Brookline Select Board Meeting - October 20, 2026

10:20 Heat. Heat.

11:58 Heat.

12:36 Heat. Heat.

13:35 Oh,

13:54 you

14:04 Heat.

15:46 Heat. Heat.

16:04 Heat

16:09 up

16:22 here.

16:34 Heat.

16:47 Oh,

17:04 heat, heat.

17:10 Heat.

18:15 Heat. Heat.

18:39 Yeah.

18:52 Heat.

19:30 Heat. Heat. Heat.

19:54 Heat. Heat.

21:00 Heat.

21:29 Heat. Heat.

21:48 Heat.

22:35 Heat. Heat.

23:05 session. I move that we go into an

23:08 executive session pursuant to general

23:10 law chapter 38 section 21A3.

23:13 Purpose three, for the purpose of

23:15 discussing litigation strategy related

23:18 to a claim by Anthony Wono, Alec Levitz,

23:21 Joslyn Murphy, Richard Murphy, and

23:22 Denell Shawn O'Neal, senior seeking

23:25 reimbursement for attorneys fees

23:26 following an investigation into

23:28 potential violations of town policies

23:30 and state laws and uh also for approving

23:35 meeting minutes from four different

23:37 meetings.

23:38 Bernard,

23:39 yes.

23:40 Michael,

23:40 yes.

23:41 Amanda,

23:42 yes. Anthony,

23:43 yes.

23:43 And I also vote yes. And then we will

23:46 return to open session upon the

23:49 conclusion of our executive session.

30:20 Heat. Heat.

1:03:29 Heat.

1:21:48 Heat. Heat.

1:23:04 Heat.

1:23:17 Oh,

1:23:30 heat,

1:23:33 heat.

1:23:40 Heat. Heat.

1:26:12 Heat.

1:26:52 Back everyone. We have returned from our

1:26:54 executive session. As you may notice, we

1:26:57 have a table in front of us with the

1:26:59 board of library trustees. We will be

1:27:01 having a joint convention with them to

1:27:04 appoint two new library trustees at

1:27:07 approximately 7:00. But before then, we

1:27:11 have some other agenda items exclusively

1:27:14 of the select boards domain to get to

1:27:16 first. So, uh we will now move to

1:27:20 announcements and updates. Do any select

1:27:22 board members have announcements or

1:27:23 updates? Amanda,

1:27:25 I have three of them. Uh, the first one

1:27:28 is next Wednesday, October 28th, from 5

1:27:30 to 7 PM, Vin Vinfens's Gateway Arts will

1:27:34 host a closing reception for

1:27:36 Representing Unity, their fall

1:27:37 exhibition presented in partnership with

1:27:39 Brooklyn Public Library. A rich range of

1:27:42 recent paintings and embroidery created

1:27:44 by Gateway artists comprise this

1:27:46 exhibition in the main library's Henman

1:27:48 Hall, which closes on October 30th. So,

1:27:51 go check it out. Uh, the second

1:27:53 announcement is this coming Sunday,

1:27:55 October 25th from 10:00 a.m. to 2 pm at

1:27:58 the Brookline Golf Course is Brookline

1:28:00 Rex Harvest Fest. Harvest Fest is a

1:28:02 festive celebration of fallen community

1:28:04 featuring live entertainment, local farm

1:28:06 stands and artisans, food vendors and

1:28:08 trucks, local crafts and artists, and

1:28:10 other family-friendly activities. Oh,

1:28:12 including inflatables and pumpkin

1:28:14 decorating among other things. Uh, the

1:28:17 last announcement is also on Sunday,

1:28:20 October 25th. is the Lincoln School's

1:28:22 Public Fest. Pumpkin Fest I can speak

1:28:25 from 12 pm to 4 pm. Uh it is their

1:28:28 largest annual carnival day packed with

1:28:31 family fun, food, rides, games, and

1:28:33 prizes.

1:28:35 All right. Thank you. Anyone else?

1:28:36 Bernard.

1:28:37 Yes. Uh reminder, coming up next week,

1:28:41 the onewoman play, One Minute of

1:28:43 Freedom, October 29 at 6:30 p.m. at

1:28:46 Hunaman Hall, Main Library, presented by

1:28:49 the MLK Celebration Committee, the

1:28:51 Indigenous People's Celebration

1:28:53 Committee, and the Office of Diversity,

1:28:55 Equity, Inclusion, Community Relations

1:28:57 as part of the town's 250th anniversary

1:29:01 of the Declaration of Independence. Now,

1:29:03 um this is a story about a woman, um

1:29:07 Elizabeth Freeman, who was called

1:29:09 Mumbette, uh and it and she uh overheard

1:29:14 uh her um enslaver and other people in

1:29:18 the community talk about the rights of

1:29:20 men, all men are born and free, etc.,

1:29:22 etc., etc. Um and um she overheard a

1:29:26 recitation of the Massachusetts

1:29:28 Constitution where similar words were

1:29:30 were um were in it. So she said, "Hey,

1:29:33 that sounds really good and it probably

1:29:36 applies to me." So she filed a lawsuit

1:29:39 and won. And while this was after the

1:29:43 Declaration of Independence, I think

1:29:44 it's really appropriate for our

1:29:46 celebration of the 250th anniversary

1:29:49 because Met took the words seriously

1:29:54 whereas many of the revolutionaries sort

1:29:57 of use them as just mere talking points.

1:29:59 Um, so I think it's going to be a very

1:30:02 interesting uh play as well as important

1:30:05 um uh have a lot of important things to

1:30:08 say about our 250th anniversary of the

1:30:11 declaration. So thank you. Anyone else?

1:30:15 All right. So with that we will move to

1:30:17 our next agenda item which is public

1:30:19 comment. Melanie if you can review the

1:30:21 terms of engagement.

1:30:23 Thank you for joining us for public

1:30:25 comment. This is an opportunity for us

1:30:27 to hear your perspective on the issues

1:30:29 in Brooklyn that matter to you. Each

1:30:31 person speaking tonight is limited to

1:30:32 three minutes. You don't need to use the

1:30:34 entire time, but you may if you like.

1:30:37 Once 15 minutes has been met, there is

1:30:38 an opportunity at the conclusion of the

1:30:40 select board's business for additional

1:30:42 comments. Members of the public

1:30:44 sometimes raise questions during public

1:30:46 comment. We may be able to provide a

1:30:48 quick answer to a question, but are more

1:30:49 likely to work with staff to get a more

1:30:51 thorough answer and respond over email.

1:30:53 The onscreen timer will flash orange

1:30:55 when you have 60 seconds remaining and

1:30:57 red when your time is nearly up. Please

1:30:59 conclude your remarks at that time. If

1:31:01 you have more to say, you're welcome to

1:31:03 send an email to board members

1:31:04 expressing your thoughts in greater

1:31:05 detail.

1:31:07 Any person wishing to speak must begin

1:31:09 their comment by identifying themselves

1:31:10 with their full name, either their

1:31:13 Brooklyn precinct number or street

1:31:14 address, and the specific topic on which

1:31:17 they wish to speak. The board encourages

1:31:19 but does not require that remote users

1:31:20 turn their video on when commenting. Has

1:31:24 anyone signed up in advance?

1:31:26 Not for general public comment.

1:31:28 All right. Would anyone in the room like

1:31:30 to participate in public comment for an

1:31:33 item that uh does not pertain to any of

1:31:35 our Warren article hearings?

1:31:38 All right. Seeing none, anybody online,

1:31:42 please raise your virtual hand if you

1:31:44 would like to participate in public

1:31:45 comment.

1:31:48 There are none. So with that, we will

1:31:50 then move to our next agenda item.

1:31:52 Miscellaneous approval of miscellaneous

1:31:54 items, licenses, and contracts. Uh,

1:31:58 beyond the meeting minutes, which we

1:32:00 always vote separately, do any members

1:32:02 have any questions regarding items 6B

1:32:06 through 6 I.

1:32:09 Seeing none, I will go ahead and move

1:32:11 approval of the meeting minutes from

1:32:13 October 6, 2026, subject to Michael's

1:32:17 revisions. Bernard,

1:32:18 yes.

1:32:19 Michael,

1:32:20 yes.

1:32:20 Amanda,

1:32:21 yes. Anthony,

1:32:22 yes.

1:32:22 And I also vote yes. I'll now move in

1:32:26 omnibus fashion items 6B through 6 I for

1:32:30 approval. Bernard,

1:32:31 yes.

1:32:32 Michael,

1:32:32 yes.

1:32:32 Amanda,

1:32:33 yes.

1:32:34 Anthony,

1:32:34 yes.

1:32:35 And I also vote yes. With that, we will

1:32:38 now move to grant of location public

1:32:41 hearing. question of approving the

1:32:43 petition of NStar Electric Company doing

1:32:46 business as Eversource Energy for

1:32:48 permission to construct and a location

1:32:51 for underground conduit in Hammond

1:32:53 Street running northwesterly from

1:32:56 MH19799

1:32:58 at the intersection with Sheff Street, a

1:33:00 distance of about 57 ft to private

1:33:03 property at 1182 1188 Boilston Street.

1:33:07 Do we have anyone here who will offer

1:33:11 some additional explanation on this

1:33:13 item?

1:33:15 Good evening. This is Emmy Mweeny from

1:33:17 Eversource.

1:33:18 Um we're requesting this grant of

1:33:20 location tonight so we're able to

1:33:22 install approximately 57 ft of conduit

1:33:25 in Hammond Street which is necessary to

1:33:27 provide service to 1182 Boilson Street

1:33:30 which is going to be the citizens bank.

1:33:35 All right. Thank you. And any questions

1:33:38 from board members? Amanda?

1:33:39 Yeah, I am wondering how the timing of

1:33:42 this work is going to align with the

1:33:44 timing of the Hammond Street uh repaving

1:33:48 project to make sure that this happens

1:33:50 before they repave.

1:33:53 I know I know construction's very eager

1:33:55 once this is approved to get out there.

1:33:57 So, as soon as this is approved and I

1:33:59 can I can notify them, they're probably

1:34:01 going to contact DPW for a permit to

1:34:03 start. And from my understanding, it's

1:34:05 going to take about five days for

1:34:07 duration.

1:34:09 Hi. Yes, this is Sam DS, deputy director

1:34:11 of engineering. Um, thank you to the

1:34:13 select board for taking this item early

1:34:16 and that is the exact reason why we

1:34:19 requested it be on the select board

1:34:21 agenda for tonight versus the licensing

1:34:23 hearing hearing tomorrow which would

1:34:25 then be at your select board meeting the

1:34:27 following week.

1:34:30 Anyone else?

1:34:32 All right. As this is docked for a

1:34:34 public hearing, let us open a public

1:34:36 hearing into uh this agenda item, the

1:34:41 grant application. Is there anyone in

1:34:43 the room who would like to be heard

1:34:45 regarding NSTAR's request?

1:34:50 Seeing none, anyone online who would

1:34:52 like to be heard?

1:34:55 All right, then we will close the public

1:34:57 hearing. I move approval of NSTAR's

1:35:01 petition to construct the underground

1:35:04 conduit as previously described.

1:35:06 Bernard,

1:35:06 yes.

1:35:07 Michael,

1:35:08 yes.

1:35:08 Amanda,

1:35:09 yes.

1:35:09 Anthony,

1:35:10 yes.

1:35:10 And I also vote yes. Now, we are 10

1:35:13 minutes early, so we can't yet go to the

1:35:15 joint convention with the library board

1:35:17 of trustees. My suggestion would be that

1:35:20 we jump to item number 12, uh, board and

1:35:23 commissioned appointments. Uh, so we

1:35:26 have a couple items there that are not

1:35:28 as time-sensitive. So the first one is

1:35:31 to appoint Clint Richmond to a

1:35:35 three-year term on the Solid Waste

1:35:37 Advisory Committee. Uh, does anyone want

1:35:40 to be heard on this? All right. I will

1:35:42 go ahead and move that we appoint Clint

1:35:44 Richmond to the Solid Waste Advisory

1:35:46 Committee for a three-year term expiring

1:35:49 August 31st, 2029.

1:35:52 Bernard,

1:35:53 yes.

1:35:53 Michael,

1:35:54 yes. Amanda,

1:35:55 yes.

1:35:55 Anthony,

1:35:56 yes.

1:35:56 And I also vote yes.

1:35:59 One question. How many more open seats

1:36:01 do we need to fill on that committee?

1:36:03 Uh, there's currently two vacancies.

1:36:05 Two vacancies. So, if you are interested

1:36:07 in serving on the solid waste advisory

1:36:09 committee, please submit an application.

1:36:13 All right.

1:36:15 Next is item 12B, review and possible

1:36:18 vote on correcting term expiration dates

1:36:22 for transportation board members. Uh so

1:36:25 my understanding here is that we uh the

1:36:29 collective we have made an error in the

1:36:32 past regarding expiration terms for

1:36:35 transportation board members. uh state

1:36:37 statute governs uh the transportation

1:36:40 board and under state statute terms

1:36:43 should expire the last day of May. So

1:36:46 what we are

1:36:47 I think it's the first Monday in May. Ch

1:36:50 first Monday May.

1:36:51 Yes. Right. So it's so they have to

1:36:53 actually right they should expire the

1:36:54 first Monday in May.

1:36:56 All right. My apologies.

1:36:57 Um or the or the day before the first

1:36:58 Monday in May.

1:37:00 So the first Monday of May is the

1:37:02 expiration.

1:37:03 No the day before the

1:37:04 day before the first Monday. Monday in

1:37:06 May because the first Monday in May is

1:37:07 the first date of the next term.

1:37:11 I see. Okay.

1:37:14 Which which could be the first Sunday in

1:37:18 May but not isn't necessarily.

1:37:21 So the the what I would suggest here and

1:37:24 I'll try and frame this in terms of a

1:37:26 motion. So right now you have six

1:37:27 members of the transportation board each

1:37:29 of whom there uh two of two of each are

1:37:31 elected on a staggered basis. So their

1:37:33 terms right now end in 27, 28 and 29. So

1:37:37 what I would suggest is that for there

1:37:39 you um move that their terms um be

1:37:44 modified to end on the uh Sunday on on

1:37:49 the day before the first Monday of May

1:37:51 in 2027, 2028 and 2029 respectively. Um

1:37:55 and that be the motion um with the uh in

1:37:59 terms of the practical implications of

1:38:01 this. However, um the suggestion would

1:38:05 be um for the board to do it they all

1:38:09 what you always do when there's um a

1:38:12 seat that expires but there's no one

1:38:14 necessarily there to u take it up or to

1:38:16 be reappointed which is that the current

1:38:18 person just continues in that role. Um

1:38:21 and then at the end of the summer when

1:38:23 you deal with appointments for everyone

1:38:24 else you will just appoint someone to

1:38:27 fill that transportation board term.

1:38:29 either reappoint the person who's there

1:38:31 or if they're stepping down or you're

1:38:32 going a different direction, what have

1:38:34 you. Um, you reappoint whoever or you

1:38:37 appoint or reappoint whoever that person

1:38:38 is for a term beginning retroactively

1:38:41 the first uh Monday in May of that year.

1:38:44 So, you're not cutting anyone's term

1:38:47 short. Um, you still have fully intend

1:38:49 to let them serve the full three years

1:38:51 from when they were appointed. All of

1:38:53 these folks were appointed in the end of

1:38:54 the summer, start of the fall. It's just

1:38:56 that in order for there to be compliance

1:38:58 with the statute, you are making their

1:39:01 term uh their their formal term clear.

1:39:06 All right, Amanda, go ahead.

1:39:07 The only point I was going to make is it

1:39:09 might actually be beneficial to have a

1:39:12 board or commission that is not at the

1:39:14 August 31st deadline so that we could

1:39:17 actually run this board's interviews

1:39:20 earlier. Um, even though it's nice to

1:39:23 have everything at the same time, but

1:39:25 instead of jumping through the

1:39:26 retroactive

1:39:28 placement to on a perpetual basis, we

1:39:31 could just aim to fill them earlier

1:39:34 going forward.

1:39:36 You certainly that's definitely

1:39:37 something you can do. I think the only

1:39:38 the only thing that gives me pause there

1:39:40 is, you know, you've got warrant article

1:39:41 nine in this um warrant that allows you

1:39:46 to have a lot more leeway about when you

1:39:48 appoint transportation board members in

1:39:50 order for you to be able to be compliant

1:39:52 with your own schedule or to your point

1:39:54 to kind of if you want to hold the

1:39:56 process out separately, you certainly

1:39:57 can do that. Um, the concern, the only

1:40:01 concern that I'd flag there is the

1:40:02 statute as it was passed in the 70s is

1:40:06 designed to ensure that transportation

1:40:08 board members are in place before local

1:40:10 elections. That's why it's the first

1:40:12 Monday in May. Um, because elections

1:40:16 happen the first Tuesday in May except

1:40:18 if Tuesday is the first day of the

1:40:19 month. Um so um it's designed to

1:40:23 basically mean that transportation board

1:40:26 members are appointed before a select

1:40:28 board uh before select board votes

1:40:30 happen. And then thus there's then the

1:40:32 possibility that um an outgoing select

1:40:35 board member could select could be the

1:40:37 deciding vote for someone and then a new

1:40:39 select board comes in and that

1:40:41 transportation board member is insulated

1:40:43 from uh the desires of the new select

1:40:48 board. Now again in the 1970s that was

1:40:51 by design, right? They wanted the

1:40:52 transportation board insulated from that

1:40:54 choice and so you can certainly do it

1:40:56 that way. Um but you don't have to. So

1:40:59 it's just a question of your preference

1:41:03 and we probably don't need to decide

1:41:05 that right now anyways.

1:41:06 No, you don't.

1:41:07 All right. Anyone else want to be heard

1:41:09 before we take a vote on this? All

1:41:12 right. So, I will go ahead and move that

1:41:16 we correct the term expiration dates for

1:41:19 transportation board members to the

1:41:22 final day before the first Monday in

1:41:25 May. And we are not altering the years

1:41:28 in which any current transportation

1:41:31 board members term expires.

1:41:33 Bernard,

1:41:34 yes.

1:41:34 Michael,

1:41:35 yes.

1:41:35 Amanda,

1:41:36 yes.

1:41:37 Anthony,

1:41:37 yes.

1:41:38 And I also vote yes. Uh while we're on

1:41:41 the topic of the transportation board, I

1:41:43 also uh want to take this moment to make

1:41:45 sure that our uh transportation board

1:41:49 members, all six of them, and also

1:41:51 recent transportation board members plus

1:41:54 staff uh understand that uh I and all of

1:41:58 us very much appreciate them and the

1:42:01 discussion that was had when we

1:42:03 appointed a new member earlier this

1:42:06 month. Uh, by no means uh did I intend

1:42:09 with any of my remarks to denigrate the

1:42:12 hard work that transportation board

1:42:14 members current and past have uh

1:42:17 contributed or support staff?

1:42:20 All right, it's still not quite 7

1:42:22 o'clock.

1:42:24 Uh, can we take up 14?

1:42:28 Yes, I think we can do that.

1:42:30 All right. So, possible vote on warrant

1:42:34 articles for the November 2026 special

1:42:36 town meeting. Warrant article 19 is the

1:42:38 Commonwealth of Massachusetts flag

1:42:40 resolution that was presented to us at

1:42:43 the prior meeting. Does anyone have any

1:42:45 remarks that they would like to make on

1:42:46 this before voting?

1:42:49 Go ahead, Michael.

1:42:49 I'm supportive.

1:42:50 All right. So with that, uh, Michael is

1:42:55 moving that the select board recommend

1:42:58 favorable action on Warren article 19.

1:43:02 Bernard,

1:43:02 yes.

1:43:03 Michael,

1:43:04 yes.

1:43:04 Amanda,

1:43:05 yes.

1:43:05 Anthony,

1:43:06 yes.

1:43:06 And I also vote yes. We have time to do

1:43:10 another one.

1:43:11 Article 3 is ready if you're ready, if

1:43:12 you're ready for it.

1:43:13 All right. Any further discussion

1:43:16 regarding warrant article 3 FY27 budget

1:43:19 amendment? This is 14 C. So, I just want

1:43:21 to um update you that I had said that I

1:43:23 was going to bring an additional motion

1:43:25 on the article um after working with the

1:43:28 council on aging on some of the vehicle

1:43:30 needs. There's a memo in the packet that

1:43:32 describes that motion basically

1:43:33 repurposing prior year transportation

1:43:36 network company funds to support the

1:43:38 purchase of a van. Uh and then we also

1:43:40 needed to make an adjustment to debt

1:43:42 service because we um were not able to

1:43:44 borrow in the spring like we normally do

1:43:46 uh because our audit wasn't complete.

1:43:48 It's complete now. We're going to do a

1:43:50 short-term uh bond anticipation note

1:43:53 next month. Um and so we had to adjust

1:43:55 our debt service budget um and basically

1:43:58 reduce revenue and then reduce the

1:44:00 expense by the same amount. It's all

1:44:01 described in the memo that's in your

1:44:03 packet.

1:44:03 All right. And this language is all

1:44:05 reflected

1:44:05 and the motion is also set forth in the

1:44:07 memo as well.

1:44:08 Okay. All right. So I will go ahead and

1:44:11 well any further discussion. All right.

1:44:13 I'll go ahead and move that the uh

1:44:15 favorable action on warrant article

1:44:18 three.

1:44:19 Do we need to move to reconsider?

1:44:21 I don't think we voted on

1:44:22 voted because it wasn't right.

1:44:24 Okay.

1:44:25 Bernard,

1:44:25 yes.

1:44:26 Michael,

1:44:26 yes.

1:44:27 Amanda,

1:44:27 yes.

1:44:28 Anthony,

1:44:28 yes.

1:44:29 And I also vote yes.

1:44:31 Thank you.

1:44:33 Now you're on perfect timing or a minute

1:44:35 almost.

1:44:40 Well, before we officially get started,

1:44:42 I'd like to uh welcome the board of

1:44:44 library trustees. Uh it appears that we

1:44:47 have almost all of them present. So,

1:44:48 thank you for coming here. Uh would you

1:44:51 each like to introduce yourselves to the

1:44:52 public? Go ahead to the chair.

1:44:55 All right.

1:45:06 All right. Do are there any trustees

1:45:08 online?

1:45:08 Yes,

1:45:11 is online. Yes.

1:45:13 All right. So, why don't we go ahead now

1:45:15 and get started on the joint convention

1:45:18 with library board of trustees.

1:45:22 Uh to begin the proceedings, we first

1:45:25 need to elect a chair for the joint uh

1:45:30 convention. I'm going to go ahead and

1:45:32 nominate uh Judith Goldman uh to run

1:45:35 this. And so obviously as chair of the

1:45:37 board of library trustees, she'll be

1:45:39 most familiar with the candidates and

1:45:41 this process. Uh are there any other

1:45:45 nominations?

1:45:48 All right, seeing none, why don't we go

1:45:50 ahead and take a vote on that. Bernard,

1:45:52 yes.

1:45:53 Michael,

1:45:53 yes.

1:45:54 Amanda,

1:45:54 yes.

1:45:55 Anthony,

1:45:56 yes.

1:45:57 Michael,

1:45:58 yes.

1:45:59 Cassan,

1:45:59 yes.

1:46:00 Kristen,

1:46:01 Marissa,

1:46:02 yes.

1:46:03 Uh, Chris, yes.

1:46:05 Chris, okay,

1:46:06 Petra?

1:46:08 Uh, and I'm sorry,

1:46:10 Amy.

1:46:14 Chris.

1:46:17 All right,

1:46:18 Juth.

1:46:20 Felina,

1:46:24 yes.

1:46:24 And I also vote yes. All right, it's

1:46:27 your show.

1:46:28 Thanks very much. Our next order of

1:46:31 business,

1:46:41 secretary

1:46:42 of the board, I believe.

1:46:53 We have somebody online.

1:46:55 Yes. One.

1:46:56 So, can we do this by show of hands or

1:46:58 do we have to do it by

1:47:06 We'll have to do a roll call.

1:47:11 Yes.

1:47:12 I'm going to take

1:47:19 those favor.

1:47:26 We need a mic for you.

1:47:34 Thank you. Hope you can hear me.

1:47:37 Um, Petra Byami,

1:47:38 Anthony Bonano,

1:47:40 yes.

1:47:40 Michael Burstein, yes. Chris Chen

1:47:41 Sulkit. Judy Gleman.

1:47:43 Yes.

1:47:43 Bernard Green.

1:47:44 Yes.

1:47:45 Kristen Hung.

1:47:45 Yes.

1:47:46 Amy Newell.

1:47:47 Yes.

1:47:47 David Pearlman.

1:47:48 Yes.

1:47:48 Michael Rubenstein.

1:47:50 Yes.

1:47:50 Felina Silver.

1:47:52 Yes.

1:47:53 Marissa Vote.

1:47:54 Ceasan Zelka. Yes.

1:47:56 Amanda Zimmerman.

1:47:57 Yes.

1:47:57 Kristen Hung is the clerk.

1:48:01 Okay. Thank you. Welcome everybody to

1:48:03 the joint convention. We have begun. Um

1:48:08 we have five candidates this evening who

1:48:11 have previously been interviewed by the

1:48:14 board and um those two who are selected

1:48:20 will serve until May 2026 at which point

1:48:24 excuse me 27 at which point they may uh

1:48:28 they must run for office if they wish to

1:48:30 continue. Um each candidate has been

1:48:34 asked to speak for four minutes or less

1:48:38 to the question, what will you bring to

1:48:40 the board um of library trustees if

1:48:42 appointed? We will go in alphabetical

1:48:45 order. Please come to the podium. Does

1:48:47 that mic work?

1:48:48 Yes.

1:48:48 Okay. So you can speak into the mic and

1:48:51 will you be do you have a four minute?

1:48:56 I can

1:48:57 adjust.

1:48:58 I can do a fourinut timer.

1:49:00 Okay, why don't you do that, Michael?

1:49:03 Um, okay. And Pew, you are our first

1:49:07 candidate. Please come to the podium.

1:49:15 Good evening. I am Ann de Pew. Thank you

1:49:18 to everyone participating tonight and

1:49:27 thank you to everyone who is

1:49:29 participating tonight and everyone who

1:49:31 has spent so much time and effort um on

1:49:35 the process of filling these vacancies

1:49:37 of filling these vacancies.

1:49:41 I appreciate that I live in a town that

1:49:43 supports the library and that I have

1:49:45 elected representatives uh who care so

1:49:48 deeply and work so hard in support of

1:49:51 the library. It's really been a

1:49:53 privilege to participate in this

1:49:55 process. So, thank you. The most

1:49:57 important thing I would bring to the

1:49:59 board is a love of the library and a

1:50:01 commitment to supporting it with the

1:50:03 skills I have built professionally and

1:50:05 in other prof other other volunteer

1:50:08 experiences.

1:50:10 It sounds as though my experience

1:50:12 creating and implementing strategic

1:50:14 plans and providing financial and policy

1:50:17 oversight in organizations

1:50:20 is a good fit for what the board is

1:50:22 working on.

1:50:24 If you have questions about what you've

1:50:27 read in my cover letter and resume or

1:50:29 what we discussed on October 7th, I'm

1:50:32 happy to answer them. But if there

1:50:34 aren't any, I'd just like to talk about

1:50:36 a few things that it's hard to put on

1:50:38 paper.

1:50:41 All right. I was a kid who spent a lot

1:50:44 of time in libraries. I was encouraged

1:50:46 and supported by library staff and I

1:50:50 felt that whatever else was happening

1:50:52 around me and in my life, uh the library

1:50:55 was a safe place to be and a place I

1:50:58 could explore and learn.

1:51:01 My primary goal uh in seeking this

1:51:04 appointment is to support the director

1:51:07 as she works to ensure that others feel

1:51:10 that same sense of belonging.

1:51:13 Everyone who visits each time they visit

1:51:16 should feel included.

1:51:19 Further, I want someone who currently

1:51:21 does not visit or does not avail

1:51:24 themselves of the services of the

1:51:25 library or does not feel supported when

1:51:28 they visit to feel that they belong.

1:51:32 Well, I certainly have a lot of ideas

1:51:34 about how to do that and other things. I

1:51:37 also know that the role of a board

1:51:39 member is to listen carefully to her

1:51:42 constituents about what they want from

1:51:44 the library and at the same time listen

1:51:47 to the professional staff as they

1:51:50 balance all the needs that continue to

1:51:53 expand.

1:51:54 My professional training provides the

1:51:56 skill and experience that make listening

1:51:59 to all perspectives,

1:52:01 recognizing the varied incentives

1:52:03 involved, clearly communicating the

1:52:06 priorities of different groups and

1:52:09 finding common ground possible.

1:52:12 Further, my experience of serving on

1:52:14 boards in a variety of roles has taught

1:52:17 me a lot about being in an oversight

1:52:19 role which lies at the intersection of

1:52:21 different needs and priorities. Passions

1:52:24 rung strong these days and I think I can

1:52:27 bring the experience of listening and

1:52:29 pulling common threads from very strong

1:52:31 opinions to this board. I am continually

1:52:35 amazed at the varied and diverse roles

1:52:37 the library plays in our town. I also

1:52:40 see the role the three library spaces

1:52:42 play for many in our community who

1:52:45 experience the library as a place of

1:52:47 respit, possibilities,

1:52:50 and warmth or cooling this summer. My

1:52:53 goal is to give back to Brooklyn and to

1:52:55 support the library so that staff have

1:52:57 the training and support they need to

1:53:00 attend to the needs I see and those I

1:53:03 currently am not even aware of. The

1:53:05 library really is on the front line and

1:53:08 I would like to support its work by

1:53:10 having a seat on the board. Thank you.

1:53:18 Okay. Um Joey Lazmore, it's your turn.

1:53:30 Um,

1:53:33 thank you, uh, Chair Gleman and, um,

1:53:36 Chair Pearlman and the rest of the

1:53:39 members of the select board and the

1:53:41 library board of trustees for having me

1:53:43 here, um, and giving me the opportunity

1:53:46 to speak today.

1:53:48 In my resume and cover letter, I

1:53:50 described how this board is made strong

1:53:53 by its diversity of perspectives and how

1:53:56 my unique perspective will directly

1:53:58 serve that strength. I described how

1:54:00 despite my short work history, my

1:54:03 experience working as library staff and

1:54:05 relying on the public library um as a

1:54:08 patron will shape my decision-making on

1:54:10 the board. And I also described how my

1:54:12 experience with both public service and

1:54:14 direct service intersects in the library

1:54:17 field. But what I can bring to the board

1:54:20 goes beyond my experiences and diverse

1:54:22 perspectives. It is less tangible. I

1:54:25 will bring my future, my stake in what

1:54:27 Brooklyn will become. Brooklyn is the

1:54:30 town that raised me. Our library

1:54:32 provided a nourishing space when I was

1:54:34 young and right up until those many 9:00

1:54:37 p.m. school night closing times. It gave

1:54:39 me a place for me and my BHS peers to

1:54:41 grow and belong. Brooklyn will continue

1:54:44 to be my home. And I want this town and

1:54:46 this library to be there for my future

1:54:48 like it was for my past. And I want my

1:54:50 kids to have an education shaped by the

1:54:53 library just like mine. But I know this

1:54:55 will all inevitably change. Right now,

1:54:57 everything around us is undergoing rapid

1:54:59 change. You are all familiar with many

1:55:02 of these impending changes as you

1:55:04 currently wrestle with them in the

1:55:05 administration of our town and library.

1:55:08 Um some include unpredictable

1:55:11 technologies such as AI making um us

1:55:14 question the future of labor and people

1:55:16 like me even question our you know

1:55:18 education system. demographic shifts,

1:55:21 growing wealth inequality, and housing

1:55:22 insecurity, shifting the roles and

1:55:25 funding for um public institutions, and

1:55:29 increased polarization, turning federal

1:55:31 funding for library programs into

1:55:33 political chess pieces to be removed at

1:55:35 any moment by President Trump. I don't

1:55:38 pretend to be an expert on any of these

1:55:40 changes, but I can confidently say that

1:55:43 I am living through them firsthand, and

1:55:45 in the coming decades of my life,

1:55:46 Brookline will continue to be shaped by

1:55:48 these changes. There is no saying

1:55:50 whether the town and library that raised

1:55:52 me will be the same for the younger

1:55:54 siblings of my peers. But I know these

1:55:56 institutions will not be the same for my

1:55:58 children.

1:56:00 This is the uncertainty that all of us

1:56:02 in Brooklyn face and it is the

1:56:04 uncertainty which will shape what I can

1:56:06 bring to the board. The library will not

1:56:08 be the same in the face of these

1:56:10 changes. We cannot pretend that it will.

1:56:12 But whether the change is for the better

1:56:14 or for the worse is in this board's

1:56:16 hands. And because I acknowledge that

1:56:19 change will continue, I have become

1:56:20 devoted not to stop it, rather to make

1:56:24 sure it is in our benefit. If appointed,

1:56:27 my stake in the town's library in the in

1:56:29 the in our town and our library's future

1:56:31 will force me to make decisions with a

1:56:34 long-term in mind. It will force me to

1:56:36 make decisions informed by my experience

1:56:38 helping serve our under our vulnerable

1:56:41 communities so that they are not

1:56:43 forgotten as we progress. and it will

1:56:45 force me to make this board my highest

1:56:48 priority.

1:56:49 I'd like to conclude by thanking you all

1:56:52 for your dedication and the good work

1:56:54 being done in the library board of

1:56:55 trustees and the select board. You are

1:56:58 moving us in the right direction and I

1:56:59 would be extremely humbled to be chosen

1:57:01 to serve alongside you and honored to be

1:57:04 given the opportunity to bring my

1:57:06 perspective and my stake in this town to

1:57:09 help secure the library's future for

1:57:11 everyone's future. Thank you.

1:57:15 Thank you, Joey, very much.

1:57:19 It's now uh Betsy

1:57:22 It's now Betsy Fraenthal's turn and she

1:57:25 is um on the will be on the screen.

1:57:31 I'm here. Can you hear me?

1:57:34 Yes.

1:57:34 Yes, we can.

1:57:36 Great.

1:57:37 Thank you select board and library

1:57:40 trustees for considering me for a

1:57:42 library trustee position. My name is

1:57:44 Betsy Franenthal and I have lived in

1:57:46 Brooklyn for 30 years. While not ideal,

1:57:49 I am joining the meeting via Zoom

1:57:51 tonight due to a death in my family. In

1:57:53 answer to your question, what will you

1:57:55 bring to the board of library trustees

1:57:57 if appointed? I want to focus on three

1:57:59 areas. First, my personal strengths as I

1:58:02 perceive them to relate to the library

1:58:04 trustee role. second leadership and

1:58:07 governance experience in the town of

1:58:08 Brooklyn and third advocating for

1:58:11 diversity and access for people of

1:58:13 Brooklyn. Uh in terms of my strengths, I

1:58:16 am a strategic planner at heart. This

1:58:18 has aided me both in management and

1:58:20 governance roles. It requires looking

1:58:23 inward and outward, listening to

1:58:24 constituents and stakeholders needs and

1:58:26 wants both formally and informally and

1:58:29 understanding finance and budgets. I

1:58:32 understand organizations who rely on

1:58:33 multiple funding sources such as the

1:58:36 library. I have experience organizing

1:58:38 and pro promoting events, managing and

1:58:41 analyzing market research and

1:58:42 fundraising. I feel very fortunate to

1:58:45 have raised my family in Brooklyn with

1:58:47 his residents who bring diversity,

1:58:49 economically, racially, and culturally

1:58:52 and often with strong opinions which

1:58:54 require thoughtful conversations and

1:58:56 compromise. Uh, next I'd talk about my

1:58:59 leadership and governance experience. I

1:59:02 was fortunate to lead the Brooklyn Music

1:59:04 School, BMS, for 10 years and sit on the

1:59:07 school's board for the previous 13

1:59:09 years, including as treasurer before

1:59:11 being asked by the board to become the

1:59:13 executive director. Today, I'm a board

1:59:15 of director ameritus at the school.

1:59:18 Having been both in management and

1:59:20 governance, I understand the boundaries

1:59:22 required of the two to ensure effective

1:59:24 operations of an organization such as

1:59:26 the Brooklyn Public Library. During my

1:59:29 time at BMS, I connected and worked with

1:59:31 many town committees and departments,

1:59:33 including the school committee and the

1:59:35 building department. I was also on the

1:59:37 Brooklyn Commission for the Arts, the

1:59:39 BCA, and served as its treasur. In years

1:59:42 prior, I served as co-chair of the RUNL

1:59:44 PTO. I feel very comfortable

1:59:47 collaborating with people in the town at

1:59:49 all levels and understand the importance

1:59:51 of listening to distinct points of view

1:59:54 advocating for diversity and access for

1:59:56 the people of Brooklyn. In my roles at

1:59:58 BMS, I believed and supported our

2:00:00 mission which was to ensure an open

2:00:04 community for all ages, abilities, and

2:00:06 interests to explore music. I see this

2:00:09 mission very much in parallel with the

2:00:11 library's mission. Whether providing

2:00:13 music at playground playgroups held at

2:00:15 Brook Brooklyn housing authority

2:00:17 community centers, offering full

2:00:19 scholarships to young children who could

2:00:20 otherwise not afford early childhood

2:00:22 classes or setting up sessions in the

2:00:24 sound studio at the teen center. One

2:00:27 focus was on providing access to youth

2:00:29 both by bringing music to them and

2:00:31 bringing them to the music school.

2:00:33 Similarly, I focused on reaching adults.

2:00:35 At BMS, we offer music to seniors

2:00:38 through monthly concerts at the senior

2:00:40 center and at senior living communities

2:00:42 throughout Brooklyn. As a member of the

2:00:44 BCA, we worked to ensure BEu allowed

2:00:47 Brookline uh residents to come to the

2:00:52 Booth Theater. Finally, as one of the

2:00:54 founders of Brooklyn Porchfest, I am

2:00:56 proud of the collaboration with the

2:00:58 library as a Porchfest partner, allowing

2:01:01 people from Brooklyn and beyond to share

2:01:03 music and community throughout our town.

2:01:05 Uh, I am thankful to all of you for the

2:01:08 hard work you do and feel very connected

2:01:11 to Brookline and would like to thank you

2:01:13 for considering me for this position.

2:01:18 Thank you very much. We'll um now call

2:01:22 on Jennifer Kungl to come to the podium.

2:01:35 Uh good evening and I'm I'm okay

2:01:37 audible. Okay. Good evening and thank

2:01:40 you to members of the select board and

2:01:41 the library trustee board for your time

2:01:43 and consideration this evening. Uh to

2:01:46 launch into the question uh in terms of

2:01:48 things that I can bring uh if selected

2:01:51 to

2:01:53 join the board. I first would and mainly

2:01:55 would bring my perspective as an

2:01:57 educator of 20 plus years and someone

2:02:00 who's been involved in educational

2:02:01 technology during that time. I'm used to

2:02:04 thinking through the impact of decisions

2:02:06 on a variety of constituents of various

2:02:08 ages and walking through those results

2:02:11 with the people involved. I've taken

2:02:13 part in many discussions about the

2:02:15 potential of new tools including many AI

2:02:18 related tools these days keeping in mind

2:02:20 data security concerns of users cyber

2:02:23 security concerns

2:02:25 and the implementation process behind

2:02:28 the sales pitch that were shared my

2:02:31 Midwestern roots and teaching heart uh

2:02:34 also value organization both digitally

2:02:37 and in the physical reality of things

2:02:40 and I am accustomed to pitching in in

2:02:42 terms events wherever and whenever

2:02:44 necessary uh and whatever form that

2:02:46 takes whether that's answering questions

2:02:48 for the thousandth time sharpening

2:02:50 pencils uh or discussing the timeline of

2:02:53 an event in exhaustive detail to ensure

2:02:55 that it runs smoothly.

2:02:58 I've been a part of event coordination

2:02:59 large and small at my school from yearly

2:03:01 commencement activities to welcoming a

2:03:04 visiting parent as a a guest for a

2:03:06 classroom visit and weekly I'm helping

2:03:09 to participate in some range of event or

2:03:12 events taking place on campus.

2:03:16 My background as an interpreter has also

2:03:18 given me a foundation in discussing

2:03:20 issues of accessibility and diversity.

2:03:23 It is also honed a skill in taking the

2:03:25 specialized information uh from one

2:03:27 group and morphing it so that it's heard

2:03:29 and understood by others. I do this most

2:03:31 frequently in the realm of technology,

2:03:33 but it applies in all sorts of ways in

2:03:35 my life these days. Last, but certainly

2:03:38 not least, I offer my enthusiasm as a

2:03:41 patron, someone who is a Libya

2:03:43 evangelist who is curious if this year's

2:03:45 Overdrive loan numbers will hit the 5

2:03:47 million mark before the end of 2026. a

2:03:50 reader whose reading uh appetite is

2:03:52 always bigger than her free time allows

2:03:56 and as a museum goer who has been

2:03:57 introduced to new exhibits at the

2:03:59 gardener and the A uh in large part due

2:04:02 to the extensive museum past program

2:04:04 that the library maintains. I'm someone

2:04:06 who values the library's mission and how

2:04:08 this dovetales with the realm of

2:04:10 education that I've inhabited so long.

2:04:13 I'm an enthusiastic library visitor. Uh

2:04:15 I was in New York City uh recently for a

2:04:19 long weekend and my first stop after

2:04:21 getting off the train was to be able to

2:04:22 check out New York Public's main branch.

2:04:25 I was happy that I was able to go in and

2:04:27 explore that. I have a desire to support

2:04:29 the work of the library staff who are

2:04:31 doing the daily work of executing the

2:04:33 library's vision and mission and I'm

2:04:35 interested in participating in the

2:04:37 workings of Brookline in a new way.

2:04:40 Thank you very much.

2:04:43 Thank you very much, Jennifer.

2:04:45 It's now Nikki Rojos's turn.

2:04:54 Hi, thank you to the joint convention

2:04:57 for granting me this opportunity to

2:04:59 discuss my candidacy for the Public

2:05:01 Library of Brooklyn board of trustees.

2:05:04 I'm Nikki Rojos. This final question

2:05:06 asked of candidates is an important one.

2:05:09 What drew me to apply is my deep desire

2:05:12 to help my community through one of its

2:05:14 most meaningful institutions.

2:05:16 I'm a firm believer that the Public

2:05:18 Library of Brooklyn is the lifeblood of

2:05:20 our community. As trustee, I hope to

2:05:23 support the work of the board and be a

2:05:25 steward of the public library of

2:05:27 Brooklyn. In my current professional

2:05:29 role as scheduler, uh writer and

2:05:33 research assistant, I'm relied on to be

2:05:35 an organizer and to facilitate

2:05:37 collaboration among colleagues. This

2:05:39 includes doing research projects with

2:05:42 different teams, uh scheduling meetings

2:05:44 for my director, um and just handling

2:05:48 the everyday um business of office work.

2:05:52 As a previously as a writer in the

2:05:54 diversity, inclusion and belonging space

2:05:56 at Harvard, I was tasked uh with

2:05:59 highlighting diverse voices on campus.

2:06:02 Um I did this prior to this position as

2:06:04 a journalist covering uh different

2:06:06 topics including politics, uh you know,

2:06:11 normal news and all of that. I believe

2:06:16 these skills are crucial in helping the

2:06:18 board of trustees achieve great things

2:06:20 for the public library of Brooklyn. I

2:06:23 also believe that providing my insights

2:06:25 not just as an avid reader and patron of

2:06:28 the library um and also as an immigrant

2:06:31 in our community is important so that a

2:06:34 variety of voices are represented. Um, I

2:06:37 grew up as a an immigrant kid going to

2:06:40 the library not just to learn how to

2:06:42 read, but to provide my own immigrant

2:06:44 mom an opportunity to integrate herself

2:06:48 in her community. I want that to be

2:06:50 available to everyone who is a member of

2:06:53 our greater Brooklyn community. So, I

2:06:57 thank you for this opportunity.

2:07:00 Thank you very much, Nikki. Um, it's now

2:07:03 time to start the roll call vote. We

2:07:08 will, um, Michael will call in

2:07:11 alphabetical order. If there is no

2:07:14 majority at the end of the first round,

2:07:17 the voting will continue until a

2:07:20 majority emerges to fill vacancy number

2:07:23 one. When we have completed uh that and

2:07:26 filled vacancy number one, we'll proceed

2:07:29 in the same way to do vacancy number

2:07:32 two. And um if there um is no majority,

2:07:40 we do have the option to discuss between

2:07:44 rounds of voting. So, let's get started.

2:07:47 Michael, can I give you the mic?

2:07:52 Thank you.

2:07:54 Judy and um I've put up on

2:07:59 um the screen. Thank you, Melanie. I

2:08:01 think this is being seen a um a chart

2:08:05 for the balloting. Um this is a

2:08:08 spreadsheet that should work to

2:08:09 automatically uh tally and see if we

2:08:12 have a majority vote after each round.

2:08:15 We have vacancy one, vacancy two, which

2:08:19 are effectively identical as they're

2:08:21 both each vacancies for one um you know

2:08:26 that happen till the May uh 2027

2:08:28 election and then if you run again,

2:08:30 you're running to fill that term which

2:08:32 takes you to May 2028.

2:08:34 Um and I guess we're ready to begin.

2:08:38 Um, when I call your name, please give

2:08:41 the name of the candidate for whom you

2:08:44 are casting your vote.

2:08:46 Petra Binyami

2:08:48 and Depw.

2:08:51 Anthony Bono

2:08:53 and Depw

2:08:54 and Depw Burstein votes for and

2:08:57 Depwulkit

2:09:02 Betsy Froenthal. Judy Goldman

2:09:07 and De Pew. Bernard Green.

2:09:10 Betsy Froenthal.

2:09:12 Betsy Froenthal. Kristen Hung

2:09:16 and Dew Amy Newell.

2:09:19 Joey.

2:09:20 Joey Alasmar. David Pearlman.

2:09:24 And Dew.

2:09:25 And Dew. Michael Rubenstein.

2:09:28 Betsy Fraenthal.

2:09:30 Betsy Fraenthal. Felina Silver

2:09:35 and Dew

2:09:36 and Dew Marissa Vote

2:09:39 Joey Alasar

2:09:40 Joey Alasmar Sassan Zelka

2:09:45 and Dew and Amanda Zimmerman

2:09:48 Joey Alasmar

2:09:53 according to this and anyone can check

2:09:56 my count if they want. We do have a

2:09:58 majority for the first vacancy. So the

2:10:00 first vacancy is being filled by Anne

2:10:04 Dew. Anne Dew is no longer eligible to

2:10:07 be chosen for the second vacancy. So

2:10:10 please do not um and for obvious

2:10:14 reasons. Um and we are now ready to fill

2:10:18 the second vacancy. Um may I say

2:10:21 something before we fill the vacancy? Um

2:10:23 I I just want to note I as I mentioned

2:10:25 people, I'm the senior trustee. I've

2:10:27 been through this process many times. I

2:10:29 would like to point out to the

2:10:30 candidates, I have served with people

2:10:32 who went through this process, did not

2:10:35 get appointed, and then subsequently ran

2:10:37 for election and have been and served

2:10:40 admirably on the board. Would you not

2:10:41 say so, Judy? And

2:10:43 that sounds familiar.

2:10:44 That sounds familiar. And and other

2:10:46 candidates as well to her.

2:10:48 Yes.

2:10:52 I I also always like to point out that

2:10:54 if you do not get appointed here, there

2:10:56 is always the election process. There

2:10:58 are many other um things such as the

2:11:00 library friends and foundation and other

2:11:02 things that we do need people for. We

2:11:05 are now ready to fill the second

2:11:06 vacancy.

2:11:08 Um Petra Byami

2:11:11 Betsy Fraenthal Anthony Bologono

2:11:14 Betsy Fraenthal

2:11:15 Betsy Fraenthal Michael Burstein votes

2:11:18 for Betsy Fraenthal. Chris Treadus

2:11:20 Sulkit.

2:11:21 Betsy Fraenthal.

2:11:23 Betsy Fraenthal. Judy Gleman.

2:11:25 Betsy Frenthal.

2:11:26 Betsy Fraenthal. Bernard Green.

2:11:29 Oh, I see which way the wind's blowing.

2:11:32 So, I guess uh Betsy uh Betsy

2:11:35 Frowenthal.

2:11:35 Betsy Fraenthal. Uh Kristen Hungar.

2:11:40 Joey Alasmar. Um Carol Lohi as before is

2:11:44 not here. Uh Amy Newell.

2:11:46 Joey.

2:11:47 Joey Alasmar. David Pearlman. Betsy

2:11:49 Fraenthal.

2:11:50 Betsy Fraenthal. Michael Rubenstein.

2:11:53 Betsy Fraenthal.

2:11:54 Betsy Fraenthal. Felina Silver.

2:11:58 Betsy Fraenthal.

2:11:59 Betsy Fraenthal. Marissa Vote.

2:12:04 Joey.

2:12:05 Joey Elasmar. Sassan Zelka.

2:12:09 Betsy Fraenthal. Amanda Zimmerman.

2:12:12 Joey Elasmar.

2:12:13 Joey Alasmar. Uh, as Bernard noted, we

2:12:17 already have the majority. Betsy

2:12:18 Frowenthal is appointed to the second

2:12:21 position. I will pass the microphone

2:12:23 back to the chair.

2:12:25 Thanks everybody and thank you to all of

2:12:28 the candidates. Um we appreciate beyond

2:12:32 words your interest in our board and in

2:12:38 the Brooklyn Library in partic most

2:12:41 importantly. and we hope to include you

2:12:45 and um in in future activities and to

2:12:49 hear from you and for you to be part of

2:12:52 us um in some way. So, please do not

2:12:55 consider this a door that is shut. We

2:12:59 hope that you will see this as um

2:13:03 something to pursue in other ways with

2:13:06 us because we're very appreciative of

2:13:09 your passions and we share them. So,

2:13:11 thank you. Um, at this time, I would um

2:13:15 ask for a roll call to I would ask for a

2:13:19 motion to adjurnn.

2:13:20 I make a motion to address.

2:13:22 Okay.

2:13:24 Okay. Michael,

2:13:26 I will call oni.

2:13:29 Yes.

2:13:30 Anthony,

2:13:31 no.

2:13:33 Yes. Chris,

2:13:37 yes.

2:13:37 Bernard Green,

2:13:38 yes.

2:13:39 Kristen,

2:13:40 yes.

2:13:42 Carol's not here. Amy,

2:13:44 yes.

2:13:44 David,

2:13:45 yes.

2:13:46 Michael,

2:13:47 yes.

2:13:48 Silver,

2:13:50 yes.

2:13:54 Amanda Zimmer,

2:13:55 yes.

2:13:56 The joint convention is

2:13:59 the select meeting.

2:14:06 Yes.

2:14:06 Can I say something while you're

2:14:08 exiting? Thank you guys all for putting

2:14:10 in applications. You guys are amazing.

2:14:12 All of the applicants. I wanted to say

2:14:14 that earlier. Even if you didn't get

2:14:15 added to the board,

2:14:30 Pardon me.

2:14:30 It's a good problem to have too many

2:14:33 trusted people.

2:14:34 Yeah.

2:14:38 And they all can run for uh election.

2:14:42 Yep.

2:14:47 And they already have their stump

2:14:49 speech.

2:14:53 This is true.

2:15:05 Hey Chris,

2:15:14 you guys.

2:15:17 Yes, you can.

2:15:18 I know.

2:15:18 I don't know. It depends on what kind.

2:15:21 Oh, my girl I bought my girlfriend the

2:15:22 same backpack,

2:15:23 right? Isn't it so professional yet

2:15:25 cute?

2:15:25 I bought her this exact same one.

2:15:26 So, these are just like random because

2:15:33 Thank you very much.

2:15:34 Thank you.

2:15:40 All right. So, our next agenda item,

2:15:42 warrant articles, various public

2:15:45 hearings scheduled. And first up, item

2:15:47 10A is warrant article 2, collective

2:15:50 bargaining.

2:15:52 I think Chaz is going to be taking that

2:15:53 one on.

2:15:57 Thank you. Um so we have uh one

2:16:02 collective bargaining agreement that is

2:16:04 coming for town meeting this fall which

2:16:06 is the agreement um with ask me local 93

2:16:11 um the main branch of ask me local 93

2:16:13 there are a number of subbranches with

2:16:16 whom we are still in negotiations but

2:16:18 the main branch of ask me 93 uh local 93

2:16:22 this agreement is a two-year agreement

2:16:25 um in the first year which is the

2:16:27 previous fiscal year FY26

2:16:31 there is a standard across the board

2:16:32 cost of uh uh or adjustment of 2% an

2:16:36 increase in wages in FY27 there is a

2:16:39 substantive shift in how the um wages

2:16:44 are calculated this is probably one of

2:16:47 the single largest changes in how we

2:16:51 compensate our employees

2:16:54 um that we have dealt with um in recent

2:16:58 memory. Um that includes the police

2:17:00 leaving civil service. That includes the

2:17:02 fire department's recent contract. Both

2:17:04 of those were obviously major shifts in

2:17:06 how Brookline compensates and takes care

2:17:09 of its employees. Um this one asks me

2:17:12 being our largest union um is

2:17:16 uh more significant in terms of the

2:17:19 long-term impact um to how we evaluate

2:17:24 pay and class. This started more than

2:17:27 two years ago. Um, and it is the result

2:17:30 of a long period of negotiations and

2:17:33 work for which I am very grateful for

2:17:35 the hard work of the human resources

2:17:37 department, Charlie Young and Melissa

2:17:39 Goff in our office. Um and of course our

2:17:44 um negotiating team across the table uh

2:17:47 with ASME for their patience, for their

2:17:49 diligence and their willingness to work

2:17:52 through what was a very tough and um

2:17:55 involved set of discussions uh which

2:17:58 resulted in significant changes in how

2:18:02 we pay people across all of our

2:18:04 departments. Um and as a result um as in

2:18:10 lie of the 1 and a.5% standard across

2:18:12 the board raise in FY27

2:18:16 that other unions have received um we

2:18:19 are modifying the pay and class um

2:18:22 system across the board for union

2:18:24 employees in order to ensure that some

2:18:27 of our historically lowest paid

2:18:29 employees particularly our laborers who

2:18:32 previously did not see any movement in

2:18:34 their salary salaries except for the

2:18:37 cost of living adjustments that was made

2:18:39 after any particular um contract was

2:18:41 awarded. Um now those employees are

2:18:43 going to have steps um which means that

2:18:45 they will see increases in their wages

2:18:47 up to a certain point um and it will not

2:18:50 be dependent on the collective

2:18:52 bargaining agreement going through. So

2:18:54 they won't be subject to retropay um

2:18:57 again up to the point where they reach

2:18:58 their maximum step. But previously those

2:19:00 employees had no steps and therefore

2:19:03 they were kind of at the mercy of the

2:19:04 collective bargaining process. Beyond

2:19:07 that there's substantive changes in how

2:19:10 we classify employees and um make sure

2:19:14 that they are compensated competitively.

2:19:17 And as a result of that, um, beginning

2:19:19 on January 1st, 2027, assuming this

2:19:22 warrant article is passed, um, there

2:19:25 will be, uh, significant movement across

2:19:27 all departments that have AFME

2:19:29 employees, which includes the Department

2:19:30 of Public Works, the building

2:19:32 department, the recreation department,

2:19:33 the planning department among many

2:19:35 others. Um and then there will also be

2:19:37 subsequent knock-on impacts to non-union

2:19:39 employees and employees um who are paid

2:19:42 in union pay scales who are not um ASME

2:19:46 employees. And so all of that will see a

2:19:49 significant shift. Um the cost to the

2:19:52 town um while it is um above what was

2:19:56 budgeted for was contemplated in the

2:19:58 override that was passed this year. And

2:20:00 so we're very grateful to the public for

2:20:03 the fact that we now are able to do this

2:20:05 for our employees that we're able to pay

2:20:07 competitive wages uh and provide a

2:20:10 meaningful increase in their salaries

2:20:13 but also in their salary growth going

2:20:15 forward which means that Brookline is a

2:20:17 competitive place to work and a place

2:20:19 for people to stay and hopefully develop

2:20:22 experience, grow in their fields um and

2:20:26 uh move up in the uh organization. um

2:20:30 confident in the knowledge that wherever

2:20:32 they ultimately wind up um that they are

2:20:34 um entitled to competitive wages for the

2:20:37 work that they do. So again, I want to

2:20:39 thank everyone involved in the

2:20:40 negotiation of this agreement. It was a

2:20:43 long process. It was a detailed process.

2:20:47 Um but the result I think is really

2:20:49 remarkable. Um and everyone should be

2:20:52 congratulated for the hard work uh that

2:20:54 they did to get to where we are here.

2:20:56 So, I'm very thankful and grateful to be

2:20:58 able to present this to the select board

2:21:00 tonight and I welcome any questions or

2:21:03 comments you might have.

2:21:04 Could I just add just a couple more

2:21:06 things? Um, in the packet is a memo from

2:21:08 the HR director. The board had

2:21:10 previously met in executive session to

2:21:11 discuss the in detail with the HR

2:21:13 director the terms of the agreement, but

2:21:16 it's also spelled out in the memo as

2:21:17 well. The advisory committee has voted

2:21:19 favorable action on war in article two.

2:21:21 So,

2:21:22 by a vote of

2:21:23 I don't have the tally for the advisory

2:21:25 committee.

2:21:26 believe it was unanimous. I don't know

2:21:28 if there were any abstensions.

2:21:31 Any questions from members or comments

2:21:34 on warrant article 2?

2:21:36 All right. Well, this is docketed for a

2:21:38 public hearing. So, we'll go ahead and

2:21:39 open the public hearing. Would anyone in

2:21:42 the room like to be heard regarding

2:21:45 warrant article 2 collective bargaining?

2:21:48 Seeing none, anyone online, please raise

2:21:50 your virtual hand.

2:21:53 There is no one. So we will close the

2:21:55 public hearing. All right. Next up is

2:21:58 warrant article six freedom of speech.

2:22:01 You want to vote too or do you want to

2:22:02 wait till next week?

2:22:03 Usually wait.

2:22:04 Okay.

2:22:06 Um if we wait then we can't get anything

2:22:09 in the combined report. So we might want

2:22:12 to amend our

2:22:14 next week is your last opportunity for

2:22:16 that.

2:22:16 Next week too.

2:22:21 All right. So, uh, warrant article six.

2:22:24 Do we have the petitioner?

2:22:27 He's online.

2:22:30 All right. Go ahead, David, whenever

2:22:31 you're ready.

2:22:32 Yes. Uh, I need uh to be promoted so I

2:22:35 can show my slides.

2:22:38 David, you're co-host, so you can share

2:22:40 your screen.

2:22:41 Pardon?

2:22:42 You're a co-host.

2:22:43 I don't I don't I don't see the icon for

2:22:46 doing that.

2:22:47 I can see on my in the room that you are

2:22:50 a co-host. So, you can go ahead and

2:22:52 share your screen.

2:22:53 But where's the icon? I

2:22:55 down at the bottom Zoom screen. You

2:22:57 should have an option to share.

2:23:01 It's up in the top. Where is it?

2:23:03 This one.

2:23:04 It's on the bottom of the screen.

2:23:06 It could. It might be on the top.

2:23:07 Oh, on the top.

2:23:08 Maybe. Maybe I have to close that

2:23:11 transcript. No.

2:23:16 Still. No, I don't. I don't have it.

2:23:19 It's in the bar where you could

2:23:20 Oh it's I was looking for

2:23:22 something green. Sorry. Okay, here we

2:23:24 go.

2:23:39 Okay, my name is David Leuier. I am Tom

2:23:43 meeting member from precinct 11 and I'm

2:23:46 here to talk about

2:23:49 war article six.

2:23:50 Could you could you try to speak a

2:23:51 little louder? knew

2:23:54 why we should add a new uh section to

2:23:58 our town meeting bylaws. And I'd like to

2:24:01 start by talking a bit about the some

2:24:05 parliamentary principles and rights. Uh

2:24:08 and then uh

2:24:11 go through the bylaw so you know and

2:24:14 know what town meeting will be voting

2:24:16 on. And that's about it for tonight.

2:24:18 Shouldn't take too long. So uh

2:24:24 it was starting in 1689

2:24:26 there was the English bill of rights

2:24:29 that won from the monarch the king uh

2:24:33 certain rights five of them actually uh

2:24:36 no uh

2:24:39 king couldn't levy taxes without

2:24:41 parliament's permission. They couldn't

2:24:44 maintain a standing army in peace time.

2:24:48 uh they um couldn't

2:24:52 uh do cruel un or unusual punishment and

2:24:56 uh uh citizen uh subjects were allowed

2:25:01 to uh uh have weapons for their own

2:25:04 protection. And the most important one,

2:25:06 the one we need to talk about tonight is

2:25:08 the freedom of speech. Debates and

2:25:11 proceedings in parliament cannot be

2:25:14 questioned outside of it.

2:25:17 Now

2:25:20 let me move up to 1740. John Adams uh

2:25:24 created the Massachusetts Constitution.

2:25:27 And in the Massachusetts Massachusetts

2:25:29 Constitution were

2:25:32 uh was a declaration of rights in

2:25:35 article one 21 of the declaration of

2:25:38 rights. Article 21 of the Constitution

2:25:41 says, "The freedom of deliberation and

2:25:44 debate in either house or the

2:25:47 legislature

2:25:51 is so essential to the rights of the

2:25:53 people that it cannot be a foundation

2:25:56 for any accusation or prosecution,

2:25:59 action, complaint, or any other court or

2:26:03 place whatsoever."

2:26:05 So now here we are in 2026

2:26:10 in u the special town meeting in

2:26:15 November

2:26:16 and we're taking this and uh

2:26:21 incorporating it these principle into

2:26:24 our bylaws and so I want to talk about

2:26:27 this a bit in two parts. First is the

2:26:30 predicate part the uh part in above

2:26:35 and it first of all it reiterates the um

2:26:39 article tw uh 21 the freedom of

2:26:42 deliberation speech and debate by town

2:26:45 meeting members is essential to the

2:26:47 rights of the people. And the part in

2:26:49 blue, town council recommended that we

2:26:52 add and we have done so. And the reason

2:26:55 uh is that it will improve its uh it

2:26:59 would be uh helpful for the approval of

2:27:02 the attorney general because it says

2:27:03 accordingly

2:27:05 consistent with state and common law

2:27:07 legislative immunity.

2:27:10 Then it says legislative actions and

2:27:13 these are the most important words in

2:27:15 this uh proposed bylaw. shall not be the

2:27:19 foundation

2:27:22 or subject of any accusation, complaint,

2:27:26 allegation of violations of town policy

2:27:28 or investigation by select board or

2:27:31 school committee together with together

2:27:34 the town or any party acting on the

2:27:36 town's behalf.

2:27:38 So then legislative action we need to

2:27:41 define that and that's the second part

2:27:44 of this um uh proposed bylaw for

2:27:47 purposes of this section. Legislative

2:27:50 action shall include interalia,

2:27:53 researching, developing, introducing,

2:27:56 recommending, amending, adopting,

2:27:59 rejecting, enacting, or defeating any

2:28:01 article or portion thereof that is

2:28:04 included or considered for potential

2:28:07 inclusion in any town meeting warrant,

2:28:10 whether performed by a town meeting

2:28:12 member, an advisory committee member,

2:28:15 the moderator, any person appointed by

2:28:17 the moderator, or a citizen. petitioner

2:28:20 of the warrant article who for

2:28:23 exercising any power or authority of

2:28:25 town meeting member including pursuant

2:28:28 to chapter 43A and article 2.1. Article

2:28:33 43A was passed the beginning of the 20th

2:28:36 century that established the choice for

2:28:39 towns to um become representative town

2:28:42 meeting and Brooklyn did that in 1915.

2:28:45 So this is what we have. This is what

2:28:47 we're looking at. This is and uh so a

2:28:51 answering the question why we should add

2:28:54 this proposed bylaw is intended to add

2:28:56 an additional layer of protection to

2:28:59 those already provided by the

2:29:01 Massachusetts Constitution and and the

2:29:04 United States Constitution. It doesn't

2:29:06 really cut any new ground or anything.

2:29:08 But just to make it clear that as Bogan

2:29:12 versus Scott Harris um held uh that all

2:29:16 those protections from the US

2:29:18 Constitution, Massachusetts constitution

2:29:21 apply at all level to legislative bodies

2:29:24 at all levels of government including

2:29:26 town meeting. So that's my uh

2:29:29 presentation. Any questions be happy to

2:29:32 uh answer it. I know this is a public

2:29:34 hearing.

2:29:36 All right. So, do any board members have

2:29:38 initial comments? Michael,

2:29:41 um I I I have a question for you uh

2:29:45 about your intent as far as the

2:29:48 determination of applicability um for

2:29:52 this. Um I'm wondering how it's to be

2:29:56 how you expect it to be determined

2:29:59 um that uh that some action that is uh

2:30:05 described in a complaint or a report of

2:30:10 suspected misbehavior is indeed a

2:30:13 legislative action.

2:30:15 That would be up to the u u body that

2:30:19 would be receiving the complaint and it

2:30:21 wouldn't be uh the town council because

2:30:24 town council's role in ethics complaints

2:30:27 on these kinds of complaints is limited

2:30:30 very limited to providing advice to town

2:30:33 meeting members.

2:30:34 So this would have to be this would have

2:30:37 to be forwarded to the state ethics

2:30:39 commission or district attorney and they

2:30:41 would make that determination. So

2:30:43 it shouldn't be in the hands of the

2:30:45 town.

2:30:46 Okay. So if somebody made a complaint to

2:30:49 the town to uh for example the town

2:30:52 administrator and the town's policy

2:30:55 would be to conduct an investigation of

2:30:58 that complaint, would the town

2:31:00 administrator then make that

2:31:01 determination?

2:31:03 No. The town administrator say you're

2:31:05 complaining about a town meeting member.

2:31:07 are complaining about what uh appears to

2:31:10 be legislative action and that's beyond

2:31:12 the scope of the town's authority.

2:31:14 Right. Right. But my question has to do

2:31:17 about the statement you just made. It

2:31:19 appears to be a legislative action.

2:31:21 You're saying that the town

2:31:22 administrator would say that it appears

2:31:24 to be a legislative action. So they

2:31:26 would make that determination.

2:31:29 Well, if it happens in town meeting as

2:31:32 it did for me and I and I uh made a

2:31:36 motion to refer and that led to a

2:31:38 complaint, that's obviously legislative

2:31:41 action.

2:31:43 I mean, it's really the bylaw has listed

2:31:47 quite clearly what we consider to be

2:31:49 legislative action and the town

2:31:52 administrator can look at that complaint

2:31:54 and if it's legislative action, if he's

2:31:56 in doubt, he should consult with the

2:31:59 moderator. The moderator is the

2:32:01 responsible elected uh official for town

2:32:04 meeting affairs. Was that legislative

2:32:08 action? That's up to the town meeting

2:32:10 and the moderator is the moderator of

2:32:12 town meeting to uh make that

2:32:15 determination. It's not a executive in

2:32:19 the case of a complaint against somebody

2:32:22 who's engaged in what appears to be

2:32:24 legislative action. And if there's a

2:32:26 doubt, ask the moderator.

2:32:29 Thank you,

2:32:30 Amanda.

2:32:32 Uh I have uh one comment and and one

2:32:35 question. Um, I think particularly from

2:32:38 what I understand about David's

2:32:40 individual case, um, there is I would

2:32:44 love some clarity on when the Office of

2:32:46 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and

2:32:48 Community Relations receives a complaint

2:32:53 uh, how how that is usually handled. Um,

2:32:57 because I think that is separate from a

2:33:01 lot of the conversations currently

2:33:03 around legislative versus executive. uh

2:33:06 investigations. So I guess question one

2:33:09 is h what happens if OD EICR receives a

2:33:14 complaint normally?

2:33:17 Well I don't know what

2:33:18 no not to you sorry the other question

2:33:20 will be to you but

2:33:22 it's handled by the diversity officer

2:33:24 Lloyd Gel

2:33:26 Chaz has his hand raised as well. So

2:33:29 when ODI ODICR has a complaint process

2:33:32 that is established in the bylaws, I

2:33:34 believe it was initially passed in 2021

2:33:36 and revised in 2022 or 23. Um and that

2:33:42 was the subject of significant debate at

2:33:44 town meeting. In fact, initially the

2:33:45 draft in 2021

2:33:48 u not only contemplated a complaint

2:33:50 process, it contemplated fines and

2:33:52 penalties for violating the ODICR

2:33:56 statute. uh and ultimately town meeting

2:33:58 did not adopt that. Um and subsequently

2:34:01 the revisions to it made clear that

2:34:03 ODICR does not have the authority to

2:34:06 punish or in any way um take negative

2:34:10 action against anyone against whom it

2:34:12 receives a complaint. But the complaint

2:34:14 process was retained

2:34:17 in ODICR's um governing statute. And

2:34:21 when ODICR receives a complaint, um if

2:34:24 it has jurisdiction over that complaint,

2:34:26 if it looks at the statute and says,

2:34:28 "Okay, this falls under our purview,"

2:34:30 they generally reach out to the person

2:34:33 who was complained about and they say,

2:34:35 "Hey, you have been the subject of a

2:34:37 complaint or we would you be willing to

2:34:39 talk with us?" And if the answer is no,

2:34:42 then there can be no consequence. ODICR

2:34:45 might theoretically publish a report or

2:34:48 take other action, but they can't punish

2:34:50 that person. Um, the statute expressly

2:34:53 says they can't. They have no authority

2:34:54 to do so. It's meant to be a

2:34:56 reconciliation process. I will say, and

2:34:59 I don't want to speak for Dr. Gelano or

2:35:01 his team. Um but I do know that there is

2:35:04 a concern in ODICR that this idea that

2:35:07 having a complaint process along with

2:35:09 the mission of the office to be um a

2:35:13 reconciling body and a body dedicated to

2:35:16 understanding and consensus and

2:35:19 welcoming as opposed to a signing of

2:35:21 blame um and assigning of fault um has

2:35:25 been a source of tension for the office

2:35:27 when it receives complaints like this.

2:35:29 ODICR doesn't want to be in the business

2:35:31 of saying, "Hey, you know, you you said

2:35:34 something." They don't want to be the

2:35:36 civility police. Um, they want to be

2:35:39 helping people live better lives in

2:35:42 Brooklyn and helping people who have

2:35:44 historically been marginalized um, have

2:35:46 a voice in the community. And so,

2:35:49 ODICR's process is not a punitive one

2:35:52 and there is no consequence for refusing

2:35:54 to engage with him.

2:35:56 Thank you. Um, and so by that light, um,

2:36:01 at least my read on this Warren article

2:36:03 is that it wouldn't apply to the ODICR

2:36:06 process. It would apply to other

2:36:09 processes. Is that a correct read? Um,

2:36:12 either from the petitioner or or someone

2:36:15 who understands the legal is better than

2:36:18 I do

2:36:22 with asking what the petitioner intends.

2:36:27 repeat the question. I thought that was

2:36:30 referred to as Tom.

2:36:32 If a complaint is coming by way of

2:36:34 ODICR,

2:36:37 do you

2:36:39 intend this warrant article to apply to

2:36:42 that process which is separate from the

2:36:44 process that I think uh we have been

2:36:47 discussing by which the executive branch

2:36:50 might initiate

2:36:52 uh investigations.

2:36:55 The ODCR is part of the executive

2:36:58 branch. It's appointed by the select

2:37:00 board.

2:37:01 So if if a complaint comes to ODICR

2:37:06 the complaint came to town council

2:37:09 apparently

2:37:11 and if you look at the uh advisory

2:37:13 committee report you will find some

2:37:15 details about this because I was not

2:37:18 informed about the nature of the

2:37:20 complaint. I asked many times, I have a

2:37:23 long thread of emails between myself uh

2:37:27 and the investigator and the

2:37:30 investigator wrote and it's in the

2:37:31 advisory committee uh report.

2:37:35 They actually lifted those emails out of

2:37:39 my file which I collected them all in a

2:37:43 file where it says specifically Tom

2:37:46 Consul does not allow

2:37:49 uh me the investigator to disclose the

2:37:52 nature of the complaint. So here I am.

2:37:56 Yes, I didn't respond because I didn't

2:37:58 know what it was about. And I asked

2:38:00 repeatedly and I insisted. I said, "I'm

2:38:02 I'm fine with it being interviewed and

2:38:05 answering your questions, but I need to

2:38:07 know what it's about before I answer

2:38:08 them." And I was very specific about

2:38:11 that. And I had Boen versus Scott

2:38:13 Harris. I had the uh uh uh article one

2:38:19 section six. I had article 21 of the I

2:38:22 had all of those things before me. I was

2:38:24 quite aware of uh the immunity that

2:38:27 legislators have for their legislative

2:38:30 actions. Now when it came to writing the

2:38:32 report which OCD did they said exactly

2:38:36 that it's beyond our scope this is a

2:38:39 political matter it has to do with town

2:38:41 meetings immunity and use the word

2:38:43 immunity. So

2:38:44 but they did an investigation to come to

2:38:46 that conclusion. I guess my point is

2:38:48 they did a whole investigation. It is

2:38:49 your assumption that this warrant

2:38:51 article would also apply to citizen

2:38:53 complaints

2:38:54 funneled to ODICR

2:38:57 in addition to

2:38:59 if it's about a legislative action such

2:39:01 as uh what I I did in this case which

2:39:04 was to make a referral. Yes.

2:39:06 Okay. And then I have one more question

2:39:08 which is the extent of immunity that

2:39:10 this warrant article would grant. Um, if

2:39:13 a town meeting member threatens physical

2:39:15 or material harm against other town

2:39:17 meeting members to get their vote on a

2:39:19 piece of legislation, would this cover

2:39:22 that?

2:39:23 No.

2:39:24 If a town meeting member accepts a bribe

2:39:26 to bring and promote a warrant article

2:39:28 benefiting a private entity, would this

2:39:31 cover that?

2:39:32 And in this explanation, it's all seven

2:39:34 pages of it, you will find a discussion

2:39:38 of the Grall versus United States case.

2:39:42 And that's specifically uh the uh

2:39:46 holdings of that case to delineate what

2:39:51 is and isn't legislative action. This is

2:39:53 a case from 1978

2:39:56 when uh Daniel Eberg brought two s

2:39:59 suitcases full of Pentagon papers and he

2:40:03 brought them to Senator Grall because he

2:40:05 knew that you know the uh FBI or

2:40:08 whoever's going to be after him. He

2:40:10 needed them in a safe place and Senator

2:40:13 Cell read them into the congressional

2:40:16 record. That's fine. That's legislative

2:40:18 action. Then they took that hymn and a

2:40:21 staff member and they approached a

2:40:24 beacon press belonging to the Unitarian

2:40:26 Church to have it published. For that

2:40:29 there were repercussions. That's not

2:40:31 legislative action. So yes, there is the

2:40:35 kinds of things you're mentioning are

2:40:37 beyond the scope of legislative action

2:40:40 and they do could lead to prosecution

2:40:43 and repercussions.

2:40:44 And so who would determine that?

2:40:47 It would either be the district attorney

2:40:49 or the state ethics commission. Those

2:40:51 are the bodies that are um

2:40:55 uh equipped to conduct such

2:40:57 investigations and make such

2:40:59 determinations. Go to a grand jury,

2:41:02 whatever, all of that. And that isn't a

2:41:05 matter that the town is either equipped

2:41:07 to do or has funding to do or should be

2:41:10 doing when especially when you have an

2:41:13 state ethics commission and district

2:41:15 attorneys who are who are well geared up

2:41:18 to those kinds of situations.

2:41:22 Michael,

2:41:23 so I have a further question then. if if

2:41:25 such uh such uh

2:41:29 complaints are intended to go to the

2:41:31 district attorney or the state uh ethics

2:41:35 commission and this I guess this is a

2:41:37 question for town council. Um the

2:41:40 question is are those entities bound by

2:41:45 Brookline bylaws or would they be

2:41:49 operating under state law or the US

2:41:52 Constitution?

2:41:56 So, uh, Joe Callahan, town council.

2:41:58 Yeah. Uh, if this was to be prosecuted

2:42:00 by the district attorney's office or the

2:42:02 attorney general's office, then they

2:42:03 wouldn't be bound by our bylaws. They

2:42:05 would be applying state law.

2:42:07 So, they would be making a determination

2:42:10 uh, irrespective of town bylaws.

2:42:13 Correct. Correct. And that that's why in

2:42:16 the first part of our bylaw at the

2:42:18 recommendation of Tom um uh town council

2:42:22 we added the um um

2:42:26 uh language about uh consistent with

2:42:29 state and common law legislative

2:42:32 immunity law

2:42:36 exactly for that

2:42:38 to make it clear that there's there's

2:42:40 something there's a world beyond

2:42:42 Brooklyn

2:42:44 and when people do bribes and whatever

2:42:46 that's what they face.

2:42:49 Chaz,

2:42:51 I just had a question about some of the

2:42:54 practicalities kind of a hypothetical.

2:42:56 So, a violation of a town bylaw is a

2:42:59 misdemeanor if I'm not mistaken.

2:43:00 Correct.

2:43:03 I don't know. Probably. Yeah. Up to $300

2:43:06 fine. Yeah.

2:43:07 Right. So, um

2:43:11 I would

2:43:13 consider this hypothetical.

2:43:16 Town meeting member is in a private

2:43:18 meeting with a staff member and to

2:43:22 discuss a potential warrant article.

2:43:24 During that private meeting, that town

2:43:26 meeting member makes a sexually

2:43:28 suggestive proposition to that town

2:43:30 meeting me to that staff member. The

2:43:33 staff member reports it as sexual

2:43:35 harassment to me, the town

2:43:37 administrator. I call the town meeting

2:43:40 member and say, "You're under

2:43:41 investigation for sexual harassment."

2:43:43 And that town meeting member says, "Mr.

2:43:45 Kerry, you may not investigate me

2:43:47 because I was conducting legislative

2:43:49 action." And my conversation with that

2:43:52 staff member was entirely privileged as

2:43:54 a part of my conversation. Maybe I used

2:43:56 crude language. Maybe I was frank. Uh,

2:44:00 but it was in the service of my

2:44:03 legislative function. You may not even

2:44:05 inquire what I said in that meeting. You

2:44:08 may not investigate me at all because

2:44:10 there's a town bylaw that says you can't

2:44:12 do that. And then the town is sued.

2:44:14 Please let me finish my hypothetical.

2:44:16 Yeah.

2:44:17 I say, "Thank you very much. I must

2:44:19 abide by this bylaw or I will be guilty

2:44:21 of a misdemeanor." And then the town is

2:44:23 sued for creating a hostile work

2:44:25 environment.

2:44:27 How do we avoid this outcome under this

2:44:29 bylaw?

2:44:30 Well, that's what happened in Fall River

2:44:32 and that's the um Boen versus Scott

2:44:36 Harris case. And in fact, the civil

2:44:39 judgment was overturned. The violation

2:44:42 was overturned which it for which the

2:44:44 plaintiff had been u awarded damages.

2:44:48 Exactly. Because what brought about that

2:44:51 situation was legislative action by the

2:44:53 mayor. by the way, including and also

2:44:56 city council. So yes, and that's a that

2:44:59 case Bogen versus Scott Harris, that's

2:45:01 Clarence Thomas. they were very strict

2:45:03 about that in protecting

2:45:06 u I mean in this case it's a very nasty

2:45:11 kind of scenario where u but I think uh

2:45:15 I I you know I can't say you know it's

2:45:17 hypothetical but there's definitely the

2:45:20 possibility and this is something uh I'm

2:45:24 not a lawyer

2:45:25 well how would how would you feel if I

2:45:26 told you that's not hypothetical how

2:45:28 would how would you feel if I told you

2:45:29 that's happened at least twice since

2:45:30 I've been here how Would you feel if I

2:45:34 you you know and you know let me tell

2:45:36 you

2:45:38 staff

2:45:40 should not be the subject of sexual

2:45:41 harassment. I don't care what kind of

2:45:44 elected official you are or aren't. And

2:45:46 if you create a hostile work environment

2:45:48 for staff

2:45:50 and the town is powerless to investigate

2:45:53 it. I don't believe the Fall River case

2:45:56 is anywhere close to this hypothetical.

2:45:58 Fall River case involved someone who was

2:46:00 terminated or suffered adverse action

2:46:04 for uh the con for political activity.

2:46:09 If you're talking about not even being

2:46:12 able to look into whether that activity

2:46:16 was political that I can't even open the

2:46:18 door when someone comes to me in tears

2:46:21 and says I was just sexually harassed by

2:46:24 a town meeting member. Put the cuffs on

2:46:27 me, Mr. Lcolier. put the cuffs on me. I

2:46:29 will not will not ever subject my staff

2:46:34 to voluntary sexual harassment. That's

2:46:37 crazy.

2:46:38 Well, I don't know. Amanda,

2:46:41 uh I just wanted to ask one question and

2:46:42 it's probably to town council. Um there

2:46:46 are circumstances by which no matter

2:46:48 what happens on this warrant article

2:46:52 that we would have to investigate. I'm

2:46:56 assuming sexual harassment is one of

2:46:58 those that um we are mandatory for

2:47:01 investigating. Can you weigh in on that?

2:47:04 Sure. So kind of uh following on on Oh,

2:47:07 so Cho Kalan and town council. So,

2:47:08 following on Chaz's uh hypo, if we did

2:47:12 not investigate that, we could be found

2:47:14 for um h allowing or uh tolerating a

2:47:18 hostile work environment just for the

2:47:20 failure to investigate. So, we could be

2:47:21 found liable for sexual harassment for

2:47:24 the failure to investigate even if you

2:47:26 know even if the al even if the

2:47:28 allegations didn't, you know, um weren't

2:47:31 substantiated and it didn't occur. the

2:47:33 mere fact we didn't investigate it could

2:47:36 make us liable under MCAD and EEOC uh

2:47:40 case law.

2:47:42 Anthony,

2:47:43 um

2:47:44 first question over to David. Is is the

2:47:46 goal of this warrant article to um

2:47:49 enshrine the speech and debate clause of

2:47:51 the Constitution into our bylaws? Is

2:47:53 that the goal? The speech and debate

2:47:55 clause?

2:47:56 Yes,

2:47:57 that's the goal. So the speech and

2:47:58 debate clause is pretty clear that it

2:48:00 only abides within the bounds of the

2:48:02 legislative session, right?

2:48:06 Well, uh subsequent u mitigation is

2:48:11 court decisions and yes, within the the

2:48:14 um

2:48:16 within the bounds of their legislative

2:48:19 activity. Yes. Right. Right. So,

2:48:20 so you could you could you could say on

2:48:23 that particular hypothetical

2:48:25 it wasn't a town it wasn't a town

2:48:27 meeting and the you know the fact that

2:48:29 there were was I call myself a town

2:48:32 meeting member doesn't give me immunity

2:48:34 for that because it wasn't something

2:48:36 done you know and right you have the

2:48:39 definition of uh uh you know was it

2:48:44 researching developing introducing

2:48:46 recommending amending adopting rejecting

2:48:48 enacting I And this is the kind of

2:48:50 thing, you know, maybe they're

2:48:52 hypotheticals. They're going to have to

2:48:53 be dealt with in court. We don't know

2:48:56 the answer. We don't know how it's going

2:48:57 to come out. I don't.

2:48:58 But really quick, David, I what I'm

2:49:00 suggesting is you the the the

2:49:03 conversations that you have with a

2:49:06 member of staff outside of the hours of

2:49:09 town meeting would still be investigable

2:49:13 in your bylaw, right?

2:49:15 No. Oh,

2:49:18 it's

2:49:18 that's a problem.

2:49:20 It's it's it's investig Yes. Yes. It's

2:49:22 investigatable. It's you know it's not

2:49:24 it's not relating to town legislative

2:49:28 activity. So what people do on their own

2:49:30 time whatever be yes beyond it says in

2:49:35 the principles it says

2:49:39 pull it up here cannot be questioned

2:49:42 outside of it outside of parliament

2:49:44 outside of town meeting

2:49:46 exactly outside of town cannot be

2:49:48 questioned outside of town meeting so

2:49:49 the only protected speech is what is

2:49:52 inside of town meeting

2:49:54 exactly

2:49:54 so so again I'm going to ask my question

2:49:56 if if I go into the finance office and

2:50:00 I'm asking a question to Melissa and

2:50:02 she's taking them all like a champ, but

2:50:05 I start um being mean. Are they is that

2:50:09 investigatable? Because it's not during

2:50:11 town meeting.

2:50:14 Yeah. I mean, the fact that you happen

2:50:15 to be a member of town meeting doesn't

2:50:18 give you immunity as you go around to

2:50:20 different offices and talk to different

2:50:22 people. The point I'm trying to get at

2:50:24 is this is confined solely on the hours

2:50:29 of town meeting as it's in session. When

2:50:32 it's not in session, this bylaw has no

2:50:34 effect. Right.

2:50:35 Well, it it also has effect when town

2:50:38 meeting members are gathering,

2:50:40 you know, like doing research and all of

2:50:43 that. That's

2:50:43 so that may be David's intent, but the

2:50:45 actual

2:50:46 it doesn't have to be actually in the in

2:50:48 the confines of 7:30 to 11:30 or

2:50:51 whenever it says. Uh

2:50:53 the problem is the actual explicit

2:50:55 language

2:50:57 is addressing legislative action more

2:50:59 comprehensively whether it occurs at the

2:51:01 floor of town meeting or elsewhere

2:51:04 including these private meetings. So

2:51:05 David, I appreciate what your intention

2:51:08 might be, but the actual language that

2:51:11 you are proposing doesn't quite reflect

2:51:13 that. And then going back to uh

2:51:16 Michael's question regarding who

2:51:19 adjudicates

2:51:20 what constitutes legislative action,

2:51:23 your answer was the moderator, but

2:51:25 similarly that doesn't appear in your

2:51:28 proposed text. So I I think you're

2:51:31 coming you're well motivated but I don't

2:51:33 know that the actual text reflects your

2:51:36 desire

2:51:39 and we we want to be

2:51:40 it says town meeting whether formed by

2:51:43 town meeting member advisory committee

2:51:45 member the moderator or any person

2:51:47 formed at

2:51:51 uh I think the point that David was

2:51:53 trying to make is is that your intention

2:51:56 of having the moderator be the

2:51:59 adjudicator ator of whether an action is

2:52:01 legislative action or not is not

2:52:03 reflected in the text.

2:52:07 And implementing the bylaw without that

2:52:09 clarification

2:52:11 uh leaves the question open to

2:52:14 interpretation.

2:52:25 Well, now now I'm also confused because

2:52:27 this leads onto another point. I if if I

2:52:30 if I'm I'm I'm under the impression if

2:52:31 this is to enshrine the speech and

2:52:32 debate clause into our bylaws. This goes

2:52:34 beyond that and says not just speech and

2:52:37 debate within the context of being a

2:52:39 legislator during your legislative

2:52:40 session. It now goes into all the

2:52:42 actions you do as a legislature gain

2:52:44 immunity and that's a problem. I

2:52:46 I would recommend you address that to

2:52:47 town council to get clarification.

2:52:49 Yeah. Town council, can you um take a

2:52:51 question out of what I just said and

2:52:53 answer it?

2:52:53 Sure. Sure. So, as I understand, common

2:52:56 law and legislative action, it does

2:52:59 include actions outside of the hall,

2:53:03 outside of the general court, outside of

2:53:05 the town hall. So, uh I believe it was

2:53:08 the uh congresswoman from uh north from

2:53:11 New Jersey who was visiting an ICE

2:53:12 detention facility. She brought up

2:53:14 speech and debate. It didn't apply

2:53:16 because the claim was u not speech that

2:53:20 she was assaulting an officer. But

2:53:23 however, a congressperson uh you know um

2:53:27 you know uh doing a a site visit to

2:53:29 federal facilities would typically be

2:53:31 considered legislative action. So um

2:53:35 even even in the situation of the

2:53:37 advisory committee members on DPW

2:53:40 grounds, we thought that was legislative

2:53:42 action. So we thought that legislative

2:53:44 immunity and legislative uh privilege

2:53:46 applied even to that.

2:53:48 Okay.

2:53:50 Okay. That's fine. Thank you.

2:53:52 Hope that makes sense. Anyone else with

2:53:55 comments or questions?

2:53:59 Michael,

2:53:59 I guess my question is like how do we

2:54:01 move forward to resolve

2:54:05 uh you know the determination concern,

2:54:08 the concern that Amanda raised or

2:54:11 somewhere between Amanda and I raised

2:54:12 about about you know if this goes to a

2:54:15 DA then what is the impact of our bylaw

2:54:19 the and the

2:54:20 because someone has referred

2:54:22 investigation to a state ethics

2:54:24 committee or a DA

2:54:26 and who's making that referral Right.

2:54:29 So like I I personally would like to see

2:54:31 some work from the petitioner and or I

2:54:35 guess or it could be us for that matter

2:54:37 to um amend this to actually have a

2:54:42 solution to those things because

2:54:43 otherwise it's just a big question mark

2:54:46 as to even the intent of the petitioners

2:54:49 as to what happens and how these

2:54:50 determinations are made.

2:54:53 I agree with Amanda, which again is not

2:54:55 to say that we are disagreeing with the

2:54:58 motivation here to try to protect

2:55:02 legislative actions, but it's not

2:55:04 entirely clear from the actual text. So,

2:55:07 we can't of course rely on the Q&A. We

2:55:10 have to look at the actual text. in the

2:55:11 f future town meetings will look at the

2:55:14 text and the text leaves a lot of

2:55:16 ambiguity about who is making the

2:55:18 determination of what constitutes

2:55:20 legislative action, who is making the DA

2:55:23 referral where appropriate and what are

2:55:26 the venue limitations if any to

2:55:29 legislative action. Uh who would be

2:55:32 would this state authorities even take

2:55:34 up questions of violations of town

2:55:37 policy? So I I don't think we have clear

2:55:41 answers to any of those questions right

2:55:44 quite yet. And we also don't have a

2:55:46 clear answer about the relationship or

2:55:48 maybe we do have a clear answer and we

2:55:50 just don't like it about the

2:55:52 relationship between this policy and the

2:55:55 requirements of uh either MCAD or you

2:56:00 know whoever adjudicates sexual

2:56:02 harassment cases um about what which of

2:56:06 these would trump because that that's

2:56:08 really a moral judgment on our part.

2:56:12 Well, by supremacy clause, state's

2:56:14 always going to trump local, federal

2:56:16 will trump state, etc. But ideally, we

2:56:19 don't want to be in a situation where we

2:56:21 have bylaws that are conflicting with

2:56:24 state law and with federal law. We want

2:56:26 them to all synchronize. So, so I guess

2:56:29 my question is does the clause that was

2:56:32 recommended by council um about

2:56:36 conforming to state and common law

2:56:38 practices protect the town if they are

2:56:42 going to for example engage uh receive a

2:56:46 sexual harassment complaint and

2:56:48 therefore investigate it? Would that

2:56:51 would that requirement

2:56:54 uh protect uh in the case of Chaz's

2:56:57 hypothetical, would that protect Chaz

2:57:00 from the from

2:57:03 the accusation that he is violating this

2:57:05 bylaw?

2:57:08 Is that a question towards town council?

2:57:10 Yeah, you're looking at me, so I'm

2:57:12 assuming that's a question towards me.

2:57:13 So, I'll take an I'll take a stab at

2:57:15 answering it. Um, so the town is allowed

2:57:18 to uh take action as long as it's not

2:57:20 inconsistent with state or federal law.

2:57:22 So, uh, John Bukite was the one who

2:57:24 recommended these, um, uh, amendments,

2:57:27 which I totally agree with. But what he

2:57:30 he makes explicit what we would do even

2:57:32 if they didn't exist. So, under Chaz's

2:57:35 uh scenario of an allegation against a

2:57:37 town meeting member for sexually

2:57:38 harassing a town staff person, if this

2:57:41 bylaw were to be in place, I would

2:57:43 recommend that we follow EEOC and MCAD

2:57:46 guidance despite the bylaw and

2:57:49 investigate because the liability of the

2:57:52 potential claims of sexual harassment

2:57:54 are coming from federal and state law

2:57:57 where the town bylaw wouldn't insulate

2:57:59 us. we would we would potentially be

2:58:00 liable under state and federal law when

2:58:03 the potential for a bylaw violation is

2:58:05 $300. So I would absolutely recommend an

2:58:08 investigation be done otherwise we stand

2:58:11 to be found liable for sexual harassment

2:58:13 to the tune of six or seven figures in

2:58:14 damages.

2:58:15 Right. But but what you're saying is

2:58:17 that that we would still be in conflict

2:58:20 with the bylaw, right? because the the

2:58:23 clauses that were added do not

2:58:27 uh do not provide a uh a condition under

2:58:31 which the bylaw would not apply.

2:58:35 That's my question.

2:58:36 So yeah, so I'm approaching it

2:58:38 differently as if there was a conflict

2:58:40 the bylaw has to stand aside. So yeah,

2:58:43 so u in that in that circumstance we

2:58:45 would we would proceed under state and

2:58:47 federal guidance as opposed to the

2:58:49 bylaw. So, so when you say when you say

2:58:51 there's like a conflict,

2:58:54 yes, but but then the state has no

2:58:56 authority when it conflicts. So, it

2:58:58 would be pushed aside and we would

2:58:59 operate under state and federal law.

2:59:01 Would there be any repercussions for

2:59:03 violating the town bylaw in such

2:59:05 circumstances?

2:59:07 Not in the court. Not in court. So

2:59:10 yeah, that's why we that's why John

2:59:13 Bookot recommended in the advisory

2:59:15 committee wholeheartedly supported uh

2:59:18 adding that language to the Bible on it.

2:59:22 And as you

2:59:24 all right, I think that that really that

2:59:26 really does cover the issue.

2:59:28 So this is docketed for public hearing.

2:59:31 So I can go ahead and open the public

2:59:32 hearing.

2:59:33 Chaz has his hand raised.

2:59:34 Uh but first Chaz, go ahead.

2:59:37 I just want to jump in here a little bit

2:59:38 because yeah, I I I think that's

2:59:40 probably how it would happen in

2:59:42 practice. The concern that I raised and

2:59:45 the reason why I raised it is not about

2:59:46 the law and what would ultimately

2:59:48 happen. It's about the chilling effect,

2:59:50 right? You know, you all know me. I'm,

2:59:54 you know, I'm not afraid to follow our

2:59:57 ethical obligations regardless of the

2:59:59 consequences.

3:00:01 um someone else is going to be sitting

3:00:03 in this chair eventually and someone

3:00:05 else who may be intimidated, you know,

3:00:07 is my career going to be bismerched by

3:00:09 the fact that a town meeting member

3:00:10 accused me of a misdemeanor, accused me

3:00:13 of violating the law when what I was

3:00:14 trying to do was protect my staff? I

3:00:17 personally don't care about that. I care

3:00:19 about the the the actual law that we

3:00:22 have to follow, which in that particular

3:00:24 hypothetical is federal and state law

3:00:26 regarding protecting employees from a

3:00:29 hostile work environment. Um, and I

3:00:32 agree that it would have to give way,

3:00:33 the the town bylaw would have to give

3:00:35 way. And for the record, I also agree

3:00:37 that it is really important that we

3:00:40 emphasize legislative immunity and

3:00:42 legislative oversight and the importance

3:00:45 of all this. So, I don't think the the

3:00:47 underlying purpose of this law is is bad

3:00:50 at all. I just think that we have to

3:00:52 think about the chilling effect that it

3:00:54 could have in the future. to David um to

3:00:57 the chair's point um about the fact that

3:01:01 in the future we're not going to have

3:01:03 this conversation. We're just going to

3:01:04 have the text on a page and someone may

3:01:07 be deterred from attempting to

3:01:09 investigate a serious wrongdoing

3:01:12 because there's no language in this

3:01:14 bylaw that makes clear that they are in

3:01:16 the clear if it conflicts with federal

3:01:18 and state guidance. So that's my concern

3:01:20 there.

3:01:21 That's but that's exactly the uh

3:01:25 language that John offers here

3:01:26 accordingly consistent with state and

3:01:29 common law.

3:01:30 All right, let's move to the public

3:01:32 hearing question.

3:01:33 So, we've opened the public hearing. Has

3:01:35 anyone signed up to speak?

3:01:37 Kathy Sidman's online. She signed up

3:01:39 first and then Kevin McKenzie has his

3:01:41 hand raised after her.

3:01:42 All right. Uh, go right ahead.

3:01:45 Hi, thank you for letting me speak. My

3:01:47 name is Kathy Seidman. I'm a town

3:01:50 meeting member in precinct 2. I serve on

3:01:52 the Brooklyn Commission for the Arts and

3:01:54 I'm a board member of Brooklyn for

3:01:56 Everyone, but tonight I speak only for

3:01:58 myself. I strongly urge the select board

3:02:01 to vote no action on warrant article 6.

3:02:04 The plain reading of the text of this

3:02:05 warrant article would change our bylaws

3:02:08 to give town meeting members who serve

3:02:10 as part of Brooklyn's legislature

3:02:13 immunity from investigation by the town

3:02:15 for any and all actions they might take

3:02:17 that could in any way be construed to be

3:02:20 part of their interalia

3:02:22 legislative duties. As most of us know,

3:02:25 town meeting members could with at least

3:02:27 some legitimacy say that just about

3:02:30 everything we talk about and do before,

3:02:32 during, and after town meeting could be

3:02:35 construed as part of our legislative

3:02:37 actions. Many of us participate in town

3:02:39 policy and practices when we serve on or

3:02:42 speak at boards, commissions, and in

3:02:44 public hearings all year round.

3:02:48 But anybody but anyone who has ever

3:02:50 filed a complaint of harassment,

3:02:52 bullying or retaliation knows how easily

3:02:56 a claim that the harasser has freedom of

3:02:58 legislative speech or in this case

3:03:00 interalia legislative action can allow

3:03:04 any authority to avoid taking complaints

3:03:07 of harassment, bullying and retaliation

3:03:09 seriously. In fact, this article takes

3:03:12 away any viable path for a municipal

3:03:14 employee or special municipal employee

3:03:18 to seek redress should they feel another

3:03:20 municipal employee or special municipal

3:03:23 employee has vid violated any of

3:03:25 Brooklyn's policies.

3:03:27 Article 6 gives town meeting members

3:03:30 blanket immunity from any complaints by

3:03:32 anyone because the only authority with

3:03:35 power to enforce consequences to which

3:03:37 we can bring a complaint would become

3:03:40 essentially unavailable. The moderator

3:03:43 has no ability to enforce consequences.

3:03:46 Applying to the state makes life really

3:03:49 difficult and complicated. It would be

3:03:51 Brooklyn's equivalent to what the

3:03:53 Supreme Court gave to Donald Trump.

3:03:55 blanket immunity for any quote official

3:03:58 act unquote. Democracy cannot survive if

3:04:02 any public servant, including town

3:04:04 meeting members, is given this kind of

3:04:06 blanket freedom to act without fear of

3:04:08 accountability or of consequences.

3:04:10 Please vote no action on Warren Article

3:04:13 6. Thank you.

3:04:16 All right. And now we have Kevin

3:04:17 McKenzie.

3:04:23 Kevin, whenever you're ready, if you can

3:04:24 unmute yourself.

3:04:32 Perhaps Kevin. Oh, there we go. Sorry, I

3:04:34 do I didn't have that ability at first.

3:04:36 Apologies. My name is Kevin McKenzie. I

3:04:39 am a town meeting member in precinct 13.

3:04:41 I am also a municipal employee as a

3:04:45 public school teacher in Brooklyn and I

3:04:47 am also a special municipal employee as

3:04:50 the as a commissioner and current chair

3:04:52 of the commission for diversity, equity,

3:04:54 inclusion and community relations. This

3:04:57 res this Warren article gives me a lot

3:04:59 of pause at the moment given those

3:05:00 things. Given the three hats I just

3:05:03 named to you, I am concerned that

3:05:06 someone else, though it would not be

3:05:07 myself, could use my actions as a town

3:05:10 meeting member in order to justify poor

3:05:13 behavior in the context of my workplace

3:05:16 as both a specialist employee, but also

3:05:19 an actual employee. There are other town

3:05:21 meeting members who work for our town,

3:05:23 whether it's our school department or

3:05:24 other departments. What can I justify my

3:05:27 actions as a town meeting member as

3:05:29 legislative if I in behave

3:05:31 inappropriately with my colleagues on

3:05:33 town meeting by harassing them or

3:05:35 pressuring them from my work email to

3:05:38 their work email. As a special municipal

3:05:40 employee, I am equally concerned. Unlike

3:05:43 every town meeting member, I am subject

3:05:46 to the state conflict of interest and

3:05:49 ethics trainings because I am both an

3:05:51 actual municipal employee and special

3:05:53 municipal employee. Town meeting members

3:05:55 are not subject to those. That is

3:05:57 because they are not considered special

3:05:59 municipal employees by state law. We are

3:06:02 not considered legislators. We are

3:06:04 considered super voters. While this is

3:06:07 the system of government that Brookline

3:06:08 has, I am not alone when I believe that

3:06:11 this is not necessarily the best form of

3:06:14 government and that we should have had a

3:06:15 conversation about it. That conversation

3:06:18 has not happened. We now have town

3:06:20 meeting members asking to be treated as

3:06:23 if they are professional elected city

3:06:26 councilors or state legislators. If that

3:06:28 is the form of government that we

3:06:30 wanted, we should have had that

3:06:31 conversation in charter reform. We did

3:06:34 not go that route. I am concerned that

3:06:36 this will be used to justify bad

3:06:38 behavior by those who seek and who have

3:06:41 as Chaz said and I there are many other

3:06:43 cases of special mun employees harassing

3:06:46 other special municipal employees.

3:06:48 Special municipal employees harassing

3:06:50 other town employees, rank and file town

3:06:53 meeting members who fall under neither

3:06:54 of those categories harassing special

3:06:56 miss employees and other town employees.

3:06:59 This cannot be used as a cart blanc for

3:07:02 bad behavior. The Warrant Articles

3:07:05 intentions are just, and I support them.

3:07:08 However, the wording is painfully vague.

3:07:12 I worry that any amendments to fix this

3:07:14 problem might be viewed as out of ruled

3:07:17 as out of scope. As such, I urge the

3:07:19 select board to really think before

3:07:22 making a recommendation. I urge the

3:07:24 petitioner to really think about moving

3:07:27 this article at town meeting. While I

3:07:30 support it in theory, the current text

3:07:32 is not something I can feel comfortable

3:07:34 supporting. I urge him to and all others

3:07:37 involved, including the select board, to

3:07:40 consider amendments if possible, if they

3:07:42 can be ruled within scope, or other ways

3:07:44 to make this a workable solution, if not

3:07:46 in November at in May 2027 or a future

3:07:50 town meeting. Thank you for your time

3:07:52 tonight.

3:07:54 Would anyone else like to be heard on

3:07:57 warrant article 6? Anyone online? Anyone

3:08:01 in the room?

3:08:03 All right, then we will close the public

3:08:05 hearing. Uh, next up is warrant article.

3:08:10 Before you before you go on, I I just

3:08:12 want to make one comment. Um, and uh,

3:08:15 this is subject to uh, in the road map,

3:08:18 the 2030 road map. um there is a goal to

3:08:22 uh enumerate the impacts of uh warrant

3:08:26 articles on the 2030 road mapap. So as a

3:08:30 matter of our report um I was uh trying

3:08:33 to review the road map and to to see if

3:08:36 this aligns with any um with any goals

3:08:41 that are in the 2030 roadmap. Um, and I

3:08:44 could find no

3:08:46 2030 roadmap goals that are either uh

3:08:50 improved or denigrated by this warrant

3:08:54 article.

3:08:55 All right. Anyone else want to be heard

3:08:56 on warrant article six among board

3:08:58 members?

3:09:00 All right. So, now we will move on to

3:09:02 warrant article 15. I see that we have

3:09:05 the petitioner online. Whenever you're

3:09:09 ready, go right ahead. Present the

3:09:11 warrant article to us.

3:09:12 Thank you. As you, as I think you know

3:09:15 by now, Warren article 15 proposes a

3:09:18 reszoning, an overlay district for the

3:09:21 address for the area known as 96

3:09:23 Pleasant Street. This warrant article

3:09:26 would allow a uh sevenstory 85- ft

3:09:31 building that would have approximately

3:09:33 96

3:09:35 uh residential units

3:09:38 uh with parking up to.5

3:09:42 uh spaces per unit and with a F of 4.0

3:09:46 and the units would vary in size from

3:09:49 485 square ft to,240

3:09:53 square ft. It would have significant uh

3:09:56 open space approximately 2100 and true

3:09:59 public open space because there would be

3:10:01 a park at the front of the building that

3:10:04 what's called a pocket pot that would be

3:10:06 open to the public would be free to sit

3:10:08 at the benches across from the public

3:10:10 library. Um

3:10:13 what we that's what the zoning allows. I

3:10:16 think what's most important to point out

3:10:19 and many people miss this point or want

3:10:21 to miss this point is the what has been

3:10:24 designed and what you see is not

3:10:27 absolutely what would be built because

3:10:29 one of the decisions we made in drafting

3:10:32 this warrant article is to specifically

3:10:34 include a public

3:10:37 design process. Most of you I trust are

3:10:41 familiar with section 5.09 9 of our

3:10:43 bylaw which is a major impact projects

3:10:47 which recall and design review by the

3:10:49 planning board using a citizenbased

3:10:52 design advisory team. We specifically

3:10:55 made clear in this bylaw uh this warrant

3:10:58 article that section 509 of the Brooklyn

3:11:00 zoning bylaw applies to any use of this

3:11:03 property for so for by doing that we

3:11:08 have ensured that there will be a public

3:11:10 design process. Well, what what we have

3:11:12 shown is what we envision being on the

3:11:14 space, but we expect that as we go

3:11:17 through the design process, there'll be

3:11:19 numerous uh changes to the design,

3:11:23 numerous uh uh possible changes that

3:11:27 will be debated, examined. Uh I can tell

3:11:30 you having spent the last I don't want

3:11:32 decades doing uh doing projects at

3:11:36 Brookline as an attorney that the design

3:11:39 advisory team process is probably one of

3:11:41 the most effective processes in our

3:11:44 zoning bylaw and everything I can think

3:11:46 of when projects go into design review

3:11:49 at the planning board level they come

3:11:51 out as a better project. So that

3:11:54 specifically will happen to this. So

3:11:56 there will be a very public design

3:11:58 process. But what you have here is you

3:12:01 have a proposal to create significant

3:12:03 revenue to the town. I'll come back to

3:12:05 that in a minute. Create significant

3:12:08 housing for the town and as I said a

3:12:11 full public design process in a transit

3:12:14 oriented location that was highlighted

3:12:17 in the draft comprehensive plan as as

3:12:20 appropriate

3:12:22 for housing and was targeted. Now, in

3:12:26 addition to all of that,

3:12:28 you have a warrant article that through

3:12:32 the work of your board, through

3:12:33 Michael's work, has a significant MOA

3:12:36 which contains numerous public I gave

3:12:40 into quickly and my client gave into

3:12:42 quickly to Michael, but significant

3:12:45 public benefits, whether they be

3:12:48 crosswalks, sidewalks,

3:12:50 all of and design restrictions. So th

3:12:53 this is a a a very significant proposal

3:12:57 and in the days where you talk about a

3:13:00 structural def deficit in your finances

3:13:03 and you talk about overrides, this has

3:13:06 got a significant financial impact.

3:13:08 Right now this property pays

3:13:10 approximately $30,000 a year in taxes.

3:13:13 uh it will pay when this project is

3:13:16 completed somewhere between 580

3:13:20 580,000

3:13:22 in taxes and 65 in the $580 to $600,000

3:13:27 range in taxes to start with. Now both

3:13:30 the town and the developer did a a

3:13:33 financial

3:13:35 uh review to see what the net gain to

3:13:38 the town would be. Although we disagree

3:13:40 with the town's consultant who for

3:13:43 somehow thought it one building in

3:13:45 Koolage Corner would add $94,000 to the

3:13:48 police and fire budgets every year. Um

3:13:51 I'm not sure how that's possible, but

3:13:53 even with the town's report on the net

3:13:56 benefit to the town, it shows 200

3:13:59 approximately $240,000

3:14:01 a year in increased net tax benefit to

3:14:05 the town a year. and that will go up

3:14:08 every year as you know. So this this

3:14:11 project

3:14:13 uh has a significant positive impact on

3:14:16 the town and it will also create

3:14:18 affordable housing units because it was

3:14:20 subject to the town's affordable housing

3:14:22 guidelines. It's subject to the tree

3:14:25 bylaw. It's not exempted from any of

3:14:28 these

3:14:30 uh town bylaws. Uh and and it also has

3:14:35 public spaces on the roof. that will be

3:14:37 available to community agreements six

3:14:39 times community organizations at least

3:14:42 six times a year at no cost other than

3:14:45 uh cleanup costs. So, it it it really is

3:14:50 a a win-win um for for for all involved

3:14:55 and it it will

3:14:59 having a

3:15:01 apartment building, new 96 unit building

3:15:04 in Koolage Corner I is is is will be a

3:15:08 significant plus for all concerned. And

3:15:11 I would point out that even though we

3:15:13 say it's 85 ft, we're the building is

3:15:17 will be surrounded by buildings taller

3:15:19 than that. Uh the Brookline Housing

3:15:21 Authority uh elderly housing I think to

3:15:24 the right and and uh the building across

3:15:28 the street and all all of the buildings

3:15:31 in the area. So I think it's a it's a

3:15:35 extreme positive for the town and the

3:15:38 and a benefit to the town and I I as I

3:15:41 said we have an MOA in place that's very

3:15:44 very significant.

3:15:49 I have 44 seconds left and nothing to

3:15:51 say.

3:15:54 All right. Uh any board members want to

3:15:57 be heard with initial thoughts or

3:15:58 questions for the petitioner?

3:16:02 Go ahead, Michael.

3:16:03 Um, uh, continuing on my, uh, Brookline

3:16:06 23 roadmap analysis, um, there are three

3:16:09 goals, um, that, uh, or that I

3:16:13 identified, uh, 3B, goal 3B to increase

3:16:16 revenue through development, goal 6A to

3:16:19 advance infrastructure work, and goal 7A

3:16:22 to take climate action.

3:16:26 Anyone else on the slink?

3:16:31 I'm thinking um

3:16:33 All right. Don't have to speak right

3:16:34 away.

3:16:34 Yeah,

3:16:35 we All right. So, this is docketed for a

3:16:37 public hearing. So, we will open the

3:16:39 public hearing.

3:16:40 Uh I see that we have some people in the

3:16:41 room who likely will want to speak to

3:16:43 this.

3:16:44 Uh so, either whoever would like to come

3:16:46 up first.

3:16:47 So, we people have signed up. Okay. So,

3:16:49 we have uh Susie Roberts is first.

3:16:53 She was online earlier.

3:16:55 I think she's right here.

3:16:56 All right. Come come on up.

3:17:03 Oh, we have another presentation.

3:17:06 She has a there's a motion to refer.

3:17:08 Okay.

3:17:17 I can't we can't hear her, Mr. Chairman.

3:17:19 All right. She She's basically saying

3:17:20 that we have another presentation to go

3:17:22 through first and then we'll have the

3:17:24 public comment. So, uh, Linda Pelky's

3:17:28 on. If you would like to go ahead and

3:17:30 present your, uh, I think it's your

3:17:32 referral motion and then we can have

3:17:34 public comment as to both.

3:17:45 So, Linda, if you can unmute and go

3:17:47 ahead.

3:17:57 She should be able to. She's clos. So,

3:18:07 Linda, you are on mute in case you're

3:18:09 trying to tell us something.

3:18:18 We don't have Linda yet. So, if you want

3:18:20 to go ahead and speak.

3:18:29 All right. Go. Go right ahead.

3:18:32 You can come up. Introduce yourself.

3:18:36 I got unmuted. I'm sorry.

3:18:37 Go ahead. Okay.

3:18:40 So, sorry it's Susie. I'm bumping. But

3:18:43 anyway, um, sorry about that. Uh, good

3:18:46 evening. I'm Linda Olsen Pelky, a town

3:18:48 meeting member from precinct 17, a

3:18:51 member of the advisory committee's land

3:18:53 use subcommittee and vice chair of the

3:18:55 comprehensive plan steering committee.

3:18:57 I'm here on behalf of myself and my

3:18:58 co-etitioners Susie Roberts and Susan

3:19:01 Park, also precinct 17 town meeting

3:19:04 members to recommend referral to a

3:19:06 moderator's committee. I'm going to give

3:19:09 you seven brief reasons why you should

3:19:11 embrace the opportunities a referral

3:19:14 offers. Number one, we could consider

3:19:17 the cumulative impacts of the three

3:19:19 large projects that are all proposed for

3:19:21 the same half block with a combined 283

3:19:25 apartments, 130 hotel rooms, and 46

3:19:29 new parking spaces. At the very least,

3:19:32 the impacts must be considered together.

3:19:34 At best, it would be terrific if the

3:19:36 property owners were to collaborate and

3:19:38 make a more rational combined proposal.

3:19:41 Study are needed to evaluate the

3:19:44 combined effects on traffic, pedestrian

3:19:46 safety, climate impact, shadows, and

3:19:48 impacts to a butters among others.

3:19:51 Climate resiliency. The proposed zoning,

3:19:54 even with the MOA, fails to adequately

3:19:56 address the fact this site is one of the

3:19:59 worst heat islands in all of Brooklyn.

3:20:01 The setbacks in the proposal are

3:20:03 woefully inadequate and on-site open

3:20:05 space has been whittleled to hardly

3:20:07 anything and many existing mature trees

3:20:10 will be lost. There are no street trees

3:20:12 in the area due to a lack of a tree

3:20:14 lawn. Meanwhile, the area is home to

3:20:17 vulnerable populations who

3:20:19 disproportionately suffer from the

3:20:21 health impacts of climate change. Number

3:20:24 three, the comprehensive plan is almost

3:20:26 complete.

3:20:27 The plan focused on deep public

3:20:30 engagement and will articulate a shared

3:20:32 vision for Brooklyn's future land use.

3:20:35 In harmony with that vision, the plan

3:20:38 will identify areas suitable for growth

3:20:40 and the next steps will be to move into

3:20:42 zoning reform that could allow more

3:20:45 byite development. It's important for

3:20:48 trust in our government and trust in the

3:20:51 planning process that the public feels

3:20:53 their particip participation matter.

3:20:57 one-off random upzonings brought by

3:20:59 developers is simply an end run around

3:21:01 this effort. I can't tell you how many

3:21:04 people have expressed shock and dismay

3:21:05 that this could get built or there has

3:21:07 been no real opportunity for public

3:21:09 input. Number four, commercial. The

3:21:13 select board has prioritized commercial

3:21:15 uses and real mixed use as development

3:21:18 goals. We should require commercial on

3:21:21 the first floor of this new project, but

3:21:23 the developer doesn't want to vote want

3:21:25 to change that because it would change

3:21:28 the vote threshold in town meeting. So,

3:21:30 they refused to adopt this amendment.

3:21:33 The neighborhood lost several popular

3:21:35 retail establishments when the Durgen

3:21:37 Garage was demolished. And in 2024, in

3:21:40 response to Nord Bloom's proposal for a

3:21:43 fourstory M2.0 O building at this very

3:21:46 same site merely two years ago. The

3:21:49 planning department recommended

3:21:51 commercial on the first floor. They also

3:21:53 recommended increasing the number of

3:21:55 affordable units above the minimum and

3:21:57 asked for more tree cover. Number five,

3:22:01 neighborhood engagement. The developer

3:22:04 decided they wanted to talk to only

3:22:06 those who store who supported the

3:22:08 project within precinct 17. They

3:22:11 communicated with those individuals and

3:22:13 refused to meet with a group of five of

3:22:15 us precinct 17 town meeting members who

3:22:18 wanted to present the very real concerns

3:22:22 we are hearing from our neighbors. The

3:22:24 community meetings that were held were

3:22:26 not well publicized or attended were

3:22:28 held at awkward times and did not allow

3:22:31 for any meaningful dialogue. From our

3:22:33 perspective our views were not

3:22:35 represented in any of the negotiation

3:22:37 with the developer. A referral would

3:22:39 allow the means and time necessary for

3:22:41 real dialogue.

3:22:42 Your time is up.

3:22:44 Okay. Thank you.

3:22:47 All right. Any questions for Linda from

3:22:50 select board members?

3:22:56 Anthony, I I'll just make one point.

3:22:58 Thank you for your presentation, Linda.

3:23:00 During one of the during the sitewalk

3:23:03 that I helped lead, there were there

3:23:06 were numerous different perspectives at

3:23:08 that sitewalk. I remember speaking to a

3:23:10 lot of the neighbors who did not want to

3:23:12 see the project go forward um and had

3:23:14 many reservations and I took all of

3:23:16 their concerns and I wrote them down and

3:23:18 they became topics of conversation at

3:23:20 the select board. Um, many of them were

3:23:23 directly imp implemented inside of the

3:23:25 MOA because of the conversations I had

3:23:28 with precinct 17 representatives like

3:23:30 yourself. Um, and Jonathan Davis as well

3:23:34 I spoke to. Uh, and there were others as

3:23:36 well. So during that meeting, I I

3:23:39 definitely took into consideration all

3:23:40 of your guys' concerns and I tried to

3:23:42 work with it the best I could.

3:23:44 To further your point, I was also at

3:23:46 that sitewalk, but I was in the other

3:23:47 group and I noticed the same thing.

3:23:50 There were a variety of perspectives

3:23:52 that were offered. There was robust

3:23:54 discussion about uh concerns from the

3:23:57 community and also people who were

3:23:59 praising uh the project. The sitewalk of

3:24:02 course wasn't intended to explicitly be

3:24:04 about 26 Pleasant, but more on uh

3:24:07 sidewalk impacts and uh Pleasant Street

3:24:11 as a whole in terms of uh traffic. But

3:24:14 obviously 26 Pleasant Street came up.

3:24:17 Um, in terms of questions, so Linda, you

3:24:21 mentioned the concern about heat

3:24:24 islands. I've been following the

3:24:26 conversation on the town meeting list

3:24:27 serve and some have suggested that

3:24:31 building on a parking lot actually

3:24:32 reduces the heat island effect. Uh, now

3:24:36 I don't know,

3:24:37 not when you cut down all the trees

3:24:39 around it.

3:24:41 Exactly. So, do we have a definitive

3:24:43 answer maybe from a someone on town

3:24:45 staff about heat island impacts of

3:24:49 parking lot verse having a structure on

3:24:51 a lot?

3:24:53 Is there anybody who's prepared to

3:24:54 comment on that?

3:24:55 Uh, I see Cara Brutin, the director of

3:24:58 planning, uh, indicating whether or not

3:25:01 there is an answer to your question. Do

3:25:03 you want to

3:25:05 say say what I think your head motion

3:25:09 indicates?

3:25:11 So, my name is Cara Britain. I'm the

3:25:13 planning director. For the record, I was

3:25:14 shaking my head. No. Um, and the reason

3:25:16 is because it I think it I am not an

3:25:18 expert in heat island effects. What I do

3:25:21 know, it depends a lot on the materials

3:25:22 of the building. If it's a brick, for

3:25:24 example, and the heat's being absorbed

3:25:26 all day and then it's letting out into

3:25:28 the sidewalks at night, that can be an

3:25:30 effect when it's most vulnerable to

3:25:31 residents. Um, the comment about tree

3:25:33 canopy is also an important piece. I

3:25:36 just I don't think it's um I don't have

3:25:38 the data to to know what the effect

3:25:40 would be.

3:25:42 All right.

3:25:43 Um I I wasn't aware I could speak. So I

3:25:46 would like to say something about

3:25:48 Anony's comment and David's about the

3:25:50 sitewalk.

3:25:51 Sure. Go ahead.

3:25:52 Yeah. I I've served on several you know

3:25:54 multiple um Excuse me. Can I know can we

3:25:58 know who's speaking?

3:25:59 I'm sorry. This is Linda Olsen Pelky who

3:26:02 I who just presented the referral

3:26:04 motion. Um,

3:26:06 you know, we it's not the when you serve

3:26:10 on one of these committees and you spent

3:26:12 years in negotiations and back and forth

3:26:14 and you have multiple professionals and

3:26:18 community members on a team working. It

3:26:20 is very very different than um hearing

3:26:25 some things and having one person decide

3:26:27 whether they care enough to fight for

3:26:29 your point of view or not. It's it's

3:26:31 just a completely different thing. So I

3:26:33 don't think yes I'm glad you came and

3:26:37 you listened but you didn't implement um

3:26:40 in our view sufficiently what we cared

3:26:43 about and so that's in part why we're

3:26:46 bringing this and then there are

3:26:48 millions of people who I mean maybe not

3:26:50 millions but an entire neighborhood full

3:26:52 of people who was not aware of this walk

3:26:55 was not invited we we came because we

3:26:57 were town meetings members and were

3:27:00 deliberately invited so there's plenty

3:27:01 of voices that you have not heard. Um,

3:27:04 you know, we have several hundred

3:27:07 signatures on a petition that we

3:27:10 circulate in po opposed to this proposal

3:27:13 from the neighborhood. So, um, I beg to

3:27:17 differ that that was sufficient.

3:27:20 Well, I don't think anyone's saying it

3:27:21 was sufficient, just that there were

3:27:23 other opinions that were heard, that's

3:27:24 all.

3:27:25 Okay. Okay. Regarding the uh your

3:27:28 remarks about the comprehensive plan, u

3:27:31 my understanding is that the

3:27:32 comprehensive plan will not ultimately

3:27:35 take a position on 26 Pleasant Street

3:27:38 specifically. Is that correct?

3:27:40 Well, I cannot swear to what the final

3:27:43 vote will be and I am speaking only as

3:27:46 one committee member, but the current

3:27:48 status is that it is marked as being

3:27:51 taken up at town meeting. It is not a

3:27:55 recommended site for redevelopment

3:27:58 by us.

3:28:01 Okay.

3:28:03 Anyone else have questions or comments

3:28:06 for Linda?

3:28:07 Oh, I just saw when we were discussing

3:28:09 Heat Island, I thought that Jeffrey

3:28:11 Ellen wanted to make a comment and I was

3:28:13 going to see if he had any thoughts that

3:28:16 he wanted to share on that.

3:28:18 Sure. Do you have anything you'd like to

3:28:19 share regarding uh heat island effects?

3:28:24 I just wanted to report because it it is

3:28:26 not something I'm an expert in, but last

3:28:28 night we had a long meeting with Zeab

3:28:32 uh and they unanimous that this was a

3:28:36 topic of discussion and that they

3:28:38 unanimously supported this warrant

3:28:41 article and as for there's a tree bylaw.

3:28:44 trees are removed, then they have to be

3:28:47 replaced and and we're going we're going

3:28:51 to to to replace the trees. And the

3:28:54 petition that was presented for simply

3:28:58 says, are you against an oversized

3:29:01 building being built in Brooklyn? I

3:29:04 mean, anybody would sign that petition.

3:29:06 And and I just want to make one

3:29:09 clarification because it keeps being

3:29:10 said in in Brooklyn as in elsewhere. If

3:29:13 you say it a long time, it becomes true.

3:29:15 There was no proposal for a sto

3:29:17 fourstory building on this site in 2024.

3:29:21 I have the document from the planning

3:29:23 department.

3:29:24 You may have planning we did not we did

3:29:27 not meet with the planning board the

3:29:29 department. We've never proposed it.

3:29:31 This was that we this is our first

3:29:33 proposal since I think the Benet birth

3:29:36 proposal 20 30 years ago.

3:29:38 Well, I was at a planning board meeting

3:29:40 and I have the document. So anyway, I

3:29:42 you know, I don't think it's helpful to

3:29:43 have this back and forth.

3:29:45 Please, I'll I'll let you both speak,

3:29:46 but take turns. All right, back

3:29:48 commissioner. Go ahead.

3:29:49 And so I think we've had neighborhood

3:29:52 meetings, we've had sidewalks, we

3:29:55 continue to do that. And what and if

3:29:57 this Warren article pass, we'll have

3:29:59 more neighborhood meetings at the design

3:30:00 advisory team and everybody will be

3:30:02 heard and this design criteria that that

3:30:06 we've dis

3:30:07 that we've talked about. But if if in

3:30:10 fact this this is delayed and Waldo

3:30:14 Duran, who knows when that's going to

3:30:16 resurface. If if this warrant article is

3:30:19 is sent to a moderated stud committee,

3:30:22 it's it's simply a slow death

3:30:26 uh penalty for this proposal. Uh th this

3:30:30 process this is a different time

3:30:32 difficult time to build. We have high

3:30:34 interest rates, we have tariffs, we have

3:30:36 all sorts of factors. That's why Boston

3:30:38 and other communities have a ton of

3:30:40 building permits that are not being

3:30:42 acted on. This is a difficult time to

3:30:45 build uh and develop. This process we've

3:30:49 gone through with architects, with

3:30:52 lawyers, with the very public meetings

3:30:56 in Brooklyn and and and involvements and

3:30:58 and dealing with the MOA, negotiating

3:31:01 that. This is an expensive process up to

3:31:04 town meeting go leading up to town

3:31:06 meeting and it should be and and and it

3:31:09 has been but it I I it just is not go

3:31:13 feasible to do this all again with a

3:31:16 moderator's committee that doesn't even

3:31:18 have a specific charge. Thank you.

3:31:20 All right. Um Linda, go ahead.

3:31:22 Yeah. So, first on the question about

3:31:26 going to the design review, um I have

3:31:30 served on DATs. They're quite different

3:31:33 than the zoning committee. And the

3:31:35 fundamental truth of it is you cannot

3:31:37 change anything about that zoning in a

3:31:40 design review. You can't lop off floors.

3:31:43 You can't reduce the F. You can't change

3:31:46 the setbacks.

3:31:48 Um so it's very it's aesthetics that the

3:31:52 design review team works on mostly some

3:31:55 of the things about site circulation and

3:31:57 things can be changed but it's very

3:32:00 little once we pass the zoning envelope

3:32:03 they get to build within that envelope

3:32:06 period. Um, to the point about the

3:32:09 petition, the petition was very specific

3:32:12 about the location and being outside of

3:32:15 the comp plan and not allowing neighbors

3:32:18 to have input. It was very specific. It

3:32:21 wasn't just, you know, oppose this ugly

3:32:23 building. Trust me, I have the text of

3:32:26 it. It was submitted as evidence. So, I

3:32:30 I just think we're getting a lot of um

3:32:35 misinformation, unfortunately. And it

3:32:38 was as far as the referral motion, it

3:32:41 calls for coming back to town meeting in

3:32:43 a year by the fall of 2027 to make a

3:32:47 recommendation to town meeting to for

3:32:50 whatever kind of zoning they think makes

3:32:52 sense here.

3:32:53 All right. I want to be respectful of

3:32:54 those in the room who've been waiting a

3:32:56 long time to speak. So, uh go ahead,

3:32:58 Marty. if you want to come up.

3:33:02 Uh, my name is Martin Yin. I, uh, am a

3:33:06 resident of, uh, John Street Town

3:33:09 Houses. I've lived there for 44 years.

3:33:12 Before I make my remarks about

3:33:15 the Warren article, I want to say

3:33:17 something that I think everybody ought

3:33:18 to think about here in this town.

3:33:22 Do you guys realize that renters don't

3:33:26 know what the hell is going on here?

3:33:30 We're not in in the bylaws of this town

3:33:32 and in the state of Massachusetts. I

3:33:35 started doing some research on this.

3:33:37 There's no requirement at all that we

3:33:40 should be notified about anything as

3:33:43 renters. Only property owners get to be

3:33:46 notified. This is, you know, if you want

3:33:48 to talk about a classist system, a

3:33:52 system where only property owners know

3:33:54 things and the renters who may make up a

3:33:57 large part of the people who are going

3:33:59 to be affected by a project, unless

3:34:03 their property owner who they're renting

3:34:06 from happens to pass it on to them, are

3:34:09 kept in the total dark about what's

3:34:11 going on. Nobody in our townhouse

3:34:14 development knew anything about any of

3:34:18 this until April when this started to

3:34:20 come up. And I I really really think

3:34:24 that if if everybody here is uh

3:34:28 advocates democracy,

3:34:30 then we ought to think really hard about

3:34:33 a notification system within this town

3:34:36 in which renters are not

3:34:39 disenfranchised.

3:34:42 Really, that's what we are. We're

3:34:43 disenfranchised. We don't know a damn

3:34:46 thing. Now, I I'll I'll go ahead and

3:34:48 I'll make my comments, but I think this

3:34:51 is something really to be thought about

3:34:53 because I would have had a lot to say

3:34:55 had I known anything about what was

3:34:58 going on, but I never had the

3:35:00 opportunity. So, uh these are my remarks

3:35:04 and uh you can take them for what what

3:35:09 they are. uh as an immediate uh uh a

3:35:13 butter of the 26 Pleasant Street parcel

3:35:15 under consideration for upzoning at the

3:35:18 November town meeting Warren article 15

3:35:20 I and the other residents of the John

3:35:22 Street town houses where I've lived for

3:35:23 44 years have a great stake in the

3:35:26 decisions that may be taken at that

3:35:28 meeting voting on warrant 15 now instead

3:35:31 of referring it for review under the

3:35:34 guidelines of the comprehensive plan

3:35:35 would simply put be a betrayal by the

3:35:38 town meeting of the Kulage corner

3:35:41 community's right to engage in an

3:35:43 indepth review of the many serious

3:35:45 concerns this project entails. That is

3:35:48 why once a prize of the project, over

3:35:51 350 residents of our neighborhood almost

3:35:54 immediately joined in signing a petition

3:35:57 demanding that this little understood

3:35:59 upzoning not proceed before the citizens

3:36:03 are given an opportunity to examine the

3:36:05 consequential issues posed by the 26

3:36:08 Pleasant Street project in conjunction

3:36:11 with the immense Chestnut Hill Realy

3:36:13 Hotel apartment project a half a block

3:36:16 away. For those who might try to dismiss

3:36:18 my concern as a simple example of nimi,

3:36:21 well, my response is nimi indeed because

3:36:24 the outsiz building under construction

3:36:27 extends right to our property line and

3:36:29 its proposed sevenstory height.

3:36:31 Your time is up.

3:36:34 Three minutes.

3:36:36 That was three minutes.

3:36:37 Three minutes. You

3:36:38 you mean Oh, t taking it from when I was

3:36:40 making my remarks about

3:36:41 So, does that that's considered public

3:36:43 comment or not?

3:36:44 How much more do you have left?

3:36:46 Well, I'd say I have about two minutes.

3:36:48 I I I didn't know I I could I was taking

3:36:51 my my public comment. I mean, I I I have

3:36:54 comments here.

3:36:55 Do you have a written version that you

3:36:56 can send us the whole thing?

3:37:00 I think, you know, I sp I spent two

3:37:02 hours waiting here.

3:37:03 No, it would be unfair. I mean, he took

3:37:04 two minutes to say something that's very

3:37:06 important, but could have been said in

3:37:08 five seconds. Um and and we will take

3:37:11 that into consideration, but I I think

3:37:13 it'd be unfair to

3:37:14 Okay. I I agree with Bernard.

3:37:18 Typically we do we do it's three minutes

3:37:20 per person. What you could consider if

3:37:22 there's somebody else in the room who

3:37:24 wants to finish reading the remarks and

3:37:25 they're three minutes we could do that.

3:37:30 I David I'm sorry I don't quite

3:37:31 understand what you're saying. So

3:37:33 typically for public comment each person

3:37:36 has three minutes and we enforce that

3:37:39 irrespective of viewpoint and so we

3:37:43 don't really make exceptions to that to

3:37:45 allow one person to go over three

3:37:46 minutes uh compared to someone else but

3:37:48 given that you have prepared written

3:37:50 remarks you can share those with us also

3:37:54 if there's somebody else who wants to

3:37:55 finish reading them in their three

3:37:56 minutes that could happen as well

3:37:58 but I could not speak again

3:38:01 no people get to speak once per meeting.

3:38:09 All right. So, who would like to go

3:38:12 next?

3:38:13 Susie Roberts is next.

3:38:14 Okay. Go ahead.

3:38:22 Good evening. My name is Susan Roberts.

3:38:25 Susie is what people call me. I'm a pre

3:38:28 uh precinct 17 town meeting member. Um

3:38:31 I'm here really to talk about the

3:38:34 process. Um because obviously this is a

3:38:39 new process that we're experiencing

3:38:41 where instead of going the usual route

3:38:44 of getting a variance or two or three

3:38:47 and going through the planning board and

3:38:50 the zoning board of appeals, they've

3:38:52 sought directly to go to town meeting

3:38:56 for a zoning change. And by not

3:38:59 including commercial in their project,

3:39:01 they're able to um get what they want,

3:39:04 get the project that they want, increase

3:39:06 the value of their property by getting

3:39:08 the kind of zoning that they're

3:39:10 requesting by a simple majority of town

3:39:14 meeting members. It's a beauty contest

3:39:16 is what's going on. A popularity contest

3:39:19 of town meeting. If they were looking at

3:39:22 this a couple of years ago um before the

3:39:26 50% majority vote of town meeting would

3:39:30 be effective, they would have had to

3:39:31 have done a twothirds vote. We would not

3:39:34 be seeing this. Um and even if we were

3:39:38 doing this several years ago when the

3:39:40 makeup of town meeting were was a little

3:39:43 bit different in terms of um who were

3:39:46 town meeting members in as for you know

3:39:49 um

3:39:51 I hate to say this but the Brooklyn for

3:39:54 everyone people versus the Brooklyn by

3:39:56 design people those who want more

3:39:57 planning those who want less planning

3:40:00 and more doing and that kind of thing.

3:40:02 The the breakdown of town meeting

3:40:04 members was different. we probably

3:40:06 wouldn't have been seeing it then which

3:40:07 we didn't see it then because they

3:40:09 brought their initial um project to um

3:40:14 the HAB as I understand it um and

3:40:18 actually did receive comments from the

3:40:20 planning department which Cara and Linda

3:40:23 Pelky have have um referred to um and

3:40:28 those comments is something are you know

3:40:31 something that I would urge you to look

3:40:33 at because there were a number of

3:40:34 guidines lines that they reminded the

3:40:37 petitioners of that time. It was a

3:40:39 smaller project. Maybe it wasn't the

3:40:41 four stories that Jeffrey Allen says he

3:40:43 never um that they their client never

3:40:46 submitted, but it was a smaller project

3:40:49 and um the planning department did give

3:40:51 a letter of what they felt were

3:40:55 guidelines that were given to the

3:40:58 project developers to be reminded of in

3:41:02 a revision.

3:41:05 those guidelines were not followed in

3:41:07 this presentation and we're seeing what

3:41:09 we're seeing because of these two

3:41:12 reasons, the process being different.

3:41:14 So, um we're here as town meeting

3:41:18 members being asked to

3:41:21 make this change to our zoning. We don't

3:41:23 have experience with um

3:41:26 your time is up.

3:41:27 Oh, okay.

3:41:29 I don't have I don't have prepared

3:41:32 remarks, but I

3:41:33 if you would like to get us prepared

3:41:34 remarks, you're welcome to do so.

3:41:36 Okay. Thank you.

3:41:38 All right. Who is next?

3:41:39 Uh next is Molly Skippa online.

3:41:43 All right. Go ahead, Molly. Whenever

3:41:44 you're ready. Three minutes.

3:41:48 Thank you. Um

3:41:53 so I'm Molly Sheepa. I'm a resident of

3:41:56 uh precinct 17 and I'm here to share my

3:41:59 concerns about the proposed zoning

3:42:01 change to 26 Pleasant Street um because

3:42:04 it has not been reviewed alongside the

3:42:06 Waldo Duran and the 1299 Beacon Street

3:42:09 projects. Together, these three projects

3:42:11 bring roughly 450 residential units and

3:42:14 hotel rooms to a small area of North

3:42:17 Brooklyn, one of Brooklyn's most densely

3:42:19 populated neighborhoods and an

3:42:21 identified heat island. The proposal

3:42:23 includes a 10-story hotel, a 14-story

3:42:26 residence building at Waldo Durgen, and

3:42:28 a ninestory 55 unit building behind

3:42:31 Trader Joe's, and then the 85- foot tall

3:42:34 7story 94 to 96 unit building at 26

3:42:37 Pleasant. And this is an extraordinary

3:42:40 concentration of development in a very

3:42:42 small area of North Brooklyn. And I was

3:42:45 disappointed to see that the concessions

3:42:47 recently negotiated with the 26 Pleasant

3:42:50 developer do very little to address the

3:42:52 proposed building's impacts. The

3:42:54 agreement doesn't include enough of a

3:42:56 setback to preserves the site's most

3:42:58 magnificent mature trees despite the

3:43:01 fact that the site is on a heat island.

3:43:03 And during weekday evening rush hour,

3:43:05 traffic turning from Pleasant Street

3:43:07 onto Beacon is already frequently backed

3:43:11 up on Pleasant Street all the way to

3:43:13 John Street and sometimes beyond. And

3:43:16 this is before all three projects have

3:43:18 been built. So I I noticed just this

3:43:21 weekend that there's a new restriction

3:43:22 on right turns on Red from Pleasant onto

3:43:25 Beacon and that's just going to further

3:43:27 add to the congestion.

3:43:30 So, I'm not opposed to any project

3:43:32 individually, but I do believe that

3:43:33 their combined effects could

3:43:35 significantly change the livability of

3:43:37 the neighborhood. Um, committee review

3:43:40 should assess things like traffic,

3:43:42 public transit, pedestrian and cyclist

3:43:45 safety, parking, infrastructure

3:43:47 capacity, overlapping construction, and

3:43:50 the project scale and density. and it

3:43:52 should also consider how the proposals

3:43:54 align with the town's comprehensive plan

3:43:56 and its goals for housing,

3:43:58 transportation, and neighborhood

3:43:59 character.

3:44:00 Residents need a clear assessment of

3:44:03 these cumulative impacts, and any

3:44:05 necessary mitigation should be

3:44:07 identified before approvals. So, I do

3:44:10 urge the board to refer the 26 Pleasant

3:44:12 Street zoning proposal to committee and

3:44:14 ensure that the review considers all

3:44:17 three projects together.

3:44:19 Thank you.

3:44:22 All right, who do we have next?

3:44:23 Uh, we have Susan Park.

3:44:30 Good evening, everyone. Susan Park, town

3:44:33 meeting member uh in precinct 17, and

3:44:36 I'm here um on behalf of the almost 400

3:44:40 people who signed the petition, very

3:44:43 concerned about the sevenstory project

3:44:46 on uh 26 Pleasant. Uh I'm here to talk

3:44:50 about the charge uh if this were

3:44:52 referred to a moderator's committee. Um

3:44:55 I'm a co-sponsor with Linda Pelky and

3:44:57 Susie Roberts. A referral to a study

3:45:00 committee is crucial for many reasons.

3:45:03 The committee will assess the following.

3:45:05 An assessment of climate resiliency

3:45:07 impacts which includes tree canopy,

3:45:10 storm water mitigation, heat island

3:45:12 impacts, air quality. Number two, it

3:45:15 will assess the travel capacity and

3:45:17 potential safety of the MBTA roadways,

3:45:21 sidewalks, and intersections in the

3:45:23 vicinity of 26 Pleasant in terms of the

3:45:26 potential cumulative effects of current

3:45:29 and proposed feature developments,

3:45:31 including Waldo Durgen, 1299 Beacon, and

3:45:35 26 Pleasant as proposed. Number three,

3:45:38 the charge will be to analyze the

3:45:40 possibility of including a mandate for

3:45:42 at least first floor commercial space to

3:45:45 improve the site's contribution to

3:45:47 Brookline's tax base. Four, to model the

3:45:50 massing scale and shadow impacts on

3:45:52 surrounding properties and find ways to

3:45:55 mitigate or reduce them. Five, to

3:45:57 consider the cumulative impacts of the

3:46:00 large-scale increase in population

3:46:02 concentrated in one small area of

3:46:04 Koolage Corner on the area's quality of

3:46:07 life such as impacts on local parks and

3:46:10 recreation, overcrowding at locally

3:46:13 popular shopping venues, crowding of

3:46:16 sidewalks, and the MBTA. Six, it will

3:46:19 consider the potential comp compensatory

3:46:22 benefits of acquiring the property for

3:46:25 public purposes such as uh for public

3:46:28 park or plaza.

3:46:31 Such committee shall prepare and submit

3:46:33 a recommendation be it in the form of

3:46:35 new zoning that would change the

3:46:38 existing M1 zoning for the parcel at 26

3:46:41 Pleasant Street and maybe not. And this

3:46:44 will be um shared with town meeting on

3:46:46 or before September 1st, 2027. So we

3:46:49 would have a year to do this. We owe it

3:46:53 to dozens of residents who have written

3:46:55 in dozens. When I ran for a town

3:46:59 meeting, I promised to represent the

3:47:03 community, my neighbors, everyone in

3:47:06 precinct 17. I've gotten dozens of

3:47:09 emails. I've shared them with all of

3:47:11 you. Um and so we owe it to our

3:47:14 community. It will be such a regret if

3:47:17 we go on with this and we just pass it

3:47:21 without doing all these studies. Studies

3:47:23 that other projects have uh have

3:47:26 happened such as um Chestnut Hill West,

3:47:29 Waldo Durgen, and many of others that

3:47:32 I've already emailed about.

3:47:33 Your time is up. So, um, for everyone

3:47:36 who lives here, we owe it to Brooklyn to

3:47:38 set a good and healthy precedence on the

3:47:41 heels of passing the comp plan. Thank

3:47:43 you.

3:47:45 All right, who do we have next?

3:47:47 Uh, next we have Lauren Bernard online.

3:47:50 All right, go ahead, Lauren.

3:47:55 Good evening. Uh, my name is Lauren

3:47:56 Bernard. I'm a resident of precinct 17.

3:48:00 I'm a former town meeting member of

3:48:01 Precinct 17. Um, and before that,

3:48:04 precinct 8, before redistricting, I sit

3:48:07 on the commission for park and

3:48:08 recreation. I'm a commissioner and, uh,

3:48:11 I've been a resident of this

3:48:12 neighborhood for 25 years.

3:48:15 Um,

3:48:17 I have struggled with this for many,

3:48:19 many months. I have not signed the

3:48:21 petition, but I have very serious

3:48:23 reservations about this project. Um, as

3:48:27 many of you know, I have supported every

3:48:29 housing project in town. I have been a

3:48:31 strong advocate of um development both

3:48:35 commercial and residential and for the

3:48:37 first time I feel myself unable to

3:48:40 support this particular project. Um full

3:48:44 disclosure I am an abuter. I live pretty

3:48:48 much at ground zero. I have Waldo Durgen

3:48:50 to the side of me in the back of me and

3:48:52 I have I would have this project in

3:48:55 front of me. It is not what it's doing

3:48:58 to me or my livelihood that has forced

3:49:02 me to to speak. It's that this is a bad

3:49:06 process. I sat on the Koolage Corner

3:49:08 study committee for almost three years

3:49:10 and no one is recommending three years

3:49:12 but there was a lot of due diligence

3:49:15 done and I understand this is not a

3:49:17 commercial or mixeduse development but

3:49:19 it does leave um room for commercial uh

3:49:23 commercial activity on the first floor.

3:49:25 So I think it merits uh further study

3:49:29 and I don't think a year of ref uh

3:49:31 referral to a moderator's committee is

3:49:33 is an undue amount of time. Um

3:49:37 and frankly as an abuter I never

3:49:39 received a notice about any of the

3:49:41 walkthroughs. I never received a notice

3:49:42 about any of the meetings. So I'm

3:49:45 wondering who got these notices because

3:49:47 I didn't get them and as I'm not a

3:49:50 longer town meeting member. Um I want to

3:49:53 speak to two things uh quickly. One is

3:49:55 about um what uh Mr. Allen said,

3:49:58 attorney Allen said about uh we're going

3:50:01 to replace trees if we take down trees.

3:50:03 There is no comparison um about

3:50:07 replacing a mature tree with a young

3:50:09 tree. Um I also sit on the Pierce

3:50:12 Building School Committee and we have

3:50:14 gone to great lengths to preserve um the

3:50:17 mature trees in that playground area for

3:50:20 this very reason. uh the devotion

3:50:22 project, what it was called for the

3:50:24 Ridley School, uh the name of the school

3:50:26 now, uh this was something that

3:50:29 everybody regrets and uh there's just no

3:50:32 comparison. You can't cut down a

3:50:34 300-year-old tree and expect that, you

3:50:36 know, a sapling is going to make a

3:50:37 difference. Um and I say that as a

3:50:40 commissioner, as somebody who has, you

3:50:42 know, seen this. Um

3:50:45 I I feel that

3:50:48 MOAS um are pieces of paper. Um they

3:50:53 don't promise anything. Uh if the

3:50:56 parties who sign them are no longer the

3:50:58 parties who are

3:50:59 your time is up

3:51:01 and I think this is about flipping when

3:51:04 once the developer gets the upzoning

3:51:07 there is nothing to stop him to flip it

3:51:08 and then we have no idea what's coming

3:51:10 down the pike. I urge further study.

3:51:13 Thank you.

3:51:14 Who do we have next?

3:51:15 Uh, we have Kathman online.

3:51:18 All right. Go ahead, Katha.

3:51:21 Hi. Once again, my name is Kathy

3:51:23 Seidman. I'm a town meeting member in

3:51:25 precinct 2. I serve on the Brooklyn

3:51:27 Commission for the Arts and I'm a board

3:51:28 member of Brooklyn for Everyone.

3:51:30 Tonight, I speak only for myself. I urge

3:51:33 the select board to vote yes on Warren

3:51:35 article 15 and 16 and vote no action on

3:51:37 the referral motion. I just want to make

3:51:39 one correction to the previous speaker.

3:51:41 I do believe that the MOA is um attached

3:51:45 to the title of this property. So it

3:51:48 doesn't the MOA doesn't just go away if

3:51:50 they flip it. Um, warn article 15

3:51:53 fulfills many of Brooklyn's goals for

3:51:55 change, including those in the

3:51:56 26year-old

3:51:58 2000 2020 comprehensive plan, the 2024

3:52:04 housing production plan, as well as the

3:52:06 climate action and resiliency plan.

3:52:09 Besides the three public hearings as

3:52:11 part of the warrant article review

3:52:13 process, the select board, advisory

3:52:15 committee, subcommittee on land use,

3:52:16 full AC, planning board, housing

3:52:19 advisory board, economic development

3:52:21 advisory board, community health

3:52:23 advisory board, the transportation

3:52:25 board, the zero emissions advisory

3:52:27 board. All those boards will hold public

3:52:29 hearings and then vote on their

3:52:31 recommendation to town meeting for

3:52:33 warrant articles 15 and 16. That's

3:52:36 before town meeting gets to discuss it

3:52:38 all over again. Solving concerns brought

3:52:41 up in community engagement requires a

3:52:44 series of tradeoffs. Not all of the

3:52:46 concerns can be fully met, but the MOA

3:52:49 addresses many of the neighborhood

3:52:50 concerns, especially those expressed

3:52:53 around street safety and tree cover. The

3:52:56 MOA also defines significant aspects of

3:52:59 the design and the design review process

3:53:01 would need to take th all of those into

3:53:03 consideration.

3:53:05 Referring this Warren article would void

3:53:07 all the public benefits in the MOA. The

3:53:10 developer has spent a considerable

3:53:12 considerable

3:53:13 considerable amount of money to get to

3:53:16 this point.

3:53:17 The property's current use generates

3:53:19 some income. So if Warren article is 15

3:53:22 is referred, the developer would

3:53:24 reassess their interest in pursuing any

3:53:26 changes to their current use of this

3:53:29 property. The owner of Waldo Durgen has

3:53:32 declined many requests to re-engage,

3:53:34 citing interest rates which continue to

3:53:36 rise. Chestnut Hill Realy has recently

3:53:38 applied for another year's continuation

3:53:41 of its 40B permit. Nothing new will be

3:53:43 brought forward by the fall of 27 about

3:53:46 Waldo Durgen and we have no idea when it

3:53:48 will be built or really in the end what

3:53:50 will be buil built. This new zoning is

3:53:53 similar to the surrounding eight and

3:53:55 10tory buildings. It will protect the

3:53:57 mature trees on the site. I urge this

3:53:59 select board to vote yes on warrant

3:54:01 article 15 and no action on the referral

3:54:04 motion. Thank you.

3:54:06 All right. Who is next?

3:54:08 Mike Stman is online.

3:54:10 Go ahead, Mike.

3:54:16 Uh thank you uh Mike Sandman, former

3:54:19 select board member. Um, I want to speak

3:54:22 to uh one comment that was made about

3:54:25 the uh risk of uh I think it was

3:54:29 overcrowding of shopping uh of the

3:54:32 shopping area. And um I can tell you

3:54:34 that retail store owners in Kulage

3:54:36 Corner have seen a steady erosion of

3:54:39 traffic that is street traffic uh people

3:54:42 coming into their stores uh as a result

3:54:44 of the move towards online shopping. um

3:54:47 an increase in housing that may

3:54:49 eventually be built on this site and

3:54:52 Waldo Duran and elsewhere um would

3:54:55 actually safeguard the economic security

3:54:59 uh of the very valuable commercial

3:55:02 district without which Kulage Corner

3:55:04 would be a much less attractive place

3:55:06 for any of the people who are living

3:55:09 there now. uh and I hope you'll give um

3:55:13 proper uh the proper hearing to uh the

3:55:16 owners of um of retail stores who are

3:55:20 very concerned about their uh their

3:55:22 economic future. Thank you.

3:55:26 All right. Do we have anyone else?

3:55:30 No one online.

3:55:31 Well, you you already spoke on this. Uh

3:55:34 Regina,

3:55:36 if you want to come up, go ahead.

3:55:38 Oh, and then Yolanda Rodriguez is on.

3:55:44 Uh, good evening, Regina Frolley from

3:55:46 Precinct 16. Uh, so much of this I came

3:55:50 tonight really hoping to learn a great

3:55:52 deal about this project. And I have to

3:55:55 say, it's the first time I've ever seen

3:55:58 no graphs, no plots, no plans. Um, I

3:56:04 can't get a visual about it. and that's

3:56:07 always done with zoning. So why not

3:56:09 tonight?

3:56:11 So I find that an issue in terms of how

3:56:13 the the select board is allowing that

3:56:16 particular presentation to go forward.

3:56:18 Um I really came with an open mind and I

3:56:22 hear the wheels closing a bit. I have

3:56:25 the concerns that most of the people

3:56:27 have said. Um I don't know when you have

3:56:32 the site visits.

3:56:34 Yes, you focused apparently clearly only

3:56:36 on the neighborhood, but you're asking

3:56:38 me to vote for it and I live on the

3:56:39 other side of town. I should have had

3:56:41 notifications of many of these things

3:56:43 and I have not had them either. So, I

3:56:46 don't have visuals. I haven't had the

3:56:49 opportunity to go see in whatever they

3:56:52 would say. Um, I'm concerned. I would

3:56:55 like to know more about the memorandum

3:56:58 of um agreement not understanding

3:57:02 agreement that you've conducted where

3:57:04 when how many times did you meet with

3:57:06 him and who else did you meet with

3:57:07 before you drew your major

3:57:10 recommendation for the M OA and that's

3:57:13 something I have a right to hear from

3:57:15 the select board. That's information

3:57:18 that would help guide my my thinking.

3:57:22 So, and I wish you would be um a good

3:57:25 deal more flexible. You have very few

3:57:27 people in the room. Sad to say, very few

3:57:30 people on nine. Um you should be very

3:57:33 flexible about public hearing. It's it's

3:57:35 something I have to I have more

3:57:37 perspective than almost anybody there.

3:57:40 Possibly Melissa's the only one who's

3:57:43 been here almost as long as I not as

3:57:45 long. It's always been more flexible.

3:57:47 has always been really wanting to hear

3:57:50 from your constituents and you're more

3:57:53 rigid and technocratic about this and

3:57:55 it's really disappointing. So I do want

3:57:58 to hear your answer. I hope you will

3:58:00 answer now.

3:58:01 Uh I'll still have time to stop the

3:58:04 clock in case I have to

3:58:06 I think all I would say is that this is

3:58:09 a warrant this is a public hearing for

3:58:11 15 and the thing that you're asking

3:58:13 about is warrant article 16 which is

3:58:16 coming up next. So I I'm I won't

3:58:19 actually I'm sorry I didn't hear that.

3:58:21 We are we're going to be addressing the

3:58:22 MOA as part of our hearing on the next

3:58:25 warrant article which is warrant article

3:58:26 16. Warrant article 16 is always

3:58:29 procedure. So I was wondering if he's

3:58:31 going to give the procedure then because

3:58:34 that's important. I

3:58:35 I believe he will but that's coming up

3:58:36 for the next warrant article discussion.

3:58:38 All right.

3:58:39 We're still on 15. I do want to address

3:58:41 though something else that you brought

3:58:43 up regarding allowing for robust

3:58:47 constituent participation. I strongly

3:58:49 support that. But the problem is coming

3:58:52 into today the rules of engagement were

3:58:55 defined that would be three minutes per

3:58:57 person. And the purpose of having a set

3:58:59 rule is so that we are treating

3:59:02 everybody in a viewpoint neutral manner.

3:59:05 If we allow some speakers to go longer

3:59:08 and other speakers to go shorter, it

3:59:11 looks like we're putting our thumbs on

3:59:12 the scale for one side or the other. Uh

3:59:15 I totally agree. I want to hear from

3:59:17 people too. And if there's a lot of

3:59:18 interest in having an additional public

3:59:21 hearing where each person gets up to six

3:59:23 minutes, I would entertain that. I would

3:59:25 I do want to hear from people. But at

3:59:27 the same time, I don't want to be making

3:59:30 decisions on an ad hoc basis, changing

3:59:33 the rules as they were understood coming

3:59:34 in. That's not fair to individual

3:59:37 speakers on one side or another.

3:59:38 And I'm not asking for ad hoc. I'm

3:59:40 saying make a change across the board

3:59:42 for all the meetings that require public

3:59:44 hearing. That's what I'm asking.

3:59:46 All right. You have 43 more seconds if

3:59:47 you'd like to continue a little more.

3:59:49 I beg pardon.

3:59:50 You have another 40 seconds if you got

3:59:52 some more to say.

3:59:52 I've said what I need to say.

3:59:53 All right. Thank you.

3:59:56 Uh Yolanda Rodriguez, you're next.

4:00:00 Thank you. Um, I I'm I'm Yolanda

4:00:04 Rodriguez. I live in precinct 8 and I'm

4:00:07 active at the senior center, but I'm

4:00:09 speaking only for myself. This area is

4:00:13 is sort of like the golden goose for

4:00:15 Brooklyn. It is the most congested area

4:00:18 ever.

4:00:19 I know that it's been mentioned in in a

4:00:23 piece that I read in the chat that

4:00:26 micromobility and all of these wonderful

4:00:28 things will be happening and there'll be

4:00:30 a lot of people there and it'll be an

4:00:32 exciting thing. There are many seniors

4:00:34 who live in this area as well. This is a

4:00:38 huge increase in the number of people

4:00:41 and probably cars and Ubers and lifts

4:00:45 and other things in the area.

4:00:47 Um micromobility is not something that a

4:00:51 lot of the seniors will be using a lot

4:00:53 of. They'll be worried about it but not

4:00:55 using it necessarily.

4:00:57 I it it's going to change what that

4:01:01 coolage corner thing that is what people

4:01:05 come to the SSP logo the everything

4:01:08 that's going to be different with all of

4:01:10 this tall building in this one area.

4:01:14 Um, I just I just hope we're going to be

4:01:18 losing the Center Street parking lot and

4:01:20 the Babcock Street parking lot to

4:01:23 housing in the next few years. And

4:01:26 that's already a big issue for some

4:01:28 people who don't have the ability to get

4:01:31 along without cars. But anyway, you get

4:01:36 the the idea of what I'm saying. If I

4:01:38 have an extra minute and a half and Mr.

4:01:40 you're scene is still in the building. I

4:01:43 I'd donate it to him. Thank you for

4:01:45 listening.

4:01:49 All right. Anyone else online?

4:01:53 There's no hands raised.

4:01:55 Okay. Uh there's

4:02:02 no you already had your aotted time. You

4:02:05 said you had nothing further to say. We

4:02:06 really need to be fair to everybody.

4:02:08 Everyone gets up to three minutes. They

4:02:10 get to speak once. That's it. I am

4:02:13 perfectly willing to schedule an

4:02:15 additional public hearing. I do want to

4:02:17 hear from everybody. I don't want people

4:02:19 to feel that they're not able to

4:02:21 articulate uh themselves fully. So, if

4:02:25 there is an interest in that, I'm happy

4:02:26 to schedule when I am and give each

4:02:28 person more time, but I'm not going to

4:02:30 change the rules midway. There was an

4:02:32 understanding coming in. Each person

4:02:34 gets three minutes. You speak once per

4:02:36 topic. we can set up an additional

4:02:38 hearing that have different rules where

4:02:40 people can speak at greater length and

4:02:42 maybe even repeatedly. But that wasn't

4:02:44 the understanding coming in today. Uh so

4:02:48 Marissa, you're the only one who hasn't

4:02:50 spoken yet on this. If you wanted to,

4:02:51 you don't have to.

4:02:53 Okay. All right. Anyone else online?

4:03:06 All right.

4:03:07 I I think that should be sent to the

4:03:09 select board. We do read

4:03:11 we read it things.

4:03:12 If you if you can send it to us, the

4:03:14 written remarks.

4:03:21 All right. Uh, anyone else? Amanda?

4:03:24 Uh, I just wanted to make one comment

4:03:26 because, uh, Mr. Yen's comments on

4:03:28 renter notification is a big one. And in

4:03:31 one of my first town meetings in

4:03:33 November 2020, we passed warrant article

4:03:36 24 and 25 that said anytime we notify

4:03:39 homeowners uh usually because a

4:03:41 particular thing is coming before the

4:03:43 ZBA or other body, we also notify

4:03:47 renters. And so there is not uh

4:03:50 disperate treatment between homeowners

4:03:51 and renters. So wanted to clarify that

4:03:56 24 and 25 in November 2020.

4:04:00 And do we know that this is being

4:04:01 followed to the extent that people

4:04:02 aren't

4:04:03 That is a great question. Uh I don't I'm

4:04:07 guessing that in this particular case

4:04:09 because it was not a ZBA hearing. We

4:04:12 didn't notify a Butters because we

4:04:14 usually don't notify a Butters about

4:04:16 warrant articles. But someone who knows

4:04:19 more should correct me.

4:04:20 I think maybe Cara. Go ahead, Cara, if

4:04:22 you want to come up.

4:04:27 Um, thank you. I Paulie, if I see that

4:04:30 you're still online, do you want to talk

4:04:31 about how our usual practice is to

4:04:33 notify everybody because we don't have

4:04:35 time to differentiate?

4:04:38 Uh, yes, we do notify renters of the

4:04:41 planning board and the ZBA hearings.

4:04:44 Thank you.

4:04:47 All right.

4:04:49 Uh, any select board members want to be

4:04:51 heard? Further questions, comments?

4:04:55 Anthony?

4:04:55 Um, I a quick one. I think one point

4:04:58 that was made about requiring firstf

4:04:59 flooror commercial on this project. Um,

4:05:02 one of the main reasons we want to

4:05:04 target commercial is for the potential

4:05:06 revenue increases that come alongside

4:05:08 it. However, what I'm what I'm almost

4:05:11 positive about is we did an analysis on

4:05:12 that and it would only come out to about

4:05:15 $13,000 a year more in tax revenue if we

4:05:19 if we mandated first floor commercial

4:05:21 and it was populated. And we receive u a

4:05:25 multitude of that within the community

4:05:26 benefits portion of the MOA making um

4:05:29 that not a difficult sticking point.

4:05:33 Okay,

4:05:35 Michael. Um I have a few questions for

4:05:37 the planning director if that's okay.

4:05:40 Go right ahead.

4:05:40 Um the first question following on the

4:05:44 commercial development. Um uh did EDAB

4:05:47 discuss this matter uh and come to any

4:05:51 conclusion or opinion and did they

4:05:54 decide to uh hold a hearing and take up

4:05:58 uh warrant articles 15 andor 16?

4:06:02 Uh you may know that. Meredith Mooney

4:06:04 may know that or probably Suck I guess

4:06:07 may know that.

4:06:09 I think we should get back to you. I

4:06:11 don't know the answer to that.

4:06:12 Okay, Meredith, do you have a

4:06:15 Meredith would would know the answer.

4:06:17 Good evening. Meredith Mooney, economic

4:06:19 development director. EDAB um has not

4:06:21 taken up 26 Pleasant Street. Um and it's

4:06:25 an article hearing and won't be.

4:06:28 Okay. Okay. Um the second question I

4:06:31 have about commercial development is um

4:06:35 uh did the did the planning department

4:06:38 itself or you as an individual um render

4:06:43 any opinions or make any consideration

4:06:46 about whether commercial development

4:06:48 would be helpful or viable on this space

4:06:52 and did you share that information with

4:06:54 any members of the select board?

4:06:58 Yes.

4:07:03 Tara, do you want to answer that?

4:07:04 Sorry, I um you're asking about the

4:07:07 commercial property tax revenue.

4:07:09 The the Anthony was talking about

4:07:10 the the the appropriateness of requiring

4:07:15 commercial development on the ground

4:07:16 floor at 26 Pleasant Street.

4:07:19 Oh. Um, so in executive session when we

4:07:22 were talking about the MOA,

4:07:23 yeah,

4:07:23 um, I did talk about how this is a

4:07:26 location that's on the edge of a

4:07:28 commercial district and when we get it

4:07:30 wrong, that means vacancies or

4:07:32 underutilized properties for a very long

4:07:34 time. I also pointed out that we can't

4:07:37 require property owners to use their

4:07:39 property. So, we can require someone to

4:07:41 not have residential use on the ground

4:07:43 floor, but we can't require them to open

4:07:45 the doors for the public and force a

4:07:47 business to be there. We also talked

4:07:49 about how Waldo Durgen in that zoning

4:07:53 which at that time that was the edge of

4:07:54 a commercial district um we ended up

4:07:57 with a provision and I can't remember if

4:07:58 it was in the zoning or the MOA that

4:08:00 talked about requiring ground floor

4:08:03 retail but in the event that it was

4:08:05 vacant having that space allowed to be

4:08:08 used by the town for basically cleaning

4:08:11 fees for community event space and that

4:08:13 kind of thing. So those are different

4:08:15 strategies that could be used on edge

4:08:16 conditions like this. Okay, thank you.

4:08:20 Um, my next question having to do with

4:08:22 Waldo Durgen and, uh, 1299 Beacon

4:08:25 Street. Um, do you recall when those

4:08:29 projects were sort of fundamentally

4:08:32 designed and what the either the

4:08:35 economic environment or the tariff

4:08:37 environment or the economic viability of

4:08:39 those projects was compared to today?

4:08:44 Sure. And thank you for giving me a

4:08:45 heads up on that question. So, um, 1299

4:08:48 Beacon Street, um, submitted their 40B

4:08:51 application to the town in March of 2018

4:08:55 and it was approved in August of 2019.

4:08:58 Um, after that, of course, there was

4:08:59 COVID, the um, permit was appealed by

4:09:02 the Abutter, construction costs have

4:09:04 gone up, etc. Um, Waldo Duran submitted

4:09:08 um,

4:09:10 their 40B application in March 2018. I

4:09:13 don't have when the zoning happened, but

4:09:16 it was around the same time. There was

4:09:17 like a preliminary submitt of the

4:09:19 application and then we finished the

4:09:21 zoning discussion and I do recall that

4:09:24 that zoning discussion ended before

4:09:28 COVID as well.

4:09:30 Okay. Um, the reason I'm bringing this

4:09:34 up is uh to try and figure out whether

4:09:37 or not those projects are uh remain

4:09:40 economically viable or we're going to

4:09:42 have to go through some sort of uh

4:09:45 review process or engagement with those

4:09:47 owners regardless in order to understand

4:09:50 those project.

4:09:50 Yeah.

4:09:51 How those projects would move forward.

4:09:53 So, um, as some of you know, if you look

4:09:56 at the 40B comprehensive plan page,

4:09:59 you'll see a half dozen or so, um, 40B

4:10:02 projects that were permitted around the

4:10:04 same time, a little earlier, a little

4:10:06 later, um, that have been fully

4:10:08 permitted and no building permit has

4:10:10 been applied for. So, that's an

4:10:11 indication of something has shifted with

4:10:14 the um, financial ability for projects

4:10:17 to be feasible.

4:10:18 um both of the um well I'll say Chestnut

4:10:22 Hill Realy in speaking through their

4:10:25 attorney

4:10:27 um has let us know that they are looking

4:10:30 at the numbers are concerned about

4:10:32 interest rates as as Katha said earlier

4:10:35 um and we expect them to come back to

4:10:37 the community with a different proposal

4:10:39 that's going to be more units and more

4:10:42 height but we don't know what that

4:10:43 specific propos proposal is and they're

4:10:45 not ready to have that discussion yet.

4:10:47 Okay. Um,

4:10:50 one more question. Um, there were

4:10:52 comments made during the public comment

4:10:53 period about this being a new process of

4:10:57 a developer uh coming forward with

4:11:00 zoning. Um, and I wonder if you have any

4:11:04 uh recollection or information about the

4:11:09 different ways in which zoning proposals

4:11:12 have occurred um and whether there are

4:11:15 analogies through the history of

4:11:17 Brookline zoning similar to this one.

4:11:21 Yeah. Um, so as far as resoning efforts

4:11:24 that have happened largely with

4:11:25 commercial upzonings that I've been

4:11:27 involved with, um, which I think have

4:11:29 been all of the reasonzoning efforts has

4:11:32 been commercially based at least in the

4:11:34 last 15 years. Those have been kind of a

4:11:37 hopscotch where you know, for example,

4:11:39 at um, at Cleveland Circle, we were

4:11:42 notified that someone was interested in

4:11:43 turning that movie theater into a

4:11:45 grocery store and just putting the

4:11:46 parking lot in Brooklyn. So, you know, a

4:11:48 developer was saying, "This is what I'm

4:11:49 going to do." Um, we worked with a town

4:11:52 meeting members in that neighborhood,

4:11:53 did a um kind of a reactive town meeting

4:11:56 vote, changed some zoning that was kind

4:11:58 of more protectionary, had a process,

4:12:01 and then allowed significant more

4:12:03 density. Each project is a little bit

4:12:05 different. There's a little bit of

4:12:06 hopscotch that happens about, you know,

4:12:08 how much is the developer have a fully

4:12:10 baked plan or not. In the case of Route

4:12:12 9, um, after we passed the zoning, after

4:12:15 a long community process, the property

4:12:17 owner said, "That's nice. I don't want

4:12:18 to use it." and went under the old

4:12:20 zoning. That proposal for a medical

4:12:23 office never happened and eventually the

4:12:25 property was sold to a hotel owner who

4:12:27 built the hotel under zoning. So these

4:12:29 things kind of reiterate back and forth.

4:12:32 um

4:12:34 in working on the comprehensive plan and

4:12:36 some other projects, we've been doing

4:12:38 some deep dives of early zoning history

4:12:40 in Brooklyn. And from, you know, a month

4:12:44 or so after the zoning passed in

4:12:45 Brooklyn, um in in the early days, um in

4:12:50 1922,

4:12:51 uh property owners were requesting the

4:12:53 planning board to make changes to their

4:12:55 property. And in those early years, most

4:12:57 of those changes were asking to be more

4:13:00 restrictive, to go from general

4:13:02 residents to single family districts,

4:13:04 for example. But there were examples

4:13:06 where people asked to go um including at

4:13:10 the shops at Putterham, there was a

4:13:12 request to allow business uses in a what

4:13:16 was a residential district. Um and that

4:13:19 process didn't include a big study. it,

4:13:21 you know, there was um not a a number of

4:13:25 people that spoke for or against um and

4:13:28 the planning board held two public

4:13:30 hearings. They thought it was a good

4:13:32 idea. Town meeting voted for it in 1925.

4:13:35 The the biggest example that I could

4:13:37 find where a property owner asked for a

4:13:39 significant change in those early years

4:13:41 was the town itself when we um asked

4:13:44 town meeting to change the zoning for

4:13:46 the transfer station for the incinerator

4:13:47 in 1945. Um, and that had a lot of

4:13:50 people speaking before and against. The

4:13:52 planning board ultimately recommended

4:13:53 the resoning as it was in the best

4:13:55 interest of the town. And that was in

4:13:57 1946, the same year that town meeting

4:14:01 voted to put in the zoning for Hancock

4:14:03 Village um, post World War II housing.

4:14:06 So, both of those things were property

4:14:09 owner driven um, and that town being

4:14:11 took up.

4:14:14 There are some samples.

4:14:15 Thank you very much.

4:14:17 I have a Well, go go go ahead.

4:14:20 Just one quick question. Uh Paulie, uh

4:14:23 you said that we give notices to um uh

4:14:26 renters. How do you identify the renters

4:14:29 in a particular area?

4:14:32 Well, we we send it to the resident

4:14:36 the property.

4:14:37 You mean to the property owner?

4:14:40 No, to to the resident of that address.

4:14:43 Okay.

4:14:46 Um, I wanted to follow up on a topic

4:14:50 Michael raised in his questions

4:14:51 regarding Waldo Durgen and 1299

4:14:54 uh, Beacon Street.

4:14:56 So, part of the uh concern that I'm

4:15:01 hearing from some of the neighborhood

4:15:03 residents around 26 Pleasant is that

4:15:06 they want to make sure that the impacts

4:15:10 of Waldo Duran and 1299 Beacon Street

4:15:12 are also factored into whatever

4:15:15 ultimately gets approved for 26

4:15:17 Pleasant. But given that we are likely

4:15:20 to see significant changes to uh the

4:15:24 projects at Waldo Durgen and 1299 Beacon

4:15:27 Street, how realistic would it be that

4:15:30 we can consider all three together if

4:15:33 all three are operating on different

4:15:35 timelines? Doesn't it become a little

4:15:37 bit of a waiting game that might never

4:15:40 end? If one project is dependent upon

4:15:42 another that's dependent upon another.

4:15:44 Um yeah, I don't think that to my

4:15:46 knowledge that projects are not

4:15:47 dependent on each other. One thing that

4:15:49 does happen is um traffic studies are

4:15:52 done cumulatively. So if there is a

4:15:55 project that is permitted, it is usually

4:15:57 and it's down the street and it hasn't

4:15:58 started, it's usually included in the

4:16:00 traffic study, those impacts. Um there's

4:16:04 I don't want to speak for the

4:16:05 transportation department. if something

4:16:06 has been zoned but not even begun

4:16:09 permitting in earnest whether that would

4:16:11 be considered a quote live project or

4:16:13 whether there might be some discussion

4:16:14 of assuming some range of you know

4:16:17 impacts in that kind of background

4:16:18 growth. Um but as far as water and sewer

4:16:21 goes

4:16:23 um well and traffic um the property

4:16:26 under the developer is responsible for

4:16:27 any mitigation that's required. Um, and

4:16:30 sometimes that's, you know, replacing

4:16:32 lines in the street, but there's not,

4:16:34 um, overall, you know, uh, utility

4:16:37 concerns except for, as we've talked

4:16:39 about, I have a question mark on

4:16:42 electricity grid capacity townwide. Um,

4:16:46 but also in North Brooklyn, we saw that

4:16:48 slow down 45 Marion by a couple months

4:16:52 as they were getting close to the finish

4:16:53 line. So, that's just something the

4:16:55 developer would want to make sure they

4:16:57 looked into early on.

4:16:59 All right. In terms of the order of how

4:17:02 these different proposals are

4:17:04 considered, at least to me, I think it

4:17:06 would actually be helpful to know what

4:17:09 the uh to have 26 Pleasant Street

4:17:12 continue as scheduled because then we

4:17:14 would know what those impacts would be

4:17:17 and that would help inform discussions

4:17:20 over Waldo Durgen and 1299. if we I'm

4:17:24 not sure what else we would learn by

4:17:26 waiting until uh May or potentially

4:17:30 beyond with respect to this point. Of

4:17:32 course, more feedback can always help

4:17:35 inform, but with respect to the specific

4:17:37 concern about the collective impact of

4:17:40 the three, I don't know how we ever know

4:17:43 that collective impact if we don't start

4:17:45 proceeding one by one in some fashion.

4:17:48 Yeah. Speaking on construction impacts,

4:17:51 you know, on its own. The other piece

4:17:55 that is helpful just to know as kind of

4:17:57 background is that from the time a

4:17:59 project is permitted with the ZBA until

4:18:02 the building permit is um applied for is

4:18:05 usually a year for projects of this

4:18:07 size. And that's because um property

4:18:10 owners are getting financing, they're

4:18:12 getting real construction docs put

4:18:14 together, they're getting quotes from um

4:18:16 contractors. And so there will be a year

4:18:20 period of time where Uh Paulie and I

4:18:23 keep in touch with different attorneys

4:18:24 or property owners. What are you doing?

4:18:26 When are you thinking about filing? We

4:18:27 talk with the building department every

4:18:29 week. Um and I think the town most towns

4:18:32 can do a better job with construction

4:18:33 management impacts. And whether it's one

4:18:36 project or three, we've we all can think

4:18:38 of different individual projects that

4:18:41 have gone on for so long and had such a

4:18:43 big impact on a corner street. um that

4:18:46 that's something that we need to I think

4:18:47 that we need to work on and um we are

4:18:50 working on with DPW again whether it's a

4:18:52 single project or a school project um

4:18:55 right next door you know we've learned

4:18:56 ways to um be more clever about

4:19:00 impacting where construction workers

4:19:01 work during the um work as well as being

4:19:04 aware of if a permit is given for taking

4:19:07 up a street for loading for example

4:19:10 how long is that permission given for if

4:19:12 the project goes on for six seven nine

4:19:15 years.

4:19:16 Okay.

4:19:18 Anyone else? Anthony.

4:19:19 Yeah. I just I want to make a quick

4:19:21 point. I hate I hate the

4:19:24 the these these other developers who

4:19:27 either got the 40B permit or um Waldo

4:19:30 Durgen. They've been sitting on those

4:19:32 projects for almost like a decade in one

4:19:34 case. And so it's a real shame to be

4:19:36 held hostage for economic growth because

4:19:38 of one developer's inaction from a

4:19:40 decade ago. That that that doesn't

4:19:42 that's just not good. That's not good

4:19:43 policy in my view.

4:19:45 Right. I I agree with you, Anthony. So

4:19:47 that's why specific to the point about

4:19:50 we need to know the impacts of all

4:19:51 three. We can't force the other two

4:19:54 to uh address what their new plan might

4:19:57 be. And obviously it's not going to be

4:19:59 the same as what was permitted or they

4:20:01 probably would have built it by now.

4:20:02 And not to mention, I mean, these are in

4:20:05 many ways these are like competing

4:20:06 companies that they're in competition

4:20:08 with each other. I mean like they don't

4:20:09 have an incentive to cooperate like

4:20:11 that. That's

4:20:12 and whichever one goes first will

4:20:14 probably constrain what the other two do

4:20:17 because of course we're going to be

4:20:18 mindful of traffic impacts of the

4:20:21 electric grid and what one project would

4:20:24 mean for the other two.

4:20:27 Uh somebody has to go first. So to me it

4:20:29 might as well be 26 Pleasant if they're

4:20:31 willing to move forward. And and one

4:20:33 more point to that, we'll get to this

4:20:36 inside of article 16, but with the MOA,

4:20:38 if there's no action prior to July 2032,

4:20:43 it's nullified.

4:20:44 So, if they don't act before 2032, then

4:20:47 all their special zoning is gone. They

4:20:50 need to act before 2032, whether it's

4:20:51 applying for a building permit, etc. I

4:20:53 don't know the specifics.

4:20:55 What am I close?

4:20:56 Uh, you're close. I have to come back

4:20:59 and renegotiate. Yeah,

4:21:00 but the current terms would

4:21:02 of the MOA would

4:21:03 disa raised a point in her public

4:21:06 comment that uh I thought it's quite

4:21:09 germanine. I too frankly would have

4:21:11 appreciated a little more clarity in the

4:21:14 presentation of what 26 Pleasant Street

4:21:17 uh would represent and I know in writing

4:21:19 we have that information, but for the

4:21:21 broader public it might be helpful to

4:21:23 know, for example, uh how many

4:21:25 affordable housing units would we be

4:21:27 getting? What's the breakdown between

4:21:30 threebedroom, twobedroom, onebedroom,

4:21:33 studio, etc. How much open space? There

4:21:36 was a pocket park that's referenced, but

4:21:38 where would it be? If we can have some

4:21:40 more of those details, I think that

4:21:42 would be helpful for the public.

4:21:45 I'll also I'll also just take a note.

4:21:47 Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

4:21:49 Oh, go ahead.

4:21:50 Okay. Um the notion of like the the the

4:21:55 distribution of unit sizes I think is

4:21:56 also a really important point. The

4:21:58 majority of the units listed in the

4:22:00 building are studios and one beds.

4:22:03 Studios and one beds are and and it's

4:22:06 all apartments. So it's all renting um

4:22:09 not condo ownership which is very tax

4:22:11 beneficial for the town because for

4:22:13 condo ownership they get the residential

4:22:15 tax exemption um which decreases the tax

4:22:17 liability of the given property. If it's

4:22:20 an apartment, then you get the full tax

4:22:21 liability of that property. So that's a

4:22:23 higher tax base that you're getting. So

4:22:25 the estimated revenue is around 250,000

4:22:27 from RKG independent um from the

4:22:31 developer. Developer found 350 something

4:22:33 like that. Um and the point I wanted to

4:22:36 make about studios and one beds, those

4:22:37 are actually really beneficial things to

4:22:39 build because the people who normally

4:22:41 move into studios, one beds are young

4:22:43 working professionals or people who are

4:22:44 in their older years. And those are two

4:22:46 communities that um do not use up

4:22:49 significant amounts of town resources.

4:22:51 Um and that that that adds that that

4:22:54 adds to the net revenue calculation. So,

4:22:56 you know, these are all things that

4:22:57 we're trying to weigh uh in the

4:23:00 environmental concern. Well, actually,

4:23:01 we'll we'll talk about that when we get

4:23:03 to 16.

4:23:05 But go ahead, Amanda.

4:23:06 Oh, I I can't believe we got to say

4:23:08 this. Uh but I'm gonna echo something

4:23:09 that Paul Warren emailed uh which uh is

4:23:12 always nice when I get to agree with

4:23:14 folks. um is that we do want to make

4:23:18 sure that we are not zoning only for

4:23:23 people without young kids. That is not

4:23:25 the message that we want to be giving to

4:23:27 the community at large. It to have a

4:23:30 vibrant community. We want all ages. We

4:23:33 want from the very young to the very old

4:23:35 and and everywhere in between um to make

4:23:38 for a vibrant community. And so while I

4:23:40 agree with your point that it is more

4:23:42 economically beneficial, uh I want to

4:23:45 make sure that we are forwardlooking not

4:23:47 exclusively only building non-family

4:23:50 units.

4:23:50 I I'm describing the present, not

4:23:52 prescribing anything. You know what I

4:23:54 mean? That's just Yeah.

4:23:55 So I'm not sure who wants to uh take

4:23:56 this question, but if we could just go

4:23:58 over some of those basics. So there are

4:24:00 96 units. Uh what's the breakdown in

4:24:03 terms of bedrooms? How many affordable

4:24:05 units?

4:24:06 what's the open space in terms of square

4:24:10 footage roughly just so that the public

4:24:12 can better visualize what this project

4:24:14 would entail.

4:24:16 Mr. Chairman,

4:24:17 go ahead.

4:24:18 The the representative No, first of all,

4:24:21 I want to apologize. Uh there was a

4:24:24 breakdown here. Nobody from the select

4:24:26 board's office notified us that we were

4:24:29 going to be on tonight. I found out

4:24:30 about it when I was talking to Michael

4:24:33 around 12:00 this afternoon.

4:24:36 So, we had a scramble to to get

4:24:38 together, but we did not know that this

4:24:41 was being heard tonight. But in any

4:24:43 event, I do have uh Todd Fremont Smith

4:24:47 on the Zoom and he has a a minor

4:24:51 PowerPoint presentation that he could

4:24:53 show with the breakdowns and so forth if

4:24:55 you want to see it.

4:24:56 Yes, I'd appreciate that.

4:24:58 Todd, can you

4:25:00 And we had something in the packet, too.

4:25:03 Yes, it's attached. It's also attached

4:25:06 to the MOA as an exhibit some drawings.

4:25:10 Todd, it's all yours.

4:25:13 Thanks, Jeff. I was trying to get in. I

4:25:15 thought I was doing something wrong, but

4:25:16 I was just promoted to co-host. So, now

4:25:18 I'm in. Thank you. Uh, members of the

4:25:21 board, Todd Fremont Smith with Nord Bomb

4:25:23 Company. I did I did want to clarify one

4:25:26 as I get older. some of the comments

4:25:28 about 2004. We did have an informal

4:25:31 24

4:25:33 2024 we did have an informal

4:25:36 conversation with the housing advisory

4:25:38 board um because at that time I think

4:25:41 the town was concerned that it might

4:25:44 fall below 10% on the 40B list and so

4:25:47 there was an open just an informal

4:25:49 discussion about a friendly 40B. I think

4:25:51 the housing advisory board at that point

4:25:54 felt that the process really should go

4:25:56 through town meeting. So Jeff and I went

4:25:58 away and um came back and we we've been

4:26:01 going through the town meeting process.

4:26:02 Really, that's where it should go

4:26:03 anyway. But there was something in 2024.

4:26:06 There was a discussion just just to be

4:26:08 clear, but no formal proposal

4:26:11 80 units

4:26:12 if that's helpful. Um

4:26:15 let me just try to share. Hold on.

4:26:18 And

4:26:20 tell me if you can see. Can you guys see

4:26:22 the screen or

4:26:28 Jeff, can you see the see the screen?

4:26:30 I can see the screen, but I can't see.

4:26:32 You're not

4:26:33 I can't see my Okay, hold on. Let me try

4:26:34 again.

4:26:36 We are before the planning board for the

4:26:39 third or fourth time tomorrow night as

4:26:41 well. So,

4:26:42 Thursday night, Thursday night,

4:26:43 sorry.

4:26:44 So, you'll see the same the same uh

4:26:46 slideshow if you care to watch it again.

4:26:50 So, it's working now, I take it.

4:26:52 No.

4:26:54 What?

4:26:57 You sure? It says I'm

4:26:58 your screen, but it's the Zoom screen.

4:27:01 Oh, it's the wrong one. Sorry.

4:27:03 Sorry.

4:27:03 You think you'd think after um

4:27:09 stop sharing.

4:27:14 Try it one last time. Here we go.

4:27:20 Is that better?

4:27:22 Yes.

4:27:22 Okay. Okay. So, I'll try to I'll be

4:27:24 brief. This I've got a few slides, but

4:27:25 I'll be brief, but you're you're asking

4:27:27 for context. So, uh I'm with Nordlmom

4:27:29 Company. Nordblum is a

4:27:32 100-year-old Let me just minimize this

4:27:35 101year-old family office based in in

4:27:37 Burlington. We've been in Brooklyn for

4:27:40 96 years. Um the portfolio there

4:27:43 consists of some a combination of

4:27:46 elegant older buildings. Uh we did

4:27:48 develop a new building that Jeff helped

4:27:51 us with. I think it's called Marian

4:27:52 Square a few years back but we own you

4:27:54 know the 18 units on Green Street uh 65

4:27:58 units uh at at the regent which is a

4:28:01 beautiful older building. Um here's

4:28:03 Marian Square 51 units that we developed

4:28:05 back in 2002.

4:28:08 Uh for many years we owned Pelum Hall

4:28:10 which is I remember as a kid there was a

4:28:12 Saab dealership in the in the ground

4:28:14 floor of this building. That's how old I

4:28:16 am. 148 units. This was sold a few years

4:28:19 ago to deal with some estate issues. Um,

4:28:23 and this this parking lot was one of the

4:28:25 holdings, 26 Pleasant Street. That's

4:28:28 just one of the family holdings. Um,

4:28:30 that, you know, when we owned Pelum Hall

4:28:32 and uh we just felt we weren't really

4:28:36 such such a big development company at

4:28:38 that point. Um, and this was a good

4:28:39 income. So, we just held this for a long

4:28:41 time. The family held it for decades and

4:28:43 decades. and it's just a surface parking

4:28:45 lot with 60 spaces. There are some trees

4:28:48 along the border, the very edge of the

4:28:50 property. Uh very few if any in the

4:28:53 middle of the property. So, we just

4:28:55 thought why don't we do why don't we why

4:28:57 don't we try to house people instead of

4:28:59 cars. And we started to work with the

4:29:01 architectural team of Boston, they're

4:29:04 very good architecture firm to lay out

4:29:06 uh the footprint of the building. And we

4:29:08 can go back to this. I know I'm going

4:29:10 quickly, but uh this is a proposed

4:29:12 sevenstory building with 96 units um

4:29:16 about 49 parking spaces.

4:29:19 I'll keep going. We can come back to any

4:29:20 of these slides if you like. These are

4:29:22 just some architectural drawings showing

4:29:23 the ground floor. The parking is within

4:29:26 the building. It's sort of a one level

4:29:28 down, one level up within the building.

4:29:31 We've intentionally designed this

4:29:32 building to be uh buildable in the

4:29:35 current market that you know, we're not

4:29:37 going too tall. We're we're trying to

4:29:39 stay out of um high-rise construction

4:29:41 that just adds cost. We're trying to

4:29:43 stay out of deep underground park just

4:29:45 adds costs. Um so we're trying to make

4:29:48 sure that the building that we're

4:29:49 showing you.

4:29:52 And to Jeff's point, we've this just a

4:29:54 little graphic showing some of the

4:29:55 heights of other buildings around us. Uh

4:29:58 81 feet at Pelum Hall, 78 feet or to or

4:30:01 95 feet actually at the uh senior

4:30:03 housing next door. And then I don't know

4:30:05 the the height but Waldo Durgen was

4:30:08 proposed to be higher and I think we

4:30:10 just heard they they might even want

4:30:11 want to go taller than that. Um so we

4:30:14 started sketching the building with the

4:30:16 architectural team and um we really

4:30:19 wanted to you know this is the kind of

4:30:21 building that this is an elevator

4:30:22 building u with the units are flat. We

4:30:26 did note in working with some of the

4:30:28 neighbors uh that the very uh busy

4:30:32 library across the street uh is is an

4:30:34 amenity to the building and we thought

4:30:36 well why don't we why don't we build

4:30:37 this sort of what we're calling sort of

4:30:39 an outdoor reading room across the

4:30:41 street from the library where people can

4:30:42 come across Pleasant Street and we'll do

4:30:45 as as Jeff said working with CPPley Wolf

4:30:47 Landscape Architects we would do a

4:30:49 pocket park here where people could

4:30:51 bring a book or where or where or where

4:30:52 or where or where or where or where or

4:30:52 where or where or where or where or kids

4:30:53 could come over and sit here and talk.

4:30:54 Um, so we are the original building was

4:30:57 much more up on Pleasant Street. We

4:30:58 thought that was the best urban design,

4:31:00 but in working with the planning staff,

4:31:02 we pushed this about half the building

4:31:04 back uh to create this opportunity for

4:31:06 an uh pocket park. Uh here's a rendering

4:31:09 that we did just as Jeff says, we like

4:31:11 to show town meeting and the planning

4:31:14 staff and all the boards that you a good

4:31:16 rendering of what we're really thinking

4:31:18 so you you know what you're voting on

4:31:19 and this is consistent with the zoning

4:31:21 massing. If we were approved, this is

4:31:23 the building we would build except we

4:31:26 that we have to go through full design

4:31:27 review with um the planning planning

4:31:30 board and and and the town. So, the

4:31:32 building could get better. Probably

4:31:34 usually does get better as you go

4:31:35 through design review. Here's an image

4:31:37 just of the ground level on Pleasant

4:31:38 Street. And these are just contextual,

4:31:40 but this is again designed enough that

4:31:43 we could build this if if you you wanted

4:31:45 us to or we could work on this for 6

4:31:47 months or a year with the town planning

4:31:49 department to make it better. uh

4:31:50 activated streetscape park at park.

4:31:54 Um and so the project summaries the

4:31:56 chair to the chair's question 96 units

4:31:59 uh 0.5 parking. We think that could even

4:32:01 go lower. We think a lot of cars are

4:32:03 going away. So we're open to a lower

4:32:05 parking density. Um uh 3.8. We're asking

4:32:09 for 4.0 because we're not fully

4:32:11 designed. But this again here it's

4:32:13 saying a 3.0 3.8 F 100% electric design.

4:32:17 This would be a passive house building.

4:32:19 Um, and so we're asking for a zoning

4:32:21 amendment. We felt that this was the

4:32:22 right thing to do. Go to town meeting,

4:32:25 show them the building we'd like to

4:32:26 build, let the architect speak if if

4:32:29 desired, and and ask for that zoning

4:32:32 window. Without the zoning, we can't

4:32:33 design it. We don't This is probably a

4:32:35 million dollars to design this building

4:32:37 and to work through the process with uh

4:32:40 Paul's group, but we c we can't do that

4:32:42 if we don't have a zoning window. So,

4:32:44 there has been an a robust public

4:32:46 process here. I'm going to double check

4:32:48 all these dates, but we have been at

4:32:49 this. We filed in 2025 originally. Um we

4:32:54 tried to go to town meeting last uh last

4:32:57 May. Uh a lot of good voices in town

4:33:00 said, "You know what? You're going too

4:33:02 fast. Slow down. Take the summer, have

4:33:04 some meetings, work with the planning

4:33:06 staff." So, we did that over the summer

4:33:07 and now we're back at this town meeting.

4:33:09 So, this is in our view, this is a

4:33:11 process that's been going on for a

4:33:12 while, but that's just our view. Could

4:33:15 could you go over

4:33:16 community benefits going to be building

4:33:17 96 flats uh with elevators and parking

4:33:21 under. So if you think about young

4:33:23 people as one of the members said or

4:33:25 seniors who want to get out of a larger

4:33:27 home and get into a flat unit without

4:33:29 stairs with an elevator, fully staffed

4:33:32 building, full amenities. Um and then

4:33:34 we're complying with Brookline's uh

4:33:37 affordable housing bylaw onsite. We're

4:33:40 not looking for any buyouts. We're going

4:33:41 to put the 15% units on site. Um we're

4:33:44 committed to building this pocket park.

4:33:47 Um our our fiscal impact an analyst said

4:33:51 that the taxes would grow from 29,000 to

4:33:53 about 575,000. We know that there are

4:33:56 dedux to that and we could we can as

4:33:58 Jeff said we can argue about the deduct

4:34:00 but that's a pretty large jump in gross

4:34:02 income that would be coming every year

4:34:05 to the town. And just, you know,

4:34:07 obviously we're we we are a long we

4:34:09 consider ourselves a long-term partner

4:34:10 in Koolage Corner. Um so that's the

4:34:13 building. That's that's the summary. We

4:34:14 are before the planning board Thursday

4:34:16 night again. Um and we do appreciate

4:34:19 there. I do appreciate uh uh Vice

4:34:23 Chairman Rubenstein's efforts to help us

4:34:25 craft an MOA and uh Paulie Celico's

4:34:29 efforts to help us make sure the zoning

4:34:31 is uh intelligently written. And that

4:34:35 that's it. Thank you.

4:34:36 Thank you. Some of the uh public

4:34:38 commenters raised as a concern the lack

4:34:42 of a commercial requirement for the

4:34:45 first floor. Could you describe what

4:34:47 type of optionality if any you are

4:34:50 maintaining for first floor use?

4:34:54 You we we we do the zoning allows for

4:34:57 first floor uh commercial use. We we as

4:35:01 you as Cara said it's on the edge. We

4:35:03 don't think it it's retail. We we we're

4:35:07 hoping Nordloom puts their office in the

4:35:10 first floor for

4:35:12 That's our intention. Our intention is

4:35:13 to put our management office for all of

4:35:15 our apartments in that space. So it' be

4:35:17 active uh during the day.

4:35:19 Corner

4:35:21 for Koolage Corner. Yes. Yeah. The whole

4:35:23 the portfolio I showed you. Um we would

4:35:25 have full-time staff. We'd have leasing

4:35:27 managers, maintenance managers. Um and

4:35:29 so it'd be active during the day. It

4:35:31 would be our office. to be office space,

4:35:32 not retail is really the the answer to

4:35:34 your question.

4:35:36 Okay. Anyone else have questions for the

4:35:38 petitioner?

4:35:40 Anthony,

4:35:41 wait. Now I'm a little confused from the

4:35:43 previous conversation. So, is your

4:35:44 intention to use the entire first floor

4:35:46 for um office commercial space?

4:35:48 That that that's where we are today. Uh

4:35:52 we're we are currently planning our

4:35:54 amenity space on the top floor. So what

4:35:56 we would do is make that amenity space

4:35:58 on the top floor which also has a roof

4:36:00 deck available for community meetings.

4:36:03 Okay.

4:36:04 Which I think in many ways it could be

4:36:05 more unique.

4:36:06 And and how and how much of the first

4:36:09 floor is devoted towards uh residential

4:36:12 services for residents of the building

4:36:14 things like lobbies or mail rooms or

4:36:16 bicycle storage or or

4:36:19 we I generally said 2/3 oneird at this

4:36:23 point but that it's still designed.

4:36:26 Yeah,

4:36:27 we still need to design it, Michael. But

4:36:28 there'd be a lot there'd be a a boutique

4:36:30 lobby entrance where where um you know,

4:36:33 people come and come and go pick up

4:36:35 their mail and then there'd be a leasing

4:36:36 office there as well.

4:36:37 Thanks, Michael. You asked my question

4:36:38 better than I could.

4:36:40 Thank you.

4:36:42 All right. So, I did give the petitioner

4:36:44 more time. So, uh if Linda Pel is still

4:36:46 on and she wanted to make any additional

4:36:49 points, I'll let her do that.

4:36:53 I don't see her.

4:36:55 All right,

4:36:58 Anthony.

4:36:59 No. Um, would you would you be

4:37:01 interested in allowing Susan to finish

4:37:03 up Martin's points given that we just

4:37:05 gave the petitioner more time?

4:37:07 All right, I think we can do that now.

4:37:08 We did give the petitioner more time.

4:37:10 We have 15 or 16.

4:37:12 We're still on 15. If somebody wants to

4:37:14 finish Martin Yen's remarks, we can do

4:37:16 that. We did give the petitioner more

4:37:18 time now.

4:37:21 I'll speak on

4:37:23 you. You'll be able to do that. That

4:37:25 That's fine. But we're still on 15.

4:37:27 I'll finish. Martin,

4:37:28 go ahead.

4:37:29 Okay.

4:37:32 So, uh, Martin Yasine was saying that

4:37:34 Brooklyn is not Milton, is not Newton,

4:37:37 is not Welssley. Koolage Corner's

4:37:39 density, look it up, is roughly 26,000

4:37:42 square ft. And this density is among the

4:37:45 top 15 most dense in the US. that we in

4:37:48 Coolage Corner somehow owe it to the

4:37:50 citizens of Massachusetts to pack it

4:37:52 ever more and more housing is in my view

4:37:56 absurd. Our health is truly at stake in

4:37:58 all of this and we deserve the hearing

4:38:01 and examination that a vote to refer

4:38:03 will provide. Indeed, the only urgency I

4:38:06 discern is the desire of the

4:38:08 multi-billion dollar developer Norblum

4:38:11 Realy to make a multi-million dollar

4:38:13 windfall that would be immediately

4:38:16 realized where the town to approve their

4:38:18 proposal and thus enable Norbum to

4:38:21 possibly flip the property at a huge

4:38:23 profit to another developer who they may

4:38:26 already have in mind and simultaneously

4:38:28 ensure that their attorney leading this

4:38:30 fight will enjoy a similar windfall as

4:38:32 well. It is common knowledge to anyone

4:38:35 who keeps up with the news, as most

4:38:38 Brooklyners do, that not only has the

4:38:40 Federal Reserve raised interest rates a

4:38:42 few weeks ago, but will most likely do

4:38:44 so twice more in the coming months, as

4:38:46 persistent inflation is an overriding

4:38:48 concern that shows no signs of abating.

4:38:51 And any honest developer will

4:38:53 acknowledge that in the current interest

4:38:55 rate environment, the price of

4:38:56 development loans is simply too high to

4:38:59 allow them to borrow large sums to

4:39:01 finance their major projects. Hence,

4:39:03 Chestnut Hill Realy years ago failure to

4:39:06 do anything with the Pleasant Beacon

4:39:07 Street site beyond tearing down the

4:39:09 buildings that were on it. Most town

4:39:12 meeting members are probably unaware

4:39:13 that buried in Norbum's most recent

4:39:15 proposal is a commitment that they will

4:39:17 build their project by 2032. Quite

4:39:20 obviously, Norbum has no intention of

4:39:23 proceeding with their proposed

4:39:24 development anytime soon. What reason

4:39:27 can there uh possibly be then for

4:39:29 Norbble and Jeffrey Allen to push

4:39:32 forward for a vote on warrant article 15

4:39:35 at the November town meeting except to

4:39:38 avoid the scrutiny that would result

4:39:39 from referring the article and thus

4:39:41 enabling the hundreds upon hundreds of

4:39:43 our Koolage Corner residents who would

4:39:45 be directly impacted by the development

4:39:47 to have the time to become fully aware

4:39:49 of and examine the multitude of issues

4:39:52 raised by a project of this scale and

4:39:55 articulate their concerns. concerns. As

4:39:56 noted at the outset, this rush to vote

4:39:59 on on uh 15 is in fact a betrayal of

4:40:04 Brooklyn citizenry who reasonably expect

4:40:08 that any such project will be examined

4:40:10 in the context of the Brooklyn

4:40:12 comprehensive plan. But according to the

4:40:14 comprehensive plan that was passed

4:40:15 unanimously by town meeting in 2021 and

4:40:18 whose current revision is shortly to be

4:40:21 presented to the town, careful

4:40:23 examination of these may. Many attendant

4:40:26 issues is exactly what should happen.

4:40:28 Betrayal is a strong word, but I use it

4:40:30 with full intent and understanding of

4:40:32 its meaning. Hundreds upon hundreds of

4:40:34 Brooklyn citizens were involved in the

4:40:36 creation of the comprehensive plan and

4:40:38 dozens upon dozens selflessly gave

4:40:40 countless unc uncompensated hours to the

4:40:43 creation of both the original and

4:40:44 revised plan. And now normal realy with

4:40:47 no interest in Brooklyn other than as a

4:40:49 property owner is asking town meeting to

4:40:51 betray the manifest interest of the

4:40:53 kulacha community and circumvent the

4:40:56 careful examination of the issues that

4:40:58 would result from referring the article

4:40:59 for consideration within the context of

4:41:02 the comp plan. So I say to town meeting

4:41:04 if you want to betray your neighbors by

4:41:06 all means vote yes. If you want to make

4:41:08 a mockery of the thousands upon hours of

4:41:10 toil and civic respon resp

4:41:11 responsibility that underlines the

4:41:14 creation of the comp plan, vote yes. And

4:41:16 if you want to be a party to creating

4:41:18 deep division, anger, and civic

4:41:20 destruction in Brooklyn, vote yes. But

4:41:22 if you care about your neighbors, if you

4:41:23 care about the almost 400 residents of

4:41:26 the neighborhood who quickly signed a

4:41:28 petition opposing Norb Blood's proposal,

4:41:30 if you want to be able to look yourself

4:41:32 in the mirror and say that yes, this is

4:41:34 a matter of great import that inarguably

4:41:37 deserves careful examination, I urge you

4:41:39 to vote to refer Warren Article 15 and

4:41:42 have a vastly more enlightened vote in

4:41:44 spring 2027.

4:41:46 Uh Martin Yosine, 25 John Street. Thank

4:41:50 you.

4:41:51 All right. Uh, before we close the

4:41:53 public hearing, is there anyone else who

4:41:55 has not spoken yet on Warren Article 15

4:41:58 who wants to be heard?

4:42:03 All right, seeing none, we will close

4:42:05 the public hearing on Warren Article 15.

4:42:08 Uh, if there is a lot of interest in

4:42:09 having another one, I'm open to us

4:42:12 scheduling an additional one. Uh, now we

4:42:15 will move on to Warren article 16.

4:42:20 Uh, which select board is the

4:42:22 petitioner? Michael.

4:42:24 Okay. Um,

4:42:27 can I

4:42:28 Michael, don't take personally take a

4:42:30 break.

4:42:32 That's okay. Um, just so the one thing

4:42:34 I'll say before you leave, Bernard, um,

4:42:37 there is a revised version of the MOA in

4:42:39 the packet. I'm going to go over the

4:42:40 differences and I am going to ask the

4:42:42 select board to vote to replace the

4:42:46 warrant article that we voted on last

4:42:48 week with this warrant article so that

4:42:51 it can go uh as the select board's uh

4:42:54 proposal to uh land use subcommittee

4:42:58 tomorrow and Thursday but I'm going to

4:43:01 do my presentation first in the public

4:43:02 hearing so that vote is can come later.

4:43:06 Okay.

4:43:08 Uh, I have host disabled participants

4:43:10 screen sharing. Am I a co-host?

4:43:12 You are a co-host now. Yes.

4:43:20 Okay. Um, so this is a discussion of

4:43:23 Warrant Article 16 and the memorandum of

4:43:25 agreement um between the town of

4:43:27 Brooklyn and uh the Nor Bloom Company.

4:43:32 Uh I would like to thank um many people

4:43:36 who participated uh including uh Nor

4:43:39 Bloom, Jeffrey Allen, uh members of the

4:43:42 planning department, members of DPW, uh

4:43:44 citizens who I had the uh privilege and

4:43:48 pleasure to meet with to get feedback uh

4:43:50 on multiple sides of this issue. Um,

4:43:53 what I'm going to be showing tonight,

4:43:55 um, is a, uh, includes some of the

4:43:59 information that we looked at on October

4:44:00 6th, but I thought in the interest of

4:44:02 sharing all this information again with

4:44:04 the public, um, I would go over that

4:44:06 information as well as additional

4:44:10 uh, uh, commitments um, and

4:44:13 clarifications that have been added to

4:44:15 the memorandum of agreement. um uh many

4:44:19 in response to conversations that had

4:44:21 come before and also within the last two

4:44:24 weeks. Um as people have had the

4:44:26 opportunity to look at the MOA uh digest

4:44:29 the zoning and identify uh additional

4:44:32 commitments uh uh and clarifications

4:44:35 that would be worthwhile.

4:44:39 Okay. So, as a a context for this work,

4:44:42 um the purpose of Warren article 16 is

4:44:45 to supplement the zoning overlay

4:44:48 district. Um uh Warren article 15

4:44:52 proposes increasing the density um in

4:44:54 this particular parcel. Um and there was

4:44:56 a general feedback that the increased

4:44:59 density should be balanced by public

4:45:01 benefits. Um the MOA, the memorandum of

4:45:04 agreement, attempts to include those

4:45:06 benefits. Um Nord Bloom had uh uh was

4:45:10 approached by uh many different parties

4:45:12 in order to try and negotiate these

4:45:13 benefits. Um Nord Bloom agreed to

4:45:16 negotiate with the select board. Um and

4:45:19 uh the select board uh serve has served

4:45:22 as sort of the consolidating point for

4:45:24 all of uh those uh interests in uh

4:45:28 adding public benefits uh clarifying

4:45:31 concerns. Um so we've tried as much as

4:45:34 possible to take in all of that feedback

4:45:37 uh including some of the feedback

4:45:38 tonight uh which uh mirrors feedback

4:45:40 that has been previously received. Um

4:45:43 the third thing that I will add uh since

4:45:47 uh October 6th um is that there are

4:45:50 specific town goals that should be

4:45:52 incorporated in the design. Um I

4:45:54 mentioned some goals of the 2030 road

4:45:56 map um that applied to warrant article

4:45:59 15 by reference. they apply to warrant

4:46:00 article 16 as well. Um, but there are

4:46:03 other sort of specific town goals

4:46:06 related to uh the need for open sta

4:46:09 space, the need for uh tree canopy and

4:46:12 the protection of our tree canopy more

4:46:14 broadly. Um, the uh interest in

4:46:17 pedestrian safety um and the concerns

4:46:21 about microotal transport, other types

4:46:23 of transport um traffic etc. Um and

4:46:26 town's goals in these areas as they are

4:46:29 clearly as they are articulated uh in

4:46:31 various forms uh should to the extent

4:46:33 possible be incorporated into the

4:46:35 design.

4:46:37 Uh I want to make uh clear uh so that

4:46:40 everybody both uh on this board and in

4:46:43 the general public understands all of

4:46:45 the steps that follow um the passage of

4:46:49 zoning. Um Mr. Allen alluded to some of

4:46:53 this in his presentation of warrant

4:46:54 article 15. Um, but I also want to make

4:46:59 sure that everybody understands that

4:47:01 after the zoning passes, before shovels

4:47:03 hit the ground, there will be a design

4:47:05 review process. Um that design review

4:47:08 process will include a design advisory

4:47:11 team uh made up of both members of the

4:47:13 planning board uh citizens in the area

4:47:17 to look at the um to look at the design

4:47:21 and ensure that the design uh

4:47:24 incorporates features both of the

4:47:26 memorandum of agreement um and the

4:47:28 zoning. Um there will be a review by the

4:47:32 DPW and uh the health department for

4:47:35 safety uh uh reviewing the plan. Uh

4:47:39 there will be a special permit process

4:47:41 that will be held by the zoning board of

4:47:43 appeals. Um and finally as uh director

4:47:46 Brutin mentioned uh there will be

4:47:48 building permits um which uh uh is

4:47:52 preceded by the creation of construction

4:47:54 drawings, the establishment of

4:47:56 contractors um and also ensuring that

4:48:00 the project complies with all of

4:48:03 Massachusetts state building codes.

4:48:12 Okay. Uh I want to I want to echo a

4:48:15 little bit of Mr. Fremont Smith's

4:48:17 timeline. Um this is specifically

4:48:19 related to uh the creation of the

4:48:22 memorandum of agreement which uh follows

4:48:26 many of the steps that uh Mr. Fremont

4:48:28 Smith previously alluded to. So it was

4:48:31 on October 25th that the select board

4:48:33 voted to file warrant warrant article 16

4:48:36 and designate me to negotiate an

4:48:38 agreement on behalf to consolidate all

4:48:40 of this feedback and have a more

4:48:42 efficient and effective process. Um

4:48:45 there was select board feedback in

4:48:47 executive session on August 31st. Um

4:48:49 there was additional uh feedback on

4:48:51 September 22nd. Um, on Friday, October

4:48:54 2nd, Nord Bloom and negotiating the

4:48:57 negotiating team, which included myself,

4:49:00 uh, Jonathan Simpson, assistant town

4:49:02 council, uh, Paulie Selco in the

4:49:04 planning department, um, came to an

4:49:07 agreement, um, for the memorandum of

4:49:10 agreement, which was approved by the

4:49:12 select board on October 19th. Um, since

4:49:15 that time, as I said, I've been

4:49:16 continuing to negotiate for additional

4:49:19 commitments and clarifications to the

4:49:21 agreement, which is before the select

4:49:23 board this evening. Um yesterday uh as

4:49:26 mentioned the advisory council on public

4:49:28 health and zero emissions advisory board

4:49:31 held a joint hearing raised several of

4:49:33 the climate concerns including uh tree

4:49:36 canopy open space uh heat island effects

4:49:40 uh the cool roof uh roofs uh solar

4:49:44 readiness um bicycle uh storage um and

4:49:48 uh all of these were discussed in the

4:49:50 context of of that meeting um and Both

4:49:54 of those boards unanimously recommended

4:49:56 favorable action on both war articles 15

4:50:00 and 16.

4:50:02 Okay. Um there was a question uh or a

4:50:06 concern raised about town and community

4:50:08 input and the level and I just wanted to

4:50:11 enumerate um some um and this is by no

4:50:15 means all of the input um that the that

4:50:19 I received other members of the select

4:50:21 board received um that helped shape the

4:50:24 MOA. And I just wanted to express my

4:50:26 gratitude to all of the people who uh

4:50:30 who uh participated and provided their

4:50:33 feedback. Um the planning department was

4:50:35 involved um in answering questions uh as

4:50:39 the MOA was constructed um about past

4:50:42 practices and uh applicability of

4:50:45 certain provisions. Um DPW engineering

4:50:48 was certainly involved. Um they proposed

4:50:52 several public benefit improvements.

4:50:54 they helped cost out those improvements.

4:50:56 So we had an understanding of the

4:50:58 financial impact of the uh things that

4:51:01 we were asking uh the petitioners of

4:51:04 warrant article 15 to provide. Um we

4:51:07 engaged the town tree warden to do an

4:51:09 examination of the trees and provide

4:51:11 their feedback in terms of what would be

4:51:13 necessary to protect various trees. Uh

4:51:16 which trees were potentially viable or

4:51:19 not. Um I uh Miss Pelky did discuss the

4:51:26 uh uh a desired meeting with five

4:51:28 members uh who had concerns about this

4:51:31 project. Um I believe those five members

4:51:33 were Miss Park, Miss Roberts, uh Miss

4:51:36 Peli, uh Mr. Jonathan Davis, and uh Mr.

4:51:41 Bruce Levven. Um I had the opportunity

4:51:43 to meet with them uh in the early stages

4:51:46 of this project. um and they shared

4:51:48 their concerns and had a previous

4:51:50 meeting also with Miss Park um to

4:51:53 discuss um the question of uh of uh

4:51:58 whether or not this could be purchased

4:51:59 for open space which was a question that

4:52:01 was also taken up by select board um at

4:52:04 the encouragement of the chair which I

4:52:06 also appreciate. Um, I uh also met with

4:52:10 uh precinct 17 town meeting members who

4:52:12 were in support of the project and were

4:52:14 particularly interested in public

4:52:16 benefits uh such as pedestrian

4:52:18 improvements that could be met. Um I met

4:52:21 with members of the mothers outfront

4:52:22 tree committee um who expressed their

4:52:25 concerns about trees and uh discussed uh

4:52:28 the priorities of uh uh tree

4:52:32 preservation. Um there was as mentioned

4:52:34 a community presentation and July 14th

4:52:37 site uh the sitewalks uh led uh and

4:52:41 participated in by the chair and by Mr.

4:52:43 Bueno uh on August 1st. Um and I will

4:52:47 say that I've also gotten um various

4:52:51 town meeting members and other people uh

4:52:54 reaching out to me personally um as well

4:52:56 as of course all of the letters that

4:52:58 have come to the select board um on this

4:53:01 topic.

4:53:03 So my thanks for all of them.

4:53:06 Um so moving into the terms of the MOA

4:53:10 to answer the question that Ms. Froley

4:53:12 raised um earlier. Um so there are three

4:53:16 or four slides here um to uh discuss the

4:53:20 terms where they came from uh some

4:53:22 groupings of them. Um the first uh was a

4:53:26 uh a set of building and construction um

4:53:29 commitments. Um the first is to have a

4:53:32 ground floor height of 12 feet from

4:53:34 floor to ceiling. Um this was also

4:53:36 discussed with the planning uh

4:53:38 department um as being a height that's

4:53:41 appropriate for uh possible commercial

4:53:44 use. Um even if we aren't going to

4:53:47 require commercial use uh by having the

4:53:49 building at 12 feet uh ground floor to

4:53:52 floor floor to ceiling um that provides

4:53:55 an opportunity should circumstances

4:53:57 change um for commercial use to occupy

4:53:59 the building. Um uh new since October

4:54:03 6th the next two building and

4:54:05 constructions um there is a commitment

4:54:07 in the MOA for publicly accessible open

4:54:10 space along Pleasant Street. So the

4:54:12 discussion of the pocket park has been

4:54:14 memorialized within the MOA. Um and

4:54:18 active first floor space on the Pleasant

4:54:21 Street facade um which was shown in the

4:54:23 images as as uh glass uh appearance into

4:54:27 rooms um has also been memorialized

4:54:30 within the MOA. Um, I know there's

4:54:32 concern about uh the the ability of

4:54:36 zoning to uh enforce certain provisions

4:54:40 and the ability of the MOA to enforce

4:54:43 certain provisions. Um, and I want to

4:54:45 speak to that concern a little bit

4:54:47 specifically. Um, one of the features of

4:54:50 this memorandum of agreement, uh, a

4:54:52 couple. One is that it will be required

4:54:54 if town meeting approves warrant article

4:54:56 15 for the memorandum of agreement to be

4:54:59 registered with the land and binding on

4:55:02 any successor uh owners of the of the

4:55:05 land. Um but more importantly from my

4:55:08 perspective um there are a number of

4:55:10 provisions

4:55:13 Go ahead.

4:55:14 Okay. Uh there are a number of

4:55:16 provisions um within the MOA which

4:55:20 basically enforce that uh in order for

4:55:24 the special permit to be issued um which

4:55:26 is a requirement of the zoning, the

4:55:29 special permit must include certain

4:55:32 conditions without objection by the

4:55:35 developer. Um things like the public

4:55:37 open space, things like the active first

4:55:39 floor, things like the infrastructure

4:55:41 improvements. So all of those

4:55:43 requirements in the MOA have to be

4:55:47 allowed um and part of the special

4:55:50 permit at the discretion of the ZBA and

4:55:52 the planning board um without objection

4:55:57 by the developer. So the idea that the

4:55:59 developer can sort of back off from any

4:56:02 of those provisions um is not allowed

4:56:06 because if they were to do that then

4:56:08 they would not be able to get a special

4:56:09 permit and if they can't get a special

4:56:11 permit then they cannot use this overlay

4:56:13 district as zoning. I just want that to

4:56:16 be very clear. Um the fourth building

4:56:19 and construction uh is the mitigation of

4:56:21 uh construction impacts to public

4:56:23 sidewalks, street curbs, street

4:56:25 pavement, trees and landscaping. That's

4:56:26 a standard provision that basically says

4:56:28 if there's public infrastructure that is

4:56:31 uh damaged or during construction, then

4:56:34 it's on the developer's dime to uh fix

4:56:37 that. Um and then along the right side

4:56:39 of this slide, there's a whole set of

4:56:41 infrastructure improvements. These

4:56:42 mostly came from public feedback um and

4:56:45 from information provided by DPW uh in

4:56:48 terms of useful uh infrastructure

4:56:50 improvements in this area. Um, and they

4:56:52 include a raised crosswalk along

4:56:54 Pleasant Street that would connect the

4:56:56 pocket park to the front of the Koolage

4:56:59 Corner Library. Uh, reconstructed

4:57:01 wheelchair ramps at the corner of

4:57:02 Pleasant Street and John Street that are

4:57:04 not currently there. A pair of

4:57:06 rectangular rapid flashing beacons which

4:57:08 again provides pedestrian safety. Um, as

4:57:11 well as sidewalk alternatives along

4:57:13 Pleasant and John Street. Now, uh these

4:57:16 two these two alternatives here, the

4:57:18 curb extensions with up to five tree

4:57:19 pits or reconstruct existing sidewalks

4:57:22 again are at the discretion of uh the

4:57:25 DPW and the planning board. They're not

4:57:29 at the discretion of the developer. Um

4:57:31 and I want to point out the five tree

4:57:32 pits uh explicitly because that was

4:57:35 specifically ma uh made in response to

4:57:39 the concern that there is not enough

4:57:41 tree canopy. So we will actually

4:57:43 hopefully through these curb extensions

4:57:45 be adding to the tree canopy uh in this

4:57:47 area.

4:57:50 Okay. Um this uh memorandum of agreement

4:57:55 uh in its original draft was drawn with

4:57:58 many uh uh features and provisions from

4:58:01 the agreement that we made with Chesnut

4:58:03 Hill Realy. Um, so we were able to use

4:58:05 all of that negotiating work in order to

4:58:09 uh uh help this process be more

4:58:11 efficient. Um, the language for

4:58:14 recording the agreement in the registry

4:58:16 of deeds or land court. Uh, the uh

4:58:18 diligence in applying for permits. The

4:58:21 uh agreement for a fossil free uh

4:58:23 fuel-free building even if the state

4:58:25 mandate for fossil be uh fuel free

4:58:29 buildings disappears. the ability to

4:58:31 unbundle parking so that people who want

4:58:34 to uh purchase uh uh I'm sorry rent

4:58:38 apartments in the space are not required

4:58:40 to also rent parking spaces that makes

4:58:43 the apartments more affordable. Um the

4:58:46 uh requirement to dim signage after

4:58:47 midnight. Um these were all taken from

4:58:49 the city realy MOA. Um in addition there

4:58:52 were a number of climate terms uh or

4:58:55 climate mitigation terms from city realy

4:58:58 uh including uh a waste management plan

4:59:01 to work with the sustainability

4:59:02 division. Uh sustainable design elements

4:59:04 to be determined um that will come in an

4:59:07 exhibit before town meeting uh takes up

4:59:10 the warrant article. Uh commitment to

4:59:12 engage in a low concrete installation

4:59:14 pilot and the exploration of thermal

4:59:17 energy and sustainable materials. These

4:59:19 are all terms within the MOA.

4:59:23 Um uh the a third set of terms uh relate

4:59:27 to tree canopy. Um there is an agreement

4:59:31 to prioritize preservation of the eight

4:59:33 existing trees between 26 and 50

4:59:36 Pleasant Street. So that's eight of the

4:59:38 15 trees. I recognize they're not the

4:59:40 largest trees on the site. Um but they

4:59:42 are a row of trees that uh does provide

4:59:45 some shade in that area. Um there is an

4:59:49 additional requirement for a minimum

4:59:51 tree canopy of 2% of the lot area which

4:59:54 is the same requirement for lots of this

4:59:56 size within the Chestnut Hill commercial

4:59:59 uh overlay district. Um there's an

5:00:02 additional requirement over and above

5:00:04 the requirements of the tree protection

5:00:06 bylaw. um that if any of the protected

5:00:09 trees fail um within five years of the

5:00:13 certificate of occupancy that the

5:00:15 developer is on the hope to replace

5:00:17 those trees.

5:00:19 Uh and then on the right there again

5:00:22 there are a number of public

5:00:23 improvements. Um $50 for DPW for other

5:00:27 public realm improvements not covered

5:00:29 previously. Um a landscape plan that is

5:00:32 required for building permit. uh special

5:00:34 permit application requiring a design

5:00:36 with no uh ingress or eress on Pleasant

5:00:40 Street. So, um, this is a an a, uh, a

5:00:45 design feature for consideration by the

5:00:47 planning board, um, so that it will, uh,

5:00:50 improve the pedestrian safety by not

5:00:53 having a driveway that, uh, has cars

5:00:57 coming onto Pleasant Street right next

5:00:59 to a crosswalk where there are

5:01:01 potentially uh, well, we hope there are

5:01:03 people crossing between this park and

5:01:06 the library. um and as well upkeep of

5:01:09 planters tree

5:01:11 uh street trees, snow and leaf removal.

5:01:13 Um so a lot of different provisions in

5:01:16 different areas. Okay. Um in addition to

5:01:19 the MOA and in addition to the zoning, I

5:01:22 just want to make sure that people are

5:01:24 aware of other provisions of our zoning

5:01:27 which will impact this project um uh to

5:01:32 the benefit of the town that have been

5:01:34 passed into bylaw by previous town

5:01:36 meetings. This came up last night

5:01:37 particularly in the in the area of

5:01:39 various climate related concerns. So of

5:01:43 uh as has been discussed the

5:01:44 inclusionary zoning requirement, the

5:01:46 tree preservation bylaw, the

5:01:48 requirements for long-term bicycle

5:01:50 storage, the requirements for rooftop

5:01:52 solar readiness and 100% residential EV

5:01:55 parking which are part of the stretch

5:01:57 code. Um the storm water management

5:01:59 requirements um are all applicable to

5:02:02 this project as well.

5:02:07 Okay. Um, this slide here is really just

5:02:10 a summary of the uh, changes since the

5:02:13 last version. So, for members of the

5:02:15 select board and the public who wants to

5:02:17 know specifically the differences that

5:02:19 I'm asking for a vote on tonight, um,

5:02:21 there are four new commitments. Um, one

5:02:24 is the commitment for public ground

5:02:26 level open space that we discussed

5:02:27 earlier. Um, the second is for the

5:02:30 active first floor space, the glass

5:02:32 facade, etc.

5:02:34 um on Pleasant Street. Um the third is

5:02:37 that the parking will be capped at 52

5:02:39 spaces. So there will actually be fewer

5:02:42 parking spaces there now than are

5:02:46 currently the 60 that are on the lot.

5:02:49 Um and the uh a commitment that was

5:02:54 mentioned earlier about uh event and

5:02:56 meeting room space. Um the two

5:02:58 clarifications on the right um really

5:03:01 cleanups. Um, we wanted to make sure

5:03:03 that there was no overlap between the 5%

5:03:07 landscaped open space in the zoning and

5:03:09 the the 3% usable open space. So, those

5:03:13 are distinct. Um, and of course, the

5:03:16 usable open space has to include the um

5:03:21 the

5:03:23 something similar to the 2,000 square

5:03:25 feet of the pocket park. Um, and uh,

5:03:28 this a clarification that if their

5:03:30 primary street design doesn't include

5:03:32 the Pleasant Street curb cut, uh, if if

5:03:35 it doesn't not include the Pleasant

5:03:37 Street curb cut, then they don't need an

5:03:38 alternative design because everybody is

5:03:41 sort of rallied around that one

5:03:42 particular. Can

5:03:43 I ask a question on that?

5:03:44 Yeah. So, on that on that Pleasant

5:03:46 Street curb cut point you were

5:03:47 mentioning, one of the big concerns

5:03:48 during um conversations I've had with

5:03:51 precinct 17 residents is

5:03:53 uh a driveway that drivers would pull

5:03:56 out of the garage from Pleasant uh right

5:03:59 onto Pleasant Street in front of the

5:04:00 library.

5:04:01 Right.

5:04:01 Um in the first rendition of the

5:04:04 drawing, there was a driveway coming out

5:04:06 to Pleasant Street, right?

5:04:07 Is this inclusion of requiring an

5:04:10 alternative design new or is this always

5:04:12 been there? Cuz I

5:04:13 uh It's new. It's okay. I was like, am I

5:04:15 crazy? I feel like that was not in there

5:04:16 last week.

5:04:19 Um,

5:04:22 actually, I think it was in the October

5:04:24 6th version.

5:04:24 Oh, it was

5:04:25 the Yes. The clarification here is, you

5:04:28 know, as we've been continuing to

5:04:30 discuss possible designs, like we didn't

5:04:32 necessar, we still wanted to provide the

5:04:34 planning board latitude in terms of

5:04:36 designing the building, but if there's

5:04:39 consensus within their before they file

5:04:42 this their application that Nordblum

5:04:45 wants to move forward with a design that

5:04:47 has no curb cut on Pleasant Street,

5:04:50 then we shouldn't have to require them

5:04:52 to create another design.

5:04:53 I got it. It's it's it's really a sort

5:04:55 of

5:04:56 low level technical detail.

5:04:57 Thank you.

5:04:58 Okay, that was a lot. Um I just want to

5:05:02 thank everybody for their patience. Um

5:05:04 and happy to take questions, discussion,

5:05:07 feedback, uh concerns, etc.

5:05:10 Right. Any members have some initial

5:05:12 comments or questions for Michael?

5:05:18 All right. Well, thank you for that very

5:05:19 comprehensive presentation. There was a

5:05:21 lot in there. I know a lot of hard work

5:05:23 and diligence you put into it. So, thank

5:05:25 you for taking the lead in these MOA

5:05:28 negotiations uh and for meeting with

5:05:31 many members of the public who are

5:05:33 concerned from various perspectives

5:05:36 with this is quick.

5:05:37 Go ahead, Anthony.

5:05:38 Um I just want to make a quick point for

5:05:39 the public. It was on delegation from

5:05:42 the rest of the select board that

5:05:43 Michael did all of this great work. So I

5:05:45 don't want there to be a like a feeling

5:05:47 like oh Michael just went and organized

5:05:49 this MOA but it was a delegation from

5:05:51 the select board where we were all part

5:05:53 of the process discussing each and the

5:05:55 step as we were going through.

5:05:58 All right. So this is docketed for

5:06:00 public hearing. So I'll go ahead and

5:06:01 open the public hearing. Has anyone

5:06:03 signed up in advance to participate?

5:06:06 Not for this one.

5:06:07 All right. I I know that you would like

5:06:08 to speak. Go right ahead.

5:06:17 Thank you. Uh again, uh Susie Roberts,

5:06:22 precinct, uh town meeting member from

5:06:24 precinct 17. Um I have a few comments to

5:06:29 respond to what um

5:06:32 we've heard as the discussion. Um and

5:06:35 again, I'm focusing on process and how

5:06:39 this process is different from what

5:06:41 we've done in the past. And because it's

5:06:44 different, there is a lot missing in the

5:06:46 pro in the process. I know that Cara

5:06:48 has, you know, gone through history to

5:06:51 find just a very very few examples where

5:06:54 projects from owners um of property have

5:06:58 gone directly to town meeting. And I

5:07:00 also wanted to address the pro the

5:07:02 approach that you David and Anthony were

5:07:05 recommending about our taking um 26

5:07:09 Pleasant as a standalone property and

5:07:12 not cumulatively with other approaches.

5:07:15 But the main thing that I want to get to

5:07:17 before I lose time is how this approach

5:07:21 comes to town meeting without the usual

5:07:23 studies that one would see were this to

5:07:26 go to the planning board, were this to

5:07:28 go to the ZBA. And I'm talking about

5:07:30 here the because climate has been raised

5:07:33 and I urge you all to read the um u mass

5:07:37 area planning commission study that was

5:07:39 done on Brookline commissioned by

5:07:41 Brooklyn for Brooklyn citing the heat

5:07:43 island. I know we all use this, but it

5:07:46 is true and it is there and it's real

5:07:48 and everybody needs to get educated

5:07:51 about this. But there would need to be

5:07:54 some climate studies about what a

5:07:57 building like this looks like once built

5:08:00 in terms of the climate impact. I would

5:08:02 suggest that we actually have a climate

5:08:04 study that is done um before town

5:08:08 meeting votes on this to compare what's

5:08:12 their you know what the zoning allows

5:08:14 now in M1 building of maybe about 30 30

5:08:18 to 50 units depending on the size to a

5:08:21 mid-range to this building um so that we

5:08:25 are knowledgeable there won't be that

5:08:28 study done ever potentially because even

5:08:31 If we if we uh vote this through, yes,

5:08:35 it goes to design review, but design

5:08:37 review only relates to the picture of

5:08:40 what it looks like. It does not deal

5:08:42 with climate. It does not, no study

5:08:45 would be required. So, we're missing out

5:08:48 on that. Um, additionally, so the

5:08:51 climate resiliency impacts, um, this is

5:08:54 all in our motion about tree canopy,

5:08:56 storm water mitigation, heat island

5:08:58 impact, air quality, all of this in this

5:09:00 concentrated area, very very

5:09:02 concentrated, intense area of people and

5:09:06 cars and so forth. We um won't have a

5:09:11 traffic a traffic study assessing travel

5:09:13 capacity, safety of the MBTA. This is in

5:09:17 our motion. roadways, sidewalk studies,

5:09:20 and intersections. Tonight, I came to

5:09:23 tonight driving at John and Pleasant and

5:09:28 the driveway to Walden Durgen. There

5:09:30 were three cars coming out at the same

5:09:32 time, one of which was mine. It was like

5:09:34 a convergence of all three areas trying

5:09:37 to get on to Beacon or coming from

5:09:38 Beacon. Um, and those are the

5:09:42 Your time is up. Those are the things

5:09:46 we're going to miss as a result of the

5:09:48 project being

5:09:51 railroaded through town meeting without

5:09:55 having the opportunity to have studies

5:09:57 done by a motion for referral.

5:09:59 Okay,

5:09:59 I can end there.

5:10:00 Who do we have? Would anyone else in the

5:10:02 room like to be heard?

5:10:04 Gina, go ahead.

5:10:11 Gina Frolley from South Brooklyn.

5:10:14 If you put all your hours together for

5:10:17 every meeting you've gone to as your uh

5:10:20 official hours, you wouldn't come close

5:10:22 to the hours I've gone to about for just

5:10:26 so many projects. But Ches Hill Realy

5:10:29 alone I hundreds of hours and whatever

5:10:34 we went to no matter what was agreed to

5:10:36 it was changed.

5:10:39 Once they get the zoning, once they get

5:10:41 the permits, they come back and ask for

5:10:43 a change. And they got it every single

5:10:46 time. Significant change.

5:10:49 We were actually the the town members

5:10:52 were proponents for the residents trying

5:10:54 to get the the um um affordable units to

5:10:58 be within the the 4A. Oh, no. Could they

5:11:03 use your facilities? Oh, no. The swim

5:11:07 swimming pool in Nope. they're not

5:11:08 allowed. So, we I've seen it all and I

5:11:11 don't trust anything that you have to

5:11:14 say, even if you believe it. That's

5:11:16 number one. Number two, how is this not

5:11:18 spot zoning? May That's a real question.

5:11:21 It's not rhetorical. Uh uh you're just

5:11:23 doing this little lot of land and you're

5:11:25 giving uh four times the zoning. How is

5:11:29 this not spot zoning? And we deserve to

5:11:31 get an answer to that.

5:11:35 Stop the clock on my question until I

5:11:37 get an answer, please.

5:11:39 Well, public comment's not interactive.

5:11:41 Uh, if somebody does want to answer the

5:11:43 question, I'll allow it if anybody would

5:11:44 like to, but it's not interactive and

5:11:46 you know that. But you have another

5:11:48 minute.

5:11:48 Jonathan Simpson has his hand.

5:11:50 All right. Go ahead.

5:11:54 Thank you. Jonathan Simpson, first

5:11:55 assistant town council for the town of

5:11:57 Brooklyn. Um, it is it is not spot

5:11:59 zoning as a as a legal doctrine. um has

5:12:02 been uh ruled ineffective as as a means

5:12:06 of challenging a potential warrant

5:12:08 article uh where the warrant article can

5:12:11 be shown to be in the public interest um

5:12:14 or to the public's benefit and as

5:12:18 uh Michael has demonstrated as the

5:12:20 conversation about the previous war

5:12:22 article has demonstrated we believe the

5:12:24 the public benefits here are

5:12:25 self-evident.

5:12:27 All right, you have another minute and a

5:12:28 half.

5:12:29 Yeah. As somebody who also came back to

5:12:32 town meeting 26 years ago and took

5:12:35 immediately took a graduate course in

5:12:37 urban planning, I learned all about

5:12:38 pocket parks in New York. They did not

5:12:41 exist as such with that term in

5:12:43 Brooklyn. Uh Bobby Allen said I was the

5:12:46 first to come out with it and I perhaps

5:12:48 was. Having said that, that's not a

5:12:51 pocket park. He should be calling us

5:12:52 something else, some public open space,

5:12:54 but it is not what the definition of a

5:12:57 pocket park is. Thank you.

5:13:00 All right. Would anyone else in the room

5:13:02 like to be heard?

5:13:05 Go ahead, Susan.

5:13:09 Hi, Susan Parker again. Town meeting

5:13:11 member, precinct 17.

5:13:14 You know, I just want to challenge all

5:13:16 of you. Um, you know, right, we live in

5:13:20 a democracy and we listen to our

5:13:23 constituents.

5:13:25 there there weren't just like one or two

5:13:29 um neighbors who wrote in. There was

5:13:32 over a dozen. And these people live so

5:13:36 close to 26 Pleasant. They walk by 26

5:13:40 Pleasant every single day, multiple

5:13:42 times a day, and they see things and

5:13:44 they experience things that people who

5:13:47 don't regularly

5:13:49 um walk by 26 Pleasant experience. And

5:13:53 you know, we heard from Norbum that, you

5:13:56 know, in in uh his write up that they're

5:13:59 not going to build for the next five

5:14:01 years. So, what's the rush? You know, I

5:14:04 I'm really asking you like what is the

5:14:07 rush in um supporting this

5:14:11 uh Warren article when it would take one

5:14:15 year to just do a study and to really

5:14:18 really do due diligence and do the

5:14:21 different studies that everyone is

5:14:23 asking for. So, and I know how, you

5:14:26 know, select board operates like in

5:14:30 executive session, you talk about things

5:14:33 that you really want, right? Half a

5:14:36 million dollars. Uh, it's for the town,

5:14:39 but are you really listening to the

5:14:41 public? And I'm asking you because I, as

5:14:45 a town meeting member, I see my

5:14:47 neighbors a lot. they're going to ask

5:14:49 me. And that's why I'm here tonight with

5:14:52 my colleagues

5:14:54 and all the people who who zoomed in,

5:14:56 who wrote in. And I just think it's

5:14:59 really disappointing when people like

5:15:01 spend hours and hours to write letters

5:15:04 and it's it just goes one ear and out

5:15:06 the other.

5:15:09 And so it's, you know, it's I'm just

5:15:11 because we're not asking for a lot.

5:15:13 We're saying wait after you do some

5:15:16 study.

5:15:18 Let's let's let's learn a little bit and

5:15:21 to really disregard that.

5:15:24 I it's it's sad. It's disappointing.

5:15:27 Thanks.

5:15:29 Is there anyone online who would like to

5:15:32 be heard on war article 16?

5:15:34 I wouldn't.

5:15:35 Go ahead,

5:15:36 Mr. Jeffrey Allen.

5:15:37 Yes.

5:15:39 I I just want to clear a couple things

5:15:42 up. We never said we're not going to

5:15:44 build for five years. We're going to

5:15:46 start preparing to build uh right after

5:15:50 the Warren article is is voted. When

5:15:53 we'll be able to put shovels in the

5:15:54 ground will depend on a lot of factors

5:15:56 including the economy, but we certainly

5:15:58 will build before 5 years. And and I

5:16:01 just want to point out Carrie did a

5:16:03 great job of telling about articles

5:16:05 coming from developers. I just would

5:16:07 like to add one of the biggest

5:16:08 residential developments in Brooklyn,

5:16:11 the long-ear uh development on on Fisher

5:16:14 Hill was a Warren article that was

5:16:16 submitted by the developer to town

5:16:19 meeting for that entire parcel. I think

5:16:21 it's 6 acres and that was in the 80s.

5:16:24 And last but not least, I I just have to

5:16:27 say

5:16:29 uh I hope you get I hope the board

5:16:32 understands how hard Michael worked. Uh

5:16:35 he was he he he was he he was uh forever

5:16:42 researching, reaching out. Uh I I've

5:16:46 worked I was on the board for nine

5:16:48 years. I've worked with a lot of birds

5:16:49 boards. Uh I I don't remember anyone

5:16:52 that has ever taken a uh task like this

5:16:56 and uh put more effort into it. He he

5:16:59 must have called me 20 times in the last

5:17:01 three weeks. But he really he really

5:17:04 worked the uh p the his task and he he

5:17:09 deserves to u get credit for it. It was

5:17:12 a lot of effort on his part.

5:17:17 That was very kind of you. Jeff,

5:17:20 anyone else like to be heard on warrant

5:17:23 article 16?

5:17:26 All right, then let's close the public

5:17:28 hearing. Anthony,

5:17:29 can I make a point on the heat island

5:17:31 thing? Go ahead.

5:17:32 Um, I think David, you were trying to

5:17:34 get at this point, too, and I'd like to

5:17:35 have like a back and forth about it. The

5:17:37 what we currently have right now is a

5:17:39 parking lot, which is the worst thing

5:17:40 for like heat island, right? Oh, sorry.

5:17:43 We have a parking lot surrounded by

5:17:45 about 15 trees.

5:17:46 Yes. Yes, that's fair. That might that

5:17:50 might counter my point. So,

5:17:54 Cara gave us an an answer to this as

5:17:56 well that there are a lot of variables

5:17:58 as to whether a new construction over

5:18:01 what's currently a black top surrounded

5:18:03 by trees would reduce the heat island

5:18:06 effect or potentially exacerbate it. And

5:18:08 a lot of it depends on building

5:18:09 materials, the roof, the precise

5:18:12 dimensions, how many trees would

5:18:15 ultimately uh be replanted. There are a

5:18:18 lot of factors that go into it. So it

5:18:20 might be premature to have a definitive

5:18:22 answer on that. Is there anything else

5:18:23 you'd like to say on that point? No.

5:18:26 All right. So it remains an open

5:18:28 question.

5:18:29 Okay.

5:18:30 Uh and hopefully at some point uh so

5:18:33 regarding design review, would design

5:18:35 review also include roof materials? Not

5:18:38 simply a visual but also the actual

5:18:40 materials.

5:18:42 Absolutely.

5:18:43 All right. Do we have in the MOA carbon

5:18:45 friendly materials? I thought we do. Uh

5:18:48 there's a there is part of the

5:18:50 commitment on climate is to explore

5:18:52 sustainable materials along with uh

5:18:55 thermal energy use.

5:18:56 Yeah. Okay.

5:18:58 Well, and from that perspective, you're

5:19:00 not going to build like to passive house

5:19:02 standards if it radiates heat because

5:19:04 that kind contradicts the passive house

5:19:07 thing

5:19:08 for my limited understanding of how that

5:19:10 works. And another point, sorry David.

5:19:13 If the the lot that's currently there

5:19:15 has 60 spots,

5:19:17 right? And so this place would have 52

5:19:19 spots.

5:19:20 Uh no maximum.

5:19:22 There is a requirement that in the MOA

5:19:24 that it be a maximum of 52 spots.

5:19:26 Maximum 52. What? And again, this is

5:19:30 just off the off the top of my dome

5:19:32 here. Wouldn't that Don't you think that

5:19:33 would like produce traffic?

5:19:36 Yes.

5:19:37 Because there's less cars. I feel like

5:19:38 there would be less traffic.

5:19:40 Yeah. I yeah

5:19:42 I think the concern also though is that

5:19:44 you know if you have a certain number of

5:19:47 residences then those residents can

5:19:50 generate other types of traffic you know

5:19:52 whether it's door dash drives Ubers

5:19:54 sure

5:19:55 or what have you so so it's a there

5:19:58 there's a there's a bit of a trade-off

5:20:00 there but

5:20:01 I I guess the question that I that I

5:20:03 have for uh director Brutin is you know

5:20:07 whether in her experience those those

5:20:09 trade-offs are either significant or

5:20:12 studyable within the con the larger

5:20:14 context of traffic in that area.

5:20:20 Um, so again, my name is Cara Brutin,

5:20:22 director of planning. Um, I will say

5:20:25 that in most projects in eastern

5:20:28 Massachusetts, I haven't seen a project

5:20:30 be stopped because of traffic concerns.

5:20:33 Usually there's a traffic study that's

5:20:35 done, mitigations identified, whether

5:20:37 it's an intersection improvement,

5:20:38 crosswalk improvements, um to try to

5:20:40 make not only the level of service

5:20:44 similar or or better, but also

5:20:46 pedestrian safety, things that aren't

5:20:47 measured by that level of service,

5:20:49 pedestrian safety, bike safety, that

5:20:51 kind of thing. Um is whether it has a

5:20:54 measurable impact. I think we're going

5:20:56 to need to let the traffic engineers

5:20:57 duke that out. that um traffic analysis

5:21:01 the way that it's done is based on

5:21:02 demand, not on the number of parking

5:21:04 spaces and that's frustrating for many

5:21:06 people, but that's just where the state

5:21:08 of traffic engineering is at this point.

5:21:11 Um but I imagine they will also talk

5:21:13 about the fact that it is so close to a

5:21:16 dense commercial area and the green line

5:21:19 being right next door that the mode

5:21:21 shift of anticipated trips for those

5:21:24 residents would be lower because of

5:21:25 that. Anyways,

5:21:27 Amanda,

5:21:28 I just wanted to highlight one thing and

5:21:31 that's the flip side of the traffic that

5:21:32 if you have more people and this is what

5:21:34 Mike Sandman said, if you have more

5:21:36 people and the same number or fewer are

5:21:40 driving but they are all frequenting

5:21:42 your commercial districts nearby,

5:21:44 there's a huge benefit that we are not

5:21:46 actually measuring with any of these

5:21:48 analyses.

5:21:50 to uh Susie Roberts's point about the uh

5:21:54 the three projects not having a

5:21:57 cumulative effect. I don't think Anthony

5:21:59 and I were saying that. Uh of course

5:22:01 there's a cumulative effect. My point is

5:22:03 more that somebody has to go first. So

5:22:06 we have these three different sites.

5:22:08 Realistically, the two that have already

5:22:10 been permitted are going to be

5:22:11 renegotiated. to the extent that we can

5:22:14 define what 26 Pleasant looks like, that

5:22:17 will help inform us in renegotiating the

5:22:20 other two because we will have resolved

5:22:22 one of the three open variables.

5:22:25 Otherwise, we're in this standoff where

5:22:26 nothing happens at any of the three if

5:22:29 we're waiting for somebody to go first.

5:22:31 So, that's a concern I have.

5:22:32 Yeah, totally. And it's the same point

5:22:34 where I just want to say like we don't

5:22:35 want to over we don't want to overreward

5:22:38 incumbency bias where you know they got

5:22:40 here 10 years first so now we're just

5:22:42 going to wait for them to start moving.

5:22:44 We want the economy to be more dynamic

5:22:46 than that and be able to respond to

5:22:48 different conditions.

5:22:49 I respond

5:22:52 what I

5:22:56 go to the microphone. Okay.

5:23:03 Susie Roberts, uh, town meeting member,

5:23:05 precinct 17. Just to clarify, what I

5:23:08 meant by that was that we already do

5:23:10 have zoning for Waldo Durgen and for

5:23:13 1299 Beacon. Those are on the books.

5:23:16 And, you know, if either of those owners

5:23:19 wants to sell tomorrow, projects could

5:23:21 be built to that level. So, zoning does

5:23:24 exist. It's not a variable for either of

5:23:26 those places. The variable is 26

5:23:29 Pleasant, which is still an M1 district.

5:23:31 And so I feel like you guys are sort of

5:23:34 telling yourselves stories about how you

5:23:36 want to accommodate 26 Pleasant, but the

5:23:39 reality is these two zoning districts

5:23:42 actually do. Overlay districts actually

5:23:44 do exist. Pleasant Street also exists.

5:23:48 If you want to change Pleasant Street,

5:23:50 Pleasant Street is the variable, not the

5:23:52 other two. Those are in the books.

5:23:55 Michael.

5:23:55 Yeah. Um I just want to to make one

5:23:59 point in terms of um and this applied

5:24:02 both to the city realy discussions uh as

5:24:06 well as the 26 Pleasant Street

5:24:08 discussions and frankly it also applies

5:24:11 to Waldo Durgen and 1299

5:24:14 uh Beacon Street and that is that like

5:24:18 zoning does not produce traffic, right?

5:24:21 uh buildings and people produce traffic,

5:24:26 right? and the the the comparison

5:24:30 between, you know, the current zoning uh

5:24:35 and the proposed zoning. You know, what

5:24:38 could be built under the current zoning

5:24:40 and what could be built under the

5:24:42 proposed zoning um is only relevant from

5:24:46 my perspective to the extent that such

5:24:49 projects we believe are economically

5:24:52 viable. Um and so if we don't believe

5:24:55 that a a project can be economically vi

5:25:00 can be built economically

5:25:04 uh with the current zoning then in

5:25:07 effect

5:25:08 the current zoning leads to no change.

5:25:11 So the comparison that I am thinking

5:25:14 about in terms of weighing the the the

5:25:17 change factor is between what we have

5:25:19 now a parking lot and and a um and

5:25:24 what's uh the developers are telling us

5:25:26 could be built under the proposed

5:25:28 zoning. Um, I ju I just don't think that

5:25:32 in terms of analyzing the impact of

5:25:35 development, the current M1 zoning is

5:25:38 particularly relevant because it will

5:25:40 only lead to no change.

5:25:43 Anthony,

5:25:44 to be fair to Sus's point, I think she

5:25:47 was um Oh, shoot. Hold on. Give me a

5:25:50 second. You said, what was the last

5:25:52 thing you just said? There's so much

5:25:53 going on. you um it was uh

5:25:58 oh she was making the point that yes the

5:26:01 current owners of the Waldo Durgen lot

5:26:04 do not find it economically viable to

5:26:06 build in the current zoning right

5:26:09 uh yes

5:26:10 right otherwise they would do it um

5:26:12 she's making the point that well what if

5:26:14 there's another company that can do it

5:26:16 economically viable with e with a better

5:26:18 more economic viability maybe they have

5:26:20 a larger balance sheet maybe maybe they

5:26:22 have more cash on hand maybe they don't

5:26:24 need to do as much financing and then

5:26:26 then that project can happen much faster

5:26:29 and then they can happen coincide. Now I

5:26:30 don't necessarily agree with that but I

5:26:32 that's like the that's that's her point

5:26:34 which I think makes sense.

5:26:36 The problem is we can't force somebody

5:26:37 to sell to other

5:26:40 to someone else who would we're not

5:26:41 supposed to have a back and forth. I I

5:26:43 gave you a bit of leeway but we can have

5:26:44 further discussions and subsequent

5:26:46 meetings.

5:26:47 As a point of clarification

5:26:49 go ahead. Uh Waldo Durgen never even

5:26:52 applied to the board of appeals and they

5:26:54 never went through the planning board

5:26:55 and board of appeals process.

5:26:59 What does that mean?

5:27:00 Oh, so they had they there the zoning is

5:27:03 in place, but there is no project,

5:27:06 right?

5:27:07 There's there's no project that is

5:27:09 utilizing that zoning.

5:27:10 Yeah. to address uh Susan's point

5:27:14 regarding uh letters that we receive and

5:27:17 constituent concerns. I think we we do

5:27:20 read the letters. We do take constituent

5:27:22 concerns seriously, but it's important

5:27:23 to keep in mind that we're also getting

5:27:25 letters from people who want this to be

5:27:27 built. We're also getting letters from

5:27:29 people who prioritize meeting our

5:27:32 housing production plan goals. And the

5:27:35 unfortunate reality in any development

5:27:38 question, there will always be people

5:27:39 who support it. There will always be

5:27:41 people who oppose it. And obviously, we

5:27:44 can't ultimately plate both. But that

5:27:46 doesn't mean that they're not being

5:27:47 heard. We read the letters from those

5:27:50 who are in support. We read the letters

5:27:52 from those who are in opposition. And u

5:27:55 many if not all of us meet with

5:27:57 individuals from both camps and hear

5:27:59 them out. Uh, as Michael described, we

5:28:02 did have conversations about considering

5:28:04 this parcel as a park that ultimately

5:28:06 was not economically realistic for the

5:28:09 town to undertake, nor of interest uh to

5:28:12 the developer. But we do entertain what

5:28:15 many different constituencies state. We

5:28:18 can't please everybody. That's the

5:28:19 reality of these situations. Uh there

5:28:22 are binary decisions that have to be

5:28:24 made with respect to uh development. Uh

5:28:27 I do take very seriously though when

5:28:30 people feel that they're not being

5:28:32 heard. And so if there is a lot of

5:28:35 interest in an additional public hearing

5:28:37 that's more freewheeling and more time

5:28:40 uh allotted, I'm perfectly uh willing to

5:28:43 entertain doing that because I don't

5:28:45 want people to ever feel that they're

5:28:46 being shut down or silenced. The only

5:28:49 reason I didn't allow much of that today

5:28:50 is because I want people to have uh set

5:28:54 expectations when they're coming into a

5:28:56 meeting. based on what the rules of

5:28:58 engagement are and we generally have

5:29:00 that rule of three minutes per person

5:29:01 and then we move on to the next. Okay.

5:29:04 Um in the interest of moving forward I

5:29:06 would like to put forward a motion for

5:29:09 the select board to approve replacing

5:29:13 the MOA that we uh incorporated into

5:29:17 warrant article 16 on October 6th with

5:29:20 the one that's in the packet today

5:29:22 unless there are any specific

5:29:24 modifications that anybody wants to

5:29:25 make. So replacing version 20 with 25.

5:29:28 Yeah, that's correct.

5:29:29 All right. So, first we need to do the

5:29:30 reconsideration vote

5:29:32 because we already

5:29:34 This isn't a warrant article vote.

5:29:36 I think it's different.

5:29:38 No, I'm agreeing with

5:29:39 All right. Okay.

5:29:40 All right. So moved.

5:29:42 Yes.

5:29:43 Michael,

5:29:44 yes.

5:29:44 Amanda,

5:29:45 yes.

5:29:45 Anthony,

5:29:46 yes.

5:29:46 And I also vote yes.

5:29:48 Thank you.

5:29:51 All right. Any other points on War

5:29:54 Article 16?

5:29:56 Okay, then we'll move on to our next

5:29:59 item.

5:30:01 Thank you very much to those who

5:30:02 Thank you.

5:30:03 have been present here for a very long

5:30:05 time and stating your points. It's

5:30:07 important to be heard. Of course, we

5:30:10 will

5:30:11 Thank you. All right. So, next we have

5:30:14 board and commission interviews, small

5:30:16 business development committee where

5:30:17 there are six vacancies and we have

5:30:20 candidate Karen Flannry.

5:30:22 So, Karen signed off. Um, she wrote in

5:30:24 the chat, "Would you like me to read

5:30:26 what she wrote?"

5:30:26 Sure.

5:30:27 Okay.

5:30:28 Um, she said that she couldn't stay on

5:30:29 any later. Um, she owns Andom Art

5:30:32 Studios in Brooklyn Village. It's a 50

5:30:34 person studio with 247 access to

5:30:37 members. She's enjoyed being on the SPDC

5:30:39 for the past three years and

5:30:41 representing small businesses when

5:30:42 discussing the effects of parking,

5:30:44 transportation, traffic, and the

5:30:45 Washington Street Complete Streets

5:30:48 projects on businesses in the village

5:30:50 and throughout Brooklyn. She would

5:30:52 appreciate being reinstated for an

5:30:54 additional three years.

5:30:56 All right.

5:30:58 Any comments, discussions?

5:31:00 Is this right that there are six

5:31:01 vacancies?

5:31:03 Yes.

5:31:03 That's crazy.

5:31:04 And is she the only one up for

5:31:06 reappoint?

5:31:07 Uh, she was the only one that missed the

5:31:09 reappoint application period. So, this

5:31:11 is

5:31:12 board protocol going forward that if you

5:31:14 miss the application, go through the

5:31:15 interview process again.

5:31:17 All right. So, go ahead, Michael. I

5:31:19 would just propose that we reschedule.

5:31:21 Reschedule.

5:31:23 Uh,

5:31:24 she was waiting for hours.

5:31:26 Yes.

5:31:26 Yeah, I think we can go ahead and vote.

5:31:28 She's already been serving. There's six

5:31:29 vacancies. Melanie read the statement.

5:31:32 So, I'll I'll go ahead and move.

5:31:33 I assume there's no nothing no

5:31:35 information we have from the chair of

5:31:37 the committee.

5:31:38 They they support her reappointment.

5:31:41 All right. So, I'll go ahead and move

5:31:43 that we appoint reappoint Karen Flannry

5:31:47 to a three-year term on the Small

5:31:49 Business Development Committee.

5:31:51 Yes.

5:31:52 Bernard votes. Yes. Michael Amanda.

5:31:54 Yes.

5:31:55 Anthony,

5:31:55 yes.

5:31:55 And I also vote yes.

5:31:58 All right. Uh, we already addressed

5:32:00 number 12.

5:32:01 Five more spots to go.

5:32:03 So, that

5:32:04 1050.

5:32:05 So, that brings us to

5:32:07 45

5:32:08 Chestnut Hills. Chestnut Hill zoning

5:32:09 presentation on the assessment of the

5:32:11 Chesn Hill commercial area reszoning

5:32:13 process.

5:32:14 Um it's quarter to 11 and we still have

5:32:17 at least one order warrant article and I

5:32:20 don't know if we're going to take on the

5:32:21 policy on fudge conduct tonight.

5:32:23 So

5:32:23 I'm wondering whether we can push this

5:32:25 to a future meeting or is it that we

5:32:28 So what I was going to propose so I

5:32:32 we received a lot of proposed revisions

5:32:35 on policy on fraudulent conduct. I think

5:32:37 there's still more work to be done on

5:32:38 that one. So, I'm not sure we need to

5:32:40 take that up tonight. About how long

5:32:43 were you anticipating that the Ches Hill

5:32:45 zoning presentation and assessment would

5:32:47 take?

5:32:48 This isn't my

5:32:50 Meredith, about how long do you think

5:32:51 that would take?

5:32:53 Uh, we're we're prepared to give sort of

5:32:55 a streamlined version of the

5:32:56 presentation given the late hour.

5:32:59 So, you know, 15 minutes.

5:33:02 I'd rather hunker late at another time.

5:33:04 All right. So appearing that most

5:33:06 members would like to take that up

5:33:08 another time.

5:33:09 Sorry for making you wait up late

5:33:11 Meredith.

5:33:14 Um and our consultant Emily Andis is

5:33:16 also in as well.

5:33:17 Okay. And then your full version would

5:33:18 be what about a half hour and not just

5:33:21 critiquing just to have a general idea.

5:33:25 Well I I mean you know a half hour for

5:33:27 the presentation and discussion. I think

5:33:30 um this was an opportunity for the

5:33:31 select board to incorporate your

5:33:34 comments feedback into the feedback that

5:33:37 we have already received from the other

5:33:38 land use boards and committees and some

5:33:40 of the focus groups. Um so you know

5:33:43 there was the intention that we could

5:33:44 follow up with sort of the the final

5:33:46 report at a later date.

5:33:49 All right. Uh

5:33:52 looks like most members want to put this

5:33:54 off to a future meeting though. So I

5:33:55 guess we'll do that.

5:33:58 Is that is that actually true? I

5:34:00 Well, I don't know. It sounded like two

5:34:01 of you wanted to move it on.

5:34:02 My my thing was I just didn't want a

5:34:03 streamlined version. If we were going to

5:34:04 do it, I'd like to have a larger, you

5:34:05 know what I that that's kind of

5:34:06 so what I'll propose is we go ahead and

5:34:08 we take up Chesn Hill zoning now since

5:34:10 there seems to be some time pressure on

5:34:13 that and we push off policy on

5:34:15 fraudulent conduct to a future date

5:34:17 which I think we were going to do anyway

5:34:19 because we've at least I've received a

5:34:21 lot of proposed edits from various

5:34:22 people and to the extent that maybe we

5:34:24 can streamline some of that for future

5:34:27 discussion

5:34:28 and can someone share those edits with

5:34:30 the rest of us because I received a

5:34:32 couple but not

5:34:33 I don't think I received much um and

5:34:35 then I also will point out that we still

5:34:37 have the vision zero resolution,

5:34:39 right? I think we should do that, too.

5:34:41 You want to do that tonight? Tell the

5:34:42 one who wrote an amendment whether or

5:34:44 not she should stick around.

5:34:46 You uh see

5:34:50 you should. Yes. Um

5:34:55 which one should we do first? How long

5:34:56 do you think or article 20 would take?

5:35:00 All right. Okay. So, go ahead, Meredith.

5:35:03 You're on.

5:35:04 Thank you. Uh so good evening members of

5:35:07 the select board. Again, Meredith

5:35:08 Mooney, economic development director.

5:35:11 I'm joined tonight by our consultant

5:35:13 Emily Keys Inis, who's the president of

5:35:15 the Inis land strategies group. Um Emily

5:35:19 has extensive experience and expertise

5:35:21 in uh working with communities on land

5:35:23 use plans, zoning, and design guidelines

5:35:26 and all of the public processes that um

5:35:29 support those efforts. and we're here

5:35:32 tonight to present sort of initial

5:35:33 findings and recommendations that have

5:35:36 emerged from a debrief process on the

5:35:38 Chesnut Hill resoning process. Um so we

5:35:42 had decided to undertake the scope of

5:35:44 work uh after conversations we had with

5:35:46 our economic development advisory board

5:35:48 and members of the community advisory

5:35:50 group um that provided input and

5:35:52 guidance direction throughout the

5:35:54 Chestnut Hill resoning process. Um, I

5:35:56 also did just want to point out that I

5:35:58 think this effort does align with and

5:36:01 support uh the select board roadmap

5:36:03 goal. Um, number four, improving

5:36:05 communications

5:36:07 um and engagement with residents

5:36:09 particularly regarding um public process

5:36:12 protocols for zoning efforts.

5:36:15 So the you know the reason why and we've

5:36:17 discussed this before but the reason uh

5:36:19 why we thought it was important to

5:36:21 undertake this debrief profit debrief

5:36:23 process and work with Emily as sort of a

5:36:26 neutral third party in uh reviewing the

5:36:29 work that was part of the Chestnut Hill

5:36:31 commercial area study uh was because the

5:36:34 Chestnut Hill commercial area study work

5:36:36 was a departure from um past practice

5:36:39 where the select board would

5:36:40 historically appoint a select board

5:36:42 appointed committee on commercial area

5:36:45 studies or to reszone large sites like

5:36:48 Waldo Durgen for example. Um and instead

5:36:50 we move forward with Chestnut Hill as a

5:36:52 staffled initiative um where ultimately

5:36:55 staff would be responsible for

5:36:56 developing um uh the zoning and final

5:37:00 recommendations to the select board for

5:37:01 your consideration and decision about

5:37:04 whether or not to put that before town

5:37:06 meeting for um its consideration. Um so

5:37:09 you know we felt it was important that

5:37:11 now that that process has concluded we

5:37:13 do an assessment of whether or not this

5:37:16 uh new format that we've experimented

5:37:18 with was successful and you know what

5:37:20 worked well um where the opportunities

5:37:23 room for improvement and you know how

5:37:24 could we improve upon future commercial

5:37:27 area or large site um planning studies

5:37:30 going forward. So just a very quick

5:37:33 overview of the process and then I'm

5:37:34 going to turn it over to Emily. Um we

5:37:38 earlier this summer convened several

5:37:40 focus group discussions that included

5:37:42 members of the community advisory group

5:37:44 as well as a small cohort of town

5:37:46 meeting members and uh there were also

5:37:48 interviews with staff who were very

5:37:50 involved in the process. Um and then the

5:37:52 select board leadership that was

5:37:53 involved in that work as well. Select

5:37:55 board member Michael Rubenstein, former

5:37:57 select board member Mike Samman. And uh

5:38:00 based on those conversations, Emily

5:38:02 developed an initial set of key findings

5:38:05 and recommendations that were then

5:38:06 presented to all of the land use boards

5:38:09 over the summer and in the early fall

5:38:11 for uh you know their additional

5:38:14 thoughts and you know questions that

5:38:15 were then incorporated and we refined

5:38:18 the findings and the recommendations

5:38:20 based on that additional input. So

5:38:22 tonight we wanted to, you know, share

5:38:24 where we're at in terms of findings and

5:38:25 recommendations and give the select

5:38:27 board the opportunity to um incorporate

5:38:30 your perspectives and input in that as

5:38:32 well. In addition to sort of this uh

5:38:36 internal town debrief, we are also

5:38:38 planning on conducting interviews with

5:38:39 developers about sort of their

5:38:41 perceptions about development um and the

5:38:44 process in Brooklyn. Um, we were

5:38:46 planning on sort of reporting back on

5:38:48 that when we come back to the select

5:38:50 board in December with our commercial

5:38:52 areas update and to present an update on

5:38:55 the economic development division's um,

5:38:57 strategic work plan. So um, with that I

5:39:01 will turn it over to Emily to share the

5:39:03 findings and recommendations.

5:39:14 Emily is raising her hand.

5:39:18 Oh, you know what? I think Emily needs

5:39:20 to be promoted to

5:39:22 like

5:39:24 too many screens here.

5:39:34 She's all set.

5:39:38 I would have figured it out eventually.

5:39:40 Emily, it looks like you're a co-host

5:39:42 now.

5:39:45 Hey, there I am. Hello everybody. Um, a

5:39:49 very nice

5:39:49 You're really quiet. Can you speak up?

5:39:52 Yes. I'm just going to fix that on my

5:39:54 controls. Just one moment. Good evening

5:39:58 everyone. Can you hear me now?

5:40:00 Yes.

5:40:01 Excellent. Um, it is a pleasure to be

5:40:03 with you tonight. Again, for the record,

5:40:06 my name is Emily Keys Ennis. I'm

5:40:08 president of Inisland Strategies Group

5:40:10 and I am going to share my screen with

5:40:12 you and just very quickly because I know

5:40:15 it is a late hour um uh go through the

5:40:19 key points of uh the information um that

5:40:24 Meredith outlined for you. So the first

5:40:26 few slides of this and I believe you all

5:40:28 have it in your packet are um uh the

5:40:31 overall process that Meredith just went

5:40:33 through. So I'm going to start you

5:40:34 partway through at the findings. Um uh

5:40:37 the key thing uh from the interviews

5:40:39 that I did uh with the uh different

5:40:42 groups um uh some individual interviews

5:40:45 uh EDAB, the planning board, the HAB and

5:40:48 members of the CAG. Uh couple of key

5:40:52 elements that fed into this relatively

5:40:54 new process for the town. Um this

5:40:57 staffled, staff facilitated process had

5:41:00 advantages. project management

5:41:02 wellreceived.

5:41:04 The volunteer boards which have

5:41:05 participated in the past in these uh in

5:41:08 other zoning processes again their

5:41:11 expertise proved very useful. Um the

5:41:14 work that uh select board member Michael

5:41:16 Rubenstein did around the FAQs and the

5:41:19 outreach was very wellreceived um in

5:41:22 terms of reaching out to town meeting

5:41:24 members. Um, some people felt that the

5:41:26 Brookline community was starting to

5:41:28 build up an understanding of reszoning

5:41:32 and what makes a good neighborhood. And

5:41:35 if you uh take the point of view that

5:41:38 adoption of zoning by town meeting is

5:41:41 successful, then the reasonzoning

5:41:42 process itself was successful. So there

5:41:45 was a lot of good that came out of this

5:41:47 new process.

5:41:49 couple of things that were um uh less uh

5:41:53 positive. Uh the initial timeline the uh

5:41:56 first meeting of the CAG

5:41:59 um had set up a timeline and that

5:42:01 timeline was too short and ultimately

5:42:03 for what this process was. It needed to

5:42:06 be longer. And then there's a couple of

5:42:07 things that flow out of that. One is

5:42:10 while community engagement was good at

5:42:13 the beginning of the process, it was not

5:42:15 sufficient in the later stages. it was

5:42:17 really limited to uh participation in

5:42:20 public comments at the CAG meetings um

5:42:23 or later public hearings. Uh funding for

5:42:26 technical resources again because the

5:42:28 process changed partway through with the

5:42:30 addition of city realy funding for

5:42:32 technical resources the resources that

5:42:34 might be needed weren't fully thought

5:42:36 out at the beginning of this process and

5:42:39 the same was true of roles. uh there

5:42:41 some people that I interviewed felt that

5:42:43 the roles um uh really needed to be

5:42:46 clarified. Was it the staff who were

5:42:48 leading? Was it the select board or the

5:42:50 select boards leazison who was leading?

5:42:52 Was it the members of the CAG who were

5:42:54 leading? Um and as a correlary to that,

5:42:58 some of the CH members felt that they

5:42:59 really didn't have closure on this

5:43:02 process that there was a need either for

5:43:05 a closing vote, although it was

5:43:07 understood at the beginning that that

5:43:08 was not that they were not going to be

5:43:10 voting or at least a specified and

5:43:13 advanced final meeting. Um, others

5:43:16 thought that consultant input had not

5:43:18 been fully aligned with the project

5:43:20 needs and that staff could have pushed

5:43:22 back harder against what the consultants

5:43:25 uh produced prior to it coming to a

5:43:27 public meeting and that uh there was a

5:43:30 concern about whether or not developer

5:43:32 specific processes should be uh

5:43:35 separated for neighborhoodwide

5:43:37 processes. So with that there's two sort

5:43:40 of components here. there's an overall

5:43:43 set of recommendations and then based on

5:43:46 um some suggestions from the planning

5:43:49 board, we've gone into more depth. So,

5:43:51 I'm not going to go too far in depth on

5:43:54 the global recommendations because you

5:43:57 do have it. But I do um want to note

5:44:00 that continuing the staffled, staff

5:44:02 facilitated process seems to be

5:44:04 reasonable because overall it worked

5:44:06 well. A lot of this uh the comments that

5:44:10 were somewhat negative about the process

5:44:11 could have been from uh or addressed by

5:44:14 better defining some of the roles and

5:44:16 accountability within the process in

5:44:19 advance. I also recommend defing

5:44:35 the goals for the process itself in

5:44:37 advance and conducting what we call a

5:44:40 premortem, which is saying, "Okay, if

5:44:42 you're starting at the end endgame at

5:44:44 the town meeting, what should happen on

5:44:46 the way to the town meeting?

5:44:56 ing metrics for how do you measure how

5:45:00 well the process is going as the process

5:45:02 moves forward with that premortem comes

5:45:06 budgeting for and allocating the

5:45:08 resources early and although I mentioned

5:45:10 consultants resources are also staff

5:45:13 time and the effort um that they need to

5:45:16 take in order to manage the process

5:45:18 and volunteer time. So, if the volunteer

5:45:21 boards are going to be involved, if

5:45:23 there is going to be another advisory

5:45:25 committee or smaller focus groups, we'll

5:45:26 get into that in a minute, that those

5:45:28 resources be allocated in advance.

5:45:31 Community engagement needs to be

5:45:33 rethought and thought through at the

5:45:35 beginning of the process. And then

5:45:37 allowing some more time um for

5:45:40 reasonzoning studies and draft zoning.

5:45:42 And I'm going to show you quickly three

5:45:44 options for that. So I have two sets of

5:45:48 again global recommendations. One on the

5:45:50 roles. I'm not going to go into each of

5:45:52 these bullet points, but just note that

5:45:54 tried to identify all of the groups or

5:45:57 people who are involved in a

5:45:59 reasonzoning process and provide some

5:46:01 clarification on the roles. So you'll

5:46:04 see there's a nice long column for the

5:46:06 members of the select board as well as

5:46:08 for the planning staff and then the

5:46:09 other people stakeholders other town

5:46:12 officials, consultants, developers and

5:46:14 town meeting members and how they should

5:46:16 be engaged in the process.

5:46:19 I also go into other ways of thinking

5:46:22 about community engagement. uh not that

5:46:24 every single one of these needs to be

5:46:26 used for a single reasonzoning process,

5:46:29 but there's an ability to mix and match

5:46:32 depending on the type of process and

5:46:34 what is needed. Um uh some thoughts

5:46:36 about how to think about it, uh engaging

5:46:39 the community or engaging a neighborhood

5:46:42 prior to the resoning effort starting.

5:46:44 And I think there's a key um element of

5:46:47 that that we heard from some of the

5:46:49 members that uh any developer if it's a

5:46:51 developer uh participant in the process

5:46:54 that they need to be building their own

5:46:56 relationships with the neighborhood

5:46:58 before kicking off the process. and then

5:47:00 the the different uh purposes of each of

5:47:03 these community engagements.

5:47:06 And then one of the things that came out

5:47:08 of uh conversations with the planning

5:47:10 board and EDAB and to a lesser extent

5:47:13 HAB um was some of the tensions that are

5:47:17 inherent in any process and thinking

5:47:19 about how to balance those tensions. Um

5:47:22 so how to look how to basically start

5:47:25 with the endgame which is getting

5:47:26 rezoning efforts to town meeting in a

5:47:29 warrant article um to discuss and then

5:47:32 working backwards from that for the

5:47:34 pre-planning. Um the tension between

5:47:36 being proactive about zoning versus

5:47:39 reactive. So do you zone a neighborhood

5:47:42 in advance of anything happening or a

5:47:44 commercial district in advance of

5:47:45 anything happening or wait until a

5:47:48 developer comes forward? um the tension

5:47:51 between having working meetings versus

5:47:53 meetings that invite public input. Uh

5:47:56 sometimes it's important, they're all

5:47:58 public meetings, but sometimes it's

5:47:59 important to um work through the

5:48:02 questions and the process and then

5:48:05 invite public meeting uh public input at

5:48:07 specific points. And then the process uh

5:48:10 or the tension between the momentum of a

5:48:13 resoning process keeping that going and

5:48:16 keeping it steady versus it moving so

5:48:19 quickly that it the momentum itself is

5:48:21 overtaking the process and building in

5:48:24 time for input evaluation reflection and

5:48:28 then discussion before starting the the

5:48:31 next stage of the process.

5:48:34 Uh scale was important is that you may

5:48:37 use a different process for a smaller

5:48:40 area versus a larger area. Um setting

5:48:43 expectations

5:48:45 uh in terms of timeline needs. So if it

5:48:48 is a process with a developer having

5:48:50 them being clear upfront about why

5:48:53 they're proposing a timeline um for

5:48:56 resoning. um if the reasonzoning has

5:48:59 certain parameters what it can or needs

5:49:02 to accomplish and it can't that needs to

5:49:04 be clear at the outset. Um and then

5:49:07 visualizations was a topic that came up

5:49:09 several times throughout this and the

5:49:11 balance of something that looks real

5:49:13 versus conceptual and where those

5:49:16 visualization what types of

5:49:18 visualizations there are and how they

5:49:20 come into play into the process. So the

5:49:23 planning board had asked that uh

5:49:25 actually may have been sorry it may have

5:49:26 been EDAB that asked uh that we consider

5:49:29 providing uh models for processes. So

5:49:32 we've got three separate models here.

5:49:34 One is for technical changes or an

5:49:38 update that's been being made based on a

5:49:40 previous visioning process. This should

5:49:43 take the least amount of time because

5:49:44 there's already been a significant

5:49:46 amount of public engagement. Um the

5:49:48 second process model is a neighborhood

5:49:51 resoning. So, this would be on the

5:49:52 proactive side. Um, uh, starting from

5:49:55 scratch in a neighborhood. This would

5:49:58 probably be the longest because you have

5:49:59 an element of visioning before you got

5:50:02 to the reszoning portions. So, going

5:50:05 through the goals, the pre-planning

5:50:07 timeline, resources, community

5:50:09 engagement, visualizations, and then the

5:50:12 final would be reszoning with a

5:50:14 developer where a developer is on board

5:50:16 from the start and how to think through

5:50:18 that process model.

5:50:21 And with that, again, because this is a

5:50:22 quick overview and I'm happy to go into

5:50:24 more detail, we do have a set of

5:50:26 appendices afterwards that summarizes

5:50:28 the input received to date. Any input

5:50:31 that we hear from you tonight um I will

5:50:34 incorporate into um uh the section of

5:50:37 the appendices for your input and then

5:50:39 I'll go back and revise anything that

5:50:42 needs to be revised from the um uh from

5:50:45 the main part that I summarized just

5:50:47 now. So with that and again being aware

5:50:50 of your schedule, I'm happy to take any

5:50:52 questions at this point.

5:50:54 Any questions from board members?

5:50:58 Michael.

5:50:59 Uh first of all, uh thank you very much

5:51:03 for the for the work and the

5:51:05 presentation. Um and it also I think

5:51:08 makes excellent reading um for improving

5:51:11 our processes. Um I had one question uh

5:51:18 in in in the the process B where you're

5:51:22 talking about neighborhoods. Um I'm

5:51:25 wondering whether or not you feel um

5:51:30 that things like a comprehensive

5:51:33 planning process um how those things

5:51:36 should best be folded into these other

5:51:39 processes. Um because um obviously while

5:51:43 the comprehensive plan has been being

5:51:45 developed there's been sort of tension

5:51:47 around this question of of you know how

5:51:50 much do we wait how much do we

5:51:52 anticipate what the comprehensive plan

5:51:54 might include um how much do we move

5:51:57 forward at what rate do we move forward

5:52:00 um so I wonder if there you have any

5:52:02 thoughts or or uh recommendations about

5:52:05 incorporating comprehensive planning

5:52:08 into any of these areas. Um, that was my

5:52:12 question and I don't know whether you

5:52:13 want to answer that now or or give it

5:52:16 some thought.

5:52:17 I I'd be happy to. We ran into the the

5:52:20 same some situation for a comprehensive

5:52:23 plan we were doing out in central

5:52:25 Massachusetts a few years ago and we had

5:52:27 already started the planning process and

5:52:30 a um developer came forward, property

5:52:32 owner came forward with a potential

5:52:34 development um and it was a little

5:52:36 tricky for us. A comprehensive plan is

5:52:40 generally 10 to 15 years. So you're

5:52:43 looking 10 to 15 years in the future and

5:52:45 trying to anticipate at quite a high

5:52:47 level what is going to happen um uh

5:52:51 along the the various different elements

5:52:53 that are part of uh the the sort of the

5:52:56 legislative guidelines around creating a

5:52:58 comprehensive plan and uh and land use

5:53:02 is of course a huge part of that. That's

5:53:04 that's where they first started. But it

5:53:06 can be really tricky when you're having

5:53:08 conversations about a project that could

5:53:11 be happening in the next year or so

5:53:13 while you're also trying to think 10 to

5:53:15 15 years out. Um, so if it if the plan

5:53:20 has been if the comprehensive plan has

5:53:22 been finished, then one of the things we

5:53:25 would recommend in a neighborhood

5:53:27 resoning process is to look back at that

5:53:29 comprehensive plan. See if that

5:53:32 neighborhood was called out as something

5:53:35 to study in the comprehensive plan and

5:53:37 if so, what were the recommendations

5:53:39 around that neighborhood? Um, and if uh

5:53:43 and if it was not, are there general

5:53:45 principles uh the goals of v the overall

5:53:48 vision of a comprehensive plan that can

5:53:50 inform that neighborhood process? If the

5:53:53 project is coming, as that client was

5:53:55 for us in central Massachusetts, if the

5:53:57 project is coming forward during the

5:53:59 comprehensive plan, I think it's

5:54:01 important for the community as as we

5:54:03 tried to work with the community to

5:54:06 separate out the implications of

5:54:08 something that could happen in the next

5:54:10 year or two versus the the higher level,

5:54:13 the comprehensive plan. And then

5:54:15 depending on where they are in the

5:54:17 comprehensive planning process, have

5:54:20 there already been goals or visioning um

5:54:24 that have come through in the process

5:54:25 that are solid enough that they could be

5:54:28 considered as part of the discussion

5:54:31 around the near-term project or as a

5:54:34 comprehensive plan in a state where um

5:54:37 uh that that hasn't been solidified. And

5:54:40 I would say that's also true of a

5:54:41 neighborhood plan. If um for example, if

5:54:45 you started with a process model B and

5:54:47 say you were threequarters of the way

5:54:50 through it and a property owner came

5:54:52 forward and said, "Hey, this looks

5:54:53 great. I'd like to do this now." Again,

5:54:56 trying to figure out how that developer

5:54:59 uh would that developer proposes or what

5:55:02 that property owner proposes compared to

5:55:04 what stage of the neighborhood visioning

5:55:06 you are. If it's something where the

5:55:09 property owner comes in at the very

5:55:10 beginning of the process, then it starts

5:55:12 to flow into more of a process model C

5:55:15 where the developer is already involved.

5:55:17 So that whether it's a B or a C could

5:55:20 depend on sort of when a developer comes

5:55:23 into the process. But it is very

5:55:26 important to understand when uh you're

5:55:28 taking the long view as part of a

5:55:30 planning process and when it's more the

5:55:32 shorter term like the 3 to five or the

5:55:34 the two to five year period and try and

5:55:37 separate out the discussions on those

5:55:39 two.

5:55:41 Thank you. Um I I think that's very

5:55:43 relevant to both the Chesnut Hill

5:55:45 commercial area project and uh current

5:55:48 projects um that are in the pipeline. Um

5:55:52 the second thing that I wanted to sort

5:55:55 of pull out um you had you made some

5:55:58 excellent recommendations around uh

5:56:01 establishing goals and timelines early

5:56:04 on. Um I wonder if you had given any

5:56:07 similar thought to identifying risks in

5:56:11 projects um in parallel so that you know

5:56:15 as time passes and other things occur

5:56:19 that um that there's some consideration

5:56:23 upfront of and as the project move

5:56:26 forward moves forward of potential risks

5:56:29 that would uh impact either the goals or

5:56:33 the feasibility ility of moving forward

5:56:35 with your project.

5:56:38 Yes. And that's where the premortem

5:56:40 comes in. Um that idea of assessing at

5:56:42 the very beginning what could those

5:56:44 risks be? Some of them are controllable

5:56:47 during a process and some of them are

5:56:49 not controllable. So um the types of

5:56:52 risks that you can mitigate against is

5:56:55 obviously when you get to town meeting,

5:56:57 town meeting members are generally going

5:56:59 to have a lot of questions, right? and

5:57:01 how much information I think uh the city

5:57:04 realy partly uh or a great deal to do

5:57:06 with the efforts that you yourself made

5:57:08 but um the process of how do you get to

5:57:11 town meeting members um in advance so

5:57:13 that they have time to ask their

5:57:14 questions participate in the process

5:57:17 identify their concerns so those can be

5:57:19 addressed prior to the floor of town

5:57:22 meeting that's one risk another risk

5:57:24 obviously is um uh something that I

5:57:27 heard a little bit of tonight is when

5:57:29 you have a neighborhood where some

5:57:30 people are interested in in a project

5:57:32 and having it move forward and the

5:57:35 conditions under which it would move

5:57:36 forward and other people who have

5:57:38 concerns. It's not that they don't want

5:57:39 it to move forward, but they don't um

5:57:42 have the the same perspective on uh some

5:57:45 of the same questions. And so, how do

5:57:48 you mitigate against the risk of that?

5:57:49 How do you develop um ways for people to

5:57:52 get their input in earlier into the

5:57:54 process and uh understand uh when

5:57:57 they're being heard and when they need

5:57:58 to have more information? Those are

5:58:01 controllable risks. Um, uh, either

5:58:04 working, you know, staff for a

5:58:06 neighborhood process or staff and a

5:58:09 developer process of figuring out when

5:58:11 the input is, when the information comes

5:58:13 in, non-controllable risks. Um, and

5:58:17 sorry, and the other thing that's

5:58:18 controllable is understanding the

5:58:19 timeline. uh is there a specific a

5:58:22 specific timeline that needs to be met

5:58:25 and knowing that at the very beginning

5:58:27 of the project and incorporating that

5:58:28 into the project. We talked a little bit

5:58:31 um uh in some of the other meetings

5:58:33 about starting with the town meeting

5:58:35 that you want to take the zoning to and

5:58:36 working backwards and do you actually

5:58:38 have enough time to do that? Um the

5:58:41 risks you can't control are big global

5:58:44 things like the economy. Um uh interest

5:58:47 rates going up or interest rates going

5:58:49 down or commodity prices changing or

5:58:52 something that might otherwise affect

5:58:54 the cycle that was unexpected.

5:58:57 Um, and so it's perhaps

5:59:01 understanding as a community a little

5:59:03 bit more about how those risks might um,

5:59:06 impact a discussion of a resoning and

5:59:08 especially if that's tied to a

5:59:10 particular project. And I think that

5:59:12 goes with the idea we we heard from some

5:59:14 people that they felt that Brookline was

5:59:17 as a community was starting to

5:59:20 understand a little bit more what makes

5:59:21 a great neighborhood. some of the

5:59:23 terminology that comes through. I think

5:59:26 building community understanding about

5:59:28 how development does and does not work

5:59:30 can be an important part of that and

5:59:32 could feed into a pre-planning

5:59:35 um uh community outreach process if that

5:59:37 was something that the town felt that it

5:59:39 wanted to undertake.

5:59:41 Thank you.

5:59:43 a question I have. So on slide number

5:59:46 seven with the findings, uh, one of your

5:59:48 items is consultants need guidance from

5:59:51 staff. Some consultant input was not

5:59:54 aligned with the project needs and staff

5:59:56 should have provided feedback before

5:59:59 information became public. Could you go

6:00:02 into a little more detail about what you

6:00:04 mean there regarding alignment with

6:00:06 consultants and staff?

6:00:08 Yes, absolutely. um uh it came up in two

6:00:12 particular places. One was on

6:00:15 visualizations. It's one of the reasons

6:00:17 I I talked a little bit more about the

6:00:18 different types of visualizations and

6:00:20 how they could be used. Um there was

6:00:23 some feeling from some of the people

6:00:24 that I interviewed that there were some

6:00:27 wireframe um designs that were used to

6:00:30 try and communicate how something could

6:00:31 look and they felt that that was not as

6:00:33 effective and that staff could have

6:00:35 pushed a little bit harder on that. And

6:00:37 then the other was um uh looking at the

6:00:40 traffic consulting um and the proposal

6:00:44 um for traffic mitigation in the area.

6:00:46 Uh there was some um concern from people

6:00:49 that I heard that the solution that was

6:00:52 proposed was not appropriate for that

6:00:54 area and that staff could have pushed a

6:00:57 little bit harder to um uh make it a

6:01:00 little bit more specific. So those are

6:01:02 the two that come come to mind of the

6:01:05 things that I heard.

6:01:07 All right. Thank you. Because one

6:01:08 potential concern I have is I don't want

6:01:12 the public to be under the impression

6:01:14 that we are saying consultants must

6:01:18 march in lock step with staff in terms

6:01:21 of their substantive opinions on

6:01:23 something because there's value to there

6:01:25 being differences there. And I know

6:01:27 that's not what you just said, which is

6:01:29 why I appreciate you offering further

6:01:31 clarity, but I think you might want to

6:01:33 make that point abundantly clear that

6:01:35 we're not trying to say consultants need

6:01:38 to match whatever staff is saying. And

6:01:40 that's not because I disrespect staff. I

6:01:42 very much respect staff, but the point

6:01:43 of bringing in a consultant sometimes is

6:01:46 to offer a perspective that perhaps

6:01:49 hasn't been expressed previously. and I

6:01:51 wouldn't want to punish a consultant uh

6:01:55 for not expressing the exact same views.

6:01:59 Uh I think that's a valid point and I'd

6:02:01 be happy to clarify that um uh in there.

6:02:05 It was it was specific to whether or not

6:02:08 the information provided was relevant to

6:02:13 this particular site in this particular

6:02:15 way. I think that's what I heard. So I'm

6:02:17 happy to offer that clarification.

6:02:19 Anyone else? Amanda,

6:02:22 I just wanted to make a brief comment. I

6:02:24 really appreciate the amount of effort

6:02:27 on community engagement because it's

6:02:29 something that we have struggled with as

6:02:30 a town of how to do efficient um

6:02:34 meaningful public engagement. Um so I

6:02:36 just wanted to highlight two things. One

6:02:38 is just the communication piece and

6:02:40 setting expectations and timelines ahead

6:02:42 of time so that the public knows it. Um

6:02:45 but the other is the split between

6:02:47 working group sessions and public input

6:02:49 sessions. Um and that is for the benefit

6:02:52 of everyone involved. Um because if we

6:02:56 if every meeting where new information

6:02:58 is presented, we expect the public to be

6:03:00 able to digest it and respond to it on

6:03:02 the spot. Um they're not being able to

6:03:05 make all the points that they want to

6:03:06 make either. And so if we can say here's

6:03:09 a meeting, we're going to present new

6:03:10 information here in next week's meeting.

6:03:14 come with your feedback, I think it'll

6:03:16 be much more effective at large. So, I

6:03:19 really appreciate that.

6:03:21 You're not the only community that has

6:03:23 to try and figure community engagement

6:03:25 out. That is uh I think a consistent

6:03:28 among all the communities we work with

6:03:30 is what is the best way for a specific

6:03:34 community to work with. And that may

6:03:36 change depending on the topic which is

6:03:38 why I wanted to give you all a range.

6:03:42 In uh terms of the finding funding for

6:03:44 technical resources should be available

6:03:47 at the beginning. Do we always know with

6:03:50 development projects what those

6:03:52 technical resources will be or sometimes

6:03:55 does that evolve over time?

6:03:57 You know, that was a really interesting

6:03:59 point of this um because I don't think

6:04:02 there's a right way to bring the

6:04:04 technical resources in and the way that

6:04:06 you all did it this time for the for

6:04:09 this particular project um where you

6:04:12 brought in the consultants kind of as

6:04:14 the questions came up perfectly valid.

6:04:17 Having a consultant team at the

6:04:19 beginning also perfectly valid. But I

6:04:21 think what I wanted to stress was this

6:04:24 idea of planning at the beginning that

6:04:27 you might need more and just being

6:04:30 aware. Um, hey, these topics might come

6:04:33 up during this. Do we want to think in

6:04:36 advance? You don't necessarily have to

6:04:39 have everybody there in advance, but

6:04:41 just be aware that this topic might come

6:04:44 up. Maybe we want to go ahead and set

6:04:46 aside some funds in the budget in case

6:04:49 we think we do need a third party to

6:04:51 come in um and provide some additional

6:04:54 resources to us later in the project. Um

6:04:57 uh just so it's not a surprise. Uh there

6:05:00 are especially with with zoning um there

6:05:03 are some standard questions that get

6:05:05 asked and so um it's uh it's a good idea

6:05:09 to kind of poke at that a little bit in

6:05:10 the in the initial planning stage and

6:05:13 just say you know maybe maybe we just

6:05:15 want to leave some room that we could

6:05:16 add this later.

6:05:19 Anyone else?

6:05:23 All right. Well, thank you very much for

6:05:24 this presentation. It's extremely

6:05:26 helpful, very detailed, and it helps

6:05:28 provide a road map for us in future

6:05:32 similar projects.

6:05:35 It's my pleasure, and I'll work with

6:05:37 Meredith to finalize the report. Thank

6:05:39 you all for your questions and your

6:05:40 input.

6:05:41 All right.

6:05:42 Thank you.

6:05:43 So, with that, we will move to warrant

6:05:47 article 20, vision zero resolution.

6:05:51 And thank you very much, Marissa, for

6:05:53 your

6:05:55 extreme patience and waiting till 11:20

6:05:58 at night.

6:05:59 The last soldier.

6:06:03 I went home in our little party.

6:06:09 Um, okay. Hi everyone. Um, I'm Marissa

6:06:13 Vote. Um I'm a town meeting member in

6:06:16 precinct 6 and I am here just to talk a

6:06:20 little bit about an amendment that I

6:06:21 filed to article 20 which is a

6:06:24 resolution in support of increased

6:06:26 enforcement for um for traffic safety

6:06:30 and for vision zero. So, um I don't know

6:06:33 if you've seen the Well, I think you've

6:06:36 seen the amendment because it's in your

6:06:38 packet, but I don't know if you've seen

6:06:39 the version that the AC

6:06:42 subcommittee voted on last night. Um or

6:06:46 that the full AC approved tonight. No.

6:06:49 Okay. So, breaking news. Um tonight, I

6:06:53 think it's still tonight. Yeah, tonight,

6:06:56 not yesterday. Um the AC

6:07:00 um actually so yesterday, Monday, the AC

6:07:03 subcommittee um voted on a slightly

6:07:06 different version of the resolution.

6:07:08 They incorporated the whereas um or

6:07:12 mostly the whereas um changes that I had

6:07:15 made, but not the two resolved clauses.

6:07:19 um they have their own slight tweaks to

6:07:23 what the petitioners um had originally

6:07:27 proposed there. So um so if you want to

6:07:30 just focus in terms of like my

6:07:31 amendment, you should just focus on the

6:07:33 the resolved clauses. Um and so um we're

6:07:38 proposing to uh

6:07:42 to change the first resolve clause to

6:07:44 make it clear that um yes, this elevated

6:07:47 enforcement is um very needed and very

6:07:50 important. It's part of all of our tools

6:07:54 that we have to help the town meet the

6:07:56 vision zero goals, but it is um not a

6:08:00 substitute for infrastructure

6:08:02 improvements um that this increased

6:08:05 traffic enforcement is meant to

6:08:07 complement and not just to substitute

6:08:10 for um for those those other things that

6:08:13 we need to do. Um and the second change

6:08:18 in for the third part of the word of the

6:08:20 resolved clause. Um

6:08:23 so the the original text says calls for

6:08:26 fully funding and staffing the traffic

6:08:28 division of the police department. Um

6:08:30 the AC version now says um adequately

6:08:34 funding the police department as a

6:08:36 whole, not the traffic division in

6:08:38 particular. Um but we have amended it to

6:08:42 clarify that. um that funding the the

6:08:46 traffic division um should be done

6:08:49 within the constraints the the current

6:08:52 constraints of the police budget and

6:08:54 staffing levels. Um

6:08:57 so that this is not actually calling for

6:08:59 any increased funding or increased

6:09:01 staffing beyond what's already um in the

6:09:04 police department or already planned for

6:09:05 the future because I know there's some

6:09:07 new hires that are supposed to be coming

6:09:09 on by fiscal year 29. Um and also to

6:09:13 clarify that um that funding the police

6:09:18 uh part of the enforcement is not um

6:09:21 should not be considered a higher budget

6:09:23 priority than adequately funding public

6:09:26 way infrastructure improvements that are

6:09:28 also part of the vision zero efforts.

6:09:30 And um this this text is not meant to

6:09:34 pitch like one department versus

6:09:37 another. It's just meant to um to to

6:09:42 clarify that there are lots of competing

6:09:45 budget priorities in general. Um but in

6:09:49 particular that if we have any

6:09:53 additional funding from from the town

6:09:55 that we could spend on achieving our

6:09:58 vision zero goals um that it's uh it we

6:10:04 shouldn't by default spend it on the

6:10:06 police department or on enforcement that

6:10:09 um there are other ways to spend it if

6:10:13 we're specifically only talking about

6:10:15 meeting our vision zero goals. And then

6:10:16 of course if there's um you know if

6:10:19 you're talking about other things there

6:10:20 there are maybe other budget priorities

6:10:22 too but specifically with vision zeros

6:10:25 um the point of this this amen this

6:10:28 amendment to the this were resolved

6:10:30 clause is really meant to um

6:10:34 is meant to emphasize that there are

6:10:37 other potential

6:10:40 places where you might want to spend the

6:10:41 money and um achieve our vision zero

6:10:44 goals. So, um it's more about um

6:10:50 yeah about fiscal responsibility there.

6:10:52 Sorry, I'm very tired. I don't know how

6:10:54 you all are staying awake up there too.

6:10:57 Um so that's yeah, that's the the short

6:10:59 version and now we can all go home.

6:11:01 Do the petitioners consider this a

6:11:02 friendly amendment?

6:11:03 I don't know. I haven't heard back from

6:11:05 them. Um, and it's it was not totally

6:11:09 clear to me whether they were all in

6:11:12 agreement with the AC version. I think

6:11:15 they I think the ones that were at the

6:11:18 meeting were, but it's not clear.

6:11:22 All right. So, without having that

6:11:24 information, we probably should wait

6:11:25 until next week to vote on this.

6:11:28 Um, and also we don't have the AC

6:11:30 language in front of us, but thank you

6:11:32 very much for explaining to us your

6:11:34 amendment. Uh personally it seems very

6:11:38 reasonable to me but I want to hear what

6:11:39 the others have to say.

6:11:42 Um

6:11:44 I just want to note um

6:11:48 with regard to the roadmap 2030 um that

6:11:53 um this is a resolution of course not a

6:11:55 bylaw. Um so it to the extent that it

6:11:59 would be incorporated into the budget um

6:12:04 obviously uh redu any any corresponding

6:12:08 reduction to our vision zero efforts

6:12:10 would uh move against the vision zero

6:12:14 goals that are reflected in the road

6:12:16 map. Um and I'm not sure if there are

6:12:19 any other sort of general budget

6:12:22 implications that we can draw from that

6:12:24 from this.

6:12:25 I I mean I think that this you know the

6:12:28 prioritization of staffing in the police

6:12:29 department budget is really at the

6:12:31 discretion of the chief. So obviously if

6:12:33 there are other public safety issues

6:12:34 that kind of take pull resources away

6:12:37 from traffic that's really you know the

6:12:39 chief's discretion

6:12:40 right

6:12:41 um you know if there was like a major

6:12:42 crime going on and there needed to be

6:12:44 investigations like that that's kind of

6:12:47 how the work would be diverted. Um, you

6:12:50 know, in terms of the language that I'm

6:12:51 seeing here, um, you know, with the with

6:12:53 the infrastructure improvements, you

6:12:55 know, the CIP is kind of funded

6:12:58 separately from the operating budget.

6:12:59 So, I don't see there being competition.

6:13:02 Um, except that, you know, we do make

6:13:05 decisions about the level of funding for

6:13:07 the CIP in order to provide relief to

6:13:09 the operating budget. So, there is a

6:13:10 little bit of tension there. Um, but you

6:13:14 know, in terms of the staffing, I mean,

6:13:16 I would I would just want to make sure

6:13:18 that that is kind of left to the chief's

6:13:20 discretion,

6:13:20 right? And then then that question of

6:13:22 staffing really isn't uh come into play

6:13:26 with regard to the road map.

6:13:29 Um, just one quick point. I know we're

6:13:32 all fading quickly, but um I do know

6:13:36 that I have I have not attended an AC

6:13:40 meeting, but I've heard through the

6:13:41 grape vine that there are some that do

6:13:44 see fiscal implications in how that town

6:13:47 meeting vote goes. Um and so it behooves

6:13:51 us to consider something like the

6:13:54 amendment to um put a limit on the

6:13:57 fiscal implications so that uh if it

6:14:00 passes there is not a clamoring to say

6:14:03 double the traffic enforcement um and

6:14:06 put pressure on the chief outside of

6:14:08 what she would want for her department.

6:14:13 Yeah. I mean, I would also want to ask

6:14:17 the petitioners um a question about the

6:14:21 the in terms of improving our

6:14:24 enforcement

6:14:26 um capabilities within the police

6:14:28 department. How much of that is uh

6:14:31 improved by funding the traffic division

6:14:34 versus how much of that is improved by

6:14:37 ensuring that patrol officers are also

6:14:40 uh at the in appropriate manners

6:14:44 according to best practices um

6:14:47 themselves

6:14:49 making moving violation citations

6:14:52 um and uh also participating in that

6:14:55 effort and I don't know the answer to

6:14:58 that but I I think it would be worth

6:15:00 understanding the answer.

6:15:03 Maybe we could funnel that question to

6:15:04 the chief before the next meeting.

6:15:07 Yeah. It's also important to remember

6:15:08 though this is a resolution. So it

6:15:11 wouldn't actually be binding, which is

6:15:13 not to say we shouldn't respect it. We

6:15:14 of course should, but I wouldn't want

6:15:16 the financial implications in and of

6:15:18 itself to hold up the sentiment behind

6:15:21 it because this is expressing the will

6:15:24 of probably the petitioners and

6:15:26 certainly the drafter of the amendment

6:15:28 and town meeting as a whole potentially

6:15:31 of the direction we want to move in. But

6:15:32 it's not ironclad with respect to

6:15:35 needing to change certain line items in

6:15:37 our budget.

6:15:38 I would just add um to kind of close the

6:15:42 loop there. Um, one of the things that

6:15:43 is adding to cost here is the fact that

6:15:46 the chief is having to go to all these

6:15:48 meetings and talk through, you know,

6:15:50 amendments and very hyper technical

6:15:52 details on what is ultimately an

6:15:53 advisory resolution that is not binding

6:15:56 on her or her budget or anything like

6:15:57 that. So I do I do think when we think

6:16:00 about the road map and the efficiencies

6:16:01 and so forth to a certain extent we can

6:16:04 kind of take this for what it's worth

6:16:06 right which is the community wants

6:16:08 increased traffic enforcement and the

6:16:11 methods and means by which the community

6:16:13 we should achieve that is within the

6:16:16 discretion of the chief and the chief's

6:16:18 budget.

6:16:22 Okay, anyone else?

6:16:26 All right, then that concludes our

6:16:28 meeting. Thank you very much again.

6:16:37 Recording stopped.