Appeals Board Wants More Space, Parking For Pennrose Project

 HARWICH – Members of the board of appeals are calling for more parking and potentially the expansion of acreage at the 5.4-acre parcel where the affordable housing trust and Pennrose, LLC are planning to construct the 60-unit multifamily development at 456 Queen Anne Rd.

 The appeals board held its second session on the 40B permit application on Thursday, April 23. 

The board focused on parking and internal pedestrian movement and whether the 5.4-acre parcel provided by the affordable housing trust is large enough to accommodate what is proposed for the development. The project calls for 14 buildings and a community center to be constructed around a center green space under which the Title 5 septic system would be located.

Neighbor Tom Stapleton, an engineer, said the property — which is located within the Six Ponds Special District, a District of Critical Planning Concern declared by the Cape Cod Commission — is unsuitable for such a development. He focused on water supply and rare species conservation that is important to the area, noting that $3 million was invested to protect open space there.

Stapleton said the affordable housing trust purchased the property and “irresponsibly subdivided it, cramming 60 units on 5.4 acres at 10 times the allowable density, disregarding the very bylaws meant to protect it.” 

A focus of the session was a presentation by the board’s site civil peer review consultant, VHB, Inc. Engineer Frank Dipietro went through a 19-page presentation highlighting a number of issues. 

The purpose of the peer review was to evaluate the project’s conformance with applicable local regulations, including the town’s zoning bylaw, subdivision and site plan regulations, comprehensive stormwater and discharge regulations to the extent applicable under 40B.

Dipietro said no jurisdictional wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones are present on the project site, thus it does not appear to be subject to review under the town’s wetlands protection bylaw or the state’s Wetland Protect Act. But he raised a number of issues relating to stormwater management.

Project proponent Pennrose and its associated consultants responded to VHB’s peer review in an April 16 letter, but Dipietro said he did not have the opportunity to review all of the responses by the time of the hearing.

The VHB review raised a number of issues relating to parking accommodations, vehicle blockage, vehicle turning movement and pedestrian safety. The planned development shows 76 parking spaces where 102 spaces would be needed to meet local provisions. The review cited the need for designated loading and delivery vehicle parking; additional analysis of turning movement for vehicles; additional need for accessible parking for the community center; and sidewalks to enhance pedestrian safety, especially for the steep access off Queen Anne Road.

There were questions about locating a school bus stop in the development rather than have kids catch the bus along Queen Anne Road. Absent a sidewalk, especially at the steep slope of the development entrance, there were concerns if the bus stop is located on Queen Anne Road, which would require them to walk on the entrance road, which could be a safety problem.

Ryan Karacofe of Pennrose said the company is working with the school district to provide an internal bus stop at the development’s community center, but he added that the school district has indicated that the project’s completion is too far in the future to provide specifics for a stop. As for the turning movements within the internal driveway of the development, Pennrose’s consultants said Fire Chief David LeBlanc has agreed fire department apparatus will be able to negotiate necessary turns. 

But members of the appeal board continued to question the ability of vehicles to turn corners given the size of the parking spaces proposed for the project. Board member David Wilson questioned the 18-foot depth of parking spaces, pointing out that many tenants will be working class and own pickup trucks, which can be as large as 19 feet. 

Pointing out that the fire chief has addressed the turning radius issue, Angela Botto of Bohler Engineering said the internal passage is a driveway and not a road, so they do not have to adhere to truck turning requirements.

There were a number of questions about delivery trucks and moving trucks blocking the travelway, impeding traffic and disrupting the quality of life. Additional questions were raised about the location of parking spaces as opposed to unit entrances, especially for residents with accessibility issues.

 “I don’t think there is enough parking, some [is] 300 feet away. You park your car and get on a scooter,” Appeals Board Chair Brian Sullivan said. 

Attorney Marian Rose, representing Pennrose, said offsite parking discussions are taking place with the affordable housing trust about establishing a location for additional parking on the trust’s adjacent land. Trust member Brendan Lowney said that will be an agenda item on the trust’s May 11 meeting. 

 “If we don’t increase parking in some capacity, I will not be supporting this project,” said board member Ken Dickson,

Board members suggested moving the buildings back five feet to allow more space for parking and vehicle movement. It was also suggested that Pennrose approach the trust to provide an additional 100 feet of land to the northeast property line to give the development more space.

 “I implore you to use the powers granted and limit the impact to our town simply by mandating that 60 units be placed on the 13 acres,” Stapleton said of using additional adjacent land held by the trust. 

 “The scale of this is unbelievable,” said neighbor Catherine Childs. “You’re stuffing this into a little spot, adding impacts to our water supply. Traffic on the Route 124 corridor is already at high risk. The board should be reducing it to a smaller scale. It’s too big.” 

The board did not get to the waiver requests in the peer review during the session. The waivers will be taken up at the appeals board’s next meeting on the project, scheduled for Thursday, May 7 at 6 p.m.