Peterborough Planning Board members will hold a site walk at 241 Union St., where a Halliday Properties, LLC, proposal would house 34 units, including seven workforce housing units, on a three-acre parcel on Union Street, near Briggs Road in the West Peterborough District.
Board members decided after a hearing Monday to hold the site walk, which will take place at 5 p.m. Sept. 26 prior to a 6 p.m. workshop on zoning proposals.
Fieldstone Land Use Consultants Chief Engineer Chad Branon presented a revised plan that moves a 20-unit structure back from the property line for Halliday Properties, owned by Sharon resident Sadie Halliday. The plan includes the 20 units, as well as four two-unit structures and a six-unit structure that would sit across the road. The proposal also includes residential parking and two large parking lots to the northeast and southwest of the property.
One of the main issues regarding the project is a 30-foot buffer separating the property from abutters. While some on the board have expressed support for the project, the question of whether the 30-foot buffer needs to surround the entire property remains a sticking point.
Branon asked the board to clarify which code the board was speaking about after a back-and-forth between board members regarding the requirement of a 30-foot buffer and the application of an innovative land-use agreement.
“Is it the workforce housing code or the West Peterborough District code?” Branon asked, explaining that the workforce housing code includes innovative land use. “If you read under the performance standard, the section we’re talking about, it states a 30-foot buffer shall be provided with vegetative screening and/or fencing that is deemed appropriate by the Planning Board. We left the meeting last week believing we need to move the buildings 30 feet away from the property line and work together for a buffering solution. We’re looking for feedback from the board.”
Also at issue during the meeting for several residents was the question of density and the proposed location. Alan McClaire of Union Street said he doesn’t think the proposed development is innovative or appropriate for the proposed location.
“I think it’s destructive,” he said. “Too much in too little space.”
Kirstin Armstrong of Union Street agreed. She said the board has not asked the developers whether workforce housing will only work with the proposed level of density at the site and wants them to do so.
“I think the reason we’re all here is for you guys to determine the allowable level of density for a project like this,” she said, adding that she believes this ties into the design of the project being proposed, which also relates to the 30-foot buffer. “[The buffer] seems really important to the people of West Peterborough. That said, you’re taking [Halliday Properties] at their word that this design to include workforce housing only works with this level of density.”
Armstrong also called on the board to seek financial information for the project after comments were made suggesting the development is not a lucrative venture for Halliday.
“[Y]ou don’t know that they’re barely breaking even with this plan,” she said. “So if you agree to reduce or alleviate this buffer, I would ask you to ask them to prove it, that this project isn’t viable without that level of density.”
Former Peterborough Select Board member Edward Juengst had a different opinion, calling it the best plan he has seen and adding that the subject of density and workforce housing has been repeated for years in Peterborough with no results.
“There’s never enough density to make it work,” he said. “When it comes down to it, projects like this are opposed. If we don’t do it we might as well do away with the committee to get workforce housing.”
Bethany LeBlanc of Union Street said in an interview that she has some “very big concerns” about the project, including traffic, threats to wildlife and home values, as well as businesses in the neighborhood. There is also a large field nearby that LeBlanc fears could be developed and wonders if the plan is to buy parcels in this area and put in housing.
In a letter to the board, LeBlanc expressed her concerns.
“I’m surprised a building complex like this is being pushed through in this area,” she said, adding that a number of historic homes and businesses exist in this area. “I am greatly concerned that the intent is to purchase the homes and land from 187-241 and eventually build several large apartment units up through this lovely quiet portion of Union Street.”
On Wednesday, Halliday said the only property she owns in Peterborough is 241 Union St., and she has no plans to develop any adjacent parcels.
LeBlanc said that when she was a single mother, she lived in low-income housing and she understands the need.
“Yes, the workforce housing portion of this building would help seven families,” she wrote. “I don’t want to diminish the importance of that, but please consider how something like this will affect those of us who are already here and those who work, create and are flourishing in this area. A development of that sort would affect far many more negatively.”
Eco Village hearing continued
Board members voted unanimously to grant a continuance on the Walden Eco Village project until Nov. 14. Eco Village has been before Planning Board since 2020, and applicant Akhil Garland is now proposing a 20-lot subdivision, including the current seven cottages and 13 new three-bedroom homes into quarter-acre lots.
The village was first designed and built prior to 2012. In December 2020, Code Enforcement Officer Tim Herlihy found multiple code violations and safety concerns, and that the homes were not properly permitted as permanent residences.