ZBA Approves Variances for Scaled-Back, 25-Unit Salem St. Apartment Building

The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) gave its approval to developer Mario Zepaj for four variances for the construction of a 25-unit apartment building at 344 Salem St. at its regular monthly meeting last Wednesday evening.

The often-contentious, 45-minute hearing saw neighborhood residents often interrupt the proceedings, drawing repeated admonitions from ZBA chairperson Michael Tucker and pointed responses from Atty. Gerry D’Ambrosio, who represented the applicant.

Thursday’s hearing was the third to be held on the application in the past three months. After the initial hearing in August, the ZBA voted to continue the proceedings to allow for the developer and the neighbors to get together to work out their differences.

The parties met in early September and then when the matter came up at the ZBA’s meeting on September 21 meeting, attorney Nancy O’Neill of the D’Ambrosio law firm told the ZBA that based upon the input from the residents, Zepaj would be drawing up new plans to be presented at the October meeting.

Zepaj’s initial plans for the half-moon-shaped lot, which presently is the site of a long-vacant auto garage at the corner of Salem and Clifton Sts. and abuts the Northern Community Strand Trail in the rear, called for 25 apartments consisting of five two-bedroom units and 20 one-bedroom units.

D’Ambrosio told the board that the new plan eliminated the two-bedroom units and instead would consist of 24 one-bedroom units and one studio unit, which resulted in an overall reduction in the size of the structure. He also noted that there would be parking for 50 spaces — two per unit, which goes beyond what is required per the zoning ordinances — that would be in an underground garage with a mechanical parking system.

With the scaled-back project, D’Ambrosio came before the board seeking only four variances, compared to the seven variances that were requested under the original plan.

Those four variance requests were as follows:.

1. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum side yard set back requirement of 15 feet within the NB District;

2. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to the maximum height requirement of 35 feet within the NB District;

3. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum of 2 1/2 stories allowed within the NB District;

4. Noncompliance with Section 17.28.035 (A) with respect to mechanical parking systems not allowed within the NB District.

The requests that were eliminated from the original application pertained to minimum front yard setback, minimum rear yard setback, the permissible maximum building coverage requirement, and minimum parking requirement of two spaces/unit for apartment use.

D’Ambrosio noted that the unusual, half-moon lot configuration necessitated the request for the side-yard setback. He also stated that Zepaj will be required to clean up any environmental problems with the property that may arise as a result of its past use and that he will repair a collapsed culvert that will resolve drainage and flooding issues in the area. 

Additionally, addressing an issue that had been raised by the project’s opponents, D’Ambrosio stated that he had spoken to Nick Rystrom, the City Engineer, who said that the current infrastructure for water and sewer in that part of the city could support the new develop.m.ent.

Finally, D’Ambrosio said the area is zoned as a Neighborhood Business (NB) district, which allows for the construction of apartment buildings as a matter of right and that other permissible uses, such as a medical building or a convenience store, would create more congestion in the neighborhood than an apartment building.

“This is a smaller building, with smaller units, and with more parking,” D’Ambrosio said in conclusion.

A number of individuals spoke in the favor of the application.

Danna Nazzaro spoke on behalf of her mother-in-law, who lives at 248 Salem St. She said that her mother-in-law has seen other projects by Mr. Zepaj in the city and believes that the building will be an improvement in the neighborhood.

Robert Mahoney,  a Revere resident who has worked with Mr. Zepaj on some of his other projects, told the board, “This project will be an asset to the neighborhood.”

Lou Markakis, a local real estate agent who represented Patricia Nazzaro, who was the seller of the property, told the board that Ms. Nazzaro had rejected other potential buyers, including businesses that would have had trucks on the premises and a convenience store,  because, “She wanted to sell it to somebody who would clean up the site.”

Another proponent, Lily Chow of 156 Breeden’s Lane said, “I believe that the developer has addressed the concerns of traffic and congestion and will bring a lot of value to the neighborhood.”

David Chmel, who lives at 124 Breeden’s Lane, said he favored the project because it will bring taxes to the city.

The opponents then had their turn to speak. The opposition was led by Ward Six Councilor Richard Serino who presented his opposition  in a letter to the board. Serino cited a number of concerns, including low water pressure in the area, and stated that the “size and scale of this project is too large for the parcel.”

John Oakes 22 Clifton St. said to the board, “This is a neighborhood of one-family homes and this lot is not big enough for this building.”

John Riccio of 24 Franklin St. opined that mechanical parking is not usable in a practical sense.  However, Tucker noted that mechanical, stacked parking is occurring in many projects in Greater Boston, including in Revere.

Resident James Vasquez, an abutter, said the problem is not so much an apartment building, but that the developer is seeking variances. “Why should the city subsidize what he does?” said Vasquez. “Would you want this as close to your property as he wants to do here? He can build it within the zoning laws. Let him build what he can build. This is one of the nicest neighborhoods in the city.”

Another resident, Mourad Chibane, who owns a condo at 292 Salem St., said there is not enough parking in the area.

“Why can’t they comply by following the rules?” he asked. “It’s very simple.”

At the conclusion of the public comment portion of the hearing, chairman Tucker was the lone member of the board to express an opinion.

“The developer has bent over backwards to make this work and the zoning relief is far less than what has been asked in other places in the city,” said Tucker, who listed the various concerns that had been raised by the residents and addressed by the developer. Tucker also noted that if there are environmental concerns, those will fall within the purview of the Conservation Commission.

Upon a roll call vote, Tucker and fellow members Aklog Limeneh, John Lopes, Hazem Hamdan, and Arthur Pelton voted unanimously to approve the variances. (Alternate member James O’Brien was on hand for the meeting, but did not cast a vote.)

The board took up three other applications prior to the 344 Salem St. hearing, approving two of them, but denying one.

Sergio A. Sorto, 28 Proctor Avenue, came before the board seeking the following variances from the ZBA to enable him to construct a 252 sq.ft. addition and reconstruct and extend the existing deck at the rear of his existing single-family dwelling:

1. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum side yard setback requirement of 10 feet within the RB District;

2. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 (a) with respect to minimum side yard setback requirement of 10 feet for all decks.

Michael Szymanski, the architect on the project, appeared before the board and explained the scope of the proposed work.

There were neither opponents nor opponents to the application.

This matter initially came before the board in September at which time members expressed some concern about the turning radius on the property itself. However, Tucker reported that the Office of Planning and Develop.m.ent said there was no issue in this regard.

The board then voted 5-0 to approve the variances

Nixon Jimenez came before the board requesting a special permit for the purpose of converting his pre-existing, non-conforming, single-family structure at 114 Augustus St. into a two-family home.

Atty. Larry Simeone represented the applicant, whose mother currently lives in the single-family home. Simeone said that the applicant proposed adding a new third floor onto the existing structure to create a three-bedroom unit for his daughter.

Simeone noted that the increase in height will not be in violation of the ordinance. He also said that not only will the new, altered structure “not be substantially more detrimental” to the existing neighborhood (which is the standard by which the board must be guided per the zoning ordinances), but that it “actually will constitute an added investment to the neighborhood.”

There were no opponents and the board voted 5-0 to approve the application.

The lone application to be rejected was another matter that had been continued from the previous month by the board members, who said they had wanted to take a closer look at the property in question.

Herby Jean-Baptiste, 321 Proctor Ave., came before the board seeking a variance of RRO Section 17.24.070 — no parking in the rear yard — to enable him to establish a driveway entrance on Burbank Street in order to provide two additional off-street parking spaces in the rear of his house. Mr. Jean-Baptiste already has a driveway, with parking for two cars, off Proctor Ave.

 Mr. Jean-Baptiste said that in addition to the additional parking spaces that he needs for his family, the new driveway would provide access to the rear of his property in the event of an emergency. He noted that there is no dedicated parking on the street in the front of his house, which is by resident permit only, thus making it difficult for family members or other visitors to park, especially during times of snow removal and street sweeping. 

Ubi Barbosa, a neighbor who lives across the street on Proctor Ave. and who has rear-yard parking on his property, spoke in favor of the application.

“I know how difficult it can be to park on the street,” said Barbosa. “His proposed driveway is more than 100 feet from the corner of Proctor Ave. and will not be a hazard to anyone,” he said.

However, Ward 4 City Councillor Michael Keefe spoke against the application, stating that there was widespread opposition to the creation of the driveway by the residents of Burbank St. 

“This will be a detriment to the residents who live behind him,” said Keefe. “Burbank St. can be hard to navigate during a snowstorm and the residents know that there will be difficulties when he is exiting that driveway during a storm. All of the abutters across the way on Burbank St. have called me in opposition.”

Keefe also informed the board that there are preliminary plans by the city for a proposed children’s park directly across from the proposed driveway  that will be negatively affected by the driveway. 

Michael Ferrante of 59 Burbank St., told the board of the possible safety issues created by motorists making a turn off Proctor onto Burbank, especially in the winter, because of the steepness of Burbank St.  

“We don’t really need any more traffic on Burbank St. Getting out of his driveway will be a tight turn and will make for more congestion,” Ferrante added.

Prior to the vote, board member Lopes suggested to Baptiste that he should consider extending his existing driveway off Proctor St. to the rear of his property, rather than creating a new driveway off Burbank. Councillor Keefe indicated that he would have no objection to that proposal. The board voted 5-0 against granting the variance.