By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — It will be a least a few more weeks before there is any resolution in the Zoning Board of Appeals case involving a proposed 100-unit 40B project at 119 Nahant St.
After stating flatly earlier in last Thursday’s ZBA meeting that he would not discuss reducing the number of units, the attorney for the developer, Jason Panos, later changed his tune when it appeared that the ZBA was prepared to deny the project. Panos has also been unwilling to discuss extending the Sept. 11 deadline for the board to render a decision. That position also changed when the project appeared headed for denial.
At the end of last Thursday’s ZBA meeting Panos agreed to extend the board’s deadline to render a decision to Oct. 4 in order to “explore a path forward.” But it was a long and winding road to get there.
The 3-hour hearing began with a much-anticipated discussion of the traffic impact of the proposed project. Police Lt. Joseph Anderson of the Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) was on hand along with the town’s traffic consultant, Matt Kealey of VHB.
The developer’s traffic engineer, Scott Thornton of Vanasse & Associates, was also present.
Anderson said that the TAC had “serious safety concerns” related to the proposed development. He said that those concerns were echoed by neighbors in the largest turnout ever at a TAC meeting to discuss the project.
The TAC’s concerns included sightlines from the driveway exiting the site, coupled with the fact that cars already travel well over the speed limit on Nahant Street, a highly used cut-through street with a history of serious car accidents. Anderson said that he hadn’t seen any attempt by the development team to address the TAC’s concerns.
Anderson also said that the expected 450 daily trips in and out of the site “will not help” traffic operations at the intersection of Main Street, Nahant Street and North Avenue, which is already “trending toward failure.” He predicted that the added traffic volume would increase driver frustration and result in more crashes.
Kealey elaborated on the TAC’s concerns. He said that the site was short on parking, leading to fears that those unable to find a space on site will park on surrounding streets. He said that while some shrubs and a fence near the driveway exit were removed from the plans, he still had concerns with sightline distance for vehicles exiting the site and the resulting potential for crashes.
He noted that while the site may technically be able to accommodate movement of emergency vehicles, Fire Chief Michael Sullivan remains concerned about maneuverability of fire apparatus within the site.
Kealey read from the conclusion of the TAC’s Aug. 14 memorandum on the project, which states that due of overall safety concerns, “the TAC cannot support this project in its current form.”
Panos then asked the developer’s traffic engineer, Scott Thornton to respond.
He maintained that the development team has made modifications to the plans in response to the TAC’s concerns. He said that delivery and visitor parking spaces were provided at the TAC’s request. He said that some issues are simply a function of operations in any parking lot. He said that the development team has tried to mitigate this with signage and other measures.
Thornton said that shrubs and fencing were removed to improve sightlines. Overall, he insisted the project’s impact would be “fairly minimal from a traffic perspective.”
Tarbell reminded Panos that the board has expressed concern about the size of the project at every meeting. He pressed Panos for a “yes or no” answer as to whether he would consider reducing the number of units.
“No, we’re not prepared to discuss reducing the number of units,” Panos said.
Panos took exception when ZBA chairman Thomas Lucey accused him of being “intellectually dishonest” for claiming to want a dialog with the board but refusing to extend the board’s time to render a decision.
When the hearing was opened to the public, more than a dozen neighbors once again cited a litany of concerns, including the size and density of the project, traffic safety, the impact on town infrastructure and schools.
Vitoria Turner of Wilson Road summed up the neighbors’ frustration with the development team.
“This is about minimizing safety and maximizing profits,” she insisted, claiming the development team has been “unprepared, unprofessional and dishonest.”
Board members agreed that they could not risk waiting until the very last day by voting on the project at their Sept. 11 meeting, since Panos was unwilling to extend the deadline.
Tarbell noted that the ZBA rarely turns down projects, including 40Bs, because most developers are willing to work with the board. He advocated that the board proceed to a vote. Board member David Hatfield agreed.
“We are at the end,” Hatfield said, adding that he did not see a way for the board to approve the project.
Chairman Thomas Lucey concurred with other board members.
“I can’t vote for a project that our safety experts say is unsafe,” he said, adding that the safety issues all relate to the size of the project.
Panos remained reluctant to extend the board’s time to render a decision, suggesting that the sides “explore a path forward” over the next couple of days.
But Lucey said that if Panos was unwilling to extend the board’s deadline beyond Sept. 11, “I don’t see a path forward.”
At that point Panos said that he was “willing to advance a 2-week extension,” adding that he would rather not have to appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee.
Board members Tarbell and Hatfield said they were willing to consider an extension, but only if the developer was willing to entertain a significant reduction in the size of the project. ZBA members took note of the fact that Panos was only now willing to discuss something that the board had been asking for over the course of nine months of hearings.
Lucey noted that there was some value in settling this at the local level rather than having it go to the state on appeal.
In the end, both sides agreed to an extension until Oct. 4. The board continued the hearing to its Sept. 11 meeting at which Panos is expected to discuss next steps with the board.
