Mtg notes: Plan’g Brd 05.12.11 – PB close to approving 3 developments; but so far, no cigar

Last Thursday the Planning Board discussed three ongoing developments in Milton: 36 Central Ave, 310 Granite Ave, and 683-685 Brush Hill Road.

Paul Sullivan, who is representing Oranamore the developer of 36 Central Ave before the Planning Board, reviewed modifications that were being considered. In what is becoming a municipal version of From Here to Eternity Mr. Sullivan gave an update on changes.

In short, the facing materials will continue to the base of the building in a consistent manner (e.g. use of brick along the base), slight modifications will be made regarding handicapped access and planting areas. PB member Pete Jackson had reviewed the revisions and stated that they contributed to making the site more attractive. However, there is no version of the plan which captures all that changes that have been made. A request was made to transpose the existing plans into a single plan and have Mr. Jackson review it. There was also some concern about consistent use of color. And on this point Mr. Whiteside said they should wait to ensure that the color scheme presented was in fact implemented. (They are going with sailcloth over white). Hence, the board’s decision to defer closing the public hearing on this site.eir Mr. Duffy suggested a flag be hung on front of building, pointing out over the sidewalk. It will be continued to their next session on the 26th. Mr. Sullivan voiced his concern that people are scheduled to start moving in.

310 Granite Ave relates to expanding the pumps at the gas station at that location. The chief impediment to this is concern among PB members, especially Mr. Jackson, that the design may not conform to established safety regulations. Jackson stated, “before we do anything we need standards for gas station design. . . I won’t approve it.” Whiteside added, “At the end of the day I don’t think this configuration will work.”

Regarding the residential development going in at 683-685 Brush Hill Road there is some debate between neighbors and Planning Board regarding the need for a sidewalk. Neighbors do not believe that the addition of sidewalk is consistent with the neighborhood’s aesthetics.  The Planning Board believes at least a partial sidewalk may be needed for child safety. Attorney Bob Sheffield who is representing the developer said, “like to see closure” and asked for the board’s approval. Mr. Whiteside said, “We are going to get there.” The matter will be taken up on the 26th.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *