54 search results for "planning board temple shalom"

Planning Board votes 3-2 to recommend Town Meeting approve Temple Shalom article

Capping an extraordinarily arduous process, the Planning Board took a vote on whether to recommend that town meeting approve an article defining a zoning overlay that will allow commercial development on the Temple Shalom property. At just before midnight, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Jackson, and Ms. Innes voted in favor and Mr. Lynch and Mr. Duffy voted against.

The motion read something to the effect:

Based on consideration of all the factors discussed a majority of the Planning Board believes adoption of the zoning for institutional commercial development is in the best interests of the town. A written recommendation will follow.

Mr. Lynch stated that he could not support it because he felt he did not have the necessary information to make a decision. He cited the lack of data on traffic in particular. Mr. Duffy said, “If a project like this would fit here in the densest part of town, it would fit anywhere .  .  . such as Hillside Street.” (where Mr. Whiteside lives) Mr. Duffy also stated that he did not believe anything could be done to mitigate traffic due to the topography and geometry of the neighborhood streets.

Read more

Meeting Notes: Planning Board 12.10.09 – Ground rules established for hearing on Temple Shalom zoning

The Planning Board met on December 10th and discussed but did not limit conversation to the following:

  • The board confirmed that there will be two days for public hearings on the zoning overlay article that will appear in the Warrant for Special Town Meeting on 2/21. They discussed the following guidelines. Bill Clark, Planning Director will post final guidelines to the Planning Board’s town web site prior to the first hearing. They agreed to:
  1. allow each attorney (Corcoran for Coffman Realty and Upton for Neighbors Against Commercial Development) to speak for 10 minutes
  2. Selectmen and state officials will also be given up to 10 minutes for their remarks
  3. Citizens, including town meeting members will be given up to 5 minutes for remarks
  4. comments will end at 10:00pm on December 21rst and continue on January 4th.

Their will be flexibility and discretion exercised. Jackson said “We won’t cut anyone off in mid-sentence.” To this observer there was some confusion as to whether 1) they would allow citizens to speak more than once 2) allow any attorney up to 10 minutes to speak 3) entertain rebuttals from Corcoran and Upton at the close of citizen remarks and 4) the Planning Board would address questions during the hearings. These issues may be addressed when Clark posts the guidelines online.

  • The Warrant Committee will hear arguments at their December 16th meeting regarding the zoning overlay. The respective attorneys will each speak for 10 minutes as will two citizens. The Warrant Committee is not expected to give an opinion until after the public hearings. The meeting will be at 6:30pm at the Council on Aging. Peter Jackson and Emily Innes of the board will be present. Jackson invited other members of the Planning Board to attend also.
  • Gene Sullivan from the Milton Landing Condominium Association appeared before the board to discuss the DCR project to connect a path on the Dorchester side with the walkway on the Milton side at Wharf street. THe DCR requires an easement from the condo association which they have not granted. Mr. Sullivan said that they were waiting for a feasibility study in which they were to be included to be done. The study would inlcude analysis of safety issues among other things. Mr. Sullivan is waiting to hear from the DCR on this. “We are not being obstructionist.” Mr Sullivan said.
  • The Hendries building is still waiting on a site plan proposal. Mr. Clark noted that there will be more parking available based on what he say. Mr. Whiteside noted “That’s hardly what the problem was,” with the original plan which he said, “stunk.”

Planning Board post Temple Shalom article for upcoming Town Meeting

The Planning oard has posted the full text of the article they recently voted 4-1 to submit to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion in the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting currently scheduled of February 22, 2010. The temple is seeking to redevelop the property. The current structure is one they no longer need nor can support. It has become a financial burden. Their hope is to stay on the location in a smaller temple and have the remaining lot commercially developed.  You can read a series of posts on this issue here.

The article begins:

Article ________. To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 10 of the General Bylaws, known as the Zoning Bylaws, by adding the following Subsection L to Section III:
L. Institutional/Commercial Development
In a Residence C district on a lot which has at least 500 feet of frontage on a state highway, which contains at least 150,000 square feet, and which contains tax-exempt uses in a building deemed too large for its uses, the Planning Board may grant a special permit for an institutional/commercial planned unit development (“Institutional/Commercial Development”) for a building to contain a tax exempt use or tax-exempt uses and for two buildings to contain certain commercial uses upon satisfaction of all requirements specified in this subsection and upon such other requirements, terms and conditions deemed necessary or appropriate by the Planning Board as specified in the special permit.

You can find the full text here.

Planning Board vote 4-1 to submit Temple Shalom zoning article

After months of discussions, deliberations, and debate that at times was quite contentious, the Planning Board last night voted 4-1 to submit an article to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion in the Warrant to be put forward at a Special Town Meeting currently scheduled for February 22nd.

The article requests the town to allow the zoning bylaws to be amended to permit construction of a new temple along along with two buildings to contain commercial uses. These are likely a CVS and food market.

Board member Ed Duffy was the lone dissenting vote. Member Bernie Lynch requested confirmation that a “yes” vote was only to submit the article for the warrant and not a recommendation for adoption. The board confirmed that was the case.

The article as submitted contained the edits and revisions recommended the previous evening. The most notable of which was the inclusion of a property value analysis, which reads:

A reliable analysis as to the effect that the development, at the one-year anniversary of the completion of construction, will have had on real estate property values of real property within 500 feet of a lot line of the develpment. In the event that the analysis projects a decrease of real estate property values attributable to the development of this date, measures to mitigate this impact shall be included in the analysis.

[note: You can find the full text of the Planning Board’s article here.]

Read more

Planning Board defers vote on Temple Shalom property until 12/3

The Planning Board is deliberating the commercial overlay proposal right up to the wire. An article must be submitted by 12/3 to the Board of Selectmen if it is to be included in the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting to be held in February.

Given the impending deadline, Peter Jackson, chairman of the committee,  made a motion for a vote to be taken. Mr. Whiteside said he was not ready and Ms. Innes fell in behind him. Part of the  disagreement stemmed from the level of definition the article and zoning would contain. Mr. Jackson was advocating for a more open approach that would have some flexibility going forward. Mr. Whiteside desired greater specificity and, equally important,  stated that after all the time that had been spent in sessions, etc. more time to review and deliberate was required.  After a bit of confusing back and forth, it was decided to rewrite the article by 12/1 for review on 12/2 with the intent of a vote on 12/3.  The board will meet at 5:30pm on 12/3, take a vote, and then send the article over to the Board of Selectmen prior to their convening their 12/3 session.

In discussing the current version of the article, Mr. Duffy cited the American Heritage definition of a pharmacy. Then by way of contrast held up a CVS shopping flyer and flagged the discrepancy between the definition and the reality: there is nothing in the definition about items such as mops, radios, air conditioners, etc. It was discussed that, in essence, a CVS (or Walgrreens or RiteAid) is a pharmacy nested in a convenience store. There was agreement that the language would be modified.

Read more

Planning Board opinions on Temple Shalom shifting

At the close of last night’s planning board session the members’ opinions on the Temple Shalom development appeared to shift slightly with Jackson and Innes indicating support of the overlay, Duffy likely opposed, and Whiteside and Lynch undecided, but seeming to lean in favor.

Mr. Whiteside stated that he felt, “It was a good meeting.” After reiterating that there was no guarantee that the proposal would happen without a rewrite of zoning, he voiced his ongoing concern with the temple being “tucked back”  in the property and did not find it very attractive. He also wants the traffic engineer to return to speak to how the revised proposal that has both a pharmacy and possible cafe and / or food mart would impact traffic patterns.  Lastly, he has reservations abut the overall density of the project. “I have an open mind; but I am not there yet.” It was Mr. Whiteside who weeks previously had read a 5 page opinion in favor of a development that consisted of a pharmacy and temple only. At that time Jackson and Innes voiced support for Whiteside’s opinion.

Earlier in the day, Ed Duffy had spent about half an hour walking the area and commented on the absence of traffic on Crown and Decker streets and said all he could hear was the rubbish truck. He stated that regardless of the form development took, that half hour of quiet would be gone.  While Mr. Duffy has not made a clear statement in opposition, his comments indicate he does not endorse the overlay.

Read more

Planning Board appear split on Temple Shalom development

At last night’s Planning Board Meeting members of the board spoke to their respective positions with regard to the redevelopment of the Temple Shalom property.

The board listened to a few petitioners in advance of resuming the Temple Shalom discussion. The developers of the Central Ave site have their work cut out for them. The board is not likely to approve their request to raise the height of the building due to “shadow” concerns and the fact that the only reason to raise it is to increase ceiling height and therefore make the units more “saleable.”

The board ruled favorably on a request to alter parking spaces at Milton Gas. The board checked their regulations and came to conclusion that request was reasonable and would be in compliance with those regulations.

Then came the discussion of Temple Shalom which was largely devoted to a presentation from a traffic engineer.

Read more

Planning Board continue to solicit input on Temple Shalom development

The Planning Board met last Thursday night and continued their process of vetting options for the redevelopment of the Temple Shalom site.

The bulk of the time devoted to discussing Temple Shalom was spent in an exercise led by Pete Jackson intended to identify the issues associated with the options under review: a retail commercial development (no pharmacy), a retail development anchored by a pharmacy, and a residential development.

There was some confusion among the participants. This stemmed from clearly segregating issues involved with commercial development that included a pharmacy and commercial development that didn’t. The issues both pro and con that were identified appeared to all present as relevant to any commercial development, namely, noise, increased traffic, increased jobs, increase in convenience to amenities etc. Also confusing was what constituted an issue. Mr Smigliani, one of the committee members questioned how many of the neighborhood reps were open to the idea of any commercial development. “Where do we stand?” That did not qualify as an issue according to Jackson. Ms. Murphy, another of the committee members voiced frustration at the lack of clear data regarding the impact that the development would have in terms of property values, noise, policing requirements etc. Jackson stated that he had requested that and the response was it was simply not that easy to answer or, as in the case of the police, they would properly cover whatever development that took place with existing resources.

Read more

Planning board rounds out committee on Temple Shalom

The Planning Board recently rounded out the committee appointed to evaluate options regarding the development of the Temple Shalom property. They were seeking town residents with knowledge of mixed user development, architecture and landscape design.

Temple Shalom congregants, Buddy Packer and Rob Rosofsky, and neighborhood residents, Tammy Murphy, Joe Sloan, Beth Fleitman, and Nicholas Macke are now joined by Tom Smigliani, Lawrence Witko, Cheryl Tougias, and Christine Hodlin.

Mr. Witko is a developer and Ms. Tougias, an architect who specializes in commercial and mixed use development.

For a list of posts related to the Temple Shalom property development click here.

Planning Board to recommend Temple Shalom development receive further review

At this evening’s Planning Board meeting a number of issues were discussed; but none was of more interest than that of the Temple Shalom proposal to redevelop their property.

Regarding that, the Planning Board was unanimous in their decision. After consultation with Town Counsel John Flynn, the Board is going to recommend to Town Meeting that the issue be referred  to the Planning Board for further study and then to report to the next town Meeting. Member Peter Jackson recommended that the Planning Board establish standards to be included in a proposal and establish a process for going forward that includes all parties.

In past sessions the board has voiced concern over the lack of detail and specificity in the current proposal. “I’m certain we can do it,” commented Planning Board member Ed Duffy.

Town Meeting can dispose of the redevelopment request in one of four ways: they can pass it, the can reject it, they can amend it, or they can refer it back to the Planning Board. It is likely that Town Meeting will vote in accordance with the Planning Board’s recommendation.

The Planning Board will next convene on April 23rd.