public interest, including the interest of support and production of housing, outweigh the detriments of public. So this is not about housing, but I think it’s still for the public, in the best public interest, to have a vital Broadway and to have stores that are busy and people are in them and they’re fine. We agree?
Unidentified speaker [0:46:19] Yes. Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:46:21] Do we have any conditions that you would think should be proposed on this will?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:46:26] Because it’s just a variance, you are not allowed to impose any conditions. So.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:46:32] Stupid rule. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve this for 426 Broadway?
Board member [0:46:38] I make a motion to accept. Case 2026-21, 426 Broadway, [unclear].
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:46:44] Have a second, Joe. All in favor?
Unidentified speaker [0:46:46] Aye.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:46:49] So we’re going to. Since we still haven’t seen Mr. Rossi this evening.
Unidentified speaker [0:46:52] Yeah.
Board member [0:46:53] Ready? Go.
2026-20: 320 Revere Beach Parkway (60 units)
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:46:55] Okay, there it is. Okay, we’re going to go back to 2020. Would you need another minute, Mr. Rossi? Okay, 2026-20, back to 320 Revere Beach Parkway. Reiterate again for the record for special permit and variance, seeking approval for the construction of 60 residential dwelling unit structure which does not meet the requirements for minimum lot size off street parking spaces, minimum side yard setback, maximum density, maximum height, maximum number of stories, minimum rear yard setback, and minimum usable open space. And you are looking for an expansion, alteration or change to a non conforming structure. As I said to [unclear], you got here, though we have heard this before. For all intents and purposes, we have not heard this before.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:47:41] Yes, so good even. Madam Chairwoman, members of the board, Rossi. We have the petitioner, you have the applicant in the audience, Mr. Piantidosi in the second to last row. So we Refiled the whole application anyway. So it’s a new application prior to the last time that was ever before for you. We met with the neighbors and the abutters and there was a concern and we had comments before the planning board and this board regarding some proposed changes and what they wanted to see. So originally we had a six story building. We reduced that down to five stories. We went to 60 residential units. Consists of all one bedrooms now. And if you can show the elevations. Yes, thanks William. And we’re going to have 16 parking spaces. 14 inside the building and four that are outside the building that are tandem spots. Those are the tandem spots that Mr. McAteer referencing is.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:48:37] So technically it’s 14 but 16, but it’s 20 correct. I mean it’s 18.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:48:41] Is 20 correct in the building now we do have a management office if I may approach with it makes it easier. So based on comments we got before other boards in the past and neighbors and the abutters we created a maintenance supply room here, a main entrance coming from this area here. We also have.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:49:07] Locate me on the street. Where are we on the street?
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:49:09] So this is the parkway over here. Okay. Actually William, can you just go to the site plan shown with the landscaping because it actually shows a garage door.
Unidentified speaker [0:49:22] Yes.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:49:23] And we also have a trash door too.
Unidentified speaker [0:49:26] You see it?
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:49:26] Yes. So we have a. We have a track. William, there’s another elevation show on the building so I can show the trash. Yes. So if you look over here we created for a trash pickup inside the building. There’s some neighbors concerned where the trash can be picked up, how it’s going to affect. So we have a separate entrance for trash pickup inside the building. And here’s your garage entrance for the building. And this is how it’s detailed. Step back. So we have outdoor space balconies that are on this part of the street and the back part of the street. This is where you enter for the garage and this is where the trash will be picked up. Now if we go to the site plan for. So I can show the extensive amount of landscaping and there’s a huge step back from this corner because. And we’re working with the city also to do street parking that doesn’t currently exist on this side of the street that will give up some land in order to make that work. So they can actually have parking here for the neighborhood and also the adjoining. There’s a restaurant right across of it and the building is stepped back from the corner considerably to allow pavers landscape and so forth. It also will help with Traffic and so forth, when cars are coming off and going in that busy intersection. And there’s extensive landscaping, as you can see, coming down with a new sidewalk. And this is the property line. Here’s a sidewalk coming through. And we have a whole detail plan in the package showing the type of trees, shrubs and so forth. And we certainly work with the city regarding same. But the height of the building has changed dramatically. The unit mix has changed dramatically, and the relief has.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:51:14] Without telling us.
Unidentified speaker [0:51:15] Change.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:51:15] Just tell us what it is you’re proposing for height and what you’re talking about for unit.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:51:19] So if you look at the elevation. Sorry, I have to go back up because I can’t read it on my phone. So the height now from the highest point is 54.6ft. It was over, I think, 10ft. I think it was 68ft before. To give you an idea, we also added a lot of outdoor space because for balconies that weren’t existing before to that point and larger. So they’re.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:51:44] What are they on? Are they on both the Revere Beach side and the Adams Street side?
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:51:48] So they’re on one side. Coming down on if. William, if you go to the side of the center, you can see it.
Unidentified speaker [0:51:55] Sorry, which.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:51:56] Which one do you want me to go to?
Unidentified speaker [0:51:58] The one.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:51:58] The one that shows the exterior of the building. You can actually see all the decks. They’re only on one side of the building because the other pot is on property line. So you’d have to recess the building in so you can see up here. I’ll step back.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:52:11] Okay, but what street is that? Is that over here?
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:52:14] So this is. Truck. I’m sorry. This is [unclear]. Right here. Sorry. Because if you look at the lot here, it sort of. Here’s a parkway. It’s sort of an angle.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:52:23] I just want to be sure.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:52:24] Yeah.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:52:25] And it goes out to here, the lot, you know, so that’s why I wanted to show all the area that we’re not stepping away from that corner of the street. And we had some pretty healthy meetings with one of the. With one of the abutters for the restaurant and so forth. And I think you got an abutter understanding. I can’t speak room. I don’t want to speak to him. that was. I don’t know if you were into the board yet or not, but basing on the new plans, because one of the concerns they have is, you know, how does this affect their restaurant and so forth. Again, this is allowing 60 residential units to come in the neighborhood that can eat at his restaurant, walk to his restaurant. And we’re also creating parking that his restaurant currently doesn’t have on that side of the street, especially at night time. And that’s going to benefit. And we’re, and we said, we work with the city to say that, you know, be, you know, so you don’t have people just doing it like 1 hour, 2 hour parking limits and so forth with signage and so forth, which would stop people that are coming to the building to keep parking there. So we’re working with the city with that invention there. So this is allowing for affordable housing units because they’re going to be one bedroom units. And under the new inclusionary program I do with the city, I think it’s 10% when it’s over 50 units.
Board member [0:53:52] Correct.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:53:54] Turned it off.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:53:55] And I believe there’s, you can either elect 5% at 30% AMI or 10% with a mixture of 50 and 80% AMI. So we’re going to talk to the city to see what preference they may or may not have and make a decision what works for the inclusion area on that component on that end. I don’t even know if my clients, I haven’t really talked in depth with them on it because this is fairly new zoning. Other than that. I’ll talk about the variances at the next meeting as there is a new. And I’ll do a narrative standard under the, you know, the guidelines set up by [unclear] regarding promoting new housing and practical hardship. In fact, I actually would have thought this was one of the few projects that would have met the old standard because of the topography and the shape of the triangle a lot under the old standards because it’s a pretty narrow.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:54:47] You got an easier standard now.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:54:49] Now we’ve been easier standing than what it was before, but we took a lot of those comments and changes and we incorporated it. And that’s why it took a lot of time to come back before this board because we wanted to make sure the neighbors, especially people around, were happy with the project.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:55:02] Do you guys have any questions before I open it to the public? Okay, so this is public hearing.
Board member [0:55:06] I’m sorry, I wanted to just ask if you could refresh my memory. How many units were in the first proposal?
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:55:12] I want to say was it 67?
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:55:14] 67.
Board member [0:55:15] 67. So it went down to 57 units?
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:55:17] Yes. We took out a floor and we added a lot of stuff in the lower level Y to accommodate. So we lost units.
Board member [0:55:24] Okay. And they’re all one bedrooms, all one bedrooms.
Unidentified speaker [0:55:27] Okay,
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:55:30] so this is not going to be the only opportunity people are going to have to speak on this is going to the planning board on the 27th.
William Cecio, city planning staff [0:55:38] Sorry we didn’t get it
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:55:41] out.
Unidentified speaker [0:55:42] Give me a break.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:55:45] This is going to planning board on the 27th and it will come back here on November 10th. So first of all, is there anybody who wishes to speak on it? So I’m going. What I have in front of me, as will just remind me is I have a letter in opposition to the proposed 67 unit development. So this is dated October 13, 2026. Dear members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I am ready once again to express my strong concerns regarding proposed 67 unit apartment development at 320 Revere Beach Parkway. My building and parking lot across the street is the largest abutter will be greatly impacted by this development. This is from [name unclear], [company name unclear], Adams Street by the way. First, the proposed parking is wholly insufficient for a building of this size. A 67 unit apartment building will surely generate far more vehicles in the number of parking spaces provided. Inadequate on street parking for both cars and other means of transportation will inevitably force residents, visitors, ride share and delivery services to attempt to use my parking lot directly across the street. I’m anticipating spending a large sum of money to install an electronic gate to allow my tenants to utilize the parking lot where they live. Second, the project will create serious traffic concerns. Adams Street is a very narrow two way side street with parking on both sides that has numerous traffic issues. We have witnessed emergency vehicles having limited access. Traffic coming off the Parkway has caused many accidents including knocking over a telephone pole. The city has installed barriers on Garfield Ave. In an attempt to control cars taking a left turn toward the Parkway intersection, but I have seen many people drive over the barriers. Just last week I was contacted by a person who was in an accident on Adams Street asking if they could access my cameras. This was not the first time the surrounding roads and intersections already experience extreme congestion. The intersection at the Parkway is the worst in the city and this building will virtually sit on top of it. In addition, the height and overall scale of the building is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed structure is substantially larger and taller in nearby homes and buildings which will alter the visual character of the area and create concerns related to density, privacy, [unclear] and neighborhood compatibility. Development should respect the existing scale and character of the community rather than overwhelming. I respectfully urge the Planning Board to carefully consider the long term impacts this project will have on the neighborhood and the quality of life of current residents and businesses. Thank you for your time and consideration. [name unclear]. So there you go. So we are continuing this. We’ll see you
Board member [0:58:30] remind us how many parking spaces.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:58:32] 16 parking spaces, 12 inside and four tandem on the outside of which we were going to designate. Out of the two tandem spots. Those are going to be for deliveries and pickups and Uber on the outside. And I will note based on the comments. First of all, we know it’s not 67 units and the height that you mentioned. We’re actually. We’re not even asking for a variance in height. We actually meet the requirement by special permit. I just want to know that.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:58:57] Yeah, I’m just. It was clear that she was I think looking at the earlier And I
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:59:01] also note that any other parking. [unclear] relief if I’m not mistaken, when you can’t even get a residential certificate under the city’s program.
Unidentified speaker [0:59:09] Yeah.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:59:10] Being sought. So they wouldn’t be able to even park there as a whole.
Board member [0:59:14] Is any community room. Is there any community room in the building?
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:59:18] Is there? No.
Unidentified speaker [0:59:20] No.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [0:59:20] As far as the room, everything we have is on a lower level. And we have basically bike storage that we’ve never had before. We have an office. We have a maintenance room. We have a UPS, FedEx package room, elevator and that type of room because it’s all in the garage level. So it’s pretty dangerous if you try to have where people are parking and there’s really no other area. And we already reduced a floor and the units in the building. And it’s because of the shape of the building too, the triangular shape. So you. It’s hard to. Once you start carving it out, you sort of carve out too much.
Chair Janice Tatarka [0:59:59] Okay, thank you. Okay. Back here in. On the 10th of November and at the planning board on the 22nd. Seven.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [1:00:04] Okay, 27. Thank you. And that’s a six. William. I will note that. I’ll let the plan board and I got to talk to PJ on that date. I have to go to the hospital my child that evening. So I may have some PJ present or I have to table it on that. I just pressed my wife. I just found out that was a day. Sorry.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:00:22] Yeah, no worries. Just. We’ll be in communication.
Unidentified speaker [1:00:25] Thank you.
Attorney Rossi, for 320 Revere Beach Realty LLC [1:00:26] Thank you, members of the board.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:00:28] Thank you. Good luck with your [unclear].
2026-22: 139-141-143 Essex Street (15 units)
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:00:28] The next case in front of us is 2026-22, 139-141-143 Essex Street,. 139 Essex Street LLC. For special permit and variance seeking approval to establish 15 residential units by constructing a second, third and fourth floor above the existing space which does not meet the requirements for minimum side yard setback, minimum rear yard setback, minimum lot size required off street parking spaces, maximum lot coverage, the minimum front yard setback and maximum floor area ratio. The petition must also request authorization for extension, alteration or change to a non conforming structure. Couple things. First time we’re hearing this. So again we will not be deciding this today. It will go to the planning board on the 27th of October and it will come back here on no November 10th. I know there are people here to speak on this. I’d like initially to give people five minutes and then if something hasn’t been caught up at that time then we can. You can come back for another couple of minutes. But. So if there’s a large group here, let me hear that. Please introduce yourselves, your name and address and tell us what you’re proposing.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:01:39] Good evening board members. My name is Philip Raccuia. I’m the owner of the property at 139-141-143 Essex Street, Chelsea, Mass. I’ve owned the property for over 31 years. I came to this board almost to the date 31 years ago and you granted me special permits to operate our business there. It’s on the second page. There it is.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:02:06] Yeah, it was.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:02:14] So to move on. There’s the property there that’s looking to the left side looking down the street. As you can see, there’s a three family next to it and that’s part of our gate. There’s another half if you go to the next lot.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:02:27] If you want. If you want to talk, you’re welcome to just pick up the microphone and take the.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:02:31] Sorry.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:02:32] No, that’s okay. It’s just easier that way.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:02:35] That was the building that was approved 31 years ago. And as you can see, the building is to the left, the parking is to the right. It also has striping, it’s kind of worn out now. And there’s a three family next to it adjacent as well. That’s the existing condition. That’s the actual location to the left where we propose to put the building on that existing building to the left.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:03:02] And also that one story building is what you’re.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:03:05] It is. It’s a one story building. It has three garage doors I believe you’ll see in one of the other FL photos and it has a steel construction frame underneath it on solid piers. We would propose the exact layout as you See there? It’s about 3,600 square feet. Three floors above that’s looking up the street as you can see what the neighborhood looks like. Looking all the way to the bottom of the street is the industrial district. It’s about 98ft away. Looking up the street, you’ll see it’s standard. Three families all the way up. Same thing. As you look up the street, you see all the three families. You’ll see a lot of empty lots there. Past that six family, there are adjacent lots that are empty. There are also other lots across from us that are empty. You can see there’s a panel truck in there’s a pickup truck parked on the sidewalk. And they use that area for parking, which is an area just about as big as our lot is. This is directly across from our building. You could see that they’re empty lots and they’re just used for garages. Some people buy cars, some people work out of their garages. So the project would be a great enhancement. And as you can see, our property there, 31 years that I’ve owned it, we did renovations when we first went in there. It’s underutilized now.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:04:40] Tell me, which one’s your property? To the right or left? I’m sorry, ma’, am, which one is. You said your property is Whitman.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:04:46] This is our. The one on the right is our property. That entire building, that’s the structural framing inside the building. You can see the structural girders there. And they’re also on piers. To the left, they have independent brick piers that are solid. They’re about 20 by 20. Supporting those columns. You can see the roof drain. The cast iron piping on the right there, that takes all the water from our drains on the roof. There are two roof drains, and they’re both into separate leaching tanks. So the water goes back into the ground to recharge the groundwater system. On the left, you could see the piers, one of the piers there. And the structural framing, it goes throughout the entire building on all three of those bays, which it’s set up as individual bays. Once again, looking across the street, you can see they have garages. They park cars in there. They work out of the garages. And that’s directly across from us. Once again, this picture here is showing more or less what you can see, the entire length of the roof.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:06:03] And wants to see what he’s showing. You can come up in here. I mean, I just realized he’s showing lots of pictures to see it. You can come stand over here. I’M sorry I didn’t say that earlier.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:06:21] So the roof drains. There are two roof drains on that system. It’s all the flat rubber. The same entire square footage would be the same with the new proposed building that we are proposing to put in its place. You can see the frontage we have on the front and the right photo. And the building would be just as high as those. This would be where those trees are located. That’s actually where my building stands currently. So. And behind it’s just an empty lot, grass area. There’s that house there to the left. And then the other photo, you can see the other half of that house. And on the other side, they’re all empty lots going up Suffolk Street. That’s the rear view from my property. And you could see that there’s a side street, all empty lots all the way up the street. The project would be a great improvement to the area which is zoned for that. It’s an R2 district, an apartment district. Same thing next to that house we were just looking at. That’s just a parking area. They have dumpsters there and they do a lot of work. And that’s exactly two houses over from where we are. And if you look at the right picture, that’s looking. That’s Suffolk street, which actually is the borderline of the waterfront district. That’s diagonally across from where I am. There’s a side street and there’s a garage there and there’s an empty lot beside it. This is the rear view looking up Suffolk street and there are all empty lots there. I believe the board just approved something for a two family a little further down in the area of where that red car is. Same thing. Suffolk Street. Looking directly behind us across the street. That’s what you see the building. Empty lots, parking. People just come in and do whatever they want to do and they work on things. Same thing with Essex Street. You can see the trucks parked there’s a. There’s a fence to the left. They slide it open, they park cars, trucks, and it’s directly across from us. So that’s an aerial view. That’s just a picture that was there. The next one I believe is the one we want to see is where we’re located. To the right is the industrial district. Suffolk street is the waterfront district. You can see where it’s positioned. That’s. That’s the space there. It’s an underutilized parcel. As you can see. We have bolt there, we have cars and stuff, things there. As well. Some of the vehicles we used to work. Once again, you can see the roof drain on top and you can see the other one under the trees. We originally proposed this back in 2019, not to this board, but we had received input from our counselors and other people in the neighborhood and everyone was very interested in it. But at the time there wasn’t really a transit oriented district. And I believe at the time we had shown it to Mr. Leo Robinson and it wasn’t that district. And I understand that he was very helpful in getting his own district, which is Transit Oriented Development, which is exactly what we have here. From our building, you would see the walking distance to the bus stop right around the corner. They just put a new Silver Line in as well, which is I believe in the next photo. It’s a four minute walk. That’s to the Silver Line to get people to come out of cars and use electric bikes. Electric vehicles walk, all in promoting. Also where we are there they can go down. I believe that’s the waterfront park there to get people to move. Also this is to another stop and it shows the distances and the minutes, 5/10 of a mile on 1, 4 on the other and 6 on the other to various locations. So the plan that I’m proposing, we actually built this building and that’s what it looks like. That’s the way the colors would come in, the balconies, the siding, the brick underneath. Except for ours, we have open space underneath for parking. That’s the exact building there. You can see the design on it. Green space is provided up on the roof. The air conditioning and heating equipment is covered on the front portion and it’s far enough back white roof to dissipate the heat. All the lighting meets the International association of Dark sky requirements. We could possibly look into permeable pavers, but we’ve had situations with permeable pavers where a lot of dirt and debris gets caught inside the pavers and we have to jet them out. We really don’t need it because we have two basins which will be highlighted on another map that are directly dissipating the water into the ground. That would be the side looking adjacent to the property. From my neighbor’s house, you can see the steel railing up on the rooftop. It’s quite an elaborate building. It’ll fit nicely into that neighborhood.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:12:36] You’ll have your opportunity.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:12:40] That’s the other elevation on the other side looking at it and you can see how it is. And that’s building on top of the existing structure. So this Is showing the footprint and the layout. You can see the catch basins there. One towards the front and one towards the back. They were properly sized where they would dissipate all the groundwater and actually the lake. Plumbing inspector [name unclear] was very helpful on that when we did that. Parking has outside spaces, inside spaces. Last I spoke to the councillor, Mr. Recupero, he had a concern about parking and I told him I could alleviate that concern by having all of the residents that live there refrain from getting a parking card as they do in the city. They just comment, what is that?
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:13:43] Yeah, they wouldn’t be allowed to have one.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:13:45] Okay, I guess we would not allow them to have one.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:13:49] The city does not allow.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:13:50] Right, okay, exactly. And the units are size, so they would be for one single occupant. And most of the single occupants probably wouldn’t have a vehicle. Which we have a bike room. As you could see there’s a bike room, there’s a trash room, There’s a very big sized bike room there to promote the use of riding and walking. It has an elevator ada, it has fire alarm room, sprinkler room.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:14:25] How many floors again?
Unidentified speaker [1:14:26] 3.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:14:27] It would be 3 above the existing masonry structure. There’s where the building falls in. So going back to the variances that we’re looking for, had we demolished the building, it would be an enormous burden because we would have to demolish it, haul it out, dispose of it. We would have to come back in, excavate, provide a new foundation, provide all new plumbing systems, which this has three separate main drains, existing 480 volt electricity. It has gas and it has water. That’s the floor layout there. They’re all identical units. Five units, every floor per three. And you can see the ADA units. They have the circle in the middle on that big one next to the elevator. They’re all identical. Square footage on the units like 5, 24, 6, 24, 7, 10. This is an zoning analysis that we did. Like I said, we would have to demolish the building at an enormous cost and burden. Where the building was built at the time with the appropriate variances in mind for when it was built for that era meets all the requirements. You can see there are just a few that we require a variance for.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:16:16] Go back to parking. Go back to. It says it needs parking.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:16:21] No, that’s incorrect. There’s 15 units, one half spaces per unit, so that’s 23. So technically it’s missing our requirement by like two spaces.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:16:30] Okay, so they’re okay. There’s 21 proposed spaces.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:16:32] Yeah, 21 proposed. And a fair amount of them are like compact spaces.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:16:37] Yeah, they were all various sizes. Some were compact. They were shifted so that they would meet the requirements there. That’s an example of what the unit will look like inside. All LEED certified. There’s a dedicated trash room. There’s an actual photo in the same building that was built. The bikes that are down off Broadway. I believe I saw a system.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:17:09] You talking about like the blue bikes?
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:17:11] Yes, yeah, blue bikes. The green bikes as well.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:17:13] But you’re proposing your own bike room for invisible.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:17:16] We have our own bike room, yes. So the building will be LEED certified. Building design, construction, the interior design, the operations and maintenance. There’s a roof there, the white roof to reduce the heat. Bicycle room is very large. Energy efficient HVAC systems. The lighting International Dark sky association windows, insulation, sub metering also for the electrical and I believe the water as well. The rainwater will be harvesting, recharging. The underground stormwater system, recycling trash area. And the green landscaping, which we have natural grasses, I believe water resistant, heat resistant tolerant plants as well.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:18:13] Is that it? Questions before you open it up?
Unidentified speaker [1:18:18] Yeah.
Board member [1:18:20] Other than the financial part of it, why so many apartments are such a small lot?
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:18:29] Why are there so many? Because what happens today is that with diesel, $6 and 50 cents a gallon in gasoline. The court, the costs are enormous. So to put that type of building there, to set some type of break even point, we need to have 15 units.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:18:49] Well, we’ve only gone up to 650 recently, so I mean it wasn’t that a couple months ago.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:18:55] Everything is just sky high today. The building cost for everything. Sprinkler, fire alarm, elevator.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:19:01] Okay.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:19:02] Cost are enormous.
Board member [1:19:04] Okay. Will, if you can go back to the parking plane. Yeah. Right there on the back side of it. How the car is going to turn on the last two. Side by side parking space. Are you gonna turn out?
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:19:24] Excuse me, can I walk?
Unidentified speaker [1:19:25] Yeah, you can go.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:19:30] So the last two here, the last
Board member [1:19:32] one on the top.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:19:33] Up top?
Unidentified speaker [1:19:34] Yes.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:19:34] Make sure you’re talking to the microphone, sir.
City Councillor Giovanni Recupero [1:19:36] Okay.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:19:37] A, these are A’s. A’s. That has a legend here. Nine by 18.
Board member [1:19:44] I’m talking. How are they gonna turn out and leave?
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:19:48] Oh, this is an enormous driveway.
Board member [1:19:49] How are you gonna. They’re gonna turn if there. You park side by side. Yeah. One in front of the other. How are they gonna turn out and leave? They’re gonna back out.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:19:56] I believe this person will back out and it’ll come down into the lane. And come up. This is an enormous opening that is existing right now. And we left it that open. Somewhere in here there’s a note. I think it’s 28ft.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:20:14] Certainly you go that they can’t.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:20:16] Yeah, my point.
Board member [1:20:17] Yeah. Because it’s two way driveway and then someone is going out, backing out and someone’s pulling in and don’t be able to turn and leave as a normal.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:20:30] You will leave.
Board member [1:20:31] Yeah.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:20:32] So I think what you’re looking at is this is a 9 by 18 space, but it’s for like a compact or a mid sized car will park in here.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:20:42] Are you suggesting, sir, that the aisle is wide enough that they can sort of do a three point turn back out, turn around and come.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:20:48] Oh it is, yes. And on one.
Unidentified speaker [1:20:51] Yeah.
Board member [1:20:52] How’s it going to turn out?
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:20:53] So how wide is that space?
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:20:56] This up here I believe is like 28. I can refer it on my paperwork and get you an exact number suggesting
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:21:01] if they have enough room to back out then make the turn and come in. I think that’s what he’s concerned about. And they get out.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:21:07] Absolutely, Madam Chair. They would back out and come into this lane. This is almost double where normally there would be like a 12 or a 14 foot opening.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:21:17] Our requirement is 24ft for aisle width and as Phil was saying, it’s about 28ft. So they are meeting our zoning regulations around the aisle width.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:21:27] Because sometimes we have in front of us, sometimes they get like. How do you figure that a car is going to be on the actual move and that one, it does seem at least wide enough. I think that’s what I think I understand when it’s concerned. I think that’s what my concern would be is that making sure when they back out they have enough move to turn around and not, you know.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:21:44] Yes, they would back up.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:21:46] I don’t. You don’t. I think. And plus I don’t want to make sure they don’t have to back out of the driveway.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:21:52] No, Madam Chair. They would back out and then they would just turn to the right and come down. And I believe when it was engineered, it was engineered that even though the space is this big, the mid size or the sub compacts, however it was deemed, it was laid out in that manner.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:22:09] Whereas that actually exceeds what we require for it to be a safe out.
Unidentified speaker [1:22:14] Turn around. Yeah.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:22:15] For the aisle with. Yeah, he’s meeting our requirements there. But he does need relief for the size of the parking spaces because some of them are like compact.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:22:28] I mean that.
Board member [1:22:29] Yeah.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:22:29] Okay. So Again, I’m going to open this up to the public. This is not going to be the only opportunity people have to address this. Did you have a question?
Board member [1:22:38] I just wanted to see like the outside. I know that he showed us like the front and the back, but do you have one that shows the entire exterior of what it would look like?
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:22:47] We do, yes. I also supply the 2 foot by 3 foot plans here.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:22:52] Yeah, I can pull up the plan set. I just only have your presentation up,
Unidentified speaker [1:22:57] but I can do.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:23:21] Can I just make a comment? So this is the existing building. These are doors that would open to. For the vehicles to go in into. And as you can see by the design, I believe you want to see the front. This would. This is actually the front of the street. This would be the front as it’s facing the parking lot.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:23:41] So explain to me now. So now that changes some questions I have about parking. So where are they coming in and out? So they’re coming in and out at those doors.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:23:49] They’re coming in the existing curb cut, which is here.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:23:52] No. How would they. Those are those doors that I’m seeing there where the. Where’s the truck? Where’s the car pulling in into the. Under the underground parking.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:24:01] They would come up and they would go into their assigned space. We could. This was an option to present to the board. We could either leave this or we could take it off.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:24:10] I’m still aware. Because if they’re doing that, if they go in that way, then you’ve kind of. You can’t do that because then you can’t have them side by side on the other side. They would. You would have somebody who’s parked on this side wouldn’t be able to get by somebody who’s parked on that side. If the door’s open that way, where the door. Or is the door open somewhere else for the car to actually get into the garage? Where does the. How does the parking into the garage.
Board member [1:24:35] I don’t understand.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:24:36] I. It sounds like this door would open and these cars would pull through the curb, cut and pull into their assign space here. And there’s. It’s deep enough to.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:24:45] The cars are. Unless I’m misunderstanding what I was seeing, they park on both sides there.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:24:52] No, there are spaces inside the garage and then there are spaces outside the garage on this side of the property.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:24:59] Oh, okay.
City Councillor Giovanni Recupero [1:24:59] Okay.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:25:00] So it’s like an. A center aisle with the parking lot inside.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:25:03] Parking inside and outside.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:25:05] Oh, yes.
City Councillor Giovanni Recupero [1:25:05] Yeah.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:25:06] I was going to say they couldn’t fit.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:25:07] Yes. Some spaces are inside the existing garage structure. Other spaces are outside, but the ones
Board member [1:25:13] on the outside should have enough space to, like, back up, like remove and exit the parking lot or the parking area. Because there’s enough space. Enough feet.
Unidentified speaker [1:25:24] Yeah.
Petitioner Philip Raccuia [1:25:25] Commonly behind the vehicle, they usually leave maybe 14ft, some places 16ft. This has the entire width of the 28.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:25:34] Got it.
Board member [1:25:37] Okay.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:25:38] Again, there’s people who are going to open this up to the public. Five minutes to start. If there’s enough people, they can obviously spend more time if they need, after we’ve heard from everybody. So please, if you’re interested in speaking to this, come up to the mic. Could you please put the microphone over there, sir, so the people who want to use it can. So could you give us your name and address? Well, I’m gonna ask the councillor. Would you like to speak first, sir? Because he’s the councillor, he gets to speak first. That’s right. And as part of that, you get to speak first.
City Councillor Giovanni Recupero [1:26:13] Good evening.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:26:15] Formally introduce yourself before the.
City Councillor Giovanni Recupero [1:26:17] Okay, My name is Giovanni Recupero and I’m also an abutter. I live at [address removed]. And I’m also the councillor for that district. For one thing, this gentleman, I hate to call him, but he lies. He tells you all kinds. Okay, well, that concerns me because he said he spoke to me about this and he never did. And I never told him what he said. So I should be able to say that.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:26:40] Absolutely.
City Councillor Giovanni Recupero [1:26:41] Okay. That’s one thing. The next thing he’s talking about is all those lots around him behind him. People live there. In front of him is the backyards of other people. If they park their cars, it’s their own thing. Then he’s talking about compact cars. What if somebody decides to have a full size car? How are you going to fit them in? The way it’s located now, therefore, another, he’s going up four stories, not three, because he’s got to count the one underneath. So that’s four. The lot is way too small for what it is. He said he went years ago in front of it. Right. And Mr. [name unclear] said I, because I was. He wanted to build more than you can build in that spot. The average area for that spot is 5,000 square feet. An additional 3,000 square feet for each unit. So most of us, we’re not against him wanting to build to make it better, but we’re against him wanting to build the size that he wants to build, because it doesn’t. It could never be within that little spot. He says cars can Turn. But if you have a full size truck, how are you going to turn in that spot? You won’t be able to. Then he’s got all those doors. There’s only. I’ve been there 47 years. I know what was there before and what’s there now. There’s only three garage doors. So how many cars can you fit in three garages? That’s what he has. There’s three garages there. You got 10 of them, but there’s only three. That’s what there is. And for one, he doesn’t meet the standard of a normal sized car. If the city was to build outside parking, he would never fit his cars. They dwarf small cars. Okay, we grant you, but everybody doesn’t have small cars. And another thing is, he’s talking about across the street. Those are the backyards, like I just said, behind them. Those people live there. They always lived here. And down on Suffolk street, they’re all people’s houses. There’s only two spots down the end of Suffolk which are lots which a person is building. It’s 3, 800 square feet. And he got to prove that he. By building a two family. That’s a 3,800. He only has a lot. That’s 8,000 square feet. That’s all he has. His lot is maybe 8,500 square feet. I don’t even know. But I know from the time before when he came up to Mr. [name unclear], he doesn’t feed, doesn’t meet no requirements at all. You have to also think, yes, I’m a councillor and I’m in favor of city wanting to build, but I’m also in favor of having quality of life for people that live here. That is very important for people to have a good quality of life. Is this going to make their quality of life better? I don’t think so. Because if you go to lived on my district, she lives in that district, there’s no place to move. It used to be you can’t move at all. So there’s things that the city has to consider. One, the quality of life of people. Two, that lot is too small. He doesn’t meet any requirements. Even though he says, well, he meets the parking. No, he doesn’t. Because one big car won’t fit in that place. You’re talking midget cars, you talking little compact little cars. That’s not the standard the city uses. When it puts parking outside. It’s not that size. It’s much bigger. And as far as he’s saying it’s gigantically Wide a thing. It’s not as wide as he says because they have gone down the street, which is about 24ft. And that’s a normal size 23ft. Whatever it is, his might be that size. And to move two cars in and out, it’ll be kind of hard. Like they’ll. Madam said you. Even though you had the garage issue. So what are you gonna do? You’re gonna wait for somebody, ask permission for him to back out, and this one go in. So you want something that moves without asking somebody else to go in and out. So if you want to get out of your parking spot and that person is not home, how you gonna get out? Well, that person’s there. But this whole project, I’m not against him wanting to build. I’m in favor of, but not this size. But what we’re in favor is maybe build two, three family houses, which is six humans. There’s nothing wrong with that will meet the conformity of the whole area. And then you won’t put a strain on the people that are there. All the abutters that I gave you a letter. None of them want it. So not just me, every single person that’s an abutters to him does not want it because it would make their quality of life harder. And he’s talking about Silver Line. That’s way on the other side. It’s got nothing to do where we are behind on Suffolk Street. It’s residential. And then as you go farther in, it becomes commercial. It’s split in two pieces in Suffolk Street. He says they’re empty lots. They’re not empty lots. People live behind them. They do live behind him, and they live on the side of him. And he shows you where the garages where people work, that’s their own garages. That’s people that live in those buildings and they use it for themselves. There’s no businesses where somebody’s running. I remember when that business used to be a body shop and before that it used to be a laundry man. So I don’t know what he’s. What he’s proposing. He’s proposing something that does not conform with anything, with your own thing. He doesn’t have nothing there that conforms with nothing. Even if you give him a variance, you could at least have one or two. He has none of the variances he’s asking for are there. So it’s not just me speaking as a councillor on the behalf of the people that put me there. It’s me speaking as in an abutter That I seen him. I seen many times how that street is worked. Who would know that street? I’ve lived here for, like I told you, 47 years. I’ve seen all the business that was in there. This gentleman is not telling the truth. Because when he told you people work in their garages and they don’t. That’s their backyards. They’re not empty lots. None of them is empty lots. If you go down to the assessor’s office, you will find that there is no empty lots on that street. All behind it. And on the other side is the city yards behind it on [unclear] Street. Now the city yards is there. And there’s a place which Eastern Minerals rents to cover the mattresses. But that’s way behind. That’s in the industrial zone. The other part he’s talking about, the industrial zone is that new building they build across the street. And the parking lot that’s there, that was built for the businesses. So everything. How much more time? I got two minutes. One minute. That’s it. Okay. This is it. You know, it’s like you have an
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:33:35] opportunity again next time or later.
City Councillor Giovanni Recupero [1:33:37] I will. Thank you everybody. That dance. Thank you, sir.
Resident Carlos Navarro [1:33:41] My name is Carlos Navarro. I’m just going to add to that. I live [address removed], right in front of.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:33:46] And your name is Carlos Navarro.
Resident Carlos Navarro [1:33:48] I live right in front of him. And my concern is the parking. Because I work at night. I have to park all the way to Highland Park. Conveniently he show pictures that morning or a day, take pictures at night. There’s no parking spots there. I have to park all the way to Marginal Street, Highland Park to Lynn Street. Everywhere I do find I have to go around a couple of times. Not only me, everybody that lives there. Right. That’s not fair. For adding to that big scratch because he’s saying there’s gonna be parking spots. But what happens when they bring their families or anybody to visit them? Off parking, you know, that’s not fair. So everybody there and those are not at lots. Everybody has. Owners live parked there. But not only the owners live in those houses, tenants live there too. And nobody has compact cars. They have trucks and normal sized cars. That’s my concern.
Unidentified speaker [1:34:45] Thank you.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:34:45] Does anybody else like to speak on this.
Resident Carlos Navarro [1:34:51] Important thing? He knows me. I’ve been. I haven’t found a parking spot. I parked in his driveway because I have no parking. He has called the cops on me.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:35:00] He has the right to.
Resident Carlos Navarro [1:35:01] As I said, there’s no parking. I mean, so that’s not fair.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:35:06] Okay, thank you.
Resident Betsy Navarro [1:35:08] Yeah, I do the same too. So. Hi, my name is Betsy Navarro and I also live at [address removed]. I just like to echo what Carlos and Mr. Recupero said. But I also myself take the Silver Line. It’s not a four minute walk, it’s a 10 to 15 minute walk depending on your pace. Also I have my own vehicle. I can’t park in the city of Boston because it’s $50 to park in a garage during the work week. So I can’t imagine what other units or other residents will also want to have their car to get their daily errands and all that sort of stuff.
Board member [1:35:46] Stuff.
Resident Betsy Navarro [1:35:46] So yeah, I’m. I’m not against of him building like maybe like a one to three family home, but I think it’ll be a lovely space. But 15 units is a bit absurd.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:36:00] Anybody else wish to speak? Absolutely. Your name and address please.
Resident (speaking Spanish) [1:36:11] Hola.
Interpreter [1:36:59] So he doesn’t speak a lot of English but with his he’s been able to build his own home there. He’s been living in peace for 31 years. In his opinion. He says that it’s too big what he’s doing trying to build. We’re not going to see closing. At least two or three family be decent for the area that’s around there.
Unidentified speaker [1:37:41] Thank you.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:37:42] Thank you. Anybody else?
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:37:44] Also could you just make sure to all sign in and write your names in if you haven’t already.
City Councillor Giovanni Recupero [1:37:48] Thank you.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:37:50] Anybody else have anything? One more minute. Anybody spoke have another minute if they need it again. You’ll have the opportunity at the next meeting. So this has to go to the planning board on the 27th of October and back here on November 11th. November 10th. I’m sorry, November 10th. Anybody else? Which is not closed but stays open and we will see you next month and again the 27th at the planning board.
City Councillor Giovanni Recupero [1:38:15] Okay, thank you board member.
Board member [1:38:17] Thank you.
2026-23: 471 Washington Avenue (two-family to three-family)
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:38:19] Next case in front of us. 2026-23, 471 Washington Ave., 469 Washington Ave. LLC,
Unidentified speaker [1:38:26] Hector. for special permit and variance seeking approval for the conversion of a ZBA approved residential project from a two family structure to a three family structure which does not meet the minimum requirements for lot area and off street parking. He can’t, he’s, he’s. Anybody here on this?
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:38:46] Yeah, Hector might just be outside. He was here earlier also. Does anyone need interpretation or translations from services anymore? No.
Unidentified speaker [1:38:54] All right.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:38:56] So yeah, they’re just grabbing.
Board member [1:39:13] Hello.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:39:15] So I was just recapping this, what you’re looking for. We will not be deciding this today because it will go to the planning board on the 27th of October and you come back here on November 10th. Could you please introduce yourselves and your project to us?
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:39:32] Good evening, board members. Thank you. Hector Prieto, [address removed]. I am the petitioner and the owner of 469 Washington Ave. LLC. We recently completed phase one and now working on phase two of this construction.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:39:54] Yeah, I have your plan set up, Hector. If you want me to go through,
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:39:58] if you want to walk with it, you can just go pick up that microphone and walk over there. If you want to point, it’s up to you.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:40:04] Okay, yeah, perfect. Thank you. Should I explain the use variance?
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:40:10] We don’t know anything. We know nothing about your project other than what we’ve read.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:40:14] Yeah, I mean, feel free to share your proposal and I can try to add some more context on like.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:40:19] All right, thank you.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:40:19] Side of things. Unless you want to go for it.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:40:22] Yeah, no. Perfect. Thank you.
Board member [1:40:23] Yeah.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:40:23] So we’re here today. What we have there now is. That’s actually phase one. Actually I’ll hand out images of phase two that’s under construction.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:40:36] Do you have those Will the pictures that he’s now.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:40:39] Okay, yeah, no, so just make sure you send those.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:40:42] So you do have them that was submitted with the packet. Okay, I’ll still pass them on.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:41:12] So this is phase one or this is phase two?
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:41:14] That is phase two.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:41:15] So you’ve already started?
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:41:17] Yes, we have permits for this.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:41:20] Are they properly building this?
Unidentified speaker [1:41:22] Yeah.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:41:23] They. This came in, I think in 2024, I believe.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:41:27] Yes. So this is 2024-16 was the original zoning board case that was approved. So what happened was we subdivided the land and we had a right to build a two family structure, three levels. Basement is just storage at the moment. So that’s what you see in now in that. Those pictures, which I believe it’s.
Unidentified speaker [1:41:52] Yeah.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:41:52] Which is what you’ll see in the pictures there of the active construction site. And we have our building permits, which is currently working on it now. So we’re here today and we are respectfully requesting residential use variance. We’re trying to convert this existing two family, three story dwelling into a three residential dwelling building. What we intend to do is take the existing space, which is the third floor, and convert it into the additional unit. There will be no changes to the exterior, no changes to the height, no changes to parking, no changes to open Space. Everything’s going to stay exactly the same. All we intend to do is just move a wall, put a door and put a kitchen.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:42:39] So now, so you now have two units. Is the sec. Second and third floor represent one unit.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:42:47] Correct.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:42:48] So you want to now have each unit be one floor.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:42:50] Correct. So the second floor, second and third floor is part of the unit number two. And the first floor in the basement is part of unit number one.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:42:59] So what do you want now?
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:43:00] So right now we’re asking to take the third level and make it its own independent unit.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:43:05] So one would still be basement in one.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:43:07] Correct.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:43:08] Then the second floor would be its own.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:43:10] Correct.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:43:11] And the third floor.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:43:11] Yeah, and I can actually pinpoint that in the plans. If you could just scroll up, please, just to the floor plans. Thank you. So here’s the first floor unit which is connected to the basement. So it’s a family room, mechanical room, storage bathroom. This is the first floor unit. This is going to be the second floor unit. So we’re just putting up a wall here.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:43:47] How many bedrooms on the second floor unit?
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:43:49] So they all have two bedrooms. And then the first floor has a two storage. So there’s also no changes to the bedroom count or bathroom. So everything’s staying exactly how it was approved originally. Here’s where the wall is going to be going up and we’re just adding this kitchen.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:44:08] So everything else is the same except you’re basically making one rather than one large unit making two smaller units.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:44:14] Correct?
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:44:18] Yeah. I can jump in and just add that Hector had mentioned a residential use variance. And so this is in our R1 district, which means only single and two family homes are allowed. We treat, you know, one or two units as a use. But now the state made changes to the zoning act and updated regulations, basically allowing for residential use variances to be heard by zoning boards and planning boards. So he’s trying to. He’s proposing a three unit structure now, which is not allowed in our zoning code. Yeah, before the state made these changes, this was just not allowed. You could not even get before a board. But now with the state’s efforts to allow for more housing production, make things a bit easier in that sense, they now the state requires us to allow a pathway for projects like this one that Hector’s proposing to build a three family in our R1 to come before the board and be heard. So that’s why it’s a bit unique. Like the board has never granted a use variance before, but again, for something like this is a three family in our residential one area. We do see three family structures throughout Prattville and other areas of R1, but just wanted to add that.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:45:40] Yeah, thank you. And what we intended to do was just keep everything exactly the same as it was approved. It’s all going to be just adding
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:45:48] an extra kitchen besides this.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:45:51] Extra kitchen.
Unidentified speaker [1:45:51] That’s it.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:45:52] Yeah.
Board member [1:45:52] And a door.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:45:52] I mean, so.
Board member [1:45:53] All right.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:45:54] Correct.
Unidentified speaker [1:45:54] Yeah.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:45:54] And because of this change, we have our parking. Yeah, yes, parking changes because usually it’s two spaces per unit in a single or two family, which I believe you were meeting. You had four spaces, correct?
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:46:09] Correct. Yeah, I have four spaces. Right now I’m required to have five spaces.
William Cecio, city planning staff [1:46:12] Right? Yeah. So now because it’s a three, he’s proposing a three unit structure. It’s one and a half spaces per unit, which is five. So. Yeah. So just some. Are you adding parts there?
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:46:25] I don’t have space to add an extra part of space. What I did add was a little bit more open space the before.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:46:32] You understand that if. But if that’s the case, then you can’t get a permit for any.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:46:36] Correct. And I believe that was already on the original conditions in our decision letter that we received originally.
Unidentified speaker [1:46:42] So.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:46:45] Questions. Anybody here to speak on this? There being none, I am not closing the public participation part of this because you have to a planning board in two weeks and then back here in a month.
Board member [1:46:57] Okay.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:46:57] Okay. October 10th.
Board member [1:46:59] Oh, I’m sorry, I live up the street from that building. We’ve been wondering when the house is going to be occupied. It looks great, by the way.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:47:07] Yeah, thank you.
Board member [1:47:08] Yeah, no, it looks beautiful. It’s really a nice. You guys really. You know, I know it’s been going on for a long time and it looks fantastic.
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:47:17] Yeah, no, thank you. We had some setbacks, but I mean, I’m born and raised in the city so I take pride in, you know, what we build there. So thank you for saying that.
Board member [1:47:24] I love it.
Unidentified speaker [1:47:26] Thank you.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:47:27] Okay, we’ll see you next time.
2025-11: 816-818 Broadway (affordable units modification)
Petitioner Hector Prieto [1:47:29] All right, thank you.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:47:30] Okay. The next case is something. Now that it’s a modification and you will recall that we’ve done something very similar on this recently. So I think, remember, think about being consistent. 2025-11, 816-818 Broadway, Treetop Investments LLC, requesting a modification of the decision to implement amend the inclusionary housing requirement for the approved 12 unit residential structure. The original decision included two inclusionary units, one at 30 percent AMI and one at 50 percent AMI. The modification request reduced the number of inclusionary units to one at 80 percent AMI matching the new inclusionary housing requirements recently adopted by city council. We had a couple of these in front of us last month. We recognized or felt that these were. It was considered a minor modification based on the changes proposed by the city council. So given that, do we believe this is a minor modification? Do we have a recommendation that this be a minor modification?
Board member [1:48:31] I think it’s a minor modification. I mean, it’s consistent. I think when we did last month and last couple of months, it’s not changing.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:48:41] It’s consistent with what we.
Board member [1:48:42] Consistent? Yeah. It’s not reducing the units. Right. It’s just. It’s a matter of the pricing of the units and. Right. So.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:48:50] And the city council made changes that we’ve now been asked to recognize, and we recognized it earlier as a minor modification. So.
Board member [1:48:58] Yeah, I recommend a minor modification.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:49:01] We have a second.
Board member [1:49:02] Second.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:49:03] All in favor?
Unidentified speaker [1:49:04] Aye.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:49:05] Minor modification.
Adjournment
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:49:05] Do we have a motion to adjourn?
Board member [1:49:09] Motion to adjourn.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:49:11] Second.
Board member [1:49:12] Second.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:49:13] You can only do one, Marilyn.
Board member [1:49:16] Second.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:49:17] We’re all in favor.
Unidentified speaker [1:49:18] Aye.
Chair Janice Tatarka [1:49:18] Aye.
Unidentified speaker [1:49:19] Thank you, guys.