EXPLANATIONS
FOR  ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
WARRANT ARTICLES
MAY 23RD, 2006
 

__________
ARTICLE 2

This article is inserted in the Warrant for any Town Meeting when there are unsettled labor contracts. Town Meeting must approve the funding for any collective bargaining agreements.

__________
ARTICLE 3

This article authorizes the Town Treasurer to enter into Compensating Balance Agreements, which are agreements between a depositor and a bank in which the depositor agrees to maintain a specified level of non-interest bearing deposits in return for which the bank agrees to perform certain services for the depositor. In order to incorporate such compensating balance agreements into the local budget process, the Commonwealth passed a law in 1986 mandating that all such arrangements be authorized by Town Meeting on an annual basis.

__________
ARTICLE 4

Section 2.1.4 of the Town's By-Laws requires that each Annual Town Meeting include a warrant article showing the status of all special appropriations. This article is also used for debt rescissions.

__________
ARTICLE 5

This article is inserted in the Warrant for every Town Meeting in case there are any unpaid bills from a prior fiscal year that are deemed to be legal obligations of the Town. Per Massachusetts General Law, unpaid bills from a prior fiscal year can only be paid from current year appropriations with the specific approval of Town Meeting.

__________
ARTICLE 6

This article provides for an increase in the property tax exemptions for certain classes of individuals, including surviving spouses, the elderly, the blind, and disabled veterans. The proposed increases, which require annual reauthorizations, have been approved annually since FY89.

__________
ARTICLE 7

This is the annual appropriations article for FY2007. Included in this omnibus budget article are operating budgets, special appropriations, enterprise funds, revolving funds, and conditions of appropriation. This is the culmination of work that officially began with the presentation of the Town Administrator’s Financial Plan, which occurred on February 14th. The proposed budget is then reviewed by numerous sub-committees of the Advisory Committee, the full Advisory Committee, and the Board of Selectmen. The vote ultimately recommended to Town Meeting is offered by the Advisory Committee.

__________
ARTICLE 8

Town Meeting did not deliberate about a trash emergency in 1988.

Town Meeting deliberated about a cash emergency that preoccupied the Town in 1988.
The 1988 cash emergency arose from a perfect storm of economic factors:

The national inflation rate was about 5%.

The limit on new taxes stipulated by the Massachusetts Proposition 2 ½ prevented raising the Town’s tax level more than 2 1/2 %.

Rent Control restrictions made an increase on taxes on rent controlled properties unacceptable.

Cash on hand was at its lowest level in decades and the Town’s ability to pay teachers’ salaries was endangered.

A quarterly voluntary fee was proposed as a temporary measure. It would be collected from 19,000 taxpayers and the Town expected to collect $2,500,000. That plan was accepted along with the promise that this fee would be temporary. Later the fee was set at $41.25 quarterly and that was collected from 13,000 taxpayers. The Town collected $2,100,000 a year from this fee.

There is no cash emergency now. The FY 2005 Independent Auditor’s Report that was submitted to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Revenue show’s that Brookline’s General Fund Cash balance is $86,970,111.

The fee created by the 1988 Town Meeting is no longer necessary. It was promised to be temporary. The Town Meeting legislative intent was clear: this would be a temporary fee. It is not too soon to discontinue collecting this emergency fee as the emergency ended years ago.

__________
ARTICLE 9

This article is submitted by the Community Preservation Study Committee. The Study Committee was established by the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of evaluating the Community Preservation Act and making a recommendation to Town Meeting as to whether or not the Town should adopt the Act. The Study Committee has not yet determined whether or not it will recommend adoption of the Act, but it intends to make a recommendation before the 2006 Annual Town Meeting. The attached article preserves the ability of the 2006 Annual Town Meeting to vote on whether or not to adopt the Act in the event that the Study Committee makes a recommendation for affirmative action.

___________
ARTICLE 10

This article is submitted by the Community Preservation Study Committee. The Study Committee was established by the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of evaluating the Community Preservation Act and making a recommendation to Town Meeting as to whether or not the Town should adopt the Act. The Study Committee has not yet determined whether or not it will recommend adoption of the Act, but it intends to make a recommendation before the 2006 Annual Town Meeting. The attached article preserves the ability of the 2006 Annual Town Meeting to adopt a bylaw establishing a Community Preservation Committee as required by the Act in the event that the Study Committee makes a recommendation for affirmative action and Town Meeting votes to adopt the Act.

___________
ARTICLE 11

This article provides a veterans benefit for accidental disability retirees who are veterans. The amount of the allowance is $15.00 per year for each year of creditable service the member had when they retired with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per calendar year.
The estimated cost for this benefit is approximately $25,500.00 per year. The Retirement Board voted unanimously for the article on March 9, 2006.

___________
ARTICLE 12

This Article would allow for the veterans benefit described in Article 11 retroactive to the member’s date of retirement. The estimated cost for this benefit would be a one time payment of approximately $470,000.00. The Retirement Board voted 3-2 for the article on March 9, 2006.

___________
ARTICLE 13

A recent report by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that municipal employee group health costs statewide grew at nearly twice the rate that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts spent for state employee health care between FY01 and FY05. While Brookline’s rate of increase was not quite as high as the average for local government, it was still substantially greater than the amount spent on State employees:

Growth in Employee Health Costs Between FY01 – FY05

Local Government 63.2%

State Government 29.2%

Town of Brookline 55%

Health benefits at the state level are administered by the Group Insurance Commission (GIC), which currently provides coverage to 267,000 state employees and retirees. Historically, municipalities have not been allowed to join the GIC to participate in the same pool as state employees in order to take advantage of the comparatively favorable rates. Since 1993, cities and towns have had the legal option to join the GIC in a separate pool, but without access to the more advantageous pricing for the state employee group. Consequently, no municipality has joined the GIC.

A comparison of the Town’s FY06 group health rates with the GIC rates suggests a potential savings of about $2 million of which nearly $500,000 would accrue directly to employees through reduced withholdings. Further, a review of GIC plan offerings reveals a much wider array of options than the Town has been able to provide, including dental coverage. And, recent reports indicate that the GIC has been on the leading edge within the public sector for innovative plan design and cost savings to an extent no individual municipality has been able to match.

The Group Insurance Commission has recently expressed an openness to accepting municipal enrollments in its state employee group. This special legislation is proposed to provide the Town the option of joining GIC as soon as participation becomes possible. Assuming the existing contribution rates will be maintained (75% town-25% employees), the savings for town taxpayers and workforce could be considerable. As noted in the text of the special legislation, participation in the GIC is subject to the Town fulfilling its collective bargaining obligations, where applicable, with its unions.

___________
ARTICLE 14

As a matter of public policy and prudent governance, it is the responsibility of the Town to provide for the safety and well being of its residents. It does so in a number of ways, including its police and fire departments, its public works department, and its department of public health. The Town attends to the needs of its citizens through a number of additional agents and public agencies. Over the past few years, there has been an increased sense of growth and development activities throughout the Town. There are projected to be many more growth and development opportunities and activities in the future. On occasion, there may have been activities that encroached upon the properties of Brookline’s citizens in ways that may have been unforeseen. The purchase of a home is the largest single investment that most individuals make in a lifetime. When a new development adversely impacts an individual’s home, he/she may be compelled to seek recourse and redress through litigation to protect that investment and the quality of everyday life. In doing so, it is possible that the homeowner may have to draw down or deplete savings, tap into retirement funds, or even take out a second mortgage on their home. No citizen of Brookline should be placed in the position of having to expend personal resources to compel the Town to adhere to zoning by-laws and regulations, nor to enforce building codes and site approvals. In the spirit of fairness to all citizens of Brookline, this warrant article proposes that if a citizen moves forward with litigation against the Town and prevails, that the Town will reimburse the citizen (plaintiff) for legal expenses, including attorney’s fees, court costs, and expert witnesses. The warrant article does not encourage frivolous lawsuits, because the litigant (plaintiff) would be required to continue to fund the legal action, as is presently the case, but would be entitled to recoup the legal expenses if he/she prevails. Any aggrieved party would need to carefully consider the financial implications of embarking on a legal action, as is now the case, but would have the assurance of knowing that the significant cost impact on any individual (unlike a developer where legal action is the “cost of doing business” and is recouped in the sale of the development or project) will be offset by the reimbursement from the Town if she/he prevails.

___________
ARTICLE 15

In December 2005, the Park and Recreation Commission approved a recommendation to honor the Kraft Family of Brookline by naming the soon-to-be renovated field at Harry Downes Field “The Kraft Family Athletic Facility at Harry Downes Field”. The proposal was forwarded to the Brookline Naming Committee, established in 2005 by Town Meeting, and duly appointed by the Board of Selectmen.

In accordance with the Town By-law, the Naming Committee has evaluated the proposal, applying its established criteria, and finds that the Krafts meet criterion “A” and are people of excellent reputation and character who have made exemplary contributions of time and resources to the community. The Committee unanimously supports the Park and Recreation Commission’s proposal.

Harry Downes
Henry (Harry) Downes began his Brookline High School career as a football coach in 1938 and became Director of Athletics in 1961. Remembered both as a man of integrity and as a role model for his players and fellow coaches, Coach Downes was inducted into the Brookline High School Hall of Fame in 1994. Downes’s teams reflected their coach: hardworking, disciplined, talented, well prepared and successful. His football teams won the Class B State Championship in 1939, 1946 and 1947 and won the Class A State Championship in 1954.

Upon his death in 1970, “Brookline Field” was renamed Harry Downes Field and dedicated that same year. A metal and stone memorial at the corner of Highland Street and Jamaica Road reads:

Dedicated to the Memory of Henry J. “Harry” Downes
(1910-1970)

An outstanding football coach and faculty manager at Brookline High School from 1938-1970.
A respected teacher, a loyal friend and an inspiration to the youth of Brookline.
-October 31, 1970

Harry Downes Field
Downes Field, an 8.69 acre park located in a densely settled neighborhood, is a regional recreational facility. It was acquired for $85,000 in 1914 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and includes a multipurpose field surrounded by a running track, a softball field which is also used for rugby, field facilities (benches, bleachers, and drinking fountains), a play area, and a storage building and restroom.

Through the financial and technical resources of Robert Kraft, the multipurpose field within the track is being completely renovated with premium synthetic turf. This renovation, undertaken by a partnership of leaders from the public, private, and non-profit sectors, will benefit community football programs and other recreational activities. The field will be used for the most rigorous turf sports including high school and youth football, lacrosse, soccer, rugby and track competitions in addition to informal recreational activities.

Robert Kraft
Born in Brookline in 1942, Bob Kraft is the owner of National Football League’s New England Patriots and Major League Soccer’s New England Revolution. A graduate of Brookline High School and a member of the 1957 and 1958 football teams coached by Harry Downes, he continued his education at Columbia University and the Harvard Business School. He is married to Myra (Hiatt) Kraft, a 1964 graduate of Brandeis University.

Mr. Kraft acquired the New England Patriots in 1994 at a time when the team was last in the National Football League in both revenue and attendance. A respected and influential owner, he presided over a remarkable transformation of the team, with the Patriots winning more conference and Super Bowl championships in the past 12 years than any other team in the NFL.

Bob Kraft’s passion is not limited to football; his philanthropic endeavors have also made a significant impact. Over the past three decades, the Kraft family has been one of New England’s most philanthropic, donating millions of dollars in support of local charities and civic causes, including the establishment of a Blood Donor Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. In addition, endowment gifts to the College of the Holy Cross and Brandeis University have been used to promote interfaith relations, while a $2 million contribution to Boston College has funded an endowed professorship for a Christian scholar at the College’s Center for Christian-Jewish Learning.

In Brookline, the Kraft family’s generosity has extended to personal, technical and financial support of religious institutions, the Brookline Public Schools, and the Brookline Public Library. The renovation of the multipurpose athletic field, the most recent contribution to the Town, has been made in the name of the Kraft family, reflecting Bob Kraft's commitment to family, community, and stewardship.

Connecting the names of Kraft and Downes by naming the new athletic facility within Harry Downes Field “The Kraft Family Athletic Facility at Harry Downes Field” is fitting since the contributions of both have had a lasting impact on the lives of many in the Brookline community.

___________
ARTICLE 16

To insure that Town officials do not expend valuable resources on challenging or reversing an action taken by Town Meeting.

___________
ARTICLE 17

Over the last few years, the cost of energy has risen dramatically. According to the Brookline Capital Improvement Program (CIP), over $52 million is projected for building renovations in the next few years. These renovations provide an opportunity to minimize the future impact of energy costs while also minimizing the negative impact on the environment. This article attempts to ensure that environmentally- and long-range fiscally-responsible alternatives are considered for new construction or major renovations, and the results of a comparative analysis between conventional and “green” alternatives be made public.

Higher costs can often be recovered over the life of the building through reduced energy usage, although initial costs of construction may be higher. For example, available statistics indicate that the cost of heating for domestic hot water can be reduced by up to 50%. In fact, the White house uses solar energy for heating both pool and domestic hot water.

Efficient use of energy and resources takes many forms: collection and re-use of water, use of natural light, and installation of energy-efficient appliances, high-performance insulation and glazing are but a few.

In summary, this article does not require that the most environmental or cost-effective method be used – only that analysis be performed and made public. In this manner, public accountability and visibility will be increased.

___________
ARTICLE 18

Brookline professionals largely constitute the Town’s Boards, Commissions and Committees and Subcommittees and are often employed in the industry which their respective public body addresses. Yet, few have any training as public servants in the “Three Legs” of New England’s democratic Town governance, namely: laws concerning Public Meetings, Public Records (their creation and maintenance), and Conflict of Interest.

Nationwide, few schools teach “Civics”, the traditional forum for “Good Government” training. Many Brookline residents are unaware of the nature or structure of Brookline’s local government (Representative Town Meeting, and a Board of Selectmen) yet desire to contribute expertise to the Town.

As fortunate as we might be to have this expertise, nevertheless, democratic process must be well-served and protected. “Public Servants”, whether volunteers or elected officials are trustees of the public good, and, as such, have a fiduciary duty to adhere to all pertinent laws. In turn, the law recognized the important role of the public in the “checks and balances” of its public servants. Under no circumstances may the obligations to the public and its good be obviated, circumvented, or neglected, intentionally or unintentionally.

In the past four (4) years, both Town Counsel and the Town Meeting Members Association sponsored several tutorials concerning Public Meetings, Public Records, and Conflict of Interest. Unfortunately, few appointed and elected Officials have attended these highly expert tutorials, a phenomenon repeated throughout the State, according to officials.

Inadvertent violations reportedly abound, and are arguably more rife than six years ago. Most recent examples: Several newly-appointed, well-meaning ad hoc committees this year questioned whether they even “had to” take minutes, and were incredulous when informed it was their duty to take minutes according to legal guidelines, including retention in a Town depository for a specified period of time.

Another Board routinely conducted and deliberated public business on e-mail and/or phone, away from public scrutiny. When apprised that these forms of deliberation were illegal, they were quite sure “no such prohibition could exist (since) it makes no sense” and refused to cease its practice unless Town Counsel advised that such practice was illegal. While Town Counsel did so as soon as she was apprised of the situation, six weeks and two additional board meetings elapsed before the Board in question was so apprised, and then only upon the action of a citizen. Despite verbal assurances, neither staff nor Board members had followed through with promised to ask Town Counsel for an opinion.

Finally, the recent substantive delay of the Coolidge Corner IPOD, potentially incurring economic consequences, might well have been avoided had all participants understood their civic requirements to report any conflict of interest, or even the appearance of any conflict of interest.

___________
ARTICLE 19

Often, when highly controversial articles appear on the Warrant, Town Meeting votes to create a Study Committee (or some iteration of an Ad Hoc Committee) to report its findings back to Town Meeting. Yet, increasingly, nearly all these Town Meeting-created committees or study groups hold their meetings on weekday mornings, at times, they say, are convenient for the committee members. However, they usually are inconvenient for the very Town Meeting Members whose vote created the committee.

It is important that Town Meeting Members be able to attend at least half these committee meetings, and that, when an expert or consultant will attend to offer professional opinions, advice, or information, that all such meetings be held exclusively during evening hours, and in full compliance with all Public meeting, Public Records, and Conflict of Interest laws.

___________
ARTICLE 20

Computers are in general use today. Posting the Independent Auditors Report on the Town of Brookline Website would greatly increase the availability of this information to all citizens and to their Town Meeting Members.

The Brookline Room of the Public Library has the Brookline Annual Reports for
every year on its appropriate shelf. All but the recent “Brookline Annual Report” are accompanied by the Independent Auditor’s Reports for the same year. Binding the two together, as had been done as an annual practice until recently, is the better practice. Both reports should be bound together for complete annual documentation.

___________
ARTICLE 21

There has been much talk about perceived undue influence when former officials appear, after only a year, representing clients before Town Boards, Commissions or Agencies to which they participated in appointment of members, worked with in one way or another or as a member with these bodies. Passage of this Article will improve the Town’s image and the confidence of our citizenry.

___________
ARTICLE 22

By all indications, the conversion of rental units in Brookline to condominiums will continue apace. In one short period last fall, the conversion of over 450 units in three buildings was announced. Over the past year, as Planning Department staff fielded inquiries from potential converters as well as anxious tenants, the question of tenant protections became clouded. While it is very possible that many tenants in Brookline are not informed of their rights at all, some are provided notice under the requirements of the Town By-law and others are provided notice under the requirements of Chapter 527 of the Massachusetts General Laws. Adopted in 1983, Chapter 527 provides stronger protections for all tenants and in particular for elderly and low/moderate income tenants. In both cases enforcement is through the court system.

In contrast to Massachusetts statute, Brookline requires no protections specifically for low or moderate income tenants, no extension of notice periods for elderly, disabled or low/mod households in the case where comparable housing cannot be found, no protections against excessive rent increases, and no relocation benefits or assistance. Brookline provisions are stronger only in that they also apply to absentee-owned two and three family buildings whereas the state excludes all two and three family buildings.

Tenant protections regarding condominium conversions were originally included as part of the Town’s rent control by-law. These condominium conversion protections mirrored the language of the state law while extending them to non-owner-occupied two and three family buildings. In 1986, Town Meeting voted to also extend these same protections to non-rent controlled units.

Because protections for tenants of units undergoing conversion were included as part of rent control ordinances in communities which had rent control, they were considered to be repealed after the passage of 40P in 1994, which ended rent control state-wide. Therefore, during the second half of the 1990’s, former rent control communities found themselves reconsidering community standards regarding such protections. At that time, Cambridge chose to be silent on the issue in order to defer to State law. Boston adopted regulations which provided greater protections than those under State law.

In Brookline, this issue was addressed as part of the reorganization of the Town’s By-laws as approved by Town Meeting in 1998. At that time the Selectmen appointed a By-Law Committee to review new and revised By-laws drafted by Town Counsel. There were many obsolete sections of the Town’s By-laws and an overall reordering was long overdue. The committee was apparently split on the approach of whether or not to allow the Town to simply revert to the tenant protections under the State Condo Law or to include some protections under a new Town By-law entitled “Condominium Health and Safety at the Time of Conversion” in an effort to provide some specific local protections. The resulting language was an effort to expunge (the Town By-laws) of any direct or indirect references to rent control or the qualifying income of any tenants while keeping important protections for tenants. The language that was passed eliminated any protections specifically for low/mod households, extension of notice periods for elderly, disabled or low/mod households in the case where comparable housing cannot be found, as well as a right to reimbursement of moving costs and relocation assistance for all tenants.

The existence of a Town By-law which provides predominately weaker protections than the State law creates confusion on the part of both tenants and developers about which should be followed. For these reasons, we believe it is important to consider repealing the tenant protection provisions of the Town’s condominium conversion by-law, clarifying that State law’s stronger protections prevail in all cases.

This article would require a majority vote of Town Meeting in order to pass.

___________
ARTICLE 23

REPORT OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION

The Town of Brookline By-Laws pertaining to the control of dogs are embodied in Article 8.6. Currently, Section 8.6.7(a) authorizes the Park and Recreation Commission to establish designated off-leash areas as part of a pilot program set to expire on June 30, 2006. Amendment of Article 8.6.7(a) will allow the Park and Recreation Commission to continue the implementation, evaluation and administration of what has become the Green Dog Pilot Program.

The amendment allows the Park and Recreation Commission to establish designated off leash areas in parks under its jurisdiction according to its policies, set forth below, provided that no area adjacent to a school shall be used as an off leash area without the consent of the School Committee, and further provided that appropriate signage concerning hours and conditions shall be conspicuously displayed in each area.

As currently reflected in Article 8.6 dogs owners will still be required to accompany, control, and pick up after their dogs at all times.

History
The Green Dog Pilot Program was first permitted by the May, 2003 Town Meeting, with a sunset provision of June 30, 2005, extended by the May, 2005 Town Meeting to June 30, 2006. The Park and Recreation Commission requested the extension so that a comprehensive evaluation with public input could be completed.

The Park and Recreation Commission introduced the Green Dog Pilot Program in response to significant public interest expressed at the Commission’s public meetings. The Commission’s Procedure for Declaring an Off-Leash Area for Dogs is set forth below, and has appeared in the write-up of the two prior warrant articles. Following its procedure, the Commission conducted numerous hearings to establish off-leash areas and hours, and has continued to monitor and make adjustments as appropriate. At this time, there are 14 off-leash areas: 7 with hours from dawn to 9 AM, 7 with hours from dawn to 1 PM. (Three of the dawn to 1 PM areas are dawn to dusk from December through March.)

Primary concerns when the pilot was established were cleanliness and safety.

Definition of Success
In order to evaluate the pilot program, the Park and Recreation Commission established a Green Dog Advisory Committee (GDAC) in the fall of 2005. Composed of both dog and non-dog owners, the Committee’s members include two Park and Recreation Commissioners, a School Committee liaison, a GreenSpace Alliance liaison, and four citizens. Other interested citizens have consistently attended these public meetings. In its first three months, the Committee met five times to define success, establish criteria for review, prepare a program summary and presentation, plan for a community meeting, review findings, and make a recommendation to the Commission.

The philosophy behind the program is one of civic improvement and balance with the following long term goals: providing times and places where dog owners may exercise their dogs off-leash, and times and places where other park users are entitled to enjoy those same parks free of off-leash dogs. The program seeks to encourage respect and consideration among all park users in sharing our public parks. In seeking to change the prior course of human behavior, the program will always involve an ongoing process of education, enforcement and dialogue. The Commission considers this a highly worthy goal, and one which by its nature will always be a work in progress. Therefore, after considerable discussion, it was reasoned, if overall conditions in the parks included in the program were at least the same, and at best better, than before the inception of the program, by providing a schedule for mutual enjoyment, a forum for dialogue, and mechanisms for compliance and correction, where before there were none, the program would have achieved success.

Conclusions
Based upon feedback from the Athletic Field User Groups, Police Department, Recreation Department, Parks and Open Space Division (including Park Zone Managers and Maintenance crews) and the public, (through a town wide survey and public meetings), the GDAC concluded that conditions in the parks identified in the Green Dog Pilot Program – for cleanliness, usage and mechanisms for achieving compliance- appear to be better than they were before the program began. The GDAC recommended that the Commission submit this warrant article, and the Commission unanimously voted to do so.

Basis for Conclusions
• Field Users’ Feedback
Recreation Director Robert Lynch reported that at the annual Athletic Field Users’ meeting in January, 2006, where Youth Soccer, Youth Lacrosse, Youth Baseball, the BHS Athletics Department, Men’s Softball League, Viking Sports Camps and Clinics, Girls Softball League, and Recreation Summer Camps Programs were all represented, all present stated that the Green Dog Program had not had any adverse effect on their programs and three of those present felt that there had actually been some improvement in cleanliness on the fields.

• Park Zone Managers’ Feedback
Director of Parks Erin Chute Gallentine reported in January, 2006 that her zone managers found an improvement in the cleanliness of parks in the program; the athletic zone manager found that turf conditions are about the same, (as before the pilot program began). Maintenance crews in general report that people are agreeable and cooperative in leashing dogs during maintenance of the parks.

• Police Department Feedback
Brookline’s full time Animal Control Officer states that off leash use appears to be clustering in off leash parks and at off leash hours. The Animal Control Officer will be making quarterly reports to the Commission.

• Recreation Department Data on Complaints
Dog owners signed up to be park contacts at the beginning of the program. The plan was to notify the contact when a complaint for a specific park was received. In fact, the Recreation Director has called contacts for Griggs, Waldstein and Schick Parks. No further complaints on those issues were received after the contacts were notified.
Other complaints about Waldstein and Soule that could not be resolved by the contact resulted in the Commission’s shortening hours at both fields, after which there were no further complaints.

• Park and Open Space Division Data for Off-Leash/On-Leash Hours at Green Dog Parks
The Parks and Open Space Division conducted spot checks at parks in the pilot program during the fall (October, November and December of 2005). The checks tracked numbers of dogs and people, and whether dogs were on or off leash, both during on-leash (peak evening times) and off-leash hours. During off-leash hours, the percentage of dogs off-leash was 87%; during on-leash hours, the percentage of dogs on leash was 82%.

• Town-wide Survey
A questionnaire was enclosed with the DPW mailing last fall to 24,286 households. It was also used at the street fair last fall, and could be answered on-line. A total of 351 responses were received, the majority indicating that people understand the program and are in favor of it.

Future
If Town Meeting approves this warrant article, the Commission will administer the Green Dog Program in its discretion, monitoring, modifying, eliminating and/or adding off leash areas, as appropriate. The Green Dog Advisory Committee will continue to support the Commission, making recommendations as appropriate. Future areas for consideration include: educating out-of-town users, improving signage, the fine structure and monitoring parks in the program. Areas adjacent to schools will not be used as off leash areas without the consent of the School Committee.




PROCEDURE FOR DECLARING A PARK, PLAYGROUND OR OPEN SPACE
AN OFF LEASH AREA FOR DOGS
AS OUTLINED IN BY-LAW 8.6.7
Presented by the Park and Recreation Commission

Prior to any park, playground, and/or open space being designated as an “Off-Leash Area for Dogs”, the Park and Recreation Commission will conduct a meeting to discuss the possibility of such action, during which all in attendance may voice their suggestions, objections, and support for a proposed Off-Leash Area. Items to be discussed may include duration of Off-Leash time, rules and regulations associated with Off-Leash areas, notification methods to all dog owners and citizens, special considerations in each proposed area, development of the green dog program, self policing by dog-owners, that in each designated area signs will be posted, in a conspicuous place, stating the authorized hours when that area can be used and any other conditions concerning the use of that area, etc.

The Park and Recreation Commission shall notify all abutters, Town Meeting Members (in the affected precinct), Neighborhood Associations, the School Committee, School Principals, PTO’s the Conservation Commission, the Tree Planting Commission, the Board of Selectmen, the Police Department, identified users, and all those requesting notification. The meeting shall be posted in the Town Clerk’s Office, in the newspaper, on cable television, on Brookline’s homepage (www.townofbrooklinemass.com) and bulletin board, and in all prominent locations in the area affected. This initial meeting shall be conducted as part of a regularly scheduled Park and Recreation Commission meeting.

Attendance will be taken at all meetings and if additional meetings are required, all of those listed above will be notified, as well as all of those who sign the attendance sheet. Only after such meeting as described above is held will the Park and Recreation Commission make a decision concerning designated areas. The Park and Recreation Commission may, at any time, reconsider the designation of any area as an Off-Leash Area, as they deem necessary. Monitoring and evaluation of all such designated areas shall be conducted on a regular basis.

___________
ARTICLE 24

The Article would extend for one-year the Town's Focused Residence Picketing By-law 8.17, which was first enacted in 1994, and which was scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2006. The By-law makes it illegal to engage in so-called focused residence picketing, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. The By-law permits, as the Supreme Court has required, picketing and demonstrations on public streets in the neighborhood in which a resident lives, but prohibits demonstrations that invade the right of a resident to privacy and peace and quiet in his or her home. The one-year extension of the By-law was recommended by a unanimous vote of the Selectmen's Committee on Focused Residence Picketing. The one-year extension will permit the Town to further study the effects of the by-law, as well as any developments in the law that may help better define or narrow the definition of focused residence picketing.

___________
ARTICLE 25

The proposed wetlands protection by-law will provide protection for water and wetland resources in Brookline that are currently unprotected, or not adequately protected, by existing state law. Enactment of a local wetlands by-law has been recommended in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Open Space Plan. The proposed wetlands protection by-law will provide protection for isolated wetlands larger than 2500 square feet, for vernal pools, and for intermittent streams, none of which are protected under the state Wetlands Protection Act. It will also increase the buffer zone around wetlands to 150 feet. Alterations that are proposed in the buffer zone will require review from the Conservation Commission to ensure that they will not adversely impact the wetland area. The proposed bylaw will provide significant benefit to the town’s storm water management program, and will protect wildlife habitat as well as open space.

___________
ARTICLE 26

This article is being submitted in order to update references to by-laws in Article 10.2. This amendment is necessary because as By-Law Articles were amended and renumbered, their corresponding references in the above articles for penalties and non-criminal disposition were not. Passage of these articles will rectify this oversight.

___________
ARTICLE 27

This article is being submitted in order to update references to by-laws in Article 10.2. This amendment is necessary because as By-Law Articles were amended and renumbered, their corresponding references in the above articles for penalties and non-criminal disposition were not. Passage of these articles will rectify this oversight.

___________
ARTICLE 28

This warrant article is submitted pursuant to the recommendation of the Moderator’s Committee on Zoning, appointed pursuant to Town Meeting’s vote at the Spring 2005 Town Meeting. The Committee’s Report will explain its deliberations in detail. This is one of two warrant articles recommended by the Committee. The other proposed article would revise Section 5.22, the provision of the Zoning By-law allowing “conversions” of or additions to existing residential buildings that exceed the floor area ratio (FAR) otherwise allowable under the Zoning By-law.
The Moderator’s Committee has sought to address various actions used to create buildings larger than those otherwise allowable under the Zoning By-law. Although the Committee considered recommending changes to the By-law that would have been more far-reaching (some of which were, in fact, supported by a majority of the Committee), the Committee ultimately agreed on a limited number of steps to ensure that the worst abuses would be addressed while the creation of non-conformities for existing properties would be minimized. For ease of reference, the corresponding provisions of the existing Zoning By-law are set forth at the end of this explanation.
One of the problems addressed by the Committee has been the construction of houses containing significant so-called “attic” and “basement” space designated as “unfinished” and not counted in the calculation of gross floor area (GFA). After the completion of construction, Section 5.22 of the Zoning By-law could be used to “convert” that space into finished habitable space, ultimately resulting in buildings considerably larger than otherwise permitted under the Zoning By-law. In addition, excessively large garages have been excluded from the calculation of GFA. Space has also been claimed as “mechanical” space in an attempt to exclude it from GFA, even though it adds to the bulk of a building. The fashion of using atriums, cathedral ceilings and similar designs has also inflated the size of buildings, since, for example, the floor area of a two-story atrium is counted only once in determining the size of a building, even though the bulk it creates is twice that of a normal-height ceiling.
In addition, “decommissioning” has been allowed under the Zoning By-law. This tactic has been used in cases where a developer seeks to subdivide a lot into two or more separate building lots, but faces the fact that the preexisting building would be too large for the reduced size of the lot remaining after the creation of the new lot(s). “Decommissioning” supposedly makes portions of a preexisting building no longer habitable without actually removing them. This has been deemed an allowable way of reducing the calculated GFA, even though the bulk of the preexisting building, and thus its impact on abutters, has not been reduced. Theoretically, “decommissioned” space could even be made habitable again through the use of Section 5.22 after required building permits had been issued for any new building, although the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has recently said this would not be permitted.
Because decommissioning does not actually reduce the bulk or impact of a building, the Moderator’s Committee recommends that decommissioning not reduce the calculated GFA. Under the proposal, decommissioned space is thus counted in GFA. The proposal preserves the right of a building owner to demolish a portion of a building, as by totally removing a wing or an “el,” since such action would actually reduce the exterior bulk of a building.
In the past, building permits have been issued that exclude from the calculation of GFA so-called unfinished “attics” on the second floor of a building, even though the developer’s own architectural plans showed the space as second-floor space rather than attic space. The ZBA recently and correctly found that such space is not attic space. The Moderator’s Committee proposal likewise confirms that attic area is space above the top story of a building, as also explicitly stated in the State Building Code.
In addition to being revised explicitly to include space that has been decommissioned, the definition of GFA is revised to ensure that areas with ceilings over twelve feet high will be counted as proportionally larger in GFA. The Committee considered lower thresholds, but sought to minimize impacts on existing buildings while still limiting the “bulking up” of buildings with substantial atria and cathedral ceilings.
The Committee also proposes to limit space that can be excluded from GFA to 360 square feet per required parking space for single- and two-family buildings. In a typical 24-foot wide two-car garage, this would still allow 30 feet of depth, or approximately 13 feet more than the length of a Mercedes Benz S-Class luxury sedan without any space being counted against the allowable FAR (permits have been granted for garages that are 40 feet deep with none of the area counted against the FAR). The Committee has not recommended changes with respect to garage areas in commercial and multi-family buildings at this time, since any such change would raise competing policy questions regarding the need to encourage more parking space for such buildings.
On a related point, the Committee’s proposal would initiate Planning Board review where vehicular use would involve more than 40% of the width of the front façade of a building, to address a recent problem of “snout nose” buildings where virtually the entire first floor façade is garage and where front yards are reduced to paved driveways. The limitation may be relaxed by the Planning Board to preserve the front façade in the case of a corner lot, or if no other design would ensure vehicular safety.
The Committee would also continue to exclude elevator penthouse and mechanical space from GFA if located above the roofline and not habitable.
In order to avoid disputes, the Committee proposal clarifies the definition of habitable space to include not only space “used” for human occupancy as stated in the current Zoning By-law, but also space that is finished and “usable” for human occupancy. Finally, the proposal adds a definition for enclosed porches and unenclosed porches, concepts that have existed in the By-law but have not been defined.
EXISTING ZONING BY-LAW PROVISIONS
§ 2.01(3). ATTIC - The Space in a building between the roof framing and the ceiling beams of
the rooms below and not considered habitable space.
§ 2.04(1/2). DECOMMISSION - NEW DEFINITION
§ 2.07(1). GROSS FLOOR AREA - The sum of the areas of the several floors of a building,
including areas used for human occupancy in basements, attics, and penthouses, as measured from the exterior faces of the walls. It does not include cellars, unenclosed porches, or attics not used for human occupancy, or any floor space in accessory buildings or in the main building intended and designed for the parking of motor vehicles in order to meet the parking requirements of this By-law, except as required in §5.06, paragraph 2., subparagraph c., or any such floor space intended and designed for accessory heating and ventilating equipment. It shall include the horizontal area at each floor level devoted to stairwells and elevator shafts.

§ 2.08(1). HABITABLE SPACE - Space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating, or
cooking or otherwise used for human habitation.

§ 2.16(2 1/2). PORCH, ENCLOSED AND UNENCLOSED - NEW DEFINITION

§ 6.04(14) - [Limitation of façade devoted to vehicular use] - NEW PROVISION

___________
ARTICLE 29

This warrant article is submitted on the recommendation of the Moderator’s Committee on Zoning appointed pursuant to Town Meeting’s vote at the Spring 2005 Town Meeting. The Committee’s Report will more fully explain its deliberations. This is one of two warrant articles recommended by the Committee. For ease of reference, the existing version of Section 5.22 follows this explanation.
Section 5.22 was adopted to allow residents with need for additional space to exceed the floor area ratio (FAR) limitations of the Zoning By-law by making limited additions to their homes or by converting interior space such as basements or attics that was previously not habitable and therefore not counted against gross floor area (GFA). In 2002, Town Meeting revised Section 5.22, permitting as-of-right interior conversions of basement and attic space, allowing by special permit other conversions (for example, the enclosure of a previously unenclosed porch) and additions, while also including an explicit provision that stated: “The provisions of this section [allowing conversions and additions to exceed FAR] shall be limited to existing single- and two-family dwellings erected and as configured prior to the adoption of this section.”
The Attorney General, on May 29, 2003, struck down the underlined limitation to pre-existing buildings on grounds that it violated the “uniformity” provisions of state law, which provides that a zoning by-law “shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of structures or uses permitted.” (http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1313). As a result, the door was opened to the tactic of constructing new buildings containing substantial “attic,” “basement” or other space identified as “unfinished,” followed by the “conversion” of that space to add more habitable floor area after receipt of a certificate of occupancy. The original intent of allowing the modification of long-occupied buildings in response to changing family needs thus became a tool for the creation of new buildings that were substantially larger than intended under the FAR limitations of the Zoning By-law.
Town Meeting responded in the Spring 2005 Town Meeting by stating that the as-of-right conversion of attic space would be permissible only if the “Certificate of Occupancy for the original construction and previous conversions or alterations under this section, if any, was granted at least ten years prior to the date of” an application for the conversion. The Attorney General approved that C of O limitation, which applied uniformly to all properties regardless of when they were built.
Although the petitioner’s original warrant article in 2005 would have applied the 10-year C of O limitation to both as-of-right basement and attic conversions, the pre-Town Meeting review process ultimately resulted in an article applying the limitation only to attics, on the reasoning that it was unlikely that the option of converting basements would be abused. Unfortunately, however, because the definition of “basement” includes any space that is even partially below grade, it is possible to build a “basement” that is substantially above grade and has numerous windows and doors providing access from the outside. Such a “basement,” if not “finished,” would not be counted against the building’s GFA.
The revision proposed by the Moderator’s Committee would preserve most of the existing substantive provisions of Section 5.22 (such as the total by which allowable FAR could be exceeded), while increasing protections for abutters and reducing incentives for “gaming” the system:
First, conversions would be by special permit rather than as-of-right to ensure review protecting abutters, the neighborhood, and the public. While it theoretically might have been possible to allow as-of-right attic or basement conversions that involved only “minor” or no exterior modifications, experience with other zoning articles has shown the potential for dispute over what is “minor” and, perhaps more significantly, over who should properly make the determination (the Building Commissioner, the Planning Department, the Planning Board, the new Zoning Administrator, and so on). Similarly, it makes little sense to invite to a different form of abuse: the division of the process of conversion into two steps to avoid review, with exterior changes made before a permit is sought under Section 5.22. The elimination of as-of-right conversions should not add significant burden. The as-of-right option was originally added to reduce the load on the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), but the Building Department reports that there are only four or five as-of-right conversions in a typical year.
Second, the ten-year C of O provision would be made applicable to all conversions and additions. Experience has, unfortunately, shown that the “carve-out” for basement conversions was likely ill-advised, particularly since basements are defined under the By-Law and the State Building Code as any space even partially (with no minimum) below grade. Thus, a portion of the building where only one corner is only one foot below grade could be considered a “basement.” Similarly, the extension of the C of O provision to special permits would reduce the incentive to build “unfinished” space and then to argue to the Planning Board and ZBA that “the exterior has already been built, so the harm has already been done.”
Third, although the ten-year C of O provision was approved by the Attorney General in 2005, it is now being challenged in court by a developer. Although the Moderator’s Committee believes that the provision will be upheld, its proposal effectively provides that, if such a limitation is found invalid, conversions would be put on hold until the Town could address the problem. This is designed to ensure that the Town not end up in a situation similar to the one created in 2002, where the By-law was turned on its head and a loophole created by the elimination of an intended limitation without opportunity for further consideration by the Planning Board, the ZBA, the Selectmen or Town Meeting. In the unlikely event that the limitation is declared invalid, the Town should be given the opportunity to determine exactly what form of By-law it wants.
EXISTING ZONING BY-LAW PROVISIONS
§5.22- EXCEPTIONS TO MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS

1. General Provisions

a. Any expanded unit (individual residential units subject to an increase in gross floor area as per this Section) shall not be eligible to be subsequently divided into multiple units.

b. Any expanded unit shall not be occupied by more than two unrelated individuals.
c. Insofar as practicable, the additional floor area allowed pursuant to this Section shall be located and designed so as to minimize the adverse impact on abutting properties and ways, and interior conversions shall be considered preferable to exterior additions.

d. The provisions of this section shall be limited to existing single- or two-family dwellings erected and as configured prior to the adoption of this section.

e. The Board of Appeals may allow for the conversion of attic or basement space not meeting the requirements of paragraph 2 below under the provisions of paragraph 3 below.

2. Conversion of Attic or Basement Space in Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Dwellings

Conversions of attics, cellars, or basements to habitable space for use as part of an existing single- or two-family dwelling, not as a separate dwelling unit, and effectively increasing gross floor area of the dwelling, shall be allowed as-of-right if a Certificate of Occupancy for the original construction and previous conversions or alterations under this section, if any, was granted at least ten years* prior to the date of this application under the following conditions:

* The ten year waiting period shall not apply to conversions to habitable space for basements and/or cellars which meet the other conditions stipulated in Sections 5.22.1 & 2.

a. Any exterior modifications that are made to the structure to accommodate the conversion shall be subject to the façade and sign design review process as provided in §7.06, paragraph 1 of the Zoning Bylaw. No exterior modifications made under the provisions of this subparagraph may project above the ridge of the roof nor project beyond the eves [sic]. Such modifications shall also not conflict with any other provisions of the Zoning Bylaw, including but not limited to the requirements of Article VI, Vehicular Services Use Requirements.

b. The conversion does not result in the existing use of the space being displaced to a location which is now exterior to the house, such as storage of equipment or materials.

c. Any increase in gross floor area through such a conversion shall be limited to 150 percent of the permitted gross floor area.

3. Special Permit for Exceeding Maximum Gross Floor Area for All Other residential Dwellings

a. The Board of Appeals may allow, by special permit, a maximum gross floor area greater than is permitted in Table 5.01 for an existing residential building(s) on a single lot, subject to the procedures, limitations, and conditions specified in §5.09, §9.05, and this paragraph for an existing residential building which meets the following basic requirements:

1) The existing building(s) is located on a lot (or part of a lot) in a district with a permitted maximum floor area ratio no greater than 1.5.

2) The existing building contains at least one residential unit but no more than four units. For the purpose of this paragraph, units shall be defined to include all residential dwellings, offices, and commercial spaces within the building.

The additional floor area allowed by special permit pursuant to this paragraph shall not include the floor area permitted by right under Table 5.01.

b. The maximum increase in floor area allowed by special permit may be allowed only in accordance with the following conditions, which shall be in addition to any other conditions that the Board of Appeals may prescribe. In no case shall the resulting gross floor area of the building(s) be more than 150% of the permitted gross floor area:

1) In all S and SC Districts, a special permit may be granted for an increase in floor area above the permitted gross floor area for only one of the following:

a) an interior conversion not to exceed the permitted gross floor area by more than 30%;

b) an exterior addition not to exceed the permitted gross floor area by more than 20%; or

c) a combination of an interior conversion and exterior addition not to exceed the permitted gross floor area by more than 30% provided that the additional floor area attributable to exterior construction does not exceed 35% of the additional floor area allowed by special permit.

2) In all T Districts, M-0.5, M-1.0, and M-1.5 Districts, a special permit may be granted for an increase in floor area up to 20% above the permitted floor area, whether it be for an exterior addition, interior conversion, or a combination of the two.

3) If the application of the percentages in subparagraphs a. or b. of this paragraph results in a floor area increase less than 350 square feet, a special permit may be granted for an increase in floor area up to 350 square feet provided that the resulting gross floor area of the building(s) is not more than 150% of the permitted gross floor area. A grant of a special permit under either paragraph 3, subparagraph a. or b. shall preclude a subsequent grant of a special permit under this subparagraph.

4) Interior Conversion is defined as the conversion of existing interior space not previously used for human occupancy in areas such as basements, attics, unenclosed porches, or penthouses. [The addition of any other areas] [sic] In determining the appropriate amount of existing interior space to be converted for human occupancy, the Board of Appeals shall consider the extent of exterior modifications required to effectuate the proposed conversion and the impact therefrom on abutting properties.

5) The additional floor area granted pursuant to this Section shall be incorporated into existing residential units and those units shall not subsequently be divided into multiple units.

6) Any expanded unit shall not be occupied by more than two unrelated individuals.

7) Insofar as practicable, the additional floor area allowed pursuant to this Section shall be located and designed so as to minimize the adverse impact on abutting properties and ways, and interior conversions shall be considered preferable to exterior additions.

___________
ARTICLE 30

This resolution is proposed because the residents, students (old and new), and pedestrians who live in and travel through the Gateway East public area needs the support of Town Meeting Members to “get the ball rolling.” Your support would be part of the formula to reach our goals. Implementing the improvements suggested by this warrant article would be the most effective way to beautify the Town, improve safety in Gateway East, and reinforce the importance of healthy family living in this area.

___________
ARTICLE 31

President George W. Bush has repeatedly violated his oath of office by failing to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, in particular by directing and permitting numerous violations of the Constitution and Laws of the United States, and by purposely misleading the citizens of the nation so as to cause the United States to start the war in Iraq. Impeachment is the only remedy for these acts being carried out in the name of all Americans, some of which violate not only American law but also international laws and treaties. This resolution calls upon our representative in Congress to support the impeachment of the President. It also directs the Town Clerk to inform the entire Massachusetts delegation of the resolution.

___________
ARTICLE 32

Any reports from Town Officers and Committees are included under this article in the Combined Reports. Town Meeting action is not required on any of the reports.