Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 23, 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: Chair Pech, Vice Chair Callahan, Member Procope, Member Hovey, Member Nickerson Members Absent: Member McCarthy, Member Briere Others Present: Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 10/23/2023 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. Chair Pech called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Continued Business ZBA-2023-26 Petition Type: Special Permit and Variance Applicant: Valley Properties Property Located at: 1201 Bridge Street 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.3 Petition: Valley Properties has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance and Special Permit approval to erect two (2) internally illuminated signs at 1201 Bridge Street. The subject property is located in the Regional Retail (RR) zoning district. The proposal requires Special Permit approval per Section 6.3 for internally illuminated signage, Variance approval per Section 6.3 for relief from the maximum size of wall signs, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance On Behalf: Laura from Barlow Signs spoke on behalf. She brought new signage designs incorporating comments from the Board and from Design Planner Jessica Wilson. Laura said that the signs are smaller than what was previously proposed, but still need relief. Laura confirmed she spoke with J. Wilson to match the size of surrounding storefronts. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: J. Nickerson said he thinks the changes are sufficient. T. Hovey stated he appreciates the changes and has no further comments. G. Procope thinks the compromise proposal is acceptable. S. Callahan asked if Laura met with J. Wilson, which she confirmed. S. Callahan said this was required because a previous zoning board included it in the conditions of approval. S. Callahan says that the hours of illumination will follow the standard. V. Pech agrees with his colleagues. Motion: G. Procope motioned to issue the Special Permit with the condition that the hours of illumination will be 1 hour before sunrise and 1 hour after closing, or 8 PM. The motion was seconded by S. Callahan. The vote was unanimous (5-0). G. Procope motioned to approve the Variance for the maximum size of wall signs. J. Nickerson seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). II. New Business ZBA-2023-33 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Moniroth Nou Located at: 412 Pine Street, 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Moniroth Nou has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct a 1.5 floor addition at 412 Pine Street. The subject property is located in the Suburban Single Family (SSF) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Moniroth Nou of 412 Pine Street spoke for himself. He apologized for not having updated plans, as he did not have time to contact his architect when he was notified by the City of what the plans lacked. M. Nou stated they have run out of space for their expanded family, and need to expand their home in order to accommodate. In Support None In Opposition None Discussion: T. Hovey said the applicant indicates he plans to build one floor up, but the site plans say he is going to build a floor and a half. He stated that one of the issues of not having updated plans is that they don’t know how tall the addition is. T. Hovey said he can’t approve without new drawings. He noted the house is not as tall as the houses around it, but that needs to know how far they're going up. T. Hovey asked how high it would be with the addition. M. Nou said 30 feet, 6.5 inches. G. Procope agreed that he needs to see updated plans in order to make a decision. He is inclined to think that the addition should be inline with what the rest of the neighborhood looks like (2.5 stories tall vs the applicant’s projected 3). S. Callahan said the package is incomplete and that they need to know the exact height of the structure. He believes the project should be continued. J. Nickerson stated that everything should be updated and the plans should be revised to match the neighborhood heights. V. Pech agreed with his colleagues. He indicated that incorporating the Board members’ previous comments could make something work. V. Pech recommended the architect attend the next meeting. Motion: G. Procope motioned to continue to the December 11, 2023 meeting. T. Hovey seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2023-34 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Mike and Amy Sousa Located at: 528 E. Merrimack Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Mike and Amy Sousa have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct a duplex at 528 E. Merrimack Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two Family (TTF) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, minimum frontage, minimum front yard setback, maximum front yard setback, and minimum side yard setback and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Kenneth Lania of Cornerstone Land Associates represented the applicants. He stated that the project has frontage on E Merrimack and Corrigan Avenue, but that the dwelling would be located on the Corrigan Avenue side. K. Lania noted that the parcel drops 18 feet from E Merrimack to Corrigan Avenue, creating the topographic hardship for a Variance. He said the frontage of the parcel is 59 feet on E Merrimack and 52 feet on Corrigan Avenue. K. Lania stated that the large setback from E Merrimack should be granted due to the topography of the site, and noted that the property only needs 2 feet of relief from the Corrigan Avenue side. He also pointed out that there is another 3 unit townhouse condo on Corrigan Avenue. K. Lania went over the staff memo and stated his disagreement with F. Cigliano’s comment that the large setback on East Merrimack is not in-kind with the neighborhood. He disagreed because other properties on Corrigan Avenue have this same setback. K. Lania also disagreed that an additional variance would be needed for the curb cuts, as the ordinance doesn’t define cuts as cumulative. In her comment memo, F. Cigliano also noted that two stories could be better, but K. Lania said there is a similar building on Corrigan Avenue. In Support None In Opposition Susan Tusher at 558 East Merrimack Street spoke in opposition. She said many vehicles park on both sides of the street, and that people use E Merrimack as a cut through to avoid Andover Street and Route 38 traffic. She also said she believes the project creates challenges for EMS vehicles. S. Tusher noted Corrigan Avenue is only 21 feet wide, not 30 feet as said in the proposal. She also expressed concern that the offices in the plans could be used as 3rd bedrooms, adding a projected 3rd car to each household that would not have off-street parking, as well as concern about impeded access to the roadway during construction of the apartment complex on Corrigan Avenue. She asked, if the project is approved, for a condition of no parking on Corrigan Ave and construction restrictions. Discussion: G. Procope said there was an email he was given to be read by someone who is opposed. He said he shared some of his colleagues concerns about the project. He stated he thinks moving the house to the E Merrimack side could be the answer. K. Lania said that due to the steep drop off of 18 feet it would be difficult to provide the usable open space if the building was moved. It would require the applicants to construct an expensive retaining wall. K. Lania said that although it seems they are asking for a large front yard setback on E. Merrimack, the real front yard setback is on Corrigan Avenue. S. Tusher asked for the floor from G. Procope. She said the proposal has an E Merrimack address, but only has access from Corrigan Avenue and that doesn't make sense. K. Lania showed the Board a photo of a similar townhouse on the street. He said they need the garage or else they'd have to move the building further back, and thus be unable to construct parking spaces that meet the Zoning Ordinance. K. Lania said they could put a small parking area on the E Merrimack Street side. S. Callahan said the lot has a lot of challenges due to the topography. He asked if there will be decks on the E Merrimack side, as they are included in the proposed floor plans but not in the architecturals. K. Lania said he is not sure if it will be a deck or a patio due to the topography of the site, as they will be building into the hill. S. Callahan asked why not a single-family vs the proposed two-family. S. Callahan asked P. Cutrumbes if they could get a Corrigan Ave address. P. Cutrumbes said that is up to the Engineering Department. K. Lania said he spoke to Joe Cady to start the process of filing an address change and paving permits. S. Callahan leans towards granting relief if Engineering agrees to change the address. J. Nickerson agrees with K. Lania that the garage-under design is okay because it matches another house on the street. T. Hovey understands the neighbors’ concerns, but thinks that due to the site, the Corrigan Ave side is the best place to put this. He stated that it fits in with the character of the other buildings. T. Hovey said the idea of a parking lot on the E Merrimack side wouldn't solve anything, as it would take away two street parking spots with the curb cut. He agreed with S. Callahan that this should be contingent on the address change due to EMS issues. V. Pech said he does not think the project is not in-line with the character of the neighborhood or the spirit of zoning, and that he relies heavily on the comments of DPD. He asked K. Lania if he would like to move forward with the vote. K. Lania said yes, but believes F. Cigliano’s memo is wrong about the parking variance due to the footnote in that section that allows an expanded curbcut if pervious surface is used for the driveway. P. Cutrumbes confirmed this is true. S. Callahan says he wants information from Engineering about the address change as well. If F. Cigliano has a problem with the expanded curb cut by right, K. Lania will have to reapply for a Special Permit. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve the Variances with the following conditions: 1. Senior Planner F. Cigliano’s approval of the expanded curb cut by right if the applicant uses pervious surface to pave 2. The Engineering Department agrees to change the address to Corrigan Avenue. T. Hovey seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2023-36 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Kenneth Lania Located at: 81 School Street, 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Kenneth Lania has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct a 4-unit townhouse style structure at 81 School Street. The property is currently the site of a single-family home. The subject property is located in the Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, frontage, and Usable Open Space per Dwelling Unit requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance On Behalf: Ken Lania, Cornerstone Land Associates, represented himself. He said he wants to construct a four-unit townhouse structure at the rear of 81 School Street. He noted the project will need to go to the Planning Board, but that they are confirming they can receive Variance approvals first. In Support None In Opposition Walter Mcgrail, an abutter at 89 School Street spoke. W. McGrail said there are two driveway cuts right now and the project requires a third. K. Lania said the one in front of the garage will be done away with. W. McGrail asked if there will be a need for a stormwater permit. K. Lania said yes. W. McGrail also inquired if a traffic study has been done and noted the driveway will be 14 feet wide. He said the driveway is in a location that will be affected by the traffic coming to and from Pawtucketville over the bridge. W. McGrail expressed concern about an EMS building accessing the property during high traffic due to the narrow driveway. He asked the Board if LFD has concerns. V. Pech said they did not hear from LFD and that they review every application. W. Mcgrail asked how trash removal would be done. Discussion: V. Pech asked K. Lania to return to the lectern. K. Lania said many of the previous questions will be answered by the Planning Board application due to Site Plan Review. He also stated that the Traffic Engineer does not have a concern about the project, but wants clarifications about the retaining wall. K. Lania said he did not modify the wall on the plans because new plans will be submitted before the Planning Board. He noted that Engineering said 14 feet is allowed for the driveway, but that it should be expanded to 18 feet. He said he plans to do that. K. Lania said trash removal will be done via a dumpster on site. S. Callahan asked if the lot will be subdivided. K. Lania said no, it will be a single family home condexed with the 4-unit townhouse. S. Callahan asked what the hardship of the site is. K. Lania said the size of the lot. He noted that several lots on the street have multi-unit condo developments. J. Nickerson asked to confirm if the single family home will be incorporated with the townhouses. K. Lania said yes. T. Hovey said he does not know how the fire apparatus would get to the units. He also stated that he doesn't think “theres not enough room for an additional 4 units” is a hardship, as the applicant could just create fewer units. T. Hovey said he has a hard time supporting this due to the public safety component and that it doesn't meet the conditions for granting variances. G. Procope said that maybe a traffic study would help clarify. He would also like to see a landscaping plan, and maybe to take advantage of the Greening the Gateway Cities program. V. Pech said it is a very detailed project. He also agreed with G. Procope about using the Greening the Gateway Cities program and landscaping plan. V. Pech thinks it is not in line with the spirit of zoning as it has too many units. V. Pech currently not in support. G. Procope asked to clarify the number of units. K. Lania said there will be 4 new units in the rear, and the single family house will remain but with the garage removed. K. Lania asked to continue in order to address neighbor and Board concerns. K. Lania plans on filing with the Planning Board within two weeks. Motion: G. Procope motioned to continue the project to the 12/11/2023 meeting. S. Callahan seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2023-35 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Edilson A. Forte Located at: 44 Lundberg Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Edilson A. Forte has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to subdivide the existing lot into two lots and construct a new single-family dwelling on the newly created lot. The subject property is located in the Traditional Single-Family (TSF) zoning district. Lot 1 requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Lot 2 requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. The project will also require a Special Permit from the Planning Board to reduce the required frontage under Section 5.1.1(7). On Behalf: John Geary, the lawyer for the project, and Matt Hamor of Landplex, the Engineer for the project, spoke on behalf of the applicant. J. Geary said the current property owner is selling to E. Forte (the applicant), conditioned upon ZBA approval. Lot 1 is the existing home. Lot 2 is the newly created lot. Both lots would be 5,500 square feet. The lot sizes are consistent with the neighborhood. He noted most of the lots in the neighborhood are below 4000 square feet. The applicant is also seeking Planning Board approval for a Special Permit to reduce frontage. This hearing is scheduled for 11/20. The frontage for each lot is consistent with the neighborhood in general. They are also proposing two new shade trees in front of the proposed new home. M. Hamor walked through the Site Plan. There are currently two existing curb cuts going into the parcel. He said there are also three predominant trees positioned along the lot line. He noted that the current paved driveway can accommodate two vehicles. The proposal would subdivide the lot directly in half. The newly created lot would use the current curb cut. M. Hamor said the new driveway would accommodate 2-3 vehicles. He then displayed the renderings and elevations. J. Geary says this is an opportunity to add to the City’s housing stock with a unit that also fits the TSF zone. J. Geary also submitted for the record letters of support from some neighbors. In Support Linda Oliveira Brusseau, owner of the property in trust, and niece of Neil Oliveira who spoke as opposed. She said every other neighbor is in agreement with the project. V. Pech read two letters of support into the record from Bill Faulkner of 47 Lundberg Street and Catherine Gabriel of 39 Lundberg Street. In Opposition Neil Oliveira of 62 Lundberg Street said that this would lower the property value of his home. He is the uncle of the current owner of the property. Neil Jr. and John Oliveria, sons of Neil. also spoke against. They are worried about the proposed new house encroaching upon the lot. Victoria Labelle of 49 Lundberg Street, was not necessarily opposed, but had concerns about how long the project will take. Discussion: V. Pech asked if J. Geary could address concerns from the neighbors. J. Geary summarized their concerns as focusing on parking, traffic, and devaluing Mr. Oliveira’s home by building too close to it. He noted that they are providing more parking than the two spaces required. J. Geary said the new house is 15 feet from the lot line, and it is another 15 feet to his house, meaning the project does not need side yard setbacks. He noted it will take around 3-4 months to construct a home. J. Nickerson thinks the project is great. He noted that the value of Mr. Oliveiras home will be raised. T. Hovey asked if the driveway will be straight into the garage. M. Hamor said yes. T. Hovey said it is a good project. G. Procope asked about the tree in the back remaining. J. Geary said it depends on how the roots of the tree are affected based on the excavation. G. Procope said this will increase the value of the abutting uncle’s home. He thinks the requirements to grant Variances have been met. S. Callahan said he grew up in this neighborhood and that his grandparents owned an abutting property on Faye Street. He noted that he thinks the lot sizes are appropriate for the neighborhood and that the project fits into the neighborhood. V. Pech said he thinks the Variance is palatable and that he thinks the project is appropriate for the neighborhood. Motion: G. Procope motioned to grant the Variances. J. Nickerson seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2023-30 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Wanessa Alves Santos Located at: 33 McKinley Avenue, 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Wanessa Alves Santos has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to extend a driveway at 33 McKinley Avenue. The subject property is located in the Traditional Single Family (TSF) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval per Section 6.1.10 for relief from the driveway dimensional requirements and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Wanessa Alves Santos spoke on behalf of herself. She said many people park on the street near her because her street connects to 4 other streets. This creates challenges for her family to park on the street. Additionally, she noted that there are houses with multiple adults with cars near her. W. Santos said she does not have room for her cars and has had to park on grass. Wanessa’s husband, Yuri Santos, also provided photos. In Support Kate (owns a driving school in the area) supports this because she wants less cars on the street when shes teaching drivers. Vicente Del Maso, a local pastor and friend of the family, spoke in support. In Opposition None Discussion: T. Hovey said they were given two different plot plans. Y. Santos said that the older plot plan was wrong, as it showed a parking spot that would be located on the sidewalk. T. Hovey said it still encroaches on the house and the plot line, as it needs to be setback 3 feet from each. The plan needs to take 3 feet off each side. G. Procope asked if Y. Santos saw the response from DPD. Y. Santos said yes, and this is why they sent the updated plot plan without the sidewalk spot. Y. Santos said they dropped the updated plan with F. Cigliano. G. Procope said he may want to continue because he doesn't know if DPD saw the updated plans and if that would change their comments. S. Callahan said he is confused about the plans. He wants to know DPD’s opinion on the new plans. He would want dimensions on the existing driveway and how far it goes back. S. Callahan agrees with T. Hovey about cutting off 3 feet on each side and perhaps not extending 71 feet back. S. Callahan notes that the neighbors have asked to ensure the driveway meets the 3 feet setback. J.Nickerson is in favor except for going up to the neighbors property line. He is ok with them going up to their own house. He said the plans should go 54 feet back to park 3 cars deep. V. Pech agreed with colleagues about the need for revised plans. Motion: G. Procope motioned to continue to the 12/11/2023 meeting. T. Hovey seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 10/12/2023 Meeting Minutes G. Procope motioned to accept the minutes. S. Callahan seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). G. Procope motioned to adjourn. Seconded by S. Callahan. The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 PM. Per Order of the City of Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals – Van Pech, Chairman New business to be advertised by October 9, 2023 and October 16, 2023.