Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Garage 225 Endicott topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Revere applicant withdraws 3-car garage variance after neighbors raise Airbnb, runoff and parking concerns
Summary
Edward “Ted” Davis withdrew his application for multiple variances to build a three-car garage at 225 Endicott Ave. after neighbors raised concerns about short‑term rental activity, stormwater runoff and loss of street parking; the Zoning Board allowed withdrawal without prejudice.
Get email alerts on the Garage 225 Endicott topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals accepted a request to withdraw an application for multiple variances to construct a three‑car garage at 225 Endicott Ave., the board announced after a roll‑call vote.
The application by Edward “Ted” Davis, the homeowner at 225 Endicott Ave., was withdrawn without prejudice after public comment raised objections related to alleged short‑term rental use at the property, stormwater runoff and neighborhood parking impacts. The board voted unanimously to allow the withdrawal.
The withdrawal means Davis may refile a modified application later; the board chair and staff reminded the applicant that if the current application were denied he would be barred from reapplying for two years unless he withdrew it without prejudice.
Why it matters: Neighbors said the proposed 30‑foot curb cut, three‑car garage and associated driveway changes would affect on‑street parking and local green space and could support a commercially oriented use if the property is being rented short term. The issue surfaced during a hearing that included both supporters and multiple opponents.
Davis told the board he proposed a 30‑foot curb cut and a three‑car garage to accommodate his family and visiting relatives. "I'm just looking for what the other homes in my neighborhood have," Davis said, and he said the plan would remove roughly one street parking space while pulling an estimated three cars off the street. He also said his three‑family house currently has three registered vehicles and that the garage would make daily life easier for his family.
Several neighbors opposed the request. Joanne McKenna, Ward 1 councilor, said she had been told Davis was operating an unregistered short‑term rental on the third floor and stated she had written the city’s short‑term rental ordinance and that registrations and parking requirements apply. "If you're running an Airbnb, illegal Airbnb, ... you have to register it," McKenna told the board.
Other opponents raised concerns about stormwater and changes to yard grade following recent renovations. Lorraine Rossi said runoff from prior renovations already made access difficult for her mother and worried a new garage could worsen the problem. Marybeth de Blasio said the application looked like it would serve a commercial interest rather than a household hardship, saying the third‑floor unit had high turnover and advertised internationally.
Two neighbors spoke in support of Davis. Nick Dayer, who said he lives at 228 Bellingham Ave., described the Davises as "tremendous neighbors" and said added off‑street parking would help the family. Jeremy Crossgrove, a neighbor behind the property, said he sympathized with the difficulty of parking for a multi‑car household.
Action and vote: The board considered a motion to allow withdrawal without prejudice and approved it by roll call: Mister Lemina—yes; Mister Lopes—yes; Mister O'Brien—yes; Mister Pelton—yes; Chairman Tucker—yes. The chair announced, "The application has been withdrawn without prejudice." Davis stated he planned to withdraw and return with revised plans.
What remains unresolved: Neighbors and the ward councilor referred to a cease‑and‑desist notice and alleged unregistered short‑term rental activity; the record shows the councilor said a cease‑and‑desist had been issued but the board did not adjudicate enforcement of short‑term rental rules at the hearing. Stormwater/runoff impacts were raised by abutters but the board took no decision on drainage at this meeting.
The hearing record shows the item closed after the withdrawal vote; the applicant may submit a revised application or redesign the proposal and return to the board at a future meeting.

