Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Scale Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues hearing on proposed Mount Vernon mixed‑use PUD after deep public comment; requests physical model
Summary
After a lengthy applicant presentation and extensive public comment, the board voted to continue the public hearing on PB‑25‑6 (10 Converse/33 Mount Vernon). Board members asked the applicant to provide a physical three‑dimensional model, additional visuals and to coordinate affordable‑unit details with state review bodies.
The Winchester Planning Board continued the public hearing on PB‑25‑6 (10 Converse Place, also referred to as 33 Mount Vernon) after an extended presentation by the applicants and nearly two hours of public comment on Oct. 21.
Applicants (David Tbankin of Hassim Architects and Pauly of Urban Spaces) described a proposal for a mixed‑use project with 34 residential units (applicants stated 31 market units and three affordable units), a varied unit mix of one-, two‑ and three‑bedrooms, and public‑facing ground‑floor retail and open space. They presented a digital massing model with 17 vantage points, described unit sizes (roughly 750–2,300 sq ft) and accessibility commitments (MAB/ADA standards). The applicants projected economic benefits, including an estimate of about $550,000 per year in property taxes and characterized the additional height as necessary to enable the unit mix and publicly accessible open space.
Public comment was substantial and largely focused on building height, downtown views, the project’s visual impact on the town common and Mill Pond, and requests for more tangible visual tools. Multiple residents and civic‑board members asked specifically for a physical, to‑scale model and a shadow study to show seasonal shading impacts. DM O’Connell, an architect and longtime reviewer, urged a 1:20 scale physical model; other speakers from the Historic Commission and the Design Review Committee also urged further review and additional visuals.
Board action and next steps: the board voted to request a physical three‑dimensional model and to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant time to provide additional materials and responses. The board also explored whether the historic commission or a 53G architectural consultant should be asked to review the design; staff said the historic commission had been invited but elected not to review the project yet. The applicant said they would pursue material mockups and coordinate affordable‑unit selection with the relevant state authority (EOHLC) and the town’s Housing Partnership.
The continued hearing will return to the planning board on a later date to be set; the board emphasized that if state accessibility review requires changes (for example to parking/aisle design) the applicant may need waivers or to submit revised plans.
