Harwich Board of Appeals approves Penrose/Howard Affordable Trust 60‑unit 40B after debate over permanent affordability and septic phosphorus

The Harwich Board of Appeals voted on June 25 to approve a comprehensive permit for a 60‑unit townhouse-style rental development proposed by Penrose LLC in partnership with the Howard Affordable Trust, finalizing a draft decision that spells out waivers, conditions and implementation steps for the project at 456 Queen Road.

The decision, adopted by a 5–0 vote, follows continued hearings and written exchanges about unit counts, affordability protections and site controls. Earlier in the meeting the board took a separate roll-call on affordability wording — conditions 16 and 17, which address how many units must remain affordable and for how long — and adopted those conditions 4–1, with Kenneth Dixon voting against the perpetuity terms while saying he supports the overall project.

Why it matters: The project responds to local affordable‑housing goals under Massachusetts’ Chapter 40B rules but prompted substantive public concern about water quality and long‑term affordability. Residents and volunteers who monitor nearby waters told the board the project is in an environmentally sensitive area above the Monomoy lens aquifer and urged the adoption of phosphorus‑reducing septic technologies to reduce the risk of cyanobacteria blooms in ponds such as Hinckley and Seymour. The board and staff noted that the system offered by the applicant meets Title 5 standards and that the board has limited power to require systems the state could overrule, but the decision encourages the applicant to adopt new certified phosphorus‑removal technologies if they become available and notes the town will continue to evaluate broader rules.

What the board approved: The decision records that the comprehensive permit covers 14 buildings totaling 60 rental units and includes a detailed list of conditions ranging from construction sequencing and erosion control to parking dimensions, traffic and landscaping. Key points in the approved document include:

- Affordability: The draft decision was revised to clarify the affordable unit breakdown and the board inserted an explicit overarching statement that 25% of the units (15 units) shall be preserved in perpetuity at the 80% area median income threshold, with other affordability tiers and 50‑year commitments described elsewhere in the decision.

- Regulatory protections: The decision requires a 40B rider to be recorded at closing to preserve the 25% at 80% and also includes a local ‘‘springing’’ regulatory agreement that the town may invoke to protect those units should other subsidy agreements lapse.

- Site and construction controls: The board required a construction schedule (to the building commissioner or the board’s designate) incorporating erosion and sediment controls, a construction management plan that addresses truck routing and material quantities, and on‑site measures such as swept streets, specified parking stall minimums (on‑site spaces 9×18 feet; auxiliary 9×20 feet), and limits on long‑term storage of unregistered vehicles.

- Traffic and safety: The applicant must participate in signal‑timing and intersection safety work identified by the town and consultants, and will petition the town for permission to install roadway markings (for example, a ‘do‑not‑block’ box) at the primary driveway entrance; the decision clarifies the applicant’s role is to participate and to fund or petition for improvements as agreed with the town.

- Landscaping and water protection: The board required planting standards, invasive‑species controls, and a restriction that only low‑nitrogen, slow‑release, low‑phosphate fertilizers be used for initial planting and for replacement plantings as required. The decision also preserves a Limit of Disturbance (LOD) protecting existing mature trees along the eastern property line.

Public comment and technical concerns: Several residents addressed the board during the public comment period, emphasizing declining pond water quality and recent cyanobacteria blooms. Scott Norm, a longtime volunteer water monitor, told the board that phosphorus is the key driver of freshwater cyanobacteria blooms and said “about 80% of the phosphorus in our ponds is coming from septic systems” while estimating fertilizer contributes about 15% and atmospheric/road runoff the remainder. Residents recommended the project use advanced phosphorus‑removal septic technologies (a system described by commenters uses iron plates to precipitate phosphorus), and several asked the board to require hookup language should town sewer later become available.

Board and staff responses in the record: Town public‑health and planning staff explained that the applicant’s proposed wastewater system is Title 5–compliant and that the board cannot impose conditions that conflict with state approvals; staff and the board nevertheless agreed to encourage the applicant to adopt emerging, certified phosphorus‑removal systems if they become available and feasible for multi‑family installations. The decision also notes that if town sewer becomes available the project will be treated as other town properties with respect to connection requirements, because the applicant did not request a sewer waiver.

Votes at a glance: The board recorded a separate vote on conditions 16 and 17 (the affordability duration language) and approved those conditions 4–1 (Kenneth Dixon opposed because he favored stronger perpetual protections). The final vote to adopt the entire written decision as revised was 5–0; the board also voted to authorize the chair to sign the decision on behalf of the board.

What happens next: The decision and the recorded materials (including plans and revised exhibits) will be finalized and the chair will sign the approved decision. The decision notes that some materials presented during hearings (revised plans, lighting and parking exhibits) must be included in the record prior to finalizing the decision. Implementation steps include recording the 40B rider at closing for the perpetual units and the town and applicant executing the local springing regulatory agreement for the units described in the decision. Any appeal of the decision would follow state law timelines.

The board adjourned after completing the votes; the hearing record includes transcripts, presentations and written correspondence received during the review period.