Traffic analysis dominated the discussion as Jeffrey Durk from Vaness and Associates presented the findings of a comprehensive transportation impact assessment. His report confirmed that the proposed development would have minimal effects on local traffic conditions, with no significant increase in delays or queuing at intersections. However, the study identified concerns, including the need to trim vegetation to improve sight lines for vehicles exiting the development and addressing a higher-than-expected crash rate at the intersection of Route 88 and Route 177.

Despite assurances that the development would not impact traffic, some board members and residents expressed concerns. A resident voiced apprehension about the visibility challenges posed by existing road topography, which could exacerbate safety risks for motorists. The expired Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) access permit for Westport Lakes Drive was also flagged as a significant consideration, with the absence of sidewalks being a potential safety hazard for pedestrians.

Further examination of the traffic study revealed potential underestimations in projected vehicle trips, particularly concerning school-related traffic, which was not explicitly accounted for in the report. The absence of school bus services in the area implies that parents would need to drive their children, potentially increasing congestion during peak hours. While the overall traffic volume was deemed low, the board considered conducting a specific study to analyze the impact of school-related traffic.

Safety improvements, such as trimming vegetation, installing reflective tape on stop signs, and altering passing zones, were suggested to enhance road safety. However, these measures would require state approvals, complicating their implementation. The board deliberated on how to formally request necessary changes from the state, highlighting a divide between immediate safety needs and bureaucratic processes.

Engineering and site access concerns also featured prominently in the meeting. The board underscored the necessity of a fire truck turning plan, a standard requirement in subdivision planning. The absence of detailed turning radii and intersection dimensions in the current plans was flagged as a critical gap, necessitating formal data from the fire department to ensure public safety.

Stormwater management emerged as a key topic, with the board questioning the adequacy of soil testing within proposed detention basins. The need for multiple soil tests was emphasized, given discrepancies in the drainage report regarding soil classifications. The board stressed the importance of thorough documentation and compliance with testing requirements to validate the engineering plan’s feasibility.

Discussion on the peer review process revealed an emphasis on addressing unresolved issues and clarifying outstanding concerns. The board called for a review of the engineering plans, insisting that the peer reviewer provide updated feedback to ensure all engineering matters are sufficiently addressed before proceeding with approvals.

The conversation also broached the topic of construction timelines, with the developer clarifying intentions to build in phases rather than simultaneously. The developer would initially maintain roads and community aspects until a homeowners’ association (HOA) could assume responsibilities. Disagreements arose over the financial structure of the HOA, with proposals to include stipulations in decision documents to clarify the developer’s obligations and the transition timeline.