Milton zoning board closes hearing on McDonald’s setback variance after safety and planning concerns

The Milton Zoning Board of Appeals closed a public hearing on a proposed McDonald’s restaurant that seeks a front‑yard setback variance to accommodate a two‑lane drive‑thru canopy, then tabled a final decision to the next meeting.

Steve Wilson of Bowler Engineering, representing the applicant McDonald’s Corporation, told the board the company proposes a roughly 4,300‑square‑foot restaurant on a 1‑acre parcel at 10 Treble Avenue in the Town Center District and is requesting relief from the minimum 10‑foot front setback so canopy footings can span two drivethru lanes. "We are requesting a setback to the minimum 10‑yard front setback," Wilson said, explaining the site is narrow and the design reduces the building’s typical width to fit circulation and Town Center design guidelines.

Board counsel advised members that some area variance applications can be exempt from environmental review when before this board but not before the planning board and reminded the board that, because two regular members were absent, they could not take final action tonight. Counsel also walked the board through the five‑part balancing test — whether the variance would change neighborhood character, whether feasible alternatives exist, whether the variance is substantial, environmental or physical impacts, and whether the difficulty is self‑created — and emphasized the board must consider whether any relief granted would be the least necessary.

Highway concerns featured prominently. Mr. Lewis, relaying highway department input, said the proposed footing locations put columns "right at 1.6 feet from the actual line," and warned of risks from future right‑of‑way work, traffic safety, salt and debris from passing trucks and snowplow operations. "That front setback is typically imposed to protect structures from damage if you're working in the right‑of‑way," he said.

Several members of the public urged the board to pause the project until the town’s comprehensive plan is updated. Resident Michelle Judah, who described attending multiple planning board meetings, told members that if the design cannot meet Town Center guidelines without a variance, "maybe this is not the right project for that parcel." Dan Galvin added, "The point of a public hearing is to hear from the public," urging the board to ensure ample public participation before acting.

Board members and counsel discussed possible design alternatives raised by staff, including narrower lane widths or a single covered lane with an uncovered bypass, but members noted safety tradeoffs and town design requirements that led the applicant to the current configuration. The applicant asked whether a special meeting could be held at the applicant’s expense to accelerate consideration; the chair said she would check that option offline but that the board would likely proceed at the next regular meeting.

A motion to close the public hearing was made, seconded and passed with votes recorded as: Mr. Aari — yes; Mr. Quillin — yes; Mr. Seavoy — abstain; Miss Stevens — yes. The board did not render a final decision on the variance and will draft findings or a resolution for consideration at a future meeting. The board then voted to adjourn.

The proceedings also recorded routine business: the board approved minutes from the Jan. 23 meeting earlier in the session. The planning board remains the lead agency for coordinated review, and the ZBA will consider the balancing test and any additional input at its next meeting before issuing a decision on the requested setback relief.