Planning Board
Planning Board approved historic preservation site plans and draft decisions for 5 & 13 School St, 14 Maple St, and 19 Prospect St; approved a storefront sign at 31 Main St; corrected a sidewalk condition in the Clarks Rd approval; and voted a positive recommendation to City Council on Bill 2026-068 (Accessory Dwelling Unit zoning amendments).
The Planning Board meeting opened with a full agenda of development reviews, historic-preservation applications, and a zoning amendment review. The Board approved a storefront sign for 31 Main Street. The Board then voted to adopt draft decisions and grant Historic Preservation Special Permits and associated site plan approvals for three projects: 5 & 13 School Street (Ordway and Bagley buildings), 14 Maple Street (restoration plus a new single-family), and 19 Prospect Street; each approval included project-specific conditions, affordable housing/preservation restriction requirements where applicable, and standard performance-bond/ANR/subdivision sequencing provisions. The Board also accepted a minor modification correcting a sidewalk-condition reference in the previously approved Clarks Road project decision (27.5 & 29 Clarks Rd) and authorized staff to incorporate the corrected wording.
Significant discussion addressed the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance changes: staff presented redlined amendments to align local rules with the 2024 state ADU statute and related regulations, clarifying unit size, owner-occupancy, treatment of detached ADUs, and the approach for residential uses within non-residential zoning districts. After debate on design review, neighborhood impacts, and tradeoffs versus as-of-right ADUs, the Board voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on Bill 2026-068 (Amend Section XI.K.3 Accessory Dwelling Units) to City Council with the proposed edits. Numerous abutters spoke during public comment on the 2–4 Elmwood application—praising the historic renovation but raising concerns about precedent, parking, snow storage, density, privacy, and tree/utility impacts; the Board discussed those concerns, confirmed the application’s procedural status, and will continue that hearing for further action. Overall, residents’ comments focused on parking, precedent for subdividing double lots, snow and storm impacts, and the appropriateness of infill density versus the protections offered by historic-preservation review.
Points of interest

