10/1/09
The Planning Board is divided over whether to rezone Temple Shalom for a pharmacy development, with some calling the plan “too big” and others saying it could “enhance” the neighborhood.
The board will ultimately have to decide whether to back a zoning article for the redevelopment plan. A February Special Town Meeting is in the works. Two-thirds of Town Meeting would have to back a zoning change for the parcel, located near the Mattapan line on Route 138.
For now, the Planning Board is making its opinions known.
After wrapping up work with a development advisory committee three weeks ago, board members gave their thoughts on the redevelopment proposal as it has been presented – with a new, smaller Temple sharing the property with two commercial structures, including a CVS Pharmacy.
Temple officials have said this development scenario best suits their financial need for a smaller facility and desire to remain in Milton, where they have been for over six decades.
Planning Board members Bernie Lynch and Ed Duffy were against that plan, with Duffy calling it a “historic change” from residential to commercial that goes against the town’s traditional zoning practices.
“We need to see something creative here. I haven’t seen that yet,” said Duffy. “I can’t support what I’ve heard so far. It’s all been about ‘how much can you get out of [the property]?’ and let the chips fall where they may for the neighbors.”
Lynch called the development with a CVS “too big, with too many variables.”
“Right now I’m not ready to vote for a zoning change,” he said. “That’s the way I feel. If another proposal comes up, we’ll see.”
Other members said they could accept the CVS proposal if it is carefully designed, with friendly zoning to the neighborhood.
“This thing doesn’t have to look scary,” said Planning Board Chair Peter Jackson.
Jackson said the next likely alternate would see the entire four-acre parcel sold – likely to a Chapter 40B developer – with the town having little say in what gets built. A 40B project would mean affordable housing.
“I think a pharmacy and the Temple is what can fit comfortably on the [four-acre] site,” Jackson said.
Member Alex Whiteside read a five-page letter where he cited several concerns he has with the development proposal – including the idea of the third building on the site, which would contain office and retail space – but said he could support a plan with just the two buildings.
He said the development should be driven by “a valid municipal purpose” and not the financial needs of the Temple.
“A well-designed pharmacy in a landscaped setting next door to a new Temple in a similar setting, both separated from nearby residences, in my opinion, would offer public amenity and enhance, not degrade, the neighborhood,” said Whiteside. “Such zoning would in my view be reasonably responsive to the Temple’s needs and be a responsible action serving the best interests of the town.”
Board member Emily Innes said she agrees with “99 percent” of Whiteside’s letter, saying she may be willing to support the third building.
“I’m not ready to vote yes or no,” she said.
Jackson said the board needs more information before taking a final vote and called on the developer who conceived the CVS proposal, Brockton-based Coffman Realty, to come back to the next meeting with “creative ideas.”
The Planning Board meets again Thursday, Oct. 8, at 6:30 p.m. at the senior center, 10 Walnut St.

– Scott MacKeen