By Journal Staff
The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, April 23, 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 Arthur Pelton.
The first matter was an application by John Duran who came before the board requesting a variance of Revere Revised Zoning Ordinances (RRO) Section 17.24.010 (rear yard setback for decks) to enable him to construct a 12.5’ x 19’ deck at 24 Shurtleff Street.
Mr. Duran, who is the general contractor for the project, presented the application. There were no opponents and no questions from the board members. The application was approved unanimously, though with the added stipulation that the applicant provide a plot plan that conforms to the requirements for an application for a variance.
Next up was an application from Andrew Piedra, who came before the ZBA requesting a special permit to enable him to expand an existing non-conforming single-family dwelling by constructing a second-story addition at 90 Gage Avenue.
“This will create more living space with a bedroom, a bathroom and a loft,” said Mr. Piedra, who presented the application on his own behalf.
The members had no questions and unanimously approved granting the special permit.
Most of the evening’s discussion centered on the final agenda item, an application from Ammar & Brothers, LLC, requesting variances to enable the construction of a 31-unit apartment building within the Neighborhood Business District at 140 Beach Street.
The site had been a long-time convenience store (most recently a 7-Eleven) and is located across the street from the Immaculate Conception Church.
Local attorney Gerry D’Ambrosio appeared on behalf of the applicant.
“This is the former site of the Lil’ Peach store, which eventually became a 7-Eleven convenience store,” said D’Ambrosio, who informed the board that when the owners sold the property, they placed a deed restriction on it to prevent it from becoming another convenience store.
D’Ambrosio said that there had been proposals to use the site for a mariijuana dispensary and a transitional drug site, but neither got off the ground.
However, before getting into the details of the project, D’Ambrosio asked the board to withdraw the application in order to hold a community meeting with the neighbors, many of whom were on hand to oppose the project. D’Ambrosio noted that a community meeting had been held previously, but only two residents had shown up.
Ward 1 City Councillor Joanne McKenna spoke against the application. “I’m against this because it is too big for the area,” said McKenna. “I’ve also learned that this is an historical center and people in the community would like to see something that is more historical than modern. We should set up a couple of dates for a neighborhood meeting so we can hear what people want to see there.”
Kori O’Hara, who lives at 270 Beach St., spoke against the proposal. She first pointed out that the deed contains a reference to environmental hazards, “But there has been no environmental report in conjunction with this proposal,” she said.
She next stated that the restrictive covenant is not permissible per the city’s NB zoning district. “We’re allowing the seller of this property to circumvent our zoning ordinances by way of the deed,” she said.
D’Ambrosio later addressed both of those issues, pointing out that “apartment housing is an allowed use,” in the NB zoning district and that nothing in the city can be developed until the soil is tested and, if necessary, remediated.
O’Hara also questioned whether there is “a financial hardship,” which is mentioned by the developer in its application in connection with the development of the property, but which O’Hara said is “just a legal strategy.”
“These developers are coming to our city and doing what they want. It’s not right,” O’Hara concluded to applause from the audience.
James Caramello of 11 Eaton St. also opposed the application. “I’m getting a little sick and tired of hearing about ‘New Age Millennials’ who supposedly don’t drive. This is getting a little ridiculous. There is gridlock in this city because of all the traffic and there is a church and school near this site.”
Sally Rozowski of 176 Beach St. apoke against the application, “A building of this size in such a small space would dramatically and negatively affect our neighborhood,” she said. “The design is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.”
She also suggested that the parking restriction would be meaningless because the prospective tenants still will find places to park in an area “where parking already is difficult.”
“A building like that does not fit in with this neighborhood,” said Maryjane Bruno of 32 Library St., who also suggested that the prospective tenants will have cars.
“We go through that intersection many times a day and it already is extremely busy,” said Marie Alessi of 30 Pleasant St. “We already experience density and a lot of traffic. A 31-unit building would not be appreciated in that space.”
Bob Alessi added, “Even if the residents can’t have cars, they will have friends who will be visiting.”
The board unanimously voted to allow D’Ambrosio to withdraw the application without prejudice, which means it can come up at a later time.
