The Gurry Heights development was at the forefront of the meeting. Representatives from the applicant team, including professional engineer Liz Andis and traffic expert Steve Shakari, provided updates on the project’s engineering plans and traffic reviews. The board reviewed a series of documents, namely a comment letter from Apex Engineering and a landscape peer review from Radner Design. The representatives assured the board that all comments from previous reviews had been addressed, closing most issues.

Public concerns were raised about the project’s traffic implications, specifically regarding noise and intersection grading. John Gregory, a resident of Bartelli Road, questioned the absence of noise considerations in the traffic study. It was clarified that while noise might be a factor in certain contexts, it is not standard in traffic analyses. Another public comment focused on traffic delays at the intersection of Bridge Street and Main Street. The traffic engineer acknowledged existing delays but noted that the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Mass DOT) had reviewed the project and did not require additional mitigation measures.

The board’s discussion highlighted that the anticipated traffic from the new development was not projected to exacerbate existing issues significantly. The analysis suggested that while current intersection conditions are problematic, the development’s impact would be negligible. The board expressed satisfaction with the progress and opened the floor for further public comments.

A significant part of the meeting centered on a proposed five-year traffic monitoring program. The developers committed to monitoring traffic post-construction to ensure alignment with their estimates. A traffic engineer, Matt Key, explained that this period would begin six months after occupancy, allowing time for stabilization. He noted that if actual traffic levels differed from projections, Mass DOT could require additional transportation demand management measures. These strategies aim to reduce travel demand, although such drastic differences are uncommon.

The board discussed the next procedural steps, with plans for the petitioner’s counsel to work with the board’s legal counsel to draft the necessary documents. The board agreed to begin drafting the decision.

In addition to the Gurry Heights discussion, the meeting addressed scheduling issues. A motion to continue the hearing until January 28 was passed unanimously. The board also approved minutes from previous meetings, noting some members abstained due to non-attendance. Future meetings were scheduled, with February 27 confirmed as the preferred date, considering conflicts with vacation schedules.