However, board members questioned the adequacy of the study, particularly considering pedestrian safety and the use of flexible delineators intended to streamline the access driveway. The proposed one-way counterclockwise traffic flow for the drive-thru, absence of a bypass lane, and the impact of the drive-thru layout on nearby businesses, including a Wells Fargo bank, were thoroughly discussed.

Further scrutiny was placed on the drive-thru’s design and its ability to accommodate maximum vehicle queues without affecting site circulation or parking. Public comments highlighted the community’s skepticism about the need for variances and the general benefit of the project. Residents were particularly concerned with the increased risk of accidents, citing a history of crashes in the area, and the project’s potential effect on traffic, safety, and the community’s quality of life.

As the meeting progressed, the discussion extended to technical details such as lighting, signage, and the number of parking stalls needed for the proposed restaurant. The applicant sought variances for several aspects of the project, including parking within a setback in the front yard and the proximity of the parking to the building’s main entrance. They also requested waivers for lighting, including maximum light value at the property line, and signage size restrictions.

The board engaged with the applicant’s traffic engineer from Atlantic Traffic, who presented an analysis based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ guidelines. The findings suggested that vehicle speeds and turning radii at intersections near the site were within acceptable limits. The engineer advocated for site circulation modifications, including the introduction of a four-way stop and the removal of underutilized parking areas to enhance safety. They also emphasized the improved pedestrian connectivity via added sidewalks and crosswalks.

However, the board expressed concerns regarding the level of service (LOS) for the driveway exit onto Primaville Road, prompting a review by Middlesex County jurisdiction. The board and the applicant also deliberated on the provision of electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces and the potential designation of an accessible EV parking spot to ensure ADA compliance.

Despite the detailed analyses provided, interruptions from the audience conveyed frustration over the process’s length and the perceived lack of consideration for public testimonies. The interruptions necessitated reminders of the legal nature of the proceedings and the importance of hearing all testimonies before rendering a decision.