Split Emerging Over Affordable Housing

CHATHAM – There’s a split among select board members over the two major affordable housing developments now before the zoning board of appeals.

In a wide-ranging discussion Aug. 19, the board debated whether it should become involved in the comprehensive permit hearings for projects on Meetinghouse Road and Main Street that are being developed by Pennrose. While Chair Dean Nicastro tried to keep the focus on the comprehensive permit process, there was a clear tension among board members over what their role should be.

Stuart Smith wanted the board to adopt a motion to urge the zoning board to “consider the concerns and impacts” the two projects and other affordable developments would have on neighborhoods and the community at large. He said his feelings about the projects, and the views of others in town, “are not positive.”

“We have a leadership role to play in the town of Chatham,” he said. “We have a clear policy directive under the charter.”

Such a statement could run afoul of the land disposition agreement the select board signed with Pennrose, which gives control of the town-owned property to the developer for the purpose of constructing the affordable housing. Town Counsel Jay Talerman said the agreement requires that the board support the project. He was concerned that Smith’s motion could be considered “close to the edge, if not going over the edge, in terms of your obligation to support” the projects, he said.

Under the comprehensive permit process, the zoning board is responsible for conducting hearings and issuing approval for the projects in lieu of other town permit granting authorities. Other town boards can provide guidance and recommendations, but the select board’s role was largely in crafting the proposal for developers, which contained many details of the projects, and the land disposition agreements, said Talerman. 

“The select board’s role was all front loaded,” he said. “Once the zoning board has the project, it is theirs.” That doesn’t preclude the zoning board requesting changes to plans submitted by Pennrose, but that is part of the negotiation process conducted through the comprehensive permit hearings, he added.

Land disposition agreements for both projects include a section titled “Cooperation” which reads that the town “will cooperate with and support the designated developer in any application for permitting or approvals” including applications or letters of support to the state Executive Office of Housing and Liveable Communities.

It’s rare that a zoning board rejects a comprehensive permit for affordable housing, Talerman said. Appeals must be made to the state housing appeals committee, and a developer must show that conditions imposed by the zoning board would render a project economically unfeasible. He said 90 percent of appeals are won by developers.

Smith asserted that the select board has a responsibility as the town’s chief policy makers and appointing authority to provide input on issues facing the community. Based on Talerman’s comments, Nicastro declined to put Smith’s motion to a vote.

“It may reflect a sentiment that some share, but I am concerned about putting the town in legal jeopardy,” he said. Smith agreed to withdraw the motion.

The town has been working toward developing affordable housing for years, and the two projects represent a major step forward, said Select Board member Shareen Davis. The process, from identifying and purchasing the land to choosing the developer, has been done publicly, she said.

“The bottom line is that the public has had the opportunity to input on many different occasions,” she said. “We have listened to the community. To suggest we haven’t is a conversation for another day, I think.”

Resident Rick Leavitt said he was looking forward to a “robust” study to develop a long-term policy for affordable housing development.

Community housing partnership chair Karolyn McClelland said  that while a “level of fear” is growing over the developments, including issues of density and parking, there remains a “horrible need” for housing in town.

“Housing’s a real issue and we can’t lose sight of that,” she said.

Reached later, Smith said he’s heard a number of concerns about the projects and about Pennrose that he anticipates raising at upcoming select board meetings. 

Meanwhile, the hearing on the Buckley property project will resume Sept. 18, and the Meetinghouse Road development was scheduled to have its first hearing before the zoning board today (Thursday, Sept. 4) at 2 p.m. at the annex.