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

Temple Building
Up for Sale

By Scott MacKeen
Staff Writer
3/11/10
On the heels of a Special Town Meeting defeat of a zoning overlay, Temple Shalom leaders say they plan to sell their land.

Even with calls for the development plan to be studied further, and pleas by some for compromise that would allow the Temple to remain, members of the cash-strapped synagogue say they cannot wait much longer to take action.

If the town cannot resolve the issue, Temple President Lynda Packer said, in two month’s time they will sell off their four-acre Route 138 parcel.

“We will not wait any longer. By late May, we will [sell the land],” Packer said during Town Meeting’s last night, which was March 4.

Rabbi Alfred Benjamin, however, later said the property could remain on the market for a longer period of time.

“It is up for sale,” he said. “We can’t predict when someone will make an offer on it. Our position has been that we have a right to sell our property. We wanted to get the answer to this other [overlay zoning] question, and now we have that.”

Although the proposed zoning bylaw, which would have allowed commercial elements on the site along with a new Temple, failed to gain a required two-thirds majority vote last week, there was a motion on the fifth night to reopen the article.

At the start of the evening, Precinct 9 Town Meeting member Webster Collins tried to reopen the article, asking that it be returned to the Planning Board for further study. The motion to reconsider had to be initiated by a member who voted against the zoning article.

Collins, an executive vice president and appraiser for the real estate firm CB Richard Ellis, said he voted against the plan because it lacked adequate details he felt should have been established prior to Town Meeting, such as how the plan would address potential traffic and home-value impacts. Similar to what some in the Temple neighborhood had asked for, Collins said more comprehensive mitigation plans should have been offered as part of the proposal.

The Planning Board’s position had been that if passed, the zoning bylaw would have required that the developer submit detailed plans – such as street-by-street mitigation measures – as part of the filing for a special permit for the project.

“The bottom line is, the solutions should have been offered in advance,” Collins said. “It was just not the way Town Meeting approvals should be orchestrated. There were no Planning Board approvals [for traffic and real estate impact mitigations] in place. That is not how you rezone property. The developer failed to do his job properly.”

Town Meeting was divided on the merit of reopening the debate. Some said it gave the town another opportunity to conduct a thorough process and offer neighbors a better plan, while others said all the debate of the development proposal has been exhaustive.

“The Planning Board has said it has explored all the options,” said Stefano Keel, a Precinct 1 Town Meeting member who opposes the commercial development. “What does [reopening the article] really achieve at this point?”

“We acknowledge that mistakes were made,” said Ned Corcoran, the attorney for Temple Shalom and the developer, Brockton-based Coffman Realty.

Corcoran asked that Town Meeting recommit the process to the Planning Board. He said the Coffmans are “committed to spending the money necessary” to meet the mitigation requests of the neighborhood.

“They will do whatever is necessary,” he said.

However, Mulberry Road resident Lisa Murphy said reopening the debate would make no difference.

“I don’t think there is anything anyone can say to me to make me want to live next to a CVS,” she said, referring to the chain pharmacy that would have occupied part of the new development space.

‘Good Will’

There was discussion as to whether the article could be returned to the Planning Board and still be ready for inclusion on the May Annual Town Meeting warrant. Warrant Committee Chair Tom Hurley said that it would be “physically impossible.” The warrant for that Town Meeting has already been closed and Town Moderator Brian Walsh said the Selectmen would have to take the “highly unusual” step of reopening it to include a new article. It is more likely the article would appear on a future Special Town Meeting warrant.

“We are right up against the printing deadline [for the annual town warrant],” Selectman Chair John Shields said.

Shields has opposed the commercial development on the Temple property, which is in a residential neighborhood. However, he said there is still time to seek out a compromise.

“We have an obligation to try to help [Temple Shalom] in whatever way we can,” said Shields. “We can do this the right way. We have people in this town of good will who are willing to put in the time to solve this issue.”

Packer said the Temple “will not stand in the way of any potential compromise” but stressed that it must include revenue enough for the congregation to rebuild on the site.

Temple officials say they need about $2.5 million for a new building and enough in capital from their land to maintain the facility.

Collins ultimately withdrew his motion to reconsider the zoning article after Town Counsel John Flynn said the measure is not necessary for the process to continue. Flynn said the Planning Board has the authority to bypass the usual two-year ban on submitting the same zoning bylaw that a community has previously rejected.

It was unclear, however, what the direction of the Planning Board will be. Board Chair Peter Jackson said it would be “very hard” for the Planning Board to go forward with the same proposal “without support from Town Meeting.”

The proposal gained support of 137 of the 234 Town Meeting members who voted Feb. 3, not enough for the required two-thirds majority to pass the bylaw. Though some questioned whether the lateness of the hour was a factor – the vote was complete after midnight – Walsh said not enough Town Meeting members left prior to the vote to affect the outcome.