Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 12, 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 McCarthy Member Briere, Member Procope, Member Nickerson Members Absent: Member Hovey Others Present: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 10/12/2023 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-2023-19 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: 65 Wellington LLC Property Located at: 65 Wellington Ave, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 and Section 6.1 Petition: 65 Wellington LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals for Variance approval to subdivide the existing lot with an existing two-family home and construct a new single-family home on the newly created lot. The property is located in the Traditional Single-Family (TSF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements, per Section 6.1 for relief from the minimum off-street parking requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: John Geary, Applicant’s Attorney Brian Geadreau, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Elizabeth Gallagher, 99 Belrose Ave E. Gallagher said that this was a lesson in knowing when to speak up and say enough is enough. I get we need to add more affordable housing but will this be affordable? Close to John’s property line. I think this would be a serious downgrade. We play in the middle of street, ride bikes in the middle of the street. Member of the public (did not say name or address) suggested waiting until the ADU ordinance had been voted on. Bob Hunt, 48 Florence Ave B. Hunt said he supports neighbors. Lack of adequate parking. FAR not where it should be. Not going to be affordable housing. I believe the project triggers failure of intent of zoning by degrading the neighborhood. John Allen, 95 Belrose Ave J. Allen said he had submitted a petition opposing the project signed by neighbors. J. Allen read the first few paragraphs of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Prevent overcongestion and crowding of streets. I don’t know how this got to a meeting. Variance ordinances would have to have substantial hardship. Has to also have no detriment to the public good. We wouldn’t be here if there were no hardship. We see through it. There are other 5,000 sq. Ft. Lots. There will be parts of my home that will never see sunlight again. Emily Gertenbach, 124 Park Ave E E. Gertenbach said she felt unwelcome at meet and greet. During that meeting we went over a few notes. I personally am not opposed to more housing in Lowell. Concerned with families in existing homes surrounding it. Regarding runoff, asked questions about groundwater absorption. It is going to increase runoff. This is a for-profit endeavor. Haven’t heard a hardship. Jennifer Jolly, 130 Park Ave E J. Jolly said calculations might be slightly off, but if you do an FAR calculation of 65 Wellington new construction, could add 8-10 1580 sq. Ft. Dwellings on block highlighted in yellow. Variances do set precedent. Tim Carolan, 16 Bellerose Ave T. Carolan said that his wife grew up in the house we live in. Walk through the neighborhood every day. Taking tree out would be fantastic. If all parking is off-street, that would be great. Does add housing to the city’s housing stock. I would disagree that any house added to a lot is a good thing. I estimated in the 9 block neighborhood, 14 other properties could sustain a 5,000 sq. Ft. Subdivision. Wanted to reiterate comments from the board at the wrap-up of the last meeting. Concerned with the size of the development. Asking to add another housing unit to lot with existing non-conforming 2 family home. Far from appropriate housing in a neighborhood zoned single-family. Kim Carner, 23 Bellrose Ave K. Carner said once there’s no limit on the # of people who can live in the existing two family. Frances Novak, 71 Bellerose Ave F. Novak said that regarding public good- obviously you don’t care about public good since you have us in this hot room. Spoil single family neighborhood. Once we do it it will spread to others. Affordable housing- that's nonsense. Not affordable to the average person. There’s other spots that could use more housing in the city. Adriana Clark, 75 Hoyt Ave A. Clark said if they wanted to live in an overcrowded neighborhood, they would have bought downtown. Andrew James Clark II, 75 Hoyt Ave A.J. Clark said he served 11 years active service. Can’t buy a house here. Not going to be good. Going to turn this neighborhood into the rest of Lowell. John Stecchi, 82 Belrose Ave J. Stecchi said that he has lived on the same street since the 1950’s. Families are moving back in. I’m 71 years old and bought my house way back in 1980. I could have moved a number of times. People come to my neighborhood and think I’m in Tewksbury. Love my neighborhood. Changing face of the neighborhood when you start that. Please consider what we’re saying. Harry Stecchi, 77 Belrose Ave H. Stecchi said he is in opposition. Paul Nevuit, 75 Hoyt Ave P. Nevuit said traffic is bad. School buses. Cut through traffic. Discussion: M. Briere said he did not watch the recording so he must recuse himself from the vote. Not qualified to offer judgement. J. Nickerson said he doesn’t have any questions. Thanked people for coming. G. Procope said when neighbors come out in favor or opposition it does weigh on the decision making in addition to what is in the zoning bylaws. I have to say that the gentleman who quoted zoning is also considered. We look to beautify the neighborhood, not denigrate. I can’t support with all this opposition and variances. Too many variances. S. Callahan asked to go over variance criteria. J. Geary said he believes they meet all criteria. All they need is minimum front yard setback. That’s very minimal as far as relief is concerned. Main issues are lot size, lot area per dwelling unit, and FAR. Looking at what you’ve provided - I hear neighbor’s concerns. Other lot sizes are very similar. I don’t understand how this destroys neighborhood when you have other properties that are below the requirement. This project has been scaled down from prior plans also. I think adding a house here - I understand people don’t think it’s affordable. I believe this meets variance criteria. D. McCarthy said he is very grateful to live in a city where neighbors care so deeply about the actions of the board. Grew up on other side of Andover Street. I know and love this neighborhood. Good access to green space. It is unfortunate and we are sorry that we have a not very effective room to meet in. I thought the fact that this is a TSF neighborhood with a requirement of 7000 sq ft lot, existing lot is 10,000, but has two residences on it, already was helping the housing crisis by creating a density higher than what the neighborhood. Not go by what smaller lots are. Let’s recognize that this is smaller. Zoning is an experiment. It changes. I’m grateful that the applicant has done a good job making changes. I do not see how this meets criteria for zoning relief that we are required to follow. Runs contrary to the intent of zoning to have three residences on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. Told to follow 7,000 for a single family. Can’t support this. There is a big ask here. Should be a function of city redefining zoning If it intends to have 5,000 sq. ft. lots. Reducing variances - down to three. The fact that it is a two family, is too much density for sf zoning. That is my breaking point with this application. I cannot get over this issue. V. Pech said he knows it’s not easy to come in and voice concerns and opinions. Hopefully people felt their voices were heard. We take everyone’s comments into consideration. From my perspective, I think this is a project that is doable, but could be reduced more. It’s not just the neighbors here and the 40 signatures we got - the intention of what we’re trying to do with zoning with this project doesn’t live up to the standard. V. Pech read letter into the record from residents of 64 Wellington Ave. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to withdraw the application without prejudice. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0) with M. Briere recusing himself from the vote. II. New Business ZBA-2023-13 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Edson Dos Santos Property Located at: 330 Princeton Boulevard, 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 and Section 6.1 Petition: Edson Dos Santos has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to subdivide the existing lot into two lots and construct a new two-family dwelling. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two-Family (TTF) zoning district. Lot A requires Variance approval per Section 6.1 for relief from the minimum off-street parking requirement, and parking space dimensional requirements, per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum frontage, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum usable open space per dwelling unit requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Lot B requires Variance approval per Section 6.1 for relief from the minimum off-street parking requirement, and minimum parking space dimensional requirements, per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum frontage, minimum usable open space, minimum side yard setback, and minimum garage front yard setback requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Nick Landry, Applicant’s Architect Edison Dos Santos, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Bob Hunt, 48 Florence Ave B. Hunt said he comes to speak against the application on many fronts. Based on comments of the Buidling Commissioner. He is proposing 4 floors of liveable space. Can only see this as degrading the neighborhood. Going to have a ton of people living there. Not to mention parking that could go out on the street. I hope you vote against this. Cesar Jiminez, 36 Gertrude Ave C. Jiminez said there’s no fire hydrants nearby. I don’t see how fire trucks could reach based on the distance. Automatically as a safety concern that’s a huge red flag. Marie Frank, 32 Gertude Ave M. Frank said she echoes the other concerns by adding a rather large structure on that property. 6 family situation on a two family lot. Always have to cross over the property. The rules and regs that govern the zoning board with the good of the community in mind. I would urge you to uphold the rules and regs that are already there so that the neighborhoods remain places we love to live in. Dennis MacPhail, 43 Gertrude Ave D. MacPhail said that parking is a major consideration. Even tonight, there is a car parked at the end of Gertrude Ave. Sometimes you can’t go up the street. The proposal I saw would take Dos Santos’ patio and make it 4 parking spaces. Enforcing the present laws should be taking place. Jacqueline Dennis, 14 Arcadia Avenue J. Dennis said the lot is too small. Live a short distance away. If they do a curb cut to make it 4 spaces, will encroach the sidewalk and you won’t be able to walk up and down Gertrude. There’s commercial vehicles coming and going. Too much for that little area. Nancy Judge, 48 Foss Street N. Judge asked where the curb cut should be. These residents have spoken in opposition. Would like to ask the board to take the comments into consideration. Erik Gitschier, 34 Livingston Ave E. Gitschier said they are proposing to go on Princeton Boulevard. Can’t park on the street so people park on sidewalks. Going to create more of a nightmare over there. Property sizes were put in there for a reason. When we try to give residents proper living spaces – trees, setbacks, minimum lot requirements. One thing I think is striking – what the Building Commissioner is saying. Owner made application to remodel the attic, it was evident the intent was to create a third floor living space illegally. Applicant does not deal in good faith. This is someone who is going to enforce what we permit to build. Bette Sponholtz, 42 Gertrude Ave B. Sponholtz said that she has lived there since the 1970’s. Nice family neighborhood. Trees lining the street. I hope you consider what would happen. Jerome Pinero, 37 Gertrude Ave J. Pinero said he disagrees with the subdivision and hopes you vote against it. Patricia Yem, 47 Gertrude Ave Narinn Yem, 47 Gertrude Ave P. Yem and N. Yem said they were against the application. More people living there would amplify traffic issues. Discussion: N. Landry said if he takes some of the comments, reduce the size, address parking issues, redesign the whole thing. Worked really hard with Edson to create more modern housinge. Something he really wanted. Lots of pushback. Can address design. Can address concerns about attic and basement and structural concerns, reducing the height would help with sunlight, there’s likely some way we can address the parking. J. Nickerson said Parking did seem intense and it is a busy street. I had to pull my car over and I thought I was going to get hit getting out of my car. G. Procope asked about the Building Commissioner’s comments. N. Landry said there was miscommunication between Edson and the builder and what they thought they could accomplish. Because of that, they added a sprinkler system. I spoke with the building commissioner. Add sprinkler system, this new two family would also be sprinkled. G. Procope said he could ask for continuance and present a new design that is more palatable for the neighbors. Would also suggest - neighborhood leaders. Could be good to present to neighbors once its redesigned. It looks like the opposition is going to win here based on what we are given today. Caesar said there was no notice. Otherwise there would be triple the people. Robert Hunt asked if there would be a three family. Five families on that lot. N. Landry said they would resubmit entire package. M. Briere said if you read the damning comments from Building Commissioner, you deserve a public scolding. Advises us to deny request. Applicant doesn’t deal in good faith. Building Commissioner should not need to double back on properties. We all have to be honest brokers at this table. According to our staff, we aren’t dealing with an honest broker. If such comments come across my desk again, you have no shot with me. S. Callahan said the building design is nice. Package is incomplete. I don’t think continuance is warranted. First and foremost, curb cut on Princeton Boulevard is not shown. Suggestion would be to withdraw application. Don’t think curb cut on Princeton Boulevard will work at all. D. McCarthy said they want a 3 family and a two family. This application doesn’t tell me what you’re asking for. We don’t know what you’re asking for. We don’t have usable open space defined. The Commissioner’s comments are atrocious. I’ve never had the Commissioner recommend something that harshly to us. He definitely works with people. I would recommend solving the issues with the existing structure. N. Landry said he would prefer a continuance. This would be a full redesign. There are costs with that. Would prefer a continuance. I wish we had been able to speak to people before this meeting. Would certainly have meeting with people here. Some work that needs to be done before we come back. Will have to resolve those issues. Don’t want to waste your time. V. Pech thanked residents for attending. Look to residents for feedback. Voice is definitely heard. Thank you again. Everyone was very respectful and civil. I’ve never seen such a negative comment from an expert. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and G. Procope seconded the motion to continue the petition to the January 8, 2024 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2023-25 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: Yong Zhang Property Located at: 1270 Westford Street, 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.3 Petition: Yong Zhang has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Special Permit approval to erect an internally illuminated sign at 1270 Westford Street. The property is located in the Regional Retail (RR) zoning district. The proposal requires Special Permit approval per Section 6.3 for internally illuminated signage, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Yong Zhang, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: S. Callahan asked about hours of illumination. Y. Zhang said the hours of operation would be 10am-10pm. D. McCarthy said this is a great looking sign. Are we increasing the total sq ft of signage more than what is allowed via zoning? Y. Zhang said just internal illumination. It’s a small sign. D. McCarthy said I don’t see any problem with this. Proposed hours of illumination - 1 hr before sunrise to 11pm hours of illumination. M. Briere said no questions. G. Procope said no questions. J. Nickerson said no questions. V. Pech said it’s an upgrade. Makes sense to me. Improves marketing. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the application with the following condition: 1. The hours of illumination shall be 1 hr before sunrise to 11pm. The motion was seconded by S. Callahan and passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2023- 27 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Joe Lee Property Located at: 31 Westford Street, 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1; Section 6.1 Petition: Joe Lee has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct a new mixed-use structure at 31 Westford Street. The proposed structure includes 52 residential units and 15,570 square feet of commercial space. The subject property is located in the Urban Mixed-Use (UMU) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement, per Section 6.1 for relief from the off-street parking requirement, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Kevin Murphy, Applicant’s Attorney Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope said this is a very nice design. That neighborhood does need it. I volunteer cleaning up the city and were in that area. This would definitely benefit the neighborhood. K. Murphy said he intends to work with DPD on a landscaping plan. There is a condition that we work with DPD to improve the landscaping as much as we can. G. Procope said he would endorse that condition. G. Procope said he is impressed with this, thinks this would be a very valuable enhancement to the neighborhood. S. Callahan asked about car sharing spaces. D. McCarthy said he is so excited about this project. There isn’t enough demand for the Gallagher terminal. Theres over 500 spaces not utilized. Plenty of parking. Easy to see the parking being a success and a driver to open the Rourke. They need a security guard. K. Murphy said this would be first of many buildings and development in that area. It’s going to be terrific. D. McCarthy reads conditions of approval from Planning Board approval. Recommended adopting those same conditions. This is so tremendous. Please build it. M. Briere said this petition represents the perfect combination of a beautifully crafted project and desperately needed neighborhood revitalization. I wholeheartedly support it. J. Nickerson said this is a great project. People have been saying Lowell is unaffordable. This project is what we need. Right near the train station. Spot on and gives 52 units. Incredible. I support it 100%. V. Pech said this is an amazing project. Got a lot of calls - quite philanthropic. Thank you for that. Continue to grow your business here in the city. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and G. Procope seconded the motion to approve the variances. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2023- 29 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Gladys Cruz Property Located at: 730-732 Lawrence Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1; Section 6.1 Petition: Gladys Cruz has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to convert the existing structure at 730-732 Lawrence Street from a two-family to a three-family. The subject property is located in the Traditional Mixed-Use (TMU) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum usable open space per dwelling unit requirements, per Section 6.1 for relief from the minimum off- street parking requirement, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Hooshi Afshar, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: Gladilydis Cruz, Applicant’s Daughter G. Cruz read petition summary. Lowell is 5th most populous in MA. City has become home to immigrants from all over the world. One of the challenges in a growing city is creating more affordable housing. Increased housing stability, reduced homelessness, economic mobility. More diversity. Greater tax revenue. Mother’s property has a third-floor unused property. With your approval, will legalize and offer to families in the affordable housing realm. Housing is a fundamental need for all people. First rung in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is safety. Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere asked if they are doing section 8. G. Cruz said yes. M. Briere said this would literally be affordable housing. Intention is to seek another voucher holder? G. Cruz said yes of course. M. Briere said he had some questions about relief but this is a case where you truly are providing affordable housing. People using it improperly. Housing stock shortage. Very few address this need. Why do you choose section 8? G. Cruz said it hits home. G. Cruz said raised in the projects. Mom and dad have worked hard to make something out of our circumstance. I went to high school in Methuen, went to Dartmouth College, completed pre-med from Harvard, hold a doctorate in clinical psychology. Do this because it hits home. M. Briere said story is so admirable. Still employee of housing committee. So often those folks who live in public housing, there’s a stigma attached. G. Cruz said stigma is so deteriorating. Lowest rung of Maslow’s - without having food and security, and shelter - cannot thrive. M. Briere thanked for helping community. J. Nickerson said he doesn’t have many questions. Advocate for fair housing. Works in real estate. Hearing your story has been really interesting and great. G. Procope said it is a relative term to say affordable housing. This is epitome of affordable housing. I do appreciate your story and efforts. S. Callahan said that LFD said that there is a fire lane there that the tenants park in. Truck needs to get in and get out. That weighs heavily on me because of the safety issue. Asking for a lot of relief to convert this. Really don’t know where to go with this. Where does the hardship lie. The parking is a huge issue. V. Pech said that they could do an administrative review. D. McCarthy said he disagrees that they meet usable open space requirement. D. McCarthy said not being specific about what they are providing. V. Pech said they want to approve and make sure they are doing everything right. Need all updated plans. Make sure everyone is on the same page. S. Callahan said comments from the Building Commissioner and LFD would be requested. M. Briere said he needs to ensure that the requirements of zoning are met. We are all advocates for affordable housing on the city. I agree with the concerns that have been expressed here. Everything I said I believe but I may have stuck out my nose a little too much. D. McCarthy noted inspections with Fire and Building Department may have already occurred. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and M. Briere seconded the motion to continue the petition to the November 27 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). III. Other Business Election of Officers D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to nominate V. Pech as Chairman. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). V. Pech motioned and D. McCarthy seconded the motion to nominate S. Callahan as Vice Chairman. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). S. Callahan motioned and D. McCarthy seconded the motion to nominate D. McCarthy as Clerk. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0) Minutes 9/25/2023 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. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 10:30PM.