2022-10-17: Planning Board

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

Swampscott Planning Board Meeting Review: October 17, 2022

Section 1: Agenda

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

  1. 0:00:00 Call to Order & Preliminary Remarks
    • Acknowledgement of Attorney General review status for Glover Multifamily Overlay District affecting the main hearing item.
  2. [0:00:00 - 0:01:51 / Presentation starts ~1:51] Public Hearing: Site Plan Review SPR22-03 - 299 Salem Street (Glover Residences at Vinnin Square)
    • Petitioner: Leggat McCall Properties LLC
    • Proposal: Construction of a 140-total unit residential development (96 units in Swampscott portion) under the Glover Multifamily Overlay District.
    • Discussion: High-level review of application completeness, site plan presentation, architectural details, parking, amenities, sustainability features, preliminary Board feedback, and discussion of next steps (peer reviews, site walk). Note: No vote taken due to pending AG approval.
  3. 0:56:46 Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval (ANR) - ANR 22-01
    • Petitioners: The Susan Murcott Nominee Trust and Marc & Diane Kornitsky
    • Properties: 149 Atlantic Ave & 15 Brown Rd
    • Proposal: Endorsement of a plan reflecting a land transfer between abutting properties.
    • Action: Discussion and Vote.
  4. 1:04:00 Review and Approve Minutes
    • Review and vote on minutes from previous meetings (January, February, March (2), April, September 2022 identified).
  5. 1:16:41 Other Business
    • Update/Discussion on Pine Street property sale 1:14:47
    • Update on Lodge Road property status 1:10:15
    • Discussion: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Bylaw potential revisions, prompted by Swampscott for All Ages Committee 1:16:50
    • Updates on various town projects/initiatives (Hadley School reuse, Hawthorne property reuse/planning, Archer Street 40B/eminent domain, Pitman House relocation, Townwide Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan grant) [~1:50:08 onwards, interspersed with ADU discussion and closing remarks]
  6. 2:19:03 Adjournment

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Based on self-introductions, roles described, and contextual clues within the transcript:

  • Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Chair): [Speaker 1] - Leads the meeting, references confirming details with town counsel, is addressed as Angela.
  • Pat Samasko (SV Design Architects, representing petitioner): [Speaker 2] - Self-identified architect presenting the Glover Residences plans.
  • Marissa Meaney (Town Planner/Staff): [Speaker 3], [Speaker 11], [Speaker 15] - Handles minutes, agendas, provides procedural information, discusses Mylar signing, staff support role, addressed as Marissa.
  • Mike McClung (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 4] - Asks detailed questions on Glover project (parking, landscape, bus stop, pedestrian access) and ADUs (data, precedent), addressed as Mike.
  • Margie Seligman (Director of Community & Economic Development): [Speaker 5] - Provides detailed updates on Hadley, Hawthorne, Pitman House, Archer St, Ped/Bike grant, addressed as Margie/Marcy.
  • Bill Quinn (Planning Board Member / Swampscott for All Ages Committee): [Speaker 6] - Asks about ANR, self-identifies link to committee, active in ADU discussion, addressed as Bill.
  • Bill Gause (Leggat McCall Properties, petitioner): [Speaker 7] - Self-identified principal from the development firm.
  • David Shactman (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 8], [Speaker 14] - Asks questions during minutes review (Lodge Rd) and ADU discussion (existing structures), comments on minutes, likely the member addressed as Dave.
  • Heidi Weir (Director of Aging Services / Swampscott for All Ages Committee): [Speaker 9] - Self-identified, introduces ADU topic.
  • Mark Karnitsky (Resident/Petitioner for ANR): [Speaker 10] - Self-identified petitioner for the Atlantic/Brown Rd ANR.
  • Ted Patsios (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 12] - Asks about EV stations for Glover project, addressed as Ted.
  • Sam Cole (Leggat McCall Properties, petitioner): [Speaker 13] - Introduced by Bill Gause, speaks about Historical Commission meeting.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

1. Call to Order & Preliminary Remarks Chair Angela Ippolito opened the meeting, noting that the primary agenda item, the Glover Residences Site Plan Review, could only be reviewed at a high level without a vote. This was because the underlying Glover Multifamily Overlay District zoning bylaw amendment, passed at Town Meeting, had not yet received final approval from the Massachusetts Attorney General (AG), with a decision expected by November 9th 0:00:00. The purpose of the evening’s review was to assess application completeness and provide initial feedback.

2. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review - 299 Salem Street (Glover Residences)

  • Petitioner Presentation: Bill Gause of Leggat McCall Properties introduced the project team 1:51:00. Pat Samasko of SV Design Architects presented the plans for the Swampscott portion (96 units of 140 total across Swampscott/Marblehead line) 5:12:00. He detailed conformance with the Overlay District regarding density (41.6 units/acre), unit mix (40 one-bed, 53 two-bed, 3 three-bed), affordability (17 units), building height (4 stories, 49 ft), parking (1.5 spaces/unit total 144 spaces for Swampscott portion, 43 garage/101 surface), open space, and design standards. He highlighted sustainability features [~7:30 - 8:10], site layout including two access points, internal circulation designed to limit cut-through traffic, pedestrian connections, efforts to screen parking (including berming 15:24), building placement, and amenity spaces (including a redesigned, slightly smaller amenity building and relocated pool) [~11:30 - 14:00]. Architectural details included floor plans, unit types (1BR ~750sf, 2BR ~1050sf, 3BR ~1500sf) [~16:20], elevations showing material choices (stone base, shingle, board & batten) and incorporation of Board feedback (changing gable roof dormers to hip roofs to reduce perceived height 21:25). Plans to preserve historic stone piers and improve the bus stop area were noted [~24:00]. Sustainability aspects included redevelopment of a developed site, proximity to amenities, EV charging stations (number to be confirmed/marked 39:34), bike storage, and aiming for LEED Silver certifiable level [~26:00]. Civil engineering, lighting, drainage, and traffic reports were submitted but deferred for detailed discussion.
  • Board Discussion & Feedback: Chair Ippolito acknowledged receiving the peer review of the traffic study but noted the original study wasn’t yet available to the Board 29:17. She confirmed parking numbers with the applicant (total 222 spaces for both towns, correcting an initial chart discrepancy 30:34). Chair Ippolito praised the change to hip roofs 31:52 and reiterated a previous request to consider softening the Salem Street-facing end of the “golf course building” with bay windows, which Mr. Samasko agreed to review 32:10.
    • Member Mike McClung agreed the hip roofs looked good 33:55. He questioned the necessity of the surface parking lot near Salem Street, despite the planned berming 34:15. Mr. Gause preferred to keep the parking to avoid under-parking the site 34:41. Member McClung asked about coordination with the MBTA regarding the proposed bus stop relocation 35:41 (applicant noted it hadn’t happened yet but acknowledged the process 35:56). He requested more detail on the landscaping plan, particularly for the “monument” area and the new green space near the pool, asking about amenities like benches 36:29. He also reiterated a desire for better pedestrian connection from the Tedesco side to Building 2, though Mr. Samasko explained the rationale for the current path design 37:30. Member McClung also inquired about resident demographics to understand amenity programming needs 40:12; Mr. Gause anticipated young professionals and empty nesters, fewer families 40:45.
    • Member Ted Patsios asked about the number of EV charging stations 39:29; Mr. Samasko believed it was 15 with conduit for future expansion and agreed to mark locations on plans 39:34.
    • Chair Ippolito confirmed the affordable unit count is 17 (correcting a possible misstatement or mishearing) 41:34. She discussed the need for a historical marker for the General Glover farm 42:00 and inquired about a site visit involving the Historical Commission. Sam Cole (Leggat McCall) confirmed they met with the Historical Commission and discussed a site visit, agreeing to coordinate one with the Planning Board [45:54 - 47:13]. Chair Ippolito noted coordination with Marblehead’s historical representative. Mr. Gause clarified the tree removal plan (most trees within the site likely removed, border trees mostly on Tedesco property to remain) 48:20. Mr. Samasko added detail on corner trees potentially being savable but likely not ideal 49:04. Chair Ippolito requested a demolition plan and noted Fire Department comments requiring joint Swampscott/Marblehead review for access and safety 43:25. She emphasized the importance of the traffic peer review, particularly regarding pedestrian safety and circulation given the site’s proximity to amenities 50:18. Member McClung confirmed the applicant received the traffic peer review and asked about dialogue with Salem officials 51:49; Mr. Samasko confirmed their engineer met with Salem officials 52:43.
  • Public Comment: Chair Ippolito opened the floor for public comment, but none was offered 54:17.
  • Next Steps: Chair Ippolito summarized that the Board would continue review, solicit comments from other town boards/committees (within 30/60 days), await peer review for stormwater, coordinate a site visit with the Historical Commission, and anticipate AG approval by Nov 9th, allowing for a more substantive review at the November 14th meeting 55:25.

3. Application for Endorsement of Plan Not Requiring Approval (ANR 22-01)

  • Presentation: Mark Karnitsky presented the ANR application for 149 Atlantic Ave and 15 Brown Rd 57:23. He explained it involved transferring a small (354 sq ft) non-buildable parcel from the Murcott property to his property, requiring the ANR endorsement to record the deed.
  • Board Discussion & Vote: Chair Ippolito explained the ANR process: it confirms frontage and access remain unchanged, thus not requiring subdivision approval 58:33. Member Bill Quinn asked about abutters; Mr. Karnitsky (acting potentially as counsel, given his explanation 1:00:25) clarified ANRs are administrative and don’t typically require abutter notice unless zoning non-conformities are created (which was not the case here). Chair Ippolito added that Planning Board endorsement doesn’t imply zoning compliance regardless 1:01:54. With no further questions, Member Patsios moved to endorse ANR 22-01 1:03:02. Member Quinn seconded 1:03:13. The motion passed unanimously (Ippolito, Shactman, McClung, Quinn, Patsios all Aye) [1:03:14 - 1:03:34]. Board members were reminded to sign the mylar plan at Town Hall.

4. Approval of Minutes Town Planner Marissa Meaney presented minutes for January 8, February 8, March 14, March 21, April, and September meetings 1:05:10. Board members reviewed the documents. A minor correction (date reference) was noted for the February 8 minutes by Member McClung 1:06:33. References to outdated regulations were noted for removal/update from March 21 minutes 1:08:48. Discussion arose regarding the status of the Lodge Road property mentioned in the March minutes 1:10:15; Ms. Meaney clarified it’s before the ZBA due to complex zoning/grandfathering issues dating back to 1948/1949 1:10:25. A motion was made (mover unclear, seconded by Member Quinn 1:14:41) to approve the minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously 1:14:45. Chair Ippolito noted she had June minutes to provide; Ms. Meaney would retrieve July minutes.

5. Other Business

  • Pine Street: Update requested 1:14:47. Ms. Meaney confirmed the property is under purchase and sale agreement to the developers of The Avery 1:14:49. Chair Ippolito expressed surprise given previous unaddressed changes and the sale price 1:15:08. Ms. Meaney stated the ZBA decision transfers to the new owner, whose intent appears to be building the previously approved project 1:16:08.
  • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Heidi Weir, Director of Aging Services and representing Swampscott for All Ages, introduced the topic 1:17:29. She highlighted the town’s aging demographic and the potential for ADUs to support aging in place. She requested placing ADU bylaw revisions on a future agenda for discussion and potential community outreach [~1:18:45].
    • Member Bill Quinn provided background on past efforts, noting recurring “fear” and specific sticking points like attached vs. detached units and potential misuse (e.g., Airbnb) 1:19:08. He emphasized potential benefits like allowing homeowners to downsize into an ADU while renting the main house, but noted restrictive size limits (e.g., 800 or 1000 sq ft) could hinder this [~1:21:00].
    • Chair Ippolito recalled past discussions, including fears about ending single-family zoning with detached units and the high cost of building new detached structures 1:23:29. She mentioned a previous idea of piloting ADUs in the Olmsted Historic District due to existing carriage houses [~1:24:30], suggesting a phased approach might build public comfort. She stressed the need to clarify the bylaw’s mission to ensure it helps intended residents [~1:27:00].
    • Member David Shactman argued limiting ADUs to existing structures town-wide might be more effective than limiting geographically (like Olmsted) or focusing excessively on attached vs. detached 1:28:05. He felt limiting to existing structures addresses the new construction fear directly.
    • Ms. Meaney noted the current bylaw distinguishes ADUs from two-families (no separate utilities/address) and has an 800 sq ft limit 1:30:43. She described a recent ZBA case (8 Stern St) illustrating complexities around additions and detached garages, suggesting the current rules sometimes lead to workarounds (like building breezeways) that revised ADU rules might simplify [~1:31:34].
    • Member McClung raised the need for data (e.g., number of existing detached garages) and precedent examples from other towns (like Marblehead) to inform the discussion and public outreach 1:34:09.
    • Director Weir mentioned looking at comparable towns 1:39:30. Chair Ippolito suggested checking with MAPC/MassHousing 1:40:05. Ms. Meaney noted previous drafts drew from Brookline and Salem 1:40:14. Member McClung found Salem and Concord had passed ADU bylaws 1:48:58.
    • ADU Next Steps: Agreement was reached to compile existing research and data (Ms. Meaney to create a shared OneDrive folder 1:45:04), investigate comparable towns, check deadlines for May Town Meeting 1:45:22, and plan community outreach (potentially involving Ms. Weir’s high school student media project 1:48:09 and blockchain technology for input 1:42:46). Chair Ippolito, Member Quinn, and Member McClung appeared positioned to lead the Board’s effort.
  • Project Updates (via Margie Seligman & others):
    • Hadley School: Director Seligman explained the Select Board paused the RFP process for Hadley reuse options to consider potential synergies with the Hawthorne property 2:01:49. Director Weir elaborated on a CIC proposal for Hadley as a multi-generational “Center for Active Living” potentially combined with affordable senior housing upstairs 2:03:39.
    • Hawthorne Property: Director Seligman described plans to hire a consultant for public engagement on the reuse/redesign of the entire parcel, building on the open space concept approved at Town Meeting but exploring all options [2:05:52, 2:09:10]. Chair Ippolito and Member Shactman expressed concern, recalling Town Meeting voted specifically for open space, implying demolition of the restaurant building [2:06:40, 2:07:37]. Director Seligman clarified the process aims to vet all ideas, including programming within the open space (e.g., passive vs. active recreation, potential small commercial component near Humphrey St as previously discussed) but acknowledged the initial concept involved demolition [~2:10:08, 2:12:08]. Chair Ippolito reiterated strongly that keeping the building seemed contrary to the Town Meeting vote 2:13:24.
    • Archer Street: Director Seligman noted the Select Board would discuss eminent domain procedures 2:14:42. The Town is aware of timing issues regarding the 40B application filed for one parcel and potential Safe Harbor status. Acquisition of the Hoss parcel (across the street) is proceeding, with an adjacent owner donating land 2:15:49. Member McClung expressed concern about the “optics” of eminent domain vs. affordable housing for the contested parcel 2:17:10.
    • Pitman House (Elm Street Development): Director Seligman confirmed the building permit for the Elm St project is likely held up by the need to relocate the historic Pitman House 1:51:58. The Historical Commission deemed it significant, triggering a demo delay. Efforts are underway to potentially acquire a lot on Hillside Ave (owned by Bill DiMento) for relocation 1:52:23. Complexities include the condition of an adjacent multi-family (uninhabitable, absentee landlord 1:55:59) and exploring options like moving only the older section of the Pitman house, potentially combining lots for affordable units, and assessing the cost-effectiveness of moving vs. new construction [~1:57:00]. Habitat for Humanity and a specialized moving company are involved.
    • Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan: Director Seligman announced the Town received a grant to create a town-wide pedestrian and bicycle plan and requested Planning Board assistance 2:17:46.

6. Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made by Member McClung 2:19:03 and passed unanimously 2:19:07.

Section 4: Executive Summary

The Swampscott Planning Board meeting on October 17, 2022, covered a major development proposal, an administrative land matter, backlog minutes approval, and initiated a significant policy discussion on housing, alongside updates on several key town projects.

Glover Residences Initial Review: The Board conducted a preliminary, non-voting review of the 140-unit Glover Residences project at 299 Salem Street [~1:51:00], proposed by Leggat McCall Properties under the new Glover Multifamily Overlay District. Final AG approval of the district zoning is pending (expected Nov 9). The developers presented detailed plans conforming to the overlay, highlighting site layout, architecture (including incorporating prior feedback like changing gables to hip roofs 21:25), parking, amenities, and sustainability efforts. Board members provided feedback on parking screening, potential building design tweaks 32:10, pedestrian circulation, EV charging 39:29, and landscaping 36:29. Next steps include peer reviews of traffic and stormwater plans, and a coordinated site visit with the Historical Commission ahead of the November 14th meeting 55:25. Significance: This project represents a major housing development utilizing a newly created zoning overlay, aiming to revitalize a prominent derelict site at Vinnin Square.

ANR Approval: A straightforward application (ANR 22-01) for a minor lot line adjustment between 149 Atlantic Ave and 15 Brown Rd was presented by resident Mark Karnitsky 57:23 and unanimously endorsed by the Board 1:03:14. Significance: Routine administrative action demonstrating efficient processing of non-controversial land matters.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Discussion Launched: Prompted by Heidi Weir (Director of Aging Services) and Bill Quinn (Planning Board Member/Swampscott for All Ages) 1:17:29, the Board engaged in a substantial discussion about potentially revising the town’s ADU bylaw. The discussion highlighted the potential benefits for aging in place and housing diversity, but also underscored significant challenges faced in previous attempts, including public fear (detached units ending single-family zoning, potential for short-term rentals), complexities around attached vs. detached units, restrictive size limits, and whether to limit changes to existing structures 1:28:05. Significance: This discussion signals renewed effort to tackle a complex housing policy issue aimed at increasing housing options within existing neighborhoods, reflecting broader state and local interest in ADUs. The Board agreed to gather data, research approaches in comparable towns (Salem, Concord mentioned 1:48:58), and plan community outreach for a potential May Town Meeting article 1:45:22.

Updates on Key Town Projects: Margie Seligman (Director of Community & Economic Development) provided updates:

  • Hadley/Hawthorne: Reuse planning for both properties is being considered potentially in tandem, pausing the Hadley RFP process 2:01:49. A consultant will be hired for public engagement on the Hawthorne parcel’s redesign, building on the open space concept approved by Town Meeting 2:09:10. Concerns were raised by Board members about potentially reusing the Hawthorne building, which seemed contrary to the Town Meeting vote for demolition and open space [2:06:40, 2:13:24].
  • Archer Street: The Select Board is discussing eminent domain for one parcel targeted for a 40B project (for which state site eligibility was granted) 2:14:42. Acquisition of the nearby Hoss parcel for conservation is proceeding 2:15:49.
  • Pitman House: Relocation efforts for the historic house (required for the Elm Street development) are ongoing, involving potential lot acquisition and complex logistics 1:55:59.
  • Pine Street: The approved development site is under contract to be sold 1:14:49.
  • Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan: The Town received a grant to develop a comprehensive plan 2:17:46.

Significance: These updates highlight the interconnectedness and complexity of multiple major town initiatives involving land use, housing, historic preservation, and public space, indicating a busy period for town development and planning.

Section 5: Analysis

This Planning Board meeting demonstrated a mix of routine administrative functions, substantive project review, and complex policy deliberation, all grounded in the specific context of Swampscott’s development landscape.

Glover Residences - Cautious Progress: The presentation by Leggat McCall 1:51:00 was thorough, showcasing responsiveness to previous informal feedback (e.g., adopting hip roofs 21:25). However, the inability to hold a formal hearing due to pending AG approval 0:00:00 limited the depth of review. The Board, particularly Chair Ippolito and Member McClung, effectively used the time for initial feedback, focusing on design aesthetics, pedestrian safety 50:18, parking impact 34:15, and historical context 42:00. The petitioners appeared collaborative but deferred technical details (traffic response 52:04, civil plans) appropriately to the next meeting. The dynamic suggested a professional working relationship, but the true tests will come when detailed peer reviews are discussed and binding decisions are made.

ADU Discussion - Familiar Hurdles, Renewed Push: The re-emergence of the ADU discussion 1:17:29, spearheaded by advocates for aging residents (Director Weir, Member Quinn), highlighted persistent obstacles. The arguments presented revealed a clear tension between the desire for flexible housing options and deep-seated community concerns (“fear”) about neighborhood character change, density, and potential misuse (Airbnb) 1:19:08. Member Shactman’s focus on limiting changes to existing structures 1:28:05 represented a pragmatic attempt to address the most potent fear (new construction of secondary units). Chair Ippolito’s suggestion of piloting in a specific district 1:24:30 reflected caution born from past failed attempts. Member McClung’s call for data and precedent 1:34:09 underscored the need for a more robust, evidence-based public outreach strategy than may have occurred previously. The effectiveness of this renewed push will depend heavily on the Board’s ability (with staff support) to frame the issue clearly, address fears directly with data and examples, and build community consensus – a challenging task given the history described.

Hawthorne Reuse - Potential Disconnect with Town Meeting?: The discussion around the Hawthorne property reuse plan 2:05:52 revealed a potentially significant point of friction. While Director Seligman framed the upcoming consultant engagement as building on the Town Meeting-approved open space concept, the mention of keeping reuse of the building itself on the table seemed to directly contradict the understanding articulated by Chair Ippolito and Member Shactman [2:06:40, 2:13:24]. They recalled the vote implying demolition of the restaurant structure as a prerequisite for creating open space. This exchange highlighted a possible disconnect between the administration’s planning process and the perceived mandate from Town Meeting, suggesting a need for careful communication and clarification moving forward to maintain public trust regarding this high-profile acquisition.

Staff Role & Interconnected Projects: The contributions of Town Planner Meaney and Director Seligman were crucial in providing context, procedural guidance, and updates on a wide array of interconnected projects (Lodge Rd 1:10:25, Pine St 1:14:49, Hadley 2:01:49, Archer St 2:14:42, Pitman House 1:55:59). Their input underscored the complexity of managing multiple development pressures, affordable housing goals (40B, ADUs), historic preservation mandates, and infrastructure planning (Ped/Bike Plan 2:17:46) simultaneously with limited staff resources, a common challenge in Massachusetts towns.

Overall Dynamics: The Board operated professionally, with Chair Ippolito managing the agenda effectively. Member engagement varied, with McClung consistently probing details, while Quinn and Shactman drove specific policy points (ADUs). The ANR approval 1:03:14 demonstrated efficiency in administrative tasks. The meeting effectively balanced review of a major private development with advancing complex public policy (ADUs) and navigating the ongoing challenges of multiple town-involved land use projects. The underlying theme was managing change and development pressures within the established regulatory framework and community expectations, occasionally revealing tensions where those elements potentially conflict.