Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milton DRB closes preliminary hearing on 24‑lot East Road subdivision after extensive list of required clarifications
Summary
During a June 25 preliminary plan review, the Milton Development Review Board closed the hearing on a proposed 24‑lot subdivision at 0 East Road (55.91 acres) after the applicant accepted or was advised of numerous clarifications and permit requirements covering archaeological areas, setbacks, access, stormwater, utilities, road design, sidewalks, and open‑space standards.
The Milton Development Review Board on June 25 closed the preliminary‑plan hearing for a proposed 24‑lot Major Subdivision at 0 East Road and enumerated a lengthy set of clarifications and permit requirements the applicant must address. The hearing was closed by motion of Mary Callahan and seconded by Bill McSweeney; the motion passed unanimously.
Owner/applicant Christopher Blondin and consultant Scott Homsted of Krebs & Lansing presented the proposal, which the DRB record describes as a subdivision of Parcel #211093-000000 (SPAN 396-123-12211), recorded as 55.91 acres, proposing construction of 21 new dwelling units, a new road accessed off Railroad Street, and connection to municipal water and sewer.
During preliminary review the DRB and staff identified specific items the applicant must provide or clarify before final approval. Key requests and determinations in the record include: a Permit Navigator Summary or Project Review Sheet and resolution of Technical Advisory Committee comments; detailed explanation of areas labeled as archaeological on the site plan; explicit confirmation that single‑family dwellings are proposed on each lot and a clear count of dwelling units; review of whether Lot 31 can be created without the required frontage; distances from structures at 140 and 142 Railroad St to the proposed new road right‑of‑way and clarification of the right‑of‑way’s effect on 142 Railroad St (owners may require party status if lot size is reduced); and a highway access permit and inspection from Public Works for the new road.
The board also required the applicant to clarify driveway access for 142 Railroad St and to design all driveways in accordance with section 3002 and Public Works specifications, and to provide grading, erosion control, and stormwater management details at the boundary with 140 Railroad St (including whether grading/fill outside section 3007.E is proposed). The DRB record requires local and state approvals for water and sewer allocation and connection and states that a state stormwater permit must be submitted prior to zoning permit approvals; surface waters must be maintained per section 3011.
On road and streetscape standards, staff asked that the new road demonstrate conformance with connectivity requirements in section 3405.A(6), determine whether a secondary access is needed, revise road grades to meet Public Works specifications, and pave the road per section 3504.A(14). The record advises showing details on final plans and includes directions to provide sidewalks on both sides of the new road, determine whether street lighting and street trees are required, and confirm that proposed open space satisfies the common recreation area requirement in section 3405.J. The DRB said it will determine if the subdivision conforms with the character and settlement pattern requirements of section 3406 and renewable energy/energy conservation requirements of section 3407, and requested demonstration of how the subdivision avoids, minimizes, and/or mitigates impacts to significant natural resources and preserves soil in accordance with section 3409.
Staff reminded the applicant that, if approved, construction and maintenance must follow approved plans and conditions; the applicant has six months under section 4406.G to file a complete final subdivision plan. The board noted that omission or misstatement of material facts on the application or at hearings may be grounds for revocation. The DRB may schedule a site visit before issuing a decision; because the DRB closed the hearing, the record indicates a decision will be issued within the applicable statutory timeframe.
The June 25 record lists interested parties present during the hearing (Michael Desranleau, Duane Rouse, John David Nichols) and two members of the public who attended (Roberta Wermer, Grant Rees). The transcript does not record public testimony on the subdivision at the June 25 meeting.
The DRB will consider the applicant’s written responses and follow‑up materials and issue a decision in accordance with applicable procedures.
