===PAGE 1=== TOWN OF L UNENBURG Office of the Planning Board Tanner Cole, Chair Tel: (978) 582 -4147, ext 5 Matthew Allison, Vice Chair Fax: (978) 582 -4353 Paula Bertram, Clerk 960 Massachusetts Avenue Matthew Brenner, M ember Lunenburg, MA 01462 Erik Torgers en, Member Adam R. Burney Land Use Director Marjorie J. Boggio Administrative Assistant Minutes Public Hearing 475 Leominster Shirley Road (previously 1263 Reservoir Road & 435 Leominster-Shirley Road) November 15, 2021 Meeting Posted: Yes Place: Town Hall, 17 Main Street, Lunenburg, MA Time: 5:34 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Present: Tanner Cole, Matthew Allison, Paula Bertram, Adam R. Burney Absent: Matthew Brenner, Erik Torgersen The Hearing continuation was to hear and review applications for site plan approval and stormwater management permit under Ch. 250, Section 8.4. and Chapter 204 respectively of the Code of the Town of Lunenburg for construction of a 372,000 square foot warehouse and distribution building off Leominster -Shirley Road at 1263 Reservoir Road (Map 142, Parcel 0006) , owner Paul Keating (Heirs) c/o Mary Coburn, et. al., 998 Reservoir Road, Lunenburg, MA 01462 and 435 Leominster -Shirley Road (Map 143, Parcel 0007), Lunenburg, MA, owner J&A Realty Trust, Daniel L. McNiff Trustee, 280 Great Road, Shirley MA 01464. Applicant is JMC/TBG Lunenburg, LLC, 100 Grandview Road, Suite 203, Braintree, MA 02184. In attendance , either in -person or via Zoom, were project engineer Bill Hannigan, Han nigan Engineering and representatives from The Brennan Group, Inc., John M. Corcoran & Co., Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., and MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. Heather Monticup, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (hereinafter GPI) brought the Board up to date, noting an October 18, 2021 review letter f rom MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. As a result of requested clarification or supplemental analysis from MDM, updates were provided by GPI. Based on those updates, a supplemental review letter was provided by MDM. Mitigation commitments from GPI included:  Prior to occupancy, pavement markers at the intersection of Leominster Shirley Road and Fort Pond Road.  Bicycle lanes along the site frontage.  Easement to the Town along a portion of the site frontage.  Prior to occupancy, a n intersection design report and 10% design plan with survey for the intersection of Leominster Shirley Road at Fort Pond Road.  Within three months of occupancy, a traffic monitoring study.  Tree cutting and brush clearing along the south si de of Leominster Shirley Road at Reservoir Road to improve sight lines.  Working with the DPW to clean up existing sign clutter and additional signage along Leominster Shirley Road . ===PAGE 2=== Minutes, 11.15.2021 1263 Reservoir Road & 435 Leominster-Shirley Road Page 2  Left-turn lane for the eastern site driveway to improve traffic flow and mitigate vehicle queuing on Leominster Shirley Road. The Applicant also committed to a post -construction monitoring study to address potential unanticipated traffic impacts. If the facility exceeded 140 peak hour trips (weekend AM or weekday PM) the Applicant could advance the 10% design to a final engineered plan that could provide the basis for mitigation by other future developments in the area, state funding request o r state grant program application. P. Bertram raised concerns that in the event the Town was unable to receive a grant, the cost of improvements would be Lunenburg’s responsibility. GPI responded that the intersection needed improvements whether or not this project went in. A final engineered plan would be their fair -share contribution. A. Burney stated that the complete cost to renovate the intersection, from design to completion, was beyond the commitment of a single development. P. Bertram stressed that if the facility exceeded 140 peak hour trips, it would be worsening the situation; she did not feel the Town should incur any financial burden. T. Cole asserted that the Applicant had done a good job mitigating the impacts of traffic associated with the project. He went on to note current traffic increase due to the growth of industrial projects already located in that vicinity. He did not feel it was this Applicant’s responsibility to mitigate, when a lot of the growth and safety concerns were already ongoing and not relative to this project. Dan Dumais, Senior Project Manager, MDM Transportation, stated that MDM did a sensitivity analysis to come up with a percentage increase of entering volume at the Leominster Shirley Road and Fort Pond Road inter section. Normal warehouse use (e.g. dry goods warehouse) equated to ~70 trips, a 5% increase to the intersection. They also looked at a higher industrial use (e.g. warehouse that facilitated the movement of goods to a final destination) which equated to ~25% increase. As the tenants were unknown, MDM came up with another threshold which would cause a significant change in the number of trips. Normal threshold would be ~10% increase in traffic, which for this project would be only 7 trips. MDM doubled t he trips to 140 which equated to 14 trips. Bill Hannigan, Project Engineer, Hannigan Engineering believed that a lot of the traffic on the road came from Leominster, via Prospect Street (Leominster) to Route 2. The traffic impact was being addressed wi thin the proposed mitigation. If it went above 140 peak hour trips, then some of the design features noted in the mitigation package would be implemented. P. Bertram opined there were too many unknowns as to tenants and cost of traffic improvements. S he wanted the Decision to include a trigger that the cost be revisited if volume reached a 25% increase. T. Cole emphasized the beneficial tax revenue to the Town, which would help pay for the improvements. He reiterated the Applicant’s efforts to mitigate the impact of its project. P. Bertram explained she was in favor of the project, but not knowing the potential cost of traffic impacts, and if the facility exceeded the 140 trips, it would be financially devastating to the Town. She did not belie ve the mitigation package went far enough. She wanted to see an incremental fair share based on impact. A. Burney emphasized that the Board needed to put a finite timeline on the impacts being measured. He proposed that a ny increase up to 446 site trips (as defined by GPI), would abide by current mitigation measures. Anything over that number, within 12 months of occupancy, would trigger additional mitigation. GPI and MDM used the existing information to come up with the current numbers. There would not be a solid answer until vehicles were coming out of the site . At this time, it would not be possible to determine the Applicant’s fair share. A. Burney felt that the building would be at 100% occupancy within 12 months. The Applicant’s proportional share could be tied to the proportional increase in traffic. It was determined that the initial timeline would be at 3 months, then at 100%. ===PAGE 3=== Minutes, 11.15.2021 1263 Reservoir Road & 435 Leominster-Shirley Road Page 3 The last bullet point under Phase II would be edited to read, “The Applicant shall implement additional mitiga tion actions to offset identified project impact on a proportional impact basis as outlined in the 10% design submission. The form of this contribution will be determined between the Planning Board and DPW Director and will be equivalent to the impact of traffic increase at the intersection of Leominster Shirley Road and Fort Pond Road. Over baseline condition is outlined in GPI’s traffic volume and trip generation letter dated July 15, 2021.” Hours of construction would be 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. Saturday, No Sundays or holidays. Appendix B would become part of the Conditions in the Decision. P. Bertram made Motion to close the Hearing for 475 Leominster Shirley Road , M. Allison Secon ded, passed unanimously. all aye. Hearing closed 7:13 p.m. Documents used at meeting: Draft Decision