WAKEFIELD — Based on feedback at a previous Board of Appeals meeting, the new owner of the currently vacant former Santander Bank/Wakefield Trust Company building at 369 Main St. has modified his plans for a mixed-use development on the site.

William Thibeault recently purchased the property, including the building and the parking lot in the rear. He had indicated that he would like to save the former bank building and create a high-end restaurant on the first floor with offices above. A separate, new four-story residential building with 20 two-bedroom units over ground-level parking would be constructed on the current parking lot behind the building.

That was the original plan. But after the board expressed concerns over parking, particularly for the proposed office use on the upper part of the bank building, Thibeault and his team came back to the board earlier this month with a modified plan that eliminated the proposed office use. That space would now be used for storage, at least until another acceptable use can be found.

But at its most recent meeting, the board continued to express concerns over parking and the size of the residential building in the rear. The project is still two parking spaces short for the proposed residential building.

Thibeault’s attorney, Brian McGrail, said that the project is a work in progress and the proposed office use was just a “placeholder.” He proposed getting the restaurant and residential components settled first before taking another look at the upper portion of the bank building, which could potentially be used as some kind of arts space.

As long as the parking requirement was satisfied for the residential component, ZBA member Chip Tarbell said that he was okay with the proposed approach. He noted that downtown restaurants have always gotten a pass on parking.

Board members expressed concern that once the owner comes up with a use for the upper portion of the bank building, the whole parking issue would re-emerge.

But McGrail and Thibeault assured the board that the originally proposed office use was merely a place-holder and if it remains storage space long term, that would be acceptable to them.

It was noted that the residential building would require 30 parking spaces to meet the legal requirement, but the current plan only provides 28. McGrail said that the leasing agreement could limit some units to jut one vehicle. He also pointed out that the project is just a short distance from the train station, so some tenants may not have cars.

The discussion turned to the changes to the architectural plans based on previous feedback from the board. Daniel Martinez of KDI Architects talked about changes that had been made to address the board’s concern with the size and mass of the building. He also talked about elements that had been introduced to make the design tie-in more with the surrounding neighborhood after the board had commented that it wanted a more traditional, neighborhood look.

But board members indicated that the design was less important than the fact that the building was still too big. They re-iterated their desire that the residential building “step down” into the neighborhood. They pointed out that the buildings behind the bank on Chestnut and Albion streets are mostly smaller, wood-frame buildings. They wanted the residential building to be smaller and provide a gradual transition from the tall bank building to smaller buildings in the neighborhood.

Board member Greg McIntosh agreed that the building needed to be smaller. He said that the revised design was a step in the right direction, and suggested making it blend by going with a more traditional design.

McGrail said that the issue with reducing the number of units was financial. He said that all 20 units are needed in order to make rehabbing the bank building financially feasible.

McGrail asked if ZBA member Jim McBain, a retired architect, would be willing to work with Martinez to provide guidance and direction toward something more acceptable to the board.

There was no public testimony offered at the hearing.

The board continued the hearing to the ZBA’s Oct. 12 meeting to give the development team time to address some of the board’s concerns.