SAUGUS — Tension was high at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting Thursday night when residents came to comment on the possible 40B apartments being placed at 961 Broadway and 999 Broadway.
The main point of the meeting was to discuss a recent traffic study. However, the discussion derailed during the meeting as residents shared major concerns.
Lynne Sweet of LDS Consulting was once again ready to present information to the public and the board. One of the key components of her discussion was the town’s subsidized housing inventory.
“This project will put you (the town) over the 11% range,” she said.
This was seen as a positive for the town as Massachusetts has a “10% rule” when it comes to affordable housing and 40B projects.
“Chapter 40B is a state statute, which enables local Zoning Boards of Appeals to approve affordable housing developments under flexible rules if at least 20-25% of the units have long-term affordability restrictions,” according to Mass.gov.
If Saugus can get above the 10%, which this project would do, the town could enforce its zoning laws. Being below 10% gives power to the state to approve affordable housing and development within the town.
The traffic study for the project was done by MDM Transportation Consultants, and Dan Dumais, senior project manager, was there to present the findings.
The group looked at the traffic study presented by the applicant, as well as site plans, architectural plans, and landscaping plans.
The presentation was thorough. However, Sweet spoke up, saying that multiple comments were made about possible suggestions that were already included in the current plan.
Due to this, Sweet asked that the traffic engineer and the applicant’s team consult on the plans and return with more information on the study.
After some back-and-forth discussion on the traffic, the board opened up the discussion to the public.
The first to speak was Loretta Brogna, a resident of Forest Street who had many concerns regarding extra traffic and the dangers of people cutting through the street.
“It’s impossible to get on Route 1 during the weekend. People will use Forest Street as a cut-through. There are no sidewalks on Forest Street…It is very dangerous,” Brogna said.
She mentioned that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the residents also had issues with people from the Avalon apartment buildings cutting through a fence to walk around the residential area.
“People from Avalon were coming through the neighborhood with their pets defecating on our lawns and not picking it up,” she said.
Multiple residents chimed in about the dangers of Forest Street and how more traffic is going to make the problem worse.
Chair of the board Thomas Traverse was adamant that there would be no access point from these apartments.
“There won’t be any access to Forest Street….This place is going to be blocked by the retaining wall. It’s a much better situation,” Traverse said.
He also mentioned that residents could call police to patrol the area more to ensure there were fewer issues with people cutting through.
Another Forest Street resident stood up with the concern of people cutting down the street on their way home from work to avoid traffic on Route 1. She continued that they’d most likely use Forest Street as a way to circle around while in search of parking.
“People have to stop pretending that human behavior isn’t going to be that they’re going to be going down that. When they’re doing laps to try to find parking, you know darn well they’re going to rage back onto Route 1 and back up Forest Street,” she said.
Some residents were upset with the board and felt as though they were not being heard, and tensions grew high as the board was accused of not taking the discussion seriously.
Traverse immediately dismissed this by telling the resident who had brought the matter up that she did not have the right to accuse them and that she was finished for the night.
However, these comments led to multiple audience members agreeing with the resident who spoke.
Once things calmed down, the Malden Anglers stood to present renderings that they had taken. The board received 3D models from the Anglers, and the Anglers also asked multiple questions. However, the board said the questions would be answered at another meeting focusing more on the pond and how the project could affect the water.
The discussion of the apartments will once again continue at the next Board of Appeals meeting.
