[Speaker 4] (8:52 - 9:39)
Thank you for coming. So we're going to open the April 29th meeting of the planning board in person for the first time in a long time to have a zoning bylaw amendment public hearing, essentially. We have I think it's four articles we'll be talking about tonight.

And I believe I need to motion to open the public hearing. So we'll start off with that.

[Speaker 9] (9:41 - 9:42)
Make a motion to open the public hearing.

[Speaker 4] (9:43 - 9:55)
Second. All right. All in favor?

Aye. None opposed. Okay.

So public hearing is open. We'll go through these one at a time and we'll vote on them one at a time. We'll also get public comment one at a time.

[Speaker 1] (9:55 - 23:12)
So the four articles, zoning articles that we're going to review today for the hearing are the MBTA Community Zoning Act or zoning bylaw, amendment regarding liquor establishments, nonconforming single and two family structures, and an amendment to the AB bylaw. So the first item tonight to review is the MBTA Community Zoning. This is based on mass state law, section 3A, that requires communities within a certain distance or service by MBTA to essentially update your zoning ordinance or bylaw in order to allow for multi-family buy right in order with that and utilizing the public transit as a way to actually provide support for additional housing.

So, Suwamscot's plan to meet the requirement is we put together a bylaw that's based on the model provided by the state, modified based on our needs, our requirements, and also based on our particular bylaw. So based on the fact that we are a commuter rail service station, our density requirements states that we have to have a minimum of 15 dwelling units per acre within the MBTA zoning area or areas that we designate. Based on our calculations in the area that we have identified, we have one area near across the street from the high school where it would be 35 units to an acre and then the other area is adjacent to Benning Square Shopping Plaza and that would be a 25 units to an acre allowance.

Based on the number of dwelling units the community had in the 2020 census, the town is required to have a minimum of 954 unit capacity, so multi-family unit capacity. Basically, the bylaw and the zoning area that you designate needs to be able to build or allow for up to 954 units. It does not require you to build it.

It simply means that the bylaw needs to be written in a way that would allow up to that many units. Based on what we have proposed, we would be meeting that requirement with an allowance of a capacity of 1,148 units. Also, we need a minimum of 20 acres designated as the MBTA zoning area.

We have designated 44.6 acres. The percentage of capacity within the, sorry, I think it says a half mile of the train depot. So what this says is the state says that there's a certain amount of the area that, or your unit capacity that must be within a half mile, basically saying that you're utilizing and you're creating an MBTA zone that's supposed to be benefiting from the MBTA routes and you're a commuter station, meaning the area that you designate, at least a certain percentage must be within a half mile.

For us, the requirement is that the percentage would result in 191 of the units must be within that half mile, and we have 196 capacity, so we do meet that requirement. As well, the land area requirement is that of the total area that you designate for this zone, 20% must be within a half mile of the train station, and we meet it at 33%. We are required as a commuter rail community to have this adopted and in place by the end of 2024, and right now we're on schedule.

Let's not let KF dance. There we go. Okay.

So, here are the two proposed multi-family overlay districts. The first, we've dubbed the Essex Street Overlay. This is the area opposite the high school.

It's an area that's currently zoned as a B2, so a commercially zoned property area. This is simply adding the overlay on top of that. The other area is to the southwest of Benin Shopping Plaza.

It includes properties that are currently zoned B3 and B4. Again, all of the districts are currently zoned commercial, where we already allow multi-family. In some, it's by special permit, in some it's by right.

Now we're making sure that we meet the compliance by making sure all multi-family, at least within these two areas, are by right. So, what does the proposed bylaw do? It ensures that the town is in compliance with Section 3A.

It applies the overlay only to specific business zones where multi-family is already permitted. It's making multi-family development as of right, meaning they don't need a special permit for the use. They still may need special permit for dimensional issues or requests, but they don't need it for the use.

It encourages mixed-use development, the inclusion of business spaces on the first floor with residential above, in order to help support the community's tax base. It also continues compliance with the town's inclusionary zoning bylaw, so it does mean that the inclusionary bylaw still applies here. It does not remove the requirements, so we would still require 10% of the units to be affordable.

And it establishes a maximum dwelling unit per acre. So, our current bylaw doesn't set a ceiling, it doesn't set a maximum. We actually allow as many dwelling units to an acre, so long as the development can fit within the dimensional parameters, the height, the setbacks, and the coverage restrictions.

This adds one additional layer of density, so that we set the number of dwelling units to the acre, and we set a ceiling. What does it not do? It does not, sorry, it doesn't apply the overlay onto any residential zones.

So, it does not change the underlying zoning of any residential properties. We're only modifying these particular zoning business zones in specific areas. The bylaw doesn't modify the dimensional restrictions on the underlying zoning.

What does this mean? It means all of the existing development parameters and restrictions in the underlying zoning don't change. We still have the same exact height restrictions, same setbacks, same coverage restrictions.

We're not saying and allowing additional building height or additional density of the structure because we're not modifying that. We're staying within our existing parameters. Nor does it make multifamily more restrictive or cumbersome than other areas in the town.

So, what the state says is by updating and adding in this bylaw, you can't in any way make the bylaw, but then make multifamily more difficult than it would have been to develop multifamily somewhere else in the community, because it defeats the purpose of the creation of the bylaw. All right. So, let's go into some of the details.

Um, on this screen is the underlying zoning restrictions. Again, we're not changing it, but I just am providing this so that the board and the community is aware what the underlying zoning restrictions already are that are in place. For Essex Street across from the high school, lots have to be at least 10,000 square feet.

You have to have at least 15% of the property as open space. The building height is 40 feet, three stories. The maximum building coverage, meaning the amount of area of the property that can be covered by a building, is 30%.

That's the maximum. And the setback requirements are a front, um, uh, front and sides are none with a rear of 10 feet. In Benning Square, there are slightly different restrictions there, because it is near the mall district and we have, uh, larger developments there.

The B3 portion and B4 portion, the stats are here. Essentially, it's very close to the, to the Essex Street. B4 does set a minimum open space of 10%, whereas the B3 is 15%.

The B4 portion is the portion of the property or the area that is adjacent to Loring Ave, Essex Street. And the B3 portion is the portion that runs along Paradise Road. So, along Paradise Road, it would remain at 35 feet height restriction, two and a half stories, with the Essex Street portion being 65 feet, five stories, um, or 85 feet, seven stories if the building is set back at least 175 feet.

Again, that's the existing bylaw. You can see the maximum building coverages at 90%, 90% in the B4, 25% in the B3, and the setbacks. There we go.

And the, um, this is showing based on the overlay, the maximum dwelling units per acre. So, this is the maximum number of units that can be built on a property based on the acreage. So, if it's six acres and you have a 35% or a 35 unit to the dwelling acre, it would be six times 35.

I shouldn't have given that as an example, but the quick map would be a number. Um, so, six times the 35 for, uh, for the Bennington Square, it would be 25. In that example, it would be 150.

And then the development capacity. So, what that means is based on the area of the zoning district that we created and the dwelling units, how many possible units could be built. So, in Essex Street, based on the six and a half acres of land that are designated as Essex Street at a 35 dwelling unit per acre, it's 196 units.

Over in Bennington Square, it's a much larger area that's designated, though a lower threshold on the maximum dwelling units. It still results in 952 units. The benefits of adoption.

So, Swampscott would meet its requirement of Section 3A. We would remain eligible for various funding and grant programs. It encourages a wider variety of housing options, townhomes, apartments, condos, supports local businesses by creating additional revenue from those residents that are now in the area and close to the businesses, creating affordable workforce housing, and creating additional units that count towards the town's subsidized housing inventory known as Chapter 40B.

Every community is required to have 10% of your units for affordable housing. This would help us get closer to our 10% requirement. And just as a recap, over the past five years, we've received a lot of different grants, totaling just over the last three years, 3.5 million. This is for grants of various open space, preservation, disability allowances, transportation, infrastructure improvements. By doing and meeting our compliance, we will remain eligible for these type of grants in this amount of money. Can you hear me now?

Okay. So we would remain compliant and we would still be eligible if we adopt the 3A zoning. Can you?

And that will lead us to questions of the public and then to a vote for the board. So if you want, if you want, Mike.

[Speaker 4] (23:16 - 23:29)
So I'd open it up for questions from anyone in the room and then also on teams. Just state your name.

[Speaker 10] (23:30 - 23:51)
I think it would be helpful to know what's in those areas now. It's not open space, so what's in there in Binning Square? So that would help people understand where it is.

And then does the Westford, is that what it is? Does that count? Is that in that zone?

[Speaker 1] (23:52 - 25:34)
Oh, sure. I can get to that. Do you mind clicking on the screen once more?

I need to go back. Okay. So, oops.

All right. We'll start with what the existing conditions are. The existing conditions in Essex Street are from Burke, the Burke Dance Studio, all the way to the offices just before the bridge overpass.

There's that single-story building with a few different mix of businesses. So you have a car rental. You also have a gas station.

So all of the businesses. It's just those existing businesses. And then the Binning Square portion includes the landing on Paradise Road and Crown Point, Vantage Terrace, Hawthorne Crossing, and the Avery.

So apartments and condominiums that are in that. So the question about Elm Place or West... Yeah, that is not within the district.

Oh, sorry. It is within the district. It's this portion here, except for that development is also on to residential properties, but they're residentially zoning.

We didn't want to apply this to residential zones. So it's only the commercial portion of the property. It is within the boundaries.

But as a note, building of units doesn't have any bearing on this. It's just that the bylaw allows for building. So although there are a number of units being built, it's not like we're trying to achieve.

A particular number in order to be in compliance. We simply have to have the bylaw that allows for it.

[Speaker 5] (25:41 - 27:08)
Hi, my name is Anne Potts. I don't have a question. I just have vigorous support for the plan.

I think it's beautifully articulated. The presentation is super clear. And we're fortunate that we're in a position where our zoning that's already in place puts us in compliance, making us radically unlike some of the conversations happening in other towns.

So good job. And we have what we need in place already to secure our relationship with all of that funding coming from the states and opening up the opportunity to vary our housing stock and unlock that middle-sized housing variety. So not the gigantic apartment buildings and not the single families that we have, you know, wall to wall in the town, but more the townhouse, as you said, Peter, that variety is appealing to me as a resident.

And I like the idea of having more opportunities for those who want to downsize, to move and remain in the community that they love. For kids who want to come back to Swampscott and are priced out to have an opportunity to live here. So anything that unlocks all of that, I'll stand in support of.

Thank you very much.

[Speaker 4] (27:08 - 27:14)
Thank you. Anyone on Teams?

[Speaker 3] (27:22 - 27:23)
Hi, guys. Can you hear us?

[Speaker 8] (27:24 - 27:25)
Yep, yep.

[Speaker 3] (27:26 - 28:18)
I'm not too loud. So our question is around the last sentence in Amendment A, the one that reads to the necessary additional sections of the Zoning By-law may be amended relative to this multi-family use. I'm hoping we could get some more context about what that means exactly, because I guess just reading it the way we were reading it, it looks pretty, pretty expansive.

And I guess just as a hypothetical, just as a hypothetical, could it be at some future point, it could be including properties on, you know, Blaney Street or Humphrey Street, you know, kind of beyond the zones that are listed here in the amendment. It looks like it could be broadened at some future date. We just wanted some clarification on that.

[Speaker 1] (28:19 - 28:51)
Sure. Give me one second. I think we're going to pull up the actual text of the...

To the question, though, regarding expanding it to other properties outside the properties already designated here, it would require another zoning article brought forward at town meeting in order to revise the boundaries of the district or to add any other sub-districts. So it would not be able to go onto any other properties without a town meeting action. Well, Pete's looking for that.

[Speaker 4] (28:51 - 29:05)
I can probably just speak to that too, right? Like, in general, zoning changes have to be done at town meeting. There's not, like, an administrative way to back end it.

So I don't think that would be a fear, which is good.

[Speaker 1] (29:06 - 29:28)
I believe the reference that he may be referring to is should Section 3A be modified. Got it. Are any references that we make to 3A then are modified by action?

But if we have explicit restrictions in our bylaw, those restrictions stay until we, through town meeting, make an amendment. That makes sense. Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (29:29 - 29:44)
So what you said makes sense. That's not... Unfortunately, that's not how we're reading it.

It looks... So if that's exactly... If it is as you say it is, which would be great, then why have that sentence at all?

[Speaker 1] (29:45 - 29:59)
Oh, because we are required to have that sentence. All communities passing Section 3A zoning have to have that sentence. Yeah, it's a requirement for...

For compliance.

[Speaker 6] (30:01 - 30:02)
Where can we find that?

[Speaker 1] (30:03 - 30:11)
So on mass.gov, there is an entire web section about Section 3A and the compliance requirements.

[Speaker 3] (30:12 - 30:37)
Okay, so we'll check that offline. But I guess just to kind of play back what we think we heard here, just to confirm, the last sentence is not... Is not a...

It doesn't provide an ability to go back and add additional parcels other than what's listed here. That would have to be a separate process. We would have to go through the other governance process.

Is that what we're hearing?

[Speaker 1] (30:38 - 30:42)
Absolutely. You cannot amend the zoning map unless you go through a town meeting article in code.

[Speaker 6] (30:45 - 30:47)
Unless they change the bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (30:47 - 31:01)
Right here. So you're referring to 4.13.10. Can you tell me which section you were referring to? Where did John go?

[Speaker 3] (31:04 - 31:15)
Sorry, I was back on mute. I was reading from the notice. The public meeting notice for tonight's meeting and the agenda.

That's what I was reading from.

[Speaker 1] (31:15 - 31:29)
Oh, no, the actual language of the proposed bylaw. They're all published on the town website. And you'd want to read the actual language of the proposed.

But that's not what we were referring to.

[Speaker 3] (31:30 - 31:30)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (31:30 - 31:36)
You're just reading the public... You're just reading the notice for this hearing. Not the actual text of the amendment.

[Speaker 3] (31:38 - 31:55)
Okay. Forgive my ignorance of thinking they would be the same thing. So I guess just back to my question then.

Is I can't read what you have up on the screen here. But does it have similar language to that last sentence?

[Speaker 1] (31:59 - 32:24)
The one you said is required by compliance. Well, this entire bylaw that we've put together is required. Can you go to the up here?

Can you go to the notice? It's on the calendar. That's the agenda.

But where's the notice? Oh, it's included. Oh, okay.

[Speaker 6] (32:25 - 32:29)
Can they put this link in the comments? Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (32:30 - 33:29)
Oh. Oh, that is the language of the article itself, but not the amendment to it. So it refers to all of the articles in the warrant refer to an appendix where the actual language is changed.

And it's only the language that's within the appendix that is what's being changed. So that's all that this is referring to. Essentially, that in the reference, when you read the town warrant, which will be published, I believe we're publishing it tomorrow.

You'll see that the article refers to appendices B and C, I believe. And with that, you'll see exactly the language. We do have it already posted on the town website, as well on the planning board page for proposed zoning language.

That language, that sentence that you're referring to is not in the bylaw itself. It's letting you know that there are sections being amended through that article, but it's all listed and you can't change anything in the bylaw unless you do it through a town meeting warrant article.

[Speaker 3] (33:31 - 33:56)
Okay. So I guess I don't want to take up too much more time here, but it sounds like the essence of what you're saying is that what's listed here in the agenda for the parcels that will be affected are consistent with what's in the bylaw that we couldn't see on the screen. Absolutely.

Is also now available. Can the link to that bylaw be put in the chat by someone just so we know where that is?

[Speaker 1] (33:57 - 34:57)
If you go to, I believe it's bit.ly slash, it's, didn't we put the Bitly address? So if you go to the town departments and you go to community development, there is a link that says proposed zoning bylaw changes. That page outlines the process.

It provides links to previous presentations at the very bottom. It gives you a link for each individual zoning article and the exact language that is in the warrant. But the parcels that are listed in the hearing notice are the exact parcels that are as part of this amendment and wouldn't be changed unless there is a floor motion to change it, which could be a problem because then we would have to modify the compliance model.

Or in the future, if anybody was to propose changing the zoning map in the future.

[Speaker 3] (35:00 - 35:10)
Okay. All right. Thank you.

And I'm going to try to pull that up now. I may have some questions on a couple of the other things coming up, but thank you for addressing this one. Appreciate it.

[Speaker 1] (35:11 - 35:12)
Sure. Are there any others?

[Speaker 7] (35:28 - 36:13)
Hi folks, Mara Lau. Peter, can I ask you a quick question about, so I feel like I've been to the previous meeting, so I feel like I understand it fair that would be in the proposal to be available, is my understanding, for housing. Since it's now a commercial zone, two things.

Are we concerned about losing that commercial tax base? Is there like, I realize we have to create a section, but so is that some sort of a concern that we have? And then also, would it continue to be a commercial zoning so would it be a mixed use space?

[Speaker 1] (36:15 - 37:05)
So the first question, concern about loss of the commercial rate for those properties. The only properties that are actually used as commercial properties, although they're all commercially zoned, would be the properties that are across from the high school. Again, those are warehouses, low single story office space, a gas station.

The benefit of a multifamily over the existing use, you'd get a larger tax revenue from that, and it is only that stretch there. The Vinnin Square section that's been identified, or has been identified in the bylaw, is already used as multifamily. It is zoned business.

Our business zones allow for multifamily, so it is multifamily. It's not a commercial, so you wouldn't lose that tax benefit. And I forget the second.

[Speaker 8] (37:05 - 37:11)
Can you clarify over how many units in a residential building qualifies for a commercial tax rate?

[Speaker 1] (37:12 - 37:13)
I don't know that.

[Speaker 8] (37:13 - 37:17)
I think our bylaw stipulates it's something like three or six.

[Speaker 1] (37:17 - 37:19)
The zoning bylaw wouldn't stipulate that.

[Speaker 8] (37:19 - 37:20)
Somewhere in the general bylaws.

[Speaker 1] (37:21 - 37:35)
I believe it's based on actual tax requirements, and I think it's over three units, but I don't want to say specifically. Zoning bylaws can't dictate tax rates. Maura, what was your second part?

[Speaker 7] (37:36 - 37:59)
So I think you answered it. That section there. Thinking about the section across from the high school on Essex Street, would then that be considered multi-use, potentially?

So it sounds like it would be dependent on the number of houses, or the number of units, in order for it to then also be considered a mixed use, or be eligible for mixed use. Is that my understanding?

[Speaker 1] (38:00 - 38:24)
So all of our business districts do allow for mixed use, and this as well continues mixed use. So yes, they could still do mixed use if they wanted to. If they're penciling out of their project with a multi-family, along with a commercial development, could work out for them to do mixed use.

They could do it, and that is currently allowed as well.

[Speaker 7] (38:24 - 38:28)
Okay, so there's no minimum or maximum threshold on that?

[Speaker 1] (38:28 - 38:30)
Oh, as to when you can do mixed use?

[Speaker 7] (38:30 - 38:31)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (38:31 - 38:49)
Correct. No, there is no minimum. The maximum, definitely, because we are setting a maximum dwelling into a unit, but there is no minimum that would then trigger it to be.

You could do a single unit of residential and commercial, and that is, by definition of the simplest term, a mixed use building.

[Speaker 7] (38:49 - 38:51)
Okay, thank you so much.

[Speaker 4] (38:51 - 39:04)
Yep, that's it. Okay.

[Speaker 12] (39:06 - 39:12)
Have you been able to identify the portions that are B3 and B4? Yep. And the Essex Street is all on what, B2?

[Speaker 1] (39:14 - 39:28)
I'll show you on the map. Let's see. Okay, so the B4 properties are these properties that have access out onto Essex Street, and then these properties out on Paradise Road are B3.

[Speaker 12] (39:33 - 39:35)
And this is all B2?

[Speaker 1] (39:36 - 39:37)
This is all B2, correct.

[Speaker 12] (39:40 - 39:42)
And that B4 went up further.

[Speaker 1] (39:42 - 40:00)
It does. We're not designating the rest of the B4 district as the overlay. We're only applying the Vennon Square overlay to these properties, because this is also all B3, but we're not doing that.

[Speaker 9] (40:00 - 40:02)
This is B3, but B4 is like the front half of...

[Speaker 1] (40:03 - 40:22)
Now, B4 also goes out to here and goes up here. No, nope. It's just this on Paradise are B4, and then up here is B4.

I don't believe this property is B4. Sorry, what?

[Speaker 12] (40:24 - 40:25)
Right here?

[Speaker 1] (40:25 - 40:31)
It's part of this plaza. It's the same property. Yep.

[Speaker 4] (40:33 - 40:51)
Okay, no one else online? No. Well, then I think we could entertain a motion on this from the planning board.

Oh, one more comment.

[Speaker 5] (40:56 - 41:18)
Optimization recommendation. Can those maps, as you're talking to town meeting members with low participation in this meeting and the last meeting, having a more literal labeling of what those areas comprise today could just help alleviate some concern or confusion.

[Speaker 4] (41:22 - 41:27)
Yeah, we're like a Google Street View of Essex Street to remind everybody.

[Speaker 8] (41:29 - 41:40)
Okay, I think we were about to make a motion. I'll make a motion to... Was it recommend for action for the MBTA 3A zoning?

Amendment. Second.

[Speaker 4] (41:41 - 41:42)
All those in favor?

[Speaker 8] (41:42 - 41:43)
Aye.

[Speaker 4] (41:43 - 41:51)
Aye. No opposed. 4-0.

Let's move on to the next article. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (41:56 - 44:40)
Sorry. Anytime you click there, it takes it off of there. There we go.

Okay, the next article is the article to amend section 4410. Section 4410 is the portion of the bylaw that restricts the location of certain uses within 200 feet of parks, schools, churches, libraries. Currently, that bylaw restricts the location of garages, service stations, and liquor establishment within that area of 200 feet from those particular uses.

This bylaw is to amend that section simply to strike out references to liquor establishments. So, the reason that we're doing that is still allowing 4410 to ensure that there is health and environmental concerns with relation to 200 feet to a park, school, or church library, meaning that we still would like to be able to use that area. We would not allow garages or service stations to be permitted within 200 feet of those, but taking liquor establishments out.

Why are we doing that? The reason is we actually have a number of parks throughout the community, which is a great resource to community members. However, it makes the utilization of the few and the small amount of business zones, business-zoned properties to actually open a restaurant with a full liquor license or any other establishment to sell liquor.

So, an example of this is the downtown Humphrey Street section. The colored areas are all business-zoned properties. However, the orange properties are those business-zoned properties that are currently within 200 feet of a park, a church, a school, or I forget the fourth one, a library, meaning a small portion of that district, which is these blue properties, only those blue properties could actually get a liquor license right now or sell liquor unless they were grandfathered in previously.

So, it restricts all of that business area to this small section. So, this is also true in other areas of town. We want to remove that restriction, make sure that we still retain the environmental concerns, but take liquor establishments out.

It still does have to go through the standard permitting process with the select board, but we do have a number of liquor licenses that we cannot grant because we just don't have enough business properties that also are outside of that 200-foot limitation.

[Speaker 4] (44:43 - 44:51)
That's the amendment. Thank you, Pete. Open up for public comment.

[Speaker 9] (44:52 - 44:54)
So, cannabis is separate under a separate bylaw, correct?

[Speaker 1] (44:54 - 44:56)
Yeah, this has nothing to do with that.

[Speaker 4] (44:56 - 45:05)
Yep. Anyone in the room? Anyone online?

Yep.

[Speaker 3] (45:15 - 45:24)
Hello, it's us again. So, this isn't factually true. So, yeah, we just have a clarification question.

[Speaker 1] (45:25 - 45:26)
We lost you.

[Speaker 3] (45:27 - 45:28)
Can you hear us?

[Speaker 1] (45:28 - 45:29)
Now we can.

[Speaker 3] (45:29 - 45:46)
Okay, good. So, our question is, the restaurant that went in where the skateboard shop used to be, I think it's called Paloma? Pomona.

Pomona. They fell into this 200-foot zone and they got a liquor license because they had to go through, they got, yeah.

[Speaker 6] (45:47 - 46:09)
And then they put two, not one, but two elementary schools within 200 square feet, or 200 feet. So, this is not exactly true. Actually, that is what happened.

I wrote a letter to the board of selectmen about it and was ignored. So, then put the elementary schools in. But two.

Right.

[Speaker 1] (46:10 - 46:44)
So, the thing that you're referring to with the second part is it does not restrict the community from creating a park near a liquor establishment. It restricts a liquor establishment from being able to establish once there's already a park. But we can certainly create new schools within that limitation.

It's not a direct back and forth. It's simply on the garages, the service stations, and the liquor establishments for being established there. And I believe Pomona did not get a full liquor license.

They got a beer and wine license.

[Speaker 13] (46:44 - 46:45)
And liqueur.

[Speaker 1] (46:45 - 46:57)
Liqueur. So, it does not fall under the definition of liquor under state law because they did not get a liquor license. And so, they are not allowed to serve liquor at Pomona.

Therefore, it does actually comply with the restriction of the bylaw.

[Speaker 6] (46:57 - 47:05)
But they were actually given that license before the two elementary schools were moved. Or the second elementary school.

[Speaker 1] (47:05 - 47:14)
That's correct. Because again, they are not serving liquor. They were not given a liquor license.

They were given beer, wine, and liqueur, which is different.

[Speaker 6] (47:15 - 47:16)
So, what is the point of the garage?

[Speaker 1] (47:17 - 47:52)
We're not amending and changing the location restriction for garages or service stations. That part of the bylaw is staying intact. We're not modifying that.

The reason why the restriction is there is that those auto-intensive uses typically carry with them noise, as well as environmental concerns, such as filling, gasoline, possible hazard of explosion. You don't want those located next to parks, schools, churches, or a library, which is why those particular items were in the bylaw. And we're not amending that.

[Speaker 3] (47:54 - 48:04)
So, I guess just using this restaurant as an example, they could come back if this passes town meeting. They could come back and request the full license of that.

[Speaker 1] (48:04 - 48:06)
Correct. Correct. That is correct.

Yes.

[Speaker 6] (48:08 - 48:14)
But if it doesn't pass, could the select board still okay this without making a change in the bylaw?

[Speaker 1] (48:14 - 48:19)
No. The select board has to comply to the zoning, as well.

[Speaker 3] (48:23 - 48:25)
All right. Thank you.

[Speaker 8] (48:25 - 48:43)
Yep. So, to clarify, Pete, this, so if somebody wanted to put in a business within 199 feet of a park, and they applied for a beer, wine, and cordial license, that, by state law, is different than a liquor license, which is how Cafe Pomona was able to get the beer, wine, and cordial license.

[Speaker 1] (48:44 - 48:53)
Or, similarly, a restaurant could establish and do a BYOB, because they aren't serving it, but you can allow it on property.

[Speaker 8] (48:53 - 49:02)
Only if you have a license that explicitly allows you to serve liquor. Liquor, yes. Beer and wine, BYOB, beer, wine, and cordial is all totally separate.

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (49:02 - 49:09)
Yep. And that's based on a number of zoning board reviews and determinations based on the definition. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (49:13 - 49:16)
It just doesn't impact that one business. It impacts a lot.

[Speaker 1] (49:16 - 49:17)
It impacts a lot of businesses.

[Speaker 4] (49:18 - 49:44)
And the potential for future business is correct. Certainly. Okay.

Any other questions from the board? Comments online, in the room? Just to let everyone know, we've reviewed these at several meetings before this.

That's why we're very quiet up here tonight. We already talked about this a lot. So, seeing none, I would entertain another motion.

[Speaker 11] (49:46 - 49:52)
Motion to recommend favorable action on the changes to Section 4.4. One, zero.

[Speaker 8] (49:52 - 49:54)
Second. All those in favor?

[Speaker 4] (49:55 - 49:57)
Aye. Aye. Aye.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (49:58 - 49:59)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (50:00 - 50:01)
Let me activate.

[Speaker 1] (50:03 - 53:39)
All right. Next one. This is the bylaw regarding non-conforming single and two-family structures.

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the process and procedure to make additions or changes to single and two-family homes that are currently non-conforming. And it will also ensure that the town's bylaw does not conflict with Mass General Law. So, what is a non-conforming structure?

Essentially, a non-conforming structure is a structure that is created when a zoning change happens where the structure already exists. And now, the change in the zoning bylaw now makes that property or that structure non-compliant. So, maybe the bylaw was changed in that particular district.

And the setback, the front setback is now 15 feet. And five homes under the previous bylaw were correct. But now, their 10-foot setback makes that home non-compliant because it's too close to the street based on the new zoning bylaw.

So, it means that the structure is considered grandfathered in. But it's non-compliant. And it's not meeting the current requirements.

This refers to height setback and coverage limitations. So, that's area of the property that's covered. This is a lot of text.

This is the current bylaw, section 2273. This is the entire section. And it does pertain to how we currently administer non-conforming structures with requests to either modify, make additions, and whatnot.

Currently, it creates a conflict where it sets a particular limit and then also makes a determination based on the increase of gross floor area of more than 15%. Due to the size of so many homes, any addition almost always triggers that more than 15%, then forcing the building commissioner to have to push it to the zoning board. That then also requires the zoning board to make a finding under section 6.

These restrictions in this process has become very problematic for the building commissioner. But also, the restriction and the allowance in here is in conflict with Mass General Law, meaning that if anybody was denied the permit under our current bylaw because of the conflict with Mass General Law, they could appeal that decision. And the appellant board would have to turn it back and remand it back to the board because our bylaw is in conflict.

And we cannot be in conflict or supersede Mass General Law. We have to comply with Mass General Law. So, how are we going to fix that?

That's what the amendment is. What it does is it clearly identifies the procedure in order to make an addition or a renovation to a nonconforming structure. It essentially allows the building commissioner to make a determination that based on section A here, says if they meet one or more of these three criteria, that addition can be permitted through the building commissioner.

If they cannot meet those three requirements or one or more of those three requirements, then it goes to the zoning board, clearly identifying the board what situation and then what process they have to do by making a determination, making a finding, and filing that determination. So, it clearly identifies now the procedure and that allowance for the zoning board still to make those special permits and the section 6 finding. That, I believe, is it.

Yes.

[Speaker 4] (53:41 - 53:52)
It is a lot of text. It is a lot of text. Yeah.

Yeah, it certainly is an improvement. The previous version is a lot of this.

[Speaker 1] (53:53 - 54:11)
It has gone through multiple rounds of council review in order to make sure that we still do not, that we are in compliance and we're not overstepping our bounds with Mass General Law, but still following a similar procedure to other communities and a clear procedure that is both understandable for the building commissioner and the zoning board.

[Speaker 2] (54:13 - 55:02)
The board has been making determinations for petitions that have structural or area non-conformities based on the state section 6, chapter 48, section 6, rather than defaulting to issuing a dimensional special permit, which is what they did up until two or three years ago, where we had one particular petition that we then forwarded to town council. And it was town council that came back and said, our bylaw supersedes the provisions that are extended and offered by the state. We cannot do that.

So, here are some guidelines. Here's some case law from the state. Use these to help you make the findings and determinations that are consistent with the state bylaw.

So, now we're just incorporating the language into the local bylaw.

[Speaker 4] (55:04 - 55:11)
Thank you. Any comments in person or virtually?

[Speaker 13] (55:17 - 55:18)
Three for three.

[Speaker 6] (55:20 - 55:21)
You're our favorite.

[Speaker 13] (55:21 - 55:22)
All right.

[Speaker 6] (55:23 - 55:24)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (55:28 - 55:36)
I guess one question is, what recourse does an abutter have if they have...

[Speaker 6] (55:36 - 55:37)
Do they get notified?

[Speaker 3] (55:37 - 55:48)
Yeah. Do they get a notification? Can they challenge it?

Or is this the building inspector approves it and that's it? No input from the abutter or abutters?

[Speaker 1] (55:48 - 56:19)
Similar to the granting of any building permit, so long as it meets the requirement of the bylaws and zoning and the building commissioner has the ability to release the building permit, then it is simply releasing of a building permit. Only when it is forwarded to the zoning board would it then go to a public hearing for notification of abutters so that abutters can provide their feedback on it. But just like any other building permit that complies, it would not actually result in an abutter notice.

Okay.

[Speaker 3] (56:22 - 56:38)
I understand that. What was less clear, just going back a couple of minutes, is how we're out of compliance with the state law with what we're trying to fix here. What is it we're out of compliance with?

I'll let Marissa... Sorry.

[Speaker 2] (56:39 - 59:45)
So I'm going to try and contextualize this a little bit. Basically, we're talking about two different kinds of relief here. There's the state section 6 relief, and then which is granted either by a finding or a special permit.

Then there's our dimensional special permit. Dimensional special permit is what we offer when somebody is looking to add footprint to their structure that encroaches on one or more setbacks. So your front, side, or rear setbacks.

We offer what's called dimensional relief for up to 20%. So if you are looking to add on an addition to the rear of your house, and you have to honor a rear yard setback of 20 feet, you can get permission through the Zoning Board of Appeals to have that addition extend up to 16 feet. That's 20% of 20 feet.

And that requires a hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. It requires notification gone out to your abutters within 300 feet. They provide comment.

You know, that's standard procedure. Section 6 relief is the relief that is given to extensions, alterations, or changes to existing non-conformities. So let's say you have a structure with a side yard setback of 3 feet, where a side yard setback almost town-wide is 7 1⁄2 feet.

And let's just say that setback is, you have a first story level that sits at 3 1⁄2 feet, 3 feet from your neighbor's yard. You want to build up. You want to build a second floor.

You want to build above that pre-existing non-conforming side yard setback. If the Zoning Board were to follow the language that is currently written in our bylaw, they would say, you can build above that, but we can only give you permission to go 5 feet, which is 20% of 7 1⁄2. However, the state says, no, they have a pre-existing non-conformity.

So even though they are only 3 feet from the setback, they should be able to build on top of that through the granting of what is known as a Section 6 special permit or finding. So the Zoning Board, having received this guidance from our town council a few years ago, has started to permit additions and changes and extensions of non-conformities of the like based on the state guidance. But before, they would only allow for up to that dimensional relief of 20%.

And we're talking about two different things. And that's where our local bylaw supersedes the state because we were using one form of relief to determine relief for something else. They should be treated separately.

You have dimensional relief and you have non-conforming relief. They are two separate sets of regulations. And we were conflating the two.

And so now we are adjusting the language in our local bylaw to comply with the state to treat them as separate. Does that make sense?

[Speaker 3] (59:46 - 1:00:25)
It did make sense. I guess, is there an option to come into compliance but have it go through the Zoning Board of Appeals again to pick up any other concerns during that process? You know, so I'm not saying not to comply.

It's like, yeah, we'll comply. And I guess, you know, just for us, you know, we had a neighbor who was trying to build a third floor roof deck. Second floor.

I'm sorry, a second floor roof deck that would look right down into our yard onto, you know, like our teenage daughters sunbathing out in the back, that sort of thing.

[Speaker 2] (1:00:27 - 1:02:00)
So there are, you know, this is at the end of the day, even though we are simplifying the language, this is all very nuanced as well. And it can be very case-by-case basis. So there might be other components of the petition outside of Section 6 relief that still might get deferred to the, that still might make a petition deferred to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

For example, if somebody is adding more than 800 square feet, they're going to need site plan special permit from the planning board. That's not zoning, but it is still subject to a public hearing. You still have that opportunity to receive notice and provide comment.

The reason why a compliant addition wouldn't come to the Zoning Board of Appeals with these new changes is because it's just that, it's dimensionally compliant. It respects all of our setbacks that we have established in the bylaw and not only like dimensional, not only front, rear and side yard setbacks, but we're also talking about things like lot coverage and open space. The moment that that addition exceeds the 30% or 25%, 30% lot coverage or 25% open space, it gets deferred to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

But otherwise, if anything is dimensionally compliant, then it respects the parameters that are outlined in the bylaws and it does not need Zoning Board relief. So if you have a neighbor who has a side yard, has a non-conforming side yard setback of three feet, but they're looking to do it, sorry.

[Speaker 6] (1:02:01 - 1:02:09)
Our actual, our neighbor is five inches. So their house is literally five inches off the boundary.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:10 - 1:02:31)
So any changes that they would make to that pre-existing non-conformity would come before the Zoning Board of Appeals because that would not be dimensionally compliant. So if they were looking to vertically or laterally extend that non-conformity, that would have to be determined by the Zoning Board of Relief. What we are, we are, sorry.

[Speaker 6] (1:02:32 - 1:02:40)
Or use the property as a, what is it, Airbnb. That should have come before you as well.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:40 - 1:03:03)
That's something entirely different. We're talking specifically about- Dimensional. Dimensional relief and structural relief.

That's a use and that's something that we currently in town don't regulate. It's not something that has been incorporated into our zoning bylaws. So we have no, neither the Zoning Board nor even the Select Board has jurisdiction over that right now because it is not something that we have codified.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:04 - 1:03:07)
But again, that also is not germane to this article at all.

[Speaker 6] (1:03:08 - 1:03:29)
Well, actually, I really would like you guys to study what happened here on Blaney Street because it might be useful in your understanding why we are questioning every word and here listening to you because what happened here is really a disaster, okay?

[Speaker 1] (1:03:31 - 1:03:50)
And I would definitely recommend, because we want to stay on topic of the articles, certainly reach out to myself or Marissa and we can talk through the situation that you had in Blaney and look at what we could do for possible changes to the bylaw in the future. But with regards to this, we're looking at the non-conforming dimensional elements for single and two family, not the uses.

[Speaker 6] (1:03:51 - 1:04:09)
But that's how they got the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak. And it's too late for us. We are concerned with protecting other citizens in Swampscot from the financial hemorrhage, from the harassment, all of it.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:10 - 1:04:10)
Sure.

[Speaker 6] (1:04:11 - 1:04:12)
That's why we're here.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:12 - 1:04:18)
Yeah, certainly reach out to us because that topic is certainly something that we can look into in the future, absolutely.

[Speaker 6] (1:04:19 - 1:04:20)
Thank you, I appreciate that.

[Speaker 4] (1:04:20 - 1:04:30)
Yep, thank you very much. Any other comments online?

[Speaker 2] (1:04:36 - 1:04:37)
Not seeing any.

[Speaker 4] (1:04:37 - 1:04:45)
Okay, comments from the board on this one? I'd entertain a motion on this bylaw change.

[Speaker 11] (1:04:54 - 1:04:56)
You have a motion, don't you? Go for it.

[Speaker 12] (1:04:57 - 1:04:57)
Oh, go ahead.

[Speaker 11] (1:04:58 - 1:05:05)
Motion to recommend favorable action on the changes to section 2273.

[Speaker 8] (1:05:06 - 1:05:10)
I'll second that. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:11 - 1:05:12)
Ayes have it.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:13 - 1:06:14)
One more, right? One more. Yep.

All right, this is an amendment to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Bylaw. This bylaw amendment, you might remember back in 2023 at the annual town meeting, we updated our accessory apartment bylaw into the modern Accessory Dwelling Unit Bylaw. There was one element that was missing from the amendment language in the town warrant that should have been stricken and it wasn't shown as a strikethrough, therefore we weren't allowed to remove it.

However, that item which is listed here in red no longer makes sense because it doesn't follow the new process and it refers to the Board of Appeals even though the ZBA doesn't have a process in this any longer and it also refers to AA which was the accessory apartment reference and it's now ADU. It's just a point that 0.8 should have been removed and so we just need to clean up the language so it's not confusing and correct that. And that's the amendment.

And the parking's already covered in the first one.

[Speaker 4] (1:06:14 - 1:06:21)
Correct. Any comments from members of the public in the room or online?

[Speaker 6] (1:06:27 - 1:06:28)
Four for four.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:34 - 1:07:01)
Sorry about that. I guess it's more of a clarification question so I understand this is just you're cleaning up some legacy language. You're putting what you want as the current language in there.

I get all that. We get that. Is this impacting parking requirements or are the parking requirements staying the same and it's just cleaning up the language or is the parking requirements also changing?

[Speaker 1] (1:07:02 - 1:07:21)
We're not changing the parking requirements. That has already been set based on last year's amendment. All we're doing is we're moving this bullet point that has no reference any longer and does not apply to the process.

It is not modifying anything with parking or any of the process. It's just antiquated now and it shouldn't have been there.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:23 - 1:07:31)
Okay. And that was the bullet point that you said it referred to like the AA language instead of the EDU language, that sort of thing?

[Speaker 1] (1:07:31 - 1:07:44)
It's that .8, the red text in that list. All the rest of the text is already in the bylaw. It's .8 was inadvertently remained from the original bylaw when it should have been removed.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:45 - 1:07:47)
Okay. All right.

[Speaker 4] (1:07:47 - 1:07:48)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:48 - 1:07:50)
It's not up in front of us. So, you know.

[Speaker 4] (1:07:50 - 1:07:52)
Yeah, you're probably not seeing it on the screen, right?

[Speaker 3] (1:07:53 - 1:07:55)
Yeah, so we're just kind of.

[Speaker 4] (1:07:55 - 1:08:13)
Yeah, I was looking at this. We have this big screen. Oh, yeah.

But there's on the slides behind us, it says, there you go. Yeah, 51131. That's the language that was passed last week.

Is only one. Oh, I'm sorry. Where is it?

Three, sorry. Where's the parking one?

[Speaker 2] (1:08:14 - 1:08:15)
51136.

[Speaker 4] (1:08:15 - 1:08:31)
Six, excuse me. Sorry. Is one dedicated off street parking place.

That's not changing. That was already passed last year. It's the one in red there at the bottom.

Yeah, it's just the red text. We're basically striking that through. And that because it's just irrelevant.

Because parking is already covered. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:32 - 1:08:35)
All right. Thanks, guys, for the clarification. Appreciate it.

[Speaker 4] (1:08:35 - 1:08:48)
Yeah. Hearing no more questions. Entertain.

Actually, should I close the public hearing? First.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:48 - 1:08:50)
It's up to you on your process.

[Speaker 4] (1:08:51 - 1:08:58)
Let's motion close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing.

[Speaker 13] (1:08:58 - 1:08:58)
Aye.

[Speaker 4] (1:08:59 - 1:09:02)
Thank you. And then I'd entertain a motion on this last article.

[Speaker 9] (1:09:04 - 1:09:15)
I make a motion for favorable action on the bylaw amendment for 511.3.0 to remove 511.3.8 that was erroneously left in last year. Second.

[Speaker 4] (1:09:16 - 1:09:36)
All those in favor. Aye. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you, everyone. I don't think we have any more agenda items tonight.

If I. Nope. Good.

All right. And motion to adjourn this meeting. Anyone?

Adjourn.

[Speaker 9] (1:09:36 - 1:09:39)
So, Mike, I think you should make the motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 4] (1:09:39 - 1:09:51)
I should make the motion. As the outgoing chair, I make a motion to adjourn my final meeting. Thank you.

There we go. All those in favor. Aye.

All right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.