Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Conversion Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies site-plan request to expand 239 East Merrimack from three to four units, cites parking and incomplete submissions
Summary
The Lowell Planning Board denied a site-plan review request to convert a three-unit property at 239 East Merrimack Street to four units, citing insufficient off-street parking, a parking lease that expires in December, conflicting application materials and outstanding department comments.
The Lowell Planning Board on Oct. 6 denied a site-plan review application for 239 East Merrimack Street that would have converted an existing three-unit property into a four-unit configuration. The board cited lack of required off-street parking under Section 6.1 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance, inconsistent submission materials and outstanding comments from the fire, building and engineering departments.
Paul Campbell of CHESS Engineering, speaking for the applicants (Ed and Eunice Ziegler), said the property as submitted is split between a main building and a detached rear unit on a single lot and that the applicant had secured a lease for off-street parking spaces at a neighboring auto property. The lease documents presented during the hearing were described by staff and board members as short-term: several leased spaces expire at the end of December and did not meet the board’s expectation for permanent, deeded parking provision. Engineering staff and several board members pointed to the zoning parking rules (Section 6.1.6 and related subsections) and noted both an interpretation question — whether the 1,500-foot proximity rule is measured "as the crow flies" or along pedestrian/travel routes — and the board’s authority to require a special permit for any parking reduction.
Neighbor Gail Digirolimo of 15 Elmont Road told the board the street is heavily congested, described frequent traffic conflicts and urged denial over concerns that the application would add bedrooms without reliable long-term parking. Board members also raised potential building-code and fire-safety requirements for a four-unit conversion (fire alarm, sprinklers) and noted that the building commissioner had previously identified an unpermitted third unit.
After extended discussion the board voted to deny the site-plan review, citing: insufficient on-site parking and lack of a permanent arrangement for required spaces; inconsistency in application materials; and outstanding comments from the building, fire and engineering departments. The board’s statements at the meeting referenced Section 6.1 of the zoning code as the primary basis for the decision. The applicant indicated they would consider next steps, including pursuing any necessary special permits or more permanent parking arrangements.
