Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer Withdraws 140 Beach St. ZBA Application After Wide Public Concern Over Covenant, Contamination and Parking
Summary
Attorneys for Amar Brothers LLC withdrew a proposal for a 31‑unit building at 140 Beach St. without prejudice after lengthy public comment raising a restrictive covenant banning retail, questions about hazardous‑substance language in the deed and concerns about parking, traffic and notice to neighbors.
Attorney Jerry D’Ambrosio asked the Revere Zoning Board of Appeals to allow withdrawal without prejudice of an application by Amar Brothers LLC to construct a 31‑unit apartment building at 140 Beach St.; the board granted the request in a unanimous roll call vote.
D’Ambrosio described the parcel as the former Little Peach/7‑Eleven site and said the developer intends to work with the ward councilor and the community to redesign and re‑notice the project after further outreach. He said the team previously reduced building size and unit count following early outreach and plans to schedule another community meeting to solicit neighborhood input before re‑filing.
Several residents opposed the proposal and urged the board not to close scrutiny of the property. Corey O’Hara, who identified himself as a neighborhood resident, told the board he had found a restrictive covenant in the deed recorded in 2024 that he said bans food, beverage and fuel sales on the parcel and that a hazardous‑substances clause also was added in 2024. O’Hara asked the board to keep the hearing open until a legal review of the restrictive covenant and environmental disclosures is complete. He referenced state regulations and asked for disclosure of any environmental reports or an explicit statement that none exist.
Other speakers raised related concerns: Sally Brzowski, a Beech Street neighbor, said the size and design of the proposed building would not fit the surrounding neighborhood and criticized the short notice residents received; Mary Jane Bruno and other neighbors said they distributed their own fliers to alert the neighborhood because they did not see official notice; James Caramello and Bob Lehi warned about traffic and parking impacts near the school and church; Ed Terrell and others said they felt City Hall and developers were not adequately working with residents. Several speakers disputed the claim that future tenants would not drive and questioned enforcement of any no‑parking or no‑car requirements tied to a future building’s tenancy.
Board members and the applicant discussed procedure: the board noted that apartment use is allowed in the district and that redevelopment typically triggers environmental testing at site‑plan review; the applicant said it would hold an additional community meeting and indicated willingness to make further changes. After discussion the board allowed withdrawal without prejudice, meaning the applicant may refile in the future; members repeated that site‑plan review and environmental testing would be required for any subsequent filing.
