Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Recording in progress ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you.

Can I have your attention please? We'll be stopping up shortly. Good evening and welcome to the Lowell Planning Board for April 6, 2026. This meeting is being broadcast live on Channel 6 and on the Lowell LTC YouTube page. The first matter on the agenda this evening is the minutes of approval on the March 16th 2026 meeting and the board members have any comments or corrections. You know make a motion to approve. Motion second all in favor say aye aye. Okay, the motions are allowed. First matter on the agenda is a repetitive petition approval, 75 Chapel Street, 01852. The following planning board will hear, excuse me, the Lowell Planning Board will hear an application by NLK Homes LLC for repetitive application approval. The subject property is located in the Urban Neighborhood Multifamily Zoning District. On February 2nd, 2026, the Planning Board took an unfavorable action on the previous site plan proposal at the site. Per Mass General Laws Chapter 48, Section 16, the Planning Board must consider the merits of the new site plan review application and must consent that the new application contains specific and material changes from the first application. May we hear from the applicant, please?

Hi, good evening, members of the board. This is Mark Callancar with MP Design Consultants. We have made some substantial changes to the plans, including comments that we received back from the Board, including signage and some analysis of the existing turnaround on the traffic of the existing conditions. What I really want to point out to the Board is that this is an existing structure, and we're not alternating some of the facts of the existing structure as it is now. We are only implementing two more units of an existing four-unit building, comprising of six total units. So there are some relief that we have requested already through the Zoning Board of Appeals, which we were granted those relief regarding the stacked parking lots. as well as we received some comments back from engineering and as well as we understood that we had some comments from, I believe, Mr. Chang with the planning board stating about some landscaping. We have included that as well, as well as some signage with the one-way for the correct maneuverability of the traffic of the existing site. With that, we submitted a new application for the repetitive application of the project, which we're hoping to get it approved tonight.

Anything further?

Yeah, I can go further. The plans, we've received the comments back from engineering stating, I believe, two major, I would say two comments. One of them is in regards to stormwater. If we look at the stormwater mass DP section 7 on redevelopment, it states that if you're not discharging to a critical area, you are under the redevelopment authority, which goes from, I believe, five to nine units. Therefore, this project is under this category. So as far as if you're not substantially changing the drainage patterns of the existing site on the redevelopment, which we are not, the drainage and the MassDP regulation states that you have to do stormwater design to the maximum extent practicable, which in this case, everything is remaining the same it is as it currently is now on site. We are doing some new striping to determine some stacked parking locations. As far as the maneuverability of the site, which was another comment from the engineering department, we can see that there is about 19 feet from the edge of the parking to the edge of the structure, which proves to be enough area widening of that back park driveway to have a maneuverability turnaround. Just to give some sense, typically a one-way parking area is typically between 12 feet to 14 feet on a drive aisle. You go to any parking lots or stripping malls, if there is a one-way, typically that's the width of the driving aisle. So the 19 feet comfortable gives that access for the cars to pull in, park in front of it, turn around, come back, and be able to do that turning movement. um again these this is an existing unit that serve as the purposes of parking as it is now we're not making anything worse than what actually is there for the cars to come in and pull out we're not extending beyond the width of what's existing and i believe with that i think we we addressed some of the comments that the engineering department had

Anything else you want to say, sir? No. Now you open up to the public and then we'll open up to the board members. Okay. Anybody here this evening want to speak in favor of the substantial and material change? In favor? In favor? In favor? Hearing none. Anybody in opposition to the material change? In opposition? In opposition? In opposition? Hearing none, at this time I'll turn it over to the board. I think I'll start first with a couple of questions. So basically, it's the same building, no changes to the outside, same parking scheme, same driveway unit scheme. Basically, the exact same plan we saw in January.

Yeah, exact same footprint. There is a new stairs to meet our means of egress, but that's not, there are no columns going down to the driveway without it.

So we have to decide if it's a material change. And as you just said, it's the same plan as we saw in January. No, no. In January, we made suggestions. We continued to February and poof, nobody shows.

Yeah, and I called it.

I'm still talking. We called it three times. Anybody here? Anybody here? Anybody here? No. They were here. They knew the date. We had them on Zoom. They don't show up. So since they didn't address any of the concerns we had, the motion was to deny by myself and the board agreed. This is the same plan you showed us in January. So now you're trying to tell us that, now you're trying to tell us it's a substantial change and a material change after you just told us it's the same plan.

No, no. What I said is we addressed the comments that...

I heard what you said.

Yeah.

But it's the same plan. The plan hasn't changed.

What we included on the plans was signage.

What you did is you addressed the comments...

I apologize for not having someone here because there was a death on someone's family and they didn't tell us for someone to cover for them. And that was one of the reasons why that nobody showed up. And I apologize for that.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's the exact same plan. I'm done. Any other board members want to speak?

Mr. Chairman, if I may, and I'm just looking at the criteria, because we have to determine, first of all, before we'd even consider the site plan, is whether the plans before us are material change, specific and material changes from the original plan. So, Um, I, to your point, even the public notice that was on the fence, it's the same public notice. It was just crossed out with marker and a new date was put in because it's basically the same plan with, um, some specific, but certainly minor adjustments based on markings that you're putting on the pavement. So, um, I, uh, I, I share your, your, your thoughts on that. Mr. Chairman, I'll wait to hear what colleagues have to say. Okay. Mr. Tanta.

Caleb, you want to go? Oh, you can go ahead first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I saw this, I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I saw these as cosmetic changes to this plan. My biggest beef was with the The interaction between cars and pedestrians, as we mentioned in our prior hearing, I drove this thing again. And it's crazy, one, getting in. Two, getting out isn't bad. But when I saw this, and I didn't understand what a repetitive petition was, my first thought was, these are cosmetic changes. and I don't find them to be substantial or material. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, sir. Caleb? I agree with my fellow members. And we denied the plan. That's a fact. And I think it's just procedure matter that, like, you know, you have to bring a different plan. You can't bring a plan that's denied. I mean, otherwise, we can keep doing it. I mean, not specifically the case, but procedurally. I appreciate that you now addressed my concern and also that of the member, but I think we have to tackle the procedural matter right now. And I agree with my members again that it's essentially the same plan. Thank you, Chairman.

Lucia, any questions, comments?

i just want to say that i share the same concerns as the other members on the board while i appreciate that you have addressed the concerns from the previous hearing i still have the same concerns the concerns with the flow through of the traffic, the congestion of the stacked parking, and pedestrians coming in and out of the building. And it's just a very, very congested street. So I worry that with more cars on that street that it's essentially a hazard. So to weigh whether or not it's substantially different from the previous plan, I would say, no, it's not substantially different, because I think we all share the same concerns that we did in the past.

Thank you.

Hi. Tal, any question? I, again, you know, I don't want to repeat what my fellow board member said, but we made a decision, and we were hoping that some changes made. When you resubmit this, it's not, and we'll make the same decision again.

I just want to hear the follow-ups. You know, when we were here the first time, you know, we asked about the snow removal, and the answer was, oh, we keep it the same way as it is now. So what does that mean? We didn't get an answer. And then on the second meeting, Caleb went by that night and took pictures of the house. The right way going in was shoveled. Coming out, snow all the way back to the garage. So that's the way the snow removal works. The way it is now, that's the way we use it. So that was when we had a foot and a half of snow, and that lane was not cleared. Caleb has the pictures, showed them all to the board. So we're told, this is how we handle the snow. Now we see there's a patch on the left corner. But if you don't clean the snow now on the regular plan, And you tell us, that's how we do it. Why do we believe you're going to move the snow going forward? And that's not a question for you to answer. That's just a statement being made that we go up and look and we see, you tell us, you clean it up, but you don't. So that was always an issue. How these cows are going to get out of there? Well, they're not driving through a foot and a half of snow, especially when it's only what? Less than nine feet wide, 8.75 or something, the end width of that driveway coming out?

Yeah.

Currently is a point to something I mean it's now we're coming out there was going in because when I come out today I had a hard time getting out because it was trash all in the end of the driveway like the trash is in front of the House inside the fence that was there in February and those also there in January I had cardboard boxes I had to move to get my car out so I could just pull out without one of them over and guessing what's there but

If I could speak, some of the changes that we've made to the plans were the additional of the signage, the striping, the snow location, where it would be on site, as well as if I could refer back to the pedestrian safety. We did, there is an existing.

Why don't you go back to the pedestrian safety?

Yeah.

So what do you do? You put a little marking on the ground for people to follow?

No, no, with the pedestrian safety.

Well, the people stepping out there, Mr. Fichette had to be concerned about.

Yeah.

You know, when they stepped right out into the traffic lane.

Yep, we are proposing to include, we were hoping to get an okay from the board to include either a fence, right, or something in that regards, and that would be a conversation that we would have today to see what would be the best case fit for the board. WHAT WOULD THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE? IS IT A FENCE? IS IT JUST THE MARKINGS? OF COURSE, A FENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE We're not also giving, I would say, blind spots to the cars coming around as well from that parking space, coming out of the parking space. And that would be a conversation that we would want it to have with the board, given that this has addressed some of the comments. Of course, some of the architectural features of the building itself didn't change substantially. However, the site plan, we included most of the changes that would be needed. There was a substantial change of the unit layout between Unit 6 for parking space, and we included it as a storage because we understand now that that space, it's designated alone for snow storage. And that's part of the application that we wanted to come in and present. to come in and have a conversation to allow us to, you know, come into an agreement of what would the board be looking for for pedestrian safety. We understand that that is something that we want to address. We just wanted to hear from the board, how would you guys, how would the board want that to be addressed? Is it just a fence? Is that sufficient? Is there something further? Would the board want to have some sort of a paved or marked strip where pedestrians could come in and out of the driveway? Is there something further that we could do to address the situation of pedestrians? And I just wanted to clarify that this is an existing building, and unfortunately, there are things that we can't do, right? We know it's an existing building.

We've been up there several times. You told us three times tonight. We read it in your application. Exactly what you're saying. It's the same building. It's the same plans. And we did what you wanted us to do. And we can't even address that now because that goes to site plan. And we can't even get the site plan until we get over material change. So we can't even get the site plan. We have to find that your plans have changed. They haven't. What we asked for in January, if you brought that stuff back in February, we would have addressed that site plan. That's what the site plan is for. You didn't. So now we have to start with substantial material change. And if we don't get over that hurdle, you don't get the site plan. And as of now, the plan's the same. I mean, you can say what you want, but the plan is the same. You keep telling us. If we come here. If the existing building, no exterior changes, the parking's the same, the drive-in the same, everything's the same. We agree with you.

Yeah, unfortunately, we can't change the existing parking, right?

If you come in and you don't do something right, we vote against it. That's because you didn't do what was proper to begin with. We can't change that.

I apologize for missing that meeting with my team. It was a death in the family.

You know, I mean, no phone call to staff saying, you know, we can't make it. Can they continue? Nothing.

Yes. Again, I apologize. I hear you.

But like you said, what's happened has happened. Okay? It's the same plan. My opinion, you haven't changed anything.

Yeah, what I would like the board to consider is that we are here trying to get this to function. I believe everyone understands that.

If we got past the material substantial change, I think I know a couple of members have a problem with the site plan as it exists, same as we did back in January.

So there's still concerns about the driveway and pedestrian accessibility. I understand that. And what we wanted to get here tonight is how can we improve that, right? How can we do that?

That's why you have engineers, sir.

Yes. No, we are engineers, yes. And that's why we wanted to present to the board there are many solutions. We can add the fencing, right? Would that be sufficient?

So you're going to have a fence where you'll walk out into the driveway?

No. There would be a fence from the edge of the existing foundations on both sides extending all the way back to the parking lot in the back.

So that would make the driveway narrower?

No, you won't make the driveway narrow because you'll be going from the existing foundation. So you bump in a little bit and you come out of the existing foundation. And that way, pedestrians won't be walking in directly to the driveway. They will be forced to go out to the back for pedestrian safety, right? But we wanted to be sure that that would be something that the board would be in favor of so that we could present that on the plans. As well as we have showed the locations of the snow storage. We have showed the new layout of the staircases coming out of the building. We have determined that they won't need to have columns that would affect the existing width of the driveway. That is a substantial change, in my opinion. we have also re-striped the existing parking lot in a manner that shows snow storage which it also could be a substantial change to the layout of how it's configured and and that's the reason why we're here tonight to try to get this repetitive submission to move forward so that we could increase the housing that we all much need And this will be, you know, a low-income, you know, housing.

We need housing, but we also need safe access to housing.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's a concern. It's the most number one priority for the planning board. Yes. Health, safety, welfare of the public.

No, I completely agree with that.

It's held out in our site plan from A to Z.

Yeah, no, I completely agree with that, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, again, we're constrained kind of how the site entrance and exit is, but we have done our best.

Well, sometimes when you have constraints like that, it tells you something.

There is an existing four units there.

We know that for the fifth time tonight.

We're trying to add just two more.

We know that. We all know that. You're not telling us anything new. Yeah. Same plan. We know that. Any of the board members have any further questions?

One question about the fence. So you have not added that to the plan yet?

We wanted to discuss that tonight as an option. Yes, correct. We wanted to discuss that tonight as an option. We wanted to present something that would be a starting point, right, from what we discussed. And that will be a starting point for us to all have this conversation is, OK, add the fence. We saw the maneuverability comment from the engineering department. We see that there is about 20 feet of width in that drive aisle for someone to turn around. And that's what we know that that maneuverability is enough. But we wanted to talk to the board to see how we can address this pedestrian accessibility, understanding that this is an existing building. And with that in mind, let's work together to try not only for the two more units, but for the existing units that are on site to be safer.

And one more question. Regarding the wood steps. So I still see them as solid lines, right? So you are planning to discuss about that too, right? The wooden steps that walk into the driveway? From the side doors?

Yes, there are some steps there. That would be something that we could change, the existing steps.

But you have not changed it on the floor?

We have not changed it here yet, because we wanted to discuss this. We didn't want to come in with something already proposed and not meeting what you guys have in mind. We wanted to come in with something on this particular pedestrian accessibility, everything else we have made changes to, We wanted to come in with some different approaches and discuss that to what will be in the board's favor of reaching an agreement.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Yes.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

Do you need a motion?

Yes.

I'd make a motion that this is not a substantial or a material change to the plan, and as a result, I would move to deny this application.

I second that.

Motion is made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair votes yes. Any opposition? None. So the material substantial change has not changed the satisfaction of the board. Therefore, your request for the repetitive petition is denied. Alexa. Thank you. Moving along on the agenda, the next matter is a preliminary subdivision to Tanner Street, parentheses Howard Street Extension. Tanner Street Invesco LLC has applied to the load planning board seeking a preliminary subdivision approval to split the lot at Tanner Street slash Howard Street. May we open the applicant, please?

Good evening. My name is Antonio Mora. I'm a civil engineer with Stantec Consulting representing the applicant and the sub-division, the preliminary sub-division at 2 Tanner Street. As was just stated, we are seeking to subdivide the existing lot at 2 Tanner Street into two lots plus a new roadway. We've submitted preliminary plans to the board. We received a comment letter just this morning that indicates that our application meets the compliance requirements for Section 3A2 of Lowell's subdivision regulations with regard to preliminary plan. The lots are all in compliance with Article 5, Section 5.1 of the zoning ordinance. And the preliminary plan, if approved tonight, would proceed on to the definitive plan stage Subsequent to this approval we did receive some comments from various departments Typically those comments get addressed or in the definitive plan stage. They're all very minor. I think we did submit preliminary stormwater calculations and detailed plans that describe the subdivision the roadway configuration the roadway complies with the city of Lowell's typical subdivision roadway standards and It proposes site utilities, water, sewer, drainage, street lighting in accordance with the City of Lowell subdivision street standards. And again, as I mentioned, it meets all the criteria for a preliminary subdivision. We are here today to seek your approval and input as we move on to the next stage for definitive plan.

Thank you, sir. Anybody here tonight want to speak in favor of this project? Anybody in favor? In favor? In favor? Hearing none. Anybody in opposition? In opposition? Come to the microphone, please, and state your name and address if you want to speak in opposition. State your name and address, please. There should be a sign-in sheet there as well.

Yeah, my name is Alex Alange, 15 Robinson Street, Lowell, Massachusetts. I've been here 23 years in my house. The reason why I want to protest about this is that I thought that we did a memorandum for Markley, for a year memorandum, and was approved. So I do feel a little uneasy that they buy this property, and it's still Markley, and they want to do construction when it was already told that they had to wait a year. So I feel really uncomfortable because I feel like deceiving. They going around, buy LLC, buy the property, pay two million for the property, and they start working. when we already, the city hall approved the moratorium for a year. So it just doesn't feel right to me. If you were told that you have to wait a year because we have to reassess, now we're going to have you in front of my house. And it's not quite clear what exactly they want to do there. They say they're going to do a park, but it's not quite clear. It's still markling. So I do would like you to take and notice what's going on here. I'm a little concerned to have, now we're going to be surrounded by the data center everywhere. And I really ask you, all of you, to keep an eye out for us, please. Thank you.

Well, the question, we don't know what's going there. They're just asking if it meets the preliminary subdivision. Okay? The other thing from auditorium, that's a different section of the zoning ordinance. Talking apples and oranges here. This is, do they have the right to go in, piece of property, cut it in half, and build it in the future if it gets approved down the road tomorrow? We have all the comments from planning staff that says it meets every criteria for a subdivision. Piece of property? You want a piece of property? You want to cut it in half? You meet the criteria? And you don't tell us what you put in there? I mean if you have a more to come back. There's a preliminary plan. They have to come back to a definitive plan. But if they didn't meet the criteria for the preliminary, we could vote against it. Planning staff has outlined line from line from line telling us it meets all the criteria under our preliminary subdivision plan, which is incorporated by the city.

Yeah, I think I will. I would like to see everything that they propose. Yeah.

You don't know yet. We've had subdivisions before. We've had zoning before where people tell us they're going to build one thing. We drive by, they build somebody else. So it's one of those. They're just asking for a preliminary division of property.

Well, thank you for the clarification. I will be watching.

Thank you. Okay. We'll be here. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in opposition? In opposition? In opposition? At this point in time, we'll turn it over to board members. Any of the board members have any comments? Like I said, we got a pretty thorough outline from planning staff indicating that I think the only question I have, sir, which engineering pulled up, which you probably saw on your note, is the roadway going to be private or public?

We're proposing it to be private right now.

Oh, OK. I think you might have saw that on the engineering.

OK. We'll clarify that for the defense.

Yeah, OK. I figured some of the questions about engineering are more material to a definitive plan than the preliminary to begin with.

It actually indicates on the plan that it's private, but the text is kind of small, so we'll try to make it a little bit bigger.

Oh, OK. That's why the engineer didn't pick it up.

OK. It is indicated on the plans as private, but we'll make it more legible.

And like I say, so on the engineering comments, they come out and they ask what the road's going to be, who owns the road. Yeah, then the engineer says they have to pull out the locations and types of all the bounds. The proposal of the raising is just in building will require a permit from engineering department. Is this in utilities to be abandoned beneath the proposed roadway shall be removed a properly cap to prevent infiltration and potential roadway settlement. And then talk about what you have to do for the for the through it into structure. In between that through a major manholes which basically what he comes in on the definitive plan. And the only other comment I think you probably caught was on the health department. That, you know, MassDEP was up there years ago for a side resident site. And, you know, they recommend you might want to check into the biomedical part. The applicant will do their due diligence on that regard. Yes. All right. And what other comments we got? Yep. So the way said none stormwater had none transportation and planning staff just laid out what you need and you have you have all those on plan. It's planning staff says the proposal plan is preliminary plan requires subdivision definitive to complete the subdivision of land the future. The work department will comment. Yeah, I think that the fire department will comment at this time. Do the board members have any questions or comments? We'll start with you, Mr. Bichette, if you don't mind.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't have much at this time. It's more of a technical review at this point. Does the roadway meet the standards of the city? Does the lots have sufficient frontage? Do the lot sizes meet the zoning and the layout of street trees, the lighting, profile of the lampposts, which I actually... And again, the tree plantings and how it lays out. So it's more of a, this is more of just a technical review of whether it meets our subdivision and land regulations for preliminary plan itself. Just for clarification, a comment was mentioned about a moratorium, and it was said, unmarkly, this board didn't vote on a moratorium, unmarkly. It's a moratorium on data centers within the city, and the fact that we don't have any zoning in place. Technically, you wanna be careful how you phrase that, because that's what it was we were reviewing. It happens that there is a data center here in the city, and they fall under that. But we didn't have anything in the zoning ordinance to really address that. And that became painfully apparent in the process of the existing data center that we have here. So that is what's being looked at, and that is why the request for the moratorium was put in place. May have been prompted by issues that arose, be it as it may that is what that is addressing um and again this is a preliminary uh plan and it's more technical in nature is whether it meets the um the standards of the city in order to uh subdivide uh land and put a access road and have uh road uh lot frontages on there so i have no questions on this particular thing thank you

Caleb? I noticed maybe, I don't know if I missed it, but Stormwater Commons is asking for some details on the overflow to the detention pond. Have they missed that, or is it on the plan already, or do you have an answer?

We show a preliminary design on the plans right now. submit a much more detailed stormwater report for definitive plans. But what's shown on the plans is really, as is indicated, it's a preliminary design. So that's the concept that we're going to go forward with. We will clarify whatever the engineering department would need for definitive. But we have a preliminary design already shown on the plans. I see.

Do you have a preliminary answer on that question, where the overflow goes? The overflow would tie into the city's sewer system.

It's a combined sewer system, sewer and drain, so it's likely going to go in there. We'll obviously work with the city engineer very closely to figure out how that connection is made. And if there's any modifications that are requested to the stormwater basin, we'll make those modifications as part of the definitive plan as is typical.

And to help me understand, so that's only happen if ever the rainfall exceeds the capacity of the stormwater basin, which will be sized according to the stormwater requirement, right?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I haven't really been that part of town, so it's quite impressive to look at the old power station. And I think... anything that helps to redevelop that site is a good thing. And notwithstanding that you have met all the requirements for preliminary subdivisions, I see that there are merits to approve this request. Thank you. Thank you. Attorney Tenza?

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I drove the lot. I was glad I had four-wheel drive because it's rough driving around that lot. My biggest question was, is when I saw this, I found out there was no public notice and I hear that it's just preliminary. And my first question was, what's the game plan for this property?

Like I said, we're here to get an approval on the preliminary plan subdivision. That's what's before the board.

So realistically, it's not something you guys are wishing to disclose at this moment?

I'm not privy to any further plans at this point. I'm here to present the preliminary plans and seek approval from the board on that.

Are we looking for industrial, commercial, residential, anything?

It's zoned general industrial, so it'll be probably industrial.

Probably industrial.

It'll be some industrial use, whatever is probably compliant with the use in an industrial zone. I'm speculating.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Lucia, any questions, comments?

Just a question. I was curious if there's been any communication yet with EPA Region 1 or MassDEP regarding the Silvesian Superfund.

To my knowledge, there hasn't been. That's something that we'll have to do due diligence on going forward for the definitives. But, you know, we'll do that due diligence.

Okay. Because I would have serious concerns about disturbing any of that land before we know whether or not it's within that groundwater release area.

Yep, understood.

Okay, that's all I have.

Thank you. Mr. Sa, any questions, comments?

My fellow board member has asked the same type of question, especially the environment concern about, you know, the disturbing water. You know, back in the day, there's a lot of... So I would just have some concern of that. But we don't go into that detail yet, just that you want to subdivision it.

Yeah, we haven't got any detail on any of the environmental components at preliminary stage. It's really too soon to get into that. That's something that we will have to do some due diligence on for definitives.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So what's the request of the board request is on approval for the preliminary plan.

I made a motion to make a to approve the preliminary plan. We need conditions. I think we're we're clear.

Yeah, we're quite a second. That was a motion by Caleb second by Mr. Bichette. All in favor? Aye. Chair votes yes. Any opposition? Hearing none, the preliminary plan is approved. Moving along on the agenda, the next matter is the preliminary subdivision for 90 Bolt Street. Meadowboat LLC has applied to Lowell Planning Board seeking a preliminary subdivision approval to split the lot at 90 Bolt Street. May we hear from the applicant, please?

Once again, my name is Antonio Moore. I'm a civil engineer with Stantec Consulting here representing the applicant for the subdivision at 90 Bolt Street. Much like the last subdivision, this subdivision also proposes to split the current lot at 90 Bolt Street into two lots plus a new roadway fronting on Bolt Street. We also are in receipt of a letter for that subdivision as well. That, similar to the Tanner Street subdivision, the letter states that the preliminary subdivision application complies with Section 382 of Lowell's subdivision regulations. The plan also complies with Article 5, Section 5.1 of the zoning ordinance. And we are here to seek approval of the preliminary plan so that we can then proceed to definitive plan. with more detailed design. There are some engineering comments as there were with the previous application. We will address all those application comments from the engineering department and the various city departments at definitive stage. And we will forward it over to the board for any questions.

So this review and some of the comments here just say the preliminary plan approval. Yeah, I can see that the board. The property is in the light industrial zoning district. The existing lot now with 139,583 square feet. The proposed subdivision split. We've put a lot into lot one will be 69,000 922 square feet, 1.6 1 acres and lot to be 40,449 square feet. 0.93 acres. And the up can meet compliance requirements and the low subdivision land use regulations. Meet all the dimensional requirements. And it's a preliminary paint plan and will require a defendant subdivision to complete that use in the future. Well, this one also be a private. It would be a private way as well and this one is on light industrial. So I don't know down in both to go all the way down almost to the end in it. Like, there's another sign on one fence that's 92. It's right after that, isn't it? It's after that. That's separate. Yeah, because you look before it. Yeah. You look in there, and then I pulled in the ending down, and I believe there's like a big propane tank that fills things up. Then a little, like, a smaller building there ends, and on the right, a lot of construction. So it's right there at the very end. Yes. Yeah. I know you couldn't find a number on it. Yeah, right. Looking at the other numbers, you're trying to analyze where it must be. Exactly. Okay. At least I know I was in the right spot. Okay. Okay, at this point in time, I'll open the meeting up to the public. Anybody here want to speak in favor of this project? In favor? In favor? In favor? Hearing none. In opposition?

in opposition in opposition hearing none this time i'll turn it over to the board members mr chairman if i may i just uh it was funny on on one plane you had the trees in the lighting on this plane you didn't have the trees in the light so i know it was a comment um

Yeah, we'll clarify that for the definitive plans. We'll have specific species, and obviously, I want more detail.

It just seemed odd to see it on one plan, and the same evening, you're presenting two, and one didn't have it, and one had it. So as you know, before you come back for definitive, obviously, we want to see all of that. other than and um the chairman clarified i think we all had the same challenge when we went out there is we weren't quite sure what we were at the right spot the way it's uh we were there but it was difficult to locate where this is actually i could see that was coming out um but that that's all my comments mr chairman okay thank you caleb any questions comments um no not not for this plan thank you turning attention all set lucia no

It basically meets the same criteria as the last proposal.

Staff is telling us that it meets all the requirements to satisfy our zoning code under the subdivision control law. For that reason, I'll make a motion to approve.

Second, Mr. Chairman.

Motion made and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, vote carries. Five in favor, zero against. Good luck sir, thank you. Thank you and good evening. Thank you, have a good night. Okay, moving along on the agenda. Mr. Tenzar, do you have any updates on that?

community presentation yeah just briefly mr chair um we made recommendations as to amounts and whatnot to the city council we approve those amounts it'll be up to the city council as to whether or not what what they should approve they might have already approved it i don't know i haven't paid much of attention I probably should. But it was interesting going through it because it looks like community preservation is going to put money into this housing trust instead of the CPC deciding what housing project. I think the thinking was by the planning board, I disagree with it, but Go figure. But the thinking was by the Planning Department was that this housing trust will have specialized information, talent, and whatnot to decide on housing options and to fund housing options in the future. So, it was discussed that in the future, that piece might be put off by the Community Preservation Commission, and we'll basically be dealing with more historical and recreational opportunities for the CPC. That seemed to be the tenor of it. I kind of disagree with it. I liked the fact that we had a say in some of the housing projects because the Community Preservation Committee had a say, then the City Council has a say. I'm not sure quite how it works with the housing trust. I think the money that goes into the housing trust, just the trust votes on it. It sounded like the CPC doesn't, and it sounds like the city council doesn't. That's what it sounded like. But it was an interesting process. It was a fun process. I think we funded some neat stuff. But once again, I think we had requests of, I don't know, 6 million or 8 million or whatever we had. And I think we had 2 million to play with. It was what it was. But very worthwhile, and I would say that it was good to experience it as a taxpayer to understand that your tax dollars are going to significant projects that will help revitalize both the health of the community as well as the historic preservation of the community. So it was neat to see that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

any other board members have any follow-ups from the previous committees that they serve on mr chairman if if i may it's going to be a repeat from the last meeting but we had several members that unfortunately could not make it and uh i did uh print some copies to hand out to the members that were missing but um as you know uh representative on nemcog and for the last couple of years we've actually been working on a regional housing plan And this is the first stage, part one. And there's several goals and action plans. And one of them is that Some of them are zoning related and land use board related, and some of them are more policy related within a community. What we've asked for an action plan, and I've been driving this, to be honest with you, because I want to see some movement in the other communities as far as developing some housing. And that, in part, is why it's creating, I think, in the region, more pressure for housing because our abutters have half acre, acre lots, waco lots by right and in in one of the abutting towns you can't build a two-family and if it wasn't for the adus you wouldn't be able to do it um so what was asked of the planning board representatives if we could go to our respective boards and um the board members to take a look at it and is there anything from our perspective that we on the action plans and the goals that's something that we could be proactive on and it could be as much as simple as on a regular basis having the field ending fear housing my day job sorry fear housing training on a regular basis so that board members understand kind of an obligation from from a uh uh fair housing perspective um and i know we're i think we have that scheduled uh additional training uh yeah i'm not sure if we haven't given that yet no no So what I've asked, I did hand out copies. I'm going to ask everybody to read it, please. And then probably next month, we can kind of discuss what we think, if there's anything that we could do. What I will tell you is that many of the zoning items, the city has already been proactive on. So when you compare us to our surrounding communities, we are miles ahead. And there are really very little, I think, we need to really do i mean at this at the moment we're we're re-looking at our whole zoning code uh right so uh the idea is to get some of the surrounding communities to take a look at their zoning codes and not take the approach of what we can we do to prevent housing from happening but what can we do to promote some housing from being developed in any other communities And I've been a big believer, and the other members know, that this can't be a Lowell-centric plan. It's a regional housing plan. Folks, you've got to do your part in the abutting towns. And so anyways, with that, I know Caleb, I've got a copy for you. And Dan, I've got a copy for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Jerry, for that. Any other board members have any further comments?

Mr. Chairman, just a quick question through you to Member Frechette. Did you have the meeting on zoning yet, Member Frechette? And I'm just wondering what the next steps are and what's been discussed.

Well, there was the zoning subcommittee. One of the chairs is here, as a matter of fact, the members. But there was a zoning subcommittee to at least kick off that process. uh camillo reintroduced the uh the consultant that was working with the city on the on the on the audit the zoning audit and uh at this point uh i am waiting from as a as a committee member representing the planning board to hear on when we are going to to meet but i know i spoke at the zoning subcommittee meeting and uh felt it was very very important to have engagement on this and this is where the real engagement needs to happen is is in this process and that the committee would ask that you know the committee would meet often and Because I think there has to be a real Close look at the unintended consequences of some of the things that are being proposed. I think there are some some Proposals in there that are worth looking at from the city's perspective. I think as as as demands change markets change uh housing demand changes there may be some things we can do uh but overall i think there's uh you know there is some concern over some unintended consequences on some of the recommendations but i will definitely i will be bringing back when we have these meetings because i'm representing the planning board i'll be bringing back some of the items that are being discussed to get the feel for the board as well

Thank you, Member Frechette. And one last thing. Where are we with the Rock Bridge?

Oh, I gave an extensive update when you weren't here.

Thank you. All right. Any further comments from board members? No. Okay. Motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion is made. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Good night and thank you, everyone.

Yeah, yeah.