Below is a letter sent to the fisher hill community of Brookline.  We are having difficultly reaching all of our neighbors and were encouraged to post this letter in this forum.

We have included the original letter at the bottom of this blog.

Dear Fisher Hill Neighbors,

This is a follow-up letter to Gill Fishman's recent email about the
meeting to discuss the Runkle Renovation Project with the Fisher Hill
community on January 12th at Runkle School at 7:00 pm. We encourage
anyone who has an interest in supporting Runkle's needed renovations to
attend this important meeting. Our school is a very important part of
our neighborhood and the education of our children is a deeply personal
issue.

On December 14th The Fisher Hill Association (FHA) board authorized a
payment of $7,500 of FHA funds to pay for certain Dean Road abutters'
opposition to the Runkle Renovation. This decision has generated
significant concern on the part of many Fisher Hill Residents. The FHA
board has stated clearly that the money was solely for the lawyer's fees
associated with stricter interpretation of the FAR rules.

However, several days after the funding was approved by the FHA board,
at a Planning Board Meeting on the project, the Dean Road abutters'
attorney specifically argued to deny the Runkle Project a special permit
for parking, FAR and loading docks, which effectively means cancellation
of the current renovation plan. By contributing any funds to this
effort, the FHA is defacto supporting the Dean Road abutters' campaign
to stop the school's renovation.

Because of concerns and reservations over the merits of the board
action, the FHA board has agreed to withhold payment to the lawyer until
a general meeting can be held on January 12th. We appreciate that the
board has withheld disbursement of these funds and formally ask that the
decision be rescinded.
While the board's interest was related to protecting the neighborhood
from future zoning issues, many people disagree with this decision
because the Runkle project should not be sacrificed as a tool to fight
other potential projects in our vicinity.

Dean road abutters have also repeatedly called for changes to the school
design based on the notion of "harmony". We believe that the Runkle
project is critically necessary and consistent with the needs of our
neighborhood. In addition, the board's theoretical requested design
changes could have significant impact on the project cost and schedule,
will shift the mass of the building to other neighbors and may impact
the Runkle school program. Going back to the drawing board at this point
will significantly risk the timeline and hence the funding of the
school. A community involved process has already occurred.

We are concerned that if the FHA chooses to support the opposing
abutters, it will legitimize their arguments, further the Dean Road
abutters' ability to pursue future legal action against the school
project, and jeopardize the entire renovation. For many of us, this
real possibility looms larger than the potential impact of other
neighborhood projects that can be addressed by the FHA, by our voices
and our funds, as the projects come up.

We are appreciative of the opportunity to discuss the current and future
role of the FHA in the Runkle Renovation Project as a group. We hope
that we can turn this divisive issue around and move the FHA in a more
positive direction. We also hope that you will attend this important
Fisher Hill Association Meeting on January 12 and that you will discuss
the issues at hand and the meeting with your neighbors. If you are
unable to attend due to short notice or potential home or time
conflicts, feel free to email us with a comment or statement. Please
sign the following petition:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fhasupportrunkle/

We have included additional background materials at the end of this
letter for your review prior to the meeting.

Sincerely,
A group of concerned Fisher Hill families

Andrew Bernstein and Jackie Shoback - 262 Clinton Rd.
(abernstein@cymfony.com) Sarah and Kurt Dassel - 327 Clinton Rd.
Chad Ellis and Patricia Blais - 26 Chesham Rd. (chad.ellis@comcast.net)
Melissa and Todd Foley - 78 Dean rd. (foley_melissa@hotmail.com) Jeffery
and Belinda Hunsinger - 219 Fisher Ave. (Jeff@trizad.net) Andrea & John
Keough 25 Fisher Ave George Sopel - 351 Clinton Rd.
(georgesopel@hotmail.com) Anna Thornton and David Locke - 338 Clinton
Rd. (athornton@nltx.com) Dascha Weir and Chandru Krishnan - 204 Clinton
Rd. (dascha@gmail.com) Valerie Godhwani - 252 Clinton Rd (valgodhwani@gmail.com)

************************************************************************
*******************************************
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Runkle School:
As many of you know, Runkle School is in desperate need for expansion
and renovation to accommodate the current student population. On the
Runkle School website, there is a helpful document reviewing the details
of the renovation project
(http://www.runkle.org/wp-content/uploads/Runkle-Building-Talking-Points
-History-FAQs13.pdf).

The Renovation Process:
The Runkle School Building Committee has been meeting since September
2008. These meetings have been open to the public and parents and
neighbors have attended them and given input regularly. There have also
been 3 public meetings that have been well attended by Runkle families
and neighbors. The Design Partnership of Cambridge group, the
architects on the project, came up with several different plans and over
time, with input from the school, parents and neighbors, the committee
decided what was referred to as the "B3" option. These plans can be
reviewed at the following link:
http://www.runkle.org/2009/07/b3sketches/ . It is important to note
that specific abutter concerns, on all sides of the site, were taken
into account. The current plan meets minimum state requirements for size
per student and cannot be made significantly smaller. This plan was
presented to the Massachusetts Building Authority and approved on
September 30th 2009. With that approval, the state has committed to
reimburse the town of Brookline 41% (approximately $12 million) of the
total cost of the project. In November 2009, Town Meeting voted
unanimously to secure the bond (of $29 million) to fund the project.

The FAR Calculation Issue:
As Selectman Dick Benka and Gil have discussed in their emails, an
important issue related to the calculation of FAR has emerged and
fortunately, will likely be resolved at the next Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting. We understand that the interpretation of the calculation of
FAR is an important issue. We too are happy with the town's decision to
seek a special permit for the project and with the explicit statements
of town counsel, Building Commissioner Mike Shepard and the Planning
Board that the issue of calculation should be clarified. We all expect
it will be addressed at the upcoming ZBA meeting on January 14th. It
is certainly possible for the FHA to be vocal and supportive of an
effort to clarify the FAR issue without using the community's financial
stores to fund an argument that goes far beyond this issue. We do not
have to jeopardize the Runkle Renovation and split our community to fix
this issue.

General Harmony:
Now that the FAR issue seems to on the road to clear resolution, the
focus will turn to the issue of general harmony. The standard under the
special permit process is whether the project in question is "necessary
to allow reasonable development" of the use "in general harmony" with
other uses "in the vicinity". This will certainly be a hot-topic at
the FHA meeting on January 12th and at the ZBA meeting on January 14th.
The Planning Board has explicitly stated that special permit requests
into the future will be taken on a case by case basis. The case of a
public elementary school in a critically overcrowded school system is
certainly very different from other potential future educational and
religious projects and it is not clear that this will be precedent
setting for all future 'Dover' expansions in the town of Brookline.
Again, we must be careful of using our children's school and education
to fight future zoning battles.

Dean Road Abutter Design Change Requests:
It is also important to briefly discuss the requested design alterations
that have been proposed by the three Dean Road families in opposition to
the current design plan. There is nothing simple about these requests.
The proposed design changes are based on a previous design (B2) that
were carefully reviewed and seriously considered by the Runkle Building
Committee. After a lengthy review process, with considerable community
involvement, the current plan was accepted over the B2 plan. The
modifications to this plan that have been proposed by the Dean Road
abutters are currently in theory only. The changes involve moving a
large block of rooms (including the library) to another single location
within the building and no actual proposals have been created that
address these challenging changes. It is not at all clear that they
will have no "impact on the Runkle program or teaching spaces in any
major way". The assertion that this will "not cost any more than the
present design" is also false. It would involve a tear down and rebuild
of the current Kindergarten wing because it wasn't designed to bear the
additional weight of a second story. In the current design, the
kindergarten wing does not need to be rebuilt. In order to keep the
project in budget, the committee has already cut features from the
building (such as bleachers for the gym) that cost less than the
estimated additional cost of this tear down. The modified design
proposed by the Dean Road abutters also inherently shifts building mass
to the Chesham side of the project, which will affect neighbors on the
other side of the site. Going back to the drawing board at this stage
in the process for major changes to the design has serious potential
ramifications on both the timeline and the state funding of the project.
A community-involved process has occurred and the current conditions and
limitations that the Dean Road abutters are proposing are untenable.

LETTER FROM GILL:

Thursday Dec 31 2009

Dear Fisher Hill Association member,

In the past two weeks there have been many emails sent around on the
zoning and Runkle issues - unfortunately some have had a less than
positive tone - I hope this email will clear up some of the concerns and
misunderstandings surrounding the FH Board's discussion - and get us all
working together again as good neighbors and even become a stronger
organization.

Please understand that we all do agree on one thing - we ALL want the
Runkle School to be renovated. We ALL want the best school for our
children. I have personally stated this very clearly several times -
including at the most recent November Town Meeting when I spoke in favor
of the funding.

Despite the fact that the Mike Oates's attorney argued to the contrary,
most members of the FHA board recognize and support that the proposed
size of the building and the number of students it will serve is not
going to change significantly.

************************************************************************
************************************************
Announcing that a full Fisher Hill Association Meeting will be held on
January 12 in evening.

In response to several requests, we are putting together a full FHA
meeting and discussion on Runkle School on the evening of Tuesday,
January 12. The time and location of this meeting will be emailed to you
in early January along with an agenda and a proposed format for the
discussion. This will be a good time for the meeting as it is two days
before the Zoning Board of Appeals considers the Special Permit and
begins to discuss "general Harmony."
The purpose of the full FHA Association meeting will be to discuss the
expansion of the Runkle School and to inform the neighbors of actions
taken to date by the Schools, the Planning Board, and the Association
itself. Among topics to be discussed are: what does the zoning concept
of 'general harmony' mean to the FH neighborhood vis a vis the
expansion of the School; and the FH Board's decision last week (prior to
the Planning Board meeting) to contribute to legal expenses to research
and appeal the miscalculation of zoning by-law 5.08 in Runkle School's
recent building permit application.

At this January meeting, all neighbors will have an opportunity to speak
on the issues of Runkle School. This will be a neighborhood meeting to
try to come to consensus in advance of the Zoning board vote.
Information on the time and location will be forwarded to you as it is
available - but we are hoping for 7 pm at Runkle.

************************************************************************
************************************************

But, prior to the meeting, let me try to clear up a few points that will
be at the heart of the discussion that night:

Dec 14th FH Board Meeting
As mentioned in the email that went out to the Board PRIOR to the
meeting and which explained the reasons for the meeting, there were
three separate but related issues to be discussed that night:

Issue 1. Calculation of FAR (Floor Area Ratio) based on the zoning
bylaws - and its misinterpretation by the Town - and the potential
catastrophic implications for ALL of Brookline if that misinterpretation
wasn't corrected - please note that this was the ONLY issue for which
the FH Board approved funding for legal/attorney expenses.
In the opinion of many of us, it was this very thorough legal research
-and the subsequent legal brief presented to Town administration -- that
made the difference. It appears as though the Town will support the
proper FAR calculation method ( the 'multiplication' method that Mike
Oates had researched and argued for (vs. the invalid 'addition' method
that the Town had originally claimed was an alternative method)) - and
that the Planning Board will recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals
that a Special Permit is needed for the construction of the school to
proceed - rather than proceed 'as of right' without a Special Permit.

On Dec 18, Selectman Dick Benka sent the below e-mail to the Fisher Hill
Association Board of Directors and neighborhood parents - and he wanted
all concerned to see it - so with his permission I include it here also.
It explains the critical nature of the FAR issue as a separate one from
the Runkle School FAR and design

As I mentioned, in fact, at the Dec 17 PB hearing, Town counsel and the
Bldg Commissioner Mike Shepard both stated that they will now employ
only the 'multiplication' as the proper method of FAR calculation - and
will recommend that the ZBA concur with this decision. Assuming the ZBA
follows through on this decision and agrees and the law is thereby
clarified and supported, we have no intention to ask the board or the
members of the association to fund any further legal action associated
with the rebuilding and expansion of Runkle.

And several members of the board have since discussed not disbursing any
funds to the attorney until after the neighborhood meeting on January 12
and until the board reconvenes to again confirm that this was fully
discussed and duly voted by the Board.

Issue 2. Proposed Design of Runkle School and abutters and neighbors'
issues - while we touched on this issue only briefly, the FH Board did
NOT allocate any funding for the legal work on this issue.

Issue 3. Proposed LDS Mormon church on Rt 9 - the FH Board did NOT
allocate any funding for the legal work on this issue.

So, unless the ZBA does an unexpected about face, this FAR calculation
issue is now resolved.

Why was it so important to Fix the calculation/interpretation of 'Zoning
bylaw 5.08 FAR calculation' ?

1. It protects and benefits the entire town and every neighborhood by
limiting the size of new developments to reasonable ones according to
our long-standing zoning bylaws.
2. In fact, it strengthens the case for the school legally - and
removes any possible future confusion or risk of legal challenges on
FAR.

The affirmation of the correct FAR method confirms the need for a
Special Permit for the Runkle School expansion - it must be noted that
until Dec 1, the Town was proceeding without the Special Permit request.
I would like to point out that in such zoning situations it is ONLY an
abutter 'with standing' that can make a legal claim to the Building Dept
or the Zoning Board. That was true on Longyear; is now true on the LDS
Mormon Church site. In this case, Mike Oates decided that he would be
that person to thus 'speak' for the abutters and their concerns about
#1/ the larger, overriding FAR issue - and then #2/the size, height,
scale and bulk of the proposed gymnasium portion of the renovation
design.

General Harmony zoning issue
The town should NOW turn its attention to the long-standing zoning
'general harmony' clause.

With the rebuilding of Runkle as now proposed, it will become the
densest school by far in town. Because the issue of FAR 5.08 WAS NOT
ADDRESSED UNTIL DEC. 17 when the Town agreed to apply for a special
permit, many on the FHA Board believed that the building was being
designed as if the Town had an as-of right to build it at the size/scope
proposed - this concept having major adverse legal consequences if it
were wrong (as it was).

Several Town Meeting members have requested that the 'opposing' parties
talk to resolve their differences, but no compromise has been reached to
date. The three Dean Road families have requested what seem to be simple
changes to the design which we are told will:

1/ dramatically improve the impact on their homes by lowering the now
4-5 story gym wing and making its height and scale more in harmony with
the direct neighborhood 2/ yet will NOT impact the Runkle program or
teaching spaces in any major way, 3/ will NOT hurt any other neighbor -
4/ and will NOT cost any more than the present design.

Mitigations made in support of the 'general harmony' clause of the
special permit are critical here. In fact, by its actions the town will
be redefining the notion of general harmony if it simply approves Runkle
as it is currently designed - and that could be a serious mistake for
all of us - the definition could become too broad and therefore lose all
effectiveness. It is conceded that the proposed Runkle is 54% over
'allowed' zoning, and what is done here will be used as precedent in all
future 'Dover' expansions, including the Mormon Church, our good
neighbors at Newbury College, Maimonides, Pine Manor, Boston University,
etc etc etc (there are 100 sites in Brookline that are potentially
affected) despite claims that future expansions will be granted relief
on a case-by-case basis.

So, this issue must also be handled carefully and properly to insure
that future developments throughout Brookline are consistent with EVERY
Brookline neighborhood's context and zoning.

************************************************************************
************************************************
FHA Board membership
The Fisher Hill Association exists as a community outreach to bring
folks together, and to protect our neighbors and neighborhood in zoning
and other issues. Runkle School should not divide us, we must work
together. The issues around Runkle are complicated but the fixes are
not.
We have recently received a few suggestions that the membership of the
FHA board does not represent the younger neighborhood population with
school aged children. Let me remind you that each year when we write an
annual report to the neighborhood and solicit dues, we ask everyone in
the Association to consider joining the board and/or becoming active in
one or more neighborhood issues. For as far back as I can remember,
every single Runkle parent who has expressed interest in joining the
board has been invited to do so.

We hope you will attend the Fisher Hill Association meeting on JANUARY
12 - and encourage your member neighbors to attend - AND HELP EVERYONE
TO COME TOGETHER TO FIND A GOOD SOLUTION THAT WILL BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE
ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS ON
JANUARY 14 - SO THAT THE SCHOOL CAN PROCEED ASAP.

I hope this thorough explanation - and Selectman Benka's email (below) -
have been helpful in explaining the issues and our intent.

I welcome your positive input - as does each member of the Board.

Best wishes for the Holidays.

Gill Fishman
President, FHA

**********************
Selectman Benka's email
**********************
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Benka [mailto:rcvben@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 5:59 PM
To:......

Subject: Use of my name

Hello all,

I've recently received a copy of an e-mail that inserted my name and
comments I made to the November Town Meeting into a dispute about the
Fisher Hill Association's decision to fund legal counsel for Mr. Oates
in connection with the Runkle School matter. Let me make clear what my
comments were.

My comments to Town Meeting focused on a procedural point. It appears
that the Runkle matter may lead to litigation, and if that occurs the
Board of Selectmen (along with the School Committee) will likely have to
authorize the expenditure of hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of
dollars to keep the Project on track prior to such litigation being
resolved. I stated that it will be critical for the Zoning Board of
Appeals, which must authorize the Project, to articulate fully the
reasons for any decision based on a thorough presentation by the School
Department. Assuming approval by the ZBA, careful preparation and
thoughtful arguments will result in a stronger ZBA decision, more likely
to be upheld on appeal in court, which will in turn advance the Project
and allow the Selectmen and School Committee to proceed more confidently
when we have to decide whether to put substantial funds at risk. I
reiterated essentially the same point at the Planning Board hearing on
December 17.

With regard to the substance of the zoning questions, Town Counsel's
Office, now representing the School Department in this matter, has
publicly recognized that the Building Commissioner likely erred when he
in good faith initially interpreted our Zoning By-Law to allow the
Runkle Project "as of right." This is an appropriate concession by Town
Counsel that will in fact ultimately minimize the risks for the Project.
Continued reliance on the Commissioner's "as of right" calculations
actually would have posed the greatest threat to the Project, by linking
the Project to an interpretation of the Zoning By-Law totally at odds
with precedent and thus easily reversed by a court.

Town Counsel's position will also help to protect neighborhoods across
Town, including Fisher Hill, from potentially intrusive and oversized
"as of right" developments and will allow the Runkle Project to proceed
via a special permit from the ZBA, as explicitly allowed by our Zoning
By-Law. The standard under the special permit process is whether the
specific proposed project is "necessary to allow reasonable development"
of the school use "in general harmony" with other uses "in the
vicinity." The Planning Board voted on December 17 to recommend that
the ZBA approve a special permit for the Project.

Let me make clear that I first heard about the decision of the FHA to
fund counsel when I received copies of the e-mail exchanges. Let me
also make clear that I strongly disagree with the argument made by Mr.
Oates' counsel at the Planning Board hearing that the Project should be
limited to the much, much smaller size actually allowed by a proper "as
of right" calculation. I did not hear that extreme argument from anybody
else (including FHA representatives) at the hearing. Rather, while
concerns were appropriately expressed about the Commissioner's initial
"as of right" methodology, virtually everyone recognized that our Zoning
By-Law affords a special permit process that provides the proper route
for a larger development. The applicability of that special permit
process has been agreed to by both Town Counsel and the School
Department and is the basis of the Planning Board's recommendation. The
Board of Selectmen cannot issue a "mandate," but I trust that the School
Department (now represented by Town Counsel) and the ZBA will address
the application of the special permit standard to the Runkle Project in
a careful and thorough fashion, yielding a decision that will withstand
any appeal.

Please feel free to call me (617-277-6102 - leave a message if
necessary) if you have any further questions. If the original e-mails
have been sent to a wider distribution list, kindly forward this e-mail
to that wider list.

Thank you, and best wishes to all for the holidays,

Selectman Dick Benka