Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 12/28/2020
EASTHAMPTON – The intersection of East Street and Route 5 may have a different look and traffic pattern thanks to the Dunkin’ restaurant proposed at nearby 5 and 9 East St.
Traffic has been one of the principal concerns raised by citizens and the Planning Board during the public hearing regarding a special permit and stormwater management permit for the project, which has been ongoing since June. Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Emanuel Sardinha of American Dream Realty LLC in Westfield, Rob Levesque of R. Levesque Associates told the Planning Board at its Dec. 15 meeting that Sardinha would be willing to finance the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection.
“It’s fair to say we know this intersection very well,” Levesque said. “We understand the issue. We have had heartfelt discussions about the traffic here. We see that a signal makes sense here. We see there is an existing problem that is going to grow and the project could make it worse.”
Levesque estimated for the purpose of the conversation that the installation of the signal would cost roughly $500,000, expenses Sardinha would absorb. He characterized it as a potential win-win as it would allow the business to open and would present the community the opportunity for an improvement to a problematic intersection for which there are no public funds available. He said he felt if there were no other outstanding concerns and traffic was the primary issue remaining, this was a means for the applicant and the city to meet in the middle.
“It might not be the perfect solution, but it should be a pretty darn good solution. It’s going to benefit the city of Easthampton with an existing problem and it certainly is going to benefit Mr. Sardinha with the function of Dunkin’,” Levesque said.
Levesque said similar agreements are reached regularly when developing commercial properties. “This isn’t out of the ordinary,” he said.
Levesque and Jeff Bandini of McMahon Associates, which conducted the traffic study, presented data that showed the intersection has experienced backlogs that are projected to grow even if the project is not approved. Representatives of the applicant have maintained throughout the process that the restaurant would not create a significant number of unique trips and the majority of vehicles entering and exiting the property would already be on the roadways in question.
Based on the data, existing traffic queues for drivers looking to make a left turn onto Route 5 during morning hours create an average traffic delay of more than 2 ½ minutes. By 2027 without a restaurant nearby, that delay is estimated to grow to 3 ¾ minutes. The 2027 projection with the proposed Dunkin’ is more than 5 ½ minutes. During the afternoon and evening, the current delay for a left turn is just over a 33 seconds. By 2027 with no build, it would increase to nearly 47.1 seconds and with a Dunkin’, it would rise to nearly a minute.
City Planner Jeffrey Bagg told the board the data provided illustrates that signalizing the intersection would be a benefit. “The basic data does show that,” he said.
According to the data provided, with a signalized intersection and the restaurant, morning left turn delays are estimated to be 33.6 seconds in 2027, compared to 3 ¾ minutes without the signal. In the afternoon and evening with the Dunkin’ and a signal, the delay would be 46.7 seconds, 11.4 seconds faster than without the signal. Left and right turns onto East Street from Route 5 would experience delays that don’t currently exist, but none exceeding 41.8 seconds.
Steve Savaria of Fuss & O’Neill, the firm contracted to conduct a peer review on McMahon Associates’ studies, found no issues with their methods or findings.
Because Route 5 is a state road, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) controls the intersection and would have to approve the project. Levesque indicated that, at least initially, MassDOT has been receptive. For their part, the Planning Board would have to approve the project with specific conditions related to the approval by MassDOT and installation of a traffic signal.
“We would just have to be careful that the project was approved based on the signal and no construction could occur until there is a contractor who has been awarded the bid or some kind of threshold,” Bagg said.
Bagg stated these kinds of agreements weren’t common in Easthampton, but also referenced the Ferry Street redevelopment project as one in which a change to the intersection was deemed necessary. He also noted when approving the River Valley Co-op project on Route 10, which also involved MassDOT, the Planning Board indicated a left turn lane was not required, but “highly desirable.”
During the public comment portion of the hearing, Mayor Nicole LaChapelle, reading from a letter she submitted, corroborated Levesque’s earlier assertion that a signal would not be funded by the city, stating that “available public funds for needed site-based traffic mitigation do not fall within this city’s DPW or economic development priorities.”
She added MassDOT and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission had advised her the city’s grant applications for the intersection would “not be competitive enough to be funded due to urgent applications” and noted the intersection was identified as “low priority” compared to other potential publicly-funded traffic mitigation projects.
LaChapelle also expressed concerns with the length of time it would take to complete the process of installing the signals – including design and public hearings – stating it could exceed five years.
Additionally, she pointed out in 2013, it was recommended that the property’s current zoning of Highway Business should be reverted to residential zoning. According to the city’s zoning map, the Highway Business parcels in question are entirely surrounded by properties zoned R-35. Retail operations are generally not permitted, with a handful of exceptions, on R-35 properties, according to the city’s zoning ordinance. Restaurants are not permitted in an R-35 zone by right or by special permit.
City Councilor Homar Gomez also cited the 2013 report, which recommended restricting the Highway Business zone to Route 10 extending to the Northampton border.
Planning Board member James Zarvis stated his opinion that in spite of the recommendation that was never acted upon, the Planning Board’s charge is to make determinations based on the zoning that exists.
“If we were to reject this on the basis that we felt it should be changed zoning, that’s not actually – we can’t do that, right? … We have to operate under the zoning that it is currently,” he said.
Gomez also found the prospect of additional traffic created by the project untenable, predicting it would be “crazy” and “intense.” Gomez’s precinct includes the portion of East Street that intersects with Route 5.
“I think it’s really important for the board to think about the neighbors first,” he said.
Conversely, resident David Kinstle applauded Sardinha for attempting to do business in Easthampton.
“I understand the issue with maybe reexamining this zoning area, but I do like the fact that there is maybe more opportunity to bring in some businesses and to generate some economic activity in Easthampton,” he said. “Regardless of if it is Dunkin’ Donuts that has this issue or if it’s going to be the next person’s problem, then you’re going to end up with business properties that not one is going to want to use.”
When queried about the timeline, Levesque said if the board had no other issues with the project besides traffic, two months would give the firm enough time to develop a schematic it could discuss with MassDOT and return to the board with a timeline and “critical path.”
Board members were in general agreement that recent modifications to the plan to address other concerns not related to traffic that were raised by both the board and the public and voted to continue the hearing to March 2, 2021.