Standing votes were called for on both articles that came before last night’s Town Meeting. Article 5 was a citizens petition to permit Coulter Landscaping to remain at his current location on Blue Hill next to the Atherton Fire Station. Article 6 concerned a zoning bylaw to allow for an assisted living facility at the current Horseplay Stables location on Randolph Avenue.
The Citizens petition article passed handily after over an hour of discussion and deliberation by a standing vote of 157 – 22. The moderator ruled that based on voice vote the article passed. However, that was challenged. A standing vote of town meeting members can be called for by 7 members of town meeting who question the call made by the Town Moderator on the voice vote. A standing vote was taken. The seven who challenged the vote were joined by another 15 people. The standing vote, a total of 179 votes, also indicated that 100 town meeting members were absent from the session. Town Meeting has 279 members. The total number of standing votes on the article was 179. Another 18 members would evaporate before the next standing vote was called for.
Ned Corcoran, the attorney representing Mr. Coulter, gave a brief presentation on the history of the location. It had been the home of a greenhouse business that was allowed by a special permit. Mr Coulter acquired the property and added a landscaping component to the business.. This was the sticking point. All Mr. Coulter’s neighbors were supportive of his staying at the location except one, the Lydon Trust. At issue for the Lydon’s was the addition of the landscaping business. An attorney for the Lydon’s who was given permission to speak at Town Meeting argued that the landscaping business and the article allowing it was equivalent to spot zoning. The land court had previously ruled in the Lydon’s favor regarding the issue. Coulter and his attorney sought the special permit as a means to allow the business as the zoning would now permit it. The article passed. It deals with the greenhouse and landscaping businesses separately. Mr. Coulter will now need to apply for a special permit from the Planning Board.
The second vote was on an article that would allow for an assisted living facility at the location of Horseplay Stable. Peter Mullin (P2) made a motion to waive the reading of the article which passed. A number of concerns came up. Steve Fruzzetti (P7) asked if there were any lawsuits related to the article. There are not. Henry Carr (P10) asked where the site was located as the article did not identify the location. DeNooyer (P2) spoke first and requested that the article be withdrawn and sent back to the Planning Board for review due to concerns that the language was too restrictive. Emmett Schmarsow (P10) and Deborah Felton (P2) took issue with the lack of affordability of units. Chair of the Planning Board, Alex Whiteside acknowledged that the article was tightly worded and deliberately so as to “ensure that what we get is as good as anything in the state.” Moderator Walsh called for a voice vote and ruled the amendment defeated. Again town meeting members rose to question the call. By this time there were 161 of the 279 elected town meeting members still present. The amendment to the article requesting it be sent back to the Planning Board squeaked by with a vote of 84-77 and the meeting was adjourned.
Article 6, in my opinion, is the epitome of town government gone astray, down a path that no one quite knows how it got to. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, perhaps Article 6 is a signpost on that road.
I believe that the members of the Planning Board are good, decent people who work for the benefit of the Town. They came up with a proposal for, or from, a developer for an Assisted Living Facility on a site that was not specified in the Article. 100 units for seniors.
But as a number of members said, what are they providing and for whom. The chair of the Planning Board spoke about the developer and what a fine building he would erect on the site of the former Horseplay Stable.
This seemed to be, pardon the appropriate phrase, putting the cart before the horse!
What does the Town and Town Meeting believe we should be doing for our aging population? Should we build an assisted living facility here? Should it be in only one spot? Can affordable living units here be counted towards Milton’s affordable housing numbers? What range of services could be provided, should be provided, for the Town’s seniors?
When these issues are looked at, and then discussed and decided, then a vision with clear goals and objectives can be formulated and put us in a better position to address those concerns as a matter of public policy.
And, perhaps then we can ask developers to address those concerns as they build facilities to serve our needs while they make their profits.
In a larger sense, the Planning Board may need to focus more on preparing plans of the resources, possibilities and needs of the city or town for submittal to the Selectmen for their consideration rather than the special permit granting authority and serving as the Site Plan Review Authority.
As the saying goes “plan your work, then work your plan.”
Steve, you are right on target on this issue. Many questions. Few answers.
It seems to me that the issue is whether a zoning by-law is crafted that is site/developer specific, or general enough that it opens it up to other areas of town, which could allow other developers to be included.