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.

The engineer defined the process that his firm would follow and then gave some preliminary figures on traffic in the area. In a full build out scenario, he estimates that there will be an additional 1150 vehicles per day. Currently there are ~14,500 in a 24hr period. This includes vehicles going in either direction. Data collection was the first phase of his overall plan. This is followed by number crunching and projections on growth and accounting for safety issues which are done in consultation with the Fire and Police Departments. The third phase is a traffic impact report that includes information on issues sch as “wait delays” at traffic lights and the final phase is recommendations on improvements that can be made to address possible impacts (i.e. speed bumps, signage, timing and position of traffic lights etc.)

He answered questions from both the audience and board. Some in the audience were clearly frustrated with the overall process. One resident said, “I believe in the truth, that is why I am not a politician.” She went on to say, “I’m tired of the same old thing, the same old thing, the same old thing.” When she finished, she received applause from some in attendance.

Following the traffic presentation, board chairman, Peter Jackson, gave a recap of the process to date. There have been 8 meetings and they accomplished the following:

• walk of site
• heard from 7 experts on real estate both commercial and residential
• heard the findings of an independent consultant
• reviewed over 14 schemes
• reviewed tax and revenue impacts as indicated by other town departments (school and assessors)
• received preliminary traffic impact figures

And then the members of the board discussed their respective views on the issue.

Mr. Whiteside began the discussion. He was prepared; “I am going to hand out a 5 page document and then I am going to read it.” In the document he provides his view of the issue and his rationale. He also reviews briefly the history and various considerations, arguments and concerns that were raised by both the Temple and the neighborhood. He concludes:

” . . . that the Planning Board would well serve the interests of the Town by sponsoring a zoning article which would allow planned unit development of hte Temple site for a pharmacy (as that word is currently used) and a new Temple. Development of the pharmacy would be controlled by very strict requirements set out in the zoning.”

None of other members had prepared a statement; but their comments did give an insight into their thinking. This is what they said.

Bernie Lynch stated, “I am not ready to vote yes. I think the 4 milion cost as Alex said, might be unconstitutional. There are too many variables . . .too many schemes.”

Emily Innes said,”I agree with 99% of what [Whiteside] said [but i] am looking for more information. . . .[I want to] see something creative. I am really not ready to vote yes or no.”

Ed Duffy’s point of view was akin to Mr. Lynch when he said, “I cannot support this project based on what I have seen.”

Lastly, Mr. Jackosn said that, like Ms. Innes he agreed with “a lot of what Alex said.” He noted that, “Tax revenue is not what should sway this.” His concluded by saying, “I would support Alex’s proposal.”

It should be noted that Mr Whiteside’s recommendation calls for construction of only a Temple and a pharmacy. There would be no third building because in his view the lot cannot properly accommodate construction that dense (ie there would not be enough buffer, green space etc). Consequently, the amount the Temple would receive would be ~$1.5 million less than they were hopeful of.

That said, it Whiteside and Jackson favor commercial development at the Temple Shalom site that may enable the temple to stay in town. Lynch and Duffy are opposed and Innes is undecided. A formal vote has not yet been taken.