Category Archives: Development

real estate development

Hancock Village 40B: parties try further appeal

Private parties to the original lawsuit over the proposed Chapter 40B housing project at Hancock Village have filed for an appeal at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). That lawsuit challenged the “project eligibility letter” that the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency issued, allowing the project to be considered by Brookline’s Zoning Board of Appeals.

Further appeal: At superior court for Norfolk County and recently at the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, the Town of Brookline and the allied homeowner group lost. The appeals court issued an abbreviated “rule 1:28″ decision, indicating it saw “no substantial question of law.” That could make the task of obtaining SJC review problematic.

The SJC has discretion over “further appellate review” and does not routinely accept an application unless there is disagreement at the Court of Appeals or what the SJC sees as significant unresolved issues. The Brookline parties might see the appeals court’s summary approach to its case as cause to claim that issues they have are significant and unresolved.

Unresolved issues: When explaining its ruling, the appeals court took a formalist view of a prior case, citing procedures but not substance of events that the Brookline parties had relied on. A key element of their case was an agreement on conditions for how Hancock Village would be developed. It was presented to the 1946 annual town meeting as part of the text of Article 23. After reviewing it, the town meeting voted to change land now called Hancock Village from single-family zoning to apartment zoning.

As a key argument, the Brookline parties had cited a recent appeals court ruling saying that conditions on a subdivision in the town of Orleans were permanent. According to the appeals court, because the Orleans conditions were part of a “discretionary grant of regulatory approval” they did not expire after 30 years, like restrictions in a deed. [Samuelson v. Planning Board of Orleans, 2014]

Surely Brookline’s 1946 rezoning to allow apartments in Hancock Village also was a “discretionary grant of regulatory approval,” and its conditions for development also would not expire in 30 years. According to the Court of Appeals in 2015, that was not enough. The exact procedures had not been followed in Brookline. To make conditions permanent, it was necessary that “land use restrictions” be “imposed” as in Orleans.

That’s actually what Brookline does today, with its specialized and overlay zoning districts of the past 20 years–like ones for Cleveland Circle, Commonwealth Avenue and Brookline Place. These are heavily customized types of zoning, designed around specific development projects. In 1946, however, such concepts were decades away. With its innovative 1946 plan for Hancock Village, the town did what looked reasonable at the time.

Instead of conditions “imposed” by a zoning district or a Zoning Board of Appeals decision, the 1946 town meeting reviewed conditions agreed to by the developer, who stated that the conditions would apply to “itself, its successors and assigns.” The agreement did not specify any particular process through which the conditions would be carried forward, leaving that to the developer.

Prospects: Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress–and by extension other legislatures–are not able to make “ex post facto laws,” applying after events happen. Courts are not so restricted, and that is what the Court of Appeals seems to be trying to do. No doubt, had the Town of Brookline known in 1946 that in 2015 the Court of Appeals would insist that it “impose” conditions, it would have found a way to do that–consistent with understandings that Hancock Village conditions were meant to be permanent.

Now the Brookline parties need to persuade the SJC that the Court of Appeals made a mistake, insisting on procedures that the appeals court prescribed decades after the facts of 1946, rather than considering the substance of what happened in Brookline then.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, November 13, 2015


Docket, Town of Brookline and others v. Massachusetts Development Finance Agency and another, case number FAR-23838, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, filed October 16, 2015

Memorandum and order, Town of Brookline and others v. Massachusetts Development Finance Agency and others, case number 2014-P-1817, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, September 25, 2015

Martha Samuelson and another v. Planning Board of Orleans and others, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 901, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, July 2, 2014

Hancock Village 1946 Agreement, Article 23, Annual Town Meeting, March 19, 1946, from Brookline, MA, 1946 Annual Town Report, pp. 32-34

Rule 1:28, summary disposition, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, 2009

Stephanie J. Mandell, The history of rule 1:28, Massachusetts Bar Association, 2008

Hancock Village lawsuit: Brookline’s appeal dismissed, Brookline Beacon, September 29, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Advisory subcommittee: new crews needed to right ships

Gathering in the large, first-floor south meeting room at Town Hall starting at 7:30 pm Wednesday, October 14, the Advisory subcommittee on planning and regulation heard two articles for the fall town meeting, scheduled for November 17.

Subcommittee members found that Article 12, offered by member Lee Selwyn to revise the meaning of “habitable space” under zoning, needed substantial review. They proposed referring the article to a committee to be appointed by Edward “Sandy” Gadsby, the moderator of town meeting, and Mr. Selwyn agreed.

Park land for Putterham neighborhoods: The subcommittee took a similar approach to Article 15, from petitioners led by Regina Frawley, a Precinct 16 town meeting member. However, circumstances are different. Convening a special review committee is actually what Article 15 asks for. It represents a long detour, starting from an article approved at the May 26, 2015, annual town meeting.

In Putterham neighborhoods–the southernmost parts of Brookline–as Ms. Frawley argued last spring, there is little public open space. During years of the Great Depression, when much development in those neighborhoods was underway, Brookline did not acquire park and playground land, as it had done earlier in other parts of town. The only sizable areas remaining as potential recreation space are the so-called “buffers” on the north side of Hancock Village.

Following development concepts worked out with the Brookline Planning Board during 1945 and 1946, when the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. developed Hancock Village, it left unbuilt land adjacent to single-family houses along Beverly and Russett Rds. Since then, that land has often served informally as recreation space for residents of Hancock Village, as well as those of nearby streets.

The Hancock Village buffers soon came under attack. First the Hancock Co., in the 1950s, and then the next owner–the Niles Co.–in the 1960s, applied to turn the buffers into parking lots. The apartment zoning approved at the 1946 annual town meeting had left the buffers part of the large single-family zone to the north, which does not allow parking lots. The Zoning Board of Appeals turned down the applications.

Recent perils: More recently, the current owner–a subsidiary of Chestnut Hill Realty–has proposed to build both parking lots and more apartments on the buffers. The proposal, approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals last February, draws on provisions of Chapter 40B of the General Laws to override zoning in return for partly subsidized housing.

The current Board of Selectmen and its predecessor opposed the Hancock Village 40B project, although neither has been successful so far. The predecessor board–including Kenneth Goldstein and Betsy DeWitt–sued the Massachusetts Development Financing Agency for issuing a “project eligibility letter,” allowing the project application to proceed. That lawsuit has been dismissed at both superior court and the Court of Appeals.

While considering further appeal of the first case, the Board of Selectmen–now including Nancy Heller and Bernard Greene–is suing members of the Brookline zoning board in Land Court for approving the Hancock Village 40B project. A hostile motion to dismiss is pending in that case, building on the loss by the Board of Selectmen at the Court of Appeals.

The Board of Selectmen now looks mired in conflicts around a proposal to use land at Hancock Village for recreation. Besides the two lawsuits, at this year’s annual town meeting, recently elected board member Nancy Heller filed Article 17, promoting changes to the 40B law that would authorize “local elected officials” to make “binding recommendations” on 40B projects.

Reviewing recreation land: When this year’s annual town meeting approved Article 18, asking the Board of Selectmen to “study and consider in good faith” taking the Hancock Village buffers as permanent recreation land, almost everyone assumed the board would appoint an independent, expert review committee. However, nothing like that has happened so far.

Instead, about a month later, the board sent the Advisory Committee a $15 thousand reserve fund request to hire a consultant, who would work with town staff reporting to the board. The Advisory Committee took note of Massachusetts cases involving conflicts between 40B projects and land takings for other purposes, when refusing to fund a consultant interacting with the Board of Selectmen.

While land taking for community uses is possible, even though a 40B project has claims, it must occur in “good faith” and not mainly to block a project. Involvement by the Board of Selectmen in a proposal for Hancock Village land, given their conflicts, looks to risk poisoning the well and defeating an attempt to acquire land for recreation.

Seeing a Board of Selectmen seemingly frozen on recreation land issues, doing nothing constructive, Ms. Frawley and co-petitioners filed Article 15 for the November town meeting. It calls for a special review committee, to be appointed by the Advisory Committee and the moderator of town meeting. That could separate the recreation land issues from the Board of Selectmen and allow them to be reviewed in “good faith.”

Recommendation: For the subcommittee, Ms. Frawley briefly reviewed activities related to recreation land at Hancock Village since May. According to her, Melvin Kleckner, the town administrator, opposed an independent committee to review the issues–at first claiming to be “too busy” to meet with her and then, two weeks later, saying he intended to hire a consultant.

Mr. Kleckner is a town employee who lives elsewhere, not an elected official of Brookline. Since he was apparently involved in withholding information about a $200 thousand cost overrun during the May town meeting, his relations with the Advisory Committee have become rocky at best. One long-term committee member, reportedly fed up with disrespectful treatment, has resigned from the committee.

According to Ms. Frawley, Mr. Kleckner said the issues of recreation land are “too challenging” for mere citizens. Somehow though, over the years, Brookline citizens managed acquisitions of Hall’s Pond, Amory Woods and the Blakely Hoar Sanctuary, plus more than 100 park and playground parcels, without need for Mr. Kleckner’s consultants.

Subcommittee member Lee Selwyn recalled the $15 thousand reserve fund request for a consultant that had been rejected, suggesting that a committee may need “paid expertise.” Ms. Frawley said the committee could assess its needs. Stanley Spiegel, the subcommittee chair, said nine messages in support of Article 15 and one opposing it were on record so far. The subcommittee favored Article 15 and recommended approval, in a unanimous vote.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, October 16, 2015


Warrant for November 17, 2015, special town meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, September 8, 2015

Article explanations for November 17, 2015, special town meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, September 8, 2015

Comprehensive permit for The Residences of South Brookline, LLC, on the site of Hancock Village, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Brookline, MA, February 20, 2015 (4 MB)

Board of Selectmen to Land Court: you win, Brookline Beacon, October 5, 2015

Hancock Village lawsuit: Brookline’s appeal dismissed, Brookline Beacon, September 29, 2015

Advisory Committee: probing a disconnect, Brookline Beacon, July 29, 2015

Craig Bolon, Advisory Committee: reach for the reset button, Brookline Beacon, July 8, 2015

Craig Bolon, Board of Selectmen: poisoning the well, Brookline Beacon, July 2, 2015

Advisory Committee: new park land for Putterham neighborhoods, Brookline Beacon, April 10, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Board of Selectmen to Land Court: you win

On Tuesday, September 29, three members of the Zoning Board of Appeals who are being sued for awarding a permit allowing a Chapter 40B development at Hancock Village met in a rare closed session. The judge hearing the Land Court lawsuit against them had threatened to remove Joslin Murphy, Brookline’s town counsel, from representing the Board of Selectmen if no legal representation were provided for the appeals board members. Appearances to represent the three were filed the following day, just before the deadline.

Eye on the money: There have been no agenda items for the Board of Selectmen to allocate money for such a purpose from the contingency fund or make a request from the reserve fund. That leaves the outside services budget for the Office of Town Counsel as a likely source of funds. The costs could put substantial pressure on a budget account that already seems overstressed.

The new appearances at the Land Court for zoning appeals members were from Kathryn Murphy and Jill Meixel of Krokidas & Bluestein in Boston. Ms. Murphy of the Krokidas firm was one of two lawyers from that firm hired to advise the zoning appeals board during hearings on the Hancock Village Chapter 40B application. Spending on outside services during that episode averaged around $25,000 a month.

The Office of Town Counsel is also bearing costs of representing the Board of Selectmen in the Land Court case. During the Hancock Village episode, outside legal bills totaled $295,121, far more than the outside services budgets for the Office of Town Counsel. The Advisory Committee was approached multiple times to tap the reserve fund. A double burden of costs had been observed last April by committee member Lee Selwyn, who said the town was “turning the heat and the air conditioning on at the same time.”

Next events: While the Board of Selectmen apparently did not participate in funding recent legal services, it is nearly inconceivable they would not have been informed. The board can probably dodge bullets for a while, but as costs mount either they will have to abandon their Land Court lawsuit or else they will need to go back to a skeptical Advisory Committee for more money.

At Land Court, Judge Gordon Piper has scheduled a status hearing as part of a court session starting at 10 am on Friday, October 16. He also took official notice of the Court of Appeals rulings issued September 25, undercutting at least one key element of the Land Court case.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, October 5, 2015


Town of Brookline and others v. Jesse Geller, Member of the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals, and others, Massachusetts Land Court case 2015-MISC-000072, filed March 11, 2015 (click button to search public records, select Land Court Department and Case Number tab, enter case number “15 MISC 000072″ and click Search button, click any Case Number item for “15 MISC 000072″)

Memorandum and order, case number 2014-P-1817, Town of Brookline and others v. Massachusetts Development Finance Agency and others, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, September 25, 2015

Hancock Village lawsuit: Brookline’s appeal dismissed, Brookline Beacon, September 29, 2015

Land Court to Board of Selectmen: put up or shut up, Brookline Beacon, September 20, 2015

Land Court: Dueling boards, Selectmen v. Zoning Appeals, Brookline Beacon, September 5, 2015

Craig Bolon, Advisory Committee: reach for the reset button, Brookline Beacon, July 8, 2015

Advisory Committee: missing records, more skeptical outlooks, Brookline Beacon, April 2, 2015

Hancock Village lawsuit: Brookline’s appeal dismissed

Brookline’s first lawsuit over a Chapter 40B housing development Hancock Village has lost, in what looks tantamount to a final outcome. Following a hearing on September 14, 2015, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals issued a speedy decision with a written memorandum, dated September 25. Earlier, adverse superior court rulings were upheld on both their major points: the effects of a 1946 agreement with the John Hancock Life Insurance Company and the effects of 2008 changes to state regulations for Chapter 40B developments.

Arguments and rulings: The Appeals Court wrote that the 1946 agreement had expired in 30 years, under state law. In finding that the agreement was not currently recognizable under Massachusetts law, its memorandum cited procedures that had been followed. Quoting from a recent case, the court said that a recognizable agreement would have to be “land use restrictions imposed as a condition to the discretionary grant of regulatory approval.” [Samuelson v. Planning Board of Orleans, Court of Appeals, 2014]

Instead of restrictions imposed during regulatory approval, the 1946 procedures had involved a voluntary agreement by the original developer, the John Hancock Company, offered as an inducement to allow apartment zoning. The Court of Appeals found those procedures similar to ones of a will or trust, saying that the agreement had therefore expired in 30 years.

The main issue in the original superior court case brought by Brookline had been a challenge to a “project eligibility letter” for the Chapter 40B development, issued by the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency. The town contended that the agency had not followed state regulations, saying that a lawsuit was its only recourse, since 2008 changes in state regulations had eliminated administrative remedies.

The Appeals Court disagreed–writing, without explanation, that it was “unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ argument.” According to the memorandum, “The issuance of a project eligibility letter is a necessary precondition to consideration of a comprehensive permit application, but it is not final action on the permit.” The Appeals Court cited the case relied on by the superior court. [Town of Marion v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Authority, Court of Appeals, 2007]

Prospects: Like its ruling on the 1946 agreement, the Appeals Court’s ruling on the 2008 regulations turns on a balance of factors and could conceivably have gone the other way. However, both are plainly stated interpretations of state law, citing recent cases at the Appeals Court. A further appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court is surely possible but would look to be a steep, uphill struggle.

The recent ruling appears to collapse a case that the Board of Selectmen filed later in the Land Court, challenging the comprehensive permit granted by Brookline’s Zoning Board of Appeals. A key argument in that case invoked the 1946 agreement, which the Appeals Court ruled has lapsed.

Other arguments, concerning suitability of the development plan for the Hancock Village site, have typically been difficult to sustain in legal challenges against Chapter 40B projects. The Board of Appeals heard over a year of testimony, received major concessions from the Hancock Village developers and imposed over 60 conditions–reducing the scale of the project.

An alternative: Pursuing an alternate vision for Hancock Village, Regina Frawley, a Precinct 16 town meeting member, filed Article 18 for annual town meeting of May, 2015. It sought a study of acquiring the Hancock Village “buffers” for permanent recreation and open space. Those are unbuilt strips of land near Russett and Beverly Roads that had been set aside, separating Hancock Village from the nearby single-family houses, following 1940s agreements with the Town of Brookline.

So far, no such study has been published. To surprise of many in the community, the Board of Selectmen has failed to appoint an independent, objective study committee–as generally expected when the May, 2015, town meeting approved Article 18. Seeing the lack of progress, Ms. Frawley filed Article 15 for the upcoming November, 2015, town meeting. It seeks an independent, objective study committee to be appointed by the moderator of town meeting and by the Advisory Committee.

Ms. Frawley found the recent Appeals Court decision on the Web and distributed it to people who have been concerned about the proposed Hancock Village development. However, she has not become involved with the Hancock Village lawsuits. She continues to pursue her original vision: to provide Brookline’s southernmost neighborhoods with permanent recreation and open space that, so far, they have never enjoyed.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, September 29, 2015


Memorandum and order, case number 2014-P-1817, Town of Brookline and others v. Massachusetts Development Finance Agency and others, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, September 25, 2015

Martha Samuelson and another v. Planning Board of Orleans and others, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 901, July 2, 2014

Town of Marion v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Authority, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 208, February 12, 2007

Warrant for November 17, 2015, special town meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, September 8, 2015

Article explanations for November 17, 2015, special town meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, September 8, 2015

Appeals Court: Brookline v. MassDevelopment, Brookline Beacon, September 15, 2015

Craig Bolon, Court of Appeals: Brookline’s first lawsuit over Hancock Village, Brookline Beacon, September 12, 2015

Land Court: Dueling boards, Selectmen v. Zoning Appeals, Brookline Beacon, September 5, 2015

Craig Bolon, Advisory Committee: reach for the reset button, Brookline Beacon, July 8, 2015

Craig Bolon, Board of Selectmen: poisoning the well, Brookline Beacon, July 2, 2015

Land Court to Board of Selectmen: put up or shut up

In a case of dueling boards–Selectmen versus Zoning Appeals–the Massachusetts Land Court filed a written ruling on the motion of another defendant, Chestnut Hill Realty. It seeks to disqualify Town Counsel Joslin Murphy and her staff from participating in the main challenge to a proposed Chapter 40B housing development at Hancock Village.

In an odd sort of process, that ruling has been posted to the online Docket Information page for the Land Court case, making it available to anyone without a trip to see the clerk of the court. As apparent before and at the Land Court hearing, the Board of Selectman and the town counsel look to be in a pickle.

In effect, the court wrote to that board: Put up (a lawyer for the Zoning Board of Appeals) or (we shall) shut up (the town counsel as your representative). Judge Piper’s docket entry reads a bit like George Ade on steroids, for those who remember the notable Chicago Record journalist (1866-1944). Text follows.

“09/03/2015, Event: Motion scheduled for 09/03/2015 10:00 AM

“Result: Hearing Held on Private Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Brookline Town Counsel. Attorney Murphy Appeared for Municipal Plaintiffs. Attorney Talerman Appeared for Individual Plaintiffs. Attorney O’Flaherty Appeared for Private Defendant. No Counsel Appeared for Defendant Members of the Board of Appeals. Following Argument, Court Made its Ruling[s] from the Bench, Which Are Summarized Generally Below.

“Subscribing to the View That Courts Should Be Reluctant to Disqualify Counsel, That Clients Are Entitled to the Counsel of Their Choice, and Relying Greatly on the Ethical Awareness of Lawyers, Court Is Nonetheless Troubled by the Posture of this Litigation. Here, the Board and its Defendant Members Remain Unrepresented, the Court Is Unable to Know Their Level of Satisfaction (Or Not) with That Situation, and it Is Evident that those Who Control Municipal Plaintiff’s Prosecution of this Action Have Taken No Effective Steps to Provide These Defendant Board Members with Counsel. They Thus Are Left Unable to Defend, to Participate in, and to Be Heard in this Litigation.

“This Is Not the Common Situation Where a Municipal Board Stands down During Litigation to Allow the Private Defendant (The Permit Recipient) to the Mount a Defense of the Challenged Permit. Here, the Permit Has Been Challenged by the Town Itself, Acting Through its Board or Selectmen, Claiming an Injury to the Town’s Interest as an Abutting Landowner. All Parties Agree, as They Must, That If a Law Firm Represented the Applicant During the Permitting Process, and Then, Once a Permit Had Issued, Attempted to Represent an Abutting Landowner in Challenging the Same Permit, the Court Would Be Obligated to Disqualify that Law Firm Under Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.7 [because there is a concurrent conflict of interest under 1.7(a), coupled with a claim by one client against another under 1.7(b)(3)].

“Here, Counsel for Plaintiffs Attempts to Distinguish the Instant Case by Arguing, First, That Town Counsel Commonly Represents Multiple Municipal Interests Simultaneously, Which Interests Do Not Always Perfectly Align, and Second, That Notwithstanding this Broader View of the Role and Obligations of Government Lawyers, That Here the Defendant Board of Appeals Was Afforded Special Counsel During the Permitting Process So There Is No Conflict in Fact.

“Even Recognizing the Broader Latitude Given Government Lawyers When Analyzing Their Possible Conflicts, the Court Concludes That this Is One of Those Troubling Cases Where it Might Be Obligated to Disqualify Municipal Counsel. While There Has Been No Hard Showing That Town Counsel Possesses Some Confidential Information Gained Giving Earlier Advice to the Board, the Existence of Any Such Confidences Is Very Hard to Learn Because the Party That Would Normally Object (The Former Client) Is the Board of Appeals, Which Has No Ability or Opportunity to Make Such a Concern Known to the Court; the Private Defendant, Who Brings the Motion to Disqualify, Has No Way of Knowing Whether Confidences Have Been Exchanged or Not.

“The Record Does Make Clear That the Office of Town Counsel Previously Rendered Advice, Shared with the Zoning Board, about Two Important Legal Issues in Connection with the Comprehensive Permit: the Effect of the 1946 Agreements Between the Town and the Prior Owners of the Site, and the Validity of Site Eligibility Determinations for the Project. Those Issues Are Central to the Attack the Town, Now Represented as Plaintiff by Town Counsel, Makes Against the Comprehensive Permit in Both this Litigation and in the Superior Court Case Now Before the Appeals Court.

‘Without Diminishing the Court’s Concern That this Is a Case Where a Conflict May Exist, the Court Nonetheless Defers Ruling on the Motion to Disqualify at this Time, in the Hope That Some Attention Will Be Paid to Obtaining Separate Counsel for the Board of Appeals. If Separate Counsel Appears and Assures the Court That the Board of Appeals Does Not Object to the Ongoing Representation of the Plaintiff by Town Counsel, That Would Go a Long Way to Satisfy the Court That the Motion to Disqualify Ought to Be Denied.

“If, on the Other Hand, There Is a Continuing Inability to Hear from the Board, Court Would Be Inclined to Allow the Motion to Disqualify. Parties Are to File No Later than September 30, 2015 a Report on the Status of Representation of the Board of Appeals; If by That Date No Appearance on Behalf of the Board of Appeals Has Been Filed, the Court Will Proceed Either to Rule on the Motion to Disqualify Without Further Hearing, to Schedule Further Hearing, or to Make Other Appropriate Orders.”

So far, no funding to support legal counsel for the Zoning Board of Appeals has shown up on agendas for the Board of Selectmen. September 30 is a Wednesday. Before then, the Board of Selectmen scheduled two more meetings: on Thursday, September 24, and on Tuesday, September 29. Funding for a town board would clearly be public business. Trying to hide it in closed session, perhaps under a rubric of “litigation,” would not appear consistent with the state’s open meeting law.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, September 20, 2015


Town of Brookline and others v. Jesse Geller, Member of the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals, and others, Massachusetts Land Court case 2015-MISC-000072, filed March 11, 2015 (click button to search public records, select Land Court Department and Case Number tab, enter case number “15 MISC 000072″ and click Search button, click any Case Number item for “15 MISC 000072″)

Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2015 (2 MB)

Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries, 2015 (2 MB)

Land Court: Dueling boards, Selectmen v. Zoning Appeals, Brookline Beacon, September 5, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Craig Bolon, Open meetings in government: groping toward transparency, Brookline Beacon, August 10, 2014

Appeals Court: Brookline v. MassDevelopment

This Monday, September 14, at the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, Brookline presented arguments contesting a state-issued “project eligibility letter” for a proposed Chapter 40B housing development at Hancock Village. The case had begun at superior court in November, 2013. It was on appeal from an adverse ruling issued in September, 2014, allowing motions for summary judgment.

Twenty judges now serve on the Appeals Court. The panel for case number 2014-P-1817 consisted of Elspeth B. Cypher, appointed in 2000, Mark V. Green, appointed in 2001, and Sydney Hanlon, appointed in 2009. The case and court hearing attracted considerable interest, with five amicus briefs filed. Half a dozen Brookline town meeting members came to the hearing, held at the 1893 John Adams Courthouse in Boston on a sunny, mild day.

Town Counsel Joslin Murphy argued for the Town of Brookline. Benjamin Tymann argued for the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (MDFA) and its chief, Martha “Marty” Jones of Winchester. Jason Talerman argued for other plaintiffs, several homeowners whose properties abut Hancock Village. Kevin O’Flaherty argued for the subsidiary of Chestnut Hill Realty (CHR), owner of Hancock Village, that applied for the 40B development.

Issues and arguments: Issues that were argued Monday emerged in briefs submitted early this year. With the procedure the Appeals Court follows, each lawyer got seven or eight minutes of presentation plus questions and answers–a brisk pace. The underlying contested issues were well known:
(1) Whether MDFA followed regulations when issuing a “project eligibility letter,” and
(2) Whether a 1946 agreement with the Town of Brookline still regulates Hancock Village.

Ms. Murphy and Mr. Tymann argued about the “project eligibility letter.” Mr. Talerman and Mr. O’Flaherty argued about the 1946 agreement. The basic issue about whether MDFA followed regulations for a “project eligibility letter” had been confounded by MDFA and CHR lawyers at superior court, contending that Brookline had not exhausted administrative remedies, citing a 2007 case. That side-issue dominated the Appeals discussions. [Town of Marion v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Authority, Court of Appeals, 2007]

Initial questions from judges showed some unfamiliarity with Chapter 40B law and regulations, particularly those from Judge Green, who seemed to confuse the role of a local zoning appeals board with that of the state Housing Appeals Committee. Both plaintiff and defendant lawyers tried to fill gaps. Judges seemed to grasp circumstances somewhat better as the hearing went on.

Project eligibility: In arguing about the “project eligibility letter,” Ms. Murphy stressed a point made in the Town of Brookline brief: that MDFA failed to follow state regulations. Judge Green tried to steer toward MDFA and CHR viewpoints, but Ms. Murphy would not go there. After Judge Hanlon asked for clarification, she taught a short course: Chapter 40B in half a minute.

State regulations in 760 CMR 56.04(4)(b) require an agency reviewing a 40B project to consider whether a site is “generally appropriate for residential development” and whether a “conceptual project design is generally appropriate for the site.” For both elements, they require a “finding, with supporting reasoning, to be set forth in reasonable detail.” According to regulations as revised in 2008, if a state agency fails to follow the rules, there is no administrative remedy. Only developers now have any administrative appeal rights.

As in the MDFA defense brief, Mr. Tymann tried to string a tripwire, arguing that a “project eligibility letter” reflected only a “preliminary review.” Judge Green, perhaps having absorbed some instruction, queried, “The town can’t appeal to HAC?”–meaning the state’s Housing Appeals Committee.

“The town,” responded Mr. Tymann, “has opportunities…at ZBA hearings”–meaning at its local zoning board. “The project eligibility letter is a ticket to the dance contest. It does not mean you win.” Judge Hanlon sounded unconvinced. She asked, “Then anything else is off the table? Appropriateness of the site?” Mr. Tymann tried to skirt the issue. “The Land Court,” he said, “is reviewing all those issues.”

The Brookline case in Land Court, challenging a “comprehensive permit” issued by the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals, did not begin for more than a year after its case against MDFA in superior court, challenging the “project eligibility letter.” If Brookline had been able to obtain prompt and thorough consideration in superior court, the Appeals Court and Land Court cases might not have happened.

Contract zoning: Mr. Talerman sketched background of the 1946 agreement between the Town of Brookline and the John Hancock Life Insurance Company, which convinced town meeting to rezone the property now called Hancock Village for apartments. As in the Town of Brookline brief, he cited two prior Appeals Court cases finding that public agreements over use of land were permanent.

Judge Green asked how the 1946 agreement differed from deed restrictions that expire after 30 years. Mr. Talerman responded that the distinction was made on the basis of public participation, involving a discretionary grant of regulatory authority. It has been a developing area of law, he said.

Mr. O’Flaherty called the 1946 agreement a “private agreement,” claiming it had lapsed after 30 years. Judge Hanlon asked how the circumstances differed from prior cases Mr. Talerman cited, in which towns allowed some zoning privileges in return for some restrictions. Mr. O’Flaherty said the 1946 agreement had “preceded a change in zoning.” Indeed it had, but only by a few days before Brookline’s town meeting voted on zoning.

Moreover, said Mr. O’Flaherty, by its terms the 1946 agreement lapsed if Brookline did not maintain the zoning enacted at the 1946 town meeting. Later, he said, Brookline had changed the Hancock Village zoning, claiming that “abrogated the agreement.” What happened was that in 1962 Brookline changed to a new zoning system. Within the new system, it created a special type of zone designed to be equivalent to the older type of apartment zoning assigned to Hancock Village in 1946.

After the hearing, Mr. Talerman explained that the Town of Brookline brief for the case had covered that issue. It was expected to be addressed during trial in superior court. So far, the trial has not occurred, because the superior court judge allowed a motion for summary judgment without considering such arguments.

Awaiting justice: Decisions in Court of Appeals cases are often accompanied by published opinions when they involve new directions in law, as this one seems to. However, those decisions are not particularly speedy. A survey of recent civil cases suggests Brookline might expect an Appeals Court decision in early 2016, probably well before the annual town meeting.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, September 15, 2015


Docket for case number 2014-P-1817, Town of Brookline and others v. Massachusetts Development Finance Agency and others, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, filed November 14, 2014

Plaintiff’s initial brief, Case 2014-P-1817, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, January 12, 2015

Town of Marion v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Authority, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 208, February 12, 2007

Craig Bolon, Court of Appeals: Brookline’s first lawsuit over Hancock Village, Brookline Beacon, September 12, 2015

Land Court: Dueling boards, Selectmen v. Zoning Appeals, Brookline Beacon, September 5, 2015

Court of Appeals: Brookline’s first lawsuit over Hancock Village

Proposed development at Hancock Village in south Brookline has led to two lawsuits filed in state courts on behalf of the Town of Brookline. News reports so far don’t explain much about the differences between them. The first case, begun in 2013, challenges actions of a state agency. The second case, begun in 2015, challenges actions of the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals. The first case is at the Massachusetts Court of Appeals in Boston on Monday, September 14 for a hearing on the merits.

Development plans: Between 2008 and 2011, executives at Chestnut Hill Realty (CHR) promoted plans for major development at Hancock Village, proposing up to 466 new housing units. Responses from nearby neighborhoods and Brookline government varied from concern to alarm. In November, 2011, Brookline enacted a neighborhood conservation law, making Hancock Village the first regulated district.

In 2012, CHR abandoned plans for conventional development under zoning, turning instead to Chapter 40B of the General Laws, Sections 20-23 and aiming to force through development in return for partly subsidized housing. To start such an approach, CHR needed sponsorship from a state agency. Rather than look to agencies mainly oriented to housing, CHR approached the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (MDFA). Proposals were made through a CHR subsidiary called Residences of South Brookline, LLC.

In late 2012 and early 2013, MDFA reviewed a CHR proposal to add 271 housing units in 12 new buildings. This plan was similar to other CHR plans in its overall approach. There would be a high-rise structure over a rock outcrop, previously considered unbuildable: five stories of apartments above two stories of parking. There would also be 11 low-rise structures on unbuilt land near Russett and Beverly Roads that had been reserved as “buffers” following 1940s agreements with the Town of Brookline.

MDFA sought comments from Brookline and visited the site in December, 2012. In February, 2013, MDFA drafted a response, rejecting the CHR proposal because it was “not generally appropriate for the site.” The agency cited “complete elimination of the greenbelt buffer” and “massing of the…five-story building.” Possibly tipped off to impending rejection, CHR withdrew its proposal just before the response was to be sent.

The following June, CHR proposed to MDFA a revised project with 192 new housing units in 13 new buildings. Now, over the rock outcrop, there would be four stories of apartments above two stories of parking. Although the project still eliminated the greenbelt buffer and it still included a high-rise looming over the neighborhood, built over a rock outcrop, this time MDFA approved, sending a “project eligibility letter” in October, 2013.

Reversing its previously pending rejection, MDFA offered a sentence of justification. That said the project “is generally appropriate for the site taking into account factors such as proposed use, conceptual site plan and building massing, topography, environmental resources and integration into existing development patterns.”

Court of Appeals case: Within a few weeks, the Town of Brookline filed a case against MDFA in superior court, challenging validity of the project eligibility letter. As part of this first lawsuit over Hancock Village, the Town of Brookline also asserted rights under a 1946 agreement with the John Hancock Life Insurance Company, providing enduring restrictions on Hancock Village in return for the 1946 rezoning to allow construction of apartments.

In superior court, lawyers for CHR filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that claims by the Town of Brookline were inconsistent with prior cases and with state law. The circumstances are complex, but after a brief hearing on the motions, without considering circumstances in detail, Judge Patrick F. Brady of Norfolk Superior Court allowed the motions. Brookline appealed. On Monday, September 14, the circumstances will be reviewed in detail for the first time by a full panel at the Court of Appeals.

There are two main issues in the appeal:
(1) Did Judge Brady at Norfolk Superior Court make an error in dismissing claims by the Town of Brookline that the project eligibility letter was issued without adequate justification?
(2) Did Judge Brady make an error in dismissing Brookline claims about rights under a 1946 agreement with the John Hancock Life Insurance Company that led to rezoning Hancock Village for apartments?

Issue (2) might be of more interest to the second Brookline lawsuit–against the Zoning Board of Appeals, seeking to overturn the “comprehensive permit” the zoning appeals board granted this year. However, it was also cited in the first lawsuit–against MDFA. There it was opposed by CHR lawyers, through one of the summary judgment motions Judge Brady allowed–boosting the 1946 agreement into an early appellate orbit.

Project eligibility letter: Issue (1) arguments pressed by the Town of Brookline against MDFA claim the agency failed to follow state regulations. Under 760 CMR 56.04(4)(b), those require an agency reviewing a 40B project to consider whether a site is “generally appropriate for residential development” and whether a “conceptual project design is generally appropriate for the site.”

In both instances, state regulations require a “finding, with supporting reasoning, to be set forth in reasonable detail.” The Town of Brookline asserted that the agency merely recited, like cookbook exercises, the types of 760 CMR 56 findings it would need to make but did not explain them with “supporting reasoning” of any kind, much less with “reasonable detail.” [Plaintiff's initial brief, pp. 25-27]

The Town of Brookline asserted it has no useful remedy other than a lawsuit, because a change to state regulations in 2008–apparently made for the convenience of the state Housing Appeals Committee–relabeled agency findings for project eligibility letters “conclusive” and eliminated administrative reviews. [Plaintiff's initial brief, pp. 27-29]

For issue (1) MDFA owns the heavy lifting. Its response was bulked up with dozens of pages of regulations, case memoranda and official announcements. However, the gist of the defense came down to a bald assertion that a project eligibility letter is “merely an interim step” in project approval, quoting a Massachusetts case made obsolete by 2008 changes to state regulations. [Defendant's brief from MDFA, p. 1, quoting Town of Marion v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Authority, Court of Appeals, 2007]

The brief filed for MDFA danced around Brookline’s arguments about lack of justification for a project eligibility letter. It tried to treat a summary judgment allowed in superior court, after a brief hearing during a motion session, as though it were a settled matter of law. Instead, the purpose of an appeals case is to examine reasoning applied by a lower court. [Defendant's brief from MDFA, p. 7] [Standard of review, in Plaintiff's initial brief, p. 13]

For this case, there is little reasoning from a lower court to be examined. At Norfolk Superior Court, Judge Brady merely stated that he “remain[ed] of the view that [the Marion case] applies,” without explaining why it should–over arguments from the Town of Brookline that changes in state regulations made it obsolete. [Plaintiff's initial brief, pp. 23, 27-29 and 31-33]

The brief filed for MDFA also claimed that the state provides for a “post-permit review”–apparently meaning administrative procedures after a “comprehensive permit” has been granted. However, post-permit procedures do not include comments, and they focus on “cost examination.” There is no process for an appellant to challenge whether a site is “appropriate for residential development” or whether a “conceptual project design” is “appropriate for the site.” [Massachusetts regulations 760 CMR 56.04(7), final approval]

As the Town of Brookline observed, without a court review “of project eligibility, abutters [including the Town of Brookline] are left without any meaningful recourse.” They might have a further opportunity for administrative review only if the developer were dissatisfied with Brookline zoning appeals board actions and sought relief from the state Housing Appeals Committee. However, CHR representatives stated at a public hearing that they were satisfied with outcomes from the zoning appeals board. [Plaintiff's reply brief, p. 6]

The brief filed for CHR also opposed court review of a project eligibility letter, ignoring 2008 revisions to state regulations that closed off administrative appeals and claiming project eligibility is not a “final agency action.” CHR accused the Town of Brookline of trying to subvert purposes of Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23 with “lengthy and expensive delays occasioned by court battles.” [Defendant's brief from CHR, p. 19]

In response, the Town of Brookline quoted the court opinion in the same case CHR referenced, “…interest in…affordable housing must be balanced against…protection of health and safety…and preservation of open space.” [Plaintiff's reply brief, p. 8, quoting Standerwick v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover, Supreme Judicial Court, 2006]

Like MDFA, CHR did not respond to the Town of Brookline’s argument that “post-permit review” leaves no process for an appellant to challenge whether a site is “appropriate for residential development” and whether a “conceptual project design” is “appropriate for the site.” [Defendant's brief from CHR, pp. 23-25] [Massachusetts regulations 760 CMR 56.04(7), final approval]

Contract zoning restrictions: Issue (2) arguments pressed by the Town of Brookline against MDFA and CHR claim the proposed project would violate terms of a 1946 agreement with the Town of Brookline by the John Hancock Life Insurance Company. For this issue CHR owns the heavy lifting, since its financial interests are at stake.

At Norfolk Superior Court, MDFA and CHR claimed that any requirements from the 1946 agreement had been extinguished after 30 years by Chapter 184, Section 23 of the General Laws. However, that law governs recorded deed restrictions. Previous Massachusetts cases held that it does not limit public agreements, including ones sometimes called “contract zoning.” [Plaintiff's initial brief, pp. 3-4 and 14-19, quoting Killorin v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover, Court of Appeals, 2011]

The Appeals Court may regard the Killorin case as particularly relevant, since two of the three judges who heard that case have been assigned to the current Brookline case: Elspeth B. Cypher and Sydney Hanlon. The Town of Brookline asserts that it has a continuing interest in the 1946 agreement, that the proposed project would violate the agreement and that at Norfolk Superior Court Judge Brady conducted a “myopic review,” finding the Killorin decision applied only to a special zoning permit. [Plaintiff's initial brief, p. 21]

The brief filed for CHR did not respond forthrightly to arguments from the Town of Brookline. Instead, CHR asserted, “It is settled…restrictions which burden land such as those contained in the 1946 agreement can only be enforced for a period of 30 years.” However, whether or not that may be true is a main dispute in the current Appeals Court case. Wishing won’t make it so. [Defendant's brief from CHR, p. 28]

The CHR brief repeated arguments offered at Norfolk Superior Court, saying that the Killorin case “involved conditions imposed on a property by a special zoning permit.” However, the court’s summary of its decision shows it regarded special permits as examples, writing that the law at issue “did not apply to conditions or restrictions set by a government agency such as a local zoning board of appeals as part of the process of granting a special permit. [Defendant's brief from CHR, p. 28] [Killorin v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover, Court of Appeals, 2011, emphasis added]

CHR based its brief on selected quotations from court opinions, trying to argue that exceptions to the law limiting deed restrictions to 30 years applied only to special zoning permits or subdivision control, topics under which cases arose. A recent Appeals Court decision expressed a broader view, as the Town of Brookline argued in its response. [Plaintiff's reply brief, pp. 10-11]

The recent decision said, “The holding of Killorin does not turn on the identify of the local board or on the particular nature of the regulatory decision at issue.” It explained that “the key distinction was…the discretionary grant…under the police power”–that is, the general regulatory powers of a municipality. [Samuelson v. Planning Board of Orleans, Court of Appeals, 2014]

Analysis: In its fairly aggressive reaction to the project eligibility letter issued by MDFA, the Town of Brookline appears to be pursuing a strong remedy, seeking early intervention by a superior court rather than waiting for a “comprehensive permit” and then asking for intervention from the Land Court, as Brookline now has also done.

The main argument for early intervention by a superior court has been a claim that 2008 revisions of state regulations closed off avenues for administrative appeals. MDFA and CHR objected that no right to early intervention is provided by state law, but they did not address an equity argument that administrative remedies formerly available have been withdrawn.

In bidding to sustain a 1946 contract zoning agreement, the Town of Brookline is also treading on unusual territory. So far, no one has cited another such agreement by a Massachusetts town that was brought to a town meeting rather than negotiated through a planning board or zoning appeals board. The extensions from circumstances of prior cases may seem obvious, but they are hardly foregone conclusions.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, September 12, 2015


Docket for case number 2014-P-1817, Town of Brookline and others v. Massachusetts Development Finance Agency and others, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, filed November 14, 2014

Plaintiff’s initial brief, Case 2014-P-1817, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, January 12, 2015 (missing the preamble and table indexes)

Defendant’s brief from MDFA, Case 2014-P-1817, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, February 11, 2015 (11 MB, too large for the Brookline Beacon site, obtainable at Brookline Office of Town Counsel)

Defendant’s brief from CHR, Case 2014-P-1817, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, February 11, 2015 (10 MB, too large for the Brookline Beacon site, obtainable at Brookline Office of Town Counsel)

Plaintiff’s reply brief, Case 2014-P-1817, Massachusetts Court of Appeals, March 13, 2015 (4 MB)

Project eligibility letter, issued to Residences of South Brookline c/o Chestnut Hill Realty, Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, October 8, 2013

Draft denial of project eligibility, addressed to Residences of South Brookline c/o Chestnut Hill Realty, Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, February 13, 2013 (obtained by Town of Brookline via discovery)

Comprehensive permits [under Chapter 40B], Massachusetts regulations 760 CMR 56, Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, 2015 (current version)

Martha Samuelson and another v. Planning Board of Orleans and others, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 901, July 2, 2014

Eric H. Killorin and others v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover and another, 80 Mass.App.Ct. 665, October 14, 2011

Town of Marion v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Authority, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 208, February 12, 2007

Eileen Standerwick and others v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover and another, 447 Mass. 20, June 16, 2006

Land Court: Dueling boards, Selectmen v. Zoning Appeals, Brookline Beacon, September 5, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B conditions, Brookline Beacon, January 6, 2015

Land Court: Dueling boards, Selectmen v. Zoning Appeals

At the Massachusetts Land Court, the Brookline Board of Selectmen faced a motion to remove Town Counsel Joslin Murphy and members of her staff as their representatives in a lawsuit they had filed against members of Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals. It’s a strange case, essentially one town board suing another.

After hearing arguments starting at 10:30 am Thursday, September 3, Judge Gordon Piper indicated he would allow the motion unless the Town of Brookline provides its zoning appeals board legal representation in the case before the end of September.

Hancock Village controversy: Chestnut Hill Realty of West Roxbury, through subsidiaries, originally proposed building 466 new apartments on parts of Hancock Village in south Brookline. After false starts, they reduced the scope of the project and proposed using powers under Chapter 40B of the General Laws, Sections 20-23, to override Brookline zoning in return for building partly subsidized housing.

On February 4, 2015, after more than a year of hearings, Brookline’s zoning appeals board voted unanimously to grant a so-called “comprehensive permit” to build 161 apartments plus 292 parking spaces. There would be a high-rise structure over a rock outcrop, previously considered unbuildable, plus low-rise structures on unbuilt land that had been reserved as “buffers” following 1940s agreements with the Town of Brookline.

In a closed session at a meeting March 3, as confirmed by participants, the Brookline Board of Selectmen voted to sue the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals. A complaint was filed in the Massachusetts Land Court on March 11, seeking to annul and revoke the permit: Town of Brookline and others v. Jesse Geller, Member of the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals, and others. That became Land Court case 2015-MISC-000072.

The Town of Brookline stands directly affected by the permit partly because it owns two abutting properties: Baker School land and D. Blakeley Hoar conservation land. Other plaintiffs in the case are residents who own abutting private property. Main defendants are the zoning appeals board members who voted to grant the permit: Jesse Geller, Christopher Hussey and Jonathan Book–named in their roles as town officials. Other defendants are the Chestnut Hill Realty subsidiary awarded the permit: Residences of South Brookline, LLC.

Legal representation: The Board of Selectmen opposed the Hancock Village project throughout 2014 and, so far, 2015. However, that board assisted the zoning appeals board with services of outside counsel, who attended hearing sessions and offered advice. The Board of Selectmen approved several requests to the Advisory Committee for reserve fund transfers to pay for outside counsel. Funds went through both the Legal Services department and the Planning and Community Development department.

According to online town records, during fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2015 Brookline paid two firms who advised the zoning appeals board a total of $295,121 for services: Krokidas and Bluestein, of Boston, and Edith M. Netter and Associates, of Waltham. The lawyers who attended the appeals board sessions were Samuel Nagler and Kathryn Murphy from the Boston firm and Edith Netter from the Waltham firm. All testimony and advice was in public sessions recorded by Brookline Interactive Group.

At Land Court this week, Judge Piper appeared familiar with the background of the Brookline case. Before arguments, he expressed concern that no legal appearances had been filed for the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals members and that no counsel attended the hearing to represent their interests.

According to communications, Judge Piper said, legal appearances were supposed to have been filed in June. Brookline Town Counsel Joslin Murphy responded that there was “no funding in place.” Judge Piper asked, “Was it requested?” Ms. Murphy said, “Selectmen were asked for support…they did not authorize any.”

Kevin O’Flaherty, representing Chestnut Hill Realty interests, maintained that Ms. Murphy and her staff had “unwaivable conflict,” responsible to represent two boards with opposing outlooks. The judge asked where there had been practical problems. Mr. O’Flaherty contended there might be problems such as obtaining documents, noting there was no counsel to contact for the zoning appeals board members.

Ms. Murphy countered that “the town has responded to discovery requests.” She noted that all sessions and records of the zoning appeals board were public and that Brookline’s Department of Planning and Community Development had provided staff support to retrieve records. She said that “the chairman of the ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] did correspond with the court.”

Zoning agreement: Jason Talerman, representing other plaintiffs in the case, opposed removing Ms. Murphy and her staff from the Land Court case and noted a related case now pending in the Court of Appeals. A key issue in the Appeals Court case has been a 1946 zoning agreement between the Town of Brookline and the John Hancock Life Insurance Company, specifying enduring restrictions on Hancock Village development.

Mr. Talerman had previously raised the issue in a memorandum sent on December 31, 2014, to the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals. As in that memorandum, under the 1946 agreement, he told Judge Piper, “The project as proposed would be impossible.” In its comprehensive permit, however, the zoning appeals board took no notice of the 1946 agreement.

Threat: After more than an hour of argument, Judge Piper seemed unmoved by the particulars and returned to his initial concern over lack of legal representation for Brookline’s zoning appeals board members, saying he found it “deeply troubling.” Board members, he said, were left “entirely speechless, unable to be heard.” Since the members are being sued in their official capacities, they are apparently ineligible to present arguments pro se as plaintiff or defendant individuals might.

According to Judge Piper, “The developer,” apparently meaning the subsidiary of Chestnut Hill Realty, “is limited in its ability to gain access to the minds of the [appeals] board…I will not rule at the moment, [but]…if there is continued inability to hear from the board…I will be strongly inclined to allow the motion.” If that threat were carried out, however, it would instead leave both the main plaintiff and the main defendants in the case unrepresented.

As acknowledged to the Beacon by Ms. Murphy, Brookline has several sources of funds, including her office’s budget for outside legal services, the contingency fund and “in the worst case” a request to the Advisory Committee for a transfer from the reserve fund. Ms. Murphy did not succeed with her most recent reserve fund request.

Mysteries: Partly owing to statements in open court from Ms. Murphy, mysteries remain. There is no docket entry in the case for a communication from Jesse Geller, who chairs the zoning appeals board. If he is ineligible to represent himself in the case yet did “communicate with the court,” then how, when and what did he communicate?

Records should say whom the Board of Selectmen asked for advice about a request to provide funds for outside counsel to represent members of the zoning appeals board in the Land Court case, also what advice was offered and what members of the Board of Selectmen had to say. How and why did members of the Board of Selectmen “not authorize any” funds to represent members of another town board with whom they disagreed on a key issue?

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, September 5, 2015


Town of Brookline and others v. Jesse Geller, Member of the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals, and others, Massachusetts Land Court case 2015-MISC-000072, filed March 11, 2015 (click button to search public records, select Land Court Department and Case Number tab, enter case number “15 MISC 000072″ and click Search button, click any Case Number item for “15 MISC 000072″)

Complaint, Town of Brookline and others v. Jesse Geller, Member of the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals, and others, Massachusetts Land Court, March 11, 2015

Town of Brookline, MA, FY2015 accounts, Vendor payments for KROKIDAS and BLUESTEIN LLP, August, 2015

Town of Brookline, MA, FY2015 accounts, Vendor payments for EDITH M NETTER and ASSOCIATES PC, August, 2015

Comprehensive permit for The Residences of South Brookline, LLC, on the site of Hancock Village, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Brookline, MA, February 20, 2015 (4 MB)

Town of Brookline and others v. Mass. Development Finance Agency and others, Massachusetts Court of Appeals case 2014-P-1817, filed November 14, 2014

Jason Talerman to Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals, Re: Chestnut Hill Realty, Chapter 40B application, Brookline Department of Planning and Community Development, December 31, 2014

Irene Scharf and Jason Talerman, Testimony at Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals, February 24, 2014, see pp. 13 and 45-48

Advisory Committee: probing a disconnect, Brookline Beacon, July 29, 2015

Board of Selectmen: new members and leadership, Brookline Beacon, May 13, 2015

Board of Selectmen: Hancock Village, budget reviews, Brookline Beacon, March 4, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Board of Selectmen: Hancock Village, financial plan, Brookline Beacon, February 21, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B conditions, Brookline Beacon, January 6, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes, Brookline Beacon, November 4, 2014

Board of Selectmen: opposing Hancock Village 40B, defending METCO, Brookline Beacon, September 17, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: architecture for Hancock Village Chapter 40B, Brookline Beacon, September 9, 2014

Judith Leichtner, Comments to Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals on proposed chapter 40B development at Hancock Village, September 8, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Chapter 40B project at Hancock Village, Brookline Beacon, June 20, 2014

Brock Parker, Developer gets green light to pursue a 40B project in Brookline, Boston Globe, October 24, 2013

Board of Selectmen: two boards, changing colors

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, July 14, started at 6:45 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. The board has gone into semi-hibernation for the summer. However, the extra rest and vacations did not seem to help with what is striking some as crabby behavior, at least when dealing in public affairs. Like a chameleon, the board can seem to change colors when dealing with licenses, at least as seen by the general public, if not always as seen by the license applicants.

Discord: Nine Advisory Committee members gathered to witness a protest: vice chair Carla Benka, Janice S. Kahn, chair of the Public Safety subcommittee, Stanley Spiegel, chair of the Planning and Regulation subcommittee, Leonard Weiss, chair of the Administration and Finance subcommittee, Clifford M. Brown, Janet Gelbart, Fred Levitan, Neil R. Gordon and Steve Kanes.

Mr. Weiss spoke about lack of communication shortly before the annual town meeting this May. Not more than a day or two earlier, Andrew Pappastergion, the public works commissioner, had concluded negotiations starting in April for a new recycling collection and processing contract. He had settled a price about $200,000 per year above the budget the Advisory Committee published, which it was about to propose at the town meeting.

Since 1910, the Advisory Committee and its predecessor, the Warrant Committee, appointed by the moderator of town meeting, have served as Brookline’s finance committee. Under Section 16 of Chapter 39 of Massachusetts General Laws, the committee proposes budgets to annual town meetings. In between, it regulates use of the reserve fund. In Brookline, the same committee and its subcommittees also review, hold hearings on and make recommendations about all warrant articles for all town meetings.

Although Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, knew that the budget would go out of balance, he withheld information from the Advisory Committee and might have withheld it from the Board of Selectmen. As a result, the town meeting passed a budget with a major, structural deficit that likely could have been prevented. Mr. Kleckner admitted as much in a later exchange with Sean Lynn-Jones, chair of the Advisory Committee.

According to Mr. Weiss of the committee, that was a breach of trust. The committee, he said, “places great reliance on management representations…Some folks thought withholding information was a good idea…This experience has severely damaged my trust and respect in management.” Fallout included a hotly controversial reserve fund transfer, narrowly approved July 7, when another reserve fund request was denied.

Two members of the Board of Selectmen rushed to defend Mr. Kleckner, and none questioned him, even though all five current board members are Advisory graduates. Nancy Daly, the only board member not serving a first term in office, claimed, “This was not an attempt to hide information…A suggestion that we were trying to sweep something under the rug…was quite offensive.” She did not explain what that referred to.

Neil Wishinsky, chair of the board, made a long statement, concluding, “We try to act in good faith…use our best judgment…There was no bad faith.” In the message exchange, committee chair Lynn-Jones had asked Mr. Kleckner, “…did you consider letting the Advisory Committee know [in April]…budget recommendations might have to be revised?” Mr. Kleckner had responded, “Not at that time….”

Public affairs: Deborah Rivers of the Brookline GreenSpace Alliance described to the board proposed changes in the town’s “climate action plan.” However, from her descriptions alone, it was not clear what differed from the previous plan of December, 2012. An interactive form of the 2012 plan has vanished from the municipal Web site, but the conventional document for that plan remains available.

Comparing proposed actions in Appendix F from the 2012 plan with a new Appendix A of proposed changes showed a reduction in actions being considered. Gone, for example, was a 2012 proposal to “develop a program for replacement of…refrigerators, dishwashers, clothes washers” and a dozen other types of equipment. There are still no comparisons of costs with benefits, and there are no estimates for amounts of efforts involved.

Linda Hamlin and Steve Heikin from the Planning Board and Roger Blood from the Housing Advisory Board asked for authorization to file an application for a $15,000 state grant. Grant applications are routinely filed by town staff without authorization, and approval is sought only to accept grants. It was not clear why any such authorization was needed and why those members of other town boards had become involved.

Their presentation was mostly a replay from a recent meeting of the Housing Advisory Board. Without any explanation, however, the ante had gone up. Instead of less than $35,000–an amount intended to avoid public bidding requirements under state law–Ms. Hamlin, Mr. Heikin and Mr. Blood were now talking about a total of $50,000 or more–not saying why more money was needed or where a missing $35,000 or more might come from.

Although they used oblique language, the main strategy from Ms. Hamlin, Mr. Heikin and Mr. Blood was clearly to target Brookline neighborhoods for major development and to invite Chapter 40B developers whom they might prefer into Brookline to take over properties. Mr. Wishinsky, the board’s chair, seemed to catch on partly, saying such an approach would be “difficult”–involving “identifying specific sites” and “public processs.” However, he seemed to think the strategy involved zoning, when the intent of Chapter 40B is to override zoning, along with all other local permits.

Other board members were circumspect. Nancy Daly spoke about “a huge need in town for affordable senior housing.” Alison Steinfeld, the planning director, claimed Brookline could not focus on senior housing, apparently unaware such plans are authorized under federal law and had been recently announced for development at the Kehillath Israel site on Harvard St. With board member Bernard Greene not participating, the other four voted to approve filing a grant application.

Personnel, contracts and finances: Melissa Goff, the deputy town administrator, got approval to accept a $0.24 million state energy resources grant, intended to offset costs of energy-efficient lighting. Brookline is in the second year of street lighting improvements. In response to a question, Peter Ditto, the engineering director, said changes to street lighting are about 40 percent complete. The new grant, however, is to be used for other public facilities: the high school, the Tappan St. gym, the swimming pool and several parks.

Mr. Ditto got approval to accept $0.144 million in state funds for repairing winter storm damage to streets. He said all the work had been completed by June 30. At his request, the board also approved a $0.024 million contract with Superior Sealcoating of Andover for summer street maintenance.

Lisa Paradis, the recreation director, sought hiring approval for two lead teacher positions at the Soule Recreation Center. As board member Nancy Daly observed, there has been high turnover among the seven teaching jobs at the center. From participants, there have been some notes of morale issues. Responding to a question from board member Nancy Heller, Ms. Paradis said the average length of employment was 3 to 4 years. The board approved, with Mr. Wishinsky asking Ms. Paradis to “seek a diverse pool of candidates.”

Licenses and permits: After the board turned its attention to license applications, Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, left the hall. First up was Richard Nasr of Westwood, who operates the Ontrack Cafe there, seeking a food vendor license at 1633 Beacon St, to be called Square Deli. Such a license for prepared foods does not include restaurant seating or service.

Ms. Daly questioned the application for 2 am closing, calling that “pretty strange” for a sandwich and salad shop. However, as the application noted, the previous business at the site, a 7/11 market, had operated with 2 am closing hours. The board approved the new license with 2 am closing hours.

Adam Barnosky, a member of the law firm headed by Robert L. “Bobby” Allen, Jr., represented Peet’s, seeking approval for three outside tables and service for nine seats at 1154 Boylston St., formerly Starbuck’s. The board has become quite liberal about outside seating, even allowing it on some sidewalks. At this site, outdoor seating was planned on private space in a narrow strip adjacent to a sidewalk. The board approved, subject to another review of seating area dimensions by the Building Department.

A prime candidate for board attention this evening was a proposal for Waxy’s, a regional chain of restaurants with an Irish theme, to open at 1032 Beacon St. That had most recently been the site of a sometimes troubled Mission Cantina. Waxy’s submitted an ambitious proposal, asking for 122 indoor seats, 48 outdoor seats, up to 60 employees, full liquor service including a bar, 2 am closing hours all 7 days a week and recorded entertainment. It would become one of Brookline’s largest restaurants.

The chain was represented by Frank Spillane, a Foxborough lawyer. There turned out to be disconnects. The people named as managers on papers distributed for the license hearing were not actually expected to be the managers once the restaurant was open. The chain was still looking for someone. A main spokesperson at the hearing was a manager recently hired at another location who mumbled his name, although clearly it was not one of those names appearing on the license papers.

Members of the board had read a Brookline Police Department report calling attention to multiple problems at one of the chain’s current locations, in Foxborough. There had been a sale to a minor, drunken behavior by patrons and repeated license suspensions–at least one while that location was managed by one of the people named on license papers as a Brookline manager.

Lt. Hayes of the Brookline Police Department, who had investigated, recommended 1 am closing hours, security cameras and other license restrictions. Board members Nancy Daly and Ben Franco stated they would vote against the application as it stood. With Bernard Greene not participating, the application could not get a majority vote of approval. Mr. Wishinsky, the chair, called for public comment.

Steve Kanes of Carlton St., an Advisory Committee member, described widespread neighborhood concerns. They included noise, litter and smoking. A license, he said, should not allow outdoor entertainment. He mentioned late-night noise after closing, around the outdoor trash receptacle, asking for restrictions.

Joel Feingold of Beacon St., a next-door neighbor, said the former Mission Cantina had caused much more trouble for nearby residents than other business at the site: “a rude awakening” and “a difficult neighbor.” They ran until 2 am outdoors, he said, although licensed only until 11 pm. Outdoor litter and late-night noise had been chronic problems. He asked for no deliveries before 8 am if a license were granted.

James Franco of Amory St., a Precinct 1 town meeting member, asked for no outdoor service after 10 pm if a license were granted, intending that use of outdoor seating should end before 11 pm. Neil Gordon of Ivy St., also a Precinct 1 town meeting member, had similar concerns. Other neighbors recounted past problems and joined in asking for restrictions on any new license. The board was going nowhere with this application. Mr. Wishinsky announced the hearing would be continued to a future date.

Chickens: Brookline is not always so difficult for applicants. Illustrating the point, two evenings later the Zoning Board of Appeals considered an application at a location not far away, on Amory Street, asking for a permit to install a small chicken coop. There may not have been a similar application north of Route 9 during at least the past half century.

The applicants were the Gurock family, who opened the popular Magic Beans children’s store on Harvard St. in 2003, at the former site of Imaginarium. They now have five other locations in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The parents are seeking educational experiences for their children, said Sheri Gurock, describing measures the family plans to prevent odors and neighborhood disturbances (no roosters). Neighbors sent in letters of support, and there was no opposition. The board approved.

Located in the Cottage Farm historic district, the proposal also needed Preservation approval, which it had previously received. The district name was an 1850s invention of Amos Adams Lawrence (1814-1886), sponsor of the unusual development. It did not reflect any known historic farm that might also have raised chickens.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, July 18, 2015


Memorandum from Melvin A. Kleckner, Town Administrator, to Sean Lynn-Jones, Chair, Advisory Committee, Town of Brookline, MA, July 13, 2015

Climate action plan, Town of Brookline, MA, December, 2012

Revisions to climate action plan, Town of Brookline, MA, July, 2015

Planning assistance toward housing (PATH), Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, 2015

Kehillath Israel: renovation and Chapter 40B development, Brookline Beacon, July 9, 2015

Craig Bolon, Advisory Committee: reach for the reset button, Brookline Beacon, July 8, 2015

Housing Advisory Board: “smart growth,” $35,000 consultant, Brookline Beacon, June 25, 2015

Public Works: question time and complaints, Brookline Beacon, May 15, 2014

Kehillath Israel: renovation and Chapter 40B development

On Wednesday evening, July 8, representatives of the Kehillath Israel congregation announced at a public meeting held at the site that they were starting real estate development, in two parts. Part 1 renovates the synagogue building, dedicated in 1925, and adds about 10,000 square feet of support space on the north side. Part 2 builds an undisclosed amount of partly subsidized new housing, replacing the community center opened in 1948 and using Chapter 40B of the General Laws to override Brookline zoning.

Rabbi William Hamilton opened the meeting, saying the congregation was planning for a next century. The membership has shrunk from a peak of around 1,200 families in the 1950s to around 400 now. He introduced Joseph Geller, a landscape architect and developer, member of the congregation, Precinct 9 town meeting member and former member of the Board of Selectmen, who led most of the discussions.

Mr. Geller introduced Robert L. “Bobby” Allen, Jr., a local real estate lawyer, Precinct 16 town meeting member and former member of the Board of Selectmen with whom Mr. Geller served. Mr. Allen is representing the congregation’s legal interests in development plans. Asked about potential disruptions from pursuing development while nearby Devotion School is being rebuilt, Mr. Allen merely said it could be “a problem.”

According to Alison Steinfeld, Brookline’s director of community planning and development, about a year ago Mr. Allen met with members of the department for an initial discussion. Ms. Steinfeld said she did not know the amounts of housing Kehillath Israel might have in mind. Such a discussion, as well as such a meeting as happened July 8, are among steps in Brookline’s design review process for any development on Harvard St.

Location, location: Stories about a potential large housing development have circulated around nearby neighborhoods for many months, with a wide range of speculation about locations, amounts, sizes and heights. The presentation on July 8 settled only location: space now occupied by the community center, which representatives of the congregation called the “Epstein building.”

The current community center’s building outline is about 120 by 65 feet, plus a depth of about 30 feet for front entry and steps. If there were to be no further incursions past those perimeters, that could provide a gross area near 10,000 square feet per floor. A modern 4-story building, similar in overall height to the community center, might house around 40 medium-size apartments.

North Brookline neighborhoods have had two previous experiences with 40B developments. A private developer near the synagogue substantially scaled back initial plans and built a double wood-frame quadruplex at 107A through 113B Centre St. in the late 1990s, replacing a large house. Occupancy of these condominium units has proven fairly transient, with turnovers every several years.

After about seven years of disputes and negotiations, the development arm of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston scaled back initial plans for the former St. Aidan’s Church by about 60 percent and put up mostly modern, fireproof new construction around 2008. However, adaptive reuse, unprecedented for the Archdiocese, placed several apartments inside the historic church structure and preserved the large courtyard at the corner of Pleasant and Freeman Sts. and its huge copper beech tree.

Senior housing: Mr. Geller said Kehillath Israel was planning “senior housing”–favorable for a community in which escalating costs of public schools have been driving up budgets, leading to tax overrides passed this year and in 2008. While age-restricted housing is clearly a form of discrimination, under some conditions it is allowed by laws and regulations.

Massachusetts has had antidiscrimination housing laws for many years. They were partly subsumed by the federal Fair Housing Act, Title 8 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (PL 90-284). The original version of the law prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin in the sale and rental of dwellings. Other protected categories have been added.

Section 4 of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, “Unlawful Discrimination,” prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, veteran status, sexual orientation, marital status, children, handicap and receipt of public assistance or housing subsidy in the selling, renting or leasing of housing accommodations, commercial space or land intended for those uses. Fines are up to $50,000 per violation. Massachusetts regulations in 804 CMR 02 implement the law.

One of the few general exceptions in housing discrimination laws has allowed, after 1988, qualified “senior housing” developments, as modified under the federal Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (PL 104–76). Such a qualification requires 80 percent of dwellings to be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older. The federal qualification can be lost if that operating status is not maintained.

The Kehillath Israel congregation would almost surely be able to qualify a development as “senior housing.” Asked how the congregation might guarantee that “senior housing” will continue to qualify and operate that way, Mr. Geller said he expected there would be a continuing agreement with the Town of Brookline. By contrast, the management at Hancock Village in south Brookline has been moving away from “senior housing,” actively marketing to mostly foreign families with children. They are not planning “senior housing” as a part of their current Chapter 40B housing project in Brookline.

When a religious organization sponsors housing, some assume members and affiliates of the organization will become occupants or may be favored. Occupants of new housing at the Kehillath Israel site need not be Jewish or otherwise share some background that might tend to exclude people protected against discrimination. During controversy over redevelopment of the former St. Aidan’s Church, at least some former parishioners seemed convinced they would be favored to occupy new apartments there. Since that did not agree with housing laws and regulations, it did not happen.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, July 9, 2015


Fair housing regulation, Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, 2015

Town elections: tax override for schools passes, Brookline Beacon, May 5, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Advisory Committee: reach for the reset button

Meeting on Tuesday, July 7, at Town Hall, starting at 6:15 pm, the Advisory Committee and its subcommittee on planning and regulation rejected a reserve fund transfer request from the Board of Selectmen and from Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, voting by 2 to 1 margins and more. Such outright rejections have been rare. This one seemed to surprise Joslin Murphy, the town counsel, and Melissa Goff, the deputy town administrator, who were on hand to make the case for the reserve fund transfer.

The request was for legal support related to potential taking of Hancock Village buffers in south Brookline as recreation land, proposed for study by a resolution from the annual town meeting this May under Article 18. The Board of Selectmen had been widely expected to set up an independent “blue ribbon panel” to consider the issue, since they are entangled in two lawsuits involving a Chapter 40B project at Hancock Village, overriding Brookline zoning, which they strongly oppose.

To nearly everyone’s surprise, Mr. Kleckner and members of the Brookline Board of Selectmen recently seemed to ignore conflicts in those matters, angling toward involvement in the recreation land issues, including their recent request for a transfer from the reserve fund. In effect as well as in words from some of its members, the Advisory Committee called on the Board of Selectmen to reach for the reset button and recast a potentially troubled approach.

Conflicts and bad faith: A land taking under powers of eminent domain can be held valid in Massachusetts when the land is part of a proposed Chapter 40B housing development. However, Brookline would need to be able to show that such a taking was in “good faith”–that is, mainly for a claimed and legitimate public purpose and not mainly to restrict a Chapter 40B development.

Such a case began about 44 years ago in Chelmsford. Its town meeting voted to take a parcel of land for conservation that was also the site of a Chapter 40B project for partly subsidized housing. The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case in Chelmsford v. DiBiase [370 Mass. 90, 1976]. It found, in part:

“A taking of land by eminent domain by a town in good faith and for a public purpose was valid notwithstanding a pending application to the board of appeals for a comprehensive permit to build low and moderate income housing on the land pursuant to General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23….”

According to the opinion in Chelmsford v. DiBiase, there were no material disputes over whether the town had acted in good faith–that is, mainly to take land for conservation purposes and not mainly to restrict a Chapter 40B development. In a later case, Pheasant Ridge v. Burlington [399 Mass. 771, 1987], disputes over “good faith” arose and led to a different outcome.

The Burlington Board of Selectmen apparently concocted a hasty justification for taking land by eminent domain at the site of a proposed Chapter 40B development. Massachusetts courts were not convinced by claims that the public purpose was legitimate but also considered circumstances under which the justification for a taking had been asserted, The Supreme Judicial Court opinion held, in part:

“…a municipal land taking, proper on its face, may be invalid because undertaken in bad faith…the record in this case…required the inference that the town, acting through its town meeting, was concerned only with blocking the plaintiffs’ development….”

Recreation land: The Brookline proposal for recreation land stands in the balance. Two situations are almost never identical. A Chelmsford case showed that a taking for recreation could succeed, while a Burlington case showed that conflicts of purposes might undermine it. Just after the recent town meeting, the town administrator and members of the Board of Selectmen set out in a sensible direction, along lines of past precedents in Brookline, keeping some distance from a study of recreation land.

More recently, ignoring the request of town meeting to act “in good faith,” they swerved toward wrecking the potential for a significant project. Some observers are already tending toward an interpretation of the changes as sabotage. Maybe, they say, the town administrator and members of the Board of Selectmen mean to block the recreation land proposal by linking it with their lawsuits and making it impossible to defend.

Regina Frawley, a Precinct 16 town meeting member and the principal petitioner for Article 18, told the full Advisory Committee, “The goal hasn’t changed…active recreation space in perpetuity.” The petitioners, she said, had been “very mindful to separate the fact the town had two law cases involving the property…the issue of bad faith versus good faith.” At town meeting, she recalled, “selectmen abstained from Article 18 so they would not contaminate the case…They had the power to create a ‘blue ribbon panel.’ After town meeting, they chose not to do that.”

According to Lee Selwyn, a member of the Advisory subcommittee, “The issues now are mainly factual…a citizen panel to develop a factual record is what the proponents of Article 18 had in mind.” At the recent town meeting, he said, “a clear majority” supported the article about recreation land. “It wasn’t close…a factual record supporting its legitimate use…would help to overcome a ‘bad faith’ claim.”

Len Weiss, an Advisory Committee member, contended, “We should vote against the reserve fund transfer. There’s money to be spent in the budget right now [and] no need to transfer money from the reserve fund.” Committee member Fred Levitan said that “in my tenth year [on the committee], I don’t recall reserve fund transfers in advance,” only seven days into a fiscal year.

In the end, the Advisory Committee denied the request for a reserve fund transfer by a vote of 16 to 7, with Alisa Jonas of Precinct 16 abstaining. Ms. Jonas has been described as a participant in a lawsuit brought by a group of south Brookline residents and linked with one of the lawsuits brought by the Board of Selectmen, opposing the Chapter 40B project at Hancock Village.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, July 8, 2015


Chelmsford v. DiBiase, 370 Mass. 90, 1976

Pheasant Ridge v. Burlington, 399 Mass. 771, 1987

Warrant report with supplements, May 26, 2015, town meeting, Town of Brookline, MA

Article 18, Brookline, MA, 2015 Annual Town Meeting, acted on May 28, 2015

Craig Bolon, Board of Selectmen: poisoning the well, Brookline Beacon, July 2, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Board of Selectmen: poisoning the well

On Tuesday, June 30, as recommended by Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, the Board of Selectmen voted to ask the Advisory Committee for $15,000 from the reserve fund on July 7, “for expertise in the study of eminent domain,” to be expended by the Office of Town Counsel. The request was prompted by approval at the annual town meeting of a resolution under Article 18, calling for the following main activity:

“…Town Meeting asks the Board of Selectmen to study and consider in good faith the taking under the powers of eminent domain [of] the two buffer zones presently zoned S-7 within the Hancock Village property, abutting Russett and Beverly Roads, for a permanently publicly-accessible active recreational space….”

Entanglements: A key problem with this request has been that members of the Board of Selectmen are plaintiffs in two lawsuits involving the Hancock Village property. They are suing a state agency that authorized the owner to propose a project under Chapter 40B of the General Laws, overriding Brookline zoning and other permits. They are also suing the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals, for approving the project and granting a comprehensive permit.

If that were not enough, Nancy Heller, a newly elected member of the board, submitted Article 17 to the 2015 annual town meeting and argued it. It’s entitled, “Resolution in support of changes to the affordable housing law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B.” She and other petitioners explained, “…[We] have worded the resolution in a broad manner. The purpose is to give our legislators as much latitude as they need to work with other legislators to amend 40B….”

Thus members of the Board of Selectmen are entangled in attacks against both a controversial 40B project at Hancock Village and the key Massachusetts law enabling the project. This leaves high risks for any involvement they might have in proposals arising from Article 18, under which Brookline would consider taking currently vacant parts of Hancock Village by eminent domain, to be used as recreation land.

One of the common challenges against eminent domain is acting in “bad faith”–that is, for covert purposes other than those claimed. With the Hancock Village situation, the property owner could be expected to claim that members of the Board of Selectmen considered eminent domain in “bad faith”—mainly to restrict an unwelcome Chapter 40B development rather than mainly to acquire recreation land.

Anticipation and defenses: After the recent town meeting, many participants and observers anticipated the Board of Selectmen would appoint a study committee for Article 18, as they often do for other issues, and would then keep their distance from it.

It would need to become an independent “blue ribbon panel,” with no further involvement by members of the Board of Selectmen. Putting the issues in the hands of an independent panel could provide defenses against acting in “bad faith,” should a recreation land effort proceed and should eminent domain be used to acquire Hancock Village land.

For quite a few years, several iterations of the Board of Selectmen have swung the other way. Coached by ambitious town administrators, they have politicized almost every new board, commission, committee and council by installing one of their members on it, often naming that member as chair. Article 18 presented a situation where such a domineering brand of machine politics cannot work. It could obviously encourage claims of “bad faith” and could well destroy a project to acquire recreation land.

Precedents: After idling on Article 18 for a month and making a false start, Mr. Kleckner, who seems to know very little about Brookline history, tried to claim a committee was unlikely because the town no longer has a redevelopment authority to call on. The former Brookline Redevelopment Authority was indeed active in takings during the Farm Project and Marsh Project, but the Town of Brookline did similar work, too. Disputes focused on policies and costs; mechanics were not thought to be much of a stretch.

Under Article 25, the 1974 annual town meeting authorized taking land off Amory St. by eminent domain for conservation. The relatively new Conservation Commission had proposed the Hall’s Pond project and presented all the key evaluations and arguments to boards, committees and town meeting. Not long afterward, the commission did similar work for the conservation area now known as Amory Woods.

Like the Hancock Village buffers, the Hall’s Pond parcel was seen as threatened by development, yet it was intact and had never been built on. North of Route 9, Brookline had no conservation land then, and very little suitable land remained. At 3-1/2 acres, the site to the east of Amory Playground was about half the size of the Hancock Village buffers combined.

The Conservation Commission obtained advice from local lawyers, contracted for a land survey, commissioned independent appraisals, and prepared and submitted the 1974 town meeting article. Commissioners persuaded only two members of the Board of Selectmen, but they got help from the Planning Board and a unanimous endorsement from the Advisory Committee. Town meeting gave strong support, and a counted vote was not needed.

Poisoning the well: On June 30, Mr. Kleckner led members of the Board of Selectmen in an odd direction–at high risk of poisoning the well, though coupling them into “bad faith” maneuvers. They did not hold matters at arms length by appointing an independent committee. Instead, they voted to submit a reserve fund request for funds to be spent by the town counsel, who reports to them.

They expect to entertain discussions of the issues among the board–potentially some closed to the public, at which they may also be considering “litigation,” as their agendas often call out. According to Mr. Kleckner, they expect to couple investigations pertinent to recreation areas with those pertinent to potential school sites and possibly other town projects.

By failing to maintain a bright line of separation between recreation land proposed at Hancock Village and other town business, including lawsuits against Hancock Village development, recent actions by Mr. Kleckner and members of the Board of Selectmen stand at grave risk of poisoning the well. Ignoring the request of the town meeting to act “in good faith,” they are proceeding headlong toward wrecking the potential for a significant project. At least some will say that is what they meant to do.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, July 2, 2015


Warrant report with supplements, May 26, 2015, town meeting, Town of Brookline, MA

Article 18, Brookline, MA, 2015 Annual Town Meeting, heard and acted on May 28, 2015

Housing Advisory Board: “smart growth,” $35,000 consultant

A meeting of Brookline’s Housing Advisory Board on Wednesday, June 24, started at 7:30 pm in the first-floor south meeting room at Town Hall. All the current members except Kathy Spiegelman were on hand. Board members heard a presentation on Chapter 40R “smart growth” development and joined with Planning Board members in a continued review of Chapter 40B regulations, as asked at the town meeting in May. They are considering a consultant study estimated to cost $35,000.

Smart growth: Chapter 40R of Massachusetts General Laws and companion Chapter 40S are legacies from waning years of the Romney administration, trying to promote so-called “smart growth.” The catch-phrase mainly means development near public transit, reducing needs for automobiles. In the classic Massachusetts traditions, our hydra of state government grew a new tendril. It is currently headed by William E. “Bill” Reyelt, who is a Precinct 5 town meeting member in Brookline.

Mr. Reyelt illustrated his description of Chapter 40R to the housing board with computerized slides. The state is offering tiny incentives to communities that set up special “smart growth” zoning districts and approve housing development permits. They mainly amount to one-time payments of $1,000 to $3,000 per housing unit for each unit built beyond standard zoning.

Sergio Modigliani, a Planning Board member, observed that the cost of educating a student in Brookline schools averages around $18,000 a year. At that rate, state payments would be eaten up in at most a few months, while Brookline taxpayers would be exposed to uncompensated costs for at least a century. Maybe not so “smart.”

All Mr. Reyelt could offer was that Brookline might become “eligible” for partial compensation under a Chapter 40S program, but there is “no guarantee” of state funding. All the communities participating in Chapter 40R turned out to be smaller cities, far suburbs and rural towns. None are among the towns Brookline typically regards as peers, including Arlington, Belmont, Lexington and Winchester.

Chapter 40B regulations: As proposed by the Advisory Committee, last May’s annual town meeting referred a proposal to change Chapter 40B law and regulations to the Housing Advisory Board and the Planning Board, asking for a “plan for Brookline to work with other mature, built-out communities…to achieve a temporary ‘safe harbor’ status” from disruptive development, such as one proposed at Hancock Village. As the Advisory Committee wrote in its recommendation, that will take changes to state regulations.

Despite town meeting’s directions, the Housing Advisory Board looks to have taken off on a tangent. Instead of working on changing state regulations, members are considering a consultant study for a “housing production plan” to counter 40B development under current regulations.

Brookline already has such a plan, produced in 2005. Little of significance has changed since then. To satisfy current regulations, Brookline would have to develop more than 250 housing units a year that are subsidized to Chapter 40B levels. For the past 15 years, Brookline has averaged less than 10 such units a year.

Housing Advisory Board members estimated spending about $35,000 on a consultant study for a new housing production plan. However, they had not contacted any potential consultants. Instead, board member Karen Kepler, a lawyer, noted that a contract under $35,000 would be exempt from state public bidding requirements.

Virginia Bullock, one of the town’s housing project planners, said Brookline had a good chance of getting $15,000 from a new state grant called “planning assistance toward housing.” Board members speculated about how to wheedle money out of the Advisory Committee or how to bleed Housing Trust funds. Those are set aside to support subsidized housing units, not to stuff the pockets of consultants.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, June 25, 2015


Matthew J. Lawlor, Chapter 40R: a good law made better finally starts showing results, Congress of the New Urbanism, October, 2006

Planning assistance toward housing (PATH), Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B conditions, Brookline Beacon, January 6, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes, Brookline Beacon, November 4, 2014

2015 annual town meeting: budgets, bylaws and resolutions

Unlike last year, Brookline’s 2015 annual town meeting rolled along at a brisk pace and needed only two sessions–Tuesday, May 26, and Thursday, May 28–both starting at 7 pm in the High School auditorium. The generally progressive tones of Brookline civic engagement remained clear, and some of the musical theatre of years past returned for an encore. This is the one-hundredth year for Brookline’s elected town meeting.

Budgets: Disputes over budgets that roiled the winter workups to town meeting had evaporated after voter approval of a major tax override at the Tuesday, May 5, town election. Edward “Sandy” Gadsby, the moderator of town meeting, mentioned “controversy” over a three-word amendment to one special appropriation. The Advisory Committee proposed two changes to the “override” financial plan as proposed by Mel Kleckner, the town administrator.

In the traditional presentation of an annual budget, Sean Lynn-Jones, newly elected as chair of the Advisory Committee last winter, called 2015 “an interesting year.” He noted that new revenues were going to be involved in maintaining a stable budget, singling out parking meter and refuse fees. Mr. Lynn-Jones said he expects “fiscal challenges…another general override in three to five years…possibly a ninth elementary school…high school [expansion] at over $100 million, not $35 million,” as most recently estimated.

In the traditional response from the Board of Selectmen, Neil Wishinshy, recently elected as the new chair, said strongly contested elections, like those this year, “make our town and democracy stronger.” He spoke of new efficiencies contributing to a stable budget, singling out trash metering, which has been mentioned at official meetings but so far not detailed. Mr. Wishinsky called on town meeting members to “put aside narrow self-interest,” saying, “We live in the real world.”

Staff for preservation planning will increase from 1.8 to 2.0 full-time-equivalent positions, a budget hike of $14,119. It is expected to provide a full-time position for preservationist Greer Hardwicke. The Public Works budget for pavement markings got $2,673 more, to cope with after-effects from a harsh winter. Those had been wrapped into Advisory Committee motions. A $264 million spending plan sailed through, mostly on voice votes.

A three-word amendment to a $100,000 special appropriation had been proposed by Craig Bolon, a Precinct 8 town meeting member who edits the Brookline Beacon. Offered on behalf of Brookline PAX, it asked that a study of Coolidge Corner parking be done “with neighborhood input.” Town meeting agreed in a unanimous voice vote.

Instead of parochial concerns with Public Works, this year’s town meeting focused more on the Police budget. Lynda Roseman, a Precinct 14 town meeting member, asked about progress coping with mental health issues. Daniel O’Leary, the police chief, compared last year–when three members of the force were involved–to this year, when two grant-funded programs are underway. By the end of the year, he said, about a quarter of the force will have completed 40 hours of training.

A large municipal solar-power array, in effect a budget item, was approved out-of-line under Articles 15 and 16. Brookline is contracting with Blue Wave Capital, a company endorsed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, which is to build and operate it, using part of the former landfill site near the waste transfer station off Newton St. Rated capacity is to be 1.4 MW, peak. Expected income is about $0.08 million per year.

Bylaw, Living Wage: Under Article 10, the Recreation Department proposed to gut much of the Living Wage bylaw enacted several years ago, by exempting from coverage several employee groups and by eliminating the Brookline minimum wage: a one-dollar premium over the state minimum. Patricia Connors, a Precinct 3 town meeting member who was the chief sponsor of the bylaw, had resisted the effort strongly.

Scott Gladstone, a Precinct 16 town meeting member, was entirely opposed to Article 10. “The bylaw is already a compromise,” he claimed. “Junior lifeguards,” whom it would remove from coverage, “are lifeguards…with the same Red Cross certifications as anybody else…What we’re trying to teach here…is work values…Should we teach them that they should not be demanding a living wage?”

Ms. Connors was supported by Brookline PAX. Co-chair Frank Farlow, a Precinct 4 town meeting member, stated, “PAX supports working people and fair wages.” Board member Andrew Fischer, a Precinct 13 town meeting member, called Article 10 “an assault on working people,” saying, “I wonder how many [town-funded] cars it would take to cover the wages of students with first-time jobs.”

Robert L. “Bobby” Allen, Jr., a Precinct 16 town meeting member and former member of the Board of Selectmen, tried to deflect those arguments. saying that when the now-disbanded Living Wage Committee proposed the bylaw, “We were way out front.” He favored some compromises being sponsored by the Advisory Committee. Pamela Lodish, a Precinct 14 town meeting member who lost this year when running for the Board of Selectmen, agreed with Mr. Allen. “If we pass the [Connors] amendment,” she said, “we’ll be hiring college students instead of high-school students.”

Ms. Connors was proposing to maintain the current bylaw’s definitions of seasonal and temporary employment. It was not certain whether Mr. Allen or Ms. Lodish understood, but Merelice, a Precinct 6 town meeting member, clearly did. The current bylaw’s approach is not supported by the HR module of Munis, recently adopted for maintaining employment records by the Human Resources (HR) office. According to Merelice, the attitude of HR is “an example of being concerned about the dirt when we hold the broom.” She contended, “We can certainly find the technology.”

Town meeting members sided strongly with Ms. Connors, Merelice and Brookline PAX. In an electronically recorded vote, the Connors amendment passed 141 to 48, with 10 abstentions. The amended main motion on Article 10 passed 144 to 42, with 5 abstentions. Although the Brookline minimum wage premium is maintained, so-called “junior” employees in the Recreation Department will no longer be covered by the Living Wage, reverting to the Brookline minimum wage–currently $10.00 versus $13.19 per hour. Recreation claims to be able to support more positions.

Bylaw, snow clearance from sidewalks: Town meeting grappled with the latest edition of a snow-clearance bylaw under Article 12. For about 30 years a bylaw initially proposed by Stanley Spiegel, a Precinct 2 town meeting member, has required property owners to clear adjacent sidewalks of snow. However, until a push last year from Frank Caro, a Precinct 10 town meeting member who filed a resolution article, and from the Age-Friendly Cities Committee, enforcement proved erratic.

During the 1970s and before, Brookline plowed most of the sidewalks, but after budget trims in the aftermath of Proposition 2-1/2 it cut back to only a few, including ones near schools. Article 12 was proposed by a Sidewalk Snow Removal Task Force, appointed in the summer of 2014 by the Board of Selectmen to strengthen the town’s law and its enforcement. The group–including staff from Public Works, Health, Building and Police–acknowledged that a complaint-driven approach had worked poorly.

Last winter, the four departments contributing to the task force divided Brookline’s streets into four sectors and began proactive enforcement during weekdays, with Police assuming most duties at other times. Despite the unusually harsh winter, enforcement generally improved, as described to town meeting by Nancy Daly, speaking for the Board of Selectmen. However, Martin Rosenthal, a Precinct 9 town meeting member, pointed out the lack of coordination in the current form of enforcement.

In its town-meeting article, the task force proposed to discontinue automatic warnings for first violations at residential properties, to raise fines and to institute a $250 fine for placing snow into a street–forbidden by Brookline’s general bylaws since the nineteenth century.

Compromises made as outcomes of several reviews had gutted most of the original proposal, leaving relatively weak enforcement, modest fines and no administrative appeals. Tommy Vitolo, a Precinct 6 town meeting member, offered two amendments intended to address some compromises. One would have limited a period of enforcement delay, at discretion of the public works commissioner, to no more than 30 hours after the end of a snowfall.

Amy Hummel of Precinct 12, speaking for the Advisory Committee, objected to an arbitrary time limit for the commissioner’s discretion. During the Blizzard of 1978, many streets remained impassible for several days, because Brookline then lacked much equipment capable of clearing them. That amendment was rejected through an electronically recorded vote, 78 to 108, with 6 abstentions.

Dr. Vitolo’s other amendment sought to restore the schedule of fines that the task force had proposed. Those called for a $50 fine on a first violation at a residential property, rather than an automatic warning, and a $100 fine for subsequent violations.

Dennis Doughty, a Precinct 3 town meeting member who served on the task force, supported the amendment on fines. He compared hazards of sidewalk snow with other hazards now sanctioned by $50 fines and no warnings, including putting refuse out for collection earlier than 4 pm the previous day. Town meeting members approved the amendment on fines through an electronically recorded vote, 135 to 52, with 5 abstentions.

Unfortunately, Dr. Vitolo’s amendment on fines for failure to clear sidewalk snow seems to leave the Brookline bylaws inconsistent. According to the main motion before town meeting, proposed by the Advisory committee on p. 5 of its supplemental report section and amended per Dr. Vitolo, the snow clearance bylaw was changed by town meeting to read, in part:

“The violation of any part of Section 7.7.3 [that is, the requirement to clear sidewalk snow at residential properties]…shall be noted with a $50 fine for the first violation and subject to a fine of $100.00 for the second and subsequent violations….”

However, according to the main motion, revised penalties are stated again in Article 10.3 of the bylaws, Table of Specific Penalties. What Dr. Vitolo’s amendment did was to revise penalties stated in the bylaw on snow clearance but not those stated in the Table of Specific Penalties. There will likely be no more snow before a fall town meeting, which might make the Brookline bylaws consistent.

Bylaws, tap water and bottled water: Articles 13 and 14, the two “water articles,” had been filed by Jane Gilman, a Precinct 3 town meeting member, Clinton Richmond, a Precinct 6 town meeting member, and several other petitioners. Both were “watered down” during reviews before the town meeting, yet significant parts of each survived and won approval.

Ms. Gilman and Mr. Richmond are co-chairs of the “green caucus” in town meeting, which counts over fifty town meeting members as participants and has been effective at marshaling votes for some recent, environmentally oriented initiatives. Brookline PAX, with a somewhat overlapping base of support, was recommending voting for motions offered by the Board of Selectmen in favor of parts of the two articles.

Article 13 sought a bylaw requiring Brookline restaurants to offer tap water. They already do, said Sytske Humphrey of Precinct 6, speaking for the Advisory Committee. She called the proposed bylaw “unnecessary and ineffective.” However, the petitioners had found some sinners. An Indian restaurant in Washington Square did not offer tap water on its take-out menu, and one pizza place did not seem to offer it at all.

Differing from the Advisory position, the Board of Selectmen saw little objection to such a law but added a phrase, “upon request,” and removed a sentence: “Establishments may charge for this service item.” That might give an impression, they wrote, that charging for water “was a requirement.”

Diana Spiegel, a Precinct 2 town meeting member, said the topic could be handled by conditions on restaurant licenses and moved to refer the article to the Board of Selectmen. In an electronically recorded vote, the referral motion failed 78 to 103, with 5 abstentions. The motion for a bylaw drafted by the Board of Selectmen passed 124 to 56, with 7 abstentions.

Article 14, seeking to ban sale and distribution of bottled water at town events and on town property, encountered stiffer headwinds at reviews before town meeting and quickly lost altitude. According to Mr. Richmond, the purpose was not banning water but banning the plastic bottles usually supplied. Hundreds of billions a year are sold. While they might be recycled, at least in part, they are mostly thrown away.

By town meeting, motions under the article had been trimmed back to a proposed ban on spending town funds to buy water in plastic bottles of one liter or less for use in offices. The Board of Selectmen proposed to refer the rest of the article to a study committee, to be appointed by the board. The Advisory Committee stuck with its original approach, recommending no action.

John Harris, a Precinct 8 town meeting member and a past participant in the “green caucus,” was not in line this time. The bylaw favored by the Board of Selectmen would have negligible impact, he claimed, and if widely emulated elsewhere, then companies selling bottled water would easily subvert it. Speaking for the Board of Selectmen, Nancy Daly disagreed, saying the debates over Article 14 had “succeeded at least in educating me.”

The Advisory Committee remained unmoved. Robert Liao of Precinct 15 recommended voting for the Harris motion to refer, consistent with the Advisory position. There will be “adverse unintended consequences” from a bylaw, he claimed, saying, “Reusable bottles require planning and changes in behavior.”

Robert Miller, a Precinct 8 town meeting member, asked whether the town was spending money on either bottled water or bottled soda. The answers were yes as to both, according to Mel Kleckner, the town administrator. Echoing a topic heard often during reviews, Jonathan Davis, a Precinct 10 town meeting member, asked whether vending machines on town property would be affected. Mr. Richmond conceded they would not be, since “the machines are put out to bid” and do not involve spending town funds.

Mr. Gadsby, the moderator, took a motion for the question–that is, a motion to terminate debate. Not enough town meeting members were ready to do that. On an electronically recorded vote the motion failed 129 to 71, with 2 abstentions. Such a motion takes a two-thirds margin but got only 65 percent.

Susan Helms Daley of Chatham Circle and her son Jackson, a fourth-grader at Lawrence School, told town meeting members about an alternative that is catching on. For the past few years, the school has had a “green team” and tried “to discourage use of bottled water.” Ms. Daley asserted, “Bottled water is the same as cigarettes.” Jackson Daley said after the school installed “water bottle refill stations”–a PTO project–”more people brought water bottles” to school. So far, he said, “We have saved 10,129 plastic bottles. How cool is that?”

After hearing similar opinions from a junior at Brookline High School, Mr. Gadsby again accepted a motion for the question. He declared it had passed, on a show of hands. The motion from Mr. Harris to refer all of Article 14 failed on an electronically recorded vote, 97 to 102, with 2 abstentions. The motion from the Board of Selectmen for a bylaw banning some uses of town funds passed by a substantial majority, on a show of hands.

Resolution, recreation land: Article 18 proposed a resolution seeking a study of acquiring land in the Putterham neighborhoods of south Brookline for park and recreation uses–specifically, so-called “buffer” areas of Hancock Village near Beverly and Russett Rds. Regina Frawley, a Precinct 16 town meeting member, and Hugh Mattison, a Precinct 5 town meeting member, prepared the article. Although not an abutter to Hancock Village, Ms. Frawley has lived nearby since 1968.

While it is possible that the current landowner, Chestnut Hill Realty, might agree to sell the land, a series of development plans, currently tapping powers under Chapter 40B of the General Laws, have left the company at loggerheads with the Board of Selectmen. A purchase-and-sale agreement now looks unlikely, so that Ms. Frawley suggested the land would probably have to be taken by eminent domain.

In the Putterham neighborhoods, Ms. Frawley showed, there is little public open space. She described the current open spaces and showed that the Hancock Village buffers look to be the largest undeveloped areas likely to be suitable. The only sizable public spaces now are around Baker School. They are laid out for specialized uses and are unavailable to the public during school days. For over 70 years, neighborhood residents have often used the buffer areas for recreation instead, as tolerated by a succession of landowners.

Moderator Gadsby immediately took comments from Rebecca Plaut Mautner, a Precinct 11 town meeting member, ahead of normal order and before hearing from the Advisory Committee and town boards. He did not explain the unusual conduct. Ms. Mautner operates RPM Consulting, according to the Web site of Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association in Boston–providing “affordable housing development services” in New England.

Ms. Mautner delivered a broadside against Article 18, saying it “will be perceived by the outside world as an effort to undermine creation of affordable housing…a message that Brookline will stop at nothing to prevent affordable housing.” That did not seem to resonate well, broached in the first town in Massachusetts to build public housing, where inclusionary zoning has been active for over 20 years.

Lee Selwyn of Precinct 13, speaking for the Advisory Committee, recalled that the proposed “Hancock Village project did not start out as 40B…there was no affordable housing in the original plan.” The owner, he said, is “using 40B as a means to pressure the town.” He said Article 18 proposed “a reasonable public use” of land, and he noted that a parcel adjacent to Hancock Village had been “taken by the state by eminent domain to prevent an inappropriate development.” The Hancock Woods area was taken as conservation land about 20 years ago.

Janice Kahn of Precinct 15, also an Advisory Committee member, supported the study. She said it could teach the town about using eminent domain. There has been no substantial taking since the Hall’s Pond and Amory Woods conservation projects in the 1970s. Given the ongoing disputes with Chestnut Hill Realty, the Board of Selectmen had declined to take a position on Article 18. Members had said they would abstain from voting on it.

Mr. Mattison of Precinct 5, a suppporter, said the buffer “space has served as informal recreation space.” Some 1940s correspondence with the town, he said, describes “how the commitment would be binding” to maintain it as open space. However, that was not part of an agreement presented to a 1946 town meeting, when the bulk of Hancock Village was rezoned to allow apartments.

Lauren Bernard, a Precinct 8 town meeting member, asked whether a “prescriptive easement” would be possible, given the long history of public use, and whether that would be “mutually exclusive with eminent domain.” Joslin Murphy, the town counsel, said easement issues were “not considered yet,” but easement and eminent domain would probably “be mutually exclusive.”

Even though the hour was getting late, at 10:30 pm, town meeting was willing to hear more arguments. A motion for the question failed on an electronically recorded vote, 88 to 78, with 17 abstentions. Julie Jette of Payson Rd. spoke. She said she had been “very surprised” when moving there “that really the only fully accessible playground is in West Roxbury.”

Crossing the rotary and the VFW Parkway with young children seemed too dangerous, Ms. Jette said, and she had never tried. However, she said, “yards are not a substitute for social and community opportunities. It’s time to create a true neighborhood park in south Brookline…Time is of the essence, given Chestnut Hill Realty development plans.” After a few other comments, town meeting approved Article 18 on a show of hands, looking like a ten-to-one majority at least.

Resolution, Boston Olympics: Article 19 proposed a resolution, objecting to plans for holding the Olympic Games in Boston during 2024. The plans never gained traction in Brookline, where many people see heavy costs and slender benefits. The Board of Selectmen had nevertheless postponed making a recommendation, reaching out to the pressure group pushing for the Olympics, but no one from that group responded.

At the town meeting, Martin Rosenthal, a Precinct 9 town meeting member, led off–speaking for Brookline PAX, of which he is co-chair. Unlike his fellow co-chair, Frank Farlow of Precinct 4, Mr. Rosenthal said he is a sports fan and “was excited at first.” However, he had realized “there might be some issues here…it was more for the benefit of non-Brookline people.” PAX opposes plans for 2024 Olympic Games in Boston.

Christopher Dempsey, a Precinct 6 town meeting member, was giving no quarter. He has co-founded a volunteer group, No Boston Olympics, and was on the warpath, armed with PowerPoint slides. The pressure group behind the Olympics plans, he said, is aiming to raid public funds. A long article published the previous day in the Boston Business Journal revealed much of that story to the public.

According to Business Journal staff, previously secret sections of the Olympics “bid book” said public money would be sought to “fund land acquisition and infrastructure costs.” The plans were also “relying on an expanded Boston Convention and Exhibition Center”–a deluxe Patrick administration venture that the Baker administration has canned.

Mr. Dempsey was having a field day, saying, “Boston 2024 is not going to fix the T…In London and Vancouver the Olympics Village financing was from public funds…Olympics budgets are guaranteed by taxpayers…The more you learn about 2024 Olympics, the less you like it.” Ben Franco spoke for the Board of Selectmen, simply stating that the board “urges favorable action” on Article 19.

Speaking for the Advisory Committee, Amy Hummel of Precinct 12 said that “the money and resources spent would benefit the Olympics shadow.” The current plans have “no real public accountability,” she contended, and “Brookline will be heavily impacted…The biggest concern [of the Advisory Committee] is the taxpayer guarantee…Lack of public process is unacceptable.”

Olympics boosters did have some friends. Charles “Chuck” Swartz, a Precinct 9 town meeting member, advised caution, saying, “Who knows what will happen in Boston? We don’t have to make this decision now.” Susan Granoff of Precinct 7, attending her first town meeting, said, “Let’s give Boston 2024 more time.” The Olympics, she contended, “would create thousands of jobs and bring billions of dollars…It’s private money being donated.”

Most town meeting members were not convinced by such claims. They approved the resolution in an electronically recorded vote, 111 to 46, with 7 abstentions. Katherine Seelye’s story in the New York Times on Saturday, May 30, may have deep-sixed the Olympics plans. She included the Business Journal disclosures and cited the Brookline town-meeting resolution.

Other actions: Under Article 9, town meeting voted no action on a proposal to make holders of state and federal offices living in Brookline automatic town meeting members. After encountering opposition, Ernest Frey, a Precinct 7 town meeting member, offered a “no action” motion on the article that he and other petitioners had submitted.

Article 17 proposed a resolution seeking changes to Sections 20-23 of Chapter 40B, the Comprehensive Permit Act of 1969 that was encouraged by the late Cardinal Cushing. Nancy Heller, the principal petitioner, now a member of the Board of Selectmen, had not seemed to recognize the complexity of the issues and soon agreed to refer the article to the Planning Board and Housing Advisory Board. That was the course taken by town meeting.

Under Article 11, town meeting voted to create a Crowninshield local historic district, on petition from the owners of about 85 percent of the houses on Crowninshield Rd., Adams St., Elba St. and Copley St. Speaking in favor were David King, chair of the Preservation Commission, Robert Miller, a Precinct 8 town meeting member, George White, a Precinct 9 town meeting member, John Sherman and Katherine Poverman, both residents of Adams St., Angela Hyatt of Precinct 5 for the Advisory Committee and Nancy Daly for the Board of Selectmen.

Dr. White recalled that the neighborhood had been home to well-known writers and artists. He mentioned novelist and short-story writer Edith Pearlman, an Elba St. resident for many years, and after a little prompting the novelist Saul Bellow, winner of a Nobel Prize in literature, who lived on Crowninshield Rd. in his later years. Only Clifford Ananian, a Precinct 10 town meeting member, took exception. He said preserving “single-family homes is a waste of a valuable resource,” although he lives in one of those homes. Despite the objection, the town meeting vote to create the district proved unanimous.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, May 30, 2015


Katherine Q. Seelye, Details uncovered in Boston’s 2024 Olympic bid may put it in jeopardy, New York Times, May 30, 2015

BBJ staff, Boston 2024 report highlights need for public funding, expanded BCEC, Boston Business Journal, May 28, 2015

Matt Stout, Gov. Baker puts brakes on $1 billion convention center plan, Boston Herald, April 29, 2015

Warrant report with supplements, May 26, 2015, town meeting, Town of Brookline, MA

Age-Friendly Cities: health fair, outreach, snow and parks, Brookline Beacon, May 25, 2015

Board of Selectmen: police awards, paying for snow, Brookline Beacon, May 20, 2015

Board of Selectmen: new members and leadership, Brookline Beacon, May 13, 2015

Craig Bolon, How we voted, costs of business, Brookline Beacon, May 10, 2015

Craig Bolon, Field of dreams: a Coolidge Corner parking garage, Brookline Beacon, May 4, 2015

Board of Selectmen: landmarks, permits and town meeting controversy, Brookline Beacon, April 22, 2015

Board of Selectmen: farmers’ market, promotions, golf and town meeting, Brookline Beacon, April 29, 2015

Advisory Committee: budgets, bylaws and lectures, Brookline Beacon, April 14, 2015

Advisory subcommittee on human services: tap water and bottled water, Brookline Beacon, April 12, 2015

Advisory Committee: new park land for Putterham neighborhoods, Brookline Beacon, April 10, 2015

Advisory subcommittee on planning and regulation: new historic district, Brookline Beacon, March 31, 2015

Craig Bolon, Advisory Committee: in a generous mood, Brookline Beacon, March 19, 2015

Board of Selectmen: Hancock Village, budget reviews, Brookline Beacon, March 4, 2015

Solid Waste Advisory Committee: recycling and trash metering, Brookline Beacon, September 3, 2014

2014 annual town meeting recap: fine points, Brookline Beacon, June 7, 2014

Craig Bolon, Recycling makes more progress without trash metering, Brookline Beacon, April 11, 2014

Planning Department: a grand plan for Village Square on a diet

Grand plans of 2005 for a “boulevard” along the foot of Washington St. near Brookline Village faded. More recently, instead of Goody, Clancy–the high-prestige Boston architecture and planning firm–Brookline hired Vanasse Hangen Brustlin of Watertown–engineers and highway designers. Working at a very slow and mostly quiet pace, they planned a highway renovation for part of Route 9. The project has been coordinated by Public Works and Planning staff, particularly Joe Viola, the assistant director for community planning.

Last Wednesday, May 13, Mr. Viola organized a public presentation and hearing on a highway renovation plan, starting at 7 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. Neil Wishinsky, recently chosen as chair of the Board of Selectmen, presided over the hearing. No committee of Brookline residents has a role in this project. A committee for the so-called “Gateway East” boulevard project has been inactive since 2006. A committee for a so-called “Walnut St. and Juniper St. Relocation” project has been inactive since 2010.

Background: The foot of Washington St., bending toward Mission Hill in Boston, became the commercial heart of Brookline during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The Worcester Turnpike, opened to Natick in 1810, started westward at the bend of Washington St. That road is now Boylston St., part of Massachusetts Route 9, which continues along the foot of Washington St. across the Jamaicaway to Huntington Ave. in Boston.

The Punch Bowl Tavern was Brookline’s best known landmark during the 1700s. It was located across the foot of Washington St. from today’s site of the Village Square fire station, built of brick and limestone in early twentieth century. The area nearby was often called Punch Bowl Village. The 1830s street connecting to Beacon St. through what is now Kenmore Square was originally Punch Bowl Rd. Now it is Brookline Ave.

A railroad courses beside the Village Square area, begun in 1853 as the Charles River Branch Railroad, later the Brookline Branch of the Boston & Albany and now the Riverside (D) branch of the MBTA Green Line. During the 1920s, the bustle of Village Square attracted the Brookline Savings Bank’s handsome new headquarters to the bend of Washington St. Aside from the fire station, that is the only historic building left on the square.

Village Square was almost totally lost to redevelopment, starting in the late 1950s. Patterning its efforts on destruction of the West End in Boston by the Hynes administration, the former Brookline Redevelopment Authority took property by eminent domain for the so-called “Farm Project,” evicted all the former residents and businesses, ripped out the streets and tore down everything south of Route 9 but the fire station.

On the north side of Route 9, the so-called “Marsh Project” ran at a slower pace, but it was about as ruthless. Now there can be no genuine Village Square “boulevard,” because there is no longer a genuine Village Square–an extinct neighborhood–to lend it character. Although Village Square doesn’t yet house a suburban strip mall, like Chestnut Hill, the swath of destruction left a bleak highway junction, being filled in by large-scale new development.

Village Square, from the former site of Brookline Savings Bank

VillageSquareFromBrooklineBank
Source: Brookline Department of Planning and Community Development

Bicycle bonanza: The first public presentation Mr. Viola scheduled, last December 3, attracted around 50 bicycle promoters from Brookline and Boston. They were nearly all seeking protected bicycle lanes, sometimes called “cycle tracks.” If Brookline’s commercial areas were to be prioritized by amounts of bicycle traffic, Village Square would probably rank low. Today it has little business and only a modest population density nearby. For all but a few Brookline residents, it is neither a destination nor a waypoint.

Instead, what Village Square has is money, thanks to persistent efforts currying state support for highway renovation. It also holds some future promise from the expected 2 Brookline Place development, but bicycle promoters were likely drawn to the project by the scent of money. State money was squandered when renovating Beacon St. a few years ago, installing lots of new paving but little else of community value. Because of neglectful design, a majority of Beacon St. remains unsuitable for even painted bicycle lanes.

The cost of protected bicycle lanes in built-out urban areas runs to as much as $5 million a mile. When installed during roadway renovation, parts of the work will be common to the renovation, and the incremental cost can be less. At the May 13 presentation, a representative of the Massachusetts transportation agency estimated a 7 percent increase in costs for the Village Square project.

Plans: As described by Beth Eisler, an engineer from Toole Design Group in Boston, plans for protected bicycle lanes at Village Square are limited to the foot of Washington St. between the intersection with High St. on the south side and the intersection with Brookline Ave. on the north side. Anything more will await some future project and funding.

The main roadway change is to move the end of Walnut St. eastward, aligning the intersection of Walnut St. on the south side of Washington St. with the intersection of Pearl St. on the north side. Protected bicycle lanes on both sides of the foot of Washington St. extend just two blocks, about one-seventh of a mile.

Design for protected bicycle lanes at Village Square

VillageSquareCycleTracks
Source: Brookline Department of Planning and Community Development

The proposed designs place bicycle lanes at sidewalk level toward the curbs–the approach used on Vassar St. in Cambridge. At the bus stop near Pearl St., the bicycle lane is to curve away from the street, skirting an island for people entering and leaving a bus. Bicycle lanes are to have a color, texture or both that differs from walkways. No bicycle lane materials, signs or signals were described.

Desires: The May 13 presentation and hearing drew an audience of about 35. Most speakers supported plans but asked for changes in designs. Eric from Jamaica Plain described himself as riding through Village Square frequently. He doubted the proposed designs would draw riders to the area, because of hazardous intersections. Placing a painted bicycle lane in the middle of Washington St., descending from the overpass above the Green Line, would be “terrifying to many,” he said. “People will ride on the sidewalk.”

Mark from Roslindale, speaking for the Boston Cyclists Union, had similar observations. Stacy Thompson, representing the Livable Streets Alliance in Cambridge, had “concerns about a two-stage Washington St. crossing” for pedestrians. The long delays, she said, would provoke jaywalking. Crossing “seven lanes is really intimidating across lower Washington St.”

Scott Englander, a Transportation Board member who co-chairs the Complete Streets Study Committee, said the designs had been “hamstrung by the 2006 planning effort…an obsolete planning philosophy.” They have “weak links at several points,” he said, some of which he described. Much more obvious barriers were created by the 1950s philosophy, turning Village Square into part of a highway complex rather than part of a village network. That is how the foot of Washington St. became seven traffic lanes instead of four.

George Cole, a member of the Building Commission who has also been a spokesperson for Children’s Hospital, the owner and developer of 2 Brookline Place, said the hospital “supports bicycles” and asked about the schedule. Tracy Wu, the project manager at the state transportation agency, said the schedule currently calls for completing designs in September, 2016, and performing construction between the spring and fall of 2017.

According to Jane Gilman, a Precinct 3 town meeting member, “we are a multi-modal society,” turning to “sustainable practices.” She asked about bicycle lane signals, pervious pavement and trees. For each item, Ms. Eisler of Toole Design Group said nothing had yet been planned. Laura Costella of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin stated there will be “a significant landscape component to this project…replacing existing elements at least six to one.”

Several speakers sought to extend the designs for protected bicycle lanes to other parts of the streets. Tommy Vitolo, a Precinct 6 town meeting member, argued for extending them along Walnut St. to High St. That should not be very costly, he argued, saying, “It’s all new anyway.” Like other Brookline speakers, however, Dr. Vitolo seemed to have little knowledge of actual costs for protected bicycle lanes.

Mr. Viola said the next step for the plans would be to present them to the Transportation Board. Todd Kirrane, the transportation director, indicated that might occur at a June meeting. Given the many responses from Toole Design Group and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin that elements were “not planned yet” or “we’ll look into it,” it was not at all clear that plans were ready for prime time.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, May 16, 2015


Toole Design Group (Boston, MA), Gateway East bicycle facilities, Brookline Department of Planning and Community Development, May 13, 2015

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, Costs for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements, U.S. Federal Highway Administration, 2015

Complete Streets: seeking better sidewalks and bicycle paths, Brookline Beacon, May 12, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: zoning permit for a registered marijuana dispensary, Brookline Beacon, April 25, 2015

Planning Board: Brookline Place redevelopment, Brookline Beacon, January 23, 2015

Craig Bolon, Gateway East: an idea whose time has gone, Brookline Beacon, October 17, 2014

Craig Bolon, Brookline bicycle crashes: patterns and factors, Brookline Beacon, August 16, 2014

Craig Bolon, Brookline legacies: Olmsted and coal ash, Brookline Beacon, June 6, 2014

Board of Selectmen: new members and leadership

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, May 12, started at 7:15 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. New members are Bernard Greene, formerly a Precinct 7 town meeting member, and Nancy Heller, formerly a Precinct 8 town meeting member. Both were members of the Advisory Committee until earlier this year. The board chose Neil Wishinsky as chair. He had been elected to the board in 2013.

With retirements of long-serving members Betsy DeWitt and Kenneth Goldstein, the board now has four members who are in their first terms of office. Only Nancy Daly, first elected in 2005, is now a long-serving member. All current board members have Advisory Committee experience, reviving a Brookline tradition. Ms. Heller was previously a member and chair of the School Committee.

Public comment: Pamela Lodish, a Precinct 14 town meeting member and a former member of the Advisory Committee and School Committee, offered public comment. This year, she placed third of five candidates for the Board of Selectman. Mystifying many, she had omitted taking a public stand on the tax override ballot question, surely the issue of the year in Brookline, in her town-wide campaign mailing. Ms. Heller and Mr. Greene had supported it, and they won.

After a “contentious” election, Ms. Lodish said, “getting the town back together…is not so simple…[it was] a divisive campaign…[it was] alienating 40 percent of the voters…a campaign fueled by rhetoric and scare factors.” In thinly veiled language, she called members of the Board of Selectmen to account for “lack of transparency…failed leadership…a manufactured crisis.”

The 40 percent Ms. Lodish mentioned clearly alluded to No votes on this year’s Question 1. That can be compared with Question 1A of 2008, a similar tax override. Both questions were actively promoted and vigorously opposed. The No votes went from 37 percent in 2008 to 38 percent this year. Ms. Lodish did not explain why she considered override efforts in 2015 at fault but apparently not those in 2008, when she wasn’t running for office.

Personnel, contracts and finances: Dennis DeWitt, an architectural historian who has been an alternate on the Preservation Commission, was appointed as a regular member. Daniel Bennett, the building commissioner, got approval to keep Betsy DeWitt, who just retired from the Board of Selectmen, as a member of the Devotion School building subcommittee on selecting a construction manager at risk. Mr. Bennett also won waiver of permit fees, about $0.01 million, for the third floor of 62 Harvard St., where the town plans to site four classrooms to relieve crowding at nearby Pierce School. He estimated about $0.35 million in work.

The board interviewed Nathan Peck of Philbrick Rd. for the Building Commission. A position once held by David Pollack, now a member of the School Committee, has been vacant for some time. Mr. Peck, who trained in civil engineering, has built a career as a building project manager and is currently president of Kaplan Construction on Harvard St. He mentioned that his father-in-law, Kenneth Kaplan, had gotten him interested in serving on the commission, of which Mr. Kaplan has been a member since 2001.

Lisa Paradis, the recreation director, got approval to hire a replacement for a teacher in the early education program at Soule. Ruthann Dobeck, director for the Council on Aging, got approval to hire a replacement for her program’s van driver, based at the Senior Center.

Peter Ditto, the engineering director, got approval for two contracts with Mario Susi & Son of Dorchester for roadway paving, totaling $0.2 million. Susi was low bidder for a 3-year contract cycle and has worked for Brookline in the past. The board accepted a $0.01 million grant from the Dolphins swim team parent council for swimming pool improvements and a $0.01 million grant from the Brookline Community Foundation to fund summer day-camp scholarships.

Management and town meeting issues: Maria Morelli, a Brookline planner who has worked on the town’s responses to the Chapter 40B housing development proposed at Hancock Village, asked the board to send letters about the proposal to the state’s environmental agency and historical commission. They ask for reviews of potential adverse effects. She said that while the reviews could not block the proposal, they could result in “mitigation.” The board approved.

Joe Viola, the assistant director for community planning, presented the fiscal 2016 Community Development Block Grant program and objectives. After several prior reviews, the $1.35 million program has been loaded with administration at $0.5 million. Otherwise it benefits public and assisted housing most, $0.5 million. Public services are budgeted at $0.2 million and improvements to the Brookline Ave. playground at $0.15 million. No one appeared for the board’s public hearing. Board members approved.

In the wake of the successful tax override ballot proposal, board members were probably relieved not to resume disputes with the Advisory Committee, which had voted to restore about $0.5 million in budget cuts from the “no-override” budget, without ever determining where that money would come from.

The board voted to agree with a recent Advisory recommendation to accept the “override” budget proposed by Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, with two small changes. With those revisions, the Planning budget would go up $0.014 million, to give a preservation planner a full-time position, and $0.003 million would be added to the Public Works budget for pavement markings. Deductions would be taken against energy accounts.

The board postponed reconsiderations for Articles 9 and 12 at the annual town meeting that starts May 26, changes to the town-meeting membership and snow-removal bylaws. Mr. Kleckner said he had heard Article 9 might be “withdrawn,” although that is not possible under town meeting procedures. Petitioners led by Ernest Frey, a Precinct 7 town meeting member, have been described as aiming to provide a town meeting seat for Deborah Goldberg, a former Precinct 14 town meeting member and now state treasurer. In similar past circumstances, there has occasionally been an agreement to offer no motion on an article.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, May 13, 2015


Warrant report, May 26, 2015, town meeting, Town of Brookline, MA

Town elections: tax override for schools passes, Brookline Beacon, May 5, 2015

Board of Selectmen: farmers’ market, promotions, golf and town meeting, Brookline Beacon, April 29, 2015

Board of Selectmen: landmarks, permits and town meeting controversy, Brookline Beacon, April 22, 2015

Advisory Committee: budgets, bylaws and lectures, Brookline Beacon, April 14, 2015

Board of Selectmen: personnel, policies and budget reviews, Brookline Beacon, April 3, 2015

Board of Selectmen: projects and budget reviews, Brookline Beacon, March 20, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Advisory Committee: budgets and reconsiderations

The Advisory Committee met Thursday, April 30, starting at 7:00 pm in the first-floor south meeting room at Town Hall. Review season for this year’s annual town meeting is winding down, with work on most articles now complete for the town meeting starting Tuesday, May 26. The committee reconsidered three articles:
• Article 8. annual appropriations
• Article 9. town meeting membership, by petition
• Article 17. Chapter 40B resolution, by petition

Budgets: At the annual town election Tuesday, May 5, Brookline voters will decide whether or not to approve a permanent, general override that would increase total Brookline tax collections by $7.665 million per year above amounts allowed under Proposition 2-1/2, the statewide budget act passed by voters in 1980. So far the Advisory Committee, like the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee, has worked with so-called “base budgets” that will govern should voters reject the proposed override.

If required to proceed with base budgets, the committee will find itself backed into a financial corner by recommending, so far, about $0.5 million more in spending than the town has projected in revenue and other available funds. Hopes for a reprieve from balances in overlay accounts were recently dashed by the need to fund an overrun of about $3.4 million for snow clearance, the result of an historically severe winter.

While some committee members spoke about $2.5 million in “unallocated revenues”–account balances held against major unexpected needs–apparently none understood the mechanics for tapping those funds to solve an imbalance in their base budgets. Committee member Janet Gelbart, not a town meeting member, seemed to think growth in school enrollment, combined with extraordinary winter expenses, justified action. “The purpose of a reserve,” she said, “is so when you have an emergency you can pay for it.”

Partnership: There was discussion of the so-called “town-school partnership” that for 20 years has divided tax revenue between municipal and school programs. It was begun in 1995 by Richard Kelliher, then the town administrator, and James F. Walsh, then the superintendent of schools.

Since 1995, the partnership has been managed by a Town/School Partnership Committee with two representatives each from the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee and the Advisory Committee. The partnership committee is dormant. Its members from the Board of Selectmen, Ken Goldstein and Betsy DeWitt, did not run for re-election. One member from the Advisory Committee, Harry Bohrs, resigned this winter. The other, Leonard Weiss, moved from chairing the Advisory subcommittee on schools to the subcommittee on administration and finance.

Stanley Spiegel, a Precinct 2 town meeting member, asked how the town-school revenue division could be changed. Mr. Weiss, the only Advisory member now delegated to the partnership committee, was not on hand to respond. David-Marc Goldstein of Precinct 8 said, “Town meeting does not feel part of that partnership.” Actually, the Advisory Committee plays a role representing town meeting–as on several other boards and committees, including Climate Action and the Devotion School Building Committee.

Automatic town meeting members: Elected Brookline town meetings have long included several members designated automatically because of offices they hold. In the 1970s, these were cut back to people who hold other, major elected offices: currently the moderator, the town clerk, the members of the Board of Selectmen and members of the General Court who live in Brookline.

Led by Ernest A. Frey, a Precinct 7 town meeting member, a group of Brookline voters submitted Article 9 for the annual town meeting by petition. It seeks to add, as automatic town meeting members, elected federal and state officials who live in Brookline. Those are now Deborah Goldberg, the state treasurer, and Joseph P. Kennedy, III, who represents Brookline in the U.S. Congress.

The Board of Selectmen had supported Article 9, but thus far the Advisory Committee had opposed it. Dr. Spiegel, who chairs the Advisory subcommittee on planning and regulation, proposed a compromise at this week’s meeting of the Board of Selectmen. It would designate elected federal and state officials who live in Brookline as “honorary town meeting members,” non-voting but welcome to participate in town meeting debates.

Amy Hummel of Precinct 12 seemed unconvinced. “It sounds like we’re talking about celebrities,” she said. Since any registered Brookline voter is eligible to run for town meeting, all current automatic town meeting members and all those proposed could run–and likely win–if they chose. Mr. Goldstein favored ending the designations. The committee voted to reject Dr. Spiegel’s proposed compromise and to recommend no action on Article 9.

Chapter 40B resolution: Led by Precinct 8 town meeting member Nancy Heller, a group of Brookline voters submitted Article 17 by petition: a resolution advocating changes in policy for Chapter 40B projects. As the subcommittee led by Dr. Spiegel proposed and the petitioners have agreed, the Advisory Committee voted to recommend referring the article to the Planning Board and the Housing Advisory Board.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, May 1, 2015


Advisory Committee, Town of Brookline, MA

Warrant for 2015 Annual Town Meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, March 17, 2015

Explanations of Articles, 2015 Annual Town Meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, March 17, 2015

Richard Kelliher and James Walsh, Memorandum of understanding: town/school budget partnership, Town of Brookline, MA, May 16, 1995

Board of Selectmen: farmers’ market, promotions, golf and town meeting, Brookline Beacon, April 29, 2015

Board of Selectmen: landmarks, permits and town meeting controversy, Brookline Beacon, April 22, 2015

Advisory: new park land for Putterham neighborhoods, Brookline Beacon, April 10, 2015

Board of Selectmen: $7.665 million tax override, Brookline Beacon, February 12, 2015

Board of Selectmen: landmarks, permits and town meeting controversy

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, April 21, started at 6:30 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. The board heard from applicants for permits and from petitioners for town meeting articles. It began with the several-years tradition of “announcements” from departing board member Betsy DeWitt. Key among them this week was celebration of a new landmark.

Landmarks: Ms. DeWitt, who has a longstanding interest in Brookline history, announced that a Brookline site had recently been named a national historic landmark, the town’s fourth. It is the Brookline Reservoir–located along the former Worcester Turnpike, now Boylston St. and MA Route 9, between Lee and Warren Sts.–along with the 14-mile Cochituate Aqueduct, connecting it with man-made Lake Cochituate in Natick.

The Brookline Reservoir and Cochituate Aqueduct were the first major expansion of the Boston-area water works, which later came to include the Chestnut Hill Reservoir and the Fisher Hill Reservoir. The Brookline Reservoir and Cochituate Aqueduct are the earliest intact example of a reliable, metropolitan water system for a major U.S. city. They operated in full service from 1848 through 1951.

In mid-nineteenth century, when the aqueduct and reservoir were built, Boston-to-be was a conglomerate of a growing small city and nearby towns–including Brighton, Charlestown, Dorchester, Roxbury and West Roxbury, which included Jamaica Plain after 1850. Between 1868 and 1873, these towns agreed to merge with Boston. An 1873 Brookline town meeting refused to join, putting an end to Boston expansion except for Hyde Park in 1912. The aqueduct and reservoir remained key elements of the city’s water supply until the construction of the Quabbin Reservoir, during the Great Depression, and of the Hultman Aqueduct, in the 1940s.

Two of Brookline’s three older national landmarks are well known: the birthplace of former Pres. Kennedy, at 83 Beals St., and the former home of Frederick Olmsted, Sr., the pioneering landscape architect, at 99 Warren St. For some obscure reason, Ms. DeWitt would not describe the other landmark site.

The third older landmark is the former residence of George R. Minot (1885-1950) of Harvard Medical School, for whom the Minot Rose Garden on St. Paul St. was named. Anyone with Internet access can easily locate the site at 71 Sears Rd., now occupied by unrelated private owners. Prof. Minot became the first winner of a Nobel prize to live in Brookline.

In the mid-1920s, Prof. Minot, George H. Whipple of the University of California Medical School and William P. Murphy of Harvard Medical School found that Addison’s disease, a fatal condition then called pernicious anemia, was associated with a dietary factor. They discovered it could often be controlled by adding a water-soluble extract from liver to the diet. The three were awarded the Nobel prize in medicine for 1934. In the late 1940s, the active dietary substance was isolated; it is cobalamin, also known as vitamin B-12.

Contracts, personnel and finances: The board approved $0.08 million in contract additions for storm-sewer repairs with Beta Group of Norwood, also the town’s consultant for storm-water issues during review of a proposed Chapter 40B development at Hancock Village. The contract is part of a continuing program to reduce infiltration and leakage. This year’s repairs affect Addington Rd., Summit Ave. and Winchester St. Peter Ditto, the director of engineering, said he expects the state to reimburse about 45 percent of the cost.

Joslin Murphy, the town counsel, got approval to hire an associate town counsel. The position became available after promotion of Patricia Correa to first assistant town counsel. Members of the board expressed appreciation for Ms. Correa, one of the few Brookline senior municipal staff fluent in Spanish. Ms. Murphy said she would be searching for expertise in construction and school law. Ken Goldstein, the board’s outgoing chair, omitted the usual request to seek a diverse pool of candidates.

Erin Gallentine, the director of parks and open space, presented a plan for improving the Olmsted park system shared with Boston, also called the “emerald necklace.” It is partly based on a survey of over 7,000 trees in about 1,000 acres of park land. Board member Nancy Daly asked what the plan would cost to implement. Ms. Gallentine estimated about $7.5 million for the total plan and $0.5 million for the Brookline portion, spread over several years.

Ms. Gallentine expects private fund-raising to cover a substantial part of costs. The board voted to approve an agreement with the Emerald Necklace Conservancy of Boston to begin work. The board has not published a statement of the work to be performed, which is supposed to become Exhibit A of the agreement, or evidence of insurance from the conservancy, which is supposed to become Exhibit B.

Permits and licenses: Hui Di Chen of Melrose, formerly involved with Sakura restaurant in Winchester and proposed as manager of Genki Ya restaurant, at 398 Harvard St., asked to transfer licenses held by the current manager. This had been continued from February 17, when Mr. Chen was not able to answer some of the board’s questions. Since then, he also applied for outdoor seating. This time he appeared well prepared. The board approved all five licenses requested. Board records continue to contain misspellings of names.

Andrew Gordon of Boston applied for a permit to operate an open-air parking lot at 295 Rawson Rd. The parking lot for 20 cars was created in 1977 under a special zoning permit. Located below Claflin Path and behind houses on Rawson Rd, it has access to Rawson Rd. through an easement between two houses. Mr. Gordon has agreed to buy it from the current owner.

Alison Steinfeld, the planning director, had sent a memorandum saying the department “was not aware of any problems,” but neighbors and abutters said that they certainly were. About 20 of them came to the hearing, and several spoke. They described problems with access and snow clearance. This past winter, they said, problems became extreme, with access to the lot dangerous or blocked for weeks.

The current license, through June 30, requires the operator to “keep the entrance and parking spaces passable and clear of excess snow at all times.” Neighbors also objected to parkers using Claflin Path, a private way, for access to the lot. Board member Neil Wishinsky said that might constitute trespassing and said owners of Claflin Path might consider a fence. It was not clear whether a “doctrine of adverse possession” might apply.

Others described the lot as currently “striped for 30 cars.” Communications from the building and planning departments did not reflect knowledge of conditions. Through a spokesman, Mr. Gordon agreed to observe the 20-car capacity. With uncertainty over conditions, the board decided to continue the hearing on April 28.

Town meeting controversy: The board reviewed several articles for the annual town meeting starting May 26 and voted recommendations on some, including Article 9, which would make elected federal and state officials living in Brookline automatic members of town meeting. The Advisory Committee considered the article April 14 and voted unanimously to oppose it.

Town meetings are the legislative bodies of towns. In larger towns with representative town meetings, town meeting members are elected to represent voters, mostly on local issues. Holders of elected federal and state offices represent voters on different issues. U.S. senators and representatives–as well as the state’s governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and so on–are mostly elected by voters living somewhere other than in one particular town.

None of that seemed to matter to members of the Board of Selectmen, who spoke in terms of social relations and potential influence with officials who might qualify as Brookline town meeting members. They voted to support the article. Such thinking has long been common among members of the board, but over the years town meeting members have seen things differently, voting to trim back the number of automatic town meeting members.

Board members voted to support Article 10, excluding from living wage coverage some seasonal jobs in the recreation department but keeping a one-dollar premium over minimum wages. Disagreement with the Advisory Committee remains over which jobs would continue to be covered by Brookline’s living wage bylaw. As nearly everyone expected, board members voted to support Article 11, proposing a Crowninshield local historic district.

After a skeptical review by an Advisory subcommittee, petitioners for Article 17, a resolution advocating changes in policy for Chapter 40B projects, agreed to refer the article to the Planning Board and the Housing Advisory Board. An approach of further review now has support from both the Board of Selectmen and the Advisory subcommittee on planning and regulation, which takes up the article again April 23.

Article 18 proposes a resolution seeking a study of acquiring Hancock Village buffers, mostly behind houses on Beverly and Russett Rds., for park and recreation purposes. Members of the board expressed concern over involvement in lawsuits against Hancock Village owners over a proposed Chapter 40B housing development. Voting on a motion to support Article 18, Ken Goldstein, the chair, and board members Nancy Daly and Neil Wishinsky abstained. The motion failed for lack of a voting majority, leaving the Board of Selectmen taking no position on this article.

No Boston Olympics: Article 19 proposes a resolution against Olympic games in Boston. urging officials who represent Brookline to reject the proposal for 2024 Olympics. Christopher Dempsey, a Precinct 6 town meeting member, spoke for the article. He is co-chair of a group called No Boston Olympics working to defeat the proposal. The City Council of Cambridge has already passed a resolution similar to Article 19.

In his efforts, Mr. Dempsey has associated with Liam Kerr, a leader in an educationally extremist campaign known as Democrats for Education Reform–nationally typified by performances of Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York and Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. Demonstrating the durability of gross ignorance, that group maintains, “Standardized tests have shined a light on the real quality of education.”

Olympics opponents point to $50 billion for the Olympics in Japan–largely at government expense. They argue that a Boston Olympics would bleed state and local governments and usurp public roads and property for weeks to years. Some members of the Board of Selectmen appeared uninformed and wary of the issue, but Nancy Daly said, “I’m against the Olympics.” No representatives of the pressure group pushing for the Olympics showed up, and the board decided to reach out to them and defer voting a recommendation on the article.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, April 22, 2015


Ellen Ishkanian, Brookline Reservoir and gatehouse named national historic landmark, Boston Globe, April 16, 2015

William P. Marchione, Brookline’s 1873 rejection of Boston, Brighton-Allston Historical Society, c. 2000

Advisory: new park land for Putterham neighborhoods, Brookline Beacon, April 10, 2015

Board of Selectmen: Hancock Village, financial plan, Brookline Beacon, February 21, 2015

Adam Vaccaro, They just don’t want the Olympics, Boston Globe, April 2, 2015. A rambling, chatty account bloated with gossip.

Zeninjor Enwemeka, After WBUR poll, Boston 2024 says it won’t move forward without majority public support, WBUR (Boston, MA), March 23, 2015

Dan Primack, Chris Dempsey leaves Bain & Co., as Boston Olympics battle rages on, Fortune, March 20, 2015

Gintautas Dumcius, Deval Patrick will get $7,500 per day for Boston 2024 Olympics work, Springfield (MA) Republican, March 9, 2015

Neighborhoods: improvements for Coolidge Corner

The North Brookline Neighborhood Association (NBNA) held a public meeting starting at 7 pm Wednesday, April 15, in the Sussman House community room at 50 Pleasant St., focused on improvements for the Coolidge Corner area. Founded in 1972, NBNA is now one of Brookline’s older neighborhood associations. By population it is the largest, serving an area between Beacon St. and Commonwealth Ave. and between Winchester and Amory Sts.

The NBNA meeting drew an audience of near 30, more than half of them town meeting members from Precincts 2, 3 and 7-11. After an introduction by Charles “Chuck” Swartz, a Precinct 9 town meeting member and a member of the Advisory Committee, Kara Brewton, the economic development director in Brookline’s planning department, made a presentation and led discussion.

Waldo St.: Ms. Brewton described elements of what she called a “5-year plan” for Coolidge Corner improvements, mentioning a customer survey, gardening projects and interest in the future of the Waldo St. area. Waldo St. is a short, dead-end private way extending from Pleasant St. opposite Pelham Hall, the 8-story, 1920s, red brick apartment building at the corner of Beacon and Pleasant Sts.

Not recounted by Ms. Brewton at this particular meeting was the controversy several years ago when a would-be developer proposed to replace the now disused Waldo St. garage with a high-rise hotel. While a hotel might become a good neighbor and a significant source of town revenue, the garage property did not provide a safe site. Street access is constricted, and emergency vehicles might be blocked. Permits were not granted.

Also not recounted by Ms. Brewton at this meeting was current Waldo St. ownership, with the garage at the corner of Pleasant and John Sts. now in the hands of the owners of Hancock Village. They are involved in a protracted dispute with the Brookline Board of Selectmen, after applying to build a large, partly subsidized housing development, trying to override Brookline zoning using powers under Chapter 40B of the General Laws.

These matters were well known to nearly all present. By skirting them, Ms. Brewton signaled that she preferred to avoid frank discussion of local conflicts. Her presentation was being observed by a member of the Economic Development Advisory Board, for whom she provides staff support. That left a constrained but still sizable clear space for group discussion.

Survey: Ms. Brewton described a 2014 consumer survey in Coolidge Corner, coordinated by the Department of Planning and Community Development. She said the survey had tallied “a few thousand responses,” that it showed who visits the area for what purposes, that a little over half of the respondents lived in Brookline and that their most frequent activity was buying food.

Stanley Spiegel, a Precinct 2 town meeting member and a member of the Advisory Committee, asked whether the survey had investigated lack of parking. Ms. Brewton said, “Customers find it hard to find parking.” She said the survey found about a third of respondents drove a car to Coolidge Corner and those who did tended to spend more money in the shops.

Ms. Brewton said that current priorities for her division, informed by the customer survey, were focused on three concerns: (1) the mix of business, (2) the public spaces and (3) parking. Asked what she meant by “the mix of business,” she mentioned that there was currently no “ordinary clothing store.” It was not obvious what that meant either, since The Gap has a Coolidge Corner location and several other shops also sell clothing.

Coolidge Corner has lacked a full-service clothing store since the former, 3-story Brown’s, at the corner of Harvard and Green Sts., burned in the 1960s. McDonald’s took over the property, building a one-story shop with distinctive arch windows that became a prototype for the company’s urban expansion. With McDonald’s gone since 2007, the shop with arch windows has been subdivided into spaces occupied by a pizza parlor and a branch bank.

A report from the survey contractor, FinePoint Associates of Brookline, is available on Brookline’s municipal Web site. According to that report, the survey tallied 1,740 responses. Data in the report indicate 29 percent of all respondents drove a car to Coolidge Corner and 62 percent of all respondents rated parking “average” or better. The report says, “Customers who walked or biked to Coolidge Corner were more likely to be very frequent customers (coming twice per week or more) than [other] customers.” [p. 10]

Parking: Ms. Brewton described plans underway to “improve” Coolidge Corner parking. The two lots on Centre St., she said, “are in bad shape,” with no major maintenance since 1965. That was when Brookline took property by eminent domain and tore down structures to build and enlarge current parking lots located off Centre, Babcock, John and Fuller Sts. David Lescohier, a Precinct 11 town meeting member, mentioned efforts to develop solar power canopies for the Centre St lots.

Her department, Ms. Brewton said, is “trying to get $100,000 for planning” parking improvements. However, alternatives for Centre St. parking lots have already been planned. A comprehensive study was performed for the planning department in 2007 by Traffic Solutions of Boston. An illustrated report is available on Brookline’s municipal Web site.

While she left an impression of some future fund-raising, what Ms. Brewton was talking about turned out to be Item 6 in Article 8 on the warrant for the 2015 annual town meeting, starting May 26. She showed a drawing of what she called a “parking deck” over the northwesterly three-quarters of the large Centre St. parking lot. That currently has five herringbone rows of 25 to 30 angled parking spaces each.

In the town meeting warrant, the department’s intents are vague, but they are detailed in the FY2016 Financial Plan, where item 10 under the capital improvements section says the $100,000 may be used to design a “decked parking structure” with one to three levels. A “3-level parking deck” is what most people would typically call a “4-story garage.”

A 4-story parking garage would probably become the largest building in the block and the tallest except for the S.S. Pierce clock tower. It would likely be constructed as a wall of masonry along Centre St., a half block from the house at the corner of Shailer St. where Mr. Swartz and his wife live. It could swell public parking off Centre St. from a current total of about 200 spaces to 500 or more spaces.

It is not clear how the Centre St. parking project Ms. Brewton described reconciles with a “5-year plan” dated March 5, 2012, currently available from the Brookline municipal Web site. That plan does not call for any new or expanded parking facilities, nor does it call for a “planning” effort focused on parking. The only parking improvements it anticipates are described as “signage for cultural institutions & parking lots,” a $46,000 estimated cost.

Gardening: Participants at the NBNA meeting were eager to hear about plans for landscaping and gardening. Many felt the area had been neglected in recent years. Unfavorable comparisons were noted with some commercial areas in Boston and Somerville. Ms. Brewton plans to coordinate a “gardening event” from 8 to 10 am on Saturday, May 16. She can be contacted at 617-730-2468.

Some of the town’s attempts at improvements didn’t impress. Frank Caro, a Precinct 10 town meeting member, referred to structures in the small triangle at the intersection of Pleasant and Beacon Sts. as “the volcano,” saying it was easy to trip over masonry edging. Rita McNally, a Precinct 2 town meeting member, was concerned about maintenance of plantings.

Jean Stringham, a Precinct 3 town meeting member, noted some shop or property owners had already set out flowers. She recalled daffodils near the Brookline Bank. Ms. Brewton said there were more near Pelham Hall. Mr. Swartz said lack of water faucets along the street could be a barrier to maintenance. There was mention of a water truck the town has sometimes provided.

Dr. Caro said results by neighbors with landscaping near the Coolidge Corner library were much improved after Public Works installed sprinklers. Carol Caro, also a Precinct 10 town meeting member, said she hoped for improvements to tree wells, mentioning a recently introduced protective material. Linda Olson Pehlke, a Precinct 2 town meeting member, expressed interest in working on the small park spaces along John St.

NBNA activists decided to focus on a small triangle at the northwest end of the large Centre St. parking lot. Currently, it is eroded and mostly barren. Ms. Brewton said she would see if Public Works could harrow and level the ground. Mr. Swartz agreed to coordinate NBNA efforts. Participants began making plans for mulching and planting.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, April 19, 2015


FinePoint Associates (Brookline, MA), Coolidge Corner Consumer Survey, Department of Planning and Community Development, Brookline, MA, 2014 (3 MB)

Traffic Solutions (Boston, MA), Transportation Analysis for Coolidge Corner, Department of Planning and Community Development, Brookline, MA, March 22, 2007 (9 MB)

Item 6, Article 8, 2015 Annual Town Meeting Warrant, Town of Brookline, MA

Item 10, FY2016-2021 CIP Project Descriptions, Town of Brookline, MA

Board of Selectmen: Hancock Village, budget reviews, Brookline Beacon, March 4, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Irene Sege, In Brookline, McDonald’s was their kind of place, Boston Globe, February 3, 2007

Linda Olson Pehlke, Coolidge Corner’s future, Brookline Perspective, January 22, 2007

Advisory Committee: missing records, more skeptical outlooks

The Advisory Committee met Tuesday, March 31, starting at 7:30 pm in the first floor south meeting room at Town Hall–conducting FY2016 budget reviews for Legal Services and for Planning and Community Development. This time, the committee turned more skeptical about needs for added spending than at previous meetings this year.

Missing records of meetings: The Advisory Committee and its subcommittees are established organizations in Brookline’s government. As such, under state and local open meeting laws they have duties to hold meetings in public, to post advance notices of meetings on Brookline’s municipal Web site, to record minutes of meetings and to make minutes and other records available to the public. Since last July, the municipal Web site has provided a central archive of meetings on an Agendas and Minutes page. The Board of Selectmen maintains a separate archive that includes additional records for their meetings, called “packets.”

Typically, the Advisory Committee turns in exemplary performance at holding public meetings and posting meeting notices in advance. It has not done nearly as well with meeting records. Many minutes are missing for Advisory Committee and subcommittee meetings. During the first quarter of 2015, the municipal Web site showed eight full Advisory Committee meetings (one for subcommittee chairs), but as of April 2 it provided minutes for only five of those meetings.

For the first quarter of 2015, the municipal Web site shows four meetings for the administration & finance subcommittee, seven for capital, five for human services, two for personnel, two for planning & regulation and three for public safety. As of April 2, no minutes were available on the site of any of the 23 subcommittee meetings announced for January through March. That risks being seen as a disaster for public information, since it is usually Advisory subcommittees who review budget and warrant article issues in depth.

Subcommittees often describe their investigations on paper at full Advisory Committee meetings, and copies are usually made available to the public then. In at least some cases, they could serve as subcommittee meeting minutes. However, they have not appeared this year on Advisory Committee pages of the municipal Web site or in meeting records on the Agendas and Minutes page.

Budget for legal services: Committee member Angela Hyatt and Town Counsel Joslin Murphy described a proposed fiscal 2016 budget, starting in July, for Legal Services. The Office of Town Counsel provides most legal services for Brookline agencies and departments, excepting matters related to personnel and public school students. Ms. Murphy said the proposed budget was 1.1 percent more than the current budget, not counting costs that might increase from employee benefits and collective bargaining.

Committee member Christine Westphal asked if the proposed budget includes funds for an assistant town counsel, although a glance at page IV-27 of the FY2016 Program Budget would have shown it does. The position was created after Ms. Murphy was promoted from associate town counsel to town counsel last year. It has gone vacant for about nine months now. A more revealing question might have explored needs for an associate town counsel 1 (grade T-14), an associate town counsel 2 (grade D-5) and a first assistant town counsel (grade T-15).

Questions from committee member Alisa Jonas brought out a disclosure that the proposed Legal Services budget does not provide funds for the Nstar property tax lawsuit now underway, for two lawsuits involving the proposed Chapter 40B project at Hancock Village or for some widely publicized employee grievances. About the frequent uses of outside counsel, Ms. Murphy said, “It’s the [Board of Selectmen's] decision to seek outside counsel.”

The lawsuit recently filed by the Board of Selectmen against members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) sparked several comments and questions. Ms. Jonas said spending for people “who worked with ZBA” had been a “waste of money.” The ZBA was advised by Edith Netter of Waltham and by Kathy Murphy and Samuel Nagler of Krokidas & Bluestein. Money came from reserve fund transfers approved by the Advisory Committee last year.

Apparently unknown to some Advisory Committee members, at a meeting on Thursday, March 26, the ZBA voted to request funds to hire defense counsel. Committee member Lee Selwyn, who had obviously found out, said that the town was “turning the heat and the air conditioning on at the same time.”

Committee member Fred Levitan asked the basis for suing ZBA members. Ms. Murphy said that, although the ZBA issued a comprehensive permit for the Hancock Village 40B project with “70 conditions,” members of the Board of Selectmen believe the action was “arbitrary and capricious,” in view of the “integrity of the site” and a 1946 zoning agreement between the Town of Brookline and the John Hancock Co., which built Hancock Village.

Committee members were clearly wary that unbudgeted legal expenses lay ahead. In the end, however, they voted to recommend the proposed Legal Services budget to town meeting without change.

Budget for planning: Ms. Hyatt, Mr. Selwyn and Alison Steinfeld, the planning director, presented a proposed fiscal 2016 budget for Planning and Community Development. Ms. Hyatt mentioned a “full room at the subcommittee hearing on this budget.” The occasion was to promote an increase in preservation planning. The subcommittee recommended an increase from the current 1.8 to 3.0 staff positions.

Ms. Steinfeld confirmed that early in the budget cycle she had asked for an increase to 2.0 staff positions in preservation planning, but she said Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, had not agreed. The FY2016 budget request for her department is 1.9 percent more than the current budget, not counting costs that might increase from employee benefits and collective bargaining. No changes were proposed in personnel, as shown on page IV-42 of the FY2016 Program Budget.

Several Advisory Committee members spoke skeptically about the need for a relatively large and rapid increase in staff for preservation planning. Christine Westphal said, “It makes a lot of sense to do 2.0, maybe not 3.0 [staff positions] right now.” Mr. Selwyn resisted, describing “tension between the Preservation Commission and the [planning] department.” The commission has begun meeting twice a month to cope with an increase in cases.

Committee member Stanley Spiegel said some neighborhoods have been hiring their own preservation planners, citing a recent report about a proposed Crowninshield historic district. Such an expense, said Dr. Spiegel, is “a luxury that not all significant neighborhoods can afford.”

After about an hour, the committee amended the subcommittee’s approach, supporting an increase in preservation planning staff from 1.8 to 2.0 positions with a split vote: 13 in favor and 9 opposed. The amended approach increases funding by about $14,000 plus some amount for employee benefits. It won approval by a vote of 20 to 2.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, April 2, 2015


Advisory Committee, Town of Brookline, MA

Agendas and Minutes, Town of Brookline, MA

FY2016 Program Budget (municipal agencies and departments), Town of Brookline, MA (16 MB)

FY2015 Program Budget (municipal agencies and departments), Town of Brookline, MA (16 MB)

Board of Selectmen: projects and budget reviews, Brookline Beacon, March 20, 2015

Board of Selectmen: Hancock Village, budget reviews, Brookline Beacon, March 4, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: ready to approve Hancock Village 40B, Brookline Beacon, December 2, 2014

Advisory subcommittee on planning and regulation: new historic district, Brookline Beacon, March 31, 2015

Jenkins v. Brookline, case 1:2013-cv-11347, United States District Court for Massachusetts, filed 2013

Craig Bolon, Advisory Committee: in a generous mood, Brookline Beacon, March 19, 2015

Craig Bolon, Advisory Committee: $0.17 million to fight employee actions, Brookline Beacon, February 13, 2015

Craig Bolon, Brookline’s workforce: signs of strain, Brookline Beacon, January 9, 2015

Advisory subcommittee on planning and regulation: new historic district

The Advisory subcommittee on planning and regulation met at 7:00 pm Tuesday, March 30, in the first-floor south meeting room at Town Hall. There was a large turnout for an Advisory subcommittee, 25 members of the public and two town staff: Alison Steinfeld, the planning director, and Jean Innamorati, a planning consultant and former Brookline preservation planner.

The topic was Article 11 for the annual town meeting starting May 26: a Crowninshield local historic district. Four of the five subcommittee members were on hand: Stanley Spiegel of Precinct 2, the new chair, Angela Hyatt of Precinct 5, Steven Kanes, not a town meeting member, and Lee Selwyn of Precinct 13. Although submitted by the Preservation Commission, the article represents a neighborhood initiative. Dr. Spiegel called on John Sherman, a resident of Adams St.

Stimulus for preservation: Mr. Sherman explained, to no one’s surprise, that while a local historic district for the Crowninshield neighborhood had been talked about for years, the stimulus leading to action was an application late last year to demolish the house at 21 Crowninshield Rd., followed by stories that the new owners wanted to build multifamily housing, despite single-family zoning.

The map for the proposed local historic district includes all houses fronting on Crowninshield Rd. and on Adams, Elba and Copley Sts. except multifamily housing recently built over the former St. Aidan’s Church parking lot, at the corner of Crowninshield Rd. and Pleasant St.

Map of proposed Crowninshield Local Historic District

CrowninshieldHistoricDistrict
Source: Brookline Planning Dept.

Background: Ms. Innamorati and David King, chair of the Preservation Commission, described the historical background of the neighborhood. Once part of the large Sears estate, by mid-nineteenth century the area was owned by the Crowninshield family. In 1899, after the death of the last immediate family owner, it was subdivided into house lots.

The current houses were designed by several architects and built between about 1900 and 1930. Except for the nineteenth-century Crowninshield mansion, the original houses in the district remain intact. Several of them feature the “craftsman style” that was new to the U.S. and popular in the early twentieth century. The scales and setbacks of most houses are similar, despite the variety of styles, designers and builders.

Neighborhood support: Mr. Sherman said neighborhood organizers for the historic district had tried to contact every property owner in the proposed district by telephone, e-mail and first class mail and had found no opposition. There are 61 single-family and two 2-family houses. Residents from seven properties had not yet responded, he said, while of those responding all but the residents of three properties–that is, the residents of 53 properties–joined in a petition to establish the district. The residents not joining said they do not oppose the plan. Dr. Spiegel polled the audience and found no one opposed to the historic district.

The developers proposing multifamily housing at 21 Crowninshield Rd. are a local group calling themselves “21 Crown” and including Robert W. Basile, a Precinct 14 town meeting member. Using powers under Chapter 40B of Massachusetts General Laws, they expect to override Brookline zoning. No one from that group came to the Advisory hearing. So far, the developers have not publicly opposed the historic district.

Review: Subcommittee members asked about the effect of a local historic district on a Chapter 40B proposal. Ms. Steinfeld advised that the proposed district would not block such a development when it is considered by Brookline’s Zoning Board of Appeals. However, Kate Poverman, an Adams St. resident, said “town feedback suggests” the development was “not likely” to go ahead.

Barbara Scotto, a School Committee member, described herself as an Adams St. resident for 46 years. When she came, “it was a vulnerable neighborhood,” she said–zoned SC-7, allowing conversion by right to 2-family houses. At the neighborhood’s initiative, it was rezoned S-7, allowing only single-family houses. Recently, she said, “there have been houses bought by investors who are not living there.”

Subcommittee member Angela Hyatt, a Precinct 5 town meeting member, said it was “hard to imagine a better case for a local historic district” (LHD). Lee Selwyn of Precinct 13 said “the LHD approach has become more and more important in Brookline.” He mentioned needs for “enough staff in the Planning Department…to enforce” historic district regulations. Dr. Spiegel recommended a renewed effort to contact residents in the seven properties not yet heard from. The subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend approval.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, March 31, 2015


Board of Selectmen: new 40B project, town meeting reviews, Brookline Beacon, March 30, 2015

Application letter for 21 Crowninshield Road 40B project, Brookline Department of Planning and Community Development, March, 2015

Response to 21 Crowninshield Road application, Brookline Board of Selectmen, April 1, 2015 (8 MB)

Warrant for 2015 Annual Town Meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, March 17, 2015

Explanations of Articles, 2015 Annual Town Meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, March 17, 2015

Board of Selectmen: new 40B project, town meeting reviews

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, March 24, started at 6:55 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. The board reviewed a partly subsidized housing development at 21 Crowninshield Rd., which proposes to use powers under Chapter 40B of Massachusetts General Laws to override the single-family zoning.

Contracts, personnel and finances: Peter Ditto, the engineering director, described a report and request for reimbursement under the 2014 state-funded road program, authorized through Chapter 90 of the General Laws. Brookline is eligible for about $1.24 million; the board approved. Daniel O’Leary, the police chief, got approval to accept a $0.01 million state grant for a youth program. Alan Balsam, the health director, got approval to accept a $0.01 million state grant for a low-income nutrition program, cooperating with the Brookline Food Pantry.

Mr. O’Leary also received approval to replace a traffic supervisor who is retiring. Dr. Balsam got approval to replace a program coordinator who is leaving to become assistant health director in Belmont. As to both, Ken Goldstein, the board’s chair, made his usual request to seek a diverse pool of candidates and consult with the personnel office and the diversity department.

New 40B project: The board considered a recent proposal to develop partly subsidized housing at 21 Crowinshield Rd. in North Brookline. A response to a Mass. Housing agency application had apparently been drafted by Maria Morelli, recently hired as a planner, who as a consultant had coordinated the town’s professional efforts reviewing the proposed 40B project at Hancock Village.

The developers are a local group calling themselves “21 Crown” and including Robert W. Basile, a Precinct 14 town meeting member. Last year they bought the single-family house at 21 Crowninshield Rd. and an adjacent, undeveloped lot to the north. Then they cut down almost all the trees and plantings that had grown over about a century, leaving the house isolated and exposing to Crowninshield Rd. residents a stark view of the back of the Arbour-HRI Hospital, on Babcock St.

House21CrowninshieldRoad

Source: Brookline Planning Dept.

Instead of fireproof construction, the “21 Crown” developers are proposing a “4-decker” wood-frame building divided into 20 apartments with an elevator. Two are called “three bedroom” and the rest “one bedroom” units, but all would be fairly small–around a thousand square feet. The design recalls a “suburban hamster cage” concept that was previously seen in Cambridgeport starting in the 1960s.

FourDeck21CrowninshieldRoad

Source: Brookline Planning Dept.

No representative for the developers appeared at this meeting of the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Morelli said comments from reviewers had called the proposal “inappropriate for the site.” Developers, she said, “tried to cast the context as Commonwealth Avenue business.” Mr. Basile owns nearby property along Commonwealth Avenue now housing Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Firestone and Sullivan Tire.

Kate Poverman, a neighbor on Adams St., called attention to the large “concentration of affordable housing in our area” but said, “We’ll work with the developer.” Barbara Scotto, a member of the School Committee who lives diagonally opposite the site, described hazards, saying, “Traffic is already backed up frequently at Pleasant and Adams.” The board approved the response to be sent to Mass. Housing, with several revisions.

Budget reviews: The board reviewed proposed budgets presented by Patrick J. Ward, the town clerk, for the town clerk’s office, by Mr. O’Leary for the Police Department and by Andrew Pappastergion, the public works commissioner, for the Department of Public Works. Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, has proposed defunding one patrolman position in the Police budget, currently vacant. Mr. O’Leary said the Police Department would continue to function without the position if necessary.

The board reviewed two warrant articles for the spring town meeting: 4. Close-out of special appropriations and 12. Snow bylaw amendments. There are currently no special appropriations eligible for close-out. The bylaw changes had been drafted on behalf of the Board of Selectmen. They raise fines for failure to clear snow from sidewalks, specify new violations and fines, and eliminate a requirement to notify on a first offense instead of citing and fining. The public works commissioner would have increased discretion.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, March 30, 2015


Application letter for 21 Crowninshield Road 40B project, Brookline Department of Planning and Community Development, March, 2015

Response to 21 Crowninshield Road application, Brookline Board of Selectmen, April 1, 2015 (8 MB)

Warrant for 2015 Annual Town Meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, March 17, 2015

Explanations of Articles, 2015 Annual Town Meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, March 17, 2015

Board of Selectmen: projects and budget reviews

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, March 17, started at 6:45 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. The board began reviews of budgets and warrant articles for the 2015 annual town meeting in May. They will continue at least through April.

Contracts, personnel and finances: Alison Steinfeld, the planning director, got approval for a $0.01 million contract with Public Archaeology Laboratory of Pawtucket, RI, to complete a National Historic Register application for Hancock Village in south Brookline. If approved, Hancock Village would become the largest National Register site in Brookline.

A National Register application for Hancock Village has been under discussion for several years. Last summer, board member Betsy DeWitt said it should become an urgent priority, at a hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals about a proposed housing development under Chapter 40B of Massachusetts General Laws, which can override zoning.

Lara Curtis Hayes, from the Department of Planning and Community Development, got authorization to apply for $0.25 million in state “green community” funding for energy-saving improvements. Most projects eligible are for town-owned buildings. Solar photovoltaic facilities and new vehicles are not eligible. Grant planning sounded murky at best. No description of Brookline’s projects had been released, yet the application deadline was only three days away.

In response to a question from board member Nancy Daly, Ms. Steinfeld said that Brookline’s ongoing program of installing LED street lighting could be an eligible activity. Board members Neil Wishinsky and Betsy DeWitt did not seem to gave read information distributed in advance and asked about solar photovoltaics and new vehicles.

Licenses and permits: Frank Shear of Framingham, former operator of Benny’s Crepes in Boston and Cambridge, applied for restaurant and entertainment licenses to operate Brick Wall Kitchen at 224 Cypress St., formerly Rita’s Cafe. Mr. Shear had operated the crepe cafe from a food truck. He said there were no plans to resume such a business and said that Brick Wall Kitchen will provide take-out service but not delivery. The board granted the licenses.

Owners of Holiday Inn at 1200 Beacon St. got board approval for a change in manager under their alcoholic beverage license. Stephen Bowman, operator of Fairsted Kitchen at 1704 Beacon St., spoke on behalf of an application for longer operating hours, closing at 2 am instead of 1 am Mondays through Thursdays. Board member Nancy Daly asked about outdoor service. Mr. Bowman said there would be no late-night service outdoors. The board allowed the extensions of hours.

Lisa and Daniel Wisel of Brookline, operators of Vine Ripe Grill at the Putterham Meadows public golf course, had applied for a seasonal license to serve alcoholic beverages, but neither was present at the meeting to support the application. Nevertheless, after waiting about 20 minutes, followed by cursory discussion, the board approved a license for the 2015 season.

Warrant articles: The board voted to approve and publish a warrant with 20 articles for the annual town meeting to start Tuesday, May 26. About half are routine each year. Others have been submitted by boards or through petitions, which require signatures of ten or more registered voters. The board also began reviewing the warrant articles and the budget appropriations for fiscal 2016, under Article 8.

Submitters usually include explanations for articles, published separately. At least two weeks before a town meeting, the Board of Selectmen and the Advisory Committee will distribute a combined report with the text and explanations of articles plus their recommendations to the town meeting. Warrant article reviews, including budget reviews, are docketed as public hearings; members of the public are invited to comment.

Budget reviews: The board began reviewing so-called “base budgets” for fiscal 2016, starting in July. Prepared by Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, and his staff, those budgets apply if voters do not approve a tax override proposed at the May 5 town election. They include cuts to be restored if the override passes.

The board reviewed a budget for the Fire Department as described by Paul Ford, the fire chief. Mr. Kleckner has proposed to defund one firefighter position, currently vacant. Ms. Daly asked how the department would cope. Mr. Ford said minimum manning requirements would lead to increased overtime, probably costing around a quarter of what would be spent on a full-time firefighter position.

In his few years as fire chief, Mr. Ford has led an initiative in training, increasing the number of fire personnel certifications from around ten to nearly a hundred. In addition to the familiar emergency medical technician certificates, those include firefighting specialties such as rescue and chemical fires. Ten members of the department have also qualified as instructors, allowing them to train others without outside expenses.

Sara Slymon, the library director, and Michael Burstein, who chairs the Board of Library Trustees, described a budget for town libraries. In that budget, Mr. Kleckner proposed to defund a part-time librarian. Ms. Slymon said there were no vacant positions, so that someone would have to be dismissed. She described library services as “dangerously understaffed,” down from 50 positions several years ago to 40 now, spread among the main library and the branch libraries at Coolidge Corner and Putterham Circle.

Planning and Community Development: Ms. Steinfeld described a budget for the Department of Planning and Community Development. It now serves many standing boards, including the Planning Board, Preservation Commission, Neighborhood Conservation District Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission, Zoning Bylaw Committee, Economic Development Advisory Board, Housing Advisory Board, Community Development Block Grant Committee and Climate Action Committee. Fifty years ago, it served only the Planning Board, established in 1922.

Mr. Kleckner had not proposed any reduction in the Planning budget. Board member Betsy DeWitt spoke up for an increase, saying responsibilities for preservation planning have escalated in recent years, overloading current staff. She proposed to raise funding from 1.8 to 2.0 positions. James Batchelor, who chaired the Preservation Commission for six years, spoke in support, saying, “People in Brookline care about preservation…We have to stand up and give it more support.”

Bruce Genest of the Department of Planning and Community Development, who is president of AFSCME Local 1358, spoke about what he called a “staffing issue,” saying that in 2011 the department “eliminated a financial position.” Mr. Kleckner said the issue was “being litigated.” Mr. Genest said the town “took union work [and] distributed [it] to management people.” Otherwise, the background of the dispute was not clear.

The board did not vote recommendations on any of the budgets. Included on its agenda was an application from Christopher Hussey, an architect, for reappointment to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but the board did not act on it. The Board of Selectmen is suing the Zoning Board of Appeals, seeking to overturn a comprehensive permit the latter recently granted for a partially subsidized, Chapter 40B development at Hancock Village.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, March 20, 2015


Warrant for 2015 Annual Town Meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, March 17, 2015

Explanations of Articles, 2015 Annual Town Meeting, Town of Brookline, MA, March 17, 2015

Board of Selectmen: Hancock Village, budget reviews, Brookline Beacon, March 4, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Chapter 40B project at Hancock Village, Brookline Beacon, June 20, 2014

Advisory Committee: in a generous mood

Years ago, long-time Advisory Committee member Harry Marks would tour the tables at the opening session of budget reviews. He would present men chairing subcommittees with tie clips and women with pins, in the shapes of scissors, reminding each one, “The purpose of the Advisory Committee…is to cut.” Mr. Marks imported scissors.

Starting off this year, Advisory looks engaged in a role reversal. Increases have been proposed over budgets received from the town administrator and Board of Selectmen. On traditional St. Patrick’s Day, Tuesday, March 17, the full committee voted to add a firefighter position in the Fire budget. The next evening, its planning and regulation subcommittee voted to add 1.2 professional positions in the Planning budget.

Submitting budgets: Budgets remain a committee responsibility that is not simply “advisory.” By law, the Advisory Committee submits a town budget to an annual town meeting. Oddly, Town Administrator Mel Kleckner appears to treat the committee as a functionary, sending Melissa Goff, the new deputy administrator, while he attends mainly meetings of the Board of Selectmen. This year, that might prove shortsighted.

In a free-form discussion at the end of its Tuesday session, members of the committee considered how to “pay for the increases” through other budget maneuvers. Several members, sophisticated in municipal finance, offered a variety of options. Sean Lynn-Jones, the new committee chair elected that evening, and Carla Benka, the vice chair, said the committee would tackle the topic at its “omnibus” wrap-up session, once the individual budgets of agencies, departments and offices have been addressed.

Preservation planning: The most volatile budget issue to emerge so far concerns preservation planning. Over more than 40 years, Brookline has grown and expanded several functions in this area, starting in nineteenth century with a voluntary, still vital Brookline Historical Society. It developed a Preservation Commission, regulating local historic districts and also serving as a state historical commission, a new Neighborhood Conservation District Commission, and related functions of a Conservation Commission, a Zoning Bylaw Committee and the Planning Board.

A table of numbers, distributed at the Wednesday subcommittee session, measured preservation planning workload against professional staff:

Preservation planning workload

Year LHD Dem. NCD Staff
2001 50 28 0 1.33
2002 46 35 0 1.33
2003 46 10 0 1.53
2004 47 25 0 1.53
2005 53 34 0 1.53
2006 86 28 0 1.53
2007 88 25 0 1.53
2008 82 38 0 1.53
2009 109 31 0 1.53
2010 98 30 0 1.53
2011 103 45 0 1.53
2012 100 42 0 1.59
2013 102 40 0 1.80
2014 123 43 1 1.80

Source: Advisory planning and regulation subcommittee

In the table, “LHD” counts the number of property improvement cases in local historic districts, “Dem.” counts the number of demolition-delay cases and “NCD” counts neighborhood conservation district cases, which began last year. Since 2001, the workload appears to have more than doubled, while staff positions grew 35 percent.

Advocacy: When the Board of Selectmen held a public hearing for the Planning budget on Tuesday, board member Betsy DeWitt and former Preservation chair Jim Batchelor, an architect, made an appeal for more preservation staff. Advocates appeared in force at the subcommittee hearing the next evening, with over 20 people from several parts of town.

On Wednesday at the subcommittee, David King, current Preservation chair, argued that preservation cases have tended to become more complex over the years, needing more staff time per case. More of the demolition-delay cases involve historically significant structures. “The staff is overworked and exhausted,” he said. Many were aware that Dr. Hardwicke has been out recently with an illness and that Ms. Innamorati has resigned, coming in on special assignment about half-time.

Judith Selwyn, a long-time Preservation Commission member, described lack of coordination between zoning and preservation planning. It has become a particularly acute problem, she said, with new neighborhood conservation districts, contributing to delays in a recent case on Perry St.

Kate Poverman of Adams St. cited the pressures of Chapter 40B projects, threatening to override zoning, as a “catalyst for local historic districts.” Her neighborhood has organized to form a local historic district and performed volunteer efforts toward surveys and document preparation. Peggy Hogan of Toxteth St. recounted how her neighborhood worked to prepare a definition for a neighborhood conservation district. A new district, she said, involves town staff in “more communication, more meetings.”

Barbara Scotto, a School Committee member and neighbor of Ms. Poverman, argued for three full-time preservation planners instead of the 1.8 positions proposed by the town administrator. She was joined by Dennis DeWitt, an architectural historian and member of the Preservation Commission, who recounted the types of work performed by the planners, and by Mr. King, Mr. Batchelor, Ms. Selwyn, Ms. Hogan and several others. On motions from Lee Selwyn and Angela Hyatt, the subcommittee agreed and is making that recommendation to the full committee.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, March 19, 2015


Town elections: contests town-wide and in precincts, Brookline Beacon, March 17, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: quests for parking and permits, Brookline Beacon, February 27, 2015

Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Board of Selectmen: Hancock Village, budget reviews

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, March 3, started at 6:35 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. Prior to the public session, the board held a closed session about “litigation.”

Hancock Village lawsuit: As reported in the Brookline Beacon, the Board of Selectmen have an aggressive lawsuit in progress opposing a large, partly subsidized housing project proposed for Hancock Village in south Brookline. As part of this effort, they have been working with a group of south Brookline neighbors. The property owner and manager, Chestnut Hill Realty, has been trying to use powers under Chapter 40B of Massachusetts general laws to override Brookline zoning and has been trying to bypass a 1946 zoning agreement with Brookline.

About two weeks ago, after more than a year of reviews and hearings, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a comprehensive permit for the Hancock Village project, with several conditions. During their closed session on March 3, confirmed through south Brookline participants, the Board of Selectmen voted to file a new lawsuit, contesting the decision of Zoning Board of Appeals members Jesse Geller, Jonathan Book and Christopher Hussey, whom the Board of Selectmen appointed. The proposed project, they claim, “is poorly designed [and] will destroy the historical integrity of Hancock Village….”

Brookline, like most other Massachusetts towns, does not maintain legal expertise in the specialized area of Chapter 40B projects. The Board of Selectmen is considering “hiring outside counsel to pursue the appeal.” According to south Brookline participants, Jason Talerman of Blatman, Bobrowski & Mead has made contributions to the current lawsuit opposing the project, known as Brookline v. Mass. Development, which is pending in the Massachusetts Court of Appeals.

Contracts, personnel and finances: Joslin Murphy, the town counsel, got approval to transfer $0.08 million from salaries to contractual services. Her office has an unfilled position and has been employing “outside counsel” on several cases since July. During a budget review, Ms. Murphy said she was confident about being able to hire a “talented attorney” into a T-15 slot, but she has already gone eight months without hiring anyone.

Melissa Goff, who recently advanced to the job of deputy town administrator, reviewed the budget for the offices of town administrator and board of selectmen. There is little change from the current year. Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, would like to spend an extra $0.01 million to join an association of Massachusetts mayors, even though he is not a mayor. He won’t spend it unless Brookline voters pass a tax override this May.

The board approved a policy change for spending allocated from the “Boston Marathon fund,” contributed by the Boston Athletic Association in compensation for Brookline’s expenses on Marathon Day. The new policy is less restrictive, allowing spending for “community purposes…including youth and recreation.”

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, March 4, 2015


Craig Bolon, Hancock Village: development pressures, Brookline Beacon, February 22, 2015

Comprehensive permit for The Residences of South Brookline, LLC, on the site of Hancock Village, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Brookline, MA, February 20, 2015 (4 MB)

Town of Brookline and others v. Mass. Development Financing Agency and others, Massachusetts Court of Appeals case 2014-P-1817, filed November 14, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: quests for parking and permits

The Zoning Board of Appeals held hearings on Thursday, February 26, for two complex property improvement cases involving off-street parking. Assigned to the hearings were board members Mark Zuroff, a lawyer serving as chair, Christopher Hussey, an architect, and Avi Liss, a lawyer.

Alley conflict: A proposed 4-car garage behind 1471 Beacon St. had wound through two Planning Board hearings and a previous Appeals hearing. The apartment building suffered a major fire a few years ago and has now been largely rebuilt. Previously it had only informal parking on an alley in the back. The developer, who is selling units as condominiums, wanted to create deeded parking in a small garage, adjacent to the alley.

He had originally proposed five spaces, but tight spacing and access led to criticism at Planning and Appeals, and he returned with a proposal for four spaces. Neighbors along Beacon St. seemed satisfied with the changes. Neighbors behind on Griggs Terrace–a private way–were definitely not happy, and they spoke in opposition.

The legal alley access is from the narrow, sloping Intervale Crosscut, connecting Beacon St. with Griggs Rd. about a tenth of a mile toward the west. Neighbors claimed the alley will often be blocked, and vehicles will trespass on drives connecting to Griggs Terrace.

Land adjacent to the row of apartments near 1471 Beacon forms a steep slope in back, descending around ten feet to about the elevation of Griggs Park. The terrain was created in late-nineteenth century as a part of historic Beacon St. apartment development. Dense vegetation, including large trees, has helped to control storm run-off and restrain the slope from erosion.

The developer proposed to excavate a wedge-shaped segment of the steep slope and install a concrete garage structure with thick supporting and retaining walls and a buried drywell to manage storm water. On top, he proposed to create a landscaped terrace, to compensate for removing trees. The floor of the garage was to be level with the alley.

The developer needed special permits for smaller setbacks than standard zoning and for design review of a structure along Beacon St. With four rather than five cars, the dimensions did not need a variance–usually much harder to justify. That such a complex and costly plan appeared practical indicates the high prices being paid for parking in urban areas of Brookline.

Neighbors said they had been alienated by the developer’s conduct during about three years of construction. The alley is a composite of small parcels, with mutual rights-of-way deeded to and used by many of the owners of adjacent property. During construction, they said, equipment and materials had been stationed in the alley, trespassing on their property and that of others and interfering with access.

Neighbors asked for an enforceable permit condition specifying that the alley would not be blocked again. After about an hour and a half of testimony and wrangling among board members, the Appeals panel voted to grant the permits needed for the garage, attaching several conditions, including provisions intended to help neighbors stop potential obstruction of the alley in the future.

Neighborhood conservation: Renovation and expansion of a house at 66 Perry St. has involved a wide range of issues, including parking. This has been the first Brookline property improvement proposed in a neighborhood conservation district, and the Appeals board is not the last stop on the line. By the time the case is finished, reviews will probably total almost a year.

After a six-year study, Brookline created its first neighborhood conservation district in the fall of 2011, for Hancock Village in south Brookline. So far, that has not generated any cases. In spring, 2014, another district was approved at town meeting, involving parts of Toxteth St., Perry St. and Aspinwall Ave. These districts are intended to extend property regulation beyond traditional zoning to help maintain neighborhood characteristics more complex than property uses and dimensions.

Boston enacted an “architectural conservation district” in 1975. Cambridge created its first “neighborhood conservation district” in 1984 and now has five districts. Other Massachusetts communities with similar regulation include North Andover, Amesbury, Lexington, Lincoln and Wellesley. There is no Massachusetts enabling law for this type of regulation. Each community using it has created its own ordinances or bylaws, justified under the general “police power” of cities and towns. Brookline’s approach creates a separate bylaw for each district.

Without an enabling law and an accumulation of case law, communities have to develop their own standards and procedures. One reason reviews of the proposed property improvements at 66 Perry St. have taken so long is that the boards involved have been working out the process–more or less on-the-fly. It looks likely to be a typical case in that both zoning and neighborhood conservation regulations apply.

The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, established in the 1920s, review the zoning issues, while a new Neighborhood Conservation District Commission reviews issues for which it is named. There is considerable potential for overlap; that occurred with 66 Perry St. So far, the commission held two hearings, the Planning Board two and Zoning Board of Appeals one.

First commission case: After the property owner had settled on a design, following commission review, the Planning Board urged changes. The owner made those changes in plans and went to the Appeals board, seeking special permits for setbacks smaller than standard zoning. The need for the permits had been driven partly by trying to keep expansions from intruding into the front yard, in order to satisfy Neighborhood Conservation.

The Appeals board voted to approve the special permits, but now the owner must return to the Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. The plans approved by Planning and Appeals differ from those previously approved by the commission. With luck, that will be the last stop. Thanks to a cooperative owner, this project looks likely to reach a successful outcome.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, February 27, 2015


Neighborhood conservation district study, Brookline Department of Planning and Community Development, September, 2005

Hancock Village: development pressures

Chestnut Hill Realty, the owner and manager of Hancock Village in south Brookline and West Roxbury, has been pushing in recent years to build new, partly subsidized housing on currently unoccupied parts of the property that are located in Brookline–using powers under Chapter 40B of the General Laws to override Brookline zoning. It has not sought similar development on parts of the property in West Roxbury.

Since more than 10 percent of Boston’s housing units qualify as “affordable” under 40B standards, Chestnut Hill Realty cannot force a 40B development on West Roxbury. However, it would be less likely to want to, since the potential value of Brookline apartments is greater because of the draw of Brookline public schools. The company is also trying to raise the value of existing apartments with major renovations.

Potential evictions: From appearances, Chestnut Hill Realty might be trying to replace older residents at Hancock Village with younger ones. Several long-term residents have received lease-cancellation notices delivered by constables, and some are terrified of being evicted.

One of the notices from Chestnut Hill Realty said that “you occupy one of [the] original type apartments we will be renovating…this is to inform you that our office will not be renewing your lease at the end of the current term, and that it our intent to terminate your tenancy…you are required to vacate the apartment…on or before June 30….”

The company offered the tenants who stand at risk of being evicted “a $1000 relocation benefit” and “special rental pricing” if they “sign a new contract [by] April 30,” and it also offered them “special financial incentives…to move out earlier.”

Capturing value: The drift of Chestnut Hill Realty’s management is to capture value for the company from Brookline’s support of public schools. If the occupancy of the currently proposed 40B development were to mirror Brookline’s average, the development might add around 50 students in Brookline schools. However, Chestnut Hill Realty has been targeting rental marketing to foreigners with school-age children.

Neighborhood residents fear the 40B development might bring in 200 or more students. Because many of them might have little English proficiency, they could also be unusually costly to educate. During the Board of Appeals hearings over the proposed 40B development, Chestnut Hill Realty did back away from some components of its plans, including lofts in low-rise units, but the plans still include many apartments with 3 and 4 bedrooms.

Meeting responsibilities: A longstanding complaint from residents of south Brookline, echoed by members of the Board of Selectmen and other town boards, is that Chestnut Hill Realty has been trying to bypass responsibilities under an agreement between the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company and the Town of Brookline, shortly before the 1946 annual town meeting, which enacted zoning to allow Hancock Village.

The agreement was a critical element in persuading Brookline to change its zoning. If is reproduced in full in the 1946 town meeting records. John Hancock Co. agreed that any development would be “high-grade garden village type,” that no buildings would be over 2-1/2 stories, that the land area occupied by buildings would not be over 20 percent of the total and that no more than 25 percent of the housing units would be “horizontally divided.” The company agreed that those restrictions would become binding on “successors and assigns,” of which Chestnut Hill Realty and subsidiaries are the most recent.

With support from abutters and neighbors, in November, 2013, the Town of Brookline filed a lawsuit in Norfolk Superior Court, seeking a declaration that the Mass. Development Finance Agency had failed to follow state laws and regulations in certifying eligibility of the proposed development and also seeking a declaration that the restrictions of the 1946 agreement apply to the project.

Overcoming objections: The defendants in the 2013 superior court suit, Mass. Development and Residences of South Brookline, objected that Brookline had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review and that the 1946 agreement was a “deed restriction,” expiring after 30 years under Chapter 183, Section 23, of the General Laws.

Judge Patrick F. Brady of Norfolk Superior Court dismissed the 2013 lawsuit on both grounds in September, 2014. Although he provided only a bare outline of reasons, he relied on an obsolete case, Marion v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, in evaluating administrative remedies, and he did not appear to consider two recent cases in evaluating the 1946 contract: Killorin v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover and Samuelson v. Planning Board of Orleans. (All cases before the Massachusetts Court of Appeals)

In November, 2014, Brookline and the neighborhood parties filed in the Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse the dismissal on both its grounds. [case 2014-P-1817] The neighborhood participants include Judith Leichtner, a Precinct 16 town meeting member, who has appeared at many government meetings and volunteered as a contact.

The Town of Brookline and neighborhood participants argue that in 2008, after the Marion decision in 2007, the state changed its regulations for Chapter 40B developments, providing no administrative review after a project is found eligible. They also argue that the Killorin and Samuelson cases establish that restrictions resulting from zoning actions are not deed restrictions and do not expire under Chapter 183 in 30 years.

Going forward: Briefs from both sides have been filed for the Court of Appeals case, as of February 12, 2015, and the case looks ready for motions and arguments. However, as of February 21 it had not appeared on a docket. If the Court of Appeals reverses the dismissal of the original case, that case will be reactivated in Norfolk Superior Court for arguments on its merits.

Meanwhile, as expected for many weeks, the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a comprehensive permit for the proposed Hancock Village Chapter 40B development, filed with the town clerk February 20. At its most recent meeting, the Board of Selectmen suggested that they may challenge that permit, saying they will be considering it at their meeting on Tuesday, February 24. An executive session has been proposed for 5:30 pm on the agenda, about “litigation.”

Given the high potential values and costs involved, it is possible that the case may wind through more stages of review in court, no matter what the next outcome. If the 1946 agreement remains effective, then its land coverage restrictions are likely to be of much interest. Current zoning, enacted in 1962, allows a maximum floor-area ratio of 0.50 in the Hancock Village M-0.5 apartment zone and 0.35 in the S-7 “greenbelt” area near Russett and Beverly Rds.

The 1946 agreement’s restrictions–written before Brookline’s zoning bylaw regulated by floor-area ratio–may be equivalent to a maximum floor-area ratio lower than current Brookline zoning for Hancock Village. However, there appears to be no recent, systematic analysis of as-built dimensions in the Brookline parts of Hancock Village and no systematic comparison with the 1946 restrictions.

A so-called “density analysis” sent to Jesse Geller of the Zoning Board of Appeals in October last year by Alison Steinfeld, the director of planning and community development, uses an antiquated measure, “dwelling units per acre,” that does not accurately reflect town or neighborhood impacts and does not correspond either with current Brookline zoning or with restrictions contained in the 1946 agreement.

In a presentation to the Board of Appeals made in January, 2014, the Hancock Village developer claimed, “The current Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is only 0.29.” [p. 20 of 76] That document did not describe the basis for its claim. If the 1946 agreement is upheld, then no more development might be possible in the Brookline parts of Hancock Village.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, February 22, 2015


Comprehensive permit for The Residences of South Brookline, LLC, on the site of Hancock Village, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Brookline, MA, February 20, 2015 (4 MB)

Town of Brookline and others v. Mass. Development Financing Agency and others, Massachusetts Court of Appeals case 2014-P-1817, filed November 14, 2014

Samuelson v. Planning Board of Orleans, Massachusetts Court of Appeals case 2013-P-1418, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 901, decided July 2, 2014

Killorin v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover, Massachusetts Court of Appeals case 2010-P-1655, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 655, decided May 5, 2011

Town of Marion v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, Massachusetts Court of Appeals case 2005-P-1848, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 208, decided February 12, 2007

Hancock Village 1946 Agreement, Article 23, Annual Town Meeting, March 19, 1946, from Brookline, MA, 1946 Annual Town Report, pp. 32-34

Hancock Village 40B project eligibility application, PreserveBrookline and South Brookline Neighborhood Association, August 28, 2013

Alison C. Steinfeld to Jesse Geller, Density analysis, Brookline Department of Planning and Community Development, October 20, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals Presentation, The Residences of South Brookline, January 16, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B conditions, Brookline Beacon, January 6, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, parking and traffic, Brookline Beacon, November 25, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes, Brookline Beacon, November 4, 2014

Board of Selectmen: opposing Hancock Village 40B, defending METCO, Brookline Beacon, September 17, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: architecture for Hancock Village Chapter 40B, Brookline Beacon, September 9, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Chapter 40B project at Hancock Village, Brookline Beacon, June 20, 2014

Setting the record straight: claims related to the development of Hancock Village, PreserveBrookline, undated

Board of Selectmen: Hancock Village, financial plan

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, February 17, started at 7:35 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. The agenda focused on the town administrator’s financial plan for the fiscal year starting next July.

Hancock Village Chapter 40B project: In public comment, Judith Leichtner, a Precinct 16 town meeting member, questioned the board’s commitment to resisting a large, partly subsidized housing development proposed at Hancock Village in south Brookline by subsidiaries of Chestnut Hill Realty, the owner and manager.

It has been obvious for weeks that the Zoning Board of Appeals will the allow the development, with a decision expected to be recorded in days. “Will you be appealing this terrible ZBA decision?” asked Ms. Leichtner. “Will you be hiring outside counsel with experience litigating 40B? What action will you be pursuing to…protect historic property?”

Ken Goldstein, the board’s chair, said that the board “will be discussing [litigation] next week in executive session…we have time…we are aware of the deadline.” Left unsaid: for a Board of Selectmen to sue the Board of Appeals that it appointed would appear to put the community in conflict with itself–a house divided.

Contracts, personnel and finances: David Geanakakis, the chief procurement officer, received approval for a $0.38 million lease-purchase agreement with TD Bank. It will fund a set of DPW equipment anticipated in the current capital improvement plan. Stephen Cirillo, the finance director, got the board to certify expected operating life of at least 10 years for a new fire engine, a bonding issue.

Licenses and permits:Hui Di Chen of Melrose, formerly involved with Sakura restaurant in Winchester and the proposed new manager of Genki Ya restaurant at 398 Harvard St., spoke for applications to transfer licenses held by the current manager. Mr. Chen seemed unprepared for some of the board’s questions. He had not sought out training provided by the Police Department on managing alcoholic beverage sales under the Brookline regulations. The board opted to hold the applications and reconsider them at a later date. Board records contain several misspellings of names.

Haim Cohen of Brookline received a license for a restaurant he plans to open on the former site of Beauty Supply, at 326 Harvard St. To be called Pure Cold Press, it was described as a “juice and salad bar.” He has a major shortfall of parking under Brookline zoning and will also need approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Financial plan: Mel Kleckner, the town administrator, presented a financial plan for the fiscal year starting next July, assisted by Sean Cronin, the outgoing deputy town administrator, and by his replacement in the position, Melissa Goff. The main outlines do not include revenue from a tax override of $7.665 million per year that the board proposed on February 10. However, Mr. Kleckner’s plan shows how municipal agencies would use a share of those funds, if voters approve the override.

Without funds from the proposed override, Mr. Kleckner had to propose substantial cutbacks in the municipal programs and agencies. Rental assistance from the Council on Aging would suffer a 25 percent cut, as would part-time Library assistants. Vacant positions in the Police Department and Fire Department would go unfilled. Park ranger, gardener and laborer positions in Public Works would be eliminated, reducing services. Several older vehicles would not be replaced. The Health Department would lose its day-care center inspectors and trim its contribution to Brookline Mental Health by 25 percent.

If voters approve the proposed tax override next May, these cuts would be restored, costing an estimated $0.682 million per year from the proposed $7.665 million per year in override funding. Left unsaid: Public Schools of Brookline has a more difficult problem to solve. If voters reject the proposed override, there will be $6.983 million per year less in funding that could support school programs and departments.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, February 21, 2015


Brookline municipal agency and program reductions, FY2016, without tax override, February 17, 2015

Melvin Kleckner, Summary of Brookline FY2016 financial plan, Town of Brookline, MA, February 17, 2015

Financial Plan, FY2016, Town of Brookline, MA (15 MB)

Board of Selectmen: $7.665 million tax override, Brookline Beacon, February 12, 2015

Craig Bolon, Public schools: decoding a tax override, Brookline Beacon, January 7, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B conditions, Brookline Beacon, January 6, 2015

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes, Brookline Beacon, November 4, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: architecture for Hancock Village Chapter 40B, Brookline Beacon, September 9, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Chapter 40B project at Hancock Village, Brookline Beacon, June 20, 2014

Judith Leichtner, Comments to Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals on proposed chapter 40B development at Hancock Village, September 8, 2014

Brock Parker, Developer gets green light to pursue a 40B project in Brookline, Boston Globe, October 24, 2013

Transportation Board: Brookline Place parking and permit moratorium

A regular meeting of the Transportation Board on Tuesday, January 20, started at 7:00 pm in the first-floor north meeting room at Town Hall, with all board members except Ali Tali present. The board reviewed plans for taxi stands and for parking on Pearl St. and River Rd, near the forthcoming Brookline Place redevelopment, and it affirmed town-wide restrictions on special parking permits.

At this fairly well attended meeting were Todd Kirrane, the transportation administrator, chair Linda Hamlin and member Mark Zarrillo of the Planning Board, chair Cynthia Snow and member John Dempsey of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, John Bassett, Antonia Bellavista, Edith Brickman and Arlene Mattison, members of the Brookline Place design advisory team, Capt. Michael Gropman of the Police Department, and several residents and business owners near the Brookline Place area.

Parking near Brookline Place: George Cole of Stantec Consulting presented parking proposals for the Brookline Place Redevelopment on behalf of Boston Children’s Hospital, the developer. He was assisted by Robert “Robbie” Burgess of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin of Watertown, transportation consultants, by Timothy “Tim” Talun of Elkus Manfredi Architects and by Brian Chou of Mikyoung Kim Design, landscape designers.

The project developers have proposed a parking reconfiguration that moves a taxi stand near the bend of Pearl St., opposite the Brookline Village Green Line stop, across the street and adjacent to the stop, leaving the part of the street that will be adjacent to a lawn unobstructed. To compensate for loss of spaces, they propose so-called “reverse angle parking” along part of Pearl St.–an unusual approach, backing in to park. They cited a few examples, the closest on Bow St. near Union Sq. in Somerville.

Some board members had not kept up with the development and were surprised at the proposal. Gustaaf Driessen asked, “We don’t get taxi space back as parking?” Yes, that’s right. However, Mr. Cole conceded, “The reaction to angle parking has not been wholly positive.” Mr. Burgess explained the “reverse angle parking” scheme, and board members asked whether Pearl St. would need to become one-way, like Bow St. in Somerville. The consensus seemed to be that Pearl St. should remain two-way.

The discussion veered into bicycle facilities. Some in the audience, including Ann Lusk of Hart St., called for a “cycle track” through the area–meaning a pair of fully separated bicycle paths. No cost was cited, but those can run more than a million dollars per roadway mile. Mr. Burgess said Pearl St. was not wide enough. One board member doubted the contribution to a transportation network, since Pearl St. is a loop that does not form part of a thoroughfare.

Capt. Gropman said the proposed plan for Pearl St. amounted to reducing on-street parking from 55 to 41 spaces and was likely to create problems. He asked about moving the taxi stand to Station St., on the other side of the MBTA stop. Mr. Kirrane objected that much of the demand for taxis would be coming from the new development. Ms. Hamlin said the Planning Board and its design advisory team favored the developer’s plan for the taxi stand, noting that the development’s new parking garage would offer short-term spaces to the public.

There was extended discussion about locations of stops for the three MBTA bus routes–Nos. 60, 65 and 66–that pass through the intersection of Route 9-Washington St. with Pearl St. Passengers of buses westbound on Route 9 have good access to the area from the bus stop just west of Pearl St. next to 10 Brookline Place, formerly Hearthstone Plaza. Passengers going the other direction encounter problems, especially for the No. 66 bus continuing onto Huntington Ave. The other two buses travel on Brookline Ave. There were no resolutions to the issues; the board took no votes.

River Road, bicycles and parking: Running about 40 minutes late, the board took up the topic of a bicycle path parallel to the Riverway Bridge across Route 9 at the Boston and Brookline border. Mr. Kirrane and Ms. Snow described the plan. It would connect paths in Riverway Park to the north, along the Muddy River, and in Olmsted Park to the south, toward Leverett Pond. Bicyclists must now cross at intersections with poor visibility and signage and with heavy traffic.

Board chair Joshua Safer noted that the plan was “rejiggering our priorities,” apparently meaning in favor of parkway bicycle paths instead of street-oriented bicycle lanes. Mr. Kirrane described a target of opportunity, saying that Erin Gallentine, Brookline’s director of parks and open space, “got a $1 million grant from DCR (the state Department of Conservation and Recreation) that includes the project this year, to construct it this summer.” Left unsaid: with a change from the Patrick to the Baker administration, the grant might be withdrawn if it were not promptly applied.

As submitted to DCR, the plan reconfigures some existing bicycle paths and some Riverway access ramps, adding colored bands marking bicycle crossings. A point of contention is that a bicycle path needs to be built along the southeast side of River Rd., where there is not enough space near the intersection with the Riverway access ramps. Mr. Kirrane said part of the River Road right-of-way was needed, removing up to ten parking spaces.

Neighbors and nearby business operators objected. Ms. Lusk of Hart St. was “bothered by the ‘fast track’ process, omitting public comment” and by “dangerous crossings across…ramps.” The owner of Brookline Foreign Motors said, “Our customers need the spaces.” Ashley Goodwin, the owner of Shambala Center on River Rd., said, “Parking is a struggle for all of us on that little island.”

Ms. Mattison of the Brookline Place design advisory team supported the plan, saying it was “reclaiming the area to the Emerald Necklace“–referring to a phrase from landscape architect Frederick Olmsted, Sr., for the 1,100-acre Boston park system bordering the Charles River and Muddy River. After extended discussion, the board voted to create a five-space no-parking zone on River Rd. to accommodate the proposed new bicycle path.

Parking permit moratorium: Revisiting special parking permits for School Department employees and programs, the Transportation Board affirmed a moratorium. Long-simmering controversies over the impacts on neighborhoods reignited after a recent application for about 50 new permits to be used near Temples Ohabei Shalom and Emeth by pre-kindergarten teachers, administrators and support staff.

The board voted to approve letters to be sent by the chair, Dr. Safer, to the chairs of the School Committee, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, advising them of Transportation Board policy. Permits now in effect will continue through the current school year.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, February 1, 2015


Sustainable parking and permit moratorium, Brookline Transportation Board, January 30, 2015

Planning Board: Brookline Place redevelopment, Brookline Beacon, January 23, 2015

Pre-kindergarten: parking disputes, Brookline Beacon, December 31, 2014

Reverse angle parking on Bow St., City of Somerville, MA, 2012

Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot, Map, Park System from Common to Franklin Park, City of Boston, MA, 1894

Planning Board: Brookline Place redevelopment

A weekly meeting of the Planning Board on Thursday, January 22, started at 7:30 pm in the northern first-floor meeting room at Town Hall. The agenda was a two-family conversion on Babcock St. and the board’s formal review of plans for Brookline Place redevelopment, being proposed by Children’s Hospital, the property owner. Lara Curtis Hayes, a senior planner in the Department of Planning and Community Development, and Polly Selkoe, the assistant director for regulatory planning, presented the cases.

Children’s Hospital was represented by Charles Weinstein, vice president for planning and development, by Sam Norod and Tim Talun of Elkus Manfredi Architects, by Mikyoung Kim of Mikyoung Kim Design, landscape architects, by Skye Levin of Howard/Stein-Hudson, traffic engineers, and by George Cole of Stantec Consulting. Developers for Brookline Place had held a series of six meetings over last summer and fall with a design advisory team appointed by the Planning Board, including board member Mark Zarillo and Linda Hamlin, the board’s chair.

Members of the public–only four–were outnumbered by developer representatives and Brookline staff, including Kara Brewton, the economic development director. Rather than indicating lack of interest, slim attendance more likely reflected satisfaction with the project and its designs, negotiated with public input and participation.

BrooklinePlaceAerialFromNw20141212

Source: Town of Brookline, MA, from Children’s Hospital

Building a plan: The rendering shown is an aerial perspective from around 2,000 feet above Town Hall on Washington St. showing the Brook House in the background and the existing 10 Brookline Place, formerly Hearthstone Plaza, to the right. The 2-story former Water Department near Brookline Ave.–now an early-education and day-care center–is hidden in this view by offices at 1 Brookline Place.

While the main outlines of the project had been explained to town meeting last May, when it approved zoning changes, the building shapes and appearances and the landscaping developed during extended reviews. Plans call for removing two low-rise structures now at 2 Brookline Place and the adjacent 4 Brookline Place, replacing them with an 8-story office tower, and adding a 6-story wing, toward Washington St., to the existing two wings of 6-story offices at 1 Brookline Place. A 3-story garage is to be replaced by a larger, 5-story garage.

Current plans most nearly reflect a “boulevard concept” presented last summer. They feature a lawn across Pearl St. from the MBTA Green Line stop and many other landscaping elements. At the most recent meeting of the Transportation Board, those board members generally seemed to favor leaving views of the lawn unobstructed from Brookline Village by moving a taxi stand across the street, beside the Green Line stop.

Planning a building: Planning Board members took note of public improvements to be funded by Children’s Hospital under a development agreement with Brookline. They include removal of a long-disused pedestrian overpass across Route 9, built about 40 years ago and closed up after it harbored muggings and vandalism. Funds are to be contributed for street reconfigurations and improvements, including a traffic signal at Brookline Ave. and Pearl St. and signal coordination for Route 9 and nearby streets.

Planning Board members seemed as interested as Transportation Board members had been in traffic issues, but they were not able to make much headway during a meeting filled with other concerns. Ms. Hamlin noted that so far there had been little involvement by Station St. business operators, on the other side of the MBTA stop. The Planning Board is to revisit those issues soon, perhaps at its next meeting.

Screening along the Pearl St. face of the new garage and on the face adjacent to the lawn attracted interest. Mr. Norod, the architect, said that designs were preliminary and might change. The “framing” along Pearl St. and the “staircase” pattern adjacent to the lawn, he said, are intended to be “visually interesting.” The paths across the property will be open to the public and will be maintained by the building owner. The ground floor of the 8-story tower will house restaurants and retail shops.

Not shown in the rendering are large signs proposed for the roof of the 8-story tower and in other places, advertising Children’s Hospital. They were on the agenda to be considered for special zoning permits. Other permits are needed for parking, setbacks and projecting signage and for design review of a major-impact development. Participation by the design advisory team was an element of design review. Jonathan Simpson, a Planning Board member, asked about shadow studies. Ms. Kim said some studies had been done, but she spoke only about shadows inside the Brookline Place property and showed no studies at the meeting.

According to Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Norod, Children’s plans to develop in stages: first removing the low-rise buildings at and near 2 Brookline Place, then putting up 3-level, outdoor automobile stackers there to house vehicles temporarily that now use the current garage. Afterward, the current garage is to be removed and the new one built, and finally the new 8-story office tower at 2 Brookline Place and 6-story wing at 1 Brookline Place will go up. The Planning Board recommended approval of permits to the Zoning Board of Appeals but is seeking conditions, including review by Planning of final designs.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, January 23, 2015


Two Brookline Place / Children’s Hospital, Town of Brookline, MA, January, 2015

Planning Board: offices and parking at Brookline Place, Brookline Beacon, April 11, 2014

Brookline Place project: three concept plans, Brookline Beacon, September 16, 2014

Craig Bolon, Gateway East: an idea whose time has gone, Brookline Beacon, October 17, 2014

Board of Selectmen: bumper year for solar electricity

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, January 20, started at 6:25 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. Before it, the board met behind closed doors with the School Committee about a proposed property lease. Renting space for classrooms in a commercial building near Pierce School has been mentioned at recent public meetings.

Board member Betsy DeWitt announced that she will not be running for another term this spring. She has served on the board since 2006 and was chair from 2010 to 2014. Before that, she was a Precinct 5 town meeting member for 22 years and an Advisory Committee member for ten years, chairing the committee from 1994 to 1996, and she served as executive director of the Brookline Community Foundation.

Contracts, personnel and finances: The board accepted a donation from the Korean Church to benefit the Fire Department. The church has made several donations in past years to public safety services. Alison Steinfeld, the planning director, received approval to hire a planner, replacing one who recently left. The board interviewed a candidate for the Planning Board.

Kara Brewton, the director of economic development, provided an update on Cleveland Circle development at and near the site of the former Circle Cinema. She introduced Theodore Tye of National Development in Newton, which recently took the role of lead developer. Mr. Tye indicated that National would honor the agreements with Brookline, including tax arrangements, previously negotiated with Boston Development Group.

Plans for the Cleveland Circle site have changed only a little. The Brookline portion will still have a hotel with 162 rooms, the same as before, and the Boston portion will have housing. Plans for housing now focus on elderly but mobile tenants; there will be a ground-floor restaurant.

Solar electricity: Mary Dewart, a Precinct 3 town meeting member, Michael Berger, a Precinct 15 town meeting member, David Lescohier, a Precinct 11 town meeting member, and David Pantelone provided an update on Brookline’s solar electricity installations. The Climate Action Committee is planning a Climate Week event for February 2-10, 2015. It will feature TinySol, a small solar-powered house boat, to be exhibited in the Town Hall parking lot, 333 Washington St., on Saturday, February 7, between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm.

Calendar 2014 developed as a bumper year for solar electricity in Brookline, doubling the town’s total rated capacity. The Winchester St. condominium where Mr. Lescohier lives installed a rooftop unit rated at 47 peak DC kilowatts, becoming the town’s largest. There were 41 new systems installed, about three-quarters of them by SolarFlair of Ashland, which began an active marketing effort during the second half of 2013.

Brookline has had a fairly sleepy solar program, as shown in a database distributed by the state Department of Energy Resources. The rated capacity of Brookline solar installations is now about 9 peak DC watts per person. The state average is 130. In this measure, Brookline now ranks 328th of 351 Massachusetts cities and towns.

Some of the nearby communities are similar: Somerville: 7 peak DC watts per person, Watertown 9, Malden 11, Belmont 12, Cambridge 15. Four communities in the state have no solar systems. The town of Tolland ranks first–and energy-sufficient–at over 9,000 peak DC watts per person.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, January 22, 2015


Brookline solar electricity installations, 2008-2014, compiled from Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and U.S. Census Bureau data

Summary of Massachusetts solar electricity installations, 2008-2014, compiled from Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and U.S. Census Bureau data

Climate Action Committee: “green” schools and solar energy, Brookline Beacon, May 20, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B conditions

The Zoning Board of Appeals held a review on Monday, January 5, about a proposed Chapter 40B housing project at the site of Hancock Village, along Independence Drive in the Chestnut Hill section of south Brookline. Like most previous reviews, this one took place in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall, starting at 7 pm. An audience of about 20 was present, including a member of the Board of Selectmen, Nancy Daly, plus six senior members of town staff.

Developer Chestnut Hill Realty was represented by Marc Levin, by Steven Schwartz of Goulston & Storrs and by landscape architect Joseph Geller of Stantec Consulting in Boston, a former chair of the Board of Selectmen. Present to assist Appeals were Edith Netter of Waltham, Samuel Nagler of Krokidas & Bluestein and Maria Morelli, a Planning Department consultant.

Conditions: For weeks, it had seemed clear that the board intended to approve the project, despite a lawsuit pressed by the Board of Selectmen and nearly unanimous opposition from the community–aside from a few people whose employment or interests involve subsidized housing. The Web pages for the Department of Planning and Community Development have provided a draft comprehensive permit for the project, including 11 proposed findings and 68 proposed conditions.

Based on comments from Jesse Geller, the board’s chair, it appeared that the comprehensive permit had been drafted by Ms. Netter, in consultation with board members, Mr. Nagler and leaders of some town departments. There was no mention at the meeting or in the document of any inputs from elected officials or from the community at large.

Mr. Schwartz, on behalf of the developer, filed a memorandum of objections, available from the municipal Web site. He proposed to change many provisions, entirely removing one finding and three conditions. Jason Talerman of Blatman, Bobrowski & Mead, representing several neighborhood residents, also filed a memorandum, proposing two more findings and two more conditions.

Taking the pledge: A tangle of arguments ensued between board members and Mr. Schwartz over conditions that bear on long-term status of the subsidized apartments. As long as there are qualifying assisted rental units, under state regulations Brookline gets to count the entire project toward its assisted housing quota under the 40B law. Views of board members seemed to be that a “quid pro quo” for project approval would be preserving the project status in perpetuity–beyond potential future changes in project ownership and funding.

Starting from the late 1960s, Brookline set in motion and then endured hardships from previous subsidized housing–particularly federal Sections 202, 221 and 236 projects and state Chapter 121A projects. For about the past 20 years, the town has been trying to cope with expiring subsidies. Although there remained quibbles about the means to the goal, eventually Mr. Schwartz took the pledge, on behalf of the developer, and agreed to accept some approach to maintaining permanent project status for the Hancock Village development.

Another hurdle: Taking the pledge on permanent status will not likely end opposition to the project. Mr. Talerman’s memorandum asserts that a 1946 agreement between the Town of Brookline and the original developer, the John Hancock insurance company, “is expressly binding on the successors in title”–including Chestnut Hill Realty and its subsidiaries. Mr. Talerman contended that “the proposed project would not be possible” under “the terms and conditions contained in the 1946 agreement.”

A lawsuit being pursued by the Board of Selectmen was described as asserting claims similar to Mr. Talerman’s. While board member Jonathan Book did not favor adding Mr. Talerman’s proposed conditions to a permit, he said he “can’t imagine anyone would start building while this litigation was pending.” Board chair Geller seemed to agree. No one speculated about how long it might take to resolve the issues in court.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, January 6, 2015


Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes, Brookline Beacon, November 4, 2014

Housing Advisory Board: new assisted housing and expiring assistance programs, Brookline Beacon, November 6, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: ready to approve Hancock Village 40B

The Zoning Board of Appeals held a continued hearing on Monday, December 1, over a proposed Chapter 40B housing project at the site of Hancock Village, along Independence Drive in the Chestnut Hill section of south Brookline. Like most previous sessions, it took place in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall, starting at 7 pm. At this session, the board did not invite or hear comments from the public.

Ready to approve: After negotiating about a ten percent reduction from a previously proposed amount of parking, the three regular Appeals board members–Jesse Geller, Christopher Hussey and Jonathan Book–indicated they were ready to approve the project. Alternate member Mark Zuroff continued to oppose it. Another session scheduled for 7 pm at Town Hall on Monday, December 8, could become the final one.

Developer Chestnut Hill Realty was represented by Marc Levin, by Steven Schwartz of Goulston & Storrs and by landscape architect Joseph Geller of Stantec Consulting in Boston, a former chair of the Board of Selectmen. Present to assist Appeals were Edith Netter of Waltham, Kathy Murphy of Krokidas & Bluestein and Maria Morelli, a Planning Department consultant.

Fire safety: Paul Ford, Brookline’s fire chief, again reviewed fire safety, repeating some of his previous concerns. He said Brookline could not provide “full first alarm” service to the project within eight minutes, as specified by national standards. At this session, he also focused on time needed to disengage equipment, in order to answer other calls. He said he still hoped to see a connection to VFW Parkway.

According to Mr. Ford, access to the proposed large building at an extension of Asheville Rd. is marginal but acceptable. However, without further changes, he said, it would still be difficult to disengage equipment from parts of the so-called “east side” of Hancock Village, between Independence Drive and VFW Parkway. Fire trucks would have to be backed out of blind locations near the proposed large building and some of the smaller new buildings. With access to VFW Parkway, Mr. Ford said, his concerns would be reduced.

The developer’s representatives agreed to improve access near an extension of Grassmere Rd. onto Thornton Rd., now interrupted by curbing. They will connect the roads, add a service gate and add a lane connecting with one of the new parking lots to the west of Russett Rd. Brookline firefighters will be able to open the service gate. They also committed to “work with the town” to obtain vehicle access to VFW Parkway west of Russett Rd.

According to Mr. Ford, commitments by the developer to install sprinklers in all the new buildings will help. Asked about safety in existing Hancock Village buildings, Daniel Bennett, the building commissioner, said Brookline could not require changes unless those buildings were directly involved in a major construction or renovation project. Simply being adjacent to a major development would not trigger reviews.

Parking: Board members Christopher Hussey and Jonathan Book continued to object to 323 new parking spaces, proposed at the previous session, as “excessive.” Mr. Hussey continued to favor an average of 1.5 new parking spaces per new apartment in the area to be accessed via Asheville Rd. He said that would reduce new parking by 21 spaces.

Mr. Book sought to apply the 1.5 ratio to the entire project. He said that would reduce new parking by 57 spaces. Speaking for the developer, Mr. Geller of Stantec objected that reducing on-site parking would impact nearby neighborhoods, saying, “Cars will find other places to go.” Mr. Levin continued to object that providing less new parking than anticipated new demand could compromise the project. He said board members did not seem to have considered about 25 spaces to be reserved for visitors and about 15 spaces for disability access.

Mr. Levin said parking appropriate in urban Brookline, with its Green Line rapid transit, did not suit the suburban areas around Hancock Village. Mr. Schwartz said the proposed amount of new parking was in line with Brookline’s zoning requirements. (It was actually somewhat less.) He recalled that a town meeting last year had considered reducing zoning standards for parking but rejected the proposal.

Negotiations ensued among Appeals board members and between them and the developer’s representatives. During the discussion, Mr. Hussey again voiced resistance to retaining any of the fourth floor of apartments in the proposed large building, but then he backed away, saying, “My brothers have squeezed me in.” Mr. Book continued to press for reduction of new parking by more than 21 spaces.

Making a deal: After about an hour and a half of discussion, Mr. Book proposed a further reduction of 10 more spaces, beyond the 21 sought by Mr. Hussey, with a condition that those spaces could be included in the project if the developer obtained full access to VFW Parkway. After a few minutes more discussion, the developer’s representatives agreed to that change.

Mr. Schwartz said Chestnut Hill Realty would return to the next session with a full plan for 12 new buildings with 161 apartments, 333 bedrooms and 292 new parking spaces. This session of the Appeals hearing gave no consideration to numbers of new residents or potential impacts on town services–particularly 200 or more added students atttending Brookline schools.

With a recently reported 824 students, the nearby Baker School now has the largest population of Brookline’s elementary schools and is well beyond rated capacity. Brookline has no plan to cope with 200 or more added students coming from Hancock Village. Among its few obvious options might be a major addition to Baker School or some use of the former Baldwin School or its ten unrestricted acres of grounds on Heath St. at Woodland Rd.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, December 2, 2014


Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, parking and traffic, Brookline Beacon, November 25, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, safety concerns, Brookline Beacon, November 13, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes, Brookline Beacon, November 4, 2014

Fall town meeting: bylaw changes, no new limits on marijuana dispensaries

Brookline’s 2014 fall town meeting held its first session Tuesday, November 18, working through 12 of 20 articles. A second session looks likely to complete the agenda. It starts at 7:00 pm Wednesday, November 19, in the High School auditorium, reached via the side entrance at 91 Tappan St. A summary of actions at the November 18 session, by article number, follows:

  1. unpaid bills–none, no action
  2. collective bargaining–two contracts approved
  3. budget amendments–$0.04 million allocated
  4. Cleveland Circle sewer abandonment–approved
  5. Cleveland Circle sewer rights releases–approved
  6. Cleveland Circle authorizations–approved
  7. gender identity and expression–bylaw amendments approved
  8. disorderly conduct–bylaw amendments approved
  9. noise control–referral rejected–no action
10. commercial recycling–bylaw amendments approved
12. marijuana dispensary zoning–referral rejected–article defeated
14. naming for Hennessey Field–approved through a substitute article

The high point of the evening was rejection of all three motions on Article 12, after a long and vigorous debate about new limits on locations for medical marijuana dispensaries. Sponsors failed to get even one-third support for their zoning amendment, which needed two-thirds to pass. Because of the defeat, they will be unable to take the issue back to town meeting for two years.

Medical marijuana: Under Article 12, Gordon Bennett of Davis Ave. and other petitioners proposed more limits on locations of licensed dispensaries for medical marijuana–adding 500-foot exclusion zones around day-care centers and places where “children commonly congregate.” The Planning Department had analyzed the proposal and prepared a map for the effects of Article 12. [Supplement No. 1, pp. 8 ff.]

In November of last year, after voter approval the previous year of a state law to allow marijuana distribution for medical use, Brookline adopted zoning to allow state-regulated dispensaries in general business, office and industrial zones. They require a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The boundary of a site must be at least 500 feet from the boundary of any school property. A building proposed for a dispensary may not contain a day-care center.

Mainly because of the large number and wide dispersal of day-care centers, the Planning Department found no eligible location left in Brookline with Article 12. Currently there are four: along Commonwealth Ave. near Pleasant St., in the Coolidge Corner area on and near Beacon St., in Brookline Village near the intersection of Washington and Boylston Sts. and in the Chestnut Hill area near the intersection of Boylston and Hammond Sts.

Starting with the Zoning Bylaw Committee, six boards and committees reviewed Article 12, all coming out in opposition. Seeing that, some supporters of further limits, led by Precinct 11 town meeting member Jennifer Goldsmith, proposed to refer the article to a special committee to be appointed by the moderator, Edward “Sandy” Gadsby. That would have prevented defeat, keeping the issues in play for future actions.

Led by Precinct 5 town meeting member Angela Hyatt, other supporters of Article 12 moved to add to the referral motion a moratorium on dispensary licensing, for about six months. That was fairly clearly outside the scope of the article, which concerns itself only with zoning. However, Mr. Gadsby allowed it to be debated and voted on, saying only that it was of “doubtful legality.”

Arguments at town meeting largely repeated those at nine full-dress reviews held by boards and committees. One new element came from Mr. Bennett, who revealed that his mother had benefitted from treatment with medical marijuana during a long illness–supplied by “a friend.” Town meeting was not persuaded. After an hour and a half of debate, Ms. Hyatt’s amendment was defeated by a large majority in a show of hands. The referral motion went down by 65-138 and the main motion on the article by 60-146, both using electronically recorded votes.

Noise control: Under Article 9, former town meeting member Fred Lebow tried to weaken Brookline’s noise control bylaw. It was exactly the same article that was rejected at this year’s annual town meeting in a unanimous vote of No on a main motion–a very rare event. Nevertheless, the Board of Selectmen proposed to refer Article 9 to a new Noise Control Bylaw Committee. They had previously appointed Mr. Lebow to the Naming Committee, which he chaired this year.

Mr. Lebow, an acoustic engineer, has wanted to make life easier for fellow engineers by exempting them from night-time work–instead, estimating night-time noise by adjusting the amount of noise measured during the day. Mr. Lebow’s article would also have completely exempted any leafblower from noise regulation that is not handheld or carried in a backpack. It would have legitimized use of European noise meters, which are calibrated to different standards from the meters that are now authorized and in common use in the U.S. Previously, Mr. Lebow had disclosed that he owns a European meter.

Precinct 6 town meeting member Tommy Vitolo, whose air-strikes sank Mr. Lebow’s article last spring, returned to the fray: “The article still stinks.” A referral proposal, said Dr. Vitolo, “won’t solve a problem.” Real problems with noise control, he said, don’t need “tinkering with language…Are there sightings of landscapers thumbing through town bylaws? I doubt it.”

Precinct 13 town meeting member Andrew Fischer seemed equally incensed. Article 9, he said, was an attempt to narrow the meaning of “leafblowers,” exempting some from regulation. Precinct 3 town meeting member Jane Gilman objected to both the article and the motion to refer it, saying, “This article is not worthy of our time…It is simply going to delay other business.” The motion to refer failed by a big majority, on a show of hands. No other motion was offered, leaving “no action” as the disposition of Article 9.

Hennessey Fields: Under Article 14, the town meeting was asked to designate the playing fields at Cypress Playground as Hennessey Fields. Because of objections to a 10-year duration specified in Article 14, the Board of Selectmen proposed a substitute article in a synchronous special town meeting warrant, making the designation permanent.

Precinct 2 town meeting member Stanley Spiegel and Precinct 6 town meeting member Robert Sperber reviewed the contributions to Brookline by the late Thomas P. Hennessey, the only person to have chaired both the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee–serving between 1969 and 1995. He had been a star athlete at Brookline High School. Both his father and his mother had also served on the School Committee.

Betsy DeWitt of the Board of Selectmen recalled chairing the Advisory Committee in 1994–while Mr. Hennessey chaired the Board of Selectmen–and working with him to organize Brookline’s first tax override. He was particularly effective, she said, handling conflicts and building coalitions. The naming article from the synchronous town meeting was approved 208-1, with only Precinct 12 town meeting member Harry Friedman opposed.

Union contracts: Under Article 2, town meeting reviewed union contracts with police officers and emergency dispatchers. Those involved over two years of negotiations, making significant changes but providing salary adjustments generally comparable to the ones for other employees. According to Sandra DeBow, the human resources director, Brookline is replacing the former state “Quinn” program for education incentives with a program that recognizes a much wider range of achievements.

Daniel O’Leary, the police chief, described the long negotiations, exchanging a 5-percent “senior step” in pay after 20 years service in return for “changing management.” The unionized, civil-service jobs of police captains are being abolished, as the four current captains retire. They are being replaced by management positions called “deputy superintendents.” Town meeting approved, in unanimous votes.

Cleveland Circle: Under Articles 4, 5 and 6, town meeting approved legal abandonment of long unused sewer connections through the development site at the former Circle Cinema in Cleveland Circle, and it authorized the Board of Selectmen to enter into tax and development agreements–all by unanimous votes.

Kara Brewton, the town’s economic development director, mentioned a partnership for this project that had been announced in business journals Monday, November 17. National Development of Newton Lower Falls will work on senior housing, while Boston Development Group will pursue hotel, office and retail at Cleveland Circle. Only the latter are planned on the part of the development in Brookline.

Other business: Sponsor Alex Coleman of Tappan St. described the topics of Article 7, adding gender identity and gender expression to Brookline’s protected classes. Responding to a question from Precinct 6 town meeting member John Bassett, Dr. Coleman said gender identity means “one’s sense of who one is,” and gender expression means “how you show the world what your identity is.” Town meeting unanimously approved the bylaw changes.

Under Article 8, town meeting approved changes to Brookline’s disorderly conduct bylaw proposed by Mr. O’Leary, the police chief, and Patricia Correa, an associate town counsel. They say the changes are needed to comply with state and federal court rulings. Their revisions seem to expect any would-be offenders will be experts in Constitutional law, saying “disorderly” will “only relate to activities that involve no lawful exercise of a First Amendment right.”

Under Article 10, Precinct 4 town meeting member Alan Christ had convinced the Board of Selectmen and Advisory Committee to honor longstanding promises of commercial recycling. Mr. Christ came in next-to-last in the 2014 town election but got in for the year by caucus when another town meeting member resigned. Moving on swiftly, Mr. Christ salvaged his article from referral limbo. [Supplement No. 1, pp. 1 ff.]

In last-minute prestidigitation, the Board of Selectmen tweaked Mr. Christ’s proposal, providing a one-year delay, putting the onus on property owners rather than business operators and allowing “temporary waiver” of recycling “for cause”–whatever that might mean. Town meeting gave the amended article unanimous approval.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, November 18, 2014


Warrant report, November 18, 2014, town meeting, Town of Brookline, MA

Board of Selectmen: interviews and warrant articles, Brookline Beacon, October 16, 2014

Zoning Bylaw Committee: no new restrictions on marijuana dispensaries, Brookline Beacon, October 28, 2014

Board of Selectmen: Muddy River project, school construction and warrant articles, Brookline Beacon, October 29, 2014

Advisory Committee: no new restrictions on marijuana dispensaries, Brookline Beacon, October 31, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, safety concerns

The Zoning Board of Appeals held a continued hearing on Wednesday, November 12, over a proposed Chapter 40B housing project at the site of Hancock Village, along Independence Drive in the Chestnut Hill section of south Brookline. Developer Chestnut Hill Realty was represented by Marc Levin and by Steven Schwartz of Goulston & Storrs. Present to assist Appeals were Edith Netter of Waltham, Kathy Murphy of Krokidas & Bluestein and Maria Morelli, a Planning Department consultant.

Key topics for this session were construction safety and fire safety, drawing a large audience of around 70, including several town officials and staff. At the most recent session on November 3, the developer jousted with the board over numbers of units in the project and visibility of the top floor of a large building proposed at an extension of Asheville Rd.

Plan changes: At this session, the developer was widely expected to present a best and final plan. What Mr. Levin described, however, were two minor changes to the previous configuration. A smaller building near Beverly Rd. was reduced to four rather than eight units, but three units were added to the fourth floor of the large building, which was reconfigured with sloping sides to give the impression of a hat-shaped roof from a distance.

The board did not seem much impressed by these changes. They leave the large building and 11 smaller buildings totalling 165 dwelling units, 338 bedrooms and 331 parking spaces. In discussions near the end of the meeting, members asked the developer to return with plans such that the large building’s fourth floor, if retained, is not visible from the property line across Asheville Rd. near Russett Rd. The next session is November 24.

Blasting: Brookline brought in a consultant on blasting, Andrew McKown of Beverly, a registered civil engineer. The plan for the large building places it over an outcrop of Roxbury puddingstone, of which the developer proposes to excavate up to about 20 feet by blasting. Mr. McKown said that could be carried out safely but made recommendations, including a review of plans, a 400-foot survey zone and crack-age monitoring for nearby structures. Mr. Levin said Chestnut Hill Realty would accept the recommendations.

Fire safety: Paul Ford, Brookline’s fire chief, reviewed fire safety concerns. He has already worked with the developer on roadway access for fire apparatus but remains concerned about the large building. Brookline does not have a ladder truck at a nearby station. The closest one, he said, is nearly four miles away. He said access from VFW Parkway, discussed at previous sessions, would be important for fire safety at the large building.

Robert Niso, a transportation consultant for the developer, would not commit to VFW Parkway access and claimed that the large building could be serviced by a ladder truck at a Boston station about a mile and a half away. Mr. Ford said the main issue was rapid response; Boston equipment would be called in only as backup. Brookline has not previously needed a ladder truck in the area because it currently has no tall buildings.

Opposition: The Appeals board opened the hearing to public comment, probably the last such opportunity, which went on for about an hour and a half. On September 16, the Board of Selectmen sent a letter opposing the project, and three of its members spoke up. Echoing the letter, board member Betsy DeWitt said, “The development is poorly conceived,” threatening the historic integrity of Hancock Village. Nancy Daly spoke to the need for fire access. Neil Wishinsky urged the Appeals board to challenge the developer’s assertions that reducing the large building to three floors of apartments would make the project infeasible.

James Batchelor, an architect who chairs the Preservation Commission, described development of Hancock Village in the 1940s. “It is historic,” he said. “The layout of the buildings and open space are carefully planned around the roadways. The current plan is turning that inside out.” Vehicles, he explained, “being fed in from the back…on small roads.” Emily England, a Bonad Rd. resident and president of Baker School PTO, agreed. “This is the worst year ever,” she said. “Cars are backed up ten and twenty on these little residential roads.”

Regulations: Precinct 16 town meeting members Stephen Chiumenti and William Pu reviewed the state’s comprehensive permit regulations for Chapter 40B projects, which were revised in 2008. They emphasized “local concerns” as decision criteria: “the need to protect the health or safety of the occupants of a proposed project or of the residents of the municipality, to protect the natural environment, to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings and municipal and regional planning, or to preserve open spaces.” [760 CMR 56.02]

A project application can be denied if the Appeals board shows that “local concerns” outweigh “housing need,” meaning “the regional need for low and moderate income housing considered with the number of low-income persons in the municipality affected.” [760 CMR 56.07] Mr. Chiumenti argued that Brookline has a relatively small number of such persons, most already living in publicly assisted housing. Mr. Pu argued that the developer is proposing to build on sites “needed to preserve open space…communal space in a natural setting.”

Jason Talerman of Blatman, Bobrowski & Mead represented several neighborhood residents at the Appeals session. “One area where towns have had success” in opposing 40B projects, he told the board, “is with respect to fire safety.” He urged the board to demand reductions in project scale and challenge resistance. “You can’t get there unless you ask for it,” he said. “You don’t get a second chance at it.”

Neighborhood concerns: Several neighbors of Hancock Village expressed concerns that blasting would damage gas or sewer pipes. William M. Varrell, III, of Asheville Rd., a structural engineer, described effects he had found during other construction projects. There are, he said, “utilities that go right through the parking lots,” but the project design “has ignored them.”

Alisa Jonas, a Precinct 16 town meeting member, seemed to express sentiments of the neighborhood, judging from the hearty applause. She told the board, “We feel that you are accommodating…an unworthy project…There is a beautiful green space…[It's] a breach of trust…I really would like you to think of us in the neighborhood…This is a ridiculous proposal!”

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, November 13, 2014


Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes, Brookline Beacon, November 4, 2014

Comprehensive permit regulations, 760 CMR 56, Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, 2008

Important neighborhood meeting, South Brookline Neighborhood Association, January 9, 2014

Housing Advisory Board: new assisted housing and expiring assistance programs

A regular meeting of the Housing Advisory Board started at 7:30 pm on Wednesday, October 29, in the fourth floor conference room at Town Hall. The board supervises the town’s housing trust fund and monitors Brookline’s inventory of assisted housing.

Beals Street: This year the board has been helping to develop Beals St. townhouses as assisted lodging, in partnership with Pine Street Inn of Boston, whose representatives were on hand to present plans. The property was bought from a private owner about a year ago, but the project was delayed because construction bids exceeded available funds. After scaling back requirements, Pine Street Inn was looking for an additional $0.65 million commitment to complete renovations.

Brookline previously contributed $1.29 million toward the project. The board agreed to allocate an additional $0.23 million from the housing trust, $0.25 million from the town’s federal community development block grant and $0.17 million from the town’s allocation of federal HOME funds.

The units will count toward the town’s quota of 10 percent of its housing stock assisted for the benefit of low-income and moderate-income residents, needed to become exempt from Chapter 40B projects like the one now proposed at Hancock Village. At a cost in town funds so far of about $63 thousand per unit, Beals St. units represent a significant addition to the assisted housing stock and a very efficient use of funds.

Dummer Street: Patrick Dober, executive director of the Brookline Housing Authority, presented an update on this year’s other major addition to the assisted housing stock: the Dummer St. project begun this summer, as yet unnamed. It will add 32 public housing units occupying the space of former ground-level parking adjacent to Trustman Apartments on Amory, Egmont and St. Paul Sts., which is being moved underground.

DummerStHousing20141017


New housing site beside Dummer St. looking west
Source: Brookline Housing Authority, October 17, 2014

So far, Brookline has contributed about $2.0 million in housing trust funds and $2.3 million from federal funds toward the Dummer St. project. The investment of about $134 thousand per unit leverages nearly twice as much in other funding, also a significant addition to the assisted housing stock and an efficient use of town funds.

Losses: Offsetting additions to Brookline’s assisted housing are impending losses from expirations of 1970s agreements and federal programs. The board reviewed both of the investor-owned projects that will be affected: 307 units known as The Village at Brookline–at 99 Kent St. and on Village Way nearby–and 80 units at Beacon Park–1371 Beacon St., opposite the foot of Winchester St.

Privatization is expected to be spread over up to 13 years. Preliminary agreements with owners are expected to keep up to 116 of the expiring units under assistance for up to 17 more years. However it may be difficult for Brookline to add assisted units fast enough to compensate. The 63 new assisted units expected next year are an unusual event. During the past 15 years, Brookline added an average of about 12 assisted units per year.

Projections: With assistance for 387 units expiring over about 30 years, after deducting the 63 new units opening next year, Brookline needs to add an average of about 11 assisted units per year just to hold the current inventory level. To achieve its Chapter 40B quota, Brookline needs hundreds of more assisted units. So far, no one has identified a source of funding anywhere near what would be required to get them.

Housing in conventional Chapter 40B projects can be an extremely expensive way to add assisted units. The project now proposed at Hancock Village would add about 32 assisted units in a project of about 160 total units, according to discussions at the most recent hearing session at the Zoning Board of Appeals. If that were a condominium project, it would add a net of only 16 assisted units counting toward Brookline’s 40B quota, while Brookline will have to provide public services for residents in ten times as many units.

However, according to Virginia Bullock, Brookline’s housing project planner, when a project provides rental housing, the state is currently counting all the units–assisted and market-rate–toward a community’s 40B quota. Ms. Bullock said that the state’s current rules will delay subtraction of units from Brookline’s 40B quota until 2044 for Village at Brookline and until 2028 for Beacon Park–provided the projects continue as rentals.

Ms. Bullock said Brookline currently needs 488 more assisted units to gain exemption from Chapter 40B: that is, Brookline needs for the qualifying assisted units to become 10 percent of total housing units. If Hancock Village were to come in at 160 units–plus counting the Beals St. and Dummer St. units–then Brookline’s 40B deficit would fall to 287 units. Brookline could eventually achieve its 40B quota by continuing to assist buying or building small numbers of qualifying units. However, at its recent rate, that could take more than 50 years, during which Village at Brookline and Beacon Park units would both drop out of the inventory counted toward the 40B quota.

Brookline might accelerate progress toward achieving its 40B quota by inviting so-called “friendly 40B” projects that agree to provide permanently assisted units and permanent rental housing. It did a “friendly 40B” several years ago at St. Aidan’s, on the corner of Pleasant and Freeman Sts., but market-rate units there have been sold as condominiums that do not count toward the 40B quota. Considering its high costs of providing services, especially in public schools, it might be less expensive for Brookline to raise funds, assist purchase of at least 287 units or assist construction of at least 319 units, and qualify them. Several years ago, Lincoln carried out such a project.

– Beacon staff, November 6, 2014


Inventory of assisted housing, Brookline Planning Department, August, 2013

Housing Authority: renovations, programs and project development, Brookline Beacon, August 11, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes, Brookline Beacon, November 4, 2014

Lincoln Housing Plan, Town of Lincoln, MA, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Hancock Village 40B, getting to Yes

Members of the Board of Selectmen attending a hearing on a proposed Hancock Village 40B housing development seemed subject to “buyers remorse.” Was it a bright idea to put the Zoning Board of Appeals in the hands of real-estate lawyers, as they did? Their board has strongly opposed the 40B proposal.

An Appeals meeting Monday, November 3, starting at 7:00 pm in the sixth floor meeting room at Town Hall, seemed to be a watershed for the proposal. It looks likely to go forward with Appeals consent, and it looks unlikely to get much smaller than now proposed.

Of the five Appeals members hearing the case, chair Jesse Geller and alternate Avi Liss appeared to favor the project. Regular Jonathan Book and alternate Mark Zuroff questioned but did not oppose it. All are lawyers who work, in part, with real estate. Regular member Christopher Hussey, an architect, had sharp questions at the previous session on Wednesday, October 29.

At the November 3 session, developer Chestnut Hill Realty was represented by Marc Levin and by Steven Schwartz of Goulston & Storrs. Present to assist Appeals were Edith Netter of Waltham, Samuel Nagler of Krokidas & Bluestein and Maria Morelli, a Planning Department consultant. An audience of around 40 included several town staff and elected officials.

Mr. Levin of Chestnut Hill Realty proposed removing the fifth floor once shown for the large building on the site and six apartments on the fourth floor of that building but adding four apartments to a smaller building near Beverly Rd. He said the changes would make the project 166 apartments with 346 bedrooms, no lofts and 333 parking spaces, as compared with 192 apartments with 402 bedrooms and 22 lofts as proposed last spring.

A perspective rendering of the large building that Mr. Levin showed, as seen from the property line across Asheville Rd. at Russett Rd., had articulated sections with four different colors and textures–dominated by red brick at mid-height. While showing a few views around the front of the building, toward the east, Mr. Levin described the other textures as gray stucco on the first floor and some bays and as asphalt shingles on the fourth floor, stepped back from Asheville Rd. on the north side. The large building’s footprint remained the same.

In a meandering discussion about appearance and density, Mr. Hussey and Mr. Zuroff said they favored cutting back the large building to three floors of apartments and one floor of parking. That would reduce the overall height by about 20 feet and the number of apartments by another 23. At that juncture, Appeals began to sound like local boys up against city slickers. Ms. Netter said to the board, “You’re asking about economics.”

Mr. Schwartz of Goulston & Storrs finally said, “It’s not feasible…the density is extremely important to us.” Mr. Levin agreed to “look at” removing two more apartments on the fourth floor of the large building and four proposed for the smaller building near Beverly Rd. After that, Mr. Hussey and Mr. Book backed away from more drastic changes. With changes outlined by Mr. Levin and Mr. Schwartz, the project would apparently become 160 apartments with about 334 bedrooms, no lofts and about 320 parking spaces.

If the occupancy were to mirror Brookline’s average, the development would add around 50 students in Brookline schools. Because Chestnut Hill Realty has been targeting its rental marketing to foreigners with school-age children, neighborhood residents fear it will bring in 200 or more students. So far there has been no Appeals board discussion of conditions on marketing the units.

The Appeals board took no public comment but said it would do so at a continued hearing Wednesday, November 12, when it will also hear from a blasting consultant and from Brookline’s fire chief. That session looks likely to see Chestnut Hill Realty’s best and final version of the proposal, starting at 7:00 pm in the same location.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, November 4, 2014


Zoning Board of Appeals: Chapter 40B project at Hancock Village, Brookline Beacon, June 20, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: architecture for Hancock Village Chapter 40B, Brookline Beacon, September 9, 2014

Gateway East: an idea whose time has gone

Springtime came in 2005. Today, a once ambitious “Gateway East” project has an odor of stale cabbage. The idle, pie-in-the-sky program aimed to turn traffic-ridden Route 9, near the Brookline border with a poverty-stricken Mission Hill area of Boston, into a so-called “gateway.”

Nearly forgotten dreams called for the foot of Washington St. to become a “boulevard.” A launch plan compared it with Commonwealth Ave. in the Back Bay and with Brattle St. in Cambridge. Imagine. [Creating Gateway East, April, 2005, p. 3]

Route9BrooklineGasStation

Source: Town of Brookline, MA

Actually, the area looks like a highway. It sounds like a highway, and it smells like a highway. It is a 6-lane state highway. The businesses actually located on the foot of Washington St.–then and now–consist of a Gulf station and a vacant restaurant, formerly Skipjack’s.

Even the name of the project begged a question: to what might the industrial foot of Washington St. be a gateway? To a gas station? To a Boston ghetto? Not to a fish restaurant. Skipjack’s sagged with the dot-com boom, and the once lively Brookline site closed, soon followed by nearby, former Village Fish.

Scarce goods: Ingredients for success went missing from the start and were never found: the “why” and the “what.” The launch plan merely outlined an area–centered on the segment of Route 9 along the foot of Washington St. It connects with a dilapidated stretch of Huntington Ave. in Boston, past the Riverway.

In April of 2005, a citizen committee was assembled by a former town administrator, Richard Kelliher, and a former all-male Board of Selectmen–Robert Allen, Jr., Joseph Geller, Gilbert Hoy, Michael Merrill and Michael Sher. According to Brookline’s municipal Web site, the committee is still on the books, but it has no spot on the Agendas and Minutes page, covering meetings during 2010 through 2014.

If wishes were horses: The committee set up for the project always looked somewhat like an advertisement, because the launch plan vested all actions in government employees: Jeff Levine and Catherine Cagle in the Planning Department–no longer with the town–plus administrators and staff in Public Works. [Creating Gateway East, April, 2005, p. 15]

Lacking a “why” and a “what,” the launch plan focused on “how”–that is, on meeting after meeting:
• Initial meeting
• Follow-up meeting
• Interdepartmental meeting
• Meetings with regional stakeholders
• Public meetings
• Committee meetings
• and more meetings
[Creating Gateway East, April, 2005, p. 14]

Time rolls on: With miracles in short supply, a practical Engineering division of Public Works eventually reverted the project to core elements: repaving a quarter mile of Route 9 and intersections, adding a touch of landscaping, building concrete traffic islands and modernizing signals and controls with pedestrian buttons, vehicle detection and emergency pre-emption. It’s a road plan, with no bicycles currently in view.

As prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin of Watertown and submitted to the state highway department January 18, 2012, project 605110 is strictly highway-issue. Travel lanes are mostly 11 feet, sidewalks are 6 feet, There is granite curbing and a little brick edging. An “existing pedestrian bridge” is called out, to be “removed by others.” Site-edge improvements in the Pearl St. vicinity are called out, to be “redevelopment by others.” Other than a couple of benches perhaps, there is no “boulevard” currently in view.

Declare victory: Owing nothing to “gateway” dreams, Planning staff soldiered on with practical aims too, and fortune was with them. Children’s Hospital had bought out the 1990s Pearl St. development put up by Harvard Pilgrim and was interested in building offices next door.

Brookline had sought developers since the 1960s, but the area to the north of the foot of Washington St. did not gel. Hearthstone Plaza went up in the early 1970s, then 1 Brookline Place in the middle 1990s, leaving a gap between, in Brookline’s former industrial zone. Learning of Children’s interest, the Board of Selectmen set up a Brookline Place Advisory Committee in October, 2013, and this time pieces began to fall into place.

After the Brookline Place committee negotiated a scale of development and helped enact zoning at this year’s annual town meeting, the Planning Board recruited committee members for a design advisory team, following Brookline’s zoning process for design review. The team started work with the developers in August.

Developers for 2 Brookline Place / Children’s Hospital have been making steady progress. Several objectives sought with the now-antiquated “gateway” plan will be achieved by the combination of the office development at 2 Brookline Place and the highway plan for Route 9:
• Completion of the 1960s Marsh Project with 2 Brookline Place
• Removal of a hazardous Route 9 pedestrian overpass, closed since 1978
• Improvements to the Pearl St. public infrastructure
• A public pathway across the new Brookline Place development
• Improved traffic management for Route 9 and its intersections
• A demand-cycled pedestrian crossing on Route 9 near Pearl St.
Beautification, bicycles and a “boulevard” will have to wait.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, October 17, 2014


Craig Bolon, Brookline legacies: Olmsted and coal ash, Brookline Beacon, June 6, 2014

Robert Duffy, Jeff Levine, Catherine Cagle and Donald Giard, Creating Gateway East, Goody Clancy, April, 2005

Gateway East Committee, Brookline Gateway East Final Plan, Von Grossman, October, 2006

Massachusetts Highway Division, Project 605110, Intersection improvement project for Washington St. (Route 9) and Walnut St. in the town of Brookline, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, January, 2012 (13 MB)

Planning Board: offices and parking at Brookline Place, Brookline Beacon, April 11, 2014

Brookline Place project: three concept plans, Brookline Beacon, September 16, 2014

Economic Development Advisory: skeptical about proposals

Two proposals for commercial development drew some skepticism from the Economic Development Advisory Board on Monday, October 6. An audience of over 30 gathered in the first floor north meeting room at Town Hall, starting at 7 pm. Local business operator and real estate investor Raj Dhanda described the projects, each with its own set of architects and advisors.

Offices in Chestnut Hill: The more developed of the projects aims to place a four-story office building at 1180 Boylston, on the southeast corner where Hammond St. intersects Route 9. For many years, the site housed a large Exxon service station, now gone, diagonally opposite the Chestnut Hill Shopping Center. The proposed development would provide retail space on the first floor.

As described by Haril A. Pandya of CBT Architects, Boston, the structure would have about 36,000 sf of gross floor area for office space and 12,000 sf for retail space, with two levels of underground parking and around 50 spaces. Located on a plot of about 14,600 sf, that yields a floor area ratio of 3.3. For over 50 years, the parcel has been zoned G-1.0, general business with a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0.

Nearby commercial property is low-rise, mixed among a few older 3-decker houses. The proposed development would be far more dense. Brookline has only two types of zoning that could allow it: G-1.75(LSH), designed for the Marriott hotel site at 40 Webster St. in Coolidge Corner, and GMR-2.0, designed for the 2 Brookline Place site now under development by Children’s Hospital, near the intersection of Washington St. with Route 9. Economic Development Advisory was involved in both projects, whose planning and rezoning each took several years.

Unanswered questions: Board member Robert Sperber, who organized Economic Development Advisory over 20 years ago, asked for the projections of Brookline tax revenue from the development, always the board’s prime concern. Astoundingly, Mr. Dhanda and his advisors said they had none. “It would be a lot,” one claimed. Board members asked about the prospective retail and office tenants and about traffic and environmental studies. Again, there were no clear answers. As to financial potential, Mr. Dhanda simply said, “It’s good.”

Board members Kenneth Lewis and Donald Warner questioned plans to site vehicle access on the heavily congested Hammond St. side. Mr. Lewis called the parking ratio “extreme,” only about one space per 1,000 sf. The offices might house more than 300 people but provide parking for fewer than 50. Mr. Panya of CBT said the area was “well served” by public transportation. MBTA bus 60, between Kenmore Sq. and Newton, stops about twice an hour on average. A station for the D branch of the Green Line is about four blocks away, with about 100 parking spaces. Pedestrian facilities are spartan. It is a suburban location, dominated by cars.

A 10-story hotel at Coolidge Corner: Mr. Dhanda next proposed to build a 10-story hotel at 1299 Beacon St., currently occupied by his lamp store, Neena’s. To the east is the one-story Brookline post office. To the west is the 1986, three-story Center Place office building, with Trader Joe’s on the ground floor. The proposed development would be self-contained, providing no retail, office or public spaces and no landscaping.

As described by Harold F. Wheeler of Group One Partners, architects in South Boston, the structure would house about 160 hotel rooms, 60 parking spaces on two underground levels, a lobby, a food service, meeting rooms, a small swimming pool and an exercise room. The plot has less than 60 ft of Beacon St. frontage, making the proposed building narrow, stretching over a current, small parking lot to Sewall Ave. in back.

Neighboring commercial buildings all have one, two or three stories. The 1924 Pelham Hall, across Beacon Street, has eight stories, and the wider area within several blocks has other residential buildings up to 13 stories. A crude outline of a looming, narrow tower suggested window walls facing east and west, looking up and down Beacon St. The proposed building was described as 140,000 sf gross floor area for hotel uses, plus parking.

Located on a plot of about 18,600 sf, the proposed hotel space yields a floor area ratio of 7.5. Numbers do not seem to be a strong suit for Mr. Dhanda and his advisers, who claimed that the floor area ratio would be about 6. For many years, the parcel has been zoned G-1.75(CC), general business with a maximum floor area ratio of 1.75. Developers of large lots in the zone who support community facilities are eligible for up to a 15 percent bonus in floor area, but the lot at 1299 Beacon St. is too small to qualify.

Brookline has no current type of zoning that would allow the proposed development. Window walls on the sides of a building in a G zone sound unwise and might not be allowed. Properties in those zones can be built to the lot lines. In the future, one or more of Mr. Dhanda’s commercial neighbors might also build to the lot lines, wiping out window views.

More unanswered questions: Dr. Sperber again asked for the projections of Brookline tax revenue from the development, including local taxes on hotel rooms. All Mr. Dhanda offered was that Brookline would receive more than the current property taxes of about $60,000 a year. Several members of the board and the audience questioned traffic plans. Mr. Wheeler said parking would operate with valet service, using large elevators. He did not address frequent, heavy congestion on Sewall Ave.

As with Mr. Dhanda’s other proposal, there had been no traffic or environmental study. Board member Donald Warner said that while economics for a hotel were likely to be strong, “the key is making the numbers work. That [10-story] height isn’t going to happen.” David-Marc Goldstein, a Precinct 8 town meeting member, recalled that the height and density allowed for Coolidge Corner commercial properties had been reduced. To carry out the proposal, he said, “you would have to change the zoning in town meeting, which you won’t have the votes for.”

Variances: Unlike developers of Brookline Place and of hotels on Webster St. and at the former Red Cab site on Boylston St., Mr. Dhanda and his architects and advisors turned confrontational. Rather than negotiate and work cooperatively with Brookline on zoning, economics and environment, they said they planned to seek variances, under Chapter 40A of Massachusetts General Laws.

Variances can be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, but requirements are difficult to satisfy, and they have become increasingly rare. Instead, Brookline has developed an extensive system of special permits in its zoning, through which additional building height and density can be approved when developers agree to provide specific public benefits. Mr. Dhanda did not seem familiar with town’s approach to planning and development.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, October 7, 2014


Zoning Bylaw, Town of Brookline, MA, June 2, 2014

Planning and Appeals boards: difficult zoning cases

The Zoning Board of Appeals met Thursday, October 2, and Tuesday, September 23, to consider two zoning cases that turned out difficult to resolve. The Planning Board had reviewed the cases September 18 and September 4. One appeal was allowed, and the other one was denied.

A two-family house in a single-family zone: Neighborhood residents protested a proposal to convert a single-family house at 227 Tappan St. to a two-family house. The house is in an SC-10 zone. That is mainly a single-family zone, but some such conversions are allowed, in the words of the zoning bylaw, “provided there is no external evidence of occupancy by more than one family.” [Section 4.07, Table of use regulations, use 2]

The SC type of zone was defined in 1962, during a major restructuring of Brookline zoning. It aimed to address some issues with maintaining large houses during an era of shrinking family sizes. The allowed conversions have been performed by rearranging interiors of large houses into two apartments, while maintaining a single front door and a single rear door. Mailboxes and doorbells have often been placed inside front vestibules.

Such a conversion might not be feasible with some houses. For example, there might not be enough space for a hallway or a stairwell wide enough to satisfy building codes. In such cases, conversion to a two-family is possible with a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, when “external evidence of conversion is required to conform to other codes.” [Section 4.07, Table of use regulations, use 3]

The ordinary two-family houses that are allowed in T (two-family) zones are not allowed in SC (single-family and converted) zones. The zoning bylaw says, “No.” It does not allow them either “as of right” or with a special permit. [Section 4.07, Table of use regulations, use 4] The developer of 227 Tappan had applied for a special permit under use 3.

A house trying to eat a hill: At 227 Tappan, the developer proposed to attach a large new house onto the rear of an existing single-family house–thus creating an ordinary two-family house with two separate front and rear doors and a wide driveway, for separate parking. Section 4.07 of the zoning bylaw does not allow that in SC zones. That is use 4, for which the zoning bylaw says, “No.” The only available avenue for such a project would seem to be a zoning variance, under Chapter 40A of Massachusetts General Laws.

The lot at 227 Tappan extends up the steep south side of Addington Hill. Part of the hill was excavated and leveled when a row of six houses was built over 75 years ago. There is already a high retaining wall to keep the heavily forested part of the hill above the houses from eroding and collapsing. To add a large new house behind the current house, the developer needs to carve out more of the hill and build a still higher wall. Such an intrusion is part of what looks to have triggered strong neighborhood opposition.

Arguing for a right to build: Applicants in these cases were represented by Robert L. “Bobby” Allen, Jr., a Brookline-based lawyer, Precinct 16 town meeting member and former chair of the Board of Selectmen. He argued that the 227 Tappan St. developer could build what he wanted “as of right”–focusing attention on the floor area being proposed, which was indeed within zoning limits.

In his arguments, Mr. Allen largely ignored “external evidence of occupancy by more than one family.” Obviously there would be some. He presented no evidence that this was “required to conform to other codes,” when clearly it was not. The developer was not trying to fit two living spaces inside a structure built for one. Instead, he proposed to add a whole new structure onto the back of an existing one, thus transforming it into an ordinary two-family house. That is not allowed in an SC zone; the bylaw says, “No.”

The Planning Board, the Appeals board and the staffs of both the Planning and Building departments somehow let themselves be persuaded that Mr. Allen had a case–contrary to straightforward reading of the zoning bylaw. The Planning Board had objected for other reasons. According to board member Robert Cook, “It’s way too big.” Board chair Linda Hamlin said she didn’t “think it meets community standards.”

A group of about 30 neighbors opposing the project did not hire a lawyer to represent them, leaving them at a disadvantage. Like the Planning Board, they focused on the intrusions rather than on the zoning bylaw. The proposed house was too big, they said. The hillside would be threatened. Other houses might be flooded. The new driveway would be dangerous. After extended haggling among them, Appeals board members bought into Mr. Allen’s arguments, allowing a special permit and not considering whether the developer needed a variance.

Mending a fence: After a fence between two properties along Dudley St. was recently altered, neighbors on the other side objected. It was much too high, they said. A Brookline building inspector had checked it and agreed, measuring the maximum height as 8-1/2 feet. Brookline’s zoning limits fence height in side and rear yards to 7 feet–without a special permit because of noise, “detrimental impact” or safety.

The builders of the fence applied for a special permit, arguing “detrimental impact.” That didn’t clearly apply, because the only example offered in the bylaw is “when a property is bounded by active train tracks.” Representing the fence owners, Mr. Allen had not been able to convince the Planning Board, who accepted the building inspector’s measurement and did not find the conditions for a special permit.

Into swales: At the Appeals board, Mr. Allen explained that the applicants’ neighbors had removed a swath of vegetation between the properties, “eliminating privacy” of their patio and back yard. He said that the fence height was complicated by contours of the land, going over rises and into swales. On the applicant’s side, he said, the height was not more than 7 feet. He maintained that removal of vegetation on the neighbors’ side had lowered the grade there.

According to the applicants’ landscaper, attempts to grow a plant barrier failed because of dense shade. They then tried to temper “detrimental impact” from removing vegetation by adding height to an existing chain-link fence and weaving it with an artificial textile–a “shrub-like substance.” Close to the houses, fence height was 6 feet, he said. In other places, height was adjusted to maintain privacy of the applicants’ patio.

Natural grade: Responding to questions from board members, Mike Yanovitch, the chief building inspector, said fence height had to be measured from “natural grade.” The issue, he said, was the meaning of “natural grade.” Brookline’s zoning bylaw invokes “natural grade” in requirements for building heights, fence heights and underground structures but does not define the phrase. Mr. Yanovitch explained that the practice of the Building Department had been to measure fence heights from the low points of land on either side.

There are varying interpretations of “natural grade” in case law, but there is no reliable common definition. Attempts to interpret the phrase sometimes mention “undisturbed” elevation of land. In Brookline, however, as in most other places with extensive habitation and development, there is probably no substantial area of land unaltered by the hand of man, and there is no way to know elevations accurately before they were altered.

One of the neighbors who had complained to the Building Department spoke up, adamantly maintaining that the fence was too high. Measured from his side, he said, it rose to 10 feet. His landscaper told the board, “No vegetation was taken down that was healthy…we’re concerned about a 3-1/2-ft diameter sugar maple.”

The neighbor’s landscaper said he also had tried planting along the fence, in deep shade. “It’s hard, we’ve had plants die, we’ll keep doing it.” The extended fence, he said, “is not an amenity. It is not suitable, nor is it appropriate for this area; it’s a real intrusion…[a planted barrier] can’t be restored in short order.”

Appeals board members wrestled with the issues of measuring fence height. Mr Yanovitch said, “We’ve always taken the lowest unmodified grade,” but he conceded, “It’s almost a case-by-case basis.” They reviewed the general conditions for a special permit. Finally, board member Jonathan Book told the others, “I can make this very easy. It’s not an appropriate location”–one of the general conditions–”because it looms over the abutters’ yard.” The other board members accepted that argument, denying a special permit.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, October 5, 2014

Planning Board: opinions on Hancock Village 40B plans

The Planning Board convened a special meeting Monday, September 29, starting at 7:30 in the first floor south meeting room at Town Hall, mainly to review the proposed Chapter 40B housing development at Hancock Village in south Brookline. Chestnut Hill Realty, the developers, again sent Marc Levin as chief representative. The audience numbered about 15, fewer than at hearings held by the Zoning Board of Appeals. They included Nancy Daly and Ben Franco, members of the Board of Selectmen, and several town meeting members.

The Planning Board has no direct role in a Chapter 40B application. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the only local board directly involved. Within about a month, the appeals board is expected to make a decision on the Hancock Village proposal. However, the Board of Selectmen has asked other boards to review the 40B proposal and submit comments.

Maria Morelli, the Planning Department’s consultant for the project, described evolution of plans since last year. Changes involved fewer buildings and units placed in open space near Beverly Rd. and Russett Rd. but more units in the main apartment building along an extension of Asheville Rd. The total number of units proposed has been reduced by eight, to 184. Ms. Morelli did not mention plans from prior years, which were far larger.

Ms. Morelli said the project will now preserve more than two-thirds of the trees currently in the open spaces. Proposed garage structures there have been replaced with surface parking, but there are still over 360 proposed new parking spaces. The height of the main building has increased by one story: five floors of apartments over two floors of parking.

Planning Board member Mark Zarrillo asked for a project model. Polly Selkoe, assistant director for regulatory planning at the Planning Department, said the Zoning Board of Appeals had made that request, but Chestnut Hill Realty had refused, claiming state regulations did not require a model. The Board might well ask Werner Lohe, a Precinct 13 town meeting member who chairs the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee, why not.

At the request of Planning Board members, Ms. Morelli displayed three of the video simulation tours of the proposed development, one circling the main building and two passing through back yards of Beverly Rd. and Russett Rd. abutters, all in so-called “winter views.” Those show deciduous trees bare of leaves.

The proposed main building is situated on a mammoth puddingstone outcrop–Roxbury conglomerate, an irregular sedimentary compaction of extremely hard, igneous cobble and sand that forms baserock of the Boston basin. In 1946, when Hancock Village was being designed, the outcrop was considered unbuildable and was left vacant.

Chestnut Hill Realty plans to blast away puddingstone to create a level floor for the garage, build above that and pile rubble from blasting around the concrete walls of the garage. The proposed main building would rise above the outcrop like a medieval fortress.

Mr. Zarrillo seemed shocked at the southwest face of the main building, revealing about 20 feet of gray concrete wall surmounted by five stories of brick-face apartments. He told Mr. Levin of Chestnut Hill Realty it was the “most irresponsible” development he had ever seen in Brookline. Planning Board member Sergio Modigliani noted that the main building would heavily shade nearby, low-rise garden apartments put up in the 1940s.

Board member Steve Heikin recalled three design teams on which he served for previous 40B projects. “They can be changed,” he said. A Marion St. project has been scaled down from an originally proposed 18 stories to 6 stories, yet to begin construction. A Centre St. project was converted to conventional development. The St. Aidan’s project emerged with far fewer units than first proposed. So far, there has been no explanation about why Brookline did not assemble a design team for the Hancock Village proposal.

Ms. Selkoe asked the board members for suggestions and comments. They all called for scaling down the main building. “It’s simply too big,” said Linda Hamlin, the board’s chair. A consensus seemed to be that it should not be more than four floors of apartments and one floor of parking. The board will review its recommendations at the next regular meeting: Thursday, October 2, at 7:30 pm.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, September 30, 2014


Video tours of proposed 40B project, Chestnut Hill Realty, September 15, 2014, see 3D Model Animations

Board of Selectmen: opposing Hancock Village 40B, defending METCO

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, September 16, started at 6:45 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. There were no reports from departments or organizations.

Hancock Village Chapter 40B: Kenneth Goldstein, who chairs the board, announced that Brookline lost in its Norfolk Superior Court case opposing a Chapter 40B housing project proposed for Hancock Village. He did not say whether the board intends to pursue appeals. All board members said they continue to oppose the project. At this meeting, they endorsed and signed a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Under Chapter 40B, developers can obtain a “comprehensive permit” to build housing, in lieu of all other town permits, if one in five housing units is subsidized to benefit low-income and moderate-income residents, following state regulations. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the only local board directly involved in such a permit. Within about a month, it is expected to make a decision on the Hancock Village proposal.

Hancock Village is situated in the southernmost corner of Brookline, toward West Roxbury. It was one of three Brookline projects organized after World War II to provide housing for war veterans, along with public housing on High St., toward Jamaica Plain, and on Egmont St., toward Allston. A 1946 contract between John Hancock Insurance Company, the developer, and Brookline specified objectives and restrictions for Hancock Village.

Now the Board of Selectmen is concerned that Chestnut Hill Realty, holder in due course, is seeking to nullify obligations under the 1946 contract in proposing to put up a five- to seven-story building with 140 apartments and nine three-story buildings with 44 apartments. Its letter to the Board of Appeals cites several objections, including invasion of protected green space, massing of the large building, sprawling parking lots and traffic.

Projects, hirings and interviews: Peter Ditto, the engineering director, got approval to seek reimbursement for $0.019 million in road repairs, under the state’s “rapid recovery” program. Brookline is now eligible for up to about $0.1 million. Michael DiPietro, the comptroller, got approval to hire an accountant to replace an employee who has left.

The board interviewed a candidate for Economic Development Advisory and a candidate for Solid Waste Advisory. Questions during the latter interview revealed that Brookline does not know what is happening to recycling collections after they leave town premises and does not know how much solid waste is being incinerated. A new contract, under development, may divert solid waste to a landfill in Southbridge.

Tax override: Starting at 8 pm, the Board heard a report from Susan Ditkoff and Richard Benka, co-chairs of the Override Study Committee appointed last year. They mostly repeated information from a written report of August 14. As in that report, Ms. Ditkoff and Mr. Benka took an exceptionalist approach. They did not compare Brookline with the 350 other Massachusetts cities and towns.

Surprisingly, Mr. Benka devoted much of his time to the METCO and the “materials fee” programs run by Public Schools of Brookline. For more than 40 years, they have allowed minority students from Boston and children of town employees to attend Brookline schools. Together, he claimed, they cost Brookline about $7 million a year. If they were abolished, his figures suggested, there would be little need for a tax override to maintain school operations.

Mr. Benka presented no evidence to sustain his cost claims, and he may not have any. To the contrary, Public Schools of Brookline says students in these programs do not get their choices of schools but are instead assigned to schools where there are available seats. Operating in that way, the programs do not add significant costs. It came out that there are currently about 800 more available seats, mostly from observing policies on maximum class sizes. Board members were skeptical of Mr. Benka’s claims about METCO and “materials fees.” According to Betsy DeWitt, they “need a pragmatic filter.”

In discussions about a tax override for debt exclusion, Ms. Ditkoff and Mr. Benka said that the proposed project to expand Devotion School was expected to add only five classrooms. That project is currently budgeted for over $100 million. In contrast, construction underway at Lawrence School will add four classrooms for less than $5 million. It sounded as though the Override Study Committee had entertained some strange priorities for economies.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, September 17, 2014

Brookline Place project: three concept plans

A design advisory team for the Brookline Place development met for a second time Monday, September 15, starting at 7:30 pm, in the first floor south meeting room at Town Hall. Six of the eight team members met with four senior members of the project team working for Children’s Hospital. They were joined by Polly Selkoe, assistant director for regulatory planning, and one neighborhood resident–a small turnout in a large meeting room.

Sam Norod and Tim Talun of Elkus Manfredi Architects, Mikyoung Kim of Mikyoung Kim Design and George Cole of Stantec Consulting presented three design concepts–all similar to the initial concept presented August 26. They differed in the outline of the main, 8-story office building, as it affects adjacent open areas bordered by Pearl St. and lower Washington St.

Although at the August 26 meeting Mark Zarrillo of the Planning Board, who chairs the team, had asked for “a list of amenities that were to going be provided,” negotiated with a Selectmen’s committee, no such list was produced at this meeting. The project team appeared to have focused efforts on a small plaza, interior to the development, to be located between the new office building and the current building at 1 Brookline Place.

Three concepts: The project team called its three design concepts “Boulevard,” “Rooms” and “Green.” The big differences were between “Boulevard” and “Rooms.” The “Boulevard” concept features curved walls and a serpentine path between the Green Line stop and Washington St. The “Rooms” concept features flat walls, sharp corners and a path broken into segments. The “Green” concept somewhat resembles “Rooms” with more grass than paved open space.

BrooklinePlaceConcepts20140915

Mr. Cole said the project team sought a design that “allows you to adapt it to different events”–suggesting that Children’s would allow individuals or groups to organize temporary uses of the outdoor space. Arlene Mattison, a design team member, said she saw the space as primarily a meeting space, maybe hosting art exhibits, but not a performance space. It should be “something that we don’t have in Brookline now…pleasing, welcoming.”

Critiques: Design team member Steve Lacker, an architect, expressed a strong preference for the angular “Rooms” concept. Its urban feel, he said, was “more in keeping with the surroundings.” Linda Hamlin, also an architect, who chairs the Planning Board, was not so sure. “Too much of a pinch point between those buildings,” she said. Design team member Edith Brickman, a Precinct 4 town meeting member, asked, “How does that work with snow and ice?”

Mr. Norod explained that a motive behind the curved walls of the “Boulevard” concept was to admit more light to the interior plaza and perhaps also reduce velocity and turbulence from winter winds, which will often blow northwest to southeast across the open space.

Mark Zarrillo, a landscape architect and Planning Board member, argued for open space away from streets, making it more flexible. That would seem to disfavor the “Green” concept, which places more open space on Washington St., now a pedestrian wasteland. Mr. Zarrillo said he would prefer the “Boulevard” concept with a “more formal appearance”–apparently meaning more of the flat surfaces and angles that Mr. Lacker favors.

Design team member Cynthia Gunadi, an architect, said she was “wary of calling curves warm” and said she wanted to see an approach that provided “flexibility: a farmers market, an office lunch, a kid’s birthday.” Ms. Brickman spoke up for adding and showing benches, saying that “every single bench is in use most of the time now.” Ms. Hamlin wanted the “possibility to have more delight, some playfulness. I can see a child running through it.”

Next steps: Members of the design advisory team asked the project team to discard the “Green” concept and work over the “Boulevard” concept, making it more angular, and the “Rooms” concept, somehow opening access to the interior plaza or, as Mr. Zarrillo put it, “softening” it. Mikyoung Kim, chief landscape designer for the project team, cautioned that they are “very different schemes…you can’t merge the two or you’ll have nothing.”

The next meeting was tentatively set for Thursday, October 11, 7:30 pm, at Town Hall–an evening when there is expected to be no Planning Board meeting.

–Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, September 16, 2014

Board of Selectmen: fire engines, repairs and “flat earth”

A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, September 9, started at 7:15 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. Lisa Paradis, the recreation director, reported on plans for Brookline Day on Sunday, September 14, at Larz Anderson Park, 9 am to 1 pm. The current version of a Brookline community event began in 2012; the main sponsor is Brookline Bank.

Announcements: The Devotion School Building Committee will present plans to renovate the school Tuesday, September 10, 2014, in the Devotion auditorium at 7 pm. The committee was appointed in summer, 2012. Plans are being developed by HMFH Architects of Cambridge. When the current school opened in 1976, it was rated for 650 students. The state’s School Building Authority has authorized expansion to 1010 students.

The main design options are explained in a document from HMFH. Most options preserve the current central building, opened in 1915. The south building dates from the mid-1950s, replacing a building opened in 1893, and the north building dates from the mid-1970s, replacing a building opened in 1899. The historic Devotion House in front of the central building once had a large barn, demolished in the late nineteenth century.

Projects, contracts and hiring: The board accepted payment of $0.3 million from Children’s Hospital, agreed as part of the Brookline Place project, to be used for demolishing the 1970s pedestrian overpass across lower Washington St. Temporary funds from Brookline’s Community Development Block Grant become available for reallocation.

The Board approved contracts for $1.44 million to purchase two new fire engines, appropriated at the annual town meeting in May. Ray Masak of the Building Department got approval for a $0.17 million contract with Robicheau of Roslindale to complete Waldstein Park renovations, expected to reopen some time next spring.

At the Building Commission the same evening, Mr. Masak reported completion of roof repairs for Pierce primary, the main library and the water department. The board approved about $0.02 million in change orders to cope with unexpected conditions. As much as $0.1 million may be needed to cope with conditions at Lawrence School, Mr. Masak told the Building Commission, mainly more ash in soils than found by borings and testing.

Although the money involved is only $0.01 million, Kara Brewton, the economic development director, said that a contract with Nelson/Nygaard of San Francisco will have substantial consequences. The firm will expand on the transportation demand management being planned for Brookline Place, preparing a town-wide plan to guide future development.

The board approved hiring to replace head clerks in Veterans Services and the Building Department. One is taking another town job, and the other relocated. Kenneth Goldstein, the chair, made his typical request to “seek a diverse pool of candidates [and] consult with the personnel office” for the Building position. So far, the board has not interviewed candidates for a new Diversity Commission voted at the annual town meeting.

Appointments: As usual, the board took a more relaxed pace interviewing candidates for boards, commissions and committees: one for Public Health Advisory, two for Arts Commission, one for Commission on Women, two for Housing Advisory, one for Tree Planting and one for Economic Development Advisory.

Brookline has the oldest tree planting committee in the U.S., set up in the early nineteenth century. It has only three members. Board member Nancy Daly asked Nadine Gerdts, a committee member seeking reappointment, about adding more members. Ms. Gerdts seemed open to the idea. In response to other questions, she said a strong, current concern is to maintain mature tree canopies, such as those on Amory St. and Russett Rd.

Ordinarily the board does not make appointments at the same meetings candidates are interviewed. At this meeting, board member Neil Wishinsky was appointed Brookline’s representative on the Port Authority Advisory Committee, previously discussed on August 12. Elizabeth Childs, who interviewed on July 8, was appointed Brookline’s representative on the Norfolk County Advisory Board. There are many pending appointments.

Fall town meeting: The board authorized publication of a warrant for a town meeting to begin November 18. It has 20 articles: ten filed by departments, boards and committees and ten filed in petitions from town residents. Four of the latter propose resolutions.

Former town meeting member Fred Lebow is returning with the same proposal about measuring noise that was rejected at this year’s annual town meeting in a unanimous vote of No on a main motion–a very rare event. Mr. Lebow, an acoustic engineer, still wants to make life easier for fellow engineers by exempting them from night-time work–instead, estimating night-time noise by adjusting the amount of noise measured during the day.

Dr. Tommy Vitolo of Precinct 6–a recent B.U. Systems Engineering grad–ridiculed the idea at town meeting as “legislating” noise. He told town meeting last May that “the most sensible way to measure ambient noise at night is to measure ambient noise at night…Legislating night-time ambient noise is a bit like legislating that the earth is flat.”

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, September 10, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: architecture for Hancock Village Chapter 40B

The Zoning Appeals Board held a continued hearing on Monday, September 8, over a proposed Chapter 40B housing project at the site of Hancock Village, along Independence Drive in the Chestnut Hill section of south Brookline. It was most recently proposing nine 3-story structures tucked in behind houses along Russett and Beverly Rds. and a large building at the extension of Asheville Rd., with a total of 184 new units.

The Appeals Board has now had some experience with hostile 40B developments, notably on Centre and Marion Sts. Its favored approach of wearing out developers met with success, but that has now been foreclosed by state rules narrowing the scope of objections and setting time limits for actions. For those gifts, we can in part thank Werner Lohe, a Precinct 13 town meeting member who chairs the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee.

Regardless of rule changes, Brookline would have had tenuous prospects with such tactics now, because Chestnut Hill Realty, the owner of Hancock Village who is proposing the 40B project, has more resources than developers of previous projects and is unlikely to walk away just because the process takes a long time. Chestnut Hill was represented by Marc Levin and by landscape architect Joseph Geller of Stantec Consulting in Boston, who is a former chair of the Board of Selectmen.

Theodore Touloukian, a Boston architect, presented a review of proposed architecture. He described the nine low-rise buildings as a total of 44 units, 1-bedroom to 3 bedrooms, including 98 bedrooms and 22 lofts. The large building has 5 floors of apartments over 2 floors of parking, with 140 units and 223 bedrooms. A total of 369 new parking spaces is now proposed. Of the 184 total units, all are rental and 37 are to be subsidized for low-income and moderate-income residents.

Mr. Touloukian reported some success at improving landscaping and reducing the large building’s massing at its northern end but none at reducing the number of units or the height of buildings. Perimeter fencing is now to be 7 instead of 4 feet high to reduce headlight glare from night parking. He said he hoped to see further improvements: subdividing surface parking into smaller areas, preserving more trees, trimming the height of the large building to 4 stories at the northern end and using higher quality materials.

Mr. Levin and Mr. Geller of Stantec, speaking for Chestnut Hill, said they had gone as far with changes as practical. Any further change to the large building, they said, would substantially increase cost. Where new trees are being planted, they are willing to put in evergreens to improve year-round screening. They rejected most of Mr. Touloukian’s proposals for changes in architectural materials as too expensive.

Mr. Geller of Stantec exhibited 14 simulated walks around the project, showing Hancock Village buildings in some detail and surrounding houses in caricature. Views of the large building seemed particularly startling, revealing how the parking rises above grade at the south end, making the height seven stories there, and capturing the building’s massive presence as seen from the front or rear.

Several neighborhood residents and town meeting members commented. William M. Varrell, III, who lives at the corner of Asheville and Russett Rds., asked to scale back the large building, of which he probably has the closest view. “Make it smaller,” he said, “and see if it’s feasible.” Scott Gladstone, a Precinct 16 town meeting member and Russett Rd. resident, had a similar outlook. “Nibbling around the project doesn’t work,” he contended. “Make the project smaller.”

Judith Leichtner, a Precinct 16 town meeting member and Beverly Rd. resident, said none of the changes made since last January “substantially address the problems of the proposal. A five-story building is inappropriate for the site.” Her concerns about overcrowding Baker School were echoed by Abby Cox, a School Committee member and Precinct 8 town meeting member. Baker is already over capacity, Ms. Cox said, with about 800 students and “five sections for three grades.”

Alisa Jonas and Stephen Chiumenti, both Russett Road residents and Precinct 16 town meeting members, bore down on whether the proposed project was appropriate for the site. Before it went to the Board of Appeals, Mr. Chiumenti related, “Mass Development was prepared to reject…the original project,” similar is scope and size. He urged the board to “slash the size of this development, then consider financial feasibility.”

There was an interesting exchange between board members and their legal consultants for this review. Jesse Geller, the board’s chair and a lawyer, and Christopher Hussey, a board member and an architect, seemed to play a game of “After you, Alphonse.” Mr. Geller contended architectural elements were the main issues, while Mr. Hussey said, “I’m going to let the lawyers work [things] out.”

Edith Netter of Waltham, consulting on legal aspects of 40B development, seemed eager for board members to start weighing options, saying, “They’ve got to talk to one another.” Board member Mark Zuroff sounded more willing than the others to do so. “I think that the project is too dense,” he said. Board member Avi Liss advocated making the large building “less conspicuous” but did not say how that might happen.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, September 9, 2014

Planning Board: mending a fence and a ‘derelict’ house

A weekly meeting of the Planning Board on Thursday, September 4, started at 7:30 pm in the northern first-floor meeting room at Town Hall. Reviews of seven property improvement applications were scheduled, a heavy workload. Summer is the busiest season for property improvements, and the board had not met the previous week. The board elected Linda Hamlin as chair and Steven Heikin as clerk for the coming year. Ms. Hamlin, an architect, may be the first woman to chair the Brookline Planning Board.

Fence viewer’s call: A dispute over the height of a fence took more time than any other case. The fence at issue was recently built between two properties along Dudley St. The owners of the fence applied for a special permit allowing extra fence height, after their neighbor complained that the fence was over seven feet tall–the maximum allowed for the zone in a side yard, when less than 20 feet from a lot line.

The area’s terrain retains more of its natural variations than urban Brookline, with occasional rises and valleys. Before installing the fence, its owners sought to stabilize a slope with a retaining wall, along or near the lot line. At maximum, that raised their land elevation about three feet above their neighbor’s land. After they installed a fence six or seven feet high, from the neighbor’s land it looked nine or ten feet high.

Brookline specifies that height of a fence or wall is measured “above the natural grade,” and the building inspector who looked at the site took that literally, finding that the top of the new fence rose to more than seven feet above undisturbed land–too high. Special permits for extra fence height are allowed “to mitigate noise or other detrimental impact or provide greater safety,” but none of those circumstances seemed to apply.

Robert L. “Bobby” Allen, Jr., a Brookline-based lawyer, Precinct 16 town meeting member and former chair of the Board of Selectmen, represented the fence owners. The neighbor brought along a landscape designer who had worked on the property but no lawyer. As they often do, board members tried to mediate, seeking some avenue toward agreement. This time, they could not pull it off.

The neighbor offered to meet with the fence owners again, but the owners said that had been tried and didn’t work. Mr. Allen, who handles many such cases with generally calm demeanor, seemed to be exasperated over this one. He couldn’t take it “offline.” Faced with the impasse, the Planning Board briefly reviewed the zoning and sided with the neighbor, recommending the Board of Appeals deny a special permit for extra fence height.

Appeals Board cases: Polly Selkoe, assistant director for regulatory planning at the Planning Department, introduced Jay Rosa to the board. Mr. Rosa has taken a new Planning Department position as zoning coordinator. He will assume duties from the town clerk’s office, following and reporting cases at the Zoning Board of Appeals. Earlier in the evening, Mr. Rosa had attended his first two cases, including a controversial “garage triangle” on Walnut Place.

The Appeals panel visited the site that morning. While there, according to panel member Mark Zuroff, they saw two large trucks make their way past two cars parked in the Walnut Place triangle. Panel members said they did not believe the proposed garage entrance would become a nuisance or serious hazard. They allowed the Upland Road applicants on the case to modify their garage so as to enter it from Walnut Place rather than Upland Road.

A ‘derelict’ house: Another case that proved controversial proposed to alter a house on Beaconsfield Road with a rear addition and both front and rear dormers. The house, in a T-6 two family district, is now a two-family and would remain one. However, the 4131 square feet of gross floor area would be increased well beyond the 4593 square feet normally allowed. To get such an increase requires design review, giving the Planning Board considerable scope.

Members of the Planning Board were appalled to hear that much of the house had been ripped apart, leaving a shell. A nearby resident said the house, with “hardly any work going on since spring, looks like a derelict [and] is very dangerous.” Ms. Hamlin asked, “Is this the new thing: we tear it apart and then ask for permits?”

Mr. Allen, also representing the property owner in this case, was quick to observe that work so far was done under a building permit and had not added new space to the house. One board member thought that the house was in a National Historic Register district, inhibiting demolition, but the Beaconsfield Terrace district starts to the west, toward Beacon St. While Brookline’s zoning is fairly strict about disturbing landscaping before design review, it does not forbid demolishing walls and floors.

Board members turned to the proposed design. Mark Zarrillo, the outgoing chair, said “it looks too bulky.” Mr. Heikin said the design was “out of scale [and] out of character with the surroundings.” According to Ms. Hamlin, “The existing houses have an intimate scale.” The proposed front dormer, she said, “totally overwhelms that house…the scale is wrong…you’ve eliminated any detail that gave it any charm.” The board continued the case and will review it again after the owner and his architect revise their plans.

Brookline Place project: convening a design advisory team

Under Brookline’s “design review” zoning begun in 1971–amended several times since–reviews by a design advisory team are required for “major impact” projects, involving 16 or more new residential units or 25,000 square feet or more of new non-residential space. A team consists of one or more Planning Board members, one or more design professionals and one or more neighborhood representatives.

From committee to team: The Planning Board has yet to appoint a design advisory team for Brookline Place, and there has been no public notice about appointing a team, as required in the zoning bylaw. However, a 12-member Brookline Place Advisory Committee was appointed by the Board of Selectmen in October, 2013. The committee submitted Article 15 to the 2014 annual town meeting, proposing zoning changes to support the now ongoing Brookline Place project. Those changes passed by 170 to 9, in an electronically recorded vote on June 2.

Polly Selkoe, assistant director for regulatory planning, attended the August 26 meeting along with seven members of the selectmen’s committee: Mark Zarrillo and Linda Hamlin, chair and member of the Planning Board, Cynthia Gunadi and Steve Lacker, architects, John Bassett and Edith Brickman, nearby town meeting members, and Arlene Mattison, an environmental advocate who lives about three blocks from the site.

They were joined by Antonia Bellalta of Bellalta3, landscape designers currently on contract with the town for redesign of Hickey Triangle in the heart of Brookline Village. Ms. Bellalta had been named in an August 26 memorandum from Ms. Selkoe to the Planning Board as a candidate for the Brookline Place team.

Mr. Lacker asked, “What is [the design review team] charged with? Ms. Selkoe said it should “report to the Planning Board” on issues found–not including traffic–and “give the board updates as it goes along.” She said there will also be meetings of department heads, unannounced and closed to the public. If a quarter of the design advisory team consists of Planning Board members, the board should get plenty of ongoing information from the team.

Concept plans: Children’s Hospital, the owner and developer, was represented by Charles Weinstein, their architect Elkus Manfredi by Sam Norod and Tim Talun, and their landscape designer Mikyoung Kim by Bill Madden. The Children’s design team also includes civil engineers at Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, traffic engineers at Howard/Stein-Hudson and environmental consultants at Sanborn Head. George Cole, a Children’s consultant, coordinated presentations.

An agenda for the August 26 meeting had not been announced to the public, despite Massachusetts open meeting requirements that a meeting notice describe topics. The business consisted of presentations by the Children’s Hospital design team and of committee discussions about concepts: designing building outlines, relating buildings to contexts, organizing open spaces and considering potentials for public, outdoor uses.

The selectmen’s committee had presented a detailed report to town meeting, tailoring zoning around fairly concrete plans for new offices and a new parking garage, so there were not likely to be surprises. The Children’s Hospital design team presented concept plans similar to what the selectmen’s committee reported. However, a sketch exhibited last spring showed new offices in an 8-story rectangular tower.

Elements of the design: At the August 26 meeting, representatives of Children’s distributed copies of concept plans for two new office buildings and a new garage, adding 325 more parking spaces. One of the new buildings was shown sited near the corner of Washington and Pearl Sts., eight stories as expected. The other was shown expanding existing 6-story offices toward the southwest. Both have curved outer walls, together forming a trumpet bell onto Washington St.

View of Brookline Place development looking northwest

A small, landscaped interior plaza, linked by wide walkways to Washington St. on one side and to Pearl St. on the other, opposite the Green Line stop, looks smaller in a perspective rendering than one might have expected. The addition to the existing office buildings seems to crowd the plaza and to create a canyon into the project from Washington St., almost entirely hiding views across the site that might include Station St.

Previous drawings the selectmen’s committee used to illustrate their proposals had suggested there could be a larger interior plaza and less constricted views across the site. A local comparison of sorts–Winchester St. approaching Beacon St.–shows a similar canyon effect, running to the 13-story tower at 1371 Beacon. That was unanticipated by nearby neighborhoods when the tower was allowed, replacing a church under former, much higher density zoning for the Coolidge Corner area.

Design issues: As he had promised, Mr. Cole kept presentations brief, but closer to twenty than to five minutes. Everything mentioned appeared to be contained in a 73-page document he circulated, which becomes a part of the public record. Right away, Mr. Zarrillo, the Planning Board chair, called for “a list of amenities that were to going be provided,” as negotiated with the selectmen’s committee.

About the amenities, Mr. Cole said, “We have not done that yet.” Mr. Zarrillo responded, “I would say that you should do that.” There was a bit of discussion about how the project might integrate with the long planned, so-called “Gateway East” project along Route 9, between the Riverway and the old Brookline Bank. No one knew when any action could be expected from the state’s transportation department, the key agency.

Ms. Brickman complained, “I don’t see any grass. Where’s the grass?” Mr. Cole and Mr. Madden, the landscape designer, ruffled through their cache of computerized slides and came up with a couple showing patches of green. However, those looked hardly sufficient to meet what the zoning changes passed by town meeting in June require, “Hard-surfaced walks and plazas may not exceed 55 percent of the total…open space.”

Landscaped versus paved space took up a good fraction of time at the meeting. Ms. Mattison said “it was really important to protect the triangle of green. The thing that saved Brook House was green around it.” Committee members proved resistant to mere decorations suggesting the project was somehow related to nearby Brookline Village. Ms. Bellalta said, “The development should have its own character.”

A suburban design: Some committee members seemed absorbed in discussions about amounts and locations of landscaped space, but not Mr. Zarrillo. He said that the project “needs a better design. It’s pretty pedestrian…one of those California outdoor malls.” Mr. Lacker seemed to agree, saying, “There’s something that feels corporate suburban right now.”

Mr. Lacker said he “would like to see something where there wasn’t a glass…curvy appearance…What’s urban in this context is really important.” Mr. Bassett sounded skeptical, “You’re suggesting pavement instead of grass in the plaza?” Apparently, not quite. Mr. Lacker said he “never liked Gateway East,” mainly a highway project with a touch of landscaping.

Mr. Bassett wanted to “take advantage of the old buildings on Station St.” At one point, Mr. Cole asked, rhetorically, “How do you make this feel like part of Brookline Village?” It sounded “all hat and no cattle.” None of the views in Mr. Cole’s document showed Station St. in the background, looking outward. Instead, they looked into the project from Washington St. or looked west along Route 9 or looked toward and away from the Brook House.

The group plans to meet about every two weeks, apparently on Tuesdays–the most crowded day of the week for meetings, including the Board of Selectmen and School Committee. The next meeting was tentatively set for 7:30 pm Tuesday, September 16, at Town Hall.

–Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, August 27, 2014

Planning Board: a house trying to eat a hill

A weekly meeting of the Planning Board on Thursday, August 21, started at 7:30 pm in the northern first-floor meeting room at Town Hall. Reviews of five property improvement applications were scheduled. A proposal to convert a single-family house at 227 Tappan St. to a two-family house drew strong neighborhood opposition.

SC districts: Many properties near the peak and on the south and east sides of Addington Hill are in types of zoning called SC-7 and SC-10. SC zoning was introduced in the early 1960s, when Brookline made its first major revisions to zoning since 1922. Single-family houses in SC districts can be converted to two-family with special permits approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The single-family property at 227 Tappan was bought by a developer this year, who applied for a conversion permit. Several such conversions have not aroused much controversy, because owners maintained the outlines of houses and added inconspicuous second entrances. In this case, however, the developer plans to add a large extension onto the rear of a two-story house, more than doubling the floor area.

House on a hill: Slopes along the south side of Addington Hill are among the steepest in Brookline. No cross street connects Tappan St. to Rawson Rd. uphill from it except Garrison Rd., in relatively flat territory near Beacon St. Several properties along the middle section of Tappan St., including the one at 227, have deep lots with steep, heavily forested slopes in back.

Robert L. “Bobby” Allen, Jr., a Brookline-based lawyer, Precinct 16 town meeting member and former chair of the Board of Selectmen, represented the developer–who also brought along an architect and a landscape designer. Comments from members of the Planning Board indicated they saw skilled and professional efforts to plan construction on the steep rear slopes, while largely maintaining current appearances from Tappan St.

It was just those factors that most alarmed neighbors. They presented a memorandum of objections, and several spoke out about their concerns. Construction plans call for a large excavation, probably scooping out several hundred cubic yards of Addington Hill and uprooting or disturbing mature trees. Big, deeply set retaining walls would be needed. The scale of land disturbance is rare except for major buildings and highways.

Objections: Next-door neighbors were upset about the potential for “shifting of the ground,” as one put it. “We’re going to end up with a cracked foundation,” he predicted. Drainage from Addington Hill onto Tappan St. has “a 50-foot head…[it] will flow onto adjacent properties” and may flood them. For those Tappan St. residents, it was “not a question of aesthetics but a serious structural problem.”

Other neighbors were concerned about a concentration of automobiles opposite the intersection of Tappan St. with Beaconsfield Rd. Based on parking designs, there can be five to seven instead of only one, they said. The neighbors said current driveways are hazards for children, especially during snow season, but the proposed one would be much worse. because of its location and the number of cars there.

Lee Cooke-Childs, a Precinct 12 town meeting member who lives on Rawson Rd., directly behind the Tappan St. property, objected to disturbing trees. It’s “a climax forest,” she said, asking whether “their excavation is going to threaten the roots of my trees.” Another resident, a few doors away on Tappan St., observed that “60 percent of the lot is flat…[yet] the plan will tunnel into the hill.”

Alex Coleman, a member of the Human Relations Commission who lives on the other side of of Tappan St., said neighbors were at work on a proposed zoning change for part of the SC-10 district. However, Dr. Coleman conceded such a change would come too late to prevent the development proposed for 227 Tappan St., if it were allowed by the Appeals board.

A skeptical board: After hearing from the neighborhood, Planning Board members began to express skepticism about the proposal. However, board member Steve Heikin said Brookline did not have much leverage over dimensions, since the plan observes Brookline limits for floor area and setbacks. He recalled a recent, large Toxteth St. development that needed no special permits, saying it had inspired a neighborhood conservation district enacted at the 2014 annual town meeting.

Board member Robert Cook was probably the most direct. “It’s way too big,” he said. Board member Linda Hamlin said she didn’t “think it meets community standards…asking for too much.” Board member Sergio Modigliani, an architect, said the plan was “a big reach, as much as possible inside that envelope.” Mark Zarrillo, the board’s chair and a landscape architect, summed up. “I can’t support this,” he said, “The project is too big.”

Faced with little or no support from Planning Board members, Mr. Allen looked for an alternative. “Maybe we could return on September 4,” he said, “Maybe we could come back with something like” what amounted to around a 20 percent smaller house. Mr. Zarrillo recommended the developer and his architect look into “extra height to avoid a larger footprint.”

The developer said he “would be willing to engage…if it was worthwhile.” Mr. Zarrillo responded, “You need to talk to the neighbors.” The developer said, “I’ve tried to have that conversation…only one person showed up.” Tentatively, the Planning Board scheduled another review for September 18 and continued the case without voting a recommendation.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, August 22, 2014

Public Transportation Advisory Committee: Brookline Place, MBTA 51 bus

A regular monthly meeting of the Public Transportation Advisory Committee on Tuesday, August 19, started at 7:00 pm in the third-floor conference room at Town Hall, with four committee members present. The committee is planning a survey focused on neighborhoods that might be affected by changing parts of the route of the MBTA no. 51 bus that run through south Brookline.

Brookline Place: A “draft” transportation demand management (TDM) plan for the proposed Brookline Place development surfaced at the meeting. It had been prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson of Boston, a consultant to Children’s Hospital, the owner and developer of the parcel, which is adjacent to the Brookline Village transit stop on the D branch of the MBTA Green Line between Station and Pearl Sts.

Although dated January 16 of this year and although addressing a hotly controversial topic, the proposed plan has not received much public attention. Under Article 15, the 2014 annual town meeting changed special zoning devised for just this one parcel of land to allow a new above-ground parking garage with a maximum of 683 spaces, replacing the current above-ground garage that has 377 spaces.

In partial compensation for adding parking and for not requiring that parking be underground, the developer is required to implement a TDM plan. Against Brookline’s traditions of citizen government, no approval of a TDM plan was required from any public board. Instead, the developer needs only approval from Todd Kirrane, the transportation director, and Alison Steinfeld, the planning director. Those two town employees are not subject to the Open Meeting Law or any other detailed requirements for public notice or accountability.

The “draft” TDM plan reviewed by the committee was spartan, just over one printed page. Committee members reacted to provisions intended to promote transit use by employees at the site. Linda Jason criticized “50 percent transit subsidies,” saying that in major Boston developments full subsidies of MBTA transit had been required. The committee is to continue its TDM review at a future meeting.

MBTA 51 bus: The committee began planning processes for public input on proposals to change the route of the MBTA 51 bus in south Brookline. Unlike the most recent three committee meetings, no MBTA representative came to this one. However, at this meeting the committee focused on process rather than on any specifics for potential changes to the 51 bus route. This bus goes from Cleveland Circle through south Brookline, West Roxbury and Roslindale to Forest Hills, returning along the same route.

Proposed changes previously discussed affect MBTA 51 bus route segments between Chestnut Hill Ave.–at the intersection with Boylston St. (Route 9)–and Independence Drive running through Hancock Village. Instead of operating via Lee St., Clyde St., Newton St. and Grove St., a modified route would operate via Boylston St., Hammond St. and one of two options to connect with Independence Drive.

The purpose is to increase MBTA bus ridership, operating through more densely populated neighborhoods in south Brookline. One of the two options would use the partly parallel roads West Roxbury Pkwy. (NE side) and Newton St. (SW side) between Horace James Circle and Putterham (Ryan) Circle, then southwest on Grove St. The other option would use Lagrange St. and Beverly Rd. between Horace James Circle and Grove St., which is renamed Independence Drive near Gerry Rd. and southward.

The committee wants to see whether there is substantial support for any change and, if there is, which of the two options between Horace James Circle and Grove St. is more attractive. Using West Roxbury Pkwy. might be easier, but that is more remote from residents and offers fewer opportunities for stops. Beverly Rd. runs through more populated neighborhoods but has narrower roadways, particularly at the curve near Baker School.

Online survey: Ms. Jason presented a draft, online-survey questionnaire, developed with software tools. The committee members offered comments and made some edits. Committee member Sherry Flashman noted that either proposed route change would worsen bus access to Larz Anderson Park. Committee chair Abby Swaine noted that either one would improve access to the newer Skyline Park.

Committee member Deborah Dong suggested the questionnaire ask about MBTA 51 bus stops now in Brookline. There are four on the Chestnut Hill Ave. segment connecting to Cleveland Circle, nine on the current segment via Lee St. and Newton St., and four on the Grove St. and Independence Drive segment through Hancock Village into West Roxbury. To get clear descriptions of stops could be a challenge. Some are known by two names, depending on the direction of travel. Also, MBTA does not now accurately distinguish between Grove St. and Independence Drive.

The committee decided to plan its survey for October and November, to try to include a notice of it with the October water-bill mailing and to promote it through schools, shops, south Brookline institutions and local recreation programs. Tentative plans are to hold a public hearing in December and arrive at a recommendation in January, to be presented to the Transportation Board and MBTA.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, August 20, 2014


Transportation demand management program (draft), Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, January 16, 2014

Board of Selectmen: celebrations, personnel, programs, licenses

A triweekly meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, August 12, started at 6:30 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. There were no reports from departments or organizations. Meetings of the board have slipped from weekly to biweekly to triweekly during high summer.

Announcements: There will be no meeting Tuesday, August 19, or probably Tuesday, August 26. The latter might be scheduled if needed. Notices appear on the Calendar page of Brookline’s municipal Web site. There would be a notice by close of business Friday, August 22.

Weekly meetings of the Board of Selectmen resume Tuesday, September 2. A fall, 2014, town meeting is scheduled to begin Tuesday, November 18, at 7 pm in the High School Auditorium. The warrant opened Thursday, August 7, and it closes at noon Thursday, September 4.

Board member Neil Wishinsky will be Brookline’s representative to the Logan Airport Community Advisory Committee. The board appointed a building committee for renovations and improvements to fire stations 5 on Babcock St. and 6 on Hammond St.: board member Ben Franco, Building Commissioners Janet Fierman, George Cole and Ken Kaplan, Fire Chief Paul Ford and Deputy Chiefs Robert Ward and Mark Jefferson.

Board member Betsy DeWitt announced a neighborhood meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 20, in the Harrison St., Kent St., Aspinwall Ave. and Kent Sq. area about a proposed 400-seat pavilion for Parson’s field. If interested, call the Brookline Planning Department for information, 617-730-2130.

Ken Goldstein, the chair, responded to a Boston Globe story saying that Kevin Fisher, the applicant for a medical marijuana dispensary in the Brookline Bank building at the corner of Washington and Boylston Sts., had falsely claimed on a state permit application to be a graduate of Youngstown State University in Ohio. Mr. Goldstein read a statement and said Brookline would conduct a thorough review of the local applications.

Celebrations and donations: The board celebrated the hundredth birthdays of Brookline resident Ethel Weiss of Harvard St. and former Brookline resident Roslyn London. Apparently the board did not know that Mrs. London had died just a day earlier.

Ethel Weiss has operated Irving’s Toy and Card Shop since 1938. She continues to tend the shop every weekday. She came to the meeting with Nancy Heller, one of her Precinct 8 town meeting members. Ms. Weiss thanked the board for good wishes. She said, “I’ve always found the people in this town to be helpful and kind.”

Ruthann Dobek, director of the Senior Center, said the number of centarians in Brookline is growing. In 2002 there were 26, she said, but the number is “now much larger.” The board accepted a donation of $500 from HC Studio of Station St. to support the Brookline Commission for the Arts.

Stephen Cirillo, the finance director, proposed a use for the Penny Savings Fund, created in 1948 by a former school principal and recently holding around $7,000, but inactive for many years. The purpose of the fund, he said, was to help poor people. Mr. Cirillo said he learned the background from former assistant treasurer and current Precinct 4 town meeting member John Mulhane. He proposed the fund be closed out and its proceeds donated to the safety net fund maintained by the Brookline Community Foundation, for similar purposes. The board agreed.

Personnel: Daniel O’Leary, the police chief, won approval to promote Michael Raskin to sergeant. Mr. Raskin joined the force in 1986, he said, and was formerly a sergeant in the patrol division. He lost the rank when he left in 2009 to join the National Emergency Management Association. He returned after about a year and a half to join the detective division, where he will now serve as a sergeant.

Anne Reed, the assistant library director for administration, got hiring approval to replace a reference librarian who recently died. Mr. Goldstein revived his typical request to “seek a diverse pool of candidates,” saying the library should “work with town personnel staff” on diversity. Mr. Cirillo received hiring approval to replace an office assistant who had taken a position in another town office. Lisa Paradis, the recreation director, got approval to hire a replacement for a recreation teacher who left for a job elsewhere.

Programs and contracts: Ms. Dobek and Gary McCabe, Brookline’s chief assessor, asked to raise the income limit on Brookline’s tax relief program for older property owners from $40.0 to $47.5 thousand. Participants can get up to $1,000 per year in tax reductions in return for up to 125 hours per year of work in town offices. The board agreed. A new program, funded by a $5,000 grant from Hamilton Realty, is to offer similar temporary employment to older residents who rent. The board approved.

Joe Viola, assistant director for community planning, received final authorization to process agreements for this year’s federal Community Development Block Grant, the federal FY2014 and the local FY2015 program. Brookline receives about $1.3 million as a legacy from the activities of the former Brookline Redevelopment Authority between 1958 and 1985.

Using block grant funds, the board also approved agreements for $0.05 million in Senior Center and $0.35 million in Housing Authority programs. The biggest elements in those are the Elder Taxi program and health and safety projects for public housing. Owing to sharp cutbacks in federal housing support, Brookline’s federal block grant has become a mainstay of Housing Authority maintenance.

The largest of several contracts up for review was $3.11 million with GVW of East Boston, to add classrooms at Lawrence School. The board approved the contract. According to the attorney general’s office, in 2009 George V. Wattendorf, the owner of GVW, was sentenced to fines, restitutions and probation for violating prevailing wage laws during school and public safety projects in Haverhill, Reading, Lunenberg, Lynn, Amesbury and Natick. GVW was barred for one year from working on public construction in the state.

Alison Steinfeld, the planning director, got approval to increase contracts with Touloukian of Boston and Edith Netter of Waltham related to reviews of the proposed Hancock Village 40B housing development. Little of what Ms. Netter did is on the public record, but so far it cost about $40,000. Ms. Steinfeld said it was “helpful,” and the board approved a request for $26,000 from the Reserve Fund, sent to the Advisory Committee. A budget showed $0.25 million allocated for outside services so far, with $0.026 million reimbursed by the developer.

Chief O’Leary received approval to accept a state grant of $0.02 million for computer storage upgrades. Peter Ditto, the engineering director, got approval of $0.14 million for contract road repairs and for $0.12 million in reimbursement requests to the state. Anthony Guigli, a building project administrator, got approval for $0.013 million to correct concealed drainage defects as part of the Town Hall garage renovation. The board approved an agreement with Patrick Farmer, a Shady Hill School teacher and Meredith Ruhl, a Simmons instructor, to occupy the historic Widow Harris house on Newton St. in return for rent, housekeeping and educational programs.

With little comment and no apparent consultation with the Climate Action Committee, the board approved agreements with Cadmus Group of Waltham and BlueWave Capital of Boston, related to potential solar electricity projects. Those firms had been promoted to Brookline town departments by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, which previously promoted the now-shuttered Broadway Electric solar division. Luckily, Brookline did not try to do business with Broadway.

Jennifer Gilbert, former town counsel and a special counsel for Cleveland Circle Cinema redevelopment, proposed warrant articles for the fall town meeting to discontinue easements for long unused sewer connections that run through the site. The board voted to file one of these. As at a program review in July, Ms. Gilbert apparently sent documents late the same day, and copies of the article in the form being filed were not distributed to the public at the meeting.

Appointments: The board interviewed Anthony Schlaff for reappointment to the Advisory Council on Public Health. Responding to a question from board member Ben Franco, Dr. Schlaff said substance abuse remains a significant problem in Brookline and a concern of the council.

Nancy O’Connor, vice chair of the Park and Recreation Commission, was also interviewed for reappointment. She started saying by she didn’t “have anything exciting to talk about,” but the board became engaged. Ms. DeWitt asked about the recent design for the Ward Playground on Brook St. Ms. O’Connor described it as a “creative use of a very small space,” where the commission had to “hold back” on what to install. Mr. Wishinsky complimented the commission on “spectacular success” with the recently renovated Clark Playground on Cypress St. Ms. O’Connor said a key ingredient was balance, “It’s a dance.”

Permits and licenses: Haim Cohen applied for a common victualler (restaurant) license to open The Place Next Door on Harvard St. His family has run Rami’s, where he works now, for over 24 years, and the vacant, former Beauty Supply is what they called the place next door. He said he plans a kosher dairy restaurant–a rare bird outside New York City–where the menu is vegetarian. Mysteriously, he said it will be “glatt kosher.” As far as we’ve heard, ordinary vegetables don’t have glands. The project will take new construction and equipment. The board approved.

Rafael Pieretti of Newton applied for license transfers to operate Olea Cafe on Washington St. He plans modern Italian fare, with several varieties of bruschetta, panini and pasta plus wines and beers. There will be quite a bit of renovation. The board was skeptical that the proposed liquor manager had no previous experience, but she described the training she had taken and readily answered questions about procedures. The board approved.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, August 13, 2014

Board of Selectmen: vacation, town meeting, personnel, contracts, licenses and trash metering

A biweekly meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, July 22, started at 6:40 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. There were no reports from departments or organizations.

Announcements: There will be no meetings of the Board of Selectmen Tuesday, July 29, or Tuesday, August 5. The next meeting scheduled is Tuesday, August 12, but that might be cancelled. Weekly meetings resume Tuesday, September 2.

A fall, 2014, town meeting is scheduled to begin Tuesday, November 18, at 7 pm in the High School auditorium. The warrant for the fall town meeting opens at the start of business Thursday, August 7, and closes at noon Thursday, September 4.

Town meeting articles require signatures of ten registered Brookline voters and must be submitted with written explanations, for the explanations to be published in the warrant report. Originals of articles with signatures are to be filed and time-stamped at the office of the Board of Selectmen, from which they will be forwarded to the town clerk to check signatures. Hearings on articles will be held by the Board of Selectmen, by subcommittees of the Advisory Committee and potentially by other town organizations.

Public comment: During the public comment period, Ernest Frey, a Precinct 7 town meeting member and a Human Relations commissioner, asked the board to appoint members to that commission, replacing ones who have resigned, so it can assemble a quorum for meetings. He sought an expedited process for current commissioners to join a new Diversity Commission that is expected to replace the Human Relations Commission in the fall. He asked Kenneth Goldstein, the board’s chair, when telling department heads to seek a “diverse pool of candidates” for new hires, also to say they should consult the human relations and human services administrator about practices to promote diversity.

The new commission will be set up when approval is received from the attorney general for actions of the 2014 annual town meeting. Neither Town Administrator Mel Kleckner nor any member of the board seemed to know that a letter from the attorney general, on file with the town clerk, says reviews will be completed September 28. Board member Nancy Daly observed that nine commissioners had been interviewed this year, and they might not need another interview. Current commissioners who want to join the new commission should indicate interest, she said, by filing the usual applications to join a board, commission or committee.

Personnel: The board interviewed Sara Slymon, recently hired as library director to replace Charles Flaherty. Ms. Slymon described a background of innovation but also said, “Our bread and butter is still books.” Asked about potential future projects, she declined to speculate. Over the past 25 years, Ms. Slymon has held ten positions in library services for durations of one to four years, most recently as library director in Randolph.

Paul Ford, the fire chief, got approval to hire for four vacant firefighter positions. Andrew Pappastergion, the public works director, got approval to hire another assistant engineer, in addition to one authorized June 24, because of a resignation. Mr. Goldstein omitted what had become his usual request to “seek a diverse pool of candidates.” Despite Mr. Frey’s plea, he said nothing on consulting the human relations and human services administrator about practices to promote diversity.

Contracts: Jennifer Gilbert, former town counsel and a special counsel for Cleveland Circle Cinema redevelopment, presented an amendment to Brookline’s agreement with First General Realty, the proposed developer. Copies were not supplied to the public in information packets distributed at board meetings but are supposed to be available later. Ms. Gilbert said First General needs a utility easement, expected to be sought at the fall, 2014, town meeting. The project will be described in a forthcoming Beacon article.

Mr. Ford, the fire chief, won approval to accept a federal grant of about $0.10 million to train staff as fire instructors. Once certified, they will train other staff of Brookline’s department in advanced techniques and may train staff from other communities. Brookline will have to come up with about $0.01 million in matching funds. Mr. Ford said he expects to find that within his department’s current budget.

Alison Steinfeld, the planning director, got approval to increase a contract with Beta Group of Norwood to review traffic and stormwater plans for a proposed Chapter 40B housing development at Hancock Village. Costs are being reimbursed by the developer.

Mr. Pappastergion, the public works director, got approval for a series of contract changes to complete the long-running sewer-separation project on lower Beacon St, between St. Mary’s St. and Pleasant St. Most costs of the $25 million project are being reimbursed by the state Water Resources Authority. However, about $0.1 million of ineligible costs was incurred because of failure to observe MWRA limits for engineering services. Mr. Pappastergion said he expects to cover those costs within his department’s current budget.

Erin Gallentine, director of parks and open space, got approval to reduce by about $0.06 million a contract with Quirk Construction of Georgetown to reconstruct Waldstein Playground, off Dean Rd. Town staff will do more of the project, including fencing, and it may take longer than planned to finish. Peter Ditto, director of engineering, got approval for an increase of about $0.01 million in a contract to repair the 55-year-old floor at Brookline’s transfer station. He said the original survey missed areas covered by refuse during the winter.

Ms. Gallentine also got approval for a contract with Touloukian & Touloukian of Boston, about $0.02 million to develop specifications to renovate doors and windows of the historic Fisher Hill Reservoir gatehouse. So far, the town has allocated $0.58 million for the project and has received a state grant of $0.04 million. Kenneth Goldstein, the chair, expressed reservation about the costly project, saying no use for the building has been identified, but he voted for the contract with the Touloukian firm.

Permits and licenses: A representative of Nstar sought permits for street work on Copley and Pleasant Streets to replace underground circuits. Mark Zarrillo of Copley St., chair of the Planning Board, asked the selectmen to delay the project so as to allow neighborhood review of plans. The area has a mix of underground and above-ground circuits, the latter recently upgraded from 4 to 14 kV. Mr. Zarrillo said that with the large amount of work in prospect, Nstar should be able to put all the circuits underground. The board agreed to a delay and will reconsider the project at a future meeting.

Michael Maynard asked for an exception to rules so that Coolidge Corner Theatre could serve more than one drink to a customer, including beer and wine. He said that a recent rule caused disruption in the theatre environment. According to Mr. Maynard, since the theatre started serving beer and wine four years ago, there have been only two incidents with “inebriated patrons,” both resolved without needing to call police. The board agreed that recent rules had been designed for a restaurant environment and allowed the exception.

Approval to transfer the common victualler (restaurant), liquor and entertainment licenses for Chef Chow’s at 230 Harvard St. was sought because of a change in management. Health, Building and Police reports were positive. There had been no citations for violations, and there was no opposition. The board approved. Colleen Suhanosky asked to add Sunday hours, 9 am to 4 pm, for Rifrullo Cafe at 149 Cypress St. There was no opposition, and the board approved.

David Iknaian sought a new common victualler license for Panelli’s Pizza, to be located at 415 Harvard St. Health, Building and Police reports were positive, and there was no opposition. The board approved, subject to conditions recommended by the Health Department.

Jenny Yu, a Winchester St. resident, sought new common victualler, wine and malt beverage, and entertainment licenses for Shanghai Jade, to be located at 1374 Beacon St. Health, Building and Police reports were positive, and there was no opposition. The board approved, subject to review of outside seating by the Department of Public Works.

Appointments: As often happens, the board slowed its pace when interviewing candidates for boards and committees: one for Climate Action and two for Solid Waste Advisory. Greg O’Brien, a recent law graduate, said he wants to work through Climate Action on solar power for condominiums and apartments. John Dempsey, chair of Solid Waste Advisory, said the town is currently “stuck” at about 9,000 tons of refuse a year, down from about 12,500 tons in 2007. Amie Lindenboim, also seeking reappointment to Solid Waste Advisory, said she agreed with Mr. Dempsey’s concerns.

Trash metering: On June 10, a plan to increase recycling through trash metering had been described to the board by Mr. Pappastergion, the public works director. He also described the plan at the annual public works “question time” on May 14. It involves town-issued 35-gallon refuse bins, one per household, collected under the current program of fees, plus added fees for extra refuse collection. At this meeting, board member Neil Wishinsky said changes needed to be publicized.

Mr. Dempsey said his committee’s role is “educational” and calls trash metering “pay as you throw.” The name as well as the concepts are hung over from rural and far suburban towns, where residents still take trash to town dumps and throw it into piles. That does not seem likely to educate or help Brookline, where public dumps closed and municipal refuse collection began more than a century ago.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, July 23, 2014


Brookline Town Counsel, General guidelines to drafting warrant articles, August, 2006

Board of Selectmen: contracts, personnel and appointments

A biweekly meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, July 8, started at 6:30 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. There were no reports from departments or organizations.

Announcements: A design advisory team will start meeting soon for Brookline Place. It was not clear whether that meant the Brookline Place Advisory Committee. The first meeting is to be Wednesday, July 16, 7:00 pm, at the Latvian Lutheran Church, 58 Irving St.

Contracts and personnel: The board reviewed a proposed 2-year extension of the agreement for emergency services with Fallon. Brookline houses two ambulances full-time and links Fallon with emergency communications. Fallon staffs the ambulances full-time and gives priority to services in Brookline. No money is exchanged. Paul Ford, the fire chief, made a strong pitch for extending the agreement, saying that services have been satisfactory and that Fallon has provided emergency medicine training for Brookline firefighters. The board agreed to extend the agreement.

Several public works contracts were presented, briefly reviewed and approved. The largest amounts were three contracts totaling $1.53 million for street and traffic signal repairs, a $0.58 million contract to repair the historic Fisher Hill Reservoir gatehouse, $0.25 million for grounds maintenance, $0.14 million for repairs to the historic Burial Ground and $0.03 million to complete sewer and drain projects.

Costs of the gatehouse project, adjacent to the new Fisher Hill Park, are partly offset by a grant of $0.04 million from the state’s Historic Commission. Costs for sewer and drain projects are reimbursed by MWRA. A check for $0.14 million was accepted from Claremont Companies, building a hotel at the former Red Cab site on Boylston St., to fund public improvements in the vicinity.

Proceeding at a rapid pace, the board approved budget transfers already allowed by Advisory the previous evening, and it approved hirings to fill vacancies–a sergeant in the Police Department, a recreation leader and a health inspector–all created by retirements. Kenneth Goldstein, the chairman, made his usual requests to seek a “diverse pool of candidates.” However, no town organization currently monitors the effectiveness of such efforts.

Appointments: As often happens, the board slowed its pace when interviewing candidates for boards and committees: one for Martin Luther King, one for Norfolk County Advisory, one for Transportation and one for Zoning Appeals.

Elizabeth Childs, a new candidate for the Norfolk County board, is a former School Committee member and a former Massachusetts commissioner of mental health. Her strongest concern, she said, was whether Brookline was “getting a fair return on our tax contributions” to the county. The assessment for the current fiscal year is $0.79 million. There are no visible county services.

Board member Betsy DeWitt asked about abolishing country government, as has already happened in eight of the 14 counties. She did not seem to know that county abolition in western Massachusetts was a pre-emptive strike by legislators who wanted to derail competition for their offices. Mr. Goldstein said he knew of three current efforts in the General Court, but he said “none have traction now.”

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, July 10, 2014

Of time and the cesspool

If Thomas Wolfe had lived here in the 1960s and 1970s, he would not have needed an invention; he could have written a true story. That era spawned rotten legacies we are almost finished unearthing and disinfecting. Some unblinkered Brookline residents resisted Chapter 121A housing projects, but there were rarely enough.

Until the mid-1970s, one after another of them larded developer profits with tax reductions–leaving the town holding the bag when 25-year to 40-year tenant-income restrictions expired and properties could be sold at huge profits. Now we inherit the worst of both worlds: former low-income housing being occupied by the rich, combined with more pressure on a costly and already overburdened school system.

It could easily be foreseen, and in fact it was foreseen. However, there were also political fortunes to be reaped. They were reaped at the expense of those who came later and of those who remain. The appeal to former leaders was that when bills came due they would be long gone and probably dead. Now they are gone, and many are dead. Good riddance.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, July 5, 2014


Thomas Wolfe, Of Time and the River, Scribner, 1935

Board of Selectmen: cell-phone antennas, personnel and appointments

A weekly meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, June 24, started at 6:30 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. There were no reports from departments or organizations.

Announcements: Groundbreaking for 32 new public housing units was held in the morning at 86 Dummer St., near the B.U. West segment of Commonwealth Ave. and adjacent to Trustman Apartments. There will be no board meeting Tuesday, July 1. There are to be biweekly meetings during July and August.

Cell-phone antennas: In an item of new business not detailed on the agenda, Kenneth Goldstein, the board’s chair, proposed sending letters to members of the General Court representing Brookline, urging them to oppose S. 2183 and Sections 74 and 75 in H. 4181. He had found out about these bills from messages sent by the Massachusetts Municipal Association, to which Brookline belongs. The board agreed.

The bills would have undercut local regulation of cell-phone antennas. Section 1 of S. 2183 proposed to add the following to Chapter 40A of the General Laws: “No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit, regulate or restrict collocation of wireless facilities on existing structures….” Cities and towns would be unable to regulate placement of antennas on buildings.

S. 2183 came from the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee and was sent to Senate Ways and Means. No hearing appears to have been held. More recently, H. 4165 has been replaced with the text of S. 2231, which came from Senate Ways and Means. That is an omnibus economic development bill and does not contain the obnoxious “wireless facilities” provisions. It appears on the July 1 calendar for the House.

Contracts and personnel: Alison Steinfeld, the town’s planning director, got approval to hire Tod McGrath of the MIT Center for Real Estate as a financial consultant to review the recently revised 40B housing proposal at Hancock Village. Patrick Ward, the town clerk, got approval to fill two senior clerk vacancies, one replacing a 20-year employee who was recently discharged.

Kevin Stokes, the director of information technology, got approval to hire a network engineer, replacing services formerly outsourced. Andrew Pappastergion, the DPW director, got approval to fill eight vacant positions. Because of unfavorable bids for solid waste collection in February, the service will not be outsourced.

Complete Streets: Scott Englander, a member of the Transportation Board, sought and received the board’s support for a resolution endorsing “Complete Streets”–promoted since 2005 by an eponymous private organization. The Massachusetts Municipal Association became a promoter in 2011, but the state Department of Transportation has yet to sign up.

Appointments: As it did the previous week, the board took a relaxed pace interviewing applicants for boards, commissions and committees: one for Assessors, one for Conservation, one for Zoning Appeals, one for Women, one for Martin Luther King and two for Naming. Carla Benka, seeking reappointment to the Naming Committee, described it as “a quiet committee…reactive rather than proactive.” She said she expects that an article for this fall’s town meeting will seek to rename Cypress Playground as Henessey Field.

Christine Fitzgerald of Fuller St., a new candidate for the Commission on Women, described her background growing up in difficult circumstances when her father died while she was in high school. She became the first in her family to earn a college degree and went on to law school, becoming a law firm partner and litigator working mostly with technology and financial firms. Now, she said, “I don’t have to prove things any more.” Board members Nancy Daly and Betsy DeWitt seemed won over. Ms. Daly commented, “It’s a great story.”

Permits: An open-air parking lot near the intersection of Washington St. with Bartlett Crescent, northwest of Washington Square and just before Corey Rd., became an object of controversy the previous week and had been held over. After further review, its permit was approved.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, July 1, 2014

Zoning Board of Appeals: Chapter 40B project at Hancock Village

The Zoning Appeals Board held a continued hearing on Thursday, June 19, over a proposed Chapter 40B housing project at the site of Hancock Village, along Independence Drive in the Putterham neighborhood of south Brookline. Hancock Village began as a model development built just after World War II, originally for returning veterans, by the John Hancock Insurance Company under an agreement with the Town of Brookline.

Renamed Westbrook Village in the 1960s, after it was sold to a division of Niles Realty, the spacious, garden apartment development has since been renamed Hancock Village and is owned by Chestnut Hill Realty of 300 Independence Drive in West Roxbury. Partly in Brookline and partly in West Roxbury, Hancock Village has become Brookline’s lowest-density multiple apartment district–the sole application of what is currently called M-0.5 zoning. Chestnut Hill Realty’s most recent proposal is the Chapter 40B plan of June 5, 2014.

As illustrated on a site view available from the Planning Department, the current proposal has a C-shaped, 5-story apartment building, about 450 x 200 ft on diagonals, located from about 300 to about 750 ft west of Russett Rd., and nine 3-story structures, each about 83 x 46 ft, chocked into current greensward behind houses along Beverly Rd. and Russett Rd. The large building is to sit at the end of a relocated private way extending Asheville Rd. beside 284 Russett Rd. into the property. Plans are said to total 184 new units but fail to list how many units each new building is to contain.

Participants: Board members at this hearing were Jesse Geller, the board’s chair, Christopher Hussey, Jonathan Book, Mark Zuroff and Avi Liss. Board member Johanna Schneider was not at the hearing. Also present with the board were Samuel Nagler, legal counsel, and Edith Netter, consultant. Theodore Touloukian, principal in Touloukian and Touloukian, architects of Boston, presented a design review prepared on contract to the board. Last year his firm was responsible for renovation of a building housing Foodie’s Market in the South End, formerly American Nut.

Steven Schwartz, a lawyer from Goulston & Storrs, and Joseph Geller, a landscape architect and former member of the Board of Selectmen, represented Chestnut Hill Realty. Maria Morelli, a consultant for the Neighborhood Conservation District Commission, helped organize the hearing. Polly Selkoe, assistant director for regulatory planning at the Planning Department, attended the hearing but did not participate in an official capacity.

The Planning Board sent no representative. There is nothing to keep it from appointing a design advisory team with neighborhood representation, as it has done for many other proposals including the recent, controversial Brookline Place. However, it did not do that, and so far it has taken a low-profile public role in recent reviews.

Without a background of well structured citizen participation, the appeals board had obvious difficulties managing an adequate process. The hearing floundered. Participants failed to identify themselves and spoke in erratic succession, some in code-words. It may well have confused members of the public and proved less useful than it might have to the appeals board.

Plans or no plans: There was a discussion about what kind of plans the Board of Appeals needs for its review and what Chestnut Hill Realty is willing to provide. Mr. Touloukian said the June 5 proposal has major changes to “building footprints…and elevations.” Mr. Hussey of the board, also an architect, said a physical model was the best way to convey the proposed development in the context of its surroundings. Polly Selkoe, from the Planning Department, commented that Brookline’s zoning bylaw requires such a model.

Mr. Schwartz, the lawyer representing Chestnut Hill Realty, acknowledged that Mr. Touloukian had asked for a model and said a “digital” model–that is, one displayed by a computer program–would be made available. Mr. Joseph Geller, the landscape architect representing Chestnut Hill Realty, said it would “update the information” from the previous proposal.

Chestnut Hill Realty’s model must be viewed by using an Autodesk software product called “3ds Max,” priced at $3,675 for the basic version, plus support fees. Mr. Touloukian said that was an acceptable approach for him. Mr. Schwartz urged speedy action by the board, saying, “We feel we’ve submitted everything required by 760 CMR”–referring to state regulations for a Chapter 40B project.

Professional “peer review”: Mr. Touloukian said his review was not finished, because Chestnut Hill’s architects had not yet sent him the revised model. He told the board he had no commitment about when it would be available. Illustrating with recent photos of proposed development sites within Hancock Village, he described the process for his review.

Mr. Touloukian said he will aim at (1) understanding land use guidelines, (2) integrating site access into the neighborhood, (3) respecting natural resources, (4) screening parking areas, (5) buffering edges, (6) blending with existing development patterns, (7) relating scale and proportion to the project’s context and (8) reviewing architectural detail.

Voices from the public: Mr. Jesse Geller of the appeals board asked for public questions and comments. Alisa Jonas, a Precinct 16 town meeting member, asked about consideration of historic preservation and of the neighborhood conservation district enacted in 2011. Ms. Netter said developers can seek overrides of town laws.

Stephen Chiumenti, a Precinct 16 town meeting member and an abutter to Hancock Village who lives on Russett Rd., insisted Mr. Touloukian’s “land use guidelines” not be restricted to zoning but also include the Hancock Village Neighborhood Conservation District and the 1940s agreements to build Hancock Village. Mr. Nagler described the Chapter 40B process as a “balancing test,” saying that “local rules” will be considered.

Betsy DeWitt, a member of the Board of Selectmen, asked about impact of a National Historic Register listing for Hancock Village. Ms. Netter said that issue was “not within Zoning Board of Appeals jurisdiction.” Ms. DeWitt pressed on, saying, “Someone needs to request a Section 106 review.” Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Brookline’s appeals board is clearly not a federal agency.

William Pu, a Precinct 16 town meeting member, objected, saying, “None of us have the software to view the plan.” He stated that “time pressure is self-imposed.” Mr. Hussey asked the developer representatives about illustrating the proposed development in its context, “Can’t you take snapshots?” He asked the audience, “Can someone from the neighborhood indicate what views you would like to see?”

Vague views: There was no direct response. Mr. Hussey had previously said he was “not sure we need such a complete set of drawings as the first submission.” Judith Leichtner, a Precinct 16 town meeting member, expressed concern that, regardless of the approach, whatever emerged “won’t be seen until a meeting at the end of July.” Mr. Joseph Geller, representing Chestnut Hill Realty, said, “We’ll get it as soon as we can get it done.” However, he conceded he does “not know how to distribute” the results. Apparently no town department uses 3ds Max software.

Discussion lurched back and forth among members of the board, representatives of Chestnut Hill Realty and audience participants. There were mentions of a “site walkthrough,” of “staking the site” and of stringing up balloons to suggest building elevations. Mr. Hussey spoke last, saying it was “really the massing of the buildings that matters” but not saying how he could describe that.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, June 20, 2014


Andreae Downs, Brookline town meeting makes Hancock Village the town’s first neighborhood conservation district, Boston Globe, November 16, 2011

2014 annual town meeting recap: fine points

Town meetings seem to behave, in part, like musical theatre. If you can’t carry a tune, you probably won’t carry an argument. Alas, some of today’s would-be performers come across–politically speaking–as tone deaf. However, there still remain quite a few sparks of life.

May 27: Tommy Vitolo of Precinct 6 flagged conditions the Advisory Committee had tried to attach to special appropriations item 41 under Article 8: $50,000 to study Beacon Street traffic signals, aiding MBTA Green Line trains. Dr. Vitolo said the proposed conditions amounted to an invalid attempt to bind actions of a future town meeting and moved to delete them. No Advisory Committee member stood up to respond. Town meeting members agreed by a show of hands, with only two people counted as opposed.

Joyce Jozwicki of Precinct 9 sounded more than a little cross about special appropriations item 40 in Article 8: $30,000 for “bicycle access improvement.” She contended it “should be preceded by enforcement of the rules for bicyclists.” Over the fan noise, no response could be heard from the Bicycle Advisory Committee.

Driscoll School: In the debate over a Driscoll School feasibility study, School Committee chair Susan Wolf Ditkoff admitted what had long been clear to close observers: despite nearly religious objections, the School Department has already increased class sizes, “on average 1-1/2 students per class,” she said.

That almost cancels Brookline costs to support METCO and “materials fees” students. If standards for class size rise from about 25 to about 27 students, then the current students from outside Brookline will all have been absorbed by the current staff within the current buildings–responding to historic promises that those students occupy “available seats.”

Concerning special appropriations item 51 under Article 8, George White of Precinct 9 asked: Where’s the plan for light-emitting-diode (LED) street lights? For once the moderator, Edward “Sandy” Gadsby, sounded flustered, saying that should be in the warrant report. It is not. He brushed off Mr. White, telling him to go ask the Department of Public Works–whose commissioner was standing on town-meeting floor, looking ready to answer the question. After all, LED street lights are Mr. Pappastergion’s signature project of the year.

School funding: In the debate over school funding, Jonathan Davis of Precinct 10 asked about costs of “carts” for computers: “Is that much money really needed?” He never got a clear answer. School superintendent William Lupini launched his “so” “right” dialect–a local curiosity at School Committee meetings–as in, “So…they’re for the computers we’re purchasing…Right?” Yes, indeed. “Exactly what it says on the tin.”

More items from Ms. Ditkoff of the School Committee: “The cost per student has been absolutely flat for the last five years…We’ve added more than 50 classrooms out of our current spaces.” Without explanation, the latter sounded like “space magic.” Apparently a School Committee insider violated current town-meeting protocol–a Gadsby invention–distributing rogue handouts on town-meeting floor. It caught Mr. Gadsby’s attention and drew a reproach, but then he relented, saying it “has my retroactive approval.” Humph! Issues of free speech went unmentioned–even with Martin “Marty” Rosenthal, Karen Wenc and Harry Friedman on hand.

Somebody might have asked but didn’t: since Public Schools of Brookline already spends around $17,000 per year per student, if computers are so important and the ones PSB prefers cost only $330 each, why not get a computer for every student and forego the fancy carts and projectors PSB wouldn’t need?

Police Department topics: Harry Friedman of Precinct 12 objected to investigating criminal backgrounds of construction workers, during debate about the police budget. Joslin Murphy, recently appointed as town counsel, said Massachusetts law now requires checking national Criminal Offender Record Information if workers have unsupervised contact with school children. That might be an issue, for example, in the upcoming Lawrence School project. Mr. Friedman was dissatisfied, saying, “People in these jobs often have criminal records” but need employment to regain a place in society. He called the practice “heartless and vindictive.” However, workers on town jobs are usually going to be union members–unlikely to get those particular jobs fresh out of prison.

Mr. Friedman also objected to police seeking out a “Groton man”–apparently not a graduate of Groton School–who answered a fake “personal” ad Brookline police placed online. Outside a putative “hands off” stance, Moderator Gadsby asked Daniel O’Leary, the chief of police, about the “purpose of entrapment policies.” Not satisfied at Mr. O’Leary’s responses, Mr. Friedman said, “From a moral or ethical point of view [the incident] really…crosses over the line…. If the Brookline police want to be the protectors of eastern Massachusetts…they can go into Boston and patrol the streets there.”

Advisory chair Harry Bohrs confirmed the once touted Galaxy WiFi services are dead and gone, although many antennas still hang from street-light brackets. He said Brookline is equipping some employees with wireless Internet, to the tune of $50 per device per month.

May 29, human relations: Article 10 proposed to replace the Human Relations Youth Resources Commission, dating from 1970, with a new Diversity, Inclusion and Community Relations Commission. It also designates a new “chief diversity officer” reporting to Town Administrator Mel Klecker and reduces the new commission’s duties and powers, compared with the 1970 commission. Nancy Daly led the effort to write Article 10 and spoke for the Board of Selectmen. She said it would “not give the [new] commission the quasi-judicial authority to hear and act on…complaints.”

Precinct 15 town meeting member Mariela Ames, chair of the Human Relations Youth Resources Commission, spoke for the current commission and against Article 10. She said it “will take away any direct role or oversight on complaints brought to the [chief diversity officer] by employees…[and] take away the commission’s authority for developing…equal opportunity and affirmative action. It will give the commission about eighteen tasks…but appropriates no money for them.”

Speaking about a chief diversity officer, Ms. Ames said, “What good does that do if we’re going to ask this person to do precisely what was wrong by his predecessor? Only this time, we put it in writing: that is, handle complaints privately, have sole discretion whether to share information with the commission, have no oversight and no accountability…in essence, get paid hundreds of thousands to do…what exactly? Keep the lid on?”

Stature as a department head: It must have been a troubling moment for Ms. Daly and other members of the “diversity committee.” However, one of them, Martin “Marty” Rosenthal of Precinct 9, had joined with Stanley Spiegel of Precinct 2 in proposing an amendment to this year’s Article 10: designating a new chief diversity officer as a “senior administrator/department head”–the same language used in Brookline bylaws for the head of the Human Resources office, which was created by town meeting in 2000.

A motion to close debate after nearly an hour proved premature; it failed to get a two-thirds vote. Arguments continued. While Mr. Rosenthal and Dr. Spiegel had offered spirited sallies for their amendment, it was likely Joanna Baker of Precinct 13 who sailed it over the net.

Ms. Baker recounted experiences as a recruiter, helping to employ and advance people of color. “People hate change,” she said. “Change makes people uncomfortable.” According to Ms. Baker, the stature of being a department head will matter. In order to be effective, she said, a chief diversity officer will have to be “shrewd, discerning, sophisticated, gutsy.” In a recorded vote, town meeting adopted the Rosenthal-Spiegel amendment by a margin of 107 to 95. The main motion also got a recorded vote: approved 185 to 16.

Noise control: In Article 12, changes to Brookline’s noise-control bylaw were proposed by Fred Lebow, an acoustic engineer and a former Precinct 1 town meeting member–to provide what he claimed would be better standards for regulating noise. He proposed a new standard for estimating background noise at night: make measurements during the day and subtract 10 decibels. That’s not helpful if your neighborhood tends to be fairly noisy by day but quiet at night. Selectmen missed the problem, but they managed to flag a provision to regulate some of the leafblowers while exempting others–large ones mounted on wheeled carts.

Tommy Vitolo of Precinct 6–a recent B.U. Systems Engineering grad and transplant from Precinct 1–challenged the proposed standard for night-time noise at town meeting. Dr. Vitolo carved away pseudoscience from the proposal, saying, “This warrant article is bad news. The most sensible way to measure ambient noise at night is to measure ambient noise at night…Legislating night-time ambient noise is a bit like legislating that the earth is flat.”

For the supporters of the article, including a majority on the Board of Selectmen and a unanimous Advisory Committee, there was no recovery. In a show of hands, Moderator Gadsby found zero raised in support and declared unanimous rejection of the article–an extremely rare event. He asked officials gathered at tables just past the auditorium’s stage, “Have we no courage in the front of town meeting?”

Mavens of precinct politics–towns don’t have wards–may recall that Mr. Lebow was among a wave of Precinct 1 conservatives who infiltrated, years ago, a moderate delegation. Dr. Vitolo was involved with a second, progressive wave, who eclipsed the first wave a few years later. The waves more often involve galleries of mostly incumbents, promoting themselves as friendly “neighbors.” Controversies at the time roiled over whether or not to support renovation of the Carlton St. footbridge. Was that really a convenience to the neighborhoods, or would it instead become a crossway for criminals, slinking in from Boston? We shall see.

Down-zoning: Two quietly successful articles carried on a trend: adapting Brookline’s land use regulations to neighborhoods. It had taken root at a heated, 4-night town meeting held in December, 1973. Like that previous effort, both recent ones were organized by neighborhood residents. Unlike that previous effort, both got help and support from town boards and agencies, and both aroused little controversy.

Article 11 proposed a neighborhood conservation district for Toxteth St. between Aspinwall Ave. and Francis St., plus adjacent parts of Perry St., Harrison Ave., Aspinwall Ave and Francis St. It was built out starting in the late nineteenth century–before Brookline adopted zoning–on a more spacious scale than the current T-5 two-family zoning requires. Ann Turner of Precinct 3 said the recent effort was prompted by an obnoxious project built to the maximum under zoning limits and requiring no special town review.

Article 21 proposed a new S-4 type of single-family zone for parts of Buttonwood, near Meadowbrook Rd., also currently zoned T-5 two-family. Neighborhood resident Diane Gold told town meeting she and her neighbors were motivated by a developer who took advantage of current zoning to replace one modest, single-family house with a pair of “huge, 4-story, 2-family luxury condos…Green space was paved over to create ten parking spaces.” She recalled, “We were told they can do this by right…If you don’t like it, change the zoning.” With help from Polly Selkoe of the Planning Department and with town meeting’s approval, that is what residents did.

Zoning changes rejected: The Planning Board, Board of Selectmen and Advisory Committee all took it on the chin with two other zoning changes proposed by the Planning Board. Article 22 revived the long-running disputes over self-service gasoline stations–proposing to allow them in business districts when combined with so-called “convenience stores.” As proposed, those stores could be up to 3,000 square feet–far larger than many current retail stores.

Judith Vanderkay of Precinct 9 recalled, “Twenty years ago…my neighborhood rallied to prevent a giant, highway rest-stop-type gas station.” She said Article 22 looked “like something from ALEC being proposed in the guise of an innocuous regulation”–referring to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a far-right group that has been promoting pro-business, anti-labor laws, mostly in state legislatures. The proposal failed on a recorded vote of 109 to 62, below the two-thirds margin required for a zoning change.

In S-40 single-family districts–Brookline’s lowest zoning density–Article 23 proposed to disallow new, detached accessory dwellings to be occupied by employees or their family members. Last November, town meeting disallowed them in single-family districts with smaller lot sizes. Steve Heikin spoke for the Planning Board, saying that accessory dwellings are a “loophole” allowing permanent construction for a temporary use.

Town meeting members Anita Johnson of Precinct 8, Rebecca Mautner of Precinct 11 and Jane Gilman of Precinct 3 denounced the Planning Board proposal–partly as an attack on “affordable housing.” Ms. Johnson cited an approach used by Portland, OR. “They put a size limit on accessory units…825 square feet.” She said Portland’s regulation “has been totally successful, and everyone agrees with it.” Article 23 failed on a recorded vote of 106 to 56, again below the two-thirds margin required for a zoning change.

Renovation of the Carlton St. footbridge, strongly controversial a decade ago, returned to town meeting in Article 24. The now-dilapidated bridge was built in the 1890s to serve a whistle-stop on the former Boston and Albany commuter rail service between Needham and Boston. It has been closed since fall, 1975. Article 24 proposed accepting a grant in easement from MBTA to accommodate wheelchair ramps. Speaking for the Board of Selectmen, Betsy DeWitt said Brookline would “apply for a state [Transportation Improvement Program] grant, up to 90 percent” of funds already set aside. In a quiet surprise, town meeting voted unanimous approval.

Retirement Board pay: Stipends for Retirement Board members–a perennial–returned to town meeting in Article 25. As on previous occasions, board member James C. “Chet” Riley asked for town meeting’s support. “We have the ability right now to invest your $245 million,” he said. “We are the deciding body.” According to Mr. Riley, the board’s work has become “a lot more daunting, a lot more challenging.” That did not sway Advisory. Committee member Karen Wenc of Precinct 11 said, “The substance of this article [came] before town meeting in the May, 2012, session–with no demonstration that the Retirement Board’s efforts are [now] measurably greater” than they were then. “There is no compelling reason for change.”

The Board of Selectmen reversed former opposition–by a margin of 3 to 2. Speaking as one of the three in favor, Nancy Daly said the “vast majority [of neighboring communities] do provide a stipend…Boston, Newton, Cambridge….” Town meeting members would likely notice that the few communities Ms. Daly named–unlike Brookline–are all cities. In a personal appeal, Martin “Marty” Rosenthal of Precinct 9 stated, “Nobody’s done more for the town of Brookline than Chet Riley.” Stanley Spiegel of Precinct 2 took a financial approach, saying, “This is one of the few boards that actually has the final say over large quantities of money. They’re volunteers, but they deserve the sort of minimal compensation that this article proposes.” Article 25 proposed a stipend of $3,000 per year for each of the five board members.

Regina Frawley of Precinct 16 did not agree. “[This is] at least the fourth time in fourteen years” with the proposal, she said. “They’ve been waiting for the right town meeting, the right Board of Selectmen…It’s a town. This is a volunteer [effort], and if they don’t want to do it they shouldn’t volunteer.” Precinct 6 town meeting member Merelice said, “I’ve been in the financial services industry,” and asked, “Do [board members] get the advice and counsel of licensed [financial] planners?” Mr. Riley of the Retirement Board responded, saying, “We hire and fire consultants and money managers.” What may have sounded like posturing did not sit well with town meeting members, who rejected Article 25 in a recorded vote, 47 to 100.

June 2, Brookline Place: The final session of the 2014 annual town meeting began with the postponed Articles 15 through 19, concerning proposed redevelopment for Brookline Place. Moderator Gadsby’s stagework in positioning those articles to begin a session provided a showplace for Children’s Hospital–the landowner and developer–and for the town officials, boards and committees who became sponsors and supporters of the project. The block bounded by Washington St., Brookline Ave. and Pearl St. is part of the former Marsh Project–involved in redevelopment efforts for nearly 50 years.

Town meeting members who declared partial opposition had proposed alternative zoning in Article 16. As compared with Article 15, the official zoning proposal, Article 16 would have restricted new on-site parking for over 180,000 square feet of added office space. Supporters of Article 16 claimed that the adjacent MBTA Green Line trolley stop and the nearby bus stops for MBTA routes 60, 65 and 66, traveling via Route 9, should make any added parking unnecessary. Management of Children’s Hospital have contended that more parking is needed for financially viable development and that costs of removing contaminated soil would make it too expensive to place that parking underground, as normally required by Brookline’s zoning.

In an apparent response, the Planning Board and their Brookline Place Advisory Committee proposed to reduce added parking from about 465 to about 325 spaces–negotiated with the management of Children’s Hospital. The change apparently undercut support for Article 16. Submitters of that article opted not to offer a motion for it. Town meeting passed over the article without a vote. Fifty years ago and earlier, weak opposition would have been squelched: maybe allowed a speaker and then switched off. Brookline’s traditions have changed. The debate over the Brookline Place articles included many speakers and took about an hour and twenty minutes.

Precinct 6 town meeting member Merelice spoke forthrightly. “Let’s start with admitting the reality that Children’s Hospital has us over a barrel,” she said. Children’s had acquired 6-story offices the former Harvard Community Health Plan built on the eastern part of the Brookline Place block during the 1990s. More recently, Children’s bought the western part of the block, occupied by two low-rise buildings dating from early twentieth century. The literal “Brookline Place” is a narrow, little used way running north from Washington St. between the larger low-rise building and the 6-story offices.

Referring to a former attempt at redeveloping Brookline Place, Merelice commented, “Town meeting members ten years ago lost sight of the fact that they were voting for zoning.” The controversial project–never carried out–anticipated biotechnology laboratories. A key problem with the site has been soil that is badly contaminated from nearly a century of use by a former gas works. Merelice continued, “When Children’s bought, they knew full well the soil was contaminated. Nevertheless, they proceeded to buy up all the adjacent parcels. Now they’re asking the town to feel sorry for them, because it would be ‘too expensive’ to remove the soil. Their answer is a huge garage with no underground parking.”

Treating Article 16 as though it posed a real threat to the Brookline Place project, Stanley Spiegel of Precinct 2 recalled, “Fifty years ago…[with the] Chestnut Hill shopping center, [which] straddles the line between Brookline and Newton, Brookline did not want any retail development because of concerns about congestion and traffic…All the retail establishments were built on the Newton side of the line; Brookline got the parking lot. Newton got the abundance of taxes; Brookline lost millions in tax revenue.”

Dr. Spiegel described an unsuccessful attempt in the early 1980s to build a hotel replacing the former Boston Cadillac, located opposite the B.U. Bridge. Brookline Place, he said, offers the town “$2 million in taxes…[That] means more classroom teachers…support for METCO…[and] the Coolidge Corner Library…With all the good that it has, will it be built?”

Moderator Gadsby held a recorded vote on Article 15 for zoning changes. Town meeting approved 170 to 9, he announced, with 20 abstaining. Mr. Gadsby then passed over Article 16 without a vote. Articles 17 and 18 were approved by voice votes. Article 19 was approved by a show of hands, declared unanimous.

Taxi medallions: Town meeting member John Harris of Precinct 8 filed Article 26, proposing that Brookline ask the General Court to repeal laws it had passed, at town meeting’s request, authorizing Brookline to sell taxi medallions. The Transportation Board and Board of Selectmen, both committed to the medallions since they were proposed in 2007, proved much exercised over the attack from Mr. Harris. Robert Volk of Precinct 4 proposed referring Article 26 to a special committee to be appointed by Moderator Gadsby.

Mr. Harris said his “intention [was] to begin the debate…the town should have had in 2008.” He asserted that “medallions establish an artificial quota on the number of taxis allowed to operate,” leading to evil consequences. Jonathan Karon of Precinct 12 agreed, describing his experience representing a person who had been injured during an incident involving a taxi in Boston, which uses medallions. If you are injured in such a way, Mr. Karon said, you will find the “medallion is mortgaged…insurance [is] at the legal minimum…[and the] medallion owner will disclaim responsibility,” saying the taxi driver is an “independent contractor.”

Advisory Committee member Michael Sandman, a former Transportation Board chair, responded for the committee, saying “nearly every premise that Mr. Harris spoke of is wrong.” He showed three pages of items. About a claim that “medallions establish an artificial quota,” Mr. Sandman said Brookline has actually “had a closed system for decades, with a fixed number of licenses.” Joshua Safer of Precinct 16, the current Transportation Board chair, agreed. He said, “The current system is a closed system…There is scarcity by design…We have no logical way to bring newcomers into the industry.”

Charles “Chuck” Swartz of Precinct 9 asked, “How would a Brookline [medallion] system be different from Boston? He got a fairly opaque answer from Richard La Capra, who has been employed by the Transportation Department as a consultant on taxi regulation since 2010. Mr. La Capra stated that a “Brookline [taxi medallion] system will be different [from Boston]…because it is handled at the regulatory level in a…different fashion.”

Chad Ellis of Precinct 12 said he had prepared a financial model, checked out with Mr. La Capra, finding that a 10 percent fall in taxi fare revenues would produce at least a 50 percent contraction in medallion values. He supported the article filed by Mr. Harris.

Moderator Gadsby called for a vote on Mr. Volk’s motion to refer the article rather than approve or reject it. Unable to decide from a show of hands, Mr. Gadsby held an electronic vote. Town meeting approved referral, he announced, 96 to 91. Mr. Gadsby asked for volunteers to serve on a moderator’s committee and said he plans to appoint a committee within three weeks.

Resolutions: Article 27 was filed by Neil Gordon of Precinct 1, who described himself at town meeting as a veteran of the Vietnam War. It asked for a “modest but meaningful memorial to Brookline’s veterans,” flying flags in their honor. Town meeting approved in a unanimous voice vote.

Article 28, filed by Frank Caro of Precinct 10, did not get such a swift hearing. It proposed a resolution saying that Brookline should “proactively deploy enforcement officers on foot in business districts beginning in the fourth daylight hour after snowfalls,” to enforce Brookline’s snow clearance bylaw. The Board of Selectmen, supported by the Advisory Committee, proposed referring Article 28 to Town Administrator Mel Kleckner–to address it using a “task force.”

However, the same problem had been taken to at least three previous town meetings. Each referred an article to a moderator’s committee, yet the problem remained unsolved. Dennis Doughty of Precinct 3 presented some graphics showing snow-removal complaints logged since December, 2011, by the Brookonline Web page. They indicated several chronic problem spots, targets of repeated complaints.

Robert L. “Bobby” Allen, Jr., of Precinct 16, a lawyer with quite a few local business clients, had already voiced a related argument, saying there were a few chronic problems but that nevertheless “the goal should not be to fine and to warn” business owners. Lea Cohen, an Advisory Committee member at large, spoke as the outgoing chair of the Brookline Chamber of Commerce. She objected that “the existing bylaw has some very tight time-frames.” She asked town meeting not to “make another gesture that singles out our merchants with uneven enforcement policies.”

Joshua Safer, of Precinct 16, disagreed with trying a “partnership” tactic again. He noted that “the last moderator’s committee on sidewalk snow removal suggested exactly [what Article 28 proposed], across the entire town.” Mr. Safer stated, “The police force seems comfortable that they would have the resources to undertake this particular effort.” Saralynn Allaire of Precinct 16, a member of the Commission for the Disabled, turned adamant, “It’s time,” Dr. Allaire said, “to take serious action on this problem, instead of just kicking it down the road yet again.” By a show of hands, a large majority of town meeting rejected referral of Article 28 to Town Administrator Mel Kleckner. Nearly all approved the resolution.

Local First: Article 29, a resolution urging support for local business, was submitted on behalf of an organization called Brookline Local First. Issues developed at town meeting and in several earlier reviews over what “local” might mean in that context. The Board of Selectmen proposed that town meeting refer the article to the Economic Development Advisory Board, which they appoint, rather than accept or reject it.

Abram “Abe” Faber, co-owner with his wife Christina “Christy” Timon of Clear Flour Bread on Thorndike St., made the arguments for Article 29. The two have run Clear Flour since 1982, live in Brookline and brought up a family here, he said. “Vibrancy of Brookline’s economy,” Mr. Faber stated, “stems from its independent businesses.” Comparing them with what he called “formula businesses”–franchises and chain stores–he said, “Independent businesses hire a greater proportion of local employees [and] pay them higher wages…Cities and towns benefit most…from…independent…rather than formula businesses.”

The arguments rang false to Hsiu-Lan Chang, also a Brookline resident. She introduced herself to town meeting as owner of Fast Frame, a franchise located on Beacon St. in Washington Square. She described her background as a trustee of the Brookline Community Foundation, a founder of the Washington Square Association and a supporter of several local civic and charitable groups. Her sons David and Leo, she said, are graduates of Brookline public schools. “Article 29,” she stated, “left…[an] impression that I’m not a part of this community.” She urged town meeting to reject the article, saying, “The imposition of an arbitrary definition on the word ‘local’…is exclusionary, divisive and simply wrong.”

Speaking for the Board of Selectmen, Betsy DeWitt suggested proponents of the article might be seeking more than the town could do. She mentioned requirements of “state procurement law to solicit broadly, without discrimination among suppliers in purchasing practices.” Ms. DeWitt stated, “While well intentioned, this resolution is flawed. We must have a fair, broad and inclusive definition of local business.”

Speaking for the Economic Development Advisory Board, Clifford Brown of Precinct 14 said EDAB would give the article careful consideration if it were referred to them but cautioned, “Brookline businesses should focus outward and on expanding the local economy.” A show of hands on the motion to refer proved too close to call for Moderator Gadsby. He conducted an electronic count. Town meeting approved referral 99 to 76, he announced, with 3 abstentions.

Article 31 proposed a resolution affirming “support for the prohibition of discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender identity and expression in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, lending and public education.” Alex Coleman, a clinical psychologist and a member of the Human Relations Youth Resources Commission, submitted the article and made the main arguments for it. He said he had lived in Brookline more than 30 years, bringing up a son who is a Brookline High graduate, and described his recollections of making public a trans-sexual identity, over 20 years ago, as being a “horrific experience.”

Dr. Coleman said that attitudes have begun to change: “There are now students in the Brookline schools who identify as being gender-nonconforming,…[However], people…[with] a different gender identity…or expression…don’t have the same protections as everybody else.” Frequent problems he noted are “harassment in places of public accommodation…[and being] denied equal treatment by a government agency or official.”

Leonard “Len” Weiss spoke for the Advisory Committee, supported by the Board of Selectmen. The committee proposed an amendment asking Brookline’s legal staff to review Brookline’s bylaws and propose changes at next fall’s town meeting to make them “consistent with [the] purpose” of Article 31. Town meeting approved the resolution as amended.

Article 32, submitted by Frank Farlow of Precinct 4, proposed a resolution urging the General Court to enact S. 1225 of the current session, An Act Relative to Public Investment in Fossil Fuels. That calls for state pension funds to divest from “fossil fuel companies” but does not specify what the term means. Speaking for the Advisory Committee, Harry Bohrs, the chairman, cited that issue, claiming the “bill does not support its own goals in a meaningfully effective way.” Karen Wenc of Precinct 11, an Advisory member, said as an energy consumer she “would feel hypocritical and insincere in voting for this resolution.”

Arguing in favor of the resolution, Edward “Ed” Loechler of Precinct 8 acknowledged, “When you hear the word ‘divestment’ you think, ‘well, we’ll lose too much money’.” Dr. Loechler said, “Profits are not the same as returns on investment.” It is the latter, he contended, that matters for pension-fund portfolios. He cited an independent review of returns on investment for around 3,000 U.S. public stocks over many years, claiming that the difference between performance with and without including about 200 “fossil fuel companies” proved “statistically insignificant.” However, Dr. Loechler argued, even if that were not so, “It’s time to stop talking about climate change and start doing something about it…Making money from the destruction of the planet is wrong…as wrong as making money from slavery was in the 1850s.”

For the Board of Selectmen, Nancy Daly spoke of a “very tangible financial hazard to not addressing climate change.” Town meeting members asked for a recorded vote on the article. They approved the resolution 126 to 20, with 7 abstaining–the last action during a long and complicated town meeting.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, June 7, 2014


Correction, June 8, 2014. In the discussion of Article 23, the phrase “family members or employees” was corrected to read “employees or their family members.” Thanks to Stanley Spiegel for spotting the mistake.


John Hilliard, Brookline taxi consultant contract signed, Brookline TAB, December 3, 2010

City of Boston, Taxi Consultant Report, Nelson Nygaard, October, 2013

Brookline legacies: Olmsted and coal ash

At the third session of Brookline’s 2014 annual town meeting, Betsy Shure Gross, a Precinct 5 town meeting member, raised her wonderfully endowed voice in a peroration over the tragedy of Brookline Place. During the 1860s, she recounted, former Brookline resident Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.–the founder of modern landscape architecture–began the Brookline segment of Riverway Park, a key element of the Boston area’s Emerald Necklace. During debate over this year’s Article 15, she implied that an enlarged parking garage at the proposed Brookline Place development would dishonor the Olmsted legacy.

It does indeed sound like a grand theme. However, it fails to reflect accurately what was happening during the nineteenth century. Before there was electricity, there was gas. It was not the “natural gas” we now use but instead “coal gas” and later “water gas.” Before there was gas, there was steam: notable in the steam locomotives that carried coal to gas works. Brookline had a strong historical role in all of these.

Steam locomotives entered Brookline around 1855, riding the Charles River Branch Railroad between Needham and Boston. It was built to haul gravel, filling most of Boston’s former Back Bay salt marsh–the largest urban landfill project ever conducted in North America. From the start, the railroad served other commercial uses. Another purpose was to deliver coal from Appalachian mines to the Brookline Gas Light Company.

Brookline Gas Light, founded in the 1820s, built a large gas works in the middle 1850s at what are now sites of Hearthstone Plaza and of Beacon Place, in Brookline Village, and it had a storage tank up Washington St. toward Washington Square. During the Boston “gas wars” between about 1890 and 1910, Brookline Gas Light was absorbed by Standard Oil. Then it became an arm of Boston Gas, but it still operated under its founding name through at least 1904.

Almost forgotten today, commercial quantities of natural gas did not reach the Brookline area until the early 1950s. Before then, first “coal gas” and later “water gas” circulated in buried pipelines to provide street lighting and later domestic lighting, cooking and–more rarely–heating. Those products were generated by high-temperature decomposition of coal or of water mixed with coal, using coal-fired retorts.

Plentiful waste from “coal gas” and “water gas” was huge heaps of coal ash. We now recognize that coal ash contains large amounts of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, vanadium and other hazardous “heavy metals.” During the nineteenth century, those hazards were either unknown or ignored. Rainfall leached hazardous byproducts from coal ash deep into soils under Hearthstone Plaza and Brookline Place, creating what might be, but so far has not become, a Superfund pollution site in Brookline.

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, June 6, 2014


John William Denehy, A History of Brookline, Massachusetts, Brookline Press, 1906

George W. Anderson, Esq., Consolidation of gas companies in Boston, Legislative Committee on Lighting, from Public Franchise League, 1905

Annual town meeting: Brookline Place, taxi medallions and resolutions

Brookline’s 2014 annual town meeting held its third session Monday, June 2. Although running a little late, town meeting members worked their way through the remaining articles and will not need another session. A summary of actions on articles:

15. Zoning amendments, Brookline Place–approved
16. Zoning amendments, Brookline Place (alternative)–rejected
17. Grant of easement, Brookline Place–approved
18. Restrictive covenant, Brookline Place–approved
19, Release of documents, Brookline Place–approved
26. Legislation, repealing authority to sell taxi medallions–referred
27. Resolution, urging memory of Brookline veterans–approved
28. Resolution, urging snow clearance in business districts–approved
29. Resolution, supporting Brookline businesses–referred
30. Resolution, supporting legislation on obstetric fistula–approved
31. Resolution, opposing discrimination by gender identity–approved
32. Resolution, supporting legislation on fossil-fuel divestment–approved
33. Reports, town officers and committees
(1) Police department, complaint process–presented

The contentious issues were expected to be Articles 15 and 16, two versions of zoning for Brookline Place, and Article 26, legislation to repeal the state authorization to sell taxi medallions. Article 16, submitted by petition, called for less parking than official Article 15. Debates proved fairly compact. There were four more electronic votes after the seven of May 27 and 29, but only records for two of those appeared on the town’s Web site later in the week.

Brookline Place: The Planning Board and its Brookline Place Advisory Committee proposed to complete nearly a half century of redevelopment in the Brookline Village block bounded by Washington Street, Brookline Avenue and Pearl Street, adjacent to the Village’s Green Line stop. Except for the T stop and the former Water Department building at the eastern extreme, the commercially zoned area now called Brookline Place–which includes 6-story offices built in the 1990s–is owned by Children’s Hospital.

Management of Children’s Hospital proposed to replace low-rise buildings near the corner of Washington and Pearl Streets with business and medical offices in an 8-story tower–as reviewed over an extended period with the Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, Brookline Place Advisory Committee, Planning Department and other committees and agencies. Because the development should not add to the school population, substantial net tax revenue is expected. Parking has been the main controversy.

Brookline’s usual zoning requires underground parking. However, Children’s Hospital management claimed that underground parking would make the project uneconomic. Brookline boards and agencies agreed to propose zoning with above-ground parking. However, controversy continued around the amount of parking. Because the site of the development includes a rapid-transit stop, Brookline’s representatives took an unusual stance, advocating less parking than standard zoning. Children’s Hospital management also took an unusual stance, calling for more parking than the town’s representatives.

Article 15 presented a negotiated compromise. That calls for replacing a current 3-story parking garage, with 355 spaces for 105,000 square feet in the existing 6-story offices. A new 6-story garage would be built on the site of the present garage, providing 683 spaces for a new total of 287,500 square feet in the 6-story and new 8-story offices combined. It represents a substantial cutback from 820 spaces that had been under discussion earlier.

Town meeting members led by Andrew Fischer of Precinct 13 submitted an alternative proposal under Article 16. Although complex, it would allow little above-ground parking beyond the current parking garage. More spaces could be built underground. Petitioners argued that transportation via the Green Line and the three MBTA bus routes serving the site should make additional parking unnecessary.

Proponents of Article 15, supported by the Advisory Committee, said that Article 16 would not allow enough on-site parking at costs that make the project economic. Without substantially more parking than the current garage, they said, new offices could become unmarketable at premium rents and could expose the surrounding neighborhood to predatory “impacts from cars circling and taking on-street parking.” Town meeting agreed with those arguments, approving Article 15 and rejecting Article 16.

Article 17 proposed Brookline accept a grant of easement from Children’s Hospital, allowing a public path 45 feet wide between Washington Street and the Village T stop. It will pass between the new 8-story office tower and the older 6-story offices and parking garage. Article 18 proposed Brookline enter into a restrictive covenant with property owners involved in the new development, such that future uses maintain tax income. Article 19 proposed authorizing the Board of Selectmen to release documents concerning a 2007 project for Brookline Place, also involving Children’s Hospital, that was never completed. Articles 17, 18 and 19 attracted little controversy, and town meeting approved them.

Taxi medallions: Article 26, submitted by Precinct 8 town meeting member John Harris, proposed asking the General Court to repeal sections of state laws allowing Brookline to sell taxi medallions: in Chapter 51 of the Acts of 2010 and in Chapter 52 of the Acts of 2012. Sale of taxi medallions had originally been requested by a special town meeting held in November, 2008. In his arguments to town meeting, Mr. Harris cited a 2013 Boston Globe article alleging that contract taxi drivers were being abused by medallion owners and singling out Edward J. Tutunjian, the owner of Boston Cab. The Globe article is replete with political sleaze and official corruption.

Mr. Harris sought to revive basic controversy over ownership of taxi medallions, calling it a “social justice issue.” He cited a 1986 New York City brief calling the medallion system there “an engraved invitation to corruption” and recalled the 1930 resignation of former New York City mayor Jimmy Walker, “after being accused of accepting bribes from the Checker Cab Company.”

The Board of Selectmen has called the recent Boston scandal, instead, “the fault of regulators” and argued, in effect, that Boston is Boston. Since 2003, they said, the Brookline “Transportation Board has suspended or revoked the license to operate for several companies and many drivers” when they did not follow regulations.

The Advisory Committee took a less partisan approach, calling Mr. Harris’s “concerns…legitimate for some forms of taxi medallion systems” but arguing that Boston’s medallions–at around $600,000–probably sell for around ten times as much as Brookline’s should–because of a monopoly for serving Logan Airport. Advisory has estimated $10 to $15 million in one-time revenue. Town meeting approved a motion to refer Article 26 to a moderator’s committee, to report in time for a fall town meeting.

Resolutions: Precinct 1 town meeting member Neil Gordon submitted Article 27, asking for a “modest but meaningful memorial to Brookline’s veterans,” flying flags in their honor. Town meeting approved the resolution.

Precinct 10 town meeting member Frank Caro submitted Article 28, resolving that Brookline should “proactively deploy enforcement officers on foot in business districts beginning in the fourth daylight hour after snowfalls,” to enforce Brookline’s snow clearance bylaw. The Board of Selectmen and Advisory Committee both proposed to refer the matter to Town Administrator Mel Kleckner, but town meeting supported Mr. Caro and approved the resolution.

Article 29, submitted by a local-business group calling itself “Brookline Local First” got quite a different response. The group sought a resolution calling for a “task force,” jointly appointed by Brookline boards and committees, to “support the growth and development of locally owned and independent businesses” and calling for declaration of a “Brookline local economy week.” The Board of Selectmen questioned a narrow focus, apparently excluding franchise holders, and moved referral to the Economic Development Advisory Board. The Advisory Committee found only about 70 businesses involved with “Brookline Local First” versus about 2,000 businesses in Brookline, recommending no action. Town meeting took up the question of referral first and approved referral by a vote of 99 to 76.

Sarah Gladstone, a student at Brookline High School, submitted Article 30, a resolution in favor of H.R. 2888 of the 113th Congress, proposing the Obstetric Fistula Prevention, Treatment, Hope and Dignity Restoration Act of 2013–which did not pass last year. The complication of labor is now rare in the United States but remains common in poor countries. Surgical treatment usually works but is often too expensive for victims, The House bill seeks assistance to international organizations. Town meeting approved the resolution.

Alex Coleman, a Human Relations Youth Resources commissioner, submitted Article 31, a resolution to express “support for the prohibition of discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender identity and expression.” The Advisory Committee moved to amend that, by also asking Brookline’s “legal services department”–apparently meaning the Office of Town Counsel—to review Brookline bylaws and propose changes “consistent with [the] purpose” for a fall town meeting. The Board of Selectmen supported the Advisory Committee, and town meeting approved the amended resolution.

Precinct 4 town meeting member Frank Farlow and Brookline resident Byron Hinebaugh submitted Article 32, a resolution urging the General Court to enact S. 1225 of the current session, proposing An Act Relative to Public Investment in Fossil Fuels. The bill, filed by Sen. Benjamin B. Downing of Pittsfield, who chairs the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, seeks for the state to divest all pension fund holdings in “fossil fuel companies”–not defined in S. 1225. The Board of Selectmen recommended approval of the Article 32 resolution, after amending a “whereas” clause.

By a substantial majority, the Advisory Committee recommended no action, calling S. 1225 a “blunt instrument” and citing vagueness about the meaning of “fossil fuel companies.” General Electric, the committee report noted, operates a wind turbine business and other “clean energy” divisions but also owns GE Oil & Gas. The hour was getting late, and town meeting members may not have been troubled by such distinctions–voting to approve the resolution as amended by the selectmen.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, June 3, 2014


Correction, June 6, 2014. Faulty information found on the Brookline Web site the morning after the June 2 session led to two mistakes. Article 26 on taxi medallions was not rejected but instead referred–to a moderator’s committee, to report before a fall town meeting. Four electronic votes were held. They include one on that referral, approved 96 to 91, and another on a referral under article 29, a proposed resolution in support of “Brookline local first,” approved 99 to 76. Votes of individual town meeting members were not available from town meeting records for those two matters. The other two electronic votes are recorded in town meeting computer files: on Article 15, zoning for Brookline Place, approved 185 to 18, and on Article 32, a resolution supporting divestment of state pension funds from fossil fuel companies, approved 126 to 20.


Bob Hohler, Marcella Bombardieri, Jonathan Saltzman and Thomas Farragher, For Boston cabbies, a losing battle against the numbers, Boston Globe, March 30, 2013

Annual town meeting: human relations, regulations and zoning

Brookline’s 2014 annual town meeting held its second session Thursday, May 29. Another session is scheduled for Monday, June 2, and a fourth session continues to look likely. Progress on Articles 10 through 25 might look rapid, but consideration of Articles 15 through 19, about redevelopment at Brookline Place, was postponed. A summary of actions on articles:

10. Community relations commission–amended and approved
11. Greater Toxteth neighborhood conservation district–approved
12. Noise control bylaw amendments–rejected
13. Tobacco control bylaw, High School no-smoking zone–approved
14. Tobacco control bylaw, increased age of purchase–approved
15. Zoning amendments, Brookline Place–postponed
16. Zoning amendments, Brookline Place (alternative)–postponed
17. Grant of easement, Brookline Place–postponed
18. Restrictive covenant, Brookline Place–postponed
19, Release of documents, Brookline Place–postponed
20. Zoning amendment, Mason Terrace–rejected
21. Zoning amendments, S-4 zoning, Meadowbrook area–approved
22. Zoning amendment, convenience store at gasoline station–rejected
23. Zoning amendment, accessory dwelling in single-family zone–rejected
24. Grant of easement, Carlton Street footbridge–approved
25. Adopting local option, Retirement Board stipends–rejected

Contentious issues resulted in six recorded votes, including one just on procedure. Debate took over an hour on Article 10: to replace the Human Relations Youth Resources (HRYR) Commission, dating from 1970, with a new Diversity, Inclusion and Community Relations (DICR) Commission. Rejection of Articles 22 and 23 on zoning, filed by the Planning Board, again showed consequences of burdening annual town meetings with traditional topics for fall town meetings. Neither rejected article involved an urgent situation. Both were likely to benefit from extended reviews.

Human relations: Arguments over a proposed new DICR Commission revealed little that had not already surfaced in about a year and a half of controversy–during which the Board of Selectmen, their “diversity committee” that proposed the change, the Advisory Committee, its special subcommittee for the matter, the Human Resources Board, the standing Committee on Town Organization and Structure, and the existing HRYR commission all weighed in.

Article 10 at the 2014 annual town meeting was an outcome of Article 10 at the 2013 annual town meeting. The 2013 article was submitted by HRYR commissioner Larry Onie, by Brooks and Mariela Ames, recently but not then HRYR commissioners, and by town meeting members Bobbie Knable, Frank Farlow and Arthur W. Conquest, III. It cited a low level of minorities in Brookline’s professional work force–zero in leadership positions–and sought to strengthen HRYR roles in diversity, equal opportunity and human rights.

Also at the 2013 annual town meeting, Article 9 proposed to abolish the HRYR Department and the position of HRYR director. Stephen Bressler, HRYR director since 1974, was retiring, and Town Administrator Mel Kleckner was eager to chop a small department out of the town’s government structure–leaving responsibilities to the Human Resources Office created in 2000. That office replaced the former Personnel Department–in practice a division of the selectman’s office. The 2013 town meeting approved Article 9 and referred Article 10 to the selectmen’s “diversity committee.” Mr. Kleckner nominated Dr. Lloyd Gellineau to a new position of human relations and human services administrator, reporting to Dr. Alan Balsam, director of Health and Human Services.

Submitters of Article 10 in 2013 pointed out that Human Resources, like former Personnel, focuses on employee compensation and benefits. Workforce diversity gets little attention beyond filing reports and updating policies. In 1994, Brookline revised a municipal affirmative-action policy. In 2011, it revised a municipal anti-discrimination policy. Nevertheless, over the 42 years since Richard Fischer resigned as the first human relations director in 1972, Brookline’s municipal workforce never had an African-American or Latino among senior leadership, and its school workforce had only one.

Under Article 10 at the 2014 annual town meeting, Stanley Spiegel of Precinct 2 and Martin Rosenthal of Precinct 9 proposed to amend the main motion, making the new commission effectively a town department, as HRYR had previously been, and providing its director with the stature of a department head. Town Administrator Mel Kleckner has argued against what he called excessive overhead to maintain a small department.

After around an hour, the moderator, Edward “Sandy” Gadsby, accepted a motion to close debate. That takes a two-thirds vote. It was rejected in the first of three electronically recorded votes, getting support from only 62 percent of those voting. Arguments continued. In a second recorded vote, the amendment proposed by Mr. Spiegel and Mr. Rosenthal passed by a margin of 107 to 95. The third recorded vote approved the new DICR commission and department, 185 to 16 with 6 abstentions.

Now Mr. Kleckner will have to figure out where to locate and how to budget a new department. Sandra DeBow, director of the Human Resources Office, will have to share duties that include recruiting a more diverse workforce. The Board of Selectmen will have to decide whether to advance Dr. Gellineau to head the new department, if he wants to do that, or find a different director. Will current HRYR commissioners apply for the DICR Commission? If they do, will the selectmen appoint them?

Regulations: Residents of the Toxteth Street vicinity organized to create a neighborhood conservation district for their area, under Article 11, to be called Greater Toxteth. This type of district has regulations that go beyond zoning but are less strict than a local historic district authorized by Massachusetts under Chapter 40C of the General Laws.

Greater Toxteth’s regulations call attention to front porches common in the area. A special review would be required to enclose a front porch for living space. So would alterations that add living space encroaching on current front yards. However, other additions that increase living space less than 15 percent would not need special reviews. Town meeting did not need much time for the article, because the Neighborhood Conservation Commission and the residents of Greater Toxteth had “done their homework” well.

Noise control bylaw amendments in Article 12 were proposed by Fred Lebow, an acoustic engineer and a former Precinct 1 town meeting member, to provide what he claimed are more reliable standards for measuring noise. One complication was that the article proposed a method for estimating background noise at night by making measurements during the day and subtracting an arbitrary 10 decibels.

The proposed approach may work for some neighborhoods but might not provide accurate estimates for those near highways and busy streets, particularly Route 9 and the Turnpike. They tend to have larger differences between day and night background noise. Both the Board of Selectmen and the Advisory Committee supported the proposal, with one minor difference between them. However, town meeting was not convinced and voted no action.

Tobacco control bylaw amendments in Articles 13 and 14 were proposed by High School students Nathan Bermel, Mary Fuhlbrigge and others. Article 13 called for a no-smoking zone extending 400 feet from grounds of the High School. That becomes a large area–around 35 acres, roughly but inaccurately sketched in the warrant report.

It extends approximately through the intersections of Blake and Rawson Roads and of Welland and Somerset Roads, on the north, through the intersections of Lincoln Road and Gorham Avenue and of Cypress Street and Brington Road, on the east, through the intersection of Clark Road and Route 9, on the south, and across Tappan Street just short of the intersection with Gardner Road, on the west. All of the Cypress Street Playground is in the zone, which looked like a main intent.

As voted by town meeting, the restriction applies full-time, year-round, whether or not school is in session, but it applies only to someone classified as a “minor or school personnel.” If John Dempsey, a member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, were still the principal of Devotion School, he would be not be allowed to smoke at home–not that Mr. Dempsey has likely wanted to. Former superintendent Robert Sperber, now a Precinct 6 town meeting member, would be restricted, were he still superintendent. Enforcement may be difficult, except perhaps on or next to High School grounds. An obvious refuge for High School smokers becomes Tappan Street near and northwest of Gardner Road. Other refuges are likely to be found quickly.

Under Article 14, town meeting voted to raise the minimum age for tobacco purchase in Brookline from 19 to 21. Like Article 13, the restriction appears symbolic; it may not have much practical effect. Within a metropolitan environment as large and complex as Boston, there are innumerable ways to skirt local laws. The initiative could still be effective if pursued as a state law rather than as a local law.

Zoning: Under Article 20, submitted by petition, town meeting rejected rezoning 273, 277 and 281 Mason Terrace from single-family (S-7) to two-family (T-6)–a rejection that was recommended by the Planning Board, Board of Selectmen and Advisory Committee. The argument from the Planning Board was that, if allowed, a “future threat of demolition of [those] dwellings in order to construct new buildings” could damage the Mason Terrace neighborhood.

In contrast, under Article 21, also submitted by petition, town meeting–as urged by the Planning Board, Board of Selectmen and Advisory Committee–approved a new S-4 type of single-family zoning, using that to designate properties in the Meadowbrook Road area. That neighborhood was historically called “Buttonwood,” settled in the early twentieth century by officers of Brookline’s police and fire departments and their families. As petitioners described, “It is one of the few neighborhoods left in Brookline where a family can afford to buy a single-family home with a yard for less than a million dollars.”

The counterpoint of Article 21 versus Article 20 shows how Brookline’s town government continues to support measures that strengthen neighborhood character and continues to oppose measures that encourage profiteering. That makes striking contrast with attitudes found some 50 and more years ago–a lasting mark of Brookline’s “neighborhood zoning” begun at a dramatic, four-night town meeting held in December, 1973.

Town meeting rejected two routine measures proposed by the Planning Board. Article 22 would have recognized a convenience store at a gasoline station. Article 23 would have prohibited an accessory dwelling in a single-family zone. While there were arguments for and against those proposals, they are likely to have been victims of rushed consideration and might better have been put off to the traditional venue of a fall town meeting. There were recorded votes. Article 22: 109 in favor and 62 opposed. Article 23: 106 in favor and 59 opposed. Both fell short of the two-thirds required for a zoning change.

Under Article 24, town meeting accepted a grant of easement that would allow the so-called Carlton St. footbridge, closed since the fall of 1975, to be renovated and equipped with wheelchair ramps. The project is Brookline’s largest contribution to an effort that is mostly federally funded: dredging the Muddy River channel, following disastrous 1996 flooding that shut down the MBTA Green Line for weeks.

Under Article 25, town meeting rejected stipends for Retirement Board members. The session’s last recorded vote found 47 in favor and 100 opposed. Decades of skeptics notwithstanding, Brookline remains a town and not a city–in fact as well as in name. Members of a few boards, including the Board of Selectmen and Zoning Appeals Board, are paid–although stipends remain nominal–but hundreds of town residents serve on unpaid boards, commissions and committees. The 240 elected town meeting members are, of course, unpaid.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, May 31, 2014

Climate Action Committee: “green” schools and solar energy

A regular monthly meeting of the Climate Action Committee on Monday, May 19, started at 6:00 pm in the northern first-floor meeting room at Town Hall, with 10 of the 15 committee members present, plus five members of the public and Doron Bracha, a Brookline resident giving a featured presentation on “green” schools. Co-chair Keske Toyofuku presided. Next Step Living, a solar energy firm in the Boston seaport district, was to present at this meeting but rescheduled for next month’s meeting.

Mr. Bracha, an architect specializing in energy-efficient school buildings, lives in the Devotion district, where his children attend. He is active in the Green Team at the school. He illustrated design features for school buildings that manage solar flux entering windows, reduce energy consumption with air heat exchangers, capture and store rainwater, and control acoustic reverberation.

Some of these features were illustrated with recent pictures of Wayland High School, where several “green” design elements have been employed. Committee member Dan Bennett asked about a high ceiling, looking to be around 20 feet, over the lunch room. Mr. Bracha acknowledged there had been tradeoffs between prestige appearance and energy efficiency but said some of the upper space was occupied by a mezzanine and balcony.

At Devotion School, Mr. Bracha said he noticed there was little recycling. In particular, the lunch room was discarding disposables and food scraps in refuse bins. He wondered whether other Brookline schools were also missing recycling opportunities. Committee member Benjamin Chang, who also serves on the School Committee, said he did not know but would ask Food Services director Alden Cadwell, who joined the school system at the start of the current school year.

Committee member Werner Lohe, who also serves on the Conservation Commission, said he had read that Boston University recycles both disposables and food scraps. Committee member Don Weitzman said some but not all schools have blue recycling bins supplied by the public works department. Co-chair Neil Wishinsky, who also serves on the Board of Selectmen, cautioned that the department lacks authority to require recycling by Public Schools of Brookline. An audience member recalled Green Teams at elementary schools organized several years ago by Mary Dewart, a Precinct 3 town meeting member, saying they had been less engaged recently.

Mr. Bennett asked about the variety of alternative energy systems considered for “green” schools, saying he believes cogeneration gives the most “bang for the buck.” Mr. Bracha replied, “Every project is different,” and “many projects don’t have the budget for environmental enhancements.” Committee members were concerned that could happen with current projects under review for Devotion, Driscoll and Lawernce. Mr. Toyofuku said he hoped Mr. Bracha would come to future meetings to continue the discussion.

The meeting turned to energy efficiency programs, alternative transportation and solar energy installations in Brookline. Mr. Wishinsky called attention to the Hubway bicycle station formerly at Town Hall and now near JFK Crossing, the intersection of Fuller and Harvard Streets. Mr. Lohe said utilization at Town Hall had been low. He hopes to see improvements to traffic signal coordination but realizes it is complex and costly.

Committee member Linda Olson Pehlke expressed concern that if town meeting rejects Article 16, submitted by Precinct 13 town meeting member Andrew Fischer, reducing parking at Brookline Place, it could not be proposed again for two years. The Planning Board, Board of Selectmen and Advisory Committee all recommend Article 15 instead, submitted by the Brookline Place Advisory Committee.

A question from the audience asked about the status of a program guide for solar energy. Lara Curtis Hayes, who provides staff support to the committee, said there is now a first draft and that the agency running the state’s rebate program has received a recent infusion of funds. Massachusetts makes available a comprehensive list of all the state’s subsidized solar energy projects since 2008.

After a slow start, the Massachusetts solar program became very active in 2012 and 2013, spurred by drastic drops in solar panel prices. The state offers rebates of up to $4,250 for a home installation, if the household income is not over $95,420. The federal government offers a 30-percent tax credit. In 2013, there were 4,262 installations of small solar systems in the state, rated at up to 10 kilowatts, peak.

Although small systems were 87 percent of the state’s solar installations for 2013, they provide only 11 percent of their rated power, because several large solar plants were brought online–mostly by cities, towns and utility companies. For 2013, Brookline had 16 solar systems installed, all of them small ones for homes, rated at a total of about 90 kW, peak.

Compared to a statewide average of 33 peak watts per resident, new Brookline systems for 2013 were rated at just 1.5 peak watts per resident. A fairly typical home solar system was rated at about 5 kW, peak, and it cost around $25,000 installed. However, installed system prices reported in Brookline during 2013 ranged from $3.40 to $6.98 per peak watt; they were similar to prices in other places.

For New England, small solar installations rarely realize capacity factors above 12 percent–ratios of average to peak power. Their unsubsidized prices are equivalent to around $40 per average watt. So-called “third generation” nuclear is coming online this year at unsubsidized prices around $8 per average watt. Of course, small solar installations deliver energy to the doorstep, while delivering energy from utility plants adds transportation and distribution costs–quite high in New England.

Committee members strategized about stronger efforts to promote solar energy. Next month’s committee meeting will feature several solar energy installers providing services in Brookline.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, May 20, 2014

Board of Selectmen: awards, block grants and human relations

A weekly meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, May 13, started at around 7:15 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. There were no reports from departments or organizations. However, the meeting attracted many people who came for the annual awards to police officers and several people interested in a proposal to replace the human relations commission.

Leadership: In a brief, afternoon open session before vanishing into a two-hour executive session, the board elected Kenneth Goldstein as chair for the coming year. Mr. Goldstein is a former, long time member of the Planning Board. Newly elected member Benjamin Franco, a former Advisory Committee member, joined the board–replacing Richard Benka, who did not run for another term.

Awards: Chief of Police Daniel O’Leary presented awards to three police officers for distinguished service: a commendation to Noah Brothers, a public service award to John Bradley and an award for police officer of the year to Douglas Dunwoody. Officer Dunwoody was noted for service in several difficult incidents, including one last year near the intersection of Lee St. with Route 9, when the driver of a car transporting illegal drugs was disarmed of a pistol.

Announcements: The Department of Public Works is holding a public meeting to answer questions about its services Wednesday, May 14, starting at 7:00 pm in the first floor south meeting room at Town Hall, 333 Washington St. The department also offers an “open house” Tuesday, May 20, from noon to 6 pm, demonstrating its services and equipment at the Public Works Center, 870 Hammond St. The department provides services for parks, roads, sanitation, water and engineering. The Bicycle Advisory Committee will hold an annual bicycle parade Sunday, May 18, starting at noon from Amory Park, near the corner of Amory and Freeman Streets.

The Brookline Neighborhood Alliance will hold a forum on town meeting issues Wednesday, May 21, starting at 7:00 pm in the sixth floor meeting room at Town Hall. The Driscoll School Council will host a discussion on proposals to renovate the school Friday, May 16, starting at 8:15 am in the school auditorium. The Council on Aging and other organizations host a discussion on “elder care”–home-based services and residential options for older people–Thursday, May 15, starting at 5:30 pm at the Brookline Senior Center, 93 Winchester St.

Block grants: Joe Viola, assistant director for community planning, presented the fiscal 2015 community development block grant program. It will bring in over $1 million in federal funds to serve disadvantaged people and neighborhoods. Brookline’s eligibility stems from the former Redevelopment Authority, which carried out two major projects from the early 1960s through the mid-1980s. In the early 1970s, the Nixon administration convinced Congress to replace redevelopment project funding with block grants.

This year’s program has four large elements at around a quarter million dollars each: assisting acquisition of houses on Beals St. for homeless people, a contribution to the town’s housing trust fund used to subsidize housing for low-income and moderate-income residents, demolition of the pedestrian overpass near the corner of Route 9 and Washington St., and grant administration. Several smaller projects fund security systems in public housing, youth employment and training, and other social services. Total funding is $1.334 million.

The pedestrian overpass was built in the early 1970s by the former Redevelopment Authority, connecting its Marsh Project and Farm Project sites, on the north and south sides of Route 9. Poor visibility of pedestrians from below led to assaults and vandalism, and the overpass was blocked off in the late 1970s. In the early 1980s town meeting authorized demolition, but until now that has never been carried out for lack of funds. A development project at Brookline Place is expected to reimburse the cost of demolition, restoring block grant funds for use in other programs. The Board of Selectmen voted unanimous approval of this year’s program.

Construction noise: Representatives for Claremont Companies of Bridgewater, MA, presented a request for a waiver of noise control to demolish the former Red Cab garage at 111 Boylston St., where Claremont plans to build a 130-room hotel. The building abuts tracks of the Riverside branch of the MBTA Green Line. Demolition can only be performed during very late night and very early morning hours, when trolleys are not running. Claremont estimates 40 nights of work spread over two months. They will be operating excavators, front-end loaders, a crane and a Brokk demolition robot but will not operate manual jackhammers or transport debris or heavy equipment at night.

Neighbor Mike Bukhin of 46 White Place described experiences with a recent, much smaller project, restoring a dilapidated exterior wall. After getting a waiver, he tried notifying nearby residents by e-mail, with mixed results. He said erratic MBTA scheduling made the work take far longer than anticipated and predicted similar problems for Claremont. The Board of Selectmen approved a waiver for Claremont for 60 days, Sunday through Thursday nights between 1:15 and 4:45 am, starting in June or July, provided Claremont notifies the town at least ten days before starting and maintains an e-mail list to notify neighbors, day by day.

Human relations: Yet another long discussion ensued over replacement of the current Human Relations Youth Resources Commission by a proposed Diversity, Inclusion and Community Relations Commission. Among those present were Harry Bohrs and Michael Sandman, chair and subcommittee chair of the Advisory Committee, Mariela Ames, chair of the Human Relations Youth Resources Commission, Barbara Scotto, vice chair of the School Committee and Jean Berg, chair of the Committee on Town Organization and Structure. There were several other members of boards that have become involved in the issue.

The change is being proposed by a selectmen-appointed “diversity committee.” In the fall of 2012, the human relations commission disclosed that the 26 departments reporting to Town Administrator Mel Kleckner and the Board of Selectmen lacked even one minority person as a department head and had not had one for over 40 years. The Board of Selectmen reacted by appointing the “diversity committee.” However, rather than investigate hirings and promotions, that committee proposed to abolish the human relations commission. They want to set up a new community relations commission, but it would be unable to investigate complaints involving Brookline personnel.

Nancy Daly, a member of the Board of Selectmen who chairs the “diversity committee,” described its latest revisions, developed after reviews by the other boards. The situation has become an unusually tangled set of disagreements that could lead to six or more competing proposals set before town meeting. The Board of Selectmen was not able to reach consensus and will reconsider the matter next week.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, May 14, 2014

Planning Board: house improvements and a common driveway

A weekly meeting of the Planning Board on Thursday, May 1, started at 7:00 pm in the northern first-floor meeting room at Town Hall. Topics were four applications to the Board of Appeals for exceptions from zoning requirements. This was a typical working session for the Planning Board and Department, who sometimes act as mediators in issues involving Brookline real estate.

When a property owner or an architect, a contractor or a landscaper working for one wants to build, demolish or make changes on a Brookline property, a first effort is often to seek a building permit. The Building Department checks proposed plans against the town’s regulations. When there is a zoning, neighborhood conservation, environmental conservation or historic preservation issue, an applicant will get a referral to the Planning Department, the Neighborhood Conservation District Commission, the Conservation Commission or the Preservation Commission. There are occasionally proposals involving more than one review.

The four proposals reviewed on May 1 were to build a porch, replace a garage, add a new entry way and install a common driveway for more than one dwelling, Each proposal needs approval for some exception to zoning requirements and should soon go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The appeals board looks to the Planning Board and Department to evaluate a proposal and sometimes to negotiate a satisfactory approach.

At 45 School St., the applicant seeks to build a new back porch, but there is an issue with minimum depth of the rear yard–a so-called “setback” requirement for the T-6 two-family zone. The Planning Board found the proposal reasonable in light of circumstances and is recommending approval to the appeals board.

At 87 Colchester St., a homeowner wants to replace an existing garage but proposes the new one be attached to the adjacent house rather than free-standing. That means the replacement will not be “grandfathered” under zoning, because it is considered a different type of structure having different “setback” requirements within the S-10 single-family zone. However, the new garage is designed to match the appearance of the house, with stucco rather than metal sides and with tile coping around its roof.

Several neighbors came to the hearing to support the proposal. Those included Fred Lebow, a former Massachusetts general contractor, former Brookline town meeting member and former resident of Colchester St., who said he traveled from New Hampshire to speak in favor of the proposal. The Planning Board is recommending approval to the appeals board. However, the property is located in an area of historical interest, listed on the National Register. An application to demolish the existing garage will need to be submitted to the Preservation Commission, and there could be a delay of up to 18 months.

At 17 Baker Circle, a homeowner wants to add a new entry way and extend the room above it. The small amount of added floor space would make the “floor area ratio” to the lot area become 0.36, as compared with a maximum of 0.35 for the S-7 single-family zone. The Planning Board found the proposal reasonable in light of circumstances and is recommending approval to the appeals board.

To the south of houses at 21 and 39 Sears Rd. is an expanse of unbuilt land that belongs to owners of the houses. The total lot area of about 621,000 square feet–where there are now two houses–could be enough to satisfy land area requirements for about 15 detached, single-family houses, even though the S-40 single-family zoning district has Brookline’s lowest residential density.

A developer seeks to install a common driveway that could serve five additional houses. It was not clear how much of the land the developer is including in sites to build housing and how much of that is actually eligible for the use. Parts of the area appear to be wetlands and may be subject to conservation restrictions. Questions from the Planning Board brought out that the land has not yet been “replatted”–subdivided into lots for houses. It was not known whether requirements of the Massachusetts subdivision control law would apply–Sections 81K through 81GG in Chapter 41 of the General Laws.

If the developer goes ahead with the proposal, it might require subdivision of land into at least five new lots, each enough for a detached, single-family house. The developer might otherwise invoke so-called “cluster zoning” to build attached or semi-detached houses–Section 5.11 in Brookline’s Zoning Bylaw. An appropriate configuration for a common driveway could depend on the approach chosen.

Planning Board members seemed puzzled at lack of project definition, but their questions were oblique. Polly Selkoe, the department’s assistant director for regulatory planning, was more direct, saying, “It doesn’t make sense to put a common driveway in an area that’s not yet a subdivision.”

Neighbors were clearly unhappy. Joseph Freeman of Lee St. compared the proposal with what he called “pork-chop development” outside Brookline. He said the proposal “does not meet requirements for the special permit” and called to the Planning Board’s attention a special permit application “denied ten years ago because of lack of appropriate access.”

Robert Allen, Jr., a Brookline lawyer, represented some abutters. Mr. Allen said that the application “should trigger subdivision control laws” and that “problems with conservation zoning have not been resolved.” Like others, he criticized vague plans, saying Brookline has never allowed a common driveway “without knowing where that drive is going.”

Mr. Allen and several neighbors said no meetings had been organized by the developer about the proposal in the neighborhood. Mark Zarrillo, an architect who chairs the Planning Board, announced that the review would continue at a future meeting. He recommended the developer meet with neighbors about the proposal.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, May 2, 2014

Hazards of rail transport

When we encounter news of railroad crashes involving oil and fuel tankers–such as the disaster last summer that took the lives of 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec–we probably don’t imagine anything like that in Brookline. We don’t even have freight rail here.

However, we once did. In the early 1850s, the former Charles River Branch Railroad was built from Needham through Newton and Brookline to Boston. For about twenty years it hauled millions of tons of gravel and sand to fill the largest parts of the Charles River’s former saltwater mudflats. Those once extended from what is now the east edge of the Public Garden to what is now the Charlesgate channel of the Muddy River and westward to what is now Kenmore Square. Since the mid-twentieth century, such a massive project probably would not happen. No one could likely get environmental waivers or permits today.

The former freight railroad is now the Riverside or D branch of the MBTA Green Line, since 1959, and the filled parts of Boston are the Back Bay neighborhoods. Unlike the rest of the Green Line, the Riverside branch was a first-class, heavy-duty railroad–a twin-track with fully separated crossings. After days of hauling gravel ended, the former Boston & Albany bought it to run a commuter-rail service into Boston. Passenger carriages were originally pulled by coal-fired steam locomotives, standard for the day.

A long-running controversy about the so-called Carlton St. Footbridge–passing over tracks of the former Charles River Branch Railroad and connecting Colchester St. and Carlton St. with the Riverway and Olmsted Park–has origins in the 1890s, when Longwood-area residents asked selectmen to install it as a convenience. It served a whistle-stop on the former B&A commuter-rail branch between Needham and Boston.

Unlike handsome stone bridges designed during park construction under Mr. Olmsted, Sr.–whose son chaired Brookline’s first Planning Board–the Carlton St. bridge was a makeshift. Brookline highway workers assembled it from steel shards, beams and fasteners. Under Article 5, a special town meeting November 17, 2009, appropriated $1.4 million, using a rare roll-call vote, to rehabilitate the rusted-out relic, which has been closed to public access as a safety hazard since fall, 1975. So far, the project has not been completed.

The city of Revere is not so fortunate as Brookline to be distant from its freight-rail history. Branches of the former Boston & Maine–some transporting freight under successor Pan Am Railways–provide a potential corridor connecting interstate rail to large oil depots along banks of the Chelsea River. In 2011, Global Partners, owner of the largest tank complex, proposed to bring grain alcohol from the Midwest into Revere and East Boston, using rail tankers. Revere residents and city officials became alarmed.

Most rail tankers in widespread use today to carry flammable liquids were designed in the 1950s, as much for capacity as safety. Of more than 100,000 type DOT-111 tank cars built, over sixty years around a third have been involved in rail crashes. Even when traveling at low speeds, hundreds have split open, starting massive fires. These tankers carry about 30,000 gallons each, or about three times the fuel carried by each of the jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001.

Global of Revere proposed to bring in one to three trains a week, typically 60 cars each–a total that could reach around 200 million gallons a year of fuel-grade ethanol to be blended into gasoline. That would probably travel through eastern Massachusetts at night along the route of the MBTA Fitchburg Line commuter rail–through Lowell, Cambridge, Chelsea and other communities. Global has been shipping ethanol by rail from the Midwest to Providence and then by barge from Providence to its tanks in Revere. Eliminating barge shipping could save money.

Revere residents approved a ballot question opposing rail shipment of ethanol. They joined with people from several other communities, pressuring the state legislature. Considering potential hazards from multiple perspectives, the General Court attached “outside section” 81 to H. 3538 of 2013, the fiscal 2014 appropriations bill. It likely matters that Robert A. DeLeo, the House speaker, represents Revere and has his district office there.

Section 81 did not attack rail transport of ethanol. Instead it would have altered Chapter 91 of the General Laws, regulating waterways, by blocking new licenses for facilities that store or blend large amounts of ethanol when located within a mile of a census tract with a population density above 4,000 residents per square mile. As soon as its current licenses expire, that might have put Global out of business in Revere. At best, the company could blend ethanol elsewhere and bring in pre-blended gasoline, raising costs.

Governor Patrick used a so-called “line-item veto” against Section 81. Mr. Patrick, a former corporate lawyer who is not a candidate for re-election this fall, proposed that the General Court instead forbid using rail tankers to bring ethanol into Revere or East Boston before August, 2015. He promised to have the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency develop a “comprehensive ethanol transport response plan.” However, a few days earlier Global had announced it was suspending plans to transport ethanol by rail.

Gov. Patrick issued, at best, a disingenuous statement. Unlike many among the public, he and concerned state legislators would have been well aware that the Massachusetts Department of Transportation had just published an “Ethanol Safety Study.” In Chapter 4, Report Findings, it frankly states that “movement of [ethanol or other hazardous materials] is regulated at a federal level, and it cannot be regulated in any manner at the state or local level.” By acting to force Global of Revere to change its plans, close or relocate, the General Court was exercising powers it does have to head off potential disasters.

Rail tankers do not seem likely to become much safer very soon. There is a somewhat sturdier design approved as a Canadian standard, in the wake of Lac-Mégantic: type CPC-1232. However, that design might not be enough. Recently another rail tanker crash occurred in downtown Lynchburg, VA. Three tank cars loaded with petroleum split open and ignited, but no one was reported injured. Associated Press news writers stated that the National Transportation Safety Board knows of “several accidents in which cars built to the new standards ruptured.”

– Craig Bolon, Brookline, MA, May 1, 2014


Dave Riehle, Runaway Quebec train, source of so much heartache, began its journey toward disaster years ago, Workday Minnesota, July 24, 2013

John Laidler, Ethanol transport raising concerns, Boston Globe, August 4, 2011

Seth Daniel, Screeching halt: backed into corner, Global withdraws ethanol train plan, Chelsea Record, July 4, 2013

Alan Suderman and Michael Felberbaum, Associated Press, Rail tankers carrying oil derail and catch fire in Virginia, New York Times, May 1, 2014

Advisory Committee: neighborhoods, snow, human relations

A regular meeting of the Advisory Committee on Tuesday, April 29, started at 7:00 pm in the southern first-floor meeting room at Town Hall. The committee has been reviewing articles on the warrant for the 2014 annual town meeting to be held in May. It voted recommendations on articles for a neighborhood conservation district, a resolution about snow clearance and a new “diversity” commission to replace the Human Relations Youth Resources Commission.

A Greater Toxteth neighborhood conservation district has been proposed in Article 11 by about 85 percent of residents of Toxteth St. and nearby. They say that no one in the area has announced opposition. This type of district, with regulations that go beyond zoning but are less strict than a local historic district authorized by Massachusetts under Chapter 40C of the General Laws, was invented by retiring Selectman Richard Benka to mitigate potential disruptions from the proposed Chapter 40B housing development at Hancock Village. Greater Toxteth would become the first more-or-less ordinary designation.

A neighborhood conservation district can designate characteristics of concern to a particular neighborhood. Unlike zoning districts, those are expected to differ from one neighborhood to another. For example, Greater Toxteth calls attention to front porches common in the area. A special review would be required to enclose a front porch for living space. So would alterations that add living space encroaching on current front yards. However, other additions that increase living space less than 15 percent would not need special reviews.

As article 11 was considered, committee chair Harry Bohrs stepped aside, and Carla Benka led the committee. Mr. Bohrs is one of the petitioners for Greater Toxteth. Ms. Benka chairs the subcommittee that investigated the article. Paul Bell, Ann Turner and other members of the Neighborhood Conservation District Commission (NCDC) said they support Greater Toxteth.

However, committee member Christine Westphal seemed skeptical. She asked, “Why freeze the neighborhood?” and said the district was “problematic…It wouldn’t work on Brook St.” Dennis DeWitt, an architect and member of the NCDC who lives on High St. Hill, responded that distinctions between “public and private spaces” were being respected in the proposal. The committee voted to recommend favorable action, 18 in favor, 1 opposed and 2 abstaining–with Mr. Bohrs counted as recused.

Frank Caro, a member of the Age Friendly Cities Committee, led a group of petitioners under Article 28 for a resolution that seeks prompt enforcement of the town’s snow clearance bylaw in commercial areas. Andrew Pappastergion, the commissioner of public works, said manpower is limited. Last winter Brookline issued over 500 citations for failure to clear snow in a timely way. Fines can range up to $100 per day.

Committee member Lee Selwyn pointed out that increased revenue from fines might well cover the cost of prompt enforcement. Carla Benka said that the town had not been “aggressive with enforcement” and questioned whether times allowed to clear snow in the current bylaw are realistic. They range from a few hours in commercial districts to a day in low-density residential ones. The committee voted unanimously to recommend referral of the article to a committee organized by Town Administrator Mel Kleckner.

Finally, the committee took up this season’s most contentious topic. Article 10 would abolish the Human Relations Youth Resources (HRYR) Commission and create a new “Diversity, Inclusion and Community Relations (DICR) Commission.” The committee heard from Nancy Daly, a member of the Board of Selectmen who headed a selectmen-appointed committee proposing the change, and from Mariela Ames, who chairs the HRYR Commission. Several other current and former town officials were present, and some offered comments.

Michael Sandman, who chairs a special subcommittee that investigated the article, offered a motion with many amendments to the article as proposed. However, they do not much affect the article’s main points. Responsibilities of a new commission would become far smaller than those of the current commission, and the new commission would have no staff assigned to support its work.

Ms. Daly defended a wordy “mission” statement that begins a proposed new bylaw for the DICR commission. No other town board has such a statement in its bylaw. She said, “Historically, there have been problems finding enough people to serve as commissioners.” However, over the past few months the Board of Selectmen made many appointments and brought the HRYR Commission to its full 15 members. Several new members appear to have been appointed to provide representation for minorities.

Ms. Ames said that when commissioners look at what the bylaw now asks, “they find they don’t have powers to do the tasks.” The original Human Relations Commission was created by town meeting in 1970. It had a rocky start. Richard Fischer, an African-American who was the first staff director, resigned after less than a year, accusing Brookline of “tokenism.”

The town did not provide the Human Relations Commission with authorization under Massachusetts laws that would have been needed to investigate complaints and town hiring practices. As reported in the former Chronicle-Citizen, it also never provided Mr. Fischer with a commission office or even a desk. Within a few months, the late Rev. George Blackman, who had chaired the commission, also resigned.

In the 1970s, the town had no Human Resources office and no consistent procedure to investigate civil rights complaints. Nevertheless, even when Human Relations was merged with Youth Resources in 1974, Brookline did nothing to empower its commission. Current commission members found that in 42 years after Mr. Fischer’s departure the town never hired or promoted another minority person to be among its department heads, who now number 26. That proved an embarrassment to a whole generation of selectmen and town executives.

As at a subcommittee investigation of Article 10, there was discussion over whether a new organization should be called a “department,” a “division” or an “office” and of whether a new commission should be of variable rather than fixed size. Committee member Stanley Spiegel spoke up for a department, because of “stature.” However, Sandra DeBow, the town’s Human Resources director, observed that an “office” such as she runs may be more appropriate, since it will have town-wide duties.

As marked up by the Advisory Committee, the proposed new bylaw radically reduces the scope of the commission and the corresponding office. The new commission would be excluded from any direct role in affirmative action and from any direct role in handling discrimination complaints when they involve Brookline employees. No new role is added; roles are only taken away.

Everything that would be authorized for the new commission is already authorized for the current one. The new commission would be on its own. No staff is authorized. The proposed new bylaw provides only for a “chief diversity officer” reporting to Town Administrator Mel Kleckner. Members of the current HRYR Commission will need to apply to the Board of Selectmen if they want to become members of a new DICR Commission.

Current members of the HRYR commission have been excluded from reviews of their commission. They were rudely treated–privately advised not to attend reviews. Except for Mariela Ames, who currently chairs the HRYR commission, no current commissioners came to reviews held by the Advisory Committee and the Committee on Town Organization and Structure.

After a long discussion, committee member Amy Hummel proposed to amend Mr. Sandman’s motion by substituting a commission of variable size, 11 to 15, as the selectmen-appointed committee proposing the article asks. That was defeated, 7 in favor and 13 opposed. Then Mr. Sandman’s motion, with a couple of technical changes, was unanimously approved, recommending the new commission to town meeting.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, April 30, 2014


Diane Hinchcliffe, Fischer to resign, Brookline Chronicle-Citizen 99(5):1,6, February 3, 1972

Candidates Night: controversies appear in town elections

The Brookline Neighborhood Alliance held a Candidate’s Night on Wednesday, April 16, from 6:30 to 9:30 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. It featured candidates for town-wide offices in the upcoming election on May 6. Margaret Bush, president of League of Women Voters of Brookline, presided as moderator.

The Alliance is a fairly recent organization, founded in 2001. It helps coordinate activities of more than 20 neighborhood associations in Brookline, many of them operating for 40 years or more. Current Alliance co-chairs are Dan Saltzman and Sean Lynn-Jones. Mr. Lynn-Jones introduced the candidates.

This year there is only one town-wide contest: four candidates running for two seats available on the Board of Selectmen. Incumbent Nancy Daly is running for re-election. Incumbent Richard Benka stepped aside after two terms; he remains co-chair of the Override Study Committee. The challengers are Brooks A. Ames of Whitney St., Arthur Wellington Conquest, III, of Tappan St. and Benjamin J. Franco of Cypress St.

Controversies
For more than two centuries, the Board of Selectmen was a gentlemen’s club, meeting at Dana’s and Punch Bowl taverns before there was Town Hall as we know it today. Over the past 55 years that changed. Louise Castle became the first woman to serve on the board in 1960. For many years afterward, there was never more than one woman among the five members. Recently–during 2007 through 2013–women formed a majority of the board, and currently there are two women on the board.

Another barrier has not yet been breached. There has never been an African-American or Latin-American member of the board, nor for at least a century has there been a foreign-born member. There has been only one minority head of a town department over the past 40 years. Those are major concerns for two of this year’s candidates. Mr. Ames and Mr. Conquest, an African-American, say they are campaigning jointly to promote minority representation in town management.

Continuing financial stress from growth in the school population has revived a controversy many thought was laid to rest in the 1970s: whether the town should continue its affirmative-action program in the schools, accepting minority students through the METCO program. A related element is school-age children of town employees who live elsewhere but have been allowed to attend Brookline schools. The combined groups are said by school administrators to number around 600, out of around 7,000 students now attending Brookline schools.

METCO was organized in 1965. An initial effort was led by Prof. Leon Trilling of M.I.T., then chairman of the Brookline School Committee. Key participants included Dr. Robert Sperber, then Brookline superintendent of schools, and the superintendents in Newton and Lexington. When METCO started sending students to seven founding communities in 1966–75 to Brookline–the program was described as filling “available seats” in classrooms. For many years, the added students were not considered a major factor in achieving a goal of 25 or fewer students per class, and the costs to Brookline were described by school administrators as small.

However, the Education Reform Act of 1993 led to a statewide reporting system for public school populations and spending, so that the added populations could not be discounted. Over time, the numbers of added students grew. State payments for METCO students and so-called “materials fees” charged for children of town employees are much less than the average cost per student in Brookline schools, as calculated by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Moreover, state-certified costs do not include costs of school buildings.

The Ames and Conquest campaigns for minority representation, together with revival of disputes over the METCO program and new disputes over the “materials fee” program, comprise a level of agitation not seen in the town since struggles over rent control and high-rise zoning in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Those controversies formed a backdrop for the discussions at Candidates Night which no one there could ignore.

Board of Selectmen
Nancy Daly is seeking a fourth term on the Board of Selectmen. She named experience in town government as a major qualification. Ms. Daly formerly chaired the Advisory Committee. She cited recent efforts in getting Brookline recognized as an “age friendly community” and in proposing to revise the town’s bylaw on diversity and inclusion, Article 10 on the warrant for the annual town meeting in May.

Brooks Ames is seeking a first term on the Board of Selectmen. He has been a member of the Human Relations Youth Resources Commission since 2013. Mr. Ames described himself as a Heath School graduate and now a Heath School parent. He complained that there had been “no department head of color in over 40 years” and said his goal is “making sure that everyone has a seat at the table.”

Arthur Conquest is seeking a first term on the Board of Selectmen. He has been a Precinct 6 town meeting member since 1997 and is a past president of the High School parent-teacher organization. Mr. Conquest described his unsuccessful application to serve on the Human Relations Youth Resources Commission, clearly indicating he felt the current Board of Selectmen acted unreasonably.

Benjamin Franco is seeking a first term on the Board of Selectmen. He has been a member of the Advisory Committee since 2008. Mr. Franco described himself as growing up on Amory St. He said he is particularly concerned about financial pressures from school enrollment increases. He cited as a qualification his experience in state government, gained as a legislative aide in the state senate.

Ms. Bush, the moderator, posed several questions submitted by members of the audience to candidates for the Board of Selectmen. On the chronic issue of tax classification, with businesses seeking a lower tax rate, no candidate favored much change. On the efforts to get payments in lieu of taxes from nonprofit organizations, all would encourage them.

Responding to a question about how to handle the proposed Chapter 40B housing development at Hancock Village, Mr. Ames cited his legal experiences with 40B developments and said he favors a “negotiated settlement.” All the candidates were familiar with the situation and cited potential problems, but none had any more to offer toward a solution.

A question on which the candidates clearly differed asked whether they “support a robust METCO program.” Mr. Ames said his support is “100 percent.” Mr. Conquest said METCO is “an integral part of our school system.” Ms. Daly said she would “fight strongly for the program” but there are limits “to what the taxpayers can pay.” Mr. Franco stated he could not “say that regardless of financial pressure…we’re going to retain it.”

Another question that drew differences asked about support for “Local First,” a business initiative proposed under Article 29 at the annual town meeting in May. Mr. Ames criticized the proposal for excluding franchised businesses. Mr. Conquest offered no opinion. Mr. Franco said Brookline “should make sure everybody is protected.” Ms. Daly said she saw problems, notably the issue of “what’s local?” The proposal seeks more town purchasing from local business, while Ms. Daly said the town is “subject to state bidding laws.”

School Committee
Three candidates are running for the three seats available on the School Committee. Incumbent Rebecca Stone is running for a fourth term. Incumbent committee chair Alan Morse stepped aside after three terms. Incumbent Amy Kershaw stepped aside after one term. The new candidates are Michael A. Glover of Franklin Ct. and Lisa R. Jackson of Winthrop Rd.

Rebecca Stone cited as accomplishments a strategic plan, improvements in “educational equity” and renovations to Heath and Runkle Schools. She voiced support for school-building recommendations from the Bspace Committee but also concerns about “fracturing the community” over costs of the work. Michael Glover, a real-estate lawyer who moved to Brookline from Jamaica Plain 1-1/2 years ago, described his goal to “retain the culture and characteristics that attracted our family, without compromising the quality of education.” Dr. Lisa Jackson, an investment portfolio manager, came to Brookline in recent years from California. Her aim, she said, is to “grow strengths around technology, science and math.”

By “educational equity,” Ms. Stone may have been alluding to the Equity Project that began about ten years ago, early in the Lupini administration. According to contemporary town reports, it aimed at “eliminating the racial achievement gap” in Brookline schools. However, an earlier “equity project” began in the 1960s during the Sperber administration. It aimed to eliminate disparity among what Dr. Sperber once called the four rich and the four poor elementary schools. A comment by Dr. Jackson suggested the older project has yet to meet some objectives. She mentioned finding many more classroom computers at Heath than at Pierce.

Ms. Bush again posed questions to the candidates. The first asked about their support for METCO: is it still necessary? Ms. Stone said she is a “very strong supporter” and said the program provides “extraordinary benefit to students and the community.” Mr. Glover said he is a “wholehearted supporter” and said a “holistic school requires exposure to different backgrounds.” Dr. Jackson said she offers “full and robust support” for METCO as an “integral part of an education.”

A question on which the candidates differed asked about the accuracy of school enrollment projections, which now predict continued growth for at least several more years. Dr. Jackson said she lacked knowledge about the accuracy of the projections. Mr. Glover said the projections were “conservative, maybe too low” and did not take full account of the proposed Hancock Village development. Ms. Stone did not answer the question directly, instead referring again to work of the Bspace Committee and describing it as a “broad set of recommendations.”

Key elements of the most recent projections for the school population appear in the public version of the proposed school budget for fiscal 2015, on pages 21-24. They estimate that by 2018 the total school population will rise at least 1,000 students above the historical norm for which Brookline’s school buildings were designed.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, April 17, 2014


2014 Annual Town Meeting Warrant, town meeting files, Town of Brookline, MA

Superintendent’s FY2015 preliminary budget, Public Schools of Brookline, MA, March, 2014

Edward W. Baker, The old Worcester Turnpike, Proceedings of the Brookline Historical Society at the annual meeting of January, 1907, Internet Archive

The Trilling plans for METCO, pp. 193-210 in Lily D. Geismer, Don’t Blame Us: Grassroots Liberalism in Massachusetts, 1960-1990, PhD, U. Michigan 2010

Planning Board: offices and parking at Brookline Place

A weekly meeting of the Planning Board on Thursday, April 10, started at 7:00 pm in the northern first-floor meeting room at Town Hall. Topics included several zoning changes being proposed at the annual town meeting in May. There was nearly a roomful of observers, many interested in the Brookline Place commercial area in Brookline Village, which is bounded by Boylston St., Brookline Ave. and Pearl St.

Kara Brewton, the town’s economic development director, reviewed proposals for Brookline Place that have been discussed with representatives of Children’s Hospital, the potential developer. They envision an 8-story office building for 2 Brookline Place, replacing two older, low-rise commercial structures near the corner of Boylston St. and Pearl St. That would be taller than any commercial building now found in the Village area, although its impact would be reduced somewhat by lower land elevation, adjacent to MBTA trolley tracks.

There is also expected to be a taller parking garage at the site of the modern, 3-level garage near the bend of Pearl St. A modern 6-story office complex, near the corner of Boylston St. and Brookline Ave., and an older, 2-story former water department garage, at the corner of Brookline Ave. and Pearl St., are expected to remain. The old water department would become the only historic building left at Brookline Place.

Apparently some fancy footwork with zoning is being hatched. Parking requirements are now being evaluated for the whole Brookline Place development, not just the new office building. Although current zoning requires underground parking for new offices, town planners propose that Children’s Hospital somehow be allowed a taller above-ground parking garage, up to 65 feet high.

Opposition from some Village residents was clear, although perhaps it was not as vehement as in past years. Merelice, a Precinct 6 town meeting member who lives about two blocks away on White Place, urged the Planning Board to remember that the proposed development is adjacent to a family neighborhood. She is also concerned for at least six mature trees that may be removed to build new offices. Plans presented showed a pedestrian path through the site, connecting the MBTA trolley station with Boylston St., so it might be possible to preserve two or more trees that look to be near the proposed path.

Redevelopment of the Brookline Place block has already spanned around 50 years. Most of the area bounded by Kent St., Station St., Washington St., Boylston St., Brookline Ave., and Aspinwall Ave. was taken by eminent domain in the 1960s. The former Brookline Redevelopment Authority called this area the Marsh Project–designated for mixed residential and commercial redevelopment–and used federal funds available in those days. Hearthstone Plaza–located at the most prominent corner, Washington St. and Boylston St.–opened in the early 1970s. Affordable housing along Kent St. and Village Way–307 units known as The Village at Brookline–soon followed. However, the B-2 parcel, as it was then known, languished for many years–little improved.

The redevelopment authority was dissolved in the mid-1980s, and regular town staff continued to work on the B-2 parcel. Finally, in the late 1980s, the former Harvard Community Health Plan was recruited to build its main offices on the B-2 parcel, and the block became known as Brookline Place. Harvard Community was then growing rapidly. In 1995, it merged with Pilgrim Health Care. Soon the Brookline location no longer offered enough space for Harvard Pilgrim, and Brookline Place lost its flagship occupant to Wellesley.

Much of the discussion at the Planning Board meeting concerned parking. The current development has 355 spaces for 105,000 square feet of offices. As presented on Thursday, the new development would include a total of 683 spaces after adding 182,500 square feet more in offices. That would reduce the ratio of on-site parking to office space from about 3.4 to only 2.4 spaces per thousand square feet. At the meeting, real estate consultants were quoted who question, regardless of zoning requirements, whether Brookline Place would remain marketable at prime rents.

Brookline planners seem to be responding in part to concerns of Village residents, who were not enthusiastic about a massive parking garage. The planners are trying to justify reducing the parking ratio by requiring some sort of active transportation management that would promote use of the MBTA trolley and bus routes 60, 65 and 66, which stop along Boylston St. The meeting left that looking like a high-risk approach, lacking firm assurance on whether there would be enough use of public transportation.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, April 11, 2014

Board of Selectmen: school building, Marathon, development, licenses

A weekly meeting of the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, April 8, started at 6:30 pm in the sixth-floor meeting room at Town Hall. As usual, the board heard from department staff and organizations. It had also scheduled two license hearings concerning alcohol sales to underage customers.

Announcements: The Brookline Neighborhood Alliance will hold a candidate’s night for town-wide offices Wednesday, April 16, starting at 6:30 pm in the sixth floor meeting room at Town Hall, 333 Washington St. Gillian Jackson from Brookline Commission for the Arts described plans for spring, leading up to the year’s Coolidge Corner Arts Festival scheduled for June 7. See ArtsBrookline.

Devotion School project: The Building Commission got approval to apply to the state’s inspector general for authorization to use a Chapter 149A design-build process when renovating Devotion School. In that approach, a general contractor is engaged before there is a completed design on which to bid. Members of the board seemed unaware of the town’s disastrous experience with a loosely controlled process when starting a new Pierce School in the late 1960s. Years of repairs and corrections followed, costing millions of dollars in today’s money. In the early 1970s, Brookline revised its standards for conducting town projects, and there has been no such disaster since.

Marathon Day: Daniel O’Leary, the chief of police, described plans for Marathon Day: Monday, April 21. Beacon Street from Cleveland Circle to Audubon Circle will have no automobile traffic or crossings from about 9 am to 6 pm. He didn’t mention whether the Bowker Overpass near Kenmore Square will be open. Team Brookline leaders said they had raised about $200 thousand in recent weeks for 2014 Marathon Day activities.

Hancock Village 40B development: Alison Steinfeld, the town’s planning director, got authorization for a consulting contract to review the latest proposal for a Chapter 40B housing development at Hancock Village in South Brookline. That plan for 192 apartments, started in process last fall with the state’s Housing Appeals Committee, is much smaller than one for more than 400 apartments floated several years ago, but it would still be a major impact on the neighborhood and could also further overload Baker School.

Hotel at former Red Cab site: The Economic Development Advisory Board and Kara Brewton, the town’s economic development director, announced agreement with Claremont Companies for improvements to public property near the long vacant former site of Red Cab at 111 Boylston St. Claremont, of Bridgewater, MA, proposes a 130-room hotel. It would be a little more than half the size of Brookline’s largest: Holiday Inn on Beacon St. The Davis Path pedestrian overpass would be renovated. Redevelopment has languished for about a decade as one after another plan fell through or attracted strong neighborhood opposition. Plans began with up to 5 stories of offices and more recently saw a 3-story office building proposed by GLC Development Resources.

Clark Road reconstruction, Quezalguaque: Peter Ditto, the town’s engineering director, got approval for a $176 thousand Chapter 90 project to reconstruct Clark Road this coming summer. With a $5,000 contribution from Brookline Rotary, the fund to provide an ambulance for Brookline’s “sister city” Quezalguaque, Nicaragua is finally nearing its goal. That will only be enough to buy and outfit a used van. Surprisingly, no board member contrasted how rapidly money had been raised for a sports event, just a moment in time, as compared with a long-term humanitarian project.

Liquor license violations: Deborah Hansen, owner of Taberna de Haro on Beacon St. at St. Mary’s St., appeared for a hearing about the sale of alcohol to an underaged customer, lack of supervision and other complaints. She explained that on an icy day this past winter neither she nor the manager of alcohol sales made it to the restaurant before opening time, and the bartender had made mistakes. That bartender has been dismissed, she said. Richard Garver, a Precinct 1 town meeting member, spoke in her support and said she had the support of the other town meeting members. The board was not unanimous on this matter, as it often is; Nancy Daly and Richard Benka dissented on some items but did not explain why. With no previous history of violations, Ms. Hansen received a 3-day conditional suspension, to be held for a year and cancelled if there are no more violations.

Liquor license violations: David Brilliant, owner of the former Mission Cantina just across Beacon St. from Taberna de Haro, appeared for a hearing about the sale of alcohol to an underaged customer and about operating under an expired license, apparently shortly before the restaurant closed. He admitted to the violations and apologized. With no previous violations, he also received a 3-day conditional suspension, but his license was ordered to be permanently terminated if not transferred or properly reactivated within six months.

– Beacon staff, Brookline, MA, April 9, 2014


Nicholas J. Brunick and Patrick O. Maier, Renewing the land of opportunity, Journal of Affordable Housing 19(2):161-190, 2010