by Frank Schroth

In 1986 Alex Whiteside was elected to the Milton Planning Board. He is up for re-election. He has run for re-election 5 times in the last 27 years and, according to Town Reports, never been opposed – until now. And that is not the half of it.

He is being challenged by a local developer, Todd Hamilton, who was recently denied a special permit by the Planning Board for property he is purchasing off of Hillside Street. He has appealed that decision.

The denial was a somewhat controversial decision because of Mr. Whiteside’s relationship with the property and the manner in which he managed that. Mr. Whiteside is an abutter to an abutter of the property and as such “is presumed to have a financial interest ” according to the appeal that has been filed by local attorney Marion McEttrick on behalf of Mr. Hamilton. Whiteside recused himself, the suit notes, but not until August of 2012. The hearing began in April, and though he recused himself, he continued to be present at the hearing and spoke before the board from the other side of the table in vigorous opposition to the permit.

The two board members who voted against the permit, Mike Kelly and Bernie Lynch, cited problems with the length, width, and safety of the driveway to the property. Mr. Lynch had also requested a show of hands in opposition to the permit at one of the sessions and pointed to that as another reason for voting to deny. This is not the first permit in that part of town to be denied and appealed. The Bosworth property was also denied. That decision was appealed and overturned in land court. The litigation cost the town over $150,000. (Note: There is a searchable database of Milton properties on the DPW web site. You can find their GIS look up tool here.)

The appeal outlines in detail the arguments made during the hearing for why the permit should have been granted and it alleges that:

• the decision of the board was “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable .  .  . and in excess of the Board’s authority”
• the town, the board and Mr. Whiteside violated Massachusetts law by holding a hearing with a member who has a conflict of interest
• the town, the board and Mr. Whiteside were in violation of the open meeting law by communicating outside of the public hearing process

Mr. Whiteside has since had an appraisal done of his nearby property and states that he does not have a financial interest therefore no conflict of interest.  He cited this as clearing him for participating in a separate hearing on another adjacent lot Mr. Hamilton was seeking to develop. This was an Approval Not Required (ANR) request. The request was approved by the board.

Mr. Whiteside  reached out to Ms. McEttrick via email regarding the development after the denial was issued. In the email, Mr. Whiteside proposes ways the parties (i.e. Hamilton and the neighbors) might reach a mutually agreeable solution. He suggests that a lot between the neighbors, Corlisses and Jepsons, be offered to them for a “good price (perhaps $100,000)” and that some modifications be made to the driveway design. He notes that “If it still appeared that there might not be enough votes for approval, I could obtain the requisite appraisal showing that the proposed development will have no financial effect on my property and I could participate in the new application.” There are two lots near the Corliss home. The property cards on the GIS mapper provided by the engineering department list the value of the lots at $179,700 and $206,400.

Mr. Whiteside obtained that appraisal; but at the time of the email he was theoretically still recused from the matter. In an article on Boston.com , Mr. Whiteside said he was seeking to head off a potential lawsuit from Mr. Hamilton and appease the neighbors who were “staunchly opposed.” He said he was seeking a settlement. “Suggesting a settlement happens all the time; why can’t someone suggest a settlement?” Whiteside said. “I don’t see where the conflict is.” (You can find the full text of the Boston.com – Your Town Milton article here.) Mr. Hamilton does not agree with that opinion. He views the email from the Chairman of the Planning Board –  who recused himself from the hearing, argued strenuously against it, and was anticipating a lawsuit – somewhat differently. He is quoted in the article saying, “Basically what he is saying is let the abutters be a director of your own land. He basically said they are driving the ship.”

This is the backdrop for the current contest for a seat on the Planning Board. There is a challenger to Mr. Whiteside for the first time in almost 30 years, a challenger who is also a plaintiff in the appeal of a decision of the members of the Planning Board and the Town of Milton.

Mr. Hamilton believes Mr. Whiteside’s management of his special permit was egregious. The appeal he has made seeks damages. In his closing statements at the recent Milton Matters Forum he stated, “.  .  . there are Planning Board rules and regs and you are supposed to follow them. And we don’t always do that . . . we have more of a hostile environment at the Planning Board than we do a situation where people can sit down and work it out.”

At the forum Mr. Whiteside said, “I am experienced, knowledgable, and fair. As a member of the board I’ve written much of the zoning adopted in recent years. . . while I have been on the board it has done a good job.” (You can find their complete closing statements here.)

Mr. Hamilton is something of a maverick candidate with no prior experience in elective office but comes to the board with something it does not have: experience with development and working with Planning Boards in Milton and elsewhere from the other side of the table. He is taking on an incumbent with 25+ experience on the board, a man with a legal background who has authored significant portions of Milton’s zoning law. While there are 5 members of the board, few who observe it closely would disagree with the notion that Whiteside is the first among equals. Some have said, though not for attribution, that he reigns over that board in a manner that is not always constructive.

The voters will decide on April 30th whether to retain the composition of the board and its chemistry which has remained largely unchanged for years or to take a new direction and insert some new blood.