What’s that adage about legislation and sausage? Well, nobody makes sausage quite like the Planning Board. At their last session, they took up the issue of determining an appropriation to fund a Town Master Plan. In the end, the board unanimously agreed to recommend a “visioning” document be developed not to exceed $25,000.
The concept of developing a new master plan has been in the works for a long time. The board conducted a survey to solicit input from residents on issues that would factor into such a plan such as expansion of commercial space, preservation of open space, what residents enjoyed about Milton, etc. You can find links to the survey and its findings below.
Ms. Innes, the chair, is a proponent of developing a new master plan and has taken the lead in getting the issue before town meeting. She has researched what other towns are doing or have done, has provided the board with examples, and has estimated that a plan would cost approximately $125,000. The plan would be developed with the assistance of a consultant who would work with the Town Planner to schedule hearings that would include but not be limited to meetings in each of the town’s precincts. Ms. Innes had drafted a rough scope for the project and suggested the board request $100k to fund the initiative.
That did not go over very well. Board member Whiteside was the most vocal in opposition to the motion and questioned essentially everything about the merit of the motion and the adequacy of the RFP. When Ms. Innes said that “This RFP scope is based on what other towns have done successfully,” Mr. Whiteside’s response was, “I hear you say that, but it is either so or not so. I don’t know.”
Whiteside was concerned with commercial development and the possibility of carving up existing lots into a lot of “zany configurations.” Asked if he had reviewed the links supplied, he responded, “I looked at this [Innes’s RFP] with an eye toward whether it was worthwhile for the Planning Board to spend 30 or 40 meetings on it.” He went on to say,”I am not prepared to vote for 100K when I do not know what it is for.”
Pete Jackson supported the motion but felt the scope needed better definition; he questioned the inclusion of design guidelines. He said the first step would be a visioning document that clearly outlines and defines the purpose of the project and collects and establishes the “community values” that will inform the plan.
Bill Clark, the Town Planner, is in support of the effort and the inclusion of design guidelines. He cited examples of the impact that neighboring communities have had on Milton. Specifically, he discussed the poor traffic flow around Milton (e.g. the Braintree split) which results in significant traffic flow on Rte 28 and other roads as people jump on and off the Southeast Expressway and Route 128.
Whiteside agreed that traffic flow is the most crucial issue. Mr. Duffy was concerned about the amount of time Clark could put into the effort. Clark felt he could work with any consultants brought in to manage the process.
Board member Lynch asked, “What’s wrong with Milton?” implying he questioned the value of the effort. He said he likes Milton as it is though he would like his taxes lower.
A motion to fund the plan at $100K failed to pass. Ms. Innes appeared frustrated. The board had previously passed a motion to put the Master Plan before town meeting. In light of the expressed reticence of fellow members now to fund it, she said:
If you aren’t ready to do a Master Plan, quite frankly, I am not looking forward to standing up at Town Meeting. And when they say “why isn’t there an appropriation for this,” saying, well you know, the Planning Board couldn’t get it together in time. So what I would like to know is if you are willing to go forward with this, and I need to know now, and I need a number.
Whiteside said that was not an option. They returned to Jackson’s notion of beginning the effort with a visioning document. This they could agree on. They passed a motion for $25,000 to fund that.
One town planning director identified the value of a master plan as follows:
My advocacy for master planning is simply to be proactive rather than reactive about where and how your community will change. Even if there is no immediate development pressure, you need to be prepared for when it comes. The planning process enables us to steer growth where it is more easily absorbed, and identify resources and partners to sustain open spaces, habitats, and historic venues that need protection.
Here are the links to survey conducted by the Planning Board.