Your Local News in 6 Languages! Scan Here to Subscribe! Vol. 32, No.27 -FREEwww.advocatenews.net Free Every Friday Revere Celebrates the Fourth of July 781-286-8500 Friday, July 7, 2023 Zoning Board denies application for six-story beach apartments Councillor, residents say expansion will block view of beach By Barbara Taormina The Zoning Board of ApSTARS & STRIPES FOREVER: Roman March carries the fl ag during the city’s July 4th festivities at the Susan B. Anthony Complex on Wednesday. See page 6 for photo highlights. (Advocate photo) RHS Building Committee weighs options for new high school at current site Questions concerning park land swap, vertical height construction on the table By Barbara Taormina T he Revere High School Building Committee has been working on mapping out a timeline for the next chapter of the high school building project. Late last winter, the City Council rejected a $470 million schematic design for the project that was to be submitted to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). Councillors were concerned with the cost of the project and unknown factors involving the Wonderland site. The project is now in a repeat feasibility study stage, and project leaders are now looking at options to build a school on the existing high school site. A detailed schematic report is scheduled to be submitted to the MSBA by November. Senior Project Manager Brian Dakin told the committee that designers and SCHOOL | SEE Page 19 peals unanimously denied Dana Lopez’s application for a variance to build a multi-use six-story building, with 35 residential units, at One Revere Beach Blvd. to expand his existing apartment building on the same lot. The board heard plenty of opposition to the project. City Council President Pro Tempore Joanne McKenna, who represents the neighborhood, asked the board to deny the special permit. McKenna was concerned about the building blocking the view of the condos located behind the proposed expansion. “It isn’t fair,” said McKenna, who conceded there may not be zoning ordinances against obstructed views. Still, McKenna said, “Residents paid $400,000, $500,000, $600,000 for a view of Revere Beach and now, this landlord is going to come in and block their view. I really don’t think it’s fair.” “They’ll never get back what they paid for it,” she said. McKenna went on to say that Revere has to stop building on every inch of available land to maximize profi ts. “We have to think about the quality of life.” she said. Dan Brown, an attorney representing Surfside condominiums at 10 Ocean Ave., opposed the application because it didn’t meet the requirements for a variance, which is granted when the dimensions of a lot or soil conditions prohibit development. Brown also said the board should deny the application because the lot of land is actually two separate parcels. Parcel 6 is the location of the existing apartment building and 6A is the adjoining parking lot where Lopez wants to build the addition. But Lopez bought parcel 6A from the state and there is a deed restriction limiting the parcel to parking. Residents from 10 Ocean St. also spoke against the applicaJOANNE MCKENNA Ward 1 City Councillor and City Council President Pro Tempore tion. They also objected to the way the building would obstruct their view of the beach. And they stressed that the developer had never reached out to the neighborhood to discuss the project. Several residents raised concerns about traffi c, congestion and parking. And there were worries about how the new addition would aff ect aging and ailing infrastructure. One resident said the neighborhood has lost water service several times due to pipe breaks caused by increased use from recent development. Another resident of 10 Ocean Ave. said that variances were granted when they would result in a benefi t to the neighborhood or the community. He insisted there was no greater benefi t from the proposed project other than increasing profits for the landlord. Board member John Lopes proposed extending the hearing on the application for a month to give the developer time to meet with neighbors to try and fi nd a compromise and resolution. But the board voted against granting a continuance. They did vote unanimously to deny the application, saying it did not meet the criteria for a variance.
2 Publizr Home