By Scott MacKeen
Staff Writer
6/18/09
At their first public meeting, members of the Planning Board and Temple Shalom Redevelopment Advisory Committee were asked to list the things they feel will be most important in planning a new development for the Temple property.
It was a starting point to find common ground between Temple representatives and neighbors who have been critical of the Temple’s plans for their land, Planning Board Chairman Peter Jackson said.
“I really want to see this as a team process, not as an ‘us vs. them’ kind of thing. I think there is common ground here and we should start from there,” Jackson explained as the Planning Board met jointly with the newly formed advisory committee June 11.
Starting with Jackson, members went around the table, running down their lists of what they feel a new development at Temple Shalom should look like. Temple officials have said if they can’t arrange a development that includes sharing part of the land with other structures, and downsizing to a smaller Temple, they would be forced to sell the entire parcel and move out of town. The Temple has been in Milton over 60 years.
For the four-acre parcel on Blue Hill Avenue, Jackson said he wants to see a development that is “beautiful” and “fills a community need,” and keeps the Temple on the land. Member Emily Innes agreed the Temple should remain in town, contained in a development that is “a benefit to the neighborhood” and “well maintained.”
Board member Ed Duffy said he does not want to see a “retail component” to the development, because the area is densely residential, but would be in favor of having market-price housing or a youth playground constructed.
Member Bernie Lynch added that he would lean toward a “small commercial building, plus the new Temple.”
Members representing the neighborhood on the advisory committee, Joseph Sloane and Tammy Murphy, said a new development should fulfill a community need and not encroach on its neighbors. Murphy said it also shouldn’t negatively impact home values. Sloane said it should be “a safe development.”
Representing the Temple on the committee, Buddy Packer said a new development should account for “what’s best for the Temple and the town of Milton” and Robert Rosofsky said it should be “attractive” and maximize tax revenue.
The Planning Board also appointed another neighbor, Nick Macke, to the advisory committee. Macke said he would focus on a development that preserved some of the woods contained in the parcel and slowed traffic on Blue Hill Avenue.
Jim Perrine, a representative of the Boston-based nonprofit, Community Builders Inc., explained how his company is handling a similar land development in Gloucester, where that town’s Temple burned down. He said the Temple in Gloucester is likely to be rezoned under a mixed-use scenario, although he is not sure yet which one.
“We started with an open mind. We asked: ‘What does the town need?’” Perrine explained. “It’s that sort of discussion I would encourage you to engage in.”
Perrine said the Temple Shalom site “has a lot going for it” because of its proximity to a “very desirable neighborhood.” However, he said the landowner in these cases has “bottom lines” to look after and can choose to sell if they don’t like what is proposed.
“Keep that in mind. We have a property owner and the property owner has a veto power,” Perrine said. “If they can put 20 homes on the site and can get X number of dollars, you can’t ask them to reasonably accept something that would give them less money.”
He said a developer would most likely first look to construct buildings under the state’s affordable-housing law, Chapter 40B. However, Temple Shalom officials have indicated they could not coexist with 40B units and would sell their entire stake if that option were to occur.
Murphy said some neighbors have perceived that as a “threat” from the Temple.
“A lot of the neighbors are a little unclear why the Temple can’t coexist with 40B,” she said. “I think many people in the neighborhood would find that a better solution than what’s currently being proposed,” referring to the Temple’s original plan to share the land with commercial buildings under a new overlay zone.
After neighbors opposed that plan, Town Meeting last month agreed to send the proposal back to the Planning Board. In collaboration with the advisory committee, they are on a timetable that may have a new development proposal ready for a special Town Meeting in December.
Responding to criticism, Packer argued the Temple is not being threatening but realistic. He said Temple Shalom has to look out for its interests and would only sell as a last option.
“But if you’re going to sell the property, you’re going to try to get the best price. That’s not a threat; that’s just reality,” he said.
Rosofsky said the Temple would be “extremely hesitant” to go the 40B route. In addition to Temple Shalom having to find a new home, it would mean the town would lose much of its oversight of the property, he said.
However, Jackson said many communities are “doing friendly 40Bs,” developments containing conditions that are agreeable to towns. Although many different housing options exist, he said, 40B proposals often get a bad rap.
“I just don’t think we have to be afraid to use that term,” he said.
Duffy said he thinks 40 percent of the town’s population would qualify for housing under 40B.
At its next meeting, the Planning Board and its advisory committee will hear from local residential and commercial brokers about how the current economy could shape the future development. The meeting will be held Thursday, June 25, at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall, 525 Canton Ave.

– Scott MacKeen