Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Gibson Park Access Road topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Revere approves Gibson Park access road NOI after debate over impervious surface, access controls and plant guarantees

Revere Conservation Commission · May 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Revere Conservation Commission approved a notice of intent for the Gibson Park access road after developers agreed to a 2-year plant survival guarantee and to study permeable paving; commission members pressed for clarity on drainage, emergency access and long-term maintenance.

The Revere Conservation Commission voted to approve the Notice of Intent for the Gibson Park access road on a roll-call vote after hours of presentation, questioning and public comment.

Julie DeMauro, project manager for the city’s Department of Planning and Community Development, told the commission the access road is at 100% design and requires a Chapter 91 license and an amendment to a MassDOT state highway access permit before construction, which the project team currently anticipates will begin in summer 2027. “This portion of the project that we’re talking about tonight is the Gibson Park access road,” DeMauro said, summarizing the plan to connect the Route 1A southbound roundabout to Gibson Park and to close an informal cut-through used by drivers.

Consultants told commissioners the project would affect barrier beach, coastal dune and land subject to coastal storm flowage. “It’s looking at about 24,800 sq ft cumulatively of impact with the permanent impacts consisting of grading and then the installation of the access road,” an environmental consultant identified in the presentation said. The team said it will plant native species in a small restoration area and noted about 150 sq ft of new native plantings were proposed.

The project’s impervious-area impacts and maintenance were the central concerns among commissioners and neighbors. Commissioners pressed the team to consider permeable pavers and other low-impact materials instead of new bituminous surface. “If there was any kind of new area, we wouldn’t allow any kind of bituminous product to be added extra into the floodplain,” one commissioner said during deliberations, urging the team to explore alternatives.

Project engineers said the access road’s drainage is tied into a larger stormwater design completed for the roundabout and that the proposed catch basins and manholes were sized to carry runoff to the existing park outfall. “The entire surface is able to be contained within that,” the engineer responded when asked whether the collection system can handle the proposed runoff.

Residents who turned out urged the commission to keep vehicle access limited to emergency services and to preserve neighborhood quiet. Ward 5 Councilor Angela Garino Swartz told the commission she was relaying Riverside residents’ request that the road not become a general cut-through: “They do not want any car access through Riverside once this job is complete,” she said.

Commissioners and the project team reached two concrete near-term outcomes during the meeting: the applicant agreed to include a plantings warranty in the construction specifications, with a target survival rate and maintenance commitment, and the project team agreed to evaluate permeable paving options for the access road and associated parking. The project team said it would include an 80% plant survival target after two years in the construction specs.

After discussion and a roll-call vote, the commission approved the NOI. The formal roll call recorded five votes in favor and one recusal; Tom recused himself because of a professional relationship with a consultant on the project. The meeting record shows the vote as: Brian Averbuch — Yes; Tom — Recused; Joe Lavalle — Yes; Anthony Parziale — Yes; Bernardo — Yes; Wilson — Yes.

The commission also debated and rejected, for lack of a second, a proposed additional condition that would have required “no net increase in bituminous materials.” The motion to add that order of conditions failed to advance.

What’s next: the project team will pursue Chapter 91 and MassDOT approvals and return to the commission with any permit changes or plan revisions. The commission’s approval was for the submitted NOI; if MassDOT or state permitting requires design changes, the commission said it expects to review those changes publicly.