HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment from Gregory1
Ziino, Genevey
Subject:FW: ZBA Public Comment - Great Marsh Development LLC
From: C G <cjtgregory@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 10:37 PM
To: Ziino, Genevey <Genevey.Ziino@barnstable.gov>; Pina, Karen <karen.pina@barnstable.gov>
Cc: Keane, Thomas <Thomas.Keane@barnstable.gov>
Subject: ZBA Public Comment - Great Marsh Development LLC
Dear Ms, Ziino and Pina,
Please find below my comment regarding the Great Marsh development for the VBA meeting tomorrow
night. Thank you so much!
Councilor Keane, I know you have shown an interest in this development and wanted to share my
thoughts with you as well.
Dear Board Members,
I am writing again to share my thoughts on the proposed development at Great Marsh. I remain in favor of
the development and wanted to contribute some, hopefully, constructive suggestions on how we can
move this forward.
First of all, I just want to say while I understand why those opposed might raise concerns about the
environment, or the character of the neighborhood, or wanting more concrete promises before approval.
But the fact that we remain under 10% SHI and this development being a 40B means:
We cannot wait to "approve until everything is resolved in writing." as that is essentially holding a 40B to a
higher standard than most normal regulatory agreements.
We cannot hold up the character of the neighborhood as it would almost surely be overturned in the
Housing Appeals Committee.
While the RPOD, saltwater estuary overlays to exist in the case, the project is attaching to the sewer,
mitigating the nitrogen loading issues that should be the main concern here. Those opposed need to
demonstrate actual harm generated by the development with actual evidence instead of projecting
unlikely black swan events as assured to happen.
I will also say that I personally do not think buildings make a neighborhood or community; People do.
My mother in law's family has been here since the Glorious Revolution, and she walks around with us
sometimes and points out that million dollar houses along the lake used to be little camps. This place
has changed drastically several times in living memory, and it will change again. However I fear that we
2
are at a fork of what that change will look like and it comes down to how many people can live here year
round.
And I have a big concern about our area and the emptying out of our lanes and side streets as the older
generation ages out and houses convert to summer homes. A development that brings an infusion of
year round residents to our neighborhood is a boon to the character of our neighborhood from my
perspective.
With that said, I think there are several things we can do to increase connectivity with the surrounding
neighbourhood and limit some potential negative externalities:
I don't know anything about stormwater. It sounds like they have work to do in that area and they are
committed to meeting the necessary standards. I leave that to you all and DPW to figure out. Same goes
to the construction traffic management plan, sight distance certification, and emergency access road
maintenance agreement. But DPW seems to already be on all of this.
However, with regard to the traffic study and the effect on traffic in the area, I think we could suggest the
following:
Require the applicant to construct a sidewalk along their Great Marsh Road frontage connecting to the
subdivision entrance, a marked crosswalk at the entrance with an RRFB (flashing beacon), the already-
offered Phinney's Lane sidewalk to Route 28, and a proper school bus pull-off with safe waiting area at
the entrance. All of this is proportional to a 56-unit development generating pedestrian traffic on roads
that currently lack pedestrian infrastructure. The applicant has already volunteered pieces of this, so
formalizing and completing it shouldn't trigger an "uneconomic" challenge.
I would also like to see traffic calming at the entrance such as a curb extension (bump-out) that narrows
the road at the entrance point, which naturally slows traffic. The developer controls the design of their
own curb cut and entrance road, so this is within their scope. A raised intersection or speed table at the
entrance point might also be appropriate.
Finally, if the developer would be willing to put in some sort of small playground or play area and allow
neighborhood residents to use it, I think that would be a good way to generate intercourse between
existing residents and the new folks.
The biggest stretch I might suggest is that our area needs a general road safety audit or pedestrian safety
assessment. I do not think the developer should pay for this. However we could ask them to commit to
contributing a certain amount of money (predetermined to ensure they are not rendered un-economic) to
suggestions related to their development if the town runs their own study.
However, I keep hearing that people want more affordable housing and local developers and this fits
both of those bills. I do not want to make this more expensive or drag this out unnecessarily as, at a
certain point it just seems punitive.
Thank you all for your attention on this matter.
Chris Gregory
Centerville
3