By Scott MacKeen
Staff Writer
2/18/10
Lingering questions involving a traffic impact study of a proposed commercial development at Temple Shalom have been sufficiently addressed, a peer review of the study says. Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, or HSH, the Boston traffic-engineering firm that submitted the peer review two weeks ago, included in its initial report a number of requests for additional information it felt was lacking in the traffic study, conducted by Andover-based Vanasse & Associates. Among the concerns were that the traffic study did not provide sufficient data regarding how parking would be addressed on the site and how trip generations were calculated. It also cited insufficient data involving previous crash rates at certain intersections near the Temple site. Those concerns, submitted in a Jan. 29 letter to Town Planner Bill Clark, were then countered point by point by Vanasse & Associates in a letter sent to Clark on Feb. 5. Six days later, in another letter to Clark from Howard/Stein-Hudson, it was stated that the traffic study “adequately accommodates” potential traffic issues that might arise from the new Route 138 development.
“Overall, HSH finds that the comments raised in the peer review have been satisfactorily addressed,” the Feb. 11 letter states. “HSH has determined that, according to the information presented in the [traffic impact study] and the response to the comments letter, the roadway network possesses the necessary capacity to serve the development without unduly burdening the neighborhood transportation network.”
Part of Howard/Stein-Hudson’s new statement is based on assurances from the developer that certain concern issues – including on-site parking – would be addressed during Planning Board site plan and special permitting approval phases.
“The proponent has indicated that the majority of the comments related to the site plan will be addressed during site plan review. The site plan provided as part of the [traffic study] is conceptual in nature and undergoing further refinements,” the letter states.
Representatives of both traffic engineering companies attending the Feb. 11 Planning Board meeting confirmed they are now on the same page. Jeffrey Dirk, vice president of Vanasse & Associates, said his firm made small modifications to its original study submitted in December, including collecting additional data, to meet the concerns of the peer review.
“They did provide more detail … and we’re satisfied that these concerns will be addressed with the proposed improvements,” said Keri Pyke, of Howard/Stein-Hudson. “Overall, I think we feel that the mitigation they offer is going to be helpful to the areas of concern.”
Proposed traffic-calming measures spelled out in the Vanasse study include extensive roadway alterations, pavement markings, signage replacement and new sign installations, which can found on the Planning Board’s page on the town’s Web site, www.townofmilton.org.
A zoning proposal for the site, being presented to Feb. 22 Special Town Meeting, would allow the current Temple to be replaced with a smaller facility. A large chunk of the land would be sold to the developer, Brockton-based Coffman Realty, for the construction of a CVS Pharmacy and a grocery store.
Part of the Vanasse proposal calls for the town to establish a “comprehensive traffic-calming plan” with input from local and state police, and neighbors exploring aspects of the development.
Traffic has been the key sticking point for neighbors opposed to the development, who say commercial activity would only exacerbate an already traffic-plagued area.
“It is recognized that this is an area of traffic concern. There’s a whole host of solutions,” said Dirk.
But Planning Board Chair Peter Jackson said he was pleased that both firms appear to now be on the same page.
“I got a sense that after back-and-forth communications, there was sort of a meeting of the minds,” Jackson said.
The traffic study will be included as part of the overall presentation to Special Town Meeting.
Conflicting Strategies
Less certain is what exactly the Planning Board will tell Town Meeting about how it came to craft the 10-page zoning document, which has required nearly a year of work.
It became apparent from last week’s discussion that board members hold different views on what are the significant points of the debate leading to the zoning plan that Town Meeting should know about.
The board first grappled with how to condense the months of deliberations down into a document Town Meeting can both digest and which gives all valid information for discussion purposes.
“I am always of the view of providing Town Meeting members with all the information,” board member Emily Innes said.
However, Innes said she would prefer that the Planning Board’s presentation not exceed 20 minutes. The Temple/development team and an organized opposition group will also be allowed to present to Town Meeting.
The next question was whose presentation to accept. Conflict arose when both Jackson and board member Alex Whiteside introduced documents they had written intended for Town Meeting. Each said he disagreed with the other’s approach.
“I can’t endorse this as the Planning Board’s recommendation. I don’t think it represents our deliberation,” Jackson said of Whiteside’s document.
In response, Whiteside told Jackson, “what is in [Jackson’s document] you don’t have any authority to say, because I don’t support it.”
“I’m a little irritated with both of you,” Innes said.
Jackson said Whiteside didn’t adequately describe the role of a neighborhood committee that advised the board during deliberations last summer. He said Whiteside refers to other topics – like an extensive definitions of the Chapter 40B housing-and-permitting process – that are “unnecessary to our position” since that particular option was rejected.
Whiteside said it is necessary for the board to explain why other options were deemed not right for the Temple site, and criticized the board’s handling of the advisory committee process.
“What was the process? There was a lot of discussion. There was a lot of spinning of gears,” he said. “But what was the process?”
In the end, the board decided to include both documents. As voted by the board, 3-2, Whiteside’s will be the Planning Board’s official recommendation in the article to the Town Meeting. Jackson’s will be the board’s report to Town Meeting, required by Annual Town Meeting last May, when it was voted that the Temple development proposal should be studied further and reported back to the next scheduled Town Meeting.
Planning Board members Ed Duffy and Bernie Lynch voted in opposition at that time because both remain opposed to the commercial development, while the article recommends in favor.
“There are still some loose ends I’m troubled with,” said Lynch.