Meetinghouse Road Housing Plan Meets Stiff Headwinds At ZBA

CHATHAM – Density, safety and community character were all concerns raised about the Pennrose 40B housing project recently approved for the former Buckley property in West Chatham. The appeals board is raising those same concerns for the Pennrose proposal for Meetinghouse Road in South Chatham, with the chair signaling that she’s ready to go to the mat to fight for changes.

 Using land purchased from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River and under a deal brokered by the town, Pennrose plans to build 42 apartments in a cluster of buildings off Meetinghouse Road, roughly opposite the north entrance to Our Lady of Grace Chapel. The units would be configured in eight buildings surrounding a central parking lot, with a driveway connecting to Route 137. Pedestrian access is planned for a winding path that leads from the development to the Old Colony Rail Trail, with walkers expected to cross Route 137 at the bike trail crossing. Pennrose has proposed building a new sidewalk on the east side of the road that would travel south and connect to an existing sidewalk on Route 28.

 That plan drew the ire of critics who would prefer a sidewalk along the west side of Route 137 from the development’s driveway to Route 28.

 “It’s not practical to put a sidewalk along our side of the property,” engineer Rich Carter told the appeals board last week. A steep dropoff, utility poles and cement safety bollards would all need to be addressed, he said. A sidewalk could not be built directly opposite the development on Route 137 without obtaining easements from the church.

 Resident David McElroy acknowledged the planned path linking to the rail trail, but said it won’t solve the sidewalk problem. 

 “It is unrealistic to assume that this will stop a significant number of residents and their visitors from walking along Meetinghouse Road, as there is no sidewalk between the rail trail and Route 28,” he said. “For this not to be a condition would be extraordinarily irresponsible, possibly even unconscionable.” 

 If Pennrose knew that a sidewalk couldn’t be built on the west side of the road, “they shouldn’t have bid on the property,” resident Elaine Gibbs said.

 The sidewalk must be on the same side of the road as the development, board member David Nixon said, “not across the street. We don’t need more worries about kids going across the street, and what kind of lights we need and that sort of thing.” The rail trail crossing is the last place pedestrians should be crossing Route 137, he added. “Pedestrians and bicycles do not mix on rail trails,” Nixon said.

 In a bid to reduce the roof height of the building closest to the driveway and Meetinghouse Road, the project team redesigned the structure to remove three bedrooms, lowering the ridge line by four feet. Several board members proposed removing that building altogether, rearranging the remaining buildings to allow for more parking spaces, more green space and lower density.

 But doing so would reduce the number of units from 42 to 36, far below the number that the developer has said is needed for the project to be financially viable. Pennrose Senior Developer Rio Sacchetti noted that 42 units are specified in the land development agreement, “which the town approved and the select board approved.”

 Board member Virginia Fenwick asked for details about the green space, which is limited to a small play area on the hill near the rail trail and smaller spaces between some of the buildings.

 “We have the advantage of being adjacent to the Twine Field, which I walked today, and there’s plenty of space there for outdoor activities that might be similar to what we have proposed at the Main Street [property’s] green,” landscape architect Mark Woelfel replied. Located behind the proposed development, the Twine Field is a conservation area previously used by local fishermen for drying and repairing nets.

Appeals board Chair Randi Potash said she’s “irritated” by the suggestion that the Twine Field is an amenity for the adjacent property, because it is infested with deer ticks and poison ivy. “What makes matters worse is there is twine. And you can’t even walk in there unless you want to trip. So that’s why no one goes there,” she said. If the Meetinghouse Road housing project is built, there should be a sign warning residents away from the area, Potash added. “It’s not an amenity. It’s a hazard,” she said.

Potash said to earn her vote, the project team needs to eliminate Building 6, the one to the left side of the entryway, lowering the number of units to 36. Doing so would provide a larger play area for children, she said.

And while the development is outside the historic business district and the South Chatham National Register district, it should still be sensitive to the community character of the area, she said. 

 “It doesn’t excuse you from respecting that,” Potash said. 

While towns are limited by statute in the review they can make to projects submitted under Chapter 40B, “I reject that we are legally bound to permit something that we don’t think is safe,” Potash said. “I am not afraid at all for the appeals court to see this or to go ahead and take it to land court. Because those land court judges, they come and look and walk, and when they see the idea of no sidewalk on one side and part of a sidewalk on the other side, and a building sticking out over a ravine, they’re never going to approve that.” 

 “We have safety and welfare on our side,” she said.

While Pennrose will argue that reducing the number of units makes the project financially non-viable, the project team previously argued that the Meetinghouse Road project isn’t viable on its own without the approval of the Main Street project in West Chatham, she said. 

 “You said yourself that this project is not financially feasible on its own. So it’s not going to be us that renders it [financially unfeasible]. It already is,” Potash said.

The appeals board continued its hearing until Jan. 15, when the project team intends to answer some of the concerns raised last week. The appeals board must close its public hearing and begin deliberations no later than Feb. 9.