Unfortunately, your coverage of the debate at Town Meeting misses the mark. First, you repeat the falsehood that the proponents of Article 9 kept repeating, namely that the article is about “allowing some property owners to add an extra unit to their homes.”
The statement is partially true, but it makes the article sound benign, which it clearly was not, and this echoes the disinformation promoted by the proponents. The proposed change would have been much more impactful.
Petitioners gathered signatures on a petition that made these same false claims. Town planning staff cautioned that adding a third unit would accelerate developers buying two-families, demolishing them and rebuilding over-sized luxury properties. The town’s Planning Board supported Article 7 because it would cap the height of homes in the vulnerable two-family districts to 2.5 stories, as a way to prevent demolitions because they recognize the threat of demolition to two-family districts. Town Meeting voted for referral because they wanted a better proposal.
Characterizing the motion to refer to the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee as putting a zoning proposal “on ice” is a disservice to your readers. The Comprehensive Plan is a profound opportunity for Brookline to hear from our residents about their vision for the future, employ professionals to analyze opportunities and impacts for various growth scenarios and to get modern zoning reform.
The writer is a member of the Advisory Committee and a Town Meeting Member representing Precinct 17.
Read the original article, Town Meeting votes to put biggest zoning changes on ice