June 20, 2018

A lot of citizens have asked about the outcome of Monday night’s city council meeting regarding the music venue at the Crossroads.  So here goes and I hope that I get it all right.  (And if don’t get it right, please email me.)

Council approved the applicant’s request, but added/strengthened some conditions.  The approval came at 2:15 in the morning; many of us stayed to the bitter end.  Here is a summary.

• Maximum of 75 db at the property line, which is better than staff’s recommendation of 85 db, but still too high and double what I believe is a reasonable standard:  65 db. My alarm clock puts out 73.6 decibels at 3 feet.  No citizen in AG1 residential areas should have to suffer 75 decibels at their property line.  Staff indicated that 55 decibels is the standard for music at a property line, if that music is being played by a neighbor; 75 decibels is 4 times louder than 55 decibels.  The noise discussion was probably the most frustrating for citizens.  And it pointed out why the property in question is unsuited for the music venue use.  The underlying issue is that the parcel is just too small and narrow.  That is why the sound stage is just 50 feet from the nearest property line, which is why the applicant could not meet the legal requirement for 60 decibels (continuous) at the closest property line.  Most people in opposition readily got this concept; it’s not difficult.  But most/all of Council never understood it.  I strongly believe Council’s recommendation will set a legal precedent that will haunt Milton.  When the city government revised the noise ordinance in 2017, it seems that they were not really considering use permits for commercial operations in AG1 residential areas of Milton, when they set an 85 decibel standard.  Hopefully, one positive outcome of this zoning hearing is that the City will close off this huge loophole.
• A 6-month review, where the use permit could be rescinded (I think . . . it was a little unclear).  And no more reviews are required after that, so the requirement for 3-year renewals was struck down. Accordingly, the community has only one opportunity for recourse.
• Limit on events:  30. This is less than Planning Commission’s upper limit of 42, but more than 20 concerts that the applicant stated was typical or 1 concert per week (staff’s recommendation), which would have allowed up to 26 concerts per season.
• The concert season was dialed back by 1 month to 6 months: May 1 to October 31, which had been represented as a typical season for Matilda’s.
• Concerts on Friday and/or Saturday nights, which was the one PC concession (not asked for by the applicant) that was approved by Council. My understanding is that most concerts will be on Saturday night, and Friday night will be mostly reserved for the rescheduling of Saturday concerts cancelled due to weather.
• The attendance cap of 300 recommended by the PC was dialed back to staff’s recommendation of 200, but with 250 patrons being allowed for 2 concerts (with 1 off-duty cop required for these expanded concerts.)
• The use permit is tied to Matilda’s.  This is a key condition if it is properly written and specific (i.e., use permit is tied specifically to the current operators). This is a key condition that many of us had been promoting.  This protection should prevent the music venue from morphing into something less desirable for the community.
• The variances are tied to the use. When the concerts stop at this location, the variances expire.  The applicant cannot use the variances to redevelop the northwest corner in a manner that is incongruous with the other 3 corners of the Crossroads.  This is also a key condition and one that I personally pushed in my meetings with the City.

I was frankly disappointed in the outcome.  It seemed Council, particularly Mayor Lockwood, was pre-disposed toward approving a request from the applicant.  Council seemed to mostly ignore or discount the very high level of nearby opposition . . . those of us that will have to deal with the ill effects of their decision.  Consider the following:

• While there were a lot of Matilda’s supporters in the audience (a large majority from outside of Milton, based on my discussions with them), only 24 spoke in support.  Of these, only 13 were from Milton and only 3 lived nearby.  And remember that Matilda’s launched a very aggressive social media campaign to get out supporters.
• 37 of us spoke in opposition.  At least 30 lived nearby–i.e., within about 2 miles.
• All of the SW corner business owners (except for the applicant, who owns a building on the SW corner) signed a strong petition against the music venue, but their concerns were not even acknowledged. These business owners have a $3M+ investment in their properties.

There is more to tell.  I will publish a few more blog posts on Council’s decision.  However, I wanted to give readers a summary of the meeting.

Citizens, I want to thank all of you for your hard work.  Thanks for the letters.  Thanks for showing up and speaking.  What makes Milton special is its citizens and that was quite clear last night.  I am proud to call so many of you friends.  Had you not engaged, I am sure that some of the conditions described above, which provide essential protections to the community, would not have been imposed on the applicant.  You did achieve some measure of success in this matter and the community is better because of your engagement.

Advocating For Smart Land Use and Good Governance,

Tim Becker