By Journal Staff
The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held its regular monthly meeting last
Wednesday, April 29, in the City Councillor Joseph A. DelGrosso City Council Chamber. On hand for the session were chair Michael Tucker and fellow members Aklog Limeneh, Arthur Pelton, John Lopes, and James O’Brien.
The members granted one variance request in the extraordinarily brief (nine minutes) meeting.
Ledy D. Blanco Bonilla, 330 American Legion Highway, came before the board requesting a variance of Revere Revised Ordinances (RRO) Section 17.24.010(a) with respect to the minimum side yard setback requirement of five feet in the Residential Business (RB) district to enable her to enclose an existing second floor porch, converting the space into a 12’ x 20’ sunroom/storage area.
Ms. Blanco Bonilla presented her application, though as Tucker noted, “The application speaks for itself.”
There was one opponent, an abutter at 324 American Legion Highway, who noted that he is in the midst of a property dispute with Ms. Bianco Bonilla.
“My primary concern is that this additional space will not be limited to storage only, but will be used as living space,” he said. “Our primary concern is that parking already is crowded on that street and we are just afraid that this is going to pose a hazard backing out of the driveway.”
Tucker noted that a condition of the variance would be that the additional space would be limited to storage only and could not be used as a living area.
The members voted 5-0 to approve the variance with the stipulation that it must be a “non-habitable space.”
The board also took up an agenda item which stated as follows: “Trichilo Development, LLC, 13 Victoria Street, requesting variances from the ZBA to enable the appellant to file a Planned Unit Development application for the construction of a 28-unit residential apartment building at 18-22 Green Street. (On March 25, 2026 the ZBA did not find that specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the prior unfavorable action was based on A-25-34. Therefore, the ZBA shall not act favorably upon this application.)”
The board voted 3-2 at last month’s meeting to deny Trichilo’s re-application on the basis that the revised plan did not represent a “material change” from the original proposal.
However, the board needed to take another vote, strictly as a procedural matter, in order to formally reject the re-application, and the members did so unanimously.