Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Review - March 11, 2025

1. Agenda

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

1. Call to Order & Administrative Matters
   • Confirmation of remote participation 1:58
   • Approval of past meeting minutes (None available) 2:32
2. Petition 24-17: 25 Beach Bluff Ave (Withdrawal Request) 2:47
   • Request by petitioner (represented by Attorney Chris Drukas) to withdraw petition without prejudice.
3. Petition 25-01: 44 New Ocean Street (Addition/Special Permit) 9:57
   • Presentation by petitioner Rodrigo Paz regarding a single-story addition requiring a Dimensional Special Permit and Special Permit for Nonconforming Uses/Structures.
   • Public comment from abutter Steve Gadman.
   • Board discussion and deliberation.
   • Decision to continue the hearing.
4. Petition 25-02: 21 Parsons Drive (Appeal of Building Inspector Determination) 41:40
   • Presentation by Attorney Chris Drukas on behalf of petitioner Mary Burke, appealing the Building Inspector’s determination regarding interior renovations and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) classification.
   • Public comment from neighbors Clayton Curtis and Anton Antonov.
   • Remote comment from homeowner Tom Burke.
   • Board discussion and deliberation.
   • Vote on the appeal.
5. Adjournment 1:12:19

2. Speaking Attendees

• Acting Chair (Name not stated): [Speaker 1] - Led the meeting, managed proceedings, made/called motions.
• Chris Drukas, Esq. (Attorney for Petitioners): [Speaker 2] - Represented petitioners for 25 Beach Bluff Ave and 21 Parsons Drive.
• Rodrigo Paz (Petitioner, 44 New Ocean St): [Speaker 3] - Presented the petition for 44 New Ocean St.
• Clayton Curtis (Abutter, 19 Parsons Drive): [Speaker 4] - Provided public comment on the 21 Parsons Drive petition.
• Tony (ZBA Member): [Speaker 5] - Participated remotely initially, then in person; offered architectural perspective.
• Steve Gadman (Abutter, 11 Pine Street): [Speaker 6] - Provided public comment on the 44 New Ocean St petition.
• Town Staff (Name not stated): [Speaker 7] - Announced next speaker 1:04:22; discussed meeting logistics 41:10.
• Marissa (Town Staff/Planner): [Speaker 8] - Provided staff support, managed presentations, confirmed information for the Board.
• Tom Burke (Homeowner, 21 Parsons Drive): [Speaker 9] - Participated remotely to comment on the 21 Parsons Drive petition.
• Paula (ZBA Member): [Speaker 10] - Participated in discussions and questioning.
• Michelle (ZBA Member): [Speaker 11] - Participated in discussions, seconded motions.
• Attendee (Name not stated): [Speaker 12] - Asked a question regarding land surveys 38:57.
• Unidentified Attendee/Staff: [Speaker 13] - Made brief interjections/confirmations (e.g., 54:33, 1:10:04).

3. Meeting Minutes

Call to Order & Administrative Matters The meeting was called to order by the Acting Chair after 7:00 PM 2:32. Board Member Tony confirmed remote participation initially, stating he would arrive in person shortly [1:58-2:15]. The Board proceeded, noting Tony could participate remotely if needed. There were four members present for the start of the meeting (Acting Chair, Paula, Michelle, Tony-remote). Marissa (Town Staff/Planner) confirmed there were no past meeting minutes for approval 2:46.

Petition 24-17: 25 Beach Bluff Ave The Acting Chair called the petition for 25 Beach Bluff Ave 2:47. Attorney Chris Drukas was present for the petitioner. The Acting Chair made a motion to approve the petitioner’s request to withdraw the petition without prejudice 3:12. Michelle seconded the motion 3:24. The motion was approved by voice vote, with confirmation of Tony’s affirmative remote vote [3:25-4:04]. The matter was formally withdrawn without prejudice. The Board then took a brief recess to await Tony’s physical arrival [4:04-4:24].

Petition 25-01: 44 New Ocean Street The Acting Chair called the petition for 44 New Ocean Street after Tony arrived 9:57. Petitioner Rodrigo Paz presented his request for special permits related to a single-story addition (mudroom/kitchen expansion) 10:20. He explained the addition extended an existing nonconforming structure situated close to the property line on an oddly shaped lot. Paz stated that construction commenced after receiving a building permit, but the setback nonconformity requiring ZBA relief was identified subsequently [10:20-11:35].

Significant discussion occurred between Paz and the Board (primarily the Acting Chair and Tony) to clarify the dimensions of the existing structure (6.5 ft length on lot line) versus the addition (7.5 ft length, set back 5 ft where 7.5 ft is required) [11:38-13:33]. The Acting Chair identified the necessary relief as potentially a finding for the conforming portion and a dimensional special permit for the nonconforming setback [13:33-14:18].

Abutter Steve Gadman (11 Pine Street), whose property directly abuts the addition, testified in opposition 16:24. He presented photos showing the addition from his yard, describing it as visually intrusive and closing in his space [17:15-18:15]. Gadman also raised questions about the permitting process, suggesting he expected a ZBA hearing before construction began due to the known proximity issues [23:55-25:11].

Paz countered that the enclosed addition offered more privacy for both parties compared to the previous configuration with stairs facing the neighbor’s yard [21:09-22:35].

Board member Paula questioned Paz about the specifics of the original permit application, particularly whether plans were submitted and whether it specified a “covered porch” versus an “enclosed” structure [23:14, 35:29-36:03]. Paz indicated his contractor handled the application and detailed plans may have been lacking [39:05-39:28]. Board member Tony requested that the original permit application and any associated drawings be provided to the Board for review [36:25-36:54].

Tony also raised concerns about increased water runoff from the new roof structure onto the abutter’s property 31:52, although Paz stated gutters were planned 33:22.

The Acting Chair referenced a prior ZBA case (80 Middlesex Ave) involving alterations to nonconforming structures and the applicability of Section 6 findings versus dimensional special permits [25:14-27:57]. Given the complexities, the abutter’s concerns, the unresolved questions about the permit, and the presence of only four voting members, the Acting Chair explained the Board’s practice of potentially continuing the hearing to ensure a full five-member vote [29:01-30:02].

Paz consented to a continuance 40:53. The Acting Chair moved to continue the hearing to the April 15 meeting, allowing time for site visits, submission of the permit application, and participation by the full Board [40:54-41:14]. Michelle seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (4-0) [41:14-41:23].

Petition 25-02: 21 Parsons Drive The Acting Chair called the petition for 21 Parsons Drive 41:40. Attorney Chris Drukas presented on behalf of petitioner Mary Burke, appealing a determination by Acting Building Inspector Max Casper 41:52. Drukas explained the property owners were undertaking interior renovations to a wing previously used as an in-law suite (built 2009). The plan involved reconfiguring the space for the homeowners’ use while their daughter’s family occupied the main house, facilitating multi-generational living [42:10-44:49]. No exterior changes were proposed, and the property/structure are conforming.

The dispute arose because the Building Inspector classified the renovated wing as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and denied permission to remove a non-structural interior wall connecting the wing’s kitchen area to the main house dining room. The BI reportedly argued wall removal constituted an expansion of the ADU beyond allowable size limits [44:49-45:52]. Drukas argued forcefully that the space was never a true ADU (lacked lockable separation, shared utilities 1:10:03), the wall removal increased connection consistent with single-family/multi-generational use, and such use is legally protected (citing Moore v. East Cleveland 49:02 and MGL 40A Sec 3 49:56) [45:52-54:33].

The Acting Chair clarified the ZBA’s appellate jurisdiction over Building Inspector decisions [54:52-57:43]. Marissa confirmed the Building Inspector was not present 54:46.

Public comment was heard. Neighbor Clayton Curtis (19 Parsons Dr) initially expressed concern stemming from the significant construction disruption but, after understanding the specific issue involved only an interior wall, stated he had no objection to its removal [58:00-1:04:13]. Neighbor Anton Antonov (18 Parsons Dr) spoke in support of the petitioners, agreeing the wall removal integrated the space and questioning the BI’s rationale [1:04:22-1:06:25]. Homeowner Tom Burke joined remotely, reinforcing the family’s intent and apologizing to neighbors for construction impacts [1:06:34-1:07:50].

The public hearing was closed 1:08:31. Board discussion was brief, showing quick consensus. Tony agreed with Drukas’s analysis that the space wasn’t expanding an ADU but rather becoming less like one, supporting the multi-generational living argument, while noting minor irregularities in the submitted plan drawings [1:08:34-1:10:33]. Paula 1:10:34 and Michelle 1:10:37 concurred.

The Acting Chair moved to approve the petition, overturn the Building Inspector’s determination, allow the interior wall removal as shown conceptually on the plans, find the space is not an ADU but part of a single dwelling used for multi-generational living, and require the petitioner to submit updated plans accurately reflecting the approved condition [1:11:01-1:12:02]. Michelle seconded the motion 1:12:06. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) [1:12:07-1:12:09].

Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved unanimously 1:12:19.

4. Executive Summary

This meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) addressed three petitions, resulting in one withdrawal, one continuance, and one successful appeal of a Building Inspector decision.

Key Outcomes & Decisions:

• 44 New Ocean Street Addition Held for Further Review: The ZBA deferred a decision on Rodrigo Paz’s request for special permits for a partially built single-story addition 9:57. The hearing was continued to April 15 40:54 due to several factors: significant concerns raised by direct abutter Steve Gadman regarding the addition’s impact on his property 16:24; Board questions about the project’s permit history and whether initial plans accurately reflected the work 35:29; and the need for a full five-member Board vote on the potentially controversial relief needed for setback nonconformities 29:01. The Board requested the original permit application documents for review 36:25. Significance: This delays resolution for both the homeowner seeking to complete his project and the neighbor impacted by it. The continuance highlights the ZBA’s scrutiny of projects affecting nonconforming structures and neighbor relations, particularly when procedural questions arise.
• 21 Parsons Drive Interior Renovation Approved: The ZBA unanimously overturned 1:12:09 the Acting Building Inspector’s determination regarding interior renovations at 21 Parsons Drive 41:40. Attorney Chris Drukas, representing homeowner Mary Burke, successfully argued that removing an interior wall to better connect an existing wing (formerly an in-law suite) to the main house facilitated multi-generational living, rather than expanding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as the Inspector contended 45:52. Significance: This decision affirms the homeowners’ ability to adapt their existing home for extended family use without being subject to ADU restrictions based on the specific interior configuration. It underscores the legal distinction between integrated multi-generational living spaces and formally separate ADUs under Swampscott’s zoning. Supportive comments from neighbors 1:04:22 contrasted with initial concerns about construction disruption 58:00, showing community interest but ultimate acceptance of the project’s core zoning aspect.
• 25 Beach Bluff Ave Project Withdrawn: The petitioner withdrew their application for a pool and pergola addition at 25 Beach Bluff Ave [2:47, 3:12]. Significance: This specific project will not proceed under the withdrawn petition.

Procedural Note: The Board operated with four members (one initially remote) instead of the usual five, impacting the handling of the 44 New Ocean St petition.

5. Analysis

This ZBA meeting demonstrated the Board navigating distinct types of zoning challenges: a contentious alteration to a nonconforming structure with neighbor opposition (44 New Ocean St) and a less common appeal of a Building Inspector’s interpretation regarding internal configuration and use (21 Parsons Drive).

44 New Ocean Street Dynamics: The discussion around 44 New Ocean Street revealed significant tension. The petitioner, Rodrigo Paz, appeared earnest but potentially undermined by inconsistencies or lack of clarity regarding the initial permit process [35:37-36:24]. His argument for improved privacy with the enclosure 21:09 seemed less impactful than the abutter’s (Steve Gadman’s) visceral description of negative aesthetic impact (“hits you in the face” 17:15), supported by photographs. Gadman’s testimony, combined with his assertion that procedural steps involving ZBA review were anticipated but bypassed 23:55, appeared to resonate with the Board.

Board members Tony and Paula drove the critical analysis: Tony focusing on tangible consequences like water runoff 31:52 (a common ZBA concern) and Paula probing the procedural history 35:29. The Acting Chair’s invocation of legal precedent 25:14 and careful handling of the four-member voting constraint 29:01 signaled the case’s complexity. The continuance seems a direct result of the petitioner’s inability to fully satisfy the Board on both the permit’s history and the project’s impact, weighed against the abutter’s clear opposition. Paz’s expressed willingness to alter the construction 30:02 may have preempted an outright denial at this stage.

21 Parsons Drive Dynamics: The 21 Parsons Drive appeal presented a stark contrast. Attorney Chris Drukas offered a structured, legally grounded argument [45:52, 49:02], effectively framing the Building Inspector’s (BI) ADU classification as misapplied to an integrated multi-generational living arrangement. His proactive citation of case law and statute, coupled with the logical point that removing a wall reduces separation, proved highly effective. The BI’s position, relayed second-hand, seemed rigid and focused on potential misuse rather than the proposed reality 50:54. The BI’s absence from the meeting likely weakened the defense of his determination.

Neighbor testimony, while initially referencing construction nuisances (a common, though often peripheral, ZBA hearing theme), ultimately either supported the petitioner 1:04:22 or offered no objection to the core zoning issue 1:04:02. This lack of substantive opposition strengthened the petitioner’s case. The Board’s rapid consensus [1:08:31-1:10:49], spearheaded by Tony’s clear articulation distinguishing the project from an ADU expansion 1:10:04, demonstrated the persuasiveness of Drukas’s presentation and the perceived weakness of the BI’s stance in this specific context. The unanimous vote to overturn the BI 1:12:09 was decisive.

Overall Board Function: The Acting Chair maintained control and procedural correctness throughout. The Board members demonstrated different areas of focus (architectural/practical impacts, procedural details, legal application), contributing to thorough reviews. Staff member Marissa played a key background role, facilitating presentations and confirming information. The meeting highlighted the ZBA’s role not just in granting relief but also in resolving disputes over bylaw interpretation via the appeal process.