The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held its regular monthly meeting last Wednesday evening, April 26, in the City Councillor Joseph A. DelGrosso City Council Chamber. Chairman Michael G. Tucker and fellow members James O’Brien, Aklog Limeneh, John Lopes, and Arthur Pelton were on hand for the meeting.
The first hearing of the evening pertained to an application by Frank Lanzillo of Danvers, who requested three variances to enable him to raze an existing shed in order to construct a two-family dwelling on Lot 68 on Broadway (which is located between 658 and 682 Broadway). The variance requests were as follows:
1. Noncompliance with Revere Revised Ordinances (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.
The application had come before the ZBA at its meeting last month, but the members voted to take no action at that time, even though there were no opponents, because Mr. Lanzillo had not reached out to the ward councilor.
David Johnson of Lynnfield and Mr. Lanzillo presented the application. Once again there were no opponents, but this time the applicant had reached out to the ward councilor, who did not object to the request.
The board voted unanimously to grant the variance.
The next matter was an application by Luigi & Carmela DiChiara of 60 Hauman Street, who came before the board requesting a variance of RRO Section 17.24.070(A)(1) (no parking within the front yard) and RRO Section 17.28.050(F) (maximum driveway width) to enable them to construct a driveway for the purpose of providing two additional off-street parking spaces at 128 Malden Street, which abuts with 60 Hauman in the rear of the properties.
Pina DiChiara of 60 Hauman St. presented the application. The board had no questions and there were no opponents. The members unanimously approved the application.
The third matter to come before the board was an application by Cesar Salazar of 87 Prospect Avenue, who was requesting a variance of RRO Section 17.24.010 (maximum 2 and 1â„2 stories within the Residential Business (RB) District) and RRO 17.24.070(A)(3) (no parking in the rear yard) to enable him to construct a two-family dwelling on Lot 32 at 87 Prospect Avenue.
Mr. Salazar presented the application on his own behalf.
“I’ve found it a very friendly city and my neighbors were incredibly welcoming when I first moved here in 1996,” said Salazar, who was the former Revere High School boys soccer coach and has been active in Revere youth soccer for 25 years.
He noted that he bought the empty lot upon the passing of a neighbor and often used it for pool parties and gatherings for his children and their friends who were affiliated with Revere youth soccer.
He said he now is seeking to build a home for his two sons, who grew up in Revere and moved out of state, but who are now returning to the city to help him with his coaching duties with his football club.
“It is very expensive for young families to find a place to live or rent in Revere,” said Salazar “Everything is just studio apartments, so I am looking at this lot and figure now is the time to build a home for them.”
A neighbor, Atty. Gerry D’Ambrosio of 33 Prospect Ave., spoke in favor of the application.
“Cesar has been a pillar of this community for many years and is a direct neighbor. I support the granting of the variances,” D’Ambrosio said.
Another neighbor, Paul Dakin of 74 Prospect Ave., also spoke in favor of the application. Dakin, the former Revere School Supt., noted that every house on Prospect Ave. has parking in the rear. He also noted that the height of the proposed home, despite being 2.5 stories, actually will be shorter in height than the typical Victorian homes in the neighborhood.
There were no opponents and the board unanimously granted the variances.
Atty. Nancy O’Neil then presented the next application on behalf of LDRE Corp., 29 Gerald Road, Marblehead, in which LDRE came before the board seeking a number of variances to enable it to subdivide the existing, 9500 sq. ft. lot at 9 Mountain Ave. (where there presently is a two-family home) into two lots (proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 2) of approximately equal size, for the purpose of constructing a new, two-family dwelling on proposed Lot 1 at 9 Mountain Ave.
The variance requests were as follows:
1. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum lot area requirement of 8,000 s.f. and frontage requirement of 80 feet for proposed Lot 1 within the RB District;
2. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum lot area requirement of 8,000 s.f. for proposed Lot 2 within the Residential Business (RB) District;
3. RRO Section 17.24.010 minimum frontage requirement of 80 feet within the RB District for the creation of proposed Lot 1;
4. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum principal building coverage of 30% for the existing structure on proposed Lot 2 within the RB District;
5. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to the minimum side yard setback requirement of 10 feet for the existing structure on proposed Lot 2 within the RB District;
6. RRO Section 17.28.020 with respect to minimum parking requirement of four spaces for the existing 2-family dwelling on proposed Lot 2 within the RB District; and
7. RRO Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum side yard requirement of 10 feet for the proposed 2-family dwelling on proposed Lot 1 within the RB District.
O’Neil, who frequently appears before the board, presented the application in her usual straightforward manner. She said the proposed new lot is larger than many of the lots in the neighborhood and the proposed two-family residence “aligns with many of the multi-family residences in the neighborhood.
“This proposal represents a significant improvement over the current, underutilized lot,” O’Neill said. “The neighborhood will be improved by a contemporary, landscaped home and parking will be taken off the street and put back on the parcel. This will allow for the best use of the property and will beautify the neighborhood.”
Atty. D’Ambrosio also spoke briefly, informing the board that a funeral business had sought to purchase the property and level the existing home in order to construct a modern funeral home. He said that construction of a new residential home will prevent a business from locating there in the future, which will be a benefit for the residents of the neighborhood.
There were no opponents to the proposal and the board unanimously granted the application.
The board then took up a request by Sindy Sabino, 51 Carlson Avenue, who was requesting 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 in the RB District) in order to enable the construction of a 16’ x 28’ gazebo.
There were no opponents and the board unanimously approved the application.
The final matter of the evening was an application by Agildo Lemes Da Silva, 49 Rose Street, requesting 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.
The ward councilor submitted his opposition because the petitioner had started work without a permit and had been issued a cease and desist order by the Building Inspector.
Tucker made a motion to continue the matter until its next meeting on May 31 in order to enable the petitioner to contact the ward councilor and the board unanimously voted to do so.
