recording. So, welcome everybody to the advisory committee meeting of November 17, 2025. We have a uh full schedule
just and um let a couple more people in. Uh, welcome to all our guests and welcome to past members Steven Reers and Marcus Panzel. Uh, welcome back.
>> Thanks. >> Um, so we're going to be doing let's fight. We're going to be doing four or five warrant articles tonight and I'll give you an explanation before we hit each one. Um the warrant articles are warrant
article 9 which is the renters's handbook which has come back to us in a new version. Warrant article 18 where we will hear I believe from a member of the select board who has a different proposal.
Warrant article eight on the lighting where we're being asked to reconsider our um recommendation of referral. Warrant article 7 on the Clark road which has nothing new or controversial in it but some minor changes and we just
need to approve them. And then a possibility of warrant article 19, the 25th amendment because a lastm minute uh amendment came in today to vote to um
lay this uh motion on the table and I want to take that up either tonight or possibly get a feeling from the committee and we'll take it up on Wednesday night when we're at the high school.
So, um, we're in for, I think, a bit of an evening. Um, to quote someone previously, fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night. And, um, we will start
with warrant article nine, which is the renters's handbook. And Alec, I'm going to turn it over to you to uh Oh, actually, before I do that, um we need to go to public comment. Um, so if there
are any members of the public who are not petitioners, because we're going to hit the petitioners when we get to your warrant article, but if there are any members of the public who wish to make a statement right now, um, put your name
in the chat and David Mark will call on you. And for those people who just joined us, if you're a member of the public and wish to make a comment here at the beginning of the meeting, put your name in the chat.
Going once, >> it's empty. >> Going twice, going three times. Very good. We are closing off the public uh comment section. And as I said, Alec Leovitz, I'm turning it over to you to explain to us exactly what is going on.
>> Thanks, Harry. Um, I'll try and be very brief here. It's a it's a fairly simple change to the version of Warren Article 9 that this committee took up previously. Um after fruitful discussions with a number of the Brooklyn constables, um the petitioners
have amended that motion to clarify that compliance with the notification provision of Warren Article 9 by Brooklyn constables um is not mandatory. Um we made this change to uh allay certain concerns about potential
enforcement actions facing the constables. Um and also after as I mentioned fruitful discussions uh that included commitments that the constables were willing um to to comply with this voluntarily. Um so we feel this is a
good compromise. Um it preserves the intent and substance of the article while allaying some of the concerns from the constables. Um and the select board did take up this motion on last Friday and they did vote 4 to zero uh to
recommend favorable action. um and have dropped my understanding is their substitute motion which um folks will recall we debated with uh select board member Paul Warren a couple weeks ago. Um so the motion before us tonight would
bring us uh would unify us with the select board's motion uh and the petitioner's motion should we choose to proceed with it. And I would also just highlight um I I did have a discussion with Neil Gordon as well about another small amendment that we were comfortable
accepting. Um that was not included in the select board's consideration on Friday. um but it is uh included in what the petitioners plan to move now and that's in addition to the uh small addition to the uh notification
provision as I mentioned is a small change to in the definition section the definition of agent of the town and what we uh agreed to with Mr. Gordon was adding after of the town in that definition just the the phrase acting in
their official capacity. And this is to provide some clarity that um would prevent some kind of legal challenge being brought uh against a constable who might have another official role with the town um in their uh
delivery of a notice. you wouldn't run into a situation where say a constable who is also a member of the advisory committee um could be expected to uh comply mandatorily with the notification provision as an advisory committee
member. So this rectifies that and ensures that the original amendment we made to make com compliance by the constables voluntary the uh intent and outcome of the new motion. Um, and uh, yeah, I think that's that's it. It's pretty pretty straightforward change as
I mentioned. >> Yeah. >> Alec, do you um do you have a I know it's a minor change this acting in their official capacity. >> Do you have a um a copy or something that um has that in?
>> I do. >> So, I'm going to make you a co-host. And if you could just share it so we could see. >> Absolutely. >> And and and actually also show us um what the select board and you have agreed to in a change.
>> Yeah. So you now have co-host uh privileges. >> Thank you very much, Harry. Um all right. Can everyone see that? >> I'll make it a little bigger. Is that easier? >> Yes. >> So the change I mentioned that um Mr.
Gordon proposed and the petitioners have accepted is this amendment here to the definition of agent of the town as I mentioned just clarifying that it is the when when these people are acting in their official capacity um the change that the select board
considered and agreed with was this addition to section 8.40.4 four um which states that Brooklyn constable shall be exempt from mandatory compliance with this provision. Um and while I have this shared, I'd also note that the moderator
has um noted some scriveners corrections that need to be made to the numbering of the sections that just reflect some virgin control. Um so these section names 3.12B.3 and 3.12B uh the repetition here will be
uh corrected from the podium. I've been told to read section 8.40.5 here and 8.40.6 here to unify the numbering in this draft. >> Thank you. Um Susan, you're the chairman
of this committee. Do you have anything you wish to add? >> Yes. Uh actually I I do support the um the ultimate uh uh uh provisions, but
this is actually the first I've heard about the change to the definition. And I have a suggestion because I don't think that the one proposed is adequate because it doesn't define what official official capacity could mean being a
member of the AC. I think what you really want to say is acting in their capacity as an agent of the town. any employee, agent or elected or appointed official of the town acting in their you can say in their official
capacity as an agent of the town because if you're a member of the advisory committee you are acting in an official capacity. It's simply a different official capacity. If you want to specify that it only
applies to a constable acting as a constable, then you really want to do more than simply say acting in their official capacity. If you have a constable like Neil who's also a town meeting member
and is also a an advisory committee member, they have multiple official capacities and you don't want all of them to be implemented implicated. So, I think that you probably want to specify,
you can say acting uh in their official capacity as an agent of the town as defined herein or something like that. >> That's still kind of vague. Susan, could we just say constable? >> Well, agent of the town defines more
than constables. >> Yes, but if we specifically say constable, that should solve it. I I'm I'm certainly I think we're flexible on the wording of the solution here as long as we we get to that clarifying fix. I am a little concerned about um kind of a self-referential
definition. If we're defining agent of the town, including agent of the town in that definition does worry me somewhat. >> Well, you're limiting it though to agents of the town, right? That's your intention. >> Yes.
So you should be explicit about that because otherwise it becomes vague. >> What office? What official capacity? >> So before we go to questions and we will
discuss this in our questions. I'm gonna start because I'm the chairman and >> can I get a two-finger in first if you don't mind, Eric? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, let let me just hypothetically say under the current draft
[clears throat] uh current draft, it would be legal for a landlord to call a member of the advisory committee, right? And and ask them to serve a notice to quit because any disinterested adult can do that. that member of the advisory
committee under the current language would be bound by definition and would be obligated to deliver a copy of the statement of tener rights and and and resources as I read it now m maybe that's okay right but
excluding Neil Gordon or Joe Figgler uh who serves on the police commissioners advisory committee excluding our us as constables doesn't in the language that's there [clears throat] exclude us in any other capacity.
And and that's what we're trying to that's all that we're trying to solve. >> And and the other thing is Mr. Gordon was my grandfather. Alec [laughter] >> duly noted. Um, so I I have a different question
which may have just been partially answered, but the previous select board version simply took out the delivery thing which I thought was a very clean solution if if whether one agrees with it or not. You've kept the delivery
thing in which regards an agent of the town of Brooklyn giving a notice to quit or being involved in a in an eviction proceeding and then excluded the constables.
So my question is who does it include? Who would ever be subject to this delivery section? Uh yeah, it's a great question, Harry. And the primary group would be DPH inspectors um who are occasionally um
required to deliver notices related to um orders to vacate when properties have been condemned. >> Okay, thank you. So, David Mark, take it away and let's go through the list. >> Okay, Linda.
>> Thanks, David Mark. My question is um have we heard from the other constables whom we heard from the first night we discussed this and are they on board with the current version that the select board adopted?
>> Um yeah so this this compromised version was developed in conjunction uh with discussions between the petitioners uh Neil Gordon, Regina Frolley and Joe Figgler. Um, I I don't see Joe on the call, but I I believe Regina's here if if you'd like to hear from her. But this
was the compromise that we uh agreed was the best path forward together. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh Neil Gordon, did you already make a point or do you >> I'm done. Thank you. >> Okay. Um I'll I'll go next. Um, this
change where the constables are now voluntarily doing this seems to gut the whole point of of this that the the tenant would get a copy uh of of something showing what their options are and now it's uh if if they feel like it.
Um, would it be simpler to mandate that the landlord who who wants to evict the person has to be the one to give it to the tenant rather than have a voluntary constable can do it if they feel like it type of thing. Not that it's within scope, but just as a as a concept.
>> Um, I think conceptually there's definitely a case to be made there. What that unfortunately takes us back to is the legal issue that we've had to navigate in bringing this forward, which is that we've been advised by town council that we cannot require the
landlord to serve as the noticing agent in these cases because that infringes on state law that limits municipalities ability to um legislate or regulate civil relationships between tenants and landlords. Um so in an ideal world that
would be I think the design that we would take uh the design approach. Um but you know we are not living in an ideal world and we're trying to navigate the legal issues as best we can. Um I will note the petitioners are comfortable with this. Um and that comes from the fact that the constables have
have agreed a I think with the premise of the article and the intent behind it. Um and b have said they would be happy to voluntarily comply. Um there are you know I think accountability measures built in. The constables are elected officials. Court filings like these are
public. Um you know any interested party can check the filings and see who is complying and who is not. Um and you know to to an extent I think democratic accountability here makes maybe more sense than incidentally putting a town
department in a position where they need to enforce this kind of um compliance against the town constable. you know, that wasn't really something we saw as an ideal outcome. Um, and and our thanks to the constables who raised that as an issue. I think that was a clarifying concern.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Harry, that's it. There's nobody else in the chat. >> Okay. Um, so what I'm going to suggest here is that we take this in steps. Um since the advisory committee has
um given favorable action to something that doesn't kind of exist anymore because the petitioners and the select board have moved on to something else. I think the way I need to start is a motion to reconsider
our previous decision. And once we do that, we can take a motion for favorable action on I I assume what the petitioner is
proposing and what the select board has done and then we can take any amendments anyone might wish to uh propose on changing for instance the definitions. vote. Susan,
>> just right. I will move to reconsider. But just to clarify, the select board vote did not include this definition change. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so presumably
um and we now have another uh another constable here. Um, presumably then, Alec, I guess we would, assuming we vote to reconsider, I would um take a motion
from you on whatever your package is, however many changes it it has, and then um uh any amendments. So, do I have a second on the motion to recon? >> I'll second.
>> Thank you so much. So, let me share my screen. Okay. So, we have a motion uh to reconsider the previous AC vote on the renters's handbook.
Michael Burgerer, are you here? Nay. >> Harry Bors. >> Yes. Cliff Brown, >> yes. >> Anthony Buo, >> yes.
>> Elise Couture Stone, >> yes. >> John Dogget, >> yes. [laughter] >> Yes. >> Yes. Neil Gordon, >> yes. >> Susan Granoff, >> yes. >> Perry Gman,
>> yes. >> Kelly Hardback, >> yes. >> Alisa Jonas, >> yes. >> Janice Khan, >> yes. >> Brian Lad, >> yes. >> Alec Leovitz, >> yes.
>> Carol Levin, >> yes. >> Liz Linda >> might be late. >> Okay. Pam Lodish, don't think she's here. Josen Murphy, >> yes. >> Danell O'Neal,
>> yes. >> Lindolston Pelky, >> yes. >> Fran Pear, >> yes. >> Uh, David Paul, I think, is going to be late. Carlos Rido,
>> he put Okay. Uh Margaret, >> yes. >> Lee, >> yes. >> And Christine, >> yes. >> So by a vote of 23 to 0 to zero, we have
moved to reconsider. Um let me stop sharing. So um I am now up for motions. Um, Alec, I'll recognize you. >> So, so just to clarify, would your preference be to vote on the select
board motion first and then take a separate vote on amendments? >> No. No. I'm going to um >> one vote. >> I'm going to take No, I'm I'm going to take the motion. The I'll take the motion.
It we'll have discussion and we we'll also have Well, we've already been through discussion. I'll take the motion then if anyone wants to uh propose amendments >> okay >> to the main motion and then what we would do is we would move on that we
would vote on those amendments first and then whatever the final package looks like vote on that. >> So what we're the base [clears throat] vote is on the motion that the AC passed at our last meeting and then we will be
amending that. Is that what you're saying? No, no, no, no, no. We just took away what the AC voted. >> We There's nothing on the table now. There's nothing on the table and I'm opening it up >> for a motion which I would presuming
that the petitioner would make to propose whatever he's proposing either what the select board voted for the other night or what the select board voted for the other other night plus
whatever addition he has he has made as petitioner. Uh, and in that case, Harry, I'd be happy to move the version that I just screen shared. The two changes being the um insertion of the constable related provision in section 844
um which was the version the select board voted on and it additionally the uh including the amendment to the definition of agent of the town language acting in their official capacity. um at the end of that definition. >> I'll I'll second that and note that that
uh official capacity language is sufficient for me. >> Okay. So, we have a a a motion and a second. Does anyone wish to do any amendments? >> Okay,
>> Susan, >> I just have a question. Alec, can you repeat again what is the purpose of the change to the definition of agent of the town? What is the concern? >> The purpose is to clarify that when a
person who is a constable who also holds other um positions that could be that could meet the existing definition of agent of the town. that it is clarified that in their delivery of a notice to quit or other eviction related proceeding notice that they are acting
in their official capacity as a constable and not in the capacity as say a town meeting member or advisory committee member and therefore clarifying that they are exempt from mandatory compliance with the notification provision.
>> Okay. But all you're adding is the words acting in their official capacity. Is that what your proposal is? Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. But then it doesn't do what you're you want it to do because they have multiple official capacities. If they're
a member of the AC, that's a different official capacity. It this doesn't eliminate that. But but I think Susan, the the the idea here behind this amendment is there's nothing included in the official capacity of an advisory
committee member or a town meeting member that in any way relates to being a noticing agent in a in an eviction proceeding. Whereas constables that is very much part of their official duties and capacity. And therefore, um, that
would prevent there from being a challenge brought to say, um, you know, Neil delivering a notice and a and a, you know, litigant saying, well, he's an advisory committee member. He's an agent of the town. Why didn't he deliver the
notice? Uh, this would clarify. >> Then he could cite, well, that's not part of my official capacity as an AC member, but it is part of my capacity as a constable. The concern is that without the clarifying language, coincidental
service uh on the advisory committee or the police commissioner's advisory committee or any other board committee or commission, right, would say, well, you're an agent. You are an agent of the town as an elected official and you are
serving. And and this I think is they the hypotheticals could go on forever, but this is sufficient for me to say if I'm serving something as a constable, I'm not serving it as a member of the advisory committee.
>> Okay. Do we want to say specified official capacity? >> Specified where? If you're if you're distinguishing between an advisory committee because you have certain specified responsibilities,
you're trying to distinguish that from the specified obligations you have as a constable. >> Understood. I I I mean I think it's sufficient for for my purposes that um we we are specifically excluded
recognize now that I'm not engaged by the town to uh serve any eviction related notice. That's not happened yet. And I would just add to that that the bylaws pretty clearly set forth the official
responsibilities of the advisory committee and I think numerous other categories that will fall under this definition of agent of the town. Um so I feel fairly confident that that being the case um additional clarification here is not needed.
>> Okay. >> Right. Kelly Hard about >> Thank you. Geez, for my lack of voice. Um, my question, maybe you should type in, >> Kelly. We've We've lost you.
>> Sorry. Um, I I apologize. I have no voice left. Can you type your question in the chat? Has this language been reviewed by town council? And um that's the question. And
I would note, Alec, I'll certainly accept your answer, but town council is on the call. >> Um he may have before the select board. I'm actually not sure. So I' I'd be I'd welcome him to weigh in. >> Uh Mr. Galan,
>> good evening. Um, I have not seen it. I've been listening along. Um, I don't think there's any concern that I have. Um, this official capacity uh issue about, you know, um whether they're in
the capacity of um a constable or an AC member. I I don't think that can really be addressed by the definition. it would be pretty fact intensive to see, you know, on on whose basis they were retained and for what purpose. So, I'm
not ter terribly concerned about these um amendments, but I defer to the wishes of the AC about how they want the warrant article to be drafted, but it's not a concern of mine. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have a constable who has her hand up.
>> Yes, >> Regina. >> Oh, thank you. Just uh I'm wondering why you couldn't say process servers and that would cover any of the employees, any of the agents including constables.
It's generic and just a thought >> um just so I understand. So you would have it say acting in their official capacity as a process server. >> It's a thought. It's a suggestion. Yep. Okay. I just want to make sure I
understood the suggestion. >> Um, that's out there if any member wishes to move it. >> I would move it. >> Second it. >> That's Alisa. Mhm.
>> So, we have a motion and a second to amend um the acting in their official capacity by adding as a process server. >> And I would just note I I have no
concerns with the addition of that language uh and would actually support that amendment. >> Okay. So if you're willing to accept it as a friendly amendment, why don't we just add it on? >> So I'll then amend the motion that [clears throat] I had offered
previously, Harry, to um reflect that addition to the agent of the town definition. So now the inserted language would read at the end after town quote acting in their official capacity as a process server. >> Okay.
you are okay. Um, I have written that down. Thank you, Regina. Thank you, everybody. So, I think we're ready to go to a motion
which has already been moved and seconded. So um let me share my screen and make some changes. So handbook
motion to recommend support select board with the addition in section 8.40
adding at the and >> and I just posted the new language in the chat, Harry, if that's helpful. >> Um, so let me see if I can find the chat.
>> Uh, and and yes, Linda, the the moderator did review this language and did rule it within scope. C We uh so this is a motion for favorable action on the version of WA9 supported by the select board with the addition in
section 8.4.4 adding at the end acting in their capacity as a process server. Um, does this also include the changes to the numbering >> that uh the Scriber errors that Alec
mentioned? >> Um, it did not. >> The moderator >> Oh, go ahead. >> said he would do it on his own. >> It doesn't, >> right? It doesn't have to. I just wanted to clarify it. >> The moderator is still going to have to
do some affirmative action. Um, Michael Burgerer, not here. Harry Bors, >> yes. >> Cliff Brown, >> yes. >> Anthony Bono,
>> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. >> John Dogget, >> yes. >> David Mark, >> yes. Neil Gordon, >> yes. [clears throat]
>> Susan Granoff, >> yes. >> Perry Gman, >> yes. >> Kelly Hadbeck, >> yes. >> Elisa Jonas, >> yes. >> Janice Khan,
>> yes. >> Brian Lad, >> yes. Alec Leovitz, >> abstain. [clears throat] >> Carol Levin, >> yes. >> Liz Linder, not here yet. Pam Lotus, not
here. Josyn Murphy, >> yes. >> Danell O'Neal, >> yes. >> Lind Olsen Pelky, >> yes. >> Fran Pearler, >> yes. David Pollock not here yet. Calwood
Lejo. >> Carlos says yes in chat. >> Thank you. Margaret >> yes. >> Lee Elwin >> yes. >> Chris Westfall >> abstain.
stained. So, um by a vote of 21 in favor, no opposed, and two abstensions, um we have now made a new recommendation
for warrant article 9. Um, thank you everybody and we shall now move on.
I think now let me see is Michael Rubenstein here. I don't see that he's here yet. I will say um our subcommittee took this up and and made the original recommendation for the
advisory committee vote. Um and I have to speak to it at town meeting. Uh so I think I'm fairly familiar with it and the concerns that came from select board member Rubenstein as well as concerns that we had and I have like the rest of
you the um the memo that he sent us which is kind of clear. Um, I'd be happy to speak to it until he gets here. I also see Paul Warren is here, so he may want to chime in. Um, if you want to keep this moving along. >> Okay. So, Harry, why don't why don't you
start? >> Okay. So, um, briefly, I'll just say that this is a resolution that Heather Hamilton brought to us. Her concern was that there are meetings that are already being um
recorded, but for whatever reason aren't getting posted up to the town site where people can find them. Um as uh Neil Gordon had said earlier, in its simplest form, what this really means is we want to get things out of the shadows and get
them daylighted, which is sort of what she wants to do and we all want to do. Um, ultimately, uh, there's an interest in having sort of a technological fix where this would happen automatically, which is easier said than done, and that is not
specified in this resolution, nor should it be really. Um, but it does say pretty clearly from the standpoint of town meeting that we would like to get these things posted so that people can find them. Um, in the select board's motion,
their wording is a bit different than ours. Um, that's one of the hazards of offering the first motion, I suppose. However, they had and they still do unless they revote it. Um they have the phraseump bump bump
uh guidelines specified by so that this will be done uh according to guidelines specified by the select board or its designate. So what that does in essence is in a way uh grant agency to the
select board in this um um warrant article and it can be read or misread I suppose in in two directions actually. One is that it is the executive branch instructing the legislative branch, which it can't
really do. And keep in mind that there are plenty of board uh committees uh commissions that are appointed by the dyeleed um moderator. Um so it's sort of a separation of of
executive and and legislative branch. It can also be read in the opposite direction in that it is town meeting or the legislative branch trying to instruct the select board and we can't instruct the select board. We can ask the select board and we have before in
resolutions uh posed it as a question and and asked if the select board would do something and certainly we could rewrite it to do that. Um however everyone is really of the same mind essentially. We all want to get the same thing basically done. Um, any sort of
resolution shouldn't be so vague as that you don't understand what it is that you want. I think we all understand what it is we want and it shouldn't be too prescriptive that you paint yourself into a corner um or don't allow latitude to those who are really going to have to
enact it. So what is now coming before us is essentially that same language out of the select board but the last line no longer refers directly to the select board and what it says is published according to established guidelines and
procedures. Uh the select board has some that it has done on the executive side. Um, it has a handbook and it tells pretty clearly how you can quickly post these um, recordings up online. Um, and
it's probably a good guide for whether you're legislative or uh, an executive um, appointee. These guidelines may change over time or they may be supplanted or there may be something in addition to it. Uh, maybe
the moderator would want us to do something in addition. So to an extent this line may be somewhat aspirational but it also points to the issue of yeah we would kind of like to have some level of standardization and some place where everybody can go and find it not have to
look in every little corner. Um, in the short term, there's ways to do that that are not ownorous and a longer term solution that may be technological is not something that we should be prescribing in any particular detail and
this does not. Um, right now there are two versions. My guess is when it goes to town meeting, town meeting would love for us to have a single version. Um, we don't seem to be arguing about the intent. Um and I see Michael Rubenstein
is here so he can better discuss um his language and the motion that he's bringing forward which is neither the advisory committee nor the select boards at this point. >> Okay. >> So um before you go Michael Harry am I
clear that what Michael is now going to talk about has not been discussed by the subcommittee? >> It has not. That is correct. It has not been right. So, we have no recommendation on this newest language. >> Okay. >> And Michael, it's my understanding that
the select board is actually going to make a decision tomorrow night on this. Is that correct? >> Um yes. Uh follow that is correct. Following the actions of the advisory
committee now. Um um >> okay >> you you let me know when when I should proceed. >> You may proceed. I have given you co-host privileges. So if you have something you wish to share, feel free.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. I am just bringing up my stop. Okay. Give me one second. And bringing up this.
Okay. And sharing. Great. Okay. Can everybody see my deck? Great. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um so I want I just want to go
through a few slides and arguments. Um thank you very much Harry for that introduction and thank you for your uh your coordination uh to come up with these three uh three different options um before the select board. So um we
have before us the advisory committee version um the select board version and this third proposal. Um what I'm going to do through the course of of the next few minutes um I am going to argue um for the select board version and then
speak to the um the the new proposal um relative to that. Um but um let me let me start here. Um and as Harry said, um I think that there is a general consensus of what we are
all seeking. Um and I really want to speak to this point of standardization. Um because um standardization is a very is I believe an underutilized um aspect to what we can do as a public
service. Um standardization enhances transparency. Um it makes um makes our uh in the information that we provide easier to navigate. Um and in particular um the access to recording videos um is
suffers at the moment from a lack of standardization which is the problem that we're trying to correct. Um and I will and I will say that um across all of the public bodies whether they are select boardapp appointed or elected or
appointed through other parts of our um government that residents really expect consistency across all of our public bodies. Um there are a few principles that I would like to uh talk about in terms of
what makes uh useful website design. Um the first being that website design should really be optimized for its users, the consumers of the media. Um, and this really goes to the idea that while you may only post something once,
it will typically be read multiple times. And spending a little more time to make sure that the posting is done well so that users can more easily access it provides a better experience
for users. Um secondly, um users will expect consistent experiences so that if they're trying to find, for example, a video from one committee, they expect to be able to have the same experience in
searching for that video as they do from any other committee. Um and by creating guidelines, um we ensure consistency across all of those similar operations. Um, currently, and this I think is one of the reasons why this warrant article
was brought forward in the first place, there are at least three different ways that meeting recordings are posted. Um, we post them using the button like the meeting media button within the agenda center. There are some committees, including the advisory committee, that
have dedicated web pages for their recordings. And there are also some committees that include um recording links in their minutes which are themselves associated with the meetings in which the minutes are
approved as opposed to the meeting minutes uh the minutes that the me the meetings that the minutes apply to. Um so starting with the first two we have um the differences that are really
outlined um here. Um the advisory committee version says specifically posting to civic clerk or the current town website. Um whereas the select board version says made available to the public in a convenient and consistent manner. So the advisory version actually
has one very specific technical um uh option um and then a catchall that that basically covers all the different uh mechanisms that people are using for the town's uh for posting videos. Um there
there's a slight clarification in the select board version that I don't believe is under dispute about uh when the posting has to occur. Um and the select board is a little bit more precise in saying 10 days after the meeting ends as opposed to within 10 days of the meeting just to handle the
case where meetings may continue uh over time. Um and um the third which is the the question that Harry really raised um Harry Bors um about uh what the guidelines are for posting. Um and the
select board version says specifically published according to guidelines specified by the select board or its design. Um and note that this is just a requirement for how the con how the recordings are accessed. Um there is no
prescription here as to what the content is or how it's created or even in fact whether a recording is made at all. Um it is just a matter of standardizing access uh and providing consistency there.
Okay. Okay. So to distinguish between the select board version and the proposal as uh Harry mentioned before the only difference uh is in the third bullet here um which makes the um makes uh adds
a little ambiguity into into the established guidelines um and allows uh different um uh potentially uh different branches of government to establish different guidelines. Um, I think that's highly unlikely, but it is certainly allowed.
Um, and and to the points that Harry made about the separation of powers, um, as I said before, we're try only trying to standardize access. We're not trying to standardize content or in fact whether
or not uh, recordings are made. Um and we already have standardization in several places um across uh across the different branches of government. For example, we have already agreed that the agenda center is used by all public
bodies, the advisory committee, the school committee, the library trustees, all the select board um uh appointed committees and the select board itself all use the agenda center. And that standardization is very helpful when people are trying to um get access to
agendas and find out what public uh meetings are being held. Um and in another example of standardization, we actually have in our list of uh public bodies all of the public bodies listed in one place. Um and there's no distinction within those public bodies
of whether those public bodies are part of our legislative branch. um whether they are appointed by the select board or whether they're appointed by other uh other elected bodies. Um so so there's no there isn't a lot there are many
places within the website where the distinctions between branches aren't reflected um in the user interface. Um so um the reason that I'm advocating for the select board version specifically um is to provide that
public facing consistency um to provide standard guidelines so that everybody can go to the same place um and also um to provide a mechanism in which this process can adapt to changes
to the underlying technology. We do expect technology to change over time. um websites get refreshed. There may be changes to the underlying technology. There are new technologies being uh adapted and by having the guidelines in a central location um whether it's
managed by the select board or some or some other body um it allows those guidelines to be kept in in sync with the with the website itself and allows you know training to be more efficient for those staff members who are
responsible for implementing um these guidelines. Um so in summary, the select board version strengthens transparency for users, uh guarantees consistency, respects the separation of powers, um and improves public access. Um I would
just make one more point to the to one of the last details that Harry raised in terms of the town meeting um potentially directing the select board inappropriately. Um and I would say that in a number of cases um though I understand resolutions um are not the
same as other types of warrant articles but our legislative branch certainly forms bylaws and gives direction to the select board in terms of budget. Um they uh some of those bylaws for example uh instruct the select board to create um
other public bodies. um a most recent one being the uh council for youth. Um so so I am less concerned about bringing this to town meeting to uh take a vote for um the entirety of town government
to follow consistent guidelines. um now um to the third proposal and the distinctions um between the select board version and the proposal um if the advisory committee um is significantly
concerned about um not uh I'm sorry about having the ability to um to either follow its current practice um or to uh establish lish its own guidelines. Um
the third version would certainly the the third proposal the new proposal would certainly be an improvement over the current state of affairs and I would I would um certainly support that on the ground on the floor of town meeting. um
and I'm sure the select board uh would as well. Um but since if we have the opportunity to take the step of establishing stand uh guidelines that can help the town's operations and help
the user experience. Um I believe um that we as a town government should provide that experience for our users. Um, and I will leave it at there and for your consideration and thank you very much.
>> Thank you so much. Um, >> and I'm happy to take questions if you have any. >> Thank you. Um, I think you can stop the share. Great. Um, so the way I'm I'm thinking of proceeding, um, we had previously approved our original
language in Marinardo 18 by a vote of 24 to 0 to1. So I'm going to open it up to comments and at the end of the comments, I would be looking for a motion to reconsider.
If there is no motion to reconsider or should that motion fail, then we've already done our work. We have our original proposal. If the motion to reconsider passes,
then um we're free to start all over again and propose either uh the select board version or the proposal that Michael has brought to us tonight
that uh veers a little off from the select board version. So, uh, David Mark, let's open it up to, um, oh, um, Selectman Paul Warren. >> Hi, thank you. Um, I hadn't intended to speak, but I, uh, this is the first time
I've actually attended an AC meeting on this subject, and I can see the complexity that is before us for a resolution. We have three versions. Um, it would be really fantastic if we had one version uh, going before a town meeting. So before you got to the point where you voted to whether you're going
to reconsider or not, I thought I'd just quick a quick comment from my perspective alone. This isn't any other member of the select board. Um I, you know, I think Michael makes a reasonably good point about standardization. Um it's not about control, but I can certainly see uh and Bernard actually
spoke to this the other night, uh this issue of of violating kind of church and state, right? um we should stay within our lane. Um and I think the language that says uh you know according to uh
guidelines specified the select board it's it's designated could I could see where that could cause some concern for advisory and I don't think we've heard from the school committee yet. They also publish videos as well. Um I want to offer a suggestion in the hope of seeing if we can come together. Um I instead of
saying that the um the guidelines as published according to the select board's designate if we said something like agreed to by the select board school committee advisory committee. Remember this is a resolution. Um we're supposed to be working together. It's
good for our constituents in the public to be able to have standardization. But I happen to agree that maybe it's the select board should be the one solely dictating what that standardization is. I think we should work together. Um, you know, the three primary public bodies,
school committee, advisory, and select board. Let's work together to figure out what those standards are and then everybody agrees to if they have to be changed in the future, they change them. That would be my suggestion. Be great to have one version. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Um, David Mark, I'm turning it over to you. Please note that
Janice Khan is added her name to the comment. >> Well, she her name's not in the chat. It's just a raised hand. So that really doesn't count. >> Now [clears throat] it's in the chat. >> But um Paul, I just want to point out that uh there are some committees uh
appointed by the moderator. So you might want to add that as well. Uh first up is Neil Gordon. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh so just just a reminder, I chair the administration and finance subcommittee. Um this particular article uh sailed through with modest
clarification to the language as brought by the petitioner. Uh it was unanimously passed. It's it sailed through the advisory committee uh unanimously without amendment uh and without uh
controversy. Uh this wasn't complicated, right? and and it wasn't broken and the advisory committee remains not broken. I want two comments on the the the presentation much of which you know I I
agree with um but I find to be you know in in the weeds of how to uh we're not looking for best practices. I think Harry Bore said it well. We're taking this out of the dark into the light. That's the short version and I think
everybody understands that and everybody will do their best to implement it that way. As I said, it's not complicated. But I'll I'll I'll two two comments. Um it is not primarily this is not
primarily why the article was brought in the first place. It was not to provide a consistent single place. It was to get out of the dark and into the light. I've had many conversations with Heather about this.
Would you prefer it that way? Sure. It is not a primary reason why she brought it in the first place. Secondly, and and I have to say this with all due respect, instructing the select board is the legislaturator's job. That is not a
two-way street. That's not a two-way street. I won't say it. I won't say it the third time. This was not complicated when it was petitioned, when it was reviewed by the administration and finance subcommittee
or when it came to town meeting to the advisory committee uh and was unanimously recommended for favorable approval. It became compl complicated when the select board, I think in good
faith and and inadvertently and in in a way unthinking uh uh sort of crossed over uh in exceeding its authority over the school committee, the library trustees, the advisory committee, its subcommittees
and various other uh appointed committees not directly under the control of the select board, right? Bring this to town meeting in the form that was approved by the administration of finance committee and recommended by the full advisory committee without
controversy. Everybody understands and if the uh select board wants to present an ideal pro uh platform to implement this, everybody will jump on board. We've spent way too much time trying to make better something that is not
broken. Thank you. >> Thank you, Carol Levin. >> Hi. I I have to say I appreciated the clarity of what we originally voted on and I think that clarity is important
and um I have to think about my experience on the Pierce School Building Committee which is truly a hybrid committee of both town officials and school committee officials. But it is incredibly difficult to find those recordings just like it's incredibly
difficult to get the recordings t on a timely basis from the building committee the building commission excuse me. So I did not hear a persuasive argument as to why we should be moving off of our previously voted and approved
um version of this Warren article. And I think it's especially important, as I said, for things like the peer school building commission committee and other specially appointed committees that are hybrid between the school and the and the select board to make sure that
there's no question that these have to be on the civic website instead of hidden away in some committees website, which is certainly the case with the building the pier school building committees recordings. Thank you.
>> Hey, Janice, you don't uh want to say anything anymore? Okay, Harry, that uh Oh, let's see. Yeah, Harry, that's it. >> Okay, so what I'm going to do first is ask if any member of the advisory
committee wishes to put forth a motion to reconsider our previous decision. >> Harry Boris has a comment. >> Sure. Well, I'll do it as as as part of that. I'm willing to put forward a motion for uh reconsideration. Um if that fails, we are where we are.
If it passes, then I'm willing to also take this other version and put that on the table for a vote. Um, I would just briefly say that I think everyone is saying yes and when we get to the floor of town meeting, town meeting would
rather discuss that than hear a back and forth about what the best way to say yes is. Um, I don't think there's any utility in making this more complicated by changing language that says the school committee, the advisory, I I I
see no utility in that. I think there is some utility in reminding people that working towards some level of standardization, whatever that might mean, can be a good thing. But I don't think
this needs to specifically grant agency to the select board in order to do so. Um, so given all that, I would be willing to support this third version. Um, and if we decide to to revisit our vote, I'll
offer that as a motion. And if not, then we have what we have. >> So, you're offering a motion to reconsider. >> I am. >> And I'll second that motion, Harry. >> And Alex seconds it. We have a question from Linda Olsson Pelky. >> Yeah. Um, what does the original
petitioner have to say about all of this? Which version do they like? I don't believe we've ever seen the original petitioner. >> Brett may have something. >> She came once. >> Yeah, we did.
>> Okay. >> So, no one has an answer to that question apparently. Uh, >> I I would only say that that several of us have spoken to her and um I'm not sure that that we've gotten consistent
answers to that question from from her. So, I'm not sure that any one person's answer would be depositive. >> The the the version that the petitioner agreed to in a public meeting is the version that was recommended by the
advisory committee. And so regardless of their position, I mean, are we really going to have three different versions or two different versions at town meeting? So the select board has the intent to bring a different version.
>> No, >> no, >> they they already have a different version. There are currently two separate versions. a select board version and an advisory committee version and those are what are going to get at this point debated at town
meeting. >> No, maybe >> maybe. So, >> and right now we can decide whether we want to >> take this third version with the hopes that the select board adopts that as
well as Paul Warren seems to think so, but he can only speak about not >> the the select board at its most recent meeting on uh last Friday uh was going to to reconsider
the article and they decided uh not to uh pending the outcome. Uh they wanted to hear from advisory advisory first. I think there there was some discussion without a vote uh and some views
expressed by uh the chair uh over the prescriptive uh seating to the select board of language and he specifically mentioned uh separation of powers. Um I I I I
don't think that it is likely that uh we have three versions coming to town meeting. Right. The uh what we what we know is that the petitioner and the advisory committee have agreed on the motion. That's the current
recommendation and that will be moved as the primary motion um unless the petitioner decides to move some other motion whatever that motion might be. Petitioner's
uh able to it's not a town meeting member but but uh can can ask that that motion be moved. Um I if we stay with our original motion and that petitioner's motion is moved and the
select board on uh Tuesday or or or Wednesday as the case may be reconsiders, we could have one motion come to town meeting which I think would be a good move by the select board. Uh as as I said and I'll only repeat once
this is this is not broken, right? and I don't think requires compromise. >> Dennis Khan. >> Yes. Every time Neil speaks, um, it makes me put my hand back off because I I agree with Neil and and I I don't
honestly understand why the select board decided to do, despite Michael's very clear explanation, it still seems this is a resolution. Um, this is where we are now. The petitioner seemed in agreement with us. We had a very strong
opinion. I agree with Harry Bors also that you know the third version would be okay if that's where we end up. But honestly, um I I think we should just stick with what we have and bring it to town meeting. >> Okay, Paul Warren, you have your hand.
>> Um >> you know, wait a minute. I I have a comment, Paul. We're doing this as a favor to you because this is not the consideration that the rest of us get at select board meetings. We're given three minutes to
comment on something and then told to go shut up. So, out of my respect for you, I'm willing to give you another bite at the apple. But I would point out that at your meetings, this does not happen.
>> Thank you, Harry. Um, so I just wanted to clarify something. I'm not making a pitch either way that I I believe the select board may have voted this before AC voted. Um I think so I think we voted ours first and Neil Gordon was correct
in saying that we were going to reconsider our position at the last meeting. Um but in deference to our colleague um and we we were going to be a split vote um we wanted to let Michael come here and speak with you and and the
select board said we'd like to hear back from you guys. So um as I said my own opinion is you know one one is done. Um I don't think I agree we don't need multiple uh versions of this. So that's why I just wanted to clarify where where the select board was. Um, I personally
believe I voted on the original article and then maybe an amendment that was proposed. So, um, we have not considered your version yet, I think, is my point. >> Thank you. >> So, I think we're we're going to go to a vote now. Michael, you're you're nodding
your head in. I I believe I believe that the select board version that we approved was a revision to the advisories version not the original
>> um >> because it incorporates changes from the advisor. >> I will muddy the waters even further. In a conversation I had this morning with Melissa Goff, I was told the select board is waiting for the advisory.
So I think we're free to in any event we're free to do whatever. Um so I'm going to share my screen and we're going to vote on the motion to reconsider which has been proposed and seconded.
Okay, just one. Uh, okay. Vote number three. Warrant article 18 recordings of public meetings. Motion to reconsider previous AC vote.
>> Harry B. >> Um. Yes. >> Harry. Harry, you're freezing up your camera off. >> No. Anthony Bono. >> I'm going to vote no.
The ladies >> abstain. >> John Dogget. >> No. >> David Mark. >> Yes. >> Neil Gordon.
Neil Zado. >> Susan Granoff. >> No. Perry Gman. >> No. >> Kelly Hatbeck. >> Yes.
>> Alisa Jonas. >> Yes. >> Janice Khan. >> No. >> Ryan Lad. Yes, >> Alec Leovich.
>> Yes, >> Carol Levin. >> No. >> Jaws and Murphy. >> No. >> Denell O'Neal. >> No. Linda Olsson Pelky,
>> yes. >> Ben Per, >> no. >> David Pollock, not yet. Kos, >> he's voting no in the chat. >> Margaret,
>> yes. >> Lee Elwen, >> no. and Chris Westfall >> abstain. >> So by a vote of eight in favor, 13 against and two abstensions, we are not reconsidering.
Me stop sharing. See if I can turn on my video. So um I thank you Michael and Paul. Um I will be sending a note to um Melissa that we have chosen not to reconsider
our previous position. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And we shall move on to orange article 8, the lighting article. Um, I can see that uh the D I believe both
Davids are here. Uh, David Titel is here. Um, David Trevette is here. I'm missing David Pollock. Um, and Kelly has no voice. Um,
is anyone from advisory ready to explain what's going on or should I give an attempt and then we'll turn it over to the Davids? Um, well, actually, I'll turn it over to David Titel.
>> Sure. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak with everybody again today. Dave Titel, uh, town meeting member, precinct 8. Um, since we last spoke, um, there's been three things that have happened, um, which should inform whether or not you want to reconsider
this. The first is, um, this body did a straw poll on the Rubenstein amendment, which was included in the version that you voted on. Um, we have since struck that. The straw poll you had was 34 15 against, three abstensions. Um, that is
no longer part of the motion. The second was that you just have had more time with this. One of the concerns that was raised by this body was that um you had received the drafts within hours if not moments of the meeting and now
there's been a lot more time to digest. So that's something to consider. Maybe people have had different thoughts. But the key thing that I want to point out is the story of the two mo motions and why there are still two motions. Um, David Trevette and I had an incredibly
fruitful, frankly fun meeting where we spent several hours trying to find compromise and create a one motion to present to everybody. We thought we had succeeded. We then
went to the planning and building departments and presented it to them and said, "Does this work? Is this enforceable?" Um, they said no. And the difference between our versions is that they insisted that the bylaw needed to
have strict standards in order for them to enforce it. And they were very clear about this point. And this then created two versions. Our version has strict standards that were um drafted in concert and in um collaboration with the
building and planning departments. Um, and David Tvettes has criteria, but I won't speak for him. I will allow him to chime in. Um, to clarify, those standards again are match those of dark
sky and lighting um, bylaws that you see throughout the whole country. And the the limit on light trespass is 0.1 foot candle, which equals 10 times the light of a full moon. So, we spoke about this in detail. Very
few things have changed since you last saw it other than um planning had requested a total limit for the amount of light that any parcel would have. Um so, we included that. Um beyond that, in the Rubenstein amendment, nothing really has changed, but that's the history that
you guys um that I wanted to make sure I shared with everybody. Um and that is all I got to say about that. Thank you for the opportunity. >> Thank you. Um before I go to David
Trevette, I I just want to give our members an idea of where we are. This proposal had come before us. The Travette amendment had come before had sort of hit the uh email chain about an
hour before we met last time. we didn't really consider it and we voted by I believe a rather narrow vote um but we voted to send this to a moderator's committee. So the current
recommendation of advisory is to send this to a moderator's committee tonight. After we hear from everybody, I will take a vote on whether we want to reconsider
our decision to send it to a moderator's committee. If that fails, then we're done. If it passes then we have the titel and petitioners
petition as it currently sits. We have the TV version which is would be a I believe a substitute motion and um we have the option I suppose of just voting no action on everything. Um, so that's sort
of the direction in which we're going. And so I'm going to turn it over now to David Trevette to um to help make this a little clearer for us on his part. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you very much. Uh, good
evening everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Uh, David Trevette, town meeting member for precinct 2. Uh, I know it's late. I'll try to be brief but you just went through a discussion on nine where the devil was in the details and this is another one and so it's important to at
least highlight some of those details I want to emphasize two major points one Dave Titel has already said we had a great working session lots of exchanges some intense exchanges over several days and we came up with a compromise that we all could agree with all the petitioners
from both of these versions but the petitioners wanted full planning support and that did not that was not granted to the um to the compromise. So I decided to go ahead and submit the compromise. So what you see in front of you from me
my amended um my amended substitute is basically the compromise. It includes things that I changes that I made to my original because they were requested by the petitioners or by um or by planning
um and I'm trying to continue a dialogue with planning. We still have differences uh understanding here and so I'm trying to continue that. My second point is that my core issue remains. The petitioner's version seeks to enshrine into our town bylaws new
standards that have not been discussed or debated in any of the hearings that have been held on this article. Standards that were not in the article as it was originally proposed. They were added later roughly a month ago and that have not received a full public hearing
and which in my opinion are not actually needed in order to address the question of lighting laying nuisance complaints. An email that I received from planning just this morning in response to my question to them seems to confirm that
that they do see this article as establishing new standards for regulation of outdoor lighting. Ask yourselves, did you view this article as establishing new outdoor lighting regulations? Do you recall any discussions of the specifics of those
proposed standards? Can you answer the following questions about these proposed standards and conditions? Why would a lighting nuisance that occurs before 10 p.m. be exempt? Remember, it gets dark by 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. uh in the winter. Why should very dim outdoor lighting be
um regulated as strictly as very bright lighting? Why should holiday lights be turned off at 10 p.m. if they're not very bright? Why should brightness limits for entry lights be so much lower than those for certain other types of outdoor lighting? If a lighting fixture is installed on a porch or other
structure with a roof and that roof prevents the light from going up to the sky, doesn't that help address some of the dark side concern? Why should the standards, if these were enforced as general regulations, require the replacement of hundreds of light
fixtures all over Brooklyn when simply changing the light bulbs to a much lower level would eliminate lots of excessive lighting in town? We need common sense, pragmatic, easily understood and effective lighting regulations in Brooklyn without causing
unnecessary costs to our residents. My article meets those requirements with regard to lighting nuisances. Establishing broader general outdoor lighting requirements requires a public airing and discussion that the proposed standards in the petitioner article
simply have not had. They should not be tucked away in a subsection that people haven't been paying enough attention to. My article is focused strictly on lighting nuisance, only on lighting nuisance, nothing else. It offers a clear, well-defined, measurable approach
to dealing with these issues. Back when I was responsible for all the self central business systems of the University of Chicago, I worked closely with the university's legal and purchasing staff to review and negotiate major software um contracts and service agreements. I learned to pay close
attention to the detail language because the devil is in the details. I was often the one who spotted contradictions, unintended consequences, or other problems in those documents. The details do matter. Because of that history, I cannot support a backdoor approach to
adopting new standards in our bylaws. Remember that the petition and I did come to an agreement on a motion. We fully agree with the need to address lighting nuisance and even longer term to adopt general outdoor lighting standards. But as I said in my email to the town meeting members list, I
consider the latest version to set a dangerous precedent. Adopting new standards without public debate is simply wrong. Therefore, if you can't support my substitute motion, I urge you to vote for referral. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um David Titel, I will come back to you. Um you know, the petitioners are here for to answer questions and we'll give both the Davids a chance to uh before we vote on
anything wrap up. Um David Pollock, I know you arrived late. Is there anything before we go to questions and comments that you wish to add? If for no other reason than your name is David and it would seem to fit in.
I will take that as a uh as a no. I thought >> he he was here a moment ago. >> Yeah, but I don't see him now. >> Okay. So, in any event, uh, David Mark, take it away.
>> First up is Lee Owen. >> Thanks. Um, you know, I I I have viewed this uh this motion, I mean, this this um article as
something of of an overkill. Uh there's clearly a problem that has been identified. There are certain houses that have adopted egregiously bright outdoor lighting. And I'm very
sympathetic to the effort to try to constrain that. What I'm not sympathetic to is adopting standards that don't really get to that issue. And I looked over the most recent version and it seems to me that the the the
thing that has always troubled me the most since this first came before the the the land use subcommittee was this notion of light trespass. The the the the version that was was circulated the day or so ago or whatever it was. I I didn't get to look at it
until today. um now has a limit on the lumen output of any individual luminire or light bulb and a second limit on the total
light output in lumens of from any single any individual property. uh the individual light bulb would be at 500 as I understand it and uh the maximum for any property would be 1500 lumens
um which is I'm uh roughly equivalent to uh 150 watt bulb and uh one as the as the out the size of an individual bulb and three 50 watt bulbs overall.
I actually consider these standards to be a little uh on the low side. Uh I was looking at my own house and we have outdoor lighting of consisting of four 60 W bulbs spread over about 100 ft and
uh I don't think it bothers anybody. But that said, it seems to me that those standards accomplish two things. First, they focus on the glare issue. They address the uh
the egregiously bright lighting that everybody seems most troubled by because they put maximum um limits on any individual light source. And second, they are enforcable
because unlike the light trespass concept where, you know, there are different approaches that can be used. I I I did it mathematically the other day. Others have gone I've gotten several phone calls in the last uh day and a
half um uh about this from proponents of of the of the Warren article. um and uh suggesting that they went and used a light meter um and they were getting measurements overall that were, you
know, at or below 0.1 even with respect to some of those very bright uh uh light situations on West Roxbury Parks Parkway and in South Brooklyn. Um, so that doesn't surprise me because a light
photographic or photography oriented light meter is going to look at the essentially take an interpolation across the entire scene that it sees. And since there's one bright light source, that's not going to necessarily affect the overall reading
uh uh terribly much. In fact, uh, you know, you could have 500 lumens or a 50 watt 150 watt bulb or 51 watt bulbs and you can get entirely different readings uh, using a light meter even though the the lumin the
total lumen output might be exactly the same. So, what I think we could do to address the glare and very bright light concerns
is to simply delete all references to light trespass. That's been the most troubling thing from my perspective. So, I took the the latest version and if you'll let me share my screen, I'll show you what I did.
And I'm not I'm usually not very good at this. >> I I have made you a co-host. >> Okay. >> Um I I would just add as an editorial comment, Lee. >> Yeah. that if we're if we find ourselves
in a position tonight where we're doing a lot of amendments and word smithing, then perhaps our original proposal to send it to a moderator's committee might make more sense. >> Well, I'm not sure I necessarily
disagree with that, but um there seems to be there seem to be a number of folks that think this is so important that they want to move it forward. So, I'm trying to I was trying to basically come up with a way to do that. Are you able to see this? Did I do it right?
>> Yes, we can see it. >> Okay. So, what I've done here is uh Wait a minute. I opened the wrong file. Let me un unshare. I got to do this over Harry.
>> That's okay. Um, >> so hit the unshare red button or green button and and start a new. >> Okay, hang on just one second. What I need to do is get rid of some junk [clears throat] on my screen so I make
sure I'm looking at the right file. While you're doing that, I will note to members of the committee that I had a text conversation um with our chairman, Dennis Dowy, on Sunday.
I asked him how he was doing. He said he uh had great fatigue, had a slight headache, a very large scar, and a black eye on the right side.
So, I said I would report to people that he had never looked or felt better and that he recommended a brain transplant to anybody and he agreed that that was the route to go. So, Lee, go ahead. Well, that sounds really exciting. A
brain transplant. I have to think about that one. Um, all right. So what I've done here is I've gone through this version and essentially everywhere where there is a reference to um light to uh light trespass I simply
deleted it. Everything I've everything I've highlighted in green and I'll go through this slowly is what I'm proposing be deleted. I haven't added any other language. I've just simply deleted references to light transport. So what we have left is essentially
focusing on glare and we have the limits of um light output at the source. And I can I can email this around or however you'd like. And I apologize for
it being coming so late, but I was just trying to come up with a solution that would let us potentially vote on something instead of referral. Um, because I think that this eliminates the
the most problematic part of the draft. Um, the reason I said that I consider this also way more enforcable than a light than a light trespass approach.
You know, while while a a potential complainant can't necessarily walk across the neighbor's property up to the light source and measure its output at the source. the
building commissioner can if if there's a complaint, the building commissioner can go and determine whether or not the uh individual light source exceeds the um uh specified limits. And if it does,
then the um offender has to do something about it. Uh and if it doesn't, that's the end of it. Uh it's much less ambiguous. it directly addresses the problem of glare and um I think you know it's a way to
accomplish what the petitioners have in mind without this sort of excessively broad and and potentially difficult to enforce approach by putting limits on
the light source we also avoid the you know I I'll know it when I see it problem because you've quantified what the um uh you know what would constitutes constitute a an unacceptable
level of um of light coming by measuring it at the source. So, um, if if the body mo moves to reconsider, then I would offer this as as a potential amendment
that might get us to a point where we could go forward with a a recommendation other than referral and perhaps also um um consider referral
uh to refine this further. For example, I think that again I'm not going to propose changes in the 500500 numbers that are here, although I think they are not unreasonably low, but they're a start and we could address that uh going forward. But this gets to
the problem of the extremely bright lights that uh of the type that we saw in the uh those photographs last week. >> Thank you, Lee. I think you can stop sharing. I'm I'm going to do that. >> And um
>> Lee, are you done? Are you done, Lee? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Next up is Janice. >> Hi. So, um I wanted to um address a couple of the reasons I've heard for um
for wanting to do this um referral. And that is two concerns that town council raised. One was um saying that Brooklyn has a history of regulating lighting through the zoning bylaws and therefore can't regulate it now through a general
bylaw. And the other one has to do with um concerns the select board um I heard talking about they were concerned about lawsuits. So just to briefly update you on my research. So this weekend I did
some research and to also update you, I am um married to one of the co-petitioners. So I've been following this but I have not been writing this. So anyway, so over the weekend I took out my
2006 version of the zoning bylaw and it and that date's going to be important because it predates the 2010 nuisance control bylaw and it predates 2016 when town meeting approved the changing of
article 7 science illumination regulated facade alterations into a zoning bylaw that strictly regulated signs, including illuminated signs. And um in looking at 7
um 7.04, it's really clear that that was meant to be a sign bylaw, not a general lighting bylaw. In fact, lighting is only general lighting is only mentioned very briefly and a couple of subsections, but the vast majority of
the actual sections are related to either signs or facade and that's it. So, it's it's no way a lighting bylaw. And um and then um let's see. So what it
does say, the only thing it does mention is that in all light in all districts, all lighting shall be installed and maintained so that no direct light or glare shines on any street or nearby property. And I looked at the definitions which are in section article
2 definitions section 2.07 for definition of glare. There is no definition of glare, nor is there a definition for illumination because both illumination and glare are understood. And I think Lee made that point well. So
what we do have though in the zoning bylaw is article um 4 section 4.07 contains the table of use regulations and number 47 in that section notes that notes the following. Any trade, industry
or other use that is noxious, offensive or hazardous by reason of vibration or noise or the emission of odors, dust, gas, fumes, smokes, cinders, flashing or excessively bright light, refuge matter or electric magnetic radiation is banned
in all districts si. And when I looked at um you know when I looked in the in the index for nuisance it brought me to this particular section of 4.07. So we had nuisances. These are all
considered lucent nuisance set in including noise and light but um but we actually passed our nuisance bylaw in 2010 which is well after we
have this um in our zoning bylaws. So that is certainly one area where um we wrote it in zoning but afterwards we put it into our general bylaws and that's because um well anyway so we have
a history of addressing nuisances such as noise or lighting even signs. So that's the other thing too in our zoning bylaws. And then when an issue becomes a significant community concern, it's brought separately to town meeting to become part of our general bylaws. And
here is a copy of our general bylaws. And the general bylaws that are are of real concern are those in section 8, which deals with community well-being. So um so so
that's one thing but the issue of potential lawsuits is the other and a reason some of the select board members gave their um gave a reason for supporting referral. But our general bylaws right now contain many articles that could be subject to lawsuits
particularly in part seven and part eight sorry which deals with public health and safety. That's where noise and nuisance bylaws, for instance, are located. But does that mean we need to just get rid of our general bylaws because we might be sued? So, I would
say that um this is absolutely appropriate to do this article in our general bylaws. And furthermore, that um the time is now. The um building and planning believe this is enforcable.
Um, and we should get it done. We we can't keep kicking the can down the road all the time. Our our um departments have a lot on their plate already. And
um, frankly, we have standards in the noise bylaw. We have standards in the leaf lower bylaw. I doubt everybody in Brooklyn knows what those standards are. And um we leave it to the experts to to define what standards are. Um I
certainly am not an expert in in noise. So I urge us to all reconsider and um and support this article. Thanks. >> Thank you, Janice. Uh Christine,
>> um I I would say that we should stick with our referral motion. Uh it's clear that there's a conflict between the two Davids on which way we should go with this. Um that we haven't discussed what the standard should be long term. Um, I
understand, you know, what what Janice is saying about that, although I would point out that we have revisited the noise bylaw. I can't tell you how many times. And rather than uh and and don't even go there with leaf blowers and
noise, um, rather than do something just to get something done, I think we could take a little more time and actually do it right. And so I would suggest that we go with our original motion which is referral.
>> Okay, Alisa. >> Um I am a and I'm sorry to say this David and David, but I agree with Christine that I think we should keep with referral. Um I have been looking at these two different um versions for
about an hour to try to identify all the differences, what's included, what's not. Um what I'm finding I agree with uh David Trevette that I think it's very confusing to put standards into a
nuisance bylaw that has nothing to do with whether lighting is a nuisance. So, so it the purpose of this bylaw, we're told, is uh to prohibit excessive
outdoor lighting during certain hours, 10 to 6, which I also find somewhat problematic. Um, but let's see. The blinking lights, outdoor lighting shall not flash, blink,
or change in color. I see I do not see how that's relevant to a determination of whether something is causing a nuisance or not. I can see that it's a lighting standard and we might want to put that into a bylaw about standards
about lighting, but it really has nothing to do with nuisance. Um, let's see. I think there was another one that I found that was similar to that. Um, I am also concerned about the pro The
exceptions to the prohibitions E and F, cafe lights and shielded directional luminires and temporary holiday seasonal seating uh lighting. We are told what is okay to
do for those lights to have them not be a nuisance, but then we're told that they have to be shut off by the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. And I know that was the biggest concern in the um
the meeting that we just had last night in our precinct. Does everyone have to turn off their holiday lights at 10 p.m. even if they're not too bright? Um, I'm also concerned
there's a lot of confusion that for me it was very confusing. On the one hand, the main purpose of the lighting nuisance we are told is um to address uh outdoor night uh nighttime lighting
during the hours of 1000 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. That's a nuisance. And yet when it says prohibition of lighting nuisance and standards and materials for compliance,
uh it's not clear to me when we're dealing with the hours of 10 to 6 that the building commissioner has to follow up or if it's just at any time during the
day. um if at if it's too bright. Um so I just don't understand the 10 to six why we would want to place that restriction on it. If it's five and it's there's glare, then perhaps that should be of concern,
especially if it's considered a nuisance. Um I'm still bothered by including public monuments and public properties under applicability. Um the section applies to outdoor lighting and residence districts
originally originating from private residential properties except for the following. Public monuments and public properties are not an exception. It is part they they are not included as part of the
definition of the first line. I think for people it'd be confusing and they would say wait a second am I not understanding the first line right? Maybe there can be commercial properties on uh commercial buildings on residential properties. I I just think
that I I understand the reason why it was put in, but I don't think it belongs there. Um so I I just have a lot of various I I can go through some other
concerns. Um, but I I I just think it could be improved upon. I do think that David Tvettes is much more organized. I think it's clearer. I don't understand the problem with mentioning the term
criteria instead of standards. I think it would be so easy. I mean, David, I almost think you should have just changed criteria and said pro these provisions if you have to comply with these provisions. Um, but even with
yours where you discuss um night uh nighttime lighting uh the applicability where is it? Um, oh, the section applies to outdoor
lighting and residential districts originating from private residential properties after dark, uh, especially during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. I think that could cause a complication for the building commissioner because what does that
mean? especially between does that mean you maybe have to uh enforce in one situation but not in the other because it's especially so I I find that a little problematic. Another concern that
I've just generally thought about is um and that's for both of them the temporary lighting for construction sites. Um, I think the example that Jocelyn has given, uh, deals with a property that has had lighting on a
construction site, uh, but it's been there forever. I don't know what they're doing with that building, but it remains there. And I personally think that we should have a a time restriction on how long that kind
of lighting could be allowed because if it is lighting that's disturbing everyone and it's there for a year because it's temporary because it hasn't been done. I I think that's something that should be addressed. So I'm not sure that the concern that Jocelyn had
would even be addressed by this. Um, so anyways, I just I think it would benefit from some more work putting together the heads of all these great minds that have thought about things like this and come up with one
for the next town meeting. >> Thank Thank you, Alisa. Dave, David Mark, before you go to anybody else, um David Pollock has been bouncing in and out because I think he's trying to go to
two meetings at once. David, I want to give you the opportunity while you're here if you have anything to add to this conversation since you're the chairman of that subcommittee. >> Yeah. No, I'm not in two meetings at once.
arrived at War3. I was actually last hill community ad group meeting and I ran home but now I've been struggling with technical difficulties which is why I'm on my phone. So I I I' I've been exclusively paying attention to this conversation.
I've been tracking I don't have much to say. I've been tracking this very closely uh since we since advisory took it up and obviously before um and uh I I uh I followed the work that David Trevette and David Titel did
uh and then subsequently the you know um the presentation at uh the TMMA and and Brooklyn neighborhood alliance and and I I um I will simply say speaking as one
highly informed member of advisory that I also think that that this ought to be that this should be referred and taken up uh very carefully and and thoughtfully so that we really get the right um the right solution and and I
won't repeat the things that Alisa just went through but those are very much the kinds of concerns I have that it isn't well constructed law and that we want well constructed law. >> Thank you so much. Uh David Mark, take
it take it back. Take it away. >> Next up is Carol. >> Hi. Thank you. So, I also feel that this really needs to be uh referred as we passed. I think the petitioners have
problems that they're focused on addressing, but they aren't really thinking about the unintended consequences. And you know, I live in North Brooklyn. I live on the hill above the high school. And the tea runs till I think it's 1:00 a.m. during the week and
2:00 a.m. on weekends. And we have people walking on the streets late at night. Kids, adults. I've come home at 11:00 at night when I'm walking. And the street lights are only on one side. And the excuse me, the lights on houses, which I
think many people would say are too bright, are really important for the sense of pedestrian safety that I know I have and other people have when we're walking around North Brooklyn late at night. And I'm I'm really concerned that um that hasn't been given uh ample
consideration in these two warrant articles that what is one person's nuisance is another person's safety blanket. So, I'm not going to vote for reconsideration. Thank you,
>> Neil Gordon. Uh yeah, I I want to go back uh my my question to this seems like a long time ago where there was mention of a compromise as between Dave and Dave on the petitioners version and
the uh sponsor of the amended version and that that that there was an agreement but the third party planning uh disagreed and so do I have this right? And so the compromise fell apart
because we had the the the petitioner and the amener in agreement but planning disagreed and and you know is it I'd like to understand a if that's I get that right
right and why it is important if it is important for planning to agree. Um I can c I can speak to that. Um so the answer is that on behalf of the my co-petitioners um the third rail for all
this is that it needed to be enforcable. If the point of this fundamentally in our minds is to enforce Brooklyn residents to be able to take complaints to their neighbors knowing that they'll have town backing. That means they need to have town backing. And the planning
and building departments were adamant that the compromise um motion that we shared with them they could not adequately enforce. They they insisted on specific language so they could do their job and that was
a deal breakaker for our group. Um, >> let can I if I can I'm sorry for interrupting, but do do um do do you and your you know compromised partner agree that it's not enforceable or is
I I we took speak on behalf of our group. I don't want to speak for David. We took Dan Dan Bennett and his team's, you know, comments at face value because they're the ones that are going to have to go on the field. They're the ones
that are going to have to make the measurements. They're the ones who are going to have to make the determinations and ultimately levy the fines. And if they feel that they did not have language behind them that would empower them to do it, they're either not even going to bother or it's not going to
work. And those are both deal breakers. So that's what broke apart the compromise amendment. And that's why, as I said at the beginning of my comments, while the language of these two are very similar in nature,
where they're different is where planning insisted on language. Some of the language that's been mentioned as um why do we need this here? This seems superfluous. Is language planning specifically insisted upon. Am
I >> say I'll say yeah I'll sure go ahead. >> Yeah. >> Um so a couple of things. No one has been able to explain to me how those specific things that are listed as shall and shall not language are in any way
relevant to enforcing as far as I'm concerned a very clearly defined and measurable bylaw governing light trespass and only light trespass. It says here's the definition. This is what it is. First, there has to be a
complaint. somebody has to been disrupted or they're discomforted by that, then there's a measurement that's prescribed. And if you've got both the complaint and a repeatable measurement, then that can be as a violation. I have
no idea why things that list, if you think about it, in 8x4 is a list of what will not be in force. I I look, I can't tell you how much I value and respect our expert and
hardworking staff and and I'm absolutely baffled. I've said this to them. I'm totally baffled by why we're seeing this so differently. Please tell me and and I've written this I mean I I I've written this out. Here's why I am objecting to A, B, C, D, and E. I've
sent that to them. Um, and I had managed I don't think, maybe I'm wrong, Dave Titell can correct me. I don't think they were able to talk directly with Dan Bennett. They relied on planning communications with Dan Bennett. I was able to arrange a very short conversation with Dan Bennett, but it
was unfortunate. He was the only time he could get back to me um was when he was driving home in the car and that was after my trying for at least a week and a half. Um, and I specifically asked him, I said, "Am I removing something that keeps you from doing your job?" And he said, "Well, I want to make sure that
a these two things are in." I said, "Yep, they're still in there." Um, so as far as I'm concerned, my opinion is that my article is very enforcable because it tries to do one thing and one thing only, deal with lighting trespass complaints.
So to to to be clear, right, before you were told it would staff that it wasn't enforcable, did the two of you believe your compromise article was enforceable? That's part A. And part B
is it not enforcable because in the opinion of planning uh is it not enforcable because it's not clear what the standard is or is it not enforcable because there's insufficient staff to
address the potential complaints. >> I can I can speak to that. Um, we did suspect it would be enforcable and um, sorry, we did suspect it would be enforceable. We were informed it was
not because the language was not strong enough. Um, staff was not the concern that was ever addressed to us. It was about the language of the language saying you removing the shall and shall not language changing the word standard
to criteria was deemed not strong enough for them to be able to speak. That's what they told us, but you'll have to hear it directly from them. Um, and presumably they will be there tomorrow to be able to speak to that point. Um, but that is the instruction they told
us. They were very clear about that and that is what broke that compromise but it was never about a staffing issue. Um um I Dan Bennett has said in multiple places I think maybe with this body but
honestly they're blurring that you know he didn't you know didn't suspect there'd be a surge and if there was a lot they would pri he would prioritize the ones that mattered most and were the most egregious. Um, but there didn't seem to be any any voice I've heard
about a fear of staffing. Quite the opposite, we worked so closely with them, they had ample opportunity to say, "This is going to be uninforceable because we don't have the staff." That never came up, not once. Um, I it is somewhat ironic that some of
the points that Alisa pointed out with regard to my article were things that I originally weren't in mine and I put back in as a result of the negotiation with the original petitioners. They
insisted that the the statement about, you know, government properties, etc. be back in, some other things be back in. I didn't think those were necessary. I thought they were redundant. I thought they were confusing. They thought they helped understanding and so and and I
didn't want any hours referenced in the general in the introductory section. Um but my notion of that especially during the hours of 10 to 6, I was trying my best to do something because planning says you have to have 10 to six in there. They said we insist on that. I
didn't want it. And so that's why they wanted to get rid of the afterd dark. They said that's not, you know, nobody knows what that means. I'm sorry. I think people do what need know what afterdark means. Um, so I inserted that especially 10 to six as some way to try
to deal with what they were suggesting. >> Neil, are you done? >> I'm done. Thank you. >> Okay, Harry, that's it. >> Okay. Um, just just to be fair here, David and David, do you have anything?
Uh, actually, let's go to Joselyn's comment. >> Thanks very much, Harry. I'm sorry about that. I didn't realize that. I I I didn't realize that I'd run out of time there. Um, so I I just want to speak in favor of this article. Um, I I really
appreciate the amount of time that both David's and and the rest of the team put into this because I think this is a very important issue. Um, the ACPH, the Advisory Council on Public Health, took this article up earlier this evening.
They didn't vote on it, but they did discuss it and they acknowledge that this is a public health issue. Excessive lighting is bad for um public health. It it is there there is there's a plethora
of journal peer-reviewed journal and other artic medical articles on this pointing out that excessive lighting messes with people's circadian rhythms which causes a whole host of other issues. So I want to be certain that people know this is a matter of public
health not to mention the environmental issues but putting that aside for a moment. 64 other communities in Massachusetts have lighting bylaws or ordinances and for some reason we can't get it together
and get a lighting bylaw passed. I just can't understand it. You know, the perfect is the enemy of the good. We should have something in the books so that Dan Bennett and his crew can start enforcing what is really egregious
lighting. And it's not just it's not just light pollution and and you know lighting into people's houses and so forth. It's also glare which is really dangerous. I think I described earlier the the light on Newton Street that
frankly was blinding to me as I approached this intersection. Um it's particularly an issue for older people because they tend to have imperfections in their eyes which cause light scatter. So, it's a it's a circumstance that is
exacerbated. Glare is exacerbated by people that have um poor eyesight. So, I think we should get something on the books. We can fix it later if it's imperfect. This is an article that that both Dan Bennett and the planning
department have said that they can enforce. It's time. This is reminding me of the tree bylaw. It took 20 years to get a tree bylaw passed. Let's just get it done and start improving the quality of life for people that have lights shining in their
bedroom windows and um are creating traffic hazards. Thank you. >> Thank you. So again, I want to be fair to the two Davids. Um you've made extensive comments within the last to to Neil Garden. Is there anything you wish
to add before I take a motion for reconsideration? David, can I tell let you go first? >> Yes, please. Thank you. Um, I just want to clarify some things that were some um misconceptions that I heard through comments from this body. Um, the first
is that I want to remind everybody this is a nuisance bylaw, which means it is complaintdriven and it action only happens when there's a complaint, which means that holiday lighting doesn't have to be turned off unless there is a
complaint about it. It's not that everybody has a curfew. Um, there was comments about how we have to replace hundreds and hundreds of bulbs. We do not have to replace hundreds and hundreds of bulbs. We have to replace specific problematic bulbs that meet the
criteria of nuisance as defined. And these these issues that we've been talking about, these standards, really what this is is these are guidelines that building needs to be able to ascertain, does this reach the level of
nuisance. It's it's an instruction book, if you will. It's there to help them be able to show up with a light meter and say, "Okay, does this meet the level of nuisance?" And then they provide safe harbors for residents. So they know,
okay, if I lower my the temperature of this bulb, I'm now within the allowable zone. It can't be called a nuisance. So it's there to help the residents meet the goals. It's there to help the building department identify the issue.
So I just wanted to clarify those points. Um anyway, thank you very much for one last opportunity to speak. >> Harry, >> thank you >> Harry. >> Yeah. >> Uh I'm just wondering if the pet No one has commented about the suggestion that
I made to eliminate references to to light trespass. I wonder if the petitioners could at least opine and whether that would be acceptable to them because that's certainly going to affect my vote on reconsideration. >> So David Titela, let me go back to you for that specific question.
Um, I'm gonna I'm gonna punt on that. And the reason I'm going to punt on that is for the same reason that we broke up the compromise, which is I don't want to tell you that we're open to it and then find out that planning says that makes
it uninforceable because then I'm just going to do a 180 on you. So until until our town officials can deem that that approach would be enforcable, I don't think it's fair that we speak to it for ORCON. Does that make sense?
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> David Tette, if you could answer that question and then whatever else you need to add. >> Yes. Um responding to both Lee's question now and what he said earlier remember that in my in my document there
is one and only one measurement and that's taken at a light manner at the light at the lot line. You don't have to go up to somebody else's house. I tried my best the the the lot level um lumin uh limits I I did not include those in
mine. Um, I did include a little bit in the so-called get out of jail free cards. Um, be because that's, you know, that kind of language is something I was trying my best to conform to what the petitioners and planning wanted to see.
But that's only about what is not going to be enforced. That is nothing to say that this is going to be enforced in my I don't talk about standards. I don't talk about shall or shall not. It's only in the petitioner's version that you
find shall and shall not language standards for compliance. I don't have that language. I'm not trying to put in new general outdoor lighting standards. And so there's a complaint, there's a measurement at the lot line. And if you are somebody who's being offended by a
neighbor, you're certainly going to allow the buildinger to come up to your come onto your property, go up to the lot line between you and your neighbor and measure the light light that is coming into your property, you are going to be able to do that. And my contention
is that if it's strong enough that most glare problems that we're hearing about, the light is strong enough to trigger that measurement and be in excess of it. So I would I I'm do not support getting rid of that measurement. No. >> Okay.
>> Thank you so much. Um so I want to now see if anyone wants to propose. So our current our current recommendation is to send it to a moderator's committee is
referral. Does anyone want to propose um reconsideration of our current position? I'll move it. Going once. >> David Mark is moving it. >> I'm sorry.
>> David Mark moved it. I will second it. >> Okay. So, we will go to reconsideration. And if reconsideration fails, then we've we've got our our referral motion. And that's what the position of the advisory committee is. If recons if
reconsideration passes, it's 9:15 at night and God help us. I don't know what's going to happen, but we shall see. So, let me share my screen. Actually, I'm going to turn off my video and then share my screen.
Okay, this is vote number four. Nuisance lighting motion to reconsider previous AC vote. Harry Bors, >> no. >> Cliff Brown, >> no.
Anthony Buono, >> no. >> Elise, >> no. >> John Dogget, >> no. >> David Mark Goldstein, >> yes. >> Neil Gordon,
>> yes. >> Susan Granoff, >> no. Perry Gman, >> come back to me, please. >> Kelly Habbeck, >> no. >> Alisa Jonas,
>> no. >> Janice Khan, >> yes. >> Brian Lad, >> yes. >> Alec Leovich, >> yes. Um, Carol Levin,
>> no. >> Josyn Murphy. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Pam was here a few minutes ago. >> I'm here now. >> Oh, okay. Um, >> sorry, I came in late and I'm voting. No, >> no, no. Good to see you. How are you voting, Pam?
>> No, please. >> No. Thank you. Danell O'Neal. >> Yes. >> Yes. Lindolson Pelky, >> no. >> Fran Pearllor,
>> yes. >> David Pollock, >> no. >> Carlos Ridujo, >> you voted yes in the chat. >> Thank you. Uh Margaret, >> yes.
Lee Elwin, >> no. >> Chris Westfall, >> no. >> So, by a vote of 10 in favor, 14 against, and >> I'll I'm going to vote no. >> Oh, Perry, I'm sorry. Perry,
>> I'm going to vote no. >> No. Okay. Thank you. So by a vote of 10 in favor, 15 against, and uh no abstensions, we are sticking with our recommendation to uh to send this to a moderator's
committee. Um let me get out of this. I thank um I thank the two Davids um for all their hard work on this. Um, we shall see what happens tomorrow night. Um, >> thank you for the opportunity.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, I never thought I would say this, but now we come to the easy one, which is Clark Road. Um, because there's very little for us to do here, and I can hope
we can handle it rather quickly. We have um approved warrant article 7 by a vote of 25 to one to one. And um there were some as I understand it just minor minor
glitches that needed to be worked out. Something beyond a scrivener's error but less than a a great dispute. These have now been worked out. It's in the version that's in your packet. Um, Kelly, can you literally speak to
this or do you want to pass it on to to someone else? >> Um, I won't speak to this, but I will share my screen. >> Okay. Um, let me make you a co-host. [snorts] >> Um, um, maybe in speech,
but basically of substantial changes. >> Okay, bear with me. I'm having a little having a little problem here. You know, >> it might be easy if Kelly shared the
memo that she sent to everyone outlining the changes so that people can see them and she can maybe share her voice and just answer questions. >> Okay, I'm just trying to find her. Here we go. Um, make co-host confirm. Okay, Kelly,
you have sharing privileges. So these these are the changes summarized below the these dot points are the changes. So you can see that in in one section the date of the Nolan survey was updated
from October 4 to November 25. In section 2F, the footprint area of the south edition was changed from 5,940 square ft to 5,225 and the reference number for the table
was inserted. In section 2, the footprint area of the north edition was changed from 1093 square ft to 1227 square ft and the reference number for the table was inserted in table 5.06.4.
4 P uh point4 page 1. The lot size was adjusted from 39,395 to 37,000 square ft and the usable open space was adjusted from 10,000 square ft minimum to 8,500 ft minimum.
A note was added specifying that a roof, deck, or patio does not need to meet the minimum. uh dimensions required under section 5.91 to be counted as usable open space under stepbacks. A note with the data the updated Nolan survey was
added. The overall building height was adjusted upwards to 60 ft due to changes in how building height was measured originally. Note the height of the addition has remained at 11 ft from floor to floor. The number of units is fixed at 35 for
both minimum and maximum and a note added to allow an exception to minimum unit size for no more than two units. The accessory building sections were renamed accessory maintenance structure. In section five, the lot metrics table
was restored. In section 5, the design review section was removed. And in section 12 public benefits, the hours for the Clack Road Tot were updated to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Um, I'm not sure I can agree with any of
these changes. I think they're pretty dramatic. Um, but, uh, David Mark, let's go to questions. >> Uh, Linda's first. >> Thanks, David Mark. Uh, I just wanted to ask I guess either Kelly if she knows or
I saw that Taylor is on the call from um Jeffrey Allen's office. But um it you know I'm assuming this came about because some architect sat with somebody in the planning department and went through it with the fine tooth comb and
and I'm the one thing I'm I'm kind of disappointed about the open space standard. Uh I don't really understand how that impacts what we think we're going to get. But I I guess I can let it go because I don't think they reduce the on
the ground open space at all. But this bit about the exception for the two smaller units, like why not just make the range bigger and make I don't care how many small units they build and how many how how much smaller they are. I
mean, I don't know why they did it that way. I guess I'm kind of complaining. I would have liked them to have consulted us. I feel like we have to accept this now. we don't really have a choice because this is going to town meeting tomorrow night and people aren't going
to reconsider again and all the rest of it. So, um you know, Harry, I don't think any of these are really a big deal. So, I think you can feel confident that you're not blowing the thing up by voting for this. [laughter]
Um for those of us who spent a lot of time on this, I think it I think it's okay. I'm just complaining. I don't like these kind of things at the last minute and I do feel like we're being forced to accept this. >> Okay. Thank you, Linda. I'm next.
>> Um I I also agree with Linda. I don't like this stuff at the last minute. I don't see why the planning board couldn't have done this, you know, a month or two ago. I do have a question for anybody on the call that's not Kelly, uh save her voice. Uh can somebody tell me why the lot metrics was
restored? Why was it removed in the first place? and why was it restored? And also the next one, the design review section was removed. Could somebody just explain the rationale behind those? I >> I think I can I can do that. So, when Kelly made her amendment, we took out
all of the specifications for the CRM2 uh parcel, which was the single family um 10,000t lot that we were talking about separately. So, all of that stuff was just removed from the article so
that that lot was still in the overlay, but none of the specifications about the zoning were included. And apparently, uh I think the only thing that's memorialized is the size of the lot and
its underlying zoning. Oh, she's uh highlighting something. Documenting and preserving them. Yeah. I mean that sounds like the developer asking for that to me. So why we had to put it back in. The other thing about the
design review was that in the beginning the whole thing was going to be buy development with only site plan review and then I started screaming about that and then the planning board decided they didn't like that and so then they asked
for a special permit requirement with design review to be added into it if we were going to go forward with reszoning the single family parcel. But we're not. So, we don't need that in there. Now, it's all going to, you know, everything
about the new zoning for that other parcel is yet to be determined. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I join Perry and Elise and wanting a brain transplant. Now, um, Lee Sin, you're next.
>> You're muted, Lee. Sorry, I'm a bit confused about the nature of some of these revisions because, you know, typically the deed to property contains um under its various dimensions. It
typically contains the number of square feet. Now, it might say more or less because it may not be precise, but these are pretty big changes. I it it it's I'm trying to understand how how property that was re that was
transferred to this to this owner um 18 months ago or thereabouts um suddenly dropped from 39,000 some odd square feet to 37,000 square ft. Um I mean that that that's a pretty big change and I I I don't I don't you know what what does it
say in the deed? Uh and why is this change suddenly showing up now? I'm not sure it matters. I'm I'm against this whole thing as you know and I still want to vote against it. But this is just yet another example of of of the the you
know what we're we're seeing here. The I I just you know I don't know how many other revisions they're going to suddenly decide that they need to make to this plan as as things go forward. So maybe someone can answer this question. How how does the lot shrink by
uh um you know almost 7 8%. >> Uh I I Taylor may be able to answer this, but I wonder if it has something to do with negotiating the passageway uh the pedestrian path. >> Well, that sounds like the the change
from the 10,000 to the 8500. I thought of that, but I'm talking about the the CRM1 which seems to have gone from 39,000 some odd to 37,000. >> Right. Right. Well, but the passage goes across CRM1. So maybe they're thinking maybe they don't want to own it. I I I'm
speculating. I wasn't in the conversation. >> Oh, yeah. But I mean, they do own it. Are they going to seed it to the town? Is that the plan? Or or, you know, or what? >> That's why we could ask uh the petitioner or the attorney if that's if that's why that happened. I I don't know why that happened. Otherwise,
>> and again, it doesn't really matter because the constraints are on that they can't make the building any bigger on this piece of land. So, there's not a lot at risk here. Is somebody going to answer Lee's question or should we move on to the
next speaker? >> Taylor, are you online? Okay, maybe he stepped away. All right, let's go to Brian Lad for now. >> Thanks. Yeah, I uh questions have been being raised and being answered here. I was going to answer well I am going to answer something but again the the
general point is to quote David from a second ago. doesn't really matter. What the subcommittee did and then what advisory ratified was to establish the constraints on the CRM1 lot such that the developer can only
build exactly what they are proposing to build the redevelopment of the school building. And what that's led to is a scramble to adjust the numbers up to the very last minute. Um but none of these really matter. But I wanted to answer a question to my best understanding that
that Linda raised. She answered a couple of questions. But as far as the minimum lot size, sorry, minimum unit size issue. When I first saw that we had a minimum unit size, I wondered why. And then I realized, remember that we are getting five affordable units out of
this building and we don't want those to be all micro units. And so there was a minimum size here. Now, I don't know exactly why there's now an exception of two. It probably had to do with measurements of the space within the building to give them a little bit of
leeway to to fit fit all their units in, but they're not allowed to do five micro units. >> Actually, I think the affordable housing um inclusionary zoning has statements about equity between the units that I
don't think that's the answer, Brian, for why they changed this. I think they really are going to make smaller units and they realized it and they I just think they should have made the range include that smaller number and be done with it. I don't know why
they had to do it this precisely. >> But they couldn't have gotten away with making tiny units for the affordable units. That's not how it works. Sorry, I was having technical difficulties um turning my um audio on
and I also have no voice. Um so, but the reason for the adjustment on the lot size was that Maria um worked with a surveyor and the town um comparing the measurements that were in the deed and
that um the GIS map has. So, they recommended to change the 39 to 37. That's is what I know happened with that change. So, I just wanted to answer your question. I'm sorry about not timely answering.
>> Taylor Lee, could you just for purposes of the recording identify who you are? >> Oh, yeah, of course. U Taylor Lee and I'm an attorney for the petitioner >> or the owner at Jeffrey Allen's office. Thank you, >> Harry. That's it.
Okay. So I think the technical way to do this is um we have we have an existing position which is in favor but it's in favor of a slightly different warrant article. So I think I
have to take a motion to reconsider. Assuming the motion to reconsider passes, we then take a uh motion uh for favorable action um on the revised warrant article. So, could I would
appreciate somebody moving um reconsideration? >> No move. >> And a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. I'm going to turn off my video, share my screen. So this is uh vote number five.
Warrant article 7 Clark Road multifamily overlay motion to reconsider previous AC vote. Harry Bors. >> Yes. >> Cliff Brown. >> Stain.
>> Anthony Borono. >> Yes. Elise, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> David Mark, >> yes. >> Neil, >> yes.
>> Susan, >> yes. >> Perry, >> yes. >> Yes. Thank you. Um Alisa, >> yes. >> Janice Khan, >> yes. >> Brian,
>> yes. >> Alec, >> yes. >> Carol, Carol Levin. Um, sorry. >> I think we lost her. >> Okay. Um, Pam Lodish. >> Yes.
>> Josyn Murphy. >> Yes. >> Danell O'Neal. >> Denell. >> Abstain. >> Abstain. >> Linda Olsson Pali. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Fran Per. >> Yes. David Pollock, >> yes. >> Carlos Ridjo, >> he said yes in the chat. >> Thank you. Margaret Robitham, >> yes.
>> Lisa Elwin, >> abstain. >> Abstain. Uh Chris Westfall, >> yes. >> Okay. So, by a vote of 21 to zero to three, we're going to reconsider.
Um, so I'd like somebody to make a motion uh on warrant article seven. Motion to [laughter] remenle seven as printed in supplement three. >> So moved. >> So moved. Is there a second?
>> In favor? >> Second. >> Second. Thank you. Um, so I'm going to try and make this simple. Is anybody changing their vote? Yeah, mine's going to be a no. >> Yours is going to be a no. Okay.
So, let me see if I can get this to work. and Lee Selwin goes from abstain to no. So by a vote of 21 to one to two, we're recommending favorable action [laughter]
on this. Let me stop sharing. Um, Kelly, I will send you um the new report tonight with the vote done in. If you could do the narrative and send it on to Melissa, that would be great. And I'll let Melissa know it's coming. Thank
you. Okay, so we've got a little bit of a problem here. Um, we've got several little problems. Warrant article 19 on the 25th amendment. Let me put my video on.
Problem number one is there will now be a motion to lay this on the table which as I under which actually I don't really understand. I can't remember if lay on the table is we don't discuss it at all.
we just vote on the motion to table or whether or not there's discussion first and then you vote on the motion. >> No debate, just the vote. >> Thank you. So, no debate, just the vote. Similar to what we did last year um on
the Gaza resolution. Um we of course have not yet taken a position on that. The second smaller issue is that when we did take a position on warrant article 19 at 11
something at night, you can tell by the vote that we no longer had a quorum. Um, a quorum would have been 15 people. Um, 13 people voted. Dennis was one because of course he doesn't vote so
that's 14. and Alisa was I think kicked out for technical reasons and she tried to get back in. Um so Dennis would have been 13, Alisa would have been 14 and we still would have been one person short of a quarum which um is is not a great
look. So I have put so um according to the um open meeting law um I put this on the agenda for tonight
because if it's an emergency or if there were wasn't time for notice I believe and Joselyn helped me out here um we are under law allowed to discuss and vote on it although the attorney general thinks
that in the spirit of the open meeting law, there ought to be two days notice. So, at the same time, I have asked um I've asked Lisa to put it on the agenda for an in-person meeting Wednesday night
at 6:00 before town meeting um so that we can both confirm whatever our vote is with a real quorum of people and consider the motion to lay on the table. So, I I'm I'm sort of
opening it up for group discussion right now as to whether we take care of this tonight, and I think we legally can, or whether we postpone it till Wednesday,
which would mean an in-person meeting at the high school at 6:00. um which would comply more with the spirit of the law as opposed to the strict technical requirements.
So if you have a comment, put your name in the chat. And Janice has a question. Yes, we have a quorum tonight. We we didn't have a quorum the other night. That that was the problem. Are are we allowed to have
the discussion at all if it's if there's an open meeting law issue? >> It is my understanding that we are in technical compliance with the open meeting law. My only discussion right now is not on the merits [clears throat]
of the motion to table or the merits of warrant article 19. It's whether people are interested in taking this up tonight to go into a full discussion would rather take the I think somewhat safer
course of doing it at at the high school on Wednesday night at 6:00. That's what I'm sort of asking in a informal straw poll from people. >> Harry, is there anything else that's going to happen Wednesday night besides
that? there is nothing that we know is going to happen. So that leads me to the sort of second issue. We have a meeting scheduled tomorrow night at 6:00 at the high school, but my plan is unless
something comes up to tell Lisa at 1:00 tomorrow afternoon to cancel it. I I don't think anybody's meeting tomorrow. I'm certainly hoping there's no lastm minute amendment that the moderator allows that would require us to meet
tomorrow night. So, I think the odds of our meeting tomorrow night or Wednesday night other than because of this article are um are slight, but I can't give you a definitive answer. Lee, >> uh Harry, just so you know, Joselyn just
put something in the chat. >> Yes. So, if the matter was not reasonably foreseeable within 48 hours, and 48 hours ago we had no idea somebody was going to put a table motion on, it can be added to the agenda. So, I added it to the agenda. The AGO, the attorney
general's office encourages, but does not require postponement if the matter is controversial. I I think the matter is controversial. I think we're better off from a legal point of view postponing,
but I don't think we have to. Neil, >> yeah, I just want to point out that town meeting could vote tomorrow evening to take warrant article 19 up first. >> Um, and is that an argument for us doing
something? argument for why the safety net of a 48 hour notice that would have us meeting on Wednesday uh before the scheduled start of town meeting is an inadequate solution >> what really what's the likelihood of
that >> my that wasn't my question >> the question is whether [clears throat] the question goes to whether >> a uh a petition right that that is recently signed of which we had no advanced notice,
right? Of which we had no advanced notice, right? Falls into the emergency category and and this may in fact come up before we have an opportunity to consider it. >> I don't think Neil would would allow that. Um
>> I don't think he I'm not sure that he has the discretion not to allow it. town meeting votes to change the order, they change the order. And we're speculating as to what the moderator might or might not allow. So, I'm saying that it is
within the rules of town meeting whether it requires the moderator's approval or not. Nobody is going to ask the advisory committee uh in any definitive way to vote on whether it should be taken up. Article 19 should be taken up last uh as
a matter of town meeting or first or anywhere in between and we have no control over that directly. >> Well counterpoint if we meet Wednesday pizza. Janice Khan >> move on some other reason to meet. [laughter]
I so my my only comment would be we've had many many discussions about resolutions and whether a a decision by the advisory committee actually adds value to the conversation. This may be a case where we just don't
need to have um I know Neil believes that we should always have some position in there. >> No, that's not what I was going to say actually. I mean you're right. But I'm thinking, yeah, but I think that, >> you know, whether or not we actually
vote on this may not be important. >> I make a different argument on this. Uh, an article to lay a motion on the table is not debatable. And so, who has the conversation right
in a public forum if we don't? Well, if it's not debatable, are they going to get our whatever we say anyway? >> Sure, because well, it'll be published in the uh in the aisles, so-called
baloney, >> no, they don't have to read it. >> Wait, do I still have to present? >> Um, not tabled. >> Not if it's tabled. You don't have to present.
Chris Westfall, >> I just want to remind people that to the best of my knowledge and belief, under Robert's rules, if we had a quorum when the meeting started and nobody challenged the existence of the quorum before our vote, the vote was valid
>> and and I >> noting the fact that there were not that many people there, doesn't matter. >> Right. But but I but just just to let you know two things. one, I've already been approached by someone who who you who who commented, hey, you guys didn't
have a quarum, but if that were the only thing, I wouldn't I wouldn't necessarily bother with this. There is going to be a motion to table. And so even with even if we had voted 29 to 0 to zero, there's still going to be this motion to table.
>> Okay. What was our vote? Um, >> our vote was um 10 to one to one. >> That was a vote for favorable action. >> That was a vote for favorable action on warrant article 19. >> All right,
Anthony. >> Thanks, guys. Yeah, I just want to make a quick point. A lot of the substance of one article 19 is about uh respecting and desiring the rule of law at the national executive branch. So if there's a chance that we might not be following the rule of law by talking about it
tonight, I think it would be best to just postpone until Wednesday. Thanks. >> Okay. Um, so I am going to make an executive decision that we will discuss this on
Wednesday at 6:00 at uh this high school. Lisa will order dinner um for us and um see if I have any other announcements
tonight. Um, like I said, I I'll let Lisa know by 1:00 tomorrow if we're meeting tomorrow night at the high school, but I I sincerely doubt we will meet tomorrow night at the high school. And um
in case um I don't get a chance to say it, I I want to thank everybody. This warrant this fall was not the most difficult warrant we've ever had to go through, but there were a number of um
tricky warrant articles. There were a number of interesting personalities with whom the subcommittees needed to um interact um with petitioners. And I want to thank
everybody for all the hard work. And while everybody I think made a real effort, I especially want to call out the land use subcommittee. They they got I think the two worst uh or most
difficult um warrant articles and I think they did yman's work in um many many many hours of meetings. Um, so with that, unless somebody else has anything to add,
>> I have a question. >> Yes. >> Uh, where we have supplemental recommendations from the advisory committee that need to be printed up and distributed to town meeting members in
time for tomorrow's town meeting. Uh, can we send them to you, I guess, tonight for you to look at and then you send >> I don't I don't I don't need to look at it. If you have something, Susan, send it to send it directly to Melissa.
>> Okay. >> You can CC me, but I don't need to review it. >> Okay, great. >> Um, anything else? Then I will see you
tomorrow night at 7:00 at the high school, those of you who won't be on Zoom. And um feel free to sit at the table up front with those of us who don't mind the entire auditorium
staring at us. And um and uh we will have like I said we will have a meeting at 6:00 in the high school on Wednesday night. And thank you so much. Have a good night. >> Bye everybody. >> Night everyone. Thank you.