Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Review: October 18, 2022

1. Agenda

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

1. Call to Order and Opening Remarks 0:00
2. Approval of Past Meeting Minutes (September 20, 2022 & July 19, 2022) 0:00
3. Petition 21-12: 461-463 Humphrey St (Abdel Aitelhadj) - Request to amend plans for special permit (Continued) / Request to Withdraw 1:59
4. Petition 22-18: 8 Stearns St (Scott Thibodeau) - Dimensional Special Permit/Variance for addition (Continued) 2:45
5. Petition 22-20: 71 Aspen Rd (Brian Burke) - Special Permit/Variance for addition 16:59
6. Petition 22-11: 8 Dennison Ave (Hanover Court LLC) - Dimensional/Site Plan Special Permit for addition (Continued) 26:05
7. Petition 22-21: 0 Lodge Rd (IG Investments LLC) - Dimensional Variance/Finding for buildable lot (Continued) 45:24
8. Discussion of Next Meeting Date & Upcoming Matters (Including Archer St 40B) 45:28
9. Election of New ZBA Chairperson (Deferred) 48:46
10. Adjournment 50:48

2. Speaking Attendees

• Mark Lynch (ZBA Chair): [Speaker 1]
• Marissa Meaney (Town Planner/ZBA Administrator): [Speaker 6], [Speaker 14]
• Dan Racow (ZBA Member): [Speaker 3], [Speaker 9] (Note: Transcript uses both tags for votes/comments attributed to Dan)
• Andy Rose (ZBA Member): [Speaker 8]
• Heather Roman (ZBA Member): [Speaker 10], [Speaker 13]
• Scott Thibodeau (Petitioner for 8 Stearns St / Public Commenter for 8 Dennison Ave): [Speaker 4]
• Brian Burke (Petitioner for 71 Aspen Rd): [Speaker 12]
• Ernie DeMeo (Architect for 71 Aspen Rd): [Speaker 5]
• Paul Lynch (Attorney for Hanover Court LLC, Petitioner for 8 Dennison Ave): [Speaker 2]
• Sylvia Chen (Reporter, Daily Item): [Speaker 11]
• Sonia Slick (Abutter/Public Commenter for 8 Dennison Ave): [Speaker 7]
• Julia Sokol (Applicant Team Member for 8 Dennison Ave): [Speaker 3] (Note: This tag is reused; context at 38:51 indicates a different speaker than Dan Racow)

(Self-Correction during review: Speaker 3 tag was used for both Dan Racow and Julia Sokol. The list above clarifies this based on context. Minutes/Summary/Analysis will use the correct inferred identity based on the timestamp/context).

3. Meeting Minutes

Call to Order & Minutes Approval Chair Mark Lynch called the meeting to order after 7:00 PM on October 18, 2022, noting it was a Zoom-only meeting held pursuant to current law 0:00. Past meeting minutes from September 20, 2022, and July 19, 2022, were presented. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Chair Lynch, seconded by Member Rose 1:01, and approved unanimously by attending members (Lynch, Rose, Roman, Racow) 1:12. Members Dan Racow and Andy Rose noted for the record they had listened to recordings of prior meetings as required for participation [1:15, 1:33].

Petition 21-12: 461-463 Humphrey St Chair Lynch introduced the item 1:59. Town Planner Marissa Meaney reported that the petitioner, Abdel Aitelhadj, had submitted a signed request to withdraw the petition without prejudice, intending to reconstruct according to previously approved plans 2:12. Chair Lynch moved to approve the withdrawal without prejudice, seconded by Member Rose 2:35. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) 2:43.

Petition 22-18: 8 Stearns St Chair Lynch introduced the continued petition by Scott Thibodeau 2:45. Mr. Thibodeau presented revised plans incorporating a breezeway connecting the proposed addition to the existing garage, as suggested by the board at the previous meeting 3:36. Member Dan Racow raised detailed technical concerns 5:25, questioning the precedent of connecting structures with a breezeway, the potential creation of a single, larger non-conforming principal structure (impacting future zoning calculations and potentially exceeding the 15% expansion limit requiring a special permit), and whether eliminating the 10-foot gap impacts fire access. He noted the garage’s existing non-conformities (setbacks, possibly rear yard coverage) and how connecting it might technically create new non-conformities for the combined structure (rear and left side setbacks). Mr. Thibodeau clarified the breezeway would be open underneath (roof only), not enclosed 8:58. Chair Lynch proposed addressing Member Racow’s concerns by adding conditions: finding that the garage remains an accessory, non-habitable structure despite the connection, and ensuring the breezeway remains open underneath to allow access [10:06, 12:22]. Member Rose supported adding conditions 12:11. Mr. Thibodeau agreed to these conditions 13:11. Member Racow indicated this approach could satisfy his concerns 13:40. Chair Lynch made a motion to approve Petition 22-18 with the revised plans (Survey 10/11/22, Architecturals 9/22) and specific conditions: the garage is to remain non-habitable and considered an accessory structure, the breezeway connection shall not have walls and remain open underneath, and work must conform to the plans 14:09. Member Rose seconded 15:46. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) 15:53. Member Racow agreed to write the decision. Chair Lynch explained the 20-day appeal period starts after filing with the Town Clerk 16:21.

Petition 22-20: 71 Aspen Rd Chair Lynch introduced the petition by Brian Burke for a one-story addition 16:59. Mr. Burke introduced his architect, Ernie DeMeo 17:38. Mr. DeMeo presented the project 18:58, explaining it’s a one-story mudroom addition. While complying with setbacks, it increases the lot coverage from 35.91% to 38.48% on an already non-conforming undersized lot (required max 30%). He confirmed the distance between the proposed addition and the existing garage is 11’6” 18:20, exceeding the 10-foot requirement. Chair Lynch analyzed the request under the Buralt standard 21:07, noting the increase in the non-conforming lot coverage requires a Section 6 Special Permit upon a finding that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformity. No members of the public wished to speak 21:56. No board members had further questions 21:56. Chair Lynch moved to grant a Section 6 Special Permit based on the finding that the change (increased lot coverage) is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood 22:17. Member Rose asked for clarification on the specific bylaw section (2.7.3.4 related to non-conforming single/two-family structures vs. MGL c.40A s.6) 23:13. Chair Lynch clarified the motion relies on MGL c.40A Section 6 and the Buralt case standard [23:22, 24:09]. Member Rose offered to write the decision if provided with a template 25:03. Chair Lynch accepted. The motion to approve was seconded (implicitly, roll call followed). The motion passed unanimously (4-0) 25:32.

Petition 22-11: 8 Dennison Ave Chair Lynch introduced the continued petition by Hanover Court LLC 26:05. Attorney Paul Lynch presented on behalf of the applicant, noting architect Derrick Bloom had laryngitis 26:33. Attorney Lynch summarized revisions made since the September hearing to address board and Planning Board concerns, primarily regarding exceeding the 30% maximum lot coverage [26:33 - 30:56]. Revisions included reducing the garage size, moving it further from Stearns St, eliminating a dining room expansion, and reducing the family room width. These changes brought the building coverage into compliance at 29.8%. A landscape plan was added to buffer Stearns Street, and AC condensers were relocated to the roof. Attorney Lynch stated the only relief now sought was a Site Plan Special Permit and a finding under Buralt that the addition to the non-conforming structure was appropriate. Chair Lynch opened the floor for public comment 30:58. Sylvia Chen, reporter for the Daily Item, asked for clarification on the lot coverage rules, which Attorney Lynch provided [32:06, 33:01]. Scott Thibodeau, resident and previous petitioner, spoke in favor 34:18, noting the applicant’s efforts to revise plans and the need for improvement at the property. He accepted the project contingent on maintaining the dead-end status of Stearns St and adherence to town construction hours. Sonia Slick, abutter at 15 Stearns St, also supported the project 37:03, thanking the applicant for preserving specific trees important for local wildlife (owls). She inquired about the plan for replacing a dilapidated fence between the properties 37:03. Julia Sokol, from the applicant team, confirmed the fence would be replaced 38:51. Ms. Slick requested communication regarding work on a wrought iron fence potentially encroaching on her property 39:03. No other public comment was offered 39:38. Member Heather Roman asked for clarification on the relief needed 39:56. Chair Lynch confirmed that since the revisions brought the project into dimensional compliance, the primary need was a finding under Buralt that the work does not increase any non-conformity, which then allows the ZBA to grant the required Site Plan Special Permit [40:09, 41:32]. Chair Lynch moved to close the public hearing, seconded (implicitly), and approved unanimously (4-0) 42:05. Chair Lynch then moved to make a finding that the proposed work does not increase the non-conforming nature of any existing non-conformity, and to grant the Site Plan Special Permit consistent with the amended plans (Survey, Bloom Architecture plans, James Emanuel landscape plan) and the August 14, 2022 letter from Site Engineering Consultants regarding stormwater, with the condition that the stockade fence referenced by Sonia Slick be replaced in kind or better [42:05 - 44:17]. The motion was seconded (implicitly). The motion passed unanimously (4-0) 44:39. Attorney Lynch agreed to submit a proposed decision 44:46.

Petition 22-21: 0 Lodge Rd Town Planner Meaney noted Attorney Paul Lynch (representing IG Investments LLC) had already signed off but provided a signed continuance request 45:24. Chair Lynch moved to continue the petition to the November 15th meeting, seconded (implicitly), and approved unanimously (4-0) [48:33, 48:46].

Discussion of Next Meeting & Chair Election Chair Lynch noted he would be away for the scheduled November 15th meeting but could potentially join via Zoom if needed for a quorum 45:28. He also informed the board about a new 40B petition filed for an Archer Street project (44 units), mentioning procedural steps required and coordination with Town Counsel, alongside the Select Board’s related actions concerning the property purchase [47:06 - 48:30]. The final agenda item, election of a new ZBA Chair, was discussed 48:46. This was predicated on Chair Lynch moving to an associate member role and Member Heather Roman being elevated to a full member. Member Roman stated she received a letter and was sworn in 49:20. However, Town Planner Meaney explained 49:34 there was a procedural issue with the Select Board’s initial action (not properly agenda-listed, required formal vacancy creation by accepting Lynch’s move). This needs to be corrected by the Select Board. The election was therefore deferred to the November meeting 50:21.

Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made 50:48, seconded by Member Rose 50:49, and approved unanimously (Aye votes recorded from Lynch, Rose, Racow) [50:50 - 50:51].

4. Executive Summary

The Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) met on October 18, 2022, addressing several petitions for property additions and modifications, discussing procedural matters, and deferring the election of a new Chair.

Key Decisions & Outcomes:

• 8 Stearns St Addition Approved with Conditions: The Board approved Scott Thibodeau’s petition for a one-story addition after revised plans included a breezeway connecting to the garage 2:45. Following significant discussion about zoning technicalities prompted by Member Dan Racow 5:25, the approval included specific conditions: the breezeway must remain open underneath, and the garage must remain a non-habitable accessory structure [12:22, 14:09]. This decision reflects the ZBA working collaboratively with the applicant to find a path to approval for additions on non-conforming lots while attempting to mitigate potential negative zoning precedents. The vote was unanimous (4-0) 15:53.
• 71 Aspen Rd Addition Approved: Brian Burke’s petition for a one-story mudroom addition was approved via a Section 6 Special Permit 16:59. The Board found that the project’s only non-conformity—an increase in existing excessive lot coverage—was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, meeting the standard required by state law (Buralt case) [21:07, 22:17]. This allows a modest expansion on an already dense lot. The vote was unanimous (4-0) 25:32.
• 8 Dennison Ave Addition Approved After Revisions: Hanover Court LLC received approval for significant renovations and an addition after submitting revised plans that brought the project into compliance with lot coverage requirements 26:05. Having previously faced concerns, the applicant reduced the project’s footprint 26:33. With dimensional relief no longer needed, the Board made a finding that the project didn’t increase non-conformities and granted the necessary Site Plan Special Permit, incorporating landscaping plans and a condition to replace an abutter’s fence 42:05. Neighbor comments were supportive of the revised project [34:18, 37:03]. This outcome shows the impact of ZBA and Planning Board feedback leading to project modifications acceptable to the town and neighbors. The vote was unanimous (4-0) 44:39.
• 461-463 Humphrey St Petition Withdrawn: The petitioner withdrew their request to amend plans, opting instead to build according to the original approval 1:59.
• 0 Lodge Rd Petition Continued: The hearing for IG Investments LLC regarding a vacant lot on Lodge Road was continued to November 15th 45:24.
• Chair Election Deferred: The election of a new ZBA Chair was postponed due to a procedural issue with the Select Board’s appointment process for elevating Member Heather Roman to a full voting member and moving Chair Mark Lynch to an associate role 48:46. This needs formal correction by the Select Board before the ZBA can proceed.
• Upcoming 40B Project Noted: Chair Lynch briefly mentioned a new Comprehensive Permit (40B) application for 44 units on Archer Street has been filed, requiring future ZBA attention and coordination with other town bodies 47:06.

Significance for Residents: The meeting demonstrated the ZBA navigating complex zoning bylaws for common residential additions on Swampscott’s many non-conforming lots. Decisions involved balancing homeowner desires with neighborhood impacts and technical zoning rules, often requiring specific conditions. The successful revision and approval of the 8 Dennison Ave project highlights the process where applicant adjustments can lead to community acceptance. The deferral of the Chair election and the mention of the Archer St 40B project signal ongoing administrative processes and significant development proposals facing the town.

5. Analysis

This Zoning Board of Appeals meeting showcased a board navigating the complexities of Swampscott’s existing housing stock, characterized by non-conforming lots, while applying state zoning law (Buralt) and local bylaws. The dynamics observed suggest a generally functional board aiming for practical solutions within legal constraints.

Board Dynamics and Decision-Making:

• Collaborative Problem-Solving: The handling of 8 Stearns St [2:45-16:18] exemplified the board’s process. Member Racow’s detailed articulation of technical zoning concerns 5:25 concerning precedent, structure classification, and potential new non-conformities was critical. Rather than reaching an impasse, Chair Lynch actively steered the discussion towards a compromise involving specific, enforceable conditions [10:06, 12:22]. This suggests a board willing to engage with technicalities but also pragmatic in finding paths to approval where feasible, albeit potentially creating complex conditional approvals.
• Application of Buralt Standard: The discussions around 71 Aspen Rd [16:59-25:48] and 8 Dennison Ave [26:05-44:51] demonstrated the board’s consistent application of the Buralt framework. For Aspen Rd, the increase in lot coverage triggered the “not substantially more detrimental” finding 21:07. For Dennison Ave, the applicant’s revisions successfully eliminated the need for dimensional relief, shifting the requirement to a simpler finding that no non-conformity was increased 40:35. This adherence to established legal standards provides predictability.
• Efficiency and Consensus: On less complex or revised applications (Aspen Rd, revised Dennison Ave, Humphrey St withdrawal), the board acted efficiently and reached unanimous decisions quickly once the relevant legal standard or procedural step was established.

Effectiveness of Arguments and Presentations:

• Applicant Responsiveness: The petitioners for 8 Stearns St 3:36 and especially 8 Dennison Ave 26:33 demonstrated effectiveness by directly addressing previous board feedback in their revised plans. This responsiveness was key to gaining approval, particularly for 8 Dennison Ave, which also garnered positive comments from neighbors who recognized the changes [34:18, 37:03].
• Technical Expertise: Member Racow’s contribution on 8 Stearns St 5:25 highlighted the value of technical zoning knowledge on the board. His arguments, while probing, forced a more robust solution (conditions) rather than a simple approval or denial.
• Legal Representation: Attorney Paul Lynch’s presentation for 8 Dennison Ave was effective in clearly outlining the changes made and framing the request within the correct procedural context (Site Plan review contingent on a Buralt finding) [26:33, 40:19].

Procedural Adherence and Challenges:

• Navigating Bylaw vs. State Law: The brief discussion on 71 Aspen Rd about citing MGL c.40A s.6 versus a potentially inconsistent local bylaw section [23:13-24:53] hints at underlying complexities in Swampscott’s zoning code that may require future clarification.
• Appointment Procedures: The deferral of the Chair election due to the Select Board’s procedural misstep 49:34 underscores the strict requirements of municipal appointments and the Open Meeting Law. While minor, it highlights the need for careful coordination between town boards.
• Managing Public Input: The Chair effectively managed public comment, allowing relevant input from abutters (Sonia Slick’s fence/tree concerns 37:03) and neighbors (Scott Thibodeau’s conditional support 34:18), while distinguishing informational requests from a reporter 32:06.

Overall Impression: The ZBA operated as a working board focused on applying zoning regulations to specific property requests. The members demonstrated engagement with the details, leveraging individual expertise (like Member Racow’s technical focus) and guided by the Chair towards consensus where possible. The outcomes suggest a board that allows modifications to non-conforming properties but often requires adjustments or conditions to satisfy bylaw requirements and mitigate neighborhood impacts, reflecting the typical challenges of zoning administration in built-out communities like Swampscott. The anticipation of the Archer St 40B petition 47:06 signals potentially more contentious and complex matters on the horizon.