Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Massing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers show digital model for Mount Vernon project as Winchester board weighs height, affordable units and waivers
Summary
At a public hearing on Special Permit PB25-6 (433 Mount Vernon St), developers demonstrated a detailed digital model and outlined a unit mix; the Winchester Planning Board voted to waive the physical-model requirement, granted setback waivers, and continued consideration of height and FAR to Nov. 18 while asking for unit-level and affordability details.
Urban Spaces presented a revised design for the proposed development at 433 Mount Vernon Street and 10 Converse Place on Monday, walking the Winchester Planning Board through a digital model the team said was built from ArcGIS and survey data.
The applicant’s presentation, led by Paul on Bainy of Urban Spaces and accompanied by designer Dylan Forester, emphasized the model’s accuracy and offered multiple vantage points and a sun-path shadow study to illustrate perceived height and neighborhood context. "Every view really originates from this model" the team told the board, adding that the drone-scale and pedestrian perspectives were based on 5'6" eye level and GIS contours.
Why it matters: the board is weighing four regulatory waivers that would affect the building’s scale and the project’s fit in downtown Winchester: a waiver to accept a digital model in place of the bylaw-required physical 1:20 model; additional building height beyond by-right limits (applicants discussed masonry parapet at 48 feet and a proposed top at a greater height); an increase in floor-area ratio; and adjusted setbacks to enlarge the sidewalk on Mount Vernon and Converse.
During public comment several residents urged stronger protections. "The project model, the physical model must be provided by the developer," said DM O'Donnell, who argued a physical model was required by the CBD regulations and warned the proposal would "overshadow" the pond. Jamie Deval, chair of the Design Review Committee, said the digital views left unanswered design questions about the top floors and materials.
Board members focused on trade-offs between additional height and public benefit. Several members said they would be more comfortable with the sixth floor if the developer supplied additional affordable housing in exchange for the height, or if the top materiality and massing were altered to be more contextual. The applicant said they would consider adding an additional affordable unit and offered to provide a unit-by-unit square-footage and pricing breakdown requested by the board.
Formal actions and next steps: the board voted to waive the physical-model requirement and accept the digital model (roll-call recorded in the transcript; majority in favor, one dissenting vote), and it approved the requested setback waivers (unanimous). The hearing on PB25-6 was continued to Nov. 18 so the applicant can provide the requested unit-level plans, confirm which units will be designated as required affordable or workforce units, and make the digital model publicly accessible (time-marked recordings and in-person viewings were discussed).
What the board asked for: a clear housing plan showing unit counts and square footage by unit (which units would be designated as affordable/workforce), alternative materials or treatments for the upper floors to reduce perceived massing, and access for members of the public to review the model outside of the meeting.
The board emphasized it has not decided on height or FAR; those issues remain pending further documentation and public review. The hearing will reconvene on Nov. 18 with the new submission materials.
