Swampscott Planning Board Meeting — November 10, 2025

Section 1: Agenda

Call to Order & Approval of Past Minutes 00:03:16 — Meeting called to order; past minutes deferred to December.
Petition 25-20: 55 Puritan Road (Special Permit) 00:03:49 — Continued without prejudice due to lack of supermajority; Chair recused as an abutter.
Petition 25-19: 15 Manson Street (ADU Site Plan Special Permit) 00:06:20 — Presentation by architect; board review of plans, driveway, drainage, and design details; public comment; site plan criteria review; vote.
Town Lot Size Analysis & Zoning Bylaw Discussion 00:57:08 — Staff presentation of GIS-based parcel analysis; discussion of non-conforming lots, potential zoning changes, multifamily conversions, cottage cluster zoning, and MAPC technical assistance grants.
2026 Board Meeting Schedule 01:49:14 — Draft schedule circulated; formal adoption deferred to next meeting.
Other Business & Adjournment 01:51:12

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Based on roll call votes, self-identification, and contextual clues throughout the transcript, the following speaker mapping has been inferred. Note: Automated transcription speaker tags shifted throughout the meeting, with the same individuals sometimes assigned different tags in different segments.

Ted Dooley (Planning Board Chair): Speaker 1 (opening/closing), Speaker 7 (during ADU review and roll calls). Called the meeting to order; recused from 55 Puritan Road; conducted site plan criteria review and roll call votes.
Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Member, remote via videoconference): Speaker 4 (first half), Speaker 5 or Speaker 6 (second half). Participated remotely; identified by name in roll calls and by colleagues. Extensive institutional knowledge from years on the board.
Bill Quinn (Planning Board Member): Speaker 5 (first half), shifting later. Self-identified as “Bill Quain” during temporary chair vote. Served as temporary chair for Petition 25-20.
Jer Germa (Planning Board Member): Speaker 3 (during ADU review), Speaker 8 (during zoning discussion). Referenced as “Jer” and “Jared” by colleagues. Provided detailed architectural and design review; discussed form-based code, design guidelines, and housing policy.
Krista/Chris (Town Planner, staff): Speaker 12 (start of presentation), Speaker 1/Speaker 2 (during zoning presentation, shifting). Presented lot size analysis, GIS mapping, and next steps; compiled minutes and administrative materials.
John Andrews (Architect, JFA Design Group): Speaker 8 (during ADU presentation). Presented plans for 15 Manson Street ADU.
Jim Johnson (Property Owner, 15 Manson Street): Speaker 10. Self-identified; explained lot configuration, driveway, and neighborhood paving history.
Joe (Planning Board Member, absent): Referenced by name; not present. Board deferred meeting schedule adoption to allow his review.
Unidentified attendees (Speakers 9, 11): Likely Mrs. Johnson or other members of the petitioner party; brief interjections only.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Call to Order and Minutes

Chair Ted Dooley called the November 10, 2025 meeting of the Swampscott Planning Board to order 00:03:16. He noted that staff member Krista had just compiled past meeting minutes and recommended deferring their approval to the December meeting. The board agreed without objection.

Petition 25-20: 55 Puritan Road — Continuance

Chair Dooley announced Petition 25-20 for 55 Puritan Road, filed by Peter Solaris, and immediately disclosed that he was recusing himself as an abutting property owner 00:03:49. He turned the proceedings over to the remaining board members, who elected Bill Quinn as temporary chair.

Member Angela Ippolito, participating remotely, explained the procedural issue: while the board had a quorum of three members remaining, they lacked the supermajority required to vote on special permits 00:04:47. She recommended continuing the petition without prejudice.

Temporary Chair Quinn confirmed with the petitioners that they had been notified of this situation. He then moved to continue the petition without prejudice to a special meeting on November 17 at 7:00 p.m. Ippolito seconded. A roll call vote was taken: Quinn — aye; Ippolito — aye. The motion passed unanimously 00:05:46.

Chair Dooley was then restored to his role 00:06:05.

Petition 25-19: 15 Manson Street — ADU Site Plan Special Permit

Presentation. Architect John Andrews of JFA Design Group presented plans for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 15 Manson Street on behalf of property owners Jim and Mrs. Johnson 00:06:27. Andrews described a single-story ADU within the 900-square-foot limit, noting that the existing home exceeded half the ADU’s square footage. He stated the project met all setback, frontage, and height requirements. The unit would be built on a crawl space, not a full foundation, and would include a driveway extension off the existing driveway (not directly from the street), basic exterior residential lighting, a small courtyard patio with stone pavers, and a landscape plan [00:06:37–00:09:16].

Andrews noted that letters of support from three abutting neighbors (at 11, 12, and 19 Manson Street) had been submitted. He also confirmed that a prior issue regarding the property address had been resolved [00:09:27–00:09:57].

Board Review — Bedroom Definition and I&I Fee. A board member raised the question of whether the designated “office/den/bedroom” (measuring 8 by 10 feet, with a closet and bathroom access) qualified as a legal bedroom, noting the town’s inflow and infiltration (I&I) fee is calculated based on bedroom count 00:10:20. Andrews confirmed the plans had been reviewed by the building inspector, who found everything compliant 00:11:00. The board ultimately agreed to defer the I&I fee determination to the building commissioner, while noting in the decision that the fee applies [00:54:29–00:55:01].

Board Review — Driveway and Lot Configuration. The board spent considerable time trying to understand the unusual lot shape and driveway layout, which sits at the Swampscott-Lynn border on a street with a sharp 90-degree turn, no curbing, and a utility pole appearing to be in the middle of the road [00:14:53–00:29:53]. Ippolito observed dryly that Swampscott’s approach to sidewalks “keeps our school-aged children population down” 00:15:48.

Property owner Jim Johnson came forward to explain the situation using photographs 00:25:00. He described how the town had originally paved only a narrow street, and he and two neighbors had jointly paid to pave the adjacent unpaved area to prevent pedestrian falls, particularly by mail and delivery carriers [00:26:11–00:27:06]. This cooperative paving created the visual confusion on the plot plan.

Board member Jer Germa analyzed the driveway design extensively, sketching alternatives on the plans. He suggested the driveway layout shown on the overhead photograph was more logical than the landscape plan version, recommending a straighter approach that utilized the unusual corner of the lot and rounded the driveway terminus rather than leaving a sharp angle [00:32:33–00:35:06]. The board agreed this approach would be more practical and easier on tires, with Ippolito concurring.

Board Review — Architectural Details. Germa conducted a thorough review of the architectural drawings, identifying several issues requiring attention [00:12:47–00:51:13]:

Crawl space ventilation: He noted the rear crawl space section showed window-like openings that were actually vents (per building code), but the front section, at only two feet deep, lacked ventilation. He recommended adding ventilation to prevent moisture damage [00:13:56–00:14:08].
Door-window conflict: He pointed out that in the office/den/bedroom, the door swing would cover the only window when open, blocking both light and ventilation [00:14:18–00:14:40].
Inconsistencies between drawings: He identified discrepancies between the front elevation (A1), side elevation (A2), landscape plan (L1), and floor plan (A5) regarding the front entry, steps/landing, a “ghost door” on A2, and the extent of patio paving. He noted these drawings needed to be brought into agreement [00:44:44–00:50:01].
Front entry design: He recommended a proper landing at the front door, a path connecting to the driveway, and planting in front of the bay window to make the secondary driveway look intentional rather than resembling a closed-in garage [00:50:49–00:51:17].

Andrews and the Johnsons were receptive to all suggestions, noting them for revision.

Drainage and Utilities. Ippolito raised concerns about stormwater runoff given the additional impervious surfaces from the ADU and driveway expansion, noting the area lacks storm drain openings [00:41:33–00:42:59]. Andrews described the planned drainage system: gutters on the new roof, exterior drains, a French drain, and a dry well to manage water and reduce icing [00:42:00–00:42:31]. The board found this satisfactory.

The property was noted to use well water rather than town water, with the Johnsons confirming they had a $25,000 water treatment system [00:36:42–00:36:53]. Chair Dooley offered the aside that well water makes superior coffee due to the absence of chlorine [00:36:54–00:37:08].

The ADU would connect to the main house through the garage via a fire-rated door, with three additional exterior openings. Utilities would be shared with the main house [00:44:06–00:44:38]. The unit was described as being for expanding family use 00:47:43.

Dark Sky Compliance. Chair Dooley noted the bylaw requirement for dark sky–compliant lighting, requiring shielded, downward-directed exterior fixtures [00:43:27–00:43:41].

Public Comment. Public comment was opened and, with no members of the public wishing to speak, immediately closed [00:37:28–00:37:40].

Site Plan Approval Criteria Review. The board reviewed the site plan approval criteria under the bylaw (Section 548) [00:52:09–00:54:09], finding the petition satisfied requirements including: no tree removal; managed stormwater through the dry well system; addressed vehicular and pedestrian safety; no scenic obstruction; materials consistent with neighborhood character; compliance with parking and landscaping provisions; minimal traffic impact; and no coastal flooding concern given the property’s elevation.

Conditions. The board agreed to the following conditions: the I&I fee determination would be deferred to the building commissioner; dark sky–compliant lighting would be required; and standard construction-hour restrictions (7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. weekdays) would apply. Ippolito noted that fire access, smoke alarms, and materials staging on-site should be observed [00:55:09–00:55:54].

Vote. Ippolito moved to grant the site plan special permit for ADU construction at 15 Manson Street 00:56:32. The motion was seconded. Roll call vote: Angela Ippolito — aye; Bill Quinn — aye; Jer Germa — aye; Ted Dooley — aye. The motion passed unanimously, 4–0 [00:56:42–00:56:54].

Lot Size Analysis and Zoning Bylaw Discussion

Staff Presentation. Town Planner Krista/Chris presented a GIS-based lot size analysis she had prepared since the board’s September meeting 00:57:59. She displayed an interactive map categorizing every parcel in Swampscott by size, along with summary statistics and charts.

Key findings included [00:59:57–01:01:33]:

Swampscott’s A1 zone requires 30,000 sq. ft. minimum lots with 125 ft. of frontage; A2 requires 20,000 sq. ft. with 100 ft. of frontage (both single-family only).
A3 and A4 zones (two-family and up) require 10,000 sq. ft. minimum.
Approximately 57% of all parcels in town are non-conforming relative to their zone’s minimum lot size 01:09:57.
The majority of parcels fall well under 10,000 square feet.
While the 80,000+ sq. ft. lots visually dominate the map, they represent a much smaller number of parcels.

She also presented zoning district overlays and noted that water parcels and rights-of-way had been excluded from the analysis [01:24:48–01:25:35].

Board Discussion — Non-Conforming Reality. The presentation generated animated discussion. Ippolito estimated she had seen “maybe a couple of conforming lot size applications” in nearly five years on the board [01:03:02–01:03:12]. The board reflected on what the planner called an “artificial barrier” created by minimum lot sizes that over half the town cannot meet [01:40:40–01:40:59].

Germa offered a nuanced counterpoint: non-conforming status actually provides flexibility by requiring board review, which allows for judgment based on specific circumstances rather than rigid conformity to standards designed for “a Midwestern planning guide from 1954” [01:44:13–01:47:58]. He argued that Swampscott’s topography and historic fabric make uniform setback and frontage standards counterproductive, sometimes creating “dead zones” rather than livable spaces.

Requests for Refined Analysis. Ippolito (formerly Chair, with deep institutional knowledge) requested several refinements to the GIS analysis [01:03:49–01:06:29]:

Identification of municipally owned land (schools, town buildings, open space)
Removal of wetlands, conservation-restricted land, and underwater parcels (noting property lines extending to the low-tide mark under colonial-era laws)
Identification of privately owned, actually buildable vacant land
FEMA flood zone overlays, including velocity (V1) zones

She estimated that once all non-buildable land is removed, perhaps only about 2% of privately owned land in Swampscott is actually available for development [01:06:03–01:06:29]. She recounted attending a Boston event for the MBTA Communities Act (3A) zoning work where “people in the room actually gasped” when they saw Swampscott’s density compared to communities like Lexington [01:20:32–01:21:29].

Multifamily and Cottage Cluster Zoning. The planner reported that at the October 15 meeting, the board had prioritized expanded multifamily use zoning and updated sign bylaws as the 2026 zoning bylaw changes to pursue [00:58:28–00:58:48]. She noted MAPC (Metropolitan Area Planning Council) technical assistance programs were available for funding applications [00:58:41–00:59:33].

Germa raised concerns about cottage cluster housing feasibility given the lack of available land, noting that 15,000+ sq. ft. lots needed for such developments are scarce [01:17:01–01:17:53]. However, he also observed that approximately one in five parcels could potentially meet the size threshold [01:32:20–01:32:40], citing the town’s housing production plan, and advocated applying for a TAP (Technical Assistance Program) grant to let experts assess viability [01:32:40–01:33:24].

Ippolito, with whom Germa agreed in principle, expressed strong concern about the board’s current capacity for design review, stating she was “really thrown by what comes at us, quality of what comes at us” and that the town lacks the “toolkit to manage that kind of development in a way that wouldn’t be detrimental to our community” [01:33:39–01:35:30]. Germa concurred that any cottage cluster zoning would need strict form-based code with aesthetic guidelines [01:35:45–01:36:03].

The board consensus was to pursue MAPC grant applications for technical assistance while recognizing that no zoning changes would be ready for Town Meeting in the near term [01:39:43–01:40:24]. Ippolito noted the board “would be doing ourselves a disservice if we weren’t adequately prepared when we brought something before town meeting” [01:40:01–01:40:07].

The planner shared remaining next steps from September: compiling best practices and sample zoning for single-family conversions, gathering imagery of successful conversions, and consulting with building and fire departments [01:31:43–01:32:06].

2026 Board Meeting Schedule

The planner presented a draft 2026 meeting schedule following the standard second-Monday-of-the-month format (with one October exception) [01:49:14–01:50:54]. The board agreed to circulate it and defer formal adoption until absent member Joe could review it. Board members were asked to flag any date conflicts before the next meeting.

Adjournment

A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. Roll call vote: Angela Ippolito — aye; Bill Quinn — aye; Jer Germa — aye; Ted Dooley — aye. The meeting adjourned unanimously [01:51:33–01:51:50].

Section 4: Executive Summary

ADU Approved at 15 Manson Street

The Planning Board unanimously approved (4–0) a site plan special permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 15 Manson Street, a property near the Lynn border with an unusual lot configuration. The 900-square-foot, single-story ADU will be connected to the main house through the garage and is intended for family use. Conditions include dark sky–compliant lighting, adherence to construction hours, and determination of the inflow and infiltration (I&I) fee by the building commissioner.

The approval came after extensive board review that identified several drawing inconsistencies and design improvements needed — including crawl space ventilation, entry landing design, and driveway reconfiguration. These issues were documented as notes for the applicant rather than barriers to approval, reflecting the board’s approach of working constructively with petitioners while maintaining standards. Notably, the board spent significant time unraveling a confusing lot-line and street configuration resulting from the property sitting at the Swampscott-Lynn municipal boundary, where neighbors had jointly paved an area of town land to improve safety for pedestrians and delivery workers.

55 Puritan Road Petition Deferred

Petition 25-20 for 55 Puritan Road was continued without prejudice to a special meeting on November 17, as Chair Dooley’s required recusal left only three members — insufficient for the supermajority needed to vote on special permits. This procedural issue highlights the constraints of operating with fewer than five members present.

Landmark GIS Analysis Reveals Extent of Non-Conforming Lots

Perhaps the most consequential agenda item for Swampscott’s future was the staff presentation of a new GIS-based parcel analysis — the town’s first use of its recently acquired GIS capability for planning purposes. The data revealed that approximately 57% of all parcels in Swampscott fail to meet minimum lot size requirements for their zoning district, confirming what board members had long observed anecdotally.

This finding carries significant implications. The board’s minimum lot sizes (30,000 sq. ft. for A1, 20,000 for A2, 10,000 for A3/A4) were established decades ago and bear little relationship to the actual built landscape of a town where most lots are under 10,000 square feet. The board debated whether these standards serve the community well or merely create “artificial barriers” that route most development through variance and special permit processes 01:40:40.

Zoning Reform Takes Shape — But Slowly

The board identified two priority zoning reforms for 2026: expanded multifamily use and updated sign bylaws, with potential exploration of cottage cluster housing. The planner plans to apply for MAPC technical assistance grants, potentially through a cohort model with neighboring towns pursuing similar goals [01:37:56–01:38:24].

However, the board was realistic about the timeline: no zoning articles are expected for the next Town Meeting. Members emphasized the need for thorough preparation, expert technical assistance, and adequate design review capacity before bringing any proposals forward. The discussion reflected a tension between the desire to create more housing options and the recognition that Swampscott is nearly fully built out, with remarkably little developable land remaining once municipal properties, wetlands, conservation land, and underwater parcels are excluded.

Section 5: Analysis

A Board Working Within Constraints

This meeting revealed a Planning Board operating with considerable expertise but under significant constraints — both procedural (one member absent, one recused from a petition, leaving just three for a vote requiring supermajority) and substantive (attempting to plan for growth in a community with almost no vacant land).

The 55 Puritan Road continuance, while procedurally routine, underscores the vulnerability of a five-member board when even one recusal drops them below the four-vote supermajority threshold for special permits. The quick scheduling of a November 17 special meeting suggests this is not an uncommon frustration.

The ADU Review: Collegial but Revealing

The 15 Manson Street ADU discussion, while ultimately resulting in unanimous approval, exposed an issue that would become a central theme in the meeting’s second half: the adequacy of the board’s design review process. Board member Jer Germa essentially performed an impromptu architectural review during the meeting — identifying crawl space ventilation gaps, door-swing conflicts with windows, missing steps and landings in elevations, and discrepancies across multiple drawings [00:12:47–00:51:13]. His detailed, sketch-in-hand analysis was impressive but also highlighted his own later complaint that such review “doesn’t translate well to doing in a meeting” [01:34:17–01:34:24].

Ippolito made the same point more bluntly during the zoning discussion: the quality of submissions that come before the board is frequently lacking, and the current process forces members to perform design work “on the fly” that should have been resolved before plans reach them [01:33:39–01:34:02]. This dynamic — a board member with apparent professional expertise compensating for insufficient pre-submission review — may work adequately for single ADUs but would be unsustainable for more complex development.

The GIS Data as a Mirror

The lot size analysis was clearly the intellectual highlight of the meeting, and the board’s engagement with it was genuine and substantive. The 57% non-conformance figure, while unsurprising to experienced board members, now carries the weight of quantified data — transforming anecdotal knowledge into actionable evidence.

Ippolito’s observation about the gasps her Swampscott density map provoked at a Boston planning event [01:20:32–01:21:20] captures the fundamental challenge: Swampscott is essentially a fully built community being asked to accommodate more housing, and the tools available (minimum lot sizes, setback requirements, frontage standards) were designed for a very different physical reality.

The Cottage Cluster Debate: Aspiration vs. Reality

The exchange between board members on cottage cluster housing crystallized a key policy tension. Germa pragmatically questioned whether pursuing cottage cluster zoning made sense given the limited number of qualifying lots [01:17:01–01:17:53], while another member (identified in the transcript as having proposed it through the housing production plan) argued that one in five parcels could potentially qualify and that technical assistance from MAPC would help determine feasibility [01:32:20–01:33:24].

Ippolito’s intervention was decisive: before pursuing any such zoning, the board needs “much more advanced design review than we currently have” 01:33:39. Her concern was not with the concept but with implementation capacity — a mature and pragmatic assessment. Germa agreed, noting that communities with cottage cluster zoning typically have “incredibly strict design guidelines” and form-based code [01:35:45–01:36:03].

The planner’s observation from her previous role — that towns sometimes pass bylaws they can never use because “there’s no actual scenarios where it could occur” [01:38:39–01:39:03] — served as a useful cautionary note. The board consensus to seek grant funding while managing expectations about timeline was a measured response.

The Non-Conformance Paradox

Germa raised perhaps the most intellectually interesting point of the evening: that the high rate of non-conforming lots may actually serve the town well by requiring board review for most development, creating opportunities for judgment-based decisions rather than as-of-right approvals [01:47:10–01:47:58]. This counterintuitive argument — that widespread non-conformance provides more, not less, control — deserves serious consideration. If minimum lot sizes were reduced to match reality, many properties would become conforming and potentially bypass the review process that currently provides the board with its leverage over design quality.

This paradox sits at the heart of the board’s zoning reform deliberations: whether to modernize standards to match reality or maintain aspirational standards that, by being nearly universally unmet, preserve discretionary review authority. The answer will likely shape Swampscott’s development trajectory for years to come.

Looking Ahead

The board has positioned itself for a methodical approach to zoning reform: data gathering (GIS analysis), expert consultation (MAPC grants), and careful sequencing (multifamily conversions before cottage clusters, both before Town Meeting). The absence of member Joe and the deferred meeting schedule adoption suggest the board is also mindful of maintaining full participation for significant decisions. The November 17 special meeting for 55 Puritan Road will test whether the full board can assemble on short notice — a practical concern that, like much of this meeting’s substance, reflects the daily realities of volunteer governance in a small, densely built Massachusetts town.

2025-11-10: Planning Board