ZBA postpones action on three applications

The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals took up all three of the matters on its agenda last Wednesday, but ultimately postponed taking action on the items in order to obtain more information about each of the applications.

All five members of the board, Chairman Michael Tucker, Aklog Limeneh, John Lopes, Arthur Pelton, and Hazern Hamdan, were on hand for the meeting, which was held in the City Councillor Joseph A. DelGrosso City Council Chamber.

The three items on the agenda, and the discussions on each, were as follows:

1) Mario Zepaj, 78 Mill St., Middleton, MA 01949 seeking a variance of Section 17.24.030(D)(1) of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Revere with respect to a qualified pre-existing lot, that a “qualified lot” means a lot that was vacant as of January 1, 1994 to enable the appellant to construct a two-family dwelling on Lot 763 Reservoir Avenue, Revere, MA 02151.

Discussion and Vote:

Mr. Zepaj appeared on behalf of himself, telling the board that he is seeking to construct a new, two-family home on the lot.

However, the board pointed out some serious deficiencies in Zepaj’s application.

“We require 9×18 parking spaces, but you have 8×16 spaces,” said Tucker. “The application is deficient because the spaces are not large enough.”

Tucker also noted that when Zepaj, who also had owned an adjacent lot with an existing house, had sold that house and lot, the 5200 sq. ft. lot that remained was insufficient per the zoning regulations for a two-family home. 

“This is not a combined lot any more,” pointed out Tucker.

Ward 4 Councilor Patrick M. Keefe, Jr. voiced his opposition to the application.

“This is a very dense neighborhood and parking is very constrained,” said Keefe. “He (the applicant) is just going to build on it and move on. I’ve spoken to some of the neighbors and they are not happy with it. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to put a two-family on a 5200 sq. ft. lot. I Would be happy to support a single-family.”

“We need to continue this hearing to send it back for further information from the Site Plan Review Committee and the City Solicitor,” said Tucker. “There also is a question about the front yard parking and whether a variance is needed.”

The board voted 5-0 to continue the hearing to its next meeting, which is scheduled for Wednesday, November 17, at 5:00.

2) Samuel C. Rubeiro, 61 Geneva Street, Revere, MA 02151 seeking a variance of Section 17.28.020 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Revere with respect to the requirement of four (4) parking spaces to enable the appellant to convert a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling on Lots 244 & 255 at 61 Geneva Street, Revere, MA 02151.

Discussion and Vote:

Local attorney Joseph V. Catoggio Jr. appeared for the applicant, who is seeking a parking variance.

Catoggio requested a continuance to provide further information to the board. 

“The application was not submitted properly,” Tucker noted. “It’s not in the proper format — the plot plan does not conform to the board’s standards.”

The board voted 5-0 to continue the matter to its next meeting on November 17.

3) Robert Mahoney, 2 Paul Street, Revere, MA 02151 seeking a variance of Section 17.28.020 minimum parking requirements of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Revere to enable the appellant to reconstruct a two-family family dwelling at 924 Winthrop Avenue, Revere, MA 02151.

DISCUSSION

AND VOTE:

Mr. Mahoney appeared on behalf of himself. He informed the board that there will be on-street parking only. Mahoney told the board that this will not be a change from the situation that had existed prior to the original, two-family house burning down.

However, Darrell Tolis, the owner of 936 Winthrop Ave., two doors down from the subject property, urged the board to reject the application because of the parking issues in his neighborhood.

“In the last 18 months, the parking regulations have been enforced in our neighborhood, causing a lot of confusion and stress,” said Tolis. “Wrong signs had been put up. All residents were required to get parking permits, which were issued in error and had to be reissued. If parking is a big issue, why are we even considering this? More on-street parking will make things even worse.”

Another neighbor, Manuel Cid of 935 Winthrop Ave., told the board that he had the same objections.

“There are questions with the Site Plan Review with the original application and we would like to have those answered before we proceed,” said Tucker.

This board then voted 5-0 to continue the hearing to November 17.