2024-03-27: Zoning Amendment Information Session

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

Swampscott Zoning Amendment Information Session Analysis (March 27, 2024)

Section 1: Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda for the information session was:

  1. Introduction and Overview [Approx. 10:51]
  2. MBTA Community Zoning (Section 3A) Bylaw Presentation 10:51
    • Requirements under MGL Chapter 40A, Section 3A
    • Proposed Overlay Districts (Essex Street, Vinnin Square)
    • Details of Proposed Bylaw (compliance, zoning application, density, affordability)
    • What the Bylaw Does Not Do (no residential upzoning, preserves dimensional requirements)
    • Existing Dimensional Requirements Review
    • Benefits of Adoption
    • Q&A on MBTA Zoning 23:47
  3. Liquor Establishment Zoning Amendment Presentation 40:36
    • Explanation of existing Section 4410 restriction
    • Proposed change: Remove “liquor establishments” from 200ft proximity rule
    • Rationale: Enable liquor licenses in core business districts (e.g., Humphrey St.)
    • Q&A on Liquor Establishment Amendment 43:41
  4. Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Structures Bylaw Amendment Presentation 44:28
    • Explanation of current Section 2273 and conflict with MGL c.40A s.6
    • Rationale: Align local bylaw with state law protections, clarify process, address ZBA appeal risk
    • Proposed changes: Remove 15% GFA / 1/3 assessed value triggers, allow Building Commissioner approval for conforming additions by right, clarify ZBA role for non-conforming extensions (Section 6 finding)
    • Q&A on Nonconforming Structures Amendment 50:37
  5. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Bylaw Update Presentation 1:04:38
    • Explanation: Corrective amendment to remove outdated language referencing Board of Appeals from design standards following May 2023 ADU bylaw adoption.
    • Q&A on ADU Update 1:05:59
  6. Timeline for Zoning Bylaw Adoption 1:06:31
    • Review of upcoming steps: EOHLC submission, Planning Board Hearing (April 29), Town Meeting (May 20), AG review.
  7. Final Open Q&A / Discussion [Approx. 1:08:01] (Primarily revisiting MBTA Zoning concerns)
  8. Adjournment [Approx. 1:28:30]

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

  • Director of Community Development (Name not stated): [Speaker 1] (Primary presenter for MBTA, Liquor, ADU, Timeline; handled most Q&A)
  • Community Development Staff (Name not stated): [Speaker 2] (Presented Nonconforming Structures section)
  • Resident/Town Meeting Member (Elizabeth Pappalardo, Precinct 3): [Speaker 3] (Asked detailed questions on MBTA and Nonconforming bylaws)
  • Resident/Town Meeting Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 4] (Expressed significant concerns about MBTA zoning impacts, density, safety, fairness; asked about nonconforming language)
  • Resident/Town Meeting Member (George Potts, District 4): [Speaker 5] (Asked specific questions on MBTA zoning details and nonconforming structure scenarios)
  • Attendee (Role Unclear/Name not stated): [Speaker 6] (Brief interjections)
  • Staff/Moderator (Introductory Remarks/Name not stated): [Speaker 7] (Appeared only briefly at the start)
  • Resident/Town Meeting Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 8] (Asked clarifying question on MBTA zoning height limits)
  • Resident/Town Meeting Member (Mary, Last Name not stated): [Speaker 9] (Questioned 10% affordability requirement in MBTA zoning)
  • Town Meeting Member (Aaron Burdoff): [Speaker 10] (Asked about existing housing units in proposed MBTA overlay zones)
  • Town Staff/Official (Name not stated): [Speaker 11] (Provided context on grant funding; interjected on nonconforming structures)
  • Staff assisting with presentation/tech (Name not stated): [Speaker 12] (Brief interjections, managed online questions)
  • Attendee (Possibly Speaker 3 interjecting/acknowledging): [Speaker 13] (Brief interjections/acknowledgements during Q&A)

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Meeting Start: The meeting commenced with introductory remarks ([Speaker 7], not fully transcribed).

1. MBTA Community Zoning Bylaw Presentation ([Speaker 1] - Director of Community Development) 10:51 The Director presented the proposed MBTA Community Zoning bylaw, mandated by MGL Chapter 40A, Section 3A. Key points included:

  • Requirement: Swampscott, as a commuter rail community, must zone for multifamily housing by right near the station by the end of 2024 13:37.
  • Purpose: Encourage housing near transit; zoning allows, but does not mandate, construction 11:56.
  • Specifics: Minimum density of 15 units/acre required; Swampscott must zone for a capacity of 954 units 12:41. The proposal creates capacity for 1,148 units over 44.6 acres (exceeding the 20-acre minimum) 13:10. Within the half-mile station radius, 191 units capacity is required (20%); the proposal achieves 196 units capacity (meeting requirement) 13:29 over 33% of the total proposed land area (exceeding 20% minimum) 13:37.
  • Proposed Overlay Districts: Essex Street (near the station, opposite the High School) and Vinnin Square (existing multifamily residential areas near, but not including, the shopping plaza) 15:31.
  • Bylaw Features: Applies overlay only to existing Business zones where multifamily is already allowed 17:39; makes multifamily use ‘by right’ 18:03; encourages (not requires) mixed-use 18:13; maintains inclusionary zoning requirement (10% affordable) 18:37; establishes maximum density ceilings (35 units/acre Essex St., 25 units/acre Vinnin Sq.) where none currently exist 19:12.
  • What Bylaw Does Not Do: Does not apply to residential zones 19:32; does not modify existing dimensional requirements (height, setbacks, coverage) [19:37, 20:22]; does not make multifamily development more restrictive than elsewhere in town 20:04.
  • Benefits: Compliance maintains state grant eligibility 22:48; encourages housing variety 23:00; supports local businesses 23:06; creates affordable/workforce housing counting towards SHI 23:10.

MBTA Zoning Q&A 23:47 Extensive discussion followed the presentation.

  • Resident Pappalardo [Speaker 3] questioned lot merging potential 25:48, the relationship to prior Vinnin Square zoning (clarified this overlay excludes the shopping plaza) 25:20, rationale for exceeding minimum unit capacity 27:01 (explained as necessary to meet the 191-unit half-mile requirement within the chosen limited footprint 28:15), and who drafted the bylaw (based on state model, overseen by Planning Board) 26:33.
  • Resident Potts [Speaker 5] asked about Stop & Shop’s exclusion (confirmed) 30:28, typical grant amounts (variable, includes all departments 30:46), abutter consultation near the station (not done for this phase, focused on business zones) 31:13, counting existing projects towards capacity (clarified zoning sets allowance, not construction target) 31:58, parking requirements (remain 1.5 spaces/unit max, with flexibility) 35:01, potential neighborhood parking overflow near Elm Place 35:38, and affordability details (based on AMI, 10% required by state rules for this bylaw) 37:07.
  • TMM Burdoff [Speaker 10] inquired about existing units in the overlay zones (approx. 91 in Essex St. area, ~670 in Vinnin Sq. area) 38:01.
  • Resident Mary [Speaker 9] asked why only 10% affordability was required, noting Elm Place achieved higher 39:20 (explained as the current limit under Section 3A rules, with potential future study to increase it 39:46).
  • Resident [Speaker 4] later expressed significant concern about density concentration in an already dense/affordable area near the high school 1:08:23, potential negative impacts on existing properties, and safety/traffic issues 1:09:45. An extended exchange occurred, with the Director [Speaker 1] reiterating the focus on underutilized business lots 1:11:12, the half-mile constraint 1:11:12, the fact that multifamily is already allowed, the potential for positive redevelopment 1:12:20, and citing ‘The Landing’ as an example where density fears weren’t realized 1:15:50. The resident remained concerned about congestion 1:16:24.
  • Resident [Speaker 8] sought clarification on height limits, confirming they are not changed by the overlay 1:16:51.

2. Liquor Establishment Zoning Amendment Presentation ([Speaker 1]) 40:36 The Director explained the proposal to amend Section 4410 by removing “liquor establishments” from the rule prohibiting certain uses within 200 feet of parks, schools, churches, or libraries 41:43.

  • Rationale: The current rule significantly restricts locations for restaurants seeking full liquor licenses, especially in the Humphrey Street business core due to nearby parks 42:24. This change aims to support business vitality.
  • Scope: Only affects liquor establishments; restrictions remain for garages/service stations due to environmental concerns 43:28.
  • Q&A: No questions were raised 43:41.

3. Nonconforming Single/Two-Family Structures Bylaw Amendment Presentation ([Speaker 2] - Community Development Staff) 44:28 Staff presented the proposed amendment to Section 2273 regarding non-conforming single and two-family structures/lots.

  • Problem: Current bylaw language conflicts with and potentially limits protections offered by state law (MGL c.40A s.6), based on Town Counsel opinion 45:10. This creates legal risk for ZBA decisions. Swampscott has many non-conforming lots/structures (~90%) 45:55.
  • Proposed Changes:
    • Remove the 15% gross floor area increase and 1/3 assessed value triggers for requiring ZBA review 47:47.
    • Allow the Building Commissioner to approve additions by right if the addition itself meets all current dimensional requirements (setbacks, height, etc.), even if the lot or existing structure is non-conforming 48:33.
    • Retain ZBA review (via a “Section 6 finding”) for any proposed alteration/extension of an existing non-conformity 49:09.
  • Rationale: Align with state law, simplify the process for conforming additions, provide clear criteria for the Building Commissioner, reduce ZBA caseload for straightforward projects, and mitigate legal risks [46:01, 57:28].

Nonconforming Structures Q&A 50:37

  • Resident Potts [Speaker 5] asked about building vertically within the existing footprint (still requires ZBA if non-conforming dimension exists) 50:53 and scenarios involving additions over previously approved decks (depends if deck/new structure conform) 51:21. He later commented this might benefit neighbors by streamlining simple projects 1:04:01.
  • Resident Pappalardo [Speaker 3] questioned the impact on ADUs (clarified this governs structure modification, not use; ZBA approved a non-conforming garage rebuild for future ADU use under existing rules, this change wouldn’t alter that specific ZBA process) 53:31. She also asked about the policy rationale change from the old bylaw 57:10 (explained as simplifying overly complex/dense old language, ensuring state compliance, and providing clearer criteria, though the original rationale is unknown 57:28). She asked about Building Commissioner workload (already reviews all permits) 1:02:08.
  • Resident [Speaker 4] sought clarification, confirming the goal is cleaner language and state compliance 1:02:55.

4. ADU Bylaw Update Presentation ([Speaker 1]) 1:04:38 The Director presented this as a technical correction.

  • Issue: Following the May 2023 Town Meeting approval of the revised ADU bylaw, one bullet point related to Board of Appeals review (no longer applicable) was mistakenly retained in the design standards section because it wasn’t shown with strikethrough in the warrant 1:05:09.
  • Proposal: Remove the erroneous, unenforceable bullet point 1:05:49.
  • Q&A: No questions were raised 1:05:59.

5. Timeline for Zoning Bylaw Adoption ([Speaker 1]) 1:06:31 The Director outlined the process: Public info session (tonight), MBTA bylaw submission to EOHLC (April), Planning Board public hearing on all articles (April 29), Town Meeting vote (May 20), submission of approved articles to AG (May/June), EOHLC decision (Summer), AG decisions (typically Aug/Sep). Information is available on the town website 1:07:32.

Final Open Q&A [Approx. 1:08:01] Discussion primarily returned to MBTA zoning concerns, largely reiterating points made earlier by Resident [Speaker 4] regarding density, fairness, and traffic/safety near the high school, and the Director’s [Speaker 1] responses regarding constraints, existing allowances, and potential benefits. Clarification was provided by the Director regarding Elm Place’s status as a 40B project 1:18:41 and why the Vinnin Square shopping mall zoning wasn’t used for the MBTA overlay (requirement to replace commercial space, risk of losing tax base under MBTA rules) 1:20:28. Resident Pappalardo [Speaker 3] asked about pushing back against the state mandate (Director advised against it as Swampscott isn’t up-zoning residential areas unlike some other towns, potentially jeopardizing grants) 1:22:46 and potential traffic impacts requiring road work (Director noted site plan review includes traffic studies) 1:24:16.

Meeting Adjournment: The meeting concluded after the final questions [Approx. 1:28:30].

Section 4: Executive Summary

This information session presented four proposed zoning bylaw amendments slated for the May 20, 2024 Annual Town Meeting. The most significant proposal addresses the state-mandated MBTA Communities zoning (Section 3A), while others aim to refine rules for liquor establishments, non-conforming homes, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

MBTA Communities Zoning (Article addressing MGL c.40A, s.3A) 10:51

  • What: A state law requires Swampscott, as a commuter rail town, to create zoning districts allowing multifamily housing by right near the train station by the end of 2024 13:37. Failure to comply risks eligibility for significant state grants 22:48.
  • Proposal: The town proposes two overlay districts: one on Essex Street near the station (opposite the High School) and one covering existing multifamily properties in Vinnin Square (excluding the shopping mall) 15:31. These overlays would apply only to existing Business-zoned properties where multifamily is already allowed 17:39. Multifamily use would become ‘by right’ (no special permit needed for use, though dimensional relief might still require one) 18:03. The proposal sets maximum density limits (35 units/acre Essex St., 25 Vinnin Sq.) 19:12 and requires 10% affordable units 18:37. Crucially, existing height, setback, and lot coverage restrictions remain unchanged 19:37. The plan exceeds the minimum required unit capacity (1,148 proposed vs. 954 required) 13:10 and minimum acreage, which staff explained was necessary to meet specific density targets within the half-mile radius of the station using a limited geographical footprint [27:01, 28:15].
  • Significance & Concerns: This is the most impactful proposal. Compliance secures state funding. Staff presented it as a targeted approach using existing commercial/multifamily zones to meet the mandate with minimal disruption. However, residents (including Pappalardo 23:53, Potts 30:26, Burdoff 37:41, Mary 39:20, and Speaker 4 1:08:07) voiced significant concerns, primarily focused on the Essex Street area: increased density and congestion near the high school 1:08:23, traffic safety 1:09:45, potential parking overflow 35:38, fairness of concentrating development in one area, and whether 10% affordable housing is sufficient 39:20. Staff countered that multifamily is already possible, density helps utilize transit 34:32, existing examples show impacts can be managed 36:06, and the state rules currently cap required affordability at 10% for this bylaw 39:46. This article represents a balancing act between state requirements and local impacts, likely generating further debate.

Other Zoning Articles:

  • Liquor Establishments: Proposes removing liquor establishments from a 200-foot proximity restriction near parks/schools 41:43. Significance: Aims to boost economic vitality by allowing more restaurants, particularly downtown (e.g., Humphrey St.), to obtain full liquor licenses 42:24.
  • Nonconforming Structures: Seeks to align local rules for additions/alterations to older homes on small lots with state law (MGL c.40A s.6) 44:39. It simplifies the process for homeowners making conforming additions (meeting current setbacks/height) by allowing Building Commissioner approval by right, removing complex triggers (15% GFA / 1/3 value) 48:33. ZBA review remains for extending existing non-conformities 49:09. Significance: Reduces burden on homeowners and ZBA for simple projects and ensures legal compliance, affecting many properties in town 45:55.
  • ADU Bylaw Update: A technical correction to remove outdated, unenforceable language related to ZBA review from the ADU bylaw passed last year 1:04:38. Significance: Minor cleanup for clarity and consistency.

Next Steps: These proposals will have a formal Planning Board public hearing on April 29th 1:06:31 before going to Town Meeting for a vote on May 20th. Approved zoning articles require subsequent Attorney General review.

Section 5: Analysis

This information session served its purpose of outlining upcoming zoning warrant articles, but the discussion, particularly around the MBTA Communities proposal, highlighted key tensions and potential areas for debate at Town Meeting.

Staff Presentation & Arguments: The Director of Community Development [Speaker 1] and assisting Staff [Speaker 2] presented the articles competently, emphasizing technical compliance and legal necessity.

  • MBTA Zoning: The argument was strongly framed around state mandate compliance 11:56 and the critical need to maintain grant eligibility 22:48. Staff effectively leveraged the fact that the proposal only overlays existing business zones 17:39 and does not alter dimensional limits like height 19:37 to portray it as the least impactful path to compliance. The rationale for exceeding minimum capacity seemed technically sound based on meeting the half-mile radius requirements within the chosen boundaries 27:01. However, downplaying potential density impacts by citing existing examples like ‘The Landing’ [36:06, 1:15:50] might not fully resonate with residents experiencing current congestion near the high school. The argument against “pushing back” on the state 1:22:46 by differentiating Swampscott (not up-zoning residential) from other towns was strategically sound from a compliance perspective.
  • Other Articles: Presentations were clear and logical. The Nonconforming Structures change 44:39 was effectively presented as a necessary alignment with state law and a practical simplification based on Town Counsel advice 45:10. The Liquor 40:36 and ADU 1:04:38 changes were straightforward housekeeping/economic enablement measures.

Resident Concerns & Arguments: Attendees, particularly identified Town Meeting members and residents Pappalardo [Speaker 3], Potts [Speaker 5], Mary [Speaker 9], and especially Speaker 4, demonstrated significant engagement and voiced substantive concerns, primarily regarding the MBTA proposal.

  • Density & Impact: The arguments raised by Speaker 4 1:08:23 about concentrating density in an already congested area near the high school, potentially impacting affordability and quality of life, were potent and reflect common anxieties about development. These qualitative concerns about neighborhood character and lived experience contrasted sharply with the staff’s technical/regulatory focus.
  • Affordability: The pushback on the 10% affordability minimum by Resident Mary [Speaker 9] 39:20 highlighted a values conflict – meeting the state minimum versus maximizing affordability in new developments, a recurring theme in Swampscott discussions. Staff’s response, while legally accurate regarding the Section 3A process 39:46, may not satisfy those prioritizing deeper affordability.
  • Process & Specifics: Questions about lot merging 25:48, grant amounts 30:34, parking impacts 35:38, and the precise relationship with prior Vinnin Square zoning [25:20, 28:50] showed residents drilling down into practical implications and seeking accountability beyond the high-level presentation.

Meeting Dynamics: The session was informative but revealed a clear gap between the administration’s focus on regulatory compliance and technical solutions for the MBTA mandate, and some residents’ deep-seated concerns about tangible impacts on specific neighborhoods. While staff provided thorough answers grounded in the proposed text and state law, the extended back-and-forth on MBTA zoning [e.g., 1:08:07-1:16:47] suggests these concerns were not fully assuaged. The non-controversial nature of the other three articles indicates they are likely to pass Town Meeting with less debate, while the MBTA zoning article will require careful handling and likely face continued scrutiny regarding density, traffic, and fairness. The staff’s strategy of limiting the overlay to business zones appears crucial for building support, but concerns about the Essex Street corridor remain a significant hurdle.