All that weatherproof covering the floor. I need for my house. Oh my god. Such a shock. Welcome to
Oh, that's right. 5 2 1 >> Good evening everyone. Welcome to tonight's select board meeting. Our chair, Bernard Green, is feeling a little under the weather, so he's remote and I will be pinch hitting for him
tonight leading the meeting. Uh so the first agenda item is the question of entering into executive session for the purpose stated in items two and three and to reconvene an open session. Item two is executive session pursuant to
Mass General Laws chapter 30A section 21A6 purpose 6 for the purpose of considering the value of real estate at the following properties 1280 Boilson Street 1290 Boilston Street 1300 Boilson Street
and 1330 Boilston Street and for the purpose of approving the meeting minutes from January 13 2026. So I will move that we go into executive session. >> All right. Sean
>> I >> Paul >> I >> Michael >> I >> Bernard. Right. And I also say I so we will be back. >> Recording stopped. I'm just going to sign up here.
Okay. >> She really I'll do that. request. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Happy.
Where? Are you happy? Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. All right. Yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah.
Right. Right. Oh, the whole area. the microphone. Thanks. persuaded What would happen? We all studio. And then
people Right. Prophet That's Lord outside. 15 process. You have awesome. So this is where it
is. Well, NYU. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm just thinking You're letting you're It's burn. All power.
They contact Are you good? 53 after Oh, I think everybody Father, Father, What's up? Oh yeah. No.
Yes, sir. Yeah. Perfect. Yeah. Heat. Let's go. Okay. Yeah.
Yeah, there you go. Yeah. There you go. Yeah. Yeah. down. Thank you. What about What?
Hi everybody. Oops. signed and everything. Thank you. You're welcome. or should I He was live in five, four, three, two, one. >> Good evening everyone. Welcome back to
our February 10th select board meeting. We are now back in open session and we will be continuing with announcements, updates. Do any select board members have an announcement or update to make? Oh, >> yep. Uh, thank you, David. Last night,
we had our in-person workshop for the comprehensive plan. Uh, we had a great turnout. Um, I see many faces in here that were actually at the uh the workshop. Um, our our staff uh led by Jay Collins and Cara Brutin and our
partner agency landscape um and planning did really an amazing job. Uh, there was a lot of energy. We got great great input. Um, and I just want to uh thank everybody that participated and came and also the for the leadership that helped
us get that done. It was a lot of work. Um, especially our steering committee for the comprehensive plan that's been busy to do this for a long time. But I want to remind everybody that there is a survey that's available. Um, it's on it's an online survey that's very
similar to uh the in-person workshop. You just won't have as much fun as we did last night. Um, but it this is a great opportunity for uh for the community to uh give the the committee input into the future of Brookline.
We're developing a a plan that will help us with zoning and budgeting um and town services for the next 20 or so years. So, it's very important. If you go to uh uh the town website, there's a link to the survey and I would encourage everybody to take it. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you, Paul. Anyone else? John. Um, I will keep this brief even though, um, our former one-time police chief, George Samard, deserves much more than a brief comment, but I hope people will consult the obituary for George
Samard. Um, a wonderful man, a real um, accomplished leader of the Brooklyn Police Department for many years, a a great sort of neighbor of people in Brooklyn, um, Elliot Crescent. uh and um he's going to be very much missed. Um
services for him tomorrow uh at at St. Mary's in Brooklyn and uh if people weren't aware of that news, I um I I I want more people to know um the history of this man and and they can get that by
consulting the obituary for George Samard uh our former police chief. >> Thank you, John. Anyone else? All right. So, with that, we will >> David, >> I'm sorry. Go ahead, Bernard. >> I just want to let people know that I'm
remote today because I don't want to give any of my fellow board members the virus that uh I am suffering with. It's not serious, but uh it's also not pleasant. So, David's going to handle the chore of running the meeting. And um
so far in executive session, he's doing an excellent job. So, Thank you, Bernard. Melanie, if you don't mind maybe clicking okay on that bar so I can see you when Bernard has his hand raised. >> Thank you. >> All right, so now we will move into
public comment. Now, I recognize that probably most of the individuals who are in the room right now are here to speak about Cheson Hill West. Public comment on Cheson Hill West will be made during the agenda item when we have our public
hearing on the Cheson Hill commercial area study. So if you want to participate in public comment now it's about something other than Cheson Hill West. So do we have anyone signed up for public comment? >> Do you want to read my spiel first? >> Yes, please do.
>> 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 like. Once 15 minutes has been met. There is
an opportunity at the conclusion of the select board's business for 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.
Um, we are going to use a phone timer tonight, not an ENC screen timer, and we'll let you know when you're at 30 seconds, and then when your um, time is over, please conclude your remarks at that time. If you have more to say, you're welcome to send an email to the board expressing your thoughts in
greater detail. Any person wishing to speak must begin their comment by identifying themselves with their full name, either their Brooklyn precinct number or street address, and the specific topic on which they on which they wish to speak. The board encourages but not does not require that remote users turn their video on when
commenting. I do have a note if people are online tonight because we do have a lot of people signed up to speak. If you are online, could you please raise your hand when I call on you just so you can move to the top and I can promote you easier. The per first person to sign up
for in person for not Chestnut Hill related is Susan Park. All right, Susan, go ahead whenever you're ready. Not allowing me to promote her. Hi there. I'm trying to uh turn on my
video if this would let me. But it says you cannot start your video because it is disabled by the host. >> You can try now Susan. >> Okay. Okay. Hi. Thank you.
Okay. Um good evening everyone. Susan Park here, town meeting member from precinct 17. It's good to see you. I'm a direct abuter to the 26 Pleasant Street parking lot across from the Koolage Corner Library. It has come to my attention that attorney uh Jeffrey Allen
intends to file a warrant article for the Maytown meeting reszoning the Nord Blum parking lot at 26 Pleasant Street. Uh my constituents are very concerned about this development. Some of my constituents care for their elderly and
parking is absolutely necessary. 26 Pleasant Street has become a trusted parking lot for the neighborhood. There are many growing families that depend on parking so they can take their infants to the hospital and doctor's appointments and everything else that comes with raising a growing family. It
was a huge nuisance when parking spots were taken up on James Street by the workmen during the suspice. constituents wrote in in the last few days because they feel this new development have not done the profit uh proper traffic studies, light studies,
nor gotten uh sufficient neighborhood input. With 103 new units with give or take one, two, three people living in these units, there will be more cars and a gridlock of traffic, especially after the Waldo Durgen building. So, people coming from St. Mary's and Washington
Square are all going to be affected by this gridlock. Also, isn't the town nearing the end of the comprehensive planning process? Shouldn't this warrant article include the comprehensive plan? And isn't this why it passed so we are not at the mercy of developers who aren't thinking of what's best for the
neighborhood? In addition, North Brooklyn is already a heat island as we know, and this development will only make it worse. The town should actually buy this land, turn it into a park to mitigate the heat island effect uh in North Brooklyn. and many um many people
in a neighborhood would be so happy with that. Second, um okay, I won't mention the Chestnut Hill uh zoning. Lastly, my constituents are burdened with the dozens of postal trucks parking on Beacon across from the post post office.
Uh we're here in precinct 17 and there was an agreement years ago that the post office agreed to park by the Arcadian Hotel which at at that time was the holiday day in holiday in um I've gotten so many emails from uh my neighbors on
Beacon. This was a good faith agreement. >> You have 30 seconds. >> Postal trucks, thank you. Have crept back taking the parking spots of all those who live directly across from these trucks on Beacon. My constituents are seriously fed up with this. Um I
have received many emails and I'm hoping that you the select board would kindly reach out to the post ser uh the postal service and ask them to move the trucks back towards the Arcadian Hotel which is what they agreed on. So in some I asked you not to support the warrant article
for the 26 Pleasant Street resoning. And two, please um my constituents and neighbors beg you to just have the postal trucks move back towards the hotel, which is really helping the neighbors also because that's why they purchased these properties so that
because they could park right across from their street and and I've I've reached out um >> I'm sorry your time's up. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Susan. Nobody else has signed up and nobody's raising their hand online.
>> Is there anybody in person that would like to speak during public comment? >> All right, seeing none, we will continue to our next agenda item, which is miscellaneous. >> Tracy Burns has her hand up. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Tracy Burns has her hand up.
>> Can you promote Tracy Burns, please? You're muted, Tracy. >> Okay, I'm good now. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, thanks. Um, I'm Tracy Burns, town meeting member from precinct 8, but speaking on behalf of the group that we
jokingly call ourselves the swim team. I'm speaking to ask that you add a community outdoor swimming pool to the road map. Time and time again, the residents have spoken up in support of a pool. To my knowledge, it appeared as early as 2001 when over 50% of the
residents surveyed thought we needed an outdoor pool. It it has also been included in several comprehensive plans that a cool a pool should be a priority. In 2006 in the parks and open space and recreation strategic master plan, an
outdoor pool was cited as one of the most important things the town needed. In 2020 and again in 2022, town meeting voted overwhelmingly in support of a feasibility study for a pool. By now, my group has spoken to a number of of you
on the select board as well as many town staff and gone over the cost of construction as well as the cost of operations. I know the Brook that Brooklyn must remain conservative with our town revenues and be careful what we plan. We
estimate that the cost of the pool is approximately $10 million and would take about two years to construct and that the community preservation act can fund some of that each year, thereby costing the town less than $5 million per year for 2 years. It's an reasonable amount
of money for an asset that would be enjoyed by all. In terms of operating costs, we anticipate that it would run like the golf course using a revolving fund concept and therefore not casting the town or the recck department any additional funds. I could say a whole
lot more about where and why and how, but it's not appropriate for right now. For now, I only ask that you include the building of a community outdoor pool in the road map. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tracy. Do we have anyone else
who would like to participate in public comments? Anyone online? >> I don't see any more rac. >> All right, we don't see anyone. So now we will move on to the next item. Miscellaneous approval of miscellaneous
items, licenses, and contracts. Now, do any of my colleagues have any questions regarding items 6A through 6E? 6A is not a vote, is it? >> Well, I suppose we could vote on whether
to announce that we're releasing those executive session minutes or what's that listed there? It's so you actually have to read that out. You >> okay? >> You just have to announce that this is the determination in terms of um >> what's being released and what's being withheld. >> All right. So, first we'll announce that
uh after reviewing the board's executive session meeting minutes from July 1st, 2025 through December 31st, 2025. We have released July 15, 2025. We have released August 5th, 2025. released
August 19th, 2025. Withheld September 9th, 2025. Released September 16th, 2025. Withheld September 30th, 2025. Withheld. October 14th, 2025. Withheld.
October 21st, 2025. Withheld. October 28th, 2025. Withheld. November 4th, 2025. Withheld. December 2nd, 2025. Withheld. December 9th, 2025 and
withheld December 16th, 2025. So, regarding 6B through 6E and those are votes. Any questions? >> Seeing none, >> I believe I had amends, small amendments
to the to the minutes for 6B. >> Yep, those are in the packet. >> Okay. >> All right. So 6B will be as amended by Michael Rubenstein. Any other comments on 6B through 6E?
Seeing none, I move that we approve in omnibus fashion 6B through 6E. Bernard, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Paul, >> I. >> Michael, >> I. >> And I also vote I. All right, that
brings us to calendar items and the 2030 roadmap update and discussion on the 2030 roadmap with consensus building institutes Abby Fulham. >> All right. Hello. Can I be heard? >> We hear you.
>> Okay. Good evening everyone. Let me share my screen. Okay. So, hi everyone. And to those I haven't met, I'm Abby Fulham. I am a senior associate at the Consensus Building Institute. We are a nonprofit based in Cambridge and we help groups
make decisions, work together, um, and mediate conflict. In this case, we are helping the select board develop a 2030 roadmap, which is a version of a strategic plan. Um, okay. So, objectives for tonight. I know that you all have a busy meeting. So, we've decided to keep this as a
brief update. Um, we wanted to first share the updated version of the draft 2030 roadmap which was shared in your packet last week. Provide a brief update on the process to date and what's next. And then I have two questions that I'm looking for input from the select board
on tonight if there's time and if there's not maybe in writing um by the end of the week. I do want to provide a little bit of context for those who are listening in and have not been following this process closely. Um, so let me just
share a bit of background. So the goal of the 2030 road map is to capture the shared strategic priorities of the select board. Um, and then articulate their goals and how to achieve them. Um, and this is intended to guide both the
select board and all of their staff and their work despite a lot of changes in the environment and turnover. The process that we have undergone to date over the last I believe since around the summer um has been first
brainstorming and idea generation. Um so I talked with a lot of folks. We had we met in person for those workshops. Um we did a review of existing town goals to make sure we were capturing um items that are relevant to this um in the
plan. And then we are now in this phase of iteratively refining the content. Um so that has been done getting gotten feedback from individual select board members. Thank you. Um and then also department heads and the select board uh office.
Okay. Just briefly in terms of what's in the 2030 road map and the strategic plan. So uh one is guiding values which is you know how do we want to behave and there is now a section on the values of Brooklyn and on the values of the town government. Um and then goals. So what
do we want to achieve? Strategies for each of the goals. How do we operationalize the goals? And then action what needs to happen to implement those strategies. I would say to date we've had a lot of discussion and agreement on the guiding values and the goals. And I think we're
still in the workshopping on some of the strategies and actions. So as we move forward in the process, we are refining and prioritizing some of those. I wanted to just preview the goals for folks tonight who haven't been following along. So I'll just quickly put them up
here. Um so there the select board have identified seven highle goals. And again for each of these there are strategies and actions. Um and so just briefly the first here is around delivering core services reliably and efficiently within
the limits of available resources. The next goal is around alignment and efficiency and governance within the government itself. The third goal is around increasing the town's fiscal health and stability. The fourth is around improving communication to and
engagement with residents. The fifth is around increasing the racial and economic diversity of households in Brooklyn. This is also there's a number of housing related strategies also in um this goal. Six is maintaining and improving infrastructure quality and
seven is to improve the town's ability to mitigate and be resilient to climate change. Um so the next question in my mind is okay so we've done a lot of work to date. We're still refining some of the pieces but like what do we need to do to get this over the finish line in the
next few months? I believe April is the still the goal. Um so I just wanted to outline the process next steps as a reminder. Um, so we're in this iterative feedback from select board members phase still. Um, you have the latest updated
version that we sent last week. Um, there's a tension here. I don't want to burden you all with tedious reviews and I want to make sure that you, um, that the current version reflects your interests and that you feel, you know, poised to implement it and guide the
implementation of it. Um, so you are more than welcome to send me copy edits on that version I sent or set up a call with me or email. Some of you have already started to do that. Um, but for those who don't want to be again in this review cycle, um, maybe take a quick
look, but you don't need to send me the as detailed of feedback as you have in the past. The next um, piece is around the implementation details. So we need to work out um what information we want to include in the plan to make it as easily
implementable as possible. Um and then that can be done that will need to be done um in partnership with the people that will be implementing it. So there are actions that are in the select board's core actions in the town administrator team's core and department heads. So working closely with those
folks. Um, at the March 17th select board meeting, we are slated to uh talk through implementation, discuss how often you all want to check in on this plan, adjust the plan, or track progress. Um, and then again, hoping that we can prioritize some of the
actions that are in the select board's court. Right now, there's, I believe, 43 actions, which is a lot. So, if that's what you want, that is okay. Um, but perhaps worth trying to refine them further. And then also refining some of the list of strategies. There's a lot in
there. I've heard the interest both in trying to hone in on the number of strategies so it's more feels more achievable and I've also heard concern around removing some. So I think we can try to talk through some of that in March and then lastly the a final
version of the road map will be presented and then voted on for adoption at a April select board meeting. So that's what's coming in terms of the process. Um let me share a little bit more on this imple implementation detail
uh topic and then pose these two questions. Again trying to move quickly here. So I know you have another big agenda item. Um in terms of the implementation details that would go into this kind of strategic plan. There's a number of ways you could flush it out. I've shared some examples with
you all before. Um, I think there's a goal to try to balance the inclusion of enough information to make this plan as implementable as possible, um, while also being efficient and targeted in what you're trying to lay out so it's not, um, it's not tedious or making work
unnecessarily. Um, so we would like to propose the inclusion of the following for implementation detail. For each of the goals, we could include the key performance indicators and track those
over the five years. Um, you all know there's been some brainstorming on what those key performance indicators are. We don't need to get into the specifics on that, but just that that will be tracked for the goals. Nothing would be tracked for the strategies. And then for each of
the actions, which are how you um make progress on the strategies, we would list the department that would be leading the action and then a rough timeline. So it would it be this next fiscal year that you would want to see it done, maybe the next two to three or
the four to five. So short, medium, longterm. And just to lay it out what this could look like. Um so this is just a mockup example >> table. Um pulling from the first goal around core services, we would have a column here around the strategy. For
each strategy, we would list all the actions. This is not currently comprehensive. And then the department lead and timeline, which brings me to the two questions I have for you all. Um so first I would be
interested to hear if you have any burning concerns with that with the level of detail I just proposed for implementation. So again that's KPIs for the goals and then department lead and timeline for the actions. And then my second question which is related is for
the actions that are assigned to the select board. Would you like CBI myself and the select board office to take a first pass at filling out that timeline? you all can review at the March before the March workshop or is there a select board
member who would like to do this themselves and then again we would review in March. And so Bernard or I guess David tonight would do we have time to discuss this now? Would you prefer to um share thoughts in writing by Friday and then we can get going
filling out these tables up over up to you? >> We can discuss it a little bit if anyone has any quick thoughts. Michael. Um, thank you Abby. Um, I just have a question about for actions assigned to the select board. Um,
would would that mean that the department lead would be a select board member or or would the department lead be a member of a town department? >> I was thinking it would be for actions that are in your like court to work on.
It would just say the select board here. Okay. >> Anyone else? John? >> Um, this is a just a detail question. Uh, under the third of the um published
uh goals. There's a reference to achieving new revenue growth of I think it's $15 million and then a period of years. And it's not clear to me whether that means we should achieve achieve that per year which is you know I'm sure
is is unrealistic um or over the period of the five years. Uh and I'm assuming it means over the period of the five years. Is that right? >> That's my read too. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh so just any ambiguity of that nature you know that could be
cleared up would be great. >> That's great. Thanks John. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else? All right. Uh, so I guess we will get back to you Abby if we have more comments by Friday per your suggestion. Thank you very much for providing this
update and we look forward to uh further work on this at our March workshop. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> You too. >> Thanks Abby. >> Thanks Abby. >> All right. So that now brings us to the moment everyone's been waiting for. Mhm. >> the Chestnut Hill commercial area study
public hearing which I shall hereby open. And first we will hear some introductory remarks from Meredith. >> Thank you. Good evening, Select Board. Meredith Mooney, economic development director. So, we were here last week presenting our recommendations for the
Chestnut Hill commercial area study and seeking the uh direction from the select board on how to move forward with potentially um advancing the proposed overlay zoning uh for springtime meetings consideration. There were three follow-up action items that the select board requested. I just wanted to
provide an update on our progress towards those. So, uh, there was a request that we, um, touch base with City of Newton, make sure that they're fully updated on the status of our recommendations and the proposed zoning. We've been in communications plan with Newton's planning staff as well as their transportation staff throughout this
process. Um, there was recently some turnover in their planning department with the new mayoral administration. Um but we have reached out to them, provided um all of the um updates in terms of the recommendations and we'll be meeting with them tomorrow afternoon to sort of recap those conversations and then bring up the newer members of their
staff who are in new positions um in terms of the what's included in the recommendations and the specifics of the zoning. There was also the request for the results of the transportation infrastructure capacity testing. We're expecting to have those back by the end of this week. Um and we'll be working with the transportation engineering
division um on their review of that and they'll be providing an update um and having a discussion with the transportation board about those findings at the transportation board's upcoming meeting which I think is February 25th. Um and then finally there was the request to hold a public hearing which brings us to this moment.
>> All right. Thank you very much. Any questions or thoughts from select board members before we proceed with our speakers? All right. Seeing none, uh the way we'll handle uh public comment within this
hearing today is each speaker will be allotted three minutes. And there is also a signup sheet here up front for those of you who may not have signed up in advance via email. You're still welcome to sign in if you want. I'll
probably move that to the back so if anybody signs up, we don't have some interruptions with those who are up front. Uh, and we'll begin. So, our first speaker is Christopher Muti.
I can do it. Go ahead. And again, if you hear your name called and you're online, please use the raise hand feature so Melanie can find you. >> Sorry about that. Hi. Am I ready to go? >> You're ready? Yeah. >> All set. So, I'm Christopher Muddy, town meeting member of precinct 9. I'm a
member of the Small Business Development Committee and I'm the executive director of the Brookline Chamber of Commerce. I'm speaking tonight in that later capacity in favor of the proposed resoning of the Ches Hill commercial area and encourage the select board to send this plan to town meeting for a vote this spring. The reasonzoning and
the project proposed by city realy are critical to Brooklyn addressing our structural deficit and represents a tremendous opportunity to grow our commercial base. This is essential for the long-term success of all of our businesses, many of which are experiencing double digit tax hikes this year.
uh and of which are starting to see the effects or we're starting to see those effects in Coolage Corner. Growing our base will help alleviate some of this pressure and Chest Hill represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to do just that. The chamber has always believed that density is essential to the success of our small businesses
including the future commercial tenants of this proposed project. That is why we wholeheartedly supported the Harbor Street proposal and why we fully support the housing component of the proposed project. We are very excited about the potential new businesses that will occupy the retail, medical building and
hotel which are being proposed for this site. The chamber enthusiastically supports this plan and the proposal from ch from city realy. Thank you. >> Thank you Chris. Our next speaker is
Elise Couture. No, sorry. We don't allow uh public speakers to put their stuff up. >> Well, I don't want to >> Oh. Oh, yeah. We can move that around for you. I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to share. >> No, I just want to re No, I don't want to share. I just want to
>> Yes. >> I appreciate that. Thank you. But totally understand what you meant. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Hi there. >> Uh my name is Elise Couture Stone. Um, I'm a town meeting member for precinct
2. Uh, a member of the advisory committee and uh a a an a member of the Brooklyn for everyone board. But tonight I'm actually here just speaking on behalf of myself as a nearly 20-y year resident and um as a parent raising two
kids in the Brooklyn public schools. Um, I want to begin by acknowledging the the real work that has already been done by this body. um the planning and economic development staff, the Chestnut Hill
commercial area, um and uh this very board along with many residents who have participated in the public process have invested an enormous amount of time and energy in this effort and that deserves our gratitude and our thanks. So, thank
you very very much for shephering this through. At the same time, I also want to acknowledge what's at stake here tonight because it it is more than just about zoning. Brooklyn, as you guys very much well
know, is facing structural financial pressure. Um, rising costs, significant capital needs, and a residential tax base that is stretched very thin. Young families and retirees are
competing for the same housing and other resources. Uh, and we're cutting vital programs and services for our children and our schools. And this is all the while >> we're sitting on some of the most
wellstudied, >> well doumented opportunities that we have to create a a more fiscally resilient Brookline. But despite all of this wonderful, carefully considered work that you guys
have shephered through to this point, um I was surprised to hear last week that process was treated as a substitute for decision and that delay was framed as a form of safety. I understand why
that was. But given our fiscal reality, delay is no longer a careful choice for us. Delay has a cost and that cost compounds. It shows up in our budgets. It shows up
in our schools and it shows up in who can and cannot continue to live here in Brooklyn. We are living in a moment when people everywhere are looking to our elected
leaders to protect them, to include them, and to act with moral and fiscal clarity. What I'm asking of this body is not blind approval nor Okay.
>> Just as a reminder for all of our speakers, if you're not able to complete your remarks, you can certainly email us whatever you've prepared and that way we can read them in their entirety. >> That email address is just select boardlinemma.gov.
>> Our next Thank you, Elise. And our next speaker is councelor Newton City Councelor Lee Baker. Lyall Baker. >> Good evening and thank you. Um my apologies. It's Lyall Baker. Um I've
been a member of the Newton City Council for 42 years and I've been the ward counselor for W 7 all of that time. Um, but I'm here to just comment a couple of things. First, I appreciate the outreach to Newton. I wish it had occurred before the public hearing, but our staff and I
spoke to our acting planning director and she was not aware of this project really in any detail. Uh, so whatever conversations have occurred before have really gone on at a level that have not reached uh our body and I'm the chair of the zoning and planning committee from the city so uh council. So, it's
important that we have these conversations. Second, there is a proposal in the transportation uh program which I think is uh misguided and I would encourage you to reconsider. That is the idea of somehow stopping traffic going directly across Route 9 on Heammon Street and trying to divert it
into the alternatives of a uh a loop on both ends. Uh I think that's unfortunate. I think it would adversely affect the institutions and residences that live uh north of the area as well in Newton as well as in Brookline. And I think uh there are traffic improvements
could be done right now. One of them that was done many years ago is to have the the intersection operate so that you go north for one signal, south for another, and east west for the others. And that's been a significant improvement over the old four-way system many years ago where I actually saw a
fist fight break out between people at one point. >> Um uh so I'd be very careful about it. I think you could have two lanes going southbound as opposed to one as currently, but I know the construction has narrowed that roadway as you go south Hammond Street where the building
is going up. The other part is the area where the parking occurs near the star market. That's listed on your plan as TBD in terms of height. I would suggest this is an opportunity for addition by subtraction. Take that piece out of the district. that is currently very important to the whole Chestnut Hill
commercial area that exists in Newton and indeed part of the Chesn Hill shopping center. Um, and I know that you don't have to consider Newton's interest, but I would point out that Newton backed the bonds that designed the roadway u that goes west of Hammond Pond Parkway when we expanded it so that
the Chesn Hill Mall, Chesn Hill Square could be developed. Um, and we work enjoy working with Brookline and try and make things go uh so that it suits both communities. So, I would just encourage you to look at the impacts on Newton, but also the impacts that uh the changes
you might make might make on Brookline because of the Newton impacts that follow from there. So, thank you very much. I appreciate your time and I'd like to stay a breast of what you're doing. >> Thank you. Our next speaker is Warner Louie.
Thank you. My name is Warner Loey. I'm a town meeting member from Prethink 13. And uh I agree with I think what we're going to hear from a lot of people here this evening that um this Chestnut Hill development is is very important to town
finances uh particularly to as a long-term um source of property taxes in order to show residents throughout the town that while we do have to do overrides uh now and again we're also doing everything we can to pursue pursue
other sources of revenue. Um, and I also support the housing that this project will create, this zoning change will create. But, um, what I really want to talk about is, uh, in terms of long-term planning, I live near
Washington Square and for for literally decades, uh, I've been saying to people that we need three or four story mixeduse uh, buildings in Washington Square. And when I talk to people about it, I get a
lot of uh nodding. People generally I think think that uh is a is a good idea. Um but I mention this also because I recognize that you know if there were concrete proposal to do that in Washington Square or anywhere else there would probably be a certain amount of
skepticism as well when it becomes a concrete proposal. Um but uh I ask you to keep that in mind as you as you think about putting forward these warrant articles for the for the reasonzoning um
the zoning overlay. Um because I mention it because it's easy to say that uh that we should build something in someone else's neighborhood, but we actually need thoughtful development in all of our commercial districts. We need it because of the economics. We
need greater density because it's one small way that we can address climate change. We need it because it keeps our our neighborhoods vibrant. So, uh I hope you will think about the town as a whole and realize that this is one small part,
something that you ought to move forward uh on behalf of all of us. Thank you. >> Thank you, Wernner. Our next speaker is Linda Roseman. Good evening. I'm Linda Roseman, town meeting member, precinct 14. I was also
a member of the community advisory committee for the Chestnut Hill West zoning. My understanding was that this committee was supposed to study zoning and make recommendations for the commercial area at Chestnut Hill West. The process began with a well- attended
event at the golf course where community members and other members of the public were able to provide input as to what they would like to see in that area. Soon afterward, city realy came on the scene and attended an early meeting of our community advisory group to present
their plans for 1280 to 1330 Boilston Street. From then on, nearly every meeting was devoted to discussing some iteration of their project. That was pretty much all we talked about. It became apparent that the zoning would be tailored to city realy's project
proposal and that is the zoning before you. We should not be zoning to fit the needs of a particular developer. This zoning will set a precedent for commercial areas around town as Warner Loey just was talking about. I'm not sure we want to see 14 stories in
Washington Square or at St. Mary's. The neighbors who are very much in favor of developing this site were hoping for something like seven stories, but they've indicated that they would be willing to support 10 stories. And this seems to me like a reasonable compromise. And I hope you will consider
making that change before this zoning goes on the warrant. Rightsizing the height makes this more likely to pass at town meeting, and I think we all want that to happen. I want to thank the select board for agreeing to this public hearing. We five town meeting members
from precincts 14 and 15 who sat on the advisory group often felt that our voices were dismissed or ignored and neighbors felt pretty much the same way. At the last meeting of the group without prior warning, we were informed that the
group would be disbanded. We had no opportunity to prepare final remarks that would reflect our opinions and we were told we would not even be allowed to take a straw poll on the zoning proposal. process matters. Community involvement matters. Thanks for
listening. >> Thank you, Linda. Our next speaker is Janice Khan. >> Thank you very much um for this opportunity. Janice Khan, meeting member from precinct 15, a member of the um
finance committee, the advisory committee. I serve also on the comprehensive plan steering committee and um a member of the Chesn Hill commercial area study community advisory group. So I have both a neighborhood and townwide perspective on the proposed
special district overlay zoning. Linda already um said much of what I was going to say, but I'd like to describe exactly how the neighborhood is an active participant and is agreeing to many of the goals that this town has. The current zoning is for six stories. We
are um we're there's consensus to raise it to 10, not the three and four that that Mr. Loey mentioned for Washington Square, 10 stories. Um the amount of um the density right now is an F of 2.0. We're willing to make it commensurate
with the 10story height. The zoning for the office park now is 100% commercial, which would be ideal, but there's consensus that the site can be changed to a mixeduse residential um zone with 51% commercial. In short,
the Chestnut Hill neighborhoods in the surrounding area are supporting the town's needs for both increased commercial tax revenue and increased housing. And I just want to point out that Chestnut Hill actually is a robust commercial area. The problem is that the commercial area is entirely in Newton.
So, um, but we're we're not a desert out here. Um, I believe that in Brookline, meaningful community engagement matters. The comprehensive plan is an example, but what is happening in Chestnut Hill is a cautionary tale for development moving forward for every neighborhood in
Brooklyn. The town has excellent professional staff, but sadly few live here. To balance that, planning staff understands that it's critical to listen to the voices of those who live in Brooklyn and who understand the context of our neighborhoods at the granular
level that residents experience uh at every every day. I believe we're at an inflection point in Brooklyn. Do we as a community writ large with vibrant distinct neighborhoods want to help guide development in the places we know best or do we want developers to define
our neighborhoods for us? And if it's the latter, then why bother doing a comprehensive plan that seeks to incorporate a lot of public input? A final cautionary comment. As a finance committee member, I care about the financial stability of Brooklyn and increasing our commercial tax revenue.
The advisory group never heard from other property owners who may have their own development plans. Creating zoning for one developer in one part of the commercial area may prevent long-term commercial property owners from redeveloping other properties in the commercial area. We just don't know.
Let's make sure that this doesn't become an unintended consequence of endorsing the overlay proposal before you. I urge the select board to change the maximum height of the proposed zoning to 10 stories. And thank you very much for this opportunity.
>> Thank you, Janice. Our next speaker is Neil Gordon. Hi, thank you. Good evening. Neil Gordon, precinct one town meeting member, member of the advisory committee. I'm also co-chair with Marty Rosenthal of Brooklyn Pax. In November
2024, town meeting took up a series of warrant articles initiated by the planning department. Article 11, which would have allowed a substitution of massing, failed. Article 12 and outdoor lighting standards was referred. Article
13, sign design and commercial usage failed. Article 14 relating to separate ownership on the same lot was referred. Prior to that, of course, was the planning department's MBTA Communities Act, the Harvard Street Zoning proposal,
which without significant political intervention might have failed as well. I'm not here to criticize the work of the staff. What I'm suggesting is that staff is just the beginning of a two-part process. The first part professional, the second part political.
The political part boils down to this. Sufficient town meeting votes. Put a two aggressive zoning change on the warrant and you invite amendments. The amendments can be defeated by a majority town meeting vote, leaving as the main motion the article as printed in the
warrant, which can be defeated by a one-third town meeting minority. Prior to hearing from the public this evening, a select board member circulated a petition urging the board to put the planning board's proposal on the warrant without change. I trust the
rest of you retain open minds. PAX has not yet taken a position on this proposal, but we have a long history of listening carefully to pros and cons and especially to those most impacted by proposed changes. Anyone thinking they can bully this through without listening
to the public before further further vetting by the planning board, advisory committee, and further discussion by the select board, including additional public hearings, may be digging a hole that includes fewer and fewer of the town meeting votes needed to pass a
warrant article. Worth repeating, put a too aggressive zoning warrant on the war article on the warrant and you invite amendments. They can be defeated by a majority town meeting vote, leaving the article as printed in the warrant as the
main motion, which can then be defeated by a one-third town meeting minority. I urge you to choose wisely. Thank you. >> Thank you, Neil. We now have Carla Banka. Carla Benena, town meeting member,
precinct 14 and a member of the community advisory group. Good evening. I firmly support those who are urging the board to reduce the permissible height in the proposed CH4 subd district. What should have been a thoughtful process to develop zoning for
the entire commercial area was diverted by a specific proposal, leaving little time to focus on the other proposed subdists. And one of those subd districts is north of Route 9. It encompasses the CVS site, the adjacent
gas pumps, parking for CVS in the street, and four residential properties. It abuts Newton. There was virtually no discussion of this area at the CAG meetings. Current zoning for the subd district for general business and
residential use the maximum height of four stories. With the proposed overlay, the maximum allowable height would without any meaningful analysis become six stories in one portion and seven in another. Three points about upzoning this
particular subdist. First, property owners in this subdist have been contacted and it has been reported that they currently have no plans to sell or redevelop their properties, some of which have long-term leases with their tenants. Second, this
subdist borders Newton and as of July January 12th, the last meeting of the CAG, there had been no discussions with the city concerning these zoning changes beyond a few conversations between Brooklyn and Newton planning staff. I
was happy to hear Meredith say this evening that communication is now increasing. Excuse me. My third point pertains to traffic and traffic mitigation. Existing congest congestion on Route 9 and Hammond Street as it approaches its
intersection with N with Route 9 is a reality. Preliminary concepts for mitigation and include an approach called R cuts. If used here, art cuts would prevent would prohibit cars from crossing Route 9 to get from one side of
Hammond Street to the other. Instead, cars on one side of Hammond Street would have to turn on Route 9, drive in one direction until permitted to make a Uturn, and then drive in the opposite direction until reaching the Hammond Street
intersection. This doesn't sound like mitigation to me, and I suspect it might not sound like mitigation to you either. So, these three reasons, no current plans to redevelop the commercial properties north of Route 9, minimal
communication with the city of Newton until very recently, and no realistic traffic mitigation plans before us, all underscore that resoning this subdist should be paused. Moving forward with resoning now is premature and should be
taken up if property owners signal their intent to sell or redevelop. Thank you. >> Thank you, Carla. Our next speaker is Carlos Lujo. >> Good evening. Um, my name is Carlos. I'm a town meeting member from recent 14 and
a member of the advisory committee and a member of the Chesna Hill commercial study area advisory group. I'm one of the majority of the committee members, six of 11, who have signed a letter urging that the height of the development be limited to 10 stories. Each of us have our own reasons for
supporting this reduction in scale. As you may know, as many of you know, I'm a practicing registered architect. Building and design are not only my profession but my passion. My training and experience strongly informed my belief of what constitutes an appropriate scale for this neighborhood.
24 months ago when this process began we were moving to in that direction. Our comparison to neighboring communities Brighton Austin Newton West Rexbury and Watertown and others consistently showed that 6 to8 stories represented the
prevailing and appropriate scale for new development. The consulting working closely with the committee RKJ reached the same conclusion demonstrating that this scale was both contextually appropriate and financially feasible. This level of upzoning already represented a significant increase over
the existing conditions in this part of Brookline and was consistent with the scale of the 40B project currently under construction the corner of Bolston and Hammond Street. Six to eight stories allowed for increased density massing urban cohesion without overwhelming the
public realm. It mirrored the character of newer developments in our neighboring communities, increased tax revenue, reserved the neighborhood scale feel, and were right and we were right on the right track. Focused on zoning improvements that many felt were long
overdue in a neighborhood that was largely overlooked. Unfortunately, the committee's focus shifted dramatically. We moved away from our original goal of comprehensive neighborhood upzoning and instead centered almost entirely on a single potential de development
proposal, one that was two or three times larger than what was initially envisioned. This proposed consu proposal consumed the committee's attention and derailed our broader planning objective. Meeting after meeting was spent debating on how to constrain this one project
while the promise of future tax revenue from a multi-year multi-phase development dazzled and distracted us. As a result, the committee's work remains unfinished. More than half of the zoning area has been effectively ignored and we have failed to propose a
thoughtful comprehensive zoning plan that could serve as a model for other areas of town. At our last meeting, we requested the opportunity to vote on this issue and that request was denied. If the vote had been allowed, it would have made clearly uh it would have made
it clear that the majority of the committee believes that our work is not complete. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Carlos. Our next speaker is Mary Murphy. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yep. >> Um, I'm here to support the lowered
back. >> Oh, I'm here. Hi. I'm Oh, boy. This is going to be a comedy routine. Hold on. I'm here to support uh the lowered maximum height of 10 stories. But what I
really want to bring to everybody's mind, development. We understand what development is. I live in precinct 15. I live on Craftsland Road. I've lived here for 41 years. I'm a retired town employee. I've been on many committees
over the years. We've respected each other. This is not a respected project. We have on average in this area of this project, I would say residents of 30 plus years, some as much as 75
years. They were born and raised here. This is taking money over people. And that isn't what Brookline really is. There's a balance. We don't need 16 stories, 14 stories. We need development. Yes. We need to increase
our tax revenue. Yes. We need some help. But not at the expense of my neighbors and my friends. And what we've done by enduring traffic on Hammond Pawn Parkway, Florence and Heat Street. We've shared very well with our friends in
Newton about Wegman's and every other place. We have to start thinking respectfully, thoughtfully, because there is a future and we're not thinking of the future. We're only thinking of the money. These are tumultuous times. I
ask you to consider this thoughtfully and respectfully. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mary. Our next speaker is David Pollock. >> Oh, I'll pass it to you. Good evening. David Pollock, um,
precinct 11 town meeting member, chair of the advisory committee's land use, zoning, and sustainability subcommittee, member of the community advisory group that's been meeting for almost two years uh, on this project and a career public
architect and community planner. uh with the pro most of my planning being for Massachusetts municipalities, smart growth planning, housing master planning, uh public buildings. Um I I urge you not to reduce the allowable
maximum height in the proposed CHC4 overlay zoning because that would provide in my opinion no significant benefit while resulting in significantly poorer outcomes. Contrary to remarks that I've heard repeatedly for months,
the nearly twoyearlong community advisory group process has been highly attentive to the concerns and requests of both the neighbors and the towns. And in my view, this process has really treated the neighbors and the town as the clients and not the developer.
The specifics of the zoning and the proposal from city realy have continuously adapted with direct and substantive responses. The result provides enormous difference to Heath Street, steps down significantly at the
west and east ends, and is considerably open in terms of ground level pedestrian space, landscape and tree canopy, and permeability for circulation, light, and views. Lowering the maximum height from 14 to
12 or 10 stories would be a hollow victory for the neighborhood because it would change absolutely nothing in terms of the pedestrian experience in and around the district. Conversely, unless the allowable building area, the FAR,
were also significantly reduced, this would result in lower, fatter buildings that would clog up the public realm, taking away the very real benefits of open space, trees, landscape, light, and views.
The residential condos at the top of the hotel building are the economic engine that fuels the entire city realy package. The bonus height increase from 12 to 14 stories only happens in conjunction with increasing the overall
commercial percentage from 51% to 60%. Dramatically increasing annual tax revenue along with a big bump in the one-time AHT contribution. And no one from EDAB uh has spoken yet. I hope they will. But the EDAB ad hoc subcommittee,
including Ken Lewis, who served on that and also on the um community advisory group, did a really careful analysis and concluded that there isn't, you know, uh fat in this project. And so the very real risk of arbitrarily changing it to
make it less attractive risks the project and nothing being developed and just retenanting the building or waiting for the opportunity to build a 40B. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, David. Our next speaker is Amanda Zimmerman.
Hello, I'm Amanda Zimmerman, town meeting member for precinct 7, also a board member of Brooklyn for Everyone, and today just speaking for myself. Uh, I wanted to start by thanking those who spent a lot of man man hours both on the committee and on town staff to come up
with a proposal that actually made sense and was fit for purpose. Now, this area, Chestnut Hill West, as far as I can tell, was first recognized early in 2005, if not before then, as a plan, as a corridor that would be ripe for mixeduse
development. We absolutely need to bring this to a vote before town meeting. When discussing the scale allowed, we need not just pick a preferred height in abstract, but one that is actually feasible to build. Now, many of you guys know that I am looking to join you guys
on the select board. And I bring this up only to highlight that we are about to ask voters to purposely raise their tax dollars just to level fund town and school services. Every resident I have spoken with has
asked that we pursue expanding the tax base as rigorously, if not more, than going back to them for operating overrides. Let this step be the first of multiple pursuits of mixeduse development and the
accompanying expansion of the tax base so that the frequency and the magnitude of the operating overrides that we ask of our constituents can be less. I urge you to put the plan before town meeting. And to be clear, when that
happens, as someone who has brought articles uh before town meeting, there is a gauntlet of hearings that will go through in addition to all of the public hearings of the study committee leading up to this point and this committee
hearing today. And so I think there is ample opportunity for those who have not made their opinions known to share them. Um, and I urge everyone to at least give town meeting the opportunity to bring forth a really valuable piece of
economic development that should be bringing in a at least 5 million a year. Not in time for this operating override, but hopefully in time for the next one or the one after that. So, thank you for your time.
>> Thank you, Amanda. Our next speaker is Jonathan Klene. Uh, thank you very much, Jonathan Klene, uh, town meeting member, precinct 17, uh, member of the housing advisory board, board member of Brooklyn for everyone, and speaking only for myself,
uh, I want to speak in strong support of the Chestnut Hill articles as they have been proposed, uh, and urge this board not only to advance them, but to strongly support them. Um, in my view, this proposal presents a rare
opportunity for Brooklyn on three crucial fronts. Fiscal stability, which Amanda just spoke to very eloquently, housing, and the transformation of this aging uh office park into a thriving transit accessible mixeduse center.
First, fiscal stability. The project will generate substantial recurring net new tax revenue estimated at $5.6 6 million per year, right? Which will help us address our structural deficit. That is huge. Uh and I think we cannot ignore
that. We need sustainable long-term revenue growth or we will start shrinking as a community, not growing as a community. And this is the kind of structural solution we need and should be pursuing. Um second, housing. This redevelopment will add more than 250 new
homes, including affordable units on site in a place that can support that growth. Near transit, jobs, infrastructure in a largely built out town, opportunities to add housing at this scale are not very common. In addition, this project, and this is very
meaningful to me personally, uh will generate 1 million for the affordable housing trust to support deeply affordable housing that the HAB can help create. Uh and I think that that is potentially transformative. Um and that combination, units on site, more
housing, more deeply affordable housing is critical. Third transformation uh transforming this 1960s office park that is dominated by uh low-rise buildings and single uses and parking uh into something that can
be a thriving district with a park, with open space, with retail, with housing, with medical offices, with people living there. uh I think is a huge opportunity for the town and I think passing that by would be a huge huge mistake. So I urge you uh to support the proposals that are
on the table to support them enthusiastically to look forward. I am very respectful and cognizant of concerns that the community has. I think they have been worked out and dealt with and discussed a lot over the last two years and I think it's important to
remember that the neighborhood has a a voice and they have had a very strong voice in as David Pollock eloquently said uh refining the proposal but not a veto and we need to think about the interests of the 63,000 residents of Brooklyn in moving this forward to enhance our future. Thank you for your
time. >> Thank you Jonathan. Our next speaker is Dave Porter. Bernard, your cop is in your inbox. Good evening. I'm Dave Porter, town meeting member of precinct 6, chair of the shared mobility
advisor advisory committee. My kids go to and the plan is for them to go to Brookline High. I own and reside with my family on Clark Road across from the old. >> I own and reside with my family. Thank you. uh on Clark Road across from the old my monities beat building where I
have recent experience walking the walk for positive change in my own front yard. I'll be speaking tonight on behalf of myself and 228 other Brookline residents including 118 town meeting members who have signed this petition which you have in front of you in favor
of the Chestnut Hill commercial area project before you tonight. The petition reads as follows. To the members of the select of the Brooklyn Select Board, we urge you to put the three articles recommended by the planning department for the Chestnut Hill commercial area onto the town meeting warrant for May
2026 town meeting without change. After over two years of effort, these articles can help address our fiscal challenges, allow almost 250 units of housing, and lead to a new vibrant neighborhood for all of Brooklyn to enjoy. More information about the plan is contained in the study committee's presentation to
the select board on February 3rd, 2026. The trade-offs necessary to make this possible have been carefully negotiated, and it's time to bring this opportunity to town meeting. Thank you, select board members, for your consideration. >> Thank you, Dave. Our next speaker is
Gary Schiffman. Select board members. My name is Gary Schiffman. I'm a town meeting member for Precinct 9. I'm on the board of Brooklyn for everyone and I speak only for myself tonight. I'm speaking in favor of the warrant articles necessary to permit the development at Chestnut Hill West that
has resulted from years of negotiation. The current terms of the deal are very familiar to you all and have been rehearsed tonight. The politics of this development proposal are also familiar to you as well. In fact, they are familiar to politicians everywhere.
Some, but not all of the local abutters would prefer that the project cited on a state highway in a busy commercial area be much smaller than the negotiated deal. They are a small minority of taxpayers in town, but they care a lot and I understand that. And they will go to great lengths to prevent the
development that causes them aesthetic displeasure, personal inconvenience, and potentially a loss of real estate value. Disputable maybe. The vast majority of taxpayers, actually all taxpayers in Brooklyn, would benefit greatly from the proposed development in wellocumented and clearly articulated
ways. more commerce, more housing, more tax revenue, fewer overrides. It's obvious to me personally as that you as local officials should support this deal. But in many places, officials think that if a small group of people with a vested interest make a lot of
noise, they should and they deserve a hearing. They should get something for their trouble. This is what social scientists call a problem of collective action, or more prosaically, clientless politics. A small group that cares a lot can often outweigh the interests of a
large group that is diffuse and not well represented. Happens all the time. In fact, James Madison called it the power of factions. And as you know, it worried him deeply. We may always hope to secure a better deal than the one that's on the table,
the one that's already negotiated. But in this case, that would likely mean to mean uh a result that is worse for the town as a whole, for the 63,000, the community as a whole. It would mean a smaller development, less revenue, and so on.
Um, it would also be dangerous to renegotiate at this time. As I understand it from reading the Brookline News and other sources, City Realy has filed for a 40B exemption from local zoning. If the select board chooses to walk away from the current deal uh which
includes a tax minimum worth millions for the city, city real realy can choose to do what is in their actual economic interests which is to simply build high-pric condos on the property with a set aside for affordable housing as stipulated by state law. I personally am
in a distinct minority and thinking fine, we need housing so desperately I could live with it. But that's not what's best for the town. And I recognize that. You as executives of the town should also not be okay with that outcome because I believe you will have to answer to the voters whose property
taxes and rents will go up if you make the attempt to squeeze a little more juice from a deal that's already been made. That would decrease the value to the town or maybe scuttle the deal entirely. And it would be done to appease a small group of people at the cost of the large group of people.
Again, a classic dilemma in democratic politics. In my view, this is a classic political situation. You have a choice between the common good and appeasing a small group. In Brooklyn, at least, it is a good bet that the unattending minor majority of
citizens will be aware of the outcome one way or another. So, I encourage you to support the deal as negotiate. >> And folks, I just want to one thank everyone for your uh efficiency and patience and response in this. But I do just want to caution you that if you're sitting if you're sitting out here um
and you're speaking above a whisper, we can hear you and it can get picked up by the mics. So just be sure if you're having conversations out there, please keep it to a quiet whisper. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Gary. Next up is Deborah Timus.
>> She was, but I don't see her anymore. All right, Deborah, we might come back to you later. Our next speaker is Lewis Edgers. Can you hear me? I think you hear me. May not see me.
Can you disable my video? Enable my video. >> You should be able to. >> Nope. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> There we go. >> See you, too.
>> Okay, I think we're all set. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Okay. My name is Lou Edgars. I live at 26 Crafts Land Road in precinct 15. I strongly object to the overlay district zoning proposal for the following reasons. Uh the overall density is
measured by floor by F floor area ratio and the maximum allow allowable building height is excessive. The maximum height of 150 to 175 ft corresponding to 14 stories or more will adversely affect the abutters the neighborhood and the
town at large. The highest building in Brooklyn in the pastif built in Brooklyn in the past 50 years is the Hilton Garden in Brooklyn Village, approximately 10 stories high. The proposed zoning overlay will set a precedent for the entire town. Koolage Corner, it's Washington Square, etc.
That's way out of character with large adverse effects. Secondly, there are significant potential traffic impacts. You've heard a bit about them. The area is already overwhelmed by poor traffic flow in Route 9, Hammond Street, and at key intersections. I reviewed the KDson
traffic study for this project and compared it with a Vaness study prepared just a year before for the Route 9 Hammond Street project. The earlier project recognized numerous locations in the immediate area with F level of service. F level that's failing even
before the impact of any new development in Chestnut Hill. This hasn't been recognized in the current studies. Thirdly, and most very importantly, poor process. I have lived in Brooklyn since 1973 and have participated in a number of processes related to town planning
and infrastructure. A short list includes Lost Pine Conservation Area, uh the site selection for the DPW Hammond Street facility, uh the uh front landfill now Skyline Park and back landfill now DPW transfer station and was even involved in negotiations for
Chestnut Hill Square. These projects were complicated and required a lot of compromise to arrive at solutions that satisfied the basic needs of all constituencies. All these projects left me with a very good sense of meaningful citizen participation and respect by and for the
interested parties. Not at all for this particular study. My neighbors and I have attended numerous meetings over the last two years and have been very clear about concerns for the adverse effects of project mass and traffic. These concerns are only minimally addressed in
the draft documents. In many ways, the developer, not the town, is driving the proposed resoning, largely ignoring the needs and inputs of the neighborhood. Talk about deals as negotiated by some of the earlier speakers. That's that's offensive. In closing, my neighbors and
I are not opposed to developing the Chestnut Hill commercial site. We would support reasonable site development and have stated publicly that a more modest project with perhaps a 10tory height limit would be welcomed and would serve the town as well as the neighborhood. The current proposal fails.
>> Your time is up. >> Thank you very much for hearing from me. How do you like that for timing? >> All right. >> All right. Thank you, Lewis. Our next speaker is Carol Gladstone. Good evening. That's all right. Hi. Um, my name is Carol Gladstone. I'm a town
meeting member from precinct 2, a member of the HAB, and also a member of the comprehensive plan steering committee. But of course, I'm speaking for myself tonight. This uh feels like a watershed moment uh for the select board and for the town. We all know we need commercial
development to generate tax revenue. We also know the opportunities for commercial development at scale are few and far between and this may be the only one that can happen anytime soon. This po board appointed an exceptional
committee of both neighbors and thank you guys for the work you've spent and people who um bring in industry expertise. They worked on this complex problem with our very capable staff and the outcome was the zoning proposal that you are
looking at today. This can deliver an enormous amount for the town and for this part of town. Each piece has been looked at closely and actually as I'm listening here tonight, there's a lot of consensus in almost all of it. There is
a very good reason for the proposed height limits and the height bonuses which have been explained to you by committee members in presentations and I think in letters and the bottom line is a reduction in the height will mean a reduction in commercial development and the very thing that we're seeking. This
would truly be a lost opportunity. This zoning proposal deserves to be moved forward to town meeting as it was submitted to you. It will no doubt be vigorously debated and perhaps through that debate it will change. But I believe it would be a disservice to the
town to make that decision preemptively tonight. I urge you just to move this forward tonight. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Carol. Next up is Tracy Barney. >> Folks, we've been doing so well on the
comments after. Let's please keep that to a minimum. Thank you. >> Hi. Uh, my name is Tracy Barney and I live at 693 Heath Street. And the reason I'm here tonight is to ask you to amend the zoning that you put forth to have 14
stories. Um, there's I am a direct butter to the new project. Um, there's a small house and then mine is right next to it. Um, first of all, I just want to say somebody mentioned something about being dangerous. Dangerous is when you are
trying to get down Heath and go down telly to get on to Route 9. I try to do that every day. That's that's what's dangerous that the traffic is out of sight. I just don't understand how this is going to be able to work with all the the rest of all the um new housing um
development and they're putting the cars underneath. I just don't understand how it's going to work. Um, that's why I'm here tonight and I want to thank all the people that have in my neighborhood, my family and family and friends that have worked on all this. I appreciate it and
the board also. Um, that's what I just want to say. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tracy. Our next speaker is Joseph Bullard. My name is Joseph Bullet. I live at 717 Heath Street. Um I'm a not a director
about it, but there's only about eight houses between me and the project. And I'd like to say that uh I I don't know how much familiarity there is between you people except for John Vinskoyak and uh Mike Sam and and uh town meeting members from the rest of town. But it's
an older wood uh woodframe type uh neighborhood that has some singlestory houses, some twostory houses, some threetory houses, but the average is about two and a half stories woodframe building, excuse me. And the minimum uh
uh the minimum suggested height for this new project is 10 stories. That's four times the height of the buildings that are the nearest of Butters. And I think that people that look at this neighborhood um and and where the 10-story buildings are going to go are looking at the building on Tully Street
uh which is at the east end of this project but the west end of of uh everything that's the the uh nearest neighborhood to to us on Heath Street. And I think that they think that a 10-story building is not much bigger than the six-story
building that is at 615 Heat Street, but it's four times the height of of our neighborhood. The neighbor the uh street is very very very narrow, can't support much traffic, and I just hope that the board of selectmen will uh send something to town meeting that will ask
that the low of request is honored at town meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you, Joseph. Our next speaker is George Cole. Uh, we can afford George a bit more time because I believe he'll be speaking in his capacity with EDB.
>> Two more minutes. Five. >> Yes. >> Hi, my name is George Cole. I am a member of EDAB. I was chair of the ad hoc committee uh from MEAB appointed to assess um the proposed redevelopment and
resoning of Chestnut Chestnut Hill Office Park and I am a resident of Chestnut Hill um and a member a 25-y year member of the Brooklyn Building Commission.
Um I was introduced to this um resoning as a member of EDAB and asked with three other members to assess the development feasibility and the reasonleness of the
proposed resoning. Um my co-members of the uh ad hoc subcommittee were uh Sandy Silk, Ken Lewis, and Mark Bearer. Between us, we have over 100 years of largecale urban and suburban real estate
development. Um, we have both had all of us have had our successes and failures and knows what it takes to put together a feasible real estate development and we're coming it coming at it from that perspective.
Um, you know, the big idea here is really to encourage new development, as you've heard, increase tax revenues, increase housing supply, both market rate and affordable, and really um improve the area around uh this area, section of Route 9, which is really kind
of a wasteland at this at this point on Route 9 and just reinvigorate the western end of of Brooklyn's um of Brooklyn on Route 9. What we did as a subcommittee is worked um we've worked over the last year with
the developer and the developer consultants to assess do a financial assessment of the feasibility of this development. Development as you know right now is very difficult to underwrite. Um and we looked at both uh development costs and development
potential development res revenues and um overall feasibility. We met with community uh the community review committee, staff, developers, and neighbors. We focused on development economics and feasibility. And the
proposed reszoning makes development feasible, possible, and probably pro probable, but not assured. It's a very difficult environment to develop real estate. As you know, the proposed program of condominiums and hotels for
the first building is about as um feasible in this environment as you can get. Um but still it's it's a big leap. But if there was to be a development program that would succeed, that would be it. Um we felt that observing the
process, we thought the process was thorough. there were compromises on both sides and it seems to us that it's bo really distilled down to a controversy on height. Um clearly there's concerns about density and and adjacencies but
height seems to be a surrogate for um discomfort with the with the proposed development. I personally have been there many times because height is a real hot button um with development. I was the fee developer of Brooklyn Place.
As you know, that height was very controversial at this at the time. I would say that mo for most people if there were another two stories on to Brookline Place today, most people wouldn't even notice, but at the time it
was a huge hot button. Same with the uh Hilden Garden in huge hot button height. But once it's built, you really notice what's on the ground plane, not what's up in the air. The three typical issues with height, shadow,
um wind, um and views and light blocked. None of those issues um hit um the proposed development on um the Chesn Hill Office Park site because it's north of all the residences. There's no shadow
impact, there's no wind impact, and light and views are not blocked. So it's become a surrogate for other concerns about the overall development which I understand. Um so then the issue of height becomes subjective. I don't like it. It doesn't fit in. I feel
uncomfortable with it. I get that too. It's a big change. But in terms of actual effect on adjacent adjacent properties, it's not what we typically hear. So um if height is reduced, feasibility
declines. Um marginal revenues decline from the most valuable space being developed and tax revenues decline with the reduction in area. >> Your time is up. >> Okay. So, it's a trade-off. Do you accept additional height um or do you
forgo additional tax revenues and housing? Thank you. >> Thank you, George. Our next speaker is Martha Gerchek. I love going after George. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Martha Yuk. I've
been a resident in Brooklyn for 40 years, nearly 20 at the current location on Heath Street. I live in precinct 15. I agree with the comments of many of my neighbors, especially with regard to height. I support resoning at the site for realistic commercial development and
housing. I want to add a bit of additional information. The first is in regard to what some have characterized as the neighborhood in transigence. At an earlier stage of this 2-year plus process, the Chestnut Hill Commercial Area Advisory Group asked RKG to
consider financial viability for redevelopment of the Chestnut Hill Office Park and their initial report recommended heights around six to seven stories. After sale of the property to city real estate management, a plan for 20, 18, and 16s story buildings was
proposed. The neighborhood collected signatures from 36 residents who supported quote heights generally consistent with the current zoning roughly seven stories. Subsequent re review by EDAB members concluded that market conditions required more height F
for redevelopment to be viable. Increasing building height beyond seven stories required more expensive steel high-rise construction. Since the neighborhood does support redevelopment of the Chestnut Hill commercial area, the neighborhood developed a consensus to support increased height consistent
with the gateway east zoning between Boilson Street and Pearl Street, which we understand is eight stories with an allowable height of 115 ft. We note that the neighbors are supporting heights that are significantly taller than any
building nearby along Route 9. We note that the tallest nearby buildings are five and six stories along Hammond Pond Parkway and the six-story building at Route 9 and Hammond Street. Why does height matter?
This issue reflects my concern about how development at Chestnut Hill establishes a new standard for height across Brooklyn. I support additional height to create housing, especially housing the town employees can afford along with viable commercial development.
The zoning proposed for the Ches Hill commercial area has not been coordinated with a comprehensive plan across Brooklyn. The neighborhood is willing to do our fair share of increased development and this zoning change should be consistent with Brooklyn's
vision of community character and neighborhood design. I am all for Brooklyn for everyone and by everyone. Finally, I want to raise a concern about the evolution of the Chestnut Hill commercial area advisory committee from a focus on reszoning the Chestnut Hill
study area to responding to the vision of one developer for a section of this area. I think the current reasonzoning proposal fails to consider other land owners here as well as the development in town as a whole as earlier stated.
>> I also want to add >> There we go. >> All right. Thank you, Martha. Our next speaker is Matt Hyatt. >> Good evening. Matt Hayyatt, committee member of precinct 4, chair of the planning board, appearing tonight in capacity as myself. I am one of the
folks who did sign that petition. Um, I have uh enjoyed the opportunity as a member of the planning board to actually work on a little bit of a workshop last week. We had a public hearing last Tuesday, at which point we could take the work that was done to us the week before and actually thoughtfully go
through it and figure out if we actually could support it as a group. Um, I came away from that feeling as if we actually have a really great foundational zoning uh warrant article to start from. Um, as you probably know, the zoning that was presented is not subject to any
particular project. It may have been informed by a project, but we looked at it in isolation as a zoning. um understanding that any major project would have to go through the normal uh project review that is part of our town process. So when it becomes a project, there would be more opportunity for
scrutiny and comment and public comment and hearing as we go forward. Uh we did have a little bit of uh discussion around the streetscape um street trees with the sidewalk setbacks and stepbacks. We did provide that information back to the staff as a product of our meeting. Um and we did
have some conversation about height um was interesting. uh the number of buildings in Brooklyn, particularly on Beacon Street that are 13 or 14 stories tall, kind of hiding in plain sight. We did ask that they maybe do an accounting of that. As you probably know, Brook House is 13 and 14 stories tall. We do
have tall buildings in Brooklyn. Um oftentimes you don't even realize it because um I think what happens at the street level, as you heard tonight, is probably the most important in terms of the day of the experience of folks. So, in terms of the proposal to reduce it from 14 to 10, um that's a missed
opportunity. You've already heard this tonight. While you have a building going up, to actually increase the elevator by four stops, to increase the number of units by those four stories of units, not only adds to the feasibility, but it's actually the most cost-effective way to get additional housing in Brooklyn without finding another site
and putting those floors someplace else. Um, and uh, again, the difference between 10 and 14 stories, in my opinion, is negligible in terms of the pedestrian experience. And it would be a great gateway west to Brooklyn to have some tall towers the same way we have the tall towers in Brooklyn East. I
personally wish the um the hotel in uh Gateway East was about four or five stories taller. We'll also offer many members of the planning board would actually like to see additional height beyond 14. We understand why 14 is proposed. Couple members would actually like to see it less. Um, but you'll see in the meeting notes in that meeting
that our straw poll has about five people in support of the warrant article as written and then two people who are likely going to not support it. So with that, thank you very much. >> Thank you, Matt. Our next speaker is Blair Hines. >> Hi, Blair Hines. I'm a member of the
planning board for over a decade and it's great for us. I get to follow up on on Matt's comments because I think I was one of the uh persons at the workshop who was dubious about the height and um I do appreciate my colleagues comments.
I think that one of the issues that uh affects height has to do with adjacency. And a lot of the taller buildings that um uh you look at along Beacon Street are nearby, if not directly next to a buildings that might be five, six
stories high. In this situation, the nearby of Butters are a one and a half story building, a two and a half story building, you know, smaller residences. And I think that's um uh needs to be considered. Uh but I wanted to also say that as a member of the planning board
um uh we have often advocated for zoning changes for upzoning. And it's no surprise that typically this has been strongly resisted uh even where you know many of us as designers think that this is a fairly uh reasonable and
appropriate uh height and u neighbors are not um willing to uh see it that way. Um I think that this neighborhood I think has come a long way in nearly accepting a doubling of the height from of the existing uh zoning there which is
60 uh feet and I think as um an earlier speakers have said it really came about in terms of listening to u economic viability. Uh we did take that seriously although our preference would be something that was more like keeping
five six seven stories at most. Uh I think we were um uh convinced that in fact that would result in this site not being redeveloped. And so we really felt like we needed to step up uh literally to a higher um uh uh project height. And
I think that we landed on the Gateway East project, which um I believe is 115 uh feet with I think some additional uh elevation relative to uh utilities on the roof as being um uh re a reasonable
compromise on our parts from what we would prefer to what we think might be necessary in order to have this be redeveloped. So I thank you for considering this matter and I don't envy your uh deliberation because there's a lot of competing uh issues here and I do
take you all at good faith in terms of your deliberation. Thank you. >> Thank you Blair. Our next speaker is Michael Berger. Michael Berger, a precinct 15, a town meeting member and uh member of the advisory board. I heard some words today
that are very interesting. One of the words I didn't hear is change. It might have been said, but not very often. I think that's part of the problem in changing the uh any neighborhood or anything we do requires some effort and
in order to make this very difficult and worthwhile change development there's got to be um a process that allows people to deal with the uncomfortableness of change and I think the option of the lower height the word
height keeps coming up again and again will make this project feasible to go through town meeting as Neil Gordon had had portended and and also be a better fit for the
neighborhood. You know the words gateway east, gateway west, those are kind of planning terms. When you're in the neighborhood, you don't think you're in gateway anything, right? So I think we have to be more neighborhoods savvy and uh I think the neighborhood has been
very supportive of a reasonable development. The other word that's really important is sustainability. We know we have a big um division of sustainability is important to the town but in terms of a u resident of the town
it's becoming less and less sustainable. So, we must put together a reasonable project that benefits the neighborhood and the town. Thank you. >> Thank you, Michael. Our next speaker is Hugh Joseph. He was online.
>> Am I upset? >> You're all set. >> Okay. Sorry. Um, I uh I'm Hugh Joseph. I live on Hammond Street in Chest Hill and I'm a
town meeting member for P15. Uh I also had a number of comments about the height which I'm not going to reiterate because they've already been stated but there's one sort of um perspective that I wanted to raise uh about how this
discussion is going that a couple of other people have stated that it's really um you know money versus money going on. money that the town needs uh to pay for its services and money that it's going to cost to by the developer
uh to make money and lose money and so on and so forth that we know. So why is this important? Well, because we're looking at a building and I'm looking at the sketches for it and how this building these buildings in in their size of three or four of them really
overwhelm the area around them. And so that's an oversized site. So does this matter? Well, let's look at through history. Um, what happens when big buildings go up? Well, for millennia, as long as, you know, thousands of years,
major construction, major major items have been built that overwhelm the areas, the towns, and the cities around them. And those are intentional and and they're
very pursued and and impressive. Uh I talk about cathedrals. I talk about um churches that stand out always way above the small houses below them. Um you have
to have like the Washington Monument. Um you have um uh all kinds of but uh of those kinds of structures that none of them were were ever built uh around money. You know they and some of them
have been there for hundreds of years even even thousands of years and then we come to the middle or late part of the 20th century and suddenly what goes up as a tall building is a skyscraper. Okay. And then suddenly it's dozens of
skyscrapers. You one goes up, two goes up and and and sometimes they're really impressive if they're in a condensed area like downtown cities. But when you go abroad and you go into cities where much of the construction is centuries old and a brand new skyscraper goes up,
it it sticks out like a sore thumb. It doesn't it's it's not it's not like something uh of a tower. It's not like the Washington Monument. It's not like the Eiffel Tower where people will travel to go and see it. Okay. And those weren't built by money, but these were.
And there's nothing to stop somebody from coming in next. >> Your time is up. >> Okay. I'll stop from there. Thank you. >> Thank you, Hugh. Our next speaker is James Ror. >> All right. Okay, we may have an opportunity to go back to him later. Our
next speaker is Jane Flanigan >> online. >> Hi. Um, my name is Jane Flanigan and I'm a town meeting member from precinct 15 and a member of the Chestnut Hill Advisory Group. I live at 854 Hammond Street for the record and I want to thank the select board for um allowing
us this public hearing and providing the opportunity to voice our concerns. I agree with others who spoken before me about the height of the building. So I'm not going to go on too much longer about that. But I do want to say the letter that you've received expresses consensus
of 42 out of 45 town meeting members in precincts 14 through 16 that are opposing the height of this building. We are the neighbors that live closest to this project. As one of my tongue my one of my neighbors in neighborhood meetings when I met with them said if we wanted
the seapport experience we could always go to the seapport but this scaling is too massive for this neighborhood and for Brookline in general. While the comprehensive plan advertises it isn't complete without you make your voices heard. It is important to note that the
Chestnut Hill Advisory Committee shifted from a comprehensive approach to redesigning and reszoning the entire area and focusing on one specific project and ignoring the other subdists in the area. We are being asked to do overlay zoning of an entire area from
the Newton line west to Dunster Street east on Route 9 south as well as a parcel on Route 9 north that includes the gas stations and CVS in the parking lot and four homes. The proposed reasonzoning needs, excuse me, to
consider the entire area, not just the one side of the street, excuse me, not just the one site of the office park. We only touched on the plans for Route 9 north at our last meeting. There was no substantive discussion. This is why we
are asking you to pause on that Route 9 north and we are asking you to make sure that you actually consider our concerns about the height. The issue with Route 9 North is the property owners are not even currently interested in selling or um and they
hold long-term leases there. We do not know what else is coming to Route 9 south. So, we don't know what that impact will be because we never got to discuss that. There is no current need to include Route 9 north in the plans. It still concerns me and others that
this plan is not a comprehensive one for the entire area. We do not know what to expect from the other subdivisions, subdists, excuse me. However, what you have in our letter reflects our consensus. Thank you for your time. I am very grateful for it and I appreciate
your willingness to hear our concerns. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jane. Our next speaker is Shaun Lyn Jones. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. I'm Shaun Lynn Jones, town meeting member from Precinct
One. I'm also president of the Brooklyn Greenspace Alliance and a member of the executive board of the Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance. But I'm speaking solely for myself. Um, my most fundamental recommendation is that the
select board find a way to put this proposal perhaps with some modifications on the warrant for the May 2026 annual town meeting. I don't reach that conclusion lightly and uh have looked closely at the materials and the context
here and there are three reasons why I make this argument. First, the overall fiscal situation of the town is bleak. We need more revenue. As a former chair of the advisory committee, the town's finance committee, I can't remember
seeing a more dire long-term outlook. Uh that makes it incumbent upon us to look at every opportunity for additional revenue, particularly from commercial development. Second, if the town is going to ask the voters to approve an operating override,
a May 2026 election or a subsequent election, the town needs to make every effort to find other sources of revenue. So, it's not telling voters that the only way we're going to balance budgets in the future is through another series
of large operating overrides. We have to communicate that effectively to voters. And number three, I think putting this on the warrant is the best way to have a debate that fully engages the community, fully engages town meeting, and also
provides the opportunity for the advisory committee, every other board, commission, and commission committee and commission that reviews Walmart articles to weigh in. Uh, and I think that will be a very valuable contribution. I'm sure the Chestnut Hill Commercial Areas
Committee did a lot of work and so did the staff, but I'm sure improvements could be made and should be made to any warrant article that is put forward at the May 26 town meeting. Um, I will say that I urge the select board to as my
colleague from precinct one, Neil Gordon said, choose wisely. Proponents uh shoot themselves in the foot when they say take it or leave it about their proposal. when they say that amendments are impossible or when they write language to make any amendments outside
the scope, there needs to be a full robust debate before we reach a decision. And that outcome uh might not be no or yes, but a referral. I don't know how I'm going to vote myself, whether it will be favorable action, no action, or referral on any warrant
article regarding the Chestnut Hill commercial area, but I do know I would like the opportunity to cast that vote after a reasoned uh and indepth consideration and debate by town meeting. So, I hope that in mind, thank
you very much. >> Thank you, Sean. Our next speaker is Diane Baker. Good evening. Uh my name is Diane Baker. Uh my husband Ed and I live at 731 He Street. Uh we've been there for 42
years. We bought a house from a retired Brooklyn policeman who lived there for many years before that uh with his five he and his wife with five children. When we were moving in from another we were
moving in from another area in Brooklyn uh with our kids, two kids, eighth and ninth graders. He shared with us the disappointment that he had with the town of Brooklyn. He said um
he told us that he was quite upset about the town taking away the park at the uh near the um down the street um where where um the the success the sort of
unsuccessful Chestnut Hill Office Park is. The change offered really nothing to the local residents and it seems in the end not a whole lot to Brooklyn. It's the same place where the town is now proposing this new Chestn Hill
commercial area. This is a neighborhood that's been a neighborhood for many years, many more than the 42 years that we've lived there. It's not just a few people who live off Route 9 who will be affected by this development. It's um
the needs um it it wasn't just the few people who lived off Route 9 who were affected by the um playground loss of the playground. The needs and concerns of the residents must be taken into account as you develop this area. As has been said many times tonight, we want to
support the town uh in favor of commercial and mixeduse development on a scale that fits into the neighborhood. Approving this current proposal will establish an unw unwelcome precedent in not only for our neighborhood but for
all the other uh for the whole of Brookline as well. Thank you. >> Thank you Diane. Our next speaker is Greg Hoffman. >> Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Uh my name is Greg Hoffman. Uh I live uh in precinct 15 at 725 Heath Street uh with my wife Stephanie Walker. Um, I want to sort of address the fact that the neighborhood has really been in support of reasonable and responsible development of this parcel from the
beginning. Uh, and in particular at the beginning of this process, the neighborhood really and quite unanimously supported the recommendations of the RKG study um that suggested this this parcel could be developed uh to meet the needs of the town and in a financially viable way.
Um, with as you've heard six or seven stories. Um, I think the goal of a zoning process is really to incentivize the interests of the town and ensure that development is in aligned with those interests. And as you've heard, that has been really to increase the commercial tax base and to address sort
of housing shortages within the town. Unfortunately, I think the way this zoning process has been run has really been uh reactive to the narrow interests of a single developer rather than really taking into account the the broad interests of the town and considering
the entire uh Chestnut Hill commercial area as you heard earlier from Jane Flanigan. And so, the reason that this support that this proposal has lost support of the neighborhood is not because the neighborhood isn't is opposed to development in this area. In fact, it's not in the neighborhood
interest to have a vacant commercial space in our neighborhood. We really want a vibrant development here. But I think what has happened is the process has been really hijacked by a particular developer. I would really encourage the select board to consider the fact that this is really because we haven't done a
proactive zoning process that would really incentivize the right partner for Brookline. And I would uh argue that the developer that we have now is not the right partner for uh the development of this parcel. And that's really because this process hasn't been done in a
comprehensive way. Um I think the town the the neighborhood feels that they have not really received the information that we've asked for in particular um the financial models to justify both making this viable for the developer as well as the tax revenue that this would
generate. I think that there's real concern that the increase in the residential development will require additional services for the town and that this really will not realize the tax benefits that are are being asserted by the developer. Um I think that this
is something that really should be addressed and really reflects again the process. Um, getting to the comments from the gentleman from Newton, the fact that our neighbors in Newton were not addressed in terms of some of the traffic mitigation processes really reflects how the neighborhood has felt
in terms of how uh our children who are walking to and from the SU uh preschool area as well as getting back and forth from the high school um have uh felt in terms of the fact that we have not really addressed uh the the traffic
impacts and the mitigation uh and how those will be mitigated. your time is up >> realistic way. So, thank you. I in conclusion really support um reconsidering zoning of this entire area in a comprehensive way as as Jane suggested. >> Thank you, Greg. Our next speaker is
Susan Deetsz. >> I'm Susan Dats. I live at 727 Heath Street. Um, I did send you a letter. I'm not going to uh reiterate what I said. I I'm just here in support of great uh my neighbors who have just spoken. Um, we have a wonderful neighborhood. I've
lived in uh in in the neighborhood for over 30 years and I hope you'll reconsider um what Greg just said and and many of my other neighbors. Thank you. >> Thank you, Susan. Our next speaker is
Katha Seidman. Good evening. My name is Kathy Seidman. I'm town meeting member Precinct 2. I'm on the Brooklyn Arts Commission and a board member of Brooklyn for Everyone, though tonight I speak only for myself.
Since the great downzoning of the early 1970s, Brooklyn has neglected to add the kind of housing and commercial development our growing population and our town's fiscal health required. 20 years ago, our last comprehensive plan promoted the development of
Chestnut Hill commercial area and other large sites in Brooklyn. Two years ago, the select board approved the housing production plan, which also supported incentivizing development on this and other sites. And finally, I am sure everyone here knows, as we have heard
many times tonight, almost two years ago, the select board appointed a committee charged with finding the best way to develop this area so the town could begin to address its fiscal deficit by incentivizing commercial and other development on this significantly underutilized site.
In the almost two years since the committee's kickoff, there have been many site visits, 19 public hearings along with more informal meetings, many many hours of staff and consultant time and presentations along the way to the select board EDAB and the HAB and the
planning board. All devoted to designing both the specific project on the city realy lot as well as drafting the four overlay district regulations. It's well past time to permit the revitala revitalization of this large
site and the others across our town so Brooklyn can finally realize new tax revenue while providing additional housing the town so desperately needs including deedrestricted affordable housing. The city realy proposal and the zoning
proposed in the overlay districts are exactly the kind of feasible, well-designed, well-vetted upgrades Brooklyn should encourage. I understand that 14 stories may seem out of scale with what exists nearby, but my actual experience of living in a single family
district with within one to two blocks of many tall buildings in most of them in Boston is defined by what I see and experience at street level. tree canopied parks and front yards, shaded sidewalks, and the interesting ground level residences, offices, and shop
windows that make every walk from Comm to Koolage Corner an engaging experience. Sacrificing public open space for a lower building with a larger footprint would make the street level more isolating, repetitive, and canyon-like.
Placemaking happens at street level and to the extent zoning can incentivize placemaking, the proposed overlay districts do a remarkably good job. I'm asking the select board to support this opportunity for Brooklyn to upgrade one of its most important large sites and
advance the planning department's recommended BHCA articles to town meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you, Cath. Our next speaker is Zana Tali. Good evening. Um, thanks for holding the public hearing this evening. My name is
Zana Tal. I'm a resident of Kulage Corner and I serve on EDAB and I've also served on the uh community advisory group. Um, and I'm also a developer. Um, I wanted to show up here tonight just to reassure everyone that the process of
vetting this master plan has been extensive. I've sat in meetings for the last two years. We've looked at the planning. We've looked at feasibility. We've been a community of neighbors as well as um ex experts from the city of
Brooklyn who have scrutinized this proposal and in no way are serving the interest of a of one developer. But what I do know is that we need to modernize and update our zoning throughout Brooklyn and Chestnut Hill is just an example of maybe potentially how we go
about doing it. Um I support the Warren article and I have to say that I think tonight we're agreeing on a number of things. We're agreeing that we need to reshape our zoning so that we can open it up to a more mixeduse development. that was not the case when with the kind
of how Chestnut Hill was originally imagined because it really was primarily a commercial area. But we're hearing from everyone the importance of having housing that can serve a large number of people at different income levels and we're also recognizing that we do need more height because we're running out of
land and there's no way to make up new parcels. And the new height reality is something that we're facing everywhere. I look across the river at Cambridge, in Somerville, they've had uh investment in biotech, which is a market that has left the station today in Boston, but it will
come back. If we don't think about the next 10 years, we won't and start making change now with our zoning. We won't be in a position to reap the benefits of that increased tax base that we're all looking for. I also want to be really sensitive and respectful to the
neighbors who will have to put up with construction cranes, um, delivery trucks, noise, and I want to make sure that we continue to refine this master plan. I beyond arguing over height, my
concern is that if we chop a few floors off, we just will have a project that's not feasible. I would much rather see community engagement, ensure that our pedestrian experience and public spaces at the ground level and active retail serves the community. I'd love to see a
daycare center, you know, services that truly support the neighborhood and and negotiate over those components than to really make height the only negotiable ticket. And just to reiterate, the
entire site is not expected to be 14 stories tall. It's a bell curve. 14 is with bonus. So there's a lot of nuances to how zoning happens and incentives are put in place that can really inform some of the concerns. Your time is up. I've heard people come up. Thank you very
much. >> Thank you, Zena. I I I do want to say though, if you had She was given three minutes. >> All right. So, we did give George Cole five as a member of EDAB. So, if you want a couple more minutes, you can you can go ahead and use them. >> I I think I've covered all of it, but I
I really just want to go back to the concern I have over reducing height. I encourage you as guardians of our town and our budgets to look closely at the financial feasibility that George talked about. This was based on real data, real
numbers, and it doesn't it's not rocket science to figure out how to add up numbers and see um how they balanced against income and rents and cost of housing. Uh we're but we're increasingly in a very tricky point in time. You know, Seapport was zoned during the
subprime mortgage debacle and then it took off. I think what I really want to emphasize here is that a decision today will take 10 years for us to see an actual result and that's the kind of timeline we're looking for. So if we continue to delay this, we're just
delaying an opportunity to see some of that tax revenue take shape. Thank you. >> Thank you, Zena. Uh our next speaker is Beia Einstein or Ben Einstein. Hi, my name is Ben. I don't have
expertise in traffic. I don't have relationships with Newton or expertise in that. I don't have expertise in architecture or urban planning. I'm just a guy who lives in Brooklyn who is trying to support his wife through school who can barely afford it because of housing costs. I'm also part of a lonely generation that needs third
spaces and places to be in public. Uh, this project seems like it would be a great step to all of those. more tax money, more housing. More housing is cheaper housing and more third spaces. If I have any hope of staying in Brooklyn, I need this project and I need others like it. When you're talking about building housing and affordable
housing, money versus people is a false dichotomy. We need money so that we can have people. Uh it seems like there was an exhaustive process by a really knowledgeable group of people and I'm really grateful for them. It seems like they've determined that 14 stories minimum for real commercial viability.
So, I'd urge you to please put uh the unchanged proposal to town meeting. Thanks. >> Thank you, Ben. Our next speaker is Deborah Brown. >> Good evening. My name is Deborah Brown, Brooklyn resident for almost 25 years
now. Uh I am on the board of the Brooklyn Community Development Corporation as well as uh Brooklyn for everyone and I am speaking in my individual capacity as a Brooklyn resident. Uh I strongly support the
special overlay zoning as written. It's it's an opportunity for Brooklyn. It's an opportunity that we have historically passed off and we're not going to get many more.
I've looked at the site proposal again and again. I' I've gone through and listened to some of the feedback from folks and you know it it seems like a reasonable opportunity for the broader community.
We can't get wedded to underutilization of our limited natural resources as a way to live. It's killing us. It is financially killing us. As I look at this as that once in a
generation opportunity, I'm thinking about the economic development as as an elderly person who is paying taxes, whose income may not be extremely fixed, but it is fixed. And as taxes go up, I have to struggle with that. It's an
opportunity for affordable housing. When I hear $11 million going into the affordable housing trust fund and 20 units of affordable deed restricted affordable housing, you know the things I think about when I look at this group, I I comment to somebody. You know what?
I'm the only black face in the room. And you say, "Well, what does that have to do with this?" Well, here's part of what happens. When you open things up, then you get greater diversity. You get different ideas, but one of the
things that Brooklyn always talks about being is a community committed to diversity and inclusion. That's racial, that's economic. This is probably going to be the biggest
opportunity over the next 10 years to have that impact. And so when we talk about the impact that it h the negative impact that it's going to have on people, I want you to think about the positive impact, the lifechanging impact
that this kind of development can have for families that literally will never have such an opportunity if we continue with the status quo. So let's not stand in the way of
potential success. Let's think about the greater good. Let's think about all our neighbors, the halves and the have nots. It's our chance to make Brooklyn more inclusive. >> Your time is >> more affordable. So, I ask you all be
brave. >> Thank you, Deborah. Our next speaker is Charles Homer. Yes, good evening. My name is Charles Homer, a resident of and town meeting member for precinct 8, chair of the advisory council on public health.
Speaking for myself, I was reluctant to speak tonight because the select board uh is very familiar with uh how I feel about housing in our community. We I've spoken many times about the importance of housing as it relates to our comprehensive uh health improvement plan
for the community. Uh however, I have another hat that I also wear, which is that I have served as assistant secretary for health overseeing the federal government's anti-poverty programs and have worked at economic mobility uh pathways and organization committed to helping people get out of
poverty. Matt Desmond has recently written a whole book on poverty in the United States. And in fact, poverty is a policy choice in our country. And the reason that we continue to have poverty is communities such as Brooklyn put walls around our community that keep
people out. Uh the sociologist Richard Reeves has called this dream hoarding. Those of us who have access to schools, who have access to the kinds of safety and communities that we live in, but walls around it make it difficult to
change by preserving our community character. The opportunity we have here at this uh current proposed development reflected in the zoning uh is as Deborah Brown said the best opportunity we have to enhance opportunity and access to our
community that we have seen in many years and we will likely to see in many years. So on behalf um uh let me also point out that there have been a number of recent articles by Raj Cheddy and his colleagues that say the best way for children uh of low income to advance
over the course of their lives is to live in the kinds of diverse communities where there are high opportunities such as Brooklyn is. So again, I urge you to put this uh before us at town meeting in the fall so that we can uh prove the doubters such as Matt Desmond wrong and
say we are in fact not a community that's putting walls around us and we are encouraging not just for our whole community which people have spoken but in fact our region and our nation to be a beacon. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Charles. Our next speaker is
Roger Blood. Uh, Roger, are you going to be speaking on behalf of the HAB or All right, so five minutes for Roger. >> Thank you, David. Good evening. I'm Roger Blood. Um, chair of the HAB and, uh, speaking for the HAB for your HAB.
Um, the the housing advisory board uh, actually met and discussed and voted twice on the um, Chestnut Hill West proposal and the Chestnut Hill Office Park, CHOP. uh both times um enthusiastic and unanimous in support of
the the plans. The first time it was for the uh city realy proposal for the the near-term development that's well along the way and the second time it was for the overall zoning of the u the larger Chestnut Hill West area. In the second
uh vote, we were um particularly a new thing we looked at was the uh in the rest of the area an opportunity for uh affordable housing to be developed um for the first time under um what's generally known as a density bonus. And uh it would be an example of an
affordable housing overlay district where some additional height would be granted if there were up to 50% affordable housing to be included in in that zone. But I think we're talking more about the first um uh uh city realy uh development this evening and the HAB
um is very uh supportive of this for a lot of reasons. Um, obviously we're housing focused and this um this development uh offers almost anything we could consider with regard to housing, but when um when a proposal like this
comes along and there's not very many um we're really um also happy to look at the the the fact that there's more than housing involved here and there are town goals um expressed in a variety of plans and documents relating to uh fiscal
advantages that will come out of this um that you've already heard about tonight and mixeduse and commercial development. Um this is a a wonderful mix of both commercial and housing. Um the uh the great advantage for the housing is again
within that um a considerable variety where as you have already heard um there are both um rental uh affordable on-site housing 21 units in one of the buildings um uh it's not the first phase but it's
it's there. uh 21 units out of and um 40 uh rental uh uh uh apartments. And then in the um the most interesting uh and the most discussed this evening as well uh building uh A I believe is the mixeduse um highest building on the on
the site that includes both a 200 room hotel combined with um and this was a new word for us but it's uh it's pretty obvious what it means. amenitized um condominiums uh at top the upper floors of the building that's combining
a hotel and and um luxury condominiums. Uh one example of this that many of us are familiar with in Boston of course is the old Ritz Carlton when it was redeveloped. Um th this is an important um part of the of the site uh because
it's getting uh an advancement of our overall housing production goals. Um, obviously we're interested in uh affordable housing, indeed restricted housing, but as you've already heard, um, in the case of the uh the condominiums, and there's 126 of them,
which normally would have produced under our inclusionary zoning, 19 on-site units, um, the, uh, the long discussions and analysis and I think in the outcome from the HABs perspective and hopefully from the towns eventually is that um, it's really in the town's uh, best
interest from a housing uh perspective for that particular building and those condominiums to to be generating the um the nearly $11 million uh from the uh from that uh that development for the housing trust as a cash payment which
would come in um $87,000 on the average for each of the 126 thou uh units in the in the property. Um that will produce um by uh conservative estimates and based upon our looking at
the recent track record of the uh of the affordable housing trust anywhere from 80 to 100 uh new deed restricted affordable units um at at the time and the place that that the town feels it would best serve serve the town uh through u missionbased developers uh
nonprofits or the Brooklyn Housing Authority. Um, one other um, aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned yet that I think is worth noting. Um, we've heard for as long as many years as I can remember, why isn't Brooklyn, um, uh,
developing in a more geographically dispersed manner throughout the town, uh, its housing and especially it's its affordable housing. And um if you look at a map and some of us that went last night to the uh comprehensive uh planning event which was terrific uh
Paul thank you is that um this property will um when developed with its affordable housing uh contribute considerably not just in total but to the the diversity of affordable housing including in Chestnut Hill um and not far from where I live. Thank you very
much. >> Thank you Roger. Our next speaker is Alyssa Plazagna. >> Thank you. Um, sorry I had to be be um be be off uh unmuted. Um, so Alisa Plazanja, I'm a 30-year resident of precinct 8, but for 13 years, my parents
lived in the west building of Hammondswood, which is at 629 Hammond, uh, which is actually on Heath Street, adjacent to the Holyhood Cemetery, and this proposed project. So, I've spent a lot of time in this area, and I think
this project sounds great in concept. Um, I mean, who wouldn't want more housing in mixeduse development with more open space and more tax dollars coming in? But from a practical perspective, based on the many years I
have spent in this area, I cannot imagine how this area is going to be able to absorb the increased traffic that would be created by the proposed density. Um, as it is, Route Nine and Hammond is a pinch point that is a
nightmare during rush hour and that's morning and night. Um, I honestly had to laugh at the rendering on page 28 of the presentation that shows such light traffic during broad daylight in that section of Route 9. That is that area is
never not bumper-to-bumper traffic. Um if I understood the comments at the start of this meeting there was a traffic study um is underway but has not been completed and which if that's true that's sort of mindblowing um and the
alleged traffic mitigation plans that have been discussed sound completely impractical. Um, I get that it's a great location with access to transit, but this is still very much a suburban location and I expect that residents
would still rely on cars and that needs to be anticipated along with the stream of delivery vehicles that is part of the delivery economy we live in, UPS, FedEx, Uber Eats, Door Dash all day long, um, sometimes all night long. I realize that
a lot of work and good faith effort has been invested in this proposal to date, but absent a thorough analysis of the traffic issues, which are very, very, very real and would only get worse, to me, this proposal seems like not ready for prime time, and I don't think it
should be put forward to town meeting until the traffic issues have been fully vetted and there's a realistic plan for how they're going to be mitigated. Thank you. Thank you, Melissa. And uh that is our
final speaker for the public hearing. Uh so I'm curious about whether any other select board members have some thoughts. >> Oh, I actually I have a question. Sure. Um maybe George is George Cole still here or someone from maybe the planning
the planning department uh could could answer this come up and answer this question. It's an easy question. That could be a lie. Um, first, thank you, George. Thank you. Um, so several times it's been
referenced that RKG did a study and they said that the financial feasibility was six to eight stories. Could someone help me understand how what RKG study was, how they concluded, and why we've got a different proposal?
>> So, RKG's it was sort of a a preliminary concept based on we'd come through the community engagement process. Um, we'd received input on sort of what people would be comfortable with in terms of height and there were a lot of references to existing height precedents. Um, and then
we also had just concluded the real estate market analysis which identified sort of the most likely potential commercial uses that we could see in Chestnut Hill. So, RKG took sort of a preliminary stab at sort of like this is what you know the Chestnut Hill office park as the catalytic parcel in the
study area might lend itself to in terms of development. I believe that scheme also included like a two-story lab building. Um I think ultimately if we had continued to sort of um work on that specific uh example, it would have been refined and I'm certain that the EDUB subcommittee was would have also had
amendments to that and it would have modified and changed as we were looking at more financial feasibility. Um so I would say you know and at that point um city realy had a redevelopment concept that they were ready to present publicly. Um so we no longer had to talk about the Ches Hill office park in an
abstract way. we had a developer proposal um and the financial feasibility u that they were presenting to consider. >> Okay. But but according to this RKG was 100% off almost 100% off from 6 to 8 to now we're at 14 to 58.
>> And I believe that there was also there wasn't a one particular scheme. There were a um set of different scenarios at different scales that they were presenting for the purpose of discussion and then further refinement. >> Okay. And maybe could I ask one more question?
>> It's probably for George. Um or maybe whoever can answer it. Um I've heard much about the the value of the top two floors of the tall building that you know floor 13 and 14 is where the money
is. I assume these are very very expensive. Someone mentioned the Ritz Carlton. Who mentioned the Ritz Carlton? Roger. The Ritz Carlton. That's what we need in Brooklyn. um you know, concier whatever at the top. Um and I understand
that as the as you go up in height, the the the value of those units increases. Is that >> is that true? Okay. >> Typically, yes. >> Typically. So, um I won't I'm not going to have judgment yet. I have some judgment about this,
but I'm not going to yet. Um, if the building's 12 stories, is floor 11 and 12 still very valuable because it's the top? >> Sure. >> Sure. Is it much less valuable than floors if if there was no 13 and 14th
floor? Are they still very valuable? >> Of course. >> Of course. Okay. So, >> you're talking about additional units. >> Yeah, I understand. >> But, you know, you're not just >> Yeah, but but what I I was told that they go up by like 3%. So it goes up
like two or three% per floor. Is this true? >> There are different pricing strategies, but typically there are incremental increases as uh you get up in height. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else have questions or comments,
John? Uh simply to thank the committee that worked on this, thank the neighbors, um thank everyone who's here tonight. I have to say in um recent weeks uh and months sometimes we have meetings where almost nobody comes and we feel very lonely and we didn't feel
lonely tonight. So and um uh I'm going to uh take advantage if I may of a personal privilege which is to thank the person who is taking care of the home that we first had as our first home in Brooklyn where our two kids were born.
And I am so thrilled that that house is still there. I I get a kick out of just driving by it and don't don't think me weird if I drive by your house a lot. But uh it's a wonderful neighborhood and and we've heard from people in the neighborhood tonight how much they love
that neighborhood. And um this is um you know it's one of those moments when you realize the political can be very very personal. Um I'm going to add one more personal note which is George is a neighbor of mine. So, I mean, how many
connections can you have personally to an issue? Um, in this case, I feel like I I I've never had as many personal connections to an issue as this one. It's not going to be an easy one to decide, but hearing from everyone tonight um has made it um uh I I think a
little bit easier to at least um assure ourselves that we've allowed everyone to speak. We've allowed everyone to um express their views. Uh we on the select board are going to have to balance this very carefully in the decision we make. I have a feeling that this is going to turn out well for Brooklyn whether it's
14 or whether it's 12. I think it's going to turn out well for Brooklyn largely because of the participation such of people such as spoke tonight. So thank you. >> Oh uh thanks John for your for your comments. So I I will uh share just a
little bit of commentary and and like John I want to thank everybody for coming out. Um it takes time to do this. I know I've been through uh you know a neighborhood issue with development that was really concerning for for neighbors. Um so I I really understand um what you
how you're feeling and how it can feel uh uh daunting and insurmountable. Um, but I I also want to thank um uh city realy um and their council uh town council uh you know former town council
as well as um uh Bobby Allen's law firm. Uh they do a great job and they know how to navigate things. Um and like John said, you know, there is a solution here. I don't think there I I can speak for myself. Um I can't imagine not putting something on the warrant. I do think something needs to go on the
warrant. we do need to bring something before a town meeting. Um Neil Gordon uh hinted at this. Um there there's there's trouble with reaching the level of uh of support that you would need to pass this
particular uh solution, this proposal at town meeting. I believe that's that's probably true uh based on the feedback. Um I'm I'm with Michael. Uh, I benefited from being able to help pass the MBTA Communities Act. So, I understand what it takes to get to a two-thirds vote.
It's hard. Takes a tremendous amount of work. Um, and I can I have a very strong sense that we're not there yet. Um, but I do think that, um, the opportunity is before us. The way Deb said, uh, much of what Brookline for Everyone has said, we need housing. Um, I've heard others say
we need commercial development, but we also need, you know, livable communities, communities that we can benefit from, that we can embrace, uh, and enjoy, uh, and make make it liveable. Um, I support all of that. Um, ultimately, I think we need to come up with something, um, a solution that can
get a two-thirds vote to town meeting. Um, I absolutely believe that's there. Um, I don't know if it's exactly what's in front of us, but I'm confident that we could get there, and I'm hoping that everybody involved will keep an open mind and find a way to find a solution. So, I'm committed to helping with that. Um, and I would be pleased to support
that um, should I be a town meeting in May. Thank you. >> I would also like to support the idea of collaboration between all sides here. I think it's critically important that we not ignore anybody's concerns, but by
the same token that we also look at the big picture about the big the best interests for the town. I think we can balance all of these elements effectively. I do want to point out that the neighborhood which uh sometimes in
these situations people will say, "Oh, look at those nimbies. They don't want anything next to them." But here, I think they deserve a lot of credit. They are already on record saying that they would be fine with essentially doubling the current height that is allowed by
zoning there. So that is already a tremendous concession on their part that we don't typically see in uh these types of development debates when we are looking to reszone. So they deserve a lot of credit there and I don't think
that we ought to be ignoring them when they want to ensure that their community remains livable and that it is enjoyable for visitors as well of course because obviously if this comes to pass and I certainly hope that some variation of it
does we will want it to be attractive to those who live in the neighborhood but also to those who will visit it so that the commercial is vibrant and thriving. So I am cautiously optimistic that the neighborhood, city realy, the town can
come together, hopefully refine this proposal so that we could ideally come to town meeting with a consensus just as uh Paul and Michael worked so hard on with the MBTCA uh consensus plan that passed overwhelmingly. That's the model
that I would like to see happen here and I'm hopeful that we can achieve it. But it is going to take some further negotiation and give and take by all three of these parties that I just referenced. Michael. So, first of all, um uh since I've been
involved with the uh community advisory group uh since my election in May, um I have had the privilege and the honor to engage um with members of the community, um with uh the members of city realy,
with my colleagues on the select board, um and also especially with the members of our town staff in the planning department. Um and while I would like to thank you all personally personally and um recognize the uh the comments of my
colleagues, um I also particularly want to uh recognize our town staff who have been balancing a very complex set of trade-offs um in the development of this space which as has been mentioned has
been on the town's plate for over 20 years. Um and like my colleagues, um I am uh excited and looking forward to this coming to fruition and coming to town meeting this May. Um the trade-offs
that the town staff has balanced and um everybody has expressed this evening um are uh very complex and very interwoven. Um but like my colleagues um I believe that there is a way forward. Um and that
the concerns of the neighborhood, the interests of the town which have also been expressed by many um as well as the need for economic viability um for the project can all be brought together. Um and I raised this issue of economic
viability because I think there is a general consensus both amongst the com the comments um as well as um the select board's deliberations that uh in all considerations
um no action is is really the worst outcome for all of us. Um, and so as the neighbors have indicated, um, and the members of the community have indicated, we are trying to get this area redeveloped. Um, I think we all share
that common goal. Um, and I am looking forward to helping with my colleagues and all of the people involved to realize that goal soon. >> All right. Anyone else? Bernard, now
>> Bernard, do you want to jump in at all? >> Well, I'll just add to what everyone else is saying. Um, don't need to, but I will. Um, my main concern is that we don't lose this opportunity that will come around once in a generation. Um, I think we can, um, we we can find a way
to, uh, have success, uh, in in this area. Uh it just takes um a willingness for people to uh find the uh common ground uh and work hard. Um I'm not going to make any commitments at this
time in terms of anything such as height um you know issues that uh other issues that have come up such as traffic you know which is always a concern but um I think we'll get there. We just have to um be willing to uh work hard, but more
importantly, be willing to be open-minded. This is not going to be easy. All right. Thank you. And with that, we can close the public hearing and we will move on to our next item. Thank you
everyone for coming. As John mentioned, it can sometimes be very quiet here, but this item obviously attracted a lot of attention. So, thank you for sharing your views. Uh, I I would appreciate that. Uh, as you're walking out, if we could be a little quieter, Michael, what
you would like a break? >> I was just going to say we might want to take two minutes. Let >> Sure. We'll take a five minute break. Good. What do we just have? We have the Next up is Civil Immigration Enforcement Proclamation review and possible vote on
proclamation relating to civil immigration enforcement in Brooklyn. And Chaz, maybe you want to provide some backstory to this. >> Sure. Um so the town the town was approached uh by the city of Boston about two weeks ago to talk about um
local immigration enforcement um and how that's changed in the recent administration particularly in light of the uh activity uh in Minneapolis and up near Portland in Maine. Um and then in late January, the governor issued an
executive order, executive order 650, which among other things bars uh immigration, the use of uh uh civil use of state facilities uh to facilitate civil immigration enforcement efforts or to conduct enforcement activity in
non-public spaces of public buildings. Um, we had uh discussions with uh sta at the staff level uh between Boston and other uh uh members of the Metro Mayor's Coalition including Newton, Cambridge,
Somerville, Chelsea, and Lynn. Um Lynn most notably in talking with Mayor Nicholson and his staff um has seen significant um uh ICE use of public facilities uh for uh immigration enforcement purposes. Um, city manager
Fidel Maltzes of Chelsea obviously has seen a huge amount of ice activity in his uh area as well. Um, but you know, all of those communities um have seen ICE in their in the environment. Um all of them uh wanted to be responsive to
community concerns um about uh immigration enforcement um particularly again in light of the the way that it's being conducted elsewhere um and the real possibility that similar um efforts might happen in this area. Um we took a
look internally at the uh Boston uh executive order that Mayor Woo signed. Um we uh and by we I mean myself uh police chief Jennifer Pastor uh and town council Joe Kalan as well as first assistant town council uh Jonathan
Simpson. Um all of us understood the um the the effort that it was trying to make. It is really hard as a locality to address federal law enforcement activity. Um, we cannot ban ICE from
operating. We cannot arrest ICE when they're in the middle of operations that we cannot there's a lot we can't do um from a local standpoint and that frustrates residents. So, we want to be really clear to folks about what the
expectations are. Um and we thought that Boston's efforts were very, you know, good in terms of um you know, messaging their um uh upset and and concern with ISIS behavior, but we also felt that
certain elements of it were likely uninforceable. And what we wanted to do was think about what can we do that's going to stick, what are we going to do that's going to have the most impact in terms of what the community wants while also managing that community expectation. Um, it's really important
to make sure that we maximize the effectiveness of what we do, not just the loudness of the message. Although, again, I think, you know, that's not to take away from the effort that Boston made in trying to get out ahead of this and we really uh are grateful to for their efforts and their leadership and
their partnership with us. Um, it's just in our in our view, we wanted to be really mindful of how to make this effective. We were also guided by um guidance we received from the uh Massachusetts Association of Police Chiefs, usually commonly referred to as
mass chiefs. Um they reviewed the Boston IM um civil uh excuse me, executive order and had some concerns with it. Um we took those into consideration. Um the biggest kind of concern there was the concern about if police officers are
called to a scene where ICE is active, >> what are they going to Um >> Marty, can we >> That's Marty. >> I muted it. >> Okay. Um what are we, you know, what's what's the expectation there? Um we don't want to get in a situation like
situations that we've seen, for example, in Worcester where the police have been called to an active ICE uh ICE activity. Um they are trying to do their jobs, trying to verify what's going on, what's happening. Um there's unrest. People get
upset. people get upset that the police aren't doing what they want them to do. Um, altercations start and then the police wind up arresting protesters or, you know, members of the public instead of ICE, which is what people want. Uh, and then it just creates this this this perception, oh, the police are working
for ICE. The police are supporting immigration activity when that's not what they wanted to do in the first place. They want to be building trust with the community. um and ensuring assuring the community that if criminal activity or suspected criminal activity like what happened um to the individuals
in Minneapolis um occurs um there are rules about there being a duty to intervene for law enforcement officers, right? regardless of rank, regardless of um department. Um in under Massachusetts law, if some if a police officer sees
another law enforcement agent doing something using excessive force, um they are uh and it's a clearcut case of excessive force. They are not just allowed um they are obligated under our uh policy to intervene. Um and so what
mass chiefs wanted was real clarity on that. Um to set the expectations accordingly so that people understand that um what are we going to do if we see violations of this policy? Um we're going to try and enforce them in court.
Um we're not going to be able to walk up and arrest ICE or tell ICE to you know, you know, we're not we're not going to be able to do that if we see ICE activity in uh in a municipal parking lot. Um but what we are going to be able to do is point to this and use this as
the legal basis to prohibit the behavior um of and I want to be clear you know this is this document is not just about you know it's about any civil immigration enforcement. So, if there are local uh if there are local law enforcement agencies that decide to sign
agreements with ICE, uh the state has currently banned those agreements, but we know at least one sheriff's department um on the Cape that has signed an agreement with ICE. I think that's the only such agreement in New England, but it does exist. It's out there. So, um immigration enforcement of any civil immigration enforcement of any
kind by anyone um it's not allowed. We municipal facilities aren't allowed to be used for that purpose and non-public spaces of our offices um are not allowed to be used for that purpose. Um if someone has an appointment um in a public building, we don't want them uh
being chased and arrested by ICE. We don't want those things. We we don't want the community to live in fear. Um we want to be able to provide the services we need to provide to residents regardless of status. Um, so this is designed to
um limit civil immigration enforcement in a way that we hope sticks. Um, and we welcome any questions, concerns, comments you might have. You can see there's a version 2.1 in your packet is the most recent version. It incorporates uh we circulated this and it incorporates individual comments from
members of the select board. Um but um any additional comments, concerns, questions you have, we're happy to answer and take a look at this. >> Yeah. Uh Chaz, thank you for that and I appreciate all the work on this and and the modifications that you made on
collecting feedback. Um the now therefore uh resolution one uh looks like we've added or disrupting the lawful exercise of rights granted by the Massachusetts United States Constitution which I happen to agree
with. How do we enforce what if we just talk a little about practical enforcement of this? >> Sure. We actually we and we talked we talked a lot about this in practice. So theoretically how this how this works. Say someone sees ICE staging in a public
parking lot. Um they call the police non-emergency line, they call dispatch. Dispatch will relay that to my office. Um and our off your you know your office, the select board's office. And what we will do is we will call the local ICE office and say, "Hey, are you
aware there's a local ordinance that says you can't use this for staging civil immigration enforcement?" One of two things will happen. They will say, "Oh, well, okay." and they might make a rude comment, but they will go away and they will stage somewhere else. Or they will say, "Thanks very much, but we think the we think we have a right under
federal law to be here, and you can't do you can't do anything about it." >> Um, if it's the latter, then we talk to town council. Um, it would be my goal to in that case go to court and get an order saying you can't, no, you you know, we're serious about this. You
cannot use this space um for civil immigration purposes. So, we're not sending Brookline police down to enforce. >> Okay. >> We do not want any sort of confrontation >> between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement. Um, but we do want people to know that the role
of the police in protests in any of the activity that's going on is to keep people safe. Okay. >> Um, and that includes people who are exercising their rights and protesting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Bernard, you had your hand raised for a little bit. >> Uh, I did. I just wanted to make a
couple comments. Um, first of all, the the item seven in the recitals here I think is important because uh especially in Brooklyn, but you know throughout this country, people are really really angry uh and they're taking out their
anger by going into the streets in massive numbers. And uh I support that of course. Um, and I I think that it's important to to urge for, you know, us to urge uh Brookliners and others who uh
are angry and going out into the streets to express their their disgust with what's going on uh in our country. Uh to realize that we are outgunned, right? Doesn't mean that we're impotent. It just means that we have to recognize
the fact that the forces of this I don't know we we say authoritarian um there are better words for it than that but whatever it is the forces of this government are being arrayed against us and they are in effect declaring war on
the American people now you know we've had an experience we've experienced a similar situation in the past during the civil rights movement >> when civil rights uh u workers and activists were greatly outgunned,
outnumbered, outgunned. Uh but peaceful, disciplined, nonviolent action prevailed over the more powerful forces arrayed against them. And I think it's important to let people know that that is the case
today. And what happened in in Minnesota is an example. We don't know how how successful or how long the uh draw down in in Minnesota is going to last, but we do know that they were forced to blink.
Um, and I I think it's important just to make sure that people understand the importance of being uh peaceful and nonviolent in our resistance, but also the effectiveness of that uh type of um
of of action. The the other thing that I think um yeah I'd like to just mention yeah I was watching on TV and and um thinking about uh children and how they are responding to what they're seeing on TV. People calling themselves police
brutalizing people including children. Now you know the child's mind is going to think that well maybe police aren't our friends. So what this administration, which has no respect for police at all, but what they're doing is
really poisoning the minds of our children by by causing them to think that they don't have uh comfort and protection from uh police, especially our local police here in Brooklyn. Uh I think we should just acknowledge the
fact that that that is going to have long-term uh consequences and is another example of how um you know this administration is is uh is hostile to and destructive of good relations
between uh people and the police. >> All right. Thank you. Any other thoughts? This was obviously done in co coordination with the chief pastor. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Chief pastor and town council were both uh we we had we had a number of weekend conversations about this. So I want to
thank both of them for for jumping on this and being very um very engaged and trying to make this make this work. >> Michael, >> uh thank you um and thank you uh Chaz and to the chief uh and to town council.
Um and uh I I think that the the comments here and I and I looked at this also in in the context of the um Boston's announcement and appreciate both the similarities and the differences between those two. So um I
appreciate that um this particular uh set of uh proclamations um really uh reflects the values of Brookline specifically. Um there was one detail that I mentioned to you online in in the paragraph one um that I that I
think it is important to be consistent about uh all civil immigration enforcement. So the reference to federal civil immigration enforcement that remains um should be struck but other than that um I'm all ready to support.
>> And is that reflected in the most recent version? Yes, that that red line there, the addition about the exercise of rights and makes clear that it's in civil immigration enforcement at large. It's not targeting >> federal law enforcement, it's law enforcement generally. Um, >> in the in the in the last sentence,
>> oh, >> that starts prohibited uses include there it says in the third. Yeah. So, that word federal that federal as well. Yep. We will strike that. >> All right. Okay. Okay. Now, Bernard had suggested
that this be read aloud for those in the public. So, I'll go ahead and do that. So, regarding civil immigration enforcement in the town of Brooklyn, whereas the current federal administration's policies, procedures, and methods used to enforce civil immigration, have led to immense fear
and concern in Brooklyn, particularly after the deaths of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Prey in Minnesota. And whereas the town of Brooklyn does not aid, abet, or participate in any way in civil immigration enforcement as reflected in
the attached police general order 43.0 appendix A. And whereas the governor of Massachusetts issued executive order number 650 EO650 on January 29th, 2026, which among other things bars federal
immigration officers from using state facilities to facilitate civil immigration enforcement efforts or conducting enforcement activity in non-public spaces of public buildings. And whereas other Massachusetts communities including Boston, Newton, Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, and Lynn
have issued or are intending to issue executive orders clarifying policies surrounding civil immigration enforcement and adopting relevant provisions of Executive Order 650 locally. Now, therefore, the Brookline Select Board as chief executive body of
the town of Brooklyn hereby proclaims as follows. One, town facilities, including but not limited to parking lots, parks, and public school grounds, shall not be used as a staging area, processing location, operations base, or other
supporting location for civil immigration enforcement by any law enforcement agency in the absence of a valid judicial warrant or court order authorizing such uses. Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, assembling, mobilizing, or deploying
vehicles, equipment, materials, or personnel for the purpose of carrying out civil immigration enforcement operations or disrupting the lawful exercise of rights granted by the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions. Two, non-public spaces of public
buildings remain off limits to civil immigration enforcement officials in the absence of a valid judicial warrant or court order authorizing their presence therein. Access to public buildings remains solely to provide specific services to members of the public or to
conduct town operations and access to such buildings is for those purposes only. Three, the town will document violations of the above provisions and promptly notify the town administrator's office when such violations occur. The town
administrator is authorized to seek such relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances, including but not limited to a court order in joining the prohibited behavior or referral to a prosecutor of competent jurisdiction. In the absence of a duty to intervene as
outlined in the attached police general order 50 appendix B, sworn officers will not interfere with law enforcement operations in with federal law enforcement operations in progress. Four, the town will make template signage available to private property
owners and lease holders who seek to restrict private spaces from being used for civil immigration enforcement purposes. Property owners and lease holders assume any legal responsibility associated therewith. Five, nothing herein shall be construed as restricting or interfering with the
execution of court orders or lawful judicial warrants or the enforcement of criminal law, nor is limiting the rights of any person or entity under state or federal law. This proclamation reinforces and affirms the town's emphasis on providing for the public safety of community members and does not
restrict or interfere with the lawful conduct of civil immigration enforcement. Six, the town administrator is authorized to effectuate the directives in this proclamation commensurate with his authority under the town administrator act chapter 270
of the acts of 1985 as amended. Seven. In addition to the town's responsibility to protect its residents and visitors, the select board urges all residents and visitors to express their views in peaceful and nonviolent ways, which has been shown most recently in Minnesota to
be the most effective way to counter and roll back the actions of federal immigration enforcement agents. And then as we'll take a vote in a moment, but assuming it passes, passed by a vote of the Brooklyn Select Board February 10th, 2026.
Just one small change. Um, in the third whereas clause I was reading EO 650 and it does it bars immigration officers, not federal immigration officers. I'm just going to delete that word federal from that that recital if that's okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other comments,
corrections, modifications? And there were some there were some uh edits to the item the last item that I suggested uh to take out some of the uh the harsher language I used and uh I'm
fine with that. >> You were being passionate which is understandable. >> All right. So, I'll move that we pass the Brooklyn proclamation regarding civil immigration enforcement in the town of Brooklyn. Second.
>> All right. Bernard, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Paul, >> I. >> Michael, >> I. >> And I also vote I. Can I ask that when we uh set this up for signature that you leave a large space for me to sign my name in large
letters so that uh um certain person down in Washington will be able to see it with his uh age declining eyesight. >> We'll we'll we'll we'll increase the font for him. >> All right. So with that we will move to
our next item. Boards and Commissions, Appointments, Zoning Board of Appeals, Lark Polarmo. Just a preliminary question I have there. Did anyone else apply for the position? >> No. Kaden, I look there were no others. >> All right. Does the board feel ready to
vote her in? >> Yes. >> Sounds like it. All right. So, I will move that we appoint Lark Polarmo to the zoning board of appeals >> for a >> or an associate member position.
>> Second. >> All right. Bernard, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. Paul, >> I. >> Michael, >> I. >> And I also vote I. >> I just have one question. What's the length of term for this? >> Three years. I >> believe it's three years.
>> Three years. Yeah. All right. And now we're back to public comment for anyone who would like to participate. Marty Rosenthal has patiently had his virtual hand raised for >> about 45 minutes. >> Go ahead, Marty.
>> You need to unmute, Marty. >> We may need to unmute for him. I don't know. >> Yeah, it's always >> okay. >> Always slow. May >> Yep. Well, I'm obviously too late because I didn't know this was on the agenda, the last item. Well, the second
to last item. And uh I actually only saw it because I was quite interested in watching the whole Chestnut Hill debate and uh that was the only reason I actually saw that item on the agenda.
So, I had some specific comments that I think should have been subjected to a public hearing. And I've said this before, and at least Bernard will remember, I don't know if anyone was on the board long enough last time I whined
about the fact that police issues should be subjected to public hearings, especially if they're police policy issues. And this was a vote of the select board unanimously in 1987 which all of you remember very well. But
anyway, I've reminded about it in the past and it's too late on this one. I think I would have had ideas on this one which I was marking it up uh during the other debate and it's obviously too late to
present them. But uh so I'm not going to bother saying what they were and um I think it should have been subjected to a public hearing even by PCAC or else by you people. And what's going on
nationally is the worst thing I can remember since Vietnam. And uh I would have liked to ask some questions about the language that's been just voted. So I'll leave it at that. >> All right. All right. Thank you, Marty.
Is there anyone in the room or online who would like to participate in public comment? >> Nobody's raising. >> All right. Seeing that there are no takers, that concludes our meeting.