Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Paving Access Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lowell ZBA continues variance request for paving at 84 Walker Street to June 9
Summary
After public opposition and multiple staff concerns about dimensions, access and stormwater, the Zoning Board continued a variance request to allow paving at 84 Walker Street so the applicant can provide detailed plans and clarifications about access to Litchfield Terrace.
The Lowell City Zoning Board of Appeals continued to June 9 the petition by the owner of 84 Walker Street seeking permission to add paving and a driveway area at the rear of the building. The board directed the applicant to provide a clarified site plan with dimensions, confirm access rights to Litchfield Terrace and review comments from city departments before the board considers approval.
The applicant, identified in the record as Peter Dendromeris, said the work is intended to “clean up an area that tends to retain water and mud” and that he was not seeking additional parking. He told the board, “We're not looking to add additional parking. That was the original intent. We measured there isn't enough room for additional parking.”
A neighbor, Johanna Delamez of 42 Litchfield Terrace, objected during public comment, saying, “There has never been a driveway on Walker Street. I've lived there all my life,” and asserting that Litchfield Terrace is a privately owned horseshoe street used by six houses and that the applicants might not have rights to access it. Delamez said a permit notice describing an expanded paved area was inaccurate because, in her view, no paved driveway has existed there.
Board members raised multiple procedural and technical deficiencies in the submission. Member McCarthy noted the application lacked a parking‑layout plan and dimensions and explained why that matters: “A parking space is 18 feet, and it requires 3 feet of green space up against the building,” and the property has only about 16 feet from property line to foundation, which he said may prevent conforming parking. He said the submittal did not show a curb cut or the exact dimensions and advised the applicant to prepare a plan showing the proposed layout and any relief sought.
Members also asked staff to clarify whether Litchfield Terrace is a private way and whether the owner of 84 Walker Street has legal rights to use it for a driveway or curb cut. The board pointed to project review comments from DPD noting stormwater and urban‑heat concerns and recommending consideration of permeable paving and additional landscaping; members said the applicant should address those comments in revised plans.
After discussion, Member McCarthy moved to continue ZBA‑2025‑17 to the board's June 9 meeting; the motion was seconded by the vice chair. The roll call vote to continue was recorded as unanimous. The board asked the applicant to submit a dimensioned site plan showing the total paved area, indicate whether proposed paved areas are to be used for active parking or storage, confirm rights of access to Litchfield Terrace with city engineering, and review DPD recommendations on permeable materials and tree planting prior to the continued hearing.
The board emphasized that if the applicant does not have legal access to Litchfield Terrace or cannot secure a curb cut, the board cannot grant a variance that would permit use of another party’s private way. The continuation gives the applicant time to produce the requested documentation and to consult with city engineering and DPD staff.
