2026-06-02 – Ordinance Committee Meeting – Meeting Minutes

REPORT – ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

June 2, 2026

The Standing Committee on Ordinances and Rules to which was referred the following reports as follows:

  1. Ordinance: Zoning Ordinance to establish Form-Based Code Districts in the City of Brockton to replace the underlying districts within the boundaries identified in the ordinance.

having considered the same, report POSTPONED by Motion of Councilor Thompson, 2nd by Councilor Teixeira.

2. Ordinance: Zoning Ordinance amending the Zoning Map of the City of Brockton to designate specific parcels as Form Based Code Districts.

    having considered the same, report POSTPONED by Motion of Councilor Thompson, 2nd by Councilor Teixeira.

    MINUTES – ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

    June 2, 2026

    Held in City Council Chambers at Brockton City Hall.  The Standing Committee on Ordinances and Rules was called to order at 5:46 p.m. by Councilor Nicastro, Griffin, Teixeira, and Thompson present.

    Agenda read into the record.

    The Committee first considered the following:

    #1 on agenda

    Comments by Elijah Romulus, Interim Director of Planning and Economic Development (Evan Sears is at Planning Board meeting, community input, neighborhood plans, residents weighed in on plans, targeted not citywide, 4 specific areas, modernizing outdated zoning focused on single family use, this is how people actually want to live and work, variances for use will still apply, built and form of structure goes to the planning board, should streamline the process, mixed used development)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (PowerPoint presentation, timeline, community meetings, guidelines prepared, districts defined, building types, building components, administrative standards, 4 neighborhoods, Montello, Lovett Brook, Trout  Brook, Campello, could consider for city-wide at a later date, sub districts,  district standards, building types, green score, landscape standards, site plan review standards, parking standards, incentive zoning for community benefits, overview at a high level)

    Comment by Councilor Thompson (add letters to the records)

    Comments by Councilor Griffin (can’t see how this helps development move faster in Brockton)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (streamline permitting process, more uses as a right, special permit process adds time and money, prioritized uses allowed more as of right or with site plan review, guidance on what buildings will look like, threshold for administrative site plan review,

    Comments by Councilor Griffin (planning board involvement)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (planning board uses guidelines for consistent decisions)

    Comments by Councilor Griffin (hesitant, but listening, language is complicated)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (agrees, dense)

    Comments by Elijah Romulus, Interim Director of Planning and Economic Development            (illustrations)

    Comments by Councilor Griffin (wants to streamline for developers, not sure this is it)

    Comments by Councilor Nicastro (well settled areas)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (variance discussion, this tries to relax those existing nonconformities, feedback from residents)

    Comments by Councilor Nicastro (does not always work, tried this at Union Point, it was eliminated, contrast to Somerville works, Franklin)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (discussion on other communities)

    Comments by Councilor Nicastro (what if we don’t move forward)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (current zoning, outdated uses, traditional zoning)

    Comments by Elijah Romulus, Interim Director of Planning and Economic Development                        (read letter of support from developer)

    Comments by Councilor Thompson (administrative review process pros and cons, limits of planning department, base zone?)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (checklist, other communities)

    Comments by Elijah Romulus, Interim Director of Planning and Economic Development                         (appeal process)

    Comments by Councilor Thompson (is the department ready for this level of work, has a process been created)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (more staff, but has been preparing for this for years, base zones removed)

    Comments by William Fortes, Interim Commissioner of Building (aligns with the Mayor’s economic plans, all the nonconforming uses would be protected, function of zoning board of appeals, looks for conflict as permit issuing authority, lots are sitting there doing nothing anyways, jump start needed, daunting process, solid, housekeeping issues, add abbreviation for “P”, parking might be a concern, does not see minimum ratios for every use, silent for number of units, administrative review and administrative enforcement, planning board is special permit granting authority but building is enforcing agency, need clarity for enforcement side, time limit for review, period for approval, subjective nature concerns, want it to be mechanical, needs to strike certificate of occupancy section, can make this work as the Commissioner of Building)

    Comments by Councilor Nicastro (de facto approval)

    Comments by Councilor Thompson (additional comments)

    Comments by Councilor Nicastro (chair not able to attend)

    Comments by Attorney James Burke (work on this, decision to amend the zoning ordinance, deeper dive of language, does not believe this is appropriate to meet requirements of a zoning ordinance, planner’s guide, 40A legislation, court decisions on this, language needs to be measurable, objective, let land owners know what they need in advance, interpretative, average home owner, inform, subjective interpretation, real problem for bottle neck potential, power and authority, examples, subjective criteria for municipal employee, not a board, too loose, planners guide, take aways authority from the planner or designee, skill and background, understaffed, not allowed by statute, delegates legislation authority)

     Comments by Councilor Nicastro (form base code experience, approval process in Brockton is slow, boards could meet more often)

     Comments by Attorney James Burke (peaked by the idea, longer workload expected, not what we want, needs to be easier for homeowner, peer review ties it up for months, flawed system, does not see this providing an expedited process for homeowners)

     Comments by Councilor Griffin (streamline language)

     Comments by Attorney James Burke (could be, confusing only part of the city applies to this)

     Comments by Councilor Teixeira (investors coming to the city, homeowners)

     Comments by Attorney James Burke (won’t know how to handle with how its written so where will they go, planning department will be arbitrator of decision and ask them what it says, not a fair shot for an average homeowner, not equitable)

    Comments by Elijah Romulus, Interim Director of Planning and Economic Development

    (committing to working with building department, communication, standards for dimensions, reads support letter from Mayor)

     Comments by Councilor Thompson (chapter 40A)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (no attorney on staff, works with the city lawyers)

    Comments by Councilor Thompson  (new zone, understanding, process for education)

    Comments by William Fortes, Interim Commissioner of Building (no mention of single family, maybe cottage, more geared to developers with deep pockets, short version, doesn’t see out reach or education is a problem, definitely things that can be tightened up)

    Comments by Councilor Nicastro (as drafted is urban, single family homes not addressed because of the areas, legal challenges)

    Comments by Emily Keys Inness, Inness Land Strategies Group (that would be for future changes, Pittsfield has not had a challenge since 2018 but more of a hybrid, written for other communities, and other states, not form based codes though)

    Motion to recommend POSTPONED by Councilor Thompson, 2nd by Councilor Teixeira  . Motion carried unanimously.

    Next, the Committee considered the following:

    #2 on agenda

    Motion to recommend POSTPONED by Councilor Thompson, 2nd by Councilor Teixeira  . Motion carried unanimously.

    Motion to adjourn by Councilor Thompson, 2nd by Councilor Teixeira. Motion carried unanimously.

    Meeting was adjourned at 7:32pm.

    Documents: Letters in support, Four Neighborhood Form Based Code PowerPoint presentation, .

    May 22, 2026 memorandum from Paula Ramos Martinez of Innes Land Strategies Group, Zone plansTPONED by Motion of Councilor Thompson, 2nd by Councilor Teixeira.

    Top