Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 8, 2024 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 Hovey, Member Nickerson Members Absent: None Others Present: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 1/8/2024 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. Chairman Pech called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Continued 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: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: V. Pech noted the applicant requested to withdraw the application without prejudice. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to withdraw the application without prejudice, seconded by T. Hovey, the motion passed unanimously, (5-0). 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, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope said he appreciated the work he did to accommodate the requests of the Board cutting down the size. Now more conducive to the neighborhood. D. McCarthy noted that the changes bring it to a more acceptable size. It is in the rear of the property. Have support of neighbors. Can support this. S. Callahan said he shares the same sentiments of his fellow board members. T. Hovey said he thought the last version was fine. Have gone above and beyond. Everything was behind the house and you have a good size lot. Appreciate everything you’ve done to get neighborhood buy-in. J. Nickerson appreciates the efforts to modify proposal. In compliance with what we asked. V. Pech appreciates the changes made and is in support. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve, seconded by T. Hovey, passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2023-38 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: David and Tamara Oliviera Property Located at: 604 Central Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1 Petition: Davd and Tamara Oliviera have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to utilize the upper floors of the existing commercial building for an office or business use. The subject property is located in the Traditional Mixed-Use (TMU) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval 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: John Bavuso, Applicant’s Representative Speaking in Favor: Jason Mello, Citywide Properties, property owner of 614 Central Street JM understands parking concerns. I am not advocating against needs of residents. I want to shed some light on the situation because I want to focus on some positives. I grew up in Back Central in the 1980s and 1990s. I remember riding my bike down to Santoro’s and Jay’s food store. Today I wouldn’t allow my 10-year old son ride down there and I think it’s obvious why. I think Back Central needs help and want to focus on the investment that these folks have put into Mario’s furniture store. They’ve upgraded the buildings. These investments benefit my building and benefits the value of single-family homes. They’ve also upgraded the building electrical, HVAC. Those are the main reasons I’m speaking in favor. I think any investment in Back Central is good. I don’t know these folks personally. Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere thanked the applicant for their investment and thanked J. Mello for his comments. D. McCarthy said what a difference. So happy to see parking plan. Shows generous amount of space. No opposition tonight. Don’t see a reason why we can’t support this. However, there have been issues with signage. J. Bavuso said that signage has been corrected. Additional information was sent to DR today. T. Hovey said they should be aware of density of neighborhood. Everybody has to get along. G. Procope agrees with fellow board members. Shows that care was taken, J. Mello’s eloquent response in favor, businesses came together. There’s no opposition compared to last time. Working to make it more conducive so that businesses can flourish. Testament of businesses can do when they come together. Appreciate effort in appeasing neighbors. I’ll be voting in favor. V. Pech concurred with his colleagues. Updated parking plan satisfies my concerns. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve, seconded by G. Procope, approved unanimously, (5-0). II. New Business ZBA-2023-48 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Matthew Parker Property Located at: 37 Laurel Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Matthew Parker has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to extend the current porch across the front of their home at 37 Laurel Street. The subject property is in the Suburban Single Family (SSF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval from the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals under Section 5.1 for the Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement, the front yard porch setback, and any other relief needed under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Matt Parker, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy said it would only increase FAR marginally. Property is well maintained. Wouldn’t derogate from the intent of zoning. Makes a lot of sense. Surprisingly high FAR but makes sense when you look at the structure and size of the lot. S. Callahan said this makes sense. FAR is a bit of a pickle. T. Hovey, G. Procope, and M. Briere said no issues or questions. V. Pech said this is a no brainer. This is something that is completely appropriate for a variance. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve variances, seconded by T. Hovey, passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2023-43 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Wedman Jonathas Property Located at: 39 Corbett Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Wedman Jonathas has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct a two-floor addition at 39 Corbett Street. The subject property is in the Traditional Single Family (TSF) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Section 5.1 for the Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR), and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Evan Samir, Applicant’s Contractor Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Simone Rivera 43 Corbett Street S. Rivera said the neighborhood is small and historic. All I’ll be doing is looking at a pitched roof. Already compact neighborhood, small backyard. Feelings we have were never addressed with neighbor. Maria Ferriere, 50 Cosgrove Street M. Ferreire said I oppose because those streets have become so congested with cars. Noise has become unbearable in the summertime. All those houses were built Discussion: E. Samir said he doesn’t believe it will increase density. Nothing we can do about the sun. The sun is up in the sky. Not going to block the person’s view of the sun the entire day. S. Callahan said he is very familiar with the area. The neighbors have a point that all of those lots are all the same. I’m struggling with where the hardship is. E. Samir said the hardship is the growing family that wants to stay in the area. I think an investment to accommodate growing family is a benefit. T. Hovey said to piggyback off of member Callahan, I don’t see a hardship. I get the family hardship but this is a zoning hardship. This is a 3,000 sq. Ft. lot, adding stories. There are 9 other lots in the area with similar FAR and we are asking for a large increase. I think this flies in the face of zoning - not to encroach on neighbors. Maybe one story. But even that - because of lot size, FAR will go up by a lot. This size of project will encroach on neighbors. J. Nickerson said not completely against it but would listen to his fellow board members. G. Procope said he agrees with the hardship issue. I don’t see the hardship from a zoning perspective. E. Samir said if we expand the back, there’s no yard left. We could expand that way instead of up but don’t see how that would be aesthetic to the area. M. Briere not going to deny this because of sunlight, and there’s no parking issues here. Neighbors have the right to have concerns. Doesn’t it say something that neighbors want to stay there and invest in home? Those are all positives to neighbors and to direct abutters. Not sure there’s a hardship but I would hope there could be some modification that could be more acceptable. More communication with abutters. I don’t want to deny this petition, but can’t vote in favor as currently presented. Maybe put your head together and we can come out with an addition to your home and neighborhood that changes over time. D. McCarthy noted site plan doesn’t match the floor plans. Think about what is critical and propose something that is the minimum of what you need. Asking for a lot. It would be helpful to denote on the site plan how many off-street parking spaces you have. I think we need a smaller footprint. Three different living spaces. Maybe something can be paired out of that. E. Slagle said the original site plan has an issue that needs to be corrected. D. McCarthy said I’d suggest you come back with a modified proposal and corrected site plan. V. Pech said it’s great that the young couple wants to stay in the city. That’s a good thing. Work with the neighborhood to see what they think and see if you can come to a middle ground. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to continue to Feb 26, 2024, seconded by G. Procope, passed unanimously, (5-0). III. Other Business 17 Montreal Street; 264-266 Plain Street: Administrative Review Administrative Review to review compliance with the Special Permit approved September 27, 2022 and compliance with outstanding conditions of approval. On Behalf: Catherine Flood, Applicant’s Attorney Discussion: None Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the administrative review, seconded by M. Briere, passed unanimously, (5-0) Minutes for Approval: 12/11/2023 meeting minutes D. McCarthy motioned and T. Hovey seconded the motion to approve the minutes. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0) IV. Adjournment D. McCarthy motioned and G. Procope seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 7:53PM.