Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 22, 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: Dylan Ricker, Associate Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 1/22/2024 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 6:32 PM I. Continued Business ZBA-2023-36 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Kenneth Lania Property Located at: 81 School Street, 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Kenneth Lania has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct a 4-unit townhouse style structure on the property which currently has 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 requirements, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: V. Pech stated the applicant is requesting a withdrawal without prejudice. Motion: D. McCarthy motion, and G. Procope seconded the motion to approve the withdrawal without prejudice. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). II. New Business ZBA-2023-42 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Jose and Mary Silva Property Located at: 68-84 Kinsman Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 and Section 6.1 Petition: Jose and Mary Silva have applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking to Variance approval to subdivide and reconfigure the existing parcels at 68. 74, 76, 80, 84 Kinsman Street in order to construct a new duplex and create an expanded paved area for parking. The subject property is located in the Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) zoning district. The duplex requires Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement, per Section 5.3 for the minimum landscaped open space requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. The expanded paved area requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the usable open space per dwelling unit requirement, per Section 6.1 for the parking setback requirement, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Ian Ainslee, Applicant’s Representative I. Ainslee stated the applicant owns each of the parcels and they own a property across the street. I. Ainslee explained the current conditions of the property. I. Ainslee said the goal is to end up with 3 lots with conforming frontages. I. Ainslee explained the proposal. I. Ainslee said they intend to expand the parking area for one of the lots and explained the parking for the new units. I. Ainslee said the existing parking is on a different parcel and they rectify this by granting the property an easement. I. Ainslee summarized the required Variances. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope noted the engineering comments, I. Ainslee said they happy to provide the info requested by the Engineering Department. G. Procope asked if there was a basement, I. Ainslee said there is a partial basement with a drive-in garage. G. Procope said he understands the need for the parking and asked if there was space for landscaping. I. Ainslee said they can add plantings. G. Procope said he would support a condition requiring landscaping. G. Procope asked if anything would be done to the existing homes. I. Ainslee said the properties would remain as is. M. Briere said he agrees with the narrative and said he believes the Variance criteria have been met and he will vote in favor of the petition. D. McCarthy said the application has a lot of merit, and said the off-street parking is an improvement. D. McCarthy asked if the applicant is receptive to adding a minimum of 4 shade trees. I. Ainslee agreed. D. McCarthy said he would like a minimum of 4 shade trees. D. McCarthy said a second condition should be adopting the engineering comments, specifically related to resetting the curb to Engineering Department standards. D. McCarthy asked about drainage. I. Ainslee said the proposal has a minimum impact on drainage due to the removal of paved surface. I. Ainslee said the water would drain into the street system. I. Ainslee said he does not believe there is a large increase. D. McCarthy clarified the required Variances. D. McCarthy asked that the unpaved space on lot 3 remain as green space and not be converted into a patio. I. Ainslee agreed. S. Callahan expressed support for the proposal. S. Callahan asked about the driveway bumpouts on lot 2 and expressed concern about how many cars may utilize the driveway. T. Hovey said he sees the need. T. Hovey said he understands why the parking area is being proposed as it is. T. Hovey said his concern is that the lot is losing all of its usable open space, and he has a hard time seeing what the hardship is. I. Ainslee said he believes there is a hardship because it is an existing use on an undersized lot. T. Hovey said he believes the applicant may be making their own hardship with the new proposed lot lines. T. Hovey said his concern is the removal of all the open space on the lot. T. Hovey said he does not believe it meets the hardship criteria so he will vote against the petition. J. Nickerson said he believes the plan is self explanatory, J. Nickerson said the applicant is offering off- street parking so he does not see the negative side. V. Pech noted the importance of housing, and said the application has merit. V. Pech asked if the applicant is amenable to the discussed conditions. I. Ainslee agreed. G. Procope asked for a condition for updated floor plans showing what the basement will be used for. T. Hovey asked the applicant what their plans were for the basement. I. Ainslee said the basement would be used for storage, and they do not intend to add an additional unit. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variances with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department comments; 2. The applicant shall provide landscaping to include at least four (4) shade trees along the street front; 3. The applicant shall maintain the remaining open space on Lot 3 as green space; and 4. The applicant shall provide revised floorplans showing the use for the basement. The motion was seconded by S. Callahan. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2023-51 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: Vascular Management and Innovations Group, LLC Property Located at: 1115 Westford Street, 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Article 12.8 (c) Petition: Vascular Management and Innovations Group, LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Special Permit approval to open a vascular care center in the office building located at 1115 Westford Street. The subject property is located in the Office Park (OP) zoning district. The proposal requires Special Permit approval per Article 12.8 (c) to operate a medical center in the OP zoning district, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Paul Mortensen, Applicant’s Representative P. Mortensen explained the business and said their intent is to increase access to vascular care in communities that have not traditionally had access. P. Mortensen said their goal is to expand acces to this care. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere cited DPD comments that the vascular care does not exist in Lowell, and said this brings much needed care to Lowell, and he will be supportive of the proposal. D. McCarthy asked for the nearest vascular care center, and if the site would be supporting Lowell General. P. Mortensen said they would work with Lowell General and said they submitted a letter of support today, he added that most care takes place in the Boston area. D. McCarthy asked about waste removal. P. Mortensen said they have professional medical waste disposal they contract with. D. McCarthy asked where this waste is stored. P. Mortensen said it is stored in the office and the services comes into the office to pick up the waste. S. Callahan cited DPD comments stating the proposal aligns with the City’s Master Plan. S. Callahan said the proposal meets the Special Permit criteria and said it is great this service will be added to the City. S. Callahan expressed support for the proposal. T. Hovey asked about the number of employees in the office. P. Mortensen said they estimate an entire staff of 10-12. J. Nickerson expressed support and said the services are needed. G. Procope agreed with fellow Board members and said the business will add necessary services to the City and be a positive addition. V. Pech agreed with his colleagues and said the service is needed in the community. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned, and G. Procope seconded the motion to approve the Special Permit. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0).  III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 1/8/2024 meeting minutes D. McCarthy motioned, and M. Briere seconded the motion to approve the 1/8/2024 meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). IV. Adjournment D. McCarthy motioned and T. Hovey seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 7:14PM.