Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwood ZBA trims $56,400 fine to $15,000 in 558 Pleasant Street appeal
Summary
After extended debate over whether a landlord or a tenant should be liable for zoning violations, the Norwood Zoning Board of Appeals reduced fines tied to open‑lot storage and commercial vehicle parking at 558 Pleasant Street from $56,400 to $15,000 and directed clerk/staff to follow up; the board split on legal responsibility but voted 5-0 to impose a lower, equitable penalty.
NORWOOD, Mass. — The Norwood Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 2 reduced a building commissioner’s $56,400 penalty for zoning violations at 558 Pleasant Street to $15,000 after an appeal by the property owner’s attorney and extended testimony from the owner and the building commissioner.
Attorney David Hearn Jr. told the board he represented 558 Pleasant Street LLC and asked the board to abate fines that his client should not bear for violations committed by tenant Velasquez Brothers. "These fines are far in excess of any harm caused," Hearn said, arguing the landlord promptly told the tenant to stop and sought resolution rather than immediate eviction.
Building Commissioner Gary Pelletier disagreed and told the board his notices cited ongoing open‑lot storage and the parking of large commercial vehicles; he said the violations persisted for 94 days and fines are assessed per day. "You can violate different provisions of our zoning bylaws, but you get penalized for each day that it continues," Pelletier said, defending the calculation that led to the larger figure.
Manager and owner Josephine Kurdea testified she discovered trucks and equipment on the property in May after the tenant moved in, said she asked the tenant to remove the materials and called the building department, and consented to a special‑permit application in the hope the matter could be resolved. Kurdea told the board she also consulted attorneys and pursued quieter, practical means to remove the tenant, rather than a lengthy eviction proceeding.
Board members questioned whether the accessory outbuilding has a long‑running nonconforming commercial use or whether the tenant’s actions created a new violation, and they debated legal interpretation of the town bylaw on whether the $300 daily penalty applies "per violation" or as a single daily penalty. Several members also raised concerns that the owner did not preserve written communications showing notices to the tenant.
After discussion of equitable approaches — including limiting the number of days counted or using rent collected as a reference point — member Rachel proposed reducing the fine to $15,000 to reflect owner cooperation and the practical steps the owner took to remove the tenant. The motion passed with recorded affirmative votes from Rachel, Matthew, Paul, Shannon and the chair.
The board also discussed the possibility that the town could pursue the former tenant for unpaid fines; Hearn said his client would assist if the building department sought Velasquez. The written decision will reflect the board’s reasoning and any conditions; the clerk will prepare the decision and notice of the appeal period.
The matter generated the meeting’s longest exchange, centering on enforcement practice, the evidence required to establish a continuous nonconforming use, and the proper calculation of fines under town bylaws.
