Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant asks for more time as board pauses decision on shed covering sewer easement

Revere City Zoning Board of Appeals · May 27, 2026
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 board continued application A2614 to July 29 after the applicant’s representative said the existing storage shed at 620 River Beach Boulevard partly covers a city sewer easement and the applicant needs DPW pipe-location information to explore corrective options. Two emails opposing the application were noted.

The Revere City Zoning Board of Appeals on an evening meeting continued application A2614, which seeks to validate an existing storage shed at 620 River Beach Boulevard that the city says encroaches on a sewer easement.

Joseph Ktogio, speaking for the applicant, described the shed as having been built in segments about "two and a half years ago" without permits and said the applicant has discovered a "laundry list of items" to address. He asked the board to postpone action so the applicant can obtain exact DPW information about the sewer pipe’s location and determine whether to relocate the shed, modify it or remove a portion.

"We would request a continuence to allow the applicant to contact the DPW, make a determination of the exact location of the pipe and see what options we have to either alternate an area ... or possibly remove a small portion of the shed to remove it off of that area," Ktogio said.

The chair opened the public hearing and recorded no in-person proponents. The clerk noted two emails on file opposing the application from Marcia Lucenta of 630 Rivier Beach Boulevard and Salvatore Duca of 607 Reier Beach Boulevard.

After brief discussion, a motion to continue the application until the July 29 meeting carried unanimously on roll call. The board directed the applicant to return with DPW confirmation of pipe location and any proposed corrective plan before the board takes final action.

The matter was continued; no decision was made on the variance itself.