The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held its regular monthly meeting last Wednesday, August 24, in the City Councillor Joseph A. DelGrosso City Council Chamber at Revere City Hall.
Chairman Michael Tucker and members Aklog Limeneh, John Lopes, Hazem Hamdan, Arthur Pelton, and alternate member Jamesl O’Brien were present for the meeting.
The meeting was a lengthy one — it lasted for more than two hours — in which the board tackled matters both large and small.
The meeting also was a contentious affair, with groups of citizens opposing the requests for variances from developers proposing large-scale residential projects in their neighborhoods.
The last hearing on the agenda, though by no means the least, was an application by Olympia Development Corporation of 1605 North Shore Road, which appeared before the board requesting six variances to enable Olympia to construct a five-story, fifty (50) unit residential structure on Lots 153, 154, 155, 156, and 157 at 791 Broadway:
The six variance requests were as follows:
1. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to minimum front yard setback requirement of 20 feet and side yard setback requirement of 15 feet for residential use within the GB District;
2. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum FAR of 1.5 within the GB District; 3) Noncompliance with minimum parking requirements for apartment use within the GB District;
3. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum height of 50 feet within the GB District;
4. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum number of 5 stories within the GB District;
5. Noncompliance with Section 17.32.050 with respect to minimum screening area width of 6 feet between unenclosed multifamily parking and abutting residential uses;
6. Noncompliance with Section 17.28.220 with respect to minimum setback requirement of 10 feet for a dumpster pad.
Atty. Gerry D’Ambrosio presented the application to the board.
“This currently is an empty lot next to the Vertuccio & Smith Funeral Home, which is relocating†said D’Ambrosio. “The 50 units will consist of 12 studios, 26 one-bedrooms, and 12 two-bedrooms. Every unit will have at least one parking spot.
“We had a community meeting and my understanding is that we worked out a compromise on the number of units,†D’Ambrosio added.
Anthony Losanno, a resident of the area from 23 Carleton St. (which runs parallel with Broadway and is in the rear of 791 Broadway), was the first to speak against the project, citing the size of the building and the number of units.
“There isn’t one apartment building that is anywhere near that size in the neighborhood,†Losanno said.
Five other residents also spoke against the proposal, citing traffic congestion and the lack of parking, with one resident describing it as a “monstrosity.â€
Ward 3 Councilor Anthony Cogliandro took the podium to explain what occurred at the community meeting at the end of June.
“I have not spoken to one person in the community who is in favor of this building. but I am aware of what he can put in there as a matter of right and that makes me nervous for what can come back on the city,†said Cogliandro, who added that, “The parking obviously is an issue and the flooding in that area is terrible.
“I want to reiterate that the neighborhood does now want this whatsoever,†concluded Cogliandro.
D’Ambrosio pointed out that the developer and the city will be undertaking major improvements to the drainage infrastructure that will represent a significant upgrade over what presently exists.
He also noted that inasmuch as the lot is located in a General Business district and that it consists of more than 21,00 sq. ft. (which is greater than 1/2 an acre), there are a plethora of possible businesses that could be located on the site.
“Any type of business will bring a lot more traffic than 50 cars,†D’Ambrosio said. “Any study will show that commercial uses bring far more cars to an area than a residential use.
“At the end of day, I understand that people don’t want change, but the reality is that the funeral home is leaving and we have a vacant lot that is going to be developed,†said D’Ambrosio. “We have a family (the DiCesares) who live in this city and who are planning a project that is going to upgrade that lot and that will be the first domino for many projects that significantly will upgrade that end of Broadway.â€
However, the board sided with the residents and voted 5-0 to deny the requests for variances.
That hearing was preceded by an even more contentious hearing — which often was interrupted by a person who was shouting at the residents who stood at the microphone to oppose the project — regarding the application by Zepaj Development, LLC, of 78 Mill Street, Middleton, which came before the board requesting seven variances to enable Zepaj to raze the existing structure at 344 Salem St., which formerly housed an auto body repair shop, and build a four-story, twenty-five (25) unit residential structure.
The seven variance requests were as follows:
1. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum front yard setback requirement of 10 feet within the NB District;
2. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 feet within the NB District;
3. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum rear yard setback requirement of 20 feet within the NB District;
4. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum building coverage requirement of 40% within the NB District;
5. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum height requirement of 35 feet within the NB District;
6. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to a maximum of 2 1/2 stories requirement within the NB District;
7. Noncompliance with Section 17.28.020 with respect to minimum parking requirement of 2 spaces/unit for apartment use within the NB District.
Atty. Paul Tellier with D’Ambrosio LLP presented the application to the board. “There will be 25 units with 20 one-bedroom and five two-bedroom units. The property presently is an auto repair garage and we are looking to revitalize the parcel,†Tellier said, who added that the project is located within a Transit Oriented District.
Five residents spoke in favor of the project, saying it will benefit the area and the city as a whole. All five also spoke favorably about the developer, who has had many project in the city in recent years.
However, Vanessa Biasella, a resident of the neighborhood at 10 Roberts St. , spoke in adamant opposition to the proposal.
“This is an outrageous project,†she said. “This is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole with seven, ridiculous variances.â€
She also said that there is nothing about the shape or topography of the property that is irregular such that the project qualifies for a variance.
“If you are going to give a variance, let’s make sure the purpose is not for the profit of the developer,†she added. “We live in this neighborhood, not them,†added Biasella, who then called upon her fellow residents who opposed the variance to stand, of whom there were about 20 in the audience.
Neighborhood resident James Vasquez of nearby Clifton St. likewise expressed his opposition to the project.
“Build as much as you can build, but within the code,†said Vasquez. “I’ve been sitting here for an hour and you (referring to the board) give everybody everything they want. Let the developer build what he wants to build, but within reason. Everybody who comes before this board gets whatever variances they want. We have rules for a reason so that we don’t ruin good neighborhoods with these huge buildings and congest them like Shirley Ave.â€
Another speaker, who identified herself as a lifelong resident of the area, said that the neighborhood always has been an area for single-family homes, but a large building such as this will destroy the character of the neighborhood.
A host of other residents opposed the project, with most focusing on the lack of parking and congestion.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Hamdan was the first member of the board to speak up.
“I think the neighbors have spoken frankly about how they feel and we have to move to deny this,†he said.
“I would like to see him (the developer) go back to the neighbors to work something out,†suggested Lopes.
“Is there any way to revise the plan and provide parking?†asked Limeneh.
Mr. Zepaj, the developer, took to the podium and suggested that the opposition from the neighbors had not been expressed previously and it was his understanding that the project, which he had agreed to scale down at a community meeting, had received their approval.
The board then voted to continue the hearing in the hope that the developer and the neighbors can resolve their issues.
However, prior to these two contentious matters, the board acted favorably on a number of other applications for variances for large apartments buildings.
Silcared Harvest, LLC, 259 Oakwood Ave., Revere, came before the board requesting three variances in order to raze an existing business structure and construct a sixteen (16) unit residential structure at 5 Washington Avenue.
The variance requests were as follows:
1. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to minimum rear yard setback requirement of 20 feet and side yard setback of 15 feet for residential uses within the GB District;
2. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum FAR of 1.5 within the GB District;
3. Noncompliance with Section 17.32.050 with respect to minimum screening area width of 6 feet between unenclosed multifamily parking and abutting residential uses.
Atty. Chris Cridler from D’Ambrosio LLC presented the application. He said that the new building,which is located on the border with Chelsea at Dale St., will consist of 16 one-bedroom apartments and will be partially located in Chelsea.
There was one opponent, a resident of Haskell Ave., who told the board that the neighborhood already is a congested area.
The board unanimously approved the project, but with the condition that the residents and guests will not be eligible for on-street parking permits.
55 Walnut, LLC, 1040-1048 North Shore Road, Unit B2, requested five variances to enable it to raze an existing two family home at 55 Walnut Ave. and build a five-story, thirty (30) unit residential structure.
The variance requests were as follows:
1. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to minimum front yard setback of 20 feet, rear yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard setback of 15 feet for multi-family use within the GB District;
2. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum FAR of 1.5 in the GB District;
3. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum area requirement of 10,000 s.f. within the GB District;
4. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum frontage requirement of 100 feet within the GB District;
5. Noncompliance with Section 17.28.020 with respect to minimum parking requirement for apartment use within the GB District.
Atty. Nancy O’Neil with D’Ambrosio LLP presented the application to the board.
She said there will be 21 studio apartments and nine one-bedroom apartments and that since the project will be in a Transit Oriented District, there will be no impact on traffic or parking.
“Similar projects have been approved for this area and this will further revitalize the Shirley Ave. area,†O’Neil said.
Ward 2 Councillor Ira Novoselsky was unable to attend the meeting, but sent a communication stating his support.
Alyssa DeDomenicis spoke against the proposal, representing her uncle, who lives next door to the proposed project.
“This will add to the traffic on the street with all of the persons who take Ubers and other means of transportation,†she said.
Lor Holmes, who lives at 243 Campbell Ave., said she opposed the project, which is similar to others in the area, “because it displaces long-time residents and changes the character of the neighborhood. These projects also do not address the issue of affordable housing. There are no affordable units being constructed in the Shirley Ave. neighborhood.â€
Another resident spoke against the proposal, stating her concern about the displacement that is occurring on Shirley Ave. and the congestion that a 30-unit building will bring to what formerly was a two-family home.
The board unanimously approved the project, with the condition that residents are not eligible for on-street parking permits either for themselves or their guests.
Atty. O’Neil also presented the application of Eastern Equity Partners, LLC and Jamie Russo, 1040-1048 North Shore Road, Unit B2, requesting five variances from the ZBA to enable the appellant to raze the existing structure, a two-family residence, and build a five-story, twenty (20) unit residential structure at 38 Walnut Ave.
The five variance requests were as follows:
1. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to minimum front yard setback requirement of 20 feet, rear yard setback requirement of 20 feet, and side yard setback requirement of 15 feet for multi-family construction within the GB District;
2. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum FAR of 1.5 within the GB District;
3. Noncompliance with Section 17.28.020 with respect to minimum parking requirements for apartment use within the GB District;
4. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum area requirement of 10,000 s.f. within the GB District;
5. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum frontage requirement of 100 feet within the GB District.
O’Neil said there will be 11 one-bedroom units and nine studio units. She stated that this also will be within a Transit Oriented District and will not affect parking or traffic.
Ward 2 Councilor Ira Novoselsky supported the proposal.
The opponents of the previous application once again voiced their concern over the lack of affordable housing and how this project will change the character of the neighborhood.
The board unanimously approved the application with the condition that residents are not eligible for on-street parking permits either for themselves or their guests.
1499, LLC, 1040-1048 North Shore Road, Unit B2, came before the board requesting five variances in order to raze the existing structure, a multi-car garage, and build a five-story, thirty-eight (38) unit residential structure at 1499 North Shore Road, Revere:
1. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to minimum requirement for rear yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setback of 15 feet, and front yard setback of 20 feet for multi-family use within the GB District;
2. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum FAR of 1.5 in the GB District;
3. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum area requirement of 10,000 s.f. in the GB District;
4. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum frontage requirement of 100 feet within the GB District;
5. Noncompliance with Section 17.28.020 with respect to minimum parking requirements for apartment use within the GB District.
Atty. O’Neil once again presented this proposal. She said that the property presently is a parking lot for businesses on nearby Beach St. There will be 36 studio units and two one-bedroom units. She said the average rent will be about $1500 and will be within a Transit Oriented District.
O’Neil also noted that Jamie Russo is the developer and that Ward 2 Councilor Ira Novoselsky is in favor of it.
The board unanimously approved the application (a perfect 3-for-3 evening for Atty. O’Neil) with the condition that residents are not eligible for on-street parking permits either for themselves or their guests.
