Pennrose Meetinghouse Road Hearing Postponed Yet Again

CHATHAM – For the sixth time, the zoning board of appeals last week continued the comprehensive permit hearing on Pennrose’s proposed affordable housing development on Meetinghouse Road.

 It’s clear that the developer’s plans for 42 affordable apartments in eight buildings on the 3.57-acre parcel doesn’t have the support of the zoning board, Pennrose attorney Andrew Singer said. Over the past several months, the developer has been working to make changes from an “economic and a physical point of view” that will be acceptable to the board, he said.

 “And making changes takes time,” he said.

 As of Thursday, the company was ready to make "substantive changes to the proposal,” Singer said, and had authorized its consultants to start working on the changes.

 But the new plans won’t be ready in three weeks, the original timeframe for the latest postponement, so Singer requested that the hearing be put off until May 7. At that time Pennrose will be able to hold a “substantive” discussion on the changes with the board, he said.

 Singer said he was not “at liberty to say” what the changes were when asked.

 South Chatham resident Gloria Hicks said Pennrose was not being transparent about its efforts to acquire property adjacent to the Meetinghouse Road parcel, which is currently owned by the town but will be sold to Pennrose under a land disposition agreement signed by the select board. She urged the zoning board not to postpone the hearing.

 “They’ve had more than enough time to get this together,” she said. Resident Elaine Gibbs also questioned the impact further delay would have on state funding and the cost of the project.

At least one board member had also had enough.

Member David Nixon said he was “extremely perturbed” by the request, which he said wasted the time of board members, since the Pennrose hearing was the only item on the agenda. He suggested the developer withdraw its 40B comprehensive permit application and “start over again.”

Singer was unwilling to do that and said that if the board did not approve the postponement, it would have to vote on the original plans. Such a denial could be grounds for appealing the comprehensive permit to the state, he added.

Chair Randi Potash agreed that it would be unreasonable to deny the postponement but said she felt “disrespected” by the continued delays.

The comprehensive permit process follows a strict timeline, and Pennrose and the board had already agreed to extend the deadline for issuing a decision based on previous postponements. Central Permit Coordinator Sarah Clark said a new 90-day extension from the May 7 date was signed Thursday, which put the deadline to close the public hearing at Aug. 8, nearly a year after the hearing was first opened. The board will then have 40 days to deliberate and make a decision.

The board voted to allow the postponement to May 2 4-1, with Nixon opposed.