Click timestamps in the text to watch that part of the meeting recording.
Swampscott Conservation Commission Meeting Review: March 17, 2022
1. Agenda
Based on the transcript, the likely agenda for the March 17, 2022, Swampscott Conservation Commission meeting was:
- Opening & Remote Meeting Procedures 0:01:07
- Call to Order
- Remote Participation Statement (Chapter 22 of the Acts of 2022)
- Quorum Check
- General Opening Statement (Commission Role & Jurisdiction)
- Meeting Procedures & Ground Rules
- Procedural Matters
- Public Hearing: Notice of Intent (NOI)
- 10 Whitman Road (New Elementary School) 0:15:44
- Other Business 0:04:28
- Approval of January and February meeting minutes (Deferred)
- Discussion of Volunteer Maintenance Policy draft (Deferred)
- Other business that may properly come before the Commission (Deferred)
- Adjournment 1:06:31
2. Speaking Attendees
- Tonia Bandrowicz (Conservation Commission Chair): [Speaker 2] - Opens meeting, reads statements, leads discussion, calls for motions/votes, references commission role and jurisdiction.
- Melissa Meaney (Conservation Agent): [Speaker 3] - Explains procedural items (Smith Lane), manages remote participation logistics, confirms DEP file numbers, checks for public comment via Zoom.
- Commission Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 4] - Makes motions, asks procedural questions, asks detailed questions about the school project (soil quality, netting, traffic flow, field type).
- Commission Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 6] - Asks technical questions about the UU Church property wetland/drainage and potential impacts.
- Commission Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 8] - Asks questions about treatment near UU Church wetland based on site visit.
- Rosemary DeJoy (Applicant/Property Owner, 50 Carlson Terrace): [Speaker 7] - Explains reasons for requesting OOC extension (COVID, costs).
- School Project Representative (Name not stated): [Speaker 5] - Provides introductory overview of the school project context, schedule, and introduces engineering team. (Possibly from School Building Committee or Town Administration).
- David Conway (Lead Engineering Consultant, Niche Engineering): [Speaker 1] - Delivers the primary technical presentation for the 10 Whitman Rd NOI, answers technical questions.
- Nick Botts (Engineering Consultant Team Member, Niche Engineering): [Speaker 9] - Assists with presentation, clarifies a drainage detail.
- Jessica Walla (Engineering Consultant Team Member, Niche Engineering - Remote): [Speaker 10] - Clarifies detail about swales/area drains near the proposed field.
- Max Kasper (DPW Director/Town Engineer, Filer for Town): [Speaker 11] - Seconds a motion (unusual, might be misattribution or acting in filer capacity), answers question about LEED certification level.
3. Meeting Minutes
1. Opening & Remote Meeting Procedures 0:01:07 Chairperson Tonia Bandrowicz called the meeting to order at approximately 7:02 PM and read the required statement regarding remote participation under Chapter 22 of the Acts of 2022, noting the meeting was hybrid (in-person and remote via Zoom). She confirmed a quorum was present (six members) 0:03:40 and outlined the Commission’s role under the Wetlands Protection Act and the meeting’s procedures, emphasizing jurisdiction limits 0:05:21. Chair Bandrowicz announced that non-filing matters (minutes approval, volunteer policy) would be deferred to April due to the anticipated length of the school project hearing 0:04:28.
2. Procedural Matters
-
Certificates of Compliance: 2 Smith Lane 0:05:48 Conservation Agent Melissa Meaney explained the request for two Certificates of Compliance (CoCs) for 2 Smith Lane. Both relate to Orders of Conditions (OOCs) for work that was never performed:
- OOC issued July 8, 2019 (DEP #071-0320) to previous owner Dorothy Foley (deceased) for house demolition/rebuild.
- OOC issued in 2020 (DEP #071-0338) to current owner Charles Silva for an addition. Agent Meaney confirmed via site visit that no work occurred under either OOC 0:07:59. Chair Bandrowicz noted that CoCs are required to close out OOCs even if work isn’t done, using the “invalid order of conditions” designation 0:08:08. No questions were raised by the Commission or public 0:08:44.
- Motion: A Commission Member [Speaker 4] moved to issue a CoC for DEP #071-0320 0:09:38. Seconded. Vote: Approved unanimously 0:09:53.
- Motion: A Commission Member [Speaker 4] moved to issue a CoC for DEP #071-0338 0:10:03. Seconded by Max Kasper [Speaker 11] 0:10:11. Vote: Approved unanimously 0:10:12. These approvals were handled efficiently as standard procedural items.
-
Extension of Order of Conditions: 50 Carlson Terrace 0:10:15 Chair Bandrowicz introduced the request for a 3-year extension for OOC DEP #071-0283. Applicant Rosemary DeJoy appeared remotely 0:10:39. After resolving technical audio issues 0:11:09, Ms. DeJoy explained the project work hadn’t started due to COVID-related impacts on her business and increased material costs 0:13:11. She requested a three-year extension 0:14:47. No questions were raised by the Commission or public 0:14:53.
3. Public Hearing: Notice of Intent (NOI) - 10 Whitman Road (New Elementary School) 0:15:44 Chair Bandrowicz introduced the NOI for the new elementary school project (DEP file number pending 0:15:51). She stated the Commission hired Linden Engineering Partners as a third-party peer reviewer due to the project’s significance, ensuring objectivity and supplementing the Commission’s expertise 0:16:48. She noted the peer reviewer’s site walk occurred March 10th and their report was pending. Consequently, the Commission intended to continue the hearing, with the Town’s agreement 0:18:00.
-
Applicant Presentation:
- A School Project Representative [Speaker 5] provided a brief project overview 0:19:17, showing site context, renderings, noting the MSBA partnership (35% funding 0:20:29), confirming the project footprint is within the existing Stanley site, and outlining the project schedule (demolition summer 2022, construction fall 2022). They highlighted the signed lease for swing space at the former Blaney Street School 0:21:14.
- David Conway (Niche Engineering) 0:22:45 presented the technical details, assisted by Nick Botts [Speaker 9] and remotely by Jessica Walla [Speaker 10]. He described the site layout, identified wetland resource areas (Ewing Woods south, UU Church west 0:25:00), discussed buffer zones, and detailed proposed work within buffers (service area, school portions, field edge wall, UU Church curb/sidewalk adjustments 0:28:26).
- Mr. Conway discussed the existing stormwater conveyance in the UU Church parking median, noting it originated as upland but acknowledging potential wetland characteristics now 0:25:41. He detailed the proposed comprehensive stormwater management system 0:33:26, including deep sump catch basins, underground Culvert-style detention/infiltration systems with isolated treatment rows for TSS and phosphorus removal, controls to manage discharge rates, and analysis points to prevent adverse impacts. He explained the plan to direct treated roof runoff via a level spreader towards Ewing Woods to maintain hydrology 0:40:00. Mitigation for minor impervious increase on the UU Church site involves capturing some church runoff for treatment on the school site 0:42:27. He also described the planned geothermal well system under the north side parking/play areas 0:46:10. He confirmed a SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) was drafted and included 0:48:33.
-
Commission Questions & Discussion: 0:49:56 Commission members engaged with specific technical aspects:
- A member [Speaker 4] asked about mitigating compacted soil in the buffer zone near Ewing Woods 0:49:56. Mr. Conway noted they avoided work there but were open to suggestions like soil roughening 0:50:33.
- The same member [Speaker 4] inquired about the soccer field wall/fence and potential netting impacts on birds 0:52:10, and confirmed field drainage was directed away from the wetland 0:53:49. Ms. Walla [Speaker 10] clarified swales and area drains would capture field runoff 0:54:40.
- Another member [Speaker 8] raised concerns about increased traffic/salting impacts on the UU Church wetland area and asked about treatment 0:55:16. Mr. Conway explained a portion of runoff would be captured, but the existing swales handle the rest. He suggested operational controls (salting practices) could be conditioned, noting structural solutions like rain gardens would be more intrusive (0:57:17, 0:59:07).
- A member [Speaker 6] followed up on the UU Church median drainage, questioning its current function given potential wetland vegetation 1:00:23. Mr. Botts [Speaker 9] pointed out the existing pipe outlet location into the wetland 1:01:53.
- Traffic flow clarification confirmed buses would not use the UU church access 1:02:15.
- A member [Speaker 6] asked for clarification on roof runoff treatment near Ewing Woods; Mr. Conway confirmed it goes through a treatment unit before the level spreader 1:03:04.
-
Public Comment: None offered when solicited 1:05:27.
-
Continuance: Chair Bandrowicz reiterated the need to continue the hearing pending the peer review report.
4. Adjournment With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by a Commission Member [Speaker 6] 1:06:33, seconded 1:06:35, and approved unanimously 1:06:37. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:09 PM.
4. Executive Summary
The Swampscott Conservation Commission met on March 17, 2022, addressing procedural permit closures and extensions before beginning its review of the significant Notice of Intent (NOI) for the new elementary school project at 10 Whitman Road.
Key Outcomes & Decisions:
- Permit Housekeeping: The Commission approved two Certificates of Compliance for 2 Smith Lane 0:09:38, 0:10:03, closing out old permits for work never performed, which is necessary for property transactions. It also granted a 3-year extension for an Order of Conditions for 50 Carlson Terrace 0:15:22, allowing the homeowner more time to complete approved work delayed by COVID and cost increases. These actions maintain accurate town permit records.
- New Elementary School Review Initiated: The Commission formally opened the public hearing for the environmental permit (NOI) for the new elementary school project 0:15:44. This marks the beginning of the crucial review under the Wetlands Protection Act, focusing on protecting adjacent resources like Ewing Woods and wetlands on the neighboring Unitarian Universalist (UU) Church property.
- Peer Review Underway: Recognizing the project’s complexity, the Commission proactively hired an independent engineering consultant (Linden Engineering Partners) to conduct a peer review of the Town’s application 0:16:48. This step underscores the Commission’s commitment to a thorough and objective assessment of potential environmental impacts.
- Project Details Presented: The Town’s representatives and engineering consultants (Niche Engineering) presented the project 0:19:17, outlining the site plan, schedule (targeting Fall 2022 construction start 0:21:04), swing space plans, and detailed engineering designs. Key features highlighted include comprehensive modern stormwater management systems designed to treat runoff and control discharge rates 0:33:26, specific measures to maintain water flow to Ewing Woods 0:40:00, mitigation for impacts on the UU Church site 0:42:27, and sustainable elements like a geothermal well system 0:46:10.
- Initial Concerns Raised: Commission members posed initial questions focusing on potential impacts within buffer zones, particularly the condition of the soil buffer near Ewing Woods 0:49:56 and the potential effects of increased traffic and winter maintenance (salting) on the wetland area adjacent to the UU Church parking lot 0:55:16. These areas will likely receive further scrutiny once the peer review is complete.
- Hearing Continued: No decisions were made on the school project NOI. The hearing was continued to March 28, 2022 1:06:06, pending receipt and review of the peer consultant’s report. This allows the Commission and the applicant time to consider the independent findings before further deliberation.
Significance for Swampscott: This meeting initiated the formal environmental review process for a major town infrastructure project. The Commission’s oversight, informed by peer review, will be critical in ensuring the new school is built in compliance with state environmental laws, minimizing impacts on valuable local wetlands and natural resources. The questions raised signal areas requiring careful consideration as the review proceeds.
5. Analysis
This Conservation Commission meeting demonstrated a standard, procedural approach mixed with the initial stages of reviewing a complex and high-profile town project.
- Procedural Efficiency: The handling of the Certificates of Compliance for 2 Smith Lane (0:05:48 onwards) and the Order of Conditions extension for 50 Carlson Terrace (0:10:15 onwards) was efficient and routine, reflecting typical Commission business managed effectively by Chair Bandrowicz and Agent Meaney.
- Proactive Due Diligence on School Project: The Commission’s decision to hire a peer reviewer (0:16:48) for the elementary school NOI before substantive discussion is significant. It signals an understanding of the project’s complexity (stormwater, buffer zone work near multiple resources) and a commitment to objective, technically sound review, mitigating potential conflicts of interest given the applicant is the Town itself. This proactive stance strengthens the credibility of the eventual decision.
- Applicant’s Presentation (Niche Engineering): David Conway’s technical presentation (0:22:45 onwards) was comprehensive, covering key aspects required under the Wetlands Protection Act, particularly stormwater management. The emphasis on meeting modern standards, including phosphorus removal (0:33:26) and attempting to maintain hydrology to Ewing Woods (0:40:00), presented the project as thoughtfully designed from an engineering perspective. However, the presentation style was somewhat dense and occasionally hard to follow (“stream of consciousness way” 0:48:00), underscoring the value of the forthcoming written peer review for Commission digestion.
- Commission Engagement & Focus: Commission members’ questions (0:49:56 onwards) were targeted and practical, focusing directly on potential impacts within jurisdictional areas. The concerns raised about the Ewing Woods buffer (0:49:56) and, more pointedly, the UU Church wetland interface (0:55:16, 0:56:49, 1:00:23) highlight key areas of sensitivity. The discussion about the UU Church site revealed a potential tension: Niche Engineering argued for a “light touch” (0:58:23) to preserve the existing (albeit potentially aging 1:00:23) drainage system and character, while Commission members seemed concerned whether this approach adequately mitigates impacts from increased use (especially salting 0:55:56). The effectiveness of operational controls versus structural BMPs on the church property appears to be a central question emerging from this initial review.
- Meeting Dynamics: The interactions were professional. The Town/engineers presented their case, the Commission asked clarifying questions, and there was mutual understanding that substantive review would await the peer report. The continuance (1:06:06) was handled smoothly as a necessary step in the process. The lack of public comment at this initial stage is not unusual but may change as the review progresses.
- Overall Effectiveness: The meeting effectively managed routine business and formally initiated the review of the complex school project according to established procedures. The Commission demonstrated appropriate caution and diligence by engaging a peer reviewer. The initial questions asked by members effectively flagged critical areas (UU Church wetland, Ewing Woods buffer) that will demand detailed attention and likely require specific conditions or design refinements as the review process unfolds following the peer review. The Town/applicant appeared prepared for this multi-step review process.