The Brockton City Planning Board voted on July 1, 2025 to reject a motion to approve a definitive subdivision for 34 Sumner Street, preventing the applicant from proceeding immediately to the Zoning Board of Appeals for frontage and area variances.

The matter came before the board after the applicant’s engineer and attorney said a recent letter from the building department indicated the subdivision route was the correct procedural step. Attorney Rob Creedon told the board he saw “no adverse material or substantial detriment” and argued the converted accessory structure and renovated home on the lot would meet zoning setback requirements even though both new lots require frontage and area relief.

Board members focused on whether the applicant had followed proper steps and whether the split represented an attempt to seek retroactive approval after work on the property. Planning board members cited a prior denial by the Zoning Board of Appeals and a building-department letter that flagged zoning and frontage issues. One board member noted the split reduced frontage for the two resulting lots to about 100 feet and 25 feet respectively where 175 feet is required, and said the smaller lot’s limited frontage and the property’s unusual configuration would require relief from the ZBA.

Public comment was not offered during the meeting on this item. After a motion to approve the definitive subdivision and a second, the board conducted a roll-call vote. The tally recorded in the meeting was: Rolando — yes; James Sweeney — no; Matthew Gallagher — no; Marty Crowell — no; Tony Gonzalez — no. With a 1–4 vote against approval, the motion failed.

The board’s decision means the applicant will not receive planning-board approval for the subdivision at this time; the applicant and attorney indicated they would pursue next steps with municipal departments and the ZBA as appropriate.

The record before the board described the rear structure as an existing converted barn that received a certificate of completion from the building department for accessory-structure work; building-department staff and the board noted that certificate did not, by itself, authorize a separate dwelling. The planning board also emphasized that definitive-subdivision approval is discretionary and that the board could deny the submission if it found the application insufficient or premature.

The board did not adopt additional conditions or direct staff to take further action on the application at this meeting. The applicant’s representatives left after the vote and indicated they would return when they had further clearances or determinations.

The planning board’s minutes will record the formal denial and the vote; applicants may return with revised materials or pursue relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals.