Brookline staff present Chestnut Hill commercial-area study; Select Board presses for traffic, fiscal details before filing warrant

Meredith Mooney, Brookline's economic development director, told the Select Board that the Chestnut Hill commercial-area study covers about 27 acres, roughly 60 properties and about 30 storefronts and recommends a special-district overlay to incentivize high-impact commercial development along Route 9.

"We are requesting endorsement of the study recommendations and next steps for implementation," Mooney said, describing a proposed package of three warrant articles: a zoning by-law amendment to create the overlay, and separate articles authorizing a memorandum of agreement and a tax certainty agreement with City Realty, the owner of the Chestnut Hill Office Park.

The overlay would divide the study area into four subdistricts with different height and use rules. In commercial subdistricts staff proposed a minimum commercial-use requirement (51% of gross floor area) and a structure of height bonuses — including a bonus to 14 stories where proposals meet a 60% commercial threshold. The proposal also raises mitigation expectations: staff proposed increasing the standard mitigation from 1% to 2% of hard construction costs and expanding eligible mitigation categories to include public-safety improvements.

Mooney described an illustrative City Realty proposal for the largest site: "there would be 420,000 square feet of commercial space, which would include a 200-room hotel, medical office, and retail space," along with roughly 250 residential units. Staff cited an estimated net new commercial tax growth of about $5,600,000 and estimated mitigation and public benefits in the illustrative package of roughly $24,000,000; those numbers remain subject to negotiation in a final MOA.

Community-advisory-group chair Mike Sandman urged the board to consider the fiscal trade-offs: "Through rezoning Chestnut Hill along Route 9, we can enable increased commercial tax revenue and have mixed use development with additional housing," he said, citing Brookline's long-term reliance on residential property taxes.

Board members pressed staff on key uncertainties. David and others asked whether the advisory group had consensus (staff said it was divided), how the zoning "pencils out" for developers, and why the overlay uses 12–14 story maxima. Mooney and others explained that once projects exceed seven stories there are construction-code and cost thresholds that change delivery economics, and cited EDAB subcommittee analyses and RKG Associates fiscal modeling the town used to test revenue scenarios.

Town counsel Jonathan Simpson told the board that the MOA cannot compel City Realty to build: "Fundamentally, City Realty has the ultimate option to not build the project," he said, noting the town's negotiation focus is on ensuring that any successor owner is bound by tax-certainty terms. Simpson said the tax-certainty agreement the town is negotiating would extend as long as statute allows (the draft term discussed in public was 95 years) and would include provisions to address Attorney General review of any by-law changes.

City Realty representative Cliff Kensington said the firm is committed to participating in the project but will need lenders and partners for a development of this scale: "We will certainly need lenders and potentially equity partners, if not development partners, but it is absolutely our goal to be a part of it and shepherd this through the whole process," he said.

Select Board members asked staff for additional materials and process steps before committing the zoning articles to the warrant. Staff noted the warrant deadline (February 25) and recommended additional technical work — specifically traffic "pressure testing," fuller economic-feasibility detail from the EDAB subcommittee and additional public hearings — so the board can decide in the coming weeks whether to petition the warrant.

Next steps: staff said they will return with traffic-model results, EDAB subcommittee financial analyses and suggested public-hearing dates; no final vote to put the three Chestnut Hill warrant articles on the warrant was taken at this meeting.