Housing Appeals board rules against Swampscott

SWAMPSCOTT – The town has no legal standing to prevent a condominium complex from being built at the intersection of Burrill Street and Rock Avenue, according to an 18-page second proposed decision from the Housing Appeals Committee.Local developer Dan Dandreo intends on building a 12-unit condominium project on the parcel where a dilapidated vacant church and rectory currently stand.The town has until May 27 to submit its objections to the second proposed decision, which weighs heavily in favor of Dandreo.According to the decision, the concerns raised by the town in the pre-hearing order were described in vague terms including “the environment” and “the historical or archeological importance of the site.” It also cited parking, emergency access and density as reasons for opposing the project.According to the second proposed decision, the development conforms to generally recognized standards in regards to building mass in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. The decision stated the town did not present sufficient credible evidence of density that outweighs the regional need for affordable housing.According to a traffic consultant hired by the town, illegal parking along Burrill Street would pose a safety hazard for cars exiting the proposed condominium. But according to the HAC, there was not sufficient evidence to prove it would create a hazard great enough to outweigh the need for affordable housing.Another issue raised by the town was fire safety and whether the proposed development allowed adequate access to the building for firefighting purposes. The HAC found there would be ground access to all sides of the building and aerial access from Rock Avenue for firefighting.The decision concludes by stating the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to deny Dandreo’s application “is not consistent with local needs.””The decision of the Board is vacated and the Board is directed to issue a comprehensive permit as provided in this decision.”Dandreo said as a taxpayer he is furious the town spent more than $100,000 in taxpayer money on what he described as a “frivolous lawsuit.””This case didn’t have merit from day one,” he said. “The town didn’t have any legal grounds to stand on. The town just didn’t want it there. If the town decides to appeal further, the people wanting to appeal should put up their own money and stop wasting town resources.”Calls to Town Administrator Andrew Maylor were not immediately returned on Thursday and several members of the Zoning Board of Appeals declined to comment because they had not seen the HAC opinion yet.