My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/06/2026 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
05/06/2026 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/1/2026 5:02:42 PM
Creation date
5/27/2026 10:24:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/06/2026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
of TMs s,s <br /> z. <br /> Aannin Board <br /> c� <br /> 16 Great Neck Road NOYth <br /> .wlashpee, Aassachusetts 02649 <br /> property not owned but near rotary with 35 units, and Chipotle. She inquired if this changed <br /> their numbers. <br /> Mr. Adams answered it did change their numbers, but they don't change the conclusion. They <br /> are looking at how it operates without Trader Joes and with Trader Joes. Impacts increase <br /> with potential developments being added. They are interesting in impacts when adding in <br /> Trader Joes. <br /> Ms. Waygan asked how much of an impact this had and if they were able to see? <br /> Mr. Adams noted the LOS and queue from existing no build to build, there is documentation, <br /> but it's hard to strip out that impact. <br /> Mr. Lucas mentioned some additional impacts were seen in the no build. If you look at the <br /> difference between existing, no build, and build, that delay in LOS sometimes is a D and <br /> remains a D, but delay increase is slight, and that is based on the 7 year growth rate and <br /> these developments. There was an impact, looking at the original TIS which did not include all <br /> the listed developments, but through Board discussion and the Town Planner, they wanted to <br /> include these items. <br /> Ms. Waygan noted that was really good work. She noticed the comparable store in Hingham <br /> had a 40% highertrip generation estimate. <br /> Mr. Adams stated their original trip generation was performed with industry standard, by way <br /> of looking at a particular project given land use type. At the request of peer review and <br /> discussion here, they were asked to collect site specific data at a comparable store. The <br /> volumes observed in Hingham were 40% higher than what was generated by the engineers. <br /> Given the configuration, Hingham is in a parking lot with other commercial uses, so the two <br /> engineers were not able to follow every car parking and what store the person enters. They <br /> were all added to the same bucket, meaning every car was counted without knowing if they <br /> went to Trader Joes or a different commercial use in that parking field. There are only so <br /> many comparable sites, but 40% is statedly a bit higher. <br /> Ms. Faulkner referenced the original TIS on Saturday midday having a calculation similar to <br /> the Hingham trip generation. The next item was the store trip with two categories where one <br /> engineer counted 264 and the other counted 256. Were those numbers added together? <br /> Ms. Waygan wants to know the impact of that 40%, are those original numbers up by 40% <br /> and if the Table 1 shows new updated site generation data. <br /> 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.