The primary agenda item was Penrose LLC’s application for a 48-unit affordable housing project, which included requests for zoning waivers. This proposal, known as the Penrose Buckley Gardens project, has been a focal point of debate due to its potential impact on Chatham’s landscape and community fabric. Attorney Andrew Singer, representing Penrose, underscored the economic and practical necessity of maintaining the proposed unit count, arguing that reducing the number of units would jeopardize the project’s viability. He emphasized the pressing affordable housing shortage in Chatham, noting the town’s lack of adequate affordable housing stock and the need for such developments to meet local needs.

Singer addressed concerns about the project’s density, asserting that no substantial health, safety, or environmental issues had been identified in prior reviews. He defended the project’s safety measures, citing compliance with Massachusetts building codes and support from the Chatham Fire Department. Despite these assurances, public skepticism persisted, with residents expressing fears about increased traffic, environmental degradation, and the potential strain on local resources.

Public commentary during the meeting revealed a spectrum of opinions. Some residents, like Katherine Sheer and Thomas Clark, voiced strong support for the project, highlighting its importance for workforce retention and recruitment, particularly for essential workers. They praised Penrose for making design modifications in response to community feedback while maintaining the necessary unit count. Conversely, others, such as Stuart Smith, raised significant safety concerns, citing a need for third-party evaluations to ensure adequate fire response capabilities.

The meeting also featured discussions about the project’s environmental and aesthetic impacts. Concerns were raised about tree preservation and the visual impact of the management office on the streetscape. Residents like Rickella Levit requested changes to site design elements, including the relocation of parking spaces and dumpsters, to minimize disruption to their homes’ quiet enjoyment. The board was urged to consider these factors when weighing the project’s approval.

Economic considerations were another focal point, with discussions about the project’s financial feasibility and potential local subsidies. The possibility of negotiating the land sale at a nominal price was suggested to ensure the project’s viability. Penrose representatives reiterated the economic challenges of reducing the unit count, emphasizing the need for economies of scale to manage operational costs effectively.

Legal counsel reminded the board of the legal framework governing density reductions, highlighting the challenge of proving such reductions are necessary for public health and safety. The potential for a peer review of the project’s financial proforma was debated.

As the meeting progressed, the board acknowledged the importance of addressing community concerns while recognizing the need for affordable housing.