A proposal for a common driveway serving two new homes at 40 and 46 Pond Street ended in a procedural stalemate Wednesday night, as the Planning Board failed to reach the supermajority required for a special permit. Despite a majority of the present members favoring the project, the final tally did not meet the legal threshold for approval, leaving the development of the steeply sloped properties in limbo.

The application sought to replace two individual driveways with a single 16-foot wide shared entrance to minimize construction impacts within the 100-foot wetland buffer. Taylor Corsano of Homestead Consulting Engineers explained that the site’s challenging topography necessitated the shared approach, noting that the current house locations are the most efficient to minimize buffer impacts while working within 'funky' lot lines and keeping away from the 50-foot 'no-touch' buffer. Vice Chair Clark Brewer spoke in favor of the design, stating, this proposal seems to tick all the boxes. I can see that the level of effort has made a difference in making a much more successful and perhaps ultimately for the applicant a much more valuable project.

However, Member Amy Glasmeier remained skeptical of the site’s long-term stability given the steep incline and proximity to wetlands. I'm wondering why exactly the houses are placed as they are, where they are, because of the fact that they're involved with the wetlands buffer, Glasmeier said. She raised significant concerns regarding environmental liability, asking, In a case where there is a deluge and the bank begins to creep downward and covers the driveway, who will be responsible from an insurance perspective for the maintenance and recovery of the site? What is the liability of the town?

Town peer review consultant Patrick Brennan clarified that a required covenant would establish legal and financial responsibilities for maintenance, though he recommended that grass strips and rain gardens be vegetated before the driveway is paved to prevent erosion. Chair Kevin Heine questioned the aesthetics of the engineering, asking if the driveway could be more sinuous to follow the natural topography, while Member Birgit Schmidt-Wesche focused on safety logistics, confirming the turnaround met the 50-foot radius for emergency vehicles. Schmidt-Wesche also requested that future peer reviews include a brief summary of how items were addressed to save the board time.

The board also heard significant opposition from neighbors who fear the project will exacerbate existing drainage woes. Mary Joe Larson, representing 25 residents, warned that a new retaining wall could redirect stormwater and destabilize the surrounding ravine. You can't approve the driveway if you remove the [retaining wall]. You've got to understand it's a package... The retaining wall is a major risk to the property owner, Larson told the board. Resident Rex Richardson added that the area already struggles with a tremendous amount of runoff from the top of the hill, noting the only drainage is a catch basin at the corner of Pond Street and Virginia Lane.

Following the public testimony, the board moved to close the hearing. Motion Made by C. Brewer to close the public comment period for 40 and 46 Pond Street. Motion Passed (3-0-1) with A. Glasmeier abstaining.

The final decision rested on a motion to grant the permit with conditions, including a DPW review of the turnaround and the inclusion of all retaining walls in a shared maintenance easement. Motion Made by C. Brewer to approve the common driveway special permit for 40 and 46 Pond Street as designed. Motion Failed (3-0-1). Under Massachusetts law, a special permit requires a supermajority of four affirmative votes. Because one member was absent and Member Glasmeier abstained, the three "yes" votes from K. Heine, C. Brewer, and B. Schmidt-Wesche were insufficient to carry the motion. Town Counsel Carolyn Murray advised the applicant that they could now consider an appeal or return with a significantly modified plan.