The Planning Board met last night to grind through the final copy edits and revisions to a zoning article that would be the first step in the potential redevelopment of the Temple Shalom property to contain a CVS, second retail structure, and new, smaller temple.
Together with Coffman Realty and their attorney Milton resident, Ned Corcoran, the board reviewed everyone’s comments in turn and made edits accordingly after some discussion on the point in question.
Alex Whiteside had the lion’s share of revisions to the draft which he authored with input from Corcoran and one of his revisions sparked the most debate. Whiteside proposed inclusion of a property value analysis. Peter jackson, Chairman did not see the need for it arguing that the board had heard sufficient testimony. Whiteside pressed the issue expressing concern for residents whose values might go down as a result of the development, “What do you say to these people? Tough luck?” After discussion with regard to the area encompassed (e.g. should it only be the abutters?), time frame (do values go down in 3 years, 5 years) and consequences of other development on property values (i.e. if a 40B development went in would impact on property values be any more or less?) the board agreed to include language on a property analysis. Most likely it will be restricted to abutters at the time development is complete and conform to appraisal industry standards. The final language will be in article to be reviewed this evening.
The board also discussed authority over signage. The Board of Selectmen in their meeting stated unanimously that they would retain control per existing process and procedure. The Planning Board seeks to have a say, if not jurisdiction, in part because is a fundamental part of the overall look and feel of the development. They will discuss further with the Selectmen and possibly suggest a joint meeting. Mr. Duffy suggested that one solution was to have no signs at all.
One other edit of note regarded future use of the buildings. Mr. Whiteside sought to restrict uses and services that might be offered within the CVS. If they were going t begin offering, say, shoe repair services, “that is something we would want to know.” The Coffman’s argued that it would be impossible to know what services might be offered going forward 25 years and suggested the Planning Board allow “what they [CVS] commonly do in eastern Massachusetts.”
The Planning Board will review the final draft at a meeting this evening, 12/3. The meeting will begin at 5:30 at the Council on Aging. The early start time is to allow them to get the article over to the Board of Selectmen. This is assuming that the board votes to submit the article. The vote they take will be only to submit the article to the Selectmen for inclusion in the warrant to go before Town Meeting on 2/22. It is highly unlikely that they would vote not to submit the article. There was some discussion about taking a vote last night, but they deferred. One board member’s comment will likely hold true tonight, “[We] are not going to kill this here.”
The board proposed scheduling open hearings for the article on 12/21/09 and 01/04/10 (if needed). Public comments at that time could inform further revisions and any recommendation that the Planning Board might make. In a brief conversation with Peter Jackson at the close of the meeting, he said any opinion of the Planning Board would likely be given at Town Meeting when the article is introduced.