Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 27, 2022 at 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: Vice Chair Pech, Member Callahan, Member McCarthy, Member Briere, Member Procope Members Absent: Chairman Perrin, Member Njoroge Others Present: Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 6/27/2022 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. Vice Chair Pech called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Continued Business ZBA-2022-3 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: 505 Capital Partners, LLC Property Located at: 38-40 Swift Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 and Section 6.1.10 Petition: 505 Capital Partners, LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to subdivide the existing lot at 38-40 Swift Street and construct a new two-family dwelling on the new lot. The property is located in the Traditional Neighborhood Two-Family (TTF) zoning district and requires Variance approval under Section 5.1 for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum frontage, minimum and maximum front yard setbacks, minimum side yard setback, and minimum rear yard setback, under Section 6.1.10 to exceed the maximum allowed curb cut, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Ken Lania, Engineer for the project spoke on behalf. He stated that the project was continued, as they were waiting on approval from Historic Commissioner Steven Stowell. K. Lania then produced an email of approval from S. Stowell, and provided copies of it for the Board. K. Lania stated that S. Stowell said it would not take away from the in-kind view of the neighborhood. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere said that this project was a good example of how the process should work. The project was originally frowned upon by DPD, but the developer worked with DPD staff to make changes. M. Briere believed the revised plans are good and should win approval. D. McCarthy agreed with M. Briere that the process has been well done. He stated that he would like to see the Site Plan corrected as it does not have the walkways included, and that he would like to condition approval on a revised Site Plan. D. McCarthy also asked if trees and shrubs are identified on the Site Plan, which K. Lania pointed out to him. S. Callahan concurred with his colleagues and stated that the project is beneficial to the neighborhood. G. Procope echoed the sentiments of his colleagues, and in particular was pleased with the revision process between DPD and the developer. V. Pech agreed with his fellow members, and stated that the project will help fill a housing need in the city. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and M. Briere seconded the motion to APPROVE the variances with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit revised site plans to DPD including the front walkways and calculations for impervious cover and landscaped area. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). ZBA-2022-21 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Manuel Bermeo Property Located at: 225 Cross Street 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Manuel Bermeo has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals for the construction of a deck and the associated stairs at 225 Cross Street. The property is located in the Traditional Multi Family zoning district, and requires a variance for side yard setbacks under Section 5.1 and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Christian Morales, the applicant’s architect, spoke on behalf and summarized the project. He said the applicant realized during construction of the deck and stairs that there was not enough space to meet the setback, but that he feels the minimal relief necessary qualifies the project for a variance. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy agreed with the comments from DPD that a Variance should be granted. All other Board members concurred. V. Pech stated that he believes this would be a good addition to the home and neighborhood. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and G. Procope seconded the motion to APPROVE the Variance. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). ZBA-2022-29 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Regina Medeiros Property Located at: 33 Ludlam Street 01850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 and Section 4.3.5 Petition: Regina Medeiros has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of appeals seeking retroactive Variance approval for a pool and covered patio at 33 Ludlam Street. The property is located in the Traditional Single-Family (TSF) zoning district and requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum side yard setback and minimum floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, per Section 4.3.5 for relief from the accessory structure setback requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Regina Medeiros, the applicant, spoke on her own behalf. She stated that she put in the pool and the covered patio and that she didn’t realize she needed Variances. R. Medeiros said that the pool has been there for 5 years. She also explained that she put the cover on the patio for shade. She wanted to make sure everything is legalized and is very amenable to work with City Hall. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Richard Bienvenue, the owner of 35 Ludlam Street, spoke in opposition. He stated he has no concerns with the pool and the shed. He spoke against the patio because it is up against the neighbor's house. R. Bienvenue expressed concern that the site plan says “covered addition”, not “covered patio”. He stated he does not want the area to become living space. Discussion: S. Callahan asked if the pool was installed by R. Medeiros, who confirmed it. S. Callahan asked if the pool could be moved to be compliant with zoning, to which R. Medeiros agreed. S. Callahan then asked if the shed was there when she purchased the property, which R. Medeiros confirmed. R. Medeiros said the shed is only used to store tools. S. Callahan then asked what the roofing material over the patio is. R. Medeiros said it is clear plastic, and that when she asked prior to construction, the next door neighbors were fine with it. S. Callahan said she should submit an updated site plan to show how far the pool is from the house. G. Procope stated that it was tough to make a decision on this without an updated site plan. M. Briere asked R. Bienvenue to clarify that he is interested in ensuring the patio is not becoming an enclosed portion of the house. R. Bienvenue confirmed, and said he wants something put on the deed. R. Medeiros said she has no intention of making it living space. M. Briere said there is no precedent for handling pool issues and whether they can make them move the pool. D. McCarthy stated that he was stumped by all the changes that have been made that don’t comply with zoning. He was particularly concerned with the “roofed addition” portion of the Site Plan. He expressed that he wants building department comments on the structure, focusing on if it should be moved anyways because it doesn’t meet code. V. Pech said that he feels R. Medeiros is doing the right thing. He said he would like information on the structure’s foundation and Building Department comments on safety. V. Pech stated that a continuance of this hearing would be best. S. Callahan went over the revised site plan necessities with the applicant. D. McCarthy said it should show the exact dimensions of the backyard. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to continue the project to the August 8th, 2022 hearing. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). ZBA-2022-24 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: JAF 27, LLC Property Located at: 175 Dalton Street 01850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: JAF 27, LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking approval to construct a new attached unit to an existing single-family home at 175 Dalton Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two-Family (TTF) zoning district and requires Variance approval pursuant to Section 5.1 for relief from the front yard setback requirement and minimum side yard setback requirement, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance On Behalf: Ken Lania, the engineer for the project, spoke on behalf. He said that there are concerns from direct abutters and the Engineering Department regarding the project. He requested a continuance to the 8/8 meeting.  Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: None Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to continue the project to the August 8th, 2022 hearing. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). II. New Business ZBA-2022-31 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Allison Dolan-Wilson Property Located at: 68 Hovey Place 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Allison Dolan-Wilson has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking approval to build a farmer’s porch on the front of their house. The property is located in the Suburban Single Family (SSF) zoning district, and requires a Variance under Section 5.1 for front yard setback, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Allison Dolan-Wilson, the applicant, stated that she wants to put a 30x6 farmer’s porch in front of the home. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope said the request is minimal, to which M. Briere concurred. D. McCarthy asked about the placement of the farmer’s porch on the house. A. Dolan-Wilson said the porch does not go all the way across the front because there is a bay window. D. McCarthy noticed that her plan for the porch does not match the Site Plan, and that there should be a condition for an updated Site Plan. S. Callahan concurred. V. Pech said the design keeps to the roots of Lowell and mill city architecture. Motion:  D. McCarthy motioned and M. Briere seconded the motion to APPROVE the Variance with the following condition: 1. The site plan shall reflect that the porch will align with the southeast corner of the home and be setback no less than 5 feet from the roadway. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 6/13/2022 Meeting Minutes D. McCarthy motioned and G. Procope seconded the motion to approve the minutes. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). IV. Adjournment D. McCarthy motioned to adjourn the meeting which passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 7:45 PM.