By Journal Staff
The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, March 26, 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, and Arthur Pelton.
The first matter was an application by Jaime Ruano, 29 Carleton Street, “requesting a variance of Revere Revised Ordinances (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 already has constructed the pergola, but has done so without either a building permit or permission from the ZBA. The matter had come before the ZBA previously, but Mr. Ruano was directed by the ZBA at that time to seek a letter from the direct abutter as to whether she had a problem with the pergola being so close to her property.
He did not have a letter, but the abutter, Barbara Ann Puopolo, of 20 Oxford Park, who said she has lived there for 77 years, told the members that she is “emphatically against” the pergola where it presently is sited.
Ward 5 Councilor Angela Guarino-Sawaya also spoke against the application. “I cannot give my blessing to this,” Guarino-Sawaya said. “I have to respect what the neighbor has to say.”
“Without it being inspected by any of our city inspectors, I cannot approve this,” said Lopes.
The board unanimously turned down the request for the variance.
Next up was a request from Samuel Teka, 74 Dunn Road, requesting “a special permit pursuant to RRO Section 17.40.040, to enable him to expand an existing non-conforming single-family structure by constructing an addition (775 sq. ft.) to the rear of the structure at 74 Dunn Road.”
This matter also had been continued from a previous meeting to enable Mr. Teka to obtain permission from the Site Plan Review Committee, which he did do. Guarino-Sawaya spoke in favor of the application.
The board unanimously approved the application for the Special Permit.
The third matter was an application from Stephen R. Caruso, 320 Charger Street, requesting multiple variances to enable him to construct four (4) townhouses (two on each side of the road) on Lots 22-346-5A, 7A, and Lots 22-345-89, 90, 91 and 92 Ridge Road.
Mr. Caruso, who is the contractor, presented the application on behalf of the owner, together with Michael Gordon, the engineer, and Bryan Parmenter, the surveyor.
Ridge Rd. runs parallel with Fenno St. and between Suffolk Ave. and Prospect Place. It consists of two sections of roadway which are not connected, but which are bifurcated by a densely-wooded section where the lots to be developed are located. The Fire Dept. will require the developer to put in a gravel roadway where the proposed homes will be located.
“We have six non-conforming lots and are reconsolidating four of them into two conforming lots,” said Parmenter. “We’re proposing to build four duplexes on these lots. We need relief from the requirements of lot area, frontage, and side setback.”
“We had a neighborhood meeting with Ward 4 City Councilor Paul Argenzio,” added Gordon. “We listened to the neighbors’ concerns and pledged to work with the neighbors. We decided on townhouses because the site work is extensive and after looking at all of the numbers, single-family homes are cost-prohibitive.” Gordon also noted that the neighborhood contains many two-family homes on non-conforming lots, “So we’re not putting in anything that the neighborhood doesn’t already have.”
Numerous residents stepped up to the podium to oppose the application. The first opponent was a resident from Ridge Rd. She told the board she has concerns about the steepness of the hill and fears for damage to her basement from the project. She also expressed concerns about potential access problems for public safety personnel.
Another Ridge Rd. resident also said the narrowness of the street presents access issues for public safety and other municipal vehicles. She further voiced her opinion that the project will have a negative impact on parking in the neighborhood.
A third Ridge Rd. resident, who has lived there for 65 years, expressed concerns about runoff in the area, as well as potential issues with snow removal and public safety access because of the narrowness of the roadway. “This is not a place for what the builders intend to do,” she said.
A Suffolk Ave. resident, who built a home on Ridge Rd. for his adult child, said that single-family homes are appropriate for that area.
A couple who live on Ridge Rd. also spoke against the proposal, expressing concerns that the construction will affect the structural integrity of their home.
A Suffolk Ave. resident said she objects to the project because the lots are undersized. “This will set a precedent for other projects in the city,” she said.
Another Ridge Rd. resident said that she is concerned that her foundation “will collapse” as a result of the project. “We should keep this area as a green space and keep it as a dead end for the safety of our children,” she said.
Argenzio said he opposed the project. “These are excellent developers, so I have no issue with them,” Argenzio began. “However, this is an old, established neighborhood where people have lived for generations. You’ve heard quite a few reasons why they oppose it — parking, increased density, traffic, loss of open space, and the water problem with its natural springs that run down onto Fenno St. The gated gravel road being asked by the Fire Department will be susceptible to wash-out.”
Argenzio then read several letters from residents in opposition to the application, some of whom noted that the present green-space serves as habitat for wildlife.
“In closing, this boils down to this: We have zoning regulations for a reason and we should stick to them. I ask that you reject the proposal,” Argenzio concluded, to the applause of those in attendance.
After Tucker pointed out to the developer that with only four board members present, one vote against the application would reject it (because under state law, votes of the Revere ZBA for a special permit require a super-majority of 80% of the Revere ZBA’s five-member board), the developer nonetheless asked the board to go forward with a vote.
None of the four members voted to approve the application, thereby denying it unanimously.
