SACO — An application for a proposed CVS in the downtown has been deemed incomplete, and the developer must get a determination of historical significance for all structures on or adjacent to the site.

Planning board members decided at their Tuesday night meeting to reverse their decision on the application made by John Grammas, which they had deemed complete in December.

The proposed CVS development would require the demolition of six downtown properties.

The Historic Preservation Commission said last week that the city should have known that there was a building eligible for the historic registry on the proposed location because of a local newspaper column in October about a home at 59 Pleasant Street that has historical significance.

The commission had also recommended a historical study of the area. The city had received a letter from state historian preservation officer Earle Shettleworth stating that the Maine Historic Preservation Commission did not have enough information to determine whether any of the buildings proposed to be demolished are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Shettleworth said the office recommended a review of the properties be made.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Planning Board member Donald Girouard referenced a section of the application requiring a developer to provide the location and delineation of historic features on the property.

There are no homes on the site or directly abutting the site that are currently listed on the National Historic Registry.

Bill Kany, attorney for Grammas, said that Grammas could only go with the information that was available.

“It was not our responsibility, nor our function, to do 200 years of deed research to determine that Cyrus King once owned 59 Pleasant St.,” said Kany.

Girouard said that he did not feel it was an unnecessary burden to ask the developer to “dig a little deeper.”

“Asking if it is (on the historic registry) is not enough, in my opinion,” said Girouard.

Girouard said he believed there was an anti-demolition clause in the historic registry, and someone dealing with the buildings on the site might get in trouble for demolishing a building.

“These are buildings that have been there for God knows how many years and they’re the fabric of the community,” said Girouard.

“Speaking from a layman’s perspective, I think just about anyone would think that they might have some (historic) significance,” said planning board member Marty Devlin.

The planning board voted that the application was incomplete and the developer must determine if buildings on or adjacent to the development could be eligible to be on the National Historic Register.

The planning board also agreed that the word “adjacent” meant directly abutting or across the street.

Kany said after the meeting that he needs to get clarification of what the planning board wants the developer to do. He said that if it wants the developer to go beyond looking at a listing of eligible historic properties and go out and determine if buildings have potential historic significance, than that was an unacceptable requirement.

— Staff Writer Liz Gotthelf can be contacted at 282-1535, Ext. 325 or egotthelf@journaltribune.com.