Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Pergola topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Revere ZBA denies variance for 20-foot pergola at 29 Carlton Street
Summary
The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request from Jamie Rano to allow a 20-by-20-foot pergola to be located within required side and rear-yard limits after neighbors raised sunlight, noise and permit concerns.
The Revere Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request Wednesday from applicant Jamie Rano to allow a 20-foot by 20-foot pergola at 29 Carlton Street.
The board voted unanimously to deny the relief after neighbors said the structure encroached on an abutting rear yard, reduced sunlight to a longtime resident's garden and was built without permits. Chairman Tucker read the motion and called the roll before announcing the denial.
The pergola proposal sought an exception to the rule that detached accessory structures may not occupy more than 10% of a rear yard and must be set back from side yards and rear lot lines. The application, continued from prior meetings, would have placed the pergola within two feet of the rear lot line, according to materials presented to the board.
Neighbor Barbara Ann Popolo, who identified herself as living at 20 Oxford Park, told the board the structure “will block out all the sun” and said her cousin’s garden has already suffered since an adjacent six-foot vinyl fence was installed. Popolo said the house at 29 Carlton hosts loud parties late into the night and worried the pergola would worsen impacts on her and other neighbors.
Applicant Jamie Rano said she brought a plot plan, photos and letters from neighbors but did not have one promised letter available at the hearing. Rano told the board she “definitely don't know if I really need a permit for… a pergola” and that a friend who does residential construction advised leaving a two-foot gap from fence to fence.
Board members raised concerns that the structure had been installed without building permits or inspections and that the board lacked documentation from a previously referenced abutter. With four members present, Chairman Tucker explained that the board could deny the request with a majority vote; the roll call recorded Mr. Lehi: No; Mr. Lopes: No; Mr. Pelton: No; Chairman Tucker: No. The variance was denied.
The board explained standard conditions that would apply if relief were granted—recording the variance at the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds, submitting recording information to the city clerk and building inspector, and obtaining site plan review approval before applying for a building permit. The denial ends the matter unless the applicant reapplies under the board's rules.
No further action on this application was taken at the meeting.
