Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday, July 21, 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 Vice Chair Frechette Member Cheng Member Tenczar Member Walker Associate Member Sar Associate Member Cardoso Silva Members Absent None Others Present Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner A quorum of the Board was present. Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Minutes for Approval 6/16/2025 Meeting Minutes II. Continued Business 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: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: James McCabe, 61 Van Greenby Road J. McCabe asked about a replacement plan. T. Linnehan said that’s what they asked for. J. McCabe said the street work is uneven on nearby Ruth Street - sprinklers are hanging out. G. Frechette said these are tree hearings and that the work on Ruth Street is under the purview of DPW, not the Planning Board. G. Frechette said the material for September 4 meeting will be uploaded to the city website. Discussion: T. Linnehan noted that the applicant had submitted a continuance request to the September 4, 2025 Planning Board meeting. Motion: G. Frechette motioned and D. Tenczar seconded the motion to continue the hearings to the September 4, 2025 Planning Board meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). III. New Business Definitive Subdivision - 129 Llewellyn and 115 Christian Street 01850 The Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Christian Hill Homes, LLC to subdivide the property at 129 Llewellyn Street & 115 Christian Street into 17 lots and construct a new single-family home on each lot. The subject property is located in the Suburban Single-Family (SSF) zoning district. The project requires Definitive Subdivision approval from the Planning Board under Lowell’s Subdivision of Land Regulations. On Behalf: David Plunkett, Applicant’s Attorney Mark O’Hara, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Corey Robinson, 5 W Tenth Street C. Robinson cited concerns about erosion control and the construction process. One mature tree can reduce stormwater runoff. Many trees were clear cut. Looking for engineering plans showing stormwater mitigation. The plan eradicated landscaping. Much more impervious space would be added with this plan. Mike Harrington, 201 Christian Street M. Harrington said that the state said there is no wetlands, but there is still water. Right now, there is a plan by the City of Lowell to take down 63 trees from the reservoir. These trees absorb water. Water will flow into the apple orchard and I think it will affect the area. What can be done by the city to protect the people who will end up buying these places? Can the city have the developer go in and dig out lot 1 to make sure nothing is contaminated in the ground? Sandy McNamara, President of Centralville Community Coalition S. McNamara said the concern is water runoff. It was a mud pit yesterday. Flow that came down the street - i thought it was going to move my car. The other issue was when the trees were there it was an apple orchard. I know for a fact they had treated the trees so that they would no longer have growth for the apples. That would be a contaminant I would be concerned with. Who can afford market rate housing? That’s not what the city is looking for. For the people that are looking, it is not up on the hill. I think there’s a lot for the developer to look at to satisfy the neighborhood. Andy Richards, 35 Reservoir Street A Richards said the city has not addressed water problem coming off the reservoir. Discussion: G. Frechette said it’s a big site. The topography of the site is extremely challenging. Can you give us an idea of what the finished grade of those sites is going to look like? M. O’Hara said we design to one inch in 10 minutes - 4x intensity of storm we just experienced. This site has a separated sewer and stormwater system. G. Frechette said he is disappointed we don’t have comments from the engineering department. M. O’Hara said each roof has a tank for runoff. M. O’Hara described the earth moving that is proposed for the property. He said he is not surprised about the experiences the neighbors have had with water. This is basal till soil. G. Frechette said there was a site full of vegetation. There was no stormwater mitigation on there but there was no impervious surface either. Now we’re adding grading and adding impervious surface. The impervious surface will be mitigated. G. Frechette said that under the subdivision approval - street trees are required. Page 22. So far the applicant has taken an awful lot of vegetation down. Reservoir is having trees cut. Part of subdivision control law is taking into account street trees. I think this site warrants that. Would be looking for a plan that would incorporate street trees along the entire development. All three streets. We have an opportunity here. I think it would benefit the general streetscape. I want comments from the city’s engineering department – we have nothing official on that. That’s a concern making a decision here this evening. I think we owe it to anyone buying homes there making sure we’ve accounted for drainage. I think it’s an opportunity to advance the neighborhood adding street trees there. M. O’Hara said this site wasn’t heavily wooded. The perimeter of it was. M. O’Hara said the applicant has no problem with street trees. It will dress up his lots. G. Frechette said he is pro-housing. You have to turn the dial. It’s about a balance. I think it could be a benefit to the neighborhood. Market rate quality homes. Not a bad thing to have some market rate homes. From that perspective I don’t think its a negative. C. Cheng asked about the middle undeveloped area. M. O’Hara said they would just leave it. It would eventually it would become wooded. Isolated by steep slopes. M. O’Hara said it’s not a wetland but its close to being a wetland. I think the improvements we’re doing to essentially drain the water table - these are going to be lawns. I’ve seen lawns be flagged as wetlands at times. I think even though there will be higher water tables I don’t think it would be high enough to be considered wetlands. D. Tenczar said that there is a really big drop. I like the idea of using this property for homes. We need a wide variety of both low-income, mid-range, and high-income houses. We need the range. I hated the plans. I couldn’t tell what was going on. They are supposed to have drainage and drainage calculations. I couldn’t figure out where the drainage was on these plans. I would want to see the calculations. Those should be reviewed by water, wastewater and engineering for them to verify that they will address the issues raised by neighbors. I also checked google and noticed that it was all covered with trees. I would want to see additional trees planted. A lot of trees were taken off this lot. I would also like to see other types of landscaping. I don’t want to see this development sliding down Christian Hill. M. O’Hara said this is a unique application because an ANR plan was already approved. Subdivision approval is completely different. You’re usually building new roads. It’s a whole stormwater report, hundreds of pages. D. Tenczar said he wants to know what the calculations are. M. O’Hara said for ANRs there’s no requirements for stormwater. No approval from the Planning Board required. But because there is that clause about more than three lots, we have to do subdivision approval. D. Tenczar asked why no retaining walls. M. O’Hara said they would be doing a natural 2-1 slope. I know it sounds steep but we’re able to grade it out without using retaining walls. D. Tenczar said he wants to see what you’re doing for erosion controls. Want feedback from the engineering department. Once again, all I see is a project sliding down a hill and none of us want that. M. O’Hara said these soils are structurally more sound than a really sandy type of soil. M. O’Hara said he has a list of trees that are native New England trees. The applicant has no problem putting in trees that are in harmony with the ones in this area. L. Walker said many of my questions and concerns have already been addressed. I was curious about the infiltration system. Is it above and beyond what is required by permit or as required? M. O’Hara said he has never been in this situation before. M. O’Hara said he doesn’t know where this project lies - ANR or subdivision control law. Did what was required for one house times 17. T. Sar said he is familiar with the property. T. Linnehan said the concern is the slope. I’m surprised we didn’t get anything from stormwater. Maybe they’re satisfied with it. We wish they added more comments but we don’t have them. C. Cheng wants to know the basis of the project from a stormwater perspective. If the stormwater team is unclear, I suggest asking legal. T. Linnehan said they should use subdivision standards. D. Tenczar agreed. Need greater input from water, stormwater, and engineering. Need to see new plan outlining that. G. Frechette said in New Hampshire there are no ANR lots. G. Frechette clarified that they would also like a separate landscaping plan. T. Linnehan said in the middle 2-1 slope area, should vegetation be added? M. O’Hara said 2-1 is the engineering standard for a slope. Soil has some integrity to it. T. Linnehan said need more assurances from the engineering department regarding the slope. D. Tenczar said lots of trees will help the site. D. Plunkett confirmed that they need 1) plans to address erosion control, 2) street trees and general landscaping, 3) frontage of all lots on plan to be submitted - subdivision plan typical, 4) specific infiltration trench plan standard dry well. M. Harrington said concern is house that exists right now that’s south of lot 17. Embankment with 10 ft cliff. A couple of the drawings don’t show that. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned and G. Frechette seconded the motion to continue the item to the September 18 Planning Board meeting. The motion was seconded by G. Frechette and passed unanimously, (5-0). Zoning Amendment - 1190 Pawtucket Boulevard 01854 In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, the Lowell Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an ordinance to amend “The Code of Ordinances City of Lowell, Massachusetts,” with respect to Chapter 290, thereof entitled “Lowell Zoning Code” by extending the existing Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) zoning district to include the entirety of 1190 Pawtucket Boulevard in Lowell, which is presently zoned Suburban Single Family (SSF). On Behalf: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: F. Cigliano explained that there is a desire by the City Administration and City Council to develop this property along the river. The property is in the 100-year flood plain so any development would require Conservation Commission approval. Developing single-family homes at this location would be difficult. D. Tenczar asked why not rezone all the lots along the water. F. Cigliano said DPD could look into this during the zoning review and rewrite process. C. Cheng observed that the SMU zoning district doesn’t have a height limit. Could allow a tower. Not as many single-family houses are around. For more than 3 units, Site Plan Review would still be required. The zoning needs to be looked at in a comprehensive way. Grand view is tall, residential neighborhood right next door. We want something subtle. GF said I would encourage planners not just sitting in a back room. Engage the neighborhood. Lots of things to consider. L. Walker said no questions or comments. T. Sar said he is familiar with the site. The new bridge will be next door. J. Cardoso-Silva said no questions. T. Linnehan said he has no problems with this proposal. Planning staff and the Manager will look into it. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned and T. Sar seconded the motion to issue a positive recommendation to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). Zoning Amendment - 121-135 Branch Street 01851 In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, the Lowell Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an ordinance to amend “The Code of Ordinances City of Lowell, Massachusetts,” with respect to Chapter 290, thereof entitled “Lowell Zoning Code” by extending the existing Traditional Mixed-Use (TMU) zoning district to include an area currently zoned Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) at 121-135 Branch Street. On Behalf: F. Cigliano said that DPD is looking to rezone several properties to expand redevelopment possibilities. It is essentially impossible to redevelop the vacant building at 129 Branch Street under current zoning as it would be limited to 6 total residential units and commercial uses are not allowed. Many of the buildings that would be included in this rezone were mixed use at some point. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. Tenczar said his wife ran a dance studio in one of those buildings 35 years ago. 125, 129, and 135 all had storefronts at one point. Makes sense to me to have businesses and residences. L. Walker said she agrees with Member Tenczar. Some of those properties definitely intended for mixed use. By rezoning, not changing them as is but creating the possibility to do commercial and can support revitalization. C. Cheng said that the building is big and looks dead. Agree with the city on the vision for revitalizing the area. T. Linnehan said he is in favor. G. Frechette said he agrees and its one of the few neighborhoods where the mixed use is successful. Very active commercial area. Really fantastic. I think it’s giving it a chance to succeed. J. Cardoso-Silva said he agrees. T. Sar said he agrees. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned and D. Tenczar seconded the motion to issue a positive recommendation to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). IV. Other Business V. Further Comments from Planning Board Members G. Frechette provided an update on the Rourke Bridge project and the projected timeline. $300 million project. T. Linnehan said this is Fran’s last meeting. We will miss her and wish her well. VI. Adjournment T. Linnehan motioned and G. Frechette seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The time was 8:36PM.