Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 8/11/2025 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: Others Present: Dylan Ricker, Senior Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 8/11/2025 meeting. This meeting was held in the City Council chambers. Attendees had the ability to participate via Zoom as permitted by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, signed into law on March 28, 2025. Chairman Pech called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Continued Business ZBA-2025-17 Petition Type: Variance Applicant: Peter Dendromiris Property Located at: 84 Walker Street, 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1 Petition: The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Peter Dendromiris to add paving to 84 Walker Street. The subject property is located in the Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) zoning district. The project requires Variance relief per Section 6.1 for relief for the parking dimensional requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Ian Ainslee, Applicant’s Representative I. Ainslee explained the proposed plan and said the plan includes 4 angled parking spaces. I. Ainslee said the only dimensional variance required would be the curbcut width. Peter Dendromiris, Applicant Dennis Dendromiris, Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Johannah Doulames, 42 Litchfield Terrance J. Doulames noted the additional paving is for parking, J. Doulames said the tenants currently park along Litchfield Terrace. J. Doulames said there is parking on Walker Street, and said the tenants use Litchfield Terrace for parking. J. Doulames said Litchfield Terrace is privately owned. J. Doulames said the plan does not indicate Litchfield Terrace is a private way. J. Doulames cited past violations at the property. J. Doulames said the paving will extend onto Litchfield Terrace. J. Doulames said the Law Dept confirmed Litchfield Terrace is a private way and said the applicant does not have the right to use Litchfield Terrace. Discussion: I. Ainslee said his understanding is that it is a private way, but the access issue is outside the purview of the ZBA. I. Ainslee said this does not impact the dimensional relief requested. G. Procope said the original plan was not for parking, but now it is to add 4 parking spaces. G. Procope asked how many units are in the building. I. Ainslee said 4 units. G. Procope noted the abutter stated the paving extends 3 ft onto Litchfield Terrace. I. Ainslee said he does not believe the paving extends onto Litchfield Terrace. G. Procope asked where tenants park now. P. Dendromiris said there are on street spaces on Walker Street and it is accessed via Litchfield Terrace. M. Briere said the previous visits requested 1 parking space, and now the request is for 4 spaces. M. Briere said no clear narrative was submitted and requested info as to why the applicant is now seeking 4 spaces. P. Dendromiris said they did not believe that amount of spaces could fit initially. M. Briere asked where people park currently. I. Ainslee said currently tenants park on the street. M. Briere expressed concern about adding 4 spots, and said 1 spot would be more acceptable. P. Dendromiris said he prefers 4 spots for the tenant. D. Dendromiris expressed concern about passing the street after snow. D. McCarthy said it is an interesting issue because there is a private way. D. McCarthy noted anyone can drive on or park on a private way. D. McCarthy said this is an issue for lawyers. D. McCarthy said one of the shade trees is not labelled, but expressed support for the red maple trees. D. McCarthy said the parking setback requirement is not met. D. McCarthy noted the parking space needs a Variance from the dimensional requirement for the parking space. S. Callahan agreed there is a conundrum. S. Callahan said the proposal is now significantly more paving than was initially reviewed. I. Ainslee said the area does not meet the minimum requirements for usable open space, and said this paving does not remove usable open space. D. Ricker confirmed the relief is for the curbcut and off-street parking dimensional requirements. S. Callahan said agreed with D. McCarthy and said the angled parking is the best way to add parking. T. Hovey said he feels comfortable it is within the ZBA’s authority to make this decision. T. Hovey said the proposal helps the parking situation and the relief requested is minimal. V. Pech said his main concern was safety, and said getting more cars off the street is beneficial. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve, seconded by S. Callahan. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). II. New Business ZBA-2025-30 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Soaphorn Seng Property Located at: 110 Branch Street, 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1; Section 6.1 Petition: Soaphorn Seng has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to convert the existing ground floor commercial unit into two residential units. The property is located in the Traditional Mixed-Use (TMU) zoning district. The proposal 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 per Section 6.1 for relief from the minimum off-street parking requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Ian Ainslee, Applicant’s Representative I. Ainslee explained the proposal. I. Ainslee said the Variances requested are LA/DU, Usable Open Space per DU, off-street parking, I. Ainslee said the unit has deeded access to 1 off-street space. I. Ainslee said the commercial unit has been vacant for an extended period of time. I. Ainslee said all of the work is interior. Speaking in Favor: Nina Abittetari, 110 Branch Street N. Abittetari said converting to residential would reduce traffic caused by the commercial unit and said the area is primarily residential. Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: M. Briere noted the Transportation Engineer has not expressed concern about the additional on-street parking. M. Briere expressed support. D. McCarthy expressed support for repurposing the commercial unit for 2 condos. D. McCarthy said the proposal will help satisfy the need for housing with modest cost housing. D. McCarthy noted this will provide homeownership at a more affordable price point. D. McCarthy noted some of the Variances requested are already noncompliant. I. Ainslee noted there is a nearby park. S. Callahan expressed support for the proposal. S. Callahan asked about the egresses. I. Ainslee explained the access points for the units. T. Hovey noted the TMU zone is being recommended to be extended down Branch St and this proposal removes commercial. T. Hovey expressed concerns about adding multiple units to the space, specifically regarding the off-street parking. T. Hovey expressed support for the condo portion by providing a pathway to affordable homeownership. G. Procope said the project is a good repurpose of the space. G. Procope said he does not have concerns with the proposal. V. Pech expressed support for the proposal. G. Procope noted the wastewater comments requesting the utility connections. I. Ainslee said he just got the info he needed to add these and he can satisfy this as a condition of approval. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall work with wastewater to satisfy the requirements to go from 10-12 residential units. Seconded by S. Callahan. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2025-31 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Madjack 7, LLC Property Located at: 31 Chapel Street, 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Madjack 7, LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct a single-family home at 31 Chapel Street. The subject property is located in the Urban Multi- Family (UMF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum frontage requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: John Geary, Applicant’s Representative J. Geary explained the proposal, and relief required to construct the single-family home. J. Geary explained the site access. J. Geary said the only relief required is the frontage requirement. J. Geary said they require 9 ft of relief. J. Geary said the majority of properties in the area do not meet the minimum frontage requirement. J. Geary said the proposal is in line with the character of the neighborhood. J. Geary said the applicant will address all of the comments provided from City Departments. Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer M. Hamor explained the site conditions and topography. M. Hamor said all setbacks will be met, and the applicant has constructed a similar style home before. M. Hamor said 2 shade trees will be added to the lot and there will be sidewalk restoration for the existing curbcut on the property. Steve Lawrenson, Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. McCarthy said the proposal is good use of the lot, and expressed support for the removal of pavement, increased green space, and the addition of shade trees. D. McCarthy said the proposal provides much needed housing to the City, and the home will fit into the neighborhood. D. McCarthy expressed support. S. Callahan said he believes the criteria for a Variance are met and expressed support. T. Hovey said no comments. G. Procope expressed support, and said it is an improvement for the community. M. Briere no questions. V. Pech expressed support. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve with the following condition: 1. Applicant shall comply with wastewater comments. Seconded by G. Procope. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2025-32 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Kara Boisvert Property Located at: 170 Mount Pleasant Street, 01850 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: Kara Boisvert has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct a front porch to the existing home at 170 Mount Pleasant Street. The subject property is located in the Suburban Single-Family (SSF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Kara Boisvert, Applicant K. Boisvert said she is seeking approval to add a front porch, and encroach 2 ft into the front yard setback. K. Boisvert noted this is because of the width of the street. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: S. Callahan said the relief requested is minimal and expressed support. T. Hovey said no comments or concerns. G. Procope expressed support. M. Briere no questions. D. McCarthy agreed the relief is minimal, and expressed support for the addition of a front porch. V. Pech said he has no concerns, and expressed support. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve, seconded by SC. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). ZBA-2025-33 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: John Fortin Property Located at: 21 Spring Avenue & 10 Sawtelle Place, 01851 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 5.1 Petition: John Fortin has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to reconfigure the lot lines of the abutting properties and construct a new single-family home at 21 Spring Avenue. 10 Sawtelle Place is located in the Urban Single-Family (USF) zoning district, and 21 Spring Avenue is located in the Traditional Single-Family (TSF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval per Section 5.1 for relief from the minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Joseph Clermont, Applicant’s Representative J. Clermont explained the lots and said the applicant would like to reconfigure lot lines, and ultimately sell the vacant lot for the construction of a new single-family home. J. Clermont summarized the relief required. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Hovey asked if there are plans for the home. J. Clermont said there are no plans. T. Hovey said they are currently reviewing the nonconformities on the existing lot. T. Hovey expressed support. G. Procope said the reconfiguration makes sense. M. Briere expressed support. D. McCarthy said the proposal makes sense, but said there is no plan but they are approving the buildability of the lot. D. McCarthy asked about the approving construction on the vacant lot without proposed plans. J. Clermont confirmed this is possible. S. Callahan agreed that is OK to grant relief for the lot size and if a proposed home requires additional Variance relief they will need to return. S. Callahan expressed support. V. Pech said he has no concerns. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned to approve, seconded by M. Briere. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). III. Other Business Minutes for Approval: 7/14/2025 D. McCarthy motioned to approve, seconded by S. Callahan. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). M. Briere said he will not be in attendance at the first September meeting. S. Callahan wished best of luck to former member John Nickerson, D. McCarthy agreed. I. Adjournment D. McCarthy motioned and S. Callahan seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 7:43PM.