[0:02] water
[0:03] >> [music]
[0:25] >> water
[0:30] » [music]
[1:27] » water
[1:32] » [music]
[5:45] >> I'm here.
[5:50] » [music]
[5:54] » I'm here.
[6:01] » [music]
[6:04] » I'm here.
[6:10] » [music]
[6:11] >> I'm here.
[6:21] >> [music]
[6:24] » I'm here.
[6:30] » [music]
[6:30] >> I'm here.
[6:38] >> [music]
[6:45] » I'm here.
[6:46] >> [music]
[6:52] » I'm here.
[6:53] >> [music]
[7:01] » I'm here.
[7:07] » [music]
[7:08] >> I'm here.
[7:14] » [music]
[7:15] >> I'm here.
[7:20] » [music]
[7:22] >> I'm here.
[7:25] » [music]
[7:31] >> I'm here.
[7:37] » [music]
[7:38] >> I'm here.
[7:42] » Wow.
[7:45] » [music]
[7:45] >> Look at them run.
[7:48] Wow.
[7:49] Wow.
[7:50] >> [music]
[9:07] » Wow.
[9:10] » [music]
[9:11] >> Look at them
[9:13] Wow.
[9:15] Wow.
[9:16] >> [music]
[11:06] » Recording in progress.
[11:32] » I love you.
[11:42] » My initial parallel is my initial
[11:44] thought.
[11:54] » Wait, thank you.
[11:59] » Sorry, sorry.
[12:18] » They're really good.
[12:22] » I think I
[12:23] >> I like this.
[12:24] >> I know.
[12:26] I know.
[12:31] >> I know.
[14:08] » [laughter]
[14:15] » Weed up.
[14:18] We
[14:24] Hello.
[15:06] » Hi.
[15:08] » Hello.
[15:23] Hello. Testing. 2 3.
[15:28] I can hear you.
[15:34] This is Jesse.
[15:35] I can hear you.
[15:37] >> I can hear you.
[15:40] » Thank you.
[15:41] Hello.
[15:45] We're still about 20
[15:47] people away from a quorum.
[16:27] Okay. I'm told we have a quorum, so
[16:30] please take your seats.
[16:55] Well, I love doing that.
[16:59] Okay.
[17:00] Um welcome to the third night of uh
[17:04] the uh May annual town meeting.
[17:09] Uh it's May 2026
[17:11] for those of you watching in the future.
[17:15] Um
[17:16] So, we have a bunch of warrant articles
[17:20] left over. We're going to be starting
[17:22] with the special
[17:25] town meeting number one.
[17:28] Um
[17:29] and after that, we're going to be going
[17:31] to
[17:33] article 11,
[17:35] which is about the committee on town
[17:38] organizational structure. Then we'll be
[17:40] going to the immigration articles 17 and
[17:44] 25, and then we'll proceed in the normal
[17:47] order of what's left, 13, 14, 15, 20,
[17:51] 21, 22. Notice that I listed all of the
[17:56] remaining articles.
[18:00] I have communicated with all petitioners
[18:05] of even the latest articles that there
[18:09] is a possibility
[18:11] that we could finish tonight, and that's only possible if folks are
[18:18] succinct. Um you know, say what you need
[18:21] to say, but to do it in a succinct way,
[18:24] and maybe there's a shot that we could
[18:30] be done. So, we'll give it a try, and I'm going to
[18:34] try and keep things moving.
[18:36] Um I hope I I'll try not to step on
[18:39] anybody in in doing so. I want to make
[18:42] sure all of the issues come out that you
[18:45] need to hear. I don't want anybody to
[18:47] feel like they're being railroaded.
[18:52] But, we'll see.
[18:54] Um there are some supplements at the
[18:57] table in the back. They're in blue, and
[19:00] two of them two of the supplements,
[19:02] well, actually all three of the
[19:03] supplements have motions we are
[19:06] considering tonight, so they are
[19:08] important documents. So, if you don't
[19:11] have them, go get them cuz you're going
[19:14] to need them.
[19:16] Um we've as as you all know, we've had
[19:19] some issues with remote speakers
[19:23] uh through the Zoom and they've been
[19:26] kind of unintelligible in the
[19:28] auditorium. I'm told that on the stream
[19:32] and on the cable, it's coming through,
[19:33] but it hasn't been coming through
[19:36] um in the auditorium in in a cogent way.
[19:40] Um
[19:42] the uh big Big and RIT staff, I'm told,
[19:46] have been working on the issue and
[19:48] hopefully
[19:50] keep our fingers crossed, have solved
[19:52] the issue. Um
[19:55] but we'll see how it goes. And then um
[19:59] there was a email exchange
[20:02] uh suggesting that if you're coming up
[20:05] to the microphone, be please be sure to
[20:08] get close to the mic. You kind of have
[20:11] to almost eat the mic. Don't eat the
[20:13] mic, but you know, get close. Um so
[20:16] everyone can hear you. You know, we all
[20:18] want to hear what you have to say.
[20:21] Um and if you want people to hear you, really need to uh get close to the
[20:25] mic.
[20:26] Okay, so I think we're um
[20:29] ready to go. So, uh I'm going to be
[20:32] convening the special town meeting
[20:36] number one.
[20:38] And uh in that town meeting, we have two
[20:40] articles. Uh both of them relate to the
[20:43] parcels we've been referring to as uh
[20:47] Chestnut Hill West.
[20:49] So, uh there are two motions before you. The
[20:54] first motion, the main motion, is uh
[20:58] a motion uh by the select board. It's it's uh
[21:02] moved by Mr. Rubinstein and seconded by
[21:06] Mr. Pearlman.
[21:07] And then there's a substitute motion
[21:10] from the advisory committee.
[21:13] Uh moved by Ms. Pelkey and seconded by
[21:17] Ms. Khan.
[21:19] Um the substitute motion removed is
[21:22] identical to the select board motion but
[21:26] removes a piece of the proposed
[21:29] district. And you're going to be hear
[21:31] hearing more about that
[21:33] over the next uh hopefully not too many
[21:36] minutes. So without further ado, I'm
[21:40] going to recognize the first speaker,
[21:42] which is uh Mr. Rubenstein.
[21:49] Well, I'm told I should announce where
[21:51] the motions are and that's a good idea.
[21:54] Uh the select board motion is in
[21:55] supplement one, pages 1 through 30, and
[21:59] the advisory committee motion is on the
[22:02] blue pages,
[22:03] uh which is supplement three, pages 1
[22:07] through 31.
[22:11] Oh, okay. Right. Thank you, Mr.
[22:14] Rubenstein. We're also going to be
[22:15] considering warrant article two in the
[22:19] same debate.
[22:22] Uh so we're going to have one debate and
[22:24] then separate votes on the two articles.
[22:27] Article two authorizes the select board
[22:30] to sign a memorandum of memorandum of
[22:33] understanding and that motion is located
[22:37] uh in supplement article two supplement
[22:39] one, pages 1 through 3, and that is
[22:43] moved by Mr. Rubenstein and seconded by
[22:45] Mr. Powell.
[22:47] The advisory committee. Okay, Mr.
[22:49] Rubenstein, you're up.
[22:56] » Good evening. I'm Michael Rubenstein,
[22:58] vice chair of the select board, speaking
[23:00] on behalf of the select board.
[23:02] brings two warrant
[23:04] articles before you tonight.
[23:06] Warrant article one creates the Chestnut
[23:08] Hill commercial overlay zoning district,
[23:12] and warrant article two authorizes the
[23:14] select board to enter into two
[23:16] agreements with City Realty, owner of
[23:19] 5.3 acres in the district. Next slide.
[23:25] Over two years over for over two years,
[23:28] the planning department has led an
[23:30] effort driven by two select board goals.
[23:34] Incentivize net new commercial tax
[23:36] growth
[23:37] and enhance the livability and identity
[23:39] of the Chestnut Hill commercial area.
[23:42] Warrant article one, along with design
[23:45] guidelines and a preliminary traffic
[23:47] study, are the results of that work.
[23:51] I would like to thank two of the many
[23:53] people whose hard work has brought us to
[23:55] this moment.
[23:57] Director of Economic Development
[23:58] Meredith Mooney and former select board
[24:01] member and chair of the studies
[24:03] community advisory group Mike Sandman.
[24:07] Thank you.
[24:08] >> [applause]
[24:09] >> Next slide.
[24:13] The overlay district runs along Boylston
[24:16] Street from the Newton border to a half
[24:18] block east of Hammond Street. It is
[24:20] bordered by Heath Street to the south
[24:22] and extends up Hammond Street to the
[24:24] north.
[24:25] It is divided into four sub-districts
[24:27] with the CHC four sub-district split
[24:30] into east and west blocks. Next slide.
[24:34] To drive commercial tax growth, the
[24:36] zoning sets a 60% ground floor
[24:38] commercial requirement along most of
[24:40] Boylston and Hammond streets
[24:43] with flexibility on side streets and no
[24:45] requirement along Heath Street. Next
[24:48] slide, please.
[24:51] Projects in the CHC four and CHC three
[24:54] sub-districts must devote 51% of their
[24:57] floor area to commercial use, a
[24:59] threshold calibrated to maximize
[25:02] commercial space while still
[25:04] incentivizing economically viable
[25:06] projects. Next slide.
[25:09] Certain preferred uses, those favored by the neighborhood or generating higher
[25:15] revenue for the town, can reduce the
[25:17] commercial floor required floor area
[25:20] required, a balance that benefits
[25:23] neighbors, the town, and developers.
[25:26] Next slide, please.
[25:29] Maximum heights were a vigorously
[25:31] debated element of this work.
[25:34] The final compromise allows up to 125
[25:38] ft, 10 stories, in the CHC-4
[25:40] subdistrict, stepping down to 88 ft as
[25:44] you move toward the western border, side
[25:47] streets, and other subdistricts. The
[25:49] maximum allowed height drops to 75 ft in
[25:52] the northern corner and 50 ft in the
[25:55] neighborhood mixed-use subdistrict.
[25:58] The zoning also provides bonus heights
[26:00] to advance town goals. Up to 175 ft in
[26:04] the CHC-4 subdistrict for developers who
[26:07] increase the percentage of their project
[26:10] devoted to commercial uses. And up to 75
[26:13] ft in the neighborhood mixed-use
[26:15] subdistrict for those who increase
[26:17] affordable housing.
[26:19] Next slide, [snorts] please.
[26:23] The zoning includes additional
[26:25] requirements designed to meet the goals
[26:27] for the district and are summarized
[26:29] here. Next slide.
[26:33] Traffic has been a major concern,
[26:35] especially at Boylston and Hammond
[26:38] Streets, a state highway intersection
[26:40] carrying Newton, I-95, and western
[26:43] suburb traffic to the Longwood medical
[26:46] area and downtown Boston, as well as
[26:49] connecting South Brookline with the
[26:51] Chestnut Hill station and points north.
[26:55] The town retained a transportation
[26:57] engineering and planning firm to study
[26:59] the impact of no development and maximum
[27:02] development scenarios.
[27:04] This preliminary study acknowledged that
[27:07] over time the traffic problem will get worse
[27:11] independent of us and that further
[27:14] review will be needed as specific
[27:16] projects come forward.
[27:18] The town has already begun conversations
[27:21] with Newton and the Massachusetts
[27:22] Department of Transportation to form a
[27:25] joint working group on that
[27:26] intersection. Conversations that will
[27:29] continue regardless of tonight's vote.
[27:32] Next slide.
[27:34] The Advisory Committee substitute motion
[27:37] removes the transit-oriented mixed-use
[27:39] subdistrict from the overlay district.
[27:42] The The Advisory Committee expressed
[27:45] concerns that the zoning would yield too
[27:47] little commercial development, that
[27:50] resulting development would jeopardize
[27:52] existing tax revenue and worsen traffic,
[27:55] and that certain zoning decisions need
[27:57] further consideration.
[27:59] However,
[28:01] removing the subdistrict would undermine
[28:03] the goals of this project and over two
[28:05] years of careful work.
[28:08] The TOM subdistrict represents a real
[28:11] opportunity to generate commercial tax
[28:13] revenue.
[28:15] Estimates of net new tax growth from
[28:17] redevelopment there range from $170,000
[28:21] to over $1.5 million,
[28:24] enough to quadruple the revenue the
[28:27] subdistrict generates today.
[28:30] The subdistrict's zoning carefully
[28:32] blends with the rest of the overlay
[28:34] district and promotes transit-oriented
[28:37] mixed-use development.
[28:39] The maximum height of the TOM
[28:41] subdistrict matches the CHC-3
[28:44] subdistrict across Boylston Street,
[28:46] while zero parking minimums allow
[28:48] developers to offer lower-cost housing
[28:51] that leverages the nearby T.
[28:54] Height, setbacks, and step backs are
[28:56] coordinated across the overlay district
[28:59] to foster vibrant, walkable
[29:02] streetscapes.
[29:03] And the required pedestrian walkway
[29:06] connecting Hammond Street, Boylston
[29:08] Street, and the street shopping center
[29:10] breaks up the massing and helps
[29:12] transform today's parking lot into a
[29:15] welcoming destination.
[29:18] Finally, any project using the overlay
[29:21] district district will be required to
[29:24] make substantial infrastructure
[29:26] mitigation contributions. Funds that can
[29:29] help the client study, design, and
[29:32] implement solutions to the traffic
[29:34] concerns discussed earlier.
[29:37] Next slide, please.
[29:40] Warrant article two authorizes the
[29:42] select board to enter into two
[29:44] agreements with City Realty, owner of
[29:46] the four parcels along the district's
[29:48] western edge. Next slide, please.
[29:52] The memorandum of agreement includes
[29:54] broad town protections, over $24 million
[29:58] in town benefits, and neighborhood
[30:00] protections negotiated with residents.
[30:03] The 95-year tax certainty agreement
[30:06] preserves revenue in two scenarios.
[30:09] If any part of the property is sold to a
[30:11] tax-exempt buyer, we receive payments
[30:14] equivalent to property taxes.
[30:16] If the planned hotel is converted to
[30:18] another use, we receive payments
[30:20] equivalent to lost hotel room taxes.
[30:24] These agreements bind future owners if
[30:27] City Realty sells. City Realty has
[30:29] signed these agreements, and the select
[30:31] board will sign upon your authorization.
[30:34] Next slide, please.
[30:37] The City Realty project, shown here in a
[30:39] concept rendering, consists of three
[30:42] buildings, a rental apartment building,
[30:45] a central medical office building with
[30:46] ground floor retail, and a mixed-use
[30:49] building combining retail, a hotel, and
[30:52] condominiums. Two of the buildings, the
[30:55] ones on either end, include underground
[30:57] parking. Next slide, please.
[31:01] Between the medical office and hotel
[31:03] condo buildings, a public gathering
[31:04] space with trees, benches, and tables is
[31:08] designed to activate ground floor retail
[31:11] and welcome the community. Next slide,
[31:13] please.
[31:16] Based on the project's fiscal model, the
[31:18] City Realty development is expected to
[31:20] generate between $4.2 million
[31:23] and $6.3 million
[31:26] in net tax growth per year after
[31:29] accounting for service costs and current
[31:31] revenues.
[31:32] Next slide, please.
[31:35] Several approval steps must follow
[31:37] before construction begins.
[31:39] According to City Realty, the first
[31:41] building will not break ground before
[31:44] the spring of 2028.
[31:46] Next slide, please.
[31:51] Thank you.
[31:52] Tonight, you have the opportunity to
[31:54] advance more than 2 years of careful
[31:56] work
[31:57] by our planning department, the
[31:59] community advisory group, several
[32:01] boards, and many residents who shaped
[32:03] this proposal.
[32:05] Together, we can bring meaningful new
[32:07] commercial growth, new housing, and more
[32:10] vibrant Chestnut Hill within reach.
[32:13] The Select Board recommends no action on
[32:15] the Advisory Committee's substitute
[32:17] motion for Warrant Article 1 and
[32:19] favorable action on the main motions for
[32:21] Warrant Articles 1 and 2.
[32:24] Thank you very much for your
[32:25] consideration.
[32:26] >> [applause]
[32:39] » Okay.
[32:40] >> [applause]
[32:43] » Now for the other argument, Mr. Dowdy.
[32:54] » Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Dennis Dowdy,
[32:56] Precinct 3, chair of the Advisory
[32:58] Committee.
[32:59] Speaking for the Advisory Committee in
[33:00] support of Articles 1 and 2, you've
[33:03] heard the detailed description of the
[33:05] project, so I won't be adding to that.
[33:07] The Advisory Committee or its Land Use
[33:10] Subcommittees
[33:12] Subcommittee held over 11 hours of
[33:14] discussion on the Chestnut Hill
[33:15] articles, including a review of the many
[33:17] refinements that have been considered
[33:19] over the past few months.
[33:21] Most of our time was devoted to the
[33:23] larger issues that accompany an
[33:25] undertaking such as the one before us
[33:26] tonight, and our report documented the
[33:29] details, which I hope you have read, and
[33:31] which I will remind you covered
[33:34] examining concerns around traffic,
[33:36] weighing the flexibility provisions that
[33:38] were designed to encourage timely and
[33:40] beneficial redevelopment,
[33:42] assessing the prospects for additional
[33:44] developers enti- entering into memoranda
[33:46] of agreements with the town, as City
[33:48] Realty has already done,
[33:51] reviewing the varying requirements
[33:52] within each subdistrict and how the
[33:54] public realm will be protected and
[33:55] shaped,
[33:57] testing the financial risk-return
[33:59] balance built into the overlay to ensure
[34:01] it incentivizes commercial development
[34:03] without being unnecessarily generous,
[34:06] and confirming the protections in place
[34:08] to avoid a situation such as the
[34:10] demolished and empty Waldo Jorgen site
[34:12] in Coolidge Corner.
[34:14] Our most notable disagreement was over
[34:16] whether the Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use
[34:18] Sub-District should be included in the
[34:20] overlay,
[34:21] given that all parties appear to agree
[34:24] that the redevelopment of that site is
[34:26] unlikely in the near future.
[34:28] And by a 12 to 2 12 to 10 margin, the
[34:31] committee has recommended a substitute
[34:33] motion that removes this subdistrict
[34:35] from Article 1, but in all other
[34:37] respects is identical to the Slaight
[34:39] Road motion.
[34:40] So, we have two presenters now from the
[34:42] advisory committee, one who will be
[34:45] articulating the argument for the
[34:46] removal of the subdistrict and one who
[34:48] is presenting the minority opinion. So,
[34:50] first up we have Janice Kahn in support
[34:53] of the advisory committee's motion,
[34:55] speaking on behalf of Linda Olson
[34:57] Pelkey, who is the
[34:59] who is is the who is the
[35:02] petitioner here, who was the driving
[35:03] force behind this recommendation, but
[35:05] unfortunately Linda was hospitalized
[35:07] within the past week and is unable to
[35:09] present tonight. And then after Janice
[35:10] you'll hear from David
[35:22] » Okay. Thank you very much, Dennis, for
[35:24] introducing me. Janice Kahn, committee
[35:26] member from precinct 15 and a member of
[35:29] the advisory committee, giving the
[35:31] report for Linda Pelkey, committee
[35:33] member precinct 17.
[35:36] I'm speaking in favor of the advisory
[35:38] committee's amendment to remove the
[35:39] transit-oriented mixed-use subdistrict
[35:42] from the Chestnut Hill commercial
[35:43] overlay district.
[35:45] I urge you to support the TOM
[35:48] to remove
[35:49] removing the TOM district subdistrict
[35:51] because the proposed zoning is
[35:52] impractical, incomplete, and risks
[35:55] creating consequences that could harm
[35:58] this area rather than improve it.
[36:00] First, the TOM subdistrict is
[36:02] fundamentally different from the rest of
[36:04] the overlay district. It's location on
[36:06] the north side of Boylston Street,
[36:09] combined with its limited land area and
[36:11] unusual shape created by the Newton town
[36:14] boundary, makes it a distinct area that
[36:17] does not naturally fit into a broader
[36:19] cohesive planning vision. Treating it as
[36:22] though it functions the same as the
[36:24] other districts ignores the reality of
[36:25] the site itself.
[36:27] Second, the proposed zoning does not
[36:29] match the existing conditions or
[36:31] development realities.
[36:33] Today, this area includes a gas station,
[36:35] a CVS, a Star Market parking lot, and um
[36:39] four two-family homes. Star Market
[36:42] depends on that parking to operate, and
[36:44] there is currently no indication that
[36:46] property owners are pursuing
[36:47] redevelopment.
[36:49] The proposal assumes a redevelopment
[36:51] model that doesn't fit the area. It
[36:54] calls for pedestrian-oriented retail
[36:57] along a short stretch of Boylston
[36:59] Street, despite the fact that nearby
[37:01] development at the street functions
[37:03] around an internal retail streetscape
[37:07] and public gathering space. If future
[37:09] development is ever going to succeed
[37:11] here, zoning must reflect how people
[37:13] actually use the area, not how we wish
[37:16] it would look on paper.
[37:18] Third, the zoning lacks the detail and
[37:20] protections needed to produce quality
[37:23] outcomes. The proposed setbacks are
[37:25] minimal and can be waived. There are no
[37:27] meaningful controls on building massing,
[37:30] there are no step-back requirements,
[37:32] there are no floor area ratio limits to
[37:34] prevent oversized structures on
[37:36] individual parcels. Equally concerning
[37:39] is that these impacts were never fully
[37:41] studied. No shadow studies were
[37:43] completed, no deep-to-health analysis of
[37:45] the proposed zoning um was ever done.
[37:48] The TOM subdistrict was addressed only
[37:50] minimally at the end of the study
[37:52] process. Before making zoning decisions,
[37:54] we should understand the consequences.
[37:57] Traffic presents another serious
[37:58] concern. Preliminary studies already
[38:00] suggest that with full build-out, the
[38:03] Hammond Street and Boylston Street
[38:04] intersection would fail operationally.
[38:08] Proposed solutions include a radical arc
[38:10] cut design that could prohibit travel on
[38:12] Hammond Street. Such changes could
[38:15] create major disruptions for residents
[38:17] and potentially slow emergency response
[38:20] times, a concern expressed by our fire
[38:22] chief, but um Chief Sullivan. And
[38:24] finally, and perhaps most importantly,
[38:26] this proposal does not deliver the
[38:28] economic benefits that were the impetus
[38:30] to
[38:31] pursue this rezoning in the first place.
[38:33] The proposed subdistrict is largely
[38:34] residential in character, minimal ground
[38:37] floor commercial requirements of the
[38:38] zoning are a tiny fraction of the
[38:40] buildable square footage allowed, and
[38:42] these requirements will not create the
[38:44] kind of vibrant commercial activity
[38:45] envisioned elsewhere in the district.
[38:47] The reality is the entire Chestnut Hill
[38:49] commercial zoning overlay incentivizes
[38:52] housing over commercial development in
[38:54] the last important commercial area in
[38:56] the town. The TOM, in contrast to the
[38:58] other subdistricts, already abuts a
[39:00] thriving commercial area in Newton. If
[39:03] we encourage commercial development
[39:05] here, which the TOM does not do,
[39:08] Brookline could get needed commercial
[39:10] tax dollars. We all support thoughtful
[39:12] growth, better zoning, streamlined
[39:14] permitting permitting, predictable
[39:17] well-designed development are worthy
[39:18] goals, but this proposal doesn't achieve
[39:20] it. Removing the TOM subdistrict is not
[39:23] a rejection of progress. Good planning
[39:24] requires realism, careful study, and
[39:27] zoning that reflects actual conditions.
[39:29] I urge you to support removing the TOM
[39:31] subdistrict tonight. Give this area the
[39:33] thoughtful planning process it deserves
[39:35] and bring it back to town meeting next
[39:37] year. Thank you. Please vote favorable
[39:39] action on the Advisory Committee's
[39:41] amendment.
[39:44] » [applause]
[39:57] » Good evening.
[39:58] David Town Meeting member from
[40:00] Precinct 11, uh member of the Advisory
[40:03] Committee, also a member of the Chestnut
[40:07] Hill
[40:08] uh commercial study
[40:10] community advisory group, as is uh
[40:14] Janice.
[40:15] Um speaking for uh
[40:18] the minority of
[40:20] on the 12 to 10 vote of AC members who
[40:23] voted to keep the TOM district in the
[40:26] overlay zoning. Here's why.
[40:29] The TOM subdistrict is an integral part
[40:32] of the Chestnut Hill commercial area.
[40:35] It's part of the mall.
[40:37] Removing it leaves a gap in our planning
[40:39] and zoning framework
[40:41] like presenting a smile with a missing
[40:43] tooth.
[40:45] Yes, there are four small brick houses
[40:47] in the northeast corner that predate the
[40:49] mall, but they're totally isolated and
[40:52] two of them already belong to WS,
[40:56] the mall owner, reinforcing the reality
[40:58] that the future of this subdistrict is
[41:00] commercial.
[41:02] The TOM's a 4-minute walk to the
[41:04] high-speed D line stop, exactly where we
[41:07] should be encouraging transit-oriented
[41:10] development.
[41:11] The six and seven-story height limit is
[41:13] contextually appropriate, mirroring the
[41:17] CHC3 this subdistrict height
[41:20] uh that we're establishing directly
[41:22] across Boylston Street.
[41:24] The only other context is the mall and
[41:27] the tennis courts across Hammond Street.
[41:31] Traffic on Route 9 is going to get worse
[41:34] even if nothing new is developed
[41:36] anywhere in Brookline.
[41:38] And this is in large part a regional
[41:40] issue and not tied to this small
[41:42] subdistrict.
[41:44] It's not reasonable or normal to expect
[41:46] detailed traffic planning to come first.
[41:49] Mass DOT will come to the table after we
[41:52] pass the zoning and the real process of
[41:54] figuring out the best approach to
[41:56] mitigation will begin when a big
[41:57] project, in this case
[41:59] presumably City Realty's, starts
[42:01] applying for permits.
[42:04] Let's not make the same mistake at the
[42:06] same spot twice and repeat what happened
[42:10] 50 years ago when the Star Market was
[42:13] built entirely in Newton because
[42:15] Brookline did not have
[42:16] development-friendly zoning in place for
[42:19] this exact parcel.
[42:21] We got a parking lot. We still have a
[42:24] parking lot.
[42:25] Let's be planful today and not wait
[42:28] passively for something to come to us.
[42:31] If we don't do this now, don't kid
[42:34] ourselves that we'll get back to it
[42:36] anytime soon.
[42:38] Remember what happened 4 years ago to
[42:40] the proposed Brookline Hills Overlay
[42:43] District at the other end of Boylston
[42:45] Street that got pulled at the last
[42:48] minute and not presented to town
[42:50] meeting. Gone without a trace.
[42:53] Not a peep since May 2022.
[42:57] Here and now, we have the comprehensive
[42:59] plan coming to fall town meeting with a
[43:02] long list of other priority areas to
[43:05] study.
[43:06] Let's complete our 2-plus years of work
[43:09] on this area
[43:11] and be ready to move on to implementing
[43:13] the rest of the comp plan, which is just
[43:15] around the corner.
[43:18] » Thank you.
[43:19] >> [applause]
[43:24] » So, thank you.
[43:27] Janice, and uh thank you,
[43:28] David. Uh the Advisory Committee uh
[43:31] overwhelmingly by a vote of 20 to 2
[43:33] supports Article 1 as amended uh to
[43:36] eliminate the Tom Sub-District. And by a
[43:39] vote of 21 to 0 with one abstention, we
[43:42] recommend favorable action on Article 2.
[43:45] Thank you.
[43:47] >> Thank you. Next up is uh
[43:50] Anne Myers uh representing the Economic
[43:52] Development Advisory Board.
[44:01] » [laughter]
[44:03] >> Thank you.
[44:06] My name is Anne Myers and I'm speaking
[44:08] tonight on behalf of EDAB, the Economic
[44:10] Development Advisory Board, which I
[44:12] chair.
[44:13] Excuse [clears throat] me. EDAB voted
[44:15] unanimously in support of special town
[44:17] meeting articles
[44:18] one and two because the proposed zoning
[44:21] and accompanying agreements directly
[44:23] advance EDAB's core mission, which is to
[44:25] strengthen the vibrancy of our
[44:27] commercial districts and expand
[44:28] Brookline's commercial tax base to
[44:31] support high-quality town services.
[44:34] For years, EDAB has emphasized the need
[44:36] for Brookline to take a more proactive
[44:38] approach to development. We can no
[44:40] longer rely on a passive model of
[44:42] waiting for developers
[44:43] >> the mic.
[44:44] You need to almost eat it.
[44:47] >> Sorry. Can you hear me now?
[44:50] Okay. I'm sorry.
[44:52] For years, EDAB has emphasized the need
[44:54] for Brookline to take a more proactive
[44:56] approach to development. We can no
[44:58] longer rely on a map passive model of
[45:00] waiting for developers to initiate
[45:02] meaningful rezoning proposals.
[45:04] If Brookline wants to address
[45:08] Uh, sorry.
[45:11] If Brookline wants to address long-term
[45:13] structural budget challenges while
[45:14] maintaining quality of life
[45:16] that the residents expect, the town must
[45:18] strategically rezone areas capable of
[45:21] supporting economic growth and mixed-use
[45:23] development. The Chestnut Hill
[45:25] commercial area overlay does exactly
[45:27] that. It establishes a clear and
[45:29] predictable framework for development in
[45:31] an underutilized commercial district
[45:33] informed by substantial community
[45:35] engagement and the expertise of EDAB's
[45:38] real estate advisory subcommittee.
[45:40] The overlay incentivizes economic
[45:42] development, encourages mixed-use
[45:44] projects, and improves the public realm.
[45:48] The reality is that the existing zoning
[45:50] has not produced meaningful development
[45:52] on the Brookline side of Route 9 despite
[45:54] one of the strongest development cycles
[45:57] we've had in decades. Look across the
[45:59] street and see how Newton has
[46:00] successfully capitalized on those
[46:02] opportunities. Our current zoning simply
[46:05] does not support economically viable
[46:07] development, particularly projects that
[46:09] expand commercial uses and generate
[46:11] meaningful tax revenue.
[46:14] Given Brookline's limited commercial
[46:15] development opportunities and the strong
[46:17] market pressure for residential
[46:19] development, mixed-use development
[46:22] represents our best opportunity to grow
[46:24] and diversify the commercial tax base.
[46:26] Importantly, this overlay includes new
[46:29] policy tools specifically designed to
[46:31] promote commercial uses, including
[46:34] commercial oriented sub-districts that
[46:36] require at least 51% commercial floor
[46:39] area, and incentives for higher revenue
[46:41] generating uses such as hotels, medical
[46:44] office, and research lab space.
[46:47] Finally, it's critical that town meeting
[46:49] adopt the overlay zoning in its
[46:51] entirety, including the transit-oriented
[46:53] mixed-use sub-district north of Route 9.
[46:56] That district was part of the Select
[46:57] Board's original charge to the
[46:59] committee, and is essential to creating
[47:01] momentum needed for broader development
[47:03] throughout the corridor.
[47:05] I urge you to vote no on the Advisory
[47:07] Committee substitute motion for Article
[47:09] 1, and then vote yes on Articles 1 and 2
[47:11] to support the overlay as proposed by
[47:13] the Select Board. If we don't pass this
[47:16] now, I fear that it'll be a long time
[47:18] before another developer comes knocking
[47:20] on Brookline's door with a mixed-use
[47:22] development proposal. Developers have
[47:24] lots of other places where they can
[47:25] invest their time and money.
[47:27] Thank you.
[47:29] >> Thank you.
[47:29] >> [applause]
[47:34] » One thing I'll comment on is uh
[47:38] some speakers will come and then they'll
[47:39] cover the timer, so you never know
[47:43] how much time you have left. It's going
[47:44] to be a while, I think, before I get to
[47:47] questions.
[47:48] >> Question of clarification on Mr. Dowdy's
[47:51] remarks.
[47:56] » Okay.
[47:59] >> Sorry, Kelly Hardebeck,
[48:01] town meeting member from Precinct 7. Um,
[48:03] sorry.
[48:04] Uh, we are confused about the votes.
[48:07] >> Okay, that's an appropriate question.
[48:09] >> Thank you, sir.
[48:10] Mr. Dowdy, I'm sorry, if you could uh
[48:12] rewrite the votes that the AC took and
[48:13] what those were. Thank you.
[48:17] » Um,
[48:18] thank you, Dennis Dowdy, uh, Precinct 3
[48:21] Advisory Committee Chair. Uh, at our
[48:23] discussions, uh, Ms. Pelkey recommended,
[48:27] uh, proposed an amendment to remove the
[48:29] Tom from Article 1.
[48:31] That amendment passed at the Advisory
[48:33] Committee by a vote of 12 to 10.
[48:36] Uh,
[48:36] and then subsequently, the amended
[48:38] article passed by a vote of 20 to 2.
[48:43] >> Thank you.
[48:43] >> Is that clear?
[48:43] >> Thank you.
[48:44] >> Okay, that was That was an appropriate
[48:47] question, I think, for the for the
[48:49] moment. Um,
[48:52] before I recognize the next person, I'm
[48:54] just going to explain, uh, I'm going to
[48:56] be recognizing Janice Kahn.
[48:58] Uh, Janice was kind of pulled out the
[49:01] last minute to deliver remarks from
[49:04] another Advisory Committee member. She
[49:06] was speaking on behalf of the Advisory
[49:08] Committee and that member. Uh,
[49:11] now she's going to be speaking on behalf
[49:13] of of herself. She had signed up in
[49:15] advance, way in advance, to speak in
[49:18] this time slot. So, I'm going, even
[49:20] though this is her second time up at the
[49:23] podium, I'm going to grant that because
[49:25] this is for for her own voice, this is
[49:28] the first time up. So, Janice Kahn.
[49:38] » Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator.
[49:40] Janice Kahn, town meeting member from
[49:42] Precinct 15 and a member of the Advisory
[49:44] Committee speaking as a resident of the
[49:46] Chestnut Hill commercial area and
[49:48] changing hats.
[49:50] And, um, I'm speaking in favor of the
[49:54] Advisory Committee's amendment to remove
[49:55] the TOM subdistrict and in favor of the amended Chestnut Hill overlay
[50:00] zoning.
[50:01] The vast majority of those casting a
[50:03] vote in favor of Warrant Article 1 will
[50:06] be unaffected by the numerous negative
[50:08] impacts that will result from the
[50:10] passage of this article.
[50:12] Strong opposition from residents of
[50:14] precincts 14, 15, and 16 to the
[50:17] increased density in the overlay zoning
[50:19] and to the proposed traffic mitigation
[50:21] at Hammond and Boylston Streets is based
[50:23] on our experience. This is not
[50:26] theoretical for us. Traffic impacts are
[50:29] real and the number one issue for many
[50:30] of us.
[50:32] This part of Brookline is suburban in
[50:34] design and car dependent.
[50:36] My comments focus on two subdistricts of
[50:38] the overlay zoning, the CHC4 subdistrict
[50:42] and the Transit Oriented Mixed Use or
[50:44] TOM subdistrict. Two takeaways.
[50:47] Um, the CHC4 zoning before you is likely
[50:50] the least bad option for the
[50:51] neighborhood. So, I'm speaking in favor
[50:54] of that. And the TOM should be removed.
[50:56] And here's here's why for both. The
[50:59] overlay zoning has two important
[51:00] protections requested by residents
[51:03] abutting the CHC4 Chestnut Hill Office
[51:05] Park or CHOP site.
[51:07] First, no curb cuts on Heath Street.
[51:09] Originally, this request was only in the
[51:11] memorandum of agreement, but it is now
[51:14] in the zoning.
[51:15] The developer of Chestnut Hill Square
[51:17] negotiated a similar agreement with the
[51:19] nearby residents in Newton and
[51:21] Brookline. So,
[51:23] that's good. Neighbor, second, neighbors
[51:25] urged that the highest building be
[51:27] farthest from the existing residences.
[51:30] As a result, building within 170 ft of
[51:33] the Brookline-Newton border is limited
[51:35] to 88 ft or seven stories, which is just
[51:38] one story higher than the existing
[51:40] zoning.
[51:41] Because City Realty's proposal became
[51:44] the driver for the overlay zoning for
[51:46] the entire area and the town had already
[51:48] negotiated building heights of 12 and 14
[51:51] stories to enable their project. Through
[51:54] bonuses, they can build to 175 feet.
[51:58] However, the developer agreed to two
[52:00] additional zoning changes addressing
[52:03] neighborhood impacts.
[52:04] One, the upzoning starts at 10 stories,
[52:07] 125 feet, for 51% commercial and not the
[52:11] 12 stories that was in the original
[52:13] overlay, bringing the proposal closer to
[52:16] the heights and density the neighborhood
[52:17] could support.
[52:19] Second, a mid-level height of 12
[52:21] stories, 150 feet, for additional
[52:24] percent commercial space and or
[52:26] significant neighborhood benefits was
[52:28] negotiated. Neighborhood benefits such
[52:30] as enhanced design review committee, a
[52:33] five-member neighborhood group to work
[52:34] with the developer on elements in the
[52:36] public realm are specified in the MOA.
[52:39] Regarding the town, at the February 10th
[52:41] select board's hearing at town hall,
[52:43] Newton City Councilor Lyle Baker
[52:45] questioned the inclusion of the Chestnut
[52:47] Hill overlay zoning in the May warrant,
[52:49] concerned that he had just heard of
[52:51] rezoning the commercial area north of
[52:53] Route 9, which abuts Newton. He urged
[52:55] the town to wait. On March 9th,
[52:58] Councilor Baker, chair of the Newton
[53:00] Planning and Zoning Committee, gave an
[53:01] update to the members of the committee.
[53:03] I attended that meeting in person online
[53:06] with Carla Bianca, um Tamini from
[53:08] Precinct 14, and town administrator Chaz
[53:11] Carey. The city council has had
[53:12] questions and expressed concerns about
[53:14] the rezoning and the traffic mitigation
[53:16] proposed for Route 9. I understand why
[53:18] closing Hammond Street to cross traffic
[53:21] is a serious concern for residents in
[53:23] both Brookline and Newton. There are no
[53:26] north-south roads between Hammond Pond
[53:28] Parkway to the west and Hammond Street
[53:30] to the east. If Hammond Street is closed
[53:33] to through traffic, either drivers will
[53:35] be forced to wait in a queue on Route 9
[53:37] to make a U-turn or proceed to the the
[53:40] road that directly crosses Route 9,
[53:42] Chestnut Hill Avenue, which is 1.7 miles
[53:46] to the east.
[53:48] Brookline and Newton at the TOM are
[53:49] intertwined. The parking area in
[53:51] Brookline is a condition of the permit
[53:53] for the Star Market, which is in Newton.
[53:55] I note that when Chestnut Hill Square,
[53:57] fully in Newton, was being considered
[53:59] for development, Brookline leaders were
[54:01] given the opportunity to weigh in. So,
[54:03] the idea that we should ignore what
[54:05] Newton has to say now is not borne out
[54:07] by our history.
[54:09] Importantly, the TOM subdistrict was
[54:11] only minimally discussed in Brookline at
[54:14] the last Community Advisory Group
[54:15] meeting. It has not been studied. It's
[54:18] not ready for a vote. Please vote for
[54:20] the Advisory Committee's amendment and
[54:22] remove this subdistrict from the
[54:23] overlay. And then I urge you to vote
[54:25] favorable action on the overlay for the
[54:28] south side of Boylston Street and Route
[54:30] 9. And a final word on process.
[54:33] Members of the CAG, including myself,
[54:34] spent nearly 2 years attending numerous
[54:36] meetings, running focus groups early on,
[54:39] and at the last official meeting, which
[54:41] members were never told in advance was
[54:43] the last meeting, there was no vote. I'm
[54:45] a former president of the League of
[54:46] Women Voters of Brookline, and we say,
[54:49] "Your vote is your voice." This was a
[54:51] staff-led process that in the final
[54:53] analysis gave the group no vote and
[54:55] therefore no voice. This was different
[54:58] from Gateway East in Brookline Village,
[55:00] whose committee members did vote. I urge
[55:02] the town never again to use this deeply
[55:04] flawed community process with any other
[55:07] neighborhood in Brookline. Thank you.
[55:09] >> Thank you.
[55:11] >> [applause]
[55:13] >> Next up is Matt Hyatt
[55:15] with the Planning Board.
[55:30] » Can you hear me?
[55:31] >> Yes.
[55:31] >> Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Matt Hyatt,
[55:33] Precinct 4 Town Meeting member and chair
[55:36] of the Planning Board, speaking on
[55:37] behalf of the planning board. Uh the
[55:39] board discussed Article 1 over multiple
[55:41] meetings including a work session in
[55:44] early February where we focused on the
[55:45] design guidelines. Uh the board focused
[55:47] discussion on building scale and
[55:49] transitions, pedestrian connectivity,
[55:51] parking and transportation impacts,
[55:52] affordable housing incentives, street
[55:54] canopy and sustainability requirements,
[55:56] and urban design standards. The board
[55:58] concluded that the proposed Chestnut
[56:00] Hill Commercial Overlay District is
[56:01] strongly aligned with
[56:03] uh cities with several key town planning
[56:05] initiatives. Those include the overlay,
[56:08] uh advancing uh the comprehensive plan
[56:10] from 2005, creating a district framework
[56:13] for mixed-use redevelopment in the
[56:14] Chestnut in Chestnut Hill that supports
[56:16] commercial tax base growth, expanded
[56:18] housing opportunities on a more walkable
[56:20] commercial corridor. Board also noted
[56:22] consistency with the 2024 Housing
[56:24] Production Plan which identified
[56:25] Boylston Street as a mixed-use and
[56:27] housing opportunity area appropriate for
[56:29] additional housing production. And in
[56:31] addition, the proposal incorporates
[56:32] goals from the 2021 Urban Forest Climate
[56:35] uh Resiliency Master Plan and broader
[56:37] climate planning efforts requiring tree
[56:38] canopy expansion, increased setbacks to
[56:40] support tree planting, sustainable site
[56:42] design measures, stormwater management
[56:44] strategies, and pedestrian-oriented
[56:46] public realm improvements.
[56:48] The board emphasized that the zoning
[56:49] proposal was informed by substantial
[56:51] public engagement effort and extensive
[56:53] technical analysis related to
[56:54] transportation, redevelopment
[56:56] feasibility, urban design, open space,
[56:58] infrastructure impacts, and the members
[57:00] highlighted mitigation measures
[57:01] including pedestrian and bicycle
[57:02] improvements, tree canopy requirements,
[57:04] and activated open space, sustainable
[57:06] building infrastructure, and design
[57:07] standards intended to improve
[57:08] walkability and neighborhood
[57:10] compatibility while supporting long-term
[57:12] economic development and housing goals.
[57:15] And also, the planning board emphasized
[57:17] that all eligible project eligible
[57:19] projects will remain subject to the
[57:20] town's design review and special permit
[57:22] process and the accompanying 78-page
[57:24] Chestnut Hill Commercial Design
[57:25] Standards and Guidelines developed
[57:27] through a lengthy public process with
[57:29] urban design firm Sasaki established a
[57:31] framework for future project review by
[57:33] the Planning Board and the Design
[57:34] Advisory Bodies. The standards provide
[57:36] guidance for site plan and pedestrian
[57:38] circulation, streetscape improvements,
[57:40] building massing, scale transitions,
[57:41] frontage design, open space, public
[57:43] amenities, facade composition, and
[57:46] design quality expectations intended to
[57:48] shape the redevelopment outcomes
[57:49] consistent with the goals of the overlay
[57:51] district.
[57:52] Therefore, the board voted 6 to 0 with
[57:56] one exception one abstention to
[57:58] recommend favorable action in support of
[58:01] Warrant Article 1, the main motion.
[58:03] Thank you.
[58:04] >> Thank you.
[58:06] >> [applause]
[58:10] » Next up is
[58:12] Mr. Banker.
[58:25] Another tall person, the mic is set up
[58:28] for you.
[58:28] >> Fortunately, the mic is up already.
[58:41] Thank you.
[58:43] Dick Bencker, Precinct 14.
[58:46] I urge you to support the Advisory
[58:48] Committee amendment to remove the TOM
[58:50] subdistrict from Article 1.
[58:52] There's absolutely no need to upzone it
[58:55] at this time.
[58:56] We know that both WS Development, which
[58:59] owns the large parking lot next to the
[59:01] Star Market, and CVS have made clear
[59:04] that they have no plans to redevelop
[59:06] their holdings.
[59:08] We know that the parking lot in
[59:09] Brookline is part of the parking
[59:11] required by Newton's special permit,
[59:14] which allowed WS Development to enlarge
[59:17] the Star Market.
[59:18] Next slide, please.
[59:21] We know that the Planning Department
[59:22] engaged Kittelson & Associates as
[59:25] traffic consultants.
[59:27] We know that Kittelson produced reports
[59:29] that projected increases in traffic
[59:31] resulting from the proposed overlay
[59:33] district.
[59:35] And we know what those traffic increases
[59:37] are from a build-out of just the Tom
[59:40] subdistrict based on development
[59:43] projected by our planning department.
[59:46] We know that Kittelson calculated that
[59:49] the Tom subdistrict traffic would see a
[59:52] resulting increase of more than 550
[59:55] trips, an 1,800% increase in the AM peak
[1:00:00] hour
[1:00:01] of 930 trips, almost a 2,000% increase
[1:00:06] in the PM peak hour,
[1:00:09] and of 400 trips, almost an 800%
[1:00:12] increase in the Saturday peak hour,
[1:00:15] making it one of the three largest
[1:00:18] projected contributors to traffic, and
[1:00:21] the one closest to Route 9 and the
[1:00:23] Hammond Street intersection that is at
[1:00:25] issue for the arc cuts.
[1:00:28] We know that Kittelson's reports have
[1:00:30] been shared with MassDOT
[1:00:32] along with the arc cuts.
[1:00:34] Kittelson's one and only recommendation
[1:00:37] for dealing with the projected increase
[1:00:39] in traffic volume at the intersection of
[1:00:42] Route 9 and Hammond Street.
[1:00:45] Kittelson expressly designed the arc
[1:00:48] cuts to prioritize commuter traffic
[1:00:51] through Brookline on Route 9.
[1:00:55] To accomplish that, the arc cuts would
[1:00:58] force Hammond Street traffic simply
[1:01:00] wanting to cross Route 9 or turn left on
[1:01:03] Route 9 into making significant detours
[1:01:06] onto Route 9 and then back again after
[1:01:09] U-turns just to get to the other side of
[1:01:13] Route 9.
[1:01:14] The arc cuts would force those detours
[1:01:16] on those on Hammond going from South
[1:01:18] Brookline and other parts of Brookline,
[1:01:21] the schools, the religious institutions,
[1:01:24] the post office, the Star Market, the
[1:01:27] Chestnut Hill T stop, Boston College
[1:01:29] campuses, and beyond.
[1:01:32] They would cause diversions onto
[1:01:34] residential neighborhood streets not
[1:01:37] designed to accommodate heavy traffic
[1:01:39] where kids live and where kids bike and
[1:01:42] walk to the Hayes School.
[1:01:45] Next slide, please.
[1:01:47] And they would lead to mazes with
[1:01:49] pedestrians having to cross four or five
[1:01:52] different traffic corridors just to get
[1:01:55] across Route 9.
[1:01:58] Now, it's perfectly true that Article 1
[1:02:00] doesn't address traffic or changes in
[1:02:03] road design.
[1:02:04] But we've been told that after whatever
[1:02:07] version of Article 1 passes, MassDOT
[1:02:10] will begin formal discussions of Route 9
[1:02:13] options.
[1:02:15] If the Town subdistrict is included in
[1:02:17] the overlay zoning, the Middleton data
[1:02:20] from the Town's build-out would
[1:02:23] logically be included in the
[1:02:25] consideration of those options.
[1:02:27] Despite the fact that redevelopment
[1:02:30] plans for the Town are nowhere near the
[1:02:32] horizon,
[1:02:34] unlike those of City Realty and the
[1:02:36] expressed interests of the growth
[1:02:38] companies, Salvatore Capital, and CH
[1:02:41] Realty Ventures on the other side of
[1:02:44] Route 9.
[1:02:45] As a practical matter, it's totally
[1:02:48] unnecessary to include the Town
[1:02:50] subdistrict at this time.
[1:02:53] Whether like me, you believe it would be
[1:02:55] premature and actually a disservice to
[1:02:58] the Town's residents to include the
[1:03:00] Town,
[1:03:01] or whether you just want to eliminate a
[1:03:03] bone of contention that's unnecessary,
[1:03:06] please support the Advisory Committee
[1:03:08] motion to remove the Town subdistrict
[1:03:11] from the proposed zoning overlay.
[1:03:14] Thank you.
[1:03:15] >> Thank you.
[1:03:17] >> [applause]
[1:03:21] » Next up is uh Roger Blood for the
[1:03:24] Housing Advisory Board.
[1:03:33] I think you're going to need to adjust
[1:03:35] the mic for this.
[1:03:47] » Can you hear me? Can you hear me good?
[1:03:49] No?
[1:03:51] >> Yeah, it it needs to be aimed right at
[1:03:52] your mouth.
[1:03:56] » How's that?
[1:03:57] >> Yeah, that's better.
[1:04:03] » Good evening. Um I'm Roger Blood
[1:04:05] speaking for a unanimous Housing
[1:04:07] Advisory Board.
[1:04:09] The uh
[1:04:10] the HAB recommends favorable action on
[1:04:15] special town meeting articles one and
[1:04:17] two,
[1:04:18] uh which would create the Chestnut Hill
[1:04:20] Commercial Overlay District including
[1:04:22] the Western Subdistrict designated for
[1:04:24] the City Realty's planned mixed-use uh
[1:04:27] development. The HAB finds that the
[1:04:29] proposed zoning overlay under article
[1:04:31] one incorporate significant affordable
[1:04:33] housing provisions and resources,
[1:04:36] all consistent with the town's housing
[1:04:38] production plan.
[1:04:40] The article also aligns with
[1:04:41] long-standing town goals for mixed-use
[1:04:44] development while generating a
[1:04:46] significant fiscal benefits to the town.
[1:04:49] The proposed City Realty mixed-use
[1:04:51] development will contribute both both
[1:04:54] much-needed affordable on-site housing,
[1:04:57] 21 permanently affordable rental units
[1:05:00] in 140-unit
[1:05:01] building C, and in addition, a
[1:05:04] negotiated contribution
[1:05:06] of 10.93 million
[1:05:09] to the [clears throat] Brookline's
[1:05:10] Affordable Housing Trust from the sale
[1:05:12] of luxury condominium units in the hotel
[1:05:15] mixed-use building A.
[1:05:17] In the earlier discussion of warrant
[1:05:19] article Well, oh, I did this thinking
[1:05:21] that warrant article 15 was going to
[1:05:22] come first, and it didn't. So, uh you're
[1:05:24] not going to have You'll hear the the
[1:05:26] discussion later about leveraging the
[1:05:28] trust.
[1:05:29] Um
[1:05:31] the um the the trust has a a record of
[1:05:34] effectively leveraging its funds,
[1:05:37] including the expected roughly 11
[1:05:39] million to produce um
[1:05:41] a a great deal more affordable housing
[1:05:43] and as well as preservation uh in
[1:05:46] advancing the town and the HAB's
[1:05:48] mission.
[1:05:49] In addition to City Realty,
[1:05:51] City Realty's the project's sizable
[1:05:54] affordable housing on site and financial
[1:05:56] contributions, the HAB also supports
[1:05:59] article one's housing-related provisions
[1:06:02] for the neighborhood mixed-use
[1:06:05] subdistrict of the zoning overlay.
[1:06:09] This feature provides a 50 for a 50%
[1:06:11] [clears throat]
[1:06:12] affordable
[1:06:13] uh unit density bonus.
[1:06:15] This concept was previously conceived by
[1:06:18] the HAB's Affordable Housing Unit
[1:06:20] Overlay District or AHAD subcommittee as
[1:06:24] a
[1:06:24] uh promising tool for creating uh
[1:06:27] affordable housing anywhere, but this is
[1:06:29] a great place to start.
[1:06:31] Um
[1:06:33] Article two of special town meeting
[1:06:36] augments article one with a memorandum
[1:06:38] of agreement and tax certainty uh
[1:06:40] associated with the City Realty project.
[1:06:43] In particular, the structure and
[1:06:45] enforceability of the 10.93 million uh
[1:06:49] Affordable Housing Trust
[1:06:50] contribution from building A, and also
[1:06:53] uh reinforcing the provision under
[1:06:55] inclusionary zoning for the required
[1:06:58] delivery of the 21 deed-restricted uh
[1:07:01] rental units within building C.
[1:07:04] While the town cannot mandate early
[1:07:07] commencement of construction. This
[1:07:09] agreement also includes incentive
[1:07:11] structures and penalties that
[1:07:13] collectively will discourage any
[1:07:15] prolonged delay of the anticipated
[1:07:18] build-out and the the very generous payout in terms of
[1:07:22] affordable housing
[1:07:24] and and tax revenue to the town. The Hab
[1:07:27] did not take any position on the um
[1:07:30] the difference between the um the
[1:07:33] advisory committee and the uh the select
[1:07:36] board in the main motion on the the
[1:07:38] rezoning north of north of Route 9.
[1:07:40] >> Please please vote yes
[1:07:42] >> on
[1:07:43] uh articles 1 and 2. Thank you very
[1:07:45] much.
[1:07:46] >> [applause]
[1:07:49] » Next speaker is uh
[1:07:52] Greg Reegman Reegman who is a not a
[1:07:55] Brookline not a Brookline resident but
[1:07:57] is the president and CEO of the Charles
[1:08:00] River Regional Chamber representing
[1:08:02] businesses and nonprofits along across
[1:08:05] five communities west of Boston
[1:08:07] including as of April 1
[1:08:09] uh companies that were part of the
[1:08:11] Brookline Chamber of Commerce.
[1:08:13] Uh in an earlier life Greg was the
[1:08:16] publisher and editor-in-chief of the
[1:08:19] former Brookline Tab and um hoping there
[1:08:23] are no objections to Mr. Reegman
[1:08:25] addressing us.
[1:08:27] >> Thank you Mr. Moderator and town meeting
[1:08:30] members. It's an honor to be here
[1:08:31] tonight representing the businesses and
[1:08:33] nonprofits of the special community. My
[1:08:35] name is Greg Reegman.
[1:08:36] >> We have a point of order.
[1:08:40] You you need to
[1:08:41] >> The answer to that he's not a resident
[1:08:43] of Brookline.
[1:08:45] » You
[1:08:46] You're asking if Mr. Reegman is a
[1:08:48] resident of Brookline?
[1:08:49] >> That's right.
[1:08:50] >> He is not a resident of Brookline.
[1:08:54] Um
[1:08:56] if you object to Mr. Reegman addressing
[1:08:59] you
[1:09:00] please raise your hand and if you're on
[1:09:02] the Zoom, please raise your hand on the
[1:09:05] Zoom.
[1:09:07] And we need 15.
[1:09:10] I see one in the room.
[1:09:15] We have any on the Zoom?
[1:09:17] We have two on the Zoom.
[1:09:20] Mr. Reedman.
[1:09:22] >> Thank you, Mr. Murray. Greg Reedman,
[1:09:24] president and CEO of the Charles River
[1:09:26] Regional Chamber. It's an honor to be
[1:09:28] here tonight representing the businesses
[1:09:30] and nonprofits
[1:09:31] uh in this special community. It really
[1:09:32] is something that means a lot to us. Um
[1:09:34] we submitted a letter in support of
[1:09:37] articles one and two, and in opposition
[1:09:39] to the amendment that would remove the
[1:09:41] Tom subdistrict. Um I'm going to keep my
[1:09:43] comments very just high-level conceptual
[1:09:45] here. I have four points I wanted to
[1:09:46] stress from a business perspective. Um
[1:09:49] first, businesses like certainty. And I
[1:09:52] think we all know that's why the tariffs
[1:09:54] cause such chaos for the economy and
[1:09:57] some other things that have happened
[1:09:58] recently. Without certainty, uh busi-
[1:10:01] when when there is certainty, businesses
[1:10:02] know what they can and can't do. Growth
[1:10:04] depends on predictability. Investors are
[1:10:07] far more likely to commit to communities
[1:10:09] that provide a clear vision and stable
[1:10:12] framework.
[1:10:13] Uh number two, approving the entire
[1:10:15] district now provides that certainty. It
[1:10:17] allows for regional planning. There's no
[1:10:20] doubt that this corridor faces traffic
[1:10:22] challenges. We've heard about it
[1:10:23] tonight. Addressing them will require
[1:10:26] state attention, attention from the town
[1:10:28] of Brookline, attention from the city of
[1:10:30] Newton. The best way to do that is to
[1:10:32] begin planning now, even if the
[1:10:33] development's going to be years from
[1:10:35] now. Uh number three, this vote is much
[1:10:38] more than about just Chestnut Hill or a
[1:10:41] single development. It's about whether
[1:10:43] or not Brookline is prepared to take
[1:10:45] meaningful steps to strengthen its
[1:10:47] economic future.
[1:10:49] New housing will help employers attract
[1:10:51] and retain workers. New retail,
[1:10:53] restaurant, office, and hotel activity
[1:10:55] will bring energy, visitors, and
[1:10:57] economic activity to the corridor. Final
[1:10:59] point, this decision impacts not just
[1:11:03] the businesses that are happening in
[1:11:04] Chestnut Hill or what happens in
[1:11:05] Chestnut Hill, but really every business
[1:11:07] that you love all across town. Every
[1:11:09] small business, restaurant, retail shop.
[1:11:12] Uh
[1:11:13] it's been a terrible number years as you
[1:11:15] all know for small businesses,
[1:11:16] inflation,
[1:11:18] uh the high cost of health insurance, uh
[1:11:20] uncertainty about so many different
[1:11:22] ways, and now a tax increase due to the
[1:11:25] override, and I'll remind you the
[1:11:26] businesses pay a disproportionate share
[1:11:29] of property taxes because of the tax
[1:11:31] shift. Giving the small businesses the
[1:11:34] opportunity to benefit from the revenue
[1:11:36] that will be generated from this project
[1:11:38] actually helps our small businesses all
[1:11:40] across town survive and endure. Uh we
[1:11:42] don't want to see residents priced out
[1:11:44] of Brookline. We don't want to see small
[1:11:46] businesses priced out of Brookline,
[1:11:47] either. This is part of the solution to
[1:11:49] that, and the important part of the
[1:11:51] solution. We urge town meeting members
[1:11:53] to vote yes on articles one and two, and
[1:11:56] move Brookline towards a more stronger
[1:11:57] economy, a healthier tax base, and
[1:12:00] long-term fiscal stability. Thank you
[1:12:02] very much.
[1:12:03] >> [applause]
[1:12:06] » Next up is uh
[1:12:09] Mr. Dempsey, Chris Dempsey.
[1:12:12] And I'll also say that all of the
[1:12:14] remaining speakers on the um
[1:12:17] list are supporting the select board
[1:12:20] motion.
[1:12:28] » Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Uh Chris
[1:12:30] Dempsey, town meeting member, Precinct
[1:12:31] 4.
[1:12:32] As I begin my remarks, I want to
[1:12:34] disclose a past business relationship
[1:12:36] with City Realty, which was the subject
[1:12:38] of an email I sent to the town meeting
[1:12:39] listserv.
[1:12:42] The Chestnut Hill Office Park opened in
[1:12:44] the mid-1960s, and this photo behind me
[1:12:47] was taken about 5 years later.
[1:12:49] The property itself is basically
[1:12:51] unchanged since then, frozen in time.
[1:12:54] Next slide.
[1:12:56] Here's our border with Newton.
[1:12:58] And the next slide.
[1:12:59] >> Yep.
[1:13:00] >> And
[1:13:01] um the area has changed a little bit.
[1:13:03] Next slide. Oh, sorry. This Stay on this
[1:13:04] side. Thank Thank you. The area has
[1:13:06] changed a little bit uh
[1:13:08] and there's been commercial development,
[1:13:10] but really mostly on the Newton side.
[1:13:14] Since the 1960s, we've seen the building
[1:13:16] of the Shops at Chestnut Hill. By the
[1:13:18] way, that is zoned purely retail and
[1:13:21] restaurant. The developers somehow snuck
[1:13:24] in a factory where apparently they make
[1:13:26] cheesecake.
[1:13:30] There's the Lifetime Fitness building uh
[1:13:33] that those of us who grew up in
[1:13:34] Brookline in the 1990s will forever call
[1:13:36] the Atrium Mall.
[1:13:38] There's Chestnut Hill Square, home to a
[1:13:39] fancy Wegmans, and of course the
[1:13:41] significant improvements and upgrades to
[1:13:43] the street.
[1:13:44] These properties generate tens of
[1:13:46] millions of dollars of tax revenue for
[1:13:48] Newton.
[1:13:49] And yes, I intentionally chose Newton
[1:13:51] North Tigers orange for these boxes.
[1:13:54] They are meant to inspire a sense of
[1:13:56] competition.
[1:13:57] Next slide.
[1:13:59] In contrast, in Brookline Warrior blue,
[1:14:02] we've seen almost no commercial
[1:14:03] development beyond some low-slung,
[1:14:07] single-story, some two-story retail, and
[1:14:09] a CVS.
[1:14:11] STM articles 1 and 2 enable all of
[1:14:13] Brookline to benefit from this important
[1:14:15] commercial mixed-use node, adding
[1:14:18] walkable retail, and of course a hotel
[1:14:20] and much-needed new housing. Next slide.
[1:14:24] But what about the traffic?
[1:14:27] Well, let's talk about Route 9.
[1:14:29] Next slide.
[1:14:32] Better yet, let's talk about Boylston
[1:14:34] Street, which is our name, Brookline's
[1:14:37] name, for this road.
[1:14:39] While MassDOT thinks of this corridor as
[1:14:41] a high-speed highway meant to move as
[1:14:43] many vehicles as possible, we have a
[1:14:45] responsibility to think about Boylston
[1:14:48] Street differently. Next slide.
[1:14:50] And this corridor has seen a lot in 300
[1:14:53] years. It started as a toll road, a
[1:14:55] turnpike, the Worcester Turnpike.
[1:14:57] Later into the 1920s, you could take an
[1:15:00] electric streetcar down this corridor
[1:15:03] all the way from Boston to Worcester as
[1:15:06] you see people doing in this image.
[1:15:08] >> [applause]
[1:15:11] » Next slide. Here's the photo from the
[1:15:13] exact same location today. Notice the
[1:15:16] narrowed sidewalks, the cut-down trees,
[1:15:19] the wide expanse of asphalt, all in
[1:15:21] service of speeding commutes to points
[1:15:24] west of Brookline.
[1:15:26] The corridor has changed before and it
[1:15:28] can change again. And we need to stand
[1:15:31] up to MassDOT if and when it insists on
[1:15:33] a solution like the ARAP which seems to
[1:15:36] be about moving vehicles and not about
[1:15:38] the betterment of Brookline. Thankfully,
[1:15:40] MassDOT can't force that option upon us
[1:15:43] and I believe this community will be
[1:15:44] united against it. Next slide.
[1:15:48] >> I hope you're going to be concluding
[1:15:49] soon.
[1:15:50] >> In a world of Google Maps and Waze with
[1:15:53] thousands, tens of thousands of
[1:15:55] commuters to our west, plugging in their
[1:15:57] origins and destinations,
[1:16:00] the traffic is going to come no matter
[1:16:02] what we build.
[1:16:05] The traffic is not going to change just
[1:16:07] the origins and destinations. And I want
[1:16:10] more origins and destinations in
[1:16:13] Brookline. Please Next slide.
[1:16:15] >> [applause]
[1:16:16] >> That's why I'm asking you to join me in
[1:16:18] voting yes on STM Articles 1 and 2.
[1:16:21] Thank you.
[1:16:21] >> Thank you.
[1:16:21] >> [applause]
[1:16:30] » Next one up is Laura Not.
[1:16:45] » Hi, I'm Laura Knot and I'm speaking on
[1:16:48] behalf of Brookline Mothers Out Front,
[1:16:50] one of the largest and most active local
[1:16:53] chapters of a national grassroots
[1:16:55] organization.
[1:16:56] We work toward a livable climate for all
[1:16:58] children.
[1:17:00] Toward that end, we urge you tonight to
[1:17:03] vote no on the Advisory Committee
[1:17:04] Substitute Motion on STM 1
[1:17:07] and it we ask you instead to vote in
[1:17:10] favor of the main motion.
[1:17:13] 21 years have passed since the study
[1:17:16] encompassing the development of a
[1:17:18] western gateway to Brookline was
[1:17:20] enshrined in the in the 2005
[1:17:22] comprehensive plan.
[1:17:24] In the past 2 years, momentum on the
[1:17:27] project has finally taken hold, for
[1:17:30] which we owe a debt of gratitude to the
[1:17:32] many Brookliners who have contributed
[1:17:35] their guidance and expertise.
[1:17:38] A key result of their work has been to
[1:17:40] imagine a gateway to Brookline that is
[1:17:43] not entirely focused on an outdated,
[1:17:46] backward-looking mode of life dependent
[1:17:49] forever on the private automobile.
[1:17:53] Imagine that you're a young person,
[1:17:56] perhaps someone whose career has begun
[1:17:58] to unfold in the medical area or in
[1:18:01] downtown Boston.
[1:18:03] Imagine, if you can, that you do not own
[1:18:06] and do not want to own a car.
[1:18:09] That you live next door to a grocery
[1:18:11] store, within walking distance of
[1:18:13] restaurants, abutting bus and shuttle
[1:18:16] stops, and crucially, less than 1,000 ft
[1:18:19] from a stop on the Green Line D branch,
[1:18:21] the most rapid of the subway branches
[1:18:23] serving the town.
[1:18:25] Imagine, in addition, that here tonight,
[1:18:30] this body might make it possible for you
[1:18:33] to live car-free in a town that respects
[1:18:36] and supports your choice to do so.
[1:18:40] Two years ago, Brookline Mothers Out
[1:18:42] Front, with the support of our statewide
[1:18:44] organization, adopted a statement on
[1:18:47] housing. That statement reads in part,
[1:18:50] "We support enacting zoning changes that
[1:18:53] advance construction of additional
[1:18:55] housing, especially near Brookline's
[1:18:57] public transit." We recognize
[1:19:00] that the climate crisis is accelerating,
[1:19:03] and that delays in enacting relevant
[1:19:05] zoning changes, however
[1:19:07] well-intentioned,
[1:19:09] are counterproductive to reaching our
[1:19:11] climate goals and to ensuring a livable
[1:19:14] climate for all.
[1:19:16] We are living in new circumstances.
[1:19:20] This is not a time to erect obstacles.
[1:19:23] It is not a time to delay rezoning the
[1:19:26] transit-oriented subdistrict. Let's live
[1:19:30] in our new circumstances. Let's say yes
[1:19:33] to encouraging people to live as close
[1:19:35] as possible to public transit. Let's say
[1:19:39] yes to taking this small step to reduce
[1:19:43] our emissions, and let's welcome
[1:19:45] residents who are willing to help us do
[1:19:47] that. Let's say yes to the main motion.
[1:19:51] Thank you.
[1:19:52] >> Thank you.
[1:19:52] >> [applause]
[1:19:53] >> I have a motion to call the question,
[1:19:56] which I'm going to take.
[1:19:58] Um on the speakers' list, we have uh
[1:20:01] Nick Caramel, representing Ze'ev, Mike
[1:20:04] Sandman,
[1:20:06] Cathy Seidman, Charlie Homer,
[1:20:08] representing the uh advisory uh health
[1:20:13] counc-
[1:20:14] public health council.
[1:20:16] Uh Brian Ladd, Kelly Hardebeck, and Paul
[1:20:19] San are all
[1:20:21] uh speaking on behalf of the select
[1:20:23] board motion.
[1:20:24] So, with that said,
[1:20:27] you have the speakers, you've heard the
[1:20:29] arguments. Have you heard enough? If
[1:20:32] you've If you think you've heard enough,
[1:20:33] you vote yes to
[1:20:35] terminate debate. If you want to
[1:20:37] continue, vote no.
[1:20:39] Drop the vote, please.
[1:20:44] And this is for Article 1. This
[1:20:48] >> Stop. Oh, yeah, okay.
[1:20:51] This is terminating the debate. I was
[1:20:53] I got confused.
[1:20:54] >> Sorry.
[1:20:55] >> Terminating debate.
[1:20:59] » I was about to say something else.
[1:21:25] » 179 to
[1:21:27] 42
[1:21:28] to 6.
[1:21:30] >> Motion carries 179 42 to 6.
[1:21:33] Okay, we're now ready
[1:21:36] to vote on the motions. The first motion
[1:21:38] we're going to be voting on is the
[1:21:41] Advisory Committee motion.
[1:21:44] Uh this is a substitute to the Select
[1:21:48] Board motion and removes the Transit
[1:21:51] Oriented District TOM District which you
[1:21:55] heard about. It needs a majority
[1:21:59] to substitute for the Select Board
[1:22:02] motion.
[1:22:03] Okay, everyone understand what we're
[1:22:04] voting on?
[1:22:05] >> Yes.
[1:22:06] >> Okay, so let's drop the vote.
[1:22:11] The Advisory Committee motion.
[1:22:53] » 63
[1:22:55] 175
[1:22:58] >> [applause]
[1:22:59] >> The motion fails. [cheering]
[1:23:01] 63 to 175 to 4.
[1:23:06] Okay, we're now to the main motion.
[1:23:09] This one needs a 2/3 vote to become part
[1:23:12] of our zoning bylaw. This is the select
[1:23:15] board motion which includes the entire
[1:23:19] all all the parcels we've been talking
[1:23:21] about.
[1:23:22] So, a yes is to accept it and no is to
[1:23:25] reject it. Everyone ready to vote?
[1:23:28] >> Is this only article one?
[1:23:30] >> Only article one. We're going to have a
[1:23:32] separate vote on article two.
[1:23:35] Okay, we're ready.
[1:23:36] Drop it.
[1:24:21] » 217
[1:24:23] 20
[1:24:24] 6
[1:24:27] » [cheering and applause]
[1:24:33] » THE MOTION CARRIES
[1:24:35] 217 [applause]
[1:24:37] 26
[1:24:45] » We're not done.
[1:24:46] >> [applause]
[1:24:47] >> Now we need to vote on Article 2
[1:24:51] which is the memorandum of understanding
[1:24:54] authorizing the select board to sign it
[1:24:56] and that's where all the goodies are.
[1:24:59] So um
[1:25:01] Uh
[1:25:02] a yes, this we need a majority vote.
[1:25:05] Uh a yes approves it, authorizes them to
[1:25:08] sign and a no vote does not.
[1:25:12] Everyone understand what we're voting
[1:25:13] on?
[1:25:14] Okay, let's do it.
[1:25:53] And by the way, we're not done after
[1:25:55] this. There's one more vote.
[1:25:57] So don't leave the room.
[1:26:01] » 230
[1:26:02] 6
[1:26:05] >> Motion carries [applause] 230
[1:26:07] 66
[1:26:09] and I now move to dissolve special town
[1:26:13] meeting one. We need to vote on that.
[1:26:18] Ready to
[1:26:19] >> The yes vote dissolves it and no vote
[1:26:21] means we sit here forever.
[1:26:31] This is effective
[1:26:33] uh
[1:26:35] 5:00 p.m. tomorrow.
[1:26:38] That allows you time to correct votes if
[1:26:40] you need to.
[1:26:55] I put my finger on the scale on this
[1:26:57] vote. Yes.
[1:27:02] » 225
[1:27:04] 2
[1:27:05] 5
[1:27:07] >> Motion carries 225 25. We're now going
[1:27:11] back to the annual town meeting and I'm
[1:27:14] going to turn over the proceedings to Sandy
[1:27:17] uh assistant moderator
[1:27:19] Sandy Gatsby for article 11.
[1:27:43] » Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
[1:27:46] Article 11, the motion under article 11
[1:27:49] is on supplement two
[1:27:52] by default.
[1:27:55] Hello.
[1:27:58] Okay, the motion
[1:28:00] >> [clears throat]
[1:28:00] >> motion under article 11 is on supplement
[1:28:03] two, pages one to two.
[1:28:06] It would amend the bylaw
[1:28:10] covering the Committee on Town
[1:28:12] Organization and Structure
[1:28:15] to require the CTOS to
[1:28:18] do a
[1:28:20] survey
[1:28:21] a study of town organization
[1:28:24] every 10 years starting in a couple of
[1:28:26] years.
[1:28:28] It's moved by Ms. Stone, seconded by Mr.
[1:28:31] Banker. I call on Ms. Stone, you have 5
[1:28:34] minutes.
[1:28:43] » Let's get this right.
[1:28:46] Can everybody hear me?
[1:28:47] >> Yes.
[1:28:48] >> Excellent. Um thank you, Mr. Moderator.
[1:28:50] Rebecca Stone, Town Meeting Member,
[1:28:52] Precinct 3.
[1:28:54] All of the petitioners on this article,
[1:28:56] Kelly Hardebeck, Alec Lebowitz, Kim
[1:28:59] Smith
[1:29:00] >> Mike.
[1:29:02] » All of the petitioners on this article,
[1:29:04] Kelly Hardebeck, Alec Lebowitz, Kim
[1:29:07] Smith, Marissa Vote, and myself have
[1:29:10] served as both elected and appointed
[1:29:12] participants in Brookline government
[1:29:14] over many years.
[1:29:15] Together, we came to the conclusion that
[1:29:18] a regular checkup of our government
[1:29:20] organization and structure
[1:29:22] to look for ways to improve our ability
[1:29:25] to meet needs and get things done would
[1:29:28] be a good idea.
[1:29:30] This kind of periodic, usually
[1:29:31] decennial, government review is a common
[1:29:33] practice in the Commonwealth, but not in
[1:29:36] Brookline. Warrant Article 11 would
[1:29:38] change that.
[1:29:40] This article seeks to take advantage of
[1:29:42] a Brookline asset, the Moderator's
[1:29:44] Committee on Town Organization and
[1:29:45] Structure, which we call CTOS, by adding
[1:29:49] this periodic review to the other
[1:29:50] ongoing duties of the committee.
[1:29:53] And before explaining more, I want to
[1:29:55] first describe what has changed since
[1:29:56] the article was published in the warrant
[1:29:58] cuz the current the motion before you is
[1:30:00] different, and these changes we made to
[1:30:02] address concerns raised in the course of
[1:30:04] the review, and it ultimately led to
[1:30:06] unanimous support for favorable action
[1:30:08] from the advisory committee, the select
[1:30:10] board, and from CTO&S itself.
[1:30:13] So, first and most important, we
[1:30:15] eliminated the originally proposed
[1:30:17] change to the appointment authority for
[1:30:19] CTO&S. CTO&S will remain a moderator's
[1:30:22] committee.
[1:30:24] Second, in keeping with how these
[1:30:26] reviews operate in other municipalities,
[1:30:28] the members of the review committee,
[1:30:30] which in our case would be the members
[1:30:31] of CTO&S, will determine the scope of
[1:30:35] any review they do. And the initial date
[1:30:37] for these studies, as Mr. Gadsby just
[1:30:40] said, is now September of fiscal 2030,
[1:30:43] which would be September of 2029, rather
[1:30:46] than fiscal 2028.
[1:30:49] Third, the language now clarifies that
[1:30:52] the town will provide administrative
[1:30:54] support to CTO&S for these decennial
[1:30:57] government reviews, something the
[1:30:59] committee does not now enjoy for its
[1:31:01] ongoing work.
[1:31:03] I'd also point out that lack of staff
[1:31:05] support is a perennial complaint of
[1:31:08] Brookline's citizen committees, and
[1:31:10] overstretching our administrative
[1:31:11] support staff is a perennial concern of
[1:31:14] the town administrator. As such, it is a
[1:31:18] structural issue that affects the
[1:31:20] productivity of committees and staff,
[1:31:22] and could be usefully included in the
[1:31:24] kind of review envisioned by this
[1:31:27] article.
[1:31:28] So, why else is this kind of periodic
[1:31:31] review a good idea? Well, questions
[1:31:33] about Brookline's government structure
[1:31:35] arise regularly, but often they go
[1:31:37] unaddressed. Residents want to know who
[1:31:39] makes decisions, how their voices can be
[1:31:41] heard. Those who engage with the town
[1:31:43] often see gaps, redundancies, or
[1:31:45] inefficiencies in how departments,
[1:31:47] boards, and committees are organized,
[1:31:49] and how decisions flow, or don't.
[1:31:53] Concerns persist about the work burdens
[1:31:55] on various boards. At this town meeting,
[1:31:57] we've talked about executive authority
[1:31:59] and checks on overreach. And for the
[1:32:02] third time in a decade, discussed
[1:32:04] whether, what, and why we should pay
[1:32:05] some of our elected officials. Those are
[1:32:08] all questions of organization and
[1:32:10] structure.
[1:32:12] Considered in isolation, the importance
[1:32:13] of any of these issues to our
[1:32:15] functioning or the likely impact of a
[1:32:17] proposed solution is hard to gauge. The
[1:32:20] periodic government reviews envisioned
[1:32:22] by this article, excuse me, can provide
[1:32:25] that essential context. And this is not
[1:32:28] a new idea. Some of you in the private
[1:32:30] sector will be familiar with periodic
[1:32:32] organizational reviews. In
[1:32:34] municipalities that have um a home rule
[1:32:37] charter, it's called a charter review.
[1:32:39] It's the governmental equivalent of
[1:32:41] going to your PCP for a checkup. You
[1:32:44] start with a head-to-toe
[1:32:46] assessment of all the vital organs. You
[1:32:48] check size, weight, balance, the basics
[1:32:51] of staying healthy as you age. You're
[1:32:53] asked, "Has anything changed since your
[1:32:56] last checkup? And is there anything in
[1:32:58] particular we should be taking a look
[1:33:00] at?"
[1:33:02] It's not as if we've never done this in
[1:33:03] Brookline,
[1:33:04] but it has been several decades. CTO&S
[1:33:07] did important studies in 1968, 1973, and
[1:33:11] 1985. The last of those leading to the
[1:33:14] Town Administrator's Act, which is still
[1:33:16] our most significant change since
[1:33:17] adopting a representative town meeting.
[1:33:20] Unfortunately, since then, although
[1:33:22] conditions have certainly changed, we
[1:33:25] haven't had CTO&S lead a public
[1:33:27] assessment of how our structure or
[1:33:29] organization might usefully adapt. We
[1:33:32] would be healthier with this as a
[1:33:33] regular, predictable practice.
[1:33:36] Finally, to answer a question that came
[1:33:38] up a few times in committee reviews. No,
[1:33:41] this article has nothing to do with
[1:33:43] changing our form of government. These
[1:33:46] reviews are about public engagement and
[1:33:48] discussion of how to improve things in
[1:33:50] our existing representative town meeting
[1:33:53] select board form of government. I hope
[1:33:55] you will join CTO&S, the Advisory
[1:33:57] Committee, the Select Board, and the
[1:33:59] petitioners in voting for best practice
[1:34:01] and responsive government with favorable
[1:34:03] action on Warrant Article 11.
[1:34:05] >> Thank you, Mr. Benko.
[1:34:07] >> [applause]
[1:34:22] » Thank you. Dick Benko, Precinct 14,
[1:34:25] speaking on behalf of the Committee on
[1:34:27] Town Organization and Structure.
[1:34:29] I'm very pleased to report that after
[1:34:31] seven CTOS meetings with petitioners'
[1:34:34] representatives and input from the
[1:34:36] Advisory Committee, we've been able to
[1:34:38] arrive at a consensus.
[1:34:40] Both CTOS and the petitioners recognize
[1:34:43] the potential benefit of periodically
[1:34:46] reviewing municipal organization and
[1:34:48] structure with the goal of ensuring the
[1:34:50] town and school services are provided in
[1:34:53] an efficient manner.
[1:34:55] At the same time, we all recognize that
[1:34:58] the broad decennial review mandated by
[1:35:01] Article 11 could require significant new
[1:35:04] resources.
[1:35:06] CTOS staff
[1:35:08] uh support
[1:35:10] is currently limited to posting our
[1:35:12] documents on the town's website and
[1:35:15] starting our Zoom sessions.
[1:35:17] We, as well as the Town Administrator,
[1:35:20] recognize that the broad scope
[1:35:22] contemplated by Article 11 would require
[1:35:25] additional staff as well as likely
[1:35:27] funding for outside third-party support
[1:35:30] for the decennial reviews.
[1:35:33] In setting the dates for the initial and
[1:35:35] subsequent decennial reviews, we
[1:35:37] therefore considered fiscal restraints
[1:35:40] as well as the schedule of the state
[1:35:42] legislature should a home rule petition
[1:35:44] be needed.
[1:35:46] We've also retained language preserving
[1:35:48] the authority of CTOS to conduct
[1:35:51] similar, though less comprehensive
[1:35:53] reviews in the 9 years between the
[1:35:55] decennial reviews.
[1:35:57] And finally, we all recognize that the
[1:36:00] scope and outcome of these future
[1:36:02] reviews could not be predicted at this
[1:36:05] time, and thus agreed that CTOS would
[1:36:08] have the discretion to be guided by the
[1:36:10] facts at hand at those future times in
[1:36:13] determining scope and recommendations.
[1:36:17] We believe that Article 11 provides a
[1:36:19] workable framework for the future. CTOS
[1:36:23] unanimously recommends favorable action
[1:36:27] on the consensus article. Thank you.
[1:36:29] >> Thank you. Ms. Murphy.
[1:36:41] » Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Good evening.
[1:36:43] Jocelyn Murphy, town meeting member from
[1:36:45] Precinct 16, speaking for the Advisory
[1:36:47] Committee. Briefly,
[1:36:50] Article 11 originally called for two
[1:36:52] main amendments to Article 2.3 of the
[1:36:54] town's general bylaws governing the
[1:36:56] Committee on Town Organization and
[1:36:57] Structure.
[1:36:59] Those amendments would have modified the
[1:37:00] CTOS's appointing authority and required
[1:37:03] the CTOS to conduct and/or contract for
[1:37:06] decennial reviews of the organization
[1:37:08] and structure of the town's government.
[1:37:11] Through an extensive and collaborative
[1:37:13] review process, the article was amended
[1:37:15] to withdraw the proposed change to the
[1:37:17] committee's appointing authority and
[1:37:18] focus on the requirement for periodic
[1:37:20] review under conditions that the
[1:37:22] petitioners and CTOS have agreed to and
[1:37:25] the Advisory Committee supports.
[1:37:27] In summary, the main motion reserves
[1:37:29] CTOS appointing authority to the
[1:37:31] moderator,
[1:37:33] requires the CTOS to conduct review of
[1:37:35] the organization and structure of the
[1:37:37] town's government on a decennial basis
[1:37:39] beginning in fiscal year 2030,
[1:37:41] and authorizes the CTOS to determine the
[1:37:44] scope of those reviews.
[1:37:46] The Advisory Committee appreciates the
[1:37:48] collaborative effort that was engaged in
[1:37:49] by all interested parties and recommends
[1:37:52] favorable action on the main motion by a
[1:37:54] vote of 17 to 0 to 1.
[1:37:57] >> Thank you, Ms. Warren.
[1:38:09] » Good evening. I'm Amanda Zimmerman
[1:38:11] speaking on the behalf of the Select
[1:38:12] Board. I'll be very brief on this. There
[1:38:14] is a consensus among the petitioners,
[1:38:16] the Advisory and the Committee on Town
[1:38:18] Organization and Structure on the final
[1:38:20] language for this now consensus warrant
[1:38:23] article 11. The revised bylaw change has
[1:38:26] only one thing of substance, the
[1:38:28] addition of a regular once every 10-year
[1:38:30] review of town structure. The Select
[1:38:32] Board voted 5 to 0 in support of the
[1:38:34] revised warrant article 11. Thank you.
[1:38:37] >> Thank you. Seeing no one at the
[1:38:39] microphones, we're ready for a vote.
[1:38:45] Article 11 main motion.
[1:38:50] A
[1:38:51] affirmative vote will adopt this bylaw
[1:38:53] amendment.
[1:38:55] A negative vote will uh
[1:38:57] not.
[1:39:43] » 2:30
[1:39:44] 1
[1:39:45] 5
[1:39:49] » Motion carried by a vote of 230 in
[1:39:52] favor, one opposed, and five
[1:39:54] abstentions. Thank you.
[1:40:06] » It's like he's done this before.
[1:40:11] » Okay, we're now ready for Article 17.
[1:40:16] Um
[1:40:19] So, here we have uh a main motion which
[1:40:22] has been agreed to by the petitioners
[1:40:24] and the select board. Uh that main
[1:40:27] motion is in uh Article 17 supplement
[1:40:32] two, page one. It's a If you got it in
[1:40:35] the room tonight, it's a blue sheet.
[1:40:39] Um and it's seconded It's uh moved by
[1:40:42] Ms. Woo and seconded by Mr. Buono.
[1:40:46] There is a motion to refer
[1:40:49] which is uh proposed by the Advisory
[1:40:52] Committee.
[1:40:54] Uh and it's um moved by Mr. uh Doughty
[1:40:58] and seconded by Mr. Friedman.
[1:41:01] Um so, when we get to uh voting, we will
[1:41:04] vote the referral first. And then, if
[1:41:07] the referral fails, we
[1:41:09] uh will then go to the main motion,
[1:41:11] which would uh change the bylaws. So,
[1:41:14] this uh as you're going to hear, this is a
[1:41:17] proposal to uh add a bylaw section which
[1:41:21] governs how we uh
[1:41:25] wh- whether we prohibit civil
[1:41:26] immigration enforcement activities as
[1:41:29] much as we can on town property, and
[1:41:31] you're going to hear more about that.
[1:41:34] So, I'm going to call Ms. Wu.
[1:41:59] » Chi Chi Wu, Town Meeting Member,
[1:42:01] Precinct 7.
[1:42:03] Hello, Jessica Kiku, Brookline resident,
[1:42:06] chair of the Immigrant Advancement
[1:42:07] Committee of the Commission for
[1:42:08] Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and
[1:42:10] Community Relations. I'm here in my
[1:42:12] personal capacity as co-petitioner on
[1:42:14] Warrant Article 17. Next slide, please.
[1:42:20] Brookline is an immigrant town. About a
[1:42:22] third of our residents are immigrants
[1:42:24] according to the Brookline Community
[1:42:25] Foundation.
[1:42:26] That one of the highest percentages of
[1:42:28] immigrant residents in Massachusetts.
[1:42:30] And many more immigrants work and visit
[1:42:33] our town every day. What happens to
[1:42:35] immigrants in our community happens to
[1:42:37] all of us. Next slide, please.
[1:42:40] Over the past year, we've seen cruel,
[1:42:42] violent, lawless actions carried out by
[1:42:44] our federal immigration enforcement. We
[1:42:46] witnessed military occupations in LA and
[1:42:49] Minnesota. We've seen surges in
[1:42:51] immigration enforcement in Chicago and
[1:42:53] Maine among so many other places.
[1:42:55] These violent actions have resulted in
[1:42:57] several deaths. Not only the
[1:42:59] high-profile killings of Rene Good and
[1:43:01] Alex Padilla, but of Ruben Rey Martinez
[1:43:04] and Keith Porter, and more than 40
[1:43:06] immigrants who have died while in ICE
[1:43:08] detention centers during this
[1:43:09] administration. Next slide.
[1:43:13] Here in Massachusetts, we experienced
[1:43:15] the impact of immigration enforcement
[1:43:17] surges in May and September of last
[1:43:19] year. And even outside of these waves of
[1:43:22] enforcement, our neighbors and community
[1:43:24] members are being taken every day.
[1:43:27] More than 7,000 people have been
[1:43:28] detained in Massachusetts since the
[1:43:30] start of last year. That has included a
[1:43:32] Tufts graduate student, a Babson
[1:43:34] student, a high schooler from Milford,
[1:43:37] the raiding of the Austin car wash which
[1:43:39] led to nine people being detained, and
[1:43:41] several detentions right here in
[1:43:42] Brookline.
[1:43:43] Including one less than two weeks ago.
[1:43:46] Because despite existing policy that
[1:43:47] limits cooperation between our police
[1:43:49] and ICE, there are many ways in which we
[1:43:51] continue to facilitate ICE's work.
[1:43:54] Including fingerprinting sharing
[1:43:55] practices that alert ICE, and
[1:43:57] participation in the Boston Regional
[1:43:58] Intelligence Center as well share more
[1:44:00] in Article 25. ICE's actions destroy
[1:44:03] families and they harm our communities.
[1:44:05] This is an unprecedented time and it
[1:44:07] requires urgent and meaningful action by
[1:44:09] our town, which is why we're bringing
[1:44:10] this warrant article tonight.
[1:44:14] Next slide, please.
[1:44:17] Article 17 would limit the ability of
[1:44:20] ICE to engage in certain immigration
[1:44:21] enforcement on town property. It's
[1:44:23] closely modeled on a proclamation that
[1:44:25] the Select Board unanimously issued on
[1:44:27] February 10th, 2026. In fact, I'll even
[1:44:30] show you the differences in the next few
[1:44:32] slides which I emailed to the town
[1:44:34] meeting listserv so you can earlier so
[1:44:36] you can follow along.
[1:44:37] There are similar executive orders by
[1:44:39] the governor as well as cities of
[1:44:41] Boston, Newton, Cambridge, and others.
[1:44:43] Next slide, please.
[1:44:46] This is a comparison of the first
[1:44:48] paragraph of our article versus the
[1:44:49] Select Board's proclamation. There are
[1:44:51] some minor language changes
[1:44:53] and then two substantive ones. One
[1:44:55] change makes clear that town facilities
[1:44:58] do not include streets, roads, and
[1:44:59] public ways because unfortunately we
[1:45:01] can't keep ICE off public roads or
[1:45:02] streets. The second change makes it
[1:45:04] clear that prohibited activities are
[1:45:07] ones that are organizational nature such
[1:45:09] as assembling or mobilizing equipment or
[1:45:11] personnel. Next slide, please.
[1:45:13] For the second paragraph of the article,
[1:45:15] we removed the second sentence from the
[1:45:17] proclamation due to uh concerns from
[1:45:19] town council. We also changed the first
[1:45:21] sentence um due to Select Board feedback
[1:45:24] focusing the prohibition on immigration
[1:45:27] activities as opposed to individual ICE
[1:45:29] officers. Next slide, please.
[1:45:32] The third paragraph was added later on
[1:45:34] in an attempt to address the concerns of
[1:45:35] the police department. It discusses what
[1:45:37] happens when there's a violation of the
[1:45:39] bylaw and makes clear that violations
[1:45:41] are civil in nature. I'll discuss why we did that
[1:45:44] later on. Next slide, please.
[1:45:47] Why do we want a bylaw given that we had
[1:45:49] the select board proclamation? First, a
[1:45:52] bylaw has more weight as a legislative
[1:45:55] statute. You may hear later on that town
[1:45:57] council gave an opinion that a
[1:45:58] proclamation is as enforceable as a
[1:46:00] bylaw. True, but in the same opinion,
[1:46:03] town council also stated that bylaw has
[1:46:05] more weight.
[1:46:06] Second, if a future select board were to
[1:46:09] ever withdraw the proclamation, this
[1:46:11] gives town meeting a say because we
[1:46:13] would need to approve the withdrawal of
[1:46:15] the bylaw. Next slide, please.
[1:46:18] The police department raised a number of
[1:46:19] concerns during the process, uh
[1:46:21] expressing concerns that they would
[1:46:23] bylaw would require them to work put
[1:46:25] pressure on them to interfere with ICE
[1:46:27] or ICE officers. So, we made violation
[1:46:29] of the bylaw a civil offense, a civil in
[1:46:32] nature. Lots of protections and laws are
[1:46:34] civil in nature and they're enforced by
[1:46:36] getting an injunction against future
[1:46:38] violations and not having police
[1:46:40] officers arrest people.
[1:46:42] Um even though we made it civil, this
[1:46:44] police department responded that they're
[1:46:46] required to enforce all the bylaws.
[1:46:48] However, there are many bylaws that I
[1:46:51] don't think I've ever seen a police
[1:46:52] arrest for someone for such as having an
[1:46:55] advertising placard without the police
[1:46:57] chief's permission or damaging grass
[1:46:59] borders on public property or climbing
[1:47:02] trees.
[1:47:04] Um the police have discretion whether to
[1:47:05] make an arrest. Next slide, please.
[1:47:08] The other objection we heard is the
[1:47:09] possibility of legal challenges. Our
[1:47:12] bylaws are reviewed by the attorney
[1:47:13] general, so the objection was raised
[1:47:15] that the attorney general could
[1:47:16] invalidate our bylaws, which would
[1:47:18] jeopardize the governor's executive
[1:47:20] order um and those of various cities.
[1:47:23] First of all, if these executive orders
[1:47:25] are not legally enforceable, we need to
[1:47:28] know that.
[1:47:29] Second, this issue is going to come to a
[1:47:31] head no matter what.
[1:47:33] The Massachusetts Senate just passed the
[1:47:37] Protect Act, which prohibits immigration
[1:47:39] arrests at courthouses, houses of
[1:47:41] worship, schools, and child care
[1:47:43] facilities.
[1:47:44] Now, the house version is narrower, but
[1:47:46] it still prohibits immigration arrests
[1:47:47] in courthouses.
[1:47:49] The Protect Act would be subject to the
[1:47:51] same legal challenges, and it looks like
[1:47:53] it's going to pass.
[1:47:55] By the way, who would defend the Protect
[1:47:57] Act if there's a lawsuit against it?
[1:48:00] The Attorney General.
[1:48:03] So, is the Attorney General really going
[1:48:05] to say that our bylaw is illegal when
[1:48:07] she may need to defend the Protect Act?
[1:48:09] Next slide, please.
[1:48:11] And we're not alone. Other
[1:48:12] municipalities are doing this. For
[1:48:15] example, just recently the town of
[1:48:17] Shutesbury adopted a bylaw that's
[1:48:19] similar to the second paragraph of our
[1:48:20] article.
[1:48:22] So, in short, please vote no on the
[1:48:25] Advisory Committee referral,
[1:48:27] and join the Select Board,
[1:48:30] the School Committee, the Advisory
[1:48:32] Commission Public Health, and the
[1:48:33] Commission on Diversity, Equity,
[1:48:35] Inclusion, and Community Relations in
[1:48:37] voting yes on the main motion on Article
[1:48:39] 17. Thank you.
[1:48:41] >> Thank you.
[1:48:42] >> [applause]
[1:48:45] » Before we go to the next speaker, I
[1:48:47] neglected to tell you where the referral
[1:48:50] is, so in case you want to uh take a look at it while the next
[1:48:55] speaker is speaking.
[1:48:57] Uh it's on page 17 uh 17-13
[1:49:03] of the combined report, the original
[1:49:05] combined report.
[1:49:07] And with that said, uh Susan Granoff on
[1:49:11] behalf of the Advisory Committee.
[1:49:32] » Hello, can you hear me?
[1:49:34] Great, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
[1:49:36] Moderator.
[1:49:37] I'm Susan Granoff, speaking for the
[1:49:39] Advisory Committee with your gracious
[1:49:41] favorable action on the motion to refer
[1:49:44] the subject matter of Warrant Article 17
[1:49:47] to a Select Board Study Committee by a
[1:49:50] vote of 19 to 4 to 0. And if that fails,
[1:49:55] no action on the petitioner's article by
[1:49:57] a vote of 15 to 7 to 1.
[1:50:01] The Advisory Committee shares the
[1:50:03] petitioner's desire to protect
[1:50:06] Brookline's immigrant population against
[1:50:09] the abhorrent actions of ICE to the
[1:50:12] maximum extent possible. But we believe
[1:50:16] that the town can best achieve that goal
[1:50:19] by asking the Study Committee created by
[1:50:21] the Select Board to take just another
[1:50:24] couple of months, until September 1st at
[1:50:27] the latest, to study the complex legal
[1:50:31] and enforcement issues involved, so as
[1:50:34] to one,
[1:50:36] craft a better bylaw in time for
[1:50:38] November's Town Meeting, one much more
[1:50:41] likely to withstand the legal scrutiny
[1:50:44] of the Attorney General's Office, and
[1:50:47] equally important, of any court where
[1:50:50] the town would be seeking an injunction
[1:50:53] against violations of this bylaw by ICE.
[1:50:56] And two, at the same time, to consider
[1:51:00] and recommend other additional legal
[1:51:03] strategies that the town could take to
[1:51:06] protect our immigration population even
[1:51:09] more, such as, for example, by requiring
[1:51:13] any person detained in immigration
[1:51:15] enforcement actions to be allowed to
[1:51:18] make a phone call, and many others as
[1:51:21] well.
[1:51:22] Simply put, the current proposed bylaw
[1:51:25] needs more work and a bit more time to
[1:51:29] get it right.
[1:51:30] First, there are complex state and
[1:51:33] federal legal issues here that haven't
[1:51:35] been fully addressed by the petitioners.
[1:51:38] For example, does the bylaw adequately
[1:51:41] take into account the Constitution's
[1:51:43] Supremacy Clause? Under this clause, a
[1:51:47] state or municipality can't directly
[1:51:50] regulate or discriminate against federal
[1:51:53] authorities. Yet, Section 1 of the
[1:51:57] proposed bylaw currently specifically
[1:52:00] states that it applies to, quote,
[1:52:03] federal civil immigration enforcement
[1:52:06] activities, which might well invalidate
[1:52:09] that entire core section of the proposed
[1:52:12] bylaw.
[1:52:14] There are other legal questions that
[1:52:16] similarly need further consideration and
[1:52:19] study as well. All in the interest of
[1:52:23] getting the wording right.
[1:52:25] Second, none of the key terms used in
[1:52:28] this proposed bylaw, such as the core
[1:52:31] term town facilities, are defined by the
[1:52:34] bylaw. This risks a court refusing to
[1:52:38] grant the town injunctive relief, the
[1:52:40] primary purpose of this bylaw, according
[1:52:43] to petitioners, because of vagueness or
[1:52:47] ambiguity.
[1:52:49] Why not take a bit of extra time, add
[1:52:51] these definitions, and avoid this
[1:52:53] needless risk?
[1:52:55] Third, this lack of legal clarity also
[1:52:59] will make it problematic and confusing
[1:53:02] for the bylaw to be enforced by the
[1:53:04] police department, as they are required
[1:53:07] to do by section 10.2 of the town's
[1:53:10] general bylaws, as stated by Police
[1:53:13] Chief Pastor, officers could be placed
[1:53:17] in the position of enforcing provisions
[1:53:20] that are legally ambiguous or
[1:53:22] potentially preempted by federal law,
[1:53:25] possibly leading to our officers being
[1:53:28] charged federally with obstruction of
[1:53:30] justice.
[1:53:32] Petitioners have said that they do not
[1:53:34] expect Brookline officers to directly
[1:53:37] interfere with ICE activities.
[1:53:40] But, the new bylaw, as currently worded,
[1:53:44] will lead to confusion about what the
[1:53:46] police are expected to do. We can do
[1:53:49] better than that.
[1:53:51] Finally, the Advisory Committee
[1:53:55] additionally supports the motion to
[1:53:57] refer because it expressly contains a
[1:54:00] statement in it that town meeting
[1:54:04] reaffirms the Select Board's February
[1:54:06] 10th proclamation,
[1:54:09] which, as you heard, contains similar
[1:54:12] prohibitions as the proposed bylaw.
[1:54:16] This means that we will be
[1:54:19] by voting yes on the motion to refer,
[1:54:22] town meeting will be throwing its weight
[1:54:25] behind this so that it will not merely
[1:54:30] be the opinion of the executive branch
[1:54:33] of Brookline's government
[1:54:35] that simply has a proclamation
[1:54:38] going to court, but it will be the the
[1:54:42] voice of town meeting,
[1:54:45] the legislative branch, also affirming
[1:54:48] that there is support of the entire
[1:54:51] community behind the proclamation. This
[1:54:54] will buy the Study Committee additional
[1:54:56] time. In conclusion,
[1:54:58] >> Thank you.
[1:54:59] >> [laughter]
[1:55:00] >> I thought you'd be happy about those
[1:55:01] words. This is too important an issue
[1:55:05] for our town not to take the time needed
[1:55:08] to get the bylaw right and to come up
[1:55:11] with additional strategies as well. We
[1:55:14] owe it to Brookline's immigrant
[1:55:17] community.
[1:55:18] Please [clears throat] join the AC in
[1:55:20] voting favorable action on the motion to
[1:55:22] refer and no action on the petitioners
[1:55:24] motion. Thank you very much.
[1:55:29] » Mr. Bono?
[1:55:49] » [snorts and clears throat]
[1:55:53] » Anthony Bono, member of the select board
[1:55:55] speaking on behalf of the select board.
[1:55:57] I want to begin by listing some numbers
[1:55:59] that we should reflect on. 50, the
[1:56:01] number of deaths in ice detention camps
[1:56:03] since 2025. 240 billion, the amount of
[1:56:07] money to be spent on border control
[1:56:09] since 2025. 5 million, those who have
[1:56:12] lost their health insurance on the
[1:56:13] Affordable Care Act marketplace since
[1:56:14] 2025. The federal government's
[1:56:16] priorities are clear. They are more
[1:56:19] interested in spending money on
[1:56:20] excluding people from what exists as
[1:56:22] opposed to building anything new. They
[1:56:25] view the world as a zero-sum game, a
[1:56:27] belief that if someone gains someone
[1:56:29] else has to lose. In their view, if a
[1:56:32] mother fleeing persecution in Venezuela
[1:56:34] makes its makes her way to America, she
[1:56:36] takes away resources from an American
[1:56:38] mother here. If an immigrant finds work,
[1:56:40] that is a job that should have gone to
[1:56:41] an American. Well, here we are. Real
[1:56:44] personal income is flat, unemployment is
[1:56:46] higher, inflation is higher, GDP growth
[1:56:48] is slowed,
[1:56:49] and we have zero net migration, the
[1:56:51] country is still worse off. Again, the
[1:56:53] federal government's priorities are a
[1:56:55] but their priorities are not Brookline's
[1:56:57] priorities. This is not the first time
[1:56:59] national cynicism has dominated our
[1:57:01] history. Our history is full of these
[1:57:03] moments. One moment I find similar is
[1:57:05] the 19th century fight over fugitive
[1:57:07] slaves. When enslaved people fled north,
[1:57:10] Massachusetts towns
[1:57:12] refused to be complicit in returning
[1:57:14] them. When the Fugitive Slave Act of
[1:57:16] 1850 passed, our neighbors stood up. The
[1:57:18] town of Mansfield passed a resolution
[1:57:20] stating, "Until we are prepared to
[1:57:22] repudiate the principles of independence
[1:57:24] and abjure all our ideals of justice and
[1:57:27] humanity, of truth and duty, we can be
[1:57:29] under no voluntary obedience to this
[1:57:31] act." That brings us to the bylaw before
[1:57:34] you tonight, which operates on two clear
[1:57:36] fronts. One, it establishes that
[1:57:38] non-public spaces of public buildings
[1:57:40] shall be off-limits to civil immigration
[1:57:42] enforcement in the absence of a valid
[1:57:44] judicial warrant. Two, it ensures that
[1:57:46] our local public spaces cannot be
[1:57:48] commandeered for organizational activity
[1:57:50] for the purposes of carrying out federal
[1:57:52] immigration enforcement. This language
[1:57:54] is built on
[1:57:55] foundation that has stood for nearly two
[1:57:57] centuries, the anti-commandeering
[1:57:59] doctrine. As Supreme Court Justice
[1:58:01] Joseph Story wrote in the landmark 1842
[1:58:04] case Prigg versus Pennsylvania, "It
[1:58:06] might well be deemed an unconstitutional
[1:58:08] exercise of the power of interpretation
[1:58:11] to insist that the states or localities
[1:58:13] are bound to provide means to carry into
[1:58:16] effect the duties of the national
[1:58:18] government nowhere delegated or
[1:58:19] entrusted to them by the Constitution."
[1:58:22] This principle has been tested over and over again in the Supreme
[1:58:25] Court, and it has been consistently
[1:58:27] upheld. Our Town Council agrees, noting
[1:58:30] that this language mirrors the state's
[1:58:31] executive order prohibiting federal
[1:58:33] staging on state facilities. Placing
[1:58:35] this kind of narrow limitation on
[1:58:36] federal activity is entirely legal
[1:58:38] because federal authorities are
[1:58:39] constitutionally prohibited from
[1:58:41] commandeering local resources.
[1:58:43] Furthermore, our fantastic police chief
[1:58:45] is comfortable with this language. She
[1:58:47] worked directly with our town
[1:58:48] administrator to draft the executive
[1:58:49] order upon which this bylaw is based. I
[1:58:52] want to briefly remind all of us that
[1:58:53] Brookline's Police Department is here to
[1:58:55] protect us. They do an amazing job and
[1:58:57] they are vital ally to our community.
[1:59:00] Thank you.
[1:59:01] >> [applause]
[1:59:05] » Now, I want to set ex- I want to be
[1:59:06] honest about expectations. We cannot
[1:59:08] stop ICE from coming from coming here.
[1:59:11] We cannot stop them from making arrests
[1:59:13] in Brookline or on public property. We
[1:59:15] can't do that. Uh we can't stop them
[1:59:17] from attempting to do the tactics we
[1:59:19] have seen in Minneapolis, Chicago, and
[1:59:21] Los Angeles. But, we can say that we
[1:59:23] will not help them. In 2017, Yale
[1:59:26] historian Timothy Snyder wrote on
[1:59:28] tyranny, 20 lessons for the 20th
[1:59:30] century. One of those lessons was rule
[1:59:32] number 19, be a patriot. Be an example
[1:59:35] for what America means for the
[1:59:36] generations to come. They will need it.
[1:59:39] Brookline, let us be that example. Let
[1:59:41] us assert through our bylaws that parks
[1:59:43] are for children to play and for adults
[1:59:45] to stroll, schools are for learning,
[1:59:48] libraries are places to read, converse,
[1:59:50] and share. Parking lots exist to support
[1:59:52] our business districts, and we do not
[1:59:54] want these local resources used for
[1:59:56] federal immigration enforcement. We
[1:59:58] don't want them to mobilize, assemble,
[1:59:59] or deploy there. We have the legal and
[2:00:02] moral right to say so, and the Select
[2:00:03] Board strongly recommends we do five to
[2:00:05] zero. Please vote no on the referral and
[2:00:08] vote yes on the main motion. Thank you.
[2:00:10] >> [applause and cheering]
[2:00:15] » Um
[2:00:16] okay. Uh
[2:00:18] the next speaker
[2:00:22] » A question, Mr. Moderator.
[2:00:24] >> Okay.
[2:00:27] Give me the question and I'll
[2:00:29] >> The question is whether adopting this
[2:00:31] bylaw
[2:00:33] Oh, pardon me. Jocelyn Murphy, Precinct
[2:00:35] 16 Town Meeting member. The question is
[2:00:38] whether adopting this bylaw
[2:00:40] would endanger our the town's
[2:00:42] eligibility for federal funds.
[2:00:50] » Who would like to take a shot at that?
[2:00:54] >> [laughter]
[2:00:59] » Jess Carey, town administrator.
[2:01:02] I can't give you a one-word answer to
[2:01:03] this question, sorry. I tried. Um
[2:01:06] the answer is it is complicated. I think
[2:01:07] it is likely that we would see negative feedback from the
[2:01:14] federal government on this. However, we
[2:01:17] are already in this position, right? We
[2:01:18] have already passed an executive order
[2:01:21] or proclamation from the select board
[2:01:23] saying substantively the same thing. Um
[2:01:26] one of the things that the select board
[2:01:28] has directed me to do, and which I am
[2:01:30] happy to do, is to say that if there is
[2:01:33] a condition of a grant or federal
[2:01:35] funding that requires that we cooperate
[2:01:38] with ICE in a substantive way or
[2:01:40] otherwise behave uh as an abettor to
[2:01:43] ICE,
[2:01:44] um including an attempt that they made
[2:01:46] on the um urban area um
[2:01:49] uh grants that we'll be talking about
[2:01:52] shortly, uh which was thankfully
[2:01:53] enjoined and is not required of us
[2:01:55] anymore or not was was never required of
[2:01:58] us, thankfully.
[2:01:59] Um
[2:02:00] that we don't take that money.
[2:02:02] Um
[2:02:03] we were ready for this administration to
[2:02:05] come in. I think we were better prepared
[2:02:07] than most municipalities were. We
[2:02:09] started preparing for this in July of
[2:02:10] 2024, the possibility that this
[2:02:13] administration come to power, and that
[2:02:15] we would lose federal money. We have a
[2:02:17] full accounting of what we get from the
[2:02:18] federal government, and we are prepared,
[2:02:20] although we don't want to, to lose all
[2:02:22] of it if we have to. So, to the extent
[2:02:25] that we are in jeopardy of potentially
[2:02:27] losing federal funds, yes, I do think
[2:02:29] so, but I also think we're ready for it.
[2:02:31] So, thank you.
[2:02:33] >> [applause]
[2:02:33] >> Thank you.
[2:02:37] Um
[2:02:38] next speaker is uh Marty Rosenthal, who,
[2:02:41] while he's not a town meeting member,
[2:02:44] uh while he was a town meeting member
[2:02:46] was involved in
[2:02:48] uh drafting the resolution. He's going
[2:02:51] to be speaking to us remotely.
[2:02:54] But given the issues we were having the
[2:02:56] last two nights with uh Zoom, if it
[2:02:59] doesn't work, we do in fact have a plan
[2:03:02] B.
[2:03:03] So, let's let's give it a try.
[2:03:08] And I've granted him 7 minutes.
[2:03:18] » Is it working?
[2:03:22] No.
[2:03:28] >> Please start.
[2:03:30] >> I'm trying.
[2:03:31] >> All you have to do is talk.
[2:03:33] >> I'm talking.
[2:03:37] » Keep going.
[2:03:38] >> I'm talking, but it
[2:03:42] I'm not hearing anything.
[2:03:43] >> We hear you.
[2:03:45] >> Oh, you do?
[2:03:46] >> You're The clock is ticking.
[2:03:48] >> All right, good. I'm sorry. I didn't
[2:03:50] know I was being heard.
[2:03:51] >> is ticking, please.
[2:03:54] >> Thank you. Well,
[2:03:55] I didn't know I was being heard it
[2:03:56] because of the problems you told me
[2:03:58] about earlier. All right, so Marty
[2:04:00] Rosenthal, Columbia Street, emerging
[2:04:03] vote for the advisory committee motion,
[2:04:05] the referral motion.
[2:04:07] Um I yield to nobody on uh I disdain for
[2:04:11] and shame about ICE agents, whom I've
[2:04:14] called storm troopers. Referral motions
[2:04:17] can sometimes be motions to broom
[2:04:19] something. This is exactly the opposite.
[2:04:21] In fact, Pax has sponsored three
[2:04:23] sanctuary resolutions, 1985, 2006, and
[2:04:27] 2017.
[2:04:29] As a five-decade criminal lawyer with
[2:04:32] over four decades helping to improve
[2:04:34] Brookline's excellent police department,
[2:04:37] I spent many horrified hours watching
[2:04:39] videos of the Renee Good and Alex Pretty
[2:04:42] murders. And then I delved into the
[2:04:44] legal issues
[2:04:46] examining whether the state could
[2:04:48] prosecute ICE.
[2:04:49] So, when by chance I saw the board's
[2:04:52] February 10th discussion of the
[2:04:53] proclamation which was sent to everybody
[2:04:57] by Neil Gordon to the TMMA listserv
[2:04:59] yesterday,
[2:05:01] I felt that their
[2:05:02] proclamation was great, but mostly
[2:05:05] auditory. And that should have been
[2:05:08] instead reforming some general orders to
[2:05:10] the police.
[2:05:12] So, then I got immersed and eventually
[2:05:14] sent a typically verbose diatribe to
[2:05:16] TMMA list March 9th. And then I saw
[2:05:20] these articles.
[2:05:25] Yeah.
[2:05:25] Uh
[2:05:29] trying to mute my TV.
[2:05:33] » Clock is ticking, Marty.
[2:05:36] >> Um
[2:05:37] All right. So, the 800-lb
[2:05:39] gorilla right now is that neither any
[2:05:42] mass city or town can prevent ICE from
[2:05:46] doing whatever travesties they want to
[2:05:48] do. ICE has no regard for either human
[2:05:50] decency or any laws. The most we can do
[2:05:53] is twofold. If ICE uses
[2:05:57] town property
[2:06:01] uh or or civil for civil enforcement
[2:06:04] orders, I hope the Brookline police may
[2:06:06] try to dissuade them, but surely can't
[2:06:09] forcibly intervene. Secondly, the proclamation sends a good message
[2:06:14] and it has to be maintained. So, why not
[2:06:17] pass Article 17?
[2:06:19] Because it's it's got a lot of risk,
[2:06:21] especially um the risk of being
[2:06:25] scrutinized by the AG's office and and
[2:06:28] nicked by them, which might nick all the
[2:06:31] executive orders that are I think six of
[2:06:35] them and maybe the governors as well.
[2:06:37] The referral is much faster, it's
[2:06:40] clearer, and it's better. Let me
[2:06:43] briefly try to get through some of the
[2:06:45] legal issues. And by the way, Mr.
[2:06:47] Moderator, I'm I'm not going to speak on
[2:06:48] 25, so if I could get an additional
[2:06:51] minute or two, I'd appreciate it. Um the
[2:06:54] >> time.
[2:06:55] >> I'm sorry?
[2:06:56] >> No.
[2:06:57] >> Okay. Well, anyway, so so so quick legal
[2:07:00] issues. There are federal issues. We uh
[2:07:04] circulated Neil circulated yesterday the
[2:07:06] Vera Institute report. Compare that,
[2:07:09] please, to
[2:07:10] the
[2:07:11] uh analysis by Anthony, which is very
[2:07:14] superficially smart, but I think full of
[2:07:17] holes, and the town council two-page
[2:07:21] memo from March 31st that was sent also
[2:07:24] today by Neil Gordon to the TMMA list.
[2:07:27] Uh there are issues of the commandeering
[2:07:30] question. Anthony says today that um
[2:07:35] the
[2:07:36] uh
[2:07:37] he he stretches the term commandeering
[2:07:39] and and says ICE cannot commandeer our
[2:07:42] land. Commandeering is not
[2:07:46] applied to land. It's applied to
[2:07:49] uh use of resources. But then he says,
[2:07:52] "ICE does not say that ICE agents" I'm
[2:07:55] sorry, "17 does not say that ICE agents
[2:07:57] cannot arrest someone in Griggs Park."
[2:08:00] That's true. And and that that
[2:08:02] contradicts what he said about the
[2:08:05] commandeering issue. So, which seems
[2:08:07] more credible, the Vera report or
[2:08:10] Anthony and town council? I
[2:08:12] You you folks are legislators. You have
[2:08:15] to decide. You can't just abdicate to
[2:08:19] town council and say that town council
[2:08:22] says this is fine. I think that that two two-sentence approval by town
[2:08:28] council's office on March 31st is at
[2:08:31] best very superficial.
[2:08:35] The other thing that the petitioners say
[2:08:38] that they made this a civil enforcement.
[2:08:42] They've tried to do that and they say
[2:08:44] that and that would be fine for
[2:08:46] enforcement purposes, but it's still a
[2:08:48] misdemeanor, which means that police are
[2:08:51] supposed to enforce it and it has to be
[2:08:53] for them and for due process purposes
[2:08:56] clear.
[2:08:58] The The other One more thing about
[2:09:00] Anthony's memorandum, he offers a very
[2:09:03] narrow reading and says it's
[2:09:06] non-controversial of the terms assemble,
[2:09:09] mobilize, and deploy. The word deploy
[2:09:12] just means if ICE goes anyplace, they're
[2:09:15] deploying. There's nothing
[2:09:18] um that that takes that out of the um
[2:09:23] the constitutional issue. I've done two
[2:09:26] SJC challenges on vagueness statutes and
[2:09:30] I believe that the
[2:09:32] >> One minute.
[2:09:33] >> the EO trespass law will get extra
[2:09:35] scrutiny if not by the Attorney General,
[2:09:37] at least by federal courts. So, for for
[2:09:40] both parts one and two of this Article
[2:09:45] 17, my favorite example was if our chief
[2:09:49] met with ICE in her office, is it two
[2:09:52] misdemeanors? Part one and part two.
[2:09:55] by the way, has no exception
[2:09:58] for somebody who is invited by consent
[2:10:02] of the chief. Uh so, in fact, was she a
[2:10:05] joint venturer in in a misdemeanor on
[2:10:08] that occasion?
[2:10:10] And finally, uh
[2:10:12] there's the preemption issue. There's a
[2:10:14] current
[2:10:15] statute that forbids public property
[2:10:17] trespassing. It It's pretty narrow, but
[2:10:21] arguably, it would preempt municipal
[2:10:24] statutes that also were creating
[2:10:27] essentially a trespass law.
[2:10:29] >> And that's going to get much worse
[2:10:32] soon because the Protect Act, which
[2:10:34] Chichi referred to, also forbids
[2:10:39] >> ICE and
[2:10:40] ICE enforcement in certain public
[2:10:41] properties, but they're very limited,
[2:10:44] specially courthouses. And I think that
[2:10:46] would pass muster, but it would preempt
[2:10:49] this by law. So, I'm asking, please,
[2:10:53] to enact the advisory motion for a very
[2:10:56] fast summertime action to do something
[2:11:00] similar, but better and faster. Thank
[2:11:03] you.
[2:11:03] >> Call the question.
[2:11:05] >> I have
[2:11:07] a
[2:11:08] I have two speakers, uh 3 minutes each.
[2:11:13] Uh Susan Park, Neil Gordon, I'll take
[2:11:16] the calling the question.
[2:11:19] Um
[2:11:30] » Drop the vote, please.
[2:11:33] Yes to terminate debate, no to continue.
[2:11:38] Two speakers left.
[2:12:14] » Okay.
[2:12:16] 148
[2:12:18] 65 6
[2:12:20] >> Motion carries 148 65 6.
[2:12:24] We're now ready for votes.
[2:12:27] So, the first motion
[2:12:30] that we're voting on is the advisory
[2:12:33] committee motion to refer.
[2:12:35] It's on
[2:12:37] page 1713.
[2:12:41] And if this passes, we're done.
[2:12:44] If this doesn't pass, we would then vote
[2:12:46] on the main motion to enact the bylaw.
[2:12:50] Everyone understands what we're voting
[2:12:51] on?
[2:12:53] Then let's do it. Drop the vote.
[2:13:39] » Okay.
[2:13:40] 80
[2:13:41] 156
[2:13:43] 4
[2:13:45] >> Motion fails.
[2:13:46] 80 156 4 We're now ready to vote the
[2:13:50] main motion.
[2:13:52] A yes vote will enact this bylaw. A no
[2:13:54] vote will not.
[2:13:57] Everyone understand what we're voting
[2:13:59] on?
[2:14:00] Okay. Drop the vote, please.
[2:14:47] » 192
[2:14:49] 34
[2:14:51] 14
[2:14:53] >> [applause]
[2:14:53] >> Motion carries.
[2:14:56] 192 34 to 14. So, we now [applause] have
[2:15:00] a new bylaw.
[2:15:03] Actually, we don't have the new bylaw
[2:15:05] right now. We have the new bylaw after
[2:15:07] the Attorney General approves it, which
[2:15:08] will be in a few months.
[2:15:10] Assuming the Attorney General approves
[2:15:12] it.
[2:15:13] So, now we move on to Article 25.
[2:15:20] Which has gotten a whole lot simpler.
[2:15:24] Because instead of all those motions and
[2:15:29] I was thinking, "Gosh, it's too late to
[2:15:30] create a flowchart." We just have one
[2:15:33] motion before us.
[2:15:35] And it's it's the motion on the blue
[2:15:38] sheets that was that were distributed
[2:15:41] uh at the back and it's uh let me get my
[2:15:44] cheat sheet here.
[2:15:46] If I can find it.
[2:15:49] It's uh supplement two pages one through
[2:15:53] five. And the Advisory Committee
[2:15:57] um
[2:15:58] the Select Board and the petitioners
[2:16:00] have uh all agreed.
[2:16:04] So, it'll be a simple vote. Once once we
[2:16:07] get to the vote, it'll be simple. You
[2:16:09] either accept it or you don't. Now,
[2:16:12] what's interesting to me
[2:16:15] uh
[2:16:16] for a non-binding resolution,
[2:16:20] I have a whole bunch of speakers lined
[2:16:22] up
[2:16:23] that I didn't have for a bylaw,
[2:16:26] which
[2:16:28] I just find that very interesting as a
[2:16:32] student of government.
[2:16:40] The timer. So, uh first representing the
[2:16:44] petitioners are Alec Lebowitz and Fatima
[2:16:48] Ahmed.
[2:16:49] Uh Fatima Ahmed is not a town resident
[2:16:54] and uh is the executive director at the
[2:16:57] Muslim Justice League, where she leads
[2:16:59] the MLJ's
[2:17:01] MJL's efforts to dismantle
[2:17:04] systemic Islamophobia by addressing the
[2:17:07] criminalization, policing, surveillance
[2:17:09] of marginalized communities. She joined
[2:17:12] the organization in 2017 and established
[2:17:15] MJL's community organizing strategy, and
[2:17:18] she's been involved in creating this
[2:17:22] motion.
[2:17:23] Uh are there any objections to her
[2:17:25] speaking?
[2:17:28] Any on the if you if you're on the Zoom and you
[2:17:32] object, raise your hand. I'll count to
[2:17:34] 10.
[2:17:38] 3 4
[2:17:40] 5 6 7 8
[2:17:42] 9 10
[2:17:45] Do we have any?
[2:17:52] None? Okay, let's go.
[2:17:58] Good evening. Alec Lebowitz, Town
[2:18:00] Meeting Member Precinct 8. Warrant
[2:18:02] article 25 is a resolution that calls
[2:18:05] for the state and the town to take
[2:18:06] several discrete actions to protect
[2:18:09] Brookline residents and our immigrant
[2:18:10] neighbors from the abuses of ICE, which
[2:18:13] under this federal administration has
[2:18:14] devolved into a rogue agency that has
[2:18:17] shown a total disregard for the rule of
[2:18:19] law, the safety, civil rights, and due
[2:18:21] process rights of our fellow citizens
[2:18:23] and neighbors, and has wantonly killed
[2:18:25] Americans in our streets.
[2:18:27] I'm pleased to announce that this
[2:18:28] evening the advisory committee, the
[2:18:30] select board, and the petitioners of
[2:18:32] warrant article 25 have come together to
[2:18:34] present the consensus motion before you
[2:18:36] this evening. I want to particularly
[2:18:38] recognize select board members Anthony
[2:18:40] Buono and Bernard Green, and my AC
[2:18:42] colleague Jocelyn Murphy for their
[2:18:44] heroic efforts in brokering this
[2:18:46] compromise, and I hope you will
[2:18:48] ultimately join all of us in
[2:18:49] overwhelmingly supporting favorable
[2:18:51] action on this article as amended. Next
[2:18:53] slide, please.
[2:18:55] Article 25 includes several state-facing
[2:18:58] provisions, including expressing
[2:18:59] Brookline's condemnation of ICE's
[2:19:01] illegal actions and targeting of
[2:19:03] communities based on race, ethnicity,
[2:19:05] language, or political preferences to
[2:19:07] our elected representatives.
[2:19:09] Additionally, this resolution calls on
[2:19:10] Governor Healey to exit the final
[2:19:12] cooperation or 287G agreement held by
[2:19:15] the state's Department of Corrections
[2:19:17] with ICE. This is the last such
[2:19:19] agreement active in New England,
[2:19:21] reflecting the widespread rejection of
[2:19:22] cooperation with ICE as the agency
[2:19:25] persists in its ongoing abuses and
[2:19:26] violence.
[2:19:28] Finally, this article calls for the
[2:19:29] state legislature to expeditiously pass
[2:19:32] a law similar to Brookline's General
[2:19:33] Order 43, which would prevent any direct
[2:19:36] cooperation between state and local law
[2:19:37] enforcement and federal immigration
[2:19:39] enforcement. I'll now turn it over to my
[2:19:41] co-petitioner, Fatima Ahmad, to describe
[2:19:43] the locally directed provisions.
[2:19:47] » Next slide.
[2:19:50] This article also calls for a review of
[2:19:52] whether Brookline should pull out of
[2:19:53] BRIC and a review of booking practices.
[2:19:55] I'm not only a national expert on
[2:19:57] surveillance, but my organization is
[2:19:59] surveilled by BRIC. We also lead a
[2:20:01] coalition of organizations fighting BRIC
[2:20:04] because it impacts so many communities,
[2:20:06] including immigrants.
[2:20:08] The Boston Regional Intelligence Center,
[2:20:10] BRIC, was established as a fusion center
[2:20:12] by the Department of Homeland Security
[2:20:14] and receives annual funding from DHS in
[2:20:16] the form of the UASI grant.
[2:20:19] Its entire purpose is to collect and
[2:20:21] share information across law enforcement
[2:20:23] agencies, especially with DHS and the
[2:20:26] FBI, which have agents sitting in BRIC.
[2:20:30] During Trump's first administration, we
[2:20:31] witnessed a spike in gang allegations
[2:20:34] from BRIC being used by ICE to detain
[2:20:36] and deport people. And even 135 student
[2:20:40] incident reports from Boston public
[2:20:42] schools shared with ICE through BRIC.
[2:20:46] Despite changes to the gang database,
[2:20:48] we've heard from our coalition of
[2:20:50] organizations and immigration attorneys
[2:20:52] that BRIC's information is still getting
[2:20:54] to ICE and impacting immigrants today.
[2:20:56] It's only become harder to trace.
[2:20:59] Next slide.
[2:21:01] The gang database is only the most
[2:21:03] obvious example we have, but BRIC is so
[2:21:06] much more than that. BRIC's
[2:21:08] counterterrorism department monitors
[2:21:09] social justice organizations like my own
[2:21:11] and reports on our activities.
[2:21:13] BRIC includes a real-time crime center
[2:21:16] and numerous surveillance technologies
[2:21:17] and networks to track people down like
[2:21:20] flock license plate readers, cameras,
[2:21:22] and ShotSpotter.
[2:21:23] BRIC analysts also work with many other
[2:21:25] databases that are shared with federal
[2:21:27] law enforcement. Just last week,
[2:21:29] Cambridge voted to end its ShotSpotter
[2:21:31] contract, which was through BRIC and
[2:21:33] UASI.
[2:21:35] BRIC is not just the backdoor to ICE,
[2:21:36] but it's how Trump can push his agenda
[2:21:38] locally. The UASI grant requires funding
[2:21:41] of BRIC and alignment with national
[2:21:42] security priorities.
[2:21:44] Last year, that agenda became over with
[2:21:46] requirements to collaborate on border
[2:21:49] enforcement and election security.
[2:21:52] But to be clear, this has always been
[2:21:54] used to push DHS's agenda. While there's
[2:21:56] a court battle over the border
[2:21:58] enforcement requirement, the election
[2:21:59] security requirement stands and should
[2:22:01] also concern the town of Brookline.
[2:22:03] Unfortunately, this grant intentionally
[2:22:05] makes us dependent on brick to fund
[2:22:07] emergency services, and I know it's
[2:22:09] difficult to say no to that funding, but
[2:22:11] we believe that it's the only way to
[2:22:13] protect our local communities. Next
[2:22:15] slide.
[2:22:16] Our organization and coalition is eager
[2:22:18] to help Brookline with the proposed
[2:22:20] review of brick's practices, and we hope
[2:22:23] that Brookline will become the first to
[2:22:24] leave brick. Next slide.
[2:22:27] Additionally, one of the most common
[2:22:28] ways ICE receives our local information
[2:22:30] is through fingerprinting when people
[2:22:32] are arrested, which we just witnessed
[2:22:34] happen this month in Brookline in a very
[2:22:36] disturbing video. According to our
[2:22:38] partners at Citizens for Juvenile
[2:22:39] Justice, local
[2:22:41] police departments are taking and
[2:22:43] transmitting more fingerprints than is
[2:22:45] required by law. We agree with their
[2:22:48] recommendation to limit sending
[2:22:50] fingerprints to ICE, and again, we are
[2:22:52] happy to help with that review process.
[2:22:55] I myself was arrested at a protest and
[2:22:57] never charged, but ICE received my
[2:22:59] fingerprints. This happens to everyone
[2:23:01] from student protesters who may never be
[2:23:03] charged to to immigrants who are
[2:23:05] arrested for misdemeanors. It's a
[2:23:07] significant pipeline of information for
[2:23:09] ICE, and it would make a tangible
[2:23:11] difference for immigrants in Brookline
[2:23:13] and beyond to limit that pipeline. Thank
[2:23:16] you.
[2:23:16] >> Thank you.
[2:23:18] >> [applause]
[2:23:18] >> Please join us in voting favorable
[2:23:20] action on warrant article 25. Thank you
[2:23:21] all very much.
[2:23:23] >> [applause]
[2:23:24] >> Ms. Murphy.
[2:23:32] » Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Good evening.
[2:23:34] Jocelyn Murphy, town meeting member,
[2:23:36] precinct 16, speaking for the Advisory
[2:23:38] Committee.
[2:23:39] Resolution article 25 highlights the
[2:23:42] valuable contributions that immigrants
[2:23:44] provide to the Brookline community and
[2:23:46] our community's desire to ensure that
[2:23:47] immigrants
[2:23:49] are treated with dignity and respect,
[2:23:51] while also confronting and taking steps
[2:23:53] to prevent the egregious conduct that
[2:23:55] federal immigration and customs
[2:23:56] enforcement agencies have engaged in
[2:23:59] toward immigrant residents.
[2:24:01] As originally presented, Article 25
[2:24:03] called for several steps to be taken by
[2:24:05] the town, including endorsement of a
[2:24:07] political statement condemning the civil
[2:24:09] immigration-related activities of the
[2:24:11] president, his agents and appointees,
[2:24:13] requesting the governor and lieutenant
[2:24:15] governor to cease all remaining
[2:24:17] cooperation agreements with ICE and to
[2:24:19] refrain from entering into any new
[2:24:21] agreements, and seeking state
[2:24:22] legislation that would prevent any
[2:24:24] cooperation between state and local law
[2:24:26] enforcement agencies and ICE.
[2:24:29] Those provisions remain.
[2:24:31] The article also called for the select
[2:24:33] board to require the Brookline Police
[2:24:34] Department to sever its ties its ties
[2:24:37] with the Brookline Regional Intelligence
[2:24:38] Center, also known as BRIC,
[2:24:41] to stop sharing fingerprints of juvenile
[2:24:43] and misdemeanor arrestees with the FBI,
[2:24:46] to comply with the Department's General
[2:24:48] Order 51, which calls for preserving the
[2:24:51] peace during peaceful demonstrations and
[2:24:53] investigation of allegations of
[2:24:55] excessive force by federal agents,
[2:24:57] and finally for the town to no longer
[2:24:59] apply for urban areas security
[2:25:01] initiative program grants.
[2:25:03] During the discussion of Article 25,
[2:25:05] there was very strong support among
[2:25:07] advisory committee members for the
[2:25:08] sentiment behind the article.
[2:25:11] However, our very highly regarded public
[2:25:13] safety representatives, including Police
[2:25:16] Chief Pastor and Fire Chief Sullivan,
[2:25:19] expressed several significant concerns
[2:25:21] about the proposals in the article
[2:25:23] calling for Brookline's withdrawal from
[2:25:25] the BRIC,
[2:25:26] for prohibiting the fingerprinting of
[2:25:27] certain classes of arrestees, and no
[2:25:29] longer applying for urban area security
[2:25:31] initiative program grants.
[2:25:34] Although these officials readily align
[2:25:35] themselves with the policy behind the
[2:25:37] proposed resolution, they explained that
[2:25:39] these tools are indispensable public
[2:25:42] safety resources.
[2:25:43] Chief Pastor explained that the BRIC is
[2:25:45] a particularly important tool that
[2:25:47] provides her department with criminal
[2:25:49] intelligence information and other
[2:25:51] shared resources on a daily basis, which
[2:25:54] in turn enable the department to stay
[2:25:55] abreast of local and regional criminal
[2:25:57] activity.
[2:25:59] Fingerprinting individuals who are
[2:26:01] arrested is the only way to ensure
[2:26:03] positive identification, including
[2:26:05] whether they are juveniles. And
[2:26:07] fingerprinting individuals charged with
[2:26:08] misdemeanor crimes frequently lead to
[2:26:10] the identification of an individuals who
[2:26:12] are wanted for far more serious crimes,
[2:26:15] including homicide.
[2:26:17] In the opinion of our police chief,
[2:26:19] prohibiting these tools would
[2:26:20] significantly compromise law enforcement
[2:26:22] and public safety in Brookline.
[2:26:25] Fire Chief Sullivan, also the director
[2:26:27] of emergency management, stated that
[2:26:29] withdrawal from the program would
[2:26:30] severely compromise Brookline's
[2:26:32] emergency readiness.
[2:26:34] The Advisory Committee's earlier vote
[2:26:36] for referral of the article reflected
[2:26:37] the sincere desire of community members
[2:26:40] to support the strong sentiment behind
[2:26:41] the article, while also supporting the
[2:26:44] professional judgment of Brookline's
[2:26:46] public safety officials.
[2:26:48] Referral to a diverse Select Board
[2:26:50] Committee was sought to achieve two main
[2:26:52] objectives. It would allow thorough more
[2:26:54] thorough consideration of the potential
[2:26:56] consequences of implementation by key
[2:26:58] stakeholders
[2:26:59] on a shortened time frame, and it would
[2:27:01] allow the addition of several
[2:27:03] improvements to the town's current civil
[2:27:05] immigration-related policies identified
[2:27:07] by long-time civil rights advocate and
[2:27:09] attorney Marty Rosenthal during the
[2:27:11] review process.
[2:27:14] Since that vote, Select Board member
[2:27:16] Anthony Bono,
[2:27:18] along with the petitioners and Select
[2:27:19] Board member Bernard Green, constructed
[2:27:21] the current main motion,
[2:27:24] which is supported by both the Select
[2:27:25] Board and the petitioners. The motion
[2:27:27] calls for the Select Board to assign the
[2:27:29] task of investigating
[2:27:31] whether Brookline should remain a member
[2:27:33] of BRIC, along with other tasks related
[2:27:35] to the grant program and booking
[2:27:37] procedures
[2:27:38] to the police commissioner's advisory
[2:27:40] committee rather than to a hybrid
[2:27:42] committee.
[2:27:43] The advisory committee had the
[2:27:45] opportunity to review the substance of
[2:27:46] the bone bono main motion this evening
[2:27:49] at 6:00.
[2:27:51] Two primary concerns were raised. First,
[2:27:53] whether the PCAC
[2:27:55] had been consulted to determine whether
[2:27:57] the committee and its members have the
[2:27:58] capacity and resources to carry out this
[2:28:01] prescriptive assignment. And I believe
[2:28:03] you'll be hearing from Mr. Bono
[2:28:05] or Mr. Green on that.
[2:28:07] And second, whether the assigned task
[2:28:09] should properly include consideration of
[2:28:11] the benefits of Brookline's membership
[2:28:13] in the brick as described by Chief
[2:28:15] Pastor.
[2:28:16] Taking into account the the assurances
[2:28:18] we expect to be provided by select board Green that the reference
[2:28:23] criteria pertaining to the brick will be
[2:28:25] included in the tasks assigned to the
[2:28:27] PCAC,
[2:28:28] the fact that this is a resolution
[2:28:30] article, and the fact that the deadline
[2:28:32] for amendments has come and gone, the
[2:28:34] advisory committee voted to recommend
[2:28:36] favorable action on the main motion
[2:28:39] by a vote of 17 to 3 to 0.
[2:28:41] >> Thank you.
[2:28:44] Mr. Green.
[2:29:03] » Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
[2:29:04] Uh and good evening uh town meeting
[2:29:07] members. I'm Bernard Green, speaking for
[2:29:09] the select board on warrant article 25.
[2:29:12] Uh first, let me um
[2:29:14] thank Marty Rosenthal uh for his many, decades of service to Brookline in
[2:29:21] so many ways.
[2:29:22] >> [applause]
[2:29:29] » I I've I with Marty on many, many
[2:29:31] issues. Uh the only uh complaint I have
[2:29:34] is that sometimes his screeds are as
[2:29:37] long as his service to Brookline, or at
[2:29:40] least it seems that way.
[2:29:43] Uh ne- First, I want to say that um
[2:29:47] Sorry.
[2:29:51] Let me start off by saying that the
[2:29:52] presentation by the petitioners
[2:29:55] was not on the warrant article that
[2:29:57] we're voting on.
[2:29:58] So, sorry. But uh
[2:30:01] you know, Warrant Article 25 is a
[2:30:02] response to the alarming disregard by
[2:30:05] our federal by our federal government
[2:30:08] under the current administration for the
[2:30:10] rights and dignity of immigrant
[2:30:12] individuals and families, and by
[2:30:14] extension, disregard for the rights and
[2:30:17] dignity of all of us.
[2:30:20] The recitals in Warrant Article 25 lay
[2:30:22] out the current situation we face in
[2:30:24] America regarding the treatment of
[2:30:26] immigrants by especially the federal
[2:30:28] immigration and customs enforcement ICE
[2:30:30] agency and the customs and border
[2:30:32] protection.
[2:30:34] Basically, ICE has gone wilding
[2:30:38] in our communities, and maybe some of
[2:30:40] you know what that word refers to.
[2:30:43] Minnesota is a prime example, but ICE
[2:30:45] abuses and threatened blitzes, right?
[2:30:48] Blitzes, an historical reference,
[2:30:51] um are being committed in many
[2:30:53] communities by untrained ICE agencies
[2:30:56] agents hiding their faces for purposes
[2:30:58] of intimidation, attacking, and
[2:31:00] kidnapping.
[2:31:02] Warrant Article 25 originally
[2:31:05] called on Brookline to one, create or
[2:31:07] cease accepting grants from the Urban
[2:31:09] Area Security Initiative or UASI,
[2:31:13] two, stop sending fingerprints for the
[2:31:15] FBI in misdemeanor cases or cases
[2:31:17] involving minors,
[2:31:19] >> [snorts]
[2:31:19] >> and three, dropping out of the Boston
[2:31:22] Regional Intelligence Center.
[2:31:24] The current article takes a different
[2:31:26] approach.
[2:31:27] Takes out the language concerning USC,
[2:31:29] which in Brookline funds important
[2:31:31] safety and other equipment for our
[2:31:33] police and fire departments,
[2:31:35] such as the thermal imaging cameras that
[2:31:37] the Select Board approved for the fire
[2:31:39] department uh at Monday's Select Board
[2:31:42] or Tuesday's Select Board meeting.
[2:31:46] And as the town administrator has has
[2:31:48] mentioned, uh he has assured the Select
[2:31:50] Board that if the grant agreements for
[2:31:53] USC grants begin to include conditions
[2:31:56] that require us to discriminate against
[2:31:59] uh ex- uh discriminate against or
[2:32:02] undermine the dignity of immigrants,
[2:32:06] transgender people, or other groups, we
[2:32:08] will refrain or refuse to sign such
[2:32:11] agreements, which may mean that we will
[2:32:13] not get
[2:32:14] the grant. And of course, the Select
[2:32:16] Board will hold the town administrator
[2:32:18] to that promise.
[2:32:20] As will you.
[2:32:22] The current article also changes the
[2:32:24] fingerprinting language to direct the
[2:32:26] Police Commissioner's Advisory Committee
[2:32:28] or PCAC to review the police booking practices, including their
[2:32:33] fingerprinting procedures, with an eye
[2:32:35] to determining whether we can avoid ICE
[2:32:37] taking advantage of those procedures.
[2:32:40] That's not going to happen immediately,
[2:32:41] but that is the process.
[2:32:43] The current article, most importantly,
[2:32:46] also asks the Select Board to direct the
[2:32:49] PCAC to examine the operations of the
[2:32:52] BRIC and make a determination based on
[2:32:54] that examination
[2:32:57] as to whether we should remain a member
[2:32:59] of BRIC by next year's annual town
[2:33:01] meeting.
[2:33:02] The warrant article describes how the
[2:33:04] rot of ICE can drip down into our local
[2:33:09] communities' law enforcement agencies,
[2:33:11] such as BRIC and others.
[2:33:13] So, to determine whether it
[2:33:17] would be appropriate to remain in in in
[2:33:19] the BRIC, the The
[2:33:21] is being directed to obtain information
[2:33:23] that will help us understand brick's
[2:33:25] role in the context of the actions of
[2:33:28] ICE and the federal government
[2:33:29] generally, such as whether the brick is
[2:33:31] willing and able to fully and honestly
[2:33:35] and transparently um
[2:33:38] disclose its operations, whether it's
[2:33:40] willing and able to comply with our
[2:33:42] expectations of non-discrimination and
[2:33:44] due process, whether the intelligence it
[2:33:47] compiles on individuals and groups are
[2:33:49] based on valid determinations of such
[2:33:51] individuals or groups' involvement in
[2:33:53] illegal or violent activities, and
[2:33:55] whether it is equally concerned with the
[2:33:58] violent actions and illegal activities
[2:34:01] of right-wing, white supremacist, and
[2:34:03] neo-Nazi groups. You know, many times
[2:34:07] the federal government, especially
[2:34:08] [applause]
[2:34:09] under this administration, thinks that
[2:34:12] the only violent uh groups are
[2:34:16] sort on the left side of the spectrum.
[2:34:20] Implicit in this direction to the PCAC is also their obtaining
[2:34:26] information on the benefits that accrue
[2:34:29] to the town from continued membership in
[2:34:31] brick. That's critically important
[2:34:32] because we have to balance, you know,
[2:34:34] the cost as well as the benefits of of
[2:34:37] uh the brick. It's not unreasonable for
[2:34:39] us to undertake this examination because
[2:34:42] of the actions of the federal government
[2:34:43] today and the history of similar
[2:34:46] behavior of the federal government in
[2:34:48] the past, including the 1960s and 1970s
[2:34:52] that many of us, not all of you, but
[2:34:54] many of us are old enough to remember.
[2:34:59] And we know how bad it can get.
[2:35:02] As Michael Dukakis said in his
[2:35:04] presidential run in 1988, and I'm old
[2:35:06] enough to know that,
[2:35:08] a fish rots from the head. The ICE rot
[2:35:11] eventually reaches down to the tail, or
[2:35:14] in this case, it could reach down to
[2:35:15] local law enforcement agencies. We are
[2:35:18] justified therefore in inquiring whether
[2:35:20] local law enforcement agencies such as
[2:35:22] the BRIC are infected with that federal
[2:35:25] rot that outweighs the benefits of BRIC
[2:35:29] operations or it doesn't.
[2:35:31] That is why we are asking the PCAC to
[2:35:34] investigate and determine by the 20 by
[2:35:36] the 2027 annual town meeting whether
[2:35:39] Brookline should remain in BRIC.
[2:35:42] PCAC has indicated to me that they are
[2:35:44] able and willing to undertake this task.
[2:35:47] So, by a vote of five to zero, the
[2:35:49] select board
[2:35:50] voted favorable action on the
[2:35:52] petitioners article as amended by the
[2:35:55] select board on May 27th, yesterday.
[2:35:58] Thank you.
[2:35:59] >> Thank you.
[2:36:00] >> [applause]
[2:36:02] » Ms. Woolf.
[2:36:11] Okay, uh
[2:36:16] Sarah's Sherman Stokes, who's a town
[2:36:19] resident.
[2:36:20] Okay.
[2:36:26] » Thank you.
[2:36:28] >> Three minutes.
[2:36:30] >> Thank you.
[2:36:31] Um I'm here to speak in support of
[2:36:33] warrant article 25. My name is Sarah
[2:36:35] Sherman Stokes. I'm a Brookline
[2:36:37] resident, a Brookline public school
[2:36:38] parent, and a clinical professor of law
[2:36:41] at Boston University School of Law,
[2:36:43] where I teach immigration law and run
[2:36:44] the immigration clinic. I'm here to tell
[2:36:47] you the story of my client, Orlando.
[2:36:49] was a high school student,
[2:36:50] part-time restaurant worker, son, and
[2:36:52] brother when a mundane disagreement in
[2:36:55] the Boston high in a Boston high school
[2:36:56] cafeteria led to his detention and his
[2:36:59] deportation.
[2:37:01] The unsubstantiated rumor of another
[2:37:03] teenager alleging that Orlando was
[2:37:05] affiliated with a gang, which he was
[2:37:07] not, was entered into the BRIC gang
[2:37:09] database. Shortly thereafter, ICE
[2:37:12] arrived at Orlando's family's home,
[2:37:15] arrested him, held him in immigration
[2:37:17] detention for 2 years, during which time
[2:37:19] he became suicidal, and then they
[2:37:21] deported him to El Salvador, where he
[2:37:23] now lives in fear and poverty.
[2:37:26] The BRIC is essentially a spy center. It
[2:37:28] is a centralized site of massive
[2:37:30] information sharing between law
[2:37:32] enforcement agencies and an increasingly
[2:37:34] popular surveillance tool.
[2:37:36] The BRIC is largely funded by the
[2:37:39] Department of Homeland Security.
[2:37:41] In the wake of 9/11, racist, anti-Muslim
[2:37:44] rhetoric fueled the creation of fusion
[2:37:46] spy centers like the BRIC. In the early
[2:37:48] aughts, these spy centers primarily
[2:37:50] targeted Muslim and Arab communities for
[2:37:52] surveillance and enforcement.
[2:37:54] That discriminatory enforcement
[2:37:56] continues, but today these spy centers
[2:37:59] have also expanded to frequently collect
[2:38:01] data about protesters, activists, and
[2:38:04] immigrants as well.
[2:38:06] In greater Boston, the BRIC has
[2:38:08] surveilled lawful political activity. It
[2:38:11] has been the basis of intelligence
[2:38:13] reports on anti-war groups and local
[2:38:15] activists like Howard Zinn, the National
[2:38:18] Lawyers Guild, and the ACLU.
[2:38:21] The BRIC has also surveilled the social
[2:38:23] media of our Muslim neighbors, as well
[2:38:25] as anyone using the Black Lives Matter
[2:38:27] hashtag.
[2:38:28] The BRIC also houses the gang database.
[2:38:31] >> One minute.
[2:38:32] >> 98% of people in the BRIC's gang
[2:38:34] database are people of color, and more
[2:38:36] than 75% of the people in the database
[2:38:38] are black men or teenagers.
[2:38:40] In 2022, the First Circuit Court of
[2:38:42] Appeals here in Boston expressed serious
[2:38:45] concern about the BRIC's gang database
[2:38:47] and the flawed system for determining
[2:38:49] who is included, including teenage kids
[2:38:52] like Orlando.
[2:38:53] The BRIC does not keep us safe. The BRIC
[2:38:56] terrorizes local communities,
[2:38:58] particularly individuals and families of
[2:39:00] color, and in doing so, the BRIC is
[2:39:02] integral to the deportation machine.
[2:39:04] Brookline can take a critical step
[2:39:06] towards protecting our neighbors and our
[2:39:08] community members by withdrawing from
[2:39:09] the BRIC, and I hope that we will. Thank
[2:39:11] you.
[2:39:12] >> Thank you.
[2:39:13] Mr. [applause]
[2:39:14] Mr. Richmond, do you have a question?
[2:39:16] Comment.
[2:39:19] Then we're going to continue. Ms. Ms.
[2:39:21] Wu.
[2:39:23] I'll say I I will say that um
[2:39:28] all the other speakers are in favor of
[2:39:30] the motion.
[2:39:32] >> I have a question, or do you want me to
[2:39:34] wait?
[2:39:36] Chichi Wu, Town Meeting member, Precinct
[2:39:39] 7.
[2:39:40] Um so, tonight what we're voting on is a
[2:39:44] resolution that calls for a study, and
[2:39:46] there's going to be a study. And of
[2:39:48] course, I urge you to all vote for it.
[2:39:51] And you're going to vote A lot of you
[2:39:52] are going to vote for it, and you're
[2:39:52] going to feel good about yourselves, and
[2:39:54] you should. You should.
[2:39:56] But that's only the beginning of the
[2:39:57] process. You've heard a fat
[2:39:59] foreshadowing of what the debate is
[2:40:01] going to be on the study.
[2:40:04] Um and I didn't know anything about BRIC
[2:40:07] when I started this process.
[2:40:09] And now I know a lot, and I'm horrified.
[2:40:12] Um I didn't know about UASI and
[2:40:14] fingerprinting, and now I do.
[2:40:16] And I hope you all learn that as well.
[2:40:19] Uh but this doesn't stop here. We got a
[2:40:21] lot of pushback. A lot of pushback from
[2:40:24] the police department and the fire
[2:40:25] department.
[2:40:27] And that's going to happen in this
[2:40:29] study.
[2:40:31] And it may be enough. It was enough for
[2:40:33] us to change this from a resolution to a
[2:40:36] study.
[2:40:37] It may be enough to influence what
[2:40:38] happens coming out of this study.
[2:40:42] So, if if this horrifies you today,
[2:40:44] please stay involved.
[2:40:47] Because it is too easy, as we saw in the
[2:40:49] process, to hear the loud voices
[2:40:52] supporting our participation in BRIC and
[2:40:55] UASI, especially UASI. There's money at
[2:40:57] stake.
[2:40:59] $500,000 at stake. That is a lot of
[2:41:01] money. We just passed an override. I get
[2:41:03] it.
[2:41:04] Okay. Every dollar is precious, but
[2:41:08] I'd rather see my taxes go up than
[2:41:09] accept blood money. And I hope you
[2:41:11] believe that, too. Thank you.
[2:41:14] >> [applause]
[2:41:14] >> I'm going to allow the question because
[2:41:17] uh Ms. Roseman had uh
[2:41:19] told me before that she was going to ask
[2:41:22] it. So, um
[2:41:24] I'm going to allow it, and then I'll
[2:41:25] take the motion
[2:41:26] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
[2:41:27] Moderator. Linda Roseman, Precinct 14.
[2:41:30] I'm I guess this is a question for the
[2:41:31] chief. I'm just wondering what the
[2:41:34] consequences would be if we did withdraw
[2:41:36] from the BRIC. Thanks.
[2:41:41] » Now, of course, this resolution doesn't this resolution
[2:41:45] is studying that, of course.
[2:41:58] » Good evening, everyone. Jen Chester,
[2:42:00] Chief of Police. And uh I appreciate the
[2:42:02] question. I understand I think I know
[2:42:03] the way that this is going to go, but I
[2:42:05] think Uh
[2:42:07] >> Speak.
[2:42:08] >> Slower or uh
[2:42:11] I rarely have to raise the mic, so this
[2:42:13] is nice. Uh I I appreciate the question
[2:42:15] because I think there have been some
[2:42:17] mischaracterizations
[2:42:19] um and misrepresentations of what the
[2:42:20] BRIC is and what it offers our
[2:42:22] community. Operationally, we would be
[2:42:24] decimated if we were to pull out of the
[2:42:26] BRIC. We rely on the BRIC every day for
[2:42:29] identification the sharing of criminal
[2:42:31] intelligence information, identification
[2:42:34] wanted bulletins, BOLOs. As recently as
[2:42:37] what we saw on Memorial Drive, we had a photo of the suspected shooter
[2:42:41] uh who we were looking for, the threats
[2:42:42] that he made, the type of gun that he
[2:42:44] was holding
[2:42:45] at the same time that the shooting was
[2:42:47] unfolding.
[2:42:48] Every day, we share our um
[2:42:51] you know, the warrants
[2:42:53] of people that we're looking for.
[2:42:55] Um again, as recently as last week, uh
[2:42:58] there was a shooting in Boston. We knew
[2:42:59] the suspects were in Brookline. If you
[2:43:01] follow Brookline town wide discussion,
[2:43:03] somebody reported that that was ice.
[2:43:05] That was our officers out there
[2:43:06] executing gun
[2:43:08] uh
[2:43:09] warrants for gun charges for one of our
[2:43:11] residents and somebody else that was
[2:43:13] hiding out with them.
[2:43:14] Um we need them to keep you safe we need
[2:43:16] the brick to keep all of you safe and to
[2:43:18] keep our officers safe.
[2:43:20] I I don't I hope that answered your
[2:43:22] question.
[2:43:22] >> Thank you.
[2:43:24] Okay, I'll take the motion to call the
[2:43:26] question. [applause]
[2:43:29] The speakers I have on the list
[2:43:32] are
[2:43:33] um David Kletter
[2:43:36] uh Suzette Abbott, Marissa Vote
[2:43:39] uh I saw Clint Richmond coming to the
[2:43:41] mic. I don't see anyone else coming to
[2:43:43] the mic. I don't have anyone in the
[2:43:45] remote speakers list.
[2:43:47] So
[2:43:51] um
[2:43:53] so uh yes vote will
[2:43:56] stop the debate and a no vote will
[2:43:58] continue.
[2:43:58] >> Please drop the vote.
[2:44:43] 199
[2:44:45] 36
[2:44:47] 9
[2:44:48] >> Motion to terminate uh is successful 199
[2:44:51] 36 to 9.
[2:44:54] The ups
[2:44:56] So,
[2:44:57] the only motion, the main motion before
[2:44:59] you is the
[2:45:01] what is labeled in the supplement as the
[2:45:05] Bueno motion, but it's a motion that has
[2:45:08] been accepted by all of the parties,
[2:45:11] the advisory committee, select board,
[2:45:13] and the petitioners.
[2:45:15] A yes vote accepts it, a a no vote does
[2:45:18] not.
[2:45:20] It's a non-binding resolution that's
[2:45:22] very prescriptive on
[2:45:25] what they're going to be studying and
[2:45:27] how they're going to be studying it.
[2:45:30] Okay.
[2:45:31] We ready to vote?
[2:45:34] Main motion.
[2:45:36] Drop the vote.
[2:46:24] Motion passes, 222,
[2:46:26] >> [applause]
[2:46:27] >> 13 no, and seven abstentions.
[2:46:32] 222.
[2:46:34] Okay, we're ready to proceed to Article
[2:46:37] 13.
[2:46:53] » And if I can find my cheat sheet,
[2:46:57] we have a motion from the petitioner on
[2:46:59] page 13-3.
[2:47:02] Um it's moved by Ms. Frawley. Do I have
[2:47:04] a second?
[2:47:07] I hear a second.
[2:47:09] We have a motion alternate a substitute
[2:47:13] resolution from the advisory committee.
[2:47:16] Um and that is on the the supplement
[2:47:21] one page four and it's a motion by Mr. Borers seconded by Mr.
[2:47:27] Dody.
[2:47:29] Um
[2:47:31] so Ms. Frawley is the petitioner.
[2:47:35] » Am I not?
[2:47:49] Can you hear me?
[2:47:51] >> Yes.
[2:47:51] >> Okay, good.
[2:47:54] I'm Regina Frawley. I'm from South
[2:47:57] Brookline Precinct 16.
[2:47:59] >> Yes, speak into the mic, Regina.
[2:48:01] >> I beg pardon?
[2:48:01] >> Speak into the mic.
[2:48:03] >> I thought it was. Hello.
[2:48:09] Um
[2:48:11] it's regrettable. This is one of those
[2:48:12] articles that people describe as gee, we
[2:48:16] really shouldn't have had to do that.
[2:48:18] What it's asking is that there be
[2:48:21] that Brookline join every single
[2:48:23] community in the greater Boston area
[2:48:26] that has some evening hours.
[2:48:29] We used to have
[2:48:32] three hours.
[2:48:34] For about 35 years we had three hours
[2:48:37] every Thursday night. Uh COVID took care
[2:48:40] of that.
[2:48:41] And my efforts to engage the town clerk
[2:48:46] into adding some hours, um
[2:48:50] I got no response. Literally, was
[2:48:52] stonewalled. So, I felt I had to do this
[2:48:55] because not only is this a service to
[2:48:59] the community, and that's what you're
[2:49:00] here to do, and that's
[2:49:03] Thank you for being public servants.
[2:49:05] Um this is an increase happening. First
[2:49:08] of all, many people don't realize the
[2:49:10] turnover in Brookline for new residents
[2:49:13] can be as high as 25% and as little as
[2:49:15] 15.
[2:49:17] But on average, it's closer to 25. These
[2:49:20] people, majority of whom are um
[2:49:23] citizens, would like to avail themselves
[2:49:27] of voting, etc.
[2:49:29] And in since COVID, people have and the
[2:49:31] clerk and the town has said, "Well, you
[2:49:34] can do it online."
[2:49:36] But there's a new trickle trend
[2:49:38] happening. This economy is forcing
[2:49:41] people to choose not to have the
[2:49:43] internet as opposed to food and shelter.
[2:49:47] And it's happening it was very
[2:49:49] predictably going to happen to seniors
[2:49:52] because they're on such low fixed
[2:49:53] incomes in many most cases.
[2:49:56] But it's happening to families now
[2:49:58] because it really in many ways is a
[2:50:00] luxury. So, the service to offer them to
[2:50:04] be able to come to town hall uh in the
[2:50:07] evening, again, will be where the only
[2:50:10] community I could find that has no
[2:50:12] evening hours. And I'm asking to match
[2:50:15] what is everybody else's, not the 3
[2:50:17] hours, but the 2 hours that I have only
[2:50:20] been able to find every other community
[2:50:22] have to allow the
[2:50:24] citizens to be able to do it. There's
[2:50:26] somebody here the other night who
[2:50:29] approached me and said that she had to
[2:50:30] get permission from her job in order to
[2:50:33] come and do business in the clerk's
[2:50:34] office during the day. This would
[2:50:36] obviate that need. I also have a
[2:50:39] personal thing. I was on the League of
[2:50:40] Women Voters for many, many years
[2:50:43] and the
[2:50:45] reality is that the more you do things
[2:50:48] with your children involving civic
[2:50:50] matters, the higher the likelihood that
[2:50:52] they will carry on that legacy. That
[2:50:55] includes bringing them to the polls for
[2:50:57] voting
[2:50:59] and it involves even this registration.
[2:51:01] So, this is an opportunity really for
[2:51:04] even civic engagement for the future
[2:51:07] that we've seen is such a reduction in.
[2:51:10] I spent a lot of time speaking with the
[2:51:12] former town clerk. There's been some
[2:51:14] misinformation that I've heard. Um
[2:51:18] in fact he had the full support of the
[2:51:22] town administrator, Rich Kelleher.
[2:51:25] So, he only had
[2:51:28] requirement of um overtime for 2 months
[2:51:32] of the 35 years.
[2:51:34] Then it was negotiated by Rich Kelleher
[2:51:36] with us, me, that it would be a
[2:51:38] condition of employment. There'd be no
[2:51:40] further stipend for it. So, each of the
[2:51:44] six employees
[2:51:46] not the seven and a half we now have,
[2:51:48] but the six only were able to rotate it
[2:51:51] on Thursday nights. So, each person
[2:51:54] hired new
[2:51:55] once
[2:51:56] even less than once a month I would have
[2:51:58] to be working for those 3 hours. So,
[2:52:02] that's a very manageable kind of thing.
[2:52:05] >> Please conclude.
[2:52:06] >> Sure.
[2:52:07] Um
[2:52:10] I mentioned the
[2:52:11] There we go.
[2:52:12] >> Please conclude.
[2:52:14] >> I think I've hit the high points of it
[2:52:15] and I will I understand everybody really
[2:52:17] wants this to be the last night. So,
[2:52:19] thank you for listening.
[2:52:20] >> Thank you.
[2:52:21] >> [applause]
[2:52:24] » Mr. Bowers.
[2:52:37] » Good evening, Harry Bohr speaking on
[2:52:39] behalf of the advisory committee.
[2:52:41] Through a bylaw, warrant article 13
[2:52:43] would require the town clerk's office to
[2:52:46] be opened at least two consecutive
[2:52:48] evenings per week. That's for one
[2:52:50] evening. This is not necessarily
[2:52:52] additional hours. It may just be a
[2:52:53] schedule change, but regardless, it
[2:52:55] would be a minimum minimum of two hours.
[2:52:58] Now, without presupposing what town
[2:53:00] meeting may decide to do in the future,
[2:53:03] the advisory committee is suggesting a
[2:53:05] referral to the clerk via a resolution
[2:53:08] to allow him the time he said that he
[2:53:10] would need
[2:53:11] to assess the functional requirements
[2:53:14] and the costs associated with any
[2:53:16] approach or approaches.
[2:53:17] And it asks him to report that analysis
[2:53:20] and options to town meeting in the fall.
[2:53:23] Now, this will likely require union
[2:53:25] impact bargaining as it's a change of
[2:53:28] work conditions. Now, it's worth noting
[2:53:30] that as a bylaw, it would be a departure
[2:53:33] of sorts. Our bylaws describe the
[2:53:35] functions and requirements of the
[2:53:36] offices and departments, but not
[2:53:38] generally the granular specifics such as
[2:53:41] working hours.
[2:53:42] Now, many on the advisory committee felt
[2:53:45] very strong sympathies for the goal of
[2:53:47] this article,
[2:53:48] believing it should not really have to
[2:53:50] be that difficult to accomplish and
[2:53:53] probably doesn't even require a bylaw.
[2:53:55] Now, of course, life has changed since
[2:53:57] COVID and the clerk's office offers
[2:53:59] flexibility through online access, the
[2:54:02] telephone, mail.
[2:54:04] There are only two things that require
[2:54:07] being in person.
[2:54:08] That's the swearing in of town
[2:54:10] officials. That's in, not at.
[2:54:13] And the filing of an intention of
[2:54:15] marriage.
[2:54:17] But for variety of reasons or choices,
[2:54:20] many have difficulty relying on the
[2:54:22] internet to transact business and many
[2:54:24] find that direct human interaction to be
[2:54:26] much more effective and fruitful.
[2:54:28] So, we had two advisory committees on
[2:54:31] this, and I will tell you that there was
[2:54:33] a bit of consternation on both sides.
[2:54:36] We asked the town clerk to come back
[2:54:37] with more background and implementation
[2:54:39] information, as well as what other
[2:54:42] communities are doing.
[2:54:44] He brought back examples from the other
[2:54:46] communities,
[2:54:47] but said that the other information
[2:54:49] would take more time and union
[2:54:51] conversation. Fair enough.
[2:54:53] So, while there are certain
[2:54:55] presuppositions on both sides, what we
[2:54:58] lack are Brookline data points or real
[2:55:00] post-COVID experience.
[2:55:02] There remain outstanding questions, and
[2:55:04] this is still an unquantified need.
[2:55:08] So, while open to looking more fully at
[2:55:10] it, the clerk, for his part, has noted
[2:55:13] that he's not convinced of the demand or
[2:55:16] the need in Brookline,
[2:55:17] and he points to selected other
[2:55:19] communities with experience where there
[2:55:22] is very limited demand.
[2:55:25] Others, however, feel there is a desire
[2:55:26] in our community for this, a once
[2:55:28] long-standing customer service,
[2:55:31] and that it's not an onerous ask.
[2:55:33] So,
[2:55:35] perhaps there are people who would love
[2:55:37] to work 2 hours later one
[2:55:40] a week if they got to come in 2 hours
[2:55:42] later in the morning.
[2:55:44] We don't know.
[2:55:45] Or perhaps the office of the town
[2:55:47] clerk's schedule can be easily shifted
[2:55:49] by 2 hours once a week.
[2:55:51] We don't know that, either.
[2:55:53] Or maybe
[2:55:55] a pilot program to get some experience
[2:55:57] and garner some data makes the most
[2:56:00] sense. Pick a number, but long enough to
[2:56:02] get meaningful information,
[2:56:04] but we don't know how that might work.
[2:56:07] And that's the point. There are a number
[2:56:09] of things of which we are uncertain,
[2:56:12] but about which we can become relatively
[2:56:15] certain with not too much effort.
[2:56:18] As I noted, this is something the clerk
[2:56:20] expressed clear reservations about, but
[2:56:23] is certainly willing to explore.
[2:56:25] And we still need a better understanding
[2:56:27] of the demand
[2:56:29] and the costs. This will provide that
[2:56:31] noted time to get the information so
[2:56:33] that we may have an informed
[2:56:35] consideration on the issue later.
[2:56:38] By a vote of 19 to 6 to 0, the advisory
[2:56:41] committee is recommending
[2:56:43] the referral resolution. Thank you.
[2:56:45] >> Thank you.
[2:56:47] Mr. Green.
[2:57:03] » Mr. Green is the last signed up speaker.
[2:57:07] >> Uh good evening again, Mr. Moderator and
[2:57:09] also fellow town meeting members, staff,
[2:57:11] and guests.
[2:57:13] I'm going to try to find something in my
[2:57:15] presentation that Harry Borah didn't
[2:57:17] cover, so bear with me. Um Warrant
[2:57:20] Article 13 would create a bylaw that
[2:57:22] would compel the town clerk to be open
[2:57:25] for at least two consecutive hours
[2:57:27] one evening a week, which was the
[2:57:29] practice of the previous clerk.
[2:57:31] The select board declined to create a
[2:57:34] bylaw that would con-
[2:57:36] Um I'm sorry. The select board declined
[2:57:39] by a vote of two in favor, three opposed
[2:57:42] to adopt the advisory committee's
[2:57:44] recommendation of making Warrant Article
[2:57:46] 13 a resolution and asking the clerk to
[2:57:49] return to town meeting in the fall with
[2:57:51] a plan to accomplish the goals of
[2:57:53] Warrant Article 13 along with estimated
[2:57:56] implementation costs. I don't think we
[2:57:58] thought that that was a useful uh step.
[2:58:02] The select board then voted unanimously
[2:58:04] for no action.
[2:58:06] The clerk expressed concerns about the
[2:58:08] impact of adding evening hours, and the
[2:58:11] select board was persuaded by his
[2:58:14] concerns.
[2:58:15] The clerk noted the likelihood of low
[2:58:17] utilization of night hours in the
[2:58:19] current environment when there are few
[2:58:21] committees or other meetings in Town
[2:58:24] Hall in the evenings as uh most
[2:58:27] committees meet virtually.
[2:58:29] He also expressed concern about staffing
[2:58:31] constraints and the need to negotiate
[2:58:33] the changes with his asked me union.
[2:58:38] And he noted that many of the activities
[2:58:40] and services uh of of the town clerk's
[2:58:44] office are currently available online by
[2:58:46] phone or by mail as Harry Bohr's noted.
[2:58:50] Uh as Harry also noted, uh only swearing
[2:58:53] in of town officials and the filing of
[2:58:55] an intention of marriage requires an
[2:58:57] in-person appearance.
[2:59:00] Finally, as mentioned by the the
[2:59:02] advisory committee in the combined
[2:59:04] reports and again as Harry also noted,
[2:59:09] our bylaws describe the functions and
[2:59:11] requirements of offices and departments,
[2:59:13] but not such things as specific office
[2:59:16] hours. It's important to just emphasize
[2:59:18] that again
[2:59:19] uh because that would be
[2:59:22] inappropriately sort of micromanaging
[2:59:24] the operations of a town department.
[2:59:27] The petitioner asserted that there was a
[2:59:30] strong community need and desire for
[2:59:32] evening hours, but there's no hard
[2:59:34] evidence supporting that assertion.
[2:59:36] So, by a vote of five to zero, the
[2:59:39] select board voted no action on Warrant
[2:59:41] Article 13 at its May 12th meeting.
[2:59:45] Thank you.
[2:59:46] >> Thank you, Ms. Bennett.
[2:59:48] >> Question.
[2:59:49] Uh
[2:59:50] Kaylee Bennett, Town Meeting Member,
[2:59:52] Precinct 8.
[2:59:53] Isn't another use of in-person hours for
[2:59:57] the town town clerk's office also
[3:00:00] pulling non-nomination papers for
[3:00:03] non-incumbent or first-time town meeting
[3:00:05] members?
[3:00:08] » Is it
[3:00:09] Can
[3:00:10] It's just a yes, right?
[3:00:13] >> Yes.
[3:00:24] » Uh thank you for your question. Ben
[3:00:25] Hoffman, town clerk. Uh it is a strongly
[3:00:27] encouraged, it's not a requirement.
[3:00:29] Somebody's not able to come to the
[3:00:30] clerk's office, we can coordinate either
[3:00:32] having somebody else pick it up or
[3:00:33] mailing nomination people papers to
[3:00:35] people's homes.
[3:00:36] >> Follow-up question, thank you.
[3:00:39] Uh haven't we also established that the
[3:00:40] post office doesn't work? So
[3:00:43] >> [laughter]
[3:00:45] » Thank you.
[3:00:46] >> [applause]
[3:00:50] » Okay, we have another question.
[3:00:52] >> Uh Dave Porter, Precinct 6. My question
[3:00:55] is for
[3:00:57] the town clerk. Um I am sympathetic to
[3:01:00] not wanting to force your hand. If I
[3:01:02] vote against this, will you take that as
[3:01:06] an indication that town meeting doesn't
[3:01:08] care about evening hours? Or will you
[3:01:11] hopefully continue to look into being
[3:01:13] able to provide this sort of service uh
[3:01:15] at the at the
[3:01:17] cadence that you're
[3:01:18] uh talking about looking
[3:01:20] >> Good question.
[3:01:24] I want to make sure I understand the
[3:01:25] question. You're saying if you were to
[3:01:27] vote no on the resolution, would I take
[3:01:29] that as I don't need to look at
[3:01:31] >> Yes.
[3:01:31] >> at all? I think with it being a
[3:01:33] discussion that's been brought up and
[3:01:34] something that I would expect the
[3:01:35] petitioner would bring forward again at
[3:01:37] a future town meeting, it's something
[3:01:38] that we'd continue to take a look at. Uh
[3:01:40] and I'd certainly want to make sure that
[3:01:41] we had information for when it did
[3:01:43] inevitably come up again. Um but uh I
[3:01:46] try to try to not read too much into
[3:01:48] votes of town meeting beyond the content
[3:01:50] that is being voted on by town meeting
[3:01:52] and try not to read individual intent
[3:01:54] from town meeting numbers as much as I
[3:01:55] can.
[3:01:56] >> And uh
[3:01:57] I got a I got a note from uh remote
[3:02:00] folks. Uh please speak into the mic.
[3:02:03] Make an extra effort to speak into the
[3:02:05] mic. Mr. McKenzie.
[3:02:07] >> Kevin McKenzie, town meeting member
[3:02:08] precinct 13. I know that you had
[3:02:10] mentioned that there were some concerns
[3:02:12] potentially involving union
[3:02:13] negotiations. Has your office or
[3:02:15] yourself had any conversations with
[3:02:17] union representatives yet? Or is that
[3:02:18] just a thought that there might be
[3:02:20] concerns about? Or have they have union
[3:02:22] aligned staff or the representatives
[3:02:23] already voiced those concerns to you?
[3:02:25] >> Uh thank you. Well, still bank office
[3:02:27] still the town clerk. Uh yes, both staff
[3:02:29] expressed concerns about it. There's
[3:02:31] been a general shift in staff desires I
[3:02:34] think across the town about working
[3:02:36] evening hours.
[3:02:38] I will note my staff in particular have
[3:02:40] multiple single parents and ones with
[3:02:42] young children who do a particular
[3:02:44] interest in being home in the evenings
[3:02:47] even though they're already forced not
[3:02:48] to be and please make sure you say hello
[3:02:50] to all of the ones who are out in the
[3:02:51] hallway right now.
[3:02:53] It was something that was brought up as
[3:02:55] a question and
[3:02:57] council in
[3:02:59] staff and town council's office who deal
[3:03:00] with labor issues were under the belief
[3:03:03] that it would be something that we'd
[3:03:04] need to be in the bargain with the
[3:03:05] union. We've got to have those
[3:03:07] conversations with the union directly
[3:03:09] but it was based on that understanding
[3:03:11] that we we had those conversations.
[3:03:12] >> Thank you.
[3:03:13] So
[3:03:16] this is actually an interesting
[3:03:17] situation. We've had three speakers
[3:03:19] who've been advocating different
[3:03:21] positions. So we have the petitioner
[3:03:24] with a with the bylaw, the advisory
[3:03:27] committee with a with a resolution to
[3:03:29] study and bring back plan or no action.
[3:03:33] So if you agree with the petitioner
[3:03:36] you will vote for the main motion. So
[3:03:39] you'll vote no for the advisory
[3:03:41] committee and vote yes for the main
[3:03:43] motion. If you agree with the advisory
[3:03:45] committee, you would vote yes
[3:03:49] for the advisory committee motion which
[3:03:51] is going to be first.
[3:03:53] And if you agree with the select board,
[3:03:55] you would vote no
[3:03:58] twice.
[3:03:59] Clear?
[3:04:03] Okay, so the first motion is to is the advisory
[3:04:09] committee motion to study and bring back a plan to town meeting.
[3:04:16] Okay, we clear on that?
[3:04:18] Okay, let's drop the vote on the
[3:04:20] advisory committee motion.
[3:04:23] Oh.
[3:04:26] And that ends the discussion.
[3:04:29] Yes. That's a
[3:04:38] No, I'm told you'd have to vote on it
[3:04:40] again as a main motion, so.
[3:04:46] It's a substitute motion.
[3:04:55] So, yes if you agree with the advisory
[3:04:57] committee motion.
[3:05:11] passes 150
[3:05:14] to 73-8. We now have to vote on it again
[3:05:18] because it was a substitute motion. It
[3:05:20] is now the main motion, so I was a
[3:05:23] little incorrect. So, we now have the
[3:05:26] main motion which is the advisory
[3:05:28] committee motion.
[3:05:30] Drop the vote.
[3:05:34] To study and bring back bring back a
[3:05:37] plan.
[3:05:40] And you do have the option of voting no
[3:05:42] action.
[3:05:45] If you vote no action,
[3:05:48] you've supported the select board
[3:05:49] position.
[3:06:16] » 175
[3:06:18] 52 to 6.
[3:06:20] >> The Advisory Committee motion passes as
[3:06:23] the main motion. It's 175 52 to 6.
[3:06:29] » Okay.
[3:06:31] >> [applause]
[3:06:32] >> Now we're on to Article 14.
[3:06:39] And this is regarding accessory dwelling
[3:06:44] units.
[3:06:45] The motion is on pages 120 1422 through
[3:06:50] 1454.
[3:06:52] It's moved by Mr. Klein and seconded by
[3:06:55] Ms. Hardebeck.
[3:06:57] And Mr. Klein.
[3:07:02] » Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
[3:07:04] Um
[3:07:06] I am Jonathan Klein, a town meeting
[3:07:07] member from Precinct 17, also a member
[3:07:10] of the Housing Advisory Board, and
[3:07:12] speaking on behalf of both myself as
[3:07:15] petitioner and the Housing Advisory
[3:07:16] Board.
[3:07:17] I'm also, thanks to you, recently
[3:07:20] elected a commissioner of the Brookline
[3:07:21] Housing Authority.
[3:07:23] >> [applause]
[3:07:26] » Thank you.
[3:07:28] I am not speaking for the Brookline
[3:07:29] Housing Authority.
[3:07:30] Um
[3:07:31] This was work done by a collective, and
[3:07:34] I want to thank the people involved in
[3:07:35] getting this done.
[3:07:37] Um the subcommittee was myself, Alex
[3:07:39] Krieger also from the HAB, Tommy Rankin
[3:07:41] from the Planning Board, and Kelly
[3:07:42] Hardebeck from the Advisory Committee.
[3:07:45] The staff, Emily DeHoog, Miriam Morelli
[3:07:47] from
[3:07:48] the Planning Department, and Jonathan
[3:07:50] Simpson from Town Council were also very
[3:07:52] involved. And um Dick Benka also
[3:07:55] participated actively in our
[3:07:57] deliberations. I also want to thank
[3:07:59] Roger Blood who took the laboring oar on
[3:08:02] bringing ADUs to this body I think first
[3:08:04] in 2019 and also in 2024 as the chair of
[3:08:08] the HAB.
[3:08:09] So, why do we care about ADUs? ADUs are
[3:08:12] accessory dwelling units. They are a
[3:08:14] form of housing that is uh
[3:08:18] often called an in-law apartment,
[3:08:20] caretaker apartment. It can be a small
[3:08:22] rental apartment. It can be an apartment
[3:08:24] where a principal owner can move to the
[3:08:26] apartment and then rent out their house.
[3:08:28] It creates a smaller more affordable
[3:08:30] type of home ownership of I'm sorry of housing
[3:08:34] that we think is good for the town and
[3:08:36] the state thinks it's good because the
[3:08:38] state proposed a state law that requires
[3:08:41] us to allow accessory dwelling units by
[3:08:43] right. And our attempt here is to comply
[3:08:44] with that state law.
[3:08:47] So, uh
[3:08:50] the timeline. You may be confused about
[3:08:52] this a little bit. I was, but we adopted
[3:08:55] a resolution I'm sorry a bylaw on a
[3:08:58] accessory dwelling units in fall of
[3:09:00] 2024.
[3:09:01] Um the state had regulations under the
[3:09:04] Affordable Homes Act that became
[3:09:05] effective a few months after that in
[3:09:07] February of 2025. A few months after
[3:09:10] that we got a letter from the attorney
[3:09:11] general disallowing large parts of our
[3:09:13] bylaw. And so we appointed the
[3:09:16] subcommittee of the HAB that worked for
[3:09:18] about 6 months reviewing that. And we
[3:09:20] are here in May of 2026 with a new bylaw
[3:09:23] that we hope will comply with the state
[3:09:25] law and create more opportunities to
[3:09:27] create ADUs in the town.
[3:09:30] >> Next slide.
[3:09:33] » What is a protected use ADU? It is an
[3:09:36] attached or a detached ADU that is
[3:09:39] proposed to be located on a lot in a
[3:09:41] single-family residential zoning
[3:09:43] district. Okay? Now, one difference
[3:09:46] between what we are providing now and
[3:09:48] was required under the state law and
[3:09:50] what was
[3:09:52] our our prior bylaw is that a
[3:09:54] single-family residential district is
[3:09:55] not just our single-family zones, but
[3:09:58] it's any zone where a single-family home
[3:10:00] can be located, which includes a
[3:10:02] single-family zone, a two-family zone, a
[3:10:04] three-family zone, and a multi-family
[3:10:05] zone.
[3:10:07] So, the key guidance from the state on
[3:10:09] ADUs, next slide,
[3:10:12] is that they must be by right and they
[3:10:13] must not have more restrictive
[3:10:15] regulations
[3:10:17] than for principal dwelling units or
[3:10:19] other accessory dwelling units. They
[3:10:21] must not have more restrictive
[3:10:22] dimensional standards than we have for
[3:10:24] principal dwellings or other accessory
[3:10:27] structures.
[3:10:29] Next slide.
[3:10:32] Let's
[3:10:33] This This is a You can't read this and
[3:10:36] I'm not going to take the time to read
[3:10:37] it to you. It shows the ways in which
[3:10:39] our bylaw did and did not comply with
[3:10:41] the state law and the things we had to
[3:10:42] correct. Next slide.
[3:10:46] So, the purpose of warrant article 14 is
[3:10:49] to bring ourselves into compliance with
[3:10:50] the state law. Really quite simple.
[3:10:54] Next slide.
[3:10:55] So, what are the highlights of the
[3:10:56] warrant article?
[3:10:58] First of all, we make a protected use
[3:11:00] ADUs by right allowable with a maximum
[3:11:04] size of 900 square feet. I'll notice
[3:11:06] that's a slight reduction from our prior
[3:11:08] bylaw, which was 950 square feet, but
[3:11:10] that's what the state law provides and
[3:11:12] requires.
[3:11:14] We removed parking requirements for any
[3:11:17] ADU, so there's no additional parking
[3:11:19] required if you create an ADU.
[3:11:21] We changed the height and set setback
[3:11:24] requirements to be the least restrictive
[3:11:26] consistent with other single-family uses
[3:11:29] or principal structures or accessory
[3:11:31] structures.
[3:11:33] And we added language to ensure that to
[3:11:35] the maximum extent possible
[3:11:37] protected use ADU is used as an ADU and
[3:11:40] not as a way to expand or use it
[3:11:42] otherwise as part of the principal
[3:11:43] dwelling.
[3:11:45] Uh so, I think I am going to
[3:11:48] uh just mention one issue regarding
[3:11:51] height. The most controversial issue
[3:11:53] that we addressed was the height. If you
[3:11:55] allow ADUs to be
[3:11:57] um
[3:11:59] no more restrictive than a principal
[3:12:01] dwelling, if you have a principal
[3:12:02] dwelling that could be 35 ft or so, that
[3:12:05] would allow an ADU to be up to 35 ft. We
[3:12:08] tried very hard to find ways around that
[3:12:10] because people felt that that was
[3:12:11] inappropriate, could cause structures
[3:12:13] that might be too tall and too close to
[3:12:15] the
[3:12:16] uh to to the sideline and to adjacent
[3:12:18] lots. Um uh we found we had uh based on
[3:12:23] advice of Town Council and also
[3:12:24] consultation with the state
[3:12:27] really severe limitations about what we
[3:12:28] could do there. So, the provision that
[3:12:30] we agreed on and we think will stand up
[3:12:33] to scrutiny is that any ADU over 22 ft,
[3:12:36] which is roughly a story and a half, um
[3:12:39] needs to articulate a reason why they
[3:12:41] need to go higher than 22 ft, but that
[3:12:44] articulation is not subject to review.
[3:12:46] >> Please conclude.
[3:12:47] >> Uh
[3:12:48] I see I'm now out of time um and I know
[3:12:50] we all want to go home, so I will thank
[3:12:52] you very much for your time and I urge
[3:12:54] you to vote favorable action on Warrant
[3:12:56] Article 14.
[3:12:57] >> Thank you.
[3:12:58] >> [applause]
[3:12:59] >> And it's hard to go.
[3:13:09] » Oh, perfect. Thank you.
[3:13:10] >> Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Um Kelly
[3:13:12] Hartebeck, Town Meeting member from
[3:13:13] Precinct 7.
[3:13:15] Sorry. Here we go. How's that better?
[3:13:17] All right. Kelly Hartebeck, Town Meeting
[3:13:19] member from Precinct 7, speaking for the
[3:13:21] Advisory Committee tonight.
[3:13:23] Um I will keep my remarks very short. Um
[3:13:26] the Advisory Committee recommends
[3:13:28] favorable action on Warrant Article 14
[3:13:31] by unanimous vote of 21 to zero to zero.
[3:13:35] Um Brookline has a proud history of
[3:13:37] leading on housing flexibility.
[3:13:39] We were an early adopter, excuse me, of
[3:13:42] inclusionary zoning. And we first
[3:13:44] authorized accessory dwelling units back
[3:13:47] in 2019 and expanded those rules in 2024
[3:13:51] to incentivize their creation.
[3:13:53] As you've already heard, the Attorney
[3:13:55] General's office rejected key provisions
[3:13:58] of the zoning we passed back then.
[3:14:00] And Warrant Article 14 was drafted to
[3:14:02] bring Brookline into compliance with
[3:14:05] state law and the regulations.
[3:14:08] One of the questions that came up at
[3:14:10] advisory when we were discussing this
[3:14:12] Warrant Article is is Warrant Article 14
[3:14:15] really necessary?
[3:14:17] And yes, voting yes tonight is
[3:14:19] essential.
[3:14:21] If we vote no, we do not stop ADUs from
[3:14:23] being built because state law supersedes
[3:14:27] local zoning. Property owners can
[3:14:29] already build ADUs by right under the
[3:14:32] state's Affordable Homes Act.
[3:14:35] If we reject this article, Brookline
[3:14:37] will be left with an unenforceable,
[3:14:39] non-compliant bylaw.
[3:14:42] The building commissioner would have no
[3:14:43] legal framework to apply forcing the
[3:14:46] town to yield yield entirely to the
[3:14:49] state default regulations and
[3:14:51] potentially exposing Brookline to costly
[3:14:53] litigation.
[3:14:55] By voting yes tonight, we provide
[3:14:58] regulatory clarity for our residents and
[3:15:01] ensure our local departments can enforce
[3:15:03] safety, setbacks, and height
[3:15:05] restrictions.
[3:15:06] Furthermore, this article supports
[3:15:08] Brookline's evolving house housing
[3:15:10] needs, offering flexibility for
[3:15:12] multi-generational families, and options
[3:15:15] for older adults who want to downsize
[3:15:17] and age in place.
[3:15:18] I urge you to vote favorable action on
[3:15:20] Warrant Article 14. Thank you.
[3:15:22] >> Thank you.
[3:15:25] We have two more uh speakers, including
[3:15:27] the Planning Board, and then we can
[3:15:30] That's it.
[3:15:30] >> I have a question.
[3:15:31] >> Uh
[3:15:33] Let me
[3:15:34] Okay. Question.
[3:15:35] >> wait,
[3:15:36] but
[3:15:36] >> Okay.
[3:15:37] Warrant
[3:15:46] Sorry, everybody. We still got to do the
[3:15:48] select board recommendation, but I'll be
[3:15:49] quick. No high-minded politics for me
[3:15:51] today. Uh so, ADU speech. Um Anthony
[3:15:54] Bono, member of the select board,
[3:15:55] speaking on behalf of the select board.
[3:15:57] Warrant Article 14 is technically
[3:15:59] complicated, but politically simple from
[3:16:01] the select board's point of view.
[3:16:02] Changes to our ADU policy is to reflect
[3:16:04] the recent rulings by the Massachusetts
[3:16:06] Attorney General uh that our ADU bylaw
[3:16:08] that we passed last year does not comply
[3:16:10] with the 2024 Affordable Homes Act. Um
[3:16:13] there are multiple proposed changes.
[3:16:14] Some highlights have already been uh
[3:16:16] examined by uh Mr. Klein, the 900-ft um
[3:16:21] lowering maximum, uh save some
[3:16:23] conditions, changing the height and
[3:16:24] setback requirements, um and language uh
[3:16:27] to assure uh the protected the protected
[3:16:30] use ADU uh will be used as such. Um the
[3:16:32] select board recommended favorable
[3:16:34] action with a vote of 4-0-1.
[3:16:36] >> Thank you. I'm going to hear from the
[3:16:37] planning board first and then question.
[3:16:44] » Matt Hyatt, Precinct 4 Town Meeting
[3:16:46] member, chair of the planning board. The
[3:16:47] planning board unanimously uh supports
[3:16:49] this warrant article by a vote of 7 to
[3:16:51] 0.
[3:16:53] >> [applause]
[3:16:54] [cheering]
[3:16:55] >> Ms. Thall,
[3:16:57] read the room, too.
[3:17:00] » [laughter]
[3:17:02] >> I think this is why we're here, though,
[3:17:03] right? To ask questions.
[3:17:04] >> we're here.
[3:17:05] >> Thank you.
[3:17:07] Carolyn Thall, Precinct 16. Jonathan
[3:17:09] Klein, I just wanted to get a little
[3:17:11] more clarity on the what you said about
[3:17:14] the 22-ft height. Um
[3:17:17] just so I understand what we're going to
[3:17:19] be dealing with.
[3:17:20] Um I think you said
[3:17:22] if you want to go above 22 ft, you have
[3:17:25] to articulate a reason, and I think you
[3:17:28] said it's not subject to review.
[3:17:32] So, who are who would one be
[3:17:36] articulating
[3:17:37] the reason to?
[3:17:40] Or in what context if it's not subject
[3:17:42] to review and what might be some
[3:17:44] examples of an acceptable reason
[3:17:48] to whoever is or isn't reviewing it.
[3:17:51] >> Thank you. Maria Morelli, senior planner
[3:17:53] the regulatory division.
[3:17:55] So, what this means is keep in mind that
[3:17:58] the most permissive height is allowed.
[3:18:01] So, the most permissive height would be
[3:18:03] for the tallest structure and that would
[3:18:05] be the principal structure. So, let's
[3:18:07] say it's a single-family district the
[3:18:08] max height is 35 ft. Why are we using 22
[3:18:12] ft as a threshold for further
[3:18:16] examination? That's because we want to
[3:18:18] give people an idea of what would be in
[3:18:21] proportion to a
[3:18:22] principal structure, but but because we
[3:18:25] can't cap it at 22 ft, we just want the
[3:18:30] applicant to show the building
[3:18:31] commissioner the building department
[3:18:33] that they're using that additional
[3:18:35] height for solely the use of the ADU and
[3:18:39] not to make the principal structure
[3:18:41] larger. So, some of those that evidence
[3:18:43] could be that you want the pitch of the
[3:18:46] roof to be compatible with the pitch of
[3:18:49] the principal structure, that you need
[3:18:51] to align floors with the the principal
[3:18:54] structure. Those are all reasons why you
[3:18:57] might need a taller structure.
[3:18:59] It does get reviewed by the building
[3:19:01] department. What they're doing is making
[3:19:03] sure that the math adds up, but there is
[3:19:06] no discretionary review, meaning you
[3:19:08] can't deny it.
[3:19:10] You just need to show evidence that
[3:19:12] you're using it for the ADU.
[3:19:14] >> And obviously with a 900 sq ft
[3:19:17] limit
[3:19:19] to go much higher would be like a tower.
[3:19:22] >> Exactly.
[3:19:22] >> But technically a tower would have to be
[3:19:27] accepted. Like can we not say no?
[3:19:30] >> You can't you cannot say no.
[3:19:31] >> Okay.
[3:19:32] >> Right. But in practice it would be very
[3:19:34] difficult if you were if you were to
[3:19:36] have an addition, it conceivably you
[3:19:38] might have the addition be aligned with
[3:19:41] the ridge line of the principal
[3:19:42] structure if it were an addition.
[3:19:44] >> Yep. Thank you.
[3:19:46] >> You're welcome.
[3:19:47] >> Okay. Uh we have a remote question from
[3:19:50] Aris Aboy.
[3:19:54] » Thank you. Um Aris Aboy, um precinct 15
[3:19:58] and I'm also a preservation
[3:20:00] commissioner. My question is how this
[3:20:04] would relate to LHDs
[3:20:06] and uh which have different
[3:20:10] restrictions. Of course we review
[3:20:13] demolition and I understand the building
[3:20:15] commissioner
[3:20:16] uh and the remarks just there, but
[3:20:20] would uh properties within LHDs also be
[3:20:24] able to
[3:20:27] do this because that kind of goes
[3:20:29] completely counteractive to what the
[3:20:32] town has
[3:20:34] done there already. So if you could help
[3:20:36] me clarify um what that's going to mean
[3:20:39] impact-wise for our local historic
[3:20:42] districts for those who don't know what
[3:20:44] an LHD is. Thank you.
[3:20:46] >> Thank you. Marie Morelli, senior planner
[3:20:48] in regulatory. Uh regulatory has its own
[3:20:52] guidelines and standards and that
[3:20:54] doesn't interfere with that that
[3:20:56] process. Um I would just say that LHDs
[3:21:01] are also allowed to have uh written
[3:21:05] standards that are more restrictive, um
[3:21:08] but those do need to be objective. So
[3:21:10] you could go further, but you do need to
[3:21:13] maintain um the parameters that the
[3:21:15] statute and the regulations set forth.
[3:21:20] >> Mr. Englander.
[3:21:22] >> Thank you. Scott Englander, Precinct 6.
[3:21:26] This is quick, I think.
[3:21:28] Um do we have any rough numbers on how
[3:21:31] many ADUs have been created or permitted
[3:21:35] since the first bylaw 2019?
[3:21:45] » Good [clears throat] evening. Dan
[3:21:45] Bennett, uh building commissioner. We're
[3:21:47] roughly doing two to three a year.
[3:21:50] Other communities are 10 or 15, but
[3:21:51] we're two to three.
[3:21:53] >> Thank you.
[3:21:53] >> Yep.
[3:21:54] >> Thank you.
[3:21:55] >> Call the question.
[3:21:57] >> I don't have any other speakers, and
[3:21:59] there's no one at the mic, so we don't
[3:22:01] have to call the question. I think we're
[3:22:03] ready for a vote.
[3:22:05] A yes vote will approve the ADU bylaw,
[3:22:08] and a no vote will not. The motion is on
[3:22:12] pages 14-22 to 14-
[3:22:15] 34,
[3:22:17] and it needs a 2/3 vote since it's
[3:22:20] zoning.
[3:22:22] » Drop it.
[3:23:13] » Motion passes 231-1-2.
[3:23:17] Now we're on to Article 15.
[3:23:24] Which again is zoning to restore the
[3:23:27] more permissive threshold allowing cash
[3:23:30] in lieu of payment to the Affordable
[3:23:32] Housing Trust Fund. The motion is on
[3:23:34] page 15-8.
[3:23:37] It's moved by Mr. Lebovitz and seconded
[3:23:40] by Mr. Buono. Mr. Lebovitz.
[3:23:43] >> Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Alec Lebovitz,
[3:23:45] Town Meeting Member Precinct 8. Article
[3:23:47] 15 amends the Town's Inclusionary Zoning
[3:23:49] Bylaw, by which the Town seeks to
[3:23:52] generate new affordable housing through
[3:23:53] the creation of on-site affordable units
[3:23:56] and by attracting revenue to the
[3:23:57] Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Under our
[3:23:59] Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw, developers
[3:24:02] must either provide 15% of units as
[3:24:04] on-site affordable units or make a cash
[3:24:06] contribution to the Trust when
[3:24:08] constructing new developments of more
[3:24:09] than four units. Currently, new
[3:24:11] developments with less than 10 units
[3:24:13] only have the option to provide on-site
[3:24:15] units. Article 15 proposes that this
[3:24:18] threshold be increased to allow
[3:24:19] developments with up to 19 units the
[3:24:21] option to make instead make a cash
[3:24:23] contribution to the Trust.
[3:24:25] This would reverse a change made by Town
[3:24:27] Meeting in 2023 that lowered the
[3:24:28] threshold for the cash option from 19 to
[3:24:31] 10 units. There are three primary
[3:24:33] reasons the petitioners support this
[3:24:34] change. First, the previous reduction in
[3:24:37] the threshold made in 2023 was largely
[3:24:40] predicated on the notion that once the
[3:24:41] Community Preservation Act came online,
[3:24:44] any lost revenue from reducing the
[3:24:46] availability of the cash option to the
[3:24:48] Trust could be backfilled using CPA
[3:24:49] funds. While the CPA is making a welcome
[3:24:52] 400,000 contribution to the Trust this
[3:24:54] year, it has become clear that the many
[3:24:56] competing priorities requesting CPA
[3:24:59] support necessitate that we look to all
[3:25:01] available sources of revenue support for
[3:25:03] the Trust, including our IZ policy.
[3:25:06] Secondly, the petitioners argue that the
[3:25:08] Affordable Housing Trust remains the
[3:25:10] town's most effective tool for driving
[3:25:12] the creation of new affordable units.
[3:25:14] Based on historical data provided by the
[3:25:16] Planning Department, going back to 2008,
[3:25:18] the trust has financed the creation of
[3:25:20] nearly 600 permanently affordable units
[3:25:23] with a return on investment of up to
[3:25:24] 15:1 for each dollar invested from the
[3:25:27] trust. Maximizing revenue to the trust
[3:25:29] will drive more total unit creation than
[3:25:31] maintaining a stringently low threshold
[3:25:33] for allowing cash contributions in lieu
[3:25:35] of onsite units.
[3:25:37] Third, increasing the cash option
[3:25:39] threshold will also remove a costly
[3:25:41] logistical barrier to the creation of
[3:25:43] the missing mid-size developments in
[3:25:45] Brookline. Since the tightening of the
[3:25:47] requirement in 2023, no developments
[3:25:49] between 10 and 19 units have applied for
[3:25:51] permitting in Brookline. Increasing the
[3:25:53] cash option unit threshold will provide
[3:25:55] greater flexibility for builders to make
[3:25:58] these mid-size developments economically
[3:25:59] feasible.
[3:26:01] Finally, I'd also like to highlight what
[3:26:03] this article does not do. This proposal
[3:26:05] would not relax the onsite unit
[3:26:07] requirements for larger developments,
[3:26:09] such as the Maimonides project, Waldo
[3:26:11] Durgin, or the Chestnut Hill West
[3:26:12] Overlay.
[3:26:13] These projects, all of which well exceed
[3:26:15] 20 units, uh will continue to create new
[3:26:18] affordable units onsite under the
[3:26:20] Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw, ensuring an
[3:26:22] additional stream of unit creation
[3:26:24] remains viable, and also encouraging
[3:26:26] economically integrated multi-family
[3:26:28] developments in Brookline.
[3:26:30] I encourage you to join the Housing
[3:26:31] Advisory Board, the Planning Board, the
[3:26:33] Select Board, and the Advisory
[3:26:35] Committee, and voting favorable action
[3:26:36] on Warrant Article 15. Thank you.
[3:26:39] >> Thank you, Mr. Buono.
[3:26:41] >> [applause]
[3:26:53] » Seeing a lot of you tonight. Anthony
[3:26:55] Buono, member of the Select Board,
[3:26:56] speaking on behalf of the Select Board.
[3:26:58] Brookline has a distinct goal of
[3:26:59] increasing our affordable housing stock
[3:27:01] while also increasing the supply of
[3:27:03] market rate housing. One way we seek to
[3:27:05] achieve this goal is through
[3:27:06] inclusionary zoning. For those who are
[3:27:08] not aware, inclusionary zoning is where
[3:27:10] a community establishes requirements for
[3:27:12] developers to include affordable units
[3:27:14] as part of market rate developments. Our
[3:27:16] inclusionary zoning bylaw uh currently
[3:27:19] says that developers can forego our
[3:27:21] affordable housing requirement, which is
[3:27:23] 15% of on-site units, for developments
[3:27:26] over 11 units, if they make
[3:27:27] contributions to the affordable housing
[3:27:29] trust fund. The number of units required
[3:27:31] to meet this option was 19 until 2023,
[3:27:35] where we lowered the threshold to 11.
[3:27:37] While the policy was well-intentioned,
[3:27:38] it had some negative consequences. The
[3:27:40] affordable housing trust fund is an
[3:27:41] incredible asset to the town, and they
[3:27:44] leverage their funds with other grants,
[3:27:45] programs, and private actors. Since
[3:27:47] 2026, they have built 543 affordable
[3:27:50] units. Uh since 2006, they have built
[3:27:54] That would have been a really good year.
[3:27:55] They have built 543 affordable units and
[3:27:58] leveraged their money at a 15:1 ratio.
[3:28:00] By combining low By combining lowering
[3:28:03] the barrier to development and getting
[3:28:04] more resources in the hands of a fund
[3:28:06] that is so successful at building
[3:28:07] affordable units, we believe this will
[3:28:09] increase the amount of affordable units
[3:28:11] in the decades to come. This change,
[3:28:12] supported by the Housing Advisory Board,
[3:28:14] the Planning Board, and the Advisory
[3:28:15] Committee, and finally, while I'm up
[3:28:17] here, the Select Board 5-0. So, we
[3:28:19] recommend favorable action.
[3:28:21] >> Thank you.
[3:28:23] Ms. Mortimer.
[3:28:40] » Good evening.
[3:28:41] >> Hi.
[3:28:41] >> Oops.
[3:28:43] Uh Rebecca Ploat Mortimer, town meeting
[3:28:45] member, precinct 11, speaking as someone
[3:28:48] who has developed and overseen
[3:28:49] operations of affordable housing for the
[3:28:51] past 30-plus years.
[3:28:53] First, I want to disclose a potential
[3:28:55] conflict, although my remarks may be
[3:28:58] adverse to my financial interest.
[3:29:00] My paid work includes providing
[3:29:02] trainings in the affordable housing
[3:29:04] field
[3:29:05] statewide, and sometimes Brookline Housing Authority staff
[3:29:09] participate in the trainings I offer,
[3:29:11] although I am not compensated on a per
[3:29:13] head basis.
[3:29:15] I'm speaking
[3:29:16] to uh because I wanted to clarify a few
[3:29:19] issues related to affordable housing
[3:29:21] that have been raised in discussion of
[3:29:23] this warrant article.
[3:29:25] Although not critical with respect to
[3:29:26] warrant article 15, these are analyses
[3:29:29] that may impact further deliberation of
[3:29:31] development projects and how we finance
[3:29:33] and view affordable housing finance in
[3:29:35] the future.
[3:29:37] First, sometimes people say that
[3:29:39] inclusionary zoning can be cited as
[3:29:41] having a chilling effect on new
[3:29:42] development. I've heard that argument in
[3:29:45] the context of the city of Denver's
[3:29:47] inclusionary zoning policy, it was
[3:29:49] quoted in New York Times op-ed piece
[3:29:51] about 10 days ago,
[3:29:53] which was adopted in 2022,
[3:29:55] and Brookline's inclusionary zoning
[3:29:57] policy last amended in 2023.
[3:30:00] Proponents of this view frequently, and
[3:30:03] I think understandably, cite the decline
[3:30:06] in new building permits
[3:30:08] over the past 3 years as evidence of
[3:30:10] this chilling effect. I want to point
[3:30:12] out there are other factors that
[3:30:14] contributed to the decline in new
[3:30:15] building permits, most notably dramatic
[3:30:18] spikes in interest rates over that same
[3:30:20] time period.
[3:30:22] For that for the same project developed
[3:30:24] in 2022 versus 2025, the cost of
[3:30:28] construction loan interest has increased
[3:30:31] tenfold. I'm happy to provide the data
[3:30:33] to anyone who wants.
[3:30:35] The 1-year Treasury yield increased from
[3:30:37] 0.4% in January of '22 to 4.19%
[3:30:42] in January of '25.
[3:30:44] Stated in dollar terms, for an 11-unit
[3:30:47] project, the cost of construction loan
[3:30:49] interest would would increased from
[3:30:50] $450,000
[3:30:52] to 4.5 million. For a 19-unit project,
[3:30:56] the cost would have increased from 1.03
[3:30:59] million to 10.5 million.
[3:31:02] Uh time is running short, but I just
[3:31:04] want to echo Mr. Lebowitz's emphasis on
[3:31:07] the importance of providing on-site
[3:31:09] affordable housing at all developments
[3:31:11] over 20 units.
[3:31:13] Although there is not time, I will say I
[3:31:16] have a different view on the leverage
[3:31:17] impact. There are that math certainly
[3:31:20] can be supported if anyone is interested
[3:31:22] in detail why I think that might be a
[3:31:24] little bit misleading.
[3:31:26] Although cash contributions are
[3:31:27] important, I'm happy to have that
[3:31:29] conversation another time.
[3:31:33] Um despite my concerns about some of the
[3:31:35] discussion on this that some of the
[3:31:37] discussion on this warrant article could
[3:31:38] adversely affect future conversations
[3:31:41] about inclusionary zoning, I applaud the
[3:31:43] petitioners' efforts to improve
[3:31:45] coordination and collaboration between
[3:31:47] CPA and HAB and undertake efforts to
[3:31:50] spur the creation of more housing in the
[3:31:51] 11 to 19-unit range. Thank you.
[3:31:54] >> Thank you, Mr. Hyatt.
[3:32:02] » The Bruce got Matt Hyatt, Precinct 4,
[3:32:04] Town Meeting member, Planning Board.
[3:32:06] Again, unanimous vote of favorable
[3:32:08] action by the Planning Board on this
[3:32:09] warrant article.
[3:32:10] >> Thank you. Mr. Ladd. [applause]
[3:32:20] » Brian Ladd, Precinct 13 for the Advisory
[3:32:22] Committee.
[3:32:23] Um just to keep things simple, Warrant
[3:32:25] Article 15 changes only a single number
[3:32:28] in the zoning bylaw,
[3:32:30] which, as we've as you've heard, affects
[3:32:32] the ability of builders to choose
[3:32:34] between the two methods by which the
[3:32:36] town supports
[3:32:37] um affordable housing through new
[3:32:39] construction.
[3:32:41] Um as an alternative to the 15%
[3:32:44] inclusionary zoning, we offer
[3:32:46] the choice of making a payment to the
[3:32:48] affordable housing trust for small
[3:32:50] buildings only.
[3:32:51] That number was 20 until 2023. It was
[3:32:56] lowered to 11, in part as you've heard
[3:32:58] because of hope with the community
[3:33:00] preservation trust funds.
[3:33:03] The proposal before us tonight would
[3:33:05] raise that number again to 20 as the
[3:33:07] threshold. This would not apply to the
[3:33:10] area subject to the 2023 Harvard Street
[3:33:13] rezoning, which requires all affordable
[3:33:15] units on site.
[3:33:18] The effect of the
[3:33:19] change will not be great,
[3:33:22] but the committee recognized that the
[3:33:24] multiplier effect of a housing trust
[3:33:26] payment will be more effective than
[3:33:28] providing the one or two or three
[3:33:31] on-site units required in these smaller
[3:33:34] projects, which have the additional
[3:33:36] disadvantage of putting an
[3:33:37] administrative burden on town staff to
[3:33:39] monitor these few and scattered units.
[3:33:43] Um
[3:33:44] if you want to learn more about the
[3:33:46] multiplier effect, I believe Roger Blood
[3:33:48] is standing on deck to explain if if
[3:33:51] needed, so I'll pass over that. Um the
[3:33:53] advisory committee discussed whether the
[3:33:55] town would be able to identify sites and
[3:33:57] projects and to take full advantage of
[3:33:59] these housing trust funds to arrange the
[3:34:02] leverage financing necessary to for
[3:34:04] affordable projects and was assured that
[3:34:06] the answer was yes.
[3:34:08] Commi- committee members expressed a
[3:34:10] preference for small-scale and
[3:34:11] mixed-income projects, but a majority
[3:34:14] recognized the advantages of permitting
[3:34:16] a cash payment that could more
[3:34:17] effectively be leveraged. By a vote of
[3:34:19] 19 to 1 with one abstention, the
[3:34:22] advisory committee recommends favorable
[3:34:23] action on warrant article 15.
[3:34:25] >> Thank you. Last speaker, Mr. Blood.
[3:34:30] Last signed up speaker, that is.
[3:34:44] » I think that's right.
[3:34:47] » Thank you.
[3:34:49] Um
[3:34:50] I'm Roger Blood uh speaking for the
[3:34:52] unanimous Housing Advisory
[3:34:54] Roger Blood speaking for unanimous
[3:34:56] Housing Advisory Board. First of all,
[3:34:58] I'd like to thank the petitioners for
[3:35:01] having the interest and the
[3:35:02] uh the commitment to dig into this
[3:35:04] subject and come back with this uh with
[3:35:06] this article which the the have
[3:35:08] unanimously supports. Um
[3:35:11] And uh the prior speakers have really
[3:35:13] covered pretty well the advantages and
[3:35:15] the uh reasons for for having this uh
[3:35:18] number returned to uh 19.
[3:35:21] Um Brian mentioned this article is just
[3:35:24] changing a number, so this is the second
[3:35:26] time in the last 4 years
[3:35:28] uh in the history of all of town meeting
[3:35:30] where the word count of an article has
[3:35:32] been zero.
[3:35:34] Um
[3:35:35] Article 15 um
[3:35:38] uh
[3:35:39] gives the uh opportunity to receive some
[3:35:42] incremental funding to the Affordable Housing Trust and uh
[3:35:47] we believe that there's a an extended
[3:35:49] track record now uh which demonstrates
[3:35:52] uh and we like to use the word leverage
[3:35:54] that the trust is able to multiply
[3:35:56] considerably. Uh you've heard 15 to one.
[3:35:58] Uh that's probably uh within a range. Uh
[3:36:01] certainly it's uh at least 10 to one.
[3:36:04] Our most recent use of the uh commitment
[3:36:07] of trust funds um
[3:36:09] in a series of successes has been the uh Walnut High Phase 1 project which
[3:36:14] you've heard about on the the rezoning.
[3:36:16] That was that's a a $75 million project
[3:36:20] and the uh the town's local contribution
[3:36:22] of 7 and 1/2 million uh would
[3:36:24] effectively be a 10 to one. We've also
[3:36:27] um had similar uh use
[3:36:31] of leveraging the trust on Saint Aidens,
[3:36:33] Homestead Hill,
[3:36:34] uh the Brown Family House for Two Life
[3:36:37] um and uh 32 Marion, a beautiful project
[3:36:40] that hopefully you all get to see at
[3:36:42] some point if you haven't already,
[3:36:44] opening now by the Housing Authority,
[3:36:47] and also 32 Dumer Street.
[3:36:49] Looking at all of the statistics on
[3:36:51] these projects, while they the leverage
[3:36:52] varies, it's it's it's in the the ranges
[3:36:56] that you've that you've heard about. And
[3:36:58] I think what's also important to point
[3:37:00] out
[3:37:01] is and perhaps the most important thing,
[3:37:04] all the projects which I mentioned, if
[3:37:06] you were to ask the sponsors, forget the
[3:37:10] arithmetic and the numbers and the
[3:37:11] leverage, they simply wouldn't have been
[3:37:12] possible. They wouldn't have been built
[3:37:14] with the town's
[3:37:16] not having been able to step up in such
[3:37:18] a costly
[3:37:19] environment and the high value of land
[3:37:22] unless the town were
[3:37:23] had been able to put in the last dollar
[3:37:26] or dollars to make those all of those
[3:37:28] projects possible.
[3:37:30] Um
[3:37:31] we are going to have something called an
[3:37:33] expiring use,
[3:37:36] a a huge need on the preservation side
[3:37:38] where two very large projects, the
[3:37:41] Village Way, 99 Kent Street, family
[3:37:44] housing and senior housing, are going to
[3:37:46] be calling upon the trust to enable
[3:37:50] those those large number of existing
[3:37:52] units and low and moderate income
[3:37:54] tenants to continue having affordable
[3:37:57] housing that does not revert to market rate.
[3:38:00] >> Please conclude.
[3:38:01] >> there's a lot of good reasons to vote
[3:38:04] for this for this particular article.
[3:38:07] As the last speaker of the night, I
[3:38:08] won't speak any longer and thank you so
[3:38:11] much. The Housing Advisory Board is
[3:38:13] thrilled to be supporting this. Thank
[3:38:15] you.
[3:38:16] » [applause]
[3:38:16] >> Mr. Warren.
[3:38:19] >> Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Paul Warren,
[3:38:21] Town Meeting member, Precinct 1.
[3:38:23] I I want to provide a comment and maybe
[3:38:26] a little bit of a different perspective.
[3:38:29] As I've shared my story in the past, um
[3:38:31] wouldn't be standing here and living in
[3:38:33] Brookline if it wasn't for
[3:38:35] uh subsidized housing.
[3:38:37] Um I've lived in it. Uh it it it created
[3:38:39] an opportunity for me to have a path to
[3:38:41] home ownership and education and so
[3:38:44] forth. Um there's
[3:38:46] I One, I appreciate all that Roger does
[3:38:49] and and the the the housing trust and
[3:38:51] the multiplier and the units that we're
[3:38:53] creating. But, there is a a a subtlety
[3:38:56] that I I I would like people to not lose
[3:38:58] sight of. Um we're often defined by our
[3:39:01] address.
[3:39:02] And when you live in subsidized
[3:39:04] affordable housing, um it's very
[3:39:07] apparent when it's 100% affordable
[3:39:10] housing. You're defined by your address.
[3:39:12] And one of the things about um
[3:39:14] living in affordable housing or
[3:39:16] subsidized housing is when the units are
[3:39:19] actually integrated into the buildings,
[3:39:21] um you're just another resident. You're
[3:39:22] not defined by your address. You're just
[3:39:24] part of the community. And the reason
[3:39:26] why I'm concerned about this and I'll be
[3:39:28] voting against it, um is because it it limits the opportunity for those who
[3:39:34] are disadvantaged
[3:39:36] to live in our community, to be able to
[3:39:38] just integrate without being defined by
[3:39:40] their address. And I I was happily
[3:39:43] supported when we went from 20 to 11. Um
[3:39:46] and I think going back up to 20 is going
[3:39:48] to create more 100% luxury buildings. I think of that building that's across
[3:39:54] from NETA in Washington um in Brookline
[3:39:57] Village. And when they were selling
[3:39:58] those units, luxury condos, right? Um
[3:40:03] not a single affordable unit. Um we have
[3:40:06] too much luxury development in
[3:40:08] Brookline. Um if we really want to
[3:40:11] integrate people and families and others
[3:40:14] at different life stages that need a
[3:40:16] helping hand with uh subsidy, um I think
[3:40:19] we should say no to this article and let
[3:40:22] people live amongst us and not be
[3:40:24] defined by their address. Thank you.
[3:40:26] >> Thank you.
[3:40:28] I see no I have no other speakers and no
[3:40:31] one at the mics, so I think we're ready
[3:40:34] for a vote.
[3:40:35] The motion is
[3:40:40] page 15-8 and as you heard it changes
[3:40:45] one number in the
[3:40:47] zoning bylaw.
[3:40:49] A yes vote accepts the motion, a no vote
[3:40:54] keeps it the way it is.
[3:40:55] We need a 2/3 vote.
[3:40:58] Drop the uh
[3:41:01] the vote.
[3:41:43] » 195
[3:41:46] 32
[3:41:48] 7
[3:41:49] >> Motion passes 195
[3:41:51] 32 7.
[3:41:54] So, we're at a crossroads.
[3:41:58] It's now 10:32.
[3:42:02] And we have three warrant articles left.
[3:42:07] All three are non-binding
[3:42:10] resolutions that do not have any
[3:42:14] uh signed up opposition.
[3:42:17] So, we can choose to adjourn and come
[3:42:20] back on Tuesday,
[3:42:23] or we can power through and get done.
[3:42:29] >> [applause]
[3:42:32] » So,
[3:42:34] um
[3:42:36] I I I I get the sentiment that uh
[3:42:40] we're willing to power through
[3:42:42] and
[3:42:43] um
[3:42:45] if anyone wants to make a motion to
[3:42:47] adjourn, I'll accept it. We'll do a
[3:42:48] vote, but if no one wants to make that
[3:42:51] motion to adjourn, that's okay, too.
[3:42:55] Okay, so let's move on to Article 20.
[3:43:07] And this is a resolution that
[3:43:08] establishes
[3:43:13] Oh, we have a motion to adjourn. So,
[3:43:15] we're going to have a vote.
[3:43:19] There are two motions to adjourn. There
[3:43:21] are two people who've made the motion.
[3:43:23] Okay, so we will vote on the motion to
[3:43:25] adjourn.
[3:43:28] Excuse me?
[3:43:31] Motion to adjourn the annual
[3:43:32] >> the threshold? Is it 50?
[3:43:34] >> Threshold, majority vote.
[3:43:37] So, if a majority wants to stay and
[3:43:40] power through, then we stay and power
[3:43:43] through.
[3:43:44] Drop the vote, please.
[3:43:46] So, yes if you're willing to stay, no if
[3:43:49] you want to
[3:43:55] Yes, if Okay,
[3:43:56] >> Stop the vote.
[3:43:58] >> [laughter]
[3:44:01] » Stop the vote.
[3:44:04] Do-over.
[3:44:06] Yes if you want to go home, no if you
[3:44:09] want to stay.
[3:44:12] Okay, drop the vote.
[3:44:17] Getting late.
[3:44:18] >> No, it's not.
[3:44:28] And I um
[3:44:30] I encourage the petitioners and those
[3:44:33] who are speaking to read the room.
[3:44:35] There's no opposition.
[3:45:02] Motion fails 40 183-6.
[3:45:07] Okay, so we're going on to uh
[3:45:17] We have an interesting motion.
[3:45:23] And it's a motion to approve
[3:45:27] the three resolutions
[3:45:29] using a consent agenda.
[3:45:33] » [applause]
[3:45:42] » MOTION MOTION
[3:45:45] articles
[3:45:49] » Neil, can I make Can I make a
[3:45:50] >> Actually, what I think I'm
[3:45:53] >> Can I make a comment? I I would like to
[3:45:55] exclude the 9/11 memorial one from that
[3:45:58] consent agenda. I would like to do that
[3:45:59] one individually and then do the other
[3:46:00] two consent.
[3:46:03] >> Okay, so I'll take a motion to approve
[3:46:10] We'll do the uh the
[3:46:15] >> the not the 9/11 and then I'll take the
[3:46:17] motion for consent agenda on the other
[3:46:19] two.
[3:46:24] Okay, uh,
[3:46:26] and that is a debatable
[3:46:29] motion, so Mr. Burstyn.
[3:46:40] Uh, actually, the now's not the time.
[3:46:43] >> Okay.
[3:46:44] >> Uh, the time would be after we hear
[3:46:46] Article 20 and then we would debate
[3:46:50] the consent agenda.
[3:46:51] >> 21, 22?
[3:46:52] >> Yeah. So, let's let's go ahead with 20.
[3:46:56] >> Okay.
[3:47:06] » Oh, yeah. 20, the, uh, motion is on page
[3:47:09] 20-8 through 10 moved by Ms. Child,
[3:47:12] seconded by Mr. Burstyn.
[3:47:16] » Oh.
[3:47:17] You're right.
[3:47:17] >> Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I am Elizabeth
[3:47:20] Childs, Town Meeting member, Precinct 4.
[3:47:23] When you close your eyes to tragedy, you
[3:47:26] close your eyes to greatness. Stephen
[3:47:29] Bysiewicz.
[3:47:32] Along with my fellow petitioners, I urge
[3:47:34] you to support Article 20, a resolution
[3:47:36] to establish an official annual
[3:47:38] town-wide commemoration of 9/11 and a
[3:47:41] memorial to all those from Brookline who
[3:47:44] died on September 11th, 2001 in the
[3:47:47] al-Qaeda terrorist attack on our
[3:47:49] country.
[3:47:51] Brookline lost at least eight members of
[3:47:53] our community
[3:47:54] including New York City firefighters
[3:47:56] Manny Del Valle and Jerry
[3:47:59] and Brookline citizen Daniel Lewin, the
[3:48:02] first person killed on 9/11.
[3:48:05] This is the 25th anniversary of that
[3:48:08] bright sunny morning when ordinary
[3:48:11] citizens on their way to work and first
[3:48:13] responders acted valiantly in the face
[3:48:16] of the deadliest terrorist attack in
[3:48:18] world history and the largest loss of
[3:48:21] life on American soil by a foreign
[3:48:23] adversary with 2,977
[3:48:27] lives lost.
[3:48:29] On that day, the terrorists hijacked and
[3:48:31] crashed American flight 11 and United
[3:48:34] flight 175 into New York City's twin
[3:48:37] towers
[3:48:38] and American flight 77 into the
[3:48:40] Pentagon.
[3:48:42] On American flight 93, the passengers
[3:48:44] and crew with no hope for their own
[3:48:47] survival successfully fought the
[3:48:49] terrorists crashing into a Pennsylvania
[3:48:52] field and averting a hit on the US
[3:48:54] Capitol or White House saving hundreds
[3:48:57] of lives that day.
[3:49:00] Article 20 asks the select board to
[3:49:02] appoint a citizen committee charged with
[3:49:04] two tasks.
[3:49:05] The first to to build on and formalize
[3:49:08] the prior efforts to remember 9/11 by
[3:49:11] firefighters and their families and
[3:49:13] interested residents so that the annual
[3:49:16] remembrance is sustainable over time.
[3:49:18] This is modeled after the Martin Luther
[3:49:20] King Celebration Committee as it evolved
[3:49:23] from disparate citizen groups to a
[3:49:25] formalized town committee.
[3:49:27] Remembrance of 9/11 is of particular
[3:49:30] importance to first responders and
[3:49:32] reminds us of the courage firefighters
[3:49:34] and police officers bring each day to
[3:49:36] protect our town and its residents.
[3:49:39] The second task of the committee is time
[3:49:41] limited to research and recommend a
[3:49:43] physical memorial honoring all those
[3:49:46] from Brookline who died so that we
[3:49:48] remember as President Bush said a day
[3:49:51] when all Americans from every walk of
[3:49:53] life unite in our resolve for justice
[3:49:56] and peace.
[3:49:58] Many young people who were not alive in
[3:49:59] 2001 have no memory of why this day is
[3:50:03] one of the most important days in
[3:50:05] American history.
[3:50:07] A physical memorial is a starting point
[3:50:09] for learning, a place of solace for all
[3:50:12] who grieve for the loss of life because
[3:50:14] of this day, and a marker to ensure that
[3:50:17] future generations understand the
[3:50:19] sacrifices made and the lasting impact
[3:50:22] of September 11, 2001 on our town and
[3:50:25] nation. Please vote yes for articles 20.
[3:50:28] Thank you very much.
[3:50:30] >> [applause]
[3:50:30] >> Thank you, Ms. Pearl.
[3:50:37] » Can I say a few words about this
[3:50:38] article?
[3:50:40] >> In a moment.
[3:50:41] >> Okay.
[3:50:43] >> Yes.
[3:50:43] >> Yeah. Sorry, I got confused with the
[3:50:45] name.
[3:50:47] >> Ms. Pearl.
[3:50:49] Do you want to say a few words?
[3:50:53] Okay.
[3:50:56] » Loe Frame Pearl, Advisory Committee.
[3:50:59] Um given the time, we support everything
[3:51:02] that Elizabeth and Ariel wanted to do
[3:51:05] with this warrant article. We discussed
[3:51:08] it, we appreciate it, and the Advisory
[3:51:11] Committee voted favorable action 17 to 0.
[3:51:18] » [applause]
[3:51:26] » Mr. Green.
[3:51:37] » Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Bernard Green, That's my name, right?
[3:51:42] Again, for the Select Board.
[3:51:46] So, this warrant article, warrant
[3:51:47] article 20, proposes to do three things.
[3:51:50] First, have the town commit to erecting
[3:51:52] a physical memorial to honor people with
[3:51:55] ties to Brookline who lost their lives
[3:51:58] on September 11th, 2001.
[3:52:01] Second, to establish an official annual
[3:52:03] town-wide 9/11 remembrance ceremony.
[3:52:07] And third, to form a select board 9/11
[3:52:11] memorial advisory committee that would
[3:52:13] advise the select board on various
[3:52:15] aspects of the memorial and plan the
[3:52:18] annual 9/11 remembrance ceremony.
[3:52:21] The select board supported the purposes
[3:52:23] of the article, but agreed with the
[3:52:26] amendments made by the advisory council.
[3:52:28] Advisory committee.
[3:52:31] Well, the article focus focus how excuse
[3:52:34] me
[3:52:35] and mouth.
[3:52:36] Well, the article focuses on the eight
[3:52:38] people with ties to Brookline who lost
[3:52:40] their lives on September 11th, 2001.
[3:52:44] It is important to recognize that like
[3:52:46] all terrorist events targeting one
[3:52:49] country, people from many countries were
[3:52:51] killed or otherwise affected.
[3:52:54] The The advisory committee added an
[3:52:57] important fact, which was that among the
[3:52:59] 2,977
[3:53:01] people killed in New York,
[3:53:03] near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and
[3:53:05] Arlington, Virginia, were at least 372
[3:53:09] people from from 102 other countries of
[3:53:13] the world.
[3:53:14] After 9/11, there was an there was an an
[3:53:17] unfortunate movement of hatred against
[3:53:21] Muslims or anyone who looked like they
[3:53:24] could be a Muslim.
[3:53:27] President President George Bush
[3:53:29] courageously, yes, as a Democrat, I'm
[3:53:32] saying this about George Bush,
[3:53:34] um
[3:53:35] courageously pushed back in many ways,
[3:53:38] including with his Islam is peace speech
[3:53:41] at the Islamic Center of Washington on
[3:53:43] September 17th, 2001.
[3:53:46] >> [snorts]
[3:53:46] >> Today, also in the upswell of hate
[3:53:49] sweeping this country, including hate
[3:53:53] emanating from the highest offices and
[3:53:55] politicians of this country.
[3:53:58] There are cowardly attacks on Muslims or
[3:54:00] anyone who looks like they may be a
[3:54:02] Muslim.
[3:54:03] And we have to push back. Our 9/11
[3:54:06] ceremonies, when I MC'd them,
[3:54:09] um
[3:54:10] beginning a few years ago, sought to
[3:54:12] push back. And that should be an
[3:54:14] underlying theme of these ceremonies so
[3:54:17] long as we are struggling with hatred in
[3:54:20] America against Muslims, against Jews,
[3:54:23] against blacks, against gays, against
[3:54:26] anyone.
[3:54:28] So, although the terrorists came from a
[3:54:30] Muslim country, Saudi Arabia, we do not
[3:54:33] paint all Muslims or even Saudi Muslims
[3:54:36] with a broad terrorist brush. And that
[3:54:37] should be an underlying theme of our uh
[3:54:41] ceremonies.
[3:54:42] So, the the uh Select Board voted five
[3:54:45] to zero for favorable action on Warrant
[3:54:48] Article 20 on March 31st of this year.
[3:54:51] Thank you.
[3:54:53] >> [applause]
[3:54:53] >> Mr. Cruzman.
[3:54:57] » One of the petitioners.
[3:55:07] Um I'm Ariel Cruzman, town meeting
[3:55:09] member from Precinct 5, and I'm one of
[3:55:11] the co-petitioners on Article 20.
[3:55:14] Over 100 cities and towns across
[3:55:16] Massachusetts have built some forms of a
[3:55:18] permanent physical 9/11 memorial.
[3:55:21] I want to briefly give you a few
[3:55:22] examples of what some towns and cities
[3:55:24] have done. Next slide, please.
[3:55:27] Newton is the closest model for what
[3:55:29] Article 20 proposes. Citizens Committee,
[3:55:32] formed in 2011,
[3:55:34] to plan, design, and fundraise. The
[3:55:37] memorial was dedicated a year later in
[3:55:39] front of a fire headquarters on Center
[3:55:41] Street.
[3:55:42] Three carved steps lead up to the
[3:55:44] memorial, and each one is engraved with
[3:55:46] a moment from that morning.
[3:55:48] The very first step reads September
[3:55:50] 11th, 2001, 7:00 a.m.
[3:55:53] Three terrorists leave the parking in
[3:55:55] Newton to board American Airlines Flight
[3:55:57] 11 in Boston.
[3:55:59] The next steps marks the North Tower
[3:56:01] struck at 8:46.
[3:56:03] The next, the South Tower at 9:03.
[3:56:06] As one Newton committee member put it,
[3:56:08] the steps lead the visitors into the
[3:56:10] history of that day. The first step
[3:56:12] reminds us of the evil that was among
[3:56:14] us.
[3:56:16] The step lead to two pillars, Roman
[3:56:18] numerals 9 and 11. Around them a
[3:56:20] five-sided patio of of for the Pentagon,
[3:56:23] a darker path traced tracing Flight 93,
[3:56:27] and the eight Newton victims engraved on
[3:56:29] a scroll, largely privately funded. Next
[3:56:32] slide, please.
[3:56:34] Needham didn't wait. A stone and a tree,
[3:56:36] both donated by a local businesses, were
[3:56:38] dedicated just 5 days after the attack.
[3:56:41] The town has since built on that
[3:56:43] foundation. Today, the memorial is a
[3:56:45] polished stone monument with two upright
[3:56:47] pillars rising from a tiered base.
[3:56:49] Between them, mounted vertically, sits a
[3:56:51] twisted fragment of steel recovered from
[3:56:54] the World Trade Center itself.
[3:56:56] The front carries bronze plaques with
[3:56:58] the names of Needham victims. Carved
[3:57:00] into the base in a large letter, always
[3:57:02] remember.
[3:57:03] Next slide, please.
[3:57:06] Wellesley honors the day in two places.
[3:57:08] At Simmons Park, a memorial tree stands
[3:57:10] with a small bronze plaque for the four
[3:57:12] Wellesley residents lost on 9/11.
[3:57:15] The plaque reads,
[3:57:16] "To plant a tree is to trust in the
[3:57:17] future."
[3:57:19] And near the public safety building, a
[3:57:20] stone police and fire monument with the
[3:57:23] flag anchors the town's annual
[3:57:24] remembrance.
[3:57:26] Next slide, please.
[3:57:29] Natick has a permanent memorial outside
[3:57:31] its police and fire complex, a bronze
[3:57:33] sundial whose gnomon marks the exact
[3:57:36] moments each tower was struck. It's tied
[3:57:39] to a recovered piece of World Trade
[3:57:41] Center steel, a contemplation bench, and
[3:57:43] a small reflection garden.
[3:57:45] Next slide.
[3:57:48] Sudbury's September 11th Memorial Garden
[3:57:50] sits in Heritage Park. A boulder with a
[3:57:52] bronze plaque honors three Sudbury
[3:57:54] residents lost that day.
[3:57:55] It's maintained by a permanent town
[3:57:58] appointed oversight committee.
[3:58:00] Next slide.
[3:58:03] Quincy uses the steel itself as the
[3:58:04] monument being recovered from the World
[3:58:07] Trade Center raised back up as twin
[3:58:09] pillars.
[3:58:10] So, six communities, six different
[3:58:12] memorials, none
[3:58:14] uh not one looks like another. Some
[3:58:17] massive, some barely visible, some
[3:58:19] abstract, some literal, the actual
[3:58:21] steels from the towers.
[3:58:22] >> Please conclude.
[3:58:24] >> One one took a year to fundraising, one
[3:58:26] up one was up in 5 days. There is no
[3:58:29] template, only a choice each town made,
[3:58:31] and Brookline in 25 years has never made
[3:58:34] that choice. Thank you.
[3:58:35] >> Thank you.
[3:58:42] I'm going to accept the call
[3:58:47] Okay, I have
[3:58:49] uh Jay
[3:58:50] Xandroph, who's a petitioner, Lior
[3:58:53] Nestor, who's a
[3:58:57] uh a friend
[3:58:59] a non uh town resident who uh was a
[3:59:02] friend of one of the uh people who uh perished in one of the flights. We
[3:59:11] have Betsy Pearlman and Carol Caro at
[3:59:14] the microphones.
[3:59:16] Um
[3:59:17] So,
[3:59:18] what we have a motion to call the
[3:59:20] question.
[3:59:25] A motion to terminate debate.
[3:59:39] » Thank you.
[4:00:13] » Motion passes 156 49 6. We're now ready
[4:00:17] for a vote on the main motion
[4:00:19] which is on pages 20-8 through 10.
[4:00:23] Uh
[4:00:25] yes is to approve the resolution, no is
[4:00:28] to not approve it.
[4:00:30] Ready for a vote?
[4:00:32] Do it.
[4:01:18] It's unanimous, 220 0 with six
[4:01:21] abstentions.
[4:01:24] Okay, so now
[4:01:26] we have an unusual motion.
[4:01:29] >> I would like to motion to adopt a
[4:01:31] consent agenda for the last two
[4:01:33] remaining warrant articles.
[4:01:35] >> Okay, so that is the motion before us.
[4:01:38] The two remaining articles are a first a
[4:01:41] resolution expressing support for the
[4:01:43] Massachusetts Medicare for All Act.
[4:01:47] And it's expressing support for a
[4:01:49] specific piece of legislation.
[4:01:53] And the other the other motion
[4:01:57] the other article is a resolution
[4:02:00] supporting the modernization of
[4:02:02] Proposition 2 and 1/2. And it's tasking
[4:02:06] uh
[4:02:08] The motion is tasking uh town staff to
[4:02:12] study the issue and create some indexes.
[4:02:15] And this is a debatable motion. If it
[4:02:18] fails we would then debate it
[4:02:23] we would then debate the articles
[4:02:25] themselves. If it passes, we pass the
[4:02:28] articles.
[4:02:31] Yes.
[4:02:32] >> Charles Homer, town meeting member,
[4:02:33] Precinct 8. Uh on the first article,
[4:02:35] while it references uh a specific bill,
[4:02:38] the actual resolution simply calls for
[4:02:41] our telling the legislature that we're
[4:02:44] in support of health care for that's
[4:02:47] affordable for many people. So what the
[4:02:49] actual resolution
[4:02:50] >> I was looking at the original. Yes, so
[4:02:52] thank you. You are correct.
[4:02:57] Right. Okay.
[4:02:59] I've been asked to cite the locations of
[4:03:01] the motions. So
[4:03:03] 21
[4:03:07] is on page 21-9
[4:03:11] through 10.
[4:03:13] 22
[4:03:15] is
[4:03:17] supplement one, pages one and two.
[4:03:20] This is a debatable motion.
[4:03:23] Mr. Ananian.
[4:03:24] >> C. Scott Ananian, town meeting member,
[4:03:25] Precinct 10. Uh and not to make to put
[4:03:29] too much on you right now. Um normally
[4:03:31] consent agendas have a relatively low
[4:03:33] threshold for um
[4:03:35] uh extracting a motion uh article from the consent agenda. So,
[4:03:39] I was asking what you think an
[4:03:41] appropriate threshold is for
[4:03:44] this motion.
[4:03:45] >> An appro- I think an appropriate
[4:03:46] threshold is a majority, which is the uh
[4:03:49] threshold for the underlying
[4:03:51] resolutions.
[4:03:53] So, if we're we're treating this as
[4:03:55] passing the underlying resolutions.
[4:03:58] >> So, are we only having this one vote on
[4:04:00] the This is one vote for the two
[4:04:01] motions.
[4:04:02] >> Correct. And if it fails, we would then
[4:04:04] debate the motions separately.
[4:04:06] >> Okay. Thank you.
[4:04:07] >> And Mr. Burstein has requested to speak
[4:04:11] remotely.
[4:04:13] Then we'll go to Mr. Freeman.
[4:04:16] >> Uh thank you, Mr. Moderator. Uh Michael
[4:04:18] Lee Burstein, town meeting member
[4:04:20] precinct 12. Um I want to speak because
[4:04:23] I actually was the person who um
[4:04:26] suggested the motion just before we took
[4:04:28] Article 20 when the moderator uh
[4:04:31] mentioned this. Um the consent agenda
[4:04:33] motion appears in Town Meeting Time, 4th
[4:04:36] Edition, uh chapter 5, section 11. Uh
[4:04:40] and it's pretty much has already been
[4:04:42] discussed what this entail. I want to
[4:04:45] make it clear that the reason I wanted
[4:04:48] to make this motion proposed or the only
[4:04:49] reason I was pushed to it was that you,
[4:04:52] Mr. Moderator, did indicate that the
[4:04:55] ward articles that were left had no one
[4:04:57] speaking in opposition.
[4:04:59] Um I've been a town meeting member now
[4:05:01] since the year 2001, 25 years, and I
[4:05:05] have witnessed many times in the last um
[4:05:08] hour or so when we have a bunch of ward
[4:05:11] articles that are for Brookline at least
[4:05:13] non-controversial
[4:05:15] and that everybody would agree with. Um
[4:05:18] and I feel that I I and And I appreciate
[4:05:20] the fact that you're willing to take the
[4:05:22] consent agenda motion even though
[4:05:23] apparently you took it from other
[4:05:24] people.
[4:05:26] Um
[4:05:26] and I hope that town meeting will agree
[4:05:28] with me that this is a fine idea for
[4:05:30] right now and will vote in favor of the
[4:05:32] consent agenda.
[4:05:34] >> Mr. Friedman.
[4:05:35] >> Um Harry Friedman, precinct 12. I I just
[4:05:38] like a little bit clearer explanation.
[4:05:41] What does a no vote indicate? Does it
[4:05:44] indicate you don't want to do a consent
[4:05:46] agenda? Or if for instance one opposed
[4:05:49] both these articles, does a no vote
[4:05:52] indicate that?
[4:05:53] >> No, a no vote indicates when
[4:05:56] you we go you want to consider each of
[4:05:59] the articles separately.
[4:06:01] A yes vote indicates you're willing to
[4:06:03] approve it without further debate and
[4:06:07] the the resolutions are approved.
[4:06:09] Thank you.
[4:06:09] >> So a no vote
[4:06:11] >> Yes,
[4:06:12] a a no vote does not turn down the
[4:06:15] resolutions.
[4:06:17] >> Uh point of order, please.
[4:06:18] Mr. Moderator, thank you.
[4:06:20] >> He's got 90 in town meeting member
[4:06:21] precinct uh 10. Just in the order of
[4:06:23] helping this, I would suggest that if
[4:06:25] you would vote no on either of these
[4:06:27] articles, you should vote no on this. If
[4:06:29] the sum of the people who vote no on
[4:06:31] this article does not exceed a majority,
[4:06:33] then either of these articles could
[4:06:35] possibly fail.
[4:06:36] >> Yes?
[4:06:37] Thank you.
[4:06:38] >> Right. [clears throat]
[4:06:39] >> Ms. Cara.
[4:06:40] >> Carol Carroll, precinct 11.
[4:06:43] I would recommend that we vote uh
[4:06:45] we we don't go through with this voting
[4:06:47] on two of these articles at the same
[4:06:49] time. People have worked on these
[4:06:51] resolutions and both of them should be
[4:06:53] discussed. They're important resolutions
[4:06:56] and so I would encourage people not to
[4:06:58] support voting on them together.
[4:07:01] >> Okay.
[4:07:03] so let's uh
[4:07:05] let's do the vote. I don't see anyone
[4:07:07] else coming to the microphone.
[4:07:56] » 167
[4:07:58] 48
[4:07:59] 5
[4:08:01] >> Okay, the motion passes 167-48-5.
[4:08:06] In so doing, you passed you approved two
[4:08:10] warrant articles. So,
[4:08:12] we have one final piece of business.
[4:08:16] And before I call for a vote to
[4:08:18] dissolve, which will be effective
[4:08:20] tomorrow at 5:00,
[4:08:22] Mr. Kaufman would like to say a word.
[4:08:27] » Thank you, Mr. Moderator. And I I want
[4:08:29] to thank all the town meeting members
[4:08:30] for allowing me, uh what's become a bit
[4:08:32] of a tradition, to take a moment at the
[4:08:33] end of our town meeting to acknowledge
[4:08:35] the incredible dedicated staff who
[4:08:37] actually make town meeting happen.
[4:08:39] >> [applause]
[4:08:40] [cheering]
[4:08:48] [applause]
[4:08:55] » It is It is a huge effort that truly
[4:08:57] could not be done
[4:08:59] without such a spectacular team. And
[4:09:02] that's everybody from staff in the town
[4:09:04] administrator's office who are up late
[4:09:06] putting together the combined reports to
[4:09:08] the mail room who was here yesterday
[4:09:10] well after business hours printing out
[4:09:12] final supplements to staff in the
[4:09:14] hallway who cover not only my office but
[4:09:16] a number of departments. Of course, our
[4:09:18] IT team here in the back of the room and
[4:09:20] our partners at BIG who you guys might
[4:09:23] not see but they're in the balcony doing
[4:09:25] all this work and they're back in the
[4:09:26] studio doing [applause] it.
[4:09:27] It's incredible work that's done
[4:09:29] and we could not be happier
[4:09:31] so thank you very much.
[4:09:34] » Okay.
[4:09:36] >> I would like to motion to dissolve town
[4:09:37] meeting effective at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow.
[4:09:40] >> Okay, we have that motion.
[4:09:44] >> Drop the vote.
[4:09:46] If you want to stay here forever, you
[4:09:48] vote no.
[4:10:41] » Motion to dissolve passes.
[4:10:44] >> 204-13
[4:11:15] » When I came in, open arms. Open arms. I
[4:11:18] felt the love.
[4:11:20] I felt the communication.
[4:11:24] I just felt the the passion.
[4:11:27] And I I loved it here. They they
[4:11:29] welcomed me.
[4:11:31] >> This is a a heartbeat, you know? You got
[4:11:34] real people here. They're empowered.
[4:11:37] People take agency.
[4:11:39] They do something creative and it gets
[4:11:41] rewarded. And it just grows and it's
[4:11:43] infectious. So, I love that part about
[4:11:45] here. Like, I come in here and I get
[4:11:47] energized, [music] you know?
[4:11:48] >> I feel comfortable when I'm here. I feel
[4:11:50] like I want to say like a second home
[4:11:52] situation, but like I feel like I can do everything
[4:11:56] that I want to do here.
[4:11:58] And feel confident in every single
[4:12:00] thing. And if I have any questions, I'm
[4:12:01] not scared to ask them at all. And I
[4:12:04] haven't exactly had a place like that.
[4:12:06] >> [music]
[4:12:06] >> Besides, you know, my own house. A part
[4:12:08] of me had to be locked away to be able
[4:12:11] to survive high school. And then Big was
[4:12:12] letting me
[4:12:14] open up those doors that I haven't been
[4:12:16] able to open up in a while.
[4:12:17] >> My favorite [music] thing about Big is
[4:12:19] probably the staff. Without them, I
[4:12:20] would not be where I am today. When I
[4:12:22] really started out, I was a very shy
[4:12:24] kid. Um back in my freshman year, I
[4:12:26] wouldn't I would hate talking to people.
[4:12:28] I'd [music] hate confrontation. I would
[4:12:30] hate talking to teachers. With this job,
[4:12:32] I had to be loud. I had to be confident
[4:12:34] [music]
[4:12:35] in just my own skin.
[4:12:36] >> There's always this uh this uh synergy
[4:12:38] and collaboration that uh this great
[4:12:41] environment creates.
[4:12:43] >> Big, at least for me, [music] has been
[4:12:44] like
[4:12:45] you have a place to be creative. Be
[4:12:47] creative. Just do it, basically.
[4:12:50] And um now, that's also like part of the
[4:12:52] reason why I [music] keep coming back
[4:12:54] because that creative flow just keeps
[4:12:55] coming back whenever I'm here. I've been
[4:12:57] able to push my own boundaries and talk
[4:12:59] to people a lot more. I've been able to
[4:13:00] apply that [music] with my job that I
[4:13:03] have at my college with the new friends
[4:13:05] I've had to make on a daily basis
[4:13:07] [music] at my new school.
[4:13:08] And it has honestly like helped me a
[4:13:10] lot, especially with talking to
[4:13:11] professors cuz I can talk to adults a
[4:13:13] lot easier now, too.
[4:13:16] >> I have grown [music]
[4:13:18] to motivate myself even more.
[4:13:22] This is what I want to do.
[4:13:24] And Big Help Me [music]
[4:13:27] to find what I really wanted to do.
[4:13:30] >> I think I've grown in the way of how I
[4:13:34] talk to others about film.
[4:13:36] Um in [music] how I see film. And I've
[4:13:39] learned how to bring people together.
[4:13:40] >> I feel like 2026 is going to be good and
[4:13:43] we're all going to just increase our
[4:13:45] collaboration and friendships.
[4:13:46] >> [music]