Central to the discussion was Application Number 25-034 by Penrose LLC, proposing the construction of 48 dwelling units across nine structures. The proposal includes a management building, along with various waivers from existing regulations. This was the fourth session focusing on the project. Attorney Andrew Singer, representing Penrose, presented updates via a PowerPoint presentation. Key changes highlighted included a proposed crosswalk location and increased rear setbacks to preserve trees.

The rear setback adjustment, moving the buildings nine feet forward to 26-27 feet, became a focal point. This change aims to preserve trees adjacent to the Jesse’s Landing subdivision, though it reduces parking from 84 to 73 spaces. Despite this reduction, the parking ratio remains above initial proposals, with the fire department confirming layout access. The applicant emphasized the preservation of trees, contingent on engineering assessments and root evaluations.

The meeting also delved into the architectural design, with modifications made to enhance visual interest. These changes responded to previous board feedback, featuring varied siding and door colors and dormers on the management building. An expanded streetscape view was presented, illustrating the development’s fit within the neighborhood, which includes seasonal and year-round properties. The building heights remain below nearby structures, justifying the height waivers requested.

Community members voiced strong opinions on the project, particularly concerning the density and setbacks. Concerns were raised about the potential impact on neighborhood ambiance, privacy, and traffic congestion.

A key issue was the project’s density, with some board members questioning whether the site could accommodate the proposed 48 units. The discussion revealed a balancing act between economic viability and site feasibility, with Penrose typically not operating projects with fewer than 60 units. However, they agreed to the lower unit count due to the site’s resources and the desire for full-time property management.

Parking emerged as a contentious topic, with the original proposal falling below the bylaw standard of two spaces per unit. The board expressed concerns over reducing parking spaces to enhance landscaping, emphasizing the need to balance aesthetic improvements with practical needs. Community feedback echoed these concerns, urging Penrose to consider the implications of parking adequacy on residents’ quality of life.

The meeting also addressed management and operational aspects. The proposed management building is deemed essential, offering office space, maintenance, and a gathering area for residents. While initially proposing a fitness room, Penrose prioritized a communal space to enhance residents’ quality of life. Questions arose regarding the town’s support for the curb cut application to the state, with members acknowledging the benefit of town backing.

Public comments underscored varying perspectives on the development. Supporters emphasized the need for affordable housing, citing high median home prices and a shortage of year-round rentals as contributing factors. Critics highlighted concerns about density, setbacks, and the project’s impact on local traffic and privacy.