ZBA grants variances for 80‑unit Chelmsford Street development; neighbors raise access, traffic and soil‑contamination concerns

The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals on May 29 granted variances to allow an 80‑unit residential development at 534–556 Chelmsford Street proposed by Lowell Central Electric Company, Inc., but the hearing included sustained public concern about access, traffic, and soil contamination.

Attorney John Cox, representing the owner, told the board the proposal follows a rezoning approved earlier by the City Council and the Planning Board. He said Lowell Central Electric acquired the central parcel in 2024 and proposed three buildings totaling 80 units on roughly 80,000 square feet of vacant land. He summarized the variances sought: relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum usable open space per dwelling unit, maximum floor‑area ratio, maximum building stories and heights, and off‑street parking requirements (the plan shows 118 parking spaces vs. 160 required).

Matt Hammer of Lamplex Engineering presented a site plan and visual renderings and said the project would include at‑grade parking garages beneath each building, bicycle racks, sidewalks, and landscaping; the proponents said they will remove existing chain‑link fences and replace portions with white vinyl fencing while maintaining open frontages along Quimby Avenue. The development team said they have discussed an access easement for the Lowell Housing Authority (adjacent property owner in the rear), and an easement plan has been shared with the Housing Authority’s counsel.

Several neighbors and an attorney speaking for an abutter expressed concerns: Attorney Douglas Hauser asked the board to delay action to allow negotiations over rear access for an adjacent property owner and warned he might pursue court action if access could not be secured; neighbors on Quimby Avenue raised traffic and safety concerns at the nearby signalized intersection and requested soil testing for possible contamination from historical fuel/oil storage on the site. Resident Margo Martel and others said historical use by an oil company left buried materials that previously prevented development.

Project counsel and engineers said environmental due diligence has been performed (a Phase I and follow‑up reports by Mill City Environmental were submitted) and that any contamination discovered during construction would be remediated according to state law. The Fire Department approved a swept‑path analysis and provided comments; DPD staff’s May 22 memorandum encouraged the project and recommended that final landscape and amenity plans be approved by DPD staff.

Member McCarthy moved to grant the variances under section 5.1 and 6.1; the motion included a condition that the applicant seek final approval of the landscape plan from DPD staff specifying amenity areas, planting sizes and species, and shared outdoor usable open space. The motion passed by roll call; Member Breer recused himself from this item. The board record shows the project will proceed to the Planning Board for additional approvals and contractors must satisfy environmental and permitting requirements during design and construction.