Central to the board’s discussion was the adequacy of parking spaces for the proposed development. The current plan allows for 61 parking spaces for 42 units, a ratio that traffic reviewer Greg Lucas and others deemed insufficient. Lucas recommended increasing the parking to 67 spaces based on industry standards. Despite the developer’s reliance on their experience with similar projects and the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ guidelines, unresolved concerns about parking adequacy persisted. The planning board joined the critique, recommending a parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit, amounting to 78 spaces, to accommodate the isolated nature of the development and potential higher demand for larger units.

Public safety and accessibility were also concerns, particularly the narrow entrance driveway lacking sufficient shoulders and pedestrian protections. The planning board suggested a buffer strip and wider shoulders, along with a connection to an offsite sidewalk to enhance pedestrian safety. This was emphasized given the presence of school children in the area. The planning board criticized the traffic impact assessment for omitting peak summer traffic conditions, advocating for revisions to better anticipate future intersection operations.

Stormwater management was another focal point, with the development site situated in a wellhead protection area, necessitating stricter compliance with Massachusetts drinking water requirements. Taylor Labby from Ty and Bond noted unmet stormwater pre-treatment requirements, urging revisions to incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) strategies. Peer review consultants raised additional concerns about total suspended solids removal, snow storage, and the stability of recharge basins.

The community’s apprehensions were reflected in public comments. Residents like Cynthia El Fucci and Tim Charal voiced concerns about the development’s density, potential impact on neighborhood character, and the sustainability of water use amid recent restrictions. El Fucci specifically called for alternative proposals to reduce unit counts and emphasized the need for a long-term asset management plan. Charal highlighted the necessity of walking the site to appreciate the challenges posed by the proposed alterations, advocating for measures to maintain the area’s natural appearance.

Traffic and pedestrian safety at the intersection of Routes 137 and 28 were also highlighted, with residents stressing the necessity for sidewalks and a $100,000 environmental study to ensure safe connections to existing infrastructure. Lou, another resident, critiqued the board’s limitations with 40B projects, expressing concerns over the density and safety implications. He advocated for local voices to be considered in housing decisions, referencing past court cases where local needs were overlooked.

In response to community feedback, the developer’s representatives, including attorney Andrew Singer and architect Paul Atman, addressed various concerns. Singer acknowledged previous public testimony and peer reviews, while Atman assured that the building designs comply with necessary safety standards, including fire sprinklers and window safety. The development’s focus on rental units was justified by the absence of home ownership subsidies, with the project relying on Low-Income Housing Tax Credits covering a portion of development costs.

The Cape Cod Commission’s feedback emphasized the project’s alignment with traditional Capecod materials and designs, despite its substantial disturbance of existing land. The commission noted the project’s proximity to Route 28 and the Old Colony Rail Trail, stressing the importance of sidewalk construction for connectivity.

As the meeting progressed, discussions continued on the project’s environmental considerations, including the use of permeable asphalt and the aesthetics of guard rails and retaining walls. The development’s compliance with low-impact development standards and the maintenance of existing natural areas were reiterated as priorities.