07:16The meeting initially focused on the complexities of the MBTA Communities Act and its requirement for increased housing density within a half-mile of transit stations. A notable discussion unfolded when Anthony Larkin, a resident, raised issues regarding the Reedville station subdistrict. Larkin pointed out that while the area technically falls within the required half-mile radius, the actual pedestrian route extends nearly a mile due to geographical barriers such as the Neponset River and surrounding wetlands. He highlighted the environmental risks of developing wooded parcels adjacent to these sensitive areas, arguing against spot zoning and suggesting that multi-family housing should not infringe on green spaces next to protected wetlands. Bernardet Kenny, another resident, supported Larkin’s views, emphasizing the need to preserve natural habitats and maintain compatibility with existing residential structures.

16:50The board then addressed a modification request for a special permit on Highland Street. Ned Cork, representing the project, detailed the adjustments made following an appeal and conservation commission review. These included reducing the building scale and relocating dumpsters and transformers to minimize impact on wetland interests. The conservation commission deemed these changes insignificant, allowing the project to proceed. Cork also introduced Paul Avery to elaborate on the specific modifications made during the appeal process.

23:37In another significant portion of the meeting, the board examined revisions to the infiltration detention basin system, which had been refined for improved maintenance and increased setbacks from wetland areas. The relocation of Wetlands Replication Area 2 was discussed, moved to accommodate a stream crossing and positioned near an existing barn on Highland Street. These changes aimed to enhance water quality treatment and mitigate invasive species impact without altering the project’s design or increasing its environmental footprint. The board agreed to proceed with the modifications, emphasizing the need for accurate impact reporting.

41:29The conversation also delved into the hypothetical MBTA community statute plan, focusing on the parcels within the half-mile radius of commuter stations. The board debated the inclusion of specific plots, such as a yoga studio parcel, and stressed the importance of clarity in presenting zoning options. A point of contention arose regarding the definition of multifamily housing and its alignment with Massachusetts General Laws. Tom Dhy highlighted a misinterpretation in the initial hypothesis about the definition, prompting the board to revisit and ensure compliance with statutory requirements. Adjustments were made to the hypothetical adjacent community plan, including capacity increases in certain areas, and the board planned to consult public opinion on these changes.

The board acknowledged the complexities of implementing zoning changes mandated by Chapter 40A, Section 3A, which requires a minimum density of 15 units per acre near transit stations. Concerns were raised about the impact of these regulations on Milton’s predominantly single-family neighborhoods and the potential misalignment with sound planning principles. The board expressed a desire for flexibility and clarity in defining “developable area” and determining zoning capacity, emphasizing the need for public engagement and legal oversight in decision-making.