Town Meeting Member Stefan Keel said, “There are two sides to every story.” Last night the opponents of the zoning overlay article before special town meeting that would permit commercial construction at the Temple Shalom site presented theirs.
The group of neighborhood residents making the presentation was led by Town Meeting Member Stefano Keel from Precinct 1. Joining him were Town Meeting Members Marion McEttrick, Emmett Schmarsow and Joe McEttrick, residents Beth Fleitman and an attorney for some of the abutters, Andrew Upton. (Note, Ms. McEttrick, also a Selectmen, has recused herself from any discussion the Board of Selectmen have on this article).
Mr. Keel began the presentation with a video that provided a tour of the Tucker neighborhood streets: Amor, Aberdeeen, Concord, Oak, Decker, Blue Hill Terrace, and Lothrop. The point of the video was to illustrate how topographically problematic these streets are with blind curves, poor visibility, no sidewalks and especially narrow width.
Mr. Keel argued that the “process was a sham.” He argued the plan approved was identical to one first presented in December of 2008. “It never changed.” He said that the purchase and sale agreement, which Coffman signed with the Temple and the public was unaware of, locked out other options. In his remarks Mr. Keel sounded on two themes that would run through the presentation: trust and compromise. In Keel’s opinion, the neighbors were being asked to trust the Planning Board to watch out for their interests but he did not feel they were heard. In his most pointed language Mr. Keel said, regarding people of color who appeared before the Planning Board and voiced their opposition, “It’s like they were not there.” His introduction concluded by claiming that though the Planning Board process was well intended it had no chance of resulting in any real compromise.
Ms.McEttrick gave a financial analysis of the proposal using materials that had been submitted to the Planning Board (e.g. LDS Consulting Report, School Impact Study). She argued that there were other development options that could have given the town greater tax benefits and that housing of moderate density should not have been taken out of consideration because of school impacts given those impacts would have been negligible. Ms. McEttrick also argued that the commercial tax benefits would not remove the need for overrides going forward. The development in question for example would only provide 1/20th of revenue needed in last override. She further argued that there was no in depth analysis of 40B options and felt other development options were disregarded without justification by the Planning Board.
She was followed by Mr. Schmarsow and Mr. Sloane. Emmett Schmarsow asked Town Meeting, “How will this affect our neighborhood?” And answered his own question with another, “If [this vision] is good enough for Tucker why not elsewhere?” He also touched on the issue of trust and noted that control of a process does not always guarantee quality, using Toyota’s current woes as an example. “You can recall a Toyota. You can’t recall a CVS. Trust has not been earned.” Sloane then used maps to illustrate driving patterns throughout the neighborhood and the commonly used routes to get about that part of town. He questioned how the streets could absorb additional traffic and does not believe the current plan has the detail required to address that. He highlighted the congestion that occurs at the Tucker School drop off as one example and said residents of the neighborhood had learned “to be very patient, very careful, and very cautious” when driving.
Beth Fleitman’s address was personal and direct. “I deserve peace and quiet just as everyone else. . . would you want this across from your house?” As a member of the synagogue she questioned where services would be held during construction and why there were no renderings for the new temple. She closed with a photo of her neighbors and said, “This is my neighborhood and these are my neighbors and I want to keep it that way.”
Mr. McEttrick was the last of the neighborhood residents to speak. He opened his remarks by saying, “We don’t fear change but we feel government should manage change.” And he feels the Planning Board has failed the town in that regard. He stated we will have “planning chaos” if this proposal moves forward arguing that commercial businesses belong in commercial districts and that the development as proposed will have an impact not just on traffic “but on the social fabric of this community.” The change he wants would be good for the Temple, good for the neighborhood and good for the town and that change starts with starting over with a process that is “not developer driven” but community driven. Echoing other speakers, Mr. McEttrick said the development was not something being done “for the neighborhood but to the neighborhood.” He asked for a no vote and told Town Meeting, “We look to you to give us back our voice.”
After a statement by Andrew Upton the moderator opened the floor to other residents and town meeting members. Mr. Walsh, the moderator, noted that approximately 75 residents had requested to speak. James Mullen, the Town Clerk and a Town Meeting Member, made a motion to restrict comments to 5 mins and allow speakers to speak only once. That motion was defeated.
Approximately 13 people rose to speak before the Moderator ended the session. The debate on Article 2 will resume when Town Meeting reconvenes at 7:30 on March 1rst.
[Note: Our intent was to post this in a more timely fashion. Suffice to say computers are not always our friends and let it go at that.]