Planning board rejects Chick‑fil‑A special exception for drive‑through at 1357 Boston Post Road

The Milford Planning and Zoning Board on Sept. 2 declined to approve a special exception and site plan with coastal area management elements for a proposed Chick‑fil‑A with a dual‑lane drive‑through at 1357 Boston Post Road (Milford Crossing). The public hearing closed the same night and the board then voted on the application; the motion to approve failed.

Chaz Evans, the project engineer, described changes made since earlier hearings: additional striping, improved island layout, pedestrian connectivity and clearer traffic movements within the shopping center. John Martinez, development manager for Chick‑fil‑A, explained the chain’s “dual ordering, dual fulfillment lane technology,” saying the configuration “handles the bottleneck” and reduces stacking by processing orders more quickly. The applicant provided a letter on the project from Barnes & Noble (on file with the record) and a revised site plan showing extra pavement striping.

Public commenters raised concerns about pedestrian safety, queueing, and the general appropriateness of adding a drive‑through to the plaza; multiple speakers suggested other commercial locations in the corridor might be better suited. Board members repeatedly questioned the proposed dual‑lane flow and whether the design would create bottlenecks that could spill into adjacent travel lanes. At one point, staff counsel asked the board to postpone voting until a full seven‑member board could sit for an approval; multiple board members opposed delay and elected to proceed. The board first voted to close the public hearing without objection, then considered a motion to approve the special exception. The approval motion failed on a roll call vote.

Vote record on the approval motion (motion to approve as presented): Mister Allen — against; Mister Anderson — against; Mister Hirsch — with the motion; Mister Mortimer — against; Mister Satti — against; Mister Ziaherides — against; Chairman Keish — against. Because the motion to approve did not pass, the application was not approved and remains unresolved; the applicant may revise and return or seek other action under the city’s review processes.

The board’s minutes record traffic operations, pedestrian safety and required parking impacts as the primary bases for opposition. No formal conditions or specific mitigations were accepted by the board as part of the failed motion.