By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals continue to voice their exasperation with various aspects of a proposed Chapter 40B affordable housing project at 127 Nahant St., the former site of Precision Honing.
Not only is the size of the proposed 100-unit project seen as too big and out of character with the neighborhood, the ZBA has also expressed its dismay with delays and the applicant’s slowness in providing information to the board.
The 40B project known as “The Residences at Nahant, LLC” is listed on the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Corporations Division website with Peter Pantzelos of 246 Andover St. in Peabody listed as manager.
Representing the applicant at last week’s Board of Appeals meeting, attorney Jason Panos noted that the development team had met twice with the ZBA’s subcommittee for the project and had submitted its traffic study to both the Traffic Advisory Committee and the ZBA.
Panos also told the board that the civil engineer who had been working on the project had left Hayes Engineering and the process was underway to assign another engineer to pick up where he left off.
In the meantime, Panos said, revised concept plans were developed to make the project fit better with the neighborhood based on the feedback received. He asked architect Stefano Basso to review the latest design drawings.
Basso displayed an image that showed the building moved further back from Nahant Street and more toward the center of the site. He said that the new design involves two curb cuts to allow emergency vehicles to enter and leave more easily.
He said that the height of the building along Nahant Street had been lowered to four stories, reducing the visual impact, while keeping five stories on the leg of the building running toward the back of the site.
Basso displayed further design changes, including a sloped roof and other features like bay windows and balcony bumpouts to add depth and texture to the building facade.
Panos said that moving the building further back off Nahant Street reduces its imposing presence, which had been a concern.
Board members were less than impressed by what they were shown.
David Hatfield said that he was struck by the hand-drawings that were presented, saying that the board needs to see professionally rendered drawings that are properly dated and stamped. Overall, he said, the project was still too big and lacked sufficient parking and outdoor amenity space. He also said that the traffic study was taking too long.
ZBA member Greg McIntosh said that the project needed to be shrunk to fit the character of the neighborhood.
Board member Mickey Feeley agreed that the design was still “way too big” and lacked outdoor activity areas.
ZBA member Chip Tarbell echoed the comments that the building was too big as proposed.
Chairman Tom Lucey said that he was “beyond frustrated” with the lack of progress, saying that he had never seen such a rudimentary design at this stage of any project. He noted that the traffic study was received a month later than it was promised. He called it “disrespectful” to be this far into the process and still not have professionally rendered design drawings.
Lucey said that he had asked for the developer’s project background but never received it. He complained that every request that the board has made has been met with delays.
“It seems like you’re running the clock out on us,” Lucey said. “If we have insufficient materials to render a decision, I don’t see how we can move forward.”
When the hearing was opened to the public, Marie Oliveira of Nahant Street said that the building looked like a large box store, calling it “a big eyesore.”
Karen McMaster of Nahant Street said that the developer was not taking the board and the neighbors seriously. She noted that the 100 units would double the number of residences on Nahant Street. “It’s way too big,” she said.
Joseph Conway of Wilson Road asked if future hearings could be held in person instead of on Zoom. He also expressed frustration with the slowness of the process, saying that he was anxious to see how close the building would be to his property.
Paula Guardella of Wilson Road said the proposed building was “gigantic,” calling it “an elephant in a matchbox.”
Panos rejected claims that the development team had been slow to present design plans. He pointed out that they originally came in with a full set of plans but essentially had to start over based on feedback from the board and the town.
“We are at a full-scale redesign,” he said.
Acknowledging that, board member Greg McIntosh asked Panos if he would be willing to extend the board’s deadline to render a decision beyond the current June date.
Panos said that he’d be willing to have that discussion once he has a better handle on how long things will take. He also said that the development team was prepared to discuss massing but was not willing to discuss a reduction in density.
Tarbell wanted to know when Panos would be willing to discuss density, insisting that the density discussion needs to happen before creating an entirely new design.
Panos maintained that under Chapter 40B, density could be discussed only at the end of the process if there are issues remaining that can only be addressed through a reduction in density.
But board members insisted that this had never been their experience when dealing with other 40Bs.
“You guys are the anomaly,” Lucey said.
Lucey and other board members insisted that they need definitive timelines. He said that he would speak directly with Traffic Advisory Committee chairman Lt. Joseph Anderson about the timetable for TAC to consider the project.
Board members agreed that they needed to keep scheduling the hearings for the project on every meeting agenda in order to push the project to move forward.
The hearing was continued to the board’s March 27 meeting.