2026-10-05 - Ordinance Committee

00:12Good evening. I hereby call the Broxton

00:14City Council's Ordinance Committee uh

00:18for Monday, October 5th, 2026, 5:35 p.m.

00:23to order. The uh Barackton City

00:25Council's Ordinance Committee is made up

00:27of councelor Jeffrey Thompson, councelor

00:30Susan Niccastro, councelor Phil Griffin,

00:33council David Texera, and myself,

00:36Shirley Azac. So um we are in order.

00:40Madame Clerk, our attorney Resnik,

00:42please. Uh

00:43>> Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a

00:44motion to take number uh six out of

00:46order, please. I think it's going to be

00:48postponed like a little more time for

00:50some more clarity and to develop some

00:52more information on it. Sure.

00:54>> Second.

00:55>> A motion's been made and properly

00:56seconded to take number six out of order

00:58and hear it uh first. All those in

01:01favor? All those opposed? The matter

01:03passes. Okay. Ordinance. Item number

01:07six. We have an ordinance amendment. Oh.

01:09Um do you want to do five and six?

01:11Because five is the actual uh ordinance

01:15change. Six is the amendment.

01:16>> Yes. Please.

01:17>> Thank you.

01:18>> Just to clarify. So, I I will call five

01:20and six collectively if you want to act

01:21on both of them tonight. Um, ordinance

01:25number five, amendment to the uh

01:26Brockton Smart Growth Overlay District.

01:29And item number six, ordinance,

01:31amendment to the zoning map for

01:32classifications of parcels

01:34111-040-041-042

01:38to the Brockton Smart Grove Overlay

01:40District. Invited to attend on both

01:43items. Attorney James Burke, Councelor

01:46Maria Tvar two, Evans, planner two.

01:51>> Make the motion.

01:52>> Thank you. So, are we going to

01:58they're going to come up to hear it or

02:00>> Yeah.

02:01>> What motion were you asking for?

02:03>> I thought it was called forward for a

02:04motion to postpone.

02:05>> Motion to postpone.

02:06>> Yeah.

02:07>> Oh, okay.

02:07>> Just need a second already, right?

02:09>> Wait. So, yeah, we're postponing both of

02:11them. I thought you wanted to.

02:12>> We were going to postpone both of them.

02:15>> Okay.

02:16>> So, you made the motion, Phil, and I'll

02:17second.

02:18>> Wait, I thought we were So, we're not

02:19going to hear them. We've had them cover

02:22postpone them.

02:23>> Okay.

02:24>> We've asked for more time.

02:26>> Okay.

02:26>> Yeah. The fir the first motion was to

02:28hear it. Take it out of order.

02:30>> Take it out of order.

02:30>> And the second then there has to be a

02:32second motion to postpone.

02:33>> Postpone.

02:34>> Okay. I like to make a motion to

02:35postpone items five and six, please. to

02:39the next finance committee meeting.

02:42>> I'd ask for an ordinance. You're right.

02:44It's ordinance

02:45>> for the next ordinance committee.

02:47>> Second.

02:47>> Second. Oh, go ahead.

02:49>> All right. All those a motion has been

02:51made and properly seconded. All those in

02:54favor? All those opposed?

02:58>> Four to one.

03:00>> Um item number one, ordinance. We have a

03:03zoning ordinance to establish form-based

03:05coal districts in the city of Brockton

03:06to replace the underlying districts

03:08within the boundaries identified in the

03:10ordinance. Invited to attend, Elijah

03:12Romulus, interimm director of planning

03:14and economic development. William

03:16Fortes, interimm commissioner of

03:17buildings.

03:21This is the only

03:32>> uh good e good evening counselors.

03:36Uh we we are here uh to give a overview.

03:43Um uh I'm Elijah Romulus uh joined with

03:47Bill 40. Uh we're here to give you an

03:49overview, explanation, and a vision uh

03:52as it relates to the changes to chapter

03:5448 and uh the proposed form-based code

03:58before you.

04:03So during um during our last meeting, we

04:06met with Attorney Resnik and um we

04:09started to uh

04:12talk about some of the major hurdles

04:14with the ordinance and some of the

04:16changes that would be necessary to adopt

04:18it into our current zoning ordinance,

04:21which um again is kind of, you know,

04:24outdated and needs needs some work. Um,

04:27but we thought it would be more prudent

04:28to come to you and talk a little bit

04:31about um the changes that were uh made

04:36in chapter 48 on July 9th, which is part

04:38of the housing bill. Uh, I think you'll

04:40find uh that during during the show uh

04:43this this quick slideshow here, that

04:45there are really not any significant um

04:48changes that are going to gravely affect

04:51uh the current formbbased code as it's

04:53written. That doesn't mean that the

04:54document doesn't need uh doesn't need

04:56alterations, but we didn't want to go

04:58too far and waste time and money trying

05:01to change something that may not go

05:03through. So, um we're just going to kind

05:05of flip through this uh PowerPoint very

05:09quickly and just provide you with some

05:11general information about uh about the

05:14changes in 4A. Um

05:16>> um just on that point, just want to make

05:17sure that uh we have the presentation

05:20here um and ensuring that you know

05:22anyone from members of the public

05:24watching uh have access to that as well.

05:28Um we can also add a copy of this uh

05:31presentation to our website um for um

05:36anyone's uh interest in viewing. As Bill

05:39had mentioned, the uh purpose of the

05:41presentation is for public education. um

05:44you know making sure the city residents

05:46are understand you uh as the ordinance

05:49committee are aware of those changes. Um

05:53we have an overview, an explanation and

05:55a vision. Just a little bit about what

05:57we'll be uh talking about today. will

06:00talk about um how the state's budget

06:02bill um uh and what effects uh chapter

06:0548 have in it in in regard to the

06:08formbbased code that's being proposed

06:10and what some of the scenarios of the

06:11changes might might imply and uh what

06:14the um what the vision is for the city

06:17and and why formbbased code uh is

06:20important. And uh so this overview uh

06:24includes the easing of variance

06:25standards uh changes to notice

06:27requirements uh protections of

06:29nonconformities and um zoning freeze uh

06:34protections. So as you all know uh

06:36Governor Haley signed the Massachusetts

06:38fiscal 27 budget with um some pretty uh

06:41assertive changes to um mostly

06:44residential properties. Um the the

06:46concern here is that Massachusetts

06:48doesn't have enough housing and the um

06:51the the objective of the state is to

06:54provide better avenues and easier um

06:57standards for those who want to build

06:59more housing. Um given the fact that

07:01Brockton is is dense, uh I know it

07:04raises some concerns uh with the council

07:06and with the residents and um you know,

07:08we're here to just talk a little bit

07:10about that. So part of the changes are

07:12um easing of variance standards where

07:14you had to uh provide a a certain

07:17hardship. Uh now those standards have

07:19been relaxed. Um the changes to the

07:21notice requirements which are really not

07:23a big deal. Um the protections to

07:25nonconformities have increased. Uh and

07:28then zoning freeze protections which uh

07:30gives uh an applicant more time uh to

07:34bring a project through after a zoning

07:36change has occurred. we we could kind of

07:39cut through some of the denser parts of

07:41this. Um if you guys have any questions,

07:43you can always kind of ask us and we can

07:46uh refer back to it. Um but we do have

07:49some examples that can kind of paint a

07:51better picture um of what's uh being

07:54proposed uh or what's in place now, the

07:58current law uh for the state. So um

08:01these next few slides are like the kind

08:03of intense uh overview um and then we'll

08:07go to uh what um we have a chart uh for

08:11examples that shows exactly what is

08:14being um adopted into law. It's a little

08:19hard to read here, but if you're on page

08:2113 of your uh slide deck, uh that kind

08:25of goes to the full explanation. And so

08:29it goes through the variances, the

08:30zoning freeze, uh, and then the

08:32nonconformities.

08:34Um, some of the bigger ones, what was

08:37previously was that you had to prove

08:38your hardship, um, whether it was

08:40financial or otherwise, uh, it had to be

08:43strictly related to soil shape and

08:45topography. Now, uh, what's in place is

08:48that you have to show practical

08:50difficulty. Um and that is related to

08:54that can be related to soil shape and

08:56topography. Um and the financial

08:59hardship can be considered and does not

09:01have to be related to those three uh

09:06parameters. And in addition to that, um

09:10um people that have uh these weird

09:12shaped lots can actually even if the

09:14hardship is self-imposed by changing of

09:16lot lines, it still gives the zoning

09:19board of appeals further powers to

09:22consider uh to consider approving the

09:25project under the interest of housing.

09:27So in other words, uh they don't

09:28necessarily have to meet the entire

09:30strict standard or the literal standard.

09:33Now, now that those standards have

09:35changed and if it's in first in the

09:36interest of housing and sec secondly um

09:40that the detriment to the neighborhood

09:42is not as important as it is to provide

09:46housing. So, uh a a zoning board still

09:49has the authority to grant these

09:51permits. There's really uh there there

09:52are only a couple of things here by

09:54right that I as the zoning enforcing

09:57officer would allow to occur without

10:00having to go to the zoning board of

10:01appeals. But um those those um those

10:05nuances are limited to uh pretty much to

10:08non-conforming uses and for lots greater

10:10than 10,000 square ft. Our zoning does

10:13allow right now for smaller lots

10:15provided that they stay in separate

10:17ownership and they're not they're not

10:19merged by by deed uh through the merger

10:21doctrine. However, um there there were

10:24no changes to that to that particular

10:27statute on July 9th. uh and those things

10:30still are are um are still a standard.

10:34However, there is a referendum question

10:36coming out on November 3rd that uh is

10:40asking the question uh should 5,000

10:42square foot lots be allowed to be built

10:44upon and that's going to the voters. So,

10:46um that would be a significant shift in

10:49the lot size and how single family homes

10:52are constructed. So um

10:55and if you could just you want to go

10:57back to that chart then that's fine but

10:59>> yeah of course

11:01>> um yeah so we have a few examples that

11:03uh can kind of paint a picture of this

11:06um so in this scenario uh let's say the

11:10housing shorty shortage in the cities

11:12resulted in inflated prices um and

11:16elderly residents are struggling to

11:18retain uh their housing in their

11:21community. So, uh what what can you do

11:24for that? Uh some

11:26a proposal is that you know uh say Tammy

11:30wants to divide her house into a lot um

11:32in order to build a modest home for her

11:35aging parents. Um right now the new

11:39configuration results in one lot that's

11:42um a flag shape. Uh some people might

11:45say it's a park shop uh uh shape and but

11:49it meets the minimum lot size. not

11:51necessarily the frontage. Um, and so

11:56with this new proposal, the ZBA can

11:59consider, hey, you're creating new

12:01housing. This is something that we can

12:04consider in our approval. Um, and

12:06doesn't have to strictly uh relate to

12:09the shape of the lot.

12:10>> And and don't forget these things are

12:12still discretionary zoning. So, we

12:14haven't gotten into byite zoning, at

12:16least not with the lot size. Anyways, um

12:19the state has maintained that all of the

12:23um any any of these um liberties that

12:26are given to property owners that uh

12:28that the that the project still has to

12:30be u built within the required setbacks.

12:34So, you're not really changing too much

12:37about your zoning. It's just that um

12:39when I'm considering a project um it may

12:42or may not have to go to the zoning

12:43board of appeals depending on what it is

12:45and where the expansion is. Um, we'll

12:48get into u we'll get into a little bit

12:49more about non-conforming rights and

12:51uses um as the questions come in, but um

12:54>> I have a question.

12:55>> Yeah,

12:56>> Matt, counselor, you have a question. I

12:59you don't want to hold the questions

13:00till after the presentation's done.

13:02>> That's fine.

13:03>> Thank you.

13:04>> Yeah, we we don't mind answering.

13:06>> No, I'd rather that way we don't go back

13:08and forth to get through. We have a

13:10>> we have to get through and get to our

13:11next meeting. So uh next example would

13:13be uh uh GPA purchased a former office

13:17building in a commercially zoned

13:18district. He applied the ZBA for a use

13:20variance do multif family housing. A

13:22very good example of what we have here

13:24today in the city. Um

13:26citing a practical demand for housing.

13:29Um the the ZBA granted his variance but

13:32GPA has two years to begin construction

13:34and if things uh gets you know if he's

13:37got to go to site plan review um then he

13:39can request an additional two-year

13:41extension. So, under the statute, until

13:44July 9th, you had one year to exercise a

13:46zoning board um order. Now, you have two

13:49years to exercise that and you can get

13:51an additional 2-year extension in

13:53writing. So, um essentially that's kind

13:56of what's happened in the state over the

13:57over the past 5 years um after co the

14:00permit extension act has really granted

14:02almost every order to be extended right

14:04up until this year I think. Um, so there

14:06have been ZBA orders that have been

14:08resurrected from 2023 that still have

14:11use rights. So this is basically a

14:14continuation of the rights that were

14:16given under the um under the CO under

14:19chapter 53, the acts of 2020. Uh, and

14:22they've extended themselves right up

14:23until right up until uh this year. So,

14:26um this this gives someone an additional

14:29um you know year to exercise a um a

14:32zoning board approval and in addition to

14:34that they can add another two years. So

14:36that that's that's one of the changes

14:38substantially uh that is now statutory

14:42if you will.

14:43>> And then uh towards the topic of the

14:46zoning freeze, I think this is one uh

14:48the zoning freeze in particular is one

14:50that um I think relates uh you know with

14:53the form based code. There's uh there

14:55have been some concerns that oh if a

14:57developer u wants to continue with the

15:00current zoning um then uh what what are

15:04the you know chances that they're not

15:05able to move forward with that? This

15:07zoning freeze uh shows that, you know,

15:10if you decide to move forward with an

15:13application uh with the underlying

15:15zoning, regardless of it um changing in

15:18the in the future, you still have uh

15:21vested rights to move forward uh with

15:23that um uh property

15:26>> and that application or that permit

15:28that's been submitted. Okay. So, it

15:31extends to everything. Um the uh

15:36I think one of the one of the big things

15:38is the non-conformities here. I just

15:39want to go over that a little bit. Um so

15:43the part of the statute allows for

15:46non-conforming structures to be extended

15:48or altered provided that they meet the

15:50required setback for the zoning district

15:52that they're in. Now, this has some

15:55implications that you might be able to

15:57somehow add units to a a property that

16:00is deficient dimensionally. So, in other

16:03words, if you needed if you needed

16:0410,000 square ft for two units and you

16:07need an additional 2,000 ft for a third

16:09unit, that 12,000 square ft is still a

16:12requirement. You can't you can't add you

16:16can't add units to a property that is

16:18non-conforming because of lot size. But

16:21if if there is an expansion of that, say

16:25it's a non-conforming free family and a

16:28person wants to extend the roof line uh

16:30to get more better living space up

16:32there, uh prior to this statute, they

16:35would have to go to the zoning board of

16:36appe appeals for a finding. they no

16:38longer have to do that which uh also has

16:43um changing ramifications to sections

16:4627-39

16:48and section 27-40 of our current zoning

16:51ordinance that requires a special permit

16:54from the zoning board of appeals to

16:56extend that non-conforming structure.

16:58Okay, so those are the more complex

17:01things that myself and Miss Resnik will

17:03get into. uh we'll be providing language

17:05separately in our current zoning

17:07ordinance that will kind of clean that

17:10up and identify it a little bit better.

17:12Okay. Um and again, we still haven't

17:15gotten into how this affects our

17:17formbbased code. Um but we'll skip over

17:19that. We'll go into that um now, I

17:22guess. Um

17:23>> yes. And so uh you know speaking to the

17:26vision uh you know how can this improve

17:28the future of Brockton? how does this

17:30form based code before you actually um

17:33kind of uh fit with these changes that

17:35have been uh made at the state level. Um

17:38you know one thing is that uh formbbased

17:41code um you know prior to those changes

17:45uh may may have looked like a a big leap

17:48forward in how we decided to um you know

17:52look at the zoning of a city. Now that

17:54there's relaxed laws with the state,

17:57this form-based code gives us kind of a

17:59playbook to go by with some of these

18:02relaxed laws.

18:04And um one of the things that we're

18:07proposing or we discussed at our last

18:09meeting with uh Miss Resnik, with

18:11Attorney Resnik, is that we um that we

18:14think it might be an easier

18:18it might be an easier leap to do this as

18:22an overlay district to not do it. And I

18:24had suggested it in the beginning, but

18:27you know, the the the consensus was no,

18:29listen, we just want to change the zone.

18:31And obviously I think that might be a

18:33little bit too radical, a little bit too

18:35shocking for the city. Um, one of the

18:38concerns that councelor Griffin shared

18:39with me is that what about the

18:41non-conforming people that, you know,

18:42the mum and pup store that's been there

18:44forever, now all of a sudden they're

18:45outlawed. They can't be who they are.

18:48And um you know considering considering

18:50all that um we think that it might be

18:53prudent to look at um doing an overlay

18:56district rather than um rather than just

18:59getting or eviscerating the underlying

19:01zoning district because uh the way the

19:05way at least that I see it and I'm sure

19:07that uh Mr. Romulus shares my opinion is

19:10that this thing is you know even if it

19:13gets passed tomorrow it's not going to

19:15happen overnight. There are there are

19:16going to be projects that are going to

19:18take some time to come through. There

19:20are two projects currently that are

19:22relying on this. One being the sale of

19:25the uh former police station uh the

19:27other being the CSX property which are a

19:30vital to the city's growth. And I think

19:32that we we could all agree that even

19:34starting in the downtown area with uh

19:37with an overlay district would be a good

19:39start. Um, and before we make any

19:42adjustments to the formbbased code or

19:45adoptions in our zoning ordinance, we

19:48wanted to get the feel from the council.

19:50You know, what you think about this

19:52because obviously there are some changes

19:54that need to happen in both our regular

19:56zoning ordinance and in our adopted

19:58formbbased code ordinance. And we think

20:01that we can get through those changes if

20:03we meet um either bi-weekly or you know

20:06on a regular basis to try and get some

20:08of these changes identified and brought

20:10uh brought to this council with you know

20:12some sensible changes and some things

20:15that are going to make this palatable um

20:17for the city. I I think that the city

20:19needs this for its growth. But again um

20:22I I think caution um caution is

20:24definitely warranted here and and

20:26obviously we don't want to bite off more

20:28than we can chew. Um so getting through

20:30to the sorry

20:32>> no go ahead you know and so to that

20:35point um you know some of these uh

20:37relaxed uh restrictions at the state

20:40level does allow for um you know some

20:44infill development um the non-conforming

20:47uses uh do have an opportunity to um

20:51move forward within this uh new proposed

20:53zoning um there is definitely a way in

20:56which you know I think it's it's great

20:59timing that the state has made these

21:01changes and you have the formbbased code

21:04before you. I think that uh it only

21:07helps in us being able to um provide a a

21:11road map and a path forward uh to

21:14navigate these new changes uh from the

21:16state. Um and then um the vested rights

21:19um as I had mentioned earlier uh the

21:22fact that you can um lock in uh your

21:27underlying zoning before any changes are

21:29made uh does give um anyone that has

21:33those concerns the opportunity to still

21:35move forward with their development. Uh

21:37but the city has that chance to um to

21:41really unlock um a lot of potential in

21:45these uh zoning parcels. Uh as uh the

21:48commissioner mentioned, uh those two

21:50sites, charter development and uh the

21:53police station are are vital to to that

21:56economic development in the city. Um you

21:58know, the districts in general that are

22:00proposed um do have parcels that could

22:03really benefit from that. Um but

22:06specifically with uh with charter um the

22:09state um has actually issued um some

22:13some grant funding for that uh site as

22:15well. Um and so it would be really um uh

22:20it would be it would be a great loss to

22:22the city um if if that's not able to go

22:25through. Um it's been years in the

22:27making. It's uh they're proposing 1,400

22:31uh housing units. Uh there's uh you know

22:34different you um different housing types

22:37for people at different stages of life,

22:39different economic um you know u

22:41backgrounds and it would be a a brand

22:44new neighborhood and a site that is a

22:47current brownfield and uh only polluting

22:50the site and the the neighborhoods

22:52around it. And so I I would implore the

22:55council to really consider that uh with

22:57your um uh going forward in in this um

23:02consideration for farm-based code. I

23:05also wanted to mention too that um part

23:07of the changes to 4A um whereas um

23:13lots that were combined by merger, okay,

23:17merge by deed rather uh because uh for

23:20purposes of conforming with zoning um

23:23whereas the

23:26the statute only applied to residential

23:29properties is now extended into

23:31commercial properties as well for

23:33purposes of residential use, not exactly

23:36for extension of commercial uses. So,

23:39I'm still trying to I'm still scratching

23:41my head on that one. That that one's,

23:43you know, I haven't had a case come into

23:45me yet where uh they've they've had a a

23:48lot that was separated by deed and is

23:50allowed to be a separate lot still on

23:52its own because um the statute is fairly

23:56new. And I think again what the statute

23:59was created for is is for the production

24:01of housing. I don't think that it speaks

24:03specifically to be able to separate a

24:06commercial lot um that is, you know,

24:08that was never mer, you know, that was,

24:11in other words, it's it's unmerged. I

24:13I'm not sure how that works, but I know

24:16that it has it has implications on

24:19commercial lots. And we we have a lot of

24:20empty commercial lots here in the city

24:23that have for one reason or another

24:24either not been developed on. Now those

24:26lots are considered um you know um

24:30considered lots on their own now whereas

24:32before they were combined um they might

24:35have been combined by deed. If they're a

24:37certain size then they they're allowed

24:39to be separated once again but but again

24:42I I don't exactly know. I just know that

24:44there's a change to that to that rule

24:46whereas um residential lots were the

24:49only ones that could be that could be

24:50unmerged if you will. Now now that

24:53applies to commercial lots as well. So,

24:56>> and um I know uh Bill and I are throwing

24:59a lot at you, but um I just want to um

25:02commend you for kind of uh going through

25:05this. And um you know, in these last,

25:07you know, four or five years, um uh you

25:12know, municipalities, uh Brockton

25:13included, has been asked to look at a

25:17lot of changes to to the zoning law, you

25:19know, between uh MBTA MBTA communities

25:22and uh ADU ordinances. before that, you

25:25know, maybe 40 years went by and there

25:27was no changes to 4DA. So, I just want

25:30to um you know, thank you guys for for

25:32you know, having the the this discussion

25:35and and wanting to go through with uh

25:38you know, uh a decision um with with um

25:43with this uh before you.

25:44>> Thank you, gentlemen. And thank you, Mr.

25:46Planner, for putting together this

25:48information. Counselors, I do ask you

25:50that you keep this so he doesn't print

25:51it up every time for us. So, thank you

25:53very much. Um, at this time, councils,

25:56if you have questions on the

25:57presentation, councelor Castra.

25:59>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening,

26:02gentlemen.

26:02>> Good evening.

26:03>> Um, I really appreciate the PowerPoint

26:06and I I also appreciate the opportunity

26:09to read it um after after this evening.

26:12So, on page 14 under examples of

26:16variances,

26:19Mr. Ramulus read that second paragraph

26:22about the ZBA weighing in weighing the

26:25public benefits. Oh, thank you. Weighing

26:28the public benefits of additional

26:30housing against possible detriment to

26:33public safety.

26:35So when we talk about the public

26:37benefits of additional housing, are we

26:40talking about in the commonwealth,

26:42in the region, in the county, in the

26:45community?

26:46because we are adding a healthy amount

26:48of housing to the community and Mr.

26:52Sears has given me a list of proposed

26:56constructed and pend and uh approved

26:59projects in the downtown area right now.

27:03So what are your thoughts?

27:06>> Uh yes. So this is um an example for uh

27:10variances um and the ZBA being able to

27:14uh determine whether something is

27:16strictly uh uh within the bounds of the

27:21uh soil topography and shape. Um you

27:24have the public good is um from the

27:27state level. The uh I guess the

27:32impetence is for all zoning boards of uh

27:36zoning boards of appeals to be able to

27:39consider housing. Um and it it would be

27:43specifically for that case. Um it it it

27:47would be on the zoning board of appeals

27:49to determine if that means that they

27:51want to consider it within the bounds of

27:53a neighborhood within a city. Um it's

27:56really um the

27:59it's to consider housing in general.

28:02>> What do you think Mr. For Thank you.

28:04>> So council on a Castro that's a really

28:06good question. I I don't think because

28:09this is discretionary, right? And again,

28:12the state has lacked the regulations. It

28:14kind of unties the hands of the zoning

28:16board of appeals whereas they were

28:18limited to how they could grant

28:19variances. Now they have these other

28:21considerations. I I don't see that

28:24public safety would be risked having two

28:27fire chiefs on there, one the present

28:29and one the former. Um whereas uh you

28:32know um I I don't think that there's an

28:34expectation from the state that someone

28:36would risk public safety because of a

28:39density problem to uh to provide an

28:42extra living unit. Um there are other

28:44alternatives as well. Um I I think the

28:47purpose of the statute was to just kind

28:49of you know give the zoning board of

28:52appeals more options if if you will.

28:55It's still discretionary zoning at least

28:57up to this point.

28:58>> Okay. I'm just wondering though looking

29:01at this language when you talk about the

29:04public benefits of additional housing

29:07to the city to the region to the state

29:11because

29:12even if you look at the u the seven or

29:15eight abuing towns surrounding Brockton

29:19the um the amount of housing that they

29:21have added has been very different than

29:23the amount that we as a city have added

29:26and uh I guess I'm just looking for more

29:28qualifications because I think we're

29:30doing our share and then some.

29:32>> Yeah, that those words are actually from

29:34the state,

29:35>> right?

29:35>> That that's actually in the statute,

29:37>> right?

29:38>> Yeah.

29:39>> And um so uh there has been a um a look

29:43at the housing uh in Brockton and in the

29:46the um surrounding towns. I think it was

29:49Brockton, uh Avon and Stoton

29:51specifically were looked at. uh I think

29:53Old Colony Planning Council had put

29:54together a regional study and there are

29:57still some deficits uh in uh meeting the

30:01housing demand uh in the city. You know,

30:04um there's a need for a mix you uh a mix

30:08of different types of apartments. You

30:10need market rate, you need um

30:12affordable, you need uh different

30:14starter home. Uh so the the need is for

30:17um you know having access to different

30:20uh types of housing as well. Can you

30:22forward that study to us?

30:24>> Yes, I can do that.

30:26>> Thank you. Then I had another question

30:29um on page 16 regarding zoning freezes.

30:34Now

30:36the law as to zoning freezes hasn't

30:39really changed, has it?

30:43>> Sorry, could you repeat that?

30:45>> Um the law as to zoning freezes hasn't

30:48really changed. It's not, it has not

30:52changed as a result of these latest

30:54state law changes.

30:59>> Uh, no, I think it just spells it out.

31:01Uh, there was an absence of statutory

31:03language before. Uh, now a court might

31:06decide that, but I think they felt the

31:08need to get this into the statutory

31:10requirements um for clarity. I I don't

31:13think that this was something that was

31:15new. I just think that it's it's now in

31:17verbiage so that um so that someone's

31:20rights are observed. And again, I I

31:22think this all kind of pushes behind uh

31:25behind the housing initiative. I I don't

31:28think that there's anything in these

31:29stat statutes that are uh that don't

31:32speak to the production of housing, you

31:34know, uh that's why it's under the

31:36housing bill. And so there must have

31:38been a case where someone had a zoning

31:41board uh application and they got denied

31:44because the zone changed and went all to

31:46industrial, something like that.

31:47>> Well, there's been a lot of cases on

31:49zoning freezes.

31:50>> Yeah. Yeah.

31:51>> It's codified.

31:52>> And and to that point, um the the table

31:55that uh we have a few pages earlier

31:58really uh drills down on the exact kind

32:01of like old versus new. And um I would

32:03just want to point to the zoning freeze

32:05that um the the it protected zoning

32:09changes uh once a permit was issued and

32:12now it protects the zoning changes once

32:15a permit is applied for. So you have a

32:18little more of a runway.

32:20>> Yeah.

32:22>> And your application doesn't die on the

32:24vine because the zoning changed.

32:27>> Okay.

32:29And

32:30>> what about if the application is denied?

32:35If it's denied, it's it's still it's

32:38it's only subject to the freeze for as

32:40long as it's denied until at that point

32:42at which it's denied or if it's

32:44approved. One of the two.

32:46>> Okay.

32:47>> Mhm.

32:48>> Thank you for the for all this reading

32:50and thank you for the conversation,

32:52gentlemen.

32:53>> Thank you, Madam Counselor.

32:55>> Uh, any other questions? Councelor

32:57Griffin.

32:58>> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good evening,

33:00gentlemen. Good evening.

33:01>> Good evening. you know, less than 10% of

33:03the country uses farm-based code. This

33:06is a very dense area where I think I

33:08think there' be some major problems with

33:10it. And your personal experience with

33:13farm-based code, have Mr. Planet, have

33:15you ever used farm-based code before?

33:17Any municipalities you work for?

33:19>> I have not used it specifically. Um

33:23but counselor to your point um if only

33:2610% of the country uses it then I want

33:28to be part of that percentage that is on

33:31the vanguard and is able to use that

33:34kind of uh zoning to better enhance the

33:37city. I I think I mean growing up here

33:39I've seen a lot of stagnation and this

33:43would allow for some real opportunity

33:45for development.

33:47Very well said. But again, I'd like to

33:49see some really solid background in

33:51formbbased code since the planner would

33:53be orchestrating this. Mr. Forte, you've

33:56never used it directly. We've had some

33:58conversations on you have some knowledge

34:00of but never really used it firsthand.

34:02>> That That's correct, Council. Yes. I I

34:04have not actually approved the project

34:06under a formb.

34:08>> It seems to me most of the uh

34:10municipalities that use it, they're out

34:11west or down south. They're very wide

34:13open with a lot of geographic area to

34:15develop. City is really not that way.

34:18And that gives me pause until we get

34:21maybe set up a little bit better with

34:23someone who actually used farm-based

34:24code or implemented it in the city

34:27because I don't want to see it impacting

34:31development by slowing it down. And I'm

34:33not really clear on if this is going to

34:35be helpful or not. I I just don't I'm

34:37not sold on be perfectly honest with

34:39you.

34:41I mean that that's that's respectful. Um

34:44but I I would just say that um in not

34:48passing it that would be you know two

34:50specific sites as we had mentioned the

34:52the charter CSX site and the um police

34:55station that would would not move

34:58forward and and these are uh

35:00specifically with the charter site is

35:02one that's been in development for

35:03years. Um, and so, um, I I I know that I

35:09have the ability and my staff has the

35:11ability to rise to the occasion and be

35:14able to implement, uh, what's being

35:16proposed before you. And, um, uh, to

35:20Bill's point earlier, an overlay

35:22district would allow um, for uh, us to

35:25be able to, um, you know, have some

35:28flexibility uh, with the with the

35:30proposal.

35:31>> Well, I appreciate your enthusiasm. I

35:34just uh again it gives me pause. We

35:36don't have anybody really has hands-on

35:38experience with farm-based code. I

35:41understand some of the state rules that

35:42have come down upon us. They were they

35:45were thrust upon us. There weren't even

35:46we have no input in it. And I'm sure

35:48they're going to be litigated at some

35:50point for some changes, too. So, I'd

35:52like to just hold off in this a little

35:53bit. I I just don't think uh

35:57I just don't think it benefits the city

35:58at this point. council. I I I think um I

36:03I think one of the things that we're

36:04looking for direction on today is um you

36:07know uh there are some changes uh that

36:10have to be made in the ordinance to

36:13align with first with our zoning

36:15ordinance and secondly um some of the

36:18concerns that you have about the time

36:20frame. Um

36:22we can probably work to get those time

36:24frames down. So in other words, you have

36:26to accept an application within 30 days.

36:28it has to be heard within that next 30

36:30days. Um the the planning board has 90

36:34days to approve. Uh and and I think the

36:37succession of the approvals can be

36:39mandated in such a way that an applicant

36:42can get an answer like within a five or

36:46six month time frame which I will say is

36:49going to be a lot less than what it is

36:51now. Right now it's almost two years.

36:53So, if you have to go to the zoning

36:55board of appeals first, get your

36:57variances for whatever you need, uh, and

36:59then go to the planning board, you know,

37:01go through tech review, go through site

37:02plan review. I think that there are ways

37:04to streamline it to ease your concerns

37:06about the amount of delay. I I think th

37:10those are very legitimate concerns and I

37:12and I I share that with you because you

37:15know I'm I'm a person who wants to be

37:17efficient and get things done and get to

37:19the point and get to the approval and

37:21here's your permit and let's go right

37:23that's the way I like to see things. Um,

37:26in a perfect world that may not, you

37:28know, that may that that might happen in

37:30a perfect world, but I obviously there

37:32are things, you know, applicants come in

37:34with incomplete applications, they don't

37:36quite understand the zoning and they may

37:38have to go back to the drawing board.

37:40Those things are going to happen no

37:41matter what changes we make to our

37:43zoning ordinance. But this does cut the

37:45process in half and it it it kind of

37:49eliminates the discretionary zoning

37:51whereas um that extra step might take 6

37:55to9 months and it does ease the burden

37:58on the applicant to get this all done in

38:00one fell swoop, you know. So, I do see

38:03some advantage uh in having a one-stop

38:06process for this entire thing, but I

38:08also share a concern that it might drag

38:10on and um what we want to know is is

38:13where do you think the council might

38:15want to go with this so that we can come

38:16up with something that works for

38:18everyone?

38:18>> Sure.

38:18>> I'm looking for some more information on

38:20it. Now, I have another question. Why

38:22wouldn't CSX and the police station not

38:25move forward with or without form base

38:27code?

38:29>> I think they could move forward. It

38:31would not be it would not be as uh to

38:34the extent that specifically with

38:36charter to the extent that they were

38:37looking to uh propose their development.

38:40It would it would very much restrict uh

38:43what they're being proposed for the

38:46police station. Uh I mean a developer

38:48could come in and just uh develop uh

38:52with what is there right now. That is an

38:55in an industrial zone. So you'd be

38:58looking at something that only fits

39:00within the uses of an industrial zone.

39:03Um so changing it to a formbbased code

39:06would allow for mixeduse development

39:09would allow for building you know six to

39:12seven stories and within that there's

39:15incentive uh zoning so that they have to

39:18provide public benefit public amenities

39:22uh to a site.

39:25>> Okay. Well well thank you very much. I'm

39:27still not convinced. I'd like to learn a

39:29little bit more about it, but uh thank

39:31you both, gentlemen.

39:32>> Thank you, counselor. So, just for a

39:34point of information, the reason this

39:36evening when um I originally put this on

39:38the agenda, we were under the

39:40understanding that neither side is ready

39:42to move. We're not ready, but this is

39:44just giving the counselors information.

39:46Um we've had multiple meetings regarding

39:49form based code. Um, and we'll continue

39:52to get information and um, just to

39:55educate ourselves, make sure we're

39:57making the right decisions. And I'm and

40:00the presenters said the same thing. I I

40:02don't think, you know, they're not

40:03pushing us to make a decision. They just

40:05they're giving us the information.

40:07They're trying to we're trying to figure

40:08out which direction this is going to go

40:10in. So, thank you again, gentlemen. Um,

40:12Councelor Thompson, you have a question?

40:15>> I do, Madam Chair. Thank you. Uh, good

40:18evening, gentlemen.

40:18>> Good evening. Good evening. Um so you

40:20know I've been a part of the

40:21foreignbased co- discussion uh ever

40:23since uh the city started uh

40:25contemplating um uh this this new zoning

40:29change and throughout those

40:31conversations it was I think the the

40:34number one reason to bring foreignbased

40:37code to the city was to provide more

40:39certainty. Um right now uh with the

40:42layout of our city and the kind of uh

40:46you know archaic zoning that we have in

40:48our city, it seemed like anytime anybody

40:50wanted to do anything, whether it be

40:52downtown or in your own neighborhood,

40:54you had to come before the zoning board.

40:56That and that with the zoning board

40:58comes costs and uncertainty whether your

41:01variance would be approved or not. And

41:03so the foreign base was uh always kind

41:06of a a discussion about certainty, uh

41:10flexibility,

41:11uh what would a neighborhood look like,

41:13what would downtown look like? There was

41:15a visual aspect to all of this. Um, and

41:19it even broke it down into kind of more

41:22micro level with what's a main street

41:24look like, what's a side street look

41:26like, um, what type of um, you know, uh,

41:31activations would be on main streets

41:33compared to side streets and and, uh,

41:36you also talked about height and, you

41:38know, some of those kind of other

41:39aspects uh, that are not really part of

41:42our existing code. And so formbbase

41:44would be uh something that provided uh

41:47certainty, some flexibility and

41:49modernizing our code to allow additional

41:52uses. Um Mr. Planner, you said that

41:55that's kind of exactly what uh Charter

41:57is looking for on their property. I I

41:59talk with charter um often as it's a W

42:02five concern and they yes they they

42:05would definitely like to see us move

42:06forward at some point with foreign base

42:08to provide them with the ability to

42:10build a uh development that has multiple

42:14different aspects whether it be um the

42:17environmental aspect of the riverw walk

42:19or the um the commercial aspect of um

42:22the mixed use and and uh additionally uh

42:25the residential aspect. So, um I I

42:29believe the foreign base is is something

42:32that would uh enhance uh Brockton and

42:35the desire of developers wanting to work

42:38with Brockton because now instead of

42:40going before the zoning board, a lot of

42:42this is spelt out by Wright.

42:45What's kind of now confusing me a bit is

42:48these new 4A changes. All right. And

42:51then uh we're also having the discussion

42:53of this being an overlay district and

42:55not not um you know not the uh zone base

42:59uh the groundbased zoning.

43:02So it seems like a lot of the changes

43:05that you spoke about regarding 44A

43:09was about housing right about the

43:12state's desire to increase the housing

43:14stock in the city. But foreign base

43:17seems at least in the conversations that

43:19we've had so far over the past few years

43:22was more directed towards our commercial

43:24uses. Um because forbase additionally

43:28has residential uses like urban

43:31residential and other things that we're

43:33not even kind of contemplating at this

43:35time. Um so tell me how does 40A let's

43:40say this is a base zone and not an

43:43overlay. Does 40A provide the same sort

43:47of

43:49lax or or re restandardization for a

43:54zoning board if they were coming before

43:57the zoning board on commercial property?

44:00Does that same incentive exist?

44:03>> So, um I can probably answer part of

44:05that. Um, so the proposal from chapter

44:0848 is, uh, heavily focused on housing.

44:12Um, and to your point, uh, a couple of

44:15other folks had brought it up. Uh, if

44:18we're focusing specifically on housing,

44:20then, um, does that mean there's a

44:24saturation of housing? Is there not? The

44:26formbbased code would allow for mixeduse

44:29development, some more commercial on top

44:32of housing. So then you have a game plan

44:34where the state the state is restricting

44:37or rather the state the the state is

44:39relaxing on housing but now you have a

44:43chance to also include mixeduse

44:45development commercial development and

44:48be able to look at the design and focus

44:50with form-based code.

44:52>> If if the contemplation was strictly

44:54commercial right with no residential

44:57aspect do these changes of 4DA still

45:00apply? they they don't they don't lend

45:03as much um incentive uh for anybody

45:07that's going in front of the zoning

45:08board of appeals. There's really nothing

45:10in these changes except for the lot

45:12mergers that I discussed uh and the

45:15protection of non-conforming uses. It

45:17might give certain liberties for a

45:19non-conforming use to expand uh and it

45:22might ease the standards a little bit

45:23for uh zoning board of appeals to

45:26provide a special permit for that

45:28expansion. But uh you know uh there

45:31would be really nothing I I mean

45:32formbbased code is probably easier. It's

45:35an easier standard to follow by whether

45:37you're doing commercial or residential

45:39and I don't think that chapter 48 would

45:41have a grave effect. Uh I don't think it

45:43would have a a meaningful impact either

45:46way. Okay. So now if we do move forward

45:49with um formbass being an overlay

45:52instead of ground zoning,

45:55they now have any applicant would now

45:57have an option to come before you based

46:00on either zone. So if they don't get

46:03what they want under our existing zone,

46:05they can either seek a variance under

46:07that zone or they can come forward under

46:09the new form base and hopefully maybe

46:11get it done by right through the form

46:14base. So they can essentially choose

46:16which path they want to go down

46:19essentially.

46:20>> That that is correct. Um and I just

46:23wanted to put a plug in here. Um you

46:24have brought up a charter. Um I just

46:27wanted to remind anyone listening that

46:29uh we did uh get multiple uh letters of

46:32support uh from uh the business

46:34community. Um I'll just read off a few.

46:37Um uh the mayor uh sent his letter of

46:40support. Metro South Chamber of

46:42Commerce, uh, Brockton Area Transit

46:44Authority, BAT, uh, local developers

46:47such as, uh, Stone Ridge Mutual

46:49Properties, uh, Campello, Keith Company,

46:52uh, Campella Business Association,

46:55um, and and others did uh, submit their

46:58letters of support uh, for the this

47:00adoption just to

47:01>> and we read those and we thank people

47:03for participating in this process. Um

47:05just a couple final things. Um because

47:07I'm really obviously this matter's been

47:10before us multiple times, not just this

47:12year, but over the past few years. Um

47:15and so obviously we're not ready to sign

47:19off or or vote favorably on this issue

47:22this evening. So then the question

47:23becomes next steps. All right. Now, you

47:26provided to us some uh some

47:29modifications to the zone as we

47:31discussed them previously. Um what are

47:35are the next steps to be taken both by

47:39you the uh you know the subject matter

47:42experts of the city um our legislative

47:45council and us as a city council or as

47:49an ordinance committee. What are we

47:51trying to accomplish between now and the

47:54next time we see you?

47:56So, uh, the last time that we met, uh,

47:59we had, um, decided to kind of come back

48:03and, uh, really think about it. Um, I

48:06had met with, uh, Bill, uh, Shannon, uh,

48:09Evan, our our planner, and we, uh, had

48:12kind of come up with a game plan to

48:14figure out how we could, uh, meet your

48:16your your needs. So, I would say we

48:18would do the same thing. we'd uh kind of

48:20touch base um gather all of your

48:23thoughts here and um provide the best

48:26path forward.

48:27>> Right. So best path forward is that we

48:29have a finished product ready to vote on

48:32with us having an understanding of what

48:33exactly that is. And so Mr. um uh Mr.

48:37Commissioner, you stated that um you

48:39need to work on making sure that this

48:41code aligns with our existing zoning. Uh

48:45that was some So can you kind of flesh

48:47that out? what exactly is that and

48:50what's that going to entail?

48:51>> So, uh there has to be at minimum there

48:54has to be a preamble recognizing

48:56formbbased code in our zoning ordinance.

48:59Um there are several portions of our

49:02ordinance that either conflict or don't

49:05align with what's in the formbbased

49:07code. Um Miss Attorney Resnick gave a

49:10great example of uh cottage kitchens.

49:12Now, that was before us a month and a

49:14half ago. Right now, it's in formbbased

49:17code. So, if we pass that, now we're

49:18saying essentially, yes, you can have a

49:20cottage kitchen uh in in our formbbased

49:23code and in the zones that it's adopted

49:24in. Uh that would be the first thing. Um

49:26secondly, um we would have to uh revise

49:32the formbbased code to eliminate any of

49:35the uses that are prohibited by our

49:37zoning ordinance or allow them to be

49:40permissive in our current zoning

49:41ordinance to align better with it. It's

49:44a there's a whole you can't just take

49:47that document, throw it on top of the

49:49other document and say this one applies

49:51too. I I mean I I can't see us, you

49:54know, working this thing out in one or

49:56two meetings. I think it's going to take

49:58several meetings to, you know, to

50:00rewrite, go through every portion of the

50:02ordinance. And I think we're going to

50:03have to meet at least bi-weekly for the

50:06next three or four months to even come

50:08up with a a list of the changes that

50:10need to happen in order for this thing

50:12to get adopted. Um

50:13>> is and is that because we're seeking it

50:15being a um

50:18an overlay?

50:19>> No, not not exactly. No, no, it it's

50:21because there are certain things in the

50:24district that has been created by

50:26formbbased code that conflict directly

50:29with our zoning ordinance. Um

50:31>> but wouldn't this replace any existing

50:34ordinance?

50:34>> No, not if you do an overlay. If you do

50:36an overlay, then the underlying district

50:37stays the same and all those uses stay

50:39the same. I'm saying that that those

50:41conflicts need to be resolved due to the

50:43fact that we're considering moving

50:45forward as an overlay.

50:46>> Yeah. And and not as not as many

50:48conflicts with uses as there are the

50:51fact that the either document doesn't

50:53recognize each other. Yeah. You know

50:54what I mean? It's like trying to put a

50:56computer program into a computer that

50:57doesn't read it, you know?

50:59>> So then we would be expected to um have

51:01additional amendments to our um base

51:04zone uh along with moving forward on the

51:07form base. Yeah, there are some there

51:09are some changes that need to happen now

51:11in the zoning ordinance that are not

51:13aligned with the recent changes to 4A. I

51:16think that

51:19might require the expertise of an

51:21outside consultant and I'm only saying

51:23that because as the enforcing officer, I

51:25know what I wanted to say, but but I

51:27think it needs to be examined a little

51:29bit closer and somebody that can devote

51:31more time to it because I've got crazy

51:33things going on and I don't necessarily

51:35have a lot of time to apply to it. But I

51:37think what needs to happen is a a slight

51:40restructuring of both ordinances to get

51:42them to work together. And we can do

51:44that work, but we need to know that

51:47we're not going to do that all that work

51:49and then have you come here and say I'm

51:50still not happy with it. You know what I

51:52mean?

51:53>> And to that point, um I think the

51:55biggest thing was kind of looking at

51:56like a use matrix. Um and and Bill, um

52:00attorney Resnick did put that together.

52:03And we are that's the probably the

52:04biggest part that we have to kind of

52:06work through. Um but um you know you do

52:09have your parcel listing which you know

52:13you can uh add an or add an overlay uh

52:16level choose to adopt the language with

52:20kind of a use matrix change with some of

52:22the uh changes to the um review period

52:27um as uh councelor Griffin had mentioned

52:30you know making sure that it's a shorter

52:32um uh review and not elongating the

52:35process. Um, but I think you know kind

52:37of those three things overlay, use

52:41matrix and uh review period are the kind

52:44of the three key pieces uh for us to be

52:47able to get this uh in order.

52:50>> Okay, understood. And then um just

52:52lastly and and maybe Shen if you could

52:54jump in because I want to make sure that

52:55we're all on the same page here. Um as

52:58you stated uh Mr. Commissioner, the the

53:00contemplation right now is to map this

53:03downtown as a overlay and then see see

53:07where it goes, kind of work out some of

53:08the kinks uh that may arise before we

53:10start applying it uh through other areas

53:13of the city. Uh speaking with

53:15legislative council, um there was

53:17stating that as of right now, as it the

53:20form-based code sits, that's

53:23incompatible. And so the the discussion

53:26regarding making those changes to the

53:29base zone district, does that

53:31contemplate or encompass

53:34the the discussion about making this

53:36ready for downtown overlay or are there

53:39additional things that need to happen?

53:42>> So I strongly believe that if this is

53:44going to become an overlay, it should be

53:46a separate ordinance that we we build

53:49from there. the FBC is would be as if

53:53they had a whole new zoning code. So, I

53:58think I emailed you guys a chart. I

54:00think it's like four pages of just

54:01different things that I found that were

54:03conflicting with our current zoning uses

54:06with a lot of it being on use. So, I

54:09think if we did an overlay, it would be

54:11a lot easier because you could you can

54:14expand your uses specifically

54:17and then you could expand your

54:19dimensions, your setbacks, all of those

54:21kind of building things in a separate

54:24document.

54:26And I think it'd be a lot easier to read

54:29than to try and take a 130 page

54:31ordinance that was intended to be a full

54:33code.

54:34Um, but that's just my opinion. Okay.

54:39And do you see that as the path forward

54:41as well? Because it sounds like the

54:43downtown the base zone, we'd have to

54:46amend that kind of in its own overlay

54:49district, right?

54:50>> Yep.

54:51>> So, the base would be an overlay and the

54:53form base on top of that.

54:55>> The base would be here and then you

54:56would have an overlay and the overlay

54:57might provide additional uses, um,

55:01better setbacks for development, maybe a

55:03better process for permitting. they

55:05could choose to put themselves in that.

55:08I don't think you need to change the

55:09base if the benefits and the overlay.

55:11>> Okay.

55:11>> Yeah. And and just to speak to your

55:14point, councel, you know, there would be

55:15two avenues of approval. There's two

55:18design uh ways that you can go. You can

55:20go the oldfashioned way. Go to the ZBA.

55:23You're still going to have to go to site

55:24plan because it's over a certain number

55:25of units or whatever it might be. And

55:27you can do that and maybe that pathway

55:30is a little more familiar to you. Or you

55:32can try this. If you squeeze the

55:34building in and get it away from the

55:35street and you can go a couple of

55:37stories higher and you know maybe you

55:39provide uh you know more green space

55:41then you can do this. Um you know I I

55:45see how it would enhance the downtown

55:47but I again I don't think it would

55:49eviscerate the underlying zoning

55:51district. That's what I think we're all

55:53trying to preserve. We just have to get

55:54a working document that's going to

55:56that's going to make it all fit together

55:58so that both world we can have the best

56:01of both worlds there without turning

56:03zoning on its head because I'm the guy

56:05at the end of the day that's got to

56:06enforce it and even before it goes to

56:08planning I have to make sure that it's

56:10that it fits and that it's you know that

56:12the application is you know even before

56:15it gets to that I have to make sure that

56:17there are no um nonconformities that

56:20have to go for zoning approval. So it's

56:22it's going to be complex. It's not

56:24there's no easy way to do it.

56:25>> Understood. I just want to make sure

56:27that we all understand what the path

56:28forward is. Um and that we're we're

56:32moving towards getting to a point where

56:35it's ready to either, you know, vote

56:37vote on one way or the other. Um I you

56:40have my support. I support the foreign

56:42base. I support the discussion that we

56:44had in the path forward. Um

56:47>> councelor due to the time.

56:48>> No, that's that that's all I have. Thank

56:50you, gentlemen.

56:51>> Do you have anything? No. Okay. Uh,

56:53Council Castro, you have a question

56:55regarding the presentation.

56:56>> Yes. Thank you,

56:58>> gentlemen. My my only qu question right

57:02now. Um, so earlier Mr. Forte mentioned

57:06that adopting the formbbased code would

57:10uh reduce delay.

57:12Okay. The timing of approving projects

57:15would be expedited.

57:17Well, it occurs to me that we would

57:20reduce delay just by um having the

57:24executive branch direct some of its

57:26boards and commissions like um planning

57:30and zoning board of appeals to meet more

57:32often. Right now they meet monthly, but

57:35if they met twice a month, you would it

57:38would really make an impact on delay,

57:40wouldn't it?

57:43>> Um yeah. So, uh, I do think, you know,

57:46potentially meeting more often would

57:48allow for applicants to have more

57:50opportunity to be seen before a board.

57:53Um, you know, I do think that the

57:59it would still put them in the path of

58:01having to go through multiple boards and

58:03committees. Uh, a form-based code would

58:07kind of remove at least one board

58:09process and you wouldn't have to go

58:11through multiple hearing processes. So I

58:14I still think that the formbbased code

58:16uh truncates the process uh more than

58:19relying on what we have right now.

58:22>> Okay. Not for now because we are

58:25crunched for time. But I would like uh

58:27like a working example of that.

58:30>> Um council, we are crunched for time. We

58:32still have a few more ordinances. If you

58:34can prepare that for coun for us for

58:36next time, that would be great.

58:38>> Very good.

58:38>> Thank you. Thank you again for the

58:40presentation and we'll see you at the

58:42next meeting. Thank you.

58:44>> Thank you.

58:45>> Yes, please.

58:46>> Make a motion to postpone uh to the next

58:48ordinance committee.

58:49>> Second.

58:50>> A motion has been made and properly

58:51seconded to postpone to the next

58:53ordinance meeting. All those in favor?

58:55All those opposed? The motion carries.

58:58Madame clerk. Item number two.

59:09Yeah. Um, Madam Chair, I make a motion

59:12to postpone to the next ordinance

59:13committee.

59:14>> Second.

59:14>> A motion has been made and properly

59:16seconded to postpone to the next

59:17ordinance uh meeting. All those in

59:19favor? All those opposed? The matters

59:22postponed to the next meeting.

59:23>> Item number three, ordinance. An

59:25ordinance amending the pay plan

59:26ordinance relative to the following

59:27positions. Communication Director,

59:29Beimma, public safety communications

59:31technology specialist, public safety

59:33communications technology specialists

59:35invited to attend. Brian Ortelli, Fire

59:37Chief, John Con, interimm chief

59:39financial officer.

59:40>> Thank you, Madame Clerk. We also have

59:42BEMA director Steve Hook. Good evening,

59:44gentlemen.

59:45>> Good evening. Thank you, councilors. Um,

59:47I'll just speak

59:49uh to the the

59:53pros of this uh position that we're

59:54we're bringing before you tonight. Um,

59:57this is a position now that I think

59:58we've been working on for about three

1:00:00years. It is a position that was

1:00:04formerly a part-time position in the um,

1:00:06Brockton Emergency Management Agency and

1:00:08now would like to move it to a full-time

1:00:11role. Um, what I can tell you is this,

1:00:15this position is something that I think

1:00:18is well needed. I think one of the

1:00:23things we've seen over the years and

1:00:24just to talk on the expenses, so much of

1:00:27this um the fire service, the police

1:00:30departments, DPW, uh I see the the DPW

1:00:34commissioner sitting here has to do with

1:00:37communication and interoperability. Um

1:00:39that advances every single year. And one

1:00:43place where we've been lacking is

1:00:45someone on site to be able to handle a

1:00:47lot of these repairs and things like

1:00:49that with the communication systems. If

1:00:52I look at my budget over the last few

1:00:54years, I've spent probably $40 to

1:00:55$50,000 just in the Brockton Fire

1:00:56Department on repairs to our

1:00:58communications and upgrades and

1:01:00reprogrammings and things of that

1:01:01nature. That's just the fire department.

1:01:03That's not the police department. That's

1:01:04not BEMA. And that's not DPW or even the

1:01:07schools for that matter um with some of

1:01:09their communications. So, one one thing

1:01:12we saw, and I'll I'll I'll let Director

1:01:14Hook speak to the um the actual um

1:01:16position itself, but one thing we saw,

1:01:19whether it be the civil unrest in 2020,

1:01:22whether it be um the hospital fire, um

1:01:26different things of that nature, and

1:01:27then most recently the FIFA World Cup um

1:01:30incidents that occurred here in the

1:01:31city. Communications was key to so much

1:01:34of what we do. and and the police chief

1:01:36and I and and director Hook were here um

1:01:39about a month and a half or so ago to

1:01:41talk about the the after effects of the

1:01:44FIFA World Cup.

1:01:47We operated on technically that night

1:01:49five different uh radio frequencies u

1:01:52between the different agencies that were

1:01:53involved. That doesn't just happen. Um

1:01:56we're lucky that um that the director

1:01:58has some people that are really good

1:01:59with radios that could reprogram things

1:02:01and get us up and running when when we

1:02:02needed them. So this is a position that

1:02:05would be well worth um what we're trying

1:02:07to accomplish here in the city with the

1:02:09interoperability amongst all all city

1:02:11agencies and especially um the emergency

1:02:13services side of stuff.

1:02:17>> Good evening madam chair uh councilors

1:02:20hope everyone's well. So, like the chief

1:02:23said, um, this position,

1:02:26you know, one thing that the chief

1:02:28didn't mention is there's a lot of

1:02:29infrastructure within the city, right?

1:02:32People think of portable radios and

1:02:33mobile radios, and there's hundreds of

1:02:35those, but the infrastructure behind the

1:02:38scenes to make that work. There's

1:02:40probably 10 or 12 different radio sites

1:02:43alone, uh, and all connected via

1:02:46microwave technology, fiber connections.

1:02:50They all have battery plants and UPS's.

1:02:52So, there's a lot behind the scenes. Uh

1:02:55the other thing, uh you you know, we're

1:02:58both spending money on uh radio

1:03:01programming, which is is a very simple

1:03:03thing, but we don't currently have

1:03:05anybody to do it. These communities that

1:03:07surround us, uh are all changing to

1:03:10what's called P25 or digital

1:03:13communications. That requires us to

1:03:15touch radios every single time that

1:03:18happens. And we're talking hundreds of

1:03:20radios. So if the town of Y says, "Hey,

1:03:24as of this date, we are going to go

1:03:26digital," we have to touch every single

1:03:28one of our radios. And that's an expense

1:03:30that we're paying to vendors to do that

1:03:32currently. Um so and that's happening a

1:03:36lot. There's a lot of changes that have

1:03:38to uh we have to keep up on. So this

1:03:42position

1:03:43uh in FY26

1:03:47was presented as a new position and it

1:03:50was the salary for that position was uh

1:03:54across four budgets. My budget, the fire

1:03:57budget, the police budget and the DPW

1:03:59budget

1:04:01for FY27. The mayor took that out uh and

1:04:05made it part of an existing position

1:04:07that we have and in the emergency

1:04:09management agency added some funds to

1:04:12that for full-time. Uh so we do have

1:04:15funding. It is fully funded for FY27,

1:04:19but we're just going to have to change

1:04:20the ordinance for the the we changed the

1:04:23name of the the job. It went from

1:04:25communications director to public safety

1:04:30>> communication specialist.

1:04:31>> Yeah. communications technology

1:04:33specialist.

1:04:35So, uh the other thing is most people

1:04:38don't realize this, but the city has

1:04:40what's called the school 911 channel

1:04:42that we manage. Um and every single

1:04:45school has a radio. Every single radio,

1:04:49portable radio in the school has this

1:04:51channel in it. So

1:04:54in the event that something happens at a

1:04:56school and we need to communicate to

1:04:58anybody in the school uh we have that

1:05:01ability to do that. So there's a lot of

1:05:02moving pieces when it comes to

1:05:04technology these days. So with that I

1:05:07chief and I happy to answer any

1:05:08questions that you have.

1:05:15>> The chairman here.

1:05:19>> Thank you. Um, councelor Griffin

1:05:22followed by Councelor Castra.

1:05:24>> Uh, thank you, Madam Chairman. Uh, good

1:05:26evening, gentlemen. I support this 100%.

1:05:28I mean, public safety, communication is

1:05:31number one. Some of the examples the

1:05:33chief used. Um, those are critical

1:05:36incidents and again it even brings it to

1:05:38the front. As a city, we're very uh

1:05:40blessed to have Mr. Hook with us who's

1:05:42uh statewide renowned for his ability to

1:05:46handle communications. And uh I think we

1:05:48really should take a look serious look

1:05:50at this. I will be supporting this and I

1:05:52think it's something that's uh needed

1:05:54because again the communication is the

1:05:56backbone of any type of public safety

1:05:57engagement and uh I want our public

1:05:59safety personnel to have the best

1:06:02technology available to them every day.

1:06:04So I'll be supporting this gentleman.

1:06:06Thank you very much.

1:06:07>> Thank you.

1:06:07>> Thank you madam chairman

1:06:08>> housera.

1:06:09>> Thank you. Good evening gentlemen.

1:06:12I absolutely support the position. I've

1:06:14talked to both of you about it. Where

1:06:16did you get your figures for salary and

1:06:19the various steps? And I have to ask

1:06:21that question because we're also very

1:06:23concerned about finances.

1:06:26>> Sure. So, that's a great question,

1:06:27councelor. Uh we we got them from comps,

1:06:30right? Uh other positions throughout

1:06:32this the state and uh whether it's

1:06:35municipal or state. So, it's it's

1:06:38actually low uh compared to some other

1:06:40positions out there that are are

1:06:42comparable. But,

1:06:46>> okay, I observe that our salary

1:06:51structure and our steps, they're all

1:06:52over the place. Some of these steps are

1:06:55more than what the city auditor makes.

1:06:58And so, um I I just

1:07:02I'm concerned that perhaps we should

1:07:05have someone look all of our salary

1:07:08spectra and all our ordinance positions

1:07:10and see what isn't enough and what is

1:07:13too much. Do you know

1:07:15>> that that's and that's what I'm thinking

1:07:16about. Thank you.

1:07:17>> Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:07:20>> Councelor uh Thompson.

1:07:22>> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh good

1:07:23evening, gentlemen. Um could you you

1:07:27said earlier that Okay, so the existing

1:07:29position right now is the communications

1:07:32director. Is that position filled?

1:07:36It is currently. Yes. Part-time

1:07:38position.

1:07:38>> So that that's a part-time position

1:07:40that's currently filled.

1:07:41>> Correct.

1:07:42>> Then you stated that during the budget

1:07:43you requested this additional salary for

1:07:48for the potential of creating this

1:07:50position.

1:07:52>> Correct.

1:07:52>> Correct.

1:07:53>> Okay. So this this this current these

1:07:56current funds are currently in your

1:07:58budget.

1:07:58>> Correct.

1:07:59>> Okay. Um

1:08:04All right. And then I I just I know we

1:08:07have our uh CFO as a um as an invited

1:08:11guest and you know the the the concern

1:08:13always is um you know our funding our

1:08:17ability to continue funding if we may

1:08:20have those funds available for this

1:08:21year. Question is this is obviously

1:08:23going to be an ongoing uh position and

1:08:26uh so those funds will have to be

1:08:28available uh in the coming years. And so

1:08:31I just, you know, uh, I just want to ask

1:08:33our CFO what his understanding of all of

1:08:36this is and, you know, whether uh, you

1:08:39know, whether our current financial

1:08:41situation can warrant, um, this this

1:08:46position and the continued um, pay and

1:08:48benefits that would come with this

1:08:50position over the long term. Well, uh

1:08:53there's not an awful lot of cost

1:08:55additional associated with this

1:08:56position, including the benefits and uh

1:08:59the question of continuing it really is

1:09:01a matter of political priorities. I

1:09:04mean, none of these positions except for

1:09:05a few are guaranteed to be funded from

1:09:07one budget to the next. I'd put this

1:09:09position in that category. I will say at

1:09:12least um as I've tried to get my hands

1:09:15around the fiscal 27 budget, I see some

1:09:17revenues that ought not to be in the

1:09:19budget that are and I see some some

1:09:21expenses that ought to be in the budget

1:09:23and aren't. But at least this is a case

1:09:25where the budget was inclusive of these

1:09:27monies. So, you know, the budget is

1:09:29already supporting the job and going

1:09:32forward, I think we're going to have a

1:09:33tough time. Uh so many many positions

1:09:36are going to be in somewhat in in in

1:09:38jeopardy unless we can find some way out

1:09:40of it. And I think any other way to say

1:09:42it except for that bluntly. But

1:09:46from the description, there's a clear

1:09:49benefit to the position that's in front

1:09:51of you tonight. And that's that's kind

1:09:53of where I come down on it. There would

1:09:55be maybe some kind of a signal sent. Uh

1:09:57you know, we've got unions to deal with.

1:09:59Um

1:10:01but we always have to make choices in

1:10:03governing the city in financing those

1:10:06decisions and this is decision that you

1:10:08know it looks to me we have to make

1:10:10because it's a need that should be paid

1:10:12for and and budgeted and has been

1:10:15>> understood. I appreciate that. Um

1:10:18Director uh Hook, can you tell me about

1:10:20the costs that you you you said that

1:10:22essentially you're kind of paying costs

1:10:25right now that could be fulfilled by

1:10:27this position? Can you maybe just

1:10:29elaborate a little bit on what those

1:10:30costs are and are they comparable to the

1:10:32actual salary where where um

1:10:35>> certainly counselor so I'm going to

1:10:37defer to Chief Nadelli because we don't

1:10:39have a lot of costs when it come to

1:10:41there are some costs uh associated with

1:10:44maintaining our radio system but he has

1:10:46a lot larger and the police department

1:10:48have a lot larger infrastructure than we

1:10:50do

1:10:50>> and would this person be the person

1:10:52that's responsible for doing those

1:10:53tasks?

1:10:54>> Okay.

1:10:54>> Yes. And some of those some of that's

1:10:56hardware. There's nothing we can do

1:10:57about that. But with the a lot of the

1:10:59labor components

1:11:01um would be would be would be fulfilled

1:11:04by some of that. But you know, pots

1:11:06break, things break. I mean, when I

1:11:08think about all of the sites, whether it

1:11:09be the Kerry Hill Water Tower where we

1:11:11have infrastructure, whether it be the

1:11:12Campal Highrise, Irving A, um the

1:11:15Brockton Hospital area, just the the

1:11:17infrastructure in our own stations,

1:11:19components break and those will need to

1:11:21be replaced. But a lot of those those

1:11:24tasks to to actually replacing the

1:11:26components we wouldn't have to call

1:11:28allcom or our distributor or anyone like

1:11:30that. A lot of that would be done

1:11:31especially the the programming is the

1:11:32one of the biggest things like director

1:11:34hook. That is a ongoing ongoing battle

1:11:38that we we continue you know because

1:11:40things will change you know upgrades. I

1:11:42mean look back 12 years ago was it the

1:11:44narrow banding?

1:11:45>> Yes.

1:11:45>> We had to they basically took a a band

1:11:48in the radio and I don't understand the

1:11:501.21 21 gigawatt component of it. But

1:11:52they took what was this big because they

1:11:53needed more bandwidth and they shrunk

1:11:55it. So everything had to be changed

1:11:57around. We had to buy new infrastructure

1:11:58just because of that. So this was a

1:12:00federal mandate that we had to deal with

1:12:02back in I think 2012 or 14 whatever that

1:12:05was. But to that point a lot of that

1:12:07programming is now would be handled by

1:12:09an internal person that would be

1:12:11assistant. And who who would supervise

1:12:12this person? Uh he comes under the FEMA

1:12:15director.

1:12:16>> Okay.

1:12:17>> All right. Um I appreciate your time.

1:12:18Thank you gentlemen. Thank you,

1:12:19counselor. Uh, council, any other

1:12:22questions? I have a quick question for

1:12:24you. So, who is in this position now?

1:12:27>> You want a name?

1:12:28>> Yes, please.

1:12:29>> Kenny Lice.

1:12:30>> Okay. And, um, how would this Maybe this

1:12:33is for the CFO, but how would this um,

1:12:36if we pass this or if it was to pass the

1:12:39the change, how would it affect the I

1:12:41mean, I believe we have a hiring freeze,

1:12:43so how would that work with

1:12:49I didn't hear the last part of that

1:12:50question.

1:12:51>> How would this work with the the hiring

1:12:53freeze right now that I believe is

1:12:55>> well the the person's in the budget so I

1:12:57think it's just a reclassification but I

1:12:58suppose to be proper the the mayor ought

1:13:00to sign off on it.

1:13:02>> Okay.

1:13:03>> Thank you very much. Thank you

1:13:04gentlemen. Counselors do we have a

1:13:06motion?

1:13:07>> Make a motion to refer back to the

1:13:08council favorably.

1:13:10>> Second. A motion's been made and

1:13:12properly seconded to refer this

1:13:14favorably back to the full city council.

1:13:16All those in favor? All those opposed.

1:13:20The motion carries.

1:13:24>> Item number four, ordinance establishing

1:13:26restrictions on borrowing orders.

1:13:28Invited to attend. John Conan, interim

1:13:30chief financial officer.

1:13:41>> Good evening, Mr. CFO.

1:13:44>> Evening, Council.

1:13:49We have eight minutes.

1:13:51>> Yes. This is the ordinance establishing

1:13:53a time restriction on borrowing. Is that

1:13:56what I'm

1:13:57>> Yes.

1:13:57>> Yeah. Uh I would ask that if uh your

1:14:02legislative council has not reviewed

1:14:04this ordinance yet that he she do so and

1:14:07also count get in touch with the city

1:14:10solicitor. My concern is that this may

1:14:13impose a restriction on the treasurer

1:14:16which contradicts Mass General laws as

1:14:18it is now after I think after a

1:14:21borrowing authorization has been

1:14:23approved by the city council. It's the

1:14:25treasur is allowed to issue the bonds

1:14:28with the approval of the mayor and

1:14:29there's no time restriction on it at the

1:14:31moment. So that would be my concern.

1:14:33It's an imposition on his authority.

1:14:35However, I think it's appropriate for

1:14:38the council to get a report periodically

1:14:41from the treasurer with respect to what

1:14:43is the number what is the unauthorized

1:14:45authorized and unissued debt of the city

1:14:48and what are the plans with respect to

1:14:49each one of those authorizations. I saw

1:14:51a spreadsheet today from treasurer broy

1:14:54and I think there are some on that that

1:14:56ought to be rescended. The recision

1:14:58isn't is within the domain of the city

1:15:01council to take back that borrowing

1:15:03authority. You know, these these things

1:15:05get passed. Sometimes they get acted on,

1:15:07sometimes they don't. One I saw today

1:15:09had to do with the Hansen well. That

1:15:11goes back to the days way before we even

1:15:14had a contract with uh uh Aquaria, I

1:15:17think, was part we were supposed to be

1:15:19looking for wells, sources for water in

1:15:21the city, and I don't know why that's

1:15:23still out there because we're obviously

1:15:25not going to do anything with that. So,

1:15:26there should be others that I would I

1:15:28would say even on a quarterly basis, an

1:15:30annual basis, bring the bring the

1:15:32treasur in. You could even make it an

1:15:33ordinance that the treasurer shall

1:15:35present a report to the city council at

1:15:37finance of the authorized but unissued

1:15:38debt so you know what that is and we can

1:15:41have a plan to addressing it

1:15:42periodically. I know Marty doesn't

1:15:44disagree with that. So

1:15:46>> thank you Mr. Pu. Uh

1:15:48>> yep I would agree with that. I'd like to

1:15:49follow up with um Mr. Brophie myself um

1:15:52comes up with a better solution to solve

1:15:54the problem which is that we have these

1:15:55outstanding loan orders that you might

1:15:57not be aware of and so we want to make

1:15:59sure that there's some sort of time

1:16:00restrictions or something that something

1:16:01that was authorized 10 years ago is not

1:16:04starting to be acted upon now. Um but

1:16:06I'm happy to connect with um Mr. Broy if

1:16:09you guys um postpone this item.

1:16:11>> Okay. Council, is there a motion?

1:16:13>> I'll make a motion to postpone it to the

1:16:15next finance committee meeting.

1:16:16>> Second. Motion has been made and

1:16:18properly seconded to postpone this to

1:16:20the next ordinance meeting. All those in

1:16:22favor? All those opposed? The matter is

1:16:24postponed. Thank you, Mr. Pond.

1:16:26>> Madame clerk, I believe that's our

1:16:28agenda.

1:16:31>> Motion adjourn.

1:16:32>> Motion has been made and probably

1:16:34seconded to adjurnn. All those in favor?

1:16:36We are adjourned.