Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Review: May 24, 2022

This document summarizes and analyzes the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting based on the provided transcript. It is intended to inform Swampscott Town Meeting members and voters about the key decisions and discussions.

Section 1: Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely order of business discussed was:

Continuance Request: Elm Place Project 0:41
- Discussion and vote to continue the hearing to June 13th, 7:00 PM via Zoom.
Petition 22-04: 93 Kensington Lane (David Valcourt) 6:31
- Request for Special Permit for Nonconforming Uses and/or Structures for a half-story attic addition.
- Discussion, public comment, and vote.
Petition 22-05: Vinnin Liquors c/o Angela Ansara (371 Paradise Rd) 27:24
- Request for Sign Special Permit for a new awning with valence lettering.
- Discussion and vote.
Petition 22-06: 80 Middlesex Ave (Jennifer Simon) 58:55
- Request for Dimensional Special Permit for a roof overhang over a pre-existing porch.
- Discussion and agreement to continue.
Petition 21-28: 17 Crosman Ave (Cheryl Miller) 1:10:18
- Request for Dimensional Special Permit and Special Permit for Nonconforming Uses/Structures for a rear addition and deck.
- Extensive discussion, public comment, and vote.
Petition 21-26: Pine Street Development, LLC (12-14 Pine St) 2:31:10
- Request for Use Special Permit, Dimensional Special Permit, Site Plan Special Permit, and Dimensional Variance for a mixed-use building (revised plans presented).
- Presentation, discussion, public comment, and agreement to continue.
Adjournment 3:15:01

(Note: Approval of past meeting minutes, listed first on the provided metadata agenda, was not discussed according to the transcript.)

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Based on the transcript and MA government/Swampscott context:

ZBA Chair (Marc Kornitsky inferred): [Speaker 1]
Attorney for Vinnin Liquors (Name not stated): [Speaker 2]
Attorney Chris Drukis (Representing Cheryl Miller, 17 Crosman Ave): [Speaker 3]
Michael Hakeem (Resident, 27 Crosman Ave - Supporting): [Speaker 4] (at 2:02:26)
Peter Pitman (Architect for Pine Street Development): [Speaker 4] (at 2:35:42 onwards)
Brad Croft (ZBA Member): [Speaker 5]
Attorney Bill Quinn (Representing Pine Street Development): [Speaker 6] (at 2:32:56 onwards)
Christopher LeBlanc (Contractor for 17 Crosman Ave): [Speaker 6] (at 2:07:18)
Dan Hill (ZBA Member): [Speaker 7]
Andy Kulevich (ZBA Member): [Speaker 8]
Resident (Regarding 93 Kensington Ln - Name not stated): [Speaker 9] (at 16:56)
Gail Georgeson (Abutter, 15 Crosman Ave - Opposing): [Speaker 9] (at 2:11:21 onwards)
Resident (Regarding 93 Kensington Ln - Name not stated): [Speaker 10] (at 18:41)
Heather Roman (ZBA Member): [Speaker 10] (at 52:09 onwards)
Susan Coley (Architect for 93 Kensington Ln): [Speaker 11]
Rick Dexter (Resident, 33 Crosman Ave - Supporting): [Speaker 12]
ZBA Staff/Clerk (Marissa inferred): [Speaker 13]
Leslie Dexter (Resident, 33 Crosman Ave - Supporting): [Speaker 14]
Applicant/Representative for 80 Middlesex Ave (Name not stated): [Speaker 15] (at 59:00), [Speaker 20] (at 58:55)
Jamie Owens (Resident/Abutter, Crosman Ave - Supporting): [Speaker 15] (at 1:58:10)
Steve Yadman (Resident, Pine Street): [Speaker 16]
David Valcourt (Applicant, 93 Kensington Ln): [Speaker 17] (at 10:21)
Tom Driscoll (Resident, 28 Crossman Ave - Supporting): [Speaker 17] (at 2:05:32)
Unknown Speaker (Querying building size): [Speaker 17] (at 43:03)
Cindy Cavallaro (Resident, Pine Street / Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 18]
Angela Ansara (Vinnin Liquors Representative): [Speaker 19] (at 39:27)
Unknown Speaker (Querying location): [Speaker 19] (at 1:53:26)
Attorney Chris Drukis (Representing Elm Place Petitioner - confirming continuance): [Speaker 20] (at 2:02)
Jeff Wilson (Resident, 55 Crosman Ave - Supporting): [Speaker 21] (at 2:04:36)
Alec Vyce (Developer, Pine Street Development): [Speaker 21] (at 2:50:02 onwards)
Unknown Speaker (Brief interjection): [Speaker 22] (at 2:30:10)
Cesar Medea (Resident, 27 Pine Street): [Speaker 22] (at 3:05:08 onwards)
Paula Pearce (ZBA Member): [Speaker 23]

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

1. Continuance: Elm Place Project 0:41 The ZBA Chair opened the discussion regarding the Elm Place project. Attorney Chris Drukis, representing the petitioner, was present. The Chair noted the need for a continuance to June 13th at 7:00 PM via Zoom, requested by Town Counsel to allow more time to review the proposed decision following late comments from board members. The petitioner agreed to the continuance without extending the statutory deadline for action. The Chair outlined a plan to receive a revised draft decision from the petitioner showing accepted and disputed changes for Town Counsel’s review prior to the June 13th meeting, aiming for a final vote then. ZBA Member Heather Roman was designated as the board liaison if the Chair was unavailable.

Motion: The Chair moved to continue the petition to June 13th at 7:00 PM via Zoom.
Second: Member Pearce.
Vote: Passed unanimously by roll call (Kornitsky, Croft, Roman, Pearce voting yes). 6:13

2. Petition 22-04: 93 Kensington Lane 6:31 Architect Susan Coley presented the proposal for a 445 sq ft half-story attic addition and a rear roof deck for the property owned by David Valcourt. She stated all proposed setbacks were conforming, but the lot was nonconforming due to lot area and frontage. Applicant David Valcourt noted abutters were supportive 10:21. Member Hill questioned the square footage calculations presented on the plans, specifically whether the proposed third level qualified as a “half-story” (not exceeding 50% of the floor below) per the bylaw definition based on area with sufficient headroom 10:37. A detailed discussion on calculating gross floor area for half-stories ensued. The Chair suggested conditioning approval on the applicant submitting revised plans to the Building Inspector demonstrating compliance with the half-story definition, with the ZBA granting no relief from that specific requirement 14:23. The Chair identified the necessary relief as a finding of “no substantial detriment to the neighborhood” under MGL c. 40A, §6 (per the Balletta case) for conforming changes to a nonconforming structure, rather than a standard special permit 20:18. Public comment was solicited. One resident asked for clarification on the plans 16:56; another expressed feeling “cloaked in” by the project 18:41. The public hearing was closed 19:47. The Board was constituted with Chair Kornitsky, Members Croft, Hill, Roman, and Kulevich (Member Pearce recused or absent for this item).

Motion: Member Hill moved to approve Petition 22-04, subject to the condition that the Building Inspector determine the third-story addition conforms to the bylaw definition of a half-story, and finding no substantial detriment to the neighborhood per MGL c. 40A, §6 25:01.
Second: Member Pearce seconded 26:16 (Note: Transcript indicates Pearce seconded despite not being on the constituted board for the vote; likely another member seconded).
Vote: Passed unanimously by roll call (Hill, Kornitsky, Croft, Roman, Kulevich voting yes) 26:24.

3. Petition 22-05: Vinnin Liquors (371 Paradise Rd) 27:24 An attorney for Vinnin Liquors and representative Angela Ansara presented the request to replace a damaged awning and add lettering to the valence, confirming they were proceeding with “Option 2” (Sunbrella fabric, dark brown, no metallic top) 27:46. He noted Planning Board support and that a prior awning iteration had signage. Member Croft led a detailed discussion on sign bylaw compliance (Section 6.2.2.6, 3.2.4.2), focusing on valence height (max 10”), letter height (max 6”), and total allowable signage area in the B3 district 32:13. A key point of discussion was whether replacing the awning triggered a requirement for the existing large “LIQUORS” sign (not attached to the awning) to conform to current bylaws 36:51. The board debated the interpretation of bylaw language regarding replacement vs. repair and grandfathering [37:56, 48:08]. Member Roman noted the property’s corner lot status might allow for signage on two sides 52:09. Member Kulevich observed the building likely exceeds 10,000 sq ft, which, per bylaw 3.2.4.2, allows for a larger total sign area (up to 120 sq ft per side), potentially resolving the compliance issue for the existing sign combined with the new valence lettering 53:48. The applicant agreed to a condition requiring ZBA approval for any future additional signage on other sides of the building 55:05. No public comment was offered. The public hearing was closed 56:17.

Motion: Member Croft moved to approve Petition 22-05 (Option 2) for a Sign Special Permit, finding the proposed signage complies with B3 district requirements (based on the >10,000 sq ft building finding), conditioned on the petitioner seeking further ZBA relief for any additional future signage 56:31.
Second: The Chair.
Vote: Passed unanimously by roll call (Kornitsky, Hill, Croft, Roman, Kulevich, Pearce voting yes) 58:55.

4. Petition 22-06: 80 Middlesex Ave 58:55 An applicant/representative presented the request to construct a roof overhang over an existing pre-existing front stoop/deck structure. The existing structure extends 9 feet 6 inches into the front setback 59:42. The Chair and Member Hill identified that the ZBA’s jurisdiction under a dimensional special permit only allows for a 20% reduction of the required setback (20 feet), meaning relief could only be granted up to 16 feet from the property line [1:01:04, 1:01:40]. Covering the full 9’6” encroachment would require a variance, which has a much higher legal standard. The applicant expressed frustration, noting neighboring properties have similar covered porches [1:03:56, 1:08:04]. Board members explained those might predate current bylaws or have different circumstances 1:05:35. Member Croft acknowledged the bylaw encourages covered porches but stated the dimensional limits were clear 1:08:58.

Action: The Board agreed to continue the hearing to June 21st, with the applicant to provide revised plans showing a proposed overhang compliant with the 16-foot setback limit 1:09:32.

5. Petition 21-28: 17 Crosman Ave 1:10:18 Attorney Chris Drukis presented the petition for Cheryl Miller for a rear addition and deck on a nonconforming lot. Relief sought included a dimensional special permit (lot size/frontage) and a special permit for adding to a nonconforming structure. The primary issue was the proposal to extend the existing 4 ft 8 inch side yard setback (where 7.5 ft is required) along the existing building line for the addition 1:13:34. Attorney Drukis submitted letters of support from neighbors and acknowledged opposition from the direct abutter 1:18:49. Board members Roman and Hill noted precedent for allowing such extensions along the existing plane (citing Norfolk Ave case) and discussed the relevance of the Balletta case regarding extensions of nonconformities 1:21:05. Attorney Ken Shutzer, representing abutter Gail Georgeson (15 Crosman Ave), presented several arguments against approval 1:23:01: * That a Site Plan Special Permit was required due to aggregation rules (Sec 5.4.2.0) counting a prior approved but unbuilt addition within the last 5 years 1:27:18. This interpretation was debated and ultimately rejected by the board majority who felt lapsed/unbuilt permits shouldn’t count [1:28:55 - 1:33:43]. * That a prior ZBA decision (19-20) stated the nonconformity would be eliminated, implying an expectation the applicant would not extend it 1:35:13. Attorney Drukis later argued this was based on different plans and the permit had lapsed 2:09:38. * That extending the 4’8” setback required relief under Sec 2.3.6.0 (“no practical alternative”) or a variance, not just a Balletta finding 1:37:30. The Chair countered that Balletta addresses intensifying nonconformities with a finding of “no substantial detriment” 1:41:16. * That the project negatively impacts the abutter through loss of privacy (especially from a proposed new window in the existing structure facing her property), loss of screening trees (arborvitae), and increased density/crowding [1:44:07, 2:11:21]. Attorney Shutzer submitted a legal memorandum 1:44:07. Extensive public comment followed, overwhelmingly in support of the applicant. Neighbors Rick and Leslie Dexter, Michael Hakeem, Jeff Wilson, and Tom Driscoll spoke in favor, citing the reasonableness of the addition, neighborhood character, precedent on the street, fairness to the applicant, and the positive investment in the property [1:53:15 - 2:07:04]. Contractor Christopher LeBlanc clarified his earlier statement about tree removal 2:07:18. Attorney Drukis offered rebuttal arguments 2:08:02. Abutter Gail Georgeson reiterated her specific concerns about privacy, the window, tree loss, and expressed feeling pressured by neighbors 2:11:21. Member Kulevich explored a compromise regarding the window location 2:15:09. Conditions regarding tree preservation/replacement were discussed 2:16:45. The Chair initially suggested seeking Town Counsel opinion on the legal standards 1:50:05, but Member Roman and others indicated readiness to vote 2:03:41. The public hearing was closed 2:19:44. Board discussion confirmed comfort applying the Balletta standard.

Motion: The Chair moved to approve Petition 21-28, finding the proposed nonconforming change would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood (Balletta standard), subject to the condition that existing arborvitae outside the building footprint be preserved where possible 2:22:03.
Second: Member Pearce.
Vote: Passed unanimously by roll call (Kornitsky, Pearce, Hill, Kulevich, Roman voting yes) 2:24:45.

6. Petition 21-26: 12-14 Pine St 2:31:10 Attorney Bill Quinn, Architect Peter Pitman, and Developer Alec Vyce presented revised plans for the mixed-use development, responding to prior ZBA and Planning Board feedback. Key changes included reducing units from 22 to 20, retaining 30 indoor parking spaces and ~1,000 sq ft of ground-floor retail, and significantly altering the building’s massing and aesthetics to present a more residential scale (gables, dormers) [2:32:56, 2:36:14]. Relief discussion focused on height (proposed 36’ 2” requires relief from 35’ limit) and the number of stories (proposed 3 stories vs. 2.5 allowed). Attorney Quinn argued the board had authority to grant the third story via special permit (citing Concordia and White Court ZBA decisions) and stated they would also present grounds for a variance for height/story 2:41:39. The Board confirmed the lot configuration (streets on two sides) means setback requirements are two fronts and two sides (zero required in B1), consistent with prior multi-departmental review [2:44:10, 2:46:57]. The Chair and Member Kulevich strongly questioned the viability and desirability of the ground-floor retail space in this location, suggesting replacing it with a residential unit, potentially designated as affordable housing [2:50:02, 2:51:06]. Developer Vyce indicated openness to this change 2:50:02. Public comment was solicited. * Cindy Cavallaro commended the improved design but questioned comparing the dense site to Marion Court for height precedent, and raised concerns about flooding, demolition impacts (asbestos?), and parking adequacy if a unit replaces retail 2:54:32. * Betty Johnson (abutter) expressed concerns about the width of the Stacy Brook buffer, tree removal, garage vent locations, requested a 6-foot PVC privacy fence (agreed to by developer 2:59:47), asked for motion-activated or dark-sky compliant lighting (developer agreed to dark-sky compliance 3:02:23), noted ongoing trash dumping on the property, and questioned the increased roof deck size shown on new plans 2:57:56. * Cesar Medea (abutter) reiterated concerns about parking, noise, and added concerns about shade impact and construction vibrations 3:05:08. The Board indicated a construction management plan would be required. * Marsha Dalton (abutter) asked if units would be condos or apartments (TBD, likely workforce housing rentals 3:08:41) and about trash pickup logistics (private contractor, contained indoors 3:09:56). * Steve Yadman (abutter) requested a shadow/sunlight study 3:10:29 (petitioner agreed 3:12:29).

Action: The Board and petitioner agreed to continue the hearing to June 21st, 7:00 PM. The petitioner is expected to provide further details on the roof deck, shadow study, potentially revised plans showing residential instead of retail, and updated grounds for relief including the variance argument 3:10:18. The Chair urged continued communication with neighbors 3:14:19.

7. Adjournment 3:15:01 Motion to adjourn made and passed unanimously.

Section 4: Executive Summary

This Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals meeting addressed several significant development proposals and routine zoning requests. Key outcomes impacting residents include:

Crosman Ave Addition Approved Amidst Debate: The ZBA unanimously approved a rear addition at 17 Crosman Ave [1:10:18 start, 2:24:48 vote]. This decision was notable as the addition extends an existing nonconforming side yard setback (closer to the property line than currently allowed). Despite strong legal arguments and privacy concerns raised by the direct abutter and their attorney, the board relied on interpretations of state law (MGL c. 40A, §6 / Balletta case) and precedent, finding the extension would not be “substantially more detrimental” to the neighborhood. Significant neighborhood support voiced during public comment appeared influential. Significance: This approval reinforces the ZBA’s approach to allowing modifications to nonconforming properties based on the Balletta standard and highlights the weight given to broad neighborhood support versus specific abutter impact in such cases. It allows the homeowner to proceed with modernization plans.
Pine Street Project Advances with Revisions, Concerns Remain: Developers presented significantly revised plans for the proposed mixed-use building at 12-14 Pine Street, featuring fewer units (20) and a more residential design aesthetic intended to better fit the neighborhood 2:32:56. While the board reacted positively to the design changes, questions remain regarding the requested height/story relief (3 stories vs 2.5 allowed). Board members strongly suggested eliminating the proposed ground-floor retail space due to viability concerns, potentially replacing it with another residential unit (possibly affordable) 2:50:02. Abutters, while acknowledging design improvements, continued to raise concerns about privacy, fencing, lighting, potential flooding, construction impacts, and requested a shadow study [2:54:32 - 3:10:29]. The developer agreed to provide a privacy fence and shadow study. The project was continued to June 21 3:10:18. Significance: This project represents a potentially significant addition to the housing stock near the train station. The developer’s responsiveness to feedback is positive, but key hurdles (height/story relief, addressing abutter concerns, final unit mix/affordability) must be cleared.
Other Decisions:
- An attic addition at 93 Kensington Ln was approved with conditions [6:31 start, 26:24 vote].
- A new awning with signage for Vinnin Liquors was approved after detailed bylaw discussion resolved compliance issues [27:24 start, 58:55 vote].
- A request to fully cover a front porch at 80 Middlesex Ave was largely denied due to clear bylaw limitations on dimensional relief; the applicant will return with a smaller, compliant proposal [58:55 start, 1:09:32 continuance]. This highlights the ZBA’s adherence to strict dimensional constraints in the bylaw.
- The hearing for the large Elm Place development was continued to June 13 0:41.
Overall: The meeting demonstrated the ZBA navigating complex legal interpretations (especially the Balletta case), balancing applicant requests with neighbor concerns, and applying specific Swampscott zoning bylaws. Decisions reflected both flexibility under state law for nonconforming properties and strict adherence to dimensional limits set by local bylaws.

Section 5: Analysis

This ZBA meeting showcased several key dynamics and approaches to zoning relief in Swampscott, grounded solely in the transcript: