At an abruptly called special meeting by the Board of Selectmen, residents voiced their thoughts, opinions, and concerns regarding the development of the Temple Shalom property. The Board also heard from Peter Jackson, chairman of the Planning Board, and gave him their input.

The temple was the principal agenda item for a meeting that was scheduled sometime over the weekend. It came just three days before the Planning Board intends to vote on whether to recommend a zoning overlay to Town Meeting. The Planning Board will be meeting twice this week. First on 12/2 to continue deliberations and then again on 12/3 to take a vote. December 3rd is the deadline the Board of Selectmen has set for receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Board. Jackson said the Planning Board will meet that date.

Approximately 19 people rose to address the board during Citizens Speak, the majority (~14) spoke in favor of the development moving forward. The current plan, developed by Coffman Realty of Brockton, has three structures: a pharmacy (likely a CVS), a retail building (likely a food market) and a new, smaller temple that will also house the Campbell School.

The proponents of the development which included Lynda Packer, President of Temple Shalom, and Rabbi Benjamin,  asked the Selectmen to let the democratic process play out and send the issue along to town meeting. Residents cited the jobs that would come for teenagers, the tax revenue, and the need to bring amenities back to a neighborhood that sorely lacks them. Laura Cahill, a local real estate agent and temple neighbor, said that risk of real estate values falling was “baloney.” Joseph O’Malley, another neighbor, polled 7 real estate agents. One said property values would go down, another said they would stay the same, and the remaining 5 said values would go up. Others spoke to the value in keeping the temple in town and preserving the contribution the temple makes  to community diversity. Lastly, Lila Rosbenbaum, a temple member, reiterated that “to live is to change.” She wanted to ensure the neighbors that “your concerns are ours.”

Opponents of the development repeated a number of concerns, chief among them, traffic. Joe Sloane stated that there would be 10,500 trips in and out of the “Tucker Village.” He requested a copy of the preliminary report of the traffic engineer engaged by Coffman, Jeff Dirk, but Mr Dirk declined and said an updated plan would be submitted to the Planning Board. Emmett Schmarsow echoed the concern and requested that some serious modeling regarding traffic flow be done. Lisa Murphy rose to say the scope of the project was too big for the neighborhood, and Catherine King advised that whoever makes the decision to go forward “go carefully.”

After the conclusion of Citizen Speak, Pete Jackson addressed questions from the Selectmen. Jackson summed up the process to date (e.g. there have been ~25 Planning Board meetings since Town Meeting referred the issue back to the board, they convened an advisory group at recommendation of Selectman McEttrick, and developed a charge for that group in concert with Selectmen, they listened to close to 200 individuals speak on the issue, and had reviewed 200+ emails). Jackson noted that the neighborhood seemed evenly divided on the issue and that regardless of what was done, someone would be unhappy with the result. He felt is was time to move the issue off the plate of the Planning Board and onto Town Meeting. He expects the Planning Board to stick to the schedule it has set for itself and have an article to the Selectmen for their 12/3 meeting.

McEttrick then spoke regarding the article being put on the warrant. “I don’t understand where it comes from”  (i.e. concern that Selectmen will keep article from warrant and moving onto Town Meeting). And she asked that people, “please don’t email me any more that we can prevent the Planning Board from submitting an article.” She noted that they have a right to give their opinion but would pass through any article submitted. The other Selectmen seemed to agree, but later in the meeting Mr. Shields acknowledged receipt of a correspondence from a “friend.” He did not identify the friend or divulge the contents of the correspondence. He did allude to potential “fraud.” Mr. Shields met with members of the temple, and he was satisfied with what he heard. However, he said he would have voted against having the article included in the warrant and that this may have been at the root of some of the residents concerns. Thus, the residents may have been understandably concerned. It is a point of order that is an open question. Can the Selectmen vote to keep an article submitted by another town board off the warrant? Does inclusion require a unanimous vote or simply a majority?

John Michael Shields, chairman, identified two issues that he wanted Jackson to speak to; signage and traffic. Ms. Innes, a Planning Board member, had stated at a recent PB meeting that she wanted the PB to have final say on signage with regard to this project. In short, that is not going to happen. The Selectmen were unanimous in their decision to adhere to current process and procedures. Namely, that the sign committee appointed by the Selectmen review all signage and make recommendations as they see fit. McEttrick noted that the guidelines were “tight,” but that if the developer thought they needed to go outside those they could appeal it. She noted that CVS signage tends to be large and internally lit and this does not conform to current regulations. The CVS at Milton Marketplace does not have that type of signage.

And then they discussed traffic. The issue of assessing traffic impact and how it would be mitigated was of concern to all including a couple of people who spoke in favor of the project. While all Selectmen were clearly concerned about traffic, it was Ms. McEttrick a resident of the neighborhood, who asked the vast majority of questions. McEttrick noted that whatever was done, it would increase traffic to the area and she questioned what would be benefits to the neighborhood for the burden that would be placed on it. She identified a range of issues: inability to “dead end’ streets, viability of making streets one way, removal of parking spaces (though it is illegal to park on rte 138), ability of safety vehicles to enter and exit the property, time and location of deliveries, etc.

Mr. Jackson stated, “I am not a traffic engineer.” The net is, according to Jackson, that a preliminary study has been done, and a final study is in the works. The final study along with a peer review that will be paid for by Coffman will be done in time for the 2/22 Town Meeting and that to date everything that has been proposed with regard to possible traffic mitigation (e.g. left turn signal into property) is in compliance with MassDOT, Highway division rules and regulations. He also said there had been discussion about establishing a traffic fund with da eposit from developer, and that a 2-year and 5-year review take place. The Selectmen thought that an earlier review might be better, and Jackson said they were flexible on that.

In closing, Mr. Shields said his primary concern was with spot zoning. Ned Corcoran, attorney for Coffman, disagreed. He “favors change when it is done carefully and done well.” He went on to say that whatever happens, it will result in change. The question in his mind is whether it will be change that can be controlled. He was alluding to the possibility that should the zoning overlay fail, the property would be sold for residential development that might result in 40B housing. MGL 40B is a state law that enables developers to bypass local zoning regulations if building affordable housing.