A Revere Beach landmark, Sammy’s Patio and Lounge, soon will be just another memory for local residents after the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granted variances that will allow for the construction of a 149-unit condominium complex on that site and three contiguous parcels.
The ZBA also approved variances for the construction of a 32-unit apartment building in the Shirley Ave. neighborhood. A third request, seeking variances for construction of a rental residential building of 35 units on Revere Beach Blvd., was continued until next month in order for the board to obtain a legal opinion from the City Solicitor’s office.
Chairman Michael G. Tucker and fellow members James O’Brien, Aklog Limeneh, John Lopes, and Arthur Pelton were on hand for the meeting that was held last Wednesday, May 31, before a capacity crowd of residents in the council chamber.
The project involving Sammy’s Patio at 49-64 Revere Beach Blvd. was the last item on the agenda and provided the main news of the 90-minute meeting, with the board approving six variances for the seven-story, mixed-use, 139-unit luxury condominium complex. The complex will encompass the former sites of the Shipwreck Lounge and the Castle Del Mar Hotel and the present sites of Nick’s Place restaurant and the iconic Sammy’s.
The specific requests by the developer, the Boston firm of Revere Residential, LLC, 95 Beacon St., for variances were as follows:
1. Revere Revised Ordinance (RRO) Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum front yard setback requirement of 20 feet within the Residential C2 (RC2) District;
2. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum side yard setback requirement of 20 feet each side within the RC2 District;
3. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum rear yard setback requirement of 30 feet within the RC2 District;
4. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum FAR requirement of 3.0 within the RC2 District;
5. RRO Section 17.28.020 with respect to minimum parking requirements for multifamily residential condominium, retail, and restaurant use within the RC2 District;
6. RRO Section 17.24.070 (C) with respect to tandem parking spaces prohibited for apartment use.
Atty. Gerry D’Ambrosio presented the application. He told the board members that the parcel consists of 34,000 sq. ft. on which the developer plans to build a seven-story building that will contain 77 two-bedroom units, 57 one-bedroom units, and five studio units with a total of 166,000 sq. ft.
“These condos are designed to take advantage of the train station and there also will be 139 parking spots, both at grade and below grade. In addition, there will be two commercial units on the ground floor, at least one of which will be a restaurant,” said D’Ambrosio.
D’Ambrosio briefly noted that a previous developer had proposed constructing a hotel on a portion of the property where there presently is a hole in the ground, but that project fell apart when COVID struck.
The new owners, at the urging of the city, then purchased the properties of Nick’s Place and Sammy’s in order to expand the project and change its use from a hotel to condominiums.
“This is an important parcel because it is a key component to redeveloping that side of the beach,” said D’Ambrosio, who briefly noted the recent shooting on Revere Beach in that area. “It’s an area that needs redevelopment and this will clean it up and reduce that kind of criminal activity in the long run.” He noted that Acting Mayor Patrick Keefe and Ward Councilors Joanne McKenna and Ira Novoselsky support the project.
“This will be a beautiful, state-of-the-art structure with a wave exterior facade and we will be receiving input from the Revere Beach Design Board,” D’Amrosio concluded.
Tom Skwierawski, the city’s Chief of Planning, and Robert O’Brien, the city’s Director of Economic Development, sent a letter in favor of the project.
A neighbor who lives in a condo at 41-45 Revere Beach Blvd. spoke in favor of the project.
“We have been patiently waiting for someone to develop the property after the disaster that was there,” he said, referring to the previous, abandoned project. “We feel comfortable that we will work together with this developer and that the project will enhance both the city and Revere Beach in particular.”
The board unanimously approved granting the variances, but with the condition that residents of the building will not be eligible for the city’s on-street resident parking permit program.
The other major project approved by the ZBA was the application by Eastern Equity Partners, LLC, 1040-1048 North Shore Road, which requested seven variances to enable the construction of a five-story, mixed-use building with thirty-two (32) residential units and one (1) commercial unit at 1485 North Shore Road. The site is located between Kimball Ave. and Beach St. and has been the location of a popular restaurant, Peter’s Super Beef, for more than 50 years. The specific variance requests were as follows:
1. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5 in the General Business (GB) District;
2. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum area requirement of 10,000 s.f. within
the GB District;
3. RRO Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to minimum front yard setback requirement of
20 feet for residential use within the GB District;
4. RRO Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to minimum rear yard setback requirement of
20 feet for residential use within the GB District;
5. RRO Section 17.24.010 (q) with respect to minimum side yard setback of 15 feet each
side for residential use within the GB District;
6. RRO Section 17.28.020 with respect to minimum parking requirement for apartment and
retail use within the GB District;
7. RRO Section 17.24.070 (C) with respect to tandem parking prohibited for apartment use.
Atty. Nancy O’Neil represented the applicant, Jamie Russo of Eastern Equity Partners, LLC, who has developed many similar properties in the Shirley Ave. neighborhood. She said that the project is a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and that the units, consisting of about 450 square feet each, will attract single-persons who will be taking the train, which is about a one-minute walk to the Revere Beach MBTA station, to work and to school in Boston. Residents will be precluded from owning cars.
“These new residents are walking to and from businesses for their daily needs and this has become a vibrant neighborhood,” said O’Neil.
The building will be constructed on the present site of the long-time and popular Peter’s Super Beef restaurant, whose owners are retiring and who approached Mr. Russo to purchase the property, which is an aging commercial building that dates back to the 1940s. O’Neil said this will be a major improvement for the surrounding neighborhood.
“This will be a modern building that will fit with the current state of this neighborhood and will be built to 2023 building standards,” she said. “This project enjoys the support of the city and the ward councilor and we’ve met with area residents,” O’Neil concluded.
Ward 2 Councilor Ira Novoselsky spoke in support of the project. “Mr. Russo has done a lot of construction on Shirley Ave., which is the talk of the town. I know the height of the building is a concern of a neighbor, but there are times like this that require us to open up a bit,” said Novoselsky, adding, “All of the trash will be contained within the building.”
The councilor noted that he had been opposed to the commercial space being used as a restaurant because of the lack of parking and Russo agreed to using it as an office space that will not bring in a lot of traffic. Novoselsky further noted that concerns about the height of the building were addressed by the architect.
This proposal also had the backing of city officials Skwierawski and O’Brien.
However, Dellana Fabiano, who owns the home on Beach St. directly behind the proposed building, where she has lived for 50 years, spoke against the proposal.
“The new building will block the sun and my house will freeze. I am very heartbroken about this,” Fabiano said. “I cannot let this happen. My tenants will lose the sun on their sundeck.”
She said she had a petition with 108 signatures from residents of Kimball Ave. and Beach St. who are opposed to the project. “We do not need a high-rise apartment here,” said Fabiano, who was reminded by Tucker that height is not an issue per the zoning ordinance.
The board then voted 5-0 to approve the variances, with the condition that the tenants will not be allowed to obtain residential parking permits.
However, the members held off on taking a vote on an application by 1 Revere Beach Blvd., LLC, of Wakefield, which came before the ZBA requesting eight variances to enable the construction of a six-level, mixed-use, 35-unit building to adjoin the pre-existing apartment building at the same location of 1 Revere Beach Boulevard.
The specific requests were as follows:
1. Revere Revised Ordinance (RRO) Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum lot area requirement of 25,000 s.f. within the RC2 District;
2. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum FAR requirement of 3.0 within the RC2 District;
3. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum side yard setback requirement of 20 feet each side within the RC2 District;
4. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum front yard setback requirement of 20 feet within the RC2 District;
5. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum rear yard setback requirement of 30 feet within the RC2 District;
6. RRO Section 17.28.020 with respect to minimum parking requirement for apartment use within the RC2 District;
7. RRO Section 17.28.020 with respect to minimum parking requirement for retail or restaurant use within the RC2 District;
8. RRO Section 17.28.220 with respect to minimum setback requirement of 10 feet from property lines for dumpster pads.
Attorney Joseph V. Cattoggio, Jr. presented the application on behalf of the applicant. He told the board that in addition to the residential units, there will be one or two commercial spaces, potentially for a food market. He told the board that the property has a unique shape that limits the buildable area on the lot. He also noted that any construction will be subject to the purview of the Conservation Commission because the property lies within the 100-foot buffer zone of a coastal beach and lies within a flood zone.
Cattoggio said the new building will have underground parking and will match the adjacent structure with a minimal difference in height.
“This project is similar to other mixed-use projects on Revere Beach Boulevard and Ocean Avenue,” said Catoggio. “It will be a much-needed upgrade to the existing location and serve better to revitalize the Revere Beach neighborhood.”
Atty. Thomas Aylesworth of the Braintree firm Marcus, Errico, Emmer, and Brooks, representing the condominium association across the street at 10 Ocean Ave., spoke against the proposal. He argued that the threshold legal question of whether there is a “hardship” to the applicant has not been met.
“Without hardship, nothing else matters,” Aylesworth said. “To obtain a variance, to prove hardship, the applicant has to demonstrate that ‘there are circumstances related to soil conditions, shape, or topography of the land or structures that result in the hardship’.”
He said that the existence of a building already on the lot, with some open space, does not create a “hardship and is directly contrary to the purpose of the city’s ordinance that is designed to create open space. There is no such thing as a variance right created because there is open space protected by an ordinance due to the fact that there already is an existing building.
“In addition,” he added, “there is no financial hardship, because there already is a building on the lot.” Aylesworth quoted a Mass. Appeals Court decision that holds that an undersized lot is not a basis for a variance and the inability to maximize the potential for a parcel of land is not a hardship within the meaning of the zoning law.
“The best and highest use is not the standard for a variance,” Aylesworth concluded.
Ryan Stewart of 10 Ocean Ave. spoke on behalf of his fellow condo owners.
“We are pro-development,” he said “We have been pleased to see the improvements to Revere Beach over the past few years and the restaurants that have come to the beach, as well as the revitalization of Shirley Ave. and the development at Wonderland.”
He noted that other developers whose projects impacted 10 Ocean Ave. reached out to work together with the residents and they came to a mutual agreement.
“However, in this case, we have not been contacted at all,” he said. “We have no choice but to oppose this project because we have no other means to make our voices heard and ensure that our concerns are addressed.”
He then stated that there are issues with the water infrastructure, which has resulted in three water main breaks in recent years that have been created by the strain of additional loads on the water system.
To this point, Cattoggio later responded that the city will be requiring the developer to upgrade the water main.
Laura Libby, another resident of 10 Ocean Ave., also spoke against the project.
“We are worried about our health and safety and environmental impacts. We purchased our homes knowing what the zoning was and that there was an existing building on that lot. There was no expectation that there would be another development to fill up that open space,” she said.
Resident Jeffrey Walker listed a number of environmental concerns and asserted that the project will take place within the protected area of the nesting area for Piping Plovers across the street on the beach.
Tucker noted that the present parking lot for the current building, which was given to the prior owner by the state DCR, has a deed restriction. Tucker then asked that the matter be continued pending an opinion from the City Solicitor as to the status of the parking lot if another building is added to the lot and the board unanimously voted to do so.
In other matters:
— Albeiro Lopera, a resident of 29 Broad Sound Avenue, came before the board requesting variances of RRO Sections 17.24.030A(e)(iii), 40 feet frontage requirement, for a qualified vacant lot within the HD Zone, and 17.24.030(3)(a)(i) and (ii) parking requirements for existing lots in the HD Overlay Zone, to enable him to construct a single-family dwelling on Lot C Hichborn Street, which is deemed unbuildable. The existing developed lot, Lot B at 82 Hichborn Street, cannot accommodate four off-street parking spaces as required by Section 17.24.030(3), so the adjacent vacant lot, Lot C Hichborn Street, is necessary to meet the parking requirements of the developed lot.
There were a number of opponents to the proposal from the neighborhood. A resident of 92 Hichborn St. said he and his neighbors are opposed to the project and cited the lack of parking in the area and the lack of setback. Marianne Ortiz of 96 Hichborn St. said she was concerned about the lack of parking in the neighborhood, especially during snow removal.
Ward 2 Councillor Ira Novoselsky also spoke against the application, saying, “The lot is very small, they are squeezing it in, and they will be losing parking spaces. I’ve received a number of phone calls against it and ask that you deny it.”
Tucker made a motion to deny the variance and the board voted unanimously to do so.
— Washington Sherman, LLC, 9 South Street, came before the board to request a six-month extension of the one-year exercise period of the ZBA’s previously-granted variances for the construction of a four-story building containing 30 residential units at 810 Washington Avenue. Applicants who receive a variance have one-year to exercise their variance and if they are unable to do so, the variance will expire without an extension. The applicant said that delays in closing on the property and in demolition of the existing building have prevented the city from issuing a building permit, thus necessitating the request for the extension. The board unanimously extended the variances for six months.
— Agildo Lemes Da Silva, 49 Rose Street, requested a variance of RRO Section 17.16.260(F)(1) with respect to “no accessory structure may be located within the required side yard setback and within 2’ of the rear property line and shall not cover more than 10% of the rear yard in the RB District” to enable him to construct a 20’ x 22’ gazebo with an outdoor kitchen at 49 Rose Street.
Mr. Da Silva presented the application on his own behalf. Tucker stated at the outset that he had spoken to the ward councillor, who said he is opposed to the application. Mr. Da Silva had moved forward with his project without having obtained a building permit to do so and has been informed that his structure is not up to code.
However, after a brief discussion about the extent of the Building Inspector’s input into the situation, the members voted 4-1, with Tucker voting no, to grant the variance.
The ZBA’s next meeting is set for June 28 at 5 p.m.
