Water Use Cited As A Concern In Prence Review

ORLEANS – Amidst persistent drought conditions, does the town have enough water to support the proposed 78-unit housing development planned for the former Governor Prence Inn?

That’s what zoning board of appeals members and some residents and business owners want to find out in more detail.

Questions were raised at the board’s Sept. 23 meeting about how much water will be needed to serve the project, as well as other housing developments that have recently come online or are being planned. Those concerns have been brought up since the board began its review of the long-discussed Prence project in May.

Housing Assistance Corporation, Preservation of Affordable Housing and Habitat for Humanity Cape Cod are proposing a joint development featuring 61 rental units in two buildings in the rear of the property at 66 and 76 Route 6A. An additional 10 ownership units in two townhouses would front Route 6A, while seven single-family homes on the eastern side of the property would be managed by Habitat.

Susan Brown, the town’s water and wastewater superintendent, and Calvin Sutton, the town’s deputy public works director, addressed questions around the town’s water supply at the start of the hearing. Brown told the zoning board that the town’s permit with the state allows it to draw about 1.27 million gallons of water a day on average, which comes out to 463 million gallons a year.

 In 2025, the town used 362 million gallons, leaving a surplus of 101 million gallons of water, a figure Brown said is enough to comfortably service the proposed development.

But zoning board members and others who spoke at the Sept. 23 meeting pressed for more specificity. Water restrictions in place in town to combat the existing drought have helped the town conserve water, but David Lyttle of the zoning board said that with other projects such as the 62-unit Phare development on West Road and the 14-unit development at 107 Main St. having come online in the past year and others still on the horizon, the presented water numbers deserve a closer look.

“The town is using less water because of the water restrictions,” he said. “But that having been said, several new sites have gone online. That’s where I’m a little concerned.”

Elizabeth Jenkins, the town’s assistant director of planning and community development, said that the referenced projects’ daily water use does not put a high demand on water capacity, although the size of the Prence development is expected to be higher due to its density.

Jenkins said while she would be “happy” to bring Brown and Sutton back to provide the board with more information, she said she felt that “their memorandum and testimony” Sept. 23 “was fairly conclusive.”

 Zoning board member Bob Wilkinson also pointed to other projects that have yet to come online, among them housing that is being built on Route 6A and being developed on Cardinal Lane. He asked if it would be appropriate to ask the town to provide estimates as to how much water those impending projects are expected to use.

“I don’t think that would be appropriate because it has no bearing on this project,” Jenkins said.

“It seems to me…we’re just charging ahead drawing more and more development off a single source aquifer, and I just think we need some hard numbers on this,” Wilkinson said. “You’re asking us just to say ‘Well, don’t worry about it.’”

“Again, I don’t think it’s under the purview of this board to evaluate the adequacy of the regional water supply,” Jenkins responded. “I do think it is in the purview of this board to address matters of local concern, and I would urge you to take the advice of your local subject matter experts…who have concluded that there are adequate public facilities available to serve this project.”

“There is a local concern, obviously, so it’s not just regional, Elizabeth,” said Sibel Asantugurl of the zoning board.

Others last week objected to the watering restrictions being placed on homeowners while the town entertains projects that use considerably more.

“Just something doesn’t make sense about that,” said Orleans resident Jim O’Brien, who said that voters wouldn’t have authorized the $2.9 million to purchase the 5.5-acre Prence parcel in 2021 if they knew it was going to be designed as proposed.

Brown said the town’s water permit with the state carries with it a requirement to meet conservation measures. The Cape and Nantucket are both in a Level 2 drought, and the state requires that towns with that drought status to take actions to conserve water, she said. 

Members of the local business community also spoke out with concerns about the water demands for the proposed development. Jimmy Mitrokostas, whose family owns Cooke’s Seafood across from the Prence property, presented the board with a petition seeking an independent analysis of the project’s proposed water use.

“The cost is quite modest to do an independent review,” he said. “There are engineering firms that do that. It wouldn’t be a prohibitive cost.”

“I don’t think we should take it out on this project, but these are very valid concerns that have been brought up,” Lyttle said.

The request for more information on the project’s water usage comes on the heels of a previous public request for additional study of potential traffic impacts that the development might bring. Jenkins said that an independent traffic review is being conducted by the firm Howard Stein Hudson, which should have its findings ready for the zoning board at its October meeting.

A working group was also held Sept. 1 to address questions and concerns with the proposed project design. From that session, amendments were made to the project to reduce the number of parking spaces by 10 in an effort to open up more green space in the center of the project. Other changes include an additional five-foot setback of the townhouses from Route 6A and a glass connector to break up the massing on the large rental building at the rear of the property, identified on the plans as building 1.

But while board members praised the changes to building 1, others noted that the redesigned building is now five feet longer. Scott Zenke likened the rear building to what residents see at Shaws in Skaket Corners. 

Still others had questions about whether the reduction in parking is enough. Talia McGrail of Tighe and Bond said that the parking reconfiguration now averages out to about 1.27 spaces per rental unit. Dropping that figure further would create possible parking issues on the property, said David Quinn of HAC.

Asantugrul said that the applicants appear to still be “struggling with the parking” on the project. But others criticized the board for getting too bogged down on the details of parking.

“Enjoy your 1.5 parking spots,” said Orleans resident Neal Ahern.

Mallorey Quarrels, an abutter to the proposed development, said in the “final hour” of the board’s review, the board should not lose sight of the people in need of housing who stand to benefit from the proposed development. That includes young professionals, families and local workers.

“What residents will experience living here is more important than what people experience when they glance at it as they drive by on the street,” she said.

The board also began its review of waivers requested as part of the project. Lyttle said he would be opposed to some of the waivers due to the overall density of the project. That includes a waiver seeking front and side yard setbacks of less than 15 feet.

Lyttle said those setbacks for the proposed Habitat houses would create a problem for the families that will live there.

“You need to be able to walk around if you want to paint or wash your windows,” he said.

But zoning board chair Gerald Mulligan disagreed,

“I would suspect that if we had a lottery for those lots they’d be oversubscribed by the tens,” he said.

The board is expected to continue its discussion on the requested waivers at its next hearing on the project on Oct. 22. At that meeting, it is expected that the board will also begin preparing a draft decision.

The board has until Nov. 16 to close its review of the proposed development and will have an additional 40 days beyond that to file a decision.