(previous)
John Fichtman, of Cheever Street, said he is already concerned about traffic on his street, which he said commuters use as a cut-through to Boston.
“The cars race down our street all day long. I’m already scared for my children’s safety,” he said.
That portion of town “can’t afford 10 more cars on the road, let alone the 100 that is being proposed,” Robert Connolly, of Blue Hill Terrace, added.
Others said they are worried that the Temple’s plan will bring down home values in a mostly residential portion of town. The proposal, which Temple officials say is necessary to ease financial burdens, would involve the construction of a drive-through pharmacy – possibly CVS or Walgreens – and another building for office/retail space. The current Temple would be replaced with a smaller structure.
“There’s a neighborhood here that I want to see respected. A CVS would ruin that,” Linda Naclerio, of Aberdeen Road, said.
“I don’t think any of us are against the Temple. They’ve been a wonderful neighbor. We want you to be here. Not at our expense, though. Not at the expense of our children and grandchildren,” said Harold Patton, of Concord Avenue.
According to the Temple’s attorney, Ned Corcoran, the town can expect up to $200,000 a year in new revenue with the development.
But Elaine Schaffner, of Crown Street, disputed that claim. She said real estate agents tell her it would actually “make this neighborhood a less desirable place to live.”
Despite the criticism, the project had its fair share of supporters at the hearing.
Francine Weistrop, a Temple member, said Milton “is where our hearts and our roots are.”
Letters submitted to the Planning Board from Rev. Peter Casey, of St. Agatha Church, and Rev. Jeff Johnson, of First Congregational Church, urged residents to compromise to keep Temple Shalom in town.
The letters cited diversity of different religions as a benefit to the town.
“It would be a great loss to the community if the Temple were to leave town,” Casey’s letter stated.
Also, supporting the development was Dave Bullis, an Austin Street resident, who said a town facing budget shortfalls should be more open to new growth.
“If we keep saying, ‘no to this backyard and no to that backyard,’ we’re just going to be stuck in the same position,” he said. “The notion we can’t have development and can’t have overrides either, that world no longer exists.”
“I worry that the property will stay vacant for a very long time” if the current proposal is denied, added Laurie Stillman, of Waldo Road. “We have a real choice here.”
The Planning Board continued the public hearing to its next meeting, Thursday, March 26, at 7 p.m. at the Senior Center, 10 Walnut St.