Public hearing opened on Chick‑fil‑A at Milford Crossing after staff flags parking, pedestrian and traffic issues

The board opened a public hearing on a special‑exception site plan and Coastal Area Management (CAM) application from Chick‑fil‑A Inc. for a new fast‑food restaurant with a dual‑lane drive‑through at 1357 Boston Post Road in the Milford Crossing shopping center, but did not decide the application and agreed to continue the hearing to a later meeting so the applicant can supply additional materials.

The proposal calls for a roughly 5,097‑square‑foot Chick‑fil‑A building with approximately 90 interior seats and seasonal patio seating, a dual‑lane drive‑through, new curb cut(s) into the plaza and sidewalk extensions from the adjacent bus stop. John Knopf, attorney for the applicant, introduced the team; John Martinez, Chick‑fil‑A development manager, described the dual‑lane drive‑through design and said the site is configured so "approximately 36 cars can be in our drive through without even spilling into our parking lot." Engineering and traffic consultants presented a site plan and traffic work that proposed new striping, pedestrian crosswalks and a raised crosswalk with rapid flashing beacons.

Staff and several board members raised multiple technical questions about parking allocation, pedestrian safety, sight lines and turning radii. Planning staff’s administrative summary noted the application is a special exception in the Shopping Center Design District and that the applicant must show a 10‑car waiting position before the ordering area and two waiting positions after ordering under Section 5.10.40.1(3). The staff memo also summarized parking computations: Barnes & Noble’s dedicated parking would be reduced from the zoning‑compliant count previously associated with that pad (125 spaces required) to 69 dedicated spaces in the proposed configuration (55 on‑site + 14 on the Walmart parcel). Chick‑fil‑A’s requirement was calculated as 68 spaces; the proposal provides 65 (40 on‑site + 25 on the Walmart parcel). Staff noted the overall shopping center would still have more than the plaza's minimum required parking (1,768 proposed vs. 1,667 required for the whole center).

Traffic consultants said they conducted counts (a Thursday count from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and a Saturday count from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.) and recommended striping, signage and a raised crosswalk to moderate the misaligned internal intersection near Barnes & Noble. "Most traffic is really going left, or coming along this access road and making a right turn, to go back up towards the traffic signal," said traffic consultant Ethan Chuksey. He described pavement markings, a raised crosswalk and rapid flashing beacons to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.

Engineers told the board the plan reduces impervious area by about 400 square feet, adds a water‑quality unit and proposes 14 new trees and more than 250 shrubs and perennials. The applicant also proposed EV charging (the plans showed several level‑2 chargers, and staff recorded a total of seven additional EV stalls but asked the applicant to declare charger type and demonstrate the 10% zoning threshold for the development parcel). Fire department review prompted a revised truck‑turning exhibit; the design team said they responded with revised turning templates and hydrant/FDC locations.

Public comment included residents who questioned the proliferation of quick‑service chicken restaurants nearby, concerns about pedestrian safety and worries Barnes & Noble customers would lose convenient parking. Sarah Bromley, a resident, said she was concerned about market saturation and local health impacts, and asked whether the retail and restaurant mix risked harming other businesses. Theresa Eek, another resident, expressed worry about the proposal reducing parking for Barnes & Noble customers.

Attorney Knopf and the team emphasized the larger plaza has cross‑parking arrangements and said Barnes & Noble had given consent to the concept; the applicant agreed to provide written confirmation of that consent. The applicant asked to keep the hearing open so it can supply additional technical documentation and for the board to hear the application with a full complement of members. The board agreed to continue the item to the next available meeting.

Next steps identified in the hearing record include providing a written consent from Barnes & Noble, clarifying EV charger types and counts, confirming drive‑through queuing meets Section 5.10.40.1(3), supplying the revised truck‑turning exhibit and documenting proposed sidewalk and raised‑crosswalk details.