....................480 Adams Street, Suite #208, Milton Massachusetts, USA • 617.696.7758
 
 
 
 

Temple Debate
Divides Town Meeting

By Scott MacKeen
Staff Writer
2/25/10
As the first night of Special Town Meeting convened Feb. 22, the proponents of a commercial and institutional zoning bylaw for Temple Shalom made their case for the project to move ahead.

Proponents of the proposed Tucker Village Marketplace – which includes a downsized Temple, a CVS Pharmacy and a grocery store on the Blue Hill Avenue site – were given roughly two hours to make presentations to Town Meeting.

Opposition presentations followed Feb. 23, with the floor then being open to Town Meeting members and residents who wished to speak. Town Moderator Brian Walsh informed the crowd that more than 75 non-Town Meeting members had requested time to speak. A motion by Town Clerk James Mullen Jr. to limit speakers to five minutes was defeated when Planning Board Chair Peter Jackson argued that the traffic consultant for the development team should be allowed to give its full presentation.

Much of the first night centered on what many feel are the positive aspects of the Temple redevelopment plan, including adding amenities to the west side of town, and assuring the future of the congregation and the Campbell School on the site.

The second night was dominated by the opposition’s view that commercial development on the Temple site will dramatically alter the neighborhood by adding traffic to tight, narrow side roads and possibly driving down home values.

‘The Best Alternative’

Lynda Packer, president of Temple Shalom, and Temple board member Ada Rosmarin both spoke Feb. 22 of the need for the town to take some action regarding the property. They said the congregation can no longer afford to maintain the building, which was built to serve more than 400 families.

Rosmarin said the Temple has only 140 families and its leadership is losing money trying to maintain the facility. She said the Temple has had to double its membership fee and hold a special fund-raiser to cover costs during the public hearing process, which has lasted more than a year.

Both Packer and Rosmarin said the commercial option proposed is in the town’s best interest.

“Our best interest [at Temple Shalom] is wrapped up with the best interest of the town. We can’t continue putting this off. This proposal is the best alternative for the town, both for now and for the future,” said Packer.

Proponents spoke about what the alternatives might be if the commercial development project is defeated. Most said it would likely be an affordable housing development built under Chapter 40B provisions, giving the town little to no control of mitigating factors associated with new growth in the area.

Planning Board Chair Peter Jackson said it was determined through consultation with real estate experts that a 40B project is the only other development likely to attain financing in the market, and would have to include between 80 and 120 units. He said that development would strain town resources more than the commercial development.

The development team, led by Coffman Realty President Jeff Coffman, also presented on behalf of the Tucker Village project. Coffman said his company has designed more than 50 CVS stores in New England and always seeks to protect the neighborhoods in which they are built.

“We listen and respond to the neighborhood concerns. We keep our properties neighborhood-friendly,” he said.

Coffman added that since he launched his business in 1982, he has never seen a development process “so complete, transparent and detailed” as the one involving Temple Shalom, adding that he remains committed to mitigating potential impacts of the proposed development.

“All mitigation that is necessary will be done, and it will be done by us. It is the responsibility of us as the developer,” he said.

Michael Coffman, vice president of the development company, announced that Harvest Co-op Markets has agreed to lease the grocery store space if the development gains approval. The company has stores in Cambridge and Jamaica Plain.

Stephen Clifford, president of the board of director at Harvest, said his company is “grounded in the community.”

“We’re about as local as you get. [The board is] elected by our members. We’re owned by our members and our profits stay local,” he said.

Michael Coffman said the development team responded to neighbors’ requests to have a local tenant as part of the development. In addition, he said, CVS has signed on for a 25-year lease that includes an option for an additional 50 years.

A ‘Process to Nowhere’

Many opposing the development took issue with the fact that the Temple has had a purchase-and-sale agreement in place with Coffman prior to public deliberations on the project beginning. They said it has been a predetermined process to build a commercial development and that compromise with the neighborhood was never a priority.

“This has always been a take-it-or-leave-it deal,” said Steve Keel, who served on a committee advisingthe Planning Board on the proposed development last summer.

He said the advisory committee was a “process to nowhere” because the agreement “excluded all real discussion of alternative developments.”

Keel, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 1, which includes the Temple neighborhood, acted as primary spokesman for the Feb. 23 opposition presentation, introducing each speaker.

Part of the two-hour presentation included a video DVD that a grassroots opposition team had distributed to Town Meeting members beforehand, hoping to sway the vote. It showed footage of some of the neighborhood streets that surround the Temple, such as Crown, Decker, Cheever and Blue Hill Terrace streets, Mulberry and Essex roads, and Concord Avenue.
Darnell Turner, another Precinct 1 Town Meeting member, explained how the road network often works, with commuters utilizing those side streets to access Blue Hill Avenue and Blue Hills Parkway, the two main corridors that run perpendicular.

Turner said the side roads are not built to sustain commercial traffic. He explained how on-street parking, road layouts and weather factors often narrow roads to essentially one lane and affect visibility.

“None of these problems have been addressed in this article or throughout this process,” Turner narrated in the video. “Placing a CVS at this location without a reasonable plan … is dangerous. Our neighborhood deserves to have a plan in place. I think we should get our questions answered.”

The opposition group is called Save Tucker Neighborhood. Former Selectman Joe McEttrick, who lives with his wife, Selectman Marion McEttrick, near the Temple on Crown Street, said the neighborhood is “fighting for its survival.”

Joe McEttrick called on Town Meeting to vote down the current proposal and “start over” with a new process that includes real neighborhood-wide investment.

“This Planning Board has failed us,” he said, adding that housing options shouldn’t be excluded from discussion. McEttrick mentioned that a referendum to repeal the 40B law is being considered for the upcoming state election in November.

“40B might be off the books,” he said.

Beth Fleitman, an abutter to the Temple on Crown Street, said only one of 23 homeowners whose properties face the synagogue supports the current proposal.

“I do not want a commercial development. The peace and quiet in my home will be gone forever,” Fleitman said.

Concord Avenue resident Joe Sloane said he has “little confidence” that the Planning Board can establish adequate mitigations and neighborhood protection in crafting a special permit document for the development, as the board has promised.

Others praised the Planning Board for devoting over a year of public attention to the Tucker Village development, adding that a vote to allow the zoning bylaw is only the beginning of a process to include further public scrutiny.

“They will do the job. They can be trusted,” said Tom Smigliani, of Winter Valley, who also served on the advisory committee to the Planning Board.

Smigliani defended the advisory process, saying it was “transparent” and “meticulous.” He said certain options for development at the Temple site were considered and thrown out, and it came down to either the current proposal or a dense housing complex. He said the advisory process was hampered by people who already had their minds made up.

“Each side [on the advisory committee] had a particularly singular opinion,” he said.

Smigliani expressed support for the zoning article, saying it “gives people time and, most importantly, gives the Temple hope.”

Another advisory committee member, Tammy Murphy, called the process “dysfunctional,” saying she joined with “an open mind and an expectation of compromise” but witnessed a deliberation driven solely but the financial needs of the Temple.

Others who spoke said they were originally opposed to commercial development on the property but have come to support the plan as it has progressed with improvements proposed by the developer based on neighborhood feedback. For example, some said the addition of green space and the local component of a grocery store were enough to change their minds.

“They have given us what we wanted,” said Keith Wick, of Essex Road.

Home Values

 Another concern of development opponents has been its potential to negatively impact home values. When Selectmen Chair John Shields stood the first night to propose an amendment to the zoning article, it sparked exactly such a debate.

Shields said the language in the article requiring real estate property value analysis and mitigation from the development is “far too broad,” and leaves the town exposed to potential litigation.

“There’s nothing in this article that describes how that mitigation would work,” he said.

Shields estimated that if neighboring home values dropped even 5 percent from the development, it is equal to $15,000 per household, based on an average home in the area of $300,000. With about 200 homes located within the 500-foot area defined in the real estate analysis provision, “that’s $3 million.”

“Where’s that money going to come from?” Shields asked.

He tried to amend the article to require that the developer pay into a mitigation account, but Walsh decided to delay a vote on the proposed amendment until after more discussion takes place.

Jackson explained that a provision in the bylaw says the developer must prove that property values would not decrease as the result of the development, and provide a mitigation plan if it is deemed they would. The developer must pay for both a study and peer review to prove their case, he said.

Jackson said he doesn’t personally believe property values will be negatively impacted by the development, calling the claim “erroneous.”

Lila Rosenbaum, a Temple Shalom member for more than 50 years and a former congregation president, said she can’t imagine having to choose between the town and the synagogue, which recently celebrated 65 years in Milton.

“I hope and I pray I’ll never have to make that decision,” she said.

Town Meeting continues Monday, March 1, at 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium at Milton High School, 25 Gile Road.