Mtg notes: Plan’g Brd 01.12.12 – Community Preservation Act endorsed, Hendries continuance, Pulte, & citizen frustration

by Frank Schroth

At last week’s Planning Board session, the members discussed the Community Preservation Act. Selectman Tom Hurley is a principal proponent of having the town adopt the act. An article regarding teh CPA will be on the warrant for annual Town Meeting. Mr. Hurley appeared before the  Board to advocate for adoption and outline the benefits as he see them. He received a very favorable response. The board voted unanimously to recommend a Yes vote on the article.

Mr. Hurley walked the board through the key issues regarding the act. He is proposing the town adopt the act which would provide funding for historic preservation, open space and recreation, and affordable housing. Though he noted that regarding open space, it is for new initiatives. The money cannot be used for operations and maintenance of existing open space. to participate, Milton property owners would receive a surcharge of 1.5% on their current property tax bill (Towns can levy between 1% – 3%). According to Hurley, the average homeowner would pay $83 per year which might increase with Prop 2 1/2 to $143 over 20 years. There are exemptions for people at certain income levels and seniors. Hurley also noted that Milton, like all towns, is currently contributing to the fund that supports the CPA but is not getting anything out of it.He anticipates the town would receive ~$726K per year.

If approved, the town would appoint a committee to oversee the funds which would be allocated at their discretion with at least 10% allocated to affordable housing, 10% to open space, 10% to historic preservation. Hurley summed up by stating that the town is “missing out.” The Planning Board agreed and after little discussion, unanimously passed a motion to recommend the article.

Steve Connelly of Connelly Construction, the developer of the Hendries property, requested a continuance of the hearing. He was scheduled to have a traffic study and other updates regarding the development but asked for more time. The board will continue the hearing on 1/26 @ 7:00 p.m. Included in the discussion will be the matter of the floor area bonus. This bonus hinges on resolution of the tree issue. Mr. Connelly will have an arborist speak to the poor condition of the black oak that he had removed and his plans for replacing “in kind.” Pete Jackson asked if the board’s arborist should be on hand also. Ms. Innes, Chair, said that cost would need to be covered by Mr. Connelly. It was unclear if he was willing to do that.

News of the continuance was not likely well received by Peter Mullin, Town Meeting Member from Precinct 3, who spoke before the board of his frustration at the slow pace of progress. Mullin asked, “What’s it been – three years?” Jackson said the issue has only been before the board for a year and half.  Mullin echoed complaints made previously by residents in the vicinity of the building. He voiced concern over the current building’s condition and safety and the difficulty of keeping up with the status of what is going on. Lastly, he took issue with proposed building’s density and positioning. The board has encouraged the community to attend the sessions and voice opinions about the project. It was pointed out that attendance can be difficult and also frustrating when residents appear only to learn of a continuance.

A team from Pulte Homes appeared to introduce themselves to the board and provide a brief overview of the planned development for that Governor Stoughton property. What they reviewed was similar to what was in their response to the Selectmen’s RFP. The development is unique in that it is the first development to take advantage of the cluster zoning bylaw. The open question with regard to this development is how quickly it moves through the Attorney General’s office and through probate court. No one was predicting a time frame for that. Yesterday the Patrick administration and AG Coakley announced that contractor’s working for Pulte owed ~$400 in back pay to workers and have initiated enforcement actions as a result of investigations into the issue. You can find the release here.

 

Leave a Reply

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