2022-03-21: Planning Board

Click timestamps in the text to watch that part of the meeting recording.

Swampscott Planning Board Meeting Analysis: New Elementary School Site Plan Review (March 21, 2022)

1. Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda for the meeting was as follows:

  1. Opening & Introductions 2:10
    • Call to order by Chair Angela Ippolito
    • Introduction of Planning Board members
  2. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review SPR22-1 - New Elementary School (10 Whitman Rd)
    • Project Introduction & Overview 3:07
      • Remarks from School Building Committee/Town (Suzanne Wright, Max Kasper)
      • Introduction of Design Team
    • Design Team Presentation 7:28
      • Architectural Context & Design Philosophy (Lee Sherwood, LBA) 7:28
      • Site Layout, Materials, Grading (David Conway, Niche Engineering) 21:07
      • Utilities (Water, Sewer, Drainage, Geothermal) (David Conway) 29:02
      • Traffic & Safety Analysis (Rebecca Brown, GPI) 37:17
        • Study Area & Methodology
        • Existing Safety Issues
        • Proposed Traffic Flow (Parents, Buses, Emergency)
        • Parking Analysis & Overflow Plan
        • Trip Generation & Queuing Analysis (AM/PM)
        • Proposed On-Site & Off-Site Improvements (Orchard Rd changes, crosswalks, traffic calming)
    • Planning Board Review & Questions 1:16:09
      • Discussion structured around Site Plan Criteria (Sec 5.4.8.0):
        • Cut & Fill, Trees, Wetlands, Stormwater, Pollution 1:21:03
        • Obstruction of Scenic Views / Visual Impact (esp. from Ewing Woods) 1:30:53
        • Visual Intrusion (Parking, Service Areas, Dumpsters) 1:38:22
        • Glare from Headlights / Lighting Intrusion 1:41:07
        • Character, Materials, Scale 1:43:46
        • Compliance with Zoning (Setbacks, Parking, Landscaping) 1:44:55
        • Pedestrian & Vehicular Safety / Traffic Impact (On-site & Off-site) 1:55:46
    • Public Comment 2:46:15
    • Board Deliberation & Conditions 2:56:30
  3. Decision & Vote on SPR22-1 3:40:47
  4. Other Business (No discussion recorded)
  5. Adjournment (Implied after vote)

2. Speaking Attendees

  • Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Chair): [Speaker 1]
  • Suzanne Wright (School Building Committee Member - Inferred): [Speaker 10]
  • Max Kasper (Town Facilities Director / SBC Member): [Speaker 8]
  • Marissa (Planning Staff/Clerk - Inferred): [Speaker 6]
  • Lee Sherwood (LBA Architect): [Speaker 3]
  • David Conway (Niche Engineering - Civil Engineer): [Speaker 4]
  • Rebecca Brown (GPI - Traffic Consultant): [Speaker 2]
  • Mike Procia (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 5]
  • Ted Dooley (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 7]
  • Bill Quinn (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 11]
  • Dave Zucker (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 15] and potentially some interjections tagged [Speaker 12] (e.g., 2:37:07, 3:47:34) - Note: Transcript tag reuse likely occurred.
  • Mike Rosa (Planning Board Member - Present earlier, not in final vote): [Speaker 13]
  • Andy Vo (Hill International - OPM; Introduced but did not speak): N/A
  • David Harris (LBA Architect; Introduced but did not speak): N/A
  • Terry Warber (Resident / Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 9]
  • Gail Brook (Resident): [Speaker 14]
  • Maurice Greenbaum (Resident): [Speaker 12] (Only for the public comment segment [2:53:54 - 2:56:01])

3. Meeting Minutes

Meeting: Swampscott Planning Board Date: March 21, 2022 (Inferred from transcript start) Topic: Site Plan Special Permit SPR22-1: New Elementary School at 10 Whitman Road

1. Opening & Introductions 2:10 Chair Angela Ippolito called the meeting to order and introduced the Planning Board members present: Mike Rosa, Bill Quinn, Dave Zucker, Ted Dooley, and herself.

2. Project Presentation: New Elementary School

  • Introduction: 3:07 Suzanne Wright (SBC Member - Inferred) expressed excitement about the project reaching this stage, noting recent community engagement and the timeline aiming for a Fall 2024 opening. Max Kasper (Town Facilities Director/SBC Member) provided context on the project schedule, upcoming reviews (Conservation Commission, Select Board, Earth Removal Advisory Committee), and introduced the design team: Lee Sherwood (LBA Architects), David Conway (Niche Engineering), Rebecca Brown (GPI Traffic), and Andy Vo (Hill International OPM).
  • Architectural Overview (Lee Sherwood, LBA): 7:28 Sherwood described the two-year design process, emphasizing community input and coordination with town departments (Police, Fire, DPW). He highlighted the project’s sustainable goals, including geothermal heating/cooling and a photovoltaic-ready roof. The building placement along Ewing Woods was explained as maximizing distance from neighbors, optimizing solar orientation for classrooms, and providing a natural backdrop. The design features two distinct “schools” (K-2 Lower, 3-4 Upper) represented by color themes (Gold/Ocean, Green/Forest) to break down scale and aid circulation. Building massing steps back from Whitman Road to mitigate visual impact. Materials were chosen for warmth and civic character. Outdoor classrooms and play areas integrate with the natural setting. Lighting is designed to be night-sky compliant with minimal off-site spillage 19:03.
  • Civil Engineering Overview (David Conway, Niche): 21:07 Conway presented site plans covering demolition/erosion control, layout/materials, grading, and utilities. Key features include distinct play areas (younger near Ewing Woods, older near Whitman Rd), a U10 soccer field, two parking lots (65 spaces and 19 spaces), retaining walls to manage grade changes (max height ~4.5 ft near NW corner), and service access. Minor interventions on the adjacent UU Church property facilitate the one-way exit loop. The site slopes down from Ewing Woods towards Whitman Road (approx. 10 ft difference). Stormwater management includes underground detention/treatment systems meeting state standards, designed to protect downstream areas and maintain water balance for the Ewing Woods wetland 31:44. Geothermal wells are located under the northern portion of the site 29:02. New water/sewer connections are planned, including looping the water main. Granite curbing is specified for durability.
  • Traffic & Safety Overview (Rebecca Brown, GPI): 37:17 Brown detailed the comprehensive traffic study covering the surrounding neighborhood, acknowledging the interaction with the Middle School. Data was collected in peak month (May/June 2021) and adjusted for COVID-19 impacts and future growth (0.5% annually to 2034), representing a conservative analysis. Crash data showed neighborhood streets are currently safe. The proposed traffic plan 43:51 involves all parent entry via Whitman Road, splitting into two loops for drop-off/pickup corresponding to the lower/upper schools. One loop exits back to Whitman Road, the other exits one-way through the UU Church property onto Forest Ave, dispersing traffic. Bus entry is via Whitman Rd, loading on the east side, and exiting via Forest Ave Extension (emergency access road) 47:47. Emergency vehicles have primary access via Whitman Rd and secondary access via Forest Ave Extension. Parking analysis indicated a need for 100-119 spaces at peak, with 85 provided on-site; overflow parking is planned at the underutilized Middle School lot with upgraded pedestrian connections 49:51. Trip generation was estimated based on Swampscott-specific factors (high walk/bike/drop-off rates), predicting approx. 450 AM drop-offs and 420 PM pickups 53:44. Queuing analysis 1:00:41 showed AM queues manageable on-site (3-5 cars per loop), while PM queues are longer (approx. 60 cars fair weather, 70 inclement). On inclement days, queues might extend onto Orchard Road but were designed not to reach Mason Road 1:03:05. A staggered PM dismissal (walkers/bikers first, then K-2, then 3-4) is planned, loading vehicles in platoons (approx. 18 cars at a time per loop) 54:59. Off-site improvements 1:04:14, funded by the Town, include making Orchard Road permanently one-way (Mason to Humphrey) with widened sidewalks around trees, bike lanes, traffic calming bump-outs, and new crosswalks (including RRFBs on Humphrey St). Improvements near the Middle School (new sidewalk, relocated crosswalk, extended drop-off) have already been implemented based on earlier recommendations 1:09:51.

3. Planning Board Review & Discussion Chair Ippolito framed the Board’s review around site plan criteria, emphasizing pedestrian and vehicular safety as paramount given the number of young children 1:16:09.

  • Cut/Fill, Wetlands, Stormwater: 1:21:03 The Board noted CONCOM’s ongoing review and peer review of stormwater/wetlands issues. Chair Ippolito inquired about drainage onto Forest Ave Extension (known to lack storm drains); Conway explained site drainage is treated and managed to maintain wetland balance, and off-site road drainage is a separate town issue. Discussion occurred regarding the depth of underground detention tanks (~3-6 ft cover) and potential blasting required (~3-4 ft in areas) 1:27:37. Member Dooley clarified the location of the third small drainage treatment area near Whitman Rd 1:29:23.
  • Scenic Views/Visual Impact: 1:30:53 Chair Ippolito questioned the view of the building from the Ewing Woods path. The building steps up towards the woods, with the highest point (gymnasium) at approx. 53 ft 3:02:24. Sherwood noted the southern orientation means the building is sunlit, not casting shadows on the woods, and uses the trees for summer shading. The Board acknowledged the significant change in visual character from the path.
  • Visual Intrusion (Service Areas): 1:38:22 The location of dumpsters and service access near the Ewing Woods path was discussed. Sherwood noted efforts to minimize intrusion but acknowledged the visual impact. The Board suggested exploring additional natural buffering/screening and potential aesthetic treatment for the retaining wall in this area as a condition.
  • Lighting/Glare: 1:41:07 Headlight glare was deemed unlikely to be a major issue due to site layout and distance/buffering to neighbors. The photometric plan showing zero light spillover at property lines addressed lighting intrusion concerns 1:41:18, though Dr. Greenbaum later requested more detail on fixture count/impact 2:53:54.
  • Character/Scale: 1:43:46 The Board acknowledged the building is institutional, not residential, but Member Procia praised the design’s color scheme and attempt to reflect the community 1:43:47. Sherwood noted the use of materials (brick, granite base) evokes other civic buildings in town.
  • Zoning/Parking/Landscaping: 1:44:55 Setbacks were found compliant. Frontage on Whitman Rd met requirements. Landscaping plan includes native, low-water species and buffers; irrigation for the natural grass playfield was clarified as removed from the plan for sustainability 1:46:47. The playground surface is a modern poured resilient material, not rubber pellets 1:48:21. The potential for incorporating salvaged ledge into landscaping was discussed and encouraged 1:51:12. Blasting and rock removal were discussed; Max Kasper indicated on-site crushing was unlikely due to logistics, with removal via truck more probable, subject to ERAC review 1:54:12.
  • Traffic & Safety: 1:55:46 This topic generated extensive discussion. Chair Ippolito expressed significant concern about the realism of traffic flow models, particularly regarding the “human factor” (unpredictability of children, parents deviating from the plan, time needed for loading/unloading) versus the calculated queue lengths and clearance times 1:56:02. She questioned the safety of multiple crosswalks intersecting queuing/moving traffic 2:00:01. Rebecca Brown explained that elementary school loading times are factored into models 2:04:34 and the PM platoon system (~10-12 min clearance per group) allows for managed crossing with aides/guards 1:59:18. Lee Sherwood and Member Procia contrasted the proposed controlled system with the current chaotic parking/drop-off situation at existing schools, arguing the new plan is safer despite the volume 2:03:58, 2:19:14. The importance of operational plans (aides, crossing guards, parent education/placards, staggered dismissal, potential future busing increases) was stressed by the team and SBC member Wright 2:07:13, 2:30:04, 3:35:53. Discussion covered the width of internal roadways (24 ft, deemed adequate for one-way flow/loading) 2:14:42, the number/location of crossing guards and police details 2:36:50, the potential for future busing increases (site can accommodate up to 5 buses queuing) 2:19:43, 2:24:17, and ensuring safe pedestrian/bike access (including wider sidewalks/paths, bike racks, access around gates) 2:41:00. The Board requested raising an additional crosswalk near the Whitman Rd entrance 3:06:47 and adding bike racks near the main playground 3:07:19. Max Kasper confirmed the town’s commitment to completing necessary off-site road improvements concurrently with the school opening (except possibly Humphrey/Atlantic intersection upgrades, which need more study) 2:35:56. Chair Ippolito, while impressed by the traffic study’s thoroughness, maintained reservations about operational success and potential congestion, suggesting more study might be warranted 3:27:05, 3:31:43, though ultimately did not make it a condition after other board members expressed confidence that the plan maximized safety given constraints 3:53:37.

4. Public Comment 2:46:15

  • Terry Warber (Forest Ave Ext. Resident): 2:46:25 Praised improvements but questioned if a single entrance was considered for security/simplicity. Asked about parking restrictions on Forest Ave Ext. to ensure emergency access. Inquired about the net change in staffing (crossing guards, aides, police) and associated budget impacts. Asked about lessons learned from past Stanley drop-off procedures. Requested seeing traffic simulation visuals.
  • Gail Brook (Resident): 2:52:09 Objected to the building height (calling 60ft unacceptable near Ewing Woods trail). Argued for pedestrian access without crossing traffic flow. Raised concerns about conflicts between middle school and elementary school dismissal traffic.
  • Maurice Greenbaum (Forest Ave Ext. Resident): 2:53:54 Commended the board and team. Asked about potential noise from building mechanicals. Requested clarification on lighting fixture count and impact on neighbors/wildlife. Questioned why improvements at Humphrey/Atlantic/Forest Ave Ext. intersection are delayed, citing safety concerns.

5. Board Deliberation & Conditions 2:56:30 The Board reviewed the site plan criteria findings. They discussed outstanding items and formulated conditions for approval. Max Kasper confirmed the Town holds necessary access rights over the UU property 3:10:38. The Board discussed the process for handling rock removal (subject to ERAC/CONCOM). They finalized conditions related to submitting outstanding documents (fire turning radii, Board of Health comments, final CONCOM order), addressing drainage onto Forest Ave Ext., raising the entrance crosswalk, adding playground bike racks, ensuring vegetative buffering/screening at the rear service area, and exploring aesthetic treatment for the rear retaining wall if feasible.

6. Motion & Vote 3:40:47 Max Kasper presented draft motion language on behalf of the applicant (Town). Chair Ippolito read the motion to approve the Site Plan Special Permit for SPR22-1 at 10 Whitman Road, incorporating the discussed conditions 3:56:58.

  • Motion: Angela Ippolito (incorporating language read into record with conditions)
  • Second: Ted Dooley 4:01:46
  • Vote: 5-0 in favor (Roll Call: Ted Dooley-Aye, Dave Zucker-Aye, Mike Procia-Aye, Bill Quinn-Aye, Angela Ippolito-Aye) 4:01:52

7. Adjournment The meeting adjourned following the vote.

4. Executive Summary

The Swampscott Planning Board unanimously approved the Site Plan Special Permit for the new consolidated K-4 elementary school at 10 Whitman Road, marking a significant milestone for the long-planned project 4:01:52. The approval came after a lengthy presentation and detailed review focusing heavily on traffic management and neighborhood impacts.

Key Project Features & Design Elements:

  • Consolidation: The school will house all Swampscott students from Kindergarten through 4th grade, replacing existing smaller schools.
  • Sustainability: The design incorporates significant sustainable features, including a geothermal heating/cooling system 9:14 and a roof ready for extensive photovoltaic panels 10:17. Landscaping utilizes native, low-water plants 17:34.
  • Site Layout: The building is positioned along Ewing Woods to maximize separation from neighbors and optimize classroom orientation 11:19. It features distinct “lower” (K-2) and “upper” (3-4) school zones 12:34, multiple outdoor learning/play areas, and a U10 soccer field 15:20.
  • Traffic Circulation: A complex traffic plan aims to manage the increased volume by bringing all parent vehicles on-site via Whitman Road, splitting them into two internal loops with separate exits (one back to Whitman, one one-way through the adjacent UU Church property to Forest Ave) 14:14, 43:51. Buses will use a separate loading zone and exit via the Forest Ave Extension emergency access road 47:47.
  • Parking: 85 parking spaces are provided on-site, with overflow staff parking arranged at the nearby Middle School lot 49:51.

Major Discussion Points & Outcomes:

  • Traffic Management & Safety: This was the dominant concern. The Board scrutinized the traffic consultant’s plan 37:17, which relies on sophisticated on-site queuing, staggered afternoon dismissals 54:59, parent assignment to specific pickup loops 46:05, and significant operational support (aides, crossing guards, police details, parent education/placards) 2:07:13, 3:37:50. While the traffic study presented a “worst-case” scenario analysis 1:00:41, Chair Ippolito voiced persistent concerns about operational feasibility and safety with young children 1:56:02. However, the Board majority felt the plan maximized safety within site constraints, representing an improvement over current conditions 2:19:14, 3:14:51.
  • Off-Site Improvements: The Town committed to funding and completing necessary road safety improvements in the surrounding neighborhood concurrently with the school opening, including making Orchard Road one-way, adding bike lanes, widening sidewalks, and installing traffic calming measures 1:04:14, 2:35:56. Major reconfiguration of the Humphrey/Atlantic intersection may take longer 2:35:56.
  • Neighborhood Impacts: Concerns regarding building height/views from Ewing Woods 1:30:53, lighting 1:41:18, noise (raised in public comment 2:53:54), and construction impacts (particularly blasting 1:54:12) were discussed. Conditions were added regarding buffering/screening of the service area visible from Ewing Woods 3:47:34.
  • Conditions of Approval: The approval is subject to several conditions, including: submission of final plans/comments from Board of Health, Fire Dept (turning radii), and Conservation Commission; confirmation of stormwater management details related to Forest Ave Extension; adherence to ERAC/CONCOM requirements for blasting/rock removal; raising the entrance crosswalk on Whitman Rd; adding bike racks near the playground; and providing enhanced vegetative buffering at the rear service area 3:56:58.

Significance for Swampscott: This approval clears a major regulatory hurdle for the new elementary school. The project promises a modern, sustainable educational facility but presents significant logistical challenges, particularly regarding traffic in a constrained neighborhood. The success of the traffic plan will depend heavily on operational execution by the school district, police, and cooperation from parents, along with the timely completion of promised off-site road improvements by the Town. The conditions attached to the approval aim to address specific concerns raised during the review.

5. Analysis

The March 21st Planning Board meeting provided a thorough, albeit lengthy, examination of the proposed elementary school site plan, showcasing typical Massachusetts local review dynamics for a large, impactful project.

Board Dynamics & Arguments:

  • Chair Angela Ippolito adopted a critical stance, particularly regarding traffic safety and operational realism 1:56:02. Her persistent questioning reflected anticipated public anxieties and served to rigorously test the applicant’s proposal. Her skepticism about modeling versus the “human factor” highlighted a core tension in planning large facilities involving children. While ultimately voting for approval, her expressed reservations 3:52:46 underscore the perceived risks and challenges.
  • Member Mike Procia frequently acted as a pragmatist, contextualizing the proposal against the acknowledged deficiencies and “chaos” of the current elementary school traffic situations 2:19:14, 3:34:24. His perspective suggested that while the new plan presents challenges, it offers a more structured and potentially safer alternative than the status quo, likely resonating with parents familiar with current difficulties.
  • Other board members (Dooley, Quinn, Zucker) asked clarifying questions and focused on specific site elements (drainage, landscaping, crosswalks, paths, buffering), ultimately appearing satisfied that the plan addressed requirements within the site’s limitations [e.g., 1:29:23, 1:48:21, 2:32:39, 3:14:51].
  • The Board demonstrated diligence in stepping through the specific site plan review criteria outlined in the Zoning Bylaw 1:16:09, ensuring each point was considered, even if briefly.

Applicant/Design Team Performance:

  • The Town and its design team (LBA, Niche, GPI) presented a comprehensive and coordinated case. They effectively communicated the design rationale, emphasizing sustainability, safety considerations, and responsiveness to previous feedback 7:28, 14:14, 37:17.
  • Traffic Consultant Rebecca Brown ably defended the complex traffic plan, stressing the conservative “worst-case” nature of her analysis 1:00:41, 3:33:38 and the necessity of operational measures (staggered dismissal, aides, platooning) to make it function 1:59:18. Her deep familiarity with the site (including past Safe Routes to School work 37:17) added credibility.
  • Architect Lee Sherwood framed the design thoughtfully, connecting it to Swampscott’s character and sustainable goals 7:28. Max Kasper provided crucial context on the overall process and coordination with other town bodies 4:37.
  • The team appeared prepared for detailed questions and generally provided clear explanations, acknowledging constraints while expressing confidence in their proposed solutions. Their willingness to incorporate minor adjustments (e.g., raised crosswalk, bike racks, exploring buffering) showed flexibility.

Key Issues & Effectiveness:

  • Traffic: The traffic plan’s effectiveness remains the central question. While the analysis was thorough, its success hinges on numerous operational factors and behavior changes (parent compliance, staff execution, police enforcement) that are outside the Planning Board’s direct control but crucial to mitigating the acknowledged congestion (LOS F intersections projected in future 3:29:05). The plan’s complexity is both a potential strength (multiple mitigation layers) and a vulnerability (many points of potential failure).
  • Scale & Context: The inherent difficulty of siting a large institutional building in a dense residential neighborhood was evident. The design attempts to mitigate scale through setbacks and stepping 12:34, but the impact, particularly from Ewing Woods 1:30:53, will be significant. The Board acknowledged this tradeoff as necessary to achieve other goals (neighbor separation, optimal orientation).
  • Process: The meeting highlighted the interdependence of different town boards and departments (Planning, ConCom, ERAC, DPW, Police, Fire, Schools, SBC). The Planning Board appropriately deferred detailed stormwater review to ConCom 1:21:03 and blasting oversight to ERAC 1:54:12, while incorporating feedback from Fire/Police and setting conditions requiring final input from others 3:56:58. Max Kasper’s confirmation of the Town’s commitment to off-site improvements 2:35:56 was vital context for the Board’s traffic considerations.

Conclusion: The Planning Board’s approval, conditioned on specific modifications and receipt of outstanding departmental input, reflects a determination that the applicant presented the best feasible plan for a needed public facility on a challenging site. The decision implicitly accepts the traffic plan’s operational complexity as a necessary measure to manage unavoidable volume increases, while placing significant responsibility on the Town and School Department for successful implementation and future adaptation. The extensive debate, particularly on traffic, signals that ongoing community attention and proactive management will be critical as the project moves forward.