Among the people who rose to address the board during the citizen speak portion of  the 11/12 Planning Board meeting was Andrew Upton of DiNicola, Sobel, and Upton. Mr. Upton was retained by Neighbors Against Commercial Development, a group of local residents who oppose the redevelopment proposal of the Temple Shalom site. The proposal, which is being put forth by Coffman Realty, consists of a pharmacy, a new, smaller temple, and a third stand-alone retail structure.

Mr. Upton voiced concerns with regard to the transparency of the process, traffic congestion issues, the economic process, and “inclusionary claims”.  He had been retained 48 hours previous but did note that the developer was “supported by an army of consultants” and that there was a disparity in the bargaining power of the respective groups. Prior to being told to “wrap it up” by Peter Jackson, the Chairman, Mr. Upton asked that the board not take a vote on the overlay at this time.

Mr. Upton was not the only citizen speaker asked to “wrap it up.” At the commencement of Citizen Speak, Mr. Jackson instructed speakers to limit their comments to 1 minute and restricted the speakers to those who had not spoken at the previous meeting.

In addition to Mr. Upton, approximately 18 other residents spoke. The majority who spoke were either opposed to the development or had serious concerns regarding it, the principal concern being the lack of attention and analysis paid to the traffic impact such a development would have on the neighborhood. Michael McGrath echoed the sentiments of many of the evening’s speakers when he said he found it “shocking it has gotten this far without a traffic study.” A number of speakers asked that a traffic study with peer review be performed, ideally before a vote is taken by the board.

Emmet Schmarsow presented pictures he had taken in the neighborhood to illustrate the traffic congestion that occurs. Please see the following (click on an image to view a larger version):

One of the neighborhood’s residents, Ms. Beth Fleitman, submitted a petition in opposition to the development that had 420 signatures. In addition, she submitted a series of maps related to the petition. In all, 46 streets in the neighborhood were represented, which she quickly read off. Though Ms. Fleitman requested more time, Mr. Jackson did not grant it.

After the close of Citizen Speak, Lynda Packer, President of Temple Shalom, spoke briefly. She made three points: the temple cannot wait until a May town meeting for a vote on this; the temple is pleased with the location of the new synagogue in the proposed plan (Whiteside and Jackson had previously stated they did not like the position); and, lastly, that there will be a change to the property. Ms. Packer also submitted an updated version of a petition that had been given to the planning board at their last session. The petition, which is in support of the redevelopment, has 377 signatures.

Coffman Realty then presented an update of their design proposal from the previous session. It was noted that a traffic engineer would be presenting at the next planing board meeting. It would be at Coffman’s expense and they (Coffman) welcome a peer review of their traffic expert or any other experts they retain.  They reviewed minor modifications that they had made to the design presented the previous week after receiving feedback from a session with residents held on the 10th.

There was quite a bit of discussion among members of the board regarding the current design and its status. Following are some highlights of that discussion, but by no means a comprehensive report of all statements made and positions taken:

• regarding the “Tucker Village” as a gathering place, there was a fair amount of discussion about locating an outdoor area in a location more likely to encourage people gathering together and designing walkways, etc. in such a way to funnel people to that area. This related to a more general discussion about the lack of design elements that would channel pedestrians and traffic through the space.
• the proposal that goes before town meeting will need to be defensible and speak to the benefits to the neighborhood. Mr. Duffy said the temple/developers would need to make a case, whereas Mr. Jackson said it would be incumbent on the board should they make the recommendation for the overlay.
• the amount of space allocated for setbacks and buffers also received a lot of attention. Currently the setbacks are 25′ which can be extended to 30′ but, if so, remove space allocated for parking and travel lanes (currently 24′). When Coffman asked for guidance, they received conflicting points of view from members of the board. Whiteside advocates wider setbacks. Jackson desires more space for drivers, arguing that the design of setbacks and what they contain is as important as their width.
• lastly, there was a fair amount of discussion that was confusing to this observer regarding what needs to be in the zoning that will be written vs what is in the recommendation to town meeting vs what is iterated during the site planning phase, etc. In short, does the recommendation to town meeting, should it come,  consist of  a definition of  a plan (i.e. an approximation of what will be done) or a very specific expression of a plan (this is exactly what will be done).

The next Planning Board will be held November 19th at 6:30pm at the Council on Aging.