June 3, 2018

Following is an edited version of a post that I published at Nextdoor in response to some comments posted there.

*********************************************************************************

I am not opposed to Matilda’s. That would be like being opposed to puppies or Oxygen. However, I am opposed to the creation of a music venue at the Crossroads. The geometry, size, and features of the subject property are such that the property is not suitable for a music venue. That is why 9–yes, 9–variances are needed. Some of the variances are not a big deal. But there are 4 variances that are a very big deal. These variances dilute or ignore zoning regulations that make Milton such a special place. Furthermore, granting these variances sets a dangerous legal precedent. That is, other developers will want the same treatment. For example, instead of the legal requirement for 60 decibels or less at the closest property line, the Planning Commission recommended a limit of 85 decibels. Every 10 decibel increase is a doubling in loudness. So going from 60 to 85 decibels is an increase of more than 4 times. At 85 decibels, hearing protection is recommended. My leaf blower puts out 85 decibels at three feet of distance. Raising the decibel level by 25 db is like raising the speed limit from 50 mph to more than 200 mph. So imagine this sort of loud noise at your property line.

Another variance being sought is to reduce or mostly eliminate the 75-foot buffer and 10-foot setback around the property. Milton’s regulations on buffers and setbacks are a key element of Milton’s rural look and feel. Buffers and setbacks are an essential protection for the community. The 100 foot activity setback was also recommended for reduction from 100 feet to 60 feet to accommodate on-site parking; approval would set another dangerous legal precedent, allowing unsatisfactory encroachment of inappropriate uses in residential areas.

Another variance that is being sought is a use permit for perpetuity. Staff recommended against this and argued that the legal requirement for a 3-year renewal period protected the community against potential negative impact from the venue. Even the applicant indicated that he would accept a renewal period. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission recommended a perpetual use permit. Such a permit would not allow the community any recourse if the music venue has a negative impact on the community. And by the way, there are no conditions requiring the music venue to be like Matilda’s. The venue could morph into something totally different. And with the noise standard raised to 85 db (at the property line), the operators could accommodate virtually any kind of music.

Additionally, no parking plans or traffic studies were recommended by the Planning Commission. No improvements were recommended to make the Crossroads safer for pedestrians. Surely, patrons would cross to the Northeast corner to get food and drinks for the concerts. Currently, there are no crosswalks or other pedestrian safety measures.

Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended loosening other conditions recommended by staff. The cap on attendance was raised from 200 to 300 based on a (self-reported) outlier concert that 275 patrons attended. The Planning Commission recommended extending the Matilda’s season by 1 month. And Planning Commission also recommended concerts on Friday AND/OR Saturday nights, whereas staff recommended concerts on Friday OR Saturday night. All of this means there might be up to 42 concerts spread over 7 months with up to 300 attending. This is in contrast to Matilda’s current 20 concerts stretching over 6 months with a median crowd of 150.

And by the way, several nearby business owners have expressed opposition to the venue. They are concerned about illegal overflow parking that would jam their parking lots and expose them to liability, damage, clean-up costs, etc.

Oh, and this music venue would abut Birmingham Park.  The Planning Commission recommended removing the buffer and setback along the park border.  No reasoning was given.  This is weird because some of the borders are far removed from the music venue area and separated from it by a power transmission line.  However, the Planning Commission was so consumed with giving the developer everything he wanted (and more) that these sorts of egregious giveaways were overlooked.  BTW, I don’t think a music venue should be located next to peaceful and serene passive park–our beloved Birmingham Park.

I have spent a lot of time studying this issue. I attended both the Community Zoning Information Meeting (CZIM) and the Planning Commission Meeting. I have read staff’s report on this venue. And I have spoken 2+ hours with the developer. At first, I was supportive of the proposal for a music venue, if it could be properly conditioned. However, the more I investigated, the more I realized that the requested variances, if granted, would create dangerous legal precedents that would present a clear and present danger to our community. I think Matilda’s is a wonderful institution and one worth saving. Unfortunately, this particular property at the Crossroads is not a good fit for a music venue. We need to find a better home for Matilda’s–one that does not require 9 variances and that does not violate long-standing and sacred protections for the community.

I urge citizens to educate themselves about this issue. Please return to the blog for more information on the proposed music venue. You can also enter your email and subscribe to the blog to have posts emailed to your inbox when they are published.

Advocating For Smart Land Use,

Tim Becker