2026-07-13: Planning Board

Now the minutes:

Section 1: Agenda

Planning Board — Monday, July 13, 2026. Hybrid meeting (in-person board with remote participants and public via Zoom/Teams; SCTV recording). Items were taken out of posted order to accommodate committee guests and remote presenters; the reconstructed posted agenda is below, with actual discussion order noted.

0:14 Approval of past meeting minutes.
0:49 Petition 25-16 — 5 Manson Road (formerly 0 Manson Road), Darius Gregory / applicant. Review of proposed administrative revisions to Decision 25-16 (site plan special permit approved Aug. 11, 2025), A-2 zoning district.
[29:35 / returned at 1:22:12] Public hearing — draft Smart Growth (Chapter 40R) Zoning District at the Swampscott commuter-rail station (pre-application, informational).
31:15 Discussion with Tree Committee re: proposed zoning bylaw amendment, §3.3.10 general landscaping & screening (dead-tree replacement in parking lots).
1:08:24 Continued discussion — Tree Committee advisory tree-protection scoring rubric.
1:21:34 Discussion — Climate Action & Resilience Committee advisory climate rubric (presented jointly with item 5).
1:54:24 Discussion of potential 2026 zoning bylaw amendments (omnibus): editorial/legal corrections; child-care uses; B1/B2 ground-floor commercial preservation; accessory outdoor seating; Pearl Street PDD; ADUs; Tree Committee bylaw.
2:42:29 Motion to close the 40R public hearing / adjourn.

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Important caveat on speaker tags: The [Speaker N] diarization in this transcript is unstable — the same person carries different numeric tags across agenda items, and a single tag (e.g., Speaker 1, Speaker 3) is shared by multiple people in different segments (the chair, the staff planner, and a Tree Committee member all appear as “Speaker 1” at different points). Identities below are therefore mapped by role and by segment, using self-introductions, direct address, vote-by-name context, and continuity with the May 11 / June 8, 2026 Planning Board records (oCzHlDFipaI.md, 3Z6Byp4Phds.md) and the current political-context snapshot roster.

Planning Board members (post-May 11, 2026 reorganization):

Joe Sheridan — Chair. Calls the meeting to order 0:03, runs motions and votes, presides over the tree and zoning items (“let’s keep it in the parking lots, see how that goes”), and his proposed language edits are the “changes in blue.” (Carries Speaker 1 in the opening, Speaker 3 through much of the tree/zoning items.)
Angela Ippolito — Vice Chair; the dominant substantive voice. Explicitly named (“I agree, Angela” 10:04; “like Angela said” 40:38). Deep on subdivision-control law, PDDs, and veteran housing (“I was around when we did all the PDDs”). (Speaker 4 in the Manson item; Speaker 2 in the 40R/zoning items.)
Jerry / Jared Germa — Member; the architect-trained voice (historic gateway buildings, “my first exposure to Swampscott was in the 80s,” contextual vs. dimensional setbacks, Olmsted district, shed-dormer height detailing). (Spelling unsettled in the corpus — prior records: “Kara Germa,” “Jer Germa”; HUMAN-REVIEW.)
Bill Quinn and Ariane Pardee — Members, present but not individually distinguishable in the diarization; board comments not clearly tied to Sheridan, Ippolito, or Germa are attributed to “a board member.”

Town staff:

Krista — Planning Department staff (Director of Community & Economic Development per prior corpus). Addressed variously as “Kristen,” “Krista,” “Christina,” “Crystal.” Gives the 40R presentation and the zoning-amendment omnibus; drafts bylaw language; coordinates with KP Law and MAPC. (Speaker 2 at the very top; Speaker 1 through the 40R presentation; Speaker 5 in parts of the zoning items.)
Marcy — Planning staff colleague (referenced: “Marcy and I did have a call with HLC”; not clearly a distinct speaking voice).
Rich Baldacci — Building Commissioner. Referenced as “Rich Baldacci, our building commissioner” / “Richard Baldacci”; drew the building-height illustration; on the Manson item, the remote voice raising public-safety / certificate-of-occupancy concerns (hammerhead, roadside gully, EMT risk) is most consistent with the Building Commissioner, who issues C-of-Os.
Gino Cresta — DPW Director (referenced “Gino/Gina,” who granted the I&I waiver; not a speaking participant).

5 Manson Road (Petition 25-16) — applicant side:

Chris Druka — Attorney representing the petitioner. Referenced “Chris Druka” 26:44 and thanked “Christopher” 29:36. Presents the four requested revisions. (Speaker 3 in the Manson item.)
Applicant principals / developers — At least one business partner/trustee (accented speaker) explaining the roadway-completion and bond issues (“my business partner… included that language”). Names not clearly stated; petitioner of record is Darius Gregory. (Speakers 5 and 6 in the Manson item.)
Rich (town/consulting engineer) and Ted — remote participants referenced as “on the call”; “Ted” is the former PB chair who signed the Aug. 2025 decision (consistent with Ted Dooley).

Tree Committee / Climate Action & Resilience Committee:

Brian Grumman — Tree Committee member; self-introduces “my name is Brian Grumman, I’m a member of the tree committee” 31:45. (Speaker 1 in the tree item.)
A second Tree Committee member — presents the caliper-based replacement formula ($200/inch to the tree gift fund) [34:24 ff.]; name not stated. One committee presenter is thanked as “Daniel” 1:21:13.
A Climate Action & Resilience Committee member — presents the climate rubric; recounts coming to the board earlier “with Martha Schmitt… looking for zoning bylaws related to climate change” 1:08:35. Martha Schmitt (CARC chair) is referenced but not clearly a speaker.
A planning/zoning consultant (firm/name transcribed as “SAF”/“SAP”) — reviews the draft tree-bylaw language against §3314, recommends removing the illustrative example and dollar amounts, and is later credited with the 40R public-engagement effort. (Speaker 6 in the tree-language review.)

Public commenters (remote):

Ted — Affordable Housing Trust liaison, conveying AHT chair “Kim“‘s support for the 40R concept 1:50:44. Most likely Ted Dooley; identified only by first name.
Kayla — resident, 7 Porter Place (via chat), asks not to be included in the B1 rezoning.
Jeff Polito — homeowner, 11 Porter Place; self-introduces 2:09:17; concurs with Kayla, raises building-footprint/height/setback/privacy concerns.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

1. Approval of past minutes 0:14

Chair Sheridan asked staff (Krista) whether comments had come in; the only change was a header carried over from a prior document, which was corrected. A motion to approve was made and seconded; approved on a voice vote (“all those in favor”).

2. Petition 25-16 — 5 Manson Road (administrative revisions to Decision 25-16) 0:49

Attorney Chris Druka, representing the petitioner (Darius Gregory), explained that Decision 25-16 (site plan special permit, approved Aug. 11, 2025) contained several errors introduced when the decision and mylar were prepared around the departure of former staffer “Marissa,” and that copies had not reached the building inspector. He asked the board to administratively amend four points. The board took them in order.

Applicant request 1 — roadway/certificate-of-occupancy language. Druka asked the board to add language stating that roadway/infrastructure obligations would be satisfied through the subdivision covenant, and that completion of the roadway would not be required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling, provided building-code/life-safety/utility requirements were met. Sheridan and Angela Ippolito questioned why a C-of-O would issue before the road and public infrastructure were complete. Ippolito repeatedly declined to intervene in what she framed as DPW / town-engineer / subdivision-control-law territory: “I’m not even comfortable getting into this discussion because I feel like it’s really something for the town engineer and the Department of Public Works” 9:45. She emphasized that under subdivision-control law the road must be finished and that the board lacks authority to waive that. The applicant clarified a $83,500 bond is in place (a waiver had been granted on the earlier bond timing) and that they were not seeking the bond’s release, only flexibility on finish-grade sequencing. Outcome: the board declined to add this language, concluding it was tied to completion of the road and outside the board’s authority [24:46–25:19].

Applicant request 2 — water/sewer description and I&I fee. The decision incorrectly stated the site would be served by public water and sewer. In fact the dwelling is on a private well (water) with sewer connected to the City of Lynn via an E1 ejector pump; storm drainage in Manson Road (under construction, inspected/approved) discharges to a wetland; I&I fees were paid to Lynn, not Swampscott. Sheridan walked through the drainage/runoff handling on the record [12:08–14:10]. Ippolito noted I&I is a town policy, not part of the zoning bylaw, and is administered by the building/engineering departments. Sheridan read at length from the town’s I&I policy. Resolution: rather than restate the policy, the board agreed to amend the decision to make the I&I-fee requirement subject to any waiver granted by the Department of Public Works or the Select Board, as applicable — noting DPW’s “Gino” had already approved a waiver (double-mitigation cannot be charged where the applicant pays Lynn) [20:29–21:12].

Applicant request 3 — roadway improvement description. The decision plugged in standard street language (granite curbing, sidewalks both sides) that did not match what was approved and built: Cape Cod berm (not granite), five-foot setbacks, a width waiver, and a sidewalk on one side only. Ippolito confirmed her recollection matched the approved plans. The board agreed the decision and plans are correct and that the discrepancy came from a subsequent standard-street letter (referencing “Brandon Kirby”/standard requirements) prepared for signature (the decision had been “handed to Ted” — the then-chair — who assumed the letter was accurate). Resolution: reaffirm the decision and plans (Cape Cod berm as the approved form) [24:29–24:34].

Applicant request 4 — the applicant agreed this was already covered by the discussion above.

Public safety input (remote). Handled as an administrative decision (not noticed for public hearing), so no public comment was opened; the chair invited the remote town officials. The Building Commissioner (Rich Baldacci) said he had only just seen the final waivers and, on public-safety grounds, “would be hesitant to issue a certificate of occupancy… without the road being finished” — citing the required hammerhead at the road’s end and a roadside gully he had observed that day where an EMT vehicle could roll over. He indicated the C-of-O would be revisited “with the nod to public safety” [26:44–27:57].

Vote [28:12–29:20]. Ippolito stated the motion: administratively amend Decision 25-16 for 5 Manson Road to (a) make the I&I-fee/policy compliance subject to waivers by DPW or the Select Board as applicable; (b) reaffirm that Cape Cod berm was the approved form of curb/sidewalk construction; and (c) affirm that the board cannot direct the building department to issue a certificate of occupancy without the road being complete. Seconded by Sheridan. Approved on a voice vote (aye/abstain).

Ordering / procedural note [29:35–31:15]

With Tree Committee, Climate Committee, and Zoom guests present, the board agreed to take the tree/climate items and the zoning-amendment discussion before returning to the 40R public hearing.

4. Tree Committee bylaw amendment — dead-tree replacement, §3.3.10 31:15

Brian Grumman (Tree Committee) introduced the item, prompted by long-dead trees in the Bennett Square / Swampscott Mall commercial area (Gourmet Garden, Eastern Bank sites) that the building inspector had cited but for which the bylaw gave no replacement standard. He displayed photos and recounted the building inspector’s question — a dead ~7-inch-caliper tree could technically be “replaced” with a 1-inch tree.

A second Tree Committee member presented the committee’s drafted formula to add to §3.3.10: replacement in kind for trees up to 3 inches; for larger trees, plant a 2–3-inch tree and either plant additional trees or contribute to the tree gift fund at $200 per inch to make up the removed tree’s caliper (measured 4.5 feet above ground), with an illustrative worked example (a 7-inch tree → a 3-inch replacement plus four inches’ worth of trees or dollars).

The board and the consultant (“SAF”) worked through several issues:

Scope. The requirement applies only to parking lots with six or more spaces, in all districts (not street trees, not private residential yard trees). The board debated whether to extend it to commercial developments/site plans generally; Ippolito cautioned against discouraging voluntary tree planting, and Sheridan urged keeping it narrow (“keep it in the parking lots, see how that goes… you can always expand it”) 1:00:17. Krista noted “commercial” in the bylaw = three or more residential units.
Replace vs. pay. Germa objected that an either/or (replace or donate) reads as punitive and could let owners avoid replacement — “I really think the goal is to get the tree replaced” 1:00:47. Consensus leaned toward requiring replacement, with any fee as a supplement.
Consultant recommendations (“SAF”/“SAP”). Reference §3314 for caliper measurement rather than redefining it (and update §3314’s measurement height from 4 ft to 4.5 ft); remove the illustrative example from the bylaw text (put it in a handout/policy); and remove dollar amounts from the zoning bylaw (a fee in the bylaw would require a town-meeting amendment to change). The board agreed the fee should live in a Select Board–set table referencing the tree gift fund, reviewed/approved annually.
Rounding and timeline. Add rounding language; consider a compliance timeline (the building commissioner’s standard notice, ~6 months, to allow for planting seasons).
Sheridan urged simplifying the language for town meeting.

No vote. Krista will compile the board’s comments, email Brian [Grumman], and return with revised language at a future meeting; each amendment will require its own warrant article and public hearing.

5 & 6. Advisory rubrics — Tree Committee and Climate Action & Resilience Committee 1:08:24

A committee representative (recounting that then-chair Ted [Dooley] had suggested the approach when he and Martha Schmitt first sought climate zoning bylaws) presented non-binding scoring rubrics — one for trees, one for climate. Mechanism: once a commercial/site-plan application is submitted, the relevant committee’s designated reviewer(s) score it against the rubric within a two-week window and provide the score and comments to the Planning Board before the meeting, like any other staff comment. The rubrics would be published on the town website and linked to the online application. Explicitly advisory — not bylaws — informing but not controlling the board’s decision.

The board was strongly favorable (“I love this stuff”; it fits the site-plan health/welfare purpose). Sheridan and Krista noted the board can adopt the rubrics as part of its review materials by its own vote, without going to town meeting, and can link them from the online application. A member (Germa) noted the strong crossover with tree-loss from residential lot clearing and wished the tool had existed for a recent subdivision. The board asked Krista/Chris to circulate the rubric for member comments. No formal vote taken tonight. A presenter was thanked as “Daniel.”

3 (returned). 40R Smart Growth Zoning District — pre-application public hearing 1:22:12

Krista presented (screen-shared). Framed as a pre-application, informational hearing — introducing the concept and gathering feedback before any draft zoning language; no action requested.

Key points presented:

Chapter 40R is a voluntary state tool (unlike the MBTA Communities Act). The town creates its own overlay district and sets standards (height, setbacks, parking, design, landscaping, ground-floor commercial). Qualifying developments must include 20% affordable housing (Ippolito noted the percentage may differ for rental vs. ownership — to be confirmed). State financial incentives: ~$75,000 on district approval, plus per-unit payments once units are built.
Location: an overlay surrounding the Swampscott commuter-rail station — mostly B1/B2 commercial parcels, plus two Housing Authority properties that take up much of the land area, and roughly five A4/B1 residential parcels. It would be a “floating” overlay (not overlapping the MBTA 3A overlay). Underlying zoning still governs; nothing forces existing uses (e.g., the auto-body business) to convert.
Rationale: target growth near transit rather than in established residential neighborhoods; support future modernization/redevelopment of the Housing Authority properties; leverage existing sidewalks/utilities/transit; expand housing options (smaller units, workforce, downsizers).
Master Plan 2035 (adopted “this past month,” ~June 2026) names the station area a transformation node / prioritized growth area and sets a goal to adopt zoning amendments and design guidelines for the station area and Vinnin Square, encouraging transit-oriented development by 2028.
Timeline (tight but workable): pre-application hearing July 13 → MAPC technical build-out/test-fit/financial analysis July–Aug → HLC (formerly DHCD) 40R application filed mid/late-Aug (90-day lead; HLC has approved the timeline) → August PB check-in on parameters + late-August public session + possible 2-week online comment portal → town-meeting warrant opens Sept 2, closes Oct 7 → Select Board recommendation deadline Oct 21 → HLC final review by Dec 7. Krista will present the timeline (graying out completed steps) at each meeting.

Board discussion. Members flagged: the station area’s local historic district and the MBTA-owned parking lots/land; parking as the expected main source of public pushback (40R encourages reduced parking, but residents still need cars for non-transit trips); and the handful of included residential parcels. On the residential parcels, the board urged proactive due-diligence outreach to the ~5 owners to explain the overlay (“this isn’t booting you out”), and debated whether to redraw the boundary (currently cut along a street line) for consistency and to reflect owners’ preferences. Germa urged preserving the historic “gateway” cluster near the depot (the depot, the turreted corner house, the dental-office building) through design standards, and recommended board site walk-arounds; Krista said MAPC’s first scheduled task is a site visit, to which the board will be invited.

Public comment. Handled during the discussion and again at the formal hearing:

Ted (Affordable Housing Trust liaison; likely Ted Dooley) conveyed AHT chair Kim’s “overall support for the concept” 1:50:44.
Kayla (7 Porter Place, via chat) and Jeff Polito (11 Porter Place) asked not to be included in the B1 rezoning; Polito said he supports the walkable/ground-floor-retail vision but is concerned about the new building’s footprint, height, and proximity to his property line (privacy).

No action (informational). Next steps: finalize the MAPC contract, schedule the site visit and a late-August public session, and run a Doodle for member availability. The board later voted to close the 40R public hearing (see item 8).

7. Potential 2026 zoning bylaw amendments (omnibus) 1:54:24

Krista walked the board through the full list of proposed 2026 zoning amendments (all discussion only; each will require its own warrant article and public hearing). The board discussed how to group/frame them for town meeting — administrative vs. statutorily-required vs. substantive “improvements” — so residents focus attention where it matters.

Editorial & legal corrections (from a 2024 editorial/legal code analysis; no change to intent): “Board of Appeals” → “Zoning Board of Appeals”; “by-laws” → “zoning bylaw” (consistent form); district labels “A1” → “A-1”; DHCD → EOHLC (with “or any successor agency,” per Germa’s suggestion); “wireless communication services” → “facilities” overlay district; font/formatting fixes. Germa asked that the presentation note these do not affect the bylaws’ intent.
Child-care uses (per KP Law, to comply with amended MGL c.40A §3): family child-care homes cannot be required to obtain a special permit — move from institutional (special-permit) to exempt uses; the institutional “daycare” line narrows to adult daycare only. Krista to forward the KP Law memo.
Preservation of ground-floor commercial in B1 & B2 — new §2.2.10.2 requiring a Planning Board special permit to eliminate all or part of existing ground-floor commercial in B1/B2 (paralleling the existing B3/B4 provision). Sheridan’s edits (in blue) tighten the language to require a demonstrated significant public benefit rather than listing exceptions; sent to KP Law. (Two Porter Place residents’ comments on the B1 line — see item 3 — were noted here.)
Accessory outdoor seating — strike the expired COVID-era section (effective only through 2023) and add standards allowing outdoor seating by right as an accessory use to a conforming restaurant/coffee shop (or one with a special permit): fire-code/liquor-licensing compliance, safety barriers, seasonal removal, no additional parking required, and site-plan review only when a new use comes in. Seating in the public right-of-way still needs Select Board approval. A future design-guidelines hook (§2.2.11.5) was added — Ippolito flagged branded/advertising (liquor-supplier) umbrellas and “ratty” furnishings as things design guidelines could regulate.
Pearl Street PDD (the Recharge Center / former American Legion property; also rendered “Borough Street PDD” in the transcript) — currently allows only residential uses, so the building’s historic uses are nonconforming. Add club/lodge/fraternal organization (profit or nonprofit) to bring historic uses into conformance and enable relocation of the VFW/veteran housing. Ippolito tied this to the PDD’s original public-benefit rationale (it “lets us build that veteran housing”). Germa asked whether the single “club/lodge/fraternal” use adequately covers the property’s varied historic uses (art center, dance classes, offices); Krista confirmed it is the only fitting category short of creating a new nonprofit definition. The PDD dates to ~2015 (when the high school opened and the senior center moved out).
ADUs — add language exempting a qualifying ADU from the site-plan special-permit requirement (per state statute). Sheridan’s edit: reference the state statute directly rather than “this section.” A building-height illustration (drafted by Rich Baldacci) will be appended; labels to be redone in text; scope clarified as residential / sloped-roof height measurement.
Tree Committee bylaw — as discussed in item 4.

Two additional issues were raised for future language:

Shed-dormer height loophole. Ippolito and Germa described how a shed dormer with a forward overhang can lower the measured roof midpoint, concealing extra height/mass (cited as the reason for the Concordia building’s height). Krista will ask Rich Baldacci whether the code needs clarifying language (measure over enclosed/occupied space; use the highest slope).
ADU / accessory-building front-yard setbacks. A member (Germa) noted the town’s setbacks are dimensional, not contextual, so nothing prevents an ADU or accessory building in a front yard; he was “disturbed” a recent case allowed it and that no neighbors appeared. He advocated contextual front setbacks (averaging adjacent frontages) and prohibiting accessory buildings forward of the primary dwelling’s front line. Krista will attempt draft language for the next meeting.

No votes on any zoning amendment — all are discussion pending drafting, KP Law review, and future public hearings.

8. Close / adjourn 2:42:29

A motion to close the 40R public hearing was made and seconded; approved on a voice vote. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded; approved on a voice vote.

Files updated during this run: appended two future-article ideas to data/news/IDEAS.md (the 40R Smart Growth timeline, flagged ⚡; and the advisory-rubric governance thread); appended a dated analyzer observation to data/political_context/2026-05.md (post-May-11 PB roster confirmed in action; 40R initiative + Master Plan 2035; flagged the snapshot’s internal roster inconsistency and the Ted-Dooley/AHT-liaison and Germa-spelling HUMAN-REVIEW items).