Brookline Select Board Meeting - October 20, 2026
2026-10-14

[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.