Traffic Concerns Led To Wings Over Withdrawal, Waltham Councilors Say

Wings Over could request a different location.

Concerns over traffic at the proposed Wings Over site led to the company

The company, however, could resubmit its request for a fast food permit, which would allow it to open a new branch at a different location than the original proposal for 110-112 Lexington St, according to the City Clerk’s office.

Councilor , the lead person for the Wings Over issue on the Ordinance and Rules Committee, said the proposed site was not suitable because of the traffic congestion it could have caused.

“It just doesn’t work,” he told Patch, days after the Monday, Dec. 5 Ordinance and Rules Committee sent the issue to the Law Department for denial.

On Wednesday, Dec. 7, Savin Foods withdrew its request for a permit to open, which the City Council will vote on at its Monday, Dec. 12 meeting.

Logan said the site has inadequate parking for the 16 employees that would be working at any given time, some of them delivery drivers on runs to deliver wings to customers. The constant stream of traffic, he said, would cause backups on Lexington Street, which is already heavily travelled.

, however, support for the eatery.

Saying she was representing the views of her constituents, City Councilor echoed Logan’s concerns about traffic and suggested the company submit a new request for a location at the site of the former Hollywood Video store or Blockbuster Video, both located on Lexington Street. Logan, without specifying a possible location, encouraged Wings Over to try again in Waltham.

“I think there certainly are … locations that would be better suited,” Logan said.

Both Collura and Logan shot back against anybody who might accuse the council of being anti-business. Collura, who owns the Tea Leaf on Moody Street, said she greatly supports small businesses opening in Waltham.

“I’m very pro-business,” she told Patch. “I feel for [small business owners], I understand their viewpoint. I truly, truly do.”

Collura, however, said she had to represent the views of her constituents.

In response to any anti-business sentiment, Logan said zoning ordinances could be eliminated and residents would lodge more complaints of restaurant related issues in their neighborhood.

Jason Wichern December 12, 2011 at 01:56 PM
I have no problem with denying Wings at that location. It is a difficult location to get in and out of. However, my question that would have been asked next of Mr Logan & Ms. Collura is what type of business would work in that location? Have our elected officials talked with the property owner to inform them of what business would be appropriate there? Having any vacancy is an eyesore and we should be actively working with property owners to find the right fit for these problem locations.
Karla Vallance December 12, 2011 at 04:32 PM
@Neo Kong: we do not tolerate name-calling on Waltham Patch. Please delete your comment, if we will do it for you. Thanks.
Don Michael Donahue December 13, 2011 at 03:47 AM
WHO decided too much traffic? Who said all 16 employees would have their own autos Working @ a wing place, I don't think so! something smells here, and it's NOT wings!
Gary Rogers December 20, 2011 at 01:48 PM
If not on Lexington St, then where? Every major street in Waltham as traffic. It's supposed to. It would be less busy than Blockbuster or Hollywood video were when they were open. I respectfully disagree with the councilors on this.
Don Michael Donahue December 20, 2011 at 02:17 PM
Unfortunately, it appears Wings @ the Lexington venue is a a dead issue! Still smells! People never want progress in their own back yard! Where do the Councillors live? any where near the ONCE proposed location?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »