Developer pitches 36-unit ‘tiny home’ community for Whitney Street in Gardner City

A developer proposing the city’s first tiny-home community described a conceptual plan for 36 two-bedroom units clustered near the front of a 21-acre Whitney Street parcel during the Gardner City Development Review Committee meeting on Feb. 27.

“What we want to do is kind of get in front of you early on in this project,” said a McCardi Engineering representative, who spoke for the applicant and identified the property owner as Mr. Blinger. The concept shows 36 detached tiny homes on a private loop road, approximately 1,425 linear feet of driveway, and a single, common septic system sized at roughly 8,000 gallons, the applicant said.

Committee members and staff focused on technical and regulatory questions that would shape whether the project can proceed as proposed. Among the principal issues raised were wastewater reserve areas, whether shared wells would trigger public water-supply requirements, road width and turning radii for emergency vehicles, parking supply for two-bedroom units, and the zoning definition that determines whether the development requires site-plan review.

On wastewater, the applicant said the common septic would remain under a 10,000-gallon threshold in the concept and that a reserve area could be configured inside the loop, although final placement awaits detailed design and on-the-ground topo. In response, a committee reviewer asked whether the reserve area had been identified; the applicant said the conceptual layout included a larger rectangular area that might be split into primary and reserve blocks as the design advances.

The applicant proposed multiple shared wells rather than extending public water. “We don’t want to do a public water supply out here,” the McCardi representative said, adding the intent to avoid extending water mains across the rear property. Staff reminded the committee that thresholds (15 connections or 25 or more people for 60 days) can trigger a public drinking-water designation and encouraged the applicant to confirm whether a public extension or a pumped E1 system would be necessary for fire protection.

Fire and access were a recurring theme. Committee members discussed minimum road widths (20–24 feet was cited as the common range), the dead-end length of the access, and the turning radius for the largest apparatus. The applicant offered to model fire apparatus turning movements in CAD and said the looped layout provides an opportunity to reduce dead-end length concerns.

Parking and unit spacing also drew attention. Staff warned that minimum one-space parking requirements for tiny-home units could be insufficient for two-bedroom homes and recommended adding visitor or communal parking as part of the cluster/site-plan flexibility. The applicant said units were shown as detached single-family condominiums with the expectation that homeowners would maintain their own lots and that an owners association would manage common infrastructure including septic and wells.

Building-code choices for tiny homes were discussed at length. Staff outlined two options: follow the IRC tiny-home provisions (which generally limit habitable area to about 400 square feet under certain provisions) or use a 600-square-foot threshold under the city’s alternative path. Each choice carries implications for allowable garages, occupancy counts, and spacing; staff noted that some code paths would prohibit attached garages, reducing layout flexibility.

Planning-process questions remained open. The applicant and staff agreed that the project will require review by the conservation commission (stormwater and wetlands) and the planning board (site plan), and the committee recommended pursuing concurrent reviews where feasible. Staff also said they would request a written zoning interpretation about an apparent conflict in the code text concerning multiple principal buildings on a single lot to confirm whether a condo-style arrangement triggers any subdivision requirement or variance.

The committee did not take formal land-use action on the concept; members provided comments and asked the applicant to return with a preliminary/site plan that addresses septic reserve placement, stormwater detail, a refuse-collection plan for the private road, parking layout, and any water-supply options. The group adjourned after moving to close the meeting.

What’s next: The applicant was advised to prepare concurrent permit filings and to consult the city solicitor and planning staff about the zoning interpretation before filing for definitive approvals.