Thank you. All right. Welcome to the March 17th um meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item on our agenda is to approve um the past meeting minutes. And we have multiple
meeting minutes. What are Do you have the dates of the different minutes that need to be approved. >> March 9th, January. >> We have March 9th. >> January. >> Correct. Oh, correct. So, the meeting
minutes that were completed and attached were from January 20th and February 3rd. So, the most recent meeting minutes are still being finished, but it's from the two meetings before that. So, the January meeting and the February special
meeting that first week of February. >> So, can we just get a motion to approve the um minutes from January 20th and February 3rd? >> Make a motion. >> You have a second. >> Second. All >> in favor? >> I I >> All right. Those are approved. We're
going to move on to um petition number 2601 which is five here on street and um we have uh Mark has recused himself from this. So we have the three members that you see and then we have Andy who is now gone again. No. Is he there? >> I think we lost him.
>> Oh, we lost Andy. >> Hi Andy. Hi. >> Hi, Andy. >> Sorry about that. >> No, that's all right. We're just we're just starting um >> slightly challenged. >> Yeah, no problem. We're just starting uh petition 261
um which is to create a um to to add a second um unit to a single family house. Um they're asking for a section six special permit. uh special permit related to parking, a special permit related to screening, landscape
screening, a special permit um which is a variant uh variation of the flood plane and um site plane special permit which I you did last week through um the planning department. All right. So would you like to begin?
>> Thank you for the record. Attorney Schroer, I'm here on behalf of Anthony Valardi. Mr. is to my left to your right. Uh he's the owner of five Hiron Street. He's owned the property for almost two years. Um as you know it's in the A4 zoning district
which permits uh multiple units. Um so just sort of going through very very briefly and just giving you a little bit of background. We've been working on this project now for almost almost the two years but um as I said to the planning board it's an expensive
undertaking. getting the services of the surveyor and the architect and myself. Um, but we're now ready to present. Um, we presented before the planning board. I'm advised that you've received a copy of their favorable decision on the site plan special permit application.
Uh we will similarly be going before the um historical commission um because since the structure uh albeit old and somewhat in need of repair is over 75 years old and therefore technically requires a hearing. So we'll be going
before them um after we're we're assuming that we're successful in front of this board. The house is currently a a one family and it's designed it's a it's the architecture is called bungalow and I guess the the word itself is very descriptive. It's a it's a very very
small home uh in that portion of Swampscott on the right on the Lin line that allows multif family. Um and at this point there it's one of the very few one families in an area that has has
multifamilies in that area. Um we are asking for a a lateral increase in the dimension of the house. In other words, we're not increasing the footprint. Uh we're just adding a second story and an attic. So it'll it'll be more consistent. It'll be a two and a half
story structure as opposed to the bungalow which it currently is configured. As far as the um the issue with regard to the the parking spaces, uh I believe he received I know there was a request. It was in the original package, but they they had asked that we
delineate with some with some coloration the areas where the parking is. Those spaces currently exist. Those are spaces that are behind the home. Those are the two spaces that are currently in use. The reason
>> Can I a quick question? Are they paved spaces? Is it >> one is paved? So the one on the left there on the board is paved. The one in the back the deck is grass. >> So these are the spaces that that are
currently being used. Um there's a requirement of one space per unit. So theoretically the relief that is being sought is only being sought in the event that you did not like the scheme that was presented and then give you an
alternative and say well we only like one space but we're going to wave the requirement for the second. Um >> are we supposed to have one and a half spaces? >> No for one or two family it's only one space per one space. So they have they have the adequate parking scheme now but
I rather than not address it I incorporated it in the application on the theory that it would if it were to come up I would we would be able to discuss it. Um third is is landscaping. You know once again there's not going to be any change in the existing
landscaping because the footprint of the home doesn't change. So, the landscaping that's currently in existence and what I did do for you is I provide you with some photographs in the package of what the current landscaping in the home looks like so
you get a a sense. So, the the landscaping plan is is what currently exists. And the fourth issue uh is, and this came up at the 11th hour, uh FEMA changed their their flood plane map and they incorporated for some reason this
area in in the flood plane. Um it's clearly nowhere near um any rivers, bodies of water or the Atlantic Ocean for that matter. But I gather on certain rare occasions, none of which have occurred within the last two years since
Mr. Valardi has been there uh that there's there's been some ponding. So you I had an option. I could appeal to FEMA and say I think you've made an error or I could come to this board and explain the situation. We provided for
you a flood zone analysis which was done by Mr. Valardi which I'd ask you to look at which which describes the area describes the the issues that are presented that have to be addressed. Um, I would also uh anecdotally tell you that we had met with the building
commissioner as well as Chris Ma in advance of the filing of the application and they were the ones that brought to my attention that the the the FEMA map had just changed and it included a street hiron uh in that flood zone. Um
we explained the situation once again the the theory was um and this is why it's being done this way that the application is only for the shell. Uh it's for the exterior. Um so that's that's that's what's going to be done at at this time. Later on when money is
available and it's a financing contingency as well. Uh we'll be able to then go back and and receive the additional funds for the construction loan to do the interior of the second level which would be the second >> second unit. quick on that because um I
spoke to Rich today about this um because I had some questions about the FEMA flood plane and things like that and he said that and I know you spoke to him as well so I think there was some confusion. He said that there was that we um you can't pull a permit for a
second unit that doesn't end with an occupancy permit for that unit. So you can't your permit can't be to add a unit >> in order to do a shell when you're not actually adding the unit. >> We're we're at this point it will not be ready for an occupancy permit but but
the permit can be for the exterior which is the way that we we explained it when we had provided to him um our our plan. So, so what we're doing is we're get we want a permit for the use going through all of these issues because ultimately
when we then go back for more funding, we have to be able to provide them with evidence that it's been approved for the second unit because that's going to derive the rental income to allow us to get the financing. So, we're we're going through the girrations. I I think everyone understands what what's being
done and we're we're doing it in a way that was consistent with everyone understanding so there's there's no slight of hand what what's being done there there there are no homes that would let me digress and and I've gone through this with you before
would theoretically require if all the work was done which we couldn't afford to do anyway under a single permit that the the construction work would be more than 51% % of the assessed value of the current structure. Theoretically, that would require under FEMA's flood zone a
requirement that the entire house be jacked up. >> Yeah. >> Whole new foundation. >> It's financially impossible. >> Why did you say that? >> It's financially impossible to do that. You'd never get the funding to do any of the work. It's just you'd never get the
money back. So, if in fact that were the situation, which it isn't because through the opaces and the good grace of the building department we've had this discussion their suggestion was that we do it in a phased way from your perspective all we're asking for the
exterior the interior work which will come later will be after we get the sign off on the work that's been done not an occupancy permit but a sign off on the work that's been done we're not looking for an occupancy permit until the place
can be occupied we'll have bathrooms we plumbing will have utilities in the second floor. This was once again explained to the planning board. Yes. So that's that's that was conceptually what we're >> but the permit you're pull you want to pull what you're telling us the permit that you're looking to get and that what
you're getting a special permit is for a second unit. >> Yeah. >> Not for a second story that's on a single family. >> No, this is this is the the miscommunication. We don't need from you a use permit. We by right have can have
a second unit in there. >> Yeah. >> The issue that comes to play theoretically would be under the batada which is the extension of the pre-existing non-conforming going laterally up not being any closer to the
exterior dimensionally. So I decided to address it at this point because what we're doing is we're putting exterior walls on that building. were going up and therefore technically I think we needed to address Bilada and I think technically we needed a finding
so I included that in the section under 2273B. >> Yes. So that that portion the Walta portion and the finding is very clear. Um >> so so I don't need >> I don't have a lot of questions on that. The questions that I have are um
everything that you've presented to us is a special permit for um and I understand that the use is as of right but it's to build a second unit and so the permit will be to build a second unit. >> No, the permit at this point doesn't require it's it's I guess if we reframe
no pun intended if we re reidentify I don't need your permission to build a second unit. I need your permission to do the lateral. Theoretically, if I had this as a single family, forget the the issue of the two family, just a single
family structure, there was now going to be two stories. >> That's what we're that's that's theoretical. And then at some later point, we decided we wanted to bifurcate this into two units. We could do that so
long as we had the necessary egress. That would be and that wouldn't even come before the board of appeals because we have the right to have a second story, a second unit. Generally, what we find ourselves is when we go from a second to a third, we need to get a special permit. We're asking for relief.
That's not technically what's being done here. >> I I understand that you do not need um a use a you do not need a use special permit, >> right? But what you are doing is converting a single family home into a two family home. >> No, not not no. I'm telling you what
we're planning on doing. But no, we're not actually doing that. We're just extending because of the exterior. We're just going up so we can we can put those those walls and a new roof in. Then we're going to go back for the remainder of the financing because >> so that you can get it assessed at a
higher value, right? So that then when you do convert it to a two family, you have less than 50% of >> that that correct cost. That's correct. And that is >> there's two parts of of it's a little bit of a skirting of the um
>> Oh, it's not a skirting at all. It's as as a matter of fact, conceptually, and this is what was done on Humphrey Street, exactly what was done on Humphrey Street. Humphrey Street was different because Humphrey Street renovated the existing building and then built their addition outside the flood plane. They raised the addition,
>> right? >> But because because that was on that was on a area that had not yet been built on. It was new construction over a non-existent foundation. Therefore, the new foundation had to meet the criteria.
The original building which was extended laterally did not. Correct. >> Correct. >> They didn't have to raise the front of the building. >> No, >> but they didn't but they renovated the front of the building. >> Correct. >> In two stages. And I understand the
stages, but the stage was a completed project and then an addition on to that completed project as opposed to a a framing and then just basically it's it it is different in the sense
that it was a livable occupiable building when it was finished and the front footprint didn't change and then an addition was put on. This is something where we're creating a large addition. >> It wasn't even that the front footprint. It wasn't even the footprint of the front house didn't change. Nothing changed for the exterior. They didn't
build up either. >> Um and then once that project was done, >> they they push they pushed they pushed the building up. >> The the rear of the building had to be >> No, the front as well that went up. That was they they changed the roof line. >> They changed the roof line a little bit. I guess my my concern with this is that
this is this is sort of a way to get around the >> I I just want when when you when you say it that way, it it almost gives the sense I made a a point of having this discussion with the building commissioner and Christa Macau before the application was even submitted.
>> Yeah. and and it was agreed that this would be an appropriate vehicle to do it because it was the building commissioner's position that he he felt very uncomfortable in forcing that this whole house. He said that he said that's that's ludicrous. >> It doesn't make any sense.
>> No, it it didn't. And he said because I I'm I'm the one who who suggested I said what about and that came to me from the prior building inspector who said this is what they're doing in order to accomplish the technical requirements
under FEMA short of short of in this particular case because it's it's so dramatic going to FEMA and saying we think you made a mistake in the flood zone map because this is truly not an area that's prone to excessive flooding.
Um, that would be an expense that could not be incurred by my client, >> right? No, I I agree that raising the building doesn't seem like a very feasible or wise investment, >> but I I take exception to the suggestion
of of trying to go around. We We did this as directly and as forthright as we possibly could. I made this abundantly clear to everyone this was what we were doing. Oh, I don't I Okay. I maybe I'm misconringing that that I I'm not
suggesting that you're use that you are um doing this >> secretly. You're doing it very openly in in the for everyone to see that this is a stepped process to avoid meeting the requirements of the flood plane by doing this in a stepped way. Um,
and it's it's something that I wasn't super comfortable when it was done the other time, but at least it was in a way where there was a full completed building permit that actually completed the units in the front of the building be and then the second step was elevated outside of the flood plane.
>> What is that other property? >> That's a property on um on Humphrey Street. >> It it's where u Big Blue Gardens used to be. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Show. So, does anybody else have any questions about the way this is put
together or um I I'm I'm wondering if it's just it's the fact that it is a two family and that that permit when I talked to the building inspector, he's like, "You can't build you can't pull a permit to make something." >> I'm not I'm not pulling a permit for the
use yet because I'm not I'm not putting a second family in there yet. I'm just looking for a building permit that requires zoning relief or maybe it doesn't even require but it needed clarification. I you know this is not
one of the ones that I I wanted to apply and then take exception of the building inspector. It was it was their suggestion to me that because of the change in in the in the FEMA map best approach would be to come before the board to have the dialogue which we're
having tonight. Um, >> hey Heather. >> Yeah. >> Uh, I mean it's it seems to me that he should just if he we should just go along build your
second story, do that, come back another time and apply for the second unit. >> Yeah. But as opposed to >> he doesn't need relief from us for the second unit because the second unit he can >> right I understand that
>> yeah so so the reality is I guess >> I guess that's that's the situation that that what you need from us you need is a parking relief for the second for this so if you weren't asking for the parking relief and you weren't asking for all these other things you were just asking to build um
>> I wanted I wanted I wanted to come forth before for the board in case any questions came up later on that we met all the criteria. There's some ambiguity here. You could take the position on the parking that when this house was built, there was no requirement for off-
streetet parking. Didn't exist in the zoning bylaw. The vote first zoning came into town, there was no requirement. Therefore, there was zero parking that was required off street. By putting an additional unit, you would
then be required to have the one space. We already have two spaces, which is what the requirement is, but I wanted to go over the parking scheme with you so you would know what it is. And therefore it would be being shown and therefore if
if an investor going into funding this through through a lender would see that all of the steps were taken, all the tees were crossed, all the eyes were dotted, and that's what we're doing.
>> But can can I jump in for a second? I'm sorry. It seems like, and Ken, you're being super forthright and you're walking us all the way through what we're doing, but you're still really unfortunately based on the law as us to
be dup a part of, I don't know, duplicitus isn't the right word, be a part of circumventing the FEMA law as absurd as the whole thing is. And that's the problem, you know, just just because
we say it's so doesn't mean it's okay. If someone wanted to challenge this, they'll turn, you know, they could turn around. Just cuz the building inspector gives you a permit doesn't mean that permit's any good if someone wants to challenge it. And it's, you know, it looks nicer if we say, okay, but if
someone's really bent on challenging this, they're saying, wait a minute, you couldn't do this. you did this to avoid the 51% and having to raid the raise the foundation. You know, the guy stuck. You're taking a chance that some if somebody doesn't like this project that
their council looks at what's happened and says you can't do that. >> That's not exactly correct. There's a 20-day appeal period. If during the 20-day appeal period, nobody appeals, then the permit is valid. Um
we we were we were willing to take and undergo this process because we believed in it. We were supported by it. There's no other home. There's no other requirement. It's not an area that that's prone to flooding. There's been no flooding there as far as Mr. Vlatti
knows. And and therefore we feel very comfortable. We're willing to take undertake that that risk if you would see it as a risk. We don't um you know we we've made a point of going through this with all the necessary parties all
of the boards. We have one more board to go through after this which is historical. I I mean otherwise this project can't can't can't take place. There's no there's no way that now every home that's now been redesated that does any major work which is not substantial
because substantial is the 51% would now fall under under this this pro this and and and that's not that's not new. We're not we're not reinventing. This is an approach that has been taken by other building inspectors in other
towns. It was actually Mr. Casper was the one who first brought this to my attention when I had a question about the house on Puritan and the work that was being done there. You recall that one on 53 Puritan. He said it's being done under this approach and this is
okay. And that's where I learned about it and it went from Mr. Casper to the then building inspector and now this now Rich Baldachi. All right. >> And and so >> hang on, Ken. Andy, >> I got another question. Yeah. So Heather, I mean just just to clarify the
zoning in single or two family h houses where you don't need that third parking unit. You can have tandem spaces are acceptable or no, you really can't have a tandem
space. So the the car that's on the grass isn't really a legitimate space either. >> Yeah, it's really a one. It really only has one space. So and they need two. So that's they're asking for relief on that as well. >> Well, >> well, he's saying he's showing two, but but the second one isn't legit.
>> But the second one isn't legit. Yeah. It would only count when it's tandem like that, it would count as if if you said if you had one sing two single spaces and one of them and then a third tandem for two units, you'd say, "Oh, that third space is a real space because it goes with the one that's blocking the
two cars are blocking each other." But when they're two, those are just two two spaces for one unit. they can't be used for two different units because they're blocking each other. >> You you you you could right >> take the position which is what I told you was an alternative position which that the first unit didn't need any off
street. So we're just adding one space with the additional unit which is now the one space because there was no parking requirement in 1924 when this house was built. >> Right. But right now you just told me that these are the two spaces we're >> right. This is what we're using. We're
using these two spaces are being are currently being used and they work fine. I'm telling you that too. That's somewhat anecdotal for Mr. Valard's position as opposed to Mr. Rose. I'm telling you that's how they use it and it works fine. >> Right. With one person living there
without two separate fans. >> No, but but right now there's two cars that are being parked there. doesn't necessarily mean that that the the person who's going to rent it understands that there may be no parking available and you have the right to wave it if in fact that's a concern. I mean I
all of this is important that you understand that there's a certain amount of flexibility there's not this rigidity and it gives us two ways of approaching it. One is you don't even need another space because it's grandfathered with no spaces where if we add one unit then we
have to put in one space. Yeah, I don't think this is grandfathered once you add another unit or and I and there is a space there. So, we can't pretend that space doesn't exist. No, no, no. >> I think this is a situation where we'd have to decide as a board, are we willing to wave the requirement for the two spaces and say that one space is enough and and that would be where I
think >> that would be that the need for f for housing outweighs the parking requirements in our bylaw. And then that would be the >> it's obviously it's it's very close to the train station which which makes the
the placement of this home more more attractive to somebody who doesn't own a car. >> So the Okay. >> Hey Heather. Heather >> I would rather not wave the necess the need for the parking space. I'd rather
look the say okay on the tandem aspect because once you wave that you're going to have to you're setting a precedent down the road where you may not want to be doing that >> you know you got to look at what >> we're saying here you know but I think
really Ken can say what he wants you know and I think he's been very upfront and and everybody's trying to help him it's but what he's really saying is just give me the permit and the 20 days goes by I'm in the clear and I'm willing to
live with that and so we either like this and I don't have any I have no problem with what he's doing I mean it's a little bungalow wants to add a second story we can't even object to that if he wanted to do it as a single family home her on street heron street's got 20 or
two families there you know it's just we're kind of a party to a little bit of a slight of hand, >> right? If it wasn't in the flood zone, you wouldn't think and and you were doing it all as one permit, we you wouldn't, >> right? You wouldn't think,
>> right? If there was no flood zone issue, this would be >> this would be nothing. Yeah. >> It's just we're we're we're circumventing we are openly circumventing the flood plane because of the absurdity that they the flood plane thinks it's it's there.
>> Yeah. No. >> So, one other question. Um, for the landscape screening is what relief do you need there? That's the other thing. >> I I I didn't technically >> I didn't think you did either. >> I just I I have a theory. I'll ask for
it if you don't think I require it. Then we can wave it. >> No, >> I don't ask for it. Therefore, it isn't advertised and therefore I theoretically have to come back and and amend my application. >> Yeah. Okay. So that you don't need um you need the you need the parking if
you're building a two family, but if you're building a two family, you you know, now you're going back to that you're you're definitely circumventing this um process. >> I'm sorry. I hate the word circumventing. It's this is this is an approach.
>> I'm not saying you're doing it in a sneaky way. I'm saying you are doing this twostep. >> Can you circumvent >> It doesn't have to be sneaky. >> Circumventing. No, I >> you're doing a two-step process to avoid raising the house out of the flood plane, which we understand that you want to avoid because it's cost prohibitive.
Unfortunately for us, cost can't be a factor. Like, you know that. >> I'm just I'm I'm telling you the way it is. I'm telling you that that this way of doing it is is acceptable. It is. It's been done. It's done all the
time. I can tell you that. It's not it's not >> Can you supplement the record with examples because I'm I don't know what you're talking about. I just learned about whatever this Humphrey Street thing is like I don't feel comfortable sitting here with anybody telling me
this happens all the time when I've never seen this. >> Well, it was brought to I'm I'm telling you and this is anecdotally. I'm telling you that that Max Casper explained this process to me when they did Puritan Road. >> That was our formal building.
>> Yep. and and that was the way it's done because these type of isolated homes in areas that have been designated no no rehabilitation could ever be done in these homes. It just become impossible. >> Okay. >> So, so this is the word approach sounds
better to me than circumventing. To me, the word circumventing means that I'm trying to avoid confronting it. That's the last thing I'm trying to do. That's not that's not why I'm here. I'm I'm here to present to you an alternative way of approaching this
and that's what I'm trying >> No, I understand I understand what you're doing. And the reason it's it what it is is it's circumventing the need to raise the house. >> Okay. >> Is that good? >> Right. That's >> circumventing the need to raise the house. So, we're not saying you're circumventing um Yeah. So,
>> I think right now we only have four voters and you're probably going to want five. I think you need to bring us some examples maybe outside of Swampscott where this is the pathway forward to to get out of the flood plane. >> You know something m
>> I think I need to talk a little more to Rich about the the reality of >> I think I that I think is a good idea. If you feel that somehow the way I'm explaining to you the process that we're undergoing is less than is being somewhat circumspect,
that's your prerogative and I'm more than willing to continue it and agree to that. Um, if in fact you take Mr. Rose's position, which is somehow this is an attempt to circumvent, then I don't care. Everybody in the world could be stealing and it doesn't make it right if that's the way you view it.
>> No. So I I don't to circumvent. We're saying it's to circumvent raising the building. We're not saying that it's steal circumvent >> and that's what I'm saying too, Ken. Don't I'm saying the same thing. >> I'm not saying anything different. Raise the building. You're doing this two-step process to I would use the word is that
two-step process >> um has that two-step process been codified in multiple examples of very similar type projects in multiple towns? I >> It's not been codified. I I would never use the word codified. It's been a it's
been allowed and maybe it's been allowed for the same reason that I'm asking you to do it because it makes sense because if you Mr. Ros if you if you construe everything then the way it's in this bylaw then you have little or no
authority. It doesn't I think you have that authority. I think you can look outside the proverbial box when you view these. That's what I'm asking you to do. And that's what other building inspectors who have made similar determinations. >> Let me see if we can spin it a different way.
>> But here, hang on a second. Yeah. >> A lot of this unfortunately is it's in this is this goes well beyond the Swampscott um zoning bylaw. Most of this portion is um dictated by um by the by FEMA. It's not dictated by this in state
law. Even if you need a variant, if you want to vary from the flood plane rule, you have to appeal to the state to do it. We aren't even allowed to do it. >> No, I understand. >> So this is a very So this isn't this we have we have only the jurisdiction we have. I >> I'll tell you I'll tell you some of that
jurisdiction is jurisdiction of the building commissioner. I'm not putting the building commissioner in the position of doing it that way because generally oftentimes what happens is that the application has for the building has a valuation and that's a
valuation which is pretty arbitrary. You know what it's going to cost me to build out this and if that number is such the building commissioner can say fine and that's oftentimes the way it's done. I'm not I don't want to put the building commissioner in that position because
that's what they do. You know, when they go and you know, you pay pull a permit, it cost you X number of dollars for the amount of the construction and you don't think for a minute that everybody's telling you exactly what it's going to cost. It's always a little bit less. I'm not asking because the building
commissioner has 100% authority to decide whether the dollar amount that I'm presenting is correct. >> We're getting off topic here. Yeah, Ken, we're getting off topic here. Look, the bottom line is you're asking us to look at the endgame and and and make this
determination. We see why you're doing we don't have a problem why you're doing it. I don't think speak I'm saying my position is of course this should be a two family if it wants to. Of course this is silly but we're stuck with this
unlucky change in FEMA. I would feel more comfortable. I'm not saying I'm not going forward with this, but I would feel more comfortable if instead of us trusting you, you trusting us, for lack of a better word, where we say, "Okay,
you can have your permit to go up and build your addition. It's still a s single family home." And then when you're done with that, come back to us sometime tomorrow, you know, another time and say, "Gee, will you wave the
parking and let me so I can do the two family?" And yeah, you know, and do it that way as opposed to you're asking us to give you this thing in the future. And I'm not saying that I'm not saying I
won't I will I wouldn't but I'm saying you're asking us to give you the thing in the future but we there we we're blatantly you know circumventing you know FEMA I mean that's the bottom
line here no matter who wants to help you out and everybody does I think that's what we're doing. What's your hesitation in doing what >> but my conscience is don't care. >> I think that's if if in fact you you're more comfortable with that
>> that would be we'll be back we'll come back after we do that and we'll we'll then go through the the formal process of of asking for a two family >> and then we'll come back with um a plan that is just to do the framing of this house.
>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> You mean come back with something that doesn't say you're building a two family. come back with something that is building a um the framing of a second story on a single family house. >> No, we Heather, I have no problem letting him say he waves his right to a second, you
know, he, you know, I let him clean up his permit like he wants to drop, you know, stuff that he didn't have to put in there. He said, "Okay, look. Let's just give me a vote to let me have my bal pilot, whatever it is, you know, let
me have my expansion extension and yeah, that >> yeah, the bala is for and we haven't even discussed this, but for I see this as kind of a classic Balta where they're um not changing the footprint at all. They're going upwards. Um they're not
increasing the nonconformity. The the um so for me that the intention >> if I'm if I'm now going to >> bigger single family >> to yes with the extension to to and to be honest without the parking requirement the uses are sort of
irrelevant to us because it's it's um you know so if that's what the if you're looking for relief on Balta um I can I that we can provide
but the rest of it I would say you'd have to come back. >> I'm not sure. I I heard what Mr. Rose said and I'm not sure that are you concurring with Mr. Rose or are you going >> I guess I'm agreeing that the relief you could get today through us would be the
Balta relief, the section six special permit that you this it's actually would even be a section six finding. It wouldn't even be a special permit that you would need. But you you would have to couple that though with with the variation of the flood plane because it's construction.
You can't bifurcate those two. They're they're hand in hand. What I'm not asking >> No, it wouldn't be would it be a variation or it would just be um I don't think it would be a variation on the flood plane. I think it would be called something different.
Um, >> yeah, but I'm fine I'm fine giving, you know, anything related to not saying that you're going to turn it into a two family house and spend a gazillion dollars more and you're trying to beat the 51% I'm fine with. >> Right. Well, I'm fine with what Mr. Rose
said then. >> But I'm just one one person on the board. >> Yeah. because all anything for if you want a var if you're if you're asking for the variation you need to um from the flood plane you need to appeal to um the state building. So what you're
asking for is because maybe you never come back Ken for a two family. Maybe he hits a lottery on his way home and says I'm going to keep it as a single family home. Who knows what happens tomorrow. You got to buy a lottery ticket first, I think. So,
>> all right. >> Yeah. This just says that town swamps requires a permit for all proposed construction or other development in the um flood plane overlay district, including new construction or changes to existing building placement. So, it does not say um
it is not to vary because once you're varying, you need to go to the state. It's not a This is not something you go before the state. We're not The State Building Code Board of Appeals deals with the construction. We're not
>> What did you say? >> I'm saying repeating following up on what you said. You said you could appeal. You don't The only appeal that you would be taking if you were taking one would be an appeal to FEMA. You're not appealing to the state building code because we're not we're not asking for a
variation in the construction of the of the project. >> Okay. Well, what what you listed on here was that you're asking for variation of flood plane wetland under 4280, right? 4280 is variation to building code flood plane standards. All requests for
variations to the building code must be made to the Massachusetts state building code appeals board. So 4280 um in the most recent flood plane update I believe the variation by special permit was struck from our zoning bylaw.
>> Right. And now it says variation to building code flood plane standards. All requests for variance to the building code must be made to the Massachusetts state building code appeals court. >> But you're not making any canon. >> But you're not so this is like a >> you don't need this. So, what we're under is 4241,
which is permit requirements, and it just says that the town of Switzer requires a permit. Um, it actually doesn't even say a special permit for all proposed construction or other development in So, that's just your permit. >> I I would say this in in the interest of
of cander, the issue of seeking that flood plane variation was the suggestion made by the building commissioner when I met with him. I I want to make sure that everyone understands exactly what
occurred. I was unaware that this particular street had been redesated. It it happened like a month or so before the application went in. He was the one who suggested >> I understand. So I I understand kind of where this all where. So basically what
it is is as far as the building commissioner is concerned you can build you can pull your permit for your um for your framed structure that is part of your single family house. Okay. >> Um and the only way that you would need
and they just need to verify that that's less than 50% of the >> um cost and that's happens in the permitting process not in a special permit process that happens through the building commissioner. So he's the one who made that determination that your construction costs are less than 50% of the value. And so I think from this
board, what you can get from us is a section six special permit. And if you want to come back when you decide you're going to convert this into a two family home, you can come back and ask for the parking requirement. >> Is that is that your understanding, Krista? >> And come back after he gets a nice new
assessment, too. And so you're in the in the clear. Well, don't you know, maybe you never come back. you know, you say you're coming back, but you might not. So, just take this and go. >> Yes. I think from this board at this
time with the information we have the section six um and it would be a finding under Balta that you are not. >> So, at that point we we wouldn't require any relief for parking. Did you make the
determination with regard to screening? screening you would you >> okay so we that you that's not >> if you're not building a two family home >> if we're just if we're just going up I I I didn't I didn't think >> to be honest >> you don't need the screening anyway you don't need the screening because you don't have enough units so the screenings anyway >> so fine
>> the um the and if we're taking the two family >> can you make a finding then that that screening under the circumstances are not >> we're not required to do any additional screening I I don't think the fact that you're one or two changes the screening I just the project alone
If you said that the screening plan that was shown is adequate, then you're then then I'm fine. I just didn't want to come back. >> So they're just as the as as per the plans. >> Look, you'll slip it in when you write the decision. Ken, don't worry about it.
>> Okay. >> No, I honestly I don't want to give any waiverss that you're that you're not getting that you're not entitled to or don't need. Um because if things >> Well, can you make a finding? I don't need >> I mean I just >> So you you said you Don't suspend this person. I don't need it. >> I'm telling you what you asked for was
general landscaping screening requirement waved under 3340. 3340 is um the waiver portion of um of the 33000 landscape screening requirements and it specifically talks about screening
requirements um that and basically for property lines between non-residential and residential uses which this is a residential use. Um off streetet parking facilities containing six or more spaces. You don't have even two we're unsure of. um and um refuge disposal
dumpsters, which you don't have any dumpsters proposed. So, I'm not going to say you're waved from any screening because you don't need that waiver. If you put a dumpster out there, you're going to have to screen it. >> Okay. >> So, I I don't want to wave something. >> So, you don't you don't think that that that we have to even address >> screening. If you somehow squeeze six
spaces back there, you're going to have to screen it. You're not getting >> Okay. We've had the discussion. >> We'd love to do, >> but at this point, you don't think screening is even is even necessary? >> No. >> Okay. Fine. >> So, um what we should do is um rather
than continue, you would rather have you would rather have the finding um on the section six special permit. Um >> can can we last I just I I I feel uncomfortable without >> sorry >> walking away from this issue of the flood plane.
>> I I I want some clarification. I thought the building commissioner had indicated to me that I needed now if I only needed to address it because I was going to be using it now or requesting to be using it now as a two family and that's what he told when we
initiated the conversation. I thought that was what the sticking point was. I think we at least have to address because the project even as a one family expansion with the framing isn't going to change the use and therefore the only built
permit we're requesting would be for the exterior because that's all we could afford anyway and it's going to be less than the 51% then we'll we should be fine. Is that your >> Suzanne?
All right. We just have to wait. >> I can I can I can I can wait. >> Yeah, we just have to wait. >> It's commercial break. >> Yeah. Jesus never various building.
So, um, >> we're back on the record. >> We're back on. Yes. So, in looking through the um flood plane um permitting, there's instructions on how if you need to vary and then everything
else is just a building permit. It never mentions where you would have a special permit based on that. So, it's the building permit from the commissioner and he's the one who's in charge of making sure that all of these things are met is your permit. It's not the zoning
board. That's fine with me. I I just thought from my initial discussion with the building commissioner and our senior town planner that I had to file for a section 4.2.8.0
flood plane. So, and for that reason, that was the reason they said I should be here tonight was for for that. Um, but if you think otherwise, that's fine. as well. Um
and um you know this is the board that's ultimately going to make the final decision, >> right? >> The the only other aspect and this is outside of your jurisdiction will be the building commissioner and that will be based upon the application now as a single family
with the work that we want to do which is just adding the exterior shell and the fact that the exterior shell will be less than 51% of the assessed value of the real estate. So that we'll do it that way. >> Correct. He the the building commissioner is the enforcer for the
>> Well, he's also the gatekeeper of of the building permit and he's the one who is in charge of fulfilling the obligations under the FEMA flood zone map. And so Yes. >> Right. So, and if for some reason um he
reaches out and sends you back here, I am sure that like they would and you had to resubmit for that for some for something that we're not giving you. I'm sure that um they would wave the fee for coming back back to this meeting again if it's a mistake that we made. But I don't believe that you need you
definitely haven't presented information for a variation. Um and we can't provide a variation um which is what's checked. And then the next would be special permit, which there is no method for giving a special permit in this section of the bylaw, only a building permit, which would be
>> kind of it's kind of ironic. Maybe that's something the planning board should pick up on in terms of refining its own zoning bylaw because of of the way it's construed by both the board, myself, and the building commissioner because I I was just following his his lead.
>> Yeah. No. And I think that um some of it is because this is a lot of stuff that's been dropped down pulled down from state level code as opposed to and it's all been re you know rewritten relatively recently. Um all right. So um I would
ask that someone make a motion for a um section six finding. Um >> I'll do that. >> Okay. Can before we get there. My question was, we've gone through so many different
things here. What are we actually being asked to do? Because what it sounds like to me is what we're being asked to do is inconsistent with the documents we have in front of us. And so, are we creating a record that demonstrates, and I hate to use the language everybody hates, but
the circumventing of FEMA? >> Like, I know that's not what's happening here, but if we I'm looking at a page in here that says your plan's new unit two. This application folder talks about it being a two family if >> but the only relief that if assuming
you're going to grant the relief that I >> I hear it's only going to be the relief for the limited purpose of providing the one family right not the two families >> right the motion the motion >> showing so I'll oh so I'll cover that like I can ask
>> hang on Ken so that often happens sometimes people will have like very elaborate plans and and where they let's say like there's and there's things that get changed and moved in the process and then the it's the decision in the wording and the decision. So, we're
saying we're we're um not giving you the the parking. We're not we're not basically giving you any of the two family. Um we're only saying that if the structure stays within the footprint of the current structure structure, it falls under Balta and we can find
that you're allowed. Um, we won't there won't be anything to say as built in the plans because the plans show something that's not even being built because it shows all the walls. It shows all the bedrooms and you know it shows >> Oh, right. That was that's the full at
the end of the the end of the the day what ultimately we would like to see. >> But the application was only asking itself for the for the exterior shell. That's all. And at this point we we are withdrawing that portion of the
application that in any way addresses the second unit as a second freestanding separate viable unit. >> All right. >> Bless you. And bless you. And if you could include that because you're going to draft this the decision. If you can include the withdrawal of all the other
um requests in your that would be great. >> I'll I'll also indicate that there was dialogue. We had this discussion. As a result of that, we have now withdrawn that portion to be consistent with our application which is now for the single family extension of the exterior walls
going vertically. >> Okay. >> All right. And Andy wants to make the motion. I'm I'm happy to because Ken's going to write the decision that we're going to provide the applicant with a section six finding uh to per allow him to permit the
vertical extension and in construction consistent with Baltala and he will withdraw all other portions of you know his application >> which is inconsistent
>> right we're not granting relief for any of Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I And Andy's >> I Yeah. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you. So, you have the um you'll have your relief for the
second six finding. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I don't know. I don't know if you're better off after me. I'm going second. I I think you know just just the the vacuum in the room will probably do you well
>> here. This will make you Thank you. >> So, we're going to um move on to petition number 2603. Um >> good luck. >> Which is 56 Puritan Road. And my
understanding is that Susan needs to be off of this one. >> Yeah. Okay. But Mark is back on. >> Yay. So that leaves us only with four. Mark Heather Mark is back on. Yeah. So we still have four. So if you can hang on until >> And this Have you looked at this one?
>> Uh yep. I was there when he was here before. Yeah. >> Or wait, he wasn't here before. This is a different building. >> Oh, this is a different one. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I read this thing. I I mistakenly because >> is it I mistakenly thought it was that
one at first. >> I couldn't find. >> Right. I mean, just I was I was going by the petitioner, so I thought it was the same one. I'm sorry. But yes, >> I did the same thing, Andy, until I looked at it online. >> Okay. So, >> okay. I got dinner reservations at 8:15. So, let's up. >> Let's keep >> So, it's approved. Is that what you're
saying? We just >> No. All right. >> That can be denied just as >> All right. So, um so quickly, do you want to just explain what what you're >> Yes. Um >> project. As you can see, the existing, if you're looking at the the renderings,
the existing has a side entrance on the right of the building that goes in right now, and I'm looking for relief to be able to put the entrance in the front of the building. Um, primarily the the main reason for me is there's to the right of there right now, one car fits in there.
It's wide enough where you can't fit two cars and parking is always an issue over there. Um, so I'm trying to put a front door here, make it look like it's been there and kind of fits in with the existing building
so I can pick up that space on the right hand side for parking because parking is really a big issue down there for me. Especially because I have the 55 Puritan as well across the street. That's going to be a while before I get that going. Um, but I really, you know, I really need the parking with this weather we've
had too. It's just it's even crazier. >> Is that garage yours or >> That garage is mine, too? Yeah. >> Does it go with >> It goes with the other building >> to >> 58. Yes. Which I I own that building as well. >> So, is are you looking for that parking
in front of that garage to be for 56 and >> right now? That's what we're doing now anyway. But only one car fits in there. Um, so I I just like to have it wider so I can fit two cars. Even when people are turning on that street, they pull in
there. Even if you're visiting, it's very difficult. There's just no parking there. >> Yeah. >> No, I think that makes sense. I think that's actually a good solution. Um, and >> we go back to the elevation for a second. >> Yeah.
>> So, you're the butter. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I'm okay with it. I'm cool with this. >> The only thing about is proposed B with the overhang. >> Yeah, I like them both, but you know, >> so it would have to go with A, which
didn't have that overhang. That's the only >> Can can I make a comment? Just the single the single wi window on this first floor is killing me, >> you know? It's like, wouldn't it look better if there were like two of them just like they were?
You know, I >> I can't really fit two because what happens is I mean, I could, but I don't think it's going to really make it look any better if I squish them together because I tried that. I kind of >> It's almost like I'd rather have it in the middle, you know, centered.
But I'm just But if nobody cares, it's just I'm just looking at it and doesn't bother me. But >> that's okay. >> A bigger window. Would that work? Um, >> it's two separate units there. >> Yeah, it's it's No, the the second door
goes up and I mean, >> and you got the stairs inside blocking the hell out of it or something. >> Yeah, I mean, anything can be done, but at a at a >> I agree a second window would look better. >> What's that, Mark? >> I agree with you, Andy, that a second
window would give it a little symmetry. And >> so so you can put a second window in and have it be a false window. I mean, I hate to make you spend more money, but you know, just put the window in and go right by it on the inside, sheetrock it,
put a shade inside and call it a day. I I wouldn't do a fake window personally. I mean, >> removing the shutters from the bottom window would help. >> I I was going to do that because that's where it looks claustrophobic, but you can see it's kind of claustrophobic as
it is, but I thought about removing the shutters so it doesn't look so tight. Um, and I thought about putting a window there myself, but it doesn't, you know, the window that's there aligns with the window above. That looks nice. >> I thought about putting I thought about
putting the door in alignment with the window above as well. these two. Oh, >> but in doing the renderings, this version looked nicer where it's symmetrical, >> but I wouldn't be >> Yeah, that's that's what I'm trying to
continue on the symmetry and because I'm >> I mean, I can look at a version where I align the top window as it is, like exactly where that window is. I can put the door there. >> I don't think you need to move the door. I think it's either it's it's the wind.
It's the doors. I mean >> it, >> you know, >> the two doors left and right look great. Look fine. >> If I put another window there, it would for me it'd have to be a real window. And the issue is that's the only wall you kind of got left to put a couch cuz it's a very small 600 square foot one
bed. And that's kind of the only area where it overlaps a little bit on that window. And then he has like a TV on that side of on the opposite side. >> He'd be she rocket. >> I know. I I don't know. I don't
>> Are you Are you doing like all the trim work that we're seeing here on propos proposal A and are you changing the color of the building as well? Is that >> eventually I will. Yeah. Yeah. I don't like the way it looks now. So eventually I would.
>> I don't know why I have a with a fake window. It's the window's there. It's in the exterior wall and on the inside it's cheap rock you never saw. It's it's fine. But that's just I put plenty of them in. But look, I don't want to get lost on
this either. You know, >> as you're setting up dinner in one minute, relate to, >> right? If no, if nobody if nobody feels has any feeling about >> to do it either way. >> Yeah. I I actually think taking the shutters off and
I don't I think it already looks it's already an improvement to be honest with the trim the actual trim around the door instead of >> instead of having dressing it up a little bit and it it's already improving. So I'm okay with it. I just definitely would lose the shutters. >> But we could give him we could give him the discretion to put up to two windows
on that first floor. >> First floor. Yeah. You know, as best he can. >> Right. Because on the first floor he's only got one side of shutter. That looks terrible, too. >> Yeah. Well, that's just because of the rendering. >> Right. And I will also note that um if
or when you apply for a demolition permit um it will be triggered for review from the historical commission. So they might have some thoughts on >> comments >> um the windows as well. So giving some discretion on how that looks um might help the process if it if the historical
commission has comments on that also. >> Okay. Thank you. That's good. >> I'm fine with that. >> All right. So and I think when we um But and other than that, we are people comfortable with the landing as far as it's still >> not coming out quite as far as the other
landing. It's still closer. >> Yeah. >> So again, does that fall under just a finding? >> I think so. >> I would say that falls under a finding that the new nonconformity is is not
more detrimental than the is that you're not creating a new non All right. All right. Would anybody like to make a motion on this one? >> Anybody else up for it? I'm out.
>> Oh, yeah. I'll fumble through it. Yeah, you can do it. You should do it. >> All right. I can help you. One of us. >> I mean, I'm happy to I'm happy to draft it. Happy to fumble through. >> Yeah. I'll look it over for you.
>> Um, so on petition 2603 seeking uh is it a special permit? No, it's a section six finding. >> Section six finding. Yes. Under Balta
>> under Balta where the pre-existing nonconformity the extension of that does not is not >> being increased >> being increased does not
it's not >> is not more detrimentally um detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition. You have a second. >> Do you want Do you want to give discretion to have up to two windows on
that first floor? Looking for them to be symmetrical or as may be required by the historic district. >> Sure. With the >> historical commission. >> Yes. >> With the condition
that the applicant has some discretion to put up to two symmetrical windows on the first floor. Can you know with the potential input of the historical the Swanson Scott historical commission?
>> Second that. >> Um and the one other thing is that we're talking about proposed A >> proposed A on >> rather than B. proposed a on the >> submitted by the applicant with the
application. >> Excellent. >> Okay. Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> Andy's I. >> All right. Thank you so much. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> He's going to be late for the 8:15. I'm sorry.
>> Yep. Thanks. It's okay. >> To adjourn. >> Thanks, guys. >> We have a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I'll second it. >> Thanks. >> Thanks, guys. >> Yeah. Bye.
>> Exciting.