CHATHAM – Under Chapter 40B, the zoning board of appeals is limited in its ability to force changes in affordable housing developments like the one being planned by Pennrose at 1533 Main St. But that hasn’t stopped the committee from asking plenty of questions and making a number of key suggestions designed to help shape the 48-unit housing project.
Responding to a town request for proposals from housing developers, Pennrose has floated building 16 one-bedroom, 26 two-bedroom and six three-bedroom rental units in a cluster of buildings on the three-acre site formerly owned by the Buckley family. When the project team met with the appeals board on June 5, it had already revised its initial design somewhat to lower building height and address some concerns about building setbacks and safety.
The appeals board’s role under 40B is to determine whether the development is consistent with local needs, said Pennrose attorney Andrew Singer. That will require it to make compromises when it comes to the town regulations that would apply to a traditional development application. It needs to weigh matters of zoning, environmental protection, open space preservation, health and other standards “in the face of the urgent housing need and crisis that we face,” Singer said. Under Chapter 40B, the appeals board acts in lieu of various other town boards and committees to issue a single, comprehensive permit for the project.
But some of those other regulatory boards provided written opinions for the ZBA to consider. The historical commission noted that the “size of the structures on Main Street, the scope and lack of diversity of the proposed design will have a permanent negative effect on the historical perspective.” The historic business district commission urged developers to reduce the overall height of buildings, reduce density, remove or shrink the size of the proposed community building, and revise the architectural styling “to better reflect the historic character of the area.” The planning board made other suggestions, like converting the circular driveway serving the development to one-way, which would reduce the paved area. It also suggested moving planned outdoor recreational areas so that they abut the property line, rather than having residential buildings close to neighboring properties.
Many of those ideas were included in an alternate site plan endorsed by neighbors, which showed the same 48 apartments in a new configuration that includes one-way traffic flow while eliminating the community building and moving the green recreational space from the center of the development to the southern edge, closest to homes off Jessie’s Landing. Abutter Rick Leavitt endorsed the alternative site plan and encouraged Pennrose to build a development that can be “hugely supported by this community and serve as a model to go forward for additional affordable housing development in this town, because we need a hell of a lot more than this.”
Historical Commission Chair Frank Messina also urged the developers to come up with a plan with wide public support.
“Two town meetings voted to allow this to go forward. I hope we don’t make this the last one in Chatham,” he said.
Several people spoke out in favor of the proposed development, including resident Bill Bystrom, who noted that Chatham Elementary School had only six or seven incoming kindergarteners this year. When it comes to encouraging year-round families to locate in Chatham, “we need people,” he said. The Pennrose development “goes a long way towards helping solve those problems.”
Resident Michael Schell said the town has already invested nearly $2.1 million in the proposed development, which will have Pennrose return $875,000 to the town “to use elsewhere in our affordable housing efforts. That’s huge,” he said. “If there was ever a case where the perfect is the enemy of the good, this is it,” he said.
The project architect noted that several of the rooflines had been brought below 30 feet, the limit required by zoning. One of the building types had its roofline lowered by a foot, with the tallest one still standing at just under 34 feet.
“I don’t really understand why they can’t all be at 30,” ZBA member Virginia Fenwick said. Board member David Nixon agreed, saying the architects should present a design for a roof of this height for the board to consider.
ZBA member David Veach warned that the board is being asked to consider the Pennrose development using “a different standard than the way we normally review things” because of Chapter 40B. This is an apartment complex essentially unlike others in town. “There is no way that this is not going to appear somewhat different than what we’ve always gotten, because it’s a different thing,” he said.
Appeals board Chair Randi Potash said she likes the suggestion that the existing historic home on the Buckley land be repurposed as the complex’s management office.
“That would make a lot of commissions very happy,” she said. Potash also said it would be better to eliminate the community building and its fitness room if doing so could allow the other buildings on the site to be lowered in height. “I feel very strongly about that,” she said.
The ZBA continued its hearing until July 17, when the developers will return with revised plans.
“We look forward to continuing the conversation and hearing your thoughts and talking through our thought processes for why we have something or don’t have something,” Pennrose Regional Vice President Karmen Cheung said.
