Cheverly officials and residents split over opening Lockwood and Inwood to Hospital Hill redevelopment

A traffic consultant’s analysis and residents’ safety concerns set the tone at a Cheverly community meeting on the proposed Hospital Hill (Urban Atlantic) redevelopment, where officials said any decision to open Lockwood Road and Inwood Street to vehicular traffic will be conditioned on annexation guarantees and enforceable traffic mitigation.

“My name is Jack Good. I’m with Morton Thomas and Associates,” said Jack Good, the on-site traffic engineer who presented the study and described a two‑phase project that would include multifamily units, townhouses, a hotel, retail and medical office. Good told residents that the study intersections met level-of-service thresholds but recommended geometric improvements and neighborhood measures such as speed humps, chokers, one‑way pairs and bollards to slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety.

The meeting’s purpose, Mayor (Mayor) said, was to hear council members’ positions and receive community feedback before the town sets a date for a formal vote. The Mayor argued the town can require design and enforcement measures even if it does not pay for the street work: “We have the authority to tell the developer this is how we want the street even though we’re not paying for it,” the Mayor said, adding that Chicanes, raised speed humps and police enforcement would be part of the town’s conditions.

Council members voiced a mix of positions. Council member Wade (Ward 1) said she remains guided by residents’ input and independent study results: “I have not fully made any decision regarding it,” Wade said, and emphasized that if there is no guarantee of annexation “there is no — you will not have my vote” to open streets. Council member Allaker (Ward 4) argued that some vehicular access is in the town’s long‑term interest and can help attract and sustain retailers.

Several residents who live on streets that would connect to the site pressed the council on immediate safety risks and property values. “We’re not against the development. We’re against our streets being opened up,” said Joe Deutsch, a Tremont resident, describing concerns about speeding, double‑parking and noise. Other speakers urged alternatives emphasizing walkability, green connectors and a central community space rather than vehicle thoroughfares.

Speakers cited town engagement and survey results. The Mayor and council referenced a local survey that the meeting record shows had roughly 175 respondents and a higher percentage opposing opening streets without conditions; at the meeting Council members noted the response rate represents a portion of the town’s population and said additional outreach is needed.

Lance Asher (Ward 1) asked a series of procedural and evidentiary questions: what guaranteed benefits would direct vehicular access provide absent annexation, whether the county is likely to approve annexation and whether developers have committed in writing to support annexation. The Mayor said developers have indicated they would provide a letter supporting annexation and stressed annexation would be the central bargaining tool: without annexation, the Mayor said, she does not support three‑street access.

Residents and online commenters also raised parking‑spillover and enforcement concerns, warning that without planned access or controls, visitors and new residents would park on small neighborhood streets. Others argued that the sector plan adopted in 2018 calls for connections at Lockwood and Inwood and that connections can help attract stable, long‑lasting retail.

On fiscal questions, a comment at the meeting noted an estimated annual increase in municipal revenue of roughly $600,000 cited in the materials; council members said any future tax benefit would accrue over time and that partial tax receipts could be realized before full build‑out if annexation and development proceed.

The council did not take a final vote on street openings at the meeting. The Mayor asked staff to poll council availability and said she expected a vote date to be scheduled before the end of the preliminary planning process (the Mayor suggested the September work session as a latest target). The meeting closed on a motion to adjourn by Council member Garces, seconded by Council member Allaker; a voice vote ended the session with the Mayor declaring, “the ayes have it.”

Next steps: council members will provide available dates to staff so the Mayor can set a formal meeting and vote; residents were urged to continue outreach to their council representatives and to request any developer materials (security/maintenance plans and annexation letters) for public review.