The most notable case involved the Chavez family’s project on Bruce Street, requiring rear yard setback and building height relief for the expansion of their two-family building. Architect Allenson Estes presented the project, which interestingly proposed a rear yard setback reduction despite the expansion. With the St. Mark’s Civic Association’s support and no questions from the board, the project was approved promptly.

Another proposal that caught attention was the conversion of a single-family house into a two-family dwelling on Dorchester Avenue. The applicant, identified as Victoria, planned to add a bathroom and expand an existing dormer to facilitate this change. The Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services noted community support, including backing from the Lower Mill Civic Association, leading to the board’s approval of the motion.

Further discussions centered around a property on Brayburn Road, which had previously been in legal occupancy limbo. The proposal aimed to legalize the building as a two-family dwelling, with the property having been taxed as such since 2012. The application, supported by the Park Neighborhood Association and the Civic, raised no issues with the board, resulting in another approval.

The board also addressed a two-family house in a single-family zone on Metropolitan Avenue, where the proposal sought to expand the second unit into the attic. Although the project required no dimensional zoning changes, board approval was still necessary due to the attic expansion. Community support confirmed by the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services led to a smooth approval.

An additional case that garnered attention was a request to erect a rear addition to a one-family dwelling, aiming to provide space for the applicant’s expanding family, including their mother. While the High Park Neighborhood Association opposed the project citing incomplete information and concerns over the lot’s size, the Inspectional Services Department clarified the property’s current usage as a one-family dwelling, with no issues related to the accessory dwelling unit (Adu) in the basement. The board navigated through public testimony and concerns, eventually seeking further clarification on the rear extension and the Adu’s purpose.

In a similar vein, other cases discussed included projects that involved adding extensions or alterations to properties with the intention of creating additional living space or functional improvements, such as staircases and porches. A notable debate over tree location on a property prompted the board to conditionally approve a motion while ensuring that the Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) would address the tree issue.

Additionally, a rear two-story addition to a single-family home, intended to facilitate aging in place, was presented with no opposition. The board also approved a proposal for the construction of a rear staircase and the extension of a second level of a home, both aimed at improving the living conditions of the residents. Concerns from a neighbor regarding a porch reconstruction, potentially affecting sunlight and flooding, were noted, yet the board approved the motion.

Lastly, the board considered the 340 B Street conversion project to convert a two-family building into two new units with a second-floor addition. Despite one letter of opposition and a potential deferral due to unreviewed updated plans, the board approved the project, along with other cases involving extensions and reconfigurations of properties.