Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 4/14/2025 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 Briere, Member Procope, Member Hovey Members Absent: Member Nickerson Others Present: Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 4/14/2025 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-2025-4 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Vannara Nhar 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 Vannara Nhar to enclose their existing front porch at 73 Inland Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Single Family (TSF) zoning district. The project requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the maximum Floor Area Ratio, the maximum front yard setback, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: V. Nhar said he has met with the Building Department and has received an electrical permit. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope says that as long as the permit requirements are met, that he thinks this is a relatively small request. M. Briere says he is comfortable if the Building Commissioners concerns are met. D. McCarthy noted that they may have electrical permits but the Board also requested new drawings. He wants to see a specific plan of what is being built set to scale. Additionally, the Board needs these drawings a week in advance. Needs to know where the stairs will be because right now they may be encroaching into the right of way on Inland Street. He would like to continue this. S. Callahan asked to see all the documentation that was brought tonight. He is also in favor of continuing. The date of the building permit was in November 2024. This application was heard on February 24. Asked the applicant if he has met with the Building Commissioner as requested. The Building Commissioner said in November the application was incomplete. V. Nhar said he didn’t meet with the Commissioner but he did meet with an inspector. S. Callahan said he would like to continue and to have Commissioner Fuller at the next meeting. T. Hovey concurred. Asked for a DPD staff member to reach out to the applicant and let them know exactly what the Board needs. D. McCarthy asked if there is a contractor doing the work. V. Nhar said yes. D. McCarthy says the sketch and the site plan do not show the same sized enclosure. Concerns about the stairs going onto the public right-of-way. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to continue the application to the April 28 meeting. G. Procope seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Duval Sign Company Property Located at: 1201 Bridge Street, 01850 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 by Duval Sign Company to erect signage at 1201 Bridge Street. The subject property is located in the Regional Retail (RR) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 6.3 for relief from the maximum size of wall sign requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Ken Duval, the applicant’s representative. This is a resubmittal for a permit that expired this past fall. The request is for a channel letter sign for the dentist and orthodontist office at 1201 Bridge Street. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere had no questions. D. McCarthy asked why there was a delay in doing the signage. K. Duval said the original company went out of business, so it fell through the cracks. D. McCarthy asked if it is the same design. K. Duval said yes. S. Callahan had no issues. Wants to issue the standard internally illuminated sign condition defining the time the sign can be lit. T. Hovey was supportive. G. Procope concurred. V. Pech was supportive. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the Variance 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. G. Procope seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2025-10 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Bradley Hinkley Property Located at: 199 Mammoth Road, 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 Bradley Hinkley to convert the existing single-family home at 199 Mammoth Road to a two-family home. 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 lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum usable open space per dwelling unit requirements, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: V. Pech noted that they have requested a continuance to the May 29 meeting. S. Callahan asked to remind the applicant to submit updated plans. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to continue to the May 29 meeting. Seconded by S. Callahan. The vote was unanimous (5-0). II. New Business ZBA-2025-12 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Jeremy and Darlene McSorley Property Located at: 133 Clark Road, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.2.9 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Jeremy and Darlene McSorley to subdivide the existing lot and construct a new single-family home at 133 Clark Road. The subject property is located in the Suburban Single-Family (SSF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 5.2.9 to create a large SSF lot with less than 20,000 sq ft, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Catherine Flood, attorney for the applicant. Matt Hamor, the project engineer, was also in attendance. They are requesting a Variance to create a large SSF lot with less than 20,000 square feet. The property has been previously subdivided, and previously received a Special Permit for a driveway of more than 200 feet. The applicant already has previous approval for a subdivision. This application is to shift the lot lines to make each lot more uniform. M. Hamor summarized the site plan. Discussed the existing lot lines and where they will be moved to. He showed the plan that was approved by the Planning Board years ago. The lot at that time would have been just over 20,000 square feet. The Variance brings it below the 20,000 square foot requirement under Section 5.2.9. The odd shape of the lot presents a hardship. He demonstrated on the previously approved site plan showing that a portion of the lot is functionally unusable by a future resident. The new site plan makes each lot more functional. The applicant has hired a landscape architecture firm out of Boston. The plan is thorough. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Mark Cabral of 155 Clark Road. Has concerns about the project. The back of his property abuts where he is building the new house, if approved. Behind his house, right now, all he can see is construction materials and equipment. Has concerns about water runoff and drainage. The proposed dwelling is within 43 feet of his house. He is asking for 4,000 square feet of pavers and parking. Where will it drain off to? Hopefully these issues can be corrected. Just wants to protect their quality of life. Would like something more than the black chain link fence separating the lots. Elizabeth Mead of 143 Clark Road. Have been living through the construction of his pool house for a year now. Constant construction equipment and vehicles. This has been difficult enough with the pool house being constructed. The construction of a whole house could be worse. The main problem is the construction process and the timeline. They are using his business’ employees, so they are only doing this work on weekends because they work during the week. Does not want to be looking at construction equipment or a large home long term. Maria Vega of 27 Tiffany Drive. She has concerns about the large wall abutting her property that the applicant put up. It blocks the sun. Her daughter works second shift and the construction process generates significant noise and prevents her from sleeping. Discussion: D. McCarthy asked about drainage issues, as there are significant comments from City staff. There is a difference between M. Hamor’s plan and the landscape architecture firm’s plan. Theirs shows much less impervious surface. M. Hamor said for tonight’s discussion they would focus on his site plan. The landscape plan can be a condition of a possible approval. He has meet with the Stormwater team for the City. They have asked for multiple updates that the applicant has met. They are using pervious pavers. M. Hamor said there should not be any amount of significant runoff. D. McCarthy asked if this is a different plan than previously submitted. M. Hamor said yes. It is just to demonstrate that the changes requested by the LRWWU were met. D. McCarthy asked why they are shrinking the lot below 20,000 square feet if they wouldn’t have to get a Variance. C. Flood said that layout would not really work. D. McCarthy agreed that shaping the lot strictly to comply with the Zoning Ordinance would render a portion of the lot unusable. What is before the Board tonight is just this Variance. D. McCarthy asked why they chose to stop the line 18 feet from the corner. M. Hamor says there is drainage for the poolhouse there. S. Callahan asked why they need so much parking. There are three garages and significant parking areas on the lots. Why can it not just be greenspace instead of pervious pavers? M. Hamor says that is for having parking so that they can host larger events because there is not parking on Clark Road and that the driveway needs to be fully clear for LFD to access the property. S. Callahan asked if there is any chance that the property line could be moved 18 feet to the corner so that they are closer to meeting the zoning requirements. M. Hamor said they can square the lot off. S. Callahan asked how much extra square footage that will provide. M. Hamor said approximately 1,100 square feet. S. Callahan noted that they have to go to the Planning Board as well. C. Flood said they are going to the Planning Board because the driveway is being altered so the Special Permit needs to be amended. S. Callahan said the Variance is the only thing in their purview. T. Hovey said the Board needs to stay within their purview. Understand neighbor concerns about emergency vehicle access but noted that the plans have been submitted to the Fire Department and that LFD had no issues. The Board is only looking at Lot 1. T. Hovey does not feel the relief is excessive. Understands the concerns about construction but unfortunately that is not within the Board’s purview. M. Hamor said he did the exact calculations and it is 1,324 square feet. T. Hovey said he has no issues. G. Procope said most of his questions were addressed by the presentation and his fellow members. He would like to see the comments that the LRWWU made on the updated plans. M. Hamor said he will send them and that they will be part of the Planning Board presentation. M. Briere said he has no concerns. V. Pech ceded his time to Councilor Corey Belanger. C. Belanger said he attended the meeting at the Riley School. Does not have concern about the quality of the job. Mostly concerns about the construction process. Asked if the Board would consider a five minute pause so he can speak to his constituents. The Board granted the request. V. Pech expressed sympathy for the neighbor’s concerns regarding the construction process. C. Belanger said they would like to see a timeline of the project. The applicant’s team has stated that they may be a couple years out from actually pulling permits. They are asking for conditions. They would like the landscaping plan to be approved by DPD with input from the neighbors. They would like there to be no weekend construction. They would like remediation from dust or debris from stonecrushing. Lastly, they would like to work with the City Engineers to make sure the pervious area will deal with all stormwater runoff. C. Flood noted that building cannot be done on the weekends legally anyway, so it does not need to be a condition. Only landscaping can be done on the weekend. Her client was amenable to mitigate the amount of dust by using hoses. The drainage will be addressed by the LRWWU before they issue a stormwater permit. Any abutters are welcome to have an engineer they hire to work with the City if needed. D. McCarthy asked if they are amenable to incorporating abutters’ concerns in the landscaping plan. C. Flood says yes. T. Hovey said he is unsure if legally they can condition it. D. McCarthy agreed because these conditions would mostly deal with Lot 2, which is not seeking relief. He does favor a condition of a revised site plan. S. Callahan noted that City staff requested an access easement is granted. C. Flood said they will do that. D. McCarthy read the conditions recommended in the City staff comment memo. C. Flood noted that some conditions were meant. She thinks the conditions should be landscaping plan, revised site plan Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve the minutes with the following conditions:  1. The applicant shall record and easement granting the future owners of Proposed Lot 1 access to the driveway/parking area, and walkways accessing their property which are located on Proposed Lot 2 2. The applicant shall comply with all Engineering Department comments 3. The proposal is subject to approval from the City Stormwater Team and consider utilizing green stormwater infrastructure where appropriate 4. The applicant shall provide a detailed landscaping plan including plant species, quantities, and locations subject to DPD approval. The applicant shall seek to install a diverse range of native species which will require fewer resources to maintain 5. Applicant shall submit a revised plan showing the adjustment to the lot line for Lot 1 G. Procope seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous (5-0). ZBA-2025-13 Petition Type: Special Permit Applicant: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Property Located at: Right-of-Way Adjacent to 11 Crowley Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Article 7.6 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC to install a replacement wireless small cell facility on an existing utility pole in the public right-of-way adjacent to 11 Crowley Street. The subject area is located in the Traditional Two Family (TTF) zoning district. The project requires Special Permit approval from the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 7.6 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Ed Pare, the applicant’s representative. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: The applicant has requested a continuance to the April 28 meeting. E. Pare stated that they did not get the signage up in time. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to continue the application to the April 28 meeting. Seconded by S. Callahan. The vote was unanimous (5-0). III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 3/24/2025 D. McCarthy motioned to approve the minutes. S. Callahan seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). IV. Adjournment D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 PM.