ZBA roundup: driveway denied, storage withdrawal, parking pad and chicken coop variances approved; 6‑story condo variances approved with conditions

The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals on a recorded vote on multiple agenda items during its meeting: it denied a driveway variance at 70 Warren Street, allowed an applicant to withdraw a proposal for a six‑story self‑storage building without prejudice, and granted variances for front‑yard parking at 218 Bellingham Ave, a chicken coop at 128 Malden Street, and a six‑story mixed‑use condominium at 76–82 Revere Beach Boulevard subject to standard recording and site‑plan conditions.

70 Warren Street (A2514): The board denied the request from Hicham Alam to construct a 13‑by‑14‑foot driveway. Board members voted no on granting relief (Mister Lemina — no; Mister Lopes — no; Mister O’Brien — no; Mister Pelton — no; Chairman Tucker — no). The variance was denied.

Kem’s Development Corp. (A2517): The applicant seeking a variance to build a six‑story self‑storage facility at 195 American Legion Highway submitted a motion to withdraw without prejudice. The ZBA allowed the withdrawal on a roll call vote (all members yes).

218 Bellingham Ave (A2518): Applicant Jeremy Crossgrove sought permission to construct a 23‑by‑22‑foot parking pad in the front yard of a single‑family lot. Crossgrove said the lot has limited usable rear yard space and that the project would remove an unused concrete pool area and return roughly 1,200 square feet to green space while creating two off‑street parking spaces. The board granted the variance subject to standard ZBA conditions: rights lapse if not exercised within one year, the variance must be recorded in the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds, and site‑plan review approval is required before a building permit. Roll call votes: Mister Lemina — yes; Mister Lopes — yes; Mister O’Brien — yes; Mister Pelton — yes; Chairman Tucker — yes.

128 Malden Street (A2519): The board approved a variance to allow a chicken coop and run in the side yard. Neighbors testified supportively at the hearing. The board granted the variance with standard recording and site‑plan conditions. The board noted local ordinance prohibitions on roosters. Roll call: Mister Lemina — yes; Mister Lopes — yes; Mister O’Brien — yes; Mister Pelton — yes; Chairman Tucker — no; the variance was granted.

76–82 Revere Beach Boulevard (A2520): The ZBA granted variances for a six‑story transit‑oriented mixed‑use condominium building proposed by 76 To 82 Revere Beach Boulevard LLC. Nancy O’Neil, the applicant’s attorney, described a 6‑story building with 80 condominium units, one commercial unit proposed as a restaurant, and 82 parking spaces (80 spaces dedicated to the condominiums and two for the commercial unit). The applicants included an affordability component: 10% (eight units) offered at 80% area‑median income. City planning staff supported the project and urged the board to approve the relief as consistent with redevelopment along the beach. Opponents raised concerns about precedent for hardship claims and potential impacts to views and long‑standing small businesses. The board approved the variances subject to the standard recording, one‑year lapse, required site‑plan review, a prohibition on participation in the city’s residential and visitor on‑street permit parking program for the property, and a requirement that any change from condominium to rental apartments requires reappearance before the ZBA. Roll call votes: Mister Lemina — yes; Mister Lopes — yes; Mister O’Brien — yes; Mister Pelton — yes; Chairman Tucker — yes.

The board’s actions included routine statutory and recording conditions and standard site‑plan review requirements. Several public speakers used the hearings to raise broader concerns: one opponent asked the board for an independent third‑party survey and evaluation of hardship claims; a small‑business owner asked for an opportunity to negotiate a presence in the redeveloped Revere Beach property. The ZBA did not change any of the standard recording or site‑plan conditions it routinely applies to variances.

Votes and next steps: the denied and approved variances are subject to recording in the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds and to site‑plan review where required. The withdrawn application was allowed without prejudice; the applicant may refile.