Joshua Wild, a property owner and small business operator in Milton Village, expressed his disapproval of the proposed local historic district, claiming it could undermine the economic vitality of the area. He argued that the designation would lead to increased costs, delays, and regulatory hurdles for basic property repairs and improvements, potentially stifling small businesses important to the neighborhood. Wild emphasized that the designation appears to lack support among property owners, describing the proposal as a “top-down” approach devoid of necessary democratic engagement.

He pointed out that during a public meeting on the proposal, opposition was the prevailing sentiment. Wild argued that existing regulations sufficiently protect the area from demolition or large-scale development threats, rendering the historic district unnecessary. His remarks included concerns about transparency and legal implications, warning that the proposal could be perceived as a regulatory overreach, restricting property use and potentially lowering property values.

Wild stressed that the proposed district would require permits to gain compliance from a historic district commission, which could limit the Planning Board’s authority in approving projects. He advocated for a collaborative effort in preservation, rather than imposing restrictive regulations without adequate community consensus.

The meeting also featured discussions on the Master Plan Implementation Committee’s role and effectiveness. A participant noted the committee’s lack of biannual and annual reports as mandated, raising concerns about accountability. The participant called for a review of all reports since the committee’s inception in 2014, emphasizing the importance of transparency and effective communication between the committee and town boards.

A debate ensued about the need for additional committees, with one member suggesting that excessive committees could dilute responsibilities and create confusion. While some members defended the committee’s recommendations as vital for planning processes, others argued that the Planning Board, along with elected officials, should maintain primary governance responsibilities, rather than deferring to appointed committees.

The necessity of public engagement in the master plan process was a recurring theme, with concerns about whether the implementation committee effectively involves the community in planning discussions. A participant highlighted the importance of grassroots input, particularly for projects with community impact, such as the library expansion, which has raised environmental concerns among residents.

Further discussions addressed the oversight responsibilities of the planning board regarding the master plan and its implementation. A financial aspect of the town’s relationship with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) was noted, highlighting the annual contribution from local aid funding, which has facilitated grants for projects like Milton Village planning and a bicycle pedestrian master plan.

The meeting also covered the need for improved communication between committees and the planning board, emphasizing transparency as a crucial component of town governance. A suggestion was made to incorporate a standard agenda item in meetings for committee members to share updates, fostering better information flow.