by Frank Schroth
The Board of Appeals, Emanuel Alves, Virginia King (Hearing Chair), and Frank O’Brien ruled that the parking for a proposed restaurant in East Milton is sufficient. They also voted to grant a special permit that was required to address a set back issues.
The board’s decision, which is conditional on site plan approval by the Planning Board, was thoroughly deliberated and ultimately unanimous. It was stated repeatedly by board members that they were ruling strictly on parking and the special permit and that issues of safety, noise, and the like were the purview of the Planning Board.
Marion McEttick, attorney for the applicant, updated the board on the plans for parking. The Falconi Companies have recently purchased another building in the Square (the Sprint building on Granite Ave) and the parking associated with that building will also be available to the restaurant. In addition, Abby Park has reached an agreement with Citizens Bank to use their lot after hours. Together with the 2 lots already owned by the Falconis, there will be 123 parking spots for the two restaurants. Greg Morris of Morris Engineering said this would result in a 2.5:1 ratio of patron seats to parking spots. McEttrick said this was better than the standard granted to existing restaurants in town which only needed a 4:1 ratio. The two restuarants will likely employ valet parking that will be managed from a spot at the corner of Adams and Franklin in front of the Starbucks. That space will also be used by large delivery trucks. McEttrick believed the concept has the support of the traffic commission.
The discussion which included neighbors’ input on concerns around the parking plan, noise, etc. went on for some time. One of the concerned residents who spoke was Ed Duffy, a town meeting member from Precinct 7 and member of the Planning Board. He asked permission of the Chair to poll the audience. He then asked those present for a show of hands for support of the plan. “Zero,” he said,”thank you Madam Chair.”
The lack of a site plan approval decision from the Planning Board was an issue. Mr. O’Brien said, “I’m really concerned about site plan approval. . .[the Planning Board] is supposed to produce an up or down vote and come to us.” McEttrick said the Planning Board “wants to know what you think about parking.” Member Alves added, “We are playing chicken with the Planning Board. A lot of what you (the residents) are talking about has no bearing on this board.” And Ms. King noted,”We are about following the law. . . part of that law is that the site plan be done and signed off and delivered to us so we can make an informed decision.”
In her closing comments, Ms. McEttrick said the applicant had purchased property in a commercial zone to provide parking for the restaurant, reiterated the ratio of 2.5:1 as better than the ratio employed by previously approved restaurants, that the valet parking plan can work, that traffic should be looked at as a whole throughout the square, and that the applicant would support and be cooperative with seeking improved enforcement.
The board then deliberated and came to closure that the parking was adequate and the special permit was granted. All three members acknowledged the potential detrimental impacts to the neighborhood and were sensitive to and mindful of the residents’ concerns. Here is a sample of the statements made by the board during their deliberation.
Frank O’Brien
I am uncomfortable with the lack of direction coming from the Planning Board. . . However you want to put it, the sufficiency of parking has been established. . . as I sit here, one has to wonder what, if anything, could ever be built. What if anything could ever be changed. . . a restaurant is a better use than the current use. . . I come down to being in favor of a restaurant being put in with protections for the neighborhood..
Virginia King
It’s not going to remain an empty building . . . I get that (the traffic) and I don’t like it either. . .it’s not fair to them to have a building that has no use.”
Emanuel Alves
There is detriment to this that is almost unavoidable. . . this is a commercially owned building and the owner has the right to develop it. . . the impact should be mitigated.
While a vote was taken and unanimous, a decision will not be executed until a site plan has “been signed, sealed and delivered.”
Aside from the visually positive impact and the positiveness of having another dining option in Milton, making that building a viable business puts a new value on it and increases taxes for the town. In addition, it provides jobs.
As long as patrons understand that a (very) short walk to parking is to be expected (!), there should be limited complaints about parking.
Unfortunately, nothing the town has done or plans to do will alleviate traffic (it is NOT going to go away esp. at peak times). Nor has the town helped the flow…although I heartily approve of the double right turn in front of the fire station heading north from Adams to Granite, I do not understand how putting a jut-out merely one block later on the corner of Bassett and Granite helps, or the loss (NO SIGN) of a lane at Wood and Granite smooths traffic.
Would have been interesting , continuing on the show of hands poll, if attendees were asked if they were willing to collectively purchase the property from the Falconis AND would agree to an additional tax assessment in an amount equal to the tax revenues lost to the Town by virtue do their opposition. I am not sure the vote would be unanimous.
There are some real and anticipated problems ( not sure they cannot all be addressed by the developer) with this project but parking is not the issue.
If the opponents have a problem with traffic, then there are proper existing Town avenues to voice their dissent as well as an ongoing East Milton Traffic study.
This project should move forward as it will be , with adjustments , good for Milton.