At this evening’s Planning Board meeting, representatives from Howard Stein Hudson ratified the traffic impact assessment conducted by Vanesse & Associates regarding the possible commercial development of the Temple Shalom property. In their memorandum to Bill Clark, Milton Planning Director they state:
“Overall, HSH finds that the comments raised in the peer review have been satisfactorily addressed. The proponent has demonstrated that the additional vehicular traffic generated by the proposed Temple Shalom redevelopment can be adequately accommodated on the adjacent transportation network through implementation of the mitigation proposed in the December 17, 2009 Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA).” — You can view the full text of the letter here.
Board members heard from Jeff Dirk of Vanesse & Associates, the firm that conducted the traffic impact assessment, regarding the Temple Shalom development and Keri Pyke of Howard Stein Hudson, the firm hired to perform a peer review of that assessment.
Recently, a majority of the Planning Board voted to recommend an article for Special Town Meeting that would amend the zoning bylaws and permit a commercial overlay of the temple property. Temple Shalom is working with Coffman Realty on a commercial development proposal that would consist of a small grocery, a CVS pharmacy, and a new smaller scale temple. A primary concern voiced by all concerned has been the traffic impact that such a development would have on the neighborhood. Coffman hired Vanesse & Associates to perform this assessment. The Planning Board required that a peer review of the assessment be performed. This is standard practice, and Coffman paid for both the study as well as the peer review.
The process works as follows: Vanesse performs an assessment, which is evaluated by Hudson to confirm it is correct and completed according to standard, accepted industry practices. In performing the peer review, Hudson highlights issues they have with the initial report and issues a memorandum detailing them. Vanesse then takes those items under advisement and responds accordingly, discussing with Hudson as needed. Hudson then reviews the response and accepts or rejects the revisions and so on.
Mr. Kirk reviewed his findings and revisions made, highlighting the increase in traffic volumes, how they came to those findings, and outlined steps to manage traffic into and out of the development and a matrix of traffic calming measures that might be taken throughout the adjacent neighborhood streets. These measures were intended as options for what could be done and would be further discussed and evaluated in concert with neighborhood and appropriate town departments (e.g. Planning Board, Police, etc.) during the site permit process.
Ms. Pyke then went through the issues they had identified in their peer review. These included but were not limited to a desire for more information on crash analyses, site distances, methods for determining trip generation, parking demand, traffic circulation within the site, and traffic mitigation measures.
Ms. Pyke confirmed that Vanesse had satisfied all of Hudson’s principal concerns. She acknowledged that certain issues such as traffic circulation on the site, pick up and drop off at Campbell School, location of trash and frequency of pick up, and snow removal and storage were issues for the site planning process. When asked by Pete Jackson, Chairman of the Planning Board, if the firms had “a meeting of the minds.” Pyke stated, “Yes, that’s true” and that they were satisfied. You can find the pertinent documents below. A link to Hudson’s letter stating they are satisfied with the Vanesse response will be added when it becomes available.
Mr. Duffy asked both of the traffic analysts if measures could be taken to protect schoolchildren, specifically a guard rail. Kirk acknowledged that the space for a guardrail was there but both Kirk and Pyke did not believe it would meet state regulations. Kirk suggested a 6″ curb as a possibility. Duffy also asked if either of them knew of any restrictions there might be for motorcycles. They did not.
The board then entered into a discussion about the recommendation/report to be made to Special Town Meeting. It became fractious. Whiteside and Jackson had each authored a recommendation both of which had merits according to Ms. Innes. However, neither Whiteside nor Jackson could fully endorse the other’s statement. At issue was not the conclusion (they both recommend the article) but how the board reached it. In the end it was decided to include both.
Lastly, the board discussed the next steps with the master plan. Jackson recommended holding a forum to present the findings to the public and have a discussion. Mr. Lynch questioned the methodology of the survey and stated his opinion that it was not representative of the community. Jackson and Innes disagreed and believe it is statistically valid.
Whew.
Related links: