The Planning Board is deliberating the commercial overlay proposal right up to the wire. An article must be submitted by 12/3 to the Board of Selectmen if it is to be included in the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting to be held in February.
Given the impending deadline, Peter Jackson, chairman of the committee, made a motion for a vote to be taken. Mr. Whiteside said he was not ready and Ms. Innes fell in behind him. Part of the disagreement stemmed from the level of definition the article and zoning would contain. Mr. Jackson was advocating for a more open approach that would have some flexibility going forward. Mr. Whiteside desired greater specificity and, equally important, stated that after all the time that had been spent in sessions, etc. more time to review and deliberate was required. After a bit of confusing back and forth, it was decided to rewrite the article by 12/1 for review on 12/2 with the intent of a vote on 12/3. The board will meet at 5:30pm on 12/3, take a vote, and then send the article over to the Board of Selectmen prior to their convening their 12/3 session.
In discussing the current version of the article, Mr. Duffy cited the American Heritage definition of a pharmacy. Then by way of contrast held up a CVS shopping flyer and flagged the discrepancy between the definition and the reality: there is nothing in the definition about items such as mops, radios, air conditioners, etc. It was discussed that, in essence, a CVS (or Walgrreens or RiteAid) is a pharmacy nested in a convenience store. There was agreement that the language would be modified.
Mr. Lynch’s concerns focused on Route 138 and traffic issues and approval from the Mass DOT highway division. Members pointed out that any approval would not be forthcoming until later in the process. Lynch acknowledged that, “I am just seeing this for the first time.” Innes, Whiteside, and Jackson all had a variety of concerns including but not limited to delivery hours, blasting guidelines, design standards for the retaining walls, clear definition of lot size, specifying that the developer would take whatever measures might be necessary to mitigate traffic impacts, and overall tightening up of the language. Innes also asked if the Planning Board could have jurisdiction over signage.
These deliberations were prefaced by a brief statement from Lynda Packer, President of Temple Shalom, presentations from Coffman and their traffic engineer, Jeff Dirk of Vanasse and Associates, and Citizens Speak.
Ms. Packer thanked the board, voiced confidence in the Coffman development plan, which was evolving with the input of residents, reiterated that the temple location in the plan is one that “works for us,” and stated that the citizen petition in support of the redevelopment had been signed by 400+ residents. She went on to voice serious concerns about “behind the scenes campaigns.” She stated that this initiative is not an attempt by the temple to “take the money and run. We want to be a presence in Milton.” Second, she quelled rumors that they were going to be shutting down Bingo. They will not do that as it is currently their primary source of revenue. Lastly, Ms. Packer stated that potential merchant tenants had been called and threatened with a boycott. She asked that if anyone was aware of “campaigns of misinformation’ to please step up and report them.
The Coffmans reviewed modifications they made to the design based on Planning Board feedback and citizens’ comments. The key changes were: extending buffers to 30′ by reducing the drive space from 24′ to 22′, increasing number of parking spots for compact cars, and reducing space allocated for drive thru. A sidewalk now runs along the temple, affordance was made for 3 bike racks, and the crosswalks were reconfigured to provide better pedestrian circulation.
Jeff Dirk the traffic engineer said the current roadway system can accommodate the traffic assuming certain improvements. Their parking analysis indicated that the peak would be on Saturdays in December, estimating 121 spots would be required. This might allow for more green space or other design elements or modifications to be made. Based on traffic estimates the town would qualify for a signal to be put in for access into the property. This would be synched with other nearby signals to promote efficient flow of traffic. Any traffic work will need to be approved by the MassDOT, but Dirk stated that everything they did to date meets with the Division of Highway’s design criteria. He also spoke of “traffic calming” measures such as “bulb outs” which are intended to: reduce the width of pedestrian crosswalks thus making them safer, slow traffic, improve sightlines, and demarcate parking.
In the analysis they performed, they do not view development as a regional draw. Most shoppers would be within a one mile radius or come from commuting traffic on 138. It is slightly premature to discuss specific mitgating measures that might be taken to address traffic on surrounding side streets and cut throughs. Dirk said, “Traffic wants to be there,” by which he went you cannot decrease volumes only reroute them or manage their flow. He said that typically they would provide more than one plan for traffic management from which town and neighbors would select.
During the Citizens Speak portion, approximately 20 people spoke and were fairly evenly divided in terms of being in favor or not. The majority of those speaking in favor urged the board to put the measure before town meeting for debate and a vote. Those opposed expressed skepticism about traffic and safety. Jackson had asked speakers to limit themselves to a minute and a half. An exception was granted for the attorney, Andrew Upton, who is representing “Neighbors Against Commercial Development.” He was allowed up to 5 minutes. When his turn came, he identified two issues of concern: 1) a lack of transparency, specifically with regard to the Temple’s financial assertions and the lack of documentation substantiating their claims, and 2) he questioned the value of the project to the neighborhood and community. He asserted it was spot zoning that was of economic benefit to the temple and only of marginal benefit to the town.
A vote will happen on 12/3. The board may vote to refer to town meeting with a recommendation or not. Or it may vote not to refer to town meeting. If they latter course is chosen then it is likely a citizens petition will be submitted and an article written by Ned Corcoran, the Coffman attorney, will be sent to the Selectmen for inclusion in the February warrant.