Temple Shalom of Milton will hold an Open House for prospective members at the same time that it celebrates the conclusion of another successful Religious School year with a kosher barbecue and game day for the kids on Sunday, May 23rd, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
149 search results for "temple shalom"
Temple Shalom prepares to sell property
from The Patriot Ledger
Leaders of Temple Shalom intend to put the 4-acre property on the market after falling short in an attempt to get it rezoned for a retail development. (Read the full story here.)
Editors Note: Comments on this post have been frozen.
Temple Shalom Warrant Article: A Primer
Update: 02.19.10 – Two pieces of commentary have been added. One, Temple Shalom and Tucker Village Proposal – Home Stretch, by Phil Matthews of Milton View and another, Milton: Bad precedent or spot zoning, an opinion piece in the Patriot Ledger by Tim Murphy.
Planning Board votes 3-2 to recommend Town Meeting approve Temple Shalom article
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.
Voices from public hearing on Temple Shalom re-development
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.)
Temple Shalom traffic impact assessment now online
The Planning Board has posted the Traffic Impact Assessment conducted by Vanasse and Associates. This was done for the proposed zoning overlay article to enable commercial development at the Temple Shalom site. The proposed development would consist of a pharmacy, 2nd retail business (possibly a grocery), and a new, smaller temple.
The assessment is to undergo a peer review. The Planning Board is going to select from one of the following firms to perform the peer review:
You can find the full text here.
Warrant Committee hears arguments for/against Temple Shalom development
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.
Meeting Notes: Planning Board 12.10.09 – Ground rules established for hearing on Temple Shalom zoning
The Planning Board met on December 10th and discussed but did not limit conversation to the following:
- The board confirmed that there will be two days for public hearings on the zoning overlay article that will appear in the Warrant for Special Town Meeting on 2/21. They discussed the following guidelines. Bill Clark, Planning Director will post final guidelines to the Planning Board’s town web site prior to the first hearing. They agreed to:
- allow each attorney (Corcoran for Coffman Realty and Upton for Neighbors Against Commercial Development) to speak for 10 minutes
- Selectmen and state officials will also be given up to 10 minutes for their remarks
- Citizens, including town meeting members will be given up to 5 minutes for remarks
- comments will end at 10:00pm on December 21rst and continue on January 4th.
Their will be flexibility and discretion exercised. Jackson said “We won’t cut anyone off in mid-sentence.” To this observer there was some confusion as to whether 1) they would allow citizens to speak more than once 2) allow any attorney up to 10 minutes to speak 3) entertain rebuttals from Corcoran and Upton at the close of citizen remarks and 4) the Planning Board would address questions during the hearings. These issues may be addressed when Clark posts the guidelines online.
- The Warrant Committee will hear arguments at their December 16th meeting regarding the zoning overlay. The respective attorneys will each speak for 10 minutes as will two citizens. The Warrant Committee is not expected to give an opinion until after the public hearings. The meeting will be at 6:30pm at the Council on Aging. Peter Jackson and Emily Innes of the board will be present. Jackson invited other members of the Planning Board to attend also.
- Gene Sullivan from the Milton Landing Condominium Association appeared before the board to discuss the DCR project to connect a path on the Dorchester side with the walkway on the Milton side at Wharf street. THe DCR requires an easement from the condo association which they have not granted. Mr. Sullivan said that they were waiting for a feasibility study in which they were to be included to be done. The study would inlcude analysis of safety issues among other things. Mr. Sullivan is waiting to hear from the DCR on this. “We are not being obstructionist.” Mr Sullivan said.
- The Hendries building is still waiting on a site plan proposal. Mr. Clark noted that there will be more parking available based on what he say. Mr. Whiteside noted “That’s hardly what the problem was,” with the original plan which he said, “stunk.”
Planning Board post Temple Shalom article for upcoming Town Meeting
The Planning oard has posted the full text of the article they recently voted 4-1 to submit to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion in the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting currently scheduled of February 22, 2010. The temple is seeking to redevelop the property. The current structure is one they no longer need nor can support. It has become a financial burden. Their hope is to stay on the location in a smaller temple and have the remaining lot commercially developed. You can read a series of posts on this issue here.
The article begins:
Article ________. To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 10 of the General Bylaws, known as the Zoning Bylaws, by adding the following Subsection L to Section III:
L. Institutional/Commercial Development
In a Residence C district on a lot which has at least 500 feet of frontage on a state highway, which contains at least 150,000 square feet, and which contains tax-exempt uses in a building deemed too large for its uses, the Planning Board may grant a special permit for an institutional/commercial planned unit development (“Institutional/Commercial Development”) for a building to contain a tax exempt use or tax-exempt uses and for two buildings to contain certain commercial uses upon satisfaction of all requirements specified in this subsection and upon such other requirements, terms and conditions deemed necessary or appropriate by the Planning Board as specified in the special permit.
You can find the full text here.
Planning Board vote 4-1 to submit Temple Shalom zoning article
After months of discussions, deliberations, and debate that at times was quite contentious, the Planning Board last night voted 4-1 to submit an article to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion in the Warrant to be put forward at a Special Town Meeting currently scheduled for February 22nd.
The article requests the town to allow the zoning bylaws to be amended to permit construction of a new temple along along with two buildings to contain commercial uses. These are likely a CVS and food market.
Board member Ed Duffy was the lone dissenting vote. Member Bernie Lynch requested confirmation that a “yes” vote was only to submit the article for the warrant and not a recommendation for adoption. The board confirmed that was the case.
The article as submitted contained the edits and revisions recommended the previous evening. The most notable of which was the inclusion of a property value analysis, which reads:
A reliable analysis as to the effect that the development, at the one-year anniversary of the completion of construction, will have had on real estate property values of real property within 500 feet of a lot line of the develpment. In the event that the analysis projects a decrease of real estate property values attributable to the development of this date, measures to mitigate this impact shall be included in the analysis.
[note: You can find the full text of the Planning Board’s article here.]