The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) has approved an application to build condos at 151-153 East Main Street. However, the fate of the historic house on the property is still unclear as the developer and town wait to hear more information from the Attorney General’s Office.

Following the continuation of a public hearing over the application by Resync Property Solutions on March 8, the PZC voted to approve the application with a stipulation that the house cannot be demolished until either the state’s attorney general weighs in on the future of the house, or 90 days pass from the approval of the application with no further comment from the state. If the state does not intervene during the 90 days, the house may be demolished.

The approval was granted on a vote of seven commission members in favor (Martin Jaffe, Walter Clark, Mary Ellen Dahlgren, Adam Moore, Eddie Alberino, Mike Knudsen, and Amandeep Singh) and one opposed (Alan Kravitz).

Kravitz said he was “appalled” by the proposed development and stated that in his view the development was not attractive and designed with only profits in mind and no regard to the character of the neighborhood, historic preservation, or the traffic that would be generated by the additional cars turning onto Route One. Commission member Alberino said that while he respected Kravitz’s opinion he felt Kravitz’s comments were inappropriate and disrespectful to the developer.

With the approval granted, work may begin on the project, but that work must leave the house untouched. There is currently no timetable for when the Attorney General’s Office will intervene on the project, but if it does in fact stop the demolition of the house, the developer can come back before the PZC to modify the application.

Kravitz had suggested earlier in the meeting that the public hearing should be kept open until the state decides if the house should be preserved or not, but since there is no timeline for when the state could make a decision, the PZC decided to go ahead with closing the hearing.

The PZC also expressed a hope that by including the right for the developer to proceed with demolition after 90 days if the Attorney General’s Office doesn’t render a decision it may spur the state to act more quickly.

The Application

The application to build new condos on two parcels of land across from the Clinton Police station is from owner and applicant Resync Property Solutions. The land will now be turned into Sterling Sands Condominiums, which will feature will feature 32 apartments with septic systems.

Plans show that there will be a paved roadway leading into the complex from the Route One. The driveway will be lined by 16 separate buildings, each divided into two separate condominium units. The condos will each contain three bedrooms and have a garage. The plans also depict a small picnic and gazebo area for the community.

The application was discussed at an Inland Wetlands Commission meeting in January and that commission unanimously determined that a wetlands permit was not needed as there was no activity being proposed within 100 feet of a wetlands.

In 2005 a similar project from a different developer was actually approved for the same parcels of land, however that proposal never came to be. That proposal was for a 55-and-older community; however, this application has no such age limits.

The Opposition

When news of the application first became public in January it riled up some members of the community who do not wish to see the old house destroyed. A petition was started by Peggy Adler to urge the PZC to require the historic structure be preserved as part of its approval. When the first public hearing for the application was held in February, the developer’s representatives announced they would meet with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on March 3 to discuss the possibility of keeping the house. The PZC decided to continue the hearing until March 8.

After the SHPO meeting on March 3, the State Historic Preservation Council voted to recommend the Attorney General’s Office help prevent the demolition of the house.

The Hearing

A continuation of the public hearing was held immediately preceding the March 8 PZC regular meeting.

During the meeting Keith Ainsworth, an attorney for the developer, said that more conversation between the developer and SHPO would take place, but right now the developer’s preference is for the house to be demolished.

Investigations by the developer into the house determined that the cost of restoration for the house would be about $924,000, which Ainsworth said is about twice what the house is actually worth. Compounding matters, Ainsworth said that the developer is not eligible to receive tax credits or grants that would offset the cost of doing the project.

The cost to restoring the house was singled out as the main barrier between preserving the house and having it demolished. At the first public hearing in February, Ainsworth had cautioned those in attendance that there may be safety concerns and questions about the structural integrity of the house. Ainsworth said there were signs of possible beetle damage; the house is currently missing one original chimney and it has updates that are more modern, such as vinyl sidings and an asphalt roof.

“We’re staying open-minded, but at this point we have a project that meets the requirements and we’d like to move ahead,” Ainsworth said.

The developer’s representatives said on March 8 that they have alternative plans prepared if the state forces the house to stay on the property. Ainsworth said the house would be incorporated into the design if it is to remain.

Ainsworth did say an unnamed party is interested in taking the Corn Crib and restoring it. The Corn Crib was found to be in poor condition and determined to not have significant historic value as it was built sometime in the second half of the 20th century. SHPO did not object to that determination. The donation of the crib will spare it from demolition.

During the hearing, six members of the public spoke. Four of the speakers were in favor of the application, albeit with the preservation of the house, and two speakers spoke in favor of the application without preserving the house.

Megan Stine, who spoke for herself and the Clinton Historical Society, read a statement that noted the beauty and character historic structures provide to towns.

“The character of our small New England town, its charm and appeal, relies heavily on the historic houses and public buildings we have worked so hard to preserve. Once these buildings are gone, the rich heritage and visual appeal of our town will be lost forever,” Stine said in part.

Stine explained to the Harbor News that historical records show that the house may have been built sometime in the early 1800s by the Griswold family, one of the early founding families of Clinton, but that has not been confirmed. The house was sold to Joseph E. Dowd in 1909, after which it became known as The Dowd House to generations of Clinton residents.

Duncan Belcher, a relative of the Dowd family, spoke at the hearing, and though he said he’d be sad to see the house torn down, he would support it for the sake of the project. Belcher argued that there are several vacated properties along Route One and he would not like to see the house be one of them.

Belcher also pointed out that the property was available to be purchased for several years and nobody did, so in his view it is unfair to now force the current owner to pay its own money to renovate and maintain the property.

Melissa Suprin echoed the concerns about undue cost on the developer and worried that too many restrictions could scare off new developers.

“The more strings we put on people, the less likely [development] is to happen,” Suprin said in part.