Planning Board Minutes

May 7, 2007 6:30 P.M.

Mayor’s Reception Room, 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

Thomas Linnehan, Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Second Vice Chairman

Jerry Frechette, Member

Stephen Gendron, Member

 

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

 

Public Hearings

Site Plan: 92 Bolt Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Alfred Maroun and Verizon Wireless for Site Plan Review for a project located at 92 Bolt Street.  The proposal includes the construction of a 90 ft high, freestanding telecommunications monopole, with associated equipment shelter and fencing.  The parcel is located in the LI (Light Industry) zoning district.  

 

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

Earl Duval (Applicant’s Consultant)

 

In Favor:

Earl Duval: Outside council for Verizon wireless.  Proposing a new telecommunications facility.  Property under lease.  Compound 20 ft by 55 feet.  Perimeter surrounded by chain link fence.  Facility will consist of 90-foot freestanding monopole.  There will be 2 carriers on pole.  The equipment shelter will be standard prefab.  One recommendation is to delineate where facility is against building.  Application shows how facility is in compliance with telecom standards.

 

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: 

None

 

In Opposition:

None

 

General Discussion:

R. Lockhart: Can you address fire department concerns?

 

E. Duval: We certainly do not want an electrical fire.

 

S. Gendron: What is the reason for placing this facility here?

 

E. Duval: This was identified because of a significant gap in coverage in this area of the wireless network.  The engineer determined this would be best site to accomplish coverage needs, as seen in application, exhibit 15 and 16.

 

S. Gendron: I have Verizon Wireless, it is surprising to me that there is a loss of coverage here. 

 

E. Duval: I’m not an engineer, but this is highly scientific.

 

S.Gendron: Do you have any information about health affects from cell towers?

 

E. Duval: This is in compliance with FCC regulations.

 

S. Gendron: I’m not sure FCC has full grasp of health affects.

 

E. Duval:  The FCC does regulate heavily what it considers to be safe.  Many of the fed courts have also been analyzing the safety of these towers, and the Board is not able to look into these.

 

S. Gendron: I did a bit research, and it seems like this is such a new technology, that we don’t know if there is any health affects.  I don’t think Lowell has an issue with cell coverage.  And there are already several sites in the City, and I am concerned with citing another tower in Lowell. 

 

E Duval: Verizon is on federal licenses to fill these coverage gaps, in order to retain these licenses. 

 

R. Lockhart:  Are all these antennas are strictly Verizon Wireless?

 

E. Duval: Yes, but look at exhibit 13.  This shows other sides where other carriers may also be present. 

 

R. Lockhart:  I think there are more then three facilities in Lowell. 

 

J. Clermont: Fire department had a second question regarding the second building.

 

E. Duval: All these are climate controlled. 

 

J. Clermont: At this time, Verizon would be the only company on this tower.  Would you be interested in supporting a second carrier?

 

E Duval: Absolutely.

 

T. Linnehan: There is one request for waivers, from snow storage and trash dumpster.  And this would also have to go before the ZBA.

 

E. Duval: That is correct.

 

T. Linnehan: Can you touch on the bond requirement?

 

E Duval: Exhibit 12. Yes, the letter notes how much the removal of this facility would cost.  In the event the facility is not being used, the bond will cover the costs. 

 

T. Linnehan: We usually refer the bond to the legal department.  You also had a discussion of wind and what this will hold up to.  That was good to see.  Last question was regarding page 2 of narrative, which discussed noise of the generator, though this is enclosed to the building. 

 

E Duval: That is correct.  That generator is only operational in emergency situations.

 

T. Linnehan: On exhibit 4, the FAA report had no concerns regards to height or lighting.  So besides our boards, you are regulated by FAA, FCC, etc.  Do they come out and look at the site?

E. Duval: They look at the engineering, and the package we give you.  And other standards.

 

Motion:

The site plan was approved with the following conditions and waivers:

1. The applicant is granted the waivers from provided required snow storage and trash removal, as requested.
2. The applicant must provide a removal bond, as outlined in Exhibit 12 of the Application for Site Plan Review, dated April 6, 2007, in the amount of $25,000 to the City of Lowell for the cost of the complete removal and disposition of the facility should the facility be considered abandoned and not operational for a continuous period of 12 months, as outlined in Sections 7.6.8: Maintenance Guarantee and Section 7.6.9: Removal of Abandoned Facilities of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

 

The motion to approve the site plan and grant the waivers was made by Member Joseph Clermont and seconded by Member Richard Lockhart.  The motion passed with four members voting in favor, and Member Steven Gendron voting in opposition (4-1). 

 

Site Plan & Special Permit: 76-80 Rogers Street, Old Mother Hubbard

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Diane & Scott O’Brien and Rogers & Perry, LLC for special permit and site plan review for the development of a the property located at 76-80 Rogers Street, Old Mother Hubbard.  The proposal includes the demolition of the existing Old Mother Hubbard mill building on site and the construction of 35, townhouse-style housing units.  The proposal is located on a 2.172-acre lot (2,703 sqft per unit) in the TMU (Traditional-Neighborhood Mixed Use) Zoning District.  The project site is at the corner of Perry Street and Rogers Street, and the development is accessed via a driveway off of Rogers Street.   The project requires Special Permit review under Article XII: Table of Uses and Site Plan review under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.  The hearing will be held concurrently.

 

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

Attorney James Flood (81 Bridge Street), Jerry Foley (Belanger & Foley, Applicant’s Engineer), Jeffrey Pechulis (Applicant’s Traffic Engineer), Walter Szafran (194 Perry Street), Karol Szafran (192 Perry Street), Denise Houston (186 Perry Street), Jim Houston (186 Perry Street), Rose Narzakian (190 Perry Street), Freda MacLeod (88-90 Perry Street), Peter Soares (95 Rogers Street), Mario Lima (376 Concord Street),

 

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street): With applicants Tom and Diane Scott, and Bill Taupier, Fran Sagandorf, Jerry Foley, Jeffrey Pechulis, traffic Engineer.  Plan as presented conforms with all requirements of Lowell Zoning Ordinance.  Discuss history of project.  Wanted to convert old building.  Realized not possible because of existing smell.  Decided building had to be demolished, and propose new development.  Fire department did not accept these plans.  Knowing Board’s concerns about safety, we will have to revise this plan.  I am going to ask for continuance to revise plan.  We would like to retain the entrance on Rogers.  But we don’t know how the plan will be revised, and to incorporate the comments from the Board and the neighborhood. 

 

Jerry Foley (Belanger & Foley): Plan presented tonight same as pre-application.  Plan driven by marketing, owners and what is allowed by bylaw.  This is typical of other townhouse units.  Break up the single row of buildings.  Did meet with City Engineer relative to drainage, and everything works fine.  Comply with storm water management standards.  Lighting residential in nature.  Proposing small front yards here.  Entrances will come strait out to street.  Intent to minimize impact on Perry Street.  This is a computer-generated model of the project.  There is a change of the zoning in this area, from a mixed use to a two family district.  We meet the parking requirement. 

 

Jeff Pachulis (181 Notre Dame Street Westfield MA): Methodology similar to Mass Highway.  Base line condition of existing site, no activity.  Looked at Perry Street and Rogers Street.  Volumes collected in March, averaged to state wide seasonal numbers.  ITE standards for trip generation for this site are 25 vehicle trips per hour, both exiting and entering the site.  The project is given a grade when analyzed through the standards.  Analyzed site distances, there are no objections for such a driveway.  Asked to take a look at previous plan, which included driveways along Perry Street.  Limited widths along Perry Street, number of items concerns, cars parked create line of site issue, intersection of Rogers and Perry Street, cars did cue, because of volume of traffic along Perry Street, which may block driveway along Perry Street, based on desk review of site plan.  We had limited concerns.

 

J. Flood:  Based on this, and consensus of neighborhood, this is why we did the driveway on Rogers Street.  We did contact Captain Webber, and this plan will have to be revised. 

 

J. Clermont: Do you know how it will be revised?

 

J. Flood: We are thinking of providing an emergency exit onto Perry Street.

 

T. Linnehan: So the plans will be changed significantly, which may need some city review?

 

J. Flood: Yes. 

 

J. Foley:  To make an elevation change along here there is significant change, so we are working on that right now. 

 

T. Linnehan: I’d like to listen to the neighbors.  And if we do allow the continuance, they are welcome to come back in the future.

 

S. Gendron: The revision is to remove a couple of units, but does your revision plan to incorporate any comments from the Planning Department?

 

J. Flood: Well we want to hear your opinions tonight, and go from there. 

 

Walter Szafran (194 Perry Street): I’m not in favor or in opposition.  The parking, how many parking areas do you have for visitors? 

 

J. Flood: There are 17 over here, and each unit has 2 additional parking spaces.

 

W. Szafran: What about the rodents when the building is torn down?

 

T. Linnehan: That is something to consider.

 

W. Szafran: With all the pesticide on the site, will it be safe to construct on this land?

 

Karol Szafran (192 Perry Street):  The trucks that are going to be there, they are a hazard.

 

Denise Houston (186 Perry Street):  These questions are in regards to trucks being used for demolition.

 

Jim Houston (186 Perry Street): I am for the project if access road is on Rogers Street, and how far the buildings are off Perry Street. 

 

Rose Narzakian (190 Perry Street): Concerned with truck going back and forth and the speed is fast.

 

Freda MacLeod (88-90 Perry Street): I am for anything that makes Perry Street better.  My concern is for the children that may be living here so close to the Electric Wires.

 

J. Flood: It will be fenced off. 

 

Peter Soares (95 Rogers Street).  Been in neighborhood for 20 years.  Lived in neighborhood for 35 years.  Being a business owner I am in favor of project. 

 

Mario Lima (376 Concord Street): I have no problem with project.  Is there a playground for the kids in the project?  A walking path is not a playground.  I just want to make sure the rodents are taken care of this project.  If I were trying to build something like this, I would have knocked in the doors.  Consideration goes a long way.  I think there are too many units.  I also think the third bedroom loft space will be a problem.

 

T. Linnehan: The fire department did request changes to the project with an emergency access onto Perry Street.

 

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:

Anne Cavanaugh (156 Hanks Street)

 

Anne Cavenaugh (156 Hanks Street): If there were fewer units, would there be a turn around for the fire department?  Why not loose the units for a turnaround on site?  I also had a question about the height of the buildings.  These units are just big, much larger than Perry Street.  Most houses have front doors, with front porch, and connect to Perry Street. Frankly this whole project turns it’s back onto the neighborhood.  We need to interact with the street. 

 

Fran Sagendorf: I did meet with Jane Calvin, and they are proposing a fence to go along the greenway.  We don’t control this area. 

 

Bill Taupier:  There is 150 feet between our property and the Riverwalk. The client did their best to keep the existing building.

 

General Discussion:

J. Frechette:  We had some suggestions from the preliminary hearing, and those were not well received.  I did express the fire access concerns.  Neighborhood character is not the zoning change.  You are not proposing a mixed-use project here, which is the zone.  This must meet the character of the existing character of the neighborhood.  This appears to be very separate from the neighborhood.  I had comments about the streetscape along Perry Street, and these were again comments from the preliminary.  I would like to see the front entrances, so they look like the fronts are on Perry Street.  Are there decks on the backside?

 

J. Foley:  We do have a grade issue.  You come out to a deck and down to a landing area.  The kitchens are right now on Perry Street.

 

J. Frechette: There is a lack of detail as to how this will front Perry Street.  I think it looks more like a back yard design.  Also, on Rogers Street, those ends really need some change.  Units should face Rogers Street.  I also have some safety concerns.  I am concerned about that, but I’m not sure how to address that.  The tax benefits are basically a wash on the City.  I would hope that from a design perspective, you would take into account the concerns expressed. 

 

R. Lockhart: One of the overall things about this project is the impact this will have on the neighborhood.  You don’t have any architectural elevation as to how this will look from the street.  The character of the neighborhood should not be impacted.  I looked at all the individual houses along the neighborhood, and virtually every house along there has a front porch and a frond door along the street.  I also think DPD had some good ideas.  Look at wrapping the building around Perry Street.  Try to do more with the character of the corner of Rogers and Perry Street.  Other issue is regards to safety.  We have a letter from traffic engineer.  From a traffic volume standpoint, what is more dangerous, Rogers Street or Perry Street?

 

Jeff Pachulis:  There is going to be an interaction between this site’s traffic on Rogers Street or on Perry Street.  A Perry Street entrance separates out the traffic from this site, with some going to Rogers and some to Andover. 

 

R. Lockhart:  There is still a higher potential of accidents on Rogers versus Perry Street.  The other thing he addresses here is differences between the slopes on the site with regards to grading on Perry Street.  What about sidewalks along Perry Street?

 

J. Foley:  Right now there is a sidewalk that is not well defined.  So we would need to clean that all up.

 

R. Lockhart: You should look at that too, as well as a play area for the site.  The current use of the existing neighborhood to park cars, what are you going to do about this? 

 

J. Foley: I don’t think we have any control about that situation. 

 

S. Gendron:  I agree with a lot of the comments made from the other board members.  I think there are major neighborhood character issues with current proposal.  I think a root cause of the problems is the congestion on the site.  There are too many units on the site.  We have the LA/DU in the City, which ensures minimal spaciousness in the development.  But we also have the special permit process, which allows us to deal with the situations of the development and the larger neighborhood.  This all contributes to parking, safety, and design issues.  These can be addressed by eliminating units. 

 

J. Clermont:  It appears you are going to loose units for the fire department.  Can some of that new space be for additional parking?  Look at that design.  I agree with the streetscape along Perry Street, and Rogers Street.  That is where the visual impact will be the greatest.  The streetscape towards Rogers Street is important.  We would also like to look at the architectural details. 

 

T. Linnehan: The odor is awful.  We have no problem taking down that building.  DPD had some great comments regarding changing the facades.  I agree that the traffic should not go out onto Perry Street.  There is discussion about the Concord River Project.  By critiquing some of what we discussed here tonight, this can definitely add to the neighborhood. 

 

J. Flood: I would just like to check with the Engineer to see if two weeks is enough.

 

Motion:

The Board motioned to CONTINUE the public hearing to June 4, 2007, in order to allow the applicant time to address the concerns of the neighbors, various City Departments, and the Planning Board.

 

The motion to CONTINUE the site plan and special permit was made by Member Joseph Clermont and seconded by Member Richard Lockhart.  The motion passed with all members voting to CONTINUE the hearing until June 4, 2007 (5-0). 

 

New Business

None

 

Old Business

Update & Administrative Adjustment: 1095 Westford Street

The Board will discuss a proposed minor change to the approvals set forth by the Board for the project located at 1095 Westford Street.  The changes include adjustments to the parking layout plan.  The project was approved by the Board in January 2006.

 

Motion:

The update and administrative adjustment was approved as presented to the Board. 

 

The motion to approve the updates and adjustments was made by Member Steven Gendron and seconded by Member Joseph Clermont.  The motion passed with all members voting in favor of approval of the update and administrative adjustments (5-0).

 

ZBA Notices

 

26 Wood Street (Kheng Realty Trust)

S. Gendron: Motion to recommend DENIAL of the project for the following reasons:

·         There are major traffic concerns along Wood Street that this does not address nor help

·         There is no rear yard, thus affecting neighborhood quality of life for abutters to property

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

Four members voted in favor of DENIAL with J. Clermont abstaining from voting (4-0-1)

 

99 Rosemont (Diane Perry)

J. Frechette: Motion to recommend APPROVAL of the project.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

Four members voted in favor of APPROVAL with J. Clermont abstaining from voting (4-0-1)

 

99 Rosemont (Diane Perry)

J. Frechette: Motion to recommend APPROVAL of the project.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

Four members voted in favor of APPROVAL with J. Clermont abstaining from voting (4-0-1)

 

235 Stackpole Street (River Meadow, Inc.)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL of the project for the following reasons:

·         Recreating the previous condition on site is a more desirable development

·         The proposed new construction is out of character with the existing neighborhood

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (5-0)

 

900 Chelmsford Street (Motorola)

R. Lockhart: Motion to recommend APPROVAL of the project

S. Gendron: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (5-0)

 

278 Branch Street (Peter Tea)

J. Frechette: Motion to recommend APPROVAL of the project

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (5-0)

 

39 Wedgemere Drive (Dery John L Dery Maria O)

S. Gendron: Motion to TAKE NO ACTION until further details are provided regarding the project details.  There is currently no plan for the project.

J. Frechette: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of TAKING NO ACTION (5-0)

 

 

 

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on June 4, 2007

J. Clermont: Motion to approve

J. Frechette: Second

All members voted in favor (5-0)

 

 

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner/Planning Board Administrator