Brattleboro Special Select Board Meeting - December 22, 2025

The Brattleboro Select Board convened a special meeting on December 22, 2025, to discuss an interim zoning bylaw proposal that would reclassify "social services or charitable assistance" from a permitted use to a conditional use in several central zoning districts. The meeting followed a public hearing where planning staff presented the regulatory framework, and 28 members of the public offered testimony. While support was expressed regarding the need for orderly land use and community safety, significant opposition was raised concerning the bypassing of the Planning Commission, the timing of the meeting during the holidays, the use of the "emergency" classification, and concerns that the policy disproportionately targets the specific organization 69A while imposing undue burdens on social service providers.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The Select Board unanimously approved the minutes from the December 2, 2025, meeting (5-0).
• Errors and Omissions Certificate: The Select Board unanimously approved the consent agenda to file the errors and omissions certificate to the state for the grand list (5-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Opposition to Process and Timing: Multiple speakers (Abby Manukin, Marta Gossage, Gemma Seymour, Alex Fisher, Fred Brunig, Kate Traskis, and others) expressed strong opposition to the procedure, noting that the Planning Commission requested a deferment until January 2026, which the Select Board proceeded to ignore. Several speakers described the scheduling of a special meeting during the Christmas/Hanukkah holiday week as inappropriate and "mean-spirited."
• Perceived Targeting of 69A: Many speakers (Robin Morgan, Alan Schwartz, Red Durkin, Bob Oser, John King, and others) argued that despite claims that the bylaw is not directed at one entity, the "emergency" was triggered specifically by complaints regarding 69A. They expressed concern that this broadens a specific issue into a blanket restriction on all similar uses.
• Arguments Against Zoning Restrictions: Speakers including Andy Davis, Sue Belleville (opposition to restrictions), Diana Cluett, and Mae Morris argued that social service organizations are vital, and that adding conditional use hurdles creates excessive bureaucracy, cost, and uncertainty for already resource-strained nonprofits. They emphasized that the core issue is homelessness and addiction, which zoning cannot solve.
• Support for Conditional Use Review: Speakers including Sue Phillips (Board Chair), Peter (Board Member), and Gemma (District 8 Rep) argued that the change is necessary to ensure organizations can operate harmoniously with neighbors, citing a high volume of complaints (137 total, 92 police calls) and a lack of cooperative engagement from the specific organization in question. They stressed this applies to all social services, not just one, to ensure good neighborliness and safety.
• Clarification on Status of 69A: Caitlin Bacombe of 69A submitted a written statement and had another read, clarifying that 69A is a community art space (LLC, not a 501(c)(3)) and a "third space" for social practice, not officially a social assistance agency, though it serves many homeless neighbors. She argued the organization has been misrepresented as a charity.
• Planning Commission Position: Tom Mossakowski, Chair of the Planning Commission, voiced concern that the process was rushed and recommended deferring the decision to allow them to review the amendment properly in January 2026.

Discussion Items

• Regulatory Explanation: Town Planner presented that the bylaw would move "social services or charitable assistance" (defined as establishments providing social assistance directly to individuals, excluding residential services) from permitted to conditional use in Urban Center, Village Center, Neighborhood Center, Mixed-Use, and Institutional districts. This requires Development Review Board (DRB) approval based on criteria such as compatibility, character of the area, traffic, and safety.
• Enforcement and Exceptions: The Board and staff clarified that existing permitted uses are grandfathered unless they move locations, but new applications would require conditional use permits. Town Attorney and Planning Staff confirmed the Select Board has the legal authority under 24 VSA § 4415 to adopt interim zoning without Planning Commission approval, though they noted the Planning Commission is typically consulted.
• Proposed Substitute Motion (Table): Isaac Evans Franz moved a substitute motion to "defer action" on the interim bylaw until after the Planning Commission reviews it in January and after Town Meeting. The Chair ruled this was a motion to table. Isaac argued this was necessary to respect the Planning Commission's process and community sentiment. Board Members Oscar and Amanda supported the main motion; Isaac and Peter initially expressed hesitation but ultimately voted against the table motion to proceed with the vote on the bylaw.
• Procedural Debate: A debate ensued regarding the definition of "social service," the specificity of the "character" criteria in the zoning bylaws, and whether the Select Board bypassed proper protocol by not deferring to the Planning Commission.

Key Outcomes

• Adoption of Interim Bylaw: The Select Board voted 3 to 2 to adopt the interim zoning bylaw reclassifying "social services or charitable assistance" from a permitted use to a conditional use in the specified zoning districts.
  • Votes in Favor: Amanda, Peter, Sue.
  • Votes Against: Oscar, Isaac.
• Motion to Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned unanimously (5-0) following comments regarding the uncomfortable temperature in the meeting room and apologies for the conditions.
• Next Steps: The interim bylaw is in effect immediately (with a 150-day window for applications to be processed under new rules), pending potential formal adoption or further review. 69A and other potential applicants in the urban center district are now required to seek conditional use permits if they move or establish new locations in these districts. The Planning Commission may still review the matter in January despite the vote.