ZBA approves 48-unit building at 791 Broadway

The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held its regular monthly meeting last Wednesday evening, March 29, in the City Councillor Joseph A. DelGrosso City Council Chamber.

Chairman Michael G. Tucker and fellow members James O’Brien, Aklog Limeneh, and Arthur Pelton were on hand for the meeting.

The board quickly moved through three applications before taking up the matter of a 48-unit apartment building at 791 Broadway.

The first hearing of the evening pertained to an application by Frank Lanzillo of Danvers, who requested the following variances to enable him to raze an existing shed in order to construct a two-family dwelling on Lot 68 Broadway:

1. Noncompliance with RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum lot area requirement of 10,000 s.f. within the General Business (GB) District;

2. Noncompliance with RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum frontage requirement of 100 feet within the GB District;

3. Noncompliance with RRO Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 feet for residential use within the GB District.

Mr. Lanzillo presented the application. There were no opponents to the application, but Tucker asked Lanzillo whether he had contacted the ward councillor, which Lanzillo said he had not done. Tucker also queried whether Lanzillo had reached out to the direct abutters, but Lanzillo responded that he had not done so beyond the required notices.

The board voted to continue the matter until its next meeting, April 26, in order for Lanzillo to reach out to the ward councillor.

The board then took up the application of Victoria Bravo, 10 Wilson Street, who was requesting a variance of RRO Section 17.24.010(a) (minimum rear and side yard setbacks) to enable her to construct a 12’ x 16’ detached deck in her rear yard at 10 Wilson Street.

Ms. Bravo presented the application on her own behalf. There were neither proponents nor opponents of the application and the members had no questions. The board unanimously approved the granting of the variance.

Next up was the application of John Lopes, 62 Crest Avenue, requesting a special permit from the ZBA pursuant to RRO Section 17.40.040 to enable him to raze an existing non- conforming, single-family structure and construct a brand-new, single-family home at 62 Crest Ave.

Mr. Lopes, who is a member of the ZBA, presented the application to the board and recused himself from the proceedings. Lopes noted that the proposed new structure will be 10 feet further back and will extend five feet further on one side than the existing structure. 

There was one opponent, Linda Casaletto of 82 Bradstreet Ave. 

“I have no problem with Mr. Lopes adding an additional floor, as long as this was all done on the current footprint, but it is not,” said Casaletto, who is not a direct abuutter. â€œIf he expands his footprint, it will eliminate about 25 percent of my view of the beach.”

However, attorney Gerry D’Ambrosio, who was at the hearing for another matter, told the board that a view is not protected under state law.

Casaletto then stated that if the footprint expansion is only five feet, then she did not object. The board voted unanimously to approve the granting of the special permit.

The board then took up the principle business of the evening, the application by Olympia Development of 1605 No. Shore Rd. seeking five variances in order to construct a five-story, 48-unit apartment building at 791 Broadway.

The board had rejected Olympia’s application for zoning relief last August. Ordinarily, an applicant must wait two years before resubmitting its application to the local ZBA. However, if the applicant submits an application that contains “specific and material changes,” it may come back before the local board prior to the two-year waiting period.

The variance requests for Oympia’s new application were as follows:

1. Noncompliance with RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement of 1.5 in the GB District;

2. Noncompliance with RRO Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to 20 ft. front yard setback requirement for residential uses within the GB District;

3. Noncompliance with RRO Section 17.28.020 (D) with respect to parking requirement for apartment use within the GB District;

4. Noncompliance with RRO Section 17.28.220 with respect to a 10 ft. setback requirement for dumpster pads;

5. Noncompliance with RRO Section 17.32.050 with respect to 6 ft. screening requirement between unenclosed multi-family parking and residential uses.

Attorney Gerry D’Ambrosio represented the developer.

“This is a project that came before this board in August,” said D’Ambrosio. “There was a large crowd opposed to it and this board rejected it. Since that time we have reached out to the neighbors and have presented a new plan to the Planning Board. In essence we made the project smaller and we conducted a traffic study. 

“This is an empty lot of 21,000 sq. ft. adjacent to the Vertuccio Funeral Home,” continued D’Ambrosio, who noted that neighbors have had the use of the lot for free parking for many years. D’Ambrosio also noted that the lot is located in the General Business district, which would permit a variety of uses. D’Ambrosio particularly noted that a hospital facility or medical center is among the potential permitted uses, which he asserted would be a “more disruptive use” to the neighborhood because of increased traffic.

Olympia’s proposal calls for ground-floor parking for 50 cars. The 48 apartment units will consist entirely of one-bedroom and studio units. (The original proposal called for 50 apartments, many of which were two-bedroom units.) There also will be a community meeting room for the residents of the area.

D’Ambrosio noted the differences between the plan presented last August and the new proposal, including a reduction in floor area ratio, elimination of a sixth floor with a reduction in the building height from 60 feet to 50 feet, and the elimination of all (12) two-bedroom units.

“These are significant changes and the Planning Board has approved the new plan,” said D’Ambrosio. 

With regard to the issue of shadows, which had been a concern voiced by neighbors at the August meeting, he noted that there will be no shadows cast on the adjacent homes in the nearby residential neighborhood (given that the building site is on the north side of those homes).

With regard to traffic, “There is absolutely, unequivocally, no doubt that this project will have less of an impact on traffic than a potential business use,” said D’Ambrosio, who noted that the traffic study commissioned by Olympia showed that there will be only a one percent increase in traffic volume during the weekday morning and evening peak hours.

However, some neighbors still opposed the project. 

Wiliam Orlandella Jr. of Prince St. questioned the impact on parking in the neighborhood, but it was noted by Tucker that the tenants will not be eligible either for resident or visitor parking stickers.

Anthony Losanno of 23 Carleton St. said, “Essentially, nothing has changed since day one, There have been only minor changes,” a comment to which Tucker responded, “There have been substantial changes.”

Ward 3 Councillor Anthony Cogliandro spoke on the application.

“There still are 48 units and they’re still above the FAR,” said Cogliandro. “I also don’t want to hear about ‘alternative uses’ to bring fear into people’s minds.

“We did have a second community meeting,” Cogliandro continued. “We all know that an apartment complex is the best use for this lot. The neighbors want four floors, not five. That is all we’re asking for. We are not asking you to kill this project, but if they (the developers) are not willing to work with the neighbors, I ask that you deny this.”

However, Tucker reminded Cogliandro, “Height is not something that is in front of us because the building is within the height limits” of a GB district.

At the conclusion of the public comments, Tucker then spoke.

“The questions that I had at the meeting when we denied it were about the number of units and also the concern about the parking,” Tucker said. “We asked for a traffic study and it is detailed, as well as the shadow study. Both of them come back and satisfy me,” said Tucker. 

The board then had to take two votes. The first was whether the changes were “specific and material changes” to the proposed project (compared to what the board rejected in August), which would enable the board to deem the application a “new” application.

The members voted unanimously in the affirmative on this question.

The board then proceeded to take a vote on the application itself and the members likewise voted unanimously in favor, but with the condition that the tenants will not be eligible for participation in the city’s resident and visitor parking program.