[Music]
Red. So, good evening everyone. Um, welcome to the 39th meeting of fiscal year 2025 for the Milton Planning Board. Um, I would like to now call the meeting to order. Uh, we can begin um with the
um introduction of the board welcoming back um our uh candidates. Um and I do want to just say I think congratulations to Maggie and Sean, but congratulations to all candidates um in this election. we all know how much work it is um to
run for for a town position and just want to say congratulations and and what a great job I think all the candidates did. So um with that uh we can begin by introducing um Jim Jim Davis member Sean
Sean Fehee member Cheryl Cheryl Tagayas secretary Maggie Maggie Oakfield member and myself serving as chair. Um we have with us tonight um Cheyenne if you'd like to intro our staff. Cheyenne
Fraser. Yeah Cheyenne Frasier assistant director of planning. Great. Welcome. Um and thank you all. Um the next is the approval of minutes. Um I still have not had a chance to uh look over that last that that came in uh just
before our last meeting and um we will need to also um schedule an executive session for the other meeting um minutes that were taken with the joint session with the uh select board and the planning board. So, um I think for tonight if I could have a motion to
defer uh the approval of um minutes. So, move. Okay. Thank you. Um and is there a second? Second. Okay. Roll call since we're on Zoom. Jim, yes. Sean, yes. Cheryl, yes.
Maggie, yes. And myself, yes. Great. Thank you. Um and now um we can move to our citizens speak. Um tonight we may have um a lot of people who who would like to speak. Um I just would ask that
if you did send a letter um that we just know please know that we have read your letters um and you don't need to speak again. Um we will be discussing those tonight. Um but if there is anyone, we're fully remote. If you would like to speak, um we would like to give you 3
minutes um to speak and just be mindful of others who are also wanting to speak this evening. So uh with that um if we're seeing I think there was one hand up earlier. Yes. So far we have four hands. So the first person is going to
be Karen Freriedman. Great. Welcome Karen. Can you unmute yourself? Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Welcome. Hi. Thank you so much and congratulations to all of you that uh were running. Um and
uh I appreciate to start with that you are submitting a a plan that um is uh hopefully um more in line with what the state is looking for. I live on a side street off
of Elliot Street um on Norway Road and I'm a town meeting member in precinct 2. Um so the area that is very much uh affected by the new plan and the old plan. Um, I've supported the MBTA
Communities Act once I understood it. Um, and helped my neighbors and other constituents to understand it. Uh, for the most part, ultimately be in favor of it despite it potentially having a significant impact on our neighborhoods
right from the start. Our area is um adjacent to the trolley line and it um is has always been slated as one of the areas that were going to have uh the zoning aspect to it. Um uh I sympathized
with East Milton in understanding the burden that they were feeling and in general supported a revision to the plan given their concerns. But it appears unfortunately that you as the planning board have fallen a little bit on deaf
ears in understanding what the burden to a few congested areas means and are just altering the location of that burden without altering the burden itself. Um I'm sure that East Milton is very happy
right now that almost all of the um the zoning that they were slated to have was taken away. um for the MBTA uh changes and our neighborhoods had a lot of it right off the bat, but now it has
practically all of it between the Elliot Street corridor and Blue Hills Parkway areas that abut this same area. Um many of my neighbors and I accept the need for the additional housing. Absolutely.
And different types of hap housing absolutely. But we urge you to use what you hopefully learned from the original neighborhood that felt so burdened and to be more equitable in assigning the zoning changes to more areas that are
available and appropriate, not just ours. We understand that there may need to be some additions to it, although again it was quite considerable to begin with in our area. But um and we accept that maybe there should be a little bit
more um in this area since this is where the trolley is and we benefit from that and it's not that far from the commuter rail as well. But there are other areas on your map that would be appropriate and we urge I urge you and I'm speaking
for many of that they do this that you consider that. Great. Thank you so much Karen. And what number you said Norway Road just for Norway Road. Okay. Great. Great. Um next. Yep. Next is
Regina. Great. Welcome Regina. Can you hear me? All right. Yes. Welcome. My name is Regina Campbell Malone. I'm a town meeting member from Precinct One. I live at 177 Churo Lane.
Um, I first want to congratulate you on working so hard to put forth a uh a compliant plan and for considering lots of different and incredibly creative options. Um, I'd like to especially
thank um the chair uh and Mr. Behe for thinking creatively about reducing the lot sizes uh in an effort to solve the planning issue. And I I hope that um others share my uh my understanding and
my my really really valid hope that you will research all of the subdists once again in town to see which of all of the sub subd districts would allow the town to gain the most units without hurting
the density numbers. um instead of just focusing on reducing the the parcel size um for uh three family housing in that Blue Hills triad. I think if we're going to make some uh really big changes like
that going down uh below 5,000 and and sorry going down from 6,000 to 5,000 and even considering 4500 square um feet um that we should look at all neighborhoods
and all subdists with that in mind before we decide on um the Blue Hills Triad as that um uh for for that option. Thank you very much. Okay, is Christine
Christine Hodlin? Welcome. Can you hear me? Yes. Welcome, Christine. Great. Thank you very much. Um I appreciate um being able to speak. Um, and I appreciate all the work that has gone into this. Um, seems like
you've been working on the new plans for almost a year and a half. And, um, I was hoping that we could have a couple or at least another, um, public forum open to be able to discuss a final plan, but um, it seems at this point that you don't really have a final plan yet and are
still working on it. And I appreciate if you try to make some changes to that based on our input. Um, I live um at 112 Maple Street. I am partially on the Elliot Street corridor. My house doesn't appear to be um hit my lot, but other
houses on my street are. Um I'm still a supporter of the MBTA zoning that's compliant with the state law. Um and I listened to the meeting last week um and have a few comments based on that. Um, I am opposed to making the Elliot Street corridor even more dense than it
was before and also reducing the lot size. Um, and again, I think the precinct 2 area was very accepting of the first plan that came out which had a lot of the density added, but I don't think it's fair that you dump all of it or so much of it in this one particular
area of town when there are other options. Um, I am also opposed to creating another district as you suggested or as Zoe had mentioned possibly along the Blue Hill Parkway. Um, where there are twothirds of the houses are single
family, onethird or two families and only one house is three families. And why would you look to turn that into a very dense neighborhood with possibly many more um three families? Um, I'm very familiar with that area. own a house over there. My children live over
there and there is not a lot of open space. There's not a lot of parking. Um and it's already very dense. So, um I also would hope that since many of you are not um fa you know are not in favor of being a rapid transit community that
why you wouldn't consider Zoe's suggestion to try to create other districts near the commuter rails which she had suggested at least one last week and I think there may have been another one. Um, and I guess I just want to say it's just frustrating that you've been
working on this for a year and a half and um, we're still a month away from a town meeting where we're supposed to vote on this. Um, the last public forum was provided with a very short notice during school vacation week and during Holy Week and you held it on Monday, Thursday
um, that week. um I don't think that was fair enough to give many of the residents in town um the opportunity to look at what you were proposing and be able to comment. So um I hope that you'll continue to look at the options that Zoe and and you have all come up
with so that we can have a plan that has been vetted through everyone which is the select board, the warrant committee and the public prior to town meeting. So thank you very much. Thank you Christine. Looks like Anthony next has his hand up.
Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Welcome. Hi, my name is Anthony Nollo. I'm in 4A. I live on Kaylor Avenue. I watched last week's planning board meeting and I was shocked by the suggestion that one neighborhood, the Elliot Street corridor, required a
6,000q ft lot to build a triplex, but the Blue Hill Parkway neighborhood is being considered to lower the minimum floor as low as 4,500 square ft for a triplex. When Cheryl brought up, and rightfully so, that the Blue Hill Parkway area is socioeconomically and
racially diverse, Maggie Ol said that it was why she was pushing uh to reszone that area because it's a quote unquote opportunity. I'm appalled to hear that a planning board member suggests that one neighborhood, which happens to be predominantly white, inherently needs
more outdoor space than any other neighborhood, which so happens to be majority minority. If the minimum square feet to build a triplex is 6,000 ft in one area, it should be the minimum everywhere. That's all. Thank you very
much. Um, Robert Lynch. Uh, Robert, if you could unmute yourself. Yes, thank you. Great. Welcome. Robert Lynch, 106 Decker Street, town meeting member, precinct one. This board's discussion a few days
ago around potential zoning changes for the Blue Hills Parkway corridor has surfaced with concerning timing. The fact that this topic gained significant traction just days before an election with public comment scheduled for the day after an election makes me question whether the community will really have a
chance for thoughtful input. It also concerns me that this potential changes appear to have been considered before with your own expert at that time and again now advising against them. The concept of significantly reducing the minimum square footage for lots only
in the Blue Hills Parkway corridor and nowhere else is deeply problematic. If this were to become a formal proposal, it would represent a significant and seemingly unjustified deviation from established zoning practices across the town, as well as contradicting the concerns that were
repeatedly raised by your own expert during your discussions a few days ago. I disagree with any implication that residents in this part of town are somehow accustomed to or accepting of smaller lots and less green space. Green space is vital for everyone and zoning
should not disproportionately reduce green space in any single neighborhood. Furthermore, I disagree with the assumption that allowing larger structures on smaller lots will create an economic benefit for the area. While a single lot or developer might see increased economic value, if an out of
scope development diminishes the value of neighboring lots, can we really say that's a net economic benefit? So, as you move forward, the fundamental question remains, why would you entertain a zoning proposal that contradicts your own experts advice both
previously and currently and establishes such an unequal standard within our community? Thank you. Thank you very much. And next we have Adah Rose Marin. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Good evening. Evening. Ada Rose Marin, 32
Coline Road, um town meeting member, precinct 2. Um, I join um my neighbors in being uh supportive of a compliant plan with the MBTA communities and I'm glad to see that that you are
considering this. Um, I'm disappointed to have to speak at Citizens Speak at the 11th hour on this very important topic. Um, I think the community process for input on on the planning board's plans has been lacking. Um, I share my
neighbors uh concerns about the density in the current plan for the Elliot Street corridor. Um, and um hope that you will um continue your efforts to find um other districts um around town
to uh reduce the density um in in our area. And I agree with our neighbors in the Blue Hill um Blue Hill A triplex area um about not reducing the lot size in in that district as well.
That that that just is not fair. Um two of you, congratulations for being reelected. Two of you just took your oath of office this evening uh to fairly and equitably execute the laws in of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And I
implore you now to do your job that you just took an oath to do. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And next we have Scott McKay. Welcome, Scott. Good evening. Um I'm sure you can hear
me. Yes, we can hear you. That's what everyone says to make sure that you um thanks for um letting me speak tonight. I know that I did submit a letter um but I like to talk. So, um, thanks for having me. I I've worked with most of
you guys before on different different, um, projects around town. Um, and I come to you tonight as a resident in the precinct 2 neighborhood. I live on 21 Colmine Road and I was until yesterday a
town meeting member for nine years in our precinct. So, I think I have a pretty good pulse on the feel of what our neighbors are thinking and what they're sharing amongst each other. Um, and a lot of what has already been said tonight, I echo. Um, I just want you to
at some point when you're looking at the map of um the this proposed zoning that's for the 25% compliant plan. Now, um there's the band of of development that potentially could
happen in the Elliot Street neighborhood and also Blue Hills Parkway. And then zoning out or zooming out, there's only two or three other locations in town that um are are having some of these
units allocated to. Um as of right now, 77% of the units are on Elliot Street and Blue Hill Parkway. um where the initial plan had only 56% um in our neighborhood and Blue Hill Parkway. Uh I think that's consistent
with what the state asked us to provide um 50% of the units within a half mile radius around public transit. Um and I would think that that spreading the units out in a more equitable fashion to to show some color
in some of our other neighborhoods would be appropriate. Um, I just want to remind you that this isn't just a math problem. Um, these are people's homes that we're talking about and there are personalities and people
behind that. Um, and I appreciate that you keep that in mind as you go further with your deliberations. Thanks for letting me speak. Thank you, Scott. And next we have Matthew Matio. Uh, Matt Zer. um Elliot
Street uh resident and um I appreciate you all taking the time to hear everybody this evening. Um so I uh was always for MBTA zoning and remain uh that way. Uh I am myself an
affordable housing developer and um in favor of density in the appropriate locations for the appropriate reasons. Um I was for the previous plan. I thought it was uh well thought through and um equitable. Uh and I think things
have taken a turn um now for the present plan. Uh and I think the burden is largely placed on the Elliot Street corridor now where it should be at the 50% or more or so that it originally had been where that's what complies with the
law on a rapid transit corridor. Uh, like my neighbors have said, Scott, Karen, Christine, I think you should look at other areas in the community to to place some additional density and not burden the Elliot Street corridor with all the density. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Matt. And next we have Annie. Hi. Yes. Um, Annie Bush. Um, I am Karen's neighbor um at 8 Norway Road. Um, and I just want to echo the comments that my neighbors have already made
here. Um, I support the MBTA um, communities act. I voted in favor of it in the last election. Um, and I believe that Milton is in fact a rapid transit area. Um, but I do have some reservations about uh, the plan that has
been proposed. Um, the LA corridor is already quite dense. Um, I think leaving aside the issues we have with traffic and people blowing through stop signs as it is, there's also probably going to be quite a parking issue um on such a narrow street um with so many houses
already very densely packed together. Um, I implore you to please consider um, you know, thinking about where else in the town uh, we can put some of this um, additional capacity so that it's more
fair and equitable. Um, and I I I would implore you to allow more in community input. Um the only reason I know about this meeting in particular um is from my um from some of my concerned um neighbors who brought this to our
attention. Um this is my first time ever coming to a meeting like this and speaking in this way. Um and I I have to say I'm really disappointed to to have to come in this capacity to to voice my opinion in this way. Um, I I really just wish that the communication was better
um and that we were thinking about um all members of the community when we're making decisions like this. Uh thank you very much for allowing me to speak. Thank you, Annie. I appreciate you coming forward and speaking. Um next we have Alexander.
Hi. Can you guys see me? Yes. Yeah. I'm Hi, I'm Alex Lang. I live on 27 Essex Road. Um, as another uh P1 resident, I guess I was also really uh disturbed or or surprised by last week's meeting where uh a lot of the discussion was
around uh lowering certain standards for or or or whichever way you look at it, increasing standards for uh P1 at this uh Blue Hill Parkway uh triplex or triplex uh area. Um I live in the uh in in the highlighted area. um to to make
that different than other other districts in town I think uh is is worrisome. It doesn't make a ton of sense for me. But but what I mostly was concerned with that this came up sort of at the last uh minute. It seemed it seemed like you guys were sort of tracking towards uh um you know your
three options, one of them the 25% compliant plan and uh it it it it's it seemed like you guys were mostly in agreement and and then sort of a couple members threw out uh some some sort of lastm minute changes you know reducing on Randolph a and maybe increasing in P1
and that that was sort of unfortunate because I think it needs um at that point would need more uh um uh citizen and input and uh we're clearly out of time. It's my understanding that uh right in order to get things ready for the June town meeting, we would have to
submit something uh in the next couple weeks and so there's clearly no time to get further input. So I just wanted to echo uh some of the other P1 residents and speak up for this part of town. I'm generally of course in favor of this law. I think we need to come into compliance. um we've had a lot of time
as a town and you as a board to to uh to come up with options and I would echo some of the other callers who mentioned that it's a bit unfortunate that we are here at this last last at at the 11th hour to to still discuss these sort of major swings in your in your approach to
this. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Um we now have Ian Boyd. Ian, good evening. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you very much for your time. Um, I'd like to commend the group
um for continuing to work on an issue which is causing great acrimony across the Commonwealth and within Milton and I know these are a lot of hot bit issues and it it is affecting people. I want to echo one of the previous speakers by saying there this is affecting people's homes and their neighborhoods and so I think that brings up both emotions uh
which are which are hard to navigate. Um, now with that said, uh, a term that has brought been brought up quite a few times here is equity. And I do think the plan as it stands now, um, does fly in the face of equity across Milton. Um, it does put a burden on the Elliot Street
corridor and the Blue Hills uh, Parkway area uh, excessively. Um, I live in the area affected. I I supported the original plan and I voted in opposition of the referendum. I understand that we should and I accept that we should increase density in Milton. I do think
that it's unfortunate that this plan does seem to put that burden on a greater number of people in a smaller area. Um, and increasing density in already dense areas does just that. Uh, it affects more citizens disproportionately across across Milton.
And I do think that the board and I I do plead to the board to look for alternatives to help uh spread this burden across more people in Milton so that the impact is not so acute. Thank you very much. Right. Okay, we have time for one more
speaker. Um, Lindsay Sans was next. And if we only have Eve, I'll let Eve speak too, but um but that will we will need to move on after that. So, Lindsay, please. Uh, welcome. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, welcome. Hi, Lindsay
Sans. I live at Six Waldo Road Precinct 2. Uh, I, you know, I've previously come before the board. I actually disagree with the classification, although I am uh generally in favor of the law. I am on the Elliot corridor. I opposed zoning this area previously. I oppose now that
you've doubled the units in this area. But the thing I'm curious about, and I haven't heard any discussion about it, although I admit I'm a bit behind the eightball on this issue recently, um Central Avenue seems so perfect for
this zoning opportunity. Um, I forget where I've said it, but you know, a new three $3.2 million house went up on a lot that could have easily been perfect for the intent of this law. Those lots are big. The street is wide. I also have
some concern um again the traffic and the parking. Not to reiterate what other people said, but you know, we already have overflow parking on my street on Waldo Road for people on Elliot just when their kids are home from school or, you know, they have one or two guests. There's a lot of single lane driveways. I have a concern that the parkets
parking is going to overflow to the commercial district down um by Elario and turn away some of the traffic that those restaurants get and hurt the hurt the commercial business that we have there. So, I know you guys have an enormous challenge in front of you. I think this should be spread out more
like others have stated. There's the Milton Academy area, there's Central Avenue, there's other areas. Obviously, some on Elliot corridor makes sense um just not the number that's currently proposed. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And last, we have
Eve. Welcome. Oh, that's how that works. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Welcome. Hi. So, I've never actually uh spoken at one of these. And I And full disclosure, I So, I as I was say, I don't I don't live in the affected area, but I thought I had an interesting perspective to share if
that's okay. Um I um I live on Randolph A, which is currently uh seeing development, and I am in support of having more affordable housing. Uh even though I see firsthand, I mean it is there's going to be a much a very large apartment building right across from me. There's going to be another one going in
right around the corner. I get it. We need more affordable housing needs to go in somewhere. But I want to echo the concern about equity to put more to be building more on what if you want to call it West Milton or whatever. Uh is definitely an unfair equitable burden because it is very clear as someone
who's just started to get to know this community. I've been here about five or six years that uh there is much more density on that side of town and the other side of town like I'm on the dividing line Randolph A from Randolph A to East Milton uh you know ought to have much more capacity for uh you know sort
of coming in compliance with the law. Um so it really does come down to equity. That was I think my point. Um okay thank you. Okay. So with that um that will conclude
our citizen speak um for tonight and thank you all for your comments and for folks who have written letters um to the board. Um so at this time our next item on our agenda is item number
four um the reorganization of the board. So um this basically we would need to um appoint a new chair and um secretary any so I'd like to nominate Meredith
Hall for chair. I second that. Um any discussion on that? I'd like to express a concern about having the chair be held by the same person, which would be now for four years. Um I've expressed in prior years
that um this position has rotated amongst board members and um you know while there's the role of facilitating the meetings and setting the agendas there's
also um opportunities afforded to the chair uh and recently we have uh meetings with housing and livable communities about uh compliance with the MBTA TA communities act and um you know that our
current chair has um expressed an interest in uh plans that aren't compliant and so um I I I just want to express um my concern about continuing to have the same person in the chair's position.
I I appreciate that. Um we have a motion. Um I would be willing to accept that nomination. Um, and I'm I'm grateful for the the nomination and um and Cheryl, I I hear
what you're saying and I I I appreciate your thoughts, too, on this. Um, sorry, Madam Chair. I nominated Mera just because um right now we're very busy. We have a lot going on. We're under a time crunch. Seems like every single month we're under a new time crunch. Time
crunch at every town meeting. Um, Jim, I'm quite familiar with that. I'm entering. I've just Today is the beginning. I think I was still talking. Okay. I thought you were done. Uhhuh. And I just don't see the need um to mix
it up or change anything right now. Um I think the board is working just fine as it is and I think Meredith does a great job. So that's it. Now I'm done. Okay. One thing I would like to say as I said in prior years when this topic has
come up um you know how the meetings are managed and how much is on the agenda, how late the meetings run, how much community engagement and the community engagement plan that I suggested for MBTA communities for this entire past
year. um you know there have it hasn't been followed through on and you know I last year I I made some suggestions about how we can u run our meetings more efficiently and and get our work done in a way that uh serves our constituents
better and um and I continue to hope that that's going to happen because I obviously uh uh you all have u made your uh choices known Okay. So, we'll need a roll call vote since we're on Zoom. Um, we can start a
Maggie. Yes. A Jim. Yes. Sean, muted. Sean, yes. Is Cheryl um and myself? Yes, I accept. Okay. Um, so now role of secretary. Um, Cheryl,
you've been doing a great job with the minutes. Um, I don't know if that's something you would like to continue to do or um, that's open for discussion as well. I do agree that Cheryl is doing a great job. So, I would nominate Cheryl to stay
as secretary if she would like to. I'll second that motion if she'd like to. I would accept the nomination then. Great. Great. All right. Any other comments? If not, we can go to roll
call. Um, can I make one, Maggie? Sorry. I just want to make one comment. Um, I think both roles are a significant burden and my only comment is that I appreciate the work that both of you do.
Um, I um I honestly know that it takes a lot of work and I know Cheryl puts in a ton of work. I know you do as well, Meredith. And um I sincerely appreciate it. I don't have u enough time to do either of the roles and I appreciate the
fact that you two are willing to do them. Thank you, Sean. I think everybody does a great deal of work, but I appreciate those comments. Um, so we'll do a roll call again for this. Um, Maggie, yes.
Jim, yes. Sean, yes. Cheryl, yes. And myself, yes. Okay, great. Um, so now we can move um to the discussion of our town meeting articles. I don't know if there was anything. I don't have
anything um for the um Oh, you know what? I didn't discuss the next meeting dates, so I'll just do that at this time. Um, as well, uh, next week we have our uh, town meeting. So, our our next um meeting will be prior to town meeting
uh, Monday at 6:30 where we will have time to touch base on where we are with um, the MBTA um, zoning as well as anything that comes up with our ADU um, or our site plan articles. But those are ready to go. They're in the printed in
the warrant for anyone to read. Um and they're they're ready to to be discussed when when they come up at town meeting. Did you say 6:30? 6:30. We're going to meet a little bit earlier than we normally do. Okay. Um just to give us time if we if there's anything we need
to discuss for MBTA prior to Okay. If you can make that I know sometimes Yeah. No, no, I'll be there. Sure. I'll be there. Okay. Anything else on those articles? And if not, um, we can now move to the discussion of MBTA zoning. And
oh yeah, Tuesday we'll meet at 6:30 also. And then if meeting goes to Wednesday, we'll meet at 6:30 also. Yes, we have scheduled um I think I'll have to Cheyenne. Do you know if we posted Wednesday for 6:30 also? Uh, we've only
posted Monday. so far. So, okay. I was under the impression only Monday we were going to meet at 6:30 and then the other two days we'd meet. Yeah. We also Yeah, we also discussed having um a meeting on
the 8th just so we can um sort of again just MBTA only on that agenda on the 8th if if folks are still good whoever can make it on that. I just think it's important and Zoe's um said that they would try to hold that date for us. That's it and will be in person for that
meeting and that would be in person. Okay. I'll be a little late for that one. Yeah. Okay. Or hybrid for those who can't um make it in person. So those would be the next meeting dates. Um so now our um
moving to the discussion we can welcome. Can I ask one more question? Um just just to for the following week we have uh our meeting on Tuesday the 13th. Correct. Okay. All right. And that's our only meeting that week. Yes. Okay. At this time. Okay. All right. Great. Thank
you for that. Yes. That's great. And that will be focused um we'll we'll be hearing back from two Elliot at that meeting. They'll be coming back for their public continued public hearing and then MBTA. Okay. And our following meeting from that one is the 22nd of
May. Uh yes. Okay. All right. That would be our regular schedule date. Okay. All right. Great. Yep. Thanks for all of that. Sure. Okay. Okay. All right. So, um we can welcome uh Zoe and the
um I'm not sure who else she was going to have with her this evening. Matthew. Matthew's here. Okay, great. Welcome Zoe and Matthew. Hello again. Um we'll kind of be tag teaming the presentation tonight. So,
I'll kick us off and then Matthew will pick up and sort of go through some of the closer studies that we did of the Blue Hills fabric. Great. Excuse me. Um, so I will go ahead and share screen. Um, for those that may be joining um, for the first time, my name is Zoe Mueller.
Um, I've been the project manager supporting um, the MBTA communities analysis um, to support the planning board. Um, I'm a senior planner and associate principal with UTIL. Um and I'm joined by Matthew Latal who's a principal um for UTIL and um an
architect by training. So we kind of tag team the different aspects of the project. Great. Um so with that um today we thought we would just give um as always a quick um refresher on timeline and then um go through some of the refinements um and sort of alternatives
discussed at um our meeting um last week um for the rapid transit community plan. Um then also kind of um confirm that we're um you know that where we left off with the planning board's adjacent community plan um is still um good as is
and then go through kind of next steps to make sure that we're um moving things in in the sort of sequence we need to to get to the deadlines we have. Perfect. So, we we sit here um the sort of the sense of urgency is because we need to kind of get to that final warrant um by
the 16th and um in the intervening time um have some um have to write the zoning and also um do some coordination with the state to make sure that we're all um buttoned up on on multiple fronts. So, that's kind of the the big picture um push that we're part of right now. Um,
and for the rapid transit pieces, um, I just kind of have this as kind of our our anchor as a reminder to the, um, the standards or the the targets that we're planning to for each of these. Um, this is, uh, just to kind of
refresh, last meeting, we showed um, this, which is what we had um, shown at the public forum. Um and then we also wanted shared with the planning board a suggested adjustment to this that brings Elliot Street corridor tier 1 and the Blue Hills Parkway corridor into um
alignment again for the F and lot size standards. Um so that was kind of a baseline starting at the last meeting and then um we presented a alternative that um uh Cheryl had originally prompted around um you know potential
ways to bring the unit count down on Elliot Street corridor sort of along the lines of what a lot of the public comment um noted um just before this and um that led to a discussion that sort of expanded like what are all of the swaps that we might consider to accomplish
that goal. So, what we're looking at is removing um what we're using as a shorthand, either Elliot East or Elliot West. You'll see what those geographies mean in just a second. Um so looking at removing one or the other of those and then um swapping in um one of three
alternatives either Blue Hills East, Blue Hills West, which again I'll show you the geographies in just a moment um or the Fairmount Station District which is the one that um Cheryl had originally um raised uh to us as an alternative um which is uh close to the commuter rail stop. Um so with that uh oops I think I
skipped one. Okay. So, this is when I talk about Elliot West and Elliot East, this is what I'm referring to. Um, so Elliot East um is the sort of section that's south of Elliot Street um sort of beyond that one parcel depth that lines
Elliot Street. Um so that's that first geography. And then the second geography that we're referring to is as Elliot West for now um is I think what some call the Colines. Um it's sort of the area that's um slightly larger lot single family homes along Cliff Road and
Norway Road. Um and then retaining um the Cape Street fronting parcels. Um so just so everybody's kind of oriented to what our like nomenclature shorthand is for today. Um so what we've done is we've looked at
existing um unit densities on these parcels. Um this is using the state level data. So there's maybe some small discrepancies, but the overall patterning is correct. Um, and then also looked at lot size just so you can see the patterns and you can also compare
kind of across the districts and understand how this all lines up because for both Elliot Street Corridor and the Blue Hills area, there's a lot of important relationships um that are embedded in the the parcel size patterns and the existing unit um density mix. So
um what I'll kind of help you read through this. So this the all column here is showing you um the sort of statistics in terms of single family parcels, two family parcels, and three family parcels um for the entirety of the Elliot Street corridor as um
depicted in our um sort of work to date. Um and then the west and east columns show the sub areas um of the um the sort of two areas that we're considering for swapping out. Um so you can see that the
west area is um entirely single family whereas the east area is more split with about 72% um single family, 26% two f sorry 72% single family, 26% two family and just 2% three family. Um so when you look at
that kind of comparing to the um Elliot Street Quarter overall um west is sort of um skewed more towards single family, east is skewed more towards two family relative to the overall profile of Elliot Street.
Um moving from there to parcel size. Um this is sort of part of our discussion um in the meeting last time about the sort of um parcel pattern differences between Elliot Street and the Blue Hills area. You'll see that
here um very few parcels are under um 5,000 square ft um in the Elliot Street corridor geography. So um looking at again same sort of structure here. So all the entirety of the Elliot Street Quarter versus that east sub area and
west sub area. If you look at the Elliot Street Quarter as a whole, you can see that um essentially 10% of all parcels are below that 5,000 mark. Um whereas for east we have um just 4%
that are below that and west none are below that. So it's a a sort of a different profile. And then you can see the sort of ramp up here in terms of parcel size thresholds. Just as a reminder right now for Elliot Street, we've set the the tier 1 is a 6,000 ft
minimum. That's come down from the 7,500 that was proposed for the 2023 article. Um and then tier 2 is at the 10,000 square ft. Tier 3 is at 15,000. And um tiers two and three um allow four
units under the current rules. They allowed three units under the 2023 rules. Um so then um coming over to just kind of look at this in a slightly different way. So not spatially but instead like statistically looking at like what is
the spread of parcels. Um this can just give you a sense of um kind of at each of these um for each of these buckets um how many parcels are in that bucket. Um so this is a little bit complex to
read. We can come back to it if there's something that we really want to drill into that is related to this. to just to give you broad brushes of how to read this chart. Um the color tones that you're seeing are for the entirety of the Elliot
Street corridor as currently drawn. Um you can see that there's a a sort of um a jump in parcel size, you know, here that are number of parcels that um the sort of really the majority of parcels are in that um 7,500 to 10,000 range.
That's this color bar. and then slightly less in each of the sort of tiers below that. Um, and then there's still a significant number that are kind of in that slightly larger bucket here, the 10,000 to 15,000 and then the 15,000 plus. Um so the second thing I want to
call attention to in terms of how to read this is we're also showing um the relative reductions that you would see based on removing either the Elliot West geography um also known as the the Colines um and
the Elliot East geography that's the part that's just south of um Elliot Street. Um, so this is kind of just gives you a sense of the the parcel patterns of Elliot Street corridor and how that relates to the rules that we have applied to it currently. Um, so
with that, I'll go to the Blue Hills area um and give you a sense of the same kind of analysis for that setting. So this one is looking at the um existing units per parcel. Um, if you kind of can
recall from the Elliot Street corridor, um, that was sort of sort of a 2/3 one/3 split. 2/3 single family like 1/3 um, two family. Um, this is, um, actually wait, I think I'm getting that a little bit wrong. Let me make sure I'm quoting
that right. Um, 80% single family, 17% um, two family. Um and then when we go to Blue Hills and look at the sort of profile overall um we have uh 62% single family, 20% two
family and then kind of odds and ends um in other categories. This is across um the sorry I'm I'm reading this a little wrong. This this C category here current this is instead of comparing to the all that is specifically the Blue Hills
corridor. So that's the the the district that we have had in our map for quite some time including 2023. That's the geography that you see outlined in pink here that lines the Blue Hills Parkway itself um and includes those those
parcels that front on the parkway predominantly. So they have a slightly different pattern from the parcels that then um sort of continue into the neighborhood on either side of it. So for that um the current Blue Hills Parkway corridor you can see that that
has a split of 62% single family 20% two family a couple um in three and four family and then um significant non-residential uses currently that's like institutional uses religious etc.
Um when we look at the um west geography, so that's the sort of triangle of parcels to the west of the Blue Hills Parkway that is 40% single family, 48% two family. So this is to my um comments in the pre previous meeting that this is
really a a more dominant two family parcel fabric. So that's part of why you see different patterns. Um and then three family um 4% so quite small um a single six family um and uh 7%
non-residential so still some presence of other use types um then for the east geography which just sort of tucks in to the south and east of the current Blue Hills Parkway corridor geography here um
that is 34% single family 61% two family so again heavily two family um and then just a handful of non-residential uses in the mix. Um so what this is really kind of the story here is that both west
and east have significant two family um presence in them already um but hardly any three family. So it's it's an important distinction. We'll get to it in terms of like the bulk of the building, but if you think about like use density in terms of like the number
of people that are there, the number of units, the number of households, it would be a significant change from that perspective, but maybe not from a a bulk and sort of urban design perspective, which Matthew will get into in a little bit. Um, in terms of parcel size, um,
this is another important distinction between the Elliot and Blue Hills area. Um so the if you recall in Elliott there were negligible sort of a total of 10% of all the parcels were below
5,000. Um if you look at even within the Blue Hills Parkway corridor district that we have right now again as a reminder that's this current column a total of 22% are below below that 5000 number.
Um if we look at the two areas that we're considering for the Blue Hills sort of additional districts, um 60 63% of the east district is below 5,000 square
feet and then on the west um you can sort of doing the kind of quick addition there. um that would be 54% are um you know under 5,000. So, this is the real reason why in our earlier like
our 2023 analysis, why we ultimately moved away from using the Blue Hills Parkway District is because if you set that 5,000 foot minimum lot size or even 6,000 or at the time 7,500 just from a parcel size perspective alone, you've knocked out
the majority of parcels in this district and therefore it wasn't getting to the density numbers that we needed. So, I had shared that in the previous meeting and the um planning board expressed um interest in seeing some analysis around the 4,500 square foot threshold as a
potential way to zone for in greater alignment with the existing parcel fabric of this area. So we we've done that in our analysis today and we'll show you what we've come up with. But this can help you kind of just understand why this is this is really a different zoning question or zoning sort
of pattern um that needs to contend with both in terms of the existing uses and in terms of the parcel fabric. Um so thanks for bearing with me on on that. This is sort of a similar excuse me um analysis of parcel size um sort of just
in a you know going from the spatial perspective to more of like a statistical perspective of seeing that distribution. Um and this just sort of summarizes out kind of in raw numbers so that if we need to kind of come back to it it's all in one place. I won't go through this in
detail. It's the same information just shown in a different way. Um, so with that, I'm going to have u maybe before I pass off to Matthew to run through the test fits, are there any questions on that like existing use and parcel size analysis? Zoe, I have a
question, Zoe, if I may. Yeah. Um, on back on the the triplex, what was the number of parcels? I have Elliot Street as 268. I think I missed the total number of parcels in the triplex. Um, let's see. can do kind of a quick
tally here. Um I believe it was I think it's 61 in the west. I'm getting a little bit quick um oh 75 right 30 36 66 69 70
75 Okay. Yeah. So we have 75 in west and I think that means we have 61 in east because that's a number that stuck in my head. So it must have come from somewhere. Yeah, that's at 61. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. And um
and then for Elliot um it's many more than that. Um yeah, I got Elliot. I had 268 on Elliot. Uh um the 268 is for single family, so it would be uh So it's Oh, 268 plus 58 plus 8. Okay.
Yeah. So 334. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions on this piece of the analysis before we go to I'm going to come I'll come back um because there's something I do want to talk about but let me do a little bit of work here and uh so not to delay and we'll if Matthew's taking over I'll be ready when
at a later point. Okay, sounds good. Anybody else have any questions on this? No. All right, Matthew, it's floor is yours. Yeah. So, um, relative to the the 4500 limit, we did some conceptual
planning to understand, uh, the feasibility of that and what the consequences would be relative to open space and setbacks and so forth. You might recall we did this analysis for both 5,000 and 6,000 foot parcels on on
Elliot Street, which is what is shown here. Um to demonstrate that um there's a a pattern that could be maintained within these dimensional parameters. I I think the one thing to understand is that when we're looking at the
feasibility of a of a three family uh building, a three-unit building, um visav the the regulations um and we limit ourselves to two and a half stories. it sort of if you do the
math at at 1,000 square f feet a unit you come up with a 1,200 square foot uh footprint is what's sort of minimum required and so um as you might remember we've been calibrating the F and other things um to sort of align with that um
if you go to the next slide Zoe um so uh the the punchline is that um a 4500 square foot parcel will work in terms of uh the building
size. Um what is notable obviously um because the building side building size remains constant um because we need to allow for parking ideally behind the building um what we get to is an open space
number that is um quite low. So in the in the low30s in this case and this is fairly idealized and you'll see from this arrangement that's showing a fairly typical uh and pattern consistent setback
um both on the front and sides that um you know while that there is a 33% number it's not really usable. I don't see a rear yard here or or other kinds of usable open space, but um again uh if
if we had to conform to the rules, um it would fit. Um we looked at this at some other ways. If you go to the next slide, um, I wouldn't really recommend from a sort of urbanism, good urbanism
standpoint that we promote parking in a front lot, but we were curious to to see um how much open space that driveway to the to the rear was taking up. Um, so again, there are trade-offs here. Again,
um this is a a don't try this at home moment, but we wanted to see um you know how that how the parking in the driveway affected um the open space. And this you can see we're getting to to 50%. Um next
slide. We looked at a slightly different shaped uh parcel, one that might be a little bit wider and um less deep. Um this also works. Um we're getting a little bit more open space in this case. Um
uh but it's not inconsistent with some of the the the lots that are in in the district. Um next slide. And then again looked at this uh what we would get from open space if we put the parking in the front. But again um I I don't think that's consistent
with um the the patterns that you see in that neighborhood. Um, if you go to the next slide, um, I I was curious to see what the patterns really are existing. Um, and we found a couple of based on some
of the the analysis of various parcel sizes. Um, a couple of examples that were sort of real life examples of those those sort of tests that we did. Um this is a series of um two family uh
dwellings on Laurel Road. Um these all have almost exactly 4500 square foot parcels. Um and you know by my reckoning uh the best I could with um Google Earth and measuring footprints and so forth. um
approximately 300 uh gross square feet in the building which is to say that dimensionally in terms of the building mass that um these could accommodate um three units as defined by by the regs
and how the model works. Um it's not to say that um it's not uh insignificant. The change of use between two family and three family has other consequences. Um you know there are more
uh cars. Uh it's also important to note that in real world scenarios you see very little um open space and greenery in this scenario. A lot of side lots um have been paved over to accommodate multiple cars.
Uh, next slide. And this is another example on Collar Avenue, which is sort of um just around the corner. Um, very similar, same lot sizes, um, more or less the same building sizes. Again, meeting that sort of
minimum threshold that we've been looking at to at least fit um, three,000 square foot units. You'll see in this case that in some instances that there is more greenery. Um I'll also note that a lot of these uh buildings
have have garages in the rear that sort of might eat eat into usable open space in in a rear yard. Um and then uh we looked at uh Elliot Street as a kind of comparison.
Um these are a little series of fairly typical um uh dwellings on 6,000 square foot parcels. Um the buildings are approximately 3,000 square ft. So um
when we look at the metric of where we have it right now um this is the the physical density that um that we're sort of that is represented in the numbers that we're carrying right now for for Elliot Street. Again uh very different
use I think these are probably single family. Um, but it's important to have a visual that the the physical density could carry and maintain the the the sort of physical pattern of the buildings on on the street.
I can um pick up here. So I think with that that kind of concludes the analysis that we did for both the Elliot Street and Blue Hills area to inform kind of the development of zoning parameters for each. Um we did also just because we're going to be mentioning this as we go through the compliance um numbers. This
is the Fairmont Station district that was raised and discussed um at the last meeting. Um you'll see it come up in some of the compliance um scenarios that we've run tonight. Um so you can see that it's basically the the yellow highlighted parcels here and then the
the red arc that you're seeing is the half mile um from the commuter rail stop. Um so you can kind of see that it's it's part in part out um for that. And then um we also wanted to bring back to this group the 501 Randolph A um
parcel that came up in discussion um at the last meeting. Um so um as discussed this is owned by Milton Academy. Um as the regulations were originally drafted it would have been categorically excluded because of that institutional use. Um as was raised at
the previous meeting. Um one of the few substantive changes um that were was included in the revised regulations that were published recently. um was the um the red lining that you see here at the bottom of this screenshot of the um the
regulations. Um which provided um some level of discretion for the state to um make an exception to the general rule that institutional land would be excluded um if and only if there was an indication that it was no longer going
to be used for educational or institutional uses. Um and just as a sort of an ane an anecdote um we are also working with the town of Hamilton. Um this was an issue that the town of Hamilton raised to the state um based on
a specific condition in their community and that is we presume the sort of part of the what has triggered the state to recognize that they should have a similar level of discretion to recognize specific circumstances in which
institutional land is in the process of transitioning into privately available land. Um and so in that case it was um uh just to like help anchor this and make it more intuitive. Um the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary is a um a
residential campus institutional campus that um sits within the town of Hamilton. They have for a long time had student housing on campus. They are in the process of transitioning that student housing to be market available housing not associated with the
institution any longer. And that's an example of the kind of situation that the state might admit as a um a reason to um accept um the otherwise excluded land um as developable. So that's kind
of what they're going for. So, with that in mind, that sort of context, um, and based on sort of further follow-ups with Milton Academy, um, we would advise the planning board to not consider this further because we do not think that the state would accept it as a valid district because there isn't an
indication that Milton Academy is interested in transitioning this away from their own ownership into private ownership. Um so that's kind of the conclusion of the analysis and then we were going to go into showing um the difference
compliance scenarios um and based on the um the sort of urban form analysis that um Matthew kind of walked through um and the parcel size analysis that we did um of the Blue Hills area. This is the model inputs that we have used for the
compliance runs that we're showing you today. Um so it is broadly speaking based on the parameters that we have had for the Blue Hills Parkway corridor but we have made three modifications the ones that are highlighted in red to reflect what would
be necessary to have um the level of physical density on those parcels that's necessary to get to three units. Um, so that would mean um the F would need to go up to that 67. That's coming from those um sort of uh aerial views
that Matthew walked us through. Um the minimum lot size at 4,500. That's coming from the parcel size analysis of from our prior work saying that if we set it at 5,000, that alone is enough to make this district um have so many ineligible
parcels that it's no longer contributing positively to the overall compliance picture for the town. Um and then the 30% open space is a recognition of the site planning challenges of accommodating um parking in the rear. Um that that would be necessary for some of these parcels to be able to achieve
three units with three parking spaces that are not in front of the building. Um so those are the parameters that we've included. Um as we go through these, if there's a particular scenario that you want us to sort of refine and bring back to you at the next meeting, we're happy to revisit some of those. But for the sake of efficiency, we just
kept that held that constant across all of the different um versions that we're showing you. Okay. Any questions before we dive into the compliance runs? I'm sorry, Sean, go ahead. No, no, no. Please, Jim, you go first. I have a quickie. It's just so when you say you
held a constant, that means everything we're looking at is going to be 30 units per acre as well. So all of the instances where the Blue Hills East or West districts are included in a compliance run, they'll be included with those parameters. So in
other words, we didn't like in one compliance run use 30 units per acre for Blue Hills and another one used 29, etc. Good. Okay. Thank you. I I'll add that 30, you know, if you sort of do the math,
um 4,500 square f feet is approximately a tenth uh of an acre. To get to three units, you know, that's 30 units per acre. And the 67 times 4500 gives you 3,000 square feet, which is again also
the sort of minimum that the model will count for three units. Okay. Um, Matthew, I I just have I have a few questions and Zoe, if you don't mind, I feel like if I ask them now, it might seem more orderly than to go back later
if that's okay. Yes. Yeah. Go for it. Okay. All right. Good. Um, so I'm just I'm trying to trying to um extract some some data here uh from your data or I'm creating some data. Um, if we go over to Elliot
Street, can you go back over to Elliot Street? And I'm I'm going back to the 334 parcels. Uh, okay. Excellent. And so we have 334 parcels. And then if you go to your sheet that indicated the size of
the parcels and the percentage of there we go. Great. So let's see in the 7500 to the 10,000 square foot category we have a total of 22% that are that size parcel. So um
just scratching some math out here. That means the 73 parcels that would be 22% of uh that's actually uh 22% of 334. So that means the 73 that is 7500
ft or greater uh on the 10,000 square ft um 18%. So 18% of 334 is 60. So, um, we have 133 that are either greater than 7,500
ft² or greater than 10,000 square ft, right? And, uh, check me on number of units that can be built on 10,000 square feet and number of units on 7500 ft². So, these would be um, sort of to cross
reference these with our tiers. So the the what's you see in yellow here, the 15,000 plus, that would be four units under our current rule. That's tier three. Yeah. Um the 10,000 to 15,000, that would also be four units. That's tier two. Yeah. Um and then um these
three categories, the 6,000 to 6250, 6050 to 7500, and 7500 to 10,000. Those would be those would collectively constitute our current tier one, which allows for three units. Okay. Okay. So, I'm going to have to do a little bit of
math here because I'm a little high on this. Um, do you want to bear with me for a second and I'll um I'll make my way through this. It'll take me one minute to do a little bit of math. So, Sean, are you trying to get at the zone capacity of the the three Elliot Street
corridors tiers? Uh, I've calculated that as 813. No, I think I'm going a different direction than that. Um, bear with me for one minute, Cheryl. Uh,
uh, so 73 parcels could have potentially uh three units. 60 parcels could have four units per, right? Is that right, Zoe? The 10,000. Let's do it quick. So it would be the if you take the four
units are allowed on um let's see 18% plus 8%. So 26% [Music] um times uh 334. So there's 80
86 or 8 87 parcels that can accommodate four units I think if I'm doing my math correctly. So taking this let let me check you on that. I I had it at 18% of
334. That's for the 10,000 to 15,000. And then also for the 15,000 or more, you'd also be allowed four units on those. So if you add those two together, you have 26% of all the parcels are 10,000 square feet or above.
And all of those parcels would be allowed four units. Okay. So what did you have for total number of parcels that could have four units? So I have 87 by that quick math. 87. Okay. And how many did you have that
could have three? Three. Wasn't that 73? So that' be 46% um times the 334. So that's 153 154 if you round could accommodate
um three units. 154. Okay. So, and that's really this is in terms of the changes that were made from 2023 to now. That's really what you're seeing there is, you know, for in 2023, right, we were cutting it off at the
7,500. So, it was just the 22% of parcels could accommodate three units. Mh. Um, and then we were also only allowing three units on the the upper tiers. So, the other the two ways we've added units is we've allowed one more
unit each on the ones that are 10,000 and above and then we've gained um 14% of parcels that were previously excluded that now each are allowed three units. Okay, so stick with me for a minute. I'm going to I'm going to focus on 7500 and
up. Okay, so I'm going to have a lower number here. I'm gonna So I believe that is 73 parcels that that are in the 7500 um category. That's a 7500 to 10,000. And let's let's put aside the the
smaller parcels that can also have three. So here's here's what I'm looking at, Zoe. I'm I'm looking at the most likely redeveloped parcels are the larger parcels. I'm just focusing on that area for a moment. So if the 7500
square foot to 10,000 I think that's 73 parcels and that's 73 parcels times three uh units per parcel could generate 219 parcels and if we take if we take the 87
that you mentioned which is in the category of 10,000 to 15,000 and also the 15,000 plus that's 87 parcels times 4 that equals 348 parcel uh 348 could be developed.
Uh so if we take 348 um plus 219 that's 567 right um new residential
units just in that area uh could be created and that's where the net new comes in right where this is a little bit more complicated than that right but I I think I see what you're getting overall impact. But I think it would in
order to really say like how many new units is that we'd have to look at it in relationship to this other map which is you know right now what's on it. Let me let me finish on what I'm saying here.
Um, so the math that I come up with then 567 units result from redeveloping the 7500 plus the 7500 to 10,000 foot lots plus the 10,000 to 15,000 foot plus the
15. So we have a total of um 567 uh new residential units. that that means that the net new of that uh is
407. So that would be 407 net new units. I'm comparing to assumption that it's one family currently. Exactly. I am Sean Sean I did a calculation based on the actual split of singles and two families
and based on parcel data that we have and it was for the Elliot Street tier one, tier 2 and tier three. So the zone capacity not reducing it yet from what Zoe's talking about tonight in those three tiers is
813. The existing units in that area are 289 for a net new of 302. I sorry, a net new and 23 of 302. Now 524.
Mhm. So an increase of 222 units of net new. Yeah. I guess what I'm looking at is the net new and um and my my logic um and the reason I wanted to focus on the lot sizes that are 7500
foot or greater I think they're the most likely uh to be redeveloped most likely. Um let let's assume that the smaller lot sizes economically it's hard to redevelop them. um you either you either
have a restriction on the geography and but the bigger ones are much more likely. So, um, if if my math was right, and I'm not I'm not questioning Cheryl, what you put together, but just my quick math here means 407, and this is only on the large parcels, 407 net new, which
also means 407 more cars, you know, if we just say one vehicle, you know, per residence. We have 407 more cars, you know, in that neighborhood. Um, and I and I'm also curious to know what is the anticipated
uh bedroom count that we might have if it's a 7500 or a 10,000 foot or 15,000 foot lot redeveloped. What are the what would the bedroom counts be in those residences?
That's something we can't predict. Um, I mean, I think this is was the subject of the RKG study, you know, to to evaluate likely redevelopment and impacts on town services and occupation, etc. Um, but I think, you know, there's no doubt that
we're talking about an increase in density here. We're talking about an increase in the number of people. Um, and so that carries with it, you know, increases in use and, um, traffic as part of that. Um, parking is part of
that. Uh, but I'm wondering if if there's, you know, Sean, if there's like kind of a if you're trying to get to, you know, I think this is this this concept applies in all of the districts, right? This sort of issue of the, you know, what's the impact of that added
density? Yeah. Um, is there a particular are you suggesting that we change the rules? I'm not No, I'm not suggesting anything at the moment. I'm just I'm just trying to use a small area to to try to, you know, develop an understanding of impact. That's it. You
know, and and it seemed really simple to just take this area and the large size only and not even consider the small size. Uh, and like I said earlier, I think the larger size lots are more developable because they're going to be less restrictive in terms of some in
that sort of in the spirit of what you're I think you're trying to get at and using Cheryl's analysis that um based on the current geography. So, if if we were to focus if we were to assume that that parcels that are below 7,500 are unlikely to be developed under our
current rules, if I'm doing my math correctly, that means um that sort of um the parcels under 7,500 but above the threshold at which we're allowing three units, um would
account for about 243 units. So, if Cheryl's math was that the current rules allow for a net new of 524, then you could imagine that um you take 243 of those out.
Um so if you're assuming that parcels under 7,500 are not being developed. Um so that means you take the 524 minus um 243 that's a a net new of 281 under that
set of assumptions. Yeah. I'm not you know what I' I'd probably have to I'd probably have to look at that a little bit more. I I um do we know on these parcels, the large parcels, if those parcels have single family, two family or three family homes
on the large parcels? Um so we do know that, but that's like that I think that's what Cheryl had. We have not done that granular analysis for Elliot in the current incarnation. we could do it and it's something that we've agreed that we will we willing to do once we get to a
single sort of uh scenario that we're pursuing but we don't have those numbers run now. Yeah, Zoe, the reason I'm drilling into this for myself is I think we had um if my count's correct, we had 14 people that spoke tonight during citizen speak. Many of them um have
issues with the density uh in the Elliott Street neighborhood. There's also a considerable number of them that are in favor of 25%. And I don't know, and maybe they do, maybe they've done these calculations themselves, I don't know that they recognize the kind of
density that this is. And the reason I wanted to try to extrapolate what I'm doing here is so our audience tonight could imagine that if my math is right, I had 407 new units. And that's again only on the large size. That's again assuming that all the large lots are
single family right now and they would go to either three or four and that's 400 cars and it's 400. You know there's a there's a density and the proponents of this should should be able to understand the kind of density that this is that this is bringing and you know I
know that each of the neighborhoods are unique but the problem is the same. The density driven into any neighborhood um is going to be pretty pretty intense. So, you know, it the granularity and I understand your interest in trying to get to one plan and then developing the
granularity, but I almost feel like it might be too late developing the granularity at that point because the granularity should be um considered as we're trying to get to a plan. Do you follow what I'm saying? You know, uh for
people that are saying, "Oh, I think this is great. I think we should do it. Elliot Street's too dense." I'm not sure. I mean, what is dense? one, it it's relative, right? One person's density isn't is not dense to another person. But, you know, I if in fact all
of those parcels got redeveloped, including the smaller ones, we're probably in a category of somewhere between 500 and a,000 cars that would be added, you know, to the LA street area. This is assuming every resident has one
car. Um, you know, that that's really what we're talking about. I I think it's it it's an incredible amount of density that I'd want everybody to understand what we're talking about. So the granularity later might be too late for people to, you know, be able at that point to say, "Geez, I was supporting
something I didn't quite understand the impact of. Now I guess I understand the impact of it and I like it a lot less." I'm trying to do this. Yep. I did that granular analysis last spring and I shared it with this board last spring.
We talked about it last summer when UTIL started working on these re u potential revisions. Um it's one of the reasons why I suggested we needed to have public forums long ago and um you so you all
have the data. There's one parcel in when the boundaries that we have had that is 25,000 square feet. There are five parcels that are between 20 and 25,000. There are four parcels between
175 and 20. There's seven between 155 and 175. There's 21 between 125 and 155. And there's 39 between 10,000 and 125. And there are 65 parcels between 7500
and 10,000. Between 7500 and 6,000 there are 64 parcels. The net new that was discussed in 2023 we discovered was inaccurate because it
used residentity as a way of calculating it. When you look at the granular parcel by parcel data I calculated that the net new in the uh 2023 article is actually 302. And so then if you look at what's
proposed in this and what we've been looking at since last summer, we went from a zone capacity in the tiers 1 through 3 of 480 to a zone capacity of
813 for a change of 333 units. The existing units that were in 2023 in that area were 178. And the existing units that are in it in today's by adding more parcels and by allowing more
units on the larger parcels, there's now 289 existing units for a net new of 524. And we've had most of that data for some time. I would actually like to see the rest of
this presentation so that we can see where we are and and see what uh other revisions we may seek to ask of you till before uh our deadline is up. Well, we're going to we're going to see it. It's only 7:30, right? Is that all? So,
no, it's 8:30. I apologize, but um we have plenty of time, Cheryl. We're going to get to it. And I I appreciate your consideration allowing me the time to to have these questions while the dad is on screen. Um, I might add just one quick before we move on. Um, Sean, you asked about
bedroom counts. I just want to point out that we've calibrated the F so that it keeps going down as the as you move up in tiers. Um, it's at 04 for a 10,000 square foot lot. That equates
to four 1,000 square foot units gross. Um, in this market, I it's probably unlikely to be a full twobedrooms. Definitely not a three. It's more likely to be a kind of
um, you know, onebedroom plus. Uh so if if that's any help, I can't we can't predict what the market really really wants, but based on the size limitations, um uh you're unlikely certainly at the
lower end of those tiers to get certainly get three-bedroom units. Yeah. Um Matthew, I appreciate that. That is helpful. um you know what I have said for a long time the the impact in
terms of uh and and there is a real impact here for the potential for uh an increasing number of school age students in town. It's not as a result of four units being built on a 10,000 foot lot.
Where it is a a very likely result is the empty neester moving into one of those units selling that home. that's a three or fourbedroom house and and that's where the school age children impact will happen. So I I really appreciate that. So you're saying that if a 10,000 square foot lot is developed
and we hold the point4 for the F, we probably have four units of the thousand square foot each and most likely one and a half bedrooms per unit. Right. So, um, thanks. That's really helpful. And and hopefully the impact that I'm,
um, the impact that I'm identifying is is not families being able to move into these units. It's it's people like maybe myself, you know, uh, selling my four-bedroom home and, uh, moving into one of those units and a family is is the argument of this. Um, you know, I
have I have said and I know RKG, you know, did their analysis last year. I didn't agree with 275 students being the impact if we build 2461 units. That I'll never agree with. And what they had told us at that time was they did no
calculation for what I'm describing as the empty neester or transition. So yeah, I have a concern for for you know um with the impact and uh our capacity to be able to um uh manage uh what we
have when that happens. and and that's the most likely result. I think John that's a um it's a good pattern to note. It's certainly part of I think what the end goal is of of this is making housing options available that
enable people to move to housing that matches their needs. And that includes people who needed a familyiz unit at one point in time and no longer need it. Um, I will just also point out that um, most of those familysized units that
maybe now have empty nesters did once have a family of more people that included children that went to Milton schools. And that's means that at some point those Milton schools were accommodating that number of children. So I think it's it is a good point. It's
also a generational turnover that happens naturally in every community. Um, my parents started their family in a home that had a, you know, a elderly woman that was there that once had a family in that home before her. So, there's a generational swing to these
things that I think this is at a we're at a generational turning point as a region about that kind of housing stock. Um, and to some extent that will happen regardless of whether new units are made available. Yeah. No, I and I understand it Zoe. Um and and you know you probably
aware that the discussion in town right now is building a new school. So we don't have enough capacity. So the reality of it is as residents we have to realize that if what I described actually occurs which I think is very likely to occur. Um all we'll do is create more stress and uh and a
conversation will begin at some point in time down the road about building another school. So, it it's just fair. It's just it's it's something that people should be aware of, should be aware of. And the
reason I bring it up is um there's not a lot of discussion about it. RKG didn't want to talk about the number of kids that would become school age children if the empty neester transition occurred. And I don't think that's fair to the residents of the town. Um I think they should all understand it.
Thanks for giving me the time here to walk through this. Yeah, of course. Um, any other questions on the analysis before we dive into um the compliance scenarios? Okay. Um, all right. Let me just jump to first one. So, just as a
reminder, we're looking at um essentially six um combinations um a set of three where we we remove um you know Elliot East and swap in respectively Blue Hills East, Blue Hills
West or Fairmont Station District. And then similarly for removing um Elliot West and swapping in those same three districts. Um for the sake of um you you'll see these in sequence. Um sort of I'll do my best to kind of present them
as they come so you're really clear to to you what is happening in each scenario. Um and in all scenarios we're using these parameters for the Blue Hills um districts that are being added. Um, and we're using for the Fairmont Station district when it is added, we are using the same rules as are
currently being applied in the Elliot Street corridor. Um, so this is the first one. This is um what we showed at the prior planning board meeting um that takes the Elliot East. So that's the part that's
um south of Elliot Street, kind of in the middle of the Elliot Street corridor as we've been um seeing it and swaps in for that the Fairmont Station district um at the with the same rule sets as Elliot Street corridor. So you can see at the bottom here we're um in the clear
on all the compliance targets. We have a little bit of room to maneuver. We could potentially look at for instance bringing down Randolph A and Access Road um by some units to um line that up. The next one we run ran is um again
looking at swapping in Fairmont Station district, but instead of removing the Elliot East area, we're instead removing the Elliot West area. So that's the the larger lot single family Colbines area. Um so you can see here some changes to the numbers in the Elliot Street
corridor that reflect that modification and then the same um numbers for the Fairmont Station district. This one's also compliant across the board. um has a little bit less room to maneuver but still has some room um to maneuver just slightly different sort of profile.
Um next one takes the um Blue Hills East area and swaps it in for the Elliot East which has been removed. Um in this one again we are compliant. um we're pretty close on unit numbers. So, not a ton of
room um to maneuver, but density is up um well above 15, which is something that we haven't seen in many of our scenarios. So, that also indicates that maybe there's some room to maneuver in a couple areas to kind of bring this into greater alignment with those targets. Um I realize I I neglected to mention up
here I have for each of them, I'm showing the delta in the Elliot Street corridor as a whole since these are listed out by tiers. So it can be difficult to understand what's the the overall impact of that those. So um when we do when we move the remove the Elliot
East the delta is 123 units. Um and when we remove um Elliot West the delta is 154 units reduction in Elliott. Um so this one is now showing you um still swapping in the Blue Hills East
geography um and now removing Elliot West. Um this one actually drops below um apologies sort of colorcoded that cell differently. This drops just below the compliance target um in terms of unit numbers but is comfortably above in
terms of density. Um so that's um you know a bit asymmetrical. So maybe there's some correctional um you know parameters we could tweak to get to what we need there. But um just want to call attention to that. Um and then uh here for um we're now
swapping in Blue Hills West instead of Blue Hills East. Um so that's the sort of triangle that's um just sort of swings like a pie um slice to the west of the Blue Hills Parkway corridor. Um and we are removing Elliot East in this
scenario. Um this one brings us um well above the compliance target in terms of unit capacity as well as density. Um so again a little bit of room to maneuver potentially. Um and then uh we have our last option which again swaps in Blue
Hills West but this time removes Elliot West. Um and this one um you can see we have uh a bit of a margin on the unit capacity and also um density is significantly um above the 15. So
broadly speaking and I'll just I'm going to correct this now so it's the visual is clear um this is not compliant on this cell. Um so basically five of these six options are compliant and have a little
bit of room to maneuver in one way or another. Um the only one that is not is the removal of Elliot West and the swapping in of Blue Hills East under these rules. Um, so I think the the goal here should be to both
discuss the like global decision of like whether Blue Hills and Elliot Street geographies should be swapped and same thing for um, uh, the Fairmont Station district sort of in speaking in broader terms about like what some of the public comment addressed in terms of the
distribution of units across town. Um, and then as we get through that to then speak more specifically about like which of these six um the planning board would like us to refine as we're kind of moving forward if there's any specific tweaks that you'd like us to address to
kind of um fine-tune these options. Um so I will um pause there and I'm happy to jump back to um any of the ones that you want to look at a little bit further. Um, and similarly, we can toggle back to some of the analysis as
relevant. I think you're muted, Cheryl. Um, thanks. So, can you go back to the um Fairmont Station one? So, we have the two one. So, this one swaps it in for east and this one swaps it in for west.
And if we went back to uh three units per parcel across the entire Elliot Street corridor. Would that um how many units would that take out?
Would that take out about 87 right now if we're getting sticks? So right now we're getting 248 units um in tiers two and three which
are allowing four units. So if we multiply that times three quarters then we get 186 that was a question I had also the delta would be
So that's a delta of 62 units. So if we took those 62 units and we added those tool A Avenue and
access that would put that at a unit capacity of 162. And what would that make the units per acre on that one? If we added 62 units to the Randolph
Access Road, correct? That would be 164 units on Nandalf and Access Road. and dividing that by 6.1 that would be a 26.9
[Music] um density 26 units per acre right so that's still quite a bit less than a north at 51 units an acre Milton station east at which is basically extra space storage
and 88 warf and Milton station west which is 131 Elliot 36 Central and where Steel and Ry is and Milton Station Bridge, which is where Milton Hill House is, it's still
like half the density um of those areas. So I I think um if we can take those 62 units out of the Elliott Street tier 2 and tier three and put them into the
Randolph A that and and do the Fairmont Station and if we can get Fairmont to 200, we can address some of the spreading this a little further across town that we don't get when we're doing it at
the adding on to the sides of the Blue Hills Parkway subdist. Yeah, I think it's tough to compare 7-Eleven Randolph AB and Randolph Access Road to Granite AB North and Milton Station east west in the bridge. I mean, those are way
more commercial type parcels as opposed to Grand Alpha and Access Road. Jim Milton station bridge though is multifamily buildings that have single families um next to them. So, they're very commercial though, Carol. The point is they're very LA Street's residential
in that part of um El Street. Boy, you interrupted me. I was just talking about Granite AB North, Milton Station East, Weston Bridge. No, Jim, you keep telling you me I'm interrupting you. You're interrupting me. We're on Zoom. We're trying to have a interactive discussion here without raising our hands. So,
we're going to either raise our hands and only speak when our hands are raised or we're going to have some acknowledgement that we might not see when one another has finished speaking. Okay? So, I'd appreciate it if you would uh just continue asking me to stop interrupting you.
So, I will say I like the idea of taking the tier two and tier three down to down to three units instead of four and taking some of that um pressure off. Um, I see the combination which that seems
to me to make sense is to take the Elliot Street West uh removing that and adding the Blue Hill West combination because those are those are leaving
in areas that are currently have the most two families currently. Um, and I I think we have to remember because I'm very sensitive to this too, and I think looking at u what Matthew showed, those are those are very
large structures that are on very tight lots. So, this is not changing anything that's not currently in existing condition. Um, but what we have to also factor in is that with our ADU bylaws, I
I hope people remember that two families already by right can have an ADU. So, they can be a three family right now without us doing anything. So, those conditions are there will be some conditions that that may change there. The other thing I might say is with a
larger structure, I think we're less likely on a on a smaller some of the tighter lots, we're much more likely to see um new construction and and demolition of those structures. The cost to tear a building down, if you have a two family
in it, the cost to tear a two family down and build a three family Cheryl, you know, does not make sense. it is um it triggers, you know, if you're taking down an entire building, stretch codes, so everything needs to be um energy efficient and um materials and and meet
strict um building codes. I think it's much more likely that you'll see a unit added, if at all, within the structure that currently exists. I think Yeah. And I think that type of housing is needed. Um and I think that there's a there's a
value to that. So, I I like the idea of taking the west out and I know the fair amount I don't see the advantage of of of that neighborhood and um but it's within a half a mile of commuter rail
station. It's to the letter of the law as you all have um talked about at many meetings and it's yeah so it's walkable you know to the commuter rail station which everybody has said is a is a more reliable line than the the Matapan
trolley is. Um and I I still think that you know the um there were a number of people who spoke um about concerns um of adding more density um in the Blue Hill app, Blue Hills Parkway, Brushill Road
Triangle that we were looking at and uh the impact on open space on the small narrow streets and on non-p parking situations uh where we have a little more room where we have transit that's walkable Um, it I don't see why Fairmont Station
uh shouldn't be included. It is uh it is very much the same kind of built environment as the Elliot Street corridor and it allows us to remove some of that zone capacity in the LA Street corridor to an area that doesn't um exacerbate the problems on Elliot
Street. And so I I think the Parkway doesn't have the same impact. And I and I think Randolph A is a four the four-lane road. We've discussed this numerous times. Everyone um in the planning board had we talked about the pro other properties on Randolph A. We
had a a scorecard for districts last summer. We spent many many meetings discussing. We have not run um these analyses back through that scorecard, but we gave Randolph A pretty good rating uh because it had uh reasonable
access for those who are driving. It has a bus line and many say yes, it's not very walkable. Um but you know the it there are many parts of Milton um that we have said well East Milton Square is walkable, right? You know, in in my
view, East Milton Square, one of the disadvantages of these U regulations, and it's something I wanted to ask Zoe about is we are limited to the number of units that we can have in a mandatory mixeduse zone to 25%.
We said East Milton Square and the um Milton Village combined our business districts. We can't make all of it mandatory mixed use because it exceeds what the state's allowing us to do. But it when we're taking at the same time a
mixeduse overlay in East Milton Square that allows for multif family housing. I would like to ask Zoe if she thinks that there state HLC would make some kind of exception on this similar to the way they're making an exception
um to the district size uh for Granite North and for the paper mill. Do you think there's any chance that they would allow for us to have a more a larger number of mandatory mixeduse units? We haven't yet had a a community ask for
that um from the state. So I don't have a a good sort of sense of their level of how receptive they are to that idea. I do think that, you know, as we've discussed several times, I think Milton's um the relationship of Milton's
transit access to your parcel fabric is unique and poses really specific challenges that we have collectively been revolving around for um you know, several years now. Um and is at the core of the Elliot Street Quarter conversation. Um, so I mean I think it's
certainly something we can extend as a, you know, a specific request to the state to understand how receptive they are to that, but I don't think I have enough of an indication to give you a um, a sense just from our experience thus far. And can you um, can I just say
one thing? I just I didn't I when we were talking about taking the 62 units off, I hadn't really I don't have a strong opinion on where those go. So, I wasn't referring to putting those um anywhere specifically. I'm not, you know, I'm opening open to looking at
Randolph A, but I'm also thinking, you know, could we also, you know, look at putting it on maybe another area, the paper mill site, could we bump that up? I don't I don't know. Um Granite AB North, I don't know what that would do. But so, I wasn't saying exactly where I
thought those 62 units. So, I thought it was good idea to reduce the Elliot Street corridor tier 2 and tier three down to three units. But I think when swapping out the the another part of the the Elliot Street, I think the west
makes sense because the east has more two families. There's no virtually no two families in the in the on the larger parcels. And I think the larger parcels are more likely on Elliot Street um in the Elliot West to be the potential for
demolition and redevelopment there. Um I disagree that larger parcels are going to um lead to more demolition because you can easily do an addition um that can accommodate uh an additional unit on a two family or an additional two units.
You know, one of the advantages of the four units is it and we limited it to I think what we talked about before was it would be required that it would be two units in two buildings. And so um that you could meet the requirement of a
multifamily and not have four units in one building. And it would be a typology that already exists in the LA street corridor because we have two families on 5,000t lots on the LA street quarter. combined those two lots or 10,000 square feet with four units, two units in in
each building. But to what residents said in about two dozen emails and many residents tonight, another dozen, they want to see a more equitable distribution of the zone capacity. We have to be get back to talking about
another parcel, another zone in another location or we are not considering the three dozen comments letters that we received that said be more equitable. And I that's why I would like us to go back. We already are zoning from multif
family in East Molton Square. Why? If we can get the mandatory mixeduse accepted for that, we are then basically taking uh the total amount of multif family that we're allowing zoning for and reducing it some because we're incorporating the the East Milton
overlay into it. Um you know it Jim has said why aren't we doing in Milton Village? Uh we have a a mixeduse overlay there. Why don't we get credit for those units? Um, but that's in the same location. The same logic applies to East
Milton Square except that it's in a different location and you can walk to amenities. So that's that's more walkable than people said than Randolph Avis. I'd like to go back to considering that, but I don't mind going back and taking some of that density out of the street corridor,
adding a station, adding a district at Fairmont Station, and putting some additional uh on Randle Fab or in East Milton Square's overlay area. So, I I just want to add on because I I am open to and we're, you know, we're limited on time, but one of the things that um
Cheyenne and Zoe I would be interested in going back is to look at, you know, to Cheryl's um point, looking at some exceptions um that we could actually use um and count the ice house if it's a
it's a lower than a 5 acre um parcel. It's about 2.2 two acres, but that's mixed use multif family housing. Would we be able to, you know, what would be the appropriate way to to request from HLC that that would be able to we would
be able to count units there? And also I think because of the being amenity rich the Falcone property that it's a it's a smaller size parcel but yet that is a tremendous amount of housing that that will
um be you know partially affordable. Which which falcony property is that? So the the new on Basset Street the new project that is um the 40 project right. So that would be the overlay in East Milton Square. Well, no, I wouldn't do
the I wouldn't do the entire overlay. It would be that specific parcel that I would I would if the board um would agree. I think we should request getting credit for those um multif family housing and for the ice house. And that
would simply be um asking for an exception to the lot size because of our because of our limited um land area that we that we have. So that would help us tremendously. I'm going to jump in real quick and then I'll pass on. I know
Maggie, you're waiting to to talk. Um I just want to make clear that the indications we've received from the state about their their ability to be make an exception to the 5 acre rule have all been related to physically
infrastructurally isolated parcels. So I am very doubtful that they will be um interested in um making exceptions to that 5 acre minimum for parcels that are embedded in the neighborhood fabric. Um, and the reason is because that the
origin of that five acre minimum is really intended to prevent spot zoning, which is very much what we're talking about. Zoning a single parcel that is um, you know, a multif family use and not making it part of a larger
zone is is very much in the spirit of what they were trying to avoid with that regulation to begin with. So, I think we can absolutely ask and we're happy to extend that to them, but I just want to make sure that you have a sense of how likely it is. I think it's I think it's relatively unlikely. Well, that would be very helpful because then we could, you
know, really take it off um some of the areas that are a dense and I'm I'm very sensitive to that. But, um if they currently can already be a three family, I I just and we have two families. Um, I know other communities when we were first watching, um, they they utilized
their two and three families existing because that was, you know, typical of what already was, um, the character of the of that location. I think it this character, this is just the um, maybe I've lost count, the hundth, maybe
150th workound that we continue to try to talk about, right? It's just it's one thing after another. Let's add 62 units over to Randolph A. Let's try to figure out how to get the property behind Abbeby Park, you know, included. Let's
include the ice house. Then is not reasonably applicable to Milton or any other town that has the restrictive nature of Milton. But you know, Matthew said at the at the public forum, we have 14 districts. I think
that Matthew said that there is not one town that he has worked with or util has worked with that has 14 districts. What we really should do to achieve equitable for people is pursue something that gives us relief from 25%. That's what we should do. And and and everybody could
have some relief in all of the neighborhoods. But this is this is nothing other than trying another workaround and another workaround and another workaround. Move it here, move it there. Um, it it's it's there is I if anybody's watched these meetings and
I've heard enough criticism of the planning board and and what we haven't accomplished in a year and a half, it's because 25% is not a reasonable applicable zoning plan for a town like this. It just isn't. It just isn't. And you know, here we are trying to appease
the folks over in Elliot Street. And I get it. I think I'd be asking for it if I lived in Elliot Street, too. But, you know, moving 62 units, and I'm not saying I'm with I'm forward or against the Cheryl over to Randolph AB, but moving 60 units to Randolph AB is just another it's another workaround. You know, Merit's idea of trying to get them
to accept the project nil, another workaround, right? The most appropriate thing to do is is ask for relief. And we'll probably, if we asked for relief and explained how restrictive this is for us, would probably have something that we would actually be able to put to
town meeting and town meeting would accept. It's enormously frustrating. It is enormously frustrating and um we have received a lot of emails the past few days and I thank everyone for them
and a lot of them were have been directed at my comments and I apologize to anybody if I've offended anybody or taken advantage of anybody's situation. Um, but I'm willing to, you know, walk
the talk and, you know, I my family has five acres and I'd be willing to zone my families for five acres to to reap an opportunity. I've talked about
opportunities for our residents and I firmly believe that. And and as Sean mentioned, land values are only increasing. So if you guys want to look at taking pressure off Elliot Street, I
really would be willing to have you look at my family's property. And my neighbors might not like that, but I'd be willing to do it. Um, and I firmly believe in open space.
And anybody who knows me, I've advocated for open space my whole entire professional career. I believe in green corners. I advocate for conservation land. Um, I advocate for organic
gardening and organic practices. And I do I'm sorry if I've offended anybody and I want everybody to have trees and open spaces. I don't I don't want I want natural parks for for our
kids to grow up on. Um so that's one point. If you're looking for five acres, come look down at Hillside Street as one one email um suggested that you do. And then secondly, I wouldn't mind looking
back at Randolph Fav. You know, I look to see on this um your unit capacity for the Randolph Access Road, it's up to 102. I've talked about it extensively. There's already um
40 units on one acre already going there. I was comfortable doing another 40, so there'd be a total of 80. So, it's disappointing to still see this 102 still sitting there. um especially when there's going to be another development going on at the
7-Eleven store and probably across the street on the other intersection. So, there's a lot of um um development going on um Randolph A. However, Zoe, if you don't mind going back to the map of um
the Randolph Fab Access Road and maybe we need to extend or expand the district from not just the horse farm, but also to the other um houses that will complete the square
of that Randolph fav. And again, I talk about resident opportunity. I'm a firm believer in giving our residents an opportunity to to take advantage of the the increase in value of their homes and
not letting it go to some big outside developer. Um, but could we look at, you know, the squaring off from the access road to square it
off to um, you know, the um the house, you know, heading north. And what would that do? What would what would that do? I wonder. You mean this one here, Maggie? Yeah. Yeah. and continue
um continue going um like up up to here. Yeah. So be one, two, three, four, five, six, seven houses. Got it. So basically carrying these lines forward to come out to Randolph. Yeah. And again, I haven't talked to any of these neighbors um except for one. he was willing to um
include his house in it because he believes that he would increase his value of his property and he's planning for his future with his children and his retirement. So, I haven't talked to anybody else. Um but I don't know if that would do
anything. Well, you might as well include the parcel south of the proposed 40B along the access road. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, you could do that. Yes. Um I guess if you make it
bigger, I wouldn't mind more units here, but I kind of like what you're I mean I I agree with you where we sort of stopped at 80 and then we got to 100 somehow. Um and now we're just throwing more units on here to take them from somewhere else. And I guess if we're
all, you know, airing our grievances, I would not put anything in East Milton Square. I mean, my feeling is that East Milton Square is getting theirs already. with the 100 or whatever 97 Falcone units and then 440 granite and then, you
know, our um our overlay zoning still hasn't even kicked in over there yet. So, who knows what that's going to bring. Um and you can't walk to the tea from East Milton Square. I mean, the spirit of this law is to is to walk to the tea,
not use a car. Milton East Milton Square is a destination where you drive to it. Um, I mean I and I would go back to the village, you know, I would put I I know you guys don't agree with it, but you know, Milton Village, exactly what
Cheryl said. I would bring the Honeyman building, um, the bank down there, the post office all the way up to the Verizon building. I would include th all those parcels because those are great buildings that could use a little redevelopment and those would bring a lot of units and you can walk to the tea
and it's already in a business district and we can make it the mandatory mixed use. I mean, that's where I would look instead of trying to um put units here, there, and everywhere because we've been doing that for the last couple of iterations. And we're maxed out at the paper mill. And I kind of thought we
were maxed out here on this Randph F parcel. We're maxed out at 7-Eleven. You can't throw a couple more units on top. So, can you just um Jim, if I'm getting it right, can you describe to me the the the parcels in Milton Village that you thought we should expand to? Before you
do that, um, before you go off this map though, can I just add something else here? There's that parcel to the northeast that's landlocked. This this one, right? Um, and I know you I think explained that you didn't
include it because of the access. Um, yeah, I think there's a um Nick had done some research on this for us. um from the town's perspective. I believe there is an access easement in place that provides access to these three
parcels, but that same easement is not in place currently to extend to this parcel. There's a chance it could be extended, but that's the the rationale for leaving it off because we thought it might be questioned by the state whether it has legitimate um public access. And
does it who owns the easement? That is that a paper street and then the town grants the easement or is that private property owner? I I don't recall. Um because if it's a town it would be easy enough to grant the permission, right?
Um yeah, I think from Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure, but I think I think Nick's had advised us based on the status of the current ement. Um, so I think if he felt it was easy to extend on the timeline that we
have, he would have indicated that. And just to go back, sorry about my my suggestion on increasing density here. I'm not really suggesting um, you know, I would like to keep it like the
three units per lot. That's possible. I don't want to extend it out to be like another 15 units per lot. It would just be um three units um
per each of these existing house lots. Yeah, I understand. Um and just as a quick note and then I think Jim, let's go back to your um idea. Uh the when we ran the compliance numbers here, we left that 102 in for the Randolph Aban access road because we weren't sure what
numbers we were going to get. almost all of them came in with some margin. So, if we do choose to pursue one of those, I think they all have room to see a reduction or a correction back down closer to that 80 number. Um, we just didn't have time to to do it for today. Um, so that wasn't like a intentional um
slight. Um, okay, Jim, can you um kind of direct me on this the parcels you were thinking about? Yeah, where it says the word Milton in red, the tea station, if you go south of that, you see a bunch of trees. And then right to the left is
building right there. This one parcel heading south on Adam Street. Um there's like a little old hat shop and a little um like down here right there. And then that building just to the south of that also is the Verizon building, which is a
huge building. Okay, got it. But Jim, you're not suggesting that that would be added to Milton Station West at a sixtory height, right? No, I'm I mean east rather. No, not at a
sixtory height. Would 4.5 feel better? That's too tall. I mean 4.5 is Yeah, I think so. The zoning allows four stories under the overlay if if um the bonus is
granted. Yeah, but only do do it like two and a half stories and then keep the bonus in. No, it still allows three stories and then the bonus. So two and a half is less than what the underlying or the overlay zoning allows. Yeah, but what's
the underlying zoning? The underlying is business. this business which allows 40 40 feet 45 I think 45 feet so the underlying it would have to be a lower height than it would have to be keep it as the keep it as 45 and then if there's
um they they then should get a bonus if they do all affordables or something but you can't that would create a dick yeah we don't we haven't done the bonus in any of this although I think some towns have Zoe if that's right Yeah, they have a baseline zoning and then a
bonus. We haven't done the bonus anywhere. So, let's start here. Well, no. I think we don't want to see these buildings torn. I mean, Swift Hat Shop will be torn down and rebuilt, but the Verizon building has a large lot
that there could be an incentive to tear that down. Yeah. And we don't want that. The Verizon building, it's not that nice of a building. I mean, the building is very attractive. Yeah. Uh, you know, it's uh, you know, it it
it strikes me as being a little um odd to be concerned about adding one story more down here in this area that already has multi-story buildings after we just heard Maggie talk about putting a 100 units, you know, where their nursery is.
I mean, you know, if we I mean, my god, if if we can put a 100 units up on hillside with their nursery is, we could add a story, you know, in the village. Sean, are you talking about making a four story? Yeah. Yeah.
Which is what That's the incentive. That's the bonus, Cheryl. Right. On the overlay zoning. Yes. So basically it would negate our overlay zoning that we worked really hard on down here because it would be much easier
just to do it and bypass. I want to come back to the if that's if that's I'm sorry to interrupt. I did interrupt and I apologize. If that's disturbing, call the governor. We're doing all kinds of crazy things. You know, none of it makes
sense. So, I just want to go back to the East Milton Square for a minute because it doesn't have these type of buildings right there. And we didn't do a buildout analysis or we didn't have a consultant do a buildout analysis of what the zoning would yield in the in the
mixeduse overlay, but we know 440 grand a 20ome units. I forgot how many 20 exactly. and 90 some at the 40B. And so we know we have over 110 units there that are already get uh being built that
um we should get credit for and that more than offsets the 62 that we were talking about and in cuts into some of the other uh that we were 120ome that we were talking about. And um if one of those some there are some buildings
there um that if they got redeveloped and had commercial first floor and residential above um that's exactly what our overlay zoning is allowing. So, um, so Jim, I I understand that you're concerned that they already are getting
it, but nothing about this zoning will change that they're already getting those buildings, and we're we're putting the overlay out there for Tony to approve. Um, so we already are saying that we think it's a good option to have this overlay that allows ground flooror
commercial and upper floor uh residential. And if we made it at just like we did in 2023, we made it less attractive than the overlay zoning, then the overlay zoning will be what developers use, but yet we still get
credit for the zone capacity. So it makes so much sense in that regard. You're take you're getting credit for something that you're already planning. It's just like getting credit for the 40B and the other approved project. And the only reason I have um been concerned
about it is because of the mand mandatory mixed use because I I don't think any of us want to see uh business loss in that area. And that's where I think it's it could be really important to get relief on that which I think we have a good argument for because the
places that make most sense for us to have districts are where we are that's only places that we have business districts and and so um I think that's a really strong argument. this I agree with Meredith a balance between wanting
to preserve these buildings and um and that's why I'd rather see uh East Milton. Adam Street also has tra its own traffic challenges and this intersection of Elliot and Adams does too. So um I just want to say that people have talked
about concerns about uh traffic and and all of the places under consideration all have their own they all have traffic challenges. I just want to be clear about that. The whole town has a traffic side street has a traffic problem. Everyone comes up from Rhode Island.
Every single street is impacted. So, we all sympath sympathize with traffic. When my guys come home at the end of the day, they have to be they have to leave their job sites at 3:00 to come up Randalf or come through the Blue Hills,
come down 138. every single neighborhood. It's just awful. Um, and so one of my frustrations if to Charles Cheryl's to your point about losing the business. It was just really interesting, one of the the briefs, the
amicus briefs that was submitted was um that the HLC didn't do a small business impact analysis. And as you know, we just, you know, received their small business impact analysis. And what was it? It was like two sheets of paper with
um check boxes. No impact, no impact, no impact, no impact. That was the whole impact, small impact business analysis. And I did speak about it when um they had the the hearing on the small business impact. I requested that they
call me as a small business and as my husband's a small business. And nobody called me. Nobody called my husband. So, I don't I hate to say, but I just don't think that they care about small businesses. So, we can look for some relief, but I don't have a whole lot of
hope that they care to be honest with you because this is not about protecting small businesses. It's just a housing a total housing initiative. And it's it's just a shame. And just the other thing I forgot to mention when Sean was talking
about find looking for relief, you know, the there's this whole unfunded mandate um process that's in play and we're still waiting for to hear from Plymouth um Superior Court and um as you know, five or six different towns are seeking
an exemption from the mandate until this mandate is funded. And I would hate to see that we pass zoning prior to getting that determination because if we pass
zoning and then it is um determined and the court allows towns to seek an exemption from the mandate and from the zoning, we we're stuck with it and we get no funding. So, I'm really I know again we're criticized for wasting towns
resources, but I think it would be a really big mistake for us to to not take advantage or be patient um to hear the results of that um that court case. Yeah. The problem is Maggie, I think that's on the select
board to pursue that and there's a new select board now. So, I'm hoping, you know, um just from listening, I'm hoping from listening that they um they want to work with other boards and um and um
work with the state. So, I'm I'm optimistic. It's a new day and I'm optimistic. Yeah. No, I I I thank you. Your hope, but I mean that's just missed opportunity as far as financial concerns. I mean, the amount of money
that could be uh included in this if it is an unfunded mandate is is huge. Um but anyway, getting back to East Milton Square, I mean, if it's if it's the the um this section or East Milton Square, I I would much rather do this area.
Um I just don't want to incentivize any more big projects in East Milton Square until that area feels the impact of um 440 and of the Falcone project. And I think here with JD Wild's um project that we saw last week and the
potential for this area, I think it would be it would be good to incentivize at least the buildings that we have circled if not more for redevelopment. you know, as we talk about um you know, again, I'm going to describe them as workarounds, right? Because um it's just
we're we're kind of where it's like a circular formula on an Excel spreadsheet. Um that's what it feels like. It it we want to give consideration to all the residents, right, and to all parts
of town. That's the fairest thing to do for everybody. and also consider the things that you know both Cheryl and Marith were talking about regarding the village. You know, we created an overlay plan there. Would like to be able to maintain the overlay plan and not put it at risk. But it, you
know, what the residents want is compliance, right? I think we all want compliance, but you know, it's my opinion. We should submit something that gives relief as the residents are requesting relief in all the areas that
they're looking for relief. that number won't be at 25%, but seek compliance that is responsive, you know, to what the resident's concerns are. What's wrong with that? I know it's not a 25% plan, but how do you ignore everybody's concerns?
The people that Can I let I'll finish? I I'll finish. you know, how do you ignore the concerns of the folks that are talking about the triplex, Elliot Street, you know, the Randolph AB discussion that we've had down here in the village, East Milton Square, you know, you can't be responsive to
everybody um and put something uh together that that is considerate of everybody and still hit a 25% number. It's just it's not going to happen. even I was just going to um comment that we
have no indication and we've received no indication has been confirmed by uh the town administrator that HLC will accept anything but a 25% rapid transit compliant plan. I have a concern about passing zoning
that is short of that and we have the zoning on the books and then we still get sued by the state uh for a lack of compliance come July or August. And and I'm not suggesting that that happens. I'm suggesting we put something together
very quickly and we submit it and let HLC comment on it. And if we're not willing to do that, um I think we're we're ignoring um at least uh an attempt to uh find a plan that HLC would
consider compliant and also um considerate of the residents and all the concerns that we've had. I'm not sure well I'm not in I'm not in favor of I'm in favor of passing something at town meeting that will be accepted by
HLC. So I I uh but you you can't uh you can't honor the wishes of everyone and and uh and achieve 25%. You just can't. And but then that's I think it's like this. Sorry. Go ahead. I'll finish in a moment. And you know
we're no one uh yet really wants to consider the negative aspects of this kind of density. You know, I I I'd love to, you know, have people consider if you added, you know, 1500 units, 1500
more cars in Milton to a town that can't handle the cars that we already have. Nobody wants to talk about the likely capital cost that we will face if we have increases that require us to increase our facilities in town. you know, where, you know, all of that is,
you know, this idea that the property tax value is going to overcome all of that, um, I I think is I think it's a fallacy. I don't believe it to be true at all. So, you know, how do we create belief and how do we manage the future of Milton? Um, we do it by submitting
something that is not as overwhelming as 25%. and and then one that's and let me finish and ask L HLC for um for consideration for what our issues are. And then if HLC comes back to us in
within two weeks and says we don't accept this, we need a backup 25% plan. We can have it. We keep spinning our wheels there. Cheryl, I'm not saying I'm not saying not to have one, but you know, I I I'm saying that I think the responsible thing to do given all the
restrictive nature that we keep talking about over and over and over again is to ask for something that would be acceptable that um that that allows us some relief. So Sean, if I can finish now too, um, a compliant plan, we've
heard from many residents and we've heard it la for the last two years is take advantage of HLC's guidelines which allow 50% of the zone capacity to be outside of the Elliot Street corridor. We have opportunities. Members of this board
have rejected certain locations for their own reasons. We have not taken those options out to the public short of one forum and I have suggested we needed a public engagement plan for a year. we
haven't done it. And I feel like this is um been uh a real um flawed process as a result of that because we are five people that continue to talk about these different locations and and not getting feedback until the
last hour from the public. And I I take that criticism that they have all stated tonight and other times uh to heart. And so how are we going to have a compliant plan? and you said we're going to have one. How are we going to have it? It's April 30th. We have July 13th. We have
town meeting June 16th. And we're still talking about various alternatives tonight. Um and we're not even can agreeing that we should do a an expansion of districts that spreads the zone capacity about. And so we have
looked at other districts. We looked at St. Pas. We looked at 333 Brushill Road. We looked at 1,200 Brushill Road. You know, maybe one of those districts has to come back and that's the way that we get the uh more equitable distribution across the town. But we need to make
that decision rather than talking about whether the HLC is going to agree to something. We've got a 10% I option which um Zoe uh mentioned at the outset of this discussion uh that so if that's
what you want to submit we still need to decide on what this is going to look like and when are we going to do it I'm not Cheryl I'm not saying that we shouldn't continue to try to figure out a 25% plan what I am saying is we should we should submit a 10% plan or a 10% plus plan if there's if there's other if
there's other components we can add to the 10% that might work for Milton. Um, but we we can't stop working on 25%. But the the you know, this idea of making it equitable, everyone knows that the original the original um intention of
this was to be within a half mile of transit either side. And the this this this idea of moving it around Milton is only because the trolley is on the is on the uh the Boston Milton uh border. So, well, Fairmont Line, we talked about the
Fairmont Line. There's three Yeah. stations that are within a half a mile. Yeah. Blue Hill is one. We already have a district on Blue Hills Parkway. St. Pas is near Reedville is just outside of the half mile. And the area we talked about um for Fairmont is within a half
mile. Yeah. Those should be included. Yeah. Well, a resident asked in an email to all of us um why the planning board was opposed to St. pas and that particular resident um asked me specifically uh to explain why I am
opposed to St. Pas um and and I'll answer the question for the resident and for anybody that's that's interested in hearing. I am opposed to zoning any religious um uh or religious oriented uh property because I
find no matter what the um no matter what the uh nature of the religious property is, I find that to be something that is um a component within our comm community that I'd like to maintain. And uh if we zone
over St. pas I think it you know it's a much greater likelihood that the arch dasis might consider selling St. Pius which might be great for for zoning and building housing but I don't know that it's great for people that um love St. Pius and and uh enjoy having St. Pius as
the church that they go to and I feel that way for every uh religious um uh institution no matter what religion it is. So, there's three churches in the Blue Hills Parkway subdist. I've I've mentioned that several times and uh I
don't believe the Catholic Church is going to make a decision about closing St. Pas based on whether multif family zoning is put in place on a piece of property. Um they're going to have other reasons to make decisions about whether they close a church and sell property. Um and so they're actively doing it
right now. They're actively assessing uh churches to close. Exactly. But they're not basing it on whether there's underlying zoning is what the underlying zoning is. Do you not think they would consider that? Not with not a decision about closing it. No. It increases the
value of the property. So somebody could buy that property and do a 40B, right? That what's good what's going to be the next use that's likely to go on that property if it sells? I don't know, Cheryl. I don't know. Not going to be a single family
house. Not until we not as long as we're in a deficit on our subsidized housing inventory. Okay. So, um just I I did want to point out um one thing because we Zoe touched on the Milton Academy site. Nick Milano did reach out to
Milton Academy and they do intend to to maintain that for confirmed for their institutional use. So, we that would not be permitted um as a site to use just for future. And I did want to just some of the emails mentioned that there was
nothing um that everything was being removed in our 2023 plan from East Milton Square. I just want to remind people that the that there are 200 units um that the granite a granite uh to granite which is the granite a north
site is still included um 200 units there and that we are no longer allowed um to utilize uh or or zone on the granite a south south site. So, just wanted to add that um to for those who didn't know that that um since the DOT
is not actively um looking to dispense of that property um was the reason for that. So, I would be open to um at this point open to finding out um if HLC
would consider um allowing a mixeduse um commercial in East Milton Square for, you know, if that is the case to to do something with a you know, a less um a less desirable incentive than what our our overlay
zoning would be. Um, but it would have to be much less desirable because we want to encourage that overlay zoning to be utilized. So, um, Meredith, are you supporting the idea of asking for HLC to allow more mandatory mixed
use than the 25% that they allow that we're utilizing? Yes. And I would be open if the other if the rest of the board feels like they want to look at this Adam these Adam Street um parcels um what that what that would get for us and I'm assuming that
we would we would be able to maintain the business on the first floor in these as well or if but if that extends outside because if it's more than 25% I would um not recommend these sites. And then I want to bring up um one of the
speakers mentioned central a um Brian Furs former planning board member had sent us a suggested map that looked at extending um a district down central A and I I wanted to pull that up but I didn't know I wanted Zoe to finish and
then we could um maybe do that. Could we but has um I'd like for Zoe to take a look at that with us as well if Yes, I agree on it. I agree. If this is a good place to look at that, that would be fine. I I re I
sent it to everybody again just so they could take a look. Um yeah, I think we need Cheyenne to pull that up or we're kind of at the conclusion of our presentation. The only thing that we had left was and I'll sort of go to that now. Um I'll I'll mention one thing
about the MMU and then I'll go to the the last slide that is just kind of codifying our next steps like what you know decisions we should try and make tonight. Um, I haven't pinned down the exact number, but right now in our um I'll go
back to uh see if I can get to the right one here. So, for this I'll clear my uh annotations here. Um so if we look at this example here um
you can see here that in your when you're talking about mandatory mixed use districts it's a little bit convoluted how it gets enforced but essentially the the simplest way I can say it is that 75% of your compliance target your unit compliance target needs to come from 3A
alone 3A districts alone that means anything in excess of that 75% % can come from mandatory mixeduse districts. So right now 80 you're hitting 80%. So there is it's not enough for like all of
East Milton Square. It's not enough for like it may not be enough for the couple parcels, but you do still have some margin to increase um the zone capacity in your mandatory mixed use districts by adding area or changing parameters.
Um, I can get you like what that exact number is, but I did just want to mention that before we completely move on. Um, but there's a little bit of margin there. And I think we can certainly share the the question back to EOHLC to say like these are all the issues we've been encountering in Milton. This is why it's so difficult.
Is there any relief you can provide to sort of allow more to come from mandatory mixed use and give them some some reasons? Um, so I'm happy to do that. Um, which kind of brings us to wait before you leave that screen. Sorry. Going back to the paper mill. Um,
so if you look at six stories and the unit capacity is 156 and the open space is 40%. So, and if you look up at Granite AB North, the unit capacity is 194. So why don't we increase the unit
capacity of the paper mill site to equal what granite north is possibly even exceed it and again I like open space but in this location would we ever consider reducing
the minimum open space here because it is along the tracks it's along the hide park um border it it's you know a separate entity. So I don't know if that is something we would want to consider.
I would if it if it's possible. Yeah, because that site is by open space. I would too. I mean you could apply that to Granite AB North as well because it's got the park across the street. It's got the Neponit trail
the same. I mean that's the logic. If you drop them both to 30%. I mean I just want to be clear the compliance model puts this at 20% right which 20% is really usable open space. So so it so
the compliance model by default um sort of assumes 20% open space but we have in all cases um explicitly put in a parameter that escalates that to the numbers that you're seeing here. So like when we run the compliance model for these it is reflecting an expectation
that this percentage is being set aside but you're right Cheryl that as a baseline it assumes 20%. And I guess if you apply that same let's say if you have a logic Maggie where if you're looking at the LA street corridor the open space is tied to particular
development there and then there's very you have to get further away to find a playground or a park or something like that. Right. Whereas these have open space. That's why they're unique sites is they have the open space around them. Right. So it does seem like the usable
open space on if you change at the paper mill, you would change that granite up north for the same reasons. And I know we can't dictate trees, but more trees will help reduce like the heat island effects. So you know, landscaping is vitally important. Um,
when you have um less open space, you just don't want a lawn. You actually want trees and native plants, other things. So, I guess we could look at the unit capacity that Granad North could get if
we reduce that to 30%. Would be. Yeah, looks like we could as well as paper mill. Is there is everyone comfortable with that? we make a change maybe to both granite a and paper mill to reflect that 30% expectation based on both of them being approximate to larger
open space and see what what benefit we get from that in terms of unit capacity. Yeah. And um back to the paper mill site, that site, isn't that um that step below grade? And
again, should we know everyone likes consistency, but is that a site that could actually handle another floor or two? Because I think the biggest constraint there is is really the access. So I think you know the that's probably the the viability concern that
like we'll you know I think if we go really far in excess of what realistically that the site access can handle of like is it essentially a one one lane access into the site. Um that that might invite increased
scrutiny about the viability of of the site as a whole. But I think it's it's certainly a unique site and it will require creative problem solving no matter what. So, and I would think the viability though would increase with the more units that are there that would
benefit anybody who's coming in to develop it. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. I think there's kind of like and Matthew may be able to speak to this better than I can, but there's probably a tipping point where it's sort of like up until that, you know, there's like a certain number of units that's maybe just
infeasible in a general sense. Um, but it's we're not saying that they have to do it. We're just giving them the opportunity to do it. I I do feel like we don't have anything larger than six stories. Yeah. In Milton and I just don't want to set that
precedent for other developers. I'm just going to add as an architect, once you get to high-rise, which seven stories would put you at, put you in a totally different construction type and a cost structure. And typically just that one
story is not going to be enough um to warrant that additional cost. So they usually go higher than seven. I mean it's possible to um to do things without some of that but seven stories tends to it's a six story
tends to be a reason why that's the cap in a lot of places. So I think six stories for Granite AB North and Papermill site, but with a 30% open space requirement. Maybe we'll we could take a look at and see what that produces.
Sounds good. Um so I will I'll jump us to um the end. Sorry, I'm going to kind of blow through these slides again um to get to the last slide. Um I just had for reference the adjacent um community plan slides. These are unchanged from last time, but I wanted
to have them here to just confirm and we can come back to this um that this is um if there's any revisions that are still needed to this. So I'll I'm going to jump to this last slide which basically just summarizes the the decisions that I'm hoping we can get to tonight. I
recognize there's a lot of um new ideas that were shared today or kind of returning to um ideas that we've explored previously to sort of see what they can do given the feedback that you've received. Um but I think what what we kind of we have essentially from
now until um the 8th to conduct some level of you know additional revision for you all um and also some level of coordination with the state um and then as we move to the 16th which is when we're trying to get that warrant um
finalized we also need to have the zoning itself drafted. So, these are kind of the the decisions that are required in order to um address the state coordination issue, make sure we're getting revisions back to you um in time for you to see and discuss them again and make sure that you have zoning
this drafted um in time for for a town meeting deadline. Zoe, could you go back one slide just for a moment? We moved so quickly past it. I just want to Yep. So, um, the changes we just talked about for Granite AB North and the Paper Mill
site, I I think we should apply it to this as well. Okay. Would everybody agree? Mhm. And Cheyenne, do you know did did Zoe get the message about doing the just the
few slides just to show the community what what an adjacent community plan would look like versus what the 25% plan looks like. That was your email the other day, right? Right. Yeah. Yeah. We talked
about it um a little bit this morning. you I'm sorry. Uh we had talked about the email that you had sent a little bit this morning quickly in our meeting but those slides didn't get made. Were you sorry I'm I'm been a long
day but refresh my so so we have this map which is not a perfect map of it right but it's it's essentially you know these are the districts that are considered here and then were you looking for just like a a townwide map that shows it with the outlying districts correctly just a just a fresh
new clean map because rather than with the circles saying remove remove it would just be what actually we would be mapping out including the reduction because I think it's really important to for Elliot Street corridor to also see a clean map with that reduction. Yeah, it
was a very specific email with six things that I had requested just to be able to demonstrate for tonight. Yeah, I I agree that's an important document to have. Could you could you flip back to that um previous um uh model? The table.
Yeah, the table. Thanks. you know, this this actually provides the relief that the Elliot Street folks are asking for. Um, you know, we're down to three as a maximum, you know, per lot. And, uh, this substantially creates relief over
there for for those that that are interested in that substantially. and and if we can increase uh what we could accomplish at Granite AB North and at um the paper mill um you know
we you know that'll be okay. We should strive to improve this if we can. So we should then up 7-Eleven Randolph AB above 97 then because 90 is what the approved 40B is. Well, let me say this Cheryl. I think, you know, Granite AB
North and the Paper Mill site is is less uh impactful to the, you know, to the to any of the neighbors. And for that reason, I think um increase those as much as we can. I think we we're going to get do if we if we do
these changes, then we we delay when something's sent to HLC and we can get a response. If we send this for review asseel as a 10% plan, send it tomorrow. At least we get some feedback on it and
these these things the modifications wouldn't significantly change it. Yeah. Hopefully we don't we don't have another meeting until Monday 6:30 which is just an hour before town meeting. So, you know, I'm just concerned how much further out this gets before we get feedback. We need to share
with this. I think it's important that this week we're able to share. If we if we want state input, we need to share it this week. Um because they they have been very accommodating in making time to meet with us. But um you have to
recognize that they're working with many communities and it does require a level of depth for them to review and be able to give us d feedback that is directional in terms of what they will and will not accept. Um, so we need to
give them some time to review. So I think we can accommodate some of these like especially if it's just like changing parameters in different districts, that's absolutely something we can do quickly and get it out to EOHLC. Um, if it's like drawing new districts, looking at different permutations and combinations, that's
something that's not really feasible in the time that we have um for the adjacent like let's say just for now focusing on the adjacent community, right? This one's close from the conversations we've had so far. If it's just a matter of changing parameters, I think we can get that done and get it
over to EOHLC this week. I think so. If that's the case, I think it demonstrates, you know, it demonstrates a stronger effort. If you can modify Granite A in the paper mill site and still submit it this week, I I think we should do that, right? You're saying that you could make those changes. Am I
right? Yeah, I think I think that's that's realistic for the adjacent community. I think basically what where I'm drawing the line is if we're looking at multiple new combinations of districts, drawing those, populating those, that's something that's not really attainable for us to get through this week and get out to UHLC. I wasn't
talking about that. I mean, this is this is doable. The changes you just talked about, that's very doable. We can get that done this week, get it out to the state. Okay. All right. So then I would like to have some agreement on what they're going to look at and then I'd like to understand how soon they can look at it.
So, we just talked about changing the paper mill and granite a to reduce the open space. We talked about adding some zone capacity and some boundary at a like. Should we go back and talk about that and make sure that we're in
agreement on those? Yeah, but I don't know if that that applies to this. No, it's not this one. I I think I what I'm suggesting, Maggie, is that we just agreed to we just all agreed to what we're going to do with this, right? They're going to make those changes for Granadav North and the paper mill and
then they're going to send it to HLC. I mean they can do we need to sort of take a little informal vote. So that's so from a process standpoint. We agree to that and then it's going to get submitted by the
end of this week. So we're correct. Are we all in agreement to that? Yes. But but there needs to be changes to the slides that I had emailed Cheyenne just to make it we need a map. We need the map. We need it to be clear and I'm a little disappointed that Cheyenne What
is the status of that? Was that not conveyed? No, we did we did talk about it this morning, but when Nick and I discussed your email the other day, um we were waiting on some other things like to meet with you Teal and sit down and talk about the stuff that you had
sent over. Um I believe it was only Yeah, it's basically what you UTIL has done. It just is correcting things that are So I guess what I would suggest then is that the board um authorized Meredith
to review the final map and um summary table. Yeah. Yeah. With um with Cheyenne and um and Zoe before it's submitted at the end of the week. I agree. I agree. I support that. Okay. Yep, I'm good with that. Okay. Can I just ask a quick
question? So, Zoe, how does this get submitted? Do you just email it to to sort of a contact you have over there or So, there's a formal submission and review process that um is the state's preferred method of reviewing all of this that requires having zoning written. We will not have zoning
written. So, we will be submitting it through an more informal channel um by a direct email to their staff and request special consideration for them to review it. even though it is incomplete. Okay. And they have generally been very responsive to those requests thus far.
So I'm optimistic that they will review it and give it the same care that they've given the other reviews that they've done more informally for us in the intervening time. So, I would like to also ask that um if there's agreement that we ask them
to consider um an increase in the mandatory mixed use units that we're allowed to do and square it would be good to get that feedback as well. So, if I and also can Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Sorry. I
just was going to say and just inquire about the ice house property on Blue Hills Parkway and the um the 40B project in East Milton Square if there would be any consideration. Yeah, but that's not for this plan, is
it? Not for this plan. Just Yeah. So that would be for the rapid. These are like I think there's the we just discussed the two parameter changes to granite a and paper mill to the 30% open space and any associated unit increases
with that as well as updating to show a single unified um map. um those two things would be submitted as a way of um conveying what the adjacent community plan would be and then separately we'd
have a couple of questions or um sort of um requests of UHLC related to the rapid transit 25% plan to help hopefully help resolve remaining questions that are preventing us from getting to resolution
on that. So when you submit this, Zoe, the person you're submitting it to, do they have the capacity or the authority to say, "Okay, I'll accept a 10% plan as opposed to 25." Like how is that going to They wouldn't at the staff level. They would
have to run it up their chain of command to that's that's a level there's a certain level of review that they can give us a direct answer that's within their authority. Things like this that would require exceptions from the regulations are things that they would have to move through their
chain of command to get be able to get us clarity. So that's why the time it's time sensitive, right? Because you have to think about they they're going to have to have multiple conversations internally to be able to resolve that because we're asking for special consideration beyond the regulations that they've been empowered to enforce.
Okay. I think to answer your question, I I we will get an answer and it it won't be one tier within EOHLC. It'll be several tiers that'll be looking at it. Yeah, I suspect these requests may have to go all the way up to the top of their
chain of command. It may the the meeting that um has been talked about, which I was present for, um they wanted us to submit something that we could achieve. Um and this is likely achievable and
recognizes the considerations that all of the neighbors are asking for. So, we should submit it. Agreed. Agreed. Just wondering that. Okay, that's good. Are there any questions other than the MMU um increase
and the Ice House and East Milton Square 40B sites that you would like us to pass along to them for consideration? That's it. I would like to have you continue to work on a 25% compliant plan so that if
this the 10%'s not acceptable that we have it ready. Yeah. So we talked about the next steps for that being paper mill and granite a having 30% open space. So we talked about a
having increased zone capacity plus increased land area but not at the same density. That's right. What? Yes. And then can you just uh just to pause on that for a second? Um okay I think
Maggie you made a good point of wanting to have a rule set that distinguishes between the smaller um parcels that are facing Randolph and the others. Um, do you have a rule set in mind that you think would be a good match for those parcels that are fronting Randolph?
No, unfortunately I didn't um have time to do a complete rule set. My basic thing was just three three. Yeah, that's that's plenty. That's enough. we can we can figure out what the parcel size threshold is to distinguish between the
larger lot ones and the um the ones that fall below um that threshold in front Randolph. Um so that those are having a three unit. Um so Zoe, I'd also like for you to um have
another conversation with um Nick Milano or Cheyenne about that parcel that's landlocked in the back. Mhm. Um so that if that's possible to add that
even if it means that um the only way it can be used if there's you know some common ownership in the future um sorry I know you don't want to look at new you don't want to look at new parcels but with
um the the St. pious church being up for discussion and we possibly not wanting to zone any religious institution at this point. In front of um St. Pas is a development called Woodmre and it's all
one level. Would we ever consider zoning that to allow for another level? Yeah, I drove through there and I thought that had some potential. What's the acreage? Oh man, I had it written down somewhere. I don't know. You know that St. Pas has
a vacant parcel that is not being used at all, which is next to Woodmir. So, I don't know what the the acreage of that separate parcel is. If you didn't want to include the church with its parking area, Woodmir is where they're
um used to be owned by the church, you know, that was sold. So that's not unreasonable to think that they would sell the vacant parcel in between. So Cheryl, that it's so it's to the as you look at the church, it's to the right of the paved surface. Yes. So Zoe, I don't know if you have the map from before
when Let me see if I can pull it in. And I I do believe that Woodmir is 12 acres from what I recall, but I would be concerned that that even if it's another story, it would drag our density down
because of the number of units there. Well, if we zone, what's the address? Unless we unless we upped our the zoning. Yes. Not we zone it. That would be an option. got I don't know. Woodmir has Woodmir currently has 36 units, but I'm not sure
of the acreage. I can look at that. This is the St. pious site. Um, and apologies, this doesn't have the parcel boundaries on it or surrounding it, so it's a little hard to use for the
um, purpose I think you're probably imagining it for. Yeah, unfortunately, it seems to be all one parcel and not two. And if it's all one parcel, don't they hit us hard uh with a spot zoning restriction? Doesn't it bring up a red
flag? Yeah, I think that's just like generally there's I think the way that they tried to prevent that in the way the regulations are drafted is through the five acre minimum. Um and then beyond that there's like you know just generally there's you know anytime you
zone a single parcel um it invites a legal challenge and so you look for ways that you can reinforce a planning rationale that goes beyond like ownership or um land use to articulate a
reason why that parcel is zoned on its own rather than being part of a larger district. So, I'm looking at the town's GIS mapping and it shows the parcel adjacent to the church property being owned by workousing
corporations. Um, does anybody know if that's what that's used for? It would be right here. It looks like there's a parking lot there. So, I'm not sure that that's a residential use. I guess it is res it's owned
residential, but I don't know if the use is residential. It's not uncommon for um residential districts to allow for institutional uses and other um Right. Right. So, what I'm suggesting is if that could possibly be included if it's spot zoning were
their question, it would be this parcel here. It's kind of a narrowish parcel like that. and its acreage is 1.11 acres. Is it is it kind of right
here? Is that the what you're talking about? Yes, right here. It's like this shape in here. Your your mouse is not showing on our screen share. I'm sorry. Zoe, if you could draw a line with the edge of that long um driveway next to the building
kind of like in here. There's like a parcel a small parcel parcel right there. Yeah. But then it's the one that's to the right of that here. Exactly. All the way back. Right. So you're saying assemble that with the vacant lot but not the church or the
parking lot to create a parcel. Yes, except that the the church is not a two parcel. So I think you would have to include the whole parcel but Oh that was the issue. Yeah that was yeah that's in both your in your parcel data as in the
town's GIS as well as the parcel data we have from the state. This is shown as a single parcel, but the church could subdivide it. Yeah. But for the purposes of the zoning, it would need to be right. It would have to be across. Yeah.
And that's two acres, right? The combination of those 8.5 St. Pas in Woodmir. Mhm. So there's um we discussed Wood Mir. I don't think we caught a conclusion on that. Um and then St. Pas
um in combination with these two parcels. Is there can we have a broader indication from the board as to whether those are um things that you want us to pursue? Yeah. So I think woodmere is like 9
acres. Meredith 9.3 9.34 says it's 373,745 square feet. Zoe, Zoe, can you on the screen, can you just um show us where the wood may parcel is? Can you draw us a line? I
It's between Cushing and D. Yeah, it's this one. Okay. Oh. Oh, okay. I I see it now. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't know. Yeah, I see. Pull this over in a second so people can see it. One sec.
That's condominium, right? So if for that to be redeveloped, it would require the condominium owners all to agree, which is the same thing we talked about at 131 Elliott, excuse me. Um,
yeah, that's it. So this is this is the wood mirror and it's fairly new. So we could look at that. That's seven acres. Is that what it was? Nine. Nine. Nine. Nine and a half. Yep. But it is a
single parcel, right? It is. Yeah. So it would carry the same, you know, I think for all of the single parcel districts we have looked at, they will all have the same question. We will, I think, need to
um think through what criteria makes it valid to single out that parcel um relative to the parcels it abuts as a district unto itself um from a bigger picture planning logic and not just from
an ownership or use perspective. Well, across the street is all Curry College. So I guess it would the only opportunity would be this houses to the north and south, right? So you're saying justify not including those houses to the EOHLC, right? Exactly. So it's, you know, if
you think about like what's it, I think there's a very clear reason why it's not the same as an institutional use across the street. Um, but why is it inherently different from the parcels that are on either side of it that are residential? That's that's basically the the the big
picture legal argument that needs to be made anytime you're zoning a single parcel. Have you made that argument before? I hope we have we generally advise to avoid it
wherever possible in in most of our um I'm trying to think back to all of our other prop other MBK communities zoning efforts and I think in in all of them we've been able to um avoid single parcel zoning. Um, as
we've talked about, Milton has a lot of characteristics that have driven us to consider more single parcels. Um, it's part of the fabric of your, you know, the parcel, the way parcels are divided up in your community. Um so it's not surprising that we've
encountered this issue multiple times but it is not one that we have carried through um in many other um cases other than like like the granite a and paper mill are cases where there's an obvious argument for why these are standalone parcels
right there's a clear infrastructural logic for why those are it's inappropriate to combine those with other parcels and treat them as the same um so that's Dear, sorry. Good. Um, just thinking about the churches um on Blue
Hills Parkway. Um, what's the zone density allowed for those churches? They're all at 30 units per acre per the um rule set for uh the Blue Hills Parkway corridor as a
whole. So, how many acres was St. Pas again? Six. point something 6.11 I think I said and if you did or 6 point something and the lot next door at
1.11 so if you combine those two you would be at what was it 7 Jim you had it at eight no that was okay sorry um I'm just going back to some of our prior slide decks um we yeah
we had St. us at 6.3 acres in our prior um analysis. So if we had 6.3 and we did the parcel next door for not doing spot zoning, we'd be at 7.4. And if we use the same 30 units an
acre that we're using at the other churches, um that would get us 222. of it own capacity. I bet you if the Catholic Church sees that, they'll sell it. That's a lot of units.
So, what if this were dropped to 15 units an acre? Um, so you'd be at 111, right? And how many units is Woodmir? 30 something. 38. 38. No, Woodmir is 36.
36. On how many acres? Nine. That's nine acres, huh? That seems small for nine. I think that's according to their permit. Yeah. Special permit. Yeah. So that would be a very low that
be I think that would carry the same issue we ran into with the brush um brush site where it's so it's at like a 3.8 3.9 units per acre if if we were to zone it for what it is today right if we were to zone it for 36 units. Um even if
you were to double that you would be at you know still under 10 units per acre. Um so Zoe do you think we would have to do if we did St. pious, we would have to do it at 15 units an acre to make it contribute and not cause other troubles.
Yeah, I would I would recommend at this point I mean Elliott Street corridor itself as a whole is one of the lower density districts. So if part of our goal is to replace Elliot Street corridor area, you know, it's okay if it's sort of in that
like 10 11 units per acre maybe. Okay. But it's like that's like on the edge and it will it'll be very sensitive to like the acreage of each thing because it's a weighted average essentially across all the districts. So it okay that's not a guarantee but I I think 15
is safer. You might be able to bring it like into the low teens, but I wouldn't bring in new districts that are below 10. Right? So if you did 11 units that would be 81. So you're looking at a range of 81 to 111.
111 at 15 units and 81 at 11 units. So, you know, maybe I'd suggest that
we put back in the St. pious with the adjacent parcel at the 11 units an acre um which would be 81 units. That seems a lot there. Yeah, I I feel like
that's just because everything else is just um single family. Um can we go back to that map? Yeah. It's just impacting another area. But
that's that's the idea, Jim. The idea that we've heard from so many people is to have have some districts spread out in different places. And I know I know some people don't like the idea, but the residents who are most impacted prefer
that approach. They want to see some of this spread into different areas. This is also not too far outside of the half mile. We heard about the walkability, but when we're looking at what the statute says, you know, this is
um one that's with not too far outside the half mile. So, well, if we could uh if we could achieve acceptance of the adjacent community, we wouldn't have to do unusual things like this. Right. No, understood. Understood, Sean. But this is trying to get at if they don't accept
it, we have to have an alternative plan, right? a number of alternatives to create another plan. So, if we're talking if we're talking about going into this area and and starting something new,
um, and I know you're going to kill me, but I still keep looking at the existing 40bs and just like you talked about East Milton Square. Um, and I know this board doesn't want to look at 648, can't have. I'd much rather see something there where the impact is already being felt
than to go here or to go to Fairmount. You know, Jim, I am going to have to, you know, excuse myself again if we're going to talk about Cantav, but what I will want to come back to just on this is there there were those of you on the board here who
were saying we should do a statute compliant plan. The statute compliant plan was looking at these commuter rail stations and it would have had a district in this area and a district at Fairmont and a district at Blue Hala and we pulled away from that because you
know we didn't like the idea of 15 units an acre across just as a calculation a math solution. And so, you know, we're all back to now looking at um you know, what exists in these the vicinity of these places if Woodmir is okay here
except for it's the challenge of the density. You know, what's the problem with this location of the same price? And we even had a resident who lives near here say, you know, why did you remove it? So, well, um, just as a reminder, because I'm, you
know, I'm a huge proponent of a statute plan to, uh, to accurately reflect the statute. It says a district of reasonable size. So, it does not actually put a um, square footage um,
size on it. So we have a statute compliant plan by just at the Matipan station. So we don't really need to expand a statute compliant plan to impact more neighborhoods unnecessarily.
And the I have a large concern. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Jim. The difference between this and Woodmir is Woodmir is already built. There's already an impact there. And to Sean's point, this is a church. And if we start making it a very very valuable piece of
property, when the Catholic Church reevaluates, they probably will sell it. When the Catholic Church sells it, it's going to they're going to look for the the highest value that they can get. And I'm going to tell you that the highest value is not going to be single family
residential. I think it'll be a 40B. I think we're better off zoning for it so that we are at a level that somebody would see it as an alternative to a 40B. Everybody talks about the 40bs, you know, and we have them in part because
we don't have our 10% affordability because we've not zoned to allow multif family and included inclusionary zoning. And therefore, the only way we're getting affordable units is through the 40 the
40B process, except for the handful that come through some other projects, which is, you know, a drop in the bucket. We all said before that, you know, we'd like to see more than 10% affordable units come out of this MBTA community zoning. In fact, you want to jump it up
to 15. And we also said at a recent meeting that we're not going to get many units in if we have a lot of these where it's just two uh three units allowed or four units allowed or small projects allowed in a in a in a zone where we can
zone for 80, we're going to get at 15%. We're going to start to get some affordable units in a way that's more controlled by us than if we it's a 40B and we're getting 25% of them affordable. We're going to have to have a lot more of them
in order to get that 40B. Yeah, we we probably it's it's I mean it'll contribute to discussion for all of our planning board means, but we probably should go back and reassess where we're at with the 40B units with our um where we're at in terms of reaching the threshold because there was I think it's
740 units that uh through those 40B projects, some of which are, you know, under construction and uh and some that are still either in the peritting stage or um being um going through a legal process, but I think it'd be really good for us to go
back and it's a long time since we looked at where we're at and what's and maybe Meredith if that's something you could uh that's well that's on the list. I just was going to say the housing production plan um Cheyenne has spoken about that that it's expired. she's looking at a consultant. Um, and Cheyenne, just just while we're just to
mention, um, the person who did the, uh, previous the pre two previous housing production plans, um, should probably be considered in doing the new one because she's worked on this before. And I don't know if you and Nick have that name, but I can
provide that to you. Uh, I remember getting a note after the forum from Kathleen. Um, she told me about the woman who did it prior. So, we're gonna Good in case. Good. Okay. So, I don't know if she's still in business, but that would be probably who we should look at. Um,
on the 40, I just want to add given that the housing production plan is expired. We no longer have temporary safe harbor opportunity. So there is a greater likelihood that we're going to see more 4DB applications because we're
shy of our 10% and we don't have safe harbor until we get a new housing production plan that's approved by HLC and that housing production plan will have to have sites identified where we think affordable housing or housing can
go. Sure. How far away? How far are we away from safe harbor now? How many units? Cheyenne, do you have that number? No, but I can get it tomorrow. That'd be great. Thanks, Cheyenne. Thank you.
I think correct. What Cheryl's also referring to is there there's more than one way to have safe harbor. The one that people talk about most is the percentage of subsidized housing inventory. But there are also other temporary forms of safe harbor that are
associated with the pace of housing production plans or the pace of h housing production and um progress towards that target. Yeah. Because wasn't it a percentage of our overall land mass and didn't we look at it at one point and we didn't meet it? Perhaps
now we do need it because we have more. No, it's been looked at. I think what Zoe's referring to is you have safe harbor once you hit 10%. But you can also have temporary safe harbor if you have an approved housing production plan and you're making progress on the development of those
units. And so if a 40B is approved, I think we said it was previously that if you did 48 units a year, then you would have temporary safe harbor. And I don't I'm just that's from memory so I'm not sure that's the right number but let's
just say that's a number like that. But the way I understand that is you would actually have to identify the parcels and then those specific parcels would have to be developed. You know whether it's they don't have to be developed though because they haven't you have to identify the
potential of them Jim but for example we had a housing production plan that was approved. it was in place for five years and housing wasn't developed then. They have to have some opportunity. It's not like HLC will accept it if there's no opportunity for development at all. But
so can I um can I uh can I interrupt and make a suggestion to the board? Can can we It's 10:20. Can we can we turn ourselves back to the matters that will allow us to get to the completion of the meeting with Zoe and Matthew? Yes. Not not that that topic isn't a good
topic, but just at the in the interest of the time of night. So well, how does the board feel on on the St. Pas site? Do we want this to be evaluated? You know, obviously it would have a lower priority than the others,
but or do we not want that to be considered? You know, I I think um again, I have to go back and listen and and consider what Maggie said about, you know, her own property and um I don't own St. Pas. I'm just expressing um consideration for
people that are um that that attend mass there. Uh I I think we should look at it. I But I'm not by any means by looking at it am I committing to saying that I would support including it, but I think we should look at it. Okay. All right. But at a low density,
like at a low density. Well, at 11, Maggie, that's the only density that makes sense according to Zoe. 11. It's an acre. Yeah. And it's what did we say it is? How many acres? We said that that it would be the property next door, too.
So, not just St. Pas, right? So, including both parcels, it would be a zone capacity of 81. That's a lot. Well, we have we have to look at the spreading it out in my view.
So, I think maybe you should try and get us unstuck on this. I think my guess is that the 11 is kind of that tipping point, but is there a number that I think we tested this in some of our prior I think we got to a number for
several districts, but St. pas had been eliminated already when we got to those like target numbers. Is there a number that Yeah, good. We we got to five units an acre at 30 units and I think that we it was eliminated because it wasn't contributing and you know it was the
density was too low. So I think that's why if there's something between five and 11 that doesn't cause a problem and it causes the bene or it allows the benefit of you know uh relocation of some of the zone capacity whatever the
the right number is if you want to calculate that for us if you think it's 11 I'm fine with having that through the study and seeing what let's plan to we'll come back to you with an answer on that knowing that the board is not in
agreement on the level of density that you're comfortable with here and that this is really an exercise in determining if this has a role to play in this version. Um I think are we in agreement about not mo moving forward
with woodmir because the density would not the density that you're comfortable with there would be quite low. So, the one thing I would just say to the other board members is just like 131 Elliott, when you have this many condominium owners, they would all have
to agree to this new zoning. It's unlikely that that would happen then because then what you'd be looking at is a everyone having to agree that they're all going to have the rights to reconstruct what each structure. I just don't see it as very likely just like we
talked about 131 earlier. No. And and that's just another um discussion point is when we're talking about a rapid transit and we're talking about 2600 units, is it
okay and is it beneficial to the town not to have every single unit built, but we get credit for it? Well, that's what we've been saying is the way forward on the 25%, right? is trying to do that. I think we should look at it. Yeah. By that rationale, we should do windmir
instead of St. Pas. Correct. That's why I think we should do woodmere for that purpose. Absolutely. Okay. So, we'll look at those two at similar density levels. Um both trying
to stay I think to see if it's possible to go below like 10 units per acre on those and not trip the overall density wire. um understanding that if we cannot do that, they may not be districts that the board wants to include.
Um the other thing I wanted to return to was what Jim had raised earlier and also the um uh the East Milton Square conversation just in light of the fact that we I do I' I've done some quick math. I'm not sure this is right. I need to do it with a fresh mind in the
morning, but I think that you have about 120 units that you could um locate as part of a m mandatory mixeduse district and still stay within
the limits of what the state requires. Um in other words, like if if the state does not provide you with special consideration and relief from that requirement, you still have a little bit of room. Um, so I think that that number is maybe a better fit for the the couple
of parcels that Jim had described than trying to make it fit in the East Milton Square geography, which is a larger geography. You could do like a donut hole kind of situation with the East Milton Square where you you reserve the highest priority
commercial parcels and take them out of an overlay and just zone a smaller sort of ring around them. Um but the when we last left off with East Mountain Square, we had that plugged in at um let me pull that up.
Um if I can find the latest one here. I think we had it at like around 200. Um, yeah, it was 286 units was when we left off at East Milton Square. So, you can and that was starting to get relatively low density. Um, so all that is to
say, if you had 124 units to put into a mandatory mixeduse district, is there a place that stands out to you that you think is worth exploring for us to come back to you with on the ETH? And is it the mil the Milton Village parcels that Jim had identified?
Or is there are there other ways that you think it would be worth expanding that within the town? I mean, if you're asking me, I'm I'm all for the village if you can keep the heights. Yeah, it could be low so you don't have
demolition down there, right? as as long as we don't incentivize the demolition of the buildings, which is what we were trying to do with the overlay. Yeah. So, would that be like I'm fine with that. 3.5 story. Is that enough, do you think, or is that still
Yeah, I think I think I think that would work. Okay. Um are there any other for the Milton Village parcels that um we discussed for Jim's suggestion is is there any other um this let me let me
back up to um was central a that we we didn't talk about. That's yeah there's one area that we wanted to pull up. Yeah. Okay. We'll go to that in in just one second. I just want to kind of make sure that I'm thinking through this right. So, for the Milton Station, I think we would generally queue off of
the kinds of densities that we're showing um for the other Milton Station districts, but restrict the height more. Um are there in terms of like F and units per acre, is there a specific
target that you want us to bring that down to for this um potential expansion to the um parcels along Adams? So like 40 Yeah. units per acre or you just want us to look at it and I
think we should look at it and then we I wouldn't uh I can look at the zoning that we had before also the existing building sizes. So, if you queued off of the existing building sizes and you said what you'd like to do is be able to renovate those and let's say it's a 40,000 square foot building, then a
thousand square foot a unit, you'd like get 40 units there. I'm just throwing that out. If we just use those buildings sizes as our parameter. There's there's three distinctly different sized buildings. Yeah, you'll see when you take a look. Yeah. Okay. And is there
like at the extra space building in the surrounding buildings, what's the percentage of open space there? Is that I plugged those in for our rules at 40%, but I'm not sure how that lines up with the level of open space that's
there currently. So the whole war is open space. I mean, if those parcels had less, the residents there would have plenty of access to some really nice open space. Agreed. The building, the Masonic building on um Adam Street there doesn't have any open space, but it has
the park right behind it. That's exactly what I'm saying. Yeah, agreed. Yeah. Okay. Are we good on that? Yep. It's 10:30. We do have a couple of other things we still have to get to. Yeah. I think the only other thing was the central a I think you had mentioned that
you wanted to talk about. Yeah. Um Cheyenne, can you pull that email up? um that we had sent out yesterday morning to everybody. Uh the one regarding Yes, that would be great. We
can just take a look at that. So, you can see with the 10,000 square foot lot, 12 1/2 and the 15, he was suggesting bumping those um yeah, basically scaling with each um
increase of 2,500 ft of a lot, you'd you'd gain a unit essentially. that you would you could build, right? And then he included a map below that. Yeah. And I think the map in a lot of ways we did we did um review this so
that we would be prepared to discuss with you all. Um the I think the if you kind of think through the like the the geography that he he um he's shared in this sketch, it sort of corresponds not
perfectly but closely with um the scenario we're showing where we remove what we referred to as Elliot West. Mhm. And we add Blue Hills West, right? um the main
place where his map diverges from that scenario, there's two places, is there there's a little cutout um sort of between the Cape um stop and the um what's it uh Valley Road um stop. There's like a little cutout there. Um
and then there's an expansion into um the um along Central A um in in that area. And I think the reason we have previously excluded that portion of central a is because of the large lots. Um they reach a scale that really
doesn't line up with our rules um and starts to really drag down density because they're quite large and so having four units on them is um is uh negatively impacts your density numbers. Um, obviously with the rule set that Brian
is describing, they those would be able to accommodate, you know, um, I'm not remembering exactly what the um, lot sizes. I think they're above like 20,000. Um, and they I think they would be they would be allowed many more units like 6,
8, 10 units per parcel. Um, so that's I think that's the big like under our current rule sets, you would only be able to develop four units on those and it would not make sense from a density standpoint. You're not getting enough
benefit for it to be worth extending the district to include that. Um, but if you are zoning them for greater density, in other words, if you created like a tier 4 of the Elliot Street corridor rules, um, they might have benefit. But we we
previously when we've discussed this with the board previously, like early early on in 2023, there was not an appetite to see more than that fourunit number on those large lots. And so that's why we pulled back from consideration of those large lots at
that point. So, I think it it would only be worth exploring this if the board is willing to consider six, eight, 10 units on those large lots. I'm not No, I'm not. What if we reduced
the um the the boundary to just those one those properties in blue, not the one in the greenish? Yeah. So that's I think there's probably some small um differences. You know, our
current geography does capture some of those. Um we could go further along both Central A and School Street to capture um some additional lots that are kind of that like mid small size. Um and
similarly, we could extend along Maple Street in a similar with a similar intent. Um I think we had previously shied away from some of those areas because it does contain more of those and particularly along Maple Street. Um
there are many very small parcels and so similarly when we include a lot of small parcels it does start to drag down your density numbers because those are unbuildable under the rules. Um, so that's kind of the the like parcel size
push pull that's happening in this area because there's a lot of range in parcel sizes. Um, so I think with our with the rules that we have now, um, which are allowing development on some of the smaller parcels, it's means that Elliot Street as ao as a whole is
not as much of a drag on your density because we've modified the rules so that it is more lots contributing to that density. Um, I think we could look at changing the boundary in this area to capture more of, as Maggie put it, the blue
parcels in this diagram. Um, but I think her the kind of reactions when I asked earlier, it sounds like it's it would not be worth looking at the parcels that are shown in the kind of like gold color here because unless the planning board
is willing to look at 6, 8, 10 units, they're just not a good match for the rules we have. And so do you think it would be okay to do uh three units in the blue section? Yeah, I think that's how they would interact with our I don't know for sure
without looking at the each individual parcel, but my guess is that those would fall in our first tier, maybe our second tier. Um so probably they would mostly be three unit per lot rules. Um and I I think what he has here is very
similar to where we've sort of come out um in our in our 25% plan. I think there's a except excluding those large parcels which that um we did not support and I think that's why um yeah we didn't go further with that. Um but then we
start just Maggie then we start adding more to that Elliott Street corridor which we've been working to take some some of those units off. you know, it's it's sort of Yeah, that's what I was going to raise is I think it's it's kind of a tension, right? I think there's like there's a valid argument for why those parcels can and should be
included. Um, and if overall we're trying to find ways to spread units away from this area, um, adding more area to the the district is going to mean more units. I mean, the one thing about
Central A though, it's a wider um it's a wider road. Yeah. And it's very close to the Central A stop and to the amenities that are, you know, the commercial amenities that are around that stop. So, I'd rather see it there than the Sorry, Zoe. No, go ahead. Yeah, I was going to
say I would rather see it there than the adding it some of that at the parkway, which is already denser. Yeah. because I do think this is better convenience for walking even and you you do have amenities there if you can get right to the
tea. Okay. So, do we have um some level of consensus that we should look at expanding the Elliot Street corridor to focus on the blue parcels as shown in the diagram here that's that
extend along Central A. Um and I think School Street would also be included in in that. So you're picking up about 15 parcels kind of like from Griggs Lane
east back towards central just the blue. Yeah. Yes. So essentially kind of following you can kind of see the like the half mile radius or it's actually less than half mile. Um it's like like a 1,00 I think. Um so I'm trying to
remember when we did this diagram. I think it's like a 1,00 foot linear feet from the station. So that that's sort of roughly corresponding to where I think we would be drawing the line for the blue parcel where the it transitions from blue parcels to the the gold
colored parcels. And the same rule set would apply as does on like Elliot Street. That's what I would think. Yes, I think so too. Just remind me though, the blue is 7,500 square feet in this one. Um, let me see if I can remember when
this [Music] um, when we put together these diagrams. I think it was uh, early on in 2025. Um, okay. Yeah. So, I think if I'm remembering this correctly, um, it
depends a little bit on which my other screen so I can see both of them at the same time. [Music] Um, okay. I think this is showing the 5,000 square foot threshold based on the
pattern. So I think in this I think the underlay of the diagram that Brian has used for this um idea is a diagram that shows the pink parcels are under 5,000 square ft.
Um, the gold parcels are over 20,000 square ft and the blue parcels are in between 5,000 and 20,000. So the the basically the blue parcels are the parcels that are a fit for tiers one, two, and three of the Elliot Street
quarter, but it it includes all three of those tiers. It like collapses them into one. I'm good with that. So it starts at 6,000, not five, right? Because that's our parameter. Yeah. So there would be some you know with our diagram um or sorry with our rules now
there would be more pink parcels. In other words like there this is showing the pink parcels are excluded based on a 5,000 threshold but there are more parcels that would be excluded because we've set the the floor at 6,000. Yeah. Run it and find out the board
would I'm sorry Meredith. the board. I know this goes against what we just talked about in the Madapan area, but Hawthorne and Brierfield and maybe even Fairfax. This is kind of going up north. It's just drawing a straight line up almost to the parkway. There's a lot
of gray area there. Do you think that would be worth looking at or is that just expanding an area that we don't want to expand? You guys, you see what I'm trying to say? So up by so I guess I'm taking the conversation somewhere else
from central up to Matapan Square or Metapan station Brierfield and Hawthorne roads. Same thing. I'm seeing a lot of gray area. Are we calling it blue or gray? Where we could just expand the boundary a little bit and probably pick up a lot of developable area. Does that
make any sense at all or no? I Yeah. Is it needed? I don't know. Yeah, that's I'm not sure that we need it. Okay. All right. Maybe start with this and if we need to expand it, but we don't want to end up with too many units. Right. Okay.
Okay. All right, Zoe. Thank you so much. We really appreciate this. Yeah, absolutely. Um Okay. And I'll follow up with Sh with Cheyenne tomorrow and get those six slides for the adjacent um plan that we can get sent to HLC. So
Joey, when do you think um you'll be able to have this? Would would it be for a meeting on Thursday? Next Thursday, the 8th. Yeah. So I think that's that's the next meeting that we're planning to join you for. Um as the ETH um starting at 7 and those changes that we've all
discussed, I think are possible for us to prepare for us to review together on the ETH. and we'll plan to prepare prepare the adjacent community changes that we've discussed as well as the handful of questions for HLC um this week to share with Meredith and
to with the intention of sharing with HLC by the end of this week. Great. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Uh, and then the other thing I just want to return to quickly, um, first I just want to
acknowledge that Cheyenne did share the email with us, but we were honestly we were working right up until like 10 minutes before this meeting. So, some things just didn't get we didn't get to. Um, but we we will continue to move through those requests and we we do um we are aware of them. Um, thank you.
That's great. Uh, I'm realizing I'm not sharing screen anymore. Let me pull up the um our just like next steps summary here to just make sure that we're resolving all the things that we need um to keep things moving. So I think we've got um
we've got clarity on the revisions we're making to the adjacent so we can share that with HLC. Um we have clarity on the revisions we should work on for rapid to share with you on the ETH. But as I understand it right now that's not something that we're sharing with HLC yet. we would wait until the ETH. Um,
which means that there there's a risk that we won't hear back from HLC about the rapid um scenario in the time that we have remaining. So, just I'll I'll name that and we'll try and include as many questions as we can that that are related to the rapid transit so we have
clarity on those key issues even if we don't have a full review of the rapid from the state. [Music] Um and we so that addresses number two um and three. And then for four,
um because we're we're limited on time, um it'd be great if you can give, um the town staff some clarity on whether they're authorized to start preparing a zoning article for one or more of these and how you want them to move forward in the time that we have
between now and the the 16th. So, one thing we've talked about, Zoe, is if our site plan approval bylaw passes town meeting uh next week that we would pull out um the site plan approval component of the
zoning um that we have in the u in the 2023. Um and then Nick and Cheyenne um shared a draft where they started to highlight things that we're going to need to revise
um and that was using the 2023 as the basis. So I do think a lot of it's going to depend on how many districts we have because we're going to have to include new districts, right? Take some districts out and include new ones. I did
um spend some time um in 2023 providing comments in red line or in you know um track changes mode to staff when they were working on it before. So I'm happy to do that again um
to help facilitate getting it done. Cheryl, um, you suggested that your site plan approval processes have been changed since then. Are you are you suggesting that they're not? We have a a bylaw that's going to encompass site
plan approval for other um other requirements in our zoning. But it it would also we would refer to that if it passes this next week. We would refer back to that article in the MBTA
community zoning for the process for site plan approval. Okay. A little more comprehensive. Yeah. And it's based on what was in the 2023 MBTA zoning. Oh, good. Okay. Yeah.
Very similar. Okay. So, is it um just sorry, one to put a finer point on the zoning issued. Um, so right now like we're actively discussing two different paths, right? We're discussing the adjacent community path and the rapid path and those would carry different zoning rules. Do you want town staff to
be drafting both of those? One of those? Well, I would think they would do the adjacent community plan first, you know, and I mean, I'm a type of person who likes to complete a project. So, if it's, you know, I think
we're pretty certain on the adjacent community, so why not focus just on that and get that complete? Okay. So, kind of deal with it sequentially, address the adjacent community one, and then um
I think there's a chance that we will that the town staff may need to start preparing the rapid one if we have not yet heard back from the state about whether they will accept adjacent and there's a chance that the rapid will be
moving forward um just because of the time crunch. So, I think that's that we don't need to be involved in figuring that out, but I just want to flag it because there's a time the decision making sequence uh and the time we have remaining is not going to perfectly align. Um, so we'll all do our best and
I'll leave that second question to the board. Um, and I think with that I can I'll stop sharing. I think we can potentially leave you there. I know you mentioned you had some other agenda items and I'm sure you're eager to get out. Just real two quick thanks. So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Matthew. Matthew, that's all. Good night, good night. Okay, great. So, real quickly, because we don't um I don't think we need to go through all of this, but I just wanted the um the planning board to know
Cheyenne and Nick have been working on a presentation for our ADU and site plan articles to present at town meeting. I know Cheyenne, you said it might not be completed for tonight, but um I thought maybe and since it's so late um once
those are complete, Cheyenne, if you could send those out to the board members just to see if there's any comments or anything that we would want to add to that presentation. So, we did finish it. It's in the one drive folder for tonight, but we can since it is
late, we can still just take comments up until like Friday so that we can get it over to the warrant committee for Monday or whenever they get to us next week. So, yeah, let's do that so everybody can look at it with fresh eyes. So, yep. Terrific. So, Cheyenne will be look for
that in your email. She'll be circulating that and then who will be presenting at a town meeting? Meredith, will Cheyenne be presenting? I think depending on when when it goes. Cheyenne's going to be away next week, so she won't be. So, it would so I would
be presenting it. Um, unless the board has, you know, a preference to have Nick present it, but it seemed like since it's coming from us, I should probably be the one. Oh, I was just Yeah, I don't have a problem. Right. Cheyenne, you're gone Monday.
I'm going to be gone um early Monday, like during the workday. I'm going to try and get back for town meeting night, but Okay. The daytime I'm going to be out cuz just in the past I thought Tim presented he did. Yeah, that's
So, and then you're So, you you think you'll be there Monday night, Cheyenne? And Tuesday night, will you be there? Yeah. So, so I would be happy for Cheyenne to present it as well. So, I'm I thought you weren't going to be there. That's
why I was just saying. No, no, I switched my my trip a little later. Okay. Well, you guys can discuss that offline. Yeah, we'll talk about that. We can talk about that tomorrow, which um Cheyenne would be great doing that.
So, um Okay. So, we'll talk about that. And then just the last thing um that we I just need a vote on. So Jim and I went to the um to the warrant committee with our our um overlay zoning for East
Milton um square which they really everybody seemed to embrace and is um really supportive of. And they just had one very small thing that they asked that we add um that was on Cheyenne, can
you do you mind pulling up the um overlay zoning language for um East Milton overlay? Yeah. Okay. So on P it's on page two B letter D.
Got a little bit bigger please. Thank you. Great. So, where it says ground floor uses in the second line where they said at least well at least 50% of the usable
ground floor area of the building must be designed for and they wanted the word shall be occupied. are the two word two words shall and be before o the word before occupied.
Um I'm just doing it like this because I have to get the word document from y um Josh. It must be designed for and shall be occupied by nonresidential. So do we have a definition of usable ground floor here? because
um we know parking is a non-residential use and it's a commercial use but I don't think we want parking as our 50% um I don't I don't remember if we have that definition for ground floor use
I thought we did describe our the the ground floor. Yeah, I just I haven't looked at it mo recently and that just caught my eye as we were looking at that amendment design standards. We have ground story height. Ground
story. Let me see. Maybe under parking. Maybe it's under parking. Yeah. This one parking space. Is it like a simple sentence as parking shall not? This a section we passed by earlier that I thought it said active
ground floor. What What was that? It's uh it might be early in the document. Cheyenne, keep going up. Yeah, it said I think it said right there. Right there. Active grants. That's not it. That's
So eventually we'd like a definition for the ground floor is what Cheryl's looking for. Yeah, I don't mind going back and looking through it. Um, just to check and if it's not there, I can email something. That sound good? That sounds
great. The language change um that language change that they wanted or the language that they want to add seems fine, right? Yes, it does to me, too. Yeah. So if we if I could um have a motion to approve that
language change. So I'll make motion to approve the language change on page two section D adding the term shall be. Is there a second? Second. Second. Okay. Roll call. Uh Jim.
Yes. Cheryl. Yes. Maggie. Yes. Sean, yes. And myself. Yes. Okay, great. And then Cherylyn, yes. If you want to um just look if we can we can add that and approve that on Monday. Yeah, I'll
take a look tomorrow. Okay, great. But they were everything else was good. The only thing Cheyenne they for some reason the warrant committee had a slightly previous um version which had some typos in it which
our version had been corrected. So once we make these improvements we'll send uh um or these changes we can just send this is the fresh final document. So, all right. I think they pulled it off the website and I think they just pulled off a previous
um a previous draft. So, okay. So, that was just that was um the last item that I had. Um and so if there's not anything else
um yep, that was the last item. Um, a motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. Okay. You a second? I made the motion that way. I made that motion. Uh, yes. So, roll call. Cheryl, yes. Sean,
yes. Maggie, yes. Uh, Jim, yes. And myself? Yes. Good night. Good night. Good night all. [Music] Hey boy. Rip it.