Despite several periods of confusion around process, policy and procedure, members of the planning board made their opposition to the Coffman Realty’s proposal to redevelop the Temple Shalom site clear.

Chariman Innes began by reviewing the process. The Planning Board in this case is restricted in its authority due to the fact that a 10 person citizens petition was filed. As a result, the article proposing the redevelopment is an article in the warrant that will go before Town Meeting. Town Meeting needs to, as Ms. Innes stated, “dispose” of it, which can occur in 4 ways: they can deny the article, pass the article, amend the article, or recommit the article to the planning board. The planning board can only issue a recommendation at this point as to the action Town Meeting should take.

After a brief citizens speak and arguments made both against (Ms. McEttrick) and for (Mr. Coffman and Mr. Corcoran), the members of the board spoke.

Pete Jackson spoke from prepared remarks. After expressing appreciatioin for and acknowledging the contributions of the Temple, he voiced his opposition to the plan for several reasons. Chief among them being “social equlaity” within the town. He could not see how the board could support this proposal in light of their decision to deny commercial development at the DPW yard which also received vocal neighborhood opposition.

Ed Duffy also voiced opposition to the proposal. He cited town regulations which stipulate that streets be 50 feet wide. he noted that many streets in the neighborhood are only 30 or 40 feet wide. While there isn’t really anything that can be done about that, but putting a commercial development in an area that is already out of compliance will only aggravate public safety concerns.

Nor could Mr Whiteside support the proposal. Consistent with statements he has made previously, the proposal lacks specificity and definition. “If we know what is going to happen, zoning can make it happen.” Due to lack of detail, the board does not know what is going to happen. He further pointed out that the developer was told the proposal was deficient and has done nothing to rectify that.

These comments were all made as part of open hearing. The board did not recess to deliberate at this time. Ms. Innes wants to clarify certain points of order with Town Counsel. She will do that prior to the next meeting scheduled for April 13th.

Mr. Corcoran in his remarks stated that the process, as it was being conducted, was the “equivalent of a no vote because we will run out of time.” He urged the committee to, “Take the time now to do your job.”