Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals — February 10, 2026

Section 1: Agenda

Call to Order and Preliminary Business 00:06:11
- Opening remarks; no minutes to approve
Petition 25-18: 80 Puritan Road — Continuation 00:06:26
- Motion to continue to April 21, 2026 meeting (petitioner’s request)
Petition 25-15: BBH Community Development — Veterans Crossing Comprehensive Permit (Chapter 40B) 00:07:25
- a. Review of draft decision, tracked changes, and conditions 00:07:39
- b. Review of waiver list 00:16:38
- c. Discussion of culvert, water main, and infrastructure coordination 00:12:14
- d. Public comment period 00:23:32
  - Traffic safety, driveway location, rooftop equipment noise, water main tie-in, sewer capacity, soil contamination, culvert relocation process
- e. Procedural discussion on motion format 00:48:34
- f. Motion to close public hearing 00:57:48
- g. Vote on Petition 25-15 00:58:05
Adjournment 01:00:01

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Due to limitations of automated transcription, speaker tags shift across the meeting, making exact attribution difficult in several segments. The following represents the best inference from context, named references, and roll calls:

Heather (ZBA Chair): [Speaker 1] primarily — runs the meeting, calls roll, leads discussion
Mark (ZBA Member): [Speaker 2] primarily — experienced with 40B process, detailed knowledge of permit conditions
Attorney Smolak (Applicant’s Attorney): [Speaker 3] primarily in early/mid-meeting — represents BBH Community Development; later segments tagged [Speaker 3] shift to Cesar (see below)
Tony (ZBA Member): [Speaker 4] in some segments — participates remotely
Susan (ZBA Member): [Speaker 5] in early segments — participates remotely; tag later shifts to neighborhood residents
Michelle (ZBA Member): [Speaker 6] in early segments; tag later shifts
BBH Community Development Representative: [Speaker 7] in some segments — discusses construction management, soil conditions, past B’nai B’rith Housing projects (Machon School)
Paul (ZBA Counsel): [Speaker 9] primarily — drafted/reviewed the decision document, advises on legal procedure
Tony (ZBA Member) / Board Member: [Speaker 10] in later segments — asks Paul about motion language
Nick (Town Official, likely Assistant Town Administrator or new Town Administrator): Speaks at 00:44:51 and surrounding segments (tagged variably as [Speaker 2] and [Speaker 6]) — joined town in October 2025; commits town support for residents
Marzi / Town Community Development Staff: [Speaker 12] — discusses creating a project information page
Alicia McCarthy (Resident, 9 Pine Street): [Speaker 4] at 00:23:48 — submitted letter regarding traffic and safety concerns
Steve Gadman (Resident, 11 Pine Street): Speaks at ~00:33:27 (tagged as [Speaker 1] due to transcription error) — raises concerns about stairs, driveway, cannabis store proximity, rooftop equipment
Steve’s spouse/partner (Resident, Pine Street): Speaks in later segments (tagged variably) — raises concerns about sewer, water pressure, contamination, town accountability
Cesar (Resident, 27 Pine Street): [Speaker 3] from ~00:50:00 — remote participant, asks about culvert planning and soil studies; experienced connectivity issues
Mary Ellen Fletcher (Select Board Member): Present in audience, confirmed sidewalk shoveling responsibility with a thumbs-up (non-speaking confirmed presence)

Note: The automated transcription inconsistently assigns speaker tags, particularly during rapid exchanges and when remote participants reconnect. The identifications above are best-effort inferences.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

1. Call to Order and Continuation of Petition 25-18

Chair Heather opened the February regular meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals 00:06:11. With no minutes to approve, she moved immediately to Petition 25-18 (80 Puritan Road), noting the petitioner had requested a continuation. Mark moved to continue the petition to the April 21 meeting; Michelle seconded. A roll call vote was taken: Mark, Michelle, Heather, and Susan all voted aye. Tony’s vote was not clearly captured due to audio issues, but the Chair noted four votes were sufficient. The continuation passed unanimously among those recorded.

2. Petition 25-15: Veterans Crossing — Draft Decision Review

The Board turned to its principal business: review of the draft comprehensive permit decision for Petition 25-15, BBH Community Development’s proposed Veterans Crossing project — 41 units of senior/older adult rental housing with veteran preference at 10 New Ocean Street and 12-24 Pine Street 00:07:25.

Chair Heather noted the draft had undergone significant revisions in recent days and asked whether all board members had reviewed the latest version. Members confirmed they had.

Condition IV — Local Approvals Language (Page 11): Chair Heather identified redlined language under Condition IV removing the phrase “except for any additional local approvals required herein which are not otherwise waived.” ZBA Counsel Paul confirmed he recommended the removal, explaining that a Chapter 40B comprehensive permit subsumes all other local approvals, making the clause inconsistent with how the statute operates 00:09:28.

30-Day to 45-Day Timeline Change (Page 19, C1A): The Chair noted a remaining reference to 30 days that should be changed to 45 days for consistency with the town’s land use agreement 00:10:00. Mark confirmed this change appeared in multiple locations throughout the decision and committed to making all updates. The Board agreed on consistency.

Deleted Section C1 — Final Plans Submittal (Page 20): Both Chair Heather and Mark flagged that a section requiring submittal of final plans had been entirely deleted 00:10:42. Mark recommended restoring the language, noting that while there was some repetition with a later provision addressing peer review fees (capped at $10,000), the two provisions did not conflict. Attorney Smolak concurred, stating the provision described a process the Board would use. The Board agreed to reinstate the section 00:11:25.

Culvert and Water Main Language (Page 27, D12C): Chair Heather raised the ongoing drafting challenge around how to describe the town’s commitment to complete the culvert relocation and water main replacement prior to the building permit 00:12:14. There was brief confusion about page references among board members and remote participants. Mark read the applicant’s proposed language: “The board understands it’s the intention of the town to complete the culvert project and the water main project prior to the time the applicant applies for the issuance of a building permit” 00:14:06. He endorsed the language. Attorney Smolak agreed, noting it was consistent with prior hearing discussions establishing that the ZBA cannot mandate actions by other town officials 00:14:29. Attorney Smolak added that the applicant would work with DPW and town officials to establish a clear process for bids and work related to these infrastructure projects.

Temporary Water Main Tie-In (Six-Inch Pipe): Chair Heather addressed what she called her least favorite section of the decision — the contingency provision allowing the applicant to temporarily tie into the existing six-inch water main if the replacement eight-inch main is not installed before the building permit is issued 00:15:21. She explained the town’s plan to combine the water main and culvert projects under one grant and one bid for cost efficiency, but acknowledged that timing constraints with grant applications created the need for this fallback provision 00:15:41.

3. Waiver List Review

Mark reported that the only substantive tracked change on the waiver list was stylistic: information in waiver number 14 had been moved from the board action section to the waiver request section, with no substantive change 00:16:47. The Board had no further questions on the waiver list. Mark and Susan praised the quality and thoroughness of the decision document, crediting both the applicant and Counsel Paul 00:17:34.

4. Open Meeting Law Discussion

A brief aside occurred regarding whether the meeting room door needed to remain propped open 00:18:01. Counsel Paul clarified that open meeting law requires only that the door not be locked and that the public can access the room, noting that the Select Board typically meets with the door closed. Chair Heather noted the Board had always been told to keep it open but accepted the clarification.

5. Public Comment

Chair Heather’s Preliminary Remarks on Traffic: Before opening public comment, the Chair acknowledged a letter received that day from Alicia McCarthy expressing concerns, and empathized with the compressed timeline for her response 00:19:28. Heather offered a candid observation about traffic studies, stating that in her experience, traffic studies submitted to the Board never conclude there will be a significant impact, but she acknowledged that some impact from new development is inevitable. She expressed her belief that the fear of traffic impact typically exceeds the actual impact 00:20:03.

Mark on Driveway and Safety: Mark noted that while the ZBA’s jurisdiction in a 40B application is limited, safety remains within their purview. He stated the site plan had already been modified to improve sight lines and that the current layout represented the best feasible alternative given the project constraints and the statutory deadline 00:21:00.

Attorney Smolak on Traffic Study: Attorney Smolak pushed back more firmly on the traffic criticism, stating some claims in the letter were “incorrect” and defending Vanasse and Associates as “probably the premier traffic firm in the state” with professional engineering standards 00:22:32. He noted there was no MassDOT jurisdiction and that even if there were, the low-volume nature of the project would not trigger a MassDOT traffic study requirement. He cited peak-hour generation of approximately nine to ten vehicles — one vehicle every six minutes 00:23:10.

Alicia McCarthy (9 Pine Street): Ms. McCarthy clarified that she had not called the traffic study “shoddy” and emphasized that the traffic impact analysis focused exclusively on the proposed building’s driveway and did not examine impacts on her side of the street, her driveway, or pedestrian safety on that side 00:23:48. She reported a crash in front of her house that very day related to the road geometry she had been warning about, and described frequent fender-benders at the location 00:24:57. She characterized the proposed additional driveway as “irresponsible and dangerous” 00:25:15.

Ms. McCarthy also questioned the temporary six-inch water main tie-in, asking what recourse residents would have if adverse effects occurred 00:25:40. Chair Heather explained the provision was a last resort contingency, and that the six-inch connection would primarily affect fire suppression capacity in the new building rather than neighborhood water pressure 00:27:18. Attorney Smolak stated that the existing infrastructure’s condition was the town’s responsibility and that harm attributable to the project specifically would be difficult to establish 00:29:05.

Steve Gadman (11 Pine Street): Mr. Gadman acknowledged the project would proceed and expressed appreciation for the Board’s attention to neighbors’ concerns. He noted that the only physical change resulting from neighborhood input was relocating stairs from the Pine Street side to the parking lot 00:33:27. He expressed particular frustration about the driveway location, recounting that an alternative exit near the cannabis store had been rejected partly on the grounds that it would “tempt” the veteran residents — an argument he found offensive given that the neighborhood had objected to the building’s proximity to the cannabis store from the outset 00:34:33. He also raised unresolved concerns about rooftop mechanical equipment noise, noting the engineer had not yet provided specifications 00:36:05.

Mark and Chair Heather on Noise: Mark explained that because no noise waiver was requested, the applicant must comply with both town and state noise ordinances. If equipment later exceeded allowable levels, the applicant would need to return for a modification — which the Board could deny 00:36:29. He noted that the likely resolution in such a scenario would be sound screening, not permission to exceed limits. Chair Heather added that the project’s One-Stop funding source likely imposes acoustic requirements more stringent than typical construction 00:38:38. Attorney Smolak confirmed that state noise requirements are not waivable under Chapter 40B 00:40:41.

Neighborhood Residents on Sewer and Water: A Pine Street resident (Steve’s spouse/partner) asked about construction and occupancy-phase impacts on sewer and water pressure 00:41:31. Chair Heather explained the sewer connection had been relocated to a steeper section of pipe to avoid the problematic flat section, and that capacity testing showed adequate capacity. She candidly acknowledged a “wait and see” element regarding the sewer lining’s effectiveness, noting there had been no problems since the lining but also no severe weather to test it 00:42:23.

The resident pressed for reassurance that the town would remain engaged after the vote rather than “wash their hands” of the situation 00:43:27.

Nick (Town Official) — Town Commitment: Nick responded directly to the residents’ concerns, committing that his office, the DPW Director (Gino Cresta), community development staff (Marzi), and their teams would remain available throughout the project 00:44:51. He stated a hotline would be established and emphasized: “We are always available for this project or other questions and concerns… we’re here to work through questions with you and we’ll not just sort of wash our hands” 00:45:13.

BBH Representative — Construction Management: A BBH representative added that weekly on-site meetings would be held during construction, consistent with BBH’s past practice, including at the Machon School project 00:45:57. Counsel Paul noted a detailed construction management plan would be prepared and expressed confidence based on BBH’s track record 00:46:29.

Cesar (27 Pine Street, remote): After reconnecting following a technical disconnection, Cesar asked what would happen if the culvert could not be relocated for environmental, financial, or other reasons 00:50:00. Mark acknowledged that preliminary but not final designs existed, and stated that if the culvert could not be moved, the building could not be constructed on top of it — but emphasized there was no evidence suggesting the relocation would fail 00:50:29. Cesar pressed on why the Board would approve the project without the full scope of the culvert move determined, and was told the 40B statutory timeline required action now 00:51:00. He also asked about snow removal on the town-owned property, confirmed by Mary Ellen Fletcher (in the audience) to be the town’s responsibility 00:52:32.

Cesar’s final question concerned whether BBH’s soil studies covered the soil that would be disturbed during culvert relocation. Mark clarified that any soil studies needed for the culvert project would be part of that separate design and bidding process 00:57:05.

Soil Contamination: A Pine Street resident asked about soil contamination on the site 00:53:04. The BBH representative stated they had worked with a geo-environmental consultant (the same firm used at Machon School), felt comfortable with soil conditions, had budgeted for off-site soil disposal if needed, and confirmed the VFW building was determined to have no asbestos 00:53:29. The representative noted the building would be constructed on pilings rather than a traditional foundation, reducing soil disturbance. A forthcoming public report on environmental conditions was promised 00:55:03. Counsel Paul and the BBH representative emphasized that environmental regulations are state and federally enforced and not waivable under Chapter 40B 00:55:25.

6. Closing of Public Hearing

Tony moved to close the public hearing; Susan seconded. Roll call: Tony aye, Michelle aye, Heather aye, Mark aye, Susan aye. The public hearing was closed unanimously 00:57:48.

7. Vote on Petition 25-15

Tony (having earlier consulted with Counsel Paul on the motion format) made the following motion 00:58:05: to approve Petition 25-15 by BBH Community Development LLC, requesting a comprehensive permit under M.G.L. Chapter 40B to construct 41 units of rental housing for seniors and older adults with veteran preference at 10 New Ocean Street and 12-24 Pine Street, incorporating the findings, conditions, and waivers in the decision document dated February 10, 2026, as modified by the evening’s discussion — specifically changing 30 days to 45 days (page 19, C1A) and reinstating the redlined section C1 in its entirety.

Michelle seconded. Roll call vote: Susan aye, Tony aye, Michelle aye, Mark aye, Heather aye. The comprehensive permit was approved unanimously, 5-0 00:59:44.

8. Adjournment

A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved. The Board expressed thanks to Counsel Paul and the applicant 01:00:01.

Section 4: Executive Summary

Veterans Crossing Approved Unanimously

The Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to approve a Chapter 40B comprehensive permit for Veterans Crossing, a 41-unit senior and older adult rental housing development with veteran preference, to be constructed at 10 New Ocean Street and 12-24 Pine Street by BBH Community Development (B’nai B’rith Housing). This was the Board’s final meeting before its statutory deadline to act on the application.

What Will Be Built

Veterans Crossing will provide 41 units of affordable rental housing for seniors and older adults, with a preference for veterans. The project will be constructed on town-owned land currently occupied in part by a VFW building (confirmed to contain no asbestos). The building will be constructed on pilings rather than a traditional foundation.

Critical Infrastructure Dependencies

The project’s most complex dimension is its dependence on two town infrastructure projects:

Culvert Relocation: A storm culvert currently runs beneath the building footprint and must be relocated before construction can begin. The town has received a grant for preliminary design but awaits additional funding (including a pending grant application by community development staff) for final design and construction. The decision acknowledges this is a town responsibility to be completed prior to building construction 00:15:27.
Water Main Replacement: The existing six-inch water main serving the area has been identified by DPW Director Gino Cresta as a priority replacement project. The decision’s preferred outcome is replacement with an eight-inch main before the building permit is issued — ideally combined with the culvert project under a single bid for cost savings. However, a controversial contingency provision allows the developer to temporarily connect to the existing six-inch main if the replacement is delayed 00:15:47. Chair Heather expressed discomfort with this provision but characterized it as a necessary contingency given misaligned timelines between the 40B deadline and the town’s grant cycle.

Neighbor Concerns Heard but Largely Unresolved

Pine Street residents raised persistent concerns across multiple topics:

Traffic Safety: Alicia McCarthy (9 Pine Street) reported an accident in front of her home the day of the meeting and argued the traffic study did not examine impacts on her side of the street. The Board and applicant’s attorney defended the Vanasse and Associates study and the revised driveway placement but offered no additional mitigation 00:23:48.
Driveway and Cannabis Store Proximity: Steve Gadman (11 Pine Street) expressed frustration that the alternative driveway exit near the adjacent cannabis store was rejected partly due to “temptation” concerns for veterans — an argument he viewed as contradictory to the neighborhood’s longstanding objection to siting veteran housing near a cannabis establishment 00:34:33.
Rooftop Equipment Noise: Residents were told equipment specifications are not yet available, but that the applicant has no noise waiver and must comply with town and state ordinances. Mark assured residents the Board would retain jurisdiction over any future modification request 00:36:29.
Sewer Capacity: Chair Heather acknowledged a “wait and see” element regarding recent sewer lining effectiveness, candidly noting the system had not yet been tested by severe weather 00:42:57.
Soil Contamination: BBH confirmed environmental testing has been conducted, a public report will be forthcoming, and budgets for soil remediation are in place 00:53:29.

Town Commitment to Ongoing Engagement

In a notable moment, Nick (a town official who joined in October 2025) made an explicit commitment on behalf of the town to remain engaged with the neighborhood throughout construction and beyond, promising a dedicated hotline and direct accessibility of town staff 00:44:51. BBH pledged weekly on-site meetings during construction, consistent with their past practice at the Machon School project.

Other Business

Petition 25-18 (80 Puritan Road) was continued to the April 21, 2026 meeting at the petitioner’s request.

Section 5: Analysis

A Foregone Conclusion, Carefully Managed

The unanimous 5-0 approval was never seriously in doubt during this meeting. The Board was at its statutory deadline, the decision document had been drafted collaboratively with the applicant’s attorney, and the discussion focused entirely on refining conditions rather than debating the merits of approval or denial. The real work of this meeting was not whether to approve, but how to approve in a way that addressed the Board’s practical concerns — particularly around infrastructure — while staying within the legal constraints of Chapter 40B.

The Infrastructure Gamble

The most substantive tension in this decision is the mismatch between the 40B timeline and the town’s infrastructure readiness. The culvert relocation and water main replacement are acknowledged preconditions for a successful project, yet neither has final designs, secured full funding, or gone out to bid. The Board addressed this through carefully worded conditions — particularly the “intention of the town” language around infrastructure completion — rather than hard prerequisites, because, as Attorney Smolak correctly noted, the ZBA cannot mandate the actions of other town departments 00:14:29.

The contingency allowing a temporary six-inch water main connection is the decision’s most vulnerable point. Chair Heather’s visible discomfort with this provision 00:15:21 was telling — she characterized it as “not my favorite section” and “a last resort,” suggesting the Board accepted it reluctantly under time pressure rather than as sound policy. The provision essentially transfers risk from the developer’s timeline to the town’s infrastructure budget, and the Board’s assurances to residents that the replacement “should” happen before it becomes necessary rest on grant funding that has not yet been secured.

The Limits of 40B Jurisdiction — and the Board’s Self-Awareness

Both Chair Heather and Mark repeatedly acknowledged the Board’s constrained jurisdiction under Chapter 40B, framing the discussion for public benefit [00:21:00, 00:22:06]. This was effective communication — transparently explaining to frustrated neighbors why the Board could not do more, rather than pretending the concerns were unwarranted. Chair Heather’s candid admission that traffic studies never show significant impact was unusual for a public official and suggested genuine empathy for the neighbors’ position, even as she upheld the process 00:20:03.

Neighbor Frustration: Heard but Not Remedied

The public comment period revealed a neighborhood that has been engaged throughout a long hearing process and feels that its concerns, while heard, have produced minimal changes. Steve Gadman’s inventory was pointed: of all the issues raised, only the staircase relocation reflected a concrete modification attributable to neighbor input 00:33:44. His frustration with the cannabis store proximity argument was particularly sharp and exposed an awkward inconsistency — the applicant used the very concern residents had raised from the beginning as a reason to reject their preferred driveway alternative 00:34:46.

The residents’ repeated requests for “reassurance” and “recourse” [00:43:27, 00:26:51] reflected a community that has largely accepted the project’s inevitability but fears being abandoned once the vote is taken. Nick’s commitment to ongoing engagement was the most responsive moment of the meeting to this concern, and the promise of a project information page and hotline represented the clearest concrete outcomes for neighbors from this session [00:44:51, 00:56:44].

Attorney Smolak’s Defense and Tone

Attorney Smolak’s defense of the traffic study was the most forceful statement of the evening, citing Vanasse and Associates’ reputation, professional engineering standards, and the low trip-generation numbers 00:22:32. While technically sound, his characterization of some of Ms. McCarthy’s claims as “incorrect” struck a somewhat dismissive tone that Chair Heather immediately softened by redirecting the “shoddy” remark away from the resident 00:23:59. This dynamic — the applicant’s attorney taking a harder line while the Board Chair mediates — is common in 40B proceedings and was well-handled here.

Legal Counsel’s Quiet Effectiveness

ZBA Counsel Paul played a critical but understated role. His recommendation to remove the local approvals language demonstrated command of 40B procedure 00:09:29, and his work on the decision document drew praise from the Board. The motion procedure guidance he provided ensured a clean vote 00:48:56. His presence gave the Board confidence to make legal determinations (particularly around modifications and Housing Appeals Committee jurisdiction) that might otherwise have been more contentious.

What to Watch

For Swampscott residents tracking this project, the key milestones ahead are:

Grant decisions for the culvert/water main combined project — the timeline for these will determine whether the six-inch pipe contingency is ever triggered
Submittal of final detailed plans and the 45-day review period, during which the building inspector and peer reviewers will evaluate mechanical specifications (including the rooftop equipment neighbors are concerned about)
The environmental report on soil conditions, which BBH has committed to making public
Creation of the project information page promised by town community development staff, which will be the primary vehicle for neighborhood transparency going forward

2026-02-10: Zoning Board Of Appeals