Above: The Planning Board will consider a site plan for a business along Route 9, west of Nan’s, that proposed exclusive egress on Flagg Road. (image from Town GIS Map)
On Monday, the Planning Board will continue its discussion on the Minor Site Plan for a new business on the vacant parcel at the corner of Route 9 and Flagg Road.
If the board votes to approve the plan as proposed, egress would exclusively on Flagg Road. The egress raised some concerns from board members. Meanwhile, the board’s landscaping requirements raised concerns with the owner of the abutting property leased by Nan’s Kitchen.
The site plan applicant is seeking to build a Valvoline Instant Oil Change at 361 Turnpike Road. The applicant’s engineer, Vito Colonna of Connorstone Engineering, told the board that traffic engineers determined it would be safer for traffic to enter and exit on Flagg than Route 9.
Colonna explained that they believed turning maneuvers from Route 9 would be less safe than making the right onto Flagg and turning from there after slowing down. As for adding traffic to Flagg, he posited that most drivers would take Route 9 and those who want to take Flagg still would if they exited right before the turnoff. (Below are photos of the parcel location and the street view of the current egress on Route 9.)
Members worried that MassDOT (Dept of Transportation) may need to weigh in on the egress plan. Colonna said that they generally don’t get involved when there are under 1,000 projected car trips per day, a number they don’t believe they’ll come close to.
But member Marnie Hoolahan said she understood that the Town isn’t currently getting benefit from the parcel “sitting idle”. But she said she wasn’t a fan of adding complexity to the traffic flow in that congested area near the Cumberland Farms and the 495 on ramp. She expressed doubt that MassDOT wouldn’t need to be involved in the “very concerning”, “high interest” area.
Hoolahan also highlighted the truck exclusion on Flagg Road that she believed the board couldn’t “override”. She believed the exclusion meant that trucks wouldn’t be able to access the business to make deliveries or collect waste. Colonna wasn’t familiar with the ban and said he would need to look into it.
It’s worth pointing out that, from past public discussions and presentations on the HCVE (Heavy Commercial Vehicle Exclusion), it only bans “through” traffic. That means that trucks can drive on the road if they have business at a property on the road (or an offshoot road) without any other means of access.
Colonna asked, if engineers assert Flagg Road is the safest egress, would the board be amenable to having a sign directing trucks to only turn left onto Flagg (towards Route 9). Member Jesse Stein said that was something they have previously done and he he would be supportive of.
Colonna promised to come back to the board with information on projected traffic and the egress issue, along with some other details — like the landscaping plan that Chair Meme Luttrell said didn’t meet the board’s requirements.
Those requirements were the aspect of the plans that raised the biggest concern from an abutter.
Because the project doesn’t trigger a Major Site Plan Review hearing, no notice was mailed to abutters. But Jack Bartolini told the board, he had come across the information accidentally.
Bartolini’s company, Walton Properties, owns 359 Turnpike Road where Nan’s Kitchen is located. Bartolini worried that the trees that Luttrell discussed as needed along Route 9 would interfere with eastbound drivers seeing the restaurant.
Luttrell responded that a Town bylaw “wants trees on Route 9.” She rejected a suggestion by Bartolini that they could waive it or be less “strict”.
Bartolini told the board that what “really bothers” him is that a neighboring business at 355 Turnpike Road does “whatever they want” and isn’t held to the standards that he and the new applicant are held to for landscaping, etc. He highlighted that the fence business displays fences and “other things” right along the highway.
(For visual context, check out photos below cropped from Google Maps of the site line and the neighboring business.)
Luttrell asked if Bartolini had brought his concerns to the Building Commissioner. She stressed that 355 Turnpike hadn’t come in front of the board, and they just try to be consistent with the applicants that do.
Bartolini said that his point is that the board would be making the applicant “beautify America” at the potential cost of his line of site while neighboring businesses look the way they do.
Stein echoed that every applicant is treated the same. But if they don’t get a submission through the pipeline, the board doesn’t go out and police the town.
During the back and forth over the landscaping issue, Colonna interjected that the applicant would likely plant the minimum required.
The Planning Board meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 10th in the Town House Hearing Room and zoom. You can find the agenda (and potential future meeting packet) here. (You can find the January 27th packet with previously submitted materials here.) The deadline for the decision is February 13th, but the board may request a deadline extension.
