Table of Contents
A large number of residents gathered at Town Hall last week to speak before the Planning Board about the mixed-use residential/commercial development at 10 Converse Place/33 Mt. Vernon St.
The meeting was the latest in an ongoing public hearing about the project. The board will once again reconvene the hearing in January for more public discussion.
“I don’t want anyone to say we didn’t allow them to speak,” Planning Board Chair Brian Vernaglia said, during the Dec. 16 meeting.
At a meeting on Nov. 18, the Planning Board approved a conditional height waiver of 69 feet, setback requirements and floor area ratios for the proposed six-floor, 34-unit development for Urban Spaces and developer Paul Ognibene.
Conditions include successful negotiations on issues of the number of affordable units, materials to be used, having an “eating establishment” in commercial spaces, accessibility to the Mill Pond waterfront and the responsibility of the building owners or Homeowners Association (HOA) to maintain the area.
“I’m pleased to see many have been agreed to,” Vernaglia said, of the conditions, while noting others had not yet been met.
He also said “height is allowed but not required. It’s something we allow by Special Permit.”
On Nov. 18, Vernaglia said he might not vote for a Special Permit if some conditions were not met.
Some town officials, however, said they were still against the project.
“The Historical Commission is very much against this project,” said member Julia Broderick. “We feel it’s far too big and tall and will dwarf the generally two or three-story town center.”
“Take off a story or two,” Historical Commission member Michelle McCarthy suggested.
“I object to the height and the design, particularly a sixth floor,” Design Review Committee member Ellen Spencer added. “It’s not only too tall, it’s not right. If we’re going to have that kind of height, we need a better design. It looks like a warehouse,” a reference to the uniform nature of the building for the first four stories and recessed residential units above.
Residents also said they were at a loss over how the project is still moving forward.
“I can’t understand how this building belongs where it’s being put,” Deborah Johnson said. “It’s a big box.”
“Does this building protect historic resources and our small town character?” Jason Roeder asked. “I honestly believe a project of this size is jeopardizing that.”
He also said in his interpretation of the bylaw, “I don’t see a reason for granting these things for the economic viability of a project. Instead I see height is what you get for things that are valuable to the town like diversity of housing, but I struggle to see this building giving us more diverse housing.
“They’re asking for something, but, aside from one unit, they’re not really offering something extra,” Roeder continued, referencing the current proposal including four affordable units for people earning 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and two workforce units for people earning 120% of the AMI.
Regarding affordable housing, Winchester Housing Partnership Chair John Suhrbier recommended parking spaces for sale be offered to residents of affordable/workforce units at a cost reduction similar to the rents for the affordable/workforce units.
“I feel this is too tall, it’s just too tall,” Joe Randolph continued. “It detracts from downtown.”
He also said as a retired telecommunications engineer he wonders about where cell phone receivers and transmitters would go.
“A lot of people feel they’re hazardous to their health and may not want one right outside their window,” he said. “Any rendering should include how you’ll solve that problem. I don’t see it being solved without poles. They may end up on poles and we may end up with an already too tall building with poles.”
A positive response
Rick Beliveau offered a different opinion on the project. He said the proposal was “a good balance between a project that can be built and provides what we need.”
He also noted the current building, which he called an eyesore, is not historic.
“Instead of harping on it being too tall, let’s make sure we’re getting the best 69 feet we can and what we can do to make sure the top floors fit into downtown,” Amy Beliveau said. “We have an opportunity to control something that might feel too tall, but there are buildings that are short that aren’t historic.
“I know it feels tall, but we can do things to make the height feel less invasive,” she added. “This will provide tax revenue and we have an opportunity for beautiful green space because parking is underground.”
Eli Forcucci said the building will provide housing for the town.
“Massachusetts has a housing crisis,” he said. “As a town, we should be considering how we can help solve the crisis. There are not many available lots in the town for apartments. This is one of the few available.”
Developer reacts, answers questions
“What we witnessed is terrific, democracy in action,” Ognibene said after Vernaglia temporarily closed the public hearing. “We’re trying to take what we hear from both sides of the equation and build the best building we can.”
Answering various issues point by point, he said a lot of the cell phone equipment on the roof of the current building is outdated and not functioning and “a lot of what we’ll be providing as an important service will be screened and hidden.”
He also said he is not averse to having five units for earners of 80% of the AMI and one for 120% earners, but Planning Board member Keri Layton said she isn’t sure if “the affordable housing battle is the best fought in this building.”
He also doesn’t feel requiring an eating establishment for the commercial space is a good idea.
“We’re not sure an eating establishment will be the only solution,” he said. “It looks promising, but maybe it’s something else. If we hem ourselves into an eating establishment and can’t find one, it’ll be empty.”
“That wouldn’t be what we’re looking for,” Vernaglia said. “This is important. Something else wouldn’t activate the area.”
Vernaglia has referenced the idea that patrons of a coffee shop or ice cream parlor would make use of the open space adjacent to Mill Pond to enjoy food. He suggested a process in which the developers could come back to the Planning Board with another idea if a food service business couldn’t be found, but the matter was left unresolved.
The idea of a coffee shop or ice cream parlor, etc. is popular, but may not be with potential residents. Some residents have pointed out that unlike a professional office or another business that attracts customers during business hours, a food based establishment operates at night and on weekends and becomes a social gathering place, with people in the vicinity of the building at hours when other areas of town are quiet. It also may attract insects or rodents.
Also unresolved at the moment between the town and developer is how an HOA would make contributions to the town and specifically what body in the town would maintain the area. In previous meetings, Vernaglia suggested annual payments, while Ognibene mentioned a lump sum payment.
The developer said he also wants assurances any contribution will be used in a “cost efficient way.”
As for the design, Ognibene said he can’t proceed with specifics until a Special Permit is granted.
“Once we get approval then we can really get to work, but it’s our understanding the issue of height has been settled,” he said. “Right now, we’re at risk and there’s only so much we can plan. Once we’re out of the woods, we can start discussion about how to fix the fifth and sixth floors.”
He also said he’d like a timeline on discussion on what materials and colors are used because “subjective matters like materials could go on forever.”
As discussion wound down, Layton asked for the layout as it relates to the building’s position in relation to Mill Pond be “staked out,” including a buffer zone around the building and for information as to the economic viability of eliminating the sixth floor.
“Is there a number that gets rid of the sixth floor?” she asked. “We allowed the height, but we still have to get through site plan reviews and justify to the National Historic Register why we’re changing the landscape of a town on the National Historic Register. It’s a significant sacrifice to the landscape of the town.”
The Planning Board will once again take up the matter on Jan. 13.
Neil Zolot has been a freelance journalist more than 40 years. He has worked for newspapers on the North Shore and in the Boston area.
