A considerable amount of attention was given to the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) for the project, with residents and board members questioning its methodology and conclusions. Criticism was particularly directed at the TIA’s use of a breakdown lane for traffic management, which was described as inadequate and potentially hazardous given the high-speed nature of Route 9. Concerns were also raised about the TIA’s acknowledgment of failing levels of service at nearby intersections without proposing sufficient remedies.

Residents also expressed skepticism regarding the project’s potential environmental impact. Concerns about air pollution from idling vehicles and excessive water usage were highlighted, with some residents calculating that the emissions from cars idling in queue could result in significant CO2 output. Noise pollution was another point of contention, as the proposed sound barriers were deemed insufficient by several residents who questioned their effectiveness in maintaining the neighborhood’s tranquility.

Board members conveyed mixed reactions to the proposal, acknowledging the thoroughness of the traffic and site plans but expressing reservations about their practical implications. One member voiced concern over the need for police officers to manage traffic, viewing this as a sign of inadequate planning. Others questioned the feasibility of the car wash operating without causing significant disruptions to local traffic patterns, particularly given the potential for increased traffic volume from future developments in the area.

Public commentary was extensive and varied, with residents like Mr. Chang and Becky Fallon questioning the reliability of traffic predictions based on mapping software and the TIA’s assumptions. Concerns were raised about traffic flow disruptions caused by vehicles drying after washing and the potential for collisions due to slowed traffic. Victoria Grafflin criticized the project’s environmental impact, highlighting the substantial air and noise pollution she believed would result from the car wash.

Additionally, the board discussed the procedural aspects of the project, including the potential for a one-year review and the need for further input from other town agencies. A representative for the applicant argued that the proposal met the town’s zoning criteria, emphasizing that the car wash was a permissible use under current regulations.

The board ultimately decided to continue the hearing to June 3rd, allowing for further deliberation and the collection of additional public and expert input. This decision underscored the complexity and contentious nature of the proposed project, with board members recognizing the need for a examination of the various concerns raised.