By Scott MacKeen
Staff Writer
2/11/10
The peer review finds that a traffic study of the project should:
• More fully examine the potential causes of the high crash rate at the Decker Street/Crown Street and Blue Hills Parkway/Blue Hill Terrace Street intersections to determine if additional traffic from the project could exacerbate the crash rate.
• Review the remaining study area intersections to identify other locations where sight distance may be a concern.
• Provide detailed trip generation calculations for the supermarket.
• Indicate graphically on the site plan how the peak parking demand for the overall site will be accommodated.
• Coordinate with the [Massachusetts Department of Transportation] on the proposed improvements to Blue Hill Avenue.
• Indicate if the sidewalks along the site’s Blue Hill Avenue frontage will be rebuilt as part of the project.
The review concludes, “The proponent should provide more detail on the traffic-calming measures proposed as part of the mitigation for the project.”
While not providing details of the review, Clark said those such as the items listed by Howard/Stein-Hudson will come out in the special-permit process, if the development gets to that point. It first requires a two-thirds majority vote at the Feb. 22 Special Town Meeting.
“A detailed traffic study is always part of the filing for a special permit,” Clark said. “For those who were expecting to see some big, comprehensive study [with the release of the peer review] … I don’t know where that one came from.”
The zoning would allow a drive-through CVS Pharmacy and a grocery store along with a downsized Temple on the site on Route 138, near the Mattapan line.
Spot Zoning
Meanwhile, there are questions as to whether the zoning article for the Temple redevelopment would fall under the category of so-called spot zoning, which is illegal.
According to the Massachusetts Municipal Association, spot zoning occurs when “a zoning change is designed solely for the economic benefit of the owner of the property receiving special treatment and is not in accordance with a well-considered plan for the public welfare.”
The potential for the Temple to benefit financially from the commercial development is one of the criticisms of the plan. Some opponents have said the project is being driven by dollars instead of the needs of neighborhood.
However, according to Temple President Lynda Packer, that is not the case.
“The operative words here are ‘a zoning change that is designed solely for the economic benefit of the owner of the property.’ This is far from the case. This would not only benefit the Temple, it would also benefit the Campbell School and the dozens of families in the neighborhood that have counted on this award-winning preschool for their families for many, many years,” Packer said in an e-mail.
Bob Sheffield, an attorney who has been before many boards and knows of the intricacies of Milton’s zoning bylaws, said he doesn’t think the zoning being proposed for the Temple qualifies as spot zoning.
“The court’s interpretation of spot zoning has changed,” he said. “I don’t think they would have a problem with this.”
Sheffield pointed out that any changes to the town zoning bylaw must also be approved by the state Attorney General’s Office. He said the state could decide to step in if they saw it as spot zoning.
“I don’t think it would come to that,” he said.
Planning Board member Alex Whiteside, who wrote the zoning article, said it is not spot zoning because the underlying Residence C zoning is not being changed.
“It isn’t as though we’re taking a specific parcel of land and rezoning it. We’re creating an overlay,” he said.
Whiteside said he didn’t write the zoning to restrict it to the Temple site.
But he disagrees that it would apply to St. Elizabeth’s Parish and St. Mary of the Hills School, as has been suggested by Clark.
“I don’t know of anything else that could apply. But it could. I don’t know that,” he said.
In any case, Whiteside said, the zoning being proposed is a planned unit development, a type of zoning he said the state doesn’t regard as spot zoning.
“Most spot zoning cases are pretty old. They were before PUDs,” he said. “I’m not aware that it’s ever been called spot zoning. Spot zoning is a concept that has weakened over the years. It doesn’t have the vigor it once had.”
“Call it what you want. They’ve come up with another name for it,” said Selectmen Chair John Shields, who opposes the Temple redevelopment plan because he says it doesn’t belong in a residential area.
Shields admitted he is “not qualified to talk about the legalities of spot zoning” but said he disagrees with how the development is being handled. “This is nothing like Central Avenue,” he said, referring to another place in town where a large-scale zoning district was put in place to suit a development. He said Central Avenue was already an established business district.
“The neighbors have been told so many different things,” said Andrew Upton, an attorney for Save Tucker Neighborhood, a group of neighbors fighting the development. “They’ve been told this would apply to St. Elizabeth’s. Then they were told it wouldn’t. They were told this is a tablecloth, not a real zoning change. The next best thing may be to take them to court.”