Petitioners urge Select Board to support reasonable‑accommodation bylaw after litigation; town counsel favors policy workup

A petition to create a town bylaw governing requests for ‘‘reasonable accommodation’’ under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the federal Fair Housing Act led to a prolonged and technical discussion at the Select Board meeting on April 15.

Petitioner Don Oates related his family’s years‑long effort to obtain a vertical lift for their house for their daughter and recounted court litigation and repeated procedural delays. Oates said Brookline’s current ad hoc process compels public disclosure, invites neighborhood opposition, chills participation and, in practice, forced his family to abandon a court battle when litigation risk would have exposed his child’s private medical records.

Oates presented a draft bylaw that would assign initial decision authority to the building commissioner, require a written decision within 30 days (pauses permitted while awaiting applicant responses), preserve confidentiality of medical records, and set clear criteria drawing on federal law — that an accommodation must be necessary to make housing available to a person with a disability, must not impose undue financial or administrative burden on the town, and must not fundamentally alter the town’s land‑use program. The petition also proposes an expedited pathway for emergency requests and a discrete appeal route.

Attorney Paul Connors (Anderson & Kreiger) reviewed the bylaw’s structure and said it was modeled on Brookline’s administrative review provisions for Dover‑protected uses, with procedural safeguards and a 30‑day target. He said HUD and Department of Justice guidance suggest prompt decisions and that a delayed accommodation is effectively a denial.

Town counsel John Bucheit explained the town’s parallel effort: an administrative reasonable‑accommodation policy that Town Counsel’s Office circulated for comment and has submitted for review to the Massachusetts Office on Disability and to the Attorney General’s civil rights reviewer. Bucheit said the town staff is revising the policy in response to outside input and Attorney General review. He cautioned that in some court rulings petitioners and judges had suggested a bylaw may offer more legal certainty than an internal policy, but he told the board the town believes a carefully drafted policy can achieve compliance. He said the town would continue to consult state disability officials and to revise the policy accordingly.

Petitioners and the town’s disability commission said a bylaw is preferable and that open public hearings on accommodation requests are inconsistent with state Attorney General guidance and federal disability law. The Commission on Disability’s director, Sarah, told the board the commission had been consulted earlier and found the accommodation request lawful; she said public meetings to decide individual accommodations are harmful and that experts in ADA law should be involved in any review.

The board did not vote on the article; the hearing record closes and the article will appear on the Town Meeting warrant. Petitioners urged the Select Board to recommend favorable action so that a bylaw — rather than only an administrative policy — becomes available. Town counsel asked for time to complete Attorney General and state disability office review of the draft policy; petitioners said they feared another two‑year delay if the town continued to rely on policy rather than a bylaw.

Select Board members asked for clarifications on timing and whether a policy could include consultation with the Disability Commission and planning staff; petitioners said they welcome that input so long as the process preserves confidentiality and avoids public‑meeting review of individual accommodation requests.