Planning Board: Winchester residents need ‘buffer’ at Main Street development

The size and condition of a rear buffer zone for a planned mixed residential and commercial development at 972 Main St. was the main topic of conversation at a recent Planning Board meeting.

“I’d like to see a 10 foot zone,” Chair Jack LeMenager said in reference to guidelines laid out by previous constitutions of the Planning Board and Town Meeting. “We really need that buffer. We owe it to the neighborhood.”

“We need to protect abutters,” Keri Layton agreed. “The goal is screening. We’re screening what is supposed to abut up against a tight neighborhood.”

She added neighbors “bought into” the project based on aspects of screening.

In the current plan being submitted by developer Sid Gehlot and architect Tim Johnson, the buffer is only 5 feet.

“We made a promise to residents we’d protect them, but this doesn’t do that,” former Planning Board member Diab Jurius said when called to speak at the June 9 meeting. “It goes back against the promise we made.”

He added “since the building is moving forward 3 feet (towards Main Street), that tells me the building is too big for the lot,” a reference to the 6,000 square foot design.

Gehlot’s attorney Jeffrey Ugino argued, “It is our position it was approved.”

Member Brian Vernaglia conceded, “I agree the board implicitly approved the 5 foot buffer zone,” but discussion continued.

Also at issue is whether the area will be landscaped or paved as it relates to requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for disability van access.

Building Inspector Tom Kennedy told the members one van accessible space was required for every 15 spaces. The final number of spaces has not been determined with 16-21 being discussed and spaces will be sold separately from condo units.

Gehlot explained some residents may not need or want a parking space.

Regardless, the development must make provisions to add a second space in the future in the buffer zone.

“You have to meet the needs of future residents,” Kennedy said. “Since you have only one van accessible space now, it needs to be van accessible.”

He suggested having parking without assigned spaces as a way to plan for a future van accessibility one without taking away someone’s specific space.

He also cautioned a brick surface is not acceptable.

“It needs to be a smooth surface,” he said.

“We could have planting until we’re required to convert it,” Ugino offered.

“My recommendation is you require them to landscape it now and if it needs to be converted, they will commit to it,” Town Planner Taylor Herman suggested, which seemed to satisfy the members.

“I want this to be landscaped, but you hate to see a tree grow for 10 years and remove it,” LeMenager reacted.

In further discussion, Layton suggested more easily removable items could be planted.

“I prefer it not to be paved unless it has to be paved,” Vernaglia added.

In an unstructured discussion about parking, specifically tandem parking where a car is parked in front or behind another car instead of next to it, Herman also suggested “you need to come back with proof it’s your only option,” to Gehlot.

“Show the board why it doesn’t work otherwise or come back with another plan,” he said. “That is what you need to do to get a decision.”

Converse Place/Mt Vernon Street changes

In another item, the members decided proposed changes in the ever evolving design for a new residential/commercial building at 10 Converse Place/33 Mt. Vernon Street are not significant enough to require a new special permit.

In March, a layout of 4 one-bedroom units of 946-1,071 square feet, 17 two-bedroom units of 1,137-1,623 square feet and 13 three-bedroom units of 1,647-2,198 square feet was approved.

The new plan is for 4 one-bedroom units of 700-865 square feet, 24 two-bedroom units of 1,171-1,783 square feet and 6 three-bedroom units of 1,731-2,171 square feet, with additional building amenity and mechanical space and the option of rejiggering partition walls.

Layton said a public hearing might be necessary if the changes are deemed significant “to discuss whether it’s a beneficial change.”

“We should allow people to make a comment,” member John Cortizas agreed. “We shouldn’t keep them out.”

“The question is not whether we like it, but if it’s significant,” Vernagila countered. “I don’t want to bring it to a public hearing if we don’t think it’s significant. It’s a waste of everybody’s time.”

“What’s the threshold?” Layton asked.

“We have a planner to determine that,” Vernaglia answered.

He motioned for a determination the changes were not significant, which passed with Layton casting the lone dissenting vote.

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.