Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Review: March 22, 2022

1. Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda followed during the meeting was:

1. Call to Order & Opening Remarks 0:05:20
   • Hybrid meeting procedures noted.
2. Approval of Past Meeting Minutes 0:05:42
   • Deferred to the next meeting.
3. Petition 21-28: Cheryl Miller, 17 Crosman Ave 0:06:05
   • Request for Dimensional Special Permit and Special Permit for Nonconforming Uses/Structures (Rear addition).
   • Action: Motion to Continue to April 27, 2022.
4. Petition 22-01: 219 Paradise Rd LLC, 219 Paradise Rd 0:06:48
   • Request for Use Special Permit and Parking Requirement Reduction Special Permit (Service bay addition, employee increase, overnight parking increase).
   • Continued from March 2, 2022.
   • Presentation of revised plan, discussion with abutter, public comment, Board deliberation, conditions discussed.
   • Action: Motion to Approve with Conditions.
5. Petition 21-26: Pine Street Development, LLC, 12-14 Pine St 0:39:08
   • Request for Use Special Permit, Dimensional Special Permit, Site Plan Special Permit, Dimensional Variance (Demolition and construction of mixed-use building).
   • Presentation of revised (3-story) project, discussion regarding required relief (especially stories vs. height), Planning Board referral discussed, threshold legal question identified.
   • Action: Motion to Continue to April 27, 2022, pending Town Counsel opinion.
6. Other Business (Mentioned in metadata agenda, but no specific items discussed in the provided transcript segment).
7. Adjournment 1:30:43
   • Motion made.

2. Speaking Attendees

• Mark (ZBA Chair): [Speaker 1] - Leads the meeting, calls votes, questions applicants, interprets procedures. Addressed as Mark by Attorney Stibel 18:35 and Attorney Quinn 52:28.
• Attorney Bill Quinn (Representing Pine Street Development, LLC): [Speaker 2] - Presents Petition 21-26 39:08.
• Attorney Bill Stibel (Representing 219 Paradise Rd LLC): [Speaker 3] - Presents Petition 22-01 8:21. Addressed as Mr. Stivel 7:30.
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 4] - Actively participates in Pine St discussion (stories/height 53:13, parking/retail 1:22:13); provides concise summary during Paradise Rd discussion 21:02.
• Peter Pittman (Architect for Pine Street Development): [Speaker 5] - Provides architectural details for Petition 21-26 1:04:04, 1:15:33.
• Mark Ghilardi (Abutter to 219 Paradise Rd): [Speaker 6] - Provides comment on Petition 22-01 22:00. Identified by Town Staff/Clerk 21:48.
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 7] - Comments on Pine St petition regarding variance vs. special permit 1:00:09, threshold for special permits 1:08:50, need to resolve story issue 1:26:10. Makes motion to adjourn 1:30:43.
• Town Staff / ZBA Clerk (Name not stated): [Speaker 8] - Manages Zoom participants, identifies speakers 21:48, 32:07, 32:25, shares screen 19:18, 57:49. Likely staff support for the ZBA.
• Bill Demento (Resident/Public Commenter): [Speaker 9] - Identifies self 32:11, comments on stormwater for Petition 22-01.
• Mike (Petitioner, Broadway Capital / Pine Street Development): [Speaker 10] - Identifies self 1:24:12, comments on retail tenant interest for Petition 21-26.
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 11] - Comments during Pine St discussion 54:38; alerts Chair to public commenter 32:07.
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 12] - Asks about drafting Paradise Rd decision 38:30; asks about Pine St height calculation 1:14:52.
• Gus Moussa (Owner/Applicant, 219 Paradise Rd LLC): [Speaker 13] - Client of Attorney Stibel, discusses agreement with abutter Ghilardi 23:53. Referred to as Gus 23:30.
• Attendee (Role Unclear): [Speaker 14] - Speaks briefly after Pine St continuance 1:29:34.
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 15] - Asks about parking numbers for Pine St 1:20:38.
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 16] - Briefly comments on Paradise Rd stormwater condition 30:22.
• Paula (ZBA Member): [Speaker 17] - Votes during roll call 6:47. Notes she does not wish to be heard on Paradise Rd 21:35. Excluded from Paradise Rd vote deliberation 34:08.

3. Meeting Minutes

Meeting: Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals Date: March 22, 2022 (Inferred) Location: Hybrid (In-person and Zoom)

1. Call to Order: Chair Mark called the meeting to order after 7:00 PM, noting the hybrid format 0:05:20.

2. Approval of Minutes: Chair Mark stated that minutes from the previous meeting were circulated earlier that day and proposed deferring approval to the next meeting to allow members adequate review time 0:05:42. No objection was noted.

3. Petition 21-28: Cheryl Miller, 17 Crosman Ave Chair Mark introduced the petition and noted a request from the petitioner to continue the matter 0:06:05. The Board proposed continuing to April 27, 2022.

• Motion: Chair Mark moved to continue Petition 21-28 to April 27, 2022, conditioned upon receiving the signed continuance request from the petitioner’s attorney 0:06:25.
• Second: Received (speaker not identified).
• Vote: A roll call vote was taken: Mark (Yes), Andy (Yes), Ron (Yes), Heather (Yes), Tony (Yes), Paula (Yes) 0:06:42. Motion passed unanimously (6-0).

4. Petition 22-01: 219 Paradise Rd LLC, 219 Paradise Rd Chair Mark introduced the continued petition 0:06:48. Attorney Bill Stibel, representing the applicant, presented revisions made following the previous hearing, focusing on negotiations with the abutter (Ghilardi) regarding the buffer zone 0:07:30.

• Presentation Highlights: Attorney Stibel described changes to the site plan 0:08:21, including maintaining a 25-foot undisturbed buffer with the Ghilardi property, using tandem parking instead of encroaching on the buffer, extending an existing 6-foot vinyl fence along the property line 0:09:09, and leaving existing trees (Norway maples) in the buffer zone. He noted his client, Gus Moussa, had agreed Ghilardi could plant on Moussa’s property on Ghilardi’s side of the fence 0:10:24. Attorney Stibel detailed changes to the landscape plan, noting a revised plan had not yet been submitted 0:18:35, including eliminating proposed arborvitaes along the Ghilardi buffer, keeping existing plantings along Swampscott Ave, and modifying plantings along the Mass Electric substation side due to ledge conditions [0:13:10 - 0:21:02]. A ZBA Member [Speaker 4] provided a concise summary of the key site changes 0:21:02.
• Public Comment:
  • Mark Ghilardi, the direct abutter, spoke via Zoom 0:22:00. He generally agreed with Attorney Stibel’s summary but stated his understanding was that the applicant (Gus Moussa) would plant arborvitaes on Mr. Ghilardi’s side of the new fence in the backyard portion 0:22:05.
  • A discussion ensued between Attorney Stibel, Gus Moussa, and Mark Ghilardi regarding the planting agreement [0:23:11 - 0:25:10]. Mr. Moussa stated his understanding was he offered either a fence or trees, not both, citing expense and potential growth issues under existing maples 0:23:53. Mr. Ghilardi maintained his expectation of both fence and arborvitaes in the backyard area 0:24:29.
  • Chair Mark suggested conditioning the approval to potentially require the plantings, subject to review by the Planning Department (Jim Emanuel mentioned 0:25:43), or having the matter return to the ZBA if disputed. Following brief Board discussion, Chair Mark articulated the likely Board position: requiring the fence, permitting Ghilardi to plant on his side of the fence on Moussa’s property, but not requiring Moussa to pay for or install those plantings 0:27:35.
  • Mr. Ghilardi stated his opposition to this outcome 0:28:28.
  • Bill Demento spoke via Zoom 0:32:11, expressing concern about stormwater management given the increased impervious area and known flooding nearby. He emphasized the need for analysis by a registered professional engineer, not just a land surveyor (referencing Chuck Bayer, the plan preparer). Chair Mark confirmed this would be a requirement 0:33:15.
• Board Deliberation: The Board discussed stormwater. Chair Mark insisted the condition require that stormwater conditions be improved (“better”), not just “not worse” as suggested by Attorney Stibel [0:30:03, 0:36:41]. Chair Mark clarified this meant even a fractional improvement 0:36:46. The condition would require review and approval by the DPW and Town Engineer (Gino mentioned 0:30:32). Prior conditions from previous ZBA decisions regarding hours of operation would remain unchanged 0:37:43.
• Motion to Close Public Hearing: Made by Chair Mark, seconded, passed unanimously via roll call 0:33:33.
• Motion to Approve: Chair Mark constituted the Board for the vote, excluding Paula 0:34:08. He then moved to approve Petition 22-01, granting the Use Special Permit (increase use, bays from 3 to 5, employees to 12, overnight parking to 35 cars) and Special Permit for construction, subject to conditions 0:34:08:
  1. Construction according to revised plans dated March 14, 2022.
  2. Landscaping according to the previously submitted plan, modified as described by Attorney Stibel during the hearing (maintaining Swampscott Ave plantings, specific plantings near substation, fence and buffer treatment along Ghilardi property line).
  3. Submission of a stormwater management plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer, demonstrating improvement to stormwater conditions, subject to review and approval by DPW and Town Engineer.
  4. Prior conditions not altered by this decision remain in effect.
• Second: ZBA Member Andy 0:38:05.
• Vote: A roll call vote was taken: Mark (Yes), Andy (Yes), Heather (Yes), Ron (Yes), Tony (Yes) [0:38:05 - 0:38:28]. Motion passed unanimously (5-0).
• Follow-up: A ZBA Member [Speaker 12] asked Attorney Stibel about drafting the decision; Chair Mark offered to provide prior decisions as templates 0:38:30.

5. Petition 21-26: Pine Street Development, LLC, 12-14 Pine St Chair Mark introduced the petition after 7:20 PM 0:39:08. Attorney Bill Quinn, representing the applicant, presented the project.

• Presentation Highlights: Attorney Quinn described the property (currently underutilized commercial in B1 zone) and framed the project within the context of Swampscott’s Housing Production Plan (need for smaller units, transit-oriented development) 0:40:21. He outlined the revised proposal: a 3-story building (reduced from 4 stories) with 22 residential units (down from 33, mostly 1BR), ~1100 sq ft ground-floor retail, and 30 interior parking spaces 0:42:51. He cited a traffic study indicating minimal impact and practical parking need of ~25 spaces 0:43:37. He noted extensive work with the Planning Board, resulting in the reduced scale, and their referral with majority support but two abstentions citing scale concerns 0:45:12. Attorney Quinn listed the required relief 0:48:02: Use Special Permit (>8 units), Dimensional Special Permits (lot coverage, open space, stories), Parking Special Permit (reduction from 33+6 required), Floodplain Construction Special Permit, and Site Plan Special Permit. He specifically argued the 3-story configuration qualified for a dimensional special permit with a 20% bonus on the 2.5-story limit, thus avoiding a variance [0:48:02, 0:51:30]. Architect Peter Pittman was available online 0:45:27.
• Threshold Issue - Stories vs. Variance: Chair Mark immediately questioned whether a 3-story building requires a variance, not just a special permit, citing recent precedent (White Court project 0:52:28). A significant discussion ensued involving Chair Mark, Attorney Quinn, and ZBA Members [Speaker 4] and [Speaker 7]. Board members asserted the bylaw’s 2.5-story limit in the B1 zone likely requires a variance for a full third story, based on the definition of a half-story relating to floor area, not just overall height, and consistent prior interpretation [0:55:38, 1:00:09]. Attorney Quinn and Architect Peter Pittman countered that they believed the 20% special permit bonus applied to stories and that the former Building Inspector (Rich Baldarchi) had concurred [0:58:52, 1:04:04]. The Board members appeared unconvinced by this argument, noting the precedent set in residential zones and the White Court case [1:00:09, 1:12:16].
• Proposed Resolution: Chair Mark proposed seeking a formal opinion from Town Counsel on the interpretation of the bylaw regarding the 2.5-story limit and the applicability of the dimensional special permit 1:06:37. He invited the applicant and abutters to submit legal arguments on this narrow issue 1:07:13. ZBA Member [Speaker 7] cautioned that even if Town Counsel opined a special permit was applicable, the project would still need to meet the specific criteria for granting such relief 1:08:50.
• Other Discussion Points: Limited discussion occurred on other aspects:
  • Height Calculation: A ZBA Member [Speaker 12] questioned the height calculation and whether roof deck features count; Architect Pittman explained the calculation, allowances (parapet, flood zone adjustment), and asserted compliance [1:15:33 - 1:18:52].
  • Parking: A ZBA Member [Speaker 15] noted the requested parking (30 spaces) is short of the requirement (33 residential + 6 commercial) 1:20:38. Attorney Quinn defended the reduction based on unit mix, transit proximity, and the traffic study’s practical assessment 1:20:55.
  • Retail Use: A ZBA Member [Speaker 4] questioned the viability and neighborhood benefit of the small ground-floor retail space versus potentially using it for more parking or residential units 1:22:13. Attorney Quinn stated the Planning Board strongly urged its inclusion 1:22:41. Petitioner Mike (Broadway Capital) confirmed interest from a potential tenant (former liquor store) and reiterated the Planning Board’s preference 1:24:12.
• Continuance: Given the unresolved threshold issue regarding the story count relief, Chair Mark proposed continuing the hearing 1:26:21.
• Motion: Chair Mark moved to continue Petition 21-26 to April 27, 2022 1:27:20.
• Second: Received (speaker not identified).
• Vote: A roll call vote was taken: Mark (Yes), Andy (Yes), Ron (Yes), Heather (Yes), Tony (Yes), Paula (Yes) 1:29:10. Motion passed unanimously (6-0).
• Notice: Chair Mark noted that if the applicant amends the petition to seek a variance, new notices to abutters would be required 1:28:46. He assured attendees present that public comment would be taken at the continued hearing 1:26:55.

6. Adjournment: A motion to adjourn was made by ZBA Member [Speaker 7] 1:30:43. (The transcript ends before a vote is recorded).

4. Executive Summary

This Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting on March 22, 2022, resulted in the approval of an expansion for an auto repair business on Paradise Road and the continuation of a hearing for a significant mixed-use development proposal on Pine Street due to a key zoning interpretation issue.

Paradise Road Auto Repair Expansion Approved with Conditions 0:38:28 The ZBA approved the petition for 219 Paradise Rd LLC, allowing the auto repair business to add two service bays, increase employees to 12, and increase overnight vehicle parking to 35 0:34:08.

• Significance for Swampscott: This allows a local business to expand its operations. However, the approval came after significant negotiation and plan revisions prompted by abutter concerns. The applicant agreed to maintain a 25-foot natural buffer, install a fence along the property line with the neighbor (Mark Ghilardi), and use tandem parking to avoid buffer encroachment 0:08:21. Crucially, due to expressed concerns about drainage in an area known for flooding (voiced by resident Bill Demento 0:32:11), the approval includes a strict condition requiring a professional engineer-certified stormwater management plan, demonstrating improvement in site drainage, subject to Town Engineer and DPW approval 0:35:32. This aims to mitigate potential negative impacts of the expanded impervious surface.

Pine Street Mixed-Use Development Hearing Continued Amid Zoning Questions 1:29:10 The hearing for Pine Street Development’s proposal to build a 3-story, 22-unit residential building with ground-floor retail at 12-14 Pine Street was continued to April 27, 2022.

• Significance for Swampscott: This project, revised down from an earlier 4-story/33-unit proposal 0:44:52, represents a potentially significant addition of housing stock, particularly the smaller units identified as needed in the town’s Housing Production Plan 0:40:21. However, the project hit a major procedural obstacle. The ZBA members strongly questioned the applicant’s assertion that the 3-story structure qualifies for a dimensional special permit under the B1 zone’s 2.5-story limit 0:52:28. The Board believes, based on precedent (e.g., White Court 1:00:09) and bylaw interpretation, that a variance (which has a much higher threshold for approval) may be required 0:58:34. The applicant (Attorney Bill Quinn, Architect Peter Pittman) cited reliance on the former Building Inspector’s interpretation 1:04:04. To resolve this fundamental disagreement, the ZBA will seek an opinion from Town Counsel 1:06:37. The project’s fate likely hinges on this legal interpretation. Other potential issues surfaced, including the requested reduction in required parking 1:20:38 and the debate over the utility of the ground-floor retail space pushed by the Planning Board 1:22:13. The continuance highlights the complexities and scrutiny facing larger development projects in town.

Other Items:

• A request to continue the hearing for an addition at 17 Crosman Ave (Petition 21-28) to April 27 was approved 0:06:48.
• Approval of past meeting minutes was deferred 0:05:42.

5. Analysis

The March 22, 2022, ZBA meeting showcased the Board navigating typical neighborhood-level disputes alongside complex legal and procedural questions for a larger development proposal.

Paradise Road (Petition 22-01): Negotiation and Conditioned Approval The handling of the Paradise Road petition demonstrated a pragmatic approach by the Board, facilitated by the applicant’s willingness to revise plans significantly in response to abutter concerns 0:08:21. Attorney Stibel’s presentation was generally effective, though the discrepancy revealed by abutter Mark Ghilardi regarding the planting agreement 0:22:00 highlighted a communication gap or unresolved negotiation point. The subsequent direct exchange between Ghilardi and applicant Gus Moussa [0:23:11 - 0:25:10] was somewhat tense but necessary for the Board to understand the disagreement. The Board’s ultimate decision on the plantings—requiring the fence but making applicant-funded plantings optional 0:27:35—represented a compromise leaning towards the applicant’s stated position, while still acknowledging the abutter’s desire for screening by permitting him to plant. The intervention by resident Bill Demento on the stormwater issue 0:32:11 proved influential, hardening the Board’s resolve (specifically Chair Mark’s insistence on improvement [0:30:03, 0:36:46]) and ensuring a critical condition requiring professional engineering oversight was included. This reflects the Board’s sensitivity to known local issues like drainage.

Pine Street (Petition 21-26): Procedural Impasse and Underlying Tensions The Pine Street discussion was dominated by a fundamental disagreement on zoning interpretation, effectively halting substantive review. Attorney Quinn’s attempt to frame the project positively using the Housing Production Plan 0:40:21 and highlighting the reduction in scale 0:44:52 was immediately overshadowed by the Board’s focus on the ‘story’ limit 0:52:28. The applicant team’s reliance on the former Building Inspector’s alleged interpretation 1:04:04 proved insufficient against the Board members’ collective memory of precedent (White Court) and consistent application of the bylaw [1:00:09, 1:12:16]. This reliance appears to have been a strategic misstep or based on a misunderstanding, leaving the applicant seemingly unprepared for the Board’s firm stance. The Board, particularly Chair Mark and Members [Speaker 4] and [Speaker 7], presented a unified front on this issue, demonstrating confidence in their interpretation. The decision to seek Town Counsel opinion 1:06:37 is a logical step but also serves to delay the project and potentially requires the applicant to re-notice for a variance, adding expense and time. While brief, the discussions on parking 1:20:38 and retail 1:22:13 hinted at other areas where the applicant’s rationale (traffic study justifying fewer spaces, Planning Board ‘mandate’ for retail) might face skepticism from the ZBA, suggesting the story-count issue is just the first major hurdle. The dynamic suggests a challenging path forward for this proposal, requiring not just a favorable legal opinion but also persuasive arguments on the substantive merits and impacts addressed by the special permit criteria.

Overall Board Dynamics: The ZBA operated with apparent familiarity of its bylaws and procedures. Chair Mark maintained control and ensured procedural correctness (e.g., roll call votes, public comment periods). Members actively engaged with applicants, demonstrating independent scrutiny of plans and arguments. The consistent interpretation applied to the Pine Street story issue, contrasting with the applicant’s position, underscores the Board’s role as the primary interpreter of the zoning bylaw, subject to legal appeal or clarification from Town Counsel. The meeting highlighted the ZBA’s function in balancing applicant requests, neighbor concerns, and adherence to the town’s zoning regulations.