CLINTON — At its Oct. 7 meeting, the Clinton Planning Board reviewed a proposal to redevelop the old mill building at 625 Main Street into a mixed-use property with first-floor commercial space and housing above, and raised questions about traffic and site access.
Engineer Chris Anderson of Hannigan Engineering, representing Faria Realty Trust, told the board the latest design would add 10 residential units and maintain 22 parking spaces — three reserved for visitors — while reducing impervious surface by 3,700 square feet.
Anderson said the development would be accessed through an existing entrance on Main Street, which would extend through the site to provide access to residential parking areas and connect with Water Street frontage. He then referenced a traffic impact study prepared by Vanasse & Associates, Inc., which projected vehicle trips, sightline distances, and peak-hour rates at the Main Street entrance.
According to Anderson, the analysis estimated approximately 106 vehicle trips per day, with seven trips during the morning peak hour and nine during the evening peak hour. He said the findings showed that traffic generated by the project would be minimal and would not adversely affect existing roadway conditions.
“So, they reviewed the intersection and found that there would be no significant impact due to the low quantity of trips coming to and from the site,” Anderson concluded.
Anderson also confirmed that the applicant had met with the town’s traffic committee the prior week, which recommended removing the exit onto Water Street so that all vehicles would enter and exit from Main Street. That change sparked strong opposition from several planning board members, who said eliminating the Water Street exit would force unsafe left turns across Main Street traffic.
“I will not vote for it with that entrance,” said board member Dale DiMeco. DiMeco then asked the applicant if the major concern with keeping the Water Street entrance was going to be a potential cut through.
The applicant then responded saying, “Not only that, like that way too, we can have better layout of the parking lot because we’re going to have to have that.”
DiMeco retorted, “Well, I’ll tell you right now, exiting and entering on Main Street at that intersection is asinine. You sit down there and look at it. Tell me it’s not crazy.”
Planning Board Chair Paul Curran then said, “Personally, I would like to see that exit onto Water Street. That just makes sense.” Curran added that he had recently spoken with a member of the traffic committee, who said one of the major hurdles would be updating the traffic cameras near the building.
The board ultimately voted to continue the hearing to November, directing Anderson and the applicant to meet again with the traffic committee and the Department of Public Works to reassess access options before resubmitting plans.
Anderson replied stating that they will reach out to the traffic committee again to schedule another hearing and touch base with the DPW to “make sure there’s any outstanding utility issues in the area that need to be addressed.” He added that they’ll circle back with traffic. “We’ll add our traffic engineer to be at the meeting — that way everybody who’s very knowledgeable in traffic will be talking about traffic in a coherent manner,” Anderson said.
DiMeco asked whether the current plans still showed the Water Street exit and asked if the removal of that exit would simply free up three parking spots. Anderson confirmed the parking spot figure and said the current design had not yet been updated to reflect the removal of the Water Street exit. Anderson said it was “an easy change to make from a site plan perspective, but it is a traffic concern that we want to bring to the board’s attention.”
The board then formally passed a motion to continue the meeting to November.
