Welcome to >> we have a forum so we can start our meeting tonight. Um we have two items on the agenda for this evening.
The first is uh to go into session to discuss the litigation strategy and then second the disc uh and possible vote on warrant article 7 which is the Clark road zoning. We're going to be delaying our public comment
till after we come out of our executive session. And we're going to boot people off of the out of the room and off the Zoom who are not necessary for the executive session. But first, we need a motion to enter executive session.
>> So second. >> Uh so we have a motion to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing litigation strategy and settlement funding. Uh, Michael Burgerer, >> Harry Bors, >> yes.
>> Flip Brown, >> yes. >> Anthony Buano, >> yes. >> Elise Couture Stone, >> yes. >> John Dog, >> Harry Freriedman, >> yes. >> David Mark Goldstein, >> yes. >> Neil Gordon, >> yes.
>> Susan Granoff, >> yes. Barry Gman, >> yes. >> Kelly Hardback, >> yes. >> Alisa Jonas, might not be Janice K. >> Yes. >> Brian L. >> Yes. Alec Le. >> Yes.
>> Carol Lein. Liz Glender. >> Pam Lotus. Dan Murphy. >> Yes. O'Neal. Lindol Pelkey, >> yes. >> Fran Pearler, >> yes. >> David Pollock,
>> yes. >> Carl Listerso, >> yes. >> Margaret Rubotham, >> she's on her way, but she's not here yet. >> Okay. Liselle West. >> Yes. >> Christine Westfall. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, if I vote to 20 to zero, we're
going to enter into executive session, which means we are going to stop our record. I'll let people back in who have been waiting in the waiting room. >> While you're doing that, um, I'd like to
disclose something that I'm my apologies that I didn't do earlier, but Barry Freriedeland is a new associate town council. Uh, she's with me, and I'm sorry I'm only introducing her now, but, uh, she's our new labor and employment lawyer. >> So, she's she's coming, uh, and seeing
you guys in action for the first time. So my apologies that I did in very earlier. >> So now we are going to take up a motion to authorize a transfer from the town's liability insurance fund the sum of $3 million
$1.5 million payable in the first year. The balance payable in equal installments over the next five years to settle claims by a minor victim of sexual abuse. So >> Dennis, can I can I just correct that? It's not a transfer. the uh claims will
hit the fund directly. Sorry. >> Well, I mean, you have to work with your own staff. I got the I got the motion from him. >> Yep. >> So, what's the language, Melissa? >> Authorized settlement of the claims um to be paid for out of the liability fund.
>> Authorized. Okay. Well, can I check? Authorized payment from the town's liability fund. >> Yes. >> Does that mean the subsequent payments go in the budget year in which they're paid? >> Correct. Yes. >> Authorized payment from the town's
liability insurance fund the sum of $3 million 1.5 million payable in the first year of the balance payable in equal installments over the next five years to settle claims by a minor victim of sexual abuse. You're okay with that, Melissa? >> So moved. >> So moved. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> All right. Michael, >> yes. >> Harry B. >> Yes. >> Yes. Anthony, >> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. >> Harry F. >> Yes. >> David Mart, >> yes. >> Neil,
>> yes. >> Susan, >> yes. >> Perry, >> yes. >> Kelly, >> yes. >> Alisa, >> yes. >> Janice, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Alec, >> yes. >> Carol, >> yes. >> Liz, >> yes.
>> Pam, >> yes. Jocelyn abstains. Darnell, >> yes. >> Linda, >> yes. >> Fran, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> Harlo, >> yes. >> Margaret, >> yes.
>> Lee, >> yes. >> Christine, >> yes. >> All right. So, by voted 26 in favor, none opposed, and one of extensions, we're going to authorize said payments. Thank you, everyone. Thank you very
much. >> Thank you. >> We're gonna move on to article seven, >> which is road zone. >> I am going to make P a co-host so she
can take it away. Give me one second. near just start projecting. >> I'm not projecting yet. I feel great. So, uh, good evening everyone. Um, going to walk you through war bill first and then we'll walk you through the
discussion, um, that we had in our numerous subcommittee meetings and then finally through the amended warn art. So, um, stick with me here on this folks. Um it is uh so warrant article 7 uh basically proposes a new overlay
district that would facilitate the residential conversion of the former school building to Clark Road into multif family housing and it also allows for the creation of additional multif family housing on an open section of par. So this article to be clear
involves a simple parcel that's really composed of two lots. So, one on Clark Road that has the existing school building on it and one on Filbert Brook Road. Um, the proposed overlay district creates two separate zones, one called CRM 1 and one called CRM 2 with very
different dimensional requirements and development standards for each because the lots themselves are very different. In fact, the underlying zoning for the lots is different. Um, so CRM one covers the lot that the former Mimony school
building is on, which is in a T6 zone. Um, and serum one again allows adaptive reuse exclusively for multif family housing. Serum 2 overlays the adjacent 10,000 square foot parcel, which is an S10 zone. It's currently underdeveloped.
It's covered with astro turf, but it was used as field by the school. Um, so it's also important to know that the school building on SRM1 was permitted as a three-story school with a garage in 1996 under do and it was built in 2001.
Um, a couple other things. Um, the moderators indicated that this is a housing choice article and so would require just simple majority of town meetings to house. Um, and finally that this zoning is timelmited. So unlike some of our other overlay
districts in town where no concern has been expressed about how long they've been going on and the lack of progress um this is really time limited and anybody wishing to take advantage of the old needs to file an application for site plan review by April 19th 2025.
So here, let me um just share my screen so we can take a look at the um switch this. So just so we can take a look at the two lots in the districts. I think it's I think it would be helpful for everybody to see.
>> Can we get it to project up there? >> I'm I'm trying. Hang on. It's this talking and typing. I'm not good at both. Doing both, Christine. I'm sorry. >> There we go. Let me share it. slideshow mode. So, it's just a little bit bigger.
>> Okay. So, just as you can see, this is the proposed changes to the zoning map. Um, so over on the left hand side in sort of a lovely charcoal gray. Um, you see Sum one at Tup Clark Road. Um, and then on the um the other side of the
parcel you see is in black and that's Serum 2. that today is an undeveloped plot basically covered with aster. So those are the two things we're talking about and I just thought the visual would be helpful as we're going through talking about really the differences
um in the zoning and what's being proposed here. >> Can I just add one thing I think be interesting to know for some reason these two lots were always the same property. They were never two lots. So they've never been divided. H
>> that is that is thanks that is really I think they've not been divided at all. It's interesting that they have different underlying zoning. However, >> right, I got the gesture. >> Okay. Right. And then see if I can manage to
let me stop my share. Sorry. Go back to my Oh, and by the way, this map um is in a warrant article itself. So, you can take a look at it um should you need to go back to it during our discussion. So, as I mentioned, subcommittee um met
three times for over 10 hours um really to discuss the zoning changes in proposed project with the goal of understanding just the project itself and really tightening up the zoning controls to better reflect the current state of the building um the lot the project plans and also town and
community goals including parking, open space and trees. So, as I mentioned, the proposed project on Serum 1 is the conversion of this border school building into 35 housing, basically apartments that'll range from
about 750 ft to,250 ft. And so, the warranted article because of the size of the um the development um it is subject to our inclusionary zoning. The warned article goes a little bit further in stipulating
that the affordable units will be located on site either within serum one or distributed evenly between serum one and serum 2. So out of this project there will come some on-site affordable housing units. Great.
>> So, in order to create 35 units out of this school building, the developer does need to create an addition on the top of the roof that is stepped back from the roof line to create private decks for these top units and also minifies the addition of the building.
And so the subcommittee worked with the petitioner to tighten the definition of adaptive use to specify that only the allowable changes to the building would be to basically sorry specify the allowable changes to the building. Ensure the
building's overall footprint remains the same. Um strictly limits the removal or covering of external walls so the footprint itself really can't be expanded. and also to specify the place near the rooftop mechanical. And so let me show you, let me give you
a quick um idea of what that some of all of those changes look like here. [Music] Because again, a picture is worth a thousand words. And so
what you see here on the screen is um basically the corner of Clark Road and Boilston Street. And this is the existing building with an architect's rendering of what that rooftop edition would look like. As you can see, as we
go down further here, you'll see how the rooftop edition is stepped back to create these nice private decks for these upper story units as well, which was something that we uh we had talked fairly extensively about.
Um the subcommittee also felt that the originally proposed articles did not really go far enough to guarantee that there was going to be really useful open space on the parcel. Um and also it didn't go far enough in terms of preserving the mature trees um on the
land existing. um Linda Olson um really led the charge on this um and felt that the open spaces should not be fragmented into small unusable segment segments and really stress the need for minimums the usable
open space and also the landscape the open areas. So, as a result, uh the minimal allowable open usable open space is basically set to 25% of the parcel or 10,000 square feet, which
provides an amazing amount of um open green space for the 2B residents. And it all also requires that all landscape plans include tree conservation measures that need to be certified by a professional arborist and reviewed by the
we also spent a fair amount of time discussing the parking. Originally the article provided for up to two spaces per unit which felt high to Carlos and other members of the subcommittee given the site's proximity to the teeth. So after much discussion about neighborhood
concerns about traffic uh street parking uh discussions about other parking uh studies in paving open space, the committee voted to reduce the parking to the existing indoor spaces in nine outdoor ones. Um all bicycle parking for
this development, including parking for larger bicycles, will be within the building footprint. And additionally, there were two public benefits that had been requested by the neighborhood were added to the warrant article. The first is um maintenance of and continued use of the pedestrian path
between Clark Road and Phil Road and the use of a playground that exists on the Clark Road property today. And so the subcommittee as I mentioned met for over 10 hours on this and we spent most of our time discussing and
debating the zoning for CRM1. As you can see we have a huge packet with a lot of drawings, a lot of elevations, lots of revised site plans coming to us about this particular development. Um, as we turn to CRN two, which is that
the empty lot, um, the proposed zoning there was much looser. It really described three different building types that would have been allowed. Um, and it set a maximum size for each unit at 2500 square ft, but it really didn't set the
maximum number of units. some pieces of formbased zoning such that we used an MBTACA were included but not all the aspects. So things like glass coverage which was so important um on the north of Harvard um was not
included and so it was definitely um taken it did not take the complete form so we could take pieces of it and it really didn't give us a good idea what could be developed on this lot. During our hearings, we've heard that four units would be developed, then
maybe three. And we were shown a preliminary drawing of a four unit building and some massing studies. But the conclusion that we came to was that this project is not as far along or welldeveloped as the one on CRM one. And
it shows um in the looser language that was included in the article as originally filed. So the same rigor, this is I will say this is a unique situation in that we have an empty lot in an S10 zone that
the developers looking to up fairly significantly. Um the neighbors had spoken to us and had submitted basically excuse me uh submitted letters in support welcome Clark Road. We did not hear very much at all from folks on
Filbert Road. don't really understand how they feel about the impact of this upzoning, what it would have on their on their neighborhood, excuse me. So basically the majority of the subcommittee felt that the same rigor should be applied to
CRM2 as the requested to upzoning as I mentioned is significant and the consider I think are different given that CRM 2 is undeveloped and any construction would represent new
development. The developers previously indicated that they their intention to use that CRM to blocked during the development excuse me of the CRM one project rather than developing it immediately.
And so the subcommittee's version of warrant article 7 removes the dimensional requirements and the definitions for CRM2, but it leaves CRM 2 within the overlay district. This allows the developer to move
forward with the adaptive reuse on CRM1 and come back to town meeting as early as May next year to define the zoning for CRM2. So our concerns basically for CRM one, we were able to work through the sub
process to really clean it up. But as we started to take a look at CRM 2, we were not able to work through all of our concerns and get that as tight as we wanted. So we did at one point during our discussion uh talk about removing
here in pri Ireland from the overlay district but felt that that was not appropriate and that we would like the developer to come back um with more more well- definfined project so we can construct zoning that better meets the needs there. So by a vote of six to one
to zero the land use subcommittee recommends favorable action on warrant article seven as >> so before we go to comments or questions petitioner have anything to add? Oh, I would think so. A few words.
First of all, I would I want to thank the subcommittee. To say they were diligent is an understatement. Um, they put a lot of time in and a a lot of effort and a lot of their comments uh were very beneficial to the project. You
may note as you look at that addition to the roof, it's indented on both sides by four feet away from the sides of the building. Those are Carlos indentations. So, and David went along with So, so the
project's better for the proc the process is grueling and we'll come back to that, but the project is better for the process. And I just want to make two corrections to Kelly who was 98% correct. Um, first
of all, the addition to the roof is more the decks. The addition to the roof is the bedrooms for the units on the third floor. So the third floor units become become uh duplexes and the bedrooms are on on the roof. We specifically decided
to put the bedrooms up up on the roof and with the decks so they wouldn't be an area of entertaining and the neighborhood has been all in favor of that addition. The other minor correction is we never although we have a dispute with the subcommittee on
parking. It it it's not a it's not a large dispute in terms of quantity but we never proposed two car parking per unit. That would have been 70 spaces and we couldn't get that in anywhere. So uh what we did propose is and the
neighborhood felt strongly is 35 spaces which would be one per unit and five extra spaces for 40. That would be 27 in the garage, 13 exterior. Uh the neighborhood felt very strong
about that. The neighborhood tells us they're impacted by uh Brooklyn high parking and on street parking. and the common refrain we hear in Brooklyn that the two-hour parking uh limitation isn't enforced and so forth. And they felt
very strongly that they didn't want any overflow guest parking into the neighborhood. Uh so we had proposed five exterior spaces and I think uh the the subcommittee is proposing one
make the subcommittee is proposing 36 spaces in total. We we're we're proposing 40. So, as I said, it's not a great difference. It's four cars, but we think it's important that the that we don't spill over into the neighborhood.
I must say, uh I've been doing this kind of work for a long time, and I've sat in the town and seen a lot of development projects come and go. I've never seen one with as much neighborhood support as I I don't think we had one neighborhood
uh piece of opposition. Uh it's been a very constructive dialogue. We've said yes to every one of the requests of the neighborhood which we think are very reasonable and and and we'll go through it. But I really think that this is a a
key moment for the town. Uh I've lived there my entire life and we've always heard words about creating housing, rental housing, workforce housing, and and this is what this is designed to be. Now the when we started this progress uh
process, we talked to the planning department as to what what was what was their vision for something like this and and and the word workforce housing came out. And then you know we're looking at at the time before we bought it as maybe
doing luxury uh uh condominiums or or something like that. And then we got interested. No, we the developer got interested uh in doing workforce housing. Now, there are those who will say, well, how do we know it's
workforce housing? Well, that's a good question. We we certainly weren't going to voluntarily create a rent control system for one building or even for something like this. So the we we talked to some
professions and they said you can create workforce housing by limiting the size of the units and that's what we've done. These are smaller units. The the I think the smallest unit is 700 square ft and the
largest is 13 around 1300. So these are relatively small units that we think will translate into workforce housing and and and we expect the rents to be reasonable. Uh in CRM one
uh we will have 30 units at what we call uh moderate rent and five protected by the by the uh uh affordable requirements of the bylaw. So 35 units, five of which will be affordable. We think that this
is a a a tremendous opportunity for the town. Um it's it's the two developers involved are both residents of Brooklyn and and they they want to do something that's positive. And as we got through
the went into the process, we found out that there were some need uh needs of the neighborhood. One of the first ones was that they and I we we never envisioned this that they so value
a pathway that leads from Clark Road to Filbrick Road and that that was in the very first meeting and has been consistent throughout they value that pathway. We we have committed to maintain keeping that pathway. We may
shift it a little bit left or right um so that it lines up with existing stairs or create new stairs, but we're going to create we're going to keep that pathway and it's going to be six feet wide. And as you say, and Kelly's right, one of
the I think the things that the subcommittee did that I think is was excellent. uh Kelly because he likes to put nice words on it said they tightened it up. Some other members of the subcommittee said we want to make sure you do what
you say you're going to do. Okay. But either way, it had the same effect of tightening the zoning and which we had no objection to and and and really so that we can and and the public benefits are in there including the pathway. The
other thing they asked is that there was a a jungle gym or some contraption that the kids play on play structure and they wanted to keep that there. It was there for the school and the kids in the neighborhood like it. At first we were
resistant to that uh request because of our view that it was a a jungle gym on private property was a was a prescription for liability. But then town council came to the rescue and
pointed out to us that there's a state statute that says if we have play structures on our property open to the public and we don't charge for their use, there can be no claim of negligence. But we are going to name the jungle Jama.
But we are going to preserve it. I I No, I shouldn't say that. We're not going to preserve it. uh we're going to replace it with a light structure, a better structure, and there may be more than uh one structure there, but we're going to have a play area uh somewhere between
300 to 400 square ft uh for people in the neighborhood to use during the daylight hours. So we that's another public benefit but I think the the real public benefit here is creating
I don't remember another proposal in Brooklyn to create rental housing at a moderate rate moderate rents or smaller units and I think that this is a very you know we hope I tell this story
uh when couple of months ago I came in to town hall to deliver the tax check for this proposal. And I was talking to a lady in uh in the uh town uh the treasur's
office and she lamented to me that we were talking she's a new hire. She likes Brooklyn, loves it, but she has to drive from the Southshore every day. And she said to me, I said, "Why don't you move to Brooklyn?" She said, "I can't afford it." I said to her, "You will be able to
afford it now." So, we're hopeful hopeful that we will be able to attract town employees, teachers. We hope we get some Brooklyn high school teachers, police officers, firefighters, anybody that, you know, truly workforce
housing. We're hope we'll be able to attract some of these individuals to live in this building. and and we we're looking for long term uh uh one of the developers said that he operates 100 rental housing and other communities and
his goal is to have finds it much easier on the property and much to better have lower rents where people will stay than having constant turnover. So that's what we're looking for. Let me >> Can we get to uh comments and questions from
>> Yeah. Can I just one other I want to get to CMR 2 quickly. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I have a theory of why the meeting was 10 hours long. >> I think your theory is wrong. >> It was us. It wasn't him.
>> Thank you, K. The first meeting I went to, they spent 45 minutes discussing their minutes. I just >> Well, you can blame the town council for that. >> See if I do. >> I think the reason the amendment was
made stem from some very valid concerns. As Kelly said, and Kelly's right and the subcommittee's right. I keep putting all the words in Kelly's mouth, but they're really the subcommittee's word. That CM2 is not as far along in design as CMR1.
Absolutely correct. the focus has always been on CMI one and it's an adaptive reuse so it's you're not changing anything it's so easy and so the the concerns the subcommittee expressed a correct we responded we feel we
responded to that by amending the uh proposal by saying that CRM CRM2 will be subject will need a special permit under the zoning bylaw for design review and we feel very strongly that
that's the method. We don't want to we have no desire to design CMR2 with the advisory subcommittee with the advisory committee the select board or on the floor of town meeting. We think the proper place to do the design of
CMR2 and it needs oversight. Nobody's arguing that back, but we think the proper place for that part of the project to be to be done is in the planning board like every other design review project in Brooklyn has done. And
so you feel very strongly about that. We, as you said, we had 10 hours of of subcommittee meetings. To be frank, I'm not sure that my clients have the
appetite for going through the design pro going through the zoning process again. And and I'm afraid that if in fact it's separated out, we'll lose those four units and it'll become a single family home, which is a
matter of right. We can build a single family home in that parcel as a matter of right. 10,000 square foot parcel could be a 3,000 foot single family home. So I think the wise choice is to keep them together, institute a special
permit on CMR2 and have it go to the planning board for design review design review and ultimately to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit that I think meets the legitimate concerns
of the of the neighbors. legitimate concerns of the of the um subcommittee, but at the same time gives us four more units, one of which is subject to the bylaw. And Kelly and Vid
is correct. At one point, we were thinking doing three units there, but we decided to do four because that would put us under the inclusionary zoning. If we did three, we wouldn't be under the inclusionary zoning. So you're going to have another affordable unit there and three small town houses. So that's what
we proposed that it would go. So the the two major differences between us and the and the subcommittee is four parking spaces and CMR2 being part of this proposal and then
going under the zoning bylaw for design. >> Thank you Dennis. I'm happy to explain our reasoning behind the parking if that's needed. >> Well, well, I have a question from Anthony. >> Um, first I'll ask what do you mean by
you said there's 35 units in total. Um, are going to be subject to the bylaw making them affordable and then 30 you described as moderate but they're they're going to be market rate, right? >> They're going to be market rate for that size which would be which would be very moderate in the Brooklyn scheme. >> I agree. I agree. I just want to make
sure that it wasn't but it's market rate so that's okay and then >> it might be a little below market I but it you're you're on the right track. >> And then with with putting toward you using the word workforce housing will there be like um a right of first
refusal among Brookline employees in order to get access to those those units >> because it not it just seems to me like it might be difficult to attract that initially right away. Well, would you go to market with 30 units? >> Yes.
>> Or excluding the affordable. >> You go when you fill a building with 30 units, it's not a matter of of right of first refusal because they're all empty. And you know, anybody that wants it can get a unit there will be able to get a unit. >> Yeah. So, I got you. >> We expect very low turn. One of our
goals is low turnover. >> Okay. So, Okay. So, yeah. The way that I was just envisioning that was like, you know, you market it to the Brooklyn employees. >> We would refer Brookline employees and that's something we might do as market. That's a good idea. >> I recommend that
>> because if they work here, less cars and that's that's our goal to have those types of employees live with us. >> Y perfect. Dennis, um I have something in the way of a minority report and I would also like to offer um possibly
several motions that were addressed in the subcommittee. So at some point if you would give me the floor for a few minutes, I'd appreciate it. >> Absolutely. Liz, you ahead. >> You know, Jeff, the question was actually asked. >> Okay. Uh Carlos. Yes.
So, >> I'll just explain a little bit why we thought that uh 36 parking spaces >> 35. No, we added one at the end. >> I don't I mean there was three spaces on the corner. >> Kelly can address the language. I think
what the language says is 35 with no more than nine outdoors, >> right? >> That's different than >> 27 and that's different than 27 and 9. It says a maximum of nine out of nine outdoor spaces. >> It doesn't say 35
>> 35 with max with a maximum of nine outdoors. Correct. >> So the reason why we said nine outdoors rather than the 12 >> or 13 >> or 13 that were proposed is because right now there there's a driveway which has a two-lane. It was a two-lane drop
off driveway. Um and then there were three parking spaces on the right side of the site. And by the way, if anybody wants to see the site, u David is going to be doing a site visit tomorrow as the teammate uh uh service. Um, so we kept the three
spaces that were used as parking uh on the right side of the lot and then uh the developer uh fit another six spaces on the one of the lanes of the driveway leaving another oneway um lane for
entering into the garage and outside of the lot. Um and then they were proposing to turn um a green space on the left side of the lot as you look at the building into uh parking uh parking space. And we thought
that there was already a lot of asphalt on the site and there was no need to increase the the amount of asphalt um because this was also a mass transit uh housing project that is close to the
tea. So we thought that one per unit would be enough. Um, we also thought that uh we asked about the the neighborhood and I guess one of the neighbors who was there uh mentioned that one of the biggest issues that the neighborhood had
about parking was one neighbor um specifically across the street couldn't get out easily out of the parking lot uh I mean out of their driveway. Uh so we suggested that maybe they should take that to the planning to the transportation board and say no parking
across the street from from that driving uh from that uh driveway. Um but other than that it has the same issues that any other single family home um on Clark Street which is uh on street parking uh for a position. So here you can see on
the drawings uh the five the sorry the four spaces that you see at the left side uh those are the grass um it's a grassy slope now >> so that was our reasoning behind that
>> um hi excuse me if I am missing something I'm trying to find where it shows the new zoning that has 25% landscaped space. Is is is that anywhere in our
files? >> Sure. It's in the um in the warned article. I can bring up the text if you'd like. >> Sure. So, it was it was it somewhere in the agenda packet? >> So, it's part of the uh basically it's part of the land use subcommittee
report. Yeah, I see some I see a change. The lot size 39,000 usable open space 10,000. >> That's what it is. H >> but landscaped open space is 3,300 which
isn't 25%. >> Right. Uh usable open space and then the landscaped open space is smaller and >> combined. Well, >> so combined. Yes. Oh, but it I mean that over and over again it says that landscape that the
change that was made was to have landscape open space be 25%. Is that is that not correct or >> that may be incorrect? I thought it was usable open space um in the report that was defined that way.
Ah well okay so so so the change was usable was 1,500 originally is that no landscaped was 1,000 and that's been
moved to 3,300 is that so I'm sorry I'm going back to the hold on a sec. Yep. Let's pull this up. Let's backtrack changes. So originally as file And it looks like yes. So um originally
um usable open space was it looks like 1,500 square foot total, >> right? >> Landscaped open space was 1,000 square foot minimum. >> So the change is now that usable open space is 10,000 square foot minimum
>> and landscaped is 3,300. >> Um and there's also the added definition of usable open space. Maybe any combination of private roof decks in private or common space or ground level areas on decks or ground
level areas. >> And does that include parking usable open space? >> No. >> No. >> No. >> No. >> Does that at all need to be specified or that's clear? >> It's defined in our zoning bylaw. Okay.
Okay. >> Quiet parking. I mean part vehicular pavements are not usable open space ever. >> But the private roof decks are. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> Right. Okay. Well, that's too bad. It it does say here several times that it was changed to 25% landscaped open space, but >> sorry that's >> I think it's important to note since that might have been on the earlier
drawing submitted by the by the developer. >> Okay. >> As we talk about C1, it's adaptive reuse. Nothing's changing with the the the the building on the outside. the same. No walls are being changed. No
setbacks are being changed. So, we're limited to what's on the ground today in how we plan for the future. We're not changing anything on the building exterior other than the roof. >> Michael. >> Yes. Uh >> thank you.
>> Thank you. Um just a continuation to make sure I understand uh about the um verandas off the off the larger units on the roof that is considered private open space. Is that correct?
>> Yes. >> That's that's unfortunate. I think if we take a look at at the uh uh utility of this um property for Brooklyn in general and
that it's that it that I guess that it's in the code is is it that private uh open space counts towards the open space that's required in in terms of a
>> development. Yes. Maria here >> and she can explain. It's been used before. Maria, >> where's Maria? >> I'm here. >> Maria Morelli, senior planner. >> Yes. So, there is a con there is a provision in the zoning outside of this
that allows 50% of of rooftop decks to be counted toward the usable open space. But we have long the staff that is has long time said that that can be um that can be a challenging provision if you
are in a semi- urban area. Um so there should be credit for um private open space that it that is provided. It makes sense to have roof decks especially where there is going to be an indent all around those rooftop additions. There is
a considerable amount of usable open space. So the develop right now if you look at the existing conditions if you go on a site visit you'll see there is virtually so much hardscape and the drawings that you see with the green space that a lot
of that would be converted from imperous to actually landscaped and um and green space that would be usable open space. >> Thank you. It's so what is the total percent then of private open space for
the unit one of the total open space? >> Um I would we would have to just measure measure those decks but it is it's it doesn't take up a big uh percentage of the total usable open space. There is a lot more on the ground level. So it is
not making up um the majority of the usable open space. >> Okay. Thank you. It would just be useful to know what that percentage is and if it's a small percentage that would be that would be useful to know. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Brian.
Oh, I thought Lee was ahead of me. Or do you want to Lee has a whole um report he's going to deliver? So, I'll get anticipating a response to Lee. So, >> okay. Based on what he promised in subcommittee. Sorry. I I'd like to go
after him. >> Okay. >> Uh Linda. Yeah. Um I just wanted to give people a little more background on the open space discussion. So uh we heard from the very beginning we had a very strong letter from the Brooklyn Greenspace Alliance asking us to asking
the town and the project proponent to consider making that CMR to parcel a park for the town acquiring that or however we manage to do it. Right? because there is such little open space around that building.
And then right behind that CMR2 parcel is the giant big school building. So it's very heavily um characterized as large brick buildings with lots of activity happening around them and we and their
neighborhood is already using that space as a recreation space. So there's some utility to the idea of a small park park there on that parcel. And we happen to know that the select board have been in
executive session twice now to discuss this matter and we don't know the outcome of that. >> Three times. >> Three times. Okay. Three times. And so you know we raised this issue right away in the beginning. The town is interested in it. It's not their,
you know, their list of demands is the top thing is is that path, but so it's, you know, if you look at the site plan, it the schools have used it as their outdoor recreation space. And I'll just add this now since I have the floor. The
other issue about what's going to happen on that parcel is currently it's an S10 zone, meaning it has a.3 F. And what the project proponent wanted in
the beginning was site plan review only and the ability to put four units on that parcel. And we knew that that was not well thought out and it was not welldeveloped as far as you know what is
the appropriate zoning for that site. And you know the planning board I I pointed out to everyone the the perils of the uh site plan review which only refers back to zoning criteria that are
in your actual zoning. So everything that we wanted to be reviewed by site plan review had to be in the zoning and we weren't going to get there on this secondary parcel because it just hadn't been you know thought about or
considered in a larger context or the the larger planning work that we're doing. You know we have no desire to leapfrog ahead of that decision-making process and decide to densify all of group nine or something. So, um, you know, Lee has a point of view. I I
agreed with Lee. I think that the, um, but there is a strategy to going to town meetings, which I think is reflected in how the subcommittee >> finally voted. This is a 50% plus one
vote at town meeting. And uh I don't think that simply having the planning board review whatever design it is I don't think that actually addresses the question of what should that zoning be
and we have not determined that yet. So that is not you know I this is where we the subcommittee disagree with the project proponent. I will just say we all have to acknowledge how totally bizarre this process is that we're doing
here. Okay. This is a project developer bringing zoning to town meeting. So now town meeting is functioning like our planning board and our CTA. And God help us if this keeps happening because we're going to be in trouble and it's not a
good way to do things. And Jeffrey is complaining vehemently about how ownorous the process was. But it was his choice to do it this way. I will also point out that the people who signed the warrant to get it placed on the warrant
were not people that lived around here at all. They were people that live in the developers neighborhood who just we don't know why they signed it. So, you know, and we did hear from one um neighborhood person who felt confident
speaking at least for some of the neighborhood, and they did have these meetings. And from their perspective, if something's going to happen to this building, they would much rather have it not be torn down and be residential because it'll be quieter than a school.
So, that's where their support is coming from from this. So, I think that's all I need to say right now. Mr. >> Chairman, can I just respond to the bizarre process? This is a process that is long. Maybe I'm too old, but if you drive to
Fisher Hill and go to the Longear uh project, that's how that same process, same exact process. There's many buildings in Brookline. Same process where the zoning was proposed by a developer and and the signatures. Wait,
let me finish. I didn't interrupt you. I didn't >> Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. It's our practice not to speak until the end of the discussion. >> Yeah, I acknowledged him. But get get to the point. >> My point is that this is a a process
we've used many times and petitions are signed. All of the petitions were signed by voters of Brooklyn according to the law according including myself. It's a legal process. It's been implemented in Brookline for years and it's not unique.
And I I can tell you I wrote the zoning for Longear. All right. I was the petitioner for Longear and there's like 80 90 units there. So it it isn't anything new. >> Well, I have to have a rebuttal to that. I'm sorry. I just have to say this
because the way we usually do it even if it is a developer proposal is we have a committee that works on it for a long time and then you know with professionals with neighborhood representatives with you know a good
cross-section of individuals working on that for a very long time before it comes to town meeting. in my new experience, >> this is how it's been. >> Paris. Um, so I I really do want to
thank the subcommittee. I I think they knew yman's work on this. I could not sit through these meetings if I wanted to and I don't want to. Um, so I tend to look at these stoning articles in a rather simplistic point of view um with
two questions. My first question is what happens if this gets voted down? What do we get instead? The it's a it's a unique situation because the building is a a dova building which is very unique in zoning.
Normally in zoning when you get zoning relief it runs with the land. The only exception to that I know of is dova. in Dover the once the dova use is gone
then that building cannot go by dova. So only the two things that would happen if this if this zoning got voted down one of the two it would either be sold to or leased to a do use because that's the
only legal use of that building under the current zoning. So it would be another school, uh, a medical facility, a religious facility, something like that that would be protected by DA because that's the only use this building could have under the current
zoning. Okay. Yep. >> The other possibility is that the building would be demolished and then something could be built that complies with the T6 zoning. >> The T6. Okay. Am I correct? >> I'm just not daycare. Oh, they
>> looked over his feet. >> And the T6 would allow >> two families. >> Two families. 6,000 square feet. >> You could turn the building into two families. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> No, you can't turn the building into two families, >> but you could subdivide the lot into 6,000. >> Have six two families.
>> Two two thou two family on each. >> Okay. So my my second question is if we do approve this, what's in it for us as the town? And what I've heard so far is maintenance of
the Philick to Clark path and there'll be a uh play area open to the public. Um and >> for the first time in the history of this building, it's paying taxes. >> Yeah. >> And it's paying taxes. >> Okay. Thank you. and housing.
>> See that the housing I hate to go off on this tangent, housing costs us money if there are kids in there. And I am not one of the people in this room who thinks we need more housing, more housing, more people, more people. So, I don't view that as a positive.
>> A you still >> uh Well, Linda spoke to one of my questions which is very helpful. I appreciate that. Um I did want to confirm with the petitioner. Is there any concern um from the petitioner's side about the time restriction placed
on the new zoning for CRM? >> Absolutely not. This this this this project will move as quickly as humanly possible. Uh I would expect that the day after town meeting my client will be
looking for a building permit. I mean that's a little bit of an exaggeration but that's how quickly he wants to move. >> Great. Um, do we have any estimate based on the program parameters and the current motion as to what the new tax revenue we might realize could be? >> I can only tell you, and I don't want to
Lee's going to argue, get mad at me, so I'm not going to project. I will only tell you because I've seen the tax bill. As a vacant building, the taxes went from zero to 135,000 a year. It's a vacant building. once it's gen
generating revenue that will make the building more valuable as the assessors use the uh income approach to value. So I think at a minimum it would double maybe even greater than that but right now it's a vacant building. I believe
the tax bill was really close to 140. >> Thank you. Two finger to go to office. >> Uh yeah two finger. So the values depends on the rental >> right? um right and the number that was thrown out there was quite high. So
that's why there was a question about where the rental numbers were going to be. And if you Google right now 1,200 square foot uh rental in Brook, you can get up to $3,000 >> in rental
>> two more than I live at 850 ft and I paid 34.50 50. And when I looked two years ago and I was looking at like larger units like 12,200 f feet, like deeper in Brooklyn, what I would consider honestly like less interesting neighborhoods, they were
around like 34 then, which means that now they're probably 37 because my rent two years ago was 32. So up to 3,000. >> Yeah, that So our point was that uh the workforce housing uh label depends on the rental,
>> of course. Um so there's this big number there that can shift >> but the valuation of the property would therefore be higher because we are undercharging the rental amount >> and that would suggest we have more. >> Okay. I I need to cover a couple of things.
>> If you indulge me please. I did sit through 10 hours of this and I'm going to try to make it as as quick as possible. Um, first of all, bear in mind, and and Linda sort of made this point, but I want to emphasize it. This is a zoning
article that applies to precisely one parcel of land. That is, it is under one ownership. It's it's a little it's about an acre and a quarter of land. Um and uh it it resembles a concept known as
spot zoning where you basically look at a single parcel and and do something to it to affect the zoning. Now the lawyers tell me that it isn't spot zoning because we're using it an over we're calling it an overlay rather than changing the zoning. And from my non
lawyer perspective, if it if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. And in every other material respect except possibly the legal respect, this is spot zoning. And I think the notion
of pursuing zoning policy that is focusing on a single parcel of land, not a particularly big parcel of land unlike Longear or or or or Hancock Village or things like that. Um is is a d sets a dangerous pressure. That's number one.
Number two, the as as as Kelly explained, 10,000 square ft out of this roughly just under 50,000 square foot parcel is located in an S10 zone. It's a single
family zone and it happens to have nothing on that um par that piece of the land at this point. Uh so what the developer in effect is asking us to do is allow
this one particular S10 parcel to be reszoned to allow for multif family housing. And that too to me is is a a dangerous precedent because while it is being portrayed as somehow relating to the economic necessity of the entire
project uh by the way there's been no evidence uh offered to support that claim. Um uh the the the notion that we should allow reasonzoning of an S10 uh for no it's
not adaptive reuse. It's simply arguing that it it just produces more housing. Seems seems to me to be inconsistent with our overall approach adopted by overwhelmingly by town meeting to look at zoning comprehensively and not pick
apart individual pieces. All right, that's number one. Number two, workforce housing is actually it's been it's been referenced here by the petitioner. Um, workforce housing turns out to to have a legal meaning in Massachusetts.
It has been adopted it it's it's it's codified in uh in in in in legislation and it has been adopted as a formal policy by a number of municipalities and most notably Nantucket and the towns on
Martha's Vineyard where workforce housing is a real issue since you can't have an a town employee or or or other um uh you know uh relatively low low wage uh uh type of employment living off
island and commuting every day. Um uh but there are other towns that have adopted it as well. And uh best I could tell from admittedly minimal research, the notion is that this is something not
quite as in in the same category as affordable housing, which which falls under the SHI. uh but it is still intended as a legal matter to apply to um uh households with
MHI medium household income in the range of uh 80 to 100% of area medium income. Um so uh uh to refer to it loosely as the petitioner is doing and assure us that this is somehow workforce housing
because the units are going to be small is is something of a misnomer. He has not, for example, offered to include as a as a uh restriction as a deed restriction uh in this proposal uh that
it will actually fall under the the definition work force housing as it exists in Massachusetts legislation. Uh in addition, he hasn't even proposed to confine it to uh for another deed restriction that would limit it to
rental housing. Um I did some back of an envelope calculations over the past couple of days and um given the potential rentals that would be available, I can't see how this thing could work economically as a rental. Um,
and the only way I see it working economically for the developer is as condos. And in, you know, roughly speaking, 35 units ranging in size from about 700 to,200 square ft, order of magnitude on average, figure a million
dollar thereabouts per per unit if sold as a condo. So, he could monetize this project to around $35 million. And we don't see any deed restriction being offered that would limit it to rental housing. So I think you have to take the
representations as as uh as as just that as representations that don't have any uh force uh in in effect. Um I do not believe that it is appropriate
for us to reszone the S10 portion of this lot. I think the S10 portion of this lot uh it's just simply not justified. It's not a do it's not a do use. Uh it it's it's it's just a at the
moment an undeveloped lot. Um he hasn't really proposed any direct linkage between the two projects. And I had moved um uh to this at the subcommittee to exclude that CRM2 portion the that 10,000 foot portion entirely from the
overlay. The vote was 5 to2 against me, but I'm going to reiss I'm going to reintroduce it tonight because I think it's something you need to consider. Um, there's also the issue of the of a public benefit to the town. And let me talk about that for a few minutes.
Um the developer here certainly was well aware of the do condition uh that um uh was that this to which this property was subject and and the
the the the price that was paid by the developer for this parcel including this build the existing building and an acre and a quarter of land in Brookline Village was all of $7 million. Think about that. No. $7 million.
>> Seven and a half. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. No, don't let the facts get me. >> Well, I I had only seen seven, but fine. If it's 7 and 12, it's 7 and a half. The reality is the point is 7 1/2, 7 million, whatever it is. That is a heavily discounted price that reflects
the risks that the that the developer assumed with respect to the do condition of this property. um if that condition weren't present um then the value of the property would be
considerably higher and if you vote this warrant article if town meeting adopts this warrant article and and grants what's being requested that creates an immediate windfall gain in value of this property and of of
at least several million dollars if not more than that. Um, in my view and and Harry raised the issue of of, you know, how does the town benefit? I think the way the town benefits potentially, and I would be
prepared to go along with the CRM1 um proposal is for the 10,000 ft² portion to be simply seated to the town at for its use as a park. that would preserve the open space and there isn't
very much open space on the on the CRM1 portion. It would preserve the open space. It would preserve the neighborhood use and it would give the town something in return for effectively uh lifting the current restriction that
has depressed the value of this property to which the the the enabled the developer to purchase it for such a bargain price. So I'm going to at the appropriate time I'm going to to move that uh number one that CRM
to be excluded from the overlay and number two that that the that the developer as a condition for approval be required to agree to uh seed CRM2 that parcel to the town of Brooklyn for use as a park.
>> Well that's what's called extortion. It's illegal. >> Just we'll go get to you. This is not a question for you. >> I just can't believe you that it's illegal. You haven't been >> recognized. First of all, it's not illegal. It's a It's a condition. It's a
It's a public benefit. You could either take it or leave it. We The town has required public benefits on any number of zoning articles. This is another one. You either take it or leave it. It's not extortion >> at least.
>> Maybe we have a bathroom break >> because I don't want to miss anything. >> It's riveting. >> Normally people sneak out. >> That's the protocol. >> That's the protocol. 500. >> Okay. >> Yeah, you skip the vote.
>> Oh, yeah. Sorry. >> We'll make it a chair of a committee while you're gone. >> He's I think he's made his point. He said make motions. We're gonna debate some of this. >> I I I didn't mean to say to go after Lee because I was eager to pick a fight with him. Um
>> not at all. It's because I was anticipating as he did that he was going to sort of fill out the picture and I sort of want to outline the choices here I think which in a way that I hope will be helpful. First of all, the whole idea I'm not going to comment on the word bizarre zoning process, but I do think
our our zoning is in this town is pretty bizarre when you consider the number of non non-conforming properties. And in particular, when you have this do building um that is in a two family zone, you have to have some kind of special arrangement, I think, to to make
good use of it. And so there's a reason for this particular thing, but but that's that's uh >> just um by the buy um that I I'm seeing three basic versions of what to do with CRM2. In terms of CRM1, there was indeed
extensive careful revisions um with Mr. Allen in the room making many concessions. there were many things that were agreed to here um with his assumption that CRM2 was always coming along with it as part of the
package. So I thought he he may comment on that later. But in terms of CRM1, there are three versions here. Number one, and I don't think we're at three motions because the language that was approved, this is my first one here, approved unanimously by the planning board and by the housing
advisory board included these provisions for CRM2, which have been revised and revised. I mean, DRM1's been revised a lot, but CRM2 also all the original numbers I think had been changed in the process. That did indeed restrict it
somewhat more. not as much. Um, as Linda pointed out, at some point we insisted on imposing design review and a special permit because we recognized this was not as far along, which Mr. Allen agreed to. Um, which would take things back to
the planning board. So, there was an approximate design that was presented. Um, the majority of the subcommittee didn't want to leave that to the planning board. It's the point that Linda made. Um, but I don't think we'd have those provisions here in front of us, right? Because they were taken out
by the uh by the subcommittee. So that's out there and it may come back in town meeting. Secondly is the subcommittee proposal to keep the CRM2 zone. Um, but take out all those provisions and I I think we all I hope we all understand that as a kind of placeholder saying we
can do something with that later, but that all has to be debated and decided and worked through. And then third, we have Lee Sullivan's proposal, which is to take away that zoning entirely. And I understand that to have the implication of killing any version of this project,
making it possible only to build a large single family house on that lot. Or alternatively, as he just presented, require it to require keep it as open space with no cost to the town. being one in the background as Linda mentioned
there's the possibility of the town actually buying it. So I just want to present just just want everybody to realize that's the sort of basic range of choices here. I do want to say about the idea of the desiraability of keeping it as an S10 parcel and and the
dangerous precedent there. This is not a typical S10 parcel. Right across the street from it you have a large school building. Right behind it you have a former school building that is likely to become apartments. It is one lot away from Route 9. Um, so I don't think this
is a typical single family parcel where where we're disrupting a single family neighborhood here. That's not to make a judgment about what the appropriate course of action is, but I I do think a little bit of a context is appropriate there. Um, I'll stop there.
Were you on that? Uh I guess I one question I' I've got several comments. People have made statements that I think um I don't quite agree with. I for example I'm going to start with you. Um I don't understand
how you can consider this work for them. workforce housing given the fact to meet market rents to even make something work economically and the rents that are likely needed for a 750
to300 square foot apartment. I'm not sure what workforce it is that you're suggesting they're going to be for, but I don't think they're going to be for um a new teacher uh in Brooklyn or a uh a
new policeman in Brooklyn. Um they certainly don't seem like they're going to be I don't know you can say what's the mix between studio, onebedroom, twobedroom. What's the mix going to be? >> I I don't know exactly. There's no student approximate >> right approximate I'd say 75%
onebedrooms 25% two bedrooms >> okay so >> that's an estimate before someone >> but that's my estimate >> studios no studios >> no studios that I know it >> yeah I I so what's the range of rents that you're projecting
>> we we're projecting below market rents >> then what's market what do you think market is for these folks >> I'm just a lawyer dude >> well come on you're saying they're below market. You must have >> That's what the client said has told me and that's what you're rejecting. >> What that means? Okay. So, that that
right there is a problem for me. But the problem for Hold on. The problem for me is that you're making a claim. >> Yeah. >> Without facts to back it up. >> No, no, because what facts can I give you? You could tell you could tell us what it proposed rents are going to be,
what the range, what you think market is >> to to have gone through this process and making those statements without getting that information without having that information is um I I I found that I find that >> you tried many times. >> I'm just saying. So that's that's my
comment >> comment to my colleagues comments my colleagues are that the town, this town meeting, this committee has used overlays for
virtually every significant development uh that has been undertaken in town since I've been on this committee. Um so I don't think it is uh unusual to do
that even though it's a small situation. If you think that someone got a good price because they're taking on risk, then the fact that they're going to potentially get a benefit from a zoning
change is sort of the reward side of that riskreward. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with not being given appropriate information for people to understand and accept
your argument about what this property who this property is going to geared towards. The fact that we're not getting any of that information suggests to me that your definition of workforce is
nothing more than a word because you're not able to give the information. I have a problem with that. >> It's a concept. It's a concept and and to give put numbers out there that >> define your concept for me. that what it
is is it it would be geared toward people like teachers, municipal workers, people that the workforce >> and that's who we're going to gear the rents to. >> Yeah, that Yeah, those numbers don't make sense
>> either. They do because here's the difference. Prove rent. It's rent. Prove it. Let me finish. Prove it. >> Well, you want you want me to answer it? >> I want you to prove it. >> I'm not going to be cross-examined. I That's my job. Uh I really >> I in the courtroom not here. Um
>> exactly. >> Sorry. >> I said exactly Jeffrey. >> Yeah. So the point being now I lost my train of thought was is that we're trying to we have a concept and that's what we're trying to do and that's why we designed the building like we did.
We're not we don't have big units and that is so that we can keep the rents as low as we can. But the difference between what lease projected as condos and rented is just this. You don't make your money right away. It's a long-term
investment. These are going to be rentals. They will always be rentals according to my client. He lives in Brooklyn. He says, "Someday my son will be managing this property. His son's six years old." So these are going to be rentals. Okay? So that Yeah. You don't project
over a two or three year. It's not the condo, but it's a long-term investment. >> So, look, having having come from a real estate finance background, >> I I I'm just trying to make sense of what it is you're claiming and
not giving the committee enough information to actually um verify or understand, not verify, understand what it is you're actually saying. Because quite frankly I I don't
I I don't think you're saying much of anything other than workforce that >> Well, no. I I think what B was saying in terms of the size you may disagree with. >> Hold on. 750 square ft to,200 square ft. That's you know that's that's a pretty
good size apartment 750 square foot one bedroom. >> Are there studios in this in this? >> You asked me 10 minutes ago. I said no. >> No studio. No. got in development in town. >> Oh, in town. >> Yeah, >> I'm sure there is. I'm sure there are.
>> How big are studios? >> 500. >> How about that? >> Yeah. You know, there are a bunch of 300 foot studios in town, too. >> That's right. There are >> on the base of at the base of University Road. There's a development that's got this >> tiny tiny places. >> Yeah. But it's not prevalent in this
town. It's not this these are these will be the only new small housing in this town in the last >> long time. Was it six or seven years ago there was proposal for micro units
but nobody >> and six or seven years ago those micro units were projected to rent for what was it $2200 >> oh yeah the profit was huge >> and what happened yeah >> what happened to them
didn't get approved the town meeting >> no actually it did get >> it did it didn't get built get built I I I I would like to vote for this. I really would. >> I'm having a hard time >> because >> is is is the development of small new
housing dependent on the rent? Is that what you're saying? >> I what I'm saying Well, do I think development is? Yeah. I think that a project needs to make sense economically for you to be able to finance it. >> Yes. >> Okay. So,
>> but is but is that is that the >> and the two of you >> my last my last question. Have you looked at donating a land or tax break to satisfy the bound to get
some economics fund? >> It it's unrealistic to think that we would donate that property. supposed to. So, you haven't looked at it or you thought about it, but you reject it. >> It it we looked at it and it's unrealistic to think we would donate
that property. >> You don't get enough tax if you're on the list. Maybe paralyz. >> Yeah. I just want to talk a little bit more about the S10 because I think that came up a lot and the problem with S10 is that it always came after the
discussion of CRM one. So we were always tired and we were like whatever. Um but S10 I mean right now it has been described as a t as a not a typical S10 but if you if you go to the site um all the houses on that
street on that side of the street are single family homes. So this would just be one more single family home on this uh street that it has a school on one side. Yes, it does. Does it have a large
building on the other side? Yes, it does. But there are three other houses right now that this one of them has the same condition. It's actually closer to Route 9 and it's a large single family. And then the neighbors also have a large building. So there are situations like
that. Um there are situations, for example, at Fischer Hill where there was >> a Gilbert project surrounded by single family homes. uh that do project was turned into housing um uh senior housing
senior housing uh but still I mean so it has happened before but the so now but the part I don't understand or I just I still come back to it and I don't understand the the math out of it is so
so they need to develop that plan to uh or do something with that land to make the rest of the financially be feasible which I understand but right now they're also looking to do town houses so do four units of 2500
square ft uh which is a large house um in that so the single family had been upgraded to a 4unit uh fourunit project so
and I know that Joe can't tell us anything about the negotiation. But the part I don't understand is if the town were to purchase that land, they're not purchasing a single family lot. They're purchasing a lot that you could put four
units in it. >> Let let me >> So there's there's more value there. >> No, that if this passes, there's more value there than if it was just a single family. And that's why I think there is some
reticence from not doing this all together because the moment that turns into the moment a developer can do four units on that lot >> you can get more money out of it. Can I answer that because >> question?
>> Yeah. >> I thought what's being offered by the subcommittee is maintaining an overlay of CRM1 and San Martin that there are two overlay spots there. One of which will be upzoned in order to take care of
this large building which seems to make sense to me because it's an odd sort of property. But that the CRM2 would not be up. So >> yes, that's the >> So it does not get that inherent value either to build or to simply flip,
>> but the petitioner hasn't agreed with that version. >> It's not about no offense to the petitioner. >> It's up to town meeting, >> right? So So there's so that but but right now it was described as the as the S S10 was described u as something that
should be upzoned. Um so there is that question. >> Yeah. But then there's other question is how does the town negotiate for something that could be worth a lot more money town meeting
or not and how does that happen with meeting so >> okay >> okay >> so I I need to there's a lot of moving parts here so I just want to make sure I'm clear because I feel like if I'm not clear and there's other people in the room that aren't clear I want to make
sure we're all Um the advisory committee's proposal is to have CRM1 upzone as is and then CRM2 postpone and do it in May. Right. >> Right >> now the petitioners what the petitioner's concern is that they want both done at the exact same time with the same zoning. Right.
>> With with the same >> not with the same zone. >> Sorry. Sorry. They're at the same time at the same time. Got it. Now, do petitioner do does your client is your client reliant on the potential revenue from CRM2 to fund CRM1 in the short
term? >> Not in the short term. >> Not in the short, but in the long term, are you saying that both are necessary to make the project financially viable? >> Not in the short term. >> I'm sorry. Well, construction yard in the short term. >> Not in the short term, I think.
>> Yeah. Not in the short term. >> Okay. >> I I I don't know. The reason I'm asking is >> I'm just saying on the on the financing for the >> He says anyway. >> What? What did you say? >> What' you say? >> I since you're not offering
>> I want to know. Did you call me a liar? >> Dennis, help me. >> No. Yeah, >> totally inappropriate. >> Try. >> Okay. >> I would have to go. >> Yeah. Well, I Someone calls me a liar. I think I have a >> No, I'm just saying in you can't believe
anything >> for us being able to reassure town meeting what is going to happen to we would need proof. That's all I'm saying. >> And we don't have that >> fact. So the your client is relying on the
revenue of both CRM on CRM2 to make CRM 1 viable. And the reason I asked this question is because you've said that you're expecting rents to be lower than market rate for CRM. Now, I haven't done the math myself, but other of my colleagues have said that that wouldn't make financial sense, right?
>> I disagree. I think over the long term it does, >> but does it only work in the long term if CRM2 is also upsell? >> It only I wouldn't say use the word upzone. I would say because the >> I could be even more specific. They know the escape cat the escape route on CMR 2
is a single family home. So I don't want to make a a a blatant statement that the revenue from that this project is dependent on CMR2 being upsolded. I I won't make that statement. >> Okay. Would you This is something that I'm curious about and I don't know like
anyone would agree with me, but this is I I am in favor of building more housing in smaller sizes in Brooklyn. That's something I'm in favor of. I'm I'm young. It's hard for me to rent here. I want to live here. That would be great. I see these types of projects as an opportunity for me to be able to get
that opportunity. Now, I know some of my colleagues agree that's okay. But is it possible to be able to try to form some type of agreement where if you really do believe in a workforce housing and it's not just a concept where we can say first, I even like my phrase first time,
right? But say offer to the employees for five months, let them have their shot at it. give them that time and then in exchange we do the zoning change for CRM2 at this point then >> I will take that back to my client I don't think that's a crazy idea >> that is something that I think >> five months may be a little long but I
think the concept I will certainly I don't see it I think that's something worth if we if we we believe in the workforce housing band I think that's a good idea >> oh would that be that I don't know that I don't know so then we need some kind of >> we could we can do anou
I agree. I understand. I know. But that's a whole other question. >> Just quick to just that again this proposal is only to delay this for months. So in terms of financial viability, I just think it's important to note what he said about the
short term because it is our intention that they come back so we can tighten zone up again and set some of these hopefully set it to be appropriate question. >> I'm two finger to that two finger. I just sorry. Um >> I've had a two finger for a while since
Cliff spoke. >> I'm sorry. Let me just clarify. The problem of of the delay from the developers point of view I think is that it it um it is possible that we come back in the spring and adopt lease proposal and they have to realize that's a possibility. In other words, not allow
them to do anything. So it just really that's that's up in the air for >> So just with all due respect to Mr. Allen, the other Mr. Allen has a this is not your project is not the only workforce project being built. The other
Mr. Allen has a 40 unit building on my precinct with 35 units of 500 to 700 square ft. And so there are other
>> workforce >> is that under construction? >> No. >> Okay. See that's >> it. It the permit has been applied. They only applied for a permit um last month in September. >> Yeah. So >> yeah,
>> Carol, >> thank you. So I have some followup to what Cliff was saying. You Well, first I have a question um for um the planning department. Has workforce housing been
defined within the town of Brooklyn as to what that would mean for meaning what incomes? >> Yeah. So this the state doesn't define it in the statute. It is defined for certain programs and it generally means
60% to 120% of median income. That's that's generally the parameters used for for housing programs. >> Okay. So then you can extrapolate what income what rents would be necessary for
>> yes that the HUD actually puts out every year income limits for household size. Um >> but but you can also then extrapolate from those income limits what what the rent would need to be. >> Yes actually puts those those um income
um excuse me those rent limits as well. >> Okay. So, getting to what Cliff was saying, you can't get this far along in um in creating um a a a proposed development without having some
proformas on what the rents are going to be. And I think that unless um since the term workforce housing is being used as a enticement to town meeting in this body to agree to these zoning changes, I
think it just needs to be a requirement that those proposed rents are part of the submission before this can be considered. So that's that's my followup, my two fingers to cliff. Secondly, I'm really uncomfortable of a developer bringing a
warrant to town meeting asking for zone for changes in zoning. You know, for my time on EDAB, you know, these were uh a representative body of the town, whether it was EDAB, the planning department, whatever it is, is negotiating these
things. And with EDAB, we were getting tax certainty agreements before we agreed to any kind of uh change in zoning. And it seems to me if someone needs a change in zoning to create workforce housing, we should be re we should be negotiating some sort of
restriction to last for n number of years or applying to n number of units within the building that in return for getting this zoning relief or this change in zoning, you're going to restrict these units to to for these
incomes x number of units. And I think that this body, the AC and town meeting is not the place to be negotiating those agreements. But I think it's a a reasonable agreement to be seeking in a property like this. And I have no
problem with the developers making a big return in in return for the risk that they've assumed by needing the zoning change. But I just think the process that we're going about it is going to lead to a suboptimal outcome for the
town. And I'm not sure we should be valuing the um looking for that that second parcel CRM 2 as open space for the town is having more value to the town than getting some sort of restriction that ensures that we have
workforce housing for x amount of time. So I I just have a problem with how this whole thing is happening. And I think at the very least we should postpone and get those rents from the developer before we vote on this.
>> Dave. >> Yeah. So, having been through the the 10 hours at subcommittee and and and our short hours that we've spent here, um I want to speak uh I want to I want to speak in favor of the subcommittee's
motion. Uh uh I think that uh Jeffrey Allen actually in his remarks at the beginning explained his use of the word workforce housing which was small units and and maybe he's you know he's trying to get
an edge there but I think what we need to evaluate this as a uh market rate project with Brooklyn's is 15% inclusionary zoning and we know that the
HAB looked very carefully at its ability to raise the percentage beyond 15% and decided definitively with advice of uh real estate consultants that they could not that 15% inclusionary is about all
that Brookline can ask for in a market rate housing development if we want any new development and there are certainly people in town who out. But for those who want to see housing built, 15% is a a reasonable but not an in
inconsequential ask. Um, and I think this could have been brought forward as half as many units that were twice as big. And I think that the fact that it is modest size units is is a good thing. I think that the uh impact of the
expansion of the the popups on the roof is uh minimal. It it helps the project have it increases the number of units significantly because those units are now duplexes. So they take up less room on the third floor. The elevator and the
stairs aren't being extended up. There's just a little penthouse with the bedroom and the balcony, the outdoor space. So, it makes some nice units and it makes more units in the building and it doesn't really cast shadows off the property because you're pretty far from the property line everywhere and the the
popup is is stepped back. Um, we have the objective of embodied carbon and not tearing the building down. And as far as to Carol's point just now about tax certainty, the tax certainty is having it not go to be a school, right? I mean, that's what we're getting here is we're
getting rents as soon as they they finish the building. So, I I think that getting this building back into service as an adaptive reuse of a great big white elephant that's sitting uh sitting down on Route 9 is a good thing. Uh it's a housing choice vote. When Kelly
circulated her proposal last week to um to uh hold off on the um entitlements for more than tripling the density on the small part of the parcel until a future town meeting. I immediately sent
it to the moderator to find out what the status of that second vote would be in a future town meeting. and the moderator replied back that he could see at a minimum two different pathways in the housing choice legisl state legislation
that would allow that vote to be a housing choice vote. So as some reassurance to the developer while they would have to go through the process again of adjusting the overlay editing or amending the overlay for CRM2 at a
future town meeting. The moderator said if it looked like what's on the table now and it became multif family because it wouldn't have multif family entitlement under the subcommittee's proposal to then entitle that sub parcel
for multif family would be another housing choice vote. The developer is going to use that as their construction staging yard for a while. He thinks six months and they'll be filling up the apartments, but a couple
of years. I'm kidding. It's gonna it's gonna be a couple of years before they they're they're ready to do anything there. So, they have plenty of time to to do the development. And to the criticism that that that Jeffrey made that um the the subcommittee and the
advisory committee and town meeting aren't the appropriate place to design this project and and that town and that the the planning board should be the one to do that. We simply haven't seen anything about how the land would be laid out. We
know nothing about uh uh ve about landscaped open space, tree canopy, uh vehicular circulation. And I think that in order to it is appropriate for these bodies of advisory and town meeting to
understand under these circumstances that the open space will that the town's benefits will be in balance with that increase in density. on the parcel. And so, um, I think it's in a good place and
I think that, um, I enthusiastically, you know, support what's on the brought forward by sub. >> Christine, did you have your hand raised? >> I did. Um, uh, just a quick comment on on the issue of the rents. Nobody can predict what the rents are
going to look like in six months. They can't even project them at this point. You know, I went to my financial planner. My financial planner tells me, "Well, stock market's likely to crash sometime in the next, I don't know, year or so. Everybody expects it. Nobody
knows when. If we could figure that out, we'd all make more money." I always used to tell my students, "If I could predict the future, I'd um uh I' I wouldn't be in a classroom. I would be on a beach with a drink that had an umbrella in it." Um, smaller units do rent for less. if
they're if they're really doing that, then that it'll be reflected in the finishes they put in and the amount of money they spend on it. None of that can be predicted at this point. Uh I think that the subcommittee did a great job modifying this. I think the use of the
phrase workforce housing is unfortunate and if we had avoided that, we would not be having most of this discussion. We would just be discussing whether or not 35 units with five
rent, you know, uh uh lowinccome units was a good development for that particular site, which it is. And you know, I I would suggest you probably eliminate that phrase workforce housing
from your vocabulary just because >> uh talking about not being able to predict, but also talking about being undermarket rate. Maybe there's a percentage that you know or a range of percent 5 to 10% under market rate estimated. Is that something that's possible?
It's not something we can do with this in this particular um article probably. >> Can I just clarify? Developers make assumptions about the future. That's different than making a prediction about the future. Assumptions about the future
are necessary in order to pencil out any potential project. And then and then if those assumptions don't come true, then things change. And sometimes developers lose the project, they go into foreclosure or they have to refinance.
But there is an assumption being made and that's what we're asking about. We aren't asking about a guarantee. We're asking about what the assumptions are that are being used to make this design this project. So, we have um
we have I'm just gonna say that I I'm going to support the motion of the subcommittee. I think this is a sort of strange and unique situation with this property right now and I think it's a good use of it. Um it gets us more housing, it gets
smaller units. To Christine's point, I think we've gotten too baldled up on this term workforce housing. Um, I understand it's it's nice for marketing. Maybe put a blow up in your face in front of the advisory committee, but other than that, I think the reality is
it is going to be market rate housing, but for somewhat smaller units, and I think there's utility in that. Um, I understand uh Lee's desire to pull out the CRM2. Um, I think it should still be in there, but not upzone yet, so that we have a
better sense. But I can certainly see keeping it in there. Um, I think there's a lot of good to it. And to Carol's point, yes, there are assumptions that are made. They clearly have a pro- fora somewhere. If they wanted to share it with us, they would have shared it with
us. And they don't want to. And I don't think there's going to be we're not going to be able realistically go down the road of negotiating certain rent levels with them in exchange for something else. I think we just have to understand what it is and that is more
units market rate but smaller units hopefully keeping it down some with perhaps some more units available in the spring depending on on what it looks like. So >> So what about the votes? Am I going to regret? >> No, I'm just going to make a comment. So, one thing that Jeffree said that I observed because I did listen to some of
it, not the 10 hours that the subcommittee kudos to the subcommittee for for staying with this um is that this is a project that really has supported the neighborhood. I was really surprised to hear the neighborhood speak and there used to be a time when town
meeting cared about something like that that um you know of being mindful of how a neighborhood feels about a project. And I just wanted to um say I I thought that was really coming from my
neighborhood, a really nice thing to um to to see and listen to. I think as David said, he really clarified everything for me. This is an adaptive um reuse of a project. That's a good thing to do in Brookline and with
neighborhood support. I and um and also I think the subcommittee's cautionary approach to looking at the second smaller parcel giving it a little bit more time to sort of um to gel is a
great idea and I'm going to support >> before we go to motions >> very briefly very briefly I agree 100% with you but the word uh workforce housing is what the town the select board had said they're looking for and
we adopted it. I wish the many times tonight I wish I had never heard the phrase. So, you're absolutely right. So, I I just want to make clear where we're at and and I want to be very clear. I pride myself on being upfront and honest. Okay? That's why I sat on this
committee for six years and upstairs for nine years. Okay? I've been accused of being too much of a straight shooter. The passage of this amendment that Kelly put forth will not does not have a terminal effect on this project. I'm not
saying you vote this way, the project goes away. That's not true at all. Okay. What could happen is CR CM1 goes forward and the developer says, "The heck with
going through the zoning again for CRM2. I'm just going to build a single family house there. I don't know if the developer is going to do that. I don't think he know he knows you had a business. That's the that's the only downside on the route you've chosen. You
you're you're advocating. So, but I think CMR one will go forward and there's no threat to it to I I just want to to respond to Carlo Carlos's point. We understand what you said about upping
the value of of C of that lot and that's why we've we've had discussions with the town. We've had frank discussions with the town. I don't have to be quiet like Joe does. Okay. But we've had discussions. We're nowhere near a resolution, but we've made clear
to the town that we're valuing it as a single family house lot. They gave them figures of how we came to our view and we made it clear to them that it's not our inclination to be in negotiations with the town about that law after town
meeting because we don't want to have a the zoning of CMR 2 being considered at the same time as sale is being considered. We think that there just something not good about that. So, we are talking to the town but uh I'm not
optimistic. I'm not pessimistic, but I'll leave it at that. So, your point is well taken. >> Yes, >> I apologize. >> A straight shooter would come here and call this workforce housing if
>> they knew it was. And so what I want to say is that as I said before, I'd like to support this, but someone has to stand up at town meeting when the subcommittee is making this presentation
and make it very clear to town meeting that this is not workforce housing because we should not be letting folks come to town meeting and using marketing terms in order to emotion
get people on that floor to vote for something. And that's the problem here. >> And someone should say that to the select board. >> It's it's misleading. >> It's great to have housing. I support
housing. I want to support this. Promise me that someone will get up and make that statement. If if the subcommittee is not able to do that or willing to do that, that's a problem, too. >> I think I'm going to use the term reasonably priced rental housing.
>> That term is not in my report. Anyway, >> but but it's going to be in it's going to be in it's going to be in in in comments that either the petitioner makes or the select makes. I'm sorry. >> You're going to get in trouble with reasonably priced too because they are derived from marketing. Linda,
>> yeah, thank you. Um, just to cover the basis on the question of rents, I would like to ask Maria to tell us what the five units are going to be rented at. What percentage of the area median income are the quote unquote affordable
units actually going to be rented at? >> Why are why are you asking me that question? Well, because I think in my personal opinion, calling it affordable housing is a misnomer because I don't think it is actually affordable when it's going to be you're going to tell me
it's something like 80 to 100% of the area median income, which at this point must be about $100,000. >> Linda, Linda, the the se section 4.08, 08 which is the town's inclusionary zoning sets forth the median incomes
that the the household like 50% AMI for rental. There also are provisions in the zoning that you all have adopted for for different um things that you might want to do. If you want to um offer those
rental units at 80% AMI, then there's a contribution that you have to make to the housing trust. These are all they're all sorts of provisions under section 4.08 that are allowed that are consistent with state law. >> But for clarification, I think there's
some confusion. When we speak of 80% of AMI, that's not the rent. That's the qualification for the rent. >> That's right. It's the income. >> I beg you pardon. >> The rent is something like 30% of that number. Isn't that right? It's, you
know, it really depends on the area. We get them every year. I I mean, I have some that I can look at going back to 2023 depending on bedroom size um that I can rattle off. But I I do want to make a point here. Perhaps workforce housing was a misnomer because people are
distracted by it. But we as staff as as professional planners, there is there is a value in capping unit sizes and we talk about that as a tool in exchange for some type of bonus because that is there is a sweet spot that is missing.
That's that missing middle that size that um different households at different life stages are looking for. >> Yeah, we all agree with that. >> Yeah, we agree. >> I just hopefully we're getting towards the end. I just would like to >> you to clarify the vote for me because
I'm newer at this. It's only my second year. Irrespective of whether we vote for or against the subcommittee's amendment, the petitioner will still be
pushing uh promoting or moving their original. >> That's not a question for me. It's a question for petition. Is that >> if the petitioner is allowed to do so, >> right? It's up to them whether they do it, >> right? >> Yes. >> Um,
>> okay. >> Motions and a number of votes. As I understand it, there's a motion from the subcommittee uh for the amended version of Warren Article 7. Lee has at least two
>> probably probably one. I think just the u the motion to exclude >> Okay. All right. Let's get the subcommittee motion on the table first. >> All right. So, we have we have a motion on the table from the subcommittee for favorable action on war article 7 as
amended by the subcommittee and included in the packet. So, Lee, can you describe your amendment? >> Um, my amendment would simply redefine the overlay to to cover only CRM1. Uh I don't see if we if if if we're not
going to adopt any provision with respect to CRM2. The the the the petitioner's uh uh client still owns that property. Uh if we're going to revisit it later, we want to create another overlay on that. We should do it
at that time. Uh but for the time being, if we're not going to do anything with CRM2, the appropriate uh policy, it seems to me, is to simply exclude it from the overlay. so as to uh not create any ambiguity as to its status. So I am I would move that
CRM2 be excluded from the overlay. >> So redefine the overlay to exclude CRM2. Is there a second for that? >> All right. >> So any additional discussion on that amendment? Yeah, I would just suggest
that if we were to proceed in that matter, then should someone come forward with a proposed overlay for a single S10 uh uh house slot, that would really be spotonic. >> Yeah.
No more so than this. >> All right, let's vote. Uh if this is the this is to amend the subcommittee motion to exclude the smaller CRM2 from the overlay. If it passes that will be then
become the main motion and we will still have to vote on it. If it fails we'll go back to the subcommittee motion. >> Yes. And we also say that this amendment makes the difference between the two pro, you know, the possible um uh
warrant article that that the petitioner had in the advisory committee's warrant article. it's much further apart which will then risk the um the groups of the group in town or the groups of people in town that that want more housing to
think that the as the advisory committee does not want more housing in the future and that's not the case. So, I think it's easier um well, at least I'm in favor of not doing the amendment because there is a path to do what the
petitioner wants in the future if the right information comes up. >> Okay. So, we're going to vote on Lee's amendment uh to exclude Sier 2 from the overlay. Michael,
>> yes. Harry B. >> No. >> Cliff, >> no. >> Anthony, >> no. >> Elise, >> no. >> Har. >> Come back to me. >> David Mark, >> no. >> Neil, >> no. >> Susan,
>> no. >> Harry, >> no. >> Ellie, >> no. >> Alisa, >> staying. >> Janice, >> no. >> Brian, >> no. >> Alec, >> no. >> Carol, >> no. Liz, >> no.
>> Pam, >> no. >> Jocelyn, >> yes. >> Danell, >> yes. >> Linda, >> no. >> Fran, >> no. >> David, >> no. >> Carlos, >> no. Margaret, >> no. >> Lee,
>> yes. >> No. >> Uh, Harry F. >> No. >> Uh, okay. So by four in favor, 22 opposed and one abstension amendment fails. So now we're going to
go back to the subcommittee motion >> which is >> Dennis. Can I ask a very quick question? >> Yes. >> Um has any other group in town, select board, planning board, or anyone voted any version of this yet or are we the first >> planning board?
>> And the housing advisory board voted for the petitioners >> version, but they voted for the petitioners. Well, with the special permit. >> No, the special permit wasn't in the planning board's taking up the special permit. >> No, no, the planning board already voted
to support unanimously to support the the special permit. So, >> before we voted, >> they have not heard our or they have not. >> No, they have not. Is that what you meant? Our >> They haven't They voted on on their on
their own. They haven't heard what your your amendment was, but they they've already voted on their they've already voted. >> I apologize, but the select board has not. >> No, select board has not. >> Thank you for that. >> Thank you. So, uh, the main motion, the
subcommittee motion has printed. Michael, >> yes. >> Harry B, >> yes. >> Cliff, >> because Linda's promised me she's going to stand up to town. >> I will vote yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. Louise, >> yes.
>> Harry F. >> Come back, >> David. Mark, >> yes. >> Neil, >> yes. >> Susan, >> yes. >> Harry, >> yes. >> Ellie, >> yes. >> Alisa, >> yes. >> Janice, >> yes. >> Brian,
>> yes. >> All >> yes. >> Carol, >> Stain. >> Liz, >> yes. >> Pam, >> yes. >> Justin, >> yes. >> Danell, >> yes. Linda, >> yes. >> Fran, >> yes. >> David,
>> yes. >> Carlos, >> yes. >> Margaret, >> yes. >> Lee, >> no. >> Yes. to one. That might be the most heated discussion we have ever had for an article that passed 25 to one to one.
>> That is definitely true from my experience. That's for sure. >> All right. Well, thank you to the to the subcommittee for what was a lot of work and I understand why it was a lot. Thank you to the petitioner. I apologize for joking at your
>> Thank you to the subcommittee. They really however this ends up a lot of a lot of credit goes to the subcommittee they helped us frame this >> Harry do you want to make announcements? >> Yeah I have um two announcements. So,
we're we're meeting this Thursday night, Zoom only, >> and the uh schedule is warrant article 10, the renaming of a the naming of a baseball diamond. Warrant article eight on lighting, warrant article 19 on the
25th amendment back to us. And warrant article nine on the render handbook because of the Warren amendment. >> Yes. >> Right. being voted on. >> The select board adopted this. >> The select board adopted. Okay. So, we
need to sort of consider that. My second announcement is um I currently have speakers for every warrant article at town meeting with two exceptions. One is the union police union >> and Harry Bors is doing that.
>> Thank you. And the other one if somebody wants to do it is warrant article three the budget amendment which is mostly the um >> do's going to do that. >> Thank you. Thank you so much
>> and thank you everyone who sent in uh um my reports. I think I got reports for for everything in time. So that was awesome. Thank you. And I guess you know. >> All right. Thanks everybody. Good night.
to this P.