01:07:18A speaker emphasized the adverse consequences of a recent Supreme Judicial Court decision, which has sparked discussions on the legality and feasibility of both zoning plans. The decision to advance a 10% plan was critiqued as potentially illegal, potentially jeopardizing grants and placing the town in violation of the law. The speaker advocated for negotiations with the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC) over costly litigation, which could reach $300,000.

34:14The board also deliberated on the necessity of presenting both zoning plans at the upcoming town meeting. Concerns were voiced about the density implications of certain projects, such as the Falcone project, and the potential precedent such developments might set. Some board members expressed hesitation in moving forward without sufficient information and emphasized the need for more public forums to gather input and ensure residents’ understanding of the proposed changes.

02:15:05Further complexity arose from discussions about the plan’s fiscal ramifications, with some members questioning the cost analysis presented by RKG. Concerns centered on the optimistic projections of student enrollment and the financial impact of increased housing.

The debate intensified as board members discussed the implications of rescinding the 25% plan approved on May 8th. The motion to favor the 10% plan was met with mixed reactions, with some members arguing that not forwarding the 25% plan to the select board and town meeting could undermine compliance with state laws. A vote on this motion revealed divided opinions among board members, highlighting the contentious nature of the issue.

01:27:57In another part of the meeting, the board addressed a public hearing for a project at Two Elliot Street. The applicants provided a detailed presentation on proposed design elements, such as seating arrangements, lighting, and mechanical units on the roof. The applicants described modifications aimed at enhancing the project’s aesthetic appeal and functionality, responding to previous feedback from board members.

The meeting also touched upon the implications of new zoning language and maps related to the MBTA zoning discussion. Focus was given to ensuring consistency in the presentation materials, especially regarding street addresses for public clarity. Board members examined draft zoning regulations, highlighting the need for alignment with statutory definitions and standards for lot sizes, height restrictions, and unit densities.

27:17As the meeting concluded, the board recognized the need for further discussion and potential revisions to the zoning proposal. The necessity of effective communication with the public about these changes was emphasized, with a commitment to ensuring residents understand the potential impact on their properties. The board’s deliberations underscore the complexity and significance of zoning decisions for Milton’s future development.