The first of two public hearings on the proposed redevelopment of the Temple Shalom property was held on 12/21. (The second will be held Monday, 1/4, at 6:30 PM at the Council on Aging.)

The hearing took up most of the meeting. For those following the Temple Shalom issue, the themes expressed were familiar. Proponents argued that the development would provide needed revenue, preserve diversity, retain an important pre-school, and provide desired community amenities.  People opposed to the development argued that the scale of the project was too big for the neighborhood, they would need to endure increased noise and other forms of pollution, and there would be significant traffic and public safety issues. You can view a list of previous posts covering respective viewpoints on this issue here.

Just over 30 people rose to speak at the hearing. About 2/3 of the speakers spoke in support. Notable were three members of the School Committee: Glenn Pavlicek, Beirne Lovely, and Chris Huban who all spoke in favor of the development. In an attempt to capture something of the spirit of the feelings, sentiment, and opinion on both sides of the issue, here is a sample of statements made:

While we would not object to an incidental benefit to the landowner, the purpose of new zoning should be to benefit the town as a whole, the neighborhood affected, and the abutters who have to live with it. New zoning should have a higher and better purpose than to benefit one party alone. — Andrew Upton, Attorney for “Save Tucker Neighborhood” (Note: you can find Mr. Upton’s complete statement of testimony here.)

“It is clear to me that nothing short of what is proposed is what is necessary. . . the benefit is the preservation of Temple Shalom .  .  .  As is [the] need to preserve the Campbell School. Preservation is a significant benefit.” — Ned Corcoran, Attorney for the developer Coffman Realty (Note: we are awaiting a copy of Mr. Corcoran’s full statement.)

“My entire life is centered in this community.  .  .Concept of change is the problem.” — Betsy Buckbinder, resident

“This overlay will only make traffic that is already a problem – worse.” — Cheryl Fleitman, resident

“I know what it is like to close a place of worship .  .  . $150,000K would get us 3 teachers that are critically important. Each time we introduce new development, we find a reason not to do it. I urge you to support this article.” — Beirne Lovely, member of the School Committee

“The loss of the temple is a loss to the soul of the community.  .  . They are part of the fabric of the town.” — Rev Jeff Johnson, First Congregational Church

“This is a total sellout of the neighborhood .  .  . Please do not recommend this.” — Lisa Murphy, resident

“[We] should not have to put up with the noise .  .  . [we are] not treated as every other neighborhood.” — Brad Shaffner, resident

“I want there to be a strong Jewish Community in Milton. Let’s not be afraid of development.” — Robert Milt, resident

“It [traffic] has not been addressed and it has not been taken care of.” —  Darnell Turner, resident

“Would you want it in your front door? This is just ridiculous.” — Sylvia Goodman, resident

“Maybe we could swap homes.” —  Susan Mesku, resident on the suggestion to trade places with supporters who live outside the neighborhood

“I am over-rided out. We have change at our fingertips. [This is a] rare opportunity that should not be missed.” — Roxie Archibald, recent MHS graduate

“The enemy is uncontrolled development.  .  .  . Worse possible option is to just say no.” —  Glenn Pavlicek, School Committee member

“The ‘take it or leave it’ attitude is kind of annoying . . .  you [the Temple] give the impression you have something to hide.” — Eric Edmund, resident

“Let’s scenario-ize it.” — Emmett Schmarsow, resident, referring to the need to model traffic flows impacts.

“[There is] no easy way out of this.” — Sally Johnson

In addition to the hearing, the board heard from Sustainable Milton. Daryl Warner presented the board with stainless steel bottles to use as an alternative to bottled water. Sustainable Milton also presented bottles to the Board of Selectmen. You can learn more about their bottle initiative here.

The board also reviewed firms that had responded to an RFP for peer review of the Traffic Impact Assessment done by Vanasse Associates. They are Howard Stein Hudson Associates, The Beta Group, and the BSC Group. The board did not make a selection. Ms. Innes was absent from the meeting, and a decision will be made after receiving her input. You can find the full text of the Vanasse traffic assessment here.