Pennrose Eyed To Develop Chatham Housing

CHATHAM – An evaluation committee appointed to review proposals for affordable housing developments on two town-owned parcels is recommending that Pennrose LLC be selected as the developer of both projects.

But the votes were not unanimous, with some favoring other proposals that included homeownership rather than just rentals as Pennrose is seeking.

At a joint meeting Tuesday of the select board and affordable housing trust — whose members comprised the evaluation committee — some residents also opposed the Pennrose proposal. Others called for a slowing of the process to allow more public input.

The final choice of a developer to build housing on property at Meetinghouse Road and 1533 Main St. is up to Town Manager Jill Goldsmith, the town’s procurement officer. She said Tuesday that she will consider the recommendation made by the evaluation group and bring her choice to the select board and affordable housing trust for their affirmation, perhaps as soon as next Tuesday.

The 3.7-acre Meetinghouse Road property was purchased by the affordable housing trust from the Archdiocese of Fall River in 2022 for $525,000. The 1533 Main St. parcel, encompassing 2.5 acres, was purchased from the Buckley family for $1,375,000 with a combination of trust and taxpayer funds.

Pennrose, which has offices in Boston, has built more than 10,000 housing units across 140 developments in 15 states. The firm is currently developing housing at the former Cape Cod 5 operations building in Orleans and was under consideration to build housing at the former Governor Prence property, but has withdrawn from that process (see separate story, page 3). Harwich is also considering Pennrose as the developer on a portion of the former Marceline property (see separate story). Pennrose was one of three developers that submitted proposals for the Main Street property and one of two interested in the Meetinghouse Road property.

The housing proposals evaluation committee voted 6-1 to recommend Pennrose for the Main Street property and 5-2 for the firm’s Meetinghouse Road proposal. The vote came June 5, after members of the committee evaluated and ranked each proposal.

For the Main Street property, Pennrose proposed 48 rental units for those who make between 30 and 110 percent of the area median income (AMI) for Barnstable County; seven would be for those making up to 30 percent, 25 for those making up to 60 percent, and 16 for those making up to 100 percent of AMI. Included would be 16 one-bedroom units, 26 two-bedroom apartments and six units with three bedrooms.

The nine buildings, townhouses and stacked flats, would be compatible with the existing neighborhood, Pennrose officials said at Tuesday’s meeting, and include community open space and outdoor amenities, according to the company’s proposal. The development cost was estimated at $21 million. Pennrose would request a total of $1,215,000 from the town, with $500,000 structured as a loan and $715,000 in a seller’s note.

At the Meetinghouse Road property, Pennrose proposed 42 rental units in townhouses and stacked flats,14 with one bedroom, 23 with two bedrooms and five with three bedrooms. Income distribution would be 26 units for those making up to 60 percent of AMI, 11 for those making up to 80 percent, and eight for those making up to 30 percent of AMI. The units would be housed in eight residential structures that “create a traditional neighborhood featuring closely knit residential buildings,” according to the proposal. The developer would pay the town $500,000 for the land and request a $200,000 community preservation appropriation. The total project cost is estimated at $29 million.

Up to 70 percent of the units would be reserved for those who live or work in town, or have children in Monomoy schools. Pennrose would finance the project largely with federal and state low income housing credits.

The Community Development Partnership and Preservation of Affordable Housing submitted the other proposal for the Meetinghouse Road parcel. The nonprofit developers proposed 45 rental units with 26 reserved for those making up to 60 percent of AMI, 11 for those making less than 80 percent of AMI, and eight for those making up to 30 percent of AMI. Fifteen units would be one bedroom, 25 with two bedrooms and five with three bedrooms.

The two groups also propose 43 rental units at the Main Street property with a mix of affordable and workforce housing. Fourteen would be available to those making up to 120 percent of AMI, 11 for up to 60 percent AMI, 10 for up to 80 percent of AMI, and eight for up to 30 percent of AMI. Seventeen of the units would be one bedroom, 22 would have two bedrooms and four would contain three bedrooms. The existing home on the property would be renovated into apartments.

The proposals suggest combining the two projects, with a total development cost of $60 million financed by loan and federal and state low income housing credits along with a $4 million “investment” from the town. The groups propose buying the parcels for $1 each or 99-year leases at $1 per year.

The Housing Assistance Corporation also submitted a proposal for the Main Street project calling for 36 affordable and workforce ownership units in six “appropriately scaled” two-story buildings with 13 one-bedroom, 19 two-bedroom and four three-bedroom units. Nine would be available for those making up to 80 percent of AMI, with 16 for those making up to 100 percent and 11 for those making up to 200 percent of AMI.

Because the HAC units would be sold, they are not eligible for low income housing tax credits. HAC offered to pay the town $1 for the property and requested $5.4 million in town funds as a zero percent forgivable loan; that breaks down to a $150,000 per unit town subsidy.

There was support for the HAC proposal among members of the two groups, even though Pennrose said that it would not be interested in doing the Meetinghouse Road project alone. Select Board member Dean Nicastro said he favored the HAC plan because homeownership gives people more of an opportunity to put down roots than renting.

“I think the HAC model is more in keeping with the character of Chatham,” he said, adding that the biggest challenge is the requirement for town funding. But he thought that could be overcome. “I think the taxpayers of Chatham would rather pay for something they like rather than have something they don’t like imposed on them for free.”

Trust member Karolyn McClelland agreed, noting that the HAC proposal would provide housing to the “missing middle” who earn too much for affordable housing but can’t afford to pay market prices. She agreed that the cost factor was a “substantial ask,” but that voters should be able to weigh in. “If they vote it down, we’ll move forward and try something else.”

But that presented a problem for Select Board member Shareen Davis, noting that May’s town meeting turned down several high-price requests.

Trust member David Oppenhiem supported Pennrose. “We need rentals badly,” he said, adding that the HAC proposal was “good” but not dense enough to justify homeownership. Others wondered if condominium ownership would be as acceptable as owning single-family homes.

Elaine Gibbs found much wrong with the Pennrose plans, including the size and height of the buildings, the density, insufficient parking and lack of private spaces. Most working people would also not qualify for the rentals, she said.

Paula Wiseman called on officials to step back and get more public input. “There seems to be a lot of pressure to get this done,” she said. “So I think it’s OK to put on the brakes.”

The proposals and related material can be downloaded on the town’s website.