Hudson’s Planning and Zoning Boards held a special joint meeting and workshop on July 16 to review updates to the town’s land-use regulations, including a proposal that would require more detailed traffic studies for most development projects.
“One of the things we’ve been working on are the updates to land-use code regulations,” explained Fuss & O’Neill Engineer Steve Rickard. “That’s administrative matters, site plans, subdivisions, stormwater management, and driveway regulations. By and large, the regulations are pretty good, so our focus is on updating old references to match current language.”
Traffic quickly became a major point of discussion. With few existing regulations governing traffic analysis, officials said clarifying expectations for applicants was essential.
“We’ve worked with our own traffic engineers that not only prepare traffic studies, but they do peer reviews of traffic studies,” Rickard said. “We asked those engineers: what’s a good traffic regulation? How can you codify what an applicant has to submit for a traffic study? We came up with a three tiered type of study that would be submitted. Every project would have to provide some type of traffic information.”
Under the proposal, any project generating more than “minimal traffic” would require either a short or full analysis. Developments expected to produce more than 100 new peak hour trips or 1,000 new daily trips would automatically trigger a full, 200 plus page traffic study.
“Just for clarification, if someone is coming up for a minor site plan adding 300 square feet, we’re not requiring them to do a traffic study, right?” asked Planning Board Chair Tim Malley. “I just want to make sure we’re not taking those little things and requiring an engineer to do the traffic.”
Rickard confirmed that only “large” site plans would require full studies, though determining what qualifies as “large” would fall to the Engineering Department.
“What’s to prevent an applicant from saying ‘we’re only going to generate 100 trips’ when they’re putting in a super store?” asked Planning Board Vice-Chair Jordan Ulery.
Rickard said peer review would prevent applicants from underestimating traffic. “When in doubt, you’ll use empirical data. If there’s another similar facility somewhere else, the applicant will have to provide traffic counts based on information from that other facility. That’ll get analyzed as part of that peer review.”
Despite assurances, some officials remained skeptical. Planning Board member James Crowley noted that even lengthy studies often conclude that applicants meet standard methodologies.
“It seems like we have to approve a project anyway because they met the standards and supplied a traffic study,” Crowley said. “They can always argue they’re a minor impact.”
Director of Development Services Elvis Dhima reminded members that the Planning Board can impose conditions, delay, or vote against plans that would meaningfully increase traffic.
