2022-08-22: Planning Board

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

Swampscott Planning Board Meeting Review: August 22, 2022

Section 1: Agenda

Based on the meeting discussion, the likely agenda followed was:

  1. Call to Order & Announcements 2:45
    • Welcome by Chair Angela Ippolito.
    • Announcement of continuances for Petition 22-11 (8 Dennison Ave) and Petition 22-02 (0 Lodge Road) to the September meeting.
  2. Pre-Application Review: Glover Multifamily Overlay District Redevelopment 3:51
    • Introduction of applicant team (Legat McCall, Attorney Paul Belden, Architect/Planner Thad).
    • Presentation of preliminary plans for the multi-town residential project (Swampscott portion: 96 units, 17 affordable, 4 stories).
    • Board questions, discussion, and feedback covering:
      • Site Logistics (Trash, Deliveries, Circulation)
      • Traffic, Safety, and Transit (Vinnin Square, Bus Stops, Peer Review)
      • Utilities
      • Building Design & Aesthetics (Placement, Facade, Materials, Height)
      • Pedestrian Experience & Landscaping
      • Parking Ratios & Open Space
      • Historical Significance & Site Features
    • Discussion of next steps (Site Walk, Formal Application Submission).
  3. Other Business 1:21:50
    • Updates requested/provided on:
      • Land Use Summit
      • MBTA Communities Act Compliance (Section 3A Zoning)
      • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
      • Hadley School Property Redevelopment Process
      • Hawthorne Property Planning Process
  4. Adjournment 1:28:28

(Note: Approval of minutes from previous meetings was on the formal agenda but not explicitly discussed in the provided transcript, possibly handled under Other Business or deferred).

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

  • Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Chair): [Speaker 2]
  • Paul Belden (Attorney for Applicant): [Speaker 4]
  • Bill Dawes (Legat McCall Representative/Applicant Team): [Speaker 5]
  • Thad (Architect/Planner for Applicant Team): [Speaker 1]
  • Planning Board Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 3] (Provided significant detailed feedback)
  • Planning Board Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 6]
  • Dave (Planning Board Member, likely remote): [Speaker 8]
  • Planning Board Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 7]
  • Planning Board Member or Staff (Name not stated, minimal input): [Speaker 9]

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Meeting Called to Order & Announcements Planning Board Chair Angela Ippolito called the meeting to order 2:45. She announced that two petitions originally scheduled, 22-11 (8 Dennison Ave) and 22-02 (0 Lodge Rd), were continued to the September meeting.

Pre-Application Review: Glover Site Redevelopment The primary agenda item was a pre-application review for the proposed redevelopment of the Glover Multifamily Overlay District site, located at the intersection of Swampscott, Marblehead, and a small portion of Salem 3:51.

  • Applicant Presentation: Attorney Paul Belden introduced the project, noting it falls under the town’s new overlay bylaw passed in June, aiming for an economically feasible project consistent with Smart Growth principles 3:52. Bill Dawes of Legat McCall expressed excitement about revitalizing the long-undeveloped site with a unified four-story residential project across the Swampscott and Marblehead portions 6:26. Thad, the project’s Architect/Planner, presented the detailed preliminary plans 8:22.
    • Swampscott Portion Details: 2.28 acres, 96 residential units (41.6 units/acre), including 17 affordable units (fully compliant with the overlay district). Unit mix: 40 one-bedrooms, 53 two-bedrooms, 3 three-bedrooms. Building height: 4 stories (49 ft). Parking: 144 spaces (1.5/unit), mix of garage (43) and surface (101, with 39 surface spaces located in Marblehead). Open space requirements met. High sustainability standards targeted (LEED Silver certifiable, stretch energy code).
    • Site Design: Two buildings in Swampscott. Building 2 features ground-level parking accessed from the Marblehead side. Building 3 has ground-floor units facing Salem Street. An amenity center (fitness, lounge, pool) connects buildings. Two site access points are proposed, away from the main intersection, one opposite Sunbeam Lane in Swampscott. Significant landscaping is planned, particularly retaining a park-like feel at the Vinnin/Salem St corner 15:46. Materials include a stone base, shingle siding, and pitched asphalt roofs screening mechanicals 24:25. Civil plans show reduced impervious area and stormwater management 26:28.
  • Board Discussion & Feedback:
    • Logistics: A Planning Board Member [Speaker 3] inquired about trash/recycling/composting management (internal chutes, private pickup) 29:04, delivery truck circulation (internalized) 31:24, and potential school bus access 31:52. Thad confirmed plans for private waste handling and internal circulation designed for necessary vehicles, including fire trucks 30:26. The board member suggested speed tables to deter cut-through traffic 30:54, which Thad noted could be considered 31:10.
    • Transit & Traffic: Significant discussion occurred regarding the existing MBTA bus stop on Salem Street. A Planning Board Member [Speaker 3] advocated for amenities like a bench or shelter 32:24. Chair Ippolito mentioned potential MBTA service upgrades 32:45. Applicant Attorney Belden noted MBTA shelter standards would need review 33:25. Board Member Dave [Speaker 8] asked about stops in the other direction 34:14. Chair Ippolito highlighted the challenging traffic conditions in Vinnin Square and the importance of pedestrian safety 36:18. The applicant confirmed a traffic study by Nassar Associates (transcribed as NASA’s associate) was completed 37:58. Attorney Belden stated they expect a coordinated peer review with Marblehead, likely by VHB, and Swampscott would receive the study and likely the peer review comments before the formal hearing 38:09. The Board indicated consensus on participating in the peer traffic review 41:06.
    • Utilities: Chair Ippolito confirmed utilities (sewer/water) would run through Swampscott and requested a full utility plan review 41:06. Attorney Belden confirmed this would be provided 41:43.
    • Building Placement & Design: Chair Ippolito raised points from the Marblehead meeting about potentially rotating the Marblehead building for better golf course views and questioned if the Salem Street building could be set back further 42:08. Attorney Belden explained the current design resulted from extensive iteration adhering to design guidelines, but agreed to share design evolution studies 44:11. Thad defended placing buildings closer to the street per guidelines, but acknowledged Chair Ippolito’s point that guidelines envisioned mixed-use with storefronts 48:23. A Planning Board Member [Speaker 3] expressed support for the current street wall effect, cautioning against creating a parking forecourt 49:10. Detailed discussion followed on facade articulation; Chair Ippolito found the vertical elements around balconies made the building seem taller and suggested exploring alternatives like smaller or hipped dormers 58:28. Thad acknowledged the feedback and agreed to explore options 1:00:07. Color palette and materials were discussed, with Thad describing a planned scheme aiming for a crisp but soft look using natural shingle, deeper blue/taupe trim, and black sashes 1:07:31. Chair Ippolito suggested beautifying the flat end wall of the building along the golf course 1:05:30, which Thad agreed to consider 1:06:19. A Planning Board Member [Speaker 6] echoed concerns about breaking up vertical lines 1:09:20.
    • Pedestrian Experience & Landscaping: A Planning Board Member [Speaker 3] strongly advocated for improving the pedestrian experience along Salem and Vinnin Streets by pulling sidewalks away from the curb and adding landscape buffer strips 50:48. Thad and Attorney Belden agreed to investigate the feasibility, noting right-of-way constraints 53:03. The board member also suggested considering meandering paths within the site’s green space 52:04. Later, the same board member raised concern about internal pedestrian flow between buildings, urging a dedicated path to avoid forcing walks through parking areas 1:18:07.
    • Parking & Open Space: Discussion touched on parking ratios (Swampscott 1.5/unit vs. Marblehead potentially reducing from 2/unit) and utilizing potential freed-up space for more green areas 55:11. A Planning Board Member [Speaker 3] suggested the appendage lot near Salem Street could become a public-facing parklet 56:31. Applicant Rep Dawes noted internal green space benefits the whole complex regardless of town line 57:40.
    • Historical Significance: Chair Ippolito provided context on the site’s history (General Glover homestead, Sunbeam Inn) and expressed concern about demolition by neglect 1:09:41. She strongly requested a site walk to assess potential artifact salvage (like the stone entry columns) and urged incorporating historical acknowledgment (plaque, naming) into the project 1:11:52. Other board members ([Speaker 3], [Speaker 6]) supported this [1:15:22, 1:15:43]. Applicant Rep Dawes agreed to explore possibilities during a site walk 1:14:55. A Planning Board Member [Speaker 3] suggested creatively marking the tri-town boundary within the site 1:16:11.
  • Next Steps: The applicant team inquired about submitting a formal application to open the public hearing at the September 12th meeting 1:17:12. Chair Ippolito indicated this was feasible if a complete package, including traffic and civil plans, was submitted 1:17:28. The Board reached consensus on the need for a peer traffic review 1:19:07 and agreed to schedule a site visit before the September hearing, potentially coordinating with Marblehead officials 1:19:43.

Public Comment Chair Ippolito noted no public members appeared to be present in person but acknowledged online attendees 1:20:25. She advised that opportunities for public comment would occur during the formal public hearings.

Other Business 1:21:50 Brief updates were discussed:

  • MBTA Communities Act (Sec 3A): Chair Ippolito reported on final state guidance 1:23:19. Key changes for Swampscott: compliance deadline extended to Dec 2024; reclassified from ‘Bus Community’ to ‘Commuter Rail Community’; minimum unit capacity reduced from approx. 1261 to approx. 970; more flexibility in zoning district configuration allowed. An action plan is due to the state, likely in December 2022. Grant funding for technical support is still anticipated 1:26:02.
  • Land Use Summit: No updates reported 1:22:20.
  • Hadley Property: A Planning Board Member [Speaker 6] recalled plans for an RFP/RFI process in the fall 1:27:30. Chair Ippolito noted the previous study concluded with options but no final decision 1:27:49.
  • Hawthorne Property: An RFQ for a landscape design firm to conduct community engagement and develop concepts is reportedly in process 1:26:28.

Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved unanimously 1:28:28.

Section 4: Executive Summary

The Swampscott Planning Board held a pre-application review on August 22, 2022, primarily focused on a significant proposed redevelopment at the Glover site, located at the Vinnin Square gateway across Swampscott, Marblehead, and Salem. Here are the key takeaways for residents:

  • Major Redevelopment Proposed for Glover Site: Legat McCall presented preliminary plans for a four-story, 96-unit apartment complex on the Swampscott portion of the former General Glover / Hawthorne’s Restaurant site 8:22. This includes 17 affordable units, fulfilling a key requirement of the Town’s recently adopted Glover Multifamily Overlay District zoning. The project aims to revitalize a long-vacant, prominent property.
  • Traffic Impact is a Major Focus: Given the project’s location in the busy Vinnin Square area, potential traffic impacts were a central concern 36:18. The Board and applicant agreed on the necessity of a thorough, independent peer review of the developer’s traffic study, to be coordinated with Marblehead [38:09, 41:06]. This review will be crucial for understanding and mitigating effects on local roads. Pedestrian safety and potential improvements to the existing MBTA bus stop were also discussed [32:24, 50:48].
  • Design and Community Fit Under Scrutiny: Board members provided detailed feedback on the building designs, focusing on reducing perceived height/mass 58:28, improving aesthetics 1:05:30, enhancing the pedestrian experience along Salem and Vinnin Streets 50:48, and ensuring internal site circulation is safe and logical 1:18:07. The discussion aimed to ensure the large project fits appropriately into the Swampscott context.
  • Historical Significance Emphasized: Chair Ippolito highlighted the site’s deep historical roots connected to General John Glover and the Sunbeam Inn 1:09:41. The Board strongly urged the developer to explore ways to salvage historical elements (like stone pillars) and incorporate acknowledgment of the site’s past into the final project 1:11:52. A site walk will be conducted partly for this purpose 1:14:55.
  • Next Steps - Formal Review Upcoming: This meeting was preliminary. The developer intends to submit a formal application for a public hearing, potentially starting September 12th 1:17:16. Residents will have opportunities to provide input during the upcoming public hearing process. A site walk involving Board members is planned before the hearing 1:19:43.
  • Town Adjusting to State Housing Mandate: The Board briefly discussed recent updates to the MBTA Communities Act (Section 3A zoning) 1:23:19. Swampscott’s deadline for compliance (creating zoning for multi-family housing near transit) has been extended to December 2024, and the required housing unit capacity has been lowered. This state law significantly influences future housing development possibilities in town. Updates on planning for the Hadley and Hawthorne properties were also briefly mentioned [1:26:28, 1:27:30].

Why this matters: This project represents one of the largest potential developments in Swampscott in recent years, situated at a highly visible gateway. Its review touches upon critical town issues: housing need (including affordability), traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, design standards for new construction, and preservation of historical character. The upcoming formal review process will be important for residents to follow and participate in.

Section 5: Analysis

This Planning Board meeting showcased a standard but critical phase – the pre-application review – for a complex and potentially impactful project at the Glover site. The dynamics observed, based strictly on the transcript, offer insight into the path ahead:

  • Applicant’s Strategy: The development team (Legat McCall, Attorney Belden, Architect Thad) presented a thorough case grounded in compliance with Swampscott’s new Glover Multifamily Overlay District bylaw [4:16, 9:26]. Their emphasis on adhering to the bylaw’s standards, including density and design guidelines [44:11, 45:55], served as both justification for their current proposal and a potential defense against requests for major deviations. They appeared professional and receptive to feedback on specific elements like design details, historical acknowledgment, and procedural steps like the traffic peer review [1:00:07, 1:14:55, 38:09], suggesting a collaborative approach, at least initially. However, their statements about the iterative process already undertaken 44:11 subtly signaled that fundamental changes to layout might face resistance.
  • Board’s Proactive Engagement: The Planning Board members, led effectively by Chair Ippolito, did not merely receive information but actively probed the proposal. Chair Ippolito’s contributions on aesthetics and historical context [42:08, 1:09:41], and Member [Speaker 3]‘s persistent focus on functional aspects like circulation, waste, and pedestrian safety [29:04, 50:48, 1:18:07], demonstrated a depth of review beyond basic compliance checking. The Board effectively leveraged the pre-application format to flag key concerns (especially traffic 36:18 and design scale 58:28) early, setting expectations for the formal submission. Their unified stance on requiring a traffic peer review 41:06 and a pre-hearing site walk 1:19:43 underscored their commitment to due diligence.
  • Navigating Bylaw Intent vs. Site Specifics: A subtle tension emerged between the applicant’s adherence to the overlay bylaw’s text and the Board’s desire for a contextually sensitive outcome. Chair Ippolito’s comment that the bylaw’s design guidelines anticipated mixed-use storefronts 48:23 implicitly questioned whether strict application was ideal for a purely residential project’s ground floor interaction with Salem Street. This dynamic – balancing codified rules with site-specific appropriateness – will likely persist throughout the review.
  • Inter-Municipal Complexity: The project’s location straddling Swampscott and Marblehead (and touching Salem) adds inherent complexity 7:26. The Board’s awareness of Marblehead’s parallel review process and feedback [44:11, 55:11] and the need for coordinated efforts (like the traffic study 38:09) highlight the challenges. Decisions made in one town, particularly regarding shared elements like traffic or potentially parking ratios 56:24, will inevitably affect the other.
  • Effectiveness of Pre-Application: The meeting appeared successful in its purpose. Major potential friction points (traffic, design scale, history) were identified upfront, allowing the applicant to address them before significant resources are expended in public hearings. The Board established clear expectations regarding information needed (peer-reviewed traffic study, utility plans, design alternatives) for the formal review 1:17:28.

Overall Assessment: The transcript portrays a Planning Board actively shaping a major development proposal rather than passively reacting. While the applicant presented a strong initial case based on bylaw compliance, the Board effectively signaled that meeting the letter of the law may not be sufficient; the project must also satisfy broader community concerns regarding traffic, aesthetics, pedestrian safety, and historical sensitivity. The stage is set for a detailed and potentially lengthy formal review process where these identified issues will be central.