Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 11, 2023 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: Chairman Pech, Vice Chair Callahan, Member Briere, Member Procope, Member Hovey, Member Nickerson Members Absent: Member McCarthy Others Present: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 9/11/2023 meeting. This meeting was held in the City Council chambers. Attendees had the ability to participate via Zoom as permitted by Chapter 107 of the Acts of 2022, signed into law on July 16, 2022. Chairmain Pech called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Continued Business ZBA-2023-7 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Mary Burns Property Located at: 209 Gibson Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Mary Burns has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals for Variance approval to construct a single-family home at 209 Gibson Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Neighborhood Single-Family (TSF) zoning district and requires Variance approval pursuant to Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum frontage, minimum side yard, maximum side yard, and maximum floor area ratio (FAR) requirements and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: John Geary, Applicant’s Attorney Brian Milisci, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Robert Hunt, 48 Florence Ave R. Hunt said they don’t have enough space. Pencil sized lot. Grossly undersized for even this dwelling. The owner has 57% of the required lot size and 50% of frontage. Diane McLeod 239 Gibson Street. D. McLeod said that the board has a responsibility to follow rule of law. Grossly undersized lot. Relying on you to do what’s right for city. Doesn’t meet intent of MGL and are confident this won’t hold up in Superior Court. We will be there within 20 days if it passes. Jennifer Mose, 213 Gibson Street J. Mose said that there is no community support for this project. Extremely small lot size and right next to my house. Its pretty obvious that this will affect us. Adding this house will cause a major parking issue. There were a couple articles about this project in the Lowell Sun. How is privilege a factor here? Connections? Financial funds for this? Close relationships that come into play in decisions that are being made. Speaks volumes to community. Glenn Mose, 211-213 Gibson Street G. Mose said we need to think about the size we’re trying to squeeze into. Street is very narrow. ZBA responsibilities. Zoning ordinance has changed over time. Most houses are two family large Victorian houses. Several Councilors are against this. This isn’t low income. Fred Bahou, 225 Gibson Street F. Bahou said it is a tight knit community with historic homes with character. This home has no character to it. There are cars parked on both sides of the street, its overwhelming. No way to navigate the street. Telephone pole in front of the property. Property hasn’t been maintained properly. This shouldn’t even be a proposal. Erik Gitschier, 34 Livingston Ave E. Gitschier said sometimes it means you need to say no to your friends. This is about profit not people. Attorney Geary is taking notes to make money. Not in the best interest of our city. Friendships over function of our city. Good people leave city because you’ve made a worse neighborhood. Could use a community garden. This home is going to do nothing for anybody. Not going to stop pushing. No reason to wreck these neighborhoods. I know who’s beholden to their friends. We’re the highlands we’re not stupid we see it. We know right from wrong. This is just wrong. Just asking for fairness. John Allen, 95 Bellerose Ave J. Allen said seeing same problem at another property. If you do this it does open it up. I’m worried and here to see how you vote. If this goes through we’re all screwed in Belvidere. Discussion: J. Geary said that he was taken aback from comments from E. Gitschier. Did everything by the book. Discussions about friends and privilege. I called Councilor Gitschier. I did speak with him. Ultimately I have provided board with over 30 lots with less than 5000 sq ft in the neighborhoods with larger homes. We understand it is a smaller lot. That’s what the ZBA does. That’s your function. We feel we have proposed a reasonable and responsible application. Not exacerbating parking issue. B. Milisci added that the planning department asked for utility pole to be shown on site plan. Added to site plan. There’s enough room for 8 foot driveway. M. Briere said that he has been a proponent of this petition from day 1. Comments all on record. I want to fully utilize Vacant lots. I hear voices of neighbors. I respect them. I don’t question your integrity. I thought that the concessions and compromise has emboldened my vote in favor. I remain in favor. Has nothing to do with affordable housing. There is a housing crisis, there’s no doubt. Of course they are selling for profit. The only thing I heard tonight that is different is if this petition was to win approval, when I hear about drainage, and ramifications on abutter. I have not heard that before. B. Milisci said the grade of the lot goes in northwesterly direction. Will not cause a drainage issue. M. Briere said that the proposal utilizes a vacant lot. Expands tax base. Don’t come to a board in these chambers questioning someone’s integrity, on what basis? I know you are hurt. I did so in a consistent manner. I can point to other instances where I voted in favor. 62 properties - 31 are more than 5000 sq ft and 31 are less. Confident with this. I have friends on both sides of this issue. I am in favor. J. Geary said they intend to obtain a stormwater permit. And in addition, Historic Board will be reviewing. G. Procope said he is a neighborhood guy. It is difficult to look at parties who are not in favor and not take it into consideration. The signatures based on everyone that lives on street. When you look at my objection to this project, based solely on variances. When I’ve driven on this street, I look at this lot and it is hard to approve a variance on 3000sq ft. You have to take into consideration that neighbors are here - I’m looking at the zoning bylaws. It’s difficult to support based on the number of variances. SC said he knows emotions are running high on this project. Been on board 14 years. Never had integrity questioned. Find it offensive. Absurb. Absolutely absurd. I vote on every project based on the Zoning Ordinance. I understand this project has been rough for everyone. But to put it on the board and say we are under the influence of others - offensive and I won’t take it. Down to 3 or 4 requested variances from 6. Redone the project. Special hardship needs to be identified. S. Callahan said all the lots are under 7000 sq ft. Lot that’s been sitting there since 1961. I think there is a special hardship. Public good - add more to the tax base. Intent of zoning satisfied. J. Geary said there isn’t detriment to neighborhood. Can’t run afoul of the historic character of neighborhood. T. Hovey said this is a tough one. I don’t know Ms. Burns or Attorney Geary. The integrity of our board members has been called into question. It is unfortunate. Backroom deals and all these other accusations. You’ve already heard the board differs on their opinions. Other projects too. Nothing to do with integrity. We have difference of opinion. Everyone operates in good faith. We get comments from different city departments and we address them when the attorney gets in front of us. Asking them questions that were posed to us. Question about driveway etc. We get opinions from various departments. We can’t vote based on a councilor’s opinion. That has no sway here. I appreciate everyone who came out to speak on this matter. J. Nickerson said he appreciates everyone’s comments. Taking everyone’s comments into consideration. V. Pech thanked those who came out. I respect my colleagues and everyone who comes to speak. We come here, dedicate time and hours. Review each application thoroughly. Don’t know anyone related to this application. Taken aback by some of the comments. Personal nature. I get it’s a heated topic but we’re all professionals. We all have a stake in what happens. No personal agendas. Even for myself I volunteer my time and don’t take the stipend because I believe in service and doing what is right. Hard to get past that so many people are against this. I think it doesn’t meet all three granting criteria. If you had a few people in favor… I get arguments about housing stock. I think it’s too much for the neighbors. Again, my position is not because of anyone talking about character, if they weren’t here I’d vote that way too. J. Geary reiterated that they are proposing a single family home in a single family district on a lot similarly sized to other lots. Feel we meet all criteria. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve seconded by M. Briere, (2-4), motion failed. Members Pech, Procope, Hovey and Nickerson voted to deny. II. New Business ZBA-2023-20 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Mitesh Mistry Property Located at: 22 Carly Way 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Mitesh Mistry has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals for variance approval to construct a two-story addition at 22 Carly Way that would exceed the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The property is located in the Suburban Single Family (SSF) zoning district and requires variance approval under Section 5.1 and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Mitesh Mistry, Applicant Speaking in Favor: Niless Sunn, 30 Carly Way Radrikan Patel, 37 Carly Way Speaking in Opposition: John Lucci, 46 Carly Way J. Lucci said house plans that were submitted referenced a house in Nashua NH. Footprint proposed is smaller than the plans show. Can’t adequately assess what’s going on because we don’t know what they intend to build. Discussion: M. Mistry said he submitted revised floor plans. Submitted the correct floor plans. Just an addition behind the house. We love the city. Been here for 15 years. G. Procope said it appears careful consideration was made regarding potential impacts to the neighborhood. Would look favorably on this. S. Callahan said he is confused about what he is approving. Needs more time to review plans. T. Hovey asked if they would be willing to continue. M. Mistry said yes. J. Nickerson said he agrees would like to see it continued. M. Briere said this was the first time he was seeing plans. Would advise a continuance. V. Pech said they would have to submit revised floor plans anyway. Thought he was doing an ADU unit. We don’t have time to review today. Going to continue to next available meeting and then work with DPD. Motion: G. Procope motioned and T. Hovey seconded the motion to continue the item to November 13, 2023. The motion was seconded by T. Hovey and passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2023-28 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: William R. Renauld Property Located at: 117 Lilley Ave 01850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: William R. Renauld has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to subdivide the existing lot at 117 Lilley Ave which contains an existing two-family lot and construct a new single-family home on the newly-created lot. The properties are located in the Traditional Neighborhood Two Family (TTF) zoning district and require variance approval under Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot size, minimum frontage, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width, minimum usable open space per dwelling unit, minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: George Theodorou, Applicant’s Attorney Speaking in Favor: Zachary Bantley, 196 Ennell Street Z. Bantley expressed support. Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: S. Callahan asked about whether this is a proposed subdivision. G. Theodorou said there is no address for the rear lot. We complied with everything and posted sign at lot. Are creating a lot. Asking permission to build a single family house on it. Thinks this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. T. Hovey asked about driveway setback requirements. T. Hovey said the density of this neighborhood concerns me. Maybe it won’t change character of neighborhood. Zoning now compared to zoning in 1900s. Intent of zoning changed. This neighborhood is very dense and we’re looking for relief from multiple variances. This is the same type of situation as Gibson Street. I have a hard time thinking the intent of changing zoning when it comes to sq ft, I think it was to stop projects like this. I can’t support this. Don’t think there’s anything wrong with plans but don’t think it meets all three criteria. G. Theodorou said he is complying with parking requirements. T. Hovey said it’s not just parking. Concern is the intent of zoning. Neighborhood is so dense. G. Theodorou said by granting a variance he can improve the lot. T. Hovey said the city can change zoning rules. I have to hit all three but this doesn’t meet it. I think I'd be hypocritical to approve this. J. Nickerson said he appreciates the neighbor speaking in favor. M. Briere said he agrees with opening remarks. I am familiar with this neighborhood. My grandparents resided at 183. Easy and consistent with similar petition. I want to utilize these vacant lots to benefit of city - not going to solve housing issue overnight, but are going to solve it one home and one family at a time. I am in favor. G. Procope said he is in favor. He is not going to base opinion based on previous decision on other property. This area the plan is going to fit the neighborhood and there would be minimal impact. Street is larger. Based on its own merit. V. Pech said he agrees that you are seeking a lot of relief for this lot. To me, every item is different. Thinks this would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve the variances, seconded by S. Callahan (4-1) with T. Hovey voting no. ZBA-2023- 32 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Syliani and Alex Papadopoulos Property Located at: 205 Pratt Ave 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1; Section 6.1 Petition: Styliani and Alex Papadopoulos have applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking variance approval to construct a forty (40) unit apartment building and associated 133-space parking area at the subject property. The property is located in the Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) zoning district and requires variance approval under Section 5.1 for relief from the side yard setback and minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements, under Section 6.1 for relief from the off-street parking requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: John Cox, Applicant’s Attorney Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Dave McCabe, neighbor D. McCabe said his opposition is softening after speaking with J. Cox. Primary concern is congestion on Pratt Ave. Discussion: T. Hovey said he appreciates J. Cox going over the comments. If we make two conditions on comment memo. As far as parking, that area has a lot of development. How many parking spaces for those units? Are any empty? Overflow. Are the lots currently full? J. Cox said currently there are 60 spaces there and sometimes looks a little haphazard. Adding 8000 sq ft to this development. Adding parking and green space. M. Hamor said they would be eliminating parking in front of the building and adding 18 spaces in front of the building. Theres also going to be no parking signs along the road. T. Hovey said he supports this project. Much needed. Adding additional development to an already developed area. Would be in favor with the two proposed conditions. J. Nickerson asked about parking requirement and proposed. M. Briere said benefits are overwhelming. 40 needed new units. Tax revenue. Green space added. Demolition of 969 Westford will assist efforts to correct traffic issues. G. Procope said he is also in favor with the conditions added. S. Callahan said he is in favor. V. Pech said this project in terms of housing outweighs any downsides. The relief seeking is minimal. Highly built out area with a lot of housing. I also hear the plight of neighbor. I think the petitioner is building infrastructure to alleviate traffic issues. Should flow a lot better. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve the variances with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan that includes additional shade trees along Westford Street and specifies the proposed species, quantity, and size of all plantings on the site prior to applying for a building permit; and 2. The applicant shall submit revised elevations and renderings with additional articulation and/or windows on the right elevation facing Westford Street. The applicant shall submit the revised plans to DPD for final approval prior to applying for a building permit. T. Hovey seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously, (5-0). III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 8/14/2023 meeting minutes G. Procope motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to approve the meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). IV. Adjournment G. Procope motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The time was 9:08PM.