The board devoted attention to the traffic implications of the Dunkin’ drive-thru proposal, especially regarding vehicle stacking and movement during peak hours. Concerns were voiced about the potential for congestion on East Long Meadow Road, with projections indicating up to 62 trips during peak times. A representative from the project team acknowledged that the drive-thru lane could accommodate only eight vehicles, not the twelve initially suggested, which could pose challenges for traffic flow and safety if not addressed properly.

Discussion included the necessity of ensuring unimpeded sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The traffic engineer assured compliance with minimum sight distance requirements, yet acknowledged persistent issues with left turns at the driveways and overall congestion at the East Long Meadow Road intersection during busy periods.

Additionally, the board explored the possibility of adjusting the driveway’s location to improve access and reduce congestion, with suggestions to consult neighboring property owners for potential alignments. The idea of installing a traffic light or reconfiguring access points, such as allowing entry from Summer’s Road, was debated. However, there were differing opinions on whether these measures would alleviate or exacerbate traffic issues.

Pedestrian safety was another focal point, with discussions on the need for sidewalk installations to ensure safe access to the retail area. Board members stressed the importance of clear pedestrian pathways, particularly in navigating the drive-thru lane, a concern highlighted by referencing existing traffic patterns at a similar Dunkin’ location.

Stormwater management was a critical aspect of the board’s review, with discussions centered on the project’s proposed drainage systems. The project team presented a stormwater management strategy that included a water quality swale and a detention basin designed to treat and control runoff. However, concerns were raised about the adequacy of these measures, given high groundwater levels and the absence of a formal drainage system. The board emphasized the need for a robust operation and maintenance plan to ensure the longevity and functionality of the stormwater infrastructure.

Further scrutiny involved the potential impact of additional pavement on runoff, with suggestions to reposition drainage points to mitigate water flow onto roads, particularly during winter conditions. The project’s compliance with town regulations, including those related to the water supply protection overlay district, was also examined in detail.

One resident urged the board to consider relocating the driveway to enhance traffic stacking and reduce cut-through traffic. The board acknowledged the importance of incorporating community feedback into their decision-making process.

As the meeting concluded, discussions about the project’s alignment with the town’s master plan were broached, emphasizing aspects such as aquifer protection, rural character, and pedestrian access. While a master plan alignment analysis was suggested, it was noted that this was not a requisite for the applicant, leading to deliberations on the extent of review necessary for a well-informed decision.