Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

going to call the May 2026 meeting of the zoning board of appeals to order. It's now 6:00. The members that are sitting for tonight's cases include member Steve Leenus, Monnique Greenberry Berry, Fire Chief Brian Nadelli, member James Sweeney, and myself, Chair Kenneth Galligan. Our zoning enforcement officer this evening is our clerk to the zoning board, zoning enforcement commissioner is Mr. William Forte. Our recording secretary tonight is Lily the Diver and that is everybody is here. I would ask Okay, put that over there. I would ask anybody in the audience that has a cell phone or electronic device if you can either shut it off or put it on silence so it doesn't affect or interrupt the meeting. If you need to talk on your phone for any reason, I would appreciate if you take your conversation out in the hallway. I will tell you that this meeting is being televised by Brockton Cable Television. It will be shown over the next month from time to time. So, it is being televised. Prior to the start of the hearing, you have an opportunity to withdraw from tonight's hearing without prejudice. Is there anyone here this evening that wants to withdraw? Seeing no one, we will continue. There are no withdrawals. The order of the the operation of the meeting tonight will be I will call the case. The petitioner will come up to the podium, make the presentation to the board and at the end of the presentation by the petitioner. Uh I will open it up for any questions from the board members to the petitioner relative to the testimony that had just been given. Following that, I will open it up for

public discussion and I will first ask for anyone that wants to speak in favor. Next, I will ask if there is anyone that wants to speak in opposition. Next, I will ask if there's any elected official or appointed official in the room that wants to be heard on the issue. And lastly, I'll ask if there is anyone in the room that has a question relative to any of the testimony that has been given. Following that, I will close the public hearing. At the end of the public hearing, I will then open it up for discussion among the board members. Now, this is the portion of the hearing where the public comments have been completed and based upon the testimony that has been given, you will hear deliberations from the board members. At some point, you will hear a board member make a a motion to grant. I will then ask the clerk to call the role and everybody will respond to the roll call. In order for a petition to be granted, 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 is a denial. So, if there's three in favor, two in opposition, the petition will be denied. At that point, the clerk will tell me what the outcome was. I will then announce to all of you whether the petition has been granted or denied. All right, board members, are we all set to go? Good. Okay. The first first case tonight is case number 2610. The petition of Wajo Montero 15 Dana Place brought to Mass for a variance seeking relief from section 279 to construct a single family

dwelling. Relief from lot size, frontage, side, and rear yard setback requirements in an R3 zone located at 21 Dana Place.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Attorney Jake Cedon still at 71 Legion Parkway. Uh with me is our engineer Scott Farrier and also with me are the petitioner and the owner Xiao and Dino Montero who live in the existing house there. And Mr. Monttero has three adult children including um Dino the and and one child, one little child. Um the zone is an R3 zone uh which is a residential zone that allows up to four uh houses or units to be to be built. Some of the members here may remember that we filed but withdrew what we wanted initially which was a two family house. Um, we got together, Scott, myself, and the family and said, "Look, uh, it might be too dense." So, we're back filed with a single family house. It would be a house that has, uh, three bedrooms, one of which is a master bedroom and, um, a master bath. Uh, two regularsiz um, uh, bedrooms. The uh parking spaces required would be two and as you can see from the rendering the site plan to the left of the house on Dana Place uh would be the parking spaces. I can tell you if you have not visited that site that Dana Place is a completely deadended street um with only four other houses on it. Um three of those four, one of which is um Xiao the fathers, uh are very similar in what we requesting to do in that they have been

there a while. They are maybe 50 foot frontage, maybe 5,000 square ft in between those three houses. There is I'm not even sure there's 15 ft. So those have been existing there. They're all Xiao's neighbors and all of them are in favor of this situation happening. The vacant lot, if you've seen it, u obviously is not degrade at the moment. Uh but if the if the petition is allowed, all of that would be graded. I can tell you from a fire point of view that there's a hydrant directly across the street from our uh proposed uh uh request and there is a drain hole and a manhole within 10 ft or 15 ft of this proposal. Um the relief we're looking for obviously would be lot size. Um uh I believe we we actually Scott has since the two family we put in I think we don't really need side relief anymore front or rear. That right Scott

except for the deck.

Yeah except for Exactly. Um all the utilities are already on the street. Um there is uh obviously water connections and we're going to propose that uh on your on the uh on the rendering it shows where the water and sewer will be connected. Um I can tell you that historically Mr. Ontario has received two tax bills because it's been an existing lot of record that's been recorded and Scott will tell you more about that in a few minutes since 1910. Yeah. And um the uh to to quickly get to the chase, the hardship obviously here is that it's a very short uh dead end street of established houses only four. Nothing can be further put there except if this house is allowed. You'll you'll the locus of the situation is where O'Donnell's playground is directly across the street is Dana Place. There is a huge since I played little league, pony league, and high school at the odd playground that those factories have been there and their highest and best use appears to be only warehouses. So that's not going to change at all. um the the desirable relief may be granted by you uh if we address a couple of things and that is uh that it doesn't deriggate from the zoning uh in the area and the area is on certainly on Dana Place single family houses. So that is right in harmony with the situation. Uh it also would not in any way uh ruin if you will or dergate from the intent of what the fathers made that zoning there

because in fact everything around there within a half a within at least at least a half mile of are very multifamilies threes fours and I actually lived for when I was on the city council I lived at the corner of Hunt and Court Street and that was a four family. I knew everybody on the street and those are all three family, four family, all surrounding which is the Hunt Street side. Um again, uh there would certainly be no detriment at all uh because the neighborhood is stable. it can't expand any further than allowing this situation and that is in complete I would say harmony and consistency uh with the character the size and the use which uh which is exactly what's on that street now Scott will you tell us about the uh we have two separate tax bills we get every year Mr. Ontario gets for each of the lots. One is known as

one is known as six and the other one's known as 61. Yeah. So, it's not like uh there's any any merger here, but go ahead.

Uh Scott Faria, Homegrren Engineering. As attorney Cedon said, it's two separate plots. Uh plot 6-1 is the existing number 15. Our lot before you tonight is plot six at the end of Dana Place. And just to show you what Attorney Cedon was talking about, it is shown as a separate lot on the 1916 plan that created uh all of Dana Place uh in lots off of uh North Manchester Street as well. And it's uh off of Manchester Street. And it's also shown on the current deed uh as two separate parcels with separate meets and bounds descriptions uh referring to lots 24 and 25 on that record plan. So it uh it kind of checks off those boxes that we talk about. uh with the board on a lot of these uh individual lot cases. As far as everything else goes, like attorney Cedon said, the it's a single family home. We have a driveway in the front, a couple of street trees that we're proposing off to the side. Uh we have a roof infiltration system like we typically do on most uh new construction just to handle whatever runoff currently is going into the ground. That won't happen anymore with the uh with the proposed dwelling. So, we do have a an infiltration system behind the house that'll handle all that roof runoff.

Thank you, Scott. And it goes without saying, because it's a short deadend street, there'll be no traffic impact, the son already lives there with the other adult people. And so, all the cars that are on the street are going to remain the same cars because it's the intention of Mr. Xiao Montana for his son and wife and um child, little child to move in there. The other two kids will stay in the main house. That's basically uh the presentation, Mr. Chairman. Could you just hit the hardship again?

Well, the size of the houses that are already on the street, it's an existing lot of record. Okay. It doesn't deriggate from the intent of the fathers of the city that wanted it to be residential. In fact, it's single family. We also out of our own valition uh with a suggestion that we do try not to put a two family in there to put a single family house in there which character-wise and uh convenience-wise and every otherwise um certainly doesn't uh in any way ruin that neighborhood uh aesthetically or any other way. It would be of very highest and best use in my opinion. Did I Did I understand correctly? They already live next door in the other house.

Yes, correct. And want to build next to Yes, sir. Okay.

So, specifically, you're asking for relief from lot size. Yes. What's the square footage of it now? It's 5,000 square ft on that existing lot. Yeah, correct. 53 for single family. 50 ft of frontage. Yes. Right. Which you have. Correct. Uh 25 ft of setback in the rear. Yes, sir. Yes. And we need 20 ft total from two sides with one side being no less than 10. And both of these are 10.

Yes. That's why I said the houses that are already on there are similar exactly similar houses. I don't even think they have 10 or 15 feet between them and I've viewed that many times there. Okay. We have several letters that have come in that I will read at the appropriate time, but they all seem to address a problem with water on that lot and the possibility of water infiltrating onto adjacent lots. Can you tell us something about that?

Yeah, I I can, Mr. Chairman. I as far as the water uh encroaching on anybody else's property as the last property on Dana Place and the only undeveloped lot, everybody else is higher than us. So, at this point, we're kind of a collecting point for the whole neighborhood. Uh including the houses on the Abuing Street on Hunt Street behind us and on Dana Place. Everybody kind of the water is all getting dumped on our lot. Uh once the home is constructed, uh as I said, we'll have the the infiltration system uh in place to to handle the roof runoff and and that should uh keeping the grades pretty much where they are and just leveling things off. That'll uh that by itself will make sure that there's no water encroaching on the Abu property.

So it should not be an issue. Mr. Chairman, it's your intention to bring the grade of this property up to the grade of the house the houses on on Hunt Street. The the director of butter the director butter on Dana Place. Yes. Their water is now coming onto our property because it's a low point. Are there any catch basins at all on Dana Place? There are uh a little bit further down the road. There's two catch basins in a manhole that dump out onto Manchester. Nothing at the Nothing at the end. I didn't see anything. I

Nothing that we saw. It could have been buried, but nothing that we saw. And it's typically it's right in in the road does pitch down to that point. So, it wouldn't really make sense to have the city have foot catch basins and 200 ft of pipe. So, I would say no. I think it's right there in the middle of Dana Place that we have shown the drainage. So, everything's everything on the street. So, anything from over here that's shedding this way is getting caught in the street and going down the drainage. And uh anything on this side is is pretty much doing the same. Everybody's kind of crowd crowned in all heading towards Dana Place. So I uh I I don't think there's any I don't think there's any significant flooding problems out there. Mr. Chairman,

and I do remember, Mr. Chairman, that the other complaint I think that the neighbors on Hunt Street have if they were going to lose their privacy. And I would suggest that this is going to have little or no impact even on their privacy, which they're not entitled to on our property. But I think that was one of when I saw the letters that was one of the complaints. So I think that the biggest concern I have is the testimony that we received relative to flooding and it's your testimony to us that you feel as though the reason the flooding is there is because this parcel is lower than any of the other parcels. So it's collecting.

Correct. It's your intention to build up this lot to grade to what you're saying as an engineer in your capacity that that would alleviate that. And you're telling us that all of the roof drains are going to be into explain the roof drains. I

instead of shedding overland and and running down the driveway out onto out onto Dana Place or uh running 10 ft away into the abuing property, everything is put underground into a drainage system underground. Essentially a leeching system underground that'll handle all the runoff from the roof. The rest of the lot will be graded so everything grades and drains out to Dana Place and gets trapped into that closed municipal drainage system. And you are before us tonight requesting a single family residential. Correct. Yes.

This is granted. There will be a stipulation that this will remain a single family. Now, I don't see how we can do an ADU in this house, particularly where you're coming before zoning and requesting a single family. So, I am of the impression that if this is granted, that's all we're going to see there is a single family house. That is correct. If you weren't before us, you would probably have some more options. But with we've explored them, Scott and myself, and the materials. Okay. I just want to make sure that we're all understanding that. Yeah.

All right. Board members, you got any other questions? No. I My question would be again, but I think the chief touched on it. If the lot currently isn't up to grade, then the water isn't properly flushing to the middle point. That would be my major concern. But by bringing it up to grade that that area and the lots next to it aiming towards the uh catch basin would then correct would then flush out. Yes, sir. And just for clarity, um you said all the the water basin is going to be underground. You're connecting that drainage to the street drainage.

No, the the roof infiltration. It's essentially a septic system. We don't have that many in Brockton, but essentially a septic system. It's just a a big uh a big area roughly 12 by 20. All of the downspouts instead of dropping over land like yours probably does, they all go underground and tying to that 12x 20

infiltration system, a stone system basically, and it just takes all the water and goes and recharges the groundwater, which is what uh what the state and the EPA is trying to get us to do to get as much ground water back into the ground. So that's exactly what it is. So there's nothing going over land, it all goes back into the ground. Okay, board members, you all set? I'm going to close that portion of the hearing. I'm now going to open it up for public discussion. 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? I have several letters that I will read. I will not read all of the letters verbatim, but there are several letters that have come in in opposition. And the first one is from 36 Hunt Street, which would be to the west of this property. And their concern is flooding that they have seen in that lot. And they're very concerned with the flooding. Uh they're talking about more traffic, overcrowding, loss of backyard privacy, and reduced open spaces. That is 36. This one is from 36 Hunt Street. Uh a different family member, but basically same thing. They're very concerned about how water has been puddling in this uh lot. And that's why I asked the question about how you're going to address that. And again, it's uh they're saying more traffic on a dead end street, overcrowding, loss of backyard privacy, and reduce of open space. This one is from 40 Hunt Street.

Uh basically the same situation. Uh they're concerned they're going to lose two to three of our feet of our backyard from our fence. It sounds like the fence may be in in the wrong location. Uh reduced open spaces between houses, the flooding in heavy rain, loss of backyard privacy, traffic, and a quiet neighborhood. And the last one again is from 44 Hunt Street. And this one basically says the same thing that they object to the relief simply because 21 Dana Place was a lake for several days. And again, the water must have been puddle puddling in that lot. So those were letters that were sent to the board. Board members, you have all these letters?

Yes.

So I think what I just said kind of summarizes everything that Okay, good. So is there anyone else that wants to speak in opposition? Seeing none, I'm going to 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'm going to 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'll close that portion of the hearing. That concludes the public discussion. I will now close that portion of the hearing and open it up for discussion among the board members. Board members, I think after um the explanation, obviously the water was, you know, the the main issue that I had. Um, but seeing as how two things, the catch basin for the roof uh runoff and the grade that'll kick that water out to the street catch basin. Um, other than that, it's it's identical with what's in the neighborhood. So, I think addressing that issue kind of did it for me.

I would agree. And the variance isn't asking for very much, right? It's we don't really have a issue with setbacks that we thought we might. So, and it's a single family home. Mhm. It's in an R3 district and they want to put a single family house in the R3 district. Um, the district is surrounded by multifamilies, but on Dana Place, I think most of them are all single families. Yeah.

Uh, yeah. I would suggest that we put a stipulation on this if it is given that uh this shall be and remain a single family house with no further living spaces created without coming back before zoning. A motion to grant with that stipulation. Second. Okay. The motion has been made and seconded with that stipulation. Will the clerk please call the role? Mr. Lanis, yes. Chief Nadelli, yes. Mr. Sweeney, yes. Miss Greenberry,

yes. Chair Gallagghan. Yes. Okay, Mr. Chair, that is five in the affirmative.

The vote is five in the affirmative with the stipulations. The petition is granted. Thank you members of the luck. The next petition is of Philip C. Nzarella Jr. at 1063 North Main Street, Bactam, Mass for a variance seeking relief from section 279, 2727 section 1B and section 2748 to build a two family dwelling on a nonconforming vacant lot relief from frontage rear sideyard setback lot coverage in R3 zone located at 50 West Park Street.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the zoning board of appeals, Philip Nestrella, and uh I am not the petitioner. I am here representing Miss Hannah Splain, who is here in the audience. Hannah, why don't you sit up here with Frank, please? Uh she is the applicant. Uh Hannah wishes to build a house at the lot in question on West Park Street. Let me interrupt one second. Who is the applicant again? Uh Hannah Splain. Splain.

Yeah, I believe that's her name is listed on the application. Got it. Now, Hannah has uh currently lives in the neighborhood, has grown up in the area. Her family lives in the area on Harvard Street, a street over. Her intention is she intends on getting married to her fiance, Frank Akens, uh who was here also with her. He's an electrician in the city. and they are very familiar with the neighborhood, lived there in their their whole lives and wish to continue living there. The lot in question is vacant. There used to be a house on it. It dates back to the 1930s. For reasons I am unaware of, the house is no longer there. I checked the records at the assessor's office. It goes back to 1937. Why it's no longer there, again, I don't know, but there are the remnants of the driveway. I have city records which I filed, prepared and inserted into a memo that I submitted uh showing the things that were done at that location. Now the reason we are here also is due to the modifications in the zoning bylaws, what was a formally legal conforming use is now a pre-existing non-conforming use. In some communities, they have adjusted their bylaws so that this would require a special permit. Wouldn't have to go through this process. Uh Ree and Brookline have made uh modifications so that if you show certain minimum statistics, you get a special permit. Here in this particular lot, I don't have those. you we require which we could have qualified under chapter 48 section 6 as a pre-existing non-conforming use. We would need a minimum of 50 foot frontage and um 5,000 square feet for an area lot size.

This whole neighborhood there are no uh there are fewer 50-ft frontage than there are uh lesser frontage areas. The lot in question has 40 foot 45t frontage. To the left of it is 43. To the right of it is 45. To the right of that is 36. To the right of that is 38. And diagonally across the street are in the 30s. So the majority of house lots in that area somewhere average in the 40 to 45 foot um frontage which is again less than the 50 foot. Hence I am here seeking a variance to allow them to build a structure similar to what was there. a structure that will fit into the neighborhood and actually will be less in height than what the zoning bylaws allow us. It will be for a two family will have underground parking which would be uh off- streetet parking and that won't interfere in this particular structure will blend into the neighborhood so it'll look like it was always there and absent that it uh will be is simply a vacant lot. Uh in the past uh several weeks, I've received numerous phone calls from some of the neighbors who are happy, enthusiastic, there will be a house there. I've heard complaints about due to the vacant lot, cars go in their park, young people blasting their radio, doing whatever. They don't want that lot blank anymore. They don't want it vacant. They want it used. Without having a house there, there's nothing for that lot except putting a Christmas tree up there perhaps like Rockefeller Center in the winter time. But a house belongs there. It it is fit for a lot of the same nature character that was always there. Uh Scott, if you would kindly give to

the board some of the dimensions and show what the relief is that we're seeking for the the numbers and how it will be consistent with everything else there, that would be appreciated.

Sure. The uh really the the one place where we're a little bit closer than uh than the zoning allows is uh the front yard setback, which would be 20 ft. But there is the section in the zoning that allows uh us to use the uh the average setback of of the adjacent lots if you have a lot in the middle that's vacant. So the house to our left is set back at 12 ft. The house to our right is set back at 11 1/2 ft and we're set back at 12 ft. So we're uh set back uh directly in line with the the two adjacent houses. Uh in the rear we're at 21 ft. In the rear we're uh where 25 is required. But again, uh, in fitting with the the neighborhood, as attorney Nzarella said, you can see we're right in line with the, uh, the abuing home on either side. Uh, the other setbacks, we have 5 foot on on the uh on the left and about 10 ft on the a little more than 10 ft on the uh on the left hand on the driveway side. So, uh, we're really doing the best we can to to make it fit on the lot and and kind of conform to the existing homes on either side of us. And with this plan that Mr. Farrier had drafted, we are minimizing the nonconformities on that particular lot. We're protecting uh the pre-existing uh nature of the lot. And as far as sustaining the elements for the variance, we are not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood because we are exactly what's in the surrounding neighborhood. We're consistent with that. We don't deriggate from the intent of zoting ordinances because we're complying again with what exists. This is almost like a Lego set laid out on a floor. There's a missing piece that will fit in that spot. Are we allowed to put it in the spot and complete the Lego set? It's as simple as that. The the current trend in zoning now is really for the uniformity and equity in zoning so that we are consistent. And this is a

case out of uh Brookline again. relief may be justified in zoning bylaws that they should be applied uniformally within the district. This is a uniform application introduction into the system and the neighborhood uh would be granted this type of uh this lot would be granted relief so that uh there is not an inequitable uh status with that property. There is a financial hardship in that they are paying taxes on a vacant piece of land that right now they can do nothing with. Hence the reason we see we we come before you as the zoning board who has the authority, the right and the ability to grant them the use in in uh activity on that property the same as everyone else and makes it a very viable uh economically feasible and gives these this young couple here a future place in the city of Brockton, which I think is what we're looking for. Again, the basic raw definition of zoning, does this use go in this spot? and I suggest it does and I would welcome any questions from you.

Can I um So, do they plan on moving to this house versus the house they own behind there? That's correct. So, they're going to live in the the house on West Havit h I mean West Park. They're going to live in the house on 50 West Park. Currently, she lives with family now. the house that's on Winthrop Street. Correct. On the other side. So, it plans to be owner occupied basically. Absolutely. One unit will be above for rental purposes and to help with the expenses.

So, I did some research on this property. And I discovered the original house was built on that lot in 1912. Correct.

It was ordered to be torn down by the city of Brockton on April 23rd, 1997 by then building inspector Robert Finnegan. Hercules Wrecking took the building down and the demolition was paid for by the city of Brockton. That lot sat vacant for 20 years. It apparently was sold in tax title foreclosure on January 10th of 2001. When it was sold, it was sold with the classification and understanding that it was a vacant, undevelopable lot that contained 3,757 square ft. The lot was purchased on August 29th of 2017 by Hannah Splain. The lot has since sat there for 9 years as a vacant lot. So since the building was torn down, that lot has been in its current state for 29 years. So that's the history that I found that there was a dwelling there. We don't know why it was torn down, but it was ordered to be removed by the city. So obviously there was something wrong with the house.

Correct. And in the end, the city paid to have the house demolished. They obviously put a lean on the property and then it sounds like it was sold at probably one of the auctions that we were doing quite some time ago. That's what I surmised. I just didn't have any facts to back it up, but it seemed that's what had taken place.

All right. One of the things that you just mentioned that is a hardship on this property is financial. According to the collector of taxes, the taxes in 2024 were $67.60. In 2025, it was $531 and last year it was $61.30. So, I just want to let you know my concern that I don't see that as a financial situation.

Well, I I understand that. I may have a different twist on that. I'm not suggesting that the payment of $57 or $60 is a hardship on the pop property or on their pocket, but when you have a potentially viable piece of property that you're not allowed to do anything with, that you can develop it into a piece of property worth thousands and thousands of dollars. I think that in itself is a hardship that the inability in being handcuffed to use your property for its highest and best use has an economic factor. And I don't think hardship is defined with a particular amount of money. It could be $67,6700 or 67,000. It's what you can use or not use that property for. Again, you have a lot that looks, acts, and feels exactly like all the other lots there, but all you can do is sit and look at it. I think it qualifies under reversion of a hardship.

Okay. And it shows that the total square footage is 3,757. And the relief you're asking for the the square footage should be 10,000 square ft. Correct. The frontage should be 100 ft. Correct. This is 45 ft.

Correct. And again, I don't think there are any lots here that have 100 foot frontage. They all have the 45 40T average 42 feet. If you take the 30s, the 40s, and some 50s, there aren't any with 100. None existed back at that time. So again, we're dealing with that uh cookie cutter layout that's been there since perhaps 1912 and trying to make the best and highest most practical use of that property. This vacant land, we got to have to do something with it. Put something there. Okay. Okay. I'm just trying to put things in perspective as to why you're 100% correct why we're here tonight. Correct.

So, this is a lot that by today's standards requires 10,000 square ft and we have 3,700 square ft. I think that's something that I am taking into consideration. The fact that the lot has sat vacant for so long and the fact that the city has assessed that property as vacant undevelopable land, it almost falls into a category of green space that when that house years ago was torn down, it lost whatever grandfathering it had. So that's obviously why we're here tonight.

Correct. So, what I'm considering here is putting a two family house on a very substandard lot. And the argument that I'm hearing is the lot is in conformance with other lots on the street. That's

that's correct. And once this house is built and you drive down there, you would not see anything that stands out of the way. It looks like it fits and is part of the fabric. It's part of the intent of the zoning ordinance and it's in conformity with all of the other lots in the area far more than what currently looks when you drive down the street you see this vacant lot and a house on the left and a house on the right. So it's trying to stay consistent with the development or that had taken place in that area and the development that currently exists there. Okay. On hardship uh you mentioned it's it will not be detrimental to the other houses in the neighborhood. Correct.

Other portions of what we need to satisfy a variance to a lot size, topography, things of that nature. Can you address any of that?

Well, there's nothing uh odd with the topography. I'm relying on the financial aspect of this. The lot size is smaller, but quite frankly, uh it's the shape that defines whether or not that qualifies for the variance more so than the the lot size. Again, I re revert back to the the uh size of the the shape of the property or location of the property in the fact that it's the only one that is exactly similar to all of the other lots, but the only one that is absent the house and is causes a financial hardship and will cause a a greater financial hardship the further we go down the road by the owner of the property that just can sit and look at that lot. So, it is not this, Mr. chairman. Quite frankly, it is not the the the most compelling reasons that have been presented in the past, but it is enough to sustain the grant of a variance. And I think you'll find more people are in favor of this than there are opposed to it. All this does is allow the the the use of a property and the um putting it up back on the tax base on the tax rules. How and why the city came to determinations it did back 20 years ago, I have no idea. But here in 2026, I think the proper and appropriate grant in in vision for this property is to put a house up similar to the other ones that would fit in and uh give this young couple a place to reside and stay within the city of Brockton. Can I ask?

And my last comment is on the plans, it is not shown, but under the sidewalk directly in front of this building is a 5-ft culvet. There is a brook that is enclosed from Fuller Street uh further down to uh Chester Avenue that goes into the river, Colebrook stream. Mhm. Uh just for understanding that that is a 5-ft culv that's underneath of that sidewalk that's directly in front of that building. Okay, understood.

So, so to that point, that's what I was going to ask. Is there any I know this is probably outside of our realm, but is there any protections that we put in place while they're trying to put a foundation in if this goes through to make sure that that culvert does not collapse? Uh well again I think that would be um something between engineering and the the building department to ensure that I don't have an answer for you on that. So the the other question just a couple of things I had do you you don't know why it was considered an unbuildable lot back when it was taken when it was purchased when that happened when it was torn down in 97. Do you have any reason why they that was stated that it was

I'm assuming because the the bylaws had been amended and and changed requiring uh certain sizes and dimensions. Come back to various this can't this is like a you know me trying to get into my suit when I that I wore when I was 15. It's never going to change. You know time has changed but it's not going to change.

You said it not me attorney. No, just just to uh well to digress, uh Chief Nadelli, I remember when I first started practicing, I I was in the courthouse and ran into a this then city solicitor Paul Adams and I told him I was going up before a zoning board and I was trying to figure out what to do and uh he said, "Remember one thing, if a 100% of variances are denied, you'll be 95% correct, but there won't be any development." So, it's kind of why we have a board to help vary and modify what we're doing to make things work. And and and I think this would be the ideal thing to make this work to give a a piece of real estate its highest and best use. Put a house there and give something tangible and usable by the couple behind me.

I don't know how we got from your suit size to that, but I don't know. But I don't usually get into my personal life here, but that's it. So, just one other last thing. Have we figured out what the going from say $6750 that has been being paid on this property with the potential development of this? Does anyone know what the yearly tax value will be of that house? What's your tax rate, Chief? What's that? What's the tax rate? I uh you have to ask me. 24, I think. What are we looking for a value? Yeah, I have to ask my wife. She pays the bills. I mean, you know, it's going to be a two family. It's going to be worth 800 900,000. Yeah. Okay. All right. Uh, got it. $10,000. Yep. Ish. Is got it.

Still picturing attorney Nazarella in his suit when he was 15. Good thing I didn't come out with my other images. Big big callers and big tie. So, I only bring up this situation with the culit because it wasn't on the plans. I I only want to let you know that that will be a problem. And I think it's between the building inspector and the DPW commissioner, whatever they want to do. I agree. But I think upfront you people need to know. A lot of people don't know that that CO is under that sidewalk and we just lost one over on West Elm Street, which is probably very similar to what is currently on West.

Understood. We've done a couple in the in the neighborhood with that culvert. Uh not on West Park Street, but one of the abuing streets. So uh I'm I'm sure we'll address it with DPW and and the building department. Chief Okay. Any other questions from board members? Everybody's good. I'm going to close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor? Yes. Please give your name to the clerk. How you doing? Uh Frank Akens. I'd like to speak in favor. Uh kind of like what Phil was saying. Um we're hoping to build a I'm sorry I cannot hear you. Just speak up. I'm sorry. Uh Frank Akens. Uh kind of like he said, trying to I'm speaking in favor of it. Um

address uh uh 103 Winthre Street, Brockton. Um so we're trying to start a family. We have a one-year-old right now, another one on the way. Uh her roots go back here 80 years. Um we live at Winthre Street now, but we can't stay there. It's not like a a thing you can stay. So we're hoping to build the two family. Her mom's about to retire, maybe put her on the other floor, help with watching the kid. We both work. So, um, uh, basically that's that's, uh, also I volunteer in the community. I do, uh, Habitat for Humanity. I'm an electrician. So, we like to stay here. We love Brockton. We like to stay. So, uh, thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Colin Spano. Uh, 110 Winthrup Street. Um, 10. Yes, sir. Um, I'd just love to say I'd love to see a beautiful family move in to that vacant lot. uh rather than have the misgreants and dun goodist that loiter there. Uh now very good. Thank you. Does anyone anyone else want to speak in favor?

We have two letters that have come in in favor. One is from party who lives at 33 Colgate Street. and he drives by 50 West Park Street, says it's an eyesore and he's in favor of building at 50 West Park Street. So, he is not in a butter. Uh, another one has come in from Mr. Cohen. I live and own adjacent lot on West Pike Street. um says one of the problems is being trespassed on used to house and fix cars by total strangers with no regards to residents who are adjacent to it and are subject to noise day and night loud music except and rodents. So, he is in favor of developing the lot. Just an editorial comment. When I went by there and checked it out, that lot appeared to be quite secure. Was all fenced in with shrubbery out front. And I'm just kind of surprised to hear what we're hearing on these letters. All right. Is there anyone else that wants to speak in favor? Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the hearings. Is there anyone who 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'll close that portion of the hearing. That will conclude the public discussion on the issue. I will now close that portion of the hearing and open it up for board discussion.

Well, I'll I'll give you my take. I I think the relief under 277 and 279 is justified. Um, as the neighborhood was developed before zoning, so it's all of like uh I think this is probably something where if the house a similar situation if house burnt down, we'd be asking for the same the same relief. um some of these lots in denser neighborhoods and if they're not developed um can really sandbag the neighborhood for lack of better words. So with with those with that thought I would be in favor.

Yeah, I agree. And um as for like the size of the lot and the setbacks, u there are many lots on there that are identical. Um, and I think this lot is a great example of u many lots throughout the city that are just loaded with trash, drug use, and god knows what else. Um, I think this is the best use for it. Uh, but we have many complaints from the neighbors of uh people hanging out there and vehicles there and trash. Um, so I'm I'm in favor of this. I think it's great. Anybody else?

A motion to grant. Second. Motion has been made and seconded to grant. Will the clerk please call the role? Mr. Lannis? Yes. Chief Nardelli? Yes. Mr. Sweeney? Yes. Miss Greenberry? Yes. Uh, Chair Gallagghan? No. No. Mr. Chair, that is four in the affirmative, one in the negative. Vote is four in the affirmative, one in the negative. The petition is granted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Thank you. The next petition is 2612. The petition of David J. approves 120 Tory Street, Brock, Mass, for a variance seeking relief from section 279, sections 2713, and 13A to build a single family dwelling on a nonconforming vacant lot lacking lot frontage, width, and area. Setback in an R1B zone located 99 Stone Hill Street. Now, good evening, members of the board. Mr. Chair and members, uh my name is Matthew Costa. I'm the attorney for the uh petitioner, David Cruz, Cruz Properties LLC. Uh my address is 73 Washington Street in Taton. Uh Mr. Cruz is present and also present is William Self, the um surveyor who prepared the plans. Um

this parcel, it's in it's in an R1B zoning district. It's at the corner of Stonehill Street and uh Tiffany Drive. It's in an R1B zoning district. Um as the chair mentioned, the uh variances that are requested are for lot frontage, lot width, lot area, and um setback. Uh this parcel has been the subject of prior uh petitions before this board uh in June of 2017 and in February of 2020. Um which I didn't reference in my uh submission, but it's I've come to my attention that there was also a variance granted in 2020. Um v variances were granted by this board to construct a single family dwelling with an attached garage on this uh parcel of land. Um the record owners at the time of those petitions were Paul and William Barderelli. Um Paul Bardelli passed away in uh 2017 and I don't understand the specifics of the probate process. Uh but what's been described to me is that the probate of his estate led to a delay with the development of this parcel. I can't speak to the specifics of the probate process or how or why that happens, but that's what's been explained to me. Um both of the prior variances were basically a package. There were variances granted for this parcel and the parcel next door which is uh it's it's now this has a single family house on it at 76 Tiffany Drive. Um the condition of approval in 2020 was that uh the um Tiffany Drive which at the time was an unconstructed street in front of these two lots that it be constructed to the requirements of the planning board and that has in fact happened. So, uh, at the present time, this parcel is the corner lot, uh, at

the corner of of, um, of Tiffany Drive and Stonehill Street. And, uh, Tiffany Drive has actually been built. So, back when the board had originally reviewed this parcel, that ex the, uh, the extension of Tiffany Drive hadn't been built, but now it's there. So, it's literally a corner lot with uh, street frontage on both abuing streets. Um the current proposal is to is very similar to what was proposed back then to construct a single family dwelling. The only difference now is that at the time the proposal was to build a uh colonial style dwelling and this proposal is specifically to build a raised ranch style dwelling. Uh the board's conditions back in 2017 and 2020 were that it would be no more than four bedrooms and that's the proposal we have in front of you. A single family home with four bedrooms and an attached garage. Uh the conditions that were imposed uh in those prior decisions were were the no more than four bedrooms and that green space to be shown on the plan. Um to be honest, I don't know exactly what that means because it was a single family proposal. So that would be the the yard. I think that goes along with the single family home. The same thing here. It would be a ordinary single family home with a landscaped yard. And so those conditions that were imposed um in those earlier decisions would be absolutely um acceptable. uh the um in terms of the standards for variance, it's a key aspect of this is that this is a single family neighborhood. Um I drove by uh today. It's it's all single family homes. The abuing lots have been developed with with um you know, nicely

kept ordinary uh single family dwellings. This is a proposal to do the same thing. Uh right now you have a vacant lot in this prominent location in the neighborhood. This this corner lot, this would put, you know, additional um additional value into the neighborhood uh which would benefit the uh the abuters. Um it's a use that fits in with the neighborhood. It's a residential uh district. It's a it's a quiet neighborhood and the single family use would maintain the same the same character of the neighborhood. And um so essentially for those reasons, if there's any other questions, obviously we'll we'll entertain them. Uh but we're basically seeking to reinstate variances that were already approved by the board. Um there was some uh for whatever reason the the variance granted in 2020 was not properly recorded and that's part of the reason that it lapsed. So in in 2022 um and you look this was like during the covid period. So in 2022 uh a variance was recorded but they recorded the wrong variance. They recorded the 2017 variance. So that had lapsed and then they record and then so in 2022 they recorded a lapsed variance instead of the correct one. That was done by others. that there's nothing that we can do to rectify it, but it's part of the basis for seeking approval from this board at the present time and to to go forward and and and with a with a beneficial use on this property that will not um be detrimental in any way. It'll be beneficial. Um and on the topic of of um the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, this will be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. And one of the purposes of zoning is to have a level of uniformity especially in especially in residential districts. Um this lot was originally laid out in 1966 on a plan approved by

the planning board. It's never been modified. It's the same lot but uh when the members of the Bleley family had owned it in common with other lots it had lost uh grandfathering at that time and that's why the variances was were sought in 2017 and 2020. but they're part of a subdivision that's generally uniform in nature and that will remain in place if this variance is granted. Just one more comment about the regulation where is an existing lot that old and that it's a buildable lot now limited to a threebedroom. Right.

Right. And so so there was some changes to the zoning laws in Massachusetts that uh protect certain lots even if they were held in common and this lot probably would be protected by that. Uh but the interest here is is to go forward with the same conditions that were approved in 2020 which was the um the four bedrooms. So there the there was a change in the law that would authorize a lot like this to be built on, but would limit the um limit the the this the size of the dwelling to no more than 1,850 square ft and I believe three bedrooms. And the intent here is to seek approval of a variance to reinstate the conditions that the board had imposed in 2020, which was up to four bedrooms. And if you have any questions, we

So, you're not taking ownership of the problems that developed as far as recording. Well, I I can't do that because I wasn't It wasn't me. It was It was It was others. So, I I and I can't speak to what caused those problems.

So, this lot was part of the Bertoelli development up there. And I remember this case from many years ago that these two lots for some reason just never got developed. When they came to us, we granted both of these and they built on one. And I believe even with that one, there was some legality problems. And when this one just sat there vacant for a number of years as it does right now, uh whatever we granted for a variance expired, right? In that granting, we were kind of specific about how the street was to be laid out and on planning, it was discovered that it had to be done in the fashion that it currently is. So, the street that is there now is fully constructed to Brockton standards. That was not the case when we first gave out this this variance. So, as far as the street business that was on the original granting, uh, that's all gone by the boards. I can read basically what was in the granting of the last one and I think it's going to be pretty much exactly what you're talking about tonight. We're just kind of reaffirming what our last decision was. Is that kind of how you understand it?

Yes, exactly. The one change I think that there was a two-story house proposed for this and now it's a raised ranch. That's right. Okay. So, the raised ranch is going to face Stonehill Street. Yes. It's going to face west. Yeah. The house adjacent to it on Stonehill is a raised ranch as well. Correct. Now, I noticed on your plan next to that house that's currently there, which is number 89. It says on your plan here that there's an easement. Can you explain what that easement is that's between your proposed house and number 89?

It was basically uh the Vertoelli family owns that adjacent house as well. Uh what they wanted to do Yeah. Take hold the mic in your hand.

The Bertoelli uh uh family owns that adjacent house as well. when uh I was part of the original drawing up of the two lots uh and another company took it over with with our help uh and one of the stipulations that they want to do was leave themselves an access way to get from that side of the house around the back. It was only uh you can see it was very close to the property line. So, one of the reasons they wanted to maintain that access was for the that right the uh the easement was for their access for that and that's for the house that's currently there. That's correct. All right. That's correct. And the other easement that shows on this plan, what is that? A sewer easement out to Tiffany Drive.

Yeah, that's a sewer easement. The rear of the house that's adjacent. This sewer came out the back and ran down and connected into the existing sewer in uh in Tiffany. or that was already in when we came in to build on these other two lots. The what we did was created the easement to allow that sewer to remain and also uh it it we had access for the sewer out the other street but after the street was improved that was up that was part of the uh I think the condition actually for the first variance. So that ement serves the house that's currently there.

I'm excuse me. That easement serves the house that's currently there. That this easement is for the an existing sewer line that tied in the adjacent house. So we incorporated right that easement. So that e that that sewer line would would remain. Okay. So there's two easements. There's that one and then the one the other one you explained from Stonehill Street allows them access to the rear of the house. That's correct. Okay. And that'll all be part of the deed. Correct. So, the plan tonight is to build a single family raised ranch, four bedroomedroom, single family. Yep.

With a variance. I will probably talk to the board about a stipulation that this dwelling shall remain a single family dwelling. Any change to this dwelling requires coming back before zoning. Correct. So, we're not going to create an ADU in the basement on this house because we're going through the variance, right? No. No. We all agree on that. That's correct. Absolutely. Okay.

All right. So, just for the edification of the board when we we approved this already and as he said through some pro legal problems, it went beyond the two years the the variance elapsed. So, they're back before us tonight. We're pretty much the same scenario that we had several years ago. That's how I see it. The main reason is Paul Bertoelli had passed away after it was granted. So title to the to the lot in Tiffany was actually under William Berelli. The lot we have now was under Paul Bertoelli, but after it was granted in 2000 2020, I think

I got 27 on this one. Yep. Plot 824 was part of a larger pre-existing non-conforming lot part of a subdivision created many years ago in a literal enforcement of the provisions of the current ordinance that is in conformance of the lots in the sub. The house is to be constructed on part 824 show containing maximum of four bedrooms and shall be constructed in conformance with the plan submitted including green space and the driveway as shown. So you're agreeing to all of that. That's correct. Correct. And part of your hardship here obviously is top topography, the slope of the land on that piece of property. And so it's all the things that we talked about in 2017. Yes, sir.

Just to cut to the chase. Okay. Board members, any question? Everybody's good. I'm going to close that portion of the hearing. Is there anyone in the room that wants to speak in favor? Seeing none, I'll 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? Seeing none, I'm going to close that portion of the hearing. That concludes the public discussion. I will now close the public hearing and open it up for discussion among the board members. Board members,

I don't I don't see an issue. Obviously, this was granted before. It's just a different house. It looks like it might be a little bit smaller. You know, I don't I I think it'll be nice to have a piece of property on that lot. I'm sure I agree. Yeah, I think the relief under what 279 and 13 and 13A is justified. Uh the neighborhood looks incomplete quite honestly without that developed. Just some infrastructure on the property as you drive by and um yeah, I I'm in favor of it.

Yeah, as long as it remains a single family. They actually saw some remnants of dumping up there. So, if this house is built, you would think that perhaps that could be rectified. It'll be cleaned up.

It'll clean up that whole area up there. There's nobody here in opposition to this. Uh I would for discussion I think we should be specific that they are looking to put up a raised ranch. And this is a slippery slope when we try to determine what kind of a house is going to be there. But as far as granting a variance, when they stand there and tell us it's going to be a raised ranch, I fully expect that what we see built there is a raised ranch. And if that's the case, I would also suggest that we entertain a stipulation that it shall remain a single family house and any changes in occupancy of that dwelling must come back before zoning.

Motion to grant with that stipulation. Second. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded with those stip that stipulation. Will the clerk please call the role? Yes. Chief. Yes. Mr. Sweeney. Yes. Mberry. Yes. Chair. Yes. Mr. Chair. That is five in the affirmative. The vote is five in the affirmative. None in the negative. The petition is granted as presented with that stipulation. Thank you all. Thanks to the board. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you.

That concludes our hearings for this evening. But before we leave tonight, I just want to implore on the board how important it is that when the decisions are brought to the building department. As a board member, we need to get in and get these things signed as quickly as we can because the petitioners are waiting to bring this to uh Plymouth to get everything recorded. So, please uh check with the building department. They they're usually available pretty quickly, but make every effort to get in and get it signed. With that, I would entertain a motion to Motion to adjourn.

Second. We are ajourned.