Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Governance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbor alleges years of unreviewed outdoor operations; asks town to enforce site‑plan rules

Brookfield Select Board · August 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A nearby resident gave a lengthy critique, alleging the brewery operated outdoor seating and large events without site‑plan review or proper abutter notification and asking the board to refer the matter to the planning board for a formal site‑plan review. The board recorded the complaint in public comment and discussed zoning requirements.

A Brookfield resident told the select board during public comment that neighbors have been raising concerns about brewery operations for more than a year and that the town has not provided satisfactory responses. The resident said they live at 257 Stone Road and described a chronology of complaints and public records requests alleging the absence of site‑plan review and documentation for outdoor seating and a commercial parking area.

"We are also taxpayers for the last 20 years and reside at 257 Stoneham Road... We have been asking the town of Brookfield questions and asking for answers and have been completely stonewalled," the resident said, summarizing a multi‑page list of prior filings, 91‑A requests, and alleged gaps in the town's record. The resident said the brewery added parking, a second well and a separate septic system, and alleged those changes occurred without full planning review.

Board members and the applicant addressed parts of the chronology during the exchange. The applicant said he had sought clarification from the planning board years earlier and that the zoning language at the time allowed certain home‑business activities without site‑plan review; he acknowledged some procedural items were not documented in meeting minutes. The resident pressed the board to require a planning board site‑plan review and to remedy the alleged lack of abutter notice and documentation.

The board considered these public comments in reaching its decision on the application that evening.