HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment from Mr. Temple no. 11
Response to document: “Revised Project Narrative”
Submitted by: Jeff Temple 67 Brezner Lane, Centerville 4/8/26
Note: comments in “red”
Town of Barnstable
Board of Appeals
Comprehensive Permit Application
Applicant: Great Marsh Development LLC
Development: Homes at Centerville Cove
Property: 39, 51, 61, and 75 Great Marsh Road, 195 Phinney's Lane, and 40 Richardson Road,
Centerville, MA
Assessor's References: Map 210, Parcels 124, 125, 126, 134-003, and 134-004, and Map
209, Parcel 020
Revised Project Narrative
Great Marsh Development LLC herewith proposes a revision to its previously submitted Comprehensive
Permit application. The original project proposed a fifty-six (56) unit mixed-use development consisting
of twenty (20) single-family homes and a thirty-six (36) unit multifamily apartment building. Following
discussions with Town officials, the Applicant has revised the proposal to consist of 100% single-family
homes and no multifamily apartment units.
The revised proposal will now consist of thirty-six (36), three-bedroom single-family homes, including
thirty-five (35) new homes and one (1) existing three (3) bedroom home to remain at 40 Richardson
Road. The thirty-five (35) new homes will have access and egress off of Great Marsh Road opposite
Juniper Road. The new road (as yet unnamed) will not have any connection to Richardson Road.
The thirty-five (35) new homes will be designed as a mix of Cape and Ranch-style dwellings. Each house
lot will have a driveway with capacity for one or two vehicles depending on lot size and shape. Each
house will be landscaped with a grass lawn, foundation plantings, border plantings and shade trees.
1. Applicant letter to ZBA, 2/6/26 stated “there will be a 10’landscape buffer
along Great Marsh Road.” New plan drawing C3.2 shows an 8’ buffer
along Great Marsh Road.
2. In addition, only 2 trees are shown added at this time to block an
existing driveway basically where residents have requested the entrance
to the development be moved.
3. DPW has requested a “coordinated planting and tree removal plan”. Is
this the plan so DPW can now review and provide comments to the
ZBA?
2
This revised approach maintains the overall development program while continuing to provide a form of
housing that is not only needed but also more consistent with the character of the residential portion of
the surrounding neighborhoods. If this project is accepted by the Common Wealth Builder program, up to
thirty-five (35) of these homes will be designated as affordable at different levels and will contribute to
the Town's affordable housing goals for the next thirty (30) years. If this program is ultimately selected,
nine (9) of the new homes will be sold to people qualifying at the 80% AMI level and twenty-six (26) of
the new homes will be sold to people qualifying at the 100% AMI level. The existing home at 40
Richardson Road will be a market rate home.
The revised roadway and stormwater management plan reduces the amount of impervious surface from
the original plan. The revised plan provides safe access for residents and emergency services and is
consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. The road, utilities, and stormwater management system
will be built to the standard acceptable to the Town. The homes will be serviced with public water and
sewer.
Note:
1. Stormwater –
o Although always a positive to see a reduction, with the addition
of additional impermeable roofing and driveways the reduction
amounts to approximately 2960 square feet or ½ of a house lot.
o “Built to standard acceptable to the Town”? There is a whole
new complex stormwater design plan proposed.
Drain pits in every house lot, and Cultec filtration systems.
Some of these systems require significant maintenance to
prevent failure.
o Will the stormwater management system be reviewed through
the proper permitting process for design, operation and
maintenance? Will it be fully permitted, “papered” to ensure
compliance with the Town requirements?
2. Public Safety – How does the revised plan provide for safe access for
residents as stated?
o One small section of sidewalk in front of pump station leading to
crosswalk on Route 28, the only nearby business being the package
store. Who will maintain in the winter?
o No access road or pedestrian walkway/bike path to Richardson with
direct access to both local malls proposed.
The applicant’s property directly intersects with the
commercially wide section of Richardson. Why is this not
being considered from a planning perspective?
Town plan calls for connecting neighborhoods, the current
plan for a brand-new neighborhood designed in 2026
3
landlocks residents.
o Project residents/children are forced to walk in the main
entrance/exit roadway at peak hour to access the school bus or are
public buses entering the development?
o Most significantly, there is no change in the plans to relocate the
project entrance/exit which has been placed directly across from the
neighborhood entrance to the North causing an adverse public
safety impact. This 4-way intersection is not consistent with
neighborhoods along Great Marsh, Phinney’s Lane or Route 28.
A traffic impact analysis previously completed for the project determined that the originally proposed
development would not result in significant safety impacts to daily traffic conditions. The revised plan,
which reduces the total number of units and eliminates multifamily use, will result in less traffic
generation than the original study calculated.
1. Public Safety
a. The Traffic Impact Study did not state that the “development
would not result in “significant safety” impacts to daily traffic
conditions.”
b. The revised plan, based on the applicants’ Traffic Analysis trip
generation methodology results in the following changes with 36
homes;
i. Daily Trips - Previous plan 344, Revised plan 340, Net
change 4 less trips per day
ii. Saturday – Previous plan 348, Revised plan 342, Net change
6 less trips per day.
iii. Sunday – Previous plan 298, Revised plan 305, Net change 7
more trips per day.
The Applicant is also submitting a revised waiver list consistent with the revised design and with
additional detail as requested by the Board, as well as proposed conditions for consideration.
The Applicant respectfully submits that the revised proposal is consistent with local needs and will be a
benefit to the community.
Re-cap since last hearing after review of new plan;
Public Safety
1. Please reference the significant number of comments in the feedback
provided you in the February hearing entitled [Response to Singer of
2/6/26 to ZBA]
a. The review at that time and the many resulting questions about
the project have not been answered or considered.
4
b. The Traffic Impact Study is not comprehensive.
1. Public safety items for example, like the current project
entrance has only adequate site lines to the west with
traffic speed documented on average at 38mph in 30mph
zone.
c. The placement of the current entrance to the project has created
an “adverse diversion” or convenient cut-through safety issue,
due to the visible queuing or stacking at the Phinney’s / Great
Marsh intersection.
Public Safety Request
I am respectfully requesting the following as part of the review process by the ZBA:
To relocate the project entrance on Great Marsh for many reasons stated.
(Note visuals 1 and 2 attached)
1. This is not a hardship to the applicant; there is no “lot” loss.
2. Eliminates Juniper neighborhood adverse cut-through safety impacts.
3. Improves sight lines to the west from “adequate” to “desirable”,
especially with documented road speed of 38mph in a 30mph zone.
4. Improves driver awareness of the children waiting for bus stop.
5. Same headlight sweeps right and left as proposed location.
6. Agrees with Applicants testimony of not creating direct cut-through in the
proposed development.
Current project entrance will cause an adverse safety impact to the Juniper
Neighborhood by creating a cut-through or short cut issue when vehicle
congestion at the Great Marsh / Phinney’s Lane intersection is visible to the
project entrance/exit.
Fig 1
Relocate current entrance further
east -
•To mitigate adverse safety
impacts on Juniper Road
•To improve sight lines on Great
Marsh to the west.
Solution to Cut-Through Issue Fig 2