2026-10-14 - Zoning Board of Appeals

00:12Welcome to the October meeting of the

00:14Brockton Zoning Board of Appeals for

00:16October 2026.

00:18The members sitting tonight for the

00:21cases before us include member Stephen

00:23Leanus, Monique Screenberry, Fire Chief

00:26Brian Nardelli, member James Sweeney,

00:29and myself Chair Kenneth Galligan.

00:32Our Zoning Enforcement Officer and

00:33Acting Building Commissioner is Mr.

00:35William Forte.

00:37Our Recording Secretary tonight is

00:39Monique Fagazzo.

00:41All right, I will tell you tonight that

00:45we have one withdrawal that has come in

00:48prior to the start of the meeting.

00:52If you are here for this case, this case

00:54will not be heard tonight.

00:57And if it does come back before the

00:59board, it will be re-advertised at some

01:01future date.

01:03That is case number 2633, the petition

01:05of Cedar Point LLC, 1350 Belmont Street,

01:09asks for a variance or other seeking

01:12relief from Section 279 Table 1 and

01:15Section 2712, dimensional requirements

01:18for frontage and lot area, seeking a

01:21determination that the property is a

01:22buildable lot to construct a

01:24single-family house in R1C zone located

01:27at 571 Crescent Street.

01:30That case has been withdrawn. It will

01:32not be heard tonight. All right, the

01:34first case before us tonight

01:36is petition number 2632.

01:39The petition of Fred Hebshi III,

01:42personal representative of the state of

01:44Frederick estate of Frederick Hebshi,

01:47110 Fair View Avenue, Brockton, Mass.,

01:49for a variance seeking relief from

01:51Article 3 Section 2713A

01:54and Section 2729

01:57to construct a single family dwelling on

01:59a vacant lot lacking frontage, rear,

02:01side, and front lot width setbacks in an

02:04R1C zone

02:06located at plot 24 Brookside Avenue.

02:09>> Fred is a lifelong resident of Brockton.

02:12His father

02:13the late Fred Hebshie, passed in August

02:15of 2023.

02:17And um as many of you know, Fred Hebshie

02:20was a real estate builder developer and

02:23acquired a lot of real estate over the

02:24last several decades. Um

02:27and so as part of his estate, there's a

02:30lot on Brookside Ave, lot 24. And I

02:33submitted to all of you a memorandum and

02:36if you don't mind, I'd like to summarize

02:37by

02:38going over that memorandum. I think it's

02:40a good way to present this petition.

02:43Um the petitioner would be seeking a

02:45variance to create a buildable lot under

02:47Article 3

02:49and relief from lot's minimum lot area

02:51plus frontage and rear setbacks.

02:53And um

02:55the subject property is it's listed as

02:57zero Brookside Ave. Um it's an R1C

03:01residential class parcel.

03:03Um the lot dimensions are 60 ft

03:07by 110 ft with a total lot size of 6,581

03:11sq ft.

03:13By way of background,

03:16lot 24 located on Brookside Ave is

03:20currently vacant and it's a wooded lot

03:23between a number of other residential

03:25lots. If you took a look at the plot

03:27plan, I brought some here from the city.

03:30All of the parcels

03:31on that side of the street range from 59

03:34ft to

03:3660 ft. One of them is 89 ft, but the

03:39majority of them are 60 ft of frontage.

03:42Fred Hebshie Fred's dad acquired this

03:45title 65 years ago with the late Joe

03:48Nazzarella, who was another developer in

03:50the city of Brockton that distinguished

03:53himself as a real estate developer. And

03:5665 years ago, the two of them were

03:58collaborating on developing property,

04:01and they acquired title to this

04:02particular lot.

04:04Parcel 24, that was December 18th, 1961,

04:0865 years ago.

04:10Now, a year or two after that, Joe

04:13Nazzarella and his wife acquired an

04:16eight acre parcel, which is rear. It

04:19says zero Brookside rear, and it's got

04:21frontage on a paper street, and that's

04:23owned by the Nazzarella family.

04:26Now, at some point there was a

04:27determination,

04:29I think in just a couple years ago,

04:31uh Mr. Plouffe made a determination that

04:33because at the time that they acquired

04:36the property and during I think it was

04:38um

04:40during that period of time, '67 and '68,

04:42there was common ownership, that there

04:44was merger of title. In order to build

04:46on that property,

04:48um my client, Fred Hebshi, would have to

04:51acquire that other parcel back from the

04:53Nazzarella family.

04:54And um

04:56we think that the intent of

04:59Fred Hebshi and Joe Nazzarella were

05:01never to have those parcels merged. By

05:04way of background, a title examination

05:06would reveal that right after Joe

05:08Nazzarella acquired the property

05:10abutting this subject property, he put

05:13it into his wife's name and then a

05:15realty trust. And now it's in what's

05:17called the Ness Realty Trust, which is

05:20managed by his Joe Nazzarella's

05:22daughter.

05:24Um

05:26On June June 17th, 2025, is when James

05:30Plouffe indicated that the two parcels

05:32had common ownership, and that

05:33determination was never appealed. And it

05:36looks like the determination was sought

05:38by one of the Nazzarella family members

05:40because it was around that time that the

05:42assessor notified

05:44the Nazzarella family that title to this

05:47particular parcel was taken as joint

05:49tenants. And because

05:52Joan Nazarella predeceased, he died in

05:552007,

05:56the title to this particular parcel now

05:58laid in in the name of Fred Hebshie.

06:02Fred passed in 2023 and now it's part of

06:04his estate.

06:06So,

06:08we come before

06:10the Zoning Board of Appeals looking for

06:12that relief.

06:13And um I've attached some part some some

06:16plans. It was a plan done by

06:18professionally engineered by

06:20um what was his name, Scott? Scott

06:22Foria. Scott Foria did a plan that's

06:24attached and and that shows the the

06:26proposed building of a

06:28center cards of a colonial style home

06:31with four bedrooms and one and a half

06:33baths

06:34and a driveway to the side. And um and

06:37the meets and bounds and setback side

06:39sideline requirements are are set there.

06:42Um

06:45You know, what's interesting

06:46that since

06:48over the last 65 years, this parcel has

06:51always been determined by the city of

06:53Brockton to be developable and it's been

06:55taxed as a buildable lot. And um the the

06:59family's been paying taxes on that

07:01subject parcel on Brookside as a

07:03buildable lot and they've been paying

07:05sewerage as well. And attached to the

07:07package of courses municipal lien

07:09certificate that shows that all of the

07:11taxes

07:12for this developable parcel has been

07:14paid up to date by the by the my client

07:17and his family.

07:18Um the colonial style house that's to be

07:22built measures 28 ft by 36 ft and

07:26wouldn't require a setback setback

07:29variance.

07:30Um

07:41I think the hardship is the board can

07:43see, is that the only use for the lot

07:45could be is residential use. And then

07:48the other issue before the council is

07:50whether or not the petitioner's request

07:52for relief would have a deleterious

07:54effect on the the the neighborhood. And

07:57I think that's clear that it's not. If

07:59you take a look at the lots, it's

08:01totally consistent with all the other

08:02lots on the street. Identical in

08:05frontage and in setback and it would add

08:09to the value of the neighbors. It's

08:10going to be a brand new home that's

08:13going to be a first class built home and

08:15there is a need for for housing in

08:17Brockton. So, you know, we come before

08:19the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think you

08:21see all the plans that are before you

08:23and um

08:24my client Fred is looking for the the

08:26board to grant him that relief.

08:29And that would permit him to build this

08:31construct this home.

08:33>> Board members, any questions?

08:36This is one of the

08:38Well, first of all, the records for this

08:41lot that he's referencing on

08:44the assessors

08:46may be different from the official

08:48record which is at the building

08:50department. So, even though the

08:51assessors are saying one thing, it's the

08:53records in the building department that

08:55actually hold water on it.

08:57And

08:58the other thing that you mentioned here

09:00in your

09:02presentation and in the

09:04information you provided was

09:07uh explaining what a hardship is on this

09:10property.

09:11Um

09:12we are in the throes of making some

09:14changes here based upon

09:17um

09:18state legislation that

09:21we got to be start looking at practical

09:23difficulty.

09:24And

09:27it's a standard that I think it's going

09:29to be a little bit different than

09:30hardship. It's going to be pretty much

09:34uh what the board thinks is correct for

09:36that piece of property. Um

09:39So, anyway, I just want to let the board

09:41know that we're kind of looking at this

09:42from that practical hardship

09:45uh

09:46way of looking at this thing right now.

09:49>> If I could, Mr. Chairman, do you Could I

09:51just distribute this? I think these are

09:53probably

09:54>> Do the board members I didn't

09:56pass those but it shows this lot 24 in

09:59relation to

10:00>> We have those.

10:01>> the abuttals and across

10:02>> Do the board members have these?

10:03>> Yes.

10:04>> You have those?

10:04>> We have those.

10:07So, what appears as though the building

10:08that you want to put on this lot

10:10satisfies all the setbacks.

10:12>> That's correct.

10:14>> So, the the problem tonight before us is

10:16actually the size of the lot as it

10:18relates to our current zoning. That's

10:21where the

10:22problem is. Looking at all of the other

10:24lots on Brookside Avenue, this lot does

10:27seem to conform to just about all the

10:29other lots on the street as far as

10:31size and and frontage. So,

10:34>> Mr. Chair, do [clears throat] you Do you

10:35have a question if that's all right?

10:36>> Go ahead.

10:36>> So, it is a a wooded lot. What was your

10:38intention with uh clearing? How much are

10:41you going to clear? How much are you

10:42going to leave anything? I you know, the

10:44If you ask the person who designed your

10:45house, I'm a pretty big stickler with

10:47leaving some green. So,

10:49>> I think there was like 41 ft in the

10:51back. So, I don't think that they would

10:52clear all of the back. I think that and

10:54that's that abuts that large parcel in

10:56the back that's owned by Nocerino and

10:58that's wooded. So, that would be left

11:00alone. I think in order to put the

11:02foundation in and I think that there's

11:0417 ft of side on one side and 16 ft 5 15

11:09ft 5 in

11:11on the other. I think that the front

11:12would at least have to be cleared in

11:14order to do the site work to put the

11:16foundation in and the driveway.

11:18>> So, what I'm hearing is clearing what

11:19you need to operate to build the house

11:21and probably not much more.

11:23>> That's all.

11:23>> Okay. It's cuz it it's a nice buffer

11:25from a new house in an established

11:27neighborhood instead of just wiping the

11:29whole thing clean.

11:30>> Yeah, I would I don't think that they

11:31would do that. I mean, everyone wants to

11:33You pay for trees. It's going to cost

11:35money to have a tree planted. So, I

11:37think they'd be selective about taking

11:39what trees they didn't need down.

11:41>> Yeah. Okay.

11:42>> Thank you.

11:42>> Thank you.

11:43>> So, just on that note, I think it's

11:44difficult for this board to regulate

11:46what trees are going to be taken down,

11:48but I think you hear the flavor of the

11:50board that it would be good to save as

11:52many of those trees as you can.

11:54>> Yeah.

11:54>> Okay, I'll close that portion of the

11:56hearing. Is there anyone here that wants

11:57to speak in favor? Seeing none, I'll

11:59close that portion of the hearing. Is

12:00there anyone that wants to speak in

12:01opposition?

12:03Seeing none, I'll close that portion of

12:05the hearing. Is there any elected

12:06official in the room that wants to be

12:07heard on the issue?

12:10Seeing none, I'll close that portion of

12:11the hearing. Is there anyone in the room

12:12that has a question relative to the

12:13testimony that has been given?

12:16Seeing none, I'll close that portion of

12:18the hearing. That concludes the public

12:19discussion on the issue. I will now open

12:21it up for discussion among the board

12:23members.

12:24>> I I don't see anything egregious with

12:26the relief. I don't see it as

12:28detrimental to the neighborhood, and I

12:30do see it as a positive addition.

12:34So, that's my standpoint.

12:36>> I think when you when you look at the

12:38house that will be put on that lot, it

12:39will blend well

12:41blend [clears throat] very well with

12:41that neighborhood.

12:43Um

12:44Hefshi family have developed in this

12:46city for many years, and I think, you

12:48know,

12:49it would be we'd be remiss not to make

12:52sure that they're able to

12:54operate on this lot with these few

12:56things that are going on that I don't

12:57think really are a big deal when you see

12:58the size of the other lots that are on

13:00that street, as well as the houses.

13:03Um I'm sure it will be a

13:05a nice house that is well built,

13:07um and it will add value to the rest of

13:09the neighborhood, and I think that's

13:11important to take into consideration

13:12here.

13:13>> Thank you.

13:14>> I just want to caution the petitioner

13:16that based upon the siting of the

13:19building

13:20and the style of building that you want

13:23to put on there, that is what we are

13:25actually voting on tonight.

13:27>> That's correct.

13:27>> Correct.

13:29>> Motion to approve.

13:31>> Second.

13:34>> All right.

13:35Motion has been made

13:37to grant

13:39and seconded.

13:41Will the clerk please call the roll?

13:43>> Mr. Elias.

13:43>> Yes.

13:45>> Mr. Faria.

13:45>> Yes.

13:46>> Mr. Sweeney.

13:47>> Yes.

13:48>> Mr. [clears throat] Sweeney, are you

13:49there?

13:49>> Yes.

13:50>> Mr. Aliano.

13:51>> Yes.

13:53>> Chairman Piro, are you voting in the

13:54affirmative?

13:56>> The vote is five in the affirmative,

13:58none in the negative. The petition as

14:00presented is granted.

14:02>> Thank you, Chairman.

14:02>> Thank you.

14:03>> I want to thank you all very much for

14:04your time.

14:05>> Thank you.

14:05>> Thank you.

14:06>> All right, the next petition is 2633,

14:09which was that 571 Crescent Street,

14:11which has been withdrawn.

14:13The next petition is 2634,

14:16the petition of Leal Carlos, 71 Balsam

14:20Avenue, Bridgewater, Mass, for a

14:21variance seeking relief from section

14:2427-9, section 27-10,

14:2727-18, which is green space, section

14:3027-27,

14:32and 27-29

14:34for minimum green space requirements and

14:36to construct a three-story mixed-use

14:39building,

14:40a ground-floor restaurant,

14:42and two residential dwelling units on

14:45each floor in a C2 zone located 707

14:48Warren Avenue.

14:49>> Uh Philip Nestler representing

14:52the applicants tonight, uh Carlos and

14:55Vera

14:56uh Leal.

14:57Uh with me this evening is the site plan

15:00engineer, Mr. Scott Faria, together with

15:03the architect of the project, Mr. Lenin

15:06Piro, who will be happy to each one will

15:09be happy to explain the details of this

15:12uh their plans.

15:14Basically, this is a rather

15:15straightforward

15:16uh application.

15:18Uh at 707 Warren Avenue is the site that

15:22they wish to establish this new

15:24restaurant. Right across the street on

15:26the other side of Packard Avenue is an

15:28existing restaurant that they have run

15:31and operated for the past 15 years.

15:34Due to their wonderful service, the the

15:38exquisite cuisine that they serve, the

15:40popularity has grown manifold

15:43causing or resulting in a large demand

15:46for more space, more restaurant type of

15:50activity. Uh the current restaurant is

15:53mostly a buffet. Uh a lot of their

15:56clientele would like to have a sit-down,

15:58waited on tables, and that's part of the

16:01plan for this new restaurant that they

16:03want at 707 Warren Avenue.

16:06The uh after working each of them 15

16:10hours, 16 hours a day,

16:12uh they've gotten to the point where uh

16:15to meet the demand, they really have to

16:16establish the new restaurant, which they

16:18are very ambitiously looking forward to.

16:22The lot, as you uh may know, is uh

16:26adjoining a laundromat. The area around

16:30it is somewhat of a mixed-use. There is

16:32a lot of residential use. It's dotted

16:35with a lot of commercial use, hair

16:37salons, uh small takeout restaurants, uh

16:41small auto shops. It it's Along Warren

16:44Avenue, it's uh clearly mixed-use.

16:48What they would like to do is have in

16:50this particular project a ground-floor

16:54restaurant, and the second floor would

16:56have two apartments, and the third floor

16:58would have two apartments.

17:00Part of the reasoning is twofold. First

17:02of all,

17:04I think everyone is well aware of the

17:06excessive demand and need there is for

17:08housing in the city of Brockton.

17:10In fact, the legislature, the courts,

17:13have all moved forward to ease that

17:16transition and that that roadway for

17:19housing. And uh secondly, in order for

17:22them to financially

17:24support this project of the restaurant,

17:26which is an expensive proposition

17:28between its construction, its

17:30furnishing, its equipment, to have the

17:33second and third floor with

17:34income-producing

17:36uh tenants would facilitate their

17:39ambition to move forward on this

17:40project.

17:42For that reason, we seek the uh relief

17:44for the mixed use.

17:46Basically, the project itself meets all

17:50just about all of the requirements under

17:52C-2. It's a C-2 zone, and under C-2, as

17:57you know, it adopts and incorporates all

17:59that is in C-1 zone. That would include

18:02eating and drinking establishments,

18:04which are stated in C-1 zone. So, it by

18:07by code is that type of operation is

18:09allowed here.

18:10Uh it meets the um uh there is no

18:13minimum lot area frontage, setback

18:15requirements

18:17uh in this particular type of uh zone.

18:20There are

18:21uh parking requirements, and we meet the

18:24parking requirements. I should point out

18:26that with a laundromat is next door,

18:29the owner of the laundromat has uh

18:31granted an easement, which allows us to

18:34park a half dozen cars there. The

18:37parking layout is uh on the site plan,

18:41and according to our calculations, the

18:44restaurant being one space per four

18:46seats would require

18:49uh

18:5025 20 restaurant seats.

18:52And the dwelling units would require

18:55four dwelling units would be eight

18:57parking spaces, being a total of 13

18:59spaces. We're providing 16 spaces, so we

19:03meet the parking um requirements. In

19:07fact, we exceed them by three additional

19:09spaces.

19:10Uh Uh, I think it's a I believe it's a

19:12project that is uh only worthy of the

19:15area, but again sustains a demand. It

19:19is, uh, something that will beautify and

19:23enhance the area, remediate that corner

19:26which has been the same condition it's

19:28been for so many years. Uh, and it'll

19:30increase the valuation not only of that

19:33particular lot, but the surrounding lot

19:36which is the laundry mat next door.

19:39And it will, uh,

19:40uh, sustain itself and and provide much

19:44to many that have been requesting this

19:46for so many years. So, in keeping with

19:49their ambition to,

19:52uh, remediate and to create a commercial

19:54venture that is, uh, not intrusive to

19:58anything or anyone, but adds value to

20:02the area into the city, I would ask for

20:05your favorable vote. If there are any

20:06questions or issues, I'll be happy to

20:08entertain them.

20:10>> Uh, Attorney Israel, could you go back

20:11for a second to,

20:13uh, what you, how many tables were going

20:15to be in the in the restaurant?

20:17>> It's 20 seats.

20:18>> Seats.

20:18>> 20 seats.

20:19>> Seats. How many tables?

20:21>> You know, six tables, maybe some tables

20:23with four, some tables with two.

20:24>> So, that's 12. Uh, well, I'm sorry. So,

20:27oh, so it's one space per

20:28>> One space, right. Exactly. One space per

20:31four seats.

20:32>> And we know that to be a fact. That's

20:33how many tables will be in the

20:34restaurant.

20:35>> That's on

20:36And that's on the, uh, on the proposed

20:38site plans.

20:39>> Okay.

20:39>> On the, you know, the proposed

20:40architectural plans.

20:41>> Do Do we have an agreement from this

20:43laundromat?

20:44>> We do. So, they they're currently

20:46parking cars there now in a handshake

20:48agreement basically. And when Attorney

20:50Israel and I sat down with them, we said

20:52we need something formal and writing.

20:54Attorney Israel came up with easement

20:56documents that the owner of the

20:57laundromat has signed.

20:59Uh, and we drew up an easement plan. So,

21:01it's all in official that easement. Yes.

21:03>> We have that in here?

21:04>> Um,

21:05>> No, we don't have it here. It came in

21:07subsequent to the filing of the

21:10application and by your rules I'm not

21:13allowed to file anything a minute after

21:15which is another subject, but I will

21:18bring it to the clerk and deliver to the

21:21>> do you have it now?

21:22>> No, I do not have it now.

21:23>> I'll tell you. So, listen, I think this

21:25is a spectacular project. I'm not going

21:27to lie to you. I think it's great for

21:28that corner. My biggest concern is the

21:30parking.

21:31>> No doubt.

21:32>> Because there's no parking on Warren

21:34Avenue when I went down there.

21:36That is a neighborhood on Packard Way

21:38there.

21:39Um, then you go over to Florence Street,

21:41that's neighborhood.

21:43There's no parking. It's all fenced off

21:44across the street. I'm just concerned

21:46about where folks are going to park and

21:48if there's no actual I worry about the

21:50actual agreement with the laundromat.

21:52Cuz I you know, I had to get my

21:53magnifying glass out to read that it

21:56actually says there'll be parking at

21:57area lots in in the garage. I don't know

21:59of any city lots or garages that are

22:01even down there for any overflow.

22:04So, that that again, I go I have a hard

22:07enough time getting apparatus for the

22:08city on a regular base.

22:09>> Understood.

22:10>> That is my deepest concern.

22:12>> And again, that's that's why we insisted

22:14that they get an actual easement from

22:16from the owner of the laundromat. We

22:17don't have it in hand.

22:18>> I would be more comfortable where I

22:20don't have it in your hand to make any

22:22grant conditioned upon receipt of the

22:26agreement. I don't take my word for it.

22:28I want you to have the paper. So, until

22:30such time I deliver it, it would be a

22:32conditional

22:33grant.

22:35>> Is that allowable, Mr. Chairman, even I

22:38by rule? Cuz we're making a decision.

22:40>> a misunderstanding, I think, a while

22:42back that all of the documents had to be

22:45submitted at the time of the submission.

22:49However,

22:50we are now allowing documents to be

22:52submitted up until really tonight.

22:57It is to the benefit of the petitioner

23:00to put the documents in the package so

23:02that the board members have a chance to

23:04read them. If there was a large

23:06dissertation of several pages that were

23:09presented to us tonight, there's

23:11absolutely no way the board members

23:13could understand that. So

23:14>> And I agree with

23:15>> don't submit up until the last minute.

23:17>> I agree with that. In fact, if

23:19if I may digress for a second, the

23:22situation arose with me in another

23:24community where I went to file after

23:27and it was it was not allowed. The law

23:31basically states clerks have to accept.

23:34It's up to the board to throw it in the

23:35rubbish if they want. But the reason I

23:38filed late because the land court had

23:40reinterpreted something that we in the

23:42board run under the impression of

23:44changed it. They didn't accept it. We

23:47ended up in court and it became a lot of

23:49traction for nothing. All they had to do

23:51was accept. So I was trying to show them

23:53what the land court change in the law

23:55was. Sometimes

23:57there are things that arise that don't

23:59allow me to file all that stuff at the

24:01time. So that was a point of contention.

24:03But I'm glad to hear what the board just

24:05stated. That will be helpful.

24:06>> So I just want you to know that you're

24:08at the peril of the board that if you

24:10submit documents that are lengthy, the

24:13board does not have an opportunity to

24:15digest everything.

24:16>> be unfair to the board to have to absorb

24:18all of that and sometimes refer back to

24:21to legal counsel. I I agree 100%.

24:23>> So the clerk will accept it. But it's at

24:26your peril as far as going to the board.

24:29It will get

24:30get to the board but

24:31>> Understood and agreed.

24:33And again, on the site plan, there are

24:35those spaces that exist there and

24:37>> I agree. I No, and I see the spaces and

24:39I think again, to that point, I feel

24:41this is a great project for that corner.

24:42That corner has been in in a very

24:44difficult spot and the building they

24:46have across the street is a very nice

24:47building. They've they've they've done a

24:49lot of work to. I I think the traffic

24:51component and and I looking through the

24:52documents, I see them up there but it

24:54does say proposed agreement or easement.

24:56I don't remember exactly what it says.

24:57>> want We wanted the board to know it was

24:59contingent upon the grant of easement

25:01which I had prepared, sent it, and she's

25:04fine with it, but I just didn't get it

25:06here. I will. And I would not expect the

25:09board to grant it based on what I'm

25:11telling you, but you should have it on

25:13paper.

25:14And I as a side note, I

25:17made an unannounced visit there a couple

25:19of days ago just again check the site,

25:22the traffic, the area.

25:24And I walked in first time, the place is

25:27immaculately clean, which is a pet peeve

25:29for me. I don't eat in restaurants with

25:30dirty windows or look filthy. This was

25:34as clean as if they were just getting

25:35ready to film a movie in there. So, I

25:37have a lot of confidence in what they'll

25:39do with the next place.

25:40>> Mhm.

25:42>> Thank you.

25:43>> On this proposed access easement,

25:47how is that going to play into all of

25:49the customers that are using the laundry

25:51all day long?

25:52>> From what I understand from the owner of

25:55the laundromat, Mrs. Williamson, when I

25:58spoke with her, most of her traffic

26:00parks on the other side of the

26:01laundromat. They never really have any

26:04crossover.

26:06>> When you say the other side of the

26:07laundromat, where is that?

26:08>> Yeah, well,

26:09>> on the

26:10Excuse me, the northern side of the

26:12laundromat.

26:15>> So, don't we have a restaurant right up

26:17against it on the north side?

26:19>> Off right off the

26:21>> corner of Florence Street.

26:24>> Maybe you're thinking in front of it

26:26they're parking cuz they abutts the

26:28restaurant right next door.

26:30>> Yeah, directly above the laundromat.

26:33Yes.

26:36>> I don't know if there's any legal

26:37parking on Warren Avenue on the west

26:39side

26:40of Forest Avenue south.

26:42>> No.

26:44>> I I checked today. There's none on

26:46Warren Ave. There are spots up and down

26:48Warren Ave once you get south of

26:50Belmont, but when you get south of

26:51Forest, there is none there. There's a

26:53no parking sign on every single pole.

26:56Okay. So, I guess my concern is if

26:59people were going into that laundry

27:01to do their laundry, they're going to

27:03try to park their cars close as they can

27:04to the laundry. So, they're going to

27:05make use of that lot like they always

27:08have in the past.

27:10So, if there is cars coming and going

27:12all day long in that lot, I just have a

27:16a concern about the availability of

27:19those spots being there for this

27:21building.

27:22And the distance between this building

27:24and the back of those cars is only 20

27:27ft.

27:28And nobody is going to be right up

27:30against the building, so that 20 ft is

27:32actually going to be less than 20 ft.

27:35So,

27:36anyway, that's the discussion we're

27:38having on easement. Is this building

27:41going to have a Warren Avenue address?

27:43>> 707.

27:44>> Okay, we have a ordinance in section 27

27:48that says the front door

27:50to the apartments on the up above has to

27:53come off of Warren Avenue. It cannot

27:55come off of Packard Way.

27:59We had a very similar situations

28:02about a year ago at Main and David

28:03Street

28:05where the main entrance was going to be

28:06on David Street and they redesigned the

28:08building to put the entrance on Main

28:10Street.

28:13So, it would be very difficult to have a

28:14Warren Avenue address where the main

28:16entrance is on the side street. That's

28:18just a comment that I'm making.

28:20>> By the way,

28:21Mr. Chairman, in reference to the

28:23comment about the parking,

28:25Scott, you indicated that

28:27they park in front of

28:29>> In front of the laundry mat.

28:30>> in front of the laundry mat. And if if

28:32one would had noted in the existing

28:35restaurant, there's probably double to

28:37triple the amount of parking area that

28:39they usually require for that particular

28:41restaurant.

28:42>> Right, that's a much smaller building

28:44than what we're talking about here.

28:45>> Correct.

28:46>> Obviously.

28:46We're building right out to as much as

28:48the a lot will handle in this case. And

28:51on the corner of Warren Avenue and

28:53Packard Way, we're only 3 ft from the

28:56sidewalk. So,

28:58the plan is to build it right up to the

29:02And there's going to be 10 bedrooms.

29:08>> 10 bedrooms.

29:08>> There'll be four apartments, 10

29:10bedrooms.

29:10>> A two-bedroom and a three-bedroom on

29:12each floor, correct? So, five bedrooms

29:15on each floor.

29:16>> Will the restaurant occupy the entirety

29:19of floor number one facing Warren

29:21Avenue?

29:22Or is there some other entity that's

29:24going to share that space?

29:25>> The ground floor is going to be only

29:27restaurant.

29:28>> So, the restaurant takes the entire

29:30ground floor.

29:31>> That's correct.

29:32>> And the underneath parking, correct?

29:34This underneath parking there looks like

29:35as well.

29:37>> It's not underneath parking. There's uh

29:40the two wings to the building are where

29:42the stairways

29:43>> It doesn't go under. All right. I I

29:45thought by the picture it looked like it

29:46went under.

29:47>> I didn't hear the question.

29:50>> My My statement was, Mr. Chair, that I

29:53I thought the parking goes underneath

29:55the building.

29:57But it does not. It's just spots, okay?

29:59>> Exactly.

30:00>> So, yeah. There ends up being a couple

30:02of wings to the building, parking in

30:04between. Those wings are where the

30:06stairway

30:07>> Understood.

30:08>> would have been if we didn't have the

30:09Main Street address.

30:12>> So, the parking spaces that show

30:15against the building in the rear,

30:18the second and third floor will not be

30:20built over that. So, the cars will be

30:23parked underneath the second floor?

30:26>> Yes, that's what I saw in the plans.

30:29>> It It does look like that on the plan.

30:31That's why I was asking.

30:32>> It's ground parking, but the second

30:34floor goes over the head, so.

30:37>> All right, just along that same line, my

30:39calculations for the square footage of

30:41this is 3,242

30:43sq ft and your plan shows

30:462,523

30:48ft.

30:49So, basically, this building is taking

30:52up all of the 60 ft by 53 ft.

30:56>> Yeah, so we're doing the surface

30:59the actual ground surface, the

31:00foundation footprint. So, the foundation

31:03footprint would be 2,500 because we're

31:05excluding this 20 by 40

31:08area where the parking is on the first

31:10floor.

31:11So,

31:11>> All right.

31:12>> we're doing a foundation footprint, but

31:13you're right, the

31:14living space on the second floor would

31:16be

31:1760 by 50 something, so.

31:20>> All right, so

31:22I just want you to know that I think

31:23there's 3,200 sq ft of space here, not

31:262,500. All right, so

31:30uh what were you looking for relief

31:32under 27-9? Do you remember?

31:36Residential zones.

31:39>> No, uh

31:40that was put in inadvertently.

31:42>> All right, 27-18,

31:44I believe is the green space.

31:46>> That's correct. We're looking for relief

31:48from the green space. I think there's a

31:49requirement of 10%. We may have 3%

31:53there.

31:55In one of

31:56>> So, where where on this site would you

31:59put any green space?

32:02>> Just in the the very back corner, Chief.

32:04There's a

32:05a triangular-shaped piece of property

32:07right there

32:08between our property and the abutting

32:10house on Packinghouse Way.

32:12>> So, in all practicality, when this thing

32:14gets paved out and gets built,

32:17it'll be paved to the fence.

32:19It's just an editorial comment on my

32:21part, okay? You also have to have a

32:24fence that divides C-2 from R-2.

32:29>> And we do have that, a proposed proposed

32:32chain-link fence along that lot line.

32:35>> Is that going to be a see-through fence?

32:39I believe the intent here is to separate

32:41commercial from residential.

32:44>> It It would have privacy slats in it,

32:46chief.

32:47Doesn't say it, but that would be the

32:48intent.

32:49>> So, it's a chain-link fence with privacy

32:51slats.

32:51>> Correct.

32:52>> All right, that 2738 is what I was

32:54referring to that specifically states

32:56under Section D that the main entrance

32:59to this building has to be on the

33:00principal street, which would be Warren

33:02Avenue.

33:03Uh off-street loading area. What are you

33:06going to do for a loading area for this

33:08Trucks that are making deliveries to the

33:10restaurant, where would they make their

33:11deliveries? Would they park on Packet

33:13Way or

33:14>> I think they they would pull in right

33:16off of Packet Way.

33:18Uh

33:19to the back of the the back of the

33:20restaurant.

33:22>> Is there any way to travel from the

33:24parking lot on the west side of the

33:26building

33:27to the parking lot that is the proposed

33:29easement, or is that totally separate?

33:32Can [snorts] you drive around the

33:34building?

33:36>> You can, and I'm sure people do, but

33:40that's not the intent with the easement.

33:42So, the intent of the easement would be

33:43to basically be contained within this

33:45orange area, and then our lot. So, you

33:50technically and legally wouldn't be able

33:51to cross over this little area here

33:53to get entirely around the building.

33:55>> Okay, so that piece that I'm talking to

33:57actually belongs to the owner of

34:00691 Warren Avenue.

34:02>> Correct.

34:02>> And your easement is saying you don't go

34:04all the way to the property line, it's

34:05just what's shown on the plan.

34:07>> Yes, sir.

34:11>> All right. Board members, any other

34:13questions?

34:14>> Does the bait Does the first-floor unit

34:17have the

34:18capability of going all the way I see

34:20you have like a

34:22like a box at the top rooftop. Is that

34:24like

34:25can you travel from the first floor to

34:27the top to get on the to the roof?

34:30Just wondering about potential expansion

34:32and rooftop and all that stuff.

34:35>> We'll let the architect answer that, Mr.

34:37Sweeney.

34:38>> Hi, good evening.

34:40Uh that stairs is only for maintenance

34:42purposes on the roof.

34:43>> And your name and address?

34:43>> Oh, sorry. My name is Lenin Pena. I live

34:45at 32 Lawn Street, Brockton.

34:48And uh that stairs is only for

34:51>> Are you Are you the architect?

34:52>> Yes, sir.

34:52>> Okay.

34:54>> And that stairs is only for maintenance

34:55on the roof for equipment that they will

34:57have there.

34:58>> But can you go from the restaurant's

35:00base to the roof?

35:01>> No.

35:02>> Okay.

35:03>> Just from the apartment.

35:04>> Okay, cuz on the plans it looks like you

35:06can.

35:06>> No, there's no access.

35:08Those stairs are all serve only the

35:09apartments. They're completely separated

35:11by fire blocking walls.

35:12>> So, where is the exit for the people who

35:15live in the apartments?

35:18>> So, we have two staircase in the back.

35:21These two are the egress paths for the

35:24egress of the apartments. We also

35:25provided an egress plan that shows

35:29Where is it?

35:31That shows the paths from the apartments

35:33on different levels.

35:35>> I'm sorry, but I have to ask the

35:36question. What was the question?

35:39>> So, the question was where were the

35:41exits for the people who live on the

35:43apart in the apartments because you said

35:45the exit needs to be on Warren Street

35:47and that's not quite clear to me in the

35:49design.

35:51>> The plans show the two stairways, one on

35:53the north side, one on the south side.

35:56One goes to the

35:58parking area.

35:59>> Mhm.

36:00>> And the other one goes to Packard Way.

36:04>> So, is that adequate? The one that's on

36:07the right side since it's

36:08>> Well, that would be up to the building

36:10department. All I'm saying is our

36:12ordinance says that when you have

36:14commercial on floor number one and

36:16residential up above that the entrance

36:18to the upper floors has to come off the

36:20principal street, which in this case

36:22it's a Warren Avenue address. He's not

36:24asking for relief from that, but I'm

36:25just bringing that up.

36:27>> Okay.

36:27>> Under the IBC, I don't think that roof

36:30access from inside the building is

36:32required on three stories. However, it

36:33says special equipment. Um you're going

36:35to have a grease duct, right, that runs

36:37up through that?

36:38>> Yes.

36:39>> So, the grease duct has got to be

36:40accessible.

36:41>> Correct.

36:42>> I don't exactly know if that triggers

36:43off the requirement for a roof ladder

36:46um outside of, you know, outside of the

36:49building.

36:50So, that's just something that I just

36:52happened to notice is that, you know,

36:53that's up there pretty high. So,

36:56uh I don't know that that was concluded

36:57in your code package. I'm not even sure

36:59how far you got on design yet, but that

37:01might be something you need to take a

37:02look at.

37:03>> The stairways to the all the way to the

37:05roof it's enclosed.

37:06So, they can have access to

37:08>> So, there is a stairway cuz that was his

37:09question, right?

37:10>> Is there access to the stairway?

37:12>> Right.

37:12>> Is there access to the roof through the

37:14>> From the restaurant, no, but from the

37:15stairs, yes.

37:16>> was from the restaurant.

37:17>> Oh, okay.

37:18>> Yeah, it's it's separate, so

37:20>> Okay, I see what you're saying. All

37:21right, yeah.

37:21>> It's a fire blocking stairs, it's a

37:22service stairs, and it's a second means

37:24of

37:25>> roof hatch, right?

37:25>> Yeah.

37:25>> Okay.

37:26>> Where would the

37:28accessory equipment

37:31related to the restaurant be located,

37:33such as air conditioning units and that

37:36type of thing? Where would that be

37:37located on the property?

37:39>> They'll be on the roof.

37:40>> I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

37:41>> They are located on the roof.

37:44>> So, all the

37:45air conditioning for the building and

37:47everything will be on the roof.

37:48>> Yes.

37:49>> I'd imagine we'd see this at the

37:50planning board.

37:51>> Certainly.

37:53>> All right, board members, any other

37:54questions?

37:57Everybody's good?

37:58>> One thing I think I would like to add,

37:59Mr. Chairman,

38:01um before you go into the resolution is

38:03to

38:04uh from from this position

38:07ask for also the the a consideration of

38:10additional relief regarding the access

38:13or entrance to the front door, which is

38:16now in the rear, that you had alluded to

38:18earlier.

38:20I I ask for a from that.

38:22I think the way it works, even though

38:25it's not consistent with what the code

38:27states, it still works very well, does

38:30not create any

38:32safety issue or convenience issue.

38:36Especially on this with this type of

38:37structure located in this location.

38:42I just I think it's a fair request that

38:44we we seek relief from that.

38:46>> All right, board members, we also

38:48Okay, I'm going to close that portion of

38:50hearing. Is there anyone in the room

38:51that wants to speak in favor? Seeing

38:54none, I'll close that portion of

38:55hearing. Is there anyone that wants to

38:56speak in opposition?

38:58Seeing none, I'll close that portion of

39:00hearing. Is there any

39:02elected official that wants to be heard

39:05on the issue?

39:06>> I'm here to speak in favor of this

39:07project. I think it's going to be an

39:09outstanding project for the

39:10neighborhood. I personally know the

39:12Leals. Their restaurant is a fantastic

39:15addition to our city in a culinary

39:17aspects. It's an immaculate kept

39:20restaurant. They've been at that

39:22location for over 15 years now, I

39:24believe. So, they want to expand. They

39:27want to continue investing in the city.

39:30And I'll make the case that these are

39:31the type of people we want in our city

39:33investing and further expanding their

39:35business inside the city. So, I'd

39:37appreciate the relief being granted

39:39tonight by this board. I want to thank

39:41you again for your attention to this

39:42matter. Thank you, board members. Thank

39:44you, Mr. Chairman.

39:45>> Councilor, just for the record, will you

39:47identify yourself for the record?

39:49>> I apologize. Guys, my name is Phil

39:50Griffin. I'm the Ward 3 City Councilor.

39:52>> Got it. Thank you.

39:53>> Thank you very much.

39:54>> Councilor.

39:56>> Uh my name is Jeff Chanel, City

39:57Councilor at large. And I'm in favor of

40:00this project. Uh looking at this

40:02project, I visited this restaurant many

40:04times. This project actually fits, I

40:07mean, if you look around,

40:09um this the the building that's proposed

40:12will not be detriment to the area. It

40:14actually fits the characteristics of the

40:16area.

40:17And you know, I think it's in our best

40:20interest to clean up this area cuz it's

40:23a blank of what it should look like. I

40:26mean, if these people

40:27are willing to make this type of

40:29investment in our city,

40:30um we should we should really strongly

40:33think that this is a very good and

40:35strong thing. They run a very strong

40:37business. Um if you've ever eaten there,

40:40you get in and out. I'm sure, you know,

40:43the number of seats don't seem dramatic

40:45enough to cause a traffic concern, a

40:48parking concern. Um again, this is a

40:51place that's very populated, very busy

40:53right now um in its current condition. I

40:56don't think the structure, the amount of

41:00seats will increase dramatically to make

41:03this something that could be

41:05um concerned to safety apparatus like

41:08Chief was saying um earlier. I think

41:11this is a well-run business by well-run

41:14Brocktonians, and we should allow um a

41:17structure in a a side of town that

41:19really needs um some help in in in in in

41:23this structure to be um uh

41:26built. Um

41:27so, thank you, members, and I ask that

41:29you vote in favor.

41:31>> Thank you, counselor.

41:33Is there any other elected officials in

41:34the room that want to be heard on the

41:36issue?

41:38Seeing none, I'll close that portion of

41:40the hearing. Is there anyone in the room

41:41that has a question relative to the

41:42testimony that has been given?

41:46Seeing none, I'll close that portion of

41:47the hearing. That concludes the public

41:49discussion on the issue. I will now open

41:51it up for deliberation among the board

41:53members.

41:54>> Good night.

41:56>> I think this is uh

41:57you know, desperate um investment. Like

42:00just like the councilors said, um

42:03this is where you want density to I

42:04mean, they have a restaurant that's

42:06proven in that area, but this is where

42:08you want to build density in the city

42:10also. So, the relief requests, I don't

42:13have a problem with.

42:14Um

42:16I I think this is probably it certainly

42:18not, in my opinion, detrimental to the

42:20neighborhood. And it's it's an

42:22improvement where where we need some.

42:24So, that's my opinion.

42:26>> Yeah, I agree. Um I think it's a big

42:28improvement to the neighborhood.

42:30>> [clears throat]

42:31>> Uh

42:32I have little concern with the parking.

42:34But, um I'm sure whoever's going to rent

42:36there

42:37um will be aware of the parking

42:39situation.

42:41Um

42:42So, I don't really see that being a

42:44major problem.

42:46But, I I think it's a great project,

42:47though.

42:50>> Uh Mr. Chairman, I you understand I know

42:53I I Attorney Nazzaro asked for relief

42:57from

42:58the uh Packardway entrance to Warren

43:02Avenue.

43:03Would it be uh

43:05I know [clears throat] we really can't

43:06vote on the building.

43:09Obviously, I think the contingency upon

43:12them getting the parking easement would

43:14be imperative to this.

43:15Like they said that they had, they just

43:17didn't have with them um in granting it

43:20would not be allowed unless we saw that

43:21parking easement. But, is there any way

43:25and this would change the makeup of the

43:27building

43:28to be able to con-

43:30make

43:31the front door entrance to Warren Avenue

43:34contingent upon this as well?

43:36>> [snorts]

43:36>> I know that changes

43:39the building design.

43:41But, I don't know if that's something

43:42that we could put in.

43:45Instead of relief,

43:48make it a change

43:50under a contingency to make that

43:52entrance on the Warren Avenue side.

43:55>> Well, obviously, putting a main entrance

43:58on the front of the building would, in

43:59my opinion, make a substantial change to

44:01the layout of the building.

44:03I think for public safety purposes,

44:06a street address or front entrance for a

44:09building of this size needs to be where

44:11the address is.

44:13Um

44:16as far as changing that tonight, I think

44:20we need to confine our vote to what has

44:22been presented tonight.

44:25If that became a problem and if it did

44:28not pass

44:30and the petitioner

44:32uh wanted to address that issue, they

44:34could amend and come back before us if

44:37that was an option.

44:39I just have a concern of the density, of

44:41the size of the building on that lot.

44:44And the volume of parking cars for the

44:48occupants of the building and then the

44:50parking for the people that will be

44:52going to the restaurant.

44:54I am very concerned that we will now

44:56have cars parking up Packard Way

44:59in front of residential houses in order

45:01to get

45:02access to the restaurant. I mean, we all

45:05hope that the restaurant is a is a

45:06success.

45:07But if you pulled into that access area

45:11and it was

45:13a busy area with people using the

45:15laundromat, uh I don't know where you're

45:17going to go.

45:19Um

45:21again, my concern is I'm not against the

45:25building at all. I think it would be

45:26great to clean that corner up, but I

45:28think it's an ambitious plan for a small

45:31lot that requires

45:35uh

45:36sharing of parking with an adjacent

45:39neighbor. We see this frequently where

45:42perhaps a restaurant could share a lot

45:45with a church that is only used on a

45:47Sunday.

45:49I'm just concerned when I go down Warren

45:51Avenue and look at that laundromat, it

45:54is a busy laundromat.

45:56And I'm just concerned that even though

45:58they're saying that they have access to

46:01that lot, I'm I'm just very concerned

46:03that the access will be when they need

46:05it. And I I really would have

46:07appreciated the fact that we had a plan

46:10for the layout of the restaurant to see

46:13how the tables and things would be laid

46:15out. We heard from him tonight

46:18a number of tables, but we don't see any

46:21plan a floor plan for that restaurant

46:23that's actually going to show where

46:24those tables are going to be.

46:26So,

46:27those are some of my concerns.

46:30>> Chief if I could just add to the the

46:32usage, I I think the usage of a

46:35restaurant and the residential

46:37complement each other in terms of

46:39parking. So, the overnight parking is

46:41in, you know, after the restaurant

46:43closed and usually, you know, your

46:45daytime is your working hours and that's

46:47usually when the restaurant opens. And

46:49that's just a consideration to the board

46:52with in terms of parking.

46:55>> So, if you want to take it a step

46:56further, what happens when we get a foot

46:57of snow?

46:58Where do they put the snow? There isn't

47:00a square inch here to put the snow.

47:02And I know that's it's just an editorial

47:06comment that we often bring up and they

47:08tell us that if they get more than 6

47:10inches of snow, they're going to remove

47:11it from the lot.

47:13Uh I guess that's a pretty good idea,

47:15but

47:15>> I I yeah, I think in this situation that

47:17you would have to have it removed and

47:19have it shipped off. And many in the

47:22situation in much denser areas make it

47:25work like like that. So, that's that's

47:27just my opinion.

47:29>> [clears throat and cough]

47:31>> All right, if we're done, I'd entertain

47:33a motion.

47:34>> Motion to approve.

47:35>> Second.

47:37>> Motion has been made and seconded to

47:39grant.

47:41Will the clerk please call the roll?

47:45>> [clears throat]

47:45>> Mr. Alanis.

47:46>> Yes.

47:47>> Chief Nadellie.

47:48>> No.

47:49>> Mr. Sweeney.

47:50>> Yes.

47:51>> Ms. Greenberry.

47:52>> Yes.

47:54>> Chair Galligan.

47:55>> No.

47:57>> Mr. Chair, that is three in the

47:58affirmative, two in the negative.

48:01>> Three in the affirmative, two in the

48:02negative. The petition as presented is

48:05denied.

48:06Here the next case is 2635, the petition

48:09of New Heights Charter School of

48:10Brockton, 1690 Main Street, Brockton,

48:12Mass, for a variance and special permit

48:15seeking relief from Article

48:1714, Section 2773

48:21to allow the installation of an

48:22electronic message center sign in a C-2

48:25zone located 1690 Main Street.

48:30>> Good evening. I'm Richard Dooley with

48:31Sign A Rama in Raynham.

48:33>> Would you say your name again?

48:35>> Richard Dooley.

48:36>> Last name?

48:37>> Dooley, d-o-o-l-e-y.

48:39>> Okay.

48:42>> Uh we are um seeking relief for a

48:45electronic message center to be located

48:47at the front of 1690 Main Street. Uh

48:51we're going to

48:53build an architectural structure to hold

48:55the sign

48:57and um the variance I

48:59believe that we have to get relief from

49:02is regarding the intermittent messaging,

49:05if I'm not mistaken.

49:08Um the sign is fully pro- programmable

49:11and allows the users to adhere to any

49:15requirements by the zoning board.

49:18Uh that is

49:21that's our petition.

49:23Uh

49:23we feel the sign is a benefit to the

49:26community in order to communicate school

49:29activities as well as community

49:31activities. Um I presume that this Dr.

49:35Kelber with New Heights

49:37>> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of

49:39the board. My name is um Dr. Delroy

49:41Dennis. I'm the director of operations

49:43with New Heights Charter School. Um as

49:45indicated by Mr. Dooley, the primary um

49:48reason for this message board is to

49:50communicate school activities such as

49:53athletic events, field time.

49:55Uh the

49:57justification for the

50:00variance,

50:01uh

50:01there's really no derogatory

50:04intent on the bylaws. It's simply making

50:06sure that [clears throat] the

50:08software is utilized to the requirements

50:12of the board.

50:13Uh and that's a standard practice. We

50:15have um state-of-the-art software.

50:18It's able to be driven from desktop

50:21at the school

50:22and um

50:24can take care of any

50:25you know, there'll be no animation

50:28and 60 seconds of interval between

50:32message changing. And when they do

50:34change, they will flip as opposed to

50:36kind of you see them I see them very

50:39often where they float across the

50:41screen, things like that.

50:43Uh which I advise my clients not to do

50:45because it is against

50:47most town ordinances.

50:49>> Are you familiar with our requirements

50:51for signs?

50:52>> Yes.

50:53>> When it comes in like this to the zoning

50:55board, we usually put stipulations

50:58to make sure it's in conformance with

51:00the industry standards that were a

51:02little bit behind on in our book. So,

51:04basically, that sign cannot be any

51:07closer than 10 ft to the property line.

51:10>> Yes.

51:10>> And you're going to be well back of

51:11that.

51:12>> Yes.

51:13>> The concern of the board by keeping that

51:15at least 10 ft back is when you pull in

51:17and out of a driveway that it doesn't

51:19block your view looking left or right on

51:21Main Street.

51:22>> Yes.

51:23>> So, you're telling us that that 10 ft

51:25will not be

51:27will not inhibit the movement of the

51:28cars coming in and out of the driveway.

51:30>> No. No, certainly not. It's further It's

51:33It's 15 ft from the road line and 10 ft

51:37from the property line.

51:38So, it is it is set back quite a bit.

51:41Well with well within the requirements.

51:43>> So, you just have to be careful down

51:45there that the state layout

51:48where your property line is and you

51:51should have all those records from when

51:52the school moved in there. Yeah, you

51:54can't really measure from the blacktop

51:56of the road. You got to measure from the

51:58state layout, which we say is the

52:00backside of the sidewalk. Yeah. So,

52:04you're not asking for relief because

52:05you're telling us you're going to be

52:07well back 10 ft from what I'm

52:09describing.

52:10>> Yes.

52:11>> There's going to be no scrolling,

52:14no animation,

52:16no jumping figures that will distract a

52:20driver going down Main Street.

52:22>> Yes.

52:22>> All right. Our sign says it can't change

52:25any sooner than 10 seconds.

52:27You're suggesting you're going to do it

52:29at 60 seconds.

52:31>> That is my suggestion as a

52:33as a professional. I think 10 seconds is

52:36too too soon, too fast. It doesn't

52:38convey any

52:39>> Okay, our regulations say 10. So, if you

52:41want to do it at 60, have at it. That's

52:43even better, okay?

52:44>> That's my recommendation.

52:45>> If it changes at 60 seconds,

52:47uh you could be in West Bridgewater

52:48before it actually changes.

52:50>> That's [laughter]

52:53>> I don't mean to be wise when I say that,

52:55but 60 seconds is a long time.

52:57The other thing that you really need to

52:59be careful on this sign is the industry

53:01standards

53:03describe the intensity of the picker

53:05pixels on that sign.

53:07>> Mhm.

53:07>> So, during daylight, that sign can be

53:10relatively bright

53:12because of the sun and the daylight, but

53:14at night, it has to dim down.

53:16>> Yes.

53:17>> It cannot be as bright at night as it is

53:19during the day.

53:20>> The machine itself, the sign itself, and

53:22the software accommodate for brightness

53:24of sun, sunny days versus cloudy days.

53:26It will have a different

53:29luminosity,

53:30uh brightness.

53:32And at night, it can actually be

53:34programmed to dull to 100% black. So,

53:37you're not shutting the machine off at

53:39all. You're just turning the screen

53:40black at night for for safety reasons.

53:44Uh there's really there's not

53:47there's not an intent to communicate all

53:49night with the sign, so

53:51>> And the basic premise of this sign is to

53:53advertise the school and the functions

53:55that are going on in the school.

53:56>> Yes.

53:57>> [clears throat]

53:57>> That's the intent of this sign.

53:59>> Yes.

53:59>> If this is granted, what we just

54:03discussed about will be included in the

54:05decision. That's why I want to make sure

54:07that in this discussion we fully

54:09understand what this board is looking

54:10for. That sign cannot stay lit all

54:13night.

54:15It can only be lighted up until 11:00 at

54:18night.

54:19And it can't be turned on until 7:00 in

54:21the morning according to our

54:23regulations.

54:24So basically you want to make sure that

54:26light that sign is not lit all night

54:28long.

54:30If this was a business that was open for

54:33operation, the sign could stay on.

54:35But if the school is closed during the

54:37night, that sign needs to be

54:39extinguished by 11:00 at night.

54:43So basically it's 11:00 to 7:00.

54:46Just to give you a thumbnail idea of

54:49the hours.

54:52That makes sense?

54:53>> Yes.

54:53>> Okay.

54:56All right, board members, any other

54:58questions? They're not asking for relief

54:59from setback, they're just asking for

55:01relief for the sign.

55:04All right, I'm going to close that

55:05portion of the hearing. Is there anyone

55:06here that wants to speak in favor?

55:10Seeing none, I'll close that portion of

55:11the hearing. Is there anyone here that

55:12wants to speak in opposition?

55:15Seeing none, I'll close that portion of

55:16the hearing. Is there any elected

55:18official in the room that wants to be

55:19heard on the issue?

55:22>> Good evening, members. Again, my name is

55:24Jeff Sharnell, city councilor-at-large,

55:26and I am a trustee at the charter

55:29school. So just for the record,

55:31um

55:32I believe this sign is not detrimental.

55:35Um it is short in stature and height.

55:37It's not um anchored higher than the

55:40building.

55:41Um, it will be within the setbacks.

55:44I would like them to I would like them

55:46to allow the 10 seconds if that's what

55:49just in case, you know, times change and

55:51stuff like that so we don't have to come

55:53back. I think that's that makes sense.

55:55If it's in the statue, let's allow it.

55:58Um, but again, this is for educational

56:01purposes. This school has more than 750

56:04kids that attend that attended on a

56:06daily basis.

56:08If you go around the city, um, the

56:10school department, uh, the Brockton

56:12Public School do have illuminated signs,

56:14uh, especially at the high school that

56:16illuminate, you know, when kids are off,

56:19you know, uh, credit for life fairs and

56:21different things. So, um, again, this is

56:24really about, you know, a little bit of

56:26of it is about safety, too, because, you

56:28know, if we're allowing the public to

56:30know what's going on in the school, you

56:32know, no one's guessing. So,

56:34um, I think this is, um, these signs

56:37nowadays are state-of-the-art so they do

56:39dim. They can turn off, um, if needed,

56:43but, you know, I I urge the, um, the

56:46body here to, um, vote in favor of not

56:50only, you know, uh, keeping, you know,

56:53the charter school moving in the right

56:54direction as they make investments in

56:56the city,

56:57um, it but that this is really, you

57:00know, to me like a nothing burger. We're

57:02just putting a sign up.

57:04It's just a to make sure that the public

57:06knows. Thank you.

57:07>> Just to clarify the 10 seconds, the code

57:10says it can't change any less than 10.

57:1310. You're not asking for less than 10.

57:16You're suggesting you might do 60, which

57:17is fine.

57:19What we're very concerned about is these

57:21electronic signs that change every two

57:23or three seconds with animation. It's a

57:25total distraction to drivers. So, that's

57:28why we're kind of I sticky on that.

57:30>> Yeah.

57:31>> I have literally called several of my

57:33clients to convey to them that

57:35they're not within the rules of the

57:37municipality

57:39and

57:40for that reason

57:42because

57:43I installed that sign I do not want to

57:45see anyone have an issue. [laughter]

57:48>> All right, I'll close any other elected

57:50official in the room that wants to be

57:51heard on the issue. Seeing none I'm

57:52going to close that portion of hearing

57:54is there anyone in the room that has a

57:55question relative to the testimony that

57:56has been given? Seeing none I'm going to

57:58close that portion of the hearing. This

58:00concludes the public discussion relative

58:01to the issue. I will now open it up for

58:03discussion among the board members.

58:05Board members.

58:06>> Motion to approve.

58:07>> Second.

58:08>> All right, before you do that just on

58:09the motion

58:11are we voting to include the things that

58:14I talked about as stipulations?

58:16>> Yes.

58:17>> That's all.

58:17>> Yeah, but I think I think we leave it

58:19open obviously don't hold them to the 60

58:21seconds. If they want to do 10, if they

58:23want to do 20, 30, whatever it may be.

58:25But yes, I would say that.

58:26>> So as far as our decision the 60 seconds

58:28is out.

58:30>> They can do whatever they want.

58:30>> Whatever you want.

58:31>> 100% yes. A motion has been made and

58:34seconded to grant will the clerk please

58:36call the roll.

58:37>> Mr. Lenas.

58:38>> Yes.

58:39>> Chief Nadalli.

58:40>> Yes.

58:41>> Mr. Sweeney.

58:41>> Yes.

58:42>> Ms. Greenberry.

58:43>> Yes.

58:44>> Chair Galligan.

58:45>> Yes.

58:46>> Mr. Chair that's five in the affirmative

58:47none in the negative. [snorts]

58:49>> Vote is five in the affirmative none in

58:51the negative. The petition as presented

58:53is

58:54granted.

58:55>> Thank you very much.

58:56>> Thank you.

58:57>> Good night.

58:57>> That should conclude our business for

58:59the evening. I would make I accept the

59:01motion to adjourn.

59:04>> Second.

59:05>> We are adjourned.