2025-04-28: Planning Board Public Hearing

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

Swampscott Planning Board Public Hearing — April 28, 2025

Section 1: Agenda

  1. Call to Order and Opening of Public Hearing 00:11:22
  2. Zoning Bylaw 5.4.0.0 — Site Plan Special Permitting Amendments 00:12:01
    • Elimination of 3,000 sq ft threshold for new construction site plan review
    • Reduction of addition threshold from 800 to 500 sq ft
    • New site plan special permit requirement for all construction/additions in the flood zone overlay
    • Building permit data review and board discussion
    • Public comment period and vote on recommendation
  3. Zoning Bylaws 4.1.0.0 and 4.2.0.0 — Wetlands Protection and Floodplain Overlay District Amendments 00:31:15
    • Renaming Wetlands Protection Overlay District (4.1.0.0)
    • Renaming and overhauling Coastal Flood Area Overlay District to Floodplain Overlay District (4.2.0.0)
    • Compliance with Massachusetts DCR and FEMA regulations
    • Updated FEMA flood insurance rate maps
    • Assignment of DPW Director as Floodplain Administrator
    • Public comment period and vote on recommendation
  4. Zoning Bylaw 5.11.0.0 — Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Amendments 00:40:52
    • Compliance with 760 CMR 71 (Governor’s ADU law)
    • Removal of parking requirements within ½ mile of transit
    • Removal of owner-occupancy requirement
    • Prohibition on short-term rentals (under 30 consecutive days)
    • Public comment period and vote on recommendation
  5. Motion to Close Public Hearing 00:47:00

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

  • Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Chair): [Speaker 1] — Deep expertise on floodplain and coastal flood regulations; absent from prior meeting; made motions on Articles 1 and 3.
  • Ted (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 2] — Opened the hearing, read the first public hearing notice, provided building permit analysis context.
  • Mike Proscia (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 3] — Read the third public hearing notice; made substantive comments on zoning philosophy; called votes on items 2 and 3; closed the hearing.
  • Planning Board Member (name not stated): [Speaker 4] — Caught typographical/drafting errors in redline documents; abstained on the first vote.
  • Joe (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 5] — Read the second public hearing notice; called the first vote; raised concerns about proportional vs. fixed square-footage thresholds.
  • Marzi (Town Planning Staff): [Speaker 6] — Provided building permit data; coordinated staff review and outreach to other boards.
  • Marissa (Town Planning Staff): [Speaker 7] — Provided technical and legal expertise on bylaw language, ADU entrance requirements, and DCR template compliance.
  • Planning Board Member (name not stated): [Speaker 8] — Minimal speaking role; seconded the motion on the ADU article.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Opening of Public Hearing

Member Ted called the public hearing to order 00:11:25, noting the hearing related to updates to the town’s zoning bylaws. After a brief technical delay with the broadcast, Chair Ippolito moved to open the public hearing 00:11:52. The motion was seconded by Joe and approved unanimously.

Article 1: Site Plan Special Permitting (Bylaw 5.4.0.0)

Member Ted summarized the three components of the proposed amendment 00:12:01: (1) requiring site plan special permit review for all additions and new construction located in the flood zone overlay district; (2) lowering the threshold for site plan review on residential additions from 800 to 500 square feet of gross floor area; and (3) eliminating the 3,000-square-foot threshold for new construction, thereby requiring site plan review for all new construction regardless of size. He noted the board had voted to recommend these changes at a prior meeting.

Select Board and Other Board Feedback: Chair Ippolito asked whether the Select Board had commented 00:13:11. Marzi reported that a Select Board member (identified as “Doug”) had inquired about the rationale for the coastal flood zone component but expressed no objection 00:13:15. Member Ted explained it was an additional check on construction in flood-prone areas, complementing the updated floodplain overlay district language 00:13:29. No other inquiries from town staff or boards had been received.

Building Permit Data: Marzi reported that research into the prior two years of building permits revealed only two projects in the coastal flood area — 33 Puritan Road and 233 Puritan Road 00:14:19. The 233 Puritan Road project had already undergone site plan review with a robust floodplain memo and engineering presentation. The 33 Puritan Road project was an addition that required Zoning Board of Appeals relief but fell below the 800-square-foot site plan threshold.

Chair Ippolito provided important context 00:14:57, explaining that the 33 Puritan Road project was the impetus for these changes. She noted it was her opinion that project should have come before the Planning Board given its location in the floodplain, but conflicting terminology across bylaws — including discrepancies between “flood hazard zone” and “flood hazard” language — meant it did not trigger review. The timing aligned well with FEMA’s update of flood maps, which have become “a bit more rigid” 00:15:39.

Chair Ippolito noted that under the proposed rules, the 33 Puritan Road project “would have definitely required a site plan” and may have faced scrutiny because part of the lot is in the V1 zone 00:15:51. She raised the question of whether the board should reserve the right to waive site plan requirements in minor cases 00:16:23. Marzi confirmed such waiver authority exists in the board’s rules and regulations, though not in the zoning bylaw itself 00:16:31.

Chair Ippolito addressed potential public concern, emphasizing that while the new rules lower the threshold, the board retains flexibility to waive requirements where appropriate 00:17:19. She stated: “This will be protective for the town and do a lot of good and certainly is in great fairness to neighbors and everyone else who has to look at new construction” 00:17:43.

Impact Analysis on 500 sq ft Threshold: Member Ted reported that only four building permits issued between December 2022 and the present would have been affected by the lowered 500-square-foot threshold — “relatively minimal compared to the overall number of building permits” but “important to note nonetheless” 00:18:33. Chair Ippolito added that the 500-square-foot trigger is consistent with peer communities of similar density 00:18:57.

New Construction Threshold Elimination: Member Ted noted only two new construction projects in the past two years would have been affected 00:19:48. Chair Ippolito disclosed that there had been past instances where permits were pulled slightly below 3,000 square feet but the as-built structures may have exceeded that threshold 00:20:08. She characterized site plan review for all new construction as “narrowly tailored” and “not overly burdensome” for single- and two-family homes 00:20:34.

Member Proscia’s Public Commentary: Member Proscia offered significant comments directed at the viewing public 00:20:45. He stated that both projects that escaped review due to being under 3,000 square feet “should have” undergone site plan review “for a variety of reasons.” He emphasized that site plan review encompasses far more than building footprint, including plumbing, electrical, drainage, curbs, sidewalks, driveway pitch, tree removal, landscaping, and sight lines. He cited one case where “someone had a telephone pole that was moved and it ended up right in front of the neighbor’s kitchen window” 00:21:41. He characterized site plan review as “a really important feature to the pattern of a neighbourhood” 00:21:49.

Joe’s Reservations and Discussion: Board member Joe initially indicated he had not attended the prior meeting and would “probably just abstain” 00:23:11. He expressed a preference for either retaining the 800-square-foot threshold or tying the trigger to a percentage of existing house size, citing concern for homeowners in smaller houses for whom 500 square feet might represent a critical addition 00:23:29. Member Proscia responded that the board’s waiver authority provided sufficient flexibility to accommodate such cases 00:23:57, including waiving the special permit fee and application process where warranted.

A substantive exchange followed between Joe and Chair Ippolito regarding whether proportional (percentage-based) thresholds might better serve the town’s diverse lot sizes 00:25:03. Joe acknowledged the idea has merit but cautioned that “the execution of percentage can be very difficult depending on how square footage is distributed” 00:25:29. He ultimately expressed support for the 500-square-foot threshold, stating that reviews are “really important because they can impact the neighbouring houses” and that “a five hundred foot is not small” 00:26:37.

Marzi observed that the alignment with Marblehead’s threshold provides practical consistency for contractors and architects working across both communities 00:28:56. Member Proscia noted the similarities in development patterns between the two towns 00:29:34.

Vote: Chair Ippolito moved that the Planning Board vote to recommend favorable action on the article at Town Meeting 00:30:44. The motion was seconded. The vote carried with one abstention from a board member 00:31:03.

Article 2: Wetlands Protection and Floodplain Overlay Districts (Bylaws 4.1.0.0 and 4.2.0.0)

Board member Joe read the public hearing notice for this article 00:31:15, describing the renaming of the Wetlands Protection Overlay District (4.1.0.0), the renaming and comprehensive overhaul of the Coastal Flood Area Overlay District to the Floodplain Overlay District (4.2.0.0), and associated zoning map updates to reflect forthcoming FEMA flood rate insurance maps.

A brief but important correction was made by a board member, who noted that the legal notice incorrectly referred to a “flood area overlay district” rather than the correct “floodplain overlay district” as reflected in the actual bylaw language 00:32:11. The error was confirmed to be in the legal notice only, not in the redlined bylaw text 00:32:56.

DCR Compliance: Joe reported that the language was “adopted by the state regulations set forth by Department of Conservation and Recreation” and that staff members Marissa and Marzi worked with DCR to draft the local bylaw, “mimicking almost all of the language that they had suggested for municipalities in its entirety” 00:33:13. Marissa confirmed no Swampscott-specific changes were made beyond the name of the district 00:33:42.

Chair Ippolito’s Technical Explanation: Chair Ippolito provided critical context for the separation of the two overlay districts 00:33:54. She explained that the former combined “floodplain slash wetland protection overlay district” conflated two distinct regulatory regimes: “Not all wetland protection areas are floodplains and not all floodplains are wetland protection areas” 00:34:10. The conflation “let a lot of stuff fall through the cracks for coastal flood areas” 00:34:21. Under the new framework, “anything that floods is in the floodplain overlay district” while “wetlands are wetlands… they’re a whole separate designation” 00:34:26.

She noted the new state regulations are “a little more rigid” regarding what may be constructed in VE, AE, and A zones 00:35:07, and that variances under the new framework no longer go to the local Zoning Board of Appeals but rather to the Massachusetts State Building Code Appeal Board 00:35:41. She emphasized the importance of all relevant officials — building commissioner, Planning Board, and ZBA — familiarizing themselves with the new regulations 00:35:51.

Updated FEMA Maps: A board member caught a typographical error on page nine of the redline document (“date” should read “data”) 00:36:35. Joe reported that two of four expected FEMA maps had been received that day and that the northern portions of town (Orland and Florida areas) did not appear substantially different from prior maps 00:37:09. Chair Ippolito noted that maps closer to downtown — Fisherman’s Beach, Phyllis Park, Johnson Park, Puritan Road, and Skull and Way — were expected to show the floodplain extending further inland 00:37:26. She also noted worsening conditions around the Stacy’s Brook area near the Lynn town line 00:38:00.

Marissa confirmed that the DPW Director is now designated as the official floodplain administrator for the town 00:38:46. Member Ted noted copies of the new maps would be kept by the building inspector, town clerk, and DPW 00:38:41, and that DPW Director Gino Cresta and town engineer Mark would need to present on these items at Town Meeting 00:39:18.

Vote: Joe moved for favorable action on both bylaws 4.1.0.0 and 4.2.0.0 00:40:24. Chair Ippolito seconded 00:40:37. The vote was unanimous 00:40:47.

Article 3: Accessory Dwelling Unit Amendments (Bylaw 5.11.0.0)

Member Proscia read the public hearing notice 00:40:52, describing amendments to comply with the state ADU law (760 CMR 71) and adding regulations prohibiting short-term rentals in ADUs.

A board member flagged an apparent drafting issue regarding the word “entrances” vs. “entrance” in Section 5.1.1.1 00:41:22. Marzi clarified that the plural “S” on “entrances” was in fact struck in the redline but displayed poorly 00:41:44. Marissa explained the rationale: at least one entrance must be separate from the principal dwelling, but shared entrances are permissible as secondary access 00:41:59.

Key Changes from 2023 Bylaw: Member Proscia summarized the three changes from the ADU bylaw adopted at 2023 Town Meeting 00:42:22: (1) removal of parking requirements for ADUs within one-half mile of a transit station; (2) removal of the owner-occupancy requirement; and (3) a new prohibition on renting an ADU for fewer than 30 consecutive days. He noted the short-term rental prohibition was expressly permitted under the governor’s new law 00:43:00.

Transit Station Definition: Member Proscia inquired about the definition of “transit station” 00:43:57. Marissa explained it includes “any point where passengers embark or disembark from public transit” — encompassing train stations, bus stops, and ferry terminals 00:44:26. Only about a dozen street addresses in town fall outside the half-mile radius, primarily in Little’s Point and the Foster’s Dam area 00:44:15.

ADU By-Right Status: Chair Ippolito clarified that the ADU bylaw allows accessory dwelling units by right, subject to existing zoning setbacks, historic district requirements, and size restrictions 00:44:47.

Minor Drafting Correction: The board identified a minor grammatical issue — “the” before “any recorded relevant special permit” should be replaced with “any” under the application requirements 00:43:19. Staff confirmed this was an administrative correction within the Town Clerk’s discretion.

Member Proscia noted that Swampscott was “ahead of the curve” having adopted its ADU bylaw in 2023 before the state mandate, which simplified the compliance update 00:45:13. Chair Ippolito acknowledged she had initially disagreed with the approach but had since been persuaded 00:45:30.

Vote: Chair Ippolito moved to recommend favorable action at Town Meeting 00:46:08. The motion was seconded. The vote was unanimous 00:46:24.

Closing

Member Proscia confirmed that the minor administrative corrections to the bylaw language (typographical and grammatical) did not require separate votes, as the Town Clerk has discretion over minor grammatical changes when uploading bylaws 00:46:47. A motion to close the public hearing was made, seconded, and approved unanimously 00:47:00.

Section 4: Executive Summary

Three Zoning Bylaw Amendments Head to Town Meeting with Planning Board’s Favorable Recommendation

The Swampscott Planning Board held a public hearing on April 28, 2025, and unanimously or near-unanimously recommended favorable action on three zoning bylaw amendments that will appear as warrant articles at the upcoming Town Meeting. No members of the public commented on any of the three articles, either in person or online.

Tighter Site Plan Review for Construction (Bylaw 5.4.0.0)

The most debated amendment lowers the bar for when residential construction projects must undergo site plan review by the Planning Board. Three changes are bundled: (1) any new construction now requires site plan review (previously only projects over 3,000 sq ft); (2) the threshold for additions drops from 800 to 500 square feet; and (3) all construction in the flood zone overlay must undergo site plan review regardless of size.

Why this matters: Building permit data showed these changes would have affected only a handful of projects over the past two years — roughly four additions and two new construction projects. But the board emphasized that past gaps allowed construction that affected neighbors to proceed without planning review. One case involving a telephone pole relocated in front of a neighbor’s kitchen window was cited as an example of impacts that site plan review could prevent. The 500-square-foot threshold aligns with neighboring Marblehead, providing consistency for contractors working across both towns.

The board stressed that its rules and regulations allow it to waive site plan requirements for minor projects, providing a safety valve against burdening homeowners with modest additions. The vote was favorable with one abstention.

Floodplain Regulatory Overhaul (Bylaws 4.1.0.0 and 4.2.0.0)

The most consequential reform separates the town’s previously combined wetlands-and-flood overlay district into two distinct regulatory regimes: a Wetlands Protection Overlay District and a Floodplain Overlay District. The floodplain language has been rewritten using a DCR-provided template to achieve full compliance with state and federal standards.

Why this matters: The old combined district created confusion and regulatory gaps — floodplains were sometimes treated as wetlands (and vice versa), allowing some coastal flood-area construction to escape review entirely. Under the new framework, the DPW Director becomes the town’s official floodplain administrator, and flood zone variances will now be heard by the Massachusetts State Building Code Appeal Board rather than the local ZBA. Updated FEMA flood maps — two of four received the day of the hearing — are expected to show expanded floodplain areas in downtown Swampscott, particularly around Fisherman’s Beach, Phyllis Park, Johnson Park, and the Stacy’s Brook area. This vote was unanimous.

ADU Bylaw Updated for State Compliance (Bylaw 5.11.0.0)

Swampscott’s 2023 ADU bylaw is being updated to comply with the governor’s subsequent ADU legislation (760 CMR 71). The key changes remove parking requirements for units within a half mile of any transit stop and eliminate the owner-occupancy mandate. A new provision prohibits renting ADUs for fewer than 30 consecutive days, effectively banning short-term/Airbnb-style rentals.

Why this matters: Because virtually all of Swampscott falls within a half mile of a bus stop, the parking exemption effectively applies town-wide, with only about a dozen addresses (primarily in Little’s Point and Foster’s Dam) still subject to parking requirements. The board emphasized that ADUs remain subject to all other zoning standards including setbacks, historic district restrictions, and size limits. Swampscott’s early adoption in 2023 made this compliance update relatively straightforward. The vote was unanimous.

Section 5: Analysis

A Board Acting Preventively, with Modest Real-World Impact

The defining tension of this hearing was the gap between the substantive scope of the proposed reforms and the remarkably small number of actual projects they would have affected historically. Across all three articles, the empirical record shows single-digit numbers of building permits that would have triggered new review. The board made a deliberate case — particularly through Member Proscia’s vivid examples and Chair Ippolito’s detailed flood zone expertise — that the value of these changes lies not in volume but in the consequences when edge cases slip through. The telephone pole anecdote and the 33 Puritan Road flood zone case served as effective illustrations of regulatory gaps that produced real-world harms.

The 500-Square-Foot Debate Revealed Genuine Philosophical Tension

The most illuminating exchange of the hearing was the discussion between Joe and other board members over whether the 500-square-foot threshold was the right approach [00:23:11–00:26:57]. Joe’s argument — that a fixed threshold disproportionately burdens owners of smaller homes who have fewer options — reflected a legitimate equity concern that the board did not dismiss. Chair Ippolito and Member Proscia’s responses about waiver flexibility were responsive but somewhat circular: they argued the bylaw should set a low bar precisely because the board can always choose not to enforce it strictly. This is a defensible administrative approach, but it places significant discretion in the hands of the board rather than establishing predictable, proportional standards in the bylaw itself. Joe’s suggestion of percentage-based thresholds, while acknowledged as complex to implement, represents a conceptually stronger approach to the underlying fairness question and was flagged as worth future consideration 00:25:03.

Floodplain Reform: Substantive and Well-Grounded

The floodplain overlay district overhaul was the most technically complex item and the one where Chair Ippolito’s expertise was most evident. Her explanation of why the old combined wetlands/floodplain district created confusion — and her point that “not all wetland protection areas are floodplains and not all floodplains are wetland protection areas” 00:34:10 — was the clearest statement of the problem the reform addresses. The board wisely adopted DCR’s template language without local modifications, reducing the risk of introducing non-compliant provisions.

The shift of flood zone variances from the local ZBA to the state Building Code Appeal Board 00:35:41 is a significant change in governance that received only brief mention. This effectively removes a category of local discretion, which could prove controversial if specific property owners face hardship from the stricter standards with no local avenue for relief. Chair Ippolito’s emphasis on the need for all relevant town officials to “become familiar with the new regulations” 00:35:51 suggests she is aware this transition will require institutional adjustment.

ADU Compliance: The Easiest Win

The ADU amendment generated the least discussion, reflecting both its straightforward nature and the board’s comfort with the changes. The most noteworthy dynamic was Chair Ippolito’s candid admission that she had initially opposed the approach but was persuaded 00:45:30 — a small but notable signal of board cohesion. The 30-day minimum rental restriction, which the board clearly viewed as important, received almost no debate, suggesting strong consensus against short-term rental use of ADUs. The near-total applicability of the transit-proximity parking exemption town-wide (all but ~12 addresses) effectively makes this a universal parking waiver, a fact the board acknowledged matter-of-factly.

The Absence of Public Comment

No members of the public participated in person or online for any of the three articles. This absence is itself significant: these are zoning changes that will affect property rights across the town, and the lack of public engagement may become a talking point at Town Meeting. The board appeared aware of this, with Member Proscia explicitly framing portions of his remarks for “anyone who might is watching or may watch this prior to town meeting” 00:20:45 and noting that the recorded hearing would serve as a public resource. The board’s effort to build a thorough public record — despite the empty gallery — reflects prudent preparation for potential Town Meeting floor debate.

Procedural Notes

The hearing was conducted informally, with chairing and vote-calling duties shared among multiple members. While this reflected a collegial atmosphere, the rotation of procedural roles (three different members read the three public hearing notices; two different members called votes) could create minor confusion for public viewers trying to identify who holds authority. A minor error in the legal notice — referring to “flood area” instead of “floodplain” — was caught and corrected on the record 00:32:11, and several small drafting errors in the redlined bylaws were identified and flagged as administrative corrections within the Town Clerk’s discretion.