Update: At the Land Use Committee meeting on 10/26/21, the item was held over. There will be a public hearing when the item is before the committee next.
—
Interesting problem before the Land Use Committee tonight. The owner of the Dunkin on Boylston St. (Route 9) near the CVS plaza wants relief to allow them to convert the store to a drive-thru. Should the Land Use committee solve the property owner’s very real problem or consider the broader cost to Newton and the region?
The owner presents a convincing case. Current store sales have dropped and are dropping, because the store is not located where lots of people can walk or want to walk to get their coffee and yummy treats. The store is sustained by car traffic on Boylston St. They would do much better if it were easier for drivers to get their iced coffee and Boston cremes. And, a drive-thru would make it much easier. They report that the drive-thru a few miles west, in Wellesley, does brisk business.
Drive-thrus, on the other hand, are bad for the environment. Each drive-thru is yet another factor that encourages and/or facilitates driving. Drive-thrus, by their nature, collect idling cars. Drive-thrus increase traffic across the sidewalk, making a hostile walking environment (though there’s not a lot of foot traffic at this particular location). As a city, we should not be adding drive-thrus, and haven’t.
The larger question, it strikes me, is what the role of Land Use is, specifically, or our city government, more generally. Should the City Council be helping local businesses to succeed on their terms? Should they figure out how to make this a successful site for a Dunkin Donuts? Or, should the City Council be helping local businesses succeed, but within the scope of some clear values and guidelines? Like, no drive-thrus, because they are bad for the environment. This property has valuable beyond being the site of a Dunkin store.
It would be easy to approve the plan (which would lop off a portion of the building and build a drive-thru lane that loops around the building). It’s an almost exclusively commercial area, right off a four-lane state highway.
But, if a legacy business can only succeed at the expense of our city values and goals, the City Council should not facilitate its success. It’s time for the property owner to find a new use for the site.
Sadly, there’s no master plan for the entire area. As a regular contributor has noted, the nearby CVS-anchored strip mall would be a great opportunity, near as it is to the Eliot T, for a large mixed-use development. The Dunkin site would be a great place for a small apartment building, as part of that larger plan.
The Land Use committee meeting begins at 6 (zoom link). The item, #219-21, is first on the agenda.
The special permit application and related documents are here.
Nobody is going to drive to that crazy congested portion of Rt. 9 if they have a walkable alternative. Or any alternative. And at the rate Newton is going, most cars will be electric soon enough anyway.
Simple solution: in exchange for permitting the drive through, that Dunkin location has to upgrade to an “A” store, with the new facade and coffee tone color scheme.
Good question. I don’t have a strong opinion either way. I agree that this plaza, and Route 9 more generally, are very suitable for large development projects. If a developer could buy the Dunkin’ together with the adjacent two lots, that could be a sizable project. Seems to me like a better deal for the owner than a drive-thru.
Huh, it sounds like the only real argument against a drive thru at this location is the fact that cars idle at the drive thru. (No one is walking to this DD.). Perhaps when there are more EVs it will make it ok?
Seems like another over controlling requirement that makes unbelievable little difference but makes some people feel better.
Wondering if we will start hearing a vocal outcry to outlaw stop lights while we still have cars that idle. Also to ban cars at school drop offs and pickups? Including when waiting for students after sports practices. Oh, and the homes that burn oil. OMG. Any home that sets their temp over 60 degrees in the winter should pay a big fine. Come on folks, we can do better at micromanaging things! More nuisance regs!
Make ourselves feel better as we live in our energy inefficient single family homes, drive internal combustion cars (vs take public transit), own multiple cars in a household, and generally make very limited sacrifices in our personal lives.
Keith, you wrote:
“Wondering if we will start hearing a vocal outcry to outlaw stop lights while we still have cars that idle. Also to ban cars at school drop offs and pickups? Including when waiting for students after sports practices. Oh, and the homes that burn oil.”
There is a huge movement to electrify homes, including heating.
Many of us would love it if cars were not permitted close to schools during drop off and pick up, for exactly that reason.
Many transportation advocates have long advocated for alternatives to stop signs, like roundabouts, where it’s feasible.
Sean,
Using the same line of thought, we should not permit a single NEW parking space ANYWHERE(not even residential) …. as it encourages driving
How far do you want to take it. Denying on these grounds leads to a slippery slipe
I look forward to the opportunity to idle my car at the new and improved Dunkin Donuts. I bet I could organize not only my family but my friends as well. It’ll be like a little parade. Celebrating Cars in Newton. If the day is nice, I could see walking my highly inefficient lawnmower over there to grab a drink. Between the steps and the exhaust, it’s a win-win.
Sean, then where are your posts to require a ban of combustion vehicles, limit cars to 1, or with dire need 2 per household, penalize those that keep houses too warm, outlaw homes with oil heat. All of these would be a much much bigger benefit to the environment that not allowing a drive thru at a drive only DD.
The business owner is politically weak, that is why. Easier to feel better about yourself and be against them then asking others to make sacrifices that would make a much much bigger difference.
Wasn’t a drive thru added to the McDonald’s on California St in Nonantum fairly recently? Is it okay on the North side of the city but not on the South side?
@Sean,
I’m not actually responding to your suggestions per se, but I just wanted to share a couple of thoughts that one might consider in this and like instances. For many years, the only way to open a Dunkin Donuts store was to purchase into the franchise. I have no reason to believe that has changed, but of course I am happy to be corrected by anyone with more updated information. Like many franchises, corporate controlled not only where the franchisee could locate their store but also whether and where a competing franchise may be located. Hence corporate controls competition among stores. So in an area that is densely populated – say Manhattan, you might see 2 Dunkin Donuts within a couple of blocks of each other – or even directly across the street, whereas in Boston there may be a minimum of five blocks for example. Here there could be a 1/2 mile limitation. I don’t know. But the important distinction is that the franchisee is not like the business owner who has total control over her products, location, etc. The franchisee is subject to the will of corporate which may not be agreeable or accommodating to a relocation of the store. I don’t think we want to encourage the failing of more businesses. So one of the considerations I would suggest is feasibility for the business operator in addition to the considerations you have identified. Anyway – my 2 cents from the cheap seats…
Am I the only one that sees this location as too dangerous to encourage more traffic on and off Route 9?
This is a very congested section of route 9. At a previous meeting they were comparing the car traffic to a drive thru location at the Natick/Wellesley line which is not comparable because a significant amount of cars are added to Rt 9 at the rt 128 interchange. As of right now a fair amount of the Dunkin Donuts traffic comes in from the back street which will be blocked off in the new drive thru plan. The businesses to the side (the gas station which I hardly ever see a car at and the brakes place don’t do a ton of volume). Even with the limited car volume from the side businesses it can be a bit difficult to get out of the DD parking lot on Rt 9 due to the volume from Rt 9 and also cars entering from Elliot. The exit off of Rt 9 right there to Centre is problematic because of the curve you have to unnaturally slow down which sometimes catches people off guard. I am surprised there are not people getting rear ended right there. Adding more pull outs on to Rt 9 at the DD is just going to exacerbate that. I sporadically go to that DD and pre-Covid there was always a regular group of people who would meet up at the few tables that existed there. I believe that I even saw them not to long ago sitting outside near by in lawn chairs. It also seemed pre-Covid that this location was not open very late.
This proposal is undoubtedly a business decision related to the drive-thru Starbucks planned for the east-bound side of rte 9, less than a half-mile away, which appears to be well on its way to happening: https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65485/637481414765170000
Indeed. That’s one brilliant contributor. That parcel seems like one of the most wasted in the city. It could be the mother of all TOD projects. The D line could even stop there (old Cook St Junction) and provide access to Needham Street via the Greenway, and the state could take some of the land or get an easement to properly fix the 2-mile backup on Route 9.
As for Dunks, as Newton Highlands Mom notes, this came up at Land Use a month or two ago and way pretty much panned by the committee. What has changed, if anything? A Starbys proposal for the opposite, more residential side of route 9 was mocked a few months early and later withdrawn by the petitioner. I expected the same here. It’s unfortunate that the current business model isn’t working out for the owner, but drive-through businesses aren’t good for Newton. Not good for the environment, not good for traffic, and not good for other businesses.
It’s my recollection that not only did the proposal involve a lot of idling cars, it called for a snake-like queue around the property and would still have the dangerous exit into high speed traffic. They could at least make use of Curtis Street somehow.
Lisa P.,
All fair points. So, let’s recast the question: is it the obligation of the City Council to protect a franchisee’s investment when the dynamics of the market have shifted?
I want us to protect and encourage local businesses, but I don’t think it’s right to go as far as this petitioner would like the city to go.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding was the proposed Starbucks drive through was met with an across the board unfavorable response from the Newton Highlands Area Council. I also watched a land use committee meeting where the project was discussed and there did not seem to be any support there either. If people have heard that this has been revived please let me know.
@Lisa I wouldn’t be opposed to a drive thru on the South side but the speed and amt of traffic on Rt 9 makes the proposed projects dangerous in my opinion. I would be ok with the McDonalds on Needham St being drive thru. The property is actually set up similar to a drive thru. I don’t think it would necessarily bring more traffic but just make that location more convenient to people already driving by. Also the speed of entry would be just different on Needham St.
Bugek,
You wrote: “Using the same line of thought, we should not permit a single NEW parking space ANYWHERE(not even residential) …. as it encourages driving[.]”
I would be delighted if we banned new parking spaces. We could ease into it. You could add a new parking space, but only if you got someone to decommission three old spaces somewhere else. We have way too much parking in this city.
At the most recent meeting on Riverside Center (the existing building, not the new development at the T station), we learned that the building had several hundred more spaces than they needed. That’s expense to the developer. It’s wasted space. It attracts more driving.
So, yup, I’m good with no new parking. No need for a slippery slope. I’m already at the bottom.
The other issue is with the Rte 9 light and on ramp from Eliot St nearby, oncoming cars are *accelerating* as they approach the Dunkin Donuts, making the space even more dangerous.
This just seems like a not-great spot for a drive-thru.
Sean,
Its good you are consistent. I assume you also insist on ZERO parking spaces in new high density developments.
If so, I applaud your commitment and consisteny.
@Sean–
I want to respond to your “recast” question about the City Council’s role in protecting local businesses from changing market dynamics. That’s exactly what the City Council did for most Newton restaurants during COVID, by ceding public sidewalks and streets to these businesses at no cost. As much as I dislike drive-thru for Newton, I’m a lot more sympathetic to a business like Rte 9 Dunkin that’s willing to pay to upgrade their own property, as long as it doesn’t create a public safety hazard.
@Sean,
And I swore I was just going to do a drive by comment, LOL. That too is a great question which encompasses a very fair point. And, I think that the answer to that question would come from the many points that have already been raised on this thread. I think that at a minimum the business would need to do a traffic impact study to find out if and to what extent a drive thru window would prove to be an increased burden on Rt. 9. I think also that to the extent that there is an increased burden, it makes sense to look at it relative to the other retail establishments that have opened on Rt. 9 over the past several years so that we are not unfairly limiting or benefiting this one business. When we think about Rt. 9 I think it might also help to think of this one particular business and the traffic it generates in relation to all of the other businesses on both sides of Rt. 9 – so “The Street” and Wegman’s Plaza (or whatever I’m supposed to call it – it’s got Wegman’s so!!!!!) so we don’t just think of it in isolation. And I do think it helps for City Hall to support our commercial business base.
Lisa P. has it right. Traffic study, traffic study, traffic study. The other stores on Route 9 further west have drive-throughs, and I’ve seen them back up onto Route 9, effectively taking away a lane of traffic.
I’m generally a fan of drive throughs (I get the arguments against them, I’m just well aware that some folks can more easily access the drive through than a walk up, and I think our opposition to them is more about snob zoning typically than anything else). In this case, absent a clean traffic study, I’m team no drive-through.
As a Newton Highlands resident, I am a BIG NO for the DD drive through. For the last 20 years, there is congestion that builds up there BEFORE the pandemic. If there aren’t enough spots, cars tend to wait for a spot hanging onto RT 9. I don’t see how even if they tore down the current building and rebuilt on the current location (without involving their neighbors) without cars having to que up on Rt 9. Before the pandemic DD did a brisk business from cars going east in the morning. I realize right now things are different.
It is a very difficult place to get to. I often walk to CVS, and I use the Eliot Station’s walkover and walk to CVS from the other side of Route 9. It isn’t a pleasant walk due to traffic and trash. Walking along Route 9 is different from a walk in Webster Woods or even a walk into Newton Highlands Village.
Starbucks wanted to open a drive through on the other side of Route 9 (West side) not too far away this year also. Their paperwork said their traffic study in 2020 showed there would not be alot of cars waiting on route 9, and traffic would not be impacted. Had to laugh. Of course, the traffic study in 2020 (July perhaps) would show no traffic.
This location on Route 9 should not have a drive through due to the lack of que space.
I won’t even bring up the addition of the pollution from the cars that sit in a drive through, instead of turning off the car and going into the store.
Mike,
Apples and oranges. The challenge for the owner of the Dunkin on Boylston St. are persistent market problems and the solution is contrary to the city’s climate change objectives (as well as potential traffic hazard). The challenge for the restaurant owners is, one hopes, a temporary global pandemic and the solution for their problem is actually highly aligned with our city climate change objectives and our desire to enliven our village spaces.
I understand the complaint about parking loss. I don’t agree that it is a real problem. I do think we need to continue to be respectful of the non-restaurant business owners, but street dining is not ruining our village centers.
Lisa P. and fignewtonsquare,
Sure, we should do a traffic study. But, I’m making a slightly larger claim. No traffic study can justify a drive-thru. Drive-thrus are just not climate-compatible.
Bugek,
Please contact your local councilor and ask them what is typically my first or second point when I testify about new development.
Too. Much. Parking.
I’m on it.
Hah!
Why I’m voting for …” -1 comment in 20 hours
Dunkin Donuts drive thru? – 26 comments in 4 hours
I will definitely be including donuts in all future posts.
@Sean… to quote The Wizard of Oz… “Why didn’t you say so?” I should have stayed with the first reply only in keeping with my intention just to offer an observation or two on the practicality of owning a franchise while keeping out of the weeds!
I did mention in my previous comment, that public safety comes first. To me, a drive thru should be a non-starter unless the design meets public safety standards. And that’s just the first step.
There’s a big difference between a “potential traffic hazard” and a real traffic hazard though. I’ll give you an example practically next door to Dunkin. A while back there were quite a few comments on V-14 suggesting Redi would present a traffic safety issue. In reality, it never materialized.
Lisa P.,
I thought it was terrific context for the conversation. So, thanks for the detour.
Jerry,
Another benefit of the donut post: I get to expense my next assorted dozen.
@Mike Striar the fact that Redi has not caused a traffic issue is more to do with the lack of volume of customers. I am a regular at the CVS there and through that intersection. I’ve barely seen 2 or 3 cars in the small parking lot by Redi at a time. Most of the time the parking lot is empty. Maybe they have a rush before closing time or people park at CVS and walk over but I’ve wondered how well their business is going. The traffic at that intersection is consistently bad.
I think Redi’s contribution to traffic there is just what they promised (to guffaws by the naysayers) – i.e. less than the business (Green Tea) that it replaced. Despite all the gnashing of teeth back during the public hearings, their traffic impact has been negligible.
Another dispensary, Union Twist at Four Corners, comes before the Land Use Committee tonight. I fully expect opponents will paint the same picture of impending doom and mayhem from that business too.
Did anyone catch the discussion of this drive thru during tonight’s Landuse Committee meeting? I tuned in too late
NHM,
The item was held (as in held over to another meeting). They want more time to prepare something, but I can’t remember what, exactly.
Hi @lisaParlagreco did you catch Greg Reibman’s response to the question I posed like you requested? Emily Norton DID go after Greg’s job after all. Who would have thought that? I mean especially since you never heard that. Well now you know. What are your thoughts about Emily Going after someone’s job?
@emilynorton care to comment?
https://village14.com/2021/04/16/sore-winners-post-election-campaign/
Progressive Newton, are you lost?