Temple abutters may fight Swampscott Town Meeting vote

SWAMPSCOTT – The town could be facing a legal action from one or more abutters of the former Temple Israel property following a recent special Town Meeting vote.At the special Town Meeting earlier this month, Daniel Glosband, a direct abutter to the former Temple Israel property, questioned the zoning changes that were passed in order to allow the property to be developed. Glosband said the changes were tantamount to spot zoning and he questioned the legality of it.Attorney Carl King, who specializes in zoning law and is a former law partner of Glosband, confirms Glosband consulted him regarding the legality of the special Town Meeting vote, but he declined to comment further and referred inquiries to Glosband.Calls to Glosband were not immediately returned on Wednesday.The zoning changes, which were adopted by more than a two-thirds vote, would allow up to 42 housing units to be built on the former Temple Israel property. In September 2005, Town Meeting members voted overwhelmingly in favor of purchasing the 3.5 acre property and at that time there was overwhelming support among town officials and Town Meeting members for retrofitting a portion of the site for use as a police station. But the Town Building Study Committee recommended selling the parcel to a developer for housing instead, and Town Meeting agreed.According to the Massachusetts Municipal Association, “the state Supreme Judicial Court has found spot zoning occurs where one lot or a small area is singled out for treatment less onerous than that imposed upon nearby, indistinguishable properties.” According to the MMA, the Court of Appeals has found that spot zoning arises “where a zoning change is designed solely for the economic benefit of the owner of the property receiving special treatment and is not in accordance with a well considered plan for the public welfare.”Selectman Jill Sullivan, who is also chairman of the Town Building Oversight Committee, said she believes the zoning changes were handled properly.”We were advised by town counsel to come up with a set of planning goals,” she said. “Then we worked intimately with town counsel to craft zoning that is legal in every way. We believe that what we crafted is legal zoning.”Local real estate attorney Harry Pass, who is also a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, speaking only for himself and not the ZBA, said he wouldn’t consider the temple site spot zoning.”There are a lot of factors that make this site unique,” he said. “One is the size of the property and it was a temple so it didn’t fit in with the zoning of the area to begin with. My feeling is the town has the right to sell it to a developer and doing so is in the best interest of the town.”The legality of the zoning change was not the only objection to the proposed development raised at the special Town Meeting. Other residents said the project was too dense for the neighborhood, would generate too much traffic and reduce the quality of life in the neighborhood.