and then I'll count you in whenever you're ready, Bernard. >> Okay, let me say okay to recording. I'm ready. >> All right. Uh, we'll begin in five, four, three, two, one.
>> Good afternoon. I'm Bernard Green, chair of the Brookline Select Board, and this is a special meeting of the select board for Friday, November 14, 2025. Um, let's start off with any announcements or updates from the select board.
Do I see any hands? No. Okay. Let's jump into the business at hand. Uh, we have warrant articles uh to review and possible vote uh on any articles or motions amendments uh at for them at the upcoming special town
meeting. And uh we have three uh or one more article to vote on, two for reconsideration, and at the end I'd like to reconsider or call for the reconsideration of Warren article 18. But uh you know that that can be at the end unless someone wants to take up that
up immediately. >> Okay, Paul. >> Yep. Bernard, I just I wanted to add to the list of reconsideration is article nine, the renters's handbook. >> Okay. Any other anything else from other people?
Let me find my pen. Okay. Well, let's start off with um warrant article 7, zoning bylaw to create a Clark Road multifamily overlay district. Um who's going to speak on that?
We have the petitioner online or Melissa, you have it. >> We have the petitioner. I can just give you a quick intro. Um, Bernard, I think the last time you met on this, you were waiting for the advisory committee to make a motion. >> So, they have since done that. So, that is in your packet. Um, that is ultimately what we're asking the select
board to weigh in on. And, um, if there's any other information from the petitioner or elsewhere, um, I think there's staff online as well. >> Okay. Um, I I didn't catch that in the packet. That's my fault. Um, could you give me a
summary? I can promote Jeffrey if that's that's helpful. Yeah, >> Jeffrey, you've been promoted. You can share your video and audio when you're ready. if you're able to summarize what the
board is looking at. >> Hi, uh it's Ashley Taylor. I'm on for Jeffrey. Um were you just wondering about the the amendments to the um warrant article after it was in front of the advisory committee?
>> Yeah. >> Yep. So, they just uh removed pretty much the second parcel, the S10 parcel. um to be to deal with the zoning later on. Um and the well that was the
land use um subcommittee's recommendation. Um and there's been some more edits um and they're actually going to reconsider the full advisory committee is going to reconsider those amendments on Monday.
>> Okay. I I guess I knew about that. So there Okay. Um, okay. And and are these amendments that they're considering on Monday uh substantial or they just um
>> No, I think it was mostly just to deal with the S10 parcel and removing um the design and site plan review that was previously in the warrant article if it was going to go forward. that since all of the um zoning regulations for that
S10 parcel CRM2 have been removed, we removed um or the the subcommittee moved the provision about site plan review um and design review for the S10 parcel CRM2. >> Okay,
>> that's not going forward at this time. >> And what is the petitioner's uh view on that? >> We agreed to that. >> Okay, Paul. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I'm clear um on what was just shared. So, the the single family parcel
um the the upzoning of that to multif family has been removed. Is that correct? >> Um it's still going to be in the overlay, but all of the zoning um regulations that were once in the war art article have been removed. So, it it will remain
um a single family law as of right. Okay. So, Bernard, does it um do we have that language in in front of us? Um >> in the packet, what you have is what the advisory committee voted on. they'll be tweaking it further on Monday, but since
the select board doesn't have um motion under this article, I would recommend you you you know, if you're in agreement with what the advisory committee is proposing that you come in line with them and then you can open it back up to kind of >> um respond to what they do on Monday. Um
just so you've got something out there in terms of your position. >> Okay. Um, what do other people think? >> I want to go along with the advisory committee for the time being. >> Bernard, if I may. >> Yeah,
>> excuse me. It's John Vanco. Um, I I'm just I confess I'm a little confused by what it means to leave this in the overlay um without any change in the underlying zoning. Um what will change if if this is left in
the overlay versus um whether this is just left out of the consideration a town meeting altogether? >> Well, if it's left out of consideration by town meeting, then the the status quo remains which is single family.
>> Yeah, I get that. No, I get that. But what what changes by virtue of including it in the overlay? >> Never had it. It's all one parcel, I think, John. Right now, it's not I don't think it's separate. Is it separate parcels at this point? It's one parcel.
>> Just two. >> And there's concessions that um we made um that town uh the community wanted that had to do with that second parcel, too. So, like that pathway and that easement that had to do partially with
the S10 lot. So, that's why it's um still being included in the overlay. Okay. Um, yeah, Chaz, did you have something to say? >> Nope, that was it. >> Okay. Uh, Paul, I'm sorry, Michael. >> Uh, no. I I I was I was I was actually
going to say the same thing. It's that it the the easement that is under discussion actually goes through the S10 part of the parcel. Um, so that's that's one of the primary reasons that it it's still in there,
>> right? Okay. Any other discussion on this? >> Okay. Okay. Um, I'd like to uh then move favorable action contingent on what happens Monday uh on Warrant Article 7
as amended by the advisory committee um as indicated in our packet. Um all in favor uh John Vancoyak >> you want to >> I'm I'm in favor. I'm in favor. Just wanted to be sure my mic was open.
>> Okay. Uh Paul Warren. >> Hi, >> David Pearlman. >> I >> Michael Rubenstein. >> Hi. >> And chair votes I. Okay. We'll see what happens Monday and we may be back on this at a later time. Um okay.
Reconsideration of article 8. Um general bylaw on nuisance lighting. Um Melissa, do you have some? >> Sure. Well, there are three there are three um items for your uh consideration here for article 8. Uh the advisory
committee has made a referral motion um and that was submitted as one of the supplements uh for the combined report. And then uh late breaking uh as of this morning and earlier today um we have a revised petitioner motion and we also
have a revised motion from David Trevette. So you'll have you'll see all of those in your packet as well. And I believe that both um both Davids I think are on the call. >> Yeah, I can promote them. Go ahead and do that. >> Okay. Um let's hear from them.
>> Uh should I go first? >> Sure, why not? >> Okay, so um David Titel, town meeting member, precinct 8, um co-etitioner for warrant article 8. Um so there are really three things here. There's warrant article 8 which we've discussed
twice now from us. Um and I'm certainly open to answer any questions about that. There's this question about referral and then there's the question about the TVET um substitute motion. So let me speak to all three briefly. Um regarding the main
motion, our motion um the there's been a few changes since you last saw it. Um un but what basically happened was um we worked hard with David Trevette to see if we could combine the two motions into
one. Um we created a document we were both satisfied with, but unfortunately the planning department looked at that and they felt that it was non- enforceable. Um as I've said to this group um a few times now, that really has been our
third rail. if it's something that the town couldn't enforce, we weren't going to push it through. So, we had to abandon um the joint um motion and instead what you have before you is the final motion for the main motion for a warrant article 8. Um
there's a couple of changes since the last time you saw it. Um the two big changes are unfortunately one of the things was um Michael Rubenstein's proposed friendly amendment which we were in favor of. um the planning department had um some concerns with so
we took it out. Again, same rationale as I said before. And we also um modified the total amount of lumens that a lot could have um the overall glow of a property, if you will, um per recommendation of planning and building.
So, those are the big changes. They're highlighted from what you saw last time. So, that's that's number one. That's what's that's what's different since we last spoke. Um, regarding referral, um, advisory voted to refer um, on a vote of 12 to 10. I believe they're going to
reconsider it on Monday, but I don't know where that will go, of course. Um, I I don't want to speak on behalf of the advisory committee. Um, but what I will say is that from our perspective, we're not sure what will be gained by
referring to a moderator's committee because who's going to be on it and what are they going to do? Um, you've got people who are experts in the field who have worked on this Warren article. We have been in cons consultation with lighting engineers. We have been working
with the town in lockstep. Um we have incorporated best practice um guidelines and standards throughout the warrant article. We're not sure what would be gained by referring. And I should note that in 2024 in November, we had a
lighting um warrant article that we did already vote to refer and nothing has really happened from that one. So, we're not sure why we need to refer and um I won't again I won't speak for advisory other than to say that it was not clear-cut one way or the other with the
1210 vote. The final point I want to speak about is just our perspective on what David Trevette has put out. Um, again, they are very similar in many ways, but where they are distinctly different is that David Trevette has
language in his that the planning department felt would make it harder or impossible for them to enforce the leg the bylaw. That was a dealbreaker for us. That's why we were unable to find a compromise.
And that is why we feel it's important to continue to push the primary motion um primary bylaw because of that collaboration with the town to make sure that this is something the town can enforce. Um I should add this is
something the town wanted and the way this is structured is it's designed to help make their lives easier. It's as simple as looking at a property, holding up a light meter, and seeing if there's too much light. And then from there, being able to give very clear guidelines
of what needs to change with a very clear um um time frame for when it needs to change and very clear fines in the event that um there the town's um requests are ignored. Anyway, those are the three
things. I'm happy to take questions. Uh David, >> yes. Thank you for that very thorough explanation. Uh you just referenced time frames for when changes need to be made in terms of uh luminosity. Uh are you
referencing the 10 to 6 and can you explain what that means? Does that mean that outside of between 1000 p.m. and 6 a.m. anything goes? Um, sorry, I was uh referencing actually the two the two-month time frame to
correct something, but um I can speak to the time frames for sure. Um, one of the things that we tried really hard on this Warren article is to create safe harbors. uh because as you well know as we've discussed now this third time we really have tried to build a do a lot of
consensus building here and we listened carefully to the concerns of a huge number of constituents and there were a lot of people who were concerned about having lights and to a point yes before those times anything goes because we're
trying to sort of find that middle ground so it's not so draconian that the moment It's twilight. You have to turn off all your lights down to a a specific level, but at the same time, it's also trying to be reasonable for people who
want to sleep, who want to be able to have darkness in their homes. So, we're trying to find that middle ground. And that that was the attempt at at it. >> Okay. >> Um I think Michael is next.
>> Thank you. Um, and thank you, David, and to all of uh you who have put in so much effort. Um, I was just looking at the version in the packet that's labeled final. Um, and you made reference to the
amendment that that I proposed as not being accepted, but I'm looking in the section 8.2 to applicability. And it looks like you changed the word residential areas to residential districts in lowercase and you removed
the condition about uh excluding the uh G uh O uh the Harvard street the industrial districts. So is it is it just the definition of residential districts that's been removed just to clarify what
you actually proposing? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. And let me go as far as to pull up the the note from the town for the exact concern they had. Um they the the exact phrase that they the
exact language they used when they gave their feedback to us was residents districts is capitalized but not defined in the definitions. Furthermore, it is drawn from the zoning bylaw and may be flagged by the attorney general. If the AGO were to strike this phrase, the bylaw would have vastly different
applicability. So it was it was a risk issue that was flagged for us and that's why we struck it. >> Yes, I I I appreciate the risk. Okay. So So thank you for that clarification. Um
I I would just say um and this is reflective of my own position is that I'm I'm generally in support of this um all of this um work that you've done. Um to your question of what would the
moderators committee um do um I think that the the one question that you have not yet addressed is the the rule of law question as to whether or not this can be a general bylaw or a zoning bylaw.
Um, we've gotten very clear feedback from our town council that um this uh uh written as a general bylaw would not be legal um or uh would likely be struck
down either by the AG or the courts. Um, and so it's really that from my perspective that may be the sole work of the moderators committee, but I I don't think that as a general bylaw um relying on the advice
of our town council um we can recommend moving this forward. Um, for for what it's worth, uh, we we don't I don't want anybody to assume that we are just dismissive of town
council because that's not a fair assessment at all. Um, we absolutely respect what we've heard. We've also heard vastly different opinions from a number of people, enough to make it clear to us that there's clear ambiguity
here. I do know that um in my emails with town council that the intention was to bring this up with the attorney general and to see. We have not heard from we have not heard any answers from that. I don't know if that question has actually been asked yet. I know it was
planned to be asked. Um, but I think while it is still pending and very clear, it's very unclear as to which way it could go. Um, it is still worthwhile for town meeting
to vote for this to vote favorable action. And in the event that it gets struck, then it gets struck. But it is it's not clear as day that this is this is wrong. there the the opinions are just there are too many there are too many conflicting opinions for this to be
a clear-cut case >> okay uh Paul >> I think John was next actually >> sorry John >> oh that's okay I was going to suggest that maybe we could hear right now from from Dan B excuse me not Dan Bennett Joe
Callahan on this question of whe are we any closer to having a some kind of um view of the attorney general's likely treatment of this. >> Um, so I do have a call scheduled with
the attorney general's office on Monday. Um, but I do want you to realize I don't think this is uh ambiguous at all. I I if this was a close call, I advise you that it's a close call. Uh, but the memo I gave you is this is in my opinion
clearly illegal. In the in the memo, I cited five different cases. And then I was asked, um, well, what about the attorney general's office? And then I researched that issue and found 17 different uh, municipal law determinations where in every case they
found a history, so they struck it down. And every time they approved it, um, they only approved it because there was no history. We have a history of regulating lighting through zoning. So, you know, you might hear lawyers with different opinions. Great. uh you know
my cliche about if you ask five lawyers you'll get 10 different opinions but no one has given me a case or determination to say what Brooklyn is trying to do here any court or the AG's office has said that's okay so I could make that
argument that you've heard well it's not comprehensive when has that ever been persuas persuasive for the AG's office or court because I've given you 22 23 different
examples where it hasn't been. So I don't think it's ambiguous at all. This will be struck down and that's the reason why I wrote the memo. If I had any doubt, I would have said I have doubt. >> I don't have any doubt.
Um and and um having heard you say this uh right now, I I I want I want you to know that I appreciate that you um took the extra step of, you know, saying I'll have a conversation with the attorney general's office because, you know, people don't seem to think that that my
opinion will prevail here. Um when I when I heard that, I thought to myself, well, there's not much likelihood that they're going to tip their hand up, you know, preemptively. Um I is it is it likely that they would actually go so far as to say um yeah we can tell you
you know before you town meeting even acts we can tell you what we will say you know after town meeting acts on this. What what do we expect to result from this conversation on Monday? >> Um I don't expect much. Um there are circumstances where the municipal law
unit does say we're willing to preclar um um you know proposed warrant articles before our town meeting acts on them and before we approve them. They've done that with the MBTA communities act. They've done that with the um accessory dwelling units um uh warrant articles,
but that's this is not something that they've took it upon themselves to prejudge their approval. Um, plus, you know, I I admitted and I I'll repeat what I said to advisory committee here. I did not tip off um the municipal law
unit my opposition or you know, my opinion that it the tree preservation bylaw was unconstitutional or hear that um you know that I think this is um you know illegal because if you remember I was in the attorney general's office. I was there for 11 years and the municipal
law unit turned to me in circumstances for my advice on bylaws. So I think it would prejudge them if they found out that in my opinion this is illegal. This is zoning, you know, which is a little, you know, more in their baywick than what I was doing in the AG's office.
>> So what I'm supposed to do is ask in the hypothetical about, you know, a proposed bylaw, but they know we have town meeting the next day. So, you know, I I think it, you know, I'm willing to do it, but I don't think you're gonna get a a definitive yes or no,
>> David. >> Okay. Thanks. >> I think I was an expert on it, but if David >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Your hand's not raised yet. >> Oh, it went was up and then it went down. I don't know what happened. Um, sorry about that. So, um, >> I want to I want to just talk at at a
broader level about three three points about engagement on this article. um the legality, which we just uh talked about quite a bit, and then uh lighting standards. Um when this article first
was published in the warrant, which is what the public uses to rely on for what they're being informed for, we publish that, it gets up, you know, all media members get it, etc. Uh the original article had the select board uh developing rules and regulations
after public hearings and after a public notice in the newspaper. So there was going to be a lot of engagement about how this thing was going to work. Um that's the first thing. Um the article has been substantially amended over I think at least four iterations. And by
the way I I give David the D both Davids a lot of credit. They've worked hard. They've done yman's work here to try try to bring this together. But this thing has really changed substantially from the original article which was we're going to have a framework to develop nuisance uh lighting standards and the
select board is going to hold public hearings to do that. Um and you know there's and then of course there's David's uh David Tvett's replacement motion which they tried to bring them together. But there's a lot here. And just to put this into perspective, I I
had a phone call with staff today. Um there are approximately, depending on where you draw the line, with commercial or residential districts, up to 10,000 parcels that would be affected by this bylaw. 10,000.
That is the vast majority of Brooklyn. And I would dare to say that the public has no clue that we are going to regulate their lighting. Um they haven't been notified. They haven't been engaged. Um we I've I'm pretty close to
this by talking with David. I'm having a heck of a time keeping up as to what's going on. Um so I'm really concerned that we've had a significant lack of public awareness and engagement on this and it's a significant change across the entire town. Um so that's one. Um, I
wanted to talk briefly about legality, but we covered it. You know, um, our town council is saying this thing's purely illegal. Um, I know that there's varying opinions, but Joe's our town council. Um, and you know, I I we shouldn't be dismissing that at all. Um,
I respect other folks's opinion, but Joe's our town council. Um, and then the third thing is the the moving target, the constant moving target of standards. Um this this article started started out as a nuisance article, right? It was
just clearly glare. That was it. Light trespass. Um it has it has morphed from nuisance to um dark skies. Dark skies is included in the article. Uh they're using dark sky standards. Um and and
it's supposed to be a nuisance article. This thing has been muddled. And I think this is what David Trevette was kind of going with when he addresses like you're muddling the thing. Um, and and I do understand that there there's a standard in the in the article. Again, these been changing. I appreciate that we're trying
to get to standards, but I just think we've run out of time. The standard is a 0 foot 0.1.1 foot candle. You know, go research what the heck that means. I I didn't know what the heck it I know what it means now, David, but a 0.1 foot candle. And I know that's now being
referred to maybe that the the building commissioner will figure this out, but you know that's the lighting of the moon. Um that's moonlight. Um and I I said to myself, can how do I measure that? So I went I was going to buy one of these devices last night because I
wanted to start measuring my lights to understand am I in compliance or not? They go from 40 bucks. You can buy one for 40 bucks, 29, 30, $40 on Amazon. Uh but it doesn't have the accuracy of the 0.1. there's a point where you get it goes too low. Uh so the ones that can
actually measure below 0.1 are like 300 bucks to get one of these devices. Um it's really troubling to me that that and again I may be wrong on this uh but how how I translate that as a resident. Um I don't know. Um there's been some
discussion about measuring from the property line. We're going to measure from the property line. We're going to measure 12 15 ft from the property line. Um I think now the standard is from the property line but light pass light uh trespassing or going onto a public way
is exempt. Well the neighbors live across the public way. So where how does that factor and it just raised a question. Um I I don't need an answer. It's rhetorical meaning that there's a lot of questions. Um and and the the kicker for me is glare. You know the the
article says that glare glare lighting entering the eye directly from luminires or indirectly from reflective surfaces that cause visual discomfort or reduce visibility. Absolutely subjective. Um you know when
I had my cataract surgery done I would have complained about every single uh light in my neighborhood because I had to wear those glasses. Um it it is subjective. Um the just it just speaks to the fact of how complex of an issue
this is. The legality that Joe's raised, the the number of residents in Brooklyn that will be impacted by this um and and I don't believe there's been any engagement on it with them. Um and this figuring out what the lighting standards are. Um so, you know, I appreciate all
the work that's been done here. I think it's just too late uh to have another version, the fourth version of this thing. We got two versions coming. Um and I I am going to support uh going with the advisory committee's referral. Hopefully, they'll stick with it uh to a
moderator's committee so this thing can get the actual serious effort engagement with the public in figuring out uh how to get this thing done properly. Uh doesn't doesn't say that these guys didn't do a good job. They tried their best, but I just think it's a huge undertaking. It's It's just too late.
That's >> okay. Uh John, um Clint, this is not a public hearing. Um if we have time, I'll um if this doesn't go on too much longer, I will allow one or two people to speak, but this is not a public
hearing. John, >> thank you, Bernard. And I I want to um endorse um all of the praise that has been um spoken um as to the sponsors that have brought this to are bringing this to town meeting. Uh they've been
extremely patient and extremely responsive um along the way. And I I I do feel a little bad that we're still at a point where some of us on the select board are just not really comfortable with um the the u what what is the final
version at this point of what's going to be brought to town meeting. Um and I I asked that um Dan Bennett be present for this meeting and I'm glad to see that he's here. Um and Dan, if you don't mind or if others don't mind, I'd like to just ask for your clarification on an a
very important point. Um because I I have heard it argued on the one hand that um uh that that maybe your view is you need the general bylaw a and that what is in front of us would actually
give you a better um capability to uh enforce you know lighting regulation in Brooklyn. But c can you just sort of respond to that and and make sure everybody knows exactly what your sense
of of that is? >> Uh by the way before you uh go um I made a mistake. Um Clint Richmond is a co-etitioner. So after um Dan and then David Pearlman has his hand up. I want to hear from Clint Richmond.
>> So Dan, go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh good afternoon Dan Bennett, building commissioner. Um, with respect to this the proposed article, um, you know, my my position is that we we do need something. Um, what I'm
working with now is a zoning bylaw that had some um, erroneous changes to it when we were correcting a signed bylaw. and I have attempted to use that uh you know for
enforcement and I've been successful in in some areas and maybe not so successful in other areas. So I think the initial um concern I had and I think this is what I mentioned probably two years ago is that
you know the the way the zoning bylaw is now is an issue and we need something or I need something that has some teeth in it if we ever got to court that we would be able to you know enforce it. I don't know what would happen with the current bylaw. I don't know what'll happen with
the future uh bylaw um if we went to court and how that would, you know, all play out. It's never gotten to that point. People seem to compromise or come up with a a settlement, you know, prior to any of those exchanges. So, I I hope
that answers your question. >> Well, well, I um if you don't mind, uh almost answers my question, but I think you heard Paul Warren raise a very good point um which is, you know, if we went the general bylaw route um and you know
as you say maybe it would strengthen um the through definitions and so on you know strengthen your hand um in enforcing uh against nuisance lighting but nonetheless has anyone asked you um
and are you able to um give a ballpark estimate of the the number a guesstimate of the number of enforcement actions that you your department might have to be drawn into um given that this would
apply to every single parcel in Brooklyn um where there is pre-existing lighting which doesn't meet the standards that are being written into this um have you ever had to come up with any kind of an estimate as to the cost and how much
additional staffing this would require? I I no I have not been able to do that and I have I think been explicit early on in this process that I I don't have the staff or the time to really you know play this out to the fullest extent and
any complaints that came in would be prioritized against all the other issues and and and inspections and and other uh responsibilities that you know the department has and I I don't think there's a real way to make a
determination I mean, someone could say maybe 10% of the lights, but I don't know how many, you know, I think someone said 10,000 parcels. Um, I don't know how many lights are on those parcels, but it I think it would be could be a significant number of requests to go out
and do that enforcement, which would be very difficult um with the staffing that I've got now. And then, you know, not even understanding what the future brings with whether there is or isn't an override, that'll probably make it even tighter or harder. uh for my staff and I
to to do anything. Um >> so my my final comment on this I promise is that thank you Dan. Um I think hearing that helps me I think it helps a lot of people sort of see what's at stake here. And to me what it says is we
have no idea how much additional staff might be required um if we we go the route as prescribed in this article. But it seems very likely that um unless there's miraculously
um no um enforcable uh violations pre-existing anywhere on those 10,000 parcels in Brooklyn. It's very likely it's going to be a high number of enforcement actions um that are going to stem from this. high enough to require
addition of staff um or or sacrifice of other crucial functions of the department. But the article doesn't come with any even a guesstimate of the cost in terms of the additional personnel that will be required and where that
money is going to come from. So I I do think we got a lot of questions to resolve with all due respect to the people who brought this to us. Um, and that's why I'm with Michael and and and with Paul certainly uh right now on this. >> Uh, David.
>> Yeah. So, I'm of a different opinion on a lot of this. So, to address the concern that John just raised, this is a complaintdriven warrant article. So, just because there might be a violation on its face, if it's not bothering anyone, it's not going to be brought to
the building department's attention. Furthermore, the average person probably does not know the details of our bylaws. If something is bothering a resident, that resident calls town hall and then town hall can either address the issue or not. So, I don't see why the
existence of this bylaw would suddenly increase the volume of complaints to an unmanageable level. I actually think it's the opposite. the volume of complaints will stay about the same. But if we have something on the books now, our building department and planning
department have a way to address it as opposed to right now where it's basically left to uninforceable negotiations and compromises because our current uh zoning, it's only addressing signage. But I'm not sure how
restrictions on signage have any uh bearing on uh non illumination for non-signs, but that appears to be what we're working with right now. With nothing on the books, this problem is only going to exacerbate. So, our
building department and planning have both indicated that this warrant article would help them because it would create a standard that they could point to in addressing the complaints that they receive. And again, it's complaint driven. It's not that just because
there's a facial violation, it has to be addressed. In terms of the legality, I also respect town council's concerns. However, I'm not so averse to the idea of there potentially being litigation down the line that could help define
better what comprehensive fashion means. I'm a little skeptical that a zoning article that deals exclusively with lighting in the context of signage qualifies as comprehensive fashion. But
if it does and there's a case that uh emerges from this, we would have that term comprehensive better defined and that could help us in the future with other warrant articles, not just in the context of lighting, but anytime there's a potential interplay between zoning and
general bylaw. So I don't see the spectre of litigation as a negative. I see it as a positive in terms of uh the overall cost. Again, given that it's complaint driven, I'm not convinced that our costs would go up at all. I think
our building department probably thought that through during their time working uh with the petitioners. So, I'm very much in support of this warrant article. I think that there has been a lengthy process. The general public has been made aware of an interest in regulating
this since last year when it first came up and uh was referred. I I don't see how further referral is going to clarify things any further. Certainly, if we end up uh passing this warrant article at town meeting, there's nothing that stops
further amendments down the line and fine-tuning. That happens all the time with a lot of our bylaws. Uh so I support this. >> Okay. Um I want to let's hear from Clint first and then David Tatel and then back to the select board.
Clint. >> Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Clint Richmond, time meeting member, precinct 6 and uh the number four co-partitioner, David and Alyssa have been doing a lot of the work. Um I wanted to uh first say
um uh thank you Paul for bringing up your cataracts because that the medical dimension of this hasn't really been addressed. So, I I feel like, you know, there's a health um argument here and uh a health risk. Uh you received a memo
from a doctor who's an expert on this um a couple weeks ago. Um and uh there are a lot of us who are suffering uh from extensive nuisance and we can't leave them in limbo by you know, which we will if it if it goes to zoning or it's going
to go to a a committee. I'd like to think that the process that we've gone through has been has effectively served as a as a task force. And I would disagree that the that the uh that the bylaw has really I mean it's gotten longer. We but that was you know based
on professional advice. The original was very simple but the but it's actually been narrowed in scope. The number of properties that it applies to has been much reduced. And I also want to say that uh 0.1 foot candles is 10 times the full moon not not the same as the full moon. And this week I acquired a Klein
Tools ET130 accurate to 0.1 foot candles which is the standard. And I've been doing measurements, you know, at 0.01. It's not accurate to that, but that's not our enforcement level. So there's lots of fixtures in town that are non-compliant, but they don't rise to
the level of our standard of 0.1 foot candle. It sounds very low, but it's actually quite high. I've been walking around and having trouble around town, having trouble finding a a a case randomly, and I thought I was going to be able to bring enforcement at my
house, but there's only one case out of the four or five I was thinking might apply, and it's on the edge, so I don't even know if I would bring it. So, um, uh, you know, we've had just so much expert input here as as Dave Heightel said, and, uh, I think it's going to be
painful to to replicate that. And we've been talking about dark skies here in in Brooklyn since 2014. We've been on the lead here, but uh now we're behind. You know, we still need a zoning bylaw, but we need to address those who are suffering from existing conditions of legal fixtures and who have health
problems. And uh we really urge you to uh support this warrant article. Thank you. >> Okay, David. >> Thank you. Um so I just wanted to clarify a couple of points that Paul and John made. Um the first is regarding glare. Glare unfortunately in this
context is always going to need to be subjective no matter what we do. And the reason is because the ability to measure glare. You act you can quantify it but it to do it right requires modeling. It requires knowing the angle of the light, the output of the light, the um area
that you're looking at. It involves a whole lot of factors that are difficult to measure and require computer simulations really to do it right. Whereas for brightness, it literally is as simple as Clint was saying. You just hold up a light meter. Dion can hold up
a light meter and see. And the reality is in a practical sense, you get rid of those bright issues, you get rid of the glare. So the lack of measurable standards for glare because they're just not practical to be able to do in the field at night when you're checking on
something shouldn't hold this back. So that's that's thing number one that I wanted to clarify. The second thing is I just want to remind everybody the framework from which we're working with right now, which is the rise of LED lighting. Light LED lights are cheaper,
they're more powerful, and they're bluer than any lights we've had before. And people are installing more of them and brighter ones because they can. Because they're ubiquitous, they're cheap, and they're available. which means any fixture at any time can become a
problematic fixture. So this idea of what is the potential um number of lights that could be problematic. The reality is we are all now empowered to bright light to make our house as bright as Vegas because you can go to Home Depot and do it at an
affordable level. So, if we if we're thinking about this as a what's the potential number of fixtures, we need to know every single fixture in all of Brookline and then the potential for that. It's the wrong way of thinking about it. I think David put it
perfectly. This is an complaintdriven bylaw. It's a nuisance bylaw. And as a result, it's only when somebody is adversely affected to the point where that conversation they've had with their neighbor has broken down that the town
comes in. So this is not going to create a huge s surge in traffic. What it's going to do is it's going to create a pathway for people who are really having those issues. And then as Clint just to conclude as Clint said the standards are
not minuscule. It's 10 times the brightness of the full moon. That's That's not nothing, but it's certainly not a flickering candle's going to be able to trigger these things. >> Okay. Um Paul, I think Ed's hand up next. >> Yeah. I just wanted to uh briefly make a
couple of points. So, my research and look, I I don't know how accurate the internet is, but uh you know, a full moon, a bright moon is 0.1 to.3.1 to.3. Um that's that's that's the research that now again if there was
more time but my research is saying 0.1 to.3 matter of fact that's what was confirmed at the advisory subcommittee that the advisory committee when you have and I get a lot of my information there so you know but my >> Paul you're actually off by a factor of 10 it's 0.01 to 0.03 03. You are right,
but you're off by a factor of 10. >> Okay, >> those numbers are the right number. >> Whether you're talking lux or whether you're talking foot candles, but I'm not going to debate here. I'm just saying that the the information is inconsistent that's been discussed here and at the at the advisory committee. Um, and you
know, I'm concerning about that. You know, Clint just gave an example of he bought the light meter and he started walking around his neighborhood. Right, guys? Th this this this issue of that it's going to be complaint driven and therefore somehow magically there's not
going to be any complaints. It'll actually go down I think is what David said. This is not true. I will give you an example. Um the a business next door to me and again you've heard my concerns about not including the business districts. There's a business next door that put up a flood light. Um I I put up
with it for a month or so, right? Um, and had had I had the ability to call, I would have called, right? Instead, I waited till I bumped into the guy and I said, "Hey, by the way, right?" And and and we and we dealt with it. So, I want,
you know, human nature is to avoid conflict. It's human nature. People do not want to go knock on their neighbor's door and about their sorry, complain about their light, right? They're just going to make a phone call um and say, "I have a concern. this light's bright. Could you could you go
investigate it? I believe that there's going to be a significant uptick in the amount of complaints. And I'm not convinced that I mean, John, I wasn't even thinking about the budget aspect of of Dan being able to respond. I do think there's going to be a significant uptake. And frankly, I don't think this
article is in response to a significant number of complaints. Right. This article is in response to last time some folks wanted to do dark sky. There's one uh set of houses up on Woodland Road in South Brooklyn that has received an
inordinate amount of complaints from an abuter. Um and I know that the Dan has worked extensively with that abuter who's a town meeting member and also with the developer to work through these issues and my understanding that those issues have been worked through to satisfaction. That's my understanding.
But this isn't like Dan has a whole bunch of these complaints. He doesn't get them. It's about houses that have been most recently developed. And frankly, if it was in our zoning bylaw, Dan could have prevented those lights from being going up because he would have had a standin in the zoning bylaw
when the homes were being built. Um, so again, I'm not convinced that a general bylaw, which our town council is saying would be illegal, is the best way because it's retroactively going to go back and you're going to get a flood of complaints. I actually think that's true. So again, I um I appreciate again
I appreciate all the work that you've guys done. I don't want to seem negative. I'm just I don't think this thing is ready for prime time and it needs a lot more work um and a lot more engagement with the public. So I I appreciate the discussion, but I haven't been been moved off for referral.
>> Okay. Yeah, Michael. >> Um I find myself largely agreeing with David in terms of the content. I actually think that the Warren article has been um pretty thoroughly researched
and I appreciate that. Um I am just hung up on the um on the legality issue and um I I so as a result while I agree with David primarily on the content, I agree with Paul on the on what action the
select board should take. Um, and to to your point, David, about the amount of work that this would take, I actually think that the amount of work is relatively small, um, it is it is strictly the conversion of this Warren article to a zoning bylaw. Um, but in
terms of the measurements and so forth, given all of the vetting that's been done by Dan Bennett, etc., I I I agree with you that I think that that that that's sufficient and sub and and subject to that one modification with
the understanding that as a result you can't go back to existing installations. Um I think that it is appropriate and I look forward to moving forward on that warrant article when it comes. >> Okay. Um let's uh wrap this up. I think
uh Richard Nangle, who's not a petitioner, but um has some opinions on this, had his hand raised. Richard, you still want to speak? I'll let you I'll let you speak. >> No, sorry, Rich. Richard was not promoted. I promoted him so he could speak.
>> Okay. Um no, the issues have not been resolved and uh we started with some uh conversations. the conversations went badly and uh we were basically told that because we had broached this subject and brought it to the building department
that we could expect more light to be shined at us and that's exactly what has happened. Um there are letters going back on this uh from the building department from March 11, 2024 and a second set of letters uh in uh
February of this year and a third set of letters in June. So no, it has not been um resolved in any way. It's still a serious issue having to do with um light shining into a nature sanctuary that is
um that is uh suffering badly from the amount of glare that's coming in. And glare is a thing that no, you're not going to catch it on a light meter. Glare can be from
hundreds of yards away. There are lights coming into Dayne Park, 200 yards, through Dayne Park, and into the houses of myself and my neighbors and flashing right through to the back wall. And these kinds of things are going on
elsewhere in this town. So, I think pure demagoguery and trying to say that, you know, somehow that uh this is just one complaint. Uh there's no question that we have pushed this thing and we intend
to see it. Uh the zoning deals is going to it up. There was occupancy permit that was given by Dan Bennett and they violated the terms of the occupancy permit. They asked for another house to be taken out of a complaint because
there hadn't been any lights up. And as soon as the house was taken off the complaint, they ran and they put as many lights up as they could and they lit the thing up like it was Fenway Park. So this warrant article is going to protect people from this sort of behavior and it
deserves your support. >> Okay. Um let's wrap this up and see if there's a willingness for the select board to reconsider our previous vote. Um, so I'll call for rec uh Paul, you
want to you have something to say before we do that? >> I was gonna I was going to move reconsideration, but you >> Okay, move it. Paul's reconsideration. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John. >> Hold on. There was no previous vote. You haven't voted yet.
>> Is that true? Have we taken an opinion on this yet? >> Labenders as a gonna be my question. >> Yeah, you haven't taken a position on it. Why is it why is it in our agenda as reconsideration of article 8? >> It was mislabeled.
>> Mislabel. >> How embarrassing. Okay. Um, so, um, someone want to make a motion to, uh, >> I'd like to move, uh, that we, uh, refer,
um, we support the advisory committee's motion to refer this to a moderator's committee. >> Okay. Um, motion's on the floor. Uh, all in favor of referral to a moderator's committee pursuant to the advisory committee's um, uh, position, please
indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak. >> Hi. >> Um, David P. Um, let's see. Paul Warren, >> hi. >> David Pearlman, >> no. >> Um, Michael Rubenstein, >> hi.
>> And chair votes eye. So, uh, we vote referral to a moderator's committee pursuant to the advisor committee's um, uh, recommendation. Okay. Um 4 or 21.
Um I'm taking notes. >> Bernard, can I ask a quick question? >> Sure. >> Just uh in sequence of order, I'm going to have two uh young children sitting at a park at school waiting for me to pick them up. Um and I'm wondering I may have
to leave before this meeting's over. Um, and I wanted to make a motion to reconsider um, article 9, which is the renters's handbook. Um, there's been a significant development on that. I'm just Is it possible to do that one next or would you prefer? >> Yeah, why don't we do that next?
>> Okay, thank you. So, >> is anyone object to that? Uh, David, you have to leave uh, soon. So, >> I do. I have a hearing starting at 1:30. I mean, I'll stay on as long as I can, but I might disappear at any moment. Okay,
>> that's important to note. So, there will be enough of us here. So, I just I want to move reconsideration of uh of article nine, the renters's handbook. >> Okay. And and um um didn't we vote your amendment? >> Yeah. So, um so the the I'll explain
this. I Okay, I'm sorry to take the shortcut. Um the the select board voted to eliminate the notification provision within uh the article. So there was two parts of the article to publish a handbook and then to have the require the constables
to deliver the handbook. Um the uh a number of constables gave feedback, were very concerned about that provision. Um and they ended up getting together with the petitioner uh Alec Lieovitz um and others and they came to agreement that
the they would make the um delivery of the uh handbook by the constables uh optional. It's not required. and and this just eliminates the uh the issue of risk for liability and other stuff for
the constables um and they can still deliver the handbook. So the petitioners and the constables and Alec may be here um are are in in support of the article. So the the opposition from the constables has gone away. Um, and so,
you know, I Alex sent us the article, um, or I think he sent also Melissa with an updated version. So, there's a new version of the article that we would that we should potentially reconsider anyway because it's it's been amended and the AC has voted in support of the
um of the petitioners article before they amended it. So, we're have a different emotion than the than advisory committee. Okay. Um, does >> that make sense? >> Yeah. David, you want to speak on this?
>> Yeah. David Trevette, you >> quickly >> Sorry. Go ahead, David Pman. Sorry. I think that Bernard was seeing David Trevette's hand up. Um, >> I was just going to say I need to go now, but I I do support reconsideration and I support the uh joint article.
>> Okay. Um, why don't we have a quick reconsideration vote? Okay. So, I move reconsideration of article 9. >> Yeah. All in favor? John Vancoyak. >> I. >> Paul Warren. >> I. >> David Corlman. >> I.
>> Michael Rubenstein. >> I votes I. Um, okay. >> And you know, we could display it if Melissa wants to display it. They made one change to the article. Um, the sentence reads, "Brookline constables
shall be exempt from mandatory compliance with this provision." >> It's also in the packet. It's in your in your packet online. 25 or article 9 amended motion B2 voluntary constable compliance page two of that document.
>> Okay. Anyone have any uh discussion of this? >> I I just have a remaining question if you don't mind. Could could um someone remind us who who will take responsibility um ultimately for the content of what
will be drafted to be offered to the constables to take to um cir situations where they are you know executing on an order to evict. >> Yeah. I mean Chaz may may want to weigh in. My understanding is that the uh office of housing stability would
develop and maintain that content. >> That's correct. Okay. >> Okay. And on, you know, on their own authority. In other words, it won't be reviewed by this, you know, select board or would it be reviewed by legal counsel and all that? >> Absolutely. Yes. And I'm I'm happy to if
the board obviously would like to see it, I'm happy to to present it to you. >> Yeah. Oh, I actually I' I' I'd prefer not, but >> Well, I mean, you know, rights are rights, you know,
and and um as long as, you know, we're providing um uh tenants with a clear statement of their rights and the procedures um as approved by our legal council. I don't see where, you know, the select board would want to meddle in it at all. I think we should be notified
or be able to read it and and you know if we see something that you know we think is sort of out of line um you know to be able to uh raise it with with with uh >> well yeah >> okay >> as long as as long as it's not for us to
approve or disapprove the document. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um did I hear a motion from someone? How about you, Paul? >> Unless someone has another point. I think Michael I saw Michael's mouth moving, but
>> No, no, no. Go ahead and make your motion. >> Okay. I I I move uh favorable action on the amended uh most recently amended articles submitted by the petitioners, which um I'll specifically say uh makes Brookline Constables be exempt from
mandatory compliance with the provision. >> Okay. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak. >> Hi. >> Um Paul Warren. >> Hi. >> David Pearlman. >> He had he left. I'm sorry. Michael is
gone, but he's muted. >> Hi. >> Okay. Uh and chair both eye. Um okay. Um next what what is next? Let's see. We go back to >> article 10 is next.
>> Article 10. Let me find that. Okay. Um, reconsideration of article 10. Name the baseball diamond located blah blah blah. Um, okay. So, what changed here? >> So, the the board voted the article as was submitted by the petitioner and the advisory committee essentially struck
the effective date. Um, so just looking to come in line with the advisory committee so that we only have one motion under the article. Um, okay. Why' they strike the effective date? >> Uh, it was it was the date by which it
had to be named. >> Just Yeah. Okay. Got it. Got it. Okay. Any question or discussion of that? >> Okay. Let's move I move approval. Oh, wait. We have to reconsider. I move reconsideration. >> All in favor? John Vancoyak?
>> I. >> Paul Warren. I >> um Richard Michael Rubenstein >> I chair >> votes I okay um anyone may want to make a motion to accept the advisory committee change to eliminate the um
effective date >> so move >> so move >> okay all in favor John Vancoaki I >> um Paul Warren hi um Michael Rubenstein I >> and chair both
Okay. Uh finally um I'd like to move reconsideration uh of warrant article 18 um with respect to um the uh posting of videos of meetings uh to civic um the civic place
or civic uh civic plus um which I think has something called civic civic clerk that we use. Um so my concern is that uh the the uh amendment that we voted uh
couple meetings ago um provides that um um let's see it recur okay let me find it so I don't uh threw up the wording okay
um requires that uh the uh video the posting be published lished according to guidelines specified by the select board or its designate. So my concern there is twofold. number one uh our handbook is for select board appointed off bodies
and um it really shouldn't be expanded beyond you know that u that limitation and secondly I think you know at least on the advisory committee the issue of separation of powers is going to be brought up you know we are the executive they are the legislative body and and uh
our handbook shouldn't be used to uh give guidance to their committees or committees of the moder moderator or others, you know, committees created by federal law or by state law. Um, and I guess the third issue is, you know,
what's what guidelines are needed? I mean, it's a simple process of of posting a link of the video of a meeting uh to Civic um uh Civic Plus. And you know, that that is really all we need.
It was what the original um Warren article by Heather Hamilton said and um you know it's uh basically what the advisory commission uh committee uh said with some minor uh changes and I talked
to Heather this morning and she's comfortable with the advisory committee version. Uh so I would like to reconsider Warren article 18 and um uh accept the uh version voted by the advisory committee as being uh a better
version and not creating problems of uh you know the executive trying to control the operations of uh non-executive committees. So uh Michael you have your hand up.
>> Yeah. Um so so as um as the person who uh sort of drafted the select board motion, I wanted to respond on a couple of points. Um the first is um I I also uh exchanged communication with Heather this morning uh earlier today. Um and
she said that she wasn't notified of this meeting. So um she's unfortunately not here. Um and that's number one. Number two, I want to say I also um greatly respect the separation of powers
argument um and that value. Um I have a presentation to to give on this on this question. Um but I also wanted to say that the advisory committee is also taking this up on Monday. Um and I'm
going to be presenting there and and I'm not sure what the outcome of that is going to be. So there may it is possible that there will be some minor um there there may be some minor alignment tweaks uh at that point. Um, so I'm wondering whether it would be possible
to do the reconsideration on Tuesday at our scheduled meeting instead of today so that a uh David Pearlman can be here, b He Heather can be here if she so chooses, and c we don't have to deal with the advisory committee um changes
as well. >> Uh, okay. It's unlikely that those changes are going to be significant, but what do other people think? Um, you know, I we always keep kicking things not the can down the road on on
articles. Um, and Michael, I appreciate your your perspective on this and and I understand when you brought this. For some reason, I thought we were going to put it in in the uh in our writeup that we wanted these these things to jive.
Um, so I I I I would prefer that we take a position now, uh, so that the advisory committee has that going in so that what they're not going to go, well, what's a select board think? I mean, I I'm in I understand your argument, Bernard, and I'm supportive of what you're saying. It doesn't I don't discount Michael trying
to create standards and process and access for the community. Um, but you know, we should be doing that through negotiations with our partners over in the legislature, not uh, you know, doing it in in in a bylaw um, and forcing it on them. That's just my my view about
it. I think it would be we'd have a better outcome if they were supportive in working with us um, than forcing it through a bylaw. >> Any further discussion? >> Well, so so just to be clear, we're not forcing it through a bylaw. This is a resolution. I'm wrestled with this. You
know what I mean? I agree. Warren article I meant is what I meant. I misspoke. Sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um so, so I mean I'm happy if we decide to reconsider, I'm happy to give my presentation, but the reconsideration question we can we can deal with. >> Yeah. I think Michael if they if the
advisory committee then supports what you're proposing, we could then reconsider again, you know. Yeah. >> All right. Well, let me give my presentation to you so you know what that is. We'll proceed. Okay. >> Okay. Let let um should we first reconsider? Vote reconsideration.
>> Yeah. Why Why don't we do that motion first? >> Okay. I move reconsideration. All in favor? John Vansa? >> Well, I I I'm going to oppose reconsideration because it sounds to me like um we are going to be taking this up again. I mean, out of deference to our colleague Michael, I'd like to see
what happens after he presents to the advisory committee. And it could be that we're all, you know, one happy family after he and the advisory committee, you know, come to some conclusion. >> Okay, Paul Warren, >> why don't we wait, Bernard? If if if
John wants to wait, you know, Michael's probably wants to wait. It re a divided board on reconsideration doesn't make a lot of sense. So, um, but I'm supportive of what you're saying. So, >> okay. Um,
>> okay. So, we're not going to reconsider. We're going to wait to see what the advisory committee says and follow them. Follow the legislature. >> Well, no. May maybe or maybe not. We'll see. >> Maybe, maybe not. Yeah. Um, but anyway, u Okay, we
uh do we have anything else on the agenda? >> No, >> there is nothing on the agenda. >> Okay. Um, unless anyone has anything else to add, I'd like to end the meeting. >> Thank you. Okay.