Swampscott Planning Board Meeting Review: January 13, 2025

Section 1: Agenda

Based on the meeting transcript, the likely agenda was as follows:

Call to Order 2:56
Application 24-01: CenterCorp Retail Properties - Preliminary Subdivision Plan (Swampscott Mall) 2:56
- Discussion and Vote on Continuance
Application 24-02: Darius Gregory - Subdivision Plan (0 Manson Road) 7:03
- Discussion and Vote on Continuance
Application 24-18: CenterCorp Retail Properties, Inc. - Design Plan (450 Paradise Road / Swampscott Mall Redevelopment) 7:34
- Continued Public Hearing
- Applicant Presentation & Updates (Response to Previous Feedback, Town Department Comments) 8:58
- Board Questions and Discussion (Engineering 12:22, Traffic 16:28, Pedestrian Safety/Site Design 23:46, Architectural Renderings 32:22, Landscaping/Trees 37:35)
- Public Comment 44:36
- Applicant Response to Public Comment 57:15
- Board Review of Vinnin Square Design Guidelines Compliance 1:04:30
- Board Discussion of Requested Waivers (Parking, Setbacks) 1:25:37
- Board Deliberation, Findings, Motion, and Vote on Plan Approval 1:36:34
Approval of Meeting Minutes (Presumably December 4, 2024 meeting) 1:59:00
Other Business / Old Business 2:05:59
- Discussion of Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2025 Town Meeting (Floodplain/Wetlands map adoption, Site Plan Review thresholds, Short-Term Rentals/ADUs)
- Discussion of Future A&R for Town-owned Pine Street/New Ocean Street parcels 2:28:54
Adjournment 2:31:51

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Based on the transcript and knowledge of Swampscott government context, the speakers are inferred as:

Planning Board Chair (Name not stated): [Speaker 2]
Planning Board Member (Name not stated, active participant): [Speaker 1]
Planning Board Member (Name not stated, focused on design/pedestrian aspects): [Speaker 3]
Planning Board Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 14]
Planning Board Member (Name not stated, limited speaking): [Speaker 13]
Planning Board Member (Name not stated, limited speaking): [Speaker 17]
Andy Rose (Applicant Representative, CenterCorp Retail Properties): [Speaker 7]
Kenneth Schutzer (Attorney for Applicant, CenterCorp Retail Properties): [Speaker 8]
Garrett Horsfall (Kelly Engineering Group, representing Applicant): [Speaker 6]
Daniel (Van Assen Associates, Traffic Engineer representing Applicant): [Speaker 10]
Nidhi John (PCA Architects, representing Applicant): [Speaker 5]
Mike D’Angelo (MDLA Landscape Architects, representing Applicant): [Speaker 11]
Marissa Meaney (Town Planner/Staff, inferred): [Speaker 9]
Diana Eddowes (Resident, Renewable Energy Committee Member): [Speaker 15]
Tony Bandewitz (Resident, Open Space & Recreation Plan Committee Member, Conservation Commission Member): [Speaker 4]
Martha Schmidt (Resident, Chair of Renewable Energy Committee & Climate Action Resilience Plan Committee): [Speaker 12]
George Potts (Resident): [Speaker 16]
[Speaker 18]: Insufficient data to identify.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

1. Call to Order The Planning Board Chair called the meeting to order 2:56.

2. Application 24-01: CenterCorp Preliminary Subdivision Plan The Chair noted this item was likely to be continued pending the Design Plan hearing for the mall redevelopment 2:56. Attorney Kenneth Schutzer, representing the applicant CenterCorp, was connected virtually 3:59. Andy Rose, also representing the applicant, confirmed the intent to address the Design Plan first and return to the subdivision later 6:11. A Planning Board Member moved to continue the application to the February meeting 6:30. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously 6:43.

3. Application 24-02: Darius Gregory Subdivision (0 Manson Road) The Chair stated the applicant requested a continuance 7:03. A Planning Board Member moved to continue the application to the February meeting 7:15. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously 7:26.

4. Application 24-18: CenterCorp Design Plan (450 Paradise Road / Swampscott Mall Redevelopment) The Chair introduced the continued public hearing for the Swampscott Mall redevelopment design plan 7:34, outlining the context of the project under the 2023 Town Meeting-approved Zoning By-law Section 4.12.0.0, allowing multifamily housing in the B4 district by right with Planning Board design review.

Applicant Presentation: Attorney Schutzer summarized the applicant team’s responses to questions raised at the December meeting, submitted in writing on January 6th 8:58. These included bus shelters, tree counts, bike racks, contextual elevations, residential renderings, affordable unit details (Affordable Housing Restriction - AHR), subdivision plan status, and energy issues.
- Garrett Horsfall (Kelly Engineering) detailed minor plan changes: added bus shelters and speed humps near specific parking spaces as traffic calming measures 12:22. He explained the proposed conceptual lot lines for future ANR (Lots C1/C2) and subdivision (Lots C3-C8) 13:20. He addressed DPW/Engineering comments, confirming ample sewer capacity 14:30, proposed water loop connection to Essex St to improve pressure 14:50, and noted Fire/Building/Health comments were largely standard items or already addressed.
- Daniel (Van Assen Associates) addressed traffic comments from the Police Captain 16:56. He elaborated on the plan to retime signals (Vinnin Square signals and Paradise Rd @ Mall Driveway) to improve efficiency and safety, including optimizing yellow/red clearance times to reduce rear-end crashes 17:45, 19:25. He explained the goal is to reduce average motorist delay and vehicle queuing 20:56.
Board Discussion:
- A Board Member ([Speaker 14]) inquired about the safety of the 24 parking spaces along the back; Mr. Horsfall reiterated the addition of speed bumps and noted these spaces are intended for off-peak employee use 22:41, 23:06.
- A Board Member ([Speaker 3]) raised concerns about pedestrian connectivity and safety, particularly accessing proposed Building B from Paradise Road 23:46. A detailed discussion followed involving multiple board members and the applicant’s architect (Nidhi John, PCA) regarding existing sidewalks, potential desire lines across parking areas, and the use of landscaping/islands to guide pedestrians [24:57 - 32:12]. The consensus seemed to be that the current plan, with landscaping and light posts in islands, would likely discourage unsafe crossings.
- The Board reviewed the submitted contextual elevations and residential renderings 32:22. Nidhi John (PCA) explained the photo montage showing the new building’s relation to existing residences on Loring Ave/Essex St and highlighted how topography helps screen parking 32:54. She also presented renderings showing the residential building’s appearance from different perspectives 33:39. Board members ([Speaker 3], [Speaker 1]) commented positively on the renderings, noting the sophisticated color blocking, architectural emphasis, scale relative to the existing development, and improved street edge along Loring Ave/Essex St 34:45, 35:27, 36:57. The ‘S’ shape of the building and courtyard spaces were also noted favorably.
- The Chair raised the issue of trees, referencing a letter from the Town’s Tree Committee 37:35. Mike D’Angelo (MDLA Landscape Architect) indicated openness to reviewing the Tree Committee’s suggestions for using more native species from the Swampscott list, noting only one or two current species weren’t native but were chosen for hardiness 38:07, 38:36. He also agreed to discuss the Tree Committee’s recommendation for a fixed watering schedule for the first two years 39:07. Further discussion occurred regarding optimal planting size for tree survival, with Mr. D’Angelo explaining standard practice and the importance of diversity [39:52 - 41:10]. The Board discussed the town’s bylaw requirement for 4-4.5” caliper trees and whether smaller trees might establish better, noting flexibility might be needed [41:43 - 43:15]. Andy Rose indicated willingness to implement irrigation if needed for tree survival 43:17.
Public Comment 44:36:
- Diana Eddowes (Resident, Renewable Energy Committee) asked about plans for solar energy on new and existing buildings, including potential for community solar 45:25.
- Tony Bandewitz (Resident, Open Space Committee, ConCom) presented comments supporting the Tree Committee, advocating for long-term tree maintenance, use of native plants (offering a list), exploring heat-reflective pavement (Cool Seal), ensuring dark sky compliant lighting protective of wildlife, confirming a robust snow disposal plan away from wetlands, inquiring about implementation of alternative transportation encouragement measures listed in the traffic study, and urging consideration of green infrastructure like rain gardens 46:48. He noted an NOI was filed with ConCom.
- Martha Schmidt (Resident, Chair REC & CARP Committee) reiterated the call for solar on new and existing buildings, providing estimates of potential power generation and cost savings, suggesting leasing or community solar if direct ownership isn’t viable, and requesting a meeting with the developers 53:50.
- George Potts (Resident) asked if the wetland area near the road could be developed into a small park with paths/benches, offering to seek grants for construction 55:56.
Applicant Response to Public Comment 57:15:
- Nidhi John (PCA) stated the project aims for LEED Gold certification and uses the specialized stretch code, resulting in a good building envelope 57:16. They will conduct a study to maximize solar potential on the new residential building roof but cannot commit yet. Andy Rose stated the existing retail roof (Stop & Shop) is relatively new but structurally likely cannot support solar panels 58:43.
- Mike D’Angelo (MDLA) addressed tree comments, noting the Tree Committee letter mainly concerned evergreens and they could look at swapping the few non-natives (like Norway Spruce) for natives, though native evergreen options are limited 59:47. Perennials are an easy swap. The team agreed to engage with the committee.
- Nidhi John confirmed lighting will be dark sky compliant 1:00:44, and they will look into heat-reflective pavement 1:01:21.
- Andy Rose addressed snow disposal, noting the area near wetlands will be managed by the apartment building entity, allowing more control, including potential off-site removal 1:01:27.
- Nidhi John stated they could holistically look at enhancing green infrastructure (rain gardens, swales) on the residential portion 1:01:53.
- Regarding the wetland park idea, Andy Rose indicated openness (“Sure, knock yourself out”) while noting they intentionally avoided touching the area 1:02:32. Garrett Horsfall clarified the Conservation Commission NOI filing relates primarily to the 24 new parking spaces in the buffer zone, which use porous pavement, and that the overall stormwater plan is a significant upgrade 1:02:51.
Design Guideline Review 1:04:30: The Board systematically reviewed the project against the Vinnin Square Design Guidelines (Section 4.12.0.0 Appendix). Key points discussed included:
- Site Design: Outdoor spaces, connections, building placement defining spaces and concealing parking, public access, integrating parking, sidewalks/crosswalks, traffic calming, concealing service areas, bike amenities. Board members found these met, praising the activation of space, screening of parking by the new apartment building, breaking up the parking lot visually, and improved pedestrian experience with wider sidewalks [1:05:35 - 1:10:06].
- Landscape Design: Defining spaces, screening areas, reducing parking impact, preserving existing trees (approx. 100 preserved, 68 net new added), dark sky lighting, street furniture (benches, art displays noted), pedestrian-scale lighting (including lit bollards and string lights). Found to be met [1:10:08 - 1:12:15].
- Building Design: Scale/shape continuity, reducing perceived bulk (praised architecture 1:12:22), ground floor character, upper floor variation, entry placement activating spaces. Found to be met, with positive comments on the visual interest, warmth, and quality of materials/design [1:12:22 - 1:15:58].
- Sustainability: Site sustainability (LEED Gold goal noted as a first for Swampscott 1:16:41), building sustainability (all-electric new building 1:17:34), heat island reduction (parking waiver helps, new trees, applicant agreed to look at cool pavement 1:20:56). Discussion occurred about solar canopies over parking; applicant expressed aesthetic concerns but agreed to add it to their solar study, potentially for the 24 rear spaces [1:17:38 - 1:20:02].
- Affordability: Met via inclusionary housing regulations (16 affordable units provided on-site, fee-in-lieu for fractional 0.3 unit, subject to Affordable Housing Trust approval) 1:21:11. Attorney Schutzer confirmed an Affordable Housing Restriction document was drafted with Town Counsel (KP Law) and awaits final details and AHT approval 1:22:10. The Board agreed approval would be conditional on AHT sign-off 1:22:54.
Waiver Discussion 1:25:37:
- The Board discussed necessary waivers. Garrett Horsfall identified parking waivers related to side/rear setbacks for the 24 new spaces bisected by an existing internal lot line (considered a formality) 1:26:23.
- The main waiver was for parking count. The applicant initially requested a waiver from 895 required spaces down to 833 provided spaces. During the meeting, Andy Rose requested flexibility for an additional 25 required spaces (due to potential restaurant tenant seat counts), increasing the total required count to 920 1:27:06. The number of provided spaces (833) remained unchanged, resulting in a requested waiver of 87 spaces [1:30:30 - 1:31:28]. Board members ([Speaker 1], Chair) expressed no concerns, citing the staggered use nature of a mall, ample historical parking, and the benefits of activating the space [1:27:48 - 1:32:11].
- Potential future waivers for dimensional requirements (setbacks, etc.) arising from the planned ANR/subdivision were discussed 1:32:28. The applicant sought assurance these could be granted under the current approval authority. The Board acknowledged this, understanding it’s a “paper vehicle for financing” 1:33:03 and seemed agreeable provided the building locations don’t change.
- A potential loading waiver was mentioned but deemed likely unnecessary by the applicant team 1:34:30.
Motion on Design Guidelines: A Board Member ([Speaker 1]) moved that the Board finds the application complies in full with the Vinnin Square Design Guidelines 1:36:10. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously 1:36:27.
Deliberation and Vote: The Board discussed moving to a vote 1:36:34. Attorney Schutzer confirmed voting with contingencies was acceptable 1:40:33. A Board Member ([Speaker 1]) led a review confirming compliance with the various sections of the 4.12.0.0 bylaw, incorporating findings based on the meeting discussion [1:41:08 - 1:50:28]. Key contingencies identified were: finalizing the Affordable Housing Restriction with the AHT, providing a final list of waivers needed (esp. after ANR/subdivision), compliance with all standard staff/department requirements (including I&I fee mentioned by Town Planner Meaney 1:50:43), and the applicant meeting with Tree and Energy committees as discussed 1:52:44. The distinction was made that while Police Chief Cable’s traffic comments were appreciated, the specific sidewalk suggestion was addressed differently in the approved plan 1:50:52.
- The public hearing was formally closed by unanimous vote 1:53:23.
- A Board Member ([Speaker 1]) moved to approve Application 24-18 for the redevelopment plan as presented, based on findings outlined during the meeting, incorporating public and town board comments, acknowledging compliance with Design Guidelines and the zoning bylaw, subject to the discussed contingencies (AHR finalization, waiver list finalization, standard requirements/fees, committee meetings) 1:53:37. The motion was seconded 1:55:27 and approved unanimously 1:55:29.
- Board members expressed excitement and commended the applicant team on the project quality [1:55:35 - 1:56:47].

5. Approval of Minutes The Board reviewed the minutes from the December 4, 2024 meeting 1:59:00. A minor typo was noted (2:04:09). A motion to approve the minutes (presumably as amended) was made by Board Member [Speaker 3] 2:05:35, seconded, and approved unanimously 2:05:59.

6. Other Business / Old Business 2:05:59

Zoning Bylaw Discussion: The Chair reported positive feedback from the Select Board on potential 2025 zoning articles.
- Floodplain/Wetlands: Discussion on adopting new FEMA flood maps and updating/streamlining related bylaws (Coastal Flood Area Overlay, Floodplain District, potentially Wetlands Protection) for consistent language aligned with state terminology and FEMA compliance 2:06:41.
- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Mentioned briefly in context of the state’s MBTA Communities law deadline 2:09:10.
- Short-Term Rentals: Noted briefly as a 2026 item 2:28:46.
- Site Plan Review: Extensive discussion on potentially requiring site plan review/special permit for all new single/two-family home construction, eliminating the current 3,000 sq ft threshold 2:09:48. Board Member [Speaker 3] argued strongly against square footage thresholds for equity reasons, stating impact relates more to lot context than building size 2:11:06. Board Member [Speaker 1] favored requiring site plan special permits for all new construction, citing past issues and staffing challenges in Inspectional Services 2:10:54, 2:15:32, 2:23:51. Board Member [Speaker 14] leaned towards non-binding review for new builds but keeping the current threshold for additions 2:19:41. The Chair agreed with requiring review for new construction 2:21:30. The Board requested data from staff on recent new build permits vs. site plan permits for context 2:21:56. The need for public input (community meeting) before Town Meeting was noted 2:27:10.
Pine Street A&R: Town Planner Meaney outlined a plan for an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan to subdivide the town-owned dispensary parcel on New Ocean St. from the VFW parcel (currently merged) and then merge the VFW parcel with the adjacent former warehouse parcel (12-24 Pine St) to create the lot for the planned affordable housing project 2:28:54. Board Member [Speaker 1] confirmed this could likely be done via ANR 2:29:52. This is anticipated for the March meeting.

7. Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made 2:31:51, seconded, and approved unanimously.

Section 4: Executive Summary

The Swampscott Planning Board held a lengthy meeting on January 13, 2025, culminating in the approval of the major redevelopment plan for the Swampscott Mall (450 Paradise Road) 1:53:37. This project, pursued by CenterCorp Retail Properties under the town’s 2023 Vinnin Square zoning bylaw, represents a significant transformation for the area.

Key Outcomes & Project Details:

Mall Redevelopment Approved: The Board unanimously approved Application 24-18, allowing the project to proceed. This includes facade upgrades to existing retail buildings, construction of new smaller retail buildings (Buildings B & C), and a new 113-unit apartment building (Building A) with ground-floor parking 7:34.
Sustainability Focus: The new apartment building is planned as all-electric and designed to be LEED Gold certifiable, a potential first for Swampscott 1:16:41, 1:17:34. The applicant agreed to explore using heat-reflective pavement and conduct a solar feasibility study for the new building’s roof 57:16, 1:01:21. Lighting will be dark sky compliant 1:00:44.
Affordable Housing: The project will provide 16 on-site affordable rental units, with a fee paid to the town’s Affordable Housing Trust for a fractional unit requirement, pending final agreement with the Trust 1:21:11, 1:22:10.
Landscape & Design: The plan includes significant landscaping improvements, preserving approximately 100 existing trees and adding a net of 68 new ones 1:11:03. The applicant agreed to work with the Town’s Tree Committee on incorporating more native species and discuss a watering plan 38:36, 39:07. The Board extensively reviewed and praised the architectural design and site layout for improving pedestrian experience and visual appeal [1:04:30 - 1:15:58].
Traffic & Parking: Traffic mitigation includes retiming signals in Vinnin Square and adding speed bumps within the mall 17:45, 12:22. The Board granted a waiver for 87 parking spaces, deeming the proposed 833 spaces sufficient given the mixed-use nature and staggered demand of the mall 1:31:28, 1:27:48.
Conditions: Approval is subject to several conditions, including finalizing the Affordable Housing Restriction with the town trust, submitting final waiver details (especially after future lot subdivisions for financing), meeting standard town department requirements (like I&I fees), and the applicant meeting with the Tree and Renewable Energy Committees [1:43:44 - 1:53:02].

Why This Matters for Swampscott: This project marks the first major development under the Vinnin Square zoning bylaw passed by Town Meeting in 2023, aimed at revitalizing the commercial area and adding needed housing diversity. The addition of 113 housing units, including 16 affordable ones, addresses local housing needs 1:41:24. The project promises a modernized shopping center, improved pedestrian safety and aesthetics 1:08:06, and increased tax revenue 1:41:32. The commitment to LEED Gold and exploring solar demonstrates progress on sustainability goals, heavily emphasized by residents during public comment [45:25, 46:48, 53:50]. Potential future lot subdivisions mentioned are primarily for financing purposes and not expected to change the physical layout 1:33:03.

Other Discussions: The Board also began preliminary discussions on potential zoning changes for the 2025 Town Meeting, including updating floodplain maps/bylaws and significantly lowering or eliminating the square footage threshold that triggers site plan review for new single/two-family homes 2:05:59. This latter topic generated considerable debate about balancing property rights with neighborhood impact and ensuring adequate review, especially given limited town staffing [2:10:45 - 2:25:12]. Further discussion and public outreach on these potential bylaws are expected in future meetings.

Section 5: Analysis

This Planning Board meeting was dominated by the successful navigation of the Swampscott Mall redevelopment proposal through the town’s relatively new Vinnin Square zoning bylaw (4.12.0.0). The proceedings highlighted several key dynamics:

Applicant Preparedness: The CenterCorp team, led by Attorney Ken Schutzer and Andy Rose, presented a well-coordinated front. They came equipped with detailed written responses to previous board and town department feedback 8:58, showcasing diligence. Their team of experts (engineering, traffic, architecture, landscape) fielded specific, technical questions effectively [12:22, 16:56, 32:54, 38:07]. While demonstrating flexibility on certain points (native trees, meeting with committees) likely influenced by public/board pressure, they firmly defended core aspects like the parking waiver 1:27:06 and realistically assessed limitations (solar on the existing roof 58:43). This balanced approach appeared effective in gaining the Board’s confidence.
Board’s Thoroughness within New Framework: The Planning Board rigorously applied the criteria set forth in the 2023 bylaw and the associated Vinnin Square Design Guidelines. Board Member [Speaker 1], in particular, steered a methodical review of compliance section-by-section [1:04:30, 1:36:34], building a strong rationale for the eventual approval. Members, notably [Speaker 3], engaged deeply with design nuances, pedestrian safety, and sustainability elements [23:46, 34:45, 37:35], demonstrating a focus beyond mere technical compliance towards achieving the bylaw’s qualitative goals (activating the space, improving aesthetics, ensuring livability). Their comfort in granting waivers, especially for parking, suggested a pragmatic interpretation based on the specific context and perceived overall benefit of the project 1:29:00.
Impact of Public Sustainability Advocacy: Comments from residents representing the Renewable Energy, Open Space, and Climate Action committees were notably focused and aligned on sustainability [45:25, 46:48, 53:50]. While the applicant didn’t concede on all points (e.g., large-scale solar canopies), the public input demonstrably influenced the outcome. Commitments to explore heat-reflective pavement, conduct a robust solar study for the new building, work with the Tree Committee on natives/watering, and meet with the Energy Committee were integrated into the project scope or approval conditions [1:01:21, 57:16, 38:36, 1:52:44]. This suggests that organized resident input on specific, actionable items can achieve tangible results, even if compromises are necessary.
Foreshadowing Future Zoning Debates: The discussion under “Other Business” regarding potential 2025 zoning amendments, particularly site plan review for single/two-family homes 2:09:48, revealed significant internal debate within the Board itself. Arguments centered on equity (impact vs. arbitrary square footage thresholds 2:11:06), the need for oversight due to past issues and staffing constraints [2:15:32, 2:23:51], and the scope of review (binding vs. advisory 2:19:41). This discussion signals that site plan review will likely be a contentious topic requiring careful deliberation, data analysis (requested by the Chair 2:21:56), and community engagement leading up to Town Meeting.