Proposed site of a 40B (File Photo)
By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD – Size matters, especially when it comes to the 40B affordable housing project planned at 119 Nahant St., the former site of Precision Honing.
Time is also a factor, with the ZBA facing a Dec. 31 deadline to wrap up hearings on the project.
Through his attorney Jason Panos, the developer has offered to reduce the planned building from 100 units to 80 and to lower the height from five stories to four. The building has also been pushed back an additional 70 feet off the street. All of these changes were aimed at making the project more palatable to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the neighbors, who have made abundantly clear their view that the project is much too big for the neighborhood and the street.
That belief was not altered much, if at all, by the latest changes presented to the ZBA last week.
Chairman Tom Lucey noted at the outset of last week’s hearing that the ZBA had not yet received the Traffic Advisory Committee’s report on the impact of the reduced and redesigned project, so traffic safety was off the table until that report is received. Traffic was also a major concern with the original plan.
Panos reviewed the changes and noted that, in addition to the size reduction, the new plan called for a single driveway in and out of the project, whereas the earlier design called for two driveways, one on either side of the site. There would still be two-way circulation around the building that could accommodate emergency vehicles, Panos maintained. The reduced size also allowed for more green space on the site, he said, before turning things over to civil engineer Scott Cameron to review details of the site redesign.
Cameron said that the changes should not affect technical issues like storm water management. He noted that the trash area for the building had been moved to an enclosed outdoor area at the rear of the site and pointed out small areas of green space that had been added to the plan.
Architect Stefano Basso showed renderings of the site as it would look when approached from either direction on Nahant Street. He noted that the exterior design of the building remains essentially the same, just reduced in size from the previous plans.
Board members agreed that the project was still too big for the neighborhood.
Mickey Feeley said that he appreciated the size reduction but called it “still too dense for the site.”
ZBA member Chip Tarbell said that 80 units was better but still too large for the site and the street. He said that it was “not appropriate for the neighborhood” of one and two-family homes.
Board member David Hatfield agreed, adding that it “comes down to public safety. It’s way too big, still.”
Lucey agreed with other board members’ comments related to the size and safety of the project. He added that the board still had not seen a rendering of what the building would look like from the front, expressing disappointment with the presentation.
“I expected more,” he said.
When the hearing was opened to the public, neighbors echoed the concerns about size.
Paula Gardella of Wilson Road said that it was still too big and did not fit in the neighborhood.
Joe Conway of Wilson Road agreed and pointed out that moving the trash area to the edge of the site just placed it closer to neighboring homes.
Meriam Miller of Hart Street said that she was concerned with rodent problems as a result of relocating the trash away from the building.
Victoria Turner of Wilson Road maintained that the changes and reductions were not enough,
“Better does not mean good,” she said. “Safer does not mean safe. It’s still just a money grab,” she added, calling the plan “ridiculous for this neighborhood.”
Michael Giurleo of Wilson Road called the developer’s presentation “deceptive,” and asked the board to take a vote on the project ASAP.
Carl Jaena of Hart Street agreed, calling the presentation “disingenuous” and asked why the developer has never appeared in person at a hearing.
“This has gone on too long,” he said.
ZBA member David Hatfield pointed out that the board’s deadline to render a decision on the project extends only to Dec. 31.
“We have one more meeting,” he noted, adding that it “doesn’t seem feasible” that all outstanding issues could be wrapped up to the board’s satisfaction by the board’s next meeting on Dec. 11.
Lucey agreed, but said, “I’m done begging for extensions” from the developer. He added that the applicant didn’t seriously engage with the board until the eleventh hour, when it appeared that the project would be denied.
“They engage or we vote on Dec. 11,” he said.
The hearing was continued to the ZBA’s Dec. 11 meeting.
