The proposed development by Penrose LLC faced scrutiny over pedestrian access and safety, particularly in relation to the rail trail and Meeting House Road. While the plan includes a path leading to a crosswalk connecting to the rail trail and the nearest sidewalk on Route 28, community members questioned its safety and practicality. The challenging topography and land rights issues further complicated the installation of traditional sidewalks. The board heard from residents who emphasized the necessity of a sidewalk from the development to Route 28, particularly for children and those with mobility impairments.

Sharon Drown, the town treasurer, noted ongoing tax obligations from Penrose. Tim Charlois raised safety concerns about using the rail trail as a primary pedestrian route, citing lighting and maintenance issues. David and Linda McElroy criticized the project for not fitting Chatham’s character and highlighted the risks posed by the absence of sidewalks, particularly in winter conditions. They called for a sidewalk to Route 28 as a condition for approval.

Attorney JP Burke, representing a neighboring property owner, Gloria Hicks, argued that unresolved property rights issues should halt proceedings. He asserted that Hicks had not relinquished rights and suggested potential legal action. Another resident, Lou Hive, opposed the project, referencing a town meeting’s rejection of community preservation funds for it and urging the board to align with community opposition.

In contrast, Reverend John Sullivan supported the project, citing its potential to fulfill the town’s affordable housing objectives. He urged consideration of the project’s community benefits despite its imperfections.

The meeting also addressed the project’s site control and density. The proposal includes a density of 10.2 units per acre, aligning with planning board recommendations. The board discussed site control requirements, emphasizing the need for the applicant to demonstrate a valid interest in the property. Legal aspects of site control were acknowledged as critical, with ongoing access road concerns noted.

Concerns about the project’s construction quality were raised, referencing issues at a nearby development, Noset Green. The need for construction standards was emphasized to avoid compromising affordable housing quality. Community members reiterated the importance of addressing existing construction issues before granting approval.

Questions about the project’s potential impact on school enrollment and community resources were raised. The board was urged to consider these aspects as they deliberated the project’s implications.