Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 1/13/2025 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 Procope, Member Briere, Member Hovey, Member Nickerson Members Absent: Member McCarthy Others Present: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 1/13/2025 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-2024-42 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: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: None Motion: G. Procope motioned and T. Hovey seconded the motion to continue the matter to the 1/27 ZBA meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-59 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Himansu Patel Property Located at: 21 Katherine Drive 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Variances Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Himansu Patel for Variance approval to construct a front porch addition to the existing single-family home at 21 Katherine Drive. 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 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Himansu Patel, the Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Hovey said he drove by and saw the sign posted at the property. There are two different measurements for setbacks included. Applicant presented a new site plan. T. Hovey noted this site plan has the same issue. I would condition that we get a corrected site plan. Inconsistent setback to the addition to the backyard. Need correct measurements. I have no problem with the front porch. Appreciate getting the sign posted. G. Procope agreed with the proposed condition of approval. S. Callahan said he agrees with fellow board members. Numbers aren’t correct. Would want updated site plan. V. Pech said he did not see any real issues. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan prior to applying for a building permit. The motion was seconded by T. Hovey and passed unanimously, (5-0). 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. On Behalf: Christopher Alphen, Applicant’s Attorney C. Alphen said they sought an administrative appeal regarding a building permit for a six-unit structure that should not have been issued. Did not obtain requisite zoning approval. Grandfathered status was lost. Structure has not been used since 2018, documented in building department file. Board of Health said no one can live in this structure. Lost its grandfathered right. Can be revived if the special permit is obtained. Regarding dimensional standards - structure is nonconforming structure. Does not meet setbacks. With six units, this lot doesn’t have enough area. Any time you expand or change nonconforming structure, need a special permit. They did not do that here. I understand building commissioner has a difficult job. Thank Mr. Fuller for being communicative with us. In this case, a building permit should not have been issued. You have 30 days to appeal building permit if you know about building permit. The building permit was issued and construction started far after that. Had he known under 30 days, he would have appealed. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: David Fuller, Building Commissioner D. Fuller said he did issue the permit. The abandonment didn’t play into my decision, but I do believe there is adequate lot area. Scale of the building is larger than it was. There is adequate off-street parking, FAR was met. That’s my take on it. Didn’t go before the board based on interpretation of it being a 6 family previously. Came in shortly after COVID. Need for housing, seemed like the right call. Law Department can get into legal aspect of it. Christopher Blake, Assistant City Solicitor C. Blake said zoning ordinance is clear about 2 years of non-use. Vacancy order in 2018. No evidence of property being used again. Extinguishment in effect. Mark Karibian, the Applicant M. Karibian said he used to own the property. Applied for apartments in 1973 with ability to go to 8. Questioned what was going on. Called Mr. Fuller. Tried to figure out what was going on legally. Now, after all that, had to find land attorney to deal with city based on that. I just feel that the whole story needed to be heard. Its literally 2 feet from my property line. Not enough off-street parking. Bill Mandeville, 1280 Middlesex Street B. Mandeville thinks misinformation is going on. As an investor, we have done nothing but what Commissioner has asked for. Spent extra to make sure we were doing the right thing. We’ve increased value around the property. Proud about what we did there. My frustration is taking buildings like that out of squalor, support of board and commissioner would make us come back and keep working in the city. Always welcome to come see work being done. C. Alpen said not debating whether it is a good project. They are correct that the project is beneficial to the city. The point is whether the ordinance was upheld. If Board wasn’t happy with ordinance they can change it. Not saying project shouldn’t happen- just needs to go through necessary steps. Discussion: M. Briere asked what the remedy is. C. Alphen said they are looking for the ZBA to overturn the building commissioner’s zoning determination. This would overturn building permit. The ZBA could issue a decision that says that they can come and get special permits. Not telling them to tear down building. This would overturn determination and the building permit, then require him to get necessary zoning relief. M. Briere asked what relief does that provide? C. Alphen said the project needs to meet criteria for a special permit. M. Briere asked if it is in the ZBA’s purview. C. Blake said they can choose whether to overturn the decision. M. Briere said we need properties like this. Who wouldn’t want to live next door to that? Can’t we come to an agreement? C. Alphen said the question for board - is there a zoning violation? We need everyone to follow zoning ordinance. C. Alphen said decision would be to overturn zoning determination. They could come in and get correct approvals. C. Blake said not the law department’s job to make a ruling. C. Blake said the ZBA can vote yes or no. C. Blake said the ordinance is clear about 2 years of non-use. Based on that, that’s how I viewed the ordinance. M. Briere said ripping it up and coming back seems like a waste of time. C. Alphen said the special permit process would create the opportunity for neighbors to weigh in on the enlarged structure’s size. C. Alphen said they have to uphold ordinance, there’s no way around it. G. Procope said this is a first for me. G. Procope said he agrees with Member Briere that it is a beautiful building that would enhance the neighborhood. From a zoning perspective, I would listen to fellow board members before making a decision. C. Alphen said Mr. Fuller said exceptions should be made. This isn’t a special permit or variance decision, it is whether this should have been allowed by right. S. Callahan said C. Alphen stated in his initial argument that his client did not know about building permit. C. Alphen said if you don’t have notice, that you don’t have an obligation to appeal within 30 days. S. Callahan said he believes they don’t have jurisdiction because they believe the appeal was not timely. T. Hovey asked C. Blake whether they have jurisdiction. C Blake said he believes it is a question of state- specific law. There is an option to rule this is not timely. T. Hovey said the dates are off, which is concerning. C. Blake said the difficultly is when will an individual have been noticed. T. Hovey said this isn’t about property, its about process. There’s been an error somewhere in the process. We’re not talking about process not the project. I don’t think process was followed unfortunately. I don’t advocate for tearing down a building but we do have a process to go through zoning. V. Pech said thank you to all the speakers. I think city/building commissioner were in scope of issuing building permit. I am voting to deny the appeal. I believe it was in the building commissioner’s authority to issue the building permit. S. Callahan said point of procedure - should we vote first on jurisdiction, then if passes vote toward merit? Motion S. Callahan motioned to determine that the appeal is not timely. M. Briere asked for clarification about what they are voting on. They know building is going to stay there. I am not afraid to say if someone made a mistake. I don’t know if I have purview to render judgement. There may have been a violation, but nothing nefarious. What are they getting out of this by appealing. I don’t want to violate the law or set a precedent. What do you get out of this pushing this issue. C. Alphen said zoning ordinance is written for a reason. Needs to go through the process. This is a major project. I know the city may not like this process, but you need to go through the process. M. Briere said he is trying to save a lot of time and aggravation. I don’t know- maybe this is subject to further legal action but I’m not voting to prolong this. I’m not voting to start this all over again. You’re not getting anything out of this. You live next door, how are you damaged? The property is beautiful. The motion was seconded by G. Procope and passed (3-1-1) with the members voting as follows: V. Pech voted yes; S. Callahan voted yes; M. Briere abstained; G. Procope voted yes; and T. Hovey voted no. II. New Business ZBA-2024-49 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Alexa Fermin Property Located at: 451 Broadway Street 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1.4.3(g) Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Alexa Fermin to open a event space at 451 Broadway Street. The property is located in the UMU zoning district and requires a Special Permit under Article 12.3.g for the proposed use, a Variance under Section 6.1.4.3(g) for relief from the off-street parking requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Alexa Fermin, Applicant A. Fermin said upstairs is beauty salon, downstairs is meeting room for family reunions etc. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope said there are two parking spaces in front. A. Fermin said there are three parking spaces. A. Fermin said there are three off-street spaces and street parking is also available. G. Procope asked about capacity of the meeting room. A. Fermin said the room is 20’ x 30’. G. Procope said the parking requirement is 14 off-street parking spaces. A. Fermin said there is land they are looking to purchase to make parking but haven’t been able to contact the owner. G. Procope said they may need more information. G. Procope said the building department said the occupancy capacity is 49 people. G. Procope said it is unclear if they have the parking to support that. V. Pech said they have 3 off-street parking spaces, but need relief for 11 off-street parking spaces. S. Callahan said they provided a deed showing they are owned by Salon Solutions LLC. What is your affiliation with property? A. Fermin said owner, they own the LLC. S. Callahan recommended cleaning up the application form to include the LLC as the owner and her name as the applicant. S. Callahan asked if they have reviewed comments from the city. A. Fermin said no. S. Callahan asked how many customer trips there would be. S. Callahan asked if there would be an office set up there. A. Fermin said she is hoping to have customer fill out application that would be reviewed, and then have someone there to greet the customer. T. Hovey asked if they would bring their own food and drinks. A. Fermin said they would bring their own food but are looking to serve alcohol. T. Hovey said if there are no set hours, could be approving something open until 12, 1am in a neighborhood with no off-street parking. It’s hard to render a decision not knowing what the plans are. Plans are vague. T. Hovey said he would want a business plan before voting. Can’t make an informed vote not knowing that we are approving. V. Pech said what they are trying to do is a good business idea but there is not enough detail provided yet. V. Pech said he would like to see a parking plan and any agreements for parking. T. Hovey would like to see business plan that elaborates on hours of operation, details regarding food and drink etc. S. Callahan would like to see updated application form as well. Motion: G. Procope motioned to continue to 2/10/2024. The motion was seconded by T. Hovey and passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-61 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: Classic Signs, LLC Property Located at: 199 Plain Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.3 Petition: Classic Signs, LLC is seeking Zoning Board approval to erect an internally illuminated sign at 199 Plain 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. On Behalf: Justin Parker, Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: S. Callahan said no concerns. T. Hovey said no questions. M. Briere said no questions. G. Procope said no questions. V. Pech said this makes sense. No concerns. Motion: G. Procope motioned to approve, seconded by S. Callahan, passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2024-65 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Coljack Development Corp. Property Located at: 257 Aiken Ave 01850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 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 construct a single-family home on the currently vacant lot at 257 Aiken Avenue. The project would separate the lots at 257 and 261 Aiken Avenue, which were previously held in common ownership and considered merged for the sake of zoning. The subject properties are located in the Traditional Neighborhood Single Family (TSF) zoning district.The proposed new single-family home at 257 Aiken Avenue requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot size, minimum frontage, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer George Theodorou, Applicant’s Attorney Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Hovey said he thinks this fits in with the neighborhood. There are comparable lots nearby with similarly- sized homes. I think most of the ask is for the existing property. There’s not much we can do for that property. I think you did a good job with the plan. In my opinion, its a no-brainer. I will be voting in favor. M. Briere said this is a great fit and addition to the neighborhood. G. Procope said he is very familiar with this neighborhood. I think this would be a great addition to the neighborhood. Seems like a lot of care went into the presentation/development of the plan. Don’t see any detriment. S. Callahan said he agrees with fellow board members. V. Pech said fits in well there. Thank you for your investment. Only one condition - updated plan with height. Motion: G. Procope motioned updated site plan/rendering showing that the proposed building will be 32 ft in height. The motion was seconded by S. Callahan and passed unanimously, (5-0). III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 12/9/2024 G. Procope motioned to approve minutes, seconded by T. Hovey (4-0-1) with S. Callahan abstaining due to absence at previous meeting. IV. Adjournment G. Procope motioned to adjourn, seconded by S. Callahan and passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 8:26PM.