Planning Board clears 22‑unit conversion at 30 Intervale Street after design debate

The Brockton Planning Board on Sept. 3 approved a site‑plan application to convert the existing building at 30 Intervale Street into 22 residential units, matching the applicant’s provision of 22 parking spaces.

The board’s approval followed a lengthy discussion about exterior design suggestions from planning staff and whether such design matters fall within site‑plan review. That debate involved the applicant’s attorney and the planning department.

The project’s representatives told the board the site — the former Sandara Club — is fully paved and that the building footprint and overall size remain unchanged. The applicant initially sought 28 units but revised the plan to 22 units to match the 22 on‑site parking spaces, the applicant’s representative said. The Zoning Board of Appeals had previously approved the project’s dimensional relief, and the conservation commission cleared wetland issues, the applicant added.

Planning staff told the board the outstanding technical items that remained after conservation review were an elevator question and external building design details. Staff said the elevator issue had been resolved because the project meets ADA requirements without installing an elevator, but asked the applicant to provide a written explanation for not adopting certain suggested exterior design revisions so staff and the board could document why changes were not feasible or necessary.

Attorney John McCluskey told the board that site‑plan approval is governed by the city ordinance and does not require design review: “Site plan approval has nothing to do with windows,” he said, and cited Brockton Ordinance section 27‑89 (site‑plan criteria) to frame the board’s decision criteria. Architect Steven Griffin said redesigning the façade and windows to match proposed future form‑based code standards would require additional design work, increase costs and alter the building’s approved architectural concept.

Why it matters: the parcel is located in the Montello neighborhood plan district and within an area the city is considering for updated form‑based zoning standards; planning staff said they hoped the project would work toward neighborhood design expectations even if not legally required under current zoning.

Board members called for continued cooperation between the applicant and staff. After public comment produced no speakers, a board member moved to approve the site plan; the motion passed on a roll call vote with all participating members recorded as voting yes.

The applicant may now proceed to technical permitting and building permits; planning staff will expect documentation on unresolved design suggestions or reasons the applicant cannot adopt them.