Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 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, Member McCarthy, Member Procope, Member Briere, Member Hovey, Member Nickerson Members Absent: Vice-Chair Callahan Others Present: Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 12/09/2024 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 ZB-2024-45 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 spoke on behalf of herself. She submitted a new plot plan with new dimensions so that the driveway would not be partially in the public right-of-way. Speaking in Opposition: None Speaking in Favor: None Discussion: M. Briere said he is amenable to the project but would like more comments from DPD. The original comments seemed hesitant. G. Procope agreed. Asked the applicant to explain the new plan. D. Ayala said she moved the driveway from being eight (8) feet setback from the house to three (3) feet from the house. This keeps the driveway from crossing over the public ROW as it did last time. D. McCarthy says the new plan makes sense. Has removed the driveway from the public ROW, while meeting the required setback from the house of three feet. The street is a dead end so it is unlikely that a sidewalk would go in, but she no longer overhangs that area anyway. T. Hovey concurred with D. McCarthy. There would still be room if a sidewalk was put in. In support. J. Nickerson said it makes sense to get the cars off the highly congested street. V. Pech said he has no concerns. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve the Variance, with M. Briere seconding. The vote was unanimous (6-0). 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 appeared on her own behalf. She noted the new plan has lowered the size of the project. Speaking in Opposition: Michael Wiggins, from the firm of Weston Patrick. Spoke at the October meeting as well. The lot cannot be approved for a Variance for a project that doubles the square footage of the house. The new plans only remove the deck, and do not address the clients original concerns. Submitted a graphic rendering of how the project would look. His client would like to accomodate but it doubles the square footage. The legal requirements for a Variance do not exist. Speaking in Favor: None Discussion: G. Procope said he did not see the public notice sign up at the property yesterday. Not sure if we can hear the petition. Not sure if he feels comfortable making a decision. D. McCarthy said he saw the sign at the property. He noted the existing basement is very large. The current Floor-Area-Ratio is .67, where .35 is all that’s allowed in the zone. Addition would make the FAR .9. Why is there such a large basement? S. Heng said the basement is for storage, not living space. D. McCarthy noted that it is still counted by the Zoning Ordinance as contributing to FAR. Unfortunately, he feels the proposal is too dense. S. Heng said the front porch is not livable. D. McCarthy said that he understands but unfortunately things like the porch and deck count. The current deck is 240 square feet but the new deck would be almost three times as large, as well as building a new level below the deck. Supports the idea, but thinks it is not feasible. He is in support of continuing the project and coming back with a smaller addition, because he is in favor of multigenerational households. The application is asking for .55 of relief, which is larger than what is allowed in the district itself. T. Hovey agreed with the goal of the addition. He had issues with the scope the first time, and this plan still almost doubles the size of the house. Thinks the project is just too big. This is much more relief for FAR than the Board has traditionally granted. Is in favor of continuing the application so a smaller plan can be submitted. S. Heang said the size is to accommodate any mobility needs. J. Nickerson concurred with T. Hovey and D. McCarthy. M. Briere commended the applicant for attempting to allow her family member to age in place. He is also in favor of continuing the application and shrinking the plan. V. Pech agreed that the reason for the application is positive. He is appreciative that they are working on changing the plan. Agreed with the statement of other members re: size. As a Board, they want to support allowing residents to age in place. Feels the neighbors are open to discussions. D. McCarthy noted that removing the garage may help. Motion: G. Procope motioned to continue to the January 13, 2025 meeting. Seconded by T. Hovey. Unanimous (6- 0). ZBA-2024-29 Petition Type: Variances and Special Permit Applicant: Manuel Quindi Property Located at: 771 Broadway Street 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 4.5 and Section 6.1 Petition: Manuel Quindi has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals to open a juice shop at 771 Broadway Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) zoning district. The proposal requires Special Permit approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 4.5 to change the use from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, Variance approval per Section 6.1 for relief from the off-street parking requirement, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Manuel Quindi (with daughter translating). Asking for Variances/Special Permit to sell packaged teas and shakes. Business through HerbaLife. Speaking in Opposition: John Nacopolous, owner of 751-761 Broadway Street. Parking on Broadway is extremely congested. His tenants are unable to park, or have to pay large amounts to park. Where would his tenants park? Speaking in Favor: None Discussion: T. Hovey noted the difficulty of the parking situation. But the current commercial space is empty, which is not ideal. The City does not have any documented complaints re: parking. M. Quindi said the barber shop owner has offered a parking space in the rear. T. Hovey noted that may not help very much, but they are not going to solve the City’s parking issues today. If people are parking in the tenants spots Mr. Nacopolous can call LPD. T. Hovey said he thinks a lot of the foot traffic will be students from UML. J. Nickerson said it is a vacant space, so if it is not this applicant, another will one day move in. It will not stay vacant. Does not believe the nature of the business means people will be parking there for an extended period of time. M. Briere said the same reasoning that allows the barber shop to exist is the same reason the proposed juice shop should be allowed. G. Procope said he is not sure the sign was posted. Not sure if they can vote. M. Quindi confirmed a sign was posted. D. McCarthy noted that a lot of rental units in the area don’t even have any parking. There is an existing vacant commercial unit and we want those to be filled. Does acknowledge the validity of the parking situation. V. Pech thanked the applicant for their patience during the process. The Board cannot control who parks where in public spaces. It is a good use of the site. G. Procope said he leans on the experience of the senior members re: the sign. He is in favor. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve the Variance and the Special Permit, seconded by T. Hovey. The vote was unanimous (6-0). II. New Business ZBA-2024-62 Petition Type: Administrative Appeal Applicant: Marc J. Karibian Property Located at: 1280 Middlesex Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 11.2.2(2) Petition: Marc J. Karibian has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking an Administrative Appeal concerning the Building Commissioner’s zoning determination regarding the redevelopment and use of the property as a six-family structure at 1280 Middlesex Street. The applicant is seeking an Administrative Appeal pursuant to Section 11.2.2(2) of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance and MGL Ch. 40A Section 15. Note: The Board moved this item forward and heard it second. On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: V. Pech noted that they have asked for a continuance to the 1/13 meeting. T. Hovey noted he would also like a legal opinion from Law. Motion: G. Procope motioned to continue the matter to the January 13, 2025 meeting with T. Hovey seconding. The vote was unanimous (6-0). ZBA-2024-63 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Madjack 7, LLC Property Located at: 132 Powell Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Madjack 7, LLC has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a single-family home at 132 Powell Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area, and minimum rear yard setback requirements, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: John Geary, the applicant’s counsel, Matt Hamor, the Project Engineer, and Steve Lawrence, a representative of Madjack 7. The lot is approximately 4,012 square feet of land. The existing lot is the site of an old commercial building. The proposed plan is to demolish the building and split the lot in three, each with a single family home. The first two lots could be subdivided via the ANR process. This is the only lot that needs relief. The proposal is much more similar to the neighborhood than the previous commercial use. City staff is in support of the project. The Economic Development office did ask about the possibility of multifamily housing. The lot could theoretically fit a three-family but the single-families better fit the neighborhood. M. Hamor summarized the site plan. The lot is an odd shape. The goal was to split the lot into three while also building single family homes that were economically viable and fit the neighborhood. All three lots and houses are similar in dimensions. Speaking in Opposition: Theresa O’Neil and her husband, Paul, of 33 Waite Street. Direct abutters. Not in opposition. Just have questions. Have been next to that unsightly commercial building for over 40 years, this is a much better use. The plan shows her house two feet from the lot line. Would be difficult to maintain her house on that site. Concerned about a fence being built within two feet of her window. She spoke with the developer and requested a ROW easement so she can maintain the property. Space to put ladders up/paint house/fix the roof/ etc. Wants to note that this project would be a dramatic improvement to the neighborhood. Speaking in Favor: None Discussion: J. Geary said there has been discussions about a maintenance easement. The client is amenable. There would be an easement of about six feet. J. Nickerson asked to confirm if it would be split into three lots. J. Geary said yes. M. Briere noted that DPD staff is in support. Will enhance the neighborhood. Noted the abutter herself made a strong case. G. Procope concurred with M. Briere. Have been issues with the property, such as illegal dumping. The project would be great for the area. Thinks that they should condition approval on the easement. D. McCarthy thanked the applicant for taking down an eyesore and replacing it with sorely needed housing. Would like to see street trees as a condition of approval. Asked if they are meeting the rear yard setback. M. Hamor explained that because it is a corner lot, all setbacks only have to meet the side setbacks. T. Hovey noted he is familiar with the area. Spoke to the rear abutter. There is a rodent issue with that building. This project will bring a lot to the neighborhood and has been done with the neighborhood in mind. V. Pech said the project is in line with the character of the neighborhood. Is supportive of the application. Confirmed the applicant will be amenable to the conditions of the shade trees and the maintenance easement of six (6) feet off the building. J. Geary said yes. D. McCarthy said he would also like to condition that the rear porches are shown on the Site Plan. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve the variances with the following conditions, and D. McCarthy seconded. 1. The applicant shall provide a six foot maintenance easement with the abutter at 33 Waite Street. 2. The applicant shall provide street trees. 3. The applicant shall add the rear porches to the site plan. The vote was unanimous (6-0). ZBA-2024-64 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: James Andrews Property Located at: 34 Lisa Lane 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: James Andrews has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a carport on his property at 34 Lisa Lane. 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 minimum side yard setback, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. *Please note the applicant is requesting a continuance* On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: V. Pech noted the applicant has asked for a continuance. Motion: G. Procope motioned to continue the application to the January 27, 2025 meeting, T. Hovey seconded. The vote was unanimous (6-0). III. Other Business 11/25/2024 ZBA Meeting Minutes G. Procope motioned to accept the minutes, and D. McCarthy seconded. The vote was unanimous (6-0). D. McCarthy wished the public and Board members a happy holiday season. IV. Adjournment G. Procope motioned to adjourn and T. Hovey seconded. The vote was unanimous. The time was 8:03 PM.