Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting — November 18, 2025

Section 1: Agenda (Inferred)

Call to Order and Administrative Matters 0:03:04
- Welcome; approval of prior meeting minutes deferred to next meeting
Continued Hearing: Petition 25-15 — Pine Street Affordable Veterans Housing (B’nai B’rith Housing, Chapter 40B) 0:03:38
- Review of shared driveway feasibility with adjacent dispensary
- Presentation of revised November driveway configuration
- Peer review status and scheduling
Continued Hearing: Petition 25-17 — Lally’s Garage / Realty Garage (Auto Body Spray Booth Use) 0:19:55
- Attorney memo on continuous use and bylaw interpretation
- Public comment from abutters
- Board deliberation on grandfathered/pre-existing nonconforming use
- Vote on approval with conditions
Petition 25-18 — 80 Puritan Road (Attic Bedroom Addition) 0:58:11
- Proposal to add third-floor bedroom by converting hip roof to gable
- Covered deck setback issue identified
- Continuance for amended petition
Petition 25-19 — 55 Carrington Road (Three-Family Renovation) 1:12:27
- Request to square off rear of building
- Three-family dwelling limitations on available relief
- Public comment on parking
- Continuance with possible withdrawal
Adoption of 2026 Meeting Calendar 1:30:17
- Scheduling adjustments; February meeting moved from the 17th to the 10th

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Note: This transcript was produced by automated speaker diarization, which reassigned speaker tags when participants changed between petition hearings. The identifications below represent best inferences based on contextual clues (self-introductions, names used in dialogue, roles evident from statements). Some uncertainty is unavoidable.

ZBA Board Members:

ZBA Chair (Heather, last name not stated): [Speaker 1] in opening/closing segments — Chairs and manages the meeting; referenced by name in the calendar discussion 1:34:02.
ZBA Member (Michelle/Michel, last name not stated): Called by name during Lally’s Garage deliberation — Provides careful legal analysis; recuses from Puritan Road and Carrington Road petitions as an abutter 0:58:42.
ZBA Member (Andy, last name not stated): Identified by name 0:40:16 — Expresses support for Lally’s Garage approval; participates in deliberations.
ZBA Member (Mark, last name not stated): Referenced by name 0:41:55 — Provides substantive legal analysis on Chapter 40A §6 pre-existing nonconforming use protections and conditioning of relief.
ZBA Member (Randy, last name not stated): Mentioned in calendar discussion 1:31:27 — Plans winter travel to Miami; asks about participating remotely for the 40B hearing.

ZBA Staff:

ZBA Administrator (Christa, last name not stated): Handles meeting logistics, minutes, petitioner assistance, and room reservations; referenced as the point of contact for petitioners 1:10:21.
Board Counsel (Sam, last name not stated): Not present (conflicting engagement in Lynn); also submitted a legal memo on behalf of the Lally’s Garage petitioner and was asked to draft the written decision.

Petition 25-15 (Pine Street) Participants:

Holly Grace (B’nai B’rith Housing): [Speaker 4] — Presents project updates and explains why sharing a driveway with the dispensary is not viable 0:04:34.
Jacob Lemieux (Hancock Associates, Civil Engineer): [Speaker 6] — Joins via Zoom from Marlborough, MA; addresses engineering questions about driveway width and fire access 0:12:23.
Vicki (Peer Reviewer, last name not stated): [Speaker 8] — Joins via Zoom; confirms a four-week timeline for completing the peer review 0:17:00.
Steve Gadman (11 Pine Street, Resident): [Speaker 7] — Asks about fire department consultation 0:14:17.

Petition 25-17 (Lally’s Garage) Participants:

Gennaro Angiulo (Manager, Lally Garage LLC / Realty Investors LLC): Petitioner; presents case for continuous use of the property 0:20:25.
Associate of Gennaro Angiulo (name not clearly stated): Present with petitioner; provides technical details about spray booth operations, receipts for paint purchases, and property history.
Elaine Lipkin (25 Essex Street, Resident): Public commenter; questions evidence of continuous auto body use and raises environmental and neighborhood concerns 0:32:05.
Cecilia Maribash (19 Sixth Street, Resident): Public commenter; raises concerns about DEP oversight after permit approval and questions property ownership timeline 0:37:28.

Petition 25-18 (80 Puritan Road) Participants:

Petitioner (name not clearly stated): [Speaker 12] — Contractor/builder and owner-occupant; proposes converting unfinished attic into a bedroom with a hip-to-gable roof change 0:58:52.

Petition 25-19 (55 Carrington Road) Participants:

Petitioner (name not clearly stated): Property owner/developer proposing renovation of a three-family dwelling near the ocean 1:12:27.
Sean Conley (Sculpin Way, Resident): Public commenter; compliments renderings but raises parking concerns in the dense neighborhood 1:27:00.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Petition 25-15: Pine Street Affordable Veterans Housing (Continued)

Chair Heather opened the continued hearing on Petition 25-15, the proposed affordable veterans housing development by B’nai B’rith Housing on town-owned land on Pine Street, a Chapter 40B comprehensive permit application 0:03:38.

Shared Driveway with Dispensary — Rejected. Holly Grace reported that the Board’s direction from the October meeting — to explore sharing a driveway entrance with the adjacent cannabis dispensary — had been thoroughly investigated and found not viable 0:04:34. Grace outlined multiple reasons: worsened parking circulation and potential for double-parking on Pine Street; programmatic concerns about sharing an entrance between sober veterans housing and a dispensary; blurred operational responsibilities for snow plowing and emergency access; and significant legal hurdles, as the project’s ground lease with the town would require formal amendment, and the dispensary’s lease would likely need modification as well [0:05:06–0:07:26]. The Board accepted this analysis without objection.

Revised Driveway Configuration Presented. B’nai B’rith Housing presented a revised November site plan that angled the driveway exit further south and away from the building 0:08:42. The key improvement: exiting traffic would no longer face directly into the house across the street — a concern raised by the property owner at the October hearing. The revised layout also improved sight lines for pedestrians on the sidewalk and oncoming traffic on Pine Street [0:09:12–0:09:29]. The tradeoff was the conversion of some parking spaces to compact sizing, which Grace noted is a condition that already exists at a previous B’nai B’rith development in Swampscott and operates efficiently [0:09:36–0:09:58].

A board member responded favorably, noting the improved sight lines were “a big improvement” 0:10:04. Jacob Lemieux, the civil engineer, confirmed via Zoom that the driveway width remained unchanged; only the angle shifted [0:12:31–0:12:41]. The Board toggled between the October and November plans on screen to visualize the changes [0:11:03–0:11:10].

Fire Department Consultation. Steve Gadman of 11 Pine Street asked whether the fire department had been consulted, as discussed at the previous meeting 0:14:17. Lemieux stated no formal comments had been received but recalled that fire officials had given verbal approval at an earlier team meeting and noted the building meets fire code, with fire truck access on three sides [0:14:46–0:15:40]. The Board requested a formal written memo from the fire department.

Peer Review Timeline. Vicki, the Board’s peer reviewer, confirmed a four-week timeline — two weeks for discovery (including review of DPW drainage and culvert documentation) and two weeks for completing the review — making the December 16 meeting date achievable [0:16:26–0:17:06]. One board member noted she would be traveling on December 16 but confirmed she had not missed any meetings and could watch the recording, which is permitted once per petition [0:17:07–0:17:21].

Continuance. The Board voted unanimously to continue Petition 25-15 to December 16, with the intent to place it first on the agenda [0:18:19–0:18:32]. Holly Grace observed this was “the shortest 40B meeting yet” 0:18:44, reflecting the efficient, largely non-contentious nature of the session.

Petition 25-17: Lally’s Garage / Realty Garage (Continued)

The Board opened the continued hearing on Petition 25-17 concerning the property formerly known as Lally’s Garage, now operated by Realty Investors LLC 0:19:55. Gennaro Angiulo, manager of Lally Garage LLC, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Attorney Sam was unavailable due to a conflicting matter in Lynn but had submitted a legal memorandum arguing the proposed use — installation of a spray booth for auto body painting — constituted a continuation of the property’s existing use [0:20:25–0:20:42].

The Central Legal Question. The Chair framed two underlying questions 0:21:23: (1) Has auto body use been continuous at this location? (2) If not fully continuous, does the Swampscott zoning bylaw treat general motor vehicle repair and body shop work as a single use, making the distinction irrelevant?

The Chair observed that proving continuous auto body use was difficult, noting that “most people who visited that shop would say it was not an auto body shop” under prior ownership [0:22:01–0:22:14]. This set the stage for a substantive and wide-ranging deliberation.

Petitioner’s Case. Angiulo and his associate argued forcefully that: the property has been in continuous automotive use since the 1800s, when it was a train switching yard; Bob Wilson always repaired, fixed, and painted cars, though not with modern spray equipment; original property records were destroyed in a town hall flood approximately 50 years ago; a subsequent tenant (Juan of Rehoboth’s Tire) performed mechanical repairs and tire service; and the current operators already spray paint bumpers, door jams, and dumpsters using aerosol cans [0:22:14–0:36:56]. They supplied receipts for paint products from a hardware store as evidence. The petitioners emphasized that installing a spray booth would improve the situation by encapsulating and filtering all emissions, noting the booth won’t operate unless sealed and has built-in safeguards against filter failure [0:52:33–0:53:07].

Attorney Sam’s memo highlighted an inconsistency in the zoning bylaw: the definition section uses “motor vehicle general and body repair” (treating them as one), while the table of uses employs “or” to separate them [0:24:00–0:24:28]. This ambiguity became central to the Board’s analysis.

Public Opposition. Elaine Lipkin of 25 Essex Street 0:32:05, a new resident whose husband had testified at the prior hearing, challenged the continuous use argument. She stated she had observed no evidence of anything beyond general towing, tires, and basic repairs since taking possession of her property in April 2025 [0:32:46–0:33:21]. She drew a sharp distinction between occasional hand-painting of bumpers and operating “a full-on operational spray booth,” calling them “apples and oranges” [0:33:42–0:35:14]. She urged the Board to consider what the grandfather clause actually covers and whether a spray booth aligns with “common sense zoning practice in a highly dense residential area” [0:35:31–0:35:48].

Cecilia Maribash of 19 Sixth Street raised a procedural point: if the DEP exemption permit is approved, the DEP would relinquish authority over the shop’s records, leaving only the Board of Health as the avenue for neighbor complaints [0:37:42–0:38:12]. She also questioned whether the property ownership had actually been transferred, noting deeds still showing the prior owner — a claim the petitioners disputed, stating all transfers were completed years ago [0:38:13–0:38:49].

Board Deliberation — The Bylaw Interpretation. The deliberation that followed was notably thorough, with board members wrestling openly with competing considerations [0:39:08–0:53:10].

Michelle stated she was “torn,” noting the evidence of continuous auto body use was limited to 2025 records and that “tires” in 2023–2024 “is not painting” [0:40:52–0:41:22]. However, she concluded that “because it is a heavily regulated industry once you get the right permits in place… it is ultimately probably better for the community that you do it correctly” [0:41:23–0:41:47].

Andy was direct: “I’m fine with it” 0:40:16, noting the industry is heavily regulated and the operation would be “better regulated if anything” with the booth [0:40:23–0:40:43].

Mark provided the most detailed legal analysis [0:46:30–0:48:17]. He outlined two pathways to approval: (1) grandfathered continuous use, for which “there is some evidence” but perhaps not enough to meet the burden; and (2) the paint booth as a “permitted expansion” of a pre-existing nonconforming use under Chapter 40A §6, given the bylaw’s intent to treat general repair and body work as equivalent. He suggested conditioning relief on compliance certifications. This analysis was influential in shaping the Board’s consensus.

One board member articulated the pivotal reasoning [0:42:04–0:42:48]: “I don’t think that this has been an auto body shop. I think an auto body shop and a general repair are two very separate things, but our bylaw they are not. In our bylaw they are one thing. And that’s where we have the problem.” This framing — acknowledging the common-sense distinction while deferring to the bylaw’s text — became the basis for the decision.

Approval with Conditions. The Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing and then to approve Petition 25-17 [0:55:43–0:57:26]. The motion found that the spray booth constituted a permitted expansion of the existing pre-existing nonconforming general repair use, conditioned upon:

Compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations governing the use of a spray booth;
Filing all inspection reports from any state, local, or federal agency with the Swampscott Board of Health within 14 days of receipt [0:56:01–0:57:18].

Attorney Sam was asked to draft the formal written decision.

Petition 25-18: 80 Puritan Road (New Hearing)

Michelle recused herself from this and the following petition as an abutter 0:58:42.

The petitioner, a contractor/builder who resides at the property, proposed adding a bedroom to the unfinished attic of a two-story, two-family home by converting the hip roof to a gable [0:58:52–0:59:08]. The half-story addition would be part of the second-floor unit; the property would remain a two-family [1:00:20–1:00:35].

Covered Deck Setback Issue. A board member identified a critical issue: the proposed third-floor deck would cover the existing second-floor open deck, converting it from an uncovered deck (which is permitted within the setback) to a covered structure (which counts toward setback calculations) [1:03:13–1:03:39]. This would reduce the effective side yard setback from the current 16 feet (the building itself) to approximately 5.9 feet (the deck), against a required 7.5-foot setback — creating a new nonconformity [1:03:32–1:05:06].

The Board discussed options [1:05:16–1:09:15]. Making the third-floor deck smaller (pulled back approximately 1.25 inches to reach the 6-foot minimum for a dimensional special permit with 20% relief) was feasible but would require re-advertising the petition, as the original advertisement did not include a dimensional special permit request. The Board noted the filing fee would likely be waived in this circumstance [1:09:43–1:09:57].

The petitioner, who appeared to have a good relationship with neighbors and indicated enthusiasm for the project, agreed to continue and re-file an amended petition [1:10:06–1:10:20]. The Board voted unanimously to continue Petition 25-18 to December 16, with the petition to be re-advertised for a dimensional special permit [1:11:31–1:12:05].

Petition 25-19: 55 Carrington Road

Chair Heather opened the hearing on this oceanfront three-family property renovation 1:12:27. The petitioner sought to square off a stepped rear wall to create a more usable interior space (potentially a primary bedroom or living room to capture ocean views) [1:18:19–1:18:41].

Three-Family Limitation. The Chair initially explored whether the property could receive relief under the same provision that typically protects single and two-family homes from setback issues (referenced in the transcript as “Balalta”) [1:13:10–1:14:53]. However, Mark confirmed that this provision applies only to single and two-family dwellings [1:14:50–1:14:55]. The Chair acknowledged this was “important” and an initial oversight 1:14:57.

This significantly narrowed the petitioner’s options. The squaring-off would move the side yard setback from approximately 6.3 feet to 5.3 feet [1:14:13–1:14:34]. A dimensional special permit could reduce the requirement to 6 feet (20% relief), but getting to 5.3 feet would require a variance — which the Board indicated would be virtually impossible to obtain, as the lot has no unique hardship distinguishing it from neighboring properties [1:22:33–1:24:26].

Flood Zone Considerations. A board member asked whether the building would need to be raised out of the flood zone, as the building inspector had flagged the 50% construction cost rule (if renovation costs exceed 50% of assessed value, flood zone elevation may be required) [1:19:35–1:20:00]. The petitioner stated the project would remain under $250,000 against an approximately $500,000 assessed value and emphasized the renovation was limited in scope [1:19:52–1:20:26].

Public Comment on Parking. Sean Conley of Sculpin Way complimented the architectural renderings but raised concerns about parking in the already-congested area, noting that neighboring two-family homes have up to six vehicles [1:27:00–1:27:40]. The petitioner explained the plan increases parking from one existing spot to five (one single spot for the first-floor unit, two tandem spots each for the upper floors), meeting the 1.5-spaces-per-unit requirement [1:27:48–1:29:19].

Continuance with Possible Withdrawal. The Board explained the petitioner’s options: continue to December 16 while exploring whether the building can be squared off to exactly 6 feet (enabling a dimensional special permit), or withdraw without prejudice to preserve the option of returning later [1:25:14–1:25:48]. The petitioner chose to continue, noting he would withdraw if the numbers didn’t work [1:26:41–1:26:49]. The Board voted unanimously to continue to December 16 [1:29:57–1:30:04].

2026 Meeting Calendar

Administrator Christa presented the proposed 2026 meeting calendar for adoption [1:30:17–1:30:38]. The Board discussed scheduling around member travel. One board member will attend the Winter Olympics in Italy from February 13–22 [1:31:48–1:32:41]; another plans frequent trips to Miami [1:31:20–1:31:28]. The February meeting was moved from the 17th to the 10th to accommodate the Olympics trip, with the Chair emphasizing the need to keep all five constituted members available for the ongoing 40B comprehensive permit hearing [1:33:04–1:33:39].

The Chair noted that if scheduling conflicts arise, the 40B hearing could be separated and held on a different date from other ZBA business to ensure the required five members are present [1:34:48–1:35:06].

The Board voted unanimously to adopt the 2026 calendar with the February date change [1:35:20–1:35:27].

Section 4: Executive Summary

Lally’s Garage Approved for Spray Booth — Bylaw Ambiguity Proves Decisive

The most consequential action of this meeting was the unanimous approval of Petition 25-17, permitting Lally’s Garage (now Realty Investors LLC) to install an automotive spray booth at the property. The decision carries implications for how Swampscott interprets the boundaries of pre-existing nonconforming uses.

The approval hinged not on whether the property had been continuously operated as an auto body shop — board members openly acknowledged the evidence for that was thin — but on a textual ambiguity in the zoning bylaw. The bylaw’s definition section treats “motor vehicle general and body repair” as a single category, while the use table separates them with “or.” Because the property’s longstanding use as a general repair shop was not contested, the Board concluded that body work (including spray painting) falls under the same protected use [0:42:04–0:42:48]. Mark’s legal analysis, grounding the decision in Chapter 40A §6’s protection of pre-existing nonconforming uses, provided the intellectual framework [0:46:30–0:48:17].

For residents concerned about environmental impacts, the approval was conditioned on full compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations, and critically, on the filing of all inspection reports with the Board of Health within 14 days [0:56:01–0:57:18]. This reporting condition was added in direct response to neighbor concerns about oversight gaps and provides a local accountability mechanism beyond the standard state and federal inspection regimes.

Pine Street Veterans Housing Advances Toward Peer Review

The Chapter 40B affordable veterans housing project on Pine Street moved incrementally forward. B’nai B’rith Housing definitively ruled out the previously explored option of sharing a driveway with the adjacent cannabis dispensary, citing legal complications with the town ground lease, programmatic concerns about veterans’ sober housing adjacent to a dispensary, and practical circulation issues [0:04:34–0:07:26]. The revised November driveway configuration, which angles the exit away from the house directly across the street, was well received by the Board [0:08:42–0:13:12].

The next substantive milestone will be the completion of the peer review by the Board’s consultant, with results expected before the December 16 meeting. The 40B process requires all five constituted board members to participate, adding scheduling complexity that was evident in the calendar discussion [1:34:48–1:35:06].

Two Residential Petitions Encounter Zoning Complexities

The 80 Puritan Road petition to add an attic bedroom revealed an instructive zoning wrinkle: converting a hip roof to a gable would create a covered deck below, changing a conforming element (open deck in the setback) to a nonconforming one (covered structure at 5.9 feet where 7.5 feet is required) [1:03:13–1:05:06]. The petitioner will return with an amended application for a dimensional special permit.

The 55 Carrington Road three-family renovation encountered a more significant obstacle: the legal provision that typically allows relief for building modifications within setbacks does not apply to three-family structures [1:14:50–1:15:07]. This limits the petitioner to either a dimensional special permit (reducing the requirement to 6 feet) or a near-impossible variance — neither of which fully enables the desired wall squaring. The petitioner will evaluate the feasibility before the December meeting.

Section 5: Analysis

The Lally’s Garage Decision: Pragmatism Over Purity

The Board’s handling of the Lally’s Garage petition revealed a pragmatic approach to a genuinely ambiguous legal question. No board member fully endorsed the proposition that the property had been continuously operated as an auto body shop. Michelle stated plainly: “I don’t think that this has been an auto body shop” 0:42:17. The evidence — hardware-store aerosol paint receipts, testimony about brush-painting dumpsters — fell well short of demonstrating the kind of sustained body shop operation that a spray booth installation would serve.

Yet the Board found its way to approval, and the reasoning was textually grounded rather than results-oriented. The bylaw’s definitional conflation of general repair and body work into a single category left the Board little room to draw a distinction, even where common sense suggested one existed. As Michelle framed it: “In my mind an auto body shop and a general repair are two very separate things, but our bylaw they are not” [0:42:18–0:42:38]. This interpretive humility — deferring to the bylaw’s text rather than imposing their own understanding of industry categories — reflects sound legal reasoning, even if it produces an outcome that may frustrate nearby residents.

Mark’s analysis added a second, independent basis for approval: even if the uses are separate, Chapter 40A §6 permits expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use so long as it is “not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood” [0:46:30–0:46:55]. The encapsulated spray booth, Board members repeatedly noted, arguably improves neighborhood conditions compared to the existing practice of open-air aerosol spraying. This reasoning was persuasive and largely neutralized the environmental concerns raised by Lipkin and Maribash — though their point about self-reporting compliance in small-scale operations [0:51:57–0:52:32] was never fully addressed and remains a legitimate long-term concern.

The conditioning of approval on Board of Health reporting was a meaningful response to the neighbors’ anxiety, though as one board member noted, it verges on requiring what is already required by law [0:49:56–0:50:22]. Its real value may be symbolic — demonstrating that the Board heard the neighbors’ concerns — and practical — creating a local paper trail that might otherwise not exist for a business of this size.

Pine Street 40B: Slow and Steady

The Pine Street affordable veterans housing project continues its methodical progression through the 40B process. The session was notable for what didn’t happen: no public opposition, no contentious exchanges, no significant design concerns. Holly Grace’s “shortest 40B meeting yet” quip 0:18:44 reflected the relatively smooth proceedings, unusual for a comprehensive permit application.

The dismissal of the shared driveway option was handled diplomatically. The Board had asked the applicant to explore it; the applicant did so thoroughly and returned with a documented analysis explaining why it wouldn’t work. The substitute — an angled driveway that improves sight lines and reduces the impact on the house across the street — represented a genuine improvement over the October plan. The Board’s positive reception suggests the parking lot design is approaching resolution, with the peer review remaining as the final technical hurdle before substantive action.

The scheduling discussion at the end of the meeting [1:30:17–1:35:27] underscored a distinctive feature of 40B proceedings: the requirement that all five constituted board members participate in every session, with a maximum of one absence per member (compensated by watching the recorded session). This constraint — one member heading to the Olympics, another wintering in Miami — adds procedural complexity that could extend the project timeline if not carefully managed.

The Residential Petitions: Zoning’s Unforgiving Geometry

The two residential petitions illustrated how Massachusetts zoning law’s rigid dimensional requirements can transform straightforward renovation projects into multi-meeting procedural challenges. At 80 Puritan Road, a board member’s sharp-eyed catch of the covered deck issue [1:03:13–1:03:39] — where an existing compliant element would become nonconforming simply because a new floor above it would provide overhead coverage — exemplifies the kind of technical detail that can derail a homeowner’s plans. The petitioner appeared surprised by the issue but willing to work through it, and the Board was constructively helpful in explaining the amended petition process.

The 55 Carrington Road situation was more sobering. The revelation that the property’s three-family status disqualifies it from the enhanced protections available to single and two-family homes [1:14:50–1:15:07] effectively eliminated the straightforward path to relief. The Board was commendably direct in explaining this — the Chair stated the variance route would be “very challenging” and noted the Board “very rarely gives a variance” [1:24:09–1:24:13]. The petitioner’s decision to continue rather than immediately withdraw reflects a reasonable desire to explore whether the numbers can work within the dimensional special permit framework, but the Board appeared to signal that expectations should be modest. Notably, despite the limitations, Sean Conley’s parking concerns [1:27:00–1:27:48] received a substantive response: the project would increase parking from one spot to five, significantly improving the status quo.

Board Dynamics and Governance

This meeting showcased a well-functioning ZBA that benefits from members with complementary strengths. Mark’s legal acumen provided authoritative analysis on nonconforming use protections; Michelle’s willingness to voice uncertainty while ultimately reasoning toward a defensible position modeled careful deliberation; Andy’s directness kept discussions from becoming circular. The Chair managed a packed agenda efficiently, moving between petitions while ensuring adequate public comment.

The Board’s transparency about its reasoning — openly acknowledging the weakness of certain arguments even while approving a petition — serves the community well and creates a more durable record in the event of any appeal.

2025-11-18: Zoning Board