Premier Fence proposes headquarters on Hill Street; neighbors cite traffic and safety concerns, planning board continues hearing

Andrew Plat of Bowler Engineering presented a plan for Premier Fence to relocate its headquarters to 0 Hill Street, describing a roughly 14.3‑acre site with wetlands and a vernal pool and a proposed building and outdoor display area. He said the project would need two special permits (one because it exceeds 10,000 square feet), an earth‑removal permit, a site plan approval (over 2,500 ft2) and three waivers including driveway width and landscape buffering. Andrew Plat and owner John Fick said fabrication would occur mainly inside the new building and that they held a neighborhood meeting on July 30.

The applicant described site layout details: two driveways forming a loop, a gravel laydown area of about three acres for fence materials, customer and employee parking with a total of 96 spaces (including accessible stalls), a gated paved area for larger company trucks, two 1,500‑gallon above‑ground fuel tanks in the northwest portion of the site, an above‑ground propane tank for building heating and an on‑site septic system because sewer is not available. Andrew Plat said most fabrication would be inside the building and that crews typically drive to the site in the morning and leave for job sites, so all 98 employees would not be present at once.

Bowman’s traffic engineer Emily Book summarized a traffic assessment based on a 24‑hour count at Premier Fence’s existing Canton location and applied resulting trip rates to the proposed building. She reported roughly 40 trips during the weekday morning peak hour, 41 trips during the weekday afternoon peak, and approximately 370 total weekday trips. For truck traffic she estimated about 18 truck trips in the morning peak, six in the afternoon peak and about 90 truck trips per day. Emily noted the counts were from one day of data at the Canton site and that the project team used conservative assumptions when applying rates to the Norton site.

Peer reviewer Doug Osler of Weston & Samson told the board the study scale was appropriate for the proposed use but recommended follow‑up checks: calculate sight‑distance using a 35 mph design speed (advisory signs and observed speeds may be higher than 30 mph), prepare truck‑turning templates (including for fire apparatus), and clarify classification of larger multi‑axle vehicles (his read of the counts suggested roughly four to six multi‑unit heavy vehicle movements per day). He also recommended routing larger trucks south toward Standish Boulevard where turning movements are easier.

Multiple residents across Hill Street spoke during public comment about safety and quality‑of‑life concerns. Lori Stewart (51 Hill Street) said: “my biggest concern is the truck traffic … Hill Street measures 18 in certain sections of the road where it's winding and 20 to 21 in other areas … average speed limit is 45 to 50 and someone’s going to end up getting killed on that street.” Laura Dean (53 Hill Street) said she attended the community meeting and reiterated worries about truck traffic, the new rail‑trail access that increases cyclist use, and the cumulative effects of adjacent approved development. Both called out early hours (5 a.m.), lighting and potential noise from on‑site fabrication as issues wanting mitigation.

Board members pressed the applicant on truck mix and operations. Emily and the applicant said the bulk of truck movements would be company vehicles and pickups; tractor‑trailers would be used for occasional deliveries. John Fick told the board that customer visits would be low—“typically 2 to 3 during the busy season.” The board discussed offsets of driveways relative to homes across the street, snow storage and whether additional speed monitoring should be done after Labor Day when school and rail‑trail users are fully active.

Given outstanding Conservation Commission review, peer reviewer items and resident concerns, Member Eric moved and Member Jim seconded a motion to continue the site‑plan/special‑permit hearing to September 10. The motion passed on roll call. The board asked the applicant to work with the traffic peer reviewer on sight‑distance figures, review turning templates, and to consider in‑season speed monitoring and any reasonable routing restrictions for larger trucks.

What’s next: the public hearing for SP‑6/SP‑10 at 0 Hill Street was continued to Sept. 10; the Conservation Commission review and peer‑review comments remain open. The applicant indicated it expects to continue working through peer review responses and conservation comments and that an updated submission would be provided ahead of the next hearing.