HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment from Gregory1
Ziino, Genevey
Subject:FW: ZBA Public Comment
Attachments:precinct2_analysis_dashboard.html
From: C G <cjtgregory@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11:31 AM
To: Ziino, Genevey <Genevey.Ziino@barnstable.gov>; Pina, Karen <karen.pina@barnstable.gov>
Subject: ZBA Public Comment
Dear Ms. Ziino and Ms. Pina,
Please find below comment for the ZBA meeting tonight. Thanks so much!
Chris Gregory
Dear Board Members,
It seems that the Great Marsh development has drastically changed since the last time they presented. I
am not entirely sure why they decided to make these changes, however I do think that the applicant
essentially bailed you out in a way. Much of the questioning from some of the board members in the last
session seemed to me like an outcome of rejection looking for a reason, which does not seem to fly
under 40B regulations. If this had been a less scrupulous developer, they might have happily answered
your questions, accepted your rejection and gone to the Housing Appeals Committee saying they tried to
meet the Board and Community half way and were still rejected. They might have been justified in putting
in another application of entirely multifamily buildings and I imagine HAC would have approved them.
This applicant seems like the truly were not interested in maximizing their revenue, and were willing to
compromise, but that seems like the exception rather than the rule.
If you were pressing in that meeting because you were frustrated by the applicant's lack of progress or
preperation, I share your frustration. However, we have sewers coming into this area and I do not think
this will be the last time we have to address development like this.
The question of sidewalks was especially troublesome. Some genius in the last session said that
Centerville has sidewalks. That goes to show that they have spend no time in our neck of the woods.
There are no sidewalks in Precinct 2 aside from Route 132. Even the sidewalks on Old Stage are on the
other side of the road in the different Precinct. Attempting to require them in this development both puts
a higher standard on the project than the rest of our area is held to, but also exacerbates the storm water
management solution that you were already saying was not clear enough. You were essentially punishing
this project in two different dimensions in a way that we would not expect of other subdivisions in our
precinct.
With the question of water capacity and fire capacity, I think the fact that our fire department is
understaffed is a problem that needs to be addressed, but the Chief cannot make his problem the
2
developer's problem. One would assume that the COMM subscription fees paid by the prospective
tenants of this development would have been able to help address the understaffing issue. I imagine lack
of housing might even be a leading reason why the Chief cannot staff his department. But to say that this
development cannot move forward because of the Fire Department's dereliction essentially implies that
we should not produce ANY new housing in the COMM area for the same reason.
The issue of water capacity follows the same problem. Our town has baked in the need to cover water
capacity when our population doubles, and even triples in the Summer. However the addition of these 20
units would be a bridge too far? Is the difference in 20 units here making a huge dent in terms of available
water capacity versus when every house of the lake is full in July? I find it hard to believe.
Again, in the case of clearing the land for the development, we are now removing essentially the same
amount of tree coverage for 20 less units. There will be more lawns, more need for irrigation, more
possibility for using fertilizer and pesticides. Is this actually better in terms of an environmental outcome
for the ground water and the Lake? The only true benefit I could find is that since the number of units
reduced by so much, the carbon offset needed is not so great. However, if we are going to clear this land,
I do not think this is an efficient use of it. I would have hoped at least we could have gotten some
duplexes in here to get some more living units.Instead we have just another subdivision. It seems even
lost out of the promise of a small playground, which isn't the end of the world but it was a thing that was
going to encourage connectivity of this new community with the rest of the neighborhood and that is
gone now.
Please understand that I am not accusing any of you of nefarious or ill intentioned actions. It just struck
me that the questions in the last session were the sort of filibustering you commonly see against
multifamily housing that 40B is meant to eliminate, and I do not think this is the last time Centerville will
have to address this question. I want to leave you with some analysis I have done in the meantime based
on public records of the constitution of our Precinct, and call out specifically that we are already an area
with far fewer year round residents thant the rest of Barnsable, and the percentage of people taking the
full time resident exemption has fallen 5% in the last 3 years. As the Silent and Baby Boomer generation
continue to age out, and median house prices continue to sit in the mid $600k, I expect this trend to
continue and I find it very concerning, I want to reiterate that buildings do not make a community, people
do, and we had a chance here for a large infusion of new blood into our area and missed it. I think that is
an impact that we do not discuss enough the context of these developments.
I am happy to discuss this further with any of you if you are interested. I just have a hard time getting to in
person meetings because they land around my kids' bedtime.
Sincerely,
Chris Gregory
Centerville