The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held its regular monthly meeting last Wednesday, November 29, in the City Councillor Joseph A. DelGrosso City Council Chamber at Revere City Hall. On hand for the session were Chairman Michael Tucker and members John Lopes, Hazem Hamdan, Arthur Pelton, and alternate member James O’Brien.
The first matter on the agenda was a request from Zoro, LLC, 1040-1048 North Shore Road, Unit B2, for variances to enable the construction of a four-story, 11-unit, residential apartment building at 1473 North Shore Road.
Revere attorney Nancy O’Neil represented Zoro, LLC. She told the members that the property currently is the site of a non-conforming residential structure in the Highway Business District. O’Neil further stated that the project will require a special permit from the City Council in addition to the variances needed from the ZBA.
O’Neil said there will be five one-bedroom and six studio apartments consisting of approximately 500 sq. ft. each. She said that the apartments will be occupied predominantly by single persons who will be commuting to work by using public transportation. She said that the property is within a designated Transit Oriented District (TOD) within a two minute walk to the Revere Beach MBTA station. The leases will include a provision that tenants may not own a motor vehicle, which has been done with similar TOD developments in the Shirley Ave. area.
She noted that the residential use will be less impactful on the neighborhood than a commercial use and that the new and up-to-code building will replace a structure that was built around 1900. O’Neil further said that city officials, including Ward 2 Councilor Ira Novoselsky, are in favor of the project, and that it has been vetted by community groups.
Novoselsky spoke in favor of the project, saying that he “has been working with the developer for several months and I’ve had a lot of input into the design. This developer has completed many other projects in the area that have been very successful. We also had a neighborhood meeting and all who showed up were in favor of it. There has been no opposition.”
Also speaking in favor of the application was City Councillor Marc Silvestri, who said that “the developer has been instrumental in redeveloping the Shirley Ave. area and this is the type of project that we need to start looking at.”
Arcadia St. resident Anthony Parziale, who said he is in favor of the project, cautioned however, that the addition of 11 more market-rate housing units will add to the burden the city is facing in terms of the state requirement that 10 percent of the city’s housing stock must fall within the state guidelines for affordable housing.
There was one opponent, Dr. Aida Padron of 25 Hopkins St.
“I have been seeing many changes in this city,” said Padron, who said she has lived in Revere for five years. “We need to have a certain quality of life and we need a nice community in which to live, but we are overpopulating these areas. Who are we doing this construction for? For people who can afford more than $2000 or $3000 for rent, or for people who need a roof? We need housing for people in need.
“We have a lot of problems with traffic and parking, and even though the tenants will not have cars, what about their visitors?” Padron continued. “Why can’t we build things that have parking so that we have less congestion? Wouldn’t it be better to have two or three families there than all single people? We should be thinking about what is better for the people who already live here.”
The ZBA members had no questions and unanimously approved the application.
The next item on the agenda, an application from Joseph Ciampa, 42 Joey Road, who is requesting variances to enable him to construct a five-story, 20-unit, residential apartment building at 419 Lee Burbank Highway, was continued at the request of Atty. Gerry D’Ambrosio “in order to allow time to have a community meeting to allow neighbors to view the proposal and offer their opinions.” Councilor Novoselsky said he favored postponing the hearing in order to obtain neighborhood input.
An abutter, Michelle Mongiello, who lives in Lexington and is an owner of an adjacent lot on Augustus St. with her family, voiced her objections based on shadows that will be created by the five-story height of the proposed building.
Dr. Padron also spoke against the proposal, objecting to the size of the structure and the lack of setback, as well as the potential problems with parking and traffic congestion. “It makes me sad that money interests take precedence over the interests of the people in the area,” she said.
The board unanimously voted to continue the matter to its December meeting.
The board next took up a request from Zepaj Development, LLC, 78 Mill Street, Middleton, for a variance of Section 17.28.020 (minimum parking requirements for apartment use) to enable Zepaj to construct a 25-unit apartment building at 344 Salem Street.
Atty. O’Neil presented the application. She noted that the ZBA previously approved a number of variances last year for the project, which included “mechanical parking” in the building. However, O’Neil said that a modification now is needed for a parking variance “because the ongoing development of the site has revealed that mechanical parking is not feasible because of the complex soil conditions, high groundwater, and its proximity to wetlands.
“The development of the site has become extremely expensive,” said O’Neil. “Mechanical parking spaces have been rendered financially impossible.”
She said that there will be 31 surface spaces for the 25 units, which she said will be more than sufficient for the building. O’Neil presented a parking utilization chart per the Metropolitan Area Planning Council that measured demand rates in the city. She said that a non-TOD building typically averages 1.06 spaces per unit, and the 1.24 spaces per unit for this project exceeds those recommendations. She also noted that this building lies in a TOD district (because of its proximity to MBTA bus stops) for which the parking rate is even lower, at 0.59 spaces per unit. “The parking modification will not impact the neighborhood,” O’Neil added, noting that residents of the building will not be eligible for the resident parking program and that the rental agreement will limit the ownership of cars by tenants.
Two abutters, who initially opposed the project, said they now were in favor of the new proposal.
James Vasquez of 21 Clifton St. (which abuts the property) said he was opposed to the original mechanical parking “stackers” because of the noise, but now is in favor of the modification, which eliminates the mechanical parking. Mike Migliozzi of 347 Salem St., another original opponent, also spoke in favor of the new modification.
However, Ward 6 City Councilor Richard Serino said he “was disappointed that 13 months after the initial hearing, the applicant now is seeking a parking variance.” Serino said that visitors of the tenants will park on the nearby city parking areas for the rail trail. Serino also said this is not a TOD project and that the developer should have come to the ZBA for the parking variance prior to pouring his foundation.
“This neighborhood should not have to bear the burden of the lack of parking of this development because of the economics of this gentleman’s business,” Serino added.
In addition, a host of neighbors appeared to oppose the request.
John Riccio of 21 Franklin St. said that the developer “had the duty of due diligence and should be held to his original plan. Financial hardship is for widows and children, not profit-making developers. That is not the duty of this board. He can reduce the number of units to 16. None of you should be in the business of making more money for developers. You should be in the business of the people. Only in rare exceptions should you change things to make more money for developers.”
Chris Jacob of 1 Clifton St. said, “How many variances are you going to give out? This property already has four and that’s enough.”
Vanessa Biasela of 10 Roberts St. chimed in, “This has been going on for way too long. Financial hardship on the part of the developer is not your concern. He can reduce the units and find a solution that doesn’t involve us. This should not fall to us. This is his problem.
“Everyone’s watching,” Biasela continued. “This entire city has had enough of developers’ interests coming before the people who were born and who live here,” adding that the traffic back-ups that already exist in the area will be exacerbated by the development.
A resident from the Saugus side of Clifton St. also opposed the variance, stating that the lack of parking will impact his neighborhood. Serino then added, “With Saugus right there, the lack of parking for the project will have an impact on the Saugus side of Clifton Ave.”
The board voted 3-2 in favor of the request, with Tucker and O’Brien opposed. However, since variances require a supermajority for approval, the application failed.
The final item on the agenda was a request from Don Q Real Estate Development, LLC, and Saturn Realty Group, LLC, 29 Arrowhead Drive, Saugus, for a variance of RRO Section 17.24.010(a) (minimum rear-yard setback of 20’ for decks) to enable the construction of a 15.75’ x 12.25’ deck at 171 Broad Sound Avenue.
Atty. Steve Singer of Wakefield presented the application. He noted that the application is pursuant to a full renovation of the structure that actually will involve less of an encroachment of the rear-yard setback than the present deck.
There were no opponents and the board unanimously approved the application.
The board then adjourned until its next meeting on December 20.
