The Planning Board resumed discussion of developing the St. Elizabeth’s property with the developer Anthony Ruscito. During the course of the discussion a number of opinions were voiced but nothing close to a consensus was reached. Ruscito, frustrated, said he came to the board for help on what to do with drafting the overlay and all he was hearing was what he could not do.
The church, represented at the meetings by Dr. Shea, and the developer want to tear down the current structure, an historic building made of local granite that is in disrepair, with 12 2-bedroom town house units. The developer presented a series of illustrations showing different configurations of buildings on the site. However, there was no detail to the illustrations with the exception of a circular drive that connected Reedsdale and Randolph Avenue. The board did not like that design: it put the parking in front of the building, could be used as a cut through, and would make snow removal a logistic challenge.
A more significant issue is what to do with the existing building. The developer says it needs to come down. Dr. Shea said dozens of experts had looked at it at the request of potential buyers and they all agreed that the building could not be saved. Dr. Shea said that the parish had recently retained the services of a historic preservationist who wrote a report concurring that the building could not be salvaged. Members of the Milton Historical Commission disagreed.
Stephen O’Donnell, Chair of the Milton Historical Commission, and member Bryan Cheney, said the building was unique, historically significant and that the lot was also important due to its location and functioning as a gateway into Milton. Mr. O’Donnell felt that the building could be saved. He acknowledged the cost but argued that demolition, debris removal, and the digging of a new foundation etc. would easily cost as much.The Historical Commission has filed a 9 month demolition delay.
Members of the Planning Board are also interested in seeing the building preserved. Mr. Duffy and Mr. Whiteside in particular want the structure to retained. When pressed by the developer on what he wants, Whiteside said “Three homes. . . but that is not what you want to do.” member Pete Jackson summed up the challenge facing the developer. “If you want to increase the density, and increase the profit, there has to be a public benefit.” The developer has not articulated one to the satisfaction of the board. Jackson cited historic preservation, public green space, affordable housing, and mixed use (i.e. commercial and residential) as examples of public benefits. A poll on this site has indicated that there is public interest in a mixed use development but Dr. Shea and the developer are not entertaining that option as the neighbors are opposed to it.
Another member of the board, Bernie Lynch, supports construction of 6 homes which is what current zoning allows. Ms. Innes, Chair, noted that the board would have very little influence over a developement that conformed to current zoning.
As if that were not enough, the timeline to draft and approve an article for Special Town Meeting will be extremely difficult, said Ms. Innes. Innes, who was once chair of the Warrant Committee, also noted that even if they get an article written and approved by the board in time to submit for publication in the warrant, it is highly unlikely it would be accompanied by a warrant committee recommendation. The lack of a recommendation would diminish its chances for success before Town Meeting. Innes closed discussion saying that they would resume on 11/10 @ 7:30 and would expect “strong sketches” of a proposal at that time.
In other business the board approved a restaurant going ahead at the Fallon building. Occasionally watching a Planning Board session with a developer resembles an irresistible force hitting an immovable object. That was not the case here. As Bob Sheffield, attorney representing the restaurant developer said, “I cannot remember a project of this significance going through this quickly.”