Chatham ZBA continues review of Penrose 42-unit Meeting House Road proposal amid safety and title disputes

The Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals on June (hearing date in packet) continued its review of Penrose LLC's application for a Chapter 40B comprehensive permit to build 42 dwelling units at 0 Meeting House Road and 87 Meeting House Road, saying it needs follow-up on pedestrian access, site-control rights and limited peer review before a final decision. The board set a continuation for July 16, 2026, at 1 p.m.

Attorney Andrew Singer, representing the applicant, told the board the team provided a supplemental submission that included a purchase option agreement and authorization from the owner of 87 Meeting House Road as "evidence of site control." Singer said revisions to the site plan reduce overall density by adding land and removing an existing two-bedroom dwelling, and he described several design changes, including detached maintenance storage and covered bicycle parking. "We submitted a further supplemental submission last week," Singer said, and added that the applicant provided a revised stormwater report and new landscape and photometric plans.

Engineer Rich Clader of Horsey Witten Group said the revised grading, drainage and utility connections meet town and state stormwater standards and that "all of the drainage is contained within a natural depression," noting protections for receiving waters in the Taylor Pond/Mill Creek watershed. Landscape architect Mark Warfel described photometric lighting and planting changes intended to maintain a buffer along the north property line and preserve central trees.

A major focus of public comment and board questioning was pedestrian access and safety. The applicant proposes an on-site shared-use path that connects residents to the town's rail trail, rather than constructing a continuous sidewalk along Meeting House Road. Transportation consultant Jeffrey Durk of Vanessa & Associates, who prepared the applicant's sidewalk memorandum, told the board that "a crossing at a driveway is considered a mid-block location, and it's not desirable" and that connecting pedestrians to the separated rail-trail path is preferable to placing pedestrians adjacent to high-speed vehicular traffic.

Multiple residents and neighborhood attorneys disagreed. In written correspondence read into the record, Linda and David McElroy warned that during heavy winter snow "there were continual snow banks on this road with no plowed shoulder," and urged the board to require Penrose to install and maintain a sidewalk from the development to Route 28. Gloria Hicks, an abutter who spoke in person, said the revised plan "is a completely new plan" that "completely changes the way that I would live my life," and her attorney Jan Burke told the board the owner continues to hold a right-of-way and "the applicant does not possess the legal rights to build what's on that screen" until that issue is resolved.

Singer responded that negotiations with Ms. Hicks have been ongoing and that several options remain, including use of the existing driveway at 87 Meeting House Road if parties do not reach agreement. Town counsel Jay Tollimon advised the board that site-control evidence under Chapter 40B typically requires a purchase-and-sale or option interest and that, where a subsidizing agency has already found eligibility, that finding is presumptive. Tollimon recommended the board require clarity from Penrose about which version of the project is the official application and noted the board could impose conditions requiring return for any access changes.

Board members also pressed the applicant on winter maintenance and ownership of the rail trail connection. Singer said the on-site path and the portion that Penrose proposes to build "is theirs" and would be maintained by the applicant, but that the short section that is part of the town layout would be town responsibility. Board members asked the applicant to check with the town's DPW and to document how the rail trail was created and who, if anyone, maintains it during winter conditions.

Other technical questions included ADA compliance for the pedestrian connection (engineer Rich Claytor confirmed the on-site path is designed to be ADA-compliant and that many ground-floor units will be accessible), bike storage (24 covered bicycle spaces were added in the maintenance building), and parking ratios (the applicant said the project's 1.6 spaces per unit is higher than comparable Penrose developments cited).

After extended public comment and applicant rebuttal, the board voted to continue the hearing to July 16, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. The motion to continue was moved by Member Paul Semple and seconded by Member David Veach; the roll-call vote was recorded in the affirmative by the sitting members. The board also directed staff and the applicant to obtain a limited update to the civil/stormwater peer review to address changes in impervious area and to follow up with DPW on the rail-trail maintenance history.

What happens next: the ZBA asked Penrose to clarify which project plan is the application under review, to provide the limited peer-review update requested by the board on stormwater, and to report back on the rail trail's ownership and maintenance. The board will reconvene on July 16, 2026, to continue the hearing.

Votes at a glance: Motion to continue the hearing to July 16, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. Motion: continue hearing to 07/16/2026 1:00 p.m.; Mover: Paul Semple; Second: David Veach; Outcome: approved by roll call (unanimous of members present).