Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.6.2026 Supplemental Submission Memorandum (195 Phinney's Lane et al, Centerville)1 Law Office of Singer & Singer, LLC 26 Upper County Road P. O. Box 67 Dennisport, Massachusetts 02639 Andrew L. Singer Tel: (508) 398-2221 Marian S. Rose Fax: (508) 398-1568 _____ www.singer-law.com Myer R. Singer (1938-2020) EMAIL MEMORANDUM To: Barnstable Board of Appeals From: Andrew Singer, Attorney Date February 6, 2026 Re: Great Marsh Development LLC Comprehensive Permit No. 2025-025 This Memorandum is a supplemental submission in response to questions and comments received at the first session with the Board on the above housing proposal. The Applicant’s goal within is to clarify and answer as many questions as possible at this time to assist the hearing process as it moves forward. We anticipate that there will be additional questions and requests for consideration after our next session with the Board. Below is a discussion of the following topics (which aggregates questions raised by both Board members and comments from the public): 1) Environmental (wastewater and stormwater); 2) Transportation (vehicular and pedestrian); 3) Site Design and Screening; 4) Comprehensive Permit Law; and 5) Miscellaneous. Discussion Environmental (Wastewater and Stormwater) The Property is located in the RPOD Zoning Overlay District as well as a Saltwater Estuary Overlay District. The development will reduce the amount of nitrogen being discharged into the ground, compared to both existing conditions and that which could be generated with a traditional, non-affordable subdivision, and will result in a net benefit to the environment in a nitrogen sensitive area. Specifically, at present there are seven (7) existing bedrooms on four lots. These are each serviced by a respective Title V septic system. The combined nitrogen load is 3.11 ppm. With the proposal (56 units) being located on Town sewer, the combined nitrogen load will be reduced to 1.61 ppm, reflecting a 50% reduction over existing conditions. When the Town negotiated with the Applicant for an easement to locate piping for the new Town sewer station adjacent to the Property on the Applicant’s land, the effluent from the Centerville Cove 2 development was factored into the calculations. Adding the new subdivision into the sewer will thus not delay or block any other properties from being attached to the sewer in the ordinary course. In addition, the Town installed a sewer stub onto the Property as part of the sewer extension. The Applicant will be responsible for installing the sewer infrastructure, both cost and construction, in the new subdivision, not the Town. A betterment assessment and sewer connection permit will each be applicable to the twenty-one proposed lots in the new subdivision. Because of the foregoing, future sewer connections of surrounding residential neighborhoods to the Property will not be delayed or negatively impacted as a result of the development. In response to a question about the Commonwealth Builder Program, which the Applicants hopes will be the subsidy program for the development, the Town’s installation of the sewer stub will serve as the Town’s required contribution towards the project. Stormwater management (SWM) will be provided for the development following both MassDEP Stormwater Management Policy and the Barnstable SWM requirements. The SWM design will be fully reviewed by the Barnstable DPW (BDPW), and the Applicant will address any comments they have. The waiver request from the BDPW SWM Permit is only for a waiver from the “papering” process of the permit. The process of the permit creates additional costs, and the Applicant is attempting to keep costs down which ultimately benefits the costs of the units. Transportation (Vehicular and Pedestrian) The Traffic Impact and Analysis Study (TIAS) prepared by VHB studied six different intersections and collected peak hour data during the summer. It investigated crash history, public transportation availability, as well as present day and future road conditions. VHB is a well-respected engineering firm that has completed many hundreds of studies on Cape Cod and elsewhere for applicants and also maintains on-call design contracts with several Cape Cod Towns. The TIAS determined that no Level of Service (LOS) changes will be created with the project. The proposed residential development will result in a total of 344 new vehicle trips per day. Of these, there will be a total of 28 new trips (7 entering/21 exiting) during the weekday morning peak hour, and 33 trips (20 entering/13 exiting) during the weekday evening peak hour. At peak hours (the busiest times), this is the equivalent of less than one new car per minute (0.46 and 0.55), exiting or entering at Great Marsh Road. The TIAS concludes that “Capacity analyses were conducted for each of the study area intersections and roadway segments under 2025 Existing conditions, 2032 No-Build conditions (without the proposed development), and 2032 Build conditions (with the proposed development). The analysis results show only minor changes at study area intersections because of this Project.” The proposal will result in the net elimination of three existing or proposed driveways with residents backing out onto Great Marsh Road. There will be only the new roadway with a curb cut on Great Marsh Road. The Applicant proposes to install stop signs and stops bars within the new subdivision and at this curb cut. The Applicant is also willing to install the same on Juniper Road at its intersection with Great Marsh Road. The proposed location of the subdivision curb cut on Great Marsh Road lines up with the layout of the old paper road running through the land. The Applicant reviewed the possibilities of proposing a four-way stop at the new subdivision or shifting the new roadway to off-set from Juniper Road. From a transportation engineering perspective, neither of these is warranted nor desirable. The former would lead 3 to further traffic delay closer to the Phinney’s Lane intersection. The latter would interject new conflict points along the road and potentially lead to headlights shining into houses across the street. In discussion with the Town DPW and COMM during informal site plan review and thereafter, an emergency access drive out to Phinney’s Lane was requested. This ground-vegetated drive is shown on the plans with a permanent gate and a knox box providing keyed access as needed to public safety personnel only. As requested by the Town, there will also be pedestrian access in this location out to Phinney’s Lane. The Applicant has agreed to install a sidewalk along Phinney’s Lane to connect to the existing Route 28 sidewalk and crosswalk. A question was raised as to whether this pedestrian path could be shifted onto the Town’s adjacent, sewer pump station property. If the Town is willing to grant the Applicant an easement to do so, this is a potential option. The proposed subdivision will not result in any thru-traffic to adjacent subdivisions. The exiting traffic from the proposed development is intended to travel either left or right onto Great Marsh Road. The internal speed limit will be signed for 20 mph. In such a situation and as generally followed throughout Barnstable in residential subdivisions, internal sidewalks are not common and one is not proposed for this subdivision. School buses will stop on Great Marsh Road as they do at present. The Applicant is willing to install a bus shelter in the entrance area. Site Design and Screening The Centerville Cove housing is intended to serve an unmet need in the community. Owners of the lots and renters in the apartment building will be teachers, nurses, public safety personnel, and young people, among others. The Applicant is proposing a mix of three- and four-bedroom homes. Elevations and floor plans for the four-bedroom option are included with this supplemental submission. Elevations and floor plans for the two three-bedroom options have previously been submitted. Each house lot will have a private, two-car driveway. There will be building envelopes and landscaping, and individual lot development and utility plans will be provided when seeking building permits. Regarding the apartment building lot, the Barnstable Zoning Ordinance requires 9 x 20 parking spaces, though there is also a graphic included in the Ordinance that allows for 9 x 19 parking spaces. Ten-foot wide spaces are not part of the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant is proposing 9 x 19 parking spaces in accordance with customary design. The requested waiver for building height is to be only six inches above and for a half-story beyond what the Zoning Ordinance allows. If the top floor was limited to half the size of the floor below, then it would be considered a 2.5 story building. This, however, is not feasible as part of the affordable housing proposal. The proposed apartment building is suitable for this transition zone between the commercial shopping plazas and larger development to the west and the residentially used districts. The building, at its closest point to the traveled ways, respectively, will be located approximately 390 ft. from Great Marsh Road, approximately 300 ft. from Phinney’s Lane, and approximately 260 ft. from Route 28. The 4 building will also be screened by existing and proposed vegetation and buildings. The roof of the building may be visible from off site in the distance. There will be bike racks at the apartment building. No exterior storage is proposed at the apartment building. Solar is not an option with the apartment building because mechanicals will be located on the roof to hide them from view. The individual homes will be solar-ready for the future. There will be a ten-foot landscape buffer along Great Marsh Road. The Applicant will maintain the existing vegetation in this buffer to the extent practical and is also willing to plant additional trees in this buffer to enhance the buffer. There will be additional trees and vegetation planted as well where existing driveways are being closed on Great Marsh Road. There will be no fence around the playground, but there may be as required around the stormwater management area. The playground will be open to all residents of the subdivision. The Applicant can provide a rendering from Great Marsh Road later. Lighting will be dark-sky compliant with no glare off site. Comprehensive Permit Law As set forth in the Barnstable Comprehensive Permit Regulations and in accordance with State law, an Applicant submits preliminary plans – site development, utilities, architectural, and subdivision, for review. This anticipates that final plans will be prepared after the Comprehensive Permit has issued. Conditions are appropriate to ensure, e.g., that the ultimate connections to the Town sewer, the final stormwater management system, and the layout of the improvements to be built on the for-sale lots are prepared and submitted before obtaining local permits to install and build. In this case, the Board of Appeals is serving as the Planning Board for purposes of the proposed subdivision. In accordance with MA law, a Town reviewing a project involving affordable housing looks at the proposal the same way that it would in reviewing projects not involving affordable housing. For example, when looking at Site Design and Screening for Centerville Cove, the location of the land in a transition zone between larger, more intense commercially-zoned land and more traditionally-developed, residentially-zoned land is part of the analysis. In addition, screening vegetation is meant to soften the property and make it more attractive, not to block buildings from visibility. The legal standard and vote required in review of Chapter 40B proposals is different than the legal standard under traditional zoning in Chapter 40A. For Chapter 40B, the Board votes by majority, not super- majority vote, and the standard of review is whether the proposed development is “consistent with local needs.” This is a defined term and is more than simply whether there is neighborhood support or opposition. There is a rebuttable presumption in MA law that an affordable housing project under Chapter 40B is consistent with local needs if a local community’s restricted affordable housing is less than ten percent of its year-round housing stock: A. “There exists a rebuttable presumption that the regional affordable housing need outweighs local concerns where the town's stock of low and moderate income housing is less than ten percent.” (see Zoning Board of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Committee, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 406, 414 (2011) and Zoning Board of Appeals of Hingham & another v. Housing Appeals Committee & another, 24-P-828, 2025, Appeals Court of Massachusetts); and 5 B. In Zoning Board of Appeals of Canton vs. Housing Appeals Committee & another (451 Mass. 158, 2008), the MA Supreme Judicial Court in a footnote wrote that “Pursuant to G. L. c. 40B, §§ 20-23, if a municipality has devoted ten per cent of its total housing units to low or moderate income housing, it may deny a comprehensive permit application, and that denial is conclusively presumed to be consistent with local needs. A denial in these circumstances is not appealable to the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC).” There are certain matters that are within a Board’s jurisdiction to request and review in affordable housing projects and others which are reserved for the State. The MA Housing Partnership’s Chapter 40B Handbook for ZBA’s (2017), notes: A. “The Chapter 40B Regulations specifically prohibit reviewing ‘a pro forma in order to see whether a Project would still be economic if the number of dwelling units were reduced, unless such reduction is justified by a valid health, safety, environmental, design, open space, planning, or other local concern that directly results from the size of a project on a particular site’ (760 CMR 56.05(6)(a)(4)). Reducing the density of a comprehensive permit development should be based on valid planning considerations, design deficiencies, or environmental impacts.” B. “Recent case law and changes to the Chapter 40B Regulations have helped to distinguish aspects of comprehensive permits that belong with the ZBA and those reserved for Subsidizing Agencies. As with any other type of development, local jurisdiction includes the physical and operational aspects of a project and its impact on public health and safety and environmental design. In general, conditions of approval that involve these interests are appropriate for a comprehensive permit, assuming they are based on local requirements, customarily apply to other types of housing development in the community, and do not make the proposed project uneconomic.” The Board is charged with reviewing a proposal under the above standard and may include conditions that do not render a project uneconomic. The Board balances the need for affordable housing with zoning, environmental, health, safety, site design, open space, and planning impacts of the proposed development. The goal is to create quality housing that is affordable for qualified individuals and families and a source of pride to its residents, the Town, and the project proponent, while at the same time appropriately protecting public health, safety and welfare. Miscellaneous Waivers. The Applicant will subsequently provide more specificity to each requested waiver. ADU’s. The question of ADU’s on lots within an affordable housing subdivision has not been answered by the State at this time. If the Applicant learns of an answer during the public hearing process, we will so inform the Board. HOA. There will ultimately be an HOA for the subdivision, but this is not a traditional part of regulatory review. This notwithstanding, if there are specific concerns for which a particular restriction might be potentially relevant, the Applicant is willing to discuss the same with the Board. Plans. If there are certain matters that the Board would like to see on the plans which can be reasonably added at this stage, the Applicant welcomes discussion with the Board on such requests. Thank you.