Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 9, 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 Members Absent: Member Nickerson Others Present: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 9/9/2024 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 II. New Business ZBA-2024-33 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: 505 Capital Partners LLC Property Located at: 38-40 Swift Street Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1; Section 6.1.10 Petition: 505 Capital Partners, LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a new two-family home at 38-40 Swift Street after the lot is split. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two-Family zoning district and currently a two-family home. Lot 1 (the existing two-family) requires Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 5.1 for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback, minimum rear yard setback, per Section 6.1.10 for maximum curbcut, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Lot 2 (the newly proposed lot and two-family) requires Variance approval under Section 5.1 for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Ken Lania Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope asked K. Lania to verify curb cut measurements. G. Procope said looking at the area, it does meet some type of hardship. I don’t think this project would harm the neighborhood- it complements the existing neighborhood. I think this would be a good project. M. Briere said he has consistently voted for projects on undersized lots as long as they are consistent with neighborhood character. I favor the proposal. D. McCarthy said he looks favorably on this application. D. McCarthy stated that this is part of “missing middle” housing stock per the Lowell Forward plan. I think we need this type of housing. I would like to see shade tree on swift street. T. Hovey said one of the big issues is parking. This proposal would provide off-street parking. While we would like to keep open space, we also need new housing, and I don’t think this would be a detriment to the neighborhood. V. Pech said this is an appropriate project for the neighborhood. I don’t think it would be a detriment. I will be voting in favor. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised plan showing a shade tree on lot 2 along Swift Street prior to applying for a building permit. The motion was seconded by S. Callahan and passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-34 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: Viewpoint Sign & Awning Property Located at: 100 Chelmsford Street Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.3 Petition: Viewpoint Sign & Awning has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Special Permit approval to erect internally illuminated signage at 100 Chelmsford Street. The subject property is located in the High-Rise Commercial (HRC) 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: Facilities Manager, 100 Chelmsford Street Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere said no questions. D. McCarthy thanked applicant for their investment at the site. Beautiful seeing that coming in on the train. Welcoming site. I think the request is very minor and I look forward to voting favorably. S. Callahan said no questions or concerns. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve, seconded by G. Procope, passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-35 Petition Type: Variances and Special Permit Applicant: Foster-Efosa Enobakhare Akowe Property Located at: 430 Hildreth Street Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1; Section 12.1(b) Petition: Foster-Efosa Enobakhare Akowe has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to convert the existing garage into an additional residential unit. The subject property is located in the Suburban Multi-Family (SMF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 5.1 for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum usable open space per dwelling unit, a Special Permit under Section 12.1(b) for two dwelling units on one lot, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Hooshi Afshar, Applicant’s Engineering Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Cynthia Kane, 146 Orlean Street C. Kane said their property abuts the garage. Easement states that the use will not be more intensive than a two family dwelling. That would make this not allowed. Workers would have to come to our property. Vincent Hayhurst, 414-416 Hildreth Street V. Hayhurst said they have been using garage to fix up cars and now they want to put a car there. If they can turn their garage into an apartment I want to too. Donna Judson, 149 Orleans Street D. Judson said she is concerned about additional traffic. More cars more traffic. Street is already congested. Busy street. David Nicholaou 119 Orleans Street D. Nicholaou said people fly up and down our street. My vote is no. Discussion: D. McCarthy said the existing structure was purchased last year. It calls out a two family and has two kitchens, finished basement, finished bedrooms in the third floor. I’m surprised people don’t think its a two family. Taxed as a two family. Two electric services. No effort was made to turn it into a single family. We are looking at an application for a three family. Relief would be greater if it was for a three family. Asking to change use from a garage to a residence. Asking for a lot of relief. H. Afshar said no one was told. D. McCarthy said it was very clear. D. McCarthy said there are finished rooms in basement and attic and now asking for garage to become living spaces. Relief for parking would be difficult. I cannot support this. I am disappointed that the application is not accurate. I had to do the digging. Asking for 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area relief. Have never seen relief request like this. I am shocked. S. Callahan said he is baffled by this. I understand the applicant was told something. Advice was incorrect. You could have done a clear title search and I saw that there was an easement involved. Easement granted and at one point whoever owned property came in front of ZBA and has easement broken out. In that ruling, there is clearly a copy of the site plan that shows that there is an existing 2 unit dwelling. There are also declarations of restrictions. I don’t think we have the power to grant anything. T. Hovey said this flies in the face of all three variance granting criteria. I won’t support this. G. Procope said he does not know how an applicant can think they are purchasing a single family to turn into a two family. Relief requested is insurmountable. No way I can support this. Due to the easement, there’s nothing we can do. Based on the fats that we see, numbers don’t match. I don’t support this. M. Briere said the easement issue and excessive relief required prohibits the support of this application. V. Pech said additional housing is a good thing but I don’t think this is the appropriate way to do that. With the easement, I think its hard to do anything with that. Excessive relief of adding an additional unit, wouldn’t fit. Applicant may have been misled to think this is something we could entertain. Could withdraw without prejudice. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to withdraw without prejudice. The motion was seconded by S. Callahan and passed unanimously, (5-0). III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 8/12/2024 D. McCarthy motioned to approve the minutes, seconded by T. Hovey, passed unanimously, (5-0). 2025 Meeting Schedule D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to approve the meeting schedule for 2025. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). Officer Elections IV. Adjournment