Public Meeting Notice  BBRS Climate Resiliency Subcommittee Meeting - 6.22.26

Microsoft Teams meeting link and dial-in number

Join: Microsoft Teams Meeting Link

Meeting ID: 270 952 954 407 11 

Passcode: RW6qF7gW 

Need help? | System reference 

Dial in to the meeting 

Meeting phone number:+1 857-327-9245,,555734476# United States, Boston

Find a local number 

Phone conference ID: 555 734 476# 

In accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 30A § 20, notice is hereby given that the Board of Building Regulations and Standards 11^th Edition Climate Resiliency Subcommittee will be convening a regular meeting. 

If you need reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting, please reach out to Cheryl Yebba at 617- 701-8711. The Agency will make best efforts to accommodate requests received in a timely manner.

In accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 30A § 20, the Board of Building Regulations and Standards Climate Resiliency Committee convened a regular monthly meeting on: 

Microsoft Teams Meeting June 22^nd, 2026 

The topics shown below were discussed at the aforementioned meeting: 10:03 AM Chair Mia Mansfield called the open meeting to order. 

Informational note: All votes were taken by roll call. Where each member voted in favor, the vote will be reported as unanimous.

Board Members Present

• Mia Mansfield, EEA
• Rebecca Haney, EEA
• Annie Howard, Building Official
• Jaclyn Kinson, Engineer
• Katie Moniz, Engineer
• Ross Seavey, DOL

Board Members Absent

• Nick Antanavica, Building Official
• Dawn Guariello, Architect
• Elsa Mullin, Developer

DOL Staff Present

• Charles Kilb, Senior Board Counsel
• Andrew Chase, Associate Executive Director

Acknowledged Public Attendees

• Sarah Alexander
• Eric Carlson
• Katie Paight
• Ali Hiple
• Gregory Abbe

1. Reviewed, Discussed, Voted Minutes for May 22^nd, 2026
   1. Rebecca Haney motioned to approve meeting minutes, seconded by Annie Howard. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously. 
2. Reviewed, Discussed, and Voted V Zone Design and Construction Certification
   1. Members continued their review of the proposed Massachusetts V Zone and Coastal A Zone Design and Construction Certification form. 
   2. Members presented an updated version incorporating revisions requested during the previous meeting, including adding "Coastal A Zone" to the title, removing community-specific references and policy numbers, converting the document into a standalone form, and adding footnotes identifying the applicable code definitions. Minor editorial corrections, including a spelling correction in a footnote, were identified.
   3. The committee discussed the purpose of the certification as a Massachusetts-specific form rather than a FEMA form, including whether it should be issued under BBRS branding or letterhead. Members also discussed whether the form should be incorporated directly into the building code or maintained as an administrative policy document. Counsel advised that the form could remain outside the body of the code provided that every certification requirement reflects existing code requirements and does not impose obligations beyond those already required under the Massachusetts State Building Code. Members emphasized that certification of V Zone design is already required by the code, including requirements related to base flood elevation documentation, breakaway walls, and other flood-resistant construction provisions.
3. Following discussion, the committee agreed additional review was needed to verify that every item on the form corresponds to existing code requirements and to finalize branding and digital certification issues. 
4. Reviewed and Discussed Floodplain Proposal submitted by S. Alexander
5. The committee continued discussion of the proposed amendments expanding flood-resistant construction requirements into the 0.2-percent annual chance (500-year) floodplain as part of the 11th Edition building code update. Members summarized research supporting the proposal, including ongoing resiliency work conducted over several years, alignment with the 2027 International Codes and ASCE 24-24, FEMA's encouragement of standards exceeding minimum National Flood Insurance Program requirements, and anticipated reductions in long-term flood losses through increased resilience.
   1. Members presented statewide mapping information showing that most municipalities have relatively limited land area and building inventory within the mapped 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, while acknowledging that impacts would be more concentrated in a smaller number of communities. Members also reviewed cost information indicating that additional elevation costs for new construction are generally modest compared to total construction costs, while acknowledging that substantial improvements and substantial damage projects could incur significantly higher costs.
   2. Based on concerns raised during prior meetings, members proposed modifying the code amendment to apply only to new construction, removing the previously proposed application to substantial improvement and substantial damage projects. Members generally expressed support for eliminating the substantial improvement and substantial damage provisions, citing concerns that regulating existing buildings could discourage property owners from investing in maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
   3. Committee members discussed several technical concerns that require additional refinement before the proposal advances. Significant discussion focused on the practical limitations of FEMA's mapped 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, particularly isolated Zone X areas that are disconnected from existing Special Flood Hazard Areas and may create enforcement challenges. Members questioned whether the proposal should instead be limited to portions of the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain that are adjacent to existing Special Flood Hazard Areas to improve consistency and ease of administration.
   4. The committee also discussed floodplain mapping in areas protected by certified levees or other flood control structures, including locations such as New Bedford/Fairhaven and portions of the Mystic River corridor. Members raised concerns that requiring additional elevation standards behind certified flood protection projects could duplicate existing resilience investments and create unnecessary construction costs. Members explained the distinction between the various FEMA Zone X designations and noted that the proposal currently references the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain rather than all Zone X designations, although members agreed additional clarification within the code definitions would be beneficial.
   5. Members further discussed the methodology for determining required elevations where detailed flood elevations are unavailable. Members explained that the proposal generally relies upon Base Flood Elevation (BFE) plus two feet rather than the mapped 500-year flood elevation, consistent with the simplified approach adopted from ASCE 24 concepts. For locations without established BFEs, discussion referenced using the highest adjacent grade plus two feet consistent with existing FEMA guidance for certain unmapped flood hazard areas. Members noted that this methodology would require additional clarification to ensure consistent enforcement.
   6. Additional discussion addressed possible conflicts between proposed flood elevation requirements and local zoning height limitations, engineering costs associated with newly requiring registered design professionals for projects within the expanded floodplain, future flood projections under climate change, and the need for education and implementation guidance should the proposal move forward.
   7. The committee also reviewed draft code language and definitions applicable to the proposal, including provisions within the residential code and coordinated amendments affecting flood-resistant construction requirements. 
6. Members discussed refining the definition of the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, clarifying which FEMA Zone X designations are included or excluded, and ensuring consistency throughout the proposal.
7. Members also reviewed the proposed amendments to the freeboard requirements in 780 CMR Chapter 16, including Section 1612. Members explained that the proposed freeboard requirements for the expanded floodplain generally mirror the Commonwealth's existing requirements for regulated flood hazard areas. The proposal also continues to reference ASCE 24 for flood-resistant construction, including provisions for wet floodproofing certain Flood Design Class 1 structures.
8. Discuss Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated 48 Hours in Advance of the Meeting
   1. No matters were discussed. 
9. Adjournment – The next meeting is scheduled for July 10^th, 2026, at 10:00 AM. 
   1. Katie Moniz motioned to adjourn, seconded by Annie Howard. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously.
   2. The meeting adjourned at 11:49 AM. 

Items Relied Upon During Open Meeting

• Agenda
• Meeting Minutes
• Floodplain Proposal submitted by S. Alexander
• 2024 IEBC
• 2024 IRC
• 2024 IBC
• Draft V Zone Design and Construction Certification

 It is anticipated that the topics shown below will be discussed at the aforementioned meeting: 

1. Review/Discuss/VoteMinutes of the following Climate Resiliency meetings: 
   1.  May 22, 2026
2. Review/Vote/Discuss V Zone Design and Construction Certification
3. Review/Discuss/Vote Code Change Proposal (11^th Edition)
   1. Floodplain Proposal submitted by S. Alexander
4. Discuss matters not reasonably anticipated by the chair, 48 hours in advance of the meeting

Adjournment – the next scheduled meeting is July 10, 2026