Boston Zoning Board of Appeals Approves Modest Residential Expansions, Prioritizes Family Needs

During the latest Boston Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, attention was given to residential expansion projects aimed at accommodating growing family needs. Notably, the board approved plans for both 20 Flavia Street and Cedrus Avenue.

The most prominent discussion centered around the expansion proposal for a property on Flavia Street. The project, presented by architect David Freed, involves a modest addition to the rear of a family home to create more functional space, including a mudroom, laundry, and expanded kitchen, as well as an office alcove and owner’s suite on the second floor. Despite some zoning violations, such as the side yard violation due to the alignment of the addition with the existing house façade and a slight excess in floor area ratio, the proposal received support from the Pope’s Hill Civic Association and did not face opposition from community members. The board, acknowledging the absence of public dissent and the project’s modest nature, approved the application.

Similarly, the 58 Cedrus Avenue proposal aimed to convert a single-family home into a two-family dwelling following a fire that displaced the homeowner and his family. The applicant emphasized the need to accommodate his family and care for his mother suffering from dementia. The requested zoning variances, including slight excesses in floor area ratio and lot area, were deemed minor, and the project garnered community support, resulting in board approval.

The meeting also addressed a proposal for a property on Packard Avenue, where the applicant sought to add Dormer windows to a third-floor space to enhance usability for a multi-generational family. This proposal also received no opposition during the community process and was supported by the local civic association, leading to its approval by the board.

In contrast, the case for 43 to 45 Wood Avenue was deferred due to inaccuracies in the presented plans. The applicant requested additional time to correct these discrepancies, with the board agreeing to revisit the case at a subcommittee hearing in January.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

Trending meetings
across the country: