Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

I just want you to know that over there you're going to be famous. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING FOR JUNE 2026, TRUE ORDER. THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE SITTING IN TONIGHT IS MEMBER STEVE LEANUS, MONIQUE GREENBERRY, FIRE CHIEF BRIAN NARDELLI, JAMES SWEENEY, AND MYSELF, CHAIR KENNETH GALLAGHER. ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, MR. WILLIAM FORTE, OUR RECORDING SECRETARY, LILY GAVIDA, AND For one of the cases tonight, we will have an alternate sitting in, which will be Ms. Jamie Hodges. I would ask anyone that has a cell phone or electronic device, if you can either shut it off or put it on silent so it doesn't affect the meeting, I would appreciate that. And if you do need to use the phone, I would appreciate if you took your call out in the hall. I will tell you this meeting is being televised, and it will be shown on cable TV from time to time throughout the next month. Prior to the start of tonight's hearing, there is an opportunity for anyone to withdraw without prejudice. So at this point, I'll ask, is there anyone in the room that wants to withdraw from hearing tonight? Seeing none, we will continue. Excuse me, Chief.

I believe that Battle Street won't be playing.

So the Battle Street one will not be heard tonight? Correct. All right, what I would appreciate is probably from you is some kind of a document that says that you want to withdraw prior to the start of the hearing.

Okay. It doesn't have to be right this morning. Yeah, I will get Lily.

All right, so there were two cases before us tonight. There's now one case. and the case for 10 battle street will not be heard tonight it has been withdrawn and if it should come back to us it will be re-advertised and It may or may not come back at a future date. So right now we don't know that.

All right. Excuse me. I'm here for 10 battles. 10 battles. It's not going to be tonight, so I'm not going to be there.

Yes, it will not be heard tonight. And if it does come back, you want to watch the legal notices or you'll get another notification if it comes back. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. All right, the order of operations is when I call the case, the petitioner will come forward, present the case to the board, and when that testimony has been completed, I will then ask the board members if they have any questions relative to the testimony that has been given. Following that, I will ask if there's anyone in the room who wants to speak in favor. Following that, I'll ask if anyone wants to speak in opposition. Following that, I will ask if there is any elected official in the room that wants to be heard on the issue. And lastly, if anybody in the room has a question relative to the testimony that has been given. Following that, that will complete the public discussion relative to the petition. At that point, I will close the public discussion and I will open it up for deliberation among board members. This is the portion of the meeting where the board members will deliberate among the five members and if a member makes a motion to approve and it is seconded, I will have the clerk call the roll And in order for a petition to pass, if all five members vote in the affirmative, the petition will be granted. If the vote is four in the affirmative, one in the negative, the petition will be granted. Anything less than that will be denied. So a three to two vote is a denial. after the vote has been recorded by the clerk he will inform me what the vote is and then i will inform the petitioner whether the petition has been granted or denied so that's how the evening will go all right did i miss anything good everybody's ready to go All right, the first case tonight is petition number 2613, the petition of Kathleen Stady, 44 Norwich Road, Brockton, Mass., for Avarice, seeking relief from section 279, table 1, and section 2739, to be allowed to construct a wood frame addition to an existing room that currently lacks the required rear yard setback. In the alternative, the petitioner is requesting a determination that the proposed expansion is less than 50% of the original square footage of the R1C zone located at 44 Norwich Road. Attorney Burke, this is yours, correct?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the Zoning Board. My name is Jim Burke. I'm an attorney at law with offices at 48 North Pearl Street, Brockton, Massachusetts. And I have the pleasure to represent Mrs. Stady here tonight with her nephew. This is a typical story that you hear occasionally and unfortunately. The Stady's hired a contractor. to put in addition on a Campanelli project. And the addition is for storage only. The Campanellis, as many of you know, basically do not provide for excess storage. Generally, people have been utilizing garages for that for many, many years. So they engaged the contractor. The contractor, I believe, was substantially completed except for the flooring because these are all slab floors in the Campanile homes. And they received a cease and desist from the building department because there was no permit taken out by the contractor. There was a long series of discussions. The bottom line is the contractor got discharged and they were left with a mess. So they have been trying to put this together to allow them to proceed. They haven't, of course, done any work since the cease and desist went on. I have tried to assist them, and they have been through a couple of attempts at getting the proper plans that the board would be able to understand exactly what they're asking for. That's been done, I believe. So essentially what you have is, you have a piece of property in which they're looking for roughly 16 by 14, I think, is the dimension of the addition. That their deck is roughly 17 feet from the, a rear property line, this structure, excuse me, would be 10 feet from the property line. This structure would be 17 feet from the property line. So there is no expansion of the nonconformity here. There is no side setback issues. And I gave you a picture and the reason I brought the picture because I think it's relevant is it's one of those lots that the around the corner owner has a long lot, the net effect of which is From their rear property, it has no visual impact at all on the property and surrounding street. And I believe he was going to submit a letter of support for the hearing. But basically, what we're looking for simply is a dimensional relief for the ability to either expand it on conformity use or secure variants to be allowed to provide another room that doesn't meet the rear setback requirements of the ordinance. I think that's essentially it. Obviously, if you want to talk about a hardship, all of the camp penalties, the size of the lots, they're extremely small. And the ability to expand has been extremely difficult. And again, the shape of the property is such that the impacts on surrounding properties is significantly taken into effect, but mostly when it has the side setbacks, not so much the rear setbacks. And here, there absolutely is no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. I think that the request is legitimate and they would just like to get this under their belt, get the expansion completed, and then move on with their lives. And I guess with that, I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you may have or try to.

Board members, any questions?

Mr. Chair, you said they had a cease and desist. At what stage are they in the construction? It's almost done.

Oh, it's almost done. Yeah. Everything but the floor. Okay. And then that's when they found out they didn't have a permit for it.

Okay. I went by earlier, but you can't see it in the street.

so they have got this pretty well constructed without any building permit correct okay if this was to be granted a stipulation would be that this would have to be fully inspected by the building department so that could be a stipulation one comment you're asking for two things here one is A determination on the 50% use, I don't feel comfortable granting that. I think what we're looking at here is a variance from Ray Yard setback. This is very similar to many that we have done. And as far as the use, I'm looking at that as something that doesn't fit in the area that it's in where the board has the ability to grant an expansion not to exceed 50% of what's currently there. I think this is a little bit different than that the way I'm looking at it. So I would say that what we're going to be voting on tonight is a variance. Board members understand that? There is no other location on this house where this addition can be placed.

If you look at it, I don't think there reasonably is. That would be a hardship. Yes.

Okay. Any other questions from board members? None? Okay, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor? Other than the petitioners.

Okay.

Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone 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? saying none, I'm going to close that portion of the hearing. That concludes the public discussion on the issue. I will now close the public discussion and open it up for discussion among the board members. Board members.

Chief, did you say it was more of the variance type on this? Yes. Okay. I would agree with that, and I would be in favor of this, considering the circumstances with everything considered.

So I'll make a motion too. We've done a number of these that are similar to this. And before we do any voting, I do have a letter that has come in in support. I, Michael Holland, owner of the property located at 39 Vale Street, have no objections with the addition to the property of 44 Norwich Road. So apparently this backs up to his house, so he's a direct abutter. So that was a letter that was in favor. And as I mentioned a few minutes ago, I think it would be well if we put a stipulation on here that even though construction has begun, I would think we would be smart to make it a condition that no further construction can go on with this until it's approved by the building district.

I'll make a motion to approve with said stipulation. Second.

Okay, the motion has been made and seconded to grid with that stipulation that it shall be inspected by the inspectional division of the park. Will the clerk please call a roll? Ms. Delanus?

Yes. Chief Nardelli? Yes. Mr. Sweeney? Yes. Ms. Greenberry? Yes. Chair Gallivan?

Yes.

Mr. Chair, that is five in the affirmative, none in the negative.

The vote is five in the affirmative.