Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Conversion Parking topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Revere ZBA denies front-yard parking variance for proposed two-family conversion at 149 Fenley St.

5824062 · September 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals denied requested variances that would have enabled a single-family home at 149 Fenley Street to convert to a two-family with additional front-yard parking. Neighbors opposed the request citing overcrowding, noise and loss of green space; the board voted unanimously to deny the variances.

The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals denied a request to allow front-yard parking and other variances needed to convert the single-family dwelling at 149 Fenley Street into a two-family property.

Applicant Andrea Garcia described plans to add two parking spaces at the front of the property and said she had met with city engineers, including Don and Nick Rydstrom, to develop a plan. Garcia said the site currently has two tandem spaces on the left side and that the proposed work would create an L-shaped arrangement and two additional front spaces.

Multiple neighbors opposed the variance. Robert Hass said zoning exists to prevent overcrowding and to preserve open space; he warned that paving the front could eliminate green space and increase parking pressure. "Zoning, the purpose of zoning, is to prevent the overcrowding of land and this is a spot where we have to protect our neighborhoods," Hass said. George Manzoni, a homeowner of more than 70 years on Fenley Street, likewise said the requested variances would "substantially derogate" from the zoning ordinance’s intents and purposes. Neighbor John Macharia said street parking is already crowded and that additional front-yard parking would bring more noise and turnover.

Board members questioned the location of the proposed front spaces and noted the applicant previously explored right-side parking but encountered utility and approval obstacles; Garcia said National Grid would need to move a gas line related to any right-side parking plan.

When the board took a roll call on the motion to grant relief, the votes were recorded as follows: Mister Lemina, no; Mister Lopes, no; Mister O'Brien, no; Mister Pelton, no; Chairman Tucker, no. The chair announced the variance denied.