Lowell planning board begins review of LDO Article 8 amid resident concern over denser Main Street development

The Lowell Planning Board spent the bulk of its meeting discussing potential changes to the Land Development Ordinance’s Article 8 — the Residential Main Street transition district — after staff described recent proposals under the ordinance that would allow denser housing near downtown.

The Planning Board’s staff member said developers have been buying vacant or dilapidated properties, “essentially tearing those down and then subdividing the lots,” and that the current ordinance permits duplexes and triplexes in that district. The staff member noted some affected lots measure about 0.15 to 0.17 acres, and that the Residential Main Street transition district currently contemplates minimum lot sizes near 5,000 square feet while the SFR‑4 single‑family standard cited elsewhere is about 7,800 square feet.

Why it matters: residents and board members said the change in permitted density can alter neighborhood character and create practical issues — proximity of new units to the road, driveway and parking pressure, and traffic safety where drivers turn onto 85 and near the Dollar General corridor. One resident noted concern that homes built close to the street would be more vulnerable if the state ever widened the road.

Board members and several attendees discussed options the board can recommend to the city council, including rezoning parcels, adjusting minimum lot sizes, adding explicit setback requirements, or reviewing development fees. The staff member said the board cannot impose an immediate building freeze because the ordinance is already adopted and the town has the infrastructure to serve new units; increasing fees was mentioned as a theoretical stopgap but board members warned that high fees could trigger legal or financial consequences.

Board members asked staff to gather more information before making a recommendation. The board agreed to invite Infocus (the consultant who worked on the 2021 ordinance) to a future meeting to explain how the district and its lot-size and setback figures were determined, and to collect examples of how neighboring towns (members cited Cramerton, Belmont and others) regulate transition districts. The staff member said any amendment to the LDO would require a 30‑day public comment period and a formal public hearing before adoption.

Discussion also touched on parking expectations for new multiunit buildings (triplex illustrations included six to eight parking spaces), the practical limits imposed by setbacks, and the possibility that some lots, although allowed by ordinance to hold more units, may be physically constrained and therefore unable to fit the maximum density. Several board members urged a methodical approach rather than rapidly selecting new numerical thresholds.

Next steps: staff will compile comparative ordinances and setback information, request Infocus to attend the next meeting, gather questions from board members, and return with recommendations and proposed language if appropriate. Any formal amendment would proceed through the required public‑notice and hearing process.