At the Planning Board meeting on 3/26, Temple Shalom and its representative, Coffman Realty, presented their response to the concerns voiced during the recent “Citizens Speaks” sessions.
Mr. Etkind of Temple Shalom and Mr. Cocoran of Coffman Realty both gave presentations. Mr. Etkind reviewed the process the Temple went through in selecting this course of development (e.g. a commercial overlay) and addressed the issue raised regarding why they did not include the public sooner. The Temple believes the only viable course that would secure them the financing they need to remain on site is the commercial development. He further explained that they are an organization governed by bylaws. They were required to have approval of a plan pass by the congregation in advance of discussion with the public. He stated that the Temple plans to sell the property in the next year unless, of course, they cannot and it will sit vacant until such time that they can. He also reviewed the options of redeveloping as residential C or residential 40B properties. This would be reiterated in Mr. Corcoran’s presntation. Mr. Etkind reminded all present that the efforts of the Temple were done by volunteers and that “We did what we could and we did it in good faith.”
In advocating for commercial development, Mr. Corcoran reiterated many of the points made in his original proposal. In addition, he did speak to specific concerns voiced by the abutting neighbors. Regarding propeerty values he cited several locations where commercial development had taken place, including the Milton Marketplace, where property values had in fact risen from time no commercial development occurred and subsequent to the development. He also cited locations in Weymouth, Centerville, and Rockland. He identified specific houses whose value had risen prior to and subsequent to construction.
He also spoke to the traffic concern, stating that they had engaged a firm that would perform a traffic study to analyze how traffic issues could be mitigated. The study would include an assessment of current conditions and requisite solutions.
Lastly, he identified what he believed to be the risks inherent in a residential development, specifically a 40B develpment which he argued was the only reasonable alternative given the topography of the site and the prohibitive cost that single family homes would incur in terms of infrastructure (e.g. sidewalk, sewer, water, etc.). Mr. Cocoran argued that a developer would look to zone the property as 40B residential (i.e. high density rental property) and that it would likely happen because only 4% of Milton’s housing stock is considered affordable. he also mentioned that the only reason this did not occur at the Milton Marketplace location is due to the original developers failure to renew his claim. There had been a court ruling in favor of that property being zoned residential 40B. He went on to describe the shape that type of development might take. He gave what he believed to be a conservative estimate of 20 units per acre Given the 4 acres there could be 80 units.
In closing he argued that the overlay proposal was the optimal solution because the Temple and the school would remain, there would be a positive revenue impact ($179,500 per year), it would maximize the town’s control over what happens to the property now and in the future, and it would enhance safety. It is their position that this proposal has lasting benefits for the Temple, the neighborhood and the town.
During the Citizen Speak portion of the meeting it became clear that the neighbors were not convinced.
In particular, several spoke to refute the logic of the increased property values, many mentioning the fact that the increase cited occurred during a real estate boom. One resident argued that would her house might increase if there were a development but would it increase more if there were none.
Another critical concern voiced by the residents, and not for the first time, is that once approved their voice will be muted. The current proposal lacks specificity. Mr. Etkind addressed this in his presentation saying that “I am not asking you to trust us but to work with us.” However, residents are questioning the ability they will have to influence the implementation the developement takes once the approval happens. It should be noted that the approval process is rigorous. It begins but does not end with the Planning Board. According to Mr. Etkind, upon approval of Planning Board it move to the Warrant Committee and then to Town Meeting where it will require a 2/3 vote to pass.
Lastly, several residents took issue with the process. Joe Sloan took Mr. Whiteside to task for offering up an amendment in the middle of the discussion of the original proposal. He did not feel that it would “fit the bill. ” Selectman McEttrick, who received some special dispensation from the board relative to the 3 min speaking rule, recommended slowing the process down to demonstrate why other alternatives will not work.
Chief among those, and again cited by several residents, was senior housing.
The Planning Board will pick up the conversation on March 31 @ 7:00PM – they are hopeful of having it at the Council on Aging but that location could not be confirmed at the closure of the session.
Related links
Boston Globe Editorial on redevelopment plan