HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment from E Schwaab 110/8/25
To: The Members of the Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Eric Schwaab, Resident of the Town of Barnstable
Subject: Comments on Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit Applications – Great Marsh
Development LLC
Introduction and Scope of Comments
This letter provides comments on the Comprehensive Permit applications filed by Great
Marsh Development LLC (“the Applicant”) to construct mixed-income housing at 195
Phinney’s Lane and adjoining parcels in Centerville.
My comments focus on three core areas that remain unclear or unsupported in the current
record:
The presence and potential impact on wetlands and resource protection areas;
The capacity and adequacy of wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure; and
The calculation, justification, and economic necessity of the proposed density and zoning
waivers.
These issues go to the heart of the statutory “balancing test” under M.G.L. c. 40B, §§20–23,
which requires that local boards weigh the regional need for affordable housing against
legitimate local concerns related to health, safety, environmental protection, design, and
open space.
Until these matters are resolved, the Board cannot determine whether the project is
consistent with local needs.
A. Wetlands and Resource Protection Overlay District (RPOD)
The application asserts that “no wetlands are impacted” and that no Conservation
Commission permit is required. However, the subject property lies within the Resource
Protection Overlay District (RPOD), adjacent to Great Marsh, an environmentally sensitive
area with high groundwater and mapped wetland resources.
Requested Actions:
Require submission of a certified wetlands delineation by a professional wetland scientist
showing all resource areas and 100-foot buffer zones.
Obtain a written statement from the Barnstable Conservation Commission confirming
whether any portion of the site is subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
(M.G.L. c. 131 §40) or local wetlands bylaw jurisdiction.
Require mapping of FEMA flood zones and groundwater protection areas to confirm
suitability for grading, drainage, and septic/sewer infrastructure.
Given the site’s inclusion in the RPOD, these verifications are essential to protect public
health, safety, and environmental integrity.
B. Wastewater Capacity and Infrastructure
The Applicant states that “the project will connect to Town sewer,” but no documentation
is provided regarding system capacity or proximity to the adjacent municipal sewer pump
station on Town-owned land.
Requested Actions:
Require a written confirmation from the Barnstable Department of Public Works (DPW)
verifying that both the collection system and treatment plant have adequate daily and peak
flow capacity for the full project buildout. In particular, we hereby request that the Town
provide a detailed effluent disposal plan.
Request flow estimates (gallons per day) for both residential components—single-family
homes and the 36-unit apartment building—based on Title 5 flow factors.
These requests are critical given the known limitations in sewer capacity within the
Phinney’s Lane corridor and the absence of plans for enhanced effluence dispersal.
C. Density Calculations and Economic Necessity
The Applicant seeks substantial waivers from underlying zoning for lot area, frontage,
height, setbacks, and parking. To determine whether these waivers are “necessary to make
the project economic,” as required under 760 CMR 56.05(6)(a), the Board should require:
A side-by-side comparison showing allowable density under existing zoning versus
proposed density under the 40B plan;
A pro forma detailing land acquisition costs, infrastructure and construction costs,
anticipated sales/rental revenues, and projected limited-dividend return;
Documentation of the claimed financial hardship related to the triangular parcel at 40
Richardson Road, including an explanation of how that parcel’s inclusion affects project
economics;
Disclosure of expected dividend payments or developer returns from the limited-dividend
organization.
Without these materials, the Board cannot reasonably evaluate whether the requested
waivers are justified or whether the project scale exceeds what is necessary to produce
affordable housing.
Additional concerns include:
D. Consistency with Local Needs
The Applicant cites Barnstable’s recently updated Housing Production Plan (HPP) and the
Town’s affordable housing percentage (7.15%). However, the HPP adopted on September
18, 2025 is not certified by DHCD, meaning the Town has not yet achieved “safe harbor”
status but retains authority to deny or condition projects that present environmental or
safety concerns.
Requested Actions:
Confirm the Town’s current Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) percentage from DHCD’s
most recent update.
Apply the DHCD guidance that environmental, health, or design constraints may outweigh
regional housing need when supported by credible local evidence.
E. Traffic, Access, and Fire Safety
The Transportation Impact and Access Study (TIAS) submitted by the Applicant concludes
that traffic impacts will be “minor.” However, Phinney’s Lane and Great Marsh Road
already experience heavy local traffic and limited pedestrian infrastructure.
Requested Actions:
Require peer review of the TIAS by the Town’s traffic engineering consultant.
Obtain written confirmation from the COMM Fire Department that:
The proposed access roads meet NFPA 1 and local turning radius standards; and
Emergency access from Phinney’s Lane is operationally adequate.
F. Stormwater Management and Environmental Design
The Applicant seeks waivers from the Town’s Stormwater Management Rules and DPW
Stormwater Permit requirements. Given the site’s location near a resource area and its
inclusion in the RPOD, the Board should:
Require peer review of the stormwater management plan by an independent consultant
retained by the Town;
Obtain a letter from the Conservation Commission indicating whether the proposed
stormwater plan meets MassDEP standards and local bylaws;
Require a hydrologic map showing pre- and post-development runoff areas, infiltration
rates, and groundwater recharge assumptions.
G. Tree Loss, Habitat, and Landscape Integration
The Applicant’s narrative references “native plantings” and a “welcoming appearance,”
but provides no inventory of existing vegetation or tree removal impacts.
Requested Actions:
Require an inventory of significant trees (≥ 6 inches DBH) to be removed and a mitigation
plan consistent with the Tree Preservation and Natural Vegetation Bylaw (§237).
Ensure landscape design enhances habitat connectivity and visual buffering for adjacent
single-family properties within the RPOD.
H. Accessibility and Housing Affordability Metrics
The application states that “handicap accessible, visitable, and sensory-impaired units
will be provided as required,” and that “affordable rents will allow families to remain in the
community.”
Requested Actions:
Specify the number and location of accessible units and the standards applied (e.g.,
MAAB, ADA).
Provide income and rent/sales data demonstrating that proposed affordable units meet
EOHLC affordability thresholds for Barnstable County Area Median Income (AMI).
I. Requested Waivers – Lack of Detail
The waiver list provided is insufficiently detailed to evaluate. The Board should require a
comprehensive waiver table identifying:
Each bylaw section;
The specific standard being waived;
The proposed condition; and
The stated reason (economic, design, or other).
Absent this table, the public and reviewing boards cannot assess the cumulative effect of
the waivers on density, open space, or neighborhood character.
Conclusion
While the need for affordable housing in Barnstable is real and pressing, that need does
not relieve the Town of its duty to ensure that development occurs in locations and at
scales that protect public health, safety, and the environment.
The current record lacks sufficient documentation on wetlands jurisdiction, wastewater
capacity, stormwater design, and economic justification for density and waivers.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals:
Withhold approval or closure of the public hearing until the Applicant provides the
materials identified above;
Refer the stormwater and wetlands issues to the Conservation Commission for
jurisdictional determination; and
Require independent peer review of the traffic, wastewater, and stormwater analyses prior
to any decision.
Only with this information can the Board make an informed finding as to whether the
proposed development is “consistent with local needs” as required by Chapter 40B.
Thank you for your attention to these comments and for your commitment to careful,
transparent review.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Schwaab
Resident, Town of Barnstable