NAHANT — It was a year of a lot of back and forth for Northeastern University and the town of Nahant. The two entities butted heads frequently throughout 2019 as the school made continued moves to establish a 55,000-square-foot Coastal Sustainability Institute and a new saltwater intake system on Nahant’s East Point.
The university’s plans would have required the construction of a new building on the school’s 23-acre research site and an increase in the amount of seawater brought in by the institute to meet research needs. In an article published by the Item in April 2018, resident Christian Buata explained the town’s less-than-warm reaction to FAQ pamphlets the school passed out regarding the proposed expansion.
“They don’t … recognize the damage they will do, and they definitely don’t treasure our town like the citizens who live here,” he said. “They only see the land and the oceans here for what they can use them for. I knew right away I wouldn’t want to hear the rest of their propaganda, so I sent (the pamphlet) back.”
Although the saga initially began in 2018, this year proved no easier for a university that wants to expand, nor for a quiet, residential town that absolutely wants to prevent that from happening. In August, Nahant residents filed a lawsuit that alleged Northeastern had cleared an unauthorized road for construction through a wildlife reserve.
In an interview with the Item from the same month, the school’s vice president of communications, Renata Nyul, explained Northeastern’s response to those allegations.
“To protect its interests, and to minimize protracted and costly litigation, Northeastern is seeking a declaratory judgment in Massachusetts Land Court,” she said. “While this process takes place, the university will continue to work with town officials to develop a mutually agreeable plan that allows the university to enhance its important coastal sustainability research, while preserving the unique vitality and character of Nahant.”
In November, the Item called the university’s ongoing plans a “lightning rod for town opposition” in an article that covered the most recent development where Town Meeting members voted 387-60 in favor of a citizens petition to change the area designated as a “natural resource district” to a zone that would no longer permit nonprofit religious or educational uses.
One of the residents who filed the petition, Jeffrey Musman, said in a statement that the purpose of the vote was to “address and eliminate any potential ambiguity in the By-law.”
The statement continued: “Residents have cited irreparable environmental and coastal damage, dramatic alterations to current protected landscapes, negative traffic and infrastructure impacts, and noise and light pollution, as reasons for their opposition” to the project.
As 2020 rounds the corner, it seems this saga remains unresolved.