The Town of Norwood Zoning Board of Appeals voted Dec. 2 to reduce fines tied to alleged zoning violations at 558 Pleasant Street, cutting the building-commissioner’s calculation of $56,400 down to $15,000 after an appeal by the property owner’s representative.

Attorney David Hearn Jr., representing 558 Pleasant Street LLC, told the board the fines stem from two zoning violations cited by the building commissioner: open‑lot storage and parking of large commercial vehicles (the notice cited sections the board identified as 3.1.0.5.g3 and 3.1.0.5.k4). Hearn argued the violations were committed by a tenant — identified in the record as Velasquez Brothers — and that the owner, manager Josephine Kodahi, did not authorize the conduct and moved to have the fines abated because she did not-profit from the tenant and acted promptly to get the tenant to leave.

Building Commissioner Gary Pelletier testified the outbuilding in question is shown in the town GIS as at least partly located in the general residential district and that the tenant’s open‑lot storage and parking of commercial vehicles were not permitted there. Pelletier said the violations persisted for 94 days and explained that fines accrue per day; he disagreed with the attorney’s view that only a single penalty should apply.

Hearn disputed the arithmetic and the interpretation of the bylaw; he said the September notice named two violations and that, under his reading of the town’s language, the landlord should not bear the full daily penalty for the tenant’s separate acts. He asked the board to abate the fines against his client and noted that the tenant had vacated the property on Sept. 23.

Board members debated legal liability and equitable relief: several members called the $56,400 figure “draconian” and considered options including limiting the charging period, relying on rent collected as a measure of harm, or suspending part of the fine as a deterrent for future violations. Member Rachel proposed reducing the fine to $15,000 to reflect the owner’s cooperation in removing the tenant and the circumstances of the case; the motion was seconded and passed with recorded affirmative votes from Rachel, Matthew, Paul, Shannon and the chair.

The board discussion also noted ambiguity in the bylaw’s language about per‑violation versus per‑day penalties: members said the highest defensible statutory reading could be $28,200 but that the board has latitude to modify the amount in the interest of equity. The chair and staff advised that the owner may have a civil remedy against the former tenant to recover any assessed amounts.

Why this matters: The decision clarifies how Norwood’s ZBA may weigh tenant conduct, landlord notice and equitable factors when fines under the zoning bylaw are imposed. It highlights an enforcement tension between the building department’s reading of daily fines and a property‑owner defense that the tenant alone caused the violations.

Next steps: staff will memorialize the board’s decision in a written order; the reduced fine will be recorded and the owner may pursue separate legal action against the former tenant if she seeks reimbursement.