The Planning Board on Monday voted 7-0 to continue two hearings related to the development of a second home at the rear of a historic house at 82 Clinton Street.

Discussion on the two hearings proceeded simultaneously. The first hearing focused on the request for two special permits. One was for a proposed common driveway that would link the two dwelling units on the 2.61 acres. The second was required under the “lots with historic structures” bylaw to allow the lot to be subdivided for the new home.

The second request was for a frontage waiver for the existing historical home, a farmhouse built in 1790 and altered in 1819. This home does not conform to current zoning standards, as it was built before the town implemented zoning bylaws.

Revised plan receives peer review

Principal planner Aneri Patel updated the board on a revised plan dated April 13. Applicant Aaron Stone sought feedback from town departments and adjusted the plan with their concerns in mind.

Tighe & Bond, the town’s peer review consultant, submitted its feedback April 23. The comments focused on the proposed shared driveway. Easements needed to be documented showing access to both homes and should be at least 20 feet wide. The turning radius needed to be shown as being wide enough for emergency vehicles to enter and exit each home.

Stone said Tighe & Bond’s requests were “pretty doable” as plan updates.

“Nothing jumped out on me that said anything that we’re proposing is not feasible,” added engineer Jay Thrasher.

He noted that he had performed the turn radius calculations, but that they needed to be “spelled out with more detail in the drawings.” The driveway’s slope would be adjusted to make it less steep.

The Health Department last week had performed soil testing of the leaching field areas and determined that “everything checked out,” according to Thrasher.

Thrasher said he hoped the board could give the applicant some “preliminary feedback” before Stone invested in more “in-depth engineering.”

Parker Happ questioned whether the applicant had “a complete and utterly comprehensible understanding” of the required steps for potential approval of the project. He noted that, at the previous meeting, Stone said he did not realize that the home was historic when he purchased the property.

“You have literally picked a parcel with a nonconforming lot with a historic home in a Title V wetland,” he said.

This property on Clinton Street has been the subject of recent Planning Board discussions. PHOTO/JERRY SPAR

Stone said he now had “a good handle” on what needed to be done. He wanted to get a sense from the board if the project would be approved if the peer review comments were addressed. The information he submitted was to allow the boards involved to get a “conceptual understanding” of what he proposed.

Patel mentioned that conservation administrator Judy Day expressed concern that the proposed grading work was close to a wetland buffer zone.

Ken Parker, who lives across from the property, reiterated his objections from the last meeting about two houses being allowed on one lot without significant frontage. Allowing this applicant to subdivide a lot like this would have “large ramifications,” he stressed.

“I completely agree with your concern,” said chair Rob Benson. “I am not supportive of this project.”

Added Benson: “It seems like a way to circumvent our zoning.”

Application of bylaw questioned

After speaking with the author of the bylaw on lots containing historical homes, Happ said he understood this to be an appropriate use. He did not name the author.

“It is, to [Benson’s] point, a little bit of circumventing our [zoning] bylaws here,” he added, “but it’s completely within the rules.”

Benson said the issue is that the new home does not have sufficient frontage.

Vice chair Matthew Wronka questioned Benson as to when the historical home lot bylaw would apply.

“It seems like this is explicitly what it’s designed for,” Wronka said.

“I think if there’s no waivers requested, then the bylaw would work,” Benson replied.

Wronka said this perspective “seems to violate the spirit” of the bylaw.

“I don’t like it,” agreed Happ. “But that’s what it’s there for.”

Patel said a supermajority vote of six members was needed to approve the two special permits. Member Lucia Lopez would be ineligible to vote because she missed the two meetings when the special permits were discussed.

Happ said this situation illustrated the need for bylaw revisions.

75 South Street hearing continued

The board also voted 6-0-1 at the start of the meeting to continue the hearing on 75 South Street at the applicant’s request. Vikasith Pratty abstained because he is an abutter.

Patel explained that the applicant decided to request the continuance to receive the Conservation Commission’s feedback Tuesday before proceeding with the board’s review.

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