Board weighs changes to downtown parking rules and stormwater thresholds to help small businesses

Planning staff told the Milton Planning Board that parking and city stormwater rules in the downtown RC1 zoning district can make it difficult and costly for small commercial expansions, and the board asked staff to study targeted changes and return with recommendations.

The issue matters because downtown lots are smaller and more constrained than general commercial parcels, and current thresholds for stormwater waivers and management plans can force small projects to hire engineers and build costly retention measures.

Tim Milstead, Planning Director, reviewed the relevant code and said the city's stormwater-waiver language limits waivers "to those developments which limit the increase in impervious surfaces to 500 square feet or less, and those that limit increases to 1,000 square feet or less of approved pervious pavement service surfaces." Milstead emphasized that the regulation triggers a stormwater management plan prepared by a professional engineer: "the stormwater management plan shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the state practicing within their area of expertise." He said those engineering requirements can impose a "tremendous cost" on small downtown projects.

Board members raised several possible avenues: increase the administrative authority to approve very small parking additions (one board member cited an example from another jurisdiction allowing the zoning administrator to approve up to five parking spaces), expand or better document shared-parking and on-street parking crediting, permit additional pervious materials, or pursue an off-site, city-managed stormwater retention solution (for example, a shared retention parcel). Several members noted the downtown's higher water table and existing utilities make some underground stormwater options expensive or infeasible.

Milstead said the city already offers some flexibility in the BCM (downtown commercial/mixed-use) district where on-street and public parking reduces some site-level requirements, but the RC1 district west of the river "is much more restricted" and the current chart in Article 14 still drives parking requirements. He recommended the board consult the city's contracted engineer before proposing changes to Article 13.

No code change was approved. The board asked staff to research options (including administrative minor approvals, shared-parking agreements, identified pervious surface types, and potential city-owned retention sites) and coordinate with the city engineer, and return with draft proposals. The board agreed to continue work on Articles 13 and 14 and to discuss solutions that balance business-friendliness with stormwater protections.

Ending: Staff said it will consult the city engineer and return with options at a future meeting so the board can consider specific draft language and any engineering constraints.