start at the beginning Good evening and welcome to the 35th meeting of fiscal year 2025 for the Milton Planning Board At this time I would like to now call the meeting to order and begin by introducing the members and our staff Um we can start with Cheryl if you'd like to start Sure
Cheryl Tagas secretary Sean uh Sean Fehee member Mag Yfield member Jim Davis member Great And Meredith Hall serving as chair Um for our staff this evening um we have Cheyenne Cheyenne Frasier assistant director of
planning Great And I don't think Julia is on yet I'm here Oh Julia's here All right Julia if you'd like to intro introduce yourself Sorry Julia Gman clerk Terrific Thank you Um now for the administrative items Um we don't have
any minutes to approve this evening So we can uh move on to the discussion of our next meeting dates We have a community forum scheduled um for the 17 for April 17th which is going to be on
MBTA zoning and it will be at the council of a council of aging on of aging at 7 p.m Um and then our next regularly scheduled meeting is April 24th Um so those will be the next dates
Uh we can now open up for citizens speak If there is anyone um online or in the public who would like to speak uh please raise your hand I'm not seeing anyone in the public uh in person Um but if there is anyone who would like to speak on
anything that is not on the agenda um please raise your hand Uh we have two hands So the first is going to be Anthony Larkin Okay Welcome Anthony You can state your name and address for the record please Sure Thank you very much
Uh hi my name is Anthony Larkin I live at 1061 Brush Hill Road uh with my wife and daughter Um we're neighbors to Mr Urkavic and Miss Leo and also Mr Kamik who spoke during the meeting uh earlier this week Um I first want to say I just have a huge appreciation for the planning board and its members I think
you have an incredibly difficult task at hand and I thank you for all the time and effort that's gone into the planning so far I think there's zero chance you're going to be able to make everybody happy um regarding the MBT communities act and compliance but I think the best possible outcome is one that brings common sense and and protects our community over the long
term Um I'm speaking up tonight to to bring some additional perspective to the planning board uh to further help with the analysis particularly around the um proposed Reedville station subdist So I have a couple points to share One being that um due to the Neponet River and the
surrounding wetlands the actual walkability and access to transit and amenities from that proposed Reedville substation or subdist doesn't in my opinion meet the proximity requirements even though it's technically within the halfmile radius as the crow flies um and
outlined the requirements The pedestrian route if you map it out is almost a full mile um and takes almost 20 minutes to walk because you have to go out and around the Neponet River in the wetlands And that crosses major boulevards and multiple busy intersections um and in my
opinion against the spirit and intention of the MBTA communities act which is to build contiguous communities in proximity to transit stations and Zoe who I think has been doing a great job from Utah used a similar argument to remove a lower parcel from the Blue Hill outstation subdist proposal citing that
it's not contiguous with the others and it has multiple crossings over busy intersections I think the same is true for the entire proposed Reedville station subdist and uh the same logic should be applied and excluded from the proposal entirely Now the other thing that's important when you look at this
area the maps that you've been using in this in the decks um and the graphics are are difficult to see the actual topography of the land But if you look at it in a satellite view and the map and if you actually come walk the area you'll see how densely wooded those lots
are and how much the wetlands are bordering those lots Um there many are adjacent to the river and any development there would have a negative environmental impact Um the wetlands also restricts access to the parcels So not only the southernmost parcel that was recommended for removal which is
actually my home Um also the second southernmost parcel um has a very securest driveway that um runs all the way up um to the bottom of Big Blue Um and uh there's a guard rail that runs all the way along there because it's a
very steep embankment down to the wetlands making access to that parcel um one either having to destroy the wetlands um or somehow gain access which would be difficult So then if you exclude that parcel as well you're looking at only six smaller parcels and
if you use the logic that Miss Tugus um Tias raised on you know single family areas um to use a lower density approach not radically transform such neighborhoods If you even took those single family parals and made them into
two or three family parcels you're looking at a maximum of 18 units in that area which hardly makes a dent in the overall target and doesn't seem worth changing the face of the neighborhood So lastly I'll just say I'm in support of working towards compliance but I think it's important that we avoid the
practice of spot zoning in order to get there This is more than just a mathematical exercise getting numbers to work without fit This type of development and zoning needs to be done responsibly Multif family zoning should be focused on extending or increasing density in areas where multif family
zoning already exists or adjacent to commercial districts and directly adjacent to transit We should not be spot- zoning highdensity housing into green space adjacent to protected wetlands and transforming neighborhoods into many cities where it's not reasonable in proximity to transit
especially if it's heavily wooded and uh teameming with wildlife So thank you for listening tonight Great comments Thank you And next Cheyenne Um I don't see any hands up There were hands but or longer Okay And we will
allow Okay We have Bernardet raised her hand Yeah Okay Is Bernardet Hi Hi there Welcome Thank you Sorry about that I lowered my hand I um I live
at 117 Walcott Road Um but for the paper street I abut St Pas directly St Pas church Yep Um this this I agree 100% with what the the earlier person said just now Um this is
a just more human encroachment on the beautiful natural habitats that we have here It's the reason I moved here 20 years ago I'm originally from Dorchester Lower Mills Um I'm all for um you know complying and I understand
the need for for for housing but um I agree that it should be in um you know compatible with in and in in areas where there is that already that type of housing We have one family homes here
and um that particularly the field next to St pious church is teameming with with wildlife and it's something that we enjoy and um I don't I don't think that that that type of um development would be appropriate here And again also I I
walked it out myself It's a mile to the um to the station from here Um that's all I just wanted to to um say that and um thanks for for working with us on that We appreciate it Thank you
Okay All right Did we hear Bernardet's last name no Uh Bernardet what is your last name for the record please um Kenny Kenny Kenny Great Thank you
Terrific Okay Thank you Yes Thank you so much Um great So if there's no one else um that will conclude our citizen speak and there will be opportunity um to speak later on um other agenda items Um
Cheyenne we can now go to you for your staff update Sure So my only update was that we are having the community forum next week at the council on aging It'll be both hybrid um so zoom and in person for those who can't make it in per person
and it'll be at 7 p.m That's my only update Great Perfect Thank you Um and now um do we have anyone online from 10 Basset Street seeing anyone not that I can see
Okay So um and I can read from the email or uh Cheyenne if you want to actually tee this one up and just explain um the email that you received from 10 Basset Street and then I can I can read the email Sure So we received an email I believe
it was uh earlier this week Saturday maybe um from the Tempass Street attorney and they were just basically withdrawing their application without prejudice so that they can be able to come back once they get um a little more
information for the board and I'm sure for the ZBA because they've been between our two boards So um they are currently withdrawn So there is no active application with us at the time Okay We technically we continued it to
the public hearing at 7:05 So actually we still have the public hearing piece is open on our end So tonight um I think we have to vote to accept we do their withdrawal and close the public hearing Yeah So um I'll just read you um the
email that uh that was sent Um Chairperson Hall my clients Michael Mcnosa and Mark Mcnosa have requested that the pending application for modification of a prior site plan review presently scheduled for a hearing before the town of Milton Planning Board on
April 10th 2025 at 7 p.m will be with will be withdrawn without prejudice at the time of the upcoming hearing Respectfully I would ask that you as the chairperson request that the planning board take a vote to allow my clients to withdraw their pending application
without prejudice So sign Michael Modestino um attorney So um with that um when we make the motion do we need to make a motion to close a public hearing as well or don't we'll do that after We'll do that separate So we're going to first um a motion to accept um the
withdrawal without prejudice I'll make a motion to accept the withdrawal of 10 Basset Street site plan modification without prejudice Second Is there a second second Great All right All in favor i Great Now um I would take a motion to close the public
hearing for 10 Basset Street So moved Second Second All in favor i Thank you Did you do that right Ed perfect Just making sure Okay Um No
no Um okay So perfect So now um now let's see Just double checking here We are um we are now um welcoming um Ned Cork Attorney Corkran um representing 111 Highland Street
modification of special permit Great Welcome Thank you Good evening And you know it's been almost a year since I've been here I have time It's hard to believe Is that a record i think it is a record
Um the last night I was here was the night that you voted to approve the special permit April 29 of last year Um and we're back because a whole lot has happened in the interim uh all of which
has arrived at all uh objections to the plans that were submitted having been uh addressed dismissed whatever And I'll go through quickly the litany of that But if you recall the the special permit itself contemplated
um an amendment to the final plan set based on u the fact that we were under appeal of the order of conditions uh issued by the the uh conservation commission in October of 23 Um we had
been appealed by one group of neighbors to the D were appealed by a second group of neighbors to the superior court under the town's bylaw Um and so those two appeals were were pending The superior court matter was stayed really pending
the D review of the storm water uh and related issues And um the plans the final plans that had been approved by the board relative to the layout of the project um the building the reduction in
we had reduced the scale of the building um by a few thousand feet We re reduced parking area in the back We had moved uh the the what I call the noise makers the the the uh the dumpster um the transformer from the front of the
building to the rear of the building All those had been done in the process of closing out the special permit Um but we still had to go back we had to follow through with that under the D appeal process and D issued a superseding order
of conditions in November of 24 So we were under appeal with T for about a year Um and certainly six or se seven or eight months post the closing of the special permit The special permit understood that that process was going
and provided for a a a means of modifying the special permit when the D processes were complete Uh in the meantime we were also as you know under appeal with um
uh Karen Bikardi and Gene Irwin a third set of appellants to the superior court on the u on this on the special permit that was granted Uh and we're gearing up recently for pretty significant
discovery leading to trial And we arrived at a the we arrived in March at a settlement with them and the result of which is that there that appeal was dismissed and the day after um the superior court action pending on the the
sup on the order of conditions was dismissed So as of March 18th there are no appeals appeals pending There is no nothing hanging over the project So Paul a Avery is with me on Zoom uh he can walk through quickly the minor
modifications to the plan set so that you can see the changes that were made u in accordance with DP's process um and then I would ask the the board to adopt uh the the modification simply essentially changing exhibit A which
lists all the plans with a with a new exhibit A that exists that list now the final plan set Okay Okay Yep That would be great if we can introduce Paul's here Paul to walk us through those changes I I I am here and in the interim while
he's we did go before the conservation commission in January uh to have them review the plan changes that were approved by D and they made a specific finding uh in accordance with the town's bylaw that the changes represent an insignificant change in the original
proposal and will cause no significant difference in the impact of the activity on the interest identified in the town's wetland bylaw Okay Paul Hi Um so I prepared and I trust you
received a letter dated March 31st which summarizes um all the changes that occurred to the plans as we went through and concluded the appeal process for the superseding order of conditions with the D I can walk through those Uh and if
you'd like me to show you what these items are on the plans if you That would be great Yeah Yeah If I can get screen sharing capability here somehow I need to be promoted or something It doesn't let me promote on here but I can pull up the letter myself We're not
looking No what I want to pull up with plans So the the letter is the letter and I don't I don't think we need to read the letter I can summarize the points What I was going to do was just walk through the plans So I don't have the capability of screen sharing here to do that Um I have it on multiple
participants can share Can you try it again for me i'm just not seeing I can raise my hand I can transcript and show captions Uh those are my only options I don't see any other menu items available to me
Okay I can promote Mr Jo Okay I'm He's still in attend He You know what we can promote you as a panelist and then you should be able to have the capability to share Does it work now
here we go Great Here you go Paul Can you hear me yes now we can hear you Can Can you see the screen can you see the screen my screen with a plan on Great Yes Okay great All right So I'll walk through the Sorry for the technical challenges here Um the first item was just that the infiltration detention
basin system uh was revised to provide maintenance access increase setbacks from the wetland resource areas and other technical comments So zooming in on this um you can see this I think here's the basin At first glance it looks the same It's in the same place It
does the same thing It functions all the same way It was just fine-tuned a bit to provide you know access and things like that um which were comments that we received from the DP Um there's no more water going to it Basically the end result of the runoff calculations are
are all the same Uh the other item that came up is wetlands area replication 2 Wetlands replication area 2 was located back here um near this uh crossing over this inter western intermittent stream
The D requested that we move it up to this area here So we did that That area it's not shown on this is generally the area occupied uh by the existing barn on the 107 Highland Street We didn't change the grading in here Uh all we did was
basically we have a different area here that is designated for wetlands uh restoration where we're going to specifically come in and follow the restoration uh protocol So we just same thing We just moved it to a different place No changes in the grading anything else the storm water all pretty much
works the same Um there was also quite a bit of housekeeping that we did with the D just in terms of the accounting on some of the impacts as as as Pam Merrill went to write up the superseding order She had
to quantify everything and we went back and forth and just clarified We established some areas of temporary impacts which are shown here in sort of that tan color and there's the quantifications of you know BVW temporary disturbance you know bank
temporary disturbance bank alteration replication So there was none of this represented any change in the design at all It was just how we went through and just fine-tuned you know categoring categorizing the different areas of permanent and temporary impacts For
example this area right here number three um was counted as an area of temp temporary impact The only thing we're doing there is mitigating invasive species So things like that So it's just going through and and quantifying in these tables over here you know what the impacts were Um in
most cases actually when we did all this the numbers actually went down um in terms of being kept regardless of that there was no change in the scope of work actually physically increasing impacts at all So that's shown on uh drawings uh
C302 and C30 We also can hold for a sec Pam Merrill is the wetland scientist at D who was responsible for overseeing the superseding order She issued the superseding order Okay
Okay Um there were also jumping back two water quality swailes that were added uh to outfall one which is the one along Highland Street and the other one is the one you know down here near where the service area that plan hasn't there
There it is Okay Yep Can you see it yep Okay So Alpha one did you see Alpha One up by Highland Street no Outfall one up here by Highland Street It's my internet not working well
There's just a little delay Just everything's just delayed Yeah I got a outfall one up in the upper right corner Mhm Outfall one Yes we see that Got it Right here Okay So we just they just did some grading in here and created this
and this is um it's just polishing water quality polishing That's all it is Um you know provide you know further treatment to the runoff uh before it goes into um the wetlands area beyond So this was the one area here along Highland Street Um and then the other
one is this refreshed is down here Not yet near the service area Is that refreshed we're still on uh alpha one there It just moved
There we go There we go Off two is by the loading dock Yep that's it Okay And all this stayed within out of the non-disturbance zones and and and all that We just we were able to put these you know polishing
features in there to improve the water quality And Paul that out outfall 2 is in the area where the dumpster and the um the transformer was formerly located Yeah pretty much spot on I mean I think
if you overlaid this that's exactly what you'd see Okay Cuz we were able to make room there As a result of doing that we're able to make room to put this in there Okay Okay Any questions on that one
no No All right So I don't know if if it's slow on the uptake here I don't think it's particularly critical but on sheets L 104 and L105 there are
um procedures that were that are unique to uh several of the specific um invasive species control areas uh and exactly what procedures were going to be used in those areas So if my screen is refreshed you're going to see an example of one of those This happens to be area
one And we went through and just worked out exactly what procedures we were going to use based on you know the nature of the invasive species that were in there but also proximity to other activities So in some cases rather than
than um you go cutting and putting down herbicides and things like that um Pam Merrell at the D said "Look you're in there doing work anyway Why don't you just reach over with a backhoe and scoop them up?" And it was like "Okay." So that's what we did So it just the the
you know the procedures that we're using to do investig invasive species mitigation were uh just fine-tuned a bit And then lastly some of the limits of work um uh in various places uh uh just
um got revised as as you know we move things around a little bit in terms of where we were doing work and where we weren't But that's it Again as Ned summarized if you look at the project itself terms of the building or the grading of the site or the traffic circulation or any of those things uh
nothing changed So it's just just some of the the little bit of the um storm water management things and how we accounted for the um the impacts That's it Any comments from the board or questions
yeah Can I just ask a question on um the third paragraph of that invasive plant species control measure it says that the um invasive species and replication work shall be monitored annually for 2 years or until they are deemed to be
successfully established with native plant species Um who is going to deem it to be successful um I that's a good question Um I would presume that that would probably be done in coordination with the conservation
commission Um Ned what's your interpretation on that yeah I agree And u it would be we'd have to establish that it has been done in order to get a certificate of compliance Yeah From the de from the concom when the project is finished There's a they have a general
rule that requires a two-year post to est to establish that 75% of species are surviving uh and in this case it's a more detailed requirement that you have to go beyond if it's deals with the invasive species removal So we wouldn't
be there would be a an item that we would have to establish in order to get the certificate of compliance Okay And it you know we the our wetlands folks or engineer would have to certify
that with their stamp So to me these seem like they're all improvements to the project Um especially the water quality um additional purification I just have a quick question on the wetlands restoration Um it looks like
most of it is done in the back Is there any of that brought to the front at all where it would remove or affect the plantings that are causing that are creating a a sort of a buffer to that long causeway or is it all in the back there there were some minor adjustments
to um the the the planting plan um you know in in this area here Uh but again you know just there were some of just right the only there were no plannings proposed where we're doing the wetlands restoration area here at all Um and then then just a
little bit of adjustment of some of the trees to make room for the water quality swale that goes in there So when you say adjustment did did you remove any or just kind of move them around to the same count okay that's fine Yeah All right Okay I'm good Okay
Right Um so what what does our motion need to be to motion would be to approve the amendment to special permit adopting the final plan set as exhibit A Exhibit A Okay Can I ask a question yes just
before we get to that So so Ned just in terms of the whole project would you mind just updating not only us but anybody listening tonight on where the project's at what other approvals are necessary and and what the path forward might be because I think if we don't have if we don't ask you to do that we
we may not get that information Would you mind helping us all out happy to Um so the big news for the project is that all of the appeals have been dismissed or successfully prosecuted Um there were
you know there were three There was there was the neighborhood um appeal of the order of conditions superseding order was issued by DP There was the appeal to superior court under the town's wetland bylaw that was
dismissed on March 18th and there was the appeal of the planning board special permit that was dismissed on March 17th So those are all done complete Um we are now um the next major step in our side will
be to take the con the the the con the conceptual plans not conceptual but the plans of the building and the and the the the project and develop construction documents uh and then submit for for uh
two things One would be a a demolition permit for the remaining house and the barn uh and the and the shed Um and then um a a building permit uh to to do the building and a permit like with with the
town for the site work Uh there's also u the permit to open the street to put in the sewer Our best my best guess at this point in given the fluctuation and what's happening in the economy and interest rates and whatnot is that you
know that'll that process will take 6 months Let's say you know in the fall they might be ready to start clearing and grubbing Um they'll be but they may wait till the spring It just will depend you know on the weather when when and what's the best time to do the site work
But I would imagine that a year from now um they'll be in pretty full boore Um there is a meeting taking place early next week between our landscape architect and Karen Bccardi's landscape architect to look at refining planting
plans on her property not within the four corners of this property But part of the part of the the uh one of the pieces of the agreement with her in the resolution was that that we would get together uh and cooperate and in
revisions to that planting plan Um to the extent that we can the work on her property will commence roughly at the same time as we start work on the property So she gets the benefit of the additional screening um associated with with those plantings
So the next steps are sort of apply for building permit demolition permit um other permits with the town to get going with the work And that's 6 to 9 to 12 months Mhm I don't see any I don't think you'll see
anything happening between now and the fall there's there's too much architectural detail engineering detail too much of that stuff to do before they'll get you know the town wouldn't be in a position to approve much of anything Um I mean they could they presumably could go in and
start um clearing trees That would be the earliest do but they're basically the the the schedule as I remember is to work your way into the site and then work your way out So that initial phase of work is really going to be about the
the crossing the first wetland Um building all that in so we can get inside of that with heavy equipment and then start up you know go and then the next crossing to the rear parking area because that'll be an important area for construction lay down for heavy
equipment Um and then you know up into the hill where the building is located So and then ultimately work work your way up Probably assume two years construction once it gets going give or take
So it's reasonable that it probably doesn't start for a year Yeah And maybe the only reason it might start sooner than that is if they found that working through the winter is advantageous just cuz the conditions are more tighter
you know frozen Sometimes that's helpful too Okay And that would be that presumably that will be all about entering and getting the the first two cross the two crossings set so that you can do you know the the building work
would be you know sometime after that Okay great Yeah thanks for that So um there will not be too much clearing of land too much in advance of when the project starts cuz there you know I've
seen projects um you know where they go in and clear the land and then for some reason their financing falls through or there's a delay in their contractor and then you're looking at trees that are you know just cut halfway So we don't want to be looking at that This this
will be a very tightly financed project and it will all once they start they will go and they'll go and and there will be a very tight schedule as to how they do it Um questions So I have a I provided a draft
of a a mo of a an amendment that I think is ready for signature if the board's ready to uh with a motion to to approve and we can you can sign tonight or great Is that the one did you email us
that i email part of the part of the package So if you're ready Meredith I'll make a motion to amend the special permit insight plan approval for the special care memory care residence development at 10711
107-11-0 Highland Street Is there a second i'll second All in favor i I know Oh all right Thank you Thank you very much Um you want to do that yeah I will Yeah sign it right now If you want to pass it
down and we can have it signed and then we'll and we'll get it to Cheyenne and file it Um get it filed So thank you That's great We'll send it up Nice job Ned Thank you Thanks Ned Thank you very much And uh I'll actually see you in two weeks I think Yes we're back
24th We'll see Ned you have a misspelling on Cheryl I didn't notice it on here but it Can I just correct it on Yes here You please do I apologize
I apologize Thank you Great Thank you All right Thanks Ned Take care Great Sign this and pass this on and I will date it So did you sign it because you the 10th yeah I'm not going to sign I didn't sign
the original Okay great Thank you And then Yeah Okay All right While we're signing that we can um now u move to our discussion of MBTA communities And Cheyenne if you
would like to um I know we just got a a late update from Util if um if you could pull that up and we could sort of walk through that together Starting with um actually if you want to
pull up first the hypothetical statute um plan Uh sure So that's not in what was submitted just today then She Oh you know what yeah I just was going to review it for folks um to see
Can you pull up that um from our last present yeah Presentation the presentation Yeah And we can just let people know this is um what will be presented if they can't make it next Thursday Okay As part of the presentation
Sorry Okay So here is the one from Monday Okay great And we can move to sort of the areas that we were looking at within the half mile of the commuter the
commuter stations commuter lines These were three um a scenario that we had evaluated and there were some question which I think we util wanted to know
about the parcels that we wanted included or excluded on this I don't know if anyone had any further thoughts um on this I don't think we have to decide tonight but we had talked about whether to include the lower
um the yoga studio parcel um on that corner that intersection if we wanted to keep that in So were was it the intention to show options one two and three on this
because options two and three are short the zone capacity So I'm just wondering whether the focus for next week should be the option one because it does um well meet the zone it meets the
capacity as calculated by the method that was used to calculate Okay So so this is option one on here I think we would just so that we don't confuse folks right i think it's best not to include the ones that don't meet in all
three categories because we're going to there be so many options it's going to be too confusing And what you're referring to is the 15 units per acre a minimum Yeah Yeah So that's just for the public It was the 563 There's a question about how that number is calculated that we can get to But even even so there's
two of these options that don't meet that Right So my suggestion is not to show those next week Right So she has removing those two lower parcels and there was good there was rationale for and you know I think
the the question on the blue hill a one I think that some raised le on Monday I think we should just leave that as an open question for next week because that's part of the public hear forum that we
want Yeah I mean Fairmont makes more sense to remove I think Um and and the Reedville again um I think that could be open for
discussion as well But there's especially given what we heard tonight I mean fair amount fair amount um those those two parcels especially um and then you know there's a the overall question and in any case but as
far as just the question from you about which parcels to remove so I would agree that we should that is option one would be what we would want to present Can we just see two and three real quick this is this is a statutory
plan Yes And option two were Jim can you see how many units that says on that it says 470 Yeah On option two So that was Yeah 15.3 density Yeah And what it does though is it puts at 20
units an acre also for the Blue Hill right which station which is higher than we didn't want to do Yeah So there's still option one has 20 there as well which is something to highlight I think but um you know just in terms of
yeah consideration consideration that as I said at our meeting on Monday some of the blue hill have was included in the rapid transit it from 2023 However it was in different three different subd districts that had three
different dimensional characteristics and requirements and now they're all lumped together So you know it's um it's something just to continue to point out and be mindful of
Option three Jim has 259 Yes even less Yep Okay Any other further comments on this one and and I thought what we'd do we would go through everything and then have the public any
questions that the public might have and obviously our own comments as well Yeah Um no I don't know if at this point we wanted to talk about the two emails that we received in terms of how we calculate
this or we just want to keep going through the So I suggest we keep going through that I think we should keep going through it but we can come back to this because I did have a a question that we did get a response from UTIL saying that the numbers wouldn't change based on that definition So I think we should I think we should talk about that
so that the people who sent the email maybe let's let's talk about that now then that that's fine Okay that piece one piece one time or another it doesn't matter to anyone exactly So we received a couple of emails Cheyenne if you want to um you don't have to pull up the
emails but I'll uh the the concern the question was around the definition and um I know we have one speaker who's going to address it Um and we can ask if if Tom Dhy is um or Eric um Hulkinson is on They were the
two that had brought this up And I don't look like Tom Dhy had his hand up Yes Tom if you would like to speak on this Welcome You can introduce yourself Great Oops Welcome
Tom here Can you hear me yes now we can hear you Maybe see me Welcome Yes we can see you in here Yeah hearing is probably better than seeing as me But thank you Uh yeah I could uh maybe deal with that first right uh as I pointed out the
statute plan as presented by UTL had incorrectly omitted the statute's definition of multif family housing and uh so that needed to be uh redone and I can just give it to you briefly uh UTL's cover page in its hypothetical statute plan for Milton states quote definition
of multif family and then it says since this term was further defined in the guidelines as three plus units but was not defined as such in the statute we are assuming that two units on a lot would count in this hypothetical
scenario Close quote Um actually the way it works is that statute uh chapter 40 its definitions are in act you have to go back to section 1A and there's a whole list of definitions and and not
criticizing them uh but that's just the way that statute and other statutes but not all work When you go back to the definitions in the statute it's there And uh when they are assuming that that two units on a lot would count in this hypothetical scenario
uh that's incorrect The uh the words of the statute it defines uh with a specific definition of multif family housing in Massachusetts General Laws 4A section 1A the definition section quote a building with three or more residential dwelling units or two or
more buildings on the same lot with one or more residential dwelling unit in each building That's the definition and that's that applies to chapter uh you know 48 section 3A uh part of that same statute here That's how the definitions work And as we'll come back to
incidentally that was enacted on January 14 2021 in the economic development bond bill which was the same day uh that the uh the statute section uh 3A that we're talking so much about elsewhere was
enacted and that becomes important later But in any event uh I think UTL would then go back and check to see what the difference of that assumption makes And I as I understand it they have said that it didn't make a significant difference I'll stop there
Great Thank you So um so we'll get clarification and and maybe they can answer that question on at the forum on Thursday um when they go through that Yeah I think some of the maybe the confusion lies in the
compliance model um the way it does the calculation and the way they have to def kind of define their own way of doing the calculation here because there's no compliance model that contemplates this way of doing it
So in other words like the compliance model would kick out ineligible sites sites that that wouldn't contribute to the district where there's nothing here to kick those sites out And so um but the certainly the um the definition
correction um should be made but it and I can but I can see I can understand why it doesn't necessarily they reply that it doesn't make a difference because the the compliance model isn't kicking anything out since they're not running it through that model They're not running it
through but I would think that that would have to revert them back to the statute But Tom you want to comment on that yeah I think that's I think that's I think both of those is correct I mean I think that it refers it back to the statute but then also the model itself it didn't make it didn't make a
significant difference but they'll they can they can address that themselves Okay So we'll put a pin in that All right Tom Thank you I know we'll have you back to speak um a little bit later as we as we run through this Um Yeah So if there's if
there was anything else you wanted to add to that or No no I think that's I think that's that's good Okay that great You know and and I think they came up with 779 uh you know total model unit capacity
with with with the requisite de density of 15 units plus So uh that is what it is Yeah Okay that was okay Great Thank you very much Yeah All right Cheyenne if you could go back and we'll um we can
move to the adjacent hypothetical adjacent community Now they made some adjustments They did make some adjustments So can you pull up the most recent uh they said just before our meeting
tonight great Okay So and do you have the memo i don't know if you can um go through what those changes are Cheyenne or is that hard to do with sharing the screen um I'll have to stop
sharing the screen Okay Or I can try and pull it up um on my phone Well I think we can just read through it right do you want Do you have it yeah I do I can pull it up Um All right So let's I'm going to use the most recent
one Um okay This was the email we received um just um a few minutes before our meeting tonight and it was from JT Um Cheyenne please consult uh consult
this attached deck instead Very minor correction to the annotations on slide two Not all changes were highlighted with the orange outline Uh first adjacent community scenario slide two aligned Blue Hills Parkway minimum lot
size with Elliot Street corridor tier 1 7,000 square foot minimum and increase the paper mill as needed to hit compliance target Cells outlined in orange reflect these changes to unit capacity for those districts as well as
the necessary changes to input parameters to achieve those numbers two rapid transit community scenario 4B Can before we go there I'm sorry Um so um can we talk about the this one first
yes first Yep Yeah So so what we had before for the paper mill was 109 So this one upped by 20 which is I think what we were talking about right or close I think we said JT had advised we could go to 12 but during that that back
and forth but what by 30 it says 139 now right oh sorry yeah okay I can't do math apparently yes you can you can it's not a visual visual visual
I know um math so 30 is more though than what we had definitely more than what you talked about with the 12 right but that That also dropped the parkway from 235 that was here to 187 Yeah Right
Which feels better to me right going to that 7,000 minimum it square foot minimum I guess the question is we this has 711 at 97 whether we should take some from paper
mill and put it to 7-Eleven But right otherwise but otherwise I think um yeah that might be a better Yeah The question is whether the compliance model
would say one of these flashing lights that you're trying to put too much on one site You know how it has that in it like you put these parameters in and it actually won't work But if it stays at if it says 40% and one parking space per unit which is what they have here now
it's probably how it didn't get that flashing red light is that they made it that one parking space that we discussed So I think I'm fine with this going to the um the forum the forum with these adjustments I agree I I I would be too
Yeah I don't have a problem at being 139 especially granted AB North is 171 Yeah Okay All right Um and then we were not we were not going to do numbers on Elliot
Street are really low This one right right Okay The hypothetical dose here It just didn't It was okay I just wanted to be sure We're not going to show that Okay All right So Cheyenne if you want to pull up the the
uh the map of the adjacent community just to show where those districts are for people in map form Did they have that in the deck yeah they did It was on a different Yeah Let me go and find it
It was within the email but it was Yeah Um I think the map was in the the one from Monday I don't see a new map on this one or I think he sent it Let me see It's not It's not in today's email Cheyenne Yeah I think it was from Monday
Let's see Well I have it when I pull it out since I have it in mine but really let me see what in the last Yeah Really when I is that for rapid transit or is that for adjacent double check
oh I'm sorry It is It was the rapid transit It wasn't the adjacent Sorry So she I don't even think we had it in Mondays We had this map but yeah she didn't really We haven't gotten the full map So we will be presenting that Um they had it in a prior one
Yeah it was from a prior one but it didn't include the reduction on Elliot Street So all right Apologies We don't have that map for tonight but we will have it So we should make note to request it Yeah Mhm Okay Map for adjacent Yeah if you could request that
Yeah And including the kind of enlargement of the Elliot Street corridor map Okay Yeah And it would be great to have these just posted too for the public so they can review it in advance because sometimes at public forums it's hard
it's easier to prepare your comments if you have it in advance So did you say enlargement of the street quarter yeah because if you did the full map it would be something like this Right This isn't the right map but it was the and then they have this slide This is from Monday
on this I'm sorry I got you Yeah I'm tracking Yep Yeah Okay Because it's different than I got you No I I totally understand I just You lost me in enlargement meaning we enlarged the zone Right Right
Okay So now Right Um let me then move on Is there anything else on the adjacent before we can read be reading the comments um see from JT on the rapid transit um he
states rapid transit community scenario 4B.1 slide 11 um we were we asked them to remove St Pas um which was reduced by 30 units uh reduced the Randolph access to um to a
total of 80 units including the 40B portion So down let's see she has it down 40 units and add 20 units to Milton Station East um adding 12 to the paper mill adding 15
to 7-Eleven Randolph and add adding 23 to Granite A North Cells highlighted in yellow reflect these changes to unit capacity for these districts as well as the necessary changes to input parameters to
achieve those numbers So I thought we asked to go lower on the access So I'm sorry let's run through this again So Granite A North went up up 23 23 which is what we talked about right
yep Milton Station I just wanted to let you all know I um I tried to determine if I was remembering correctly before um extra space storage
um is about 142,000 square feet exclusive of wetlands and if under that zone PUD zoning um if you got the bonuses you could get at maximum u one unit per 1,000 square ft
So that's 142 zoned capacity for extra space storage 88 Wararf while it has 73 units using that same zoning and you know doing it the same way it's uh would
allow for 110 units because you know uh 88 Warf is very large units So you know you could have more units in the same square footage basically And then there was a proposal that um the owner of 30
to 40 Adam Street had um presented in 2021 for 45 units And I didn't have the exact land area there So those you add those up it's about 300 units And then the web mill building at 24,000 that
site uh would be 24 So it's about 325 units rough roughly under the current zoning And what we had total for that district was 325 in the MBTA zoning So if we bump a little bit you know like we
talked about uh for extra space in 88 Warf and that 30 to 40 atoms we would be just bumping up above what the zoning would currently allow by my rough estimation So we'll see what util comes back with but I just wanted to share
that That's great Thank you And what is 30 to 40 Adams i'm sorry Is that the big brick building it's the um citizens building and then air rights over the uh the tea parking lot right where the where the stair was Remember where the
stair the Oh the Yeah Okay I'm thinking of the citizens kiosk Yes The citizens across the street Yeah Gotcha Yeah Next to the Masonic air Right over the tea That's interesting Oh really i think it's over the Is it isn't it it's over the parking lot The T's parking lot Oh okay Sorry The tea parking lot Sorry
So I just wanted to throw that out which would be interesting to see not for tonight's analysis but our overlay zoning the difference between the PUD and our overlay zoning The PUD allowed more than the overlay zoning which is what I was remembering from before that
I remember that pretty clearly that the PUD did allow more Um but that's only at extra space storage Yeah Yeah So if we look at I think that slide up there the that's what I my question is the the other
pieces of that the of the um Milton station are not in that PUB but yet we want to make it so they so if possible we get credit through the MBTA but we want them to use the overlay zoning Yeah
The only one that's in the overlay zoning of those there's only if we pull the web mill and put that into the brid um bridge I think it was called right the bridge is Milton Hill House Yeah So we put it in there or we put it in west I think is what actually Zoe thought to
put it in west because it's would be contiguous there So if we pull the web and the Milton Hill house Milton Hill is already separate Yeah Separate That's bridge Yeah So you're just Yeah So there were two options of where to put the webmill
right either in the bridge or in or west And Zoe suggested west Yeah So now what we're left with feel more comfortable with that Yeah So then what we're left with in east is extra space storage That's partial at 30 to 40 atoms
and 88 warf Yeah So now we're talking about adding how many they have here adding going to 345 from 325 So adding 20 units and we've taken a site away from it that
had 25 units So it's kind of like adding 45 units to those three Yeah But that to me still makes sense This I'm not a huge increase over what the zoning allows Okay So I think that one's good too So
should that be um a request we asked Cheyenne to ask Utiel to change that map and maybe they have We did ask them to do it So we'll see whether Let's see if it says Let's see if it says it here on this map too Add 20 to Milton Station East It didn't mention that change Yeah
So I think we need to make sure the map change gets made So can that be another request the map for the adjacent and moving the web mill building into into the west into the west Right Milton
station west Okay And great And now if you could pull that map up Do you want to run through these first though yeah sure The rest of them Yeah Okay So then we went on the paper mill
We added 12 to the paper mill We added 15 to 7-Eleven Randolph A So that puts it up to 130 which is the same as the statutory plan right that we just looked at I'm sorry the adjacent adjacent that we just looked at So both
of those are the same right and adding 23 to granite AB North which is what we talked about Mhm And we And reducing And so where does that put us here and reducing um the Randolph access by 40 40 Can you scroll just a
little all right And 40 of those 80 are already approved Correct So we we reduce by 125 total I'm trying to understand that Oh no by zero But I'm not quite getting all my
125 less than 2023 the the select boards plan Delta from target is zero So it's the same it's exactly 2461us Yeah it came out Yeah it's great
So which slide are you on Zoe zoe 11 Cheyenne sorry I'm sorry about that On 11 Slide 11 It's slide 11 All right All right Good 4 4 B.1 delta from 2023 is 125 Okay that's what I I
couldn't see that before All right So if we go back to slide 10 is what you were referring to Jim Slide 10 was I refer one Is that what you were looking at when you said that we were on 2461 no I'm still I was on 11 Okay I was just
talking about the paper mill and 7-Eleven Randolph were the same as um 10% plan so we should be okay with them just Mhm I because I thought that by adding some to our mandatory mixed use but we I
guess because we took some out Well I guess I'm trying to understand u the model density went from 18.33 to 18.15 but the and the model and the total zone capacity is the same So I
guess that has to do with that mandatory mixed use that Zoe was referring to on Monday Yeah Let me see if that's mentioned That would be um I think something really helpful for um Zoe to explain at the forum the mandatory mixed use and
what going to a 25% plan how we have to pick we can't we can't keep all of our guarantee that all of our commercial will be kept Well and that's one of the reasons that I supported removing East Milton Square Yeah because we couldn't do mandatory mixed use there because it
makes sense for other reasons you know to we're already zoning it multif family so capture those units but we don't want to miss out on or we don't want to lose commercial space as a result I mean our business districts are
small anyway all of them We want to hopefully protect We want to protect all of our small businesses Yeah No matter where you are So I think this is a a good place for
this to go get public feedback Yeah I do too I do too Okay Oh and Tom I know you would like to now speak because Yeah we have um some other comments that came in Um and I'll give you the floor Tom if you want to go
ahead with your comments on Yeah I think this is important to uh reiterate and stress Now adjacent yeah adjacent community plan elements could be used under the statute as it applies to Milton in addition to
uh the statutory plan zoning that we talked about before but cannot be used in substitute for it for that statutory plan and uh I mean that's fundamental and I've been trying to make this point and I did in the email give that I had
sent and last week we talked the two elements So let me just go through it Um Milton cannot adopt a multif family zoning plan that does not implement the exact words of chapter 48 section 3A That's the governing statute So let's
focus on the statute um given that importance of that aspect that I just mentioned because that's what's legally required to be focused upon first by the law What the statute requires by its own words quote if applicable close quote is
required and as we'll see the statute specific wording is indisputably indisputably applicable to Milton So here we go The statute's application is extremely clear right as we know Milton has 37 and a half acres of developable land located not more than 0.5 miles
from three commuter rail stations Therefore chapter 48 section 3A requires requires that Milton must must adopt an ordinance or bylaw for quote at least one district of reasonable size which size quote if applicable and it is
applicable to Milton must have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre and be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commun rail station if applicable which indisputably is applicable to Milton And so Milton must do so under
section 3A for the statute which is the governing law Uh I'll get to the regulation in in 30 seconds But let's just look for a second as I mentioned earlier chapter 4A section 5 Now remember section 4A section uh 1A had
definitions We then went to and talked about the uh definition as it related uh to uh the fact that there there is it is the guideline it doesn't allow uh you to uh
uh do the two the two the two units I won't go back to that Um the I'm sorry the two family I won't go back to that But what the uh statute section five is it was enacted the same day as this
statute uh section 3A because they're the same se sections of the same statute And that matters because 4A section 5 is a section of the statute concerning how town select boards or town meetings vote
by majority vote or by twothirds vote for multif family zoning uh for quote eligible locations So there's a special section section five that talks about eligible locations That's going to be that's important Why
it provides for majority vote for multif family zoning That section of quote and I'll go it slow Areas that are near rapid transit stations Yes Therefore Milton could and should be considered as a municipality quote near a rapid
transit location for voting purposes But but even if that reference for voting purposes to rapid transit stations section five definitions includes by inference subway stations even if in HLC's own published statements they include highspeed speed
rail lines That is not not what section 3A requires That's about voting What section 3A requires is what I've stated before uh and is what Milton must do in any case It must uh submit its required
zoning plan for majority vote uh by the town uh select board or by town meeting uh that in any case con complies with section 3A and I won't go back through it but it's you know one and a half
acres within I'm sorry it's it's it's 0.5 acres within uh you know that half mile therefore uh of developable land within and a half mile of the commuter rail station which we have and then it's you know it's it's
at least 15 uh multi- family zoning units per acre So specifically section 3A the legislature that same day mandated a narrower a narrower and very specific mustd do requirement for a town
quote if applicable which it is which is what I am going to repeat As applicable Milton must adopt uh this by majority vote yes Adopt a zoning plan to comply with 3A And that that math that that
I've talked about those words and math a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre and be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station Period Full stop Milton could do more but it must have such a vote on on such
a plan Uh that's my reading uh of uh chapter 40 in its entirety including you know section one section 3 section uh uh 40 uh se I'm sorry section 1 section 3
uh se uh uh 3A section 5 of chapter uh 48 Now in I uh incidentally HLC itself has promulgated uh but but totally ignores in its assertion that Milton must comply with a rapid transit community 25%
multif family units capacity zoning plan It ignores its own regulation 72.081C that itself states explicitly quote a rapid transit community with transit station areas around a subway station Let's assume even the case were
that that that Milton had that rapid transit uh station area around a subway station in one part of town Even assume that and then they go on and a transit station around a commuter rail station in another part of town may locate its may locate its multif family zoning
district in either or both of station areas Therefore even if Milton did have a subway station within 0.5 miles uh of of a subway station which it does not Milton could choose to locate as its multif family zoning district within
those parts of Milton located not more than 0.5 miles of commuter rail stations And in any event must Milton must do so because it has no subway station no ferry terminal no bus station within 0.5 miles but it does have a commuter rail
station located within 0.5 miles You apply that math in the statute 0.5 miles and you and the number of 15 units per acre and you end up with with the applicable and mandated zoning plan
So I I just say that I'll say it once because there's this um there there's been a recitation at various meetings at the town and God bless the the the the residents who sort
of say look you know uh they prefer uh you know accessory dwelling or they prefer the uh the the so-called rapid transit 25% and uh the regulations are the law I'm sorry If the regulations
don't comply with the statute they don't apply That that part of the regulations cannot legally apply And in any event what you've got is an overriding concentrated um uh specifically applicable core uh
element of a a plan that must be uh voted upon must be developed and voted upon At the moment it util 779 units and you and where and and whether that's the exact and relevant amount that's that's
for you and them I'm just trying to say um the the notice the notion that somehow adjacent community could be somehow a substitute for the core requisite uh statutory plan is incorrect I'll stop there
Great Thank you Tom Yeah Okay Any any comments well I just want to ask a question because I I think as Tom describes it the way we're titling what we have talked about here earlier is not
titled correctly right um and the way we're defining things Well again I appreciate your continued commentary Mr Doy Um I uh really have a difficult time
thinking that we would have to apply what we don't think makes sense to us from a planning perspective um of having 15 to 20 units an acre on some of these single family parcels that are in a small fraction of which are
captured in the half mile of the commuter rail station when uh we think that we we have a much better planning rationale for an adjacent community that has a different different map configuration and it does capture parts
of the Blue Hill A commuter rail station which makes a lot of sense because it's not only close to the commuter rail station it's it's close to the trolley in um in Madapan Square and walkable to amenities and open space I mean
including the Nepanza trail So there's I think a lot of good reason um to um that our that the adjacent community which captures that station area um makes sense Um the other thing I I
wanted to um just point out we received a couple of emails from Eric question in regards to what you just said Um you you it could be considered a commuter rail yes zoned plan You can put
as many into that as you want to Right Right You don't have to call it an adjacent Why not call it what it's what it meets by definition and if the if there is a preference for it to have more zone units in it that's okay You
can exceed I I I guess what if that's the case that what we have as adjacent community can fit both then that's okay is his terminology but if we're going back to an adjacent or a
stat what was called statutory in UTIL's plans that puts 15 to 20 units on single family lots that's not consistent what with what we've been talking about for two years and I'm not comfortable with that So that's that's the difference I'm
trying to distinguish because what we've been looking at as adjacent community again looks at unquity house separately It looks at the single family separately It captures larger sites Yeah So that's my concern You know as a member of the planning board if I have a significant
regret for what's been happening over the last year and a half we we never had a real thorough examination of 3A I mean a real thorough examination of it and because the statute is a law you know
it's taken us I don't even know how long this has been going on but you know were it not for Mr Dy you know providing the kind of analysis that he has of the specific language the specific words the specific phrases statutory construction
Right Exactly We we you know this is really where we should have started a long time ago Um instead of you know instead of conclusions that were were made very early and all of a sudden we were going in a very different direction
Um but you know I don't think anybody is going to dispute um the statute has requirements that we have is indisputable We cannot you know the debate about regulations and statute is one thing but the statute is the law
and you know to me it makes it makes 100% sense that what's being described by Mr authority we are compelled We don't have a choice You know that's not a debatable point The statute requires
us to zone because of our proximity to the commuteral stations We have no choice That is not that is not something that we should ever pursue as a town Whether we are or we're not we definitively are So you know my opinion
is that that has to be we have no choice That has to be a zoning plan that we create If we happen to add to it and create more units uh because we prefer to do that as a town so be it But we can't be less than that right you know
if we if we want to um to make sure that we're not in violation of law we should comply with the statute So coming back to the statute the statute doesn't have something called uh developable area It has no definition
of the area to include So we should be including roadways and everything except for wetlands because that's what the statute says So this these calculations um are based on developable area So it's going to be more than 563 if we do it by
the statute Well I would assume the statute would follow regular zoning where you don't where you can't build on a road and you can't build on a park You can't make that assumption though because you have to in this case because you can't because I couldn't go pull a permit to build on the road in front of three four five center street I guess
it's the way the density is calculated It could be but we have UTIL who has been working on this throughout the state and they're not calculating roadways in public ways That's because they're the people are mixing the statute and the compliance model and the
and the regulations And so what is your statute tell me what your interest is My interest is if if the idea that people have is that there should be something that's strictly statute then you can't mix statute and regulations because developable area is something that comes
out of the regulations It doesn't come out of the statute Reasonable size is as we all know is not defined in the statute and we know that the statute says that EOHLC is empowered to determine compliance So we will not know whether
anything is compliant with the statute if we don't know what reasonable size is and we have no way and if we say that HLC is not empowered to determine compliance we are left deciding what we think is compliance based on our interpretation of the language in there
what reasonable means and so I just want to be clear about that because when we say what we have to comply with the statute we don't really know what that means we don't really know what reasonable size is the statute doesn't tell us to take the area within a half a mile of a transit station whether it's
commuter or in any other mode and multiply it times 15 I've said that before because that would if we did that and we were determined to be rapid transit we would have a far higher number than 2461 Yeah it says just pick a district of reasonable size which has to be 15 units
per acre We could choose what reasonable sizes We could just say HLC will still decide whether it's meets the requirements or not It's not us to decide It is because we're complying with the law The statute is the law So that's Tom Let's see what Tom has to say
Sorry Yeah Can I just say look there are sit no there are situations for example and I and I sent it in my memo Let me give you a something in contrast Section uh 72051A3 that's part of the regulations Okay quote in all cases at least half at
least half of the multif family zoning district areas must uh be con continuous contiguous lots of land that's an example of a regulation for which the statute gives HLC discretion to add a requirement that the statute does not
interdict okay and then with respect to those pieces of the statute I talked about those are mandated with respect to therefore what is a you know developable what is developable acreage you you know obviously both the AHLC and and and the
extent history of the town's own zoning um you know gives gives some discretion with respect to working that out but the the core mandate here of the uh units within 15 units an acre within a half
mile from the commuter rail station because it is applicable that that's um mandated uh whereas uh the notion about contiguous lots of land That's discretionary within HLC
So I I I think um as I was saying we're not going to know whether HLC is going to accept whether it's 563 zone capacity whether it's 5 acres or 20 acres or 70 acres or 100 acres Um and so we want
we're not going to know what's going to be deemed compliant So we need to use um I think some planning judgment about what we think is um the right area to zone and at what level of density That's what we've been talking about all along What level of density makes sense in the
areas that are being contemplated so I I personally would like to get town council's opinion about about this and I still think it's important to go and forward with the three kind of scenarios that utils helped us um get to as of tonight for
next week and then we can once we get input from the community we get input from town council we can have further discussion about what's the best path I certainly agree with that uh all of that and I do think that the core requisite elements will be very determinative of
whatever the outcome is And I think if you go back I think to the original intent of 3A that they voted on it our legislators voted on it from a good planning
perspective because every town is so different from each other that actually a good planning um initiative is a half a mile from uh a a subway commuter rail So built into the
statute I think is actually good planning It was it was the guidelines that were poor planning And so I think if we just really do look at the exact words of the statute as our
north star so to speak it will result in a good plan I I think though that if we again I still stand with what I think we should do for next steps Yeah But it makes sense in
the what we're calling the adjacent community and even in the the much higher rapid transit is is trying to put zones in places that are good planning that are convenient to transit convenient to the bike trail is good for
some people too you know that that want to commute by bike and but close to amenities as well Um I mean that's the idea behind it And the reason that my understanding is that the legislature empowered uh EOHLC was to develop
guidelines uh so that you wouldn't have a one-sizefits-all that you might find in a strict interpretation of the statute So 15 units an acre you know for some places might be completely appropriate and you just put it everywhere but that
they gave flexibility to have it be as an average is to allow you to tailor it to places that you can have more or less That makes sense which is something that we've been trying to take advantage of quite a bit And also to have it be that
you don't have to have all of it in half a mile when your transit is along your edge of your town right in in this case the commuter rail is the same as a trolley that way Everything is on the edge of the town So being able to um you know have other places that we think
make more sense based on the lot size or what else is near there I think also is a good uh flexibility that's built into the guidelines Um and that's why I think that the guidelines um provide uh us more flexibility than
the statute does itself But and and I and I agree like as a town there are other places in town that make sense from a planning perspective but that's different than the MBTA
3A Um so if you just follow the the the statute MBTA 3A it doesn't say average of 15 units per uh acre Um so I think there we're trying to do
too much with the MBTA zoning but if you think about the way it was maybe it was contemplated and if you say okay the red line goes through Quincy and they have whatever existing fabric around those red line stations that's a lot different than the
fabric we have around ours So what I don't know what was in the legislator's minds and how they came up with 15 units and acres being the right thing I I I wish that they would justify how they arrived at that density because I I'm not sure that it's a
planning what's the planning logic and maybe there is a planning logic for that that that's what triggers you to allow mixed use for example because that triggers enough people to be able to support a local restaurant or cafe but it's it's not something which has given us any flexibility that's one of the
things that I think has been a little bit of a struggle but the things that are in the guidelines do of flexibility or in the regulations rather Um and uh you know I think we've we've studied those quite a bit to see it's most likely um that what we're facing in
Milton was never contemplated Never the idea that that the idea that the classification was arrived at and the notion that our transit is on
um the boundary of our town with the city of Boston you know and then we have this notion that well 50% of it doesn't have to be within a mile in a town that's as densely built out as
Milton has created so many problems for Milton If we had simply been recognized as a community that was disadvantaged by the location of the transit and we were given the expectation to accomplish 50%
because we can't go the half mile on the other side of transit this probably would have been resolved a long time ago But this idea that we're wandering around Milton how many different neighbors have we have we heard over the last year and a half talk about how they felt
about this being applied to their neighborhood today we just heard from several neighbors that are not happy with what we've talked about within the commuter rail area We've heard plenty from the folks in East Milton We've heard plenty from the folks on Grand Avenue We've heard plenty from the folks on Elliot Street This this is it was
never contemplated I don't believe Milton was ever contemplated by anybody that worked on this and no one ever really imagined how difficult it would be to accomplish this in Milton Um this is Milton is probably the most unique community within all of the 177
communities that are that have challenged with trying to achieve this So I don't believe there was ever adequate contemplation of what's happening right here in this town So um you know we're we're look at what we're trying to do I I agree with what you said Cheryl The spirit of this and I
think I've said this numerous times the spirit of building housing long before 3A was even a law this goes back years and years and years ago the idea was to build housing where there is uh rail transport That was that's that's a notion that is decades old That made all
the sense in the world I remember building a project 20 years ago on a rail line Um you know that that makes great sense What you said earlier about building in an area where there is transportation where there also is amenities that people can walk to Yes a bike trail
Perfect All of that's great We're forcing something into Milton forcing it into neighborhoods to reach a calculation that was never really imagined of what they were going to ask Milton to do So but I even think the 15 units an acre
apply to an area which has you know 1920s era built out character and it's was built with the transportation in mind that area Um and so um I don't think very many other communities have
had the situation where they're reszoning single family parcels Yeah For it And Cheryl it also works I think in communities that are you know well outside of of of where we are in proximity to the city of Boston You move yourself out into some of these communities There's a lot more open land
There's a lot of land that's available you know near rail that that that you can put 15 units per acre on and it's not going to create the scenarios that we're developing here you know But I do think you know granted a north uncle house extra space storage
we've identified places where we can and that is within a half a mile of a trolley station by doing those and then still having the LA street quarter at a lower density I think is the best approach to meeting what is required of
this law and whether it's the letter of the law or the spirit of the law we can debate I guess but the the approach that I think we've taken to it which the guidelines have allowed us to do is what is what allows us to even get close to having something that works for Milton I
I really don't think the 15 units an acre blanket across whatever is there is a good approach I don't I don't like it That's why I like the guidelines better or the regulations better because they give us more flexibility Great So thank you Tom I appreciate your
your being here We're going to you know we will be presenting all three of these and be able to sort of um hear from the residents hear from the community I think we should um share Tom's memo with town council
um because I think what Tom is what he's saying is guidelines can't be in conflict with statute And that's what we we have We have we have regulations that are using the term rapid transit again and again when there's no mention of
rapid transit anywhere in the statute So there's things that yes there HLC was asked to promulgate the the guidelines or the regulations for the statute but they can't expand on what the statute is
they can define within the parameters of that statute But so I think that's where we're I'm struggling and I have a finding conflict that that it can't be more than what is what is in there And to what Tom was demonstrating was
section 5 section 1A I believe um does use the term rapid transit and does use eligible parcels but that's not in 3A Yes So I guess that I really see that it's sort of a legal issue Yeah And so I think from our point of view we're
trying to address the three scenarios that we have felt like we're trying to do that we're prepared with three scenarios depending on the legal advice that we that the town gets Um because I don't feel like it's our role to you
know to make a decision about that's really the select board's role But um and and Thursday will really be to hear from the residents on we're trying to find the best scenarios um and have something that's statute compliant um
but looking at the best alternatives So part of our responsibility though I believe is the select board has has identified that they feel 10% is fair for Milton right that's what the select board has said you know so when they say that I feel our obligation is to get as
close to that as we possibly can well we have I think we have as we said I we have statutory which I don't like that for reasons I've already said I think we have a reasonable adjacent community 10% and we have a reasonable rapid transit community that people can
see how this would work and how it was different than what they saw in 2023 and if the select board uh I mean really town we have until July 13th to adopt
zoning right we know that the final rags the emergency rags have 90-day life we expect the final regs before right next week so we'll probably have them before the forum and Then the question is if
those regs say as the emergency rags say that we're a rapid transit classification then the the decision needs to be made what's presented to the town meeting to uh approve in June Right
Right And if if there's some other legal thought about it that's really coming from the select board because we don't have any authority to make any kind of legal uh challenge or recommendation So um I think our best bet is to have options available I I don't want you to
misunderstand me I am 100% in favor of putting everything out in the public forum If you if you think I'm opposed to that um that that's the wrong that's the wrong interpretation of my point of view I want to put it all out there I And you know and I look forward to the residents having an opportunity to see everything
that we've created all the plans I'm not I'm not suggesting we only put one plan out there Not at all I want them to see the 25% plan I want them to see um the And I'm going to try to start referring to it as the commuter rail station plan right because again if if we're if we're
going to follow a statute follow the law we should probably use the correct title Um so I want them to see all of it and and give them a chance to you know you make some valid points about some of these areas that I think are really appropriate development and and even if we weren't forced into it it might be a
good idea to do some of the zoning anyway right for some of these areas when you talk about um you know Milton Station East there's some really nice development opportunities over there We probably should be talking about it even if we weren't forced into it So I want to talk about all of it This has gone on
for so long we got to get this thing to the end And the other thing that I'm hoping if we're going to be reaching out to town council I would also um like to know if
um um HLC has done their small um business impact analysis So that is one of the requirements of the administrative procedures act and I haven't seen that I've been sort of following that closely and I haven't um
seen that they have done a small business impact analysis So I'm not sure if you know if they have or not And will that analysis be released prior to the final regulations i would think that they would be um as that is a mandatory
step Um maybe that's something Cheyenne can and Nick can ask about that Yeah if the small business impact analysis And the other thing is from a policy perspective is our um um economic about
the um unfunded mandate Sorry Um um you know so who again if we're going to stay in our lane the policy is maybe from the select ward is looking to get a determination
um from a court because my understanding is since the auditor has already um acknowledged that it is an unfunded mandate now it's up to every town to uh petition the report to get that um that
determination officially So my question is when is the town of Milton going to um pursue that policy okay Most of our um work was funded by grant money though
most of UTI's work and RKG but the unfunded mandate is not just about um doing the work the study it's really the future impact there there's well all right that's so
that's a question so that's just a question those are my question who should actually pursue that I mean do we suggest to the select board that they like pursue the unfunded mandate I mean the way I understand it it's a one page talk to Nick and petition it like I know have they discussed it yeah Do like I
know in the past I think we didn't we um write a letter or um suggest to the select board that we encourage them to seek reclassification So would we as a planning board do a similar letter to
the selectman saying we would like them to pursue the unfunded mandate um through the courts you know I did share maybe a month ago an email or by email um grants that were awarded to towns
basically uh infrastructure you know that would be um applied towards those who are compliant with 3A So I don't know where that interfaces with justifies the unfunded mandate
It's worth talking to Nick about that I think it is Yeah I think we should eventually take a vote and pursue it or not or take a vote to not pursue The select board would have to take that vote but we can talk to them that we're we could show our support for something interested in finding out where they're where they're standing on this Yeah And
my my understanding is it doesn't necessarily have to be just um the selectmen who do that It could actually be 10 residents of a town could actually do that as well I think it's a stronger argument if it comes from our um select
board but I don't think that that's the only option Good Well thank you Um I feel like this was productive Anyone have I just wanted to see um say to your point earlier Meredith about um getting material
posted if um if Cheyenne could uh ask you till when they think they would have a package ready and if I know we don't have another meeting before then but it would be nice maybe to have a look at it before it gets posted just if we in case
we have any questions we can channel them through Cheyenne and they should have plenty of time since they were able to get this this information and maybe have hope to have it posted by Monday or Tuesday maybe at the latest but if we could get a a quick look at it just to make sure it's what we understand it to
be Like if a slide we think is missing or something like that uh we can make sure it gets included Yeah So Cheyenne is that something that you can check in with you till about yes I won't be back in the office till Monday So I'll just I'll have Julia do
it tomorrow Ask him for the packet and we'll look at it Okay Okay And Cheyenne we're also going to need to file this um amendment to the special permit Will Julia be able to Julia will you be able to do that tomorrow i'll leave it on your desk
Sure Bring it down to Sue and I did date it So thank you We were all together tonight So can we talk for a few minutes before we close just about how we're going to how how this is going to be conducted at the Council on Aging
i mean we we all we all know it's some of this is hard to follow You know the maps are hard to read people can't discern where is the street that I live on right i mean it's so how you know maybe in advance of that we don't have to get into the details of it today but I think this is something that's going to be really important It's how this is
all communicated I know you is going to lead the way but but the visuals are really important and I'm I'm not sure if we're going to be adequately able to do that I I don't know I think the the large screen at the Council on Aging is
a is a lot bigger than this which is beneficial I think that Zoe's um very skilled at presenting complex information I'm not worried about her I'm more worried about the technology the clarity of the screen whether people can actually read it You know that's not
that crisp that screen So we we may just be a bit limited in that way Maybe we could ask if handouts That's what I was going to say Printed I mean even this but I don't think they have to be 11 by 17 I think they could be 8 and 1 half by 11 It might be a little it might be a
little bit it might be helpful for people if we had you know some posted you know large you know you you happen to print everything which is great you have an advantage because I know you you've got the all the equipment to print whatever you want whatever size you got all that going I get it but it
might be helpful if we have some printed so people could actually see them either on easels or posted on the wall but you know there's a there's a ton here for people to to digest and um well maybe even just three maps Sure Yeah You know at a at a at least 30x 42 inch size Yeah
Typical drawing size that we typically see Yeah You know I I think I think we should put a little bit of thought into that so we don't have people frustrated at the end of it like I couldn't understand and I you know I was sitting in the back and the screen was a long way You know what I mean that's we we don't have too many chances to do this
right so and and not to put more work on our town staff but when maps are created they actually are able to do an Excel spreadsheet of um each property by the property ID So I know Alan Bishop in the
GIS department he has provided a list of the act the actual addresses So I don't know if he has the ability to have that um ready for the forum We certainly can request it because I
think it's Yeah it's built into the I I hate to ask this of the chair but I'll ask it It may be worth like a dry run between you Cheyenne and Zoe next week before the meeting just to discuss how we're going to have this all prepared and and have the and once we've and have
the presentation sent to us all so we can sort of review it to see if there's anything I know Tom has a couple things that he was saying you know it should be added or you know um certain little changes in the presentation itself Um
but if we have it all sent to all of us if there's anything you can send it comments to Cheyenne So uh I think you shared Tom's email with UTIL I'd also um think that there's in information Mr Hinson's email that could be shared with
UTI as well So um just so that those are the most detailed comments that we we have received So rather than just having one person shared with you have this the other person shared along too Yeah Okay So um if Cheyenne could do
that as well Now would town council have an opportunity to send his comments to UTO as well all before because a lot because all this a lot of the I mean it's all legal It's all Yeah So that's why I'm a
little concerned about having util instructing UTIL to change their comments um and not having us sort of have a a chance to have anybody council to look through Yeah Yeah No I have a quick note
Um our next meeting or at least Nick and I next meeting with UTL isn't until next Wednesday Um and I think when I was talking to Nick earlier we were kind of wondering what like if everything would be wrapped up today so that they can start working on things Um so if we I
think if we start adding more and more comments at the beginning of next week it's not really going to give them much time to reproduce and then send out and do a dry run all before Thursday night So I think if we set I don't think there's many changes It was just um Cheyenne if you read what just there
were a few things maybe adding the definition I think the definition of three family was the only thing that was a definition that should be a change in there and also eligible parcels I think there was a comment that eligible parcels was not included in the statute
It was in one and five section one and five but eligible parcels is referred to So that's a town council question you know too So Eric Hulkinson specifically in his letter says "I respectfully request that neither this email nor my
previous ones are used to justify further revisions of or anything of the sort." So I think we might want to not forward his email to anyone All right Well then it's it just becomes a question of you know we're instructing
UTIL to change some things about what they put in as their interpretations and doing their work And I'm just Well we can just ask I guess maybe raise the question for them but I don't think we should instruct them to change um
what they think is proper And if it's in the presentation for thy it certainly we could change it before we submit anything to HLC Now does UTIL maybe we should have asked this a year and a half ago before we ordered them the contract but um do they have an attorney that
reviews all of this in their firm no I think it's they I don't know if they do or not but I know they work they've been working with HLC now for probably two or three years So they run I HLC they're not attorneys They have
attorneys within HLC and they're not looking out for the best interest of the town of Milton They're looking out for the best interest from a state Yeah Well they don't represent Milton That's for sure Correct We have town council for that You're right Yeah So we'll have town council review it and before any changes
are are made So I guess that's that's what you're saying Yeah Before we ask Utah to make changes let's have Town Council address address Tom's comments And good catch Jim on what he said Start reading the end of the email Yeah Anyway
it's all good Yeah Anytime You're saving me I'm here Here for you guys All right Great Yeah Yeah One last question I'll follow up Yeah Okay Can Can we just quickly talk about May may is a busy month We have town meeting and I just can we just talk quickly about what our
meetings are I Yes I that reminds me I do have two um two questions One Cheyenne had said because of town meeting do we want to move our regular scheduled meeting to the following week Right I think Cheyenne was suggesting go from the 8th to the 15th Is that Yeah Is that And I
think Cheryl responded we just don't know where where we're going to be at that point Um yeah I was just concerned that we need adequate time for submitting articles Um so that's but I know you want to get
your meeting scheduled So so we'll have our meeting um our next meeting will be on the 17th for the forum and then the 24th Right Mhm And then our regularly scheduled meeting
would be the 8th but we will have had town meeting five six seven the previous days So So did you do you know when we have to have the public hearing
for articles for a June 16th town meeting and when do we have to have final language we didn't have that date I know it's on it's on our timeline in the Zoe's present earlier presentation I believe Part of it Yeah But do you do you recall
what that date is i'll look at the we made like a personal one I think we were going to do around the 22nd Um and then we were going to get everything ran in the times by like early May So the 22nd
would be our our public hearing date But the language needs when would the I thought it's like a month before town meeting that it goes to the printer So I thought the warrant is finalized on the 16th and then we're having the public hearing after the warrant is finalized
We've done we c we can do that Um Tim would always say you can have it up to the the week before but obviously it makes sense I prefer to have it earlier So my concern would be then to go from the April 24th and then not have a
meeting until the time that it has to be finalized because you're talking about having so we could because the 16th is the Friday 16th is what we were talking about So it's Friday the 16th it the 16th of May is a Friday So we would just
have that would be the last meeting or the last discussion before it has to be sent to print So is does this are we really trying to decide if we um can manage one on the eth is that really what what's coming down to we have town meeting the fifth
sixth and possibly the seventh Yeah I think it's just whether realistically what it's going to take to get to the end you know to this end line here That is that's the challenge right four nights in a row right so if well the bigger challenge is we
have an election in between We could also schedule meeting for May 1st meaning I might not be here or myself then I don't have to I'm not worried about it So so I don't know if it's too premature to be talking about it probably is That's right What about May
1st and then the bigger thing is what May 1st and then May 15th That makes sense That almost I know I will I will probably be I'll be late on May 1st I I have a I have a board meeting that I have to be at Okay So I could be here
but I probably couldn't get here till 8:00 Okay Well it just uh I think we could put it in the pencil that in just I do think given where we are that would give three
meetings between the the public forum and the final language Yeah Um if if the board was able to move to Wednesday the 30th I could be here on time
April 30th I could do that I can do the 30th How about Cheyenne and Cheyenne would that be good for you yeah I'll be around to the 30th Um but not town meeting just so everybody knows
Okay And what about the So then we would go to the 15th Yeah May 15th That would maybe we tenatively schedule the 8th if we just need to meet quickly on something but I don't
So you want to put a April 24th April 30th May 8th and May 15th And we'll just put those in as placeholders And but so hopefully we won't need all of those So so Julia or
Cheyenne can you send out calendar invites as holds for those for us please and one other just last thing I meant to mention is um Tom Caldwell is trying to get things lined up for the Junetown meeting and um get his comments done as
quickly as possible and is invited us to come for um just uh Q&A for with the warrant committee on the East Milton overlay zoning And I told him that next week is a really busy week for the planning board with
um with the forum and [Music] um other obligations So wondering if the following week was quick question Did you say May 13th or
15th 15th Okay Thanks Yeah cuz you all have Monday the candidate forum and then there's um Thursday the 15th Oh you can't meet the 15th No my daughter's graduating That's a good excuse That's a hell of an excuse So she's getting her
undergrad on Thursday and her graduate on Friday Oh that's awesome Would you want to move to the 14th we have um May 14th Another meeting that night Well you guys can meet without me It's not the end of
the world if I if I miss one Seems like we're pretty crunch for time That should be pretty close to finalizing too So I won't take it personally if you guys Okay All right Then we'll keep the 15th for now And but if we need to
um adjust that So did you say the 14th would work for you if we move to the 14th or I could do the 14th yeah I think Cheryl can't do the 14th Oh you can't do the 14th Okay Thank you Doc Unless I try and move another meeting but so I I I
I'm sorry to move all over the place but to get Could we all get together for the 13th i mean it just be a couple of days in between Would that be all right though oh you mean the 13th and the 15th no the 8th is a Thursday and it's just a couple days I guess our alternative is
to meet on the 14th and you're not present or meet on the 15th and Jim's not present But if all of us could be present for the 13th Y I could do that Cool Thank you I mean there's adequate space to sleep I suppose we could move in up here too right a little bunk room
Heard the food's good Okay So Julia just or and Cheyenne we've um we then will have our meeting on the 24th of April the meeting on the 30th of April and then May 8th and then May 13th
And then is the 22nd still the public hearing may 22nd and that we would Yeah Didn't you say May 1st we have a meeting too we moved that to the uh the 30th April 30th
So can you just review those dates again for anybody who might be interested in Yes So 424 430 May 58 513 and then a public hearing on 522
and the public hearing is just on the MBTA committee zoning right correct Well actually you know what we could do our other We need our um we do our other articles Um because we're gonna have 20 seconds
going to be um Let's Lane East Milton Square and um Okay we'll do all three Okay that's good Okay Is that enough time for all three we've had a lot of process on the East Mountain Square right the Yes So what
are we fitting in on the 22nd east Mountain Square and what else the flood plane The flood plane which is Yeah Okay Okay All right And then sorry just to go back again So for the warrant committee um again this would be open to all
whoever could make it Um they just um Tom Cwell just asked to that we could give him a date So next week the um I I told him probably wouldn't be good but the week of the
21st 22nd we've got our meeting on the 24th [Music] Um would Monday the 21st what am I doing work for
people to go if whoever wants to go to the warrant committee What time would that be um 7 p.m Um I I can't I I That's what Don't worry about Yeah Yeah Mondays I know are tough or Tuesday I mean do you if you want to go but it's not about
that I have a I have a campaign for my campaign at Steel and Ry Oh that's I'm sorry You're welcome to come I'm sorry That's Yeah of course I'm I assume you want to be there now Yeah No that's plug it Um No that's um So let's do the 22nd then The 22nd
22nd is Earth Day and that's my daughter's 24th birthday Oh I can't do the 23rd and we have a meeting on the 24th So I guess um Meredith you can This is for the East
Milton This is for East Milton overlay just to give them sort of a run And did we already talk with them about that i did I went and sort of gave them an overview This was I think they're taking a deeper dive in because they were so deep in everything else Okay Well of all the days
maybe the 22nd or I could be late So they start at 22 be better for me Let's do this 22nd And Maggie you could if you don't can't make it don't worry That's okay What time is that at um that's at 7
p.m Can But again I know All right See if we can do it These are a lot of a lot of meetings but I'll tell him at least and we'll post that as a public meeting for April 22nd or committee
Okay So I think that's Cheyenne Did you have anything else um no I did not have anything else So we can let Milton Access TV go home early tonight Anything else we just filled up
If there's anything else from No matters not for me No Okay Okay Great So I would entertain a motion to adjurnn I'll make a motion to adjurnn Is there a second i will second All in favor i Good night