Select Board amends Comprehensive Plan

By NATHAN LAMB | Milton Independent Staff Writer
mireporter@mac.com

There was 45 minutes of discussion but little debate at the Selectboard's latest public hearing on the 2008 comprehensive plan update.

Approximately 75 residents attended the March 17 hearing, and nearly all wanted the board to remove any references of an official map or design review from the document.

Several residents also rebuked the board for not acting on identical requests made by nearly 60 people at the February hearing; at the time, a majority of the board said they wanted further comment from the public before making a decision.

“I think tonight there are enough people here so you should realize people don't want this,” said resident Roy Tinker.

The board voted 4-0 to remove the controversial language shortly thereafter.

State law on comprehensive plan updates requires a subsequent public hearing following any session where amendments are made; that session is scheduled for April 21.

During deliberations resident Bruce Jenkins, who is a member of the Development Review Board, said deletion of the offending language wasn't optional. He noted that Planning Commissioner George McRea had collected 358 signatures seeking the amendments—which meant the offending language had to go.

“State statute says if we have five percent of the voters who support this, it needs to be taken out,” he said. “You can take it out tonight or send it back to the Planning Commission and have them take it out. It's your choice.”

The draft document was produced by the Planning Commission over the past year, and resident Lori Donna was one of the few voices in favor of keeping it as-is. While she acknowledged changes were likely, she asked the board to consider alternative means of reaching goals identified in the plan.

“I would ask the board to come up with something…so all the work that has been done for things like the recreation path won't be for naught,” she said.

The official map would allow the town to earmark easements or rights of way on undeveloped land toward its planning goals (i.e. secondary roads or a recreation path). It would also give the town a 120-day window to consider purchase of the earmarked area, if the property owner were pursuing development that would preclude those goals.

Design review was proposed for the old towne area, but the further specifics were not fleshed out within the plan. It was reportedly forwarded to help preserve the area's historic charm.

Both came under fire during the past couple hearings as attacks on the rights of property owners.

In general, Donna said there's been “misinformation” about those elements of the plan, and noted that McRea—who was a leading voice for deletion—initially supported the plan with those measures.

McRea's response indicated it was a matter of choosing the right time and place to settle the issue. He said the town already has enough statutes, that people don't want “big brother” in their business, adding that all the downtowns Milton has studied with the hope of emulating were built prior to design review in any event.

The overwhelming majority clearly agreed, as evidenced by the loud round of applause when the board voted to remove the language.

“We should be proud that our government still listens,” said Jenkins afterward.