A project to convert a Front Street mansion into multiple condo units is moving forward following a compromise with neighbors regarding the configuration of parking on the site.

On March 30, Exeter’s Planning Board munanimously approved John Wilson’s site plan to convert the eight-bedroom, nine-bathroom property at 81 Front St. into six, two-bedroom condos with 14 parking spaces — two for each unit and an additional two for guests.

The “huge” and “ginormous” mansion, as previously stated by attorney Sharon Sommers, sits on just shy of two acres and is equipped with amenities such as four kitchens, a spa house and locker rooms.

However, the key challenge with the project was reconfiguring space for adequate parking.

Previously, the applicant had proposed a site plan which included nine parking spaces in the front portion of the property and the remaining five in the rear.

Since the two spaces aren’t connected, residents who needed to access the rear parking would have had to do so through a driveway connected to Lincoln Street School, also known as Seminary Lane.

Town planner Dave Sharples said the town cannot approve a site plan that relies on using private roadways. In this case, Seminary Lane is owned by the school district. Although current and previous owners of 81 Front St. have been using the roadway — on an “at will” basis — there’s no official agreement stating that the property owner can use it and therefore, it cannot be part of a site plan.

Representing the applicant, Shayne Forsley of Hampshire Development Corporation presented a plan that shifts all 14 parking spaces onto the front portion of the property, eliminating the need to access the rear portion via Seminary Lane.

Proposed changes in the layout also included moving a fence, located on the east side of the front portion of the property, by about four feet. Forsley said the existing fence currently does not sit on the property line and moving the fence will allow for a better parking reconfiguration.

According to Forsley, the space by the moved fence could hold six parking spaces. He said at the head of each space would be plantings that would act as additional buffers for light and sound.

“We envision (the plants) to be something that grows tall and bushes out and creates privacy for the neighbor,” he added.

However, Sarah Brown Russ, the neighbor on the other side of the fence, objected to the plan.

“The biggest objection that I have to the plan relates to the fact that the fence is now being bumped out a few feet,” she said. “While I would appreciate a screen … or a sound buffer, I don’t want it at the expense of the access to my backyard.”

According to Russ, although not on the property line, the existing fence has sat at its original spot for over three decades. She said, currently, the space between the fence and her home is six feet, which is being used as a walkway to connect her front yard to her backyard.

Extending the fence onto the property line, she said, will only leave about 24 inches of space between the fence and her house. Russ also brought up safety concerns with eliminating the current access way from the front to the back of her house.

“It’s a terrible situation for me,” she added. Forsley said reconfiguring the parking layout is “one of the unique complexities” of the project.

“It’s unfortunate that we are unofficially allowed to utilize Seminary Lane and get another five parking spaces (in the back) to alleviate a lot of the pressure out front,” he said, referring to the initial plan of the project. “This was the best way to do it and to minimize the impact … without completely going back to the drawing board. What we have in front of you here today is the best effort we could give.”

Since the sole purpose of moving the fence is to make space for the plantings, Planning Board Vice Chair Aaron Brown suggested the applicant skip the planting and leave the fence where it currently is as a way to reach a compromise from both parties.

Forsley agreed with Brown. “It’s an important element of privacy for both sides of the fence,” he said, referring to the plantings, “But I don’t think they’re necessarily imperative.”

However, Sharples, the town planner, clarified if the future owners of the property want to move the fence onto the property line, they still can.

Russ said although she prefers to include a restriction on moving the fence into the language of the approval, she is happy with the compromise.

“If that’s as far as you can go, then I would say I’ll take it,” she said.

This article is being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.