Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'm going to call the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for July 2026 to order. The board members that are sitting to hear tonight's cases is member Steve Lianis, member Monique Screenberry, member James Sweeney, alternate member Ms. Jamie Hodges, and myself, Chair Kenneth Galligan. Zoning Enforcement Officer is Acting Building Commissioner Mr. William Forte, and our recording secretary is Lily Gavita. Before we start the meeting, I just wanna address the board to let you know that next month when we come in in August, we will be holding an election among the permanent board members for chair for the next 12 months and an alternate. So just be prepared when you come in next month, we will hold that election. I would ask anybody in the room that has a cell phone, either shut the cell phone off or put it on silent so it doesn't affect the meeting. If you need to use the cell phone, I would appreciate it if you take your conversation out into the hallway. I will tell you that this meeting is being recorded on cable television and it will be repeated from time to time over the next several weeks. Prior to the start of tonight's hearing, there is an opportunity for anybody that is scheduled for hearing to withdraw without prejudice. We have one case this evening that has withdrawn prior to the start of the hearing. That case is case number 2616, the petition of Nadine Sattar, 1 Erica Drive, Lincoln, Rhode Island, for a special permit seeking relief from section 9.7 to be allowed to operate the business from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. in an R2 zone located 761 Warren Avenue. If you're here for that case this evening, it has been withdrawn. That case will not be heard tonight. It is right now rescheduled for next month, and it will be re-advertised. All right. Are there any other withdrawals? Seeing none, I will continue. The way the meeting will be held this evening is when I call the case, the petitioner or the representative of the petitioner will come up to the podium and present the case to the board. At the conclusion of the presentation will be an opportunity for the board members to ask the presenter any questions that they may have relative to the testimony that was given. Following that, when the board has no further questions, I will close that portion of the hearing and open up a public discussion. I will ask if there is anyone here that wants to speak in favor of the petition, and I will ask if there's anybody that wants to speak in opposition. I will then ask if there's any elected official in the room that wants to be heard on the issue. And lastly, I will ask if there is anyone in the room that has a question relative to the testimony that has been given. At that point, that will conclude the public discussion. I will then open it up for deliberation among the board members. This is when the board members deliver deliberate among ourselves. And we will make a decision based upon the testimony that has been given in order for a petition to be successful to pass. If all five board members vote in the affirmative, the petition is granted. If the vote is four in the affirmative, one in the negative, the petition is granted. Anything less than that is a denial. So if there's a three to two vote where there's three in favor, two against, the petition will be denied. I will ask the clerk to call the roll and every board member will respond either in the affirmative or the negative. In the end, the clerk will notify me what the vote is. I will then notify the public whether the petition has been granted or denied. So that's how it will be run tonight. All right, the first case tonight, 2615, a petition of Tyrone Flanory and Angela Flanory, 347 Quincy Street, Brockton, Mass Free Variants, seeking relief from Section 2732 to be allowed to build a second dwelling unit in a C2 zone located 347 Quincy Street.

Good evening, Mr. Chair.

Please identify yourself to the board.

Yes, my name is Angelina Bruce Flanory. Speak right into the mic, ma'am. My name is Angelina.

Closer to you. The whole base moves. There you go.

Good evening. Thank you. My name is Angelina Bruce Flanory and this is Tyrone Flanory. We own the property at 347 Quincy street. If I may, should I proceed? So tonight we're seeking relief from the C2 zoning requirements to allow the conversion of our existing lawful single family residence into a two family. We have lived at this property for 26 years. We raised our family there. And in fact, today marks our 26th anniversary of living in this home. Before I get into the statutory criteria, I do want to acknowledge that this property was before the board in August of 2021. At that time, we were seeking approval of a much larger and more intensive mixed use redevelopment. That proposal involved substantially greater impacts and the board ultimately denied that application. However, the proposal tonight is very different. After carefully considering the board's prior decision and the concerns raised during that proceeding, we have returned with a much more limited and thoughtful proposal. We are not seeking a major expansion of the property or large-scale redevelopment. Instead, we are preserving the existing home and maintaining substantial green space, providing compliant off-street parking. and adding only one additional dwelling unit. This proposal is designed to make reasonable use of this property while respecting the character of the neighborhood. If I may, I would like to walk you briefly through some photographs to illustrate the unique physical characteristics of the parcel.

On exhibit A here.

Take the mic with you. Just speak right in. There you go. Just like a portable mic. Okay. So exhibit. Hey, here, a here closer police closer to the mic. I'm sorry to hear your voice up here.

Oh, exhibit a here is just a view from Quincy street. And as you can see, we're just preserving the existing home. That's already there. And we want it. We want to adapt it, um, to a two dwelling unit, uh, home. Okay. Exhibit B. exhibit be just shows the corner lot of the House because we're situated situated on a corner lot so corner configuration provides openness and separation from neighboring properties, then a typical interior lot, it is one of the physical characteristics that makes this parcel unique. I'm gonna move to exhibit C. This just shows the depth of the property. It's actually unusually depth for the property. The lot contains about 13,500 square feet, making it significantly larger than many residential parcels in the area. It allows the property to accommodate the proposed conversion while preserving all of the open space here. So this open space that you see will still remain with the proposed addition. Exhibit D shows green space in the backyard. And during prior matters before the board, green space was discussed a lot. So I just wanted to show you that we have ample of it. This is the backyard green space. And then we have the side of the house that also has green space. Exhibit D, we need E. Exhibit E. And again, exhibit E is just showing where the additional parking spaces would go. And that's on this side of the house where this fence is right here. The parking would obviously, there'd be a curb cut here. This would be paved all the way to the fence area. There it would stop. And then there would be a fence here which divides the property from the adjacent two-family house. And moving on to Exhibit F, which just shows the bump out of the house, right? So the house is just being extended to where it is right now, the original footprint, and we would be building up. And then this is exhibit G, which shows the side of the house. And this is the side of the house that's closest to the two-family house. And I just put that there just so you can get an idea of how close we were to the neighbor. So as these photos show or demonstrate, this property is physically different from many others in the area. The size of the lot, the unusual depth, the corner location, and the amount of open space are all Important factors and understanding why this particular property can accommodate the requested relief with minimal impact So I'm turning to the hardship now the hardship arises from the unique physical characteristics as I mentioned this is an oversized corner lot with unusual depth and substantial green space the existing house is situated on the property in a manner that that allows for an interior conversion to two dwelling units without expanding the building's footprint while also still maintaining a lot of open space and green space and being compliant with parking as well. So unlike a typical parcel in this area, this property has the physical capacity to accommodate the proposed conversion without creating the impact that the zoning regulations are intended to prevent. and literal application of the ordinance as applied to this particular property prevents reasonable use of the unique physical characteristics, despite the property's ability to accommodate the proposed conversion with minimal impact. This is not a request to intensify an undersized lot or to substantially change the character of the neighborhood. It is a request to make a reasonable use of a uniquely situated property in a manner that preserves the existing home maintains green space and is compatible with surrounding properties. The relief requested tonight is consistent with the development pattern already in the area. The neighborhood already contains a mixed residential use, including, as I mentioned, the two family home adjacent to the property and a recently approved residential development at Crystal's Way, which is on the other side of the house. By comparison, this proposal is significantly less intensive. It preserves the existing residents and adds only one additional dwelling unit. So in closing, I would respectfully ask the board to consider three key factors when you're rendering your decision. First, the property is physically unique because of its oversized lot, its unusual depth, and the corner location. Second, the proposal is physically modest. It preserves the existing home, maintains the green space, provides compliant off-street parking, and adds only one additional dwelling unit with minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Third, the proposal is contextually compatible with the existing character of the area and represents a more thoughtful and limited use of this space. For those reasons, we respectfully request that you grant the requested variance. Thank you. I'm happy to take questions.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I could. So how many total bedrooms and how many total parking spots are proposed?

So there's, oh, that are proposed. So there will be two additional parking spots.

Making a total of how many?

Well, it's two to four.

Two to four?

Yes. They would be side by side though. So the width would accommodate two cars. the length would accommodate four in total.

In total bedrooms?

So upstairs would be four bedrooms and downstairs would be two.

Okay, so six total?

Yes, right.

As the house stands now, there's two on the first floor because it's a story and a half. So the cape upstairs already has two bedrooms. So we're just going to put two more bedrooms in the attic space above. As you see on the side of the plans, the bump out that's going to contain the stairs only goes to the second.

I'm sorry, go on, speak into the mic. Take it right in your hand off. Yeah. Got it.

So the second unit stairwell on the side that's the second egress only goes to the second floor. It does not go to the attic. So the second unit will be a duplex.

Okay. In the design, was there any consideration of putting the parking on, what is that, Beaumont Ave? Because Quincy Street's one of our busier streets to back out on, and it would be two driveways. Yes. on Quincy Street?

We didn't consider it, but we'd be open to it. Okay. If that were a requirement, we would do it.

I mean, just thinking about, you know, if it was my place, you know, as I do any place, it'd probably be easier to pull out on that street because you don't have traffic going up to 50 miles an hour. That's true. Just a consideration, but I think that's all I've got for right now.

Mm-hmm. You said the footprint's going to remain the same? Yes.

I didn't hear the question.

I was just asking about the footprint of the building. Bring the microphone closer. And I was asking if the footprint of the building was going to remain the same.

Yes, it is. So the back part, as you see, there's an L. So we're just filling that L part, which is like 308 square feet, and then just going up. So it's nothing going to change in the footprint of the house.

So you're telling us there's four packing places on the north side of the building. Can you tell us the size of those packing places?

Well, on the north side, which is the right side? Correct. So it'll be 18 feet across, 25 feet deep. So it'll be able to be able to two cars be fit side by side just for the second floor. Now, if they needed more parking, there's two cars can fit behind, too. So that's on the right side. On the left side, where there's already parking, we can fit like three cars there now.

When you say the left side, are you talking on the Beaumont Avenue side?

Yeah, the Beaumont side right now, there's a driveway that fits four cars there. But we're going to put the additional parking on the Quincy side, not close, but on the same side as the two-family. But it's going to have space before you get to the parking space.

So on each side, it will be able to fit two to four cars? Right now, the existing driveway fits two to four cars, but they would be side by side, if that makes sense.

Well, I was just concerned that one's on the north side of the house to the right side. It shows it's 18 feet, but I don't know what the width is on those. They're supposed to be 180 square feet, so that would have been 10 feet wide, so four cars is going to be 40 feet wide.

No, no, it's going to be two cars side by side and then two cars behind it side by side. So it's not going to... I'm sorry, you're stacking the cars.

Two cars can fit comfortably. If you needed room for four, you could stack it.

In the petition, it basically says here that allow for multi-generational living or long-term housing flexibility while maintaining older occupancy. The plans that I have in front of me show a three and a half story building.

Yes. So it's, it's the, it's already a story and a half. So the second floor is already two bedrooms. So we're just expanding that floor and added another floor so that the attic space will be two bedrooms in there and an office in office.

So the half floor, which is now your second floor, becomes a full story. Yes. And now you're adding another full story on top of that. So basically when it's done, there's three floors of living. Yes. Plus a roof line. Looks like some kind of like almost a mansard type roof.

Well, that's the third floor. The mansard roof is the third floor.

Not according to this plan. Well, the man, yes, I correct myself. Technically, the windows are showing on the man's side, but then there's a roof above the man's. Oh, that's just going to be a crawl space. There's nothing going to be above that. But I'm just saying the plans show that. So what I was anticipating is if you were making additional space for some family member to live here, this looks like it's going to be quite a very large house.

The total square footage that we're adding is 1,700 square feet.

380 on the main floor, 428 on the second floor, and 1,000 on the top floor. That's what we're adding.

And do you anticipate that all family members will be living in this, or will this be rented out like an apartment building?

No. We live there currently, and we have family members that want to live there. We have a daughter, a granddaughter, and she just wants her own space, to be honest.

So Mr. Building Inspector, can this, if it was granted, could it be stipulated that this is a single family dwelling or is that beyond what we can do?

Mr. Chair, respectfully, I think this is still a two and a half story home. What I'm looking at here on the cross section, it appears to be a foundation. So it's a foundation, two stories and then a half story. Am I correct on that? No. No?

No, it's full.

All right, so that's a full third story. Okay. All right. To your question, it's in a commercial zone. So the asking is actually a special permit to expand a non-conforming use, correct? So you should be able to impose any conditions you want. I'm just concerned that this isn't going to turn into a three-family ruling.

Mr. Chairman.

I don't. Oh, I'm sorry, yeah.

If I may. Please. Like I said, we lived there for 26 years. We're happy there. We really just need more space and the zoning is not conducive to that. But we've raised our family there. We have no intentions on moving or renting it out. And even if we were to move on, our daughter would stay there. We have a son as well. And he hasn't been able to live at home because there's just not enough space.

So, Mr. Chair, again, if the conditions are written in, I can enforce them accordingly. And, you know, it would be fine. The other concern I have is two driveway openings on the same street. I don't know if that's going to work. I don't know if DPW is going to...

Honestly, if I was doing this, I would put the new driveway on Beaumont Avenue so that you're not dealing with traffic on Quincy Street.

We're actually happy to do that because we have plenty of space to do it as well.

That leaves the existing driveway where it is and the new driveway on a side street where there's very limited traffic. That's only an editorial comment. That's all that is.

Mr. Chair, so if the board were to approve this, it should come with the caveat that if the driveway has to move in accordance with DPW regulations, then it's allowed to do that so that they don't have to come back.

Well, what happens if they tell us tonight that they want to move that driveway to Belmont Avenue?

Then that, again, it's always subject to DPW approval anyway. So I would just be concerned about two openings on a busy street near a corner. I just don't. I think that there's got to be a regulation against it.

Would you folks be okay if that was a stipulation to move it on Belmont Avenue? Okay.

Yeah.

So we, if in our deliberations, if we discuss this could allow for the parking to be relocated from Quincy street to Beaumont Avenue, if it was approved, the board could say that they have no objection to doing that. It doesn't mean you would have to do it, but it would leave the door open.

Okay. I appreciate that. We would, we would be open to moving it.

All right.

As I mentioned, we do have plenty of space and it does make more sense now that you mention it.

All right. And also on the plans, just to straighten out a, a might be ascribed as ever. It says it's the zone district of C5. It is not. It is C2.

Yes. All right. Board members. Any other questions?

Everybody's good.

Yep.

Okay, I'm gonna close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone in the room that wants to speak in favor?

Please identify yourself. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the ZBA. My name is Jeff Chernow, city councilor at large. The only reason I came up is because there's no one else here. I don't know these folks, but they have a well thought out plan, a lot of research, phenomenal. And I ask that, you know, you consider approving this based on that. You know, it's very difficult to find housing, to expand housing. And with the current climate, I feel like there is a hardship here in the current structure of this home. So I think this meets the definition of a hardship, members. And I ask that you guys grant the approval. But again, I just was listening. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to speak in favor? 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? Which we just did.

I do have a letter here.

If not, pardon me?

I have a letter here from Councillor Thompson, if that is helpful.

Oh, sure. Okay. Give it to the clerk. Is this in favor?

Yes.

Okay, so I'm going to back up here just for a second. We have a letter that came in from Councilor Jeff Thompson. He says, I am writing to access my strong support for the variance application submitted for the property of 347 Quincy Street in Ward 5. The petitions have owned and responsibly maintained this property since July of 2000. The proposed two-family use will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor will it cause any detriment to the public welfare of surrounding properties. I respectfully urge the board to grant the requested variance. This is a sensible, limited accommodation that balances the petition's needs with the interest of the community. So that's a letter that's been received in support. Lily, you want to take that? All right. So now let's go back. Is there anyone that wants to speak in opposition? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. Does anyone in the room have a question relative to the testimony that has been given? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearing. That concludes the public discussion on the issue. I will now open it up for board member discussion. Board members.

I think I was around for the first proposal and I think this one is a little bit more thought through. I think the relief on 27 was a 32 is justified and they're going up. They're not decreasing any green space. I think they're under the understanding that utilizing the other street for the driveway is probably wiser instead of fighting the grain on Quincy. It's much easier to get in and out on that side. You know, utilizing that street, I don't have a problem. I'd be in favor.

I agree. I thought your presentation was well done. And it's not increasing the footprint that's existing. And the good part, it is the corner lot. So, yeah.

And just on what the chief had said, the chair had said, as a stipulation or a suggestion on the driveway, could you just elaborate a little?

I was going to suggest that the board would have no opposition, if this is granted, to relocating the driveway as shown on the plan on Quincy Street to be relocated to Beaumont Avenue.

Mm-hmm.

In other words, we're kind of leaving it up to them to where they think it might best fit. And if the DPW has a problem with doing another curb cut on Quincy Street, this leaves the door open for them to move it over to Beaumont Avenue without coming back before us. So with that, I'll motion to grant. Second. I think we're being told tonight that this addition is to accommodate one single family. Is that what I heard? So I think we should make it a stipulation that this dwelling will remain a single family dwelling. How's that, Mr. Building Inspector?

I have no opinion on it.

Can we do that?

I think the idea is to add a separate dwelling unit for a separate living within the same family. That's at least how I understood the proposal. But you have the authority to set whatever restrictions you care to.

So it sounds like whoever's going to live in this addition is related to the owner of the building who lives on the first floor. So all I'm trying to do is to make sure that this doesn't turn into a two or three family dwelling without them coming back before us because of the zoning issue. So I'm thinking of a stipulation. I'm looking for the correct verbiage that would keep it what we think we want it to be. Would you call it a two family?

By definition, if it is separate sleeping, sanitary, cooking, and living facilities, and with separate entrances, then it is considered a separate dwelling under the state building code.

And I think that's what they're looking to do.

Yeah. It would be very similar to an ADU. Yeah.

That's what I thought it was.

So the stipulation could be that it shall not be more than a two-family dwelling. Yes.

That would be my recommendation. Yeah.

All right, so if somebody wants to make that stipulation that this dwelling, when completed, shall not be larger than a two-family dwelling, and the option to relocate the driveway, if needed, to Beaumont Avenue.

With that stipulation, I'll motion to grant. Second.

All right. With those two stipulations, will the clerk please call the roll? Ms. Delanus?

Yes. Ms. Hodges?

Yes.

Mr. Sweeney? Yes. Ms. Greenberry?

Yes.

Chair Galligan? Yes. Mr.

Chair, that is five in the affirmative. The vote is five in the affirmative, none in the negative. The petition is granted. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Great day.

All right, the next petition, 2616, the petition of Aileen Carrera, 19 Sansom Street, Brockton, Mass., for a variance seeking relief from Section 27.9, Table 1, to be allowed to subdivide an existing parcel into two single-family dwelling homes lacking area and frontage setback in an R1C zone located at 19 Sansom Street.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, with your permission, my name is Attorney Jim Burke with offices at 48 North Pearl Street in Brockton, Massachusetts. And I have the pleasure of representing Aileen Correa from there. Elaine is a staff nurse at Brigham and Women's Hospital, and she's just opened a new venture as a small business owner, and she's going to start a business of concierge nursing for in-home care and occasionally other instances, but they'll provide full nursing services 24 hours a day. In this instance, she's the owner of the existing property on Sansome Street, and she's coming to you with a request that she be allowed to subdivide the property and create two lots with two houses. Both will be lacking in frontage and area as required under the zoning district. The property is shown, as Scott will give you, is on the Sandstone and Jackson Street. And the original home, as constructed, which is a pre-existing non-conforming use, is all the way over to the side of the lot, which then created a very large parcel as compared to the rest of the neighborhood. And she seeks to... divide the lot and construct a single family home. You have the plans at the so-called Gormley House. And essentially, I can argue as it relates to a hardship because of the uniqueness of the property and the existing non-conforming structure that's so close to the lot line at Gormley. at the property at the corner of Sansone and Jackson Street. But in reality, this is one of these instances that you're gonna be hearing more and more because we do allow ADUs now in the property. And certainly as a matter of right, they could put an ADU. But in this instance, they're doing something much better. They're building a full single family home for good quality housing in the city of Brockton that will be able to accommodate a family It will be new. It will certainly increase the appearance of the neighborhood. It will certainly not be a detriment to the neighborhood and allow us to create good, decent infill housing in a situation I think that is readily receptive to doing it in this property. So Scott, if you wanna go over the specifics of entry parking and the rest, that would be great.

Thank you. As Attorney Burke said, Lene's looking to divide her existing property into two lots. We were before the planning board a couple of months ago for the definitive subdivision, and they did grant definitive subdivision approval to allow for the division as shown. Each of the lots have about 5,500 square feet. of area, which is close to what everybody else in the neighborhood has. As far as the home, the proposed home, as Attorney Burke said, it's the Gormley House that we've been bringing before you folks a lot recently. It's a two-story, four-bedroom home, four bedrooms up on the second floor. A relatively small footprint, so it fits well in the neighborhood, matches all of the houses. Being an older neighborhood, a lot of the houses are pretty close to the street, within 5 or 10 feet of the street line. We're proposing our house to be 20 feet from Sansom Street and 24 feet from Jackson Street, so it lines up with the existing homes on Jackson and the existing homes on Sansom Street. In addition, we have our own driveway off of Sansom Street as far away from the intersection of Jackson Street as we can. And we also have some street trees proposed to along Sansom and to along Jackson to green up the corner.

So essentially the, uh, the existing house is a preexisting nonconforming and essentially whether you chose to grant a variance as an option, which I have made an application for or find that it's a, a, a, a, a, uh, nonconforming use in which it is now being made more nonconforming. So a variance is appropriate for both instances. And we'd ask you to make that determination and grant the requested relief. That's it.

You go over the hardship again.

I think that you, certainly can argue the hardship is.

Please take the microphone with you, Jim. Thank you.

That what you have is you have an existing, pre-existing non-conforming structure that's on the westerly side of a large, for the neighborhood, large parcel of land, which makes it conducive to dividing the property into two single-family homes. Well... the existing dwelling, and then the new single family home. So I believe it's the shape of the lot, the size of the lot, and the uniqueness of the preexisting home that existed prior to our zoning ordinance in 1967.

All right, board members, any questions?

So just for clarity, you said you have approval for the lot to be divided.

Just wanted to, yeah, it's part of the process. We, when we come before you folks with a, with a substandard lot, we have to go to the planning board first to create the lots. So the lots you are seeing now are created existing lots, just not buildable lots. So the planning board creates them. Then you folks make them buildable.

Did the planning board create a document that said that they granted that? Or are you just telling us that you were there?

No, they did.

No, they don't usually.

Yeah, there's an approval letter dated June 18th to the city clerk.

Okay, so there is a document where they have, yeah.

Yes, sir.

In the future when we do these, I wish you would include that if you could. That could just kind of make things a lot smoother.

Understood.

Yeah. All right, in your dissertation here, it says that the lot is 16,323 square feet, when in fact the whole lot is only 10,882 square feet. That's correct. The total is 10,000. Okay. So each finished lot is proposed to be 5,441 square feet. Also in your presentation, you're talking about two single family houses. The construction is going to be one single family house. Yes, one single family home. The existing house at number 1921 Sansom Street is a two family house.

It is, yeah, two family home.

I checked the records on it, it's been a two-family for quite some time. So in order to reduce the size of the lot to accommodate that two-family house, something's gotta be done as far as granting relief to reduce the size of that lot.

We're in the request for reverence. You're making that part of the request for the whole thing? Yes, I think in the application it says that. Request for variance in the alternative determination that it's an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use.

All right, so as long as we understand that that is the case. I do that in the alternative in these cases. On the plans that are submitted for this proposed house, which is what we call the Gormley House, the plans show a dog house on the back and a deck on the back on the plans, but on the site plan, there was nothing in the backyard. You're showing us a 23 foot setback in the rear yard. So the plans show that there's going to be a 12 by 14 deck on the back. plus the dog house, which allows you to go into the basement. My estimation is that 23 feet setback on the back could be reduced down to as little as 10 to 11 feet in the back.

With the deck. Pardon me?

For the deck. With the deck. When I went and looked at the site, the house at number 43 Jackson Street, which is immediately to the south of this property, that house... is built right up to the property line, right to the fence. So one of the things I have concerns about is with a deck on the back of this proposed new dwelling, that deck could be 10 or 11 feet away from the house. That's on Jackson street. It's going to be right up against the house. So I'm a little disappointed that the plans don't show that there is a deck going on the back of this house. Um, and the fact that the house next door is a two family dwelling. It obviously has two of everything when I went down and looked at it and the city records for assessing and everything shows that it's a two family. So basically what you're asking to do is to take this lot that contains a two family house, break the lot in half, put the two family on a smaller lot and create a new lot and build a new dwelling. That's where we're at. It's a good summation, yes. Okay, any questions from the board? Everybody's good? Okay, I'm going to close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone in the room that wants to speak in favor? Seeing none, unless there is,

Chief, I don't know if you're calling me and playing.

Well, you indicated that you were getting up.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the ZBA. The proposal before you is a single family. This single family will maintain the characteristics of the neighborhood. The relief that's being requested today does not create a substantial adverse impact to the neighborhood. It doesn't impact public safety, traffic, or to the adjacent properties. The property represents the appropriate use of the existing parcel consisting with Brockton's goals of expansion. I know that's not a variance type of thing, but I'm speaking here as a council person. And the opportunity to really respect the ADU zoning changes that have been made. As a city councilor, it's important to base any comments of legal findings and requirements to the application before us, rather than general support of a developer, which this is not. This is someone that's just trying to build a single family home on their property. Based on the support, I ask that the ZBA and Mr. Chairman that you vote in favor of this application. Again, I don't think this is a detriment. I think there is a hardship here as the parcel, and again, probably could put an ADU here, but I think, you know, looking at the parcel, a single family would fit here and keep up with the characteristics of the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the ZBA. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak in favor? Seeing none. Are you going to speak in favor? Yes, I will. Hold on for one minute. Is there anyone else that's going to speak in favor? Seeing none, I'm going to 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?

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. I'm here to speak in favor of this project. Ms. Correa is obviously a young entrepreneur. professional nurse. And this property is going to be a much improved property at the end of this project. I mean, she had the opportunity to place ADUs there, but I think the single family homes may be much better for the neighborhood to maintain the quality of the neighborhood and actually add to the value of the houses in that neighborhood. So with that, I ask all of you to please give this consideration and approve it favorably. Thank you very much, board members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Good evening. Dave Teixeira, Council Lodge. Mr. Chair and Madam ZBA. I'm here to speak in favor of this project. I think it's going to bring a lift, especially on Jackson Street and Samson Street. And she's going to live there as a homeowner. And she owns the other property. I think it will be good for that neighborhood. So just ask all the board members to be concerned to vote in favor for this project. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Is there any other 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'm going to close that portion of the hearing. I will now close the public discussion and open it for board member deliberation. Board members.

So on the planning board, we did break this lot apart in for the purpose of development. Essentially, we didn't break it. And I think this is definitely suits or is a better fit than an ADU considering what's proposed. I would be in favor of it.

Yeah, the only thing I'm concerned about is, you know, what the chairman mentioned about the deck in the back. And when you're looking at that lot size and how close it is, and I understand that they moved the house back, but it's not really in alignment to everything else on the street. It wouldn't make any sense just to push it up just a little bit to give that neighbor some privacy. And do we have any letters of support from the neighbors at all?

None. No? No other letters came in, right? So I think what they proposed was the setbacks were in compliance generally with other dwellings in the neighborhood. I think that was the argument that was given. Usually on a house like this, you will have a lot that has a depth of about 100 feet. This one only has 79 feet. It has 5,441 square feet, but it is a uniquely sized lot that it is really short on depth when you add on to a deck and whatever's going to be added on in the back. So I guess the question is, is this the best use for this lot? Are everybody happy with this particular location?

I would think the use in this instance outweighs an ADU alternative. So in my opinion, I think it's best use.

I agree.

Motion to grant. Second. Right. The motion has been made and seconded to grant. What's that? Hold on just a second. I know the testimony has been concluded, but there is an option to put a patio in the back rather than a deck. But what we're voting on tonight is nothing in the back on the plans relative to the lot compared to the plans of the dwelling that are gonna be placed there, so. All right, so the motion's been made and seconded to Grant. All right, please call the roll.

Mr. Landry.

Yes.

Ms. Moss.

Yes. Ms. Sweeney. Yes.

Ms. Greenberg.

Yes. Mr.

Chair.

No.

Mr.

Chair, that is four in the affirmative, one in the negative.

The vote is four in the affirmative, one in the negative. The petition is granted. All right. So as I mentioned earlier, next month we will hold an election for chairperson and vice chairperson. And by our bylaws, only the permanent members of the board can vote. So keep that in mind. And having no other business to come before the board, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second.