Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday, June 16, 2025 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA Remote Participation Optional via Zoom Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For a recording of the meeting, visit www.ltc.org Members Present Chairman Linnehan Member Cheng Member Tenczar Member Walker Members Absent Vice Chair Frechette Associate Member Sar Associate Member Cardoso Silva Others Present Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner A quorum of the Board was present. Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Minutes for Approval 6/02/2025 D. Tenczar motioned to approve. T. Linnehan approved. The vote was unanimous (4-0). II. Continued Business III. New Business Definitive Subdivision – 318 Andover Street 01852 Greg Looney has applied to the Lowell Planning Board to subdivide the existing lot at 318 Andover Street. The subject property is located in the Suburban Single-Family (SSF) zoning district. The newly created lot will not meet the minimum frontage requirement pursuant Section 5.1 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. The project requires Definitive Subdivision approval from the Planning Board under Lowell’s Subdivision of Land Regulations. *Please note this application was out of order and was heard last* On Behalf: No one appeared. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Linnehan noted they had received a continuance from the ZBA to 6/23. He recommended a continuance. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned to extend the application to the September 4 hearing with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall sign the City’s designated continuation form within the next two weeks. C. Cheng seconded. The vote was unanimous (4-0). Tree Hearing – Van Greenby Road 01851 In Accordance with MGL Ch. 87.5 and the Chapter 260 of the Lowell Code of Ordinances, the Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons about the proposed removal of one (1) tree at 2 Van Greenby Road with a DBH of approximately 34”, one (1) tree at 24 Van Greenby Road with a DBH of approximately 28”, one (1) tree at 29 Van Greenby Road with a DBH of approximately 40”, two (2) trees at 61 Van Greenby Road with approximate DBHs of 31” and 29”, one (1) tree at 70 Van Greenby Road with a DBH of approximately 30”, and two (2) trees at 75 Van Greenby Road with approximate DBHs of 28” and 23”. The removal of these trees is necessary to maintain the integrity of the public sidewalk and utilities. On Behalf: DPW Commissioner Paul St. Cyr clarified some aspects of the proposed tree removals. Some residents on Van Greenby Road have been having issues with utility damage. The trees have outgrown the space. The flexipave wouldn’t help with those issues. The roots are well above the sidewalk plane on some of the trees and trimming the roots may damage them. Some of the trees are losing limbs or are infested by carpenter ants. Would like to continue so they can submit a replanting plan. T. Linnehan noted that there are 10 trees marked but only 8 applied for. The second trees at 24 and 29 Van Greenby were not included on the request. Asked if P. St. Cyr has spoken with the neighbors. He confirmed. T. Linnehan asked if any of the trees could be saved. They may be able to use flexipave at 2 Van Greenby Road. Speaking in Favor: Christina Nikitopolous of 24 Van Greenby spoke in support. The trees cause significant issues for the sidewalks. Two years ago, she had flooding damage in her basement from two separate events. She had utility problems because of the trees. Roots have gotten into the pipes. Family member fell and needed EMT assistance. Sidewalk was so bad they did not know what path to take that was safest. Joseph Jussaume of 50 Van Greenby Road. Would like to maintain the character of the neighborhood but the sidewalks are in awful shape. Want to make sure there are handicap accessible entrances to the sidewalks. Speaking in Opposition: James McCabe of 61 Van Greenby Road. Not explicitly opposed to the tree removals. Concerned about ensuring the trees need to be replanted and that the replacement of the sidewalk remains concrete not asphalt. They would also like a timeline on the whole process. Brian Molinari of 5 Raynor Street. Not a neighborhood resident but works in the tree business. Not necessary to take these trees down to fix the sidewalks. Flexipave would work. Tree roots go through bad pipes, not PVC pipes. It will take a long time for the replacement trees to grow. Discussion: D. Tenczar asked to see what the final road layout will look like, as well as an existing conditions plan. Feels for people who are having utility issues, but the trees are critical to the aesthetic of the neighborhood. He would also like to see a plan where the utilities are marked because it would show them where they can and can’t replant. Noted that at 24 Van Greenby there is probably not a choice as whether the tree L. Walker concurred. Happy to see the City is looking into alternative methods such as the flexipave. C. Cheng wanted to make sure the replanting plan shows the ten trees that had signs, not the eight listed on the application. Wants to emphasize that public safety is also very important. Does not want to leave trees up that may risk that. Solutions will require flexibility. T. Linnehan agreed with the continuance. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned to continue to the July 21, 2025 meeting. D. Tenczar seconded. The vote was unanimous (4-0). Site Plan Review and Special Permit – 246 University Ave 01854 Marsha Hebert has applied to the Lowell Planning Board for Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval to convert a three (3) unit residential and one (1) unit commercial building into a four (4) unit residential building. The property is located in the Traditional Mixed-Use (TMU) zoning district. It requires Site Plan Review approval under Section 11.4.2(2) for an expansion of a residential structure with more than three dwelling units and a Special Permit under Section 12.1(c) for four (4) dwelling units on one lot. On Behalf: Ian Ainslie, the applicant’s Engineer. I. Ainslie gave a brief description of the site. Building currently a ground floor commercial and three residential units on the upper floors. The proposal would change it to a four unit residential building. Not proposing any site work. Will also need ZBA approval for Variances. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: C. Cheng asked about parking and trash removal. I. Ainslie said it is on City trash. There are 7 spaces on the site. They are not currently striped. That parking layout will stay the same. C. Cheng asked how many bedrooms there are. I. Ainslie said there will be 10 bedrooms when the project is completed. C. Cheng confirmed they are not changing any interior space. Are the new units going to use the glass panels? M. Hebert said they will be removing the one in the front and one of the sides. D. Tenczar thinks this is a good project. The neighborhood has many multifamily buildings. However, not sure the parking spaces meet dimensions to be considered five spaces. The spaces on 5 th Ave may not be legal. I. Ainslie said there technically will be a decrease in traffic because the previous commercial use had customers going in and out. D. Tenczar thinks it can’t fit a full size car without impeding the City ROW. I. Ainslie conceded the point but noted there is also a sidewalk that can be used across the street. T. Linnehan read the Transportation Engineer’s comments regarding the parking. She confirmed that the parking does impede onto City property, and that any future sidewalk expansion may make the spaces even smaller. Noted that the building will have to be sprinkled. Said the Traffic Engineer suggested putting an ADA area behind the parking. I. Ainslie said that would bump parking further out into the street. M. Hebert said the parking situation at that business has been in place for decades. It would be challenging for a commercial use to be successful there. There is such a need for apartments in the City. Have never had issues with parking. D. Tenczar said families have more and more cars these days that could create the parking issues. Doesn’t feel he can support it. M. Hebert said the residential use will have less parking than a commercial use. I. Ainslie asked to request a continuance in order to address the parking situation. T. Linnehan noted that the building needs to be sprinkled. C. Cheng said that a change of use triggers all these code updates. Willing to see how parking could be addressed and how they can make the case for an alternative parking situation. D. Tenczar noted that even if the ZBA approves parking relief, the Planning Board still has their own jurisdiction over parking. Motion: D. Tenczar motioned to continue to the September 4 meeting. Seconded by C. Cheng. The vote was unanimous, (4-0). IV. Other Business V. Further Comments from Planning Board Members VI. Adjournment D. Tenczar motioned to adjourn. C. Cheng seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38.