The Peterborough Planning Board approved an application for a three-lot residential subdivision at 129 Old Dublin Road provided the plan can be reconfigured to meet the town’s existing subdivision ordinance.

The board held a continued hearing on the application, which had previously been heard by the board June 8.

Peterborough’s subdivision ordinance requires that every new lot have 200 feet of frontage on the access road; that each lot be a minimum of three acres, and that the lots conform to subdivision regulation plan 237-19-C, which requires that a “square box can be placed within the lot, with the minimum lot width shall be the same as the minimum frontage required for the district.”

Applicant James Vigneault said while his engineers have not had time to formally reassess the new plan, which adjusts the lot lines so that each lot will have 200 feet of frontage on Old Dublin Road, they believe they can make the plan work.

“I talked to Meridian and he said he would look into it. He said he thinks he can make it work by doing 200 feet for each lot, but he has to look at it more closely,” Vigneault said.

After questions about the frontage requirements for “through lots” —meaning lots with road on two sides — were raised at the June 8 hearing, the Planning Board consulted with town counsel on the definition of “frontage” in the town’s ordinance.

Vigneault’s land has frontage on both Route 101 and Old Dublin Road, and he previously stated that the northernmost lot could potentially have a driveway to Route 101 instead of Old Dublin Road.

“Our counsel said that unfortunately, our definition of frontage is not as strong as it should be. However, since we have not defined it since the 1970s, counsel’s interpretation is that it is the default zoning,” said Town Planner Danica Miller. “We went back to the 1970s to look at lots that had used this interpretation, and we looked at 10 different examples which align with our interpretation of the ordinance, which is that you can choose between those two frontages to use as the access to the lot, and in some cases, you are allowed to use both options.”

At the June 8 meeting, abutter Wayne Dodds expressed concerns that any development on the proposed lots would impact his view of the Wapack Range. Dodds said he has a view easement deed that protects his view.

At Monday night’s meeting, Planning Board Chair Carl Staley said that the town had also consulted town counsel on the matter of Dodd’s view easement and been advised that the view easement dispute is a civil matter.

“Our board cannot adjudicate on that,” Staley said.

At the close of the meeting, Planning Board member Lisa Stone said that as far as updating the town’s ordinance on the definition of frontage, “we need to put this on our list of weird things to deal with.”

Miller agreed.

“We want a better definition of what frontage is so we don’t have to go through this again,” she said.