Right. Welcome to the advisory committee meeting of Thursday, November 6th. We have a pretty full agenda for uh the evening because we're going to
discuss uh warrant article 10 the naming of the baseball diamond. We have a lengthy discussion I believe planned with many different competing motions on warrant article 8 uh nuisance which regarding nuisance lighting. And then we
have two items that came before us before that uh are back for our final say I believe uh warrant article 9 and warrant article 19 regarding the renters handbook and the tabled resolution regarding President Trump. Um so I'm
going to encourage people uh to try to be as concise as possible tonight because there's going to be a lot of discussion. Um, and we're going to start as always with public comment. If there's any members of the public who would who wish to comment on any of the items uh before us tonight, drop your
name in the chat and we'll call on you before we go to our main agenda. And seeing nothing, let's go to our first item of business, which is warrant article 10, uh, the naming of
the diamond. Um, we have a subcommittee report. >> Yes, Dennis, that would be from me. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. In recognition of the significant contributions former Brookline resident and baseball coach Joseph Camp Compana,
present tonight, has made to youth baseball in Brooklyn, the petitioner of article 10, Brooklyn resident Mel Diamond, seeks the approval of town meeting to name the baseball diamond located at the northwest corner of Warren Field on Elliot Street the Cam
Campa Diamond. Pursuant to article 6.8 8 of the town's general bylaws. The process for naming public facilities in Brookline requires the naming committee to review and report its recommendation on proposals for naming such facilities to town
meeting. The committee's charge states that before making a recommendation on a proposal for the naming or renaming of a public facility, the committee will take into consideration a number of criteria. One of which is determining whether the naming subject is a person of excellent
reputation and character who has set an example of outstanding citizenship and/or has made an exemplary contribution of time, service or resources to or in behalf of the community. Mr. Campa's nomination is made under this category and the record
of this matter supports his eligibility because a facility to be named is a playing field under the jurisdiction of the park and recreation commission. The commission also considered and voted on the proposal. The votes taken to date on the proposed naming are as follows. On
March 11, 2025, the Park and Recreation Commission voted unanimously in favor of the proposed naming. On September 16, 2025, the Select Board voted unanimously to recommend favorable action on article 10.
On October 6, 2025, the public safety subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend favorable action on warrant article 10 as amended to strike the effective date. And on November 5, 2025, just yesterday, the naming committee
voted unanimously to recommend naming the baseball diamond located at the northwest corner of Warren Field on Elliot Street the companion diamond as described in the article. As a final note, the subject of a plaque to commemorate the naming arose several
times, and I believe that Mr. Merrill, the petitioner, indicated an interest in financing a plaque at the park and recreation commission meeting in March. Mr. Merrill may wish to comment on that, and if this is correct, I would suggest that he reach out to the recreation director to discuss arrange arrangements
assuming that the article receives favorable action. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. As the petitioner, uh, Mr. Diamond, do you have anything to add to that uh, report? >> No, other than I, uh, would be glad to,
uh, pay for the plaque. And I, I think, as was discussed last night, um, probably spring when baseball season starts would be a great time for a dedication ceremony. The the only thing I'll I'll say and I I I uh I don't know
if everybody has read the article. Um if they haven't, I'd be glad to try and plow my my way through it. My vision isn't that good. But um the only thing I would say is that this is one of the great honors of my life to propose this.
Um, some of you may know me, some of you don't, but my career was spent building buildings. Joe's career was spent building people, and he's been a 35- year friend of mine when my 10-year-old son, one of two, who played for Joe, um,
when we first met. But, you know, he's an amazing character. He's taken little leaguers who for the very first time in their lives are learning that life isn't always fair. Um, and they may not be the
best player on the team and they may play less than the better players and that's how it is. But equally important, he's taught life lessons to older uh Brooklyn men and women um who were
juniors and seniors and about to go off into life and certainly weren't going to be playing professional baseball, but he guided them in terms of if they did have an interest in playing baseball, he guided them to the best academic career
they could have um and still play baseball. Um he's he's like a giant heart walking around. Um he has the most compassion for people I've ever met. Um
he he's done things that other coaches wouldn't have done. Um, an example came up last night where um, somebody mentioned that um, her daughter wanted to play baseball and even though she was an excellent softball player and could
have been all state or something, she wanted to play for Joe and Joe took her at a time when that wasn't being done and he played her. He didn't play over player, didn't know under player, but like with everybody else, including his own sons, u he was fair and Joe has
always been fair and um he's the other thing I would say is Brooklyn has some legends and we're lucky to have Joe because Joe is a Brooklyn legend. Um and he's more than a Brooklyn legend, I'd
say. um in eastern Massachusetts and probably the state, uh Joe could be considered Mr. Baseball. So, um I'm urging everyone to uh vote for this or support this. Um and that's all I'll say
unless uh you want me to try and read the article. >> Oh, no thanks. That's the point of the subcommittee report. So, let's uh move on to um questions andor comments from the committee.
>> Um so far we have no questions or comments and so I uh Janice, could you put your name in the chat next time? Janice, >> I'm sorry. Actually, I I just um the reason I put
my hand up at all was because during the subcommittee hearing, Danell made some really I thought very compassionate and excellent remarks and I don't know if he is here right now, but I think the I think the whole um advisory committee
would um you know would be impressed with the comments that he made. >> Janice, he is not here. If you want to illuminate us, you're going to have to repeat them yourself. >> Okay. Well, he bet well in in very short
hand, he definitely benefited from no from having Joe in his life and that um that Joe really was such a an extraordinary role model for his for him, his friends, and for many other
people in Brooklyn. So that's my comment. >> Thank you, Linda. Olson Pali. >> Hi there. Yeah, my only question is have do we have other baseball diamonds that are named after other people or is this
a first? >> I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps Mr. Campa knows having been a coach for 27 years. Actually speaking for someone who's been on the
naming committee for a number of years, uh we have not within the last decade or so named to my knowledge a baseball diamond after any person. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Um if I may, um it did receive unanimous approval from the Park and Recreation Commission. I would also add that Mr. O'Neal's comments are repeated in the subcommittee report which is posted with the agenda. >> Thank you, Dennis.
>> All right. So, let's take a a motion from uh the subcommittee. >> Thank you, Mr. Daddy. Um the motion of the subcommittee is to um recommend favorable action on warrant article 10 as amended.
>> A second. >> Great. Thank you. We're going to go to a vote. Um I won't get to vote, but I will say that my son played uh Brooklyn youth baseball. Um
okay. Um Michael Burgerer maybe not here. >> I'm not not here yet. >> Harry Bors. Yes. Oh, >> actually Michael is here but he's muted. >> Okay. All right. So, Michael can unmute
at some point. Cliff Brown. >> Yes. >> Anthony Buono. >> Yes. >> John uh at least Coutur Stone. >> Um uh not here.
>> And John and John uh is uh indisposed uh um and will be unavailable for a short period. He had an illness. Uh Harry Freriedman. Yes, >> David Mark Goldstein. Yes, >> Neil Gordon. >> Yes,
>> Susan Granoff. >> Yes, >> Barry Grossman. >> Yes, noting that it's cool that someone named Diamond is naming a diamond. >> I'm glad somebody mentioned that. Kelly Hardback. >> If you don't like Diamond, we could
change it to Merrill Diamond. That'll be fine. >> Kelly Hardback. >> Yes. >> Lisa Jonas. Yes, >> Janice Khan. >> Yes, >> Brian Lad. >> Yes, >> Alec Loveitz. >> Yes, >> Carol Levin.
>> Yes, >> Liz Linder. >> Yes. And I want to underscore the diamond diamond connection. >> Uh, Pam Lodish, >> yes. >> Jocelyn Murphy, >> yes.
>> Danell O'Neal, we think >> Lind Olsson Pelky, >> yes. Bran Pearllor, >> yes. >> David Pollock, >> yes. >> Carlos Ridujo, >> yes. >> Margaret Rubotham, >> yes.
>> Lee Selwin, >> yes. >> Christine Westfall, >> yes. >> And Michael Ber, did you come off mute? I don't hear him. So, we will leave that as >> Sorry, I was having problems with my
thing. Yes, that's a yes. >> Yes. Okay. So, we unanimously recommend favorable action on warrant article 10 as amended. Thank you so much to the subcommittee. Thank you, Mr. Diamond. Uh, good luck,
Mr. Compana. Um, and we're going to move on to um, warrant article 8, which I believe is going to be uh, uh, shephered by Carlos Ridujo uh, to help us navigate
the myriad of um, competing um, motions and reports. So, do you need to screen share, Carlos? >> Just a quick thank you and I'm signing off. All right. Bye now. Thanks everybody.
>> Um, thank you Dennis. No, I don't think I need to screen share for >> Okay. >> for now. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> U, so um I didn't write this report but I'll try my best to make it as quick as possible. Uh, this uh article along with
the one that we discussed on uh Tuesday um took us a while uh to several meetings uh to discuss. So, uh, we all appreciate the work of the subcommittee.
Um, article 8 is the nuisance lighting and we met uh couple times. We met on September 29th and October 27th and it has been uh significantly changed uh
from what's in the Warren article. Um, the warn article proposes adding a subsection to section eight of the general bylaws, not the zoning bylaws, but the general bylaws that would control lighting nuisance in the form of excessive glare and light trespass.
Originally, it was intended to be a more comprehensive dark sky ordinance, but um it has been narrowed down to nuisance uh lighting. Um the petitioners have mentioned that
during because of the advent of LED lighting uh there's an increase of nuisance lightings due to low cost ease of ease of access and ease of use. Um and then a different temperature lights uh that are available. Um and the
nuisance bylaw is would complement the um and be enforced by the building commissioner. Uh warrant article 8 is proposed as an amendment in order to comprehensive regulate lighting uh nuisance rather
than by uh zoning bylaw amendment where where existing nuisance lighting would be grandfathered. One of the uh throughout the discussions um one of the big issues that we had were measurable standards.
Um the subcommittee's recommendation um recommends that there is a measurable uh standard rather than a subjective standard for at least for the part of uh lu of light trespass. Um measurable
standard is much more difficult with glare defining what glare is and if it's in existence or not. So we um we proposed uh to head that
way. Uh just as a as a note, when you do this as a zoning bylaw, it's much easier to to regulate glare since you are basically defining what kind of uh lamp
fixture you can have. if it has uh if it has cut off um and the the temperature the the amount of light uh that the uh lamp gives etc. When it's done as a
general bylaw you are working with existing bylaw. So you're not just so you could you're not defining what's there you have to react to what's there. So that's really the the big question uh that there is um one of the big
questions that's out there. Uh this also brings us to um another another aspect of it which I think uh town council and uh Mr. Bena if he's here can discuss in a better way.
But uh there's a question of the town council uh believes that this bylaw does not approach uh or at least it creates a enforce enforcability issues because
it general bylaws are not allowed to um regulate something that has been already done through zoning And uh according to town council, uh zoning has is currently regulated
through the signs and illumination and regulated facade alteration um section of the zoning bylaw even though in many cases uh there was no signage uh that was being illuminated but rather uh facads or buildings or
whatever it may be. Um Mr. uh Mr. Bankout um also had had a opposite uh opinion where it has uh it doesn't apply um the the fact that it
has been regulated or has since it hasn't been regulated directly uh that it doesn't apply to to um to there's no issue there. But I should let the lawyers uh describe this in a better uh better
way. Um and also it depends it the legal aspects of it in my opinion the legal aspect of it are not as directly u
focused on on the article because uh it all depends if u the the district attorney um that approves this article or not. So it's u it's it's
something that's can be discussed much deeper if we would like to do that. Um the public comment there was a lot of uh comment about what lighting nuisance was
and how it uh affected people and how it affected uh also wildlife and other instances. um in town and how
right now it it's not addressed or cannot be uh enforced the same way that for example you can enforce a noise complaint. Uh David Tet has also uh proposed a
an an a another amendment or an amendment which would uh completely use or approach this uh bylaw in a different um direction but the subcommittee has not really looked into um his amendment.
So, as currently amended, article 8, um, what we've done through the subcommittee is that we've removed the commercial lighting from the article. So, it only applies to res outdoor lighting in residential areas. We've added
U standards to for clearer definitions of glare and excessive light trespass. Um and we've also removed
the rule making by the select board. Um so by that I mean that this at one point this sub this bylaw did not have any standards. They were going to be done at a later point and they have now been we're closer to having
something that is much more clear. Um, also light trespass is going to be measured at five feet or more beyond the property line. And because of concerns that the public
had of uh removing lighting from walkways, public walkways and sidewalks, uh we've al we've exempt the public uh light falling on public walkways
from the article. Um, the article only applies for lighting between 10 pm and 6:00 am. And porch lighting and entryway lights have been excluded since sconces, for example, usually have bear bulbs uh
in historic districts and that would be hard to evaluate. Um we've also uh added the 14 days before a fine sorry u
allowed time to correct the violation um from 14 days to 60 days and the appeal decisions would go to the board of appeals rather than the select board as originally uh was proposed.
So with the standards uh the the subcommittee still feels and this is why we had voted no action until today uh until today's vote to see how
um the quantifi quantitative measurability um takes place. So as the town ordinance has a measurable standard for the building department they can administer with a meter. Uh most subcommittee members requested that the
same uh is done for lighting nuisance. So therefore uh in response to the question uh the petitioners noted that the common approach is uh to refer to a publication of the illumination engineer society
titled lighting for people in outdoor environments and is set to 50% above the recommendation for given situations. Um, let's see. We had the preference that uh regulating
nighttime lighting rather than specific hours uh because it doesn't uh address any u nuisance lighting in the long winter's hours be u which is for example in the winter when darkness is well before 10
So that sort of wraps up uh most of the discussion that uh the subcommittee had. There have been several amendments uh
one of them which just came in a few minutes ago or an hour ago. Uh one of the amendments has been done uh by select board uh Warren to define
um let me see that one was actually let me um let me interrupt y there if you don't mind and let me outline what I think the current state of affairs is and then we can go through with both you as from the subcommittee as well as the
combination of petitioners. um to kind of navigate how we want to clarify a few things. I believe that the short summary of what of what you outlined was that there was potential support from the subcommittee for the concept for this um
warrant article. However, there were significant concerns about measurability and uh some other uh definitional uh issues that you were hoping the petitioners would find an opportunity to address. We have several competing
motions that have been presented, some of which have been unified now before us tonight that may attempt to address those concerns from the subcommittee. Um that includes I think Mr. Warren's amendment which I think has been
subsumed by the latest draft that came tonight from the petitioners. We have a opinion from town council that this is all of questionable legality. So we'll hear from from him and then we have a proposed substitute motion um
that tries to take a slightly different approach and I don't mean to imply slightly I just try to take a different approach to addressing some of the concerns that had been have been raised. So if that is correct and I saw a number of nods as I was speaking, what I would
like to do is first give the the initial set of petitioners an opportunity to explain how what they have sent us tonight addresses the concerns from the subcommittee. Then I'd like to hear from town council about his concerns. Then
I'd like to hear from Mr. Tvette about his proposed changes. And then we'll have a bunch of back and forth discussion. Does that sound reasonable? Yes. And if Mr. Bena's here. Um >> Okay. Yes. So Mr. Ben could speak at the
same time as >> he's not here. >> Memo is >> his memo was sent. Uh >> was Dennis Sorry. I think we should also hear from Paul Warren why he's proposing
this amendment. >> Okay. I mean that that will and hopefully that will come out as part of the discussion from um the petitioners but if not then obviously yes we will call upon on on Paul and he'll have an opportunity to speak. So Mr. Titel are you speaking on behalf of the
>> Indeed. Great. Go ahead. >> So I'll tell you what um I I have a set of slides that I don't need to go through in detail because Carlos really did a great job um detailing a lot of what's happened but I'd like to refer to them to make some key points. So, if I
could share um >> Yes. One second. Take it away. >> Excellent. Let me just get right here. Okay. And again, I'm not going to give
this full talk. Um >> yeah, I have the mute button. So, that's pretty much it. >> Okay. So, um, so the key point of this, just so you know, our our motivation, it's really about providing a means for
residents to effectively address lighting nuisances that negatively impact their health and well-being. And it's really about um creating a pathway to empower residents to approach a neighbor to ask that problematic
lighting be addressed. And if that conversation isn't fruitful, then they would escalate to the town. Um, one of the things that was critical in all of our conversations with everybody was to make sure that this is something that the building department felt they
could enforce. Um, any suggestion we ever received that implied that they couldn't was um, immediately dead on the table and wasn't considered. We only looked to changes that the um that the uh building department could enforce. Um
and it draws from dark sky association um standards and bylaws found throughout the Commonwealth. Um again, it only applies to residential areas. Um does not apply to commercial businesses, doesn't apply to public monuments, doesn't apply to public property. Um it
has the clear standards that it would that we that were asked for. Um, a key thing that's important is this is not an anti-lighting um, bylaw. This doesn't ban bulbs. Um, it is by definition um, because it is a nuisance um, bylaw, it
is complaint driven. Um, if there's no complaint about a bulb, bulb never has to change. Um, again, it does allow for lighting that extends to public walkways and it creates safe harbors for residents to easily to comp easily comply if light has been deemed a
nuisance. And those solutions can be as simple as changing the angle of a light, shielding a light, or replacing a bulb. Um, going through it, uh, we don't need to talk about the problems, but again, this has all really come from the rise of LED lighting. That's why this is an
issue now. LEDs um are cheaper which means they people are buying more of them and they're buying higher power LEDs and they come in a whole wide range of temperatures which means there's a lot more bluer light which has become problematic. So there's just more light
now than there's been in the past. Um poor lighting can create safety issues um where there's glare concerns. Um there's deep shadows. There's a misconception that more light is better. more light can actually be dangerous. Um, these photos are an example of that
where you see there's somebody on the left side that's standing in the the doorway of that gate that you can barely see because of that blinding light. You shield the light and then that person is very visible. >> Um, we spoke about the regulation landscape. Um, I do want to highlight
two things. Um, one uh is um you we spoke about Dick Banker's um letter. Um, in it he wrote, "In the absence of evidence that the zoning bylaw comprehensively attacks light trespass, town meetings should decide what to do
based off the substantive merits of the article. The big concern here is that it's unclear whether or not you can use signage rules to talk about a neighborto- neighbor lighting nuisance problem. And that's why we've gone down this route. Um, town council, um, as Carlos mentioned, has asked the attorney
general's office whether the town could regulate glare and light trespass via general bylaw. Um, to my understanding, we haven't heard back yet, but we may hear more later later tonight. Um, again, we were asked to remove
commercial. We did. We were asked to um include standards for adjudication. We added them. We were told that the enforcement provisions were not sufficiently clear. We clarified them. We were told the correction period was too short. We extended it from 2 weeks to two months. We were asked to include
uh make it explicit that light trespass onto sidewalks be allowed. We've done that and the whole time we've worked closely with the planning department to get to the amended bylaw that you have before you. So, um this is not new. We are not
trailblazing. This has been done in 60 cities and towns in Massachusetts. They have some sort of outdoor lighting regulations. Um this is again about empowering residents uh to know that they have the town's back in case the
neighborto neighbor conversations um fall through. Uh we do ask for favorable action on this Warren article. Um I should add a couple of things. One um we have indeed woven in Paul Warren's amendment into uh into what we presented
today um and what we put in the packet. Um we've seen the Rubenstein amendment. We are in favor of it. we would um we would fold that into the final draft that we would put through and um assuming that you vote favor favorable action for um an article 8, we would
also ask that you vote favorable action for that. Um and I believe that is enough. Uh I will stop sharing and I hand the baton or answer some questions which prefer.
>> So thank you u Mr. Warren, just uh do you have anything to add based on the um the comments about your amendment and then we'll go on to the rest of my >> Yep. Thank you, Dennis. Uh Paul Warren, member of the select board. Um I'll just explain what the amendment is. Uh the petitioner didn't. I appreciate the
petitioner's collaboration and you know, he's uh this whole group is an example of how it should be done, working with others to find consensus. Um so the amendment clarifies who has standing to bring forward a complaint by grounding the uh the term neighbors in existing
state law. Uh the article referenced neighbors. It was undefined and informal. Um and so basically the amendment references defines neighbors consistent with mass journal law 48 chapter 11 uh which is party of
interest. And so the party of interest would include abutters owners of land directly opposite or any public of any public or private street or way and a butterers to abutters within 300 ft of the property line of the pet uh of uh of
the petitioner. So and this is consistent with 4A and with the appeal process going to uh the board of appeals. Um they're very familiar with that uh that as well. So that's all it's a very simple change. >> Great. Thank you. Um Joe Gallinan, Town
Council. Um I would love to hear from from you uh about um uh the your concerns about legality and I see Mr. Banka has arrived and we would like to hear his thoughts as well. And if Dan
Bennett has anything to add about uh enforcability that would be great and then we'll go on to um uh the substitute motion. Thank you very much. I'll keep my remarks short. I have a long memo. Um that memo was a draft uh intended in
following it up with a um uh a final version, but uh through this process, I've been asked uh to do many things. So, I haven't got to the final version because I originally asked uh if the AG's office uh reviews these um type of
questions that I raised. uh my concern. I didn't think so because it's really kind of a um as applied problem as opposed to a facial review that the AG's office does. I did note that um I researched that and came across 17
different examples where the AG's office has reviewed bylaws for this specific concern of mine and in many circumstances um you know either denied it because there has been a history of regulating it under zoning. So, they denied uh did
not approve the general bylaw or or allowed the general bylaw because there was no history of um regulating it as zoning. Um you know, the problem that we have is that we do have a history of regulating um lights um through zoning.
In the last couple years, really since 2016, it's been under the sign bylaw. But that's because previous to 2016, we had an illumination bylaw that would had been inadvertently deleted. In 2016 was
when there was an amendment to the sign bylaw to address a a Supreme Court case Reed versus Gilbert that changed how signs could be regulated by municipalities. So Tom meeting reacted to sign uh Reed v. Gilbert and deleted the illumination bylaw. So the practice
of the town had been to continue regulating lights even though it would was after 2016 only left in the sign bylaw. So our history is both regulating lights as lights but in the last 10
years regulating under the um sign bylaw. And people could say you know the text doesn't allow that. That's an argument. However, we have been so for the past 10 years, we've been that's been our practice to regulate lights through our signed
bylaw. So, the idea that we haven't comprehensively um regulated lights through uh signed bylaw, that might be an argument that we could say for the past 10 years. It can't be for previous to 2016. And also we've
been doing it uh you know so de facto as opposed to deure. Um so that's not going to be looked favorably by a court. And also the idea in these 17 different municipal law unit determinations about these cases. There isn't a situation
where they've said you have regulated it but that's not comprehensive enough so we'll approve the bylaw. In those 17 circumstances, the only time they've allowed a general bylaw when there had been a history of um a zoning bylaw was to license it. Kind of like what we do
with um cannabis. You can regulate it through zoning, but you can license it through a general bylaw. That's really the only time the AG's office has allowed this to happen. So, I'm happy to answer any other questions. I do owe you a final um memo and that's I have not connected with the AG's office about
whether that um um you know they would hypothetically you know look at ours. However, I have uh researched that they do do this. I have reached out to Pelum and New Marboro to find out whether they um have looked into this. Neither of
their municipal councils have got back to me and I still have to get uh connect with the municipal law unit about a hypothetical review of our bylaw. I'm sorry, warrant article. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Bena, you want to uh
proide some color commentary as well? >> Just very very briefly, there was a memo, as you know, filed by town council's office. I responded to that. Um the arguments that I made are set
forth in that memo. Uh I haven't seen anything subsequent to that. Um the argument that uh uh 10 years ago we regulated this we had a zoning bylaw in place. That was 10 years ago. That has
not been the case for the last nine or 10 years. uh I don't know the extent to which we have attempted to regulate lighting that is not signs but uh to the extent that that has been done uh it is not
something that is provided for in our zoning bylaw. The zoning bylaw is explicitly now limited to signs. It is not a general bylaw. Um and uh uh if uh the to the extent that the building
commissioner has um used that bylaw, it uh would be a matter of persuasion and job owning uh rather than a matter of uh uh a bylaw, a zoning bylaw actually providing regulation. So, um, you know,
I guess we'll see where things end up, but at the present time, uh, we do not have a comprehensive zoning bylaw in place, and we have not had a comprehensive zoning bylaw in place for almost a decade. >> Thank you, Mr. Bennett. This would be a
good transition for any comments from you. >> Uh, sure. Uh, I'll comment on the proposed bylaw. Um so uh you know I'm comfortable you know with the uh standards that the petitioners have proposed in in the latest draft. It does
you know give me you know the ability to measure and uh determine you know certain violations with the shields 3,000 lumens and you know measurability you know at the lot line. So that is something that um I could certainly uh
work with uh with respect to um you know this being a general bylaw versus a zoning bylaw. uh you know I I I don't know how this will work when and if it gets passed the town meeting and if I get inundated with you know complaints
you know this is something that I don't t really have the staff or or the time for but I would certainly prioritize how they came in and get to them eventually but it's not something I would be able to do immediately if we were inundated
with um those um you know complaints uh with respect to to our current zoning bylaw. I have uh been enforcing it um as if you know the the language was under illumination because that that's the way
it was before. Um I believe it was inadvertent in the way that we restructured it when we re redid the signs. Um but to Mr. banker's point uh it is mostly you know if I get a complaint um I don't like telling
anybody that we don't have any regulation you can do whatever you want to do so I do go out and I do my best to uh work with both parties and and come up with a solution so it is job owning I go out I talk talk to both parties
redirect the light uh um a lower wattage bulb or um add some sort of shielding so what I'm doing now is essentially what we're trying to put into this general bylaw. So, um hopefully however things,
you know, proceed, it'll give us uh the the tools to do what we need to do, you know, in this regard. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much. And uh Mr. Tvette, uh as the petitioner of the substitute motion, um this would be an opportunity to explain what you're trying to achieve
and how it differs from what's come before us so far tonight. Thank you very much. Um, I'm in a strange position of submitting a substitute warrant article in support of what the petitioners originally said
their goal was. Um, when I first got involved in hearings on the warrant article 8, I had two main issues. One, because of my long I'm the chair of the pedestrian advisory committee. I was the lead author in completing the work of
the select board's pedestrian friendly lighting uh committee back in 2021. I submitted that report and presented it to the select board. Um, I have a very strong interest in the public safety aspects of lighting and the fact is that the town has not identified any funding
for pedestrian friendly lighting and we have many dark sidewalks. And so I wanted to be sure that people recognized that some light trespass is actually of benefit to the town by helping to illuminate dark sidewalks. And I commend
the petitioners and other hearing bodies for now recognizing that fact. Um my second was the lack of specifics in the warrant article. Um in terms of measurability standards um and both of the so both of my initial issues have
been rectified. Two weeks ago, I had no idea I was going to be presenting a substitute article. But then suddenly at a planning board hearing, first of all, I saw that a lot of regulations, so so-called standards that I did not think
were relevant at all to dealing with light trespass inserted into warrant article 8. And when I tried to raise this point at the planning board hearing, I was told, "No, we don't need to discuss those. They only were nuisances. They're only going to be if there's no plane, we don't need it. I
strongly objected to the insertion into our bylaws of things that are labeled as standards without those standards, proposed standards, having been discussed, properly vetted. And I disagree with some of them. If you want
to have a dark sky thing, fine. Let's have a dark sky proposal. But the men the warrant article that was proposed was specifically um to address nuisance. And so what I've tried to do is focus as tightly and narrowly and simply as I could on
lighting nuisance. There should be that discussion about dark sky. And the way to do that is to say the best thing for dark sky is to have no lights at all. Imagine a totally blacked out town. Okay, we don't want that. Now, what lights do we want to add back into that
equation and why? That's the kind of thoughtful re review and discussion that we should have and I think that this right now what the petitioners warn has grown into bypasses the proper discussion that we should be having
about those issues. And that is the main reason why I submitted warrant artic the substitute warrant article. I could say a lot more about it, but let me just stop right there and I'm happy to take questions about details because there are other many other changes I made as well. I did incorporate I did I didn't
use the term neighbors in my warrant article. I used occupants of adjacent properties and I basically inserted a definition that captured the reference that Paul Warren had submitted to try to recognize and and you know address that concern that he had raised.
>> Great. Thank you very much. Um, so I think we have uh set the stage for a discussion and so now I'm going to turn it over to Harry to um start uh that kick that discussion off. >> Yes, thank you. Um, so I have uh a
question. Um, part of the reason I thought that this proposal was forwarded was not just the effect of light on people, but on animals, on on birds, on
insects. And so when I saw the um Paul Warren's amendment today and saw that the petitioners had incorporated it, the question that came to my mind was
what if you have a house next to a large public park or something like that next to the golf course and um it has arguably lights that are too right? And are
interfering with animals and other wildlife, but there's no neighbor who's close enough to complain. It does does this
new amendment prevent anybody from bringing it to the attention of the town and having it corrected? >> Paul, >> hi. Uh, thank you, Harry. It's a great question and that has been brought up. We discussed it at the select board. Uh
the town would have standing um as a land owner. Um right, they're in a butter. So they would be within there would be a direct abuter across the street. How they're notified. If someone who lives near the golf course is concerned about wildlife in the golf course, of course they could uh contact
park and wreck. They could contact the town administrator. But my understanding is that the town as a land owner um the deed land owner would have standing in that case. >> Okay. So now let me just make sure I understand this. What this amendment is trying to avoid
is the situation where I have lighting. My neighbors don't seem to care. But some random stranger is driving down the street and decides they want to file a complaint against me. Am I correct on that? >> Yes. So, you know, you could have folks that are very passionate about dark
skies and they spend their evenings driving around town documenting lights that they feel are intrusive to that um and filing complaints. Or you may have someone that has a grudge from a neighbor that's around the block. I don't know. It just it gives standing. I think it it really clarifies what
neighbors is. And I help I think it'll help um the building commissioner with enforcement knowing, you know, uh what the boundaries are for a complaint. >> Thank you so much. Okay, lad. >> Um,
this is a question for town council and it's not directly about legality, but it's about the effects of any decision we would make along those lines. So if on the advice of you or the AG or a court we decide we can will only
regulate lighting through the zoning code given the acceptance of pre-existing nonconformities. Does that leave the town any authority to regulate existing lighting like the bright light
on West Roxbury Parkway that we were just shown illustrations of? Would that then just be a matter between the private parties? >> Um, so you can talk to your neighbor. That's one solution under this scenario. Um, you know, there also could be that land
owner um now wants to change their property. Um, you know, Dan can remind me about what's the trigger for, you know, a change in use or change in like the size of the building or a change in and things like that that you might trigger. Um, you know, now you have to
comply with the existing zoning. Um, the there's lots of levels of when you have a uh pre-existing non-conforming use, what you do to kind of lose that pre-existing non-conforming use. Does it substantially change? Um,
you know, generally people try to like stay within their footprint, you know, to preserve their pre pre-existing non-conforming use, but that's not always the solution. So if they change their property, they could then have to comply with the present zoning. So that might be a trigger to then get it. Um
you know, it could be um you know, the proponents uh you know, have a you know, conversation with the owner about you know, the advantages of dark skies and you know, the the the um you know, detriment that uh lighting is causing uh
to wildlife. And I have a neighbor that uh is uplighting their trees and you know now we have a vacant owl nest because you know they want to uh light up their uh you know uh deck till 11:00 and now now we don't have owl in that uh
great uh tree anymore. So I get this. I'm not a you know I'm not opponent of this. It's just my problem is we're putting in the wrong place. My my suggested a amendment is one word, change zoning to general and then I'm perfectly happy with it.
>> Thank you. >> Um David Pollock, >> thank you. Um for those who, you know, have the subcommittee report, there's a short section at the top of page two called uh
overview major considerations. And there there are three. the one that we've just been talking about, which is the town council's concerns about uh about legality. uh there's the question that the subcommittee's vote uh to
hinges on which is the objective setting objective standards and then there's uh there's the the the last uh one that David Trevette spoke about which is the sort of mixing of a nuisance bylaw about
uh two specific kinds of nuisance glare and light trespass with putting a whole lot of other stuff into the bylaw. Um and I do so in terms of objective standards um the subcommittee vote was
uh was to recommend no action by a vote of six uh with one abstension. Um uh but to reconsider that if measurability was put in and we've been told that measurability was put in but it was only halfway put in. Um, if we if we go to
the bylaw in the most recent version, uh, the the petitioners did a great job of putting in an objective standard for light trespass, which can be measured with a light meter. Uh, that's done. That's there. Uh, you can just go out and you can check it. But their
definition for glare because glare is not so easily measured um their definition for glare it continues to be um uh I'll read it to you. Lighting entering the eye directly from luminires or indirectly from
reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility. So my question is for the building commissioner. Um that because that doesn't seem objective to me. It it's reduced visibility or a discomfort.
Uh I think that the building commissioner has said that this gives him something to work with. He can go out there and decide if it makes him uncomfortable or has reduced visibility, but it can't be measured. And it can't be measured because it's just not practical to measure it in the field.
Carlos pointed that out. Um, but I think that there's a kind of the the there's a mixing of elements here because those additional standards of well, but you can use a shielded fixture
as a suggestion are in there to sort of shore this up as giving options for how to reduce glare, but they're not they're not regulations. they're just in a in a list of things that would be possible
fixes. So it it just seems that it's not clear legislation in that way. So So to repeat my question, Dan, um that definition, if you're called on, there's a glare. Uh h how are you going to how
are you going to deal with that? How are you going to manage uh determination? >> Well, um glare is probably the it's the most difficult part of this whole process and um during one of the subcommittee meetings I think I had said
something about well you kind of know it if if you see it and that's unfortunate but that's kind of the the best way that I can you know make that determination but the only way that I know to fix it is to shield the bulb or replace the
bulb and typically it's a clear bulb that causes you know the most glare and it's a clear bulb with a fixture that has clear sides. Um so in the past when glare has been an issue and again that's
subjective I guess and it's based on what I see. Um I have asked that the uh lens or the outside of the fixture be replaced with something that might uh be obscured or darkened or tinted um or a
bulb that is not clear. Um, and that's the the best way that I I know to deal with with glare. Um, if there's a better way or at some point down the road we find something that could work, um, you
know, we could certainly look at that. >> Thank you. Uh, David, you're all set. Thumbs up. >> Um, yeah. I I I mean I guess I would I I do I will make one more I will make a a comment while I have the floor which is
that I've been thinking a lot about this because I wrote the report so I've been sort of steeped in this and I've been thinking about the zoning versus general bylaw question and what I've realized over the last few days is that while I
respect town council's concerns about the the the sort of idiosyncratic legal framework in which he feels that the town could get into trouble with this and be taken to court and lose. So, I I totally sort of respect that distinction
from a legal standpoint, but what I've realized is that coming at it as an architect, I really just think this should be zoning from a a a good practice standpoint. Um, first of all, you can
you can really manage to design to control glare if it's in zoning and you're dealing with new construction because then you can basically say fixtures under certain conditions have to be shielded. Uh color temperature has to be below 3,000 Kelvin maximum
wattage, you know, or or or lumen output. you can that's normal to be in zoning and also the building department that's in charge of all the enforcement here generally is also in not not exclusively but generally is referring to the zoning bylaw and enforcing
zoning. So, aside from uh town council's concerns about that this would be better in in in zoning from a legality standpoint, I think it would be better in zoning from a reg just from a regulatory standpoint, even if it were legal. And the cost of that of not being
able to uh uh impose the regulation on lights that are already in place. Linda Pelky asked uh Dan Bennett how many cases we actually get on an annual basis and the building commissioner said
it's basically one bad apple. It's one builder that's that's putting up lots and lots of lights on houses that that get built. And so I think that that's meaningful that it there really aren't that many that would need to be grabbed
by the, you know, to not allow grandfathering. Anyway, that's my comment. >> Thank you, Lindol Pali. >> Thanks, Harry. Um, I guess I have a couple questions to direct to um Dan
Bennett if he doesn't mind. Um we received just before this meeting, the um advisory committee received a letter in support um with an example of a um
agrieved citizen and it was Martha King. And so I wanted to ask you if you have already tried to intervene in this situation and what your experience has been. Is there an address that's not familiar? >> It was on West Roxberry Highway and it
had really big bright lights against the side of a building pointing and they said something about the trees were cut down and I'm assuming people know who this is. Um the the folks from South Brooklyn I think know
>> Yeah. Damn. The complainant lives on Pac Road, and I'll be talking about this in a little bit, but the the she is complaining quite legitimately, I believe, about new construction on the Parkway, the so-called prison house.
>> I I am I I now that you said West Rock, so it's the corner of West Rock Street Parkway, and there's a side street there. I am familiar with that. Um, but I don't recall ever getting a complaint on that. But I did I do remember hearing hearing it at a subcommittee meeting or
um um uh some other other meeting. And it's interesting because the the contractor was in uh the office the other day and he was speaking to the inspector. He's trying to get a CO. There's no certificate of occupancy at the property currently. and I had
indicated to him that I've received some complaints with respect to the lighting there. And since this is new construction, I feel I do have, you know, some some jurisdiction here. So, I had indicated to him um to send me an email some night because now the clocks
have changed back so I don't have to come in or wait till late um to do a driveby. Um, and I'll drive by and I'll take a look at what's out there and, you know, try to make a determination of what um,
what the violations are or, you know, where this whole thing lands because I have not seen it, you know, myself uh, in person. Um, and I said to, you know, give me a call. I think after Veterans Day is what they're looking for. So, the house is not occupied. I could certainly
give a call to the contractor and ask them to, you know, there's no reason to have those lights on um and to stop, you know, turning them on until such time as we can, you know, walk through and and take a look at the um you know, the
property and make a determination. >> Jocelyn, why don't you show those photos as long as we're talking about this? >> Okay. Well, while we're doing that, can I ask my ask my next question of of Yeah, go ahead. >> of Dan. So, um
>> do you have any thoughts on the proposed um amendments from um Mr. Warren and Mr. Rubenstein? because what what I'm hearing their justification for the um amendments are to limit random um people
um bringing up things where they don't even live. And I kind of have the opposite concern. I have the concern that by limiting to a defined definition of who, you know, an ab butter or an a butter to an ab butter. I just can
imagine some situations where that's maybe not going to cover somebody who's being annoyed by somebody's lights. I It just makes me nervous. I think it's limiting the potential pool of applicability in a way that may come
back to haunt us. And I just I don't know if you've thought about this, if you um agree with the potential problems on either side or if you have any um thoughts on that. >> Well, I I think it provides some consistency
uh with respect to, you know, who can complain. Um, you know, I wouldn't want some person driving through town that is in a vehicle and felt that there was a light or glare or something, you know, at a home that really has no uh I don't
want to say no business, but no real uh, you know, dog in the fight. And um, and then I'm responding to something that, you know, the person doesn't even live in town. Um, so I I I I did talk to Paul. The first time I was hearing about
it was today actually. We had a conversation this morning. I I think it's a it's it's a good idea because, you know, so it's not it's it's direct to butters and it butters to a butters within 300 ft. That's a pretty good uh size um area, you know, for people. Um
and those are the same people that would complain if you're constructing a new house or if you're constructing a large addition. Um I'm not sure if Okay. You know, I guess in certain instances, light could travel a bit further depending upon the time of year.
>> Okay. And there is something in the proposed new version about construction lighting, but I'm unclear what the provision is. I mean, this is the problem of of us trying to evaluate a new version live tonight,
>> and I apologize for this, but I don't understand what's going on with the construction lighting in this bylaw anymore. >> So, that refers to if you go, you know, this is for larger projects typically. >> Um, I'm trying to think if 1180 Boilson
Street has any lighting on it at night. you know, some of these steel frames that you see going up that, you know, have been recently built and completed along Harvard and and Center Street and probably down at, you know, Chester Hill Realy, but they're the lights that are inside the building uh and they're, you
know, temporary construction lighting to provide lighting inside. So, you know, it's for more for security purposes uh than anything else. I don't know if it's a an OSHA or insurance requirement, but it's something that uh traditionally uh
these projects do >> and they're on, you know, from dusk to dawn. >> Okay. But this is exempted from this bylaw if it gets passed. >> Construction lighting. >> Yeah, I saw that's in there. Yeah. So if
there was some really obnoxious construction lighting perhaps at the perimeters of the property, it wouldn't you no one could complain about it. That this that's what I'm confused about. >> The the lighting that I the way I'm
interpreting the construction, it's the lighting that's inside, you know, the building. It's not >> um along the perimeter or the outside, you know. Um, but again, you know, I I I have no problem trying to approach, you know, anybody in town that, you know, if
there's a complaint that comes in, having that conversation, and, you know, not necessarily having to take everything down, but maybe you could reduce it, you could relocate it, change the bulb. You know, these typically hang under a um a uh they're a bulb and then
they have a screen kind of on top of them. I think everyone would know them if they saw them. and they just hang and they're kind of stringing along, you know, the ceiling and they probably have three or four rows on any given floor. Um um you know, that's where you would see
something along those lines. >> The one of the petitioners has raised their hand trying to answer this question. Um >> well, since he hasn't been able to get a word in, um I haven't had a chance to call on him, but I'm more than willing to do that. David Ty Titel.
>> Um yes, thank you. Um, Linda, we we actually shared your exact concern and um, it was the conversation with the with planning that brought that back. Um, it was made it was made clear to us that construction zones for legal reasons need to keep things lit.
Unfortunately, because people will illegally trespass onto those zones, fall into pits, fall into holes, trip on hazardous things. They're there illegally. they are trespassing, but they then hurt themselves and the
construction zone could be liable. So, that was something that would was made very clear by all the folks that knew the construction space very well that that needed to be in there, which is why it says temporary lighting for construction sites. It is when needed in
temporary for the construction site. Presumably once something is filled and it is you know it is the building is mostly done maybe not occupied that light should not be there that no longer need I you would then have cause I would imagine >> typically what's called the building is
still open to the weather so anybody can get inside it once you get your doors and your windows that stuff is gone. >> Okay. Thank you. Um just one more comment. I agree with David Tvette and others that the hours don't need to be
10 to 6 because it's very dark at 4 and a light could still be a nuisance during that time period. So, I would either change it to 4 to 7 a.m. or just get rid of the time restriction altogether. That that's it for me at the moment. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um I'm going to go in a bunch of different directions here. Uh, Lisa Plazagna, did you have anything you needed to add to uh, Linda's question? >> No, thank you. >> Okay. David Trevette, did you have anything you needed to add to to the
question? >> Not to that particular question. I had a separate question for town council. >> Okay. So, um, uh, okay, we'll get to that later then. Um, Joselyn, you had a two-finger.
>> Thanks, Harry. I've forgotten what the two-finger Oh, right. It was about Linda's question. So, if if I could trouble you to put that photograph up again. >> Okay. Um I had taken it down because it was hurting people's eyes, which I assume is part of the
>> um what's going on here? >> Yes, that's right. So, Linda had asked about this particular property, which is familiar to me because this is a resident in precinct 16 who has um reached out to me and to other precinct
16 town meeting members about this situation. Um, and I'd like to point out that this is this case is the poster child for both Glair and Light Trespass. Um this property was developed behind
her on West Ro the West Roxbury Parkway. Uh the house was um frankly illegally demolished and then um was replaced and um after cutting down most if not all of the trees. And then the developer um added these what have been described as
six-foot luminary lights on the outside of the house both on the first and second floor which shine directly into um Martha King's property and it's become frankly a quality of life issue for her. A zoning
bylaw would not would not fix this. Um, >> I'm going to uh stop the share if you don't mind. >> Sure. There was another photo, but perhaps this is enough. Yeah, that would be fine. Thank you very much. >> This is the more egregious one. >> This is the more egregious one.
>> Can you see it? >> Um, no. But it's fine, Harry. I think I think folks get the get the gist of this. Um um um in any event, you know, my concern as a town meeting member is that this is a significant issue in
Brooklyn. I was driving home last night on Newton Street and was was blinded, frankly u by the glare from a light that was on um a condominium development on Newton Street just just before reaching Grove Street. I tried to take a picture of it,
but the photograph just didn't do it any justice. It was a very bright, disturbing light um that frankly I think would be an issue for traffic safety. But in any event, zoning is not going to repair this. And I must also say that I
fully support Mr. Banka's analysis of the law in this situation. I do not believe that um Brooklyn comprehensively regulates light in its zoning bylaw and frankly I think this will pass um without comment from the attorney
general. Um, so I I I have no perhaps it doesn't matter, but I don't have any concerns about the legality of this article. In any event, zoning is not going to fix this situation. This is a quality of life issue in Brooklyn. It affects lots of my neighbors. It affects
Martha King very directly, and the only way to fix it is to is to address it it in a general bylaw. Um, you know, the the petitioners have said, you know, glare when you see it in those photographs. That is glare, right? That is what this woman looks at night after
night after night from her uh rear porch. And so, this is an opportunity for us to fix this problem and um I respectfully ask that you support this article. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Carlos Rujo.
>> Thank you, Harry. Um I had a question but actually uh which was following up on Linda and actually what Joselyn just said. Um but I I wanted to say that perhaps um regarding the hours perhaps you could do
sunset and then that sort of uh limit you know that that's dynamic with the winter and the summer hours and uh helps a lot more. But my comment my question really is about the Warren amendment.
Um, and I guess I'm going to ask uh town council or the building commissioner. Um, because right now, for example, if you have a complaint about a noise complaint, um, it's not just the butters, it's anybody who drives by and
can do a noise complaint. Um, and so what other what and and if someone is building an an egregious addition or whatever it may be, uh, right now you're not limited to a butters to to complain about it. U, it
can be anybody in town. U, I believe. Um, so what example do we have in town where it's limited just to a butters? And so that's one question. And then what happens also with like friends of the park, friends of uh the owl,
wildlife, uh you know the raptors, whatever it was that that uh friends that society was called, how how they're not part of the town. So if if the
commission on uh um on bre and park and wreck does not um make the complaint then who who can make the complaint um in when it's not in the butter and so if I could just get
examples of how that's done now if the using the the Warren amendment and how you could do a complaint uh if there were an amendment goes through.
>> Let me get let me try to answer that uh to begin with and Dan can uh back stop me if I'm missing anything and you can remind me if I'm over uh if I neglect to answer something. So examples of things um that we enforce already
um kind of with this standing argument. So, so you're right about like a noise complaint. If someone is um suffering a noise complaint, they can call the police and they'll bring out a noise meter and it's not just limited to an autin. Um however, zoning um does have that
standing requirement. Um so um you know if there was an example of a building so so so the abutters can make a complaint um you know bring a judicial review if we were to allow something under zoning and an abut to an abutter within 300 ft
disagreed they could take it to court. um if there was some type of zoning enforcement after a structure is complete uh completed and and occupied. But um there would be something that uh you know that could be observed by someone. Um Dan, correct me if I'm
wrong. I think you would go out and look at that and see if it's compliant with zoning. Um, the problem is if then then Dan does says he's not enforcing it, there would be a problem with that person seeking an appeal to the ZBA
um because they don't have sanding. Um, so I think those are kind of the examples I'm thinking about to in reaction to your first question. Your second question about um who has standing if the warrant amendment was to go through um in in examples of parks,
you know, Paul mentioned that the you know the agency that has care, custody and control. So is it the conservation commission? Is it the parks and recck commission? Is it you know the golf course? Um so that town kind of u body would have and as I understand the most recent amendment to the warrant article
even the building commissioner himself. So even if it was just like the school department and this, you know, the school committee wasn't bringing it forward, Dan could bring it forward. So I think I >> So if friends of uh one of the parks could not make a complaint.
>> Yeah. So I would I would suggest the friends group talk to either the parks, you know, the the agency with care custody and control or DAN and and then those parties would be able to bring a complaint, but not like Friends of Hall's Pond itself. friends could talk to the park and wreck commission. The
park and rec commission can file a complaint or they could, you know, talk to Dan and Dan can just do enforcement. That's how I understand the warrant article today. >> Yeah. Just on another note with respect to the noise, um there are many departments that enforce that, not just the building department.
>> Sorry. Yeah, please. >> So that's you know that that that's helpful. Um, but any noise complaint that I get, it's always been in the butter. Someone just nearby because I mean I think there might have been one issue um on Center Street. There were
some rooftop units on a very tall building that some people, you know, relative probably a quarter of a mile away were hearing, but there were also director Butters and they they're the ones that brought it to me and, you know, I acted on it and we we had um
repaired it. So, the building department very seldom gets a complaint from um anyone other than an abutter or a resident, you know, nearby. I I can't speak for the health department and police um and others that have
jurisdiction on the noise end of it. >> Thank you. I I'd also note that uh the Rubenstein uh amendment would I think has a scrivener's error where it says residents residential and it should said
residence uh area. So thank you >> Carlos are you directing your question also to Paul Warren? >> Sure. or not, >> Paul. >> Yep. Uh, thank you. Thank you, Carlos.
Um, so just a quick point, too, and that this may be for for town council. Um, without a standard of a definition of who has standing, um, and anybody can file a complaint. Um, depending on how the building commissioner responds or doesn't respond, it could be
discriminatory in nature. um if everybody has standing, even someone outside of the town, um he would have to respond to that um and not say, "Well, you don't have standing." So, I think the definition really does. Is that Joe? Is that would that be true? So, so what I'd be more concerned about
with your amendment passing, but then as as the bylaw is written. So that so if anyone could bring it to Dan and Dan says no, you know, but it's a North Brooklyn resident complaining about a South Brooklyn resident and they take it to the ZBA,
they don't have sanding to do that because because now because this is another problem with kind of like you're you're putting zoning concepts into a general bylaw. So Dan is the one deciding you know whether it's uh you know compliant, but they're unhappy with
that. they go to the zoning board of appeals. So you you have these concepts of zoning in what's supposed to be a general bylaw, >> right? But it does define standing. And I one other question I someone keeps referencing the Rubenstein amendment. Is that an amendment to the Warren
amendment or is that something different? >> It's an amendment that was uh proposed a couple hours ago. Um changing the definition or updating the definition. >> I think he was tacking it on to yours for whatever reason, but yes. Okay. I
I'm I'm I'm unaware of it. So >> I think it's just to clarify the definition of residential district. >> Correct. >> Oh, it's just a clarification. Okay. Thank you. >> To bring it into standards with other similar definitions defined elsewhere.
>> Um Alec Leovit. >> Thanks Harry. Um I had a couple questions that already covered, but I just had one quick um point of clarification regarding the Rubenstein amendment. Uh I'm wondering and apologies if I missed this in the pres
uh petitioner's earlier remarks, but have the petitioners reviewed that amendment and if so are they um accepting that as a friendly amendment or uh have they taken a position on the Rubenstein amendment yet? >> David, >> uh we have reviewed it. We are fine with
it. We have every intention to fold it into whatever we submit before noon tomorrow. >> Great. Thanks. with Carlos's error caught and corrected, >> of course. Um, and then one quick followup on that. Is the is there any
substantive impact on the enforcability of the bylaw with the Reuben sign amendment folded in or does this simply clarify which residential areas would be applied? Because I it it references the definition of residential districts in the zoning bylaw. Um, but I didn't see
the language of that definition included in the email that I reviewed. So, I'm just curious if we have a sense of that's in any way substantive from just the residential areas originally called for in the bylaw. >> Um, is that me?
>> Uh, that might be better directed to council or someone who's more familiar with the zoning bylaws. what I thought >> I may be more familiar with the zoning bylaws, but I'm not more familiar with um Michael's amendment. So, I'm trying to um read it. Um so, if you if you want
to turn to me, you have to give me a little more time. So, >> okay. >> Why don't we come back to answer that later? >> We'll come back. Uh Perry Gman. >> Yeah. Um just wondering if the petitioners could respond to David Trevette's uh amendment. I want to just
if they could just recap their their concerns about his approach. Thanks. >> So, sure I can I can speak to that. Um, so one of the things that we tried really hard to do in this process was listen. And while we did while we did a
lot of listening, one of the things that was made very clear is we heard a chorus of people saying we needed standards. We needed to we needed measurable things that came from the town that came from various committees that came from the
subcommittee of this group. We heard that we included it. Whether we did that enough is something you'll need to rule but and you'll need to vote on, but it's something that we really pushed for. Um the amendment that David spoke to, and
I'm putting words in his mouth, so he should rebut if I if I'm misspeaking. when we originally came to planning with it, it didn't have those standards. And when we entered those when we put those standards in, that's where we skewed
from what his desire for what it should have been um what what the bylaw should have been. So, I think that's where we kind of separated. There are some specific things in the Tvette substitute um article that we disagree with. Um,
but really what it boils down to just in a sense is that we really tried to follow the advice we got as we did this tour and um were honestly,
you know, taken to task for a few things that this Warren article was lacking that we feel strongly it no longer lacks. Um, but that made it differ from what David desired to the point where our our impression is that he felt it
necessary to file a substitute um, warrant article. Um, does that answer your question, Perry? >> Yeah, thank you. >> Uh, David Tvette, do you want to comment on that? >> Uh, yes. I mean, I let me just say that
I was able to have a conversation um with Dan Bennett yesterday afternoon and I specifically asked him since basically what I've done is back out from what the petitioners have um those
proposed standards that I felt were not needed to address nuisance issues. And I asked him, "Would the things that I've deleted um, you know, keep you from being able to do your job?" I wanted to be sure that I did not make things worse for
him. I wanted to keep in and he told me which ones he was particularly concerned about shielded illumination, shielded luminires, and the uh the business about uh motion sensor activated being turned off automatically at 5 minutes after the
area is vacated. I did retain those. So I think and but believe me there was a short conversation and maybe I misunderstood so please ask him if if I'm relating this correctly but I think that what I have removed does not in any way keep him from being able to do his
job. So what I wanted is to keep in what's necessary for nuisance to be addressed and let the other things be addressed in a separate warrant article maybe next year. Um, Dan, did do you want to comment on
that or >> um, Sure. So, we did have a conversation. It was brief. I did not have I was in my vehicle when I was having the conversation and we we we did talk, you know, back and forth and we covered, you know, a lot of area, but I I have I I haven't had time to to review
um the warrant article. I think Did you file that this morning, uh, David? Yeah. So, I haven't really looked at it to see what um what is in it. Um but he did we did talk about the lumens. We talked about shielding. We talked about um you know a
number of different types of lights. Um but I'd have to look at the bylaw a little closer to you know make any determination I guess. >> Thank you. Um so I I just want to set
the rules down. Usually this is a time for members of the committee to ask questions and we do give the petitioners a chance at the end to sum things up. But um I'm going to call on the
petitioners who have their hands raised because I think this um shed some light on the issues of a very confusing warrant article with all its variations. So, um, Alisa Plona, you still have your
hand raised, so I'll call on you. >> Um, thank you. I just wanted to add one other difference between um our article and David Trevette's uh substitute motion, which is the level of tolerance
for light. And so we did a lot of research to arrive at the standard that we set of um 0.1 ft candles that's consistent with um many of the uh lighting bylaws that exist including for
example Cambridge and um we believe that anything higher automatically you know exempting anything higher which is what Mr. Trevette's article does would leave a gap of potentially problematic
situations that would not be able to be addressed. Um, so thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Alisa Jonas. Oh, uh, Joe, that's right. We left you hanging. Why don't we go to you first? >> Yeah. I just wanted to say now I'm ready
to answer uh Alex's question if you can remind me what it is. So, >> uh, yeah. Thanks so much, Joe. I I was asking about um if there's any substantive difference in the applicability or the enforcability of the bylaw should the Rubenstein amendment be adopted and they change
what is currently the language reading just residential area to the zoning bylaw's definition of residential districts. >> So I so I do like the amendment because it's a little more specific. Um, however, you do then get into the you're
again veering veing closer to what is a zoning amendment because you're now specifically referencing a zone. Um, because general bylaws are supposed to be a little bit more kind of broad, you know, but if you're tying it to a specific zone, kind of more like zoning.
Um, so it has um, you know, the positives that it's a little more clear and specific, but it's clear and specific in a way that you're again making it more like a zoning bylaw as opposed to a general bylaw. >> Carlos, you have a two finger on Joe's um, response.
>> Thank you, Harry. Um, Joe, are there any examples of general bylaws that refer to zoning districts? probably, but that wouldn't be a good idea. So, so that's my that's my problem with me. You're you're making, >> right?
>> Do we know if there are any currently or we >> I can look I'll research on the fly again. Uh so, uh you know, I I'll put it I'll put in the chat when I'm ready to get back to you, but give me a chance. Hold on. >> Thank you for that. >> Thank you, Alisa Jonas.
>> Um hi. Uh, I am very concerned about um too much lighting, but I do have several questions about um the particular article as it's written. Um,
it's too bad that we got David Tvett's article so late because I do think structurally it has a lot of benefits. Um, I had problems reading uh the section prohibition on lighting
nuisance and standards and materials for compliance. Um, it's kind of a mishmash of you're not allowed to do this, you are allowed to do this. Um there's a statement saying
the bottom of the statement says lighting that complies with the standards and materials below shall be deemed not uh shall be deemed not to cause a nuisance. Um and then the first
A says outdoor lighting shall not flash um blink or change in color. It kind of it doesn't feel like a a st I would the way David Tvette has his um section written it's these these
particular things are prohibited these are the standards of what you can do and I just feel like the way it's written right now the current substitute motion the the current amended
um article is very confusing and I I would love to see that be more organized. And I was also wondering D in that section, lighting shall not cause excessive light, trespass or glare. Um I don't know why that's there.
We've already said it um in the first section. So yeah, if you could explain why that's there a second time. Um I don't understand if under applicability
um where it's limited to private property in what situation is there an exemption for public monuments and public properties and commercial signs? It doesn't seem like that's that would ever
occur on a private um private residential property. So, if someone could explain that to me. Um, under applicability section F, I was just wondering whether 500 lumens is so low,
um, that it might never apply. And I was just wondering, wouldn't it make more sense perhaps to do 800 lumens, which is, uh, 60 watt? I don't know the whether that would at all if that
would be of interest. Um, and I have the same concern as Carlos and I guess Harry about the um limiting of who can file a complaint. Um, I think
it would be very important for friends of or other people that are anyone that's concerned about wildlife, for example, at at the golf course to be able to file that complaint. And I'm wondering
uh from Joe, would there be a problem if the complaint can be filed by that that we don't specify who files the complaint that it could be anyone and
if it gets to the zoning board of appeals, they wouldn't have standing to go to the zoning board, but they could file a complaint. It is that something that one could allow to have in the
in the um bylaw. >> So, uh Lisa, you've asked a number of questions of various somebody's. I've kind of lost track, but I think I think you've asked Joe specific questions and
the petitioners specific questions. So, we'll go to Joe first because he's unmuted. >> The one I heard from me is can we allow um kind of a um
uh an appeals process that kind of is uh uh only gets you so far. How's that? Is that is that a fair? Okay. Sure. remember my main main comp complaint about this uh but right >> under this scenario um you know I
wouldn't be worried that um say the complaintant could bring a suit against the town because we only gave them some due process but not as much due process as somebody else. Um that's not really a good valid due process claim. they got some process. Um, you know, that they
would complain that I don't get all the process that I would want or someone else could get. Um, you know, we're we're setting up this system that they get something. So, I I like that. Um, but it doesn't have to be so robust that
uh they get uh multi levels of review. Um, there are c certain circumstances where you don't get review. So, um, so I'm not too worried about that. So, no wonder given my main concern that I'm very worried about. Yes. So, >> do you have to keep in neighbors at all
or can you just allow an a complaint >> a complaint filed >> because >> you don't have you don't >> I am concerned that the town might not file any town entity might not file a complaint but there might be friends of
a park that are not part of a town that might want to be able to file a complaint and limiting Um, complaints to neighbors would limit that.
>> Um, no, we don't have to open it up. So, um, you know, it doesn't >> No, I'd like to be able to. >> Oh, well, I'm sorry. That's what I meant. The other way around. You know, it doesn't have to be limited to neighbors. It It can be opened up. Um, somebody was just asking me about
enforcing public land and it's like actually the only person that can enforce uh things on public land is the attorney general's office. So neighbors don't have it. The town doesn't have that right, you know. So there are c certain circumstances where who can enforce things is very limited. So it
doesn't have to just be limited to neighbors. It can be broader, but it but it also can be very narrow. So I so I guess following up on that, is there a reason why um the petitioners might not want a broader range of complaintants and
exclude neighbors or is there something that I'm missing? I I doubt anyone would be filing a complaint if they're just driving through town and they happen to see that there's too much light. I think
that that would be such a rare occurrence that I I wouldn't be writing a warrant. I wouldn't be writing a bylaw that um that prevents that particular
um possibility from happening. >> Um there are certain circumstances like that. There are c there are circumstances where people do that. Yes. And you know, you can you can check you can ask Paul uh you know why he's filing this, but I don't think it's
insignificant uh a concern. Yeah. >> Um so Paul, >> yep. Uh Alisa, and I I understand and appreciate your concern. Um I do think that friends of Paul's Pond, friends of Potterham Woods, friends of Lars
Anderson uh certainly can uh reach out and appeal to a number of public bodies. the town uh that would represent to the building commission that there's there's a harm happening from glare. I don't think you I don't think you're limited to number of paths. two bodies that
would be very uh open and sensitive to the issues that you're concerned about. But we had one member of your own uh uh board here raise an issue of a house that she drove by and the glare was so much and if there was no restriction on um you know at least who has standing um
you know she may be well within her concerns but you know without some restriction on who is standing that that complaint could be filed. Um, it could be someone from out of town. It could be a visitor that, you know, hates, you know, bright Santa Claus things or, well, Santa's not included in this
because it's exclude. But you get my point. Um, there could be any number of reasons. So, I think it's it's healthy and beneficial for the community, for the homeowners, uh, for whoever else owns the property that they have some expectation about who can can bring a
complaint against them. Um, I think that's just fair and reasonable and it's good process and it helps that helps the uh the building commissioner with enforcement and setting expectations. But so I'm the petitioner. That's my response. But I do appreciate the concern you raised. >> Thank you. Um, Susan Granoff, do you
have a specific point? Specific question. I would like to say one of the other benefits of Paul's uh uh insertion of the uh de of the definition of neighbors is that otherwise the
definitions of excessive light trespass glare and nuisance uh I would consider to be over broad and vague because I kept looking at that and saying well to whom there isn't any
specific focus. But once you add uh under the prohibition the the specifics that it creates a nuisance to neighbors that gives it a context and a limitation of sorts so that the definitions
are not open-ended. >> Thank you. Um Alisa, do you want to now go to your questions to the petitioners or >> Sure. Um uh well for one thing under applicability
uh why do we have uh sections A and Y and >> Y I think they were taking notes David >> I I was taking notes I'm going to I I'll go through everything I have and then let me know if I miss anything. Okay. >> Okay. Um so for applicability sections A
and B, those were two um concerns that we heard throughout the community about this and we wanted to be explicit because we want does it absolutely have to be there when we say private residential? No. But do we want to be explicit? Yes. We want to be very very
clear there. So that that is why that's there. If we drop down to 2F, I'm I'm sorry. Wait, how can how can one misunder how can one to me it's just confusing. It's am I missing something here that we're saying private residential property and yet in the next
line we're saying public monuments and public properties are exempt. Even that confused me to >> even as written there were people who in our in our our road show for lack of a better term asked questions about well what about
this commercial what about that private I what that um governmental building what about this school and we were able to refer to A and B to clarify so it's actually it's actually done a lot more clarification I I understand it is a
little superfluous but it is serving a purpose and it is working. So, um I I I think we would stand by that. I think it does no harm and it's actually it it has helped. Um jumping to F where you asked about 500 lumens that is, you know, a 40
40 to 50 watt bulb. Um again, um Alyssa put this really well. We we did a lot of research with um what's what is um best practice in the dark sky world when writing statutes like this and writing bylaws like this. So, we really sort of followed along with that. So that's
where that number came from. >> I'm just wondering does anyone put in 40 watt as opposed to 60 watt in that particular situation? Does >> um honestly I would have to go back and look, but that's what we grabbed because that's what that's what we saw in the in
in the best practice bylaws that we started it from. >> Okay. >> We can't use watts because watts refers to incandescent bulbs, not to LEDs. >> No, no, no, no, no. I'm just I've converted lumens. >> Say you can't refer to watts because watts
don't what the lumen context is in the context of an incandescent lamp. A 50 watt LED would be enormously bright. >> No, no, no, no. I'm just I'm sorry. I I think >> I understand what I meant that >> Yes, I know exactly what you mean. And
it's the conversion. Um yes, the equivalent. It's the It's the light equivalently is what she's talking about. And I I'm I'm right there with her. Um, and yes, you're absolutely right. Why why couldn't it I understand the question, which is why wouldn't it be the light equivalent of an incandescent 60 W bulb instead of a 40
watt bulb is your question. And the answer is because we went with best practice with dark sky, >> right? >> I mean, I was just thinking, is it going to basically be an exception that's almost never going to be used because 40 is so low?
But anyways, that's that explains why you've done it, right? Um the next question that you had was going down to um the uh prohibitions and you asked why is 2A is 8.4A there. Um, one of the
things that's important about this prohibition era section that I think I want to make clear is that it also involves a lot of safe harbors of what can I do to mitigate the problem easily and quickly and cheaply to ensure that I
don't incur a fine and I am accomp I am accommodating the neighbor that I am accidentally nuisancing because I'm not assuming that anybody's doing this on purpose. So, how can they get how can they get out of the woods, if you will, and get this solved? So, this is a lot of the things. So, if it's a blinking
light, then that's a problem and so on and so forth. So, that's why that's there. Um, I do hear you loud and clear that the paragraph above it is a little unclear. We can certainly look to the wording about that. Um, I do want to make one point that, um, while I've got
and also D isn't Dumbled, why is that there? on top of >> Fair point on D. I don't have a rebuttal on D. Fair point on D. Um and and we will absolutely look on that. Um I do want to make one more point while I have
the floor here because it's a point that's been brought up many times about time. And one of the things that we tried to do with, you know, why is it 10:00? Why isn't it just, you know, why isn't it sundown? Why isn't it all times? And this is the difference between us and the TVET um substitute
motion. There's a few reasons for that. One is we wanted to draw a line in the sand of just when is and when isn't for enforcability and make it very clear. So that's one part of it. One part of it is that we wanted to make it so it was this
is again a complaint driven um nuisance bylaw, right? Um issues are going to be complaint driven. So, we wanted to make it clear that this is happening after after a time. So, if
somebody's got lights that they want, somebody can't be going out at like, well, it was 5:04 was sunset tonight. It's now 50:05. I'm complaining. There's been a lot of concern about people potentially abusing this, which actually
gets to my final point, which is why the neighbor um amendment that Paul Warren put in is something we're in favor of. There's been a we've heard a lot of concern about abuse and people and vendettas and things like that. Putting in the time at 10 p.m. means it's not
going to affect most people's sleep, but at the same time, it allows some leniency and it's all about compromise. You know, we're trying to find a middle ground here. Um, you know, we're hearing it from both sides of what people would like, what they won't. We, as I said, we
have done a lot of listening and we're trying to find that middle ground. So that's a lot of the reason why the time got there. So I did want to bootstrap that on even though it wasn't exactly your question because it's been the question that other people have asked and I got the floor. So anyway, I will I will stop talking unless you have another question for me.
>> Nope. Thanks a lot. >> Thank you. Um Joe, um you can now answer Carlos's question. >> Yes. Recognizing this is a research on the fly. Um but um I did search our general bylaws for like the categories
of um zoning. So not S10 but single family, residence, business, industrial, overlays, Harvard street. And I came up with two kind of um u uh circumstances where our general bylaws refer to uh zoning districts. One is the
Hancock Village Neighborhood Conservation District which was struck down as a general bylaw that should have been a zoning bylaw and the other one is um what we do is snow and ice and this is 7.7. So SE 7.7 talks about first
business in industrial districts 7.71 then 7.72 is multif family and then 7.73 is general requirements. So, it has a little bit of a flavor of um kind of the zoning in a general bylaw and that's
kind of the you know concern that I have there. >> Thank you. That's probably why it doesn't get enforced. >> Thank you. Um so I will this is all fascinating. Um I will
remind people it's 10 of nine. We still have two warrant articles after this. um as important as this is um Lee Ellen. >> Thanks. I wanted to um address the issue
of standards uh measurable standards because from the very outset when this first came up at the subcommittee I I made the observation that uh the notion of a of a trespass occurring when a beam of light crosses a property line is something that is not really dealt with
in physics. Um and we asked the petitioners to come back to us uh with uh some measurable standard. Uh and we after a two or three hour meeting the first time we had another 2 or three hour meeting and they failed to do that and the first time I've seen a
measurable standard was about an hour before tonight's meeting at at 0.1 lumen which I think somebody mentioned but I wanted to you know put that in in some context. uh a point one foot candle. I'm sorry. Um
let me let me just read you the definition a or a a definition that that Google artificial intelligence comes up with. Um the number of foot candles can be calculated by dividing the number of lumens by the square of the distance in
feet from the light source. For example, 100 lumen light at a distance of 10 feet produces one foot candle. In other words, uh 100 lumen light divided by 10^ squar or 100 produces one. So let me let
me put that calculation in a more perhaps more interesting context. Um because 100 lumens is equivalent to about a 10 watt incandescent lamp. So, let's say we have the equivalent of a
100 watt incandescent lamp. By the way, I think people under 25 years old probably don't even know what an incandescent lamp is, which is kind of a uh it's like my grandson first saw a dial telephone in my house and didn't know what that was either. Um, but in
any event, if you have a 100 watt, the equivalent of a 100 watt incandescent lamp, which is going to produce about a thousand lumens at a distance of about 30 ft, that produces one ft candle of light at the at that 30 foot distance. I
don't think that that and that's 10 times the standard that's being proposed here. 0.1 the standard that's being proposed here of 0.1 is roughly the same order of magnitude to the amount of light that hits the earth from a super
moon of the type that we have right now. Um a super moon being where the moon is at at the closest distance to the earth peri um uh at at a at a full moon. Tonight's almost a full moon and you could practically read a newspaper uh
with the amount of light it generates. And um you know I the point here is we want to deal with the kind of issues that we saw in those photographs. Someone having a 100 watt lamp on their
front porch um that's 30 feet from a neighbor would be in violation because they would under this standard because there would be one foot candle at the at the property line instead of 0.1 and I think that's to me is a you know really
pushing things too far. Um and you know I mean if if the moon is in violation then people are going to sue the moon in Brooklyn. people in Brooklyn would figure out a way to do that, I'm sure. But um the the point is we need a measurable standard. Now, on the other hand, if something is egregious,
uh like the photos that we saw, that's easily measured. And I mean, I can't tell you precisely how many lumens those lights are generating. But let me give you, you know, just as an example, a 4ft fluorescent tube generates about 2500
lumens. And you know, just from what I could see there, it looked like each of those fixtures was probably the equivalent of about two 4ft fluorescent tubes. So you probably had about 25 or 30,000 lumens coming out, you know, out of that house. And again, I'm just
guessing from the photograph. It's not that it's in no sense uh you know a a reliable measure but that's going to produce a lot of foot candles at a distance at at a property line at a butter's property line easily measured.
I think we need a standard but 0.1 is ridiculous. Uh I think that a standard of five or 10 foot candles is probably not unreasonable and and I'm not prepared to to tell you what the right number is. I wish the petitioners had
actually done some work in this area instead of just coming up with something that doesn't make any sense. Um but uh the notion of having no standard is is I don't think acceptable. And the notion of having a standard that is so ownorous
that makes no sense at all also doesn't make any sense. >> Thank you. Um, uh, David Trevette, I'm gonna come to you at the end when we sort of do the petitioners roundup if you have
questions or comments at that point. David Titel, do you have a direct response to Lee? >> I do. I do. First, um, I I I'll say honestly I'm I'm a little offended by the accusation that there was no research done. First, uh I'll I'll drop
some credit some of my own um my own um experience here. I am an 8-year editor at Sky and Telescope magazine. I have a degree from Caltech in planetary science and astronomy. Very well-versed in this. I can tell you that
the 0.1 number is the standard by the dark sky association. It's what's been adopted in Cambridge and other places. I agree that you may not agree with that number and that is totally reasonable, but to accuse us of not doing our homework is frankly insulting and not
>> I don't I don't want to be accused of not having done something. The petitioners had ample opportunity to come to the subcommittee with numbers and the first time I saw a number was tonight. That was the basis of my accusation. Just so you just so you understand, we put a lot of effort into vetting these
articles. And when we don't and when we're not given that kind of input during our hearings and we get it an hour before the advisory committee meeting, that's what I mean when I say you didn't come up with any answers. >> I'm sorry for misunderstanding.
>> Okay, let's the the the 0.1 number is the standard from the dark sky association that you see throughout the Commonwealth. It is in many places. This is not unique to Brooklyn and it is not a unique number. >> Thank you.
>> With due respect, you know, we're not looking at astronomical standards here. We're looking at things that are reasonable for people to have in their houses to light up their pathways. And I I I'm sorry. I don't think uh you know having a a something that's and I'm I've
been involved in an amateur astronomer of sorts over many years and I'm familiar with your your publication. Uh, in fact, I probably many years ago probably subscribed to it. But I can tell you that um the the the the
issue here is reasonable lighting in a residential area not not to reach astronomical or astronomer standards. >> U let let's move on. Janice Khan.
>> Thank you Harry. So um first of all I am married to one of the co-etitioners of this article I recupraption but that really means that I've been following a lot of the discussion so I'd like to kind of frame what we've been hearing because I found it really helpful to
hear people's comments and um and concerns. So, first of all, um the baseline is that the current what we have currently in our zoning bylaw is ineffective for our uh building commissioner to be able to have any real
regulatory power. So, um and as was pointed out, we have not regulated lighting. The only lighting that's regulated is really signs right now in our zoning bylaw, but not residential lighting. So then the issue turns to
historically what do we do in Brooklyn? So historically we address nuisance in our general bylaws. We have one for noise. We have one for leaf blowers and now we're prop there's one being
proposed for lighting. And this all makes sense to me that this is in fact how we historically regulate nuisance in Brooklyn. And that's what this is. This is a nuisance bylaw. Um the other thing
I noticed too is that every nuisance bylaw has standards in it. So um so it's appropriate that there are standards. The question that Lee raised now is in is kind of interesting to me. But I think Lee that the um that the reality
is that no one is going to make a complaint if the light is one foot candle. But they are going to make a complaint when it is egregious like the like the photo that we saw. So I don't think that it's going to be really an
issue. I don't think that >> they're talking about 1.1 foot candle. >> I'm sorry 0.1 foot candle. I I I still think that no one is going to complain about a light at that level. That's not what we're talking about. That's not the nuisance. Um and but it's okay to set
that as a standard. You know, Dan, you know, whoever is our building commissioner in the future will will have a tool that he that no long that does not exist currently in the town. But um but this is clearly an
issue and and um neighbors do talk to each other and try to get some relief. we are. It's more than one um egregious um developer in our town that is
creating this problem. It is a much bigger problem and and we want to give our town the tools to be able to, you know, to um to deal with problems that are
brought to their attention. I I don't disagree with you in any respect, Janice, except for the number. The point is that this number is so ridiculously low compared to what we would normally expect to find in a residential
neighborhood where someone with a 100 watt bulb 30 foot for the property line would potentially be in violation. I I just am very troubled by that. And if you're going to have people making complaints and they measure it at, you know, at one at 0.9 foot candles or something like that, then if we put this
in the bylaw, there is a basis for a complaint and that's not appropriate. >> I I just think, Lee, that it's unlikely that there would be a complaint generated by that. So, um, and the other I had one more um one more point. Oh,
about um I was interested in listening to com residential districts. In listening to the select board um discussion, I know that one of the com one of the issues is that our commercial areas um but residential areas and
they're they're really in our zoning bylaw, they're really part of the commercial area the way we draw them. And so I do have a question whether um it makes sense to keep it as residential areas because then it could really be
applied to residential areas within commercial districts. You know that's when um the EDAB was really concerned about commercial areas and the vitality of the streetscape and um and that's why that was pulled
out. Um my understanding from the select board was that um it's it's this idea that you could have um these light impacts into residential areas within commercial districts. So I just wonder whether it it doesn't make sense to keep
it residential areas um and the planning board wanted standards just like the subcommittee did. So I, you know, I do think that this is a group that has worked very closely with with town departments and with um, you know,
listening to the concerns of lots of people in the town. There's never will never please everybody. But I think that this bylaw, the way it's constructed now, has a good shot of at least giving the town tools to enforce something that
is really a problem for many people in this town. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Michael Burgerer. >> Thank you, Arie. Um, I have a question just to be clear because we've talked about zoning bylaws and bylaws. Warrant
article 8 and the other alternate uh warrant article and the amendments really refer to a by we're talking about a bylaw, not a zoning bylaw. Is that right? That's what's before town meeting. So, it requires a majority vote, not twothirds vote. Is that
correct? I don't know who I'm asking. Anybody can answer. >> That's correct. >> Yes. So the other question then and and I was interested in Joe's discussion and and and Dan's discussion about enforcement because we haven't talked much about enforcement, the difference
between um enforcement um rigor uh whether it's a zoning uh bylaw or general bylaw. If it's a general bylaw, what kind of enforcement do we have in these articles? And who's going to be doing it?
>> I don't I guess I don't know who I'm asking, but I don't hear anybody answering it because I'm loathed to volunteer unless called on, but I'll uh step up and anyone else can uh follow on. Um as drafted, the primary uh entity that
would enforce it would be the bully inspector. Okay. And and fines are there to find. >> Yes, there's there's fines provisions. Uh there's uh you know, kind of our municipal uh 2121D $300 a day. Well, I think it's a $100
for the first violation, $300 a day for you know, multiple violations. There's a period that uh you know allows people uh to remedy it. Um so there's there's a fine structure in the in the bylaw. And
you believe, Joe, you since you you answered the question, thank you, that the general bylaw would be the better approach than a than a zoning bylaw. >> Correct. >> Because because although, you know, going to Janice's point about like nuisance, nuisance should be regulated
in general bylaws, but Brooklyn's history is we've been regulating uh lighting through zoning. Got >> And now we're stuck in that that that path, stuck in that lane. Got to stay in your lane. Okay. >> Thank you. Harry stepped away. So,
>> yeah. Did Joe, sorry. Can Joe just say what he just said because I think he he got reversed. >> Um, possibly. It's late. I I just had my cheese and crackers for dinner, so I'm also uh, you know,
peckish. But um what I was referring to was if nuisance is the type of thing that you want to regulate through a general bylaw, zoning you want to regulate uses and structures. So ideally if we had started from the beginning, you would have
regulated lighting through a general bylaw, but we didn't. Before 2016, I don't know when it was enacted, we had an illumination bylaw that was in zoning. And now because of Reiko and the Love Lover request and Valley Green Grow
cases, they talk about like if you start in zoning, you're going to stay in zoning and and I haven't found a case where you could start in zoning and switch. There's there's been no case that has ever allowed that. >> Right. So therefore, you're recommending
that this is a zoning bylaw, not a general bylaw, which is sort of the opposite that was just said a few minutes ago >> by me. If I if I if I said that, I apologize. My memo is very clear that that's that's what I'm right. Exactly. Sorry, >> Lindo.
>> It's been a long week and a long day. So, >> yes, >> thank you. Um, I just want to reiterate um because Janice brought it up. I also am opposed to the Rubenstein amendment limiting it to actual residence zones,
meaning areas that are only residential. We will still have the limitation that it has to be the light source is from a residential building, but we do have residential areas that are interspersed
in other zones and I don't think they should be um unable to bring a complaint if they have a problem. It we can't have a complaint against a commercial lighting. So that's covered. So everybody who
didn't want it to apply to commercial, that's still covered. I'm just saying that I don't think we should limit it to the zoning districts that are residential only. I think we could be missing problem areas if we do that and I don't think we lose anything by not
limiting it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Christine Westfall. Um, I've I've looked over the paperwork and I've listened to the argument here and and what's clear to me is none of this is ready to go to town meeting for real.
>> I agree. Um what we're really seeing is uh something that started out with a dark sky basis and then turned into nuisance and the tension between nuisance and dark sky in terms of the um uh standards that we're going to use to
evaluate this and um this is just crazy. Um, you know, we really I know that the petitioners have put a lot of effort into this. I know that the subcommittees put a lot of effort into this, but the
reality is that we're all over the place with it. and the standards, you know, Lee's right. Those that set of standards is has nothing to do with the nuisance lighting. Um, and and isn't effective
uh to, you know, regulate nuisance lighting. It's effective to regulate dark skylighting. And quite frankly, I live in the city because I like lots of ambient light at night from a safety perspective.
Um, you know, I can drive out of the city if I want to see the sky. So, I'm not going to support any of this. I don't think any of it's ready for combine. >> Uh, are you is that uh >> that's my comment. >> So, you're not proposing any kind of uh
you're not going to recommend referral. You're going to recommend no action when you're gonna >> I'm gonna recommend no action. >> Just checking one. Okay. >> Um Neil Gordon. >> Yeah. Thank you, Harry. I'll I'll be delighted to recommend referral. Um we're at the end of the process of
reviewing the warrant for the November special town meeting. The end of the process. I got an email from a a town meeting member saying where was the notice that that that that one of the articles tonight was being brought up.
Right. Because we're we're at the end of the process. I got an email with a proposed amendment. I was already here, right? We were a couple of minutes to uh to the start of the meeting, right? So, do I listen to the meeting or do I read
it? I surely haven't studied it. I haven't read it at all. Um, you know, we've got a we've got a well, it'll give the it'll give the the town some tools and nobody's going to ever complain about uh, you know, a a ridiculously
low, pardon the expression, uh, standard. Why don't we set a two a two m hour speed limit because we know nobody's going to enforce that, but that way if someone is sort of going too fast, we'll know it when we see it. This
is this is just not ready and I'll I'll move for u referral to a moderator's committee. >> Look, let let me say this. I'm I'm I'm I'm well reminded for those who remember the number of iterations we went to went
through in terms of trying to find proper measurement for nuisance noise. not not the party by law, but the you know the ambient noise, daytime noise and nighttime noise and stand across the
street with the uh you know with the noise meter. Um you know we have a um uh this would not be the first bylaw that said uh an hour before sunset or an hour after sunset. We have parks that are
open from sunrise to sunset. Um you know we know when sunset is. It's not hard, you know. Nobody complains because it's a minute before or a minute after. We know the difference between light and dark. We're not we're just not there on this, right? And and the amendments keep
flowing. Uh I I think that this needs to go uh e either no action and and let somebody bring it back in some reasonable form or refer to to a committee uh because we're not solving this between now and town meeting. Thank
you, Joselyn. >> Thank you, Harry. So, I I would like to remind um this body that um a lighting bylaw was brought forward, I believe it was last year, um and it was referred back to the planning department and the
planning department did nothing. I mean, they they did not come up with a draft and they said they weren't planning to come up with a draft, notwithstanding the fact that it had been referred. And so this group um gathered together and they put forward
an article that is intended to address nuisance lighting in Brooklyn. And I also remind this group that um it was town council's recommendation last year that this be u brought forward as a nuisance bylaw. Um the standard that has been disparaged
by members of this this body is a standard that has been adopted by one of our peer communities, Cambridge. It's in effect. I don't I haven't certainly haven't heard about any um complaints within the city of Cambridge about the
use of that standard. And I also want to point out um that Brookline has a number of regulates a number of subjects under both the zoning bylaw and the general bylaws. Marijuana for example, signs, I
believe there are a couple of others. Um, so my view is that this is a significant issue for many residents in Brooklyn. Um, you know, Christine may choose to live in where she lives because she likes lighting, but there are others who
are very disturbed by intrusive lighting. Um, and several of the folks who live in my neighborhood are disturbed by intrusive life lighting. And so a nuisance bylaw under the general bylaws is necessary. I think the petitioners have done an extraordinary
job of collaborating with several stakeholders and making changes to their bylaw. So, let's just let's do it and then if there are issues, we can amend it down the road. But the time is now. It's already been referred. That was unsuccessful. So, let's vote this now
and get it approved. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, we Dennis, >> no. So, we're at the point where uh uh Mr. Travette has been waiting patiently for it to be called back on and uh and we will need um a few hopefully brief
summary comments from um the various petitioners and then there's a set of motions that are that are going to come. So I'm going to start with David Trevette then um uh uh David Titel. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, I just
want to point out that I've been, as I said, I I had some original disagreements. Those got settled and so I came around to support the original intent. Um, and I have tried because I agreed with the original objectives to
track as closely as possible the language that was being used in the petitioner's article. Uh, unfortunately, it's been a moving target and I have always kept up. In fact, I just discovered tonight that I hadn't kept up. Um, so in fact, in terms of who
could who could file a complaint, I had it had to be a directly affected party. That was the language that was previously in the petitioners. I hadn't caught up with their change to neighbor. And similarly, the reason you have in front of you a corrected article is I
was trying to track their illumination requirement. They originally, I'd been told, were going to stick with 3. So, I made one. I've always felt that probably an eventual dark sky um u regulation bylaw would require would would put the
limit of what was allowed lower than what you would have for egregious really bothersome light um nuisance and so I always intended to put mine slightly higher than theirs. Um I was surprised by their.3 because what I had heard of the light of a full moon the
illumination from a full moon in a clear night was 0.03. 03. Um, so currently mine's at.1 uh 009 uh foot candle. Sorry, change from looks to foot candle in there. Um 0.09. I currently have mine
at 0.15. So it's basically twice the elimination of of of a full moon or a clear night. Um that seemed to me in mine remember it's automatically deemed a nuisance. in theirs it's a combination of the
lighting and causing a problem. Um so ideally we and David Pollock had asked this question after the subcommittee could could we somehow bring things together and and since we were sort of in agreement on on objectives but I think
the for me it got complicated by all the other things that got added into theirs and so I I would love it if we could come together that would be great. Uh, so anyway, that that's I shouldn't take any more of your time. I appreciate the hearing tonight. Um, and I'll try to be
a little more succinct at town meeting. Thank you very much, >> Mr. Tel. >> Um, three points because we've talked a long time and it's getting late. Um, for uh, four. First, thank you for this opportunity. Second, just a point of
clarification. Um a full moon is 0.01 ft candle maybe as bright as 03 at its brightest. Um that is means that our standards are 10 times as bright as a full moon. So that's a good way of thinking about it. Um point number two
is um this lines up with where with standards that you see across the Commonwealth including Cambridge, a place that I would hardly call rural. Um but the third point and the final point I want to make is again I want to go right back to what is the motivation behind this. Motivation behind this is
there are people who are dealing with light nuisance issues now and we wanted to create a pathway for the town to empower them to deal with it. We've worked closely. This has been
about collaboration. We've worked closely with everybody we've listened to and we've met before. We've worked very closely with planning and building to get something that is enforcable. Um they helped draft a lot of the language. This is something we really strongly
feel that the town needs and residents who are dealing with nuisance lighting that's affecting their health and well-being. This is something that will help them. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um All right. I've been
trying to think about what the um uh voting order will be and this is what I've decided and I hope that we will just execute on it rather than spending a lot of time trying to fine-tune this because it is already 21 after 9. So
what we'll do is we'll take the um the revised motioner from the petitioner which uh includes the Warren um uh uh propo the Warren amendment. Um we'll take that on the table once it once that
motion is made. Um I believe Mr. Gordon is prop preparing a referral motion that will take precedence. So we will vote that. If it passes we are done. If it fails, we will then move on to the
remaining um potential amendments. There I suppose there might be an amendment coming to uh you know remove or alter Mr. Warren's suggestion. There will be amendments coming to uh whether to adopt Mr.
Rubenstein's proposal. There's the prevette substitute motion and Carlos has proposal. So, I think it makes most sense for us to lay the petitioner's motion on the table, take the referral motion, and then consider whether we want to replace the referral mo the um
petitioner's motion with the TV substitute conceptually, and then take the subsequent amendments after that. So, we will that's the order we will we will vote um and we will do our best to produce we will do our best to produce a
motion we can vote on. Yes, >> a point of clarification. So the only things that are going likely to be on the table are the petitioners mo the original petitioner's motion which would have no standard and an amendment that would have a standard at 0.1. Am I is that correct?
>> I am not there's other changes in the TV uh uh motion as I understand it >> with respect to the light standard. That's that's what I'm focusing on because that that that impacts the way at least I would vote on the referral motion. If that's all there is, then I
would vote for referral. >> Um I I think we will need um some uh you know 30 second clarification between the two Davids around that standard because I'm not I don't feel I'm qualified to answer that question. >> David,
do you does the petitioner's motion at this point in time? >> I think that's my queue. um >> standards. >> Start over again, David. Your your your connection died >> and it died again. >> I I can answer the question.
>> Yeah, go ahead, Alisa. Sorry. Sorry, David. Yes, our warrant article as amended as we have filed it with the town has standards um that include 001 foot candles for light trespass
which as mentioned several times is consistent with most other towns in Massachusetts including our neighbors across the river in Cambridge. Did you mean 0.1 or 01? >> 0.1 >> 0.1
>> 0.1. Okay. >> Thank you. Does that answer your question, Lee? >> Yeah. And that so and and whereas the subcommittee recommendation for no action was a was a version that had no standard. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> All right. So I need someone to move uh the the motion we received from uh the petitioners most recently. >> I I will move that second. >> Okay. And then so let me say so main
motion um petitioners revised uh motion under warrant article eight. All right. So now Neil, do you
have a referral motion ready that you can paste in the chat? Please paste it in the chat. So >> yes. So I don't I don't have it fully drafted, but let me let me say it this way. Um, right. I move to refer the subject matter of war 8 to a moderator's
committee with an expectation that they bring a proposal uh suitable for warrant article to be included in the next annual town meeting. That would be me. expectation
that they bring an article suitable for inclusion at the annual town meeting, the next annual town meeting. >> Can I ask could I ask a question really quick of Neil?
>> Absolutely. Well, because we we're debating his motion. So, >> Neil, in your motion, would you be willing to add uh that they bring us a specific standard? I was going to say that also. >> So
>> suitable for bring them articles suitable for town meeting that has let let them I I I I I think I think it's we have enough on the record. We've got a a series of proposals in the form
of amendments and and main motions of of various sorts. I think we've had this discussion and I think that we don't need to uh you know draft the components of the work of the committee. I don't
know if there are things in the proposal that don't need to be there. I don't know if there are things that should be in there that are not in there. Uh I'm not at that comfort level right now. I think that a moderator's committee can uh start sort of where we are with with
proposals. I don't see where this is a um uh significant need for staff time in in in terms of referral to a select board committee. And I don't think that there is a prohibition in terms of time
and complexity from what the starting point is to be able to bring this back in time for uh they have to finish their work by February. >> I'd like to propose that the better answer to Anony's question would have been no. Um
>> well, sure, but he asked me why. In the interest of in the interest of time, I I revised my answer to no. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Linda Olson Pali, >> thanks. Um, I I just really disagree
with Neil about the amount of time that we should give this because we're going into the holidays. The moderator has to find people willing to serve. They have to do their research. They have to decide what direction they really want to go. I I just think this is more
complex than, you know, one month's worth of uh a subcommittee meeting. So, I I think it should be in within a year. >> I'm happy to go as soon as practicable. >> There you go. I like that. >> Uh,
>> I'm against as soon I'm against as soon as practicable, Neil, I think you should I think you should keep it for a year, Max. >> Did you put your name in the chat? >> No, I didn't. My bad. So, Neil, how about we uh split the split the difference here and say bring an article
suitable for inclusion um at uh the next annual or special town meeting. >> Town meeting in 2026. >> Yeah. In 2026, the
>> the next at at an upcoming town meeting in 2026. >> Sure. Let let me say this quickly because I know we're going to be here late. There there are some here who think we're ready to do this now, right? Um that would argue that a moderator's
committee in short order doing the same kind of work that a subcommittee would do would be more than ready, not withstanding the holidays to uh have a proposal for the annual town meeting in May. If we don't think we can get there,
then surely this needs to be referred only. Let's leave it at that. >> I, you know, I would just add to that that had the petitioners come to the subcommittee with a proposed standard at the get-go, I think we would have gotten it done.
>> Well, nothing in the new language prevents anyone from coming back in May. Um, Janice, did you have a question? I'm sorry. Yes, I I I do have a question about referral because this has already as Josyn said this has already been referred and not only that but on this
committee that put together this article are the experts in lighting and and doing this. I can't see how forming yet another committee is actually going to bring us forward and we need a tool now. I mean, this is something that planning and building are both asking for. And
so, why would we want to why when they're perfectly satisfied with what what's been evolved, why would we with no with the exception of Lee with no expertise in the field presume that a
moderator's committee would be a better option? >> That sounds more like a rhetorical question. >> Let me answer the question. is the the the the person who's moving the amendment the uh recommendation to refer right because notwithstanding my
expertise uh in the physics of light I have some expertise in the physics of town meeting and we're not ready I'm not ready and that's why I move for referral if it's that easy let the moderator appoint a
panel of experts and others, right? And and deal with the issues that have been raised that are the holes in this particular um proposal right now and solve it. If
it's if this can be solved now, like tonight, it can surely it can surely be better um by May. You say it can't if it can't be better by by May, then I agree with Linda. Let's give it a year.
>> Thank you, Christine. >> Um I I'll I'll second Neil's referral motion uh because I didn't hear a second to that. Um but more importantly, you know, I understand the need for a tool. The problem that I have is I don't know whether we're actually recommending a
hammer, an axe, or a scapel at this point. And I think that it makes a difference what we're recommending in terms of that tool. Thank you. >> All right. We have a referral motion on
the table, duly seconded. Um if this passes, um then the that's our recommendation. Uh if it fails, there are somewhere between I don't know one and four amendments to be uh debated. Uh
before we move on, um I'm going to share my screen. Um uh for referral, Michael Burgerer, >> no. >> Harry Bors, >> yes. >> Cliff Brown,
>> yes. >> Anthony Buono, >> yes. >> Harry Freriedman, >> no. >> David Mark Goldstein, >> Lost David. Neil Gordon. Am I lost? I don't hear >> We can hear you. Yep. We can
>> I can't hear anybody. I can't hear anybody. >> Can you hear me? >> I can't hear I can hear you now. I'm assuming you're voting yes. Neil, >> I'm voting yes. >> I didn't hear David Mark though. >> I think he has disappeared. >> Okay. Susan Granoff. >> Yes.
>> Perry Gman, >> come back to me, please. >> Sure. for Kelly Hardbeck. >> Uh, yes. >> Alisa Jonas. >> I'm back to me, too. >> Janice Khan, >> definitely no. >> Brian Lad,
>> no. >> Alec Levitz, >> no. >> Carol Levin, >> yes. >> Liz Linder, >> no. >> Pam Lodish, >> Pam had to leave. >> Jocelyn Murphy, >> no.
Linds Pelky, >> yes. >> Bran Pearller, >> no. >> David Pollock, >> I think he had to leave. >> Oh, okay. Carlos Rujo, >> I want to vote both ways. So,
I'll vote no because of all the amount of time that they've has already spent. >> Margaret Robbotham. >> Yes. Lee Selwin. >> Yes. >> Chris Westfall. >> Yes.
>> Uh, who did I skip over? >> Skipped overman and uh Jonas. >> Perry. >> Yeah, I guess I'll vote yes. >> All right. And Jonas? >> Uh, I'm like Carlos. I want to vote
both, but I'll say no. >> All right. Is there anybody else that we have skipped? >> All right. So, by a very narrow margin of 12 to 10, um, we're recommending referral on this particular article. And I
I thought that was a good discussion. Um, and I thank uh the uh the subcommittee for a lot of work and I thank the petitioners and I'm sure there'll be an extended debate at uh um town meeting and I hope that the report
that comes um from uh the subcommittee can capture a lot of the discussion uh tonight in support of this particular referral motion because I think >> there's a lot of complexity here. I thank the one person who voted yes who let Dennis off the hook from breaking the tie.
>> Dennis, I I had a question. So, now they're going to be competing um motions, right? Our our motion of referral and then there's going to be a different one. Um but they haven't there there's we
haven't heard anything about what do we think about the the amendments that have been uh like what does the AC if if referral uh sorry I'm really not working today uh if referral fails what do we think about the Warren
amendment and what do we think about the Ribbonstein amendment is there a way for us to say what our opinion is >> it's a good point we've we've wrestled with this in the past. I don't remember the precise language that we used, but it was basically of the form subject to
um you know, if the if referral fails, we have a overall recommendation on these amendments. And it's probably worth taking that vote, >> please. >> Um I just have to think about what the language might might be. if you'll indulge
uh me um sticking in language that we copied and pasted is essentially it's a sense of the body of the rec of the of the um of uh those various amendments. So there's the Warren amendment and the Rubenstein
>> just refresh memory quickly of what these are. War Warren adds neighborhood and um >> no War Warren adds the um uh uh the um the standing and uh Rubenstein defines
neighborhood. >> Okay. >> Um so this is basically a um uh motion. Uh it's basically it's a the sense of the advisory is is to support the Warren amendment. the sense of advisories to
support the Rubikenstein amendment. Um >> or not or not >> or not. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm just say yes if you support and no if you don't and then we'll just have that as a record for our for our write up. >> Are we these separate votes? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. I want to do it two separate votes
and I uh I'll try to come up with you know more formal language um to describe this but I think we know what we are doing which is we are expressing basically a thumbs up or thumbs down on the on each of those amendments. Um the problem of course is that this is not
strictly kosher because the amendment would have to be applied to you know it's going to come up in the context of any number of these motions. So I really want you to view this as kind of a general sense, not a commitment to vote a particular way at a particular time.
>> Hey Dennis, one >> can I raise one? Yes. >> So the select board has not voted yet on this. Um >> so we may become the main motion. So uh >> okay >> you know then I came because board
right and it'll and if that happens uh and there's a new motion it might we might be taking this up again right before town meeting >> maybe okay >> um um okay so I'm going to I just wrote these out as sense of the body regarding the
warn amendment sense of the body regarding the rimide amendment. I want you to view these as straw polls. Uh I realize this is slightly um out of um the ordinary but I think we understand what we're trying to do and this is to capture information for our for our report because I think that sense will
be very important in the report. Um so I'm just going to go down the list warrant amendment Michael >> come back to me please. Okay. Harry B, >> uh, he had to drop out. >> Cliff, >> abain. >> Anthony,
>> yes. >> Harry F, >> abstain. >> David, uh, Neil. >> Neil can't hear you. >> Okay, Susan. >> Neil's nodding. Okay. Susan, >> yes. >> Perry,
>> yes. >> Kelly, >> yes. >> Elisa, >> abstain. >> Janice, >> abstain. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Alec, >> yes. >> Carol, >> abstain. >> Liz,
>> you know, I it dropped out. What are we voting on? Sorry. Uh basically this is a straw a straw poll of whether we support the Warren amendment conceptually given that we voted to refer the motion. >> Got it. Yes.
>> Uh Joselyn, >> no. >> Sorry. Uh Linda, >> no. >> Fran, >> yes. >> Carlos, >> no. >> Margaret, >> yes. Lee,
>> no. >> Christine, >> abstain. >> Okay. And I think I skipped >> Michael. >> Michael, >> abstain. >> Abstain. Okay. Uh, 10 to four with seven abstensions. Uh,
>> oh, wait, Dennis, I think I confused this one with the Rubenstein one. I think I'm a no on this one, actually. Never mind. I confused them. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. So, now we're going back to Michael's amendment. This is the one that tries to define the
um uh uh to clarify the definition to to formalize the definition of neighborhoods to be compliant with um the zoning definition rather than um the broader definition of neighbor um that was written in the original article. Michael, >> no. No. >> Do I have an odd wrong? I'm sorry.
>> Yeah, I'm sorry. You kind of stated it wrong. So, >> say it backwards. >> Well, no. It's residents districts. So, it's zoning districts that are residents only. and it combines it to that. It has nothing to do with neighbors or neighborhood. >> Yeah, I I meant to say residence. It was
just a it was a scrivener's type uh word, Smith. But yes, I I I agree with completely. Thank you for that clarification, Michael. >> Uh Cliff, >> oh Harry, sorry. And and Harry was gone. Uh
Anthony, >> yes. >> Harry F. No. Neil, >> no. >> Susan, >> no. >> Perry, >> yes. >> Uh, Kelly,
>> uh, no. >> Alisa, >> no. >> Janice, >> no. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Alec, >> no. >> Carol, >> Sting, >> Liz, >> no.
Uh, Joselyn, >> no. >> Linda, >> no. >> Bran, >> no. >> Carlos, >> no. >> Margaret, >> uh, no. >> Thank you. Lee,
>> no. >> Christine, >> no. >> All right. So, uh, thank you, Carlos, for suggesting that. I think that's very helpful for the, um, for the report to get that sense. uh in because I there's no guarantee that our recommendation of
referral will be adopted at um at town meeting. >> I will I'm sorry. It was uh three in favor and 15 opposed for um for Rubenstein and it was nine in favor and five opposed for Warren. Uh 957 for
Warren, 3153 for Rubenstein. >> The abstain should be noted. >> Pardon? The abstensions should be noted. >> Yes. Yes. In this case, definitely. Yes. I I And it'll all be I mean, Lisa will get this sheet after the meeting. All
right. Well, so thank you. We're done uh uh with um warrant article 8 for now. And the next time it gets taken up, it'll be in a meeting that I won't be there. Um uh so we want to move on. Thank you to the petitioners. Thank you to everyone for the participating in the
debate and having a quite elaborate conversation. We need to move on to two other items. Um there was a uh select board change to warrant article 9 for the um on the renters's handbook. I'm
not sure who here is best qualified to explain that particular proposal. Paul. >> Oh >> yes, it's a full night. >> Yes, it is because we still have Mr. Trump to talk about. >> Boy, I don't miss these days. Okay. Um,
so let me get my my head together. So this is um it's it's in your packet as the Warren Amendment. Um, it's not the Warren amendment. the select board had uh multiple constables come to our
public hearing and our when we ended up voting on it, they spoke again um and they raised a number of issues and during the first public hear the public hearing we had um during our deliberations the board agreed uh that we that we should you know amend the
article. I took on the amendment, you know, sent it to Round and got all the clearance and everything. So, it got the Warren amendment, but it really is, it's the select board motion. Um, it was um it makes a narrow change. It removes the
requirement that town agents, including Brooklyn constables, deliver a Brookline specific statement of tenants rights when serving a notice. So it removes the the the agents or the constipables having to deliver this notice. Um the
select board's motion prever preserves the goal of warrant article 9 ensuring tenants have access to information while maintaining alignment with state law and avoiding unintended effects which I'll discuss. The select board voted
unanimously 50-0 to recommend favorable action on the amended article that you have in front of you. The petitioners um in their I think it's a rebuttal offer several observations in support of retaining and delivering the requirement. I'd like to speak to those
for a moment. However, these points do not address the core structural issue that the select board motion seeks to correct, which is who is legally required to provide notice and to produce the required information
consistent with state law. The key issue is not whether a landlord finds it easy or not burdensome uh to add pages to the packet which is what um the the petitioners are are suggesting. The key
issue is that article 9 does not follow state law which holds the landlord responsible for providing the notice to quit and relevant documentation including tenant resource information that's uh that is developed heavily by
the state. The petitioners have cited uh that landlords compliance with Boston's requirements is proof that it's easy for them to do uh because Boston does also offer local resources. The reason that their high compliance with Boston
landlords that there is high compliance is because Boston requires that the landlord provide the information which is consistent with state laws notice to quit. Somerville and Cambridge also require the landlord to provide local
tenant resources. So Boston, Somerville, and Cambridge all require the landlord to provide uh the information. Um article n article 9 does not require the landlord to provide Brooklyn's
rental handbook. It requires the constables or other agent of the town to provide this information departing from what the practices is of the municipalities around us that have significant rental housing. Um the peti
the petitioners reference the relatively small number of evictions for September in their rebuttal. It's important to note that these are not the number of notices to quit. The notices to quit are not entered into the system of record that the petitioners are referencing.
According to Constable Figgler, who I believe he's on tonight and spoke extensively at a select board meeting, there are many more notices to quit and maybe in the hundreds that are not entered into the system. Um, and at the time of the notice to quit, which is
really important, this is a very important point, that the information that Brookline can offer would be helpful to the tenant. The notice to quit is the first thing that happens and is required by state law. This is why the state requires that tenant resources be provided at the time of the notice to
quit and that by the petitioner's own admission the few documented cases that they have in September. Half were noticed by Brookline constables and the others by other parties. The petitioners emphasized that dismissals solely due to
local notice issues may be uncommon. However, the amendment does not claim that dismissals are frequent. It notes that when a notice is challenged, the person who served it, meaning the Brooklyn constable, may be compelled to testify. If Brookline adds a a required
document, the constables must testify about whether it was delivered correctly. Town council may be pulled in, incurring costs for the town into litigation to defend the policy or the materials produced. Um and importantly constables won't re receive any
compensation for doing this. Um they would have to just go in for the court time. Uh the amendment importantly does uh you know preserve the purpose of article 9 which is to ensure that tenants have access to local resources and know their rights while maintaining
consistent with state eviction procedures avoiding structural incentives that push landlords away from Brooklyn. So remember, a landlord can choose who they're using to provide this notice. If a landlord isn't required by
state law, right, to provide it and that and Brooklyn's not requiring the landlord to send a notice with Brooklyn's local resources, the landlord's not going to use us. We've heard this from Joe Figgler. They're going to go somewhere else. Um, and they just will bypass and the information won't get into the hands of the renter
anyway. Um, and it's it's really important. You know, the the the the petitioners have said this repeatedly. They would prefer to require the landlord do it. They want the landlord to do it, but they think it's illegal for them to put it into our bylaw. So, they're trying to do this and run and
convince people uh to do it. There's a whole bunch of other people, sheriffs and others that that will have no reason to to do it for us on our behalf. There's no way to do it. there's no fine for them to do it if they if they're not compliant. So, uh, as I mentioned, the
select board, uh, supported, uh, this motion. It's in front of you, 50, and I hope that you would support the amendment so that we can move forward with having renters information up on our website and figuring out in the future how to get landlords to deliver the material, which they should be
delivering anyway. Thank you. >> Thank you, uh, Constable Gordon. Um yeah. So you know I I I abstained uh before I have a direct financial
interest uh here in this particular uh matter. Um I I just assume wait and see where the debate goes and and okay >> comment on the facts if you don't if you don't mind. Um, I'd also like I know this is not a public hearing, >> but I think that we should uh if he
wishes to do so hear from Constable Figler. >> Sure. Uh, that that would be perfectly fine, Mr. Figler. >> Hi. Uh, so I'm not sure. I mean, uh, here I am. So, I was probably going
to comment after Alec had a chance to respond to Paul because I know he wrote um you know a letter in rebuttal to what u you know Paul was saying but if you wanted me to just speak now I could whatever is makes most sense for you
>> right you can hold off and we can go to our um uh to our discussion and then come back to you later. Um, so, um, Alec, >> uh, actually, it's you're moving Alec ahead of Anthony.
>> Oh, I didn't I'm sorry. I didn't see, uh, I didn't see Anthony. Go ahead, Anthony. >> The petitioner be allowed to say anything? >> The petitioner, you know, we're wasting time discussing who's going to go first or second? And actually, I don't really
care. But to keep going back and forth on it like you just did, Susan, and like I'm doing now is a complete and total waste of time. So, flip a coin. You know, it doesn't matter. Alec, you are the petitioner. Go first.
>> All right. Thank you, Harry. Um, I I just wanted to briefly respond to to Paul's opening comments there. Um, I I want to push back on the notion that this is a small change and that this amendment maintains the spirit and purpose of Warren Article 9. The petitioners of War Article 9 do not
agree with that characterization at all. Um, one of the two main provisions of this article is the tenant notification program. um and standing that program up, albeit in an incremental fashion. As we've said all along, this amendment would completely strip these provisions
out. And what we would be left with is a bylaw that would solely call for the town to create the statement and put it on the website, but then not actually deploy it or start to stand up a notification program. We fundamentally see this a as an irrevocable change to
the article and a big step backwards. Um, ironically, we are actually advocating in this case that Brookline follow the letter of the law as our town council has has laid it out for us and ruled. Um, the select board made very clear at their hearing that their
preference would be that the landlords provide notification. As we heard from Paul tonight, he sees this as aligning Brookline's bylaw with state law. Um, as we discussed at length in our initial hearing with the advisory committee, the petitioners in theory agree and in an ideal world, we would have designed this
article in that way. However, we were advised both by town council and by several other attorneys we independently consulted with that this would not survive attorney general review and in fact in being struck down in attorney general review would then jeopardize the
program set up in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Malden and other communities potentially impacting thousands of eviction cases beyond Brooklyn's borders. Uh we are leading in this case under a first principle of do no harm and we have serious concerns that to
defer the notification provisions here with the idea of in the future bringing a landlord notification requirement has the potential to do great harm beyond our borders. Um I and I'd also say that we don't see this as an end run. As I mentioned this is how unfortunately we have to grapple
with the letter of the law because Brooklyn is not a city. our bylaw will face automatic legal review and if it doesn't survive as I mentioned we would have an adverse outcome. Um in addition in looking at the other available legal options um in we consulted after our
last meeting with the select board with some legal services attorneys um who have worked in providing legal representation in eviction cases for multiple decades in the region. Um they mentioned that an alternative might involve more intensive use of town staff. We don't want to see that be the
outcome here. But if Pound Meeting decides that we can't place what we think is a fairly modest burden on noticing agents, that will really be the only feasible path forward for Brookline. That will be more resource intensive. That will consume more staff
time. and the petitioners think that what we've put forward and what the advisory committee previously voted to recommend favorable action on by a margin of 18 to1 represents not only the legal path forward but also the cost effective and costconcious path forward.
Um, and I do want to note in in looking at some of the data that that Paul referenced that we produced in our response, looking at actual eviction filings in Brooklyn, we actually saw filings where Brooklyn landlords were employing nonbrookline
constables, outside party noticing agents to provide notice to quits in September. Those noticing agents in the notice to quit packets they delivered to tenants included Boston's local statement of tenants rights as a matter
of best practice for their individual private servicing activities. So right now, ironically, with the lack of this kind of bylaw program, Brooklyn residents that get served a notice to quit from an outside party may be
getting better informed of their rights and potentially legal and other resources available to them if they're served by someone other than a Brooklyn constable. This is something that we have the power to directly remedy through bylaw. As I've said, this
recommends an or this represents an incremental approach. We acknowledge there's more work to do. We will, should this pass, seek voluntary compliance with the Norfick County Sheriff's Department and look to another future bylaw to potentially regulate other thirdparty private noticing agents in
Brooklyn. This is the first step of several. Um, but as I say, we strongly feel that this not only represents the legally safe path forward, but the more cost-effective path forward as well. Um, and with that, I'm happy to answer any other questions. Um
Dennis, Mr. Figgler would like to speak. Do I call him now or do we wait? >> You can go first. >> I had called on on on him as a constable and I I see Regina has also raised her hand. I'd like to hear very brief comments from both of them before and we
can go back to other um questions from the body. >> All right. So, for those who don't know, uh, my name is Joe Figgler. I'm the senior most constable in the town. Um, I have experience serving notice not just in Brooklyn, but in Boston as well. I've
served over 150 notices to quit in B in Brooklyn and over 250 in Boston. So, I'm very familiar with both ways of doing things, right? Um, and so the first thing that just pops into my head is that Alec had mentioned that when uh a
nonbrookline constable had served a notice to quit in the nine summary processes that he looked at that they included, you know, the tenant information from Boston and that was a best practice. That's not true. That's not a best practice. That's
just something that happened to be done. And I can say from experience that I've done that, too. But that's not a best practice. That's essentially what uh uh either a lawyer or a property manager or whoever hired me or the process server
to serve the notice asked us to do. So, we did it, but it's not a best practice. So, I just wanted to clarify that and to understand how this all works and why it's an issue about, you know, how the the notice is served. First, you serve a
notice to quit. Typically, it's 30 days. Then, you serve a summary process. And then when you serve the summary process a week after it gets filed with the court. So when Alec was looking online at the court website that details the
summary processes in September, like if you actually look at when those notices to quit were served, you had one in April, you had one in June, you had six in July, and one in August. Right? So, what he looked at wasn't representative
of the notices to quit that were served in September. What he looked at was when those notices to quit were filed with the court. Now, again, if you just look at the numbers, I'm serving about 15 notices a month, notices to quit a month in Brooklyn, you know, probably 20 or so
in Boston, just to give a ballpark. And so of the 158 notices to quit that I've served in Brookline for uh 54 I've served 54 summary processes. The next step is a tier one which is I've served
45 of those. And then after all that it eventually gets through an eviction and then at that point there were 21 evictions that I was asked to serve and of the 21 only 14 moved forward. Right? So if you're actually talking about
actual numbers, these are my actual numbers that I've done, right? Not hypothetical, not somebody told me this is what's happened, right? And so in every case, the onus is always on the landlord to make sure that the proper documentation is given to me for me to
serve. That's how it works. And as we've already discussed and as Paul mentioned and as Alec mentioned, the right way to do it is you put the onus on the landlord, right? And then he's responsible to make sure that the proper documentation is served. I execute that
as a constable, but it's his responsibility because he's the one filing the claim with the courts, right? Not me, not anyone else. he is or she, whichever the case may be, but it's the landlord's responsibility to make sure that everything goes the right way,
right? Because again, they have to prove it in court, right? When you start to mess around with that and you try to put the responsibility on a Brooklyn constable, for one, there are loopholes with that, which Alec and Paul alluded to, right? To serve a notice to quit,
all you have to do is be over the age of 18 and disinterested. That's it. Right? So, anyone from outside of Brooklyn or whatever can serve a notice to quit, right? That's not the case for a summary process or anything else. But for a notice to quit, that's all you got to
do, right? So, if you actually had a bad actor who wanted to circumvent the rules that Alex is trying to put in place, they easily could do that, right? is very simple, you know, and the what isn't being talked about is effectively
what's going on is you're creating inequity, right? You're putting an unfair burden on Brookline constables compared to non, right? And for the tenants, any tenant receiving these notices from a Brooklyn constable is going to have
more access to resources that a tenant who's not getting them won't. Right? To me, that just seems clear. And for me, I have a hard time co-signing on this type of warrant article when we know what we're
putting forward isn't the best option. We all agree the best option is put the onus on the landlord. And I understand we can't, right? Because town council says it's illegal, right? And I appreciate the fact that Alec does not want to jeopardize Boston and Somerville
and Cambridge. I get it. I understand it, you know, and it to me that makes sense, right? Because he's looking at bigger picture, but at the end of the day, I just have a hard time going forward with an article that we know is not the best. And I find it hard
to for anyone to say that the most cost-effective way to do this is to put an onus on a costable to do it where more more likely than not, we're going to charge more for it, right? Okay. And so who pays for it? Whoever hires this
is going to pay for it, right? Likely the landlord. But can you finish up for it? >> Right. It's trickle down the tenants, you know? So you you got to keep the whole thing in mind. And from my perspective, the most important thing is
to make this information available to the tenant. And if you follow what the select board said, that does it does make the information available to the tenants. I understand Alec doesn't like it because he wants us to serve him. I get it. I appreciate it. Right. And from my perspective, it's more important that
the tenants have the information available as opposed to going through a process that we know is not the best way to do it. And that's fundamentally where we disagree. I think anyone who's reasonable will agree that they should have a renters's handbook. But, >> um,
I'm sorry I had to mute you. I've been trying to ask you to finish up. Eric, can we move on, please? >> Um, so next is Regina. >> I thank you, Dennis and Harry. Um, I'll try and be and accommodate the brevity.
Um, I I'm really disturbed that Alec just said that it's really coste effective to do this, but it won't be for the constable or for whoever does the service. it will not be cost effective will end up be everybody has
agreed that I've talked to that the tenants are statistically very likely to say I never got it that means the server whoever that happens to be has to go to court sometimes multiple times who's going to compensate the constables for
that or the servers whoever they are so that's point one I don't think that's that's uh uh good government here for people who are trying to do the job and already have a bond that we pay for and then I don't know what this will add to
it. The second point is we like to use the word equity in Brookline but if you're saying voluntary for the sheriffs why aren't you saying voluntary for us? I have talked to the constables the they're more than happy to do this
presentation. The damage that is likely is based on the mandated version of it. ALEC rather than the voluntary that you were willing to give other servers. So the only ones who are going to be at risk are going to be the Brooklyn constables.
That just is not equitable right there. So if you would be willing to do the amendment to size it down to voluntary for even the Brooklyn constables, I think you'll get 100% cooperation for it because all of us have compassion for this situation. So those are my points.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I'm going to give Alec the benefit of a two-finger before I go to Neil, the other constable who's here. >> Thanks so much, Harry. I'll be I'll be as brief as possible. Um, I I completely
appreciate um both, you know, where Mr. Figgler and and Miss Froley are coming from and I I have appreciated their input in this process. um to briefly address some of the points that were brought up. Um you know, I I do trust our current constables and I am confident that a voluntary
um you know, ask that this be delivered would be fulfilled by our current constables. But as we've discussed with previous bylaw proposals, this is an elected position. We have no idea who the future constables of Brooklyn will be. Um and I think if this is something we think is valuable, establishing it as
a requirement by bylaw provides more certainty. uh particularly given the fact that this is an elected position and one that is subject to some turnover. Um fundamentally I I also want to push back a bit on the notion that without these notification provisions, tenants will still get this information.
There's a reason all these other communities have not only created this local resource but also stood up notification programs. And it's because yes, many tenants will proactively access this resource on the town website, but many won't and many won't even be aware of its existence until
they get that notice to quit or that initial eviction filing. And making sure that the tenant gets that resource at that point is absolutely critical and it really speaks to what an effective notification program should be. Um, and to us, I think for the petitioner's
perspective, this really boils down to a fundamental question, which is, should Brookline tenants be afforded this protection that is provided as standard to tenants in Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville, as well as other communities beyond that. This is the fundamental
question here. Um, and we acknowledge right up front this will not reach all tenants initially, but as to the question of why we're seeking voluntary compliance from the sheriff's department rather than our our local constables, we have the authority to regulate Brookline officials by bylaw. We have no legal
authority to regulate the county government. So that necessitates voluntary compliance. This is all downstream of the legal ruling that we're working within. But, you know, we we have identified where the challenge points are, and I'm confident that with our strong relationship with the county as well as our future legal exploration
of of expanding this bylaw, we will get to a place where we have a very comprehensive program stood up. And finally, my last point, uh I just want to clarify this this notion that's been brought up about the potential for um constables being called into court more frequently. Uh, as I mentioned, we
consulted with um some legal services professional attorneys uh that operate in greater Boston and have done so for the last three decades, including the last decade, which is when these notification programs have really been stood up. Um, and as was reported to us by these experts who work in these
courts every day, to their knowledge, and this includes the knowledge of their institution, no case has ever been dismissed or even faced an adverse ruling due to the lack of delivery of a locally required notice, which from our perspective and from the legal advice
that we received makes it a highly dubious prospect that Brooklyn constables will have new burdens for court time placed on them. So we are very confident that this is a workable solution albe it the first step in a larger process but I I'll conclude there and I just want to thank everyone again
for their contribution. >> Thank you so much Neil Gordon the other >> yeah thank thank thank you Harry. I I want to point out one minor matter that Joe Figler and I disagree on. It's not a matter that that really matters but I I raise it anyway. If if from my point of
view, if a bylaw requires me to uh provide notice to a tenant, I'm charging the town for that. That's not something that the landlord is asking me to do. I'm just saying somebody's going to pay us. We're not doing that for free. Um I
want to go down through uh and and raise some rebuttal to uh Alex's most recent uh response. uh and and I'll take them in the order that they they come. Uh and they they speak to uh their this expert,
the housing attorney who represents tenants. Well, that particular unnamed attorney doesn't represent me, doesn't represent any of the other constables and doesn't represent the town, right? And that that advice uh I take with a
serious grain of salt. I've had conversations with our town council regarding the potential uh for uh dismissal based on uh a failure to uh deliver uh the you know
next is this indication that landlords don't find this uh in Boston and the other communities especially burdensome. It's not the weight of the package that's being delivered that is the burden. They risk a fine if they don't
comply. It was a point that was made at the select board meeting on Tuesday. They comply because there's a serious fine if they don't comply. um the the the separate uh I don't know whether this particular attorney is
aware of issues having been raised that there's no dismissal or adverse reason uh uh adverse ruling is beside the point I've been called to court more than once because a tenant denies having received
notice. Um, and you know that that doesn't happen on on on a phone call. That happens when I get called into court and under oath testify what it is I did and I don't get compensated
uh by the town uh for that. Um, you know, it's my time and it's disruptive time. Uh, and so I I don't know. Um, the landlord al also says, "Well, it's likely the landlord failed to comply with the state required disclosures,
too. I'm sorry. The uh uh yeah, the attorney that the landlord failed to comply." Well, that's great because that's just going to give me someone to sit next to in the courtroom, right? That doesn't take me off the hook. um that Joe addressed this busy month for
evictions and this eviction term is is bandied about often. Eviction is the final end of process. It's a long process. There are a lot of notices in between. There are lots of opportunities
for resolution uh including with the landlord and between the landlord and the tenant. There's resolution. there's plenty of time uh for tenants in most cases to make arrangements for other housing. um
the um the number of actual evictions pales compared to the number of cases that begin. And as I said when this war article came up the first time, um almost all of my cases
uh have have been this most significant number, right? Have been significant non-payment of rent beyond what uh a this is not a sort of uh medical issue. I missed two weeks work and miss two
weeks pay. Uh it's not that. It's 2 months, 3 months, four months of uh of rent. None of those have been Brookline Housing Authority, by the way. Two of them have been Brookline Community Development Corp. Um
and and maybe one or two Keratas communities. Um none of them have been evil uh tenants. Um we go on to this 61 and 65 page long notice to quit. The notice to quit is a letter. If there's a
contract involved, it'll be attached. If that contract is 57 pages, so be it. The constable will serve what the client gives us. Sometimes it's the landlord. If there's a counter claim, it could be the tenant uh serving the landlord. Um
that that uh it's not a problem because it's 65 pages and what's another four or five pages? That's not how it works. And if there is a reason for a landlord not to use a Brooklyn constable mandated to
give information to a tenant, I have no problem with the tenant being advised of the tenants's rights. The landlord may feel differently about that. Um, and the landlord may just go go elsewhere. Um, the um, I'm almost done. I'm almost
done. Um I mean Joe Joe mentioned you know this noticing agencies included the noticing agents included the the local statement even from the wrong community. The
noticing agents serve the package that's given them. It's delivered and there's proof of delivery. Right? We don't determine what goes in the package that gets delivered. uh whether it be to a tenant or or a defendant or anybody
else. Um agreed a local statement of rights would provide information on Brooklyn based uh resources. We Yes. Yes. Yes. Of course. Um but you know, again, we hear that
it's not it's burdensome. It's burdensome. It's burdensome. Um it's a burden to somebody. Um and uh I'm almost I I really am almost done. Um >> why don't we come back to you?
>> You know, as Yeah, la last comment as to this minimal burden that would be placed on town staff. If it's all that easy to find out what eviction actions are taking place in court, my goodness, I
saw Chaz K's reaction to the the limited unfunded mandate that would be placed on his staff. Right. If it's all that little effort, then somebody please do it on a volunteer basis.
>> Thank you, Neil. Um, going to members of the committee now. Anthony Buano. >> Hi. Do we still have town council on? >> Um, yes we do. >> We do. Awesome. I have a question uh for for town council. Um, can can you just
give me a little bit of the background on on the legal explanation of why we can't mandate a landlord to do this? >> Sure. And that comes from the home rule amendment. Uh, that's to the constitution. And there's limitations on what authority towns can do. Um and one
of them is uh create civil law due to the private relationship and specifically in landlord tenant law. The classic case on that is Marshall House versus the town of Brooklyn where in the 19 in 1970
um rent control was first passed as a local bylaw and challenged in court and struck down through Marshall House. The next year, the legislature came through and said, "We're going to allow uh rent control statewide." And that's why we were able to have rent control from 1970
until the 90s when again under state law an initiative petition uh took it away. >> So then >> so it's a it's a limitation on home rule authority. >> Gotcha. And then the quick followup is then why why would us uh mandating
passing a uh doing a home rule in threat to do this threaten like Boston's ability to do it? Like how how does that connect maybe? Yeah. Do do you understand that? >> Yes. So so Brooklyn is a town. So our
bylaws are approved by the AG's office. cities such as Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, um their ordinances, what their bylaws are called, do not get subject to AG's approval. So I hear lots of times, but
Cambridge does it, but Somerville does it, right? They don't have the review that we have. So they may pass something at the local level that doesn't get the AG review and then hasn't been, you know, brought in court and challenged. So just because a city does it doesn't mean the town can get away with it. So,
Alex's uh concern is if we were to pass it, a town, it go to the AG's office and the AG disapproves it. You've now just called into question all the the uh city ordinances that have never gone through that review. The >> AG's office would disapprove of it based
off the relationship that a local community can't regulate the relationship between tenant and landlord. >> Yep. They would they would absolutely they would 90 99% chance site Marshall House versus the town of Brooklyn. This is this is you know that's the classic case on this area of law.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you Susan Granoff. >> Yes. So, um I appreciate the comments by uh the constables and I'm wondering why we were never uh given statements uh
when we had our public hearing and our two public meetings about this warrant article. Uh the only constible who showed up was uh Neil Gordon and he in fact was the person who drafted this
version of the warrant article that was uh a stripped down version of the original warrant article and it would have been very helpful and I think informative at an earlier point in this process to get all of this really uh
useful feedback. But um going forward, I do think that there's a value to having the town create a document that's Brookline specific that can be published on our
website that would include not only the information about the um legal aspects of the eviction process and the rights of tenants. but most importantly have a
clear and concise uh statement about the resources that a Brooklyn tenant could turn to at the moment when they're being handed an eviction notice or just in general to know about their rights because simply
giving someone a Massachusetts document uh with generalized generic information about statewide agencies ies that might be helpful is not going to be particularly helpful to a Brooklyn tenant who's on the verge of eviction.
So I think that there's a real value to u one part of this warrant article and that is the creation of a six to eight page uh statement that would be easily downloadable as a PDF from the town
website. But I don't think that that's a substitute for having a requirement that this information, particularly the resource information that state law
doesn't cover. And as far as I know, there's no requirement of any landlord to deliver information to Brooklyn tenants about the Brooklyn specific resources that they could consult to
provide for help at this particularly vulnerable moment of their being uh handed an eviction notice. So I think that there is a lot more that can be done and should be done in the future. The question is what do we do now? We
have spent a lot of time going over various incarnations of the of this document. um we were not aware that the select board was going to provide a very different approach and we would have
been appreciative to be informed of that as well. So we could have taken that into account. Um but at this point I have a question for the petitioner. Do they see value in going forward with the
version that the select board has um presented considering the extreme opposition that apparently a lot of Brookline constables seem to have which they're now expressing
tonight or is there something or do you want to go forward with the advisory committee version uh which was originally drafted by constable Gordon. >> Um, yeah, thanks for that question, Susan. Uh, the petitioners of War
Article 9 feel that the notification provisions of this article are absolutely paramount to its purpose and spirit. Um, we will intend to move the version that the advisory committee previously voted favorable action on. Um, regardless of what happens tonight
with our vote on the Warren Amendment, um, we will, I I would imagine, recommend favorable action at town meeting for whatever the main motion ends up being. Um, but we would still be moving the motion that we had previously considered. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, Regina, uh, quick comment. >> Thank you. Uh, yes, very quick. Um, I agree with what Neil had to say. I am I have to say I'm deeply offended and
concerned that Alec is willing to take the good faith of the Norfick Sheriff's Office that they're likely to do it but in our case mandating it and he shows zero interest that we are be going to be we the constables and ultimately
therefore the town will be exposed legally because we will what what Alec had said was what the final decision decision making of the judge. What Neil was trying to say is there's a process before that and we're going to have to
show up in court to say we did serve it and we're not going to be compensated for it, but we could be very heavily legally liable. So, that's what I really wanted people to hear. Thank you. >> Thank you,
Dennis. That seems to be the end of the li um that seems to be the end of the comments from committee members. Um if you want to um describe what's going to happen going forward and or uh give Paul a
chance to sum up now um that's that's your call. >> Well, so we'll we'll we'll give Paul a chance in a second. Um, I think what makes the most sense given that the proposal um from uh Mr. warrant is essentially a
substitute uh uh motion. Um that we would be better off um having a motion to replace our recommendation given that we passed the original motion 18 to 1 to 8, something like that. That we would should
entertain a motion to replace our recommendation of favorable action on the original motion with a mot with a recommendation of favorable action on the select board motion. And either that will pass and that will become our recommendation or it will fail and we will continue with our recommendation of
favorable action on the original. That's what I think makes the most sense for us to do rather than reconsidering putting the motion on the table, considering the amendment, voting it up or down, and then taking another vote given how overwhelming our original
position was. Um so with that in mind, Mr. Warren, if you have a summary um before we go to a vote. >> Yep. Uh, thank you and thank you for all of your work and a late night. Um, I just wanted to remind you I it keeps being called the Warren
amendment. Um, you know, and and uh I'm not sure why the >> I called it the select board motion. >> No, I know. But someone else I don't know why um the coniples didn't show up at the AC's subcommittees hearing. I don't know. I will tell you that um that
the that the amendment that the select board uh adopted and you know unanimously supports the motion of the amended article um you know is in direct response to the feedback from the we listened to the constables. They they
showed up at our at our public hearing. Um and you know from there I was directed by the board to go ahead see figure out what the amendment is and it was filed immediately and sent uh to uh to the advisory committee Lisa Borcher and then you know to every other party
that it's supposed to be. So I'm not sure why you didn't hear from it uh Susan um and we can look at the process. Um but again I the the select board felt really strongly that that u the issues that were raised by the the the constables um as well as the the
challenging that's going to happen with potentially divergent information um being developed and published uh was was enough uh to uh warrant an amendment to the article and then in the future figuring out how we can move forward um
you know with with a process that could work for for tenants especially. Um so anyway um I'll leave it to leave you to it. Thank you. >> We didn't show up by the way to answer the question factually because we were never invited. I was never informed that
this was happening and I only noticed it shortly before the selectman's meeting and I notified the other constables that this is going to be heard. We had no idea it was heard at your subcommittees. Thank you. So, Dennis, if you need a motion. Um,
>> yeah, I need a I would I would like a motion to that we replace our recommendation of favorable action on warrant article I'm already >> what number are we on? >> Nine. >> Thank you. Warrant article nine with a
with recommendation favorable action on the select board motion. If that passes, that will become our recommendation. If it fails, we will preserve our original 18 to1 recommendation of favorable action on the original on the petitioner's motion as modified by the
subcommittee process. >> So moved. >> Okay. Um amend by substitution I'm sorry motion uh replace uh recommendation [Music]
of uh on warrant article 9 to favorable action on lightboard motion. Thank you for your indulgence. Um, so do we understand that if if we're voting yes, we're going with the select board. If
we're voting no, we are preserving our recommendation of favorable action on warrant article 9 but a different version. Um, uh, and I realize that affects at least the one person who voted uh, no or abstain before. Uh, Michael,
>> I I don't see him on >> Oh, sorry. Um, >> uh, >> I'm saying >> Anthony, >> you got to come back to me. >> Okay, this is a hard one. Harry,
>> yes. >> Neil, >> I have a conflict. Uh, I abstain. Okay, Susan, >> I abstain. >> This is going to be interesting. Perry, >> no.
>> Kelly, >> I'm abstaining. >> Alisa, >> yes. >> Janice, >> I'm abstaining. Uh well, I'm beginning to regret my
decision to because I realize our final vote is going to be a very strange one. >> Um I um uh it would probably be better if I pretend this didn't happen because we're going to have no good solid
recommendation for a write up. We should given the number of abstensions, I think we would we will have to we would have to reconsider and take uh the the lightboard amendment as an amendment and then um and then vote up or down to have a vote.
>> Dennis, maybe you should remind people about what you said about the uh abstensions at the beginning of the season. >> Yeah. Well, it's it I I think I I I am realizing that I simply made a a mistake
because the the the preference for the select board uh motion relative to the original motion um is less interesting than our recommendation on the concept of the overall article. I I I I'm just I just made a mistake. I I would like a
motion for reconsideration and then we will take up the topics independently. >> I would move for reconsideration. >> I I apologize. Uh >> uh warrant article nine. Uh uh um so I'm
going to go back. Uh Cliff, >> this is a motion for reconsideration. Sorry, sorry. Sorry. Anthony. >> Uh Harry. >> Yes. Uh, Neil >> abstain. >> Susan,
>> abstain. >> Perry, >> no. >> Kelly, >> yes. >> Alisa, >> yes. >> Janice, >> no. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Alec,
>> no. Carol, Liz, >> I I think we've lost >> a bunch of people. Jocelyn, but we have more. >> Actually, Liz Liz is here. She's on mute. >> Okay. Well, if she speaks up, Joselyn,
>> no. >> Linda. >> Yes. >> Fran. M. Yes. >> Carlos. >> No. >> Margaret.
>> No. >> Lee. >> I I think we have lost Lee. >> Christine. >> Abstain. >> Sorry, Dennis. I want to change my vote to no. >> Okay. Well,
>> and I >> I'm going to change my vote to no. >> Jesus Christ. >> Sorry. >> You can put me in for abstain. >> This was a hard one. >> Sorry, I couldn't. I know it's very >> um
so just given that we're going to have no um we're we're going to have no opinion on the select board uh motion. Um I >> Dennis if I'm not this means the original recommendation would stand. Yes. Because we voted.
>> Yes. The original recommendation will stand but we will have we will have nothing in our report about our opinion on the lightboard motion as of I I what I was hoping to achieve here was the opportunity for us to have taken a substantive vote on the selectboard motion one way or the other and then
take an opinion. This is a substantive vote. >> So tiny I can't read it. What is the vote? >> This is the motion to reconsider Warren. How did it come out? >> Oh, it's seven in favor, eight opposed, and three extensions, which means we're not >> people changing their votes.
>> Which means we're going to have no opinion. Yes. >> When the presentation is done or on the report, uh we can just say that we heard >> Yes, that's what we'll do, >> right? And we decided not to reconsider. >> That's correct. That's what we will do.
Thank you. Thank you, uh, Mr. Warren. Uh >> well, be sure to mention that you first you first started to vote and then you canceled it because it wasn't going to you thought. >> No, I have to report. >> We can do that, Paul. The the proceed My
goal was to try to get us to a point where we could take a substantive vote, not because and have an opinion from the advisory committee that made that had a that had weight behind it rather than a a vote of one uh one in favor or two opposed and 19 abstensions. That doesn't mean anything at town meeting.
>> So, Dennis, I just want to make sure so when we go back because I I assume we're a board's going to take this up again next week. Um, so was 783 was the reconsideration. >> Yes. >> 7 7DS 8 no three extensions.
>> Correct. Yes. And I apologize for for making I my goal was to get us to take a substantive vote >> and 11 absences. >> 11. That's right. Because Yes. because they're coming they they nobody wants to take on the next topic.
>> Do we have a uh subcommittee report, Cliff? >> No, we don't have a subcommittee report. And the reason we do not have a subcommittee report is um that given given the travel schedules and given the difficulty and sort of like the timing
um I just decided to work with the petitioner. Um, I had contacted Alec in case uh I needed some moral support, but um I think everyone has gotten the uh
the rewrite. Um I did not I did not include a markedup version because frankly there wouldn't have been much left of the original. Um and uh I'm just going to turn over to John. um
uh so that uh he can explain or talk about the changes and we can go from there. >> Yeah. And so that would be great. And if John, if you could try to focus on how this article um incorporates the feedback that came from our last discussion, I think that would really
help this body. >> Has everyone read it? Has or has anyone read it? >> I haven't read. >> Okay. Because >> Okay. Um, it's probably worth skimming as John is talking because it is substantially different and I personally
think it uh it actually does what people wanted it to do. >> Go ahead, John. >> Go ahead. >> I'm I'm going to speak briefly so you may not have a chance to skim very much. Um, this article started
with the idea of calling upon the responsible officials, which is to say the vice president and the members of the cabinet to exercise their authority under the 25th amendment to remove Donald Trump from office. Um, both the
members of the select board and this committee made a powerful case that that was simply not going to happen. So where the article is now is that it expresses
Brookline's I would say well I guess ad hostile feelings toward the status of our political condition where there is no practical prospect
of either the 25th amendment or the uh power to impeach being applied at a time when there is at best uh substantial doubt as to Donald Trump's
uh ability to complete his his to to to carry out his duties as the president. And that's what it's really it's really become uh an article about where we are politically in the nation, not so much
about the specifics of what Mr. Trump has done. So that if you look at the second page of the article, the specifics which of course are including but not limited to. So there may be other things. There might for instance,
you might consider the u the video that Mr. Trump released after the no king's day demonstrations uh that I suspect most or all of you have seen. Um, you could that this was
drafted too early to include the wholesale destruction, excuse me, of the east wing of the White House with no permits, no review or anything like that. And not to mention the apparent plan to name the um uh
edifice after himself. So that's what we really are. All right. >> Thank you. Um questions or comments from the from the committee.
>> Um an Anthony has well done. Yes, he has a comment too. >> I just want to say I wasn't in support of the article originally. Um after reading it, I think it's uh perfect exactly what needs to be said and completely is in line u with the position I think Brooklyn should take.
So well done. >> Um Alec, >> I I would just agree as well and I just wanted to add my appreciation for the immense amount of work that the petitioners have put into this and producing I think at this point four or five different versions based on a lot
of feedback that they've they've heard from this committee and the subcommittee and others. Um so I I think it's very apppropo. It's very um you know something town meetings should consider and I'll looking forward to supporting it. Thank you.
>> I think we're ready for a motion. >> All right. I guess I'll let Cliff make the motion. >> Well, uh, okay. I will move favorable action on warrant article 19 as amended. >> I will second.
>> All right. So, um, at the end of a long, uh, long evening, um, we're voting on whether to recommend favorable action on morning 19 as amended. And I guess we're starting with
Cliff >> Anthony. >> Yes. >> Harry F. >> Yes. >> Dave, uh, S. Neil. Neil, yes. >> I'm sorry, the screen is so wide now. I can't see the names anymore. Neil, yes.
Susan, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Perry. >> Yes. >> Kelly. >> Well, I lost Kelly. Sorry. >> I think we've lost Kelly. >> Alisa, we lost >> I think we have lost Alisa.
>> Janice, >> I'm still here. Yes. Brian, >> yes. >> Alec, >> yes. >> Liz, >> she she's muted. >> Okay, Joselyn. >> Yes.
>> Linda. >> Um, Fran, >> no. >> Do we have a quorum? Carlos, >> I don't know if we have quorum >> 10. >> Generally, unless somebody calls for a
quorum vote, the quorum continues to exist till the end of the meeting. >> Great. Okay, Carlos, >> we we've I He's not on the list. Margaret >> not on the list. >> Christine.
>> Well, I called him President Crazy in class, so yes. >> And who did I miss? Um, uh, >> Liz, I think, looked like she was here, but muted. >> Is Liz still here?
>> Um, she's still on the list. She's still muted. All right. Well, we have a 10 to one to one uh vote. Take that for um then I'll let uh Cliff, you're going to have to write this up as it stands or whoever on
the subcommittee um does. >> There's something slightly ironic about voting on a Warren article that's about defending democracy in its substance and then half the people >> not having a forum. >> Yeah. And we could you could add a forum until somebody calls for account.
Dennis. Yes. Yes. >> Under Robert's rules. >> Thank you. I um um I I I I point well taken, but I still think Anony's point is uh is worthy of note. Harry, you have any announcements? Thank you everybody.
I know this is a late night and I will um have fun at town meeting because I'm not going to see you. Um >> just just a >> You seem devastated by that, Dennis. >> You can't even imagine. >> Good luck, Dennis. Susan Granoff, are you still going to be able to do um
warrant article 9 speaking at town meeting? I I assume yes since we didn't change our vote. >> Um yes, as long as I can show up in as long as I'm healthy enough to show up in
person. >> Okay. I I mean um you can also zoom in if you're >> Yeah. not um uh uh Cliff, do we still think Elise uh is going to be the speaker for
>> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. And um anybody want to take a guess on whether David Pollock can be the speaker on the lighting article given that we've now decided to um refer it. I'll I'll send him
>> I think he I think he probably still should be and then we'll >> then we'll see. So, we may have a meeting on the night of town meeting. I'm hoping we don't, but we we probably will. And speaking on behalf of everybody, wish Dennis the
best. Uh, you know, I think we all do. >> You will, Dennis. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thanks everybody. Um, and uh, good night. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Night night. Night.