Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board backs traffic peer review, flags delivery and driveway concerns for 592 Washington Street project
Summary
Select Board approved (4–1) Tighe & Bond’s traffic peer review for a proposed 19‑unit building at 592 Washington Street but asked the Planning Board letter be amended to note concerns about a reduced 20‑foot driveway, delivery management, and potential double parking on Washington Street.
The Wellesley Select Board voted 4–1 on Jan. 27 to accept the traffic peer review prepared by Tighe & Bond for a proposed 19‑unit, three‑story condominium at 592 Washington Street and to transmit a recommendation letter to the Planning Board reflecting Select Board concerns.
Proponent Dean Behrend and traffic consultant Jeffrey Dirk of Vanasse & Associates presented a transportation impact assessment prepared under MassDOT guidance that estimated the project would generate between 16 and 20 peak‑hour vehicle trips — well below the Project of Significant Impact (PSI) threshold of 50 peak‑hour trips — and would not materially change levels of service at nearby intersections. “The project of 19 units is expected to generate between 16 and 20 peak hour vehicle trips,” Dirk said during the presentation.
Tighe & Bond traffic reviewer Alan Cloutier concurred with the trip and level‑of‑service findings but requested sight‑triangle graphics and vehicle‑turning templates to confirm that delivery vehicles, trash trucks, and fire apparatus can maneuver safely. Cloutier noted his calculations showed the largest percentage increase at any intersection was about 1.7 percent at Church Street, below PSI thresholds.
Board members focused on a discrepancy between the traffic report’s 24‑foot driveway reference and the site plans’ 20‑foot driveway, which the proponent said was reduced to preserve a large beech tree. Behrend explained the width reduction and described a concierge and delivery‑management plan that would direct deliveries to off‑peak hours and use a front‑lobby package station. Dirk described Transportation Demand Management measures including a transportation coordinator, resident welcome packets, EV charging, and secure bicycle parking for at least 28 bicycles.
Several Select Board members and abutters expressed concern that the concierge model and four guest parking spaces may not prevent double parking or blocking of the travel lane if delivery drivers find the ramp inconvenient. Abutter Sheila Boyle said the neighborhood already experiences a high volume of commercial vehicle traffic and questioned whether the plan provided adequate turnaround or surface parking for large service vehicles. Another abutter, Anne Jackowitz, questioned the realism of limiting deliveries given her own nine‑unit building’s experience with frequent commercial traffic.
The Board approved the peer review as professionally conducted but directed the Executive Director and Chair to amend the recommendation letter to the Planning Board to reflect concerns about on‑site design elements that could create off‑site congestion, request the sight‑triangle graphics and vehicle‑turning templates, and confirm Fire Department input. Because the Planning Board was scheduled to revisit the matter on Feb. 9, the Select Board agreed to circulate the revised draft letter to members for individual feedback rather than reconvening a formal meeting.
The Select Board vote was Aufranc — Aye; Freiman — Aye; Largess — Aye; Sullivan Woods — No; Ulfelder — Aye.
Next steps: the Planning Board will consider the proposal on Feb. 9; the Select Board’s amended recommendation letter and requested technical graphics will be transmitted in advance of that hearing.
