Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Withdrawal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board accepts withdrawal of two variance petitions for 39 Lynnshore Drive
Summary
At its June 3 meeting the Lynn City Zoning Board of Appeals granted requests to withdraw without prejudice two pending petitions related to 39 Lynnshore Drive after the board received letters from the petitioner's attorney.
At its June 3 meeting, the Lynn City Zoning Board of Appeals accepted requests to withdraw without prejudice two pending cases affecting the property at 39 Lynnshore Drive.
The board received letters dated June 2, 2025, from Samuel A. Vitale, attorney for the petitioner, asking that both matters be withdrawn without prejudice. In one letter Vitale wrote, "Request is made to withdraw without prejudice." In a separate letter he said the petitioner "asks the board for grant of withdrawal without prejudice," citing attempts to address neighbors' concerns.
The letters were read into the record by the chair and acknowledged by the board. The filings referenced the cases by their docket numbers as read during the meeting and noted that a dimensional variance would have been required for the proposal, as indicated in the submission.
Member Krowitz moved to accept the withdrawals; the transcript does not record a second. The board then conducted roll-call votes on each petition. For the first case the members recorded on the roll call as voting "yes" were Member Gilvin, Member Maggio, Member Lopez Hernandez, Member Olson and Member Carlos. For the second case the roll call on the record recorded yes votes from Member Gilvin (referred to in the transcript as "Gil Williamson" in one exchange), Member Maggio, Member Olson, Member Krowitz and Member Lopez Hernandez. The transcript shows the motions were carried and the board closed those agenda items.
The record includes a reference to a statutory filing described in the letters as "Master's law chapter 48 section 6 filing"; the board did not expand on that citation during the meeting. Attorney Lamanna was identified as having been consulted previously but did not speak during the hearing.
No substantive testimony from abutters or additional documentary evidence was presented to the board at the June 3 meeting after the letters were entered and the withdrawals were voted. The chair concluded the items and adjourned the meeting.
The board's actions remove the two petitions from further consideration at this Zoning Board of Appeals proceeding; because the withdrawals were granted without prejudice, the petitioner may refile in the future.
