Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 14, 2020 6:30 P.M. Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For further detail, contact the Division of Development Services, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA or refer to video recordings available online at www.LTC.org. Members Present: Chairman Perrin, Member Pech, Member Callahan, Member McCarthy, Member Briere, Member Procope, Member Njoroge Members Absent: None Others Present: Fran Cigliano, Senior Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 12/14/2020 meeting. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting occurred using the Zoom videoconferencing platform. Chairman Perrin called the meeting to order at 6:35pm. I. Continued Business ZBA-2020-42 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Thanh Pham Property Located at: 50 Wentworth Ave 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Thanh Pham is seeking Variance approval to modify the existing lot lines of two parcels at 50 Wentworth Ave that have merged for the purposes of zoning and build a new single-family home on one of the parcels. Both lots are in the Suburban Single Family (SSF) zoning district. The new home will require Variance approval under Section 5.1 for minimum lot size, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum frontage, and the existing dwelling will require Variance approval under Section 5.1 for the front yard setback, to exceed the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and for any other relief required of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: John Geary, Applicant’s Attorney Thanh Pham, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: James Pollard, 63 Wentworth Ave J. Pollard said that the property is the lot directly across the street from his house. He asked whether the carriage house would be demolished. He is equally concerned about the garage. He noted that both lots are clearly visible from Glenwood Street. He is pleased that the carriage house will be demolished but noted that the garage is substantial. There are two doors but it could fit 4 cars. The number of variances alone to accommodate this tell a story that it’s going to be altered and jerry-rigged to fit this house. The zoning regulations are to protect people from exactly this notion to in effect squeeze a house in. Brad Pacheco, 31 Wentworth Ave B. Pacheco said that there is lack of parking. It is almost impossible to get in and out of the driveway looking both ways. Will cause issues with parking. Did not receive notice and there’s been no posting on the property. Nicole Skaff, 16 Glenwood Street N. Skaff said that there is not much green space left in the City of Lowell and that there would be a lot of construction abutting her property. Nancy Canney, 64 Wentworth Ave N. Canney said that the place would be built next to her home. She believes she has a reasonable expectation of privacy and feels that the home may obstruct sunlight through the side of her home. Kenneth Hood, 18 Wentworth Ave K. Hood said that traffic is a serious problem on this street as is. It is a main thoroughfare between 38 and 133. Bus route. He has concerns about how this will affect traffic. Jessica Medeiros, 33 Gild Street J. Medeiros said that the carriage house sits into a hill. She said she has runoff issues from homes. What will be done with the runoff? Discussion: V. Pech asked the applicant to address the questions brought forth by the abutters. J. Geary said that he appreciates the concerns of neighbors. Anxiety of the unknown. Number of variances, request is minimal. Lot A1 is conforming except for frontage and FAR. These lots are bigger than all but six on adjacent streets. Both lots will provide more than adequate off street parking. There will be no on street parking. Construction has a start and end point. Sign was up but may have fallen down due to weather. V. Pech said that the petition is minimal to moderate relief. He thinks it fits with the neighborhood. T. Pham said that the variance would be minimal. We proposed to take the carriage out. In a way we exchanged one structure for another of a similar size. Please understand my perspective. The reason why we are moving - Andover is a good town. In Andover, the mortgage is $4,000, taxes are $13,500 per year. This house is more sustainable for us. I came to this country when I was 14 years old. I worked hard to get where I am today. We are just trying to do what is best for our family. The size of the home is very reasonable. We have three kids, so four bedrooms is reasonable. Plenty of space to meet front, side, rear setbacks. We believe its minimal disturbance to neighbors. It is important to our family. Told architect to put living room on left side, minimal windows on the right side. We are providing off-street parking, not burdening anybody. J. Geary said that it is in Mr. Pham’s best interest to be conscientious of his neighbors since he will be living here. There shouldn’t be too much of an impact to the neighbors. D. McCarthy discussed the missing elements of the application, namely a site plan with topographic lines. The relief being asked for is not much. It does seem that Mr. Pham should be able to be within 0.35 in FAR on Lot A. He does not understand why numbers don’t work. Feels that the application is incomplete because we don’t have elevations that pertain to the site plan. S. Callahan asked whether the applicant would have a problem with conditioning approval on limiting use of garage for storing cars. J. Geary confirmed this would be no issue. S. Callahan suggests working with DPD on landscaping. T. Pham confirms that he would work with DPD, and J. Geary said he is happy to accommodate that condition. M. Briere hoped that the hearing has alleviated some of the concerns from neighbors. The relief requested is not significant. The concerns did not present major obstacles. As a result he will vote in favor. G. Procope did not think the variance is major but does agree with Member Callahan. You always are concerned about neighbors and how they are impacted. Mr. Pham is trying his best to accommodate and minimize impact that the neighbors would have. I am in favor. R. Njoroge tends to agree with the other Board members. Doesn't look like the project would negatively impact the neighborhood and would bring value to the neighborhood. Grading issue - if the applicant can take care of those issues then the neighbors would feel a lot better. A viable project. G. Perrin wants to make comments relative to the application. The sign was not maintained and he has concerns with the grading. I would seek a continuance for this. D. McCarthy asked the applicant to show proposed grading in the area of the existing carriage house and indications of whether there will be a retaining wall there. Something that would resolve the sloped area. V. Pech said that he was prepared to vote but agree to continuance. G. Procope agreed with Member McCarthy. J. Geary said that he will put the sign back up and get grading information for the next hearing. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and V. Pech seconded the motion to continue the hearing to the January 11, 2021 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2020-50 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Coljack Development Corp. Property Located at: 16-20 Court Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Coljack Development Corp. is seeking Variance approval to unmerge two lots that have merged for the purposes of zoning and construct a new single-family house on the vacant lot. The properties are located in the Traditional Neighborhood Two-Family (TTF) zoning district. The existing home at 16 Court Street requires Variances under Section 5.1 for minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, usable open space per dwelling unit, front yard setback, side yard setback, and rear yard setback. The proposed home at 20 Court Street requires Variances under Section 5.1 for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, side yard setback, rear yard setback, and usable open space per dwelling unit and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: George Theodorou, Applicant’s Attorney Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: S. Callahan thanked the petitioner for the presentation and supplemental information. His previous concern was it attempts were made to understand if two family would be a better fit in the parcel in the TTF zone. He would like to see the petitioner work with DPD on a landscaping plan. M. Briere said that he went from being comfortable to confident in this petition. G. Procope said that he feels more comfortable this time around. The city needs housing and it is a hope that this is something that can be affordable and is conducive to the neighborhood. D. McCarthy enjoyed the presentation and agrees that this makes more sense than a two family. This proposal preserves the SF that is there now rather than creating an odd two family. It is a logical solution to pursue in this way. V. Pech said that this is a reasonable project and thanked the petitioner for working with DPD. Overall, he thinks this is the fairest compromise to the petitioner. Will fit into the neighborhood and add needed housing to the city. R. Njoroge is leaning toward favorably granting. Looking at raw numbers, we are getting an improvement. He leans toward approving and has no problems whatsoever. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and D. McCarthy seconded the motion to APPROVE the variances with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and remove the concrete patio. The applicant shall convert the area once covered by the concrete patio to greenspace in consultation with DPD. 2. The applicant shall adhere to conditions set forth by the City’s stormwater team outlined in email dated 11/19/2020. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). II. New Business ZBA-2020-55 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Fatumata Jaiteh Property Located at: 173 Westford Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Fatumata Jaiteh has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a new single family home at 173 Westford Street. The property is in the Traditional Neighborhood Multifamily (TMF) zoning district and requires Variance approval under Section 5.1 for minimum lot area, minimum frontage, minimum front yard setback, minimum porch setback, minimum garage setback, minimum side yard setback, and minimum rear yard setback and for any other relief required of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has requested a continuance to the January 11, 2021 ZBA meeting. On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy noted that it does not meet prerequisites for a Variance application, as the sign is not erected on the site. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and D. McCarthy seconded the motion to continue this petition to the January 11, 2021 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0) ZBA-2020-53 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Kazanjian Enterprises Property Located at: 60 Fletcher Street 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1 Petition: Kazanjian Enterprises has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to rehabilitate the existing structure and convert it into a bank and office building. The property is in the Urban Neighborhood Mixed-Use (UMU) zoning district and the Downtown Lowell Historic District. The conversion requires Variance relief from the off-street parking requirement per Section 6.1 and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Brian Milisci, Applicant’s Representative Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere said that this is a really exciting project that will add to the revitalization of the area. There are parking concerns but the value of repurposing this building far outweighs any relief that may be asked for. Wholeheartedly in favor of the project. R. Njoroge said that this looks like an exciting project. Only problem is the parking. Based on revitalization of the city, that should be relief we could consider. G. Procope agreed with fellow board members. This would be an exciting project. Right along where other modifications are being made, the Court House. In addition to the parking, there should be consideration about the foot traffic. That area is heavily driven. G. Procope hoped the applicant could mitigate traffic in the area, especially in the future as the court house is done and people are walking back and forth from that bank. V. Pech agreed that this is an exciting project and good reuse of this building. A good way to re-energize the downtown area. D. McCarthy said that he is not used to seeing a completely commercial project. Used to mixed use. D. McCarthy discussed how the parking requirement is less applicable to a historic property with a more inefficient layout. He could easily justify the parking ratio. He is looking to condition a 6 month review or one year review. Since this project is downtown, close to the train, would see some of that foot traffic. Need for parking would be reduced. A lot of comments from the city, particularly regarding pedestrians. Why are there so many loose ends here? B. Milisci said that they provided a response letter to City comments. Outlining the loose ends. They are starting here with the ZBA but then will have a hearing with the Planning Board. He would like to get the input of the ZBA to see if there’s anything else they would like to see. The applicant is more than willing to work with DPD to go through all the comments. S. Callahan asked F. Cigliano whether they could condition approval on meeting the Planning Board conditions. F. Cigliano confirmed they could. S. Callahan would like the applicant to work with DPD to come up with a plan for overflow parking. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and M. Briere seconded the motion to approve the variance with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall abide by all other conditions from other land use boards; 2. The applicant shall work with DPD on a parking plan to seek additional parking spaces for overflow parking; and 3. The applicant shall be subject to a 6 month administrative review through DPD. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2020-54 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Joseph & Denise McCue Property Located at: 24 Westchester Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Joseph & Denise McCue have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a second- story addition at 24 Westchester Street. The property is located in the Suburban Neighborhood Single- Family (SSF) zoning district and requires Variance relief under Section 5.1 for relief from the maximum FAR requirement and all other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Denise and Joe McCue, Applicants J. McCue said that they would like to add 224 sq. ft. of space over an existing room. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy said that he thinks this is a great project and wants to support a fellow EV vehicle driver. The application doesn’t have a lot of detail to it that typically comes through with a variance request. Don’t have a site plan that helps us understand the total lot area and how that building sits on the lot. Looking for floor plans and a site plan. Lacking in pre-requisites. Would be willing to make a condition is no more than 0.42 and that the plan for addition will be one open space as indicated on framing plan. Don’t have a problem. Maintain the property really well. Wish we had a more thorough package. G. Procope said that he is in line with Member McCarthy. M Briere said that it appears as though the dimensions would mirror the existing footprint. Applicant confirms. M. Briere therefore has no issues. V. Pech said that he thinks the Board can approve. Not a big ask for a lot of relief. R. Njoroge said that he can see where Member McCarthy is coming from in that they don’t have plans that would meet approval of the building department. No objections, but under the condition that the building department verifies. S. Callahan said that this project meets the threshold, provided that the applicant meets condition that it won’t exceed FAR of 0.42 and will be a single room. G. Perrin said that the pre-required documents that were not submitted. He has a problem with making conditions on an incomplete applications. It took several years as a board to ensure that all applications are consistent and complete. DPD provides a checklist. He feels very strongly that we can move forward and condition all the conditions backwards and it’s not consistent with fairness and balance to other petitioners. He is not comfortable moving forward with this tonight, conditioning items that are required. This is a process that may be new to the petitioners. He understands the petitioners are asking for something simple, but these may become violations. He does not think it’s fair for Member McCarthy to be pigeon picking through the documents online. I think this will all work itself out as they always do. This is a flexible board but he thinks the point of consistency is important. D. McCarthy said it is not a big ask. We should hold to what the bylaws say and ask for the prerequisites to be met. M. Briere said that as he stated earlier he does favor the petition. The precedence and consistency of our protocol protects the integrity of the board. It’s a goal that we all share. While he does favor the petition and looks forward to assisting this homeowner, he does think the chair made sense and it provides for fairness for all future applicants. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and D. McCarthy seconded the motion to continue the petition to the January 11, 2021 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2020-56 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Nelson Group Property Located at: 610 Gorham Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1 Petition: Nelson Group has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to redevelop the existing building at 610 Gorham Street into a four-unit residential structure. The building currently has three residential units and one vacant commercial unit. The subject property is located in the Urban Neighborhood Mixed Use (UMU) zoning district and requires Site Plan Review approval per Section 11.4 to expand a residential structure with more than three dwelling units, Special Permit approval per Section 12.1(d) for the use, and a Variance per Section 6.1 for relief from the off-street parking requirement. On Behalf: John Bavuso, Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy said that the request for permit sign needs to include a site plan. The 8.5 by 11 is not legible from the road and does not include a site plan. It’s not large enough and does not include minimum requirements including a site plan. J. Bavuso said that he would be more than happy to request a continuance for the sign and incorporate an updated site plan. S. Callahan said that the renderings were sent to us right before the hearing. Have not seen floor plans. That’s something else I would like to see.  D. McCarthy was concerned that they would require additional relief. The site plan lacks detail. S. Callahan discussed the building plans and means of egress for residents. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and V. Pech seconded the motion to continue the petition to the January 11, 2021 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). III. Other Business Minor Modification Request: 52 Staveley Street 01852 The applicant is seeking to modify their proposal to construct an addition onto their existing single- family home by extending the addition in the front, rear, and side of the home. They received Variance approval at the 1/27/2020 ZBA meeting. On Behalf: Michelle DeAlmeida, Applicant M. DeAlmeida: We are looking to add 337 sq. ft. extra. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: S. Callahan said that his concern at the last meeting was whether or not this would need a minor modification or a new application. You are saying now you have no intention of additional construction on front at this time? M. DeAlmeida said that they would go through with that at a later date. S. Callahan said looking at the additional requests from the previous petition, understanding the circumstances with no concerns from DPD, provided that the bump out request is withdrawn, he would have no problem considering this a minor modification. R. Njoroge said that he is in line with what Member Callahan was saying and would like to see if application meets setback requirements. V. Pech said that he has no issues with this application. M Briere said that he thinks with the removal of the bump out changes what was asked for at the last hearing. He thinks the Board can approve this petition. D. McCarthy would like to condition that the plans that were submitted that include the bump out are modified so that what we are approving is clear. Sheet 2-8 and 3-8 and 4-8. Clean up the application to reflect what the applicant is looking for. Should remove the front elevation and right side elevation that indicate the addition taking place and indicate what we are approving tonight. Condition that we revise those sheets and have them resubmitted. This is a sorry situation we are in where the foundation was poured and enlarged the foundation. In the future, this thing should be caught before foundations are poured. We are creating a stressful situation for everyone involved, would be digging up foundation if not approved. G. Perrin appreciates comments of his colleagues. He would reluctantly support this. The foundation being poured, making conditions on a previously approved variance, its not the proper process. Minor modification has become major modification. He has concerns about making conditions on previously approved variances. Puts the Board in a difficult position to deny this type of modification and disassemble a foundation. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and D. McCarthy seconded the motion to state that the modification is minor and approve the proposed modifications with the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall submit a new site plan and building plans to DPD showing that the bump out has been removed. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). Minor Modification Request: 200 Chelmsford Street 01851 The applicant is seeking to modify their previously approved Special Permit by upgrading the current reader board faces to the new style of lights presently available that have graphics in addition to text. On Behalf: Roger Montbleau, Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: The Board members did not see any issues and stated that relief could be granted. Straightforward issue. S. Callahan asked the applicant to describe the nature of the new sign. The applicant said that it would be an improvement and would be very basic. Clearer, more like a picture, a selection of colors. S. Callahan asked if it would be the same mold of digital sign but have programming more like a TV. The applicant said it would be similar to the Hogan Tire one. D. McCarthy asked if the sign would be moving or still. He doesn’t know if that would affect safety or driving. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and M. Briere seconded the motion to approve the Special Permit with the following condition: 1. The sign shall comply with all other previously approved regulations as they pertain to  digital signage. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). Staff Update: 153 Westford Street 01851 D. McCarthy said that the existing shed was razed. What’s left behind is asphalt. He would expect that to be part of the shed demo. G. Perrin asked that staff remind the applicant that that area needs to be converted to green space. Staff Update: Bowers House (150 Wood Street) 01851 The Board was not satisfied with the condition of Lowell’s oldest standing house but understands that enforcing its minimum maintenance/condition is outside of its purview. Additional Comments from Board Members: G. Perrin thanked the City and Members for continuing to offer public hearings throughout the COVID pandemic. He wishes everyone a happy holiday season. D. McCarthy wished everyone happy holidays and thanked the Planning Department. V Pech said that he echoed the same sentiments. It has been a hard year for everybody. He admires how we stood up in terms of doing things the right way and are as fair and by the process as much as possible. S. Callahan thanked DPD and the City of Lowell for their hard work during hard times. Thinking outside the box using technology with Zoom calls to make sure citizens have their requests addressed fairly. He congratulated Robert for joining the ZBA and congratulated Fran for ascending to Senior Planner. He thanked C. McCall for staffing the last meeting. R. Njoroge thanked the Members for the warm welcome. He is really impressed with his first meeting. Very deliberate comments by all members. He is impressed and happy to be here. G. Procope thanked the Board for welcoming him this year and is looking forward to next year. He is looking forward to meeting in person at some point next year. Minutes for Approval: November 23, 2020 S. Callahan motioned and D. McCarthy seconded the motion to approve the minutes from the 11/23/2020 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). Adjournment S. Callahan motioned and R. Njoroge seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 10:24 PM. New Business to Be Advertised by November 29, 2020 and December 6, 2020