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.

Innes took the time to address a comment made during Citizen Speak. A resident had voiced a lack of confidence in the Planning Board. She was disappointed to hear that. She reminded the audience that they were still early in the process and that there would be plenty of opportunities in the future for the community to voice their opinions. She also stated that despite certain perceptions, the development was viewed by the board with an eye toward the value to the neighborhood and town; not the temple’s financial condition. Innes who had previously voiced support for an overlay and wanted to explore the addition of a third entity, has now seen that entity added. Though she did not make an explicit statement in support. Every indication is that she will support it.

Bernie Lynch who in an earlier session said he had not heard anything that would change his mind clearly heard something at this session that would. In twenty years on the planning board he could not recall receiving so many emails and phone calls regarding proposed development.  He said, “I am on the fence.” But he also said, ” I can’t ignore these people . . . Just from hearing people talk . . . this area has been neglected.” During the Citizens Speak a couple of residents had submitted signatures collected in support of the development. Mr. Lynch appeared somewhat surprised and impressed by the number collected.

It was Peter Jackson, current chairman of the board, who made the strongest statement in support of the overlay. He said, “in my point of view the presentation demonstrates that [the development] can fit attractively without an undue burdeon” on the neighborhood. He shared Whiteside’s concern bout the location of the temple and also about cut through traffic.However, he feels those can be addressed in the site planning process. He felt there was “nothing for the neighborhood or the town to be afraid of in this plan.”

These comments were made largely in response to a presentation from Coffman Realty and a lengthy “Citizens Speak.”

The Coffman presentation provided new details and specificity on the proposed development. Dubbed the “Tucker Village Marketplace” it would:

• locate a rebuilt  the temple in the back northeast corner of the lot
• the pharmacy would be on Blue Hill Parkway on the northwest corner of the lot
• a third structure for additional multi-tenant retail space of approximately 10,000 square feet  would be on southwest side.
• the development would allocate 36% of the lot to green space

The proposal illustrated how the buildings would be located to deal with the geographic grade change that exists. The north side of the property is approximately 20′ lower than the south side. In addition to the design, Coffman spoke to potential tenants. After discussions with some neighbors, Coffman put out feelers to local entrepreneurs who might have interest in the space and received a positive response from the management of Java Joe’s, Flat Black, and the Harvest Coop. However, it is premature to consider any of these as committed merchants.

About 34 people took advantage of the Citizens Speak. Of those 8 spoke in opposition to the development and 22 in favor. One speaker noted that the turnout in favor of the proposal was likely the result of a late email campaign and that in fact there were many more opposed to the development than had shown up. Of those who oppose the development, there are 3 key concerns: increased traffic and safety, a decrease in property values, and a general decline in overall quality of life (e.g. increased noise, light pollution etc). Of those in favor, the key benefits would include access to amenities that require them to currently drive out of the area, reinvigorating a small community that has seen commercial businesses disappear over the years, some financial relief to the town from commercial taxes.

The planning board will next meet on 11/12 and again on11/19 @ 6:30 at the Council on Aging. At some point they will have to take a vote. If they vote to recommend the overlay there will be additional public hearings, they will submit their recommendation to the Selectmen for inclusion in a warrant that will be taken up at a special Town Meeting (tentatively) to be held in February.