Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 17, 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 Briere, Member Hovey, Member Procope Members Absent: Member McCarthy, Member Nickerson Others Present: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 10/17/2024 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-2024-36 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: Benedito Alcantara Property Located at: 1695 Middlesex Street, Unit 9-11, 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1; Section 6.1.10 Petition: Benedito Alcantara has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to install an internally illuminated sign at 1695 Middlesex Street. The property is located in the Regional Retail (RR) zoning district and requires a Special Permit under Section 6.3 and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Nathan Frieder, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Hovey said that the application was straightforward. M. Briere said he was in favor. G. Procope asked the applicant to confirm hours of illumination. N. Frieder said until 10pm. S. Callahan suggested setting the hours of illumination to one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset or after close of business, whichever is later. Motion: G. Procope motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to approve the Special Permit with the following condition: 1. The hours of illumination shall be one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset or after close of business, whichever is later. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). III. New Business Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Daisy Ayala Property Located at: 637 Beacon Street 01850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1.10 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Daisy Ayala to construct a driveway at 637 Beacon Street. The property is located in the Traditional Neighborhood Single Family (TSF) zoning district and requires Variance approval under Section 6.1.10 and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Daisy Ayala, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: Corey Robinson, 5 W Tenth Street Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere said happy to support. But, concerned about comments from City. All have issued cautionary comments with respect to second driveway. They recommended that we do not issue a variance. D. Ayala said she doesn’t believe it would go over the curb based on the plot plan. M. Briere said professionals have cautioned against it. Vehicles could be in the public way. Not sure if we can prevent it. G. Procope said according to what department is saying, its appearing that there will be overlap of driveway over curb. If they needed to modify the right of way, your driveway would impact that. G. Procope said tightness of street solidified why its needed. I don’t have a problem with that. I think it would be good to get more cars off the street. I will be voting in favor. S. Callahan said he agrees with fellow board members. Would like cars off the street. Have members of community here in favor. With plans in front of us, plans are not complete to make determination. The plans have a 20’ x 20’ block. Driveway would just into right of way. Doesn’t lay out what the curb cut is. I don’t think the plans are complete at this point. I would like to see additional information. Hard to tell how far it is from your existing house. Can’t figure out what distance is between existing dwelling and lot line, not including parking, not including right of way. I would like to see additional measurements included on the plan. Are you going to stack parking spaces? Are there going to be side by side? D. Ayala said would like to do side by side. S. Callahan would suggest continuing this to get revised plans. Need to get all the measurements. T. Hovey said he is all for taking parking off the street especially in this area. The problem isn’t what you are trying to do. It is with this plot plan. I don’t know if its incomplete. Is there a reason you stayed almost 9 feet off your house. Execution is off on this. Plot plan doesn’t show how many feet are off of their property line. Can’t support this as is, do support getting cars off the street. DPD’s comments are fair because if they put in sidewalks you can’t park on sidewalks. T. Hovey can’t support as is but would support a modified proposal. Curb cut is another issue, not spelled out. A more detailed plot plan with exact measurements would go a long way. G. Procope said there is already a driveway on Beacon Street. D. Ayala said 2, stacked. D. Ayala said new driveway would be side by side. F. Cigliano explained how the plan could be revised to pull the driveway out of the ROW and bring the driveway closer to the house. F. Cigliano said she would follow up with the applicant. D. Ayala stated that she would be open to bringing the driveway closer to the house to resolve. V. Pech said the Board has to do this the right way. V. Pech recommended continuing the matter to a future hearing date, revise the plot plan to add more details, then come back. Motion: G. Procope motioned and M. Briere seconded the motion to continue the matter to the December 9 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-39 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Sam Boles Property Located at: 5 Hampshire Street 01850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1 Petition: Banks Building Consultants LLC, on behalf of Sam Boles, has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking to convert the attic of an existing two family into a third unit at 5 Hampshire Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approvals 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, under Section 6.1 for minimum required parking, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: None Motion: G. Procope motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to withdraw the application without prejudice. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-42 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Socheata Heng Property Located at: 119 Foster Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Socheata Heng has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to construct an addition at 119 Foster Street. The property is located in the Traditional Neighborhood Single-Family (TSF) zoning district and requires Variance approval under Section 5.1 to exceed the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Socheata Heng, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Mike Wiggins, Weston Patrick Law Group, on behalf of neighbor Beverly Booth M. Wiggins said I have a couple pictures to present. Goes against purpose of zoning for the area to allow this. Would be a domino effect for others. Don’t have a problem wanting to make space more habitable. She herself is 83 years old. She has installed a stair lift. I suggest that that might be a solution here that would involve increasing the floor area so far beyond what is allowed. Ch 40A Sec 17 will not recognize hardship unless it stems from shape of lot, soil conditions or slope, and none of those conditions apply here. This is a straightforward rectangular lot. Would also cite article 11.2.3 of Lowell Zoning Ordinance which echoes state statute. Because of the effect of the addition of the neighbors, standards for variance are not met and board should deny. Discussion: G. Procope said DPD doesn’t seem to have an issue with this project. No concerns from engineering, fire, water, building. I would take those concerns seriously. I only have concerns about the height but your neighbors may have concern that it may be blocking view of what they would normally see. But other properties are similar in development. Not sure if this would be excessive. I am not sure if there is much more you can ask for if departments don’t have an issue. I would wait to hear from other board members. Don’t see much of an issue. S. Callahan said I understand what you are trying to accomplish. S. Callahan said looking at renderings, there is a door on the first floor. There are windows on sides. On floor plans, it looks like you’re proposing the first floor to be dedicated to storage. On second floor, that would be living area. I’m a little confused based on narrative. If the whole purpose is to create first floor living space, why is the living area on the second floor shown. S. Callahan said based on site plan, only shows existing house. Doesn’t show proposed. Applicant said the addition would be overtaking the deck. F. Cigliano agrees with S. Callahan that the existing site plan is not sufficient. S. Callahan said a new site plan is needed that shows existing deck being razed, layout of extension and new deck that is being proposed. All setbacks must be included. S. Callahan said they want to see how everything will flow from existing house to the addition. Full floorplans of existing and proposed parts of the house. T. Hovey said he gets why they are in front of us. Think its great they want to keep grandmother in house. I agree with Member Callahan. Don’t have a complete plot plan. I’d also question the narrative and the new kitchen would take up half the area of the new addition. I think the neighbor has some legitimate concerns over the size of this. Can we scale it back a little. You also have a whole floor of storage under and adding a 10’ deck. This isn’t a bedroom and bathroom. This is an additional dwelling unit which will be legal. You might want to re-evaluate the scale. This is a beautiful project but it is giant and a big ask. I think it’s the kitchen that’s making me not understand this. 50% of project is a kitchen. I get addressing aging in place but I think we are going beyond that. I can’t support as-is. M. Briere said he can’t approve as proposed. S. Heng said they would revise. Asking for reasonable accommodation. When my cousin bought property, didn’t factor her mom would be here. Sponsored mom last year. That was the issue. She couldn’t go upstairs. Thanks for your recommendations, we will try to modify for your approval. Motion: G. Procope motioned and T. Hovey seconded the motion to continue the item to the December 9 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-44 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Reno Properties, LLC Property Located at: 192 First Street 1850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1; Section 5.1 Petition: Reno Properties, LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking to split the existing lot into two lots and construct a two-family residential structure on each lot at 192 First Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two-Family (TTF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum front yard setback, and minimum garage front yard setback requirements, per Section 6.1 for relief from the maximum curbcut requirement, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: George Theodorou, Applicant’s Attorney Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Linda Knight, 45 Durant Street LK said these aren’t the plans they saw. There’s no two family houses over there. Theyn were built for grandfathers and grandmothers not condos. Retaining walls, keeps flowing down. House behind my house- has a retaining wall. Hardly have water pressure now. Don’t have sewerage, not going to improve our neighborhood. Bianca Fuller, 61 Durant Street B. Fuller is concerned about her backyard. Property lines, fence. What prevents my house from falling. Is Durant Street going to be used. Will there be a fence. Not sure what’s happening to green space in top right. Lisa Morales, 77 Durant Street L. Morales said she remembers the property M. Hamor presented 1.5 years ago. Back and forth about height. Now we’re here with another 3+ story home. Reads definition of a “story”. Reads variance prerequisites into the record. Laurie, Durant Street Laurie said parking is an issue. If they will use Durant as an entrance, everyone is going to park on Durant Street. Elizabeth Bidard, Durant Street E. Bidard said my neighbors would look at the attics. Parking on Durant Street would be a problem. Scott Tulotte, Beacon Street S. Tulotte said pictures look good but some projects just don’t fit the neighborhood. Looks pretty, not consistent with the neighborhood. Will dismantle a wall that’s been there over 100 years. Will get rid of vegetation. Wildlife lives there. Negative effect on Christian Hill. Peter Labrecque, 87 Third Street P. Labrecque said everything the lady said – they’ve said everything. Eagles, hawks. Deer. Cut through street. Discussion: G. Theodorou said first of all, statement that it would be septic. It will be town sewer. Concern about water line – we can't build over the water line. Not near that. Will be left unharmed. We do have an easement for existing home to go out of Durant Street. Will be used during construction process to bring loam down. But we won’t use for access for residents. Won’t impact Durant Street. Not squeezing townhouses in. We have requisite sq ft for each lot. Requirements for min lot area and LA/DU are met. Variances aren’t for density- its for the front yard setback, driveway setback, and curb cut for driveway. As far as impacting neighbors, there is a considerable setback from properties to either side. S. Callahan said G. Theodorou said the client has a right to build on property regardless. GT says variance criteria are met due to topography. Geotechnical engineer will be involved. Impossible to do one duplex due to that cost. SC said there is clearly a hardship. Seeking front yard setback and garage setback variances. Otherwise, zoning is met. Layout makes sense. Buidling into the hill, taking traffic off of Durant Street, don’t need easement anymore. I understand concerns but based on what is in front of me, clearly a hardship, doesn’t detrimental to neighborhood, clearly meets intent of zoning. I will be voting in favor. T. Hovey said he appreciates the neighbors’ concerns. I think every neighborhood should participate in what’s going on in their neighborhood. Confusion relative to using Durant Street as a cut through but it won’t be used as a cut through. Speeding on first street has nothing to do with duplexes on First Street. We vote for what’s in front of us. Aren’t voting on splitting the lots. Can split them by right. Not something we can address. Both lots are very big. Excessive amount of open space still. Could be more to this project but I think it is done with respect to the neighborhood. I was in favor of the other one and I’m in favor of this one. I think its good for the neighborhood. Will be homeownership units with an HOA. Won’t turn into some slum. I like this project and I will vote in favor. M. Briere said the passion is clear but there’s a difference between passion and a simple grievance. Heard more grievance than compelling reasons to deny. Rely heavily on our judgement but also on expert staff who provide us with counsel and technical information we need to help make an informed decision. With respect to this decision, that information outweighs grievances I heard tonight. I respect position, but there's a disconnect/misunderstanding that were refuted with facts that I don’t think the residents had. I can’t imagine not wanting that in the neighborhood. That is a beautiful building that will only add to the neighborhood. By-right this housing type is allowed. This is a good project that will be good for Centralville. Bill Reno, 192 First Street, said they would be removing easement to Durant Street after construction. VP said detailed plan and layout. Did you present project to the neighborhood group. G. Theodorou said no. V. Pech said there are benefits. Appreciate concerns of neighbors. Something new and different. I think will be beneficial to the neighborhood in the long run. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve with the condition that the easement is abandoned after the project concludes and the abandonment is recorded at Registry of Deeds. The motion was seconded by T. Hovey and passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-46 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Lexington Development Realty Trust Property Located at: 41 Whitney Ave 01850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Lexington Development Realty Trust has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a single-family home at 41 Whitney Avenue. The subject property is located in the Traditional Single-Family (TSF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Catherine Flood, Applicant’s Attorney Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Mike Desrosiers, 52 Whitney Ave M. Desrosiers said I’m in opposition regarding 47 Whitney Ave. Buidling a house on 41. Need 7k sq ft have 6. Takes away 47’s driveway. My concern was 47 putting cars on the street. They have plans to put a driveway on 47. I’m cool with it if they add an additional driveway. C. Flood said this was addressed and they’ve pulled a permit to construct a new driveway prior to coming tonight. M. Desrosiers said on condition that 47 gets parking, neighborhood is cool with it. Sandy McNamara, 78 Beaulieu Street S. McNamara said she had signed a petition but wasn’t aware of what Ms. Flood explained to us. I would like my name taken off of that. Definitely in favor. M. Desrosiers said he is now in approval as well. Discussion: T. Hovey said he is glad that they came to an agreement between parties. Its what happens when there is communication. Best practice- get ahead of the curve on that. Compromise was made. That’s what we’d like to see ideally. M. Briere said this is a great repurpose of unutilized lot. Channeling passion with goal of compromise- this is what the end result is. Win-win. G. Procope it seems like there was compromise. In the end, neighbors were able to communicate. I will be voting in favor. V. Pech can support. Thanked neighbors for being respectful and cordial. Motion: G. Procope motioned and M. Briere seconded the motion to approve the Variances. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). IV. Other Business 730-732 Lawrence Street 01852 Administrative Review On 11/27/2023, the ZBA voted to approve the conversion of the structure at 730-732 Lawrence Street from a two-family to a three-family building. The ZBA included a condition of approval that states, “the applicant shall be subject to a 6-month administrative review to address parking concerns.” F. Cigliano noted that the Transportation Engineer reported no complaints at this location. The Fire Department said that parking in fire lanes across the street is an ongoing issue in front of the fire house, but that it is impossible at this time to tell whether the people parking in the fire lane are residents at this address, and that the Fire Department should have cars towed if this continues to be an issue for them. Minutes for Approval: 9/23/2024 meeting minutes G. Procope motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to approve the meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). V. Adjournment G. Procope motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The time was 9:19pm.