The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held its regular monthly meeting last Wednesday, June 28, in the City Councillor Joseph A. DelGrosso City Council Chamber at City Hall.
Chairman Michael G. Tucker and fellow members James O’Brien, Aklog Limeneh, and John Lopes, were on hand for the meeting before a large gathering of residents in the council chamber.
The first matter taken up by the board was the continuation of a hearing from the previous month regarding a request by 1 Revere Beach Blvd., LLC, 544 Salem Street, Wakefield, for eight variances to enable the the firm to construct a six-level, mixed-use, 35-unit building to adjoin the pre-existing apartment building at 1 Revere Beach Boulevard.
The specific variances being sought by the owner 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 Residential C2 (RC2) District;
2. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum floor area ratio (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.
The ZBA held a full hearing on the application in May, but voted to continue the matter until this month because of an issue raised by Tucker regarding the parking area for the present condo building which was given to the original developer of the property by the state. Tucker asserted that there may be a deed restriction associated with the parking lot that could impact the construction of another condo on the property.
Attorney Joseph V. Cattoggio, Jr., who presented the application last month, asked that the board continue the matter again pending an answer from the DCR as to whether there was a deed restriction of any kind that might bar the construction of a new condo tower.
However, the board refused his request to continue the matter and proceeded with the hearing.
At last month’s hearing, Catoggio told the board that in addition to the residential units in the tower, 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,” Catoggio said last month. “It will be a much-needed upgrade to the existing location and serve better to revitalize the Revere Beach neighborhood.”
The ZBA also heard a great deal of opposition to the proposal at the May meeting. Atty. Thomas Aylesworth of the Braintree firm Marcus, Errico, Emmer, and Brooks, representing the condominium association across the street at 10 Ocean Ave., 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.
A number of residents of 10 Ocean Ave. also spoke out against the project last month.
Speaking against the proposal at last week’s hearing was Ward 1 City Councillor Joanne McKenna, who was in Florida at the time of last month’s meeting.
“I never have been in favor of this,” said McKenna, refuting a representation made at last month’s hearing that she was in favor of the project. McKenna said she was invited into the condo units at 10 Ocean Ave. and observed that the new building would block their view of the ocean. “I know there are no ordinances that say that the ZBA can take into account a blocked view, but these people bought their condos in order to have a view of Revere Beach and I don’t think it’s fair to take that away. In addition, the space is not right for a gigantic building like this. We have to think of the quality of life of the residents who already live here, so I’m asking the board to vote this down.”
Atty. Dillon Brown, an associate at Marcus, Errico, Emmer, and Brooks, also spoke and reiterated the points made by Atty. Aylesworth at the previous meeting.
Brown also made note of the deed restriction imposed by the state when it gave the adjacent parcel to the original developer. Brown said the deed restriction essentially forbids increasing the floor area ratio (FAR) of the entire property, and therefore the project would result in a reversion of that lot back to the state.
Three residents of 10 Ocean Ave. also spoke in opposition to the project, citing parking issues, additional traffic congestion, and the inability of the water infrastructure in the area to handle a new development.
Catoggio refuted the contention that the view of 10 Ocean Ave. will be affected. He also noted that the issue of the deed reversion to the DCR was incorrect. He further said that the steep grade of the property and the other unique aspects of the lot qualify it as a hardship. Addressing the water infrastructure issue, Catoggio said that the city will require the developer to install a water line that will be a benefit to all of the residents in the area.
“This is a tough one,” said Tucker. “A lot of good points have been made by both sides. But in speaking with the City Solicitor, it has not been established that this is a hardship relating to topography.”
ZBA member Lopes then spoke and said it was his “preference that this matter be resolved amicably between the developer and the residents of 10 Ocean Ave. I’m in favor of a continuance to allow the sides to work this out.”
Lopes then made a motion to continue, but it failed on a vote of 2-2, with Tucker and Limeneh opposed. Tucker then spoke on the application itself. He strongly stated his view that the applicant has not met the statutory requirements and the board 4-0 to reject the application.
The board then took up three less-controversial matters.
The first was an application by Shaukat Ali of 43 Emanuel Street, who came before the board to request a special permit “in accordance with RRO Section 17.40.040 to enable the appellant to modify and extend a nonconforming single family structure by constructing proposed additions to the front and rear of the existing structure at 43 Emanuel Street.”
Mr. Ali presented his application to the board. He said his addition will include a second bathroom for his family of four. There were no opponents to the application. After Mr. Ali answered a few questions from Tucker, the board unanimously approved the project, though with the condition that a shed presently on the property be removed.
Rosa Grieco of 48 Jones Road came before the board to request a special permit “in accordance with RRO Section 17.40.040 to enable the appellant to modify and extend a nonconforming two-family structure by constructing a one-story addition (20’ x 24.2’) to the rear of the existing structure at 48 Jones Road.”
Ms. Grieco, a Lynn St. who is the owner of 48 Jones Rd., presented the application on her own behalf. She noted that her immediate family lives in the residence and that the addition will be for an additional bedroom.
Ward 1 Councillor McKenna urged the ZBA to reject the application. “This is a postage-stamp lot and it is a safety issue. I don’t think we should add any more structures to buildings, especially in Beachmont, where we are on top of each other and a fire could involve five or six other houses, which is what occurred on Endicott Ave.,” said McKenna.
Eric Thomasini of 19 Wave Ave., a four-unit condo building directly behind 48 Jones Rd., said the addition “will be encroaching too closely on our property. If there is any way they could reduce the size of the structure, we would not be opposed to it, but I think the size and the extent of it is concerning.”
Tucker then suggested that the applicant continue the matter in order to speak with the abutters and the board voted 4-0 to do so.
Prominent local attorney James Cipoletta represented the next petitioner, Leo Schiavuzzo, 18 Cabral Drive, Middleton, who came before the ZBA to request “variances of RRO Section 17.24.010 relative to minimum side yard, front yard, and maximum principal building lot coverage to enable the appellant to convert a single family dwelling to a two-family dwelling at 59 Larkin Street.”
“This will take what is the smallest house in the neighborhood, a bungalow, demolish it, and build a new home on the existing foundation that will be in harmony with the larger homes in this neighborhood,” said Cipoletta, who also noted that an existing shed will be removed and the new home will be constructed on that structure’s footprint.
Cipoletta further informed the members that the ward councillor, Anthony Cogliandro, is not opposed to the application.
There were no opponents, though Tucker expressed some concern about the proximity of the parking area to a home next door. However, Mr. Schiavuzzo addressed that issue to Tucker’s satisfaction.
The board voted unanimously to approve the application.
The next meeting of the ZBA is set for July 26.
