Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 1/27/2025 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 McCarthy, Member Procope, Member Briere, Member Hovey, Member Nickerson Members Absent: Others Present: Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 1/27/2025 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: Socheata Heng, the applicant. The revised plan has several changes sizing down the project. Gathered signatures from the neighborhood stating they have no opposition to the project. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Michael Wiggins, attorney for Beverly Bouth of 115 Foster Street, the northern abutter. The abutter feels the impact of the project, even if reduced, will be extensive. The height of the addition is the issue. It will affect her privacy, light, and create crowding. The proposed plan indicates an openness to getting rid of the garage. His client does not mind the garage, as it is only one-story. The extra floor on the addition is the issue. The proposed addition would effectively create a two-family. The addition does not flow into the rest of the house. This is an issue within a single-family zone. Discussion: G. Procope thinks there was some accommodation by the applicant to scale back the project and this is compelling. They gathered signatures of support from the neighbors. M. Briere said he believes the petitioner has made their best effort to accommodate on this plan. He looks favorably on it. He asked Attorney Wiggins what a compromise would look like. Attorney Wiggins said either a single floor addition or an accessory dwelling unit. He feels that the project does not meet the standards required of a Variance. M. Briere asked the applicant about a single-floor addition. S. Heng said her architect said a single-floor addition may cause a plumbing issue, as the grade of the property would actually leave open air beneath the addition. The architect for S. Heng spoke and said the in-law apartment would also be in the basement if they did a single-story addition. M. Briere asked if a ground floor addition would share a wall with the basement. The architect confirmed. This would present difficulties for her grandmother to leave and enter the apartment. The basement on the addition is only there to support the load-bearing wall. D. McCarthy said he appreciates the reduction of the addition and the deck. He understands the basement issues. Acknowledges that having a heated space without a floor below would present insulation issues. The FAR as it exists is .62. The proposed FAR would be .8. He is in support of multi-generational living. There is difficulty with the topography in the back as you cannot do a slab on grade. The FAR is large, but thinks it may be as low as the project can get while also creating a livable space for an elder. He is supportive of the project with the condition of a revised site plan to show the correct FAR. S. Callahan concurred with his colleagues. The topography in the back presents the hardship. Asked the applicant if part of the kitchen is being eliminated and expanded, or if a new kitchen is being added. S Heng said they are shrinking the kitchen to give her grandmother a larger living area. Agrees that the FAR is a little steep, but that there is hardship. Staff does not have any concerns. T. Hovey asked to confirm that the front door is the entrance to the top floor. S. Heng confirmed. T. Hovey said the addition for her grandmother would have to be at the same levels as the entrance to the home. Noted that the addition has shrunk. The applicant has done as much as they can to address the concerns. Unfortunately does not believe addressing the abutters’ concern could also accommodate an accessible living space for her grandmother. J. Nickerson asked to confirm there is only one kitchen and there will be no in-law apartment. S. Heng confirmed. V. Pech concurred with his colleagues. The applicant is trying to work with the abutter and the Board. Appreciates that they scaled back on the addition. Said the Board will need to condition the revised Site Plan to reflect the FAR, as well as the official stamped version to be submitted. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variance with conditions. S. Callahan seconded. 1. The applicant shall submit a revised Site Plan to show the correct FAR before applying for a building permit. 2. The applicant shall submit an official site plan with a certified stamp before applying for a building permit. The vote was unanimous, (5-0). ZBA-2024-64 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: James Andrews Property Located at: 34 Lisa Lane 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by James Andrews 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. On Behalf: James Andrews, applicant, spoke on his own behalf. Explained that the carport was built in April of 2024. He had spoken with the neighbor who said the setback was fine. Part of the reason he did the carport is a silver maple that overhangs the driveway. Speaking in Favor: Zach Delgaizo, abutter at 44 Lisa Lane. Doesn’t bother them. It looks great. No issues. Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere is supportive. D. McCarthy said the houses were designed to have garages but that the garage was converted to living space. The lots in the neighborhood are somewhat small, and concerned that it would set a precedent for the neighborhood. However, there is no opposition and the neighbor has no concerns. He is supportive. S. Callahan does not have concerns. T. Hovey concurred. J. Nickerson has no concerns. G. Procope concurred with his Board members. V. Pech said the requested relief is very minimal and there is no opposition from abutters. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variance with G. Procope seconding. The vote was unanimous (5- 0). II. New Business ZBA-2024-66 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Mehul Patel Property Located at: 20 Photine Drive 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Mehul Patel to construct an addition to the rear of their home at 20 Photine 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 maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Mehul Patel, the applicant, spoke on his own behalf. He has lived in the City for over 25 years and is proposing an addition to accommodate his growing family and his parents. He is asking for 65 additional square feet on top of the plans. He spoke with his neighbors and they have no concerns. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy said the project makes sense. Said the additional 65 square feet of relief that the applicant requested is minimal. He is supportive. S. Callahan noted staff does not have concerns. He is supportive. T. Hovey asked about the plot plan. It is dated from 2000. Thinks they should condition a new plot plan but is otherwise supportive. J. Nickerson is supportive. G. Procope agrees with the condition but also agrees it is a minimal ask. M. Briere has no concerns. V. Pech is also supportive. D. McCarthy noted that the basement is not included on the site plan, and the correct FAR would be .46. Otherwise still supportive. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variance with conditions. G. Procope seconded. 1. Before applying for building permits, the applicant shall submit a new certified site plan showing the existing structure and the addition. The site plan will list the existing FAR and the proposed FAR. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2024-67 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: NH Signs Property Located at: 185 Woburn Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.3 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application NH Signs to install an illuminated sign for the business located at 185 Woburn Street. The subject property is located in the Regional Retail zoning district. The proposal requires Special Permit approval under Section 6.3 for an internally illuminated sign, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Craig Moore of NH Signs, on behalf of the property owner. NH signs is the contractor for the project. They need a Special Permit for internally illuminated signage. Believes it is an improvement to the property as it reduces signage and it will not effect any residential dwellings. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: No Board members had questions. All supportive. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Special Permit. S. Callahan seconded. The vote was unanimous (5- 0). ZBA-2024-68 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Kwame Ntiaddae Property Located at: 526 Concord Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Sections 5.1 and 6.1 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Kwame Ntiaddae to convert the existing single-family home at 526 Concord Street into a two-family home. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two-Family (TTF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variances under Section 5.1 for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum frontage, under Section 6.1 for maximum curb cut, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Attorney John Geary, representing the applicant Gloria and Kwame Ntiaddae, the owners of the property. The subject property is a currently vacant single family home. It is located in the Traditional Two Family district. There is a large rear yard running to the street in the back. The proposal will not expand the building, simply convert the interior to two units. The variances are for LA/DU and frontage and maximum curbcut. There are 6 lots in the neighborhood of similar size and frontage. They are proposing an additional 15-foot curb cut in the rear on Pleasant Street for additional parking. Staff comments are favorable. The applicant intends to work with the Engineer regarding their comments. They are including four shade trees on the property. Each unit will have two beds and one bath. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Lisa Sousa of 546 Concord Street. Not explicitly in opposition—just has a question about the parking in the rear on Pleasant Street. Will it be gated? Currently pedestrians cut through the lot as a shortcut. Also has concerns tenants will park in front of the house anyways because the parking is so far back. Mary Milczarek of 531 Concord Street. Concerns about the water draining onto her property as well as similar parking concerns. Not opposing the project as it is better than the building remaining vacant. J. Geary said they are amenable to the gated parking. They will not be exacerbating street parking because they are providing spaces. Most of the work to the structure will be interior, besides the driveway and curb cut. Discussion: T. Hovey noted LRWWU is asking for a utility plan. J. Geary said they were amenable to working with them. T. Hovey said the project provides off-street parking, and that is all they can consider when voting. J. Nickerson said he likes the layout and has no other comments or concerns. G. Procope has no issues. The project matches the neighborhood. Appreciates that the applicant is willing to work with the abutters. M. Briere is favorable. D. McCarthy thinks this is a good proposal. The applicant has done a good job mitigating most of the concerns. Construction is being minimized by the architect’s work designing the units to fit in the current footprint. D. McCarthy asked to confirm a second means of egress. J. Geary confirmed. D. McCarthy asked about where the gate would be going. J. Geary said on the Pleasant Street side. D. McCarthy said this will be a condition. He would also like to condition that the shade trees are on the Pleasant Street lot line. S. Callahan is supportive of the project. Believes the gate will be beneficial. Asked if the Pleasant Street parking would be dedicated to a certain unit. J. Geary confirmed. V. Pech said he believes the applicant has tried to mitigate on-street parking concerns. He is supportive. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variances with conditions. S. Callahan seconded. 1. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering and Stormwater Departments comments. 2. The applicant shall install a gate for parking on the Pleasant Street side of the property. 3. Before applying for building permits, the applicant shall move the shade trees on the plan to the Pleasant Street side of the property. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2025-1 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: 684 Westford Street LLC Property Located at: 684 Westford Street 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Sections 5.1 and 6.1 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by 684 Westford Street LLC to construct 4 single-family homes and 1 two-family home at 684 Westford Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two-Family (TTF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum frontage requirement, and the minimum lot width requirement, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Attorney John Cox, counsel for the applicant, and Matt Hamor, the applicant’s Engineer. J. Cox said he is representing the applicant. The project would replace the old American Legion hall. The applicant has met with much of the neighborhood and has listened to and incorporated the concerns of the neighbors. The project will be four single family residences on Westford Street and a two-family home in the rear. The project would turn around a blighted piece of property. The project has received its other necessary approvals from the Planning and Historic Boards. City staff noted that the proposal also exceeds the required parking. The plan is to have an HOA to take care of and maintain the common areas. The Planning Board has conditioned approval on some of the staff comments, which the applicant would be amenable to with a potential ZBA approval as well. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: J. Nickerson said they are only making a decision on Lot 1. Would like to hear the comments of the other Board members. Asked to confirm if the two-family was condos. J. Cox confirmed. G. Procope said the landscaping plan looks very nice. He appreciates that there are a lot of shade trees. Noted that no opposition from the neighborhood is a plus. He is favorable. M. Briere echoed staff comments that the proposed development is a significant improvement of the site. He is favorable. D. McCarthy asked to confirm the requested relief. M. Hamor said the relief is for frontage and lot width on Lot 1. The rest of the frontage relief was granted by a Planning Board Special Permit. They also need a Variance for the maximum driveway length. D. McCarthy said the proposed common driveway is a great use of parking. Noted that the landscaping plan says 3 trees of 3.5 foot caliper. M. Hamor confirmed and said they will be 12 feet tall. The conditions would be the DPD/PB conditions and the Engineering conditions. S. Callahan thinks this is a fantastic project. T. Hovey says due diligence has been done on this project. The requested relief is minimal. He is supportive. V. Pech thinks it is a great repurpose of the site. Also supportive. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variances with conditions. M. Briere seconded.  1. Before applying for building permits, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater permit from the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility (LRWWU); 2. The applicant shall provide an access easement for each property granting access to the driveway, and the agreement shall detail maintenance, snow removal, and use of the proposed parking spaces; 3. Before applying for building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan subject to DPD approval; 4. Before applying for building permits, the applicant shall provide a utility agreement for each of the properties subject to Wastewater approval; 5. Before applying for building permits, the applicant shall obtain Fire Department approval if any changes to the site impact Fire access; and 6. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering comments. The vote was unanimous (5-0). III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the minutes. G. Procope seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). IV. Adjournment D. McCarthy motioned to adjourn and S. Callahan seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 PM.