(previous)
More than 100 residents packed the Senior Center to join in the debate over the future of the Temple. Some wore stickers in support of the new zoning; others, like Lisa Murphy of Mulberry Road, called the new plan “a strip mall and nothing more.”
“That’s what they’re proposing. It’s going to be a toxic asset for the neighborhood,” said Murphy, who added that new traffic on Blue Hill Avenue from the development would be dangerous to neighborhood children.
Ned Corcoran, an attorney representing the Temple and its proposed development partner, Brockton-based Coffman Realty, called the project “smart growth and a good growth for the town.” Corcoran said the pharmacy space, which would include a drive-through, most likely would be occupied by CVS or Walgreen’s.
He added that the new development will bring in around $200,000 a year in new tax revenue and provide new office space for businesses.
“They want to be in Milton. This is an ideal location,” Corcoran said of potential office tenants, although none were identified.
Fieldstone Lane resident Carol Rosner agreed, saying the town “must be open to new opportunities for commercial development … with a high level of scrutiny and input from residents.”
Corcoran said the Temple wants to stay in Milton but lacks the funds and membership to maintain its current building. Temple officials have been planning their financial future for over three years, according to Rabbi Alfred Benjamin.
Benjamin said the plan to downsize the Temple and sell off the property to developers is the only way the congregation can remain in town.
“Our desire is to stay in Milton. If the town says no, we have no choice but to go,” he said.
“It’s a difficult, difficult undertaking. They don’t take it lightly,” Corcoran noted.
Resident Lila Rosenbaum said she can’t imagine living in Milton without the Temple, where she’s been a member for over 50 years.
“I would find it very difficult to remain here,” she said. “The Temple has been like a second home for us.”
Betty White, of Ridge Road, added, “We have a $5 million deficit [and] we really need this development.”
But Planning Board member Alexander Whiteside questioned the language of the new overlay zone, which is proposed as a citizen petition article in the Annual Town Meeting warrant, which begins May 3. The zoning change needs a two-thirds vote by Town Meeting members.
Whiteside said the article “is devoid of necessary standards and really needs some significant rewriting.”
Other concerns included the effect of the development on surrounding property values. Murphy rejected Corcoran’s suggestion that it will bring added revenue.
“I expect all our homes will lose value, not gain it,” she said.
Murphy broke down when explaining she doesn’t want to live near a commercial property.
“I chose [Milton] because it was very residential,” she said.
Brad Schaffner, a Crown Street resident and abutter to the property, said the Temple’s financial recovery “shouldn’t have to come at the expense of the neighborhood.”
Benjamin urged the Planning Board to take a leadership role in the matter and “keep the neighbors always in mind, every step of the way.”
“We are fully aware of who has the final say,” he said.
The board continued the hearing to their next meeting Thursday, March 12.
Temple Shalom will also hold an informational night for residents March 11 at the Temple, 180 Blue Hill Ave.