1-23-2023 Felicia Penn Dockside CommentsWhat is the Downtown Implementation District mentioned in the 3rd paragraph on page 1?
Is that the same as the Growth Incentive Zone?
Pg 2, first paragraph, no mention of spaces allotted for delivery and other commercial services.
Pg 2, second paragraph indicates compliance with the Design and Infrastructure Plan or DIP. I
strongly disagree that the scale of this project complies with the DIP, and have concerns that
the cement fiber shingles may not be consistent with the DIP.
There is no mention or description of what is expected in phase one and phase two of the build
out. I believe this regulatory agreement, which also serves as a development agreement should
include this information. It should include all site improvements for each phase, what timeline
each phase will take, and when each will be completed. It should also state that if the
development for some reason is not completed, what type of restoration of the property will
be expected.
Pg 11, #21: The offsite affordable units. Every unit here is a 3-bedroom unit. I assume that is to
maximize the rents. But, is that what the community needs? What size units are most in-
demand?
Pg 11, #22: Benefits to the town:
D. While the new water main will improve the infrastructure of the Hyannis Water Co, the
upgrade to the infrastructure needed to occur in order to serve the increased density and 76
new bedrooms in this location. Therefore, it is not considered a benefit to the town, but a
benefit to the project. This should be removed from the list.
K: Electric Plug-in stations: why are these a benefit to the town? How many are there? Are
they available to the public to use, even though they are on private property? This should not
be listed as a benefit to the public. This should be removed from the list.
L. Low water usage plumbing fixtures are a benefit to the condominium owners, not a benefit
to the residents of the town of Barnstable. This should be removed from this list.
There are not enough benefits to this town to grant the number of waivers the applicant is
requesting.
The density is still too great: 7/units per acre vs. 22 and 25 units per acre. If you waive the
density to the requested level this project is over 300% denser than what the law allows.
The height allowed is 2.5 stories. The waivers requested will allow these buildings to be 180%
higher than what is allowed.
Maximum height in feet allowed is 35’. One building will be 65’, and the other just 2” shy of
60’. These heights are 165-185% higher than the law allows.
All landscaping for above ground parking areas and buffers are being waived.
On page 15, Item K: There is no specification here as to what the parking aisle width will be.
The document just asks for a reduced width, but doesn’t say what the reduction is.
There will be no street trees.
Page 16: The applicant is asking the Planning Board to waive a new certificate of
appropriateness from the HY Main St Waterfront Historic District Committee. Not sure that’s
the purview of the Planning Board. Is it?
Pg 17, #30: This document indicates there is to be a FT property Manager, but there is no
indication that the applicant or its successors will provide contact info and identification of who
this individual will be. Doesn’t the town need this information as proof that this is so?
What happens when/if this project is not completed as specified?
Overall, the project’s benefits to the community do not outweigh the detriments…mainly the
height, and density. In an earlier meeting, there were questions from PB members as to why
the height in the harbor District is 2.5 stories. The answer to the question is to maintain the
harbor view. The history around the harbor has been to increase the public’s view and access
to the harbor. Think about it….in order to create Azelton Park, 6 houses were removed. In
order to create the Harbor Overlook, four housing structures were removed. The idea of
purposefully allowing a 65’ structure, that is 180% higher than what is allowed to be built on
the waterfront side of the street negates every positive action the town has taken over the past
55 years. There is no overwhelming long-term benefit to the public that justifies allowing these
density and height waivers.
Please remember that zoning is not guidance, it is statutory law.
I ask you to reject the requests for the density, height, and landscape waivers.
If you accept and approve this regulatory agreement as written, you will be setting a dangerous
precedent.
Thank You.
Felicia Penn
Hyannis