You also have you have two Lisa Porsches. Well, that's interesting. Ah, well, one of them is uh one of them is David Pollock. I just changed his name. Okay. Okay. So, we're going to start. Um,
welcome to the advisory committee meeting of Monday, November 19, 2025. Um, at least for the beginning of the meeting, um, I, Harry Freriedman,
will be chairing and we're hoping that, um, Dennis Dowy arrives around 7:30 or so. He is on an aeroplane.
Um, so let me share the agenda if I can. Harry, yeah, I think you said November 19th, but I know you meant May 19th. You are correct. I did main May 19th. Thought for the recording. We might want
to correct that. Yes. Um, it is the 19th of May, 2025. I think he was referring to when this meeting is going to end. Yes, I think so. Oh. Um, um, there. Um, so the
agendas 7 o'clock public comment. If you're interest if you're a member of the public and you're interested in commenting on any of the things we're doing tonight, put your name in the chat and David Mark will call on you.
Otherwise, the chat at least chat to everyone is restricted to advisory committee members. We will be voting on several uh budget amendments. Um, uh, Melissa will be presenting three of
them and then Alec Leeovitz will be presenting the fourth and when we finish those we will go to a um discussion of warrant articles 14 and 15. So let's stop sharing.
Let's uh open up participants. Let's open up the chat. And um I will give uh an apology uh in ahead of time. My computer is doing strange
and horrible things tonight. So it may may not work well for me. David Mark, anybody in the chat? No, none. And uh your picture is freezing a little bit. You might want to turn off the video. I think that's a good
idea. Okay. Do have some more people coming into the meeting. Um I'm not seeing anybody. Okay. And Richard Banker put in a message in the chat assuming he's going to hold off on comments until you get to
14. Do you want to take him first? No, I will. Uh he will be commenting when we get to 14. Okay. Um he's a petitioner. Um so seeing nobody
else, Melissa, could you start us off on the three what I'm assuming are relatively small budget changes that we can do all at once? Yes. So, um, in your packet, you should have a series of memos from me kind of
describing where we have left off since you last, um, voted on the budget. Um, one of the things that was still outstanding at the time that we took our vote was for me to reconcile the group health savings that the schools were capturing from all their staffing changes. Um, I've since gone through and
validated everything that Susan has sent me and um, had the select board vote those changes at their meeting last Tuesday. Um after that there was still um an issue of the school um food services revolving fund um and how that
was going to work next year. Um Susan and I had a conversation this morning. Uh so there is a memo talking about the food services uh transfer to support the benefits associated with that program and um that is actually going to be
split $200,000 um at least the recommendation is 200,000 to the um school appropriation $100,000 to the police department appropriation um as we've been working through the police department budget um Charlie's
done a phenomenal job with Liz Scott um you We're recognizing that there's still a lot of pressure on that budget, especially around some of their contractual services. So, we felt that that was a an appropriate place to put the additional uh capacity coming from
um this adjustment. So, um those are the two adjustments that affect the budget table and you should have in your packet um the the budget tables that if you take this vote um will kind of clean up into a clean motion for town meeting to
consider. Um but at the end of the day the overall uh appropriation would be 408,522486. That's for appropriated expenses. And when you add the additional non-appropriated your total all-in budget is
419 173 349. Um so those are the t the changes impacting the budget table. Uh and then one last change is around the conditions of appropriation. And thanks to Charlie Homer and his watchful eye around um public health, he recognized
that we did not include the the newly created um health department uh vaccine revolving fund. Uh we need to set an annual cap on spending for that. So that is $30,000 of of um spending authority
uh for that program. it will be added to the language under revolving funds which is section 8 in your budget vote. So those are the three changes um that we're looking for you to adopt this evening. Thank you. And um when we get to a vote,
I'm going to ask you to give me something that I can write in the vote tally that will make some kind of sense. David Mark, any questions or comments? We have a lot of people. They just haven't signed up yet.
Ah well then um the early bird gets the worm. Um Melissa um can you give me a motion and then I will ask someone to move that. So I I
think it probably would make sense just to reference the the memos that I've written to both the board and the advisory committee. So, favorable action on the amendments to the advisory committee's budget vote as described in uh the deputy town administrator's memos
of May 13th and May 19th. So favorable action on [Music] amendments in deputy town [Music]
administrators memorial of May 13 13 and 19. So there are three memos, one written on the 13th, two memos written today.
19 comma 2025. Will somebody please move that? So moved. Will somebody second that? Seconded. Great. Let me share the screen. See if this
works. Can people see that? Yes. Okay. No. My screen is currently blank. I can see it. Okay. I can see it, too. I can see the top. I can see it also. Yeah. All we
can see is the vote language basically and the top of the Dennis is coming in now. Dennis is coming in now but we will persevere. Um Michael I don't Michael Burgerer. He's not here
yet is he? I don't believe so. I don't believe so. Ben Burnbomb. Yes. Yes. Harry Bors is not here. Cliff Brown. Yes.
Yes. Anthony Buono. Yes. Yes. John Dogget. Yes. Yes. Katherine Florio. Yes. Yes. I'm uh present.
David Mark Goldstein. Yes. Neil Gordon. Yes. Neil. Yes. Okay. Susan Granoff. Yes. Yes. Perry Gman.
He's here. Just not uh unmuted. Perry, can you hear us? Said yes. Can you hear us? Yes. Thank you. Kelly Hardback. Yes. Yes. Lisa Jonas. Yes.
Yes. Janice Khan. Yes. Alec Leovitz. Alex, Carol Leven, yes appeared to say yes. Okay, he's nodding. Yep, great. Pam Lotish, not
here, I believe. Joslyn Murphy, yes. Denell O'Neal. Yes. Lindol Pelky, yes. Marcus Penszel, yes. Fran Pearler, yes.
What's going on here? Uh, I'm here. David Pollock, yes. But somebody needs to rename me. Okay, we will take care of that. Lee Sin. Yes.
and Chris Westfall. Yes. And Dennis Dowy. Abstain. So, and Mark, can you can you change um David's uh name? Uh you I I don't have the
ability as a co-host to do that. Only the host can do that. Okay. Actually, I think the co-host can, but um let me get let me get to it in a minute. By voter 22 to 0 to zero, we have approved these budget
amendments. Let me stop sharing for the moment. And um so there as of this afternoon, there were two more budget amendments. One by Bob Miller regarding the school committee and that has been withdrawn.
Um Bob is not moving that. So we have one um from Alec Leovitz. This is uh an issue with which everyone on advisory is familiar. Um uh this is regarding the sanitation budget. So Alec take it away.
Yeah, thanks Harry. Um can everybody hear me? I was having some microphone issues. Okay, great. Um it might be beneficial if I could share my screen Harry if you could enable that. Let me make you a co-host. Okay, go ahead. All right. Thank you
very much. All right. Well, good evening everyone. Um, as Harry mentioned, um, this is an issue that, uh, we've discussed at some length. Uh but myself along with my co-etitioners Jocelyn Murphy, Anthony Buono, uh Danell O'Neal, Richard Murphy,
and David Mark Goldstein are offering the following amendment to Warren article 9. Um that would effectuate essentially what the advisory committee previously considered at our second hearing on the DPW FY26 budget. Um, and that is the restoration of in-house
solid waste collection services within the sanitation division for fiscal year 2026 in order to provide an opportunity to uh pause on the decision for privatization of these services um and the opportunity to implement um
personnel facing reforms within the sanitation division um in uh to try and reverse the difficulties of the last few years in retention uh and uh recruitment for that workforce. Um the motion itself um maintains the proposed total FY26
budget for the DPW um but does move some monies between divisions uh which you can see here in the table one amendments specifically 118,000 and change would be moved um from the proposed sanitation division budget to the highway division
and that represents the restoration of two FTEEs in the highway division that are currently slated to be uh phased out to partially fund the proposed 5-year Cassella contract. Um, additionally, we propose to move monies within object
classes uh for the sanitations budget or sanitation division budget, excuse me. Uh, predominantly moving money from the purchase of services line item to the personnel services um line item reflecting the restoration of seven
FTEEs within the sanitation division for FY26. There is also um an increase to the capital outlay line item for uh sanitation reflecting the restoration of what would have been uh regular maintenance investments in the town's um
trash collection vehicle fleet. Um I would point folks to the beginning of the uh petitioner's explanation. You can see here we have a bulleted list that provides the actual shifting of each monies um between object classes and
again just reiterates that this would maintain um the total funding level for FY26 for DPW. It would maintain the balance of the overall town budget um and again would provide the opportunity for meaningful reforms to be trial in
FY26 um to prove the long-term viability of maintaining solid waste collection within the DPW um which we feel in the long run would uh provide significant savings on operating costs um and also allow us to provide quality service on
on a lower cost basis in general. Um, so I think I'll leave it there in terms of the overview. Happy to field any questions. Um, and look forward to the discussion. Thank you. Um, so, uh, let's go to questions and comments.
Harry, are you taking over questions now that Dennis is here? Um, or do you want me to? Uh, yes. I I I will take over questions. And Dennis, you go ahead. I'll hap I will happily um drive. The only thing that I would say here I
actually want to have one question up front. Alec you said this is substantially what we voted before. It strikes me as virtually identical if not identical. Is there any way in which it is substantively different from what we already discussed? The numbers are the
same. So I I don't know if that means, you know, we take another vote separately or we apply the vote that was taken previously, but Oh, I think we would take a vote because this is an actual amendment being proposed for town meeting. But I wanted that to to guide our discussion tonight that this is
exactly what we debate spent many hours debating previously and have a prior vote on. So I would hope that um this particular conversation is will likely be you know informed by that. Uh so go ahead Harry uh Marcus Penszel. So the
the money that's allocated for the hiring of seven uh new FTEES. Um, why do the people why do you who who are moving the amendment think that they the town will have any more success hiring into those positions than
they have had or lack of success that they've had in the past? And if those folks are not hired in relatively soon, but you know, scattered along the whole fiscal year, how is that going to give any indication of how this program would
work? Yeah, it's a great question, Marcus. And you know, I think our overriding concern in approaching this decision is that once it is made, it will be prohibitively expensive and logistically difficult to to unmake it. Um, in terms
of the recruitment, uh, and I see some of my co-petitioners, it looks like want to respond to this as well, so I'll try and be brief. Uh my understanding is that there have been recent applications from uh prospective workers for sanitation um including the expression
of interest. I don't think the actual completion of an application but we've spoken to a number of former sanitation workers who had expressed interest in potentially returning to sanitation with the return of early quits. Some of these workers still um hold other positions in
the town in different divisions. Um so you know we've seen some promise that if there were um a concerted effort made uh that I think garnered the support and buyin of the existing workforce both in sanitation and in other surrounding divisions um of the return of early
quits then there would be a real prospect to reverse some of the retention and maintenance uh issues with the workforce. Um so I'll leave it there at the the high level and I I'll turn it over to uh I see Joselyn Murphy and Anthony Bono want to add something.
Um, Anthony, you have a two-finger. I'll give it to you first. Thank you. Yeah, Mark. So, the way that I would answer your question is is fairly simple. When we were dealing with the with the early quit pilot program that lasted for about two and a half months. It's really important to remember that during that time frame, they were not looking for
outside applicants. They were only looking at hiring internally during that time frame. So we have not had a base case of understanding what is the retention that could be possible from bringing back early quits since 2019 I believe when early quits were originally
eliminated. The dev pilot program again lasted two and a half months and was not open to the public only internally and it takes five weeks to onboard somebody into the sanitation department. So that's how I would answer your question. Marcus, are you all set?
Yeah, I I'm set. Thank you. Uh Janice Khan, thank you Harry and thanks for your answer and and Marcus, this is sort of following up what you're saying. So, and to Dennis as well. So, to me, this feels different than what we voted on
before. I last time it was really clear it was like a one-year pause trial but but the way it's written now and I want to thank the the group that's that's brought this to us again but in this
form what it says to me is that it's restoring a departmental budget. It doesn't say that it's not going to be in fiscal year 27 or or in future years. what it's doing is saying that we're funding a
budget that we have funded in the past and um and so it sort of normalizes the process. I think really at this point it's we have to either decide that we're going to um we're going to commit to
having this inhouse or we're going to privatize. And to me, this is saying, okay, if we support this amendment, what we're saying is this is staying in Brooklyn and we're going to keep it as an in-house one. That it's not a
one-year trial. I could honestly I don't think I could support a one-year trial because to me, that sets it up for failure. You know, it it you need you need to be committed to making it work. And I think a one-year trial doesn't to
me set that bar of commitment. Um, you know, what that says to me is just, well, we get through 12 months and then we go to privatizing. And that's not, I think, what the goal of this group that's brought the amendment forward is really
seeking. Um, so since you're a lead petitioner, Alec, um, so I just want to get your sense. Is is this how you see it? That it's not no longer a one-year trial, which I would not support, but that you're seeing it as a restoration,
you know, is is keeping this this division whole and operational within Brookline now and for the foreseeable future. Yeah, thanks for that question, Janice. Um I I mean ju to be perfectly clear the
budget impact of this amendment is identical to what was voted on previously by this committee. Um I will say I agree with your sentiments pretty much completely that this could take more than one year. This will require buyin from all the stakeholders at play.
Um and it does fundamentally come down to what our vision of the best service model for solid waste collection is. um having you know as you know as a member of the ad hoc subcommittee reviewed um the policies at at work in depth as well
as our projections for at least the first five-year contract. Um there's no question that privatization will lead to a higher cost basis. It very well might lead to annual cost increases above inflation and potentially above what
would otherwise be realized by in-house service collection. And no party is stipulating that this is a cost-saving measure. Right? So from our perspective uh you know we have a decision point in front of us uh this evening and at town meeting later this month which is do we want to commit to permanently
privatizing this service which I believe the FY26 budget proposal under warrant article 9 would would lead to or do we want to consider at least a one-year moratorum on that decision that could certainly be extended but you know we can't bind future time town meetings we
can't commit to extending this service longer than FY26 because that's not in our authority to do. So I I would say in terms of the motion in front of you, this only guarantees fiscal year 26 to try all these uh the return of early quits, these other performance or
recruitmentbased um stipens that we're we're recommending as policy initiatives. But, you know, I think this this is what will allow us more time to make this decision with more data down the road and to really make a concerted effort to address the retention um and
workforce maintenance issues that are at hand. Um, so, you know, we can't again unfortunately commit to to future town meetings, but that's I think how I'd answer your question. So, Alec, I mean, I I would kind of disagree. I mean, we fund every budget for one year. Um, you
know, so, you know, I I take your point, but again, I I really want I I really want some assurance that this is not just a one-year pause and then we go to privatization. I totally agree with you. Privatization is going to lead to higher
costs and unc and costs we can't control essentially for the future. So um so I'd also like to understand what the administration's uh you know it needs leadership's
support I think to make this work and I I would find it hard to support a one year without that kind of assurance. So thank you. Thank you. Um Denell you had a two finger.
Yeah. Uh, thank you. Um, this this goes to to Janice Janice point and what what Marcus Penszel Marcus mentions. So the employee the employees uh the people who actually throw in the trash and Dennis you been
to quite a few of these meetings have stated that they want to do the trash. They want to throw the trash. Um and the administration um the people who are not doing the work are saying no um going to privatize. So what
we've been hearing from the employees point blank is that they are they want to still throw the trash. Uh and that's what it come that that's that's that's where I'm what what I'm getting from this. We're not changing the money in the budget. It's being funded like
you said. We do it every year for every department. Um but the employees are are aren't actually being hurt. And so because this deal has already been made for the select board and whoever um we already know what the administration's so they want to move forward and try to make this privatized
already. Um you know I don't know the last time a select board member has has done a Bobby Allen reached out to um sanitation workers or DPW have visited to see how they're feeling about this. But what we've heard on record is the
employees stating that they want they want to still throw the trash. Um and I'm hoping it's not going to be just a one year one year one year thing. So if we get the employees to fill the positions that proves that that we should not lose this infrastructure
that we have this this this nugget that we have in sanitation u department because when when we lose it we lose it. It's gone. Um, so I'm that's why I'm really supporting this amendment and going going forward who actually throws
trash at state they want this and they haven't they haven't been heard. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Joselyn Murphy. Thanks very much Harry. Um, so with my usual disclosure um that I at one time had a family member who's a member of the uh who is an employee of
the highway and sanitation division. Um, in in response to the Janice's question, you know, I think the one-year um that one-year proposal was intended early on to be sort of a compromise to those who kept hearing the the repeated this is
our only choice. Um, because of course there has to be relief at the end of the road. The trash does have to be picked up and there needs to be relief. So, it was somewhat of a compromise. But I don't think if certainly speaking for myself, I believe that sanitation should
stay in house because I know that it can. I've spoken to to um several of the uh fellows who work in sanitation and highway and they really like the job. What they like about the job is that they can go to work. They
can finish their they can they're they essentially have autonomy because they work um up at the um transfer station. So they come and go from there. They do their work and frankly they're not paid very much. So they have second jobs. Um
and so um you know we've he watched all of the meetings pertaining to this starting in January. I watched the October meeting as well, but the January meeting when this was first essentially raised as a contract. Um, and we the select board
was told that there's no choice. The solid waste advisory committee was told there's no choice. This committee was told there was no choice because the workers left. And we know why they left. They left because in the at the height of COVID was actually uh
2021 at the height of COVID um their most precious benefit was taken away from them and they needed that benefit because they have second jobs because that's the only way they can make ends meet but they like their job and so when that was taken away unilaterally by the
way with nothing in exchange there was no collective bargaining there was no no return for that benefit which had been in place for decad ades um naturally several of them left because they couldn't make ends meet otherwise so
they immediately left. The fellows that have hung on have hung on for a number of reasons and I think largely because they like their job. And so um there is a choice and the choice is to acknowledge and respect and
um pay competitive stipens whatever they may be whether it's a restoration of early quits and a stipen um which is what every other community does including Cambridge our neighbors in Cambridge um the sanitation workers have early quits and they have a stipend
um because of the nature of their work and it's very common in collective bargaining that members within a single bargaining unit who do specialty work have different benefits and it's because of the nature of their work. Um that's not too difficult to understand and it
happens everywhere in every collective bargaining unit that I'm familiar with. I also wanted to add that Boston is current currently on a one-year extension of their contract with Capital Waste. They had a three-year contract with two one-year extensions, which
frankly is a far better model than a five-year contract. And um last year or a year and a half ago, the city decided they weren't happy with their model, their model. And so they set out to do a review, as we had suggested
early on, to review what would work best for the city of Boston with a plan to change that their model. Um and they ran out of time. So, they're currently operating under a one-year extension. I think it would be a huge mistake to accept this contract, and I I don't want
to criticize um the commissioner of public works, you know, she has a large department to run. Um but if you look closely at the facts of this of this matter, um frankly, this it's a management issue, right? the
early quits was taken away and it caused a cascade of um feelings and emotions among the the fellows who work in sanitation causing some of them to leave and it and the department hasn't been able to recover. So, they've been all of the things that were described to you
such as filling sanitation uh positions with highway workers has had to take place so the trash can be picked up and no one's happy about it. I feel certain that the town can return to the model that was in place before. And and by the
way, I would point out I have in South Brooklyn, I have not had any trouble with my trash pickup. Um I know that it has been represented that the service is failing. It may be failing, but it's limping along and there's no reason why it can't li limp along for a little bit
longer. um you know and uh there's no doubt in my mind the trash will be picked up because this is Brooklyn and and Commissioner Shoot is going to ensure that that happens. So I truly believe it would be it would be a really massive mistake to switch over to
private privatization. We know it's going to cost somewhere in the range of I I believe it's $200,000 more in year one and that escalates to over a million dollar in year five and then there's no going back. And so I ask you to think
long and hard about whether this is really a good idea. Um I'll leave it with that. Thank you. Thank you, Linda Olsson Pali. Thanks Harry. Um, I may be being dense here, but if we're
simply changing the budget numbers, what is the assurance that the DPW will not simply plow ahead with the contract
and move money around and not respond to the goal of these budget amendments? I mean, I know before we were talking about that town meeting has the authority to fund or not fund the
contract, but I don't see that happening within this amendment. So, what am I missing? what is what is going to kind of be the glue that sticks this all together and gets the DPW to respond
to these changes in the way that the petitioners want. I'm I'm happy to speak to that uh if that's okay. Harry and Dennis, go ahead. Thanks. Um and it's it's a great question, Linda. Um if you look on the first page of our motion,
you'll see um under the table one and table two amendments um a section uh head heading titled transfers among appropriations. And part of our the motion that we've offered here would add a new section B um to warrant article
that part of warrant article 9 um that clarifies that any transfers within the DPW sanitation division to other object classifications or purposes will only be permitted with the prior approval of the select board and the advisory committee. So should this amendment pass town
meeting uh we would be comfortable that the oversight from the select board and advisory committee together um would would be sufficient to ensure that uh the will of town meeting was was followed. Uh I think are you set Linda? Uh no um
I'm not familiar with the terminology of object classes but I guess that means something to Melissa. So that's okay. I I believe in this case we would kind of interchangeably use that within with the term line items within a division.
Correct me if I'm essentially Linda what they are proposing is to make it so that if the DPW wanted to move money back into services to fund the contract they would only be able to do that if the AC was on
board with that as well and the select board. Correct. Well, yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, anybody else? Going once, going twice, going thrice. Dennis, we're ready for a motion.
All right. So, there should No, we're not ready for a motion. Janice, I I do have one more question. So, what happens to our our um recycling contract? Because they were bundled. So
um the contract that we're that the select board signed actually has both recycling and trash. So if we do not approve what is before you know what was presented what actually do we still have
and do we even have a contract left for recycling? Yeah that's that's a great question Janice. Um so the reduction in the purchase of services uh object class for the sanitation division only removes the
additional funding that would be required to fund the solid waste collection portion of the proposed Cassella contract. Um, you might recall from our our previous debate, what we are recommending is that should this amendment pass um for FY26 that the town
uh seek to negotiate a one-year extension of Cassella's existing contract which covers both recycling collection um and I believe some uh large item collection, bulky items, mattresses um and some hauling services. So, we would be we have provided
sufficient funding to pay for that one-year extension in the purchase of services um object class based on uh prior year costs. We've also included in the um new proposed DPW budget a budget
reserve um of the difference in service costs between in-house provision and um contracted provision. In this case, it's a little over $210,000. Um, that could be used to pay um a short-term negotiating fee or penalty that might be associated uh with
an abbreviated uh negotiating period to rece or to um uh guarantee that one-year extension. So, we have the funding provided as well as a separate budget reserve uh to fund any incidental cost. And could I just add that could I just add if you don't mind Harry um Cassella
is highly incentivized to to extend that contract because they use our transfer station to dump up to 100 tons per day of their nonbrookline trash. So it is unimaginable to me that
they would give it up. Thank you. Uh Janice, um I guess that's okay. I I just am concerned that we don't actually, you know, come June 1st, we won't have any contracts with Cassella because there is
no one there is no they're highly incentivized, Janice, because of the use of the transfer station to continue it. And frankly, as a matter of good practice, I should think because this contract is
conditioned on town meeting approval, it might have been a good idea to negotiate an extension should town meeting not approve the contract back in uh January when it was signed. Um that didn't that's not on the table for us tonight. There's more time. There's certainly
time there's a 30-day period right between town meeting and and when the contract expires, which is on July 1st. I guess I guess the person that wanted to answer this question is actually Melissa um as the only person from the
sixth floor who's actually present um who who and who is responsible for our budget to you know to give me her perspective. Thanks. On the ability to renegotiate without any competitive environment, a
one-year agreement with contract extension. The question is an extension of the recycling contract. A a recycling contract with a vendor that we just renamed a contract with. And you think that they're going to be open to It's not reagging because please. Well, well,
yeah, it's not reagging. Okay. I I I think that we are concerned and we had a 10% estimate in in the budget when we originally proposed the amendment. Um the petitioners have reduced that to five. Um I think that there's still concern about the ability to provide the
service under this amendment. Again, they're highly incentivized. Thank you. Um Anthony Buono, I don't I have nothing else to say. The my fellow petitioners have said what I would have said. Thank you. Any more comments or
questions? Let me repeat that. Any more comments or questions? Dennis, we're ready for a motion. All right. So, um I will take a motion um from someone for favorable action on
this Leovitz amendment to warrant article 9 which would um make the corresponding adjustments to the DPW uh budget as well as add the condition um that was discussed a few moments ago in
response to the question from Linda. So moved. Second and then seconded. All right. And so now if you're in favor of the uh amendment which would um you know I think we've debated quite at length uh
uh lately which would have the uh the various effects on the on the DPW you're going to vote yes. If you're you want to keep the budget as we've previously um voted it uh you're going to vote no. And I'm going to share my screen.
All right. Now, Michael Burgerer is not here until not here until 8. Ben Burnbound, no. Harry Boris is not here. Cliff Brown, no. Anthony Buono, yes. Zon Dogget, no.
Katherine Florio, no. Harry Freriedman, yes. David Mark Goldstein, yes. Neil Gordon, yes. Susan Granoff, yes.
Barry Grossman, no. Kelly Hardbeck, no. Alisa Jonas, yes. Janice Khan, Ebstein, Alec Leovitz, yes. Daryl Levven, no.
Is Pam Pam's not here, right? Joc Pam's gone all week. Okay. Jocelyn Murphy. Yes. Danell O'Neal. Yes. Linda Olsson Peli. I don't hear Linda. Oh, no. I said no.
Sorry. Mark Penszel. No. Brent Pearllor. Abstain. David Pollock. No. Lee Selwin. Yes. Chris Westfall abstain.
Dennis Dowy. No. Motion fails. By a vote of 11 in favor. I 10 in favor, 11 opposed, and three abstensions. May I ask if anyone wants to change their vote? Um, you can propose
reconsideration. I I won't. I won't. We'll move on. Um, we're going to move on to warrant [Music] article 14 and 15. Um, if you thought
that conversation was fun, this next one will probably be equally fun. Um, this is complicated. It is uh um as you saw from the report um there is a a split uh
on the subcommittee in terms of what what the what the path future what the what the path forward would and should look like. Um the set of votes we're going to take tonight may end up being complicated because there are a variety
of different proposals on the table to address uh this issue. I suspect that there will be um uh many members of the subcommittee who wish to to weigh in on either the process or the substance. I'm
hoping that we can keep our comments um as focused as as much as possible on the substance because that's what's before us uh tonight. And unfortunately um none of the motions uh that are going to be on the table tonight or uh with the possible
exception of the original petitioners um motion um uh have been considered uh by the subcommittee in their current form. Um the uh I think it will be helpful if the
subcommittee try to educate the subcommittee report tonight. Try to educate um uh this body as much as possible without um making any recommendation because the subcommittee has no recommendation. and then we can
leave it up to the um uh proponents of each of the proposals on the table to explain um the the the benefits of um what they're proposing and any concerns they might have about the alternatives.
Um um uh because it is important for us to have a uh a recommendation for town meeting and because I assume although I cannot assert this, I assume that because of the benefits associated with
a referral motion over a recommendation of no action on any on any of the subject matter here, if we get through our complicated series of votes tonight on warrant article 14, team without a recommendation. Um I I will certainly
entertain the opportunity to to to reopen and can take a referral motion at the end. Um just so you guys understand that I know that uh Harry you had some comments you would like to make as well before we get into the discussion before we turn it over to the subcommittee. So
the floor is yours. No, I think in the interest of time I'm going to skip and um we can go straight to the subcommittee report. All right. Go ahead. Okay. Uh well, I have the uh pleasure of giving the
subcommittee report for a uh evenly split committee. Um, so the Federal FA Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, and the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Law,
and the Massachusetts Zoning Act require towns to make reasonable accommodations in their land use and zoning regulations and practices for individuals with disabilities, unless doing so, and this is important, would impose an undue
financial or administrative burden on the town or fundamentally alter alter the nature of the town's zoning scheme. These laws also require an interactive process in which individuals with disabilities engage in a
collaborative dialogue with the town to identify and evaluate effective and reasonable accommodations. Brookline currently has no written policy or bylaw spelling out how this reasonable accommodation process will be conducted. It currently
responds to any requests for reasonable accommodations with an ad hoc process. Uh, and I I will clarify that to say that if somebody requests a ramp, um, you're entitled to a ramp as a matter of right regardless. So there's
not, you know, there's no worry about the process there. The lack of such a codified process ultimately derailed petitioner's defense of the reasonable accommodation she had gotten from the town and that the ZBA
had approved unanimously in land court when a neighbor challenged the town's decision. The purpose of warrant articles 14 and 15 is to codify a reasonable accommodation process in the town's bylaws to prevent that from
happening again. The principal issues that divided the subcommittee are the following. Who should decide the application for reasonable accommodation? The building commissioner on the one hand or the zoning board of
appeals on the other and how much time should be provided. Second, who should hear and decide issues relating to medical and disability related information, including whether an accommodation is
needed and how can the applicant's privacy best be protected and correlary to that to what extent should the general public and in particular a butters participate in the process either through some kind of information gathering or public
hearings. petitioner argued strongly against allowing any participation by the public. The town believes that some public participation is either appropriate or acceptable, as do members of the subcommittee. It was noted that the city
of Somerville's reasonable accommodation ordinance allows for no public hearings or participation. On the other hand, the Massachusetts Office on Disability, the MOD, guidance anticipates that although public
meetings are not necessarily required, if for example, the zoning officer enforcement officer has a question about whether the modification would undermine the basic purpose of the zoning bylaw that they cannot resolve on their own,
then the matter could go before the zoning appeals board and certain aspects may need to be discussed at an open meeting. MOD emphasizes, however, that quote information about the applicant's disability should not be discussed at
the open meeting. Three, how can the town's land use boards and commissions be involved in the uh interactive process to determine the appropriate accommodations, particular features, and
designs? Because petitioner's warrant article does not provide for any public hearings, the nature of any public comment is not an issue under her proposal because and I'm going to refer to them as the PPS and Bank of versions.
The PPS version is the Pensel uh Pollock staff version. I did not name that. I'm just repeating it. And then the Dick Banker versions provide for public hearings. The nature of public comment becomes an issue because of privacy
concerns regarding the medical details of an applicant's disability. The PPS version recognizing the MOD's guidance and the ADA coordinator's advice, the town ADA coordinator's advice that medical details should not be a matter for
public consideration or debate limits any public comment to three categories of information. First, whether the requested accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the town. Second, whether the requested
accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the town's land use and zoning or building program. And third, impacts on a budding property in the neighborhood. The bank aversion adds the issue of
whether the accommodation is necessary to the issues that boards or commissions can consider. Fourth, must the accommodation be removed when the need for it no longer exists? Well, thankfully that's no
longer an issue because both of the uh uh versions now currently essentially align. So just put that in there for completeness and to sort of give ourselves something to clap about. Um now there are currently three versions
of a bylaw for warrant article 14 before you. First obviously is petitioner's version. Uh its process is completely administrative. There's no public input. The building commissioner decides with input from certain boards and
commissions not including the planning board um what the and whether an accommodation should be granted. Petitioner now however agrees that the planning board can be included. Then there is the PPS version. This version is the one labeled pensel
polollic staff draft uh in your materials because it was felt that getting to the twothirds vote required would not be possible without allowing for some public input. I working with David Pollock began working with John
Buckheight associate town council in early April on a version that we felt would have a better chance of passage. This went through several iterations as we attempted to address concerns of subcommittee members, the public, staff,
and other boards, all while attempting to create a process that remained prompt and efficient and respected the disabled individual's privacy as required by the ADA. For example, highlights of this version
include the building commissioner makes the decision uh and the ADA coordinator decides whether disability exists and if the accommodation is needed and uh building commissioner makes that decision with input from boards and commissions.
The time to increase the decision was increased from the petitioner's 30 days to 45 and finally to 60 days plus extensions under certain circumstances. For example, if uh boards or or the building commissioner needs additional
information. The planning board uh was involved first iteration at the discretion of the building commissioner and now it's involved uh on a required basis. Public input is allowed at any public
meeting or hearing, but not on any topic questioning the applicant's disability or the need for the particular accommodation. Boards or commissions may not consider disability or the need for the accommodation. And finally, uh, after
the building commissioner's decision, an appeal to the ZBA zoning board of appeals is allowed, but agrieved non-applicants could only appeal on issues not related to the applicant's disability or the need for the particular accommodation, and the ZBA is
called upon to act quote as expeditiously as possible unquote. Now, this version was never formally voted on by the subcommittee, but it is very similar to the version that attracted three votes at our third meeting on May
9th. The other version uh is the banker version, the Dick Banker version. Dick's specific version was also never voted on by our subcommittee. However, it places the ZBA in the primary decision-making role, which is consistent with a view
that also attracted three votes at the subcommittee. Its highlights include, for example, the building commissioner issues the final decision, but that decision is governed by decisions from any other board and any other boards and
commissions, including the ZBA, that have considered the application. In other words, the building commissioner's decision must conform to the decisions of the other boards and commissions. Uh second, and this is a quote quotation, boards and commissions
shall conduct their part of the interactive process to generally follow their standard process for cases requesting relief and that that do not require reasonable accommodation. This includes the board or commission standard process for public notice,
public meetings, or public hearings. The time to make the decision. Um, and Dick's going to have to help me on this because I still don't fully understand how how it works, but I'm going to do my best. Um, and I'm sure he'll explain it better when he has a
chance. Um, so his version says 45 days unless relief from a zoning requirement is requested. Um, and I would just add that which by definition will always happen because that's why you're asking for a reasonable accommodation. So after
that, it's then an indeterminant amount until the application is complete. There's 30 days for the planning board to consider uh the application. then a period in between and then there's 35
days for the zoning board of appeals to consider it and issue its decision and then once it hands it off to the building commissioner there's uh no deadline for him to issue the final decision.
Um last, the boards or commissions may discuss uh regarding the privacy issue, they may discuss the criteria in sections 8B consistent uh with the confidentiality provisions of section 7. Um I know that
means nothing to you as I read it. So section 8B reads whether the requested accommodation is necessary as defined in subsection 2C above. And paragraph 2C reads, "An accommodation is considered
necessary if it directly alleviates a barrier preventing an individual with a disability from enjoying or using their property on an equal basis with others. So, put in plain language, um the boards or commissions may consider whether or
not um uh an accommodation is necessary. And I think that in a in a in a nutshell sort of highlights the highlights. Um I will say uh in in deference to a member of our subcommittee that at the end of
all our process we deadlocked uh 33 on all the votes. But at one point there was a vote 32 in favor of a Selwin amendment to make the ZBA sort of the decision maker.
Um but it was only 32 because one of our members who was in India had dropped off the call because of internet uh problems was able to get back seven minutes later and we revoted and it was then 33. Um so that's the subcommittee report
uh as I see it. Thanks. All right. Do um Harry, it doesn't appear as if there's a one one last thing. Sorry, I didn't bring up anything about warrant article 15 because it's 15 has not been nearly
as controversial or uh problematic. So, should I go ahead and do 15? Um, yes, please. Okay. So, warrant article 15 is not an amendment to the zoning bylaw, but is amendment to the general bylaw and only requires a 50%
vote uh by town meeting. Obviously, the Warrant Article 15 requires a twothirds vote. Um, and it essentially uh amends the demolition delay bylaw uh by essentially exempting from the delay uh
any allowing the BU building uh commissioner to exempt from the delay any uh building in which a reasonable accommodation has been granted. Um, and we the t the subcommittee voted
311 in favor of an amended version of warrant article 15. And the amendment came both from the subcommittee and from Tina McCarthy, the preservation planner. and that has since been adopted by the
preservation committee uh commission with one small little change. So um the questions that uh arose under article 15 um are you know what really constitutes a
fundamental alteration of the demolition delay bylaw? Um and petitioner had argued that because the bylaw already contains provisions for emergency demolitions, her provision does not fundamentally alter the bylaw. Um warrant article 15 only applies after
the request for a reasonable accommodation is granted. So during the hearing on May 9th uh when warrant article 15 was finally discussed in detail uh the preservation department offered the opinion that at least as to the demolition delay bylaw as opposed to
the substantive requirements governing local historic districts. The question is really moot. This is because the only thing the demolition delay provides for is delay and a non-disabled applicant can simply run out the clock and then
proceed with demolition. In other words, the fundamental purpose of this bylaw is simply delay in the hope that the delay will lead to unspecified better outcomes. Applying the same requirement to a disabled applicant seeking a reasonable accommodation would expose
the town to litigation because it runs a foul of federal law that requires that the decision be prompt and without undue delay. So why has the preservation department suggested amending the article? It was amended because the department feared a blanket exemption to
the bylaw could possibly be considered a fundamental alteration of it. While the preservation planner offered the opinion that the article as proposed is probably reasonable, she added language that requires a hearing solely on the issue of significance, which can happen very
quickly because of the problems encountered by petitioner in the appeal to land court where there had been no hearings at all in the town's ad hoc process. She stated that although there might be a pro-forma stay issued upon a finding of significance, it will in a
subsequent quick administrative process always be lifted as not to do otherwise is the kind of unnecessary delay prohibited by federal law. Now, why won't a second hearing be required before the stay is lifted, which
ordinarily is a possibility? Well, a second hearing is not required of a non-disabled applicant who can simply decide to run out the clock. A second hearing is simply at the option of any applicant. The preservation planner believes that leaving the process as an
advisory one that is handled by staff and any necessary technical experts advising the building commissioner would be the best hybrid solution. The preservation planner also stated that she does not want to put preservation commission members through an exercise
where their only two options are either to lift the stay or to continue the stay and violate federal law by creating a burdensome delay. Town council also stated that making a disabled applicant wait an additional time is facially
discriminatory. For this reason, the preservation planner also rejected an opinion from a member of the public arguing that the applicant be required to go through a second hearing under section 5311, which concerns the normal process
for lifting a stay on an emergency basis. Under that scenario as well, she does not want to place the commission in a position where it faces the same two options. and for the same reasons she believes that handling that on an
administrative basis is pref is preferable. Um who participates with staff during the post-hering administrative process? That was is going to be the staff the staff planner I mean the staff planner the chair of the commission and then another member
of the commission who is an architect. I believe I've got that right. Um and then the department would work. Yes, that's correct. Who would then also engage with the building commissioner? Now, does amending the demolition bylaw have any effect on local historic
districts? The answer is no. The demolition bylaw is never enforced in a local historic district. They are two separate bylaws. They are administered separately and amending the demolition bylaw has no effect on the local
historic districts of Brooklyn. And that's the report. And on that basis, the commission, the subcommittee voted three in favor, one against, and one abstension. Thank you, Marcus. And I I think I
actually made a mistake uh in in uh having those two reports go together because I thought they would be more similar than they ended up turning out to be. And I I think that might be confusing to end have those debates simultaneously. So I'm happy that you've given the reports, but I think we should
probably try to limit most of our discussion now to warrant article 14 and then go on to debate 15. Um I don't Harry I don't believe that there is any representative for the uh original petitioner on the call. Um that that is
my understanding Dennis. I Don Oats is not on the call and I believe I've seen her attorney's name somewhere and I do not recognize any names on the list as being the attorney. So with with that I
think we should um hear from um uh Mr. bank uh to uh talk about uh the so-called banka uh how did you refer to it Marcus? I want to make sure the bank the banka
version the banka version and then we can hear more about the uh uh the PPS uh version and then uh we will hear from uh clarifications from the subcommittee if they're still needed and then uh debate
from the full body. So go ahead, Dick. Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Thank you. Uh Dick Bena, town meeting member, precinct 14, uh former select board member and uh former chair of various zoning committees. I'm
now a member of the committee on town organization and structure, but I'm speaking for myself tonight. And I will note that CTO and S voted to refer article 14. The two proposals that are before
you, the bank of version as it's been called and the PPS version put one issue squarely on the table. Should the building commissioner or should the ZDA be the one making the decisions to allow and to use the language of state law
violations of zoning requ zoning regulations? Should we eliminate public notice and process before the ZBA? Concurrent with that, should we also strip the preservation commission of its authority over local historic
districts? Should we strip the Conservation Commission of its authority over wetlands? Because all of that happens in the PPS draft. Under the PPS draft, the building commissioner simply considers quote
unquote the input of boards and commissions and then he has the sole authority to decide the reasonable accommodation request whether to grant it, to grant it with modifications or to deny it. Let's let me just start by briefly
looking at the preservation and conservation commissions. Under the PPS draft, they send their comments, recommendations, or decisions to the building commissioner. Thraft treats their
actions of the boards and commissions as quote recommendations. The building commissioner then confers with the applicant out of public view. The building commissioner issues his decision or their decision as the
language states simply considering the decisions of the boards and commissions as input. Nothing says that the decision of either commission has to be honored. So decisions of local historic districts
and wetlands protection shift from the preservation commission and conservation commission to the building commissioner under the PPS draft. Let's go to zoning on which my memo and most of the attention has been
focused. Here, the ZDA is now entirely out of the picture until after the building commissioner has already made any decision that would allow violation of the zoning bylaw. The planning board after a meeting submits an advisory report to
the building commissioner, not to the board of appeals as is now the case. And after receiving the recommendation from the planning board, if there's a recommendation for a modification, there's a process again out of public view involving the
applicant, a town planner, the planning board chair, and another member of the planning board, the ADA coordinator, and the building commissioner. There's no notice to or involvement of Butters or town meeting members.
And then the building commissioner issues the decision quote after consultation with the ADA coordinator and town planner unquote. And again the recommendation of the planning board are simply input to
be considered. My memorandum that I sent to the um uh to this u uh committee um on Sunday sets out the reasons why the ZBA
and not the building commissioner should be making the decision to allow violations of zoning standards. That's what happens first of all in non-disability cases. It's supported by federal guidance and
court decisions which direct that normal zoning procedures should ordinarily be followed. It is consistent with Mass Office on disability guidance. It is consistent with numerous cases where the attorney general has
approved zoning boards as the decision makers in reasonable accommodation cases. It's sound policy. It harnesses the combined expertise of a multi-member ZBA board with legal expertise that has
been historically responsible for zoning decisions and has historically made those decisions in public as opposed to a single decision maker with different expertise making a decision out of public
view. And it clearly conforms to state law. Whereas allowing the building commissioner to grant a building permit, quote, in violation of any zoning ordinance or bylaw, unquote, could run a foul of chapter 48, section 7 and
frankly spawn even more litigation. As to the ZBA, the ZBA under the PPS draft doesn't even make a recommendation before the building commissioner's decision. The ZBA becomes involved only on appeal
of the building commissioner's decision where it would under chapter 48 section 15 of state law have fully 100 days to decide after the filing of the appeal. And also because any
preservation commission or conservation commission decisions are no more than binding recommendations and the building commissioner makes the actual decision on those matters as well. Appeals regarding local historic districts and
wetlands would apparently now also go to the ZBA under section 10A of the PPS draft. Does all of that make any sense? In my view, it doesn't. And the ZBA
should be involved prior to a decision on a reasonable accommodation request that would result in a violation of zoning standards, not just afterwards in a protracted appeal process. The decision on a reasonable accommodation
request should conform to the ZBA decision as well as those of other boards and commissions on issues within their jurisdiction. That's what my draft does in sections 6G and
6J with confidentiality provisions made explicit in section 7 as explained on pages 3 to four of my memo. So the memorandum and my draft bylaw address other issues including
language in the polic draft that departs from state guidance and federal decisions and or on PPS draft um that depart from state guidance and federal decisions and which I've tried to address but much of that is explained in
my memo in my memo. But there is this central issue of who will decide to allow violations of zoning bylaws, local historic district requirements or wetlands protection requirements. And I think that those are
the critical issues that this committee has to decide. So I thank you for tackling this. I just do want to respond to um a couple of comments that Mark made. Um he argued that
um uh the boards or commissions should not the ZBA for example um or the planning board should not consider the need uh for an accommodation. And let me just quote the Massachusetts Office on
Disability, which has the following guidance for planning and zoning board members regarding the scope of their hearings. Quote, you will need to determine two things in the course of your hearings. one, whether the person
has a disability-based need for the modification, and two, whether the modification requested is reasonable. And then the reasonleness question has two subsidiary
questions. Um, uh, would it cause undue hardship or fiscal or administrative burden on the municipality? and does it undermine the basic purpose that the zoning bylaw was set out to achieve? So, the Massachusetts Office on
Disability explicitly explicitly says that planning and zoning boards um uh within their purview is uh the investigation of whether the person has a disability based need for the
modification. Um, it urges confidentiality in that inquiry. Um, I've built uh explicit confidentiality language uh in to my my version in
section 7 uh tracking almost verbatim the language of the Massachusetts Office on Disability. Um, and I've explained that on pages three to four of my memorandum. So, with that, uh, thank you very much.
Thank you. Uh David, yes. Can I just a point of information uh you just for clarification because Mark uh Penszel made the point of of having said that he conferred with town council on his draft. You did you did that with yours
as well. Is that correct? Yes. I um and let me actually thank John Bukite who has been very responsive to um all of the inquiries that um that we've posed during this process. So um I have been
conferring with town council um uh as this process has has gone forward. Thank you, Lee. Um uh David um as one of the Ps on the PPS,
would you like to um offer um some substance uh associated with with your draft and then we'll go to um larger um comments from the subcommittee and then questions. What I' I'd like to do is defer in that
uh Mark as a attorney with experience with reasonable accommodation uh I asked him many many weeks ago to take the lead on this and he's worked uh uh intensively with staff over that whole period of time. And to Lee's question, I
think the difference here is that uh and and I've worked with Mark and with staff is that what uh Mark and I have been trying to do is is get staff's recommendations uh as best as we could and incorporate them into our draft. And that's why
staff is listed as part of the draft is because they agreed that um that they were um uh participatory in crafting the parts and pieces of it. And so I've asked Mark to not only make the
subcommittee report but also to either present the arguments for the PPS draft and I've also asked uh attorney Buckheight and um senior uh uh regulatory planner or director of
regulatory planner planning Paulie Selco to speak. Um s unfortunately Sarah Kaplan the ADA coordinator is running a meeting uh for the town elsewhere tonight and isn't here but she may or may not have provided a statement to um
town council Buck height. So I I I I don't know whether to hand it I mean I'd like to hand it back to Mark and then Mark if you know whether John's going to lead off or however you want to do that. I haven't been on the choreography of how to present the PPS version. All
right. Yeah. Let me I'll lead off just initially. Um you you mentioned Sarah Kaplan. We we talked to her today. She had a chance to read both the PPS version and the Dick Banker version and
she uh said that she believes the banker version is less protective of disabled applicants rights and that she prefers the PPS version um to the bank version. Um, hearsay, I know, but that's I'm I'm
repres There were other people in the meeting and I think they would confirm that that's what she said. Um, also I think I'd like to ask David to confirm that uh he had a conversation
with uh a member of the ZBA who said that he that the ZBA wants to have nothing to do with uh determining whether somebody has a need for an accommodation. Is that was that correct, David? I spoke with Jesse Geller who
served for 20 years on the ZBA and and also was a a author along with uh Town Council Bakite. It's my understanding of the ZBA um uh ruling on the the case uh that led
to this. And um you know I really wanted to know about what he thought the ZBA could and couldn't do if they were uh the deciding party. And he said that that as they had previously in that ruling that he was comfortable and they
were capable uh of uh making decisions on uh what in in uh these various versions are called criteria C and D which is the undue burden and the um the sort of uh upsetting of zoning. He said
those were fine and that criteria E, which is essentially the primary one that's going to be before the planning board as well as the zoning board. Um, you know, is this the best solution? Uh, should it be uh adjusted
architecturally? He said that they rely on, as other people have said, they rely on the planning board's advice as the architects, but they were capable of issuing that ruling. But he said he he he really uh strongly felt that um that
for criteria A and B whether there was a legitimate need for a a reasonable accommodation and what that accommodation should be what what things are needed. He said do do not in my opinion um put that responsibility on
the zoning board because they aren't trained for it or really the right people to decide that. Okay. Um, I want to respond to the the claim that it would strip the preservation commission of jurisdiction in local historic districts. I mean, that there's nothing
in here that does that. um the building commissioner can't issue I mean if the if the preservation commission I live in a local historic district and if I don't get the certificate of appropriateness I believe me I tried uh for some change to
my house I'm not going to get the building permit or the electrical permit or anything else so the building commissioner can't do anything beyond that that's really a separate process that is not implicated uh by this and as I said earlier uh Tina a commit with
respect to article 15, Tina McCarthy said that they're really governed by two separate bylaws. Um, in in response to the the argument that uh the zoning board of appeals is really preferable,
um, I' I'd like to I mean, if you look at the first page or the first point of Dick Banka's memo, he says only the board of appeals and not the building commissioner can grant zoning relief. That's his primary claim for why it's
got to be the zoning board of appeals. I mean, that's basically assuming the result before you even had the argument because what's going on here is we're amending the zoning bylaw. So, if we want to if the town wants to amend the zoning bylaw so that the zoning bylaw
gives someone else the authority in limited circumstances of reasonable accommodations to make a change and grant relief, we can do that. So, what's lacking from um Dick's argument is
any argument as to why the zoning board of appeals is better than than the than the um building commissioner in uh making this decision. And it's our position or at least my position that the building commissioner is better
because he can in in he can draw in more expertise. he can draw in people from all over. Something the ZBA cannot necessarily do that the ZBA does not want to have anything to do with the uh
necessity for the uh the accommodation something that the building commissioner can handle with the ADA coordinator. Um so the uh staff believes that in at least in that this respect the PPS
version is better principally for two reasons because one it reduces the number of public hearings or meetings in our version there really is only one and in unless the preservation commission is implicated or maybe some other body is implicated but there's certainly not
this uh ZBA uh involvement early and it better protects the privacy of the applicant. Um, you know, there I I I understand uh Dick's point in quotation in reference to the MOD's guidance about uh getting,
you know, commissions uh in getting involved in that. That does not necessarily make it good good or the best. I mean, we want to do something that or at least I want to do something that most thoroughly protects the
privacy of the applicant and that um I have learned from dealing with the petitioner in her experience, excuse me, would be better um and it is better to have have those issues handled
administratively out of the sight of the public. Um and we have the PPS version does allow for the public to weigh in on all sorts of other issues just not those issues. And there's no response to uh
our claim that and and John Buckheight can s uh support this because it's he's the one who had the conversation with the general counsel of mod who told him that when he had tried to even get the disability commission involved as part
of a written policy she told him she would advise against it. I mean there was nothing illegal about it but that it's not a good idea because those types of public commissions are not trained in how to handle this type of information and it unnecessarily risks the
disclosure of information medical information that should not be uh disclosed. Um, another point that Dick makes, um, is that regarding the federal decisions, um, saying that a federal decision
allows the zoning board of appeals to be involved does not mean we have to do it or that it it may be legal, but it's not necessarily the best way to go about doing it. And the PPS version, we feel, is the better way of doing it. it it's
touches all the boxes. It allows public input to the extent public input does not impo impinge on the uh individual's privacy and um gets the ZBA involved in situations where that somebody's agreved
and feels that there's really a basis for an appeal. Mark is I I would I would like at the risk of derailing I would like to stop there simply because I I just want one more point. One more point. I and I I understand I'm I'm I'm
droning on. Um but I will I'll also say that Dick's version, at least in one respect, is also facially discriminatory uh against disabled applicants. Um he has the board the the planning board being given 30 days to
give its report to the zoning board of appeals. Um whereas if you were a non-disabled applicant applying for a special permit, the planning board would only have 20 days to get that report to the zoning board of appeals. And and we in the PPS version explicitly
incorporates that provision um of the 20-day provision uh for reports to the ZBA. So I I'll I'll end on that. Yeah, I I was not intending to imply that you were droning on. What I was intending to imply is that we've gotten to the point
where where if this becomes a debate uh between you and and Dick, we were going it's going to it's going to cause members to not have a chance to understand what's really going on here. And I do have one question um and I'll ask you as a representative of the
subcommittee, but I'm hoping that um this is an easy question. Um, is the fact that the the committee um is it reasonable to conclude that the subcommittee despite being um
uh uh unable to um come out with a unified recommendation for one or more of these proposals that the subcommittee prefers um these
proposals to the petitioner's original because there are flaws that the subcommittee agrees or is that an unreasonable assumption to make? I'm trying to understand as we start crafting the the the vote later on like what inferences can be drawn from that.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. I I I think we all agree that the petitioner's um proposal is is uh is not workable and and if if that were the only thing on the table, I think that we
would uh probably support referral, which is what COS did. Um but uh you know we we took a vote on referral um and the vote on that was was also uh
split 33. Um the u uh I can tell you personally that uh I would support referral over the PPS version. Uh, I would not I would I I think however that
that what we were all trying to do, but the question I was really trying to get at was whether you generally would prefer support referral over the petitioner's version. That was the question. I I you know, I I think probably yes. But I think what we were all trying to do was to get to a point
where we could actually do something for the petitioner in terms of getting something done. Because if we left it just at the petitioners version, I think we probably if that were the only thing on the table, I think we would probably um the consensus would probably be referral. I I I I can't speak for
everybody, but that's my impression. Dennis, I I'll speak more later, but I I I cannot uh affirm your your quite affirm your statement that Okay. I was just trying to understand and I ap I thought maybe the answer would be simple. If it's not simple, we'll defer
it for later discussion. I said it was No, that's fine. Uh Harry, I'm going to turn it over uh to you to go over some questions. I was going to just ask Paulie and John to No, no, not yet. No, no, no. We need to go to the committee
if someone has a specific question. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, sure. Yeah, we'll get to them. I promise they'll get a chance to speak, but we need to get to the committee. Um, Neil Gordon. Yeah, thank you, Harry. I'm I'm going to try to drone for a somewhat shorter period of time than uh Marcus Penszel. You mean
the uh subcommittee members don't take priority here? No, they don't. Okay. um you're on the list, but I don't really think that this constant back and forth on details and you said this and he said
that and she said that is really helpful to the rest of us on the advisory committee. That's what I was going to talk about, Neil. Thank Thank you, Harry. First of all, let me say I fully support a
private and expedited crisis. And I have sort of a comment and question sandwich. Uh some of which Mark Penszel may have uh answered. Uh I'll I'll start here. So what I heard from from Dick Beno was
three times use the term violation of the zoning bylaw. Uh, but I heard Marcus say if we if we amend the zoning bylaw in whatever way we amend it and follow the process, for example, a fully
private expedited process uh involving the ADA coordinator and a permit issued by the building inspector. If that's what the zoning bylaw says, then I'd ask where's the violation? Um, and is that
still a violation? Um, so maybe that's been asked and and and or not asked uh and answered by by Marcus. Um, I'm hearing that um in trying to get something done that will pass. Uh, I
oppose referral uh back to the select board. Select board has plenty of time to solve this through policy and hasn't done anything. And it's uh I mean this is a as I understand it a an issue that's been festering for five years and
you know where where have they been? Um but but I'm led to believe that part of the involvement of uh planning board for example is an effort uh not to accommodate the needs of the applicant
but an effort to try and and get to the twothirds majority of town meeting. And if that's the case, then I think that uh those suggesting uh that particular it's the David Pollock Mark Penszel amendment uh
I believe or motion that they're understating I think the uh support that town meeting may show uh for a fully private uh expedited to use that term again expedited process.
process. I don't think that that uh a twothirds majority on that particular uh motion uh is uh uh is out of the question. I'll say this further that uh
if if a motion to refer is defeated as I think it should be uh and the original uh as printed in the warrant motion becomes uh the main motion either because there are no amendments or the
amendments are defeated. If town meeting votes on that motion and it gets, for example, a 60% vote, it will fail. I think that's a strong uh referral to the select board.
Uh and I challenge them to ignore the vote of 60% of town meeting and not take expedited action to come up with a policy and solve this problem. Thank you, Janice Khan. Thank you Harry. So um my question to
Dick was just to understand um why the referral to the select board I mean why was that CTO and S's recommendation um was was my question to him and I have a second question which is
um to clar I'd like a little bit more clarification about the planning board's role um in the PPS version that The petitioner apparently said that would be okay. Um I I think there should be some
some kind of public process. Um I'm not sure it needs to be before the ZBA. I think the planning board um can have a a good role, but I would like to understand what that role would be and maybe polyelco could
clarify. Two questions. Do do you want me to answer that now or? Yes. Yes, please. Well, I think the the planning board is the board that looks at design and would be able with the
architects on the board to come up um with any design modifications if a design modification could lessen the impact to an ab butter. So that's why I think they're important. I think also that they can also opine on
whether um it is within the the scope of zoning. So I think if the actual bylaw says that the planning board can make that
decision, then I think it's legal and it doesn't have to be the board of appeals that makes the decision about the zoning relief. Does that answer your question? That's helpful. Thanks very much, Paulie. If
it's helpful, I could share the specific text in the PPS version that says exactly what the planning board's going to do, but I would have to be given screen share privileges. Do you feel like you need that right
now, uh, Janice? cuz I'm no happy to um um I can summarize it in three sentences. Okay, please do. So, uh the planning board does its regular hearing pro uh regular meeting process and and
with public notices and then they provide their uh recommendation, their advisory back to the building commissioner as opposed to the zoning board. And if their uh their advice is that they like what was presented as the
reasonable accommodation, then that's the end of the planning board's participation. But if they uh propose any kind of alteration, then uh there's in 6G under the the in the in the text of the bylaw,
it says that a town planner, capital T, capital P, which I assume is maybe somebody like Py uh and the chair of the pre of the planning board and another member of the planning board, one of those two being an architect, then go
and participate in the interactive process with the building commissioner and the ADA coordinator. Thanks, David. And my other question was to Dick about referral and Yeah. Um I think uh
we've reached a point in our meeting um having looked at um a number of uh issues around both of these proposals and um I think uh uh it uh
there there were um concerns raised about both, issues raised about both um uh and uh it appeared that um uh COS did not have the bandwidth uh to solve
those at that point at um in the evening or should I say at that point at night um and uh the referral motion was made and and passed. Thanks very much D
Harry Fr. Um, so I I I I think what hasn't what I've heard said in other instances, but nobody's actually said it here. The basic difference between these two
proposals, as far as I can see, is that the the the PPS one looks upon this as a disability issue with some zoning implications and the banker looks at this as a zoning
issue with some disability implications. And and I think it it falls down on the on the on the privacy and and who's going to make decisions. Um, the building commissioner in this town until the current building
commissioner has generally been a member of the trades. He's he he and it's always been a he has been an electrician or a plumber or something like that. And I'm not sure that that's the person if Dan Bennett were to retire and we go
back to the traditional way we choose building commissioners. I'm not sure that's the kind of person you want making decisions here on on the zoning stuff or the disability stuff. I'm not sure that the ZBA is the
perfect resource to make these decisions. I mean, I can see why one of the proposals has them involved. They have attorneys there. They have architects. They, you know, they have some scholarly background here. Um, but
frankly I'm not all that thrilled with bill uh with Brooklyn CBA and the decisions they've made in the past. So I'm not sure in a perfect world I'd give it to them. Um, it's no surprise that Sarah Kaplan,
the disability administrator, favors the the one uh proposal here that most favors the dis the the people living with disabilities. There's a tension here between the
person with disabilities who's entitled to a reasonable accommodation and the property rights of the surrounding neighbors and and the rest of the town. And the fact that Sarah Kaplan comes down on the
disability side, wow, you know, what a surprise. Who would have thought? Um, you know, that's that's her job. Um, the the more The more I listen to this argument back and forth,
um, the more I think that CTO and S was right. I don't think either one of these proposals is ready for prime time. I think town meeting deserves a well-crafted wellthoughtout appro approach that basically curries favor
with the advisory committee the select board CTO and s the disability community and the people who are interested in public process knowing what's going on on the property next door to them and having some sort of say and I don't
think either one of these probably does that to the extent that they could and um I will most likely be voting for a referral because um these things are halfbaked and I think the public and the town deserve better.
Lindol Pelky, thank you. Um, yeah. I mean, I think you folks are getting a taste of what we've been living with for for weeks and weeks and what we've been hearing are lawyers
arguing, right? So, I don't think there is agreement. Um, I I think that Mark did a disservice a little bit in his presentation in that
he named bullet points that he thought were differences between the versions and he said that um the uh banka I will I will call it the banka cellwin version just for the heck of it.
um did not protect the privacy of the applicant and that is clearly not true. And he also intimated that it was going to be up to the ZBA to decide whether or not an accommodation was needed. This is
also completely not true. And when we get to the question of notice and meetings and uh a butters having any ability to comment on the ramifications
of an accommodation, not to block it, not to stop it, but to be part of the iterative process. I don't see that in the PP uh S version at all. I mean, we we
Janice asked David to describe the planning board process, but when it comes time to discuss the design of the accommodation, that is done in private. So, no, the public isn't having any
input there. We also heard from David that he spoke to someone on the ZBA and what he said was very important because what he heard from the member of the ZBA that he spoke to was that
they are a logical board a logical body to decide the question of reasonleness. that big question of does the accommodation does granting the accommodation violate the nature of our
zoning bylaw and I don't think the building commissioner can decide that and I think having members who have been administering the zoning bylaw and deciding what's an acceptable deviation
from it. These are the people who have the best skills to decide that. So I think these threats, perceived threats to the privacy and the rights of the applicant being taken away somehow in
the bank aversion just doesn't hold up. It it just does not hold water. It is not legitimate point. So um yeah, I mean I think half of us feel strongly that these protections it
would be a better balance for both the applicant and the neighborhood and the town and I think we are striving for that balance. I mean everyone can spin scenarios where somebody abuses the process or you know tries to take
advantage and we have to be prepared for that on both sides of the question the applicant question and the property owner question. So I still maintain my preference for the bank aversion. I
think it makes a lot more sense. I think it puts the decision-m in the hands where it needs to be. I also think concentrating all of that power in one individual who may be a tradesman, may be, you know, any individual. We can,
you know, hardly imagine who it might be. I think it's dangerous and I think we're much better protected as a town to have more eyes on the question as it were. So if we cannot decide between
these two versions and there is a threat that it's not going to pass town meeting, I would also go for referral. I mean um I I don't think you know we've seen changes the very last minute. I haven't
even reviewed them. I don't know what's in the PPS version. I didn't have time to read it today. I had other things I had to do and probably many of you this is true for as well. So I don't I just think it's a little outrageous that
we're being asked to decide these questions right now tonight between these two versions. So I guess I will hold my comments till later if necessary. Thank you. Thank you. I I didn't want to use
bankawin because I didn't want people using the initials for that u proposal. Um Carol Levin I so I think my my concerns aren't
anything that have been voiced. Um and they apply to all the versions and I'm looking for someone to tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about this. The applicant under these all versions is the individual with
disability. Now a large portion of our housing stock are condos and are a lot of them are two and three unit condominium associations. And I'm just wondering how
um I don't see any provisions for how this process incorporates or recognizes um the rights of the other condominium owners or the requirements that may be
in the condominium documents. and do we run the risk of approving something that could be creating a financial liability for other condo owners if we say go ahead and do this to common areas. So, I'm I'm just wondering why I shouldn't
be worried about those situations under these proposals. This might be a good time to let John speak if uh since he's been waiting so patiently. you're muted.
Um, all right. I just lost my audio button there for a moment. Um, so, um, and and maybe, you know, Paulie might have some input, um, what happens in the planning process, but I think like many things in the legal world, um, you know, one has to, uh, there have to be several
boxes that need to be checked. And um in the condo world, my understanding is that, you know, those are private property rights that people are talking about and um I think, you know, you you can't run a foul of your condo docs as a general rule. Now, that being said, I I
don't have any experience that I'm aware of of the ZBA kind of running into a conflict and putting in, you know, perhaps there have been occasions where they put in a condition uh that says that, you know, you do have to abide by that, but but I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that. So, um,
well, typically a condo when they when they apply to the building department, they're supposed to submit a letter from the from the condo association agreeing to whatever it is they want to do if it affects the common areas. So, in theory, that would be the
requirement here also is what you're saying, even though it doesn't read that way. Well, I don't know. I mean, you know, the question you brought up has not been brought up previously. Okay. So, I think that's another argument for referral.
Well, I I think if I could just offer an opin opinion, I don't think it would implicate the zoning bylaw to make a change to a to a common area. Well, you only implicates the zoning bylaw. If if you, for instance, you wanted to put a lift on the outside and
it happened to be in the setback in order to get somebody up into their into their room or building. So, I mean, this is only we're only talking about changes that implicate the zoning bylaw and and making internal changes to a building,
although it may, you know, implicate building. Marcus, here's what I would say. Say you have a two family that's a condo and you want to put a ramp up front and that needs a zoning waiver. Well, that doesn't because that's you're entitled to a ramp
as a matter of right under state law. Okay. So maybe so maybe it doesn't matter. A a ramp under state law is um has a blanket um exception permission blanket exclusion. Um a lift does not.
So, a lift that encroached on a setback would be would require zoning relief. Although, it's my my my understanding I think it came up in our hearing that the building commissioner treats a lift the same as a ramp. But that's between the building
commissioner and whoever's applying. All right, Carol, are you I am I satisfied? I I think it it's a question that maybe merits a little bit more thought in the final version of the bill is my impression. But thank you.
No, I didn't mean satisfied. I just mentioned you have more questions you wanted to ask. No, I'm I'm take I'm taken care of. Thanks. Um Perry, you you put a question in the uh chat. Did you want to ask it or Yeah, that Yeah, that's my question. Could uh
the PPS and Bank of Proponents each talk about the estimated time frames they're likely that are likely under each of their processes and I do yeah recognize there could be multiple paths but likely paths. Jake, would you like to go first?
Um, well, yeah, and and and I do know that both Kelly and these may not be helpful to our discussion, but Kelly and Katherine have been doing diagramming, but maybe we we hold off on that. Um, anybody else who you know, uh, John or
or or Mark or or Paulie, uh, can correct me, but I believe that the time frame for the PPS is quite straightforward. Uh, it's now a baseline of 60 days. Uh and that's because uh while uh staff feedback to the
building commissioner is asked for within 21 days, uh feedback from boards and commissions is asked for within 45 days. And so that's a pretty tight time frame to provide, you know, um timely uh
granting of a reasonable accommodation. So overall 60 days and within that uh you have to fit the 45 days for another board to do its action. That's a maximum of 45 days. So the hope is they can schedule expeditiously and compress the
time frame. But what's really important is that uh any request for additional information from the applicant uh stops the clock on that. So, uh, the primary place is if an applicant comes in and asks for a reasonable
accommodation and the building commissioner says, "Uh, okay, that's that's great." That starts the clock. But if the building commissioner says, "You need architectural plans sufficient for planning board review." Uh, and
these are the requirements for that. And the applicant says, "Oh, I don't have any plans." Then the building commissioner says okay well the clock is hereby stopped right away and you need to develop the the complete application and it's only when the application is
completed meaning really basically the documents that would be that poly and and the Dan Bennett would say this is sufficient most I think it would be poly this is sufficient package to show the to provide the planning board and then
that package gets published lished uh Butters gets noticed. Um so that's and then if other boards and commissions or other departments also say hey this information is missing we need this information then they ask Dan Bennett
for that the building commissioner then he asks the applicant and then as soon as he asks the applicant to provide new information additional in reasonable additional information the clock stops until that's provided. So it's 60 days but it expands whenever the applicant
needs to provide more information and that's also wouldn't it also expand if notice is required and you have to publish it and no the notices the notices are the notice at the planning board level is built in. Um so no it it it's really done there. The other way
that it can pause is if the applicant wants it to the clock to stop uh because they're not ready for some reason to have the building commissioner do a thumbs up or thumbs down or whatever then if they say stop the clock then that that works too. If I could just
comment on on the time frames for a planning board and board of appeals. The planning board only needs about a week's time to um send out notices to a butters for a planning board meeting. Um and then once the planning board
votes, that's it. They can issue the decision their their decision to the building commissioner the very next day. with the board of appeals. Uh the way it works now is you need to uh put a legal ad in the
newspaper two consecutive weeks prior to the board of appeals hearing and of course you need a few days to put it in the paper. So that's like two and a half weeks. Um then when the board of appeals holds its hearing uh makes a decision
someone has to write write the decision and that can take a couple of weeks. then the decision is filed with the town clerk and there's a 20-day appeal period. So, those are the the differences in the time frame. Now,
could those be uh different if if they were spelled out differently in a zoning amendment just for reasonable accommodation? I guess so, but I would have to ask actually John Bukai what he thought about that. Sure, I'm happy to comment if um Yeah.
No, I think you know we're we're trying to uh stay I guess stay within the zoning process um uh you know and use exist things that are established um to a certain extent. Um so I I would yeah
it gets um there these are some complicated questions but I I don't think you have to uh you know stick right to those. I think it can be different um because we are guided mostly you know by federal law uh which here which you know there's
the supremacy clause and these are civil rights uh that were that are involved here and so we do have to be very careful about not violating those not taking too much time um so yeah I mean just in case anyone doesn't know this there's no case law in the first circuit
uh nor in Massachusetts that bears on this issue which is what process to use uh when someone requests a reasonable accommodation from zoning or other land use requirements. So, so this is really kind of um yeah, we're we're we're sort of this is unchartered territory. So,
it's particularly difficult. We could get sued from, you know, one side or the other side. And uh you know, who knows? Right now in the uh the Banka article, it doesn't say
that you circumvent the usual process for calling a board of appeals hearing. So you would have to put in a legal notice in the paper. Correct. Correct. It calls for all the usual processes. And Dick, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but
Right. Um just um to uh respond the uh both of the versions um have um uh provisions in
um at the beginning of section six that uh there are time periods for getting more information. uh asking um uh the applicant for more information that extend
um uh any time period. Um all of those are within the control of the building commissioner um and the applicant. Um both of them uh have uh steps that are uh that have no
time limit on them. um where the uh building commissioner uh continues the interactive process uh after getting a planning board report. Um so there's no time limit there. The the uh no time uh
limit is imposed. it. I think um uh David had me mentioned that there's a 60-day period under the PPS version um that um I think he will agree uh there's language that says that's unless
extended as called for below which includes requests for information uh regarding medical issues regarding needs uh um uh uh and uh engaging in the interactive process. So under both of
them there is no um um real hard and fast time period um unless there is a request that does not require zoning relief. Uh but we're not talking about that here. So, uh the time
could uh uh could be extended um frankly in the building commissioner's uh uh judgment or uh needs um without any hard and fast limit. Um the um it was
mentioned that uh by Mark that uh uh my draft used 30 days for the planning board. Um, our, uh, zoning bylaw has a 20-day period, but state law uh has a 30-day period. Um,
uh, if within which, uh, 30 days, um, if the planning board has not issued a decision, uh, it's, uh, deemed to have agreed with the request as it then goes on to the ZBA to the zoning board of appeals. So, I took the 30 days from
that state law provision. I wouldn't have a problem with shortening the planning board to 20 days given Paul's comments about how quickly they can act. Um, there is one big difference and that is that within the time constraints of
my version, the ZBA has 35 days to act. you don't get to the ZBA um until the appeals period under the PPS version. And at that point um under state law
under 4A section 15 the ZBA has a 100 days after the filing of an appeal uh to uh to rule on an appeal. So um you have a very very significant uh time period
given the uh fact that the ZBA under the PPS version doesn't get involved until the appellet process kicks in and then that's governed by state law which is a 100 day time period. So um I you know I would argue that that is something that
has to be considered if we're talking about time limits. If I could just briefly respond, Harriet. Yep. I'm sorry if I um so I I do want to point out that um I think that we're hoping and and I could be dead wrong here that the majority of
these will not be appealed and therefore there will not need to be uh ZBA involvement. Um whereas I think in in in the Bena draft, it's always involved. So, so the hope is, and like I said, perhaps I'm dead wrong, but that we don't ever have to. So, the the process
will be shorter because it doesn't happen hopefully nine out of 10 times or so. Uh, David, you have a two-finger. Yeah. I just want to also point out that uh in the in the PPS version, the issuance of
the reasonable accommodation is the conclusion of that civil rights process. And so just in terms of the timeliness and the vulnerability of the town to lawsuit for not uh fulfilling its obligation to provide the reasonable
accommodation at that point they've provided it. The town has provided it. So that appeal 100 day appeal process Dick talked about is a burden on the applicant to get through it but it's not a burden on the town in the sense that
the town I think John is that right? The town's fulfilled its obligation at that point. Yeah, I think that's accurate. David, you're on the list. Do you want to stay on the list? I do want to stay on the list. Okay, Perry, I hope your
question was crystal clear and it and being answered and um if you're okay. Yeah. Uh Lee Elwin, thank you. Um couple things. First, just for clarification, uh the
the the the reference to violations of the zoning bylaw um uh refer to existing technical requirements such as setbacks, dimensional requirements, floor area ratios, that sort of thing.
And and and none of the um proposals here would would alter those. They would alter the conditions under which they might apply. So I think that that the term is still correct. In other words, if somebody if an applicant comes in
with a proposal that in some way impacts um the the uh existing uh uh use tables, dimensional requirements, etc. that are in the zoning bylaw. Those are the kinds of things that that would have to be
addressed. Um, let let me let me let me make sort of a a general comment about the way I have always approach zoning issues in in the 16 years that I've been involved in the
on the on the the land use subcommittee. To me, zoning is a social contract. Um and what I mean by that is that um property owners forego certain rights to the to what
they can do with their property in exchange for which they receive certain protections with respect to what neighbors and abutters can do with their property. So it's there there's a there's a quid proquo here. The the the
problem I have had with the PPS version and certainly with the petitioners proposal is that it is focused almost entirely on the rights of the of the person with a disability and gives little or no weight
at all to the rights of of other property owners. Um for example um uh if if a proposal comes in that would materially impact in a butter for example by by uh
uh involving the construction of of a large building that is is uh very close to the property line. and it far exceeds the um uh or or violates the the the normal setback requirements with respect respect to sideyards, backyards, front
front yards or whatever. Um that affects a butters, but a butters would receive no notice that this proposal is pending and if they don't receive a notice, they can't do anything about it. the the the we we we
apply there there are other situations that uh exist that uh that can result in a uh in in in I don't I hate to take to use the violation but in
in some alteration for the purpose of a particular application of of an existing uh dimensional requirement for example or use requirement uh Dover amendment um applications fall into this category. Dover amendment applications trump
zoning in certain respects. Uh they certainly trump them with respect to certain use use requirements. They trump them with resp can can trump them with respect to dimensional requirements. Same with 40B with respect to dimensional requirements. And what we do is we still require these to go through
the process of review by the ZBA. Abutters are noticed. Abut butters have an opportunity to be heard. The ZBA uh can consider a butter concerns but at the same time the ZBA is
required to also respect the the particular um uh rights uh that the applicant has in those situations. And to me the the case of a of of a disability
um application is is really falls within the same category. We have a process for dealing with these things. And I think it is I think while it is very important that we respect the rights of a person with a disability, we also need to
respect the rights of the community as a whole and of a Butters in particular. And if you bypass those rights, what you're doing is undermining the social contract, but more importantly, you're potentially inviting considerable litigation. The the the the case in
point here on on on Beach Road, um this has been going on, this litigation, this has been going on for years. And by the way, when it went to court, as I understand it, the court was prepared to to uphold
uh uh interrogatories uh that were propounded by the the uh the plaintiff in that case uh against the applicant that addressed would have would have required disclosure of of matters that were private that that were considered private by the uh by the applicant in
that case. and and the applicant uh withdrew the lawsuit or withdrew the withdrew the um application rather than disclose that information. So, you know, you can only protect this stuff so far. If it gets to court, that stuff could potentially come out. The process that
is envisioned by um the uh if I if I call it selwin banker, I avoid the uh the acronym problem. Um uh but then that sounds like select board. So I mean that's not right
either. Um uh by you know the the the uh by by the app by the the the draft that Dick has presented um is attempting to create a balance. um it it it respects the
um the the the applicant's rights but it also provides a mechanism where abutters are notified and abutters have an opportunity to be heard. Now, it does not give the abuters the same rights that they might have in the case of a of
a of a of a matter that does not involve a disability because the the the ZBA in this case can grant relief that it might not otherwise grant in in with respect to providing a
reasonable accommodation. But the the bottom line is that the purpose of zoning and that that then that language seems to appear here in in the requirement is undermined when a butterers are not involved and and the community overall is not
permitted to participate in the process and where the the rights of a butterers are not given the same opportunity to be heard as in in other zoning situations. And that's what we are trying to address here. I don't think there's any attempt
to um uh to discriminate against uh a person with disabilities. In fact, I think it's just the opposite. I think that there are accommodations that are being proposed in this draft that that absolutely respect those that
individual's rights and give difference to those individual's rights. But what what the the Baker draft does that the PBS draft does not do is it also respects the rights of everybody else. Um thank you Lee. I am not
recognizing two fingers anymore and I am skipping over temporarily the people who have already spoken. I will go to Katherine Florio. Thank you. Um I think there are a couple of things
that aren't 100% clear just as somebody who is on the subcommittee and who's been listening to to this. Um I'm just going to say what my questions are and then I'm going to ask them in the order. I think they're important. I don't think we I don't think we discussed this on
the subcommittee and we certainly haven't talked about it tonight, but I'm wondering what happens under emergency requests. And when I think about emergency requests, I'm thinking about something that has to happen immediately because somebody will not be able to get
into their home if this accommodation doesn't happen and they have no place else to live. So, um that's number one. Number two, um, we've talked a lot about what I I've heard a lot of discussion from one person about what the other
Warren article says regarding privacy and the other person about what the other article says about privacy, but I think privacy is really important here and I don't think we're talking about the same kind of privacy when we're talking about each of the different
warrant articles. So um it's my understand well no I'm going to stop and then the question is when under each of these different articles are the abutters noticed not
and under each of these different warrant articles what can the abutters do because it was my understanding as somebody who sat on the subcommittee that there was a big difference in terms of notification But there was not that
much difference in terms of what a butters could do. So withholding notification from the abutters, it didn't seem to me got us anything. So I think the most important question is the difference in privacy
and the different ways that the different warrant article the people who wrote the warrant articles are thinking about privacy. And Dick, I'd like to start I'd like to ask you specifically. You're saying that the ZBA
can make a decision on the resable accommodation or can talk about whether the accommodation is reasonable or not. And I would like you to tell us what information you think the ZBA is using to make this decision and where in
executive session which is private or in a public meeting. Sure. And then Marcus I have questions for you regarding privacy. I'm I'm happy to answer that. Um, and this really does
relate to um an earlier comment that um it would be inappropriate to ask about what was needed. Um uh but it is okay to ask about what the best solution is or whether an
alternative solution would work. Um let me start with um and uh what is section seven of the bank of draft or the cellwin bank of draft
um uh and which basically um in looking at the question of alternatives, looking at the question of needs and looking at the question of privacy and confidentiality outlines
specific guidelines which I have um incorporated virtually verbatim in section seven the confidentiality section of the draft that I did. The Massachusetts Office on
Disability talking about alternatives says during the course of your hearings you may ask about alternatives that might meet the person's needs. You do not have to approve the exact modification requested if an alternative
would provide equal access. It that go it then goes on. You do not need to review medical documentation for the individual. You do not need the individual to provide their diagnosis. It may be appropriate in limited circumstances to request limited
documentation from the individual's medical provider if their disability or their need for the requested modification is not obvious or known. In the limited circumstances, you may request medical records. You should not
request medical records beyond a letter from a medical provider confirming the existence of the disabilitybased limitation and explaining the need for the requested modification. So the Massachusetts
Office on Disability has set that as the framework for looking at alternatives and looking at needs. My section seven on confidentiality states the building commissioner and any department board or commission to whom
information is transmitted as well as every other individual or department in the town shall maintain information submitted in support of a request for a reasonable accommodation as confidential to the greatest extent permitted under
federal law, the open meeting law with a site and the public records law with a site. And such information shall not be made made available to the for public inspection unless required by law that tracks the PPS language. I then go on as
provided by the Massachusetts Office on Disability Border Commission or the building commissioner um if board or commission approval is not required may a in deciding whether a requested modification is necessary
determine that an alternative modification would provide equal access tracking the language. B, request limited documentation from a medical provider only if the disability or need for the modification is not
obvious or known. Tracking the language and C, request documentation from a medical provider limited to confirmility based limitation and explaining the need. The requested modification would
address tracking the language. And then I add further general law chapter 38 section 21A1 executive sessions shall apply to any discussion of the physical condition or mental health of an individual. So I
explicitly include with regard to public meetings and public hearings, the the executive session provision of the open meeting law that discussions of physical conditions or mental health have to be an executive
session. that I mean that ties together the question of alternatives which uh the PPS version says that boards and commission should be addressing can be addressing says the planning board can address that explicitly that's the role
of the planning board ties it to uh determination of what needs are being met and providing equal access to meet those needs and then ties it to the um uh mass office on disability limitations
on inquiry into physical and mental conditions. Thanks. And then um that was actually an an awful lot. I can imagine people who haven't heard that a lot probably have more questions, but mine specifically is
when you're looking at the reasonable accommodation when you so what you have in front of so what the boards and commissions will have in front of them or whoever is making this decision will have in front of them instead of plans and then what they will be able to
modify is not the content of the plans, but potentially moving things around or the content of the plans. Well, I I mean, let's let's assume that
um I mean, I think they could modify the content of the plans, not just move things around. Um if um if the uh medical need is access for
example and um the um uh proposal uh to um satisfy the need for access uh includes much more than meets the
need for access then I would think you could modify the content of the plan. I mean I we're talking hypothetical um and not just move things around uh but uh but basically say look this is
the need now let's see how we can satisfy that need provide equal access to satisfy that need um in a way that um has for example less of an impact um on a butters
Ben how many public meetings under your proposal. Are you expecting? I um I put a 35day limit on the ZBA. Um and um I think that
um you know they have a 14 I believe uh prior to that. Um so you know you'd have one public meeting maybe two. This would not it cannot under under my proposal
uh be protracted. There is a uh without let me just say without the express agreement of the applicant. And so was that two meetings of the ZDA or two public meetings total?
I'm sorry. It's just this is so complic I I mean I'm um I didn't there's no on the number of of hearings um and there's no minimum put on the number of hearings there's no uh there's uh the only limitation is a
time limitation okay under under either proposal uh for u uh border condition comments under uh the PPS version for the planning board um under the PPS version for the planning board under our version for the
ZBA under our version. Thanks. Once the ZBA makes its decision and approves whatever the Z or approves with modifications, whatever the ZBA approves, this the under your version,
the decision goes to the building commissioner and the building commissioner issues a permit. Under normal circumstances, the ZBA the building commissioner's decision can be
challenged to the ZBA. Are you envisioning in your warrant article that if the building commissioner once the building commissioner has issued the permit that there can be
another challenge to the ZVA or does your and could you just tell us? No, this this actually is a discussion that I've had with with John uh Bukite um of town council's office. Um as as things stand
now with um uh special permits or variances um the um building commissioner um has to abide by the decision of the ZBA. If the ZBA says no permit, the
building commissioner cannot issue a permit. Um if um the ZBA says a permit's okay, the building commissioner can issue a permit. That um sort of ministerial act of issuing the permit is
um simply a ministerial act. It just it follows what the ZBA uh has allowed or not allowed. And that um to my way of thinking would be the same under this
uh scenario where uh the ZBA would say um uh the reasonable accommodation is acceptable. It's not acceptable. It um it uh violates uh uh uh the um
fundamental nature of uh of zoning or there should be a modification to it. um and the um building commissioner would then be required to follow that directive at the point the ZBA made its
decision because the building commissioner does not have discretion. Um my thought is and I my belief is that um under uh our state law under chapter
48 section 17 um there could be a judicial appeal by any person who would be agrieved by the decision of the ZBA that um the um u uh
appellet rights would exist at that point. you would not have the ZBA make a decision uh go to the building commissioner who would issue or not issue a building permit and then have to go back to the ZBA. Um you would um uh
the state law explicitly states that any person agreed by a decision of the ZBA uh uh can can appeal and to court not to the ZBA sorry to court. Yeah. Not back to the ZBA. Correct. under you Katherine
happy um we will happily come back to you as well but we want to make sure other people get a chance to speak um and uh it's been 15 minutes so far I just want to give you a heads up all right just quickly um I would like somebody to ask the same questions of um
the PPS version when are the abutters noticed for the first time under your warrant article uh They would be noticed um when there was the first public meeting
uh which would be uh the planning board meeting. Um, if there were another if it was zoning, if there were another commission uh that if you needed um if you needed
zoning relief, if there were another commission, I think under either version, they would be noticed uh when that other commission u u held a hearing or a meeting. Those are the questions that I think are
the critical questions that we should be looking at. Privacy when the betters are noticed and what hap and when the appeals can be made and how many appeals can be made and how much time that adds to each warrant article. Those for me as someone who sat on the subcommittee
those for me are the critical questions that as a town we want answered. And and let me if I if I might let me just follow up to your last point. the uh if you have a contentious um situation like we have seen
um once the ZBA um has ruled um in um in the um construct of the
bank, you would be able to go to court under the PPS version, the building commissioner's decision would be appealed to the ZBA, which would then have a 100 days and then you'd go to
court after that. So, I think there are two significant uh steps there. Um, in a contentious case, um, if a case is not contentious, you you could have a different outcome, obviously. Thank you, Dennis. I'll let somebody
else ask the questions of the PPS for an article. Thank you, Alec Leovitz. Thanks, Harry. Um, I'm I would be interested in hearing those questions answered by the PPS advocates. I didn't originally sign up to ask them, but I I
do agree broadly with Katherine's analysis, and I think that would be helpful. Um I I'm happy to to sort of jump in and answer them to the extent I can remember them all. I remember the first one involved uh privacy and need uh the
issue of need um and whether you're redesigning the plans andor simply moving the pieces around. Under the PPS version, you're essentially just moving the pieces around. So for instance, under uh Dick's version uh that allows
these all these boards to get into the issue of need um it opens up every hearing to questions like you know why do you need that why do you need this couldn't you get along without that toilet whereas in the PPS version uh the
board is planning board for instance would have plans would show a toilet would show how long the building is would show that it needs to, for instance, hold two vehicles. Um, but they wouldn't be able to say, well, why do you need that
toilet? They would simply say or be able to decide, well, I think we can redesign this better so that instead of being all but one foot from the edge of your property line, we can get it two feet back, we can make it a little bit smaller and still have the still have
the same components that give you the same amount of access. So I think that's that's one difference. Um let's see what were the what were some of the others I think one oh the notice the notice question the notice question yes I mean
the first notice that's given is given uh would be given the same as under the bank aversion it would be given uh for the planning board hearing um and then any other hearings that may happen such as the preservation
commission if they they give notice quickly then they give notice for a significance hearing or any other hearings would have notice, but the principal one for the purposes of zoning would be the planning the planning hearing uh the planning board hearing. Um I agree with Dick that uh yes the we
don't get to the ZBA until there is an appeal. I'd also agree with uh John Buckheight that hopefully nine out of 10 cases we don't get to the ZBA at all. So that involving them in the first place as one would under the bank aversion
really wouldn't be necessary. Mark, just in terms of the notice answer, there's also notice at the uh issuance of the reasonable accommodation by the building commissioner and that includes uh that
includes uh sending to the butters uh the the references on what their appeals rights are. Correct. Great. Okay. So, it sounds like under both proposals, we wouldn't run into a scenario where there would be some major
renovation or construction that gets underway without some advanced notice to a Butters. So, I think that addresses one of the key concerns we've heard this evening. This is a tough balance to strike and I just want to I think echo a lot of people's sentiments and and how grateful
we are to the PPS group to Dick Banka to the whole subcommittee for the inordinate amount of work that's gone into this. I think at this point I'm I'm likely leaning towards the PPS proposal. I think that has struck a better balance
from my perspective. I do want to just say I I I'm not very comfortable with the notion of us referring this article at this point. Um I I'm really it's it's quite disheartening to read the experience that the petitioner of the original Warren article went through and
it's really disheartening to now know that our lack of a written policy or bylaw being in place contributed greatly to that hardship and that negative experience. And I not only worry about the remedy in this case, but I'm sure there will be other cases that will
arise in any amount of time that we have to wait for further development. And you know, while we may need to return to this in the future to make tweaks or to fine-tune a proposal, I think it's important that some action be taken on this in short order. Um, and I I think
Neil Gordon outlined a compelling case again earlier against a referral that that rang true to me. I did also want to make one small suggestion um about the language in subsection five of both the banka proposal and the PPS proposal. Um
which is in bullet B of subsection five. Um both uh I believe read the same about the conclusion of the interactive process. Um the building commissioner shall grant grant with modification or deny the request for reasonable
accommodation and there's then a set time period after which automatic approval would be granted. I'm wondering if it would make sense to amend that language to read the building commissioner or their agent shall grant grant with
modification or deny the request. Um given that in a situation where the building director for a variety of reasons or unforeseen circumstances could be on extended leave um there would then be no official per official person to issue
the ruling on behalf of the town and we would then default to a position of automatically granting any requests filed under that either 45 or 60-day time window uh under the varying proposals. So I John, do you have any comment on on on that and whether there
are other provisions that have similar problems on our existing um bylaws? Um I mean I think probably as a practical matter you could go ahead and I mean if if he was in fact incapacitated that there would be someone acting I think that would
probably you know that person uh likely would would similarly have uh uh you know have the capacity or have the ability to go ahead and do it under under the language. But I think as Alex suggests it's a little cleaner. I'm not aware of uh um other bylaws that might
have that that kind of language, but but there may be. I haven't looked at that. It's it's a it's a good catch, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Um Fran Pear. So, I have a a couple of questions and I
find it unfortunate that Sarah Kaplan isn't here. Um, my memory may not be correct, but I believe that she has said in the past either to this committee or the select board that a butters have no
say in whether an ADA compliant project is being done or not. And I wondered if people would comment or if they remember better than I do about that. And my second question is um
for Leor Dick, when I look at that handful of committees that um and commissions that you suggest might be involved in making this decision and yet
you say it's going to be done in 45 days. Can you explain to me how you think that would work? So a lot of that stuff's done in parallel for one thing. It's not not not sequentially. In other words, if if the if the issue involves preservation, it
goes there concurrently. It involves conservation goes there concurrently. Um and uh I you know I I according to Marcus's comment uh he he suggests that
uh that would have that would occur under PPS as well. Um, so I I I don't, you know, I there's nothing unique here. Uh, in other words, we're not imposing a requirement that doesn't otherwise exist. And if if Marcus is correct that
those same requirements would apply under PPS, then I don't see it would make any difference. Okay. And does anyone else remember Sarah Kaplan saying that the butters are irrelevant for an ADA compliant
requirement? I I I certainly call something along those lines. Yes, I don't agree with it, but that's what she said. It's the law. Well, I I I don't think I mean Dick can perhaps comment on that, but uh her interpretation of the
law does not comport with others. Yeah, I I would um uh Fran, I I would note that um uh both versions um have uh in them uh in section 12
um building commissioner in their case, building commissioner boards or commissions in uh the Banka case um as 12B uh measures to issues that can be considered Ed, including measures to reduce the impact on surrounding uses,
such as measures uh that do not constitute u uh uh an unreasonable financial burden. [Music] Um uh you know there there is
um a effort to look at um uh reducing impacts on uh a butters under both but Fran I would not disagree with you.
Um you can have a pro you could have a process where the butters are not part of it as summer as Somerville does. Um but you can also have a process where butters are part of it I believe. And so yeah.
Okay. And then finally, regarding Alex's comment about agent, um it might behoove us to have that kind of language because if Dick Bennett retires, um the town has been
having many divisions, departments, etc. without directors for a very long time. Um because of the difficulty in hiring That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Neil Gordon. Yeah, thank you, Harry. I've got
I've saved up what's essentially uh a series of two fingers that I didn't two-finger. Um let me let me start sort of way back uh twice mentioned that oh my goodness, the commissioner might be,
you know, a member of the trades as has been in the past. I I'll suggest that if this bylaw is become if this proposal in any form uh becomes a bylaw that the town administrator and the select board
will do a better job than just to hire a member of the trades. This will become part of the job description. Uh and the ability to make decisions of this type by the building commissioner should have to be considered as part of the job. you
just don't hire somebody because they know the electrical code sort of. Uh so so that's I checked that off my list. Um, secondly, I'm a bit maybe maybe I heard this wrong, Dick, but I'm a I'm a
bit disappointed that uh CTO and S reaches the conclusion to recommend referral sort of due to a lack of time to fully understand all of the moving parts and granted that a good
number of the parts are in draft form. I think the right response then is to make no recommendation, not a recommendation of referral. If you can't be sure and may, as I said, I may have misheard you, but if you can't be sure what the right
decision is, then you you make no recommendation. Um, next to to Lee's notion of social contract surely. Um and and that's in the ordinary course of you know neighbor v neighbor and neighborhood v
neighborhood and you know the town more broadly that you give up certain rights to do with your property uh in exchange for which your neighbor gives up the same rights for uh a great so a greater
social benefit. I think that there's a different social contract when there is a member of the community who is disabled uh and and that you you you have a totally different balance. And I reached the conclusion that
um the uh the abuters have no rights. The abuter and that's a reasonable from my point of view that's a reasonable social contract uh to me. Um, I I hear, you know, over and over in in Lee's comments
that, you know, it's focused uh that this focus is almost entirely on the person with the disability and the person with the disability has rights and it's always followed with a butt. And when it's followed by a butt, that's dilutive of the right. Uh, and and I
have an issue with that. I ask a different critical question from Katherine Florio's critical question. And my critical question is when does the person with the disability get to fully live in their home? You know, how long is this process until they get to
fully live in their home? Um, you know, I heard tough balance. It's actually an easy balance. you don't but you don't balance the abuter's rights uh which I suggest round to zero with the rights of
the person with the disability. Now last the last one and I've heard many times in the course of uh not just this evening that this is not ready for prime time. I'll tell you who's ready for prime time. Someone who's been waiting
five years and is disabled and needs relief and needs help. and that person is really ready for prime time and has been for five years. Uh I'm I'm sort of disappointed with the the notion of uh
trying to find a balance that I believe uh ju just as unfair to the person most in need here, a member of our community. Thank you. And I just want to say something here. As one of the people,
wait a minute. As one of the people who made two of the comments, Neil, that you just so struck down, I think it's terribly unfair on your part, too. I think there are balances. And for you to disregard the balances of everybody else, I think is just wrong. So with all
due with all due respect, Harry, I can I can move the needle from my point of view in my opinion in the same way that anybody else on this committee can put that needle in a different place. I didn't say you had didn't have a right to your opinion. It is my opinion and
that's all I expressed was my opinion. I don't express that as Wait a minute, Neil. You represented what I said or you said something and I opened the very first question I asked. I did not. I'll give you my The very first question I
asked was about getting the person back into their house. Very first question I asked, I said, "What do we do if it's an emergency and this person needs to get into their house?" That was the first
question I asked. I would appreciate it, Neil, that if you cannot represent what it is that I say that you leave my name out of your tape. You asked a critical question. The very first question I
asked was, "What happens if it is an emergency and this person needs to get back into their house?" And apparently, you weren't. I wasn't responding to that. The first question I asked you asked you asked what you described and I quote as a critical question followed by
a question which was not that question was a different question and I made that note then right for a reason and all I said was I asked I asked a different critical question. Thank you.
One reason that I didn't follow up is because I know that neither of those warrant articles addressed that situation. So there are just to just to conclude there are three versions here under
consideration. There are the two that we've discussed at length which uh each involves some different level of public process and there is the warrant article uh and and a motion that can be offered under that warrant article as printed in
the warrant. And don't be shocked if that motion is not moved by somebody. We haven't discussed that uh in terms of its relative uh value versus the others
uh in any meaningful way this evening. David Pollock, thank you. Um I'll try to keep this very high level and I'll try to try to keep it brief. Um, I I will note that section 11, and I it may also be section 11 in
Dick's version, is called emergency uh uh accommodations. It's called emergency requests, and and I think it it addresses emergency requests. It says that there'll be a quick response and and and a very quick reasonable accommodation granted uh in those
circumstances. And then it does say if I if Go ahead, David. just in in those. Yeah. I I Dick would respectfully I think we got to we we got to not get into the details. I don't No, it all I wanted to say is I think both versions have the identical language. Right.
Right. Right. Right. So So that's I believe that's covered. Um anyway, uh I want to pick up uh where uh Neil Gordon left off the first time and you know to some extent where he left off the second time. um and and give you my you know my
recommendation uh and my assessment. Um I do want to just make one comment uh that I just can't not make about Lee saying that that their version is the compromise because it's not. Uh we've got two ends of a spectrum here. And
what Mark and I have been trying to do is to really listen to all the voices and to provide uh something that that that is helpful all around. again being very very oriented towards the needs of the person with a disability and that
this is we are making civil rights law and that we really want the town to lead here. Uh to Neil's uh Neil's and Neil to Neil's point um I you I I've never been counting votes uh to get the two/3s at
at town meeting either uh either literally or or figuratively in doing this. What I've been trying to do is is to uh is to create civil rights law that also understands that a good outcome and
a successful outcome to what John Buckite said, you know, to avoid lawsuits may very well be supported by allowing uh early notice to a butters and a forum for a butter voice and that that could
in in certain circumstances potentially in the in the past case have led to the reasonable accommodation have being successfully constructed long ago if there just been more opportunity for people to come together in in a process
that wasn't completely hidden and then surprise the backho show up and stuff like that. So it's it's not about finding you know middle ground per se it's really about crafting the best law. So to the concern that some people have
said about um that this hasn't been carefully enough considered um that's not true. Uh this is the staff went through this process and and created a process and lived it. Uh then
the ad hoc process and they really learned from that. then staff developed a uh a whole detailed process as a policy and they presented it to the MOD for uh for comment back in January. And then the petitioners version, they hired
very good lawyers and have drafted a um uh we have um they they they drafted a um a bylaw that I think is legal and uh while uh does not include public uh
involvement or notice or public meetings, I think would be a successful process for something that is almost never encountered. This does not happen every year and we need to have
uh solved this. And then you know Dick's put an enormous amount of legal effort into it and has consulted you know reviewed his version with uh with John Buckite and then Mark and John. Anyway, I think there's been adequate care taken
with these drafts, unlike a lot of warrant articles come to us. And to Dennis's question about preference, uh, my preference is that town meeting pass a bylaw because so much effort has gone into this and that we need to have
this fixed and we need to I and I would really like to see Brookline lead in this uh in this arena and show the Commonwealth that we are responsive and thoughtful and um and I think that
Uh, I would support I mean I I urge you to support the version that that I'm supporting, but um I would if if it came to a vote on the floor of town meeting on the
petitioner's motion and and I'll note that the petitioner said they would be willing to amend it to include planning staff that they they just hadn't really thought through that. That was at our very first subcommittee meeting. But I would vote on the floor of town meeting as a town meeting member. I would vote in support of that article because I
think we need this bylaw. And I think as Neil Gordon said, you know, we could I could certainly live with one that uh was like that. And I think that um we need to res to really deal with the
needs of persons with disabilities first in this case. But I do think that having the planning board involved particularly as much I mean I think that the abutter notice and the abutter ability to speak at the planning board is very helpful
but I think having the planning board's expertise helped to craft the best solution is really a positive innovation that that makes um our version stand out as better than the petitioner's original
version and then frankly I think the bank version in in just raises sign because it is so always answering the question to favor the traditional process and to some to I think to a large extent favor the
abutters I actually think that with our attorney general not just the attorney general but our attorney general Andrea Campbell and with what I've heard about feedback from the mod I actually think that the that in terms of the bylaw
standing uh that the bank of version is the risky version and in terms of being uh either cut up with a scissors by the attorney general or you know whatever. So I urge you all to uh to support one of the three and uh both tonight and at
town meeting. Thank you Chris Westfall. I I always tell my students that I I use myself as an example because I think that's fair game. Uh I'm now having trouble with stairs. Um I expect that trouble to get worse over time. I have
three choices. I can live on the first floor of my house. I could put an elevator in my back stairwell and eliminate the back stairs fairly easily, but it would be expensive and silly because the house is bigger than I need. or I could put an elevator on the front
or the back of my house as an addition. What's a reasonable accommodation? And really what we're talking about here is how do we put a process in place that has some judgment about what a reasonable accommodation means when
we're limited. I think this is very important. I personally will move referral on this if somebody doesn't move referral because I don't think that we're going to get it right by just picking one of three choices, none of
which we think is good enough. And the reality is while there are not a lot of people who are going to be affected immediately um the town's population is aging and you know I look at this room and we're
all getting older and that will lead to limitations. So I you know as much as I think everybody's worked hard on these none of them's perfect. We're all admitting that none of them is perfect and I think at that point somebody needs
to sit down and think it through. You need to involve a butters. Um it's not fair to declare that I should be able to put an elevator on the outside of my house as a reasonable accommodation
without at least some consultation or notice to my neighbors that that's about to happen. and it might not be a reasonable accommodation. Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder very often. That's my only comment on this. Thank you. I think
I was 37 when the night started. Um Marcus, is this summing up? Well, um ideally Yeah, I'm happy. I'm happy. I just I had one I had just one uh you know basically
two things sort of two two-finger things. Um one is this notion of striking the right balance. The law really has already struck the balance for us. The law says
that the the town can only deny a reasonable accommodation to its zoning requirements if it's an undue burden or expense expense to the town or it fundamentally alters the
nature of the zoning uh program or other other program. That's those are the two those What does that mean? Those are the two big ones. I've I've descri I' we already know that we've answered that in subcommittee. I'm not going to open that can of worms right
now. But those are the only two things. The other minor thing is whether it's a direct threat to the to the public. So that's something else that that uh was added to the us by added to our version by John Buckeye um at the
advice of the mod. And that's that's it. Of course, if the person isn't disabled or if they simply don't have a need, those are other reasons to deny it. But in terms of, you know, striking the balance, those are
the factors. Those factors say nothing about, you know, whether or not the accommodation should have wisteria planted so it looks more attractive to the neighbors or or anything else like that. Okay. It doesn't really say that. Now, we can
potentially offer that and see what happens, but that's what that's those that's what the balance is. Um, and second, in response to the building commissioner is tradesman. Yeah, we got a great building commissioner and Dan
Bennett. And if we get some, you know, I don't I don't want to be disparaging, but you know, some guy who's just a plumber and he makes a mistake in making this decision. First, he's going to make he's going to decide the disability question with the ADA coordinator. And
so, or she will decide the the thing with the disability coordinator to decide whether the person's disabled and whether there's a need for it. And if that person, the building commissioner, new building commissioner makes a mistake, it can be appealed to the ZBA and the ZBA can say, "No, you screwed
up." Okay, this person, you're not concentrating all the power in one person's hand, as somebody I think said, because there is the right of appeal. That those are just my last points and I just would heartily second uh what David said about striking
striking the right balance. Thank you, Dennis. Oh, sorry, Linda. Linda, thank you. Um, I know everybody's tired, but we've just heard from the proponents of one side, so I feel like there needs
to be some balance. Um, I just want to remind people again, and Marcus just told us again about this again, that one of the questions is, is the accommodation
reasonable and making that determination based on, you know, the financial aspects to the town and the whether or not the accommodation completely upends the purpose of the zoning bylaw. And the
people who should decide those questions are obviously the ZBA, not the the building commissioner because these are three trained individuals to weigh
questions of zoning and the impact that you know deviating from that those bylaws will make. They're the and the ZBA member told David Pollock that they
should be they're prepared, they're capable, they're willing, they think it's appropriate for them to make this decision. I think this is really important piece of this and that is the piece that needs to go at a bare minimum
to the ZBA. So and in terms of the balance, you know, I come down on the side of not having any input is, you know, other than the planning board in a private
session after their hearing is not sufficient. It's it's just it's not adequate notice. It's not adequate ability to have input and nobody is trying to deny any rights of
the disabled individuals and I really think it's disingenuous for people to to suggest that that is what people are trying to do here because no one is trying to do that. So I would urge
support for the uh Selwin banka version if we are going to vote in favor of any of the versions. Thank you. Thank you uh Dennis. Um, so I think that um I because we
heard from um uh David and Marcus, if there was any last remarks that Dick wanted to uh to make this the opportunity, although I would urge you keep them brief. Thank you.
Um I think we have uh beaten to death. Um and uh you all have the basis to make the decision about who should be deciding these questions. Should it be the building commissioner? Should it be the
zoning board of appeals? And um I've expressed the reason why I believe it should be the zoning board of appeals. I've outlined and I highlighted the reasons for that. Um, I've done it in the memorandum and I've done it um uh
orally during my opening comments. I would also add that and I'm not going to um uh flog this to death at this point, but uh the memorandum that u I submitted I I hope most of you at least uh
hopefully all of you have had a chance to look at it. But um on pages 6 to 7 6 to 8 of that memorandum at the end of that memorandum I've identified a number of situations where the
um uh PPS version does not follow the language that is actually included in the Massachusetts Office on Disability guidance. And um that um that discrepancy is something that I
think has to be considered. I I um would be very concerned about a wholesale um adoption of um a a proposal uh that um actually u varies from the
language. Uh what I've tried to do is to follow the language um as closely as possible um uh with respect to dealing with alternatives uh dealing with um uh an examination of
needs, dealing with confidentiality, uh dealing with um uh the basic purpose um uh of the zoning bylaw, not undermining that. And um I would hope that um
uh that uh the the language um that has been utilized in my draft would be language that uh would be incorporated. Um I also obviously um feel strongly
that the appropriate body here given the legal issues that have to be decided at the end of this process um is appropriately the ZBA. So I will leave it at that and thank you. Thank you very much.
Um so I've spoken to um uh the moderator to talk about um reasonable approaches to get as comprehensive a set of votes on the table as as possible and have since
having heard that there will be a referral motion offered and given that that would take precedence I'm going to operate under the assumption that there will be a uh referral motion that we will vote on and I'm operating under the
assumption that that motion will be um identical to the one that CTO and S uh voted um uh so that we would take that. Can we get a clarification on that because my understanding that CTO and S was referring the bank of version no
referral did that not happen? But any but but but before we go into the clarifications, can I outline the process and then we can go into the details of the motions? Thank you. Um the process will be to vote on a on the referral motion. And if a s a referral
motion passes, we are done with warrant article 14 and we'll move on to warrant article 15. If it fails, then what we should do is is place on the table the petitioner's motion. take the and then uh I'm arbitrarily
choosing that we will take the bank motion as a substitute uh uh amend by substitution take the PPS motion to amend by substitution eventually at the end of that process we will come up with a motion that we can vote up or down um
and if we vote up great and if we um if we uh uh if we vote down then we we can consider taking another uh having a reconsideration. We'll either have a a recommendation of no action or we could reconsider for a motion um another
motion to refer. Um so, uh Dick, I can bring up the uh language of the CTOS motion because I was sent to me earlier today. Um, but if you want to explain it while I'm doing that, it it was not um
uh there there was um uh one member who wanted to refer uh maybe more but uh it it was a balanced uh refer the subject matter of warrant article 14. Yeah. Hi to voted to
refer the subject matter of warrant article 14 to the select board for the expeditious creation of a bylaw or of policies and procedures for resolving reasonable accommodation claims under fair housing and disability law. Ensuring compliance with federal and
state law while preserving public process and the rights of abutters in the public. The privacy rights of applicants and the roles of the planning board, zoning board of appeals and other boards and commissions. The creation of such policy and procedure should involve at least the building commissioner's
office, the ADA coordinator, town council's office, representatives of boards and commissions, and the regulatory planning office within the department of planning and community development. And uh the select board voted to refer both articles. I don't
have the precise language that they that they voted. Um it's probably not identical to that language. Um but uh it it was a referral back to the select board, but it was it was several weeks ago and they have it on their agenda tomorrow night. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
I'm just just I I I I that's why I was proposing that if we were going to take a referral motion, we would start with the COS one because that was that's um more recent. We're not under obligation to pass it, of course, just it feel like a reasonable starting
point. Um, so with that in mind, um, I'm, uh, assuming Christine, um, since you volunteered, you're going to make that motion. I'll move the CTN, uh, uh,
uh, motion to refer. Second. I'm just going to put in a placeholder, which says COS referral language, and we'll paste it in because we just read it. Yeah. All right. So, if this passes,
then our recommendation is to refer. We'll have a very nuanced report for for um town meeting. Um if this fails, we'll go on to other votes and have a differently nuanced report for town meeting. Um
uh share screen. Okay. Okay. So, we're voting now on whether we're going to recommend referral of the subject matter of warrant article 14 um as per the CTO and S language. Michael Burgerer. Yes. To refer.
Ben Burnbound. Yes. Uh Harry's not here. Cliff, no. Anthony, um I think he had to go. Oh, right. He had to leave. Sorry, John. Yes. Katherine, yes.
Harry, yes. David Mark, could you come back to me? Sure. Neil, no. Susan, yes. Perry, no. Kelly, no.
Alisa, sorry. Yes. Yes. Okay. Janice, no. Alec, no. Carol, yes. Jocelyn, yes. Danell,
uh, Danell had to leave. Okay. Uh, Mark, I'm sorry, Linda. Yes. Mark, no. Fran, no. David, no. Lee, yes.
Christine, yes. And who did I skip over? David Mark, I'll vote yes. You'll vote yes. All right. So, by a vote of 13 to 9 to zero, our recommendation mirrors CTO and ES's
language. Um, so we don't that gives us five fewer votes as it turns out. Um uh well, thank you to everyone. Um I know there's a ton of work, uh that went into this and this is just the first uh
step in this discussion and I anticipate a pretty lengthy debate at town meeting as well. Um I just I I was uh I don't know who's going to write the combined report on this and I Yeah, let's take that. Can we can we take that off
offline? I realize there's there's going to be a problem with figuring out how the combined report is going to be written. Um and it has to be submitted by Wednesday. So, um we're going to have to start with some a lot of the materials that you put uh together, but
um um I'll follow up with you either later tonight or first thing in the morning, you and David and other members of the subcommittee and Harry. Um we need to go on to um warrant article 15.
Um if those of you who will remember that Marcus presented uh warrant article 15 and the subcommittee's recommendation for favorable action. Um it' be a good opportunity now to propose questions or comments from the full committee.
And I I'm not looking at the screen, so I don't know if anybody's putting their name in the chat. Um, nobody. Uh, yes, Lindo Pelky. Thanks. Um, I am under the impression that the version we're discussing tonight of article 15 was
amended by the preservation commission. So whatever it is that we voted on the subcommittee seems somewhat irrelevant. It was only modestly amended. They just added that the chair and another member
would consult after everything else. I I don't think there was another well there was a lot of red title that was all voted by that was all Tina's original version that was presented to CTO and s excuse me to preservation commission
when they met on Tuesday a week ago last Tuesday and they liked it but they wanted to strengthen it by having personal representation follow their their um you know their uh determination
of significance So, it's substantially to this to this point, David, do you have a red line between what the subcommittee voted and what the new motion is by any chance? Uh, I thought that I thought that it went in the packet. Uh, Tina McCarthy
provided it to Lisa. Okay. But not there's there's not a red line between what the committee voted on and what our subcommittee voted on and what uh preservation just voted on because they sent us a PDF and it was just like the
last moment. But the only difference was that the version we voted on had the internal administrative process where the uh TINA or the preservation planner would cons would get together with the
chair of the preservation committee commission and a technical expert and the change is that the technical expert has been designated as another member of the commission. That's the only that's the
only change they uh they accepted the changes that the committee that our subcommittee made in terms of not requiring the applicant to file a second uh application or a separate application uh for the uh preservation committee for
the demolition permit. Um yeah, that's it's really really minor. So I it's there's really not nothing substantive. Okay. Can I ask another question? Sure. Um, so what happens when
there is a zoning ch and uh the demolition bylaw gets triggered? What what happens when the two things have to work together? Say that again. Well, I mean they're all
the preservation commission is looking at is whether the building is significant or not that's being altered for the accommodation. Correct. Then they're going to be involved in the
interactive process with certain subgroup of people from the preservation commission and the staff etc. But what happens I is there going to be a separate concurrent process when it also
involves you know a significant zoning alteration and how do these two things the zoning the significant zoning alteration is not within the jurisdiction of the the preservation commission that's within so these are two separate processes that will be
going on concurrently correct Yes, that's that's the whole idea of of both Dick's version and uh the PPS version. There's not two different versions of 15 though.
No, but the 15 just concerns the demolition delay bylaw. It doesn't concern anything else. I don't know. It just seems like there's some consideration on how they're going to work together timing wise if nothing else. But it's not something I've figured out.
I think it's a question, you know, it's kind of like Carol Levin's question about the condos. It's just, you know, it just is not been contemplated. Well, it is. It was contemplated in that she she uh Tina said that um at least
with respect to local historic districts, the two processes are completely different. Right. Right. So we're and we're not considering anything regarding local historic districts when we consider this demolition delay bylaw. Right. So if you're concerned about
demolition of local historic in a local historic district. Okay. And I just want to point out that Jocelyn kindly put the paragraph from the preservation commission's report explicitly saying what the additional
change was, which seems to mirror uh what I what I said earlier, right? Linda, are well, I mean, I I just think that this one has not been adequately vetted. So,
um, you know, I think we contemplated it a little bit. We all were kind of waiting to see what the preservation commission did. I mean, part of me thinks if they're happy with it, then we should be happy with it. But honestly, I I don't think we've really thought this
one through either. So I feel conflicted, right? [Music] Um David Mark, David Mark. Yeah, thanks. Just just a very brief question. Um and I know it's very late. Um is there
anything regarding 15's relation to 14 where we need to either pass them both or not pass either? Are there any uh loopholes that would be created? Any contradictions if we pass 15 but not 14 or vice versa? Um I'm just wondering if
there's any what the connection is to each other. John, do you have um Yeah, let's hear from Steph. Sure. Yeah. No. So I think 14 references the demo delay bylaw but um I think at CTO and S we concluded
that this could stand on its own. Um I can tell you that uh war article 14 you know provides 45 days in as a general time limit for all boards and commissions to get back to the building commissioner um or the PPS version. And
obviously um and so that would apply in this case although I think this independently doesn't have a specific time frame but I do think it could still stand on its own. What what about the appeal process and the appeal times on on 15
um if somebody wants to appeal a decision of of 15? Yeah, that's a good question. It would probably would have to be a a sort of a mandamist action. there's kind of a catch-all that allows you to appeal a municipal uh officials decision and it
might have to be in superior court uh something if if um for example uh the demo delay was waved and someone wanted to appeal that um uh I can't remember the statute but I think you'd have to utilize that process. Okay. So it just sounds to me like we
need to to refer this one too so we can get it right the first time. That Thank you. Okay. I just want to point out like well Dick's version doesn't have any language about the appeal. Um so the you don't necessarily have to specify. I mean people have attorneys and they kind of understand their rights and so you
don't really have to define at each moment when you know what the appeal right is and some would argue that in some cases it's not appropriate in a bylaw. So Joslyn, thank you Harry. Um, so doesn't u
article 15 presume passage of article 14 where it refers to um necessary accommodations as determined by the building commissioner and the ADA coordinator and so not necessarily because that's
how the process I mean if if we're still on operating under an ad hoc process as we did in the past then then if the building commission you know where the building commissioner did grant the accommodation then uh you know there'd
still be the issue with the accommodation. I mean let me let me back up. It is late. So what happened and and John can tell describe it even better probably but what happened in the past was that the accommodation was granted the
preservation commission put a stay of of demolition a demolition stay on the project. It went on for about 6 months. it wasn't achieving anything and John had to intervene and tell the preservation commission you can't do this because you're running the risk of
of generating litigation against you for a delay that's really serving no purpose and then the preservation commission got together and voted to lift its stay at that point. Is that fair to say John? Yes. Um,
so but this assumes a process then and right assumes a process where the building commissioner along with the ADA coordinator will determine necessary accommodations. So I I I just I think it
would be awkward to adopt this um where where the former has been referred. It to me it seems awkward. Mhm. I'm also I will add I'm in the camp that believes the ZBA should as a factf finding body should be making the
determination. But in any event, it it seems awkward to me that this process seems to be established in these sections section subsections four and five. [Music] that well I want to just
comment. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Um so yeah no I agree the specificity of saying you know because I I suppose that um somebody other than the ADA coordinator and building commissioner possibly could decide but I think it's unlikely. Um uh
I think you know the the ad hoc process we came up with and and uh you know the issue came up in in front of the in the former case before the board of appeals as to who was the proper entity to issue a reasonable accommodation and and I think we did resolve that the building
commissioner was probably for under zoning would be the best person. So it's you know there there would federal law does require that you move forward regardless of whether you have a formal written process in place. So certainly if we had an application we'd have to
move forward with it. Um so that certain got it. But John, wouldn't this have to be amended? Assuming that this this is assuming article 14 is referred um and and whatever body that's referred
to comes up with a new bylaw, this might have to be referred as well or adjusted as well. Correct. it I think it could be uh depending on what the town comes up with uh if if this is referred and there's something new that's come up with that there might
have to be some changes to the language but that just strikes me as being awkward that's CTO and voted it uh I mean we talked about this a bit at the meeting maybe not in this step but I think we landed on that it could still exist
independently but so how did they vote awkwardly. They voted in favor. Was it I can't remember the vote. Dick, do you remember? Um or but it was the old version. Uh it was before preservation. No, no,
this was No. I I I believe the vote was unanimous um with one abstension if I recall correctly. There may have it may have been uh one negative vote uh but it was uh either
um 601 or 511 but we did not discuss quite candidly it happened at the end of the evening and we didn't discuss the um uh interplay with article 14. So I I would be inclined to move
referral of this as well. Okay. when we get there. Yeah. Which might be now if there's nobody else signed up. Dennis, there's nobody signed up. I think we're ready for motions.
Um All right. So, uh, the I assume someone's going to be moving favorable action on the motion as amended by the planning um, uh, commission, but we'll take um,
Joselyn's motion for referral. Do you have the um, the language, Joselyn? Do you want me to copy the language from um, Yes, that would work nicely, Dennis. Thank you. Hang on one moment. Uh, so it would be it would be exactly the same
motion we just voted except that everywhere it says warrant article 14, it would say warrant article 15. Well, I guess my question is can we is it possible to move the preservation commission additional language and then
refer that? Uh, yeah. Um, yeah, that's what we're doing. I mean the subcommittee can almost do it because we recommended favorable action on something that was almost the final version but parliamentarily Marcus could move it as
a town meeting me as a AC member and then so long as we're referring the the version that has the preservation commission language incorporated. Yeah. Well, I mean this was the you know this was to refer the subject matter of warrant article 14 which would include all of that language including 15 but
yeah. Okay. I'm sorry 15. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, yeah. Can we make Can we make the motion to refer conditional on warrant article 14 failing? Really? No. Well, what if it passes?
Silly. No. I mean, we can adopt this later. It doesn't really matter. It it seems to me that Tom meeting if they pass 14 will pass 15 and vice versa.
Yeah, that seems to just I'm I'm with Marcus. So do do if we recommend referral and that's all we say then we've recommended referral that I don't think informs town meetings should referral on 14 be defeated and why can't
we we can have two motions I guess which is basically what our recommendation is warrant article 14 passes and what our recommendation is if warrant article 14 fails but but Dennis we have multiple versions of 14 that's the problem we multiple
versions of what we are in favor of or not. So that that's a can of worms we can't do at 10:30 at night. I think it makes sense to just to Yeah, there's the inconsistency that Joselyn pointed out. I'm going to I'm going to suggest that again town meeting is entitled to be
informed that if if the motion to refer on 14 fails, then we can have no recommendation on 15. but to leave it as a a recommendation to refer 15 because we
think that 14 will be referred also. Um except that CTO and S is under the is under the belief that it can stand independently which I disagree when we are and and if our referral motion were
to pass we would be implicitly saying that we don't believe it would stand independently. That's what you're saying, right, Joselyn? Yes. Yeah. I um we can always re revisit this later if we need to, but let's just vote it now. Yeah. Well, I'm inclined to take
the um referral motion and vote on see what happens and then we can potentially have another um motion for, you know, a contingent recommendation of some sort such as no recommendation or or the like. Um, so we have a
Murphy motion which is refer subject matter of warrant article 14 15 using 15. Thank you. Using identical language to warrant article
14's referral. I I just want to point out that all three versions have the same uh reference to article 914.5B. So it's they all so it really would m it and because
that's what uh sort of I think creates the confusion and the only reference to article 14 is that 9145B is amended. So, you know, can you translate that into non-awyer English for those of us who are Yeah. Oh, well,
so the challenge. Yeah. No, it's it's late. Um, so the article 15 as amended that I have up on my screen here says the building commissioner forwards a copy of the application to the
preservation commission as described in section 914 9.14.5.B B of the town zoning bylaw as amended. That's the only reference to you know what's happened under warrant
article 14. The beginning of the article simply references internally to the demolition delay bylaw and other references are also just internal to the demolition delay bylaw. So the only way that the only confusion is created if
nothing from 14 passes is that you've got a you've passed a warrant article 15 that references something that hasn't passed. But if warrant article passes in any of the forms that are currently suggested
one A, B, or C, they all include this paragraph 914.5B as amended. So, so does that that language even required though? Because if if 14 passed, then wouldn't it be referred as
wouldn't it be required to be referred or I'm maybe I'm confused by the um by what's being asked in article 15. Well, because Yeah, but that that the article 15 just references article 14 in having
the building commissioner forwarding a copy of the application to the preservation commission as described in section 914. I was just saying that if the as described line were struck, would it would it change the
requirements under 15 at all? And would it remove the ambiguity? Well, that's that's another solution, correct? That would work as well. Charson's point was that would it be the building commissioner who'd be doing this? And
that's not, you know, Oh, thank you. probably probably would I was referring to subsections four and five Marcus referring to the building commissioner four and five oh Roman numeral yes
ah I see okay all right I I'm going to consider that we are going to um are going to vote on this referral motion. It will either pass or fail. And if it
passes um we do have a subcommittee um report that will become the basis for a good portion of our description to town meeting even if our recommendation is for referral. Um
uh share screen. So on the table and did someone second your motion, Joselyn? I think so. I'll second it. I I did I did all Thank you. Thank you. So um the question is whether we're are going to recommend referral of
the subject matter born article 15 as we did for born article 14. Michael, he's not here. Ben, yes. Cliff, abstain. John. Yes. Katherine, did she leave?
Um, I think I think she did. Harry, yes. David Mark, yes. Neil, Susan, yes. Perry, you come back. Come in. Sure.
Kelly. I think Kelly left. No, I'm still here. What' you say, Kelly? I'm sorry. Abstain. Okay. Alisa, yes. Uh, Janice, yes.
Alec, abstain. Carol, yes. Jocelyn, yes. Linda, yes. Mark abstain.
Fran, yes. David, no. Lee, yes. Chris, abstain. And who did I skip over? Perry.
Perry. How about no? No. Okay. So, 12 in favor, two opposed, six abstensions. are going to recommend referral of warrant article 15. I will follow up with the subcommittee like I said to figure out how we
um write these reports and who's going to speak uh town meeting. Um is that the end of the business tonight, Harry? I think it is. Yes, it is. You want to announce what we're doing on Thursday?
On Thursday, we're meeting at 7 o'clock. So, we're back to our Thursday schedule. We will be doing a public hearing on two collective bargaining agreements, which are relatively simple and were like the collective bargaining agreement we
passed a couple weeks ago. Um um and then we're doing some mopup work. Um, there's a a appropriation transfer for the IT department, a possible reconsideration of
W825 on the climate change super fund. I'm I'm not quite sure why, but something came up with that. And then a possible um vote on uh warrant article 30, right?
Warrant article 30, the moderators committee on former government. We had tabled that and so it now it will be coming back. Great. Thanks everyone. Um see you on uh see you on
Thursday and uh thanks to everyone for getting in um uh combined reports including the um um the most recent updates that are going to go out in the um uh in the supplement. Um it's I've gotten a I've
gotten so far I think fairly good um feedback from those who have um have reached out. Um so good work everyone. Good night. See you on Thursday.