Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting — December 16, 2025

Section 1: Agenda (Inferred)

Call to Order & Opening Remarks 00:03:46
Approval of Meeting Minutes (September 16, October 21, October 28, November 18) 00:04:05
Petition 25-18: 80 Periton Road — Continuance to January 20, 2026 00:04:26
Petition 25-19 — Continuance to January 20, 2026 00:04:56
Petition 25-15: 10 New Ocean Street — Veterans Crossing Comprehensive Special Permit (Chapter 40B) 00:05:16
- Peer Review Summary: Stormwater/Culvert, Sewer, and Water Concerns
- Applicant Response to Peer Review
- Legal Guidance on Permit Conditions and Post-Permit Review
- Discussion on Sewer Capacity Study and Timeline
- Input from DPW Director Gino Cresta
- Public Comment Period
- Discussion of Waiver List and Decision Drafting
- Continuance to January 20, 2026
Motion to Adjourn 00:49:09

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Note on Speaker Identification: This transcript was produced by automated speaker diarization, which frequently reassigns speaker tags mid-meeting. Several speakers appear under multiple tags, and some tags are shared by different individuals. The mapping below represents the most likely identifications based on contextual clues.

ZBA Chair (likely “Mariah,” name inferred from DPW Director’s greeting): [Speaker 1] (opening), [Speaker 2] (mid-meeting), [Speaker 3] (latter portions) — Female chair, per “Madam Chair” at 00:35:44. Runs the meeting, raises infrastructure concerns, manages the agenda.
ZBA Member (Mark): [Speaker 2] (early motions) — Referenced by name at 00:05:08; makes and seconds motions.
ZBA Member (Tony, remote): [Speaker 7] — Participates remotely; identified at 00:03:55.
ZBA Member: [Speaker 5] (early votes) and/or [Speaker 8] — Present in-person; participates in votes and brief comments.
Fifth ZBA Member (absent, female): Referenced as “away” but watching the video.
Paul Haverty, Esq. (ZBA Legal Counsel): [Speaker 6] primarily, and [Speaker 5] in portions citing case law — Provides 40B legal guidance on conditions and post-permit review.
John Smolak, Esq. (Attorney for the Applicant): [Speaker 4] (self-identified at 00:20:07), also [Speaker 5] in later discussion regarding decision drafting.
Jacob Lemieux (Civil Engineer, Hancock Associates — Applicant’s Team): [Speaker 3] at 00:11:24 (self-identified) — Presents engineering design approach for the culvert and project conditions.
Joseph Pisnell (Engineer, Hancock Associates — Applicant’s Team): [Speaker 9] at 00:23:12 (self-identified), and [Speaker 1] in later engineering discussion — Argues for conditioned post-permit review based on 40B precedent.
Peer Review Engineer (Marzi Engineering or similar firm): [Speaker 9] (early portions at 00:07:48) — Summarizes utility review findings (stormwater, sewer, water).
Gino Cresta (Director of Public Works, remote): [Speaker 1] at 00:38:59 — Provides update on sewer rehabilitation work and culvert condition.
[Speaker 8]: Likely town staff or applicant representative tracking the 40B statutory timeline.
[Speaker 11]: Brief appearance at 00:47:29; likely an engineer discussing design detail levels.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Opening and Procedural Business 00:03:46

The ZBA Chair called the December meeting to order, noting that board member Tony was participating remotely and that the fifth board member was absent but would review the video recording.

Approval of Minutes: The Chair called for approval of minutes from four prior meetings (September 16, October 21, October 28, and November 18). A board member moved to approve; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously by voice vote 00:04:17.

Petition 25-18 (80 Periton Road): The Chair noted that the petitioner had requested a continuance to the January 20, 2026 meeting. A motion to continue was made, seconded, and approved unanimously 00:04:42.

Petition 25-19: Similarly continued to January 20, 2026, by unanimous vote 00:05:05.

Petition 25-15: 10 New Ocean Street — Veterans Crossing 00:05:16

The Chair turned to the primary business of the evening: the comprehensive special permit application under Chapter 40B for the Veterans Crossing development at 10 New Ocean Street.

Peer Review Overview

The Chair expressed frustration that the board had received a substantial volume of new information only the day before and the day of the meeting 00:05:33, making thorough review difficult. She summarized the central concerns: the culvert relocation, sewer capacity, and water infrastructure.

The peer review engineer provided a high-level summary of findings across three utility categories 00:07:48:

Stormwater/Culvert: The major issue was the proposed relocation of an existing culvert, which would need to be rerouted to accommodate the development footprint. The reviewer noted ongoing discussions with Gino Cresta and Marzi (the peer review consultant) about whether the culvert project belonged within the comprehensive permit or should run on a parallel track as a town-owned project. The DPW Director’s position was to keep the culvert discussion within the comprehensive permit process 00:08:24.
Sewer: The peer reviewer raised concerns about the sewer tie-in point on Pine Street, noting the existing sewer line was very flat at the initial connection point. The applicant had subsequently moved the tie-in further down Pine Street to a segment with greater slope 00:09:06. The reviewer noted an important practical distinction: while the engineering calculations comparing the prior “light industrial” use to the proposed residential use technically showed lower sewer flow, in reality the previous building had been largely unused — meaning the actual increase in sewer demand would be significant 00:09:26. The Chair agreed this was a critical point, noting that abstract calculations based on a theoretical 18,000-square-foot factory did not reflect reality 00:09:49.
Water: The initial plan set had depicted a 12-inch water main on Pine Street, but the actual main is only 6 inches in diameter and, per Gino Cresta, is old, in poor condition, and significantly restricted (“choked way down”) 00:10:44. While hydrant flow tests showed adequate pressure and volume, the integrity of the aging main remained a concern.

Applicant’s Response

Jacob Lemieux (Hancock Associates) addressed the culvert issue, acknowledging the board’s desire for assurance that the replacement could be completed in kind 00:11:30. He explained that the typical process under 40B calls for conditions on the comprehensive permit, with detailed engineering (such as hiring a specialist firm like Conspan for culvert design) occurring at the construction document stage. He proposed a preliminary capacity study to demonstrate that the relocated culvert could mathematically match existing capacity 00:12:25, and suggested the permit be conditioned to require replacement “in kind with equivalent flow at a minimum” 00:13:13.

Joseph Pisnell (Hancock Associates) offered a more detailed engineering argument 00:23:27. He framed the three issues — culvert, water, and sewer — as manageable:

On the sewer, he noted Cresta’s department had cleaned and slip-lined pipes in the area, increasing capacity, and that the tie-in point had been moved to a pipe with better slope 00:23:43.
On water, hydrant flow tests showed adequate volume and pressure, and he urged separating pre-existing infrastructure conditions from project-caused impacts 00:24:31.
On the culvert, he emphasized the project was not adding water to the system — the question was solely whether the relocated culvert could maintain existing capacity despite the introduction of angle points. Preliminary calculations run that day suggested widening the culvert from 4 feet to 5–6 feet would compensate for head losses caused by the angles 00:26:14. He asked the board to condition final construction details for post-permit submission, consistent with the 40B process requiring only preliminary plans.

Pisnell directly challenged the ZBA counsel’s position on post-permit peer review 00:28:40, citing his experience with “literally hundreds of Chapter 40B reviews across the state” and stating that he had seen “countless” comprehensive permits issued with post-permit peer review elements — provided conditions were “carefully crafted” to be verification of compliance, not a subsequent approval.

Legal Guidance from Paul Haverty 00:16:15

ZBA Counsel Paul Haverty delivered an important legal framework for the board’s decision-making:

All decisions must be made during the hearing process. The board cannot defer peer review to after the permit is issued; any peer review must occur while the hearing remains open 00:16:22.
Preliminary vs. final plans: Since the board ultimately rules on preliminary plans, there is “some leeway” for requiring additional information in final plans, but substantive questions — such as whether the stormwater system will adequately function — must be resolved during the hearing 00:16:48.
Fair share standard: Under Housing Appeals Committee case law, the municipality cannot require the applicant to bear responsibility for infrastructure improvements beyond their “fair share.” Pre-existing, town-wide infrastructure deficiencies cannot be placed upon the developer’s burden 00:17:35.

Later in the meeting 00:42:41, Haverty elaborated further, citing Board of Appeals of Aidds v. Housing Appeals Committee (a Supreme Judicial Court decision), which held that a board of appeals must make all decisions required for local permits at the time of issuance. However, he acknowledged significant leeway to craft conditions requiring post-permit submission of detailed designs, provided the fundamental approval has been granted 00:43:44. He offered the example of approving the sewer connection but conditioning it on final plans demonstrating adequate capacity, with required upgrades if capacity is insufficient 00:44:08.

Sewer Capacity Study Debate 00:32:28

A significant exchange occurred between the Chair and the applicant’s engineers over the feasibility of completing a sewer flow monitoring study within the hearing timeline. An applicant engineer explained that such flow monitoring requires approximately six weeks, making completion before the February deadline difficult 00:34:49. He referenced the precedent of the “Wynn project” (likely Elm Place), where a similar sewer capacity study was conditioned post-permit, and the DPW Director reviewed and approved the results 00:34:01.

The Chair pushed back firmly 00:35:16: “If we don’t have time to do all these things in the length of time and we need to have an extension then we need to have an extension.” She emphasized that the Pine Street/New Ocean Street neighborhood had known, documented capacity issues and that neighbors deserved assurance that added flow would not worsen conditions. This was a notably assertive moment, with the Chair signaling she would not be pressured by the 40B statutory timeline into accepting incomplete analysis.

Attorney John Smolak intervened to assure the board that the applicant was not trying to avoid the study but was grappling with timing constraints 00:20:07. He suggested that conditioning the issuance of a building permit on satisfactory resolution of sewer capacity would protect the town’s interests 00:37:20.

DPW Director’s Input 00:39:01

Gino Cresta, participating remotely, confirmed that his department had made “significant improvements” to the Pine Street sewer system by removing decades of accumulated debris and slip-lining the mains, though he could not “unequivocally state” that the sewage issues had been fully resolved 00:39:21. On the culvert, he expressed comfort with the relocation approach once the design removes the bends, noting the project would not add capacity to the culvert system 00:40:02. He was still awaiting the final design.

Waiver List and Decision Drafting 00:41:37

The Chair asked Haverty about a revised list of waivers that had been submitted. Haverty indicated he had not yet had the opportunity to fully review it 00:41:52. He offered to begin drafting the ZBA decision document, which the Chair and another board member welcomed given the tight timeline 00:42:18.

Attorney Smolak volunteered to collaborate with Haverty on the decision draft, proposing that the two counsel work together on conditions and waivers between meetings to bring a “more final” product to the board at the January hearing 00:45:27. The board agreed this was a productive approach, though the Chair emphasized that all board members needed to independently review the waiver list 00:46:05.

Timeline and Scheduling 00:22:28

A representative (likely from the applicant or town staff) confirmed that the hearing was at day 116 of the 180-day statutory period, with the deadline falling on February 18, 2026. The Chair indicated willingness to schedule additional special meetings beyond the regular monthly session if needed to accommodate the volume of remaining work 00:46:29.

Public Comment

The Chair opened the floor for public comment 00:41:00. No members of the public (in person or online) offered comments.

Continuance

The hearing on Petition 25-15 was continued to the January 20, 2026 meeting by unanimous vote 00:49:03.

Adjournment 00:49:09

A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved unanimously.

Section 4: Executive Summary

The Central Issue: Can Pine Street’s Infrastructure Handle Veterans Crossing?

The December ZBA meeting was dominated by a single, consequential question: whether the aging infrastructure surrounding the Veterans Crossing site at 10 New Ocean Street can support a new Chapter 40B residential development — and who bears responsibility for ensuring it can.

The board’s peer review consultant identified three significant infrastructure concerns: a culvert that must be relocated to accommodate the building footprint, a sewer system on Pine Street that is flat, old, and serving an area with documented flooding and sewage problems, and a water main that is half the size depicted on the applicant’s original plans and in deteriorating condition.

Peer Review Responses Fall Short

The board expressed clear dissatisfaction with the applicant’s initial responses to peer review concerns 00:05:33. The Chair characterized the responses as containing “a lot of wait and see” language, with multiple answers amounting to identical statements that issues would be resolved later. This is significant because, as ZBA Counsel Paul Haverty advised, the board cannot defer substantive peer review to after the comprehensive permit is issued — a position grounded in Supreme Judicial Court precedent.

The Culvert Question

The culvert relocation is perhaps the most technically complex issue. The development requires rerouting an existing culvert with two 90-degree angle points, which introduces flow restrictions. The applicant’s engineers reported that same-day preliminary calculations indicated the culvert would need to be widened from 4 feet to 5–6 feet to maintain existing capacity 00:26:14. While the applicant framed this as a straightforward engineering question, the board and its peer reviewer are not yet satisfied that the analysis is complete.

Sewer Capacity: A Known Problem Area

The sewer capacity issue presents both a technical and political challenge. While engineering calculations comparing the site’s prior light-industrial classification to the proposed residential use technically show reduced sewer flow, the peer reviewer pointed out the obvious: the previous building was largely vacant, meaning any new occupancy represents a real-world increase. DPW Director Gino Cresta confirmed that his department has cleaned and relined the Pine Street sewers but cannot guarantee the problems are fully resolved. A proper flow monitoring study would take six weeks — potentially pushing past the February 18 statutory deadline for action on the permit.

Legal Framework Sets the Parameters

Paul Haverty’s legal guidance 00:16:15 established critical guardrails for the board’s decision-making. Key takeaways for residents:

The board must resolve substantive infrastructure questions before issuing the permit — they cannot “kick the can” to post-permit review.
However, the board can condition the permit to require detailed final engineering submissions, provided the fundamental approval decision is supported.
The board cannot require the developer to fix pre-existing, town-wide infrastructure problems — only their proportionate, fair share of impact.
Attorneys from both sides will collaborate on drafting the decision document and conditions in advance of the January 20 hearing.

Timeline Pressure

The board is now at day 116 of the 180-day statutory clock, with a hard deadline of February 18, 2026. The Chair signaled she is open to special meetings and, if necessary, would seek a voluntary timeline extension from the applicant rather than rush to a decision with unresolved questions 00:22:06.

Section 5: Analysis

A Board Finding Its Footing on a Complex 40B

This meeting revealed a Zoning Board of Appeals engaged in a genuine struggle to exercise meaningful oversight within the constraints of the Chapter 40B comprehensive permit process — a framework that, by design, tilts toward the developer. The board’s performance, particularly the Chair’s, suggests growing confidence in using the tools available to them.

The Chair’s Assertiveness

The Chair emerged as the meeting’s most consequential voice. Her refusal to accept “wait and see” responses on infrastructure capacity 00:07:01, her pointed observation that abstract sewer calculations bore no relationship to actual site conditions 00:09:49, and her willingness to call for a timeline extension rather than be pressured into a premature vote 00:35:16 all demonstrated that the board intends to exercise its authority to the fullest extent that 40B law permits. Her repeated emphasis on the neighborhood’s documented flooding and sewage history served as both a factual grounding and a political signal: this board is advocating for the affected residents.

The Applicant’s Two-Track Strategy

The applicant’s team deployed a clear two-track strategy. The first track, led by Jacob Lemieux, was conciliatory — acknowledging the board’s concerns and proposing conditions designed to provide “surety” 00:11:56. The second track, led by the more experienced Joseph Pisnell, was assertive — directly challenging the ZBA counsel’s legal position on post-permit peer review 00:28:40 and invoking his credentials (“literally hundreds of Chapter 40B reviews”) to push for a more developer-friendly interpretation of what must be resolved before permit issuance.

Attorney John Smolak’s interventions [00:20:07, 00:37:14] struck a middle ground, emphasizing the developer’s willingness to cooperate while subtly reminding the board of the statutory filing deadlines that create urgency for the applicant. His offer to collaborate on the decision draft 00:45:27 was strategically astute — it positions the applicant to influence the conditions that will govern the project, rather than having conditions imposed unilaterally.

Haverty’s Framework as the Decisive Input

Paul Haverty’s legal guidance may prove to be the single most important contribution of the evening. His clear statement that substantive review cannot be deferred post-permit 00:16:22 gave the board essential legal backing to demand answers now, while his acknowledgment that conditions can require detailed final plans 00:43:44 gave the applicant a viable path forward. His citation of the Board of Appeals of Aidds SJC decision lent judicial authority to the board’s position. Notably, when Pisnell challenged Haverty’s interpretation, Haverty held firm but also demonstrated pragmatism by outlining how conditions could be structured to address the board’s concerns without requiring full construction-level design during the hearing.

The “fair share” doctrine articulated by Haverty 00:17:35 introduces a tension the board will need to navigate carefully. The Pine Street infrastructure problems clearly predate this project, and Gino Cresta’s testimony confirmed that the town has already been working to address them. Yet the project is also undeniably adding load to systems the Chair herself described as unable to handle current capacity 00:15:46. The board will need to document precisely what constitutes the project’s incremental impact versus pre-existing deficiency — a distinction that could determine the scope of conditions they can legally impose.

Gino Cresta’s Measured Testimony

The DPW Director’s input 00:39:01 was notably measured. He confirmed improvements had been made but would not overstate their effect, using careful language (“I can’t unequivocally state that we have resolved the sewage issue”). His comfort with the culvert approach pending final design, combined with his caution on the sewer question, gave the board a credible, independent technical voice that neither fully supported nor undercut the applicant’s position.

What to Watch at the January 20 Hearing

Several dynamics will shape the outcome:

Quality of the applicant’s revised peer review responses: The board made clear that copy-and-paste deferrals will not suffice. Substantive engineering analysis — particularly preliminary culvert capacity calculations and a clear accounting of real-world sewer flow increases — will be expected.
Progress on decision drafting: The Haverty-Smolak collaboration on conditions could produce a framework that satisfies both parties — or could surface irreconcilable disagreements.
The sewer flow study question: Whether the applicant initiates flow monitoring (a six-week process) will signal how seriously they take the board’s position. If they do not, the board may face a choice between accepting conditioned post-permit study (as was done at Elm Place) or forcing a timeline extension.
The waiver list: Board members have not yet reviewed the revised waiver list; their positions on specific waivers could introduce new friction points or negotiating leverage.

The board is clearly taking this application seriously and using the public hearing process to extract meaningful protections for the neighborhood. Whether the February 18 deadline forces compromises — or whether the applicant agrees to an extension — may ultimately determine whether those protections are substantive or procedural.

2025-12-16: Zoning Board Of Appeals