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.
And then they essentially ran out of time. The members of the committee were polled for their parting thoughts. Their responses reflect the disparity in points of view that still exist on this issue. Three members felt that an opportunity was presenting itself and it would be a shame to let it slip away. One of those spoke of hope to see something “desirable” go in that would make the neighborhood more attractive, increase property values, and benefit all. Buddy Packer, one of two representatives from the Temple said that should the property not be allowed to move forward with a commercial option, “I do not know what we would do. You don’t have to take care of us; but I cannot tell you what we will do.” Lastly, a neighborhood representative felt the Temple’s financial situation was their problem; not a problem the community should have to solve.
In the previous session the board heard from LDS Consulting Group, consultants hired by the Planning Board. They evaluated the options presented to them by the board and gave a presentation on their findings. In short, they felt the pharmacy option was the most viable because it would fund building of the temple. You can find a copy of the presentation here.
During her presentation, Lynn Sweet, the consultant also stated, “I can’t see why a 40B [residential housing] would not be seriously considered here.”
At some point the Planning Board will need to come to a decision. As one member of the advisory committee succinctly said, “Good luck.”
The Planning Board has made the following additional documents available: