The approval of the comprehensive permit for Penrose’s Main Street project was closely contested, with mixed votes reflecting the board’s division. The project faced resistance over its density, with some board members voting against the permit. The approved permit allows for the construction of 42 units across eight structures. This decision follows extensive deliberations and public hearings, with discussions primarily focused on the implications of such a dense development in a limited space.

A critical aspect of the board’s discussion was the comprehensive permit’s conditions, particularly regarding the transfer of interests under the 40B housing regulations. The project developer, Penrose, plans to market and sell low-income housing tax credits, potentially involving institutional investors who would not manage the project. The board debated whether these financial arrangements should require board approval, especially in cases of foreclosure. Ultimately, the board decided that while foreclosure sales could proceed without their oversight, any subsequent sales would require board approval to ensure proper management of the affordable housing project.

Community members voiced strong opposition to the development, highlighting concerns over density, safety, and the project’s potential impact on the local community. Residents submitted letters and spoke at the meeting, underscoring issues such as overcrowding, insufficient parking, and pedestrian safety. Lou Heb, a South Chatham resident, criticized the project as “egregiously deleterious,” highlighting fears of density and safety. Lisa Roy supported the project, emphasizing the need for affordable housing.

Further community feedback was reflected in a letter from the South Chatham Village Association, which outlined twelve concerns regarding the project’s density and safety issues. They suggested reducing the number of units and requested transparency from the developer regarding financial details. Carolyn Mlen contested the association’s letter’s legitimacy, calling for proper procedure and transparency.

Technical discussions during the meeting included modifications to the project’s design, particularly building six. Mark Warfl presented the design changes. Despite these adjustments, safety concerns persisted, particularly regarding fire truck access and the need for improved pedestrian pathways.

In addition to density and safety, parking emerged as a issue. Residents and board members expressed concerns about inadequate parking provisions, emphasizing the area’s reliance on vehicles due to limited public transportation options. Suggestions included creating an auxiliary parking lot and implementing a parking management plan to address potential shortfalls.

The board also discussed potential enhancements to community accessibility, such as constructing a sidewalk on Meeting House Road. Elaine Gibbs criticized the lack of pedestrian infrastructure, particularly for children needing safe routes to public transportation. The importance of providing a sidewalk on the Penrose side of the road was emphasized to ensure safety for residents.

The meeting concluded with a decision to continue the discussion on January 15, 2026, allowing further exploration of the project’s implications and potential resolutions to community concerns. The session acknowledged the chair’s contributions over the past two years, culminating in a motion to adjourn.