The most notable aspect of the meeting was the discussion on the East Milton overlay district. Meredith Hall and Jim Davis from the planning board presented the proposal, which aims to blend commercial and multifamily housing in East Milton Square while maintaining its historic and community-oriented charm. The overlay district proposal has been years in the making, with extensive community engagement shaping its evolution. The primary goal is to enable high-quality mixed-use development that enhances walkability, guides investment, and enriches community amenities without compromising the area’s historic character.

Key components of the overlay district allow mixed-use development in which residential and non-residential uses coexist. Existing businesses, such as funeral homes and gas stations, will be unaffected unless they choose to opt into the new zoning. A notable regulation requires that at least 50% of the ground floor of new constructions be reserved for non-residential purposes. This proposal aims to encourage smaller businesses, fostering a village-like atmosphere rather than allowing large commercial chains to dominate.

During the discussion, concerns arose about the zoning language, particularly regarding the occupancy of non-residential spaces. A committee member highlighted potential ambiguity in the phrase “designed for and occupied by,” arguing that it might imply a violation when spaces remain temporarily unoccupied. The committee agreed to consider revising the wording to avoid such ambiguities, with the possibility of consulting legal counsel for clarity.

In a related discussion, the exclusion of certain business types, like undertakers, from the proposed overlay district raised questions. Concerns were voiced about fairness and the potential perception of limiting competition. The rationale for excluding undertakers focused on creating a pedestrian-friendly, vibrant commercial district, where businesses like boutiques and cafes could thrive. The committee deliberated on the balance between fostering a lively neighborhood atmosphere and ensuring fair business practices.

Parking requirements for the overlay district were another focal point. The committee discussed aligning parking standards with those of existing business districts, while also allowing the planning board to adjust these requirements based on specific project needs. Provisions for off-site parking and shared parking agreements were considered as viable solutions to meet parking demands. There was also a debate about the adequacy of current parking requirements, with suggestions to enforce stricter policies to prevent future parking issues.

The preservation of East Milton’s historic structures was a concern. The committee discussed criteria for preserving buildings constructed before 1940, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the village’s character. The planning board, in consultation with the historical commission, would determine whether a building must be preserved based on its architectural significance and condition. Flexibility in the approval process was highlighted, allowing the planning board to grant waivers to facilitate preservation efforts.

Affordable housing requirements were addressed, with proposals for 12% to 15% of units in new developments to be designated as affordable. These units would need to match market-rate units in design and quality, with a preference for Milton residents and town employees in the allocation process. The conversation included options for developers to contribute to the affordable housing trust if they could not meet unit requirements.

The committee sought to ensure that proposed regulations would foster a vibrant, mixed-use community while maintaining fairness and protecting the town’s historical assets. The meeting concluded with a focus on finalizing documents related to town planning initiatives, with the need for accuracy and consistency emphasized before moving forward to a vote.

Discussions also touched upon upcoming town meeting articles, including a lighting bylaw. Concerns were raised about the lack of representation from the select board, highlighting the need for thorough vetting and clarity in such proposals. The timeline for the town meeting, scheduled for early May, added urgency to the committee’s efforts to finalize comments and recommendations.