Staff proposes targeted edits to Revere’s housing production plan; council keeps item in committee

Tom Skoralski, the city’s chief of planning and community development, presented proposed edits to Revere’s draft Housing Production Plan (HPP) at the City Council meeting on Jan. 27 and the council agreed to keep the item in committee for further refinement.

Skoralski said the staff is proposing several targeted changes to language in the draft plan to respond to councilor concerns. “One proposed change that I…would propose is we remove [single-room occupancy] from the plan,” Skoralski said, referring to permanent supportive SRO housing language that drew objections in earlier meetings. He described the removal as reflecting “pretty widespread agreement among the council.”

Skoralski outlined other edits he will circulate in writing: (1) rephrase a passage so the city would be offered—rather than be required to purchase—the right of first refusal from multifamily property owners (he described a potential purchase window of roughly 120 days and used an illustrative purchase range of $1,000–$5,000 in the discussion); (2) insert language to require that redevelopment of the Central Avenue parking lot give “particular consideration” to replacing or retaining parking serving the senior center; (3) focus redevelopment guidance on the Wonderland MBTA surface lot and, if a Beechmont parcel is redeveloped, require existing on-site parking to be retained; and (4) limit proposed 0 lot-line construction and by-right two- and three-family allowances to specified mixed-use neighborhoods or certain residential districts such as Broadway and Shirley Avenue.

Councilors asked for clarifications and further edits. Councilor McKenna asked why the city had not pursued redevelopment opportunities at Revere Housing Authority land, citing examples in other communities; Skoralski said the authority and the mayor’s office have started an RFP process to prepare a master plan for the Coolidge Avenue complex (which staff described as roughly 40 acres) and that the plan seeks to balance new development with avoiding concentrations of poverty. Councilor Novosolski urged clear, consolidated language for the council to vote on; several councilors said they wanted a clean redline they could review.

A question about references to potential revenue sources drew a brief exchange: Councilor McKenna raised concerns after reading the plan about identifying potential revenue opportunities such as cell-tower lease payments. Skoralski said that listing revenue sources was intended to expand the affordable housing trust’s funding options and was not an endorsement of particular new infrastructure. “It wasn’t suggesting we bring in cell towers,” Skoralski said, adding that mitigation payments or in-lieu fees from developers could be directed to the affordable housing trust.

Skoralski reiterated that the HPP itself does not change zoning on its own and that any zoning amendments or permitting changes (for example, allowing 0 lot-line construction or new by-right uses) would require future council votes. He also noted a state context: a municipality with less than 10% deed-restricted affordable housing may lack “safe harbor” from certain residential challenges under state housing regulations, and the HPP’s purpose includes identifying tools to narrow Revere’s affordability gap.

Because councilors asked for clearer, consolidated language and more time to confer with staff, the council held the item in committee and asked Skoralski to produce a cleaned-up version that incorporates the requested edits and citations. No ordinance changes or final votes were taken at the Jan. 27 meeting.