HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment from Gregory in Support1
Ziino, Genevey
From:C G <cjtgregory@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 2:48 PM
To:Kupfer, James; Engelsen, Jennifer; Ziino, Genevey
Subject:Re: ZBA Public Comment - Great Marsh Development LLC
Hello! I am terribly sorry for the email shotgun, but the planning@town.barnstable.ma.us I found to send
public comment to the ZBA returned as undeliverable, so I figured I'd try some specific folks. If someone
could please make sure this comes to the ZBA and any relevant parties' attention, I would be so grateful.
Have a great day!
All Best,
Chris Gregory
On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 2:40 PM C G <cjtgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Staff and Committee Members,
My name is Chris Gregory and I live off of Phinneys Lane about half a mile away from the proposed
development and I wanted to speak out in favor of this work and note that I believe our town and
neighborhood will be well served by it. For me, the biggest selling point is the 20-25% affordable units
provided here, whereas in Hyannis, the apartment building would not even meet the threshold to require
the 10% affordable units called for there. I have to watch my young children during this meeting, so I do
not expect to be able to give comment in person or by webex, so I am writing to you now.
Although I have heard some noting dismay at the clearing of the 5.8 acres of land for the work, I would
like to note that in the last few years in this neighborhood several lots including 47 Richards Lane (.81
acres), 900 Phinney's Lane (.9 acres), 17 Longview (.34), 55 Beechwood Road (.44 acres) and 1057
Phinney's Lane (.46 acres) for a total of 2.95 acres have been cleared for 5 single family homes and the
planting of large lawns on those properties (47 Richards is still bare sand). I would like there not to be a
double standard held to construction that is not for single family housing. As we run out of buildable
land, and as our neighbors pass and their homes are sold to become summer houses, mixed use
developments like this, making better use of the land will become more and more important both in
terms of efficiency, but also in terms of keeping our area dynamic, and populated throughout the year. I
also think that the apartments abutting on the Route28 side and the home transitioning into Great
Marsh eases the awkwardness we have seen in different developments in Hyannis.
My understanding is that some Hyannis residents are trying to disrupt proceeding with this work making
the below points which I think are either immaterial to the purview of this board, or misinterpretations
(bad faith or out of ignorance) of the rules at hand here. Below are my thoughts on these points:
Points that are incorrect, misread, or overreach the rules
o “Waiver list is insufficiently detailed.”: This is contradicted by the Applicant’s waiver
request memo (Aug 22, 2025), which itemizes bylaw chapters/sections (use, dimensional
standards including RPOD lot area, height, parking dimensions/landscape %, site plan
review, subdivision regs, local stormwater permit, and Cape Cod Commission
2
thresholds). You may disagree with granting some waivers, but the table itself exists and is
reasonably specific.
o Implying a stormwater waiver means no standards apply: The Applicant requests to
waive the local DPW stormwater permit requirement while committing to design under
MassDEP’s Stormwater Management Policy. The ZBA staff report explicitly finds the plan
designed to meet MassDEP standards. So, framing the waiver as if stormwater would go
unregulated is inaccurate; the question is which standards/permit issuer, not whether
standards apply.
o Asserting wetlands permitting is categorically required: The record (ZBA summary)
states “there are no impacted wetlands” and the PELs identify no critical resource
areas/priority habitats; if the certified delineation shows no jurisdictional areas/buffers
within the work limits, a WPA filing may not be triggered. It’s appropriate to ask for proof,
but it’s not correct to assume permit jurisdiction without that delineation.
o Economic-necessity threshold (pro forma) presented as a prerequisite for
density/waiver review: Under 760 CMR 56.05(6)(a), the pro forma becomes central if a
condition would render the project “uneconomic.” MassHousing has already reviewed
initial pro formas and found both projects financially feasible and within limited-dividend
limits (including an 8.52% margin for the Homes). The ZBA can request a pro forma if it is
considering conditions that might push the project into uneconomic territory, but
requiring a full, detailed developer pro forma as a gate to discuss waivers overstates the
regulation.
o Claim that the Town has an HPP that changes the safe-harbor posture. — The letter
mentions an HPP adopted Sept 18, 2025 but notes it’s not certified. The governing posture
in the record remains that Barnstable is below 10% and without a certified HPP safe
harbor; MassHousing and the ZBA staff report both rely on that status. An uncertified HPP
does not create safe harbor.
Points that are not especially material to the ZBA’s 40B consistency decision (or already
sufficiently addressed)
o Global statements that traffic impacts are “minor” versus “heavy local traffic.”: The
TIAS evaluates six intersections, counts, and crash data and concludes impacts are
minor; the staff report cites that analysis. Whether residents feel traffic is heavy is
understandable, but for the ZBA decision the engineering LOS/queueing/delay results
carry more weight unless a peer review finds flaws. (As noted above, a peer review request
has merit; the general “heavy traffic” claim without data is less probative.)
o Cape Cod Commission review: The Applicant explicitly seeks a waiver from CCC review
thresholds (30+ units), which is permissible within comprehensive permit practice; the
ZBA can grant or deny that waiver. Elevating CCC review as a prerequisite is not aligned
with 40B procedure where the ZBA is the consolidated permitting authority (subject to the
balancing test).
o General calls to withhold approval until multiple boards sign off: MassHousing and 760
CMR anticipate the ZBA as the primary local decision-maker, with state program final
approval and post-decision conditions to ensure compliance. The PELs expressly note the
ZBA process is where details (landscape, traffic, pedestrian, fire) get vetted, and the ZBA
staff report includes a long list of enforceable conditions (construction controls,
stormwater O&M, lighting, private maintenance, affordable housing restrictions, etc.).
Blanket “no action until every other board certifies” is broader than the 40B framework
typically requires.
3
My understanding is that the applicant does have some burden of proof regarding pumpflow, and
impact from clearing the lot. I would like to propose that if mitigation is in order to allow this project to
proceed that as much of the tree line on the line of the property, especially along 22 RICHARDSON
ROAD, 1456 FALMOUTH ROAD/RTE 28, and along Great Marsh be left intact to minimize ecological impact, and improve noise
and light screens for all abutting parties. I also think that, as new construction, the apartment unit is a candidate for a grey
water system that would greatly reduce water use and lessen its impact on our sewers. I know these are things that cannot be
simply imposed on the applicant by the board, but might be lines to help them meet standards if you find they need to in thes e
areas.
From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I know that all of the shrubs are in the rhododendron family. I understand why they are
attractive as evergreen and low maintenance plants. However, replacing the azaleas and rhododendrons with beach plums, and
pussy willow shrubs will both add diversity, and year around interest to the landscaping. The Prunus (beach plum) and Salix
(pussy willow) families are much more beneficial to wildlife and would promote greater biodiversity, and lower the impact of
clearing that land.
Finally, I would like to note that I have no concerns about the increase in traffic volume here. Instead I hope that this
development, and, hopefully, future developments will bring the attention of our town planners on this neighborhood, which is
burdened by the role of Phinney's, Great Marsh, and Old Stage as connector/arterial roads that limit connectivity for the
denizens of these roads and of the side streets. The traffic speed on these roads both make it uncomfortable to drive on (I am
regularly passed over double solid lines while going the speed limit) and makes it generally unthinkable to walk along these
roads with children or pets. I hope that we can do more to make the Wequaquet area more of a neighborhood and less of a
collection of roads that people drive too fast on to get to other places.
Thank you so much for your work on this board and your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris Gregory