2023-09-11: Planning Board

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

Swampscott Planning Board Meeting Review: September 11, 2023

1. Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda items discussed were:

  1. Call to Order & Opening Remarks 0:00:00
  2. Design Review: Petition 23-13 (Coastal Collective Awning) 0:00:16 - KACY JAURON, 434 HUMPHREY ST (Map 19, Lot 109B) - Review and recommendation for a new business awning.
  3. Continued Public Hearing: Petition 23-06 (29 Essex St Housing) 20:48:00 - REALTY INVESTORS LLC c/o CHRIS DRUCAS, ESQ., 29 ESSEX ST (Map 6, Lot 56) - Site Plan Special Permit request for eight dwelling units (Continued from August). Includes review of Fire and DPW comments, board discussion, public comment period (no public present), closure of public hearing, deliberation on findings, and vote.
  4. Vinnin Square Design Guidelines Update 1:30:57 - Summary and recap of community meeting and survey results.
  5. (Items likely discussed after transcript ends, based on Metadata Agenda):
    • Update on 3A Zoning (MBTA Communities)
    • Update on Hadley Hotel RFP
    • Review and approve past meeting minutes
    • Other business not reasonably anticipated by the Board
  6. Adjournment (Not in transcript)

2. Speaking Attendees

  • Mike (Planning Board Chair): [Speaker 3]
  • Marissa Correll (Town Planner): [Speaker 7]
  • Planning Board Member: [Speaker 11]
  • Angela (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 1]
  • Planning Board Member: [Speaker 12]
  • Casey Jauron (Applicant/Coastal Collective): [Speaker 6]
  • Ted (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 8]
  • Bill (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 5]
  • Planning Board Member/Staff: [Speaker 16]
  • Chris Drukas (Attorney for Applicant, 29 Essex St): [Speaker 4]
  • Peter Pitman (Applicant Team/Architect/Engineer, 29 Essex St): [Speaker 2]
  • Barbara (Applicant Team/Owner, 29 Essex St): [Speaker 10]
  • Joe (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 9]
  • Planning Board Member/Staff: [Speaker 14]
  • Planning Board Member/Staff: [Speaker 15]
  • Planning Board Member: [Speaker 13]

3. Meeting Minutes

Call to Order: Chair Mike called the virtual meeting to order 0:00:00.

1. Design Review: Petition 23-13 (Coastal Collective Awning, 434 Humphrey St) 0:00:16

  • Presentation: Town Planner Marissa Correll presented the application from Casey Jauron for a new awning for her business, Coastal Collective, described as a retail vendor space and art gallery 2:14. The proposed awning is black with white lettering 0:20. Ms. Correll noted the item was placed first due to its straightforward nature 1:08.
  • Use Change & Future Hearing: Ms. Correll clarified that the change from a spa to retail constitutes a change of use requiring a Humphrey Street Site Plan Special Permit, which will necessitate a separate public hearing in October due to noticing requirements 5:31. The awning itself requires a ZBA special permit because it includes lettering/graphics [6:12, 20:11].
  • Awning Details Discussion: Board Member Angela led the questioning regarding awning specifications. Discussion covered the Sunbrella fabric 6:18, its fixed (non-collapsible) nature 6:39, and its consistency with a neighboring awning 7:16. Member Angela noted that while guidelines prefer retractable awnings due to proximity to the beach, fixed awnings are permissible if structurally sound [6:41-7:53]. A discussion occurred regarding color preference; Ms. Jauron preferred navy blue but understood black was potentially required by rule [8:11, 13:13]. Member Angela noted the Humphrey Street Overlay District allows flexibility [8:18, 12:19]. Dimensions were confirmed: 10-inch valance and 6-inch lettering [9:59-10:37]. Member Ted raised a bylaw point about awnings projecting at least three feet, but flexibility (“should” vs. “shall”) was confirmed, and the applicant noted a traffic light prevents that projection [15:47-17:14].
  • Procedural Clarification: Member Bill questioned why both Planning Board and ZBA were involved, thinking recent changes consolidated awning review under the Planning Board 18:41. Ms. Correll and Member Angela clarified that ZBA handles the special permit for awnings with graphics, while Planning Board handles design review and the separate Site Plan Special Permit for the use change under the Humphrey Street Overlay [19:09-20:35].
  • Motion & Vote: Member Angela moved to recommend favorable action to the ZBA for the awning permit, allowing either black or navy blue Sunbrella fabric, with a 10-inch valance, 6-inch white lettering, acknowledging the reduced projection due to the traffic light 17:15. Member [Speaker 12] seconded 18:13. The motion passed unanimously (Roll Call: Angela-Aye, Joe-Aye, Ted-Aye, Bill-Aye, Chair Mike-Aye) [18:15-18:20]. Ms. Jauron was excused 18:28.

2. Continued Public Hearing: Petition 23-06 (29 Essex St Housing) 20:48:00

  • Continuance Background: Chair Mike noted the hearing was continued from August to allow review of Fire Department and DPW comments 21:31.
  • Applicant Update: Attorney Chris Drukas stated the applicant team had conferred with Fire and DPW and believed both departments were satisfied with the plans incorporating their recommendations 22:21.
  • Department Comments Review:
    • Fire Dept: Key comment noted was that snow must be removed from the site, precluding on-site storage [22:46, 23:14]. Member Angela pointed out this conflicted with a waiver request in the application for relief from snow storage rules 22:46. Applicant team representatives Peter Pitman and Attorney Drukas confirmed they would comply and remove snow off-site, effectively withdrawing the waiver request [23:47-25:46]. Barbara (Applicant Team) described potential off-site snow disposal locations 25:52.
    • DPW: Comments regarding inflow/infiltration (I&I) fees, utility tie-ins, and sewer line videoing were reviewed 26:32. Attorney Drukas stated the applicant had no issues with these standard requirements 27:18.
  • Board Discussion & Concerns:
    • Support & Density: Member Angela opened discussion, stating she liked the project concept but had concerns about site constraints, particularly insufficient parking (12 required by bylaw, 8 proposed + 3 tandem), the rear setback variance needed for the dumpster enclosure, and the non-waivable (“shall not”) minimum width requirement for the one-way traffic lane [27:59-30:27].
    • Workforce Housing Argument: Applicant representative Peter Pitman passionately argued that the 8-unit density was crucial to achieving “workforce housing” affordability, and reducing units would make them less accessible [30:28-33:37]. He asserted that requesting zoning relief was necessary to pursue this social agenda and asked for the Board’s support in moving the project forward to the ZBA.
    • Board Response to Argument: Member Angela countered that raising legitimate zoning concerns was not undermining the project, emphasizing the Board’s consistent support for workforce housing but noting its limitations – it cannot grant variances or waive “shall not” requirements [33:37-35:05]. She reiterated support for the project type but stressed the need for ZBA relief.
    • ZBA Hurdles: Member Bill, while supporting workforce housing, expressed skepticism about the ZBA granting variances, noting they require significant hardship not typically met by site constraints or profitability arguments [35:23-36:18].
    • HVAC Screening: Member Joe inquired about neighbor concerns raised last meeting regarding HVAC unit visibility and noise 40:26. Mr. Pitman explained units were placed in rooftop inverted dormers behind a 42-inch parapet to minimize ground-level impact and noise, a solution he described as more costly but effective [40:44-41:50, 42:24-43:32]. Barbara (Applicant Team) added that standard units are typically below the parapet height 45:33. Attorney Drukas acknowledged some visibility might remain from elevated neighboring properties but stated the applicant was willing to consider further mitigation if needed [48:42-49:45].
    • Recycling & Sustainability: Member Ted confirmed recycling would use the same contained area as trash 50:02. Mr. Pitman confirmed the project would comply with the stretch energy code, be solar-ready, and include EV charging stations installed upfront for each parking space [50:37-51:18].
  • Public Comment: Chair Mike opened the floor for public comment; Town Planner Correll confirmed no members of the public were present online [51:53-52:42].
  • Applicant Closing Statement: Attorney Drukas made a closing argument, asserting the project meets the necessary findings for a Site Plan Special Permit under bylaws 5.3.0.0 and 5.4.8.0, arguing the benefits outweigh adverse effects and listing positive findings related to traffic, utilities, neighborhood character, environment, safety, visual impact, and zoning compliance (with waivers/variances sought) [52:51-55:40].
  • Public Hearing Closure: Member [Speaker 14] moved to close the public hearing 55:46; the hearing was closed 55:58.
  • Site Plan Findings Review (Bylaw 5.4.8.0): The Board, led primarily by Member Angela and Chair Mike, reviewed the specific criteria:
    • Minimize site alteration impacts (cut/fill, trees, etc.): Found acceptable, referencing the thorough ASB report [1:04:10-1:05:37].
    • Maximize pedestrian/vehicular safety: Discussed parking shortfall and narrow driveway width. Finding conditioned on ZBA granting necessary relief [1:07:27-1:12:40]. The traffic study indicated adequate sightlines [1:08:07-1:10:57].
    • Minimize obstruction of scenic views: Finding made 1:12:41.
    • Minimize visual intrusion (parking/storage screening): Found acceptable due to fencing 1:14:18.
    • Minimize glare/lighting intrusion: Found acceptable based on lighting plan and fencing [1:13:19-1:14:02].
    • Ensure appropriate scale/character: Finding made, with positive comments on aesthetics [1:14:43, 51:19].
    • Protect groundwater/manage stormwater: Finding conditioned on compliance with DPW comments [1:14:52-1:15:24, 1:16:39-1:17:13].
    • Ensure zoning compliance: Finding explicitly notes non-compliance in certain areas (parking, setbacks, driveway width) and conditions approval on the petitioner obtaining all necessary relief from the ZBA [1:15:25-1:16:15]. Attorney Drukas argued the Board could make positive findings on safety despite non-compliance needing relief, but Member Angela maintained the need to condition the zoning compliance finding [1:20:39-1:24:41].
    • Minimize adverse traffic impact: Finding made based on traffic report 1:16:17.
    • Coastal flooding/sea level rise: Addressed adequately in ASB report and DPW review 1:16:38.
  • General Considerations (Bylaw 5.3.0.0): Member Angela summarized positive findings regarding community needs (workforce housing), adequacy of utilities, neighborhood character fit, improved environmental impacts (drainage, plantings), snow removal agreement, and positive fiscal impact [1:17:21-1:19:09].
  • Motion & Vote: Member Bill stated he would vote “present” as he missed the previous month’s discussion 1:19:24. Member Angela moved to approve the Site Plan Special Permit for Petition 23-06, per the findings discussed and detailed in the forthcoming decision letter, with conditions including compliance with Fire, DPW, and Board of Health comments, and contingent upon the petitioner obtaining all necessary relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals [1:25:42-1:27:08]. Chair Mike seconded 1:27:12. A roll call vote was taken: Angela-Aye, Joe-Aye, Ted-Aye, Bill-Present, Chair Mike-Aye. The motion passed 4-0-1 (present) [1:27:17-1:27:32].
  • ZBA Communication: Attorney Drukas requested timely communication of the Planning Board’s approval to the ZBA before their meeting the following week 1:27:49. The Board acknowledged the need to establish a better internal process for this communication [1:28:25-1:30:50].

3. Vinnin Square Design Guidelines Update 1:30:57

  • Public Forum Recap: Member Angela reported on the public forum held August 29th, attended by approximately 40 people 1:31:18. A real-time survey was conducted via phone, supplemented by paper copies and an online version.
  • Survey Results: Over 200 responses were received in total 1:32:19. Member Angela, with Town Planner Correll sharing screen, briefly reviewed key findings:
    • Most respondents drive to Vinnin Square 1:34:50.
    • High frequency of visits (daily/weekly) 1:35:00.
    • MarketStreet Lynnfield was a favored example of mall transformation 1:35:30.
    • Strong agreement (~96%) with the Master Plan’s vision for Vinnin Square 1:36:12.
    • Majority feel the square is currently “not close” or “really not close” to the ideal vision 1:36:38.
    • Priorities included enhancing sense of place, defining blocks/circulation, and mixed uses 1:37:12.
    • Support for a balance of mandatory standards and flexible guidelines 1:37:42.
    • High importance placed on controlling parking/circulation, landscape, sustainability, building form, and connections [1:38:01-1:39:05].
  • Next Steps: (Discussion likely continued after transcript ended).

(Transcript ends during Vinnin Square update)

4. Executive Summary

This Planning Board meeting addressed key development proposals and ongoing planning initiatives significant to Swampscott residents.

  • New Humphrey Street Business Supported: The Board reviewed and recommended ZBA approval for a new awning for Coastal Collective, an art gallery and retail collective at 434 Humphrey Street 0:00:16. While preferring the applicant’s desired navy blue, the Board allowed black as well, demonstrating flexibility within the Humphrey Street Overlay District design guidelines 17:15. The business also requires a separate Planning Board hearing in October for a Site Plan Special Permit due to the change in property use 5:31. This highlights the process new businesses navigate involving multiple town boards.
  • Eight-Unit Housing Project at 29 Essex St Approved with Conditions: The Board approved a Site Plan Special Permit for an eight-unit residential building at 29 Essex Street, near the train station 1:25:42. The project, described by the applicant team (Attorney Chris Drukas, Peter Pitman, Barbara) as providing needed “workforce housing” 30:28, received conceptual support from the Board for its housing contribution and design aesthetics [51:19, 1:17:21]. However, the approval is strictly contingent on the applicant receiving significant relief (variances/waivers) from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) 1:27:08. Key issues requiring ZBA action include insufficient parking (8 spaces + 3 tandem proposed vs. 12 required), a rear setback variance for a dumpster enclosure, and relief from the minimum required width for the one-way driveway [27:59, 1:11:10, 1:15:25]. The Board thoroughly reviewed Fire and DPW requirements, ensuring compliance on matters like mandatory off-site snow removal 23:14. Significance: This project adds denser housing near transit but pushes zoning limits, underscoring the tension between development goals and existing bylaws. Its final realization depends heavily on the upcoming ZBA decision.
  • Vinnin Square Redesign Input Gathered: The Board received an update on the Vinnin Square Design Guidelines process 1:30:57. A recent public forum and subsequent online survey generated over 200 responses, indicating strong community interest 1:32:19. Initial feedback shows residents largely agree with the Master Plan vision but feel the square currently falls far short, prioritizing an enhanced “sense of place,” better circulation, and a mix of uses [1:36:12, 1:37:12]. Significance: This public input is crucial as the Town develops new design standards and guidelines intended to reshape Swampscott’s major commercial hub.
  • Procedural Coordination: Discussions highlighted the sometimes complex interactions between the Planning Board and ZBA, particularly regarding permit sequences and the need for timely communication between boards, especially when approvals are sequential and time-sensitive [18:41, 1:27:49].

5. Analysis

The September 11th Planning Board meeting showcased the Board navigating its responsibilities in design review, site plan approval, and long-range planning, all within the specific context of Swampscott’s development goals and regulatory framework.

  • Humphrey Street Flexibility: The Coastal Collective awning review demonstrated the Board utilizing the intended flexibility of the Humphrey Street Overlay District [8:18, 12:19]. While adhering to core design principles (materials, basic dimensions), they showed willingness to adjust non-mandatory elements like color and projection distance based on site specifics (applicant preference, traffic light obstruction) 17:15. The discussion also surfaced lingering confusion about the relatively new procedural pathways involving both Planning Board and ZBA for certain permits 18:41, suggesting ongoing adjustment to recent bylaw or process changes.
  • 29 Essex St: Balancing Housing Goals and Zoning Realities: The lengthy discussion on the 29 Essex Street project was the meeting’s centerpiece. The applicant team effectively framed the project around the desirable goal of “workforce housing” 30:28, leveraging this narrative to justify the density that necessitates significant zoning relief. Peter Pitman’s passionate defense aimed to align the project with town objectives, presenting the requested waivers/variances not as deficiencies but as necessary steps toward a valued outcome 30:51. However, Board members, particularly Angela and Bill, grounded the discussion in pragmatic realities [33:37, 35:23]. Member Angela skillfully balanced expressed support for the housing type and project aesthetics with a firm insistence on acknowledging the project’s non-compliance with key zoning requirements (parking, setbacks, driveway width) and the Board’s inability to grant the needed relief [27:59, 56:56]. Member Bill’s comments injected skepticism regarding the ZBA’s high bar for variances 35:23. Attorney Drukas’s attempt to argue the Board could make positive findings despite non-compliance 1:20:39 was politely rebuffed, with the Board correctly conditioning its approval on ZBA action, particularly for the critical zoning compliance finding 1:15:25. The unanimous conditional approval (with one present vote) signals the Board’s endorsement of the project’s potential contribution, while clearly delegating the authority—and the difficult decisions regarding zoning relief—to the ZBA. This dynamic highlights the Planning Board operating as a key, but not final, gatekeeper for complex projects requiring dimensional or use relief.
  • Vinnin Square Process: The update on Vinnin Square demonstrated a robust public engagement process yielding substantial feedback 1:32:19. Member Angela’s presentation of the survey data provided a clear snapshot of resident priorities, arming the Board with valuable input as it moves toward drafting concrete design guidelines. The strong consensus on the need for change and the desired character (“sense of place”) suggests public readiness for significant transformation in that area [1:36:12, 1:37:12].
  • Board Operations: The meeting revealed a Board engaged in detailed review, referencing bylaws and applicant submissions effectively. Member Angela appeared particularly influential in driving detailed questioning and ensuring findings accurately reflected regulatory constraints. The discussion regarding communication with the ZBA 1:27:49 points to an operational seam that needs smoothing to ensure efficient inter-board coordination, crucial for applicants navigating multi-step permit processes.