The proposed construction by Eastward MBT LLC on Croll Road drew attention due to its implications for local zoning laws and the community’s desire for workforce housing. The project consisted of building a traditional Cape Cod-style home with an accessory swimming pool, requiring a special permit in the GB3 zoning district. Despite meeting setback and building coverage requirements, the proposal sparked debate about its appropriateness for the predominantly commercial area. Concerns were voiced by community members like Maria Williams, who argued for the necessity of workforce housing over single-family homes. Brian Phillips, another resident, echoed these concerns, emphasizing the need for affordable housing and questioning the residential development’s fit within a commercial zone.

Attorney William F. Riley, representing Eastward MBT LLC, acknowledged the community’s concerns but highlighted the restrictive nature of Chatham’s zoning bylaws, which complicate the development of workforce housing. He referenced a past attempt to convert property into workforce housing, which had been stymied by zoning restrictions, pointing out the need for bylaw modifications to enable such developments. Despite unanimous approval from the Historical Business District Commission for the project’s design, the ongoing dialogue around housing needs and commercial-residential balance remained a focal point of the meeting.

Another topic was the application concerning 127 Stage Harbor Road, where the owners proposed demolishing a non-conforming dwelling to construct a new one. The revised design aimed to address previous concerns by reducing the building’s height and scale. However, local residents, particularly the Williams family on Stage Harbor Road, expressed apprehensions regarding the project’s impact on neighborhood views and character. Their attorney, Jack Hurnen, articulated concerns about the proposed height increase and its potential to obstruct cherished views of the water, which had been a key factor in their decision to purchase their home during the pandemic. The historical commission had previously imposed a 12-month demolition delay, hoping the owner would reconsider demolition in favor of preserving the historic elements of the house.

Public commentary underscored the importance of maintaining the neighborhood’s historic character and the potential impact of increased traffic and parking needs due to the proposed development. Bill Lichfield, representing local residents, pointed out that while the new design showed improvements, concerns about size and compatibility with the neighborhood persisted.

The proposal for a property on Old Wharf Road also garnered attention, involving the alteration of a non-conforming dwelling with a partial second-floor addition and detached garage construction. While the proposal maintained existing non-conformities without further encroachment, one board member voted against its approval, citing insufficient alignment with neighborhood character. Public support was strong, with immediate abutters expressing approval of the renovations, which they believed would enhance the neighborhood.