Penrose revises Meeting House Road 40B plan; Zoning board continues hearing to June 4

Penrose LLC presented a revised comprehensive-permit proposal at the Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on May 7, 2026, keeping the project at 42 dwelling units while expanding the project area by roughly 0.55 acres (from about 3.57 acres to approximately 4.12 acres), increasing parking from 61 to 67 spaces, and adding a second dumpster. The developer said the changes reduce on-site density and the magnitude of height waivers requested: the single largest height waiver was reduced from more than 5 feet to about 4 feet 1 inch.

"We used this hiatus to respond to concerns productively, and we've been able to advance the design significantly in the past 90 days," Rio Saketi, a Penrose developer, said in his presentation. He introduced project architects and engineers and said the revised plan relocates the main driveway north, increases buffering and central green space, and reorients several buildings so fronts face Meeting House Road instead of rear facades.

Attorney Marian Rose, representing Penrose, said the revised plan is a direct response to board and community concerns and asked the ZBA for feedback on whether to proceed with more detailed plans. Penrose's team said it intends to show site-control documentation for the additional parcel (87 Meeting House Road) through an option/purchase agreement if the board directs further review.

The applicant described stormwater measures, vehicle circulation, and fire-department review. Engineer Joe Henderson said the new curb cut meets setback requirements, the roadway and parking dimensions meet prior standards, and bioretention/tree-trench features will manage stormwater. Architect Paul Atman and landscape architect Mark Warfl outlined a larger central green, a playground, preserved trees, and a maintenance building moved to the center of the site.

The hearing drew lengthy public comment. Attorney J.P. Burke, speaking for abutter Gloria Hicks of 95 Meeting House Road, told the board that "the applicant has not achieved site control documentation" and argued that site control is a mandatory prerequisite for 40B eligibility under the subsidizing agency rules. Burke urged the board to insist on written site-control proof and a revised eligibility determination before proceeding.

Several residents backed Penrose, citing the town's need for rental housing and praising the revisions; others criticized the process and raised safety and environmental concerns. Common concerns raised by multiple speakers included the use of the adjacent rail-trail (bike path) as the primary pedestrian access to Route 28, the absence of a continuous sidewalk along Meeting House Road, winter snow clearance on the bike path, traffic and sight-line impacts, water capacity, density and the number of requested waivers, and transparency about financing and site acquisition.

In rebuttal Penrose said it has an option purchase agreement for the additional parcel and that it will provide supporting documentation during further review. The applicant also provided starting rent figures as examples tied to AMI restrictions (citing HUD-published levels): roughly $1,300 for a one-bedroom, $1,550 for a two-bedroom and $1,770 for a three-bedroom at the lowest AMI tier, noting those numbers may change with subsidy program rules.

Board members pressed the team for more detail on several items the public flagged: a) firm evidence of site control and a completed survey of the added parcel; b) a winter-access plan that addresses snow removal and whether Penrose will ensure passable pedestrian routes from the property to Route 28 (board members specifically asked whether the developer would plow a pedestrian connection to the bike path); c) confirmation from public-works and sewer departments about water and wastewater capacity and any required hydrant/flow testing; d) clearer engineering-level plans for setbacks, snow storage, dumpster access and truck turning; and e) documentation addressing prior maintenance complaints raised about other Penrose-managed properties.

Board member comments reflected the split in public sentiment: some members described the revised plan as a meaningful improvement from the earlier submission, while others reiterated concerns about density, pedestrian safety and process transparency. The board repeatedly asked the applicant to return with a survey and had the applicant consider alternatives to relying on the town's bike path as the main winter pedestrian route.

After extended discussion, a motion to continue the hearing to June 4, 2026 carried unanimously so the board can review additional documentation and more detailed engineering plans. The continuing items the board asked Penrose to provide include site-control documents for 87 Meeting House Road, a surveyed site plan, a winter-access/snow-plowing strategy for pedestrian connections, refined civil and landscape engineering plans showing snow storage and exact setbacks, and any financial or subsidy documentation the board deems necessary for its review.

The ZBA will take up the Penrose application again on June 4, 2026. No final decision was made at this hearing.