Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Review (Based on 4/4/2023 Transcript)

1. Agenda

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

1. Call to Order / Preliminary Business (Implied, before 1:55)
2. Petition 2301: 12 Sheppard Ave - Special Permit for non-conforming uses/structures, site plan, and special permit for construction of a second-story addition. [Approx. Start: 1:55]
3. Petition 2302: Santander Bank (Paradise Road) - Special Permit for Signage Revision (Relocation of freestanding sign, addition of rear building sign, and discussion of overall signage plan). [Approx. Start: 3:16]
4. Petition 2303: Tim Hamilton, 29 Andrew Road - Special Permit for construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in a third-floor attic space. [Approx. Start: 28:37]
5. Board Business / New Business
   • Introduction of potential new ZBA member, Susan Sinrich. [Approx. Start: 59:24]
   • Update/Discussion on documentation status for another case (Mr. Cipolletta). [Approx. Start: 1:00:13]
6. Adjournment [Approx. Start: 1:01:21]

2. Speaking Attendees

Based on the transcript and context of MA Town Government / Swampscott:

• ZBA Chair (Name not stated): [Speaker 2] (Leads meeting procedures, motions, votes, guides discussion)
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 4] (Active in discussion, makes initial motion, critiques plans, discusses bylaw intent)
• ZBA Member Dan (Name not stated in full): [Speaker 7] (Experienced member, provides historical context/precedent, voices concerns about ADU use and plan quality)
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 8] (Participates in discussion, comments on variance difficulty)
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 11] (Participates in discussion, seconds motion)
• ZBA Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 12] (Participates in discussion, asks clarifying questions)
• Marissa Corrielus (Town Staff Liaison): [Speaker 5] (Provides procedural guidance, relays information from other departments, explains bylaw details and upcoming Town Meeting context, introduces potential new member)
• Town Staff: [Speaker 15] (Brief interjections on logistics/confirmation)
• Adam Braylard (Attorney for Santander): [Speaker 1] (Presents Petition 2302 for Santander Bank)
• Santander Representative (Likely Lauren Tolman, Image One): [Speaker 13] (Clarifies technical sign details for Santander)
• Tim Hamilton (Applicant, 29 Andrew Rd): [Speaker 3], [Speaker 10] (Presents Petition 2303 for Accessory Dwelling Unit)
• Ralph Souppa (Resident, 36 Andrew Road): [Speaker 9] (Provides public comment supporting Petition 2303)
• Public Commenter (Name not stated): [Speaker 6] (Asks procedural and clarifying questions on multiple petitions)
• Unknown Speaker: [Speaker 14] (Closing remark)

3. Meeting Minutes

Call to Order: (Implied prior to transcript start)

Petition 2301: 12 Sheppard Ave ZBA Member [Speaker 4] made a motion to approve petition 2301 for a special permit for non-conforming uses and structures, site plan review, and a special permit for the construction of a second-story addition at 12 Sheppard Ave, based on submitted plans for construction on the existing footprint 2:15. The motion was seconded by the ZBA Chair 2:49. Vote: The motion passed unanimously (Aye votes heard) 2:49.

Petition 2302: Santander Bank Signage (Paradise Road) The ZBA Chair introduced the petition for Santander Bank regarding sign revisions 3:16. Attorney Adam Braylard, representing Santander, presented the application 3:33. He explained the request involved two key items requiring ZBA approval: 1) Relocating an existing freestanding sign on the property, and 2) Seeking a determination/permission to add a new sign to the rear of the building facing Sunbeam Lane. Attorney Braylard noted that other exterior renovations had received a building permit and that the Building Department and Community Development department directed Santander to the ZBA for these specific sign issues 4:30. He stated the proposed relocation of the freestanding sign complies with bylaw dimensions 12:39.

The ZBA Chair immediately raised concerns regarding the proposed signage plan potentially violating the bylaw’s limits of one sign per building side and the maximum 60 sq. ft. total signage per side 6:54. A significant discussion ensued regarding whether the proposed Santander “flame” logos constituted “signs” under the bylaw [7:28, 13:03]. Attorney Braylard indicated the Building Department had apparently not considered the flames as signs, but acknowledged the ZBA might interpret it differently 8:31.

Board members debated the interpretation. While Member [Speaker 4] and the Chair acknowledged the flame logo “feels like a sign” 20:29, there was consensus that the overall redesign was aesthetically a “huge improvement” 13:10. However, members emphasized their constraint to follow the bylaw regarding the number of signs and square footage [18:16, 24:00]. The Chair noted the ZBA lacks jurisdiction to grant a variance for exceeding these limits in this context 18:24.

Discussion occurred regarding the unique nature of the property, with Sunbeam Lane functioning actively behind the building. This led to some openness towards allowing the rear sign, arguing the building doesn’t have a traditional “rear” facade [17:41, 19:27].

A public commenter [Speaker 6] inquired about the possibility of seeking a variance 22:46. ZBA Member [Speaker 4] explained the high bar for variances and the Board’s historical reluctance to grant them 23:38.

Ultimately, Attorney Braylard, stating he had the authority, agreed to remove the proposed flame logos from the plans to achieve compliance with the “one sign per side” interpretation [20:58, 21:56].

The ZBA Chair made a motion to approve petition 2302 for the sign special permit, including the relocation of the freestanding sign and installation of other proposed exterior signage, with the explicit condition that the “flame” logos are removed from the gray portions of the building facades 27:07. ZBA Member [Speaker 11] seconded the motion 27:43. Vote: The motion passed unanimously (5-0 noted, Aye votes heard) [27:47 - 27:50].

Petition 2303: Tim Hamilton, 29 Andrew Road (Accessory Dwelling Unit - ADU) The ZBA Chair opened the hearing for Petition 2303 for a special permit to construct an ADU in the third-floor attic space at 29 Andrew Road 28:37. The applicant, Tim Hamilton, joined the meeting remotely 28:56.

Town Staff Liaison Marissa Corrielus relayed that the Building Inspector had reviewed the plans with no issues, but requested clarification on the room layout to ensure compliance with the maximum two-bedroom limit for ADUs 29:05. Mr. Hamilton described the layout based on his hand-drawn plan, identifying two bedrooms, a living area, kitchen, and bathroom [29:53 - 31:16, 33:09 - 35:40]. He confirmed adequate parking (approx. 6 spaces) and a second means of egress [35:42, 36:55].

Ralph Souppa, a resident across the street at 36 Andrew Road, spoke in support, confirming ample parking and the historical presence of occupants on the third floor 37:39.

The discussion shifted significantly when ZBA Member [Speaker 4] asked about the intended use of the apartment 38:55. Mr. Hamilton confirmed his plan was to rent the apartment out 39:01. The ZBA Chair and Ms. Corrielus immediately noted that the current Swampscott zoning bylaw governing accessory apartments restricts their use primarily to housing family members or caretakers and explicitly states they do not create a two-family dwelling for general rental purposes [39:11, 40:14, 41:52].

A detailed discussion followed about the bylaw’s intent and limitations. ZBA Member Dan strongly objected, stating the application seemed aimed at creating a rental unit, contrary to the bylaw’s purpose as historically interpreted by the board (citing examples of approvals for specific family members) 42:39. He also severely criticized the submitted hand-drawn plan as inadequate and lacking professionalism [44:28, 48:15]. ZBA Member [Speaker 4] concurred, emphasizing the bylaw’s stated intent for “extended family” housing 43:47 and agreeing the plan quality set a poor precedent 47:09.

Ms. Corrielus informed the applicant and the Board about a relevant warrant article scheduled for the upcoming May Town Meeting 52:37. This proposal seeks to amend the ADU bylaw, potentially allowing ADUs by-right (via building permit, bypassing ZBA special permit for internal/attached ADUs), adopting the state definition, allowing detached ADUs via special permit, and removing restrictions on occupancy (thus potentially allowing rentals).

Given the direct conflict between the applicant’s stated rental intent and the current bylaw, and the potential for the bylaw to change shortly, the Board discussed options. Ms. Corrielus and the Chair suggested continuing the hearing might be the best course [48:31, 54:11]. Mr. Hamilton agreed to delay the decision pending the Town Meeting outcome 57:25.

The ZBA Chair made a motion to continue the hearing for Petition 2303 to the June 20th ZBA meeting [57:58, 58:20]. ZBA Member [Speaker 4] seconded the motion 58:24. (Vote not explicitly stated, but continuance was enacted).

Board Business / New Business Ms. Corrielus introduced Susan Sinrich, a local realtor interested in joining the ZBA as a member 59:24. Ms. Corrielus noted the next step involves Ms. Sinrich attending a Select Board meeting for potential appointment.

A brief exchange occurred regarding the status of supplemental documentation promised by an attorney (Mr. Cipolletta) for a different continued case, with Ms. Corrielus indicating she expected it soon [1:00:13 - 1:00:41].

Adjournment A motion was made by the ZBA Chair to adjourn 1:01:21. ZBA Member [Speaker 11] seconded. Vote: The motion passed (implied) 1:01:25.

4. Executive Summary

This Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting addressed three petitions, resulting in one conditional approval, one continuance pending potential town-wide bylaw changes, and one routine approval.

Santander Bank Signage Approved with Modifications: Santander Bank received approval for signage changes at its prominent Paradise Road location, including relocating a freestanding sign and adding a sign to the rear facade 3:16. However, this approval came after significant discussion and a key modification. The ZBA determined that proposed “flame” logos counted as additional signs, violating the bylaw limit of one sign per facade [6:54, 13:03]. The bank’s attorney, Adam Braylard, agreed to remove these logos 20:58, allowing the ZBA to grant the special permit 27:07.

• Significance for Swampscott: This decision allows a major business to modernize its appearance while demonstrating the ZBA’s strict adherence to the sign bylaw’s quantitative limits, even when aesthetically debatable. It highlights the Board’s role in interpreting ambiguous terms like “sign” and underscores the limitations on signage allowed for businesses in town.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Decision Deferred: A proposal by Tim Hamilton to create an ADU at 29 Andrew Road 28:37 was continued to June 57:58. The continuance was prompted by Mr. Hamilton’s stated intention to rent the unit 39:01, which conflicts with the current Swampscott bylaw restricting ADU occupancy primarily to family or caretakers 40:14. The Board also expressed concerns about the adequacy of the submitted hand-drawn plans 44:28. Critically, Town Staff Liaison Marissa Corrielus informed the applicant of an upcoming Town Meeting (May 16th) vote on a revised ADU bylaw 52:37. If passed, the new bylaw could potentially allow ADUs to be rented and streamline the approval process, possibly making ZBA review unnecessary for this type of internal ADU.

• Significance for Swampscott: This case directly highlights the tension between existing zoning regulations and the push for more flexible housing options, including rentals, amid a housing crisis. The outcome rests squarely on the upcoming Town Meeting vote. If the ADU bylaw changes pass, it could significantly impact homeowners’ ability to create and potentially rent out accessory units, influencing housing stock and neighborhood character. If it fails, applicants like Mr. Hamilton face the current, more restrictive rules enforced by the ZBA.

Other Business: The ZBA quickly approved a second-story addition petition for 12 Sheppard Ave 2:15. The Board was also introduced to Susan Sinrich, a resident expressing interest in joining the ZBA 59:24.

5. Analysis

This ZBA meeting transcript offers insights into the Board’s operational dynamics, its interpretation of Swampscott’s bylaws, and the direct influence of broader town policy debates (like ADUs) on individual applications.

Bylaw Adherence vs. Interpretation: The Santander sign case demonstrated the Board’s commitment to the letter of the bylaw, particularly regarding quantitative restrictions (one sign per facade, square footage) [6:54, 18:16]. The Chair and members were unwilling to overlook the potential violation caused by the flame logos, despite acknowledging the overall aesthetic improvement 13:10. This contrasts slightly with their willingness to interpret the location restriction more flexibly regarding the “rear” sign, acknowledging the property’s unique layout and the functional importance of the Sunbeam Lane frontage [17:41, 19:27]. This suggests the Board distinguishes between explicit numerical limits (less flexible) and locational descriptions where site specifics might warrant interpretation. The applicant’s pragmatic concession on the flame logos 20:58 proved crucial for approval, indicating an understanding of the Board’s non-negotiable stance on the sign count. The discrepancy noted between the Building Department’s apparent initial view and the ZBA’s final interpretation [7:43-9:08] points to potential inter-departmental coordination challenges or differing interpretive standards, a recurring theme in municipal governance.

ADU Case: Foreshadowing Town Meeting Debate: The Hamilton ADU application became a microcosm of the larger debate surrounding ADU regulations in Swampscott. The applicant’s candidness about rental intentions 39:01 brought the core conflict with the existing bylaw into sharp focus. Member Dan’s arguments [42:39, 44:28] reflected a more traditional view of ADUs as tools for family housing, expressing concern about implicitly facilitating general rentals and critiquing the plan’s quality – potentially signaling resistance to a broader liberalization of ADU rules. Member [Speaker 4] also anchored the current bylaw’s intent firmly in family support 43:47. The Town Staff Liaison’s clear explanation of the proposed Town Meeting changes 52:37 effectively shifted the decision horizon, offering the applicant a potential alternative path that aligns with his goals but bypasses the current ZBA’s constraints. The decision to continue 57:58 was a practical outcome reflecting the political reality that the underlying rules might soon change, rendering the current ZBA review potentially moot or fundamentally altered. The sharp critique of the plan’s quality [44:28, 47:09] also served as a clear message about the Board’s expectations for application materials, regardless of the project’s scope.

Board Dynamics: The Chair effectively managed the meeting flow and discussions. Member Dan emerged as a voice emphasizing precedent and caution, particularly regarding perceived deviations from bylaw intent. The Board demonstrated a unified stance on adhering to clear bylaw restrictions (sign count) and appeared collectively reluctant to entertain variances 23:38. The interaction with Town Staff was pivotal, providing essential context (upcoming Town Meeting) that reshaped the handling of the ADU petition. Overall, the Board projected an image of diligence in applying existing rules, while implicitly acknowledging that those rules are subject to change through the town’s legislative process (Town Meeting).