City of Lowell - Planning Board


Planning Board Minutes
September 6, 2007 6:30 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, video 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
Gerard Frechette, Member

Others
Aaron Clausen, Associate Planner
George Proakis, Chief Planner
Eric Slagle, Assistant City Solicitor


The following are the results of the September 6, 2007 Planning Board meeting held in the City Council
Chambers at Lowell City Hall at 6:30 p.m.

Four members of the Board were present, S. Gendron was absent.

Public Hearings
94-106 Rock Street

Per order of the Lowell Superior Court, the Lowell Planning Board held a public hearing to hear all
interested persons relative to an application by Middlesex North Resource Center, a subsidiary of
Bridgewell, Inc., a non-profit educational corporation serving disable individuals, for Site Plan Approval
for a project located at 94-106 Rock Street. The proposal includes the rehabilitation of an existing
building with site laundry facilities, a recreation/community room, and 12 bedrooms. The proposal also
includes the construction of a new 6,900sqft building with 12 efficiency units, classroom and office space,
as well as a fifteen (15) space parking lot and associated landscaping. The project is located in the UMF
(Urban Neighborhood Multi Family) zoning district, and requires Site Plan approval under Section 11.4
of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

The Lowell Superior Court remanded this item to the Planning Board in order to reconsider the site plan
narrowly to include only dimensional and parking requirements as specified in the Lowell Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant is exempted from use regulations under M. G. L. Chapter 40A Section 3 as a
non-profit, educational organization. Therefore discussion and the ultimate decision made by the Board
was limited to the dimensional and parking requirements. Prior to opening the project to public comment
Chairman Linnehan reiterated the limited scope of review guiding the Board for this project, citing the
above mentioned State regulation and case law affirming the narrowed review.

---

Planning Board Minutes – September 6, 2007
Page 2
The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:
Samuel Vitali (Attorney of Applicant, 60 Andrews St., Lynn MA), Ann Barton (DPD), Jim Jozokos
(Architect for Applicant, 635 Rogers St.).

Mr. Vitali introduced the project and individuals who showed in support of the project. Mr. Vitali goes
on to stress the narrowed oversight the Board has with respect to educational uses and that the use of the
facility was not in question, only dimensional and parking requirements specified in the City’s zoning
code. He offered multiple documents as evidence affirming the mission of the facility and its parent
company as an educational non-profit entity; including a letter from the Secretary of State.

Ms. Barton provided a general overview of the process of bringing the project forward from its inception
through the several iterations to this point. She discussed efforts made with regard to outreach to the
neighborhood, concerns that had emerged from that outreach, and how these concerns were incorporated
into the project’s design.

Mr. Jozokos presented the architectural design elements of the project, including those made to the
existing building and those to the proposed new structure.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:
David Gray (33 Briar Avenue), Robert McKittrick (60 Fletcher Street), Stan Sokolowski (774 Dutton
Street), Russ Leonard (154 Fletcher Street), Spiro Skinsakos, Donald Brown (579 Princeton Boulevard),
Arthur Daunais (615 Dutton Street), Harry Betty (17 Rock Street).

Generally, those speaking against the project where expressing concern over the use of the project,
specifically with regard to the meal program that is offered. There was concern over the type of
‘element’ that this program would attract into the area citing possible effects to neighborhood
businesses, future economic development that may stall recent improvements made to the area, and
concerns of safety.

Many of the individuals who spoke against the project also expressed frustration that they had not been
contacted or had seen notification in the paper. Chairman Linnehan and Member Clermont assured the
abutters had been sent letters of notification and that the notices where published in the paper.

Board Discussion

The Board addressed several issues with the applicant including ways in which the applicant has
developed the site plan to mitigate questions of safety. Mr. Vitali pointed out that social and
demographic safety is not in question, only that the site plan is configured to accommodate safety
vehicles and safe movement in and around the site. It was agreed that the applicant would work with
the City to insure adequate police detail. Member Clermont explored the separate programs offered at
the facility and an implication of separate uses and their relation to non-profit educational purposes.
Mr. Vitali pointed out the Supreme Court has widely interpreted educational purposes, and Mr. Slagle
confirmed case law has consistently avoided bifurcation of an individual site if the overarching
program of the organization is for educational purposes. Additional discussion occurred with respect
to the operations of the facility including the meal program, education, and housing.

The Board discussed the issue of notice and outreach, where it was expressed greater effort would
have been preferred. It was noted by Ms. Barton that most of those speaking against the project are
located outside of the 300-foot buffer required by the state for which notice must be sent, and pointed
out several of the businesses that she had been in contact with. She also expressed an interest in
meeting with any individual who would like to speak in greater detail about the project, and pointed
out that the City wants to insure the project is a positive influence to the neighborhood.

---

Planning Board Minutes – September 6, 2007
Page 3

Site plan issues explored by the Board related to placement and maintenance of the dumpster to insure
refuse was properly stored away from the street and regularly removed. Parking layout was addressed
including quantity of spaces, ADA compliance, landscaped area, snow storage and the process for
which the land would be transferred from the city to the applicant to provide parking. Other
landscaping issues discussed where the retaining wall located at the back side of the property,
dimensional requirements and whether the plan conforms to the zoning code, and the lighting plan.

Motion:
Member J. Clermont motioned and Member G. Frechette seconded to APPROVE the site plan. The
motion passed with all members voting in favor (4-0). The plan was approved with the following
conditions:

1. The developer shall provide police details at the site 7 days a week between 8 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 4:00
p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
2. Subject to approval of water infrastructure by the City of Lowell’s water utility.
3. The developer shall include a safety fence along the retaining wall that runs along the southern edge of the
property, materials to be approved by DPD and Historic Board.
4. Applicant must prevent trash overflow and provide adequate screening around the dumpster, plan and
materials to be approved by DPD. Area shall be kept clean of trash and debrish. No trash shall be put out
on the curb for collection.
5. Subject to the execution of land disposition by the City of Lowell to the applicant in order to provide
adequate parking.
6. Subject to a lighting plan showing light fixtures directed downward, and preventing light spill over to
adjacent properties. The lighting plan is to be approved by City of Lowell DPD and the Historic Board.
7. During heavy snow events excess snow unable to be stored on sight must be trucked off-site.
8. The applicant must repair, refurbish, or replace existing sidewalk with bituminous concrete along Rock
Street and Willie Street.
9. Provide adequate fire and police access to the site to be approved by respective departments.

New Business

Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance

In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, the Lowell Planning Board held a Public Hearing
to hear all interested persons relative to an ordinance to amend “The Code of Ordinances City of
Lowell, Massachusetts,” with respect to Appendix A thereof entitled “Zoning.” The amendment
would update multiple sections of the code to include the following: 1) Section 6.1.7 (2) and Section
11.4.10 (9) updating stormwater requirements, 2) Section 8.1.2 (1) update to the special residential
regulations for conversion of historic buildings, 3) update Section 11.3.2a criteria for special permits in
the table of uses, and 4) update and clarify Article 12.1 table of residential uses as defined in M.G.L.
Chapter 43D and established by the Lowell City Council.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:
Mark Goldman (54 Oak Street), George Proakis (Chief Planner, DPD)

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:
None

Motion:
Member J. Clermont motioned and Member R. Lockhart seconded to CONTINUE for the next
meeting in order to clarify language in the table of uses, particularly detached and semi-detached
residential unties. The motion passed with all members voting in favor (4-0).

---

Planning Board Minutes – September 6, 2007
Page 4
Old Business

Pre-Application Review: 206 Rogers Street

The following individuals have requested the Planning Board to provide a preliminary review of their
proposed project updates. These are not public hearings. The project will require a public hearing as
noted below. Note: The Planning Board renders no decision nor guarantees any future decision, whether
positive or negative, on any project that receives pre-application review. This review process is for
information purposes only.

The board will discuss options with the applicant for an updated site plan relative to an application by the
Rogers Street Association LLC for Site Plan Approval for a project located at 206 Rogers Street. The
Board will discuss the renovation of the existing YWCA building into 13 condominium units as proposed
in the original plan.

The attorney for the applicant (Attny. Plunkett) addressed the Board with a conceptual description of the
changes the applicant were willing to make, including a reduction in the number of units from 13 to 12.
The Board was generally favorable to the idea and recommended that the applicant schedule a formal pre-
application session to review those changes. No formal action was taken.


These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on October 1, 2007
J. Clermont: Motion to approve
R. Lockhart: Second
All members voted in favor (4-0) with Member S. Gendron abstaining.

________________________________________________________
Aaron Clausen, Associate Planner/Planning Board Administrator

---

Document Outline

• ��
• ��

---