Committee presses consultants on traffic, wastewater buffer and public‑works siting for MCI plan

Consultant Alisa presented a summary of public engagement on the MCI/Junction Village illustrative plans and told the committee that participants favored mixed‑use, pedestrian‑oriented design and preservation of on‑site historic features. "There is support for a variety of affordable housing options for all," Alisa said when listing common themes from workshops and stakeholder meetings.

The design conversation quickly focused on access and infrastructure. Multiple committee members warned that one primary means of egress would not support the scale shown in the illustrative plan and pressed for a second access point or alternative connections. Members reviewed MassDOT alternatives for Route 2 and favored the option that shifts a ramp and optimizes MCI land use; several said the curb‑cut the developer seeks must be negotiated with MassDOT and that a second access should be pursued.

Several speakers criticized portions of the illustrative plan that allocate large setbacks or 300‑foot buffer circles to surface parking adjacent to the wastewater treatment facility. One member described the current plan as creating "an amphitheater of parking highlighting the wastewater treatment plant," and urged consideration of nonresidential buffer buildings or additional green space instead of parking facing housing.

The committee also questioned parking ratios and commercial program assumptions. Members asked whether the plan’s illustrative 1.8 parking spaces per unit could be reduced to support transit‑oriented design, and whether a larger or more diverse commercial mix (medical, small offices, year‑round market/hospitality) would better support a 24‑hour neighborhood than the modest retail footprint in the illustration.

On transportation analysis, several members requested a town‑commissioned traffic study to separate regional flow from site‑generated trips, arguing an independent town study would increase public confidence. Roundabouts at the site entrance(s) were discussed as preferable traffic‑calming measures; some members suggested MassDOT’s temporary construction bridges or temporary traffic measures be studied as potential lasting access improvements during Route 2 reconstruction.

Next steps called for closer coordination: the committee asked consultants to document how public feedback will be integrated into revised schemes, to provide clearer traffic and access modeling, and to return with a more explicit financial feasibility analysis that ties affordability percentages to development economics.