0:00The proposed Dunkin’ Donuts site, represented by attorney James Turtle, involves demolishing an existing structure to construct a facility with a focus on drive-thru and walk-in service. Traffic management was a primary concern, with the applicant’s traffic engineer, Nichol Fesi, presenting plans that accommodate up to 13 cars in the drive-thru queue. This design aims to prevent traffic congestion from spilling onto New Road, which could potentially impact access to adjacent businesses. Modifications like signage indicating a “do not block the box” area were proposed to ensure smooth traffic flow.

Board members expressed varied opinions on the application, with some supporting the location as suitable for the Dunkin’ Donuts while others voiced concerns about exacerbating congestion at a nearby busy intersection. Comparisons were made to a similar Dunkin’ Donuts on Route 10, which has a single-lane drive-thru. Concerns were raised about whether the proposed site could manage traffic without causing additional delays.

In response to these concerns, the applicant emphasized that the average queue length for Dunkin’ Donuts is usually around nine cars. Despite assurances, some board members requested more concrete data to assess the potential traffic impact more accurately.

The discussion also touched on the operational aspects of the Dunkin’ Donuts, including the absence of seating, focusing instead on quick service. The board explored the implications of restricting the site to only a Dunkin’ Donuts, raising the possibility of establishing conditions to prevent a future change to another type of fast-food establishment that could generate more traffic.

1:09:08In another significant topic, the board addressed the contentious issue of a residential structure’s layout on Adelphia Road, which included habitable spaces in the attic and basement. The applicant faced scrutiny over the number of bathrooms and the potential for the structure to be classified as a multi-family dwelling, which is not permitted in the area. Concerns about the building’s height relative to surrounding homes were also a subject of debate, with the applicant maintaining that the structure complied with zoning height regulations.

16:54The board’s discussions extended to the drainage and utility aspects of the development, with the applicant agreeing to provide further information and clarifications. The board decided to carry the case forward to the next meeting, allowing for additional evidence to be presented.

1:27:38Additionally, the meeting included deliberations over a development on Route 10 West, featuring a proposal for 156 residential units. Discussions highlighted the need for compliance with affordable housing requirements and concerns about site management, including pedestrian access and recreational areas. The applicant committed to extending sidewalks around the building and addressing parking space allocations to potentially increase green space.