The Planning Board on Monday voted unanimously to accept the withdrawal of two requests pertaining to the development of a second home at the rear of a historic house at 82 Clinton Street.

Previous meetings focused on the application of the bylaw regarding “lots with historic structures.” Special permits would need to be obtained for the lot to be subdivided for the new home. A special permit would be required for a common driveway, and a waiver would be needed for inadequate street frontage.

The Board of Appeal previously approved a variance for the new home having no lot frontage.

Principal planner Aneri Patel told the board that she received an updated set of plans with more details from the applicant. These details were sought by Tighe & Bond, the town’s peer review consultant.

Jean Christy, a principal engineer with Tighe & Bond, said she received the documents late last week and did not have time to fully review them before this meeting.

Christy said there will be “a bunch of conditions and recommendations from us on this.”

One concern she raised was needing documentation from the Hopkinton Fire Department approving the proposed driveway access to the new home. At the previous meeting, the turning radius was mentioned as needing to be wide enough for emergency vehicles to enter and exit each home.

Applicant Aaron Stone stressed that his intent to preserve the historic home should be factored into a decision. He added that engineer Jay Thrasher has put significant “effort and thoughtfulness” into the plans in order to comply with the requests of multiple town departments.

Chair Rob Benson told the applicant that he was seeking “a stacking of exceptions” for project approval “to basically maximize the value of the property.”

Benson could not recall a proposal under the bylaw where all of these conditions were approved.

Mike Roughan, chair of the Hopkinton Historical Commission, spoke on this matter. He said that while the historic home “does not meet current construction standards,” this is “very consistent with” other homes in town, including his own.

He added that, as an architect, he has “no qualms” about the ability to restore the historic home.

This proposal illustrates the “overall holistic value” of the bylaw’s goal of historic home preservation, Roughan asserted. The home can be restored for “a modest amount of money” and be available for homebuyers who cannot afford “McMansions.”

Roughan noted the plan to build a second home on the property with limited frontage and a common driveway is something that has worked elsewhere in town, and he encouraged the board to consider it.

Said Roughan: “You are not establishing a precedent; I promise you that. This is consistent with other uses of this bylaw in town, and I strongly encourage you to think about the big picture here. Doing things for frontage, that’s fine, that’s a very prescriptive requirement. But look at the holistic benefit that we will get by preserving historic structures of modest sizes. This will allow more affordability.

“Mr. Stone could wait two years and tear down this historic structure and build a McMansion and probably make as much if not more money. But he’s doing two structures, keeping one that has historical integrity. I really ask the Planning Board to open their eyes and look at this in terms of the overall holistic value of this bylaw and the use of this bylaw in this instance.”

Need for supermajority approval key

Vice chair Matthew Wronka pointed out that the board’s composition will change when it next meets June 1. He said the applicant may want to withdraw the application in order to reapply. Then all nine members would be eligible to vote on the new application.

A supermajority of six members was needed for approval. Member Lucia Lopez was unable to vote because she missed the two previous meetings when the application was discussed. This was Vikasith Pratty’s last meeting.

Benson and Brian Johnson are running unopposed for Planning Board seats in the May 18 Annual Town Election.

In response to Wronka, Stone said he felt like “we’re at the end of the line here.”

To reapply would be “very costly and counterproductive,” according to Stone. He asked that a conditional approval be granted pending completion of Tighe & Bond’s recommendations.

“Come on, guys!” interjected member Parker Happ. “Let him build his house already.”

Countered member Amna Diwan: “I don’t see how we can make a decision when key people for the town to help us make a right and safe decision are saying they need more time.”

After Benson agreed, Happ continued to disagree without being recognized by the chair. Benson twice told Happ to “stop.”

Wronka stressed to Stone that there would only be one new member to bring up to speed on the project. Stone would not be starting from scratch.

Peter Mimmo suggested a straw poll. It showed that six members approved (including Pratty), while Benson and Diwan were against it.

Stone withdrew the application and said he would reapply before June 1.

Private way acceptance issue debated

The board discussed the acceptance of private ways as public roads. Members deemed it was beyond the board’s scope, with feedback needed from the Select Board and other town entities.

Happ, an Auciello Drive resident, recused himself from the discussion about the acceptance of Auciello Drive as a public road in light his being a proponent of the Annual Town Meeting article requesting it. The first motion in this three-motion article requesting the acceptance of Auciello Drive failed in a 53-42 vote. The remaining two motions were not voted on because a quorum was not present, and the ATM was dissolved.

As a citizen, Happ said the petitioners plan to bring a street acceptance proposal to the Planning Board. They asked that the board “in good faith” remove two conditions it added last year “that are potentially in conflict with existing bylaws and state law.”

The main concern was the condition that stated that “the town shall have no responsibility to maintain, repair or plow” Auciello Drive unless it is approved by the town as a public road. Happ stressed that a bylaw “expressly allows temporary repairs on private ways.”

The other condition was that any future request for acceptance of Auciello Drive “shall require compliance with current town standards and procedures.”

Said Happ: “[A] blanket requirement that previously approved subdivision roads must comply with current standards as a future condition of acceptance goes too far.”

Happ pointed to two state laws governing subdivisions that he believed were inconsistent with town policies.

Benson said this should be put on a future agenda to give members a time to review the laws in question.

This opened up a discussion on the acceptance of private ways. Benson said residents are in a “quagmire” because they are expected to pay for bringing up their roads up to current standards. On the other hand, Wronka and Lopez pointed out that the Department of Public Works is financially strapped. Also, the town expects future budget constraints.

As a board member, Happ gave a presentation on how holding 19th century roads to 21st century standards “guarantees municipal paralysis.”

The board also discussed revisiting its previous goal of pedestrian connectivity and sidewalk additions.

75 South Street hearing continued

The board also voted unanimously to continue the hearing on 75 South Street at the applicant’s request until the June 1 meeting.

The applicant, Lance LaFave, intends to repurpose 75 South Street from a commercial/industrial building to an office building/warehouse, moving away from manufacturing.