Request for Variance for Two-Family Home in Beachmont is Withdrawn after Opposition

The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular monthly meeting last Wednesday evening, February 16, in the City Councilor Joseph A. DelGrosso City Council Chamber .

Chairman Michael Tucker and members Aklog Limeneh, John Lopes, and Hazem Hamdan were present for the meeting.

The principal source of discussion during the meeting occurred regarding the request for a number of variances by the property owner at 43 Pearl Ave. in order to construct a two-family home on the premises, which presently is the site of a small, one-family residence.

Two residents from the neighborhood spoke against the variances. After the board voted to reject the applicant’s request for a continuance of the matter, the applicant withdrew his petition. (The agenda item, #A-22-04, and the full discussion and vote on the matter are below.)

The complete agenda and the board’s discussions and votes on each are as follows:

#A-22-01: Durant Performance Coatings, Inc., 112 Railroad Street, Revere, appealing the decision of the Building Inspector and/or the Site Plan Review Committee on November 16, 2021 to approve the site plan application submitted in relation to 44 Railroad Street.

The applicant’s attorney asked for a continuance, as had been done at the meeting in January. He informed the board that a traffic study presently being conducted eventually will go before the Site Plan Review Committee, which  could make the matter moot.

An attorney opposing the application also appeared and stated that the appeal does not fall within the board’s jurisdiction.  

The board voted against granting a further continuance.

Chairman Tucker then said, “The members and I discussed this,” and proceeded to read from a lengthy statement, which had been drawn up before the public meeting, in which the ZBA  essentially concluded that the matter does not fall within the purview of the board’s authority.

The board unanimously voted to dismiss the appeal and place it on file.

#A-22-02: Cristina Napoli and Marcus Santos, 174 Endicott Avenue, appealing the decision of the Building Inspector to deny the applicants’ request for enforcement of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Revere with respect to the property located at 172 Endicott Avenue and owned by Thomas LaBrecque concerning the unauthorized expansion of a deck to less than one (1) foot within the required side yard setback of ten (10) feet. The applicants’ request that the Zoning Board of Appeals reverse the decision of the Building Inspector to delay or withhold the enforcement of the Revere Zoning Ordinances and that Mr. LaBrecque be ordered to remove the deck encroachment into the side set back to the extent it exceeds what was existing previously at the property located at 172 Endicott Avenue.

The attorney for the appellant asked for a continuance.

However, the board denied the request for a continuance and once again Tucker read a statement which he began, “As discussed with the members earlier.” 

The board then voted to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector, essentially dismissing the appeal.

 #A-22-04: Pedro Calcano, 43 Pearl Avenue, requesting the following variances of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Revere to enable the appellant to convert a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling on Lot 125 at 43 Pearl Avenue.

1. Noncompliance with Section 17.28.020 with respect to requirement for 4 parking spaces for a two-family dwelling.

2. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.070(A)(3) with respect to no parking allowed in the rear yard for single-family and two-family dwellings.

3. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 footnote (y) with respect to maximum height requirement of 30 feet for lots less than 5,000 square feet.

4. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to maximum of 2 1/2 stories for dwellings within the RB District.

5. Noncompliance with Section 17.24.010 with respect to minimum side yard setback requirement of 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other side.

6. Noncompliance with Section 17.28.050 with respect to minimum width of 20 feet required for driveways for two-way traffic.

7. Noncompliance with Section 17.28.040 with respect to minimum driveway aisle width requirement of 22 feet for 90-degree parking.

8. Noncompliance with Section 17.32.050 with respect to minimum screening area width of 6 feet between multifamily parking areas and other residential uses.

Attorney James Cipoletta asked the board for a continuance to allow the petitioner additional time to discuss the matter with Ward 1 City Councillor Joanne McKenna and the neighbors.

However, one of those neighbors, Eileen Mundis, who lives across the street at 44 Pearl Ave., told the board that the scope of the project will add to the flooding and sewage issues that already plague the neighborhood.

Mundis also said that the level of privacy in the neighborhood will be invaded because of the proposed height of the new structure, topped by a rooftop deck. She also said that there could be a runoff problem because of the addition of four parking spaces. 

Finally, Mundis said that the variance is not warranted because it does not meet the legal threshold for the board to issue a variance.

Another neighbor, Donald Comeau of 39 Pearl Ave., attested to the flooding situation that exists in the neighborhood. 

“This is a very small lot and I don’t see how you can get all of this into a postage-stamp lot,” Comeau said.

One person, a resident at 25 Sigourney St., spoke in favor of the project on the basis that new housing is needed in the city. 

Regarding the request for a continuance, though three of the members voted yes, Mr. Hamdan voted no, thereby denying the request.

Cipoletta then stepped forward to present the merits of the application, but first asked for a reconsideration of his request to continue the matter. However, when the reconsideration failed, Cipoletta then asked for leave to withdraw the application without prejudice in order to submit a different plan.

The board voted unanimously in favor of that request and the matter will come up at a later date upon the filing of a new plan.

#A-22-05: Thomas L. Labrecque (“Owner”), 172 Endicott Avenue, appealing the Order of the inspector of buildings/zoning administrator which states in pertinent part: “This correspondence serves as my Order pertaining to the erected deck located at 172 Endicott Avenue. 1.) The erected deck is not conforming as to zoning and is also not in compliance with the building code. 2.) The Department plans to await a reasonable amount of time for the Owner to bring the deck into compliance within zoning and the code and to comply with this order. The Owner appeals the Order of the inspector of buildings/zoning administrator which orders the Owner to cure the zoning nonconformity of the exterior modifications. The facts and circumstances support the Owner’s position that no action is required respecting a zoning nonconformity, wherein the exterior modifications do not increase the nonconforming nature of 172 Endicott Avenue and said exterior modifications were properly allowed by right in concert with the issuance of a building permit.

This applicant requested a continuance and the board voted unanimously to continue the hearing.

The board then adjourned until its next meeting in March.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.