The Milton Planning Board took a significant step toward meeting state housing mandates on Thursday, voting to recommend an economic feasibility analysis that supports a 15 percent affordable housing requirement within the town’s new MBTA communities zoning districts. The decision came after representatives from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) presented data suggesting that Milton’s current inclusionary standards remain viable for developers even under the new density requirements.

Avanti, a Senior Regional Land Use Planner with MAPC, told the board that the goal of the analysis was to ensure that affordable housing requirements would not inadvertently halt new construction. Our analysis showed all five scenarios were feasible under Milton's current requirements of 15% affordable units at 80% AMI, Avanti explained, referring to the Area Median Income levels used to determine eligibility. While the board moved forward with the recommendation, Member Cheryl Tougias raised questions about the real-world application of these models, asking if MAPC tracks how many permitted projects actually break ground. Adam Platz, a Housing Manager at MAPC, noted that while they do not track projects at that level of detail, these things are not set in stone; you can crack them open and tweak them later if economic conditions shift. Motion Made by M. Hall to recommend to the Select Board that the final EFA report be submitted to EOHLC based on the 15% at 80% AMI standard, and to recommend that the memo for other inclusionary zoning options be included for consideration in the development of the Housing Production Plan. Motion Passed (4-0-0).

The board also engaged in a lengthy debate over proposed updates to the town’s sign bylaws, weighing the desire for a traditional Milton look against the needs of local businesses. Chair Meredith Hall expressed a preference for strict prohibitions on certain modern sign types, particularly those with exposed light sources. I discussed this with Town Counsel. It opens a can of worms. I would much rather see it prohibited, and then they can go to the ZBA for a variance if it's a rare special occasion. I think the bar should be higher, Hall said. However, Member Jim Davis pointed out the potential for unfairness toward new businesses, noting that if two gas stations already have LED price signs, it's going to be tough to tell the third guy he can't do it.

Member Tougias argued against making the variance process the only path for businesses, noting the legal difficulty of proving hardship for a sign. I disagree with prohibiting them completely. We shouldn't stifle business identity, Tougias said. The board eventually reached a compromise to allow LED gas station price signs by special permit while keeping neon and other exposed light sources prohibited. They also moved to increase the maximum size for residential signs to 20 square feet to accommodate larger developments like Fuller Village. John, a representative from the Sign Review Committee, supported increasing board discretion for setbacks, stating that 50% seems reasonable. We look at it case by case for sight lines.

Infrastructure and environmental concerns were also on the agenda as Planning Director Liz Manning provided an update on the Boston to Blue Hills project. The proposed shared-use path along the Blue Hills Parkway would create a center-running bike and pedestrian lane. Manning noted the plan would actually increase green space by replacing a traffic lane with plantings and trees. Member Margaret Oldfield voiced concerns about neighborhood awareness, noting that while the plan improves safety, the impact on residents is significant. This plan would decrease pervious surfaces and increase green space and trees, which will slow down traffic. I lived on the Parkway and people race there at night. This would be an improvement, Oldfield said. Member Davis focused on the potential loss of overnight parking for residents in two-family homes, asking staff to clarify if any spaces would be removed. Manning agreed to invite project leaders to the next meeting and will draft a comment letter reflecting the board's interest and support.

Regarding the town's environmental budget, Assistant Director Avante Grady updated the board on funding for the Shade Tree Advisory Committee. Grady reported that while the DPW historically had a $10,000 line item for trees, the town is looking to increase that to $25,000 in the upcoming capital budget. The committee, however, is advocating for a $40,000 budget to meet resident demand for street trees. Member Oldfield suggested that the town look toward developer mitigation funds to bridge the gap. When the Conservation Commission gets a project like the memory care, they are paying about $300,000 for mitigation. That should go to shade trees if they can't be planted on site, Oldfield noted. Chair Hall added that the town should investigate more efficient planting methods, asking, I wonder about staffing capacity. I don't know if the DPW would consider outsourcing planting to nurseries who have the equipment. It might be more efficient.

In administrative business, the board discussed the necessity of streamlining their public records. Member Tougias, serving as secretary, noted her efforts to make meeting minutes more concise. It's good to capture some of the gist of the dialogue, but not everything because it's going to be difficult for people to want to read really lengthy minutes, Tougias said. Motion Made by M. Oldfield to approve the minutes from December 11th as amended. Motion Passed (4-0-0). The board will meet again on February 26th to finalize the sign bylaw language for the Town Meeting warrant.