At last Thursday’s Planning Board meeting two articles slated for spring town meeting had a hearing. One concerned Thayer Nuresry. The other was a discussion of an article that will allow for attached condominium residential developments (ACRD). Specifically developments that are in a residence B district, have access by way of a town easement to a state highway with a fully signalized intersection along with additonal emerency access provided the property abuts town of Milton property. There is specifically at least one property that fits that description which may explain Chair Whiteside’s invitation to Frank O’Neill to explain why he wanted to “spot zone this parcel for condominiums.”
Mr. O’Neill, a signatory of the petition, owns a piece of property that he seeks to develop with this bylaw should it be accepted by town meeting. He did not agree with the characterization that it is spot zoning. He proposes to develop 11 condominiums on the parcel which he believes is the “highest and best use” for the property and noted that he was not proposing a 40B. He said it was time to move forward and start the process. Whiteside acknowledged that there was value is considering this type of housing but that “this is not a particularly good site for condos.” He felt the article represented a “piece meal approach” was “not thoughtful” and would benefit from the Master Planning process. In addtion he said there was a wetland’s issue to be addressed and pointed out that the parcel in question had no frontage. He asked why not consider 25 condos (Mr. O’Neill has several acres some of which he intend to build single family homes on) and whether this type of development “is the sort of thing the Master Plan Committee should be looking at.”
Mr. O’Neill said time was of the essence and that the article created a lot. Whiteside disagreed. “It does not [create a lot]” and identified access as an issue. Whiteside said he would not have time to work on the article. “It’s too much and it’s too soon – October [town meeting] cries out for this.”
When Mr. O’Neill asked for the clarification from the board Mr. Whiteside said he “should head to the Master Plan Committee. May is just not possible.” The board can vote to recommend the article, decline the article or refer the article back for further study. A vote was not taken but the other members, Mr. Duffy, Ms Innes, and Mr. Kelly (Mr. Lynch was absent) seemed inclined to agree with Mr. Whiteside.
The hearing, which will include opportunity for public to speak on all 7 of the zoning articles appearing on the warrant, is scheduled to resume February 27th. See related story here which includes a summary of the articles to be voted on at TM.