The first of two public hearings on the proposed redevelopment of the Temple Shalom property was held on 12/21. (The second will be held Monday, 1/4, at 6:30 PM at the Council on Aging.)

The hearing took up most of the meeting. For those following the Temple Shalom issue, the themes expressed were familiar. Proponents argued that the development would provide needed revenue, preserve diversity, retain an important pre-school, and provide desired community amenities.  People opposed to the development argued that the scale of the project was too big for the neighborhood, they would need to endure increased noise and other forms of pollution, and there would be significant traffic and public safety issues. You can view a list of previous posts covering respective viewpoints on this issue here.

Just over 30 people rose to speak at the hearing. About 2/3 of the speakers spoke in support. Notable were three members of the School Committee: Glenn Pavlicek, Beirne Lovely, and Chris Huban who all spoke in favor of the development. In an attempt to capture something of the spirit of the feelings, sentiment, and opinion on both sides of the issue, here is a sample of statements made:

While we would not object to an incidental benefit to the landowner, the purpose of new zoning should be to benefit the town as a whole, the neighborhood affected, and the abutters who have to live with it. New zoning should have a higher and better purpose than to benefit one party alone. — Andrew Upton, Attorney for “Save Tucker Neighborhood” (Note: you can find Mr. Upton’s complete statement of testimony here.)

“It is clear to me that nothing short of what is proposed is what is necessary. . . the benefit is the preservation of Temple Shalom .  .  .  As is [the] need to preserve the Campbell School. Preservation is a significant benefit.” — Ned Corcoran, Attorney for the developer Coffman Realty (Note: we are awaiting a copy of Mr. Corcoran’s full statement.)

Read more »