City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, February 6, 2006 7:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers, City Hall

City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA

Note: these minutes are not completed verbatim. For further detail, audio recordings are available at the Division of Planning & Development, 50 Arcand Drive, Lowell, MA

Members Present:

George Zaharoolis, Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Member

Thomas Linnehan, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Member

Mary Burns, Member

Others:

James Errickson, Associate Planner

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm, with Chairman Zaharoolis welcoming the public watching the Planning Board meeting on television.

Approval of Minutes

Motion:

R. Lockhart: Motion to APPROVE minutes of the November 17, 2005 and January 17, 2006 Planning Board meetings as amended.

J. Clermont: Second the motion

All members voted in favor (5-0)

J. Clermont suggested placing a message on the minutes noting that the minutes are not completed in verbatim, but documents the general ideas, topics, questions, etc. discussed during the meeting by individuals, applicants, and Board members. The Board unanimously agreed (5-0).

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

None in attendance

Public Hearings

There were no public hearing scheduled for this meeting

New Business

Pre-Application Sessions:

The following individuals have requested for the Planning Board to provide a preliminary review of their proposed project at the addresses listed below. These are not public hearings. Each project will require a public hearing as noted below.

Applicant: The Daly Group, LLC

Project: Construction of 2 duplex style houses - 4 units total

Zoning: TTF (Traditional Neighborhood Two-Family)

Required Review: Site Plan

In Discussion:

Dave Daly (the applicant): I am Dave Daly from The Daly Group, to discuss my project and I am requesting a waiver of administrative requirements for this project that is coming in front of the Board. We are looking to waive the requirement to separate the site plan requirements of placing parking, site layout, landscaping, etc on separate sheets. We would like to place them on one sheet, due to the small nature of the project. Everything will be placed on the site plan sheet. I do have a site plan of the project. It is a mirror project of the one approved by the Board back on Acton Street a few months back. You will see on the site plan that this is the one we are looking to go forward with as well. It is on one sheet. It was a project that was received well by the neighbors, and one that will fit well in the neighborhood. The pictures are of the units that were built on Acton Street, and we will construct the same buildings. I am here to answer any questions.

R. Lockhart: Can you go through what you want to include on that one plan?

D. Daly: The zoning ordinance requires that there be separate sheets for all aspects of the site plan. Due to the small nature of the project, I am hoping to place them on one sheet.

T. Linnehan: As it is now, there is a house on the lot, and that will be coming down, correct?

D. Daly: Correct.

T .Linnehan: And these two proposed will be the same ones as the ones further down on the street? And I believe you are short on frontage?

D Daly: Yes they will be the same, and yes we are a couple inches short on frontage. But all other requirements are met.

J.Clermont: The area in front is green space and there is no parking under the house, correct?

D Daly: Yes that is correct.

J. Clermont: Ok, thank you.

G. Zaharoolis: How are you going to handle the drive?

D. Daly: We will have a shared driveway, and grant easements to either lot for the parking. They will be managed by one condo association.

G. Zaharoolis: Any more comments? The one that the application did bring up is that waiver on the size of the plan. May we have some consensus?

D. Daly: If I may, I do not plan on changing the physical size of the plans. We just want to put everything on one page. It will be an easier format to read due to the small scale of the project.

G. Saharoolis: Where is the snow storage, where is the trash pickup where is the lighting? Include that on the new plans as well. Is there anyone opposed to do the plans as he indicated?

J. Clermont: I would have no problem with these plans, as long as they are legible.

D Daly: Everything will be clearly marked.

R. Lockhart: I to do not have any problems with that.

T. Linnehan: I have no objections either.

M. Burns: I would like to see more parking for visitors if possible.

G. Zaharoolis: Okay thank you.

Applicant: D'Youville Elderly Housing Corp & Sisters of Charity of Ottawa

Project: 42-unit affordable elderly housing development

Zoning: SSF (Suburban Neighborhood Single Family)

Required Review: Site Plan

J. Clermont: Mr. Chairman, I am going to remove myself from this manner.

James Flood (81 Bridge Street): I am the attorney representing the applicant. I have a set of plans that I would like to give to each member. We would like to make an addition to the site to construct 42 affordable elderly housing units. The property is zoned SSF. So what we would have to do is appear in front of the ZBA for the extension of the nonconforming use. And we would need a variance for height; all other zoning will be met. We have proposed 46 parking spaces, we need one per room as this is senior congregate housing. There is a need for elderly housing in the city. And we are here to get some feedback from the Board. We would be glad to answer other questions. There is also another rendering of the building.

T. Linnehan: I noticed that you have a meeting with the neighborhood association. So that meeting is going on right now with Pawtucketville. Is this the first time you are meeting with them?

J. Flood: Yes that is correct. We have had informal discussions, but this is the first formal meeting.

T. Linnehan: So regarding the site, you will enter the site, and the project will be to the right, and there will be nothing to front of Varnum Ave?

J. Flood: That is correct, and the building will be to the right of the existing building. There will be nothing along Varnum Ave.

T. Linnehan: And the existing construction, is that in the front?

R. Lockhart: No, there is a little pond in the front there. There is a lot of open space.

William Soucy (D'Youville Representative): Yes, the pond is right here.

M Burns: I have no questions, good luck.

G. Zaharoolis: You mention 41 units, and then 42 units, which is it?

J. Flood: It is 42 units. 41 housing, and 1 managers unit.

G. Zahaoroolis: Please fix that before the final submission of the project. We need the actual existing conditions, the site features, site layout, lighting, landscaping, utilities, etc.

J.Flood: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Updates to the Planning Board's Bylaws

The Lowell Planning Board will discuss updates to its Bylaws.

The Board agreed to have Members Clermont and Linnehan explore further changes to the Bylaw.

Old Business

Site Plan & Special Permit: 106 Marginal Street, aka 117 Marginal Street

The applicant is requesting a clarification to one of the conditions of approval. The Board approved this project on December 12, 2005 for the construction of 136 condominium and townhouse units.

Attorney James Flood: Mr. Chairman, I am here tonight for 117 Marginal Street, the project was to tear down the existing building and construct a new building on the site, and also to construct some townhouses on the other side of the property from Marginal Street, which is quite a distance away from the existing building. It was my understanding that the Board said there would be no work on the existing building until the matter was resolved with the one tenant that we have in there. I think Planning Staff felt that we could not do any work on the entire site until that matter was resolved. Now that building is quite a distance away from the existing building, and I don't think that was the intention of the Board and I think we discussed that at the time. As a matter of fact that portion of the site is on another portion of the site, that was not something that tenants of the building will really use. That was my concern, and that was the question that I had. I cannot speak to what the attention of the Board, but I believe that that is what was intended. I did get a fax with Attorney Eliades this weekend who is representing the only tenant in the building, who would like to settle this civil matter. I thought it was clear that this construction of the townhouses was going to be developed, but again I cannot express the intention of the Board.

G. Zaharoolis: Okay, thank you. Attorney Eliades, would you like to give us an idea of what is going on.

Attorney George Eliades (133 Market Street): I am here this evening here for FI office, who Attorney Flood pointed out is not a sole tenant of the building, but a tenant of the building. Before we begin, I would like to pass out this packet for discussion, it is not fancy, but hopefully you can follow along. So again, I am here for FI office and they have been somewhat aware of some plans to do something with some or all of the building since 2004. I say some, because at different times, different people have approached them about doing something in the future. The bottom line is that if condition number 3 hadn't been in the decision that this board rendered, my clients would have appealed the decision to protect their rights. I say that because of the material I just passed out can give some background to their situation. First of all my clients, Jim and Ed Quinlin, were born and raised in Lowell in a two bedroom flat, and they wanted to come back to Lowell to their roots, and do a business here in Lowell, where they could be proud of doing business in Lowell and help employ the people of Lowell. When they entered this site, it was economic, because there were tax incentives at the time for their location on this site. So, a while ago they were approached them saying that they were thinking about doing some development on that property, but to do so we would like you to consider a move, and there was some discussion about where they might move to and how the landlord might compensate them. And in doing so they waited to have an owner tell them what is to be completed on the site. Some time last fall, an application was filed by Brasi Development Corp. and page number 1 was part of that application. The first paragraph notes that Sullivan printing occupied the building and Weza Landscaping was also on the site. As you can see, there is no mention of FI office. Item number 2 comes from the file, it is from the administrator summarizing the recommendation, that there is mention of FI Office, and noted that any construction may be detrimental to the operations of the business, and urges the Board to have any issues resolved prior to construction. Item number 3 was a submission from my client to the Board which noted that, since the beginning of the discussions about the project, my client been not been contacted. Nothing was being done to provide them with information. By the way, 31,000sqft of this building is filled with my client's stuff. I want you to notice that this is a small loan business, and I want to note that this business has given back to the community, given food to the poor, has provided meals on holidays. They haven't been out there looking for help from anyone else, but they are certainly looking for help with the current situation.

So I would like to draw your attention to item number 4 that is the last page of the Board's decision, which includes condition number 3. Had that condition not been in there, my clients would have appealed that matter. You notice by the way, that there is no mention in any of the proceedings that my client is under a lease for 3 to 4 years, and that they are legally entitled to occupy the premises. To the credit of the Board, you obviously knew that there were people in there, and you wanted to make sure that these people were not just run out of the building and out of town. Item number 5 notes that the City GIS map carries the parcel as one parcel, both sides of Marginal Street. That is important for a couple of reasons. Item number 6, is a lease agreement that is good for five year and expires August 31, 2007 for 31,000 sqft of the building. Item seven, is the lease agreement. Specifically the paragraph 8, noting quite enjoyment of the premises, what this means is that I am leasing you this property and I am not going to interfere with how you use the property. Page 8 gets into more specificity of that, and talks about the use of the parking lot and the rest of the site. This brings us back to the GIS map showing the parcel as a whole, and my client is entitled to the parking for the entire site. My client's business brings in large trailers to Marginal Street, if you are familiar to this site, there are loading docks, which my clients are entitled to use, and you cannot turn around on that parking lot without access to the whole site. Page 9 states that the tenant will have use to the parking facilities, and that the landlord will have all of the parking spaces and that such parking spaces will be sufficient for the employees and customers. And item number 10, it sounds to me that this is a multi-faceted, many year project. And what the developers appear to have asked you to have done is to approve this project in segments. And who knows what the property will look like 3.5 years from now, who knows what the neighborhood will look like 3.5 years from now, and the they are asking you to approve now what the rest of the development plans are for that property. So, had we not had condition 3 that they are now seeking to remove, we would have appealed it. If they did not like condition 3, they were at the hearing, they could have spoken about the condition. Or if later one they did not like the way it was written, they could have also appealed the written decision at that point. So, I am trying to protect this business, and I ask you to please not remove condition 3. And I am not sure if my clients' right of appeal are protected if this were to be removed. The representatives of the developers, have told my client after the meeting that they were going to be helped, and told them after the meeting that after the holidays we will be in touch with you, and we will work out all of the problems. Well, December ended, no help in on the way, January ended, and there is no help on the way.

G. Zaharoolis: The Chair does not appreciate your reading the minds of the Chairman. I think that was uncalled for. Council?

J. Flood: Well, I think the Board was well aware of the lease agreement. What they did not tell you was that that portion of the property with the townhouses was under the lease with someone else, who had exclusive use of that site. I remember specifically discussing this matter at the meeting, and we had a concern about Mr. Errickson's comments. There is plenty of space there, I specifically remember saying that we wanted to use that part of the site with the townhouses. We will not begin construction of the building until we move them. I think there is plenty of room there for everyone, and I really don't think it was the intention of the Board to hold up the whole project for until the tenant was moved.

G. Zaharoolis: I am a little perplexed because since the time of the decision, I don't understand why either party discussed this condition. I am think this is a case that has to be handled outside the Planning Board scope. I don't know how the other Board members feel.

R. Lockhart: I just have a couple of questions about the nature of the business, can you tell us what you are doing with the business?

G. Eliades: They take in used furniture and rework the furniture and re-sell it. They also do wood fixing of other furnature. It is very interesting.

R. Lockhart: Are there any chemicals used or anything like that?

G Eliades: No, they just use basic paints. My purpose is to not re-open the hearing, because there are a lot of other issues we can bring up about this project, but I don't think this is the intention.

R. Lockhart: So you have a fairly clean operation. How many people do you employ?

G. Eliades: 15 to 30. And they are all Lowell residents.

R. Lockhart: I just want to make a comment, and we want to do what we can to take care of their needs. I just think we should come up with some ideas for taking care of the lease issues.

J. Clermont: As was stated, this may be an issue that may be outside of the Planning Board purview, but as I review the minutes of the December 12th meeting to try and refresh my memory, just a couple of questions, were your clients at the meeting? And did they make any comments at the meeting.

G. Eliades: My clients went there, they attended, listened, and they made no comments.

J. Clermont: In understand that we had a letter from your client. And as I went through the minutes, there is no discussion really about your client and no discussion of your clients' situation. But at the end of the hearing there is a condition to resolve the issues with your client. What I would like to suggest is to clarify the position of the Board at this meeting, and to do so I would like an opportunity to review the tape of the meeting. We may not be able to resolve the position, but we may be able to better understand the meeting. The minutes are not verbatim, they are for general discussion. My suggestion is to continue until we can do this, and review the tape.

M Burns: I do remember the meeting, and I remember reading the letter before the meeting, and it was specifically outlined in the decision that they were to be taken care of, now this may not be in our purview, but it is in our business to protect a Lowell business.

G. Zaharoolis: Okay, Tom?

T. Linnehan: I have no comment.

G. Zaharoolis: Okay, Joe would you like to make a motion?

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to have the minutes of this public hearing transcribed and distributed to the members of the Planning Board and other parties involved in this matter for review at the February 23, 2006 Planning Board meeting.

R. Lockhart second the motion

All members voted in favor (4-0)

G. Eliades: If I may, I would like to be present at the listening of the tape.

G. Zaharoolis: I don't see that as a problem, James can you pull that together?

J. Errickson: Yes. If it is easier for everyone's schedule, I can have the minutes transcribed and distributed to the members of the Board and interested parties.

J. Clermont: How will those minutes be transcribed?

J. Errickson: One of the office secretaries can site down with the tape and transcribe them word for word.

J. Clermont: If you can do that and distribute copies to everyone, that would be great.

Zoning Board of Appeals Legal Notices:

None

Motion to adjourn:

J. Clermont motioned to adjourn.

M. Burns seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (5-0)

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on February 23, 2006

J. Clermont: Motion to approve

R. Lockhart: Second

All members voted in favor (4-0). T. Linnehan was absent from the meeting

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Planning Board Minutes

February 6, 2006 - Page 7