Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 13, 2022 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, Vice Chair Pech, Member Callahan, Member McCarthy, Member Briere, Member Procope Members Absent: Member Njoroge Others Present: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 6/13/2022 meeting. This meeting was held in the City Council chambers. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, attendees had the ability to participate via Zoom as permitted by the Governor’s 3/10/2020 emergency order to suspend certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law. Chairman Perrin called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Continued Business ZBA-2022-11 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Lynn Lowell LLC Property Located at: 4-8 Wiggin Street & 153 Willie Street 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1; Section 5.1 Petition: Lynn Lowell LLC has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Variance approval to construct an 11-unit residential structure on the currently vacant lots at 4-8 Wiggin Street & 153 Willie Street. The subject property is located in the Urban Neighborhood Multi-Family (UMF) zoning district and requires Variance approval under Section 6.1 for relief from the off-street parking requirement, under Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum side yard setback and minimum rear yard setback, and for 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: None Motion: S. Callahan motioned and V. Pech seconded the motion to withdraw the application without prejudice. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2022-16 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Madgi Mikhael Property Located at: 22 Bellevue Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1, Section 5.1 Petition: Madgi Mikhael has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to convert the existing 2-family residential structure at 22 Bellevue Street into a 3-family residential structure. The subject property is located in the Traditional Neighborhood Multifamily (TMF) zoning district and requires Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 6.1 for relief from the off-street parking requirements, Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum usable open space per dwelling unit requirements, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: The Board confirmed with staff that they could deny a petition when a petitioner fails to attend. F. Cigliano confirmed yes. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and D. McCarthy seconded the motion to APPROVE the variances. The motion failed (0-5). Variances denied. ZBA-2022-22 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: ZR Development Group LLC Property Located at: 72-74 Boisvert Street & 253 W Sixth Street 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1; Section 5.1; Section 8.1.3(4) Petition: ZR Development Group has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Variance approval to redevelop the existing St. Louis School building at 72-74 Boisvert Street and 253 W Sixth Street into nineteen (19) residences with twenty four (24) off-street parking spaces. The application requires Variance approval under Section 6.1 for relief from the off-street parking requirement, Section 5.1 for relief from the land area per dwelling unit requirement and usable open space requirement, under Section 8.1.3(4) for relief from the minimum square footage requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: John Geary, Applicant’s Attorney J. Geary presented the application and provided a summary. Reducing impervious cover by 20%. Young professionals and small families – the target market for the apartments – mitigates parking concerns. It is in the interest of developers to manage parking well. Interior/exterior bike racks. Updated flood plans for building showing transportation board within lobby to provide train/bus schedules and will accommodate other micro-mobility options. Sufficient on-street parking availability, according to the on-street parking assessment. There are other vacant St. Louis properties on the vicinity. Have been before the Planning Board twice. The Planning Board initially provided feedback to plans and recommended an on-street parking study. Both of their requests have been completed. At the last meeting, the Planning Board suggested holding off on a vote until after the ZBA votes. The team has met with the neighbors. The developer is putting the best possible project forward. Construction costs and interest rates are rising. They have invested millions in the city and will be investing $4 million in the project. It is a long-term investment for them, not a get-rich-quick scenario. There is currently no real estate tax being generated from this property. Its redevelopment will stabilize the property. If it is denied, a similar proposal may come back, or a more detrimental use, or it will remain vacant. The property will be redeveloped at some point. Housing is the highest and best use of the property. Mark O’Hara, Applicant’s Engineer M. O’Hara said that they angled the parking to encourage one-way circulation. They relocated and screened the dumpster. They increased the Usable Open Space by an additional 5,000 sq. ft. They have been working with Mike Stuer to improve stormwater recharge on the site. The site is currently 100% impervious. Keri Owen, Architect K. Owen said that they would be repurposing the school into 19 dwelling units with 5 studios, 8 two bedrooms, and 6 one bedrooms. They are not required to provide ADA units or an elevator. Andrew Arsenault, Applicant’s Traffic Engineer A. Arsenault said that they did an inventory of the on-street parking in the study area. The parking issues are mostly on Beaulieu Street. Speaking in Favor: Fred Faust, 52 Lawrence Drive F. Faust said that he had been to the property more than 50 times and had never had an issue parking. The building will be developed over time. We have seen nuisance issues in the area. The property has been broken into. They have cameras. It is not good to have it vacant for a long period of time. There are successful developments where you have to walk to a parked car. The developers want to be responsible. Speaking in Opposition: Sandy McNamara, 78 Beaulieu Street S. McNamara showed a map of adjacent properties. She received the parking study. People park on the sidewalks, in front of gates. Park at bus stops. Park wherever they can. Biggest thing is quality of life. More overcrowding. Traffic. Kids in parks. More traffic. Traffic is horrendous any time of day and night. Why can’t it be a four family? Ellen Wright, 92 Boisvert Street E. Wright said that this is the third time she has come before the city. It is hard to choke back tears having to recall her son being struck by a car on the corner of Ennell. The driver was probably looking for a parking space. There are a lot of children in that neighborhood. It is only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured or killed. The fire trucks had trouble accessing a fire on the street. Sandy has begged residents to come out. It is a disgrace that it has come this far. Dennis Deacon, 51 Homestead Rd D. Deacon commented on the fire that occurred on the street. Mike Harrington, 201 Christian Street M. Harrington lives near the Varnum School. This is a similar project. Shortly after developing that property, the gentleman developing it wanted to put more apartments on the third floor. The parking should be figured out. The City should not lose this developer. Larry Harding, 88 Boisvert St Emotions are high. Parking is a crisis. A child got hit by a car. This specific neighborhood is highly congested. Parking is the issue. Trash and fire trucks struggle to get around. The parking report is inaccurate. Amazon trucks keep happening. Families, more vehicles. Neighborhood feels like they are grasping at straws. The impacts- where does the snow storage go? There are no extra spaces in the winter. The report is inaccurate and this needs to be recognized. Rodney Elliott, 15 Cresta Dr R. Elliott said we are a densely populated city. This neighborhood is very dense. He is here to support the neighborhood. Parking has been an issue in many if not most neighborhoods. Regina Fetticante, 169 Bunker Hill Ave R. Fetticante thanked the applicant for angling the parking and changing the access to the parking area. Have an issue with parking. Parking wars could be a true potential in the area. Neighborhood has been plagued with gang issues. Safety becoming a problem with greater density in this neighborhood. Parking in the car in the evening – do not want to park around corner for safety reasons. We are a blue collar neighborhood and people need cars. Bus routes aren’t as available as we would want them to be. Maureen Kelliher, Unsworth Street M. Kelliher said she has lived in the neighborhood for her entire life and is a concerned neighbor. She agrees with what was said about traffic and parking. She read the zoning granting criteria. Thomas Cloutier, 147 Bunker St T. Coullier said that his concern is that the street is one-way. A lot of traffic. Does not think the project makes sense. Marisol Colozo, 220 W Sixth St M. Colozo said that they have had the hardest time parking on a nearby street. They are forced to park in the street because their driveway is blocked. Datda Cloutier, 147 Bunker Hill St Agree with neighbors. Number of units does not make sense. Already have a parking, traffic, and congestion issue. There are children playing. As a resident, fear that children will be hit by vehicles. Still have issues even with the St. Louis School being closed. Darren Berard, 25 Beaulieu Street D. Berard said he has no issues with the building being redeveloped. Parking concerns are strong. Parking wars are already going on. One of the neighbors on the other side of his house almost got into a fight. Already volatile. Making an existing problem worse. Welcomes redevelopment of the property but needs to happen in the right way. Discussion: J. Geary said that he had seen the photos S. McNamara submitted. Provides the chair with other photos. He won’t belabor the point: our challenge is that we have to work within the lot and building we have. Serious challenge with lot size, infrastructure. V. Pech said that people see this as a good repurpose. The number of units and parking is the issue. Some kind of mitigation plan is needed. Potentially leasing off-street spaces at a different location. Reducing the number of units. S. Callahan said that he believes the property is a hardship. He asked about snow storage plans to which J. Geary responded that snow would be removed when necessary. There is also storage on site. S. Callahan asked whether there would be management on-site. J. Geary said yes. S. Callahan asked about plans for package deliveries and mail. K. Owens said that they could varve out a space in the front entry or reduce the utility space to make a package/delivery room. S. Callahan asked whether the rear patio area could be converted into more parking. J. Geary said this would be bad for circulation and would eliminate on-street parking spaces. D. McCarthy said he really likes the idea. Thinks we have to find a way to solve this. Obviously residents are concerned about parking. It is an overwhelming problem. Not being addressed by the parking study apparently. A. Arsenault said that they picked a typical weekday and counted cars. D. McCarthy suggested authorizing a reduced width of spaces to accommodate a few additional cars. J. Geary acknowledged that parking is an issue. M. Briere said that the neighborhood was heard loudly and reasonably. The voices he heard tonight were not what influenced him. He was a 45 year resident of the neighborhood. Things he heard he actually experienced. Was happy when he heard the school would be repurposed. The project as proposed cannot be accommodated. He thinks the parking study does not accurately capture the parking crisis that exists in that neighborhood. G. Procope noted he would be recusing himself from discussion relative to this proposal. G. Perrin asked about waste management. J. Geary said that trash would be removed from the site. G. Perrin said that there were no comments from the Fire Department or LPD. Presume both departments are OK with the proposal. G. Perrin said that private closed schools are repurposed into housing. The reality is that younger professionals and younger married people live in smaller units. G. Perrin said that he sees bike lanes being used every day. Resident issue in 2022 is not the same as it was 10, 15, 30 years ago. Parking is a concern, but I know from experience that these types of properties and sizes are the future. We are a dense city. Open communication and compromise is the key to success. The intent of the developer is to succeed and to provide a need. There is a need. The intent of the neighbors is to protect their interests. Parking is always an issues. Some of the cited issues are city issues, not developer issues. Issues should be brought to the appropriate departments. We are growing very quickly as a city. Passion of the neighbors is great. Some potential compromises – reducing width of parking spaces. Cars aren’t getting bigger. Reducing open space – which has a negative impact on residents within and outside of the development and would create a new variance. He has had family members attend the school. The property has always been busy. Find a balance between quality of life issues. F. Faust added that this has been a healthy discussion and that he is happy to help with any other needed conversations. Motion: S. Callahan motioned to continue to the 7/25 ZBA meeting, seconded by V. Pech, passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2022-25 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: JAF 27, LLC Property Located at: 90 Lupine Rd 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: JAF, 27 LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals for Variance approval to construct a new single-family dwelling on a vacant parcel. The proposed project is located in the Traditional Neighborhood Single Family (TSF) zoning district and requires Variance approval for minimum lot size, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum frontage, and floor to area ratio (FAR) under Section 5.1 and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Ken Lania, Applicant Speaking in Favor: Nathaniel Thompson, resident Speaking in Opposition: Roger DuBois, 98 Lupine Road R. DuBois cited concerns about parking vehicles and a traffic bottleneck. Richard Poirier, 15 Desrosier St R. Poirier said he opposes the petition. Discussion: K. Lania said that he understands that there is a bottleneck in front of the lot. Parking cars there slows other cars down. There will be a four car parking area for this house. V. Pech agreed that the project could help alleviate some parking issues and looks favorably upon the petition. D. McCarthy said that the site plan on the sign shows a different floor plan and site plan than what is being presented. F. Cigliano said that the most current version of the site plan (revised through 10-18- 2019) can be included on the variance decision. Motion: S. Callahan motioned and G. Procope seconded the motion to APPROVE the vairances with the following condition: 1) The variance decision shall reference plans revised through 10-18-2019 The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). II. New Business III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 5/23 Meeting Minutes S. Callahan motioned and G. Procope seconded the motion to approve the minutes. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0).  S. Callahan noted that the date for the early May meeting was wrong. F. Cigliano noted that staff will correct it. S. Callahan also asked staff to update approved minutes from recent meetings. IV. Adjournment S. Callahan motioned to adjourn the meeting which passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 9:50PM.