At their Thursday, December 17th meeting of the Warrant Committee heard arguments for and against the proposed zoning overlay article that is to appear in the Warrant for February’s Special Town Meeting.

Tom Hurley, Chairman of the Warrant Committee, explained that the Warrant Committee, an all volunteer board appointed by the Town Moderator whose primary responsibility is a balanced town budget, is tasked with making recommendations on all articles in the town warrant. Though the Warrant Committee meetings are public there is no input from anyone outside the committee unless invited by the chairman. Mr. Hurley asked the the attorneys for the parties involved in the Temple Shalom zoning overlay (Andrew Upton for the neighborhood group and Ned Corcoran for the developer) as well as a town resident from each side to speak (Stefano Kiel for neighbors and Lynda Packer for Temple Shalom). Each speaker was allocated 10 minutes followed by a questions and answers from the committee.

Members of the Planning Board opened the meeting. Peter Jackson, Chairman of the Planning Board, and Emily Innes, who is the Planning Board’s liason to the Warrant Committee, began by giving an update and history of the proceedings on the commercial zoning overlay that would allow construction of a pharmacy, second retail structure, a new, smaller temple that would also house the Campbell School. (Note: Ms. Innes is a past member of the Warrant Committee).

Following are highlights from the discussion:

• Ms. Innes gave an explication of the overall process. She noted that the Planning Board would not give a recommendation on the overlay until public hearings were held. Hearing can not be held until an article is drafted and on the warrant. The hearings are scheduled for 12/21 and 1/4. The Warrant Committee does not want to make a recommendation regarding the article until the Planning Board has made their decision. However, the Warrant Committee needs to make a recommendation in time for warrant to go to press and be ready for Town Meeting on 2/22. One piece of information that likely will not be available to them is the peer review of the traffic impact study. The potential traffic impact that a commercial development could have is a serious concern to all parties. The developer is funding a traffic impact study which will be complete in the next week of so. They will also fund a peer review of that study. The Planning Board has solicited proposals from ~10 firms to due that review. However, the Warrant Committee will likely need to make their recommendation before the peer review is complete. The Planning Board does intend for peer review to be done in time for presentation at Town Meeting.
• Lynda Packer, President of Temple Shalom, presented the Temple’s position regarding their financial need, desire to remain in town, amenities development would have and acknowledged traffic concerns. She was followed by Ned Corcoran and Michael Coffman. Coffman Realty is the developer working with the Temple. Ned Corcoran is a Milton resident representing the developer. Mr. Corcoran reviewed his confidence in the project and belief that it was the last best effort to keep the temple in town. He characterized the possible loss of the temple as “tragic.” Tom Hurley asked about the availability of the traffic study. Another member asked about the qualifications of Coffman Realty. Jeffrey Coffman, President of Coffman Realty, said that they had developed ~65 CVS stores and said, “We are proud of our reputation.”
• Andrew Upton presented for the neighborhood group, “Save Tucker Neighborhood.” (the group previously known as “Neighbors Against Commercial Development”). Mr. Upton was joined by Beth Fleitman of the neighborhood group. Mr. Upton argued that there was insufficient transparency from the temple regarding their financial assertions. They [the temple] were claiming dire financial challenges that required they sell now and yet had provided not evidence of that. While he noted that legally there was no obligation, there was “a moral obligation to back up their claims.”  One warrant committee member said he was “disappointed’ by the argument and that he felt it was a “diversion” to talk about the financial information. Asked by another member if the temple disclosed finances and everything if their claims were true would it make a difference in the neighborhood group’s position, Mr. Upton, said it would factor in.
• Stefano Keel, a neighbor invited to speak against the development (and a past member of the Warrant Committee) reiterated neighborhood frustration over the lack of options and opportunity to explore them. The temple, in Mr. Keel’s opinion, never wavered from essentially two choices: “We’ll [temple] either do this [commercial development] or we’ll move.” If they move, the understanding being that they would sell to the highest bidder which would likely puruse a 40B development. Mr. Keel stated that a 40B option might be a good thing as it would allow teachers, police personnel and other twon workers an affordable option to live in the community. He also stated that “90% of the people of color [who live in the neighborhood] do not want to see this [commercial development] happen.”  He said as a Town Meeting Member he felt an obligation to highlight this fact. The percentage of neighbors for and against has been debated. Some say it is evenly split. Mr. Keel does not agree with that but wanted to empahsize that for people of color on his street and with whom he had spoken it was definitely not the case. He referenced a map that indicated where residents who had signed a petition against development actually lived. There is a map on Milton Times web site that may be what he was refering to. You can find it here.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive report on all points made by all parties; but a quick snapshot of salient points.  There will be a public hearing tonight (12/21 @ 6:30 at the Council on Aging) . We expect it will air on Milton Access and strongly recommend all Town Meeting Members watch it.