Planning board denies drive‑through special permit for 210 Turnpike Road, approves site plan

The Westborough Planning Board voted March 3 to deny a special permit that would have allowed a drive‑through coffee shop at 210 Turnpike Road, after several hours of public comment and technical review. The board then approved the applicant's site plan by majority vote, a result that allows construction of the building but bars operation of the drive‑through feature because the special permit was not granted.

Planner Jenny Gingrich and the applicant's traffic engineer, Sam Ellefrante of Soli Engineering, told the board the project's traffic impact study followed MassDOT standards and had been peer‑reviewed; MassDOT indicated the nearby Route 9/Park Street intersection is not a high‑crash location. Ellefrante cited industry trip‑generation rates (ITE) showing a relatively small incremental AM peak‑hour increase for a coffee shop with a drive‑through versus without one; for the proposed building footprint the panel estimated roughly a mid‑teens additional vehicle trips in the peak hour attributable to the drive‑through component.

That technical information did not resolve concerns raised by numerous abutters and neighborhood representatives. Ron Malconian, Wayne Webster and others said Park Street and adjacent intersections already feel unsafe and argued a drive‑through would add queuing, delay and pollution near largely residential areas. "We have 180 homes that rely on Park Street to get in and out," said Wayne Webster, who warned of access hardships if right‑turn volumes increase during peak periods. Several residents asked the board to require off‑site roadway improvements, such as a deceleration lane on Route 9, before any drive‑through is allowed.

Board members debated the narrow legal standard for denying a special permit under the zoning bylaw: a special permit may be denied only if a condition peculiar to the site would create a nuisance, hazard or congestion that produces substantial harm to the neighborhood. Some members argued the site's single access from a side street is unique and heightens risk; others said the town's peer review consultant and MassDOT findings must carry weight and cautioned that denying without technical grounds could fail on appeal. Planner Gingrich told the board the peer reviewer had recommended possible mitigations (including an offer to seek shoulder widening with MassDOT) and suggested a one‑year operational review if the use were permitted.

After deliberation the board denied the special permit for the drive‑through. The chair announced, "The special permit is denied." The board then took a separate vote on site plan review and approved the submitted site plan by a recorded majority (the board announced the site plan approval). Because the special permit was denied, the drive‑through use cannot legally operate; the applicant may construct the building as designed but would need the special permit before operating a drive‑through. The board also included conditions and mitigation language in the draft decision that referenced cooperation with MassDOT, a $10,000 applicant contribution toward potential design/construction of off‑site improvements (subject to MassDOT approval), and a one‑year review of drive‑through operations should the use be approved in the future.

Sam Ellefrante, the applicant's engineer, said the team had revised the traffic analysis in response to peer review and town staff comments. "Safety and accessibility was a main portion of that traffic impact study," he said, noting the study used MassDOT methodologies and a third‑party consultant's review. Abutters countered that the study does not reflect the lived experience of drivers and residents at rush hour.

The board's decision leaves open options for the applicant: they may return in the future to seek the special permit again (subject to the zoning time limits and whether the site plan is substantially changed), or revise site plans if they choose to pursue a different configuration without a drive‑through. The board also recorded several findings and conditions intended to protect public safety and provide a mechanism for post‑opening review should the drive‑through be proposed and permitted later.