Wild critiqued the proposed historic district as an unnecessary regulatory layer that could hinder economic growth. He emphasized the financial and bureaucratic obstacles it could create, potentially discouraging small businesses vital to the area’s economy. According to Wild, the designation could lead to increased costs and delays for property owners, which might deter investors from considering Milton Village. He characterized the proposal as a “solution in search of a problem,” noting the absence of significant threats such as demolition or large-scale development in the area. Wild advocated for alternative preservation methods that would be less intrusive and more collaborative.

Transparency and community engagement were points of concern for Wild. He claimed that the process lacked adequate consultation with property owners and criticized the absence of an economic impact study. Wild warned that imposing the district without broad community support would violate the spirit of the enabling statute governing local historic districts. He also raised legal and constitutional issues, suggesting that the designation could be perceived as a regulatory taking, limiting property owners’ rights without consent and potentially decreasing property values.

Wild concluded by urging the board to consider cooperative preservation approaches, emphasizing the importance of investing in Milton’s future without alienating the community.

In addition to the historic district debate, the Select Board meeting also addressed the ongoing work of the Master Plan Implementation Committee (MPIC). Discussions centered on the committee’s role in evaluating and implementing the town’s master plan, which was originally adopted in 2015. Concerns were raised about the committee’s effectiveness, reporting frequency, and alignment with public sentiment. One member questioned the committee’s accountability, noting that its obligations included providing regular reports to the planning board and the town meeting. This led to a broader discussion about the proliferation of committees in Milton, which some members felt diluted the responsibility of elected officials and created confusion over accountability.

The MPIC’s work was recognized by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council as a model for effective implementation, but challenges remain. The committee has been instrumental in tracking the progress of the master plan’s 120 strategies and has engaged in various projects, including zoning work and community visioning efforts. However, there is a lingering need for improved communication and collaboration between the committee, the planning board, and the broader community. Some members expressed a desire for clearer delineation of responsibilities and better integration of public input into the planning process.

The Select Board also touched upon the procedural aspects of the master plan’s implementation, emphasizing the importance of public consultation. It was suggested that public engagement should ideally be managed by the planning or select board rather than the MPIC alone. There was a consensus that ongoing assessment and evaluation of development initiatives are crucial, particularly in light of budget constraints and the town’s development pipeline.