ZBA Pushes For 42 Units At Buckley Land, But Pennrose Holds Firm Behind 48-unit Plan

CHATHAM – With the zoning board of appeals nearing a decision on the proposed 48-unit development at the former Buckley property in West Chatham, the fate of the project may hinge on just six apartments.

 Developer Pennrose has maintained that no fewer than 48 units are needed to ensure that the project is “economically and practically and operationally viable,” attorney Andrew Singer said. But seeking to reduce density on the site, the ZBA in September asked for a financial estimate — known as a pro forma — for a smaller 42-unit development. The developer submitted that estimate, which projected a nearly $1.4 million funding gap, and the appeals board this week opted to have that document independently reviewed.

 Pennrose Regional Vice President Karmen Cheung said that her company would be unwilling to proceed with a 42-unit plan.

 “This is already so far below our minimum,” she said. Pennrose generally declines to build developments with fewer than 60 units because it is more challenging to get initial funding and more difficult to properly maintain and operate the neighborhood without the extra revenue, citing challenges from snow plowing and pest control to landscaping. Some developers might be able to reduce the number of units by using inferior building materials or designs, she noted.

 “Someone else can come in and give you a completely different set of numbers and it could be true for them. But these are the numbers that are true for us based on how we like to build our buildings and how we operate,” she said.

 The zoning board is reviewing the project under a Chapter 40B comprehensive permit application, and must close the public hearing by Nov. 4. With just one more planned hearing before that deadline, Singer asked ZBA Chair Randi Potash to consider closing the hearing to new public testimony, leaving the final Oct. 30 meeting solely for board deliberations and questions for the developer.

 “I’m sorry but we’re not going to do that,” Potash said.

 Appeals board member Virginia Fenwick said she has consistently raised concerns about the proposed density of units on the site, saying that density relates directly to safety. Fenwick also said the streetscape of the neighborhood would be harmed by the development, particularly by the positioning of the development’s management and community building along Main Street. She also raised environmental concerns.

 “In order to build this very nicely proposed complex, you are going to have to remove a lot of trees,” Fenwick said.

 ZBA member David Nixon worried that youngsters living in the complex would try to cross Route 28 to play in a nearby wooded area.

 “The welfare of just one child would override the value of the housing,” Nixon said. The more units in the development, the more kids would be at risk, he added. “It means to me that density has to be lowered.”

 Potash said when she was 5, she was hit by a car while crossing the road to get to the woods. “It is a fact that kids cross streets when they’re not supposed to,” she said. Potash said she is not a fan of the planned removal of so many trees from the site, and said the development should not have a community room when the town has a full community center downtown. In examining the pro forma for the scaled-back development, the ZBA is “doing our due diligence,” she noted.

 ZBA member Paul Semple said it makes no sense to have a peer review of the 42-unit pro forma, since Pennrose has declined to consider that plan.

 “Even if we have an expert come in and say, we disagree with them, we think they could do it, they’re not going to do it,” Semple said. The result of such a finding would mean that “Pennrose walks and we have nothing.”

 Select board member Jeffrey Dykens said that would be “I believe, a very unfortunate outcome. Good luck to Chatham, then, to attract competent and worthy developers for any further efforts into providing affordable and attainable housing here in town.” Further, Dykens said town counsel has advised that, should Pennrose sue the town in response to a denial, “the town would be at a deep disadvantage to prevail.”

 Cod Lane resident Marianne Lewis opposes the effort to remove six units from the development. “That would mean six less teachers, veterinary technicians, firefighters, fishermen,” she said. A traditional commercial development on the site would likely yield “another McMansion that’s going to be vacant for nine months of the year and take up space, [yielding] nothing positive for the town,” she said.

 Chatham Housing Authority Executive Director Tracy Cannon said she often meets people who don’t even know where the housing authority property is located. “I take great pride in that,” she said, noting that the 69-unit development fits in well on Crowell Road. When considering the ZBA’s interest in a scaled-back 42-unit proposal for the Buckley land, “frankly, all I can think of is those six families. They need housing,” she said. When it comes to density, “I just don’t think it’s going to be as dramatic as everybody thinks it’s going to be. It’s very dramatic for those six families,” Cannon said.

 Former select board member David Whitcomb said the town has a dismal record in creating affordable and attainable housing, and it’s time to change that record.

 “This project from Pennrose isn’t perfect. It might not even be ideal. But it’s necessary,” he said.

 Historical Commission Chair Frank Messina has called for a reduction in density that would help preserve the rural community character of the neighborhood, but said concessions made so far by Pennrose amount to “putting a little lipstick on a pig.” Messina urged the ZBA, when considering another Pennrose development planned for Meetinghouse Road, to stand firm on the number of units to be allowed. 

 “Let’s at least have one development that looks like a community in Chatham and not a major project,” he said.

 The appeals board voted to continue the hearing until Oct. 30, and must make its decision on the project before Dec. 8.

This article has been changed to correct an error.