By Scott MacKeen
Staff Writer
12/31/09
Although three School Committee members have voiced support of a commercial redevelopment at Temple Shalom, many residents remain concerned about the project’s impact on the neighborhood, particularly the traffic it may generate on the narrow side streets bordering the building. Following its Dec. 21 vote to include a zoning article on the Feb. 22 Special Town Meeting warrant, the Planning Board held the first of two planned public hearings on the Temple redevelopment. It is expected to vote a recommendation to Town Meeting on the Temple redevelopment article at the conclusion of the second hearing next week. About 30 residents offered testimony on the zoning of commercial buildings and a downsized religious center on the Blue Hill Avenue property. Of the speakers, about 20 were in favor of the proposal and 10 spoke out against it. The zoning would allow three buildings on the site: a 13,000-square-foot CVS Pharmacy, a 10,000-square-foot grocery store, and a 7,500-square-foot Temple to replace the current 23,000-square-foot building.
Among those in support of the plan were School Committee members Beirne Lovely, Glenn Pavlicek and Chris Huban. All three spoke of the necessity of the town to take some action regarding the property. Temple officials have suggested that if Town Meeting rejects the current zoning plan, it is likely the congregation would relocate. Such a move could mean selling the entire parcel off to a developer, who might seek a Chapter 40B affordable housing development, officials say.
Communities have less control of mitigation when 40B projects are proposed, Pavlicek said. He said the dense housing units would be “a blight” on the neighborhood and increase the student population at a time when school officials are struggling to keep class sizes down.
“To me, this is an issue of control,” Pavlicek said. “To me, the enemy here isn’t high-density or low-income housing. It’s an uncontrollable development. The worst thing we can do is to do nothing. We need something where we can control our own destiny, and I think a planned-unit development does that.”
Lovely praised the commercial development plan, saying the proposed zoning is “tasteful” and “replete with safeguards,” and offers “significant restrictions” of what can and can’t be build on the site. Lovely and others praised the Planning Board for setting restrictions such as noise, traffic and property-value studies into the zoning. He said the town has always found reasons to avoid development plans that would increase the town’s tax base, which is otherwise vastly reliant on taxpayer dollars.
“This development would bring in $160,000 in tax revenue [reflecting an annual estimate from the town appraiser],” Lovely said. “That is equal to [the salaries of] three teachers.”
Huban agreed the town “needs carefully planned retail developments” to break the cycle of proposing overrides that amount to tax hikes on homeowners. He also spoke of the Temple’s value as a source of community pride and diversity.
“[The current zoning proposal] brilliantly balances the concerns of the neighborhood with the needs of the Temple,” he said.
However, others at the meeting were unconvinced that their concerns about new development have been met. Several abutters to the Temple who spoke continued their opposition to the commercial development plan, which they say is inappropriate for a residential neighborhood.
Brad Schaffner, of Crown Street, disputed that the zoning sets out to protect the neighborhood, as proponents claimed. He said the 25-foot setback spelled out in the zoning isn’t enough to protect abutting properties from noise and visibility factors.
“I’m an abutter and I do not want this at all,” added Sylvia Goodman, of 32 Decker St. “Would you want it in your backyard?”
The most prominent concern expressed was for how the new development might alter traffic patterns on roads such as Crown, Decker and Cheever streets, Mulberry and Aberdeen roads, Concern Avenue and others near the Temple.
Neighbors say those roads are already dangerous, as they are frequently used as cut-through routes for commuters on the major roadways like Blue Hill Avenue and Truman Highway. There is a persistent fear that adding a pharmacy and grocer to the neighbor will only increase those behaviors.
“I do not support this at all, and it’s because of the traffic,” said Carl Daniel, of 57 Aberdeen Road. “People speed down our street all the time. It will be an unsafe place.”
“It’s such a traffic nightmare already. I am extremely opposed to any CVS. Yes, you can control the development. But you cannot control the customers,” said Shanalee Saunders, of 93 Decker St., who spoke of concern for her children traveling the streets.
Darnell Turner, of Blue Hill Terrace, another nearby street, said there is a neighborhood fear that certain roads will become one-ways and areas of on-street parking will be lost as a result of the development.
The developer, Brockton-based Coffman Realty, has paid for a traffic-impact study of the development, the result of which the Planning Board was only just receiving prior to last week’s meeting and which was not discussed. Coffman has also provided funding for a town-appointed entity to conduct a peer review of the study, which is expected by the end of January.
Not all abutters were against the development plan. Kristen LeCasse, of 76 Decker St., said she considers town scrutiny of the project an opportunity to pinpoint and fix traffic problems that already exist.
“I see it as a chance to get some attention to our side of town,” she said.
Ravi Jain, of 53 Crown St., said the zoning language, which was crafted by Planning Board member Alex Whiteside, is “very thorough, and very considerate” of the neighborhood.
Across the street, at 52 Crown St., Marilyn Whipple said she and her family also support the commercial development.
“It took a lot of thought. But myself and my entire family support this,” she said.
The Planning Board will hold its second public hearing Monday, Jan. 4, at 6:30 p.m. at the senior center, 10 Walnut St.