Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Permit Coopman topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board finds Coopman Lumber met traffic-monitoring condition after counts fell below projections

Dennis Planning Board · October 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The planning board voted Oct. 20 that Coopman Lumber satisfied a special-permit condition requiring spring and peak-summer traffic counts. Traffic engineer Randy Hart said actual counts were lower than the ITE projections in most periods and no further mitigation was required.

The Dennis Planning Board voted Oct. 20 to find that Coopman Lumber has satisfied a special‑permit monitoring condition after traffic counts submitted by the company showed volumes at or below previous projections.

Attorney Eliza Cox, representing Coopman Lumber, said condition 2 of the 2022 special permit required the company to return two years after opening with actual spring and peak-summer counts at the site driveway and the South Yarmouth Road/Route 28A intersection. Cox said the permit language contemplated pursuing a right‑turn exit with MassDOT only if peak‑season counts exceeded the original ITE projections by more than 10 percent.

Randy Hart, a principal with VHB, said the firm conducted counts in April and in peak summer (July) and compared the results with the ITE projections used in the original study. Hart said the only instance of higher volumes was an average weekday morning period with about 10 more vehicles than projected; evening weekday and Saturday midday counts were lower—by double‑digit amounts in several periods. "In our opinion, no further action should be required," Hart said.

Dirk Coopman, the company CEO, said Coopman was pleased with the findings and did not want to pursue additional site modifications. Board members who said they drive the corridor regularly voiced no observations of operational problems during different times of day.

A board member moved that the planning board find the special‑permit condition satisfied; the board seconded the motion and recorded affirmative roll-call votes from members present. Members noted Coopman may return in the future if it proposes changes that trigger additional review.

The board’s vote closes the two‑year monitoring requirement but does not preclude follow‑up if future counts or changes to site operations indicate a problem.