HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment from Temple
May 27, 2026 meeting
Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Barnstable
367 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
RE: Great Marsh LLC – Proposed 40B Development on Great Marsh Road Request for
Conditions of Approval Requiring Relocation of Proposed Intersection
Dear Members of the Board:
We respectfully submit this letter regarding the proposed 36-home Chapter 40B development by
Great Marsh LLC on the 6.7-acre parcel located on Great Marsh Road in Centerville.
At the outset, we want to make clear that the residents of the WEBA neighborhood support the
creation of affordable single-family housing on Cape Cod. We recognize the important need for
housing that supports local families, workers, seniors, and the Cape’s economy. Our concerns are
not about the density or viability of the proposed 40B project itself. Rather, our concerns focus
narrowly on the proposed roadway configuration and the serious safety and neighborhood
impacts created by locating the subdivision entrance directly opposite Juniper Road.
Importantly, these concerns can be substantially resolved through a practical and reasonable
modification: relocating the proposed subdivision entrance approximately 150 to 220 feet
easterly along Great Marsh Road, as shown in our counterproposal materials. This alternative
location would not reduce the project’s density, would not threaten the economic viability of the
development, and would involve only minimal additional cost or delay.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Board approve the project only with the following
conditions:
1. Require the developer to relocate the proposed intersection approximately 150–220 feet
easterly on Great Marsh Road; and
2. Prohibit construction vehicles from using the WEBA neighborhood roadways.
Our reasons are based on documented safety, traffic, and pedestrian inclusion concerns.
SAFETY ISSUE #1 — CONFLICT POINTS AND CRASH RISK The current proposal would
create a new four-way intersection across from Juniper Road on Great Marsh Road, a major
collector roadway. This location directly connects the new subdivision to our older lakeside
neighborhood consisting primarily of narrow Minor B roadways measuring approximately 16 to
19.5 feet in width.
Traffic engineering literature consistently recognizes that four-way intersections create
substantially more vehicle and pedestrian conflict points than traditional T-intersections. The
existing condition is a relatively simple and safer T-Intersection with approximately 9 conflict
points. The proposed design converts this into a complex 4-Way intersection with approximately
32 conflict points significantly increasing opportunities for turning conflicts, angle crashes, and
pedestrian conflicts.
The danger is amplified because the proposed intersection is positioned adjacent to a blind curve
on Great Marsh Road, reducing driver reaction time and visibility. This is further compounded
by drive speeds of 38 MPH, (27%) faster than posted 30MPH.
Our counter proposal eliminates these unnecessary risks by relocating the entrance 150–220 feet
easterly, allowing the project to function through a safer T-intersection configuration while
preserving the full development program. This alternative would maintain our neighborhood’s
safer T-intersection, reduce conflict points from 32 to 18 overall, (40% safer), improve visibility,
and materially improve safety for both vehicles and pedestrians.
Attached:
1. Conflict point comparison diagram
2. Blind curve photographs
3. Traffic engineering documentation regarding increased crash risks associated with four-
way intersections
SAFETY ISSUE #2 — FAILURE TO MEET REQUIRED SIGHT DISTANCES
According to the developer’s own traffic study data, the proposed four-way intersection appears
to fail multiple sight distance requirements under Section 801-13 of the Town of Barnstable
regulations, as well as generally accepted AASHTO guidance.
Adequate sight distance is one of the most fundamental principles of roadway safety. Drivers
must be able to safely perceive oncoming traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, and turning vehicles with
sufficient reaction time. The existing blind curve and higher speed conditions substantially
worsen this issue.
These deficiencies should not be overlooked merely because the project is proposed under
Chapter 40B. Public safety standards remain critically important, particularly where practical
alternatives exist that avoid the problem entirely.
Relocating the intersection to the counter proposed location would significantly improve sight
lines and eliminate many of these concerns without impacting the project’s density or feasibility.
Attached
4. Sight distance deficiency chart
5. Traffic engineering documentation regarding the safety importance of adequate sight
distance
6. Counterproposal location diagrams
SAFETY ISSUE #3 — CREATION OF CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC ON SUBSTANDARD
LOCAL ROADS EFFECTIVELY MAKING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR
ROADS
The proposed alignment effectively creates a direct northbound cut-through route from Great
Marsh Road through Juniper Road, Brezner Lane, and Pond Street for drivers attempting to
bypass congestion at the Great Marsh Road and Phinney’s Lane intersection.
Our neighborhood already experienced this exact behavior during the sewer project detour
period, when drivers increasingly used our neighborhood streets as a shortcut around traffic
congestion. Residents observed noticeably higher traffic volumes and increased vehicle speeds
during that period. We have a neighborhood petition against the intersection with 73 signatures
who support moving the intersection.
The developer’s own data indicates that approximately one-third of project traffic will travel
northbound. Accounting for return trips, the development could reasonably generate hundreds of
additional vehicle movements per day through our neighborhood roadways.
This would fundamentally change the function of our local streets from low-volume Minor B
neighborhood roads into de facto collector roads connecting Great Marsh Road and Phinney’s
Lane.
Our neighborhood roads are not designed for this purpose. They are narrow, winding,
substandard roadways with poor sight lines and no sidewalks. They were intended to serve local
residential traffic only.
Relocating the subdivision entrance easterly would materially reduce the attractiveness of this
cut-through route and help preserve the intended function and safety of our neighborhood streets.
Attached:
7. Traffic engineering documentation regarding safety risks associated with cut-through
traffic on local streets
SAFETY ISSUE #4 — PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND INCLUSION
The increase in traffic volume and speed resulting from cut-through traffic would directly impact
pedestrian safety and neighborhood accessibility.
Our neighborhood currently serves as a uniquely safe, low-volume environment where residents
and visitors walk, bike, push strollers, and recreate. Importantly, many disabled non driving
residents rely on these quiet roadways for safe and inclusive outdoor activity and recreation.
There are no sidewalks and pedestrians must share the roadway with vehicles.
If these streets become a cut-through route, that safe environment will be lost. Increased traffic
volumes and higher vehicle speeds would disproportionately impact vulnerable users, including
children, seniors, disabled residents, and pedestrians.
This issue is not merely about convenience. It concerns public safety, accessibility, and
preservation of a neighborhood environment and character that currently allows inclusive
recreation for all residents.
Attached:
8. Traffic engineering and pedestrian safety documentation regarding impacts of increased
traffic on local neighborhood street.
9. Eunice Kennedy Shriver Gopen fellow Elisabetta Cosantini letter citing concerns over
inclusive recreation for people with disabilities
CONCLUSION: The requested modification is reasonable, practical, and fully compatible with
the goals of Chapter 40B.
We are not asking the Board to reduce the project’s density or deny affordable housing. We are
simply asking the Board to require a safer roadway design that protects both future residents of
the development and the existing surrounding neighborhood.
Relocating the proposed entrance approximately 150–220 feet easterly would:
• Improve intersection safety
• Reduce crash risk
• Improve sight distance compliance
• Reduce cut-through traffic impacts
• Protect pedestrians and disabled residents
• Preserve the function of existing Minor B neighborhood roads
• Avoid impacts to the project’s density and viability
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Board approve the project only with
conditions requiring:
1. Relocation of the proposed subdivision entrance/intersection; and
2. Prohibition of construction vehicle access through the WEBA neighborhood.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these important public safety concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
On Behalf of:
WEBA Neighborhood Residents