By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD – In an effort to show good faith with the Zoning Board of Appeals, developer Scott Green has agreed to a further reduction in the size of his proposed 40B housing project at 32 Nahant St.
Originally proposed as a 32-unit 40B project, the number of units had been reduced several times in response to the ZBA’s insistence that it would be too big and would not fit in with the neighborhood of single-family homes and duplexes. The latest reduction brings the unit total down to 22.
The developer’s attorney, Paul Haverty, also agreed to extend the board’s time to render a decision to Oct. 11. The previous deadline was Sept. 11. The 180-day decision deadline on 40B projects cannot be extended without the applicant’s agreement.
Local zoning boards have limited control over Chapter 40B affordable housing proposals if the community’s affordable housing inventory is less than 10 percent.
Last Thursday’s ZBA hearing began with a discussion of the Traffic Advisory Committee’s review of the project. TAC chairman Lt. Joseph Anderson of the Wakefield Police outlined the TAC’s concerns.
Anderson said that the TAC was concerned that off-street parking was inadequate for the project. Although the developer has provided one designated parking space on the site for delivery vehicles, the TAC was worried that delivery drivers would just pull over on the side of the road or partially on the sidewalk, creating a hazard on the narrow, heavily traveled street.
Another concern was the ability of emergency vehicles to maneuver within the tight site.
Anderson also noted the during peak times, traffic can queue back to the site from the intersection of Nahant and Main streets. He pointed out that the intersection is already on the verge of a failing score, and increased traffic from the development would not improve matters.
He also cited testimony from residents regarding the frequency and severity of traffic accidents on Nahant Street.
Anderson said that the TAC believes that cumulatively, the aforementioned conditions will likely result in a negative impact on safety in the area.
ZBA member Chip Tarbell said that it was not a safe situation because the developer was “trying to shoehorn too much onto a small lot.” The fact that it’s on a narrow street added to the safety concerns.
“These are unsafe conditions,” Tarbell said. “I don’t think we can have developments that are unsafe. It doesn’t make sense to me.”
The developer’s traffic consultant addressed some of the TAC’s concerns. Scott Thornton of Vanasse & Associates noted that the parking ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit complies with local zoning.
Regarding emergency vehicle access, he pointed out that fire engines would not typically enter a site, preferring to fight fires from the street. The site can accommodate other emergency vehicles, he said, like ambulances and police cruisers.
Thornton further argued that the project would only minimally add to traffic on the street, even at peak hours, according to his analysis.
Representing the developer, attorney Haverty said that Green was willing to further reduce the project by two units to address the ZBA’s concerns over density. He said that his client was also willing to extend the board’s deadline to render a decision by 30 days.
ZBA member David Hatfield said that he appreciated the developer’s desire to work with the board but wondered if it was enough to address the safety concerns.
Several neighbors also spoke at the hearing, reiterating previous concerns about the size of the project and the impact on traffic safety.
Board members said that they were willing to entertain the proposed revisions to the project as long as the applicant was willing to work with the board. But they made it clear that they would like to see further reductions in the size of the proposal.
The board voted to continue the hearing to its Sept. 11 meeting and to accept the offer of a 30-day extension to render a decision.
