Charlton planning board told 700‑vehicle cap proposed for Amazon ‘flex driver’ pickups; traffic study likely at public hearing
Loading...
Summary
A consultant described a small, fenced pick‑up area inside an existing Amazon facility and said the operator will cap inbound pickup visits at 700 per 24 hours. Town officials told the board a major site‑plan modification and a traffic study will be required and a public hearing must be held.
A consultant for the applicant described to the Town of Charlton Planning Board a proposed supplementary pickup operation at an existing Amazon facility and said the operator would give the town a firm cap of 700 inbound vehicle visits in a 24‑hour period.
"They're only there about 13 minutes," the presenter said, describing drivers in small sedans who are dispatched through an app and quickly load time‑sensitive items inside a 10,000–12,000 square‑foot fenced area. He said the applicant forecasts 350–400 daily pickups but agreed to present a maximum threshold the town could rely on: "that number will be 700." (Matt, presenter)
Why it matters: Planning staff told the board that the site’s original special permit contemplated minimal vehicle trips on Route 169 and Route 20 and that the change in use — adding frequent passenger‑vehicle pickups — would require a major modification and a new site‑plan application with a public hearing and traffic studies. An official reviewer said, "It certainly is... a site plan, public hearing" (Unidentified Speaker 3, building official).
Board members and attendees expressed questions about how the 700‑vehicle figure translates to peak‑hour pressure at the nearby 169/20 bottleneck. The presenter noted standard traffic engineering thresholds and recommended routing drivers in and out of the site via Route 169, rather than the signalized Route 20 intersection, to reduce congestion. He also offered to provide operational data from comparable facilities to help the town assess queueing and shift‑change concentrations.
Planning staff and board members flagged related concerns including off‑site parking, enforcement of ADA and fire access stalls, and safety during weekday shift changes. One board member said local enforcement has issued parking tickets near the site during busy periods and raised the risk of "near misses" during queuing.
Process next steps: Staff said the applicant will need to submit a major modification or a new site plan, including traffic studies, and the board will hold a public hearing. Planning staff recommended using the same consultant who prepared prior work for continuity; the presenter suggested re‑engaging the prior consultant (Blue Water) or other firms that modeled similar operations.
The board did not take a final land‑use vote on the flex‑driver proposal during the meeting; members directed staff to request operational data and to require a traffic study as part of any formal application. The agenda concluded with routine administrative business.
Ending note: The board emphasized that residents will have opportunity to comment at the required public hearing, and that traffic analysis will be central to any permit decision.
