Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

single family residents. The plan I'm presenting tonight does not create a new type of zoning violation. Instead, the addition of this is designed to follow the existing structural line of the house. I'm not asking to move closer to my neighbors than I already am. I'm simply asking to extend the current building line toward the wheel of my property by lining up the addition with the existing house. I'm maintaining the established archal right of the property forcing the addition to step and would create an irregular shape that does not fit the character of the suite. This addition will not create new issue with drainage, light or air for my neighbors because I'm following the existing footprint orientation. The impact of the surround surrounding losses stay on change. I have spoken to my neighbors. They understand that I'm keeping the addition on in line with the house. They have lived next four years and they have expressed not concern or opposition to this layout. This project it's not substantially more than the documental to the neighbor neighborhood. Mr. Sherman and members of the board, thank you for your understanding. And I have some letters the neighborhood signed for me. I don't know if you want it. We do.

Thank you.

Yes. Ma'am, what year did you say your house was built? 1946. It's a raised ranch, correct? Yes. I didn't catch the year. What was it? 1946. 1946. 46. Yeah. Yeah. That's why I asked. It's a raised ranch. That's why it was that. No, I don't even remember. I agree. Well, she's talking about non-conforming use. That's why in 1946 it doesn't the type of house in in that early. Doesn't early to mid60s for a raise ranch. Yeah,

there might have been another house there before. So all of these letters that you have submitted are in support of the addition. Yes. So if I understand correctly, you're now not asking for a variance. It's a variance. You know, I don't really know how to explain that, but it's a variance. It's little. Are you are you asking for a variance for the side yet set back? Yeah, it's going to be on the back side. In the back side? Yeah,

because you had said in your statement that you were looking for something else, not a variance. It's a variance. You are looking for a variance. I don't think she needs a variance. Okay. She is going to be in basically the same alignment as the original house. The same ones. And the rear yard setback on the plan here shows 43 ft. We need 30 ft. We have more than enough in the back. Is it? Yes, it's more than It's more than 30 on the back.

Okay. On the zoning relief for this addition, are you specifically asking for relief from the sideyard setback? Other words, it's too close to the property line. It's closed on the side, not on the back. Not on the back. That's correct. Yes. So, all you're asking for tonight, what I see here is relief for the sideyard setback. Yeah. So, just to clarify, Mr. Chair, the relief is going to be in the the request for relief is in the form of the rear corner setback, right?

On both sides, correct? Um, I think so. I didn't get back there, but it looks like that was the case. Yes. And when did the building when did the building start, ma'am? Because it's half constructed at this point, right? When the building start partially constructed, did did that begin? Obviously, you didn't know you needed a you had to decide. Yeah. A corner setback issue. How long has that structure been up that's connected to your house now?

Um, but before I went to the city, they told me I need 15 each side, but I don't have 15 each side. Okay. But I just follow the line of the house. Is this is the problem. Okay. So this construction that I saw when I went down there that already has a building permit.

I I pulled the I asked for the permit but it was cancelled after 3 days. I didn't know it was cancelled when I asked it. It was on when I go to the city. It was on 24. It was on July 3rd 20, 2024. I I I asked I I applied for their permit but it was cancel. So after that after 3 days when I called someone said uh you keep you walking but you don't call the city to come but I didn't know if I have to call them all the time. When I called the city said your permit was cancelled. I said I didn't know that. They said they sent me they said check your email and then they said the permit was cancelled after 3 days but that time I was happy and then go to the bank to bank find the money but I didn't check my email.

So you today do not have a building permit for this structure the 2024 when it was uh denied applied for the permit. Yes. Have you been granted a permit for this building? No, it was canled after 3 days after I applied. Okay. So the reason I asked that is all the construction that I see down there has not most likely not even been inspected. The foundation has not been inspected. What has been cancelled? I called Yeah, I called. When I called, they said no because the permit was cancelled. What was canled? They said the permit was cancelled when I called them for the inspection.

Okay. I'm going to ask the building inspector just to clarify because the question is at this point today for all the construction that we've seen down there, do you possess a building permit to do what you're doing and I think you're saying you don't have one? No. Before I know now I have everything. I sent everything because they said I need more detail. Okay. Let's hear what you have to say. One.

Yeah, Mr. Chair. So, um the um building app permit application was in July of 2024. It was uh declined by me for lack of uh information which uh it needed a certified plot plan. Um and uh there was no um I I had asked if she was going to respond um you know please respond to this email if you intend to pursue the permit and then after a certain amount of time the permit would just be declined for lack of uh response. So there's been no uh correspondence on this since uh 7:25 of 24. Okay. Is it possible for the zoning board to grant this with the stipulation that she must get a building permit with all the inspections and everything that goes with it?

Is that an option? It would be required. Yes. All right. So, at this point, we see what we see when we went down there. And right now, there is no building permit that has been granted. So, you can't do another thing on that piece of property until you get a building permit. Okay. That's you agree with that? Yeah. Okay. All right. So, as far as zoning is concerned, it appears that the only zoning issue you have here is sideyard setback, and that's what you're here for tonight. Yeah. Is that correct? Yes.

Okay. All right. Board members, any questions? Quick question. Um, so according to the property record, it says the house was built in 1966. Does that sound a little more Does that sound a little more accurate? 66. You're right. Okay. Did you say 1966?

66. So that would make the property record. Yeah. All right. Any other questions from the board? So before I open this up for public discussion, I would think that what you're going to probably hear from the board if this is granted is that you will have to conform to all building department rules and regulations before you can continue to do anything down there. So if this is granted, there'll probably be a stipulation that that must be done. You understand that? If if it's granted. Okay. I'm going to close that portion of hearing, open it up now for public discussion. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor?

I look behind you. Sure. Come on right up to the podium. Please give your name and address. Sure. Suzanne Price, 1112 A. I'm behind them. All I like I don't mind them building, but the yard is so bad that we've had problems with critters and I like to have it cleaned up. It's eyesore to the neighborhood. Everybody else's yard is clean, but this is like I see I'm right there. I get to see I have an animal. I have a dog and she's always going to the fence and barking and everything. I just want it cleaned up. It's a real mess back there. How long has this been going on down there?

Uh, two years. Really? Yes. Has this addition been up for about two years? I say so. Really? Okay. And the house was built mine was built in 1966. My house. I'm the I was the third on 12th Avenue to be built. My house. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Now, you you spoke in opposition, correct? I want something done in the backyard. I really want it cleaned up. I mean, it's a mess. It's It's a trash everywhere. It's It's It's eyes saw for me. Okay, I see what you're saying. So, you just want it cleaned up? I would. Yes. Before we have any more friends back there.

Okay. Thank you. What was your address again? Was it 11th 12th AB? I'm 1112. All right. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wants to speak in favor? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in opposition?

Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Is there any elected official in the room that wants to be heard on the issue? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone in the room that has a question relative to the testimony that has been given? Seeing none, I will close that portion of the hearing. That concludes the public discussion. I'll now open it up for board member discussion. Board members. Well, I think we have to make it clear that you can't just build anything you want without a building permit. I think that's I'm not against the relief, but you know, you can't just you can't just build without a permit. So, you know, that being said, I'm not against the relief. I think it's re I think if even if it was before us and it wasn't built, it would have been something we as a board we might consider. Um, I would be in favor of granting the relief. However, the claimant needs to know you can't you can't do that. That's my opinion. Is that understood?

Okay. I agree. I I just I mean we've run into these in the past. Puts us in a precarious position, right? Because now they've put all this money into a project. Um obviously the neighbor that came up and spoke is not opposed to the um to the situation of the building, more about the health hazard that's going on in the yard. Um we've uh we obviously have letters here that people that are not that are that are for it and they don't have a problem with it. But I think we we we we we we walk a very fine line when people do not um adhere by rules that are set forth by the city in the city ordinances and then they put this board in a precarious position where they've obviously put some money into it. Um you know, it's it's I feel like it's happened more and more as of late and it's becoming quite disconcerting.

I I think ultimately that you need to know that it could be ordered taken down. that's that important for for folks to understand about building. So that's my that's my opinion and I would second what the chief says. I don't know how everybody else feels.

Yeah, I I agree with everything you guys said and um the direct butter there on 12 uh 11th a uh we have a uh a letter here of approval and they're the ones mostly affected uh by this violation. So, um I'm disappointed they did as much building as they did. Um but I don't see much of an issue with what they're asking for. I am told that if there is a building permit that is granted that the conditions in the yard will be part of the building permit process. So that the concern that was expressed tonight that will be addressed.

Okay. I I don't disagree that it got to a point where it probably shouldn't. Uh but it's almost to a point where the board will say either you can continue to develop with permits or tear it down. That's kind of where we are with this thing. A motion to grant. Second. Okay. The motion has been made and seconded to grant. Will the clerk roll? Before we vote, do we have a stipulation that the yard will be cleaned also? I think that you just prefaceed and the permit just to clarify your question. I'm going to let the building inspector answer that question.

Mr. Chair, yes, as I mentioned uh on sidebar, um there is a provision in the zoning ordinance that um allows me to have discretion as to whether or not a propertyy's in violation. Uh whether that permit will be issued uh prior to that violation, I will use that. I'm making a note right now in citizen serve uh that uh a condition of the of the new building permit which by the way you will need a brand new building permit uh the application that you have is is expired um with the proper construction value which is not 20,000 it's more like 70 but in any case I will condition it right now and make sure that there's a note on citizen ser and the property will be cleaned up prior to any issuance of any building permits. So, I think on the motion with that explanation, I think it's important to realize this. If if a yay vote will put us in a position where we can get the yard cleaned up, the people can finish their addition, which will make the property have more value. A no vote, they'll have to tear it down. And there's nothing that says they have to clean up the potential health in the yard. And if we grant a special permit, not a variance, a special permit, there is a time frame that if it isn't cleaned up, the variance will lapse and they're in violation and then suffer the consequences.

Understood. All right. So, we got a motion to grant with the stipulation that the yard will be cleaned up. Is that it? Yes. Okay. Motion's made in second to grant. Will the clerk please call the role? Mr. Lannis? Yes. Chief Nardelli, yes. Mr. Sweeney, yes. Miss Greenberry, yes. Chair Gallagan, yes. Mr. Chair, that is five in the affirmative. The vote is five in the affirmative, none in the negative. The special permit is granted. Good luck

with the stipulations as discussed. And just to remind everyone before we leave the there were numerous letters in support that you all have relevant to that. All right. The next petition is 2602. A petition of Steven Tory re TY Real Estate LLC 33 Dover Street proto mass for a variance seeking relief from article 3 section 2713 section 2713A and section 2729 from frontage minimum lot area lacking front and rear setbacks to build a single family dwelling home on a vacant lot in an R1C zone located at 39 Mystic Okay, let's put that up first. Um, okay. Good evening, members of the board. Attorney John McCcluskey representing the petitioner Steven Tory. Ah, Azou, there you are. Uh, and with Azu, the engineer who developed the plan for this property. Um, this is a a unique property.

The main address is 39 Mystic, which is this single family home. Uh, okay. Uh so actually there are um two lots and this has been the subject of u buildable determination buildable lot determination in the past. This sort of an interesting history here. This is uh this roadway actually ex would extend all the way down here. It's called Sylvester Court. It's a private roadway. Mystic Street comes up to about here and the I believe the church owns this property, but there's a utility easement uh going into the into this area whereby um utilities have been used for this property. And I'm not quite sure if they were also used for this and the back which is also on Sylvester Court and fronts onto the other street which is Center Street. Um, this area is an easement area, but um, historically it's been used as access for probably over 50 years, if not more. So although this is a private area and technically this is the lot in question, by the way, right here, but we're looking for relief. Uh, so this was one lot that was separately taxed. This is a separate lot, separately taxed. And this lot actually uh includes Sylvester Court. So, where's that other plan? Oh, it's on the back. So, this house is right here,

and this is the lot in question. It's about 18,000 and change square feet. So, it's a significantly large lot. Um, Mystic Street ends right here. This is the easement area, but as you can see, uh, this is Mystic ending right here and the easement area. So, that's been over the years used. And I would respectfully suggest that there's adverse possession here in the sense that even though that's a private area and it's an easement um that it clearly uh could be used and considered uh the frontage for this property. Technically, this lot has no frontage because Mystic ends right here and this is privately owned property by the church, but the easement is right here. And that's how people come in. And this this driveway, roadway, if you will, has serviced this lot, which is part of the lot, and this house over many, many, many years. Back in the several years ago, I think attorney Nzarella as the assistant city solicitor indicated it was not a buildable lot even though it was a separate and distinct lot from from the house lot. So, we're looking to build a single family home. Probably could build an ADU there, but would like to build a more conventional home using this easement access area as our frontage. And uh we're looking for uh setbacks, relief because there is no frontage. Um but as a practical matter, this really is a a very usable lot. Has access from

Mystic and um conventionally meets typical uh setbacks. There's ample green area. Um, the hardship is that it's taxed separately. It's, I believe, taxed as a buildable lot, although I'm not going to I have I forgot to look at that tonight on the on the MLC. Um, but it is taxed separately. It's owned separately now from this lot. And, uh, it would have plenty of room. It's a large lot. It's obviously of unusual shape, size, soil conditions, and topography. There's a a greenhouse here that would be moved. There were two sheds here, one of which will be removed. The uh driveway will come in and parking will be here. Um, one of the sheds is going to be moved or removed,

relocated. Re relocated. And um so you know for the city of Brockton an 18,000 plus square foot lot um this seems to seems to work and uh certainly would have all of the hardship uh criteria under the statute. So I'd be open for questions. Now is this a a raised ranch? I'm sorry. Is this a raised ranch? Is it a No, I don't think it's a raised ranch. It's a It is a raised ranch. I'm sorry. Yep. And what's the square footage? Square footage of the home. Yes.

28. And the um the front door will be facing front door will be facing the the driveway area here be facing this this roadway. Be facing here. is Trey McCcluskey. Is is it actually deed as a separate lot? Yes, this is owned separately at this point. Yep. Mets and bounds. It was all owned in common ownership. Uh when Steve bought it, we divided it. So you guys separated it? Yeah, it was common ownership. Yeah. So it's clearly a separate lot at this point.

The reason I bring it up is because you mentioned an ADU. That's why I I was kind of This is a this is an odd situation. This is very unique uh kind of a property you could you know to have two uh lots in in common ownership with a roadway in the middle. Very unique and nobody else uses this. Who is who owns the who own who has rights to the easement? What is the ement?

Well, this this actually goes you can see goes all the way down here. somebody built in the in the in the uh court Sylvester court. It stops right here. Nothing happens after here. And in fact, I think you can see that because when you go to the because when you go to the property to look at it as I did, it almost looks like I'm driving into someone's driveway. It doesn't look like it's another road. it. Yeah, it's a it's a private court. Yep. That's why we don't have frontage cuz it's a private court. But it is separated. You guys separated that out through planning and everything?

It's separate. Dean it as a separate lot. So this this lot goes all the way over to here. So this this court is part of this lot. Yeah. But it is separate. It is separate. Absolutely separate. Y Yep. We did that after closing. We uh or maybe at closing we we divided the ownership. So with that street being a private court, is that what what you said? Are there any regulations with whoever else on that street or the other side may need to approve it or whatever the private entity may be? Well, I I think it's if I could go ahead correction

there it always was two separately deed lots. Steven Tor Steven Tori just identify yourself to the Steven Tori. It was two separately deeded lots when we bought it in common ownership and we de we it's deed in two separate names. That's the only difference now. It's they always were separate deeds, separate properties. Okay. Yeah. They've always been uh separately taxed. This has always had its own tax bill and this house has always had its own tax bill. Same owner show. Can you show again which way the house will be facing? Sorry, I'm sorry.

Which direction the house will be facing the front? The house will be facing the front of it will be here looking looking at that house. Okay. Okay. So, I guess back to my question about the private way. Say it again. I know you said it was two different deeds. I had asked with about the private way. So, so this house uh abuts the private way. It's not and and and this private way is part of this lot. So, this this lot has full access over the private way and owns the private way. Okay. All right.

And this house has deeded access over the private way. Does it own it? uh by the entirety or are there any other owners involved? No, just just Mr. Tori. Okay. Thank you. Well, and and his partner, his his business partner, but no other nearby property that we don't have on the on our paperwork here as Yeah. No, nobody else uses this. It, as you can see, the pavement ends right here. So, the the the way actually continues down there, but uh there was there's a house or something built in the middle of the way down here near Sen Street.

Just to Mr. Sweeny's point, I I understand what he's getting at because I have a sewage easement that goes through with my front lawn. I couldn't build my house on that. I wasn't allowed a permit on that. So, I think the concern is eventually if someone has rights to that easement that they can shut that down for whatever reason. They can't shut it down. They have the right They have the right to pass and repass over it. They could actually open it up. They could they can open up this area, but when you get down here, there's a house in the middle of it. So, they were allowed to build on it, unlike me.

So, they'd have to they'd have to, you know, go through the house. Can I just see that plan again? Yeah. So, so here's the entrance. Here's the private way. And you get down here on Center Street, there's a house right in the middle of it. So, as a practical matter, nothing's going to happen there. And and this area is um all grass. And nobody's come across that for a hundred years.

Any utilities from that house go through that at all? The utilities come in they come in here. Okay. So, are you saying it does come down the private way? Right. Yeah. Okay. So, the original deed that I researched, it appears as though there was one deed that described two lots with separate mets and bounds. Right. Right. There was a determination by the building inspector several years ago that the lot was unbuildable because of the alleged lack of access.

Correct. So, the only way that you can use this lot for any type of structure would be through zoning. is through zoning. Yes. Why you're here tonight? Because we don't have any frontage. That's correct. Yeah. So, the house has no frontage. Right. The other thing that you're looking for is a variance from front yard setback and rear yard setback. So, the rear yard setback requires 30 ft and you have 16 ft. The front yard setback requires 30 ft and you only have 12 feet.

And that's, you know, that's an interesting. So that's that's where this is an odd unusual shape, size, soil conditions. This is an odd situation because the 12 ft is from the house to the way. That's correct.

But the way is part of the lot. And and so, you know, you have to sort of look at this and say, well, wait a minute. What's what's reasonable here? Ah, do we do we say no, you just this is an 18,000 plus square foot lot, and uh it it it sets back 40ome feet here from the other lot, 70 something feet here, 16 feet here. And as you can see, there's really nothing. So the house would be in here. This is all open. So, you know, as a matter of So, you're right. So, the set rear setback is is short. We need a variance for that. But because of the unusual shape, size, soil conditions, and topography, it it's not a big deal as far as the actual practicality of placing a house on the lot. Well, I think the front yard setback has to have a beginning and an end. And the width of that right of way going in is what is creating the 12t setback from the house,

right? Uh but that's really a driveway. It's still the property line or the the dividing line because it is a right of way that apparently is accessible to both this lot and the the lot to the right of it right here. One right there. They both have access to that which by the way my client still owns this house in material. The point I want to make is we're talking 12 feet of setback and that 12 feet is created by the distance from the front of the house to the right of way out front. Yeah, that's where the 12 ft comes from.

But keep in mind that you know the 12T setback is it's such an unusual location, unusual spot that you drive down a street, typical street, and you say a 12oot setback. Well, that doesn't fit right. But here it does. It's it's it's a 12-oot setback. So, we need relief. And when you build that house, you're really not going to notice that. Oh, wow. That's a 12-oot setback. I'm offended by it when I drive by cuz nobody drives by and it's part of the lot on Mystic Street. Mystic Street is a public street.

Yes. Where does the end of the public street end in relation to this one? I believe it ends right here, which would be right here. So, when I went over and looked at this, there was a gate across the street. Uh, yes, the church put that up. That's correct. and East Side improvement had that also. Okay.

However, the question is for visual, is that gate the actual end of the public street of Mystic Street or does the public street end at the west side of the right of way? The public street actually ends right here. This is an easement into the church pro. So you're showing us on that map that the public street ends at the gate. Well, the gate the gate is actually here. Right here. This is the fence that forms the gates. But in reality, the actual layout stops right here.

Okay. So that answers the question that this lot has no frontage on any public street. Correct. Very good. So the hydrant that I saw over there is actually off the end of Mystic Street. is beyond the layout. Correct. It's in the utility easement. There you go. Got it. Utility easement. Um I got a quick question. So um I'm looking at the public records here and it's a what? Sylvest Court Terrace. Sylvester Court. And um it passes through Center Street, right? So the house there, the the abuing house is 420 Center Street. It looks like that. I mean, it looks to me like that house is actually built on the rightway.

Correct. Yeah, that's on the That's this house down here. Yeah, it's actually on It's right in the middle of Sylvester Core. It's built right on the uh right away. So, the rightway is kind of useless. I'm sorry. I mean, so so the rightway would be kind of useless. Yeah. I mean, you'd have to tear the house down to Right. Okay. And I'm guessing that that house would have rights in the way. Okay. And they've really enforced them by building a house in the way.

So for years this Sylvester Court ran from Center Street in. I'm not going to get in a discussion that tonight. We're stickly you're looking at the one from the north end of the property. So what we have established here is the lot has no frontage on any public street. You were asking for relief from front yard setback, rear yard setback and frontage. Square footage of the lot and frontage. And frontage. Correct. Right. All right. Board members. Any other questions? Everybody's good. Yep.

Going to close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in opposition? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone any elected official in the room that has a question on the testimony that has been given? Seeing none, I'll ask if there is any member of the public in the room that has a question relative to the testimony that has been given tonight. Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. That concludes the public discussion. I'll now open it up for deliberation among the board members. Board members. I don't find the relief uh egregious. Um but I would like to see what my fellow board members have to say. At

at first they had an issue with um uh the front of the house pos the way it was positioned. But if you look at the house on 39 Mystic, it's going to be facing the same direction. So um agreed. Yeah, I don't see an issue with that. first, you know, when I saw the position of it, I had an issue with it. Okay. Um, yeah. So, I don't think they're asking for too much. And that right away is kind of you're not getting any passing traffic. You're not You'd have to go through that house. Only the neighbors would know literally, right? And that rightway goes through the house on Center Street. So, I don't see that being an issue for that setback. It's locked. You're not going to There's no other building. That's just about it.

Mhm. Mr. Chair, can I ask one question? Go ahead. of the uh and the engineer, you'd probably know what's the width of that right of way that's paved between 12 and on the the right of way. The right of way. Yeah. The easement that we've been speaking the pave width, sorry, is 12 ft. 12 ft wide. All right. Thank you. Yeah. So, according to the U property map, it takes up a majority of that house on uh Center Street. Just a little bit of Mhm. I'll motion to grant. I'll second

on the motion. Um, we're looking at a house that has no frontage on a public street. We have a house that's fronting on a driveway that is 12 ft wide. We have no indication that that driveway is going to be widened to make it anywhere near a street wide enough for public safety operations on that street. If the if the street is not widened right now, that house will be sitting on a driveway that is barely wide enough or 12 ft wide. Just

can you speak it to the mic, please? Speaking to the mic. Sorry, I'm telling everybody to speak in the mic and I don't. We usually say. All right. So, I'm I'm just concerned that I thought it was my hearing aids.

The driveway uh that's going to be servicing this house off of Mystic Street is only 12 ft wide. Uh I doubt in my mind that I would vote to put a house on a street that's only 12 ft wide. The Mystic Street ends just in the area of that driveway. Um, we have no control over what will be happening at Mystic Street and this driveway. And they require 30 ft of setback in the rear. They only have 16 ft. They require 30 in the front. They only got 12. So, I'm just concerned that this is a piece of property that will not support what they're trying to put on that lot. And I'm very concerned that the access for anybody, rubbish trucks, fire trucks, ambulances, anybody going in that driveway is only 12 ft wide. If for any reason somebody should park on that driveway, the entire driveway would be shut down. So that's my concerns. And with that, if there is a motion on the floor to grant, which there was,

was it seconded? Yes. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded to grant. Will the clerk please call the role.

Mr. Lannis? Yes. Chief Nadelli? No. Mr. Sweeney? Yes. Miss Greenberry, sorry. Yes. Chair Gallagghan. No. Mr. Chair, that vote is three in the affirmative, two in the negative. The vote is three in the affirmative, two in the negative. The petition as presented is denied.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. The next petition is 2603. The petition of Steven Tory, 33 Dover Street, Proctor, Mass, for a variance seeking relief from article 3, section 2713, section 2713A, and section 2729 for frontage minimum lot area and green space coverage to build a single family dwelling on a vacant lot in an R1C zone located at plot 6, Homestead Street, formerly 55 May Avenue. Good evening chair and uh members of the board. I am Pierre Chris Vale on behalf of Steven. With me is Azou at Tinaru from ET Engineering in which we are asking uh the zoning board to grant us a variance in order to allow the construction of a single family home in an R1C zone. The petitioner, Steven Tory, is seeking relief from the city ordinances for the lot's frontage and minimum lot area. Uh, as shown in the plan, plot 6, like I stated, is in an R1C zone located at Zero Homestead Street. Mr. Tory has recently purchased the property in which plot 6 currently

sits vacant. Plot 6 was in common ownership with the lot in the rear on May Avenue. However, it is now separate. It is now a separate lot of record uh that is separately deed. Mr. Tori intends to build a single family home on that lot that consists of 7,715 ft of land. This lot is the same size and shape of the two lots across the street and to its abuing lot plot one as well as lots on May Avenue. The lot is uniquely shaped by not having the 175 ft of frontage, but will have ample amount of frontage of the similar lots in the neighborhood of having 67.34 ft. This proposed single family home will be constructed in the middle of the lot with the home having a porch facing homestead. The home will meet all the city setbacks of having 39 ft of a front setback, 20.4t 4 ft of left and right side setbacks as well as 33.2 ft of a rear setback. The new house will have two parking spaces in the front. And this project will also have ample amount of green space by having 80.5% green space which will provide a large enough yard for its residents. The neighborhood would benefit by having a new home constructed which would improve the looks and add value to homes already constructed in that neighborhood. In regards to a hardship, this lot does have a a unique size and shape by the fact that it's lacking the amount of frontage when the lot was historically designed to match the other lots with 67.34 ft of frontage. I did include in 1910 lot six was described as a separate lot of record until it was conveyed together back in 1946 where the description merged forming the one large

lot uh formerly 55 May Avenue. I also included in uh my application that this neighborhood does consist of several multifamilies. I believe there's a two family for family. Uh but Mr. Tori is not trying to be selfish. is trying to just put one single family on this lot that would fit nicely in the community. So based on these reasons, I'm asking for you to grant us a variance.

So the hardship you're expressing here is unique shape and size.

Yes. I can tell you with the the frontage, it's it fits all the other plots pretty much in that neighborhood. And it was originally separated in its own deed until it was merged back in, I believe it was 1946. But all those lots did have that amount of frontage, which are all currently being used as the frontage for these current homes. I have a copy of the deeds back to 1910, 1918, 1919, 1939, 1946, 1948, 1968, and 1978. 8. And in every one of these deeds up to 1996, 2002, every one of these deeds describes this piece of property as one mets and bounds. One piece of property from May Avenue to Homestead Street. I have nothing here that says anything about that lot being a separate lot.

In regards to the 1910, I believe it was described separately. It could have been in 1910, but let's say from n let's go with 1918. From 1918 up until now, every one of those describes it as one single lot. So, how did this lot get separated? It got separated as of now. It got separated after closing. When Mr. Tory bought that lot, we did separate it. So, do you have a separate deed now for this piece of property? Yes.

I'm just very disappointed that there's no deed that's been given to the board to show us that that is a separate lot. Right now, all the information I have is it's one single lot. It is recorded with the the registry of deeds. because we wouldn't have standing in order to go in front of the board if it wasn't a lot of records separated.

Well, the reason I asked that question is in years gone by, we have had petitions that have come before us telling us it's a separate lot when in fact it is not. So that's why I'm asking you the question, do you have proof that this is a separate lot? And you're saying verbally that you have a deed. However, we have nothing here that shows that that is a separate lot.

I can assure you there is a separate deed. The reason I asked the question. In fact, the plans that I have here show this is plot six. Both on Homestead Street and on May Street. Route 93 plot 6. Route Yep. 99. Route 93 plot 6. They all list the same because it was recently purchased. They haven't separated it with the tax assessor's office yet.

Well, if the assessors have it separated, that doesn't hold water. It has to be a deed through you. You know that. And so, lots of times we hear that the assessor separate uh give a separate tax bill for each lot when in fact u it may be for some reason they've done that. But that we have to go by is what the deed says. And I can assure you there is a deed separating it. All right. So there why are you asking for relief from green space coverage when you tell us there's plenty of green space?

I believe that was just a scrier's error. There is 80.5% of green space. So a variance is not needed for any green space. Okay. I don't disagree with that. Correct. And under section 2729, what is it that you're looking for under 29? Do you know? I'm sorry, I don't have uh I think that's a scriven ever also because when you look up 2729, it has to deal with either industrial or commercial property. Has nothing to do with residential property. It is. We're just looking for a variance for lots frontage in minimum lot area

based upon the parameter of 279. I think somebody typed 27. It's 27. It should have been just nine. Correct. That's a possibility. Yeah. And there's one other one that you should be looking for relief from and that's 2714 which is the one that relates to three lots. uh through lots, I'm sorry, that a lot that extends from one street to another street shall not be reduced. That's under 2714. So, you should be asking for relief from that also.

If I could ask for that as well. All right, board members, any questions? Good. Okay, I'll close that portion hearing. I'm going to ask first of all, is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. I see a number of people in the audience and I presume you're all here for this case. I would only ask that if you have a spokesperson who may want to express your concerns, that would be great. If you all want to speak, that's okay, too. But it would be helpful if we didn't become redundant with people saying the same thing over and over again. So if you have a spokesperson, that would be great. If you don't, I'll just open it up. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in opposition? Just give your name and address to the clerk.

My name is David Rean. I live at 16 Homestead Street, which abuts the east side of plot 6 Homestead Street. I'd like to address my concerns regarding the issuance of this variance. So, you are a direct debut. I am right next door on the east side of plot 6. Very good. Thank you.

Yeah. I built my house with the understanding that the piece of land next to my property was not a buildable lot. I believe that based on the zoning ordinance that was in place requiring a minimum frontage of 80 ft and no less than 12,500 ft of overall area. I believe this and I took it as a guarantee because that's what the ordinance in place led me to believe was the case. and I built my house there. I probably wouldn't have if I thought that a house was going to be going up there. My understanding is that the applicant for a variance has to show hardship caused by the zoning ordinance and that hardship cannot be self-created. Now, the property at 55 may have was purchased recently with the full knowledge of the existing zoning ordinance, and it's my belief that knowingly purchasing an unbuildable lot, then claiming that the existing ordinance that makes it unbuildable creates a hardship. I think that fails to meet the criteria for showing hardship. I would say the character of Homestead Street, which is a narrow, dead-end street, will be significantly changed. It'll diminish views. It'll increase traffic. It'll diminish sunlight. It'll cause an increase of on street parking. And I think this will contribute to changing of the character of the neighborhood. Right now, there's five houses on Homestead Street. Two Cape style houses, a bungalow, uh ranch, and a front to back split. And I think the construction of a new three-level house on this street will certainly change the character of the neighborhood and reduce the value of the existing properties. Every house on Homestead Street right now gets water in the basement and it's a real problem. And I feel very strongly that putting in a new foundation will displace the water and just create a worse problem for everybody. And it's

for these reasons I would ask that the zoning board reject this application. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wants to speak in opposition? Please come forward. Give your name to the clerk. Uh my name is John Holesman. Uh we own 25 Homestead Street.

What number? 25. We're the last house on the right hand side that abutts the golf course. 26. My neighbor Joe can't be here tonight. We're at the end of the street. I'm following up on Dave with the water problem in the neighborhood. Homestead Street has an area that's level slopes one way down to Overlook Street. The other is slope down into our our yards are budding the golf course. Every house has a problem with the water and it hasn't always been that way. We we've owned a house for 10 years. My family, my wife's family has owned it since 1973. Little by little, we've seen the increase of the water problem. I think it goes to what Brockton is doing now with the new ordinances of the storm drain and everything. If you take Homestead Street where this lot is, it's on the peak that slopes down towards the golf course. The the slope that goes to overlook has five storm drains. Two at the end of the street, Homestead, two on the corner of Homestead, and one right across the street. Water is obviously an issue. You slope down to the golf course, my yard and my neighbor's yard. We have become the catch basins of the neighborhood. I can watch that water rise. And I talk to Dave and I talk to Joe, my neighbor, and stuff, and I say, "Get ready." Cuz when that water goes into my yard and starts building up, the groundwater that goes back into the neighborhood has no relief.

There's none there. I think at one time it was planned that it would go out into what used to be pasture land, woodland, swamp land. It's blocked off. So there's no benefit. Now, I understand you were talking about the different vehicles that he was looking for, but the size of the lot, the water flow out of that and break it into the ground, I I think the only thing you do is cause more water problems in the neighborhood. That's basically it. And I've spent a lot of time walking around that neighborhood looking at drainage, looking at things. Eventually, we need to talk to our uh council person and have it looked at because there's definitely there's definitely an issue there that has been caused over years without any real thought. A school went in there. A playground went in there. Golf course added holes, which nobody was ever against, but I don't think anybody ever thought what's going to happen to this water come out of this neighborhood. It's got nowhere to go. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to speak in opposition? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Is there any elected official in the room that wants to be heard on the issue? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone in the room that has a question on the testimony that has been given tonight? Not, I'll close that portion hearing. We have received several letters to the board uh relative to this case and

all of them have been in opposition. Now some of these are very lengthly and I am going to just highlight them. This is from Mr. Reagan, 16 Homestead Street. I think you spoke tonight. You did. So all of the things that you sent to us in the form of this letter you have spoken about. Yes.

Okay. Good. The next letter is from Joseph Bocher, 26 Homestead Street. Um he refers to this being not a legal lot. is location is not able to handle additional traffic and parking as the downs slope of butter. I have concerns about hard surface water runoff. Myself and my neighbors use sump pumps. I would like to ask the board members to walk the small dead end of Home Street and May Avenue to see for themselves. I will tell you that probably every member of this board has gone up there to see that situation. So, we're very familiar with what we saw on Homestead Street. The next letter is from John Torso. 55 May Avenue spoke tonight. No, I'm a butter of the so-called lot at 6 Homestead Street. I'd like to say I would not like a single family home put on that small lot, especially it is a quiet street with limited parking. The frontage would be opposite my driveway. So, if the occupants happen not to use the driveway and park into the street, I will have difficulty backing into and out of my driveway. So, his concern was the traffic issue on the street. So the letters of opposition that we see basically are uh traffic size of the lot and water problems. All right, I will close that portion of the hearing which is the public hearing. I'll now open it up for discussion among board members. Board members. Well, I'll say this. You know, normally as you see this, you'd say, "Yeah, you could shoehorn a home in there." However, after hearing the neighbors speak, they have some legitimate concerns. Uh, one being the water issue, I think

that's that's massive. Uh, you do have a golf course right over there, and hearing from what the neighbor said, that seems to be a legitimate concern. You also have a lot of impervious surface with Walker's playground. How is that water being displaced? It's no wonder they have an issue. So on something like this, I would be a little cautious, but that's my opinion. I do take concern with the fact that we don't have a separate deed. We run into this a lot. Um it's not in front of us. It's difficult to make decisions based on not that we don't have an actual deed of a separate lot. So, I'm having a little difficulty with the hardship that was shown. uh the hardship that is required um I don't think was uh expressed the way we would expect it to be expressed and um again my concern is that in the past we have been led down a path where a lot was supposed to be a lot when it when we found out that it wasn't. And we have had

Can you speak to the microphone, please? Microphone.

Oh, God. I'm sorry. I guess I better face the front here. Uh we have uh situations where in the past we have had multiple lots that were purchased with one deed that combined all lots as one. And in this case, as you mentioned, I think back in 20 1910, one of the described as two lots, but from then on, they were combined. And every deed that I can find for this p piece of property indicated that it described one sets of mets and bounds for the perimeter of the entire street. Um, I think there's some serious concern here with what we have heard from the neighbors tonight. And in addition to that, uh, the lack of confirmation that we are actually dealing with a lot that exists. And I'm not positive that that's done. And I don't want to get into a situation where we approve a lot and then find out it the lot doesn't exist.

A motion to grant. Second. All right. So motion has been made and seconded to grant relief from frontage width through lots the size of the lot. Will the clerk please call the role? Mr. Lanus, no. Chief Nadelli, no. Mr. Sweeney, no. Miss Greenberry, no. Chair Gallagghan,

no. Mr. Chair, that's five in the negative. Thank you. The vote is none in the affirmative. Five in the negative. The petition as presented is denied. is the last case to come before us tonight. Motion to adjurnn. We entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. Yes. We are adjourned.