On December 30th, the Milton Planning Board opened a hearing for site plan approval of a restaurant being proposed by the Falconi Companies at the site of the old Milton Cinema. Site plan approval is required of the board because the proposal is altering a building greater than 800 square feet. The renovation includes adding windows that were not previously there. As Jeanne Schmidt Falconi noted in her introductory remarks, “One new window is the only reason we are here tonight.”

Ms. Schmidt noted that “A restaurant is a permitted use. We are revitalizing an existing business space in a business district. . . We feel an obligation to do this right.”

Marion McEttrick, an attorney representing the Falconi Companies, presented a short summary of the proposal. It is a renovation project that will not alter the footprint or height of the building. Except for the addition of windows and doors, the exterior structure will remain the same. The interior has been gutted and will be designed to accommodate a 140 seat restaurant in what used to seat 660 Milton Cinema patrons. The Falconis have upgraded the entrances to existing businesses (e.g. Milton Barber Shop) to make them ADA compliant. In addition they have reconstructed the sidewalk at a cost that would typically be borne by the town to address run off that was damaging the structure of the building. They will also be funding the replacement of two trees that were removed by the town. Two abutting houses will be razed for a parking lot of 25 spaces. The restaurant will also use an existing lot of 38 spaces owned by the Falconi company on Franklin Street. That lot is currently used by Abby Park which is exploring alternative locations for parking (e.g. nearby bank parking in off hours).

Ms. McEttrick said the parking planned for the restaurant is at a ratio is 2.5:1 which is better than existing restaurants in town that have recently received approval and better than the industry standard of 3:1. She said that the development team is also appearing before the Board of Appeals for two reasons: a) to determine if the number of parking spaces is sufficient and b) to hold a hearing for a special permit to reconstruct a non-conforming building. The rear clearance from the lot line is only ~16′ rather than required 20′ and a portion of side is only 3.6′ rather than 6′ (though zoning would permit it to be 0′ – in other words, zoning permits a commercial building can come right up to the lot line but if it doesn’t, it has to be 6′ away).

McEttrick introduced the restaurant’s designer Steve Tedicso, who identified 4 benefits to the development: comfortable spacing of seating, tax revenue for the town, jobs, and its presence as an asset to incent future growth. He said it “is an incredible space” and that the concept will be to preserve the movie theater ambiance. The kitchen which will be in the stage area may be open or not depending on the use at a particular time.

When the members of the Planning Board spoke they focussed on two issues: the windows and the parking. Chair Whiteside had concerns with the window treatment presented saying that the view from Church Street would not be a compelling view.

Tedisco said that the design presented was an attempt to to address neighborhood concerns about light pouring out. He said they were responding to needs of the neighborhood.

Ed Duffy concurred with Whiteside’s suggestion of windows with a more vertical treatment. He also suggested a probationary period for the outdoor dining of a year. Tedisco did not believe that is necessary as sound travels up and then comes back down.

Though the number of parking spots is the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals, the design of the parking is the purview of the Planning Board. What qualifies as design is less clear. One idea discussed during the session was having valet parking available on Adams Street rather than Church Street and that it would service both Abby Park and the new restaurant.

Former Selectman Diane DiTullio Agostino asked for clarification on the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and that of Board of Appeals. Whiteside reiterated the statements made by Ms. McEttrick earlier in the session. The BoA is tasked with determining number of parking spots and a special permit which Whiteside said can have conditions. The ability to add conditions, he said, gave them a wide opportunity to shape the development. The Planning Board is tasked with the design and Whiteside believes that “valet parking falls under design unless the Board of Appeals puts it under parking.” Conceivably one board could approve the valet parking and the other not.

The bylaw states that:

Construction, reconstruction, or alteration of more than eight hundred (800) square feet of a commercial building shall be in conformity with a site plan bearing an endorsement of approval by the Planning Board. Interior renovation work that makes no change in the exterior appearance of a commercial building shall be excluded from this site plan review requirement.

However, Whiteside said the intent regarding interior spaces was something like a replacing a ceiling, not gutting the entire interior.

Residents spoke both in support of the development and against it. Tony McDonald of 4 Mechanic Street was perhaps the most pointed in his criticism of the project saying “This is ludicrous . . . it is a box . . . tear it down. . .It’s just not going to fit” He asked rhetorically what would happen if the restaurant fails, “What are we going to have . . . Hooters? The Falconis just want to fill the spot.”

Other residents questioned the impacts of lighting in the parking lot as well as from the traffic coming in and out. Susan Brown said a “shell game is going on with the parking . . . it’s a monkey show.” She also mentioned that her family is exploring possible legal action.

Among those speaking in support were Paul Traverse who has a business in East Milton and believes that the restaurant will add needed vitality to the square and Town Meeting Member April Anderson Lamoureux who voiced concern that an opportunity to add to town revenues would be missed and that potential relief for on property taxes lost. Town Meeting Member Cindy Christiansen also spoke in support of the restaurant but added that it was important for the residents east of the highway to receive their share of town services and protections.

McEttrick reviewed the requested follow ups to be discussed at the next session which included but were not limited to: developing options on window treatment, defining dumpster enclosure and dumpster “characteristics” (Whiteside requested be a “state of the art” dumpster), confirming the building elevation, and the parking issue. Mr. Whiteside may attend the meeting of the Board of Appeals on 1/13.

The Planning Board will resume their hearing on 1/22.