by Frank Schroth

If you enjoyed the discussion of whether the “E” in enterprise should be capitalized or not at last spring’s town meeting, you would have loved last night’s grammatical wrangling with a missing comma.

At the first night of the 2014 fall Town Meeting members voted on articles 1 through 8 and 13. All passed with one exception. (You can find a copy of the the warrant here.) Following is a summary of some of the key votes taken.

Town Meeting approved article 2 which sought an appropriation of $5.4 million dollars to address repairs to water tanks in the Blue Hills, water main replacement, and related infrastructure repairs. DPW Director Joe Lynch gave a presentation on the history of the issue and impact it would have on rate payers. The history of this issues goes back to 1953 when Canton and Milton entered into an agreement whereby Milton used Canton pipes and Canton paid Milton for use of its water. There were a series of subsequent agreements and the relationship was a challenging one. In short, Canton rebuilt its infrastructure such that it no longer needed Milton water and informed Milton it would turn off its pipes to Milton. This requires Milton to make changes to infrastructure. The towns have reached agreement and Milton now that it has funding approval will move forward and the work on repairs and improvements should be complete by November 2016. The costs incurred will peak during 2017 during which the average bill will increase by $28.50 and then “diminish after that” according to Mr. Lynch.

Article 13 called for the formation of a Master Plan Implementation Committee. Ms. Emily Innes, Chair of the Committee and a member of the Planning Board, quickly reviewed the work that had gone into the draft of the master plan now available on the town web site.These included numerous public forums etc. which resulted in 20 key recommendations. At last nights session Ms. Innes distributed these recommendations to Town Meeting Members and asked that they identify their top 3 recommendations. The Master Plan committee has held several recent public meetings seeking public input on priorities. Ms. Innes said that to date the feedback has identified the following top 5 recommendations out of the original 20. They are (note – two tied for 3rd):

1. Create a vision for each commercial district
2. Preserve Milton Historic Characteristics
3.a Ensure that new development is in keeping with the town’s character
3.b Develop a conservation strategy
4. Provide small-scale commercial uses in neighborhoods
5. Pass inclusionary zoning (to create affordable housing)

Ms. Innes told the gathered members that “you are a key part of the next [step in] the process.”

The committee formed will report to the Selectmen and Planning Board on a regular basis on “actions necessary to implement such plan (i.e. Master Plan) including planning, timing, resources, and responsibilities. . . members shall have expertise n planning , architecture, economic development, landscape architecture, real estate, or other relevant fields.”

The article passed.

Articles 7 and 8 regarded signs in business and residential districts respectively. Both received a good deal of discussion. The first item taken up with Article 7 was a missing comma which, when inserted, did not clear much up. At issue is illumination of signs in business districts. Town Meeting members expressed some confusion. TMM Bierne Lovely noted that it sounded as if signs could be lit all the time given language said they could be illuminate anytime after dusk or before sunrise. “I just want to know what the law says,” Lovely stated. Alex Whiteside acknowledged that “the intention is not entirely clear.” The language was simplified and the article passed. The selectmen retain the right to authorize signs that have “moving parts or text” for “good cause” and that do not have “adverse impacts.”

Article 8 did not fare so well. It sought to provide better definitiion to temporary signs and be less restrictive regarding permanent signs in residential neighborhoods. TMM Cindy Christiansen made a motion to refer the article back to the Planning Board for further work. She said she did not believe the language was consistent with other sections zoning regarding signs. She received support in this motion from TMMs Nick Bray, a member of the Board of Appeals, Jeff Stone, and Michael Chinman, also an attorney. Chinman made perhaps the strongest statement when he characterized the article as a “constitutional shambles.” Chinman cited the Supremen Court’s decision of the City of Ladue vs Margaret Gilleo. Ms. Gilleo had been prohibited by the town to post signs protesting the war in Iraq. The court ruled in her favor. Chinman’s concern was the article, as written, put greater restricitions on the protection of freedom of speech.

Alex Whiteside, Chair of the Planning Board, disagreed with the charactersization Chinman made. He said referring the article back to the board would not necessarily result in a satisfactory change. Regardless, town meeting voted to refer the article back. See below for links related to Supreme Court case.

Town Meeting easily passed Articles 1 (acquisition of parcel at Central Eliot by eminent domain), 3 & 4 (establishing Sewer and Water Enterprise Funds).

Articles 5 and 6 also passed. Article 5 was a request from the Library Board of Trustees to have a trustee appointed to the Capital Improvement Committee. Tony Cichello spoke in support of the article but said that revisiting the composition of the committee with an eye to reconstituting it with experts would be a good idea going forward. TMM Bob Hiss agreed. Hiss did not support the article, saying that it was the wrong way to address the issue as it compounds ‘everyone has a dog in the fight.” Katie Conlon, Chair of the Selectmen, said that the selectmen had asked the Government Study Committee to look at the issue of the committee’s composition.

Article 6 concerned the land off the landfill road (which comes off Randolph Ave). The town has town parcels that together are just under 3.5 acres. The purpose of the article was to allow the land to be redesignated for municapal use with the specific use to be determined at a future point in time. Chair Conlon described the article as a housekeeping issue that they (BoS) probably could have done a better job of explaining. It gives the Selectmen flexibility to put the land to some municipal use sush as an animal shelter. TMM Cichello asked what uses this might open up and what process will be followed. For example. how long might a lease run? Town Counsel Flynn said a lease could not currently run for more than 30 years. TMM Marion McEttrick, an attorney representing the animal shelter, also spoke. She thanked the Selectmen for addressing the land issue as it is a parcel the Milton Animal League is interested in. However, she reiterated that this simply provides the opportunity for the shelter, which would be the town’s animal shelter. It does not guarantee anything.

Both articles passed.

Town Meeting will take up the remaining articles this evening. This will include a discussion of a bylaw for condominium development and fire space needs appropriation. Town Meeting will be broadcast on MATV, the local access station.

Following are links related to Supreme Court case referenced by Town Meeting Member Chinman

Supreme Court to Consider Town’s Anti-War Sign Ban

City of Ladue v. Gilleo

Ladue has almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important. It has totally foreclosed that medium to political, religious, or personal messages. Signs that react to a local happening or express a view on a controversial issue both reflect and animate change in the life of a community.

from CITY OF LADUE, et al., PETITIONERS v. MARGARET P. GILLEO on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit [June 13, 1994] — Justice  Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.