Commentary by Frank Schroth — (updated 12:12pm – see comment below)
One would like to report that progress was made at last night’s session of the Planning Board, that the Faloni Company’s effort over the past several months to introduce a new dining establishment in East Milton had met with success, or that it was turned away for failing to comply with Milton bylaws.
But that was not the case. Milton’s hostile climate to potential business was in full bloom last night and, amazingly, it was not the applicant who in a moment of frustration and anger blurted out an expletive, but a member of the Planning Board.
One might have understood Mr. Falconi uttering Bull!@#$! in exasperation at the process. He is the one:
- whose proposal to renovate a derelict space with a new restaurant has been met with hostility from certain neighors and complete apathy from the Planning Board.
- who has presented an allowed-use in a space that preserves the original footprint, height and facade.
- who has already invested and upgraded the building to make it ADA compliant.
- who at his own cost has repaired public sidewalks in front of the building and is prepared to replace trees removed by the town.
- who is only seeking site plan approval (if we undersatnd the bylaw correctly), because he wants to add a couple of windows.
- who needs to listen to board members and residents debate and challenge his parking plan, which has nothing to do with this board and which was recently approved by the Board of Appeals. It is a plan that provides nearly twice the parking of any other recently-opened restaurant in town.
- who had to listen to an irate, antagonistic resident grill his engineer while the board sat in silence.
- who listened to the Chief of Police, speaking as Chair of the Traffic Commission, state that with the expertise and knowledge of town engineers and planners, a plan was in place to intrduce a loading zone and valet parking area that would reduce truck traffic on side streets and when coupled with signalization and other traffic measures as put forth in a report by Howard Stein Hudson would have a significant impact on alleviating long-standing issues of congestion and safety. And have that opinion apparently fall on the deaf ears of both citizens and Planning Board members.
- who listened to his engineer Greg Morris give a thorough, crisp, and (in our opinion) bullet proof review of how the proposal met every requirement as stated in the bylaws for site plan approval. He went point by point and yet . . . somehow, remarkably, that was insufficient as still no vote was taken.
But no, it was not Mr. Falconi who blew a gasket. It was Mr. Duffy, a member of the Planning Board, who popped. He asked the engineer Mr. Morris if his plans were 20 scale. Mr. Morris confirmed that they were. At this response, Mr. Duffy loudly complained that they should be 40 scale and after a brief comment from someone which we did not catch, Mr. Duffy blurted out an expletive. This was more likely not related to the scale of plans but in response to a comment Mr. Whiteside made shortly before: that a new traffic study was not needed. Mr. Duffy had repeatedly called for one.
A resident who later spoke, Brian Kelley, voiced a concern that Mr. Duffy might be biased against the proposal given that he previously spoke out in opposition to the plan at an informational session at the Milton Art Center before the proposal came before the Planning Board. Mr. Whiteside spoke in defense of Mr. Duffy; however, the bias appears clear and given that he is a resident of the neighborhood, one might wonder if he should recuse himself as he does not appear to be approaching this propsosal with an open mind.
Mr. Duffy, as he will frequently mention, was born at Milton Hospital in 1943 when it was at its Cunningham Park site. He is likely one of the oldest residents of East Milton and he is proud of that. No one likes to be flogged by the changes that the passage of time inevitably brings. Mr. Duffy has witnessed a lot of change –East Milton’s decline–the loss of a hardware store, a five and dime, a movie theatre, a bowling alley are all gone. There will come a time when a child today may look back with fondness on that same place that Mr. Duffy now opposes, and may recall in days to come those special meals at the Falconi restaurant.
The presence or absence of the Falconi business will not make a difference to the overall traffic and congestion issues. Neither should this business be a scapegoat for or shoulder the burden of consequences that are outside of its control.
This developer is a quality local developer with an excellent reputation who has responsibly addressed the concerns of neighbors. He has listened and modified plans based on input from the Planning Board and others. The firm has assembled a superb team (if any developer is in need of an engineer you could not do better than Greg Morris of Morris Engineering) and is proposing a business that is in complete compliance with all zoning and would be an asset to a part of town that is dog earred and in need of an infusion of vitality. This restaurant would do that.
Mr. Duffy’s perspective appears to be influencing his judgement. He needs to behave as a member of the Planning Board, a board tasked with the best interests of the town, not his individual interests. While neighbors deserve a voice and some measure of special consideration, their concerns should not completely trump those of the property owner, the town’s other residents, and the best interests of the community. This developer has invested an enormous amount of money and time into a property that is already an improvement. This team deserves a vote on their application for site plan approval and that vote needs to be yes. Site approval will require a simple majority to pass.
Perhaps, the whole idea of a Planning Board needs to be reconfigured or replaced. Sadly, its name has become an oxymoron.
It appears to me that well planned properties such as the Falconi’s reinvestment in the abandoned Milton Theatre and the attached buildings would allow good citizens like Mr. Duffy to remain in their homes and not be driven out by extraordinarily high residential property taxes.
Tired of hearing myself say this but Milton should look at the way residential and commercial properties co-exist in Hingham Square where some the best restaurants and high scale retailers prosper in and around beautiful and historic residential homes.
If Milton does not wake up it will be : will the last person standing please turn out the lights.
The Milton I know and respect is better and more thoughtful than what transpired at the most recent Planning Board Meeting.
Again, if the Planning Board cannot not act in a civil manner it should be replaced by a board the exhibits respect for all.
Several readers have emailed regarding this post and expressed a desire to voice their support for the proposal. The email addresses for Planning Board members are not available online. You can email the members your thoughts care of Bill Clark, Planning Director. Mr. Clark’s email iswclark@townofmilton.org
This hearing was not the Planning Board’s finest hour.
Mr. Duffy’s seat will be on the ballot this Spring.
As a member of the Planning Board, I do not believe that Milton has a hostile climate to new business. However, many new businesses need to comply with “site plan approval”, a process prescribed by the zoning. The East Milton Theater project is subject to “site plan approval” in order to insure the adequacy of this major development proposal, including design, parking and mitigation of any potentially undesirable impacts.
The applicants for the East Milton theater conversion project submitted a number of new plans and supporting documents the day before the hearing resumed on January 22. At the resumed hearing the police chief on behalf of the Traffic Commission also outlined a series of measures to address traffic concerns. The revised plans and proposed traffic commission measures address concerns raised at the previous hearing. Members of the public are entitled to the opportunity to review these plans and measures and make further comments if they so choose. For this reason (and so that the applicant can submit certain information on traffic impacts) the hearing was kept open until February 12th.
The public hearing process may sometimes appear cumbersome, but it gives members of the public a meaningful opportunity to be heard on development proposals. In my opinion the process is working as intended, and there is not likely to be any undue delay before a vote is taken on the application.
The problem here is the Zoning Ordinance that requires Site Plan Review for an allowed use in an existing structure and then makes the further mistake of granting that review to our Planning Board
There seems to be a popular misconception in Milton that simply because it takes a long time to render a decision, the interests of the public are being served. That is not necessarily true and Thursday night’s Planning Board meeting was a case in point.
I sat in the audience for 2.5 hours surrounded by people who wanted to speak but their opportunity never came. Instead, we listed to a discussion that veered in and out of relevance to the project under review. Then the meeting was abruptly adjourned at 9pm without a motion, vote or even discussion of the Board, and without any acknowledgement whatsoever that several people were still waiting for their turn to be heard. I take issue with Mr. Whiteside’s assertion that Thursday night provided a meaningful opportunity for the public to be heard. That was simply not the case for many people in the room.
If the Planning Board needed more time to review new information, then so be it. However, the Board can do a better job to control for that issue in the future. If the Board were clearer on its expectations up front, there would be less wasted time on the back end. Perhaps the Board should wait to schedule a subsequent meeting date until any requested information has been submitted by the applicant and reviewed for completeness by the town planner. What is the point of hosting additional public meetings if the information needed to render a decision is not available? It is a waste of everyone’s time.
I point the Board to a report issued in 2007 that outlines 26 best practices for local permitting: http://www.mass.gov/hed/economic/eohed/pro/tools/best-practices-model-for-streamlined-local.html. This guide is heavily utilized by cities and towns across the state and has been for years, but I do not see many (any?) of these policies in place during our Planning Board process. Greater efficiency of the Planning Board stands to benefit all parties – concerned citizens, the volunteer Board, applicants and town staff – and results in a better outcome for the town. It means getting to yes OR no in a reasonable period of time. Spinning wheels for months or years on various proposals is the very definition of a hostile business climate.
Mr. Duffy swearing on live public television was absurd and the chair should have demanded better of his members, though he failed to even acknowledge that it occurred. It is simply not acceptable.
I respect the time and energy of all public servants, but I disagree that the Planning Board process is working well today and serving the interests of the public. I would be surprised to learn that the majority of Planning Board members feel good about the hearing last week. It seemed to be a well-orchestrated attempt by the minority of members to delay and derail a project that is widely supported by the community. Our community deserves better.
Well said, April!
And very good point, Mr. Mathews.
Ms Lamourex’s analysis, unfortunately, could apply to a typical PB hearing and not just this one. There is disconnect between what should be the goal of development review and the process this Board dictates.
Thank you for bringing this to the attention of Milton residents via your site. For those of us who do not attend these meetings, but lament at the current state of East Milton compared to what it could be, we appreciate you keeping us informed of what goes on behind the scenes.