Prime Energy submitted a comprehensive traffic study to the City Council, and after it was presented to the City Council, the Woburn Planning Board (hereinafter Planning Board) sent it to the City’s traffic consultant for review. The City’s traffic consultant found that no further review was necessary and so, after reviewing Prime Energy’s application, the Planning Board voted unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council, subject to a few conditions. Those conditions included mitigation measures, evaluation of certain traffic signals and limitations on square footage. The City Council denied Prime Energy’s application, asserting that Prime Energy did not comply with Section 11.5.3 of the WZO because the project would adversely affect traffic, noise, odor, and safety in the area, nor did it comply with the stated purpose of Section 11 regarding special permits, whose goal was to prevent overcrowding. The Council was further concerned that it would result in increased congestion because the area’s infrastructure was already over capacity, making it less safe overall. The only issue at trial was the question of traffic impact, primarily regarding the intersection of Hill Street and Montvale Ave.
To mitigate increased problems with traffic, Prime Energy proposed that measures involving pedestrian crosswalks, easements to reset and push back any curbing that may occur, asphalt medians, road widening, right-turn only lanes, and sight triangles to improve safety of drivers. The court looked at traffic service ratings for three scenarios: the first, a no-build scenario where the traffic remains as is, the second, where Prime Energy completed their project absent any mitigation measures, and the third, where Prime Energy completed their project with mitigation measures. The traffic study looked at peak morning and evening hours, relying on the assumption that if traffic service didn’t change during those times, it would similarly remain for the off-peak hours. The court found that if Prime Energy completed their project with the mitigation measures, the traffic service rating would end up the same as the traffic service rating in the no-build scenario. In other words, Prime Energy’s project including mitigation would not change the traffic service rating of the area. Therefore, the court found the City Council’s denial of the special use permit to be arbitrary and capricious, and remanded the case to the City Council to issue a special permit, conditioned on Prime Energy’s completion of the crosswalk, easement, asphalt divider, sidewalk, sight triangle and roadway improvement mitigation measures.
A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. v. Doherty, 2011 WL 861204 (Mass.Land Ct. 3/11/11)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://masscases.com/cases/land/2011/2011-08-370678-DECISION.html
