Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes November 14, 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 Nickerson Members Absent: Member Hovey Others Present: Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 11/14/2024 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-2024-50 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Global Realty Network Property Located at: 685 Chelmsford Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Sections 5.1 and 6.1 Petition: Global Realty Network has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking to add a new unit to an existing two-family at 685 Chelmsford Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Mixed Use (TMU) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, under Section 6.1 for maximum curb cut, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Attorney Catherine Flood, the applicant’s counsel. C. Flood summarized the proposal. Project received Planning Board approval. The Board conditioned their approval on the removal of the two parking spaces on the Chelmsford Street side of the lot and an additional space on the Norcross Street side of the property. The structure looks like a three-family but has recently been used as a two-family. There will be no expansion of the structure, just the retrofitting of the third floor. After the Planning Board conditional approval, the project requires a variance for maximum curbcut on the Norcross Street side (rather than the Chelmsford Street side) and for the minimum parking. Matt Hamor, the Engineer for the project, described the layout of the site. The building has three floors. The third floor is a half story. They are adding additional pavement to the parking area on the Norcross Street side, bringing the total spaces to five. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope said the project falls within the character of the neighborhood. The expanded curbcut is not much larger. He asked Attorney Flood about the parking situation. C. Flood said there is a two car garage and a driveway for two cars. The Planning Board asked to add more paving for an extra parking spot on the driveway for 5 spots total. M. Briere’s questions were only related to the Transportation Engineer’s comments, which have been rectified via the Planning Board conditions. He is amenable to the project. D. McCarthy said the project will add housing to the City and that preserving the green space in the front yard is a positive. He asked about how the shade tree was located from the Chelmsford Street side to the Norcross Street side. Would like to provide shade on Chelmsford Street. M. Hamor said the goal was to move it back from the intersection of Chelmsford and Norcross to open up sight lines for drivers. He said it would be possible to plant a new tree. D. McCarthy asked to confirm they are keeping the pine tree. M. Hamor said yes. S. Callahan pointed out that the pine tree is located on top of the house on the site plan. C. Flood clarified that the pine tree is not actually on the site anymore. S. Callahan said he is supportive. J. Nickerson expressed support. V. Pech concurred with his colleagues. D. McCarthy asked if they could condition two additional shade trees. M. Hamor and C. Flood said the applicant was amenable. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned with G. Procope seconding to approve the Variances with the following conditions. 1. The applicant provide a shade tree on Chelmsford Street and on Norcross Street. 2. The site plan reflect that the labeled pine tree has been removed The vote was unanimous (6-0). ZBA-2024-53 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Martine Burke Property Located at: 4 Tamarack Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Martine Burke has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a new single-family home at 4 Tamarack Street. The property is in the Traditional Neighborhood Single-Family (TSF) zoning district and requires Variance approval under Section 5.1 for maximum front yard setback and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance On Behalf: J. Cox, the applicant’s counsel, spoke on behalf. J. Cox described the project. The site is over 7,000 square feet and currently vacant. The project will extend Tamarack Street by 140 feet and build a single family home on the site. The project was approved in 2020 by the Conservation Commission, but the state DEP appealed the project. In 2024, the applicant amended the project to meet DEP’s standards. The Lowell Conservation Commission denied the project’s 2024 application with the changes requested by DEP, but the applicant appealed to DEP who then approved it. The project has already received subdivision approval from the Planning Board. The project requires a Variance for maximum front yard setback because LFD needs a larger turnaround on the street for their trucks. LFD has approved the plans. J. Cox noted that City staff has been supportive in their comment memos. The applicant is amenable to DPD comments re: rain gardens. Engineering and LRWWU have different preferences for the location of the manhole, and the applicant will work with both departments. The proposal will provide more housing, upgrade the water and sewer lines on Tamarack Street, provide additional tax revenue to the City, additional red maple shade trees, and several other benefits. Ian Ainslie, of Meisner Brem, the engineer for the project was also in attendance for questions. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere said the only reason the project needs a Variance is because of the LFD’s request to widen the street. He is supportive. D. McCarthy thanked the applicant for their patience and noted it will be a positive benefit for the City. He feels it is a reasonable ask. S. Callahan concurred with his colleagues. J. Nickerson expressed his support. G. Procope said he is in favor. V. Pech said it fits with the neighborhood and he is favorable. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variance with S. Callahan seconding. The vote was unanimous (6- 0). ZBA-2024-54 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Nicholas Kozombolis Property Located at: 34 Staples Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Sections 5.1 and 6.1 Petition: Nicholas Kozombolis has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to construct an addition onto the existing single-family home at 34 Staples Street. The subject property is located in the Suburban Single-Family (SSF) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the side yard setback requirement, per Section 6.1 for relief from the driveway setback requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: John Geary, the applicant’s counsel, described the site, project, and the necessary relief. The proposed addition will allow the resident to age in place and to have a primary suite without needing to access the second floor. He said that DPD comments were supportive the request was minimal. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy asked to clarify the Variances that are being asked for. Is the side yard Variance mostly because of the existing condition? J. Geary confirmed that the existing side setback is non-conforming and that it only comes into play because the building is being expanded. D. McCarthy said the only new nonconformity being created is the driveway. It is a minimal ask. S. Callahan stated minimal relief is being requested. J. Nickerson agreed with the previous two members. G. Procope concurred with his colleagues. M. Briere expressed support. V. Pech echoed the sentiments of the Board members. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variances with S. Callahan seconding. The vote was unanimous (6- 0). ZBA-2024-51 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: 118 Agawam LLC Property Located at: 440 Central Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Sections 5.1 and 6.1 Petition: 118 Agawam LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to split the existing lot at 440 Central Street into 2 lots. Lot A contains a two-family building, and Lot B contains a single-family building; the applicant does not propose to add units to the property. The subject property is located in the Traditional Mixed-Use (TMU) zoning district. Lot A require Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum frontage, and minimum side yard setback requirements, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Lot B requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum frontage, maximum front yard setback, and minimum side yard setback requirements, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: John Geary, the counsel for the applicant, spoke on behalf. He briefly described the application and the lot. The applicant owns multiple investment properties that they have been redeveloping into multifamily properties. Currently there is both a two family home and a single family home on the lot. There is a connecting structure between the single family and the two family which will be demolished. There will be dimensionally non-compliant parking for the single-family and no parking for the two family. He noted staff comments are positive. The lots were separate until 2018, when the previous owner combined them. Due to this, they cannot get an ANR without Variances. There is usable open space at the rear of the property that falls just short of the requirement. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: S. Callahan said that because the lots were always separated until recently, the proposal makes sense. J. Nickerson had no questions. Noted that it was strange that the house was connected. G. Procope said the intention and the history of the property is clear. He is supportive. M. Briere expressed support. D. McCarthy thanked the applicant for maintain the property so well. The property is close to parking garages and the Gallagher Terminal. He asked if there could be small street trees, such as a fruit or flowering tree, in the rear of the property on each lot. V. Pech said that given the history, the project makes sense. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variances with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall plant small street trees at the rear of each lot. Seconded by G. Procope. The vote was unanimous (6-0). ZBA-2024-57 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Khac Thai Property Located at: 63-65 St. James Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Sections 5.1 Petition: Khac Thai has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to create additional paving on the right side of the building at 63-65 Saint James Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two-Family (TTF) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum usable open space per dwelling unit requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Khac Thai, the applicant, summarized his request. They are seeking relief to repave a previously existing driveway that was damaged by a previous fire. The previous owner had never applied for the permit to pave the driveway. There are a number of apartment complexes in the area, so his property requires off- street parking. There is already an existing curbcut. He noted that there are no objections from the neighbors or from City staff. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: J. Nickerson asked to clarify the pre-existing nature of the driveway. K. Thai said that when he purchased the property, the parking area was still usable but in tough shape. The building had a fire in 2022, and due to construction vehicles on the lot, the driveway has been left in a state of disrepair. The previous owner did not pull a permit, so the Variance is needed to legalize the driveway now. G. Procope asked about UV reflecting coating on the driveway. K. Thai said he is amenable. G. Procope noted that the property is eligible for free shade trees. M. Briere had no questions. D. McCarthy said that having a reasonable parking area makes a lot of sense. He said a shade tree could be easier to maintain than UV reflective coating. He would like to condition a shade tree over the parking area. S. Callahan said the proposal makes sense and agreed with D. McCarthy on the shade trees. V. Pech said the project makes sense. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variance with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with DPD to provide a shade tree at the parking area and a potential shade tree at the corner of St. James Street and Crowley Street. Seconded by M. Briere. The vote was unanimous (6-0). Minutes for Approval: 10/28/2024 meeting minutes D. McCarthy motioned to approve the minutes, seconded by S. Callahan, the vote was unanimous III. Adjournment D. McCarthy motioned to adjourn and M. Briere seconded. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM.