Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant withdraws request to legalize alleged unpermitted third unit at 24 Staples Street
Summary
Backyard ADUs LLC withdrew its variance and special-permit petitions to legalize a three-unit use at 24 Staples Street after neighborhood objections about an alleged unpermitted third unit, parking and lack of demonstrated hardship; the board approved withdrawal without prejudice.
An applicant seeking to legalize what the building department described as an illegal third unit at 24 Staples Street withdrew its zoning petitions on June 22 after multiple neighbors raised questions about permits, parking and whether the property meets the hardship standard required for a variance.
Jeremy McAdam, representing Backyard ADUs LLC and the property owner Ricky Ortiz, told the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals the firm’s goal was to create a legal path for a three-unit building that the owner believed had been sold as a two-family. McAdam said the applicant had spoken with the building department about permitting needs and that a contractor-license change—rather than a permit withdrawal—explained records that appeared inconsistent.
Neighbors at the meeting said the property was marketed as a two-family in 2020 and alleged the conversion to three units occurred without proper permits. William Nichols (48 Rendall Park Dr.) called for penalties, citing assessor records and what he said was use of a previously vacant half story. Ryan Ferreira (130 Campbell Dr.) and Eric Itchier (34 Livingston Ave) described parking, safety and lot-area concerns and argued the petition did not demonstrate the legal hardship necessary to grant variances in a Suburban Single-Family district.
Board members questioned presence of three electric meters, missing third-floor plans and whether strict enforcement of zoning would create financial hardship for the property owner. Several members said they did not find the requisite hardship and expressed skepticism about approving the planned density along with an ADU.
Faced with the board’s concerns, the applicant chose to withdraw both the variance and special-permit applications “without prejudice.” Mr. McCarthy made a motion to withdraw the variance and later the special permit; both withdrawals were approved by roll call vote. The applicant may return with revised plans or additional documentation in the future.
