Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 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 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 7/22/2024 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 6:30 PM I. Continued 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: Ke Sor, Applicant’s Contractor Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope said he drove by the property. The notice was on the property. Feel more comfortable reviewing. Also, request for relief is minimal. Don’t have an issue. M. Briere said no concerns. Will be voting in favor. D. McCarthy said does not seem like a big ask. Can support. S. Callahan said DPD doesn’t have concerns and requested relief is minimal. J. Nickerson said no questions. Looks straightforward. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan motioned to approve the variance. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). II. New Business ZBA-2024-21 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Franco American Holdings, LLC Property Located at: 357 Pawtucket Street 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Franco American Holdings, LLC has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct an 80- unit mixed-use building at 357 Pawtucket Street. 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 maximum height, and maximum stories requirements, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Steve Panagiotakos, Applicant’s Representative Speaking in Favor: David Oullette, ACTION Acre Neighborhood Group D. Oullette said that Brian and TMI do an exceptional job on their projects. Amazing quality of work. Speak in favor of the great building. Variances are small considering bookended by Franco building. Approval of 5 setback would mimic other setbacks. Would add 82 units of much needed housing. Speaking in Opposition: A neighbor said he did not have an opportunity to see documents until today and the property next door will be affected. Discussion: M. Briere said this project checks all the boxes. Brings new purpose to underutilized property. The tax base will be expanded. Easy to support a project this great. D. McCarthy had questions about how the building height was calculated. We have two levels of parking in the rear. Is that part of the 64 feet. Would like the applicant to provide a complete landscape plan. Architect said a comprehensive landscape plan would be submitted as part of their Planning Board application. D. McCarthy would also like them to obtain stormwater approval. S. Callahan said this project is fantastic. Will certainly fit in with the Acre neighborhood. Brian has done a fantastic job at the Franco school. Should also condition the transportation demand management plan and brief trip generation memo. J. Nickerson said no further questions. Fantastic project. I was looking over the Housing Production Plan and this fits right in with that. G. Procope said we have received five letters of support as well. V. Pech said housing is a great need in Lowell. No objections. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and M. Briere seconded the motion to approve the application with the following conditions:  1. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan prior to applying for a building permit subject to DPD approval; 2. The applicant shall obtain approval from the LRRWU prior to applying for a building permit; and 3. The applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan and brief trip generation memo prior to applying for a building permit. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-23 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: Denise Ban Property Located at: 26 Lincoln Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.3 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Denise Ban seeking to erect an internally illuminated sign at 26 Lincoln Street. The subject property is located in the Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning district. The proposal requires Special Permit approval per Section 6.3 for internally illuminated signage, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Denise Ban, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy said he is unsure of the size of the painted signs. D. Ban said we are thinking 8’ x 10’. Artist is here and can explain about the painted sign. D. McCarthy said lights are lit with exterior lights not interior. Applicant confirmed yes. F. Cigliano said painted sign is actually a mural and they are working with CASE to get mural approved. Not within the ZBA’s purview. S. Callahan says the signage looks fantastic. J. Nickerson said straightforward. No concerns. Support this application. G. Procope said he does not have any questions. In favor. M. Briere said no questions. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned, and S. Callahan seconded the motion to approve the Special Permit. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-24 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Coljack Development Corp. Property Located at: 20-26 July Street 01850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Coljack Development Corp to permit the existing single-family home to remain on the parcel known as 20 July Street and to construct a single-family home on the adjacent parcel located on 26 July Street. The project requires variance approval under Section 5.1 for minimum lot size, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, side yard setback, and usable open space requirements and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: George Theodorou, Applicant’s Representative Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Jane Calhoun, 39 July Street J. Calhoun said variances are put in place for a reason. If the lot is too small and you open a can of worms multiple people are going to try to do the same thing. Also if there’s a fire it’s going to catch. That’s my concern. Sharon Stoya, 29 July Street S. Stoya said she sent a petition today with 59 signatures opposing it. I’ve lived there 22 years and they tried to build on this lot before and were denied. I know in that area they are making streets one way. We are in a school zone and school buses go up and down that street. Food trucks. Create more on street parking. Not enough parking as it is on that street. It is a nice neighborhood and I want to live in a nice neighborhood. I think if we start building houses on small lots we are opening a can of worms. There’s a mature tree in front that makes the neighborhood looks nice. Ruth Messer, 27 June Street R. Messer said they didn’t mention a basement. My house is 125 years old and so the concern would be disruption of integrity of the current structure of my own home and the tree is either going to go or stay. M. Hamor said it would stay. R. Messer said she loves the tree. Mark Stern, 37 June Street M. Stern asked if the house would be a similar height to the existing house. M. Hamor said yes. M. Stern said its in line with other houses but regulations have changed since then. Tree is very important part of our neighborhood. Tree gives shade to 6-7 houses. Very important to us. I think lot is small. I know we need housing though. Tree is very important to me. Discussion: J. Nickerson said drawings show 3 bedroom but in submittal it says 4. G. Theodorou said that the existing home may have 4 but the new one will definitely have 3. J. Nickerson said it is a small narrow lot but its doable. My lot and the building are identical. Not sure if there’s a hardship. G. Theodorou said the existing SF home was built in 1935 before zoning was enacted. When they were changed, the rules became 7000 sq ft for lot and 70 ft for frontage for this neighborhood. None of the homes align with that. So I think that if you vote for this it would be in line with everything else. G. Procope said he agrees with member Nickerson. It is a little bit small. But when you compare to other lots and homes it does seem like all of the other properties are similar. M. Briere said on this board I've voted in favor for new construction on lots so long as character and integrity is maintained. I’ll be voting in favor. D. McCarthy said he wanted to point out the deed which is for two lots. The new home meets every zoning requirement except frontage and lot area. I do support the idea of a new structure in the neighborhood. I don’t like the position of neighbors. We are in a shortage of housing in the city. Modest design. So modest that it only requires two area of relief. Meets setback aka safety issue of distance from other property. If I were to go forward – revise site plan to show rear porch. Not included on site plan. How are you handling drainage? M. Hamor said we would be complying with requirements of the stormwater team. Subsurface. D. McCarthy said suggesting two additional shade trees. M. Hamor said they would be leaving all existing mature trees. D. McCarthy said he would add a condition to keep all existing mature trees and plant one new tree on each lot. D. McCarthy said he has never seen a map so telling about lot sizes. I can support with those conditions. S. Callahan said he understands the concern of neighbors. The lots are all small. It was always intended that these lots would both be developed according to the deeds. S. Callahan said this parcel was meant to be developed at some point. Restrained with the structure you’re putting in. Will fit into the neighborhood. V. Pech said this blends in with the rest of the neighborhood. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to approve with the following conditions:  1. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the porch prior to applying for a building permit; 2. The applicant shall not remove the large beech tree or other shade tree along the street; and 3. The applicant shall plant two additional shade trees, one on each lot. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-25 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: Lazy Cat Lounge LLC Property Located at: 177 Merrimack Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Article 12.4(h) Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Lazy Cat Lounge LLC to operate a “cat cafe” at 177 Merrimack Street. The property is located in the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoning district and requires Special Permit approval under Section 12.4.h and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Brandi Jong, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: Mark Stern, 37 June Street M. Stern said this is a great idea. Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope said he thinks this is a great idea. There are very few cat cafes in the state. Another one was opened in Brookline. I love the idea. I’m allergic to cats but I see that you do have a few letters of support. M. Briere said I hate cats. But I don’t hate your idea. I wish you the best of luck. Good luck lady. D. McCarthy said I love cats. So glad you’re doing this. What are the hours of operation? B. Jong said closed on Monday and Tuesday. Still working a full-time job in evening. Then 10am-2pm then close for an hour from 2-3 then reopen from 3-8. Won’t be preparing food on site. Work with a bakery to have premade snacks on site and good drinks. Most days open until 10-8pm. Said no more than maybe 10 cats at a time. Keeping that area really small. 10 people per hour with a max of 8 cats. Cats would be coming from Lowell Humane Society. Can meet cats to see if they fit with your personality. Nursing homes can come visit with elderly, people who can't have pets anymore, to get pet therapy. Wheelchair accessible. Nice relaxing space for people to go. D. McCarthy said sounds wonderful. S. Callahan said one recently opened up in Boston. I think one of the things to mention is ventilation. Many people have allergies to cats. B. Jong said there is a good ventilation system because it used to be a nightclub. Contractors were looking at that today. There’s things we won’t be modifying. We also have air filtration units and could get some of them. People who are allergic probably won’t come. There will be a window so you can look in without going in. S. Callahan said it is going to be a PURRfect addition to downtown. J. Nickerson said its one of the most unique ideas. I love the idea. I love cats. Good for cat lovers. Something for people to check out. Unique and wonderful. B. Jong said she went to Newmarket NH and there were two UML students from UML who went there to hang out at the cat cafe and there’s been a lot of positive feedback from community. V. Pech said this is a very nice and creative idea. Great service for the community. Bringing in new business. Don’t have any concerns. S. Callahan asked about signage. B. Jong said Steve Stowell came down to the space with Ali Carter and I showed them. My theme is Victorian decorated so signage is c. late 1880s. Nothing illuminated. If anything gooseneck lighting. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned and M. Briere seconded the motion to approve the Special Permit. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-26 Petition Type: Applicant: Property Located at: 691 Varnum Ave 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Lisa Krikorian and Robert Iannuzzo Petition: Lisa Krikorian and Robert Iannuzzo have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct an addition to their home at 691 Varnum Avenue. The subject property is located in the Suburban Single-Family zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 5.1 for minimum side yard setback, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Lisa Krikorian and Robert Iannuzzo, the Applicants Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere said he will be voting in favor. D. McCarthy said the design shows the access door to the new space is through the garage? L. Krikorian said there would be an additional entrance. D. McCarthy said door to garage could maybe not be locked. Looks like a beautiful space. People sharing homes like that is ideal. I’m glad you’re doing it. S. Callahan said its a good project. Makes sense for your father. “Food prep” - how is that different than a kitchen? L. Krikorian said no oven. Just air fryer. Will be using my kitchen. S. Callahan said there’s a door from outside and door from garage. F. Cigliano said as long as that door cannot be locked it would not be considered an ADU. J. Nickerson said it seems like two separate living spaces. Confusing to me. Don’t see how it is free flowing. Makes me a little concerned. I am personally for ADUs but they aren’t allowed right now. G. Procope said I think the applicant has met the guidelines. I’ll be voting in favor. V. Pech said this is a nice project. Will add to the home and neighborhood. It’s good to get people relief in terms of in law suites so we can stay as a family unit. Motion: DM motioned and G. Procope seconded the motion to approve the Variance with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall receive approval from the building department regarding the shared access requirement. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 6/24/2024 D. McCarthy motioned and G. Procope seconded the motion to approve the minutes. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). IV. Adjournment D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The time was 8:15PM.