ZBA OK’s Main Street Housing On 3-2 Vote

CHATHAM – By the slimmest possible margin, the zoning board of appeals voted Monday to conditionally approve the 48-unit affordable housing project planned for the former Buckley property at 1533 Main St.

 The 3-2 vote clears the way for Pennrose to build and operate the development on the town-owned parcel, capping months of hearings and years of planning. The vote came after extensive push-and-pull between the developers, the appeals board and citizens, and over the dissenting votes of David Nixon and Virginia Fenwick.

 Board Chair Randi Potash said the process was one of compromise and collaboration.

 “We’ve taken it over the 50-yard line in terms of acceptability,” she said. Though she would have preferred the buildings to have been smaller in height, “we do have better lighting, we have better siding. We have, in my opinion, a very attractive streetscape. The parking is lessened but still adequate in terms of Pennrose’s opinion. The setbacks are improved, the vegetation and irrigation are good.” Potash said she is optimistic that the state will approve a signalized crosswalk over Route 28, and likes the bike racks, gas grill and other amenities included in the plan for residents.

 “I think that we’ve got a better project, a lot better. A different project, indeed. I wasn’t sure along the way, but now I am comfortable with it,” she said. “And I hope that when it’s all said and done it’ll look attractive, and it certainly will provide much-needed housing.”

 In deliberations Monday, the ZBA scrutinized the decision document drafted by Town Counsel Jay Talerman, reviewing and adjusting the fine print. Under the conditions included in the document, the town will receive a final set of plans showing detailed landscaping, stormwater management and architectural details, and will have 45 days to review those plans for consistency with the other conditions in the decision letter.

 Though the broadest concern with the development was about density — with critics saying there were too many apartments planned for the available space, and developers arguing that the density is needed to make the project financially feasible — the final sticking points involved the landscape plan and the inclusion of a management building.

 In the decision letter, “we’re asking them to redesign it [the management building] so it’s more evocative of local area architecture and compatible with other buildings in the project,” Talerman said. The building might be designed to look like a full Cape-style home, though there was also a proposal to design it to model the original home currently on the land.

 “I thought that might be a nice homage to the Buckleys,” who provided the land to the town and supported its use for a housing project, Fenwick said. But ultimately, Fenwick favored removing the building altogether.

 As for the management building design, “we’ll see what Pennrose comes back with and we’ll deal with it,” Potash said.

 Pennrose will also provide a final landscaping plan that limits the number of mature trees removed from the site, and specifies that new trees have a larger trunk size than previously proposed. Board member Paul Semple said he’s not sure about the board’s stipulation that the development include a well for irrigation, “when in fact we’re trying to cut back” on the use of landscape irrigation generally in town, he said. But Semple agreed to support the inclusion of the well as a means of ensuring that the new plantings become well established.

 The landscaping plan was “one of the conditions that caused me to vote yes on this project,” Potash said. It is important that the young trees and other plants are “flourishing,” she said.

 The motion to approve the comprehensive permit was approved by Potash, Semple and David Veach. Nixon opposed it, as he has from early on in the project.

 “I’m totally against this. I think it’s just wrong,” he said.

 Fenwick also voted against the project, “because the management building is staying in and I had said that I wanted the reduction in density.”