The Planning Board discussed an Assisted Living article being revised for spring Town Meeting. The article had initially been submitted at the fall Town Meeting. TM voted to refer the matter back to the Planning Board. A number of concerns were expressed including but not limited to the availability of affordable units (See post and related comments here.)
Joining the board at the table during last Thursday’s discussion were Ned Corcoran, Bob Sheffield, and Cheryl Tougias. Whiteside prefaced the discussion by saying he had received a correspondence from Ellen DeNooyer suggesting that the article not be reconsidered until the fall town meeting. He also noted that she recommended that design not be a part of the zoning. (You can find Ms. DeNooyer’s memo here.) He has written back to Ms. DeNooyer and stated that design had to be part of the article. He felt the design standards were essential. (You can find Mr. Whiteside’s response here. The text of the original article as it appeared in October 2012 Warrant can be found here.)
Whiteside informed the board another site was being reviewed for a possible assisted living facility. This one is a 2-acre site across from Curry College that currently houses construction equipment. Given the absence of a nearby traffic light, it does not conform to the current assisted living article as drafted. Whiteside also said he would want to know if there were neighborhood support for it before even considering it.
Mr. Sheffield, who is on the board of Fuller Village and an attorney who frequently represents developers before the Planning Board, said it was a “disgrace” that such facilities were “illegal” in Milton, that it was “past time” for thinking about it. He argued that the article needed to be more open to allow for other facilities. He thought the requirement of a traffic light “ludicrous.” Whiteside responded that Sheffield should have spoken up much sooner. Two weeks before Christmas to rewrite the article was not enough time.
Items mentioned as problematic with the current article were that it is site-specific, that it is too specific regarding certain architectural details (e.g. an indoor courtyard), and that it should be more open to meet the needs of the community. Sheffield argued there is enough time, saying, “We have 6 months.” Mr. Corcoran who is representing the Gralia Group, the firm seeking to put a an assisted- living facility at the location of the Horseplay Stables on Randolph Avenue, said opening up the article for the possibility of additional facilities was news for his client. He expressed concern that possible revisions not drag down the opportunity to his client should other locations be seen as problematic. Speaking forcefully Mr Whiteside said, “I am not going got participate in this.” (i.e. rewriting the article to include additional locations on short notice.) “This is just the wrong way to do zoning. . . I am not going to have any part of this.”
Asked by Member Kelly if he had a client, Mr. Sheffield said Weston Associates was his client. They are looking at the property across from Curry College. Kelly noted that he had not understood that. He believed Sheffield to be simply advocating for facilities to meet the needs of seniors. Sheffield said he had long been an advocate. According to Whiteside, the 2-acre site Sheffield’s client is looking at is too small. Kelly suggested that they move forward with the existing article and amend going forward as needed. Questioned by member Duffy, it was confirmed that the Weston site is 2 acres and the Horseplay site is 4.9 acres.
Cheryl Tougias, a Town Meeting Member and member of the Warrant Committee, said that the defining criteria in the zoning should not be acreage but density of the proposal. She argued also that the zoning for assisted living should be more general and not for “whoever gets there first.” Asked by Innes, Tougias said she too had a professional relationship with Weston Associates and had been asked to evaluate the property from an architectural perspective. That said, she hoped to see language in a revised article that addresses 3 concerns raised at Town Meeting: affordability, specificity of the site, and design standards.
Ned Corcoran had researched the issue of affordability and discussed the notion of “subsidy qualifications.” Whiteside committed to having revised language available on the 27th, the date of their next meeting.
In other business:
- A decision regarding the open space on Hillside will be voted on. The decision, a denial of the special permit for a subdivision, was drafted and sent to Members Kelly and Lynch who were the No votes. Lynch said he had not received it. Chair Whiteside, who had recused himself from the board because he lives near the property in question, said he wanted to review the decision “to see if you have all the necessary ingredients.”
- The board voted and approved a subdivision of the Boyle Estate (683-685 Brush Hill Road).
- The board voted and approved a subdivision of 86 Wolcott Road.
- The board heard from Mr. Corcoran on the status of Hill House: the storm drainage issues are settled with the DPW; they reviewed colors with the board and confirmed railing balustrades; they expect to vote and approve it at the meeting on 12/27.
- The board agreed to draft an article to fund the balance of the Master Plan. Town Meeting approved an initial amount to prepare a visioning statement. A firm has been retained and there will be a series of public forums, the first to occur at the end of January. The board believes it will have sufficient information by Town Meeting to validate whether to proceed and will, if appropriate, request funding to complete the exercise. If they should decide against it, they will pull the article.