Summary:
- The Colvest Group has filed an appeal in Hampden County Superior Court challenging a Longmeadow Planning Board condition tied to its proposed Towne Shoppes of Longmeadow development at 916 Williams Street: a restriction requiring the project’s primary driveway on Williams Street to operate as a right-turn-only exit. While the Planning Board otherwise approved the site plan, Colvest is asking the court to review the decision to restrict the project’s primary driveway to a right-turn-only exit, a condition Colvest says threatens the functionality and viability of the development.
- Colvest argues that the restriction is not supported by the two independent traffic studies, neither of which recommended banning left turns from the western primary driveway. In fact, the traffic analysis found that the proposed driveway intersections on Williams Street provide sufficient sight distance to meet recognized roadway design and safety standards, and that the project’s traffic would have only a minor effect on overall traffic operations during peak periods.
- In its decision, the Planning Board referenced a proposal prepared by Fuss & O’Neill Engineers, recommended for consideration by the Town DPW, which the Town commissioned from a MassWorks grant to evaluate roadway and intersection improvements in the surrounding Williams Street, Redfern Drive and Bliss Road areas.
- Although the Colvest site plan and the Fuss & O’Neill Engineers proposal have become linked in public discussion, the recommended roadway improvements were not made in response to the design of the project’s primary driveway at issue with the Planning Board, and Colvest has previously agreed to support improvements at the Williams Street, Redfern Drive and Frank Smith Road intersection.
Clearing up what this appeal is, and what it is not
Because traffic discussions in this part of Longmeadow have involved more than one proposal, it is important to distinguish Colvest’s appeal from the Fuss & O’Neill proposal.
Colvest’s appeal concerns one specific issue at 916 Williams Street: the Planning Board’s restriction limiting the project’s primary driveway to right-turn-only exit. The town’s separate work with Fuss and O’Neill is a broader municipal roadway project, which is under consideration by the Town. Colvest recommends that there is nothing in that proposal which is inconsistent with the Colvest site plan as filed.
What is the separate Fuss & O’Neill project?
The Williams/Bliss/Redfern corridor work is a proposed Town-led infrastructure effort. Public materials from the Town show that the current MassWorks grant funds design work for improvements stretching from the Redfern Drive and Williams Street intersection west toward Williams Street, Bliss Court and Bliss Road. The design concepts presented publicly include items such as signalized improvements at the Redfern-Williams St. intersection, changes to the “triangle” circulation area and a potential roundabout concept in the corridor which would be farther west of the Colvest site. Colvest’s appeal is not a challenge to the Town’s broader planning goals.
What did the traffic record say about the left-turn exit?
The project record included two independent traffic studies. One was prepared by Colvest, the other was commissioned by the Planning Board at Colvest’s expense. Neither study recommended banning left turns from the western driveway. Instead, both traffic studies found that although left-turn exiting movements were expected to experience average delays during daily morning and afternoon peak hours, the traffic anticipated from the proposed development can be safely accommodated on the existing roadway system.
Comments to the site plan from Town departments focused on the eastern driveway’s current location near the Redfern-Williams St. intersection. Colvest has agreed to move that curb cut farther away from the intersection. No comments identified the left-turn movement from the Colvest primary driveway as a separate safety problem requiring elimination. The studies also found that the available sight distance at the proposed driveways exceeded applicable standards.