BROCKTON PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 – 6:00 PM
Chair Toni Goncalves opened up the meeting with a Roll Call… Members present are:
-
Toni Goncalves – Planning Board Chair
-
Iolando Spinola – Planning Board Vice-Chair
-
Marty Crowell – Planning Board Member
-
Matthew Gallagher – Planning Board Member
-
James Sweeney – Planning Board Member
-
Evan Sears – Planner II
-
Brendan Weeks – Deputy Fire Chief
-
Isaiah Thelwell – Administrative Assistant
-
Review and Acceptance of Meeting Minutes April 7th, 2026
A motion was made (Sweeney) and seconded (Gallagher) to approve the April 4th, 2026, Meeting Minutes. The motion passed by unanimous roll call vote.
-
Zoning Amendment Form-Based Code
The Form-Based Code will be reviewed at the next month’s meeting on June 2nd, 2026.
-
Site Plan Review (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Property: 18 Fred Street
Parcel ID#: 142-036
Applicant: George Mendes Representative: BleuLineDesigns
The Board reviewed a site plan for the proposed ADU conversion at 18 Fred Street, presented by Felicia Teixeira of BleuLineDesigns and civil engineer John Spink. Mr. Spink provided a detailed history of the property, explaining that the project originally began as the reconstruction of a single-family residence with an attached garage under previously issued permits. During construction, issues with the existing foundation required replacement and additional permitting. The structure was subsequently framed and partially completed before construction stalled for an extended period.
The applicants have now returned seeking approval to convert the originally proposed garage area into a separate ADU. Mr. Spink stated that the structure is currently framed, weather-tight and that the proposal has already been reviewed with the Planning Department. He further explained that the project complies with applicable ADU requirements, with the exception of an
outstanding request from fire and building officials requiring separate water and electrical shutoff systems to allow emergency isolation of each unit in the event of a fire or other emergency condition. The Board discussed whether this requirement should be incorporated as a formal condition of approval, planner Sears noted that the matter could also be addressed during the building permit phase if necessary.
Chair Goncalves inquired about the intended use of the ADU. The applicants responded that the unit was intended as separate residential living space and could potentially be used either for family occupancy or as a rental source of income.
Board Member Sweeney raised questions regarding the total square footage of the primary dwelling, the size of the proposed ADU and compliance with setback requirements. Mr. Spink indicated that the rebuilt residence is approximately 3,000 square feet of living space and that the ADU had been revised to approximately 900 square feet in order to meet ADU standards. Mr.
Spink confirmed that the structure remains within the required zoning envelope and identified the setbacks as 30 feet in the front and rear yards and 15 feet on the sides.
A motion was made (Spinola) and seconded (Gallagher) to approve with standard conditions with stipulations requiring separate water and electrical shutoff systems for the ADU. The motion passed by unanimous vote.
-
Site Plan Review (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Property: 9 Edson Street
Parcel ID#: 130-021
Applicant: Amilcar & Jaqueline Carvalho Representative: JDE Civil Inc
Amanda Langer from JDE Civil presented a site plan for the proposed ADU at 9 Edson St on behalf of applicant Amilcar Carvalho. Ms. Langer explained that the proposal has previously undergone Tech Review and revisions in coordination with the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with ADU regulations. The applicant proposed construction of a detached, two-story ADU located at the rear of the property. The structure would contain approximately 887 square feet of livable space above a ground-level two car garage and would also provide two additional off-street parking spaces. Ms. Lnager stated that the ADU would include dedicated water and sewer services and that all setback requirements were satisfied. She further explained that the second floor deck and egress had been relocated to the rear of the property in order to comply with regulations. In addition, an existing shed/barn structure on the property would be removed prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Ms. Langer noted that the primary dwelling is approximately 1,896 square feet of living area, thereby allowing the proposed ADU to remain within the ordinance requirement ADU size to no more than 50 percent of the primary dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is less. The Board also reviewed architectural elevations depicting a modern-style structure with enclosed parking beneath the living area, and Ms. Langer explained that portions of the existing perimeter fencing along Carl Avenue would be removed to accommodate the new driveway access from Carl Avenue while retaining the fencing around the
property.
Board Gallagher expressed concern regarding the apparent overall size of the structure, noting that although the livable area was listed at 887 square feet, the total building footprint and enclosed garage area resulted in a significantly larger overall structure. Ms. Langer clarified that the ordinance regulates liveable space only and that the garage area was not included in the ADU square footage calculation. Planner Sears confirmed that the plans had already been reviewed by the Building Commissioner and revised as necessary to comply with code requirements. Chief Weeks, who participated in drafting the ADU ordinance, further clarified that the 900-square-foot limitation applies only to habitable living areas and is also capped at 50 percent of the primary dwelling’s size. Chief. Weeks explained that unfinished attic or basement spaces with sufficient ceiling height could potentially count toward allowable living area because they could later be converted to habitable space; however, because the proposed garage was constructed on a slab and the habitable area remained under 900 square feet, the proposal with the ordinance. Board Sweeney nevertheless expressed concern that the garage could eventually be converted into additional living space without approval and requested that the Board place a formal restriction on the property prohibiting use of the garage as habitable space.
A motion was made (Spinola) and seconded (Sweeney) to approve with standard conditions with stipulations that the garage area shall not be used as living space. The motion passed by unanimous votes.
-
Site Plan Review (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Property: 48 Alphonse Road
Parcel ID#: 174-038
Applicant: Keeri & William Lembo Representative: Grady Consulting LLC
Michael DiBenedetto of Grady Consulting presented a site plan for the proposed ADU at 48 Alphonse Road, on behalf of property owners Carrie and William Lembow. Mr. DiBenedetto explained that the proposal consisted of a 543-square-foot attached ADU along with a driveway extension intended to improve access to both the existing garage and the proposed unit parking area. He stated that the architectural plans were prepared by ModTech Homes and confirmed that the proposed structure complied with all applicable zoning setback requirements, including a rear setback of approximately 11.7 feet where 10 feet is required. He further noted that the project would not increase the site’s impervious coverage beyond the 10% threshold associated with redevelopment projects, as calculations had been completed for the entire property, including roof area and driveway modifications. The presentation also detailed plans for a separate walkway connecting the ADU entrance to the existing driveway and referenced the need for a curb cut permit associated with the driveway extension.
Chair Goncalves questioned whether separate shutoffs for electric and water service should be considered standard practice for ADUs. Mr. DiBenedetto responded that the current proposal included a separate electric service and meter for the ADU, while other utilities would run
through the principal dwelling in accordance with guidance received from the building department. Deputy Chief Brendan Weeks clarified that separate shutoffs are not currently required by code but are strongly recommended as a best practice to prevent both dwelling units from being displaced during emergencies such as fires, frozen pipes, or utility failures. He explained that while a single water meter may remain acceptable, separate shutoff valves and electrical disconnects for each unit provide important safety and operational benefits. Chair Goncalves expressed support for establishing more formal guidelines on utility separation for future ADU projects and asked Interim Director Elijah Romulus about potential next steps. Mr. Romulus confirmed that the issue had already been raised with the Building Commissioner and stated that city staff intended to coordinate with the technical review team to develop clearer guidance consistent with the city’s ADU ordinance.
A motion was made (Gallagher) and seconded (Crowell) to approve with standard conditions. The motion passed by unanimous vote.
-
Site Plan Review (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Property: 55 May Avenue
Parcel ID#: 099-093
Applicant: Affordable Properties LLC Representative: ET Engineering
Azu Etoniru of ET Engineering appeared before the Board to present a site plan for the proposed ADU AT 55 May Avenue. Mr. Etoniru introduced the proposal as a detached ADU project located on a long, narrow lot with frontage on both May Avenue and Homestead Street. He explained that the proposed ADU would contain approximately 899 square feet, remaining just under the 900-square-foot threshold, and would comply with all applicable dimensional and zoning requirements within the R1C zoning district. Mr. Etoniru reviewed the project’s setback compliance in detail, noting that the proposal exceeded the required front setback with approximately 34 feet where 30 feet is required, while side setbacks measured approximately 15 feet on one side and more than 20 feet on the other. He also referenced the dimensional table included in the plans, which documented compliance with frontage, lot area, and open space requirements. The Board was informed that the existing property currently contains substantial green space, with approximately 81.9% existing open space that would remain at approximately 67.6% after construction of the ADU, still significantly exceeding the zoning requirement. Mr.
Etoniru additionally described the proposed stormwater management measures, including a roof drain recharge system designed to infiltrate runoff into the ground, and confirmed that separate utility connections for sewer and water were proposed, while electrical service would remain overhead consistent with existing neighborhood infrastructure. He stated that the plans had already undergone technical review and that the Building Department had raised no objections to the proposal.
Chair Goncalves sought clarification regarding the access arrangement for the detached ADU, initially questioning whether the new unit would share a driveway with the existing residence on the dead-end street. Mr. Etoniru clarified that the existing two-family dwelling already had its
own driveway, while the proposed ADU would be served by a separate driveway leading to two dedicated parking spaces for the new unit. Chair Goncalves also confirmed with the applicant that the existing structure on the property is a two-family dwelling.
Board Gallagher then inquired about the total number and arrangement of parking spaces serving both the existing and proposed dwellings. Mr. Etoniru explained that the existing dwelling’s parking arrangement remained unchanged, while the proposed ADU would contain two additional parking spaces dedicated specifically to the accessory unit.
A motion was made (Gallagher) and seconded (Sweeney) to approve with standard conditions. The motion passed by unanimous vote.
-
Site Plan Review (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Property: 39 Mystic Street
Parcel ID#: 154-026
Applicant: Affordable Properties LLC Representative: ET Engineering
Azu Etoniru of ET Engineering presented a site plan to the Board for the proposed ADU at 39 Mystic Street. Mr. Etoniru explained that the property consists of two formerly separate parcels that had since been combined into a single lot totaling approximately 23,000 square feet. He identified the parcel history as Map 154, Plot 3 and Plot 36-1, noting that the lot merger was a key component of the project’s zoning compliance. Mr. Etoniru presented the dimensional table included in the plans and explained that the property significantly exceeded the minimum lot area and setback requirements. He stated that while the existing dwelling maintained certain
pre-existing nonconforming setbacks, the proposed detached ADU would be located well within all zoning requirements, including a proposed front setback of approximately 49.5 feet, side setbacks of approximately 30.2 feet and 108.3 feet, and a rear setback of approximately 72.9 feet. He further noted that the property substantially exceeded minimum open space requirements, with approximately 85.4% existing green space and approximately 78.5% remaining after construction of the ADU, far above the required 25%. Mr. Etoniru explained that the unusual setback distances were largely due to the shape and configuration of the lot following the merger of the two parcels. He also reviewed the proposed site layout, including the existing driveway and garage serving the principal dwelling, as well as a recorded easement crossing the driveway that provides access to an abutting property. Mr. Etoniru assured the Board that the proposed ADU would not obstruct or interfere with that easement access. Additional site improvements included removal of an existing shed, installation of two parking spaces dedicated to the ADU, and construction of a roof drain recharge system intended to infiltrate stormwater runoff into the ground in accordance with the City’s stormwater management practices.
Board Sweeney inquired whether the application had previously appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Etoniru confirmed that it had and explained that zoning relief had originally been required because the property consisted of two separate parcels divided by a former lot line. He clarified that the prior variance process addressed the lot line issue and that
the parcels had since been formally combined into a single conforming lot. Mr. Etoniru then used the plans to illustrate the location of the former lot line and explained how the merger resolved the prior zoning concerns associated with the smaller 4,000-square-foot parcel.
A motion was made (Crowell) and seconded (Sweeney) to approve with standard conditions. The motion passed by unanimous vote.
-
Site Plan Review Property: 39 South Street Parcel ID#: 084-128
Applicant: Jason Burrell
Representative: J.K. Holmgren Engineering
The Board reviewed the site plan for 39 South Street, Scott Faria of JK Holmgren Engineering presented a proposal under the City’s recently adopted MBTA Multifamily Overlay District regulations. Mr. Faria explained that the project involved redevelopment of a currently vacant lot with construction of a new two-story, four-unit multifamily residential building. He stated that the proposed structure would contain two units on the first floor and two units on the second floor, for a total of four dwelling units, along with eight parking spaces located at the rear of the property. Additional site improvements included installation of a bicycle rack in compliance with the MBTA zoning requirements, substantial front-yard landscaping, a stormwater drainage system, and a dumpster enclosure behind the building. Mr. Faria informed the Board that the proposal had undergone technical review on two separate occasions and that several iterations of the house and floor plans had been reviewed before arriving at the final design being presented.
During the presentation, Mr. Faria attempted to display architectural renderings of the building and, after some lighthearted technical difficulties and assistance from staff and Board members, successfully shared the building elevations with the Board. He emphasized that the developer, Jason Burrell, had made a concerted effort to design a structure that reflected the historic architectural character of the surrounding South Street neighborhood. The renderings showed a traditional-style residential building intended to blend with the historic district context while still providing modern multifamily housing opportunities.
Chair Goncalves clarified that the property was currently vacant, leading to discussion that the site had previously contained a home that had been destroyed by fire several years earlier. Chair Goncalves also confirmed that the project included eight parking spaces and a bicycle rack because of its location within the MBTA overlay district.
Board Crowell asked whether the design was intended to replicate or complement the historical character of the former structure and surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Faria confirmed that, although the City does not currently have a formal historic commission, the development team intentionally designed the building to remain consistent with the historic appearance and architectural style of the South Street Historic District.
Board Gallagher asked whether the project would include a fire suppression system, noting
concerns related to multifamily buildings with family units on upper floors. Mr. Faria explained that the proposal includes a full sprinkler system, a fire department connection at the front of the building, and a Knox Box to allow emergency access in accordance with Fire Department requirements discussed during technical review.
A motion was made (Gallagher) and seconded (Sweeney) to approve with standard conditions. The motion passed by unanimous vote.
-
Site Plan Review Property: 733 Main Street Parcel ID#: 087-017
Applicant: David Teixeira
Representative: J.K. Holmgren Engineering
The Board reviewed a site plan for 733 Main Street, presented by Scott Faria of Holmgren Engineering on behalf of applicants Susie Barros and David Teixeira of DNS Holdings. Mr. Faria explained that the proposal consisted of a three-story residential building located at the corner of Main and David Streets on the site of a former furniture store. He noted that a previous proposal for the property had appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals in approximately 2021 and was denied due to the larger scale and higher unit count. Following that denial, the applicants revised the project and acquired an additional vacant parcel across David Street, which allowed for expanded parking accommodations and a redesigned development plan. The revised proposal included twelve residential units, with four units located on each floor, and a total of twenty parking spaces, including six spaces behind the building and fourteen spaces on the newly acquired lot across David Street. Mr. Faria stated that the project had already received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals in December and had subsequently undergone multiple Tech Review meetings, during which comments from staff and departments were addressed.
Additional site features included ADA-compliant parking, a bike rack, a dumpster enclosure, building entrances from both Main Street and the rear parking area, basement storage for each unit, in-unit laundry facilities, and exterior lighting enhancements. Architectural renderings prepared by BKA Architects were presented, showcasing a symmetrical building design with high-quality materials and a style intended to complement the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Faria also discussed a landscaping and safety feature proposed along the corner frontage of the building, explaining that decorative lodge boulders would be incorporated into the landscape design to provide protection from vehicles while maintaining the aesthetic quality of the property, particularly due to concerns raised during technical review regarding vehicles striking buildings in the area.
Board Gallagher asked whether there were plans for a dedicated crosswalk and additional lighting to safely accommodate residents using the off-site parking lot across David Street. Mr. Faria responded that residents would utilize the existing signalized crosswalk at the intersection of Main and David Streets and confirmed that the area already benefited from substantial street lighting.
Board Sweeney suggested that the existing crosswalk at the intersection be refreshed with new pavement markings upon completion of construction, noting the increased pedestrian activity anticipated from the project. Mr. Sweeney also recommended adding decorative sconce lighting above the main entrance between the second and third floors to improve both aesthetics and building security, to which Mr. Faria agreed.
Board Spinola questioned the appearance and appropriateness of the proposed landscape boulders, expressing concern about how they would fit visually within the streetscape. Mr. Faria clarified that the boulders would be strategically spaced within the landscaped garden areas and designed to blend naturally with the site rather than create an obtrusive barrier.
A motion was made (Sweeney) and seconded (Crowell) to approve with standard conditions with stipulations requiring installation of two additional scone lights on the front elevation and repainting or refreshing the nearby sidewalk upon project completion. The motion passed by unanimous vote.
-
R5 Senior Residential Development Discussion
The applicant decided not to give a presentation.