Swampscott Planning Board Meeting Review: September 12, 2022

1. Agenda

0:00:05 Call to Order & Introduction
0:00:13 Public Hearing (Continued): Petition 22-11 - 8 Dennison Ave (Hanover Court LLC)
- Presentation of updated plans and responses to prior questions (Dimensional Special Permit & Site Plan Special Permit for addition).
- Board Questions and Discussion (Site plan details, utilities, stormwater, building size/design, landscaping, condemnation status, zoning interpretation).
- Public Comment.
- Board Deliberation and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
1:35:33 Public Hearing: Site Plan SPR22-02 - 0 Lodge Road (IG Investments LLC)
- Presentation of project (Construction of two townhomes).
- Discussion regarding lot status (grandfathering, zoning compliance).
- Public Comment.
- Board Deliberation and Decision on Hearing Continuation.
2:21:31 Appointment of Planning Board Liaison to Earth Removal Advisory Committee (ERAC)
- Discussion regarding vacancy and member availability/interest.
2:35:32 Review and Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes (Deferred)
2:36:07 Other Business
- Update/Discussion on Glover Property Site Visit Scheduling.
- Update/Discussion on Glover Property Traffic Study Scope.
- Update on MBTA Communities / Section 3A Zoning Guidelines.
2:42:21 Discussion on Hybrid Meeting Format for October 11
2:44:46 Adjournment

2. Speaking Attendees

Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Chair): [Speaker 1]
Derek Bloom (Bloom Architecture, Petitioner Rep for 8 Dennison Ave): [Speaker 2]
Ben Lock (Resident, 15 Dennison Ave): [Speaker 3]
Marissa Farmer (Town Planner/Staff Support): [Speaker 4]
Dave Paster (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 5]
Bill Quinn (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 6]
Bill Dimento (Resident/Retired Zoning Lawyer): [Speaker 7]
Mike Sandman (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 8]
Ilya Zvenigorodskiy (IG Investments LLC, Petitioner for 0 Lodge Road): [Speaker 9]
Carol Pagano Wilson (Resident, 17 Lodge Road): [Speaker 10]
Paul Lynch (Attorney for Petitioner, 8 Dennison Ave): [Speaker 11]
James Emanuel (Landscape Architect for Petitioner, 8 Dennison Ave): [Speaker 12]
Ted Brockley (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 13]
Monica Longquest (Resident, Miriam Road): [Speaker 14]
Julia Sokol (Client/Owner, Hanover Court LLC): [Speaker 15]
Kathy/Scott? (Resident, Sterns Street): [Speaker 16] (Identified as Kathy and Scott by staff 1:02:20, speaker uses “I” 1:03:05)
Jen Chavez (Resident, 17 Lodge Road): [Speaker 17]
Rule Longfellow (Resident, Muriel Road): [Speaker 18]
Unknown Speaker/Board Member?: [Speaker 19] (Multiple brief interjections, possibly Chair Ippolito or another member)
Unknown Speaker/Board Member?: [Speaker 20] (Brief interjections, likely staff or board member during procedural discussions)
Unknown Speaker/Board Member?: [Speaker 21] (Brief interjections/affirmations, likely Chair Ippolito or another member)
Unknown Speaker/Board Member/Petitioner?: [Speaker 22] (Brief interjections, context suggests Petitioner Zvenigorodskiy or staff/board member during Lodge Rd discussion)
Unknown Speaker/Board Member?: [Speaker 23] (Brief interjections during Dennison Ave discussion, possibly Member Paster or another)

(Note: Speakers 19-23 represent very brief interjections or moments where the specific speaker ID is unclear from the audio/transcript context. In the following sections, efforts will be made to attribute statements correctly based on context, using specific identities where clear and generic roles otherwise.)

3. Meeting Minutes

Call to Order: Chair Angela Ippolito called the meeting to order.

Public Hearing (Continued): Petition 22-11 - 8 Dennison Ave (Hanover Court LLC) 0:00:13

Petitioner Presentation: Derek Bloom (Bloom Architecture), representing Hanover Court LLC, presented updated plans for an addition at 8 Dennison Ave, seeking Site Plan Approval (the project also requires a Dimensional Special Permit from the ZBA). Key updates included 1:56:
- Confirmation from DPW Director Gino Cresta that no work is proposed in the Sterns Street right-of-way, as paving extends past the proposed driveway entrance [2:24, 3:45].
- Revised site plan reflecting Denison Ave as the sole front yard (per Water Department determination), impacting setback calculations (garage now compliant) 4:05.
- Open area calculation backup provided (47%) 4:51.
- Lighting plan details: Recessed, down-facing, dark-sky compliant exterior lighting; one visible wall sconce at garage 5:08.
- Revised roof design: Changed from flat roof to a pitched/gabled roof to better match neighborhood character, though slightly increasing overall height (still under limit) 6:00. Gross square footage increased from 3135 sq ft (existing) to 4742 sq ft (proposed) 14:39.
- Landscape Architect James Emanuel presented the planting plan 7:41, noting preservation of existing mature trees (Norway Maples, Black Cherry) except for arborvitae removed for garage construction. New plantings focus on native/controlled shrubs along Denison Ave frontage and evergreen buffering on the side yard 8:07. No new invasive Norway Maples are being planted 17:10.
- Stormwater approach described via letter from civil engineer; detailed design to be submitted pre-building permit as a potential condition 10:06. Runoff will be managed on-site to not exceed present rates 11:02.
Board Questions & Discussion:
- Utilities: Confirmed all utilities enter from Denison Ave, not Sterns Street 12:00.
- Sterns Street Curb: Discussed lack of curb on the property side of Sterns Street pavement 13:04.
- Building Size/Footprint: Confirmed the footprint size remained the same despite roof changes; gross floor area unchanged as attic space doesn’t count 13:54. Total proposed GFA is 4742 sq ft 14:39.
- Condemnation Status: Discussion ensued regarding the property’s previous condemnation by the Board of Health due to flooding impacting electrical systems [19:06, 20:08]. Attorney Paul Lynch clarified it was a Board of Health condemnation (unfit for habitation due to utility issue), not a Building Department structural condemnation 21:45. Town Planner Marissa Farmer confirmed former Building Inspector Rich Balducci had determined the property lost its non-conforming four-family use due to abandonment (>2 years), reverting it to single-family zoning (Bylaw 2.2.7.4) [26:10, 27:14]. This requires ZBA relief for dimensional non-conformities. Member Bill Quinn expressed concern about lack of a formal building inspection report confirming structural suitability for rebuild vs. requiring demolition, a point he recalled requesting previously [25:04, 31:25]. Attorney Lynch reiterated the building was not deemed structurally unsound 26:10. The board debated the implications of Bylaw 2.2.7.4 regarding pre-existing non-conforming dimensions versus use [28:16 - 34:58]. Chair Ippolito concluded the ZBA process for dimensional relief is the correct path for the existing non-conforming structure now zoned single-family 35:41.
- Lot Coverage & Building Size: Member Dave Paster questioned the size, particularly the proposed 32.9% lot coverage exceeding the 30% allowed by right, necessitating ZBA relief 38:36. Mr. Bloom and owner Julia Sokol explained the garage and home office addition were desired for modern family needs and marketability, opting for width over height [39:15, 41:01]. Members expressed concerns about the scale (5 bed/5 bath) seeming disproportionate, lacking storage, and potentially hinting at uses like short-term rentals [41:21, 43:56, 1:07:49]. The petitioner stated willingness to warrant against Airbnb use 1:21:46.
- HVAC Location: Requested clarification on exterior HVAC unit location and buffering 44:48. Mr. Bloom suggested a concealed flat roof area 45:27.
- Roof Design: Member Mike Sandman noted that while the pitched roof aligns with requests for traditional style, it visually increases the building’s perceived mass compared to the initially proposed flat roof 1:22:12. Member Paster acknowledged the trade-offs 1:23:52.
Public Comment: 47:20
- Ben Lock (15 Denison Ave) spoke on behalf of 17 neighbors 48:35, thanking the applicant for improvements but reiterating concerns submitted previously: confirmation of Bylaw 2.2.7.4 application 50:01, large building size/scale (proposed 32.9% lot coverage vs. neighborhood average 21.6%) 51:32, impact of left-side addition on the abutter at 6 Denison Ave 53:00, architectural style consistency (appreciating the pitched roof change but still concerned about scale) 54:09, the 5 bed/5 bath configuration raising concerns about traffic and potential short-term rental use (Airbnb) 55:25, building height increase 56:09, increased traffic/parking issues on Sterns Street 56:26, and the status/use of the paper end of Sterns Street (desire for it to remain unpaved walkway, dead-end status maintained) 57:40.
- Kathy/Scott? (Sterns St resident) echoed concerns about style, noting flat roof sections still visible from Sterns St and non-traditional siding 1:02:56. Also mentioned a large boulder at the end of Sterns Street not shown on plans 1:03:40. Chair Ippolito clarified the town owns Sterns Street and controls any changes there 1:04:14.
Board Deliberation & Recommendation: 1:04:41
- The Board reviewed site plan criteria. Key concerns centered on:
  - Minimizing unreasonable departure from neighborhood character, materials, and scale (Criterion G) [1:07:37, 1:30:02]. The size (5 bed/5 bath), lot coverage (32.9%), and additions (garage, side office/bedroom) were deemed excessive and out of scale by several members [1:07:49, 1:18:14, 1:19:23].
  - Compliance with zoning bylaws (Criterion J) - The project requires dimensional relief from the ZBA [1:11:21, 1:30:02].
  - Potential contamination/stormwater impact (Criterion H) - Need for a finalized drainage plan [1:10:05, 1:30:02].
  - Pedestrian/Vehicular Safety & Traffic Impacts (Criteria B, K) - Concerns related to the number of bedrooms/potential occupants and parking [1:06:53, 1:11:21].
  - Sterns Street Interface - Need for definition (curb/berm for driveway), buffering along the minimal side setback, and ensuring the paper street remains undeveloped/prevents cut-through traffic [1:12:49, 1:14:17, 1:17:03].
- Discussion shifted from conditional approval to an unfavorable recommendation. Members felt the concerns, particularly regarding scale and zoning non-compliance, were significant enough that a favorable recommendation, even with conditions, was inappropriate 1:25:19. They reasoned that listing the reasons for unfavorable action would communicate concerns to the ZBA more effectively 1:27:24.
Motion & Vote: Member Paster moved to recommend unfavorable action to the ZBA on Petition 22-11 based on the project not minimizing unreasonable departure from the character and scale of buildings in the vicinity (Criterion G), not complying with provisions of the zoning bylaw (Criterion J), and lacking a finalized plan to minimize contamination of groundwater/stormwater runoff (Criterion H) 1:33:23. Member Quinn seconded 1:34:24. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). 1:34:43 Chair Ippolito stated the letter to the ZBA would note the petitioner’s positive efforts alongside the reasons for the unfavorable recommendation 1:34:43.

Public Hearing: Site Plan SPR22-02 - 0 Lodge Road (IG Investments LLC) 1:35:33

Petitioner Presentation: Ilya Zvenigorodskiy (IG Investments LLC) presented the proposal for two attached townhomes (approx. 2300 sq ft each) on the vacant lot at 0 Lodge Road 1:36:51. The project requires a Site Plan Special Permit from the Planning Board (as permit granting authority) due to new construction >3000 sq ft and location in the Coastal Flood Hazard Overlay District 1:42:08. Mr. Zvenigorodskiy stated they are seeking relief to build in a flood zone (AE), mitigating by elevating living space and utilities above the projected 50-year flood level 1:37:26. He referenced a determination letter stating the lot is “buildable” based on its subdivision history (pre-1948 zoning) and meeting current setbacks, despite being undersized (approx. 6500 sq ft vs. 10,000 sq ft required) [1:37:36, 1:39:21].
Board Questions & Discussion - Lot Status: Significant confusion and discussion arose regarding the legal status of the lot. The determination letter from former Building Inspector Balducci (Feb 2022) cited the lot’s creation/separation before the March 1, 1948 zoning map and lack of common ownership with adjacent lots, claiming it was “grandfathered” under state code (referencing 780 CMR, though later discussion points to MGL Ch. 40A Sec 6) [1:39:21, 1:43:35]. Board members, particularly Member Paster and Member Sandman, questioned this interpretation, as undersized lots typically require ZBA dimensional relief 1:42:47. They struggled to understand the specific state code provision (MGL Ch. 40A Sec 6 1:54:15) cited by staff and how it applied, noting the complexity and apparent contradiction with standard practice [1:45:47, 1:55:46]. The wording in Balducci’s letter requiring compliance with “current Swampscott zoning dimensions” added to the confusion 1:50:24.
Public Comment: 1:59:56
- Bill Dimento (Retired Zoning Lawyer, friend of abutter) argued forcefully that the Planning Board lacked jurisdiction 2:00:23. He contended the lot was not shown as separate on the March 1, 1948 map (plan created later) and that the petitioner attorney’s own letter stated lack of common ownership since 1949, which is after the relevant 1948 zoning adoption date 2:01:08. He asserted the 1948 bylaw required 60ft frontage, which this lot lacks, making it non-conforming from the start and requiring a variance from the ZBA, not a special permit from the Planning Board [2:01:46, 2:04:07]. He dismissed the state code section read by staff as inapplicable 2:05:49.
- Monica Longquest (Miriam Road resident) expressed concerns about the height (“four-story townhouse” seemed excessive for the neighborhood), significant flooding issues already present in the lot and surrounding area, potential view blockage for elderly neighbors, and tree removal 2:09:26.
- Town Planner Farmer read an email from Thomas Ball (21 Lodge Road), expressing his concerns and those of elderly abutters (William Savino, Mario Grasso) who couldn’t attend virtually, requesting postponement to an in-person/hybrid meeting 2:11:53.
- Jen Chavez and Carol Pagano Wilson (17 Lodge Road residents, directly across) echoed flooding and traffic concerns on the dead-end street, exacerbated by park/field usage 2:13:17. Ms. Pagano Wilson provided historical context of the land ownership and stressed impacts on elderly neighbors and driveway access 2:14:26.
- Rule Longfellow (Muriel Road resident) reiterated the severity of flooding (“lost one car”) and the requirement for flood insurance in the area 2:18:55.
Board Deliberation & Decision: Given the unresolved fundamental question of the lot’s legal status and whether the Planning Board had jurisdiction versus the ZBA, the Board agreed continuation was necessary 1:57:00. They acknowledged the need for clarification from the current Building Commissioner, Steve Catanese 1:58:29.
Motion & Vote: Chair Ippolito moved to continue the public hearing for SPR22-02 (0 Lodge Road) to the October 11, 2022 meeting 2:20:01. Member Sandman seconded 2:20:50. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). 2:20:57

Appointment of Planning Board Liaison to Earth Removal Advisory Committee (ERAC) 2:21:31

Member Ted Brockley stepped down as liaison due to scheduling conflicts 2:21:53.
No board members volunteered to take on the role, citing time commitments and the potentially demanding, impromptu nature of ERAC meetings [2:22:43, 2:24:28, 2:24:47].
Discussion occurred regarding the requirement for a Planning Board liaison. Member Sandman recalled the ERAC bylaw specifying a voting member chosen “by and from” the Planning Board [2:26:08, 2:27:12]. This raised concerns about the fairness and practicality of requiring a volunteer board member to serve as a mandatory voting member on another committee with potentially frequent meetings 2:28:15.
Members questioned the value proposition and relevance of Planning Board expertise specifically needed for all ERAC matters (like aggregate permits) [2:31:28, 2:32:13].
Decision: The Board decided to defer the appointment to October, pending further inquiry by Chair Ippolito into the requirement and potential alternative solutions [2:30:17, 2:34:21].

Review and Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes 2:35:32

Minutes were available but had not been distributed in advance.
Decision: The Board agreed to have the minutes emailed for review and approval at the October meeting 2:35:37.

Other Business 2:36:07

Glover Site Visit: Chair Ippolito reminded members about the Doodle poll for scheduling a site visit, noting low response and clarifying the need to scroll for all dates 2:36:07. A mix-up with Member Bill Quinn’s email address was identified (correspondence going to a different Bill Quinn) 2:37:40.
Glover Traffic Study: Chair Ippolito reminded members to review the traffic study scope documents circulated by staff (Marcy?) and provide any comments 2:38:09.
Marblehead Glover Meeting: Chair Ippolito noted Marblehead’s Planning Board was meeting the next night regarding the Glover project and offered to share the link/recording info 2:39:15.
MBTA Communities / 3A Zoning: Chair Ippolito mentioned the state released updated guidelines and a summary deck is available; the Town will be hiring a consultant 2:40:44.

October 11 Meeting Format 2:42:21

Town Planner Farmer requested the Board consider a hybrid format (in-person option with remote participation) for the October 11 meeting to accommodate residents without virtual access, particularly relevant for the continued 0 Lodge Road hearing 2:42:23.
Decision: The Board agreed to plan for a hybrid meeting, and Chair Ippolito instructed staff to reserve the room 2:44:14.

Adjournment 2:44:46

A motion to adjourn was made and passed informally.

4. Executive Summary

This Swampscott Planning Board meeting addressed two significant development proposals, resulting in a recommendation against one project and the postponement of another due to unresolved legal questions. The Board also discussed internal administrative matters, highlighting challenges with volunteer committee assignments.

Key Outcomes & Decisions:

8 Dennison Ave Addition Denied Favorable Recommendation: The Board voted unanimously to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) regarding the proposed addition at 8 Dennison Ave 1:34:26. While acknowledging petitioner efforts to revise the design (e.g., adding a pitched roof 6:00), the Board cited major concerns about the project’s excessive scale and size (5 bedrooms/5 baths, nearly 33% lot coverage) being out of character with the neighborhood, non-compliance with zoning dimensional requirements (necessitating ZBA relief), and the lack of a finalized stormwater plan 1:33:23. Public comment strongly reinforced concerns about size, potential traffic/parking impacts, and the building’s fit within the existing neighborhood context 48:20.
- Significance: This decision signals the Planning Board’s emphasis on neighborhood character and scale, particularly for significant renovations/additions on existing non-conforming lots. It sends a message to the ZBA about the Board’s view on the appropriateness of the requested dimensional relief.
0 Lodge Road Townhouse Hearing Continued: The public hearing for the proposed two-unit townhouse development on a vacant lot at 0 Lodge Road was continued to October 11 2:20:51. The hearing stalled due to significant confusion and debate over the lot’s legal buildable status. The petitioner cited a prior Building Inspector’s letter suggesting the undersized lot was “grandfathered” under state law due to its pre-1948 subdivision history 1:39:21. However, Board members and a resident expert (retired zoning lawyer Bill Dimento 2:00:23) raised serious questions about this interpretation, arguing the lot likely requires a variance from the ZBA rather than Planning Board site plan approval alone [1:42:47, 2:04:07]. Public comment also highlighted significant neighborhood concerns about flooding, traffic, building height, and impacts on elderly neighbors [2:09:26, 2:13:17].
- Significance: The continuation underscores the complexity of interpreting historical zoning bylaws and state statutes for old, undersized lots. Resolution requires clear guidance from the current Building Commissioner. The delay also allows more time to address substantial neighborhood concerns regarding flooding and density impacts in this sensitive location.
Earth Removal Committee Liaison Appointment Deferred: The Board could not appoint a new liaison to the Earth Removal Advisory Committee (ERAC) after the current liaison stepped down 2:21:53. No members volunteered, citing time constraints 2:24:28. Discussion revealed the liaison role is mandated as a voting member by ERAC’s bylaws, raising questions about the feasibility and fairness of this requirement for volunteer board members 2:27:12. The appointment was deferred to October pending further investigation 2:30:17.
- Significance: This reflects broader challenges faced by municipal volunteer boards regarding workload, time commitments, and potentially outdated inter-committee structures or mandates.
Hybrid Meeting Planned for October: Due to accessibility concerns raised regarding the 0 Lodge Road hearing, the Board agreed to hold its October 11 meeting in a hybrid format, allowing for both in-person and remote attendance 2:44:14.

5. Analysis

The September 12 Planning Board meeting underscored several key dynamics within Swampscott’s development review process and town governance: