Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Senior Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to tighten R‑5 senior housing ordinance, warn it would allow large multifamily projects
Summary
At a public hearing, Brockton residents praised the idea of senior housing but said language in the proposed R‑5 senior residential community zone would let developers build large, non‑age‑restricted multifamily projects on the same parcels and worsen traffic in Wards 4 and 5.
A public hearing at the Brockton City Council on Aug. 25 drew multiple residents who said they support senior housing but oppose proposed ordinance language that they say would allow developers to build unrestricted multifamily units on the same parcels as senior housing. Council President Clark opened and closed the hearing and permitted seven people to speak and two written submissions to be read into the record.
Residents said the ordinance, which would reestablish the R‑5 senior residential community zone (section 27‑4 and section 27‑27.6 of the Brockton City ordinances), is written so that a project that begins as senior housing could later include large numbers of all‑age units. "A project that starts as senior housing could double in size, with all age units turning into hundreds of apartments that go beyond the original intent," Ward 2 resident Jamie Hodges said.
The speakers said traffic and infrastructure in the affected neighborhoods cannot absorb large multifamily developments. "We're looking at almost 600 units in a very small area and 2 streets that cannot handle additional traffic," Patty Joyce, who lives on East Street, said, citing East Street's lack of sidewalks and narrow lanes. Paula Jones, who said she abuts the property in question, also urged sidewalks if new exits are created and said she supports senior housing but not large additional multifamily buildings.
Other speakers raised concerns about transparency and developer influence. "Doug King, with the support of his lawyer, attorney, Jim Burke, has lodged an aggressive campaign ... to secure the votes of the ordinance committee," Joyce said, adding she had identified donations she said exceeded $10,000. "Who are you working for?" Ellie Texeira asked councilors, saying residents were not told about the mixed‑use possibility and urging that multifamily development be sited elsewhere.
An emailed comment from Veronica Stevens, read into the record, asked councilors to "investigate further into the intentions of this request" and called the language a "deliberate attempt to mislead the council." A letter from Pamela Lindquist, read into the record, said East Street already carries heavy commercial traffic and warned, "We cannot imagine what 400 more homes would create. ... We do not need more traffic. This cannot be approved." Council President Clark declared the hearing portion closed after public comment.
Discussion versus decision: This agenda item was a public hearing; the council opened and closed the hearing and no final vote on the ordinance was recorded at the meeting. The record shows this matter will continue to the ordinance committee and subsequent council consideration. The public comments and written submissions are part of the hearing record.
Community context: Speakers repeatedly cited Ward 4 and Ward 5, Thatcher Street and East Street, and existing local land uses such as a landfill and wastewater plant when arguing the neighborhood already bears environmental and traffic burdens. Several speakers said they support senior‑only housing, not mixed or unrestricted multifamily development.
— Ending —
The council took no final action on the ordinance at the Aug. 25 meeting; the public hearing portion was closed and the ordinance remains subject to further committee and council review.
