Residents to BoA: East Milton “under siege”

by Frank Schroth

Last night the Board of Appeals opened a hearing for a redevelopment of 475 Adams Street. Thomas O’Neill, owner of Success Real Estate, wants to move his office there from its current location on Randolph Avenue. Neighborhood residents argued it would add further traffic congestion and safety concerns to an area “under siege.”

The property in question was sold by Robert Jubinville whose office abuts the parcel. It is in a Residence C zone. However, as explained by Bob Sheffield, an attorney representing Mr. O’Neill, the property received a variance in 1962 that allowed for a medical office and residence. Sheffield said that the owner planned to maintain the historic quality of the building which would house the real estate office, another yet to be identified business, and a residence. There would be 11 parking spaces: 3 for the residence and 8 for the businesses. The other business, while not known, is expected to be a sole proprietorship such as an accountant or attorney according to Sheffield. Sheffield stated that such a use would result in a lower impact to the neighborhoodin terms of traffic than the preexisting medical office. He did not receive support for that position among those who spoke.

No one spoke in support of the change in use but several spoke in opposition. All voiced concerns that the development would increase traffic congestion, aggravate safety concerns, and change the complexion of the neighborhood. Jessica Sergi of Adams Street said that the proposal “would be substantially detrimental” to the area. She also identified a related development, the Blue Hills Bank going in across the street, saying, “we don’t know what traffic that bank will bring.” The upcoming opening of the bank coupled with proposal to change use of the doctor’s office along with recent changes Mr. Jubinville has made to his property led Carol Kearns to tell the board that “We are a neighborhood under siege.” She said Mr. Jubinville had taken out trees and was planning to blacktop the area. “We don’t want to see paradise paved,” she said. Removal of the trees erased an important buffer to the sounds and sights of the commercial area according to residents. They felt that this proposal coming on the heels of the addition of a new bank represented commercial encroachment on their neighborhood.

Mr. Sheffield argued that the redevelopment of the property would improve housing values and the area in general. Mr. O’Neill spoke briefly saying that “You could have me or you could have the Sons of Anarchy.” He said he was fully invested in the property and “could very well move in” to the residence.

Upon hearing the neighbors concerns (there were also several letters submitted in opposition that were consistent with comments made regarding traffic and safety) Mr. Sheffield recommended a continuance of the hearing to allow time to meet with the neighbors to review the proposal in detail and look for a common ground.

Mr. Hurley, who was chairing the meeting, reminded those present that the Board of Appeals is not a planning agency. They receive applications, hear evidence, and apply the law in ruling on those applications. He said that if they continued the hearing he could not guarantee that, should a consensus be reached with the neighbors, it would change the outcome. He did not give Success Real Estate much hope that it would have success here saying,”This does not meet the variance standards.” He expressed skepticism that the application would be approved under any circumstance as certain problems were “intractable.” That said, the board voted to continue the hearing until November 17th at 7:30.

  2 comments for “Residents to BoA: East Milton “under siege”

  1. Paul Yovino
    October 17, 2014 at 1:02 am

    I don’t think the true issue is whether a non descript real estate office locates to 475 Adams Street but the absurd configuration of the traffic pattern in that area. Where else in the town is there a double X crossing over expressway which leads immediately to the blind sided east bound speedway aka Adams Street. The merge from those entering Adams Street over the bridge whether a driver is going east or west is always a nail biting adventure. The triangle planted reservation while it is aesthetically pleasing is nothing more than a major blind spot for all drivers in the area. For those heading east in front of 475 Adams Street to the post office it is further aggravated by the inept closing of the Adams Street extension over the Babcock Street bridge. East bound drivers scramble for position to enter the maze of streets from Bryant Avenue, Edgehill Road and Boulevard Street or other drivers attempt to reverse direction with the cut lane back to Granite Avenue.

    It is time for this town to worry less about the alleged incursion of a commercial base in that area and more about the poorly thought out and dangerous roadways that surround it.

  2. Dick Burke
    October 17, 2014 at 9:15 am

    While I certainly agree with the concept and rights of neighbors voicing their opinions on development in their neighborhood, I don’t see how this particular proposed development ” would add to traffic congestion and safety concerns ” . For as long as I can remember this property has been used as a doctor’ s office with a residential component and this new proposal , while not being particularly well explained to the neighborhood , would not appear to expand the traffic or safety issues that are current.
    The real issue to me is traffic on Babcock and Hollis streets, traffic that is generated by the lack of parking for the Post Office and people using Babcock as a cut thru after coming off Granite Avenue to avoid traffic and the light at Adams and Brook.
    This project might not meet the approval of neighbors but something is going to happen to this parcel and it might not be something any better than this proposal. The owner needs to do a much better job explaining his project but the hope is that the neighbors keep an open mind and see if there can be common ground.
    Traffic is a mess in this area but I don’t see how this proposal aggravates the situation and as to safety concerns, not sure what this means.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *