Capping an extraordinarily arduous process, the Planning Board took a vote on whether to recommend that town meeting approve an article defining a zoning overlay that will allow commercial development on the Temple Shalom property. At just before midnight, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Jackson, and Ms. Innes voted in favor and Mr. Lynch and Mr. Duffy voted against.

The motion read something to the effect:

Based on consideration of all the factors discussed a majority of the Planning Board believes adoption of the zoning for institutional commercial development is in the best interests of the town. A written recommendation will follow.

Mr. Lynch stated that he could not support it because he felt he did not have the necessary information to make a decision. He cited the lack of data on traffic in particular. Mr. Duffy said, “If a project like this would fit here in the densest part of town, it would fit anywhere .  .  . such as Hillside Street.” (where Mr. Whiteside lives) Mr. Duffy also stated that he did not believe anything could be done to mitigate traffic due to the topography and geometry of the neighborhood streets.

During deliberations Mr. Whiteside tempered language Mr. Jackson initially proposed. The specific financial needs of the Temple were not germaine. The Temple has elected to sell their property and there are two options: commercial development or residential development. The latter would likely be a 40B development. It was acknowledged those options were a result of current realities in the real estate market. Whiteside emphasized that this was a “planning decision . . . [we need to determine] if this is a rational decision that deserves our support.” In addition it was acknowledged that the Planning Board needs to demonstrate that they can follow through on realizing the promise they believe this project has. As Mr. Whiteside rhetorically asked, “Are they [the board] up to the task? I personally think the Planning Board can and will do it.” Later in the deliberations he added, “This is a point at which the rubber meets the road.”

With regard to the 40B option, Mr Whiteside said, that while there was not a direct apple to apples comparison with commercial option regarding traffic impacts there is “a huge unknown here . . .it [40B] could have some very serious adverse impacts.”

Close to 50 people spoke during the public hearing portion of the evening. Notable were several town officials. Linda Lee Sheridan of the School Committee spoke in favor echoing the sentiments of her colleagues, Huban, Pavlicek, and Lovely who spoke in the previous session. Two members of the Board of Selectmen, Mr. Shields and Ms. McEttrick spoke against recommendation of the article. Ms. McEttrick took issue with the process. She voiced a concern of many residents when she said that it seemed that the issue was decided before it came to the neighborhood. As an example she reference the recent ad that Coffman ran looking for tenants and that a purchase and sale had been in place for quite some time. She argued that, ” a neighborhood’s knowledge for how it works is something we [town officials] have to pay attention to.” Ms. McEttrick closed by saying that action should not be taken because ” the article is not as good as it should be.”

[Note: Michael Coffman addressed the group stating the advertisement was an inadvertent oversight. They were testing an online ad platform and used it to gauge potential interest. It was done some time ago and he admitted it should have been removed and that it was oversight that it had not been.)

Mr. Shields also argued against recommending the article. He voiced concern that the article would set a precedent that he found “troubling” as it was the first time in his memory that the town has taken a residential property and changed it to commercial. He further stated that he thought the motion “dangerous” as it could jeopardize Milton’s “special character.”

Another town official, James Mullen, the Town Clerk, spoke against the article. He took the temple to task (“I am sorry the temple has put us in this position.”) and those speakers who came from outside the neighborhood to say what they felt was good for the neighborhood. He said crime would be a concern and that these sorts of developments were “magnets for people to hang around.”

The remaining speakers were fairly evenly divided for and against. In the end the majority of the board decided that the project “offers potential for a benefit rather than a deficit.” And that as Whiteside said, “we have a feeling this could enhance it [the neighborhood] if we do our job right.”

The article will be debated at Town Meeting. If approved, the initiative will then enter into the special permit process. A special permit requires 4 out of the 5 board members to approve. Depending on how Town Meeting votes the Planning Board is either at the beginning of the end or, if approved, the end of the beginning.