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.
The woman who said, ““I believe in the truth, that is why I am not a politician.” , knows just one thing. She knows that she places no value on the people in our town who dedicated untold amounts of their time selflessly to make sure we have a town that runs well.
When ever I hear someone say that they believe in the truth my question is “to what lies do you adhere to?” A famous quote from Samuel Clemens comes to mind, “… a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.”
Tracy,
You are completly incorrect by stating that this person who was quoted “She believes in the trust, that is why she is not a poitician”.
This was only part of her statement. Had you been at the meeting you would have known her complete statement. This woman has worked tirelessly to help the town remain residential. She has deep concern for her neighbors, her neighbors children, and EVERYONE IN THE TOWN. What happens here affects the entire fabric of the town.
I resent the fact that you “hear someone say they believe in the truth”, etc., The problem here is you did not in fact hear her.
I very much appreciate your comments but darn it stick to the fact, come to the meetings, listen to them on MPEG.
I am sick of tired of everyone else in the town telling us what is good for “our” neighborhood. Do you live in our neighborhood? Are you subjected to the traffic on 138 in the morning and the evening?
Attend the meetings, contact the Tucker Neighborhood Association, contact the Planning Board Members, and get the facts before you insult us.
Ivy
Correction:
My quote should have stated “She believes in the truth”
Remember, united we win, divided we fall.
I think that some of the frustration is that the temple’s choice of a cvs as the required commercial choice was not scrutinized more-fortune 25 company, comparable to a walmart, seeking high volume of traffic with high visibility. I think that most of the frustration by and large is from the fact that despite the neighborhoods vocal consternation about the developement that there has been a lack of effort to show how this development will work in light of the neighborhood concerns. The neighborhoods frustration has been a plea for how things will be made to be ok with this development going forward. How does a good outcome work for the neighborhood? How are the impacts quantified and therefore the solutions and mitigations balanced? At the same meeting that has finally started to quantify some of the traffic impact that the neighborhood will have to bear, the board is already moving forward towards writing new zoning. There may be a perception that traffic can be solved with engineering controls and mitigation, but it does not make it a zero impact. You may be able to slow speeds but you will not be able to dampen the volume of traffic in an area that already has some challenges. Yes 138 is a big wide road that is meant to handle volume and speed but it should also be recognized that blue hill terrace, and churchill ave, brooke road, warren st, cheever st, and amor st are often the chosen routes for people traversing across this area in order to avoid the traffic circle at Mattapan Square. Our neighborhood streets would bear a signifciant amount of the increased traffic volume. Instead of just being cross streets for existing thru traffic, they will become feeder streets for the cvs destination as well as even more of a cut thru for avoiding the congestion caused by another traffic light on 138 to enter and exit the cvs. Does the benefit of crosswalks, speed bumps, and improvements to dangerous/ blind intersections balance with the impact on the residences quality of life because of increased volume of traffic on our small streets with small lots and little setback? So far I have seen very little benefit to the neighborhood other than the temple building being new.