I’ll analyze the transcript and produce the comprehensive meeting analysis document.

Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals — January 20, 2026

Section 1: Agenda

00:05:58 Opening and Procedural Matters
- Petition 25-18: Request to continue to February 10 meeting
- Petition 25-19: Request to withdraw without prejudice
- Approval of prior meeting minutes (deferred to next meeting)
00:07:04 Petition 25-15: VBH Veterans Crossing — Continued Hearing
- a. Peer review update on culvert relocation design 00:07:24
- b. Sewer flow study results 00:24:06
- c. Water main size and condition discussion 00:26:00
- d. Review of draft decision — waivers 00:35:15
- e. Review of draft decision — conditions (preliminary) 00:50:40
- f. Response to public comment letter (Alicia McCarthy) 00:53:38
00:54:30 Public Comment
00:57:09 Scheduling of Future Hearings
- Continuation to February 3 and February 10 meetings
01:00:42 Motion to Continue and Adjournment

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Due to automated transcription, speaker diarization in this recording is notably inconsistent — several speaker tags appear to represent different individuals at different points in the meeting. The following mapping reflects the most likely identifications based on contextual clues:

ZBA Chair (Madam Chair): [Speaker 1] (primary), [Speaker 5] (mid-meeting, approximately 00:35–00:50, where diarization appears to shift)
ZBA Member: [Speaker 2] (early/late meeting — makes motions, votes); note that some mid-meeting dialogue tagged as [Speaker 2] appears to be from the applicant’s attorney or board counsel
ZBA Member (possibly “Martie”): [Speaker 3] — seconds motions, votes; some technical dialogue may be attributed from the peer review engineer
Jacob Lemieux-Hancock (Associate Civil Engineer, Hancock Associates): [Speaker 4] (approximately 00:13–00:18); self-identified at 00:13:27
Paul Haverty (Board Counsel): [Speaker 4] (approximately 00:30 onward, reviewing waivers and providing legal guidance); [Speaker 8] (end of meeting, advising on continuance procedure)
Vicki Messoni (VM Consulting, Town Peer Reviewer): [Speaker 5] (at 00:31:43, self-identified); other dialogue tagged [Speaker 5] includes the Chair and possibly other participants
John Smolak (Attorney for the Applicant, VBH): [Speaker 6]; self-identified at 00:18:09
Mark Koroniski (ZBA Member, Attorney): Referenced by name at 00:29:38 and in scheduling discussion; likely tagged as [Speaker 5] during the scheduling portion (cannot attend February 3)
Public Commenter (Resident, name not stated): [Speaker 7] (at 00:54:58 during public comment period)
Additional participants referenced but not tagged: Gino Cresta (DPW Director, not present but discussed); Susan (ZBA Member, not present but discussed for scheduling); Christy/Krista (administrative staff); “Heather” (peer review engineer referenced at 00:11:02)

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Opening and Procedural Matters 00:05:58

The Chair called the January meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals to order and announced two procedural items before the main agenda.

Petition 25-18 was continued to the February 10 meeting upon the petitioner’s request. A motion was made by a Board Member, seconded, and passed unanimously (3-0). Petition 25-19 was allowed to withdraw without prejudice upon the petitioner’s request. A motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously (3-0).

The Chair noted that approval of prior meeting minutes would be deferred to the next meeting, as the board packet had only been received that day.

Petition 25-15: VBH Veterans Crossing — Continued Hearing

Culvert Relocation Design Update 00:07:24

The Chair provided context, noting that since the last meeting there had been extensive back-and-forth between the applicant’s engineering team and the town-hired peer reviewers. She asked the peer review engineer to walk through which issues remained open and which were resolved.

On hydraulic capacity and culvert design: The peer reviewer reported that the applicant had revised the culvert relocation layout to incorporate less severe bends, reducing energy loss, and had increased the culvert width 00:08:43. The flow capacity calculations were found to check out. A second peer reviewer confirmed that previously raised concerns about head loss and energy loss had been addressed 00:09:39. The peer reviewer characterized the culvert design as approximately 30% complete, compared to the rest of the site plans at roughly 90%, and noted that adjustments would be necessary as design proceeds and underground conditions are better understood 00:10:36.

On plan versions: There was brief confusion about which version of the drainage plan was being discussed. A more recent iteration (dated January 15) had been exchanged between the peer reviewer and the applicant’s engineer but not formally submitted to the board 00:11:02. The peer reviewer noted that a misunderstanding about which bend angle exceeded 45 degrees had been clarified directly with the applicant’s engineer, Jacob, and corrections had been made.

On the culvert profile: The peer reviewer noted that a requested profile drawing — showing the elevation contour of the proposed pipe and intersecting utilities — had not been provided 00:12:40. Jacob Lemieux-Hancock of Hancock Associates explained that creating an accurate profile requires first excavating the existing culvert to inventory underground crossings and field conditions 00:13:31. He stated that once the existing and proposed culvert locations are excavated, Hancock Associates would prepare 100% construction-level design documents as part of the grant project scope 00:15:22.

On the sequencing of the culvert project: Jacob Lemieux-Hancock provided a detailed explanation of the project timeline 00:16:04. He noted that the culvert design and construction are funded through a One-Stop grant application; the town cannot start the project until it has secured full funding, which requires final bids, which in turn require completed design documents. He stated that Hancock Associates has been in discussion with DPW Director Gino Cresta and would serve as the civil engineers of record for the culvert going forward 00:15:48.

Attorney John Smolak reinforced this position 00:18:09, arguing that the design was already more advanced than typical for a 40B project at this stage. He emphasized that the draft decision contains a condition preventing issuance of a building permit until the culvert is relocated — meaning designed, bid, and constructed — protecting the town’s interests. He noted that grant funding accounts for continued peer review of the culvert design.

A Board Member acknowledged the complexity 00:20:11, noting the “gray area” around final culvert design while recognizing that the culvert must move for the building to be constructed. The member observed that the culvert is only being relocated because of this project — the town would not have undertaken this independently — creating an added layer of complication. The Chair noted that any substantive change from the depicted plans would require the applicant to return to the board for review 00:21:25.

The peer reviewer stated that the bulk of their comments had concerned the culvert and that the only other major open issue was the water main 00:21:53. There was a clarifying exchange confirming that the profile would be developed as part of the engineering design documents prior to bidding, not during construction 00:22:10.

The Board Member acknowledged a “little bit of disagreement” between the board and the applicant’s team about how much culvert design could have been completed now versus later 00:23:06, but stated the board would work with the information provided and trust that additional checks would occur through the bidding and construction process.

Sewer Flow Study Results 00:24:06

The peer reviewer presented results from recorded sewer flow monitoring. Peak flow showed only approximately one to three inches of flow in the sewer, indicating relatively low utilization 00:24:15. No significant storm event occurred during the monitoring period (less than one inch of rain). The sewer in Pine Street has been lined, which significantly increases capacity. The reviewer concluded that there appears to be sufficient capacity for new flows from the project, particularly given that the tie-in point was moved to after the manhole (downstream) rather than before, addressing an earlier concern 00:25:11.

A representative from the applicant’s team confirmed that both flow monitors and a rain gauge remain installed at the DPW, and results from a sufficient rain event would be shared when available 00:25:45.

Water Main Discussion 00:26:00

The peer reviewer raised a significant concern: the plans had originally shown a 12-inch water main on Pine Street, but this was an error — the actual main is a six-inch pipe 00:26:06. The reviewer stated discomfort with a six-inch main serving the new development, noting that new mains are typically a minimum of eight inches 00:26:22. Hancock Associates indicated they had a potential alternative connection to New Ocean Street, pending DPW Director Gino Cresta’s review of that main’s condition 00:26:50.

The applicant’s engineer questioned whether the need for an upgrade was specific to this project or a town-wide issue, arguing that if flow capacity is demonstrated, tying a six-inch line into another six-inch line should be permissible 00:27:28. Attorney Smolak referenced case law limiting what conditions can be imposed on a 40B applicant when the underlying issue is deferred municipal maintenance 00:29:38.

Vicki Messoni of VM Consulting (the town’s peer reviewer) provided critical context 00:31:43: the main has a history of breaks, Gino Cresta has personally observed that its interior is “severely tuberculated and choked down,” the former building consumed approximately 250 gallons per day versus the projected 4,500 gallons per day for the new building, and prolonged extended use could compromise the pipe — which the town would then own the consequences of.

Board Counsel Paul Haverty advised that the board is limited to requiring the applicant to fund its “fair share” of any upgrade — it cannot require full funding for infrastructure improvements that serve broader municipal needs 00:30:40. He noted that flow tests confirm adequate pressure without need for fire pumps 00:31:24.

The peer reviewer noted that the requested upgrade covers only the block the building occupies — from Erie Street to New Ocean Street — not the entire neighborhood 00:33:09.

Three options were identified as remaining on the table 00:34:42: (1) the developer performs the upgrade directly; (2) funds are set aside for the town to perform the upgrade when it undertakes broader infrastructure work in the area; or (3) an alternative tie-in further down the line that avoids the six-inch pipe entirely.

Draft Decision Review — Waivers 00:35:15

The Chair directed Board Counsel Haverty to walk through the waiver requests in the draft decision. Counsel explained two categories of waivers 00:37:12:

Procedural waivers — requests for relief from other local permitting requirements that are unnecessary because a comprehensive permit (40B) subsumes all local permits. Counsel recommended denying these as unnecessary while noting that administrative sign-off and safety compliance requirements can still be maintained. Procedural waivers identified included:

Sections 2-3: Excavation of public street/trench safety (DPW written permission) 00:37:48
Section 4: Select Board approval for obstruction of public street/sidewalk 00:39:47
Earth removal permit (Select Board) 00:42:00
Stormwater management (requires further review to confirm; DEP stormwater standards cannot be waived) 00:42:21
Tree bylaw (all trees on property are town-owned) 00:44:51

Attorney Smolak noted that the waivers were styled to be consistent with those granted in the prior Elm Place 40B project 00:43:02.

Regarding stormwater management, Counsel noted that the DEP stormwater standards cannot be waived and that federal NPDES standards would generally not apply since the disturbance area is less than one acre, except potentially for total phosphorus requirements 00:44:07.

Regarding the demolition delay / historic district waiver, Counsel noted that assessment records indicate the building was constructed in 1993, making it unlikely to meet the 75-year threshold, though confirmation is pending 00:41:06.

Substantive waivers — actual relief from zoning bylaw provisions necessary for the project to proceed — were identified including 00:45:04:

Use waivers (required for multifamily residential in this zone)
Accessory uses
Dimensional requirements: waiver of maximum building height (amount to be confirmed with building commissioner regarding flat vs. peaked roof measurement 00:48:09), rear yard setback (from 20 feet to 17.7 feet), maximum building coverage (from 30% to 37%)
No waivers needed for: minimum lot area, minimum frontage, minimum open space, front yard setback
Parking waivers
Parking lot landscaping requirements
Parking setbacks
Lighting (to be narrowed to only the specific relief actually needed) 00:47:07

The building height measurement was specifically bracketed for further review pending consultation with the building commissioner 00:48:40.

The flood plain and wetland protection overlay district waivers were discussed 00:49:24. Attorney Smolak noted that a 1976 wetlands overlay map referenced in the bylaw could not be located, and the waiver was included as a precaution 00:49:40. The project is also before the Conservation Commission for separate review of those standards.

Draft Decision — Conditions (Preliminary) 00:50:40

The Chair noted that the board had only received the draft decision that day and had not been able to thoroughly review all conditions. She specifically flagged:

Rooftop mechanical noise: An early commitment to provide roof well cross-sections, acoustic notes, and demonstration of Mass DEP noise compliance for building commissioner approval as a condition of the building permit 00:51:11. She wanted to ensure this commitment was reflected in the conditions.
Pest management plan: Confirmed present in the conditions 00:51:38.

A Board Member noted that placeholder conditions for fire department comments and VM Consulting comments existed in the draft 00:52:11. The fire department had submitted correspondence indicating satisfaction with the swept path analysis. The water main issue remained to be resolved and incorporated.

Attorney Smolak acknowledged receipt of a December 19 comment letter from Alicia McCarthy and stated a written response would be submitted to the board by the following Monday or Tuesday 00:53:38.

A Board Member complimented both Paul Haverty’s and the applicant’s work on the draft decision and conditions 00:53:13.

Public Comment 00:54:30

One resident posed questions about the water main discussion 00:54:58, seeking clarification on: (1) whether the flow test showed sufficient capacity for a six-to-six-inch connection; (2) whether the pipe’s condition was a deferred municipal maintenance issue rather than a project-specific issue; and (3) whether it was within the ZBA’s legal jurisdiction to impose conditions related to deferred maintenance. The Chair acknowledged there was “a little bit of debate” on proportional responsibility and noted that developers sometimes voluntarily undertake upgrades that benefit both their project and the broader community 00:56:13.

Scheduling and Continuance 00:57:09

The Chair announced that two February meetings had been scheduled — February 3 and February 10 — to allow adequate time to finalize conditions before a vote. Board Member Koroniski indicated he could not attend February 3 (travel day) but could potentially attend February 4 or participate remotely on February 2 00:57:41.

Board Counsel Haverty provided important procedural guidance 00:59:00: the hearing can be continued to February 3 but cannot be held sooner than that date; if not all members are present on the 3rd, the board can simply continue to the 10th or another later date at that time.

Discussion ensued about whether a vote could occur without Member Koroniski present. It was confirmed that four members could constitute a quorum for voting purposes, though it was agreed that having all members present for a final vote would be preferable 01:00:16.

Motions to Continue and Adjourn 01:00:42

A motion to continue to February 3 was made, seconded, and passed unanimously. A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and passed unanimously.

Section 4: Executive Summary

VBH Veterans Crossing 40B: Nearing a Decision

The Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals is approaching the culmination of its review of Petition 25-15 — the VBH Veterans Crossing comprehensive permit application, a 40-plus unit residential development. The January 20 meeting focused on resolving outstanding technical issues and beginning review of a draft decision, with the board targeting a final vote in early February.

Culvert Relocation: Design Deemed Adequate for This Stage, Significant Work Remains

The most technically complex element of the project — the relocation of an existing culvert that runs through the proposed building footprint — received substantial attention. The town’s peer reviewers found that revised hydraulic capacity calculations and the updated culvert layout address previously raised concerns about energy loss from pipe bends. However, the design remains at approximately 30% completion. The board acknowledged a tension between wanting more complete engineering now and the applicant’s position that detailed design requires physical excavation and should proceed under the separate town-managed grant project. The draft decision includes a condition preventing any building permit until the culvert is fully designed, bid, and constructed. Hancock Associates will serve as the civil engineer of record, with the project funded through a One-Stop state grant. The town’s peer reviewers will continue reviewing designs as they advance.

Sewer Capacity Appears Sufficient; Storm Event Data Pending

Sewer flow monitoring on Pine Street showed low utilization with apparent capacity for the project’s new flows. The sewer tie-in point was relocated downstream of a manhole to address earlier concerns. Flow monitors and a rain gauge remain in place awaiting a significant storm event to provide more robust data. This issue appears largely resolved, though the monitoring gap was noted.

Water Main Emerges as Key Unresolved Issue

A significant disagreement surfaced over the six-inch water main on Pine Street. The town’s peer reviewer, Vicki Messoni of VM Consulting, raised concerns about the pipe’s severely deteriorated internal condition, its history of breaks, and the dramatic increase in water demand (from ~250 to ~4,500 gallons per day). The applicant’s team argued that flow testing demonstrates adequate capacity and that the pipe’s condition is a pre-existing municipal maintenance issue, not one caused by the project. Board Counsel Paul Haverty advised that 40B case law limits the board to requiring the applicant to fund only its “fair share” of any needed upgrade. Three options remain under consideration: developer-funded upgrade, escrowed funds for a future town-led upgrade, or an alternative connection avoiding the six-inch pipe entirely. This issue will require resolution before the final decision.

Draft Decision: Waivers and Conditions Taking Shape

The board began its first public walkthrough of the draft decision’s waiver list, with Counsel Haverty categorizing each as either procedural (subsumed by the comprehensive permit) or substantive (actual zoning relief required). Key substantive waivers include building height, rear yard setback (20 to 17.7 feet), building coverage (30% to 37%), use, parking, and associated dimensional requirements. Building height measurement methodology was flagged for confirmation with the building commissioner. The board has not yet completed its review of all proposed conditions, having received the draft only that day.

Timeline: Final Vote Expected in Early February

The hearing was continued to February 3, with February 10 as a backup date. The board aims to finalize conditions and vote with all members present. A written response to public comment (Alicia McCarthy’s December 19 letter) is expected from the applicant by late January.

Section 5: Analysis

A Board Managing Complexity Under 40B Constraints

This meeting illustrates the inherent tension in Massachusetts 40B proceedings: a local board must conduct rigorous review of a major development while operating within a legal framework that significantly constrains its authority. The Swampscott ZBA appears keenly aware of these boundaries, repeatedly checking with counsel about the limits of permissible conditions — particularly around off-site infrastructure. The board’s approach has been methodical: hiring peer reviewers, demanding iterative engineering responses, and now carefully constructing a decision document. The meeting conveyed a sense that the board is working to protect town interests within its legal authority rather than attempting to block the project.

The Culvert: Accepting Incomplete Information

The culvert discussion revealed a pragmatic, if somewhat uncomfortable, compromise. The peer reviewers acknowledged that the revised design addresses their technical concerns about hydraulic capacity, but the 30% design level clearly leaves the board with less certainty than it would prefer. The Chair’s statement acknowledging “a little bit of a disagreement” about how much could have been done now 00:23:06 was diplomatically understated. The applicant’s team — particularly Jacob Lemieux-Hancock and Attorney Smolak — effectively argued that the project’s own sequencing (grant funding → bidding → construction) provides inherent safeguards, and that the building permit condition creates a hard gate. This argument appeared to carry the day, though the board’s acceptance seemed more acquiescent than enthusiastic.

Attorney Smolak’s framing was strategically effective: by emphasizing that the culvert is a separate town project under DPW jurisdiction, funded by a state grant, with continued peer review built in, he repositioned it as something the board need not fully resolve within the 40B hearing itself. The Chair’s insistence that any substantive design changes must return to the board 00:21:30 was an important counterweight, preserving future oversight.

The Water Main: The Strongest Point of Contention

The water main discussion was the meeting’s most contentious exchange and the issue most likely to shape final conditions. Vicki Messoni’s testimony about the pipe’s severely tuberculated interior and break history 00:31:43 provided compelling factual grounding for the peer reviewer’s concerns — far more concrete than a general preference for eight-inch pipes. Against this, the applicant’s team deployed a legally sound argument: flow tests demonstrate adequate capacity, the pipe’s deterioration is a pre-existing town problem, and 40B case law limits the developer’s obligation to a proportional share.

Board Counsel Haverty’s advice confirming this legal limitation 00:30:40 was measured but clear, effectively tempering the peer reviewer’s position. The resident’s question during public comment about whether the condition was within the ZBA’s purview 00:55:28 underscored how this legal constraint is a live concern in the community as well.

The three identified options — direct developer upgrade, escrowed funds, or alternative connection — suggest the parties are working toward a negotiated resolution rather than a legal standoff. The alternative New Ocean Street connection, if viable, could elegantly resolve the dispute by avoiding the compromised pipe entirely. The applicant appears willing to engage on solutions, which is strategically wise given that the board retains significant discretion in how it structures approval conditions.

Waivers: A Practiced Process

The waiver walkthrough was efficient and revealed a board that, while perhaps not deeply experienced with 40B waiver categorization, was receptive to counsel’s guidance. Counsel Haverty’s systematic distinction between procedural and substantive waivers provided helpful structure. Attorney Smolak’s reference to the Elm Place 40B precedent 00:43:02 was a shrewd move, anchoring the current requests in the board’s own prior practice and implicitly arguing for consistency. The building height measurement issue — bracketed for further review 00:48:40 — is the kind of technical detail that can create significant complications if not resolved cleanly, and the board was wise to flag it proactively.

Dynamics and Stakeholder Positioning

The meeting’s tone was notably collaborative for a 40B hearing. The applicant’s team — Smolak, Lemieux-Hancock, and their engineering staff — engaged respectfully with peer review concerns and offered substantive responses rather than purely legalistic ones. The board reciprocated by acknowledging constraints honestly. The compliment from a Board Member regarding both counsel’s and the applicant’s work on the draft decision 00:53:13 suggests that the parties have developed a functional working relationship through what has evidently been a lengthy review process.

The absence of DPW Director Gino Cresta was notable, as several key questions — particularly regarding the water main condition and the alternative New Ocean Street connection — depend on his input. His absence meant certain issues could only be discussed at one remove, limiting the board’s ability to close them out.

Looking Ahead

The board is on a clear trajectory toward a conditional approval rather than a denial. The remaining work — finalizing the water main condition, confirming building height measurement, completing the conditions review, and responding to public comment — is substantial but bounded. The scheduling discussion, including concern about having all five voting members present for the final vote, suggests the board wants unanimous (or near-unanimous) participation for a decision of this magnitude. The February 3 and February 10 meetings will be critical, and the quality of the final decision document — particularly the specificity and enforceability of conditions around the culvert and water main — will determine how well the town’s interests are protected as this project moves from permitting to construction.

2026-01-20: Zoning Board Of Appeals