Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Review (Based on 1/23/2024 Transcript)

Section 1: Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda for the meeting was:

Petition 24-02 (Unknown Address): Review of proposed work on a non-conforming structure to determine if it increases the non-conformity, potentially resulting in a finding rather than requiring a special permit. [HH:MM:SS 0:00] (Discussion starts immediately, focus on plans/setbacks)
Petition 24-03 (86 Windsor Ave): Request for a Special Permit for an addition (second level) over an existing non-conforming structure. Discussion includes project scope, accessory dwelling unit (ADU) status, size modifications, parking, and potential for a finding instead of a special permit. [HH:MM:SS 4:45]
Administrative Matters:
- Discussion regarding recording requirements for decisions affecting registered land. [HH:MM:SS 11:04]
- Discussion on fees associated with recordings. [HH:MM:SS 13:11]
- Motion to continue Petitions 123-19 and 124-01 to March 5th. [HH:MM:SS 16:30]
Adjournment [HH:MM:SS 16:58]

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Based on the transcript and typical MA ZBA roles:

ZBA Chair/Acting Chair: [Speaker 2] (Leads the meeting, asks procedural questions, clarifies findings vs. special permits, calls for questions, possibly states motions implicitly)
ZBA Member 1: [Speaker 1] (Makes detailed motions for findings, knowledgeable about non-conforming structure rules, comments on recording issues based on personal experience)
ZBA Member 2: [Speaker 10] (Seconds motions)
ZBA Member 3: [Speaker 9] (Asks clarifying question)
Town Staff/Liaison (Possibly Planning/Building Dept): [Speaker 3] (Provides clarifications on plans, discusses filing procedures and fees, interacts with applicants, possibly uploaded plans)
Applicant/Representative (Petition 24-02): [Speaker 5] (Discusses plans and setbacks for the first petition)
Applicant/Representative (Petition 24-03 - 86 Windsor Ave): [Speaker 4] (Presents the project, explains scope, size reduction, and intended use)
Commenter on Plans/Details: [Speaker 8] (Comments on specific details of plans, e.g., dimensions)
Legal Commenter (Possibly Town Counsel or experienced member): [Speaker 6] (Explains the legal requirement for recording decisions on registered land)
Commenter on Recording (Possibly another ZBA Member or Staff): [Speaker 7] (Confirms legal necessity of recording on registered side, discusses registry process)

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Meeting: Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals Date: January 23, 2024 (Inferred)

1. Petition 24-02 (Address Not Stated in Transcript)

Discussion: The Board reviewed plans for proposed work on a property with existing non-conformities. Applicant/Representative [Speaker 5] presented aspects of the plan, highlighting existing and proposed setbacks [HH:MM:SS 1:47]. Discussion involved clarifying plan details [HH:MM:SS 0:10 - 0:44] and understanding the nature of the changes relative to the non-conforming structure. ZBA Member 1 [Speaker 1] noted that if a change to a non-conforming structure is itself conforming (“non-hormone” likely meant non-harming or conforming change on a non-conforming structure), it might not require further relief [HH:MM:SS 1:12, 2:51]. The Chair [Speaker 2] clarified the concept of a finding: a determination that the proposed work does not increase the non-conformity, thus negating the need for a special permit [HH:MM:SS 3:11].
Public Comment: The Chair [Speaker 2] asked for questions from the public or those online; none were noted [HH:MM:SS 2:22].
Motion: ZBA Member 1 [Speaker 1] moved that, based on review of the plans for Petition 24-02, the proposed work does not increase the non-conformity of the single-family dwelling, and therefore, a finding should be issued stating that relief (a special permit) is not required, subject to the work being done in accordance with the filed plans [HH:MM:SS 3:34].
Vote: The motion was seconded by ZBA Member 2 [Speaker 10] and passed unanimously (“Aye” vote heard from ZBA Member 1) [HH:MM:SS 4:40].

2. Petition 24-03 (86 Windsor Ave)

Presentation: The Chair [Speaker 2] introduced the petition for a special permit for a second-story addition over a non-conforming first story [HH:MM:SS 4:45]. Applicant/Representative [Speaker 4] described the project: adding a ~790 sq. ft. second level for family members. He noted the initial design was larger (860 sq. ft.) but was reduced to potentially qualify for a simpler special permit process (dimensional vs. site plan review) [HH:MM:SS 5:40 - 6:23].
Discussion - Use Clarification: The Chair [Speaker 2] and Town Staff/Liaison [Speaker 3] questioned whether the addition constituted an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or was part of the single-family dwelling. The Applicant/Representative [Speaker 4] confirmed it would function as an apartment with a kitchenette [HH:MM:SS 6:24 - 6:45]. Staff/Liaison [Speaker 3] clarified that the size reduction aimed to avoid site plan review, not a variance [HH:MM:SS 7:15].
Discussion - Site Conditions & Impact: The Chair [Speaker 2] observed the house sits low relative to the street, meaning the addition would be more visible [HH:MM:SS 7:51]. Questions arose about parking [HH:MM:SS 9:32], with the Applicant/Representative [Speaker 4] and ZBA Member 1 [Speaker 1] confirming parking exists along the long driveway [HH:MM:SS 9:41 - 10:44].
Discussion - Recording Requirements: A significant discussion occurred regarding the property potentially straddling recorded and registered land [HH:MM:SS 10:54]. Legal Commenter [Speaker 6] explained that decisions affecting registered land must be recorded with the Land Court side of the Registry of Deeds [HH:MM:SS 11:28]. Town Staff/Liaison [Speaker 3] confirmed the town recently implemented a policy to handle these recordings and collect the associated fees [HH:MM:SS 11:56, 13:11]. ZBA Member 1 [Speaker 1] shared personal experience with the dual recording requirement and costs [HH:MM:SS 12:56]. Commenter [Speaker 7] affirmed the legal necessity under Chapter 185 [HH:MM:SS 12:26].
Finding Discussion: The Chair [Speaker 2] suggested this case might also warrant a finding that a special permit is not required, similar to the previous petition, if the addition is deemed not more detrimental than the existing non-conformity [HH:MM:SS 14:09].
Motion: ZBA Member 1 [Speaker 1] moved to make a finding for Petition 24-03 that the proposed addition creates no new non-conformities and does not increase the existing non-conformity, therefore a special permit is not required, and relief in the form of a signed finding shall be granted, subject to work being done per plans and payment of the additional recording fee [HH:MM:SS 14:59]. Note: The transcript doesn’t explicitly state a second or vote for this motion, but the context implies its acceptance before moving on.

3. Continuances

Motion: ZBA Member 1 [Speaker 1] moved to continue Petitions 123-19 and 124-01 to a March 5th public hearing [HH:MM:SS 16:30].
Vote: The motion was seconded (implicitly, based on the flow) and presumably passed (no vote stated, but followed by adjournment motion).

4. Adjournment

Motion: A motion to adjourn was made [HH:MM:SS 16:58] and seconded by ZBA Member 2 [Speaker 9] [HH:MM:SS 17:01].
Vote: Presumably passed (meeting ends).

Section 4: Executive Summary

The Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) met on January 23, 2024 (inferred date) primarily to review two petitions concerning additions to existing non-conforming properties.

Key Outcomes:

Petition 24-02 (Address Unknown): The Board issued a “finding” that the proposed work does not increase the property’s non-conformity [HH:MM:SS 3:34]. Significance: This allows the project to proceed without needing a potentially more complex Special Permit, as the changes were deemed not detrimental under zoning bylaws.
Petition 24-03 (86 Windsor Ave): The Board also issued a finding for a second-story addition project [HH:MM:SS 14:59]. Initially presented as a Special Permit request, the discussion revealed the applicant reduced the addition’s size from 860 sq. ft. to 790 sq. ft. to streamline the review process [HH:MM:SS 5:40]. The Board determined the addition, intended as an apartment-like space for family [HH:MM:SS 6:38], would not make the existing non-conforming structure worse. Significance: Similar to the first petition, this finding simplifies the approval path for the homeowner. The discussion also clarified the project is considered part of the single-family home, not a formal Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) under current definitions discussed [HH:MM:SS 6:24].
Registered Land Recording: A procedural discussion highlighted the requirement to record ZBA decisions affecting properties on registered land with both the regular Registry of Deeds and the Land Court division [HH:MM:SS 11:04]. Town Staff/Liaison [Speaker 3] confirmed a new town policy to manage these filings and associated fees [HH:MM:SS 11:56]. Significance: This administrative detail impacts applicants with properties on registered land, adding a layer of complexity and cost to the permitting process.
Continuances: Two older petitions (123-19 and 124-01) were continued to a public hearing scheduled for March 5th [HH:MM:SS 16:30].

Overall: The meeting demonstrated the ZBA’s focus on applying the principle of whether proposed changes increase existing non-conformities. In both cases reviewed, the Board opted for findings stating the work was not more detrimental, avoiding the need for Special Permits.

Section 5: Analysis

This ZBA meeting transcript reveals a board operating pragmatically within the framework of Massachusetts zoning law, particularly concerning pre-existing non-conforming structures (often referred to as the Dover Amendment principles, although not explicitly named).

Emphasis on Findings vs. Special Permits: The dominant theme was the Board’s (led by the Chair [Speaker 2] and articulated in motions by ZBA Member 1 [Speaker 1]) use of “findings” under MGL c. 40A, § 6. Instead of granting Special Permits for work on non-conforming structures, they determined the proposed additions did not constitute an increase in the non-conformity [HH:MM:SS 3:11, 14:09]. This approach, while legally sound, effectively streamlines approvals if the board agrees the changes aren’t substantially more detrimental. The strength of the applicants’ cases appeared sufficient, as there was little debate noted before the findings were proposed.
Applicant Strategy: The representative for 86 Windsor Ave [Speaker 4] demonstrated an understanding of the process by reducing the project size to avoid a more intensive site plan review threshold [HH:MM:SS 5:40, 7:15]. This strategic modification likely contributed to the smoother path toward a finding rather than a more complex permit review, showing adaptability to procedural nuances.
Procedural Clarity and Confusion: The discussion around registered land recording [HH:MM:SS 11:04 - 13:22] highlighted a potentially confusing administrative requirement. While the Legal Commenter [Speaker 6] and Commenter [Speaker 7] clearly stated the law, the interaction suggested this might not be common knowledge among all parties. The confirmation by Town Staff/Liaison [Speaker 3] that the town now handles this filing indicates a response to potential past issues or confusion [HH:MM:SS 11:56]. This segment underscored how administrative details can impact the application process.
Board Dynamics: The Chair [Speaker 2] maintained efficient control over the meeting flow. ZBA Member 1 [Speaker 1] demonstrated strong knowledge of zoning findings and effectively drafted the necessary motions [HH:MM:SS 3:34, 14:59]. Town Staff/Liaison [Speaker 3] played a key role in bridging applicant information and board understanding, particularly regarding plan revisions and filing procedures. The interactions appeared collaborative and focused on applying zoning rules to the specific facts presented. There was no significant dissent or contentious debate recorded in the transcript segments provided.
Limited Public Input: The Chair [Speaker 2] solicited public comment for the first petition, but none was offered [HH:MM:SS 2:22]. This suggests either low public interest in these specific projects or that potential abutters were satisfied or absent.