e e e e e e e e e e great good evening and welcome to the
25th meeting of fiscal year 2025 for the Milton planning board at this time I would like to call the meeting to order um and begin by um introducing the members of the planning board um and our staff uh if we could uh introduce
yourselves Cheryl if you want to start us off sure Cheryl toas secretary Maggie Maggie field member Sean Sean FY member great and um Jim will be joining us shortly and we'll
introduce him when he comes in and I am Meredith Hall serving as chair tonight um we have with us our staff Cheyenne hiyan frer assistant director of planning and Julia she's not here yet she's com a
little late okay that's great all right um then we can keep moving um with our uh administrative items we have uh minutes that we had deferred uh the February 10th um we had January 23rd actually do
we we had not approved those and then January 25th or 28th sorry so February 10th January 28th and January 23rd um I did note that Cheryl um picked up on February 10th an item um
the um to adjourn the I went back and watched the tape and it was actually on a motion by Jim and seconded by Maggie so um I would suggest that we uh amend that set of minutes but everything else I thought looked okay since going to
abstain from the 10th um can we do the two motions Meredith so sure if everyone um had any other comments on the minutes though first uh I'm good with the 28th and the 23rd the two that you had sent out
Cheryl I I have no I have no uh further comments I think they're good from my perspective and you to Maggie yep and I agree yes okay so I'll make a motion to approve um the minutes from February 23rd and
February 28th um it's January January sorry January 23rd and January 28th as amended okay is there a second I'll second okay I'll we'll do roll call since we're on Zoom all in favor
Cheryl yes Sean yes Maggie yes and myself yes thank you and now if I could have a motion to accept the minutes um from February 10th um Cheryl is going to abstain um so if Sean or Maggie if I
could have a motion in a second I'll make a motion to approve February 10 minutes and I will I will second okay and roll call on that aan yes
Maggie Cheryl I guess we should just document your vote for the obain and myself yes great well thank you for the the approval of those um minutes um we then have our next uh
discussion of our next meeting dates um we do have a meeting set up um just a pre-meeting before town meeting and uh Julie is not here yet but Cheyenne do you know if it was 7:15 or 7:30 did we
do we have a time on that um let me check I know might have even done seven earlier um we have 7:15 okay great it's perfect room
243 in 243 yep okay great all right um and we have that set up for the 24th and 25th uh we then have um we were able to get confirmation for the um for the Milton Arts Center um um
to do our mapc a public forum for the overlay Zoning for East Milton Square on March 11th so Cheyenne um in your update maybe you can talk a little bit about the publicity and and how we're getting the word out for that sure okay and then
we have our next regular scheduled uh meeting will be on March 13th so shortly after um shortly after Forum um okay so um staff update Cheyenne if you
wanna sure mentioned um March 11th we will be having a forum at the Milton Arts Center with our Consultants from MPC Josh fala he's come a couple of times to do presentations with us um in terms of
publicity we are going to be getting it posted on the town website to Facebook page um other Town related Facebook pages and the Milton scene but we are waiting on that a little bit just because um we'd like to make it hybrid so we sent it back to Josh to add that
to the flyer and once that's all settled up that'll be sent out and posted for everybody oh it's also been um I it's also been U posted to the um Milton times they know about it so
right good yeah we want that to be a um it's an important forum and we want uh the opportunity to have Community input on that um we should also probably send the flyer when we have it uh to the East Milton neighborhood
association and they they can distribute it to their membersa um got in touch with Andy damato yeah I sent an email to Andy damato I haven't heard back from him but we don't have a list of uh like a a list
of partic ipants in the East Milton um Association so um hopefully he'll spread the word great that's teric maybe send it to the Chamber of Commerce yes we'll do that was yeah
suggestion that cherl had made um great well it sounds like uh the planning department is on it so thank you very much um and so we anything else tranne
yes um so for agenda nine we have the flood plan bylaw discussion um I had edited that back in January and I was in touch with Eric Carlson from DTR um I've been sending it back and forth with him just getting edits because he wanted to
review every Town's Draft before we send it to town meeting so um I had sent our final draft this morning he got back to me saying everything looks good just if we had any edits um obviously send it back to him just look over so uh when we
get there that's already been like looked at so we just need to get that done to send to the warrant which I believe is like sometime next week right perfect um yeah we'll have our
we'll have both of our um our overlay Zoning for East Milton in this to submit um so as soon as the warrant committee finishes with their work on on um this town special town meeting they can get started on something new um okay great
um so now if we have um the applicant for the anr for 572 Harland Street um we can invite them to join us um so I was speaking with um the
person who is doing the plan and I told him about having the attorney but he never mentioned the name so I'm not sure if you attorney is here or not okay and Meredith before we begin I just would like to make um a
disclosure that this um property is located within the hillside neighborhood association which I am a part of um both personally and professionally but I don't think my relationship with the property owners would interfere with my
ability to make a fair and balanced decision and because I don't have any financial interest in this agenda item I feel as if I'm able to participate in the discussion thank you great so if um the applicant from
572 uh Harland if you could raise your hand so we can um invite you to join us and be a panelist I am not seeing any hands me
either yeah who was your contact Cheyenne for this application um I had been talking to Steve do ro he and I have been talking um okay pretty much the entire application process okay great all right why don't
we keep an eye open open um for uh Steve um or let's see yeah they may be joining us later but I
um I think we should keep moving um through our agenda and we will um just look for the applicant to raise their hand um and Chey and just if you want to just keep it keep watch of the attendees they do show up and raise their
hand okay so um and I see that Jim is joined us so welcome Jim glad to have you hello hello great great to have you um and so now I think at this time uh we can open the public hearing site plan
approval for zero Blue Hill AV parcel B- 7-5 continued from February 13th and we can the team in to join us yep Chris has his hand up
Andrew Josh and Scott Thornton can you hear me yes welcome welcome Chris thank you um to start Chris fazendin with Viking development uh the applicant for zero
blab thank you guys for squeez squeezing Us in tonight I know you have a lot going on so I'll try to help move things along um we met last week there was a couple takeaway items I submitted a comment response for about six things not sure if you guys want me to
run through them if you guys had a chance to review and have questions happy to kind of handle that any way you'd like yeah if you'd like to run through those um real briefly that would be great yeah okay are you seeing the PDF yes
okay um so right off the bat the first one was our discussions on the window muttons um the elevation were updated to have that eight panel sort of double hung design across the building all four elevations that was submitted as part of
the package so hopefully everyone got a chance to look at that there's any questions let me know but I think that's landed in a good spot right uh I will point out just because I'm seeing it here now we did uh move the two circular emblems from those
top Gables off and kind of kept all the signage on that front main Gable there second one on this list was retaining wall materials uh there was a request to kind of put color and material and texture into this package just so you
had an idea of what the intent was um I've submitted one of each each uh manufacturer that we've talked about through this process that's now an exhibit and included in our site plan package as well I made a note that that will get included onto our retaining
wall plans once those designs are finalized um then I think the the bulk of the remaining items were construction management related just to run through them briefly we updated our pre-construction meeting note to indicate that a meeting with Police Department is required construction hours we look
through the bylaws and kind of determined Monday through Friday 7: am. to 7 p.m. Saturday 7:00 am. to 5:00 p.m uh and then Sundays 10:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. this is language straight out of the bylaw it also notes that construction activities on the interior
fully closed building that can be conducted outside of those hours um and then a couple notes here at the end regarding you know the startup of of Motor Vehicles or equipment prior to hours uh and noted in here the deliveries need to occur between those hours as
well and then there here at the bottom just some notes like we discussed about on-site and offsite parking it'll occur on site except for a few select activities like Paving where the site may be encumbered with equipment and operations where it won't occur and then we would obviously find the the
appropriate means to transport subcontractors and whatnot on you know to to the offsite locations so I think that kind of covers the mo the the bulk of construction management oh three- week look ahead I I committed in this response um to sending
out a a notice to a Butters with with an email address whether my own or something we make up allowing them to sort of subscribe give me their info and email information so that we could distribute that three-week look ahead schedule that we had discussed and then the last one is the
storm water peer review like we had talked about last time Luke had had brought up that the the remaining comments in stormwater peer review are minor in nature with with no anticipated substantial modification to the site plan that we've looked at today um and with that we had recommended that the
board consider a vote and a condition of approval kind of tying that to building per issuance and that was it great thank you for that um quick response um any questions um from members of the board
Merith I just have two um uh Chris how are you nice to see you again and thank you for providing the information um are you committing to using the kigi Aro block that um that you had submitted yeah so I think the discussion
we had was Conigliaro or natural Stonewall Solutions were the two that had been brought up and we would be committed to using them but the exact block the exact style we didn't want to SP spec something at this point okay the the um I looking at something that was
submitted I see ledge Stone ledge Stone and ashar um that were um outlined in Red so I I wasn't that's why I asked yeah those were the patterns kind of the styles that we thought would would be used okay
okay great um and my second question on the construction management changes I appreciate all the edits you made um one I'm not sure if I saw um I had suggested that when your contractor is chosen that you have a a pre-meeting preactivity
meeting or a pre-art meeting with the building official the police department just to finalize your construction management plan was that uh yeah so we we specified here that the requirement for Milton Police Department outside of that all those other entities
are going to be a requirement for land disturb okay excellent thank you I have no further questions right other members of the board no I want to say thank you I appreciate you um minimizing the number
of signs and consolidating it to the middle of your building um just as a personal preference I like a um horizontal Stone as opposed to a vertical Stone but um but no thank you
for your um your um answers to the questions and it was all the materials been in a very easy to read manner so I appreciate that thank you thank
you great anyone else yeah I um if I may Merit just I Chris appreciate all your efforts on this it's great um I appreciate the windows I think it looks much better the way it is
thank you for that change I know it was late um and then if you do go with natural Stonewall Solutions um the the sample I had in mind was more of a rounder Fieldstone look I'm not asking
you to change anything but if you do consider it um if drive by Pine Gardens way off a Pleasant Street the two front retaining walls are made out of that that um rounder stone look and it's it's really nice might be more in keeping
with the natural environment out there just just a thought um but thank you for for all your accommodations I think this is going to be a a nice looking building great yeah noted I'll I'll drive by it you know as we get into the the
construction aspect of this and finalize that material material um and if it's availability works we'll certainly consider it cool thank you and Cheryl did you have any other um no just uh thank you as we've said at I
think at the other meetings we appreciate your responsiveness getting us the materials in advance um your responsiveness to all of our um suggestions and considerations while all of them haven't been Incorporated I you
did consider all them analyze them and I think the process has worked really well so I would um Mar if you're ready make a motion to close the public hearing so uh that we can begin um the process of drafting a decision yes I just was going
to ask if there was anyone here from the public who before we did that if any sure one would like to um from the public would like to comment or have any thing that they would like to add if you you could raise your hand if you are
interested in speaking I am not seeing any so I do I would entertain a motion then Cheryl if you'd like to go ahead with that I will so I'll make a motion to close the public hearing for let me get the exact agenda title
zero Blue Hill Parcel b-7 d five The Gardener school right is there a second a second terrific all right we'll do a roll call since we're on on Zoom uh
Cheryl yes Jim yes Sean yes Maggie yes and myself yes thank you for closing that public hearing um now we'll have to uh work on our draft um Cheyenne if you
would I don't know if you would be able to sort of pull up what our um our decision was for the Gard school as a framework um yeah let me and you don't have to do it right now I'm sorry okay not right now okay but if you would if
you would be able to sort of work on a template um that we could um sort of be looking at and the documents that we would be including um that we would need to have included as part of that decision and then have we have that language pulled together um it's
probably a very similar template to what we did we've done before and we can have uh Town Council review that and have the planning board members review it and see if there's anything um decision language you would like to have added one thing I
would say is that on the conditions I think there was in the uh peer review on the storm water there may have been a a suggested condition or two there I think we just yes had that in the uh contraction management plan so just
we'll need to go through and make sure that those get picked up those conditions get picked up I I was actually going to mention that same thing because I had asked Cheyenne and I was concerned we didn't have the final um peer review um but there was language that Chris um had pulled up that we used
on the GD school so we do have that language on on the storm water so I don't know if Chris you have that we don't have to do it right now but um we can SE at that and Cheyenne um has seen that language so we we will
definitely include that so the intent sorry Chris no I was just going to say U Meredith would the intent be to have um a vote on the decision on the 13th the next regularly scheduled
meeting um I think we will um depending on how you know extensively we need to discuss any changes um but if it if it seems to be including everything that um we have done um consistent with other projects um I I think that we could at
least have it on the agenda for a possible vote okay so yeah so we'll try to get that um if we can pulled together and um have Town Council take a look at that and then
have that ready we should have ample time a sufficient time to to be able to have that together for the 13th I would think okay is there a possibility that we could share that back and forth ahead of time to to look at conditions that you have developed in hopes of shortening
you know any discussions come to 13 um we certainly could share a dra like cheyen if you want to pull together you know in a draft and any additions that the planning board wants to make we obviously can't discuss it among ourselves but we could have your
comments if you wanted to um share your comments with she could share those with us yeah it would help to know what you guys are thinking I've obviously seen GD I've seen Little Sprouts I don't think there's anything in there that that yeah is is too much of a concern to us but it
would just help if I could come prepared with with thoughts no certainly that's fair any other thoughts on this process unless Chris you want to dig up a lawyer and write it I it's going to be the same thing one
way or the other right if I if I write it you guys still have to review it so I think it's it's better that we use your template all right that sounds good so we'll we'll plan to have that draft ready um in advance of the 13th meeting so um
we can have input from from the board members and and share that with Chris for comment and then I provided Cheyenne with a drawing log of all the drawings so that that should help right okay all right um anything
else for this evening on the gardener school don't think so like we now thank you guys it's been a great proc I'm glad we're almost there yeah good job thank you appreciate it have a good night you too okay all
right um so next um on our agenda is the um we are going to actually reopen our um our zoning articles when we previously when I think we talked about this at the last meeting but we had um
we had decided to have a follow-up meeting uh on the Articles and vote on the Articles um but we did not continue the public hearing so this is more of a formality that we're going to open um a public hearing uh for the site plan
approval uh zoning map and accessory dwelling unit articles and um I would entertain um then I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on that so yes before um we close the public
hearing um we did get comments back today and I wanted to see that you we would have time to address those yeah I I did want how we want to address those exactly so um just so what Cheryl is referring to um which was hot off the
press it came in at the very end of the day I asked Cheyenne to to send it out to everybody as soon as possible um there were this was the um the um sort of the wing the mass lawyers uh unit uh
that Peter Melo had asked to review um they sort of went through it with a fine tooth comb um they do sometimes flag things that might be in question there were a few items um but I have not SP spoken to um Peter melow about them or
Tom Cal well at this time the warrant is closed so we could not make changes to the article it would need to be the warrant committee's recommendation so I think we should um what I would like to do is um consult with Peter Melo um some
of the things um that we could discuss like some of the things that were defin related um I believe we took from their regulations so I'm not sure about that why there was a discrepancy on some of those things so I would just sort of
like to get clarification maybe from Peter Melo on you know are some items just suggested changes or um there were there were a few things that I think that we could change but it would have to be the warrant committee and I think
it's as long as it's within scope we would also want to make sure that any changes that we would be making making would keep the article uh within scope so there I think we could we're really going to need clarification on that as soon as possible because the level of
question I think uh raises for me whether the article needs more work and we would want to suggest that it come back to us for um further study because with these kind of open
questions I would like to have um Peter melow speak to the board maybe uh Monday before at our pre-own meeting meeting we could get his opinion about that I agree
yep um yeah because if it if it is you know it be becomes so many changes that we would you know or the level of normally the town meeting members would have an opportunity to review the changes in advance this would be a lot of changes and they wouldn't have no
time to review them in fance so it uh it's a little um I think the timing is difficult honestly yeah and that came up this morning um we discussed that briefly um I met with the other um chairs of the other boards and Peter
melow was there and with Tom Caldwell and Bob his just doing a run through and that was a question I had you know um how they would handle doing a green sheet at that late you know at that late time so um let's let's do that let's do that check with with I'll check with
Peter Melo um and see what his recommendation is if we should um and if he could come speak to us at our pre meeting so we can make a determination on whether to um pull that back or if these are things that can be addressed
the warrant committee can um can suggest some changes so my understanding is when you pass the zoning article it goes to um the AG and the AG can take up to 90 days to review it so I think this process is a good
process having um them review at prior however because we are on such a tight time frame we know that the Adu law has is in effect do you think and and it's not
what I really like to do but do you think the recommendation should still be um to pass it as written and then in May at our next town meeting we can make all the suggested
changes I think that's something we should discuss with pet mow um Maggie on Monday before town meeting yeah I agree Maggie I would like to try if we C can to pass it um you
know but we we would want to get um sort of clarification as to to what changes the warrant committee could recommend at this time without being out of scope uh and you know just making sure we get some clarification on some of those items some things I think would be
fairly easy to address and those like there were a couple of typos that you know um I did quickly review it and to your point I thought there was some things which were were easy to um to correct and I don't think it would be
too much for the average time meeting member to digest so I would try to my suggestion would be to try to um um pass it this in February if
possible okay all right so I can deliver that message but get you know I have not talked to Peter again you know and he just had received it and sent it right over um as soon as he had received it so we want to make sure it's a solid ticle but um if there's minor things that can
be tweaked you know I I think particularly with the definitions you know if we could um get clarification on that so all right so I'll I'll have a follow-up call and I'll you know I'll communicate with Cheyenne on what the
recommendation is and um have Cheyenne email everyone sort of an update on this so we're not left floating because we are unfortunately under a tight it's a really tight time for frame um so then my question is do we need to keep the
public hearing open on the adus until Monday well we can't we can't make any changes so for us to keep the public hearing open the warrant has been closed so we're not we wouldn't be able to make
any changes at this point we could accept their recommendations but there wouldn't be any new um new changes that that we could make to the article so I'm not sure if
it's necessary to keep the public hearing open does that make sense so it's just a formality to close the public it's a formality to close the public hearing because it had not been formally closed previously and I would just and just to
you know we put in there just a formal during the public hearing um our vote was taken outside of a public hearing we were it was on the agenda so we could discuss it so I would like to um to entertain having a new vote um on those
zoning articles to be submitted subject to Town Council so in any event um the Plenty board would have to take a vote on the warrant commit comm's
recommendation correct correct because the warrant has closed at this time y so I'm just trying to think through the process and Cheryl's point is there a benefit to keeping it
open which I'm not sure if there is or not so thinking about what's been done in the past there have been green sheet changes for zoning articles after the public hearing has closed but I don't think
they're extensive I don't think they've been extensive so the question becomes how how extensive are these you know I don't think it hurts to keep the Adu open until Monday to and ask Peter Melo about it and we could close the other two right close the public hearing for the
other two or are they all considered one actually maybe we can't do that either because it's not on the agenda for the for Monday right and it's too late to revise the agenda all right so I think that answers that
yeah I'll make a motion to close the public hearing for the three zoning articles which is the site plan approval the accessory dwelling unit and the overlay district mapsy is there a second
second okay roll call Cheryl yes Maggie yes Jim yes Sean you're muted Sean thanks Jim apologize yes and myself
yes great thank you and I will get uh we will get an update uh sent out to everyone and invite uh Peter to come and join us um at our at our pre- meeting on Monday to make that final determination
okay great um so now let's um move to our discussion of the hlc comment letters on MBTA Community zoning um it's actually on MBTA regulations but um if we can Cheyenne we have a couple
of different documents and I appreciate everybody working on this I know it's been a sort of a quick um quick time frame to pull this together um I had sub submitted um some language and I know and then Jim and
Cheryl and Maggie also have submitted things so um cheyen I know you were working on sort of pulling up a document that included everything so we could sort of we could review that if you could pull that up that would be
great and while she's doing this um okay uh they're in order of how they came into my email oh okay okay great so what I did like about the um this is that I thought a lot of a lot of
the things that um Jim had um mentioned were also incorporated in what others had submitted as well so maybe if we continue to look
through them we may I think we may see Jim's comments Incorporated in other language so I might be able to save us a little bit of time um you know my comments kind of acknowledge that we're a
25% Rapid Transit classification and then then sort of back into the reasons why I want us to be reclassified as a 10% um whereas Merit of's comments are are much stronger where
they don't acknowledge the 25% and they they they for they ask us to address the statute and I think my comments detract from that argument so I'm wondering if I should just pull
this whole first page that I wrote and maybe submit it as a citizen to not take away from Merit of this letter of this argument for lack of a better term that that's just right that that I would app that I appreciate that
Jim that might be helpful but I think it's good for you to send it as as a citiz as you know as having your separate comments as well yeah I mean I still think they're great thoughts um but I I think that the way you word yours is just much better
okay so cheyen do you want to just delete my um page and a half whatever my comments are yeah thank youl had a hand raised yeah so um I think that the comments
that the four of us have put together are going to be pretty hard to reconcile into one document tonight um so I it might be best to submit individual comments I mean the select board has
submitted what they call the town of Milton's comment letter um so that's apparently the official comment letter um they sent that to us for review I think it was Thursday evening um it was a holiday weekend and then they voted on
it on Tuesday so at this point um I I really have a hard time thinking that we're going to come to an agreement on what we should include but I will I'd like to make a couple of comments because I'd like for the public to to hear these comments too um what you prepare or what
you supplied meridith I think is includes a lot of what Mr dhy has submitted to us and a lot of it um relates to the action plan and the validity of the emergency regulations or the law itself whereas this comment
letter I feel is intended to be comments on the actual uh guidelines or regulations that hlc has put out um for which uh comment letters or comments are due tomorrow um so we know that the Court ruled that the
ACT delegation of the authority to hlc to write the guidelines is legal um and I think our focus should really be on the guidelines not on the act or the validity of the emergency regulations or the law itself um um with respect to
Rapid Transit classification which is something that's been talked about almost exclusively rather than other aspects of the guidelines the town wrote to the MBTA in August of 2023 seeking an explanation of the classification of the
matapan trolley and in a response letter dated September 8th of 20 23 it was confirmed that the maten trolley is one of two Light Rail lines that operate as part of the mbta's fixed route service the other
one is the green line the letter explains that fixed route modes include bus Light Rail heavy rail commuter rail and ferry in accordance with Federal definitions and in accordance with the MBTA service delivery policy which is
adopted by its board that letter also States in classifying Transit modes consideration by the MB ta is not given to destination EG whether the modes include service to downtown
Boston nor capacity or Service delivery levels rather the designation is a technical one based on characteristics of the vehicle such as whether it operates on a fixed guideway uses a designated rideway or uses a fixed
catary system while quality and frequency of service are certainly an important part of the writer's experience and are areas in which the MBTA is seeking to improve they are not material to the designation of the matapan line as a light rail so communities with Greenline
service which is also the Light Rail have not challenged their classification as rapid transits only Milton has as I mentioned the select board focused the entirety of its comment letter on challenging the classification I think we should focus
on other aspects of the guidelines that we may have agreement on these changes could put us in a much better position to comply with the rapid transit classification or another classification if that is something that hlc agrees to
but if we don't spend time talking about these other aspects of the guidelines I think it would be waste it would be a wasted opportunity thank you Cheryl um with Cheryl you know at our last meeting you
really no advanced notice we the our board came up with um many things we were in agreement on and that we wanted um to be reviewed by hlc and so
um I think the planning board should submit a letter I think there are things in Jim's comments and Cheryl's comments and my comments and Merida's comments that they overlap so I think it is
beneficial for the Milton planning board to submit a letter and and um we start with the things that we can agree on um and and then we just move on from there
so I think maybe we just go on down the line on the technical stuff at this point in time and get that out of the way so Cheryl I almost see this I I do feel like it's stronger coming from the planning board um and when I had
presented I just have a couple little things I wanted to add um is sort of a narrative of of where we are and it it is um you're right it's very much an explanation of the position that Milton
has been put in regarding ing the action plan um the requirement of the action plan um IT addresses you know the emergency regulations the you know it it it puts
in a lot of significant um detail to yes it is our argument um and it it's very statute based I know everything that you read off you know was all about the regulations this is this is the
regulations need to do not expand on the statute and that is what the issue is is that the the regulations in respect to with respect to Milton are beyond the scope of what is outside the statute and so right
there yeah I I can't agree with that because the SJC said that they agreed that the statute the law allows for hlc which it says shall U promate guidelines
and so they must go beyond the statute so I if not then why is that included in the statute and why did the Court rule the way they did so I can't because the statute is legala guidelines yeah all right that's
we'll agree to disagree then um so I would like to submit the draft and I think what I what I was going to suggest because I think they're compliment um is what I what I had provided was
more of a narrative and then I think what you present um and what Maggie has presented are um can be a followup and it would be further suggested
modifications would be how you could title it and so we could have really three parts to this um the the the part that I submitted and the um and the map but
have before that before the map the um part three further suggested modifications and put in what you have provided if you would still like to Cheryl I I think it's I think it's beneficial coming from our board but if you want us submit your language as a
separate citizen I yeah I can't support yeah I can't support the the language that um that you've provided which is basically a a regurgitation of the same thing that the select board has put forward which is that we're not a rapid
transit uh community and trying to use U the law uh rather than the guidelines as the basis for it which again is I think an argument that Mr dhy has made to the board of on a number of occasions if we took the idea that um your the
developable area within half mile of whatever transit station it is times 15 is our requirement and let's say the um the state decides or hlc and the courts agree that we are Rapid Transit Community we have 404 Acres of
developable station area within the trolley stations and if we mult did the math on that that at 15 units an acre that'd be over 6,000 um units of Zone capacity so I think we have to be careful what we're
arguing for here uh without having um thought through what the consequences could be if we lose this particular argument so I I cannot um that's not to vote on that aspect of the comment letter so Cheryl that that the number of
Acres within developable area the only thing that triggers is whether you have to develop within that area or if you can develop outside of that area so that their regulations was a 100 acres of developable land and we talked about
that but no mer that's in this letter it's in what you supplied it's an argument that that were going to be 15 units an acre times 37.5 Acres which is the developable station area within the commuter rail stations and coming up
with 562.org that's being made that's what the statute says no it doesn't because if you look at the statute statute doesn't say you do the math that way a reasonable size with units per acre times however many acres you have
it doesn't say that you do the math times the developable area I mean think about that think about how that math might work in other in other places and how it would work if we're considered um a rapid transit community that and I'm I'm looking at the statute right now it doesn't say
that that's the way to do the math so I I well you know we can argue or disagree about it I it's I want to point out the reason so people who are watching or listening um can hear that we that because you haven't gone through
the language of this and this is I want to point out some of the things that are in the language that you uh want to submit and that those things and I want to point out why I don't support those things Meredith before we go on I I want Cheryl to please clarify for me and for
anybody else listening what you just uh what you're in inferring or stating about 6,000 units all right so because the argument that's made um in if we want to go I can I'll find it's it's made in several
places um in what Meredith submitted um talking about explicit wording saying that Milton if I'm looking at I'm not sure what page it is it was the SEC
the bottom of the second page um it says therefore Milton can fully comply with Section 3A by implementing a zoning ordinance or bylaw that provides for 15 multif family units per acre within the total of 37.5 acres of developable land
in Milton that is located not more than 05 miles from the Fairmont Reedville and blue hill a MBTA Commuter Rail stations and then it says in refers to U's
calculation and then it says the statutes words and math apply the chapter 48 section 3A statute's explicit wording therefore yields the statutorily required total mil section mil total Milton Section 3 multif family zoning to
be 563 multif family units which is 15 * 37.5 MH and then round it up so um but that's based on so that's saying that's how you do it now if I look at what I pulled from the actual
language it says an MBTA Community shall have a zoning ordinance or bylaw that provides for at least one District of reasonable size in which multif family housing is permitted as of right and then it goes on about um however that
such multif family housing shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children for the purposes of this section A District of reasonable size shall one have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre subject to any further limitations
imposed by section 40 of chapter 131 and title five of the State Environmental code established pursuant to section 13 of chapter 21A and B be located not more than .5 miles from a community rail station subway station faery terminal
bus if applicable so it doesn't say it doesn't tie the calculation of the units per acre to the developable area because it doesn't even use the words developable area here and
we know those words came from the guidelines themselves so if you use the logic of 15 units times developable Acres U has also provided us with a calculation that there are
404 developable station area Acres within a half mile of the trolley stations so if you apply the logic of what's in the comment letter that Merida submitted for commuter rail and
developing what your required Zone capacity is to those 404 Acres you get 6,000 over 6,000 so that's why I said I think we need to be careful about what we're arguing in terms of how
a reasonable size is determined because the guidelines have provided a different way of determining that um and this is something which is some is an interpretation of the statute that that doesn't come from the guidelines we're here to talk about the guidelines yeah
but you know I just want to make sure that we're careful in what we're saying um The Most Extreme requirement would be 25% of the current housing stock not 6,000 units I'm just saying
that the logic that's being applied to an I know what you're saying but for the people that are listening if people are listening to you and imagining that we may be forced to add 6,000 units I just think you should be really careful on what you're suggesting to the public right all right so the Zone capacity at
25% is 20 461 new exactly that's based on 25% but that comes out of the guidelines as well Sean so we're keep mixing the law and the guidelines that's what I'm trying to point out that the comment letter here is saying we only need to
pay attention to the law and the law doesn't have the 25% or 10% or anything so this logic that's in this comment letter is saying that we're just going to do the math this way because we're not we don't follow the guidelines they're not proper I think that's a
mistake and I'm trying to point out why I think that's a mistake okay there there's an awful lot that's uh contentious all the way around um my opinion is we should submit as a planning board uh a document that takes
a position that is consistent with what our select board submitted and I understand you don't agree with that Cheryl because it doesn't represent your point of view but as far as a planning board who should should um be submitting
something my opinion is that what we submit should be consistent with the select board and support the position that they've taken well then they have not included this in their letter this this this language about how this calculation is done is not in their letter it doesn't have to I don't see
how we're going to make a uh it doesn't have to be in their letter it's not consistent with it either it it's it's also not what you're suggesting what you're suggesting is is is not even is not even close to what the position that they've taken I'm suggesting we don't touch
whether we're rapid transit or not I Su I'm suggesting that we go through all the other things which I think we have found to be problematic whether it's the the size the minimum subdistrict size the definition of multif family to um
the um the way Zone capacity is calculated and density basis whether you're including roads and so forth things that I I put in the comment letter I think there's things that um Jim had identified too with respect to
excluded land um that are that tie into that um how much land that we can actually have available to us and it affects our density calculation as well because that gets included um those that's what I think we
should focus our comment on they already have the argument for the town with respect to Rapid Transit we're not adding anything new to the argument if if we're not adding all the other comments yeah but we're doing the argument Cheryl so we've been on
this track for a while now and to and to not pursue it at this point I think would be a mistake so I'm yeah letter um for that reason alone not to mention the fact that it makes some great arguments
I would like to include yeah I would like to include your recommendations too as as part of this because I I agree with what you a lot of what you have put in there um and I believe our letter would
be consistent with that of the select board in saying that we recognize that we are not a rapid transit so where both boards are consistent in that point of view um so
like can we first go through and figure out on the things that we agree on there there's many more pages here I think devoted to um the action plan we're not even talking about action plan we're talking
about guidelines we're talking about whether it's emergency regulations were properly promulgated that's not guidelines so I think at a minimum it's got to focus on the guidelines that's what we're here to talk about but I think this is this is a narrative of where we are right now
and that we should be taking you know I do I do want us to be able to write an action plan I want us to be able to come to an agreement you know with hlc um and I would like to see the regulations properly promulgated and have us have input with those
regulations but I think I think there's conv yep I know but I do think we should um include this and then um I did have two things that I just wanted to amend on page four Cheyenne um if you could
pull that yeah sorry that's page one scrolling down yeah and it's a bold paragraph that begins with the chapter 40a we keep do there
for is it this one um bottom of page four AG like page four am Meredith or P yeah let me just here okay stat explicit yeah one
two that under number two yeah the B furthermore um follow let's see it's actually actually after therefore let's just respaced it a little bit hold on I think it should say units not
Acres yes that's what I'm looking for yes so I think that's the last paragraph of Meredith's page four in b in last paragraph of Page Three just no following therefore yeah um we I
think it's in section section two to paragraph three okay there too yeah yes um therefore it's the next paragraph after there the therefore paragraph that
yes yes so in there in here um Acres should be units there that word yeah should be units and there again yeah yeah nice
job unit unit yeah okay that was the only thing so why don't we why don't we move down and go through what Cheryl had um and then what Maggie have have added okay so Cheryl your first so your your focus Cheryl is on
the trolley so that is that is is um you're muted oh no no Cheryl Cheryl is okay yes so if you SC down to what your um if you could can you uh Zoom that in
a little bit um Chey so I uh this portion of it is focused on the triy but all of the comments are not focused um so this piece is talking about the neighborhood that's really um close to the trolley
and describing it because I want to set the context that some of the things that we suggest um would make these changes if they made these changes it
would be more reasonable to um add housing in this area in the way in which we think makes most sense which is infill I I think the more we look at the guidelines that they favor uh larger developments on larger Parcels but we
don't have that so I think it's important to point it out and to give examples of that um so I don't mind this narrative if we had um looking if we had a section three further suggested um further suggested modifications or
however the board decides to ter determine and then you could start with this n we could introduce with this narrative uh the section three well but the thing is if we're arguing that we're not a rapid transit Community then the
location and if we're arguing that we're uh a Comm Community then we we don't need to Zone in this area whatsoever uh but I don't mind including it still because I I'm not convinced that it's going to come back that we're commuter rail community so I'd rather have the
comments there than not there um if we are adjacent yeah and if we are adjacent we can put it any we can put the development anywhere well it kind of continues to go back to how which of the guidelines we like and which of them we don't um but this
particular neighborhood is comprised of a lot of mostly single and two family homes except on the ends what we've talked about being uh higher Den already because there's multif family in those locations so if you scroll down a little bit further um that point that's one of the that
that map or that plan is from utils which shows the size of the lot so in that commentary I referenced the the the numbers of small Lots small Parcels that are within this area um that ties back to that description and then the first
suggested change is the definition of multif family housing because as we know um it's tied to a single building with three units or two buildings with two or more units so that would be four um in order for it to be classified or
considered multif family but here uh what's you know what's the difference really if you're still allowing for three units of housing if you can retain a single family that exists or retain a two family that exists and add two or one units to it you still are netting
three units so the suggested change um is to um have the definition be three dwelling units on the same lot no matter how they're configured um and I point out that their definition I think incentivizes the demolition of existing homes which is
something that we don't want to do so that's the first one okay so I agree with uh this and I think it should be included in our letter because I do agree with Cheryl's rationale in that
um you know in my opinion worst case scenario we are stuck with 25% we want to um um be able to protect so and these regulations are not just for Milton it's
for all the other 177 communities as well so maybe we are helping another town um as well so I think that um Cheryl is number one um we should
include as maybe to Merida's Point as modification number one okay I would agree then if you want to go to the next one the gross Density definition I think we've all talked about
how some of our neighborhoods actually if you do math based on a parcel by parcel basis they seem to be 15 units an acre but when we we do it run it through the compliance model it's less than that and um I think it's because number one we we might have some they're not all
the same size lots and we're limiting it to three units a lot so we're getting some delusion of the density but we're also getting the delusion through the definition which requires inclusion of uh public ways and also um parks and
recreational Civic and other non-residential uses so I just Ed this one example which is off of Elliot Street to show that if you took out the road way the public RightWay um in the total
acreage um you could get your density calculation is 19 A5 units an acre whereas with the definition that they have it's 16.4 units and so you know we're not getting as much credit um in this area on the density
side which means we're having to have higher density someplace else so I think if they change the this definition um to exclude the public rights of way and these other uses then
it would be better suited for areas that are already developed at a higher density like um with small Lots though like the Elliot Street Corridor I thought the model backed out roads no if you look at if you look at
the I looked at the guidelines again and the definitions that then these guidelines says it's included no the definition is made but I could have swore Tim way back said they pull out the roads I didn't see it in rereading all of the
guidelines but I could have missed it it might not be in the guidelines it might just be within the model I could have swore well then I do feel like this should be labeled modification number two
I think it's um we should include it in our comment letter I think it kind of uh is a nod to what Jim's comments were in his um that he provided to us um so I
think we should adopt that in our letter yeah definitely isn't going to hurt just just from a I agree too I agree with both of these the two points here that chl's brought up can can we as a board just agree on these or disagree on these as we go through them just so
we don't have to go back again so I yeah so far one two and three I think we all agree on okay three is the sub this is the subdistrict that which which we Sor we yes I I read it before so okay
and I agree on it too because I touched on this in my comments right and I think we've all talked about this throughout yep um and I just use an example of the paper mill site so we don't have to go through the detail of it but five acres for these minimum subd districts for anybody who's watching is we found to be
problematic um and excludes Parcels or areas um that we think would actually be good opportunities for adding housing and I agree with that and not to jump forward to what my comments but I
have a series of comments um that the same language should apply which maybe it could be used here too and my language basically is um it's an opportunity for the town to work with
hlc and so some language could be something like the process by which an MBTA community may seek any limited exception to compliance with 760 CMR 72.0
while still complying with the overall intent purpose and goals of mgl 4A section 3A so one thing I would say Maggie what you just said before though was about having the um these changes apply to
other communities um if you have it on everyone have to go through for some kind of uh special treatment I don't know that they would buy into that that's something that I think that they were not interested in from what Tim
told us before so if we keep it something that could apply to other communities like by reducing this size I think it's it's more likely that they would consider it and and so was it on yours or was did I read it did you say lower it from five
to three because okay so um if we scroll down a little bit Cheyenne that you can see that so it could be so for AC would be okay three acres would be okay what about two and a half acres so
as you know Milton is comprised of a lot of smaller Acres so even to assemble two acres could be like four to six Lots so I just wasn't sure if the three acres was the
correct um yeah I was I was considering two and a half but I also know that they didn't want it to be too small so um I'm open to changing that to something less I mean I understand why they wanted
five in some communities where there is open space but where there where there are communities that are um already built out like Milton is as I said two acres is a lot of land might not be a lot of land in Carlile but it is a lot
of land here in M how does the board feel on that on I don't I wouldn't be opposed to going down to two and and seeing what happens or two and a half two and a half yeah I I could I could support
either two or two and a half and I agree with Maggie saying there's 177 communities the the five acre minimum is definitely not a reasonable application to 177 communities these communities are all different like if you go to windr that's even
they're even more con exactly exactly well the idea that you have to have contiguous subdistricts also the smaller you make it means that you can tailor them a you know a little bit um differently where some you might allow a little more height or a little
more density than others but the five acres means you have to have all of it the same in that five acres and this example right here shows that the paper mill site which we know already has zoning to allow for multi family but if you make an NBTA
communities you have to try and jump across DCR land which they don't allow and then pick up some single family and so it's um by their definitions they're making this not not able to be done but
yeah it's too restrictive right y so I I'm fine I think two acres if we're going to reduce it seems like two acres I I could support two acres okay agreement y
yep and then um number four um was trying to address the concern about not losing our business districts and I know we were restricted in how many units that
we could have and mandatory mixed use districts um I wasn't sure how to best accomplish that in a very specific language but I tried to explain the challenge and made a suggestion that's
kind of General but hopefully is understood what the goal is no I agree with that the only um thing is um the language of trolley um where's that um here trolley
station the first line it's um first line trolley station yeah trolley stations and also the trolley catchment area so that's very specific you know to Milton so I would
use a I don't know Transit a transit station because we don't know if it's a commuter rail Subway Ferry Station because we're trying to make it as Transit station's fine I mean we're
using Milton example here but which because we're calling out East Milton Square to but um because of an example um I would just say Transit yeah and then the next line too we would put
Transit too so lose the word station on the first line there within a half mile of Transit period and really we're trying to promote Transit oriented development that's fine to change from TR to Transit cool thank
you and it really should be changed in all um wherever there's even backup with the district size of 5 Acres so Cheyenne anywhere you see trolley it should be and then uh
number five you remember when uh Tim had said that he had been authorized by the select board to ask hlc to give an early indication of
whether they would accept the granded AV South as a and East Milton Square as um suitable locations for subd districts um so rather than have it be something where that has to be sort of
sought it I thought it should be clear in the guidelines that it's acceptable where we already know in the guidelin lines again this is related to the rapid transit um half because half of the
developable station areas in Boston U Milton's able and other communities if they have the same kind of situation are able to have subdistricts outside of that half mile area um but I thought it would be helpful to have in the guidelines an
indication that it's acceptable to have subdistricts located in areas with have MBTA bus service so Cheryl I was on a roll with agreeing with you but I'm not on this
one um and also because um mostly because it's if you look at the regulations um oh and the statute it you know bu service has been um not
included um anywhere it's been only the silver line was specifically included and I think if we're just looking at ourselves which goes against what I just said about looking at all communities hopefully if we are categorized and as
an adjacent Community we will be able to look outside different districts so we're here in this situation milon personally um we don't really need this because
we it's already um it already applies to us only if we're not a rapid transit because the they still have to approve the subdistrict location outside of the half
mile I feel like because um it didn't at one point they have they had bus service in it in the and then they took took it out and defined it as just a silver line so I
feel like we're going to be creating bigger problems for other towns when they' specifically removed bus service from um previous
guidelines so I wouldn't support that necessarily well I wouldn't support it period we just what the request is to allow subject subd districts in outside trans yeah um yeah that's
what without restriction I guess without restriction because um I I don't like the Restriction that we have to go back to them and get approval for the location is what I'm trying to get at right and I think we could change I understand your concern Maggie that it could open up some other things that
when I hadn't anticipated but so I think that change of language would would work yep and I like not having to go back so I do agree with that so we would say um
locations yeah without restriction so right got period yeah okay are we all in agreement on that affordability oh an agreement yep yep
yeah I would agree I didn't said an amount like you did um Maggie I'm not sure about how we can get to that when you on on your comments but I thought the first thing is to get them to agree to the
concept yeah yeah so I got to mind by looking up um the Boston zoning code which I think they wrote in 20 23 so you know that's fairly recent okay when we get there maybe you can so but but but
we could combine um your affordability with my affordability um so that's that's only where I came up with um the 177% was
because if Boston is doing it then I think they're setting a precedent for the rest of us to follow yeah Boston when they do it they they've done economic analysis um to justify because I know
that there was a part of the city that wanted to go to 20 or 22% or even higher um but they they did the analysis and they needed to have some kind of a bonus whether density bonus or otherwise in order to make
those projects work financially so I guess the 177% um it may or may not be the right% for Milton I mean I think as a goal it would it's it's a good goal I don't know if we can mandate it but we why don't we go to
that your language sorry I just had one thing on the affordability is near we wanted to change trolley to Transit that didn't want to forget yeah I was consistent with
trolley huh yeah great and the other thing is you mentioned 10 units and in Boston they've dropped it to seven units so that's what I had in mind seven units yeah um we can we can switch to
seven I don't know if it as ly if it's as widely um acknowledged because I've heard 10 very widely but I mean I called it up in
their I understand Boston but on the other community yeah I don't know I again Boston is the uh has already created a zoning language for it why would we recreate the
wheel I like consistency I think it all depends on how projects are um financed and you know what differential is if we're we're we are in the same I think um metropolitan area in
terms of how the mediate income is calculated area median income um which would set the differential between the affordable and the market rate units can try for seven see what they say okay so Cheryl was that all of your
your yeah those are all of mine okay so for Cheryl's we're taking all of them or just one two all of them and we we made that one change so yeah everybody agreed on that
okay so then if we yeah want to go down to Maggie's so I'd like to apologize to Cheyenne and whoever else was reading as I was editing live I you know I'm a my thought
process is you put as much in first and then it's easier to delete so at one point I had a lot of stuff in there and I've taken them out so uh sorry for any confusion I may have caused so Maggie I think I have the it before you took it
all out yeah all right so sorry that you wasted paper sort of like what I did with site plan riew so Maggie do you think it's necessary to include all the language like that that's
included um so I don't know so when I was in the middle of writing mine when yours came over and I thought oh well sh's way more concise than I was um so I wasn't really um
understanding how it the layout should be so it's a layout formatting thing so I wasn't sure if I was thinking if I was hlc how would I want to receive it so that's why I
put you know where the the regulation is and then just the change so probably not all of it has to be included no that's what I was thinking maybe we just put um 72.0 3 for
example um to and then 2D in the suggestion and then just remove all the other yeah right because I was just cutting and pasting it from the regulations right so my first edit was
7203 of the regulations which was the General principle of compliance and it was letter d and um my concern here was
um that I thought that parking and Ada accessibility next to a transit station was really important as I've said before I had a I was raised with a sister with um severe disabilities and my mother-in-law lives here in Milton and
she has Ms and she's in a wheelchair so um uh I'm always looking at things through that perspective so in D the regulation says when possible when I don't
think um when possible is really under Ada law but so I got rid of when possible and then kept multif family zoning districts should be in areas that have safe accessible and convenient access to Transit stations for
pedestrians and B bicyclists and then I add as well as parking for motorists and ADA compliance at compliance access for people with disabilities I would say compliance access not compliance okay
yeah and I think it's um I don't know if they're going to agree with them one possible I think it's good to um address the accessibility and you know parking um
for accessible parking in particular you know for for how much how many motorists I'm not sure but having some for people who need um you know to arrive in a vehicle so if you're in a wheelchair you're
not you're not going to be walking or taking the bike right I get that so yeah I I think it's it's a good thing to flag yep I would agree everyone accept that accept it okay number two don't going back to
that I'm sorry just going back to that it you SC it goes two and then D should it just be sort of two and then suggestion or like I don't understand the two and then D part I know we cut out a bunch yeah I I see what you're saying the suggested
language I think I think for the for for cons consistency we should probably follow the format that was in Cheryl's comments just so it doesn't appear to be deviating right uh there's a there's an expression that's in Cheryl's comments that I think says something like that
right suggested change yep yep so that's what I was going to say as well so edit mine to maybe instead of saying issue we write suggested change but so that
sort of figure out the editing so it looks like yeah I was gonna do all that at the end to make it all cohesive okay okay thanks sh and then my modification two was the affordability um so we sort of discussed
that um I did add um also straight from Boston the partial units and payment and L of units so that's where you got that amount yeah yeah the
177% yeah so I the only thing I'd say here um maybe you've already changed it let me just see yeah looks like you already changed it so go
okay what you had before was something about a developer be willing to do something which would only be after Zing's in place so you wouldn't want that here but it looks like you already took that out okay so as we discussed last week at our
last week meeting you know um we think that um if it's developer can't create a whole unit um they should make a a a contribution to our affordable housing
trust so I guess what you'd want here um can you just go back to that for a second you would this requirement would be in our zoning it wouldn't be in the guidelines so what I guess what you'd want to say here is that the guidelines allow for this payment in Lee of units
or partial units so right at the like you have towns may require 177% so affordable housing in that first red sentence and the next
sentences it's more like a zoning requirement right so here um town you could say where the total the towns may require that where the total number of units you know again I'm
sorry sh a note down in the next um sentence it's not the this particular language is sounds like it's a zoning language versus a guideline language a regulation yeah regulation yeah do you see the
distinction I'm trying to so we want to make sure that what you're trying to do can be allowed we're not saying that it's a requirement right because Town may not want to put this in yep so you say it could say the applicant
may be required to pay instead of shall pay then that would get at the regulation I think and then I think you don't put the payment part that would go in your
zoning that last sentence do you agree with that Maggie yeah that's home y so let's just look at that one more time yeah because this language came from Boston zoning so
that's you might need the word b after the two so in the second sentence in that paragraph and then two fractional amount to the town's affordable trust fund you might put municipality because
it I think it could be a city too right so now we' with Cheryl mentioning affordability that we have affordability in two separate areas yes so they can be combined should we I was going to say
should we take this language and put it up where Cheryl's is or move time no because we're going to use Cheryl's formatting right so it can go be moved
up to Cheryl's okay yeah I think mine just gives like a little bit of um commentary and then you could add these particular Provisions there I think that's what you just did yeah can wait can you just go stop
scrolling there go back I just wanted to see that last red sentence you could say a municipality instead of a town and then you could say may require um not that at the just up the next I'm sorry that sentence but just
the in case where the developments are seven to 10 units or less a municipality may require did you mean to say 7 to 10 shouldn't it be just yeah I was seven or
10 again I was back and forth you know Boston said t seven but then I was reading Cheryl's and she said 10 so that's why I'm like I'll just put seven to 10 and then we can discuss good make that seven I think you could just make that seven there yeah at
that at this point now and then you put 17% rather than 10 to 17% and then sorry back up to the first red sentence at town again just say a municipality okay that's do do we really need though
the black part of that in there the which is their language I think what we really just want to do is show what we want added right and the same thing
under B up above I think I did that yeah yeah so then you could get rid of the requests there or just change the the request to the the three red
points right yeah and it would no longer be in red well here you might say requested changes too because these are more specific then I don't know we could change all of mine to be requested changes also same
same language but and then you might um yeah I I think that's fine and then my modification three [Music] was they
changed hlc change the definition of a Subway so I changed it back yeah so the you know that's one that I wouldn't support I'm sure the others of
you have a different view than I do but yeah not saying I would say excluding instead of not including yeah so does everyone but Cheryl want to keep it in yeah I'm on board with that one what what did what was above the
modification three did we skip um above modification Sor affordability okay that was the affordability all right because I didn't see the length of restriction that was in there before okay great thank
you oh yeah that's what I wanted to put in yeah thanks for so I wanted to make sure that um a deed restrict is in perpetuity well again here you can just
modify this to say um may be placed because you're allowing the zoning or to include that yeah so the towns can make up their own mind so that correct so that goes up to the affordability too correct yeah well I
think you're the way Mera described it she was going to move all of these okay to behind but yeah it's a modification four so this goes back to what I had
said so we just need to make sure we Reber these two just like these what's modification for because I had start a numbering system too just for consistency right yeah so my modification for was just
um an opport you know an opportunity for the town in hlc to work together um you know we've heard uh publicly from both the AG and the governor that they want to work with towns so I'm kind of holding their
trying to hold their feet to the fire and I would like them to work with us and I know Cheryl that that could be um a lot of work for them but they've publicly stated that that's what they would like to do so that's kind of what
I was thinking so under yeah I guess my only concern is that um that they would be we're asking them to negotiate with each town and then they could be a question of um a fairness of that so
like a town that went before another town might have gotten treated one way and you know so there's already a lot of towns who are compliant right so now they would say oh we didn't get to go in and negotiate we just had to follow the
RS um they could also actually a lot of towns that followed the rags are not creating a lot of new housing they put their zoning over existing just
to become paper compliant so if we're looking for future what if a town you know had or a city had an opportunity and they wanted to talk to hlc about it Al so you've changed the language of
this from a lot so let me just reread this yeah I trying to make it simple so what's the process then that you're suggesting here I'm I'm looking at it it says that this this the process by which but what's the
process you're just the issue is there should be a pathway but don't they already allow for a process to work with them in the leading up to adopting the like what the
for example in 2023 Tim submitted draft zoning to them got and things along the way like an agreement that East Milton Square and Grandad AV South would combine combining granded AV South with graned AV North would be deemed
acceptable um East Milton Square as a district would be acceptable so those were things that were U agreed to in advance of any zoning being submitted to them for final approval so they already have that in
place I think so if we wanted a meeting right now or we wanted to send them some idea about something that could be done that's what the letter I think when it says work with communities that's what they're referring
to yeah yeah so that's a good point um I guess I was mostly looking at just the regulation just the document not all the um external conversations that may or
may not happen and and if you look at um just our staff they're amazing but they have a lot going on and we are underst staffed so what if something what if we miss an opportunity to make a phone call
having something in the regulations would sort of um um you know assure that we have an opportunity you know people Miss deadlines all the time as you know and
um and so um I would hate to miss miss out on something I'm just looking at the guidelines right now quickly to see if they cover this I think mat I think what Sher was saying
is we're not explaining what the process is so I think if we wanted to conclude this we could start with an MBA community may seek limited exception yeah okay and take out the
process by which because I think that's yeah so like in the guidelines um the ones that are considered emergency now I guess um on page 17 they
have um a paragraph five that says assistance for communities implementing an action plan and it says MBTA communities are encouraged to communicate as needed with eohc staff throughout the process of implementing an action plan and may
inquire about whether a proposed multif family zoning district complies with General Law chapter 48 sub or section 3A prior to a vote by the municipal legislative body to create or modify such a district um and then that's to be done
on a form to be provided by eohc and if a request is submitted at least 90 days prior to the vote of the legislative body e eoh hlc shall respond prior to the vote so I guess they've set up what they their process
um and then also a request for determination of District compliance so what you're asking for is actually some kind of a waiver process yeah so that what you just mentioned is specifically for an action plan yeah because otherwise if you don't
have an action plan then I guess you're deemed I don't I'm not sure how how it's contemplated because they have to accept your action plan which tells them what you're going to do so if we haven't I think our the first step we have to do is submit an
action plan um at some point in order for the process to begin to be to begin a negotiation with them you have to have an action plan they might say it's not acceptable I heard that um two communities that submitted
action plans last week were deemed not to be satisfactory to them so they going to have to go back and revise them um so that's I think where the negotiation piece happens at the action plan level
and then once everybody agrees to the plan the path then in sort of an interim review along the way of how it's being developed they will continue to review uh I don't see how they can um Grant
exceptions um honestly because what would be the criteria and how how would that be a fair process I guess but that's my view on it yeah and I took that as and maybe in correctly paragraph
five of the regulations the action plan was the action plan that was due last week so but you're interpreting it is not the action plan that was due last week it was just a general action plan for us moving forward so when
we so which we're gonna have to be a Zone we have to develop a zoning District at some point right and before we do that we have to have an action plan that they approve so the ACT um it it doesn't I think what you're saying is you know we've not agreed to the action
plan because there's some question about the classification but at some point we will have to have an action plan so I don't I don't think this is necessary if if that is correct in paragraph five of the
regulations um create a process yeah it's really um the whole 72.0 n determination of compliance but it goes into this process and I pulled from paragraph sub paragraph five in there so do we think we should take out
this modification language so we proably could if okay if we think that we there's a process for us think there's a process for us to
review an action plan with them that we would make arguments about some things that you'd think would want to be negotiated okay so maybe all that is covered in 7209 all right Water and Sewer section of the regulation leaves
any Town open to litigation from the developer who can develop um so I think this is good I think I think the language is vague regarding water and and uh Wastewater infrastructure yeah I like this one a
lot because they were I feel like putting the responsibility on the town to um don't don't forget that what we were told by Chase Berkeley in
2023 was that the uh DPW engineering can deny a project now and they could deny a project under MBTA zoning if there was an adequate um utility or infrastructure available for that project so then if
the developer says okay going to be denied but they want they can have an opportunity to improve the infrastructure so you know it I I don't think I need to look at this language again I looked at it earlier but I think
there might be some changes so how does that apply to the Falcone project in East Milton Square right that's what 99 units and what what what do you mean was inadequate water supply or Sewer Supply
or Sanitary Supply there exactly and if there's not they had to they had to verify that there was and the DPW deemed it sufficient on that project because they can get denied a building permit at the building permit
stage remember we're talking about we're talking about zoning here not the building permit stage and Zoning is only one aspect of it so remember the historic district requirements the conservation Wetlands Conservation Commission and wetlands uh requirements
still apply and so do the um Town review at the building department level for adequate capacity yeah I just didn't want it to fall on the town so that's why I took the word the municipality out of
it I just think um I don't think it's necessary from what we were what was explained before and what my explanation just now was yeah I'm just so a Falcone project goes up I'm just
walking it through right and then a second one goes up and then 440 Granite goes up and then so what the fourth or fifth project then can't support or the the infrastructure can't support the fourth or fifth project and then that
developers on the hook right unless the Town decides that they can get grant money you know to improve it and they want to have that project go through so they'll apply for the grant money yeah there might be grant
money well that's what some communities have done Jim oh no I'm just saying that yeah what I'm reading about grant money is that the state's pretty broke and I think grant money is drying up but that might not be the case in 10 years I'm just thinking right now um I mean know
they just announced a billion dollars in grant money but um but in any case wait repeat that what billion dollars in grant money remember when they announced the grant money that we would be ineligible for there was a whole list of that is a billion dollars when I added
it up yeah so is that money even available now with all the federal cuts to the state I just wonder anyway it might be nice to have this just a touch on this it's not like a a regulation it's just sort of a something to watch out for
a comment I I I would suggest um reducing how much of what we have written here um because we we probably don't really have to get into commenting on whether a town is open to litigation or not litigation here's what I suggest if we just worked
with the last two sentences and this paragraph reads the language is unclear about what is required of the develop of the municipality in the Commonwealth and then simply say if the existing infrastructure is insufficient the town should be able
to limit the amount of density in that location yeah that's good so Shan I'm GNA say that again if the existing infrastructure is insufficient the town should be able to limit the amount of density in that
location and before you before you dump everything I I would highlight uh everything from support all the way to the top I'm suggesting we get rid of that from support to the top but just before you get rid of it let's make sure that we might have to add a little bit
more here do we if the existing infrastructure do we have to Define that if the existing um Public Works infrastructure would that would that uh would that sound right that would
probably cover what our concern is um you could say Municipal Utilities and infrast structure okay good maybe instead of able we should say allowed the town should be allowed
and and then I don't think we should suggest the language changes I just don't think you can put in a regulation a sh when other towns may not like that say that
again the change that is proposed to make private developers shall support the cost I don't think that should be in a regulation I don't think that change oh I see yeah it's fun you can get rid of sh may
may is what they have right and may is appropriate I think yeah I was just trying to get the burden off the town that's all so I don't think we need to include this paragraph I think you could
just do with those two sentences at the top and but I would say where um where the modification five is referencing okay yeah I agree so you could say
section 72 7205 right I agree yep are we still deleting the highlighted so you could say the language in section 72 05 section 3E is unclear and then I
think you could get rid of the rest down below and do we keep the highlight yellow or I I was I was I agree with you take that out yeah and I think take out this as well but then it doesn't um follow the
same um form Quest we had the the issue is the request I see what you're saying oh so if you go up you know there's an issue and then the request is to fix it right so you could just break that into two sentences
so the issue is the language is unclear the request is to allow this it's letting them like in mine I didn't give them specific language I just get got the concept across this is the same idea here is you're just getting the concept across and letting them work on
the language I sort of was thinking when we write our permits we always like to hear the suggested language because then it's easier for them and they don't have to come up with it that was just my thinking yeah I
think that in some case in some areas that's makes sense and some less so and the last modification is um but you have a
commentary there that just there yeah it is um I don't think that's that's accurate slashing the capacity I I don't think I would use that I don't think accurate either because it was just that was done
way back when when they were developing the guidelines and that's not so this is just what we've heard you know we list taking in all sorts of information from what we've heard and um and this was one of them that's just
I I don't remember the answer to that but in detail but Tim had told us that that just wasn't true it wasn't that towns had anything slashed so
I I don't know when you'd have to support that where with what I mean it's just a statement that doesn't have any reference to how where or how that happened right so um
under so you're right that could be my commentary could be but under 72.0 um there is if I look up the regulation 7205 um
D titled the methodology for determining a multifamily zoning District's multifam unit capacity so in that section the methodology to determine unit
capacity was you know all the percentages and so um I was thinking that um we could you
know which we have done was to uh have a written petition to request an exception which that is sort of what we're trying to do now we've requested I think the
Selectmen have requested a meeting and so the the reasoning for the request is under 72 is because of 72.0 5 because we're questioning their methodology for determining the unit
capacity so that was sort of just my thinking there because I have not seen any documentation where they've come up with what where they started with the percentages at like 5 10 15
25% like where where did those that come from you know why didn't they come up with like 3% or you know I just haven't found the justification anywhere and I've asked I actually
asked um and no one has provided it to me you know or why didn't they go to 50% I was just questioning the methodology for for determining it I thought it was tied to the T somehow but you're right I mean but they don't I I
think it's a fair question of like why 25 why 15 why 10 why five but is it a I don't know I think it's just a question that could be posed to them rather than any change in the
um guideline Maggie like provide the rationale you know and based on what we've provided for you know comments about how I mean I really think like the be the beginning part of my comments were we
really have tried to work with these guidelines you know to see how they could work and we're finding things that are challenging so one of them challenges is as you said Jim is the 25% you didn't tie it to whether it's a Subway or anything else you just said
the 25% right so I think asking for the justification for the 25% is fair it's keeping it outside of a Subway definition yeah
so can we do that under modification six um instead of saying please add just State 7205 is the methodology for determining a multif family zoning District's
capacity and the request is to provide the rationale yeah so I'm looking at the the guidelines and it's I see it as to B table one has the percentages
yeah do you see that yeah so I think that would be the the reference yeah and then I think here um oops I'm me to have my hand up um um you could refer back to Jim I I think
you know some of your language could be incorporated here you know in terms of the challenge of the 25% if you um if we want to go back and take a look at that yeah I was thinking about that at the end I just didn't want to keep you guys up all night the only thing I'm
toying with is how to not tie our hands to 25% but maybe you guys can all help me with that yeah so we don't mention 25 % We Men
2.05 is titled determining reasonable size well under B in 72.5 uh sub paragraph B is where table one is what the percentage is the percentage of total housing units um so that paragraph starts a
reasonably sized multif family zoning District must also be able to accommodate a reasonable number of multif family housing units as of right and then they go [Music] into the unit capacity based on these percentages
right so they're the uh I guess the the fair question is how did they arrive at those percentages and um had they considered you know situations in which towns are fully built out um in close proximity to their
Transit and they also have a lot of U excluded land I mean we have the Neponset river right so we have PCR land Etc I mean this is something we spoke about early on in this and I think you could add Jim what you said about other excluded uses like colleges and private
schools because we have those as well one thing I would say though in your comment about that you you put churches in there too and we are allowed to do churches so those are not excluded but your the other things you
you noted were are excluded wow once again I didn't think we were allowed to do churches well we have three in the blue hill a district right now or in what not right now but what was in the district
before that was passed that hlc accepted okay so let's can give sh some language here so this my modification six um can be changed to the
issue is um the 7205 B minimum multifam unit capacity right by
minimum multifam unit capacity um you can get rid of all my commentary all this yeah um and you can get rid of that all that and then
um none of well would any of that apply so the issue is we we questioning um and I don't know how to put this because it's a regulation yeah I'd say we take out a
regulation there in that's in red yeah and ask for the rationale for the 25% and ask for a reconsideration of that based upon the things that some of the things that we've already highlighted but some of the things that
Jim points out as well so the request is um for an explanation of table one the percentages in table one right I mean specifically a justification of the yeah I guess an
explanation and then um if we go to Jim's language which I think Cheyenne got rid of already but we have it I have it up on the screen yeah thank you I don't think she ever permanently gets Rel of
it yeah so dive right into the second sentence you think when looking at the developable area within the half mile radi well I think you could say the 25% um percentage of total housing units
requires Milton to zone for so but we're also questioning all the percentages is not just 25 okay all right so then we would say you get rid of that first sentence yes so you'd want to take the second
sentence you want to go back to Jim's comments I think the overlapping radi um is it another one that we could include just this first
line I think the whole paragraph the whole paragraph to edit it we put it you can put it there I'll come back yeah so because this is specifically to Milton how can we make it so it's not
specific to Milton you could say the the close proximity of Transit stations um to concentrates I just Transit yeah
Transit this this also is talking about the trolley so so I'm not sure if we even want to talk about the overlapping okay trolley stops so basically I think the other but
I think the other things that you mentioned all the Parkland all the conservation land we should include that keep it General General yeah all right that's fine so you can save yeah as the planning board tries to place units around I
would say uh as the planning board um not we're not placing units we're determining zones zoning zoning districts just but the rest of that I that sentence I agree with it's so we just need to
modify that language a little yeah do it please we're taking out place replacing that with yeah zoning Zone units okay around the
municipality well I mean here you could say is if we don't want this to be tied well we're we are using Milton as the example right so I think it's say Milton Milton is challenged yeah but other towns could be
challenged too yeah because we it is a CH you could say Yeah in general it is a challenge I think we should say as M as the pl board or as the town or municipality whatever um yeah because we
do refer to milon up above yeah um I think we should say is of Tri Zone units around the municipality um determine the locations for multif family zones District multif family districts
District yeah that's fine too I'm a weak yeah delete are challenged say Milton Milton is challenged with many acres maybe we could say Milton is uniquely disadvantaged do we know that we're
unique though do we know all the other towns we can we can say it and let them tell us when not we believe we are right don't you believe we're uniquely disadvantaged I think we're challenged
un I do uniquely challenged well if you look at everything collectively right so you have half of your Transit area in Boston or underwater then to the South when you try to you take advantage of the half
the units can be spread throughout the town you have Milton Academy which takes up a a ton of acreage and then you have 7,000 Acres of the Blue Hills we are college yeah pon pon add in curry college and in the small parcel on
font Bon we get really limited really quick so I I think we are at a s disadvantage I think uniquely challenged um it's good it's good because
I okay we want this to apply to other communities as well these comments if we do it that it only applies to Milton I think it it's not likely to get considered the same way okay so is that our last um can I just can we just go back and
see that real quick the last part of that sentence yeah okay okay we take out the blow um yeah that sorry for my formatting cheyen that was a little l no it's okay I'm used to driving a
bobcat doing a so do we have the so we need to Rum these well the only other thing is it worth mentioning the the FAA the airplane noise as it relates to um NBTA
zoning Cindy Christensen made a great point I don't know if she's going to send anything in I don't I don't personally know enough about that law to know if that if we are in violation of that I think I looked at I looked that that up
today that Federal Regulation that was referenced and it's it's it's like a very short couple of bullet points so and I don't know enough either to say something's in
um violation of it the way I understand it is uh um the NBTA communities act has to take into account the faa's reauthorization act of
2024 um but they just have blown it off well I looked up that Federal Regulation today um section 787 reducing Community aircraft noise exposure yes and it's mostly talking
about flight procedures um so which is not related to zoning but there there are three I can just read it quickly in implementing or substantially revising a flight procedure the
administrator shall consider the following actions to the extent that such actions do not negatively affect Aviation safety or efficiency to reduce undesirable aircraft noise so right there to the extent I mean who determines that
extent one Implement flight procedure me that can mitigate the impact of aircraft noise based on a consensus Community recommendation two work with airport sponsors and potentially impacted neighboring communities in establishing or modifying aircraft arrival and
departure routes three in collaboration with local governments discourage local encroachment of residential or other buildings near airports that could create future aircraft noise complaints there it is or impact airport operations or Aviation
safety but it doesn't say anything about Fight Pass and you say in in yours JY that we're under a flight that you're under a flight path but it it depends where you put the district if you're I guess if you are and that's up to the town where they put the
district yeah so I mean by not mentioning it you I mean I think it's definitely worth mentioning I mean depends on where you put the district I mean I think one district is definitely going either on Milton in um The Village or Elliot Street or
down by matapan which is what the lowest area of the flight path so I think it's wor which flight path there's like do you have the flight paths I the one that goes over my house and goes over the nepon river is lower at the nepon river than it is at my
house and when I lived on Mark Lane it was higher at Mark Lane than it is here I mean just look up yeah but that's that's not specify a latitude of LA itude I cannot but clearly no but they a map I mean if we're submitting a comment that are we trying to say we have
control over we where we put the districts we're asking for control over where we put the districts are we saying that we want hlc to mandate to us that we consider this no what are we what are we asking
hlc to do to tell us where to put our district classify us as 10% instead of 25% so we zone for Less under the airplane noise affected areas areas affected by airplane noise so there's just less
complaints well if anything I think it if anything then this would go back under the question of the 25% yeah or other towns that are in Flight paths any other town like wi thrip that has planes flying overhead or
taking off well you can make it General it's just one more argument to to try to get a lesser classification yeah is that is this a place to get to to make that
argument is just my question I don't know enough about it either to be honest with you yes so I think we should let Cindy submit her comments where she can explain it Meredith I think you're um you're muted yeah I would be more comfortable
letting a citizen um enter that in without knowing more about this okay fair enough but I I appreciate it I appreciate that um so actually I forgot I had one other
question was under this um the table one like under 7205 um under the table one it says um under
1A for the purpose of this the numbers of total housing units in each MBTA Community has been established by the reference to the most recently published
us decimal census of Pop population and housing so the question I have um is are we going to have to be um like I believe a census is taken every 10 years every 10
years are are do we have to come back and rezone and our housing stock increases and we'll have to amend our Z zoning because of the of this increase and I went on um today what did
I do I um went on our Town's website to find out the demographics of the town and the information is based on mapc so I went to the mapc site and
listed by town as a breakdown of all the um demographics of town and they're they reference not the 2020 censes but the 2010 censes um so
mapc information isn't even up to date so I called Mac today and and asked them I left them a message to call me back if they had the um the 2020 census and also on their um chart the headers are
labeled incorrectly too so I'm not sure if they know about that um but they I haven't talked to them but my question was more are we going to have to change our zoning every 10 years and maybe that's I don't know if we put that in
this but or if it's just a general question I don't know MH I didn't see I thought once you're adopt the district that you're compliant but I didn't see where it's something that you have to
continue to update I don't think they could do that I don't think they could but you never know yeah I mean that they could force another mandate in five years if this thing isn't if not enough housing's being developed I think that's kind of why
they want to track the Adu progress at the building departments is to see if adus are actually being built and if not maybe they'll they'll amend their laws yeah so that was just another like what's their rationale I guess was for
that or or what's their intent so um 7210 says ongoing obligations recision of a determination of compliance and and um at
list if you if you amend your compliance zoning at any point you have to go back to them but also um if HSC determines that the town or the Miss Community had
submitted inaccurate information um or had failed to notify them of zoning Amendment anything that materially alters the minimum land area the officials don't issue building permits it does say is an NBTA Community
with an approved multif family zoning district has changed Transit category as a result of a newly opened or decommissioned transit station or the establishment of permanent regular services at a transit station where there's formally intermittent or event based surface so if there
is um change to the transit service there is opportunity for change but it doesn't say anything about census as an opportunity for change yeah I mean personally this sort of
seems like a lot of work for um hlc but you know it just uh they're over complicating things so I have just one thing can we go back to our the what we're requesting for the minimum
acreage um where we put to to two acres I'm wondering if this is not um a method for easier assemblage for developments with some of the smaller
Parcels the one thing to think about Meredith with this is a subdistrict is where you can set your parameters right so if if there's an like here if we wanted this um for example the one that's on the screen if we wanted the paper Papermill to be able to have
higher density uh but we didn't want some other things nearby to have that higher density then it allows us to have smaller subdistricts that can have different dimensional requirements that's the way I would think about
it which I think makes sense given our parcel sizes and you know Meredith I do think you have a point but if we
um choose districts where we think multif family housing should go then even if they assembled Parcels at least it's in a district where we think it makes sense
right okay I just wanted to make sure we that we're not that they would go to two acres I mean I think we would be lucky if they go to four or three but yeah they they may but I I think like this one is under three or it's
just it's just over three but then when you take out this is why I wasn't quite sure about two and a half or three because if you take [Music] out um I think it's some of it's not considered developable so you might drop below the
three or you might even drop below the two and a half this is where but that is a good site yeah so want to make sure you could pick up something like this and Grandad AV North by itself yeah the other good site is Milton food Mar
site that little and even the Milton yoga site well those is mixed use with that's where having a smaller subdistrict size makes sense for us you know all right so
Cheyenne can we can we take all all of this I mean I'm not sure which which is easier for you to move all of what Cheryl has take out Dear secretary Augustus um you want from the map down or all of
this included yeah um we talked about keeping that in okay no no keep yeah keep the map but maybe Cheryl are you comfortable with saying um just going back up above the map are we are we if we keep that in
we would I would I would think that we should say I definitely I definitely think that transits you could change like Charlie to Transit but I this commentary I think is important because it sets the the
rationale for some of the changes so I would say Transit yeah I think that's get rid of matapan yeah so we're just using the word transit or we're doing Transit stations Transit okay so and this would go under number
three for the suggested modifications yeah above where mine starts so Meredith can we just at least talk about like the language you have so people who might be interested in seeing it the I spoke about it before but can
you explain why you think it's important to talk about an action plan um that's related to February 13th date which is already passed I just think it's important for us to address with
hlc um the position that Milton is in um and what we're challenged with and why why we did not submit but the Town Administrator who was required to submit it not the planning
board well I think it's it all we're it's all our town so we're we're it's a sumary where we are in this process because we're it's we're charged with the zoning the planning board is charged with this and the select board is charged with legal aspects we are not
charged legal aspects so if we're found to not be compliant we have defensible arguments what do you mean defensible arguments this is legal we're not doing we're zoning we're not
legal it's but it's it's what hlc has asked of Milton so I'm not gonna yeah I mean I guess I know you don't agree with it so it's yeah I think everybody's I'm trying to have you explain it so you can explain to people why it it should be
here people in the public who are going to who are very interested in what the boards are doing on this people have a lot of questions about why there's no public process around any of this and um well a lot spend a lot of time talking
about a lot of detail comments but we haven't other than my commentary we haven't you haven't explained like the language that you've supplied like I did like Jim did in like's well I know you had that one question um did you have specific areas that you
want me to go through well there's like I said at least uh the first two pages and then sort of scattered within are legal questions
which don't aren't pertinent to to in my mind to commenting on the regulations the the language themselves self and the um I think it's I think it's both important and it was it was what we had wanted to submit with our action plan as
part of our comments and I know I'm sorry you weren't there at that meeting but we did thoroughly discuss this at that meeting so I had I was a little disappointed that um the Selectmen chose
not to um you know submit our action submit our actions and our appendix and you know it's I it's just getting a little frustrated that we spend a lot of time
like we all spend a lot of time and I don't like to waste my time and and it is frustrating you know like it or not there are people out there who you know want want us
recalled and um I understand they're frustrated because they don't like our point of view but we still spend a lot of time um you know a lot of time we think about it we talk
about it we have uncomfortable conversations with people and so I was disappointed that they that the selectman didn't add it you know um cuz you know why bother having a planning
board really quite frankly um and or why have any committee you know and even this is my frustration with even the whole MBTA act like why do towns really going to need planning
boards in the future if they're just going to mandate by executive order what we should be doing um so I I kind of agree with Meredith we and I'm sorry Cheryl you weren't there um you know we all can't
make every single meeting and you know I think we should because we spent time on it and it our time and our efforts should be recognized I think I did spend time on it too and I sent you my comments um
and you know we we have some you know disagreement as we've had for a long time about the classification but um I also um I think the reason that there's
public um criticism is that there hasn't been a very transparent and public process related to this and I'm not and I think that falls on the select board um in terms of having a lot of executive session uh around discussing next steps
after the court decision but I've said for some time that I think we need some public process on this and I hope we're going to uh before we're done we're going to discuss scheduling a public forum so that and some what we intend to accomplish on the 13th when we get to
youtil contract then I want to make sure we get to that I know and it's almost 10 that's why I don't want to soate everything in here so you know so I what I say is um it sounds like you all um want to include
language that you discussed at a meeting as I told you I couldn't even get the tape to comment um or I I don't have comment on it I wasn't a participant in it but I disagree with um uh the portion that you've submitted
um Meredith so I guess for me um I'm glad that we had discussion and agreement on the other technical points of this um but I'm not comfortable with the the over letter because of of the inclusion of all of that um but you know
I've already expressed my concern about that so I I appreciate that yeah okay so Cheyenne is cleaning it up as we speak um which we'll need to do for consistency
um but I would entertain a motion that we do send um both both the draft commentary letter um Parts one two
and as and then include as section three uh the language that Cheryl and Maggie have provided Sor what's section one and two so from the from the from my draft from the earlier so it's so it all
looks like one document comment letter to hlc Milton planning board letter comment letter to hlc um which includes a process summary one and then
um with respect to the statutes words and then um section three would be further suggested further suggested modifications
and then we would also include U's map um which is the half mile area half mile within the commuter commuter line map so it would read is all one document so I make a motion to submit
this one document from the plany board to hlc regarding their um emergency regulations stage we'll see is there a second sure I'll second
that okay any discussion further no the only discussion is Cheyenne is cleaning up I think like under mine Cheyenne we had issue under chery's we don't so if you
need yeah I think because some of them we could just take it out yeah and yes and subject to Cheyenne's um formatting changes formatting changes yeah um Cheryl's also had titles on it um did
you want to keep that and then name the rest of them or not put titles on Cheryl's for example it would be like District locations portability but then when we get into Maggie um they were just titled like modification one
yeah should we put modification affordability yeah we could just follow her format and sort of just um bold sort of where we where Maggie had issue we could just put in bold and make that as a title read as a title okay um
and then I'll send out a final clean copy tomorrow morning okay that would be great okay so um roll call vote on this um Sean yes Jim
yes Maggie yes Cheryl no okay and myself yes okay all right thank you all and I respect your opinion Cheryl so that's thank you and thank you for the work that you added um to this
and every and everybody else too so all the um I'm sorry sometimes we don't always agree Cheryl but you do put so much work into it and um I thank you for that okay great well um I think
everybody put a lot of thought into it so um we just have a difference of a viewpoint on a big chunk of this but I think once we get down to the the detail um there's a lot of agreement yeah okay
all right um so that was a big item uh discussions of UTI um the budget contract cheyen do you want to touch on this sure so we don't have I know we don't have a sort of an updated contract
yet but yeah um I met with Zoe yesterday um and I had asked her in advance the meeting just um kind of like scope of work and if we wanted to amend the contract things like that um so we
do have them coming back March 13th just to kind of give a recap and touch base on where we left off and where we can go from here um in terms of budget she mentioned we have just under 25,000 remaining for the contract she
mentioned if we were staying on track with where we left off and only made minor tweaks the money that we have in the contract should be enough to take us through but if we want to basically rework everything we've been doing we'll have to come up with um more
funds for that and the 25,000 does include up to six planning board meetings and a community Forum um I think as of now she and I well she suggested that we kind of keep weekly check-in meetings for now and
then she suggested we pull it up she suggested that you guys might want to include more planning board meetings that are specifically just for NBTA communities um just because you know by
the time we get to MBTA communities it's this time of night um so she had suggested that as well and there was one other thing she suggested so just um clarification you said that
it allows for six um planning board meetings six planning board meetings are those for like if we have a a set designated meeting um no no so those are
those six planning board meetings are for what an hour of her time each maybe yeah so like when we have them come on um and do their presentation and stuff like that that's the six that we were discussing um at the time and
then she suggested like the designated meetings after the fact so I'm assuming that would be like a a separate thing so we've used so basically we've used about half of our our our original contract and the contract runs through
May yes it does so Cheyenne have we used all of the grant funding now and so everything that we would do uh would be from a planning board budget um I'd have to check in with Julia in
our system just to see how much we' have left um in the planning board budget but she said under the current contract that we have with them we have 25,000 so I don't think that that's we haven't had to dip into our planning board budget
yet I thought last had to dip in 4,000 right yeah I believe we're still in the high 40s for that but we're not like in the 25,000 range yeah we we did um it's Julia um we did dip into the um planning
board budget for that last payment for U so there's going to have to be some rearranging of the the budget for that so we've from the planning board budget of 50,000 for this fiscal year we
just um approved 6,000 for cont contct extension from ma for mapc and Julia you said we use 4,000 for um the utl work and have we used I'm just trying to understand how much money we have left do we have
40,000 left I'll have to do a report tomorrow and I'll email it to you okay um but the last but the last invoice we had from util we had to split between the
contract that we have with them and with our own you know 50,000 um planning board budget okay so you anticipate moving forward that it will all need to come from planning board budget for the next
24,000 I'll check with the counting because they have a way they have a magical way of of moving things around um but yeah at this point I I would say it would be pulled from our budget so I
I think it's important for us to consider what Cheyenne said that Zoe said which is if we study something completely new from what we they've been studying then we they won't be able to stay within that budget and we're just going to have to be mindful how much budget we've got available and the other
thing I I would say I'm sorry Julie just one the quick thing um is that uh that doesn't include an economic study um which is currently still required for
going above 10% affordability don't we already have that in the works we had we put it yeah I believe we had put that out um they started the work and then we never continued with
it but did we allocate the money they couldn't start the work without the money right yeah Julia could you follow up on that too because I that was a question I also had yes because there was work he was definitely doing work for us on that y i
I'll check in with accounting so I don't know if we have um money left in that contract as well to continue sure I I'll get the contract um information tomorrow right um Zoe also had a question kind of going into the next
meeting she wanted to know if we were still considering looking at other subdistricts um so yeah that was her main question I think we probably are all in agreement that the paper mill is site
should be considered so I don't know if that you know Tim Drew a map at one point but I don't know if U actually studied that they they had it in the recent presentation and they one of the things that they said was that because
it's not contiguous you have the DCR property and you and it's not five acres um that they didn't know if that would you know present a problem I'm I'm just getting their their presentation out now
so um now would this require um like Cheyenne reaching out to hlc just with a phone call to see like Tim did before see like um I don't know if you can see on my screen
here but they needed to pull across you know to get to five acres so I guess we'll see I don't know how quickly we'll hear on the comment once the comments close tomorrow how quickly you know they're going to make um them
final um but because they had to include those um you know the the density denominator changed a little bit I I think it's
worth going through everything that they presented to us here again um I'd like to suggest that we we talked to them about the
um Blue Hill the Blue Hill Parkway subdistrict because we you mentioned I think the food mart um I think our uh minimum lot size and other things that when I looked at this gosh some a
long time ago now there were a lot of lots Parcels that were excluded in that Parkway District because of the minimum lot size so we can ask them to look at that like we had them look at the Elliott Street Corridor and and also
whether we consider any uh boundary adjustment in that area to so perhap I don't know maybe all of us could look at the boundary for that subdistrict again and see if there's something we'd like for them to look at I I just feel like that's one area we
haven't looked at very care that that would be the only one new that I think we would consider because we have we have all the information from the others including the Randolph Avenue so if we have to zone for 25% I'd like to take a look at um the
bur estate 175 Milton Street it's going to have a huge density denominator but there's a lot of excess land there um I'd like to look at we keep talking about St Pas but I I'd like to look at woodmar Drive which is in that area
which is I'm not sure if it's 40 or 50 townhouse style units but we could overlay Zone that and then I still want to come back to 648 652 konev which is 119 I think units um so I think there's plenty more to look
at I mean if we have to Zone 10% I think it's pretty simple if we have to Zone 25 we're going to need to look at all those Parcels we should get a 10% plan ready it's what the select Bo had directed us to do we can continue to talk about 25 but that's inconsistent with what they've
directed us to do I was going to say that's what I would like to um ask that you given the districts that we we we currently have um putting together a 10% plan it's why I asked about the blue and I said in my comments to you before the
meeting that you had that I couldn't attend that uh we should look at the overlap District of the Blu Hills Parkway and the trolley because they overlap and um yeah so looking at that Parkway
area um if we're talking about a commuter rail that's within the walk of the community rail um the idea that these districts could be anywhere um but we also
um haven't had any public comments about it so you know I I do think as I said before you can't assume that um there aren't going to be people who
as um outspoken against a place as there were in 2023 if you don't start the process and so um I'm just going to keep saying it at every meeting until we get a public forum scheduled because I well we have public comment I we when we're
discussing com on the agenda tonight we had this we had this conversation in our last meeting let's let's prepare something and give them something to comment on we have this conversation Cheryl what yeah but right now Jim's saying let's do this location this location this location well let's get
the public on these locations right that was assuming a 25% plan if we're not going to look at 25% we can take 10% from the Milton station and from the Elliot Street District that were voted on a town meeting in 20123 that get but the public should should weigh in on
whether they agree with that since it's not meeting Sher yeah but the idea the you're already making a determination you you've said that it shouldn't be tied to the trolley it should be tried to the commuter rail and then it can go anywhere but now you're saying well we should put it all by the
trolley it's contradictory okay we're not gonna solve this tonight we're just tonight was just discussion of util the budget but we have them on the 13th we do um so when I was talking to Zoe we were kind of backtracking the timeline um she was
thinking if we were going to do a community Forum we would probably have to do like April that sound kind of on track so April there's a school vacation so we should it was the end of April I
think we were thinking okay you know I don't think my memory is incorrect didn't we agree that we were going to have U at the meeting on the 13th yeah they're coming and Cheryl you agreed to that and we were going to have the public comment after that and we were going to work on that in the in the
meeting on the 13th with you what else do we have on the agenda on the 13th um well we now have our the we now because because what I thought we agreed to was a special meeting that we were going to hold a new meeting that would only be for the MBTA communities and we're going to do it the first week of
March correct it wasn't going to be the 13th it was to be a meeting dedicated just to this topic uh I had it as I have it as the 13th 13th yeah I have no other meetings till the before the 13th we probably should make that a priority
we we we did this is what we talked about in the last meeting we agreed to make that a priority and we we agreed to the date of the 13th well we just have we're going to have a decision we didn't do the Harland a um anr but we're going to have other things
on the agenda so we should put MBTA communities first that's exactly what you said the last time we met and we agreed to do that um yes and I did want to mention Cheyenne um I did uh Peter Melo uh actually called today
and he wanted to do a brief executive session I don't know if he reached out to you just with an update to um to tell us what's happening with the um the litigation with the memory care the abutters of the memory care yes um the
ongoing litigation he just wanted to sort of give us an update on where they are in that process did he have a date for that or he was the the 13th he said would work out perfectly so oh I was going to mention that so we um I was thinking we could put that on um and he
said it's a very brief update um I have a question let's let's continue with what we said let's make it a priority if Peter's gonna do that let him join us at nine o'clock okay I know I know that might be a little different than normally how we
do things but we keep doing this we keep packing things in ahead of the NBTA issue we don't allow enough time the the residents get frustrated because it's the last thing we talk about let Peter join us at 9ine o' and we'll take the first two hours of our meeting to work
on this and he said that's fine actually he said he could come at any point in our meeting so good so we can put that on as a later agenda item that's fine as far as the 572 Harland I mean they were a no show tonight they don't have to
be meeting I did email uh Steve and he said the applicant or the attorney was going to um I I saw a couple names in the participants but nobody had raised their hand when Meredith had called them out
so um I'll probably call them tomorrow so maybe no-show is not the right term but we don't I mean I really think we should prioritize the NBTA zoning yeah Jim with you we you know the NBTA issue serves the entire town of
Milton that one particular resident is is one resident so I think we're better off to serve the entire town as a priority yeah so don't put him on the 13th so the 13 should only be MBTA Peter Melo and zero blue
Hil so our 13th meeting is now full right the only thing we have to find out is if we have a requirement and Cheyenne maybe you should check on that um there is a time frame so even if there is a requirement because they
missed their slotted time tonight I think as long as they agree to an extension in writing then the time requirement can be waved that's great I I'm all for that I just am wanting to make sure that we're within the time
frame okay great um do we need a vote on the contract um Amendment for you I don't think we have an amount yet okay um I just type in about the um
the anr um the the person who filed the um the application was the surveyor it wasn't the owner of the of the uh
property and he was told that it wasn't necessarily um important for him to show up because it was a simple decision it was just a little corner of the property for him um to decide
upon so um I just wanted to tell you that I mean do we want to go take it and look at it even though they're not here tonight and just Al I guess that's a process question um usually I'm assuming somebody presents
so has to present it right and the homeowner needs yeah we need I think it doesn't have to be an attorney it doesn't have to be a surveyor but the property owner who's going to be sub taking a piece of
property away I guess yeah conveying it to someone else somebody needs to speak to it I think yeah but can we come back to I'm sorry just to be clear we don't need to vote on the contract extension is that right
Che um so with the contract extension I I mean we should maybe because at the very least we did talk about extending it through the end of August just to accommodate the whole July 13th deadline
with getting a compliance so at least we need to go through August but in terms of um extra funds or current funds that we won't know until we kind of run through the money okay so Meredith I'll make a motion to approve the extension
of U's contract contract through the end of August uh with no additional funding request at this time second okay roll call all in favor Cheryl yes uh
Maggie yep yep Jim yep Sean yes and myself yes so you've got the vot today okay great um now I'm gonna let's let's move there so when we get to that Maggie can just leave so if we can move that to
the end and Cheyenne if you just want to tee up this um it's pretty straightforward the flood plane bylaw um discussion yes so we had talked about it briefly back in um January Cheryl had a comment about
the definition and how they were different from what the bylaw had so I took that I went back um let me share my screen so before we get down there we had changed these dates to accommodate
the new map that we're going to be doing um and Eric from DCR said that these dates were fine um here we just basically removed the addresses so it is just the title and the um working title of a person
same thing with this section and then um here we just worked on the recreational vehicle section and then going to what I mentioned before with Cheryl's comment I went through and did track changes on what was different between the model bylaw and what we currently have um so
it was just some of these little differences um on here I think it was only two and then this portion um he said it was fine I I'm not too um knowledgeable on all of these zones but
he said it looked great for our town great thank you for somebody um had asked me about this um saying that it was on the agenda and I explained it was just really primarily for uh flood insurance purposes but it's is that an
accurate statement Cheyenne yeah that's what I took it as um and then Cheryl and I had Alan look at oh and that was another question sh had a question about um the parcels in the letter that we received so we had Allan go and look at that and let me
pull that up as well um I was curious if it was adding Parcels that weren't in the flood zone before um from what I took is oh I didn't pull up the email but he had
basically said that actually one second let me get the email with the definitions sorry so just as a side note as we're talking about flooding um at the climate action committee meeting last
month our subgroup reported on um flooding we have a little subgroup flooding subgroup and one of their concerns was how do we communicate to our residents about the
risk to their properties and um and the impacts of the flooding on our sewer and septic infrastructure still actually needs to be um determined so that subgroup is working with our um
DPW um right so just as an update so on our our letter that we received we had all of these Parcels um and so he went through his GIS map and he was able to find out which ones of the list that
they gave us were inside the flood zone just the house whether the parcel was outside or whether the parcel was inside but either the house was um outside or partially inside so he put that for us um or who recently got kicked out and
that is in the folder as well so that was just round one of what he was going to do and then um he didn't mention what he was going to do for round two but he has a round too so the reason I asked about this um was what we had in our scorecard was um a
criteria um that you would get lower points if the property was in a flood plane right so I wanted to see um if our GIS mapping was consistent with the lists that DC are provided and um Alan confirmed that
right um Cheyenne yes and I I don't and my recollection from his email was that there wasn't significant change to the lots that were included so that we I think we could
rely upon the GIS mapping to show what's in the flood zone but I think we could confirm that with Alan yeah I'll to tomorrow but as far as the communication um do you know if this list these
addresses will get any notification Cheyenne from anyone um I'm not sure if they got any notification I know that we had somebody come in um well they didn't come in they emailed specifically regarding um one
parcel um I have to check to see if they're on this list but I know that at least in their case they were looking for parcel specific flood plane information um to which it took a lot of finding to figure out who actually
handles that portion of the signatures but um we have had some some people talk about it and cheyen do you know where this map gets filed because I know just um Realtors do um like to look it up you
know if they're listing a property or representing a buyer looking at a property that that may be in a flood zone just to find out what the insurance requirements are oh I wasn't sorry do you know if that this goes DPW or who has this
information to my knowledge it just gets updated on the FEMA website um which I can send out the link okay it's good information for the residents to have
okay so basically this is fairly boilerplate I think what we need to um what we'll need to do for next week and since we're not meeting um is I would entertain a motion to submit um both this article and we had already voted um
I think got our for our overlay Zoning for East Milton also to submit that um for review to um Peter melow and the warrant committee for the Maytown meeting I to move this article forward to mayt
meeting is there a second second okay we'll do a roll call on this Maggie yes Jim yes Cheryl yes Sean yes and myself
yes okay great so Cheyenne will you be able to afford those you can yes do it Monday or at your whenever you can but I think the the deadline is the 27th um for the for submitting articles
so to the warrant committee okay so we have one last item on our agenda um and this is simply just a a re a revote of of the submission so I'm log off I'll Lo let you log off okay okay bye bye Magie
bye Maggie okay this is um the the uh the vote that we took um and we what we signed the decision um did not it was submitted without a date on it so we are just resubmitting and this time it will
have a date on it so so we need to go re uh to sign a new document Mar tell we just yeah we're just doing a clean new document so it is in the office it's ready to sign and it will be dat um as soon as the last person can get in
to sign I know Shawn is out of town so Monday would be the soonest that Shawn could get in but if folks could stop in tomorrow morning um or Monday that that would be great what time what time does the uh office closed tomorrow end of day end at
1:30 1:30 okay yeah yeah it'll be Monday for me I'm I'm willing also to go door to door to drop it off if people houses if they need to I I won't put you through that but but I can sign it in the afternoon
probably midafternoon Julia but um I don't that's Mer's call if we want to go to that length or just I don't care I'll do what if you can if you can stop in but Julia has offered to she doesn't mind getting out of the office I'll stop in getting out of the office
is great I um I don't get back into Boston until around 1:30 so it would be after the office hour was Julia but you know um I know you sent me your cell number I'll text you as soon as I get to like as soon as I get to town and and we can
figure something out sounds good thanks okay that's great and I'll stop up tomorrow morning Julia great so can I have a motion to um uh to approve uh the decision um as
we um had discussed at our what date meeting we don't need to even say that just a vote to um approve the the nursery um special permit I'll make a motion to approve the their Nursery special
permit as discussed at our last meeting is there a second I'll second okay roll call uh Sean yes Jim yes Cheryl yes and myself yes thank you
all and thank you for going in and signing and we will see you Monday I'll make a motion to adjourn motion to is there a second second okay all right um Cheryl yes yes
Jim yes Sean yes and myself yes right what time Monday at the high school 7:15 7:15 all right I'm sorry is it 7:15 is that what we 7:15 okay I just wanted yeah
7:15 um also I don't know if Nick mentioned T Meredith but we have to record Monday and Tuesday um so I'll probably bring my work laptop um just so we can do like a quick Zoom recording okay all right okay good night good
night good night everybody than you all right bye bye bye