Table of Contents
Approval of a planned residential/commercial development at 972 Main St. has hit a snag.
During a Planning Board meeting May 13, officials said the problem is based on last minute changes to the design by developer Sid Gehlot to the former Meineke muffler shop site.
“I see a dramatic change here; it’s definitely different looking,” said Brian Vernaglia, of the new design renderings with recessed balconies within the outer walls not as overhangs. “I like what we approved in the fall. It’s too hard to look past that and say it’s just a bit of a difference.”
Another issue is a request to decrease setbacks on Main Street from 6 to 4 feet, although the setback along the side of the building on Glenwood Avenue would shrink from 10.2 feet to 11.
In many regards the building would be smaller. The height will drop from 44.5 to 43 feet and the footprint from 6,238 to 6,000 square feet.
It may not feel or look that way, however. Architect Tim Johnson said the recessed balconies are a response to Building Inspector Tom Kennedy, including the overhanging ones in the width of the building. He added the overhanging balances would provide variety to the facade while the recessed balconies will give the building a flat and possibly overwhelming look.
“Why didn’t you maintain the integrity of the design that was approved?” new Planning Board member Amy Beliveau asked Gehlot and Johnson somewhat rhetorically. “Why not just make the changes and leave the outside balconies?”
Gehlot’s attorney, Michael Cabral, answered anyway.
“We’re not asking for changes,” he said. “We didn’t file an application to make changes. The issue was brought up by the town.”
Vernaglia said it felt like a “bait and switch,” which Gehlot denied.
“We’re not asking any more than what was quoted in October,” he said, referring to special permit approval last year. “We have reduced most of the requirements.
Discussion then turned to how to revisit the matter to determine if the changes are significant.
“The question is whether the changes are significant enough to re-open the special permit,” member Keri Layton said.
“Can we limit it to certain items?” Chair Jack LeMenager asked.
“If you re-open the special permit, you re-open the entire project, but can the Planning Board confine it to design issues?” Cabral echoed.
“I don’t think you can,” Town Planner Taylor Herman answered. “If you want to re-open every aspect, you could, although I wouldn’t recommend it, but things you didn’t think were in the scope might take time.”
“If you re-open, you give the residents a chance to weigh in,” Kennedy added. “We have to give them the opportunity to speak their minds.”
“The applicant knew Winchester’s feelings before submitting a new proposal,” Beliveau offered. “Now we have all these questions about the permit we can’t open piecemeal. We can’t do it a little bit here and there. It sounds like all or nothing.”
“We can limit it to certain items,” LeMenager countered. We’d re-open it on a limited basis.”
Herman told Gehlot “come back with a new design to have the Planning Board determine if there are significant changes.”
That date will be Tuesday, June 9.
The 12-hour meeting
Another item for June 9 will be a discussion of a Winchester Age-Friendly Report prepared by the Planning Board and Planning Department and organizations working with older citizens in the Jenks Center, including the Council on Aging.
It was on the agenda for May 13, but a power failure in parts of the town cut the meeting short after two hours at 9:30 p.m. The YouTube video of the meeting ran 11:54 hours, but the last 9 was a frozen photo of a resident during discussion of proposed changes at 540-542 Washington St.
LeMenager said he thinks the WinCAM controller left the video running all night and shut it off the next morning.
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.
