Milton appeals ordinance passes

After months of debate and public comment, and being tabled three times for revisions, Milton’s ordinance governing administrative appeals passed quickly at town council’s Feb. 7 meeting.

The ordinance would set out rules governing appeals from the town’s board of adjustment, planning and zoning commission, and project manager. Those rules include which board would hear an appeal and who can file an appeal. 

Under the ordinance, any property owner or resident could file an appeal within 60 days of a decision. Once an appeal is filed, the appealed action is stayed until a hearing can be scheduled by the town manager.

The most controversial aspect of the ordinance is the establishment of a $400 fee and $1,000 in escrow paid by the appellant to cover the town’s administrative fees in handling the appeal. 

The ordinance came into being in the first place after council heard two appeals of planning and zoning decisions in summer 2021. One was for a special permitted use granted to Verizon to build a cellphone tower at the town’s public works yard on Front Street. In that appeal, council upheld the commission’s decision. A second appeal was filed over the commission’s decision to grant preliminary site-plan approval to the builders of the proposed Cypress Grove development on Route 16. In that case, the appellant withdrew the appeal after getting a promise to be notified of future discussions of the Cypress Grove project. 

The town covered the cost of both of those appeals, and it had to hastily establish rules for the hearings, as none were on the books for appeals from planning and zoning at that time. 

The establishment of a fee, which can be modified by council every year as part of the fee schedule included in the town’s annual budget, raised the ire of citizens who argued that the fee would discourage citizens of limited means from their rightful ability to file appeals. 

Language was inserted into the ordinance that would allow appellants who could provide proof of financial hardship to not have to pay the appeals fees. 

With that, public controversy around the ordinance began to die down, and after additional tweaks to the ordinance language, council held its vote Feb. 7, when it passed unanimously.