Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWequaquet Estates Response Letter01/014/2026 Homes and Residences at Centerville Cove We all share the burden of providing affordable housing for our young families, our elderly, and our low-income neighbors. However, these housing opportunitfes can NOT be chosen without careful consideratfon of all SAFETY and QUALITY of LIFE CONCERNS. Done well, they will provide dignity, done poorly, and without thoughtiul planning, they will become a burden on the residents for which we are trying to provide housing, and their neighbors. We as your Wequaquet Estates Beach Associatfon (WEBA) neighbors, after reviewing the informatfon provided by the applicant, move that this project is woefully weak with its apparent disregard for safety, protection of the environment, and concerns for quality of life. The plans contain missing and incorrect informatfon, for example: * The ENTIRE project site is located within a zone of contributfon to a saltwater estuary (also known as a marine water recharge area), not PARTIALLY as the plans suggest. * The project is located within the Centerville River marine water recharge area, which is nitrogen impaired. *The project is in a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protectfon (MassDEP) designated Nitrogen Sensitfve Area (NSA). These incorrect assertions and apparent omissions could negatively affect our neighbors and our waterways. And could additionally subject the Town to potentially lengthy and costly legal challenges. The plans also contain significant safety and quality of life issues, with neighborhood egresses, intersectfons, traffic, emergency entrances and walkability issues like sidewalks that are inherently unsafe. This impacts the resident’s quality of life by not allowing safe access to needed venues such as supermarkets, medical facilitfes etc., for example: * No sidewalks in plans making pedestrians at risk on these busy unsafe roads. *Emergency access in the middle of a dangerous and stacked intersectfon with 46 documented accidents in recent years, impossible look back, and a locked gate. * The proposed intersectfon at Juniper rd. and great marsh creates a cut through in our WEBA neighborhood which is comprised of all minor B roads (16-19’widths) Making it unsuitable for through traffic. This would require significant and costly mitfgatfons to ensure safety. * The additfonal traffic in the WEBA neighborhood will put an undue burden on the residents by creatfng safety risks for our private lake beach. This would warrant costly and extensive mitfgatfons to ensure safety and limit risk. These issues require that a follow up traffic study be performed at the expense of the developer as allowed in chapter 40B handbook for zoning board of appeals, March 2017 page 7, # 2 that would include additfonal questfons for review and impacts to the Wequaquet Estates neighborhood. While we concede that this property which abuts the sewer pumping statfon in Centerville is indeed an underutflized property, we contend that it also abuts one of the most dangerous intersectfons on Cape Cod. We further contend, that across several items that the applicant was required by MHA and the town of Barnstable to provide for your review, the informatfon either has not been provided, provided inadequately or apparently not at all. We therefore, as responsible neighbors oppose this project with vigor due to serious safety, environmental and quality of life concerns making it inappropriate for the population that it is intended to serve, and its neighbors. Therefore, we respectiully request the following: *An independent consultant be hired at the expense of the developer as allowed in chapter 40B handbook for zoning board of appeals, March 2017 page 7, # 2 to assess missing or inadequately provided informatfon so that the ZBA can properly review all issues and address concerns. *At the completfon of the independent consultants’ review, we respectiully request a second public hearing. ENVIROMENTAL CONCERNS - WATER/SEWER ETC 1) Tree planting and removal plan: There is nothing on the plans which indicate the tree buffer plan between the development and Great Marsh Road. Often sites are clear cut prior to development. Is that the case for this project? Will existfng vegetatfon remain? What is the tree cutting plan? Will the buffer between the development and Great Marsh Rd contain new plantfngs? What will that look like? Will they be plants natfve to Cape Cod? Will the plantfngs block the view of the three-story apartment building? Landscaping Issues Review Requests by Town and MHA 1. Mass Housing Determinatfon Letter after review a. Tree Removal Plan 2. Town Site Plan Review September 16th, 2025 a. Provide sight lines at entrance on Great Marsh – Mr. Wrobel DPW b. Any tree removal or plantfng coordinated with DPW Items of Concern / Proposed Solutions 1. Landscaping Project Entrance has questfonable site lines to the curve on Great Marsh to the West as described in the traffic study and questfoned by DPW. To compound the problem, the applicant has designed additfonal landscaping per Landscape Plan C3.2 and in additfon does not appear to own enough land to the West of the currently proposed entrance to mitfgate the site line issue. a. Solution i. Relocate currently proposed egress/ingress curb cut to midway between current locatfon and Phinney’s Lane. 1. Consistent with other curb cuts on Great Marsh 2. Mitfgates sight line issues 3. Safer locatfon for bus stops while 38mph traffic approaches around curve from the West on Great Marsh. 4. This is not a hardship for the applicant as one similar parcel can substftute another to achieve this re-locatfon. 2. Landscaping Plan is significantly questfonable. The applicants plan, C3.2 shows very limited landscaping. a. There is landscaping at the entrance which limits traffic sight line issues per the Traffic Study. b. Some landscaping around the 3 story apartment building. c. No other landscaping shown, so does that mean the project is being clear cut and that is the only landscaping being replaced? d. No landscaping shown between 3 story apartment building and adjacent nursing home facility as waivers are being applied for which apparently reduce the setbacks to that facility. e. No landscaping shows all along Great Marsh to replace forested growth that is currently existfng. f. Solution i. Provide a complete Landscaping Plan or explain to ZBA why there is no other landscaping around homes, Great Marsh Buffer, Apartment building, Phinney’s/Route 28 visual buffer. 3. Tree Removal Plans Coordinated with DPW. What is the plan and has it been coordinated with DPW. Is Applicant clear cutting the project site including trees along designated “scenic road” Great Marsh? a. Solution i. Provide tree removal plan to ZBA and confirmatfon that applicant has coordinated with the Town DPW has requested. ii. If clear cutting and only replacement of trees and shrubs is C3.2, we request that ZBA require a new version of landscape plan with adequate landscaping to mitfgate “scenic road” Great Marsh visuals, Phinney’s/Route 28 visuals to project. 2) Stormwater runoff: Missing details regarding how the project will manage and treat stormwater runoff. Has a sitewide Nitrogen loading calculatfon been done to determine the sitewide nitrogen load? There should be NO nitrogen loading in an NSA. Solution: Do the calculatfons and if a nitrogen load exists, take mitfgatfng actfons. 3) Sewer capacities: Is the newly constructed sewer pumping statfon (at the intersectfon of Phinney’s and Rt 28) designed for the existfng residents at the tfme of its constructfon? Will it be able to absorb additfonal usage from this new neighborhood without requiring additfonal pumping statfons or other remediatfons in order to provide sewer services to the residents on the current sewer plan? Solution: Confirm that the applicant has determined that they will be able to hook up to centralize sewer, that there is not a moratorium on constructfon to the recently paved Phinney’s Lane, and that the town has taken this project into consideratfon when it constructed the pump statfon. 4) The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has refiled its Clean Water Act lawsuit against the town of Barnstable July 22, 2024. It contends that the town’s sewage treatment plant, located in Hyannis is pollutfng waters with Nitrogen, leading to toxic algae outbreaks that destroy habitats and sicken people and pets. Through stormwater runoff and additfonal sewer and subsequently nitrogen load to Hyannis Water Pollutfon Control Facility (aka wastewater treatment plant), which Barnstable DPW may not have considered in their Comprehensive Water Management Plan, our town may open itself up to contfnued lawsuits Solution: Confirm that the applicant has discussed the possibility of hooking up to centralize sewer and that the town has taken this project into consideratfon when it calculated build out. 5) Conflict between the Commonwealth’s NSA mandate and 40B mandate- They contradict or oppose one another. We cannot meet one without compromising or not being able to meet the other. Solution: This is a conundrum, do we proceed with calculatfons and mitfgatfons, knowing there will stfll be added load within the sewer treatment plant? Even if we are able to mitfgate the nitrogen load from the stormwater runoff, we risk contfnued, lengthy and expensive lawsuits. SAFETY/QUALITY of LIFE/ ACCESSIBILITY TRAFFIC / WEBA INTERSECTION AND IMPACTS / EGRESSES / UNIT SIZES & CAPACITIES / SIDEWALKS / DRIVEWAYS Traffic Issues Review Requests by Town and MHA 3. Mass Housing eligibility determinatfon review a. Town requested Comprehensive Traffic Study i. Impacts on area roadways ii. Sightlines iii. Capacity iv. Other public safety measures 4. Mass Housing Determinatfon Letter after review a. Applicant should be prepared to submit informatfon related to traffic impacts b. Meet with Fire Department 5. Town Site Plan Review a. Again – Traffic Analysis requested by Planning – Mr. Pedicini b. Provide Site lines for entrance requested by Mr. Wrobel DPW Items of Concern / Proposed Solutions 4. Comprehensive Traffic Study requested by Town has not adequately addressed the impacts of this project. a. Developer’s group contracted with consultant, but applicant’s group dictates scope of work. This is an issue as scope of work was limited. b. The Traffic Impact and Access Study, TIAS states, “based on local knowledge”. Who was interviewed? Local knowledge did not address the following. i. By locatfng currently proposed egress/ingress curb cut across from development entrance, it commonsensically required integratfon of the WEBA neighborhood into the analysis with its 16’-19’ width lanes and shortcut opportunity to bypass the Phinney’s Lane / Great Marsh intersectfon when is backed up. This created a significant adverse impact on the adjacent neighborhood to the north. (Juniper Lane, Brezner Lane, Pond and Lake)Wequaquet estates neighborhood, (WEBA) The additfonal traffic creates an undue burden on WEBA residents with the safety and risk concerns surrounding our private lake beach. c. Solution i. Relocate the currently proposed egress/ingress curb cut to midway between the current locatfon and Phinney’s Lane. 1. Consistent with other curb cuts on Great Marsh 2. Totally mitigates significant adverse impact on Juniper neighborhood 5. The traffic count data for the comprehensive study, although consultant states it was conducted in September /xxx, was conducted on one day, a Tuesday in August. Although a potentfally busy tfme on the Cape overall in certain areas and corridors, but not on a neighborhood collector road with residents on vacatfon as well, no school, no sports etc. as compared to an analysis in September with everyone back at work, kids in school, school sports and the vehicle stacking issues on Phinney’s to Route 28 impactf ng the stacking on Great Marsh. a. Solution i. Re-conduct traffic analysis for September or non-summer season months based on local knowledge of busy traffic period. Address safety and risk impacts to the Wequaquet estates neighborhood. 6. Project Entrance has questfonable site lines to the curve on Great Marsh to the West as described in the traffic study and questfoned by DPW. To compound the problem, the applicant has designed additfonal landscaping per Landscape Plan C3.2 and in additfon does not appear to own enough land to the West of the currently proposed entrance to mitfgate the site line issue. The proposed project entrance plans show no sidewalk from residences, C3.1 out to a bus stop that is not proposed. Where are the children being picked up at “peak hour” tfmes on this collector road where speed is 38mph in 30mph zone as cited by the study. It creates increased pedestrian traffic on Great Marsh and Phinney’s which demand sidewalks to keep people safe, allowing them a better quality of life. a. Solution i. Relocate currently proposed egress/ingress curb cut to midway between current locatfon and Phinney’s Lane. 1. Consistent with other curb cuts on Great Marsh 2. Mitfgates sight line issues 3. Safer locatfon for bus stops while 38mph traffic approaches around curve from the West on Great Marsh. 4. This is not a hardship for the applicant as one similar parcel can substftute another to achieve this re-locatfon. 7. Fire Truck Access from Route 28 / Phinney’s Lane is significantly questfonable. This grass paver sectfon show on plan C3.3, Tower Truck Turning Template has a number of issues. The plan itself shows the turning path does not fit the grass paver proposed entrance. More significantly, the Tower Fire truck would turn left off Route 28 onto Phinney’s Lane and somehow have to cross two lanes of stacked vehicles right at the end of Phinney’s lane, which is a very consistent traffic pattern and not covered in the Traffic Analysis. The Route 28 / Phinney’s Lane intersectfon is a “Level of Service – F”, the worst, as cited by the Traffic Analysis, and has an astounding 46 vehicle accidents over a recent 5 year period, again, as cited by the Traffic Analysis. a. Solution i. Utflize property owned by applicant to provide a second access to project on to Richardson Road. There are significant benefits to this solutfon. 1. The width of Richardson Road at this point has a commercial width due to the business’s located there. Residents leaving the development would have much more efficient access to Route 28 heading West and would not impact residents to the right on Richardson as it would not be a preferable route. This solutfon would also distribute the vehicles more efficiently to and from the development. 2. Fire Vehicles coming from Centerville Fire Department would have much better access to the development by entering Richardson Road off Route 28 and not having to cross stacked vehicles on Phinney’s Lane in the middle of an intersectfon with the worst ratfng available. 8. Traffic Distribution, according to the Traffic Analysis states the following. At the peak hour in the morning there would be 7 vehicles in and 21 out. Peak hour in the evening would be 20 in and 13 out. What is not in the summary is that total trip generatfon data appears to be 140 per day for the 3-story apartment building and 180 for the homes according to the study. So, 320 overall trips per day in and out of the development. What the study also does not account for is the trash vehicles, other transportatfon vehicles and a very significant trend in home delivery vehicles all entering this development from one access point. a. Solution i. Relocate currently proposed egress/ingress curb cut to midway between current locatfon and Phinney’s Lane. 1. Consistent with other curb cuts on Great Marsh 2. Mitfgates sight line issues 3. Safer locatfon for bus stops while 38mph traffic approaches around curve from the West on Great Marsh. 4. This is not a hardship for the applicant as one similar parcel can substftute another to achieve this re-locatfon. ii. Utflize property owned by applicant to provide a second access to project on to Richardson Road. There are significant benefits to this solutfon. 1. The width of Richardson Road at this point has a commercial width due to the business’s located there. Residents leaving the development would have much more efficient access to Route 28 heading West and would not impact residents to the right on Richardson as it would not be a preferable route. This solutfon would also distribute the vehicles more efficiently to and from the development. 2. Fire Vehicles coming from Centerville Fire Department would have much better access to the development by entering Richardson Road off Route 28 and not having to cross stacked vehicles on Phinney’s Lane in the middle of an intersectfon with the worst ratfng available. 9. “Other Public Safety Measures” as an item questfoned by the Town are concerning as there does not appear to be appropriate measures no the site plans. There are no driveways shown on the site plans. Are there driveways for the single homes and are they of a size to park two cars. Is parking planned and/or a second vehicle to be parked on the streets themselves, as the Fire Tower Truck takes the full 20’ proposed on the proposed roadways. Are there sidewalks or at least a sidewalk for parents to walk children to the bus stop on Great Marsh? There is proposed sidewalk right in the intersectfon of Phinney’s and Route 28 that would lead residents to the south side of Route 28. An intersectfon that is considered a Level of Service F and an accident rate of 46 over a recent 5-year period. How do residents access grocery and other retail outlets as you can’t cross back across Route 28 at the Bell Mall. a. Solutions i. As proposed above, create a relocated entrance on Great Marsh ii. As proposed above, create second entrance on Richardson Road to allow traffic distributfon, emergency access and resident access to commercial propertfes for goods and services. iii. Add sidewalk at least from the entrances/bus stops back to the first homes iv. Create safe space bus stops at egress/ingress locatfons with lightfng. Traffic Summary The development site plans create a number of significant adverse impacts that need to be analyzed and resolved. Yes, the initfal review by MHA based on the informatfon they had stated the site was eligible for consideratfon, based on review of the items they requested. The WEBA INTERSECTION AND IMPACTS – This developer proposes a single egress to be placed directly across from Juniper Road creatfng an intersectfon with the quiet lake community, Wequaquet estates. Our roads are replete with dog walkers, senior citfzens, and neighbors who watch over and care for one another. Our roads are all Minor B roads (16-19’ in width) which make them unsuitable for through traffic. This would require significant and costly mitfgatfon to ensure safety. The additfonal traffic in the WEBA neighborhood would put an undue burden on the residents by creatfng safety risks for our private lake beach. It therefore warrants costly and extensive mitfgatfon to ensure safety and mitfgate risk Solution: Move the egress further toward Phinney’s rd. and create a second egress on Richardson Road. Eliminate the dangerous and compromised emergency access within the Phinney’s and Route 28 intersectfon. EGRESSES – The proposed egress from the development located on Great Marsh Road and forming an intersectfon with Juniper Road will serve up to 160 bedrooms within the subdivision. All residents, all service vehicles, all landscape trucks, all trash vehicles, all door dash/Instacart vehicles, all amazon, ups and fed ex vehicles will flow through this one intersectfon. This will increase traffic at the Great Marsh and Phinney’s intersectfon as well as the Proposed Great Marsh and Juniper intersectfon. It will encourage cross through traffic into the juniper (Wequaquet estates) neighborhood especially when a back up on Great Marsh occurs. It will cause increased car and pedestrian risk due to the increased number of cars, estfmates of over 300 in/outs per day of just residents alone in additfon to the significant negatfve impacts to the WEBA neighborhood. The second emergency only access to the development is proposed at the intersectfon of Phinney’s lane and Route 28. It is in the middle of a crowded and busy intersectfon where 46 accidents have occurred in recent years. Cars stack up often blocking the next intersectfon at Great Marsh. The look back at the Phinney’s and route 28 intersectfon is atrocious. It is at an impossible angle. The cars often run red lights and stop beyond the stop line. To further confound things there will be locked gate at the entrance. Solution: ELIMINATE the irresponsible and dangerous emergency access point within the existfng intersectfon and create a secondary all access egress onto Richardson Road. This will allow for safer emergency access, less risk to intersectfon drivers, no need for gate access maintenance. It will provide an alternate egress for residents, lessening traffic and risk on Great Marsh. It will afford all pedestrians a safer path to bell tower mall and a safer better quality of life. UNIT SIZES & CAPACITIES - A three story apartment building is not “in keeping with the neighborhood” as required by the 40B handbook. Multfbedroom rentals will increase pedestrian traffic and auto traffic on already unsafe roads. Solution: Limit size of apartment building to two stories would be less intrusive for our single-family home neighbors. and limit units to 1-2 bedrooms. SIDEWALKS- are missing from these plans. Maintaining dignity for a young family who cannot afford a car, or an elderly neighbor who can no longer see well enough to drive is critfcal. Having no safe access for them to get to a supermarket or pharmacy or to obtain medical care is unacceptable. What kind of quality of life is this? Great Marsh and Phinney’s lane are unsafe without sidewalks due to speeding drivers. An egress from the neighborhood onto Richardson Road would be a much safer optfon with access to sidewalks on 28 and allow a safer entrance for emergency vehicles and lessen the burden on Great Marsh traffic Solution: We propose that the developer construct sidewalks along Great Marsh Rd and Phinney’s lane to improve public safety. These roads are not safe for pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Great Marsh is narrow and does not have shoulders and therefore presents a serious public safety risk Per the transportatfon study, the posted speed is 30mph yet d rivers speed averaged 38mph Phinney’s Lane is wider with some shoulder area, however the cars drive fast on this road, presentfng a serious public safety issue for future residents of the 40B development. The proposed development will substantfally increase foot traffic increasing the risk to both drivers and pedestrians. This safety hazard could be readily mitfgated with the additfon of sidewalks along both Great Marsh Road and Phinney’s lane. Additfonally, people who need to walk to bus stops should be able to walk along sidewalks instead of on the roads. The two closest bus stops are approximately .5-.6 miles, and are both located on Route 28. DRIVEWAYS - Are missing from the plans. Will the driveways be within the neighborhood? Will the houses abutting Great Marsh be accessible from Great Marsh Road? How many cars will the driveways hold? Will there be covenants limitfng how many cars are allowed per p roperty or rental unit? ADDITIONAL CONCERNS HISTORIC DISTRICT A portfon of the proposed project is within a designated historic district and may be subject to the Massachusetts Historic Commission. (see attached document) Solution: The commission meets on January 20th which may be a good tfme to address compliance solutfons. WILDLIFE two sets of eagles, one, Bald eagles and the other Golden eagles, are often seen flying from the proposed property into our Wequaquet Estates neighborhood. They have been observed multfple tfmes by multfple neighbors. It is believed they live in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision. (see attached photo) Solution: engage a wildlife study to determine that eagle’s habitat and nestfng sites are not disturbed. WAIVERS 1. Ch 180 Scenic Roads a. Great Marsh Road is on Scenic Road list b. Solution – Why is it necessary to impact one of our Town’s Scenic designated roads. Most significant impact is the apparent plan to clear cut current forested area including any buffer to Scenic Road. Request ZBA to deny waiver. 2. Ch. 903 – Stormwater Management Rules and Regulations a. Waiver to requirements of obtaining a BDPW SWM Permit i. The design shall follow MassDEP SWM Policy but waive the requirements of obtaining a local SWM Permit. b. Solution – “This project site is “shoehorned” between a Scenic Road, Phinney’s Lane and a nursing home facility. Stormwater management both during constructfon with the varying elevatfons and final build-out is critfcal. Stormwater design is best practfces and then applied to specific sites. Requestfng ZBA to require permit to ensure Stormwater management for this specific site is designed properly. Following “policy” is not specific enough versus specific plan for this site per Town which is critfcal to protect against environmental impacts both on site and adjacent watershed and neighborhoods. Request ZBA to deny waiver. 3. Ch. 240 Zoning Ordinances a. Solution – There are numerous Zoning Ordinances and sectfons of those being requested to be waived. In fairness to the ZBA review process, we request the applicant provide what details of the project relate to each of the significant amount of zoning waivers requested under Ch. 240 such that the ZBA has adequate informatfon to perform their role. There are numerous items here that should be detailed out for the ZBA, for example the higher 3 story building height, the setbacks to adjacent nursing home, and the zoning issues under the HO district. 4. Cape Cod Commission – a. A waiver from the Cape Cod Commission Act, Chapter A, Enabling Regulatfons, Regional Policy Plan, and Technical Bulletfns for review of proposals containing 30 or more residentfal units. b. Solution – The CCC acts as one more entfty that can provide a review of this project based on that fact that it is 30 or more residentfal units. The CCC is one more entfty in our Town and Cape government that’s role is to ensure this project is successful for all involved. Request this waiver be denied and the CCC is allowed to provide input to the ZBA for review.