The project aims to introduce fully protected bike paths through Washington Square and Brookline Village, a move supporters argue will improve environmental, health, and economic conditions. Tobias Silman, a local high school senior, presented a petition signed by over 140 students advocating for the bike lanes, emphasizing the need for safer routes for cyclists. Silman and others asserted that the enhancements would not only improve safety but also foster a more sustainable community by encouraging cycling over driving.

However, the proposal faced opposition from local business owners concerned about the potential economic impact. Business representatives like Jerry Finigan, owner of the Washington Square Tavern, voiced concerns that reduced parking and outdoor dining spaces would negatively affect their revenue. Finigan noted that outdoor dining accounts for a portion of his business’s income, and removing it could threaten his establishment’s viability. David Gladstone, chair of the Brookline Chamber of Commerce, echoed these sentiments, highlighting the economic pressures already facing businesses, such as increased parking meter fees and rising rents.

The Select Board’s decision to approve the project was not made lightly. It involved discussions and public comments, where both sides of the argument were presented. Proponents like David K from Biking Brookline argued that safer streets could lead to increased business activity by attracting more foot traffic from cyclists. Meanwhile, business owners stressed the need for comprehensive parking studies, arguing that the loss of parking could deter customers.

The board addressed these concerns by proposing several commitments, including conducting a parking study and forming an advisory group comprising residents and local businesses to guide future decisions. This collaborative approach aims to ensure that qualitative insights from stakeholders are considered alongside quantitative data, smoothing the transition for affected businesses and residents.

In addition to the Washington Street project, the meeting also focused on the ongoing redevelopment efforts in the Chestnut Hill area. Discussions emphasized the need for a comprehensive vision rather than responding piecemeal to developer proposals. Concerns were raised about the shift towards residential development at the expense of commercial spaces, which some members feared could undermine the area’s long-term economic vibrancy.

A petition from local residents requested limitations on building heights to four or six stories, raising questions about the financial feasibility of redevelopment under current zoning constraints. The Economic Development Advisory Board concluded that it was not feasible to redevelop the Chestnut Hill site with the existing maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.5.

Members expressed concerns that the town was reacting too heavily to developers’ visions without crafting a holistic strategy that aligns with community goals. This sentiment was mirrored in discussions about the potential impacts of ongoing and future projects on the town’s economic landscape.

In other meeting topics, transportation safety and environmental conservation were also addressed. There were interviews for the transportation board, where candidates emphasized their commitment to enhancing safety and accessibility for all transit users. Discussions also covered the importance of community engagement in planning processes and the role of volunteers in maintaining local resources.

The decisions made during the meeting illustrate the board’s efforts to navigate the challenges of urban development while striving to meet the needs of its residents and businesses.