The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held its regular monthly meeting last
Wednesday, December 17, in the City Councillor Joseph A. DelGrosso
City Council Chamber.
On hand for the session were chair Michael Tucker and fellow members Aklog Limeneh, Arthur Pelton, James O’Brien, and John Lopes.
The board approved three major residential development projects: A 112-unit building at 500 Revere Street; a 62-unit apartment building at 329-331 Revere Street; and a 310-unit multifamily residential building on Lot 15 in the Overlook Ridge Overlay District. (See accompanying story.)
However, the board rejected, by a 3-2 vote (the law requires that a super-majority of ZBA members must approve a variance), a proposed 29-unit residential apartment building at 18-22 Green Street that included a provision that 10 percent of its units be set aside for affordable housing.
The application by Trichilo Development, LLC, 13 Victoria Street, Revere, requested variances to enable Trichilo “to file a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for the construction of a 29-unit residential apartment building at 18-22 Green Street.”
According to the city’s zoning ordinance that created the PUD district, “The purpose of the PUD district is to provide for a mixture of land usage within the city at greater density and intensity than would normally be allowed, provided that the land usage can be shown to be in the public good and:
“A. Will improve and/or reinforce the livability and aesthetic qualities of the surrounding neighborhood and/or environment;
“B. Is consistent with the objectives of this title;
“C. Promotes the development of housing in Revere;
“D. Preserve, promote and encourage use of public and private open space.”
The two properties at 18 and 22 Green St. presently are the site of two small, older, single-family homes. Green St., a small side street off the Revere Beach Parkway just north of the Revere public safety facility, parallels Lee Burbank Highway and is adjacent to the former Lee’s Trailer Park, where a major residential development is being planned.
Approximately a year ago, the ZBA approved — by a 5-0 vote — a similar proposal for a 29-unit apartment building on the lot of a former single-family home at 21 Green St. Unlike the 18-22 Green St. project, the 21 Green St. property has direct access to the Lee Burbank Highway at the rear of the lot.
However, ZBA members Lopes and O’Brien, both of whom voted in favor of the 21 Green St. proposal, as well as all of the larger developments earlier in the evening, voted to turn down the requests for the variances for the 18-22 Green St. project.
Attorney Joseph Catoggio presented the application. Catoggio noted that the requested variances pertain to a lack of parking, insufficient lot size, and the total square footage of the lot. He said that the project still will be subject to approval by the Site Plan Review board and will need a Special Permit from the City Council.
“We meet the criteria of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in which the application will improve the livability and aesthetic qualities of the neighbrohood,” Catoggio told the board. “It is consistent with the direction both of the city and the state in promoting the development of housing.
“We met extensively with the present Ward Councillor and the Ward Councilor-elect and we agreed to a number of concessions, reducing our proposal from 39 units to 29 units, all of which will be one-bedroom units,” Catoggio continued. “The reduction creates a better ratio of parking-to-unit. In addition, the building will be a staggered-type of design, so that the floors above the second and third floors will be set back 10 feet on all sides so the building will not look like a ‘box.’
“In addition,” Catoggio added, “we will be making improvements to the water and sewer lines, installing a new fire hydrant, and the ward councillor will have at his discretion the planting of trees in the ward.”
Ward 1 Councilor-elect James Mercurio spoke in favor of the proposal.
“I am a proponent for several reasons,” Mercurio began. “We have met with the developer to address neighborhood concerns and negotiated meaningful concessions to reduce the impact of this project. The number of units has been reduced from 39 to 29 and the top floor of the building will be recessed by 10 feet on all four sides, reducing the visual mass and better fitting in with the surrounding neighborhood. Ten percent of the units (three) will be affordable to address Revere’s ongoing need for housing that is accessible for working families.
“This project delivers substantial infrastructure improvements for Ward 1,” Mercurio continued. “The developer will install a new water main and a new sewer line from the Revere Beach Parkway for the full length of Green St., including the connections for properties on the street. There also will be 25 new trees planted in Ward 1.
“This agreement reflects responsible development, one that balances growth with neighborhood protections. infrastructure investment, affordability, and environmental improvements,” Mercurio concluded. “We pushed for changes, the developer delivered, and Ward 1 will benefit.”
Mercurio later re-emphasized the developer’s agreement to set aside 10 percent of the units for affordable housing, which he noted was in contrast to the projects put forward by other developers earlier in the evening.
Unlike many other communities, Revere does not have a so-called inclusionary zoning ordinance, which requires that all new residential projects set aside a certain percentage of units for affordable housing. The agreement by the developer, not only was unique, but it also could have set a precedent for other developers in the city.
In contrast to the hearing on the 21 Green St. property a year ago, when residents expressed their opposition to a large-scale apartment building coming to their neighborhood (and the ZBA voted 5-0 to approve the variances over their objections), there was no opposition from residents, nor were there any public safety officials who raised any concerns about the project.
However, after Mercurio spoke, Lopes expressed his reservations. “My concern with this building is that we already have one big building on this street and one being constructed. The means of egress is through Green St. only, both in and out,” said Lopes. “I like the affordability and the infrastructure upgrade, but Green St. concerns me because Green St. is such a narrow street and hardly a car can barely get through there. I was there the other day with the new construction going on the right side and it was tight. With two buildings there and now a third coming up, that really concerns me. I’m pro development, but in this instance, I don’t like it.”
“The construction of our building will not affect the width of the street,” said Catoggio. “It’s going to be the same width, with the building or not. It will be the same access and egress and there are improvements that we are participating in, involving sidewalks, that will improve the street. There’s nothing we can do to make the street wider and it will be the same for any building.”
Lopes then voiced another objection to the proposal. “The removal of single family homes on that street for such a big building, that bothers me also,” Lopes said. “I have concerns there. It’s not like it’s an empty lot there. These are lots with single-family homes being demolished to put up a big structure and that concerns me.”
However, at the hearing last year regarding the 21 Green St. project, which also was a 29-unit building, the residents’ objections that the building was too large for their neighborhood fell on deaf ears.
O’Brien then added that he too, was concerned about the narrowness of the street. “It is so narrow that it’s very hard to get traffic to go two-ways on Green St.,” said O’Brien, who noted that when he recently drove down the street, he observed two vehicles cut into the parking lot of a business in order to get to the new apartment building at 21 Green St. “On the end of Green St., the majority of people cut through the auto body shop. I see kind of a problem if they should put up some kind of fence.”
“The building is similar in size and ratios to the other buildings on the street and our parking spaces are a better ratio,” said Catoggio. “We are below what has been approved for others. We did address what we can control. When we go before the City Council, we can address these and other issues, including any with the Fire Department.”
Upon a roll call vote, Lopes and O’Brien voted in the negative, thereby denying the application.
