Good evening. I'm Bernard Green, chair of the Brookline Select Board, and this is the uh a regular meeting of the select board prior to town meeting for May 27, 2025. Um any announcements in the select
board or updates? No, seeing none. Uh let's do public comment. Sorry, give me one second. I forgot to pull that up. Thank you for joining us for public comment. This is an opportunity for us to hear your perspective on the issues
in Brookline that matter to you. Each person speaking tonight is limited to three minutes. You don't need to use the entire time, but you may if you'd like. Once 15 minutes has been met, there's an opportunity at the conclusion to select words business or additional comments. Members of the public sometimes raise questions during public comment. We may
be able to provide a quick answer to a question, but are more likely to work with staff to get a more thorough answer and respond over email. The on-screen timer will flash orange when you have 30 seconds remaining and red when your time is nearly up. Please conclude your remarks at that time. If you have more to say, you're welcome to send an email
to board members expressing your thoughts in greater detail. Any person wishing to speak must begin their comment by identifying themselves with their full name and either their Brookline precinct number or street address. We did not have any individuals who signed up in advance to speak for public comment. If there's anyone online
who wishes to speak during public comment at this time, please raise your hand using the raise the hand feature. There are seven individuals online and it looks like no one is indicating their desire to speak. Okay, while we're coming um yes ready I
thought there might be a question public comment but I wanted to just briefly highlight what was emailed out this afternoon uh to town meeting members and also published online. Um recently a decision was made to update uh the staffing model of the
Brooklyn Fire Department. Uh it's a move to a flexible staffing policy. Uh that involves uh ensuring that there's still the appropriate number of firefighters on hand to respond to uh working fires and other events, but it allows more
flexibility in terms of how those responses are staffed, how stations are staffed. Um there is additional details available online at brooklinemma.govfirestaffing. It's f i r e s t a ff i n g. We've uh sent out a press release that's
available online. Uh and also uh you can visit that website for additional information. I know uh for example this evening uh members of the fire union are present outside of town meeting. They areing their own response to this decision. um which is absolutely their
right and we continue to look forward to working with them um as uh the representatives of our firefighters and moving forward process. Uh so I just do one flag for anyone watching. Uh if you were looking for more information about that decision which will go into effect
on July 1st, please visit mma.gov staffing. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, first u minutes for May 20th, 2025. Any corrections or addition to those
minutes? No. I move approval of minutes for May 20th, 2025. All in favor? Uh John Van? I Paul Warren. Hi. David Thorman. I Michael Wstein. I chair both
side. Um okay. Okay, I'd like to move in honor of discussion items 3B through 3G. Um, which includes, if I recall, a couple items, one item that was addressed by
the hearing committee the other day. Any questions or anyone want to pull one of these off for further discussion? Mr. Chairman, we should remove the SU courtyard renovation. Um the recreation director asked that we pull that for consideration at a later
meeting. So that's item 3F. Okay. I missed that. And just like temporary licenses, the one day licenses are handled directly by these. Oh, okay. Okay. So items 3B through
3FB. Yeah. Take out 3F. 3B through 3G. Except 3. Okay. Then we take out 3F. Yeah. Okay. So Chief now. Okay. So I move approval of all the remaining um items under M. So all in
favor then by saying I. John squad. I um Let's see. Paul Warren. Hi, David. Hi, Michael. Hi, Chair B. Article reviews. Okay. Um, the first item or first article
30 commissioner asked that we take it off agenda and deal with it at a later meeting. So that that is the uh form of government that they are they
I'm not sure what so the petitioner did file a motion for referral so that is um currently what we have is to consider right now you had voted the um resolution in the form that it was filed so now there's a referral that would
I talked to I'm not sure what I think there was file again. Yeah, there is a motion filed, but I'm I'm guessing the petitioner asked that you defer consideration because it's not going to come up tonight. Probably not tomorrow. So, they're they're asking that you give
them a second to Okay. Next is reconsideration article 18 and 19. So, 18 at the time that you had taken your vote, you did not have the advisory committee language. Um, and so now the advisory committee language can be found
in the divine reports page 18-12 through 18- 17. Um, I think kind of the pime primary changes are around the effective dates and um, a couple of scriveners are that the advisory committee also.
Any questions? Okay, I like to move reconsideration on article 18 to incorporate or to acknowledge the minor amendments from the garden. All in favor
by saying I Paul Warren. Hi David. Hi Michael. So I didn't vote on the previousation. Okay. Okay. Uh, anyone want any further discussion of changes?
It's just an effective date. So, um, go back to the advisory committee for it. Um, so there's language in section 8.32.6. Um, yeah. So that talks about the uh
effective dates and when when it will actually be enforced. [Music] Um most of the effective dates which are explicitly stipulated in section 3 8.32.2 AC and E and more generally
in 8.32.6 effect they were not modified by the amended bylaw. These dates occurred in 2019 and 2020 and yet provision then uh includes new language under warranty version of the bylaw. So um
that's what they were correcting with the effective dates. The discriminator's error was identified in the amended language of section 2.3 2.1 under definitions uh single use condiments list to be treated uh salt pepper etc or
added similar items the word or should be replaced by the word and that was okay further discussion. Thank you. Okay, we observe authority consideration favorable action on
article 19 as amended as article 186 we're doing well. Okay. Thank you. Um all in favor please indicate by saying I John I Warren
Istein I chair votes I next and we're going to be debating these together but voted separately war article 8 19 we need to reconsider because of additional changes by the committee as I understand so I
think that the advisory committee report didn't have their correct uh language in there. So, you should have an email that I'm being pulled into the packet um that better describes it's kind of the same issue effective date.
Um but then there's also um retail establishments previously exempt um and then requirements of retail space as well. I'm assuming did that make it?
Yeah. So what is the label? I'm actually looking at the online agenda. Let me go there. There's a under warrant article 19. So there's a five a II reconsider
reconsideration of warrant article. There's a document called warrant WA19 that has an email from me that um includes in the thread from the petitioners and the advisor committee members and you'll see the the language
uh highlighted in red in that attachment. They need these changes. Yes. And I think that they're revoting it because they weren't sure whether or not that was what they originally voted, but that was their intent. So they're going to voting just to clean it up. Yes.
Okay. every voting tonight to uh delete what's highlighted with red. No, they're adding it. It's underlined. Okay. So, I think that the the black and white underline is the petitioners and then the red is the AC amendment to the
petitioners. Yeah. Yeah. It's just this one section 8.33.43, right? Uh yeah, so 8.33. It's 8.33. Um it says this bylaw shall take effect on the towns in compliance with previous
provisions of GLC 40 section 32 provided that section 82.33.2 two shall not, and this is what the case added, apply to a retail establishment previously exact section 8, 2033. Um, and then the existing language
was until 12 months from section 8 or July 1st, 2027, whichever occurs later. And then advisory added retail establish establishments previously exempt from 8.33 means any retail establishment one
that is not a retail store or two that is a retail store that does not satisfy any of the following requirements. K or shell space or 2500 square f feet or larger or at least uh for at least three
locations of the same name within the town of Woodal 2500 square ft or more or B a retail pharmacy with at least two locations under the same ownership or C a fullline self-service market
supermarket that had an annual gross sales of a million dollars during the is here in which sells a line of dried dried grocery canned goods or non food items and some terrible nutrition. Why on earth so
bad shop exception? This is just selfish but it's also so shop continues to use plastic bags. they were exempt but it's not this is saying that they won't be they won't plastic bag we talk
about you I think it's single use disposable plastics probably yes could somebody tell me what general loss the chapter 40 section is a little
I guess how bylaws become effective. Okay. So it's the it's the attorney general. Yes. Yes. That's right. Chapter 40 section 32. Yes. That's exactly right. It's the attorney general's review. Yeah. I'm a little frustrated that I
can't find this document. Chad, is it your interpretation that this is to deal with not exempt large? Right. So, it's so there was they were previously exempt from section 833. What
this says is um but this will not take effect. for the places that were previously exempt until 12 months after the attorney general approves it or July one second later. So it gives that extra but they won't they won't be exempt
anymore or a pharmacy that has that has two locations and a size that only applies that only so our original action was to
So favorable action on the original without. Okay. Any other discussion? Uh all in favor of reconsideration by saying I Paul Iain and uh I don't
like I think I would like to have more understanding of why the type of bags that you put loose vegetable bags are not going to be bad. It seems to me they're hygienic
issues that other issues. So this isn't just packing this well that's why I'm saying it's those little plastic bags. Yeah. And as I recall, um, it doesn't allow
tags like phone call. which are composable. I think they're I'm just not bags. Trader Joe's has compostable bags, but some of them are the same use.
Basically, the change to this law says that right that they it used to be just checkout bags. Now it's product bags, too. um product bags should comply with the requirements of being either a recyclable paper bag, a reusable product bag, or a compostable plastic bag. So
that expands outward and now so it's not that you can't offer them, it's that if you offer them, they have to be compostable or reusable. Also, Bernard, your concern, a lot of supermarkets will use sort of brown paper recyclable bags for putting in fruit and vegetables. That's an option
in some places. Yeah. Um yes. So just to understand is your objection to this specific change or is it to the No, no, it's not so much an objection as I think I need more time to really understand, you know, how far
this goes in terms of disrupting um the uh yeah the operations of of supermarkets. Well, I um when we were on vacation after the election, we Davey
and I watched a documentary called I think Plastic Ocean. Um and it was really remarkable that the amount of plastic that is getting into our oceans and into our food system that this micro
plastic that they're now finding in human bodies and it's accumulated. Um, and it's they they don't know yet. They think it has cardiovascular card. It can impact cardiovascular systems. They're not sure. They're starting to do the research, but uh plastic is
all over. It's in our blood. It's all over everywhere. Um, and this is something that's happened in the last, you know, 30 years. I mean, plastic has not been 50 years. Hasn't been around for a long time, and it's it's in everything. Um, so I um it it is
concerning to me that u that that's taking place and if we can find a way to reduce it and do our little problem even if it's inconvenient for you know you know I'll put my property into a plastic bag put into a paper bag.
Okay. So we uh we're reconsidering any further discussion vote approval of Warner 19 as amended. All in favor John I Paul Warren I David I and chair abstains.
Okay that's the last item on this agenda. We have 14. Okay. So, articles 14 and 15 we put back on. Um over the weekend um there was another motion filed by um Marcus
Venzel. Um David Pollock and Dick Bena. Um that was sent out uh electronically as a supplement. Um it's I believe supplement number five and um that is a new compromise for the
board to consider. We also added 15 in case any action under 14 caused the board to have a change of heart on the position for 15. So um that's what you have in front of you for those two articles. So the can I ask your question? So, um,
Melissa, my understanding is that the change that Dick Bena, who is who was the, um, author of his amendment, there's some language from national law definitions, I think, that they just moved into 14 that, um, which would be
the pencil article, and it was more just a clarification of of that language. So, it was consistent with master of the law. Is that is that your read? and it's still the building commissioner is responsible for um overseeing and making the decision and it can be appealed you
can appeal it to the ZBA um the decision and there are public hearings. Yeah, you probably have a better understanding sometimes with the zoning ones I let Paulie take the help. Okay, so that so I did I received several phone calls about this over the weekend. So um so uh Dick
Banka who's his major issue with uh article 14 was that he wanted the ZBA to have authority and not the building commissioner. Um he has uh agreed with the petitioners of article 14 that the building commissioner can be the person
in authority. Um uh and the only change is I don't have it in front of me. probably what was in our package is that they they used a definition for national law that was in Dick's article and they applied it to article 14 and that was accepted by the petitioners
I should the the u the pollock the substitute motion right yeah the original petitioners oh I'm sorry motion right the original petition is still being moved so you will have those yeah we either vote uh well we can vote So there's no real
material change to our the board's original position was I think 3 to two or three to two to adopt the the pencil motion, right? Um this the polic pencil ps I think is what it was called. Um
that Pollock has accepted as a friendly amendment Dick Bank's suggestion. Um so they basically have consolidated the bank of the whole consolidated. Any further discussion? Um yes. Uh two things. One is a one is a question. Um I
notice in the in the cover memo and this may have been covered earlier. um this question about hearings versus meetings that are held and I know that the bylaw itself says for example the planning board can hold a meeting um but we
cannot require the planning board to hold a hearing um my question is if the planning board of its own valition decides to hold a hearing um does that run a foul of
um of either fair housing or federal ADA laws. And if it does, then what are the risks and exposures that we have assume in the event that the planning board or the ZBA take that
action? Sure, I can let John bukai town council. Um, so there's not a I mean the language parrots what's in the zoning bylaw, which is what the planning board does when it advises the ZBA. It holds a meeting and that's what it's called. Um,
so there's there's no requirement in our bylaw. I think the issue if we made it explicit in this bylaw that a hearing was required, we'd be treating people with disabilities differently. Right. But that was my question. Okay. Thank you. My question was if if we keep the
language as it is, but the planning board of its own valition or the ZBA of its own valition chooses to hold a hearing as opposed to a meeting, right? And and um so brings up the question of you know hearing versus a meeting and what is the distinction and public
hearing requires that you do take public comment. Um, so I think if if on their own valition they agree to hold or or allow public comment, I think is what I'll how I'll define it. Um, I do think that there potentially are some risks
and that people from the public might get up and say something that's ill advised, but but I think uh I I think they'll they'll be able to control the comment. it's defined in the proposed bylaw substitute bylaw substitute to the substitute um that it be confined to
kind of narrow these narrow um subject matters which are you know the reasonable accommodation standard as well as the it opens it up to this you know to allowing them to uh to for neighbors to suggest alternatives that might provide equal access. Um so
um I don't have I I mean I'm not quite sure if I I think there is some some risk to doing it and I think um the practice of the planning board I know is to take public comment at all of their their meetings. Um so query weather and
in fact it is kind of a hearing but um can I just um add so so because it's the planning board's practice to hold meetings but then take public comment. We wouldn't want them to actually have a hearing because they're changing the
process specifically for people with disabilities. You're getting to the same point of meeting with public comment. What's the difference between that is you know public hearing. So I think your concern is addressed but we wouldn't
want to change the process. It's it's the planning board's practice to hold meetings and allow public which is essentially indistinguishable from here. I was just going to add that the way the uh public pencil amendment is worded
public comment will be restricted to three areas. Now there's not absolute control over what someone might say. But in terms of actionable public comments as I'll call it. It would be restricted to those three particular categories. Is it is it three or two? Three. Yeah.
There's it also allows there the two um whether it fundamentally alters the bylaw whether it provides an undue administrative or financial burden. And lastly, whether there might be an alternative that would provide you access, which probably the one that makes me maybe the most nervous, but um
but I think, you know, I think an ab who's looking at a big garage next to the house might say, you know, suggest could they put it over here and the the building commissioner could think about that and that would be part of the you could take it back to the the applicant and there could be, you know, more
discussion about whether there are any design options that might make it less burdensome for Any further discussion? Okay. Uh, have we reconsideration? Okay. So, 14.
Okay. I move reconsideration of article 14. All in favor by saying I. John. Yes. I Paul. I. David. I I um let's now um vote on the amendments
to one article 14 as we've been discussing. Any further discussion? We're voting on amendments to the select board substitute motion. Is that correct? On the Penszel Pollic Bena motion as
filed under supplement five. Okay. Okay. Yeah. At the end of the last meeting, we determined that this was now referred to as the select board substitute motion. So, so you have the petitioner motion, then the select board
motion would be an amendment to the petitioner motion. And then this is another potential amendment. So, are we adopting this amendment as friendly to the select board? That is the question in front of you right now. So we want to replace our motion with the pencil
bank motion motion under supplement five. Yes. And that is now the select board motion if adopted. Okay. All in favor of replacing the
um whatever we just said. Jonathan I war. Hi David. Hi Michael Ruben. Hi and chair. I Okay, reconsideration article 15. Um, we had a discussion as
to whether it was necessary. Wait, hold on. I think the conclusion was that we we had to vote them separately. Any rate, um,
so we put we put 15 on because we thought if the board was unanimous on 14, there may be people who want to flip their votes on 15. So that is the opportunity you have in front of you right now. Okay. So I would like to move for reconsideration on article 15 so that
everyone can have a chance to see if their minds change given the consensus that's built over 14. Okay. All in favor? I David Pearlman.
I chair. I Okay, now let's vote on on article 15 and explain to me again what what we're doing here. Yeah. So, Bernard, the the it was a four to one vote, I think, last time or maybe those
was a 3-2 because a couple of us were not satisfied with they voted no action, right? Um on on So, now that we're in agreement, you have unanimous on 14, I'd like to vote action on 15 to make the package complete. Okay. So, 15 has not
changed. Correct. No, just like your motion still is under under the supplement supplement number four starting on page uh one one pages one and two of the second. Okay. So all in favor of one article um 15 um as
originally voted by the select board please indicate by saying I John Square I Paul Warren I David Bman I Michaelson I and chair votes I listen will we issue another supplemental on that one so the
votes if tomorrow we'll try and do a brief write up but I also always email the moderator to let them know that you've you've changed your votes what what action get done tonight. So they they could either sometimes if it's short order, they'll announce it from the podium as well.
So Bernard, um before we end the meeting, I would like to ask um that we reconsider our prior vote on article 24, which is the home petition for a real estate transition.
Okay. Uh our prior vote on that was I believe we voted Although Michael wasn't here, I think we unanimously supported um it was a 50-0 vote in support of the home rule petition and we amended the home rule petition to be a 50-50 split
between uh the general fund and the affordable housing investment. um since the uh the time that we took our vote, the AC uh took up this issue. So, we voted before the AC. The AC
adopted all of our changes um and they went a step further and they converted it to a uh to a resolution from a whole rule petition. Um, and that, um, what I'd like to have us discuss if we
reconsider it is to, uh, to follow the advisory committee's, uh, motion and, um, adopt their resolution versus a home petition. And there's many reasons for that. Um, I had a long conversation with
Tommy. Tommy Blo did public testimony during the AC's public hearing on the article. And you know, he makes a very compelling case as to why uh a resolution would be uh much better than a home rule petition. I could talk about
that if you want, but you know, heard me explain that and I agree with any two questions. Number one, so this wasn't on the agenda. Is that for real? No, but it's it's covered. We our agenda
allows for any other. Okay. um was uh was the AC's modification to a resolution accepted by the petitioners or are the petitioners filing a home rule petition and this is being offered
as an alternative on the floor. So the the the select board's uh motion was for a home petition. Um, and I don't know if the petitioners would still they may the petitioners may still want to move uh a home rule petition um this opposed to a
resolution. What I'm asking is the select board to join with the advisory committee and make our motion aligned with the advisory committee to ensure that this thing passes as as a resolution as opposed to a petition. So
this is I presume this is not coming up in town meeting either tonight or tomorrow night. It could probably definitely not tonight. Right. The schedule could be changed around. Sure. Someone could move it tonight if
they What's your What's your My concern is that I'm not sure how you'd want them to vote without understanding sort of what the petitioners are doing versus what the advisory committee. I mean I would like
I would like to hear from both both of those sides before casting. So how would we find out that petitioner's position? We can just ask the petitioner. I think the petitioner was planning on supporting the select board's motion. But now that you are
potentially moving from that we we would need to ask them whether or not they want I think a petitioner probably prefers how we will petition. But I don't know. So what I suggest is that we take this up tomorrow. Okay. We do have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow. Okay. And now we have to come.
Um but yeah, in the meantime, we should find out what the insurance position is. So that Thank you. I'll reach out to Alex. Okay. Okay. Um anything else? No. Let's end
the meeting and go to town meeting. Every