Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lynn City zoning board grants variance to restore front porch at 15 Alden Street with landscaping condition
Summary
The Lynn City Zoning Board approved a variance allowing property owners Paul Tebow and Valerie Wood to reconstruct a front porch at 15 Alden Street, with a requirement that the owners install landscaping between the porch and the sidewalk.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lynn City Zoning Board approved a variance allowing property owners Paul Tebow and Valerie Wood to rebuild a front porch at 15 Alden Street, a preexisting nonconforming lot, with a condition that the owners install landscaping in the narrow strip between the new porch and the sidewalk.
The case was presented by Dan Cahill, attorney at Cherry Tree Legal, who said his clients have owned the house since the 1940s and asked the board to restore a historically typical porch. "My name is Dan Cahill. I'm an attorney at Cherry Tree Legal ... and I'm here joined by my clients, Paul Tebow and his wife, Valerie Wood," Cahill told the board.
The board considered the variance request under the city zoning ordinance provisions cited by the applicant, which the presentation described as allowing a single-family dwelling on a preexisting nonconforming lot in the R1 single-residence district. The application asks the board to allow a porch projecting 3.6 feet from the inside sidewalk line where the board record listed a 10-foot front-yard requirement, and a side-yard reduction of about 2.3 feet from the right-side line. The parcel was described in the presentation as 3,758 square feet (the board record showed 10,000 square feet is required in R1) with 42 feet of frontage where 75 feet is required, and a current front-yard setback of about 9.6 feet where 10 feet is required.
Cahill said the proposed porch would be accessed from the side/driveway rather than directly from the front and that the porch would restore a feature that existed before zoning was adopted. Neighbors who spoke in favor described similar porches in the area and suggested low-maintenance plantings and pollinator-friendly landscaping for the front strip; one speaker identified themselves as Anderson of 12 Concord Street.
After discussion, the board voted to grant the variance with a stipulation that the narrow front strip be landscaped. Member Peter Christopher, Member Victor Olsen and Member Krowitz recorded votes in favor; the motion carried and the board clerk announced the approval with the landscaping condition.
Votes at a glance - 15 Alden Street — Variance to allow front porch reconstruction with landscaping stipulation: Approved (voice vote; recorded affirmative votes included Member Peter Christopher, Member Victor Olsen, Member Krowitz). - Multiple property hearings (continuances) — Several cases were continued to the board's March 4 meeting: 39 Lynn Shore Drive (continued to March 4), 28 Arlington Street (continued to March 4), 28 Orange Street (continued to March 4), and 29 Lincoln Street (continued to March 4). Motions to continue were made and seconded and were recorded as carried. - Minutes of the previous meeting — Approved (voice vote: "Aye").
The board convenor noted at the start of the session that only four board members were present and that "You need 4 positive votes in order for your project to pass," emphasizing why some applicants elected to request continuances to a later meeting when more members might attend.
The board's approval restores a porch-style architectural feature common in the neighborhood and imposes a modest landscaping requirement intended to soften the narrow frontage between the new porch and the public sidewalk. The board record supplied by the applicant lists the relevant dimensional shortfalls (3.6-foot porch projection, roughly 2.3-foot side-yard reduction, 3,758-square-foot lot where 10,000 is required, and 42 feet of frontage where 75 feet is required). No appeal schedule or additional special conditions beyond the landscaping stipulation were specified on the record.
The applicants and their attorney were present at the hearing; other nearby residents offered comment in support. Several other agenda items were continued at the request of applicants to the board's March 4 hearing to allow more board members to be present.

