By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — Despite the efforts of a ZBA subcommittee working with the developer, significant concerns remain regarding a proposed 40B affordable housing project on Crescent Street.
Last night, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman David Hatfield implored the developer, Stephen Boccelli, to try to find some way to address the board’s and the neighbors’ concerns related to size, mass, parking and safety.
“Crescent Commons” would replace three homes currently at 44,46 and 48 Crescent Street and one side of the building would face Crescent Hill, a small one-way street.
The developer’s attorney, Brian McGrail, noted that he and the development team have been working with a subcommittee of the ZBA consisting of Jim McBain and Ami Wall, to try to address some of the concerns that have been raised at public hearings.
The project, which originally called for 56 units, was earlier reduced to 45 units and now to 42 units, which McGrail said presented a struggle for the developer financially. He also stated that the developer’s lender was not thrilled with the unit reduction.
McGrail pointed out that in agreeing to the latest reduction in unit count from 45 to 42, his client did not reduce the number of affordable units, which remains at 11.
McGrail said that Police Lt. Joseph Anderson, chairman of the Traffic Advisory Committee, had a positive response to the measures that were proposed to mitigate traffic and parking concerns, but wanted to bring them back to the full committee.
McGrail went on to describe some of those measures, which had come out of the subcommittee meetings to try and address concerns.
He noted that the delivery entrance and trash pickup entrance had been moved from the Crescent Hill side to the opposite side of the building to reduce traffic and activity on Crescent Hill.
He also said that only resident’s vehicles would be allowed to enter the parking garage on the Crescent Hill side. Visitors would have to use the lower-level parking entrance on the opposite side of the building. He also said that 10 spaces in the garage could be dedicated to visitor parking as an incentive for visitors to park in the garage rather than on the street.
He also described a system whereby tenants would be able to remotely open the garage door for visitors. He said that the parking garage and building exterior would be equipped with at least 36 video cameras to monitor parking.
McGrail then asked Peter Sandorse of Phoenix Architects to review some of the design measures that were being proposed to try to scale down the mass of the building.
Sandorse displayed images of models showing how the fourth-floor units had been pushed back to be less visible from the street. He also showed an image of how the proposed building would look in relation to the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood.
Board member Mike Feeley wondered how the proposed mitigation measures would be monitored to make sure they are complied with.
McGrail said that the camera system will monitor activity and management will be on site every day.
Ezra Glenn, the 40B consultant assigned to work with both sides, pointed out that everything promised at a meeting represents a public record.
David Hatfield said that while he appreciated the efforts of the subcommittee and the developer to mitigate some of the issues, he was still struggling with the mass of the building. He noted that the public has voiced numerous concerns about the size and scale of the project. He wondered just how far the developer would be willing to go to address those concerns.
Board member Ami Wall said that she shared some of those concerns.
ZBA member Chip Tarbell said that the board had to look realistically at how much the board can do with a 40B project, where they have limited ability to turn it down. He suggested that the board might get more concessions by continuing to work with the developer than it would if they turned it down and the developer won on appeal.
Hatfield suggested that if the board thinks that size and mass create a significant public safety issue, that would be a reason that they could deny the project. But he appealed to the development team to work with the subcommittee to try and find some kind of compromise.
When the hearing was opened to the public, Bronwyn Della-Volpe of Cyrus Street said that the building was inappropriately-sized for the location.
“We all know that this is not the right place for this development,” she said.
Katie Kulaga of Crescent Hill said the three homes currently on the site now house seven units. At 42, the propose project, she pointed out, would multiply the unit count six times. She also maintained that the project would put an additional demand on street parking.
“Our neighborhood truly cannot support the project,” she said.
Several more neighbors also voiced concerns about the project.
ZBA member Greg McIntosh said that he would love to see some combination of size reduction and public safety measures that would make the project workable.
McGrail said that he and his client were willing to continue working with the subcommittee to try to resolve the concerns.
Hatfield asked the subcommittee and the development team to meet one more tome to see if something can be done. He again implored the development team to “listen to the concerns.”
The hearing was continued to the board’s Sept. 8 meeting.