ZBA To Deny Pennrose Project

CHATHAM – Although a formal vote won’t happen until this week, members of the zoning board of appeals have indicated that they will deny a comprehensive permit for Pennrose’s proposed 42-unit affordable housing development on Meetinghouse Road.

 In a 3-2 straw vote at their Sept. 3 meeting, zoning board members insisted that Pennrose include a sidewalk along the west side of Meetinghouse Road from its project south to a crosswalk at the Old Colony Rail Trail.

 At previous meetings Pennrose officials have declined to include a sidewalk in the development; the topography along that stretch would be too expensive and would make the project uneconomical, they said. If the permit is denied because of the sidewalk, they indicated that they would ask the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee to overturn the decision.

The board reviewed a number of other conditions for the Meetinghouse Road project, but the sidewalk was the dealbreaker. With three votes against it, Town Counsel Jay Talerman said he would draft the board’s decision as a denial. If the sidewalk was included as a condition of approval, Pennrose officials have said they would appeal.

 Pennrose was chosen to develop two affordable rental housing projects in town: the Meetinghouse Road development and Buckley Gardens in West Chatham. The latter project includes 48 rental units; the zoning board approved a comprehensive permit for the development last November on a 3-2 vote.

In its decision on the Buckley property, the zoning board did not insist that Pennrose include a sidewalk along Route 28. A sidewalk already exists on the north side of the road, across from the development, and the decision requested that there be a crosswalk from the development to the sidewalk.

Pennrose’s Meetinghouse Road plans include a path that leads from the development to the bike path, where pedestrians can cross Meetinghouse Road (Route 137) at a signaled crosswalk. Pennrose agreed to build a sidewalk from the east side of the bike path crossing to the sidewalk on Route 28.

Zoning board members David Veach and Paul Semple said that plan was sufficient. It’s the “safest and best” path, Veach said, adding that a sidewalk along the road should be the town’s responsibility.

“If we feel that’s important for safety, I think the town has a significant responsibility to help make that happen,” he said.

If the terrain, which slopes down considerably west of the road, were not an issue, a sidewalk would be preferable, Semple said. But the logistics and costs “mitigate against trying to get a sidewalk there,” he said. “As desirable as a sidewalk might be, I just don’t think it’s a practical application.” The path from the development and the section of the bike path from there to the road should be lit and maintained, including requiring removal of snow and ice, he added.

Chair David Nixon, Vice Chair Virginia Fenwick and board member Leigh Hovey insisted that a sidewalk was necessary for the safety of residents of the development, especially children.

“I still want a sidewalk,” said Hovey. “I understand that it’s difficult, but maybe it comes down to the fact that this site is just difficult.”

Talerman’s draft findings said that the path to the bike trail was a nice amenity, but “not a reliable or safe means for non-vehicular ingress or egress” to the development. “The board finds that access to, and construction of, a sidewalk along the frontage of the property is required in order to address local concerns relating to pedestrian access.”

A sidewalk on the east side of Meetinghouse Road was discussed, but that would require the approval of property owner the Diocese of Fall River, which sold the town the land for the Pennrose development at a reduced price so that it could be used for affordable housing. Talerman offered construction of a sidewalk on the east side of the road as an alternative; if an agreement was reached with the Diocese and the town, the zoning board could amend its decision through a project change hearing, he said.

The board was scheduled to meet Wednesday, after The Chronicle’s deadline, to take a final vote on the project. Talerman said he would also draft a decision approving the project “if folks have a change of heart.”

The Pennrose plan calls for eight residential buildings and a management building on the 4.12-acre property. The project would include 16 one-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom apartments and four three-bedroom units. Thirty-four of the units would be available to those earning no more than 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), including six to eight for those at or below 30 percent AMI. Seven units would be reserved for those making no more than 100 percent of AMI. While the affordability provisions would be in perpetuity, if there is a foreclosure on the property, it would revert to 25 percent of the units being available to those at no more than 80 percent AMI.