##VIDEO ID:CLkxf2cRCFw## e e e e e e e pres pres mza present thank you the floor is yours Mr [Music] s Mr okay you guys might be on two devices maybe I hear an echo hopefully not now there you go thank you ah okay yeah two two of me it's not necessary um we now R discussion scheduled for 11:30 a.m. uh we will remind folks as earlier we are a six member panel today with that I we will ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this to yes Mr secretary uh 44 I'm sorry 46 High Street number two on the 11:30 so that would be case boa 159 9326 with the address of 46 High Street you can go ahead and identify yourself4 yes sir uh uh good good morning Madam chair members of the board attorney Nick suula mcder Quil Miller Andy here asking for defer one administratively for a full board uh but to um just to provide some more time for the uh developer and the appellant to uh work out some details with the abutters on a memorandum of understanding uh being holidays things are a little tight with time to review we want to be respectful of their ability to review uh some of the documents and it just you know we it's just too tight um and we want to uh so asking for administrative deferral but also uh time to to review that with them as well so uh I did hear here uh previously attorney uh burkard was uh mentioning certain dates any of those dates would work January 28th February uh Forest whatever is available will'll be great thank you Caroline just to confirm what's available we have January 28th February 4th and February 25th okay and you said any of those so yeah I take a motion motion to defer to January 28th second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss weo yes Miss B Braza yes chair votes yes motion carries you then thank you um Mr secretary yes uh Kyle Smith here on behalf of the owner for 13 windship Street last one at the 130 I mean so that would be for case boa 164 316 with the address of 13 windship Street go ahead and explain please yes uh and thank you madam board uh this is our second time requesting an extension uh we presented twice before the Bia in the first meeting there had been requested requested uh changes to the scope of the project which we were able to implement uh at the conclusion of the second meeting when we had the vote of non- opposition of the daia back in early October we submitted updated plans to ISD ISD for reasons I can't explain has not been able to turn around timely a updated refusal letter which we only just received as of yesterday um the ba requested a couple things one specifically was the additional presence of off street parking which we were able to accommodate it has to be accessed across another parcel commonly owned by the current owner of 13 windship so we're able to accommodate uh those things needed to obtain community and Bia support knowing that they would trigger other zoning violations uh and that zoning refusal letter was only provided by ISD as of yesterday uh Stephanie Haynes the schedu for you has requested that we defer just so that we can perfect notice with the updated violations but again the ba and Community approval that we have or non opposition was contingent upon these things um being implemented in the plans as we have provided to zba so we are needing an extension only to help ISD in their delay in getting to us updated refusal letter um and we would be looking to speak before you as rapidly as possible thank you with that uh are there Caroline what are the dates again we could do February 4th February 25th or March 11 and I guess only the delay was due to ISD review February is now 2 months 3 months out is there any conceivable way of getting on the schedule before then unfortunately February 4th is the earliest available date so with that I'm going to ask for a motion motion to defer to February 4th 2025 is there a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes yes Mr langum yes Miss weo yes Miss B brazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you are there any further requests for withdrawals of the from 11:30 yes Mr secretary thank you sir I have two uh 165d Street and 81 Lexington we'll start with case boa 157 5584 with the address of 81 Lexington Street um let's start then we'll move on to the next go ahead uh good morning Madam chair members of the board my name is James Christopher 666 Architects with the business address 10 fls Road uh seeking a deferral at this time uh the plans have been filed uh with more than adequate time at ISD um we've been reached out several times the plan examined with no response uh we are still waiting those plans um so we would request a brief referral so that we may uh receive the new letter so carine February 4th is the next available yes may I have a motion motion motion to February 4 motion to defer to February 4th is there a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr Langham yes Miss weo yes Miss B brazza yes chair votes yes motion carries then 165 d which is casee BOA 16569 with the address of 165 D Street go ahead please uh thank you Mr secretary M chair members of the board James Christopher 686 architex with the business address 10 fors Road and bra onf um this project was before you last Tuesday there was a scribers error on my drawings I've since revised that I sent the plans into the zba uh and um Stephanie ha requested that uh secret referral so that the plans examiner May uh review the plan there's been no change to it but uh that uh that's the request of the uh zba okay and are we still at February 4th Stephanie I mean um Caroline yes okay may I have a motion motion to until Fe February 4th may have a second second Mr St yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss weell yes Miss B brazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you very much Mr Melton also requesting a deferral uh yes uh Madam chair uh Andrew Melton Melton for a uh Architects uh we'd like to request uh this is our second deferral um and basically we what we just need the property for now uh 36 acon Street Boston okay the secret okay secretary's number you can read that into the record first that would be for9 1 933 with the address of 36 aant Street uh go ahead and explain uh yes the reason for the extension is uh so that we can have a a second meeting with the Roxberry neighborhood Council which was requested by them just uh last Friday so we want to respect uh you know their their input and their wishes so that's the reason for the extension uh and what dates do we have now Caroline we have February 4th February 25th and March 11th Mr 4 would be fine that would be great may I have a motion motion to defer to February the 4th have a second second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss weo yes Miss B brazo yes shair votes yes the motion carries thank you madam chair have a good uh holiday thank you you too thanks byebye further request for withdrawal of the F from this time FR if not then we [Music] will um dley I think is [Music] what's I'm sorry mam chair oh I just said 27 Dudley seems to be the next one oh um Madam J we also have 125 beats oh 125 beat sorry yes that's okay uh so skip down to case boa 163 3160 with the address of 125b street if the applicant Endor the representative of President would they please explain the case to the board good morning my name is Robin Lor um can everyone hear me okay yes ma'am so the purpose of um this meeting is um dish Wireless is looking to install in an antenna facility um a total of nine antennas on the rooftop of uh 125b Street the um per the zoning there was a violation due to the setback required from the roof not met um the purpose of the install for um the setback was Judah there is a agreement with American Tower who owns an easement on the rooftop that um would only allow us to go on a certain location which would be above the penthouse where T-Mobile is currently located uh if you want to scroll down a little you could be see it a little better on the rooftop view um keep going down there you go you can see uh go up right so on to the right where that Penthouse is um that is where dish Wireless is looking to install um the antennas which will be concealed to um match with the brick around the current area other questions from the board hearing none can I have public testimony Madam chair members of the board sigy Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services this petitioner has completed the community process our office hosted an a Butter's meeting on the 9th of September at which concerns were raised regarding the visibility of the antenna installation as well as the proposed height of the structure there's also concern about whether the installation would emit anything that would affect quality of light such as noise light or result in other community impacts concern were also raised relating to the context of the structure in a residential block with the park of UTS felt a more a more commercial area would be appropriate for this proposal the St Vincent's lower end neighborhood association uh had a presentation from the petitioner and many of the same concerns were raised ultimately they did not take a position that group did not take a position on the proposal and with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you thank you Miss Gamin thank you madam chair my name is Sydney from councelor Flynn's office councelor Flynn sent an opposition letter to the board this morning as well as an email to ISD seeking clarification for the Neighbors on the zoning violations due to their concerns on lack of anything related to changes of roof structure or height councelor Flynn would like to join both his neighbors and the St Vincent's lower and neighborhood association and go on record in opposition to a lack of community process a disregard for neighbors's concerns as well as no follow up on information requested by our office and the local Civic group from the meeting on community process Neighbors in the area were reportedly unaware of The Proposal until a meeting had to be requested by the St Vincent's lower end neighborhood association at that meeting nearby families with young children expressed concerns by the proximity of the cell tower and any radiation to their homes and children as well as flarity playground across the street these concerns from parents of the newborn children the civic association and the counselor's office were often talked over by the proponent in a manner that was not respectful to the community many residents expressed concern that if studies show in the future that this proximity was harmful it would be too late for their families unfortunately these neighbors left the meeting feeling their concerns were not addressed seriously and dismissed out of hand at that meeting the counselor's office and Civic group asked for information on any other potential locations that were considered that may satisfy concerns on proximity to Residents and young families with newborns however that information was never provided for these reasons the councelor continues to join his neighbors in St Vincent in opposition to a community process that was lacking and overall public safety concerns thank you thank you I have two additional raised hands Madam chair Christopher hi uh good morning Madam chair members of the board my name is Christopher flarity uh I live directly across the street from the proposed the from The Proposal at 125b Street um uh first off I'd just like to uh just a correct Siggy from Neighborhood Services St Vincent did take a stance on this and were and was opposed to this proposal um I think Council of Flynn's office noted that um so so first and foremost um I'm personally very concerned uh surrounding like the unknown Health potential Health has is associated with uh the Expos to the cell I have three small children uh several of my neighbors we all have young families with with with small children and uh so we all share that the same concern surrounding it I just feel like the cell phone it should I don't think it should be you know suggestions with me I don't think it should be in residential district where you know I have to put my head down on the pillow at night on the third floor and approximately 50 ft away you know there's there's going to be nine new cell phone towers um that's very concerning to me me um I just don't think it's a net positive addition to the neighborhood um it's not residential it doesn't help with the housing crisis um and the and then and then secondly um I I believe that it appears that a few of the violations were missed by ISD um article 68 Section 8 maximum allowed building building height this building is an old schoolhouse it currently stands at 62 feet tall at the at the the roof line of the of the penthouse um I'm not sure um that the the proponent spoke to the additional height or how how tall the building is going to be to the board that was a very uh Bri brief presentation but um if I may I think they're going to add roughly eight or nine ft to the penthouse bringing this building up to approximately 70 ft um there is many questions have Arisen surrounding like Shadows being cast on the playground and shadows cast on on NE neighbors homes um which you know which weren't really addressed that's kind of that's that sort of um is what led to the the sentiment of frustration from the neighborhood and lack of transparency lack of communication um this proponent went before the board on December U excuse me November 19th asked to get back before the board now now today on December 3rd last week was Thanksgiving a lot of conversations need to be had about this and I just want to implore upon the the board that um you know I think that there is a couple violations that were Miss by ISD uh again um overall height of the maximum Building height is going down to 70 ft almost a highrise um and then secondly roof structure you know we've had neighbors that have tried to put a dormer shed two and a half story wood frame single family try to add a warmer shed to their building and and have have got had gone through lengthy lengthy process with roof structure violations and overall height and and this project wants to go from you know an additional 10 ft on on top of a 62t structure so um thank you very much I appreciate your time consideration thank you [Music] again Jake [Music] hello everyone um Jake kachalia uh another Resident of the neighborhood I live on B Street just around the corner from The Proposal uh wanted to Echo the sentiment that Chris shared um I think there's uh I was one of those that that went through the zoning process for a shed roof and it and it's striking how that uh roof violation on this project was not flagged so um I have concerns about that I have concerns about the other implications for the community it doesn't seem that this has any public benefit for the residents of the neighborhood just wanted to share that I'm in opposition thank you thank you um I don't see any additional raise hands Madam chair thank you can the applicant speak to some of the concerns that have been raised uh visibility uh from the street uh Health any health implications roof structure and height violation so I will speak to um the roof um violation um and then I have Donald hay who's on here who is a specialist who's going who did a um em study to uh an additional one which I had told them at the meeting that they that would we would um do an additional study just to show them the concerns of the our frequencies so as far as the roof height um we did send this back to ISD there is no violation um P the ordinance 86.6 for rooftop mounted antenna the height of the building anything more than 45 ft the maximum height of antenna can be 20 ft or 20% of the building height whichever is greater and that is not the case here and then as far as um the they will not be able to see the antennas from the the ground it will be concealed over the penthouse to match the brick that surrounds the building and I will um ask if we can have Don speak Donald Hayes um on behalf of the em in our frequencies okay uh good morning can everybody hear me okay yes sir thank you very much uh so my name is Donald Hayes h a uh I do not work for dish or any of the parties here uh I am an independent consultant uh I am registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to provide services relative to nonionizing radiation and I can forward my certificate if that's what you are looking for uh for this particular installation a uh an evaluation was done by a company known as Fox Hill Telecom uh what this evaluation did was to use the guidance by the Federal Communication Commission the FCC uh and it's um uh uh sister organization if you will the office of engineering and technology in bulletin number 65 uh all of that that information was used to prepare what's known as theoretical predictions of what the maximum potential RF exposure could be from a facility like this uh at this location if it were to be built uh this particular um uh report is 42 pages in length uh it's very detailed uh I did look at this uh in a extreme detail uh from my area of expertise by the way I've been performing consulting services in the field of nonionizing radiation uh since 1988 when I was working at MIT uh anyway if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the uh uh report and in the conclusions uh we will find that there is not a potential for any member of the public to receive an exposure in excess of both the Federal Communications commissions uh exposure limits for members of the public which is 24/7 but also the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health regulations uh through uh uh 105 CMR 122 uh and I would be happy to answer any questions or go through my CV if that's what you would like to thank you are there questions from the board I I do um I noticed in the drawings um on drawing 17 of 25 of the CD submission for the project uh there are some warning signs um you know the blue the yellow and the and the orange that exceed um the FCC occupation exposure limit are those but I couldn't find the locations of those warning signs oh those are located on top of the rooftop and those are basically if you're standing directly in front of the antenna those are for basically anyone on the roof that is working on the antennas or working on the roof and those are um mandatory for regulations to have those signs so they they are literally on the equipment um those signes are equipment nope they would be um on the out like so if they're if they um it actually will tell you it should tell you in the notes where each sign is to be located it's not on the equipment it would be um either on the ground level or um outside of where the antenna is located right so how do how does anyone so it it um so it would I see that no public can have access to it but to to maintain the roof how did the general public know that you have to contact the the dish um to access the roof how is that how is that kind of um warant they would contact to the roof because just doesn't own the roof so I don't know if you're understanding your cor say it again are you asking if U so how does a general uh contractor that needs to repair the roof the rubber membrane of the roof um how how are they warned not to come in close proximity to the equipment so it there through those signs they can clearly see the signs they would be on the outside of the equipment where anyone can see it so it's basically for if you're standing directly in front of the antenna which you shouldn't do anyways but um it's basically for that purpose yeah so that I mean that would just be my concern that um you know how how how are just and there's already signs up there because um T-Mobile has um antennas up there already okay so are there any kind of regulations that the building owner needs to abide by with no okay I don't have any further questions thank you other questions from the board hearing none is there a motion mam should I make a motion of uh approval with r from the planning department special attention to uh ensuring that there is no visibility of the antenna from the street is there a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss weell yes Miss B brazza no chair votes yes the motion carries next case has been deferred which takes us to case boa 155 2298 with the address of 27 Dudley Street if the applicant and who their representative is present would they please explain the case to the board uh thank you very much Cameron Merill on behalf of the applicant business address 100 State Street Boston Massachusetts uh this this is a matter which comes before the board uh in connection with the 2019 case where this property was approved to be converted to a sixun building within the sixun building is a uh larger unit which was on two levels and it was determined that the best operation of this building and in conjunction with the goals to provide more housing within the city was to split that unit into a new unit uh which is 452 and a new unit which is 760t as opposed to the one existing unit um the layout is somewhat unique in that back section of this building uh there was a request by ISD to provide a clarification letter uh which is now on your screen uh that was provided in early October and has been or excuse me September uh and has now been reviewed um which to clarify some of the concerns uh and questions raised uh architect Peter vano is on this call as well and he can help explain some of the issues if the board has further questions uh but effectively this is a split of one unit only exterior changes uh to provide uh an additional Studio unit within this building are there questions from the board hearing none can I have public testimony yes Madam chair members of the board Conor Newman with the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services this time the mayor's offic to defer to the judge of of this board on had conducting a Butters meeting um there were several of Butters who attended um two abutters uh vocalized their support for the proposal uh citing that the applicant were great neighbors uh that kept their word and were impeccably clean and neat with the property um the applicant went on to meet with the Highland Park uh neighborhood association which voted to approve the proposal um but wanted uh the studio that was created to be rented at 80% Ami um um for for to be income restricted um with that will defer to the Judgment of this board thank you thank you I see no raiseed hands Madam chair with that may I have a motion are there additional question questions or is there can someone make a motion Madam chair um uh I did not see the plans under the submissions so if someone has seen them that would be great but I did not see them in my scent from Stephanie those were missing we just received them this morning okay so then I'm going to put a motion to defer so that we can have the opportunity to review those plans I'm not I'm not sure it necessarily matters um but when they in terms of being received that was received from ISD we had submitted them in September um just for clarification I know we've had to defer you a couple of times already yeah if if if uh if Stephanie can speak on that but I I cannot provide a motion without reviewing the that's fine I I just wanted to be clear thank you yep okay so I'm sorry that I was I was uh quiet but I I wanted to make sure that I I didn't miss something versus my colleague so I'm glad that you confirmed that we just got them this morning so I want to put forward the motion to defer until we have the opportunity to do those inad of drawings Caroline are we what what are the dates Ava now um since we have everything January 14th okay may I have a motion um I would like to make a motion to defer to January 14th so that we can review the plans for the project I have a second second Mr sunbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Mr Langham yes Miss R yes Miss B brazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries and it looks like we have to wait until 1:00 for the interpretation so I will see you then recording stopped