A traffic engineer presented findings from a comprehensive traffic study, estimating the new development would generate approximately 90 truck trips per day. The study’s methodology included assessing stopping sight distances and analyzing existing traffic patterns, which revealed a mix of vehicle types, including passenger cars and midsize trucks. The traffic engineer recommended considering a 35 mph speed limit for Hill Street, despite the absence of regulatory signs, to enhance safety.

Residents voiced strong concerns about the increased truck traffic. Lori Stewart, a local resident, highlighted the danger posed by the narrowness of Hill Street, stating, “We have racing tractor trailer trucks all day long going to the tart Industrial Park.” She emphasized that the street’s width, measuring only 18 to 21 feet in various sections, could not safely accommodate the anticipated truck traffic, particularly with the development’s early operational hours. Stewart warned, “Someone’s going to end up getting killed on that street.”

Another resident, Laura Dean, shared similar concerns and noted the additional traffic from a newly opened rail trail that intersects with Hill Street, which the traffic study had not fully accounted for. Dean expressed skepticism about the reliability of the traffic study, remarking, “I don’t care what a traffic study says; we’re living here,” and shared a personal story of a tragic accident involving a tractor trailer in front of her home. Both Stewart and Dean felt betrayed by prior assurances that the land would remain undeveloped, which had influenced their decisions to move to the area.

The board acknowledged these concerns, particularly the narrowness of Hill Street and the safety implications of increased truck traffic. They discussed the possibility of directing larger trucks to alternative routes to mitigate impact. The applicant confirmed that operational hours would start at 5:00 a.m. on weekdays, raising further concerns about noise and traffic during early hours.

The meeting also delved into environmental aspects of the development, including wetlands and vegetation preservation. The applicant assured that no construction would occur on sensitive wetland areas. Lighting concerns were addressed, noting that most lighting would be directed away from residential areas to minimize adverse effects. Plans were made to revise lighting placements and ensure that lights would be turned off after operational hours.

As part of the peer review process, a representative from Weston and Samson provided feedback on the traffic elements, noting that while the traffic statement was generally sound, it did not account for future developments in the area. The board expressed a need for a comprehensive traffic study, particularly reflecting actual volumes during school sessions, and suggested implementing monitoring strips to gauge traffic speed at the site and nearby intersections.

The discussion also covered potential impacts on property values. Jo La Dean from 53 Hill Street raised a question about the effects of the new building on residential property values, highlighting the difficulty residents face in finding relevant data to support their concerns. The board acknowledged the subjective nature of assessing overall neighborhood impact and home values.

The board transitioned to other agenda items, including a request concerning a site at zero Crane Street and the discussion of a bylaw amendment. The Crane Street project involved stabilization measures for four lots, with proposed costs totaling $25,000. The board sought more detailed calculations for specific stabilization activities before proceeding with formal agreements.

The bylaw amendment discussion focused on the inclusion of certain areas within a commercial district and the potential impacts on existing nonconforming uses. The board deliberated on side yard setbacks for residential uses adjacent to the proposed developments, leaning towards allowing more time to refine the language during a future recodification project.

The topic of density bonuses and zoning regulations for mixed-use developments was also prominent. The board discussed incentives for “top of the shop” developments, which refer to mixed-use buildings with residential units above commercial spaces. They considered offering an additional story for such developments, provided a specified percentage of commercial space was included.

The meeting concluded with a motion to continue the site plan review for the Hill Street project to September 10. The board emphasized the need for more information, particularly regarding traffic studies and operational hours, to facilitate further discussion in the next session.