2024-04-29: Planning Board

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

Swampscott Planning Board Meeting Review: April 29, 2024

This document summarizes and analyzes the Swampscott Planning Board’s public hearing on proposed zoning bylaw amendments, held on April 29, 2024. It is intended to inform Town Meeting members and voters about the key discussions and decisions made.

1. Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda followed this order:

  1. Opening & Call to Order 0:08:52
    • Motion to open the public hearing.
  2. Public Hearing: Zoning Bylaw Amendments
    • Amendment A: MBTA Communities Multi-family Overlay District (§4.13.0.0) 0:09:55
      • Presentation by Director of Community Development
      • Public Comment & Board Discussion
      • Board Vote
    • Amendment C: Liquor Establishment Proximity (§4.4.1.0) 0:41:56
      • Presentation by Director of Community Development
      • Public Comment & Board Discussion
      • Board Vote
    • Amendment D: Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Structures (§2.2.7.3) 0:50:03
      • Presentation by Director of Community Development & Assistant Town Planner
      • Public Comment & Board Discussion
      • Board Vote
    • Amendment B: Accessory Dwelling Units (§5.11.3.8) 1:05:13
      • Presentation by Director of Community Development
      • Public Comment & Board Discussion
      • Board Vote
  3. Closing of Public Hearing 1:08:51
  4. Adjournment 1:09:16

(Note: Amendment B was discussed out of the order listed in the initial meeting notice/metadata).

2. Speaking Attendees

Based on roles demonstrated and context within the transcript:

  • Peter Kane (Director of Community Development): [Speaker 1]
  • Marissa Kearney (Assistant Town Planner): [Speaker 2]
  • Resident (Name not stated, attending remotely with Speaker 6): [Speaker 3]
  • Michael McClung (Planning Board Chair): [Speaker 4]
  • Anne Potts (Resident): [Speaker 5]
  • Resident (Name not stated, attending remotely with Speaker 3): [Speaker 6]
  • Mara Lau (Resident): [Speaker 7]
  • Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Vice-Chair/Member): [Speaker 8]
  • Larry Marciano (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 9]
  • Resident (Name not stated): [Speaker 10]
  • Sarra Dennis (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 11]
  • Joseph Dilisio (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 12]
  • Attendee (Brief interjection): [Speaker 13]

3. Meeting Minutes

Opening: Planning Board Chair Michael McClung called the meeting to order 0:08:52 and noted it was an in-person meeting for a public hearing on zoning bylaw amendments. Member Marciano motioned to open the public hearing, seconded, and approved unanimously 0:09:41. Chair McClung outlined the process: discuss and take public comment on each article individually, followed by a board vote on each.

Amendment A: MBTA Communities Multi-family Overlay District Director of Community Development Peter Kane presented the proposed MBTA Communities zoning bylaw 0:09:55. He explained the state mandate (MGL Ch. 40A, §3A) requiring MBTA-served communities like Swampscott (commuter rail) to zone for by-right multi-family housing near transit. Key details included:

  • Minimum density required: 15 units/acre. Proposed: 35 units/acre (Essex St overlay), 25 units/acre (Vinnin Sq overlay).
  • Minimum unit capacity required: 954 units. Proposed: 1,148 units.
  • Minimum acreage required: 20 acres. Proposed: 44.6 acres.
  • Minimum % of capacity near station required: 191 units (results in). Proposed: 196 units capacity within 1/2 mile.
  • Minimum % of land area near station required: 20%. Proposed: 33% within 1/2 mile.
  • Deadline for adoption: End of 2024.

Dir. Kane showed maps of the two proposed overlay districts 0:13:16: Essex Street (opposite the High School, currently zoned B2) and Vinnin Square (adjacent to shopping plaza, currently zoned B3/B4). He emphasized the overlay applies only to specific business zones where multi-family is already permitted (some by right, some by special permit) 0:16:41; no residential zones are affected 0:17:04. The amendment makes multi-family use as-of-right but does not change underlying dimensional requirements (height, setbacks, coverage) 0:17:15. It encourages mixed-use and maintains the town’s inclusionary zoning (10% affordable) requirement 0:17:40. He noted compliance ensures eligibility for state grants, citing $3.5M received over the last three years 0:22:24.

Public comment followed. A resident asked about current uses in the designated areas 0:23:30; Dir. Kane clarified the Essex St properties (e.g., Burke Dance, gas station) and Vinnin Square properties (existing apartments/condos like The Landing, Crown Point) 0:23:52. Resident Anne Potts spoke in strong support 0:25:41, praising the clear presentation and the town’s proactive position leveraging existing zoning, highlighting benefits for housing diversity and affordability. Remote Residents ([Speaker 3]/[Speaker 6]) questioned language in the meeting notice regarding potential future amendments 0:27:26. Dir. Kane and Chair McClung clarified that changing the designated parcels requires a future Town Meeting vote and the notice language was standard 0:28:19, 0:30:38. Dir. Kane directed them to the official proposed text on the town website 0:33:57. Resident Mara Lau asked about potential loss of commercial tax base and mixed-use possibilities 0:35:28. Dir. Kane stated the Vinnin Sq area is already taxed based on residential use (apartments) and the Essex St change would likely yield higher tax revenue from multi-family than current uses 0:36:15. He confirmed mixed-use remains allowed 0:38:00. Member Dilisio asked for map clarification on B3/B4 zones 0:39:06. Resident Potts suggested clearer maps labeling current businesses for Town Meeting presentation 0:40:56.

Decision: Member Ippolito motioned for favorable action, seconded by Member Marciano. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) 0:41:29. Observation: The discussion was extensive, focusing on compliance details, specific site impacts, and procedural clarity. Public support was voiced, alongside specific resident concerns requiring detailed staff explanation.

Amendment C: Liquor Establishment Proximity Dir. Kane presented the proposed amendment to §4.4.1.0 0:41:56, which currently restricts liquor establishments (along with garages and service stations) within 200 feet of parks, schools, churches, or libraries. The proposal removes only liquor establishments from this restriction. Dir. Kane explained this aims to support economic development by allowing more businesses, especially restaurants downtown, to obtain full liquor licenses, citing the high density of parks limiting available locations under the current rule 0:43:21. The restriction would remain for garages/service stations due to environmental/safety concerns 0:42:36. He showed a map illustrating how much of the Humphrey Street business district is currently ineligible 0:43:21.

Public comment: Member Marciano confirmed cannabis establishments are regulated separately 0:44:52. Remote Residents ([Speaker 3]/[Speaker 6]) questioned the rule’s current effect, citing the Pomona restaurant 0:45:15. Dir. Kane clarified Pomona obtained a beer, wine, and liqueur license, which is legally distinct from a full “liquor” license under state law, thus complying with the existing 200ft rule 0:46:10, 0:46:45. He confirmed this amendment would allow Pomona (and others) to apply for a full liquor license 0:48:04. Member Ippolito further clarified the legal distinction between license types 0:48:25.

Decision: Member Dennis motioned for favorable action, seconded by Member Ippolito. The motion passed unanimously (appears 4-0, based on “Aye” calls) 0:49:46. Observation: The discussion effectively clarified the legal nuances differentiating types of alcohol licenses and the specific impact of the proposed change.

Amendment D: Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Structures Dir. Kane presented the amendment to §2.2.7.3 regarding alterations to legally nonconforming homes (e.g., homes built before current setbacks were established) 0:50:03. He stated the purpose is to align the town’s bylaw with Mass General Law (Ch. 40A, §6) and clarify the process for additions/renovations. He noted the current bylaw language conflicts with state law and creates procedural issues 0:51:39. Assistant Town Planner Marissa Kearney provided a detailed explanation 0:54:13, distinguishing between state Section 6 findings/special permits (for extending existing nonconformities) and the town’s dimensional special permits (for new encroachments). She explained Town Counsel advised years ago that the town’s previous practice of conflating these and being more restrictive than the state was improper 0:54:13, 0:56:39. The ZBA has been following state guidance since, and this amendment codifies that practice and clarifies when the Building Commissioner can approve changes versus when ZBA review (and a Section 6 finding) is needed 0:52:47.

Public comment: Remote Residents ([Speaker 3]/[Speaker 6]) asked about abutter notification 0:55:28; Dir. Kane confirmed notification occurs only if the matter requires a ZBA public hearing, not for compliant permits issued by the Building Commissioner 0:55:48. The residents expressed confusion about the specific non-compliance being fixed 0:56:22 and voiced significant concern based on a negative experience with a neighbor’s project on Blaney Street, citing lack of recourse, privacy impacts (“second floor roof deck”), and alleged Airbnb use 1:00:25, 1:02:01, 1:03:08. Asst. Planner Kearney clarified that additions exceeding dimensional limits (like lot coverage) or changes to significant nonconformities (like a 5-inch setback) would still trigger ZBA review 1:00:27, 1:02:10. She and Dir. Kane noted that Airbnb use is currently unregulated by town zoning 1:02:40. Dir. Kane offered to discuss the specific Blaney Street issues offline, as they were partly outside the scope of this specific amendment focused on dimensional nonconformities 1:03:31, 1:04:12. The residents stressed their concern was for protecting others from similar negative experiences 1:03:51.

Decision: Member Dennis motioned for favorable action, seconded by Member Ippolito. The motion passed unanimously (appears 4-0) 1:04:58. Observation: This technical amendment required significant explanation. Resident concerns, while stemming from specific past issues potentially involving use and extreme non-conformity, highlighted homeowner anxieties about neighborhood change and process.

Amendment B: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Dir. Kane presented the amendment to §5.11.3.8 of the ADU bylaw 1:05:13. He explained this is purely a cleanup measure to remove a sentence (regarding ZBA discretion on parking) that was mistakenly retained when the town significantly updated its ADU bylaw in 2023 1:05:13. The sentence refers to the old “Accessory Apartment” (AA) process and ZBA involvement that no longer applies.

Public comment: Remote Residents ([Speaker 3]/[Speaker 6]) asked if parking requirements were changing 1:06:34. Dir. Kane confirmed no substantive change; parking is addressed elsewhere in the current bylaw, and this just removes outdated, confusing text 1:07:02. Chair McClung pointed out the specific text being struck 1:07:55.

Decision: Chair McClung motioned to close the public hearing, seconded, passed unanimously 1:08:51. Member Marciano motioned for favorable action on the ADU amendment, seconded. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) 1:09:04. Observation: A straightforward technical correction handled quickly.

Adjournment: Chair McClung, noting it was his final meeting as outgoing chair, motioned to adjourn 1:09:39. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

4. Executive Summary

The Swampscott Planning Board held a public hearing on April 29, 2024, and unanimously recommended favorable action by Town Meeting on four proposed zoning bylaw amendments:

  1. MBTA Communities Zoning Compliance: The Board endorsed a new bylaw creating overlay districts on specific commercial properties near Vinnin Square and Essex Street 0:09:55. This allows multi-family housing (apartments, townhomes) to be built “by right” (without needing a special permit for the use itself) in these areas, aiming to meet state mandates under the MBTA Communities Act (§3A).

    • Why it matters: Compliance is required to remain eligible for significant state grants (like the $3.5M received recently 0:22:24). The plan potentially allows for over 1,100 new housing units 0:12:32 within existing dimensional limits 0:17:15 and affordability rules 0:17:40, aiming to increase housing diversity without rezoning residential neighborhoods 0:17:04.

  2. Easing Liquor License Location Rules: The Board recommended removing restrictions that prevent businesses from getting full liquor licenses if they are within 200 feet of parks, schools, churches, or libraries 0:41:56.

    • Why it matters: This change aims to boost local economic activity, particularly downtown 0:43:21, by opening up more locations for restaurants and other establishments seeking full liquor licenses. Restrictions on auto garages/service stations in these areas would remain 0:42:36.

  3. Updating Rules for Renovating Nonconforming Homes: The Board backed changes to rules governing additions and alterations to older single- and two-family homes that don’t meet current zoning standards (e.g., setback requirements) 0:50:03.

    • Why it matters: This aligns Swampscott’s bylaw with state law (MGL Ch. 40A §6) 0:50:23, resolving a legal conflict identified by Town Counsel 0:54:13. It clarifies the process, potentially allowing the Building Commissioner to approve some compliant projects while ensuring Zoning Board review for others 0:52:47, reflecting current ZBA practice.

  4. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Bylaw Cleanup: The Board recommended removing a small, outdated sentence from the ADU bylaw passed in 2023 1:05:13.

    • Why it matters: This is a technical correction removing confusing language that referred to an old process 1:05:13. It does not change any current rules regarding ADUs or parking requirements 1:07:02.

All recommendations passed the Planning Board unanimously and will now proceed to Town Meeting for final consideration.

5. Analysis

This Planning Board hearing demonstrated a mix of proactive compliance with state mandates, efforts to modernize local regulations for economic benefit, and necessary technical housekeeping. The Board appeared unified, recommending all four articles unanimously after prior internal discussion 0:49:18.

  • MBTA Communities Zoning: The presentation by Director Kane was strategically framed, emphasizing compliance benefits (grant eligibility 0:22:24) and minimizing potential opposition by restricting the overlay to existing commercial zones 0:16:41 and maintaining current dimensional standards 0:17:15. This approach appears calculated to meet the state mandate with less friction than experienced in towns attempting residential rezoning. However, questions regarding specific site impacts 0:23:30, tax implications 0:35:28, and procedural language 0:27:26 suggest that clear communication on the practical effects and boundaries will be crucial for Town Meeting voters. Anne Potts’ strong public endorsement 0:25:41 provided a valuable resident perspective favoring the changes.
  • Liquor License Proximity: Director Kane effectively argued this change as a practical measure for economic development 0:43:21, leveraging the visual impact of the downtown map showing limited eligible locations 0:43:21. The resident questions about Pomona 0:45:15, while showing scrutiny, ultimately reinforced the need for the amendment by highlighting the limitations of the current bylaw and the nuances of state liquor law 0:46:10, 0:48:25. The argument appears logically sound within the context of supporting local businesses.
  • Nonconforming Structures: This article required the most complex technical justification. Assistant Planner Kearney’s detailed explanation of MGL Ch. 40A §6 versus dimensional relief, grounded in Town Counsel’s advice 0:54:13 and established ZBA practice 0:56:39, was critical and effective in demonstrating the necessity of the change. The persistent questioning from remote residents ([Speaker 3]/[Speaker 6]), heavily influenced by a specific negative experience 1:03:08, highlighted a recurring challenge in zoning matters: addressing generalized anxieties about development and neighbor impacts within the framework of specific, often technical, bylaw amendments. While staff appropriately steered the conversation back to the article’s scope 1:03:31, the residents’ emotional testimony 1:03:51 serves as a reminder of the perceived stakes for homeowners, suggesting that even legally necessary technical changes can provoke unease that needs careful handling at Town Meeting.
  • ADU Cleanup: This was handled efficiently as the minor technical correction it was presented to be 1:05:13.
  • Meeting Dynamics: Chair McClung facilitated an orderly hearing. Staff presentations were well-prepared and responsive. The active participation of remote residents ([Speaker 3]/[Speaker 6]) provided critical scrutiny, contrasting with the generally supportive or clarifying questions from in-person attendees. The Board’s swift, unanimous votes indicate internal consensus and preparedness to advocate for these articles at Town Meeting. The overall impression is one of a Planning Board methodically advancing necessary zoning updates aligned with state law and perceived local needs.