[Speaker 2] (9:20 - 11:45)
Good evening. Please come in and find your way to a seat. I have been informed by the town clerk that there is a quorum present.

So please make your way into the hall. If you are a newly elected or newly reelected member who has not yet been sworn in, please come down and see the clerk now. Thank you.

First, a piece of housekeeping. If for whatever reason we do not conclude the town's business tonight, we will meet back here on Wednesday of next week. Clear your calendars.

Alternatively, let's make efficient use of our evening. Welcome. All right, those of you who feel the need, please rise and join me in swearing our allegiance to the flag of this country.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. We now take up Article 16.

If I could get you to thank you. Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 4] (11:48 - 12:19)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Angela Ippolito, town meeting member, Precinct 5, member of the planning board. The planning board recommends the town to vote to amend the Swampscot Zoning By-law Section 5.11.0.0, accessory dwelling units, as set forth in the printed warrant. The planning board held a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend favorable action. I move the recommendation of the planning board.

[Speaker 2] (12:20 - 12:23)
Is there a second? Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 4] (12:23 - 12:49)
This particular article just clears up some, I suppose, language and technical errors that were printed in the last, one, after we adopted the ADU by-law. And I think Pete will, our director of planning, Pete Kane, will, I don't know if you want to speak to that any further, Pete. I think it was just replacing some language with others.

[Speaker 2] (12:49 - 12:54)
My understanding is some language should have been replaced and was not. But if you could take us through it, Mr. Kane.

[Speaker 4] (12:55 - 12:56)
Do you want to speak to it?

[Speaker 1] (12:56 - 13:45)
Yeah. So it is Pete Kane, director of planning and land use. So this is simply housekeeping.

Last year, town meeting did approve the update to the accessory apartment by-law to the new accessory dwelling unit by-law. When we do amendments of existing by-laws, we have to show the by-law in black text, with red text striking it out, and then red text unstricken for additions. And with that edit, 5.11.3.8 was not shown in the appendix. It was supposed to be stricken. Its reference doesn't make sense any longer within the new by-law. It refers to the Board of Appeals, it refers to the AA, which is, we now use the ADU instead.

So this is just a housekeeping to correct that.

[Speaker 2] (13:46 - 14:01)
Thank you, Mr. Kane. Is there discussion, any questions on Ms. Ippolito's motion? Seeing none, all those in favor?

This does require a two-thirds vote. All those opposed? It is unanimous.

Thank you. Article 17.

[Speaker 4] (14:02 - 14:41)
Ms. Ippolito. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I just lost my little, Pete, did you?

I don't know if you took my sheet, my motion sheet. So excuse me for a moment. Oh, I have it.

Sorry about that. Article 17, Liquor Establishments. The Planning Board recommends the Town to vote to amend the Swamp Scouts Zoning By-law section 4.4.1.0 pertaining to regulations for special uses as shown in the printed warrant. The Planning Board held a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend favorable action. I move the recommendation of the Planning Board.

[Speaker 2] (14:41 - 14:44)
Is there a second? Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 4] (14:45 - 15:17)
This is, just removes an antiquated by-law that liquor establishments have to be a certain distance from parks or I think it was schools and churches or something like that. Not only are there, you know, we have structures that are not in compliance, but it's just routinely in cities and towns not, it's sort of an outdated, it's an outdated by-law, part of the by-law, so we are looking to change it.

[Speaker 2] (15:18 - 15:34)
Thank you, Ms. Ippolito. Are there questions or comments on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, this is also a two-thirds vote.

All those opposed, it is unanimous. Article 18. Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 4] (15:34 - 16:05)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Article 18, Nonconforming Structures.

The Planning Board recommends the Town vote to amend the Swampscot Zoning By-law, Section 2.2.7.3, pertaining to regulations for nonconforming single and two-family structures, residences, as set forth in Appendix B of the printed warrant. The Planning Board held a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend favorable action. I move the recommendation of the Planning Board.

[Speaker 2] (16:06 - 16:08)
Is there a second? Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 4] (16:09 - 16:31)
This by-law essentially relates to the granting of dimensional special permits for pre-existing nonconforming single and two-family homes, structures, and I'm going to ask our Director of Planning, Pete Kane, to give you some details on that.

[Speaker 1] (16:31 - 20:53)
Mr. Kane. Okay. So this section of the by-law is a little bit difficult to understand, but generally the idea here is the amendment is trying to clarify the process as it relates to additions to single and two-family homes when they are nonconforming.

And so what does nonconforming mean? It means that it's a home that is on a property that is either undersized, doesn't have enough frontage, meaning the length of its property along the right-of-way, or the home itself is within a setback because it was built conformance at one time, but then the zoning by-law changed and now the home is no longer in compliance. And that refers specifically to building height, setback, or coverage limitations.

That's the amount of property or land that the house covers. This is the current by-law. I don't know if anybody's read the current by-law, but it's pretty arduous.

Essentially what it goes into is it states that in a situation where a property owner who owns a single or two-family home that wants to make an addition and they are a nonconforming instance, they have to look at these two situations. If the building inspector, based on their request to make that addition, makes a determination that it either is going to exacerbate the nonconformance or one of the problems that we do have in our by-law is it has a limitation that says if the addition is going to be more than 15% of the square footage of the home, if you have a 1,200-square-foot home and you want to do 200 square feet of an addition, you suddenly have gone over 15%.

So essentially a lot of additions on pretty modest-sized homes trigger this 15%. What does that mean? It means that essentially any of the requests to make modifications to these single and two-family homes have to then get forced to a zoning board review.

The other issue with the by-law is that beyond it being confusing is it conflicts with MGL. Mass General Law Section 6 grants protections for homes in this particular situation, acknowledging the fact that zoning by-laws do change and that homes can't magically be moved, can't magically get additional land when you can't add land without taking it from somebody else. So there is a protection in the state law, but our by-law conflicts with that.

So the revision that we're doing here essentially creates two use cases. The first case is Part A, when the applicant is looking to make that addition. So long as the addition itself is compliant, that the addition that you're making is within the setback, within the height limitation, within the coverage limitation, the building inspector can give you that building permit to do it.

If it is not within those limitations, if it is not abiding by the law, then it will move to the zoning board. Here's a quick example. An undersized lot on the left-hand side is a 998 square foot lot where it was 10,000 square feet.

You can see the house is completely compliant within the setbacks. It's just an undersized lot. An addition of more than 15% right now would mean that it has to go to zoning board, making the process to make a small addition to your home problematic and more costly.

Same thing with the middle instance. Your property is supposed to have 50 feet along the roadway. You only have 45 feet.

You're going to have to go to the zoning board. The other instance is the existing home has a setback where it's only eight feet away from the front property line, where 10 feet is required. Previously it was a compliance, but it's no longer in compliance.

In addition to that home, even within the dashed restriction would still be forced to go to the zoning board under the current bylaw. So this makes it possible for the building inspector to make those smaller compliant approvals or if it is a noncompliant, if they are exacerbating or making the noncompliance worse, it would still go to the zoning board who could then have the ability to make a determination if a dimensional special permit is necessary or a section six finding is required.

[Speaker 2] (20:57 - 21:03)
Thank you, Mr. Cain. Are there questions or discussion? Ms. Colangelo.

[Speaker 33] (21:11 - 21:31)
Good evening. Lisa Colangelo, precinct four town meeting member, lifelong Swampscott resident who's been through this process for a zoning board of appeals meeting. If we go with this, would there be any limit to the size of that addition, if you will, to these nonconforming structures?

We had 15% before.

[Speaker 1] (21:33 - 21:53)
Yes. So the limitation would still be 800 square feet because an 800 square foot addition automatically then forces a requirement for a site plan special permit. So there is a limit that you can, as long as you're under that 800 square feet, you wouldn't require the special permit so long as you're complying with the setbacks and the heights.

[Speaker 33] (21:54 - 21:54)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (21:54 - 21:55)
Thank you, Mr. Cain.

[Speaker 33] (21:55 - 21:56)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (21:57 - 22:03)
Further discussion on this side, in the middle, Mr. Demento.

[Speaker 6] (22:24 - 25:57)
William Demento, precinct member, precinct six. I rise in opposition to this because of one word and I confess I attended the public hearing but I paid so much attention to the 3A thing that's coming up in a minute that I didn't pay enough attention to this. But Pete raised something that I also disagree with, saying that this brings it into compliance with 40A6.

40A6 is a statute that protects the owner. It doesn't set limitations. That's what it's designed to do.

It's never been designed to demand conformance of local bylaws because local boards can go way beyond that and most do. My problem is, I believe since 2009, the bylaw has said that anyone, for instance, somewhere in the A3 district, Borough Street, that area, with under 10,000 square feet, can rip their house down and construct a new house and they can do that under the 2009 amendment that was allowed for the first time in this town since zoning was brought here in 1923. But now those people can rip that down, wherever the footprint of their house is, and build a new house.

Take that third example and expand it to all the limitations or beyond the limitations. Let's say it's one of those houses that has seven and a half feet on each side, which is a side yard requirement. You can tear that house down and build a brand new one without the protections that the Zoning Board of Appeals offers through a special permit.

That's wrong. We are adopting what I consider the most liberal bylaw in the state because of that word reconstruction. I know what the word reconstruction means.

I've tried cases on that, and I forgot to say, Mr. Moderator, I'm a long-since retired attorney representing nobody. But this is what I did, this sort of thing, so I think I have some brain cells that deal with it. I think it's very bad to leave that word reconstruction in there.

Some of these other things are fine. I don't have a problem with people doing that. The question that Lisa raised about the limitations, that 800 square feet, that can be on one floor.

You're going to end up on a lot of 5,000 feet with 80% lot coverage before you're through because it was there, and you can tear that house down and build a new one. And it's been done in the town since 2009. There are three that I know of.

I just think it's a mistake to do that. It's not thought out, and we shouldn't do it. Thank you for the time.

[Speaker 2] (25:58 - 26:13)
Thank you, Mr. Demento. Further questions or commentary? Yes.

Wow, I'm having a senior moment. Kornitsky, my lord. That's what we get on night three.

[Speaker 9] (26:16 - 29:37)
Hello, everyone. Mark Kornitsky. I'm a member of the Swamp Spot Zoning Board.

I'm also an elected town meeting member. I've been on the zoning board for about 16 or 17 years. And this change was something that I brought up at some of our meetings when we learned that our bylaw was not conforming with 40A Section 6, the statute, as interpreted by a particular case called Balada.

And the Balada case basically says no. It's looked at, in that case, a different bylaw, but one that has some of the same similarities and restricted more than 40A6 permitted. I would agree with Bill Demento's comment that the reconstruction word could be stricken from the language of the new proposed bylaw and satisfy that issue.

I think that it does leave a little bit, although town council gave our board and the planning board a joint seminar on 40A6 and the Balada case in particular. And they were involved with Angela and the planning department in drafting this. So I understand and appreciate Bill's concern and have seen reconstruction firsthand.

There's a lot right next to me where there was a large reconstruction. So, one last piece is, in terms of those three scenarios you saw, the conforming changes under 40A6, if someone has a lot that is nonconforming because of frontage or side yard setback, those are always going to be allowed. The interesting thing about Balada is when you have a nonconformity, like shown in that third picture, you can make conforming changes.

So arguably somebody who doesn't have, has the nonconforming lot triggered, triggers the analysis to, in this case, the building inspector who would be making a finding that they are conforming changes. And what we've had happening at our zoning board is all these petitions that have been coming before us have resulted in us making the finding and we're not going to deny it. If they're conforming changes, it's something the building inspector could determine and it's costing residents in terms of time, money, for things that we're just going to end up allowing because our hands are tied by this Balada case.

So I, the only thing I could see as a concern may be the reconstruction language, but I defer to Angela and Pete on that. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (29:38 - 29:43)
Thank you, Mr. Kronitsky. Ms. Dreven and Mr. Kraft.

[Speaker 29] (29:46 - 29:58)
This is just a process question, two questions. One is the lights going up and down are kind of hard on me and I wonder if we could just leave them on because we can see the screen quite well even when they're on.

[Speaker 2] (29:58 - 30:11)
I'll take that as a point of personal privilege and ask for a sense of the meeting. Would you prefer to have the lights stay as they are now? All those in favor?

Thank you. Mr. Dulet, if you can help with the team.

[Speaker 29] (30:11 - 30:54)
My second question is, for those of us not entirely familiar with the language of zoning, when we talk about non-conforming structures and things like that and the example number three, that was helpful, but I'm wondering if a specific example of what it would look like on an actual house could be just described so we understand. So is something like a conforming addition to the third picture there, would it be something that's built on the back because that lot area is still okay to use? You couldn't put something on the front of the house because it's non-conforming because it's less than the ten foot setback.

[Speaker 1] (30:55 - 31:00)
But on the back, it could only be up to that dash line. That dash line represents a setback.

[Speaker 29] (31:01 - 31:02)
So that's what that means.

[Speaker 4] (31:03 - 31:20)
Thank you. You can't do anything to worsen the non-conformity. So it's already too close to the street on that number three, so if you wanted to make an addition that drew it even closer to the street, you would not be allowed to do that.

[Speaker 2] (31:21 - 31:23)
Thank you. Mr. Kraft.

[Speaker 34] (31:28 - 32:06)
Rick Kraft, Town Meeting Member of Precinct 3. I do question Mr. Demento's interpretation of this, and if I'm missing something, I would love for someone to correct me, but it seems that this says that the reconstruction would need to comply with all the current zoning regulations. And so if, in his example, someone tore down the house, the rebuilt house would need to comply with current requirements.

So I don't see how his concern of it being some monster house would apply unless that was already allowed on that lot.

[Speaker 2] (32:06 - 32:09)
Thank you, Mr. Kraft. Mr. Patzios. And then Mr. Schutzer.

[Speaker 12] (32:15 - 34:16)
Charlie Patzios, Precinct 5. Mr. Kraft, this is what I see here. This doesn't concern the big lots in A1 or in A2, it's in A3, it's the little lots in town.

It's where most of the folks live. And my first house on Greenwood Avenue was a 5,000-square-foot lot, and most of our homes are nonconforming. Very few are conforming.

So if you already own your home, and you're in one of these small lots, and you can't afford to go to a bigger house, but you already own your home, and you want to rebuild it or you want to modify it, this is the vehicle that lets the folks in Swampscott stay in Swampscott and make their home a little bigger if they've got a growing family. This is a good thing. This is why I hope that happened a long time ago for most all of us.

There isn't a thing in here, reconstruction, I have great respect for Bill. I sit next to him and we disagree all the time. And I'm going to hand an amendment for Bill, which is exactly the opposite of what I'm speaking on, because I respect him, I don't agree with him.

If you have a home, and you have a growing family, and you want to expand your home, and you don't want to hire an attorney, and you have an architect, you can go in front of the building inspector and get a permit to start the construction. You're not going to get gray hairs in front of the ZBA, and no disrespect for either lawyer, but they're lawyers. We're not.

This is something for us, and I can't find anything wrong with it. So we can talk about this for a long time, but I think it's a great thing for everybody. And now Bill, I'm going to give him your...

[Speaker 2] (34:16 - 35:18)
Could you just state your amendment, please? There is a motion from Mr. Demento, apparently, to strike the words reconstruction from the bylaw amendment found in Appendix B. It occurs 18 times, of which it would appear that 7 are not to be stricken, and the remaining are in their...

I'm sorry, 7, 8, 9, 10 are not to be stricken, and 8 are to be stricken. Mr. Moderator? One moment, first.

Is there a second to this amendment? I welcome the person making the motion to speak to his motion. Thank you, Mr. Patz, yes.

[Speaker 6] (35:20 - 36:42)
Thank you, Charlie. My motion, I believe, still allows extensive work on homes that people want to do. There is one aspect of that that I really want to respond to, Mr. Kraft, because the point in the third...

Can we put that thing with the three... The house you'll see invades the front yard. Imagine some of the houses in the A3 district, for instance, Burrill Street or any one of those.

Imagine if they violate all of those, and 95% of the lot is covered. Covered, make it 98%. Reconstruction means, under this bylaw, in my interpretation, you can tear that house down and rebuild it without any oversight, and I'm not necessarily opposed to that, except for the oversight.

I think the zoning board needs to take a look at those things when they're so big, but that's the perfect example. I don't want to belabor the point because I think I've explained what reconstruction means. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (36:43 - 36:50)
Mr. Demento. Yes, Mr. Kane, then Mr. Germa, and Mr. Bierman.

[Speaker 1] (36:50 - 38:37)
Just want to point out item A, number one, alteration, extension, reconstruction, or change to a structure located on a lot with insufficient area which complies with all current setback, yard, building coverage, and building height requirements. Item two, alteration, extension, reconstruction, or change to a structure located on a lot with insufficient frontage which complies with all current setback, yard, building coverage, and building height requirements, and or item three, alteration, extension, reconstruction, or change to a structure which encroaches upon one or more required yard or setback areas where the alteration, the printed bylaw has it correct, but alteration will comply with all current setback, yard, building coverage, and building height requirements. What this means is, if there is a reconstruction under the proposal that is referred to, the reconstruction must comply with the dimensional restrictions, meaning the setbacks, meaning the building coverage limitation, meaning the open space requirement. It does allow for reconstruction on an insufficient lot or a lot that does not have the frontage.

That's my one point, is just to clarify that it does say that the reconstruction or the alteration or the addition, they must comply, otherwise it has to go to the zoning board. If the body does decide to move forward with the motion, I do ask a clarifying question. If we are to strike out reconstruction, are you striking it out from the bylaw entirely in 2273 or simply in item one, items number one, two, and three, and leaving it in number two because a reconstruction should still go to the zoning board even if it's not going to be compliant.

[Speaker 2] (38:42 - 39:30)
Council, did you follow? Mr. Cain, could you confer with council? He would accept that friendly amendment, thank you.

So that would remove the word reconstruction in three cases, four cases, A, one, two, three, but not in B. Those of you following along, that is found on pages 39 and 40 in your printed warrant. Now, hold on, Mr. Schutzer, do you still wish to speak, then Mr. Chairman, then Mr. Green?

[Speaker 3] (39:39 - 45:42)
Good evening. My name is Ken Schutzer. I'm an attorney.

I don't currently have any cases that specifically deal with the issue that we're discussing this evening, but I do have cases that are currently pending before the Board of Appeals. My reason for speaking, when I first saw this, is my impression was that we were taking away rights, not necessarily the rights of the people that want to put the additions on, but the rights of the abutters to the people that want to put the additions on. It takes away the opportunity for them to voice their thoughts, their opinions with regard to the construction of this addition.

Clearly, that's going to have an impact on their home and their property values. My reading of this, and I'll just digress for a moment, when I watched the Planning Board hearing, when I watched Mr. Kane explain and Ms. Meany explain what this was about, their concern, as I understood it, was that this was just too cumbersome, and what I now see is an oversimplification. I would indicate that I was privy to the design of this particular bylaw about 25 years ago when we made a major change in the zoning bylaw.

I'm not aware, in those years, and obviously since 2009, when the specific issue that Mr. Dementor alluded to, there haven't been appeals on this issue. Now, what brings it, I believe, to the attention of Mr. Kane and Mr. Koininski is the Vallada decision that was earlier referenced. I would just say this.

The one thing that Mr. Dementor said that I'm completely comport with is the fact that this would probably be the most liberal reading of the Vallada case of any of the towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to my knowledge. I can only tell you this, that the town of Marblehead, if we're going to compare bylaws, they have a triggering of 10%. So if you want to go in Marblehead and you want to put over a 10% increase in the size of your home, you go before the Board of Appeals.

That's not such a bad thing. Why? Because it invites the opportunity to have discussion.

It gives people the opportunity to talk to their neighbors, and oftentimes, and more often than not, through that process, through the guidance of the Zoning Board of Appeals, a decision is made that satisfies everyone and therefore ultimately results in fewer appeals because there's a consensus, and Boards of Appeals are mindful of that, and more often than not are willing to adopt, if the neighbors are willing to adopt, the person who wants to put their addition on wants to adopt.

And that's the way it's been working, and it's been working very well all of these years. I see this bylaw, this Oval of Simplification, as taking away those neighbors' opportunity to intervene in the process. Now, granted, there is a drawback if you are the person who wants to put the addition on.

You're delayed. You have to get a site plan so everybody can see what you're doing, not just the building inspector, and that has nothing to do with the building inspector. I just want the process, you know, and the word transparency just has such a wonderful ring to it these days.

Have an opportunity, if you want to speak on it, at the Board of Appeals, there's a forum to do that because the only other forum would be that you'd have to sue the building inspector on his earlier determination that it in fact applies. So that was my primary concern, and I expressed that this morning. I actually had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Cain, Ms. Meany, and Ms. Golaska. I expressed my concern. I guess they thought that I was overly concerned and maybe I shouldn't be. I think it's concerning to all of you.

The other thing that I noted was, and I brought this to their attention as well, I didn't want this process to be what happened in the past where people feel like they weren't told in advance, they didn't know I was going to be speaking on the issue. They eliminated the word open space. Open space is an important concept.

When you fill out an application for a zoning hearing, there's a matrix. You've got to fill in your frontage, your side yard, your rear yard, lot coverage, and open space. They want to ensure that you don't cover your entire lot.

And that would also include paving. But for some reason, and I was told that I shouldn't be overly concerned about that because the word yard means open space, and I would clearly take exception to that because we have definitions in our body of law, and those definitions clearly identify yard, and they clearly identify open space, and they are two different things. I think there's a good intention here.

I just think that this rush to judgment, this imperative that we act on something that hasn't been entirely vetted, Mr. Dementor brought up a point. I think there's some other points to be brought up. I think the most important aspect, and I'll just reiterate it one more time, is I don't want to take the neighborhood involvement out of the process.

I also think it's important that we have some percentage. 15 was ours, Marblehead is still 10, Marblehead isn't changing the zoning bylaw, nor a lot of other towns, but that is a definitive objective standard. It's a number, and when you want to increase it over that 15 percent, it triggers review.

I think that's a good thing. I think review is a wonderful thing. I think review gives people an opportunity to speak to each other, and I don't see the necessity of doing this tonight.

I would respectfully ask that this motion be indefinitely postponed. I think the intent is good. I think ultimately it can be simplified, but I surely don't want it to be oversimplified, and that's the way, that's my view, and I thank you for your time.

[Speaker 2] (45:47 - 45:53)
Is there further discussion? I'm sorry, Mr. Germa, Mr. Bierman, and then in the back there.

[Speaker 5] (46:01 - 46:38)
Good evening. Chair Germa, Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member, Historic District Commission Member, and Planning Board Member. This is a very difficult line to walk, because the simplification, in my opinion, is about access to be able to do work on houses, which is great, but I do actually want to start with a question.

To go in front of the Historic District Commission, there is no fee. To go in front of the Planning Board, is there a fee? There is.

[Speaker 2] (46:38 - 46:38)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 5] (46:39 - 46:42)
And what is the fee for the Planning Board? Is it based on?

[Speaker 2] (46:43 - 46:45)
Can we? I just need you and the microphone.

[Speaker 1] (46:46 - 46:47)
I think his mic is off.

[Speaker 2] (46:48 - 46:49)
Okay. Stand by.

[Speaker 1] (46:49 - 46:58)
But this is specific to Zoning Board as opposed to Planning Board, but the fee, I believe, is a standard $400, typically $450.

[Speaker 5] (46:58 - 47:00)
$450 for the Planning Board?

[Speaker 1] (47:00 - 47:02)
Zoning Board. Oh, that's Zoning Board.

[Speaker 5] (47:02 - 49:31)
We're talking Zoning Board. Zoning Board. Okay.

So, one of the questions that I ask is, the Zoning Board of Appeals is a group of volunteers that are appointed. No one's being paid. If this is about access, and speaking to Mr. Schuster's, has the town ever evaluated the necessity for the fees?

Because that's where it does seem sort of a hardship if you've got these houses, and so many of our houses are actually non-conforming, that this triggers a $400 fee that might not need to exist. I know that when the Historic District Commission was set up, we determined that it would not be with fees for the reason that it was going to be required on these homeowners. So that was just a statement.

I know this isn't the place that the fee comes in, but I know for access that's important. I do agree with Mr. Demento on the reconstruction here. New England has a bit of this problem.

Swampscot doesn't have it as much as many towns. The West Coast has a terrible problem with this, where modest homes in high-value areas are removed, and houses are built to the absolute maximum. And that's where it really starts eroding how the neighborhood feels, and it can really start unwinding a neighborhood.

So having input when something is being torn down and then built out. Now keep in mind, can you go to the second slide? When you're dealing with setbacks, you can even see in this example, there's a lot bigger house that can go on these lots.

But if every neighboring house is more modest, that's really impacting the neighborhood. And it's really good to have the neighbors involved in that conversation. And it might not be that they can't build as big of a house, but maybe there would be moves made by the architect that would reduce the scale, the feeling of the scale of the house.

So it's still relating to the neighbors. So I do think simplification is good. The reconstruction, so there's a level of control I think would be very important in this when it comes to the possibility of removing reconstruction if we did want to move this forward tonight.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (49:31 - 49:37)
Thank you, Mr. Germo. Mr. Bierman has demurred. Sir?

[Speaker 15] (49:45 - 50:33)
Oh, yes. Rupert Deese, Precinct 5, town meeting member. First, a question.

So this, the article in the discussion applies to non-conforming lots, or buildings that are non-conforming. I'm not sure what's going on with the setbacks and other things. It seems to me that we're now talking about a much more general thing of trying to encourage discussion between neighbors for making additions or changes to their homes.

And I just wanted to ask a clarifying question about if you're conforming with all the requirements and you want to, say, make your house significantly larger in a way that would still conform, at what point would you trigger some kind of conversation with, I guess, the zoning board that we're talking about?

[Speaker 2] (50:33 - 50:34)
So I...

[Speaker 1] (50:34 - 50:35)
Yeah, so...

[Speaker 2] (50:35 - 50:42)
The question... Mr. Kane, one second. So you're asking if you are in a conforming structure.

This bylaw...

[Speaker 15] (50:42 - 50:43)
Right, yes, yes.

[Speaker 2] (50:43 - 50:45)
This bylaw does not address that at all.

[Speaker 15] (50:45 - 50:47)
No, I understand. But I think...

[Speaker 2] (50:47 - 51:10)
And I'm happy to pursue that conversation elsewhere, but I need to stick to what we're discussing tonight. I do think the access is a great question. The question of letting neighbors have a say in terms of non-conforming structures is what we're talking about.

Access, they would certainly have probably need for fewer lawyers if it were determined by the building inspector.

[Speaker 15] (51:10 - 51:31)
Sorry, so then concisely, I guess I would... I think that the concerns being discussed by fellow townie members are valid, but I'd just urge people to consider that making things simpler is generally good and, you know, kind of we should be talking to our neighbors without being, you know, shepherded through formal processes. I think that this article is probably a good thing for us to pass.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (51:31 - 52:28)
Thank you. I'd encourage any more debate on striking the word reconstruction, however that is interpreted by the person making the motion versus the town council. So I've got Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry, you are looking to call the question on the amendment up to the language. We will return to debate on the motion as amended if we decide to end this debate and vote on it. This requires a two-thirds vote.

Is there... All those in favor of Mr. Perry's motion to end debate on the amendment striking the word reconstruction four times, please raise your hand. All those opposed?

Okay, that motion fails. We are still discussing this amendment. Ma'am in the back.

[Speaker 37] (52:38 - 52:59)
Hi. Shawna Delano, Precinct 2 Town Meeting Member. Just a very quick question.

Does this only apply to additions or does the term reconstruction apply if somebody's house was damaged in a storm and they needed to reconstruct something? Would striking it cause difficulty for them to do that work?

[Speaker 2] (52:59 - 53:04)
Well, I can ask Mr. Cain his opinion, but I will also inquire of town council. Mr. Cain.

[Speaker 1] (53:07 - 53:20)
If there was damage due to an act of God, it is protected under a separate bylaw. So long as you do that repair within a one-year time period, I believe it's one year. Thank you, Mr. Cain. Yes.

[Speaker 2] (53:21 - 53:31)
Trying to find folks who haven't spoken yet. I do see Mr. Patsios and Ms. Carangelo. Yes, ma'am.

And then Mr. Giontas.

[Speaker 19] (53:36 - 55:11)
Hi, Hillary Fouts, Precinct 6. I just have a quick comment, but I agree with almost everything I've heard here tonight, but I just wanted to know if there was a way that, and I don't write laws, but there could be a provision in there that if you're going to have something approved directly from the building inspector, that the abutting neighbors be notified, because I was somebody who had a neighbor that built something. They tried to build something, I'm only five feet tall, seven feet from my property line.

That's not a lot of room. And had the zoning board not notified me, I would not have known about it because the neighbor never did until I showed up basically three days later at the meeting, and eventually the zoning board agreed that the structure needed to be turned, made smaller, and there were a lot of issues with what this person was on a corner lot, and corner lots have a lot of their own issues in terms of what's considered a backyard, a side yard, et cetera.

All the rules and language on that change and the setbacks and whatnot change. So I just didn't know, again, I agree with everything I've heard tonight, but if there's a way that if you're going to be, if your neighbors, if somebody wants to do something, the people that truly abut that property, shouldn't there be a 30-day notification, a two-week notification, a something in writing that you're told? And there may be in there?

I don't know. That was my only concern and hope.

[Speaker 2] (55:11 - 55:42)
Thank you, Ms. Fouts. So I'm just going to take a moment and restate my comments from the top of the evening. We do have Wednesday of next week reserved.

It does anybody else have any comments on the amendment to remove the language reconstruction? Mr. Patsios and Mr. Schutzer. Wait, please.

[Speaker 3] (55:43 - 55:53)
Thank you. In reference to the question that came up with regard to the fee structure, that was a determination that was made by the Board of Appeals when I. Mr. Schutzer. What?

[Speaker 2] (55:53 - 55:56)
We can't talk about that. Do you have a comment on the word reconstruction?

[Speaker 3] (55:57 - 56:00)
A comment was made with regard to the question of the fee structure.

[Speaker 2] (56:00 - 56:10)
Do you have a question? We will come to this entire, I would like to get through this amendment. If you are not speaking to this amendment, you are out of order.

Please take a seat.

[Speaker 3] (56:11 - 56:14)
You know, I appreciate what you're trying to do.

[Speaker 2] (56:15 - 56:33)
I just don't appreciate the way you're trying to do it. Please take a seat. I am trying to get this amendment.

You have a comment about the word reconstruction, sir. Is there anything that is vague about my question? Please don't demean.

Please don't. Please don't demean this body. I'm looking to get through this amendment.

[Speaker 3] (56:34 - 56:43)
I understand that. You just don't have. You do not understand because you persist.

No, no, but it's the way that you speak to people. You don't have to do it that way. I understand what you're saying.

[Speaker 2] (56:43 - 56:44)
I would like you.

[Speaker 3] (56:44 - 56:46)
But your process is unacceptable.

[Speaker 2] (56:49 - 57:02)
I would like to get through this amendment and then you may have your second bite at two minutes on this topic. Ten minutes on this topic. Mr. Patsios, if we are going to talk about everything all the time, we will be here Wednesday.

[Speaker 12] (57:02 - 57:43)
So reconstruction would require us to be in front of the zoning board. Most people that would be in front of the zoning board, aside from the fee, will also have to have an attorney representing them. Reconstruction will make it so expensive that most people, and that's just to find out if you can do it.

The best thing that we can do is exactly what's been put in front of us. That determination will be made by the building inspector. They must post that sign for reconstruction on the property and notice is given.

So reconstruction will give anybody an opportunity to appeal the decision of the building inspector. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (57:44 - 57:49)
Thank you, Mr. Patsios. Mr. Thompson, on the topic of reconstruction.

[Speaker 26] (57:52 - 58:20)
I agree with Mr. Patsios and a question of clarification or just really making sure this is clear. If someone has a house in any of these scenarios, they tear it down, worst case scenario on reconstruction, right? They are forced then to comply with all of the existing zoning restrictions with the exception of the lot size and the frontage?

[Speaker 4] (58:20 - 58:58)
Well, you can't change those things. So within your lot, you have to, you would need to comply with all of the zoning regulations. For example, you could not build out to the curb like in example number three.

You couldn't, you know, the fact that that's out of compliance because it's too close to the street and your house, you know, you decide to tear it down and build a new one, the new house would have to comply with all the setbacks, all the dimensional requirements. And those are height, open space, setbacks from side yards, setbacks from rear yard and setbacks from the street.

[Speaker 26] (58:59 - 59:07)
So really the impact of this is potentially taking people that are out of compliance back into compliance in Exhibit 3.

[Speaker 4] (59:08 - 59:09)
In that particular case.

[Speaker 26] (59:09 - 59:28)
Yep. And simplifying the process so that something, as Mr. Kornitsky mentioned earlier, that the ZBA is just going to have to approve anyway, but someone has to go through a bunch of hurdles and hire a lawyer and pay a fee to get an approval that's going to happen anyway. Basically, we're now saying like, here's the fast lane to get there because it's going to get there anyway.

[Speaker 4] (59:29 - 59:31)
If they're in zoning compliance.

[Speaker 26] (59:31 - 59:38)
If they're in zoning compliance. Right. Of course.

If they're not, they're going to be in the second section of the article, correct?

[Speaker 4] (59:39 - 59:40)
They'll have to go to the Zoning Board.

[Speaker 26] (59:40 - 59:41)
That's right.

[Speaker 2] (59:41 - 59:48)
Where if this language were to pass, the word reconstruction would still exist.

[Speaker 4] (59:48 - 59:49)
Pardon me?

[Speaker 2] (59:49 - 1:00:37)
If this amendment were to pass in that second section, the language, the word reconstruction would still exist. That's correct. Is there any further discussion about Mr. Demento's motion to amend the main motion by striking the word reconstruction from Section A1, 2, and 3?

Seeing none. All those in favor of Mr. Demento's motion to amend. This is a simple majority.

All those in favor. All those opposed. The motion fails.

We return now to debate on the main motion. Mr. Schutzer, I would like to have you have the floor. I would like to hear what you have to say.

Now that we've dispensed with that, I don't want to let the body get confused about what we are discussing.

[Speaker 3] (1:00:38 - 1:04:08)
I appreciate the process and I appreciate the kindness that you're bestowing on all the people that are here to speak tonight. One issue that came up, and I just want to respond to it, and that was the question of the fee. There's no need that the fee be, it's $450, it's $400 for the application, $50 for the advertising.

That was something that the town administrator, before Mr. Fitzgerald, indicated was necessary in order to augment revenues that were coming in. It's much higher than a lot of other towns. It's not a determination that would be made here.

This evening, but there's no need that it be that high. If in fact it would encourage more applications, then I think it's a good thing to reduce it. The other two things I just wanted to bring up, and I neglected to do it at the first go around, was there's a suggestion that was made when I was talking to Mr. Kane and Ms. Meany that I shouldn't be as concerned because if there is in fact an addition over 800 square feet, then it would go before the planning board under what's referred to as a site plan special permit. The difference is the criteria for a site plan special permit is different from the criteria for the dimensional relief or the use relief that's given by the Board of Appeals. So it's a different board, different sets of standards. The planning board standards are a lot more obtuse.

I think the Board of Appeals have much clearer definitions of their responsibilities both to the abutter as well as the applicant. And the only other thing I wish to raise is that in this bylaw that's being proposed to be revised, there was a provision that was put in actually when Gene Barden was the chairperson of the planning board because his concern at that point was a concept which was a term that was used with some regularity at that time. It was called McMansion.

And the concern of the McMansion was that people were coming in and periodically coming in for additions. So what he said is we needed a look-back period of five years. Let's see what we've done in this five-year period and aggregate those and see if that then hits the 15% mark.

I see that also eliminated from this revision. I don't see the necessity, I'm repeating myself, I don't wish to do that, of making a change to something that I think works. I think what I'm hearing though is that it's cumbersome and burdensome to applicants.

And that I understand. But they're imposing on their neighbors, they're making a change, and as was suggested if a number of these occur, it changes not only the direct neighbors, but the neighborhood itself. I believe the oversight is important.

I believe that the Board of Appeals and those members who wish to serve, for which I know it is so, I did it for 14 years, I think it's a wonderful opportunity to serve. But I thought that oversight was important. I still believe it's important and I believe the input of the neighbors is important.

Sure, we can refine this at a later point. We don't have to do it tonight. I would respectfully ask that, do I have to make a special motion to indefinitely postpone in writing or can that just be done?

[Speaker 2] (1:04:08 - 1:04:12)
You may make a motion to amend the main motion and indefinitely postpone action.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:13 - 1:04:14)
Thank you very much for your assistance.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:15 - 1:04:31)
Is there a second? We now come to discussion on Mr. Schutzer's motion to indefinitely postpone action under this article. Having made the motion, I assume if you had more to say you would.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:37 - 1:04:47)
I probably do, but I think under the circumstances and the threat of coming back on Wednesday that I will not put anyone through any additional comments. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

[Speaker 4] (1:04:47 - 1:05:19)
Mr. Moderator, excuse me, Mr. Moderator. There is a point of fact that I needed to correct from something Mr. Schutzer said and I'm not saying this invalidates the rest of his comments, but I wanted to be clear on the site plan aspect of what you mentioned, Mr. Schutzer, regarding the five-year look back in terms of an aggregate of 15% of additions over that period. That provision is in the site plan special permit part and that is not eliminated.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:20 - 1:05:24)
Thank you, Ms. Ippolito. You're welcome. Mr. Schneider, then Mr. Giontas.

[Speaker 7] (1:05:32 - 1:06:33)
Eric Schneider, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 5. I am also a lawyer, don't represent anyone here in town, and usually when lawyers, lawyers don't like to make things simpler because when things are simpler, there's less work and less fees. That said, if we could switch to the, so I stand in opposition of Mr. Schutzer's motion and wanted to point out that, you know, for a, if this were, I want to clarify in there, if this were conforming structures, then someone could change and add and do an addition to the house within the dotted lines without going before the Assembly Board of Appeals. So what this amendment is doing is, but for being an undersized lot, or but for not having sufficient frontage, or but for having, you know, encroaching on one of the setbacks, you're doing what anyone else in town could already do without going in front of the Assembly Board of Appeals.

[Speaker 4] (1:06:33 - 1:06:50)
That's right. And in the event that the, an addition was being made in excess of 800 square feet and or a reconstruction was proposed that was 3,000 square feet or over, it would have to come to the planning board for a site plan special permit.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:50 - 1:06:59)
Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Schneider. Mr. Jantus. And Ms. Carangelo, you had your hand up before, I don't know if that was on the amendment. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Jantus.

[Speaker 14] (1:07:00 - 1:09:16)
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. John Jantus, Precinct 4.

I support this motion to indefinitely postpone, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually attended that same planning board hearing that Mr. Schutzer was referring to, and I attended because I wanted to ask pretty much that same question, which I did ask, which was, was there any mechanism under this proposed bylaw where an abutter could raise concerns if there was an issue that they might have? And I guess my takeaway was sort of, but only if it triggered into that second category.

If it was in that first one, then there would be no way to voice a concern. And that's really where my issue with this proposal is, is that there's really no avenue as a neighbor or an abutter. This is not about talking to your neighbor, just very quickly, my own personal experience, we had a house right next door to us change hands a few years ago.

The purchasers were out of towners, they never intended to live there, they were going to rent it out, which has now become an Airbnb. And we only had an avenue, thank goodness we did, to go to the ZBA multiple times and protest some of the proposals that they were intending to make. One was a rooftop deck that would have looked right down into our yard with two teenage girls.

So we fought that, the deck went away, but we never would have had that opportunity under this proposal, I think. So, again, I agree with a lot of what Mr. Schutzer said about being able to have a pathway to voice your concerns, that's going to go away here. And I support the motion here to indefinitely postpone until this can be more narrowly defined.

I agree it's overly broad as it's written, it should be more narrowly defined. We don't need to be the outlier here in Massachusetts. We should be doing what we've always done here in Swampscott, which was give folks a pathway to voice their concerns, not keep them out of the process.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:20 - 1:09:34)
Thank you, Mr. Chantis. Further discussion on Mr. Schutzer's amendment? This would, if passed, end debate and discussion of this article, and we'll move on to Article 19.

In the back?

[Speaker 27] (1:09:37 - 1:10:44)
Hi, Heather Roman, Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and hater of public speaking. But I just wanted to kind of say how this works in practice. People come to the Zoning Board, they're building a completely conforming addition.

If you have a completely conforming lot, you would never see us. But because your lot is a few hundred feet undersized, you're building a completely conforming addition. You have to pay $450 to come to see us.

You have to prepare paperwork that might be more costly to come see us. You many times may feel the pressure to hire an attorney to come see us, and you are delaying your project by at least a month to come see us. And what do we do?

We don't even issue you a special permit. We issue you a finding that says you don't need one, because the state statute, the WALTA case is settled law, and our zoning by-law goes too far. So I stand in opposition of indefinite postponement.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:45 - 1:10:56)
Thank you, Ms. Roman. Further discussion on Mr. Schutzer's amendment to indefinitely postpone action on this article? Mr. Deese again.

[Speaker 15] (1:11:01 - 1:11:55)
Sorry, and I apologize if my point earlier was unclear at Rupert Deese, Precinct 5. Yeah, I guess I just would comment on the motion to indefinitely postpone, that it seems the points being raised in favor of indefinite postponement are applicable to any additions or improvements that someone might make to their home. And so really the scope that indefinitely postponing this affects is very narrow.

It's limited only to nonconforming lots. So I guess this seems to me to be a process improvement. The concerns that are being raised in favor of indefinite postponement have more to do with, you know, how we handle people improving their homes more broadly in town.

And it could be a worthy discussion, but I would encourage people to vote on the article and to simplify the process for the people who are most familiar with it.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:56 - 1:12:00)
Thank you, Mr. Deese. Ms. Carangelo.

[Speaker 33] (1:12:06 - 1:12:20)
Lisa Carangelo, Precinct 4. The gentleman that just spoke made it sound like this is not a very common thing in Swampscot, but I would love a number for how many house lots there are and what percentage or number are nonconforming.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:21 - 1:12:25)
I'm not sure if that number exists. Mr. Kane, do you have an estimation thereof?

[Speaker 1] (1:12:27 - 1:12:44)
It is a good amount of property that, wow, sorry, it is a good amount of properties that are nonconforming. I don't have an explicit number. I would say in the older part of the town, towards the Linn line, is where the majority of the nonconforming lots are.

Thank you, Mr. Kane.

[Speaker 33] (1:12:44 - 1:12:51)
Could you hazard a guess? Do you think it's more or less than 50 percent? I think it's more.

I think it's way more.

[Speaker 4] (1:12:51 - 1:12:54)
Yeah. I mean, I would say that it's at least 50 percent.

[Speaker 33] (1:12:54 - 1:12:55)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:12:55 - 1:12:55)
Yeah.

[Speaker 33] (1:12:56 - 1:12:59)
It affects a lot of us, actually. Thank you, Ms. Carangelo.

[Speaker 2] (1:13:02 - 1:13:04)
In the back, Mr. Mizuchi, I think.

[Speaker 23] (1:13:05 - 1:14:26)
Hi, Peter Mizuchi, town meeting member of Precinct 5. It does affect a lot of properties here, but I think the point is that it's, the end result is the same. If you're going with a, if you have a nonconforming lot and you're going in front of the zoning board, if you're making changes that are conforming, they're going to pass it through.

So it's, as the point was made there, this is to make the process simpler. And I really feel like if we postpone this, the time that we've just spent here is going to happen once again down the road because we're just running in circles. And just quite frankly, and I do respect everyone's opinion, I do feel like the major opposition to this, someone has a conflict of interest in having more things go to the zoning board.

And I just think everyone should be kind of clear that it doesn't matter how many people are going to be going to the zoning board. They can only control so much that if it is conforming, it's going to get passed. And all the things that have been listed here, the cost, the time, and the delay is going to be suffered still.

So I think we should end this discussion and I think we should vote on this today. If you don't want to vote for it, don't vote for it. But I think we should get through this and not postpone it.

There's no more information I think that we're going to really get. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:27 - 1:15:11)
Thank you, Mr. Mazzucci. Thank you. Any further comments or questions on Mr. Schutzer's amendment to indefinitely postpone?

Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to amend by indefinitely postponing, please raise your hand. All those opposed? The motion fails.

We continue now with discussion of the original main motion. Is there further discussion on Ms. Ippolito's original motion? Seeing none, this does require a two-thirds vote.

All those in favor of Ms. Ippolito's motion, please raise your hand. All those opposed? The motion carries.

Article 19.

[Speaker 41] (1:15:13 - 1:15:13)
Sorry.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:14 - 1:15:16)
It carries by two-thirds. Yes. Thank you.

Sorry.

[Speaker 4] (1:15:17 - 1:15:17)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:17 - 1:15:19)
Article 19, Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 4] (1:15:20 - 1:16:48)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Article 19, MBTA Zoning, Chapter 40A, Section 3A, to see if the Town will vote to amend the Swamp Scuds Zoning By-law and, oh, excuse me, yeah, the Plentywood recommends that the Town vote to amend the Swamp Scuds Zoning By-law and Zoning Map to add and establish a new overlay district being the MBTA community's multifamily overlay district and make related amendments to allow for as-of-right multifamily and mixed-use development in transit-oriented specific locations as set forth in Appendices C and D of the printed warrant and to renumber the Table of Contents and Zoning By-law accordingly, all as set forth in the printed warrant, with the exception of Section 5, amend the Zoning By-law Article 6 definitions in Appendix C, page 48, which shall be referred back to the Plenty Board for further study. The Plenty Board has determined this overlay area as an eligible location. The Plenty Board held a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend favorable action.

I move the recommendation of the Plenty Board.

[Speaker 2] (1:16:49 - 1:16:56)
Is there a second? Ms. Zipolito, before you proceed, can you just elaborate on the eligible location?

[Speaker 4] (1:16:58 - 1:17:45)
The eligible location of the zones that I mentioned are essentially within a half mile of the rail station, which was one of the requirements. At least 20% of our required area, gross area for the town of Swampscott, which was 50 acres, had to be, at least 20% of that had to be within one half mile of our rail station. And the rest of the zoning parcels could be in an area where there is robust bus service.

And that is why you can walk to the bus and there's robust service.

[Speaker 2] (1:17:45 - 1:17:48)
The language eligible location is a requirement for the Plenty Board to determine.

[Speaker 4] (1:17:48 - 1:18:06)
That's one of the requirements. There are many requirements actually set in the MBTA zoning regulations, but the location is the amount of land and where it has to be is something that is set forth in the regulations promulgated by the state.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:06 - 1:18:10)
Thank you. It's a special term of art, not just, hey, we think it's eligible.

[Speaker 4] (1:18:10 - 1:18:10)
No.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:11 - 1:18:13)
We didn't just decide that. Thank you. Ms. Zipolito, please proceed.

[Speaker 4] (1:18:15 - 1:19:02)
So we're going to discuss this in probably two parts. What I'd like to do first is ask that our Director of Planning, Pete Kane, go through a presentation that lays out all the technical aspects of the zoning. And when he's finished with that, I'd like to engage, I'd like to speak a little bit as to our view on this law and engage this entire body in a discussion on what's happening.

There has been a lot of talk. There are a lot of opinions about this. And I think this is the forum for us to talk about it and see what we want to do as a community.

So with that being said, I'd like to turn it over to Pete.

[Speaker 2] (1:19:02 - 1:19:03)
Thank you, Mr. Kane.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:06 - 1:35:11)
Thank you, Ms. Moderator. So Article 19, this pertains to amending the Zoning Bylaw for Swampskate by adopting the MBTA community's multifamily overlay zone. As an MBTA community, a community that is serviced by the MBTA, we are required to provide for zoning districts that allow multifamily use as of right.

So based on the fact that we are a commuter rail serviced community, the table on the screen shows you what our requirements are and how we're meeting those requirements based on the bylaw that is proposed. There is a density requirement by the state that there needs to be a minimum of 15 units per acre by right. We've established 35 within one particular overlay area, which is the Essex Street overlay, and then 25 units in the Vinden Square overlay.

Minimum multifamily unit capacity based on the number of housing units the community had in 2020, we have to provide for, meaning we have to make the bylaw allow for a capacity not create, but allow for a capacity of 954 units. Based on the proposal, the capacity is 1,148 units. It must be at least 20 acres in size.

We have identified 44.6 acres. There is a requirement that a certain percentage, 20% of the capacity is within a half mile of the train depot, which comes out to 191 units, meaning 191 potential units or allowable units within the district have to be within that half mile. We are able to do it with 196.

As Angela mentioned, 20% of the total land area that we are identifying for the overlay must be within a half mile of the train depot, and we are making it at 33. We're able to provide 33% of the overall area within that half mile. And with timing, we are required, like all other commuter rail service communities, to have our adoption completed by the end of this calendar year.

So where are we looking to provide for this overlay zone? There are two districts that we are, sub-districts that we've identified. One is called the Essex Street overlay.

It is the area that is within the half mile of the train depot. It's on Essex Street, opposite the high school. It runs from Elm Place or Westcott up to the bridge.

The second area is the Vennon Square overlay district. This is the area of Vennon Square where we have condo and apartments currently, and I'm going to give you some aerial images so you can get a better idea on what's actually within these property or these overlay boundaries. So this is the Essex Street overlay.

This currently is zoned B2. We're adding an overlay, which means that the B2 zoning district still applies. This is adding additional allowances on top of that.

As you can see highlighted in orange, all of the properties that are within the proposed area include the Westcott, which was previously known as Elm Place, Burke Tumbling Academy, Swamp Fitness, Paradise Self Storage. There are professional offices to the northeast of Swamp Fitness, Renzo's Pizza and the golf station, Swamp Scott Collision, additional professional offices, and then there is a single residence at the end of that street. That area is all currently zoned B2, which means it is already currently zoned for multifamily by special permit.

This overlay allows that multifamily by right. This is some additional drone footage just so that you can get an idea. You can see what the area looks like right now.

You probably drove by it today when you came to the town meeting. The other area is referred to as the Vennon Square overlay. This is adjacent to the Swampskip Mall, but is not the Swampskip Mall, specifically because the Swampskip Mall is zoned for commercial where it requires commercial.

The MBTA law or Section 3A states that you cannot require commercial in a development. You can allow it, you can't require it, which is why we cannot apply this in Vennon Square on the mall. If we did, we would trigger the potential of losing that commercial base and just having housing instead.

So instead, the planning board determined the best option was to do it adjacent to the Swampskip Mall, and that area includes the landing at Vennon Square, Crown Point Condominiums, Hawthorne's Crossing Condominiums, Avery at Swampskip, which are also condos, and the Eagle Rock Apartments, which was previously known as Vantage Terrace. This is some additional imagery showing you the structures that are already there. So I want to go through to give a better idea on what this means based on the proposed zoning, what is already built, what additional units could possibly be built based on the allowance.

Again, it's not a requirement that you have to build these units, it's simply how many more units could be built should somebody apply based on the bylaw. This table shows you the parcels that are within the Essex Street overlay. For each property, I've identified how many residential units are either existing or permitted and under construction.

So for the Westcott, the Westcott actually spans both the B2 district and a residentially zoned or two residentially zoned properties because that portion of the building is not within the development. We have identified that 90 of the units are actually within the B2 portion. The unit capacity for that parcel, based on the parcel size and the setback requirements under our bylaw that we are proposing, means that it would have actually only been allowed 54 units on that parcel as opposed to the permitted 90 units.

So it was a net change of 34. So if somebody down the road were to propose redevelopment of the Westcott, it would only be able to build 56 units. Paradise Self Storage, there are no residential units.

It could, based on the dimensional size and the limits, 20 units. Swamp Fitness and the professional offices, they are one lot, those two buildings. It could have a capacity of 38.

Renzo's Pizza and the golf station are also a single lot that's 15 units. There's a parking lot behind the golf station that could hold 23 units. And Swansgate Collision and the professional offices could hold 44 units.

Again, this capacity is based on the limitation of 35 units to the acre, and it also takes into effect the dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning because we're not modifying the underlying zoning, meaning all of the building heights, the open space requirements, the setbacks stay the same. So whether somebody were to build a structure currently on the B2 zone or under this, the same restrictions on the size of that structure would be the same. This table provides you a capacity of the properties within the Vennon Square overlay.

So as I go through, you'll see what the current residential units are within those parcels, what could be the capacity under the bylaw, and what that change is. An example here, similar to what happened in Essex Street, the landing at Vennon Square currently has 184 units that were permitted by a standard special permit. The unit capacity, based on the limitations that we have set in the overlay district, would actually only allow 155 units if it were to be redeveloped under the new bylaw, meaning a reduction of 29 units.

Crown Point has 194. It could actually hold 259 under the bylaw. That's due to the spacing and the amount of open space that's on that land.

So a net change of 65. The greatest increase could possibly happen at Hawthorne Crossing, where Hawthorne Crossing is made up of many separate buildings. They're all small buildings.

It does have 152 units, but based on the large land area and the setback in height allowances, it could hold 311 if it were fully redeveloped, meaning a change of 159. There are additionals. You can see with the Avery, there's an additional seven.

There is a parking lot. Most people don't notice it. A parking lot opposite Whole Foods.

It's where staff used to park when we had the rehab facility. That piece of land could hold 10 units, so it does not have any units right now, but if it were redeveloped, it could hold 10 units. I will note that 10 units is based on a flat surface.

The model that the state uses does not take into consideration, nor does it model terrain changes. That terrain of that property, especially due to the slope with Crown Point, does make the property more difficult to build. So although by the state model, it could hold 10, the actual ability to construct 10 is minimal.

So overview, under the current, how many units are in those two areas? We have 758 currently. Based on the bylaw, the capacity, meaning the allowance, not the requirement, not the mandate to actually build it, but the capacity over those two areas is 1,148, meaning an additional 390 should any one of those properties or all the properties be redeveloped.

So what does the bylaw do? It brings Swamskate into compliance with Chapter 40A, Section 3A. It applies the new overlay to specific business zones where multifamily is already permitted.

It makes multifamily development as of right, as in you don't need a special permit for the use. You may still need a special permit for dimensional parking requirements or anything like that. It does not strip the special permits for everything else.

It's simply the use that it's removing the special permit process from. It encourages mixed-use development, but it does not require it. And this will help to ensure that we can have that additional business tax.

But again, we can't require it, but we do allow it under this proposed bylaw. It continues our compliance with the town's inclusionary zoning bylaw, meaning the bylaw that we have in place for every property in town that requires any development of a certain size or greater has to have up to 10% of those units being affordable. We're still continuing that requirement here.

It also establishes a maximum dwelling unit per acre. That means how many dwelling units, based on the size, you can build on that property. Our current bylaw actually does not use this currently, which is why generally when a proposal comes forward, we simply look at the dimensional requirements and the parking requirements, which is why we have a property like at the Landing where you had 184 units because there was no limit as to how many dwelling units you can build on an acre.

This bylaw, by the state requirement, we have to actually set a ceiling, so we're setting a ceiling now. What does it not do? It's not amending any of the residential zoning districts.

We're not applying this on any residential zone. It's only on the business zones. The bylaw does not modify any dimensional requirements.

All of the height restrictions, the overlay, the building overlay, the open space requirements, the setback requirements, all stay exactly the same. It does not make multifamily more restrictive or cumbersome within this area as opposed to developing multifamily in another area. That is an explicit requirement of MBTA zoning.

You can't adopt the bylaw but then make it more difficult to actually do the bylaw or do the multifamily. You have to at least make it as easy while still making it as of right. I just want to show you what the current dimensional requirements are.

These are the dimensional requirements as in the minimum lot size, the setback requirements, building coverage. These are the requirements in the current bylaw and we're not modifying them in any way, shape or form. The only thing that's being modified is we're adding this new requirement which we don't have in the underlying zone which is actually setting a ceiling and that's the number of dwelling units per acre.

So in the Essex Street, as I mentioned earlier, it's 35 units per acre which based on the area of that we've identified for Essex Street, it would be able to have a capacity of 196 units. For Vinning Square, it's 25 dwelling units per acre which results in 952 units. So what are the benefits of this bylaw?

It helps the town to meet that requirement of Section 3A. It also means the town remains eligible for state grants and funding programs. It encourages a variety of housing options.

It supports local businesses by providing those additional residents should they be built. Again, this is not the actual construction. It enables the ability to create affordable workforce housing.

It helps to create additional units that can count towards the town's subsidized housing inventory under Chapter 40B which is the statewide requirement that every community have 10% of its housing units designated as affordable. I want to emphasize the fact that compliance of Section 3A means that the town would remain eligible for many state grants and programs. Over the past five years, Swampskate has received over $3.2 million on town hall initiated projects and I want to make specific to this. These are a number of projects that town hall has initiated. This does not include any state funding programs that have been done through public safety or the schools. We just wanted to focus on ours that we handle in town hall and show you we've already done $3.2 million and what we would be able to continue to be eligible for. And I know that this is small text but it was so that we could include the full list but it essentially includes many different grants from DCR, MassTrails, the Solomon Foundation, Shared Streets, Seaport Advisory Council, the Park Grants, MVP program which is the Municipal Vulnerability Paramedic, this covers projects for open space, for climate action, for our parks, the rail trail, sidewalks, the sidewalk extensions that we've been doing on Humphrey Street, the master plan update, interpretive signs and crosswalks, the Archer Street walking paths, hazard mitigation plan. It covers a lot of community development projects that we do in order to improve the quality of life for residents. These are the projects that we would remain eligible or the grant programs that we would remain eligible for if we are in compliance.

So with that state requirement, it essentially requires that any community that is serviced by the MBTA to adopt these requirements and based on certain requirements, whether a commuter rail or bus line, your standards are different but it's 117 communities that must comply. As of last night, it was 67 that have already been able to adopt and come into compliance. That's over 50%.

I'll hand it over to Angela.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:11 - 1:35:28)
Thank you, Mr. Cain. That is an absolute master class in putting out information. Thank you.

I appreciate that. I'm sure the body does as well. Thank you, Angela.

Debate and discussion on Ms. Ippolito's motion.

[Speaker 4] (1:35:30 - 1:35:38)
I'd like to say if you have a little more, begin the discussion here. If that's acceptable.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:38 - 1:35:45)
Yes, absolutely. Ma'am? She'll remain here to answer any questions that do come up.

[Speaker 22] (1:35:51 - 1:36:56)
I'm Andrea Moore, Precinct 3. I really appreciate the presentation tonight. It really clarified a lot of the questions that I had previously.

I also really appreciate the thought that's being put into this. I think that perhaps the question I have is looking at the requirements versus the proposals. If the required density is 15 units per acre, I'm assuming that because we have a smaller area that we have to bump that up.

I think maybe my question is if the required minimum multifamily unit capacity is 954, why are we exceeding that by 200? If there is a mathematical way to decrease the proposed unit's density to hit that 954, I feel like we should lob off at least part of a larger discussion, but just kind of thinking about if we were to hit the requirements, why not just hit the minimum requirement instead of exceeding that?

[Speaker 1] (1:36:57 - 1:37:32)
It's not about simply minimum requirement. The land area is a major impact. And so I'll go back to the table.

We're required to have 191 units within a half mile of the train station. In order to meet 191 units within that Essex Street corridor or that Essex Street overlay, we have to do 35. Reducing it to 34 puts us under the 191.

[Speaker 22] (1:37:37 - 1:37:45)
So then maybe to clarify for the crowd, it sounds like we are doing the minimum.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:45 - 1:37:46)
Yes.

[Speaker 22] (1:37:46 - 1:37:47)
Okay. So this is the least.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:47 - 1:37:49)
Based on the land area, this is the least, correct?

[Speaker 22] (1:37:49 - 1:37:55)
Yes. This is the least imposing plan that we could possibly do in order to comply with the MBTA.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:55 - 1:38:03)
Without applying and expanding the boundary of the overlay into residentially zoned properties, this is the least. Okay. This is the minimum.

[Speaker 22] (1:38:03 - 1:38:07)
Well, I appreciate that you guys chose the least invasive route. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:38:07 - 1:38:09)
Thank you. Mr. Lorber.

[Speaker 28] (1:38:20 - 1:39:33)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Terry Lorber, Precinct 5. On the advice of my partner, Laura Goodman, I'll be limiting myself to this prepared statement.

We can't hotel our way to more commercial revenue. In our budget, revenue from commercial sources amounts to about 7%. We should do all we can to maintain our commercial tax base.

However, even if we put a boutique hotel at Hadley and the Hawthorne, it's not likely we'll ever see more than a 7% contribution from commercial sources. Therefore, new residential development remains the only proven method for reducing tax increases. If more people are paying property taxes, then the pressure on our tax rate can decrease.

There's a town in New Jersey, Palisades Park, I believe it's on the Hudson just north of the George Washington Bridge, where duplexes have been allowed by right for 50 years. The Palisades Park tax rate is half that of their neighboring towns. Do the math.

I support Article 19. It is in our fiscal interests to encourage new growth. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:39:33 - 1:39:51)
Thank you, Mr. Lorber. And I applaud your restraint and concision. Mr. Barden and then Ms. Boggs. Mr. Barden first and then Ms. Curry.

[Speaker 35] (1:39:52 - 1:40:08)
Gary Barden, Precinct 3. Just a question about Elm Place or the Westcott. If this was in place before that was approved, would it be fewer units based on what you're showing on that chart?

[Speaker 4] (1:40:09 - 1:40:25)
Well, I think what this particular zoning shows is that our current, the MBTA zoning would allow fewer units than the applicant was able to build under Chapter 40B, which was how that project was built.

[Speaker 35] (1:40:25 - 1:40:39)
Okay. That was just, so it seems like it helps us to maybe reduce some of the larger size buildings that could potentially be built in these areas with other zoning.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:39 - 1:40:41)
Yeah, I would agree with that.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:42 - 1:40:45)
Thank you, Mr. Barden. Yes, Ms. Boggs.

[Speaker 39] (1:40:47 - 1:41:01)
If I could, I had actually prepared some remarks with the thought that perhaps there was going to be a motion to either indefinitely postpone this or put it over. So I think, because I'm only going to speak once, I'd rather wait to see if that develops.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:02 - 1:41:03)
Your time is reserved. Ms. Curry.

[Speaker 10] (1:41:10 - 1:44:13)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Martha Curry, Precinct 3. I'm part of the group that handed out a lot of flyers.

We're just interested in addressing the housing shortage in the state, and I think we should be addressing it, period, with or without 3A. Unfortunately, Ann Potts, a recently elected town meeting member, couldn't join us tonight, and she asked me to read this. I speak in support of this article.

I have been collaborating with a number of our neighbors to better understand our local housing picture, the parameters of this law, and the potential impact on our community. Many of you hopefully saw the information sheet we passed around town over the past few days. My belief is that we need options to serve the broad array of people who love Swampscot.

Many of us kid about how we don't quite qualify as Swampscotters because we've only been here for a generation. After my meager 15 years in town, I know the depth of regard we hold for what it brings to us and our families. But the idea of continuing our multi-generational pattern is hard to imagine.

Finding workable solutions across the spectrum of home ownership in this town, including buying in or downsizing, is either out of reach or impossible. While the capitalist in me is gobsmacked by how much my house's value has increased, I am concerned about the implications that expensive, largely single-family housing will have on what we value most about our town. Laws don't enact miracles.

The MBTA Community Act doesn't solve all our housing problems. I agree with the premise and think that Swampscot exemplifies the law's goals in many ways. We know density.

Most of us live on top of one another and enjoy our walkable neighborhoods. Within an easy walk of our train station, we can access town services, the library, restaurants, and more. We are different from other towns.

As Pete explained, complying with the law is easy for us. We don't need to change the existing zoning except for the buy-right status. Property owners in the Essex Street and Paradise Road adjacent areas will still undergo the full process to review their plans and ensure setbacks, height requirements, and other parameters are set.

Our rules still apply. Sixty-seven, the vast majority of MBTA adjacent communities have voted yes, approving their planning board's plans and proceeding with the work with the state to gain approval. I hope we will vote to join this group tonight.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:13 - 1:44:25)
Thank you, Mr. All the way in the back. Yes, sir. Sorry, you're in a shadow.

I cannot tell who that is. Maybe Mr. Smith.

[Speaker 17] (1:44:27 - 1:46:28)
Damon Damati, Precinct 6, town meeting member. So I just want to say I am really dead set against this. The thing I've thought for a long time is this town has a ton of people.

We have less than three square miles. There are only three towns in this state that are smaller than we are by dry square miles. Hull, Chelsea, and Winthrop.

Winthrop's shocking because they have 20,000 people. But these towns also don't have an 18-hole golf course. And that's not going anywhere.

I've lived here now 14 years, and the traffic is terrible. And where it's worst is exactly where we wanted to put another 2,000 to 3,000 people potentially. I can't imagine Essex Street and Vinnins Square.

You have to sit through Vinnins Square for at least two light cycles now just to take a left turn out of Vinnins Square where the stop and shop is. We have a ton of dense housing there. One of the things we don't have in common with many of those towns is they're not nearly as dense as we are.

I understand that this is a terrible law by Massachusetts. It's being challenged by Milton. It's being fought by Marblehead.

It's not like everyone's just laying down. And they're petitioning the Supreme Court of the state to actually change the law. I just can't imagine trying to get through this town with any more housing, especially back there.

So I just would like people to consider that. I'm not against people want to live in Swampscott, but we're so tiny. The discussions even before on some of these other bylaws and things like that means we are on top of each other in this town, which is why it's such a big deal when anyone next to you wants to do something.

I can't imagine living in a single family home and then having someone want to build like a 10 to 12 unit condo building there. It's going to fundamentally change that area. And I just think people should really consider that before they vote for this.

Thanks.

[Speaker 2] (1:46:28 - 1:46:38)
Thank you, sir. Mr. Norton, then Mr. Hartman, then Mr. Burdoff, and I will get to more as we go.

[Speaker 30] (1:46:41 - 1:47:09)
Ken Norton, Precinct 3. I'm all in favor of more housing, but my fear is it'll be rental housing. It won't be ownership like you've won the screens before, like Jen Burks and those places there.

Those houses that are built, they'll be rental properties. They won't be owned by people that'll be paying taxes toward the town. That's my biggest fear.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:47:10 - 1:47:13)
Thank you, Mr. Norton. Mr. Hartman.

[Speaker 32] (1:47:18 - 1:47:29)
Eric Hartman, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member. Just want some clarity on the areas that you selected and what the requirements were for selecting them, meaning, did you have to select areas that were already zoned for multifamily housing?

[Speaker 4] (1:47:29 - 1:47:29)
No.

[Speaker 32] (1:47:31 - 1:47:52)
So, I'm curious why the area down by the train station itself, the large strip of property on Columbia that goes all the way down to Eastern, seems like an ideal area, so I'm curious why that wasn't considered. I'm sorry, just the reason I'm asking, I'm concerned a bit about the Elm Place development on Essex Street and to be choosing this spot here that's a large development that's very close to where Elm Place is going to be.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:52 - 1:48:15)
Thank you for your question. The reason that that was not considered further down there behind Railroad Ave, I know which road you're talking about, was because it's residential and we wanted to keep all of the zoning on top of commercial zones, so it's either on top of B2, B3, or B4, where multifamily is already allowed.

[Speaker 32] (1:48:16 - 1:48:21)
So that zone on Essex Street there is already multifamily allowed?

[Speaker 4] (1:48:21 - 1:48:24)
It's multifamily by special permit, right, but it is allowed.

[Speaker 32] (1:48:25 - 1:48:31)
So somebody could come in and buy and develop and get a special permit and put something in there and that would, that can happen today, I guess.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:31 - 1:48:57)
That could happen today. I mean, in fact, the point that the gentleman before you made about, you know, not wanting to see that kind of development here, I mean, there's nothing stopping that now. As a matter of fact, if somebody were to buy up a couple of lots on Essex Street, they could develop it at a far greater rate than they could under this by-law.

This by-law caps the density, whereas right now, somebody could buy a couple of lots and build something and there is no cap on density.

[Speaker 2] (1:48:57 - 1:48:58)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:58 - 1:48:58)
You're welcome.

[Speaker 2] (1:48:59 - 1:49:02)
Thank you, Mr. Hartman. Mr. Berdoff, then Mr. Germa.

[Speaker 11] (1:49:08 - 1:52:20)
Raise it up a little bit. Aaron Berdoff, Precinct 5, also Affordable Housing Trust member and Master Plan Committee as well. Excited that misinformation about this is already coming out.

We are in the middle of a housing crisis. We've been in a housing crisis. Your taxes go up because we don't have enough houses, even though our tax rate has actually gone down.

So, we need more houses in the state. That's why the state's doing this. Is it perfect?

Probably not. The state doesn't do perfect things. We all know that.

That's okay. But it is asking us to do something that we historically have not done, which is to let more people live in our town, because it's a nice town. People want to live here, and I think we should all be very proud of that.

I've got people standing up saying, we don't want more people. We don't want more people here. We don't want rental people.

They pay taxes, by the way. They're normal people, just like everyone else. Realize that they don't own a home, but it's okay.

We don't want a 10-story building next to a single family home. You can't do that with this law. That's just not in the zoning at all.

Milton, yes, they are filing a lawsuit against the state. Marblehead is not, actually, yet. They still are going to come back in December and try to re-vote on the same plan.

They have to go through that again, which just wastes everybody's time. If you think about postponing this, you're just wasting everybody's time, because we're going to come back and do the same thing. I just can't get over the fact that we don't want to allow people to live here.

Are we thickly settled? Yes. Yes, we are.

I grew up in Iowa. I know what not dense is, and I've also seen much more dense areas than this. I've lived in more dense areas than this, too.

Eighty-five percent of our land area is covered by single family homes, with minimum lot sizes of 30,000 square feet, or 20,000 square feet, or 10,000 square feet. I live on a lot that's 4,000 square feet. It's very small, compared to a lot of you.

We're zoning these areas that already have multifamily. Is more multifamily homes going to be built right there? Probably not.

You're not going to see anything change for decades in that area right there. Essex Street? We might get a few over the next decade.

It's going to take a long time to build housing. That's why in housing advocacy, we love it when we see zoning changes happen, because we know things will happen in the next couple of decades. It's not a quick process.

Nothing's going to happen tomorrow. Nothing's going to happen next year. Five years?

We'll see. We may get a plan. It's going to be exciting.

I just want us to all remember that this whole point of all of this is to allow people to find a home. That's it. We're just trying to allow people in the state to find a home.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berdoff.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:20 - 1:52:22)
Mr. Germa, and then behind Mr. Germa.

[Speaker 5] (1:52:24 - 1:55:00)
Chair Germa, Precinct 3. I really want to commend the town for coming up with this plan in reaction to this. The way in which the Commonwealth is approaching our housing problems is the MBTA Communities Plan.

This is sometimes leaned into a little heavily as the only tool, but this is a really good tool. They had to set this up so that it could sit over all of the different municipalities that are served by the MBTA. And I actually think what we're standing in front of here is a celebration of the fact that we are actually already meeting what the MBTA is asking for.

That's amazing. This is a celebration, in my opinion, of what we've already got as a town. Now, everything that's been presented has shown us that this is not necessarily changing anything but strengthening things.

So we actually have more power to create housing that isn't too dense but is meeting what the state wants. This is great. We're still keeping all of our setbacks, our height limits.

And everyone that owns property here, now it's by right without special permit. So it's a little bit easier for them. This is actually brilliant.

And the fact is, we are what the Commonwealth wants to see already. I don't think we need to get involved in lawsuits because I would rather see our taxpayers' monies spent on the town and not on attorneys. We can meet this.

And I just don't see any reason why we can't look at this and say, this is awesome. We're here. There was commentary in the Globe last week about this type of planning being a sidestep or being a looking for loopholes.

No, we are showing the state that we already have it. So, I highly recommend that this is voted on, this is passed, and this is passed unanimously so we can show the state we're doing it right. So thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:00 - 1:55:07)
Thank you, Mr. Germa. Ma'am. And then Mr. Walensky.

[Speaker 40] (1:55:08 - 1:55:10)
But I have a couple of good points.

[Speaker 31] (1:55:15 - 1:56:05)
Debbie Friedlander, town meeting member of Precinct 6. Not to echo what you just said, I rise in support of this amendment. There is a housing crisis.

I want to commend the town. This is one of the most brilliant plans. I was very nervous.

I think that everyone across the state is nervous because people think that you're going to build an apartment building next to their private home and you're going by imminent domain, take my backyard. That is not happening here. I think this is smart.

It cares for the people who already live here. It invites others, and the fact is, I agree, nothing is going to happen for years. This is expensive for people to tear down a building and rebuild.

So I want to thank you all. Thanks. Thank you.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:06 - 1:56:15)
Thank you, Ms. Friedlander. Mr. Walensky, and ma'am in the back, then a gentleman there.

[Speaker 36] (1:56:19 - 1:56:42)
Mark, Whiskey, Walensky, precinct 3, the three people ahead of me said everything I would want to say. So I'm not going to waste a whole lot of time for you. I think the key point is, none of this is going to happen fast.

I doubt we'll see any of it while we're still around here. I hope we vote in favor of the article.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:43 - 1:56:58)
Thank you, sir. And in the fuchsia shirt there, ma'am, then you, Mr. Healy. Ma'am, you wanted to speak, yes, and then I believe it's Mr. Healy.

[Speaker 20] (1:56:59 - 1:58:30)
Yeah, I hear you. I hear you. Jan DiPaolo, precinct 1, and I just want to say the gentleman that was talking about affordable housing, didn't we sit here for hours last night and talk about the schools are in disrepair, there's rat problems, there's electrical fires, etc.

We're looking for a life center because we've outgrown the buildings that we have. I don't think it's a question of not wanting more people. I think it's a question of, can we take care of the people that are here?

And so that's my concern with adding more things that are going to be developed. I mean, you can say it's going to be decades. Elm Place was an idea and now it's up and it's just really a lot more people that we're adding.

I'm looking at the numbers and it says that, whatever the numbers were, you know, 900, but we're saying we can have 1,100 there. I'm just concerned, again, that we're not taking care of the students that are here. I was last night talking about the schools.

We're not taking care of the people that are here. Yes, there'll be more taxes, but then fire department, police department, our roads, water and sewer, etc., it's all really impacted by these bigger numbers that we're talking about letting those people in. And I'm just concerned we're not taking care of those of us that are already here.

[Speaker 2] (1:58:32 - 1:58:34)
Thank you, ma'am. Sir.

[Speaker 16] (1:58:41 - 1:58:46)
My name is Tommy Haley, newly elected town meeting member for Precinct 2. Congratulations. Welcome.

[Speaker 2] (1:58:47 - 1:58:55)
For those of you who don't know, if I may impose upon you, grandson of the late John Doherty.

[Speaker 16] (1:59:01 - 2:01:00)
I rise in support of falling in line with the guidelines which the state has outlined for us. Specifically to the people who oppose this act, as some people previously mentioned, the municipality of Milton is being sued by the Attorney General. The Attorney General has made it clear that noncompliance with this act is, well, sorry, compliance is mandatory.

And I fear that voting against would leave us vulnerable to similar threats of litigation from the Attorney General. And I remind you that the budgeted town council fees for this fiscal year have increased by 19% since last fiscal year. And oral arguments scheduled for this Milton trial are for October.

That's a lot of time in between our vote today and when the case is decided. If we vote against complying, that means if the Attorney General is given a favorable outcome, we would essentially be forced to comply and lose the state funding which we would be at risk of losing with noncompliance. Also, this is one district of Swampscot.

As beautifully outlined by the planning committee, we have a thorough plan to comply and I guess minimally comply to the level where we are not at the threats of litigation and we keep this fund, this integral state funding. So, I would just say I stand in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Healy.

[Speaker 2] (2:01:05 - 2:01:10)
Further commentary? Mr. Smith in the back. Mr. Smith in the back.

[Speaker 21] (2:01:16 - 2:02:53)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Jim Smith, Precinct 5. I am delighted to follow John Doherty's grandson.

That is an honor. I certainly support this, but I would like to point out to my colleagues in Swampscot, we are doing the absolute minimum. We are essentially building nothing.

We are not helping the Commonwealth's housing issues at all. This started with Governor Baker, our neighbor. Governor Healy also supports this.

It is great. We have managed to sidestep, if you will, the obligations. We are meeting our obligations, but we are doing nothing over and above that.

Now, my kids, if they so desire, are fortunate enough to maybe be able to live here. But my kids' friends, for the most part, don't have a prayer of ever living here. We need more housing, not just in Swampscot, but frankly, every place within 495.

We are losing population as a Commonwealth because we don't have housing. The costs are outrageous. Today's Globe headline talks about near a million dollars for a median house.

My parents paid $14,900 in Lend. $14,900 a box, and my father couldn't afford it. He said, what's our last dime?

We'll do it. We're not going to help people with housing. We should support this, but let's not pat ourselves too hard on the back.

We haven't solved the housing problem. It's a minimum. Let's understand that.

[Speaker 2] (2:02:54 - 2:03:58)
Thank you, Mr. Smith. I'm sorry, Ms. Sullivan? There is a second.

All those in favor of ending debate at this point, this requires a two-thirds vote. All those opposed? The motion carries.

Now, as we come to a vote on the original motion by Ms. Zippolito, I am going to note for the body, normally a zoning by-law change takes a two-thirds vote. This motion complies with components of Chapter 48, Section 5 that allows this to pass with a simple majority. All those in favor of Ms. Zippolito's motion?

All those opposed? The motion carries. Thank you.

And certainly by more than two-thirds in any event. We come to Article 20, Mr. Grishman.

[Speaker 18] (2:04:12 - 2:04:38)
David Grishman, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, Select Board. Article 20, amend general by-law, leaf blowers. Select Board recommends in the town vote to amend Article 29 of the Town of Swampskid's general by-laws, gas-powered leaf blowers, to delete Section 2 of Article 29 in its entirety and replace it with the language set forth in the printed warrant.

I move the recommendation of the Select Board.

[Speaker 2] (2:04:39 - 2:04:41)
Is there a second? Mr. Grishman.

[Speaker 18] (2:04:41 - 2:05:30)
Yep, thank you. All this is going to do is add enforcement to Section 2. The language in the warrant really spells it out.

Swampscot Police Department, Swampscot Building Department, and the Health Department and their respective designees and agents here and after refer to as the enforcing authority shall have the authority to administer and enforce any violations of this by-law. Any violation of the by-law may be enforced by the enforcing authority through non-criminal disposition pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 40, Section 21D, and Article 12 of the Town of Swampskid's general by-laws in accordance with the following penalties. A first offense is a written warning to the leaf blower user and the property owner.

And second and subsequent offenses result in a $300 fine to the property owner.

[Speaker 2] (2:05:31 - 2:05:51)
Thank you, Mr. Grishman. Mr. Ehrlich. I move to amend Article 20.

And again, your name and precinct.

[Speaker 13] (2:05:52 - 2:06:26)
Thank you. Norman Ehrlich, Talmadge Manor, Precinct 6. I move to amend Article 20 of the warrant by striking the language of Section 2, subsection B that presently reads, second and subsequent offenses, $300 fine to the property owner and substituting the following language, second and subsequent offenses, for each such violation, $300 fine to the leaf blower user or the company by which the user of the leaf blower is employed.

[Speaker 2] (2:06:26 - 2:06:34)
Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich. Is there a second? I am in receipt of the written copy of this.

And it has been reviewed by counsel.

[Speaker 13] (2:06:35 - 2:08:18)
As written, I find that the warrant article is unfair and unjust as it penalizes the property owner, even though the property owner is not guilty of the prescribed conduct, that is, using a gas-powered leaf blower. For example, a property owner hires a contractor, and there are many in this town, hires a contractor to cut his lawn. He then comes home one day after the lawn has been cut and he finds there is a warning that was given both to the landscaper and to the property owner that the landscaper was using a gas-powered leaf blower.

The property owner speaks to the landscaper and says, hey, you have to comply with the town bylaw. You can't use a gas-powered leaf blower anymore. And the landscaper says he will comply.

A few weeks later, he gets a notice of violation and a fine of $300 because the landscaper happened to use the gas-powered leaf blower. Now, is it fair that the property owner is burdened with a $300 fine when he did nothing to violate this particular bylaw? I suggest it's not.

My motion, as amended, would penalize the proper person, that is, the person who is using that gas-powered leaf blower. If it's the property owner, so be it. The property owner or a member of his family.

If it is the landscaper, then the landscaper should bear that fine, not the property owner who does nothing. And I think it is unfair the way it is written, and I hope you will pass this amendment.

[Speaker 2] (2:08:19 - 2:08:33)
Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich. Is there discussion or question? Mr. Schneider, Mr. Bierman, Mr. Norton, and then Mr. Keller, I think it is. Again, to the amendment.

[Speaker 7] (2:08:35 - 2:09:04)
Eric Schneider, Precinct 5, town meeting member. I think the problem with this amendment is it might be hard to identify who the landscaper is, but it's easier to identify the property owner, and the property owner can ensure, in the contract with the landscaper, that no gas-powered leaf blowers are used. So I oppose this amendment.

[Speaker 2] (2:09:05 - 2:09:07)
Thank you, Mr. Schneider. Mr. Bierman.

[Speaker 8] (2:09:14 - 2:11:30)
Jack Bierman, Precinct 6, town meeting member. Mr. Moderator, I apologize because I'm a little confused on process of what I want to do, but I have two concerns, one of which is directly related to this amendment, and one is somewhat tangential to it. So the one concern is the amount of the fine.

And I know last year there were people who thought because there wasn't any fine included in this that that meant it was unenforceable. But that's simply not true. Our bylaw provides for a $50 fine for any violation of our general bylaws.

That's in the general bylaws. The thing about Swampscot is we have a lot of bylaws that are just basically never enforced, and things like there's no dogs allowed on Phillips Park and they're there all the time, and people are supposed to shovel their walks, and in my neighborhood about 20% of people don't shovel their walks. And I actually think that that's something that doesn't really bother me, because we're a community.

We don't want to live in a police state. We want to live in a place where we depend on each other and we want people to be good neighbors and good friends and responsible citizens. And if some people decide they don't want to be good neighbors and responsible citizens, that's up to them.

Let them live their lives, and I'll live mine. So I don't really care that much about the penalty, but I don't think this leaf blower use is any worse than, for example, not shoveling your walk when someone could trip and fall and break their leg. And I don't think it's any worse than letting your dog run around on Phillips Park so that the next kid who's trying to field a ground or a fly ball falls in their face in a pile of dog feces.

So I would like to amend the current motion to change the number 300 to 50. And I think that's okay, because that's an amendment of an amendment and there's at least one stage allowed under Robert's Rules. The other thing I want to do later is also not delete Section 2, but instead make this new Section 3 because the description in the warrant and the language in the warrant don't inform us that the proposal that's been put forward also eliminates the select board's authority to suspend the operation of the leaf blower ban in an emergency, which was something we spent a little time on last year when we approved this, so I'd like to preserve that. I don't know if I can do that procedurally now or if it has to be in a separate one.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:30 - 2:11:38)
I will accept Mr. Ehrlich's motion to amend. Our town meeting time allows us to have two amendments.

[Speaker 8] (2:11:39 - 2:11:40)
Can both those things go into that amendment?

[Speaker 2] (2:11:41 - 2:11:41)
No.

[Speaker 8] (2:11:42 - 2:11:42)
Or just the $50?

[Speaker 2] (2:11:43 - 2:11:51)
Just the $50. Let's dispense with that. And could you please see counsel and just make sure you've got the second part ready?

[Speaker 13] (2:11:51 - 2:11:54)
I would accept Mr. Bierman's amendment to my motion.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:54 - 2:12:17)
Okay. With the indulgence of the body, we will accept that as a friendly amendment and Mr. Ehrlich's motion to amend now uses the number $50 rather than the $300. Is there further discussion about the substance of Mr. Ehrlich's amendment which would shift the focus of the enforcement?

I was waiting for Mr. Norton and then Mr. Kelleher.

[Speaker 30] (2:12:21 - 2:12:53)
Ken Norton, Precinct 3. I actually had the same amendment written down for a $50 fine on the landscaper but clarified that. That's what I was raising my hand for.

And the other is, reading the amendment the way it's written, law enforcement is going to drive around looking on Saturdays, Sundays for people to I just, sorry. I don't agree with it. Thank you.

But I agree with the $50.

[Speaker 2] (2:12:54 - 2:12:55)
Mr. Kelleher.

[Speaker 25] (2:13:00 - 2:14:09)
Thank you Mr. Moderator. Mike Kelleher, Precinct 4. I just had more of a question on this which was related.

I'm sorry I didn't get your name. The enforceability of it. I don't understand.

How is it enforced? Is there an appeal process? What proof is needed for a resident or a landscape company to get a violation?

Because it just seems like this is neighbors against neighbors. It just seems like a terrible idea and something that we should be able to work out amongst ourselves and the community. Enforcing $300 fines against your neighbor and calling the cops because they use a leaf blower.

That seems extreme to me. I live in a great neighborhood. I think it's terrific.

And I know if one of my neighbors was annoying me with his leaf blower I would have no shame in going over and talking to them and saying, hey dude, don't turn the leaf blower on at 6am or whatever. You're out of the zone because it's banned. Because we have these carbon powered blowers now.

But anyway, I just think that we need more clarification on how this is going to be enforced because I really don't like neighbors pitted against neighbors.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:10 - 2:14:47)
I'll take that as a comment on the amendment because of the question of enforcing it against the landscape versus the property owner. Further discussion on the motion to amend by changing the party being enforced against at the rate of $50? All those in favor of Mr. Ehrlich's amendment to so change the language. Please raise your hands. All those opposed. The motion carries.

We now come to the original motion of Mr. Grishman as amended. Now Mr. Bierman please.

[Speaker 8] (2:14:51 - 2:15:50)
As I understand it you rise to amend. I'd like to propose another amendment. I feel like I'm back in high school actually spending all this time here in the school.

But anyway, so I would like to you know I scrawled it out there. I'm sorry that my writing is indecipherable. But what I'd like to do is take out to add the, instead of to delete section 2 of article 29, to say to add the following to article 29 and then renumber what's now numbered in the warrant as section 2 section 3.

And that's my motion. And that preserves, that's the intent of that is to preserve the select board's authority to in an emergency suspend the operation of the bylaw. Because if you have like a really bad storm or something like that and we feel like we really need to do a lot of emergency clean up and that the best way to do it would be through gas powered leaf blowers you know I work at home all summer.

I hate the damn things but I could survive it if there's an emergency and people really need it. So that's my motion.

[Speaker 2] (2:15:51 - 2:17:01)
Let me please paraphrase that. I understand that council has the language. Is there a second to the amendment would retain the existing section 2 which does allow the select board to suspend enforcement of the bylaw in case of emergency and adopt the language as amended by Mr. Ehrlich as a section 3. Hope that's clear. Further conversation about the amendment proposed by Mr. Bierman. Seeing none, all those in favor of Mr. Bierman's motion to amend. All those opposed. The motion carries. We now return to Mr. Grishman's original motion as amended thus far twice. First by Mr. Ehrlich and then by Mr. Bierman. So further discussion of the motion as variously amended. Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion as amended.

All those opposed. The motion carries. Article 21, Mr. Grishman.

[Speaker 18] (2:17:10 - 2:17:34)
The select board recommends the town vote to approve article 21 as set forth in the printed warrant. I move the recommendation of the select board. Is there a second?

Mr. Grishman. Article 21 acceptance of easements for public parking. The select board recommends the town vote to approve article 21.

[Speaker 2] (2:17:34 - 2:17:35)
I have your motion.

[Speaker 18] (2:17:36 - 2:17:55)
Do you wish to speak to your motion? It's been seconded. Oh, sorry.

The hour is late. I agree. Got it.

Yep. Three days. The comprehensive permit for the Elm Place development requires the developer to convey easements for public parking and sidewalks.

This is simply to ensure the portion of land will become accessible for six public parking spaces.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:01 - 2:18:20)
Thank you. Is there a question or discussion on this motion? Seeing none, all those in favor?

All those opposed? Motion carries. Article 22, Mr. Schneider.

[Speaker 7] (2:18:25 - 2:20:02)
Eric Schneider, precinct five, member of the finance committee. The finance committee recommends the town vote to borrow $225,000 to improve or rehabilitate town-owned property located at and off Archer Street, assessor's parcels 7-1-0, 7-213 through 7-248 and 7-250 through 7-255 and any buildings and recreational facilities thereon and to transfer the care, custody and control of set properties from the select board for the purposes for which the properties are currently held to the conservation commission for public park, active recreation and playground purposes in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 45, section 3 and further to dedicate set properties to such purposes and to authorize the select board and or conservation commission and their designees to apply for, accept and expend any gifts, grants and or reimbursements from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, PL 88-578 78-897 or any other state or federal grant program related to the scope of this article and to enter into any and all agreements and to execute any and all instruments as may be necessary to effectuate the vote taken here under. I move the recommendation of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:02 - 2:20:09)
Is there a second? That was a laborious reading. Congratulations.

Mr. Schneider.

[Speaker 7] (2:20:10 - 2:20:22)
So this is basically another capital article that required special language to accept some state grants and to borrow certain monies to improve the arch property.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:24 - 2:20:45)
Thank you. Is there a question or discussion on the acceptance of this grant? Seeing none, this requires I'm sorry, in the back while the gentleman is approaching the microphone, I will remind you that this requires a two-thirds vote as it is borrowing.

[Speaker 38] (2:20:46 - 2:21:02)
The question just is if you guys can please, I'm sorry, Frank Smith, Precinct 1 if you could please explain to us the scope of work involved with this project seeing as how we're asking for a large sum of money. Thank you. Fair enough.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:03 - 2:21:04)
Ms. Galaska perhaps. Absolutely.

[Speaker 24] (2:21:05 - 2:22:22)
Good evening, Margie Galaska Community Development Director, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member. Happy to share with you the scope of work would include construction of walking paths, installation of bicycle pads, not pads I'm sorry, bicycle parking areas some furniture, meaning like there's an area that there are beautiful lookout areas on at the top of the hill at Arches Strait, so potentially lookout area. The full scope of work and the project will be discussed, there will be a public process and a full public engagement to really discuss the actual scope of work.

The way that the grant works is that Town Meeting needs to accept it prior to the full award and the scope of work. And Frank, I'm happy to again, we've had discussions in the past and I'm happy to continue the discussion and I do hope that residents will join public meetings and really help us to design and construct this beautiful 10 acres of land that Town Meeting voted for in 2022.

[Speaker 2] (2:22:23 - 2:22:38)
Thank you, Ms. Golaska. Other questions or discussion? Seeing none, again a reminder this is a two-thirds vote all those in favor of Mr. Schneider's motion all those opposed?

It carries unanimously.

[Speaker 24] (2:22:38 - 2:22:39)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 2] (2:22:41 - 2:23:01)
Having dispensed with all the articles in the warrant, I would accept a motion to dissolve this Town Meeting. Is there a second? All those in favor?

All those opposed? Thank you to all of you for your patience, your diligence, your attention and your indulgence.