Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board approves Valvoline site plan over neighbor safety objections

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Southborough Planning Board on May 12 approved a minor site plan for a Valvoline instant oil change at 361 Turnpike Road by a 3–2 vote despite strong neighborhood objections about shifting vehicle access onto narrow Flag Road and MassDOT’s refusal to allow new curb cuts on Route 9.

The Southborough Planning Board on May 12 approved a minor site plan for a Valvoline instant oil change at 361 Turnpike Road, despite sustained public concern that the proposed access onto Flag Road will shift traffic and safety risks onto a narrow scenic road.

The five‑member board voted 3–2 to approve the plan with conditions. Chair Suzanne Luttrell, Planning Board member Jesse Stein and member John Rasio voted in favor; members Julianne Lehan and (last name recorded as) Demiria voted no.

The vote followed engineering and traffic discussion about possible driveway locations and a clear statement from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation — as reported to the board — that "they would not approve any curb cuts on Route 9," a point the applicant and planning staff said left Flag Road as the only practical access option. Vito Colonna of Cornerstone Engineering, the applicant's engineer, told the board that the project team reduced curb radii, relocated an existing stone wall, added a stop line and sign at the site exit, and proposed a “no right turn” sign onto Flag Road.

Neighbors and residents urged the board to require access from Route 9 rather than Flag Road. Howard Rose of 2 Bantry Road told the board: "Our safety is not worth $10,000 to $15,000 a year," referring to the projected tax benefit, and asked the board to deny a curb cut and force the issue back to the state. Tom Gittens, who lives off Flag Road, said he was generally supportive of the business but raised questions about speeds and sight distances on Route 9.

Planning staff and legal counsel told the board that a site plan is a nondiscretionary permit and the legal grounds to deny are narrow. The board’s discussion repeatedly returned to precedent: members noted a court decision in a ParkCentral 40B appeal in which the judge concluded additional traffic did not "significantly impact vehicular traffic or safety on Flag Road" in that larger project; several board members cited that decision in arguing denial would likely be overturned on appeal.

The conditions the board recorded in its approval include the stop line and stop sign shown on the submitted plans, installation of the proposed “no right turn” sign at the Flag Road exit, and a one‑year review to collect traffic‑incident reports and neighbor comments on noise and traffic after the business opens. The board also directed standard requirements such as recording the minor site plan with the town, as‑built plans before a certificate of occupancy, and town consultant site visits during construction.

The applicant confirmed hours of operation on the record: Monday–Friday, 7 a.m.–7 p.m.; Saturday, 8 a.m.–6 p.m.; Sunday, 9 a.m.–5 p.m. Police enforcement of the no‑right‑turn restriction was discussed; the police chief submitted a letter saying his department would enforce the restriction, but several residents noted the department’s staffing shortages and questioned how frequently the restriction could be policed.

The board also asked that staff prepare findings documenting neighborhood safety concerns and the 3–2 split vote for inclusion in the decision record. The approval will be followed by standard inspection and recording steps before the Valvoline location opens.

A copy of the approved minor site plan and the planning board’s conditions will be available in the planning office record. Residents may file appeals under state law during the statutory appeal period noted in the planning board decision.

Ending: The project now moves to the building and permitting stage with the conditions the board adopted; neighbors and board members said they expect staff to monitor traffic and noise during the one‑year review period.