Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lowell ZBA accepts withdrawal of contested 13 Whitney Ave variance after neighbor opposition
Summary
After neighbors raised traffic and density concerns, the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals accepted the applicant’s request to withdraw a petition to split 13 Whitney Ave into three lots, permitting the applicant to return later with more site data and a scaled plan.
The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 9 accepted a request to withdraw a variance petition for 13 Whitney Avenue after residents and several board members urged the applicant to scale back the plan or return with more detailed site analysis.
Ian Ainsley, an engineer for Mesa Brem representing property owner Joyner Vela La Cruz, told the board the team had reduced the number and magnitude of variances since a prior hearing. Ainsley said the retaining wall at the front of the property would be relocated about 15 feet from the pavement to improve sight lines and that a certified arborist would be retained to protect a large neighboring tree. He also said the revised proposal dropped a request for usable open space relief and reduced a previously requested three‑story variance to a two‑and‑a‑half‑story building that conforms with the zone.
During public comment, resident Corey Robinson said the concessions were “minimal,” raised safety concerns about traffic at the Bridge Street intersection during morning and evening peaks and said his neighborhood has already absorbed “130, 140 plus units” in the past 18 months. “This project is pretty much the lots are undersized for what they’re doing,” Robinson said, urging the board to prioritize neighborhood fit over developers’ returns.
Several board members echoed those concerns. Member Prokop said the area is mid‑rehab and tied up in major infrastructure work and called the current variance ask “a little too much.” Member McCarthy questioned whether the project would be worth the extensive retaining walls and suggested the applicant consider an access easement off Whitney Avenue or withdrawing and returning with more geotechnical and cost information. “I think the ask is too much,” McCarthy said.
With those concerns on the record, the applicant indicated a preference to withdraw without prejudice. Member McCarthy moved to accept withdrawal without prejudice; Prokop seconded. On roll call the board (Chairman Peck, Vice Chair Callahan, Members McCarthy, Prokop, Hovey and Shanahan) approved the withdrawal.
The withdrawal allows the applicant to pursue further site investigation and to redesign the proposal without an adverse adjudication by the board. The board suggested the applicant consider reducing the plan to two lots or pursuing an easement solution that could minimize retaining‑wall work. No formal vote on a new application occurred; the item was removed from the night’s calendar.
