The density of the proposed development emerged as a primary concern among residents and board members. Many expressed that the project attempts to pack too much into a limited space, with comparisons made to “trying to put five pounds into a four-pound box.” The original proposal of 48 units has been adjusted to 42, yet calls for further reduction persist. Opposition voices, like Douglas Boeing, argued that the density would be inadequate for safely accommodating children’s play areas and providing sufficient parking, citing other developments with lower densities as preferable models.

Parking concerns were another focal point of the meeting. The board discussed the allocation of parking spaces, particularly for seniors and tradespeople, with some skepticism about whether fewer parking spaces for seniors were practical given that many still drive. A proposed parking ratio of 1.42 was assessed, but the loss of a parking space due to a dumpster relocation added to the complexity. The board considered whether assigned parking might lead to disputes and if flexible parking arrangements would better serve residents.

Landscaping and irrigation plans were scrutinized, with board members emphasizing the importance of sustaining the newly planted trees. The use of wells for irrigation was debated, given the town’s discouragement of using treated drinking water for such purposes. Concerns about “clear cutting” portions of the property further underscored the need for effective replanting strategies to maintain a “beautiful streetscape.”

Architectural design and material choices were also discussed. Residents and board members criticized the project’s aesthetics, calling for design elements that align with local architecture, such as the use of wooden shingles. Photographic evidence of other Penrose developments was presented to illustrate concerns about potential deterioration and lack of charm.

The board addressed safety concerns related to the project’s layout, particularly the proximity of buildings to potentially hazardous ravines. Discussions about the placement and size of building six highlighted worries about its visual impact and suitability within the streetscape. The possibility of swapping it with the management building or altering its footprint to increase green space was considered.

Tracy Cannon from the Chatham Housing Authority countered criticisms by emphasizing the importance of effective management and infrastructure improvements.

Concerns about transparency and the project’s approval process were also raised. Residents like Debbie Swanson described the process as undemocratic and urged the board to uphold zoning standards. Calls for a comprehensive list of conditions to negotiate with Penrose were made, emphasizing the need for clarity and community engagement.