Good evening and welcome to the 43rd meeting of fiscal year 2025 for the Milton Planning Board. At this time, I would like to call the meeting to order and begin by introducing the members of the board and our staff. Cheryl, Cheryl
Tugas, secretary, Sean Fehee, member, Mag Yfield, member and Meredith Hall serving as chair. With us um on Zoom, we have um Cheyenne Cheyenne Frasier, assistant director of planning, and Julia Julia Gman, clerk. Great. Thank
you and welcome and welcome to all here tonight. and on Zoom. Um we'll begin first with our administrative items. Um we have three sets of minutes um that have uh been completed, but Cheryl is um going to be just looking over those and
and adding any edits um for the next meeting. So we'll defer the uh defer the meeting minutes approval for tonight. Um next meeting dates um that we have scheduled we have next Tuesday which is the
13th and then we are following regularly scheduled meeting is on the 27th. So those would be the next regular scheduled meetings 22nd. Oh 22nd I'm sorry I had written 27th down. Okay
so the 13th and the 22nd. Okay. Um Cheyenne, did you have an update that you would like to provide? Um just a well recent update for the planning board. Um I don't know if
everybody in the meeting attended town meeting, but we did have some good progress. We got our ADU bylaw passed and our site plan bylaw passed. So that is um some good steps for us. Great. So that's my only update. Great. And I just want to just thank Cheyenne again um for
preparing the presentations. I think those were really helpful in walking through town meeting members um with those. So, thank you Cheyenne for for pull your work on that. We really appreciate it. Um so, at this time, we now can go to citizen speak. Um just um
please be mindful of those um who would like to speak. If you sent a letter, please know that we read the letters. So, we'd like to ask those who did not write a letter um to be able to speak because we have limited time and just wanted to allow um if for those who did not send a letter to be able to address
the board. So, Meredith, before you begin that, um we we're going to have presentation tonight. Were you also planning to take public comment after the presentation from UTIL since this will be an opportunity for people to see what UTL
is presenting? Yeah. Some people may want to wait and to to hold off their comments. So that would be absolutely fine to have. So just to let folks know they have both opportunities, right? I I think so that would be fine. And depending on our time, you know, obviously time limit. So yeah, if there's comments on what um what our
consultants provide tonight, that would be absolutely fine. So um with that, if there's anyone from the public who would like to speak. Well, I'll put my foot in the toe. Okay. Uh, welcome. If you can just state your name
and address for the record, please. Yes. My name is Andrew Hanley. If you could you can have a seat here and then you can speak into the microphone. So, this that's great. Not a problem. So, everyone can. Yes. Before we get started, I'm sure we're going to have tons of speakers. Do
you want to do a time limit so we can get through a good chunk? Yes. De um if we could keep the comments um limited to three minutes per person. Sure. Certainly. Okay. Um Andrew Hanley. Um I'm 31 years uh living on Cape Cod Lane in precinct
3. Um and um I just wanted to make a comment. First of all, I want to thank the board for their hard work and coming up with various plans, the 10% to 25% plans uh for the MBTA communities uh
law. I spent between 1990 and 2002 taking the trolley. I would walk from Cape Cod Lane to Milton Village 20 minutes then would take the trolley to Ashwan station then to South Station where I worked in finance for roughly 20
years. So I allocated roughly an hour and a half to do that. My wife is a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner. She could never use the the uh rapid transit system. Uh we are a medical community here in Boston worldass. We
have a lot of medical professionals in town and they're not using the trolley and they're not using the the red line for obvious reasons. They're going to get to them more quickly. Um, so I really think that we need to
support our Senator Driscoll and our representative uh Richie Wells in advocating that this uh town of ours, this beautiful town of ours be uh classified as an adjacent community
rather than as a um rapid transit community. Because at the end of the day, if we have a,000 units or 2500 units, we're still going to be stuck with a system that in reality is not a
rapid transit system. Doesn't function like one. Just look at the highways. Look how busy they are. So that's all I have to say on on on that. Okay. Thank you. And I'm just
and also the thing is we're we're in we're lumped in with 12 other communities or 11 other communities. I look at them, they're all cities or they have subways. They have commuter rails. Cambridge, Somerville, Quinzy, so
on and brain in Brainree. We're not in that situation here. We have a commuter rail nearby that would justify us being classified as an adjacent community if we could get that, convince the authorities of that. So, that's all I
have to say. Great. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. appreciate your speaking. And next I Good evening. Good evening. I'm Pete Jackson. I live at 14 Capen Street in the Elliot Street corridor uh
tier 1. Um our country is experiencing a housing crisis at the national, state, and local scales. It includes both supply and affordability. For the country, this means homelessness, hunger, medical crisis, substandard living conditions,
and a lack of economic opportunity. For the state, in addition to the above, it affects our ability to attract businesses, difficulty in retaining our young people, and net out migration. For Milton, it means our public employees and our kids can't
afford to live here unless fortunate neighbors suffer housing and food insecurity. The burden of providing additional affordable and quality housing needs to be shared by every community in the state. The state government has for years tried to
encourage an increase in housing production. There used to be more federal and state funding to support both housing and infrastructure development. These funds have large largely dried up. The state has attempted both a carrot and stick approach with 40B supporting higher
densities in exchange for affordability. More recently has leaned more heavily on the stick approach with the MBTA community's housing initiative. I've been involved in these debates around Milton's approach and compliance since early in the process. I thought
the planning board had developed a relatively fair and equitable plan in 2023 which was adopted by town meeting. I have to read my remarks otherwise I babble. Um, I supported along with most
of my precinct two neighbors on the on but on the referendum on the referendum vote, but I was disappointed when neighbors overturned the plan. Despite reluctance from the planning board and the select board, we now have an opportunity to de to adopt a
fairly equitable plan that achieves the 25% compliance mandate. I encourage you to adopt this compliant plan so the town can move on. The planning board can use the detailed retire requirements contained in the zoning and its site
plan review process to asssure that proposals under the plan minimize the disruption to neighborhoods. For equity's sake, the plan must include the Fairmont and East Milton Square districts to reduce some of the excess
density in the Elliot Street corridor. If the planning board is unable to support an equitable 25% compliant plan, I'll support asking the select board to step in and submit a compliant PO compliant P plan to the state on behalf
of the town. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Yes, I've come. Good evening. Hello. My name is Joan Fall. I live at 172 Granite A. I'm a a town meeting
member for precinct 7. And I want to start by expressing my gratitude and appreciation to you guys for all the work the planning board has done for the MBTA zoning over the last year years. Um I watch most of the planning sessions
and the level of detail you get into um is um that it's required is um become very clear to me. I know the process is very complex and not without its challenges. So thank you for your dedication to this. I come before you tonight to
express the views of myself and some of my neighbors, all of whom strongly encourage adopting the adjacent community compliance plan that the planning board discussed sending to the state last week. This plan recognizes Milton's desire to comply with the state
requirements while also addressing the mclassification of our town. It's unfortunate that this classification error has led to tensions between neighborhoods. The concerns expressed during the planning sessions last week made it clear that even those who still
support rapid transit classification do not believe that their neighborhoods can accommodate the level of housing density required for compliance. I appreciate the planning board's attentiveness to those concerns. I also support my neighbors in those precincts and agree
they do not have the space. It's clear that Milton does not have the space for 2500 more units, so the classification must be changed. I want to thank Senator Driscoll for coming to town meeting and clarifying some points. Um, as he noted,
Milton is one of only 12 communities in the state that is designated as rapid transit. However, unlike the other rapid transit communities which are largely cities or small uh large towns um who who have actual rapid transit stations,
Milton has a 40 seat trolley that shares service with Boston. The trolley station has very limited parking and unlike the Redline trains that operate underground, the trolley operates above ground and is often shut down during inclement
weather, making it an unreliable option when people need it most. It's also also worth noting that just after the voters rejected article one in February of 2024, the red line signage began appearing at some of the trolley stops that hadn't been there prior to the
vote. Finally, I encourage those advocating for more dense housing to consider the impact on our town. Where would this housing go in your neighborhood and where is the affordability in this plan? These are important questions that need to be part
of the conversation. Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration to this. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't we we did receive your okay letter. So yeah, we're
just trying to allow people who didn't send a letter to speak first. Sorry, I didn't couldn't see you back there. But if we have time later and you would like to make a comment. Yes, please. Hello. Uh my name is Anthony Larkin. Uh I live at 1061 Brush Hill Road. Um, one
of the things I wanted to just raise is that um, the MBTA Communities Act is not the only path to addressing housing in the town, right? It's one mandate driven by the state and it's very strict in terms of what we need to comply, but it
doesn't mean it's the only thing we can do, right? So, what we should be doing is focusing on reducing the burden that the state's mandating um, qualify for adjacent communities. And there's ways I think to do that. Um, one of the arguments is the radius, half
mile radius surrounding the stations, the area of which does not fall within fully the town of Milton. Um, the other half is in Boston which we can't develop. And so we have an too much of a burden being put on us. um with that
being a classification of our town and we need to push back and come up with a unique scenario because Milton has unique circumstances um that applies to us and um once we've complied then we can come up with a plan driven by this planning board that does address housing
but do it in a way that meets the requirements of our town is not as restrictive as the mandate that we're being driven by the state. So it's not the end all beall of how to address this. Um, the other piece is that I I don't understand the argument from the people that are both want a 25% plan but
don't want it in their backyard. And in America, you don't have the right to be virtuous with other people's property. I do think that I applaud your virtuousness, but you don't have the right to to donate other people's
property for consideration. um to say let's spread it here, let's spread it there. Um I think multi- multi-family housing development should be contiguous in areas where there's existing multif family housing that's in relationship or
within um uh adjacent to transit. And if we want to keep the fabric of our town, uh we shouldn't be bulldozing neighborhoods. We should be making sure that we have um we're not spot- zoning certain areas and changing the fabric of certain neighborhoods. We should do it
in a contiguous way um that has and meets the characteristics of existing neighborhoods. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good. Anyone else from the public here? Yes. Welcome. And then we'll go to the after
you'll go to the online Brian O'Halerin. Uh seven Morton Terrace. uh town meeting member precinct 3. Um I have some thoughts in support of the 10% plan uh based on uh the misclassification of the Manipan trolley
is rapid transit. The rapid transit designation should not rely on convention bureaucratic fair policy or arbitrary characterization. Instead, Milton's transit characterization by EOHLC and the MBTA should be based on an
analysis of the existing physical characteristics and operational ability of the Matipan line as well as a detailed comparison of the MATPAN line to other transit systems with the MBTA network. It's abundantly clear that
Milton's classification as a rapid transit community under EOHLC's MBTA community act guidelines fails to account for the unique qualities of the Matipan trolley that distinguish it from the rest of the MBTA and rapid transit
systems. In addition, there's no guarantee that the Matipan line transformation initiative will achieve the desired results. The project is already several years delayed, is over a decade away from completion, and even if
the transformation is completed, it will not address several of the claims that support reclassification. There is a solution for these issues that we as a town have struggled with over the over the two years as we've tried to abide by the
onesizefits-all guidelines. The solution is for the planning board to support the 10% plan and then work with the select board and our elected state representatives and support of D Senator Driscoll's amendment number 308 that the
trolley shall not be considered a rapid transit modality. Please support the 10% plan. Thank you. Thank you very much, Meredith. Um, I would like to point out that some of the speakers have also emailed us and some have also spoken at
other meetings. So, uh, I see three hands raised and I'd like to get a showing of hands of how many people would like to speak before UTIL's presentation in the audience. So, we have two So, we have five people. I'd like for us to hear from all five
that would like to speak at this time, then. Okay. So, all right. So, why don't we finish with those who are in the public? I don't know who um anyway go into it but um yeah who Yes. Can I just ask will we have the
ability to speak after the Yes. So you might want to you might want to wait and see the presentation. Yeah that's great. Thanks. That's Thank you. I'm Nora Harrington. I live at five Coline Road on precinct in
precinct 2 and I'm a a town meeting member and I do want to thank the planning board for their work on this issue. Um I am here tonight to encourage you to approve a 25% compliant, reasonable and fair zoning plan uh and
article for our upcoming town meeting. I uh you know I urge you to approve a 25% plan that opens up opportunities for multif family housing in multiple neighborhoods in Milton. And let me tell you why I believe that uh there's a real opportunity to create a multif family
district in the Fairmont area which is less than a half a mile from the Fairmont Avenue commuter rail station and can relieve some of the density in the Elliot Street corridor and may enable you to eliminate altogether the proposed Blue Hills triplex area which
already has many small lots as you know and is already quite dense. I support the Elliot Street corridor being an important part of the 25% plan, the area where I live. I think I think we can have multiousy there. Um, not a nimi as one of the uh other speakers said
tonight. But there's no reason to put four units on a 10,000 square foot parcel near near Elliot Street when the Fairmont Avenue area also makes sense from a zoning perspective. The lot sizes in the Fairmont neighborhood are similar
to to those in the Elliot Street neighborhood. The same zoning of three units per lot could be used uh in the Fairmont area as you can use in the Elliot Street neighborhood. It's within walking distance of a supermarket and many amenities and it's within half a
mile of an MBTA station allowing us to al you know it's it's within the MBTA zoning. It allows us to alleviate some of the density that you're proposing for the Elliot Street area and potentially for the Blue Hills triplex. Um, and I've
talked with neighbors over the past week in precinct 2, and while most can actually wrap their heads around three units on a 10,000 foot lot in Elliot Street, they're not happy with the idea of four units on a 10,000t lot because maintaining open space really can and
should be one of the achievable goals of this zoning. And I remember when the 2023 zoning was proposed uh and the goals that were initially set forth and maintaining open space was clearly I think one of the five or six goals that were set forth for creating zoning. Um
you know as a planning board your job is to create zoning that makes sense not to create zoning due to your personal preferences. And I have heard things like you know well that's a lovely neighborhood of single family homes. You know, most of Milton is a lovely
neighborhood of single family homes, including the Elliot Street neighborhood. So, you know, let's talk about what makes sense. The Fairmont Hill area makes sense from a zoning perspective for the reasons I said below above.
Um, you know, pro just providing opportunities for more multif family housing in that neighborhood makes sense. I know most of you have fought against the compliant zoning plan for some time now, but the courts are against us. The state wants a plan. And
from what I understand, it was reiterated just today by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities that we are in the 25% zone. So, I hope we reach three minutes. Okay. Um, Milton needs a compliant plan,
especially now as we struggle to get back on a correct financial footing. And I hope for financial reasons as well that you will move this planning forward and get us to the point where we're no longer um at the risk of spending money or losing grants from Massachusetts.
Thank you. That's great. All right, one more. One more and then we'll go to those the three on like to get started. Welcome. Good welcome uh Joe Curran Grafton Aav. Uh good evening. I'd like to speak tonight on recent developments
regarding the MBTA Communities Act particularly as they relate to the Milton's unique challenges and positions. First, I want to be clear. I support housing. I believe in thoughtful inclusive planning that addresses regional needs and helps provide more opportunities for people to live in
communities like ours. However, I do not support the current requirements imposed by imposed on Milton under the MBTA Communities Act. Milton has been placed in the highest compliance tier, one of only 12
communities in the entire state with this designation. The subject, this subjects us to an outside zoning obligation that does not fairly reflect our town's scale, infrastructure, or local local planning context. These top tier
requirements are simply disproportionate. According to a recent NBC Boston report, legal and legislative battles over the act are still unfolding. While the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently upheld the law's constitutionality, many of us remain
concerned about the process behind the implementation. The guidelines that the communities like Milton were being asked to follow were not properly promulgated. and questions about transparency and procedural fairness continue. On May 5th, Senator Driscoll
addressed the issue directly in his remarks to the Miltontown meeting members. He acknowledged the divisive nature of the law and voiced strong support for reclassification of Milton to ensure we are treated more equitably going forward. I also appreciate and
recognize the planning board's work in developing a 10% plan and approach that reflects the good faith and commitment to responsible local governance. As the process moves forward, I urge us to remain engaged, assertive, and cleareyed and advocating for a solution that works
for Milton and one that supports housing but also represents the distinct character and capacity of the community. I don't I don't support the 25% plan that was presented by the select board in in 2023 and I would
support I I would understand if this board would to present a 25% plan that you have been working on that is obviously much fairer than what was presented in 2023 at town meeting. Thank you very much. Okay, Cheyenne. So, who
do we have on Zoom? Um, with hands up, chairperson, could I ask just three super quick questions and they build on each other and yes, you know what? We we really don't have time because we need to get to this. We can ask later if there's time. Um, but we we can't we can't answer questions during citizen
speak. Why not? Because it's not it's not a Q&A time. Answer three super quick questions later in when we allow you to speak after you've heard the presentation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, who do we have? Cheyenne on Zoom. Uh, so first is Andrea Lizzio.
Okay, welcome. Hi. Thank you. Andrea Lizio, town meeting member, precinct 7. I will be very quick because um I have share a lot of the same sentiment as others have shared tonight. Um, however, I feel like it there's it can't be
repeated too often. Um, when East Milton raised concerns regarding the MBTA zoning last year, we were not concerned for our neighborhood only, we were also concerned about the 25% burden throughout town. For those in precinct 2 and on the Elliot Street corridor, we
know exactly how you feel. We felt the very same way when East Milton was going to get around 50% or,00 units on top of the 100 plus units under construction as we speak. To our planning board, thank you
all of you for your countless selfless hours and efforts you've poured into this difficult zoning situation. I have a very hard time hearing complaints such as the planning board hasn't done anything. and they've had a whole year. For anyone attending or watching these
meetings regularly, you know that is miles away from the truth. It becomes clearer every day that you are in a very difficult position. At every turn, there is another reason why something won't work or someone isn't happy. It's become clearer that's because we cannot handle
the 25% burden. Not to mention any additional requirements pushed down the rapid transit pipeline that our Senator Bill Driscoll alluded to last week. Thank you, Senator Driscoll, for sharing your concerns at town meeting and urging us to work together to support the
planning board in reclassification as it and and I quote would certainly help the conversations and negotiations taking place right now at the state house. And the point is together we achieve a lot more than
fighting against each other. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next. Next we have Donna Dickerson. Okay. Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Welcome. Hi. Thank you very
much. I'm Donna Dickerson, a resident of 14 Capen Street. For 30 years, I commuted via the Madapan trolley and the Red Line to and from my job in Cambridge. I can attest from my lived experience that the trolley is a
reliable and rapid connection from Capen Street to Ashmont and then to Cambridge. Otherwise, I would not have moved to Milton in the in the 80s. There has been no classification error. I do support a
25% compliant plan with equitable distribution so as not to overburden the Elliot Street corridor. I do not support reclassification. I welcome multif family housing in my Elliot Street neighborhood. I would like to move
forward with a 25% plan and stop spending further time and dollars pursuing uh reclassification. Thank you very much. Thank you. And the last we one last person
Cheyenne. Our last person is Elaine. Hi there. Elaine Benson um precinct 7 Granite Place. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Welcome. Thank you. So, I just want to express my strong support for the planning board to pass a 25% compliance
plan on time. We've already gone to the negotiating table with the state and the reality is that we are we were not granted reclassification as an adjacent community. Instead, the state brought a lawsuit against us and meanwhile Milton has spent nearly two years working on a
plan. The planning board has worked incredibly hard um and the town has spent significant taxpayer dollars on legal fees. We've lost valuable grant funding and this issue has deeply divided our community at this time. Continuing to negotiate with the state without presenting a compliant plan
leaves us in a very vulnerable position. We'd be going back to the table empty-handed. And as the first community that outright challenged the law, I don't believe we're viewed in a favorable light and without a plan, we're not showing good faith. I understand the desire to keep advocating
for reclassification and I support continued discussions with the state. But delaying a plan, especially when we are so close, does a disservice to the town. Refusing to act could backfire, just like when we failed to work with developers in East Milton and ended up
with a 40B projects that were imposed on us with no community control. That's not a path I want to see us repeat. We should be looking at zoning equitably across Milton. The spirit of the MBTA community's law is to put a significant portion of housing near public transit,
which I support, but we also need to spread some zoning across town to create diverse options for different needs and lifestyles. It's important to remember these are zoned units, not all built units. Many of the areas being considered already contain housing, so the net new number of units would be
lower than some of the figures that people have been citing. Ultimately, this is about local control, good governance, and realistic planning. I want to urge the planning board to pass a 25% compliant plan by the deadline. Otherwise, I fear the consequences of
once again being out of compliance with no leverage and no plan to protect us. Thank you so much for your hard work. Thank you. Great. Um so with that um I think we can move to um
inviting h um inviting our consultants to join us. While they're they're joining um has there been word from HLC on what was submitted on Monday? So yes, I was actually while um she comes on is coming
on. So, I w I was invited to join a meeting with with our consultant and HLC to and I asked Sean to come um as a planning board member as well and Cheyenne and Nick Milano and HLC staff. We were able to go through and that's
part of what we're going to go through tonight. um looking at the adjacent plan. We first went through the adjacent um districts of what we had submitted to them and then we also went through the districts the questions that we had from the slide presentation that you saw that
UTIL had sent out asking um our um our consultants were asking HLC if those were um considered uh districts that we could that we could use. So, we did get some positive information and um I'll let Zoe include
that presentation. And before that, did they address the classification of rapid transit that it was it was I will say it wasn't decision makers in the room. It was mostly staff and was it mentioned at all? Yes, it was mentioned that they
were not at this time looking to reclassify Milton. So, as of today, our classification as far as HLC is concerned is still 25%. They're still saying 25% rapid transit community rapid. Yes, correct. We didn't talk about it necessarily, Charl. Yeah, they
said at the very beginning, Nate Carluchi said that uh this is not a conversation about about policy. This is a conversation about the questions that we asked um and some of the parcels that we submitted that needed some sort of consideration of relief. They weren't it
was not a policy conversation at all. They didn't even bring up classification. He simply said we weren't talking about policy today. So at that point, we discussed the matter that they were willing to discuss. Did they give you We asked them to consider
a 10% plan, an adjacent community plan when it was submitted on Monday. And you're saying that they made no reference whatsoever to whether they will accept that or not. They're still reviewing it. That's what they told us. They're still reviewing the plan. Okay. And all the districts.
Yeah. Um Okay. So, welcome Zoe. You and Matthew is and JT. I'm not sure who is on the team. So, I think we have Yeah. Um, is Matthew? I'm not seeing
Matthew yet on the list here. We can, I think, go ahead and get started. Maybe JT, do you mind messaging him on the side and checking if he's already on and just waiting in the wings? and I will go ahead and um jump in. Um so for those of you who may be um newer to these meetings, my name is Zoe
Mueller. Um I'm a project manager and senior planner with uh UTIL and we've been supporting the planning board as they've been exploring all of the different iterations of this process. Um and I'm joined by JT, my colleague, who has been um doing a lot of the analysis work that's required to bring forth um the decision-m um input that everyone
needs. Um and that's Matthew as well who's just joined. um who is um the principal in charge of this effort and um trained as an architect. So brings that level of sort of um close scrutiny of the the built environment to this effort. Um so I think with that I will go ahead and start sharing slides um and
just kind of move through what we have for you today. I thought we could start with um relaying some of what we heard from EOHLC. I will remind everyone that this is not a final determination. They were very courteous in providing us feedback on a very tight timeline. So this was directional feedback to help us
reach um a decision together tonight. Um and as was mentioned um the feedback we got um was not uh they were not able to give us a definitive um uh decision on whether they would be able to consider
an adjacent community um plan as presented. but they did provide us the feedback necessary for us to um make decisions about individual districts that affect both the adjacent community plan and the rapid transit um community plan. Um so we will present those
clarifications so everybody understands kind of the base that we're working from and then we'll go into um the rapid transit um compliance scenarios that the um planning board workshop together at the previous meeting um and that Cheryl had sort of done some additional leg
work on um to hopefully spark a conversation that can get us to more clarity around that um that scenario. Okay. So, this is kind of the what I was just um talking through. So, we'll we'll start with the questions that we asked of EHLC. Um we'll relay um the analysis
that we've done on the rapid transit community plan and we'll also we'll finish um as needed to reference the adjacent community plan as shared with EHLC based on our prior um uh work together. um I guess it was uh earlier
last week. Um and then we'll finish with next steps just to make sure that we're all moving um efficiently as a as a team because we do need to get to a warrant um by the 13th. Um so we have just a few days remaining. So this is that overall
timeline. So we're working towards um the the warrant being, you know, finalized going out on the 16th, which means the content of it really needs to be buttoned up on the 13th. Um and that's enough time lead time for a um town meeting vote on the 16th of
June. Um these are the clarification questions that we asked of the state. Um and you'll see for um this kind of you know what we shared with them initially. So there were kind of three categories of clarification questions that we asked about. Um the first grouping relative to
site access um sort of nuances. Um it is required that all parcels that are being zoned under this initiative have um public access. Um so we needed to make sure that these would kind of clear that concern. Um and then there were several
um exceptions that we were seeking for from the 5acre minimum that is um part of the regulations. um two that are, you know, really like distinct isolated sites um and three that had um other
kind of diff slightly different contexts. Um and then for we were also pursuing um some relief on the mandatory mixed use um limits. So that's for those who are a little new to the nomclature that's um districts where you are
requiring um commercial or mixed use um typically on a ground floor um in addition to allowing housing. Um this is something that initially was not allowed um at all under the law, but then they revised to allow for up to 25% of your multif family unit capacity to come from
districts that are mandatory mixeduse ones. um and we were seeing if there was an opportunity to expand that um beyond the 25% limit um with particular consideration to um the Milton Station area and to East Milton
Square. So, I'll just go through these kind of one by one. Um for Randolph and Access Road, this was a a positive outcome. Um they were comfortable um they need, you know, further documentation to make a final determination. Um so that's something we'll continue working with them on. But
um based on what we were able to relay to them, they um indicated that they felt uh it was a a good strategy and that we could you know this access was sufficient for the three parcels that have a private access easement already
and that it's reasonable to assume that could be extended to the site that we had previously excluded because it does not currently have an access easement. Um, we also, um, based on the planning board's, um, request at the previous
meeting did look into kind of what it would look like to maybe expand this geography to include the, um, properties that line Randolph Avenue. Um, and what we were looking at there is, you know, what would it take to maintain the kind of the role that this district is
playing from a density perspective. um and um you know in terms of the overall compliance picture um on these smaller parcels. And so what that looked like is um about five to six
units per parcel here. So that these sort of um more kind of single family home patterning um parcels if you can imagine kind of each of those having being able to build um five to six units. that's kind of what we um would project these would need to be able to
carry in order for it to make sense to expand the district to include them. Um so we can return to that later on, but just while we're looking at this um the sort of map graphic, I wanted to sort of relay that update as well. Um the next one was the paper mill
site. This was one of the ones that had both an access issue as well as um uh seeking a exception from the 5acre minimum. In this case, um the access didn't seem to be a concern based on what we shared so far. Again, they would need to see further documentation of
that to make a final determination. Um but uh there was um I realize that's a an error on my part. Um that's hold from prior slide. Um this was a pretty um quick turnaround time for us. So apologies if there's any other um
elements like that. uh they suggested that this was um in terms of the 5 acre minimum um that they would need to kind of take run that up the ladder and consider it more closely. But worse comes to worse, we could potentially
just expand the district in this direction to include this parcel that lines um the riverfront. Um and that would in part because a lot of this is um uh density denominator deduction. So, um area that is undevelopable um for
kind of natural systems reasons that would um therefore mean that it it would not negatively impact density as much as it might otherwise. So, we're confident that we can, you know, move forward with this and and that over the course of the time between um say a town vote and um
the point where EHLC is reviewing this that we can work with UHLC to resolve any remaining discrepancies on this. So, we're advising that at this point we continue with this geometry um and plan to work out any finer points um with the state um as part of the the subsequent
review um detailed review process that they'll go through once a final approach is submitted to them um following the town vote. Uh in the case of Granite AB North, um they indicated they would likely accept make this ex exception to
the 5acre minimum because there is truly no other parcel that could be um joined up with this one apart from the one we had already studied and discarded because it is not eligible. Um and so that they recognized that there's really no other option here that would be a
good faith option. Um and so they indicated that was um likely to be accepted. Um so that's similarly we would suggest continuing to retain this as part of the overall strategy for the East Milton Square site.
Um this is a more subtle one. So this is a was a request for an exception from the 5acre minimum. Um it's quite small um and obviously is more um continuous with the fab the parcel fabric around it. So it cannot make use of the same arguments that could be made for the
paper mill and granite a sites. Um but if this was used as a mandatory mixeduse district, um it would not be subject to the five acre minimum rule because mandatory mixed use districts are treated essentially as an offset um so it's offsetting a certain amount of unit
capacity that you're being required to meet um by recognizing unit capacity that exists within mandatory mixed use districts. So that is kind of a a pathway we we only met with the state um a few hours ago and so we had previously
based on you know our visibility into the process expected that this would not be accepted and so we did not include it in our subsequent analysis. Um we'll walk through that with you in a moment. Um but this is if it's decided that there's a desire to reintegrate this
into the approach um it would really have to be a mandatory mixed use district which I imagine is what the planning board would prefer anyway. Um uh St. Pas we did um relay to you know checked in with the state because it was
um while it was not below the minimum it was kind of a unique condition. They indicated there was no barriers from their perspective. the decision really sits with the planning board. Um and I believe that the planning board has already decided to move on from this this site. Um so we don't need to kind of belabor that one. Um ice house site.
Um this um the state indicated they were not likely to accept uh make an exception to the 5acre minimum for this because it is contiguous with um residential fabric um to the south. So, they would want to see us combine this with the district, the residential
parcels that um immediately abut it to the south along Blue Hills Parkway in order for them to consider it um as a district. And given I think we discussed that a little bit previously and there wasn't a desire to do that. So, I I would suggest um discarding this from further
consideration. Um next onto the mandatory mixed use. Um, so this in the Milton Station area or Milton Village, lower mill, depending on how you refer to it. Um, this, uh, we had discussed previously, um, I think on
on Jim's initial, um, suggestion looking at expanding the, um, the current mandatory mixeduse district along Adam Street um, with some of these slightly larger parcels that are on the east side. Um and the state indicated that you know
certainly they you know would support that expansion but that in terms of getting relief from the overall um mandatory mixed use offset percentage limit that 25% limit that I mentioned before um they think that is unlikely um because that is something that um
communities all over the Commonwealth have asked for um and they don't feel that Milton has a unique enough condition to merit providing relief for Milton. that would not also apply um across the board to all communities. So um it's not to say there's no path
forward, but I I don't think it's worth us um anchoring our strategy to an assumption that we can get relief um from the mandatory mixed use limit. So if I if I could just so we don't lose track of some of these things that we might want to have some further, you
know, discussion on to explain this was there was lengthy discussion on all of these. What Zoe just explained was their initial reaction. Um, and then we had an opportunity, including Nick Milano, to describe the uniqueness of Milton, the uniqueness of Milton Village, the
beneficial reasons that we should. The conversation ended on this particular topic with Nate Kyuchi and his team listening and uh going back to to higher levels within the state um to see if they can grant approval. So I just want
to make sure we don't present it as a door closed Zoe. You know the conversation I do I agree and I would say you know with in the case of like the paper mill and granite a based on the level of indication we got from them
I would recommend moving forward with those because I think any remaining issues can be resolved in the time remaining and we have enough clarity for it to not be a gamble. I think in the case of the mandatory mixed use limit, um I agree with you Sean that they did,
you know, with all of these they really there if you present an argument that's really compelling and is very clearly specific to your community um that is um requiring you, you know, making you go through a hardship that is unique
relative to the region as a whole um and all the other communities that are subject to these rules. um they are always interested in seeing and hearing and considering those unique considerations. I just don't think in
the time remaining with the response we got that it's worth um relying on that a little bit of a gamble. Did you see Nate's email from 605? We got um I think
Ma JT and I were wrapping up the last email. I think Matthew you may have read it close more closely than we were able to in the time we had. It was um indicating that uh districts that are used for mandatory
mixed use do not need to meet the 5 acre minimum. That's what he confirmed. Great. So that's the why the East Milton Square site is now um an area that we could consider if it is if we feel that the
what we present tonight needs further refinement. Mhm. Did you calculate, just while we're on this, were you able to calculate the percentage over the 25% that it would exceed like how close would we be on
if we did include able to in the time we had um we can as a followup to tonight. Um okay. Uh what we have for you tonight um is the based on the direction that we got um via email from the planning
board's prior discussions, we have the compliance approaches um alternatives that um for you to consider. And then if there's further refinements to that, we're happy to um address those in the time remaining. And we're also happy to do supplemental
analysis to support your um your arguments to the state beyond that compliance um approach. Okay. Okay. Zoe, at some point maybe after you finish um presenting everything that was discussed today, I would like to go back and look
at the ice house and see um you know how we might be able to expand to to get to five acres. So if you put that I think there's just one more slide here which is um East Milton Square. So this is the other area that we were you know um raising in the context of the mandatory
mixed use discussion because obviously this is a area of town that um you would only want to zone if it was as mandatory mixed use. Um, and because it's, you know, relatively large, um, it's not real, we don't think it's likely that
you could zone this in a way that would fit within the mandatory mixed use offset and still be able to take advantage of the Milton station districts that you have. Um, so this is, I think, if there's an argument to be made to the state, I would say it's about the unique quality of your the um
commercial that you have along the Matapan trolley and East Melton Square. um in relationship to that um because the the realistically the place where you could use that additional mandatory mixed use is here and that's that's what we're
um avoiding in the current approach um because um it's not permissible under the current um limits. Great. So I think with that we can um we can return to um any of the sort of other districts. I would um Sean, if
you're open to it, I would suggest maybe that I present the compliance options and then we return to um if there's like so that we can think about other districts in the context of any deficiencies that you see in the compliance approach that we have for you tonight. Sure. That's fine.
Okay. I think different they'll play different roles depending on what you know what what issues you're seeing with what we have for you. So, um this is just before we get into kind of like the um detailed tables and maps. Um this is kind of what we um deduced
from what we received. So on the left um I think Cheryl had done some initial analysis to bring this to the planning board for discussion. And so on the left we have that kind of in the the shorthand that we've been using for these districts. Um the I'm using Adams as a shorthand
for that extension of the the Milton Station or Milton Village, lower mills um area along Adams to the south um on the east side of the street. Um and then the other stations um are largely as we've discussed them before, but the
Elliot Street corridor has some geographical refinements that are present in all of the options we're presenting tonight. And I'll show you that map in just a moment. Um and then um as I understand it after the further discussion with the planning board um you looked at a refinement to bring the
Elliot Street corridor parameters down you know with the same geography but bringing it down to um three unit limit across the board. Um so not allowing four units on those larger parcel sizes of 10,000 and above. Um and applying that same rule change to the Fairmont
Station commuter rail um district. And then um for and then also adding in East Milton Square 40B and Woodmir. Um before running this scheme because we had not yet had the benefit of speaking
to EOHLC um we preemptively um removed the East Milton Square 40B site um because based on our understanding we thought it was very unlikely that that would be um an area that was um the state would consider. So that we've now
have updated guidance on that um and we can reconsider it. Um and then woodmere um given the unit counts that um were shared um and how close you are on density, we felt that that would be would not be an asset for your overall
approach. Um, again, we're happy to return to that if it's a priority, but that was our recommendation to to sort of get be able to stay close to your unit numbers and um the overall density um that you need to hit. So, I'll show you what this looks like in terms of
what we've run and then we I'm happy to go back and discuss um refinements and questions and um potential additions with the districts that um we've seen before. Um so, this is the basic map change. Um, so the sort of circles are showing, you know, where we've made
additions, subtractions. Um, so you can see the Fairmont Station district showing up here. Um, Blue Hills, um, remains as is. The Blue Hills Parkway district without the what we've kind of referred to as the triplex expansions of that. Um, the Matapan Station or Blue
Hill A station um, district remains as is. Elliott changes in several important ways. Um the what we've been referring to as um Elliot West or the Colines has been removed as has um what we refer to
as Elliot East which is just south of Valley Road stop there. Um and then we've expanded um along Central Avenue. Um so the area that's closest to the Central A um stop. Um so kind of shifting the units that were previously,
you know, more along the center and west of Elliot more towards the Central A stop. Um and moving along um Central A itself and not just Elliot. Um the other um sort of map change that was made is adding an expansion
um in the mandatory mixeduse um sort of districts that cluster around Milton Station. Um again, also known as Milton Village or Lower Mills um by folks. So those are the the map changes that are consistent across all of the um scenarios we're going to show you
tonight. Um, and I think the the spirit of this is kind of trying to be mindful about the distribution of units across the town. Um, and I just wanted to give kind of a visual of two other districts that were raised that so Woodmir um, which is
about 8.4 acres. Um, currently has I believe 36 units. Um, if we were to kind of zone it at a level that would going to kind of help us maintain our density overall, that would be 126 units. Um, there was also some discussion of um,
hill the hill hillside street um, collection of parcels. That's 5.4 acres roughly. So, it would need to be at around 81 units there um to be um, in line with the densities that we're trying to maintain.
Um, okay. So this is the um the modifications that we made to just um give you a sense of the the color coding that you're seeing here. Um yellow cells are ones where we have increased um
either you know F units per acre. Um that allow us to generate more units in that site on those sites. Zoe, can you can you increase the size of that just for everybody here as as much as you can? Don't I don't
think I can without um losing some of the information. Um I could pan to different parts of it potentially. Okay. Okay. Is there any way to um increase the zoom on your side?
Our guys. Yeah, team's looking at it. Um so while we wait for that, I'll just give you a sense of the the color coding. So the the yellow is places where we've increased parameters in some way. So such that we're generating more units. Green are ones where we've decreased units um by virtue of changing
um some parameters. Um uh and or in some cases changing parameters down to align with you know other parameters so we're we're more consistent across the board. Um, and then the red ones here are like
the new districts that we we have added into the mix. Um, and the blue here is representing their geographies have changed here. So, if you're comparing it to prior iterations of this work, it's a different geography than what we had before. Um, even though we're using the
same name for the district. Um, and then you'll see on the bottom I've um, we've summarized the sort of like some groupings of districts so that people can have a clearer sense of how this stacks up across like the distribution
across the town kind of where where the units are going. Um, beyond just thinking in like individual districts, but thinking more in at like a neighborhood scale. So the Fairmont Station area, I'm including the Paper Mill site and the Fairmont Station district in that number. the Blue Hills.
I'm including um both the um Matapan Station district and the Blue Hills Parkway corridor district. Elliot Street corridor is just the Elliot the the three tiers within the Elliot Street corridor. Um Milton Village is all of the Milton Station districts here, East,
West, Adams, and Bridge. And the East Milton total is really just Granite A North at this point. So a question in that tier three does that include the central a edition in the LA street blue? Okay. Yeah. So so that's embedded in these
numbers. So it's distributed across these tiers. Okay. Thanks. Mhm. And we did check that um we were we all of the parameter changes that we made here that you're seeing in like you know green and yellow um and blue those are
um to align with the target numbers that the planning board had shared with us. So in some cases we're like one unit or two units off in one direction or another, but we did try to very closely match the unit targets that you had shared with us based on um modifying parameters to align with
those. Um any questions on this one before we go to the next? We have three scenarios for you tonight. Okay. So, we are we um Zoe, one question. Are we at our maximum of what we can do on paper mill on the paper
mill site? Um essentially, yes. There. So, because the paper mill is is quite constrained um and JT you may be able to speak to this in with more specificity. Essentially what we're starting to see
is that um the 30% limit and um the uh F and units per acre like we're we're getting to the point where like we can increase the units per acre but it doesn't have any effect. We increase the units per acre and F it doesn't have any
effect. Um the we did release I I neglected to mention for both Granadav North and the paper mill site. Um we previously had um for Granite North a 1.5 um parking spaces
maximum. Um we are now we've released those parking constraints on these two because that was really what was um prevent we couldn't get any more units out of them if we retained those parking requirements. Um so that was necessary to get to get to these
numbers. It was not possible to do that with the 1.5 um parking space uh maximum. So I do have another uh question for you before you move on and this so it probably applies to all of them. The uh F um how does that
influencing uh the zone capacity? We know it's influencing the size of the buildings, but um how is it influencing the zone capacity? Yeah. So that it's sort of for each of these it um the three things or I guess
I guess I would say the the parameters that we're showing here are generally the ones that are having the greatest impact. And for many of the districts um F and units per acre kind of like will toggle between which one is the more
controlling one. In other words, which is setting the lower limit. Um, so in some of these it's they're very sensitive to F because that is really the thing that's controlling the capacity. In other cases like the open space is the primary driver of the limit
or the units per acre is the primary driver. Um, so it it shifts a little bit for each, but some of them are quite sensitive to F. I don't know if that really answered your question, Cheryl. Do is it possible to have um more tiers
of F within the Elliot Street corner? So we we did see that um suggestion that you had shared and we're happy to do that. We just didn't have time to do it for tonight. Um but in you know in both the Elliot Street corridor and the Fairmont Station, we certainly could
introduce like more of a sliding scale of um you know more gradations. I think you had mentioned like maybe every 2,500 square ft of lot area change that you have an adjusted F expectation to just avoid, you know, allowing um really
massive buildings as the parcel sizes approach the next tier but haven't yet reached the next tier. Right. Great. Thank you. And can can I ask question on the paper mill slide and on the granite out north? I know we reduced it from 40%
open space to 30%. But both of those sites actually have quite a bit of um green space surrounding it. Would it make sense to try and reduce that open the open space on those two lots even
further? I think on the on the Grand Avenue North, and please correct me JT if I'm wrong, I think we discovered that the open space was not determinative. Um, and to get more units there, um, we had to increase the F and
the units per acre. That was on Granite Abnorth. Yes, North. Um, uh, sorry, Paper Mill is going to be a similar dynamic. I can I can pull the open space percent down further, but the
limiting factor really is F and units. per acre for both of these. They're single sites, right? Um with um you know the same kind of dynamic.
Yeah. So basically but previously when when the planning board had shared with us in the context of the adjacent community um plan um an openness to go down to 30% on these we did we did do that change but it didn't change the unit numbers we were getting. So we also
made some adjustments to um F and units per acre to get to the like unit numbers that you were hoping to get from those. Um so that's really the for these any further changes that um you know we want to make if you want to get more units out of them would really be about
changing the units per acre in the F. Um do you have a sense of whether you could do it without having an increase in height at this point? I mean, would an increase in the in the density or the F do it or would
you have to allow more height? It might work. I'm not advocating necessarily for more height. I'm just wondering if that's going to be the controlling factor at some point. I we didn't push it much harder beyond
what was sort of asked in terms of a a target number, but given that um we're getting credit for the non-developable wetlands and tidal areas in terms of open space and that we um
have eliminated any parking maximums or minimums, it it is possible that we could get that those numbers up with F and units per acre and I think we do feel comfortable not going not exceeding six stories, right? Yeah. I was just wondering if that was
going to right if they could get more be the next the next thing that tripped or being becoming the controlling factor and how much more you could actually do in in adjusting density. we had when we had the parking spaces, we would have hit that situation you're describing,
Cheryl, much earlier because the parking spaces are dealt with as if as if they're surface parking. So, in other words, the the parking is controlling the building footprint. Um and so in that context, you really need to go, you know, higher in order to get u
more units, but um releasing the parking um constraints makes it a little bit more flexible to stay at the six stories. And then can you um explain I'm sorry, Maggie, were you done with that question? Yeah, I was just gonna ask um
I'm not advocating for seven stories because I would hate to set a precedent. Um, but the paper mill site does sit below grade. So, how many stories would it
appear from grade level if we went up to like seven stories if it's going to relieve some pressure off another district? Should we depend? It probably depends how the building is cited.
there's um memory serves there's there's a little bit of grade change across the site um and a lot of those lower areas are not developable not the way like the Milton station area really
you know extra space storage I'm anticipating actually in both of these where a flood plane may be that you're going to have to have an elevated first floor and you're probably parking underneath So you're going to end up with five
floors of occupied and one floor of parking given the these sites. Um so whether you would actually hit these numbers or not is questionable. Okay. I'm sorry, Matthew. Go ahead. I I think
it's difficult on the paper mill site. Okay. And again the you know the the model's thinking it doesn't need to supply parking but um development in the site will have to supply parking and that will be a that will be the limiting
factor when somebody really sits down to design. Agreed. I had a question on something else now that if you're done with that. Okay. On the Milton station Adams the zoned um the unit capacity of 32. Can you explain how you arrived at that?
Yeah. So, we were um this is a case where like we can we can keep playing to get closer to those numbers, but it was really like this. So, let me back up. So, we started from just overall for all of these districts, we've been holding
to the 40% open space. Um we talked about setting a 3.5 height limit and we talked about holding the kind of one spaces um one parking space um expectation to kind of be consistent with those other districts. So um that kind of left us with the two remaining controlling factors were units per acre
and F. Um and uh I think the number that was initially shared was a 47 as a potential number that could go in this direct in this district. Um so we could keep modifying
like the F and the units per acre to get to that 47. Um uh but that's really that's it's the combination of these two that got us to that. And so we we were trying to keep the F um you know as low as we could.
This this F is lower really. I think maybe it's best Matthew if you like speak to this but I think we did the work to kind of confirm that the current F was was on most of these sites was probably above 08 already. Yeah. the two bigger sites. It just appears to be
definitely above one just because the sites are very small and the buildings are dense. But um you know I this could go up to one and probably not even exceed the existing physical density.
Yeah. Again, the open space here too with the uh waterfront right behind it and the park right behind it, 40% I think is high given these this exact location. Yeah, I was going to ask what is the do we know what the existing um
open space? A lot less than that on because the Verizon building has some land in back that drops off that's probably you could count as open space but the other two parcels I don't. Yeah. So if we look at what what's existing, so what's existing now we're all sort of comfortable with
because we're used to it. So could we reduce that? What would that do? I I would raise the F and reduce the open space and get it closer to that 47 I think myself. Yeah, as long as it doesn't have to
change the height, building height. we can definitely u make those um adjustments. Um let's go through all of them and then what we can kind of focus in on um some of these changes which I suspect might be changes that we would make kind of globally across the board
um no matter which of these like three changes. So, it sounds like there's a there's interest in having, you know, exploring getting more out of Granite AB North um and Pete per mill. Sorry about that.
Um, and is there like a unit number that you have in mind for that? Sorry. For which one, Zoe? Um, Granite A and um Paper Mill. I think find the upper limit for us, you
know. I I think keeping the the height at six stories though and the upper limit with 30% open space, no no um minimum parking requirement and I know the model takes into account
I think a thousand square foot per unit. Would we ever reduce that? We can't. Oh, we can't. We can't reduce the the assumption of 1,00 um unit uh 1,000 square feet per unit. Um but what we
have been doing is trying to very closely match the units per acre in the F so that between the two of them they are effectively requiring an a that future development in order to maximize the number of units would need to build
an average of 1,00 square foot um units um or less. But they wouldn't be able to build any more units. they would just be building, you know, smaller square footage units. Remember that's gross. So that includes hallways,
stairways, not just what within a unit itself. And on buildings of this size, there's going to be multiple stairs and corridors. It's probably more like an average of something below 800 square feet per unit
at best. Great. I think we can go on to the next. Great. So, this one is um based on the um planning board's discussion um kind of evolving from Cheryl's initial suggestion as I understand it. Um and the main change here is for the Elliot
Street corridor and for Fairmont Station, dropping it down to three unit per lot maximum across the board. Um and this it's the same modified geography. So, we've we've removed east and west. um like sub areas um in other words the
the colines and the area um sort of south of Elliot Street that was previously previously included and we have expanded along Central A um so that geography changes holds true across all the scenarios we're going to show you tonight um and this is really looking at
you know reducing that LS recorder in Fairmont Station and then um as needed absorbing it elsewhere um this and and as a reminder we did not include include the East Milton 40B or Woodmir. We didn't include include Woodmir because of the we thought it
would drag down density. We didn't include East Milton Square 40B because we were not optimistic about the state being open to that. Um so this is representing that this sort of reduced number of of districts. Um you can see the slightly different distribution
across the bottom here. Unfortunately, this does come just shy of your unit um capacity target. So, we looked at some changes um to Milton Station West in particular because these parameters are are pretty significantly reduced from what we've
shown on that um on the Milton Station West previously. So, we just did some small adjustments just to get up to the U minimum unit capacity that we needed to be at um here in order to get that um sort of
uh to hit that number. So I think from the discussions that we've heard recently, this is probably the version that represents the, you know, the most even distribution across, you know, Elliot
Street and these other areas, um, of the options we've considered recently. Um, and it does hold all the Elliot Street corridor to three units per lot, which, um, hopefully is a little bit more comfortable for folks. Um, and there
might be other ways that we can make up that unit number difference. Like we could absorb those, you know, units a little bit in in the Milton Station Adams expansion like we just talked about instead of um having that increase happen in the Milton Station West. Um, we could have some of that increase
happen in Granite A North and Paper Mill. But I wanted to see um for the um planning board as a whole uh you know where where within the distrib distribution if any anywhere you you see
kind of a concern and what potential solutions do you see to that to get the balance where you want it to be? Zoe, can you just toggle back for a moment? We you were at 2425 with that change from from four units to three units. What did we have
previously on the first? The first one is 2524. So 99 units. Yeah. Yeah. So I just added those three on the last slide, the 336, the 156, and the 63 for a total of
555. Whereas what at the bottom? Yeah. Okay. Yep. Sorry. Um and that's all good. Um Yeah. So can you go back? Yeah. So that 555 as compared to
480 is what it was in what passed um in 2023 just for folks who are watching. Um so it is even with um Zoe can you just explain again maybe because there's people who are new to
watching this the um I think it was what we were trying to do was achieve um a little bit of a rebalance in the high and the low in the density so that um by allowing the lot size to go down
to 6,000 um rather than 7500 100 it's can it's not um making the density such that you have to really increase it um at a greater level in other places. Can you just run through that a little bit please? Yeah,
absolutely. So um I'm forgetting for the moment maybe um Matthew or JT you could look this up. in the in the 2023 article. Um, you know, we just cleared the density across the town, but we did so with more units than your minimum unit target because
there were some districts, particularly the Elliot Street corridor that were quite low density. Um, and so in order to not just hit your um, you know, minimum units, but to also hit your density, you needed to exceed the
overall number of units you were delivering um, to compensate for those density um, issues. And so for the Elliot Street corridor, a lot of those the density challenges were coming from two main factors. One was that a lot of parcels were being a smaller parcels
were being excluded. So there were no units that were allowable on those parcels. And then on the other side for the larger lots, um you weren't getting enough units out of those larger lots um to reach the densities that you needed
to reach. Um so this, you know, at that point we also had a 7,500 ft minimum lot size. Um, so the main change that you're seeing here from the 2023 article for the Elliot Street
corridor is is really the change of that minimum lot size for the um smallest parcel size tier. Um, so that we're capturing more of the actual pattern of parcels that exists in Elliot and not having quite so many that are um
excluded from three-unit development. Um, so that helps with the density overall, which then means for the town as a whole, you don't have to have um many dense districts to compensate for um the low density of the
Elliot Street corridor. Meaning that overall you can ride very close to your targets across the board versus having to exceed the unit capacity in order to reach your density. And then u Thank you, Zoe. Can I one other thing just
again for people who are watching in here there have been a lot of folks who have emailed the board and talked about the 50 in the 2023 57% of the zone capacity was in the
um between the Milton station east all the way across to the Blue Hills Parkway including all of those districts and and in this scenario Ario that's on the screen. Do you have a calculation which shows what those what that calculation
would be with this? It would be these middle three boxes. Um so I don't have that like the number handy but we can calculate it quite quickly. Um And we should maybe so this is now um a 66 percentage but the the balance of
where that's occurring is more heavily weighted towards Milton Village I believe than it was before. and that closer to your main commercial area and and more mandatory mixed use versus before. Okay. And that will be
offset when we can add back the East Milton parcel. Okay. because that can be 100 units there and the ice house and we'll talk we haven't got we'll get we can potentially you and include the ice house which also
would take that off of that change that percentage Zoe just again looking at this the fair amount the 159 is that's based on three units of parcel yes okay so you can see the change from
um the it was at 185 when we had the tiering rules from Elliot that included four units on lots that were 10,000 square ft or more. So when we bring it all down to just three units per lot across the board, it goes from
185 to 159 for the Fairmount Station District which is under the same rule set. And how many parcels are is that? Um the Fairmont Station district maybe JT you might be able to answer that more quickly than I can. It is I think 52
parcels Maggie around there just above 50. So maybe we could even reduce that the size of Yeah, partially that if we And I just another another um question. The Metapan station
at 183 hasn't changed since the 2023. Um and did we think that there was a little bit more room there? So we did look into that a little bit when we were looking for ways to kind of um you know get a few more units out of some of the
districts where it really where the density makes sense. Um so the Matipan station has a really um unique rule set because it has the house parcel in the back but then it also has um a handful of small parcels um that are more akin
to the pattern on Elliot Street or Blue Hills Parkway um that line it. And so right now it has a rule set that requires a 5,000 foot minimum lot size and then 1,000 square ft of additional lot size for every additional unit. And that is the thing that's controlling
right now. So in order to get more units out of that district, we would need to change that minimum lot size formula. Um and that's I think quite important from what we've heard in the past of you know like how the planning board would want to see
that developed. Okay. We I know we included the part the smaller parcels next to it so that we could reach the minimum district size but we didn't want those to actually be part of development. So I don't I wouldn't want to change it to change that parameter.
Thank you. Okay. And then the Blue Hills Parkway, just again for folks who have been concerned about that, that's a very slight change, very slight change from before, right? So that is unchanged from 2023. This is it's just
the same exact ge geography, the same exact rules. Um we had studied two different expansion areas to the east and to the west. Um but that was not included in our analysis for tonight um based on the direction that we received.
So it's this is unchanged. There's no new expanded districts within the Blue Hills area. Okay. So as far as like what we would want to um
I think the the third option is the start or is the piece of which we should continue to work off. Let's Yeah. Do you agree? Is this This is the third one, right? Which brings it to three in all three tiers. I think this is just the second.
V2. This is the second. The second or the third? I don't know. Sorry, it's naming is a little confusing. So, we have the initial version that we ran from your guidance, Cheryl, and then we have two versions from the planning board discussion. So, this is the the third overall and the second of the
planning board discussion. Okay. I thought it was third overall. Yeah, this is the one that they made the change so we could get back to 2461 because of the loss of the 99 units from 4 to 3. Got it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, this is I guess this is the sort of point of
modified that we should be work off of from any more modifications would come off of this as the baseline, right? I think so. Okay. Yeah. So maybe um we've heard I think four ideas at this point of like modifications
um the Milton Station um Adams to make those modifications to to get it closer to get it to 47 units versus 32. Um we heard about some modifications for Granite A North and Paper Mill and then the East Milton 40B and the ice house
were both mentioned. Um, so all of those would be like increasing units. So I I want to understand where you want to see units reduced like if if we're if that's these are all ways of creating flexibility of
by adding units elsewhere. Um what what problem are you trying to solve in making those modifications? Go ahead. Sorry. So could you break down the Randolph fab and access road? you
still have it at 123. Yeah, that was based on the notes that we had from the last planning board meeting. Um I I know that there was still some ongoing discussion about that. So that's certainly a place where we could, you know, if we wanted to find some units in another part of town, we
could bring that down. So it's 40 units for the 40B that's there. Then we talked about another 40 for the horse farm. And then how many units were created from the um the other houses along Randolph
Fav? How many properties times three units per property? Um so we we did not um add those additional parcels in. We did do the analysis of what it would take. So I think that's that's kind of an open question to this group is in order for
them to um maintain uh let me go back to that slide one second. Um, okay. So, um, the first time we did we looked at this this year, we we looked at 80 units across all of these, um, uh, four
parcels in in sort of the middle of the block here. Um, so if we take that as kind of a a Q point of like a level of density that works for the overall picture, um, and look at how could we maintain that density in this area if we
were expanding to these sites, they would need to be at like five or six units per parcel to for that to play the same role in the overall compliance approach. If we wanted to have this district
overall be at a lower even lower density than the 80 units, we would need to be increasing units elsewhere to compensate for that reduction. Um, so that was we want that's kind of a a question to the planning board is like is this a
solution that you're interested in and you know where where would you want to increase to compensate for that? So, Zoe, what's the um acreage of the um horse farm section of this district? Uh I don't know that offh hand, but
perhaps um JT, you could do a quick tally. And Cheryl, which which part of it? Well, the the 40B is that lower parcel and about one acre and that has the 40 units already. Um, I'm concerned
about having 40 units on the acreage above if it drops it below 15 units an acre because then it's just um not contributing anymore. It it needs to at least have 15 units an acre in order to contribute and so I just um I don't know
what that acreage is. So I don't know what the unit count would have to be. I suspect it's more than 40. Yeah. of the total total acreage. So this is you know not just the parcels but also the like spanning the private way that's in
between them. So we have it at 6.6 acres. So if the 40B parcel is around 1 acre that would imply that the rest of this is around um 5.6 including the right of way.
So if I have 50 50 plus the 40, right? So be 5.6 * 15. Why' you say 6.6? 40. It's got to be the 124 to contribute. No, but with the 40 be 6.6 6.6
divid 80 / 6.6. So if you took the 6.6 6 and divide it by 80 units, that's 12.12 units. So, it's almost there. So, I
think you need if you said you want to do on average, you want to spread those out. I think you still need 60 at a minimum in order for it to contribute because what you would do is you take the 6.6 times the 15 and that would 6.6 six acres times the 15 gives
you 99. You subtract 40 from it, which is what's already there, it gives you 59. So, you need at least 60 in order for it to contribute. I I really think this is an opportunity to be at more than 15
units an acre as um you know, the 7-Eleven across the street at at 20 units an acre, 20.5, I think it was. Um, I mean this could have a greater setback at the whatever might be called
the front which would be towards Randolph A. So that you you put it further to the back away from the single families but the golf course and the access road and the animal shelter are what's at the back. So I think that would be a way to and what height did we
have on this subdist? believe we were at 2.5 in this part of town. Can you double check that for me JT on the other slides? Yeah. Um Randolph and access is two and a half as well as 711, right? So the 40B is what? Four or five
stories. So two and a half stories is what houses are. Um if the open space, if you made a large enough front front yard setback, I really don't see why you would drop this that much. Well, on our April 24th meeting, we had
it at 102 units. Mhm. And it came out at 16.7. I'm I'm okay with that. 102. Yeah. Okay. And right now you have it. They have it at 123. Yes. There's already There's already 40.
102. Cuz there's already 40. Well, that that includes the 40. 60. That includes Yeah. So, it would be 60 on top of the 40. Yes. Mhm. What's it? It has to be 60 combined to contribute. And so you're saying not doing the the properties in
front, correct? Well, it seems to drag it down with that whole density denominator thing, right? Is the feeling you're getting. It's just too much land unless we go five or six units per parcel. I would be fine with that. I think that's
What are you fine with, Ma? Doing going to a going to 60. So 102, is that what you said? Yeah, whatever we had on the April 24th meeting. So it would be a drop of 21 then from what is here. Yeah. So, if we're adding if we're going from
32 to 47 in Milton Station and you're dropping 21 here and remember, so yeah, if we if we're going from 32 to 47, that would should um that would cover a decent amount of
that reduction in Randolph Access Road, but not in its entirety. Um, it also wouldn't, one of the other important things to remember is that the mandatory mixed use districts don't factor into the density calculation. So, they're useful when you're trying to make up a
unit gap, but they're not useful when you're trying to make up a density gap. Right. Okay. But if we said we also have to remember we have if we are factoring in the East Milton Square um 40B project and the ice house project
that that's going to bring up our our denominator for density but the problem is that's would have to be mandatory mixed use in East Milton which is the same problem as what we were just talking about in Adam Street right so I think the density still would be falcone would have to be mandatory mixed use to
get because it's less than 5 acres yeah Oh, really? Yes. I think the way I would think of the East Milton Square site, the East Milton 40B, the way it can contribute is if you want to reduce units in the other mandatory you mixed use districts. So, for instance, the
Milton Station, East West, and the Adams expansion we've been considering, you could um uh make that you you could use the East Milton Square 40B to shift those units out of the Milton Square uh sorry,
Milton Square, gez, Milton Village, um Milton Station districts, um that are mandatory mixed use just to distribute it around the town more. But it it would be have be plugging in in the same way. If you think about the Milton Village,
it's when we did the mixeduse overlay, we said it had access to walkable amenities. You can walk to a grocery store, etc. And you also have the trolley and you also have the bike path. And we're talking about a small amount added at that Adam Street. So I wouldn't
take those out just so we can add the Falcone building in because it's otherwise not contributing in other ways. Is that do I understand that correctly, Zoe? Just Yeah. So, it won't help you with density. Um, it can only help you with
units because it's small enough that the only way that from what we've from what we understand from today, the only way that it would be considered as eligible is if it is a a mandatory mixeduse district because it is so small and it's so contiguous with the parcel fabric
around it. So in that case we have to be higher density someplace not dropping the density like we're talking about with 7-Eleven Randolph A. Yeah if we wanted to add that beating a dead horse again back from a planning perspective
Randolph A. It has zero amenities. There's you can't walk anywhere. The sidewalks are terrible. The state doesn't care for it. It's one of the most deadliest roads in the the state
and I just don't think it follows any logical planning. So, I'm against increasing um this area up to your 102 units. Um I've been a firm 80 unit
person on this parcel. I just think as I've said before that this part this parcel is going to get redeveloped and if we zone it at a level that's not attractive I believe the
alternative would be another 40B there and that might happen anyway unfortunately well if we zone it at a level that's not enough to you know they'll they'll do the 40B route obviously if the zoning is in place that is as of right that gives them an
attractive alternative. That's a better route than the 40B. The permitting would be faster. I mean, maybe not if it we we set deadlines on the site plan approval for ourselves, right? I'm just saying there's no guarantee it won't go 40 to be. I'm not saying that's a reason not to do anything with it. I think we should take advantage of that parcel.
I'm just saying that we always have 40B looming over every project in town. That's all I'm saying. And I would hope that um the developer of the 40B, which is 40 units on one acre, perhaps would
actually um um create a new um land, which would take advantage of possibly all of it and not concentrate 40 units on that one acre. So now you'd have 80 units on um 6 and a half acres.
Not going to happen. I I I understand what you'd like to see, but they've already got that entitled. I mean, they do. They do. You know, Jim, if it's entitled for that. Yeah. Yep. We know. Zoe, can I ask you though that
notion about where the front yard or where the front yard setback would be here? The front yards considered Randolph a or the access road. So, this is a um a point we've been um we actually just have been discussing internally. So we h because the
compliance model is not very responsive to setbacks for some of these newer districts, we haven't yet made recommendations about setbacks. Um but we will do so. Um and Matthew has started to give that some thought. Um we
haven't uh I think reached a setback suggestion for this district yet, but we certainly can and if there's something that you have in mind, we're happy to you know roll that in. But given what you understand about the frontage or the access on this, where
would you see the definition of the the frontage being? Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, I think um I think perhaps from a design perspective, and Matthew, I would welcome your opinion on this. This is just my first reaction is um it's not a
public frontage, but I feel that in terms of the way that the parcels are fronting that for the 40B parcel it would be Randolph AB and for the other parcels the private way would be functioning more like a front than the portions of the parcel that abut the
rear yards of the parcels on Randolph. But I don't know what your first reaction would be, Matthew. Well, we don't, you know, you can craft the zoning to define what each edge is, right? Um, so
we can target edges that abut, you know, the district to the west. Um, we can also experiment with, you know, what what is a good setback generally? We could apply the same setback to every side just to make the
issue go away. um that very slender parcel gets a little tricky and it might get flagged u even though it's under combined ownership um you know that might become a sort of point of
discussion but um to the extent that you know we can we can pick a front okay in in the in the zoning language okay I mean I would think right now the front is off fav access road that's town
owned property. So, you couldn't really consider Well, I'm just thinking in terms of making sure that you could get a setback that you define to be, you know, greater and you would say for the purposes of of the setbacks or whatever that the um the front yard is is deemed
to be rand. And then that's where your setback is, right? Yeah. You just can spell it out. Um, I want to just because we're talking about generally reducing units in some places
and then where we would increase. I I've done a little bit of math and um, so long as the acreage is constant in these two schemes and I think we're working with a 127 acre
density denominator for both these schemes. If I do the math and multiply that by 15, um we can probably absorb around 40 additional uh mandatory
mixed use units somewhere and reduce that same number um in the nonMMU portions. Okay. So we could apply that reduction here, Matthew. If that's where you wanted to reduce it.
Yes. I mean, we'd have to talk about where you want to increase it. If it maybe adding the parcel on East Belton um square, right? Yeah. Or increasing the density in the the the newer MMU sort of district in in
Milton Village. Yeah. So, for instance, like if you were to get the atoms, I'm just doing some live numbers. I haven't figured out what the um parameters would need to be at to get to these numbers. Um but if you in Milton Station West had
that plugged in at 193 and had the Adams expansion of the the Milton Village um area at 47 like you had discussed. Um that would bring you to and let me let me drop uh the Randle Pav access
road. Um that's at with Randle Pav access road at 102. You're still clearing your 46 um your your unit target. Um, let's see what it would be. At 80, you drop just below that, but um at like
90. Yeah, it might be about that. Yeah, I think about 102 is as low as you can get Randolph Access Road just with that like um increased units in the mandatory mixed use districts. So, you might need to do a little bit more. So, we talked about
Granite North and Paper Mill. So, if you got a little bit more units out of those two sites, that might give you enough to um bring the Randle Favin Access Road down below 102. Zoe, does that consider including the 40B site in East Milton or
not? Right now, it does not. Um the calculations I was just running, um I think we should include it. I think I'd like to include if we could try to include that parcel in East Milton Square, I think that would be great.
Let me see if I can Would you be able to do those calculations tonight? Yeah, let me see if I can do a I'm going to have to verify this afterwards, but let me see if I can do a crude um calculation here. Um it's 1.2 acres.
Um can you check for me JT? I don't think there's any density denominator for this um deduction right no there not down there in east in East Milton Square I think right now is it being zoned for
90 units 90 units right now are is approved are approved there 93 I think 92 92 92 92 get credit for so you get Yeah. So if we had even with f a first floor mandatory
mixed use but they don't have commercial there now doesn't matter though doesn't matter it's zoning so it's but but it still would be a lot of units I think that we would get credit for. Yes. So that does um allow you to shift units from um like within the mandatory mixed
use districts but it does not give you any extra wiggle room on density and that's the what you're starting to hit up against. So, Mhm. I So, like I said before, I think you know it can play a role if your goal is to reduce the
number of units in your Milton Village area. The East Milton 40B can help you accomplish that. But that's pretty much the only thing that it can help you with. How many units can we uh can we accomplish in East Milton? Um, I just put 90 in there as a
placeholder because it's close to the number of units that have been proposed on the site. Um, but I can plug in a different number. Can you go higher? Yeah, but my my I think before I do that, like what's the goal? Like is the
goal to take units away from Milton Village? Yes, that would be my goal. Okay. So, how many uh let's see how I mean there's there isn't like at some point I'm sure we will hit
a an abstract limit on this but this is not a constrained collection of parcels in terms of like you know uh density denominator deductions or um you know other regulations like the way granite a um
paper mill. So, I think it might be easier to think about it in terms of like, you know, if you zone it basically like how many units do you think you're comfortable with here and then we can reduce the Milton Village ones by that amount. Zoe, you could zone it for
whatever number we want to zone it. It's under construction. I would go a little bit high. I I mean, but I think but the more you go, I think you're going to, if I'm understanding correctly, we're going to have to go more than the 2461 in order to get to
our density of 15 units an acre. Is that right, Zoe? So, it will Yes. So, there's So, right now, so for instance, I just plugged in the 90. Let me see if I'm Yeah, we're
still fine on the the the cap for mandatory mixed use districts, but even with this change right now, I can't reduce the units anywhere else in town because the density is at 15 flat. Oh, and I'm at
2570 units versus the 461 that year required. So, this is the problem with having too many units in the mandatory mixed use. So, the only the only thing that I was going to say, and I know we all have disagreements, is and I haven't seen the map on the Elliot Street
corridor, um, but that's what's that's what's dragging us down that Elliot Street because, um, it's three units per per lot. So, it's like an 8.8 density at one point. I think I saw we
could possibly look at just refining some of that Elliott Street corridor to keep our to not be dragging our density down. Is that correct, Zoe? You look at what the balance is right now. So, right now, I don't know. And
I'm just looking at what else before you did that. Why wouldn't you remove the Adams Village units if you absolutely want to include the 40B and East Milton? because you're swapping the same unit types. We may I'd like to hear the
answer to Merida's question. Yeah. Right now, your lowest density districts are Elliot Street and Fairmont and then Blue Hills. Um, which is those are all your smaller parcel fabric districts.
So, maybe we don't need Fairmont. That is a big number to lose and it's okay. All right. So maybe we and it's also you know for the you know the broader goal of distribution like it's right like
geographically it's helping to make this you know balance out the overall distribution of units. If that drops out we're going to have to make up those units in in the more concentrated districts. Do you have do you have a map of just the Elliot
Street the um corridor? at the the section in te teal or turquoise. Yeah, let me I can we don't have it like in a zoomed in setting, but let me do a quick Meredith,
can we also talk about the the the density in tier three? I is 5.4 in tier three. That's the lowest density. Yeah. Yeah. But what are we trying to solve here? Can we if we could go back to like what has been presented as a compliant plan? What is it that you're trying to
change? What is it that you're uncomfortable with? Be we're just talking about tinkering with things, but what are we trying to fix? I'm examining every option that's out there. I still want to talk about the other ones that we haven't got to yet. The ice house. I want to talk about 507 grand off. We're critical. We recognize
that we due to submit an article for it has to go to print. So when I do when do you expect we're going to submit it. We're going to be on Tuesday. We have to make a decision and we're going to have to have the language written too. We have about um I would say eight hours of
staff time to produce any revisions you have for us. Um we are committed to this, but we're not all pulling all nighters for five nights in a row to get this done. So there's 8 hours of our collective work time across three people to get you all
of the numbers and the shape files that you need to do this. So, we can absolutely do tweaks, but we cannot exhaustively study every remaining alternative. We can do targeted tweets to achieve a goal. I'd like to suggest that we go back to the
one that works, the the third or the planning board version two, and take public comment at this point. Otherwise, I think we're just going around in circles and continuing to this could be studied and studied and studied for years. Public comment is still here. I'd like to I'd like to have you be able to
answer any questions people might have. We've had one public forum on this and we have some a deadline coming up and we have an opportunity to see if anybody wants to ask questions or provide any feedback on what they've seen. I don't see why we shouldn't take it. I just was my I was addressing the getting the unit
count and the density for the East Milton and how we would do that. That's what I We don't need it right now. It's not in this plan. So, I'd like to go back and look at the So, you don't include the 40B in East Milton. I'd like to look at it again and see what it is that we're trying to correct or make
different or somehow uh because otherwise it's just talking about alternatives. Okay. Well, I want Randolph A lower. So, what we said was we could take 21 units out of A, right? And that would solve that. We can get
it. We can get the Randall FAB with with just um sort of the uh other numbers that we have elsewhere from the the base that we were presenting and just increasing some of the mandatory mixed use numbers
that enabled us to get Randolph Access Road down to 102. um to further reduce it. We've exhausted the degree to which our mandatory mixed use districts can help us to achieve that reduction. At this point, to re achieve that reduction, we'd need to
increase the density of other districts without adding new acreage. If tier three was four, that's the the uh 15,000 foot and greater. Can you can you just plot that and see what that would look like? Would that help us? Right now,
it's 5.4. Zoe, if you go back to Cheryl's test, that number there. Yeah, I'll grab that. Thank you. Is it good? Have we discussed 270 Hillside yet? It was 80. She did do a test and it's 81
units. And does that have to be mandatory mixed use or can that to be straight units? Straight. Yes. So, if we density, I'm sorry. If we brought the the tier three of Elliot Street corridor to four units,
um that would enable us to get Randolph Aan access road down to 80 units. Um I will point out however that in the distribution of parcels um right now um Elliot Street corridor
is already carrying the most units the second only to Milton Village. So if we're going to increase somewhere I would suggest looking at some of the other options given the volume of feedback we've heard. I don't think we want to do
four units. Mhm. No. And I don't think we want to increase the capacity there. And and that 705 in Milton Village, can that be reduced by adding the um 40B in East Milton?
Yes. We should do it. Absolutely. So, we would we would taking off the Adams removing the Adams and instead including East Milton. Yeah, I think that makes sense.
And and is there a limit on East Milton? Did you do one? I think at some point you will start to in invite HLC to challenge you on something as a um
yeah I was thinking about a like a 100 units but well the 711 um 40B which is 90 units as well we have it at 131. Isn't that sort of similar to East Milton? So, I just for reference, I just
um swapped out the um I deleted the Adams um extension and um you still can't get Randolph Aan access road down to 80 with that substitution. So, we still need to, you
know, we can do that swap. I think that's a fine swap, you know, for the mandatory mixed use um issue, but we still need to, you know, increase units, I think, elsewhere to enable. It sounds like right now that the two things that we're trying to do
is we're trying to reduce a little bit the Milton Village and reduce um the Randle Faven Access Road and to find units for that elsewhere including the East Milton 40B to help with the Milton station
reduction and um the things that have been raised already are the paper mill site and Brandon A North. And why haven't we discussed 270 hill sites? because you have to recuse on the if you add acorage at this point it will
not help. You will need to zone that at more than 15 units per acre. So unless you are comfortable collectively as a board with 81 units on that site, it's not worth discussing. So I'm okay with 81 units on that site.
I I would like to say that we need to keep to something. We're very close to something. We have a very tight deadline. Okay. Then we're not gonna the eight hours we've got left of their time. 102 go a little longer. Right. 100. Is that right? We could pay him to go a
little bit longer. Our budget. No, it's our deadline. The deadline is the deadline. You've had I'm sorry. You've had ample time to enable us to do this within working hours. I'm not pulling all nighters to close the gap here. We go in next week. Sorry. So, my concern
is Smith Road. So, I would like to see Smith Road off this. Fairmont have 52 parcels. Do we really need 52 parcels? We're Smith Road has that's part of our distribution beyond the Ellie Street
corridor and we're already at what did we say in total in the LA Street corridor and Milton Village? We're adding it's come it's coming down because we are going to take that 705 down by at least a hundred but
that at least that corridor area is going to come down and you know the the planning logic of a half a mile with of a commuter rail station and at the same parameters as the Elliot Street corridor is absolutely sound planning and you
know picking streets that we like or don't like is not sound planning. Mhm. You know, this this district works. It works the same way the Ellie Street districts work and it's the same kind of people say that the community rail is far better transit access than the
trolley is. In fact, it it is very good. Yeah. I'm not saying all the parcels on Fairmont. I'm just saying the larger parcels on Smith Road. So, Zoe and Util team, you looked at
those parcels. Does that go five acres? That's the question. Did you include those because it equals 5 acres? It was within the half mile. And then they look bigger. So maybe 52 parcels seems larger than five acres. Yeah. So what's the acreage on pulling the large parcels on
Smith Road? That that might help us actually with our density. Where is it? It's at is it 157? It's a lot at 11.8 there. So, it's not it's not a problem at three units and
11.8 that's I don't think I think I'm not sure that it would help. We could just run that as just a test for agreeing that we'll if we keep Fairmont in because it it does
contribute and if um I mean Randolph Aan access road back to that for a moment that can't be less than 102 to contribute. We want to count the 40Bs. If that's a consistent goal, then I think we we can the minor
modification of what we talked about with the MMU's removing Adams and adding East Milton Square. If we took 21 units off of Randolph A, and we found that in the paper mill and Granite A North, uh I think that's very doable, reasonable,
and we can actually begin to work on the zoning language, which is a fair amount of work for Tuesday. and so that we could vote that on Tuesday. Yep. And I talked to Nick about that. Um and really the language, most of the zoning language will be the same for what he's
already developed for the 10% plan would be the same for the 25% plan exg of of these calculations. It still takes time to do and we still have to review it and vote on it. And a lot of it Nick is I I talked to him. He's comfortable that he can get that done for Tuesday. Can we um
making a decision tonight? We have to make the decision tonight on the districts and then we can have those tweaked slightly. Um I mean I think we could go with this and it still could be tweaked. These modifications could be done between now
and I agree but I just I do want to talk about the ice house property. Um but I agree that these right now would be the districts that I would suggest that we include and then we look at how we you know toggle those numbers on the
calculations of each each one and um so this is what's being called PB discussion concept V2. Yeah. So are we good saying generally these are the these are the zoning districts that we're comfortable with. We're not
looking to add in I think Woodmir Triplex is out. So, triplex is out. Yep. I think um I'm good with this. Yeah, I I think there's two I there's two I have an interest in. I have an interest in the Ice House and I definitely have an
interest in 507 Randolph A. I don't think we should just ignore that. And 501 Randolph AB which we talked about 501 Randolph AB we talked about today. But I don't see that I don't think I don't see that happening in 8 hours and getting it done. And I think that's
probably I talked to Nick a little bit more about that. Unfortunately, I think that's most likely not going to be allowed by HLC. I still think I would I mean, we can advocate for it, but I I think I can't I don't think we can rely on it being able to I'm not sure you can
rely on everything. No, I know. I know that this But I do feel I do want to look at the Can we look take a look at the ice house and then we'll talk about Yeah. Let me just give you a quick I I have a a scheme that I think is working
within all of the constraints you've just described. I'm just deleting the parameters that I haven't been able to update and showing you the numbers here. Um see this would be at 80. Um uh and then we have
um Milton Station replacing this with um East Milton Square 40B. We don't have any parameters for that. And I will point out that the height in this case will be a limit because the
current 90 units that is being shown on the site is quite tight to the site's right capacity. Um so what can we the changes that I've made are granite north is up to 250. I haven't figured out what the parameters would need to be
to achieve that. Um, East Milton Square I have at 90 replacing the atoms. Um, these stay at the numbers they're at, as does paper mill. Um, and then, uh, we have,
um, the total then would come to 2 479. And again, we'll, you know, we'll do a double all of the cross checking to make sure that this is lining up. And this is at 15.0. Um, and then the balance of what we're seeing is this remains at 338. Blue Hills remains
at the same number. Elliot remains at the same number. Milton Village drops down to 673. Um, and East Milton gets to 340, which is just adding in the 40B um,
site as well as the Granite AB North increase. So, this would be a an revised working scheme that I think is satisfying most of the criteria that have been discussed. But I
think if there are issues that you still see in this set of numbers, I think that would be the the only rationale for exploring additional districts is if they help improve a problem you are still seeing in this set of numbers.
Mhm. And you haven't calculated the net new for each district? We have not. I did a calculation based on rough. It's it's roughly what we've been looking at here. Just under 1,600
net new. So by but by district. I had it by district and what I sent out based on these numbers. These numbers have shifted a little bit but the numbers of existing in these areas are not shifted.
So the existing units that I calculated in all the areas that were in this were uh 876. So, just on the on the Elliot Street corridor where we where we've taken out the cliff cliff road in Norway
area, can you pull that map up, Zoe? Because I when I'm looking at this, I'm I'm concerned about assemblage of properties. Could we bring that cliff road um sort of that the border of that area?
Could we run that up to um to include Allen's circle? If you can see, I don't know if you can see it. It looks like a little horseshoe. Mhm. Because I worry about that being a potential for assemblage just the way it's Remember, assemblage
is not going to help. Well, because you still are limited on your lot. So, if you have one lot of 6,000 and you have two, you add another lot of 6,000, you combine them for 12,000, then you still can only build three units. I still
would like to just I would like to um sort of expand that and I think we will have the unit count and it may help us. So, it's not that large of an area.
this um you're thinking like Norway Road here. Yeah. So expanding that along Elliot Street corridor just a little bit. So pulling the Elliot Street corridor up to include both sides of Norway Road.
Yeah, both sides of Norway Road. Then and then continuing along along Elliot Street, still keeping that front sort of the way we did in the reduction plan on Elliot. So you'd have to cut across Capin and take some out of Capen or just jump to
Allen Circle. I think we you're is take some out of cap. Yeah. like adding adding that to Elliot. Um, no, actually subtracting subtracting it. Sorry, it's already subtracted. So,
a little going up. Yeah, a little north of that. Northeast of that. Going northeast like along the right there. Keep going. That right there along Capeen. To the right of Cape Toen. A little farther along. Yeah, right there. Right there. What's the What's the thinking or
the logic behind it? It's again I'm I'm trying to take as much off of but we have Can we go back and but then we start to have to it's very dense but we might if we can do it
and we don't need the units I just well so according to Cheryl's map on Elliot's net news 290 and on Randolph Fav with the 40B at 711 which is 100 and then you now
you're talking 102 at the access road. That's like 202 new units at the bottom of Randolph Fab, the most dangerous highway in the town which has no public
access. No, no transitoriented. So I'm not understanding why you're put there's going to be 202 units there and only 290 on Elliot Street. Can we go back to the total again? Well, if we if people feel they want to keep it in, that's fine. I
just didn't know if in looking at this corridor, it's a very tight very again. I don't want it anywhere. I know, you know, other than a pretty firm I don't want any necessary in my neighborhood. I don't want it in anybody else's neighborhood. Um, but if we're going to
go back, as I've always said, for these past three years, you look at the statute and um, and it's transit oriented development. It just doesn't make sense to me to only have 290 net new units on Elliot Street and you're
putting two 200 on Randolph A. Mhm. Well, you have empty parcels on Randolph A and you have single family and two family homes in the Iliad Street corridor. No, I understand. You have a four-lane road compared to a two-lane narrow road with connecting there's
there's casualties on Randolph Fav. The Randolph Fav is closed. Like I don't think you guys understand how dangerous Randolph Fav is. It is so dangerous. And now you're going to be putting like that 40B at
7-Eleven, the school bus has to stop on Randolph Fav to pick up any kids. Well, they're already putting the 40BS in in this location, so it's happening. To me, this is this is reckless and this is dangerous. Well, I'm not trying to add more units to to
that. I'm just trying to take off some of our single family. Can we just look at the summary again? just go from the map back to the summary to see where we are. We can tweak that. Zoe can look at that independently. But so this has 336 in the tier
one and the existing Elliot Street in the tier one is 135. That's a That's a large increase in the Ellia Street corridor for just the tier one on a narrow
two-lane road, Maggie. So, um I think that I'm not arguing it's not. Yeah. No. Okay. I'm not arguing it's not. I'm arguing that Randolph Fav is a deadly highway. Well, we haven't looked at the ice house yet and we haven't looked at We don't
really have room to remove at 2,479 of zone capacity. We're a lot less really comparatively than in the 2023 scheme. And as everyone has said for the past three years, it's just zoning. And so the likelihood of zoning single
family neighborhoods, as everyone has said for the past three years, is reduced. The likelihood of this being built on Randolph FAV is greatly greatly going to happen. There's already two uh 40bs there. We know that there's going
to be more. So if we go back to all the arguments everybody has made for the past three years, it's just zoning. So why not? And Randolph is a very long street. It covers just a lot of area. So it does get spread out. And there's a
traffic light at the intersection with the access road here. So in terms of people being able to come in and out, the access presumably could come off the access road like the 40B. So, you're at a signalized intersection to be able to come in and out there. I And one single
homeowner paid to get that access for that 40B. One single home. No, the the the um when this when the zoning was put in place for a assisted living on the horse farm, that zoning was written Yes.
with that traffic light and that access from the access road in mind. So there's already when we think about what when we put our priorities like what parcel should we zone for we said commercial properties larger properties that were
underutilized. This is one of those underutilized properties that will get redeveloped and whether we we want to wish that it all that we're let's we know all of that. We don't have to reiterate it. So let's let's keep moving. Um because I'd like to be
through by 10. Can we look at the ice house? Yeah, Zoe, can you pull up what we would have to do to include the ice house? Yeah. So, um, let me, uh, skip back to this. And I think, if I'm understanding the conversation correctly, the purpose
that the ICE house would be serving would be to reduce pressure on or to replace Randolph Access Road. That seems to be the remaining sticking point. Am I reading that correctly? Yeah. Reduce reduce pressure. we, you know, if we can do it, let's reduce it someplace.
So, this is the, you know, it's currently 2 acres. Um, so, you know, you can kind of proportionally see you'd basically need to be expanding along the residential um to the south um to get to a 5 acre
number. Um, so if this is 2 acres, that would be, you know, at least a handful of these. And I might suggest it seems like this is a a an access road maybe for the driveways for these homes or something. But maybe that would be a logical break point if you were going to
include parcels to the south. Move your cursor. I I want to see where your cursor is. Are you draw to right here? Sorry. So for Zoe for those to contribute just like Randall Fav, they'd have to be at least 15 units an acre, right?
Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, right now, if we look at our, you know, the the role that Randolph A and Access Road is playing, so if we're swapping it in for that, in effect, um, that is at 13.1 units per acre. It's that's 6.6
acres. So, I think you'd need to see something pretty analogous to those stats to get to the, you know, what we'd need to see for this to contribute. So like something close to 80 units, something close to 6 acres.
Zoe, what's the how many parcels are they all the way down to Cannav? We can't see Cannav on the um Yeah. Uh maybe JT you could do a quick um look at on GIS how many parcels
down until it hits the intersection. Yeah. Can't nav JT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15. So I don't want to I don't think we want to.
Um and you need at least the parcels that extend down to that little um right of way to hit five. So there'd be another 10 parcels left. So this would be the only place where we'd be zoning reszoning single family
to 15 units an acre which seems high. We're not doing it. And this is a as I've said it's a DCR road. It's a way through a park you know is designed there's going to be a new
school Charles Elliot. You know, there's historical significance. I'm on this road and even though I'm I'm really against Randolph Fab, I'm against this too. We abud conservation land. Um
yeah, I think that's too high of a density for single family. We can't go um the other direction. No. No. How many units are in the ice house? 50 something on two acres.
2.2. It's 2.2 acres, right? Or two. I have two from my our notes. Two. It's about two on the dot. Okay. Yeah. So, I was assuming we would just use the ice house and get some kind of an exception. We can't allow that. It needs to be five acres or they won't allow the ice house.
All right. So, but but I'm not in favor of five acres of I'm not five acres in this area. Yeah. All right. Thank you for just look taking a look at that. Yeah, of course. Um, so I think then we
are I think that's the balance of the the additional sites that we wanted to explore. At this point, yeah, I mean given given the constraints that we have on time. Um, so I just in my quick calculations, I
put the additional units um that we needed on the Granite AB North site versus um Paper Mill, which seemed like the other candidate to accomplish that same goal. Is that is there a preference between those two? Um, and I don't know, Matthew, if you also have opinions in
terms of, you know, development feasibility or kind of the the constraints of those parcels where we should be zoning for more. Yeah. On which two parcels between Granite AB North and Paper Mill. if one of them is absorbing um you know
basically uh 18 additional units from what we were showing before whether those 18 additional units are going on Grand up north or paper mill I would pick Grand Avenue North I think um the paper mill site is
complex um I I think if you start pushing those numbers higher on paper mill I mean if I were HLC you know it it's going to start to look a little bit um sketchy given the access issues and and the the
topography and everything there. So, I think Granite Abn North makes sense. Yeah. And we know from the conversation today they're good with Granite Abnorth that I don't think it's going to face the level of, you know, further scrutiny that the paper mill will face. So, we should put it there. I agree with Matthew.
Great. Um, so I think the the last thing I'd like a little bit of input on is for the East Milton 40B the parameters that you'd like to see there. Um, and JT maybe while they're talking if you can try to do a a rough and ready compliance
workbook for this so that we can test. My concern is that the parameters that we're going to need to put in to get to 90 are going to be parameters that you're not comfortable with. So, I just want to see if we can quickly stress test those um to make sure that we're
in the um just to update you guys on the parameters necessary for 250 on Granite A North. That's 66 units per acre with a F of 1.55. Great. Thanks for pulling those numbers, JT. It's helpful to have that added
context. I just wanted to um point out um with this change um that 362 at Blue Hills, 555 at Elliot Street Quarter, and Milton Village at 673. That's a total of uh 1590 or
64% of the total zone capacity. So, it did drop down from 66 to 64. If we take out the Adams Village portion and move it to East Milton Square. All right. I'm I'm good with that. I
like it. It's better. Let me correct myself. I don't like any of this, but I like that change. Understood. Okay. So for the East Milton 40B, um the if I recall correctly, your
overlay zone is the height that you're setting is is it three or 2.5? Three. Three. So I'd imagine you'd want to match that for the 40B site.
Mhm. In other words, you wouldn't want to go higher than three. Yes, I think so. I imagine you might want to go lower than three if we can if we can manage it. Yeah. Um and then parking spaces also at one.
So we've been showing kind of everywhere else or would you want to exempt in this location? I think exempt so it doesn't control it. Yeah. Yeah, I think exempt. Exempt on that. Yep. I think um minimum
lot size and um units per lot requirements. I'm imagining we can um potentially uh ignore those two constraints, not use them, just focus on F units per acre and
stories and open space. Does that sound right? Yeah. I don't think we It's a business district, so I don't think a lot a large amount of open space. What did we have in 2023 for the East Mton? Do you recall, Zoe? Uh, let me see if I can pull that up quickly. Um, very
little, I think, too. It's almost Yeah, 60%. We required 60% open space. It was 2023 East Milton Square was at 60%. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Because it was the whole square. The whole square. No, it wasn't.
Sorry, it's not on this table. I would say we could put it at 30% maybe. So, we try it at 30%. Here, I'm like moments away from finding this. Uh, okay. East Mountain Square. We had open
space. Uh, yeah, we had it at at at 40%. Yeah. Yeah. So we were lining up with the rest of these you know the parameters we're showing elsewhere but as you point out it was it was the square as a whole and um I think the intent was to also encourage people to
use the overlay in lie of the correct yeah mta community. So that may have been one of the ways that we were trying to make the overlay appealing. Um so I think the current um parameters uh
for the 40B the open space is quite low. Um I imagine that might not be what the planning board is looking for. Um but let me do a quick check to just give you an anchor point to what it is um in the
application. Currently the open space is about a little under 5% right now the application. Mhm. Do so I think we could 10%. Yeah 10 that' be fine. I'd be fine with that.
Uh, and then for F and units per acre, um, I imagine for units per acre, we might just toggle that to get to where we need to be, but is there a, um, for F, is there any, um, kind of strong
feeling you have in terms of like alignment with the zoning you've been working on? I'd say what works. I would. Yeah, I would say you could toggle toggle with that and see. So, let's
let's give that a try. I imagine you may still need some more time, JT, to pull the like all the set up all the parcels and the acreage and all that. Um, let me see if I can get you the other stats that we had for it.
Why don't we start with units per acre and then just calibrate the F accordingly based on a thousand square feet per unit. Yeah, sounds good. And I guess with if it's 1.2 I just want
to see if like for at a very basic level if we have 1.2 2 acres. Um, and you can only use 90% of that floor area and you can only go to three
stories. Um, Must have left my phone in the truck. So that would Okay, we're we're in the clear. We can figure it out from there. So it's it if you were to just extrude, you know, a 90% lot coverage
straight up for three stories on this size, you would get like around 140 units. So I just wanted to make sure that we could like the envelope that you're willing to consider that we could get 90 within that. So we'll we'll
toggle the um you know the F and the units per acre to to bring it down into alignment with 90. Okay. But I think maybe Matthew, you can do a quick check on my math there to make sure that I'm not missing. Yeah, it's going to be like F something like 1.7 or something or
1.8. It's going to be higher than anywhere else. I think that's fine. The F of the 40B is higher than that, right? So I think the Yeah, the current F of the
40B is um above two. That's what I thought. What's the reason to toggle down to 90? Why not go as many as we possibly can? I mean, you don't I think unless there's a place where you're I think there's two reasons. The
first is um just like inviting increased scrutiny from the state. Um but I think besides that it's it's just you know what are we achieving with it? Like where are we
reducing elsewhere? What is the goal that we're trying to achieve by by creating you know increased units here? What what are we opening? What are we trying to do elsewhere? It just how many units are in the village right now? Um the village has
um 673. Just imagine what that looks like. 673 units. Anything you can do to reduce that number is a good thing. That's a tremendous number of units. Remember 88 Warf is included in that and it's a condo building. So you would need every condo owner to agree to do
anything there. So it's a paper number. I I I agree. But still it's you know how many units are are in 88 wolf 77 pardon me 77 just imagine where thank you thank you and I do worry about the potential of extra space storage something could
happen there and we only have a two-year demolition I would hate to lose I've said before any of those mill buildings down there I want to see it added to but I'm okay going more than 90 as long as it's not going to kick it out of acceptability totally I agree with that but I don't want to bring the scrutiny
to the point that we lose it, right? But but let's let's not What do you think would be a comfort? What would be a recommendation? Like 110 would that seem? I think I'm going to punt to Matthew on this because it's more of a built form threshold question of when it starts to
be infeasible like unlikely. You have a proposal there. I'm sorry. How many units is the proposal? 90 92 90 92. Yeah, you could get I mean the proof is or is that at
three stories or or higher? It's higher. Five. Six. It's either five or six. It's Oh, okay. It's a varying level lot. So, you can't model you get to just to update the model won't let
you get to 90 at three stories. Um you need to go at least to 3.5. All right. I think I would be willing to do that. Three. Three and a half is okay. Or four. But if you want to go more than 90, you're going to have to go higher. You have to go four or five.
It's never going to be built. It's under construction. You could call it four. It's never going to happen. But I'm just saying from what it sounds like, we're going to have to go more than I understand. Yeah. The model builds in the 20% open space. That's what's happening, I think, because of the setbacks that typically are
required. So that's I think what's happening. So effectively, it's it's really an 80% lot coverage. So if you want five stories, how many units would that be? Uh give me one sec, Cheryl. I I just realized we're removing all open space.
Um right. Yeah. And no parking requirement, right? I think 10% open% requirement. Yeah. And no parking requirement. Correct. Yeah. Correct. So I think at this point the
um parameters would just be the three stories and the 10% open space and then that would be our um our limit but I don't know if the compliance model might still default to the 20 just to preserve um setback
uh go higher on the height with that if you if you could. Okay. Yeah, can do. Um, is it giving you with the 10% plugged in for open space, is it still shy of 90? I removed any limits on units
per acre just so I can see what F and height is doing. Um, so we get a 100 units with three and a half at two F. Yeah.
What would Just so we're seeing the the impact of the stories, can you release the F constraint for a second and see if like three stories can get their period just with the 10% in the three stories? Yeah.
And then from there we can start increasing height. 119 is the cap. Okay. that that's on three stories without any F limitations.
Okay. So what would I think I think the questions would be you know do we leave it at that at the you know 119 that that's as much as we try and get out of the site because that allows you to stay within Yeah. That seems
What if you went four stories? Just could you punch in four stories just to see what it is? Yeah. 160. Wow. I'd do it. You might get them to reconsider what
they're building. I know. They're going that much more. I know the guys building it. They were already going. Um they're not going to change that plan. You never know. They wouldn't have they wouldn't have to build any parking under this scenario. So the difference between three and four
goes from 119 to 160 at 1,000 square feet a unit. How about bigger the unit? How about uh two and a half story? Yeah. Try try the half. Three and a half. Three and a half. What's the three and a I agree, Cheryl. What's three and a half? JT 139. That's
what I would do. That's that's yeah I think that's so this is my problem with this whole thing. It is basically not good planning at all. Well this is trying to get credit for a which I 100% agree. I 100%
people want us to do that. That's all I'm trying to do. It's all that's just but it's not good planning. So everyone just needs to recognize this is not how good planning should be. Okay. We have a compliance model that we have to meet in order to do it. A flawed
compliance model. Yeah. So if we said 139, how much does that remove? Is that 139 that's removed from the village? Milton Village, which would be Milton Station
East, and we would be removing Adams, right? Yeah. Yeah. So we could for instance we could bring the Milton Village down to um 609. Let me bring that let me get this
in context for you. So um make a so I didn't actually get it to the numbers here. So this would be um these hold true, but this instead of being at 90, this is at um
139. And um uh since I'm assuming if we're reducing in the Mil station area, you'd want to reduce the east correct one based on the comments you were describing. So, if we can bring that down to
265. Um, and maybe the bridge, we could That's a really high density up there. I don't think that we can because that one's part of what's propping up the density numbers. That's right. And it's not mandatory mixeduse. That's Yeah. Yes. So, this would
be 464 and then that stays at 15 flat. And then this goes from 673 to 609. So you're losing like 60ome units and the um East Milton goes up because that's
where we're adding the the balance of those units. What was the change under Smelton, Zoe? when um it went from um uh let's see 389
was only like 324 so 340 to 389 but only went 49 units yeah right because it's we were at 90 before and then we increase from 90 to 139 I I understand thank you I forgot the 90 was in there
Zoe is the acreage adjusted. So the 40B because it would be MMU, it wouldn't modify acreage. Um, of course, thank you. And this allow us to to hit just almost
exactly the time. So given the hour, Meredith, at 9:44, I would be good. This is these refinements. This is as good as it can get, I think.
I mean I So is the goal to get this approved by HLC before town meeting or we vote on this and then submit it by July? It won't they won't be able to give a formal approval before town meeting but um the I mean they will
probably we will be able to get review and feedback from them I imagine. Um but uh I I doubt that we will get a formal approval before town meeting but we will certainly try and I'm sure they will too. They have been very responsive. They we gave them um less than a week
and they got us um quite uh extensive feedback. So if this gets voted in a town meeting and then has to get tweaked, does it have to go back before town meeting to get voted in again as a final final? Yes. DLC. There have been
um I believe this is there was like one or two other communities that we've worked with where there have been minor revisions that have happened afterwards. Um I think this would be the past it was maybe one of them. Um if we this would be the one it would be um the the state
would work with you to figure out the revisions that needed to occur and make sure that and if they were significant enough that they required going back to town meeting um you would do so I believe. Um, but we can I think I wouldn't focus too much on that
piece of it. I think those the level of tweaks that happen at that stage if you've been in communication with the OLC are not the kinds of tweaks that um residents tend to care about. They're like very technical tweaks that are just important for
um you know dotting eyes and crossing tees. But I think you have to go back to town meeting because it's zoning. Mhm. you have to go back to town meeting even if it's a small tweak. Yeah. So I think that like for instance we made a a small tweak I think and you might remember the
details better than I do Matthew and Cohasset to address some of their their interaction with their groundwater um rules. Um and that did go back to town meeting. Um but as I said it's a very technical like
interaction of different regulations kind of regul uh revision. So it's not something that generally is um like it's not an equally comparable hurdle in terms of bringing something to town meeting as what you're working through
right now. So Zoe would it throw us out of compliance if we have to go back to town meeting or is the state just make an exception and say you guys are good? I think the general policy is that if you've submitted a a um a compliance approach in good faith, it's been voted in by town meeting and there's a small
issue, you have interim compliance status until it's been resolved. Okay. The the it's really what you run into is town meeting doesn't approve it. That's what you run into. Okay. So, you don't want to have to go back to town meeting. Yeah. They'll approve it. Yeah. I mean,
I think honest, so I know the state will do everything they can to help you not be in that situation, but I'm not sure there's much utility to discussing it further because none of us have influence over that. We're all just going to have to do the best we can in the time we have. And the same is true
for the state and they'll do everything they can to get you what you need so that you have a town meeting that is efficient and productive and you don't have to go back. But there's only so much time and um may or may not happen. So, I'd like to suggest that we authorize UTIL to do the
work that they need to do that um to submit this next week so that it can be submitted to the select board. And Zoe, can you include net news in all these areas? Um, we can for the like public
communications piece, but not on the same timeline as your warrant. So, like we can we can work with the town to get those that kind of supporting analysis up to help you with the public communications, but um we won't be able to do it by the 13th to align with your
warrant schedule. But by town meeting, could you have it done? Oh, yeah. Absolutely. That's what I I mean public communications. Many weeks before your town meeting, we will work with you to get that kind of analysis um so that you can have an effective public communications um
campaign. We're happy to work with you on that. The net new is like there's nuances. So, we'll we can talk through what that the specifics of what that might look like, but we are happy to provide that kind of supporting analysis just on a a slightly
um delayed timeline from the delivery of the components that are critical for the warrant itself. Okay. But but I do think net new is hugely important. Yeah, I understand. Not just not just for communication purposes, but you
know, we just passed a $10 million override and it would be huge if of the 2464 units if 2,000 are net new. like we really have to be stewards of um I don't
think it's 2,000 based on I understand but I'm just saying it would be nice to know how many net new we're having because it puts unbburden a huge burden on the taxpayers. We just heard from the fire chief they're 11 um personnel short
every shift. We only have six police every shift. So it's it is a huge piece of information that I think we need even if it's not 2,000 and you had a calculation earlier Cheryl that it was 1,600 you know it's something like that
but you cannot um and and this notion that if you zone it it's only zoning and never be built. I've never accepted that. I never will accept that. If you zone it prepare that it's going to be built. If developers can make money developers build buildings that's just the way it is. And this eliminates a barrier for them. They'll build it. But,
you know, 1,600 units and, you know, for all those that are so adamantly in favor of of complying with the zoning, there's there's no consideration for infrastructure cost. You're going to have it. You are absolutely going to have it. There's increase in services. We're going to have it. We can't add,
you know, those kind of units of the town or not have it. We will have an increase in the number of students. There's no doubt about it. That RKG analysis was flawed. 275 kids into the school system. If you zone for 2461, that's not a credible number. It ignored the fact that people will move out of
their homes and move into these built units and their homes will then be occupied by families. Why do we want to ignore that? The cost of schools, the capital cost, 1,600 cars on the road in Milton. Maybe it's not 1,600, maybe it's 1,200. You know, a thousand more cars
driving around Milton. It's bad as it is. Nobody wants to consider all that. And you know, and I've said it and I'm going to continue to say it. The the SJC did not rule on our classification. They did not. They deferred ruling on it. The
classification is still out there for Milton. And we have plenty of residents in town that want to state that we lost our case. The the the what they ruled on applied to all 177 communities. The one aspect of our case that they refused to
rule on was the one that was only applicable to Milton. Well, go figure, right? They didn't want to touch it, but they told Milton, right? Because every other component of the of the ruling that they issued applied to all 177, but the one that applied to Milton only,
they didn't touch it. So, um, this is, you know, the fact that the statement that Milton lost, Milton did not lose. And it and it it would only you can only consider Milton having lost if we do pursue classification. it is
adjudicated and we lose in that particular situation. That's it. Until that happens, Milton has not lost and this idea that we have is is absolutely incorrect. There's plenty of attorneys here in the room. I'm not one and even I understand that we didn't lose.
So, we have a state senator who spoke at town meeting ready to fight. He's the unfunded mandate. That's the other thing where we're going to lose if we if we pass zoning.
If we pass zoning and then the Plymouth County Superior Court rules that towns can seek an exemption until it's um funded. We would lose again on that. I understand. I'll close I'll close with
this. Um, we hear we, all of us, plenty of people in the community hear criticisms of the previous leaders in Milton because they they were not open-minded to 40B, right? We hear that kind of criticism a lot. People talk
about that all the time. We're assaulted with developers coming in because they take advantage of 40B. And what happens, you know, the decision-m of of of leaders years past, you know, is questioned. Just imagine when the negative impacts of this kind of zoning affects Milton, what are they going to
say about the leadership of Milton at this time? Mhm. All of us that said it was a good idea. Okay. So, at this point, um, I just want to say I feel very I feel strongly that
we need to present a 10% plan and a 25% plan and that we present that to the warrant committee to go to the June um, town meeting. I think there are a lot of unknowns to your point, the unfunded mandate, we have not seen the decision
on that yet. I think we need to give flexibility. I think we need to be prepared for both because we don't know what's going to happen with this. But I don't and I I think we should have both prepared and and if it gets to town meeting, let town meeting decide. But I
would suggest we know the 5% that we all agree or the 10% that we all agree on. And I would say this what we what UTIL has just prepared for us tonight with doing some a little bit of additional work would be the plan that I would feel
comfortable should we be forced to do a 25%. And that would be that would be um the plan that I would want to send to the warrant committee with our with language that Nick has said that he can prepare for both by Tuesday. I I I agree
submitting both. That's my opinion. I think we submit both to the warrant committee and put them in a position where they have two plans. However, I would like that 10% plan um to I would like to some of the changes we made to the 25. I would like to consider making to the 10, right? Um so I just want to
make sure that what we I don't think we have time to make changes to the 10 though. We have to we have to write the language. Um and Nick has already done a draft. I don't know if every I was going to ask has every What kind of changes are you talking just moving some? I'd like to look and see. Yeah, I'd like to
look and see how, you know, some of what we did here tonight could improve the 10. Does that really affect the zoning language if we move numbers around? I didn't think so, but I didn't think so either. I would that might we might be able to change if you want to look at some numbers. Sorry, that's but not districts. We wouldn't be able to get
into doing district studies at this point. We we would not have time. So, Meredith, to your point of this language, I started to review it, but I felt as if we needed the districts to be finalized. We do. Yeah. And so I'm happy to look at it more carefully now once we
get this y agreed upon and finalized. Look at what more carefully the language of the zoning. Okay. So are we agre in agreement that this the what we came up with is the best. I I just don't see any other
options for us. It's fine. It's as good as we're going to get. I'm not happy with it either, but yeah, it's that's it. We're here. Yeah, eight hours left. Can I make a motion? Yes, you can make a motion. All right. I'll make a motion to submit a 25% rapid transit compliant
plan based upon the final spreadsheet that was shared tonight and manipulated tonight by UTIL um to the select board in the war committee for the June special town meeting. Is there a second?
I'll second. Okay. All in favor? I I abstained. Okay. 25% makes me sick to my stomach. I know. I know. Okay. So, that um we're in
agreement on that and I think um if there's anyone who would like to anyone who would like to comment um from the public, please um we wanted to offer you the opportunity, but I think hopefully a lot of the concerns that we heard um have been addressed. Yes.
Yeah. Please come. table Thomas Adam speak this will just take a minute I I I have heard many residents over the years and even some me some elected officials uh talking about that the uh regulations or or the
and the statute of the sorry you just your name and address please Thomas Stardy Adam Street Milton. Yeah, you said it. You okay? I want to just bring up one point. The regulations and the statute
and the regulations are the law and they apply to HLC just as much as they apply to Milton. And if you look at the statute and the regs and you just look at one
aspect that's very important uh HLC much itself must itself comply with the statute and the regs. The statute requires quote at least one district of reasonable size located
within a half mile of a subway station or commuter rail station if applicable. If a community has both a subway station and a commuter rail station, it may choose either because it's only one
district. If you were therefore to assume as the HLC does or assert that the trolley is essentially a a uh rapid transit equivalent to a subway station. Uh, nevertheless, Milton could still choose
under the statute, which uses the word or, to fully comply by virtue of the fact that it will put its district within a half mile of commuter rail stations subject to the 50 acre minimum, for example, and the permission to
locate under the regs uh significant portions elsewhere. under the REGG regulation 72.081C drafted by HLC and HLC is obligated under it. And
so take a look at that when you have a chance. Again, I'm sure you have looked at it. Can you cite the section again, please? Yep. 72.08 PN1 PNC. Okay. All right. And it says, "A community with," and I'm
quoting, "A community with transit station areas associated with more than one transit station may locate the multif family zoning district in any of the transit station areas. For example, a rapid transit community with transit
station area around a subway station in one part of town, and transit station area around a communal rail station in another part of town may locate its multif family zoning district in either or both transit station areas. Milton
has the choice. Therefore, even if you were to assume, as HLC does, that there's a rapid transit subway station proximity that Milton has, it can choose under this REGG, HLC's own REGGG, and
the statute, which says either or to locate its zoning district in within a half mile of the commuter rail stations. I just wanted to point that out because I've heard a lot of comments from folks that the statute is the law, the
regulations are the law, but they're not looking fully through the alternative within the statute itself and within the reg. Thanks. Great. Thank you very much. Okay, so I didn't see any other Oh, yes,
please. Yeah, the John Driscoll 718 Rain Belt Bab. I've sat through all these meetings at home and it's kind of disturbing and I hear people explaining Rainbow Vabs are a fourlane
highway and it's got plenty of room and then I heard one individual say well they can go shop at Eagle Farm which is a mile up the road with traffic going by doing about 80. So I kind of find it
it's kind of hard to watch people that live in other areas of town going to decide what's going to go on Randolph a below my house. Last October a man got killed. Lady drove head on into them. So it does happen. And everybody here you can say it's the law. It's law. As far
as I'm concerned I tell the state we're not going to obey the law. It's going to cost us a lot more than a million25 that we didn't get from the state. So I'd say to the state see you later. It doesn't bother me that we have to say to the state, we're not going to
take your grants. Fine. But it's kind of hard for other people to dictate what can go in other people's neighborhood. And I spent over 10 grand to get that light used myself. And now it's coming back to
haunt me. Thank you. Yep. Welcome. Hi uh Mark Christo 17 Waldo Road had a number of things to talk about but I think kind of one of the more important ones is kind of what Sean was alluding to about the classification issue. I'm
someone that has always very strongly felt that we this is a community that stands alone from every other one of the other 177 communities in this Commonwealth that should be looking at that reclassification uh option.
Um, knowing that and knowing that we are working towards a plan and I'm not that doesn't bother me that we're working towards a rapid transit plan to meet a compliance model, but we know that as as a rapid transit community, we would have two catchment areas for developable
station here in Milton. Those would both be around Milton and Matapan station at Blue Hill Parkway. And I wonder why when we're looking at different scenarios and options kind of as a relief valve, why we haven't more purposefully pursued the option of some more densification by
parcel uh reconfiguration along the Blue Hill Parkway Matipan corridor. um gateway uh entrances into the community, roadways that are multi-laneed with parking, with wider sidewalks, with transit enriched with amenities of
commercial uh commercialization uh options, including commuter rail. We've kind of drawn a deaf eye towards a little bit more development in that area. Um I don't know why and and I I I would have liked and I guess Zoe's still
there. I'd like to know if Util ever looked and explored for a little bit more development there just in a short very compact zone up to Burke Road where there's some industry there's a library there was a commercial building that burnt down back in the early 70s that I made reference to to in a letter that I
sent to this body today uh how would that have affected our ability to come up with a better plan relieving some of the stresses in many of these different subdists and why are we not pursuing that perhaps it's not a great idea but we haven't had the conversation about it and I think that there's there's a
diverse population that might like that as well too. Um and and we could refine that. One is if you had larger development there, you'd also be working towards your 40b uh quotient of providing 15% affordable housing. But with uh the ability to tweak FIRS and
unit counts there uh you could put together something that's relatively moderately priced that would be beneficial for community both in terms of people that live here but also the communities who don't have the stressor from neighborhood to neighborhood. So I I I I just ask for maybe some input from
you deal if it's not too late that may be but nonetheless I am perplexed by that not having been mentioned more often in this process. Thank you. Good. Zoe, do you want to touch on that? I think he's referring to the triplex
area that we were the west area. Yeah. So, we did look um let me just get myself oriented to the right street name there. You had me I think Burke Street. Um so, the we did explore some areas in
um you know along Blue Hills. Um we have in this plan the parkway area which um we selected in part because it has um a larger parcel size mix which is more compatible with the multifamily
um that we're trying to achieve. So three units or more um per lot is necessary to um have it contribute towards compliance. Um we did study um some areas um along Brook Road um uh
Austin Street um Brush Hill uh and also looking at West Street, Coller A and Laurel Road um and and along Thatcher Street as well as a larger kind of fan study area in that area in that sort of part of town. Um the main driver of the
constraints there is that the parcel fabric is quite small. And so when we looked at ways to bring three units to the parcels that right now predominately have single unit or two unit development um it required uh parameters that were
quite tight um and also um the lot sizes needed to be quite a bit smaller than what we're looking at elsewhere. So, after kind of doing a couple different iterations of, you know, what if we set the lot size higher and only allowed it on larger lots? Okay, the density doesn't work. What if we set it lower and we allowed this level of development
on smaller lots? Does that work with the street pattern and the sort of levels of density and the amenities, the open space that's available and ultimately we decided that there were other districts that were a better fit for this rule set. Um, at least I'm assuming that based on kind of the direction that we've received from the planning board.
So, I think it's it was really a function of the interaction of the rules that we're um planning to um and the fabric of that part of town um is really like predominantly a duplex um a dense duplex fabric which is um not uh
particularly compatible with getting to three units um and meeting all of the other town's goals around um zoning parameters. I may have not been clear enough, but I was referring to more densification and uh having just
listened to you talk about the Falcone property in East Milton and thinking of 131 Elliot Street uh down in the central a district, I was thinking development more or closer to that scale as you drive over the gateway into Milton for
the first block or two along the major boulevards that I mentioned there, Blue Hill Parkway, Blue Hill A, Brush Hill Road, which is a extension of Truman Highway up to the Brook Road area uh because that lends itself well to both mixeduse and denser development with its
close proximity to multiple transit lines, meaning the Madapan trolley, the commuter rail at the confluence of of of major boulevard. So that's what I was thinking more specifically than the small ancillary streets that allow for very minimal development um in in that
area. Yeah, under understood. So, I mean, right now, most of the gateway portion of Blue Hill Parkway is zoned. Um, Brush Hill Road and, um, uh, Blue Hill A are not. Um, in part because they
do have that small parcel fabric even though they are on a large road. Um, and then, uh, the remaining parcel areas, either islands in the middle of that, um, or preserved open space. So that's the the constraints for the corridors.
Even though I agree with you from a a form perspective, those larger roads can carry larger buildings, the parcel fabric is at odds with it. But it was never seriously considered. It sounds like it was considered. It was considered. It was studied at great length and we
decided to move in a different direction. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate. Okay. So, Cheyenne, are there any hands up? Anyone? Yes, we have
um Andrea Lizio and Joanie Martin. Okay, we can invite Andrea to speak. I think that hand went down. There's a She's muted. So, our next would be Joanie Martin. Okay. Should we take on the camera? Hi.
Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. I um a question for Zoe or the actually the group of you um when you kept referring to Fairmont Hill or Fairmont Station. All the drawings seem to show different spots and then I heard Smith Road
mentioned and I thought I heard 52 units. I might have that wrong. Can you show me on the plan exactly where on Smith Road? Cuz that's where we live. That I'm trying to figure out where these fif these units are going on Smith Road specifically. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Um, sorry I
was muted. Um, I can Okay, I can show you. Um, one moment because earlier did you show Smith Road on your drawings because that's everything I saw was on the other side of Truman. Johnny, can you please give me your
address? I'm 90 Smith Road. Thanks. So, this is the geography that is in the plan currently. Um you can see the portion that's along Smith Road is um maybe two blocks worth um along where it
intersects with Carlson and Beacon. Um it goes uh one, two, three, five parcels um further along Smith Road after Beacon Street. Um just on that uh that one side. Wait. Five parcels coming up from
Beacon. It like um one, two, three, four. That's my house on the end there. Yeah. Is that 90? Um I don't have the addresses in front of me right now. Cuz if you're talking about 68 the
school or the church or whatever that's there, I just don't know. How many units are you looking to put on Smith Road? Exact at what address is that? Is that 68? We're not planning any particular number of units for any part of town, but the
compliance model does generate an assumed number of units that could be built based on the rules that we've generated. So, I don't I'm not sure it's useful to focus on a specific number of units for
a specific parcel in this rule set, but um but Zoe, this rule set allows three units per parcel, right? Yes, that's true. Yes. So, across the board, every parcel in this district would be allowed
three units under this rule set. And this is I'm still I got confused. So you're saying three units could be built on one parcel? Yes, that's correct. Yeah. Triple decker. Yeah. Three units in one building. By right. Triple decker.
This is So in theory, how many units could be possibly built on Smith Road? 369 about 15. There's six parcels. Six. It also would have to be meet other dimensional criteria. It would have to be able to meet the setback
requirements, the height, the F, the open space. So, it's not clear that every parcel would be able to meet every one of those criteria. However, if they met if they met the criteria, it's is it six six parcels? Six parcels parcels three. So, 18 units,
if they if they met the criteria and they're larger lots, so they probably would meet the criteria. There's two small ones I see there. I don't one of those might be Beacon Street on the corner there of Beacon and Smith. So there might be four parcels that are on Smith actually, but one
small they all there's two that are medium and one larger looking at that map. Excuse me. We're we're up to three minutes. Okay. Thank you for answering that. Thank you, Joanie. Okay. All right. Yes.
You want more? One more and then Anthony Ling again. I just had a clarifying question on the motion. Um, I heard Cheryl, you say the move to present the 25% plan, but I thought I heard earlier that we were going to bring both plans. Was that because the 10% plan was already approved and you were the 25?
Correct. Correct. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. And before um we have UTL leave, um the question back to the F um gradation, Zoe, that you said you
could look at. It would be great if you could do that um for for Tuesday. I'm not sure that's possible. But in other words, um you know, if you had right now the F
changes at a 5,000 square foot increment in the lot size and if you could adjust it to every 2500 square ft, that would limit um the size of the largest buildings on those larger lots as as you
get into that square footage difference in lot size. We're just set. Yeah, we can we can work on that for for Tuesday. Is there um consensus among the planning board that you'd like us to pursue that? Yes. Everybody agree with that? Yeah.
The.5 or the point 4. Is that recommended or I suggested should say? Well, at at 6,000 square feet at 3,000 you have to have 1,000 uh per unit that's 3,000 square feet.
So, you've got to have it at 0.5. Yeah. point at the 6,000. So it has to start at 0.5 on a 6,000 foot lot and then get smaller as the lots get larger. Five drops as we move forward 2500 increment, right? It I mean it does now, but
there's not those intermittent intermittent increments before we um have depart the meeting. Could could uh we have tomorrow by email at least the last version of the summary that that we had. Even if it's not even
if you're still tweaking, Zoe, if you could at least give it to us um the most current V2 that you have tomorrow morning. Would that be all right? Yeah, I can uh before I sign off tonight, I can PDF this presentation and share it with Cheyenne so she can forward it along. That would be really good. Thank
you. Good. Yeah, sure. Ada Rose Marin 32 Coline Road and just want to thank you all for all the work that's gone into this. It's been going on for a long time for our whole community and and I feel hopeful that
we've arrived at some agreement. Nobody's happy about the whole thing, but that's kind of what compromise is about. Um, but thank you for getting getting us to this moment. Um, one technical question while we've still got
Zoe here, um, is about the numbers and percentages of parcels in the Allet Street Carter and how that compares with what we had in 2023. I'm just wondering if you can You mean how did you mean how many are now
contributing? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. sort of like out of the total number I think less as in like like how many parcels are not um eligible right because before it was 50% were
ineligible when we had the minimum lot size at 7500 yeah um JT do you think you could take a look at um in that smallest tier how many of them are getting knocked out completely yes
is that it'll take us a few minutes to get that number so I can get That's what you're just asking how many years total. Yeah. Total total like out of 25 out of the 2461 or whatever the total is. How much of that is in the Elliot Street corridor in this current
plan? Oh, sorry. I think I was going down a different line of questioning. So, let me I'll share my screen. One second because I think last in 2023 it was like 70 something%. Um, so this is the latest
that we just ran. So that's the the 555 number is the Elliot Street corridor and the total number of units that's shown here is 2 um 464. You might have to read those. So sorry because I cut off on our screen here at
the bottom. Okay. 22%. Yeah. 72 22 22 22%. 22 22% are in the tier one, tier two, tier three. Yes. Yeah. are are in Elliot Street
corridor as a whole is currently supporting in this scheme. 22.5% of all of the units that we are um zoning for in this scheme. Okay. And what about the
um Milton Station East West Bridge? East West and Bridge. Yeah, because those are and Madapan. I mean those are all right in the Elliot Street area. I think that's what I calculated. 64% earlier.
Scroll down. Milton Village is about 24 They're 25% 24.62%. If you look at these numbers here, so these are kind of the the tallies and then they're relative to this number
here. So it's dropped even more. Yeah. Right. So it's 338. No, wait. 362. 555 and 609. Well, that's very helpful. Yeah, this part of the screen was cut off from what
we could see here. So, that's Yes. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um, and then my last question is between now and town meeting, do you have any kind of more community engagement that could happen to educate town meeting members and the
community, people who live in all of these neighborhoods about what's in this plan and what it will mean. Um because I think we'll post it on our website and I'll we could maybe talk to the staff on I don't think we'll be making additional
presentations. Uh but it will be posted and available for people. I think we're going to need a pretty presentation and we'll need a public hearing. We'll need public hearings. Yeah, I should have said that. That's um we'll need at least probably two public hearings to let
people Okay. see what the when it's all ready and the zoning language is all complete. Mhm. So, which hopefully we'll have that by Tuesday. So, great. Great. Well, thank you. All right. Good. Thank you. Okay. All
right, Zoe and JT and Matthew, thank you so much. We appreciate the work on this tonight. Okay. Thank you guys. You're welcome. Good night. Thanks very much. Take care. Thank you. Thank you. So, we just have one last housekeeping
um item and it was the on the East Milton zoning which we've submitted to the warrant committee already. Um we recognized we wanted to change add one sentence change which is on it's um B uh D ground floor uses and it would read
groundf flooror uses shall promote an active pedestrian environment and lively streetscape. And then the next sentence we just added and shall be occupied by because we that was the other we'd already voted on that
shall be. Um but then it we also have occupied by non-residential uses in section BB except that parking shall not be permitted to satisfy this requirement. So I just need a motion to accept that change. Is that what I have
submitted? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I just felt it was better to separate them out into those two sentences. Do you want to look at it? Yeah. Just real quickly. Pass it and just So, at this
point, it isn't a motion for us to amend because it's already Well, it hasn't gone it's gone to the warrant committee. The warrant committee has voted on it. So, we need to revote the changes submitted to the warrant committee and then they would need to revote on our based on our
change. Okay. So, I'll make a mo Well, you I'll let Maggie read it first. Go ahead. Make your motion. I'm going to be fine with it. Okay. I'll make a motion um to amend which I already talked about. Jim, tell me which section that is again. The bottom. Where are we? Uh
section B D. Section B, subsection D of the mixeduse overlay zoning. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I. Okay. And with that, a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Is there a
second? Second. All in favor? I. Thank you guys very much. Rip it. Rip.