2026-11-09 - Zoning Board of Appeals

3:21>> All right. Good evening, folks. Welcome to the City of Lowell Appeals public hearing for November 9th. Just a few reminders. If you have a cell phone, electronic device, if you could put it

3:34on silent or turn it off, that would be appreciated. Tonight's meeting is held in the chambers. You could also attend by joining through Zoom and calling in through DPD planning ahead. All

3:58right. Under continued business, we have ZBA - 2026 - 37 petition is a variance the applicant [name] Construction LLC property located at Butman Road um the petition the laws that were approved

4:14to hold a public hearing till into the person relative to an application by the applicant to construct a single family home at Butman Road this subject property is located in the suburban

4:27single family SSF zoning district the project requires variance approval per section 5.1 for relief from the minimum frontage, minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit

4:39requirements and [clears throat] any other relief required in the law zoning ordinance. Good evening, counselor. >> Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening to all. For the record,

4:46my name is [name] of [name] [address] I'm here tonight representing the applicant [name] Construction LLC. With us tonight, we have [name] and his wife [name]. We have [name] from [name]

5:03Engineering. As the chair mentioned, we're here tonight uh on a continued matter from the September 14th uh hearing where where [name] Construction was seeking relief pursuant to section 5.1 of

5:18the city zoning ordinance in order to construct a single family home at Butman Road, which is a vacant separately taxed parcel of land uh consisting of 5,500 square feet of land. The property,

5:33as we all know, is located within the suburban single family zoning district. Uh the applicant is proposing to construct a 1,440 square foot home consisting of three bedrooms, two baths. This

5:46home is not a cookie cutter home. It was not designed I mean it's not it was designed specifically taking into consideration the the available lot area and the frontage associated with this

5:58particular lot. Um other than uh lot area and and frontage, this proposal meets all of the other requirements of Section 5.1. So we meet the front yard setback, we meet the rear yard setback,

6:12we meet the side yard setbacks. We don't need a variance for floor area ratio, and we have the we're providing the required off-street parking. Since the September 14th meeting, we had an

6:26opportunity to meet with the neighbors. We met at the Sullivan Middle School. I think it was Wednesday, September 28th, if I'm correct. There were about 10 to 12 neighbors present, mostly

6:36consisting of the immediate abutters to the property. At that meeting, we asked those in attendance if there was anything that we could do to make this proposal more palatable to them. For

6:50example, we offered to decrease the size of the home because at the initial public hearing, we had heard from the neighbors that the home was too large. We didn't agree with that because as I

7:01said, we don't need a floor area ratio variance here, which is, you know, indicative that the property is is that the size of the home is appropriate to the lot. We offered to to enhance the

7:13landscaping and provide additional screening. What we determined from this meeting was that the the abutters simply do not want a home built on this lot. This and we understand those concerns.

7:27This end of Butman Road is congested and it narrows. But what we are proposing is characteristic of this neighborhood. It's a modestly sized single-family home in a single-family zoning

7:39district. I would imagine that any family purchasing this property would be proud homeowners and a valued neighbor. We provided the board with the with the GIS exhibit that I referenced at the

7:52initial hearing. That shows that there's an overwhelming number of lots that are similarly nonconforming in terms of lot area and frontage. [clears throat] We provide this type of plan to the

8:05board so we can give the board a you know a sense of what the neighborhood consists of. And I've been before this board for several undersized lots and I can't recall another GIS exhibit plan

8:18where there have been so many lots that are similarly sized in terms of frontage and lot area. So I think that it's fair to say that what we are proposing is characteristic of the neighborhood.

8:34One matter that we did agree to that one one good thing that came out of the neighborhood meeting is we agreed to do soil testing in advance of this meeting tonight. So that soil testing was

8:44done last week and the soils are compatible to the recharge system that we are proposing. I'll leave the details of that for [name] to review with the board in just a few minutes. The so the

9:00specific relief that we are requesting tonight is for minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum frontage. This proposal is consistent with the new variance criteria of

9:13Mass General Laws Chapter 40A Section 10. That new standard dictates that this board shall grant a variance if the board finds that a strict enforcement in this case of Section 5.1 of the city

9:26zoning ordinance would result in a practical difficulty to the applicant. So in making that determination the board shall weigh the benefits of the applicant and the public interest including

9:40including the interest of the production of housing within the Commonwealth and that is something that is explicitly stated in the statute, the production of housing. So those those benefits

9:50are weighed against weighed against the detriment to the public health safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In considering the balancing test the board may consider whether the practical

10:03difficulty relates to soil condition, shape, topography of the lot whether the strict enforcement of the bylaws impose a financial hardship on the applicant, whether [clears throat] the

10:14benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other means or method, and whether the the hardship was self-imposed or self-created. So relating those standards to this application, I

10:28think that we have satisfied the criteria. In terms of the benefits to the applicant and the public interest again, including the production of housing, this the applicant cannot do anything

10:40else with this lot other than build a single-family home. It has no other utility to the applicant. [clears throat] Fortunately, construction of a single-family home on this lot aligns very

10:50well with that overwhelming public policy of creating housing within the Commonwealth as is explicitly stated in Mass. General Laws 40A Section 10. So in terms of the detriment to the health,

11:03safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, what the applicant is proposing is absolutely in character with this neighborhood. I think we have established that with the GIS exhibit plan. [snorts]

11:14We understand that it's a suburban single-family district and the the requirement now is 10,000 square feet and 90 feet of frontage, but this new variance criteria gives this board the ability

11:27to grant variances just for this purpose. I I imagine that the legislature had lots like this in mind when they created this new relaxed variance standards to in in order to increase housing

11:41within the Commonwealth. So this is a reasonable use of this vacant, separately taxed parcel of land. Strict enforcement of the bylaw would unquestionably impose a financial hardship on the

11:54client. In fact, the client has has endured a financial hardship over the last 10 years by carrying the lot over that time period with not being able to do anything with it. Um as I mentioned

12:07at the last hearing, the hardship was not self-created and the neighbors disputed that assertion at that meeting, but the facts are the facts. So, in this case, the applicant purchased this

12:18lot about 10 years ago with the understanding that a single-family home could be built on the lot. The applicant obtained the building permit from the building department and then closed on

12:30the lot. Shortly after closing on the lot and getting the building permit, the applicant started construction. The building commissioner asked the applicant to stop construction. There may

12:41have been an error with the issuance of the permit. That error was no fault of the applicant whatsoever, and the applicant had had to hold the lot until now, creating that ongoing financial

12:52hardship. And Mr. Chair, I have a few copies here that I'd like to share with the board if I may approach. >> Yeah, of course. Thank you. >> So, if I could just draw your attention to the um

13:36to the color copy of the building permit. So, the issuance date that I've flagged on this is 11/20/2015. If you look at the next page, which is a copy of the electronically recorded deed, I've

13:53highlighted the recording date, which is December 23, 2015. And then the next page is the just the grant clause. The the sellers conveying the property to [name] Construction for consideration

14:07of $75,000. So, any argument that this hardship was self-created just simply not true. The applicant would not have closed on this lot had the applicant not been able to have that building

14:22permit in hand. [clears throat] So that is my technical review of the new variance criteria. Uh we've also at the last meeting we had the staff comments. We discussed those a little bit. They

14:38were two uh conditions noted within those staff comments. One was to uh to plant the shade tree in the front yard and the other was to provide for a storm water permit. As I said then and I'll

14:51say again, we have no issue with adding those conditions to any approval uh of of the variances. Uh so with that I'd like to hand the presentation over to um [name]. [name] would like to give

15:06the board his perspective uh on this application and then we'll hear from [name] for a technical review of the plans. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you, Councilor. Good evening, sir. >> Uh good

15:21good evening, Mr. Chairman, fellow members of the board. Uh my name is [name] of [name] Construction LLC. I just wanted to get up here tonight so you can hear my side of the story directly

15:33from me and not [name] or or any of the neighbors. Um and excuse me if I'm repeating some things that you've already heard but this is important to me. This started in 2015. My friend [name],

15:44who was a police officer in the city of Lowell, him and his wife were house hunting. My mother was their real estate agent. They ended up getting Butman Road under agreement um and Butman Road

16:01came with that house as a separate parcel. Now my mother noticed on the tax card uh for Butman Road it said residential developable land. So we so she mentioned it and we approached the

16:17planning and development department department to see if it was a buildable lot. They said yes. We approached the building department to ask if it was a buildable lot, and they said yes. There

16:26was no attempt at coercing or convincing them that we were we were simply asking. I only say this to give context that this was not a self-imposed hardship. Um we had an architect draft some

16:41plans for a 1,700 square foot house and agreed to purchase it from the [name] for $75,000 on the condition that the city of Lowell issue us a building permit, which they did issue a foundation

16:55permit, as you see, uh November 20th, 2015. Once the permit was acquired, uh we paid for and closed on the lot. Um we were shut down from building once we got to the foundation footing stage

17:10in 2016. Um and then 2017 we were issued another building permit and shut down again. And that was when one of the direct abutters, [name] and [name], uh when their fence came down. And and

17:24that was handled poorly by us. And I expressed that to [name] and [name] and and I and I hope that they believe my sincerity and and I hope I can make it up to them. Um the foundation footings

17:39they were left exposed. They weren't covered up until 2020. I should have covered up sooner. Um I felt terrible when [name] mentioned [name]'s the direct abutter now abutter and I felt

17:48terrible when she mentioned it was a hazard. Um I own those mistakes. I I I was embarrassed in those mistakes and and I learned from those mistakes. Uh so fast forward 2024 I I reached out to

18:06the three direct abutters, um the city councilor [name] at the time and the Belvidere neighborhood group asking for feedback because I wanted to come to this board with a more organized

18:19proposal. I reached out to them hoping I could get some feedback, whether it was good or bad. Um, I didn't want to have an architect design a house that they weren't agreeable to um or going

18:33to be against. So [name] and [name], the two director abutters on Road, they did confirm they received my correspondence, but they didn't want to provide any feedback at the time. So in 2026

18:45um I had plans drafted for a smaller 1,400 square foot house that fit within the FAR. [name] from [name] did a proper site plan and obviously [name]'s here uh presenting on on our behalf.

19:03After the September meeting, you know, we myself, [name], and [name], we met we met with the neighborhood per per the board's recommendation to see what if any adjustments could be made to our

19:12application to attempt to alleviate some of the concerns. Uh we we completed a soil test with because the concern of groundwater was vocalized and that was completed and has been added to the

19:23site plan. Uh we were unfortunately we were unable to find common ground otherwise and it was made clear that the abutters didn't want any home there even if it was it was smaller and and the

19:37two director abutters did make me an offer on the lot which I I could not accept at at the time. Um I know this board often has developers up here that they're familiar with. They know their

19:49work and trust what they say. I I haven't done too much work in Lowell, but I'm also not a stranger to the city. I went to UMass Lowell. I lived in Pawtucketville for 10 years. Um I hope to

20:00build this house and I hope to work in the city in the future. Um this lot is is a lot just like any other lot in the neighborhood or the city. The the fact that other lots have more right to

20:16a home simply because they don't have over neighbor opposition doesn't seem equitable. We would like to take this vacant lot and construct a modest, aesthetically pleasing home, one that adds

20:28to the much needed inventory for an entry level buyer looking for a place to call home. Thanks for your consideration, guys, and uh and at this time I'll turn over to [name] from [name] to

20:41review the plans. >> Thank Thank you, sir. Uh good evening uh chairman, members of the board. Uh for the record, [name], [name], [address] So I'm just going to outline the the plan uh from the

21:16last hearing. So here's Butman Road. Um the proposed driveway is located on the left hand side of the home. It'll have two uh parking spaces there. There'll be a walkway coming into a front

21:36entrance way porch. And then you have the dwelling with a walk out in the back and a deck uh in the rear. Uh what's different from this plan from the original plan that the board seen is we

21:53went out and conducted uh a soil test in the rear um which was witnessed by the um city of Lowell stormwater group um and a soil evaluator logged the hole. Uh it was representative of um silt

22:10sandy soils. Uh we established seasonal high groundwater as well during conducting that uh deep hole test and that's been added to the plan in close proximity to the infiltration system which

22:22is right next to it. Um additionally as uh attorney [name] um had said we have a proposed shade tree um located in the front of the property as well. This plan here is the GIS exhibit plan.

22:49And you can see the the property location is located here. And you can see uh in red the number of size lots that are similar in size in the direct vicinity of the lot. In terms of those um

23:03those sizes there's uh 224 nonconforming lots of similar size that are identified on the plan. And then you have um lots that are also shown in cross hatching which are lots of less than

23:2210,000 square feet of which there's 200 and uh 90 of those in relatively close proximity to the lot. And then there's also uh lots with with bold red which show that there's less than 90 feet

23:38of frontage as well. So you can see the overwhelming majority of lots [snorts] in direct proximity of the lot um that's representative of of this uh GIS exhibit plan. And these are

24:01perspectives um that I thought are nicely done um that show what the lot would look like from Road. Even showing the shade tree on there the existing fence that that'll be relocated as part of

24:17this proposal. And then a perspective looking at it here. And this is a rear perspective showing the terrain and the walkout uh basement in the rear. And I can put it over to attorney [name].

24:35>> And thank you, [name]. >> Thanks, [name]. So, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, through our application materials, uh my narrative, the plans that we submitted, um our presentation at the

24:48public hearings, I believe that we have established that this application meets the criteria associated with Mass General Laws Chapter 48 Section 10, and for those reasons, we are respectfully

24:59requesting approval of the requested relief this evening. We're here and we're happy to answer any questions or try to address any concerns, but that's all we have for now, Mr. Chair. >> All

25:09right, thank thank you uh Councilor. >> you. >> Um open here into the public. Um anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Good evening, ma'am. >> Good evening. My name is [name] and this is my

25:27husband [name]. We live at Butman Road directly beside this lot. Our lot holds an easement of 10 ft by 100 ft from Butman Road. This is for the fence that has been brought up several times

25:41that was knocked down and we replaced, also for part of our driveway and our irrigation system. I would also like to note that this GIS exhibit that continually is mentioned shows the lots

25:55that were established well before the 2004 2004 zoning law changed to the 10,000 sq ft lot. Our neighborhood is already very well established. We're here tonight still opposing this variance

26:10for all of the reasons in the letters we've already filed. Most recently, a supplemental letter dated November 6th, which I'd asked for the board to confirm in tonight's record. I want to hit

26:23just a few points quickly. The last time we spoke to the board back in September, it was suggested that the neighbors um that there might be a concern that we had more issue with the

26:33contractor than with the build itself. I can only speak for us, but that's not true. We'll we'll say very plainly that we haven't appreciated the things that have been done with this law and

26:49how it's impacted us directly with our fence and other things. But [name] has reached out to the neighbors over the last two years and he has been much more proactive in the communication to

27:02us, which we do appreciate. However, we are still opposed to this project, not because of [name] construction, but what it means to our neighborhood. On September 29th, [name] and the

27:15neighbors kept to our agreement to meet. Nothing was resolved. We didn't reach any agreements, but a few things did get addressed as have been mentioned already tonight. When we asked them

27:28directly if they would conduct a percolation test on the soil or would do one before the next hearing, we were told no, they wouldn't. Then the day before we were set to appear before the

27:40board on October 15th, we did receive a message, thankfully from [name] saying, hey, we're going to go before the board and just ask for a continuance because we are going to move forward with

27:52that percolation test. Several of us felt that that looked like a stall tactic, time to push this hearing past election day. So then we'd have the results of the question seven measure on the

28:04ballot. That said, we do appreciate that the test was actually conducted and there are findings now which we are reviewing. Second, question seven failed. Lowell's 10,000 square foot minimum

28:19lot size is still the law and the board still has full discretion to deny the petition under the ordinary hardship standard. Third, I've personally gone through every single one of the letters

28:31that have been sent to the board. Nine letters show support of this build. Two came in since Friday. All of the addresses of those in support are from a half a mile away to two miles away,

28:48except for one that's on the corner of Butman and Whitehead right down the street. And every one of those in support are just a form letter. Out of all nine, only one comes from somebody who

29:03would be directly impacted. 10 letters oppose this project. Nine of them are on Butman Road and one from Wedgemere. The streets that live where this project would be, the one the people who

29:16are directly impacted by the traffic, the parking, and the drainage. The opposition count still understates things. Many more neighbors on Butman and Wedgemere have showed up to the September

29:2914th hearing and the September 29th neighborhood to meet with [name] and they're here tonight. Neighbors, if you're opposed, would you raise your hand? And now I'll hand it to my husband. >>

29:45Thank Thank you, ma'am. Good evening, sir. >> Uh good evening. Uh I just want to add a few things uh from living on Butman every day. Butman is already tight. Parking is hard to come by even

29:54now and once the city declares a snow emergency in the winter and clears cars off the street, there's nowhere nearby for an extra household to go. Adding another home onto this lot makes

30:09things much worse for everyone on our street, not better. After the meeting on September 29th with [name], when the direct abutting neighbors on either side offered to buy this lot rather than

30:22see a house forced onto it, they said no and told us the price depended on what they had already spent, not what on what the lot was already actually worth. I'd I'd like to note that the plans

30:34show the edge of this new house to be approximately 20 feet from the side of our house and only five feet from our fence line. Lastly, it's been mentioned that this project would be helping

30:46Lowell's affordable housing crisis and I don't believe that it would be. There are two homes for sale on Butman Road right now with a third coming soon and a new build going up across the

30:59street from this lot. The smallest and cheapest home, two bedroom one bath is on the market for 450,000 an approximate monthly mortgage of about 3,000 a month. None of it's affordable and a

31:14single new family home built on a non-conforming lot by a for-profit developer won't necessarily be either. We've lived next to this lot for a long time and we don't think this project belongs

31:28there in this undersized lot in a very congested area and this is not in the best interest of the neighborhood or for those that live on Butman Road. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you sir for

31:38your comments. Good evening sir. >> Good evening. [clears throat] My name is [name]. I'm at Butman Road and again I was here in opposition the first time. So [clears throat] as it relates to

31:58the hardship, I still truly believe that it was indeed self-inflicted. I believe that any building permit was obtained under at minimum suspect conditions and it occurs to me that someone

32:19along the way decided that that was the case and and pulled it back. I live two houses down from this proposed place. In the last couple of weeks we've had a couple of things [clears throat]

32:37going on in the neighborhood and maybe one or two cars parked across from my driveway made it near impossible for me to exit my driveway. I had to be very careful. I had a cars on this side

32:51and on this side of my driveway and then two at the end of my driveway. So that happens more often than than I care to to to to mention. Additional cars in that street in that area I think

33:07will only make it worse. My wife and I live alone. We have no children at home anymore. We have two cars. A three bedroom house looks to me like at least a family of four. And to me the

33:27possibility of four additional cars if not more. So they've accounted for two spaces but the other two cars that I truly believe will be part of that. I'm going to have to try to find

33:43someplace to park off off I mean on the street. And there's just there's there's just no room for it. When there's cars on both sides of the street you can you just barely navigate up and down

33:57the street as it is. It it's very difficult to navigate up and down especially in that section of Butman Road. Up the road a little bit more or down the road toward 38 it kind of opens up the

34:13the street widens and there's a little more space. But not in this area and I would say probably for a good distance that space it's it's just it's it's too narrow to support that. [clears

34:30throat] So those are my yeah those are my concerns. >> Okay I think thank you sir for your comments. Good evening >> Good evening. Um my name is [name], and I'm a resident of Butman Road. I've

34:48lived there for just about 13 years, and I've been a resident of Belvedere basically my whole life. Um my major concerns are that I've noted in our neighborhood, we have had at least eight

35:00houses constructed within the last five years, two of them specifically on our section of Butman Road. Raising a third home um is my biggest concern um for that just three houses out of nine

35:17being on the same section between Huvy and Rogers Street seems like quite a bit to me. Um Butman Road um you know nothing against them. I see those two cars of traffic on a daily basis um so

35:30it's not just one more house. These are everyday people that we see up and down our street every day. Um being a crowded street, it's easy to notice those things as we're pulling over for each

35:43other, letting each other go. Um so these extra people do make a significant difference in this section. Um I also believe that 2004 this law was probably put into place to preserve the uh the

36:01neighborhood, to prevent overcrowding um and to keep it in its beautiful state that it is. Um it's a really hard thing, but the overcrowding I think in the city as a whole is one thing, but um

36:17Um so those are my biggest concerns. So thank you so much. >> Thank Thank you, ma'am, for your comments. Good evening, ma'am. >> Good evening. My name is [name], and I live at Butman Road. So

36:42I'm diagonal to the proposed build. Um as you've heard many people say and I agree with them we we're already dealing with a very congested area. We have a very narrow road. Um people park on

36:59both sides of the roads. It's very difficult to get by. And uh I I don't feel how I don't understand or I'm not in agree agreement with a build because I do not feel like it's a positive. I

37:12feel like we're already dealing with a lot of issues and and again we we have a very congested road. I feel like it's the worst road in Belvedere. And you know that's all I know but I do. I

37:24feel like it's the worst road in Belvedere and it and as [name] had stated too in the winter it's it's even worse. So I do worry about parking and and again if you this house is a lot bigger

37:40than [name]'s and [name]'s. They have a ranch style. This is not a ranch style. I feel like uh if I were them I would not be happy to have uh a home. I feel like it's invading on their privacy

37:49a bit. It is very close to their house and I wouldn't want it if I if I were them. Thank you. >> Thank thank you ma'am for your comments. Good evening ma'am. >> Good evening Mr. Chairman and

38:07members of the Board. My name is [name] and I live on the property directly abutting Butman Road at Butman Road. And I'm I'm here tonight with my neighbors to speak in opposition of this

38:25variance petition. What they are asking to build for um here is not a solution to a natural hardship. Is it is a request for special treatment to build a single family home on a fundamentally

38:37unbuildable lot. First look at the sheer scale of the dimensional violation. Loll changes zoning laws, bylaws explicit to require a 10,000 square foot minimum in 2004. This lot is 5,500 square

38:53feet. It is nearly half of the required size. is not a minor oversight or a marginal deviation. This is an egregious deficit. The applicant knew the zoning restrictions when they took control

39:08of this land. Forcing a structure onto this parcel that is severely undersized is going to disrupt the neighborhood. I keep hearing and I'm going to go off for a second. I just I keep hearing

39:22about um how the this fits into the neighborhood. It fits into what's already established. All of those houses have been there for, you know, years. We can't change what has already been done,

39:34but we can change what is going to happen for our future, for the future of the neighbors that are living in this in this neighborhood. So I just wanted to say that. Second and most

39:45critically, any hardship claimed by the developer is entirely self-created. I'm going to stand by this. Um given the fact that this law has not changed, it was a 10,000 square foot lot

39:58requirement minimum at the time of purchase. I understand that they were given a a permit at the time and I feel for them. I do and I think [name] is a very nice man and I this is not

40:09personal. This is and I want to make that clear. This is has nothing to do with us holding any kind of vendetta against the company itself or [name] or the [name] family. This is simply about

40:24our neighborhood. Um and I just feel like again, you purchased a a substandard non-conforming lot um and that's to maximize profit. You know, this is all about building something and I

40:36continue to hear about how this is going to make our neighborhood better. This narrative that the house is going to add value and benefit to our community. We live here. We know the reality.

40:52This is not going to add value. This project is going to directly lower the quality of life for immediate neighbors on Butman Road and the surrounding streets. Um squeezing a structure onto

41:02this 5,500 square foot lot will worsen local traffic safety, take away critical off-street parking options. Like I said, um and exacerbate active erosion and drainage issues that we already

41:16have on our street. Um I keep hearing the assumption of that this again the neighbors, the future neighbors are going to add value to our community. Who's to say who these future neighbors

41:31are? Um let's face it. We've all had neighbors that are not necessarily the best. What we are trying to do is maintain any integrity that we have here in which ways we can control on our on

41:44our small, narrow street. It is just becoming unlivable. Whenever like they were saying there's been projects going on. We have a build going on right now across the street. It is created

41:58chaos. People knocking at our doors at 6 7 a.m., you know, needing to move cars. This is a constant problem. My husband's car has been hit multiple times. We're we're we're seeing issues

42:12already on our street and we just want to prevent anymore. Like I said, this is not personal. I am just asking that um essentially that the board is able to listen to the bottom line here and

42:28understand that this will be a detriment to the neighborhood and we respectfully respectfully request that you deny this variance petition. >> Thank thank you ma'am for your comments. Good

42:46evening, sir. >> Good evening. My name's [name]. I'm I'm my mother [name] that lives at Wedgemere. She's lived there since 1970. Right now, there are five people that are downhill of this

43:00project that pump water in the spring. These folks did a perc test, and they have a subsurface infiltration system set up on the board. They found signs of high water at 54 in. The invert of

43:18the pipe on the plan is set at 54 in. So in the spring, when the ground is full of water up to that high water mark, where exactly is that water going to go when it's coming out of the invert

43:35at 54 in and the high water is already at 54 in? It's going to go downhill right into the five homes that are already pumping. I kind of questioned the test a little bit also because the area

43:54that they dug where this is supposed to go was 5 years ago, 6 years ago, full of the spoils from the excavation from the site, from the hole itself. So how much of it is actually virgin

44:08ground? They said in the plan on the perc test they came across cobblestones. I don't know how many cobblestones are down 4 ft and why. So just some questions for the uh surveyor. Thank you.

44:23>> Thank Thank you, surveyor comments. Okay, name's there. >> Good evening. My name is [name]. I live at Livingston Ave and I'm in I'm here in no other capacity than a resident of the city. I

44:39think [name] summed it up perfectly when he said that a city employee made an error. If the city employee was errant, then why wouldn't somebody go to the city and make it right back then?

44:54Instead of using that tonight as the platform to say it's okay because the city did this and that caused the hardship. Well, I think the hardship was brought on itself back then. You had the

45:05means to go get an attorney and push against the city at that point. They've come to the board. It's failed multiple times already. When you look at the zoning requirements back in 2004,

45:15there's a reason why it got changed to 10,000. That's the reason why those 209 homes are there and they pushed the zoning change requirement because it was too dense at that point. And if

45:29anybody in here, especially this board, how many times have you heard we're going to help the housing crisis. It's a housing crisis. One house in Belvedere is going to help the housing crisis.

45:39If you guys had $10 for every time an attorney stood up here and said we're going to help the housing crisis by wrecking a neighborhood, we'd all be very wealthy. They've gone to multiple

45:50multiple meetings. Came here, got a continuance based off of what someone had said, you know, a voting practice that was supposed to be in favor, but the residents of Massachusetts denied it.

46:07I think that it's time to listen to their neighbors as this board has done in the past. Wastewater. If you look in the City Council packet this week, you'll understand that [name] put in a

46:20motion asking about the wastewater treatment plant and being taxed by all the building and it's already at capacity and every time we build, we got another problem. So if we can't take the

46:28water on, we're going to build more in the middle of Cawley Stadium where we already had to build a holding tank that is almost maxed now and if we continue to say the density of the area

46:39needs to get even more, that thing is going to overflow next. So those are just a couple of things that I hope that the board takes in consideration and and denies this permit. Thank you. >>

46:54Thank Thank Thank All right. other um comments and opposition? All right. Seeing none, that portion of the public hearing is closed. Uh anyone here wants to speak in favor of the petition? In

47:12favor? All right. Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Um we're going to open questions and comments from the board. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Oh, yeah. >> [member]. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I

47:24have signed the and filed the necessary affidavit to pass judgment on this petition whereupon its initial appearance I was absent and recused myself but have qualified myself by signing that

47:38affidavit and viewing the videotape proceedings of the following meeting. >> That's great. Thank Thank you, [member], for that. Um before we open questions and comments to the board, um did

47:54the applicant counsel, did you have any comments? >> Yes. Um just just a brief comment here. So again, I would suggest that, you know, constructing a single family modest single family home on

48:05this lot with the required off-street parking is likely what the legislature had in mind when they relaxed the zoning, the variance criteria so that more housing could be built within the

48:20Commonwealth. And I understand it doesn't sound like one house here, one house there makes a difference, but over time it does make a difference. So I would respectfully disagree with [name]'s

48:31assessment of of that. Um so again, um Mr. Chair, members of the board, I believe that we have established pretty clearly that we meet the variance criteria associated with Mass General Laws

48:45Chapter 40A Section 10. It's not It's not the old hardship criteria. A hardship is a factor, but it's not that criteria. It's a practical difficulty test, and that's what you need to be

48:57considering this evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> And thank you, councilor. Um, before I open comments and questions from my colleagues, I just want to for the record we we are in receipt of

49:08the letters and they've been submitted for the record um 16 letters in total um opposition and in in support as well. All right. Uh chair recognizes [member]. [member], the floor is yours,

49:23sir. >> Thank you. Um first I'd like to thank all the neighbors who came out and spoke, the ones who wrote letters, whether they were in support or opposed to the project. I I think with the

49:42change in law, as has been stated multiple times, from the three conditions to practical difficulty, I think under the three conditions this fails probably all three, but definitely on the

49:59intent and zoning. However, even with the practical practical difficulty, you have to weigh benefits on both sides and you can take whether this was self-inflicted. Zoning still comes in.

50:18Health, safety, welfare of the neighborhood comes in and we it's kind of a balancing act and where you find the the the most which side is kind of where you have to vote on this. So whether I

50:35like a project or not doesn't come into play. I've voted for projects that I have liked and I've voted for against projects scratch that. I've voted against projects I liked and I've voted for

50:49projects that maybe weren't my cup of tea, but if they meet the standard we have to vote what we're required to here. So a project like this uh I can I can see both ends of it. I can see the

51:03developer's side, the applicant side, and the neighborhood side. Uh I I think where we start to um tilt on one side is um I I think there was some self-infliction here and there were remedies

51:16that that maybe were available that weren't um addressed. I think when we go into uh lot area size uh that's when it starts tilting a little bit towards the neighborhood. Um just because

51:30practical difficulty there doesn't mean lot area is gone. If that was the case, then we do away with the 5,000 sq ft, we do away with 10,000 sq ft and we say, well, uh the practical difficulty

51:41is the lot size and we we can go on from there. Uh so I I I don't think automatically lot size um disappears and I don't think the precedent of saying, well, the lot size doesn't matter

51:56anymore because of this. They both matter. So we got to weigh it and and what are we going to set for precedent? Um I was opposed to this the first time it came up. Um and and I don't think

52:08the precedent of uh lot area that it wouldn't be allowed in even our smallest buildable zones. It should be built in our largest zone. I have an issue with it. Um I think it really that end of

52:29abutment uh is congested, so I think the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood is directly affected uh by adding more to that. Uh I I don't uh dislike what's here. I think uh it's uh

52:44it's a nice project. But like I said, I've voted against projects I liked before. I I don't think this is the precedent that this board wants to set to say, well, we bought a unbuildable lot.

53:00So now we should build on it. So that just do away with uh all our suburban single family, traditional single family. So I weigh them both. I was kind of uh hinging a little bit, but I'm still

53:14on this is a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, so I will not support it. >> Uh thank thank you [member]. Uh the chair recognizes [member]. [member], the floor

53:23is yours. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I I do agree that the practical difficulty test is the determining factor here this evening. And while I would like some clarification, maybe [name] can

53:39assist me with this. Did [name] buy an unbuildable lot? >> When he bought the lot, he had a building permit in hand to construct a single family home on that lot. >> That's what I heard. >>

53:58bought the lot He would not have other Let me put it this way. He would not have bought the lot otherwise. He would not have bought the lot if he did not have that permit in hand. >> So he did

54:08not buy an unbuildable lot. >> Did not buy an unbuildable >> a lot under really a false pretense. There was an error that occurred. >> There there was an absolute >> in the purchase that

54:21without a buildable lot without a lot build a building permit being issued, the sale would have been off. >> That's correct. Absolutely correct. >> my view, he's not at fault there. He did not

54:36buy an unbuildable lot. It was rendered unbuildable after the fact. >> That's correct. >> So I absolve him of any self-inflicted wound. The I have consistently voted on these so-called smaller

54:59lots. So you know which way I voted on the ballot question, but the ballot question didn't matter to me Long before there was even a ballot question, I had been sitting on this board,

55:13supporting construction on these smaller lots. Done it in every in every neighborhood in the city. You saw the results of the election, not that that is a determining factor for me, but half

55:25the population was in favor and essentially half the population was against. So offsetting penalties there. Let's not use that as an excuse. The what's most important for me is to make

55:48judgment that's consistent. But even having said that, simply because I voted on smaller lots previously doesn't mean I'm automatically going to do it on this in this particular case. I'll go

56:02out there, as I was out there again today, uh just to see if anything if I had would change my mind at the end and I you you weigh the individual merit or lack thereof of each petition. I was

56:20out there today and I I came across with the with the very same uh opinion I had initially. Does it derogate from the neighborhood character? No, it doesn't. The lot sizes are all consistent.

56:38I know the neighbors don't like hearing that, but the lot sizes are all consistent. Secondly, what's important to me because I don't have expertise in all these in every one of these uh

56:47matters is the infrastructure. Or in this case, that infrastructure would be the soil testing. So my next question would be for [name]. The soil testing that was performed I like I like the

57:10residents had concerns when I watched the hearing. Tell me what this soil test, the reading of that test does to mitigate or totally alleviate the concerns that we have with respect to the

57:25drainage problems. >> Um it substantiated the original design that we had. Um as the board knows even after we receive a if we received a permit this evening uh we would still need to go

57:39through the city of Lowell stormwater permit of which the design may tweak a little bit if necessary related to those soil tests. A lot of times we do those soil tests after we receive a

57:51variance just to ensure if there's additional drainage required through the stormwater permit that we would indeed do those changes through the stormwater group at that time. The soil test

58:06that we conducted is consistent with other designs that we've done in the past that would be approved by the city of Lowell stormwater. >> Thank you [name]. Utilizing the consistent judgment

58:19that I've applied I see no reason to deny this petition and we'll be voting in favor. Thank you Mr. Chairman. >> Thank thank you [member]. The chair recognizes [member]. [member] the floor is

58:31yours sir. >> Yeah thank you Mr. Chairman. Um yeah this this can become very complicated but [clears throat] we have voted on on packages where it's less than the required lot before. Um my

58:59struggle is is fact that this lot is 5,500 ft and you're looking for it's 4,500 less [clears throat] than what would be normally required. Uh but given that I think the house and the

59:19development looks very modest. Um the concern of the neighbors uh the residents, I mean it is valid. I mean I I struggle with the fact that the the opposer on Westminster Street is concerned

59:38about water that's flowing down, but you're on a hill. Um the fact that there are several houses in that area that may have um you know some pumps to avoid you know flooding in the basement.

59:56It it says that that whole neighborhood is at risk. Um I think just based on what's being done here with the storm water on on this development could would not hurt the the project in itself

60:12and wouldn't hurt the neighbors. I just struggle with the fact that it's there is a lot of opposition and I'm again I'm not sure if I understand each each position. I'm not sure if it's all

60:31valid just based on the fact that they don't want the house built there. Um but looking at what was submitted to us I don't see how um how this can be denied. Um even if we don't like it, it

60:49doesn't mean that it's a bad project. I I do share the concern about the traffic that is a very small street. When I was by yesterday well you can't make a three-point turn on that street. Um

61:08um but there are many streets in the city that are as small. Um Um and to the the the person who opposed, who said on each side of abutment seems to be much larger, which is true. Um but I'm

61:22looking at a construction that's going on there now that's appears to be bigger than what's being proposed. Um and I I just think within the guidelines that were submitted, I I don't see how I

61:39can how we can vote against this project. Um again, I don't live in the area and and it's with all the respect I would I would share their sentiments, but just based on what's here, it's it's

61:55very hard to to to decline it because, you know, I don't like it. Um I I think I'll be voting in favor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank Thank you, [member]. Uh the chair recognizes [clears

62:13throat] the vice chairman, [member]. The floor is yours, sir. >> I thank Mr. Chairman. Um I'd I'd like to um echo my fellow board members here about the position that we're in and the new

62:29interpretation for what variances are given, especially for housing. And I do believe that we do want more housing built because through the construction more housing, there will be a change

62:40in pricing that will be reflected for the affordable um nature. And I see that in the market today. The market is um a lot of properties are being sold at different numbers than they were a

62:56year ago. Um so it's through the construction of housing that we can get to affordability. And that's why I think these smaller lots um are being targeted uh to be built on. And it makes sense

63:07where the state has decided that we should be looking at these smaller lots, too. Um I don't think that it wrecks the neighborhood. As uh, Mr. um, get your head said. Um, because we do have so

63:25many of these properties on this street that have these smaller lots. It would um, be smaller than some of the houses that are there. Um, I would like [name], if you could, talk about the

63:40width of the street. I grew up in Belvedere on a street that had a similar width on a similar sized lot. 50 ft frontage on Virginia Ave. And um, I had four siblings and my parents had two cars

63:58and we parked on that street and it was a acceptable scenario. I'm guessing this street has a width of between 20 and 25 ft, [name], um, in most places. I don't know if you can answer that. >>

64:42It scales at 19 and 1/2 in front of the lot at one location I just measured. >> And it just so happens that the city is reducing widths of streets at intersection especially as traffic calming

64:59measures to slow people down because it's it's understood that the wider the street, it's not necessarily loaded with cars on either side, the faster people go. So a street that has two-way

65:10traffic, 10 ft wide lanes is standard. Sometimes 9 ft wide lanes, but 10 ft especially in the city. And I drove down Butman before coming to the meeting to see how people are parking on that

65:26street. And I noticed they're parking on the grass. In fact, they're even parking in front of this lot. >> Right here. >> Uh right. And that's how I used to park in front of my parents' house

65:38on Virginia Ave. We didn't park on the pavement. We parked on the grass. We shoveled that area [laughter] in the winter. Um and I'm sure that that's how other people in that neighborhood work

65:48that traffic flow. Um so I know firsthand what it's like to live on a narrow street with 50-ft frontage for houses. And I understand it. And I do feel strongly about the idea of having

66:07affordable housing in the city. And as a member of this board, doing my part in um in recognizing where variances make sense. Um the small house to off-street parking meets the requirement for

66:20this neighborhood for off-street parking. Even though people might uh think that it should have more, um has all of the setback requirements and the floor to area ratio, which I would beg to

66:35differ the house that my brother bought on Butman up from this one up the street added a second floor, increased the FAR, probably doesn't meet the FAR is has a probably higher FAR than this

66:48one. So I know there are a lot of houses on the street that are more dense than this one proposed. And we get drainage infiltration. My my brother's house didn't have drainage infiltration up

67:02the street, and I think it still probably doesn't. So we're mitigating the drainage offsite at the West Street side, um which is required by uh state law now. It wasn't back when my brother

67:16did the work at his house. So it's an improvement in my opinion. Um I do think we should incorporate the uh conditions of the street tree, shade tree, and the um condition of the uh um uh

67:37water water uh department requirements. >> Storm water permit? >> Yes, yep. Um, but other than that, I think that this is uh project that in 2026 in November in the city of Lowell, especially

67:53where the city of Lowell did vote in favor, the city of Lowell did in favor of uh question seven for the 5,000 square foot lots. I understand the state did not, but the city did. In any event,

68:10um I think this makes sense. I'm sorry so many neighbors will not be happy with my decision, but I'm telling you what my experience is and my choice in doing this. So thank you. >> Thank thank

68:24you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Uh the chair recognizes [member]. [member], the floor is yours, sir. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to thank the neighbors that came out tonight and Mr. and

68:33[name]. It probably wasn't easy or um wasn't a hostile crowd, but it you know, it could have been and do appreciate you um certainly showing such a personal you know interest in in this

68:45project. Um maybe [name] or [name] can answer this question for me, but when the building permit was issued back in November of 2015, there was then an application in 2016 for the variance

69:02which was then withdrawn. Um there were comments from the Development Services that says that the building permit was mistakenly issued because the property owner claimed that the property was

69:22protected from stricter zone requirements. Um who who's the property owner that they're referring to? Do you know? Mr. [name], do you know [name]? Is that you? Or is that what you purchased

69:34the property from? >> And and I know [member] mentioned that at the last meeting in September, that's not true. I don't I don't know why that was written in there. I don't and I can't prove

69:44that and you have no way to believe me and um but yeah. But it it's >> It's not accurate. >> It seems, you know, at least to me that back in 2016 there were there were red flags within less

69:59than a year of when the building permit was issued and then revoked. So um again, maybe that's then not necessarily self-imposed, you know, by you, but um certainly maybe there have been

70:12remedies available to you back then. Um but again, I don't think it's fair for this board to take that into consideration today when we're speaking in variances. So I just I didn't want to

70:23address that. Um thanks for clarifying on whether it was a self-imposed condition or not. Looking at the the GIS, um which was there on the floor a few minutes ago. You don't need to put it

70:38back up. I I agree that there are similar sized lots going. I believe that would be northbound on Butman heading towards Andover, but right where this lot is is where you start to see things

70:49open up a little bit. So I guess the question is are we going to sardine one more, you know, property in there? Um it'll be interesting to see how this statute, chapter 40A section 10 gets

71:09challenged over time. I mean, this only went in effect in July 1st of this year. So you know, there really isn't any case law or or higher precedent available as far as how the courts are

71:21going to interpret practical difficulty or not. I just know under the statute we as a board are required to weigh the benefits to the petitioner against the detriment to public health, safety,

71:35and the welfare of the neighborhood. So I think those are the two factors that I'm taking into consideration today is is the benefit to [name] versus, you know, against the welfare of of the

71:47neighborhood. Um as was stated by [name], I mean the ordinance was was put into effect in 2004 and for a reason. It was probably to stop overcongestion of our of our neighborhoods and to

72:01preserve a at least some elbow room um in in in in certain neighborhoods. This request for a variance is significant. It's almost half. Um I think there was a a misprint in the comments. It's

72:15not 3,500 square feet of relief, but they're seeking 4,500 square yeah square foot of relief and that's that's substantial. Um there's actually nothing in the statute that says that the

72:29housing has to be affordable. It's just basically the directive is to support production of housing. Um that's why when we keep hearing this argument, well, it's affordable housing, but

72:44everything's coming up at fair market rate or fair market value. Well, that that's why. I mean the directive is production, not whether it's to be made affordable or not. Um whatever

72:56everything that I've read basically says that, you know, lot size alone um does not warrant a variance. And um there's no case law out there just yet that says that an undersized or

73:13unbuildable lot based on square footage presents a a practical difficulty uh because there's no economic use for for that lot. Um one of the cases I read mentions that it would be a hardship

73:32if you couldn't do something for what the lot was designed for. But again, this is a five 5,500 square foot lot where the requirement is 10,000 ft. Um there's nothing else peculiar about this

73:46lot. It's not you know, it's not about the topography or the soil conditions or some of the other factors that we can take into consideration on whether um there's a practical difficulty here

73:56or not. Um again, I I don't believe that not being able to build a property on it constitutes a a financial hardship on the petitioner given the fact that this ordinance was in effect at the

74:15time that that he purchased this. So based on my understanding of the statute and least on what I read, um I don't feel that the petitioner has met his burden for the variance in this matter

74:29and the burden is on the petitioner and I'll be voting voting um against the the the petition. >> Thank Thank you, [member]. Uh counselor, uh thank you for your summary of your project. Mr.

74:44Lane, thank you for coming out to the seating. Thank you for the neighbors. Um I I think for me this is a lot of um uh relief that that the um the applicant needs. Um to me I think it doesn't

74:59meet the prerequisites. Uh again, this is just my my own thoughts and opinion. Um you know, every every case, every kind of um application is on its own merit. Um I think uh we have to weigh

75:14out kind of the impact of of um the proposed application and the benefits to to the neighborhood and to the community as a whole. Um you know, why why I do think more houses is always good, um

75:31it mean we build at any lot that's open or available. Um so so to me I think I'm the kind of the prerequisites have not been met. Um so I won't be voting in favor. Um Council we talked about

75:52the condition of the shade tree and the the storm water condition. Are you okay with those? >> We would be yes. >> So council you you have options we can go forward with the vote tonight or

76:13you can withdraw without prejudice as well. >> Thank you Mr. Chair we absolutely want to go forward with a vote. >> Okay. All right. All right can we have a motion please? >> Okay to you Mr.

76:25Chairman regarding ZBA 2026-37 for variance for the property of Butman Road under section 5.1 [name] Construction to construct a single family at Butman Road. The project requires a variance

76:45approval section 5.1 for relief of minimum frontage minimum lot area. >> All right motion by [member]. >> Second. >> With the two conditions that we talked about. Yeah. >> I apologize I got to

77:00get used to this. With the two conditions of the shade tree and the storm water permit. >> All right motion by [member] second [member] can we have a roll call please? >> Chairman [member]. >>

77:12Not approved. >> Vice Chair [member]. >> Approve with conditions. >> Member [member]. >> Approve with conditions. >> Member [member]. >> Approval. >> Member [member]. >> Deny. >> Member

77:27[member]. >> Denied. >> We got three approvals. Is that correct? Okay. All right. All right. It's um denied. All right. Thank you all for coming out tonight. >> Thank you. We appreciate your

77:56time. >> Thank thank you. All right. Moving on to the next item on the agenda on the new business, we have ZBA-2026-45. The petition is special permit. The applicant is the Markley Group,

78:17property located at Prince Ave. Um the petition uh the Mark Group has applied to the laws and appeals to install an illuminated sign on the side of the building at Prince Ave. The sign will

78:31face Scourn and Livingston Street. The subject property is located in the light industrial zoning district. The proposal requires a special permit for section 6.3.4 to install and illuminate

78:42the sign and any other required on the laws and ordinance. Good evening, sir. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, [clears throat] members of the board. I'm [name] with Pro Sign Service this

78:53evening. Um so we are here tonight to ask for permission to internally illuminate two free-standing signs and one wall sign for Markley. Um the uh two free-standing signs, they are uh

79:06illuminated in a way where only the letters and the logos illuminate. Those signs are uh proposed to direct visitors to the Moore Street entrance, which will help concentrate traffic at the

79:18intended access points and reduce circulation near residential areas. Um the the wall sign uh faces west. Um that sign will be red during the day and it will illuminate white at night. And

79:30those are individual channel letters, so only the letters illuminate there as well. Um the the uh freestanding signs um are going to meet the requirement of 15 feet back from from the from the

79:45property line, which is the inside of the of the sidewalk. So that should address any kind of sightline issues. Um, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. >> Okay. Thank Thank you,

79:55sir, for your summary of your project. Um, if that's all you have, we will open the hearing to the public and we can speak in opposition to this petition. In opposition? All right, see. >>

80:11Good evening. [name], Moody Street I don't know why we get publicity to Markley again. I don't know every time I've gone up to a board, they don't seem to listen regarding the data center.

80:24They've already gotten enough publicity from the public, and it is getting tiring, tiring that Markley keeps getting the publicity. How about this? How about I urge the viewers watching, how

80:38about I want everyone No, no. Anyways, these residents Are you guys residents of South Fall? No? Okay. Anyone from South Fall? I guess not. All right. Um, I urge ask the board to deny this

80:57permit because Markley does not listen to the public again and again, and they're always up in boards. They do not listen. And I don't know. Do we want to keep giving Markley more publicity,

81:15or do we want to deny them a permit? Do we? Because I'm tired of having to go up to every single board and have Markley Markley be brought up again and again and again. And it's tiring. We are

81:31tired of Markley. I'm going to continue to speak out against Markley until they are out of the city cuz I am sick and tired of Markley. And these residents deserve better. I don't reside in

81:46South Lowell, but these residents deserve better. And I urgently ask this board to deny this permit cuz if not, we are going to continue to speak out against Markley until you do. Thank you.

82:05>> Thank Thank you, sir, for your comments. Um anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Good evening, sir. >> Good evening. My name is [name]. I own New Hall Street. This evening, I'd like

82:31to learn the illumination that this this sign will create. I understand you're going to be able to read at night out on Gorham Street. It'll be lit up quite a bit. Can I get some answers,

82:49please? >> Thank Thank you, sir, for your comments. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? In opposition? All right. Seeing none, that portion of public hearing is closed. Anyone wishing

83:03to speak in favor of this petition? In favor? All right. Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. So did you have any follow-up comments? >> Yes. Just the the only thing I wanted to add was

83:15that we this isn't 24-hour facility. So the request is to have the signs illuminated 24 hours um so that um emergency vehicles can find the property. >> Okay. Thank Thank you, sir, for your

83:30comments. All right. We'll open question and comments from the board. Uh the chair recognizes [member]. [member], the floor is yours, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

83:40passionate concerns of the first speaker. However, none of that passion is relative here. What you feel about data centers is impertinent. It's about the permitting for an illuminated sign

84:02which I kind of question why an illuminated sign is necessary on a business of this nature. Is it Is it really simply for for emergency vehicles? I'm asking the uh >> It's It's It's that and

84:21it's also to just identify the building for visitors contractors and you know guests and employees. >> Right. Now you say that it's a 24 hour It's a 24 hour business meaning that it's in

84:37operation 24 hours but business is only conducted one. I mean I would think during daytime hours so does it Does the sign have to be illuminated? Is there a necessity for that? >> There's

84:54someone out here that might be in the audience that could >> Okay. Yeah. >> Good evening, sir. State your name and address for the record. >> Uh yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is [name]. I

85:03am a land use attorney at [name] in Boston and I represent Markley. Um and to respond to gentleman's question the the answer is it's not a complicated one. It's Markley would like an

85:17illuminated sign like any other commercial facility. Um it's relative It's a very small sign. Uh it's 44 ft long by 7 ft tall. It's in the northwest corner of the building. It is facing Gorham

85:33Street. It was put in that direction uh so that it would minimize any impacts on neighbors the nearby neighbors there are for the most part um uh other businesses. Uh Uh, know there is a ball

85:45field that we'd be able to see it quite readily. >> Yeah. >> Um, the um >> Was there neighborhood outreach on this one? >> It's a the public hearing and I I don't I don't know the answer

85:58whether anybody reached out to the neighborhood specifically or not. Uh, I mean I've been at I have not appeared before this board, but I've been before the planning board a few times and when

86:10there were public hearings with neighbors >> they're contentious. >> They they yeah, well, there were a lot of people there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, um you know, and also just mentioned to the

86:19board that you do have a staff report uh that indicates that the proposal complies with the requirements of your bylaw. Uh, the one condition that that [name] spoke to is the uh limitation on

86:32illumination on the wall sign uh if from um until 8:00 p.m. Uh, you know, our >> No, I I >> you know, the I I I still haven't answered your question, which is why. Uh, and I'll try to get to

86:45that I'll get to that now, but that is you know, it's a 24-hour facility. If and you're right, you know, the common business hours are normal business hours, but if something goes wrong in a

86:57facility like that, it has to stay up. You know, we've heard it and so I'll repeat it, but you know, what happens is the generators kick in, emergency personnel arrive and make sure that it

87:08keeps running. >> Uh. >> Uh, so that's our request for the illuminated sign. >> Yeah. And that's reasonable to me. I'm not looking to deny the the petition. Uh, as you heard, the the the

87:22passion runs high on these data centers. So, for many >> last Tuesday. >> So, for many of the folks in neighbor I I live in South Lowell, by the way. Uh, this could be portrayed as adding

87:36insult to injury. And I want to do have the opportunity to put on the record the exact necessity for such a sign. And I think you have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank Thank thank you,

87:51[member]. Uh the chair recognizes [member]. [member], the floor is yours, sir. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um it says that I'm sorry. What's the size of the the sign that you're looking

88:06for? >> 340 Well, there are three signs, just to be clear. >> Yep. There's two that's 30 ft. >> at the entrance on Markley Way, Prince Avenue. Those are I don't know what 7 8 ft tall. Yeah,

88:20they they're just on either side. Uh the wall sign on the building is 340 sq ft on a facade of over 30,000 sq ft, so it's about 1% of the size of the facade of the building on that size side.

88:37>> Okay. Yeah, it's fairly sizable. Um you mentioned that there is uh the one proposed condition, uh you acknowledge that the illumination would be no later than 8 p.m. >> Uh we are arguing

88:53that we would prefer to not have that condition and be able to illuminate it ideally 24/7. >> Um there was another condition. I'm not sure if you're aware. It says that the applicant should

89:11submit a plan demonstrating that the pylon signs will not obstruct the line of sight. >> We're fine with that. >> Okay. Um so my concern is the fact that you want the illumination. You say

89:2624/7. And this is a building that is surrounded by all residents. Um so that is my concern that if you are not willing to compromise with the with the city and the neighbors, um I I would have

89:47some concerns. Um, Member [member] mentioned if you talked to any of the neighbors, and I'm sure again what you still a reputation, um, but you are in the South Lowell area and there is, um,

90:05neighborhood groups that that meets monthly and I mean other than the contention that goes on you know currently it may be worth it to listen to the neighbors because I am pretty sure that

90:25they may not want an illuminated sign 24/7. And it's just difficult to consider the location of of of this building surrounded by all residents. It it would be difficult. So, um, I'm not sure

90:46if I can support this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank thank you, [member]. Uh, checking the vice chairman, [member], the floor is yours, sir. >> Uh, thank Mr. Chairman. Um, I I um I uh

91:02don't see a photometric plan illustrating the uh light that would be emitted from this um very large um sign and how it complies with having no light beyond the property line emitted by that.

91:17So, I agree that the 8:00 um is is sensible um in the absence of you proving that you are not providing any light beyond the property line. Um, has one been provided to the city? Um, um,

91:35[name], we don't have one in our packet. >> The answer is no. >> Okay. >> Just checking to see if I'm getting any feedback from my client on that question, and the answer is no. >> And then um

91:50I think everybody with emergency vehicles uses GPS to find their way. The site sign on the building seen barely from Gorham Street because you really have to look between buildings at um

92:03Dollar General and the uh it it's really difficult to see how that sign is going to be utilized to direct people in the middle of the night to the address where the pylon signs are. So um I I

92:21think uh the condition that the department that the DPD put on this for the 8:00 time frame makes a lot of sense. Um and are you not willing to entertain that at all? >> Um it sounds like I

92:35probably we probably should. Um so yeah I I think uh we would be willing to entertain that. Um if we you know of course we can always come back with a photometric study and an analysis to

92:50demonstrate if if we could demonstrate that there would be no impacts beyond the property line and request an amendment. Uh but for now I think the staff and the board are making a fair

93:01suggestion about that limit. >> And and it is typical that the sign does appear on a plan showing the 15-ft dimension as mentioned. Um and so that is the other condition that we'd be looking

93:14at the site sign to be located um on the uh site plan um illustrating the dimension required for minimum. I think 15 ft makes a lot of sense but just to comply. >> And and that's fine. >> So

93:28those two conditions. >> 15 ft. Yeah. >> Okay. Um other than that I think uh it's it's good to have illuminated signs um um especially at entrances to corporate facilities on the uh Prince

93:45Street side. Um although is it Prince Street because it seems like it's not Prince Street that you're putting the signs? >> It it It the two signs are at the on Prince Street. >> Prince

93:58Street, but they're they're on on Prince Street setback. >> Okay. All right. I'll leave that alone. Thank you. >> Thank thank you, [member]. Uh the chair recognizes [member]. [member], the

94:08floor is yours, sir. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, sir. Um I think first responders in this city are going to know where where the Markley building is uh as many other

94:20residents will. I don't have an issue with the pylons. I think it's the way the design is. Again, it's just it's really just some illuminated letters on a black background, so nothing that's

94:30too sharp or contrast. Um why not keep the larger sign red the whole time? Why do we need to switch it to to white? I just think it would kind of be more subtle, more a little Again, I'm not

94:48putting that as a condition. I'm just um kind of probing. >> I think I I think we'd be okay with that. >> Um because one of the comments in in in the in the packet here was uh inquiring about

94:58strength and brightness, and I don't know if by brightness they mean lumens or whatever, maybe from Pro Signs, and I I know there was uh a comment on whether or not this photometric, you know,

95:11study can show things going beyond, but um I don't have an issue with the proposed condition for maybe the larger sign, maybe at 8:00 or 9:00 or maybe even 10:00. Um there are certainly more

95:26obnoxious signs in this city that are illuminated that I have an issue with, which I brought up last week, but um I don't have an issue with the design. I I not the location on the building

95:38either. I think it looks appropriate for the size of that building. Um [snorts] if the board wanted to put proposed conditions um on the on the special permit, um I would go along with them,

95:49and I know that it's already been addressed, something about the sight lines is in the works to to show that. So um yeah, I'll probably be voting in in in favor of this. Thank you. >> Done. >>

96:01you, [member]. Uh the chair recognizes [member]. [member], the floor is yours, sir. >> Thank you. Uh I usually don't have comments about signs. I think they're pretty straightforward. Um we

96:11have 24 hours illuminated signs in the city currently. Um I don't think this is overreaching with either the building sign or the two on Prince Street. And I think this if this was called

96:27Frank's Donuts, we probably wouldn't have this go in this in depth with illuminated signs. We had signs last week last meeting um with less questions and we have other signs on today. So um I

96:44would have no problem moving forward, especially with the directionality of these signs, one facing Gorham Street, the other one's kind of you know shooting towards the convenience store and

96:55stuff there and they're set back a little bit and direct across is yard. So I don't think it's going to be keeping anybody up over there. So I'll go with if we want to wait for a site test and

97:11anything else, but I don't see an issue with this at all. >> Thank thank you, [member]. Um yeah I don't have any concerns and then we talked about the two conditions. Um again, we're just here

97:30tonight for the signs and illumination. And your your amendment to the two conditions talked about, counselor? >> I'm sorry, I didn't get all of that. >> You're you're fine with the two

97:42conditions you talked about? >> Yeah. The lights off at eight and all that and For the record, I do want to make it clear that and I'm not saying that we will, but it's possible that we could

97:52come back at sometime in the future with the necessary photo metric studies and other analyses to demonstrate that there will not be an impact on residential neighbors, but we don't have that

98:03in the packet right now. So, [snorts] you know, we'll we'll live with the condition. >> Okay. >> I I just wanted to clarify earlier. My earlier statement was I would be opposed if you were not

98:27willing to abide by the condition of an 8:00 p.m. shut off time. >> I understand. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other comments before we move forward with the motion and the vote? >> Mr. Chair,

98:40can I just clarification? Are we talking about a condition for a time for all signage or just the large sign on the facade? >> I think we're we're talking about the illumination in terms of >>

98:54All three signs for the two pylon and the larger sign. That's what the condition applies to. >> for all the all the illuminations of the signs. >> Or do we want to entertain? >> Um I would ask

99:08that you respectfully excuse me that you entertain uh that limit only on the wall sign. That's consistent with the recommendation from staff. >> What what are what are the my colleagues think

99:25here? >> I think that that makes a lot of sense because uh the pylon signs really don't have a um uh noticeable uh photometric issue with the street. They're a small sign. They're negligible.

99:37The large one without the photometric, we don't know how that impacts the neighborhood. So, that's the only one that I like So, I would say the condition is strictly the large wall sign has

99:47hours of illumination. >> Okay. Folks okay with that? Okay. All right. Can I have motion, please? >> Uh to you, Mr. Chairman, um regarding special permit I'm sorry, ZBA 2026-45 for special

100:06 | permit located at Prince Ave. Property I'm sorry. Zoning section 6.3.4 by the Markley Group to install an illuminated sign at the building at Prince Ave. Subject property is located in the

100:26 | light industrial zone. The proposal requires a special permit per section 6.3.4 to install illuminated sign with the condition that was proposed to keep the large wall sign at 8:00 p.m. Is

100:50 | there another condition? Yes, from sunrise to 8:00 p.m. >> All right. Motion by [member]. >> Second. >> And the second condition. >> Oh, and the second condition as well. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah.

101:05 | The second condition to submit a plan demonstrating the pylon signs will not obstruct the line of sight. >> Perfect. All right. Motion by [member], second [member]. Can we do a roll call,

101:16 | please? >> Chairman [member]. >> I approve the conditions. >> Vice Chair [member]. >> Approve with conditions. >> Member [member]. >> Approve with conditions. >> Member [member]. >> Approval.

101:28 | >> Member [member]. >> Approve. >> Member [member]. >> Approve. >> All right. Approved. Have a good night, folks. Have a good evening. All right. Moving on to the next. >> Sorry if I was too

101:43 | loud. I do apologize. >> Appreciate it. Have a good night. All right. Moving on to the next item on the agenda. We have ZBA-2026-46. The petition is a special permit. The applicant is [name].

102:05 | Applicant Chelmsford Street. On the petition, um, the applicant is applied to Lowell Appeals to erect an internally illuminated sign at Chelmsford Street. The subject property is located in

102:17 | the regional retail our our zoning district. The proposal requires special permit approval for section 6.3 for internally illuminated signage. Anyone on Zoom? Okay. All right. Um, the

102:50 | applicant is not here at the moment. So we're going to table this. I I don't I I don't know where they went. All right. Next item on the agenda, ZBA-2026-20-47 petition of variance. The

103:04 | applicant is [name]. Applicant is Garden Road. Um, the petition, the applicant proprietor of Lowell Appeals to construct an addition at Garden Road. The subject property is located in the

103:19 | suburban single-family SSF zoning district. The proposal requires a variance for section 5.1 for relief from the maximum floor area FAR ratio and any other required land use zoning ordinance.

103:29 | Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. Thank you for taking the time to review our application. I'm [name]. My husband [name] is here and our contractor [name]

103:39 | from [name] Construction. We are here tonight seeking a variance to allow us to make improvements to our existing home. We love our neighborhood. We love living in Belvedere and have chosen

103:50 | to invest our current invest in our current home rather than relocate. It's important for us to keep our family rooted in this neighborhood where we built our lives and hope to remain for

104:09 | many years to come. Our house was built in 1998 and while it has served our family well, it currently only has two bedrooms for our family of five. We've been using an office without a closet

104:21 | as a third bedroom, which has worked as a temporary solution, but is not ideal as our family continues to grow. The primary purpose of this addition is to create two additional bedrooms for

104:29 | our family, giving our family the space we need while also improving the functionality of our kitchen and main living areas. Throughout the design process, we've been very thoughtful about

104:40 | the scale and placement of the addition. We initially explored other options, including a garage addition, but ultimately decided against that approach to minimize the overall square footage

104:52 | of the project. The proposed addition is limited to the first floor with a roofline designed to complement the existing architecture. Our intention is for the finished home to feel cohesive

105:04 | and appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, there is an established wooded buffer between our home and the neighboring properties that will remain undisturbed as part of

105:14 | this project. This existing vegetation provides natural screening between the homes and we believe preserving it will help minimize the minimize the visual impact of the addition and maintain

105:26 | the character of the neighborhood. We understand that our property already exceeds the allowable floor area ratio and that our proposed improvements would increase that nonconformity. That is

105:36 | why we're here tonight. We're seeking a relief that would allow us to make these improvements to our existing home in a thoughtful and practical way. I'd also like to take a moment to

105:48 | respectfully address a couple of concerns raised in letters submitted by our neighbor. First, there appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the location of the addition. The 8-ft dimension

105:59 | shown on our plans represents how far the addition extends from the existing structure. Our contractor has confirmed that the proposed addition will remain 14 ft 4 in from the neighboring

106:09 | property line, not 6 ft 4 as stated in the letter. We want to make sure the board has the correct information when considering the impact of the project. Second, regarding the drainage

106:19 | concerns, the beast dry system referenced in the letter was installed by the previous homeowners in 2003, approximately 20 years before our basement renovation. We did not install, modify, or

106:31 | alter the system during our renovation in 2023 and we have the original documentation confirming its installation date. I also want to acknowledge the flooding our neighbor experienced in

106:43 | December 2023. We actually experienced water in our own basement during those same storms. According to historical weather records from a local Lowell weather station, the area received

106:53 | nearly 6 in of rain between December 10th and December 18th, including more than 3 in over December 17th and December 18th. We certainly sympathize with our neighbor's experience and

107:05 | understand the concerns about drainage. However, I think it's important to clarify that our basement drainage system was not newly installed or modified. We take drainage concerns seriously

107:16 | and intend to ensure the stormwater associated with our proposed addition is managed during the construction. Ultimately, our request is about making a thoughtful improvement to a home we

107:28 | love in a neighborhood where we want to continue raising our young family. We work to balance our family's need with the scale of the project and its potential impact on surrounding

107:37 | properties. We believe the proposed addition is a reasonable improvement that will allow our home to better serve our family for years to come. We respectfully ask for the board's

107:47 | consideration and approval for our variance request. Thank you for our time. >> Thank Thank you, ma'am. >> I also do I print I don't know if anyone had a chance to drive by, but I did print

107:56 | out some images of the wooded tree area between our lot and the neighboring lots if you would like to see it. >> Yeah, we'll take it if Thank you. >> And um now now opening here into the

108:28 | public um anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition. Good evening, ma'am. >> Good evening. Good evening, chairperson and members of the board. My name is [name] and I live at

108:44 | Glen Ellen Road, which directly adjoins the applicant's property at Garden Road. I stand here tonight to formally request that this board deny the requested variance for the proposed addition

109:00 | to Garden Road. Zoning ordinances are established to preserve the character of our neighborhood, ensure public safety, and protect owners from the adverse effects of overdevelopment. Mass

109:11 | residents just voted down approval for the decreasing lot size of single-family homes. This variance request fails to meet the statutory requirements of relief on two major planning grounds,

109:21 | overcrowding and severe environmental risk. First, let's address the structural density. The existing existing home on this lot already exceeds the maximum allowed floor area ratio for the

109:32 | lot size. Granting a variance to an expand an already non-conforming structure directly violates the intent of our local zoning bylaws. It accelerates overcrowding, eliminates precious green

109:44 | space, and creates a massive imbalance in our neighborhood's visual scales. The applicants have no unique hardship related to the land shape that justifies squeezing an even large larger

109:51 | structure on an inadequate lot. The second and most critical is the threat of severe flooding and water displacement. This is not an abstract fear. Three years ago, their neighbors did some

110:04 | work in their basement for a while and during that storm, I wound up with 2 and 1/2 ft of water in my basement. I lost wedding albums, baby albums. It was a finished basement that now is

110:16 | unusable. Um other streets on this on the neighborhood were affected as well on our side, not on the other side of the street. Um, the neighborhood had also put in an overflow pump that is

110:29 | about 5.7 in from the property line, which was when they were pumping water out of their basement, it was pumping directly into my basement. Um, furthermore, there's a known history and um

110:40 | persistent community knowledge of a natural spring on that land. It was originally told to neighbors that no one could build on that lot because of a natural spring. Um, years later it was

110:49 | able to be built on. Um, Um, sorry. Um, they addressed the 5 and 1/2 ft from my property line, which I was misunderstood and I apologize. They are very nice neighbors and they have a lovely

111:04 | family. I have been there 22 years and this that flooding was the first one that we have ever had. Um, furthermore, there's a sorry, known history. Adding a massive physical addition along

111:16 | with concrete foundation and impervious surfaces that come with it will permanently alter the topography and will trap sub surface water and displace thousands of gallons and surface runoff

111:26 | directly into my lot and into my home. It's right into the quarter of my home where my electric box is. Um, when a lot is already over the FAR limits, every square foot of soil paved poses a

111:37 | direct threat to surrounding homes. The applicant has not demonstrated how they mitigate the severe stormwater risk, nor have they proven that this addition can be built without substantially

111:46 | harming the public good. I respectfully urge the board to hold up uphold the city's zoning laws and deny this variance application or allow a continuance so I can seek legal representation.

111:55 | Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank thank you, ma'am, for your comments. Good evening, ma'am. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is [name] and I reside at

112:19 | Glen Ellen Road. I am here tonight to request that the Board deny the requested dimensional variance to exceed the maximum FAR at Garden Road. The neighborhood exhibits strict intentional

112:34 | uniformity. This residential pocket including Garden Road and adjacent Glen Ellen Road consists of uniform single-family homes built concurrently in the late 1990s. A review of city records

112:48 | confirms that no structural addition variances have ever been granted on Garden Road or Glen Ellen Road since their construction. The existing homes maintain a highly consistent architectural

113:00 | scale with typical floor area ratios tracking well within the neighborhood average of 0.23 to 0.31. The 0.35 FAR cap was enacted specifically to prevent overbuilding. In 2007 the Lowell City

113:24 | Council intentionally reduced the SSSF district FAR cap from 0.50 down to 0.35. This legislative change was explicitly explicitly designed to prevent the over intensification of lots, protect

113:46 | open space, and maintain neighborhood character. Granting this variance would directly derogate from the intent of the zoning ordinance by introducing an uncharacteristic density that the

113:58 | 2007 rollback was enacted to stop. The request fails the legal practical difficulty balancing test. Under the revised MGL Chapter 40A Section 10 standards the Board must weigh the applicant's

114:15 | desire against the public good. The applicant faces no unique physical site hardships. The lot is a standard, uniform rectangle parcel matching the 10,000 plus square foot neighborhood

114:29 | benchmark. The desire for an enlarged footprint is a self-created personal preference, not a practical difficulty imposed by the land. Granting a variance here introduces a substantial

114:50 | detriment to the public good by breaking the uniform neighborhood scale and setting an undesirable precedent for the remaining matching lots on the block. The zoning ordinance exists to

115:03 | preserve the predictable open character of our suburban single-family known neighborhoods. Because this project shatters the 0.35 FAR threshold on a block with zero precedent for expansions,

115:18 | I respectfully urge the board to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood layout and deny this application. Before I I conclude, I'd like to say that that particular piece of land I had

115:34 | asked to purchase to build upon back in 19 87 and I was told it was not a buildable lot at that time. However, in 1998 it was purchased and a home was built on it. Uh I also have a question

115:55 | about the the FAR floor area ratio in the zoning district is an SSF suburban single-family. The house originally built in 1998 and the house was 2,955 square feet. That was probably before

116:16 | the porch and the deck were built. Now the house is shown as 4,509 square feet per plot plan. Um, if they add this 16 1,629 square foot addition, then you're looking at it was uh when it was

116:37 | 4,500 509 square feet existing house was 40.9% existing FAR. Okay? And if they add the 1,629 square feet, it will become fa 55.8% of the FAR, which is not what is I believe allowable in that

117:01 | area. But there are two plans with the same date, which I ambiguous. I don't understand the one October 8th, 2026, which is the plan of um of a of October 8th, 2026. And there's one of the

117:22 | other plan is of the same date, which is 5,678 square feet, and the other one is 4,000 509 square feet. So it becomes sort of ambiguous. I'm not sure what it actually is. Um, why is there a

117:41 | 1,169 square foot discrepancy of the existing house size? I don't know which plan is being reviewed by the zoning board. I I don't know which plan you have in front of you. Is it 5,678 square

118:00 | feet, or is it 4,509 square feet? And thank you for your listening to me. Thank you for your time. I hope you take this into consideration. Uh and we also I'm I'm [name] is the abutter, and

118:21 | I'm the next house down, and I also had water during that time that she mentioned. Coming down, I'm further down the hill, coming down across my property, across my driveway, actually going

118:33 | into my next neighbor's yard. So we're concerned about the runoff. What will happen if that addition is built? Where will that water go? And how will they address that issue? Thank you. >>

118:47 | Thank you ma'am for your comments. Um anyone else wishing to speak in opposition here? Good evening ma'am. >> Good evening everybody. My name is [name]. I am here [clears throat] simply to

119:14 | state that it was my father [name]'s house that [name] is referring to. And until uh the entire time that I lived there, there was no water in that basement. That was our our play basement. I

119:31 | fully understand about the storm. Everybody experienced flooding, but now we're experiencing flooding on a more consistent basis. Some pumps are going just like everywhere in Belvedere. We

119:42 | all know it's a glacial moraine. But it's going everywhere. I just don't have enough information to understand how this will affect a house of that size, an oversized house on a small lot.

119:52 | How will it affect us coming down the hill? So thank you for letting me speak. >> Thank thank you ma'am for your comments. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition here? In opposition? All

120:06 | right, seeing then seeing none the portion of public hearing is closed. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the petition? Good evening sir. >> Hi, my name is [name]. I'm the one who owned the

120:24 | house before the [name]. The house was never not an unbuildable lot. [name] owned that house for probably 30 years. He raised his children there. And when they grew up, he was wanted to

120:38 | downsize, so he moved down the street to Clark Road to a beautiful house by [name]'s house. He bought that house. And he said to me that he has a buildable lot over 10,000 square feet on the

120:50 | original [name] homestead. It's uh I built that house in 1998. And [name] was living there at the time and uh I lived there since 1998 to 2016. And I never had one complaint from any of my

121:08 | neighbors about water going in their cellar. I think I've always been a great neighbor, and I think the [name] are the same thing. The houses in the neighborhood are beautiful. The [name]

121:18 | house next door is over 5,000 square feet. My house across the street is over 5,000 square feet on a 11,000 ft lot. My original house on uh on Garden Road was 2,400 square feet. We added a a

121:39 | laundry room and a small porch to that thing. I think the house the the the approval they want to do tonight will make the house nicer. All the houses are very nice in the whole neighborhood.

121:54 | I uh I don't think I don't understand how that will affect anyone. I've seen houses being built all over Belvedere for families, and I'm happy that they are. Families with large children are

122:05 | adding on on all over the city on [name] Cars and on Long Meadow Drive and all through the city. The only thing bad about being in Lowell, it does have a high water table, but that's

122:18 | everywhere in the city for people and just something we have to live with. But uh I don't see any problem with this addition, and I think uh it'll be a good addition to the neighborhood. It's

122:28 | already a beautiful neighborhood, and uh I understand the concerns of the people, but Glen Ellen Road is not anywhere near the property line of Garden Road. Their house is set back about 200

122:39 | yards from us down the hill and it's not even the water table would not even go there. It has to go down the driveway and I don't know how it would get to their house, so I think uh that's

122:51 | all I going to say and uh thank you for the board. Appreciate it. >> Thank Thank you, sir, for your comments. Um anyone else wishing to speak in favor of petition? In favor? Good evening,

123:05 | ma'am. >> Hi. Uh my name's [name]. I live at Clark Road near my neighbors and uh I'm happy letting them build. I think that's all I have to say. >> Okay. Thank Thank you, ma'am, for your

123:20 | comments. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of petition? In favor? All right. Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. We're going to open questions and comments from the

123:32 | board uh before we do though uh to the applicant. Did Did you have any additional comments you want to make or anything you want to add before we open up questions from the board, comments?

123:45 | Okay. All right. All right. The Mr. [clears throat] [member]. [member], the floor is yours, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I when I drove around the property yesterday, I looked at the

123:57 | spacing um at Initially I was trying to figure out where they were building and it you know looking at the plan in the back of the house. Now the question that was brought up about flooding

124:17 | and water to the applicant, were you getting water as well or were you doing some was there some construction that >> If you can just come to the lectern, ma'am. Thank you. >> We got water >>

124:36 | in our basement December of 2023. It had nothing to do with our basement renovation. We renovated part of it. Um, again we have that B-Dry system in the basement, but we got over 6 in of rain

124:48 | in 2 weeks, so. >> Okay, thank you. I was just trying to identify just to ensure that there wasn't any construction that you were doing that could scolding the water. Um, cuz uh there is a

124:57 | high water table in the city of Lowell. Um, my house included with a B-Dry. Um, but aside from that I I'm not sure if I necessarily I respectfully disagree that I I don't think that this

125:17 | development is derogative to the neighborhood. I think um it seems just based on what we're looking at here, there was careful consideration of to what's being put as an addition uh you know

125:32 | for a family. Uh you have a 11,000 sq ft lot. Um, I think there is some room that where you can expand especially for your family. Um, and you say right now it's a 2 bedroom? I'm sorry. >>

125:50 | It's a 2 bedroom. There I think in the city of Lowell if you can consider something a bedroom without a closet, but I believe it's I'd have to re-measure it. I believe we're under the 80 sq

125:58 | ft for that room. Um, so I think if it's under that it doesn't count as a bedroom. >> Okay. >> But we have a built out room that is used as a bedroom. >> bedroom. Um, so and you are you want

126:08 | to build 2 more bedrooms. >> On the first floor off the back of the house basically where the deck is. >> Okay. All right. Um, I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>

126:23 | Thank thank you, [member]. Uh the chair recognizes the vice chairman [member]. The floor is yours, sir. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm a little confused. I'm trying to understand what

126:33 | you submitted here. Um, the plot plan uh doesn't call out the size of the addition. Can you tell me what the size of the addition is? >> If you come to the left hand side there just state

126:57 | your name and address for the record. >> Hi, [name] uh [name] Construction. Are you looking for dimensions or square footage or >> So the existing building is 45,009 sq ft? >> Right. >> And

127:12 | that includes the basement, correct? >> No it no the for the fire for the fire they calculate the basement the first floor, the second floor and the attic anywhere it's over 5 ft and porches

127:31 | >> Mhm. >> covered porches. So No I know it's it's a lot smaller than that I know. Yes. Um so you're looking for the square footage that that the first floor is adding this addition is adding

127:46 | >> Can can you tell me that? >> Yeah um >> And it's it's it's the first floor and the basement right that you're adding for new construction? >> Oh. >> Oh isn't that on the Oh okay cut off.

127:58 | It it >> I'm just going to if you can just give me one second I'm just going to do my own math here to make sure I'm not misspeaking. What's the dimension that we're adding? How many square

128:26 | feet? All right. So it it like it's 1,600 >> So >> so the first floor is 614 additional feet, so it's twice that if you're counting the basement. >> And you know hearing the numbers and

128:53 | saying my gosh, this is already a huge house. How can they need any more room but they only have two bedrooms and an office. I was like how is this all working? I'm really confused and now

129:03 | I'm understanding it and a lot of it is the basement that's causing it to be >> And this one was especially tricky to calculate because >> Yep. >> part of the little first floor room that

129:14 | they they added on has no basement, so that only counted as the one floor, not the basement. >> And you're meeting all the setbacks, you're exceeding the requirements for the setbacks. You

129:26 | don't you you don't have any requirements other than the FAR as far as variance here. >> Right. >> How how are you addressing drainage with the addition? Where is the water going to go when

129:37 | the addition is built? >> So what we plan to do was you know I don't know maybe maybe the previous owner knows if there was a exterior perimeter drain or if they just did that drain inside

129:51 | the basement because there was an issue, but we plan to tie into that and or dig a dig a new sump and put another one in that might be larger to to handle any any issues that there might be.

130:07 | Also I'm not sure what the cause was for the need for the pump. So we just want to do things the way we do them now, which is a perimeter drain with pipes through the footings. We create like

130:21 | a manifold and we put a foot of crushed stone in the basement so the whole thing becomes a drain and has a place to go. That's how we do it now. I don't know how it was done in 1998. >> I

130:34 | think and also you're responsible to not increase any runoff on the site with the additional impervious material. >> Yeah. >> So that's I think state mandate anyway, but you don't have any

130:47 | documents that show how you're mitigating the additional impervious. So. >> Yeah, so I I'm assuming that's a different point in the permit process that that's going to that that's going to

131:01 | come about. Not it's not in this board. Is that right? >> I mean I I I mean maybe we could just add as a condition that the applicant will provide no additional runoff to a neighboring

131:17 | properties as a result of this addition, maybe something of that nature. >> Sure. >> But it is a state requirement. It's just that it wasn't weighed in with the comments. >> Yeah, we put

131:27 | those Cal Tech systems in all the time. >> Yep, to recharge. Yep. Yep. >> The 180s and yeah. >> Uh really aren't a lot of comments from the department regarding the FAR. And you know the FAR

131:45 | is a problem because we're measuring basements and the basements are not living area and not bedrooms and it's a complicated thing here and you know you could build it without a basement, but

131:56 | it's just as not as great a construction type if you do it that way. So I I want to support this, but I just want to have that condition that we will require that you will provide no

132:08 | additional offsite drainage and mitigate any drainage additional drainage onsite because of additional impervious material. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> You're okay with that?

132:24 | >> Thank thank you [member]. Uh the chair recognizes [member]. [member] the floor is yours, sir. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes, I I concur with [member]. We didn't hear from any professional

132:34 | tonight, you know any sort of survey of what was done with with regard to potential waste runoff, water runoff. So other than that I think the the request for the variance is certainly

132:47 | reasonable. I don't believe under the practical difficulty standard and you know we take this on a case-by-case basis that um that this addition would be a detriment to the neighborhood and

132:59 | kind of looks like based on the plans it would more or less kind of conform. So um if that if that condition is put forward I would I would approve the the petition. Thank you. >> Thank Thank

133:10 | you [member]. Uh to recognize [member]. [member] the floor is yours sir. >> Yeah thank you. Um I can appreciate the neighbors concerns especially with basement flooding but it seems that the

133:23 | existing house here had basement problems at that time. The direct abutter had flooding in the basement and then a butter beyond that also had flooding in the basement. So I would say rather

133:39 | than it be this existing dwelling was the problem that caused the whole neighborhood to flood that it was an issue with the water table and the amount of rain that that storm got. So I don't

133:53 | think it was specifically attributed to Garden Road. I think it was just the situation that happened. This addition while it's it's big we also calculate FAR with the porch which you're really

134:12 | not living on your porch, your basement, your attic. So the numbers there are a little skewed. Setbacks are all met. The lot maybe undersized for the area but it is larger than what's

134:26 | required in SF SSF zone. So that's not an issue either. So while there are some concerns with with the way the water's displaced I don't think it's the fault of Garden Road. So I will support

134:44 | this. >> Thank Thank you you, [member]. To recognize [member]. [member] the floor is yours, sir. >> My concerns have been addressed. Nothing further, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, [member]. Um

134:57 | I don't have any concerns with this. And then we just talked about the [name] talked about the kind of the safeguard, the mitigation for the potential water runoff so it doesn't affect

135:09 | abutters and neighbors. And that's a condition that that you're agreeable to correct. Okay. All right. Again, thank you for the neighbors who came out tonight. Everyone's been very civil and

135:23 | professional and very amicable. I I know I appreciate it. I know my colleagues does as well. If there's no further comment the the public hearing is closed. May I my apologize. If there's no

135:35 | further comments from my colleagues, can we forward with the motion, please? >> To you, Mr. Chairman, regarding ZBA >> I'm not allowed to >> 2026-47 for variance located at Garden Road under

135:50 | bylaws section 5.1 to construct an addition at Garden Road. Subject property is located in a single-family zoning district and for variance proposal for the variance to section 5.1 for relief

136:09 | for floor area ratio with the condition to provide safeguard that would that would I'm sorry, that would provide no additional runoffs. >> All right. Motion by [member]. >> Second. >> Second

136:23 | by the vice chairman, [member]. If we can have a roll call, please. >> Chairman [member]. >> Approve with condition. >> Vice Chair [member]. >> Approve with condition. >> Member [member]. >>

136:35 | Approve with conditions. >> Member [member]. >> Approve. >> Member [member]. >> Approve. >> Member [member]. >> Approve. >> All right. You've been approved. Thank you. Have a good night,

136:43 | folks. All right. Moving on to the other item on the agenda. Do we have the applicant for Chelmsford Street? [name], do you know if they're here this evening? Have a good night. Thank you.

137:16 | [name], did you hear any communication from Chelmsford Street? Okay. All right. We'll we'll continue that. Um I think we'll we'll extend a little courtesy. Um we're only going to continue

137:29 | this one time because they're not even here. They didn't request for one, so we'll we'll give them one continuance. >> Then they may have been here. I saw two folks in the back that ended up

137:38 | leaving. >> I'm I'm sorry, [member]. Can you say it one more time, sir? >> I believe they were here and left. >> What what what's the will of the board? Um do you want to continue or we can

137:52 | move forward with a vote? >> I I think we should continue it, absolutely. >> Okay. [member], go ahead, sir. >> And and I would just like to see if we could inform them that the uh notice uh

138:02 | needs to be uh posted on the site because um they didn't meet that minimum criteria for tonight's meeting. >> As well as provide a site plan where the signs are going. >> Yes, agreed. All

138:21 | right. Can I have a motion to continue the matter, please? Oh um [name], do we have any open agenda slots coming up? No, no, just we'll we'll go to that's too much, we'll go to the next one.

138:56 | >> December. >> Yeah, in the new year. They they weren't here. They they were here. Um they didn't want to wait, I guess, I heard. Uh but does it doesn't matter what what the applicant is. Uh

139:09 | they were too busy, so they left, I heard. So so we'll put them off to the new year. >> Okay. They'll bring them to um January 11th. >> All right, January 11th. All right, can I have a motion

139:19 | to continue this to January 11th, please? >> Uh to you, Mr. Chairman, uh regarding ZBA 2026-46 for permit special permit at Chelmsford Street to be continued January 11th, 2027. >> All right,

139:37 | motion by [member] to continue the matter. >> Second. >> Second by [member]. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed say nay? As unanimous. Just for the public record, um the

139:47 | matter has been continued. There be no other public record regarding this petition. Going on to other business, we have minutes for approval for September 26. Any comments, edits, revisions

139:57 | from my colleagues? Seeing none, can I have a motion to approve the minutes, please? >> To you, Mr. Chairman, uh motion to approve minutes for October 26, 2026. >> All right, motion by

140:11 | [member] to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Second by the vice chairman, [member]. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. Any opposed say nay? As unanimous. The minutes are approved. Any

140:20 | other comments from my colleagues before we adjourn tonight? All right, seeing none, can I have a motion to adjourn, please? >> To you, Mr. Chairman, motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. >>

140:30 | All right, motion by [member] to adjourn. >> Second. >> Second by [member]. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. Any opposed say nay? As unanimous. We are adjourned. Thank you. Have a good

140:39 | night, folks. >> Oh yeah.