Milton infill and small development

stick n move

Superstar
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
10,378
Reaction score
11,710
Couldnt find a thread for Milton development projects through search or on google so Im creating a new thread.


131 Eliot st. “Hendries at Central Station” was completed not too long ago directly next to the central stop on the mattapan high speed line.
31%20Eliot%20St%20Unit%20407%20Milton%20MA-large-003-004-02%20Drone-1500x1000-72dpi.jpg

photo.aspx

photo.aspx
photo.aspx

https://www.hendriescondos.com/
 
Yeah, watched this go up, and must say I am impressed with the density/ToD (for Milton, at least). Also give a bit of a mention to the Wine shop next door: highly recommend if you are in the area. Interesting collection of wine, sake, and beer.
 
Residences at East Milton approved
1683387968853.jpeg


“The Board of Appeals on April 21 approved the comprehensive permit that clears the way for the construction of the 92-unit Residences at East Milton development in the heart of the town’s main commercial district.

The Residences at East Milton development was proposed by the Joseph M. Corcoran Company for approval under the state’s 40B regional housing laws that allow developers to gain approval under one master or comprehensive permit.

The project has drawn a range of concerns from neighbors of the project. It will include about 104 parking spaces, including roughly eight visitor spaces, in the already congested square that abuts the Southeast Expressway.”

https://www.miltontimes.com/news/re...cle_23d47e0a-c6fc-11ec-bb6a-cff321fd6b39.html

1683388152287.jpeg

1683388170861.jpeg

https://www.residencesateastmilton.com/
 
It is, imo, a bad rezoning plan. The concentration of units is along I-93 rather than along the Mattapan line. I know that isn't the opponents problem with it, but if the goal is to generate TOD, this isn't it.
 
Milton did not apply for funding through the program our agency is currently scoring, but failure to comply would have killed any application they had put in. I assume other agencies are operating similarly.
 
Campbell is at least saying the right things. She must follow through here.

In a statement after the results came in, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said was “disappointed that a select group of Milton residents chose to be part of the problem rather than the solution to our housing affordability crisis.”


“My office has made it clear that compliance with the law is mandatory,” Campbell said. “When a municipality elects to evade its responsibility to comply with the law, we will meet our responsibility to enforce the law.”
 
I haven't paid close attention to this.
Without getting too political,
What were the reasons for voting no?
Good old fashioned nimbyism?
 
Milton's zoning bylaws are now officially in violation of the zoning act M.G.L. 40A and the state's position should be the bylaws are void. Milton should lose its right to enforce zoning until the bylaws are in compliance. Period.

The Commonwealth has the power to involuntarily dissolve Milton as a town. Folks there should remember that.
 
I haven't paid close attention to this.
Without getting too political,
What were the reasons for voting no?
Good old fashioned nimbyism?

Yes, that's basically it. NIMBYism of course being a veiled vehicle for telling lies about your own community and the people therein (and those from adjacent communities). Let's hear it from the people themselves!

“They are trying to make everything fit under [state] law,” said Fall. “But each community is unique.”

Backers of the “No” campaign say they want to work with the state to comply with the law, but with a different zoning plan that makes more sense for Milton and minimizes the impact on its neighborhoods. Denny Swenson, an organizer of the “No” campaign, said the results show that residents don’t want to be told what to do by Beacon Hill.

“People showed up to vote because they really thought we could come up with something better for the town,” he said. “The idea of big government telling municipal government what to do, I think that was a big driver to the polls.”

But Natalie Matushevsky, 42, voted no, saying it’s already a struggle to drive to get to work in Boston on Interstate 93, and adding more dense housing would “just cause traffic.”

“I don’t want to be sitting in traffic for the next three years,” she said. [NB: There are several trains that parallel 93 passing through or near Milton, if only there were housing that could be built near those train stations]
 
The Commonwealth has the power to involuntarily dissolve Milton as a town. Folks there should remember that.

Doing that and I think Healey loses suburbia. It could get ugly if suburbia starts to fight back.

I am more symptathetic about housing production in Miltion given that it's so close... but I can totally see why Milton doesn't want it either.
 
Doing that and I think Healey loses suburbia. It could get ugly if suburbia starts to fight back.

I am more symptathetic about housing production in Miltion given that it's so close... but I can totally see why Milton doesn't want it either.

I'm not advocating actually trying this. It would be tied up in endless litigation and would be so unpopular that it would be pointless to pursue it.

The point is that Milton needs to understand that they voted to break the law. That can have pretty extreme consequences. It would be best if everyone worked out a way for them to be in compliance, and the NIMBYs shut the hell up.
 
but with a different zoning plan that makes more sense for Milton and minimizes the impact on its neighborhoods.

"We want to comply with the law but in a way that makes sure no housing actually gets built" - after seeing Quincy pull a masterclass on this with absolutely zero pushback from anyone, why wouldn't they want to? This will almost certainly resolve with the Milton folks copying that exact strategy, a map full of cherry picked parcels that have no realistic chance of being developed in the next 20 years. The state will save face and say they got them to comply, and Milton residents can keep making suckers of the region by having big (local) government artificially pump up their property values.
 
These NIMBYs really don't understand that the regional housing crunch is going to kill our economy.

I hope they enjoy their ghost town when that happens. Massholes!
 
The law is so complicated, and people don't understand the full meaning of it. It requires a community to zone for increased density, but it doesn't require that specific zoning is actually immediately buildable. For instance in Scituate, water and sewer connections are a HUGE problem for development based on the town reaching capacity currently. A parcel may be zoned for increased density, but it still has to go through all the permits for sewer, water, and other utility connections; and the town has the final say on connecting to those services. Plus, the parcels may be currently owned by industries or businesses that have no intention of selling to residential developers. So, it's not so easy as just zoning. There are so many other factors that impact the ability to develop increased residential, including the economic factors for ROI for any development company. Anyway, the whole Milton vote just seems so short-sited and fear-based.
 

Back
Top