The board’s discussion began with the presentation of an amendment by city planner Beth McManis. This amendment sought to address concerns about the access points to the site, specifically giving the planning board the authority to determine the specifics of Fourth Avenue access and the potential inclusion of a Fifth Avenue access point during the site plan application process. McManis clarified that the board was not being asked to decide on access locations that evening but rather to review the consistency of the amendment with the master plan and provide comments.

Compounding the debate was a traffic study that was not initially tailored for the current amendment discussions. Concerns arose regarding the study’s limitations, as it primarily included traffic counts rather than a comprehensive traffic impact analysis. Public commenter Mike Sedano pressed for specifics on this point, highlighting the need for a detailed assessment of the potential impact of the 130-unit development on surrounding neighborhoods. The witness explained that while the report provided traffic counts, it did not offer a detailed traffic impact analysis, which would typically be necessary for major site plan applications.

Residents, including Nancy Sabino and K.Y. Interv, expressed frustration over the proposed access points. Sabino questioned why safety concerns raised at prior council meetings had not been addressed. She emphasized that residents were advocating for innovative solutions to traffic and parking issues. Interv highlighted the Planning Board’s role in representing community concerns, stating, “you represent our community… it’s really insulting for you guys to be annoyed with us.” This sentiment was echoed by other public commenters who felt their input had not been adequately considered.

The debate continued with a discussion of the redevelopment plan’s discrepancies with existing zoning regulations. The current proposal seeks to develop the site at 130 units, translating to 90 units per acre, which contrasts with the B zoning allowance of 40 units per acre. This density discrepancy prompted further inquiries about the planning board’s discretion regarding access points on Fourth and Fifth Avenues.

One board member emphasized that the focus of the meeting should remain on the amendment rather than rehashing the details of the previously approved redevelopment plan. However, public comments underscored ongoing concerns about the adequacy of the traffic evaluation and the broader implications of the proposed development on the local community.

John Scully, another resident, reiterated the collective sentiments of the community, urging the board to consider the broader impacts of the proposed access points on local streets. He referenced a previous decision made by the board regarding another development, where the need for a traffic impact study had been emphasized. Scully questioned why the same standards were not applied in this case.

As the meeting progressed, a planning board member noted that the board had previously sought the authority to decide on ingress and egress for this project multiple times, but the council had not granted them that discretion. The board member acknowledged the traffic study data suggesting that access onto Memorial Drive should be prohibited, complicating the recommendation to the council.

Ultimately, the board had a discussion about whether to make a recommendation to the council regarding the access points. One member proposed voting in favor of granting the board the flexibility to consider Fifth Avenue as an access point while also affirming the plan’s consistency with the master plan. The planning board was reminded that if the amendment did not pass, the existing resolution would remain in effect, limiting access to Fourth Avenue only.

A motion was made to allow the planning board the most flexibility possible regarding access points on the site plan, specifically considering the potential for an entrance on Fifth Avenue. This approach was consistent with prior resolutions and aimed to ensure that any future developments would adhere to the codified regulations established by the council. Voting took place with several members affirming their support for the motion.