[Music] Red.
Good evening and welcome to the 44th meeting of the Milton Planning Board fiscal year 2025. At this time, I would like to now call the meeting to order and introduce uh members and the staff. Cheryl Chagaya, secretary,
Sean Fehee, member, Mag Guildfield, member. Jim Davis, member, and Meredith Hall serving as chair. Um we have our administrative um items. It are um our next regularly scheduled meeting is for
June 12th. Um but we have been asked by um Tom Caldwell and the warrant committee if we could attend um next week at some point to discuss um our MBTA zoning article. And um it's sounds
like the best date might be if u members are available uh next Thursday at 7:30. That works best and I'll check in with Tom Caldwell and let him know on the
29th. Um so uh next item and um just to let people know uh that there was um for those of you who have joined us uh in on Zoom, there had been a posting um in the Milton Times for a public hearing on all of our zoning articles for this evening.
Um there was some improper wording um that needed to be corrected. So that um those uh public hearing on those articles will be June 12th as well. So, just for those of you who are on for for that purpose,
um Julia, is there a staff update? Anything you have? Nope. Okay. Okay. Great. Um so now, um at this time, we can open reopen our public hearing for two Elliot Street site plan approval
continued from May 13th. And we can welcome the team. Um, it should be Ned. Um, JD Wild if he's on. Let in. Yep, I'm here. Great. Welcome
back. Appreciate you guys letting me in. Thank you. I believe Ned is here as well. Yeah, he was in the Zoom. I think he's coming in right now. I'm here. Great. Welcome. Looks like I'm here twice.
Yeah, you're doubtly covered. Okay. Um, thank you, uh, Madam Chair and members of the board. Um this is our I think third night before the board with respect to this application for site plan approval. Um I think we vote you
agreed at the last hearing that you would continue to this evening with purpose of considering a decision. Um we don't have any new information to present. Uh we presented I think everything in that was responsive to earlier questions and concerns uh for
the board. So, I'm I'm hopeful that the board is ready to vote uh favorably to approve the decision. I I can share screen if that's helpful and we can walk through the decision. It's fairly short. It's very consistent with the format for site plan approval decisions that the
board has historically done. Um so, I can do that if you'd like. That would be great. Yes. So, if I have the [Music] ability Here we go. You all see that? Yes. Yes. Okay.
So, it's essentially a a fairly straightforward uh decision pursuant to section 12-4, chapter 175, the general bylaw, is known as the zoning bylaw. Um board would vote hereby grant site plan approval for the development of a retail
food market and outdoor patio to Elliot Street here and after the property as specified herein uh provides the date of the of the application uh and the hearing uh the supplemental narrative that was filed a
site plan containing uh three sheets an existing conditions plan a proposed conditions plan and a proposed conditions plan that contained a lighting schedule that was part of it. In addition, architectural plans submitted by GPH design as well as
images, cut sheets, and other renderings that were contained in sleuth. Two slide decks are presented to the board at hearings on April 24 and May 13. Uh those constitute the uh totality of the filings that were made uh with respect
to this application. Brief desript description of the project which is the renovation and adaptive reuse of a formerly vacant retail banking facility located at two Elliot Street into a neighborhood oriented food retail market. Project will convert the bank to
a quick service fresh food market with the addition of exterior p patio seating areas under a pergola on the westerly side of the building at the corner of Elliot and High Street and the northerly and easterly sides of the building at the corner of Elliot and Adam Street.
patio will be composed of impous paper materials. Modifications result in net neutral change in imperous surface area. Lighting will be installed as shown on the site plan consistent and compliant with standards of Dark Sky
International. As you'll note uh on the one of the um detail sheets in the slide presentation uh there was there was um the four lighting fixtures that will be approximate to the two front
entrances will be gas um fired uh lights the balance will be electric. There'll be no expansion of the building footprint. The project will preserve seven existing on-site parking spaces, including one accessible space
and utilizes available u available on street parking. All proposed improvements are contained within the existing lot boundaries. Um, also note, I don't note here, but there is a there is a bike um uh bicycle accommodation uh
on the property uh as we outlined uh the location uh with the modification to one of the plans uh two weeks ago or last week, excuse me. Um Cheryl had added this next provision uh which we accepted. Uh the application was filed on March 11.
Public hearing was held April 24, May 13, and this evening, May 22, on which date the hearing was closed, and the planning board voted its decision. The decision itself um says that you grant voted to grant site plan approval in accordance with the site plan and the
related application materials. Planning finds that the proposed modifications to the property, if performed in conformance, in accordance with the site plan and project details as shown in exhibit A, will result in the preservation and maintenance of the historic structure while enhancing
public facing elements including signage, landscape, and outdoor seating. The plan integrates walkable pedestrian friendly access consistent with town goals. Plan Cheryl added this next provision which we accepted. The planning board is has reserved the
specific power to amend. The board may allow minor modifications of the site plan or construction details that do not alter the intent or conditions of the approval. Major modifications will require a new site plan review application. The board has the sole discretion to determine whether the
propos proposed site plan modification is minor. Failure to comply with the site plan shall subject the applicant to zoning enforcement action in accordance with remedies found set forth in general laws chapter 48 and other appropriate legal
limit uh remedies. Finally, the site plan approval. The copy of the site plan will be recorded with the registry of deeds uh at the applicant's expense within 30 days of the date when this site plan approval becomes final and a copy of the recorded document will record with recording information shall
be provided to the town planner. The remainder of that page is blank. And we come over to the next page. We have the signature pages uh signature lines and then exhibit A uh two components. One is the site plan
itself containing the three sheets out delineated above. And then project details including the project narrative with attachments, supplemental project narrative slide deck dated April 22 and the slide deck dated May 13 with all of
the details and the site plan and project details we found on file with the planning department. And that is the straight simple straightforward uh but consistent with the approach to uh site plan approval historically undertaken by
this board. Any questions? Um I I I just want one going back to what we talked about a moment ago before we had Ned and JD. Um Ned and pro probably a question for JD. Can JD, can
you explain the pergola one more time to us? Um, it's it's it's referred to in the decision as a pergola. I just um I just want to make sure that I understand it. It's a pergola in my mind is something that's an open overhead structure, but I don't think it's open.
I think it's closed or it's sometimes open, sometimes closed. Can you just explain it to us one more time? Sure, Sean. So, it it a it has an automated movered roof, so you can close it uh when it's raining. So it is a weathertight structure. So um I had mentioned in some of the earlier
meetings that one of our goals was to try to accommodate uh patio seating uh from more months of the season in the northeast. So we decided to invest in a um more expensive solution which involves a louvered uh roof system. So
it stays open for uh majority of the year and majority of the weather conditions and then when it rains you have the ability to push a button and it closes and becomes a waterproofed uh system. Okay. John, I can add uh with a louvered roof if that's helpful.
Um I don't want to Cheryl, you were concerned that there'd be a there'd be a difference between the plan and the and the decision. Um, I think if the decision says pergola with a louvered roof, that's okay as long as the word pergola remains because
the pergola is in the drawings. Yeah. And you'd want to refer it back. But if you want to add louvered, um, seems okay to me. Well, if you if you look right here, um, you go a highlight, I've added perlar
with a with a left pergo, but with a louvered roof. So my only concern with that is what if um he decides not to go with that type um of pergo then he would have to come back and um change it. That's the reason
I put in the minor language that that would be considered a minor which wouldn't require a new hearing. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um so the minor that description that you put in there gives him the latitude JD the latitude to make a minor change. Yeah. But they would what would happen typically is in the
past the planning director uh would say whether they thought it was minor or not in some planning boards have decided that they'd rather make the decision than the planning director. So that's why it's in there as the planning board just to give the opportunity um for it
to come and then the board would say we agree this is minor and uh doesn't require a new application then we approve it. Yeah, there were times when things like that have been done on other site plan approvals, but remember we came in AC we ran into the situation
where we hadn't reserved the right at the Milton marketplace to amend previously. Um, our new site plan approval has it, but this was filed prior to that being adopted, so that's why the language was added. Um,
so I think we're covered with that language. If it does, if he does change it, um, I'm fine either way as just pergola, but if you want to add those words, I'm okay with that, too. If no one else objects and if JD good with it,
I I think it better describes um what it is, but I'll leave it up to the board if you guys are okay with it. Just would like to add those words. Okay. Sure. And on that subject, um just under the project details, um I don't know, have
have you determined exactly which um cut do you have cut sheets for what you're um thinking there at this point? Are you still looking at different options for the pergola? Um so we're uh there's it's actually a
really competitive market. There's multiple options. They're all very similar products. Um, so we have not awarded the job to a specific manufacturer. We're still in the process of picking one, but um, they're all relatively consistent. It's all very similar structure um, in product. So,
it's all powdercoated, black finished, aluminum framed, uh, louvered, weathertight system. And JD, it sounds like your concern, and I can appreciate this, if you if you select one manufacturer, you've you've lost your you've lost your opportunity
to have a competitive uh competitive um Good point. choice. Yeah, that's exactly right. Y Yeah, understandably. Um I I feel like it's that's going to be really important. Um, we in the past, you know,
with the Goddard School, we said, um, subject to signing off on the shingle, you know, what they ultimately picked in their shingle style, just giving it the okay. I'm sure you all have fabulous taste. Um, but that will be a really
important feature um on that. And I know they're all sort of similar. Um, but do we want to do we want to um Ned, can you call the presentation up from or can you pull up the presentation
from the last meeting which shows the pergola or JD? I think so. Take a minute. I can show you one. I'll stop sharing because I think there were a couple of different
looks to the different options, but See if I can do that. Sorry for flying through this. I apologize. That's all right. This was the This is a good example of what the Lub roof system looks like. So, it sits open like that when the weather's nice. And they do make other
systems that are retractable. Uh the reason uh we push for the lubricate system is it also provides shade and it does get a lot of sun out there. So we prefer the lubricate. It functions in the shade, fresh air and then it also has the ability to close. So I think Meredith, your comment at last week's
meeting was you didn't like as much the pergola on the right as you did on the ones on the left. Um is that right? Yeah. Some have a some I can see, you know, if it's, you know, your building across the across the street, you know, or some more of a warehouse style
building, but because this this is um it's a a little bit more of a formal building, you might say. I just am hoping, you know, that the looks will complement the existing building and and I think the Yeah, the one maybe on the
top left probably. I mean, one thing I mean, you don't want to detract from it either because there is a lot of detail in it, right? So, I that's why I was just um I just want didn't want it looking too industrial. I was think, you know, I
But I mean, it's obviously going to be metal and black. Um but there's a lot of iron work and you know, as long as it, you know, worked with that, that's was just my concern with the with the metal fencing.
Would you add wording that says that the pergola would complement the um the metal fencing or the it's such a um I think you could this is why I said when we wanted
to tie back to the presentation and the drawing materials I mean oftent times it's you would have the detail in the drawing um I understand in this scenario or in this particular case this flexibility. So if there's one of these that's preferable,
I think it could be called out um when the when the final like this isn't going to be an attachment. So if we wanted let's say to say that the preference is the is the design style of the one on
then the left two photos then we can ask them to indicate that on this when they submit it. That's hard to say. JD, I I have a question. Um, just looking at what's on the screen right now, uh, it
it looks like the two images on the left were extracted from the image on the right. You you know, I mean, you can see the top of the umbrellas uh on the left hand side. Is
is this all are those different? Is it one rendering that was prepared by one by by one entity or are these different are these images coming from different resources? Uh this is one manufacturer uh sending in a brochure of restaurants
that they had done. Um and I pulled the images from their brochure. So it's the same product like it's like again so there's customization. So you know one has a ceiling fan the other ones don't. You can add different features. Um, but it's the same manufacturer.
Okay. So, JD, the level of the level of detail on the right, I'm sorry I interrupted you, JD. The level of detail on the right is just uh it's just not as apparent, but you're saying that it's the same that image on the right is the same as the images on the left. You just
can't see it as clearly. Yeah, I I think that's a fair statement. I'm I'm looking at it myself. I'm trying to make that detonation. I pull these from your brochure. Um I mean it looks to me to be a very comparable product maybe with slight
modifications. Um you know the style and the look is certainly closer to the one on the left I think for clarity of what we're going for. Okay. So I think they all look really similar. Um but if the goal is to have a look uh like what it looks like on the left and we're all
aligned. So, what I would suggest if that's the case that the board would like to see that they when they submit this as one of the attachments, they could put a box a red box around the two images on the left and
um and say design intent and and then we're covered. I I want to I want to ask come I want to come back to where you were going because when we look at the image on the right the most dominant features are the column and the
perimeter of the structure. Do you know what I mean? When we circle the images on the left those images are are much more reflective of just that structure itself that has the loop as it open and closes. I don't know that that's addressing your concern, but but Sean,
the one on the upper left has more detail on the column than the one on the right. Detail on the colum. Yeah, that's okay. If that satisfies your concern, then I'm like a more expensive Okay. quality. Yeah. If if that's like a Yeah. Yeah. If you're okay with that, I I mean, I'm Yeah. The column on the left,
if you could find something with that has more of the column on the left, I think that and the horizontal beams. I mean, the one on the right does look way more industrial to your point with exposed bolts. The one on the left has a much less deep, more shallow horizontal
I-beam going across. If it even is an I-beam, I think what they're showing here is that the lubers are the same, but you can get different structures. And maybe the one on the right is just a bigger structure with more spans, so it needs more steel to hold it up.
Um, so yeah, I mean I guess I in the beginning of this conversation it didn't bother me, but now in looking at it I would like to see one of the something similar to the one on the left as opposed to the one on the right. So yeah, that's fine with me
if appeals to the board. I'm happy to circle the one on the upper left as a design intent. Yeah. Yeah, design intent is a great word. Yeah. And the metal mesh side that rolls down is that just I'm just curious again. Is
that translucent or is it look like a metal sheet? The lower the lower left you can actually see um it's uh I know it's still hard to see, but you see how it's it's a little bit more opaque. Yes. And that so there's again there's um
it's a very competitive market. I'm sure you can imagine restaurants all across the country have them. So, they have a lot of options for screens. They make screens that are really windresistant that go down, but they also are completely opaque. So, we're going to go with a screen that is uh they call it an
86% screen, so it's high visibility, but it also does provide um bugs and a little bit of wind protection as well. So, that's great. That's perfect. That's what I was just hoping that it didn't appear to be a solid metal. No, no. It's high visibility screen. It's similar to
a screen in a window and a house just a little bit um thicker just for a commercial application. That's great. So maybe you can add that screen type to the PDF as
well when you're putting the box around the images. Yep. And those cut sheets will be included. Yep. All right. That's so I think this would have to have a slight modification to
say slide deck dated May 13th with slide 36 updated May 22nd or something like that. Slide number 36. Is that it? It's what it looks like on this one. Mike can
tell, but if JD should confirm that. Yeah, that's my my screen says 36. Okay, any other questions? I have no others. We should see if they're public before we close again. Yeah, JD, JD, if you stop sharing and I can start sharing
again. I'll just show you the line. Thank you. So I added slide deck dated May 13, 2020 25 with slide number 36 updated in May 22, 2025. Okay. Okay, that's great.
And I'll I'll save this as a new final version and email it to um Julia for execution. Okay, cool. So, we'll get that signed off on right away. Okay. So, um is there anyone on
Zoom um anyone in the public who would like to comment um before we close the public hearing? Any hands? I don't see any. No hands. Okay. All right. All right. So, um, at this time,
I would, um, uh, entertain a motion to close the public hearing for two Elliot Street site plan approval. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing to Elliot Street site plan approval. Is there a second? Second. All
in favor? I. Great. Thank you. Um and now at this time we can um entertain a motion for um approval of the two Elliot site plan approval um as amended.
Great. Make Yeah, sure. I'll make a motion to approve the public hearing to Elliot Street site plan approval as amended. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I. Great. Thank you all very much. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you.
Congratulations. Nice job. Yes. Good job. And Ned, um just real briefly, I'm sorry about um I know you had the we had the 75 River Street that we wanted to have that heard. Um
unfortunately, Cheyenne is on vacation and the board never received a copy of the application and the of the project, which I'm sure you had filed. Um, but we also did not have confirmation that Cheyenne has reviewed it, which she
probably did, but we were we're not aware process. Julia called me earlier today said it was going to be put off probably till June 12th. Is that right? Is that okay? I mean, we could if it's an emergency, we could try to call a Zoom meeting to It's not an emergency.
We We can wait. Okay. All right. It'll definitely be on for June 12th. So, apologies for that. Okay. Not at all. Thank you. Okay. And then um 275 270 was the same um situation with that. So we're going to move those to June 12th also. To June 12th also.
Ned, if you could um email me that new language um right now. I can run up and print it so we can sign this off. It's on consider it on its way. Nice job. Okay, perfect. Thank you and congratulations. Great job. Thank you.
It's a great project. So um so now um at this time um I would like to have we need a motion to u move to executive session um for the purpose
of uh pursuant to MGL master law chapter 3A section 21A1 to discuss a response to an open meeting law complaint received on May 16th 2025 filed by Spencer Kyle Johnson against the Milton Planning
Board and also in executive session pursuant to general law chapter 3A section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation entitling Johanning at all planning board at all
Norfolk Superior Court action number 258 to CV0000293. um this litigation will need to be um um discussed in executive session rather than open session as open session discussion may have a detrimental effect
on the board's litigating position. And lastly, um, executive session, moving to executive session pursuant to MGL chapter 30A, section 21A, approval of executive session minutes, February 26,
2024, June 20th, 2024, August 14th, 2024, January 17, 2025, March 13, 2025, and March 27th, 2025. Is there a motion to move to executive session? So moved. Is there a second? Thank you, Sean. Second. Second.
All in favor? I I Great. Thank you all. Good. And we will not be returning to We will not be returning to open session. Sorry. That's Can we do that once more with the graphic down? Yep. Yeah. Huh. Yeah. Just just Okay.
Just to make sure. Um I did not state um I would like to say we will not be returning to um we will not be returning to open session. Thank you. [Music]