[Music] f good evening and welcome to the 33rd
meeting of fiscal year 2025 for the Milton planning board I would like to Now call the meeting to order and thank all of you who have been waiting on Zoom we appreciate it and in the public um as well we had a just a few technical difficulties so but here we are
um I'd like to introduce first uh the board um if You' like to begin introducing yourself sure Cheryl Taya secretary mag yeld field member Jim Davis member and Meredith Hall serving with as chair Sean fahe cannot be with us this evening um and on Zoom we have
our staff Cheyenne Cheyenne Fraser assistant director of planning and Julia Julia getman clerk great thank you um we can now begin with the ad administrative items um we have two sets of minutes to
approve uh from the 3rd and the 13th um if EV if I would somebody would like to make a motion to approve those minutes I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from March 3rd and March 13
2025 second okay all in favor I here okay hi sorry that's all right um in discussion of our next um meeting dates um we have um we've added an one extra
meeting on this on April 7th um at 7M and that is just to follow up um if there are things on the plans that util presents tonight to dedicate um in evening to to MBTA that night and then
we have our next regularly scheduled meeting on the 10th um and those are the um next two meetings that will be coming up um now we can have Cheyenne our staff update so one of the first updates was
directly to the board I had sent out um an email for a s sidewalk at the Ice House on the fifth that's going to be with the trustees of the affordable housing trust and with the select board just to view those affordable units um we should be getting Lottery information
soon to be putting on our website and you know other web pages so that's one of the upcoming items um another item is we have our own public forum coming up on the 17 and we went ahead and made a flyer
for that so I just wanted to share it with the board to see if they had any uh questions comments edits before we go ahead and get that um marketed to everybody yeah cheyen did a great job uh working this up and just wanted to um
let the board take a look to see if there was any information um that anyone would want to add looks very nice and where will this get I know you said the Milton times cheyen and where else will this get um well we'll send this out to Milton times
Milton scene um I believe we're going to post it on the town website our social media pages and I believe we'll also send it to um the Facebook pages so like everything Milton and East Milton neighborhood association just to get it
kind of on all platforms great that's terrific does that look good to everybody yep so with the Ice House site walk I don't know if I can make it but if more than three of us show up I mean if I show up last minute do we have to
post it is that a problem yeah I think we should yeah I already posted an agenda just in case anybody decided to show up last minute so everybody's good to come or not come great thank you perfect no problem and I think that's all of my updates for
now great cheen thank you so much that looks great all right um so following this um we I don't know if we have any we didn't have citizens speak on here but um I
just I wanted to let people know that if there's something on the agenda um you're certainly welcome to speak um at any of on any of those items um um from the public so um so we now we get moved to um our
presentation from the Blue Hills yes if you'd like to join us I'm Russ yeah if you'd like to pull up a seat and sit right down yeah and pull up a microphone so you can people folks on Zoom can hear
you clearly great um Cheyenne could you load the presentation is it up on the screen yeah yep just to just go to uh slideshow there we go so my name is Russ Parkman I'm a trustee at large for
friends of Blue Hills a nonprofit organization I've been a trustee for about two years um a board member for about two years and I joined you know because the love of Blue Hills and to help support the DCR Blue Hills have been very important
to me and my family for uh decades and it's by way of um you know contributing back to this unique area around Boston which has uh you know just I think everybody here is familiar with great blue hill and what a great you know Vista we have at the top and all the
great hiking trails um but um you know to maybe make everybody uh more educated about what friends of Blue Hills does uh I thought I'd give this presentation and appreciate the opportunity to speak in
front of the town of Milton and the planning board itself so the first friends of Blue Hills formed in the 1970s um and we're in support of DCR the reservation it's about 7,000 Acres uh is owned by the state of massachusett it's
and managed by DCR and DCR um of course doesn't have you know that many resources and so this volunteer nonprofit organization was formed to help protect and support the DCR and maintaining trails and trash cleanup and
uh other advocacy issues um for 40 years France Blue Hills has engaged public in activities protect the park by preventing encroachments increasing Park resources and improving Park management next slide
please uh so what is our mission uh you know we started in the 70s um and we were pretty small you know for a long time uh recently now we have over a thousand members um really you know different
from Mass aabon or the trustees uh friends of Blue Hills of course doesn't limit access access to the Blue Hills uh mass autobond and DCR you cannot access their property um unless you have paid their membership
fee right their hiking trails so you know we understand that we understand that our members really be are doing this as an act of gratitude to help support and maintain the park because um it doesn't um they can go hiking there
anytime they don't need us right um so what we do is we we're trying to help preserve the natural beauty diverse habitat recreational opportunities um we're an advocate we guide enthusiasts we encourage
involvement protection and preservation and we work with the DCR to maintain the quality of the reservation and provide public input the DCR has limited staff and so when you go out in the trails and you see how clean they are and how maintained mostly is because of friends
of BS and the volunteers that help us we have corporations that come out coordinate through us and build Bridges maintain Trails build boardwalks um all this uh the board itself is entirely volunteer working
board and um you know we have a lot more impact than a lot of people recognize um we don't really advertise that much you w see our signs necessarily out there I'm trying to get some signs out there to get a little bit more recogn
recognition so that people just don't think it's DCR land uh but we do a lot for the park next slide please uh right now we have 11 volunteer board members for paid staff our board president Matt Panucci he is stepping
down in April and we're going to elect a new president we don't know who that is excuse me mat has been great he's been a good um person I know everybody here probably knows Matt uh we've worked with Ron Israel with the Milton climate
action change committee I've worked with Ron as well on that and so we are a big partner with Milton itself we have a relatively new executive director Jen Klein she comes over from the trustees I don't know if you've got a chance to meet her or talk with her but she's
fantastic she we love Judy Judy was great uh executive director for 18 years but Jen brings a little bit different energy and has expanded our influence um you know meeting with more State reps
and more corporations and uh other communities uh to help expand our our visibility and our influence for protecting Blue Hills and of course we have hundreds of volunteers we uh our best volunteer event is always the
monthly Trail maintenance we get people out there because it's physical and they can actually see what they're doing but we also have other volunteers that help out with mailings advocacy um reviewing for example planning board meeting minutes to see if
there's any development that might be coming up so we have a lot of volunteers that participate in ways that might not be visible to everybody next slide so what do we do besides you know cleanup Trails well we do advocacy like on the committee chair for the advocacy
group um stewardship and education we run educational programs for little kids and uh we have uh many hikes and many um events that we participate in and try
to educate uh as well as um meet with other groups like for example we have running groups out there uh Trail animals running club um where we promote you know they want to run and the trails great but then we also try to Institute
something like let's get some trash pickup or let's protect let's not leave caution tape everywhere so you can mark the trails try to make sure that uh these activities are done in a responsible manner next slide uh and then this is something that
um you know I chaired and uh it's part of the advocacy group is we did what we called a buffer study and uh we commissioned this about two years ago and what we did was we looked at all the private property
Parcels that abutted um DCR the 7,000 acre reservation and we wanted to know you know what's under under potential development where could development be
um adversary to Blue Hills where could we work with people such as planning boards to um create responsible development we understand property will be developed it's part of the your zoning bylaws um but if there's a chance
and I'll give you an example in a little bit you know we would like to have some influence and some say or be able to review at least some of the development which might impact it um next slide please so you can see here uh as far as
Milton's concerned there's the town boundary and you can see the properties and these properties we had a consultant come in and put a risk assessment on individual properties um of course this information is public but I don't we're not bringing
up property names or people who own these properties the um the darker the color um the more risk there is to a type of development that might be adversary or impact the Blue Hills to a greater
extent um and so you know what I've instituted in in the advocacy committee is uh someone to look at the planning board website uh planning board meeting minutes agenda as well as Conservation Commission and if there's a property
that comes up that said hey we want to develop this into you know a new private school or uh something else uh we went have the opportunity to look at the plans and then maybe suggest some [Music]
um activities or or buffers or something uh that could uh benefit the DCR land and Blue Hills so to give you an example of something where you know this is pretty new in the town of Randolph I did
this similar presentation to them um we learned through a newspaper that right next to DCR property they're putting in a crane company with uh 60 foot high cranes and they're going to do maintenance on cranes and uh if we' have caught that earlier we could have worked
with them to maybe give us a 50 foot buffer with Evergreens that's really all we wanted we understand it can be developed this might have provided a better visual barrier than an eight foot high privacy fence right which didn't do anything I mean luckily the financing
for the crane company I think fell through and so we're not going to have that there but that's an activity that I'm trying to help protect uh for the Blue Hills so that's just my personal thing I'm doing right now with the Blue Hills next
slide so you know why is this you know why am I presenting here tonight really it's collaboration between Milton friend of Blue Hills and DCR we want to work with you we want to understand if there's something that comes up and you can have a you have a concern you're
like why why might this be of importance to the DCR and Friends of Blue Hills you can contact me anytime you can contact Jen Klein anytime um you know I know Milton's going through quite a lot right now with the planning board but uh you know just to
keep it in the back of your mind uh we want to understand your town needs and how that fits in with protecting the reservation and gather ining Community Support most of our members probably no surprise to anybody here and most of our donors are from Milton so Milton's been
very generous to us so this is why you know this is important to present and you express our gratitude and thanks to the town of Milton as well continue working with you so that's it that's great yeah it's been a nice I think a collaboration I
know two of the CPC projects um that were recently approved one for the observatory and for the Pavilion um are being funded um by Milton yeah the town and and it's it's a um it's a great
great working relationship I think um yeah to continue to you know I think it is and again you know Milton people from Milton are our biggest supporter and uh so you know we appreciate you know everything the town does and we look forward to continuing working with you
um specifically you know with any development planning issues um I don't know where you are with your rezoning or are you doing a 10-year uh review of zoning regulations we're up to our eyeballs in
NBTA Zone ad bylaw I before that came up your your previous uh your predecessor to Cheyenne was um maybe a couple years ago Tim yeah uh was talking about um you know re um looking looking looking yeah at the resoning map but I know you guys
are up to your eyeballs and next year probably yeah one thing we are updating is our open space and Recreation plan where we're identifying all of our all of our Parcels in Milton of what is conservation land what is DCR what is Trustees of reservation looking at
opportunities to um to add more conservation when we can um it's always something that I think um we're mindful of as we as we balance the development smart smart growth um we also balance it with with keeping in mind we do want to
maintain our Open Spaces if possible and we feel very fortunate to have the Blue Hills in Milton yeah thank you and when you get to that point you know I'm sure that um we would love to be able to work with you on that y that's great I appreciate your Outreach and um the
presentation tonight uh so thank you for coming thank you for uh indulging me great right how we touch with you or how do I get in touch with Friends of the Blue Hills cheyen has my email and then can also send Cheyenne uh Jen Klein okay
she' be the point person executive director uh she she does she has meetings with you know state representatives who represent Milton all the time that I'm not privy to uh because I'm part of a you know I'm not part of what she's doing on on that part
but either one you know um will be you know we'll get the word out and and what's the best way if you want to become en join the friends of the Blue Hills if for residents who are watch watching who maybe didn't know that this organization exists and can help out so if you go on the website I don't know if
I put the website back up there in the beginning but it's friends of bluehills.org there you go and there's a um a volunteer page as well as a membership page and you can set up your donations
right on the membership page you can look most people find out about Trail maintenance volunteer on the calendar and then they can sign up online to do that so either of those ways are a great way to be introduced uh to friends of
Blue Hills just the last question I have is I've noticed and and this is not the Blue Hills and it's not because the friends of the Blue Hills are not doing enough work but the trash along 138 is so unbelievable um right now it's it's
an embarrassment to the state I think and that is a that's a state road um are you able to Advocate I don't I feel like the friends of the Blue Hills should not be responsible necessarily for that it should be um the state so any advocacy
on um that that portion along the Blue Hills on 138 it's it's really um an embarrassment as you enter into Milton and it's not again on you but I think coming your voice and saying you know
this is our Blue Hills and this is what it looks like um yeah that's important to us you know we uh people are throwing trash onto DCR land yeah I mean our you know our focus of course is the 125 miles of trails right um making sure dog
waste isn't baggies aren't left there those are everywhere is amazingly clean considering it is how many people use it uh so I'm pretty proud of that but the 138 issue where people throwing plastic bottles and and whatever they're
throwing off to the side is not great it's not great period And even the offering you know coming off the ramp into you know onto 138 it's just it's really um I hope it's as all of us can bring you know our our officials our
reps and Senators can um can really uh draw Focus to that so okay good thank you all right thank you much thanks so much great okay um okay so we now um
next next we have our anr 560 Harland Street if you'd like to come and join us thank you thank you Nicholas pelli great and if you could just yes yes say it into the microphone yeah just Nicholas Petrelli great good welcome
thank you so you have an application if you want to just tell us sort of I have an application in for U A change in lot line um it's about 210 to 230 square feet um at the back far corner of
560 that uh the neighbor is willing to exchange with me for some consideration probably next to nothing we're friends we're not creating anything we're just squaring off the lot
and that's really it just a it's a 71 by I think 30 or 73 by 30 little Cube that's it it was interesting do you know why the lot was drawn that way was
there some intention on when that those lots were separated when I bought the property I thought the the cube went the other way and that that's my own mistake but um anyways
um when the gentleman out back built his home they had a survey done and I was surprised to see that you know the lot line intruded and it's it's just it's only intrudes by 30 feet it it is strange um
I I didn't expect it and it was a surprise and we agreed to just take care of it and be friends so that's great that's really it's not creating any additional Lots or taking away from a lot or creating any extra Frontage or
there there's no benefit to either property other than the lot is squared off and that's it it's wooded you know it's just privacy little privacy area to plock the neighbor that's all and does it does it
give you two acres does it give you two full Acres no you don't get to two acres by doing this 1.34 something it's only 1.86 so I guess yeah that wouldn't be enough it's 28 200 2100 square feet I see yeah 7 1.81 I'm yeah
it's it's like a little yeah C but it just intrudes I get it so anyone else have any and Cheyenne did the checklist she provided the checklist so it met all the
um all the um checked all the boxes for the application so she didn't flag anything that was um yeah I didn't see outstanding so right yeah I'm good so I would entertain a motion
then to approve the anr application so uh I'll make a motion to endorse the plan is not requiring subdivision approval for 560 and 572 Harland
street is there a second second second all in favor I thank you thank you very much appreciate it for coming thank you that's it wait for something in the mail or yes you have I think you dropped the myar the myar is off everything's been
dropped off everything's in the office yes so it'll go yeah um it'll go out or do I need to come in yeah um Cheyenne yes will you need we have the myar so I can connect with him in the morning oh well Monday um when I'm back
in the office but we have the myar we can get everything settled up with the clerk and I think he takes it to the registry of deeds when it's all said and done correct okay great well thank you yeah we'll be in touch if there's anything you thank you so much y can I
just ask a question is there a lawyer associated with this transaction I do have a councel um J Allen and I'm G to ask her to handle it okay yeah it's unusual for um the
applicant to submit anr plan without Council um um dealing with it so okay um can you email Jen Allen the contact information to Cheyenne sure I have your card
I stopped in the office and got your card the other day okay thank you okay that's great great guys thank you have a pleasant evening you
too okay so now um we can um oh we just just have our a quick discussion um on the um vote the final vote on the zoning articles for Maytown meeting the site plan approval and accessory dwelling
unit bylaw um will be for the Maytown meeting um just so folks know this um Nick has asked that we move not both the overlay East Milton overlay and the flood plane to the June tell meeting so we only have these two moving forward um
when Maggie Cheryl and myself went to the warrant committee there were just three items that the warrant committee we we discussed maybe having U Peter Melo look at the language on those which I did send to them they've all been sent to you there's three small um just minor
um little changes that I just wanted the board to be able to approve tonight Cheyenne if you could pull that up um if you want to do the site plan maybe first or ad it doesn't really matter um well I had a quick comment on
the Adu um I was talking to Nick earlier and just for uh keeping the document clean we're thinking we want to put in a section name if you guys wanted to just so that it's helpful for the Town Clerk and then eventually when it gets passed
the town can then stick it where they believe is right right now we're thinking we're going to make it section 275 3.23 in the use regulation section um so we just wanted to run that bu you before we did
that wait can you repeat that cheen I'm she wants to put a section number on it right yeah okay sorry I was having trouble hearing okay so right here we'll make it section 275
d323 um under use regulation okay and Peter Melo was comfortable with doing that to I believe he talked to Peter but I only talked to Nick about that okay we'll finalize that that
I that's without the code book in front of me to see where it falls in place I don't really know what I'm approving but um if Nick some you got to trust Nick that he's goingon to be able to put this in the right spot I guess we're going to be putting it right after the special
permit memory care so it'll be 3.23 because this says by striking section 3.2 comma subsection a paragraph 6 and inserting the following and then it says the section yeah so yeah if you go
Department you go to the I also find it to navigate you have to go to the clerk's section to get to the electronic B zoning bylaw which I don't think is intuitive for folks to
find um yeah this zoning bylaw the zoning bylaw yeah I got it from our web page right but well okay you got it from the planning department web page yeah
planning board okay um so section it would be adding right after other uses so sorry um yes yeah so it's up on the screen you've got okay that's yeah can you enlarge that so we can sure see what
that change would look like so it would just be a placeholder for the warrant so going into the warrant it would just be a placeholder for 275 3.23 but um we're going to let the clerk eventually pick where it actually goes
but we just needed a spot to put it for now so where we put it now might not be the final spot after town meeting yes so then why are we identifying it now then just leave it to the clerk
okay oh that's just a question yeah it was a question I don't want to oh was a question oh I was like whatever you guys want it's fine well it seems to make sense here to start with because it has this is where landscaping business use
medical marijuana um the memory care so it is relate is tied to uses here so I can see why it's suggested to be put there but isn't this a do Amendment use so shouldn't it
be where the do Amendment starts well what where are you looking at I'm just I'm I'm not I wish I had brought my little binder that I got the first day I became a planning board because I would think it would be with the Dober amendment I do use it Julia I use that
thing um that way we just find out exactly where it goes you know I because if it were me let me see under a protected use Cheyenne that's what I'm right um yeah that makes sense so on yeah he just mentioned that
it would be recommended that it would be a new section in use regulations and then we just put it as the 3.23 as a placeholder and then after a town meeting the clerk and the people who run the website in the
booring they would put it where it would actually go I think we should or we can I mean fure yeah I don't think we should make that decision tonight I think I would I would recommend that we vote to allow the town clerk to work with the
Town Administrator and and the attor and Peter Melo on on the proper on the proper placement yeah because by striking section 3.2 you'd think it would be the new section three this we're putting in the new section 3.2 where I would take it but yeah so well
uh yeah I that's the first I've heard about that so I have not had a chance to ask any questions on that so um okay um so it's not necessary it's
not a necessary thing we have to do right it's it's not replaceing I think necessary I think it was more just to keep things in order because the site plan has a section go to but the Adu doesn't technically have a section tied to it so it was more so just to keep
everything kind of on the same page I think it makes sense it is a protected use under the Dober Amendment so what I would say is it doesn't it it's not deleting the entirety of uh 3.2
because 3.2 is accessory uses and we still have accessory uses that aren't need to use it's just removing the temporary apartment as aspect of that or portion of that and is that subsection a paragraph six like so I I don't know maybe does it go under accessory uses
still because it is an accessory use so I think it is a good it's a question um for Peter mow if it's goes under accessory use or yeah because we're we're still keeping the temporary apartment by our because it's since it's
classified as an accessory use still an Adu is still an accessory use and um so that's why I wonder if it just gets a new paragraph within yeah but maybe not since it's since it's
an entire section yeah it's a pretty big thing right one two three four we want to make it also so it's it's easy to find right because as we all know that things are not easy
exactly not a very userfriendly zoning bylaw as it exists right now and we're not striking all section 3.2 and it belongs under uses that we can agree with that right well it just says by striking 3.2
subsection a paragraph 6 right it's just that paragraph It's just so that what they're suggesting is putting in a new section under use regulations which which makes sense as a placeholder place because it's not if you keep going it's not non-conforming it's not earth
materials it's not flood plane it's not wind turbines it's not height area etc etc so it's it it would go in the U section yeah I get that paragraph So what is paragraph six because the way this reads they're asking us to strike
paragraph six of 3.2 subsection a and replacing it with this five-page yes yeah so that that if you go to the accessory um six paragraph six is it says accessory
shall not include dwellings accessory you shall not include dwelling so it shouldn't go there well that needs to be removed yeah they said it's going to strike so we're going to strike it and then put our five-page no I just don't think it goes there yeah okay I I
because I think it does belong as a separate section yeah rather than which one a new number six here because it wouldn't make sense in the context of everything else all right so that's what I'm getting I scroll up down on the same no
this is Cheyenne that's up on the screen okay yeah well all right so maybe that is a good recommendation for now as a placeholder that's go I let's let's follow let's follow up and
have a conversation beyond what the what's in the Articles let's talk about those and then um and then we'll have a followup um actually we will have um do we have
time yeah I can ask Peter to look at that he'll be here later but not for this um so yeah we need to I mean I would vote to let the Town Administrator and the clerk yeah I'm with that this yeah I'm
with you and Cheyenne you obviously um and Peter mow between the four of them they'll get it right if they could let us know yeah we should do we have to vote it though is I think my question yeah um Nick said it
wasn't something he thought you had to vote on great all right then I think because at the very end doesn't it say that we authorized the cl
to um yes typos and other things so authorizing providing the section yeah it provides it right there right y all right okay yeah to and to authorize the clerk to make clerical revisions to the section numbers and headings yeah so
yeah we're covered on that okay thanks cheyen for mentioning that and I'll yeah we'll uh look forward to hearing how that's going to be um described so are we needing to vote this language Merida
so the amendment so the three so the um what we want to do is cheyen do you have the Adu up still yes I do okay so on on the Adu um the only the only change that was
made was um number eight under C8 this was a question that was um that was asked um by the warrant committee and it just adds the Adu shall
not be used adding the language as a short-term rental or otherwise for boarding lodging or commercial use so that was his recommended language change just to make that a little more concise and clear and then [Music]
um the on the uh site plan that was it for that so should we vote that should we let's vote Yes so that was the only change and all the other Redline items that were made um with the warrant committee little the typos and things that we
corrected so I would um ask for a a um a motion to approve this article as amended I'll make a motion to approve the Adu article as amended and is this now being resubmitted to the warrant committee and we'll just and we'll let the warrant committee yeah and resubmit
it to the warrant committee and resubmit it to the warrant committee yep with those small changes I'll second it great thank you all in favor I I great and there were only two small things on the site plan
approval those were on page sorry it's further back sure I got everything on page nine um under the decision we had asked uh the Warren committee we wanted we wanted
to get some um language which um which gave an opportunity if under certain circumstances we needed an extension beyond the 120 120 days the warrant committee recommended that we get language from the attorney uh from Our
Town Council on what that would be and that's where he underlined on the um the last part of the O decision for purposes of this paragraph appropriate circumstances entitling the board to
additional review time shall mean a the applicant's consent to extend said 100 day period or the board's determination in its reasonable discretion that based on the nature of the application in proposed project the volume of material
or information presented to the board in connection with the underl under underlying hearing the complexity of any technical or legal issues arising out of the board's review and other similar factors additional time exceeding said 120-day period is
necessary to facilitate inadequate review of the application so that was his um recommendation to add that uh provision in so on page nine and then on page 10 um the the other item that we had asked
and this was just a small change um clarifying if anyone for anyone who wants to make an appeal it would say um it would read any person agree by a decision of the board made under this section May appeal said decision under
mgls chapter 40a section 17 by filing an action with the superior court or land Court no later and this is what the warrant committee wanted just to make make it clear that it was no later than 20 days following the board's filing of
said decision with the clerk um in accordance with the with the procedure set forth in mgl SE chapter 4A so he that just was making sure that anyone appealing would be able to look at this and say okay I have to do this within 20 days and and they just wanted
clarification I think that's a good idea so adding that I like that um so those were only the three the only two amendments um to that so I would entertain a motion to approve um the site plan approval as amend did um a
motion to approve the site plan approval as amended um and forward it to the warrant committee the changes to the warrant committee so moved second all in favor I great thank you so much um and
we can now invite uh uh U to join us hello again hello hello Zoe hello Zoe I think um Matthew should be on as well check looks like great just okay um
so let me um pull up the relevant slides here so for today we were able get through um kind of a first um pass at the statute plan that we discussed last time and um some updated calculations for the um hypothetical adjacent
Community scenario um so we'll present that through with you and we also want to just um tea up some uh you know just make sure that we've correctly interpreted the pieces that we were going to return to for the rapid transit work um so with that let me share my
screen um and we've also prepared a you know a couple things that should enable us to do a little bit of live adjustment with you today um if the conversation kind of moves in that direction that great thank you and Matthew if you could do me a
favor and take some notes as we're going that would be great um just so that I can be nimble with the screen sharing okay so today we thought we'd go through um just a couple Refreshers um and then um what I just mentioned the sort of
revised analysis on the hypothetical statute plan I know that there are some more people who are kind of tuning in these days that may not have been involved throughout the entire process to date so there'll some there'll be some things that'll move through pretty quickly um just for those that haven't um uh touched on this before but we
won't dwell on them um I did want to um give uh one logistical piece that um when we were doing scheduling at the end of our the last meeting on Monday um Matthew and I both separately missed um conflicts that we had with the 410 um
planning board meeting um we think that we can get through enough content with you tonight and on the 7th that the 10th might be um a meeting where you could just discuss follow-ups but I think if you if that doesn't end up working out um we'll troubleshoot with you um when
we meet with you on the 7th but I just wanted to give you a heads up about that um my error uh during the meeting on Monday no no no problem and I think it's better when we sometimes break out our mvta meeting from all the other public hearings and yeah so we can really
dedicate um Zoe oh yeah you do have it never mind okay great okay but then I've also penciled in that the public form that we spoke about um for the 17th which I heard you're already mobilizing to promote about which is great um and and
we've kept held that um 69 sort of expectation of when we're um going to be moving towards town meeting um it's actually going to be it's been confirmed it's going to be on the 16th okay great so just perfect that's great what's GNA be on the 16th to meeting okay yeah it
was between the that update in our notes okay so yeah okay so um I wanted to just reflect back to you all what um kind of we heard last time to make sure that we're capturing right and also to share with you a little bit of our um you know as
we've gotten a little bit more into the Weeds on the idea of putting together a statute based plan um we have come to some suggestions around the assumptions to make there's there are so many assumptions that are embedded in the
compliance model that are really rooted in the guidelines and subsequently the emergency regulations that were put into place that we don't think it's really the right tool to um I use in in putting together a hypothetical statute plan um
so what we're suggesting is that we hold to the commuter rail station area um that we zone for 15 units per acre um and we think that you know while in theory this aligns with that 563 unit Target that we spoke about last time
there really isn't any piece of the regulations you know or sorry I'm mixing words here which is confusing there aren't any pieces of the statute the law the letter of the law that describe what reasonable size means in terms of units and so we really think it's best to just
focus on the station area and the units per acre um there is still a reference to environmental um the environmental code so we're retaining the excluded land metrics um wherever there's a partial units that result we are
rounding down um and we are not modeling the Imp active zoning parameters beyond that 15 units per acre um on the um you know modeled unit capacity as we've been discussing it for prior work um because
that that all of those things are are embedded in the models assumptions the the compliance model that the state built around the the guidelines and and regulations um how does that sound to you all as I know it's there's a couple of like small
Evolutions from what we talked about on Monday um it's just as we're getting further into it we wanted to reflect back to you our thinking on it and um see how that feel I think what I had requested was that we did um instead of 100% of everything being within that
half mile that 50% which is allowed with whatever plan is put forth um is allowed 50% within the half mile um of a of The commun Rail stations and half um half of the land area outside but that's
mixing the guidelines with the reg the emergency regulations with the statute my understanding was that there was this was to be statute only and um and therefore I guess we could we could look at both because I think if it's allowed
by hlc there's no reason why hlc doesn't allow this method though so it's like picking choose the things that you like and don't like about the method you're going to choose I think we're not doing that with the 25% or even with the 10% we should go
with what has been argued is this method right so I sort of agree with Cheryl on this and and and um and to Zoe's point we don't have um there's no definition
of District of reasonable size so I think possibly your um cause of concern Merith is that it's 563 units when a district of reasonable size may not be
563 units so that is for I would assume the town to decide what a district of reasonable size is technically it would be the maximum that could that could exist because of the developable land
and 15 units per acre so but if if you're going by the language of the statute as Tom dhy has are presented to us a number of times it's the developable land area within a half mile of those Commuter Rail stations times 15
that's what he's advocated for that was what was put in our letter that's the unit count that's not the that's not the land area right that would be the unit count that's how he got number of 563 is the units correct yes but the land area is the 18 Acres I was thinking inside
and then 18 Acres would be is allowed elsewhere by hlc I I still think this plan is to be clean is is disregarding the regulations because it's saying those don't apply you can't then say I want to pick this piece from the
regulations and apply it it it's just totally inconsistent with the argument being made what you're saying but we could do a she Zoe has something prepared so I don't I don't want to yeah yeah so I think this might actually be a little easier to discuss with the numbers and it's not going to be
reflected back to you in quite the same way as the other ones because it's not rooted in the compliance model um but this this what you're seeing here this um slide is just a summary of you can see the statute text on the left like we had um on Monday and then on the right
um I've replaced this with kind of the the assumptions that are embedded in our um sort of interpretation of just the text of the the the law and how we're applying that so that it's well um understood but I won't kind of borate for this just as a reminder for those
that are kind of new to this this is the you know we're focusing on the commuter rail station area um for this um hypothetical scenario um if you zoom in that's the area of town that it applies to um and these are the parcels that um
touch that uh half mile radius for the three Commuter Rail stations um and I've kind of broken out um sorry on the right here um just some of the kind of acreage statistics associated with the geography that you're seeing on the slide um note
that the north arrows the north has skewed a little bit for these three just so we can see them all on the same page um uh oh sorry there's one other thing I wanted to note I just did a quick sort of because this has been a focus of our conversations for most of the time we've
been working together I did just pull the existing land codes for these um three areas um so you can see that breakdown here um majority single family um a decent number of two family and then a handful of other um land uses so
that just gives you a sense of what's included um so this is this is the output so what you're seeing on the left is is the inputs um on the right the outputs so um for all of the work that we've been doing to date for the sake of
like comparing apples to Apples as much as possible as you're thinking about this um uh sort of output when the compliance model reports modeled unit capacity it's only reporting units uh Parcels on which there are multif family units so three
units or more so what you're seeing in this top is just this you know inclusive of one to two units um what you're seeing on the bottom here is um if you exclude those 1 to2 unit um you know the parcels were one to two units is
possible but three units is not possible this is a more as close as you can get to an apples to appel's comparison across these two two methods so you can understand kind of how this Stacks up against the other um scenarios that
we've been considering so you can see that it um it ends up with 582 um model unit capacity again there's all of these kind of like assumptions that we're making that are a little different from what the compliance model has been putting forward for our other
work um but that results in um if you uh sort of calculate the way roughly the way the compliance model um shares uh modeled unit capacity um and density um that would correspond to 11.5 um units
per acre um and that's with um the only the developable land being in the denominator of that equation um so that's kind of the output there um and I've just sort of done a quick breakdown for you to understand kind of how that's Distributing how this
like simple set of rules is Distributing across that set of parcels um there are some parcels where there is um there are no units that can be built um because of parcel size or ownership um there are uh around 30 that um can only build one
unit around 30 that can only build two um no more and then there's um a little over 50 they can build 3 to eight units um and 16 Parcels that can build more than eight um just based on that 15 units per acre constraint um so that's
that's kind of where we landed with this first pass um I'm curious what that prompts for you all if this um feels sufficient or if there are other pieces that you feel you need to see as part of this to move be able to sort of use it
in the way you had in mind I think I need to have you explain it again and tie can you tie it back to the map Zoe yeah um so this is reporting it so every um parcel that you see here in purple is a parcel that's
included um and that is developable it may have some area that is not developable like Wetland area Etc but these are the parcels that are being zoned effectively by this um this concept and we've grouped them all all
um sort of together um as one group um and that set of three kind of subdistricts together produces this result so the the reason I broke it out in this way is because
um the way we've been talking about density and um unit uh capacity to date is diff it does not include one to two unit developments um and so I wanted to avoid
a comparison between things that are reporting very different statistics so I would focus in terms of comparison on this set here yeah um which takes all three of those areas so across all three
of those areas you could get to in theory up to 582 units that are 3unit or more development um and amongst those um if you were to calculate just on the actual acreage of
all of those Parcels you would have um 11.5 units per acre if you calculated or sorry other way around um if if you excluded the excluded land in the same way that the state compliance model does
you would have 11.5 units per acre in these across all three of these subd districts if you included land that the state compliance model does not um you would have a lower density of 7.7 units per
acre and so that may still not be quite Landing this is like a lot of numbers and it and it's different from what we've gotten used to in terms of understanding them it's helpful to hear it again but just to what you're excluding are Parcels that wouldn't be
able to add units you said in terms of the one to two and has to do with the parcel size yeah so there if parcel sizes where they wouldn't be able to build more than one or two units um those parcels and all of the work we've been done we've
been doing to date are not counted in the multif family unit capacity um so in this case you you could still you know let's say you have a single family home and based on your parcel size um you have enough parcel area that under these
rules you could build two unit um the state compliance model does not take that into account because it is not reaching the three units um that is required to meet the definition of multif family that was included in the regulations and guidelines um what size
Parcels are those then um so if you do just kind of like the rough let me do a quick um working backwards so if you have um to to build two units um where I'm like actually pretty bad at
live arithmetics so give me just one one moment you didn't the same methodology that we're used to at like f 6,000 square feet per lot or 7500 foot lot right so if you did you know 15 um
for like reference if you had a 5,000 foot lot that's .11 acres and then that times 15 units per acre would get you 1.7 so on a
um on a on a 5,000 foot lot you would be just shy of two units so you would only be able to build one unit under a 15 units per acre constraint I guess I don't get it why not if we rezoned it so you could build
because if you're say if you're doing 15 units an acre and you have a and that's your max and you have a small parcel you may not get to three units right so what if 15 units what if it goes to 16 units per acre I mean this thing's fluid isn't
it not from what the parameters that we established last time which was 15 units an acre I mean that minimum change the change the parameters but that's what we said last time what what their marching orders were this is the minimum that you could in this in a in a world where
you're just focusing on what the statute says 15 units per acre is the minimum that you could set right and align with what is stated in the law you could allow 16 units per acre that would exceed what is mentioned in the statute
but um at minimum you have to Prov allow for 15 units per acre right so if you're saying exclude one to two units so excluding the 1 to two unit per parcel so if you had a 5,000 foot parcel what would you have to have
to have it allow units on it right you would have to have yeah could you show us um a parcel on um the map that you provided of a thou 5,000 foot parcel
um for we just have to I just assume that it would be 15 units per acre or more whatever it takes to get to to that density well the way the statute is written is you have to allow you know
the the guidelines and the regulations have specified that it's not just about what you allow but what you achieve the statute focuses on what you allow so if you allow 15 units per acre that is what the statute has
required it doesn't state that you need to achieve the 15 units per acre in the same way that the um regulations and guidelines then made clear so that so we're thinking that if we go to 16 units per acre then we're not following the
statute so you're you you'd be exceeding the tax but that's allowed under the statue right to exceed yeah so yeah okay minum we could okay yes we can increase all right so but we didn't
still know that multif family is three units on a lot right right so if you have three units on a 5,000 square foot lot your density is you have 15 units per acre I thought
that's why 20 it's 27 units an acre 27 units an acre but we can go higher it's it's yeah I don't understand why we can't why we're not there's some lots that I think we could do you know there may be within in their um I think unidy house is
within that yeah that one of our um blue if we just look that was I was thinking just look at the that we can zone for you know I think we have that at how many units it's six story it's a six-story building that's like 40 units per acre that's like 40 units per acre
there I thought yeah don't quote me but I think that's 40 units in that one I can give you like buy parcel if there's a specific parcel that you want to know about I can tell you under these rules how many units a district of reasonable size 15 units per acre half
mile from the commuter rail right if we just do the Blue Hill AB District I bet you we hit the 15 unit break we call that our district of reasonable size I bet you we mean the statute but if we exclude the High Park
stop and what's the other stuff's name Paramount yeah because I think yeah I just look at Blue Hill have yeah I think and if it goes more than 15 just accept that it's going to go higher than 15 and that's still within the statute there's no definition of reasonable size within the statute exactly so we can set it
correct so to say whether it's we we meet it or not it's it's not there so there's no way to determine whether we meet it or not so it's just a question of whether what is reasonable size we're we're saying this is reasonable size and
hlc has the authority to determine a reasonable size according to the statute so it's a submission you're going to ask hlc to agree hlc isn't mentioned in the statute is it yes it is and they're going to set regulations they're going to determine guidelines mind saying was
they would determine compliance okay so I would like to submit something that's just the Blue Hill a district that's that's how I would address this and obviously we'll have to have a battle with hlc or demonstrate that that you know to to
folks that demonstrates a word I want to say yeah to demonstrate that this is what it would achieve um did you does that make sense so if we looked at just the Blue Hill AB District maybe we just pulled that map up separately and and maybe we don't do it
for tonight but look at the just the Blue Hill a our district there and map that out and sort of back out what that would be how many units per acre how many total Acres on that do we
know so the uny house alone is 4.31 Acres there are currently 139 units so that is 34 units per acre so at 15 units per acre that's 60
units so that would be our so a district of reasonable size correct right yeah are you describing just this District what we're seeing on the left of yes and actually just half of that
District I might be getting ahead of myself but just the southern half of that that District okay so you're like basically thinking um y right there yeah look at that red
marker love it and how many units would come out of that yeah just tweak it till you get to 15 so if I'm understanding correctly the way you're talking about this you're thinking that the goal is
to achieve 15 units per acre in a location that falls within the commuter rail station area but does does not contain all of the commuter rail station area correct the statute doesn't
say we have to contain it all it just says we have to do a district of reasonable size and I don't even mind going you know further up too I mean we yeah I would do that too but once again that density denominator I fear the density denominator always kills us right so the
more land you add right it's like the denser certain areas have to be so yeah I guess if we could look at that as maybe a district that we could say okay this would be a statue if it as long as it meets all those
criteria but you're looking at then these single families or two families that are on 5,000 square feet allowing 27 units an acre no that's why we weren't going to include all of those you mean the ones you are including them in the circle okay so we can cut them
out the ones where Blue Hill have and Blue Hill Parkway come together that little those two little triangles is that what you're talking about I was thinking backing taking those out keeping those out for is that are those ones you were talking about that back up so yeah let me just it sounds like the
parcel size is what you want to um understand here so I was just going to try and um put together a quick map that um shows that what was the what was the piece that you wanted to
see the map we were on yeah and it was the lower portion of that of the matapan station map well this one it's called Blue Hill blue yeah yeah so all the way down south yeah those two little triangular one
yeah exactly if you could omit those we would not include that yeah okay so just yeah right and so you think like 10 acres there that might 15 Acres there is going to be deemed reasonable size for the entire town of
Milton I think it's going to satisfy the statute as written it'll just reasonable size as written is 10 or 15 Acres what is reasonable size to you that's small to me okay so it's not to you but it is to me so I mean hlc I'm
sure has a whole different definition so we know we know they do yeah well I think if we submit the smallest absolutely possible we're they're not going to accept it do you really feel like uny house is the smallest
absolutely possible so so right now so as of always said that I think there's opportunity to do more and I think we've we've all agreed There's an opportunity to do more so um the goal though is to
do a statute compliance and this would be a statute compliant and even if they say no I think we're probably okay with that we just want to submit it we want to submit it and we want to prove that we
are statute compliant I I I think we have to be careful about using statute compliant because we don't have a way to determine anything a statute compliant with without using the regulations and
so it's just a path that people have decided is worth pursuing I think we need to stop the language of statutory or it's stat that we don't have to that we don't have to do nothing like that we're not not doing anything I mean
this and then you know it's we have a conversation with hlc um obviously we're struggling with so putting Maps together but so now though you said okay I'm going you're the four people at the table or the
three uh who agree with this approach going say I'm going to pick this particular part of the of these three maps and I've decided or the three of you have decided that those are the most appropriate to Zone without there's there's no rationale to
it except to say the uny house is already there but otherwise what's the rationale why not all three of these why not one of the other ones of these because there's parameters that you're setting for yourself in choosing these sites and this Lo three you can't get to 15 units per
acre that's trying DET that trying to get to the density numbers and you can so oh I had assumed that based on our conversations to date that you wouldn't want to um go beyond what the sort of the
minimum density that's required and if we go to let me clear my annotations here so that's not um cling a judgment um so if we go back to
here um minimum gross density of 50 I'll have minimum gross density minimum right but you could do more so the minimum is the minimum but you could do more so we if we increase the density I'm yeah so I think it's a simple I don't think like I don't think we need to you know
obviously all of this is like working in a a triple Canever like argument but the I think you know what we did is we started with you know you set a front-end limit of 15 units per acre if
you cap it at 15 units per acre you end up with these numbers so the the model depending on how you calculate the modeled units per acre which again is not specified in the statute how that is to be calculated um the you're getting you know close
depending on how you calculate it so we could increase it slightly from 15 units per acre to you know at the you know front end maybe it's 17 units per acre Etc and I can sort of toggle that until we're achieving a modeled unit capacity
density that's approaching 15 that would yeah yeah that's cool that'd be great and then we don't have to kind of go through an exercise of like further delineating which parts of town are subject to the reasonable size which I think you know this is already obviously
not going to be like at face value well received by the state given that they have put together all of their you know the regulations and guidelines but I think going into further Logics on what parts of town to
consider makes it less um coherent as an argument so from a planning perspective though you know if we didn't have MB this part of town is actually a good
place to plan for increased housing because it's close to Transit and there are amenities desire so the other um and there's already
existing um some mixed use you know you um you know with the food the Food Mart and um it's not in this half mile it's not in the so it's already um two families there's already three families and they
could be illegal three families so we are allowing our homeowners to become legal with their three families um this is a denser part of town Town um we're not impacting as many
single family houses because that's been a um a recurring theme so I think starting in this area to me makes sense so that's great so if if we wanted for um for the 7th to maybe have a map
put together with these um raising those density numbers um I think that would would be helpful you might also um round it up and down right sure in
other words I think the some of the shortage of why we're not getting to because literally what we've done is taken every parcel and apply across the board of 15 units per acre yeah um and so why we're coming up short in part is
that if you've got 1.7 units you down to one mhm um if if we made the rounding cut off at 0.5 per instance so that if you you were getting to 1.6 you go up to two or if
you're 1.4 you go back down to one um this might equal out a little bit more and I and I think just more holistically the what we need as a community and a
little bit larger are actually more three uh three family housing so I think three family housing actually promotes um more generational wealth you're um if you think about all the immigrants who came over here they
all bought um two and three families and now with the creation of all these really big multifam um apartment complexes um it's hard to do that so I
like the idea of being able to allow our current residents to be able to um expand and capitalize on this as opposed to having some out of town big developer come in
and they capitalize on it so that's why even though if the lots are smallish there this is where our two and um you you know three families already exist so why not make them legal I I
don't know they're not illegal otherwise well they're not permitted they're not permitted so I I think we have to be careful about calling people's homes and where people live illegal because there what we don't allow three family zoning right now we don't have three family
zoning however those were built prior to zoning being enacted so they're pre-existing non-conforming and therefore legal so you know the fact that you may want to do this Zone um for other reasons uh I I just don't think we should say oh we'll make these legal now
that is inaccurate well it's offering opportunity I think is what you're saying it's wanting to create opportunity but to back to Matt's point is that some some we can keep it a a three unit but others we can go higher is what Matt say you know and we can we
can sort of bump that up a little bit above the 15 units per acre average is that what I'm hearing Matt Matt sorry he's muted sorry I'm un unmuting um I'm just saying as a first
step to get the math to work right um we can um Tinker with the averages right and it's still an open question about whether the requirement is to achieve the gross density of 15 units an acre through the zoning
or to Simply allow 15 units an acre and I don't you know I think you could read the statute either way but I think I think if we fix the rounding piece we'll get closer to you
know whatever the acreage is times 15 okay okay that sounds good is that I just quickly did a um a rounding of them rounding up instead of rounding down
um and got to 825 units um and if we calculate it in the way that the compliance model sorry I just doing some live
calculations here did that if we did the total number of units including the like you know one and two family ones um you would get to 1629 um units per acre uh so that would
be you know 825 units including single and two family units that are part of that tally um and that would uh result in 16.2 N
units per acre um and that's across all three districts yes great that's great thank you a little more in my opinion is okay yeah there's a little we'll do some more due diligence just to think about all of
the different kind of the pieces that we have been held steady based on our interpretation from the compliance model that are a little bit more in flux as we're interpreting it in the context of the statute but I think the takeaway is it's not so far off nice and it's actually not that far off from
interesting from a 10% plan from what an adjacent community plan would allow for and it would probably actually create more real possible for real units being built um I think looking at these districts in
this location because of the commuter commuter rail location yeah I think this is worth doing and was there any way I think I may have requested it before um sending us the compliance model so we can play around with
it um yeah the the compliance model is is itself is publicly available um as the data sets we've put together a bunch of different um interconnected spreadsheets to handle your modeling because it exceeds the
um what the compliance model Alone um handles well because of the number of districts you have and the incorporation of mandatory mixed use for the rapid transit um so essentially yes but it's more
complicated than that because it's not a single like we don't have like a single spreadsheet or a single set of spreadsheets that we've used to do all of this work so if there's a specific like if you're interested in like the adjacent Comm Community scenario one or the um statute plan one
or the rapid transit one we would be sending you different yeah that's okay could you send all three with what districts loaded well just with the ones that we were just talking about so that we can sort of play around with it as you're
playing around with it she's saying she would send you a statutory 10% 25% but then she's saying what districts so like the last slide she the last presentation yeah the last one yes yeah so it may be the one at our last meeting you do the 10 and 25% plus this statutory
plan yeah so even the like because we're running so many different scenarios and each of those each district essentially has its own um like compliance model can hold five districts so um because we have
considered like 20 districts probably like there are there are multiple compliance models and and we have multiple spreadsheets that combine those models in different ways based on which scenarios we're working on so like there's so maybe we should what maybe we
should go on to the 10% and the 25% for now and then once we get that narrative you can say this is this I'd like this version sent yeah I think the best way to handle it might be for you to cheyen with the request that you have and then we can be
responsive to it in the specifics there's just so many like yeah cool gotcha different combin I I think it'll be easier that way okay good okay so that would be great if you could provide a district on that I just wanted to understand to um you said in the
beginning of this discussion that you didn't put in any other dimensional uh criteria or standards so um if we did say say like height cap at three stories
or two and a half probably three is is commonly there but um would that change anything in terms of because not because we're not running it through a compliance model right we're just yeah in reality it would change right what
could get built but in terms of the letter of the law without the compliance model the regulations the guidelines there isn't a me ISM to consistently estimate that that's part of the reason why the whole compliance model was built was to be able to estimate the impacts
of those kinds of form based zoning parameters on um units that could be built or could not be built but if we were sorry Zoe were you finished with that no I was just going to say so in other words we can add those in there's not a you know
apart from Reinventing the compliance model there isn't a way that we can um describe how those form based parameters would constrain unit capacity so it's it's something that could be included if this is what
um moves forward to town meeting um but it would not have a direct impact on the unit estimation process because we don't have a compliance model to rely on to consistently predict those numbers okay
and open space anything else the same any of the parameters same right yeah I mean it does have a real impact and we can like we do test fits all the time to confirm those things but at this scale that's really what the compliance model is for right to be able to do that cross
flock between the I think the Cornerstone of the model is that it presumes a unit is 1,000 square feet um in this scenario there's no such presumption because it's just purely units per acre
um whether they're 600 square feet or 12200 square feet or 2,000 square feet or or 2,000 exactly and so I I think I don't think it would change dramatically the number of units because
units per acre is very definitive um you you could only estimate the impacts of setbacks and Heights and that sort of thing if you had an assumption about the average size of the unit to begin
with and the compliance model also factors in parking requirements in open space at a minimum of 20% as I recall right yep that's how really zoning has always been and that's a little bit more
organic you know you might have um you know a 500 square foot unit or you might have A500 square foot and um and that's how neighborhoods were naturally in organically cre
created depending on parcel sizee just to be clear the 1,00 square foot per unit doesn't require that under the zoning it's just a metric that the state is using to be able to compare apples to apples across many different communities it's not a requirement
that's embedded in the zoning yeah that is interesting I I think though just in general though 15 units per acre is pretty easy get to even with some dimensional constraints when you think
of the you know the Triple Decker on a 5,000 foot lot is is almost twice that density right so just to get a kind of visual on what 15 units an acre looks like it's it's even less than that but
um you're would we also have parking and open space with that three with the triple deck around 5,000 I guess we would have open space but not 40% maybe yeah they usually have I mean
that's just sort of a typical scenario sometimes the lots are bigger but usually there's a little bit of a front yard there's always some backyard there's usually a side yard with a driveway or something similar okay um okay
yeah yeah all right thank you this was great so I think um I think it's clear the pieces that you want us to move sort of refine with this we'll come back to you with those revisions um for the 7th um I'm going to go through the adjacent
communities but I um Community um scenario uh calculations that sort of build on what we talked about on Monday but as a foundation for that I just wanted to kind of toggle through um the districts that we've been including thus far and the the ones that we're
considering um as we're kind of looking at swapping districts in this is also a way of confirming as we um prepare to do the rapid transit um revisions that we discussed on Monday making sure that um what we heard from you on Monday and how we've um sort of interpreted them and um
sort of uh drawn them out is um consistent with what you had in mind um so just as a sort of a reminder to travel through through these and sort of adding them to um uh our kind of collective um uh image here with the the
relationship to the transit areas and such um this is the the Blue Hills Parkway Corridor that we've been working with um the matapan station um uh subdistrict the Elliot Street Corridor um and just as a note the um
the sort of pink color here is the um density denominator deduction layer so that's the areas that are considered undevelopable generally based on environmental constraints um so you can just kind of see like the interaction of those with the districts um this is the test fit that
we did to confirm that a 6,000 foot parcel could accommodate the number of units it needed to um while meeting the other form constraints like a 05 f um uh over 40% of open space um the setbacks
that were discussed um so this was the basis of um the rule set for Elliot Street Corridor um for the matapan station or sorry the Milton station um collection of districts um we have the mandatory mixed use ones and then the um uh
straight um 3A residential only um ones um the granite AV districts that we spoke about last time with that added sort of um uh sort of pieces that are um in play relative to the state sort of giving some special consideration to the
unique sighting conditions that that you have for gred of north um and last but not least the East Milton Square One so those are those are the base districts that we've been talking about for a long time um I just wanted to have that kind of um fresh so that we could as we're talking about
these new ones we could kind of more easily compare back and forth in relationship to them if need be um so these are the um the set of six um subdistricts that we talked about on Monday and the sort of the unit numbers that I transcribed for what um was sort
of um felt reasonable um on those sites that was um com sort of comfortable and that the planning board would be willing to consider um is there anything that jumps out to you in here that does not align with what you were um thinking well the Rand al5 one is not uh
with the access for it is not in line with what I'm thinking right that you would pref prefer to have that one not be zoned correct yeah or greatly were reduced I'm okay with leaving it in but not at 120
units I think what do you think it should be at um it's already a 40 unit 40b there so it's 4 five acres up there it it yeah it has a Access Road access you know this is it's um Rand the
numbers with with the right of way included it's 6.2 Acres but um there's like a private access Drive um and that includes the um 40 the 40 units already does not it does not so
that would be then that one one second and then we can come back to the other ones cre it as all one District let's see what they have in the presentation it would be these four Parcels these three are have a shared owner this is
the 40b site it includes the 40 B the 40 120 so so 120 minus the 40 un 80 it would be 80 units again yeah but I mean this property is going to change hands most likely and something
will be built up and something's going to be built there and if we don't give an opportunity for it then it won't we won't be counting it towards its own capacity and we'll be getting units so it it it makes sense to me to keep it here and make sense to think of the dens
at a level that would be an attractive alternative to a 40b because the the approval process through an as of right zoning would be much and with a site plan approval would be much different than a 40b approval process and it might
go 40b anyway what we're doing right now 80 units up there might not be enough I'm just saying to me it's too much well so maybe we could dial that number back can we just have the presentation but how they did it with this numbers and see what it looks like
yeah let's keep going Zoe thanks so I haven't run the numbers for these ones yet because this is associated with the rapid transit ones we we'll have that for you on the 7th but I can if there's a number that you want us to test in you know in addition to or in lie of the 120 I'm happy to do
that and show you what the results are next time um we just didn't have time to do the full modeling of these ones um so can we go back to the um addition the number slide then again Zoe yeah she said an addition to so she can run too so tell her what you want like I'm happy
with 120 but if you want to see uh sorry you meant this one right um so if this 120 units is inclusive of the site that has the 40b um at 40 units um so you can think of that as it's a a Delta of 80
units MH yeah I think I understand the Delta I still think it's too much but if you take it from here if if you take it if you take it from here you're putting it somewhere else and where do you want to put it because we have the
435 that we were making up I think we should we agreed to that last time I think we should have them do that analysis and see what it looks like no no one's saying she can't do the analysis she's just saying she can do that and something else so she could run 120 and she could run 80 I'm just asking I'm just saying where would if you're
taking it down I don't know Cher this thing is so fluid we're going to find out but let's check it out I'm just asking Maggie she wants to take it from here um I would say because we're talking across but if you're taking some from here where would you want to put them I I understand that but again for
me planning perspective Randall fa is not there's no amenities there's no uh rapid transit or trolley again there's 240 bus runs once an hour so from a planning perspective
this is not an ideal spot for it yeah um so there are I don't know at this moment in time where it would go I mean it could go I mean I think to ask where it's going to go isn't realistic but I mean
this isn't a site that has a road that oh I know I know where it is I mean it's perfect for I have been up there numerous times I I know it very well I was going to rent the spot up there I
know it so I don't need a a description of what it is yeah all right so sounds like May doing an analysis do the analysis and come back to you with it and then we can decide if it's worth zoning at all based on that and the all
the other things that are balance with it that great fair to say Maggie it doesn't sound like there's another set like another level of units that would would feel appropriate to you in this location um
so I think if we could go if we could lower that think about it yeah I think it's worth doing the analysis just to see how it where we are on it yeah and maybe then we can look at reducing that yep uh okay so this is the
just sort of on the map so people can understand kind of where these are so there's some swaps here from what we spoke about on Monday so the paper mill site we we took what was the Truman Parkway District which included four um residential Parcels along truan Parkway
and have Consolidated to just be the the paper mill site um we also for to help with your density numbers removed the right of way that we had included um the the MBTA MBTA rail line right away um so
that brings your acreage down for that which should help a little bit with density boosts um uh so it's when you take the um the sort of environmentally sensitive area out that's 2.5 acres of developable land area um Brushwood is in
here as it was before same thing with st Pas um The Ice House site we added right here um that's just uh two acres um and then 7-Eleven Randolph a is as it was when we presented it um on Monday and Randol Aven access road we've added back
in here at that 6.2 Acres um so just to kind of run through these to confirm this is making sense to folks so this is that um the paper mill site without the rail ride of way that we had been including um with it before
um this is uh close to the Fairmont station communter rail stop and the Brushwood um site that we were looking at is is right here um so they have adjacency to one another um the St Pas one is as we were discussing before um
it's just a standalone parcel um located near the Reedville station um and then the Ice House site this is um I think has a a weaker argument than the other like Standalone Parcels that we're looking at the granite of North
and the um uh the paper mill site because those have really tangible physical barriers infrastructure barriers um whereas this one is just a larger parcel um within a residential context so this is I think
there's a less chance that you'll get um special exception from the state on this one um it could be one where you look at consolidating it with some adjacent Parcels to create a district that does
um meet the 5 acre minimum um I'm curious if you want us to look at that or if you want us to just run it as a standalone um and understand that it it might might not pass muster with the state as a standalone parcel it'd be nice to have a backup if
that doesn't yeah maybe just run stand alone just in case but understanding it's yeah then we analyze another District somewhere because I think we talked about Brushwood being too large right at our last meeting I think I could have swore we talked about
that freshwood generally is is not um when we've plugged it in um to the uh to swap in for other districts it has not um helped your numbers significantly it's it's done fine but it hasn't um uh it's a little bit less dense and a
little bit larger than um what the other district is sort of swapping in for um so it yeah might not be one that makes the Final Cut depending on how we um how it all shakes out so we may have to add a few more
somewhere so it sounds like we just the inclination is to run it as is and if it um just have a other Alternatives available that question since since Monday and you've had time to think about these um and these locations and
these numbers does it make sense to you to run it to run these except for this one which you've just expressed concern about the rationale now behind uh this one if if left to me I would take this
one out because it's a it's essentially a single parcel uh it doesn't have a lot of um physical barriers that could help you argue that it is a single site the only thing that distinguishes it from
the parcels around it is that it's large enough to accommodate multif family and how many acres is it two and a half this one is I think it's two straight let me check um yeah just two
on the dot I think it's like it's like 1.99 or something okay so maybe we leave that one out but we' have to add another one somewhere do we you're not um you don't need this in
an like an inherent sense it's really just I know that there was a desire to kind of spread you know spread the the units that you need to make up for across as many subd districts as as possible um to be able to achieve that in a more distributed way with at a
lower density um so this can contribute to that approach but it is not necessary to achieve that approach there are other subdistricts that we're looking at that could um serve that purpose what was the density of this Zoe I forget of the ice
house we talked about penciling this one in at um see my notes um at 54 maybe 70 Max is what I have in my
notes so that's like 35 units in acre 30 so that's that's pretty dense yeah 54 is what's on it now even at 54 it's 27 but yeah 5 we pencil we add a few it gets us I'm just saying if we lose that we lose 30 units
per acre which is the key to all this you got to have dense Parcels to make up for the non-dense parcels Worth US running with it and without it does that you can easily see it how it that would be what role it's
playing cool we basically for the for the rapid transit analysis that we're doing now based on the guidance on Monday what I'm planning to do is basically take this collection of districts at this density and plug them in for um plug all of them in for Elliot
for sorry um for East Milton Square see what the how that lines up make adjustments as needed plug all of them in for granite Dev South as a swap see how that shakes out balance as needed plug all of them in for both
Granite AV South and um uh East Milton Square and see how that one shakes out so it's kind of like an aggregate approach based on what we talked about last time so it sounds like I would just I would do that with the full collection of these sites and then I would do a
version of it that drops ice house out so and and drop East Milton Square right because East Milton Square was one that we she said that you did okay I'm sorry hard to hear so so Zoe one other thing can you go back to the access road
Rand f site MH there's a parcel um that was included previously um to the upper right of the Y and you don't include that here is uh
what was your thinking for excluding it yeah we did a little bit of research with um Cheyenne and Nick on that let me just pull up our um correspond REM me what our um rationale was there I think it's
landlocked I think it was an access issue so these this is um the complexity here is while Access Road exists physically um it is it still requires like explicit um uh like legal
permissions to use it for that purpose um and so uh so it doesn't have access right better documentation to argue that there is access in place for the parcels that are
included in this diagram now it would be weaker for that last one and is that privately owned or owned by the town um that this parcel is privately owned um based on the par data I was looking at the fragment here I believe
is um there is some Town ownership um and what about further up isn't that owned by the town where it's not included the animal shelters there no but even further up oh yes it is I think that's on right by the park Department
maybe well it's just interesting that when you know the the town was looking at place to build the school and they looked up there and they said it wasn't suitable didn't Zulus put that in conservation
when he did his land swap yeah he took a bunch of this land back here and put it in conservation so it's Untouchable so this right here this little triangle and then continuing up here and then to the land that's on the um east side of axis
ro road here that's all Town land this small smaller parcel here is privately held and we can't Zone town land unless it's identified in ouri right in our production yeah it needs to
be in your housing production plan or there needs to be document of the intent to dispose it how quick does it take to get that re well there was a committee that took maybe a year I I was on that committee the the last two committees
for the housing production plan is that annual or is that five years 10 years five years the planning board and the select board are the ones who oped it and were to implement it um it's it's unfortunate that it so did the committee come to the planning board
with the housing production plan and it never got implemented or there was it got implemented it lasted five years at five the expiration date happened and so the S active no the select board set out establish a under um Linda Collins when
she was on the select board a housing committee for the purposes of updating the housing production plan no one has done that um in the last year to to do the same thing to update it again I still there it just needs to
meet or disbanded was disbanded yeah okay yeah they're all members I looked up the membership they're all not involved hey okay oh yeah not all many but so in in the um uh this
diagram or this plan aial view there's that Gap between the yellow lines is that um an ease that's a private way that has that provides from what I understand from the research that we were doing um that private way like in
you know in theory is providing access but it's it is would have to be like legally documented that it is doing that um all right thank you access is something that the state does look at closely but you know if there's a sufficient documentation even if it's
unconventional access if it's well documented it still can get through it's just we need to make sure that we have that documentation in place which is why we thought we focus on these ones because they seemed like they had the strongest case and just with this set of four
Parcels um you can get to the 5 acre minimum so you don't really need that last one all right thank you and it wouldn't be considered spot zoning if it's all um one single ownership is
it it is does have two owners there's an owner for the today today does correct the spot zoning isn't typically argued based on ownership it's typically about um the the relationship of the
parcels to the fabric around them and if there's a a like a a something that distinguishes those sites in a more inherent way from what surrounds them that is the logic behind the distinction that is um guiding the
regulation because I always thought it was more ownership you didn't want to just um Zone one particular zone property when if it was just a single owner it's part of it but it's it's in
combination with a lot of other factors and it it's it has to be that it's essentially it's trying to prevent you know um uh special treatment for individuals that is not rooted in a planning
logic okay great so so again the planning Logic for me is there's no amenities there's no access to um you know reliable public transportation so my the planning logic here for me is flawed the P line is is
reliable Maggie so so not for my my employee take that bus line it is not reliable okay just to be clear it's about the distinction if you're drawing a boundary for a particular Zone where you're drawing the boundary is the thing
that is has to pass muster for spot zoning there has to be a reason why the boundary is in that location and not one parcel over so it's there's a what you're talking about is a tot a valid point it's about like the bigger picture planning rationale for why you would want to zone for something in this
location but in terms distinguishing one parcel from another it's it's really about you know is there a planning logic that is solid that distinguishes that set of parcels that you're looking at from the ones that are on the other side
of the boundary you're drawing okay so all right so I think we can should we keep moving at this yep juncture here so it sounds like I think we we haven't gone through all of them in detail but I think we focused on the ones where there were um concern so I think I'm inclined to keep moving and
look at the adjacent um Community scenarios this is updated analysis from last time um that has some takeaways that I think we can work with together and if there's um some tweaks that you want me to do I'm set up to be able to do some of that live I'll just have to kind of do some screen sharing swaps so
um as a reminder we we sort of last time arrived at um having this set of four um subdistricts um as a base and then we wanted to look at how 7-Eleven Randolph a and the paper mill site um could play a role in
filling out that approach and what the sort of differential impacts were of them and what those two sites could enable in terms of um like establishing more controls for Elliot Street Corridor to limit the number of units further or
to increase the minimum lot size for the smallest tier um so um I'm not going to go through this but just for those that have it um as reference for those that missed what we were doing in 2024 this is the logic this is for Rapid Transit
um this is the category Milton is in today um and this is the sequence by which we developed a set of parameters for adjacent Community um again I'm not going to go through all the logic but I wanted since we have new people tuning in I wanted this to be available to folks um based on that we have these um
parameters that we're looking at um for this scenario um the main difference that I want to call attention to is the the multi family unit capacity so we're looking at um aiming for 985 units um instead of
2,461 this is just spatially that like you know the base assumptions for this um and then what we're looking at is you know reducing the Elliot Street Corridor um to be focused specifically arals fronting Elliot Street um and then here
is where we have started to kind of run those scenarios so um I've highlighted here the parameters that are actually like directly influencing the numbers that are resulting so that you understand where there's you know where
you'll have an impact in in adjusting those numbers um so this is a scenario where we look at the kind of the base of granite AV matapan station the Elliot Street Corridor and Blue Hills Parkway plus just 7-Eleven Randol a and holding
to the parameters that we have um developed together for Elliot Street Corridor um that allows for four units on the the larger parcel size tiers and starts at 6,000 square feet for minimum lot size for that smallest tier um this
one is um pretty good it stays pretty close to the the 985 number for the unit capacity um and it's riding comfortably above the 15 units per acre but not dramatically above um the place where like the like I said the sort of most
direct lever for um adjusting those numbers is really um the units per acre and the F constraints on 7-Eleven Randolph a um we can I'll go through the all of them and then we can come back and tweak the ones that are most of interest to
you um the next scenario looks at the paper mill site serving in this role um as a starting point I penciled in these numbers um but you know I think we should continue talk if this is you know if you want to move forward with it we
should continue talking about what density would enable the paper mill site to be a viable development site our our sort of guess is that something between 125 and 150 units in six stories would be about where um the development
Community would need to see this to be able to have this be considered for um the development that would be needed there in terms of investment in infrastructure and access obviously there's a lot more that would need to be do done to confirm the actual
feasibility thresholds for a development here but just sort of high level um maybe Matthew you can speak a little bit to some of the sort of um our work experience that informs some of that thinking yeah I think it's highly
dependent on whether it's rental or condominium and I think at a as a rental you know rule of thumb developers like things around 125 or 150 because it's efficient from a management standpoint but once you get to those
numbers and the parking that development is going to want to have but parking becomes very constraining I think in this kind of site which is in reality car dependent rental property is going to want to have 1.5 spaces per unit just
to make it attractive to renters um I can see a scenario where a developer might take another path which is to develop large expensive condos that have less of a parking footprint but get maybe more value from the
development itself so I think it could it could sort of go either way I the other Factor about the site is that it's very constrained uh on the flood plane um not to mention obviously a access but there's a big chunk of it you know look
at the density denominator and it's um it's a full acre less than the the actual acreage um the the positive on that is that you get a kind of density bump because the density is being
counted um against just that constrained area not the entire site that's just kind of some some to chew on as we kind of go through iterations on this and refine an approach if we want to kind of make some tweaks to the paper mill site parameters
to make it more compatible with that development um sort of feasibility thresholds that we think would be relevant um but for now I've plugged it in sort of closer to that 90 number that we talked about last time um and you can see that with you know with those
numbers plugged in that this um is sort of comfortably over both the unit um capacity Target and the units per acre Target so we're at a little over a th000 for unit capacity and 16.8 for
density um so then the next set of um kind of scenarios that we looked at take that sort of the the capacity that's coming from the paper mill site and the 7-Eleven Randol hav site and look at how we can use that to um reduce the Elliot
Street Corridor so I just have a question how come you didn't apply that same methodology about being car Centric at the paper mill site to the um 728 Randall fav the 728 Rand Al fa site is way more car Centric than the uh paper
mill site but yet you were only saying the paper mill site is 90 units that's your recommendation and then at the Randal Fab site you're saying it's 120 there are dramatically different acreages and the access for the paper mill site is very constrained in like
the infrastructure investment required is very different but I hear you it's it's a it's a planning decision about you know where units should go where it's appropriate to have housing but there's also um the paper mill site has a lot of really specific constraints on
it that make it more difficult to solve for development and therefore make the density more important to make it viable so I would think the paper mill site the density should be increased over 90 and even over 150 if you're trying to make
it more attractive to a developer I think that's a site that can handle more um density I I think it's just a question of whether you want to make it attracted to developer and you want development to actually occur there or whether we're
just you know kind of playing with numbers to sort of meet meet compliance um I think it can go both ways if we're genuinely interested in development feasibility on a particular site we
might also begin to um play with some of the the parking spaces and the density and that sort of thing so I think in this because this is a temp this is the adjacent so we we don't need to bump you
know let's we'll keep keep going but I I hear what you're saying but okay but if it goes to a rapid transit that's a whole different that's a whole different ation yes I agree so yeah so this site also factors into the rapid transit um scenario it's one of the ones we'll be
folding into that analysis but we just haven't done it yet so it might be that it is penciled in at different with different parameters for the two scenarios that we're um evaluating it for um so just to kind of elaborate from
there um thinking about the role that those sites can play in further reducing um the Elliot Street corridor this takes the units per lot numbers down from four to three for the tiers 2 and three of the Elliot Street Corridor
um but holds to the minimum lot size that we've been talking about um you can see that that's still um quite comfortable the the units are um comfortably over the 985 and we're a little bit um closer on or we're at at
16.1 on density versus the 16.8 before so still well above the 15 units per acre so basic takeaway here is there's there's room to spare um the next um piece that we were asked to look at was to see if there was room to further drop
down the um the Elliot Street Corridor tier one or sorry increase the the minimum lot size for the first tier of the Elliot Street Corridor um from 6,000 to 7,000 you can see that impact here it
um the density starts to drop down um to um much closer to the 15 units per acre and then if you increase it to the 7,500 um you drop down um further so that we need to sort of increase um you
know in 7-Eleven Randolph and paper mill um to a higher density in order to support um these parameters for Elliot Street Corridor so that's that's what I have for you and again I can do some like live number crunching on some of these
if there's one in particular that you want to um sort of focus on um or if there's specific parameters that you um take issue with or want to see um different for you know planning or feasibility issues can you go back one
slide Zoe I think that's the one that we were seem to be United on thinking that was the preferable one so the what I would say about the LA Street Corridor here it's very similar to what it was in the
2023 uh just a 500 square foot lot size difference so from what people understood about the LA Street quarter there there's not much change here so then it becomes I'm sorry at 7,000 or at 6,000 this is at 7
okay and it gets us at five 15.2 and you know closer to the Target um and then it keeps graned AV North which we've all agreed is a good location uh I think we've agreed 7-Eleven is good and the Papermill site
is good so I do think um I think this is ready to take to the public and get feedback on as a 10% and thisal and this allows that reduction of that um of the Elliot the boundaries the
boundary reduction yeah yeah all of these I'm showing you today assume that okay yeah I would say this would be my I would would um so I think I think this
is ready to present and then hopefully we can be at a place on the rapid transit um and our next meeting to feel the same way that it's ready to present and maybe it has a couple of options that are presented you
know that people can uh weigh in on statute would be ready too so we're in a better place and I agree that that I would look at things differently for a 10% you know an
adjacent versus a 25% would have to be looked at different you know CU and that's the problem where I feel like the 25% plan I I feel like we end up feeling like we're putting a square peg in a round hole correct and that's why we're
struggling that's why we've struggled for three years because 25 is just really difficult to get to because we don't have the land area half of it's in Boston well I mean if we look at this the paper mill site here is at Zone capacity of 109 we've just heard that that's not
likely to be economically viable for the particular conditions of this site and it's probably why the 90 units that the Brownfield zoning allows hasn't yielded a project U so look at that density yeah you know I think
um increasing that density the reality is here um 7-Eleven Randol f is not going to produce any units so granted AV North if the office building and the office Market continues to not be terribly popular
there maybe that would be but we're really looking at a 10% plan that's not going to yield much new housing so um well do we want to if we want to yield new housing go down to 6,000 square feet on Elliott Street I'm just pointing out the fact that according to I mean this
is what the goal of this 10% was right to to meet the the requirements but I'm just pointing out that it's not likely to yield housing as as own yeah I think the goal of all of it is to meet the criteria even at a 25 % plan right will you look at Extra Space Storage I think
there's a lot of areas that we would see um development but all right so um so I think this is a good place to pause if this and to um if there's anything else uh Zoe that you would wanted to add
before no I think that's good we'll we'll get to work on the um the revisions we talked about for the statute um plan and also the um Rapid Transit as a followup for the 7th um and we'll plan to come back to you with um hopefully some Alternatives that you
feel comfortable going to the public with before they go do you want to see if there's anyone um on Zoom who has any questions yes um if there's anyone in the public who on Zoom who has any questions that you might want to
ask pleas or comments comments just raise your hand cheen are you seeing anyone um no hands as of now all right good well thank you so much Matthew and
Zoe I appreciate your time and effort on this another great meeting it was very productive you guys thank you thank you very much look forward to seeing you soon sounds great see you later thank you right so long everyone good thank
you so the last item um on our agenda is um to for the board to move into executive session um I'd like to ask for a motion um to move to Executive session
pursuant to uh G um GL SE section 30A section 21 A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation entitled Joe Henning at all versus planning board at all Nori Superior Court civil action
number 2582 c V 00293 an open meeting uh an open meeting may have a detrimental effect to the litigation litigating position of the planning board um the planning board will not reconvene um in open session at
the conclusion of the executive session is there so moved I'm not repeating that is there a second second second okay all in favor I I great cool thank you [Music]
okay