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.