Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals — March 17, 2026

Section 1: Agenda

Call to Order & Approval of Meeting Minutes 00:14:00 — Approval of minutes from the January 20 and February 3 meetings.
Petition 2601 — 5 Huron Street 00:15:12 — Request for Section 6 special permit/finding (Balalta), special permits for parking relief, landscape screening waiver, and floodplain overlay district permitting in connection with adding a second story to a single-family bungalow with the intent to eventually create a two-family dwelling.
Petition 2603 — 56 Puritan Road 01:10:22 — Request for a Section 6 finding (Balalta) to relocate the building entrance from the side to the front, with associated exterior modifications, to gain additional parking space.
Adjournment 01:21:29

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Note: The automated transcript exhibits significant speaker diarization inconsistencies, with at least two distinct individuals (the ZBA Chair and the petitioner’s attorney) assigned the same [Speaker 1] tag at different points. The mapping below reflects best inferences.

Heather (ZBA Chair, last name not stated): [Speaker 2]; also appears as [Speaker 1] during the later deliberative portions of Petition 2601.
Board Member (name uncertain, possibly Vice Chair): [Speaker 3] — Active in questioning and deliberation; chairs portions of both hearings.
Board Member (name not stated): [Speaker 4] — Pushes for documented precedent; suggests practical compromises.
Board Member (name not stated): [Speaker 5] — Makes formal motions; seconds motions.
Mr. Rose (ZBA Member): [Speaker 6] — Raises legal and procedural concerns about the FEMA floodplain approach; chairs portions of the second hearing and adjournment.
Andy (ZBA Member, participating remotely): [Speaker 7]/[Speaker 8] in Petition 2601 — Experiences connection difficulties; casts the sole dissenting vote on Petition 2601.
Mark (ZBA Member): [Speaker 9] in Petition 2603 — Recused from Petition 2601; returns for Petition 2603; comments on window aesthetics and offers design suggestions.
Attorney Kenneth Schroetzer: [Speaker 9] and [Speaker 1] in Petition 2601 — Counsel for petitioner Anthony Villardi; presents the case for 5 Huron Street.
Anthony Villardi (Property Owner, 5 Huron Street): [Speaker 10] — Answers questions about existing parking conditions.
Applicant for 56 Puritan Road (name not stated): [Speaker 7] in Petition 2603 — Presents entrance relocation project; also owns 55 and 58 Puritan Road.
Staff Member (possibly Kristen McCaw, Senior Town Planner): [Speaker 8] in Petition 2603 — Notes Historical Commission review requirements for demolition permits.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Approval of Minutes

Chair Heather opened the meeting and called for approval of meeting minutes from January 20 and February 3, 2026 00:14:00. A board member moved approval, which was seconded and passed unanimously by voice vote.

Petition 2601 — 5 Huron Street

Background and Presentation 00:15:12

Chair Heather introduced Petition 2601, noting that Board Member Mark had recused himself, leaving four voting members (including Andy, participating remotely with intermittent connection issues). She outlined the requests: a Section 6 special permit (Balalta), a parking special permit, a landscape screening special permit, and a floodplain variation/special permit.

Attorney Kenneth Schroetzer appeared on behalf of property owner Anthony Villardi 00:16:26. Attorney Schroetzer stated the property is located in the A4 zoning district, which permits multiple dwelling units as of right. The existing structure is a single-family bungalow, described as one of the few remaining single-family homes in a predominantly multifamily area near the Lynn line. The proposal involves adding a second story and attic to create a two-and-a-half story structure without altering the building’s footprint — a vertical extension only.

Attorney Schroetzer reported that the project had already received a favorable site plan special permit decision from the Planning Board, and that the applicant intended to appear before the Historical Commission as the structure is over 75 years old.

Parking Discussion 00:18:28

On parking, Attorney Schroetzer explained that two spaces currently exist behind the home — one paved, one on grass — and that the requirement for one- and two-family homes is one space per unit. He noted the parking relief request was included proactively in case the Board found the existing scheme insufficient. Chair Heather questioned the parking configuration, and Mr. Rose identified that the two spaces are in tandem, meaning they functionally serve only one unit since the rear car blocks the front car 00:38:00. Chair Heather suggested the Board would need to determine whether to waive the two-space requirement, framing it as a housing-versus-parking policy question 00:40:07. A board member [Speaker 3] argued against waiving the parking requirement outright, preferring instead to accept the tandem arrangement, warning that a full waiver could set an unwanted precedent 00:40:28.

FEMA Floodplain — The Central Debate 00:20:23

The most extensive and consequential discussion centered on the FEMA floodplain designation. Attorney Schroetzer explained that FEMA had recently redesignated the Huron Street area as a floodplain, despite the property being nowhere near bodies of water and having experienced no significant flooding during the owner’s two-year tenure 00:20:28. Under FEMA rules, if construction costs exceed 51% of the property’s assessed value, the entire building must be elevated on a new foundation — a requirement Attorney Schroetzer characterized as “financially impossible” 00:23:55.

Attorney Schroetzer presented a phased construction approach: the first phase would involve building only the exterior shell (walls and roof for the second story), keeping costs below 51% of assessed value. Once the building is reassessed at a higher value reflecting the addition, a second phase would complete the interior for the second dwelling unit, again remaining below the 51% threshold 00:22:07. He stated this approach was developed in consultation with Building Commissioner Rich Baldacci and planner Kristen McCaw, and that similar phased approaches had been used elsewhere, including at a property on Humphrey Street and at 53 Puritan Road under former Building Commissioner Max Casper 00:29:39.

Chair Heather pressed on this point 00:22:08, noting that the building commissioner had told her a permit for a second unit must result in an occupancy permit — meaning you cannot pull a permit to add a unit if you are only building a shell. Attorney Schroetzer responded that the permit at this stage was for exterior work only, not for the use change, and that no occupancy permit would be sought until the interior was completed. Extensive back-and-forth followed, with Chair Heather distinguishing this case from the Humphrey Street precedent, where the first phase involved a completed, occupiable renovation before a separately elevated addition was built 00:28:06.

Mr. Rose raised pointed legal concerns 00:34:43, warning that regardless of the building inspector’s approval, the permits could be vulnerable to challenge: “just because the building inspector gives you a permit doesn’t mean that permit’s any good if someone wants to challenge it.” He cautioned that the phased approach, however transparently presented, amounted to circumventing FEMA requirements, and that a determined opponent could successfully challenge it.

A spirited exchange over terminology ensued. Attorney Schroetzer objected to the word “circumventing,” preferring “approach” 00:42:44. Chair Heather clarified the Board’s meaning: “You’re circumventing the need to raise the house… We’re not saying you’re circumventing some [improper conduct]” 00:44:34. A board member [Speaker 3] offered a frank summation: “we are openly circumventing the floodplain because of the absurdity that the floodplain thinks it’s there” 00:41:47.

Another board member [Speaker 4] demanded documented precedent 00:43:22: “Can you supplement the record with examples? Because 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.”

Resolution and Scope Narrowing 00:48:00

Board Member [Speaker 3] steered the discussion toward a practical resolution, stating that the Board members were sympathetic to the project and recognized the absurdity of the FEMA designation, but were uncomfortable with the posture of granting two-family-related relief as part of a phased strategy to avoid floodplain requirements 00:48:00. He suggested the Board grant only what was needed for the single-family vertical extension and that the applicant return for two-family-related relief after the first phase was complete.

Chair Heather (now as [Speaker 1]) concurred, framing the request as a “classic Balalta” — vertical extension with no footprint change and no increase in nonconformity 00:50:37. She determined that the floodplain permitting was a matter for the building commissioner, not the ZBA, after reviewing the relevant bylaw sections during a brief recess 01:03:27. Section 4.2.8.0 of the zoning bylaw now directs floodplain variations to the Massachusetts State Building Code Appeals Board, and no special permit mechanism exists in the local bylaw for floodplain matters 01:05:38.

Attorney Schroetzer formally withdrew all portions of the application related to the two-family conversion, including parking, screening, and floodplain relief 01:08:31. He committed to documenting the withdrawal and the Board’s dialogue in the written decision.

Vote 01:09:13

Board Member [Speaker 5] moved to grant a Section 6 finding under Balalta, allowing the vertical extension and construction consistent with the pre-existing nonconformity, limited to the single-family expansion with no two-family-related relief. The motion was seconded and passed 3–1, with Andy casting the sole dissenting vote 01:09:49.

Petition 2603 — 56 Puritan Road

Presentation 01:11:22

Board Member [Speaker 3] introduced the petition. Board Member Mark returned to the panel while Board Member Susan recused herself, maintaining four voting members.

The applicant explained his proposal to relocate the building entrance from the right side to the front of the structure 01:11:33. The primary motivation was parking: the current side entrance occupies space that could accommodate a second parking space on the right side of the building, adjacent to a garage belonging to the applicant’s other property at 58 Puritan Road. The applicant emphasized that parking is “a big issue down there,” particularly as he also owns 55 Puritan Road across the street 01:12:07.

Design Discussion 01:13:14

Board Member Andy commented that the single window on the proposed first floor was aesthetically problematic, suggesting either a second window or repositioning for symmetry 01:13:41. The applicant explained that the interior layout (staircase and living space) constrained window placement, and that the existing window aligns with the one above it. Board Member Mark agreed that a second window would improve symmetry 01:14:37. A brief discussion followed about whether a decorative “false window” might suffice; the applicant stated he would not do a fake window 01:14:57. Mr. Rose suggested removing the shutters from the lower window would help reduce the “claustrophobic” appearance 01:15:01.

The staff member noted that a demolition permit would trigger Historical Commission review, and that giving the applicant discretion on window design could facilitate that process 01:17:50.

The Board agreed on Proposed A (without overhangs that would create new nonconformity) rather than Proposed B 01:13:25.

Vote 01:20:27

Board Member Andy moved for a Section 6 finding under Balalta, determining that the pre-existing nonconformity was not being increased and was not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. The motion included a condition granting the applicant discretion to install up to two symmetrical windows on the first floor, with potential input from the Swampscott Historical Commission, and specified Proposed A as the approved design. Board Member [Speaker 5] seconded. The motion passed unanimously 01:21:17.

Adjournment

Mr. Rose moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mark and passed unanimously 01:21:29.

Section 4: Executive Summary

FEMA Floodplain Complications Reshape 5 Huron Street Project

The meeting’s dominant issue was how a recent FEMA floodplain map revision has created a near-impossible regulatory burden for homeowners on Huron Street — and the question of whether the Zoning Board of Appeals should facilitate a workaround.

Attorney Kenneth Schroetzer, representing property owner Anthony Villardi, sought approval for a phased approach to converting a 1920s-era bungalow at 5 Huron Street into a two-family dwelling. The A4 zoning district permits multifamily use by right, making this an otherwise unremarkable project. However, FEMA’s recent redesignation of the area as floodplain — despite no history of significant flooding — triggered the requirement that any construction exceeding 51% of the property’s assessed value must be accompanied by elevating the entire structure on a new foundation.

The Board acknowledged the absurdity of the FEMA designation but was unwilling to grant the full package of relief the petitioner sought. The critical concern, articulated most forcefully by Mr. Rose, was that granting two-family-related approvals as part of a transparently phased strategy to avoid the 51% threshold could expose both the applicant and the Board to legal challenge. The Board reached consensus on a narrower path: granting only a Section 6 (Balalta) finding for the vertical extension as a single-family improvement. Attorney Schroetzer formally withdrew all two-family-related requests.

Why this matters: The resolution effectively kicks the two-family conversion down the road. Villardi can build his second story as a single-family expansion, get the property reassessed at a higher value, and then return to the ZBA for the two-family conversion with new construction costs that fall below the 51% threshold. The Board did not pre-approve this path — they simply limited their action to what was directly before them. This has broader implications for other Huron Street properties newly caught in the FEMA floodplain, as the fundamental tension between federal flood regulations and local housing goals remains unresolved.

56 Puritan Road Entrance Relocation Approved Unanimously

In a much simpler matter, the Board unanimously approved relocating the entrance of 56 Puritan Road from the side to the front of the building. The change will free up space for additional parking on a street where the applicant characterized parking as a persistent challenge. The Board conditioned its approval on Proposed A (without overhangs that would create new nonconformity) and gave the applicant discretion on first-floor window design, subject to potential Historical Commission input.

Section 5: Analysis

The FEMA Floodplain Dilemma: Between Pragmatism and Legal Risk

The Petition 2601 hearing revealed a Board that was both sympathetic and deeply uncomfortable. Every member appeared to recognize that the FEMA floodplain designation for Huron Street was, in Chair Heather’s implicit framing and one member’s explicit words, “absurd” 00:41:47. No one questioned the merit of converting a small bungalow in a multifamily zone into a two-family dwelling. Yet the Board could not bring itself to grant the full package of relief that would formalize the phased approach.

Attorney Schroetzer’s strategy was technically sound but politically difficult. He was transparent to the point of laying out, step by step, exactly how the phased construction would avoid the 51% threshold — which had the paradoxical effect of making it harder for the Board to approve. Mr. Rose identified the core vulnerability: transparency does not equal legality, and a record that explicitly documents a strategy to avoid FEMA requirements invites challenge 00:35:17. His warning that “just because the building inspector gives you a permit doesn’t mean that permit’s any good if someone wants to challenge it” captured the Board’s fundamental anxiety.

The debate over the word “circumventing” was telling. Attorney Schroetzer strongly preferred “approach,” viewing “circumventing” as implying bad faith 00:42:44. The Board members used “circumventing” descriptively rather than pejoratively — they acknowledged the applicant was being completely open, but the substance of what was being proposed remained a workaround regardless of terminology. Chair Heather’s formulation — “circumventing the need to raise the house” — was the most precise: it identified the specific requirement being avoided without impugning motive 00:44:34.

The Board’s Solomon Solution

The resolution the Board reached was pragmatic but also somewhat artful. By granting only the Balalta finding for a single-family vertical extension and having the applicant withdraw all two-family relief, the Board insulated itself from any participation in the FEMA workaround. The floodplain compliance question now rests entirely with the building commissioner, who must determine whether the shell construction costs fall below 51% of assessed value — a determination that happens in the building permit process, not through the ZBA 01:03:27.

This outcome shifts risk to the applicant and the building commissioner. If the phased approach is later challenged, the ZBA can point to a clean record: they approved only a vertical extension for a single-family home. The two-family elements were never granted. Whether this insulation would survive determined legal scrutiny is uncertain, but it is a notably more defensible position than what was originally requested.

Andy’s Dissent

Board Member Andy’s no vote is worth noting, though his reasoning was not articulated in the transcript. Given his intermittent connection difficulties, it is possible he did not fully follow the extended deliberation. Alternatively, he may have harbored principled objections to even the narrowed scope of relief — perhaps viewing any approval as implicitly endorsing the phased strategy. His silence on the rationale leaves room for interpretation.

Petition 2603: A Straightforward Approval with Architectural Care

The 56 Puritan Road hearing provided a sharp contrast. The request was modest — a front entrance instead of a side one — and the Board’s engagement was primarily aesthetic rather than legal. The discussion about window symmetry and the suggestion to remove shutters reflected a Board that, when not wrestling with federal regulatory conflicts, takes genuine interest in how projects will look. The inclusion of Historical Commission discretion as a condition was a thoughtful procedural step, anticipating the demolition permit review that the project would trigger 01:17:50.

Broader Implications

The meeting exposed a significant gap in Swampscott’s regulatory framework. As Chair Heather noted, much of the floodplain regulation has been “pulled down from state level code” relatively recently 01:06:06, and the local bylaw provides no special permit mechanism for floodplain matters — only building permits (through the commissioner) or variations (through the state Appeals Board). Attorney Schroetzer suggested the Planning Board should consider refining the zoning bylaw to address this gap 01:06:00, a recommendation that seems well-founded given the confusion that pervaded this hearing among Board members, the attorney, and apparently the building commissioner himself about what body had jurisdiction over what aspect of floodplain permitting.

For Swampscott residents on Huron Street and other areas newly mapped into FEMA flood zones, this hearing signals that major renovation projects will face significant complications — and that the pathways forward remain informal and potentially vulnerable to challenge.

2026-03-17: Zoning Board Of Appeals