by Frank Schroth

Co-chairs of the Working Group on Condominium Development, Alex Whiteside and Bryan Furze, appear to be at loggerheads over the purpose of, and progress being made by, their committee. The men, both members of the Planning Board, gave differing accounts of a recent meeting of the group. Mr. Whiteside wrote in an email that the discussion at the session was “positive.” Mr. Furze in a phone conversation characterized the entire process as “a fiasco.” That is not all they disagree on.

By way of background, Furze had drafted an article for last October’s town meeting that was intended to be a general condominium bylaw. This draft was in response to a development being proposed for the St. Pius property. Mr. Whiteside also drafted an article, but his was specific to the development of that property. Whiteside was working with the developer’s attorney Ned Corcoran to write the article. Mr. Whiteside’s article would eventually go before town meeting and pass easily. Whether due to lack of time, support from fellow board members, or both, Furze agreed with the board to put aside his draft and form a committee that would take up the issue of a more general condo bylaw.

The committee was formed by the Planning Board, and it was the board, according to Mr. Whiteside, that appointed members Whiteside and Furze along with Cheryl Tougias, Bob Sweeney, Kevin Keating, John Cronin, Tim Kernan, and Tucker Smith. Whiteside writes that the committee’s purpose is:

to look into the possibility of designing a zoning bylaw of general application which would effectively regulate condominium development in Milton and, if possible, to draft a proposed bylaw which, if adopted, would serve the intended purpose. (emphasis mine)

Mr. Furze does not agree. He contends that the the purpose of the committee was to draft a general bylaw that would be put before town meeting. Furze stated emphatically that he felt “It is town meeting’s decision” to accept or deny the bylaw. There is no question of “the possibility.” He believes it can and should be done.

Not surprisingly, there is the practical matter of another development that is further complicating the develoment of this issue. There is a citizens’ petition article on the warrant that proposes a general condominium bylaw. While a specific property is not identified in the article, it is believed to be put forward to enable condominium development on the Fandrey property on Hillside. This property was denied an open space special permit by the Planning Board. Todd Hamilton, the developer, initially appealed that decision. has looked at a 40B (Hamilton dropped the appeal upon initiating 40B) and is in discussion with a church for a possible sale. The condominium development, if approved, would remove those options, but people familiar with the discussions say the neighbors are opposed to the condominium development. They are in favor of 8 houses on the ~15acre property. One has to wonder if they are not regretting their decision to fight an open space permit that would have put 2-3 houses on the site. Oh well.

This segues to another point of disagreement between Whiteside and Furze, which is a lack of progress. At a previous meeting, it was decided that members would look at specific sites in town and evaluate them in light of the proposed article with an eye toward how the article might be amended to address them. One of these issues with the article at the moment is that it doesn’t specify acreage. Therefore, any parcel in town could be an opportunity. Looking at potentially optimal sites (e.g. Carberry) would help put some specific criteria or requirements in place. However, specific site plans were not discussed at the most recent session. In his email, Mr. Whiteside states, “There was a discussion about whether to use a concept plan for condominiums on the Fandrey Estate property as a ‘test case’ for the proposed zoning and to defer such an effort until March so that a representative of the Hillside Neighborhood Association could be present.” Furze had hoped to engage in the discussion and felt that deferring it was obstructionist.

Time is a problem. By deferring the discussion, time is lost. If an article cannot be developed by Annual Town Meeting and it is unlikely it will, then Mr. Hamilton is likely to pursue another option (e.g. sale to church, 40B development). He is unlikely to wait until next October.

Whiteside noted that anyone is “free to participate as a paricipant.” While Furze welcomes the public participation, he does not believe the committee properly represents the community and that the process needs to press “reset,” reconstitute itself, formalize its charge, clearly state its position on the citizens position article, and develop a general bylaw for town meeting to consider.