Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Is that good?

Thank you. I got you tonight.

How are you?

Very good. Yeah. Thank you.

One support.

What? How are you? Yeah, Mr. And the other thing he's got a problem with is size of the parking lots, um, parking spaces. Uh, are you here tonight for the one single case?

I am. Just a couple of things I want to tell you ahead of time. This is a variance, not a special permit. Correct. C2, you know, and the other thing on his plans, he's showing

that controller right there controls it, right? No, no, no. Here. This thing right here. This is uh white. You're live. That's not

Good evening. I'm going to call the zoning board of appeals meeting for March 2026 to order. The board that is sitting tonight includes member Steven Leenus, member Monnique Greenberry, member James Sweeney, our alternate member Miss Jamie Hodgers and myself, Chairperson Kenneth Gallaghan, uh, zoning enforcement officer and deputy building commissioner that's with us tonight, Miss Mr. George Deina. Before we start the meeting, I would ask if anyone in the room has a cell phone or electronic device, if you could put it on silent or shut it off so it doesn't disrupt the meeting. Also, if you need to use the phone, I would appreciate it if you take your conversation out in the hallway. All right. I will tell you that this meeting tonight is being televised uh broadcasting cable television and it will be shown from time to time over the next month. The way the hearings will be held tonight, when I call the uh case, the petitioner will come up to the podium uh present the case to the board. At the end of the presentation, the board will ask any questions that they may have relative to the testimony that has just been given. When that portion is completed, I will then close that portion of the hearing and I will open it up for public discussion. I will ask if there's anybody in the room that wants to speak in favor. I will then ask if anyone who wants to speak in opposition. I will then ask if there is any elected official or appointed official in the room that wants to be heard on the issue. And lastly, if there is anyone in the room that has any question relative to the testimony that has been given. Following that, I will close that portion of the hearing and then open it up for discussion among board members. Now, this is the portion

of the hearing where only discussion goes on between the five members of the board and you will hear discussion relative to the testimony that had been given tonight. At some point, you will hear a board member make a motion to grant. If that is seconded, I will then instruct the clerk to call the role for a petition to pass to be granted. If all five members vote in the affirmative, it will be granted. If the vote is four in the affirmative, one in the negative, the petition will be granted. Anything less than that, the petition will not be granted. So, three votes in the affirmative, two in the negative, will be a denial. It will not be granted. Following the vote, the clerk will indicate to me what the vote was. I will then announce the vote and I will announce to the petitioner whether the petition has been granted or denied. All right, board members, we all set to go.

Yes. All right. The first case we have tonight is case number 2609, the petition of Fred Fontaine, 39 Clarence Street, Park, Mass, for a variance seeking relief from section 2729 to construct a two family dwelling two family dwelling units in a C2 zone located at 105 Pleasant Street.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. chairman and through you to the members of the zoning board. Attorney Jake Cedon, 71 Legion Parkway, Brockton. With me is the owner of the property, Fred Fontaine, a 40 plus resident of city of Brockton, both business and house. Uh, and I'm sure most of you probably know who Fred is. Uh, the preliminary situation, I must give a disclaimer and an apology. I didn't file this myself. the application. It is handwritten. It was filed by Fred. Uh so I became involved after the filing. Uh so any apologies if there's any little uh screaming error or something. It's not my fault. Secondly, this is a C2 zone and thus we are asking for a variance to have a residential a multifamily residential use uh in that property. The property is at 105 Pleasant Street uh which is very close to the intersection of uh between Main Street and Pleasant Street at the and Warren Avenue at the Warren Avenue side. I can tell you the uh the general area I'm sure all of you know is a mixeduse area. Uh it covers uh a number of u small businesses at the main street uh entrance uh onto Pleasant Street and almost all residential from Vea West uh after you get by what's still the uh one of the fire captain a fireplace uh fire department. Um the frontage of the building again is uh it's a rather large block for the area uh 76 ft in the rear. actually something but

again I want to suggest to you that this plan

whenever you leave the mic please carry this with you otherwise oh okay sure

okay uh I have also made for you for your reference uh that gets to the uh variance hardship part of the property The city assessor grids that I've encased in red, those are existing multifamily residential uh properties, some of which are very uh large having 18, 20, 30 units. Everything out back up here that you can't see as you know um Haveril Street and all those are those are all residential and those are also multi multi. The good news is that Fred actually Fred Fontaine here actually owes two abuing properties. The one right next to it and the one uh just off of it. Uh the biggest multi uh is on the corner. Uh the old uh Quinsey market provisions that's now residential above. It's a mixed use just like a lot of these things are. The business uses are almost non-existent. All these places because uh if you have a church uh in z in zoning you do not have to uh uh go for a variance. it it's what we call permissible in any zone a church this area was flooded with churches most of them including the property that uh Mr. Fontaine owns cannot maintain a constituency or or or a patient not patients but uh parishioners because the uh there's not enough parking. That's number one. There's not enough ability to stop and park on Pleasant Street. Pleasant Street parking is a disaster as I think all of

you know all the way from the foot of Court Street which comes across Main Street on both sides coming both ways going by the old fire station which I guess we're going to abandon and that may well in the near future end up residential also or unless the city's going to keep it for storage. Um there is a marijuana business that's going. I think to be fair about it, I don't think it's doing well. Again, most of the patients or most of the customers are walk-in people and as they are for the Vincent's, which is the big uh uh supermarket that's uh just across the intersection of Warren and uh and and uh Pleasant. The building itself um is one of the largest on Pleasant Street in that area. Um it is presently uh a single family with all kinds of unused space in it. Um the uh entrances and exits, although this although this plan says uh it's a window well, I don't want any misconception. It's not a window well like I think your chairman and myself and others that have been before here. It's not one where you have to crawl out a little artificial thing to get outside. It is already been used by the church. It's just a basement. It's a basement step down. We call it in housing uh a split entry. So it's not anything that's hazardous for elderly people. There's plenty of uh doors going in and coming out. They're all brand new railings because of the church uh which is now uh left that area and sold to Mr. Fontaine because uh the

the parishioners got too big uh populationwise and moved to Easton. Um six spaces didn't do it. Um all the parking is in the rear. Uh there is sufficient parking. A two family requires only four spaces and there's plenty of room because it is probably the largest lot right on Pleasant Street there as you can see. Um this other side here uh those are all every lot is different size which ultimately goes partially to a hardship. All of the lots I don't mean to be a pain but literally every time you turn away from the mic you

How about that? Um all of these lots on both sides almost every single one of them is a different uh different size lot different shape lot. Um I will read I will read for you um the uh actual hardship law which uh which I think we adopt per uh just perfectly. Uh but I won't do that at this moment. Again the area is basically um very blue collar for those that are working. Uh it's uh it's an area that uh doesn't have a lot of parking for anybody, whether it's business or or um um residential. And I can tell you my own experience going by all of those places all the time. Very few of those people own a car. I think in Fred uh Fontaine's situation, he will certainly have four cars. the tenants, the tenant that's already there and and one other one. Uh, as I indicated, he also owns two abuing properties right directly next door. He uh is always present in that area because he's owned his businesses were uh a laundromat, a cleaning place, uh, and and other little small businesses that he's done. Uh the good news when this comes off the church rolls and this is another positive give back to the city, it'll go back on the tax roles. Uh it's been exempt as the uh MLC indicates because it's a church. Um fire safety, there is uh an absolute hydrant within 50 ft. Presently, of course, there's still a fire station

there, but the new fire station is not that far apart either, which gets me to the driveway. The driveway is considerably wide, uh, wider than I had expected till I got there because it did take two-way traffic for the church. So, uh, it's my opinion that even if it people would want to see it as a one-way, uh, it's certainly big enough for a apparatus to get in there if they had to. Um, but again, the hydrant is right out on Pleasant Street within 50 ft. Uh, this structure, it its major hardship is that this structure was built in 1898. Footprints the same. can't um change that at all. But there's so much wasted space in there right now that it perfectly I think fits into um what would be a uh a higher and better use. uh if if it was a lower use and only remains as a single family when everything around it almost every single property is a multi- two or more um eventually and I've seen and I think you would see that there'd be foreclosures because the owners of those places can't afford to pay the taxes and all the other situation uh without having another income. So there's there is a financial element in the hardship there. Um, I will read to you and tell you what I think uh all of the hardship criteria that we've met. Um, and that's section 10 of the uh 40A and it basically says that owing to the circumstances I indicated to you the circumstances it's all walkound apartments bad traffic

all that situation there. Uh the shape the shape of all those lots are different. Almost every single one of them. Some are very small. This particular one is is slightly greater than a fifth of an acre. That's pretty good in the old downtown core city. Um topography, I don't see anything there. Uh but the structure um certainly uh being built in 1898 is is a major one. There's not much you can do with it. And certainly I will suggest to you that businesses cannot thrive there at all. It's a C2 zone. You can't put a business in there because people can't stop and park. They can't go even go out and back and park. only a destination home or residence would be the ideal situation. Uh and lastly on the situation it has to be substantial no substantial detriment to the public good. The city has already made a determination in the core city in all of those areas. part of which is due to the railroad being as close as it is just down Court Street and the other two Montello and and Campello, but many of the people that do live in those areas walk to the train every day. So it substantially doesn't uh uh digress from what the city fathers have done. In fact, this board and the city fathers have kind of made those uh residential areas. Um Brockton Housing Authority owns a number of the properties uh residential. Uh the city of Brockton owns some of the properties and uh and there's only a few like Fred that are privately owned. Uh the last one is that

it uh it substantially dergates from the intent and the purpose of such ordinance. Well, the ordinance says C2 zone. You're not supposed to have residential in there. I can tell you that predominantly in that whole area in that whole area in both sides behind it to the west of it, which is uh going up West Street, I mean uh going up uh Pleasant Street to the east of it and to actually the south of it where um Father Bills is. It's all residential people walking without cars. Um those I think are the major hardships in this situation. It clearly would be a higher and better use to be a two family to use up that space uh and to put the that property back on the tax roles. I did mention the driveway being quite wide. Um I think that's the basic situation. The building itself is existing modernly for the church with beautiful railings, nice stairs, and wide entrances and exits should there be any uh fire insecurity. That's basically it, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, very good. Board members, have any questions? I got a quick question on the plan that you have there. It has two num has two number fives on it. U I'm assuming the the one on the north side of the lot should be six. That's an exit entrance. Uh Mr. Lanus and so is that. But they're both okay. They both listed as five. Again, I Yeah. Okay. I didn't get to use the usual stamped engineering site plans that would have a number six, which is the existing parking lot to the rear. Okay.

Okay. And again it is to the rear and um there is plenty of space back there for four cars which would be required if you give if you give this the blessing as a two family. Okay. So my question is the attic is that part of the first floor says it's going to be an office. Is that part of the unit on

the first floor will be the first floor apartment strictly residential? Yeah, but at the on the well the attic is the level is that part of the unit on that will not be and I did suggest in my notes to suggest to the board they might want to condition that the attic never becomes a uh a third residence a third unit and I had that in my own notes. I just wasn't sure if it was upstairs. No, it' be storage for people that are in the in the building in the attic. Where's the equipment like the HVAC? All the equipment for Can you help us there? It's not necessarily labeled. Where is the HVAC? Equipment,

heating, air conditioning. Each of them will get Please have him identify himself to the Sorry. Fred Fontaine, 39 Client Street. Mhm. So, okay. The question is where is going to be those HVAC? Right. Yeah. The HVAC. And then is that attic part of the first floor unit? Like it says it's an office. Yes. The first floor will be the attic will be part of the first floor. Okay. Also, uh the HVAC each of them will have their own HVAC on each floor inside their unit. Okay. All right.

Um my question um so I'm looking at the interior renovation plan and under the scope of work it says parking is being reduced and limited to six total spots, three per dwelling with no expansion of parking. My question is if the people that are renting the units have guests, where will the guests be parking? There is sufficient room in the parking lot. In my opinion, it's a big backyard because it's again it's a little over a fifth of an acre uh to park back there. Um we only need four. I think the plan that Fred has we have six now. Right now we show six but

we got only six right now but we could have more if I want to but I'll just skip six that's all and they require only four. Right. Yeah. Without violating any side or whatever. Um they could stack a couple cars where where visitors would be. Okay. But again, most of these places, and I I visit that every weekend because I'm working downtown, nobody's got a car in all of these places. Very, very few. They take the train or they don't work. Um, there was one other thing I wanted to say and I forget what it is. Um,

what about the uh basement? What's is there space there? What's the use? If if you're familiar, Mr. Sweeney, with a split entry house, it's just like that. Okay. It just goes down three or four stairs and then it's straight open. In its present condition, and I've walked it a couple times with Mr. Fontaine in the last week or so. Uh it can structurally be put into you know into into nice sorry into um nice apartments, bedrooms and uh exits through hallways. The plans that I have shows hallways getting right to the exits. Okay. So it's a total of seven bedrooms. Yes.

Okay. It's not eight, is it? No, it's eight. Eight. Okay. The basement is unit basically one and then the first floor is unit two cuz it's a split the first floor. So seven total I'm told seven total. Yeah. Okay. Seven. I count I was counting. I thought it was but the master you didn't label it as a bedroom but it's eight. Is he?

Yeah, I I saw that too, but Fred says no because that has to be approved by the building inspector and uh those will be either cut down or you know approved or disapproved. But um this plan I don't know well I do know who did it but uh Mr. Lopes did it, didn't he? Yeah, that will probably change when attorney please pick up the microphone and speak into the microphone. There you go. Thank you. So, which unit is four? Which unit is three? Pardon me. Which unit is going to have four bedrooms? And which I believe it's the basement floor. Which unit is going to have the four? Fred. Okay. The four going to be on top and will be Yeah. The first floor which is

Okay. Yeah. Um, so you have a gate there. You have an is that iron rod up front? The gate? Yeah. that has to be taken out for obviously for fire purposes. Okay. So that will be removed. We've discussed that. Okay. Okay. And then there there is consideration that we might recess recess it. But again, it's got to be open at all time for fire, anybody else to get in there. When does the determination of re recessing it come into play? That'll be up to him, Mr. Fontaine, the building department, and his engineer. How in if you were going to recess it, how far back?

Well, what what I'm thinking of doing and taking now the whole, you know, gate out, you know, so people will get in any No problem with it. His concern his concern was that people are going to cut through there, but they can't get out the backside. So, they're going to be trapped in there. So, if you do recess it, my only concern would be enough to get at least a car in there so that you're not, as you know, the street is one of the busiest we've got. Absolutely. Yes. And currently the the basement is that just storage? No, it's one of No, that's what the church is. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. And it's still set up as a church, but they have moved to Easton for lack of space and parking and a larger patronage. All right. A couple of comments here. First of all, uh what you're asking for tonight is a use variance. Use various. Correct. So,

our determination tonight has to be whether or not this is an appropriate use for that location. Obviously, that's going to be our determination. I will caution you though that if we grant you a use variance for what you're asking for tonight, if there are any changes down the road that happens, you're going to have to come back before the ZBA. This is a variance that allows residential in a commercial zone. So you're you're aware of that? I'm very aware of that and I've explained that to u Mr. Fontaine, but uh I'm pretty sure he understands it also. Correct.

But I'll make sure again he does if it's granted. So basically what we're looking at tonight to is approve living space in what's so-called the basement which really is just half in the ground and living space on the what you're calling the second floor which is the high first floor and you're telling us that the attic area upstairs is not going to be developed into any other kind of residential use. It could be an office storage or whatever. Again, my notes suggested to suggest to the board put in a condition that it should cannot be converted.

The other thing I want to bring out is the fact that in your plans you show that the parking at the rear of the building, six spaces, each space is 172 ft when they need to be 180.

Uh I would suggest from my inspection up there that there is absolutely no reason why those cannot be 180 square feet. So, I don't think it's necessary for you to ask relief for the size of the parking because I think there there's more than enough. Mr. Chair, I do agree with you. There's plenty of more spaces to make each every one of those either 9 by 18 or 10 by 20 by just spending expanding the uh the sides. You've got to speak into the microphone. Yes.

All right. So I just want to bring out the fact that in your plans it shows that they are substandard. I am suggesting to you that you are not asking for relief for that. So they need to be 180. Okay. You're showing that there are six parking places in the rear. You're required to have four.

So you have two additional parking spaces for any visitors that may come to the house. So I think the parking issue is okay. And I don't think we need to grant a variance for the size of those parking spots. We addressed the attic situation. We also addressed the situation if the use down the road changes, you've got to come back before the zoning board of appeals. You also need to conform to all current building safety regulations. We're not here to regulate that tonight. We're just trying to determine whether it should be used as a two family. So, just regalize that whatever goes on in that building has to be regulated through the building department.

No question. And I think that's all that I had to comment on. Uh other than my experience in that location down there is that if you go back through the history, it started out as a house. Uh it went to a a restaurant, it went to a church, and now it's going to possibly return to a house. with the new layout of the streets down there, access into that property for business purposes is going to be very very difficult. So probably a better use because of accessibility is what is being proposed.

Yeah, I don't know if the other members, Mr. Chairman, know that that intersection has been redesigned, the Warren Avenue. Yeah, we're all familiar with that. So anyway, I just want to say that from my experience and in the discussion that we're having with you, those are some of the things that we will be discussing when we come up discussing before the board. Okay, we're good with that. All right, everybody good with this? Yes.

Okay, I'm going to close that portion of the hearing and I'm going to open it up for public discussion. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor? I have a letter that has come in from a business that is a director butter to this location and it says I am writing to access my support for this petition submitted by Fred Fontaine requesting a variance to allow the construction of two family dwellings at 105 Pleasant Street. He goes on to say that it will be a good thing for the neighborhood based on the information provided. The proposed use appears to be a reasonable request and I support the board granting the variance. So the project may be moved forward. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mark Bouette. Uh he runs I guess the legal greens which is butter next door.

Okay. So there's a letter of support that have come in. Is there anyone else here that wants to speak in favor? Seeing none, I'm going to close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone in the room 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 tonight? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. That concludes the public discussion relative to this issue. I will now close that and I will open it up for discussion among board members. Board members,

well, I think the relief from section 27 29 is pretty easy. I think it's an inappropriate use for a church and a more appropriate use for residential. And from what we have downtown as far as parking, that's I'm not concerned about it. Um it's better served for the the relief that's being asked for. So I'd be in favor of it. I agree. I think this is the best use for the for the lot there. Um I think it would be a mess if you had something commercial there. Yeah.

Um but like I said, I think that's the best use for this property. So, I'm comfortable with the conversion of this building because of the requirements that they are going to have to deal with the building department to bring it up to codes as they exist today. So, I I think as far as this board is concerned, we can rest assure that that portion will take place. I think the parking issue has been addressed, but I will stipulate that we need to make sure that this is strictly a two family that no other living unit is created on that top floor. Motion to grant. Second. All right. With those stipulations, there has been a motion to grant. Will the clerk please call the role? Board member Lannis,

yes. Board member Hajes, yes. Board member Sweeney, yes. Board member Greenberry, yes. Chairman Gallaghan. Yes. Chairman, that's five in the affirmative, none in the negative. The vote is five in the affirmative, none in the negative. The petition as presented is granted. Thank you, members of the board. Good luck. Good luck. Thank you. All right. Having no further business to come before the board, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. To adjourn. Motion's been made and second. We are adjourned.