The Brockton City Council Ordinance Committee on Jan. 8 heard hours of testimony about a proposed Fairgrounds Overlay District that would rezone about 66.685 acres of the Brockton Fairgrounds for mixed-use development, including residential, commercial and light industrial uses. After extended discussion about sequencing, public-safety safeguards and infrastructure, the committee voted to postpone further action until Jan. 22 and asked the city solicitor, planning staff and the developer to meet and produce amended draft language.

The proposal under discussion would add a new section to the city’s zoning ordinance creating the “Fairgrounds Overlay District” for parcels totaling roughly 66.685 acres. Developer representatives, led by Andrew Flynn, and their attorney, Jim Burke, urged the committee to adopt an overlay and move meetings and negotiations forward quickly so the project could reach financing and construction phases. “We approach the Brockton Fairgrounds with a sincere degree of humility, responsibility, and stewardship,” Flynn told the committee. Burke said the developer group has already invested in predevelopment work: “we've already spent over half $1,000,000 in soft cost getting to this point.”

Why it matters: Councilors and city staff said the site’s location near major highways and adjacent to the high school make it uniquely valuable for expanded tax revenue and job-generating industrial space, but they also warned the site is complex and that zoning alone will not address all infrastructure and public-safety needs. City planning staff and the solicitor told the committee that a development agreement is the usual tool to set binding obligations, timelines and mitigation for projects of this scale; the developer argued that some elements of a project-specific development agreement are not practical until parcel-level plans and financing are clear.

Key points from testimony

- Scope and uses: Attorney Burke and Flynn described an overlay intended to allow a mix of residential, commercial and light industrial uses across roughly 66.685 acres near Belmont Street and Thurber Avenue. Rob May, the city’s director of planning and economic development, said administration drafts have contemplated maximum unit counts and design standards; in his remarks he noted a draft development agreement discussed a cap of “up to 1,400” residential units as an example. Earlier drafts and committee discussion referenced an original residential figure of “1,500 units plus” and an alternative language that the developer characterized in the meeting as containing “25 100 units” (phrase in transcript; exact figure to be clarified). The committee asked that all such counts be reconciled in forthcoming drafts.

- Sequence and development agreement: Solicitor Megan Bridges and city staff emphasized that changing zoning without a development agreement would limit the city’s leverage to secure public benefits and mitigation. Bridges said a development agreement can and commonly does leave some matters to later stages, but it also protects the municipality by creating enforceable obligations and describing responsibilities for off‑site improvements and funding. The developer’s position, represented by Burke, was that a master development agreement that tried to fix every detail before parcel-level financing and design would be impractical; Burke and Flynn advocated entering project‑level agreements tied to parcels at the point those parcels are ready for construction.

- Infrastructure and off‑site impacts: Planning director Rob May and Chief Brian Nardelli of the fire department both said detailed infrastructure work is needed. May listed items typically covered by an infrastructure plan: road improvements, stormwater, sewer and water capacity, intersection upgrades and right‑of‑way needs on Belmont Street, Forest Avenue and the approaches to the high school. Fire Chief Nardelli flagged fire‑safety issues connected to contemporary “podium” construction, spacing between tall wood-framed residential structures, and water supply needs: “one of the greatest assets… is a 30‑inch water main that runs along Thurber Avenue,” he said, and cautioned that internal grid connections and hydrant spacing will be required.

- Public safety and zoning detail: Kenneth Galligan, chairman of the zoning board of appeals, urged an overlay that minimizes repetitive appeals to the ZBA and that includes setbacks, parking, and buffer standards that will reduce future variances. Several councilors echoed the need to protect adjacent single‑family neighborhoods along Thurber Avenue with buffers and step‑down heights.

- Timeline and procedural deadline: Attorney Burke noted a statutory timing constraint tied to required public hearings; he said the parties were working toward a March statutory deadline for the planning‑board public‑hearing cycle and that the developer hoped to reach a point the council could act in early March so the project could proceed without repeating hearings.

Committee action and next steps

The committee moved and approved a postponement to reconvene on Jan. 22, requesting the city solicitor, planning director and developer to meet and produce an amended ordinance/development‑agreement approach for committee review. The committee also asked that planning and the developer provide accessible materials and a clear list of outstanding items before the next meeting and that regular progress updates be shared with councilors.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to postpone consideration of the Fairgrounds Overlay District until Jan. 22 and direct city solicitor, planning director and developer to meet and produce draft revisions: motion carried; tally not specified in the transcript. (Action recorded by committee minutes.)

What remains unresolved

Committee members asked the administration and developer to reconcile differing unit counts and overlay language, produce or identify the scoped infrastructure studies that will be needed for site plan review (water, sewer, stormwater, traffic and right‑of‑way impacts), and clarify the sequencing and form of a development agreement so the council can weigh enforceable commitments alongside the zoning change. The committee set a short timetable for those discussions and asked for a public, coordinated process rather than many separate, informal meetings.

The ordinance committee will reconvene on Jan. 22 to consider an amended ordinance and accompanying materials from the city and the developer.