The primary focus of the meeting was the ongoing application from Countryside Properties LLP, identified as BOA Case Number 05-22, which proposed the construction of three multifamily residential buildings. The application had been under board review for several meetings, reflecting its complexity and the need for multiple variances. In particular, the board had requested a detailed traffic impact study to accompany the application, requiring the applicant to bifurcate their request. This meant addressing the D1 use variance separately from other site plan and C variance issues.

Traffic expert William Masel, representing the applicant, presented a detailed traffic impact report. He described the methodology used, which included automated traffic recordings and video analysis at critical intersections near the proposed site. Masel’s report concluded that the development would minimally impact local traffic, citing only five AM peak hour trips and six PM peak hour trips as anticipated increases. He reassured the board that traffic conditions at key intersections would remain at optimal levels, even with projected growth.

However, the board raised concerns about the methods used to gather and analyze the traffic data. Questions focused on the reliance on subcontractors for both video recording and manual traffic counts. The subcontractor, identified as National Data and Surveying Services, utilized automated recording devices and video technology to collect data, which was then analyzed using Synchro software. Despite standard industry practice, board members expressed skepticism about the lack of direct oversight during data collection and the absence of firsthand cross-referencing against video footage.

The board discussed the implications of the traffic data, considering potential discrepancies between automated recordings and manual counts. Concerns echoed previous applications where data credibility had been questioned, prompting board members to propose additional verification measures. Suggestions included having the traffic expert review the video footage or requesting further testimony from the subcontractor.

Ultimately, the board reached a consensus to pursue verification by having the traffic expert review the video footage and ensure that it corroborated the reported data. If the findings aligned, a letter from the expert would suffice to validate the traffic report.

In addition to the traffic study discussions, the board also addressed procedural matters relating to the scheduling of the 2025 reorganization meeting, which was moved to the third Thursday in January. This decision required a special notice due to the cancellation of the typical first Thursday meeting in January. The board also approved minutes from previous meetings held in October, further solidifying the administrative aspects of their proceedings.

Before concluding the meeting, the board agreed to extend the application period for the Countryside Properties proposal to March 31, 2025, allowing time for the traffic expert’s review and any subsequent actions. The board planned to reconvene on January 16, 2025, to discuss the findings and proceed with the application.