Ordinance committee pauses Brockton form‑based zoning after legal and staffing concerns

Brockton — The Ordinance Committee on June 2 heard a detailed presentation on a proposed form‑based zoning code intended to replace underlying base zones in four city neighborhoods and to guide future redevelopment, but delayed action after legal and administrative concerns were raised.

Elijah Ramulus, the interim director of planning and economic development, opened the presentation by saying the code was the product of three years of work and repeated neighborhood engagement. "This code was born directly from neighborhood plans," Ramulus said, adding that the proposal applies to Montello, downtown Troutbrook, Campello and Love at Brook and is targeted rather than citywide.

Consultant Emily Inis of Inisland Strategies explained the package includes three documents: the formal code formatted for Municode, an illustrative graphic version for public use, and advisory design guidelines. Inis said the code contains district definitions, building types, mandatory development standards and an environmental "green score" designed to manage stormwater and heat‑island effects. She described administrative review thresholds in the draft (for example, multifamily projects of six to 20 units would generally fall under administrative review; smaller projects could remain with the building department) and pointed to an appeals path allowing applicants to request planning‑board review of administrative decisions.

Support for the measure was read into the record, including a developer letter asserting the code is essential to implementing a downtown project called Brockton Yards that the letter said would create about 1,300 apartments, open space and commercial development. The mayor also submitted a letter urging adoption to advance economic vitality and housing goals.

But Attorney James Burke cautioned the committee that the ordinance language, as drafted, relies heavily on subjective terms and administrative interpretation. "This is not a zoning ordinance. It's a planner's guide," Burke said, arguing the draft lacks the measurable, objective criteria required under Massachusetts zoning law and risks arbitrary enforcement or legal challenge.

William (Bill) Forte, the city's commissioner of buildings, raised operational concerns about implementation, telling the committee that staff capacity, clear time limits for administrative reviews and several drafting issues need attention. Forte flagged a draft provision tied to certificates of occupancy that he said should be removed and said the code should clarify parking requirements and statutory review windows. "I won't let it happen under my watch," Forte said, describing his intent to avoid permitting backlogs but urging clearer deadlines and enforcement language.

Planning staff acknowledged the concerns and said they would work with legal counsel and the developer community to tighten the text and prepare public‑facing explanatory materials. The committee's legal and technical questions centered on administrative review thresholds (identified in draft table 11.1.4‑1), the appeals mechanism (section 11.120), and whether the draft delegates too much interpretive authority to staff rather than to objective, measurable standards.

Rather than vote on adoption, committee members moved and seconded to postpone consideration of both the ordinance and the related zoning map amendment to a future ordinance committee meeting so staff and counsel can revise the text and respond to the building department and city attorney's concerns. The motion carried and the committee adjourned. Ordinance Committee leadership indicated it intends to reconvene for further discussion and to circulate revised language before the next meeting.

What happens next: Staff and the consultant will work with the city attorney to address legal clarity and with the building department on administrative procedures and staffing implications; the committee scheduled further review before resuming formal action.