Coastal zone management study, City of Revere

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

HT City of Revere George V. Cole I la, Mayor
393
M42 August 1, 1979
R48
Coastal
zone
Rana
,I gement
Stud Y

1979

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report was produced as a result of a Community Assistance Grant
from the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office to the City of
Revere.

The basic purpose in undertaking this study was to undertake an
analysis of growth and development pressures on the Saugus Marsh and the
contiguous urbanized areas. Following the analysis, the report suggests
new development policies and implementation techniques.

The study staff acknowledges the assistance of the Citizen's
Advisory Group and Mayor George V. Colella in providing policy advise
and recommendations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

One - Environmental Analysis 1

Annotated Bibliography 2
Environmental Assessment 18

Two - Land Use Policy Development 41

� Existing Conditions and Development Policies 42
� Recommended Development Policies and Future
Land Uses 57
� Public Meetings 74

Three Implementation Program 82

� Analysis of Existing Land Use Management
Programs 83
� New and Modified Implementation Techniques 107

Four Wetlands Protection Planning 151

memorandum to the Conservation Commission 152
Incentive to Landowners for Gifts of Land
and Lessor Interests for Conservation
Purposes 156
Five Coordination of Flood Control and Drainage Studies 161

Status Report on Flood Control Activities 162
Modifications to the Eastern County Ditch 193
Metropolitan District Commission
Revere Beach Reservation Master Plan
Data on Drainage and Flooding 219
Coordination with the Metropolitan District
Commission Regarding Improvements to the 225
Eastern County Ditch
Disposition of Items Raised at the March 29,
1979 Meeting on Wetlands Protection within 227
the City of Revere
Review Comments of the City of Revere on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statements for the
Revere Beach Connector and the North Shore 238
Transit Improvement Project

SECTION ONE

Environmental Analysis

Annotated Bibliography

-2-

A. WETLANDS CHARACTERISTICS, VEGETATION, BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY AND
FISHERIES

1. LIFE AND DEATH OF A SALT MARSH, 1968, Teal J., & Teal M.,
Little Brown and Company.

This book is the best available general reference
on salt marshes. It contains substantive informa-
tion on creation of salt marshes, their productiv-
ity, ecology, and conservation. It is a valuable
reference to aid lay persons in understanding how
a salt marsh functions. It will also aid Conserva-
tion Commission members in determining if an area
is a marsh.

2. ECONOMIC AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF LAN5 USE, SAUGUS SALT
MARSH, 1973, Massachusetts Audubon Society.

An in depth study of the economic and legal land
use alternatives for the Saugus Salt Marsh.
Presents mathematical models for the socio-economic
and industrial impacts related to the development
of the marsh system. The legal implications are
used to provide a protection strategy for preserv-
ing the marsh. The two basic components of this
protection strategy are: 1) imposing limits on
fill under wetlands permits or 2) purchasing or
recommending that the town take the land by eminent
domain.

3. ASSIMILATION OF SEWAGE BY WETLANDS, 1970, Valiela, I., Vince,
S., and Teal, J. M. in: Esturine Research, Crowin, ed.
New York.

A technical report dealing with natural sewage
treatment by salt marsh plants. Data for many of
the general conclusions is based on the Saugus Marsh
system. The report details how both household
sewage and industrial waste are assimilated by marsh
grasses. The main conclusion of the report is that
even though marshes act as living filters and "act
as free waste treatment for contaminated waters",
they should not be considered as possible waste
treatment alternatives.

4. STUDY OF THE MARINE RESOURCES OF LYNN-SAUGUS HARBOR, 1972,
Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Natural Resources.

This report is both a historical review and present

-3-

day assessment of the fisheries resources of Lynn and
Saugus Harbor. Several sampling stations were located
in Revere. General geologic, topographic, and water
quality data was collected. Both finfish and shell-
fish populations were estimated. The survey shows
that in 1968 Revere had the most productive clam
habitat in the study area.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, 1-95, 1973, Ecosystems.

This environmental analysis gives population estimates
of fish and shellfish within the Saugus Marsh. It
describes the productivity of the marsh in relation to
the fisheries and considers the general effects on
fisheries of filling in the marsh. (Also see, Flood
History, and Water Quality).

-4-

B. TIDAL LEVELS AND HYDRAULICS

6. TIDAL CURRENT TABLES 1979, Department of Commerce, National
Oceans and Atmospheric Administration.

These tables are published yearly, and give direc-
tions and velocities of tidal induced currents for
the entire east coast of North America. Page 140
gives current differences and time constants to
calculate the-currents at the entrance to Lynn Harbor.
There is also an explanation of how to calculate
current velocities at any time of the tide and how
to estimate the effects of wind driven currents on
directions and velocity of tidal currents. These
last two calculations are not precise however and
should be used with caution.

7. TIDE TABLES, HIGH AND LOW WATER PREDICTIONS, 1979, Department
of Commerce, National Oceans & Atmospheric Administration.

These tables is�ued yearly contain the daily predic-
tions of time and height of the tides above mean low
water. Calculations for Revere are based on Boston,
Massachusetts. The correction factors for exact
times and heights for Lynn Harbor are given on Page
209. There is a section giving a brief general
explanation of tides and a section showing how to
calculate the height of the tide at any given time.

8. OCEANOGRAPHY, 1972, M. Grant Gross, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

An excellent readable introductory text in ocean-
ography. It covers many important topics including
waves, tides, tidal currents, estuaries, coastal
oceanography, shoreline processes, ecosystems in
coastal environments and biological productivity.

9. WAVES ON BEACHES, 196,8, Bascome, W. D.

A general text book, (paperback) which gives a
good explanation of waves, tides and tidal hydrau-
lics which effect beaches and harbors. Concepts .
are presented in a pleasant and non-technical style.

-5-

C. FLOOD HISTORY

10. RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT REPORT ON FLOOD CONTROL AND NAVIGATION,
SAUGUS AND PINES RIVER BASIN AND ADJACENT COASTAL AREAS, 1970,
Department of The Army, New England Division, Corps of
Engineers, Waltham, Massachusetts.

This report considers several flood control measures
for both river and tidal floods, and solutions for
navigational problems, concluding that none are
economically feasible. Thus it recommends no im-
provement for flood and navigation protection by the
U.S. Government. Suggests that floodplain zoning
and preservation, public acquisition of low lands
and flood insurance programs be established by local
interest. It contains a detailed evaluation of
physical, economic, and management aspects of flood-
plains in drainage areas of the Saugus and Pines
River, dating back to 1837, including a brief history
of the area and the growth of its population and
industry. This-report does include several good maps
outlining flood areas in the Revere area. These maps
would be useful in writing an Order of Conditions in
this area.

11. THE OCEAN REACH, Digest of a Workshop on Identifying Coastal
Flood Hazard Areas and Associated Risks, February 1976, New
England River Basin Commission.

A guidebook prepared for a workshop which contains
general explanations of how coastal flooding occurs.
There is also a general explanation of predictive
models to determine extent of future coastal flood-
ing and the impacts of development in coastal hazard
area. This report provides a good basic insight
into how and where flooding is likely to occur. An
understanding of these predictive models would aid
in writing an order of conditions for flood prone
areas.

12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, 1-95, 1973, Ecosystems.

Section on ecological impacts Pages 1 and 2 explains
the r@ecessity of regulations which provide areas for
storage of urban and storm runoff to avoid flood
problems. There is an explanation which covers why
these marsh areas should not be filled and what the
effects are. (Also see Wetland Characteristics and
Water Quality).

-6-

13. ESTIMATING RUNOFF-THE MODIFIED SOIL COVER COMPLEX METHOD,
1974, USDA Soil Conservation service, Amherst, Massachusetts.

A good but slightly technical manual which gives a
step by step process to derive amounts of water run-
off. This manual could serve as a useful approxima-
tion of volumes of water associated with non-tidal
flood conditions caused by developments, such as
subdivisions. Knowing estimates of run-off would
aid in writing an Order of Conditions especially
when dealing with inland wetland areas.

14. FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS FOR FLOOD PLAIN MANAGMENT, 1970

This guide explains when and how regulations should
be used for maximum effectiveness in managing flood
prone areas, as well as covering the different
types of regulations which have.proven effective
in past case histories. Some of these regulations
are zoning, subdivision and building code regula-
tions.

15. WATER AND LAND RELATED RESOURCES OF THE COASTAL REGION,
MASSACHUSETTS, 1978, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Services in Cooperation with Massachusetts Water
Resources.

This study of the Coastal areas of Massachusetts
was designed to provide data and planning guide-
lines for water resources in the coastal zone.
The 4 study concerns were land use, inland flood-
ing, wetlands, and recreation. Of special interest
to conservation commissions is the variety of maps
on soil types, wetlands, flood damage and erosion,
etc. The objectives of the study area was to
develop guidelines for planners based on national
economic quality. The planning guidelines are
given in chapter 18 and include land use, sediment
and erosion, wetlands, water quality, water supply
and recreation alternatives.

16. THE BLIZZARD OF 1978' 1979, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
England Division, Waltham, Massachusetts.

This report covers the economic effects from the
Blizzard of February of 1978. It details costs and
losses of residential and commercial property.
Cost of debris removal, repair to water control
facilities, utilities and road systems are summa-
rized by town.

-7-

Losses to property, natural resources areas and
indirect expenses incurred are also listed. Also
included is a chronological review of how the storm
progressed. Tables include measurements of tide
evaluations, wind velocity, temperature, and
barometric pressure during the storm.

17. HURRICANE SURVEY, MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL AND TIDAL AREAS, 1954,
U.S. Army Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, Massachusetts

A slightly outdated report which provides some
good historical information such as tide levels
and storm tracks of hurricanes which have effected
the coastline of Massachusetts. Plate D-4 show
the extent of flood prone areas in Revere.

18. REVERE BEACH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, 1978 Metropolitan District
Commission.

This Environmental Impact Statement on the impacts
of the proposed development at Revere Beach could
be a valuable guide for the Conservation Commission
not only in assessing the proposed project but other
projects in and around the study area. Section V on
the Physical Environment and Appendix D and J,
provide valuable information on drainage and flood
prone area delineation, historic flood levels and
storm events, causes of flooding, and volumes of
storm run-off. Appendix D gives the calculations
of the amounts of flood storage volume which would
be displaced by the project, as well as estimates of
increased flooding. Appendix J is an ammendment to
Section V on flooding and drainage. This ammendment
was necessitated by the February Blizzard of 1978.
Figure J-2 is a map of the areas flooded by this
storm. This Appendix shows that flooding associated
with this storm was caused by wave-over topping of
the seawall not storm run-off. Even though the
proposed project would have an impact on the area,
the developers feel that using substantive mitigat-
ing measures the project should be continued.
Table 11-2 list a summary of the impacts and miti-
gating measures.

D. BEACH EROSION

19. BEACH EROSION CONTROL REPORT ON COOPERATIVE STUDY OF REVERE
AND NANTASKET BEACHES, 1968, Department of the Army, New
England Division, Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Massachusetts.

A review of the coastal environment problems of
Revere and Nantasket Beaches vis a vis the restora-
tion, stabilization and protection of the beaches.
Includes a study of present morphology and littoral
characteristics, and a historical study of the
shore changes, including beach accretion and erosion.
Presents two plans for improvement using sand fill
and implacement of grain structures and the economic
considerations included in each case. The economics
are somewhat outdated, (1968).

20. INVESTIGATIONS OF BEACH EROSION PROBLEMS AT REVERE, WINTHROP
AND NANTASKET BEACHES, 1970, For Metropolitan District
Commission, Hayes Miles.

This technical report covers the beach erosion
problem in Revere. Historic erosion rates were
calculated and compared to recent (1969) data.
From a survey of the beach area, the processes
responsible for erosion were defined.

E. WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY

21. BIOLOGICAL AND RECREATIONAL STUDY OF THE PINES RIVER ESTUARY,
1978, City of Revere.

With respect to water quality, there is a good
summary of existing water quality data which is
related to pollution problems within the Estuary.
Several possible sources for pollution are identi-
fied. Appendix A explains the importance of
different water quality tests and gives a brief
guide to the interpretation of these results. There
is also a summary of State Water Quality standards
and a comparison of these standards to available
data.

22. NORTH COASTAL WATER QUALITY DATA AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGE, 1976,
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.

This report provides a listing of chemical analysis
of three water sampling stations in the Revere area.
Chemical analysis includes dissolved oxygen, bio-
chemical oxygen data, and coliform data. Included
also is a listing of the major waste discharges
within the Revere area. The report was issued to
provide background data on water quality for local
planners.

23. AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY ALTERNATIVES, Metropolitan Area Planning
Council, 1978, Boston, Massachusetts.

This report covers possible management measures to
be used in improving water quality. Environmental
topics covered are: explanations of primary and
secondary sewage treatment, water conservation, and
storm water management techniques. Other topics
covered include regulations which would aid in
implementation, explanation of federal and state
cost sharing for conservation land acquisition, and
financial responsibilities of local governments.
This report could be a useful guide for planning
boards in developing water quality improvement plans.

24. ANALYSIS OF URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
IN THE BOSTON METROPOLITAN AREAr 1978, J. M. McGinn, Metropolitan
Area Planning Council, Boston, Massachusetts.

This report gives general structural and non-struc-
tural solutions for control of storm water run-off

_10-

in the Boston area. They also identify recommended
solutions for Revere, (Pages 134 and 135).

25. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 1-95, 1973, Ecosystems.

Gives 1972 water quality data for Saugus and Pines
Rivers. Appendices explain the effects the proposed
highway construction will have on marsh plants and
water quality. (Also see Wetlands Characteristics,
and Flood History).

26. NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INVENTORY, 1976, CONGRESSIONAL REPORT.

This report shows the general water quality trends
nationwide. Appendix A Page A-83 is a summary for
the state of Massachusetts. This summary shows
that a major portion of the Boston Harbor area
which includes Revere, does not meet state water
quality standards.

F. SOIL TYPES

27. GUIDELINES FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION IN URBANIZING AREAS
OF MASSACHUSETTS, 1975, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Services, Amherst, Massachusetts.

A technical publication dealing in soil erosion and
protective measures to minimize erosion effects.
This manual does not cover beach erosion. However,
it may be of a-ssistance in solving erosion problems
in stream and river banks.

-12-

G. PLANNING

28. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, 1976, Focus on New England, An Annotated
Bibliography, M.I.T. Sea Grant #MITSG 75-21, Passero B. and Seaes,
M. J.

A bibliography with annotated selections, presents
the major sources for pertinent information, on
coastal zone management in the New England region.

29. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM FOR METROPOLITAN BOSTON, Vol. 4.,
Massachusetts Open Space Law, 1972 Supplement.

This report gives detailed explanations of the laws
governing inland and coastal wetlands, a brief review
of their history and guides to their implementation.
It is to some extent outdated, as many of these laws
have been expanded and revised. Especially Section 131
.Chapter 40 and 40A. Other important legislation
covered is: The Conservation Restriction Act, legisla-
tion pertaining to solid waste disposal, tax assess-
ments of open space land, land acquisition programs,
environmental rights, water pollution programs and the
National Environmental Policy Act.

-13-

30. SECTION 131 CHAPTER 40, MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS, Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering and Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs.

This is the "Wetlands Protection Act"F which governs
alteration of wetland areas in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. These regulations specifically define
eleven resource areas to be protected as wetlands,
and defines their boundaries. The act clearly
details what is defined as an alteration to a wetland.
Also covered is how the act is to be enforced and how
to write an Order of Conditions.

31. COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT, 1977, Clark, J., Wiley Interscience,

This book analyzes coastal environments, and identifies
conflicts between development and conservation. Using
a detailed management plan, solutions to these conflicts
are given. The text also includes several appendices
with technical data and literature references. The
management plan deals with individual activities such
as dredging or marina construction and explains how to
minimize impacts of the activity. This would be an
excellent reference for a Conservation Commission.

32. COASTAL RESOURCES ATLAS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Coastal
Zone Management, Vol., II. Chapter 5: Pages 37 & 38.

This Atlas provides Area Maps for the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone showing wetlands areas, marshes, barrier
beaches, coastal banks, etc. The general limit of
100 year flood plain is also shown. Discussions
include area planning objectives and areas of special
designations, such as ports, and areas of critical
environmental concern.

33. A GUIDE TO THE COASTAL WETLANDS REGULATIONS OF MASSACHUSETTS
W.P.A. - G.L. 131, S. 40.

This guide clearly ekplains the Wetland Protection
Act. It gives concise descriptions of the physical
areas covered by the act, and descriptions of
activities which are regulated under the act. The
guide book also covers how to identify adverse impact,
measures to meet performance standards, and how to
prepare an Order of Conditions. There is a substantial
discussion of the regulations within the act, s. 24.
There are also several appendices, one of which is a
good general overview of the physical and biological

-14-

processes affecting wetland areas. This guide was
written for Conservation Commissions to aid them in
interpreting the Wetlands regulations, and writing
Orders of Conditions.

34. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANUAL (conference material for "Surviving
Environmental Programs"). May,1977, Massachusetts League of
Cities and Towns.

A manual containing summaries of what the different
environmental programs in Massachusetts are: which
state and federal agnecies are responsible for
implementation and where to get additional informa-
tion on a specific program.

35. MASSACHUSETTS OUTDORRS STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION
PLAN, Department of Environmental Management.

This report was intended to improve the management of
open space and outdoor recreation. It explains, by
region within the state, what the supply and supply
demands and future planning for outdoor recreation is.
Section 3-Pages 18-30 covers the general environmental
and socio-economic settings within the state.

-15-

H. MANAGEMENT

36. INTERIM REPORT LYNN HARBOR DEVELOPMENT, 1976, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

This report is a preliminary working document to be
used towards formulation of a public policy for Lynn
Harbor development. It examines present (Sept. 1976)
conditions and provides alternatives for long-term
planning in order to revamp Lynn Harbor's lost status
as a leading community. It contains an annotated
bibliography of the area.

37. CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS, THEIR FUTURE. An
Executive Summary, 1977, Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs.

A brief but concise summary of the role local Conser-
vation Commissions play in implementation of environ-
mental regulations and planning. This report also
includes the history of Conservation Commissions in
Massachusetts.

38. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, March, 1977.

This report is a detailed explanation of the Coastal
Zone Management Policies in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. These policies are based on existing
legislation and cover several general areas. These
areas are: The Marine Environment Coastal Hazards,
Visual Environments, Ports and Harbors, Recreation,
Energy and General Development, and Public Investment.
Def-inition of the coastal zone and all related areas
are detailed, as well as major activities which impact
the coastal zone. Of major importance to Revere is
the section on Coastal Hazards. The Coastal Hazards
section explains the natural processes involved in
flooding and erosion of coastal areas, and the adverse
effects of develo@ment in these areas.

39. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANAGMENT DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, 1977.

This is the draft assessment of the impacts which
would occur to the physical and socio-economic
environment in Massachusetts, with the implementation
of Coastal Zone Management.

-16-

40. WRITTEN COMMENTS ON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT, 1978.

This document contains the comments of federal and
non-federal agencies who reviewed the "Commonwealth
of Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management- Draft
Environmental Impact Statement".

41. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT, 1978.

This is the coastal zone management program that is
in effect in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the
final assessment of the impacts which will occur to
the physical and socio-economic environment in Mass-
achusetts due to the implementation of the Coastal
Zone Management Plan. It is based on the original plan
and impact statements, which were modified where
necessary to be consistent with other existing coastal
zone policies, as determined by the written comments
received in the review process.

-17-

Environmental Assessment

-18-

INTRODUCTION

The environmental resources of the city of Revere play an important
role in the city's welfare and development.
This paper will inventory the coastal resource areas as defined by
the Wetlands Protection Act, within the city. An assesment of the impacts
future development may have on these areas will then be made, based on
the seven significant interests protected under the Act. After this
assessment, recommendations for futher studies will be made.
The Wetlands Protection Act protects seven resource areas in the
coastal zone; These areas are:

1. Land under the oceans
2. Coastal beaches-including tidal flats
3. Salt marshes
4. Rocky intertidal shores
5. Land under Salt Ponds
6. Anadromus/Catadramus Fish runs
7. Barrier Beaches

of these seven resource areas the'City of Revere has four within-its
boundaries. -These are:.- Lands under the oceans-; coastal. beaches, barrier
beaches and salt marshes.
The significant interest to be protected under the act are;

1. land containing shellfish
2. fisheries
3. pollution
4. storm damage prevention
5. flood control
6. ground water supply
7. public or private water supply

LAND UNDER THE OCEANS

"Land under the oceans means land extending from mean low water line
seaward to the boundary of the municipality's jurisdiction-" (33)
This land includes land under bays, estuaries, and portions of rivers
which are tidally influenced.
Areas of Revere which are considered "Land Under the Oceans" are shown
in Figure 1. These areas have specific set of ocenographic processes
acting upon them. These process are: waves, nearshore currents, tides,
and tidal currents. As waves from deep water move towards the coast
they begin to shoal or feel the bottom. When the water depth becomes
shallow enough these waves become unstable and break. The direction
and magnitude of these waves is dependent upon wind conditions and
bottcm topography.

_19-

For a given bottom topography waves are bent or refracted
around so the wave front becomes parallel to the bottom contour.
This causes a divergence of the wave crests in some areas reducing
the wave height and a convergence of wave crests in other areas,
increasing the wave height.
Figures 2 and 3 are diagrams of how waves are refracted
at Revere Beach. These diagrams show that when waves approach
the shoreline of Revere from the northeast and east they diverge
between Nahant and Winthrop causing decreased wave heights along
Revere Beach.
With the breaking of incoming waves longshore currents are
generated. Estimates of longshore currents in the area vary from
5cm/sec to 20cm/sec, generally in a southerly direction (19).
Tide elevations play an important role in how these waves effect
the shoreline. As tides rise and fall the effective depth of the
water changes accordingly. When this happens the position of the
breaking wave moves horizontally, dependent upon the tide range.
The tide ranges in Revere are 9.2 feet with a 10.7 foot spring range.
These ranges are the difference in height-between mean high water
and mean low water. The spring range is the average semi-diurnal
range which is a result of the moon being new or full (7).
Storm conditions develop waves which effect, to some extent or
another, all of the coastal resource areas. Frequencies and heights
of storms effecting Revere are listed in Table 1.
For the Revere area the 100 year storm tide elevation is
11 feet MSL. The 50 year storm tide elevation is approximately 10.4 feet,
or the Blizzard of 1978 storm. Storms with tide elevations greater
than 8.0 feet occur approximately every 8 years.

-20-

EAST 6 SEC

REVERE
BEAC

FIGURE 2 REFRACTION DIAGRAM

BOSTON HARBOR oel
WAVE CLIMA
1973

RE V E RE
BEACH

NORTHEAST

6 SEC

HI 3FT

FIGURE 3 REFRACTION DIAGRAM

-22-

TABLE I

:MAJOR STORMS OF NEW ENGLAND

DATE PERCIPITATION WIND TYPE OF STORM TIDE E.L*EVATION

11/27/89 8-10S
1.05R 60 mph northeaster 10,lMSL

12/26/99 11"S
1.7"R 45 mph if 10.6MSL

3/4/31 45 mph if 9.2MSL

10/23/53 2.4"R
(in 24 hrs) hurricane 8.2MSL

8/31/54 2.6"R
(in 24 hrs) 40 mph hurricane 8,4MSL

8/18/55 18-4,88"R
19-7.06"R hurricane 8.OMSL

4/7/58 1.60"R 40 mph northeaster 9.4MSL

12/29/59 3.5"S
1.6"R 40 mph northeaster 9,4MSL

3/7/62 40 mph northeaster 8.4MSL

2/19/72 2.411P
61!s 40 mph northeaster 9,1MSL

2/6-7/78 27"S 69mph northeaster 10,4MSL

-23-

COASTAL BEACHES, BARRIER BEACHES AND TIDAL FLATS_

"Coastal Beach means unconsolidated sediment subject to wave,
tidal and coastal storm action which forms the gently sloping shore of
a body of salt water and includes tidal flats." (33). Coastal Beaches
extend from the mean low water line landward to a dune, bank, or man-
made structure, whichever-- is closest to the ocean. "Barrier Beaches
are narrow low-lying areas of land generally consisting of coastal
beaches and dunes extending roughly parallel to the trend of the coast.
It is separated from the mainland by a narrow body of fresh, brackish,
or saline water or a marsh system." (33). Tidal flats are a nearly
level part of the beach, commonly found along shorelines and estuaries
with large tidal ranges. The size of the material composing a tidal
flat is generally smaller than that of material composing a beach.
Areas in Revere which are considered coastal beaches
and barrier beaches are shown in figure 1. These areas play an important
role in storm damage prevention and flood -control because of the
physical processes which effect them. Since these areas are the first
line of defence against storms it is important to understand how waves
and storms affect beach areas.
Waves breaking on beach areas move sand back and forth and
along beach areas. During storms the sediment on the beach moves off-
shore, changing the shape of the beach. This changed beach shape
then acts to reduce the energy (hence the damage) an incoming wave
has.
However, when these beach areas are starved of sediment because
of man made structures built to prevent erosion and reduce storm
damage, the beach shape can not change enough to effectively decrease
the wave energy. In Revere at least 90% of the coastal beaches
are backed by seawalls. These structures have two major effects
on the beach. First these seawalls decrease the ability of the beach
to act as a natural buffer by decreasing the sediment supply to the
area. when this occurs the offshore bar which normally develops
during a storm is not developed, and therefore, storm waves do not
break further from the beach during the storm. Secondly when waves
hit the seawall their energy is reflected back out towards the
incoming wave. When these two waves interact the resultant wave is
heigher. This causes more energy in the area of the breaking waves,
which causes increased erosion.
Historic Shore Line Changes, figure 4, shows both recession
and accretion of the beach areas in Revere, (19). The Army Corps
of Engineers in 1968 reported accretion along the Saugus River,
and periods of both erosion and accretion along the southerly
portion of the Point bf Pines Beach. Moving south along the beach, the
areas with substantial development show erosion of up to 6.8 feet/
year from 1945 to 1962. Moving even further south the beach area
is accreting. Sediment movement in the area is predominantly off-
shore and*onshore with longshore transport being almost zero (20).
This may be due to the number of seawalls along the beach, which
decreases the sediment supply.

-24-

2 71
Y N N'

Figure 4 Historical -p IN A R 81 0 :R
Shoreline Changes J- 61

Point of Pines

LLJ

C3
Ad

410

41,

Chory island Bar

Ito-

Roughons
42--24' Point
.1, LEGEND
0
DATE HIGH WATER LOW WATER AGENCY
1962 0- o-a Carps of Enqrs.
t945-46 -
1944 U.s. C. a G. S.
BEACHMONT 1919 U.S.C, a G.S.
=
3-94
7 - so .. . ........ ......... U.S.C. a a.S.
1$49 U. S.C. a G.S.
PROFILES
1945-44 U. S. E. 0.

-25-

TABLE 2

VOLUMETRIC CHANGES-SANDFILL-REVERE BEACH

PERIODS OF RECORD
LOCATION TOTAL CHANGE IN CUBIC YARDS
Profile No. 1900-1904 1904-1910 1910-1946 1946-1962 1900-194

I- 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown + 70,000 Unknown
2- 3 - 74,700 - 53,400 + 39,000 + 83,500 - 89,100
3- 4 - 1,900 - 28,600 + 6,600 + 13,500 - 23,900
4- 6 + 3,600 - 7,700 -15,300 - 7,000 - 19,400
6- 8 + 3,500 - 10,300 - 9,900 + 2,000 - 16,700
8- 10 + 4,800 - 23,500 + 6,400 + 4,000 - 12,300
10- 12 + 3,100 - 10,200 - 1,600 + 4,000 - 8,700
12- 14 + 1,200 + 13,200 +12,500 + 28,000 + 26,900
14- 15 + 1,500 + 15,400 +16,300 + 21,500 + 33,200
(1) - 58,900 -105,100 +54,000 +149,500 (2) _ 110,000

(1) Summation of Profiles 2 - 15

(2) Periods 1946 - 1962 and 1900 1962 reflect sandfill placed by Commonwealth of Massa
in 1954 in partial compliance with authorized project.

Comparisons of various beach profiles (Table 2) show the total beach
changes in the area, (19). However. some of the accretion is the effects
of sandfill placed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1954.
Presently there are several plans for further beach nourishment of
the area. Even though this will not stop the erosion process' 'iit
is an enviornmentally effective method of beach improvement and should
be implemented.
When reviewing projects along the beach areas in Revere measures to
lessen the erosional impacts of coastal structures should be taken. These
can include:

1. any new seawall constructed should have sufficient slope to
help dissipate wave energy. A maximum acceptable slope of. 1. 3
has been suggested (33),

2. structures should be rough not smooth, This dissipates more
energy as the water runs up the structures,

3. structural protection should be accompanied by suitable beach
nourishment programs. It is possible that with the implemen@
tation of beach nourishment the need for structural protection
can be minimized or entirely eliminated (33).

SALT MARSHES

"Salt Marshes means a coastal wetland that extends landward up to
the highest high tide line, that is, the highest spring tide of the year
and is characterized by plants that are well adapted to',f or prefer living
in, saline soils, Dominant plants within salt marshes are salt meadow
cord grass (Spartina patens) and/or salt marsh cord grass (Spartina all-
terniflora)," A salt marsh may contain tidal creeks,ditches and pools.
Table 3 lists the common salt marsh plants which may be used as indicat-
ors species of a salt marsh, (33)

Table 3-SALT MARSH PLANTS

1. Salt Marsh Cord Grass

2. Salt Meadow Grass

3. Spikegrass

4. Blackgrass

5. Marsh elder

6. Glass worts

-27-

7. Sea Lavender

8. Sea Blite

9. Sperscal

10. Salt Marsh Aster

11. Little Sea - Pink

The approximately 820 acres of salt marsh within the boundaries
of Revere are the most important resource area in the city (figure 1).
The Marsh is the major drainage basin for the region and drains
a watershed of many acres. The Marsh is also a key link in the
biological food chain, and aids to a great extent as a natural sewage
treatment plant.
Marsh areas can be divided into high marsh and low marsh depending
upon the vegetation and frequency of tidal inundation. The high
marsh area is dominated by Spartina Patens and is located so that it
is only inundated by water during spring tides or during flood condi-
tions. Low marsh areas are dominated by Spartina Alteniflora and are
inundated daily. Landward of the marsh the vegetation grades back
into typical upland plants. Figure 5 shows the typical types of vegeta-
tion in upland marsh areas (31).
Of the two typical marsh plants, Spartina Alterniflora is the more
productive. This plant is abundant in young marsh areas, where as in
old marsh areas Patens and upland vegetation is more common. Upland
vegetation encroaching upon the marsh is a natural occurrence called
succession. Succession of the marsh decreases the productivity of the
marsh by-decreasing the density of the most productive marsh plants.
When filling is allowed succession occurs more rapidly, hence decreasing
the overall productivity. If filling of the marsh is allowed or done
illegally, replacement of the area with Alterniflora marsh grasses is
highly recommended.
It is recognized that marsh plants act as sewage filter systems,
uptaking pollutants into their plant tissues. However, little is known
about the amounts of pollutants marsh grasses can assimilate and.
still remain productive. For this reason, any plans of utilizing
marsh areas as sewage treatment facilities should be prohibited.

LAND CONTAINING SHELLFISH AND FISHERIES

Land containing shellfish in Revere is shown on figure 6. The
most common shellfish in the area are soft shell clams and mussels
(4). However, these shellfish beds are closed to all because of
pollution.
The Pines River supports a reasonable number of finfish species.
Data collected in 1968 and 1969 is given in Table 4. Future impacts
of fisheries on the Revere area has not, to date, been assessed. How-
ever, it is expected that for all coastal communities fisheries will

-28-

UPLAND HIGH MARSH AREA LOW MARSH

trees and
shrubs Marsh itch Spike salt salt cord
Elder @Wrass grass medow grass
grass
year flood

!@-,rina hicTh tide

low water

Bay

FIGURE 5 14ARSH VEGETATION

-29-

SAUGUS RIVER
THE
WRECK
LYNN

C URCHILLS
SAUGUS MULL
THE
MOUNTAINS
FREE PRODUCTIVE
CLAM FLATS

CHRISTMAS
TOWN
CAUSEWAY
LINE

GRAVEL
GURTiES THE SCALE
MILLIONS %:

PIN
S 0 500 1000 YARDS
RED CREEK RIV
HOUSE

P INT
OF PINES
SEAPL
3 ALSIN
CENTER
AMONO FLAT BLUE ALTE NATIVE B NAHANT
C EX
V POND BEACH

ALTERNATIVE A

REVERE

CHERRY
ISLAND BAR

FIGURE 6

Location of the productive ioft shell clam habitat
in Lynn-Saugus Harbor, 1968-1969.

SOURCE: A.P. CHESMORE ET AL.* A STUDY OF THE MARINE RESOURCES 'OF LYNN SAUGUS KARBOR. 1972.
U.S. DOT, FHWA MDPW,Draft@ Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 (F)
Revere Beach Connecto r, 1979.

-30-

have a vital role both economically and environmentally. Because
of this all fisheries should be protected regardless of their ex-
isting size and condition. The most important way to protect fisheries
and shellfish, however, is to improve water quality by decreasing
pollutant levels.

TABLE 4

SHELLFISH AND FINFISH FOUND IN REVERE

Shellfish Species Finfish Species
(Common Name) (Common Name)

Blue Mussel American Eel
Tellin Shell Atlantic Tomcod
Duck Clam Fourspine Stickleback
Moon Snail Grubby
Blood Worm Little or Winter Skate
Ribbon Worms Northern Pipefish
Red Hake
Shorthorn Sculpin
Threespine Stickleback
Winter Flounder
Altantic Mackerel
Longhorn Sculpin
Ocean Pout
Rainbow Smelt
Hake
Yellowtail Flounder

POLLUTION (WATER QUALITY)

Figure7 and Table 5 show water quality data for the Pines River
These tables and previous studies (21, 22) show that the water quality
in the City of REvere is poor. other state sources indicate the
water quality in the Pines River to be class SB as defined by the
State Water Quality Standards (Table 6). If the water quality was
class SB the area would be acceptable for propagation of fish, other
aquatic life and wildlife, for primary and secondary contact recreation
(including swimming) and for shellfish harvesting with depuration
(Restricted Shellfish Areas).
However a comparison of the water quality data indicates pollutants
in excess of class SB standards. The identified sources of this
pollution are landfill sites in the area, storm water and urban runoff
and sewer overflow.
Some of the ways these sources of pollution can be controlled
to at least some extent, is for the Conservation Commission's orders

-31-

NORTH COASTAL
WATER QUALITY SURVEY
1976

STATION LOCATIONS HAMILTON

FIGURE 7

Water Quality
Sampling Stations WENHAM

BEVERLY

DANVERS

18
19 21
17
9 Proctor Sr
12 20 16 -(S'B'3)
Goldthwalt r PEABODY 11 10 13 15 SB2
SBI S88
Strongwater 84 @A'
SALEM SB9
Saugus R. MARBLEHEAD

Benetts Pond Br.
8 LYNN SWAMPSCOTT

7
6
SAUGUS
4
MELROSE
NOTE:
5 NC prefix to station locations
omitted
Piney R. NAHANT
MALDEN 2

REVERIE

-32-

of Condition to minimize runoff into marsh areas. This can be
accomplished by limiting the amount of impervious material included
with construction. In areas where runoff is inevitable, traps or
filters for oil and grease and sludge would slow the rates of
pollution into the area. The traps must be cleaned periodically
to remain effective.

TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF DWPC 1976 WATER QUALITY SURVEY DATA (3)
Station NC4 Saugus River, Route 107

Parameter 6/15 6/16 6/17
Temperature (0 F) 68 74 72
Dissolved Oxygen 6.6 5.4 5.0
BOD5 1.8 2.4
pH 7.9 7.6
Alkalinity 110 108
Suspended Solids 10 7.5
Ammonia Nitrogen .20 .33
Nitrate Nitrogen .00 .00
Total Phosphorous .09 .15
Total Coliform* 4,300 43,000
Fecal Coliform* 750 15,000
Turbidity 2 3
Color (std. units) 15 15
Chlorides 16,250 14,250
Total Solids 29,380 30,280

All values expressed as mg/l unless otherwise indicated

*Colonies per 100ml

-33-

TABLE 5
(continued)

SUMMARY OF DWPC 1976 WATER QUALITY SURVEY DATA (3)

Station NC5-Confluence, Saugus-Pines River, Route 1A

Parameter 6/15 6/16 6/17
Temperature ( 0 F) 62 68 70
Dissolved Oxygen 7.7 6.4 5.8
BOD5 2.4 2.6
pH 8,1 7.7
Alkalinity 110 112
Suspended Solids 11 10
Amonia Nitrogen 0.14 0,24
Nitrate Nitrogen 0.0 0.0
Total Phosphorous 0.07 0.07
Total Coliform. 36 24,000
Fecal Coliform* 36 230
Turbidity (JTU) 1 2
Color (std. units) 10 10
Chlorides 16-.500 16-,300
Total Solids 321020 33,580

All values expressed as mg/l unless otherwise indicated

*Colonies per 100 ml.

-34-

TABLE 5
(continued)
SUMMARY OF DWPC 1976 WATER QUALITY SURVEY DATA (3)
Station NC3 Pines River, Route 107

Parameter 6/15 6/16 6/17
Temperature ( 0 F) 66 71 70
Dissolved Oxygen 6.7 5.8 6.3
BOD5 2.4 1.8
pH 7.9 7.7
Alkalinity 112 110
Suspended Solids 10 17
Ammonia Nitrogen 0.23 0.25
Nitrate Nitrogen 0.0 0.00
Total Phosphorous .17 0.05
Total Coliform * 91 430
Fecal Coliform * 36 91
Turbidity (JTU) 2 3
Color (std. units) 15 20
Chlorides 17,000 15,250
Total Solids 31,600 33,250

All values expressed as mg/l unless otherwise indicated

Colonies per 100ml

-35-

TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF MASSACHUSETTS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR
CLASS SB 14ATER (4)

Parameter Criteria

Dissolved Oxygen 6.0 mg/l minimum

Temperature none except where the increase will not exceed the
recommended limits on the most sensitive water use

pH shall be in the range -of 6.5 - 8.5 and not more than 0.2
units outside of the naturally occurring range

Total Coliform shall not exceed a median of 700 MPN per 100 ml and not
more than 20% of the samples shall exceed 1,000 MPN per
100 ml

Alkilinity 20 mg/l or more as Ca Co 3

Suspended Solids no criteria recommended

Amonia Nitrogen 0.02 mg/l

Nitrate Nitrogen no criteria recommended

Total Phosphorus 0.10 ug/l

Turbidity no criterial recommended

Color no criteria

Chlorides no criteria

Total Solids no criteria

Pesticides

Dieldrin DDE-DDD 0.003 ug/1'

DDT 0.001 ug/l*

Lidane 0.004 ug/l*

Heptachlor 0.001 u-/I'-

Heptachlor Epoxide 0.001 ug/l*

-36-

* ug/1 - micrograms per liter (mg/IXIO-3); also expressed as parts per billion
(ppb)

mg/l - milligrams per liter; also expressed as parts per million (ppm)
CD

-37-

FLOOD CONTROL

The areas of REVERE which are flood prone are shown in Section 5
of this report. Flood problems can be divided into two types: (I.)
those caused by precipitation and (2) those caused by tidal action.
In Revere the worst floods records are part of a complex interaction
of these two.
There are several factors which intensify flood problems. These
are infiltration, storage capacity, drainage pattern, and runoff rate.
The infiltration of water into a soil is dependent upon the permeabil-
ity of the soil. When areas are paved over the infiltration is de-
creased, which in turn causes more water flowing faster to enter the
basin. The storage capacity of the area is the volume of land avail-
able to hold water. Any time part of a drainage basin is filled this
volume is decreased. This in turn causes the elevation of the water
in other areas within the basin to increase.
Storage capacity is only effected by flooding caused by percipi-
tation. Tidally induced flooding is theoretically based only on
water elevation not volume of water. Since water seeks its own level
regardless of the volume of the basin, filling or dredging of an
area will not change the tidal or storm water elevation. However,
filling.of an area may change-ithe basin configura@ion wlii-,ch-could
change the tidal characteristics within the basin. Also, little
information is available on how tidal flooding and flooding caused
by percipitation interact in an area such as the Saugus Salt Marsh.
In dealing with estuarine flood problems the type of drainage
pattern plays an important role in flooding. If the areas are fed
by dendritic drainage pattern the basin will be associated with
sharp-high magnitude flood peaks at the basin outlet. With an area
of trellised drainage, flooding will be less.
The Saugus Marsh system is the main drainage basin for the city
of Revere. Th@erefore all possible measures to mitigate flood pro-
blems should be taken. Measures that can be incorporated in an order
of conditions could be:

1. Any filling in the area should be prohibited.

2. If filling of an inland wetland is allowed compensatory
flood storage should be provided. (Inland Wetlands only)

3. Pavement in and around the area should be kept to azminimum
Drivew,ays associated with residential development should be
gravel instead of hot top.

4. Adequate drainage must be provided.

-38-

5. Drainage systems should be designed so that they do not all
drain into one area i'mmediately. They should be dispersed over
the largest area possible.

STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION

The Blizzard of February 6, 7, 1978 wrought considerable damage
upon the City of Revere. This storm, however, was not the -100 year
storm but the 50 year storm, Thismeans that a storm of this magni@
tude has a 5% chance of occuring in any given year.
The major problem associated with the storm was extreme flood
conditions which occurred throughout the City. The areas flooded
during the storm are shown in Section 5.
The damage resulting from this flooding resulted from storm
surges of 4.5 feet flooding the marsh area and at the same time over-
topping the seawall. The total volume.of flood water which.filled
the County Drainage Ditch area was 430 acre feet. This was caused
entirely by overtopping of the seawall in front of Revere Beach Boulevard,
It has been proposed (18) that one of three-measures could be
taken to alleviate this problem. These measures are:

1. a higher seawall could be build

2. a sloping rip rap revetment could be built

3. beach nourishment

Of these three, only beach-nourishment is totally environmentally
acceptable.
However, this would only prevent flooding which occurs from wave
overtopping. Flooding will still occur from precipitation and tidal
water input through the marsh.

CONCLUSIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS

Although there is only limited possibilities of developing the
"land under the ocean" or the "coastal beaches", activities such as re-
construction of the seawall along the Bouldevard will impact these
resource areas. As discussed earlier these activities would effect the
storm damage prevention function of the area by altering wave character-
istics. However, development in other areas of the City can contribute
to the degradation of water quality, pollution of shellfish beds and
flood control, through inadequate drainage and sewage systems. The
need to upgrade these systems.will be discussed in other sections of
this report.
The most critical area of concern is the Saugus Salt Marsh. Be-
cause the marsh is the only remaining open space within the City the.
development pressures are considerable. However, the marsh area can

-39-

not be developed without filling, which falls under the jurisdiction of
the Conservation Commission. It is the Commission's responsibility to
write and Order of Conditions which would have no adverse impact on the area.
For an area of the marsh which is totally composed of marsh grasses,
section 32 (3) of the Wetlands Protection Act prohibits any filling
of the area. However lots that border on upland areas could be con-
sidered for development with a stringent order of conditions.
Orders of Conditions for these areas must meet the requirements
of no adverse impact. Some possible ways this can be accomplished are:

I . the total acreage of marsh should remain constant. If a
marsh area is filled another upland area should be re-
moved and be created into a marsh.

2. additional water runoff into the marsh and the rate of this
runoff should be minimized, through the use of p6rvious.materials
and/or catch basins.

3. stringnet pollution controls such as oil traps and filters
should be manditory.

4. Any structure built in the flood plain should be built to
HUD specifications.

This report contains only a few of the possible measures that
can be taken to condition development so that there is no adverse im-
pact on the environment. A review of the bibliography would provide
even more. It must be remembered that it is important that any order
of conditions should insure that a development has no adverse impact
upon the seven interests to be protected under the act.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are several areas of environmental importance to the city
of Revere where knowledge is either deficient or absent. The
lar-est environmental resource the city has also has the least known
about it, that is the marsh area. It is suggested that a study of
tidal characteristics, and circulation patterns be undertaken to
fully assess the hydraulics of the marsh estuary system. It is also
recommended that mapping and studies of the marsh areas be undertaken
to determine the marshes productivity and effects pollutants are having
on the marsh system.

-40-

OIL

lbson
ROM

Saugus-Pines
River Marsh

40P

1w
Seaplane Fine,
11W
Revere Drive Basin
Theatre
00..
WE
ol

It te
@Id> It ing
. . .........

ei
Environmental Re

4-j LL= Marsh

Coastal

Whela

Pavilion
64

Q)
c/. Lincoln
School
os

57 NORTH
C.
rk
Sc nit Po M,
-P FX/ nd Pra k
ck

DC [email protected]
High School
la wa
ir

5 rte
on S .01

lae//
Coastal Zone Managem
80
P np
Poli e R e T City of Revere
n BEACH
1hp ial" It Y r

SECTION TWO

Land Use Policy Development

-41-

Existing Conditions and Development Policies

-42-

Introduction

The Coastal Zone Management Study Area is located in the northern
half of the City, generally including all land north of Squire Road, the
American Legion Highway and Revere Street. The Revere Beach Development
Area east of the B & M right-of-way and north of Beach Street is also
included as part of the Study Area. Over half of the area is saltwater
wetlands, the Saugus Marsh. The pattern of development within the Study
Area is widely varied. In the western portion of the Study Area are
highway commercial and high density residential developments. The
remaining area is lower density neighborhoods of single to four unit
structures with interspersed neighborhood businesses.

This section of the Coastal Zone Management Report examines exist-
ing conditions and perceived development policy, and constraints and
pressures for new development within the Study Area. Perceived policy,
constraints, and pressures were formulated as a result of interviews
held with key City Officials such as City Councilors, the Mayor, the
City Clerk, City Solicitor, City Planner, City Assessors the Building
Inspector and others. Opinions of citizens participating in the
Coastal Zone Management Study were also incorporated into these poli-
cies.

The first part of this section is a brief discussion of the City's
historical development policies and a presentation of the current
administration's overall development policies. However, for a more
specific analysis of the Study Area, it was necessary to divide the
larger area into fourteen sub-areas which generally follow boundaries
of existing neighborhoods or natural features. This discussion of
policies and constraints for each of the sub-areas follows as the last
part of this'section.

General Development Policy

The City of Revere is a residential community in the Boston metro-
politan area. An older city it suffers from a deteriorating infra-
structure, traffic congestion, and a limited tax base. Historically,
the character of Revere has been one of a residential/resort municipality
with little commercial or industrial development. Over the years, the
City has held a very strong pro development policy in order to promote
economic development and expand the tax base. This policy is evidenced
in the Zoning Ordinance which is loosely written, permissive in the sense
of granting variances and special permits, and cummulative in nature. In
many instances the development pattern which has emerged is an inappro-
priate mix of u4es and designs.

Currently, the City Administration is in the position of dealing
with a somewhat less than-optimal set of conditions. Poor planning
decisions made in the past resulted in filling of wetlands, development
in flood retention areas, and conflicting land uses. These conditions

-43-

coupled with the deteriorating sewerage system and the inadequate drain-
age facilities leave the City in the position of having to spend money
on the infrastructure before allowing any tax-revenue producing develop-
ment to take place. While there are still areas of the City suitable
for development a much closer look is being taken at the potential
impacts of development.

Under the present administration efforts are being made to change
this trend of "development at all costs". Recent winter flooding con-
ditions have brought an outcry from the citizens for caution in growth
and assurances that new construction will not aggrevate the flooding
situation.

The Mayor, in an attempt to further control growth has appointed
a full time staff member to the Conservation Commission instituted a
Development Cabinet which reviews all proposa-1s for development, hired
planning consultants to coordinate development in the Revere Beach Area
and hired engineering consultants to proceed with the sewer and drain-
age improvement studies.

Subarea Analysis

1. Point of Pines

The Point of Pines is a medium density residential area of one
to two family homes. The homes are of substantial size and
average incomes in the Point of Pines tend to be somewhat higher
than those in other areas of the City.

The potential for new development in the Point of Pines neighbor-
hood is fairly low due to the unavialability of vacant land. No
major redevelopment projects are anticipated in this area nor
would they be desirable. Two non-residential proposals have been
submitted in recent years to the City, but rejected due to the
required filling of the Pines River.

The City is not seeking any new development in the Pines area be-
cause it is an established stable neighborhood. Development
problems associated with the Point of Pines include interior drain-
age and sewage difficulties and wave overtopping in the area of
Harrington Avenue. There is a pumping station and chlorination
plant at the northern most section of the Point of Pines which
drains runoff from the neighborhood into the Pines River. The
sewage problem is one of elevation resulting in the inability to
gravity feed sewage through the system. The poor condition of the
Pines has caused some flooding from seawater during northeast
storms.

-44-

No change in the development pattern is recommended for this
area. The existing single-family residential zoning should be
maintained in order to protect the Point of Pines from any
major development.

2. Riverside

The Riverside area of the City, located along the Pines River
west of the Point of-Pines, is a densely developed single family
residential neighborhood. Other uses within the subarea include
the North Shore Boat Works, Captain Fowler's Marina, Jacob's
Ladder (a nightclub), and Gibson Park, a neighborhood recre-
ational facility.

Problems associated with the Riverside subarea include poor
automobile and pedestrian access through the neighborhood to the
Boat Works and the park, erosion of the shoreline along Mills
Avenue, and pollution of the Pines & Saugus Rivers from upstream
sources.

Pressures for new development in the area come from proposals
for the expansion of existing facilities. Jacob's Ladder, di-
rectly west of the General Edwards Bridge would like to add motel
and boat dockage facilities to their present site. Captain
Fowler's Marina, west of the nightclub, would like to expand the
number of slips available, and expand indoor boat storage and
fuel storage space. Both of these expansion plans would require
dredging of the Saugus and Pines River.

The City's plan for the Riverside Area include expansion and
improvements to Gibson Park including a general clean-up of the
area, erosion control along Mills avenue, improved pedestrian
access from the neighborhood to Gibson Park and the City-owned
north parcel, screening of the Boat Works from the residences and
park, and development of a boat landing in the North Parcel.

The City's development policy for the subarea is to carry out the
Recreational Plans for dif-p-ansion and improvement of Gibson Park
and to limit the expansion of existing commercial or-marine
industrial facilities.

3. Revere Beacfi Boulevard North

The Revere Beach Boulevard from Oak Island Road to Northern Circle
is an areas of mixed-land uses. Some structures along the Boule-
vard were destroyed by the February 1978 blizzard and have sub-
sequently been demolished. Existing land uses in the areas are

-45-

primarily residential with some interspersed businesses. The
Revere House, a large housing complex for the elderly is the
largest and most recent development along this section of
Revere Beach Boulevard.

This area of the City (Growth Pressure Area, No. 4) is realiz-
ing a high degree of development pressures due to the Ocean-
front setting and the availability of land under single owner-
ship. A proposal for the construction of a 75 unit condominium
has been submitted to the City in recent months. Other pro-
posals for the area include a restaurant, for which a building
permit was granted prior to the rezoning, and proposals for
three to four unit residential structures. An apartment
building along the Boulevard was also recently converted to
condominiums.

However, there is one major obstacle to any new construction in
this area and that is a sewer surcharge problem. The surcharge
of sewers in this area of the City instigated the City Council
to downzone part of the area and to place a building moratorium
on the entire northern section of the Boulevard. Following
this action the State Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC)
placed a ban on new sewer connections along the Revere Beach
Boulevard. This ban leaves the City in the awkward position of
having the ability to grant a building permit but not an
occupancy permit. A developer would need a permit from the
DWPC in order to tie in to the existing sewer line and it is un-
likely that the permit would be granted until the sewer situation
is improved.

In order to rectify the sewage difficulties the Mayor and the
City Council have authorized the engineering firm of Hyaden,
Harding and Buchanan to proceed as quickly as possible with the
second phase analysis of the sewer system.

The City's development policy for this section of Revere is for
high density residential use. The Southern portion of the area
was recently rezoned by the City Council from a general business
to an apartment district. The purpose of the rezoning was to
encourage high quality housing development in the city and to
prohibit the movement of lounges and other commercial uses from
the Revere Beach Development site (to the south) to this area of
the Boulevard.

It is recommended that the City pursue the policy of high density
residential development along this section of the Boulevard.
However, this recommendation is qualified by the requirements for
sewer upgrading and flood proofing techniques.

-46-

4. North Shore Road North

This subarea is located south of Riverside between the B & M
right-of-way on the west and North Shore Road on the east.
Although it is mostly water, the Pines River, several commer-
cial establishments are situated on the shoreline west of North
Shore Road. These include a Lobster & Seafood outlet, a Tuna
Club, North Shore Marine and a Veternarian and Kennel operation.
The largest establishment in the subarea is Rent-A-Tool,
adjacent to the Oak Tsland neighborhood which stores heavy equip-
ment, trucks and trailers.

Most of the subarea is low-lying marshland and flood retention
area.

The only existing pressures for development are the expansions
plans for North Shore Marine which include dredging for 80 boat
slips and filling for expansion of the ground facilities. The
North Shore Marine owners have been in the process of acquiring
permits for this expansion for six years.

Pressures for the continued filling and development of the sub-
areas are anticipated in the future because of the Revere Beach
Connector. The Connector will pass to the south of the area and
will include an intersection at North Shore Road. The existing
commercial and industrial zoning would permit a variety of land
uses to be developed in the area. (See Growth Pressure Area,
No. 3)

The future use of this subarea will depend greatly upon the
design and construction techniques of the Revere Beach Connector
and upon the improvements made to the County Ditch drainage
system. While the City does not advocate development of wetlands,
future development policy of this area will depend on other long-
term projects.

5. Saugus Marsh East

This subarea, located between Route 107 on the west and the B & M
right-of-way on the east, is marsh land formed by the Pines River
and Diamond Creek. The area is part of the larger Saugus Marsh
network which is formed by the Pines River and Saugus River to the
north. Most of the marshland is undeveloped, although over the
years encroachment has occurred, particularly on the southern side.

There is some pressure for developing the fringe areas of the
marsh especially along Route 107 and north of Hastings Street and
Naples Street. There is some feeling among City officials that

-47-

these areas on the Periphery should be allowed to develop for
tax purposes, (see Growth Pressure Area, No. 2). However, the
neighborhood bordering the marsh on the south is opposed to any
new development.

A majority of the land is owned by three parties. Through dis-
cussion with the property owners it has become apparent that they
will not immediately give up the development rights of the marsh
through conservation easements or donations to the Conservation
Commission.

The City's policy toward development of the marsh is unclear.
Due to the lack of suitable vacant land and the desire to expand
the tax base of the City through industrial development, the
entire marsh area has been zoned for industrial use. However,
the flood-retention value of the marsh has become exceedingly
apparent to City officials and citizens with the recent winter
flooding conditions in the City. The City's drainage system
flows into Diamond Creek at three different locations within this
subarea. Additionally, assessments on the marsh properties have
been kept purposely low ranging between $.Ol and $.03 per square
foot. This low assessment keeps taxes paid on the marsh low,
thereby encouraging property owners to keep the land in its
natural state.

All City officials and departments feel that the marshland is a
necessary flood retention area. However, there are varying
degrees of opinion as to how much, of any portions, of the area
should be allowed to develop. Besides the environmental problems
and expensive engineering techniques associated with construction
in a wetland, a third major problem is lack of access. Develop-
ment in most areas would require the construction of access roads
and, therefore, additional filling and alteration of the area.

In regards to altering the wetlands within Revere, the Conserva-
tion Commission is taking a much stronger role than it did in
recent years.

A further cause of uncertainty regarding the marsh area is the
Revere Beach Connector. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the road project should include more information on the
impacts of construction in a marsh. The proposed interchange of
the Connector and Route 107 could create more pressures for fill-
ing and developing the western periphery of the marsh.

In summary the City's policy appears to be one of allowing mini-
mal development in the southwest corner of the marsh and preserv-
ing the majority of the marsh for flood retention areas. The

-48-

Connector is viewed as a barrier to future development in the
northern section of the marsh and not as an incentive for further
filling and development of the marsh.

It is recommended that the zoning be changed in this area for
conservation or recreation.

6. Oak Island

The Oak Island neighborhood is a medium density residential area
of one and two family homes. The neighborhood was at one time,a
high ground island in the salt marsh, covered with oak trees and
used as a picnic grove. Since that time the Island has been
subdivided into small housing lots of approximately 1,600 square
feet. The housing stock is primarily older summer cottages
which have been converted to year-round use. The neighborhood
is divided east to west by the B & M right-of-way.

There is very little pressure for new development in this area
due to the lack of vacant land and the environment. The Oak
Island neighborhood is virtually surrounded by salt marsh so any
new development would require filling and alteration of the marsh.
The regulations of the Wetlands Protection Act and the administra-
tion of that Act by the City's Conservation Commission have been
the cause to recently restrict new development in the Oak Island
neighborhood. The proposal submitted to the City called for the
construction of eight single-family homes on land to be filled to
the south side of the Island. Because of the required filling
the proposal was cut back to allow the construction of only two
homes adjacent to the B & M right-of-way.

The City dQes not desire new development in the Oak Island neigh-
borhood with the exception of construction of vacant lots on
existing streets. The extension of the Island to the north, west
or south would be impractical due to topographical features of
the land. The Pines River and Diamond Creek run within 200-500
feet of the island on the north and south respectively.
Additionally the land dr'op--s off dramatically into the salt marsh
so that any extension would require tremendous amounts of fill.
A further obstacle to new development are the drainage problems
in that portion of Oak Island east of the B & M right-of-way.

7. Lower Revere Street/Revere Beach Boulevard

This subarea is located between North Shore Road and the Revere
Beach Boulevard, Oak Island Street on the north and Revere Street
on the south. The area is one of mixed land uses with some

-49-

existing summer housinj stock, and old summer cottages converted
to year-round use. More recent development along the Boulevard
include commercial eating and drinking establishments.

A majority of the subarea is prone to flooding in heavey rains.
The eastern branch of the County Ditch flows through the area,
northerly from Revere Street and then westerly under North Shore
Road to Diamond Creek.

This area of the City is experiencing tremendous pressures for
new development for several reasons, (see Growth Pressure Area,
No. 6). The subarea is contiguous to the Revere Beach Develop-
ment Project of high density residential development, improved
transit and highway access, park development and beach improve-
ments. Major projects such as these can be expected to generate
"spin-off" improvements or the potential for improvements in
adjacent areas. Additionally, a majority of the subarea is
ocean-front land including two or three vacant parcels of sig-
nificant size on the Boulevard. A third source of pressure for
new development is the demolition of the beach commercial facil-
ities. Many of these-establishment owners, who maintain liquor
licenses, are seeking comparable ocean-front settings on the
Boulevard. Some establishments have in fact relocated into this
Boulevard.

Some proposals for development in this subarea have been submit-
ted to the City. One proposal was for a small apartment
structure north of Revere Street and immediately west of the
County Ditch. The Conservation Commission denied an Order of
Conditions because it was believed construction on the site
would aggravate flooding conditions in the surrounding neighbor-
hoods. The developer subsequently appealed that decision to the
State Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, where the
case is still under consideration.

Constraints to new development in this subarea are the same as
those for subarea number three; that is the State ban on sewer
connections the flood-prone nature of the area, and the needed
improvements to the County Ditch.

Due to these constraints the City's policy toward new development
is extremely cautious and will most likely remain so until im-
provements are completed to the drainage and sewer systems.
Although cautious about immediate development, the long-range
policy of the City is one of promoting quality, high density
residential development along the Boulevard.

Since most of the remaining land in the subarea is low lying and
prone to flooding a strong policy is not promoted. Additionally,

-50-

a majority of the area will be taken up with the MBTA ramps from
the Connector to the Wonderland Garage, the Blue Line Extension
to Lynn, and the Connector Road and North Shore Road Intersection.
The final designs of these projects, when available will more
clearly define the development potential of this part of the sub-
area.

8. North Shore Road

This subarea bordered by North Shore Road, Revere Street and the
B & M right-of-way is in an area of mixed residential use with
commercial facilities along the two major roads. More than half
of this property is low lying and prone to flooding. The County
Ditch winds westerly through the area under North Shore Road
and the B & M, through a tidal gate to Diamond Creek. The low
lying areas flood in periods of rain with high tides when the
tidal gates remain closed prohibiting drainage from the Ditch
into the Creek.

There has been some pressure for filling and developing the area
bordering North Shore Road on the west, particularly that area
zoned for general commercial use, (see Growth Pressure Area,
No. 5). Permission was granted to one property owner to fill a
small 100 square foot piece of land adjacent to the railroad
tracks. However, no construction has taken place on that site.

The Revere Beach Connector Road is designed to pass through this
area with some form of intersection at North Shore Road, and then
continuing south easterly to Ocean Avenue. This road and inter-
change which will provide direct access to the regional highway
network will most likely create additional pressure for develop-
ment in this area. Under the existing zoning many different
types of development could take place. The road project could
most assuredly instigate zoning changes to more intense uses,
particularly in the small residential neighborhood north of
Revere Street.

It is difficult to formulate a City policy toward development in
this area for several reasons. The zoning is varied with strip
commercial along North Shore Road and Revere Street, industrial
zoning in the marsh area east of the B & M right-of-way and
general residential in the remaining sections. Additionally it
is not clear at this time what the exact design and location of
the Connector Road will be and how the MDPW plans to deal with
the runoff from the road or what improvements will be made to
the County Ditch in this area. Until these issues are cleared,
the City can take no positive position on future development in
this area. It is clear that no further filling can be allowed

_51-

in the area as this would potentially intensify the flooding
conditions.

9. Revere Beach Development Project Area

The Revere Beach Development Project is bordered by Beach Street,
the MBTA Blue Line, Revere Street, and the Revere Beach Reserva-
tion. Land uses within the subarea consists primarily of under-
utilized parking lots for the MBTA and the MDC. Other uses
include the Wonderland Transit Station and the MDC police and
beach facilities.

The area is undergoing a complete revitalization effort including
construction of a new transit station/garage complex, a connector
highway, high-income housing development, linear park construc-
tion, and commercial development on the City's Joint Development
Parcel. Housing construction is expected to begin in the Fall of
1979 and park construction is underway, (see Growth Pressure
Area, No. 7).

City growth policies regarding this area of the City have been
positive for a number of years. It is the desire of the city
officials to coordinate all activities in the area and to seek
the best possible alternative for well intergrated design of the
numerous development projects.

10. Kelly's-Meadow

The Kelly's Meadow area of the City is located south of Revere
Street between the B & M righ-of-way and the MDC parking lots on
the east. - The area is primarily residential with some commercial
establishments along North Shore Road and Revere Street. The
County Ditch runs easterly through the subarea starting at the
Wonderland Park Dog Track parking lot. The entire area is prone
to flooding when the County Ditch backs up during periods of
heavy rain with high tides.

In recent years, there have been no perceived pressure in this
area for new development. However, with the development of the
North Lot Condominiums, the MBTA station/garage complex, and the
Connector Road, long range pressures are anticipated. Property
values in the area should increase with these major improvements
and intensify pressures for redevelopment.

The City realizes the potential of this subarea due to its
proximity to the overall Beach Revitalization Project and holds
positive policy toward revitalization of the subarea. However,

-52-

this pro-development policy is qualified by the following condi-
tions:

1. Provision of fair-market value compensation by any
developer to existing property owerns for any "takings";

2. Completion of improvements to the City drainage and
sewerage systems;

3. Flood proofing requirements for any new development.

11. Upper Revere Street Neighborhood

This subarea is located noth of Revere Street between Route 107
on the west and the B & M righ-of-way in-the east. It is a
stable neighborhood of single and two family homes with some
small scattered commercial uses along Revere Street. The other
major land uses in the area are "institutional, Saint Anthony's
Church at the corner of Breed and Revere Street and Saint
Theresa further east on Revere Street.

There are two sections of this subarea which are either real-
izing pressures for new development or where pressures are
anticiuated in the future, (see Growth Pressure Area, No. 2).

There is some feeling that the marshland immediately north of
the urbanized area should be filled out to Weeden Street ( a
paper street) for additional residential development. Within
this same area two homes were recently constructed on Union
Street which most likely required the filling of low lying or
wet areas. These homes were constructed without prior notifica-
tion to the Conservation Commission.

Pressures for new development are anticipated in the southwest
corner of the subarea near Brown Circle. Although there has
been some small-scale filling operations along Naples Street in
past years, this practice, is expected to intensify with the
construction of the Revere Beach Connector and its interchange
with Route 107.

The current zoning for most of the subarea is general residen-
tial with commercial districts 100 feet deep on either side of
Revere Street and Route 107. The city's development policies
toward new development are two-fold.

The City.has taken a strong policy toward prohibiting further
encroachment into the marsh north of Hastings Avenue. The
residentG in this neighborhood do not want further development.

-53-

They want the marsh left in its natural state as a flood reten-
tion area and also as a buffer between the neighborhood and the
Connector Road. Additionally, a large parcel of marsh land north
of Hastings Avenue was donated to the City to use as a park or a
natural area. This city-owned parcel will prohibit further
encroachment by development in this area.

The City's policy in the southwest corner of the subarea is one
of allowing minimum development provided engineering techniques
are used which will_mitigate negative impacts on the bordering
marshland.

12. Squire Road

This subarea includes all the urbanized land north of Squire
Road between Cutler Cicle and Route 107. It is an area of
intense development including commercial, industrial, and resi-
dential uses. Although recently developed the entire area was
poorly designed. The Squire Road section of the City is plagued
with traffic congestion and poor automobile circulation move-
ments. Streets are often not delinated from parking lots and
the entire paved area is in a state of disrepair. In addition,
the development is such that apartment structures are adjacent
to industrial uses or commercial establishments with no buffer
zones or landscaping.

More than any other part of the Study Arear development in this
subarea has encroachment upon the Saugus Marsh. A major reason
for this is the 1-95 Embankment. When the fill for the 1-95
was placed in the marsh, the ecosystem was changed and divided
in two. South of the embankment the land was filled for develop-
ment. The City in an attempt to expand the tax base zoned the
area for commercial and industrial use.

Development extends northward to the embankment behind the shop-
ping center. Further to the east encroachment has also occurred
along Ward Street with heavy equipment storager a vacant skating
rink and apartment buildings.

The remaining vacant land within the subarea is in the eastern
portions near Route 107. There are perceived and real pressures
for additional filling and development of this part of the sub-
area.

All of the subarea except for the shopping center is zoned for
industrial use. Because the ordinance is permissive and cumula-
tive, almost any kind of development is allowed within an
industrial district, (see Growth Pressure Area, No. 1).

-54-

The future of the subarea is contingent upon:

1. Removal and/or relocation of 1-95 embankment;

2. Alignment and design of the Revere Beach Connector;

3. Connector interchange with Route 107.

The City's Policy is one of discouraging development until there
is some direction from the Commonwealth on these three issues.
It is also the policy of the City that the Connector serve as a
barrier to further development in the marsh and not as an
inducement for further development.

13. Saugus Marsh West

This subarea is located between the Northgate development and
the City Boundary. It is part of the Saugus Marsh and includes
the MDC seaplane basin, the Pines River and Diamond Creek. All
of the area is undeveloped marshland except for the 1-95 embank-
ment, which crosses the subarea in a northeasterly direction.

The future of this area will change and the ecosystem will be
altered with the development of the Revere Beach Connector
through the southern portion of the subarea. A second change
in the marsh will be either the removal of 1-95 embankment or
the relocation and reuse of the fill for the Connector Road.

The only portion of the subarea that is under pressure for de-
velopment is the 100 foot commercially zoned strip on the west
side of Route 107. This part of the subarea will be most
heavily impacted by the Connector's intersection with Route 107
and pressures for development may intensify with the construc-
tion of the Road. However, no proposals for development have
been submitted to the City at this time.

Although the majority of the marshland is zoned for industrial
use, it is landlocked and inaccessible without new road construc-
tion. The City's Policy for this area is to preserve that area
north of the Connector for flood retention purposes. Development
in the marsh is discouraged with the exception of recreational
uses parallel to the Connector or in the seaplane basin.

14. North Revere

Subarea 14 is a small section of North Revere which borders
the Saugus Marsh. Situated at the base of a ledge outcropping,

-55-

development in the area includes several single family homes.
The majority of the subarea, however, is vacant unimproved
land.

Problems associated with the area include some local flooding
caused by runoff draining from the hill to the low lying areas
close to the marsh.

There are no known development pressures in this section of
North Revere. The City's development policy is one of main-
taining existing residential zoning for this area of the City.

-56-

CO
05 Gibso
RWd

Saugus-Pines
River Marsh

Seaplane Pines R I'Ve,
Revere Drive-In Basin
Theatre

00,
13
C, 0 e ee 5
01 ing
k

12 & 0 S
6 abi@
05c

S
of

Whelan
Schoo,,@@ A
sta Pavilion
_0 71

Q)
4cla Lincoln
34" 0 'choo
0 0 0
r-rk V. NORTH
Pftark
S m
Sc oo itch Polic t t- n
oo
nd Park TAI
Track
I D(: Pavilion
High School I1 0
12 il utter I i
Im wa 0
0 on r, rtIrf
92
c Be II Coastal Zone Managern
0
p (k) cm, City of Revere
Poli e n le BEACH
ialp t 4_0 unity TI
41- 1 ri I

GIL

-Pines
Saugus
41
River Marsh

Sl lane
Rew- rine
*4fF
Basin
Theatre ;..........
..... .....
41F
...... (IND

... .. ... .....
... .. ... ... ... .. ...
.... ..........

Go
e
0 ........... .....
01(f

t
EXISTIN

ONE -TWO FAM
abie rbr
tv Q MULT I - FAM I LY
to.

X
COMMERCIAL

PUBLIC I NST I

INDUSTRIAL

PARKS

t
Paili.n PARKING LOT
Ic' UNDEVELOPED
Lincoln Q)
34' c School t PRIVATE CLUB
0 S (b
Coi NORTH
Park
m t
OR t' n

n
nd Park
--Track TA l-
High S hool IXI Pavilion
0 p
0
it unc
00twai
Park 0
0 P /I
ov
0 Coastal Zone Managern
p Cit
7
Police t R City of Revere
fip ;.1p BEACH
t Co nil, AT[
rl n @1 ,

GIL
A-

AL_
&@717 F7Wd
U

Saugus-Pines
River Marsh 4f

A&
Seaplane 11)
n S
Revere Drive-in Bas 4R@
I Theatre
VDA"@@

014?)

EXIS

GEN

ONE - FA

41,

Vropos
GENE
"helan
sta, L 56 FR Pavilion GENERA
4, L I
Q)
A'.4
Lincoln
34' 0 school A
os

NORTH
Erric
Sc A t t.

r nd Park
Track

D(: PaO..n
High School
0

0
S rtlef
Coastal Zone Managern
cif
Police City of Revere
n le BEACH
0 ialp t Co unity

FIWd

Saugus-Pines
River Marsh 4f V

4S,
40P
Seaplane .- 4%p
Pin
Revere D 've.In Basin
[email protected]

Go o
Id lb It nig

4
4,1. 3
f.

Growth P

Qsc
2/

Cf 2T U

1,Vh v
Schooli@@
t ti
w Pavilion

Q@
.4 Lincoln

os 0 (z)

NORTH
c
Sch I)It(VI I t
oil t n

nd Park TA
cD rack

DC Pavilion
High School I 11.1@@ - A'', u 0
C, 7 1,41
utler
Hill 0
Park

on
c Coastal Zone Managern

t
U, t City of Revere
Police t .1 LID 3EACH
Wp I o unity r,
o
P I n.

Recommended Development Policy
and Future Land Use

-57-

Introduction

The City of Revere is under a substantial amount of pressure for
new development. This development pressure is due, in part, to the
transportation improvements proposed for the City (MBTA and Revere
Beach Connector), the limited amount of available land, and the natural
features of the City (Broad Sound, Revere Beach, and extensive salt-
marsh) which would be an asset to many types of development.

The City's current administration recognizes that economic devel-
opment is necessary in order to expand the City's declining tax base.
However, it is also recognized that caution must be taken in reviewing
any development proposal due to the flooding situation in many low-
lying areas of the City, the extent of wetlands or flood retention
areas, and the inadequate, deteriorating storm water and sanitary
sewer systems.

The purpose of this CZM Community Grant-Program is to formulate
recommendations which will guide City officials in making responsible
decisions about future development within the CZM Study Area. Some of
these recommendations will be policy statements (presented in this
section) while others will be recommendations for legal mechanisms
which would control growth and implement the recommended policy. These
legal mechanisms are discussed in Section 3 of this Report.

Recommended policies for future land uses and development in
Revere evolve from several overall objectives for the future of the
City. These general objectives include:

1. Prohibit any type of new development in environmen-
tally critical areas, primarily the Saugus marsh and
other smaller wetlands areas which retain floodwater
and urban runoff.

2. Cap or restrict growth in marginally significant areas
such as those bordering wetlands and those with chrnoic
flooding problems, so that a gradual encroachment of
the wetlands will be prohibited.

3. Promote growth in designated "development" or "growth"
areas so as to concentrate more intense uses in partic-
ular sections of the Study Area.

4. Preserve and protect the character of existing neighbor-
hoods by prohibiting the expansion of commercial and
industrial uses into residential areas.

The policies that follow represent an attempt to balance economic
and environmental interests. The City of Revere cannot afford to stop
development at all costs, just as it cannot affort to promote it at all
costs. There are obvious "trade-offs" which must be made in order to

-58-

promote a safe environment in the City, that is, a safe social, economic
and ecological environment.

For example, the decision to endorse the construction of the Revere
Beach Connector across the Saugus Marsh is, in itself, a trade-off. The
road during construction and when completed will alter the hydrologic
and biological functions of the marsh. These potentially negative
impacts, however, will be balanced by the positive impacts of removing
traffic from local streets (particularly Revere Street) and reducing air
pollution caused by the Pxisting traffic congestion. Additionally, some
of the negative impacts of the road on the marsh can be partially
mitigated by design features such as a viaduct design, and mechanisms to
handle urban runoff from the road.

The most controversial area in the City of Revere is the Saugus
Marsh. Since this is the only remaining major parcel of vacant land in
the City, there are varying opinions among City officials as to what
should be done with the marshland. The area is currently zoned for
light industrial use and many City officials see the marsh as an excel-
lent opportunity for expanding.the tax base through light industrial un-
development.

It is the purpose of this Study to evaluate the varying opinions
and formulate policies and recommendations which are both sound and
acceptable to the Mayor and the other public officials.

Since this area of the City is the largest natural resource and
the most controversial in terms of future use, and the most critical
environmental resource, the Saugus Marsh will be discussed in greater
detail than other sections of the Study Area.

Recommended Deyelo2ment Policy

The discussion of recommended development policy is organized ac-
cording to the overall objective to which the policies apply. There-
fore, there are four categories of development policy: Preservation;
Restricting Growth; Development Opportunities; and Maintenance of
Existing Conditions. The sta-tement of policies for each category also
discussion of the rationale for the policy.

1. Preservation of Critical Resource Areas

a. PreserVre the majority of the eastern Saugus Marsh as a
natural or conservation area in order to protect the
flood-water retention function and biological produc-
tivity of the saltwater wetlands.

The CZM Environmental Summary Report (Section (1)(c))

-59-

identified those resource areas defined in the Wet-
lands Protection Act, which are located in the Study
Area. The largest and perhaps the most significant
resource is the Saugus Marsh which encompasses over
one half of the Study Area. Identified as a saltwater
wetlands, the marsh has tidal influence from the Pines
and Saugus Rivers. In addition to its biological
functions, it also serves as a floodwater retention
area. The eastern section of the saltmarsh between
Route 107 and the B & M righ-of-way is a drainage
basin for approximately one half of the City's land
area. Because of these critical functions of this
part of the Saugus Marsh, it is recommended that no
further encroachment of the marsh be allowed and that
measures be taken to prohibit any development within
this saltwater wetlands. This policy is in keeping
with the CZM policy of prohibiting development in
saltwater wetlands. Legal mechanisms for prohibiting
development in the privately owned marsh are discussed
in Section 3 of this Report. The Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Department of Environmental
Management has undertaken a "wetlands" mapping program
which will identify wetlands throughout the Common-
wealth. When completed, this project will provide
local municipal governments and particularly local
Conservation Commissions with a legal definition of
the wetlands under their jurisdiction. While this
project is incomplete, it is assumed that the majority
of the Saugus Marsh will be classified as Wetlands.

b. Preserve the Saugus Marsh west of Route 107 and north
of the proposed Revere Beach Connector for flood water
retention, maintenance of open space, and biological
productivity.

This value area will be most heavily impacted by the
Revere Beach Connector. Due to the severity of these
impacts and the pressure for development which might
arise due to the improved highway access, the City
should take steps to preserve the marshland north of
the Connector.

C. Preserve the marshland from North Shore Road to the
B & M right-of-way betwee Revere Street on the south
and Oak Island Street on the north for floodwater re-
tention purposes.

The drainage and flooding problems in the City are dis-
cussed and examined in detail in Section 5 of this

_60-

Report. That engineering study resulted in a number
of recommendations for improvements to the eastern
branch of the County Ditch which drains an area of ap-
proximately 7 acres east of the B & M embankment. The
area of the City is impacted by severe storms and flood-
ing which results from inadequate drainage facilities,
tidal surges from the Pines River, and wave overtopping
on Revere Beach Boulevard.

One of the recommendations which evolved from the drain-
age study is the preservation of a piece of land for a
holding basin in the area between North Shore Road and
the B & M. The engineers estimated that approximately
four acres of land would be necessary for the creation
of a basin about three feet deep with a lined bottom to
prevent the entrance of groundwater into the basin.

This area of the City (subarea 8) will be under con-
siderable pressure for development due to the Revere
Beach Connector's intersection with North Shore Road.
It is recommended, however, that this area be set aside
and preserved for a stormwater holding basin and that
no development be considered in this area.

d. Allow no development along Route 107 north or south of
the Connector Road.

Bot h sides of Route 107 are presently zoned for commer-
cial use to a depth of 100 feet from the highway. Any
commercial establishements on Route 107 would have
serious traffic and environmental impacts due to the
highway intersection and natural features of the marsh.

The Connector's intersection with Route 107 is proposed
as a closerlead design which will account for approxi-
mately one third the linear distance of Route 107
between Brown Circle and the Revere broundary. Any
potential for commercial development on the area of the
intersection would be eliminated due to the impracti-
cality and hazard of traffic movements.

Both sides of the remaining section of Route 107 are
water - Diamond Creek and the Pines or wetlands to
abutting the streams. Development along the section of
the road should be completed prohibited.

-61-

Rationale for Preserving Saltwater Wetlands

There are approximately 100 acres of tidal saltmarsh located with-
in the Coastal Zone Management Study area in the northern section of
Revere. These marshlands are a valuable resource to the City in terms
of floodwater retention and wildlife and vegetation productivity. The
marshes also provide a quiet area for passive recreation such as
walking and bird watching and an aesthetic relief from the surrounding
urban development.

The nature and ecological significance of a saltmarsh must not be
overlooked. A report prepared for the Massachusetts Department of
Natural Resources entitled A Study ofthe Marine Resources of Lynn
Saugus Harbor succintly describes the value and significance of a
saltwater marsh.

"Plants provide food and energy needed by animals. Seventy
percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere is derived from
phytoplankton. Saltmarsh vegetation, like other plants,
transforms carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and food by
utilizing the energy of sunlight".

"Because the marine food chain begins with its primary
source of food, plants, and progresses through a series of
herbivorous and carnivorous organisms, it takes hundreds of
pounds of plant life to produce a fish of marketable or re-
creational size. Many species of fish and shellfish utilize
the saltmarsh for food and cover. Between 2/3 and 3/4 of
the fish and shellfish of commercial and recreational
importance in the United States spend at least one phase of
their life cycle within an estuary (Hutton, 1968). Salt-
marshes also provide food and cover for furbearers, shore-
birds, and waterfowl (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1963).
Salt marshes act as buffer zones between coastal waters and
the uplands, often preventing serious land erosion problems
caused by tidal action and severe coastal storms. Their
value aesthetically is priceless."

The Saugus Marsh supports part of the life cycle of fin and shell
fish, provides shelter, resting and nesting sites for a variety of
waterfowl and marsh birds, and supports a variety of vegetation. In
addition the marsh acts as an important floodwater retention area,
absorbing seasonally high tides from the Saugus and Pines Rivers and
runoff from the surrounding urbanized area.

The marsh also offers quiet areas for passive recreation, such as
walking and bird watching, in the midst of a congested urban environ-
ment.

-62-

Total development of the marshes would destroy a natural resource
which is essential not only to the marsh's wildlife but also to the
health and safety of the citizens of Revere.

The Revere Beach Connector a limited access highway is scheduled
to be constructed across the Saugus Marsh from Cutler Circle on the
west to Ocean Avenue on the east. The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the Road offers two alternative corridors and two
designs. The corridor alternatives are parallel with one bordering
the urbanized area (Alternative A) and the other extending further
into the marsh (AlternaCive B). The two designs presented are full
embankment and viaduct construction.

Whichever location or design is selected, the roadway will have
impacts on the marsh which cannot be totally mitigated. The embank-
m.ent alternative will have more severe impacts since the hydrology of
the marsh would be significantly changed, even with design features
such as selective ditching.

Change to the marsh itself will be caused by filling on two of
the wetlands or shadowing-the marsh (viaduct alternative). It is
estimated by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works that either
corridor or design will alter some 60-120 acres of marshland. The
DEIS briefly discusses the impacts of the Connector's construction and
operation on the saltmarsh and on its biological productivity. Many
of the impacts would be the same for other major developments on the
marsh such as shopping centers or residential complexes.

Some of these impacts are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Impacts on Water Quality and Aquatic Biology

The cons-Eruction of highway through Saugus Marsh will have
an impact on water quality and aquatic biota. Associated
with most construction activities is erosion from areas of
disturbed natural vegetation. This increases suspended
solids, turbidity and often, true color in surface waters.
This has ecological impActs at various stages of the food
chain. The turbidity diminishes the depth of light penetra-
tion; therefore, the ability of phytoplankton to use light
for food production is diminished. Populations of filter-
feeders, such as soft-shelled clams (Mya arenari), can@be
decimated-as a result of the increased siltation. The eggs
of fin fish, such as the commercially important winter
flounder (Pseudo-pleuronectes Americanus), are susceptible
to siltation. Life processes are carried on by gas ex-
changes at the egg and water interface. As silt accumu-
lates on top of the egg, the gas exchanges are impaired and

-63-

toxins are trapped underneath the layer of silt. The adult
fin fish are able to avoid turbidity plumes. However, this
avoidance decreases the value of the area for sport and
commercial fishing.

Important chemical and physical fluctuations occur twice
daily with the two high tides and the subsequent low tides.
Some areas located on the far side of the fill could be
seriously impaired by the disruption of circulation patterns.
During periods of drought, the marsh releases water; and
during rainstorms, the marsh absorbs excess water. This
capacity could be impaired through the blockage of natural
drainage creeks. Areas behind fill that could be seriously
flooded will be considered carefully in project design and
allowance for drainage will be made.

Impacts n Vegetation and Wildlife

"Saltmarsh communities are characteristically, highly produc-
tive areas which support life-cycle activities and perform a
variety of nature systems functions. These activities and
functions take place under a specific set of environmental
conditions related to such factors as tidal action, drainage
and nutrient concentrations. Consequently, activities occur-
ring in saltmarsh communities which alter these conditions
may result in the realization of numerous potential impacts".

If the Road is placed on full impacts associated with the Connector
would be direct loss of vegetation, changes in drainage patterns which
could lead to changes in vegetation species from wetland to upland, loss-
of wildlife habitat, siltation of streams, decreased biological produc-
tivity, a reduction in floodwater retention capacity, and an increase in
the number of pollutants entering the marsh system.

If the road is built on viaduct, the impacts would not be as severe
and would primarily result from construction of the road. On a viaduct,
the roadway would not interfere with drainage patterns thereby not
instigating changes in vegetation. Some vegetation loss would be expe-
rienced by the shadow effect on the marsh but not to the extent resulting
from the embankment alternative.

Any type of major development in the marsh would have similar envi-
ronmental impacts as those discussed for the Connector Road. However,
the Revere Beach Connector will not only alter the existing marsh system
it will also create additional pressures for filling and developing the
marshland along the edges of the urbanized area and adjacent to inter-
sections at Route 107 and North Shore Road.

-64-

Steps must be taken by the City to assure that the valuable marshes
are not lost to development.

2. Cap or Restrict Growths in Marginally Significant Areas

Many sections of the CZM Study Area are low lying and prone to
flooding from inadequate drainage and lack of floodproof con-
struction. These areas include smaller wetlands which most
likely were once part of the larger Saugus Marsh system.
These smaller isolated wetlands have been partially severed
from the major marsh system and manmade barriers such as the
B & M embankment and other roads and development. These
smaller wetlands, however do still serve as floodwater reten-
tion basins for surrounding development.

As more of these low lying areas are build upon and more wet-
lands are filled and developed, the capacity to retain run-
off and flood waters in undeveloped areas is dramatically
reduced. Therefore, the water drains into basements of build-
ings and streets, causing localized flooding in some neighbor-
hoods.

To advocate any major construction in these areas would only
aggrevate the already serious drainage and flooding situation.

a. Discourage development in the area north of Oak Is-
land, between North Shore Road and the B & M right-of-
way, (Subarea, No. 4). Change permitted uses from
commercial and industrial uses to strictly marine in-
dustrial uses such as marinas and yatch clubs.

The Revere Beach Connector will intersect with North
Shore-Road just to the south of this subarea. The
existing commercial zoning and the improved highway
access to the regional transportation network, might
instigate commercial development along both sides of
North Shore Road. This type of development should be
discouraged for two major reasons:

Traffic Impacts: North Shore Road, Route 1A is a
major north-south road to Boston from municipalities
north of Revere. The existing high traffic volumes-
on the road coupled with the high number of traffic
accidents, make this area inappropriate for addi-
tional automobile, turning movements, curb cuts and
traffic generating activity.

Environmental Impact: Much of this area is water,
the Pines River, which passes just to the west of

-65-

North Shore Road. The remaining area is low lying
saltwater wetlands which serves as a flood retention
basin for the surrounding urbanized area. Any new
development would require filling of the saltwater
wetlands, strict adherence to the Wetlands Protection
Act and an order of conditions from the Revere Con-
servation Commission. This filling and development
would reduce the flood water retention capability of
the subarea.

b. Discourage any new development on the area north of
Revere Street and bordered North Shore Road on the
west, Oak Island Street on the north, and the proper-
ty of the Eastern Massachusetts Electric Company on
the east, (western portion of Subarea, No. 7).

This is an extremely low lying area of the City with
elevations ranging from 1.8 to 13.9 (at one point)
feet above mean sea level. The average elevation in
the area is about 4.5 feet.

The area consists of two neighborhoods of single-
family homes separated by vacant land and the County
Ditch. Most of the housing stock is old including
some summer cottages which have been converted to
year round use.

Flooding is a chronic problem in both neighborhoods.
The County Ditch which is the main drainage facility
for the eastern part of the Study Areas passes through
the subarea from Revere Street and runs north and then
westerly under North Shore Road. During periods of
heavy rains the ditch backs up flooding the abutting
neighborhoods. However, the inadequacy of the County
Ditch is not the only reason for the chronic flooding
situation. The engineers examining the Ditch drainage
system concluded that even with the recommended $5.2
million dollars reconstruction of the Ditch system,
homes on these low elevations would still have water
in the basements due to seepage of ground water and
fast saturation of soils during rain.

This area (part of Subarea, No. 7) will be impacted
for the proposed transportation projects. Scheduled
to be located within the vacant land between the neigh-
borhoods are the Revere Beach Connector, the MBTA
ramps from the garage to the Connector, the MBTA Blue
Line Extension to Lynn and the relocated County Ditch.

-66-

To promote any land of new development in this area,
commercial or residential would be inappropriate due
to the topography, and out of the question until the
major public improvements have reached a stage of
final design. The area is presently crowded with
residences and when public improvements are completed
there may be no potential for future growth.

c. Limit new development in the area north of Hastings
Street and the American Legion Highway (Subarea,
No. 11) to minimal residential development. Because
the area is low lying and marshland requirements for
the maintenance of open space as a trade-off to
allowing any development should be investigated. A
Planned Unit Development Ordinance should be consid-
ered for this area in order to allow density while
preserving marsh areas for open space.

The specific area where residential development
should be allowed is contiguous with existing neigh-
borhoods. Street-maps of the City indicate a paper
street, Weeden Street immediately north and west of
Hastings Street. It appears feasible to allow a
small amount of residential development south of
Weeden Street provided drainage and flooding tech-
niques are utilized and it can be demonstrated that
there are no negative impacts in the abutting neigh-
bor hoods. Because of the residential nature of the
area, industrial development should not be permitted
as called for in the zoning ordinance.

Industrial development would require large servicing
roads-and more paved areas for parking. Access to
the site would not be feasible from Route 107, due
to the Connector and intersection. Therefore, if
industry were permitted in the area, related truck
traffic would be forced to use neighborhood streets.
This truck traffic,would negatively impact the resi-
dential area and w61ild not be a desirable "trade-off"
for industrial development.

d. The area on North Revere included in the CZM Study
Area is a low density residential area bordering the
Saugus Marsh. The neighborhood is located at the
base of a ledge outcropping and yards of homes back
into the marsh.

It is recommended that the general residential zoning

-67-

in this area be changed to single family. Any type
of intense development should be discouraged in this
subarea due to the nature of the land. It is also
recommended that existing residences in the neighbor-
hood be required to tie into the sewer line in order
to prevent water quality degradation in the Saugus
Marsh.

3. Promote Development in Designated Growth Areas

Most of the policies previously presented in this report were
aimed at preserving and protecting the saltwater marshes and
inland wetlands located within the CZM Study Area. The preser-
vation of these areas for purposes of drainage and biological
productivity is essential to the safety and health of the
citizens.of Revere.

However, opportunities for new development must also be examined
within the Study Area so that future land uses might be recom-
mended. There are opportunities for concentrating growth and
development in three sub-sections of the Study Area. It is
recommended that these areas be designated "growth areas" so
that future development can be guided away from the critical re-
source areas discussed in the previous paragraphs.

In this manner the economic and ecological interest are balanced;
preserving wetland on one hand while creating opportunities for
development on the other.

These policies coupled with a variety of recommended legal imple-
mentation mechanisms will provide the City of Revere with the
tools necessary to guide future growth and development within the
CZM Study Area.

The areas recommended for "growth area" designation are:

a. Revere Beach Development Area
b. Revere Beach Boulevard Area
c. Northgate Shopping Center/Squire
Road Area

a. The Revere Beach Development Area has been a focal point
of redevelopment efforts and major development proposals
for a number of years. Uniquely located between the
Revere Beach Reservation and the Blue Line transit ser-
vice, it continues to be the City's primary development
area.

The site presently consists of three underutilized

-68-

parking lots for the transit patrons and beach users.

A major housing development consisting of 630 units of
high-income market rental apartments is anticipated on
the so-called South Lot. The Atlantic Savings Bank,
the designated developer for the residential develop-
ment, should break ground on this project in the near
future.

The second lot,Parcel H, is located directly in front
of the Wonderland Transit Sation and is presently a
commuter lot for MBTA patrons. Parcel H is the City's
Joint Development Parcel and proposals for its future
use include retail development, a cinema complex,
office space and/or a hotel/convention center. The
City has completed a first round of marketing efforts
for Parcel H and will continue to promote development
on the site.

The North Lot, north of Parcel H, is slated for residen-
tial condominium-development. The time schedule for
construction on this lot is five to six years.

Major public improvements proposed for the Revere Beach
Development Area include an upgraded transit system, a
new 2,000 car commuter garage and station at Wonderland
Station. The construction of the Revere Beach Connector,
a limited access highway, will provide automobile access
to'the Development area and directly into the garage via
a ramp system. In addition, improvement to the Revere
Beach Reservation is, underway including a new linear
beach-front park and pavillion rehabilitation.

The unique characteristics of the Beach Development Area
including the ocean-front setting and the highway and
transit access to a regional transportation network,
give this area many advantages over other development
sites in the greater Boston metropolitan region.

It is recommended that the City pursue its strong policy
for mixed residential and commercial development in the
Revere Beach Area. However, this area has experienced
flooding problems in the past due to wave overtopping of
the seawall and an inadequate drainage system. It is,
therefore, recommended that any proposals for construc-
tion be carefully reviewed in terms of flood-proofing
techniques and handling of urban runoff and sewage. It
is also recommended that adequate drainage and sewage
systems be available for any new development.

-69-

b. The section of Revere Beach Boulevard north of Revere
Street presents some interesting opportunities for
development in an ocean-front setting.

It is recommended that the City promote a strong policy
for residential condominium development along the
Boulevard with the condition that repairs to the sewer
system be completed prior to any new construction.

This area of the City is presently under a sewer con-
nection ban from the Massachusetts Department of Water
Pollution Control, which means, temporarily, that no
new sewer connections will be allowed along the Boule-
vard. The main sewer which runs parallel to the
Boulevard is in a state of disrepair and surcharge
problems exist along the entire length of line from
Point of Pines to Revere Street. The City has an
engineering firm working on the Phase II Analysis of
the sewers city-wide. This analysis will determine
exactly what repairs are necessary. Engineering
design will be followed by construction which will be
completed by 1982.

It is further recommended that the City institute a
design criteria and review process for any major hous-
ing proposals along Revere Beach Boulevard. Design
elements such as provision of open space, setbacks,
access to and views of the ocean, and general layout
of buildings so that a wall effect is avoided, should
be considered when reviewing housing development
proposals.

Because the Boulevard is prone to flooding from wave
overtopping of the seawall, any new construction
should utilize flood proofing techniques such as
placing utilities above the historical flood level.

Careful attention must be made to the properties abut-
ting the rear line of the Boulevard properties. The
land along the Boulevard drops off dramatically to
the west of the road. The lower lying areas in the
rear are prone to drainage and flooding problems due
to the topography and the inadequace of the drainage
ditch. New development in these lower lying areas
adjacent to the ditch is not recommended.

c. The Northgate and Squire Road area of the City of
Revere constitutes the most recently constructed com-
mercial and residential development of the City.

-70-

As discussed in a previous section of this report, the
Squire Road area was once marshland which was filled
from Squire Road to the abandoned 1-95 embankment. The
development now extends almost to the embankment in
back of the Shopping Center. Illegal fill (demolition
wastes) has been placed between the edge of the Shop-
ping Center parking lot and the embankment.

urbanized commercial development extends easterly along
Squire Road from Northgate to Brown Circle. To the
north of the commercial establishment are several apart-
ment complexes and a scattering of industrial uses such
as heavy equipment storage. All of this development has
encroached upon the marsh.

The area is a myriad of uses with very little design
consideration, poor traffic circulation, and little or
no amenities such as landscapping or buffer zones
between uses, or control of mix of uses and architecture.

The City reconize-s that additional development would be
compatible with the existing character of the Area.
Because of the area's existing status as a development
area it is logical that future development be guided
into the Squire Road section of the City.

Although previously a wetland area, the extend of exist-
ing marshland between Squire Road and the 1-95 embank-
ment is minimal. Immediate or short range development,
therefore, might require some filling of the remaining
wetland. While this type of alteration of wetlands is,
on the surface, not a desirable activity, it would
create some immediate opportunities for growth and de-
velopment within the City. It is recommended that any
proposal for construction in the remaining vacant land
be carefully reviewed for design consideration and
utilization of engineering techniques to mitigate flood-
ing and drainage impacts.

It is further recommended that the City take immediate
steps to examine the Squire Road area in more detail,
particularly design details such as buffer zones,
landscaping and architectural.and other amenities.

In a longer range perspective, it is recommended that
the Revere Beach Connector serve as a barrier to any
development further into the marsh, north of the Road,
and that the area between the Connector and the exist-
ing urbanized area be opened up for new development.

-71-

This policy will provide the City with growth opportuni-
ties which would balance the closing of larger tracts of
land to development.

Pressures for new growth will intensify with the comple-
tion of the Connector. This growth should be controlled
and channeled into the Squire Road Development Area
which is presently densely developed and the most
urbanized section of the City. In this manner, intense
uses can be concentrated rather than promoting a scat-
tering of projects in small upland pockets within the
Study Area.

4. Preserve the Character of Existing Neighborhoods within the Study
Area

There are four larger residential areas within the CZM Study Area:
Point of Pines, Riverside, Oak Island and Upper Revere Street.
All of these neighborhoods are stable residential areas of one to
two family homes.

Major public improvements projects such as the MBTA's Blue Line
and the MDPW's Connector Road can often change or instigate
changes in an existing development pattern. While in some in-
stances this may be a desirable effect, steps must often be taken
to avoid this type of impact in other instances.

Changes in these neighborhoods could only occur through redevelop-
ment whether a private or public process. The City of Revere does
not advocate any public redevelopment process which would dislo-
cate any families or disrupt any of the neighborhoods. It is
doubtful that the Mayor or the City Council cover any extention
or support any proposal of this nature from a private developer.

The City should take steps to maintain the character of these
areas and to discourage decline or decay of the neighborhoods.
Measures which are recommended include:

a. Public improvements"projects including repairs to sewage
drainage systems, repairs to seawalls, streets -and side-
walks, provision for a tree-planting or tree adoption
program for sidewalks, neighborhood parks.

b. Enforcement of residential zoning and careful scrunity
of any request for zoning variances or special permit
within the neighborhood.

C. Requirements for traffic zones between residential and
other more intense areas, (residential or other).

-72-

d. Residential parking sticker programs if desired for neigh-
borhoods so that transit parking would not be allowed in
small neighborhood streets.

e. Strong policy of commercial development in designated
areas so that there is no encroachment into existing neigh-
borhoods.

-73-

Field

Saugus-Pines
4t
River Marsh

...... ....

4R@
Reve@e Dri,,e-I
he.,

. . . . ......

. .........
Go o I /te
h
mg
01
k

ecornmended Lan

Limited Ma
77 Developme
Limited LoN
o
Developmf
Wetlands
Whelan Preservati
Sch. 4-j
Pavilion CommerciE
Residentia
High Dens,
Lincoln Developm
34, o School

NORTH

C pe
c 00 pit Vb
t ex...
co
EV rlarid Park
Track

DC Pavilion
X 0
igh School o

0
cr

5 tlf
19 on nQ le
ee Coastal Zone Managern
c

rp)
t City of Revere
Pol e je BEACH
t Ro "nit r_ TI
MI
+

Public Meetings

To Discuss The

Coastal Zone Management Study

Por The

City of Revere

-74-

1. City Council, City Hall, February 8, 1979

As a result of the flooding that took place on January 25,
1979, a group of residents in the City petitioned the Council
to hold a public meeting at which time there would be an open
discussion of the flooding problems in the City of Revere.

The CZM Study staff helped the Council President organize the
meeting and invite representatives from various state and
federal agencies. In addition, the staff made a presentation
on the scope of the CZM Study, and in particular on the pro-
posed study of the Eastern Branch of the County Ditch.

One of the conclusions of the meeting was that there needed
to be a comprehensive summary of all of the flood control
activities on the City of Revere. The other recommendation
relative to the CZM Study was that the engineering recommen-
dations for the Eastern Branch of the County Ditch take into
account all of the public and private projects proposed for
that drainage basin.

-75-

2. Revere Fair Share, St. Theresa's Rectory, March 7, 1979

The Revere Branch of Fair Share asked Mayor George V. Colella
and various department heads to attend a neighborhood meeting
to discuss flooding problems, drain maintenance, and incre-
mental development of the salt marsh.

Age of the drainage system and poor design were brought up as
major problems contributing to flooding of low-lying areas.
There was also a discussion of the inappropriate development
that has occured :throughout the years in the salt marshes of
the City. Many people were surprised to learn that their
homes were built on former salt marsh-land and without
adequate local drainage or floodproofing.

The question of the cause of the January 15, 1979, flood led
to an important digression on the elevation of land in the
Revere Beach section of the City. Again, many people were
surprised to learn that the homes in the Bay Road area were
between 2.5 and 7.0 feet above mean sea level (msl). The
houses in the Arcadia-Ellerton Street area are situated
between 1.5 and 5.3-feet above mean sea level. Those homes
at the end of Sachem Street are only 3.0 feet above mean sea
level. At the eastern end of Shawmut Street, along North Shore
Road, the elevations run between 2.5 and 3.8 feet above msl.

It was pointed out that the significance of this siting of the
houses was that, everytime there was a high tide, basements
would get wet.

Poor land use planning coupled with inadequate design and lack
of maintenance of the drainage system has resulted in the flood-
ing conditions people encounter today.

The conversation for that evening also covered the drain clean-
ing program currently being conducted by the City's Department
of Public Works. The need to bring in the Essex County
Mosquito Control Unit (which has the appropriate equipment for
cleaning out the earthen-County Ditch system) was pointed out.

Lastly, there was a discussion of the laws which regulate
development in wetlands. The performance of the newly appoint-
ed Conservation Commission with respect to the enforcement of
the Wetlands Protection Act was brought up.

Allegations were made that the City Department of Public Works-
was violating Chapter 131, Section 40, by dumping in the wet-
lands.

-76-

It turned out that the City DPW was attempting to protect low-
lying neighborhoods by creating earthen dikes. While this was
being done without a proper Order of Conditions, the intentions
were "honorable". The improper legal action will be remedied
by increased communication between the City DPW and the Conser-
vation Commission and the filing of a Notice of Intent for
actions to be taken by the DPW.

-77-

3. Revere Beach Citizens Advisory Committee, Lincoln School,
May 17, 1979

This citizen's committee, which has been monitoring develop-
ment on the Revere Beach since 1972, requested the MBTA and
their consultants to attend a meeting to discuss the impact
of the North Shore Transit Improvement Project (NSTIP) on
drainage and traffic circulation in the Revere Beach area.

The charge that the MBTA gave to its consultants (Greiner
Engineering and Bryant and Associates) was to design a
drainage system that would adequately deal with the run-off
from the NSTIP and would replace sections of the ditch system
that would have to be moved by the track extension from the
Wonderland Station to the Boston and Maine embankment.

While the system that was described was adequate in terms of
dealing with the impacts of the improvements to the Blue Line,
it did not take into account the Revere Beach Development
Project, Revere Beach Reservation Improvements or the Revere
Beach Connector. It was stated by the CZM Study Staff, that
the City was interested in a comprehensive redesign of the
Eastern Branch of the County Ditch based upon all of the
proposed public and private projects. Fortunately, the
consulting engineers to the CZM study, Richard Downes and
Marcus Hann had just completed the first draft of their re-
commendations for improvements to the drainage system.
Consequently, the CZM Study Director was able to give a
summary presentation of that study.

The MBTA was asked whether or not they would financially par-
ticipate in the reconstruction of the Eastern Branch 6f the
County Ditch based on a prorata share which would be deter-
minate JDy the amount of run-off generated by each project.

Mr. Richard Benedetto of the MBTA said that such a strategy
was definitely possible, pending joint agreement on the
comprehensive design and the prorata share formula. When
the CZM Study recommendations have been finalized, there will
be a meeting between@`Ehe CZM Study staff and the MBTA to
answer the above-mentioned questions.

-78-

4. CZM Citizens Advisory Group, City Hall, June 6, 1979

This meeting was called by the CZM Study staff to present the
recommendations for the comprehensive improvements to the
Eastern Branch of the County Ditch.

A description of the topography of the area, the history of
flooding, causes of flooding and the existing drainage system
were given by the CZM Study Director as background to the
recommendations. Particular attention was paid to the im-
proper design used in the culverts in the existing system and
the problem with maintaining an earthen ditch system. The
limits of protection were pointed out. That is, the drainage
area in question is basically a bowl. The elevation on the
eastern perimeter at Revere Beach Boulevard ranges from 14 to
17 feet above msl. However, the elevation on the western
perimeter at the Band M embankment is-only 8.3 to 8.5 feet
above msl. This means that when the tidal elevation in the
marsh surrounding Diamond Creek exceeds 8.3 feet above msl,
water will come over the top of the embankment and enter the
drainage area. Even if there is a pumping station, the area
would experience flooding under the above-described circum-
stances.

Those homes at the lowest elevation would experience flood
damage. Even if the recommendations for the Eastern Branch
were implemented, the Mayor and the City Council will have to
consider a selective building moratorium for the lowest-lying
areas.

In the course of the presentation, it was explained that the
assumptions used in deriving the recommendations were the
maximum level of development and filling as described in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revere Beach
Development Project. This included, the South Lot, Parch H
and the North Lot, as well as the Revere Beach Reservation
between Beach Street and Revere Street. In addition, the
consulting engineers, Downes and Hann, incorporated estimates
of run-off from the NSTIP in the drainage area and the
improvements proposed by the MDC for a primary and secondary
seawall and holding basins which would prevent seawater from
entering the City's drainage system.

In short, the assumptions included maximum level of develop-
ment, the elimination of seawater in the drainage area, and
the channeling of the surface run-off from Revere Beach
Connector to an ocean outfall in Broad Sound. This latter
assumption was based upon the description of the proposed
drainage improvements contained in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Revere Beach Connector.

-79-

The recommendations for improvement include culverts capable
of holding a 10-year storm, either an open paved swail or a
box culvert to replace the earthen ditch, additional final
culverts and tide gates, a pumping station and a holding
basin. The cost for these improvements range from 5.2
million dollars to 6.4 million dollars.

A more detailed description of the proposed improvements is
contained in the Downes and Hann report which is part of this
chapter.

Two significant review comments were made by members of the
CZM Citizens Advisory Committee.

The first comment concerned the location of the proposed
holding basin. It was suggested that it be moved as far north
as possible, even within the interchange ramps for the Con-
nector. If possible, this would leave a buffer between the
houses on Freeman Street and the holding basin.

The second comment suggested that when more information was
available from the DPW regarding their proposal for an ocean
outfall, that a combined ocean outfall for the run-off from
the Connector and the interior drainage water be considered.
Both of these suggestions will be explored by the CZM Study
staff.

_80-

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP

Joseph A. LaValle -Lester-Smith
41 Bickford Avenue Coastal Geologist
Revere, Mass. 02151 Coastal Zone Management Office
100 Cambridge Street
Robert J. Furlong Boston, Mass. 02202
City Planner
City Hall William Clendaniel
281 Broadway General Council
Revere, Mass. 02151 Coastal Zone Management office
Boston, Mass. 02202
Joseph Festa
Central Realty Co. Peter Kortright
385 Broadway Coastal Zone Management Office
Revere, Mass. 02151 100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Mass. 02202
James Gustavson
11 Putnam Road Lilian Carifio
Revere, Mass. 02151 314 Reservoir Avenue
Revere, Mass. 02151
Elyse Cherry
Revere League of Women Voters Sylvia Blume
9 Cummings Avenue 26 Wedsworth Avenue
Revere, Mass. 02151 Revere, Mass. 02151

William Flynn, President Jean D'Iorio
City Council 53 Centennial Avenue
City Hall Revere, Mass. 02151
281 Broadway
Revere, Mass. -02151 Dorothy MacDougall
622 Park Avenue
Ellen Haas, Chairperson Revere, Mass. 02151
RBCAC
10 Pierview Avenue
Revere, Mass. 02151

-81-

SECTION THREE

Implementation Program

-82-

Analysis of Existing Land Use
Management Programs

-83-

Introduction

In order to analyze existing land use management programs in Revere
in terms of the planning policies and criteria developed under Revere's
CZM community grant project, it is necessary to focus on three areas of
concern: existing ordinances as promulgated by the City, the administration
of these existing ordinances and controls and the enforcement of these
ordinances when violations are detected.

It is stating the obvious to assert that any land management program
is only as good as the legal authority under which it operates. No
administrative action can legitimately be undertaken unless it is consistent
with and authorized by an enabling statute, regulation or ordinance.
Enabling authority which attempts to give broad powers and sets few
standards can provide flexibility in respond to diverse situations but at
the same time is susceptible to abuse and the arbitrary and sometimes
unlawful exercise of the discretion it provide:i. Conversely, enabling
authority which is too precise and rigid often fails to equitably provide
for the unique situation and oftentimes overlooks significant problem
areas. Land management programs in Revere suffer to some extent, from
both of these problems.

Once adequate enabling authority is in place the next area of concern
is with the administration of this authority. An effective land management
program allows for some discretion in its application. Whether this
discretion is exercised fairly and evenhandily with reference to pre-
existing standards and policies or arbitrarily, depending upon the whims
of the administration should be of utmost concern.

The perceived integrity of the management program influences all who
deal with it. Any land management program relies to varying degrees on
voluntary compliance. When the program is perceived as a sham, compliance.
will clearly suffer. However, the honesty and integrity of the administrators
is not the only guidepost in determining administrative effectiveness.
Adequate funding and staffing of programs is also critical to good
administration. Land use management programs can easily collapse under
their own weight if support staff is lacking. Moreover, staff must be
adequately trained and experienced in order to explain and administer the
programs, and must be given the support of other departments and programs
to insure that administrative activity is not functioning at cross purposes.
While steps have been taken in Revere to improve administrative effectiveness,
many areas of land use management appear to suffer from inadequate staffing
and lack of coordination.

Finally, the enforcement of land management programs is critical if
such programs are to be taken seriously. Violations must be detected, and
once detected, enforcement action must be certain and evenhanded, and
provide for consistent enforcement priorities. Flexibility must be provided
for, in order to vary the enforcement response according to the nature and

-84-

seriousness of the violation. Predetermined enforcement priorities provide
the best assurances that enforcement will be flexible yet evenhanded.
Enforcement offices must be adequately staffed and trained and cooperative
relations between administrative officials and enforcement officials must
be maintained.

Enforcement of land use management programs in Revere has been subject
to recent criticism by both state and city officials.

The preceding discussion highlights the areas of concern in this
analysis of Revere's land management programs. The following analysis
will deal with each of these areas of concern (legal authority, administration,
enforcement) in terms of specific land use management programs (i.e. zoning,
subdivision control, wetlands protection, public health, sewer use, etc.).
Readers should be aware that the discussion focuses on Droblems within the
Revere CZM project area, and is by no means an exhaustive analysis of all
land use management problems within the City. However, with the possible
exception of zoning, land use controls should be applied uniformly city-
wide, so that a discussion of land use management broken down by project
area or sub-area would be overly repetitions. Unless otherwise noted, the
problems and illustrations presented in this report all related to the
Revere CZM project area (see map).

-85-

I. ZONING

A. Legal Authority

Revere's Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21 of the Revised Ordinances of the
City of Revere, was adopted by the City Council on July 26, 1971. It has
been amended on a few occasions since 1971. The most significant amendments
include the creation of a General Commercial A District in 1977 and revisions
effective July 1, 1978, accepting Chapter 40A of the Mass. General Laws,
as amended by Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975, and subsequent amendments.

The ordinance originally created nine districts, and now has ten with the
addition of the abovementioned General Commercial A District.

The ordinance is straightforward and standard, containing articles
governing, among other things, uses, height and area, accessory uses,
nonconforming uses, parking requirements, exceptions and appeals. The
ordinance contains none of the more innovative types of zoning controls
found in many of the zoning by-laws of eastern Massachusetts communities,
such as cluster zoning or PUD districts, performance standards, site
plan reviews, or wetland and flood plain districts. The ordinance is out
of date, and owing to attempts to revise it to make it consistent with the
state zoning act, confusing and sometimes inconsistent. The City should
consider a comprehensive revision of this important city ordinance.

In terms of the policies being proposed under this Revere CZM project
the zoning deficiencies lie in two major areas:

1. The failure of the ordinance to address the City's
flooding and drainage problems, and the related problem
of protection of the City's natural resources; and

2. The confusing and incomplete provisions relating to the
issuance of special permits and exceptions under the
ordinaffce.

In Massachusetts over 200 communities now have established some
sort of local land use control over the development of flood plains. This
number will increase as more communities come into the "regular" phase
of the HUD Flood Insurance Prc@gxam.

Revere will enter the "regular" phase when HUD "rate maps" are completed.
These "rate maps" should be available by the fall of 1979. The rate maps
show the base level of the 100 year flood and the "regulatoryu floodway
which will carry-the flood with no more than a one-foot rise. A community
wishing to continue participation in the HUD flood insurance program must
adopt land use regulations forbidding filling or building within the
"regulatory floodway" and require that buildings in the rest of the floodplain
be elevated (if homes) or floodproofed. Homes in the areas impacted by
coastal storms must be specially constructed with "breakaway" fronts. Barriers

-86-

beaches must not be built upon. While the rate maps are not yet complete it
is clear that most of the Revere CZM project area will fall within the 100
floodplain and the "regulatory floodway". In order to continue to qualify
for subsidized flood insurance rates Revere will have to adopt some form of
floodplain zoning which meets the HUD requirements.

Zoning by-laws in Massachusetts cities and towns must be consistent
with Chpater 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws (the Zoninq Act) Chapter
808 of the Acts of 1975 subsequently amended Chapter 40A. While the new
act does not attempt to limit the purposes of zoning, reflecting, the increased
nower of cities and towns under the Home Rule Amendment to the Massachusetts
Constitution, it does suggest objectives for which zoning could be
established. These include the conservation of health, securing safety
from flood and other dangers; the prevention of the overcrowding of land to
avoid undue concentration of population, facilitating the adequate provision
of water supply, drainage, sewerage, open space and other public requirements,
the conservation of natural resources and the prevention of blight and
pollution of the environment; and the encouragement of the most appropriate
use of land including consideration of the recommendations of the master
plan, if any, adopted by the planning board. (St. 1975 C. 808, S. 2A) In
light of these expanded objective, the establishment of zoning districts
for the protection of floodplains and wetlands must be considered a
legitimate use of the zoning power. In Golden V. Falmouth (358 Mass 519,
1970) and Turnpike Realty Co. V. Town of Dedham (362 Mass 221, 1972), both
decided prior to the passage of Chapter 808, the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts recognized that flood control and wetlands regulations are
within the municipal "police power" to regulate for the protection of health,
safety and welfare. The court in the Turnpike case held that "the general
necessity of floodplain zoning to reduce the damage to life and property
caused by flooding is unquestionable. The floodplain district boundaries
must, however, be shown on the City's zoning map and must be backed by
historical or engineering data.

other legal issues relating to floodplain zoning will be discussed in
the report dealing with new implementation techniques. The preceding discussion
has sought only to set out the need for floodplain zoning in Revere and the
legality of such zoning. The recommendation is that some form of wetland/
floodplain is necessary in Revere because of the City's drainage and flooding
problems, and the failure of the existing zoning ordinance to deal with
these problems. The ordinance once contained vague language that would have
allowed the refusal of a permit "(i) if a use otherwise permitted could cause
injury to property or be detrimental to community..." (Sec. 21-6, prior
to amendment). This language granted discretionary powers to the Building
Inspector which were clearly too broad. This language was rightfully deleted,
but as a result, the ordinance provides even fewer tools to control building
in flood prone areas. Clearly, some form of floodplain zoning is necessary
in Revere, if not to protect the public health, safety and welfare, then
at least to insure the availability of federal assistance when a flood
disaster does occur.

-87-

The second area of concern in Revere's zoning ordinance deals with the
confusing and incomplete provisions relating to the issuance of special
permits and the allowance of exceptions under the zoning ordinance. As
stated before, Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975 substantially amended
Chapter 40A of the General Laws, the state zoning act. The zoning act is
designed to provide standardized procedures for the administration and
promulgation of municipal zoning laws. The issuance of special permits is
one of the areas where it provides for standardized procedures. In
amending Revere's zoning ordinance to bring it into compliance with state
law an attempt was made to graft these new procedures onto existing procedures.
The amendment created a few areas of confusion over exceptions and variances
to the zoning ordinance. -This is indeed unfortunate since exceptions and the
rezoning of areas in the City may already be the primary problem in the
administration of the City zoning law. New confusion can only create
further problems.

Prior to the amendment of the ordinance in 1978 there were two methods
of obtaining relief from requirements of the ordinance (other than rezoning
the area). The first was through an exception to district regulations,
granted by the municipal council in order to "(Permit certain uses of
buildings, structures on land in apartment houses, general commercial and
light industrial districts)" and to "permit certain other special exceptions
as specified in section 21-29 /'(section 21-29 (a) (1) and (2))7 since 21-29
did not specify other districts its only application could be in apartment
house, general commercial and light industrial districts.

Variances could be issued under the zoning ordinance by the Board of
Appeals after public notice and hearing, where public convenience and welfare
would be substantially served; the exception would improve, the status of
the neighborhood; and where the variance was in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the ordinance. The Board of Appeals could:

a) permit the alteration of a one family house to a two family,
b) issue conditional permits for temporary structures
c) permit -variations authorized by Chapter 40A of the General Laws,
d) permit front yards of less than twenty fee (sec. 21-33).

In 1978, the amendment of Revere's zoning ordinance added twenty-eight,
among other things, new provisions dealing with the issuance of special
permits and variances. It did '--not delete or substantially revise either of
the abovementioned mechanisms. Both new provisions were written to comply
with Chapter 808. As zoning must be reviewed by the Attorney General to
insure compliance with the state zoning act it must be assumed that these
amendments were approved by the Attorney General.

However, neither provision provides for notice to be sent in mail,.
postage prepaid, to those Persons having an interest in the proceedings,
including the applicant, abutters, owners of land directly opposite on
any public or private street or way and owners of land within 300 feet of
the property line as required by Chapter 40A, Section 11 of the General
Laws, as amended by Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975.

-88-

With respect to other specific problems with the new special permit
provision (section 21-2, as amended 7/l/78), the section states that
"The procedures of Sec. 21-29 (exceptions) shall be incorporated in the
granting of special permits". This seems to imply that both procedures
must be complied with. The requirements for an exception under Sec. 21-29
do not mirror the requirements for the grant of a special permit under
section 21-2, as amended, and as required by Chapter 40A of the General
Laws. For example, a 2/3rds vote of the City Council is only necessary
to grant an exception under Sec. 21-29 where a written protest is filed
by twenty percent of the adjacent landowners. All special permits require
a 2/3rds vote of the City Council. Does this mean that a landowner may obtain
an exception under Section 21-29 by a majority vote of the City Council
where there is not neighborhood protest? It is suggested that such a
procedure would violate the state zoning act, as being in fact an issuance
of a special permit without complying with the special permit provisions
of the state zoning act.

Moreover, the special permit provision (section 21-2 as amended 7/l/78)
provides few standards for the special permit granting authority (the City
Council) to apply. While the legal requirements authorizing the grant of
a special permit are quite liberal, requiring only that the uses are in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and subject
to general or specific provisions set forth in the ordinance, courts have
required more. The Massachusetts SJC has held that the provisions of
the local ordinance set forth sufficient and adequate standards for
guidance for the authority in deciding whether to grant or withhold
special permits. MacGibbon v. Board of Appeals, Duxbury, 356 Mass. 63S,
638 (1970). A zoning by-law which is so vague and ambiguous that its
meaning can only be guessed at is void. Berliner v. Feldman 1973 AS 955.

Aside from the legal problems, there are sound planning and environmental
reasons why special permit standards should be detailed in the ordinance-
Much of the Revere Beach area is currently zoned in such a manner that
revitalization projects which the City desires are not permitted by right.
Height restrictions for apartment house districts for example are generally
below project proposals. If floodplain zoning is adopted, some formofspecial
permit provision should be included to allow compatible types of development
which would improve the City's tax base. Aside from that the wide discretion
given the City Council to grant special permits may be legally impermissible,
this discretion does not insure that, in every instance, the economic
social and environmental interests of the City are protected. Detailed
standards, adopted after input from all municipal agencies and interests,
would insure that all City concerns are addressed in every special permit
proceeding. Such standards, for example, would be an excellent place to
impose requirements that drainage from new projects does not exacerbate the
City's flooding problems. Specific standards could insure that factors
such as the placement of buildings and utilities surface and groundwater
drainage, water supply, access, parking, loading, landscaping, lighting;
dust and noise control, environmental damage and off-site impacts are
considered.

_89-

Of course, even more innovative types of zoning controls such as cluster
zoning and PUD districts, performance standards and development rights
transfers could be included in special permit requirements. These issues
will be addressed in a subsequent report. The purpose of this report is
only to note deficiencies in the existing system.

The variance provision in the zoning ordinance added by the 1978 amendment
(Section 21-33 as amended 7/l/78) contains the abovementioned notice
problem and one other possible problem area. Under Chapter 40A section 10
of the General Laws, as amended by Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975 a use
variance, as opposed to a variance from a dimensional or density requirement,
is only allowed where specifically permitted by the City's ordinance. No
such specific permission is given in Revere's amended ordinance. This may
not be an omission, but rather the precise intent of the City Council in
adjusting the ordinance. In any event, the questionable legal validity
of any use variance granted by the Board of Appeals should be noted.

Other recommendations for changes to the loning ordinance include
changes to the dumping, filling, and earth removal provisions, additional
parking requirements and prohibitions on the storage of hazardous materials.

Unlawful dumping has been repeatedly cited as a problem in most of
the Revere CZM project area. It is not suggested that an improved zoning
ordinance would solve this problem, but rather that the zoning ordinance work
in conjuction with other municipal regulatory measures. Revere's zoning
ordinance allows land in light and heavy industrial districts to be used
as "a public or private dump or place of depositing abandoned property and
refuse" (Sections 21-16(4)(b) and 21-17). To do so a permit must be
obtained from the City Council, which must first hold a hearing and give
appropriate notice (note: wrong reference to new zoning act), and if the
planning board does not approveofthe Permit then the City Council can only
approve the issuance of such a permit upon a 2/3rds vote (Section 21-16 (4)(c)
and (d)).

These provisions provide additional areas of conflict with the special
permit provisions of the state zoning act. Moreover, they add further
permit procedures to those that are administered by other City agencies
under separate authority, including the Board of Health, and the
Conservation Commission.

Another section of Revere Zoning ordinance allows earth removal
operations to be conducted upon issuance of a permit from the Board of
Appeals. (Section 21-31) Here again, another special permit procedure
is spelled out, and another arm of City government is involved in permitting.

It is recommended that one of two possible courses of action be taken.
Either all special permits be included in and subject to the special permit
section (Section 21-2) which complies with the state zoning act, or earth
removal permits and dumping and filling permits be removed from the
scope of the zoning ordinance, and dealt with by a separate municipal

-90-

ordinance. A separate earth removal, dumping and filling ordinance could
coordinate all municipal permit granting actions, and would not be restricted
in scope or procedures by the state zoning act.

In a related area, the storage of hazardous materials is not specifically
prohibited in light of heavy industrial districts. It should be so prohibited.
If it is allowed at all it should only be by special permit.

Finally, parking requirements (Section 21-28A) should contain provisions
which will insure adequate drainage without increasing flooding problems.

B. Administration

The City's Building Inspector is currently primarily responsible for
compliance with the zoning ordinances. He is also responsible for compliance
with the state building code which governs materials and methods of construction
used in building as was mentioned previously. Major problems in the
administration of the City's Zoning ordinances are caused by the large
number of exceptions, special permits and variances to the zoning
ordinances, as well as the rezoning of small areas within the City. It
is sometimes impossible to determine what zoning applies in certain areas
because of the exceptions which have been granted. With the new special
permit authority added last-spring, it is likely that there will be more
exceptions in the future.

It has been suggested by City officials that the creation of a new
post of Zoning Administrator could help resolve some of this confusion.
The Zoning Administrator would be responsible for compliance with the
zoning ordinance. He would work closely with the building inspector to
insure that proposed building, repairs and alterations complied with the
applicable zoning requirements.

The Zoning Administrator would catalogue and index all exceptions,
special permits, variances and rezonings for reference purposes, and would
also provide administrative and technical assistance to the City Council
in the issuance of special permits to insure that the procedure requirements
are met, and that the permit is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the zoning ordinance. The Zoning Administrator should have good
administrative skills as well as a strong background in zoning and land use
control.

Under the state zoning act, Chapter 40A of the General Laws as
amended by Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975, the Building Inspector is
retained as the partyinthe first instance charged with the enforcement
of the zoning ordinance. This is because the issuance of a building
permit is the first and best opportunity to review building proposals for
comoliance with the zoning ordinance. It is not suggested that this
procedure be varied in Revere, but rather that the Zoning Administrator
work with the Building Inspector to insure that a proper review is made.

-91-

Chapter 40A, Section 13 permits the creation of the position of zoning
Administrator. His function is to decide appeals which would otherwise be
heard by the Board of Appeals, which include appeals from administrative action,
requests for variances and requests for special permits. If the position is
authorized by the zoning ordinances, the individual is appointed by the Board
of Appeals subject to confirmation by the City Council. The individual serves
at the vleasure of the Board of Appeals. Any decision appealed to the Zoning
Administrator not acted on within 35 days of filing would be deemed denied.
Any decision of the Zoning Administrator can be appealed within thirty days to
the Board of Appeals.

C. Enforcement

Here again the primary problem lies in the large number of excevtions,
variances, special permits and rezonings which have occurred. Records of these
actions are sketchy at best, and therefore enforcement is uncertain. A com-
plete revision of the City zoning ordinance as-well as the creation of a Zoning
Administrator position would do much to resolve this problem, and provide a
more definite record upon which enforcement action could be based.

Section 21-6 of Revere's zoning ordinance, as amended, states
that:

1, To aid the Building Inspector in his work, it shall be the
duty of every police officer to know that all work on buildings
on his beat is being done under a proper permit and to notify
the building inspector if it is not being so done."

It is suggested that additional attention to this provision as well
as other municiDal land use control ordinance by the police department
could greatly assist in solving many of Revere's land use control problems.
A memo to police officers reminding them of their responsibility to check -
for valid building permits and wetlands permits would provide better zoning
enforcement, and could aid in stopping illegal dumping and filling in the
City. A training program for police officers in the areas of zoning,
health and wetlands enforcement may be necessary to effectively implement
such increased monitoring.

-92-

II. HEALTH REGULATIONS

A. Legal Authority

Under Chapter 111 of the General Laws, Municipal Boards of Health
are given broad powers. The board consists of three members, appointed
by the City Council.

Municipal Boards of Health are charged with the enforcement of many
state statutes dealing with public health. They enforce the provisions of
state sanitary and environmental codes, and can impose more stringent
regulations when local conditions require them. They may make and enforce
regulations relative to house drainage and connection with common sewers
(G.L. C. 111, S. 127). They assign sites and monitor the operation of any
"sanitary landfill, refuse transfer station, refuse incinerator, refuse
compoting plan, dumping ground for refuse, or any other works for treating
or disposing of refuse" (G.L. C. 111, S. 150A). They may assign locations
where offensive trades or employment which may result in a nuisance, be
harmful to the inhabitants or dangerous to the public health can only be
carried on; (G.L. C. 111, S. 143) and they may make "reasonable health
regulations", including regulations on sewage disposal and regulations
necessary to remove or prevent nuisances (G.L. C. 111, S. 31). The Board
of Health also plays an important role in the subdivision approval process,
and in the issuance of building permits.

The Board of Health may adopt regulations by a vote of the board, and
the regulations become effective after publication, once, in the newspaper
of the municiuality (G.L. C. 111, S. 31).

In Revere, the Board of Health is given all powers vested in the City
Board of Health under the General Laws, and is authorized to "make such
regulations as it deems wise regarding inspection and sale bfice and
milk for domestic purposes, and shall perform such other duties as may
from time to time be prescribed by the Mayor and the City Council".
(Section 2-79 of the revised ordinances of the City of Revere.) The
Revere Board of Health has intensive regulations governing all areas of
its jurisdiction from the sale of milk to the regulation of shellfisheries.

In terms of the scope of the Revere CZM project, and the land use
management problems encountered-inthe project area, the major focus of
interest is with health regulations governing dumping and-drainage.
Section 9 Rule 16 of the regulations of the Revere Board of Health states
that: "No person shall throw into or leave in or upon any public or
private way, or place, public enclosure, dumping ground vacant lots, flats
or any pond or tidal or other water within this City any dead animals,
manure, oyster, clam or lobster shells, waste water or filth of any kind,
or any refuse of animal or vegetable matter whatever."

-93-

Rule 14, Section 8 and 9 requires that any person wishing to use any
premises within the City as a dump or fill area for ashes, refuse, dry
waste, rubbish or other material obtain a permit from the Board of Health.
other provisions of the regulations govern littering from a public highway
or within twenty yards thereof, or on private property, with a $50.00
fine and suspension of driving license possible (Rule 14, Section 11),
dumping on land of another without consent of the landowner and Board
of Health (Rule 14, Section 12) and depositing waste material for the
purpose of filling, without Board of Health permission (Rule 14, Section 13).
The owner of land is at all times responsible for its condition and may be
ordered to remove any filth or rubbish of any kind by the Board of Health.
(Rule 14, Section 12 and Rule 16 and Section 1).

There is no question that there is adequate jurisdiction for the
Board of Health to deal with most types of illegal dumping, and to require
the clean up of same. Improvements to the present program could be made
primarily in the areas of administration and enforcement. However, as
was noted previously, because of the magnitude of the illegal dumping
problems in Revere, a new City ordinance dealing solely with dumping,
filling and earth removal should be considered.

Such an ordinance would set forth the responsibilities of involved
city agencies and insure that permit and enforcement procedures were
coordinated. It need not limit the authority of any agency currently
with jurisdiction over dumping. City agencies could thereby be assured
that they were working together and not act at cross purposes. If such
an ordinance was adopted then the Board of Health Regulations governing
dumping should be revised to comply with it.

The second area of concern in the Health regulations vis a vis
Revere's CZ14 project is in the drainage of lots and land within the
City. The regulations require that owners of land remove waste or
stagnent water from their premises when ordered to do so by the Board of
Health (Rule 16, Section 1). Rule 19 deals with house drainage and
concerns itself more with connections to sanitary sewers and cesspools
and septic tanks than with the drainage of water from lots. While Rule 41,
Section 1 states that "No building permit shall be issued for any building
until the Board of Health has approved the proposed lot or site as
suitable from a sanitary point of view for human habitation or occupancy",
there are no provisions relating to the drainage of rainwater, floodwaters
or waters from other sources.

It appears that the drainage of lots is an area which is overlooked
in most of Revere's relevant ordinances. Zoning controls, subdivision
regulations and health regulations do not substantially deal with the
issue.

In a community which suffers from severe drainage and flooding
problems it seems incumbent on all city department and agencies with the
necessary authority to carefully review each building, development and

-94-

land use proposal in terms of its drainage impacts. To do this effectively,
adequate standards, regulations and procedures must first be adopted.

It is recommended that Rule 41 and 19 be amended to substantively
deal with the problem of surface water drainage. The proposed drainage
of the lot should be carefully reviewed against adopted standards in every
review by the Board of Health of building permit applications. In addition,
where drainage problems exist in developed areas, the Board of Health
should be specifically authorized to order that corrective and maintenance
measures be undertake- in order to prevent or remove public nuisance
conditions.

An additional area where Board of Health regulations could be
improved is in the storage, disposal and transport of hazardous materials.

Rules 21 and 22 governing nuisances and offensive trades and
occupations should be amended to provide for controls and the issuance
of permits to anyone transporting hazardous materials, including toxic
chemicals and flammable materials.

B. Administration

Revere's Health Department appears to be adequately staffed with
competent people. However, the chief health agent is the only person
doing work relative to dumping and drainage problems. Increased City
surveillance to crack down on illegal dumping could be handled in a number
of ways. An additional health agent could be employed to assist in
detection and enforcement. The work of the Health Department and the
Conservation Commission could be better coordinated for maximum effectiveness
and use of available personnel, or, as mentioned previously, the police
department could become more involved in detecting illegal dumping and
enforcing municipal ordinances against such dumping.

If stricter drainage regulations are adopted, more personnel may be
needed to adequately administer and enforce such regulations. An individual
with a background in civil engineering and hydrology could assist in the
administration of the drainage requirements, and also provide other
departments and boards with needed expertise.

Finally, consideration 8@fould be given to requiring that all dwellings
abutting a common sewer be required to tie into that sewer. Currently
only dwellings which are experiencing problems with on site systems are
required by the Board of Health to tie in. V1hile this may appear to
be a costly requirement for landowners at this time, when theT City begins
to charge customers on the basis of sewer use, as it will be required to
by MDC and the EPA (see section on sewer use regulations), this requirement
will insure that landowners benefitting from the availability of sewers
pay for those benefits.

-95-

C. Enforcement

Here again, backup by the police department could greatly assist
in identifying illegal dumping situations and bringing enforcement actions.
It has been suggested that the only measure which would stop the illegal
dumping in the City is the construction of barriers in those areas prone
to dumping. Howerver, there is an alternative to building walls around
the areas where illegal dumping occurs, i.e. the marshes and wetlands.
A strong city-wide enforcement program, coupled with a public information
program to educate the public on the extent of the problem, and the
penalties for noncompliance may help change the perceived public attitude
that dumping is done by everyone, including the City, and is therefore
acceptable. It is time for the City to actively and publicly address the
problem, if Revere is to cease being the area's dumping ground.

An additional enforcement problem that has been noted is the lack
of legal backup when violations are noted. In-the past, City departments
were often represented in court by public officers with no formal legal
background or knowledge of public health statutes and issues. The outcome
of such proceedings often went against the City because of failure to
comply with necessary administrative procedures or unsympathetic judges
not being convinced of the public interests in the enforcement of the
municipal ordinances. The City Solicitor's office states that it now
becomes involved in every major enforcement action taken by the City,
and that police prosecutors are no longer used in such situations. If so,
then the initial criticism seems to have been addressed, and no further
recommendation is necessary.

_96-

III. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

A. Legal Authority

The present rules and regulations for subdivision of land in the
City of Revere were adopted by the Revere Planning Board in 1960. These
subdivision regulations were adopted under the authority of Chapter 41,
Sections 81k-81 66 of the general laws. Otherwise known as the Subdivision
Control Law. Since 1960 various provisions of the Subdivision Control
Law have been amended and changed. Additionally, case law since 1960 has
further defined various procedures; responsibility and the scope of the
law have been amended and changed. Since 1960, through a period that has
undergone what has been called a "quiet revolution in land use control"
the rules and regulations for the subdivision of land in Revere have
remained unchan ged.

Under Chapter 41, Section 81m of the General Laws, the Planning
Board, in evaluating proposed subdivisions of land, must regulate the
construction of ways and ensure sanitary conditions. The Board is given
the power and duty to adopt subdivision regulations governing design and
construction of ways, drainage and utilities. So long as the regulations
on these subjects do not conflict with the local zoning code or the
requirements of other boards they will be presumed valid and afforded great
weight if challenged in court. However, at least one court has strictly
construed the legislative statement of purpose of the law, stating that:
"The only purposes recognized are to provide suitable ways for access;
fiirnished with appropriate municipal utilities and the secure sanitary
conditions". Daly Construction Co., v. Planning Board of Randolph, 340 Mass.
149, 153. Regulations which insured the adequate drainage of the locus
have been held to be within the scope of the law. United Reis Homes,
Inc. v. Planning Board of Natick. This type of regulation has been allowed
even where it involved the "natural drainage" of the locus. Hamilton v.
Planning Board of L@@xipgton, 1976 Mass. App. Ct. Adv. Sh. 506, 507. In
addition, in a recent decision the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
upheld the right of a Planning Board through its subdivision regulations,
to seek information on the impact of the subdivision on town services, even
though its stationary authority does not permit it to deny a permit on
the basis of the information gathered, provided that the information is
reasonably necessary to enable the board to carry out its duties. Lo ing
Hills Developmetn Trust v. Planning Board of Salem, 372 W.E. 2nd 775.

Revere's subdivision regulations do not run the risk of being held
invalid because they require too much information. Rather, they can be
lible. Time
said to require and import the least amount of information poss
frames and notification procedure bear little resemblance to those in the
subdivision control law. For example, under the Planning Board's regulations
the Board must act on the preliminary plan within thirty days after it has-
received the plan and requires only that a sketch of the preliminary plan
be presented to the Board of Health for their approval. Under the state
enabling act (Chapter 41, Section 81 of the General Laws) both the Planning
Board and the Board of Health must be given a copy of the plan, and both
boards must respond within 60 days.

-97-

Since no time period is given for Board of Health action on the
preliminary plan under the subdivision regulations it is assumed that they
have the statutory 60 days period in which to respond. However, under
the regulations, the Planning Board must make up its mind within thirty
days. It is commendable to attempt to speed up the permitting procedures,
but it should not be done when administrative confusion will result. The
procedures under the regulations for approval of the definitive plan are
even less well defined. It is assumed that in the absence of definitive
time periods and procedures in the regulations, that the state subdivision
control law would be referred to. U nfortunately, under such a system
administrative errors are more likely to occur, invalidating the whole
approval process.

In terms of the substantive information requirements of Revere Rules
and Regulations for the subdivision of land, little is required. For
example, very little drainage information is required other than the
proposed drainage be shown. Runoff coefficients apparently need not be
calculated. Wetlands, or other water bodies need not be shown. Base
flood elevations need not be shown. impacts on municipal services do not
have to be described, and information on the physical environment and
surface and subsurface soil and water conditions need not be provided.
The subdivision control law does not necessarily require this information,
but, as noted above, such requirements are allowable, and they would certainly
aid the City in making an informed decision concerning a particular
development.

It is recommended that Revere consider a complete revision to its
subdivision rules and regulations.

B. Administration

The Revere planning department recognizes the shortcomings of the
existing regulations and apparently agrees that revisions are necessary.
Where the tools are limited, effective oversight of subdivision development
becomes difficult if not impossible. Insufficient standards and regulations
can only lead to insufficient administration.

C. Enforcement

Little information is ava-ilable concerning enforcement of the
subdivision regulations. Given the regulations one can only assume that
enforcement would be difficult.

-98-

IV. SEWER USE REGULATIONS

A. Legal Authority

In the City of Revere the common sewers are controlled by the Department
of Public Works. The Department is under the supervision of a superintendent
who is appointed by the Mayor, subject to the approval of the City Council.
The superintendent is authorized, subject to the approval of the Mayor, to
establish rules for the conduct of his.department not inconsistent with law
or ordinance (Sec. 2-31/5 of Revere's Revised Ordinances). Under state
law, a city may prescribe "rules and regulations regarding the use of common
sewers to prevent the entrance or discharge therein of any substance which
may tend to interfere with the flow of sewage or the proper operation of
the sewage system..:'(G.L. Chapter 83, Section 10). Municipalities are also
allowed to "make such orders, and by-laws, not repugnant to law.. for
regulating, under a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars for such offense,
the use of common sewers..." (G.L. Chapter 40,_Section 21(6)).

While municipalities are by statute, allowed to adopt sewer use
regulations, recent developments in federal and state law actually require
such regulations for certain communities. A community or public agency
which is receiving federal construction grant funds for wastewater treatment
facilities is required to show that it "has made adequate provisions for
assuring proper and efficient operation..." (Sec. 204(l) (4) of the federal
Clean Water Act). Additionally, General Conditions 2D of the NPDES permits
issued under the Federal Clean Water Act to the operators of publicly owned
treatment works in Massachusetts requires the permittee to have in effect
a sewer use ordinance which, at a minimum:

1. Prohibits a major contributing industry from discharging any
incompatible pollutants in an amount in excess of that allowed
under EPA pretreatment standards, and

2. Requires all major industrial discharges to perform such
monitoring of its discharge as the permittee may reasonably
require.

Revere is currently rehabilitating its sewerage system with EPA
grant funds, and is also a member of the Metropolitan Sewerage District of the
M.DC. The MDC is involved in extensive improvements of its facilities, using
EPA funds, and is therefore required to comply with federal requirements for
sewer use ordinances and also use charge requirements. The MDC has the
power to adopt reasonable rules and regulations covering the discharge of
sewage, drainage, substances and waste into its system (General Laws,
Chapter 72 SS2, 8A). It also has the authority to require that any
municipal user of the system meet any applicable federal or state law
regarding toxic or pretreatment standards (General Laws, Chapter 92 and
6A, as amended by Chapter 814 of the Acts of 1975). Under MDC "Rules and
Regulations covering discharge of sewerage, drainage, substances, or wastes
to sewage works within the Metropolitan Sewerage District" (effective
August 3, 1978) every municipal member of the 14DC must "have in effect a

_99-

sewer use by law or ordinance no less stringent than the regulations of
the Commission itself pertaining to sewer use, together with procedures
and adequate resources for monitoring and enforcing compliance with such
by-law or ordinance" (Article IIF Section 3). MDC's regulations contain,
among other provisions, a detailed list of prohibited wastes.

Revere's Revised Ordinances governing the use of sewers are not as
stringent as the MDC sewer use regulations. According to the MDC's agreed
timetable with the EPA, acceptable municpal ordinance s must be in place by
September 1979. These ordinances must also be approved by the Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control. It is recommended that Revere
begin the revision of its sewer use ordinance in order to comply with
federal and state requirements.

A related issue in EPA's requirement that recipients of EPA
construction grants adopt a system of use charges in which each user of
the system pays "its proportionate order of the costs of operation and
maintenance (including replacement) ... (Section 204(b)(1)(A) of the
Federal Clean Water Act).

1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act allow the use of dedicated
ad valoerm. taxes where the applicant for EPA funds has previously used
such a system and the administration determines that the applicant has
a system of charges which results in the distribution of operation and
maintenance cost to each user class in proportion to the contribution to
the total cost of operation and maintenance by each user class. Such a
dedicated ad valoerm tax system can only be used for a residential user
class and certain small non-residential users.

The MDC-currently assesses operation and maintenance costs to member
communities by a system based on population and population equivalents,
pursuant to Chapter 814, Section 6 of the Acts of 1975. A study is
presently being conducted by the MDC which is designed to assist
communities in meeting the federal user charge system requirements.
The MDC looks for acceptable systems to be in place by September of
1979.

As the adoption of a user charge system by the City is likely to take
some time, the City should immediately determine whether it would qualify
under the ad valoerm exempticif, and if not, begin working towards the
adoption of a sewer use charge system which meets federal-requirements.

B. Administration

Significant-administrative changes in regard to sewer use are likely
to impose additional burdens on the Public Works Department. A review
of the Department's staffing and administrative needs should be undertaken
to determine where additional staff may be necessary, and more formalized
administrative procedures adopted.

_100-

C. Enforcement

As sewer use standards become stricter, enforcement issues will become
more complex, and formal enforcement proceedings will become necessary
in some instances. The staff of the Public Works DeDartment should be
involved in the adoption of any new sewer ordinance to insure that they
understand its provisions and procedures.

In a related issue, the City of Revere has experienced difficulties
regarding proposed new connections to its system as of late. The problem
stems from the sewer connection ban imposed on the City by the Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control. The state clearly has the power to
refuse to allow new hookups to overloaded public sewers (General Laws
Chapter 21, S. 43). Problems have arisen when the City denies the issuance
of permits (such as building permits) based on this state ban. The legal
authority of the City to take this action is questionable. Language in
a case involving the municipal denial of a sewer connection indicates that
such a connection need not be permitted when :Lt would "overload the
owner and risk serious flooding and drainage danger and risk of injury
to persons or property..." Clark v. Board of Water and Sewer Commissions
of Norwood, 234 N.E. 2d 893. However, in the absence of such a finding,
the connection must be allowed, and, ever if such a condition did exist,
it is uncertain whether it could be used to deny other types of permits.
If the City wishes to continue to deny such permits, rather than rely on
state denial of connection permits, it should adopt a sewer or building
moratorium, reasonable in length and scope and aimed at an interim
solution to a matter of genuine planning sigificance.

-101-

V. BUILDING CODE

A. Legal Authority

The City of Revere uses the "BOCA Basic Building Code" as do all
cities and towns in the Commonwealth, as required by state law, G.L.
Chapter 143). This code has been formally adopted by the City, except
for such portions as are deleted, modified or amended by Section 5-2 of
Revere's Revised Ordinances. The modifications allow ordinary repairs
to buildings to be made without application or notice to the building
official, with certain exceptions (Sec. 102D of BOCA Code).

The BOCA Code requires that buildings in floodplain areas meet
certain floodproofing design requirements (Section 748 of State Building
Code). In general, these requirements mirror HUD Flood Insurance Program
requirements. That is, dwellings must be elevated above the base level of
the 100 year flood, and that other buildings be floodproofed.

At the present time no recommendations are made for changes in the
BOCA Code, or in modifications to it made by the City of Revere.

B. Administration

These are some areas of concern regarding Revere's administration of
its building code. Portions of the City were severly damaged in the
winter storm of 1978, and in flooding occurring in the early winter
months of this year. It appears that some rebuilding and new building
in floodprone areas of Revere does not comply with BOCA requirements for
building in floodplains. The City is taking a lenient position with regards
to rebuilding efforts, which is understandable and equitable.

The short term good, however, may result in long term problems.
At any rate, there seems to be a little justification for allowing new
building, whether apartment, commercial or single family residential to
avoid strict compliance with floodplain building requirements.

One problem, of course, is that no one is sure of the base level for
the 100-year flood at this time. Once the HUD "rate maps" are completed
for the City this level will be known, and hopefully, enforcement of stricter
compliance will be possible.

While the flexibile administration of any land use management system
mav increase its fairness and equity, it is preferable that discretion
be exercised with reference to preexisting standards and policies, and
not solely on a piecemeal, case by case basis. Thecondition under which
rebuilding or new building will be allowed in floodprone areas should be
based on city policy, adopted after input from all interested agencies,
departments and individuals.

-102-

C. Enforcement

If the issue of building in floodprone areas is considered more one
of administration than enforcement then, in terms of the Revere CZM project
area, the remaining enforcement issues concern the denial of building
permits based on sewer hook-up bans and the City's moratorium on commercial
development in the area between Oak Island the the Point of Pines. The
problems arising from the denial of building permits because of the state's
sewer ban was discussed previously.

It appears that the City Council, some three years ago, enatced a
moratorium on commercial development from Oak Island to the Point of Pines.
Since it apparently has not been repealed it must be assumed that it is
still in effect. Whether or not it is legal is another question.

As noted previously, a building moratorium is likely to be upheld in
Massachusetts if it is reasonable in length and scope, "aimed at an interim
solution to a matter of genuine planning significance," and if the City
proceeds to do the necessary planning, Collura v. Arlington, 1975 Mass.
Adv. Sh. 1753. The mechanism should only be used under extreme circumstances,
for a short period of time (2 years in Collura), while a bonafide planning
effort is carried out. As the court stated in Collura "Interim zoning can
be considered a temporary de'vice in the process of plotting a comprehensive
zoning plan to be employed to prevent disruption of the ultimate plan itself."
Any building moratorium should be enacted as an amendment to the local
zoning ordinance. The procedures in the adoption of the Revere moratorium
on commercial development are unclear, but it does not appear to have been
adopted as a zoning amendment. It is therefore unlikely that it is a
legally enforceable moratorium.

The City should consider what interim course it wishes to take in the
area from Oak Island to the Point of Pines, and the area where the sewer
system is currently surcharged and new connections will not be allowed until
it is rehabilitated. A new, legally enforceable sewer or building moratorium
will preclude additional legal difficulties during this interim period.

-103-

VI. WETLANDS PROTECTION

A. Legal Authority

Under the Wetlands Protection Act (General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40)
the Revere Conservation Commission (appointed by the Mayor and removed
before term only for good cause after a hearing, if requested) and the
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering within the Executive office
of Environmental Affairs share the authority for the review and regulation of
a variety of development proposals in inland and coastal wetland areas in
Revere. A person intending to remove, fill, dredge or alter a wetland
must file a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission. Which,
if it determines that the area of the proposed works is "significant to
public or private water supply, to the groundwater supply, to flood
control, to storm damage prevention of land containing shellfish, or to
the protection of fisheries," is mandated to issue a written order imposing
conditions on the work. In the event of unsatisfactory action or failure
to act on the part of the Conservation Commission, an aggrieved party
(including the applicant, abutters, or 10 residents of Revere) or the
Commissioner of DEQE can request a new determination of significance and
Order of Conditions from DEPE. Final Orders are recorded with the property's
deed in the appropriate Registry of Deeds, and are binding upon subsequent
owners of the property. The Commissioner of DEQE has the authority to
promulgate rules and regulations "to effectuate the purposes of this section."

Regulations were promulgated by DEQE, effective August 3, 1978, which
create uniformity of process and help to clarify the provisions of the
Wetlands Protection Act by establishing standard definitions and procedures.
Additionally, regulations, also effective August 3, 1978, were adopted under
the Act which apply only to coastal wetlands, and are designed to ensure
that development along the coastline is located, designed, built and
maintained in a manner that protects the public interests in coastal
resources. The regulations are in the form of performance standards,
intended to identify the level of protection the issuing authority must
impose in order to contribute to the protection of the interests of the
Act. Much of Revere's wetlands, and all those within the Revere's CZM
project area lie within the jurisdiction of these regulations for coastal
wetlands. The regulations were adopted, in fact, as a result of the
establishment of the Coastal Zone Management program of the EOEA. They are,
however, adopted under the authority of the Wetlands Protection Act.

As the powers and duties of the Revere Conservation Commission, and
their responsibilities for the protection of wetlands are spelled out by
state law, recommendations for City action in terms of legal authority
are not necessary. The state regulations regarding coastal wetlands
provide ample legal authority, and guidance to the Conservation Commission.
Problems may be encountered in their application, but these must be
resolved on a case by case basis, and at this point, no generalization can
be made.

-104-

However, an area for consideration, especially since Revere does not
have wetland or floodplain zoning, is the adoption of a wetlands protection
ordinance. This ordinance would not be-adopted as part of the Zoning
Ordinance but rather under the general power of the City to adopt ordinances
conducive to its welfare (General Laws, Chapter 40, S. 21).@ The purpose
of such an ordinance is to backstop the state act with local controls. The
ordinance would therefore resemble the Wetlands Protection Act, but with
some significant differences. It would clearly state that the Conservation
Commission may deny a permit as well as regulate development. It could
protect interests not covered by the state act such as wildlife, recreation,
erosion control and aesthetics. Finally, a negative decision by the
Conservation Commission must be appealed in the Superior Court rather than
to DEQE as under the state law. The advantages to such an ordinance are
that: it can be passed by a majority vote of the City Council; it can be
administered by the Conservation Commission in conjunction with its duties
under the Wetlands Protection Act; and the numerous exemptions, and possibilities
for variances under the Zoning Act will not apply. The major disadvantage
is that the validity of such an ordinance has not been ruled on by the States
Supreme Judicial Court, although a lower court has upheld it. See Loverguast
v. Gardner (Barnstable Superior Court #35497). Such an ordinance has been
adopted in Dennis and Barnstable.

B. Administration

While changes in the legal authority of the Conservation Commission
under the Wetlands Protection Act do not appear necessary and are beyond
the scope of municipal action anyway, there does appear to be room for
improvement in the municipal administration of the law.

The Revere Conservation Commission has a full time administrator.
Time periods and procedures under the Act appear to be complied with, and
orders of Conditions appear to be within the scope of the law. The
major administrative problem seems to be in compliance. The Wetlands
Protection Act relies to a great extent on voluntary compliance. It is
impossible for the Conservation Commission to be on top of every land use
activity in the City which may come within the act. Voluntary compliance
by the majority of individuals is necessary so that isolated violations can
be identified and enforcement actions undertaken. Widespread noncompliance
will result in a few enforcement actions while other illegal activity
goes unprosecuted, and the public interests sought to be protected by
the law are irrenarably injured. This appears to be the situation in
Revere.

Widespread illegal dumping in the City conducted by private
individuals and the City's itself has created an overall impression
that compliance with the law is not necessary. The gradual encroachment -
on the wetland areas from,this dumping will eventually result, if unchecked,
in the permanent destruction of these areas. Such a result can only
worsen the City's flooding problems.

_105-

It is suggested that the City undertake administrative action to
support the Conservation Commission in carrying out its duties under state
law. A memo to all City departments, boards and agencies should be
issued setting forth and requiring full compliance with the procedures and
standards of the Wetlands Protection Act. Instances of violations of the
Act, noted by other City officials, should be reported to the Revere
Conservation Commission, and where another City agency has separate
jurisdiction to enforce such violators, administrative and enforcement
actions by that agency should be coordinated with and communicated to
the Conservation Commission.

Finally, a special memorandum should be directed to the Revere
Police Department, informing them of the provisions and requirements of
the Wetlands Protection Act, and requesting their assistance, pursuant to
their local enforcement powers, in investigating and reporting to the
Conservation Commission possible violations of the Act. It may be desirable
to amend Section 15-3 of Revere's Revised Ordinances to clearly set out the
duty of the Chief of Police to report violators of, and enforce compliance
with the Wetlands Protection Act.

C. Enforcement

The Massachusetts Attorney General's office is currently proceeding
on fourteen violations of the Wetlands Protection Act occurring in the
City of Revere, and involving both private individuals and the City
itself. The City is taking steps to resolve those cases in which it is
a party.

The Conservation Commission currently pursues those remedies available
to it (cease and desist orders, requests for compliance, injunctive relief,
temporary restraining orders and criminal complaints), both on its own
and through counsel. While it could be recommended that the City
Solicitors Office become more involved with enforcement of wetlands
violations, such a recommendation may be premature at this point. The
administrative action recommended above should first be implemented, and
results evaluated. If the illegal dumping situation in the City does not
improve, then stepped up activity by the City Solicitor, as well as other
actions may be necessary. The assistance of the City Solicitor should,
however, be sought whenever necessary to prevent irreversable harm to the
City's natural resources.

-106-

New and Modified Implementation Techniques

-107-

Introduction

This report describes new or modified implementation techniques for
managing land in Revere, consistent with state environmental policy and with
the community planning assistance grant from the Massachusetts Coatal Zone
Management Program. The primary application of these techniques would be
in the Revere Coastal Zone Project Area, but many of the procedures described
could be utilized in other parts of Revere, or throughout the entire
community. In fact, equal protection and due process considerations may require
a community wide application for some of these measures.

The techniques descriln7ed in these reports are developed or applied in
response to identified deficiencies in existing land use management programs
in Revere. This evaluation was conducted as project task 3a. Under Revere's
CZM community assistance grant. Copies of that report are available for
public review.

This report on new or modified implementation techniques briefly
describes these techniques, focuses on certain institutional and legal
issues relative to their imDlementation and, where appropriate, sets forth
a model appropriate for implementation in Revere. Of course, any model
included in this report must be carefully scrutinized by the City Solicitor
and other appropriate city officials before it is enacted to further insure
its "fit" in the City of Revere.

I. Floodplain Zoning

As the report on Revere's existing land use management programs noted,
one of the major deficiencies in Revere's zoning ordinance, at least in
terms of state and local environmental policies, lies in its failure to address
the city's flooding and drainage problems, and the related problem of
protecting the City's remaining natural resources areas. That report noted
that Revere will soon be called upon to enter the "regular" phase of the HUD
Flood Insurance Program, and that in entering this phase of the program,
Revere must adopt land use regulations for the floodplain area.

The floodplain may he described as the area adjoining the surface water
which has been or may be covered by flood waters. The purpose of floodplain
zoning, as developed throughout the U.S. in the last twenty years are to:

1. avoid encroachment on the floodplain which will increase the
extent and severity of flooding up- and downstream; and

2. protect floodplain occupants, by limiting uses and regulating
floor el_p-vations, building construction, sewage disposal, etc.
to reduce danger and damage when the flood hits.

Floodplains and wetlands operate together to:

-108-

1. retain the natural storage capacity of the watershed.
Storage areas may include swamps and meadows adjacent
to water courses which may be protected either as flood-
plains or as wetlands;

2. preserve the water table and water recharge areas within the
community so as to protect water quality and insure present and
potential water supplies; and

3. provide for the continued functioning of the natural system and
avoid interference with natural food chains which serve mankind
and all other life by assimilating waste, producing food,
conserving water and maintaining stability in the system.

Within this broad range of purposes may be found every degree of
protection, depending upon a community's problems and its political priorities.
HUD and many communities use, as the "base elevation" for regulations, the
elevation of the 100-year flood: the flood with a one percent chance of
occurring in any year. Some communities regulate the area historically
flooded during the highest flood of record. Others regulate only the area
which is inundated every ten years (or even, annually).

Some communities have actually divided their floodplains, as suggested
by HUD, into a "floodway" (representing the area necessary to carry off
the base flood waters with some minimum rise in elevation) which must be
stringently regulated, and a surrounding floodplain "fringe" area, which
may be developed to some degree. Leaving the landowner with some practical
use of his land helps to meet the legal issues discussed below. It is
important to remember, however, that constant, continual encroachment on flood-
plains has a cumulative effect even though individual incursions seem too
small to forbid. In the Ipswich River (mass.) basin, for example, the discharge
formerly associated with the 100-year flood now occurs as the 20-year flood--
that is, the chance of that elevation being achieved has increased fivefold,
principally from such incremental filling.

Some confusion has arisen regarding the relationship of floodplain zoning
to the HUD flood insurance program. The purpose of the federal program is
to substitute flood insurance purchased by landowners for disaster relief
furnished by taxpayers. In order to qualify for the subsidized flood insurance
rates, a community must join the program. Revere has jointed the program,
and it is projected that by the fall of 1979 HUD will have completed the "rate
maps" showing the base level of the 100-year flood and the "regulatory floodway"
which will carry that flood with no more than a one-foot rise. (The City can
opt for a zero-increase floodway, in which case the floodway would encompass
the entire 100-year floodplain.) The community must then adopt land-use
regulations forbidding filling or building within the floodway and requiring
that buildings in the rest oil the floodplain be elevated (if homes) or flood-
proofed. Homes in the areas impacted by coastal storms must be specially
constructed with "breakaway" fronts as well. Barrier beaches are not to be
built upon.

_109-

HUD National Flood Insurance Program regulations set forth standards
for a community's floodplain management regulations:

These regulations must be legally-enforceable, applied uniformly
throughout the community to all privately and publicly owned land
within flood-prone, mud-slide (i.e., mudflow) or flood-related
erosion areas, and the community must provide that the regulations
take precedence over any less restrictive conflicting local laws,
ordinances or codes. 24 CFR 9 191-0.1(b)

In addition, HUD sets forth the following planning considerations for
flood-prone areas (24 CFR--� 1910.22):

(a) The floodplain management regulations adopted by a community
for flood-prone areas should:

(1) Permit only that development of flood-Prone areas which W
is appropriate in light of the probability of flood damage
and the need to reduce flood losses, (ii) is an acceptable
social and economic use of the land in relation to the
hazards involved, and (iii) does not increase the danger
to human life;

(2) Prohibit nonessential or improper installation of public
utilities and public facilities in flood-prone areas.

(b) In formulating community development goals after the occurrence
of a flood disaster, each community shall consider

(1) Preservation of the flood-prone areas for open space areas;

(2) Relocation of occupants away from flood-prone areas;

(3) Acquisition of land or land development rights for public
purposes consistent with a policy of minimization of future
property losses;

(4) Acquisition of frequently flood-damaged structures;

(c) In formulating community development goals and in adopting flood
plain management regulations, each community shall consider at least the
following factors --

(1) Human safety;

(2) Diversion of development to areas safe from flooding in light of
the need to reduce flood damages and in light of the need to
prevent environmentally incompatible floodplain use;

_110-

(3) Full disclosure to all prospective and interested parties (including
but not limited to purchasers and renters) that (i) certain
structures are located within flood-prone areas, (ii) variances have
been granted for certain structures located within flood-prone
areas, and (iii) premium rates applied to new structures built at
elevations below the base flood substantially increase as the
elevation decreases;

(4) Adverse effects of floodplain development on existing development;

(5) Encouragement of-floodproofing to reduce flood damage;

(6) Flood warning and emergency preparedness plans;

(7) Provision for alternative vehicular access and escape routes
when normal routes are blocked or destroyed by flooding;

(8) Establishment of minimum flood-proofing and access requirements for
schools, hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages, penal institutions,
fire stations, police stations, communications centers, water and
sewage pumping stations, and other public or quasi-public
facilities already located in the flood-prone area, to enable them
to withstand flood damage, and to facilitate emergency operations;

(9) Improvement of local drainage to control increased runoff that
might increase the danger of flooding to ther properties;

(10) Coordination of plans with neighboring community's floodplain
management programs;

(11) The requirement that all new construction and substantial improvements
in areas subject to subsidence be elevated above the base flood
level equal to expected subsidence for at least a ten year period;

(12) For riverine areas, requiring subdividers to furnish delineation for
floodways before approving a subdivision;

(13) Prohibition of any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, except
.as part of an overall drainage basin plan. In the event of an
overall drainage basfh plan, provide that the flood carrying
capacity within the altered or relocated portion-of the watercourse
is maintained;

(14) Requirement of setbacks for new construction within Zones Vl-30 on
a commuftity's FIRM:

(15) Requirement of additional elevation above the base flood level for all
new construction-and substantial imorovements within Zones Al-30 and Vl-
30 on the community's FIRM to protect against such occurrences as wave
wash and floating debris, to provide an added margin of safety against
floods having a magnitude greater than the base flood, or to compensate
for future urban development;

_111-

(16) Requirement of consistency between state, regional and local
comprehensive plans and flood plain management programs;

(17) Requirement of pillings or columns rather than fill, for
the elevation of structures within filood-prone areas, in
order to maintain the storage capacity of the flood plain
and to minimize the potential for negative impacts to
sensitive ecological areas;

(18) Prohibition, within any floodway or coastal high hazard
area, of plants or facilities in which hazardous substances
are manufactured.

The HUD Flood Insurance Program requirements raise a number of
legal issues as to the extent to which private property within the
floodplain may be regulated consistent with accepted legal standards
and constitutional principles. The use of the-municipal "police power"
to regulate land uses for the protection of the public health, safety and
welfare, particularly with regard to floodprone areas has been dealt with
in a number of important judicial decisions in the Commonwealth, dating back
to the nineteenth century.

In 1646 the Massachusetts SuDreme Judicial Court upheld a statute
which prohibited removal of sand and gravel from beaches in order to protect
streams, ports, and harbors. Commonwealth v. Tewksbury, 11 Met. (Mass.) 55
(1846). In 1851, the court sustained a regulation for Boston Harbor which
prohibited the construction of wharves beyond a limit established by the
legislature, Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush (Mass.) 53 (1851). In this
landmark case, widely cited for its discussion of state police powers,
Justice Shaw reaffirmed the Tewksbury decision, stating:

(W)e are of the opinion that this principle on which that
judgment proceeded was correct. It assumes that all real estate,
inland or on the seashore, derived immediately or remotely from
the government of the state, is taken and held under tacit understanding
that the owner shall so deal with it as not to cause injury to others;
that when land is so situated, or such is its configuration, that it
forms a natural barrier to rivers or tidal watercourses, the owner
cannot justifiably remove it to such an extent as to permit the waters
to desert their natural channels, and overflow, and perhaps inundate
fields and villages, render rivers, ports and harbors shallow, and
completely desolate, and thereby destroy the valuable rights of
other proprietors, both in the navigation of the stream, and in the
contiguous lands. Id. at 86, 87.

More recently, the S.J.C. decision in Turnpike Realty Co. v. Dedham,
362 Mass. 221 (1972) is often cited as authority for the regulation of
land uses within the floodplain area. In that decision, upholding a
by-law regulating filling and building in afloodplain district, the court
identified "three basic public policy objectives of restricting use of

-112-

floodplains ... (1) the protection of individuals who might choose,
despite the flood dangers to develop or occupy land on a flood plain;
(2) the protection of other landowners from damagers resulting from the
development of a floodplain and the consequent obstruction of the flood
flow; (3) the protection of'the entire community from individual choices
of land use which require subsequent public expenditures for public works
and disaster relief." Id. at 228.

In addition, the S.J.C. has recognized that the protection of marine
fisheries and the preservation of coastal wetlands a proper public purposes.
Golden v. Selectmen of Falmouth, 358 Mass. 519, 523 (1970). Commissioner of
Natural Resources v. S. Volpe and Co., 349 Mass. 104, 107 (1965).

While few courts have considered the validity of wildlife protection as
a zoning objective, Delaware court noted that the effect on wildlife was
validly considered in rezoning a swampy area. The court stated:

It appears that at both the hearing before the Zoning Commission
and that before the Levy Court considerable concern was expressed
by many citizens as to the effect of the proposed rezoning upon the
Cedar Swamp section which was recognized as a prime wildlife area.
This was certainly a factor which the Levy Court could consider in
relationship to the public welfare. Dukes v. Shell oil Company,
40D, Ch. 174, 177 A.2d 785, 792 (1962).

It should be noted at this point that the new state Zoning Act (Chapter
808 of the Acts of 1975 amended G.L. Ch. 40A) expressly permits municipalities
to use zoning to protect wetlands, waterbodies and areas subject to flooding.
St. 1975 C. 808, S. 2A.

There have been cases where the application of a local by-law has been
found unconstitutional in that it deprived a landowner of substantially
all practical use of his land without compensation. Aronson v. Town of
Sharon, 346 Mass. 598, 603-604, 195 N.B. 2d 341, MacGibbon v. Board of Appeals
of Duxbury, 255D.E. 2d 347, 351 (1970). However, the application of this
"taking" (confiscation) doctrine must be determined by the courts on a case
by case basis, by balancing the loss of value suffered by the landowner
against the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. For example,
in the Turnpike Realy case, cited above, a possible diminuation of value
from $431,000 to $53,000 was upheld because of the demonstrable flood hazards
of the Charles River. The constitution does not guarantee-a landowner a
profit on land, and the loss of speculative value will not render regulation
unconstitutional provided some kind of practical use of the land may be made.

In view of the serious flooding and drainage problems which exist in
Revere, the problems with respect to illegal dumping and encroachment into
wetland areas in the City, and the need to comply, in the very near future,
with HUD requirements for flood prone areas, the floodplain overlay restrict,
set forth below should be considered by the City, and after making any modifications

-113-

deemed appropriate, adopted by the City Council as an overlay district this
regulation would impose standards on building and development in the
designated floodplain areas which must be complied with. In additio.;1 all
existing zoning requirements for the areas in question, as set forth in the
underlying zoning districts must also be met. The stricter standards in
either district would prevail.

The previous evaluation of Revere's zoning ordinance conducted as project
task 3.a under Revere's CZM Community Assistance Grant noted that the entire
zoning ordinance should be written. This recommendation still stands,
but such a revision is the limited scope funding, and area covered by this
CZM work. The overlay district presented here should meet HUD requirements
and will provide better regulation of development in flood prone areas of
Revere pending a comprehensive revision of land use controls in the City.

It should be pointed out that prior to the adoption of a floodplain
ordinance, the floodplain should be mapped and such map should be referred
to in the ordinance and adopted along with the-ordinance.

General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 3 states:

"No provision of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall be valid which
sets apart districts by and boundary line which may be changed
without adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance or by-law."

This provision prohibits so-called floating zones where a new zoning
district is established, and the subsequent placement of the zone on the
zoning map is accomplished by means of an administrative action by a local
board. However, where the subsequent placement of the zone on the zoning
map is accomplished by a proper legislative designation of such a zone
(i.e. action by the City Council) the zoning is apparently valid. See
Noonan v. Moulton 348 Mass. 633, 638, 639 (1964)

In terms of the situation in Revere, if the floodplain district is
adopted by the City Council prior to the mapping of the floodplain (which
is being done by HUD and should be available in the fall of 1979) then a
subsequent City Council approval will be necessary to place the district
on the map.

Section 21-29A - Special Provisions Applicable to Floodplain Areas
in the City of Revere.

(A) The ourpose of these special provisions establishing a floodplain
protection district as an overlay district, superimposed on the
other zoning districts established by this ordinance are:

1. To provide that lands in the City of Revere subject to
seasonal or periodic flooding as described hereinafter shall
not be used for such purposes, and in such a manner as to
endanger the health, safety or welfare of the occupants thereof,
or of the public generally, or so as to burden the public with
costs resulting from unwise individual choices of land use.

-114-

2. To assure the continuation of the natural flow pattern of
water course(s) within the City, in order to provide adequate
and safe floodwater storage capacity to protect persons and
property against the hazards of flood inundation.

3. To retain the natural storage capacity of the watershed.

4. To conserve natural conditions, fish, shellfish and wildlife
habitats, open space and generally the amenities of the City,
and otherwise to preserve, protect and promote the health,
safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City and the
public.

5. To minimize losses by provisions designed to consider flood-
plain management programs in neighboring areas.

(B) The locations and boundaries of the floodplain protection district
are shown on a map entitled, "Floodplain @rotection District, Revere,
Mass. - 19-," which is hereby made a part of this ordinance and
is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and which map shows
the floodway fringe area, and Coastal High Hazard Area. The "floodway"
as used in Section 21-29A of this ordinance shall mean the channel of
the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplains which
are reasonably required to carry and discharge the 100-year flood
with no more than a one-foot rise in the flood level. The Floodway
fringe area as used in Section 21-29A of this ordinance shall mean
that portion of the regulatory floodplain outside of the floodway.
The Coastal High Hazard Area as used in Section 21-29 of this ordinance
shall mean the area subject to high velocity water, including, but not
limited to hurricane wave wash.

(C) Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the
boundaries of the District as shown on the Floodplain Protection
District Map, the (Board of Appeals) shall make the necessary
interpretation.

(D) The Floodplain Protection District shall be considered as overlying
other Districts. Any uses permitted in the portions of the Districts
so overlaid may be permitted as an exception if authorized by special
permit by the (Board of Appeals).

The following uses which have low flood damage potential and do not
represent a hazard to other lands during times of flood shall be
permitted within the Floodplain Protection District as of right.

1. Conservation of soil, water, plants and wildlife, including
wildlife management shelters.

2. Outdoor recreation, including but not limited to play areas,
nature study, boating, fishing and hunting where otherwise legally
permitted.

3. Foot, bicycle and horse paths and bridges, provided such uses do
not affect the natural flow pattern of any water course.

4. Agriculture of all types including but not limited to grazing,
crop farming, nurseries, truck gardening and harvesting of
crops.

5. Forestry including landscaping and accessory uses such as flower
or vegetable gardens, lawns and fences.

(E) In the Floodplain Protection District, the (Board of Appeals) may grant
a special permit for any use and/or structure, subject to the requirements
of Section 21-2 of this ordinance and the following:

1. The (Board of Appeals) shall find that the propsed use will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare;
and will not derogate from the purposes of this by-law. The
proposed use will comply in all respects to the provisions
of the underlying district or districts within which the
land is located.

2. The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage
or sewer system or any other municipal system to such an extent
that the requested use or any developed use in the immediate area
or in any other area of the town will be unduly subjected to
hazards affecting health, safety, or the general welfare.

3. Fill or other encroachment, within a designated floodway, which
would impair the floodways' ability to carry and discharge the waters
resulting from the 100-year flood shall not be allwed.

(F) In order that the (Board of Appeals) may determine that the above mentioned
conditions relative to the issuance of special permits are met, a site
plan at a scale of 1" = 100', prepared by the registered land surveyor
or register@d professional civil engineer, shall be submitted in
quadruplicate to the (Board of Appeals) by the applicant. The site
plan shall show at least the following:

1. The location, boundaries, and dimensions of each lot.

2. Two foot contours of the existing and proposed land structure.

3. Location of existing and proposed structures, watercourses,
and drainage easements, means of access, drainage and' sewer
disposal-facilities.

4. The area and location of existing or proposed leaching fields,
if any.

-116-

The (Board of Appeals) shall within 10 days after receipt of said
site paln, transmit one copy of said plan to the City Planner, City
Engineer, Board of Health, Superintendent of Public Works, Conservation
Commission and the Mayor's Office of Planning and Community Development.
Said Boards and Commission may, at their discretion, investigate the
case and report in writing their recommendation to the (Board of Appeals).
The (Board of Appeals) shall not take final action on such plan until it
has received a reDort thereon from said Boards and Commission, or until
said Boards and Commission have allowed thirty-five (35) days to elapse
after receipt of such plan without a submission of a report thereon.

(G) In considering a site plan, the (Board of Appeals) shall, to a degree
consistent with a reasonable use of the site, find all the following
requirements to be fulfilled:

1. Convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement
within the site, and in relation to adjacent streets and
property.

2. Location and construction of utilities so as to minimize or
eliminate flood damage.

3. Adequacy of the methods of disposal of sewage, refuse and
other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site,
and the methods for providing adequate drainage so as to
minimize flood damage.

4. The floor of the basement, or if none, the lowest floor of
new construction or substantial improvement of structures for
residential uses shall be at or above the 100-year flood level.

5. The floor of the basement, or if none, the lowest floor of new
construction or substantial improvement of structures for non-
residential uses shall be at or above the 100-year flood level
or flood proofed in compliance with the requirements of the
Massachusetts State Building Code.

6. No use or land filling will raise the 100-year flood level
more than (1) foot at any point.

7. New of modified uses within the floodway will not raise the level
nor impede the flow of the 100-year flood.

8. In the Coastal High Hazard Area structures or substantial
improvements shall be located landward of mean high tide.

8. In the Coastal High Hazard Area the floor of the basement, or
if none, the lowest floor of any new structure or substantial
improvement shall be no lower than the 100-year level and in
compliance with the requirements of the Massachusetts State
Building Code regarding anchorage to piles and space below lowest
floor free of obstruction.

-117-

Substantial improvement, as used above, means any repair, reconstruction,
or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50
percent of the actual cash value of the structure either (a) before the
improvement is started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged and is
being restored, before the damage occurred.

In a floodway, no non-conforming use shall be expanded but may be
modified, altered, or repaired to incorporate flood proofing measures
in compliance with the State Building Code provided such measures do
not raise the level of the 100-year flood.

In a Coastal High Haz rd Area, no non-conforming use, on land below
the 100-year level, shall be expanded.

(H) The provisions of this section are not intended to repeal, amend
abrogate, annul, or interfere with any lawfully adopted ordinances,
convenants, regulations or rules. However, where this section imposes
greater restrictions, the provisions of this section shall govern.

(I) The invalidity, unconstitutionality or illegality of any provision
of this section shall not have any effect upon the validity,
constitutionality, or 1,egality of any other provision of this
ordinance.

@118-

II. Special Permits

The previously mentioned report on Revere's existing land use management
programs, prepared as project task 3a under Revere's CZM Community Assistance
Grant also noted that a major area of concern in Revere's existing zoning
ordinance is with the confusing and incomplete provisions relating to the
issuance of special permits and the allowance of exceptions under the
zoning ordinance. That report noted a number of discrepancies and
conflicting requirements in allowing special permits and exceptions in the
City of Revere. These problems have been verified by the City Solicitor
and the City Clerk. As the City Clerk has pointed out, there now exists
at least seven methods to seek an exception from the zoning provisions
currently existing in the ordinance (see letter from John J. Henry, City
Clerk to Councillor William Foley, subject: City of Revere Zoning
ordinances - Special Permits, May 21, 1979).

In terms of sound land use control techniques which are consistent
with the statutory scheme set forth in the state zoning act (General Laws,
Chapter 40A as amended by Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975) it is prefer-
able that only two means of granting exceptions from the zoning ordinance
be provided. These two methods should be by the granting of variances
from the provisions of the zoning ordinance, and by the issuance of special
permits.

Variances are allowed pursuant to General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 10.
Revere's revised zoning ordinance (Chapter 21, Section 21-33) generally
mirrors the requirements of the state act. Possible problem areas regarding
use variances and the notice requirement under the Revere Zoning ordinance
have been set forth in the report previously mentioned.

The deficiencies identified in the previous Revere CZM report on
existing land use controls should be addressed by responsible city officials.
The City Clerk has already acknowledged problems with respect to exceptions
under the ordinance. All of these matters should be addressed by the
City Council and other City officials. However, in terms of this report,
the emphasis is on proposing new techniques to improve land use control within
the Revere CZM project area. Clearly, the City Council should delete most,
if not all of the exceptions to the zoning ordinance currently existing
and provide for only one method of granting special permits and one method
of granting variances under the by-law. If use variances are to be allowed,
they should perhaps be allowed generally and not just in certain districts,
and clearly the notice requirements of G.L. C. 40A should be followed.

After the above mentioned matters have been addressed, the City should
consider a revision of the special permit provision of the Zoning ordinance
(Chapter 21, Section 21-2(b)) that sets forth specific standards to guide
the special permit granting authority in the issuance of such permits.

In general, the criteria governing action of a board in granting a
special permit are less stringent than those involved in an application

_119-

for a variance. Kiss v. Board of Appeals of Longmeadow 1976 Mass. Adv. Sh.
2355. However, this is not to say that such permits can be issued upon the
whim or unbridled discretion of the permit granting authority. Adequate
standards for the guidance of the board in exercising the special permit
power must be set forth in the Zoning ordinance. Murphy v. Zoning Board of
Appeals of Lawrence, 2 Mass. App. 876 (1974). A zoning by-law that is so
vague and ambiguous that its meaning can only be guessed at can lead to
arbitrary action in its application and therefore be rendered null and
void by a court finding that it violates the due process of law. Berliner v.
Feldman, 363 Mass. 767 (1973).

Viewed together, the state zoning act and the by-law must provide
adequate standards for the guidance of the special permit granting
authority to decide whether to grant or to withhold special permits. "The
standards need not be of such a detailed nature that they eliminate
entirely the element of discretion from the board's decision. It would be
difficult, if not impossible, to forsee and specify, by ordinance or by-law,
every circumstance or combination of circumstances under which special
permits should be granted or withheld. The degree of certainty with which
standards for the exercise of discretion are set up must necessarily depend
on the subject matter and the circumstances." MacGibbon v. Board of Appeals
of Duxbury, 255 N.E. 2d 347-, 350 (1970).

The methods used by a community to adjust zoning regulations may be
reasonably flexible provided that they are consistent with the substantive
and procedural provisions of the state zoning statute and provided that such
adjustments are made in the public interest in accordance with sufficiently
stated standards. Y.D. Dugout, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 357 Mass.
25 (1970). Finally, when granting a special permitthe special permit granting
authority must set forth reason or reasons for its decision that the
applicable statutory and by-law standards have been met. Josephs v. Board
of Appeals of Brookline, 362 Mass. 290 (1972).

Chapter 21, Section 21-2(b) of Revere's Revised Ordinances should be
amended to provide for standards and guidelines to be used by the special
permit granting authority in the review of special permit applications.
Setting forth sufficient standards in the ordinance will not only help
address the legal problems mentioned above, but should also provide for
better land use planning and environmental protection within the City.
Presently, the wide discretiolcF-given the City Council in the granting of
special permits does not insure, in every instance, that the economic, social
and environmental interests of the City are considered, and protection in
every special permit proceeding. Detailed standards, adopted after input
from all municipal agencies and interests, would insure that -all City concerns
are addressed in-every special permit proceeding. Such standards should
address drainage to insure that new projects do not exacerbate the City's
flooding problems, and should also insure that such factors as the placement
of buildings and utilities, surface and groundwater drainage, water supply,
access, parking, loading, landscaping, lighting, dust and noise control,
environmental damage and off-site impacts are also addressed.

-120-

Therefore, it is recommended that the present language in Chapter 21,
Section 21-2(b) of Revere's Revised Ordinances be deleted and the following
inserted in place thereof:

b. Special Permits

(i) The City Council shall act as the Special Permit Granting
Authority in the administration of this Zoning Ordinance and
may issue Special Permits where said permits are a prere-
quisite to the issuance of a Building Permit as prescribed
by the Building Code or are otherwise allowed under this
Zoning Ordinance. The procedures and standars set forth for
the issuance of Special Permits in this section shall take
precedence over and be controlling over all other procedures
and standards set forth in this Zoning Ordinance for the
allowance of Special Permits or exceptions to this Zoning
Ordinance. This section shall not, however, apply to the
issuance of Variances to this Zoning By-law as authorized by
Chapter 21, Section 21-33(e) of Revere's Revised Zoning
Ordinance.

All applications for Special Permits shall be filed by the
petitioner with the City Clerk, who shall forthwith transmit
a copy thereof to the City Council. Upon receipt of an
application for a Special Permit, the City Council shall
refer the application and plans to the City Planner, City
Engineer, Superintendent of Public Works, the Board of Health
and the Conservation Commission, and shall not issue any
Special Permits until reports have been received from said
individuals or boards, or thirty-five davs shall have
elapsed following referral without receipt of such reports.

(ii) All applications for a Special Permit shall be accompanied by
a site plan, and data on the environmental impact of the
proposed project.

The site plans shall show all existing and proposed buildings,
existing and proposed contour elevations, structures, parking
spaces, driveway openings, driveways, service areas, facilities
for sewage, refuse and other waste disposal and for surface
water drainage, wetlands, surface water, areas subject to the
100-year flood, and landscape features such as fenses, walls,
planting areas, walks, and lighting, both existing and proposed.
The site plan shall also show the relation of the above features
to adjacent ways and properties. The site plan shall also show
all contiguous land owned by the applicant or by the owner of
the property which is the subject of the application.

The applicant shall also submit environmental impact data sufficient
to enable the City Council and other City officials to determine
what methods are used by the applicant to promote the environmentAl
health of the community and to encourage sound environmental
design to the fullest extent allowed by the law.

-121-

The data supplied should include the following:

A. Physical Environment

1. Describe the general physical conditions of the site,
including amounts and varieties of vegetation, general
topography, unusual geologic, scenic and historical
features, trails, and open space links, and indigenous
wildlife.

2. Describe how project will affect these features.

3. Provide a complete physical description of the project,
and relationship to surrounding areas.

B. Surface Water and Soils

1. Describe location, extent and type of existing water
and wetlands, including existing surface drainage
characteristics, both within and adjacent to the
project.

2. Describe the methods to be used during construction to
control erosion and sedimentation; i.e., use of sediment
basins and type of mulching, matting, or temporary
vegetation; describe approximate size and location of land
to be cleared at any given time and length of time of
exposure; covering of soil stockpiles; and other control
methods used. Evaluate effectiveness of proposed methods
on the site and on the surrounding areas.

.3. Describe the Dermanent methods to be used to control
erosion and sedimentation. Include description of:

a. any areas subject to flooding or ponding;
b. proposed surface drainage system;
c. proposed land grading and permanent vegetative cover;
d. methods to be used to protect existing vegetation;
e. the relationship of the development to the topography;
f. any proposed alterations of shore lines, marshes or
seasonal wet areas;
g. any"-6xisting or proposed flood control or wetland
easements;
h. estimated increase of peak run-off caused by altered
surface conditions, and methods to be used to return
water to the soils.

'I. Completely describe sewage disposal methods. Evaluate
impact of disposal methods on surface water, soils and
vegetation.

Describe any limitations on proposed project caused by
sub-surface soil and water conditions, and methods to be
used to overcome them.

-122-

C. City Services

1. Describe estimated traffic flow at peak periods and
proposed circulation pattern.

2. Describe locations and number of vehicles accommodated
in parking areas.

3. Describe effect of project on police and fire protection
services.

-ibe effect of project on public works department
4. Descri
services.

5. Describe effect of project on educational services.

6. Describe the effect of the project on the City water
supply and distribution system.

7. Describe the effect of the project on the City's
sewerage system including the design flow of any
conneQtions from the project to the City's sewerage
system, the length and location of such connections,
and the nature and quality of the discharge from, such
connections.

D. Human Environment

1. Provide a tabulation of proposed buildings by type,
size (number of bedrooms, floor area), ground coverage,
and a summary showing the percentage of the tract to
be occupied by buildings, parking and other paved
vehicular areas, and usable open space.

:2. Describe type of construction, building materials used,
location of common areas, location and type of service
facilities (laundry, trash, garbage disposal).

3. State proximity to transportation, shopping and
educational facilities.

4. Describe proposed recreational facilities, including
active and passive types; and age groups participating,
and state whether recreational facilities and open
space are available to all municipal residents.

E. General Impact

1. Summarize briefly environmental impact on entire City
with supporting reasons.

-123-

(iii) Within 65 days from the filing of an application for a Special
Permit with the City Clerk, the City Council shall hold a
public hearing. Notice of said hearing shall be given by
oublication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City
once in each of two successive weeks, the first publication to
be not less than fourteen days before the day of the hearing,
and by posting such notice in a conspicuous place in the
City Hall for a period of not less than fourteen days before
the day of such hearing. Notice shall be sent by certified
mail, return receipt requested at the expense of the applicant
to those persons having an interest in the proceedings, including
the applicant, abutters, owners of land directly opposite on
any public or private street or way and owners of land within
300 feet of the property line, the Planning Board, Conservation
Commission and Board of Health of the City and the Planning
Board, Board of Health and Conservation Commission of every
abutting city or town. Publications and notices shall contain
the name of the petitioner, a de9cription of the area or
premises, street address, if any, or other adequate identification
of the location of the area or premises which is the subject of
the petition, the date, time and place of the public hearing,
the subject matter of the hearing, and the nature of the action
or relief requested, if any. No such hearing shall be held on
any day on which a state or municipal election, caucus, or
primary is held in the City.

The City Council shall act upon an application for a Special
Permit within ninety (90) days following the public hearing.
Failure to act within the ninety (90) days shall be deemed to
be a grant of the permit applied for. A unanimous vote of the
City Council is necessary for the approval of a Special Permit.

The City Council shall only issue a Special Permit upon:

A. A showing of good and sufficient cause;

B. A determination that the proposed use or activity is not
specifically prohibited by Revere's Revised Zoning Ordinance;

C. A determination that the granting of a Special Permit will
not result in increased flood heights, additional threats
to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create
nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public
or conflict with existing local laws; and

D. A determination that the granting of a Special Permit is
in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Revere's
Revised Zoning Ordinance.

-124-

(iv) Upon the granting of a Special Permit the City Council shall
issue to the owner and to the applicant, if other than the
owner, a copy of its decision, certified, by the City Council,
containing the name and address of the owner, identifying the
land affected, setting forth compliance with the statutory
requirements for the issuance of such permit and certifying
that copies of the decision and all plans referred to in the
decision have been filed with the Planning Board and City
Clerk. No Special Permit, or any extension, modification or
renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision
bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days
have elapsed-after the decision has been filed in the office of
the City Clerk and no appeal has been filed or that if such
appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied,
is recorded in the Registry of Deeds for the County and district
in which the land is located and indexed in the grantor index
under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted
on the owner's certification of title.

The City Council shall furnish the Building Inspector with a copy
of all decisions regarding Special Permits.

The Special Permit-shall lapse one year from the date of approval
if construction has not begun by such date, except for good cause.

All applications for Special Permits shall be accompanied by the
payment of such fees as are from time to time established by the
City Council, the cost of such fees to include the cost of notices.
However, fees shall not be charged if the appellant, applicant
or petitioner is acting as an officer or board of the City of
Revere.

-125-

III. Wetlands Protection District

The need to further protect Revere's wetlands has been emphasized in
the City's CZM work. The lack of effective local regulations to provide
this protection has also been noted. While the floodplain ordinance
suggested by this report will provide a greater measure of protection for
wetlands the factors which must be considered in wetlands protection go
beyond the securing of the public health, safety and welfare from the
dangers of flooding, such as the protection of fisheries, wildlife and
shellfish. While most Massachusetts communities protect wetlands through
the adoption of wetland zoning districts, an alternative, non-zoning
approach may also be available. Such an ordinance would not be adopted
as part of the zoning ordinance but rather under the general power of the
city to adopt ordinances conducive to its welfare (General Laws, Chapter 40,
S. 21). The purpose of such an ordinance is to backstop the state act
with local controls. The ordinance would therefore resemble the wetlands
protection act, but with some significant differences. It would clearly
state that the Conservation Commission may deny a permit as well as
regulate development. It could protect interests not covered by the
state act such as wildlife, recreation, erosion control and aesthetics,
and finally a negative decision by the Conservation Commission must be
appealed in the superior court rather than to DEQE as under the state law.
The advantages to such an ordinance are that: it can be passed by a
majority vote of the City Council; it can be administrated by the
conservation commission in conjunction with its duties under the Wetlands
Protection Act; and the numerous exemptions, and possibilities for
variances under the zoning act will not apply. The major disadvantage
is that the validity of such an ordinance has not been ruled on by the
state Supreme Judicial Court, although a lower court has upheld it.
See Lovequist v. Gardner (Barnstable Superior Court #35497).

This case has been appealed, and argued before the Supreme Judicial
Court, and a decision should be handed down by the time this report is
printed and distributed. Therefore any assertions as to its legal validity
are, at this point, speculative. While such an ordinance has been adopted
in Dennis and Barnstable, it should not be considered for adoption anywhere
else until the pending case is decided. The model presented here is
purely for informational purposes. Should the ordinance be upheld, the
Conservation Law Foundation plans to develop a new non-zoning wetlands
protection ordinance which will improve the model presented here.

-126-

CITY OF REVERE

WETLANDS PROTECTION BY-LAW

The purpose of this by-law is to protect the foreshores and wetlands
of the City of Revere by controlling activities deemed to have a
significant effect upon wetland values, including but not limited to
the following: public or private water supply, groundwater, flood
control, erosion control, storm damage, water pollution, fisheries,
shellfish, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetics. No person shall
remove, fill, dredge, or alter any bank, beach, dune, flat, marsh,
meadow, or swamp bordering on the ocean or any estuary, creek, river,
stream, pond or lake, or any land under said waters or any land
subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage, or flooding, without
first filing written notice of his intention so to remove, fill, dredge
or alter by sending a separate letter, by C-ertified mail, to the
Conservation Commission. Such notice shall include such plans as may
be necessary to describe such proposed activity and its effect on the
environment. The same plans and specifications required to be filed
by an applicant under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section
40 will be accepted as fulfilling the requirements of this by-law.
The said Commission, in its discretion, may hear any oral presentation
under this by-law at the same public hearing required to be held under
the provisions of said Chapter 131, Section 40 of the Massachusetts
General Laws.

2. The term "person" as used in this by-law shall include any individual,
group of individuals, association, partnership, corporation, company,
business organization, trust, estate, the Commonwealth or political
subdivision thereof, administrative agency, public or quasi-public
corporation or body, or any other legal entity or its legal representatives,
agents or assigns.

3. The Commission may make a determination as to whether or not this by-law
applies to a specific situation prior to the filing of a written notice
of intent under the provisions hereof, upon receipt of a written request
from any person desiring such determination. The Commission, its agents,
officers and employees, may enter upon the land upon which the proposed
work is to be done in response to a request for a prior determination
or for the purpose of carrying out its duties under this by-law,
including investigation of violation of the by-law alleged in writing,
and may make or cause to be made such examination or survey as is
deemed necessary.

4. The Conservation Commission is empowered to deny permission for any
dredging, filling or altering of subject lands within the City, if,
in its judgement, such denial is necessary to preserve the environmental
quality of either or both the subject lands and contiguous lands. Due
consideration shall be given to possible effects of the proposal on all
values to be protected under this by-law and to any demonstrated hardship
on the petitioner by reason of a denial, as brought forth in the public
hearing.

-127-

5. The Commission may, as an alternative to a denial, impose such conditions
as it deems necessary to contribute to the protection and preservation of
subject lands in accordance with the purposes of this by-law. Any Order
of Conditions issued under this by-law shall be subject to the same
constraints and be identical to any such order issued by the Revere
Conservation Commission under the provisions of Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40.

6. The notice required by the first paragraph of this by-law shall not
apply to emergency projects necessary for the protection of the health
or safety of the citizens of Revere and to be performed or ordered to
be performed by any aciministrative agency of the Commonwealth or by
the Town. An emergency project shall mean any project certified to
be an emergency by the Conservation Commission or the Commissioner of
the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, if this by-law and
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40 are both applicable,
or by the Conservation Commission if only this by-law is applicable.
In no case, shall any filing, dredging or altering commence prior to
any emergency certification nor extend beyond the time necessary to
abate the emergency.

7. Any person filing a Notice of Intention or requesting a prior determination
under this by-law shall, in writing and at the same time, notify all
abuttors, and the owner of the subject property, if different from the
petitioner, on which work is proposed or for which prior determination
is sought, of his intention to so alter or request said determination.
A list of persons so notified shall be presented to the Revere
Conservation Commission with said Notice of Intention or request for
prior determination.

8. The Conservation Commission may require the posting of a bond with
surety, running to the municipality, and sufficient as to form and
surety in the opinion of the Commission's Counsel, to secure faithful
and satisfactory performance of work required by any final Order of
Conditions, in such sum and upon such conditions as the Commission may
require. Other evidence of financial responsibility which is safisfactory
to the Commission may be accepted in lieu of bonding. Notwithstanding
the above, the amount of such bond shall not exceed the estimated cost
of the work required or the restoration of affected lands and properties
if the work is not performed as required, whichever is greater.
Forfeiture of any such bond shall be recoverable at the suit of the
municipality in Superior Court.

-128-

IV. Planned Unit Development Ordinance

In 1975 the Massachusetts Legislature amended the state zoning law to
provide for various procedural and conceptual improvements to zoning in
Massachusetts. Provisions of this new act relative to special permits and
variance procedures have been described in other sections of this report.
An important conceptual improvement contained in the zoning act (G.L. C. 40A,
as amended by C. 808 St. 1975) is the specific authorization for planned
unit development (PUD) districts.

General Laws, C. 40A,J. 9 defines PUDs as a "mixed use development
on a plot of land containing a minimum of the lesser of sixty thousand
square feet or five times the minimum lot size of the zoning district,
but of such larger size as an ordinance or by-law may specify, in which a
mixture of residential, open space, commercial, industrial or other uses
and a variety of building types are determined to be sufficiently
advantageous to render it appropriate to grant special permission to depart
from the normal requirements of the district to the extent authorized by
the ordinance or by-law."

PUD districts are recognized as a valuable land use control tool
which allow for an extra measure of diversity within an area or community
and permits the comprehensive, rather than the piecemeal development of
an area as a whole. The mixed use development permitted under a PUD is
particularly attractive for use in more urban, built-up areas such as
Revere, where good developable land is scarce, and where sites lend them-
selves to a variety of uses.

Some PUDs are limited to residential uses and are known as planned
unit residential developments (PURD) or cluster developments. Cluster
developments are also authorized by G.L. C. 40A, 9. 9, as amended by
C. 808 St. 1975. A cluster development is a residential development
on building lots with reduced dimensions and the maintenance of the
"left over" lot area as permanent open space. Its advantages include
greater freedom of street and lot layout, permitting sensitivity to natural
features; shorter streets and utility lines; more usuable open space;
more protection of natural resources; and if multi-family dwellings of
any type are permitted in the cluster, there is the further advantage of
mixed housing opportunities. While clustering may be advantageous in
some areas, its utility in Revore is limited by the lack of the large tracts
of open land which best utilize this form of development. -A model
ordinance for cluster development is included in this materials for
informational purposes.

Both PUD an& cluster zoning operates through the special permit
authority in the city ordinance. The previous section of this report
dealing with special permits should be referred to with respect to the
requirements of an ordinance allowing the grant of special permits. As
a PUD may include a number of different kinds of permitted uses the
ordinance must give a good deal of discretion to the special permit granting

-129-

At the same time, in order to protect the community and provide for
informed decision-making by the permit granting authority the ordinance
must require sufficient information about the proposed development and
it must set adequate standards to guide the permit granting authority.

It is of course possible to hedge the PUD bylaw with a number of
specific limitations. However, since flexibility is imperative to
successful mixed-use development, only a few such limitations should be
made such as: a minimum size for the PUD parcel, a minimum degree of
compatibility to existin-g uses, minimum requirements for floor area
ratios and usable open space, parking requirements, and the opportunity
for height and setback requirements.

In some cases it may be infeasible for a developer to submit up-
front detailed and final plans for a large or otherwise complex PUD.
In such a situation an optimum ordinance should allow for the phased
submittal of information. In general, this allows for the approval
and recording of a preliminary plan which covers a number of key
decisions such as the number of limits, points of egress, road stan-
dards, the provision of services (sewer, water, etc.) the general
disposition of the development and the amount of open land. A nota-
tion appears on such a recorded plan that further plans must be
recorded before construction may take place. Prior to the issuance
of building permits for any section of the PUD the special permit
granting authority must approve the final plans. This procedure
allows for the development to be approved in concept, with assurances
that the actual development, perhaps years later, will adhere to the
principles agreed upon.

The model presented below is for informational purposes only.
A PUD ordinance, before it can be adopted, should be carefully
incorporated in and coordinated with the existing special permit
ordinance in the city.

The following PUD model was: drawn from the Town of Lincoln.

-130-

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS

Section 17-2.1: Use Regulations

In this district the following uses are permitted.

(a) One or more of the following uses:

1. Apartment houses, hotels or motels.
2. Stores, salesroom. or showrooms for the conduct
of retail business.
3. Wholesale showrooms with storage limited to
floor samples only.
4. Restaurants or other places for the serving of
food or beverages with dancing or entertainment
permitted.
5. Theaters, places of public assembly and indoor
places of amusement.
6. Business of professional office or agency.
7. Public or semi-public building.
8. Bank or other financial institution.
9. Consumer service establishments.
10. Parking structures.
11. Such accessory purposes as are customary or
usual in connection with any of the foregoing
purpose and are incidental thereto.

(b) Subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals as to
area suitability and traffic generating capacity, the
following additional uses will be permitted:

1. Public garage or filling station, provided that
no business or activity shall be carried on be-
tween midnight and.6 A.M.

2. Automobile agency or dealerships for new cars
provided all parking and unloading shall be
carried on off street, and further provided
that the sale of used cars shall be incidental
to the sale of new cars.

3. Public Parking lots provided they are hard
surface and striped for orderly parking.

(c) All business in the District shall be carried on within
a building or within 20 feet of the building unless a
definitely planned area is shown on the building permit
plans for the seasonal sale of goods, such as but not
limited to, nursery stock, lawn furniture, garden
supplies and Christmas trees.

-131-

Section 17-2.2: Heights and Area Regulations

The minimum lot area for a Planned Unit Development in a Planned
Unit Development district shall be 200,000 square feet in one lot or a
series of contiguous lots in individual ownership that equal 200,000
square feet. Lots in separate ownership of less than 200,000 square
feet shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of the
Business "A" District. Upon approval of a site plan, as required in
Section 17-2.5, individual tracts of land in the Planned Unit Develop-
ment in accordance with-the approved Planned Unit Development site
plan without the provision of new setbacks for front, side, or rear
yards. Each tract or lot so leased or sold must make provision for a
principal building, off-street parking, and landscaping or plaza area
to serve it as required by this Section 17.

The buildings upon the land may be built to any street line pro-
vided the street exceeds 60 feet in width or the zoning on the opposite
side of the street is not Residence "A" or "B". In all other areas,
the buildings shall be set back one-quarter of the height of the.
average of principal buildings along the lot line but not less than 25
feet from all front, side, and rear lot lines. Underground parking
may be built to the lot line in required setback areas provided it
does not extend above the grade of the curb line. Parking structures
inside required setback lines may utilize roof parking provided the
structure contains at least two stories of parking above the average
curb elevation of the nearest street to the structure.

The height of the buildings shall not exceed 200 feet above the
average elevation of the curbs or the streets abutting the property.
The buildings, parking structures, plazas, and arcades may cover all
of this land not required for setbacks.

The flocLr area in all buildings in a Planned Unit Development
shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 4.0 excluding parking struc-
tures, malls and plazas.

Section 17-2.3: Parking Requirements

In the Planned Unit Do"@@elopment Districts, adequate off-street
parking shall be provided for all vehicles normally visiting the pro-
perty at any one time. The parking may be ground level, underground,
or in a garage structure.

Parking shall be provided at the following rates for the differ-
ing types of use within the Planned Unit Development District on land
in the same ownership or on land within 200 feet to the nearest space
of a principal entrance-to the building that it will serve, and
further, that a recorded agreement for the use of the land for parking
for the reasonable life of the building will be provided.

-132-

Use Minimum Required Spaces

1. Apartments 1.35 spaces/unit
2. Hotels and Motels I space/room+1 space for 3 seats
in restaurants and meeting rooms.
3. Retail stores, financial insti-
tutions, consumer services, etc. 2.5 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft.
of floor space or fraction thereof.
4. Restaurants, theaters, or places
of public assembly. 1 space for every three seats.
5. Offices, wholesale showrooms. 1.74 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft.
6. For any use not specifically
listed or any use permitted by
the Zoning Board of Appeals. 1.5 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft.
of floor space or land utilized.
7. Each of the above uses will re-
quire a minimum space of -------- 8.5 feetX20 feet plus aisle or
maneuverincr area.

All parking proposed for each building or use shall be within 700
feet of the building or use it is intended to serve. In every Planned
Unit Development District containing ten acres or more, the developer
shall be entitled to a reduction in the minimum required parking of 10%
(ten percent) when two or more types of uses as listed in Section 17-2.1
are provided in the development and where the different types of uses
will require parking at differing times.

Section 17-2.4: Landscaping and Recreation Area

Every principal building shall have a landscaped area around it
adequate to provide an attractive setting for the building in accor-
dance with the following schedule:

Use Landscaping & Recreation Area

1. Apartments Provide a land area or plaza area
equal to 40% of the ground areas
of the building. Balcony areas
shall count as provided in s. 15-D.

2. Hotels and Motels An area equal to 30% of the ground
area of the building with plazas,
arcades, swimming pools to be
counted.

3. Retail Stores None required around the building
if an enclosed mall or arcade is
provided facing each retail store.

-133-

4. Office and Professional Build- An area equal to 30% of the ground
ings area of the building with mall,
arcade or plaza area to count as
equal.

In all setback areas, all front,
side, or rear yards shall be land-
scaped with grass, plantings, walk-
ways, benches, etc. The details of
the required landscaping and recrea-
tion areas shall be approved by the
Planning Board in a site plan review
prior to seeking of a building permit
or action by the Board of Appeals.
Where a Planned Unit Development
comploix abuts residential property,
the developer shall provide appro-
priate plants or shrubs and fences
or a combination of both.

Section 17-2.5: Site Plan Approval

Every developer in a Planned Unit Development District shall file
with the Board of Selectmen an application for a site-plan review. The
application shall include the material listed in 11 Contents of Plan"
below and shall include any material required by the rules of the Board
of Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen shall review the site plan and may
grant an exception by special permit subject to the following conditions
and safeguards. The Board of Selectmen for stated reasons may deny
approval of a site plan or may approve a site plan without a finding of-
hardship.

The site plan shall be subject to the following conditions and the.
Board of Selectmen shall make a determination that the project meets these
conditions:

1. The site of the structures or uses is in an appropriate
location.

2. The use cc uses when developed will not adversely affect
the neighborhood.

3. That ingress and egress for traffic flow is designed pro-
perly so that there will be no serious hazard to vehicle
or pedestrians.

4. That adequate parking facilities are provided for each
use and structure in the development.

-134-

5. If a partial site plan is proposed for one building that
will eventually be part of a larger development, than the
site plan must show the relationship to the other proposed
uses or structures and to the total development. Sub-
sequent site plans must be submitted for each additional
structure or complex of buildings.

Before granting a special permit for a site plan approval, the
Board of Selectmen shall hold a public hearing notice of which shall
be given in a local newspaper once in each of two successive weeks
with the first publication to be not less than fourteen (14) days
before the date of hearing, and to owners of all property abutting the
proposed development or land in the same ownership of contiguous
ownership, and to all property owners deemed by the Board of Select-
men to be affected thereby. The Board of Selectmen shall make its
finding within sixty (60) days from the date of application. If the
Board of Selectmen fails to issue its finding within sixty (60) days,
the site plan shall be deemed approved and a special permit granted.
The Board of Selectmen shall make a copy of the site plan, the appli-
cation and any other supporting material submitted, immediately
available to the Department of Planning and Community Development and
to the Planning Board, and they shall have an opportunity to prepare
written reports with recommendations to be submitted to the Board of
Selectmen before or at the public hearing. The failure of either
the Planning Board or the Department of Planning and Community Develop-
ment to submit written reports or to give an oral report at the public
hearing shall not invalidate action by the Board of Selectmen. A
favorable decision by the Board of Selectmen shall require the votes
of at least four members of said Board.

Contents of Plan: The site plan application and other data re-
quired to be submitted in triplicate shall contain the following data:

1. It shall be drawn at a scale of one-inch equals 20
feet unless another scale is requested and found suit-
able by the Department of Planning and Community De-
velopment.
2. The Plan shall be prepared by a land surveyor, profes-
sional engineer or architect.
3. The scale, date, and north arrow shall be shown.
4. The plan shall be certified by the land surveyor doing
the boundary survey and the professional engineer
architect on the location of the buildinq(s), and
measurements and further that the plan be signed under
the penalties of perjury.
5. The corner points of the lot* and the change of (9i-rec-
tion of lines to be marked by stone monuments, cut in

Refers also to series of contiguous lots under single ownership.

-135-

stone, stake and nail, iron pin, or other market, and
shall be so marked.
6. Lot* number, dimensions of lot* in feet, size of lot, and
width of abutting streets and ways.
7. Easements within the lot* and abutting thereon.
B. The location of existing and proposed building(s) on the
lot.
9. The dimensions of the existing and proposed building(s)
in feet.
10. The distance In feet of existing and proposed building(s)
from the lot lines.
11. The distance between buildings on the same lot.
12. The percent of the lot* area covered by the building(s).
13. The average finished grade of each building.
14. The elevation above average finished grade of the floor
and ceiling of the lowest floor of each building.
15. Topographical lines,at two-foot intervals.
16. The use designation of each building or part thereof,
and of each section of open ground, plaza, or usable
roof space.
17. Numbering of parking spaces.
18. Height of all buildings above average finished grade of
each.
19. Number of apartments, hotel rooms, meeting rooms, and
restaurant and theater seats.
20. Total square feet of floor space for each use.
21. Dimensions and size in square feet of all landscape and
recreation areas, and depiction of materials to be used
(grass, 5-feet shrubs, etc.)

Refers also to series of contiguous lots under single ownership.

-136-

SAMPLE CLUSTER ZONING BY-LAW - Town of Lincoln

Exception for Cluster Development in an R-I Single Residence District

a. For the purpose of promoting the more efficient use of
land in harmony with its natural features and with the
general intent of the Zoning By-Law, and to protect
and promote the health, safety, convenience and general
welfare of the inhabitants of the town, an owner or
owners of a tract of land situated within the R-I
Single Residence District, or a duly authorized agent
thereof, may, in connection with the submission of a
subdivision plan for Planning Board approval under the
Subdivision Control Law or, if no such approval is re-
quired, after consultation with the Planning Board,
make application to the Board of Appeals for a special
permit excepting his plan from the lot area and frontage
requirements of sub-paragraph B-1-though B-5 of this
Section VI.

b. After notice and public hearing, and after due consider-
ation of the report and recommendations of the Planning Board, the
Board of Appeals may grant such a permit provided that:

i. It finds that the proposed plan is in harmony
with the purpose and intent of this By-Law and
that it will promote the purposes of this
section;

ii. The area of the tract of land to be subdivided
is not less than ten (10) acres;

iii. The number of lots on the plan does not exceed
the number of lots upon which dwellings could
be constructed on the total land area of the
tract which is usable for residential con-
struction without reference to this sub-section
8, under the applicable laws of the Town and
the Commonwealth, as determined by the Planning
Board in its report made pursuant to paragraph
d below;

iv. Each lot shall contain not less than 35,000
square feet;

V. Each lot shall have a minimum frontage of eighty
(80) feet on a public or private way, except
that a lot on the turning circle of a dead end
street may have a frontage of not less than
fifty (50) feet, provided that the shortest dis-
tance between side lot lines shall be at least

-137-

eighty (80) feet at every point more than forty
(40) feet from the street line to the dwelling
or main non-residential structure;

vi. The minimum front yard shall be forty (40) feet;

vii. The minimum side and rear yards shall be thirty
(30) feet;

viii. The mini-mum width of the lot at the building
shall be one hundred sixty (160) feet;

ix. Provision shall be made so that at least 35% of
the land area of the tract, exclusive of land
set aside for road area, shall be Open Land,
and that the area of open land shall be such that
when added to the total area of all lots smaller
than 80,000 square feet, the total area shall not
be less than the number of such lots multiplied
by 80,000_square feet;

X. Provisions shall be made so that Open Land shall
be owned:

a. by the Town;
b. by the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust; or
c. in any other manner (including an asso6ia-
tion of the owners of the land) that may
be approved by the Board of Appeals, with
provisions for limited easements for re-
creational use by residents of the Town,
provided that such ownership shall vest in
the Town sufficient rights to enable it to
enforce compliance with the restrictions
imposed by the Board of Appeals as condi-
tions of its special permit; and

xi. Provision s1liall be made so that Open Land shall be
restricted to any one or more of the uses allowed
in an Open-Space Conservation District by right
or appeal.

C. The Board of Appeals may, in appropriate cases, impose
further restrictions upon the tract, or parts thereof, as
a condition to granting the special permit.

d. In connection with an application for a special permit
from the Board of Appeals under this section, the Planning
Board shall submit, in writing, prior to the hearing, its

-138-

recommendation and report to the Board of Appeals. The
Planning Board may supplement its report after the hearing.
The report of the Planning Board shall include as a minimum:

i. A determination of the area of the tract "usable
for residential construction";

ii. A determination of the number of lots upon which
dwellings could be constructed without regard to
this section;

iii. A general description of the neighborhood in
which the tract lies and the effect of the plan
on the area;

iv. The relation of the plan to the Long Range Plan
of the Town;

V. The extent to which the plan is designed to take
advantage of the natural terrain of the tract;

vi. The extent to which the proposed Open Land is
of a size and shape and has adequate access to
benefit the Town;

vii. The Planning Board's opinion as to the overall
design of the plan;

viii. The Planning Board's recommendations as to the
advisability of granting the special permit,
and as to any restrictions which should be im-
posed upon the tract as a condition of such
permit.

The Board of Appeals shall give due consideration to the
report of the Planning Board and, where its decision
differs from the recommendations of the Planning Board,
shall state the reasons therefore in writing.

e. Any condition setforth herein requiring a minimum- lot area or
frontage shall not be construed as purporting to limit the
right of the Board of Appeals to grant a variance therefrom as
permitted by law.

-139-

V. -Model Sign Ordinance

4 Revere, like most cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts, has an
J existing municipal ordinance regulating billboards, signs and other outdoor
advertising devices (Chapter 3, Section 3-1 of Revere's Revised Ordinances).
This ordinance was first adopted in 1953. Because of significant changes
in the law relating to billboards and signs (as a result of new case law
and statutory changes at the state and federal levels) the City may want
to review its current ordinance, and consider alternative regulatory
methods.

Article 50 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified
by the people on November 5, 1918 granted to the Legislature the power to
regulate and restrict advertising on private property within public view.
The Legislature exercised that power in enacting G.L. Ch. 93 �9 29-33 and
G.L. Ch. 930 09 1-7, which provide a comprehensive scheme for regulating
signs within the Commonwealth by the outdoor Advertising Division. The
Outdoor Advertising Division was established in its present form in 1955,
succeeding agencies which have been regulating outdoor advertising within
the Commonwealth since 1920. The Outdoor Advertising Board (OAB) is
the rule-making body of the Outdoor Advertising Division.

General Laws C. 93, �. 29, authorizes the Board to prescribe standards
for the proper control and restriction of billboards, signs and other
advertising devices and to require that signs, subject to the Board's
jurisdiction,be under a permit issued by the Board. Pursuant to the mandate
contained in section 29, the OAB has promulgated regulations which require
that all signs under the Board's jurisdiction be subject to a permit issued
by the Board. It should be noted at this point that G.L. C. 93, �. 30
exempts all on-premise signs from the Board's permit power. The regulations
promulgated by the OAB state that:

"(a) No permit shall be granted or renewed for a Sign which is
not located in an area of a business character. An area shall be
deemed to be, of a business character only if, when viewed from the
principal highway upon which the Sign is to face, both the following
requirements are met: W at least two separate business, industrial
or commercial activities are being conducted within a distance of 500
feet from the proposed location of the Sign, measuring froin such
proposed location to the buildings or parking lots or other places
of actual business, indust@ial or commercial activity,- and (ii) the
area in which the Sign is to be located is not predominantly
residential, agricultural, open space or a natural area. The term
"business, industrial, or commercial activities" as used in this
paragraph shaJ1 not include residential trailer parks, nor any agricultural,
horticultural, or floricultural activities, nor any activity not visible
from the principal highway upon which the Sign is to face."

and,

-140-

"(b) No permit shall be granted or renewed for the location or
maintenance of a Sign within a city or town except where such location
or maintenance is in conformity with applicable city and town ordinances
and by-laws enacted in accordance with Section 29 of Chapter 93 of
the General Laws; and no ordinance or by-law shall be deemed inconsistent
with the rules and regulations of the Board on the ground that such
ordinance or by-law prohibits the location or maintenance of a Sign
which in the absence of said ordinance or by-law would be in conformity
with the said rules and regulations.

As the abovementioned regulation (g) implies cities and towns, under
G.L. C. 93, �. 29, may fur-ther regulate and restrict billboards, signs,
and other devices within their limits by ordinance or by-law not inconsistent
with H. 29-33 or with OAB regulations.

Every billboard, not otherwise exempt, must obtain an annual permit
from the OAB. This annual permit system has a very important legal
consequence: since all the billboards in the state exist only on an
annual permit, with no right to renewal, a billboard cannot under Massachusetts
law acquire the status of a pre-existing non-conforming use. If the OAB
or the local by-law require the termination of that billboard, neither the
owner of the land nor the billboard owner has a right to claim "grandfather
clause" protection. This was held in several cases, especially Donnelly &
Sons Inc. v. OAB,(1972) 361 mass. 746, 282 N.E. ed 661.

Prior to 1978, no compensation for the removal of any Massachusetts
billboard was required, except for certain takings by the DPW under G.L. C. 9eD
of billboards not meeting DPW design standards. The Surface Transportation
Systems Act of 1978, amending the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 has
changed the requirements for compensation in Massachusetts.

The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 was implemented in Massachusetts
by G.L. Ch. 93D, which basically forbids off-premise signs within 660 feet
of the nearest edge of the right of way of an interstate or federal primary
system highway except in areas zoned commercial or industrial or in unzoned
areas where permitted by joint Department of Public Works - Federal Highway
Administration regulations.

This new federal law amending the Highway Beautification Act mandates
compensation for any billboardzin place as of the effective date of the
law if the state fails to renew its license or otherwise orders its removal.
States which fail to abide by this provision could face a reduction in
federal highways funds. Monies to compensate owners of such billboards
were to be funded 25% by the state and 75% by the federal government.
However, federal -funding for this purpose has been grossly inadequate and
consequently no state funds have been appropriated, with the result that
no action has been taken against billboards where a claim for compensation
may be. The OAB estimates that as many as 2500 Massachusetts billboards
may be in this category.

-141-

In light of this situation, any municipality which wishes stricter
billboard control should act promptly to pass laws banning billboards in
all or part of the community in order to prevent the proliferation of
new boards, which may then become permanently protected under the federal
law noted above.

The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a city or town may
absolutely ban billboards. As of 1972, the Town of Brookline adopted a
zoning amendment prohibiting any off-premise signs in any zoning district
of the town. The OAB then refused under its Regulations to renew permits
for 22 existing billboards. In Donnelly Sons Inc. v. OAB (the 1975
Brookline case), 369 Mass. 206, 339 N.E. 2d 709, the court upheld this
prohibition as consistent with Am. Art. 50 (which does not mention
prohibition); G.L. ch. 93; the OAB's regulations; and the Constitution.
In a strongly worded opinion, the court stated that town by-law enacted
primarily for aesthetic reasons are within the scope of the police power,
because towns and cities have the right to a visually satisfying environ-
ment. Donnelly specially attacked prohibition in industrial and
commercial areas, but the court felt that "urban residents are not
immune to ugliness" and upheld the effort to improve these urban areas
because, it reasoned, "to conclude that an area is too unattractive to
justify aesthetic improvement would be both unreasonable and illogical."
The Court also rejected a freedom of speech argument because billboards
are so intrusive and the use for public interest advertising so limited.

As noted above the right of a landowner or businessman to erect on-
premise signs has increased greater protection under Massachusetts law
due to the exemption for such signs under G.L. ch. 93 and 930. This
right, however, is limited somewhat by a Supreme Judicial Court opinion
issued over forty years ago which is still controlling in controversies
over on-premise signs.

In Attorney General v. J. P. Cox Advertising Agency, 298 Mass. 383
(1937) the court held that a sign must be "in immediate contact" with
the business it advertises in order to qualify for an on-premise
exemption from the provisions of Chapter 93. In the J. P. Cox case, a
sign on the roof of a three-story building advertised the Perry Brothers
cigar store which was located on the first floor. The court held that
the sign was not an on-premise sign within the meaning of G.L. ch. 93,
s. 30, and hence was subject to the Board's jurisdiction. The court
state that:

"It is a fair inference that the business of Perry Brothers
does not extend above their store on the first floor.... In
the ordinary sense 'the premises' occupied by Perry Brothers
on which they do business cannot be said to include the roof,
and the store is so far removed from the sign that we think
the words, 'the premises in question', as used in the statute
cannot be stretched to include the store. The statute was

-142-

intended to exempt only signs in immediate contact with the
business which they advertise. The sign is not within the
exception of s. 30. J. P. Cox, supr at 389-390 (emphasis
added).

Additionally, a municipality may regulate on-premise signs under
G.L. ch. 40 or ch. 40A authorizing, respectively, non-zoning municipal
ordinances and municipal zoning ordinances.

Although the new zoning act is not clear on the point it appears to
give pre-existing nonconforming on-premise signs indefinite protection
against changes in the local zoning code. The zoning Act, G.L. ch. 40A
states in section b "that the protection for nonconforming structures
appearing in the old zoning enabling act shall no longer apply to bill-
boards, signs and other advertising devices subject to ch. 93 and 93D",
however, the Land Court has held in Fry v. Plymouth, Misc. 82393,
February 1978, that since those chapters do not control on-premise
signs, those signs are still given 'grandfather clause' protection.

A number of cities and towns have tried to "amortize" those old
signs by giving them several years to conform. This should be attempted
only under a nonzoning, ch. 40 by-law or ordinance which the court
suggested in the Brookline case may be authorized by the home rule
amendment. Court cases in other states have upheld ordinances phasing
out signs over a period of years, providing the amortization period was
commensurate with the owner's investment in the sign. See Art Neon Co.
v. City and County of Denver, 488 F. 2d 118 (10th Cir. 1974).

A community, in its ordinance, can also prevent such signs from
being reworded, redesigned or altered in any way unless such alteration
brings it into conformity with the ordinance.

Since signs have in some context been held to be "structures", it
is important that the local ordinance make it clear that a general
provision often found in local zoning, containing permission to alter,
enlarge or rebuild nonconforming structures, does not apply to signs.
The sign ordinance should also contain a provision, authorized under
ch. 40A, s. 6, that any such structure abandoned for over two years shall
not be permitted to continue'-@as a nonconforming use.

A sign ordinance should focus upon size, materials, lighting and
placement when considering regulation of flashing and lighted signs,
Revere should also consider the problem of regulating lighting generally.
Business and re�idential premises are increasingly floodlit. Such light-
ing may easily fulfill its economic, aesthetic or safety purposes without
annoying the neighbors if shielding is required as it is in the model for
sign lighting. This does, however, require a city zoning, or ch. 40,
ordinance to the effect that all such lighting shall be so shielded as
not to cast light outside the premises.

-143-

However, some color, light and variety adds life to the surround-
ings, particularly in built up urban areas such as Revere. The extent
to which lighting, color and signs in general are controlled must be
considered with reference to overall municipal redevelopment and
renewal projects.

The model presented on the following page is intended only for
informational purposes. Should Revere feel that revision of its
existing sign control ordinance is desirable the model should be care-
fully reviewed and appropriate changes made to tailor it to Revere's
specific needs.

-144-

ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING SIGNS

(brackets indicate optional or variable sections)

Section 1: Purposes

This ordinance is adopted for the regulation and restriction of
signs within this city in order to protect and enhance the visual envi-
ronment of this city and the safety, convenience and welfare of its
residents. A major purpose of this by-law is to prevent or minimize
damage to the environment.

Section 2: Definitions

Accessory Signs: Any sign that advertises, calls attention to,
or indicates the person occupying the premises on which the sign is
erected or maintained, or the business transacted thereon, or adver-
tises the property itself or any part thereof as for sale or rent, and
which contains no other matter.

Non-Accessory Sign: Any sign not an accessory sign, including
billboards.

Sign: Any permanent or temporary device, billboard, placard,
painting, drawing, poster, letter, work, banner, pennant, insignia,
trade flag, or representation used as, or the nature of, an advertise-
ment, announcement, or direction; OR: Any device, structure or object
in public view intended for visuaf communication.

Standing Sign: Any accessory sign that is not attached to a
building.

Temporary Sign: Any sign, including its supporting structure,
intended to be maintained for a continuous period of not more than
(30) days in any calendar year.

Section 3: Administration

A. Enforcement: The (building inspector, City Council, Plan-
ning Board) is hereby designated as the Sign Officer and is
hereby authorized to enforce this bylaw. The Sign Officer
is authorized to order the repair or removal of any sign
and its supporting structure which in his judgment is
dangerous, or in disrepair or which is erected or maintained
contrary to this by-law. Whenever a Sign Officer is desig-
nated, he shall send his name and address to the Outdoor
Advertising Board.

B. Energy Shortages: In the event of an energy shortage, the
City Council is authorized in its discretion and following
a public hearing, to order that all signs in the city

-145-

consuming electric, gas, oil or other forms of energy cease
such consumption in whole or in part during such hours and
for such period as the Council may designate.

Section 4: Permits and Fees

Except as provided in s. 8 for certain signs permitted in any
district, no sign shall be erected, altered or enlarged until an appli-
cation has been filed on the appropriate form furnished by the Sign
Officer, containing such-information as he may require, and until a
permit for such erection, alteration or enlargement has been issued by
him. Such permit shall be issued only if the sign officer determines
that the sign complies or will comply with all applicable provisions
of this bylaw and the state building code, Article 14. Such applica-
tion may be filed by the owner of the land or building or any person
who has authority to erect a sign on the premises.

The Sign Officer shall act within 30 days of receipt of such
application together with the required fee if any. The Sign Officer's
action or failure to act may be appealed to the board of appeals under
the provisions of ch. 40A;

Applications for (lighted signs: signs which are larger than
signs in - districts*) shall also be referred to the planning board,
which shall make recommendations to the Sign Officer. The board may
hold a public hearing if it deems necessary. If the board holds a
public hearing, the Sign Officer's decision may be delayed until 45
days after the application.

A schedule of fees for such permits may be established from time
to time by the City Council.

Section 5: Penalties

Whoever violates any provision of this ordinance or any lawful
order of the Sign officer shall be subject to a fine of not more than
($100) dollars per offense. Each day that such violation continues
shall constitute a separate offense.

Section 6: Non-Accessory Signs

Non-accessory signs shall not be permitted.

(Or: The-Special Permit Authority, City Council, or Board of
Appeals) may in its discretion permit the erection of non-accessory

This provision is for protection of specially sensitive di stricts
(e.g., historical) or regulation of signs deemed possibly objection-
able because of size, lighting, etc.

-146-

signs in areas zoned as business, commercial or industrial districts,
for a term not to exceed (2) years if it finds that the sign complies
with Sections 7 and 9 and with the purposes of the ordinance. If
such permission is granted, the (SPA) shall impose such conditions
relating to appearance, size, height above ground, proximity to
residences, other signs, intersections, churches, public buildings
and parks, and other factors as it may deem necessary to promote the
purposes of this ordinance.)

Section 7: Design Requirements for All Signs

A. Movement: No sign shall contain any moving, flashing or
animated lights, or visible moving or moveable parts,
except such portions of a sign that consist solely of
indicators of time and/or temperature, or automatically
changing message, provided that a s-ign with an automati-
cally changing message shall be permitted only by special
permit issued by the Special Permit Authority, upon
recommendation by the Chief of Police.

B. Illumination: No sign shall be illuminated between the
hours of (11) P.M. and (6) A.M. unless, in the case of
an accessory sign, the premises on which it is located
are open for business. Signs may be illuminated only
by the following means:

1. By a white, steady stationary light of reason-
able intensity shielded and directed solely at
the sign, and not casting light on the premises;

(2. By interior non-exposed lights of reasonable
intensity.)

C. Color: No illuminated sign shall contain more than (3)
colors nor shall any sign contain more than (3) colors.
No sign shall contain red or green lights if such colors
would, in the opinion of the police chief, constitute a
driving hazard.

Section 8: Signs Not Requiring Permits

The following accessory signs conforming to this Section and Sec-
tion 7, may be erected and maintained without a permit, in any district:

A. One sign displaying the street number and/or name of the
occupant of the premises not exceeding (1) square foot in
area. Such sign may include identification of an acces-
sory uses permitted in a residence district.

-147-

B. Two "For Sale" or "For Rent" signs not exceeding a total
area of (6) square feet, advertising only the premises on
which the signs are located.

C. One bulletin or announcement board, identification sign or
entrance marker for each public entrance to the premises
upon which a church, synagogue, or other institution is
located, not exceeding (12) square feet in area, provided
that there shall be no more than three such signs for
each church or_gynagogue or other institution.

D. One contractor's sign, not exceeding (12) square feet in
area, maintained on the premises while construction is in
process and containing information relevant to the pro-
ject. Such sign shall be removed promptly after comple-
tion of the construction.

E. One identification sign, not exceeding (12) square feet
in area, at any public entrance to a subdivision or
multi-family development.

F. Directional signs, not exceeding (3 square feet).

G. Signs limited solely to directing traffic within or set-
ting restrictions of the use of parking areas, not
exceeding (4) square feet.

Section 9: Signs Requiring Permits

In an area zoned as a (business, commercial or industrial) dis-
trict, the Sign Officer may issue permits for signs conforming to s. 7
and this section.

A. Attachment of Sians:

i. The sign shall be firmly affixed to a building.

ii. The sign shall not project beyond the face of
any other wall-@@bf the building, or above the top
of the wall to which it is attached or be located
on the roof of any building.

iii. The sign shall not project more than twelve
ifiches (in the case of a sign parallel with the
wall, or four feet in the case of a sign pro-
jecting perpendicular from the wall) from the
face of the wall to which it is attached.

B. Size: The area of the sign shall not exceed (15) per-
cent of the area of the wall on which the sign is located.

-148-

C. Number: There shall be not more than one exterior sign
for each business establishment except that if there is
more than one public entrance to any such business
establishment, there may be one additional secondary
sign for each such entrance; provided that the aggregate
area of all such secondary signs shall not exceed 10
square feet.

D. Directory': In addition to the foregoing sign or signs,
one directory of the establishments occupying a build-
ing may be affixed to the exterior wall of the building
at each public entrance to the building. Such directory
shall not exceed an area determined on the basis of one
square foot for each establishment occupying the build-
ing.

E. Window Signs: Signs painted or placed on the inside of
the glass of a window may be permitted in addition to
the above, provided that the aggregate area of such
signs does not exceed (20) percent of the area of the
window glass.

F. Temporary Signs: Temporary signs which comply with this
ordinance may be permitted in addition to the above.
Before a temporary sign (other than a temporary sign
placed in a window) shall be erected or displayed, there
shall be deposited with the Sign Officer the sum of
($25) dollars for each sign. In the event of failure
to remove the sign within the period prescribed, the
Sign Officer shall apply the deposit towards the cost of
removing the sign. Temporary signs which do not comply
with this ordinance may be authorized by the Sign
Officer for public or charitable purposes.

G. Political Signs: Political signs shall be allowed only
at official headquarters of the candidate. Locating
political signs in any other area of building is
prohibited.

Section 10: Nonconforming Accessory Signs

Accessory signs legally erected before the adoption of this ordi-
nance which do not conform to the provisions of this ordinance may
continue to be maintained, provided, however, that no such sign shall be
permitted if it is, after the adoption of this ordinance enlarged, re-
worded (other than in the case of theatre or cinema signs or signs with
automatic or manually changing messages), redesigned or altered in any
way excluding repainting in a different color, except to conform to the
requirements of this ordinance and provided further that any such sign

-149-

which has deteriorated to such an extent that the cost of restoration
would exceed thirty-five percent of the replacement cost of the sign
at the time of the restoration shall not be repaired, rebuilt, or
altered except to conform to the requirements-of this ordinance. Any
exemption provided in this section shall terminate with respect to anv
sign which:

A. Shall have been abandoned for at least two years;

B. Advertises or calls attention to any products, busi-
nesses or activities which are no longer sold or
carried on, whether generally or at the particular
premises; or

C. Shall not have been repaired or properly maintained
within thirty days after notice to that effect has
been given by the Building Inspector.

_150-

SECTION FOUR

Wetlands Protection Planning_

-151-

Memorandum to the Conservation Commission

-152-

MEMORANDUM

July 13, 1979

TO: Conservation Commission of the City of Revere
FROM: Terrence Geoghegan, CZM Study Director
SUBJECT: Wetlands Protection Planning

Introduction

Task Four, Wetlands-Protection Planning, of the Community Assistance
Grant that the City of Revere was awarded by the Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Office calls for the sharing of information, mapped data
and land use management policies.

This memorandum will address a number of key issues relative to the
ongoing performance of the Commission.

The landuse and wetland management policies are contained in Section
Two of the Coastal Zone Management Study for the City of Revere.

Clean-Up Campaign

Many cities have both a spring and fall "clean-up" weekend. Civic
groups are mobilized, the City provides the trucks and other equipment,
schedules for bulk pick-up are posted, illegal dumping areas are
identified and assigned work crews, and it is usually topped off with a
large outdoor barbecue.

It is recommended that the Conservation Commission take the lead in
organizing such a campaign. The Commission's staff attorney, supple-
mented with some CETA help could take care of the logistics. In a city
such as Revere-where there are a large number of social organizations,
the manpower appears to be readily available.

In addition to resulting in a cleaner city, the campaign should
bring about a recognition of the benefits of keeping the city clean and
of the benefits of a clean drainage system and functioning marsh.

Deed Restrictions

The paper contained in the Appendix of this memo, discusses the
donation of land-, conservation restrictions, and other legal techniques
designed to limit development in key environmentally sensitive areas.

The Conservation Commission should send copies of this paper to
all of the landowners of wetlands in the City. The Commission should
then decide which area is the most critical in terms of the Commission's

-153-

policies, and begin a dialogue with the landowner designed to remove that
land from development.

This approach is being used by a number of municipalities in the
Commonwealth. Some of them use a combination of state Self-Help and
local funds to purchase land or a conservatin restriction on land.

Local Ads

The Conservation Commission should approach the local print and
television news media regarding a public service advertising program
designed to increase the awareness of the need to protect wetlands. The
local cable network might provide a format for a round table discussion
in which officials from the state and other municipalities, with
experience and knowledge regarding wetlands c-ould be guest speakers.

HUD Flood Plain Rate Maps

One element of the federal Flood Insurance Program is the existence
and adoption of an accurate Flood Plain Map. The Department of Housing
and Urban Development has hired a consulting firm to prepare these maps
for the Commonwealth.

Due to the large impact the proposals for the Revere Beach Con-
nector, North Shore Transit Improvement Project, Revere Beach Reserva-
tion, County Ditch Improvements, and the Revere Beach Development Project
will have on the configuration of the flood-plain and flood-way, members
of the Conservation Commission should contact HUD in the near future in
order to coordinate with the map consultant.

Freedom Realty Development

Although this area is just outside of the CZM defined boundary for
this study, the development that is proposed will require a careful
review by the Conservation Commission.

The proposal put forth by Leonard Silver for a combination warehouse
and manufacturing facility will have a number of positive attributes for
the City including jobs and taxes. This will have to be weighed against
the costs associated with adequately handling the drainage and amelio-
rating other environmental problems.

The drainage system on the Freedom Realty site is in part a system
by the MDC in 1951. Jurisdictional and design problems will have to be
addressed in the Order of Conditions.

-154-

Membership Training

It would be very useful to the proper functioning of the Conserva-
tion Commission if the membership could arrange for a training session,
utilizing the resources of the Conservation Law Foundation or the
Massachusetts Audobon Society.

In addition, the CZM Study Staff will provide a special briefing
of the results of this study effort, for members of the Commission.

Chairmanship of the Commission

Although this area has been debated by the Commission and is not,
strictly speaking, the province of this study, we feel that the obvious
conflict of interest has to be recognized- The position of the Chairman
should not be held by the Superintendent of the Department of Public
Works. Especially, when the DPW has been involved in filling the wet-
lands in contravention of Chapter 131, Section 40.

The Superintendent should resign from the chairmanship, but retain
membership in order to voice his concerns over the work of his depart-
ment, and to provide a local DPW viewpoint on proposals.

-155-

Incentives to Landowners for Gifts of Land
and Lesser Interests in Land for Conservation Purposes

-156-

INCENTIVES TO LANDOWNERS FOR GIFT OF LAND
AND LESSER INTERESTS IN LAND FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES

This report briefly describes the economic advantage to a land-
owner for the donation of his land to a qualifying charitable organiza-
tion, (including governmental bodies). The economic advantages can be
classified primarily as tax savings in the form of income taxes, capital
gains taxes, estate and inheritance taxes, and property taxes.

In the era of increasingly complex regulation of private enterprise,
the donation of land to public or private bodies concerned with its
proper protection and use-;. offers an alternative to development which
can be mutually advantageous to both the community and the land-owner.
Certainly, much undeveloped land in Revere faces stricter control over
its use at the local, state and federal levels. Local, regional, state
and federal concdrns over flooding, water quality, erosion and the pro-
tection of the remaining fish, wildlife and plant communities will make
the use of land related to these public interests difficult. At the same
time, undeveloped land in an urban area such as Revere, probably has a
greater fair market value than in less developed areas, particularly
under existing zoning ordinances. As controls become stricter this
market value will drop. Depending upon individual circumstances, the
donation of undeveloped land in Revere to the City or a charitable orga-
nization may be the most financially prudent decision a land-owner or a
land investor could make at this time. Considerations, such as the
income, assets and aims of the land-owner will, of course, be the con-
trolling factors. Any land-owner considering making a donation of land
should only do so after detailed consultation with their attorney,
accountant and the recipient of the donation.

Under federal income tax laws the land-owner donating land to a
qualifying charitable organization for conservation purposes can deduct
up to 30% of their adjusted gross income for such a donation, (corpora-
tions, however, may only deduct 5% of their taxable income for such
contributions)._ Any excess value over the 30% limitations (5% for
corporations) can be carried over and deducted in the next succeeding
five years. Undivided interests in land can also be given and deducted
if the total value of land is too great to obtain the optimum value of
the deduction. No similar deduction is allowed under gross income tax
law.

In addition to the income tax deduction available, if the land is
given to a public charity (or government body) no capital gains taxes,
federal or state need be paid, regardless of how much the land has
appreciated in value. Remember that the deduction from income is based
on the full presbnt fair market value.

To illustrate this tax treatment of land donations let us assume
that a 40 acre parcel of land, purchased for $4,000 now has a fair market
value of $40,000. The taxpayer (land-owner) has a taxable income of
$70,000/year and can either sell the land at its fair market value, or

-157-

donate it to a public charity.

Based upon his income this land-owner would pay annual Federal
income taxes of $32,790. If he sold the land (and assuming for this
purpose that he has net long term capital gains of at least $50,000) he
would have to pay Federal capital gains tax of $12,040 plus Massachusetts
capital gains tax of $2,880.

If instead the land-owner donated the land to a public charity he
could deduct 30% of $70,000, or $21,000, in the year he makes the dona-
tions and the remaining value of the land $19,000, in the following year.
He would save $13,200 and $11,980 respectively on his federal income tax
(remember no similar deduction is allowed under Massachusetts income tax
laws).

The net result to the taxpayer is as follows:

Value of property $40,000
Saving of Fed capital gain tax $12,400
Saving of Mass capital gain tax 2,880
First year saving Federal income
tax 13,200
Second year saving Federal income
tax 11,980-
Total tax saving: $40,100

As you can see in this fact situation the taxpayer actually makes
a net cash gain if he donates his property tax rather than sell it!

Under the Tax Reform Act of 1969 an alternative method of deduction
for charitable contributions was made possible. It increases the amount'
which would be deducted each year from the previous limit of 30% of the
adjusted gross income if the taxpayer first reduces the value of the
contribution to be deducted by one-half the amount of its capital gain.
Obviously this method would only be feasible where the value of the
property was more than 30% of income where capital gains are relatively
small. The use of this alternative method of deduction should be care-
fully evaluated by the land-owner and his attorney. In most cases the
election will probably not be warranted, but in the proper circumstances
it can provide substantial benefit to a land-owner.

Another economic advantage to a land-owner in donating land to a
public charity is the property tax saving. Parks and nature preserves
held by public charities are exempt from property tax in Massachusetts,
and of course, land given to the city or state is removed from the tax
roles.

For many land-onwers the most important tax saving may be in the

-158-

saving of estate taxes. Land which is willed to a qualified charity will
not be subject to federal or state estate or inheritance taxes.

It should be noted that a land-owner need not donate his entire
interest on the land. If a land-owner feels that he must receive some
cash on the disposition of his land he would sell it for conservation
purposes for less than its fair market value. In this way the initial
investment in the land may be directly recovered, and the differences
between the fair market value of the land and its "bargain sale" price
can be deducted for federal income tax purposes as a charitable contribu-
tion. In order to secure this deduction, the land-owner should be sure
to have the property appraised by a qualified professional before the
sale, and to declare the charitable intention in the sale contract. In
terms of capital gains tax treatment when property is sold for less than
its fair market value its cost basis must be allocated proportionately
between the bargain sale price and the amount of cost basis allocated
thereto must be recognized as a capital gain.

Finally, a land-owner may retain ownership in his land while giving
up an interest in that land which will entitle him to take advantage of
many tax breaks noted above. This can be done through the use of the
Massachusetts Conservation Restriction Act (Ch. 666 of the Acts of 1969).
A conservation restriction is a legally enforceable agreement, executed
under Chapter 184, S.S. 31-32-33 of the Massachusetts General Laws,
between a land-owner and a governmental body or charitable organization
by which the owner of open land promises to keep it substantially free
of future development. Such a restriction constitutes an "interest in
land" which "runs with the land" and is binding upon subsequent owners
in the perpetuity, unless the agreement itself states that the property
is only restricted for a certain number of years. The land remains in
private ownership and may be freely donated, sold or willed, subject to
the restriction; and the public will have no rights to enter it unless
the agreement grants public access. This agreement, called a "deed" or
11 conservation restriction", sets out in detail what a land-owner can and
cannot continue to do with his land. These terms are extremely flexible
and negotiable subject only to the limitation that the restriction must
be "appropriate to retaining land or water areas predominantly in their
natural, scenic or open condition, or in agricultural, farming or forest
use". A conservation restriction, while usually given in perpetuity may
by limited to only last for a certain number of years. Of course the
property tax relief granted for such a short term restriction will not be
as great as for a perpetual restriction. Also, no federal income tax
deduction is available and the donor may have to pay a federal gift tax.

The tax advantages to a land-owner in giving a conservation restric-
tion are similar to those available for the donation of land, discussed
above. The value of the conservation restriction may be deducted from
the land-owner's adjusted gross income, up to 30% of the taxpayer's

-159-

adjusted gross income, (with the 50% alternative deduction mentioned
above, also available). In terms of federal estate tax reductions a
permanent conservation restriction left by a will or given during a
land-owners life-time will qualify as a charitable deduction and will
effectively reduce estate taxes. Nor will there be any gift tax due
on such a donation if it is a perpetual conservation restriction.

A conservation restriction can also result in a significant reduc-
tion in real estate taxe-s-. Land subject to a conservation restriction
must be assessed as a separate parcel of real estate. Because state
law requires that real estate be assessed for tax purposes at its full,
fair cash value, this value and hence the assessment should be reduced
after the imposition of a conservation restriction. How market value
is diminished depends on several factors, including the cash value of
the land before the CR, the severity of the restrictions imposed and
the rights which the land-owner retains. While the real estate tax
reduction can be as much as 95% of the market value assessments no
blanket statement can be made on tax reductions because no uniform
guidelines are currently available.

The preceding discussion has attempted to briefly describe the tax
advantages to land-owners for giving land for conservation purposes.
For land-owners wishing to know more, two booklets put out by the Con-
servation Law Foundation of New England, Inc. (3 Joy Street, Boston, MA)
are recommended. They are entitled "Gifts of Land for Conservation" and
"Conservation Restrictions". Land-owners considering donating land for
conservation purposes should, of course, consult with their attorney and
accountant in order to make maximum use of the tax advantages available.
Further assistance is also available from the Conservation Law Founda-
tion and the Major's Office of Joint Development in the Revere City Hall.

-160-

SECTION FIVE

Coordination of Flood Control and Drainage Studies

-161-

Status Report on Flood Control Activities

-162-

INTRODUCTION

This report represents a summary of the various
"flood control" studies and projects that are underway or
are proposed for the City of Revere. It was prepared as
a policy guide for the Mayor, City Council, and Conserva-
tion Commission sg that they might have a comprehensive
referenced document which would explain each activity.
This summary can be used by each of the above-mentioned
offices as it deliberates proposals for development.

-163-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Sales Creek Flood Control Project .................... 1

Beachmont Seawall Repair ............................. 2

Roughan's Point Seawall Repair ....................... 3

Massachusetts Homeowners Floodproofing Program ....... 4

Wetlands Restriction Program ......................... 5

"Illegal Filling of Wetlands" ........................ 6

Revere Beach Resanding Study ......................... 8

Report on Flood Control and Navigation ............... 10

Revere Beach Reservation Master Plan ................. 11

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revere Beach
Development Project ................................ 12

Coastal Zone Management
Community Assistance Grant Study ................... 13

Venditto Road Area Drainage Improvement Study ........ 15

Leverett Avenue Flooding Study ....................... 16

Facilities Plan for Sanitary Sewer Improvements ...... 17

Economic Development Administration Funds ............ 19

Community Development Block Grant Funds .............. 21

Status Report, 1975 Storm Drainage Improvement Study,
Somerville Engineering ............................. 23

Status Report, County Ditch Cleaning ................. 24

-164-

PROJECT: Sales Creek Flood Control Project

CONTACT(S): Senator Francis D. Doris
State House
Boston, Massachusetts

SYSNOPSIS: In 1971, legislation was enacted which directed the
Division of Waterways to construct a culvert in the
Saleja Creek Area. As a result of the legislation,
a detailed study and engineering analysis was under-
taken by Andrew Christo Consulting Engineering,
Boston.

That study indicated that the scope of work required
was far in excess of simply constructing a culvert.
Construction estimates at that time place the project
cost of $3.1 million. Included in the project scope
were plans for Bennington Street pumping station.

After-a lengthy review by the Division of Waterways
staff the project was nearly abandoned as the project
cost to project area benefit ratio in dollar terms,
was felt to be far out of proportion.

At that point Senator Davis and Mayor Colella entered
lengthy negotiations with state officials which lead
to postponement of a final decision of whether or not
the project would be implemented until such time as
the cost-benefit ratio could be re-evaluated in light
of new information such as the amount of damage
caused by the 1978 and 1979 floods.

Since the time when this new information was intro-
duced and evaluated, Senator Doris has been success-
ful in elicting the cooperation of Suffolk Downs Race
Track for land easements and financial participation
in the project which further improves the cost
benefit"ifatio.

COMMENTS: According to Senator Doris, if the tentative agree-
ments reached with Suffolk Downs can be finalized
and formal agreements entered in the near future,
elements of the project originally targeted for
completion in 1976 could enter construction in the
latter part of 1979 or the early part of 1980.

_165-

PROJECT: Beachmont Seawall Repair

CONTACT: Mr. Zellen
Engineering Department, M.D.C.
727-5264

SYNOPSIS: The M.D.C. project, to repair/restore the seawall in
Beachmont (extending from Leverett Avenue into
Winthrop) was awarded to Bonacorso Construction Co.,
for $470,000.

This project will restore the structural integrity
of the wall along with some sand replenishment.

The project is now 75% complete; with a final com-
pletion date of May 31, 1979.

COMMENTS: This wall protects the seashore in Southern Revere
and Winthrop; the major portion of the contract is
for the seawall in Revere.

-166-

PROJECT: Roughan's Point Seawall Repair

CONTACT: Mr. Jack Hannon
Division of Waterways
Environmental Quality Engineering

SYNOPSIS: An appropriation of $47,000 has been designated to
upgrade the flood control facility between Elliot
Circle and Simpsons Pier.

This project will reset the rocks and increase the
structural integrity of the barrier.

COMMENTS: Funding could only be obtained for a limited project
designed to upgrade the flooding facility.

The project offers increased protection to the area
but, will not provide the solution to Beachmont
flooding problems.

Project should be completed by June 1979.

-167-

PROGRAM: Massachusetts Homeowners Floodproofing Program

CONTACT: Executive office of Consumer Affairs
Floodproofing Program
One Ashburton Place - Room 1519
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
727-0014

SYNOPSIS: The-Massachusetts Homeowners Floodproofing Program is
designed to provide financial assistance in the form
of grants and/or low interest loans and technical
advice to low and moderate income homeowners living
in the 100 Year Flood Plain Zone. This program will
allow you to make your home safer from flooding and
make it easier for you to recover from a flood.

COMMENTS: Additional technical assistance can be obtained at
the Community Development Office at Revere City Hall.

-168-

PROGRAM: Wetlands Restriction Program

CONTACT: Jay Paul Satin
Staff Attorney
Conservation Commission
City Hall
Revere, Massachusetts 02151
284-3600/Ext. 121

SYNOPSIS: The program referred to above, is a general heading
underwhich one would find the donation of land by a
private party to a "qualified non-profit entity", the
sale of land by a private party to a "qualified non-
profit entity", or the enactment of a "deed restric-
tion" which would limit development.

The Conservation Commission is listed as the contact,
because in many cities and towns in the Commonwealth,
the Conservation Commission is the recipient of the
"donated land".

The "purchase" method usually involves a federal
grant. The "donation" method involves cooperation
between the landowner, the Conservation Commission
and the Board of Assessors.

COMMENTS: It is suggested that the Conservation Commission take
the initiative and approach the owners of significant
fresh and salt water wetlands in order to determine
which parcels could come under this program.

-169-

PROBLEM: "Illegal Filling of Wetlands"

CONTACT: Jay Paul Satin
Staff Attorney
Conservation Commission
City Hall
Revere, Massachusetts 02151
284/3600/Ext. 121

COMMENTS: The Revere Conservation Commission has under its
jurisdiction the filling of wetland areas. Filling
in wetlands is not per-se illegal. If a proper
Notice of Intent has been filed and an order of
Conditions granted by the Commission (after having,
adhered to all administrative regulations, including
a public hearing), filling may proceed as granted
and if granted under the Order of Conditions. How-
ever, the Comission has a policy, following a policy
of CZM and DEQE of not allowing filling of saltwater
wetlands.

The "illegal" filling as posed in the question will
be interpreted to mean all filling not done subject
to an Order of Conditions. It is the Conservation
Commission's policy that any such illegal fill is
strictly prohibited. The reasons for this are
obvious: drainage problems; health hazards and eye-
sores among others. The difficulty with this illegal
filling is enforcement in stopping it. Several
reasons make this an onerous task for Revere.

1. Wetlands are an inviting area to dispose of
trash, fill, etc.

2. Revere is in close proximity to the RESCO
plant. Some fill is rejected by RESCO and
upon arrival some people find their price
in dtcepting refuse too high. Thus, this
rejected and other type fill is -dumped in
Revere's wetlands for free.

3. The lack of knowledge of many residents of
the important functions wetlands play.
Many people believe the only good would be
to fill these areas.

-170-

COMMENTS: 4. Revere has an expansive area of wetlands
(continued) but little enforcement capabilities.

The Conservation Commission has tried several methods
to correct the illegal dumping situation.

1. Court action has been taken in several
instances.

2
'i
. imicable agreements have been reached
with certain violators who had done it
innocently.

3. Newspaper advertising has been published
asking residents to take notice of any
illegal dumping and report it to the
Commission.

4. Seeking funds to clean-up areas that have
been subject to too much accumulated illegal
fill.

5. Surveillance by members of the Commission.

-171-

STUDY: Revere Beach Resanding Study

CONTACT: Harman Guptil
Chief
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waltham, Massachusetts
894-2400

SYNOPSIS: This study was designed to explore the problems
associated with the resanding of Revere Beach. The
design that the Corps is working on, consists of a
200' width beach between the seawall and mean high
water. At the seawall, the height of the beach will
be 18' above mean low water.

The current estimate is for the addition of 1 million
cubic yards of sand. A source of sand has not yet
been identified, however the Corps is looking at the
old 1-95 embankment in the Saugus Marsh. The cost of
the project will be split 50-50 between the federal
government and the MDC.

Mr. Guptil says (February 20, 1979) that the Corps
has completed the General Design Memorandum and is
waiting for the MDC to complete its Master Plan for
the Revere Beach Reservation and the Commission's
separate study on the needs for beach resanding.

When the MDC completes its work, and agreement has
been reached on the design for resanding, the Corps
will forward its General Design Memorandum to
Washington for a Congressional Appropriation for
construction funds.

On an optimistic timetable, construction could start
between one and two years from now.

COMMENTS: The resanding of Revere Beach is critical, not only
from the point of view of having a nice beach, but,
a new beach will cause the waves to break before
they reach the seawall. This will reduce the amount
of ocean water that ultimately overtops the seawall
and finds its way into the City's storm drainage
system..

-172-

COMMENTS: This will be very important in terms of reducing the
(continued) flooding that occurs at Parcel H. Without the re-
sanding, it will be very difficult for the City to
successfully market the Joint Development Parcel.

It is recommended that the City keep itself appraised
of the progress of the work of both the Corps and the
MDC. Furthermore, when an appropriation is being
cons-idered by Congress, the City should consider pre-
paring written testimony over the signature of the
Mayor, to be submitted by the Congressional represen-
tative.

-173-

STUDY: "Report on Flood Control and Navigation, Saugus and
Pines River Basin and Adjacent Coastal Areas."
(June 1979) Update of this report in light of the
February, 1978 Blizzard and January 1979 Flood.

CONTACT: Joseph Miliano, P.E. F. William Swaine
Civil Engineer Civil Engineer
Planning Division Planning Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
894-2400

SYNOPSIS: Due to the recent frequency of flooding in the City,
the New England Division-has been authorized to do a
Phase I update of the 1970 report. The Phase I
report will look at the cost/benefit ratio to see if the
benefits from a Corps project would outweigh the costs.
The Phase I analysis should be done by April 30, 1979.
Robert Krinsky of the Community Development Office has
been working with the people from the Corps by
providing data on the financial impact of the 1978 and
1979 storms. Robert Furlong, City Planner, is working
on obtaining an accurate set of topographic maps for
the City so that the Corps can design flood control
structures for the coastal sections of the City.

If the Phase I report results in a "positive" cost/
benefit ratio, then a detailed study will be
initiated by the Corps. This second phase will be
completed by the end of the summer.

Following this phase, the proposed project will re-
quire a Congressional Appropriation for final design
and construction.

COMMENTS: Since the new/cost benefit ratio is the key to this
process, the City has asked Mr. Milano to allow
Paul Rupp, Flood Coordinator to review the Phase I
report in draft form. This will allow the City the
opportunity to "augment" the figures on the financial
impact of the storms.

If the study passes the cost/benef it ratio test, then
the Mayor and City Council should work closely with
the Senators and Congressman to insure an appropriation.

-174-

STUDY: Revere Beach Reservation/Master Plan

CONTACT: Henry Higgot
Project Manager
Revere Beach Reservation
Metropolitan District Commission
20 Somerset Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

SYNOPSIS: The consulting engineering firm of Fay, Spofford and
Thorndike is under contract to the MDC to design
improvements to the seawall between Eliot Circle and
Oak Island Street, so that the wave overtopping
problem will be greatly reduced.

The present thinking calls for the creation of a
second seawall on the western side of Revere Beach
Boulevard. Two holding basins, designed to trap the
seawater, will be built between the first and second
seawalls. These basins will be drained by a large
pipe which will be run out to Broad Sound. The
system is being designed to work in both a high and
low tide situation, and by the force of gravity.

In addition to the "holding basins", the current
plans call for a regrading of the land between the
Boulevard and ocean Avenue. The new park, in that
area will act as an earthen dike in the event the
"holding basins" fail.

COMMENTS: The design appears to be well thought out. If
properly executed, it will alleviate the single
largest source of flooding in the drainage area of
the Eastern Branch of the County Ditch.

The City may have to lobby for the funds to carry
out this project once the Master Plan has been
approved-@and released.

-175-

STUDY: "Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revere Beach
Development Project" prepared for the Metropolitan
District Commission by Camp, Dresser and McKee.
(June 1978)

PROJECTS: This report covers the impact of hypothetical develop-
ment on the existing drainage system and flooding
conditions. Projects which have been analysed
include; the Alba project for the South Lot, the
Joint Development of Parcel H, the Alba project for
the North Lot, and the new MDC park.

CONTACT: Henry Higgot
Project Manager
Revere Beach Reservation-
Metropolitan District Commission
20 Somerset Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

SYNOPSIS: This study provides an engineering discussion of the
causes of flooding in the project area, a discussion
of the impacts of the proposed projects on flooding,
and a range of solutions. This material is contained
in Chapter V, Appendix D and Appendix J.

COMMENTS: The report should be used to compare detailed pro-
posals for projects against the estimated impacts
explained in the report. For example, the assump-
tion in calculating the storage volume displaced and
the estimated increased in flood elevations was that
each of the above mentioned areas would be filled to
10 feet above MSL. It is expected that the actual
filling will be somewhat less. The plans and
materials submitted as part of the Notice of Intent
for Alba's South Lot project indicated filling only
in the area of the "foot print" of the buildings.
Care in analysis will have to be taken when
evaluating any proposal.

The discussion of the existing drainage system and
possible recommendations for improvements is being
used by the consulting engineers to the CZM study.

-176-

STUDY: Coastal Zone Management
Community Assistance Grant Study

CONTACT: Terrence Geoghegan
Revere Beach Development Office
City Hall
Revere, Massachusetts 02151
284-3600/Ext. 114

SYNOPSIS: The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management office
awarded the City of Revere a $20,000 grant to under-
take a Land Management Study of certain critical
wetlands within the City. Work started January 2,
1979, and is expected to be completed by July 30.

This study will consist of five tasks. The first
task is an environmental analysis which will consist
of the preparation of an annotated bibliography of
information regarding the hydraulics, tidal levels,
flood history, soil types, water quality, wetlands
characteristics, marine productivity and vegetation
of the project area.

This will be supplemented with a series of maps
depicting land use, the extent of flooding and the
Department of Environmental Management's wetland maps.
In addition, there will be a discussion of outstanding
questions and additional studies that may be required.

A set of Land Use Policies will be developed as Task-
Two. These policies will be discussed in an open
public forum and will serve as the basis for legal
recommendations..

Task Three, the Implementation Program will analyze
the City's existing land use management programs and
will make recommendations for improvement.

The Fourth Task requires the sharing of information
with the Conservation Commission and the preparation
of a memorandum appraising the Commission of this
Study.

The last task will consist of coordinating the flood
control and drainage studies of the various public

-177-

SYNOPSIS: and private entities that are proposing projects in
(continued) the study area. In addition, this task will involve
an engineering analysis of the inadequacies of the
Eastern Branch of the County Ditch.

COMMENTS: Throughout the study, efforts will be taken to involve
the Citizens Advisory Group in the recommendations for
this study. It will be important to develop a broad
consensus so that the City Council will act positively
on the implementation program.

-178-

STUDY: Venditto Road Area Drainage Improvements Study

CONTACT: Mr. Forrest C. Lindwall
Associate
Hayden, Harding & Buchanan, Inc.

SYNOPSIS: This $8,200 City funded study, survey and final design
project started and completed in 1978 developed plans
for alleviating local house flooding in the Venditto
Road area. The City is currently securing permanent
drainage easements for the installation of catch basins
and pipes and will advertise the project for construc-
tion forthwith. The construction costs are estimated
to be approximately $50,000. The construction will
take 3 months and the City will bear the project cost.

-179-

STUDY: Leverett Avenue Flooding Study

CONTACT: Mr. Forrest C. Lindwall
Associate
Hayden, Harding & Buchanan, Inc.

SYNOPSIS: This $3,400 study funded by the City was started in
February, 1979 and compelted in April, 1979, and was
desiqned to determine a solution to the chronic
flooding conditions along Leverett Avenue from
Dolphin Avenue to Broadsound Avenue.

The final Report recommends installation of catch
basins and pipes which would tie directly into the
MDC pump station at the opposite end of Broadsound
Avenue. In so doing, the pump station would be
operational during rainstorm events as well as during
ocean flooding from major storm events. The estimated
construction cost is $203,000 and there are no current
state or federal grant monies for such a project.

COMMENTS: Since certain areas of MDC roadways drain into the
flooding areas and other MDC roadways drain into the
overburdened Sales Creek Drainage System the City
should consider requesting financial support from the
MDC to share the construction cost of this project.

-180-

STUDY: Facilities Plan for Sanitary Sewer Improvements

CONTACT: Mr. Forrest C. Lindwall
Associate
Hayden, Harding & Buchanan, Inc.

SYNOPSIS: This three STEP program to rehabilitate the City's
sanitary sewers (does not include storm drainage) will
provide relief from the back-ups and overflows that
are prevalent throughout many areas of the City. The
following page lists the program schedule and funding
commitments.

STEP I, Phase I, begun in 1975 and completed in 1977,
consisted of an Infiltration/Inflow Study which
determined the amount of extraneous flows (other than
sanitary wastes) present in the sewer system and
recommended a rehabilitation program to replace broken
pipes, seal major cracks which allow groundwater to
leak in and disconnect illegal storm water pipes from
the sanitary sewer pipes.

STEP I, Phase II, begun in 1979 is the Sewer System
Evaluation Survey (SSES) which will identify and
locate those sewer pipes which are in need of repair
through the use of manual inspections, smoke tests,
and television inspection.

STEP II, design follows the SSES and will provide
construction drawings for the sewer rehabilitation
program.

STEP III, consturction follows design.

COMMENTS: The important factor for the City is to insure the
availability of its funding share to convince state
and federal officials that the City's commitment is
solid and deserving of continued funding by these
agencies.

REVERE, MASSACHUSETTS
FACILITIES PLAN
FOR
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

-SCHEDULE

START COMPLETE
STEP I
Phase I- Infiltration/Inflow May 1975 Feb. 1977
Phase II-SSES Feb. 1979 may 1980

STEP II
Design Aug. 1980 Jan. 1981

STEP III
Construction Mar. 1981 Jan. 1982

FUNDING

TOTAL us MASS REVERE
STEP I
Phase I- Infiltration/Inflow $92,000 $69,000 $0 $23,000*
Phase II-SSES 464,540 348,405 0 .116,135*

STEP II
Design 76,000 57,000 19,000 0

STEP III
Construction 1,305,000 978,750 271,631 54,619

TOTAL: $1,937,540 $1,453,155 $290,631 $193,754
SHARE: 75% 15% 10%

Funds expended to date by City

NOTES: US = U.S. '2nvironmental Protection Agency
MASS = State Division of Water Pollution

-182-

SUBJECT: EDA-Economic Development Administration (Funds)

CONTACT: Paul Rupp
Director
Office of Planning and Community Development
City Hall
Revere, Massachusetts 02151

SYNOPSIS: The Economic Development Administration of the U.S.
Department of Commerce operates certain public works
grant programs geared to the support of business and
industrial interests as they relate to the creation
or maintenance of permanent jobs in primarily urban
settings. Up until this time public works funding
within EDA has been limited and has required a
substantial local cash match (as much as 40% of the
project cost). Additionally, EDA is badly under-
staffed and operates with cumbersome, slow, and
complex administrative procedures. EDA is currently
in a state of uncertainty as to the future direction,
thrust and procedures of its programs, due to the
fact that the agency is about to undergo a major re-
organization aimed at eliminating overlaps and
duplication of effort. This reorganization was man-
dated by Executive Order of the President and is
being orchestrated by the Executive office of Manage-
ment and Budget.

In any event, rather than await the outcome of the
reorganization, this department has recently com-
pleted seven "profiles" of needed public works pro-
jects in accordance with the procedures for
existing EDA programs. These preliminary applica-
tion forms will be submitted to the EDA representative
within the next few days.

Each profile is rated in terms of its local priority.
Reconstruction of the municipal storm drain system
has been assigned the top priority rating.

COMMENTS: in realistic terms, unless there are major changes
forthcoming in EDA's programs, chances of securing
funding for reconstruction of the storm drain system,
which could run in excess of $4.5 million, are not
good. Under the existing regulations it will be

-183-

COMMENTS: extremely difficult to translate the need for drain
(continued) system reconstruction into a quantifiable breakdown
of permanent jobs created or preserved as a direct
result, this unfortunately, is EDA's present
evaluation criterion. Additionally, under present
regulations even if the City were successful in
obtaining an EDA funding commitment we would have to
produce a rather substantial local cash match for
this work.

The Office of Planning and Community Development will
continue with the application process in the hope
that EDA reorganization will produce a more favorable
funding climate.

-184-

SUBJECT: CDBG-Community Development Block Grant (Funds)

CONTACT: Paul Rupp
Director
Off ice of Planning and Community Development
City Hall
Revere, Massachusetts 02151

SYNOPSIS: The Community Development Block Grant Program adminis-
tered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is authorized by the Housing and
Community Development Acts of 1974 and 1977. Community
Development Block Grants fall into three categories:

1. Entitlement or Hold-Harmless
2. Discretionary
3. Small Cities

As a community of under 50,000, Revere was eligible
for the five-year phase-out "Hold-Harmless" program
and received entitlement funds of: $30,000 for federal
fiscal years 1975, 1976 and 1977; $20,000 for fiscal
year 1978; and $10,000 for fiscal year 1979. Entitle-
ment funds can be utilized for any of the broad range
of basic eligible activities contained in the Community
Development Regulations.

Discretionary funds which were replaced in fiscal year
1978 by the Small Cities Program operated on a highly
competitive basis. Revere received $75,000 in fiscal
year 1975; $95,000 in fiscal year 1976; and $250,000
in fiscal year 1978, for various programs faling within
the list of basic eligible activities.

Revere was awarded in August Of 1978 a three year, $3
million committment in comprehensive Small Cities Com-
munity Development funds; $1 million per year for
fiscal years 1978, 1979 and 1980, while theoretically
any of the basic eligible activities could have been
included in the comprehensive application, the highly
competitive application process and a complex ranking
formula virtually dictated that a neighborhood revita-
lization strategy; serve as the program matrix. That
is, a coordinated program of home improvements, public
works activities, and neighborhood preservation pro-
jects in relatively small clearly definable neighbor-
hoods.

185-

SYNOPSIS: In any event, the selection process for all activities
(continued) for which CDBG funds have been sought, whether Entitle-
ment, Discretionary or Small Cities, has adhered
strictly to the city's Community Development, Citizen
Participation Plan. The anticipated availability of
funds is widely publicized, proposals and suggestions
for the use of these funds are solicited and encouraged,
public hearings and informational meetings are held,
and the Citizens Advisory Committee formulates a final
set of application recommendations based on the afore-
mentioned steps.

COMMENTS: Certain flood control projects would clearly fall
within the list of basic Community Development eligible
activities. A re-allocation of Small Cities CDBG-funds
(the only funds currently available) would be possible
up to a point. However any major re-allocation of
funds would require a HUD approved amendment which may
in fact change the comprehensive program's rating
status and jeopardize funding. In my opinion any minor
re-allocation which could be undertaken without HUD
approved amendment would produce such a small amount of
available funds that cost effective flood control work
could not be undertaken.

-186-

%Ty
CD
MAYOR'S OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF REVERE, MA. 02151 (617) 284-3600
GEORGE V. COLELLA, Mayor

Citizens Advw". Committee ROBERT FURLONG
GRACE MYETTE Chairperson City Planner
JOSEPH TELLO PAUL RUPP
MARGARET HARKINS Community Development
LILLIAN CARIFIO Director

April 24, 1979

Mr. Paul Rupp
Revere City Hall -
Revere, Massachusetts 02151
Subject: 1975 Storm Drainage Improvements Study
By Somerville Engineering

Dear Paul:

After consulatation with appropriate City agencies,
namely Harris Goldberg Sewer and Drain Foreman, David
Calichman, Engineer and Steven Fedor, Superintendant of
Public Works, the following findings have been made
regarding work completed or partially completed on the
attached list of twenty-six items;

Item 1- Completed

Item 6- Catch basins cleaned.
Item 8- Now a part of the Beachmont School Project.
Item #16- Chlorinator installed, alarm system installed,
minor general and emergency repairs.
Item #19- Catch basin cleaned.
Item #23- Completed.
Item #25- Now the responsibility of the Metropolitan
District Commission.

None of the other items on the attached list have been
worked upon. Because of the fact that this list is several
years old, it is suggested that it be reviewed by our local
appropriate City departments.
ft
ect y su mitte
s-P f khl 1 b

obert J
City Pla er
CC: Mayor
RJF/db -187-
Attachments

1975 Storm Drainage ImprovementLs Study, Somerville Engineering

TABLE VI - Cost Estimate of Proposed Improvements

15%
SECTION LOCATION LIMITS OF WORK TYPE OF WORK & QUANTITY COST INCREASE

1 Orvis Road Malden Street from New catch basin and storm
Orvis Road to drain pipe.
Derby Street $9,500 $11,000

2 Bay Road Sears Street to Paved swale - 680 lin. ft.
Eastern County Ditch $2,000 $2,300

3 Arcadia St. Oak Island Street to Clear and upgrade area, partial
Eastern County Ditch fill, properly graded - 45,000
sq. ft. $4,000 $4,600

4 Dunn St. Shawinut Street to 18-inch drain - 1,000 lin. ft.
southerly end of 10 catch basins, 12"-200 lin. ft.
Dunn Street 5 manholes, miscellaneous work
(curbing) $28,900 $35,200

5 John Mooney Beach Street to Miscellaneous work, 600' side-
Road Butler Street walk reconstruction, 2 catch CIO
basin inlets (new), invert man- 00
i@ -4
hole (constructed) $3,400 $4,000

6 SeawaA St. Lowe Street to Clean 500 lin. ft. (8" drain)
Elm Street 7 catch basins $4,100 $4,700

7 Summer St. Crescent Avenue Clean 300 lin. ft. (8" drain) $2,400 $2,800
and Winthrop Avenue

8 Fredericks Bennington Street to Fill (loam), grade, seed (toward
Park marsh on south- marsh) - 14,000 sq. yrd. $15,000 $18,000
easterly side

9 Tafts St. At Mill Creek Pumping station, tide gate
area discharge chamber, new gates $27,000 $31,000

TABLE VI
(continued)

15%
SECTION LOCATION LIMITS OF WORK TYPE OF WORK & QUANTITY COST INCREASE

10 Vane and Arnold Street to 1,600 lin. ft. of 24", 3011
Arnold St. Northeast Expressway and 36" pipe cleaned (catch
area basin also), new manholes $11,200 $12,400

11 Ventiddo Rd. Sargent Street to 250 lin. ft. ditch improve-
Joseph, Northeast Expressway ment (widen, deepen and
Michael & Exit Ramp clean) $2,500 $3,000
Richie Rds.
(Upper C.A.)

12 Geneva St. Milano Street to 100 lin. ft. of 12" pipes
Geneva Street and manholes $3,900 $4,500

13 Beach Rd. Naples Road to 300 300 lin. ft. - Ditch recons-
feet to the north truction (rip rap), headwall $8,400 $9,700

14 Marble St. At intersection of 3 new catch basins, curbing, I
01
Washington Avenue pavement repairs $2,900 $3,400 co

15 Salem St. Salem Street to 700 lin. ft., ditch improve-
7001 east along B&M ment, 10 lin. ft. of 12"
tracks pipe $950 $1,100

16 Point of At pumping station General repairs, miscellaneous
Pines work, alarm, humidifier $8,600 $10,000

17 Marshall St. Near Northgate Shop- Street re-shape aAd pavement
ing Center $2,000 $2,300.

18 Library St. At intersection with Curbing + 40 lin. ft.
Elm Street $500 $600

TABLE VI
(continued)

15%
SECTION LOCATION LIMITS OF WORK TYPE OF WORK & QUANTITY COST INCREASE

19 Kingman Av. Between Kingman and + 50 ft. of sidewalk, cleaning
Carlson Avenue of catch basin and cleaning of
line from Kingman to Carlson
Avenue $2,300 $2,700

20 Sherman St. Sherman Street to New 18-inch drain line to MDC
MDC Channel outfall - +- 300 lin. ft. $6,000 $6,900

21 Waitt Park At North Revere off Asphalt berm
Salem Street $500 $600

f
22 Washburn Av. At Beachmont off Cleaning of the storm drain
Winthrop Avenue inlet at Washburn Avenue $300 $350

23 Deckert Av. In the Point of Cleaning of catch basins
Pines $1,000 $1,200

24 East Mount- County Ditch Clean and remove debris + 100 ft.
ain Av. along the 45" X 54" culvert $3,200 $3,750

25 Broadsound At Beachmont Cleaning of the existing storm
Av. drainage and catch basins in
the vicinity $4,700 $5,500

26 County Central County Ditch 1. New P.S. at Diamond Crk;
Ditch 2. New P.S. at American Legion
Highway;
3. New 60-inch R.C. parallel to
existing 60-inch MDC pipe;
4. Reconstruction and paving of
County Ditch - 20 feet long
X 5 feet deep. $108,000 $124,000

VLEVER The City of REVERE., MASSACHUSETTS
C%Ty@
I''

GEORGE V.COLELLA
a MAYOR

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - CITY HALL
STEVEN A.FEDOR
Superintendent of
Public Works

April 26, 19710

Mayor George V. Colella
City Hall
Revere, MA 02151

Re: Progress Report
Cleaning County Drain Ditches

Eagtdrn County

A. North Shore Road to Revere St. (Northerly) Completed
B. Revere St. to North Shore Road (Easterly) App. 800' completed
200' remaining
C. North Shore Rd. to B & M Railroad (Easterly) Probable starting
date 5/15/79
D. Refurbishing of B & M Tidegate Pending transfer FDAA
Funds--probable starting
date 6/l/79-
E. Installation of 2 Guilotine Gates
Located at Revere St. & No. Shore Rd. Designed, stock ordered
Starting date 5/15/79

CENTRAL COUNTY

A. Cleaning of concrete culvert on
American Legion Hwy. Mosquito Control Probable starting date
5/l/79
B. Removal of debris lower end of Atwood St. Completed

SALES CREEK

A. Cleaning of County Drain Ditch along B & M
Right-of-Way Pending FDAA Funds transfer
Probable starting date
6/20/79

B. Dredging of Eastern section of Sales Creek (Behind Cerretani's)
Pending FDAA Funds transfer
Probable starting date
_191- 6/20/79

Mayor 4/26/79

Progress Report--County Drain Ditches

C. Cleaning of outlet, southern section Suffolk Downs Outlet.
Completed 4/12/79

D. Removal of debris Harris St. Connection
(Pending FDAA Funds transfer) Probable starting
date (6/20/79)

CATCH BASIN CLEANING

A. Point of Pines Ward 5 Basins completed
B. Oak Island Ward 5 Basins completed
C. Beachmont Ward 1 Basins completed
D. Reservoir Ave. Hills Ward 4
E. Proctor Ave. Hills Ward 4-6
F. Shirley Ave. Hills Ward 2 Equipment being
G. Trevalley Hills Ward 5 repaired 4/23/79
H. Malden St. area Ward 3-6 to 5/3/79
I. Trevalley Flats Ward 1
J. North Revere Ward 6

Progress map located at City Yard.

SEUER CLEANING

A. Coordinated with Haydn, Harding & Buchanan--ongoing
recommendations as sewerage study progresses.

B. Point of Pines Pumping Station to Revere Street (FDAA
Contract commencing April 9, 1979) Completed 4/26/79
5 Manholes to be raised 5/20/79
C. Priority areas as determined by Sewer Department
Washington Street Atwood Street Floyd Street
Bates Street Hawes Street Jones Road
Douglas Street Revere Street Rryant St.
Fairfield St. Shurtleff St. e'nry St.
George Ave.
DRAIN CLEANING (High Velocity Machine) Equipment being repaired 4/23/79 to
5/3/79
Priority areas as determined by Sewer Department Foreman

Very truly yours,

SAF:el
-192-
Snpdrln@@nf of Public Works

C,
lbsdn

Saugus-Pines t/
River Marsh
-4

111 0; zo.
4@ Seaplane Pine,
Revere Driv -in Basin
Theatre
r_j A
TP,

Co N le lee
1\6 4,,

1A,
abu, (br
/0 Q) Existing Drair
> 17 Existin
Directi
10" Size of
ja Existin
A Existin

Whela"
Schoo Existin
t
Stan, L Pavilion
Q)

Q)
c/a Lincoln
School
0

);P NORTH
C01
@7 Po t o/
It
r nd Park T
r
k
ack
@EK: Pa%ilion
High School 0

la U

on IS 001
A0,
,5e//
Coastal Zone Managern
City of Revere
Police I BEACH
tCo unit All I

'o
ACIn.LS

r
er

.... .. . ... .... :7j

00
10
Or
'n
o-o 0
Ti

... ............ ..... .....

..... .....

CD
(D

...........

z
on V.-

> -n

CL
0)
CL
20 >
r+ *4
IL
co (1)

Modifications to the Eastern County Ditch

-193-

Marcus Hann
Richard C. Downes, P.E.
Consulting Engineers
46 Parmenter Road
Waltham, Mass. 02154

May 14, 1979

Mr. Terrence Geoghegan Subject: Modifications
Project Director to Eastern County Ditch
Coastal Zone Management Study Revere, Massachusetts.
City of Revere
City Hall
281 Broadway
Revere, Massachusetts 02151

Dear Mr. Geoghegan:

We are pleased to submit the attached report "MODIFICATIONS TO
EASTERN COUNTY DITCH, REVERE, MASSACHUSETTS." This report has
been prepared as a feasibility study, to determine the most
efficient method of curtailing the frequent flooding of the
study area.

The report was prepared on the basis of the evaluation of two
major reports previously written on the study area, on site
surveys and independent storm hydrologic computations.

All studies and evaluations considered in the preparation of
this report were based on storm water runoff only. Ocean wave
overtopping was not considered as tributary to this site as
this phase of flood control was or will be under study and
design by others.

We would like to acknowledge your valuable assistance through-
out this project, and the assistance of Mr. Henry Higgot of
the Metropolitan District Commission.

(continued)

-194-

Page Two
Mr. Terrence Geoghegan

May 14, 1979

We believe that this report fullfills our obligation under our
contract with the City of Revere dated March 30th, 1979, and
we will be pleased to provide any additional assistance that
may be required.

Very truly ours,

Richard C. Downes, P. E.

Marcus Hann

-195-

CONTENTS

SCOPE .................................................... I

HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION ................................... III

OUTLINE OF REPORT ........................................ IV

RECOMMENDATIONS IN BRIEF ................................. IV

REPORT

Section I - Hydraulic Design and Investigation .... V

Section II - Recommendations ....................... XIII

Section III - Preliminary Estimates of Costs ....... XVIII

APPENDIX

A Photographs ..................................... XX

-196-

SCOPE

The purpose of this study is to present viable alternative
solutions to the severe flooding problem which effects the
tributory area of the Eastern County Ditch, and to provide
preliminary cost estimates for these solutions.
Water entering the drainage area by means of wave over-
topping of the seawall along Revere Beach has not been included
in this study. The Metropolitan District Commission has
contracted with the engineering firm of Fay, Spofford and
Thorndike to design a "flood control system" which will
eliminate the wave overtopping that frequently inundates this
study area.
The effects of future developments within the drainage
area were studied. These projects included the Revere Beach
Development Project, Parch H, the Revere Beach Reservation and
North Shore Transit Improvement Project.
The effects of future developments outside of the drainage
area which might cause additional water to enter the study area
were not considered. Only rainfall runoff entering the Eastern
County Ditch through the present storm drainage systems, or as
altered by the above proposed project, are considered in the
design calculations.
Extensive use was made of the following two documents:

1. Storm Drainage Improvements for the City of
Revere, prepared by Somerville Engineering, Inc.,
Somerville, Massachusetts.

2. Environmental Impact Report-Revere Beach Develop-
ment Project, prepared for the Metropolitan
District Commission by Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.,
Boston, Massachusetts.

These reports were given as acceptable material to be
used and expanded upon in preparing the study data for this
report.

_197-

Description Of Work To Be Performed

The work for this project was divided into the following
tasks:

TASK 1 - Review Available Literature on the drainage area.
Two major reports had previously been prepared
on this area, and these reports were reviewed in
det-ail.

TASK 2 - Field Trips to the area. Two field trips were
taken to the area, and photographs were taken.
These photographs are included in Appendix A
of the report.

TASK 3 Data Collection. Additional data was collected
on the drainage area. This data includes rain-
fall information from the U.S. Weather Bureau
for yjaars not covered in the available
literature; additional tidal information for the
two major storms of 1978 and 1979; information
on the proposed developments in the area; and a
topographic (photogrammetric) map of Revere
Beach made by Col. East, Inc., for Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc.

TASK 4 Calculation of stormwater runoff, and selection
of the design runoff flow. Due to the large
quantity of water estimated to occur during a
major storm, a hydrograph was prepared to
determine the peak runoff.

TASK 5 - Check capacities of the existing ditch and
culverts.

TASK 6 - Consider and study all methods that can be
envisiozWd as viable alternatives to alleviating
or reducing the flooding within the-study area.

TASK 7 - Develop preliminary cost estimates for the
recommendations.

TASK 8 - Present a final recommendation and prepare the
final report.

-198-

HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION

The Eastern County Ditch is located in Revere, Massachusetts,
in close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and Revere Beach. The
ditch is shown in its entirety on Plate A, included at the end of
this section of the report.
The drainage area for the Eastern County Ditch is bounded on
the East by the s7eawall along the Atlantic Ocean, on the West by
the Boston and Maine Eastern Division Railroad tracks, on the
North by Oak Island Street, and on the South by Shirley Avenue.
The Eastern County Ditch was originally connected to the
Central County Ditch. In earlier construction efforts the Central
County Ditch was diverted West of the B & M Railroad tracks. The
Eastern County Ditch now has its origin, which is supplied by
underground conduits from the Wonderland Dog Track parking lot
and Shirley and Beach Street drains, at the South-Westerly corner
of the Wonderland Dog Track parking lot, and terminates at the
tide gate under the B & M Railroad tracks, which in turn
discharges into Diamond Creek.
The Eastern County Ditch is presently an open, unlined
ditch, incorporating four underground culverts. These culverts
are identified as the Shawmut Street culvert, Revere Street
culvert, Rt. 1A culvert, and the B & M culvert, all shown and
identified on Plate A at the end of this section.
The tributory area for the Eastern County Ditch has
received two major storms in the last two years, these being the
Great Blizzard of 1978 and the storm on January 25, 1979. Both
of these storms resulted in record rainfalls for this area, and
both storms practically flooded the entire drainage area.
Residents in the area have continually complained about flooding
problems even during moderate rainfall. With the prospect of
major new construction projects in this area, including high-
ways, mass transit, parks and housing developments, it becomes
imperative that some remedial action be taken to relieve the
flooding problem.

_199-

OUTLINE OF REPORT

This report is divided into three sections.

Section I - Hydraulic Design and Investigation, summarizes
the hydraulic calculations prepared for this report.

Section II -Recommendations, examines all data given,
obtained and calculated, and presents the concluded recommenda-
tions that we believe tfieet the written and expressed requirements
of this report.

Section III - Preliminary Estimation of Costs, describes
the many variables included in the estimating procedure together
with a preliminary estimate of costs.

RECOMMENDATIONS IN BRIEF

An evaluation of the existing drainage system, i.e. The
Eastern County Ditch including the several culverts, revealed
the necessity for a revised cross section throughout the entire
open ditch; the replacement of the Shawmut Street culvert;
adding additional culverts at Route 1A and under the B & M
Railroad tracks; and constructing a large holding basin and a
pumping station to discharge the runoff waters to Diamond Creek
on the northwest side at the B & M Railroad tracks.

-200-

Section I: HYDRAULIC DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION

INTRODUCTION: Hydraulic structures are usually classified into
two categories, major or minor hydraulic structures. Minor types
of hydraulic structures include small crossroad culverts, levees,
drainage ditches, urban storm-drain systems, airport drainage
structures, and spillway appurtenances of small dams. Major
hydraulic structures involve the design of large dams and
problems associated with flood control techniques for large
rivers. The Eastern County Ditch in the City of Revere, there-
fore comes under the category of minor hydraulic structures
used for the transportation of urban runoff.

Accurate prediction of peak discharge for a design
frequency is extremely important for the proper functioning of
a drainage system. Various techniques for the estimation of
peak discharge area are available. These techniques are given
in Table I-1 below.

Table I-1, Peak Discharge Estimation Techniques

rainage Area, sq. miles Techniques Used

Less than 5 Rational Method, Overland
Flow Hydrograph

5 - 100 Unit Hydrograph; Flood
Frequencies

100 - 2000 Unit Hydrograph; Flood
- Routing

Over 2000 Flood Routing

Since the watershed area for the Eastern County Ditch is
well under 5 square intles, it was considered reasonable to use
the Rational Method for the estimation of peak runoffs. The
Overland Flow Hydrograph method was also used principally for
the purpose of determining pumping needs.

_201-

Estimation of Storm Runoff

Storm runoff estimates are based on the so-called rational
equation:

Q = CIA

Where:

Q = peak runoff or discharge in cubic feet per second (efs)

C = runoff coefficient depending upon the characteristics
of the drainage area. It varies between 0.0 and 1.0

I = average rainfall intensity in inches per hour for a
duration equal to or greater than the time of concentra-
tion (tc)

A = drainage area in acres

The design frequency generally encountered in minor structure
design varies according to the type of minor structure. For
storm drainage systems, the acceptable range is 2-10 years whereas
for drainage ditches, 5 to 50 years frequency storms are
considered. In this report 10-year frequency was selected for
the estimation of peak runoff. However, the adequacy of a re-
shaped Eastern County Ditch to carry a 25-year storm was also
checked.
Rainfall intensity values were selected from Figure A which
is based on the U.S. Weather Report - Technical Paper 40. This
figure was developed by Somerville Engineering and is contained
in their report titled "Stormwater Improvements for the City of
Revere" submitted in 1975.

-202-

REF: U.S. WEATHER BUREAU,
TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 40

LJJ5
r

z
4 L-4--

z
LLi3

z
k25
4,10
-J 2
5S
L<L kb2

<
x

L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180200
DURATION OF RAINFALL-MINUTES

FIGURE A RAINFALL INTENSITY CURVES FOR
112,5, 10 and 25 YEAR STORM
FOR REVERE -203-

Flow Determination

The Eastern County Ditch drainage area was subdivided into
five sub-drainage areas for the purpose of determining the total
peak runoff. Individual peak runoffs from these five drainage
areas and total peak runoff are shown on Table 1-2. Drainage
area 2 represents the Revere Beach Development Project and
consists of Southern Drainage Section and Northern Drainage
Section. In Table 1-2, C values are weighted values for the
sub-drainage area.
From the previous table it can be seen that the total peak
runoff from a 10-year storm for the entire drainage area is
about 545 cubic feet per second. However, by following the
same methods i.e., the Rational Formula for a 25 year storm, the
total peak runoff is calculated as 756 cubic feet per second or
about 488 million gallons per day. Comparison of 10-year and
25-year frequency flows is presented in Table 1-3. Storm run-
off from a 25-year storm is important for sizing any pumping
station if it were-needed.

Table 1-2: Peak Flow Determinations (10-year frequency)

Drainage Location of A C I inches/hr Total Q
Area Acres & tc minutes Peak (cfs)
Number

1. Shawmut Street - 91 0.70 3 20 minutes 191
At the entrance
to culvert size
36" X 58"

2. Project Area
North 22.9 0.95 3 21 81
South 13.5 0.92 3', 16 51
132

3. Revere Str'L-Et- 34.4 0.80 3.9, 15 107.33+132
At the entrance + 191
to culvert size 430.3
6' X 9'

-204-

Table 1-2: Peak Flow Determinations (10-year frequency)
(continued)

Drainage Location of Q A C I inches/hr Total Q
Area Acres & te minutes Peak (cfs)
Number

4. Route 1-A - 41.3 0.60 3, 20 74.34+430.3
At the entrance 504.6
to culvert size
5' X 5'

5. B & M Railroad - 33.3 0.43 2.8, 30 40.1+504.6
At the entrance 544.7
to culvert
5161-1 X 6T

Table 1-3: Comparison of 10-yr. & 25-yr. Storms

Inlet Point 10-yr. Storm 25-yr. Storm
Flow cfs Flow cfs

1. Shawmut Street 191 274
culvert size
36" X 58"

2. Revere Street 430 599
culvert size
61 X 91

3. Route 1-A 505 707
culvert size
51 X 51

4. B & M Railroad 545 756
culvert size
51611 X 61

-205-

Adequacy of Existing Ditch & Culverts

The flow carrying capacity of existing ditch and culverts
was checked by using the Manning's Equation and Nomographs for
highway culverts.

A. Existing Ditch

Since the existing ditch is of irregular shape and
size, it was considered reasonable to assume an average
size for the determination of flow capacity. It was
assumed that the ditch was an average width of 8' and an
average depth of 4'.
Manning's Formula for flow determination is represented
by the equation:
Q = A x 1.486 R2/3 S1/2
n

Where:
Q = Flow in cubic feet per second (cfs)
A = Area of flow in square feet
n = Manning's Coefficient of friction
R = Hydraulic Radius
S = Bed Slope of channel

By applying the above formula, it was determined that
the channel has a carrying capacity of 120 c.f.s. which is
much less than the 10-year flow of 191 c.f.s. at the
entrance to the Shawmut Street Culvert.
From the above calculation, it can be concluded that
the present channel, even in its first reach, is incapable
of carrying a 10-year storm. The present channel would,
therefore, have to be improved by lining the channel and/or
providing a steeper slope. Recommendations to improve the
existing ditch are discussed later in this report.

B. Existing Culverts

There are four culverted entrances along the route
of the Eastern County Ditch. Each entrance was checked
for its capacity to pass the desired flow without being

-206-

surcharged. The results of this analysis are summarized
below:

1. Culvert at Shawmut Street, Size 36" X 58"

This culvert is a corrugated metal pipe of elliptical
shape. By using the nomographs for highway culverts, it
was determined that this culvert has a capacity of only
about 80 c.f.s. against the 10-year peak flow of 191 c.f.s.
Therefore, this culvert is inadequate to handle present
storm conditions.

2. Revere Street Culvert, Size 6' X 9'

This culvert is a concrete box culvert of rectangular
shape. By applying the Manning's Equation, it was
determined that this culvert is sufficiently adequate to
pass a 10-year storm flow and even a 25-year storm with
only a minor surcharge condition. The culvert has a
capacity of 540 c.f.s. against 10-year storm flow of
430 c.f.s. and 25-year storm of 599 c.f.s.

3. Route 1-A Culvert, Size 5' X 5'

This culvert is also a concrete box culvert of square
shape. This culvert is of inadequate capacity. It can
pass only a flow of 235 c.f.s. against the expected 10-year
flow of 504 c-f.s. and 25-year storm flow of 707 c.f.s.
Therefore, this culvert is also undersized and inadequate.

4. Boston and Maine Railroad Culvert, Size 5'-6' X V-01

This is a concrete box type culvert which does not
have adequate capacity to pass either a 10-year storm or
a 25-year storm. This causes the surrounding areas to
get submerged during heavy storms.
Recommendations to improve the above culverts are
discussed in detail in later chapter of this report.

Pumping & Storage Requirements

During the peak flow periods coupled with a simu_1taneous
high tide, the function of the tide gate is severely handicapped.
This conaition results in flooding upstream of the drainage ditch.
To overcome this barrier to gravity flow, it is necessary to

-207-

provide a pumping station whereby the storm runoff can be pumped
out into Diamond Creek. To design a pumping station having
capacity equal to the peak flow would require pumping machinery
of enormous size with unusually high capital as well as operation
and maintenance costs. To evenly distribute the peak flow over
a reasonable period of time, storage lagoons would be required.
An Overland Flow or Direct Runoff Hydrogrph for a 25-year
storm was prepared. This graph was utilized to determine the
pumping rate and -storage capacities of the recommended system.

-208-

Section II: RECOMMENDATIONS

Early in the study, it was concluded that there was not
going to be an easy or inexpensive method to alleviate flooding.
In fact there is virtually no way with any reasonableness of
economy that flooding can be eliminated.
The degree of efficiency that can be attained by the
prevention of wave overtopping of the sea wall will have the
greatest impact on the study area in terms of Flood Control.
However, considering a very effective wave prevention
program by others, flooding will still occur with profound
frequency within the drainage system that exists today.
To achieve some degree of flood prevention and system
efficiency a level of compromise must be undertaken. Comprise
in this study is time versus cost. First it must be under-
stood that somewhere along the line of the graph of storm re-
occurances, the surrounding areas will be flooded to a level
that will overflow into the study area. Although an exact fix
of this re-occuring period is not reliably predictable, the
flood level is, thus this becomes the upper limit of this
report. With sufficient pumps and completely adequate surface
drain systems it is physically if not economically feasable to
keep the study area drained for storms below this flood level.
On the other hand, the lower limit of control is essentially
the system (as designed) that exists today. That is a gravity
surface drain system and discharge through tide gates.

In order to relate between these two extremes it would re-
quire an exhaustive and lengthy study of flood re-occurances
and hydraulic modeling. For the purposes of this report, a
storm with a 10-year re-occurance and intensity was selected on
the basis that state and federal agencies usually require that
open forms of drains control meet the 10-year storm as minimum
requirements.
Pumping facilities were designed on a 25-year storm value.
This selection was made based on the fact that the study area
has had a history of storm re-occurances greater than that
normally predicted. Also the pump rates derived for a twenty-
five year storm from the hydrograph sets the rate at nearly the
maximum of a ten year storm. This degree of efficiency will
afford the previously effected areas a imuch needed flood relief
program.

-209-

Based on the previous criteria, the following recommendations
form what we believe is a realistic compromise between controlled
flooding and positive drainage up to the point to inundation by
surrounding flooded areas.

A. Drainage Ditches

B. Culverts and Tide Gates

C. Pumping Facility

D. Holding Basin Storage Facility

A. DRAINAGE DITCHES

Alternative No. 1 - An Open, Paved Ditch

A larger ditch, with a trapezoidal cross section,
possibly having a uniform bed slope, and lined side and
bottom will greatly increase the flow carrying capacity
of this ditch. All of these factors will increase the
velocity by which water will be removed from a given area.
A typical cross section of the proposed ditch is given on
Figure No. 1 at the end of this section. The size of the
ditch will increase as it proceeds downstream. Fencing
should be provided on both sides of the ditch to prevent
debris from entering the ditch.

Alternative No. 2 - A Covered Ditch

A covered ditch, increasing in size as it proceeds
downstream, is shown on Figure No. 2 at the end of this
sd-ction. This is actually a reinforced concrete culvert,
with open grating sections located along the entire length
of the ditch. The advantage of this alternate is that the
flow of water will not be obstructured by debris which will
inevitably enter the open ditch. It is possible that the
open grating areas will be clogged at all times by debris
or ice, but in all probability city employees and/or
local residents will clear these area if flooding starts
to occur.

-210-

B. CULVERTS AND TIDE GATES

There are four existing culverts located along the
Eastern County Ditch. For identification purposes, they
have been labeled the Shawmut Street Culvert, Revere Street
Culvert; Route 1A Culvert and the B & M Railroad Culvert.
These culverts are shown on Plate A.

The Shawmut Street Culvert

Recommendation: Replace Corrugated Metal Arch Pipe with
4' X 8' Box Culvert.

The existing corrugated metal arch pipe should be
removed and replaced with a 4' X-8' box culvert. This new
culvert is shown in Figure 3. Catch basins can easily be
installed above this culvert.

The new culvert can follow the same route as the
existing culvert, or it can follow the alternate route
shown on Plate A. The alternate route will cost approxi-
mately the same amount of money, but will affort greater
access and ease of construction.

The Route 1-A Culvert

Recommendation: Construct a New Culvert Adjacent to
Existing Culvert

A new culvert will have to be constructed under
Route 1-A. A six foot diameter reinforced concrete pipe
running adjacent to the existing culvert is recommended.

The B & M Railroad Culvert

Recommendations for this culvert, are divided into three
steps.

Step 1 Provide a new six foot diameter concrete pipe
culvert, with trash rack and tide gate, adjacent to the
existing culvert. This will increase the capacity of the
culvert, and will allow approximately twice as much water
to discharge into Diamond Creek during low tide. By doing
this it reduces the load on the pumping station.

-211-

Step 2 - Construct a pumping station adjacent to the ditch
that will pump water into Diamond Creek during periods when
the tide gates are closed.

Step 3 - Construct a holding basin adjacent to the pumping
station to handle overflow from the pumping station during
major storms.
A detailed explanation of the pumping station and
holding basia follows:

Pumping Facility

The pumping station, shall be sized to house four 60,000
gallons per minute (gpm) verticle pumps, each equiped with a top
mounted 450 horse power motor, an auxillary standby deisel
generator with an output of 2,000 kilowatts of power, and all
necessary switch gear, level controls and monitoring equipment.
In addition to the operating equipment the station should contain
a 20 ton bridge crane for routine maintenance. Motor and Pump
removal shall be by mobile crane operating through roof hatches
located over each pump.

The critical elevations of the station are as follows:

a. Main operating floor elev. + 14.00
(100 year flood elev. equals + 13.0+)
-b. Outlet to Holding Basin elev. + 1.00
c. Centerline Pump Discharge elev. - 6.00
d. Return from Holding Basin elev. - 10.00
(varies w/depth of basin design)
e. Bottom of Pump Bell elev. - 16.00

f. Bottom of Wet Well elev. - 22.00

The Holding Basin

During major storms, it will be more economical to construct
a holding basin than to try to pump the peak storm runoff. After
the fourth pump has been activated in the pumping station, an
overflow discharge will be utilized if the water level in the
pumping @;tation continues to rise. The water will overflow into
a holding basin until the peak runoff flow has subsided.

-212-

When the water level in the pumping station drops down to a
predetermined level, a valve will open, allowing the water in
the holding basin to re-enter the pumping station and be pumped
into Diamond Creek.
The holding basin has been sized to be 300 feet by 600 feet
by 3 feet deep. It will utilize a plastic liner to prevent
ground water from entering the basin.

-213-

SECTION

-214-

.OPE-N MZ-7AL CGRA711'-IG
5 Pil@ G T) AS,

C:@ 7 G

-215-

OPEN M',ET,4,1- GR@JfMG
SPACED A5 (REQUIRED

N F@'R C E,

-216-

Section III - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

The estimate is based on 19791-2 dollars. The material costs
represent material manufactured, fabricated, transported, and
delivered to the job site. Costs for labor are the direct man-
hours required to install and complete final work. Costs for
labor include all wage rates (union), benefits, payroll taxes
and contractor's labor fees, and profit. Indirect costs are all
indirect overhead costs incurred including site and home office
costs, temporary construction buildings, indirect labor and
profit expendable supplies, insurances and bonds, vehicles,
construction equipment operating costs, etc. The contingency
represents changing material and labor markets, weather, site
conditions, uncertainties in underground obstructions, limited
engineering definition, etc., but not major changes in scope.
For this estimate a contingency of 10% is used.

If a buried box culvert is used in place of an open pre-
cast channel for the Eastern County Ditch, $1,219,000 (which
includes a 10% contingency) should be added to the base estimate.
Engineering and City Supervision costs are not included, however,
a total of seven percent (7%) could be used for these items. No
cost for land acquisition has been included in the above prices.

217-

Table III-I Preliminary Cost Estimates

Estimate (X $1,000)

Material Labor Indirect Total
1.0 Pumping Station $1,455.8 $ 629.3 $314.6 $2,399.7

1.1 Access Road 1.8 51.8 21.6 85.2

2.0 Discharge Pipes 252.5 199,0 89.5 541.0
to Diamond Creek

3.0 Holding Basin 93.6 179.7 71.9 345.2

4.0 B & M Culvert 13.8 9.8 4.2 27.8

5.0 Route IA Culvert 16.8 58.0 25.0 99.8

6.0 Shawmut St. Culvert 78.4 188.0 80.8 347.2

7.0 Open Culvert - 325.1 404.5 175.0 904.6

Sub-Total Contigency $2,237.8 $1,703.1 $782.6 $4,750.5
475.0

Total $5,225.5

For Box Culvert Add 154 732.0 333.0 1,219.0
(incl. cont.)

B.C. New Total $6,444.5

-218-

> York St -W
0
4) v
a M 1. 0
16. -
0
F
M-W
M h- I
E >
0
's a
MU 4.0 C C
he*'& 2
9
J,E
75 3

4)
Jacksori St M
Z W
M
Clinton St
C r
eo V.-
0.0 .60 0 U
W j 4-0
m S S.-
wa Q)
4.0 U, Ma 9 0 Idl P,,ili,"
M;I% U)Q 0 M
(3 4. - 0 . g
0 C 0 Rd LU
V C
CL ele 0
E 0 M

U.1

Sul 0
0 cc
71

N on at n

MN St
P.lic Sod-
a" T

Atwood St Pin,ili.n
E
4) ZIP,

WONDERLA
E MILTASTA
4)

C. %t.r

,5
ie

MM." P.,
DM T-k

Atlantic

Ocean

Kimball %I] P.,ili

C VEX SEA
A S TIO
Bough \ N

0-.
Shirley 61 0 00

Bell 0.0,

"Cie A/
Campbell
Is 3 M

E 0 'D

M win. rop
0

>
Sit
NNOXCO Ensue Swirim, USA 71

APPENDIX A

Photographs

The following photographs were taken during two field
trips to the site. The first trip occurred during high tide
and a light rainfall. The second trip was purposely made
during low tide to obtain better photographs of the tide gate
structures.

No. 1 No. 2

Beginning of Ditch Looking Downstream at Beginning
of Ditch

No. 3 No. 4

Bridge with low clearance Looking Downstream at Entrance to
Shawmut Street Culvert

No. 5 No. 6

Entrace to Shawumut Street Looking South from Sagamore Street
Culvert over Shawmut Street Culvert

No. 7 No. 8

Looking North from Sagamore Shawmut St. Culvert starting under
Street Towards Route 1-A Route 1-A

No. 9 No. 10

Discharge from Shawmut Street Looking Downstream From Shawmut
Culvert Street Culvert

No. 11

Confluence with MBTA Parking
Lot Ditch

No. 12 No. 13

Looking Upstream from Revere St. Looking Downstream from Revere St.
Bridge Bridge

No. 14 No. 15

Entrance to Revere Street Discharge from Revere Street
Culvert Culvert

No. 16 No. 17

Looking South at Point where Looking Upstream from Route 1-A
Ditch turns to Route 1-A Bridge

No. 18 No. 19

Looking Downstream at Route 1-A Looking Downstream at Route 1-A
Trashrack Trashrack

No. 20 No. 2 1

Close-up of Route 1-A Trashrack Route 1-A Tidegate

No. 22 No. 23

Route 1-A Tidegate Trashrack at B&M Railroad

No. 2 4 No. 25

Trashrack at B&M Railroad Tidegate at B&M Railroad (High-
Tide)

No. 26 No. 27

Tidegate at B&M Railroad (Low Tide) Close-Up Tidegate at B&M
Railroad

Revere Beach Reservation Master Plan
Data on Drainage and Flooding

-219-

'OF-@'150 a T.O..D,.c INC.
E Nr IN Ef-RS April 23, 1979
BOSTON, ?.I SS

Revere Beach Reservation Park Development Project
Master Plan Final Report
Data on Drainage and Flooding

Design Parameters

Design Storm: 15 year return frequency

Rainfall Intensity: From Intensity-Duration Rainfall
Curves for Boston, Mass.

Runoff Coefficient: Existing - Almost the entire drainage
area is paved: C = 0.95

Future - Park (including Ocean Avenue)
65% impervious; Alba Development
79% impervious -.Composite: C = 0.73

Time of Concentration: 20 Minutes (for 15-yr. storm,
i = 4 in/hr.)

Total Area Drained: 28 acres (from Beach St. to Revere St.)

2.65 acres (between Revere St. and
Oak Island St.)

Design Flows: Pipe from Ocean Ave. to County Ditch
Peak Q = 82 cfs

Pipe from R.B.B. to County Ditch
through Sullivan Park
Peak Q = 9.5 cfs

Drainage

In the Master Plan Final Report, it is recommended that new
drainage systems should be installed in Ocean Avenue and Revere
Beach Boulevard. Because of the possibility of wave overtopping
continuing for some time after Boulevard improvements, there
should be no connection between the new Boulevard drains and Ocean
Avenue drains between Beach Street and Revere Street. New drains
in the Boulevard between Revere Street and Oak Island Street
should outlet to County Ditch through Sullivan Park (See Fig. 5).
New drains in the Boulevard between Revere Street and the Beach
Street area should outlet to the ocean by being piped, under pres-
sure, under the beach (See Fig. 4). New drains in the Boulevard
south of Beach Street should connect to Ocean Avenue drains which
outlet to Sales Creek (See Fig. 6). New drains in Ocean Avenue
from 3each Street to Revere Street should outlet to County Ditch.
The plan as presented in the Master Plan Report (Fig. 4) is
schematic only. That is, the location and niunber ofL outlet pipes

-220-

to County Ditch is not important. Only a-single 54" pipe is
shown, but two or more smal-ler pipes could be used. The pipe
sizes listed on the plans in the Master Plan Final Report should
be possible because ocean Avenue will be raised approximately
three feet at its lowest point.

EL2SId @in
Severe flooding is caused by waves overtopping the seawall.
Waves may continue to overtop the seawall, but none of this
water should flow beyond Revere Beach Boulevard because of the
height of the Park. Minor street flooding should no longer be
a problem once the new drainage systems are installed, provided
proper maintenance is verformed. During extreme storms, flooding
from water flowing over the railroad tracks from the west should
still be a problem.

LR-6
TJZ.Iurphy:ec

-221-

MINOR OVERTOPPING OF HIGIf
POINT DURING SEVERE STORM

DRAIN FROM PRIVATE MINOR OVERTOPPING OF HIGH
DEVELOPMENT JTYR) 13UTLES Nor? TI, POINT DURING SEVERE STORM
CIRCLE S11ORE ROAD

OCE A N t
AVENUE
1z 36
12 to" 24' 36
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
15 42"_ 4(3
4-RUN UP ONTO PARK SURFACES
t[@:E L -EV
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 4" 17.5
5 @*'*
)5"
ELEV. 17.5 24
REVERE BEACH
BLVD.

SOUTH FLOOD WATER Nil -SMALL PIPE
STORAGE BASIN DRAINAGE SYS7EM

24" OUTFALL PROTECTED
,@-WITH R(PRAP (BELOW MEAN
LOW WATER)

Revere
Propos
Ocean
REV
BEA

TIDE GATE

NORTH SHORE ROAD

c-_ L
COUNTY DITCH
- ------ 40
"I

0-2
CQ I BIA 5-l' BEACH YD
REVERE --I BL
UMM Lz@,S r@Ma E= MIZ MW =M5 IMM M52 JX41 W2% L=
r-= CLA clVe LZA

Proposed Storm Drains
Revere Beach Blvd. Phase A-2 Fig. 5
REV E-]L', El
BEAGEI
0 so 15C

-223-

C@,o
N) '4 t

0
00 lop
40

42-
@(o
, ,*
S-T@Te 00
04

ATLANrl AVE.

Propon
Revere

Ocean
REV
BEA

Coordination with the Metropolitan District
Commission Regarding Improvements to
the Eastern County Ditch

-225-

Introduction

The purpose of this work task was to ascertain the improve-
ments proposed by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) rela-
tive to the Revere Beach Area of the City. Critical to any design
for improvements to the City's storm drainage system was a determina-
tion as to the disposition of the sea water that over-tops the sea-wall
along Revere Beach Boulevard, and ultimately drains into the County Ditch.

Drainage Design for Revere Beach Reservation

On Tuesday, March 6, 1979 the CZM Study Director met with Henry
Higgott of MDC, Thomas J. Murphy of Fay, Spofford and Thorndike and
Craig Halvorson of Carol R. Johnson and Associates.

The purpose of the meeting was to provide the City of Revere with
a status report on the drainage proposals of the MDC.

Mr. Murphy explained that it was his design goal to eliminate all
of the wave overtopping of the seawall along Revere Beach Boulevard.
The system described in the attached report is designed to do that.
Therefore, Mr. Downes and Mr. Haan can proceed to design a system for
the Eastern Branch of the County Ditch which drains precipitation in
the drainage area and not sea water.

Basically, the proposed improvements for the Revere Beach Reserva-
tion consist of the creation of two holding basins on Revere Beach
Boulevard, north and south of the pavillion opposite Wonderland. This
element together with the proposal for a regrading of the park
between the Boulevard and Ocean Avenue in order to create a protective-
embankment, appear to be sufficient to keep most of the ocean, under
storm circumstances out of the City's drainage system.

It is recommended that the MDC be included on the Flood Study
Coordinating Committee that the Mayor should request as part of the
final EIS for the Revere Beach Connector and the North Shore Transit
Improvements Project.

The work of this committee should also include a formula for the
distribution of the cost of the improvements to the County Ditch, and
the agreement of all parties.

-226-

Disposition of Items Raised at the
March 29th, 1979 Meeting
on Wetlands Protection within
the City of Revere

-227-

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OH?
JOHN W, Mc CORMACK STATE OFFICE BUILDING
ONE ASHBURTON PLACE, BOSTON 02108

rRANCIS X. GELLOTTI
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 3, 1979

George V. Colella, Mayor
City of Revere
2 0- _2 -- -_ -_-) r_1 7. 1 7
Revere, 11KA 02152

Re: Wetlands Pro-11-ection within the City of Revere

Dear Mayor Colella:

I asked Rod Gaskell, our wetlands resource advisor, to
prepare the enclosed memorandum reviewing some of the wetlands
enforcement problems and possible solutions we discussed at our
March 29th meeting.

Tn rc--nt weeks we have made great progress with your city
A, _- -
counsel in the negotiations to resolve the Attorney General's
wetlands suit. I expect that we will execute a Consent Judgment
shortly. Resolution of this litigation should contribute sub-
stantially to abating the city's own wetlands violations so that
you can turn your attention to the problems posed by pri.vate
violators.

We are prepared to render assistance in the latter area. -
As I mentioned during our meeting on the 29th, criminal prosecutions
by this office for particularly egregious violations should aid the
city's own enforcement efforts. We have just received a report of
such a violaticn from Mr. Villiotti which is now under investicration.
Although this office will assist the city, as a matter of general
practice you should make every effort to resolve these problems at
the local level. I have enclosed a pamphlet outlining recommended
wetlands enforcement procedures that we prepared in conjunction with
the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.

We are concerned about reducing the wetlands violations
occurring in the City of Revere. It appears that the city has

-228-

George V. Colella, Mayor
Page 2
May 3, 1979

already taken the first significant steps in that regard. I look
forward to your continued cooperation. .

Very truly yours,
rIS)
VA
U
Anton' T. Moehrke
Assistant A@-torney General
Environmental Protection Division

ATM:dap
Enclosure
cc: Richard A. Villiotte, Esq.
Paul Levenson, Esq.

-229-

M E M 0 R A N D U M

To: ANTON MOEHRKE,..
Assistant Attorney General

From: RODERICK GASKELL4
Wetlands Science fc@@IerY

Date: April 2, 1979

Subject: SUMMARY OF THE MARCH 29th
REVERE WETLANDS MEETING

This memorandum is intended to serve as a summary of
our discussions @..,ith Mayor George V. Collela and his staff during
this meeting (see attached list of attendance).

At the meeting we identified the following problems
which make wetland protection particularly difficult in Revere:

1. Much of Revere is subject to the jurisdiction of
the Wetlands Protection Act because the City is located along the
Pines River Estuary and receives severe impact from coastal storms.
Consequently "by-the-book" administration of the Wetlands Protection
Act in Revere would require an extra effort compared to other com-
munities.

2. Most of the non-wetland area of Revere is developed.
The.--efore, there is significant pressure to fill in wetlands to
create non-building sites.

3. Revere is in a location convenient for the disposal
of construction debris and rubbish by contractors doing work in
surrounding communities. In addition, there is no approved land-
fill site in the City.

4. Many Revere citizens, businessmen and municipal
employees do not understand the relationship hetween filling wet-
lands and flooding in the City or the importance of the Revere
salt marsh to the coastal@'-bcosystem. They view wetlands as waste-
lands which are useful only when filled.

We made the following suggestions for the.City to follow
in order to improve wetlands protection in Revere:

1. Wetlands Protection Act applicants, including the
City, could consolidate projects which recur routinely and which
are substantially similar. For example, the City could file a
Notice of Intent, with supporting documentation, for the maintenance

-230-

of all of the drainage ditches in Revere. The drainage ditches
could then be viewed as a total system and the time required to
prepare the application, review the project and issue the order
of Conditions would be greatly reduced.

2. Prepare maps for public display and distribution
showing areas subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. They could
simply be a compilation of existing maps and data such as the
Department of Environmental Management's wetlands restriction maps,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' flood data, H.U.D. Flood Insurance
maps and data and City engineering studies. Although these maps
would not override the Revere Conservation.Commission's authority
and respon-ibil-'-.y to make case-by-case determinations of applic-
ability of the Wetlands Protection Act, they would reduce doubt
and confusion.

3. Conduct a public information meeting for Revere
citizens, businessmen and municipal empq:,oyees to explain the pur-
poses and procedures of the Wetlands Protection Act. Major empha-
sis would be placed on the importance of wetlands protection in
Revere. Representatives from the Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering and our
office might assist the City in conducting this meeting.

4. Provide a propcr site within the City for the dis-
posal of noncombustible solid waste. (Combustible solid waste
can be trucked out of the City for incineration as it is in sur-
rounding communities.), The'Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering has offered to consider prompt approval of such a
proposal if the City can finC. a non-wetland site, preferably an
abandoned waste disposal area.

For further information concerning this suggestion,
the City should contact:

Mr. William St. Hilaire, Chief
Land and Water Use Section
N.E. Regional Office of the
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
Tewksbury State Hospital
Tewksbury, Mass. .01876 727-7908

5. Identify the location on a city map of all stat@!
D.P.W. guardrails and fences which are in disrepair. Indicate
those locations where access to wetlands for dumping is made
possible as a result of this disrepair. Send the completed map
to our office.

6. Call any of the following state offices whenever
there are questions concerning administration or enforcement of
the Wetlands Protection Act:

-231-

Office of Coastal Zone Management 727-9530

Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Wetlands Division 727-9707

Department of the Attorney General,
Environmental Protection Division 727-2265

RG:JK
Attachment

-232-

ATTENDANCE, MARCH 29, 1979

REVERE WETLANDS MEETING

William Clendaniel, Counsel
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
727-9530

Marion Craven
Project Planner
CZM Study Grant-City of Revere
Office of the Mayor
Revere City Hall
281 Broadway Street
Revere, MA 02151
284-3600

Raymond Marino
N.E. Region Engineer
D.E.Q.E.
Tewksbury Hospital
Tewksbury, MA 01876
727-7908

Anton Moehrke
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
1 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
727-2265

Jay Satin, Counsel
Revere Conservation Commission
Revere City Hall
281 Broadwa Street
Y
Revere, MA 02151
284-3600

Richard Villiotte, City Solicitor
City of Revere
Revere City Hall
281 Broadway
Revere, MA 02151
284-3600

-233-

Steven Fedor, Superi ntendent
Revere Department of Public Works
Revere City Hall
281 Broadway
Revere, Mass. 02151
284-3600

Roderick Gaskell
Wetlands Science Aeviser
Department of the Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
1 Ashburton Place, 19th Floor
Boston, Mass. 02108
727-2265

Frank Gaynor
Assistant Attorney General
Department of the Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
1 Ashburton Place, 19th Floor
Boston, Mass. 02108
727-2265

Terry Geohegan
Project Director
CZM Study Grant - City of Revere
Office of the Mayor
Revere City Hall
281 Broadway
Revere, Mass. 02151
284-3600

Peter Kortright
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Mass. 02202
727-9530

Paul Levenson, Esquire
Lappin, Rosen, Goldberg,
Slavet, Ilevenst-ein & Wckstei.-
1 Boston Place
Boston, Mass. 02108
261-1000

-234-

y
The Oty of Revere Massachusetts Oty Hal I
"Secrc,e V Co@e,,_-, 281 BROADWAY
REVERE, MA 02151
284-3600

Office of the Conservation Commission

MEMORANDUM

TO: Sterling Wall, Staff Geologist, D.E.Q.E.

FROM: Jay Paul Satin, Revere Conservation Commission

DATE: May 30, 1979

RE: Generic Order of Conditions

On March 29, 1979, a meeting was held in Revere concerning enforce-
ment of the Mass. Wetlands Protection Act. Represented at that meeting
were: Mass. Attorney Generals' Office, Coastal Zone Management Office,
Dept, of Environmental Quality Engineering, Revere Conservation Commission,
and other City representatives. One result of the meeting was to devise
the use of a "generic order of Conditions" to include maintenance work
performed by the Revere Public Works Department.

In the past my office, and I'm sure your office as well, has been fre-
quently contacted about our local Public Works Department engaged in
alleged violation of the Wetlands Protection Act. Upon investigation
I have found the majority of these cases to be performance of mainten-
ance work (cleaning of ditch systems, installation of protective barriers
etc.).

Because of the often lengthly and time consuming procedure of filing a
Notice of Intent, conducting a public hearing, issuance of an order of
Conditions, and the often occuring appeal procedure, these maintenance
projects would be held up to the detriment of the community. Therefore,
the participants in the above mentioned meeting agreed that the Conserva-
tion Commission could handle these matters in a more abreviated fashion.

We are still requiring the Public Works Department to file a Notice of
Intent with us, although we are relaxing the requirement of the public
hearing and formally-issued Order of Conditions.

If there are any questions as to this procedure, please feel free to
contact me. Thank you.

cc: Mayor George V, Colella

-235-

THE CITY OF
y /a
R EVER E, MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
GEORGE V.COLELLA CITY HALL
MAYOR

June 1, 1979

Mr. William St. Hilaire, Chief
Land and Water Use Section
N.E. Regional Office of the
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Tewsbury State Hospital
Tewksbury, MA. 01876

Dear Mr. St. Hilaire:

As a result of a meeting on March 29, 1979 between representa-
tives of the Commonwealth and the City of Revere (see attached memo-
randum) to discuss the wetlands in the City, your services were
mentioned as being available to the City in order to determine a
temporary "dump site" for noncombustible solid waste.

when your schedule permits, I would like to coordinate a
meeting of appropriate City personnel so that we can begin the site
selection process.

I can be reached at 284-3600, ext. 114.

Yours truly,

-7--

Terrence Geoghegan
Special Assistant to the Mayor

Attachments

cc: George V. Colella, Mayor
Jay Satin, Conservation Commission
Steven Fedor, Department of Public Works

Roderick Gaskell
Office of the Attorney General
1 Ashburton Place, 19th floor
Boston, MA. 02108

Anton Moehrke
Office of the Attorney General
1 Ashburton Place, 19th floor
Boston, MA. 02108

-236-

THE CITY OF

R EVER E, MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

CITY HALL
GEORGE V.COLELLA

MAYOR

July 13, 1979

Mr. Roderick Gaskell
Office of the Attorney General
I Ashburton Place, 19th Floor
Boston, MA 02108

Dear Mr. Gaskell:

In response to Recommendation Five of your memo of April 2, 1979,
we are sub.-_.-itting the attached map.

This map does not indicate all the missing guardrails and fen-
ces on state property, but, the most serious area. The missing fences
in the area shown on the map allow people vehicular and pedestrian ac-
cess to the 1-95 embankment. There i@; a problem with dumping and the use

of "off-road vehicles."

We appreciate your attention in this matter.

Terrence Geoghegan
-7;Trrqtze 6eo lef 041-
Special Assistant
cc: George V. Colella, Mayor
Jay Satin, Conservation Commision

Anton Moehrke
Office of the Attorney General
I Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

TG/rb

.-237-

Review Comments of the City of Revere
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statements
for the Revere Beach Connector and the
North Shore Transit Improvement Project

PRESS RELEASE Wednesday, June 27, 1979

REMARKS OF GEORGE V. COLELLA, MAYOR, CITY OF REVERE MADE AT THE JOINT PUBLIC

HEARING ON JUNE 27TH AT REVERE HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRON

MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS FOR THE REVERE BEACH CONNECTOR AND THE NORTH SHORE TRAN-

SIT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a proposal, to build two major

transportation facilities in the City of Revere. I am pleased to see that the pro-

posal is being discussed at a joint public hearing, for these two projects are inter-

related in a number of ways.

We are being asked, do we approve the concept as it is being.presented to us

today?. It is always difficult to comment on a concept without some idea as to the

details. And in our City, the details are of importance, because they are items such

as flooding and drainage, and proper growth and development.

In looking at the proposals for the Blue Line and the Revere Beach Connector,

I first asked myself how these projects could be of benefit to the City of Revere?

As with any project of this magnitude, $65 million for the improvements to

the Wonderland Station complex and $31-$47 million dollars for the Revere Beach Con-

nector, there are bound to be mixed blessings.

On the positive side, these proposed Transportation Projects will benefit the

City by providing the necessary economic stimulus to Revere Beach. The Wonderland

garage and station and the Revere Beach Connector are the missing link in our plans

for the revitalization of the Revere Beach area of the City.

We are fortunate in having approximately 20 acres of prime development land,

one of the few vacant ocean-front tracts of this size in the'greater Boston metro-

politan region. The5e transportation projects will stimulate development and improve

the marketability of the area by making the City more accessible to a greater-number

of people.

-239-

These opportunities for economic growth and the creation of more jobs,

particularly on our own Parcel H, will be severely impaired should these projects

not become a reality.

But the economic stimulus is not the only benefit to the City of Revere.

The MBTA improvements will provide the citizens of Revere with better access to em-

ployment centers. This, in an age of increasing fuel costs and more and more fre-

quent energy shortages is quite a benefit to the City. The Connector road will pro-

vide access to the transit service so that residents of the western portion of the

City will be able to drive quickly and easily to the Wonderland Station and Revere

Beach.

And more importantly, traffic congestion relief on neighborhood streets will

make these neighborhoods safer for children. Traffic noise and air pollution will

be reduced and through traffic and automobiles bound for regional facilities such

as Revere Beach will use the Connector rather than Revere Street, Beach Street or

Shirley Avenue.

And finally, the transportation projects also provide the City with the op-

portunity to coordinate improvements to our drainage ditch system, with financial

participation of all agencies involved in the City's comprehensive drainage recom-

mendations for the eastern branch of the county ditch.

Just as there are benefits, there are serious questions about drainage in

the eastern branch of the county ditch, and about land use compatability and buffer

zones in the Bay Road - Ellerton Street - Oak Island areas, and about traffic cir-

culation on Ocean Avenue and at the Revere Street - Ocean Avenue - Revere Beach

Boulevard intersection.

On one hand there is little chance of needed improvements to the City if

these concepts are rejected .... and .... on the other hand there is a need for

close attention to be paid to these projects as they effect the City .... if these

concepts as stated in the two draft EIS's, are approved.

The review process allows a city to make recommendations for questions to

-240-

be answered, to suggest proposals to be reviewed, and to offer comments on the com-

parison of the alternatives.

All of the viewpoints expressed on the Draft Environmental Impact Statements

have to be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and at the public

hearing on that document.

Seeing as how the process leading to construction is a refinement process,

I have decided to endorse the Revere Beach Connector and the North Shore Transit Im-

provement Project, WONDERLAND UPGRADE ALTERNATIVE, with recommendations for the final

.Environmental Impact Statement.

The benefits accrued to the City as a result of the Wonderland Upgrade Alter-

native are obvious. But, I don't see any real benefits to the City from the Blue

Line Extension beyond Wonderland. In theory, the Lynn transit stations should re-

duce traffic volumes on Revere-streets by capturing commuters from North Shore com-

munities who are presently using the park and ride facilities at Wonderland. But, I

suggest, that as Mayor of this City, I would need to understand what other benefits

might accrue to Revere should the transit be extended to Lynn ... and I would ask

the MBTA to itemize these benefits and clarify this issue for the citizens of Revere.

The City makes this endorsement conditional upon a sincere commitment by

both the Department-of Public Works and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

to build first class facilities in this City.

At the municipal level, we are acutely aware of the shortage of funds and the

competition for funds, for example, the competition for funds-between the North Shore

Transit Improvement Project and the third Harbor Tunnel.

And, the City is aware of rumors regarding a possible shift of funds from the

Southwest Corridor project and the Red Line Extension North to the Blue Line -improve-

ments.

Just as every other city wants the best for itself, so do we want the best

project for Revere.

-241-

I will now summarize my concerns and recommendations for both the DPW and

MBTA projects.

My first recommendation, though not in the environmental field, is for a

supplementary paper which realistically assesses the chances of funding and dis-

cusses a timetable for construction of all phases of these projects.

My second recommendation is that the MBTA and the MDPW conduct an intensive

community participation program for the residents of the immediate neighborhoods

to see what buffer elements are needed and to see if some people would want to re-

locate.

The results of this program should be made part of the Final EIS.

Thirdly, the Central Transportation Staff should undertake a comprehensive

analysis of local and regional traffic patterns in the Revere Beach area to address

the observations made in the attached report.

My fourth recommendation'concerns the area of flooding and drainage which is

one of the areas that troubles me the most. All of these projects are interdepen-

dent, and future drainage is one of the key links.

I recommend that the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works and the

Chairman of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, jointly set up a-coor-

dinating committee of representatives from the Metropolitan District Commission,

the City of Revere, the Atlantic Savings Bank, the MDPW and the MBTA to determine

the right design solution to the flooding in the drainage area of the eastern

branch of the county ditch, and further, to divide the costs for these improvements.

The work of this committee should also be part of the Final EIS.

The City's fifth recommendation is that there be a section of the Final EIS

which outlines the nature of the community liaison program that will be needed by

both the MiBTA and MDPW to address problems that may occur during the construction

process such as increased truck traffic, the need for staging areas, temporary

roadways and dams and the like.

242-

The sixth recommendation is for a confirmation of the results of the "Revere

Beach Parking Study" completed by CTPS on December 15, 1978.

We are of the understanding, that study was interpreted by the MBTA as con-

cluding that the size of the Wonderland garage should be 2,000 vehicles in both

the Wonderland Upgrade and Blue Line Extension alternatives.

Our seventh recommendation concerns the Revere Beach Connector. At this

time in the design process, the City prefers Alignment B. We feel we can balance

the need for protecting abutCing neighborhoods.against the Connector's intrusion

into the Saugus Marsh by choosing that alignment that is further north and recommend

that the roadway by a viaduct from Route 107, Broadway to Revere Street.

The eighth recommendation also concerns the Revere Beach Connector, specifi-

cally that segment between Cutler Circle and Broadway. We feel this portion of the

road can be constructed on an earthen enbankment, provided the DPW presents

a program for restoring the Saugus Marsh north of the alignment. This special analy-

sis of restorative measures for the area around the Seaplane Basin should be made

part of the Final EIS.

The ninth.recommendation relates to the design of the Blue Line after it is

extended north from Wonderland. There should be a number of design options present-

ed for the open depressed section of the Blue Line that passes through Oak Island.

Security, aesthetics and acoustics should be analyzed, with a number of detailed

treatments offered in the Final EIS.

We offer these recommenda@@Ions knowing full well the inter-dependence of

these two projects, the Revere Beach Connector and the Blue Line Improvements as

well as the restoration of the Revere Beach Reservation, the commercial develop-

ment of Parcel H and the housing development of the Atlantic Savings Bank..

The current position of the bank regarding groundbreaking on the South Lot

is unacceptable to the City of Revere.

-243-

It is our interpretation of the Tax Agreement and Supplemental Agreement

that the Bank will have defaulted on the project if they don't break ground before

April of 1980.

If this unfortunate delay should occur, the City will take the necessary

steps to purchase the South Lot according to the terms specified in the Supplemen-

tal Agreement.

At this point it would be the plan of the City, with the concurrance-of'Ehe

Metropolitan District Commission'to open that parcel to a competitive process for

selection of a developer.

Many people in the public and private sectors have expressed an opinion of

the very good development opportunities for Revere Beach.

These opportunities for development are contingent upon the appropriate

transportation improvements, namely the Blue Line improvements and the Revere Beach

Connector.

These two projects before us today, also pose opportunities for a rebuilt

drainage system, local street traffic improvement, economic stimulation for new

residential and commercial development, new people in the City of Revere who will

shop in Revere, improved transit service and better vehicle access to the beach.

I trust that my administration and the staff of the MBTA and MDPW can con-

tinue to cooperate on the refinement process for the Revere Beach Connector and

the Blue Line improvements.

A cooperative approach wil-I bring about quality development .....

And in conclusion, while we have the MBTA and UMTA officials captive here

in our high school auditorium ... I would like to close with the note that, the

citizens of this City are still anxiously awaiting the long-promised NEW BLUE LINE

CARS. We of Revere have put,up with the inconvenience of breakdowns and the no-

torious noise and discomfort of the reportedly worst of the MBTA transit lines.

And we have patiently awaited some sign of improvement.

_244-

So I suggest to you NBTA officials here tonight - that as far as the

people of this City are concerned - the sight of those new cars running down

the MBTA tracks will help us all feel more confident in the MBTA proposal before

us tonight.

Thank You

-245-

RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVIEW COMMENTS

ON THE

REVERE BEACH CONNECTOR

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CITY OF REVERE

OFFICE OF MAYOR GEORGE V. COLELLA

-246@

1. DRAINAGE AND FLOODING

Measures to mitigate the flooding and drainage impacts of'the
Connector on the City of Revere are of major concern. The viaduct
design is, therefore, the supported alternative. Viaduct would permit
a more natural flow of the streams within the Saugus Marsh and would
not eliminate floodwater retention areas as the fill embankment alternative
would.

The Draft Environmental Statement (DEIS) does not adequately
address measures for treatment of runoff from the Connector Road.
Section 4.F.6. of the DEIS states that runoff from the road would
be collected by an enclosed roadway drainage system and placed in a
retention basin in the vicinity of the B&M right-of-way, and from
there piped into the ocean.

While we appreciate the MDPW's concern for not contributing additional
urban runoff to the Marsh, we feel more information is needed regarding
this sketchy outline of runoff treatment, particularly:

a. the size and location of the retention area;
b. the systems of traps and filters for roadway
pollutants such as oils and heavy metals;
c. the design of the ocean outfall, location and
extension into Broad Sound, and this pipe itself-
underground or above ground;
d. treatment of runoff at intersections is not
adequately addressed.

In addition the City would like to coordinate all drainage efforts
of the MDPW, M2TA, and MDC in the area of the City east of the B&M right--
of-way. We recommend that the MDPW participate in the City's comprehensive
drainage study for the Eastern County Ditch. Further we recommend that all
of the issues regarding drainage and treatment of runoff be coordinated
with the City and addressed satisfactorily in the Final EIS.

2. OVERALL ROAD DESIGN

As mentioned, the City supports a viaduct design alternative so that
the functioning of the marsh will impacted to a lesser extent. The
City also supports and recommends Alignment B which extends further northward
into the Marsh, east of Route 107. This Alignment would not effect as
severely the neighborhood north of Revere Street and Oak Island. It is
believed that this northermost Alignment would provide a buffer between
the Roadway and the Neighborhoods which would lessen the impacts of noise
and air pollution on the residential areas.

247-

3. OCEAN AVENUE/REVERE STREET/CONNECTOR INTERSECTION

There is an obvious need for more coordination between the MDPW and the
MBTA regarding the terminus of the Connector Roadway at Ocean Avenue. While
this is presently a dangerous intersection due to the height of the bridge
over the County Ditch, it is envisioned as more confusing due to the
entrance of automobiles from another direction, north from the Connector.

Added to this is the fact that the M.BTA's EIS mentions the need for
enlarging the intersection to east and north. The MDPW's DEIS discusses
replacement of lands taken-from Sullivan Playground to that area
identified by the 14BTA fo@ expansion of the intersection.

In order to assess this situation the City would require more analysis
of traffic movements and volumes at this intersection and a coordinated map
identifying all work to be located in the vicinity.

It is recommended that the functional design of this intersection
be more clearly addressed in the Final EIS. Specifically, the size of the
intersection, traffic volumes and movements, and signalization.

4. DESIGN OF ROADWAY BETWEEN THE B&M RIGHT-OF-WAY AND OCEAN AVENUE

The Ardadia Street and particularly the lower Revere Street neighborhoods
will be most heavily impacted by the Connector due to its proximity to the
homes, noise, air pollution from the road and the general aesthetics of the
elevated ramps. It is assumed that the vacant land between these two
neighborhoods will be almost completely filled with transportation
improvements. While some residents of these areas may want to remain in
this location, the possibility of the State Agencies involved buying
properties and relocating households should not be dismissed. It is
recommended that the MDPW work with the City on this issue and address the
feasibility of real estate takings in the Final EIS.

5. INTERSECTIONS OF CONNECTOR WITH ROUTE 107 AND NORTH SHORE ROAD

Most of the traffic volume projections for the City were included
in the DEIS Technical Appendix which, unfortunately, the City did not
receive for review. of particular concern are the two Connector inter-
sections proposed at Route 107--and North Shore Road and the potential for
added congestion on these roads due to the intersections.- Although traffic
congestion and alternative treatments of queues for left-turning traffic
is mentioned, we have no means of knowing what volumes are there now and
how those volumes will increase with the Connector and its intersections.

The City, therefore, strongly recommends that the Central Transportation
Planning Staff (CTPS) undertake a coordinated traffic study of Revere to -
account for the traffic generated by the major development projects in the
City. Further, we recommend that the study conclusions become part of the
final EIS and that the with these results the MDPW work with the City on
the design of these intersections so that their impact on traffic flows will
be clarified.

-248-

Thirdly, the design of the Connector's intersection with Route 107 is
unclear. The City strongly recommends that eastbound and westbound access
be provided for both north and south bound traffic on Route 107.

6. SULLIVAN PLAYGROUND

The MDPW EIS states that aportion of the Sullivan Playground will be
taken by the Connector Road, and that this recreational land will be replaced
to the south and east, adjacent to Revere Street.

Because this will be a heavily travelled intersection, the City suggests
that the feasibility of takingthe entire active recreation portion of the
Playground and replacing it elsewhere in the area be explored.

This is a local Playground which is used by the lower Revere Street
and Revere Beach Boulevard neighborhoods. Since pedestrian access to
the site will be impaired by the Connector traffic, this could become
a very dangerous situation for children walking to the Playground. The
suggestion for a crosswalk at the end of the Connector is not sufficient
unless a pedestrian signalized light is included at the crosswalk.

Even with the signalized intersection, it is debateable that the
Playground would be safe for the children in the area due to traffic
volumes, or pleasant due to the noise and air pollution from the
Connector.

It is recommended, therefore, that the MDPW, with the concurrence
of the MDC, relocate the ballfield and tot lot to another location which
will service the same neighborhoods. Working with the City and our
three-year recreation plan, other sites such as the Mabie School could
be identified and evaluated. Sullivan Playground could then become a
passive recreation facility.

7. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

The possible increase in traffic volumes on North Shore Road would
make pedestrian travel more difficult and dangerous for the Oak Island
children. A signalized intersection with pedestrian cycle is recommended
at Oak Island Street and North Shore Road.

Additionally, the maintenance or improvement of pedestrian travel
along North Shore Road via safe sidewalks is required by the City. This
pedestrian safety issue needs to be coordinated with the City and addressed
in the final EIS.

-249-

RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVIEW COMMENTS

ON THE

NORTH SHORE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Office of the Mayor

George V. Colella, Mayor

City of Revere

June 27, 1979

-250-

1. SIZE OF THE GARAGE AT WONDERLAND

It is our understanding that Wonderland Garage should be sized at
2000 cars under both the Wonderland Upgrade and the Blue Line Extension
Alternatives.

The results of the CTPS study of December 15, 1978, indicate
that there are over 1500 cars parking in the Wonderland area today.

With the increased demand for parking due to the improvements
to Revere Beach Reservatio-n- and the development of the North and South
Parking Lots for housing, there should be a need for at least a 2000
car parking garage.

The City of Revere thought that this issue was settled as a result
of the above-mentioned CTPS study.

2. WONDERLAND UPGRADE AS AN ALTERNATIVE

From the point of view of the City of Revere, the Wonderland
Upgrade is not strictly a separate alternative, but rather the first
"useable segment" of the Blue Line's eventual extension to Lynn.

The improvements to Wonderland, including the Revere Beach Connector,
will have to be built before the Blue Line is extended to Lynn.

There should be a section in the Final EIS which notes the
Wonderland Upgrade as a precondition to the extension of the Blue Line
to Lynn.

3. 1985 NET NEW RIDERS

The figures contained in the Impact Summary Table on page ES-6
seem to indicate that the Wonderland Upgrade would only result in 921
Net New Riders in 1985.

The City of Revere finds it hard to believe that so few new people
would become transit riders given the ever increasing cost of gasoline
and the continual prospect of,,fuel shortages throughout the 19801s.

Table II-10 on pages 11-46 shows the 24 hour boardings by year for
each station on the Blue Line. In 1972 there were 3,500 boarding the
Blue Line at Wonderland. In 1973, the year the OPEC Oil Embargo began
(October of that-year), there were 4,900 people boarding the existing
Blue Line, with its outdated cars, at Wonderland.

The increase of 1,400 people or 40% is more indicative of the
increased ridership one can expect associated with the Wonderland
Upgrade in the year 1985 and beyond.

-251-

After all, unleaded gasoline has gone from the mid 60 cent per
gallon mark to over 90 cents per gallon in the first six months in
1979.

No one expects the price to drop. Surely, the price will continue
to rise, if the fuel is available at all.

This seems to mean that one can expect more people from Lynn,
Nahant, Saugus, Malden and other North Shore communities to drive
to Wonderland and take the rapid transit to Boston under the
Wonderland Upgrade. There should be more people using the MBTA's
buses to get to Wonderland.

We should like a reassessment of the net new ridership as a
result of the Wonderland Upgrade in light of today's energy shortage
and such a shortage being extended into the foreseeable future.

These new figures should be incorporated in the Final EIS.

4. SULLIVAN PLAYGROUND

The MBTA's notion of traffic circulation for the Wonderland
area includes the need to rebuild the Revere Street, Ocean Avenue,
Revere Beach Boulevard intersection.

The MDPW mentions in their Draft EIS the possibility of expanding
Sullivan Playground southward into the above-mentioned intersection.

It appears that pedestrian access to Sullivan Playground will become
hazardous at best for children from the lower Revere Street neighborhood.
We suggest that this area no longer be suitable as an active recreational
area and that, with the concurrence of the MDC, the playground be turned
into a passive recreational facility. It is further suggested that the
MDPW, rather than replacing the recreation area taken for the Connector
at the existing site, the MDPW participate in the City's three-year
park program. In this way the active recreation facility could be
replaced at the Paul Revere School or Mabie School park sites and
serve the existing neighborhood population.

5. TRAFFIC ON OCEAN AVENUE

The present proposals will result in increased traffic on Ocean
Avenue, congestion at the intersection with Revere Street and increased
traffic on Beach Street and North Shore Road north of Revere Street.

The City needs the results of the CTPS traffic analysis before it
can comment on the proposed projects and their impact on traffic circulation.

This analysis should be made part of the Final EIS.

-252-

6. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM

The NSTIP as proposed by the MBTA is going to have an impact on
drainage as will the Revere Beach Connector, part of the Revere
Beach Reservation, and the Revere Beach Development Project.

The City commissioned, through a MCZM Grant, its own study on
the comprehensive drainage impacts of the above-mentioned project.

There should be common agreement on the new design and
and it should be documented in the Final EIS.

-253-

11
13111116111161111 1111
68, il"'I"I 0356 6