by Frank Schroth
Last Thursday’s Planning Board meeting was a long, dry affair consisting of a modicum of progress and dash of disappointment.
The bit of progress came on two fronts: drafts of bylaws to allow condominium development (not 1 but 2) and a next step taken toward a housing production plan.
Alex Whiteside, Chair of the Board, and Member Furze are each drafting bylaws that would permit condominium developments. Mr. Whiteside’s is being drafted to address an immediate, site specific need – the proposal by a Northland Residential to develop 36 townhouse condo units on the St. Pious Property. Mr. Furze is using the request to draft a more general bylaw that would allow for condominium developments throughout town on parcels that meet the criteria as set forth in the bylaw.
Ned Corcoran, attorney for Northland Residential, was present at the session. He worked on the draft of the bylaw with Mr. Whiteside. It calls for a PUD that will allow for residential units and open space. Whiteside felt a conservation restriction might be required for the open space portion. Corcoran questioned whether that would be necessary. Ten per cent of the units would be affordable or there might be a contribution to the town’s residence fund. Parking needs to be defined and language Whiteside said “[would define] what a sensible condo association should be.”
Corcoran said there was a “fundamental need [for the developer] to have a by law in October.’ But he also advocated that town meeting be given the opportunity to consider and debate the article being drafted by member Furze. “Don’t kill it here,” he said.
The board will continue to review Whiteside’s draft and discuss at a future meeting. Upon concluding the discussion of his version Mr. Whiteside recused himself from the discussion of Mr. Furze’s bylaw citing a conflict of interest as his property falls within the domain of what is discussed in the article.
It might be worth noting that Mr. Furze’s effort at a bylaw is somewhat unique. There is only one member of the Planning Board other than Mr. Whiteside to draft zoning in recent years. Ms Innes with assistance from Town Counsel and Bill Clark worked on recent zoning for medical marijuana and is currently working on zoning for bed and breakfasts.
Bryan Furze discussed his more general bylaw. He had consulted other town’s bylaws including but not limited to Maynard and Canton. He had also sought input from people in town. He stated that the drafting the article stemmed from the intent to address two needs: 1) the need to accommodate a wider variety of housing types and 2) the need to address a demand for housing that will meet the needs of seniors.
Member Innes said she had a couple concerns. She thought the article was too general. Would there be any consideration for lots under 10 acres? What would prevent a developer from assembling lots to create a 10 acre parcel? Furze acknowledged the points and will work on a revision.
During the session Attorney Corcoran noted that it might be worth considering a bylaw if it “encourages a certain amount of density that will discourage greater amounts of density.”
One could argue that this in fact is why Corcoran and Whiteside drafted a site specific bylaw. The condo proposal is denser than what zoning would permit for residential homes on the St. Pious property but not as dense as a 40B. The proposed Northland development may have the support of the neighbors because they do not want a 40B which is what the developer said he would pursue if he was unsuccessful in his bid to put in townhouses. As Whiteside noted, “It seems a little dense to me but the neighbors have bought into it.” They may have bought into it because the alternative might have been a good deal denser.
Member Kelly said, “[It is] horrendous and shameful that we live under threat of 40B . . . we shouldn’t do things under threat of 40B.” However, the threat is there because Milton’s dearth of affordable housing. One development that could provide some relief from that threat would be successful implementation of a housing production plan.
Member Emily Innes gave an update on the housing production plan. She is working with the Chair of the Board of Selectmen, Katie Conlon, on the next steps. It appears that something might actually be getting done which may put some people in the mind of a comment by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, ““If you want something said, ask a man…if you want something done, ask a woman.”
They have identified town owned parcels which may be appropriate for affordable housing development. These include the town owned property off Randolph Avenue (it was noted that the presence of Native American artifacts may rule that out), the DOT property on Granite Avenue (Member Furze who chairs the Granite ave study committee said their committee’s report should be done shortly), and 0 Central Avenue (town owned portion of Hendries property). Ms. Innes also identified the possible repurposing of old fire stations in event new ones are built, properties taken by tax lien if suitable, and changes in use for schools or churches. Ms. Innnes said a presentation and forum would be scheduled in an August time frame.
The disappointment was doled out when Mr. Whiteside said that “The board is not prepared to do anything” with regard to making statements at the Board of Appeals hearing scheduled for July 24th on the Hendries 40B comprehensive application. During Citizen Speak, Peter Mullin, a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 2, urged the members of the board to attend the Board of Appeals hearing saying, “I think you should attend and make your views known.” It does not appear that will happen. Whiteside saw no point in attending as the board does not have “any powder in the breach.” He encouraged board members to read the letter submitted by the Board of Selectmen to the Mass Housing Partnership (that letter can be found here).