Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 10, 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 Procope, Member Hovey, Member Nickerson Members Absent: Member Briere Others Present: Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 6/10/2024 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-2024-15 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Lexx Estates LLC Property Located at: 63 Chambers Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1; Section 6.1.4 Petition: Lexx Estates, LLC has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to demolish a pre-existing, non-conforming 6-bay garage and construct a 6-unit townhouse-style development at 63 Chambers Street. The property is located in the Traditional Neighborhood Multifamily (TMF) zoning district and requires Variance approval under Section 5.1 for relief from the usable open space requirement and under Section 6.1.4 for relief from the off-street parking requirements and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Catherine Flood, counsel for the applicant and Matt Hamor, engineer for the applicant appeared on behalf. Robert Berg the manager of Lexx Estates LLC was also in attendance. C. Flood summarized the Variance requests above. She noted the land is over 7,000 square feet and currently consists of existing non-conforming garage bays. The applicant intends to get a Special Permit from the Planning Board under Section 4.5.3 to construct two townhouses in the footprint of the garages. The application team met with the neighborhood to discuss parking issues, and as a result, have removed a bedroom from each unit to eliminate the need for a parking Variance. The project is consistent with the recently passed Lowell Forward plan to build more homes, increase density outside of downtown, provide more multi-family housing, improve streetscapes via plantings, reduce the heat island effect via casting shadows and growing more trees, and increasing housing with easy access to public transportation such as the LRTA and the Commuter Rail. C. Flood discussed her meetings with the Planning Department and the Building Commissioner, and that they were supportive. C. Flood discussed the usable open space variance, and argued that the park directly adjacent to the property can fulfill open space needs. M. Hamor discussed the site plan for the Board. He began with the existing site. The lot is surrounded by City owned properties on either side. One is the existing Oliveira Park, and the other is open greenspace. The lot is 7,126 square feet with two garage buildings on either side. M. Hamor then discussed the proposed project. The project consists of two buildings with three townhouse units each. The development will remove some existing paving as well as lower the footprint of one of the buildings. The width between the buildings is conducive to providing an access line. The previous garages touched the lot line, but the proposed buildings have been moved three feet from the lot line to accommodate building codes. There will be stormwater management in the rear of the property where it borders Hale Brook, as well as additional plantings. There will be a split rail fence along the building that borders the park so that it is easily accessible. M. Hamor said he met with the Fire Department, who approved the plan for access. The site has snow storage behind one of the buildings. The snow will melt back towards a catch basin. There will be two parking spaces for each unit, at grade into the garage door. The application team has met with the Stormwater team to approve the proposal. Lastly, M. Hamor showed the proposed elevations for the building and the shade study for the building. The building will cast shadows onto Chambers Street during the hottest parts of the summer. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Jason Vinas of 94 Kinsman Street spoke in opposition. He said the agenda is wrong, there are 13 bays not 12 bays. One side has 7, the other has 6. J. Vinas said he rents one of the garage units for the last 25 years. The application is too many units for this sized lot, and needs too many Variances. He discussed the 13 Irving Street property and the 68-84 Kinsman Street projects that are building less units per square foot. He is extremely concerned with the City approving this project. The side setback of 2 feet and the front sideback of 3 feet is too low. The mural on the back of one of the garages facing the park will be knocked down. There is essentially no open space for the amount of units. He disagrees with the attorney that this will be a positive impact for the neighborhood, and noted that the developer will not live there. The owner did not give any notice to him, which was not required, but would have been common courtesy. The design of the building is nice, but it dwarfs the neighborhood in size and scale. Back Central is a very congested and dense area with significant issues around parking. He hopes the Board will consider the feedback of neighborhood members. Arthur Vinas (also of 94 Kinsman Street) spoke in opposition. He has also been renting a bay there. The size of the building is ridiculous. The overflow parking from guests will take up valuable space in the neighborhood. Discussion: G. Procope said it seems like there was extensive interaction between the City and the applicant, as well as the neighborhood and the applicant. He said there was ample notice of this happening. He understands that losing parking in a congested area is difficult, but that there are a lot of positives for the project too. The applicant removed a bedroom to help address parking. He noted the proposed vegetative buffer shows the applicant is serious about maintaining the property. The applicant is also making access to the park easy for the families live there. The fact that this is relevant to Lowell Forward and was positively viewed by the Building Commissioner makes him feel comfortable. He will listen to the concerns of his colleagues but is currently in favor. D. McCarthy views a storage garage next to green space and a brook as an underutilized property. The City has a real need for more housing. The homes seem modest and are providing access to open spaces like Oliveira Park, Fort Hill Park, and the Greenway. The project is also close to the train station. D. McCarthy asked if the applicant would be open to applying a light reflective coating to the asphalt to help combat the urban heat island effect. The applicant was amenable. D. McCarthy said he particularly likes that the applicant was willing to cut out a bedroom. He is very much in favor of this with the one condition. S. Callahan said he is very familiar with the area, as he grew up there. It is a tight squeeze, but there are other multi-family homes in the area on lots smaller than this. He understands the frustration of neighbors who are opposed. He asked C. Flood why six-units. C. Flood said the intent is to build only in the footprint of the garage, and making it more conforming. She said the wetlands in the back is the special hardship. S. Callahan said the public good criteria is clearly met. The zoning is also being satisfied as it is a traditional multi-family neighborhood. He appreciates that there will be screening from the park. T. Hovey asked if the setbacks need a Variance. P. Cutrumbes says no because they are using the Section 4.5.3 Special Permit to build within the existing footprint. T. Hovey sympathizes with the folks renting the garages now but that isn’t within the Zoning Board’s purview. He is concerned with the significant amount of relief needed for open space and lot area per dwelling unit. He appreciates taking out the closets to remove a bedroom. He agrees it is all needed, but that the Lowell Forward has not made zoning changes. He is bound to the existing Zoning Ordinance. He does not see the hardship. He noted that he does not think it is a detriment to the public at all. He is not in favor. J. Nickerson said he has concerns about the lofted area being used as a bedroom. C. Flood said they are not going to be marketing them as three bedroom. J. Nickerson noted that there is no guarantee it won’t be a bedroom. He also expressed concerns about parking. C. Flood said they chose to remove the bedrooms in order to address area parking concerns. V. Pech thanked the application team for the presentation. He also thanked the neighbors who spoke in opposition. He believes this project meets the criteria for the Variances. He noted it meets many of the Master Plan goals. He thinks they could have gone even bigger, and that the scale of this project is appropriate. He appreciates that they worked with neighbors in the area. He will be voting in favor. D. McCarthy said the footprint of the buildings are even smaller than the garages. There will be less pavement and stormwater management which is not being used. The green space on either side is significant. It is rare that they get projects like this. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to issue a Variance for usable open space per dwelling unit and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, with G. Procope seconding with the following condition:  1. the paved access area uses a light reflecting coat of paint to combat the urban heat island effect ZBA-2024-16 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Samuel Borba Property Located at: 85 Seneca Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1 Petition: Samuel Borba has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to create a parking area at 85 Seneca Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two-Family (TTF) zoning district, and requires Variance approval per Section 6.1.10 for relief from the maximum curb cut requirements, and minimum driveway setback requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Samuel Borba (the applicant) and Matthias Davenport (Translating) spoke. S. Borba said he is seeking a Variance for a parking lot. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy asked for clarification on which Site Plan is being used. P. Cutrumbes said the one dated April 2024. D. McCarthy noted the access drive is only 12 feet and that is basically unusable for parking in an 8 foot wide space. S. Borba said the surveyor came up with the measurement. D. McCarthy said there seems to be a problem developing a quality site plan. They need to come up with a workable plan that clearly shows the four spaces and an access drive that works. S. Callahan noted the project was previously approved but the conditions were never met. He said S. Borba came in front of the Board with essentially the same plans. When the applicant was previously here, he said he only wanted three spots. We now have an extremely similar proposal except but now wants more spaces. He said they should not have approved it the first time with the condition of a site plan to be submitted. He is not in approval of a continuance or a withdrawal. T. Hovey said in 2022 he asked for a stacked driveway with two cars. The Board gave some leeway and allowed for three cars if the conditions had been met. We are now faced with a parking lot for a single family home. The dimensions show they could easily fit in more spaces than the four labeled on the plan. Stacked parking may have worked, but this is a parking lot. He cannot support moving forward. J. Nickerson concurred with his colleagues. G. Procope noted the applicant has been ticketed. This has been going on since 2022. No one attended last session. He said he would vote to deny. V. Pech understands what he’s trying to do. The plan does not meet the requirements. The project has been continued several times and they have continued to ask for better documents. The applicant requested to withdraw without prejudice. The vote was denied by the Board. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to deny the application with T. Hovey seconding. The vote was unanimous (5-0). II. New Business ZBA-2024-18 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Chhaya Uong Property Located at: 28 Evergreen Road 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Chhaya Uong has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct a second story addition onto the existing single-family home at 28 Evergreen Road. The subject property is located in the Suburban Single-Family (SSF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 5.1 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance for relief from the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Keith Sor, the contractor, summarized the project. They are requesting an addition to increase. Speaking in Favor: Kathie Flower (15 Evergreen Road) spoke in support. She said the construction plans show it wouldn’t add up a significant amount. There is one exactly across the street like that. They are a lovely family who needs more space. The applicant himself spoke in favor explaining why he applied. He just needs more space for his children. The neighborhood is very safe. He is a police officer. He would prefer to stay in Lowell and expand the place so they can live there as long as they can. Speaking in Opposition: Kristina Doulamis of 38 Evergreen Road spoke in opposition. She did not receive the letter for notification until last Friday because it was sent certified and she wasn’t home when it arrived. She purchased her home for the quiet and security of the neighborhood. 28 Evergreen is 13 feet from the structure of her home. Evergreen Road is a dead end street with single-family homes on small lots. The size of the homes were designed to increase privacy. She is concerned about construction, but is more concerned on other issues. She expressed concern about construction debris and fumes that will be on her property. This would be difficult to allow for outdoor maintenance of her property. Large construction vehicles would also cause congestion on the street when parents are home during the summer. She is concerned about emergency vehicles being able to access the lot. The addition of another floor to 28 Evergreen Road will erase any sense of privacy and will cut out sunlight to her lot. The project fills short term needs, but if the home is ever sold, there can be up to 10 people living in the house with this addition. She expressed concern that her property value would go down. She closed by discussing the original Zoning Law: 1. Prevent congestion a. Parking will become more congested 2. Ensure health a. Particles will enter her property 3. Provide adequate light and air a. She will lose sunlight Discussion: S. Callahan understands the concerns of the neighbor, but he feels the relief is pretty minimal. The petitioner could be asking for even more and he hasn't. He thinks this meets Variance requirements and will be approving. T. Hovey said he hates to see a project build tension in the neighborhood. He thinks the relief sought is minimal and understands why the applicant wants to do it. He asked why they received the letter late. Contractor said he sent out in advance. She said it was sent but was certified, and she wasn’t able to retrieve it until June 7. He is in favor. J. Nickerson said construction is temporary. The addition will probably improve property value. He is in favor. G. Procope had concern about the notification. P. Cutrumbes explained certified mail can be difficult to retrieve but as long as it was sent out by the 27th its fine. G. Procope said there was no RFP sign. P. Cutrumbes noted that would be an issue. D. McCarthy said he also did not see the notice. He believes it should be continued for that reason. V. Pech asked if there was ever a public notice sign at the site. He recommended it is continued to July 22nd. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to continue to 7/22 seconded by S. Callahan. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2024-19 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: 549 Westford Street LLC Property Located at: 549 Westford Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.3 Petition: 549 Westford Street, LLC has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to erect a freestanding sign at 549 Westford Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Multi-Family zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 6.3 for to construct a freestanding sign in the TMF zoning district, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Attorney John Geary appeared on behalf. He is representing Jim Dolan, the principal of the LLC. He summarized the variance request to include a freestanding sign in the TMF zoning district. He owns the funeral home and the property where the sign is located. It is a residential district but there are many neighborhood businesses within a .5 mile radius. All of those businesses have signs. The applicant did not know he needed a Variance for the existing sign. The installed sign is tastefully designed. It is framed in with some pavers to add landscape design. It provides directional information to the public to the Morse Bayliss Funeral Home. It is tucked away and visitors need directional signage. The sign is not internally illuminated but the applicant does plan to put two small external spotlights on it. DPD staff noted the sign is well within the size guidelines and other requirements of a freestanding sign. A letter of support was submitted by Spiro Skinsacos, who owns four of the abutting properties. Speaking in Favor: Fred Healy of Chelmsford, the former owner, spoke in support. He sold the funeral home to Jim Dolan because of his impeccable reputation. He wishes he had that sign when he owned the funeral home. Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Hovey no concerns. J. Nickerson echoed. G. Procope no questions. The sign is tastefully done. D. McCarthy lives in the neighborhood and thinks the sign is a fit with the neighborhood. S. Callahan said he has no concerns. V. Pech said the sign is tastefully done. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to issue the Variance seconded by S. Callahan. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2024-20 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: Paula Perez Property Located at: 325 Chelmsford Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.3 Petition: Paula Perez has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to erect an internally illuminated sign at 325 Chelmsford Street. The subject property is located in the Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning district. The proposal requires Special Permit approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 6.3 for internally illuminated signage, Variance approval per Section 6.3 for the location of the signage, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Paula Perez and her son appeared. He translated. They want to put a sign in front of the entrance. There is currently not a sign. She plans to use LED lights on the edge. She herself said it is a yellow light, not particularly bright. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: J. Nickerson asked if there will be two new signs. She said no only one. G. Procope asked if her business is underneath the awning that says 325. She said it is the address for multiple businesses. She said she is in the back of the building. G. Procope remarked that the light is necessary for people to get to the business. D. McCarthy is in support of the signage. S. Callahan says the proposal makes total sense. He asked about the operation hours of the business. She said 9-7PM. T. Hovey had no concerns. V. Pech wished her business well and expressed support. Motion: Condition max hours from one hour before sunrise to one hour after closing or 8 PM seconded by put forth by DM Unanimous D. McCarthy motioned to issue the Special Permit and S. Callahan seconded, with the following condition: 1. The hours of illumination will be one hour before sunrise to one hour after closing or sunset, whichever comes later. The vote was unanimous (5-0). III. Other Business 19-20 Academy Drive – Administrative Review The administrative review for the project located at 19-20 Academy Drive. The applicant was granted Variance approval to convert the existing building into twelve (12) residential units with the condition of an administrative review. The project was completed in January 2024. On Behalf: None Discussion: P. Cutrumbes explained this was not supposed to be on the agenda, but does not need new public notice because it is not a public hearing. Motion: Motion to cintune to June 24 by DM seconded by SC D. McCarthy motioned to continue to 6/24 with S. Callahan seconding. The vote was unanimous (5-0). 5/30/2024 Minutes for Approval: Dm motioned to approve GP second unanimous D. McCarthy motioned to approve and G. Procope seconded. The motion was unanimous (5-0). IV. Adjournment D. McCathy motioned to adjourn seconded by S. Callahan. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30.