Pennrose Appeals Meetinghouse Road Denial

CHATHAM – Developer Pennrose LLC has appealed the decision by the zoning board of appeals to deny a comprehensive permit for its proposed 42-unit affordable housing project on Meetinghouse Road.

 In a Sept. 30 filing with the state housing appeals committee, Pennrose argued that the board’s Sept. 10 denial failed to show that its objections outweighed the local need for affordable housing. None of the reasons for the denial were cited as outstanding or unresolved by the board’s own peer review consultant, and no local regulations were identified as being violated by the project. Further, the appeal alleges, the board was seeking to apply requirements to subsidized housing that would not be required for unsubsidized housing.

 “The vague concerns alleged by the board in its decision fail virtually every test established under Chapter 40B,” the state statute governing comprehensive permits for affordable housing projects, the appeal reads. “As such, the decision was not consistent with local needs.” The board denied the permit by a 3-2 vote.

 One of the chief issues of contention was a sidewalk that the majority of board members wanted Pennrose to construct along the development’s frontage on Meetinghouse Road (Route 137). Pennrose proposed an accessible path to connect the development to the nearby Old Colony Rail Trail. The company also agreed to build a sidewalk on the east side of Meetinghouse Road from the bike trail crossing to Route 28, so that residents could connect to public transportation. A majority of zoning board members found that proposal inadequate and said a full sidewalk along the property was needed for the safety of residents.

Constructing an accessible sidewalk along Meetinghouse Road is not feasible because of the steep downward grade just off the pavement, according to the appeal. “Such a sidewalk would also require the removal of a significant tree buffer and increase the amount of impervious cover on the site,” the appeal reads. There are no sidewalks along Meetinghouse Road’s 1.3-mile length, the appeal points out.

The appeal, filed by Boston attorney Jesse D. Schomer, asks the housing appeals committee to hold a hearing within 20 days and issue a decision within 30 days directing the appeals board to grant Pennrose a comprehensive permit for the project.

The zoning board spent more than a year reviewing the Pennrose proposal, which includes 16 one-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom units and four three-bedroom units in eight two- and two-and-a half-story buildings on the 4.12-acre site. Thirty-five of the units would be leased to households earning between 30 and 60 percent of area median income (AMI), with the other seven leased to those earning not more than 100 percent of AMI.

The town purchased the property from the Diocese of Fall River specifically for affordable housing. Pennrose was chosen as the developer in July 2024. Pennrose was also tapped to develop 48 units of affordable housing on the former Buckley property on Main Street in West Chatham. The zoning board approved a comprehensive permit for that project last December on a 3-2 vote.

Pennrose obtained a determination of project and site eligibility from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and entered a purchase and sales agreement with a neighboring property owner that helped reduce density, increase parking spaces by 10 percent and improve the development layout, according to the appeal. Pennrose also paid for a peer review consultant, which signed off on the project a month prior to the denial.

Consultant Tighe and Bond was hired to review the project’s engineering and transportation elements. Pennrose cooperated with the review, according to the appeal, a process the zoning board decision characterized as “thorough and cooperative.” All of the issues raised in the review were addressed, the appeal reads, except a few matters deferred to local officials to resolve.

The zoning board’s decision also failed to provide supporting facts for concerns cited in the denial about the driveway design, number of parking spaces, site control and project management. None of those issues were raised in the peer review, Pennrose asserts. The appeal argues that the state’s determination of project eligibility establishes that it has control of the site. 

Along with seeking approval of the comprehensive permit, the appeal asked the committee to direct the zoning boardto reimburse Pennrose for the cost of the elements of the peer review that are inconsistent with state law or committee precedent.

In a related development, former select board and affordable housing trust member Michael Schell sent a letter to the select board Monday asking it to remove town counsel Mead, Talerman and Costa from the case and appoint an independent special counsel. 

Schell asserted that town counsel represented the town in negotiating a land disposition agreement with Pennrose, it must represent the town’s interest in the project and cannot at the same time defend the zoning board’s denial before the housing appeals committee. The trust and town are obligated in the agreement to support Pennrose’s application, he wrote, and town counsel cannot do that and also advise the board on its denial.

“[Town counsel] cannot be counsel to the town and the trust under an agreement intended to see the Meetinghouse Road project built while it is counsel to the ZBA in an effort to prevent that project from ever being completed,” Schell wrote.