Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board raises safety and queuing concerns for proposed Starbucks at 210 Turnpike Road
Summary
A developer presented a site plan for a 2,400‑square‑foot coffee shop with drive‑through at 210 Turnpike Road; board members and residents pressed the applicant on Route 9 sight lines, drive‑through queuing, and delivery truck routing ahead of the Planning Board review.
Sam Alfronte, a registered engineer with Solar Engineering, told the Select Board the owner proposes a 2,400‑square‑foot coffee shop at the corner of Park Street and Route 9 and "the development will result in 80 total parking spaces." The firm said the drive‑through queue as drawn exceeds the town's 12‑vehicle minimum and meets the tenant's prototype for stacking.
Board members and residents questioned safety where Park Street meets Route 9. Select Member Alan warned the location creates "a point of conflict where we would expect to see accidents," citing a sharp eastbound turn, limited sight‑lines and a recent lane reduction that encourages acceleration. Members urged the Planning Board to consider a deceleration/acceleration zone, restriping, or other mitigation even though the state owns the Route 9 right‑of‑way.
Concerns also focused on drive‑through operations and deliveries. Alfronte said the design provides for a queuing lane of 12–14 vehicles and that delivery trucks are typically 30‑foot box trucks; he added larger articulated deliveries would be restricted to off‑peak hours and may need to use parking spaces to complete turning maneuvers. Select Board members and residents asked for clearer surface markings, one‑way signage behind the building, limits on the size of trucks during business hours, and conditions directing delivery routing to avoid residential streets.
Planning Director Jenny and the applicant said the site is in the town's highway‑business district and that the project will go before the Planning Board for special‑permit site plan review. The applicant agreed to submit revised drawings showing truck‑turning diagrams, clearer pavement markings, and the BWALT easement location. Board members said they will forward the committee's traffic and safety comments to the Planning Board for consideration ahead of that review.
The board did not vote on the project; it provided comments for the Planning Board and asked the applicant to return with updated plans and clearer signage and delivery restrictions.
