A key issue dominating the meeting was the potential traffic impact of the new development, especially on Joseph Street and surrounding areas. Residents and board members expressed worries about increased congestion and the adequacy of current traffic studies. The traffic engineer presented recent counts conducted at intersections on Broadway and Joseph, but these did not include critical areas like Liberty Street or Lincoln Boulevard, leading to questions about the comprehensiveness of the data. Concerns were also voiced regarding the intersection of Harding and Broadway, where the proximity of a stop sign to the redesigned driveway could complicate traffic flow. Despite assurances that the additional traffic from the 138-unit development would not impact existing volumes, residents remained skeptical, citing personal experiences of congestion and difficulty exiting driveways during peak hours.

Further complicating the traffic discussion was the proposed conversion of Joseph Street into a one-way road to accommodate angled parking, a move that some fear could reroute traffic onto Liberty Street, exacerbating existing congestion. Public input highlighted the community’s apprehensions, with one resident predicting that even a minor increase in traffic could lead to significant delays, particularly during busy times.

The redevelopment proposal also includes plans for improved stormwater management on the site. The existing site, described as having inadequate drainage, would be upgraded with stormwater detention tanks beneath the building, designed to control runoff and improve water quality. Although these measures were presented as beneficial, ensuring compliance with county and state regulations, the board acknowledged the need for coordination with utility agencies to maintain adequate water pressure for fire safety measures.

Parking provisions for the new development were another focal point of the discussion. The proposal includes 236 parking spaces, reduced to 224 after accounting for the expansion of retail space. Although the plan meets the required number of spaces when considering Electric Vehicle (EV) credits, some board members questioned whether the anticipated parking supply would sufficiently accommodate the retail area, which lacks a specific parking requirement in the redevelopment plan. Residents expressed concerns about the removal of street parking and the potential for increased parking on side streets, which could disrupt the neighborhood’s quality of life.

The architectural design and layout of the proposed mixed-use building were also scrutinized. The building, complying with the permitted height of 52 feet, features a ground floor for retail space and residential units above. Public comments included inquiries about the allocation of affordable housing units and the potential clustering of these units, which some feared could lead to a sense of segregation. The architectural team assured that all units, including affordable ones, would feature the same finishes and amenities.

In response to concerns about the building’s impact on local schools and infrastructure, representatives emphasized that the planning board’s role is to ensure the development conforms to existing ordinances and the redevelopment plan. However, residents highlighted the strain on school capacity and the need for community amenities, urging the board to consider broader implications for the town’s landscape.