by Frank Schroth
Article 17, a $35K appropriation for a study of the DPW yard that had been ricocheting around town meeting for the last couple sessions was quickly dispatched with early last night. The Selectmen submitted the article but a motion had been made to have the study done by a committee appointed by the Town Moderator rather than the DPW director. Katie Conlon, Chair of the Selectmen, said the board respected the decision of Town Meeting and would work with the committee. She made a friendly amendment to have the funds spent by the committee, not the board. The amendment was accepted and the article passed.
Emily Innes, member of the Planning Board, presented the zoning bylaw proposed in Article 23 which would regulate medical marijuana facilities in Milton. Innes gave a succinct explanation of the state law, the timelines (towns must allow marijuana by 12/14), and the proposed bylaw. Marijuana growth and distribution may be combined or split only in facilities within Milton business districts. Applicants for marijuana facilities will require site plan approval and a special permit from the Planning Board which Ms. Innes noted is the most restrictive process for obtaining approval for a business. She noted that other towns had similar models and that these had been approved by the Attorney General’s office. She expects Milton to be approved. There were a couple of questions regarding whether facilities would receive financial incentives – they won’t; and security. Deputy Chief King of the MPD said the burden for securing the facility was on the owner/operator The article passed.
Chair of the Planning Board, Alex Whiteside, presented a revised bylaw for cluster zoning. Cluster zoning permits a developer to group residential units more closely than residential bylaws permit. This grouping of units allows for larger areas of open / green space. The existing cluster bylaw has never been used and this revision is intended to make the opportunity more attractive to developers. The existing bylaw was restrictive. An example was given in which a local attorney identified a possible large site the would be a likely candidate but could not be used because the lot’s configuration could not be designed to meet the bylaws requirements for frontage etc. The bylaw is intended to “encourage development on large tracts of land in a manner that preserves open space and typography . . . on a parcel of land in one ownership containing not less than ten acres.”
The discussion of this article, intended to cover a number of potential parcels in Milton, took a bit of a turn when it focused on the Town Farm. The Town Farm, under agreement with Pulte Homes, is going to be the first development to take advantage of the cluster bylaw – but which one? The revised bylaw allows for more units to be built but has an affordable housing requirement. According to Town Meeting Member (TMM) Sean Fahey Pulte has no interest in that. Pulte is expected to develop according to original bylaw that was in place at signing on P&S.
The affordable housing provision received considerable attention. TMM Emmett Schmarsow proposed a motion to increase the affordable housing requirement from 10% to 12.5%. The moderator determined the motion failed on a voice vote but members stood to request a standing vote. The standing vote defeated the motion by a narrow margin — 96 (no) to 92 (yes). The article passed.
A liquor license for a potential restaurant in the old movie theater in East Milton also received significant debate. Senator Joyce recommended a no vote on the article and, further, recommended that Town Meeting consider a moratorium on granting liquor licenses for some period of time, he suggested 5 years, while the town can determine the effect of the current licenses that have already been granted. Milton obtains licenses through a home rule petition process. First, Town Meeting must approve an article that would petition the Massachusetts legislature to approve authorize the issuance of a license. Then the Board of Selectmen votes to award the license. Joyce argued that Milton has awarded quite a few licenses in the the last couple of years (Steel&Rye, 88 Wharf, Abby Park, Ichiro Sushi, Mr Chan’s [pending]) and should wait to determine what if any effect these may have on the character of the town. Paul Hogan, representing the Falconi family who are seeking to develop the property, argued this was simply a first step and that the feasibility of putting a restaurant in relied on a liquor license to be successful. The approval of the article was simply the first step in a process that could take up to two years.
The “first step” argument was echoed by several members who spoke in support including Terence McNeil and April Lamoureux. Bryan Furze, newly elected to the Planning Board, said restaurant competition is good for all ( the proposed restaurant will be about a block from Abby Park and Mr Chan’s) and that as an entertainment destination tenant it will revitalize the square. Opponents argued in would cause additional traffic and parking stress on an area already struggling with those challenges. Chair of the Planning Board Alex Whiteside was among those opposing the article saying, “There is no parking.” He said the proposed 160 seat restuarant would require 40 parking spaces. The Warrant Committee and the Board of Selectmen supported the article. The article passed.
Lastly,
- all articles for departmental appropriations were approved
- a citizens petition regarding seeking to put restrictions on use of athletic fields at Curry College is being referred back to the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen
- Chair Conlon acknowledged the efforts of the Warrant Committee who received a standing ovation.
the criticism of the Falconi’s request for preliminary approval of a liquor license based on parking seems strange and unfounded.
The parking problem would not be their problem but a problem for Abby Park, as they currently use / lease the Falconi parking lot on Franklin Street.
I would assume if parking was an issue for the ” new restaurant ” they would end the lease with AP and use their own lot.
There might be reasons for not supporting their license application, but parking is not it.
I agree that the “parking issue” is getting quite old and lame as an excuse to slow down or even stop projects. Let projects play out on their merits and the solutions they bring to the community, since access to ‘brick and mortar’ based services goes hand in hand with citizens’ need to get there and consume them.
Going back to the idea to place a moratorium on liquor license requests… I would bet there is more to this than meets the eye. Competition is good, commercial tax revenue is needed, and people will purchase alcohol where they can find it. Anyone who suggests we have enough of these is more likely making a stealth play to squelch competition.
The “parking issue” is absurd. I’ve never once had to spend more than 2 minutes looking for a spot around East Milton Square. The spots on Granite up against the highway almost always have plenty of open spaces, and if you keep going down Adams St there is also always street spots. It’s a giant boogeyman of an argument.
The question is never “can I get a spot?”, it’s just “do I have to walk 30 seconds or 3 minutes?”.
The residents of Milton clearly love having restaurants with liquor licenses in town. Let’s stop making it difficult for another one to open.
According to an article in yesterday’s State House News Service Governor Deval Patrick and Milton resident has proposed to eliminate the cap on liquor licenses in communities around the state.