Swampscott Planning Board Meeting — October 20, 2025

Section 1: Agenda

Call to Order and Roll Call 00:04:55
Approval of Past Minutes — Deferred to November meeting 00:05:21
Petition 24-19: 15 Manson Street — ADU Site Plan Special Permit — Request for construction of an attached 899 sq. ft. accessory dwelling unit; hearing continued due to public notice error 00:05:21
Petition 24-11: 491 Humphrey Street — Administrative Review / Time Extension — Applicant Xenia Glickberg (represented by attorney Ken Schutzer) seeking extension for phased six-unit condominium conversion project 00:22:12
Delamar Swampscott Hotel — Schematic Design Review — Advisory review of Clearview Investments’ proposed renovation of Hadley School into a boutique hotel, with comments to be forwarded to the Select Board 01:17:38
Review of Potential Zoning Bylaw Changes — Brief update; substantive discussion deferred to November 02:27:03
Staff Updates and Other Business — GIS licensing, new land use planner hire, Tree Committee bylaw 02:27:28
Adjournment 02:29:35

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Planning Board Members:

Ted Dooley (Planning Board Chair): Primary speaker throughout the meeting; called the meeting to order, led the ADU review, provided extensive architectural commentary on the Delamar hotel, and recused himself from the 491 Humphrey Street petition due to abutter conflict
Kara Germa (Planning Board Member): Present in person; limited speaking role
Bill Quinn (Planning Board Member): Present in person; asked questions during the 491 Humphrey time extension discussion
Joe Sheridan (Planning Board Member): Present in person; served as acting chair for the 491 Humphrey petition; provided detailed architectural observations on the building’s facade discrepancies
Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Member): Participating remotely; raised substantive questions about the 491 Humphrey project (flood zone, culvert, original plans) and the 15 Manson Street ADU (lighting, abutter distances); read conditions from prior decisions

Town Staff:

Krista (Community Development Staff/Town Planner): Handled logistics, confirmed public notice details, captured comments for the Select Board letter on the Delamar, provided timeline reminders
Chris (Office of Community Development): Introduced the Delamar hotel presentation, provided staff updates on GIS capabilities, zoning bylaw work, and new hire Tim Milliken

Applicants and Representatives — 15 Manson Street:

John Andrews (JFA Design Group): Architect/designer representing the ADU application
Mary Vic Johnson (Property Owner, online): Asked whether corrections to drawings could salvage the hearing
Jim Johnson (Property Owner, present): Co-owner of 15 Manson Street

Applicants and Representatives — 491 Humphrey Street:

Ken Schutzer (Attorney): Represented Xenia Glickberg; provided extensive legal arguments regarding the time extension, phasing rationale, FEMA compliance, and the Development Impact Statement condition
Slava (Glickberg) (Property Owner/Contractor): Described construction progress, inspection milestones, and setbacks including hospitalization
Xenia Glickberg (Property Owner/Principal): Brief remarks on construction details

Applicant — Delamar Hotel:

Dixon Mallory (Clearview Investments and Hospitality Group): Presented schematic design plans for the Hadley School hotel conversion

Public Commenters:

Mara Lau (Outlook Road resident): Spoke during the Delamar discussion; raised concerns about parking lot screening, rat mitigation, service vehicle circulation, pedestrian access through Linscott Park, and expressed opposition to the hotel project

Note: The automated transcript assigns speaker tags inconsistently across agenda items, making precise attribution challenging in some passages. Identifications above are inferred from context, self-introductions, and cross-references within the discussion.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Call to Order and Roll Call

Chair Ted Dooley called the October 20, 2025 meeting of the Planning Board to order at approximately 00:04:55, noting that members were participating both in person and online, requiring roll call votes throughout the evening. Present were Kara Germa, Bill Quinn, Joe Sheridan, Angela Ippolito (remote), and Chair Dooley. Approval of past minutes was deferred to the November meeting as minutes had not yet been prepared.

Petition 24-19: 15 Manson Street — ADU Site Plan Special Permit

John Andrews of JFA Design Group presented on behalf of the applicants for a site plan special permit to construct an attached 899-square-foot accessory dwelling unit at 15 Manson Street 00:05:44. The proposed ADU would be a one-story, two-bedroom, two-bath addition that Andrews stated fell within all setback, lot coverage, and height requirements. He also disclosed a new driveway — a 12-foot-wide, separate curb cut — that had not been included in the original filing.

Chair Dooley quickly identified an address discrepancy: the public legal notices had been sent referencing “Manson Road” rather than “Manson Street,” and several drawings referenced “Mason Street” 00:07:29. Staff confirmed that the legal notices had used the incorrect address 00:09:23. Chair Dooley determined that the hearing could not be validly opened without proper public notification and continued the matter to the November 10 meeting 00:09:44.

Despite being unable to open the hearing, the Board provided substantive guidance for the applicant to prepare an improved submission 00:10:19. Chair Dooley noted the following items needed before the November hearing:

Updated site plans correcting street name references throughout the application package
Landscaping plan or waiver request — The Board typically requires a landscaping plan for residential additions; if no landscaping changes are proposed, a written waiver request with justification is needed 00:13:00
Updated lot coverage calculations reflecting the new driveway, with notation of whether the driveway surface is pervious or impervious 00:13:19
Lighting details — Any proposed exterior lighting must be dark sky compliant, with fixture specifications shown on the plans 00:15:36
Foundation plan corrections — Discrepancies between the floor plan and elevation drawings regarding bay foundations and entry steps 00:16:12
Distances to abutters’ dwellings from the lot line, with abutters’ names 00:18:10
Utility screening — Any new condensers, compressors, or outdoor utilities must be shown on plans with proposed screening (fence or shrubbery) 00:21:45
Drainage notation — Gutter system directing water toward the backyard 00:17:13

Angela Ippolito recommended that staff send Department of Public Works comments once the updated driveway plan is submitted 00:18:36. Chair Dooley also suggested the applicant review the Zero Manson Road subdivision application as a reference for a complete landscape plan.

Property owner Mary Vic Johnson, joining online, asked whether simply correcting the street name on existing drawings could validate the hearing 00:19:11. Chair Dooley explained that proper public notice — including publication in the Lynn Item and mailed notification to all abutters within 300 yards — was a legal prerequisite, and the wrong address could have resulted in incorrect abutter notifications 00:19:27. He emphasized the importance of procedural correctness to protect any decision from future challenge 00:19:51.

The applicants were advised that the deadline for updated application materials was October 27, two weeks prior to the November 10 hearing.

Petition 24-11: 491 Humphrey Street — Administrative Review / Time Extension

Chair Dooley recused himself from this item due to being an abutter within the notification radius, handing the chairmanship to member Joe Sheridan 00:22:25.

Attorney Ken Schutzer presented on behalf of property owners Xenia and Slava Glickberg 00:22:40. He provided a narrative overview of a six-unit condominium conversion project at 491 Humphrey Street that had received site plan special permit approval approximately one year earlier, in September 2024. The project had been deliberately phased at the applicants’ request for two reasons: (1) to establish equity for refinancing by demonstrating completed work, and (2) to comply with FEMA regulations regarding flood zone construction, keeping each phase under 50% of the original property value 00:22:46.

Delays explained: Schutzer outlined several factors that delayed the project 00:24:17:

The original architectural drawings contained technical errors requiring a new architect and complete redrawing of plans
National Grid’s protracted delays in addressing gas service — ultimately revealing a culvert beneath the road that made expanded gas service prohibitively expensive (approximately $1 million), forcing conversion to an entirely electric heating system 00:24:58
Slava Glickberg’s hospitalization for several months, taking him off the project 00:25:13

Construction progress: Slava reported that Phase 1 had passed rough inspections — fire, plumbing, electrical — and was ready to close walls 00:47:00. Spray foam insulation was completed, with sprinkler and insulation inspections scheduled for that week. He noted that much of Phase 2 work had already been accomplished concurrently, with stairs to upper units and structural beams already in place; only the rear “bump-out” addition remained 00:48:36.

Facade discrepancies: Acting Chair Sheridan raised significant concerns about discrepancies between the as-built condition and both the original approved plans and the new rendering submitted that day 00:29:00. He noted that:

Window trim shown in the original proposal was absent from the building, with nail-fin windows and shingles instead
Window proportions differed — shorter counter-height windows on the first floor with larger second-floor windows, opposite of what the rendering depicted
Columns from the original design had been eliminated
The front porch entry featured a solid wall where the original plans showed railings, creating a dark, closed-in appearance

The discussion between Sheridan, Schutzer, and the Glickbergs regarding these differences was notably detailed [00:29:35–00:39:41]. Slava explained that building code requirements related to the integration of the old and new structures forced the first-floor windows to be smaller, and some bedroom windows were removed because they left insufficient wall space for furniture. Regarding the porch, the applicants indicated they had discussed lowering the wall with the building inspector and were willing to install a railing if the Board insisted 00:36:14.

Sheridan offered specific architectural guidance: align the solid wall with the windowsill height behind it and add a lighter rail on top, then lighten the overall frame so it doesn’t read as a window opening. The applicants were receptive to this suggestion [00:37:47–00:39:28].

Legal discussion on the Development Impact Statement: Angela Ippolito read the conditions of the original approval into the record 00:55:19, including Condition 4 which stated that if the project was not reasonably expected to be complete within 12 months, the applicant “shall prepare a development impact statement” pursuant to Section 5625 of the zoning bylaw and reappear for administrative review 00:56:30.

Schutzer argued firmly that a full DIS was never the Board’s intent and was inappropriately included in the decision, which he said was drafted by former staff member Marissa without his review 01:01:41. He characterized the DIS requirement as “onerous” and stated it would require “tens of thousands of dollars” in soft costs that “were never anticipated” 01:02:41. He asserted the Board had sole discretion to waive DIS requirements and asked them to do so.

The exchange became pointed, with Schutzer stating: “Every wrong decision that goes unappealed becomes a right decision. So this is what we’re working with” 01:07:54. Board members acknowledged the issue but declined to resolve the DIS question that evening. Chair Dooley (participating as a non-voting member on this item) stated the Board was “generally open to revisiting this” but needed to review meeting tapes to determine how the provision entered the decision 01:11:33. The Board agreed to have staff investigate the matter.

Vote on time extension: Acting Chair Sheridan proposed, and the Board agreed, to amend Condition 4 of the original decision to extend the project completion deadline to January 1, 2027 — approximately 14 months from the date of the meeting 01:13:50. This would cover both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

A motion was made and seconded. The vote was taken by roll call 01:16:30:

Angela Ippolito: Aye
Joe Sheridan: Aye
Bill Quinn: Aye
Kara Germa: Aye
(Ted Dooley recused)

The motion passed unanimously (4-0, with Dooley recused).

Delamar Swampscott Hotel — Schematic Design Review

Chair Dooley resumed the chair and provided context for this agenda item 01:17:38. The Planning Board was reviewing schematic designs for the proposed Delamar Hotel at the Hadley School as an advisory input to the Select Board, which was evaluating the project under its Land Development Agreement (LDA) with Clearview Investments and Hospitality Group. The Board’s comments would be compiled in writing and forwarded to the Select Board for their next meeting.

Dixon Mallory of Clearview Investments presented the schematic design via screen share 01:20:19. Key elements of the proposal:

Exterior: The exterior would see minimal changes to the historic facade 01:20:49. The most significant exterior modification is the installation of new period-correct windows modeled after the 1911 originals, replacing the current non-historic windows. Two rooftop stairwell extensions would provide required fire egress for a rooftop amenity deck. A new elevator and stair tower — the only significant new exterior construction — would be placed between the main building and the annex, replacing the existing connector 01:21:22. The facade materials for this tower were described as preliminary, shown in dark brick for massing purposes only.

Site plan: The plan showed approximately 63 parking spaces, with valet service planned to maximize capacity 01:34:38. Angled compact parking was proposed in front of the main entrance, with EV charging stations included. A dining terrace was shown along the Reddington Street side, though some terrace area might be sacrificed for additional parking.

Interior program 01:37:05:

Basement: Restaurant with a pub/lounge area and formal dining room, outdoor dining terrace, dedicated spa (open to the public), fitness facility, and extensive back-of-house operations (kitchen, storage, offices)
First floor: Hotel lobby and front desk in the former administrative offices; the gymnasium converted to a 120-seat ballroom/event space retaining the original stage; guest rooms in the former classrooms with demising walls creating rooms with two large windows each 01:40:11
Upper floors: Guest rooms following the same classroom-conversion layout; third floor rooms overlooking Linscott Park with large terraces on the gymnasium roof
Rooftop: Open-air amenity deck with mobile bar service, restrooms, and mechanical equipment areas
Total room count: 56–59 keys depending on suite configurations

Board feedback was detailed and constructive. Chair Dooley provided the most extensive commentary:

Rooftop bathroom placement 01:52:43: Dooley expressed strong concern about the rooftop bathroom structure’s visibility from Linscott Park and Town Hall. He noted that the building faces the town square on all sides — “it is the front of the town” — and urged Clearview to explore integrating the bathrooms with the stairwell tower to reduce the number of rooftop elements from three to two. He suggested using dead circulation space behind the elevator tower on the roof level, or splitting bathroom facilities between the front stairwell and rear tower.
Stair alignment 01:50:17: Dooley identified that stairs on the roof plan did not appear to align with the stairs on the third floor plan below.
Elevator tower design 02:04:14: Dooley recommended considering lighter materials — white or stone-colored rather than dark brick — to relate the tower to the building’s existing white banding and stone elements, making it feel more integrated rather than foreign.
Awning/coverage 02:06:47: Suggested adding an awning or covered area at the elevator tower entrance for weather protection.
Parking lot trees 02:01:50: Dooley recommended “sawtoothing” the curb line along the angled parking to retain trees and plantings between Reddington Street and the parking area.
Parking lot lighting 01:32:54: Low-level lighting was strongly recommended to avoid impacting adjacent residences, with dark sky compliance.
Bicycle parking 01:36:37: The Board asked that bike racks or storage be included on the site plan.

Angela Ippolito expressed strong positive sentiment, saying she had “nothing but good things to say” and was “very happy about it” 02:03:11. Dooley noted the elevator tower solution was particularly gratifying, as “for years we were told there was no way” to make the building accessible 02:07:20.

Dixon Mallory confirmed the project was pursuing historic tax credits, which require maintaining the facade and interiors as much as practical while making new construction visually distinct from the original buildings 02:05:26. He described plans to celebrate the building’s school heritage in the interior design — retaining terrazzo floors, original hardwood where possible, the gymnasium’s craft work and moldings, and the mezzanine seating area 02:13:23. Heating would primarily use electric heat pumps with solar panels on the annex roof.

Public comment: Mara Lau of Outlook Road 02:18:05 urged the Board to ensure parking lot screening and lighting protections were “locked in” based on prior public meeting discussions. She raised concerns about rat mitigation, service vehicle circulation near the stone wall, and pedestrian access through Linscott Park. She requested that Clearview consider giving Linscott Park “a real heavy refresh” given that the town was conveying its “last town property” for the project 02:20:07. Lau also stated clearly that she was “not at all in favor of this project” and referenced a prior vote for public use of the space 02:20:50.

Staff member Krista read back the compiled comments for the Board’s confirmation 02:09:32, covering: low-level parking lot lighting, bicycle parking, stair/roof plan alignment, rooftop bathroom consolidation, tower color/material, awning at tower entrance, and sawtooth curb line for plantings. Board members were invited to submit additional comments within one day for inclusion in the letter to the Select Board.

Zoning Bylaw Review and Staff Updates

Chris from Community Development reported that substantive updates on potential zoning bylaw changes — including signage and expanded multifamily use zoning — would be presented at the November meeting 02:27:06.

Staff announced that the office had obtained GIS licenses for both Chris and newly hired land use planner Tim Milliken 02:27:32, enabling the town to conduct parcel size analysis and mapping for planning purposes. A lot-size audit, discussed in theory for nearly five years according to Ippolito, was now on the work plan 02:28:37.

Chair Dooley noted that the Tree Committee had submitted a proposed bylaw to staff for review and might present it to the Planning Board in November, similar to the Resilience Swampscott presentation from a prior meeting 02:28:53.

Adjournment

A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved unanimously by roll call vote 02:29:35.

Section 4: Executive Summary

ADU Hearing at 15 Manson Street Postponed Over Notice Error

A proposed 899-square-foot attached accessory dwelling unit at 15 Manson Street never received a public hearing due to an address error in the legal notices, which were sent referencing “Manson Road” instead of “Manson Street.” The Board could not legally open the hearing and continued it to November 10, 2025. Though procedurally frustrating for the applicants — property owners Mary Vic and Jim Johnson — the delay was characterized as protective: Chair Dooley emphasized that any decision issued without proper notice could be challenged. The applicants gained constructive feedback, including the need for a landscaping plan or waiver, updated lot coverage calculations reflecting a newly proposed driveway, lighting specifications, and corrected architectural drawings. The case illustrates the critical importance of precision in municipal land-use filings.

491 Humphrey Street Condo Project Wins 14-Month Extension

The Board unanimously granted (4-0, Dooley recused) a time extension to January 1, 2027 for a six-unit condominium conversion at 491 Humphrey Street, a prominent Humphrey Street property represented by attorney Ken Schutzer. The project had been approved in September 2024 with a self-imposed phasing structure to satisfy FEMA flood zone regulations and financing requirements.

The project experienced significant delays: architectural errors requiring a complete redraw, National Grid’s months-long failure to disclose an underground culvert that made gas service impossible (forcing conversion to all-electric systems), and the contractor’s multi-month hospitalization. Despite these setbacks, Phase 1 has passed all rough inspections and is ready for wall closure, while much of Phase 2’s structural work was completed concurrently.

A notable tension emerged over a Development Impact Statement (DIS) requirement that appeared in the original decision’s conditions. Schutzer argued forcefully that it was never discussed by the Board and was inserted by former staff, characterizing it as an “onerous” provision that could cost “tens of thousands of dollars” to satisfy. Board members were sympathetic but non-committal, agreeing to investigate how the provision entered the decision. The practical resolution was that the DIS issue becomes moot unless the project fails to meet its new January 2027 deadline.

Acting Chair Sheridan also flagged significant facade discrepancies between the approved plans and the as-built condition, including missing window trim, altered window proportions, eliminated columns, and a solid wall where railings were originally proposed. The applicants were receptive to Sheridan’s design recommendations, and the Board indicated these could be resolved administratively prior to certificate of occupancy.

Delamar Hotel Plans Receive Enthusiastic But Detailed Review

In the most forward-looking agenda item, the Planning Board reviewed schematic designs for the Delamar Swampscott Hotel — the proposed conversion of the historic Hadley School into a 56-to-59-room boutique hotel with restaurant, spa, ballroom, and rooftop amenity deck. This was an advisory review at the Select Board’s request under its Land Development Agreement with Clearview Investments.

The Board’s reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Members praised the thoughtful classroom-to-guest-room conversions, the preservation of the gymnasium as a 120-seat ballroom retaining the original stage, and the celebration of the building’s school heritage. Ippolito called it “very exciting” and Dooley noted the accessibility solution — an elevator tower connecting the main building and annex at different floor levels — was something “for years we were told there was no way to do.”

The Board’s constructive comments focused on:

Reducing rooftop visual impact by consolidating bathroom and stairwell structures from three elements to two, given the building’s prominence facing Linscott Park and Town Hall
Sensitive parking lot lighting at low height to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods
Retaining the existing tree canopy along Reddington Street through sawtooth parking design
Lightening the elevator tower’s material palette to integrate with the building’s existing stone banding rather than contrasting with dark brick

Public commenter Mara Lau brought a dissenting perspective, stating clearly she opposed the project and advocating for parking lot screening, rat mitigation, pedestrian connectivity through Linscott Park, and investment in park improvements as a community benefit.

The comments were compiled by staff for transmittal to the Select Board ahead of their anticipated November review.

Planning Infrastructure Investments

The Board received encouraging news about planning capacity: the Office of Community Development has hired a new land use planner (Tim Milliken), obtained GIS licenses, and is preparing parcel-size analysis to support expanded multifamily zoning discussions — a data need identified nearly five years ago. A Tree Committee bylaw proposal may also come before the Board in November.

Section 5: Analysis

A Planning Board in Transition, Finding Its Footing

This meeting revealed a Planning Board navigating several transitions simultaneously — in staff, in leadership, and in the complexity of the matters before it. The discussion quality was high throughout, but the evening also exposed procedural vulnerabilities that merit attention.

The Manson Street Misfire

The 15 Manson Street ADU case was a textbook example of how small clerical errors can cascade in municipal permitting. The address confusion — Manson Street, Mason Street, Manson Road — is understandable given the geography (the street changes names crossing from Lynn into Swampscott), but the error in the legal notice was consequential enough to void the hearing entirely. Chair Dooley handled the situation efficiently, converting an otherwise lost evening into a productive pre-hearing work session. His detailed architectural feedback — on foundation plans, elevation consistency, lighting compliance, and landscape requirements — effectively gave the applicant a roadmap for a much stronger November filing. The applicant team appeared inexperienced with the Board’s process (arriving with new driveway plans not included in their submission, multiple address errors across drawings), and the guidance likely saved them from a far more difficult hearing next month.

The 491 Humphrey Street Tightrope

The 491 Humphrey Street discussion was the meeting’s most complex and revealing interaction. Attorney Ken Schutzer proved to be a skilled advocate, carefully managing the Board’s expectations while pressing his clients’ interests. His approach combined transparency about delays (emphasizing circumstances beyond his clients’ control) with assertive legal positioning on the DIS question.

The DIS issue deserves particular attention. Schutzer’s contention that the requirement was administratively inserted into the decision without Board discussion is a serious procedural allegation. His characterization of former planner Marissa’s role — writing the decision without giving him review opportunity — suggests a breakdown in the typical collaborative drafting process that many planning boards follow. The Board’s response was measured: acknowledging the concern, declining to resolve it immediately, and agreeing to review meeting recordings. This was the prudent course, though it leaves the applicant in a somewhat uncertain position.

Acting Chair Sheridan demonstrated sharp architectural observation in identifying the facade discrepancies 00:29:00, pressing the point that the as-built rendering submitted that day did not actually match the building as constructed. His specific design suggestions — lowering the porch wall, adding a lighter rail, changing the frame proportions — showed genuine expertise and were received constructively by the applicants. The exchange was a model of how site plan review can add real value: not punitive oversight, but collaborative improvement.

The 14-month extension to January 1, 2027 was clearly the right call. Board member Bill Quinn’s questioning about what constitutes “completion” of each phase 00:47:24 was important for establishing expectations, though the answer remained somewhat ambiguous. The applicants’ financial and health challenges were genuine and well-documented, and no Board member expressed opposition to the extension itself.

The Delamar: Excitement Tempered by Design Scrutiny

The Delamar hotel presentation revealed the Board at its most engaged and forward-looking. Dixon Mallory’s walkthrough was polished and substantive, and the Board’s response reflected genuine enthusiasm for the project’s potential to transform a vacant landmark.

Chair Dooley’s commentary was the highlight of the evening from an analytical perspective. His observation about the rooftop bathroom placement — that the Hadley School has “no back” because it faces the town square 01:54:00 — was the kind of insight that can meaningfully improve a prominent public project. His specific suggestion to consolidate rooftop elements by using dead circulation space behind the elevator tower was technically sophisticated and addressed a legitimate concern about visual impact from Linscott Park and Monument Avenue.

The Board’s collective emphasis on parking lot lighting, tree preservation, and material choices for the elevator tower reflected a clear understanding that this project’s success depends not just on the building itself but on its relationship to the surrounding neighborhood and public spaces.

Mara Lau’s public comment 02:18:05 introduced the only note of opposition, and it was significant. Her statement that “not all citizens who pay plenty of taxes are well in favor of this project at all” and her reference to a prior vote for public use of the space represent a strand of community sentiment that will likely resurface during the formal site plan review. Her request that Clearview invest in refreshing Linscott Park is a reasonable community benefit ask that could help build broader support. The Board acknowledged her comments without substantive response, which was appropriate given the advisory nature of the review.

Institutional Capacity Building

The staff updates, while brief, signal meaningful progress. The hiring of a land use planner and acquisition of GIS capabilities represent the kind of institutional investment that enables data-driven planning decisions. Angela Ippolito’s remark that the lot-size audit had been discussed “in theory for like since I’ve been on the board at least” — nearly five years — underscores how long this capacity gap has existed. With expanded multifamily zoning discussions on the horizon (likely related to MBTA Communities Act compliance), having analytical tools in place is not merely convenient but essential.

Looking Ahead

The November 10 meeting shapes up to be substantive: the rescheduled Manson Street ADU hearing, potential signage and multifamily zoning updates with GIS analysis, and possibly the Tree Committee bylaw. The Delamar will continue through the Select Board’s LDA process before returning to the Planning Board for formal site plan review. The 491 Humphrey project, now with a January 2027 deadline and unresolved DIS question, will require monitoring — and potentially another Board appearance if the DIS condition is not formally addressed.

2025-10-20: Planning Board