2023-02-13: Planning Board

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

Swampscott Planning Board Meeting Review: February 13, 2023

1. Agenda

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

  1. Administrative Site Plan Approval: 12 Shepard Ave (Petition 23-01) 0:00:00
    • Presentation by applicant team regarding proposed second-story addition.
    • Board questions and discussion (paving, landscaping, HVAC, I&I fees, neighbor notification).
    • Public Comment.
    • Board motion and vote on recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
  2. Public Hearing Continuation: 299 Salem Street (Glover Residences at Vinnin Square - SPR22-03) 10:25:14
  3. (Not Discussed in Transcript) Discuss next steps for changes to bylaw regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
  4. (Not Discussed in Transcript) Review and approve minutes from previous meetings.
  5. (Not Discussed in Transcript) Other business that may properly come before the Board.
  6. Adjournment 3:48:29

2. Speaking Attendees

Based on the transcript and context:

  • Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Chair): [Speaker 1]
  • Paul Feldman (Attorney for Leggat McCall Properties): [Speaker 2]
  • Dave Zussman (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 3] (Also misattributed to Daniel Nellhaus at 5:35 and 7:33)
  • Ted Ducey (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 4], [Speaker 16] (Tag [Speaker 4] also misattributed during roll call responses for Mike Soroka and Dave Zussman)
  • Thad (?) / Applicant Representative (Leggat McCall Team - Design/Architecture): [Speaker 5]
  • Marissa Kearney (Town Planner): [Speaker 6]
  • Ken Shutzer (Attorney / Resident, 1 Salem St): [Speaker 7]
  • Jerome Sanders (Resident, President 1 Salem St Condo Assoc): [Speaker 8] (Tag also misattributed at 0:00 and 6:34)
  • Craig (?) / Applicant Representative (Architect/Designer for 12 Shepard Ave): [Speaker 9]
  • Mike Soroka (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 10]
  • Wendy Mayer (Resident, 57 Linden Ave): [Speaker 11]
  • Applicant Representative (Leggat McCall Team - possibly Bill Gause?): [Speaker 12]
  • Lisa (Resident, Summit Estates): [Speaker 13]
  • Bill Quinn (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 14]
  • Brian Drummond (Resident / Tree Committee?): [Speaker 15]
  • Daniel Nellhaus (Applicant/Homeowner, 12 Shepard Ave): (Inferred) Speaker at 5:35, 7:33 (misidentified as [Speaker 3] in transcript).
  • Matthew Wolverton (Applicant Attorney for 12 Shepard Ave): (Inferred) Speaker at 0:00, 6:34 (misidentified as [Speaker 8] in transcript).
  • Emily Pauls (Lynn Daily Item Reporter): (Inferred) Speaker introduced at 15:26.
  • Jonathan Lehman (Historical Commission Representative): (Inferred) Speaker introduced at 17:06.

(Note: Board Member Pat mentioned at 6:48 did not appear to speak or have a speaker tag assigned).

3. Meeting Minutes

Meeting: Swampscott Planning Board Date: February 13, 2023 (inferred) Location: Virtual (Zoom)

Attendees (Based on Inference):

  • Angela Ippolito (Chair)
  • Ted Ducey (Member)
  • Mike Soroka (Member)
  • Dave Zussman (Member)
  • Bill Quinn (Member - joined late 59:38)
  • Marissa Kearney (Town Planner)
  • Applicants & Representatives (12 Shepard Ave, 299 Salem St)
  • Members of the Public & Press

1. Administrative Site Plan Approval: 12 Shepard Ave (Petition 23-01) 0:00:00

  • Presentation: Matthew Wolverton (Applicant Attorney) introduced the project. Craig (?) (Applicant Representative/Designer) presented plans for a second-story addition within the existing footprint on Shepard Avenue 0:10. He described how the design adds bedroom/bathroom space by extending the roofline slightly (approx. 2.5 feet height increase) and incorporating dormers, maintaining the existing architectural style [0:29 - 5:02]. He confirmed no changes to paving or landscaping 5:04.
  • Board Discussion: Chair Ippolito inquired about HVAC location (existing side/rear corner 5:18), neighbor notification (to occur for ZBA hearing 6:03), and the number of added bedrooms (three 6:23). The DPW’s I&I (Inflow & Infiltration) fee calculation of $6,600 ($2,200 per added bedroom) was confirmed by the applicant Daniel Nellhaus(?) 7:33 and discussed by the board as a standard requirement 7:19. Board members Ted Ducey, Mike Soroka, and Dave Zussman indicated they had no significant questions, with Member Ducey noting familiarity with the house and finding the plans well-conceived [6:48 - 7:18].
  • Public Comment: Wendy Mayer pointed out street name corrections (Shepard Avenue, not Street; Atlantic Avenue, not Humphrey Street) but stated no objection to the project 9:38.
  • Motion: Member Ted Ducey moved to recommend favorable action to the ZBA 8:23.
  • Vote: The motion was seconded (implicitly). A roll call vote was taken: Angela Ippolito (Yes), Ted Ducey (Yes), Mike Soroka (Aye), Dave Zussman (Aye). Bill Quinn was noted as absent at this time.
    • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (4-0) 8:46. The Planning Board will recommend favorable action to the ZBA.

2. Public Hearing Continuation: 299 Salem Street (Glover Residences at Vinnin Square - SPR22-03) 10:25:14

  • Applicant Update: Chair Ippolito reconvened the continued public hearing. Paul Feldman (Attorney for Applicant Leggat McCall) stated that the applicant team believed they had addressed previous board and peer reviewer comments and incorporated feedback into the design. He expressed appreciation for the input and stated they had no new materials to present but were ready to answer questions and hoped for a favorable vote 11:40.
  • Public Comment Procedure: The Board discussed whether to take public comment before or after reviewing the draft decision. Member Soroka suggested taking comments first, which Chair Ippolito agreed to [14:08 - 15:25]. The public hearing remained open for comment.
  • Public Comment: 15:26
    • Emily Pauls (Lynn Daily Item) asked for confirmation to use project renderings provided by Town Planner Kearney. Applicant representatives Feldman and Thad(?) agreed, offering to ensure she had the latest versions [15:34 - 17:03].
    • Jonathan Lehman (Historical Commission) confirmed the latest comments (Feb 9th) were submitted and understood to be incorporated in the draft decision [17:06 - 18:03].
    • Jerome Sanders (President, 1 Salem St Condo Assoc.) reiterated concerns from a previously submitted letter (55 signatures) regarding traffic impacts at the Vinnin Square/Salem St/Paradise Rd intersection 18:12. He argued the applicant’s traffic study (done during COVID, Aug 2021) was not representative and urged the town to commission an independent study (funded by the developer) before project approval, with a condition for the developer to cooperate with resulting mitigation efforts [19:19 - 23:24].
    • Wendy Mayer (57 Linden Ave) expressed disappointment about lack of notification to “near abutters” about the initial zoning approval 24:01. She echoed traffic concerns and asked for a height comparison between the proposed 49-foot building and the existing “gold building” at Vinnin Square to better understand the scale 25:33. Chair Ippolito noted the difficulty in comparing without records of the older building but acknowledged the concern 26:46.
    • Brian Drummond asked if a shadow study was done, concerned about winter icing on streets/intersection due to shadows 28:10. Chair Ippolito stated one was not required, citing lack of immediate residential abutters and reduced impervious surface 28:50. Mr. Drummond reiterated his concern about traffic safety impacts 29:57.
    • Ken Shutzer (Attorney/Resident, 1 Salem St) raised questions about linkage/mitigation funds from the developer for traffic issues, specifically mentioning the narrowness of Salem St near the intersection and the idea of a roundabout 30:45. He emphasized the need to secure funding commitments before approval and noted the regional nature of the traffic issue (involving Salem, Marblehead) and the impact of new school traffic [33:38 - 36:44].
    • Lisa (Resident, Summit Estates) described current difficulties entering/exiting Paradise Road and observed emergency vehicles sometimes needing detours 37:06. She supported further traffic studies, creative solutions (mentioning Naples, FL signal timing), questioned who controls state road signals (Paradise Rd), and felt the project was too large given existing traffic [38:13 - 39:43].
  • Draft Decision Review: 40:56 The Board closed public comment temporarily to review the draft decision document prepared by staff and incorporating input.
    • Historical Context: Chair Ippolito read a detailed history of General John Glover and his connection to the property, emphasizing its significance [51:21 - 58:40].
    • GMOD/Zoning Compliance: The Board reviewed findings confirming the project’s compliance with the Glover Multifamily Overlay District (GMOD) zoning bylaw criteria (unit count, affordability, height, parking, land use, sustainable development principles, design standards, diversified housing) [1:00:10 - 1:12:10]. Member Zussman noted a minor punctuation correction 1:01:58. Member Ducey questioned the definition of “compact” units, which Chair Ippolito explained derived from 40R design standards 1:07:00. A finding regarding the site’s historical significance and potential preservation was discussed 1:08:06.
    • Smart Growth Design Standards: The Board reviewed findings addressing specific Smart Growth Overlay Design Standards:
      • Guiding Principles/Materials/History: Language regarding assessing the original homestead’s structural integrity and potential incorporation into the monument site was discussed extensively 1:14:23. Attorney Feldman expressed concern about vagueness, cost/responsibility, and site constraints 1:18:14. Member Zussman characterized the language as “aspirational” but non-binding 1:20:48. After debate about feasibility and the Board’s role vs. the Historical Commission’s, the language was revised to state the homestead exists and will be assessed by engineers, removing the speculative incorporation language 1:28:16. Applicant Representative Thad(?) expressed skepticism about the structure’s condition and ability to be moved 2:29:28.
      • Height/Massing, Sidewalks, Entrances: Found compliant 1:29:01.
      • Parking Security/Cut-Throughs: Discussion occurred regarding design standards 7.9/7.10 potentially requiring entrance gates 1:31:09. It was clarified this likely referred to internal garage entrances, not the main site entrances 1:40:24. The applicant proposed reassessing cut-through traffic at 60% occupancy and installing traffic calming (speed tables/bumps) if deemed necessary 1:42:08. This was moved to the conditions section 1:44:30.
      • Lighting, Ownership/Maintenance, Monument: Lighting plan confirmed; maintenance responsibility clarified (owner, runs with land); monument finding confirmed 1:46:08.
      • Landscaping/Irrigation: Irrigation confirmed but not detailed on current plans; will be in construction docs 1:51:58. Native species use confirmed 2:01:24. Agreement for site walk with Tree Committee re: saving existing trees confirmed 2:02:47.
      • Stormwater O&M Plan: Submission prior to construction confirmed 1:54:27.
    • Recommendations from Town Agencies: Reviewed, noting responses and plan changes (e.g., enlarged open space, sustainability exhibit) 1:56:35.
    • Conditions: The Board meticulously reviewed and edited conditions:
      • Historical Artifacts/Archaeology: Conditions regarding notifying the Historical Commission, coordinating demolition, reusing identified artifacts (sundial, flagstones, etc. per Appendix), and allowing archaeological assessment were refined 2:04:29. Specific items to be salvaged/reused were moved to an Appendix 2:14:19. Language was added clarifying that salvage/relocation efforts are at the Historical Commission/Town’s expense and discretion, with location determined jointly with the applicant [2:26:57 - 2:32:36]. A deadline for archaeological assessment (prior to demolition, expected after Aug 1, 2023) was discussed and confirmed [2:35:23 - 2:40:13].
      • Traffic Counts/Signal Timing: Condition requiring evaluation of Dec 2022 traffic counts prior to demolition confirmed 2:43:28. Condition requiring traffic signal timing review upon 60% occupancy, with implementation of changes within 3 months of completing the study, was clarified 3:00:23.
      • DPW Infrastructure Contribution: A proposed condition for the applicant to contribute $500/unit ($48k total) towards DPW infrastructure/transportation network operations was introduced, based on a request from DPW Director Presto 3:04:27. Applicant representatives questioned the basis for this fee, distinguishing it from established I&I policy 3:05:12. Extensive discussion followed on whether this was a formal policy, how to handle it given the imminent voting deadline, and the implications if DPW insisted without a written policy 3:10:17. The Board and Applicant agreed to revise the condition to require compliance only if there is a written DPW policy requiring such contributions for infrastructure impacts, deferring the determination of applicability and amount [3:15:04 - 3:19:54].
      • Landscaping Survival: Confirmed 3:20:09.
      • Blue Bikes: Reference clarified to note station is in Salem 3:20:35.
      • Sustainability (Exhibit A): List reviewed. Discussion on the “no smoking on site” item led to refinement: “No smoking will be allowed on site or in the common areas” 3:24:03. Acoustical separation confirmed as a valid sustainability/quality of life feature 3:28:10.
    • Addressing Public Traffic Concerns/Petition: Member Zussman prompted a formal acknowledgement of the traffic concerns raised in public comment and the resident petition 3:29:12. Chair Ippolito and Member Zussman reiterated the reliance on the peer-reviewed traffic study and the plan to reassess at 60% occupancy (which would capture impacts from the new school and other developments). They acknowledged resident anxiety but stated a new study now wouldn’t add much value, and mitigation is the focus. Chair Ippolito noted the issue requires broader regional discussion [3:30:34 - 3:33:19].
    • Rotary Finding: Member Soroka suggested adding a finding acknowledging the discussion of a potential rotary at the Vinnin Square intersection 3:34:39. The Board agreed to add language stating they discussed the feasibility and hope for future conversations with Salem and stakeholders [3:36:02 - 3:39:03].
  • Motion to Close Public Hearing: Chair Ippolito moved to close the public hearing 3:42:04. Seconded. Passed unanimously by voice vote.
  • Motion to Approve Site Plan: Dave Zussman moved that the Planning Board vote to approve the plan approval requested by the applicant, subject to the findings and conditions of the proposed decision as reviewed and amended by the Board 3:45:00. Mike Soroka seconded 3:47:07.
  • Vote: A roll call vote was taken: Angela Ippolito (Aye), Dave Zussman (Aye), Mike Soroka (Aye), Ted Ducey (Aye), Bill Quinn (Aye).
    • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0) 3:47:30. The Site Plan for Glover Residences at Vinnin Square is approved subject to the finalized conditions.

3. Adjournment 3:48:29

  • A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. Passed unanimously by voice vote.

4. Executive Summary

The Swampscott Planning Board held a lengthy meeting on February 13, 2023, focusing primarily on two residential development proposals.

12 Shepard Avenue Addition Approved for ZBA Review The Board quickly reviewed and unanimously recommended favorable action to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a second-story addition at 12 Shepard Avenue 8:46. The project involves adding three bedrooms within the existing footprint, requiring minimal site changes. The standard town I&I fee for added bedrooms will apply 7:39. This project appeared straightforward and non-controversial.

Glover Residences at Vinnin Square (299 Salem St) Gains Approval After Extensive Review The main event was the continuation and conclusion of the public hearing for the large-scale Glover Residences project at the former General Glover House site 10:25. After extensive public comment and meticulous review of a draft decision document, the Planning Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the site plan 3:47:30. This approval clears a major hurdle for the 140-unit development (96 units in Swampscott, 44 in Marblehead) planned under the town-approved Glover Multifamily Overlay District (GMOD) zoning.

Key Outcomes & Significance for Swampscott:

  • Development Proceeds: This project, enabled by Town Meeting votes rezoning the property for denser, mixed-income housing (42:28), will significantly reshape Vinnin Square, adding 96 residential units (including 17 affordable units 1:11:15) on the Swampscott side.
  • Traffic Concerns Acknowledged, Mitigation Planned: Numerous residents voiced strong concerns about existing traffic congestion at the Vinnin Square intersection and the project’s potential impact [18:12, 24:01, 30:45, 37:06]. While the Board relied on the applicant’s peer-reviewed traffic study, they acknowledged the concerns. Key mitigation includes:
    • Applicant-funded improvements to sidewalks, crosswalks, and signals 3:07:05.
    • A requirement to re-evaluate traffic conditions and signal timing when the project reaches 60% occupancy 3:00:23. This future study will capture real-world impacts, including traffic from the new elementary school 3:32:30.
    • Potential installation of speed calming measures within the site if cut-through traffic becomes an issue 1:44:42.
    • A potential financial contribution to DPW for infrastructure impacts, if required by a formal town policy (this point requires further clarification between the applicant and DPW) 3:18:10.
    • The Board added a finding expressing interest in future discussions about a rotary 3:37:59.
  • Historical Significance Addressed: Responding to the site’s history as General Glover’s homestead, the approval includes conditions negotiated with the applicant and informed by the Historical Commission:
    • Assessment of the original structure’s integrity by engineers 1:14:47.
    • Careful demolition coordinated with the Historical Commission 2:13:36.
    • Salvage and reuse of specific historical artifacts (stonework, sundial, gates, etc.) within the site’s public plaza and landscaping, where feasible [2:14:39, 2:18:19].
    • Allowance for limited archaeological assessment prior to demolition, funded by the Historical Commission/Town [2:35:23, 2:39:45].
    • Installation of a monument detailing the site’s history 1:49:41.
  • Design Compliance: The Board found the project complies with the GMOD zoning and Smart Growth Design Standards regarding height, massing, parking, open space, and sustainability features [1:00:10, 1:12:10].

Overall: The Planning Board navigated complex issues of development, traffic, affordability, and historical preservation. While resident concerns about traffic remain significant, the approval incorporates measures aimed at mitigation and future monitoring. The project represents a major step in realizing the Town’s zoning goals for the former General Glover site.

5. Analysis

This Planning Board meeting demonstrated a thorough, albeit lengthy, process for evaluating a major development proposal under Swampscott’s specific zoning framework. The unanimous approval of the Glover Residences project signifies the Board’s conclusion that the proposal, as conditioned, aligns with the town’s adopted Glover Multifamily Overlay District (GMOD) and Smart Growth principles, despite significant public apprehension, primarily concerning traffic.

Dynamics and Effectiveness:

  • Board Deliberation: The Board engaged in detailed, clause-by-clause negotiation of the draft decision with the applicant’s team. This collaborative editing ([1:14:47 - 1:28:55], [2:04:29 - 2:34:40], [3:10:17 - 3:19:54]) resulted in refined conditions acceptable to both parties, showcasing a pragmatic approach to finalizing the approval under a deadline. Chair Ippolito effectively guided the lengthy review, while members like Zussman, Soroka, and Quinn actively shaped the language on key points like historical preservation, traffic mitigation funding, and the potential rotary finding.
  • Applicant Responsiveness: The applicant team (Leggat McCall Properties, represented by Attorney Paul Feldman and others) appeared generally cooperative, having incorporated previous feedback and agreeing to numerous conditions during the hearing process (11:40). They effectively pushed back on conditions perceived as unclear, overly burdensome, or outside their responsibility (e.g., the initial interpretation of the gate requirement 1:36:57, the feasibility/location of preserving the actual Glover house structure [1:18:14, 2:29:03], the basis for the DPW contribution request 3:05:12). Their arguments often centered on feasibility, cost, existing plans, and adherence to established policy, proving persuasive in several instances.
  • Public Comment Impact: Public comment was heavily focused on traffic congestion [18:12, 24:01, 30:45, 37:06], reflecting deep-seated community frustration with the Vinnin Square intersection. While the Board acknowledged these concerns (3:30:34) and added a finding about exploring a rotary 3:37:59, the core reliance remained on the applicant’s traffic study and the planned 60% occupancy reassessment. The comments likely reinforced the Board’s focus on mitigation conditions but did not fundamentally alter the project’s approval or scale, which was largely set by the prior GMOD zoning adoption by Town Meeting. Comments regarding historical significance (17:06, 24:01) likely bolstered the Board’s resolve in negotiating detailed preservation conditions.
  • Handling of Historical Significance: The Board, particularly Chair Ippolito (51:21), placed considerable emphasis on the site’s history. The resulting conditions represent a negotiated compromise: assessment and artifact salvage are required (2:04:29), but the more ambitious (and likely costly/impractical) idea of relocating and restoring the original house structure on-site was effectively shelved, pending further discussion between the applicant and Historical Commission [1:28:16, 2:32:03]. This balanced the desire for preservation with the practicalities of the approved development plan.
  • Unresolved Issues: The last-minute request for a $48,000 DPW contribution created procedural awkwardness 3:04:27. The resolution – making payment contingent on a written town policy 3:18:10 – pragmatically resolved the immediate voting dilemma but highlights potential inconsistencies or lack of clarity in town infrastructure funding mechanisms outside established policies like I&I fees.

Overall Assessment: The Planning Board fulfilled its duty to review the application against the town’s bylaws and design standards. The process allowed for public input and resulted in a detailed approval with numerous conditions aimed at mitigating impacts and honoring the site’s context. However, the meeting also underscored the persistent tension between state/local mandates for housing development and residents’ quality-of-life concerns, particularly regarding traffic infrastructure that lags behind development pressures. The effectiveness of the approved mitigation measures, especially concerning traffic, will only become clear after the project is built and occupied.