Tensions Rise As Prence Review Continues

ORLEANS – The zoning board of appeals last week voted to take additional measures to assist in its review of the 78-unit mixed housing development planned for the site of the former Governor Prence Inn.

 The board voted unanimously to solicit an independent peer review of a traffic plan presented by the Housing Assistance Corporation, Preservation of Affordable Housing and Habitat for Humanity Cape Cod at its Aug. 18 hearing. It also voted to establish a subcommittee to further explore concerns over massing, building heights and parking.

 Last week’s hearing was the zoning board’s fourth on the project, which calls for the creation of 61 rental units in two three-story buildings in the rear of the property, 10 ownership units across two townhouses fronting Route 6A and seven single-family homes to be overseen by Habitat for Humanity. 

But with a November deadline to complete its review of the project looming, the board has struggled to make headway as residents continue to raise issues with elements of the project design and the impact the project could have on the community’s character.

 “We’ve already spent seven hours at these hearings, and we’re still trying to get through some of this stuff,” board Chair Gerald Mulligan said at the outset of the Aug. 18 hearing. Mulligan urged attendees seeking to make public comments to stay within the scope of the board’s review, which pertains to design and the physical properties of the proposed buildings.

 A petition signed by 120 Orleans residents was presented to the board seeking an independent review of the developers’ traffic plan for the property. The petition addresses concerns including what petitioners saw as a “flawed comparative analysis” in the developers’ plan, as well as how traffic from the proposed development might impact levels of service in the area, emergency vehicle access and “site access and sightline safety.”

Specifically, Elaine Baird, one of the petitioners, challenged the developers’ assertion that the project as designed would have an “insignificant” impact on existing traffic conditions in the area. She cited Cape Cod Commission data showing a 44 percent increase in traffic at the intersection of Route 6A and Route 28 during the summer months. 

 “This same report identifies this intersection as still having a significant crash count, still placing it amongst the top crash locations in Barnstable County,” she said.

 Baird added that as a longtime owner of a business that abutted the inn, she has seen the spike in traffic herself, especially at specific times such as weekly church services. 

 Peter Freeman, the attorney representing the developers, said he did not believe an independent peer review is needed. He said the Cape Cod Commission was in general agreement with the findings from the developers’ traffic analysis, but also said he would not object if the board opted for a third party review.

 “Any help we can get, Mr. Freeman, from my perspective, is important for us and it’s important for the residents of the town to hear,” said David Lyttle of the zoning board.

 Beyond traffic, the board continued to hear testimony from residents both for and against the proposed development. Jamie Demitri said that the project as designed goes against residents’ expressed desire early on in the project planning for mixed use on the 5.5-acre site, with housing being just one of the components. She questioned whether the number of Habitat homes could be reduced to help bring down the density of the project.

 “Just trying to squeeze in the maximum amount of housing might not be the best use of the space,” she said.

 But while density and massing, particularly that of one of the large rental buildings abutting the Cape Cod Rail Trail, has been repeatedly raised as a concern during the board’s review, Mallorey Quarels, an abutter to the property, said she supports the proposed density if it helps create the housing the town needs.

 “I walk down the bike path every day and I bike down it,” she said. “I am willing to sacrifice the view for two minutes of my walk or 30 seconds of my bike ride if it means that literally hundreds of people will receive attainable housing.”

 Carol Baffi-Dugan, another abutter, also spoke in support of the project. She said while it’s natural to fear change, in the case of the Prence redevelopment, it’s change that is needed.

 “To me, the worst of the change in my 13 years living here is that middle income people can’t live here anymore,” she said.

 Emma Fillion of Provincetown, who works in Orleans, spoke on behalf of younger Cape residents such as herself that stand to potentially benefit from the variety of housing the project could create. While she said the design is not perfect, she fears the impact a substantial delay in the project will have for people who are already housing insecure.

 “I’m here to say that people who are young and living on the Cape who want to stay here don’t have time,” she said.

 But Mulligan, in an attempt to keep the board’s review on topic and on track, reiterated the need for speakers to limit their comments to project design.

 “Everybody on this committee can vote that we should have 10 times as much affordable housing,” he said. “It has nothing to do with this hearing or this committee.”

 Board members also continued to voice their frustrations with what some saw as the developers’ inflexibility and unwillingness to work with the board. One point of contention was the developers’ unwillingness to consider an alternative design prepared by zoning board member Sibel Asantugrul.

 “You can work with the town on this project, and it just didn’t happen that way,” Lyttle said.

 Freeman said the developers did look at the alternate design, which he said ultimately did not mesh with their vision for the project.

 The board had hoped to begin its review of waivers requested by the applicant on matters such as setbacks, building heights and minimum lot size. But Freeman said he didn’t believe the board and the developers were ready to wade into those discussions last week.

 “I don’t want to waste your time or my time,” he said. “I’m coming close to the point of saying it does not have the right feeling in terms of trying to work together. And there’s no point in going through waivers when we don’t know what the ultimate outcome will be.”

 The board voted to create a seven-member subcommittee that will be charged with working with the development team on issues including massing, building heights and parking. The committee will include Asantugrul and Lyttle from the zoning board, as well as two designated members from the architectural review committee, one from the planning board and two ad-hoc members with experience in project design or architecture.

Lynn Eickhol, a planning board member who formerly served on the zoning board, said the committee is needed to help smooth out lingering issues with the project design.

“This project is large and important and prominent in town, and doing it right is not only about this project, but about the town’s goals for affordable and attainable housing and meeting those goals over the next 20 years,” she said.

Elizabeth Jenkins, the town’s assistant director of planning and community development, was tasked with appointing the two ad-hoc members to the committee, which will meet ahead of the zoning board’s next meeting on Sept. 23. 

 The zoning board is hoping to begin reviewing waivers for the project at its September meeting. The board has 180 days from the start of its review of the project on May 20 to vote on the project.

 “If this isn’t done in 180 days, [the developers] can do what they want and the town has no say,” Mulligan cautioned.