Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Conversion 100 Main topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables 100 Main Street conversion amid sight‑line and ownership questions
Summary
The Planning Board continued review of a proposed conversion of office space to six residential units at 100 Main Street after traffic sight‑line concerns, an obstructing sign, and unresolved historic mezzanine/easement ownership questions raised by a councilor and staff could not be resolved at the hearing.
The Planning Board on March 17 deferred action on a site plan application to convert office space into six residential units at 100 Main Street, citing traffic‑safety questions and unresolved property‑ownership and easement issues.
Drewsowski of Haley Ward, representing 100 Main LLC, told the board the building has a single owner and that no condominium or HOA documents were required. He said peer reviewers agreed the conversion would not increase overall trip generation but that sight‑line distances near an existing sign merit attention. "We own the sign," Drewsowski said, and offered to work with the city on relocating or modifying the sign if it proved to be a safety problem.
Board members and the city’s peer reviewers raised two distinct sight‑line concerns: the sign to one side of the intersection and vegetation on the other side that can reduce visibility. Jeff Brochu and Jim Moyer recommended the applicant coordinate with Public Works and traffic reviewers about trimming vegetation, sign relocation or other corrections. Brochu also noted prior reports that identified the intersection area as a high‑crash location and urged consideration of cyclists and a new traffic pattern created by a planned gateway project.
Complicating the final determination, Councilor Johnson submitted a late memo raising questions about historic easements and a mezzanine structure used by adjacent properties; staff could not conclusively resolve decades‑old cross‑easements and escrow conditions during the meeting. King Weinstein, a local property representative, described a complex history of layered easements but said, "It seems to all work" for current use while recognizing the legal complexity.
The board voted to table the matter to April 7 to allow staff and peer reviewers time to obtain clearer documentation on sight distances, sign options and the ownership/maintenance status of the mezzanine and related easements.
Ending: The applicant was asked to work with staff and third‑party reviewers on sight‑line mitigation and provide any ownership documentation that can be located before the next hearing.
