The Planning Board is deliberating the commercial overlay proposal right up to the wire. An article must be submitted by 12/3 to the Board of Selectmen if it is to be included in the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting to be held in February.

Given the impending deadline, Peter Jackson, chairman of the committee,  made a motion for a vote to be taken. Mr. Whiteside said he was not ready and Ms. Innes fell in behind him. Part of the  disagreement stemmed from the level of definition the article and zoning would contain. Mr. Jackson was advocating for a more open approach that would have some flexibility going forward. Mr. Whiteside desired greater specificity and, equally important,  stated that after all the time that had been spent in sessions, etc. more time to review and deliberate was required.  After a bit of confusing back and forth, it was decided to rewrite the article by 12/1 for review on 12/2 with the intent of a vote on 12/3.  The board will meet at 5:30pm on 12/3, take a vote, and then send the article over to the Board of Selectmen prior to their convening their 12/3 session.

In discussing the current version of the article, Mr. Duffy cited the American Heritage definition of a pharmacy. Then by way of contrast held up a CVS shopping flyer and flagged the discrepancy between the definition and the reality: there is nothing in the definition about items such as mops, radios, air conditioners, etc. It was discussed that, in essence, a CVS (or Walgrreens or RiteAid) is a pharmacy nested in a convenience store. There was agreement that the language would be modified.

Read more

At last night’s Planning Board Meeting members of the board spoke to their respective positions with regard to the redevelopment of the Temple Shalom property.

The board listened to a few petitioners in advance of resuming the Temple Shalom discussion. The developers of the Central Ave site have their work cut out for them. The board is not likely to approve their request to raise the height of the building due to “shadow” concerns and the fact that the only reason to raise it is to increase ceiling height and therefore make the units more “saleable.”

The board ruled favorably on a request to alter parking spaces at Milton Gas. The board checked their regulations and came to conclusion that request was reasonable and would be in compliance with those regulations.

Then came the discussion of Temple Shalom which was largely devoted to a presentation from a traffic engineer.

Read more

The Planning Board met last Thursday night and continued their process of vetting options for the redevelopment of the Temple Shalom site.

The bulk of the time devoted to discussing Temple Shalom was spent in an exercise led by Pete Jackson intended to identify the issues associated with the options under review: a retail commercial development (no pharmacy), a retail development anchored by a pharmacy, and a residential development.

There was some confusion among the participants. This stemmed from clearly segregating issues involved with commercial development that included a pharmacy and commercial development that didn’t. The issues both pro and con that were identified appeared to all present as relevant to any commercial development, namely, noise, increased traffic, increased jobs, increase in convenience to amenities etc. Also confusing was what constituted an issue. Mr Smigliani, one of the committee members questioned how many of the neighborhood reps were open to the idea of any commercial development. “Where do we stand?” That did not qualify as an issue according to Jackson. Ms. Murphy, another of the committee members voiced frustration at the lack of clear data regarding the impact that the development would have in terms of property values, noise, policing requirements etc. Jackson stated that he had requested that and the response was it was simply not that easy to answer or, as in the case of the police, they would properly cover whatever development that took place with existing resources.

Read more

The Planning Board recently rounded out the committee appointed to evaluate options regarding the development of the Temple Shalom property. They were seeking town residents with knowledge of mixed user development, architecture and landscape design.

Temple Shalom congregants, Buddy Packer and Rob Rosofsky, and neighborhood residents, Tammy Murphy, Joe Sloan, Beth Fleitman, and Nicholas Macke are now joined by Tom Smigliani, Lawrence Witko, Cheryl Tougias, and Christine Hodlin.

Mr. Witko is a developer and Ms. Tougias, an architect who specializes in commercial and mixed use development.

For a list of posts related to the Temple Shalom property development click here.

A weekly recap of key events and items of interest to the Milton community:

Recommendation on Temple Shalom

The Planning Board rendered a decision on the overlay proposal from Temple Shalom and their development representative, Coffman Realty. In a verdict that was not surprising, the Planning Board unaminously decided to make the recommendation to Town Meeting that the proposal be referred back to the Planning Board. The Planing Board does not believe that the proposal as presented conforms to appropriate standards and that a more complete site planning process is required. Town Meeting can dispose of this matter in the following ways: approve the proposal, reject the proposal, amend the proposal or refer the proposal back to the Planing Board. They will likely follow the Planning Board’s recommendation.

Harsh News for School Committee

The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the town’s financial picture and specifically that of the School Department is very uncertain. Further complications were introduced this past week in a letter Ms. Gormley, Superintendent of School, received from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

Given the budget shortfalls introduced by the reduction in state aid among other factors, the schools had contacted the MSBA on the possibility of closing a school. Their response was essentially that closing a school was not an option. That would be a substantial change in use and would require approval from MSBA. If a school were closed the funds would need to be refunded Margaret Craven, Executive Director of the MSBA wrote:

“Unless the MSBA agrees with Milton on the parameters of a facility reuse plan, the MSBA will take steps to recoup the grant funds. Just a few short years ago, these facilities were funded in good faith by the state taxpayers at a 90% reimbursement rate, and their needs t be a compelling reason why their originally intended use and operation is no longer locally supported.”

READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER HERE.

A Conversation with Charlie McCarthy

We sat down with Charlie McCarthy, candidate for Town Treasurer, last week to discuss his candidacy. You can find the conversation HERE. We also spoke with Town Treasurer candidate, Janet Lorden, that conversation is HERE. Lastly, we hope to speak with James McAuliffe. He has not yet responded to requests for an interview.

At this evening’s Planning Board meeting a number of issues were discussed; but none was of more interest than that of the Temple Shalom proposal to redevelop their property.

Regarding that, the Planning Board was unanimous in their decision. After consultation with Town Counsel John Flynn, the Board is going to recommend to Town Meeting that the issue be referred  to the Planning Board for further study and then to report to the next town Meeting. Member Peter Jackson recommended that the Planning Board establish standards to be included in a proposal and establish a process for going forward that includes all parties.

In past sessions the board has voiced concern over the lack of detail and specificity in the current proposal. “I’m certain we can do it,” commented Planning Board member Ed Duffy.

Town Meeting can dispose of the redevelopment request in one of four ways: they can pass it, the can reject it, they can amend it, or they can refer it back to the Planning Board. It is likely that Town Meeting will vote in accordance with the Planning Board’s recommendation.

The Planning Board will next convene on April 23rd.

Despite several periods of confusion around process, policy and procedure, members of the planning board made their opposition to the Coffman Realty’s proposal to redevelop the Temple Shalom site clear.

Chariman Innes began by reviewing the process. The Planning Board in this case is restricted in its authority due to the fact that a 10 person citizens petition was filed. As a result, the article proposing the redevelopment is an article in the warrant that will go before Town Meeting. Town Meeting needs to, as Ms. Innes stated, “dispose” of it, which can occur in 4 ways: they can deny the article, pass the article, amend the article, or recommit the article to the planning board. The planning board can only issue a recommendation at this point as to the action Town Meeting should take.

After a brief citizens speak and arguments made both against (Ms. McEttrick) and for (Mr. Coffman and Mr. Corcoran), the members of the board spoke.

Pete Jackson spoke from prepared remarks. After expressing appreciatioin for and acknowledging the contributions of the Temple, he voiced his opposition to the plan for several reasons. Chief among them being “social equlaity” within the town. He could not see how the board could support this proposal in light of their decision to deny commercial development at the DPW yard which also received vocal neighborhood opposition.

Ed Duffy also voiced opposition to the proposal. He cited town regulations which stipulate that streets be 50 feet wide. he noted that many streets in the neighborhood are only 30 or 40 feet wide. While there isn’t really anything that can be done about that, but putting a commercial development in an area that is already out of compliance will only aggravate public safety concerns.

Nor could Mr Whiteside support the proposal. Consistent with statements he has made previously, the proposal lacks specificity and definition. “If we know what is going to happen, zoning can make it happen.” Due to lack of detail, the board does not know what is going to happen. He further pointed out that the developer was told the proposal was deficient and has done nothing to rectify that.

These comments were all made as part of open hearing. The board did not recess to deliberate at this time. Ms. Innes wants to clarify certain points of order with Town Counsel. She will do that prior to the next meeting scheduled for April 13th.

Mr. Corcoran in his remarks stated that the process, as it was being conducted, was the “equivalent of a no vote because we will run out of time.” He urged the committee to, “Take the time now to do your job.”