Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press drainage concerns as Revere commission reviews work at 76 Endicott Ave.; no approval granted
Summary
The commission declined to approve a Notice of Intent for 76 Endicott Avenue, citing unverified drainage calculations, neighbor flooding reports and contaminated fill; it ordered test pits, neighbor documentation and a site visit before reconsideration.
Owners Diana Cantero and Neli Arrego, joined by contractor Elkin Bijegas of Vijegas LLC, presented a Notice of Intent for work at 76 Endicott Avenue that would add new asphalt, install a U‑shaped French drain around the yard and install backyard pavers.
Commission staff and several neighbors challenged aspects of the post‑construction submission. Staff noted the commission’s reluctance to allow additional impervious surface unless the drain and subgrade are shown to provide sufficient infiltration. The applicant’s plans described the French drain as roughly 4 feet wide by 4 feet deep around the yard; the applicant and contractor said the paved area was designed to hold roughly 8,000 gallons, but commissioners said they needed verification of calculations and multiple test pits showing 18 inches of crushed gravel beneath the pavers.
Neighbor Joanne Panisse, who lives at 59 George Ave., told the commission she and her family have experienced repeated flooding and that changes at the Endicott property have worsened runoff into adjacent yards. Another neighbor reported having to install an emergency drain and pump water from a basement. Commissioners also observed contaminated fill in the rear yard (asphalt, brick, mortar, concrete) and instructed the applicant that contaminated topsoil should be removed and replaced before any final stabilization or new lawn is installed.
The commission directed the applicant to: produce documentation or neighbor statements (in writing or in person) confirming property‑line conversations; allow multiple site test pits to verify 18 inches of crushed stone beneath the pavers; provide a marked plan showing the proposed fence relative to the gravel filter; and return with drainage calculations and any required Building Department approvals for driveway extension. A follow‑up site visit will be scheduled; the commission did not grant final approval at this meeting.
"I can't permit something that I can't confirm," the chair said, underscoring the need for on‑site verification before the commission will authorize added impervious surface.
The commission encouraged continued communication between neighbors and the applicant and committed to returning to the item at the next meeting after the requested documentation and site verification are provided.
