By Journal Staff
The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular monthly meeting last Wednesday, January 22, in the City Councillor Joseph A. DelGrosso City Council Chamber. On hand for the session were chair Michael Tucker and fellow members Aklog Limeneh, John Lopes, James O’Brien, and Peggy Pratt.
The first matter was a continuance of the hearing on the application by Alcione Simao, 7 View Street, who was requesting a variance of Revere Revised Ordinances (RRO) Section 17.24.070(A) (no parking in the front yard) and RRO Section 17.24.070(A)(4) (40% of the front yard must be landscaped) to enable her to provide for two parking spaces in the front yard of 7 View Street. View St. is a tiny side street between Walnut St. and Grand View Ave. in No. Revere.
Ms. Simao presented the application on her own behalf, as she did in December, when she told the board that she is seeking to provide two parking spaces in the front and one on the side of the property. She noted at that time that the paved parking area already was there when she bought the house, but she had been unaware that a previous owner had not obtained a variance to do so. She also noted that she is being fined $300 per week by the city for parking in her front yard.
The board held off on taking action last month pending clarification from the Building Dept. regarding the appropriateness of the parking spaces. The board received the clarification it was looking for and unanimously approved granting the variances.
Next up was another continued hearing on an application from Kyle Russo and Dylan Russo, 74 Quincy Avenue, Winthrop, who were requesting a variance of RRO Section 17.40.070 (with respect to the requirement that no nonconforming lot shall be further reduced in area and frontage) in order to file an ANR Plan for Lots 112 & Pt. Lot 113 at 26 Tapley Avenue and Lot 111 at 30 Tapley Avenue in order to enable the construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot 111 at 30 Tapley Avenue.
Kyle Russo appeared on his own behalf. The ZBA also had sought a clarification from the Building Dept. on this matter after its hearing in December regarding the dimensions of the driveway. Atty. Edward Valenzola, representing the Russos, told the board in December that there is an existing home at 26 Tapley and a vacant lot at 30 Tapley. The frontage at 30 Tapley is 39.1′, but the zoning ordinance requires 40 feet. In addition, the new lot size at 26 Tapley will be 2847 sq. ft., but 3000 sq. ft. is required per the zoning ordinance for a single-home lot.
Valenzola also noted in December that the two lots were reconfigured so as to be able to provide the necessary off-street parking for both properties. He also said that Ward 3 Councillor Anthony Cogliandro had not received any opposition and that none of the neighbors opposed the project.
There were no opponents at last week’s hearing and, after it was noted that the Building Dept. had clarified the ZBA’s questions about the appropriate width of the parking spaces, the members unanimously approved the application.
The next matter was a request from Buonfiglio Family LLC, 128 Revere Street, requesting parking, front setback, and screening variances to enable the construction of a 32-unit, five-story apartment building, with 28 1-bedroom units and four 2-bedroom units, at 100, 112, and 116 Revere Street, Atty. Nancy O’Neill presented the application in her usual straightforward fashion.
O’Neill said that the three parcels along Revere St. comprise a total of about 1/2 acre of land. She noted that the developer’s original proposal had called for a larger, denser building consisting of 30 two-bedroom units and just two one-bedroom units, which could have been constructed by right without zoning relief. However, upon meeting with city officials, Ward 5 Councillor Angela Guarino-Sawaya, and members of the community, changes were made to the original plans to reduce the size, density, and siting of the building on the lot (moving it closer to the street and further away from the abutters), thereby necessitating the need for the variances.
In addition, the revised plan maintained the 22-car parking lot for the Buonfiglio Funeral Home (which is across the street) with 32 new parking spaces (one per unit) at ground level underneath the building for use by the residents.
“This project, in terms of size, density, and scale, complies with the city’s planning goals for the Revere St. Corridor and the General Business (GB) district, as well as with the city’s Master Plan,” O’Neil told the board. “This is a minimally-impactful project. The building’s density is 40 percent less than what is allowed by right pursuant to the zoning-by laws and two of the three direct abutters now approve of the project.”
O’Neill also noted that the building is directly on a bus route and it is expected that many of the residents will not have automobiles.
Two residents spoke in favor of the proposal and the board received eight letters
from nearby residents in support of the project.
There were two residents who spoke in opposition. One, who is a direct abutter on Oxford Park, pointed out that the neighborhood consists primarily of one and two-family homes. She further added that she will lose privacy in her backyard with the five-story apartment building overlooking her property. She also opined that the addition of 32 residential units will add to the traffic congestion on Revere St.
Another opponent, a resident of Barrett St., said, “I’d like to see it scaled down. Revere St. already is too congested. You keep giving out variances for parking and people have nowhere to park.”
Councilor at Large Michelle Kelley sent in a letter of opposition to the project, noting that some of the one-bedroom floor plans could lend themselves to being used as two-bedroom units. However, Tucker noted that the updated floor plans reflect changes to resolve that issue.
Tucker also spoke generally about the project. “This has been a long process concerning this parcel of land,” Tucker said. “There have been many disingenuous things put on social media. However, Mr. Buonfiglio, who could have built this as a matter of right, made many concessions and the new plan has made it clear that there still will be 22 parking spaces for the funeral home.
Then, addressing Mr. Buonfiglio, who was in the audience, Tucker added. “I am sorry that we put you through this process, but I am so happy that you kept the 22 spaces for the funeral home, which was one of the biggest concerns of the neighborhood. I’m also grateful that the number of two-bedroom units has been reduced significantly.”
Councilor Guarino-Sawaya also spoke at the hearing “This could have been built as of right at a much-larger size,” she said. “I was dead-opposed to this building initially. We could not have had all two-bedroom units because of parking and traffic issues, but Mr. Buonfiglio has worked with the neighbors and the city to appease their concerns.”
The councillor also expressed her approval of the fencing and “robust landscaping” that will be part of the development.
The members then unanimously approved the application.
The final matter on the agenda was an application from Jaime Ruano, 29 Carleton Street,, “requesting a variance of RRO Section 17.16.260(F) with respect to the requirement that detached accessory structures shall not occupy more than 10% of the rear yard and shall not be located within the required side yards and within two (2) feet of the rear lot line to enable the appellant to construct a 20’ x 20’ pergola at 29 Carleton Street.”
Mr. Ruano presented the application on his own behalf. When Ward 5 Councillor Guarino-Sawaya said she was not in favor of the pergola being within a foot of the property line of a neighbor (who was opposed to the application) — and it further came out that the pergola already has been built — the ZBA voted to continue the matter so that Mr. Ruano can meet with Guarino-Sawaya and the neighbor to discuss the matter.
The next meeting of the ZBA is set for February 26.
