The most substantial part of the meeting revolved around a variance application related to a project on Maryland Avenue, where the applicant sought to enclose a front porch to create additional living space. Steve Morris, representing the applicants, highlighted a compliance issue that arose after an earlier board resolution allowed for various construction variances. The specific point of contention was an elevation requirement that the proposed porch failed to meet.

Board members engaged in a dialouge about whether the variance was truly necessary. Some members argued that the existing structure should be allowed to remain under its current conditions without further elevation changes. Others pointed out that variances should be considered carefully, especially given the implications such decisions might have on the community rating system, which influences flood insurance rates.

A professional engineer, Arthur Chu, was brought in as an expert witness to provide clarity. He explained that the finished floor of the first floor would be at an elevation of 10.4 feet, while the base flood elevation was determined to be 9 feet. The state required a freeboard of 1 foot, and the city required an additional foot, making the target elevation 11 feet. Chu argued that maintaining a single level for the first floor would mitigate trip hazards and enhance accessibility, important for safety.

The discussion also included a review of the flood claims history for the property, confirming it had never flooded, even during Superstorm Sandy. This fact influenced some board members to view the variance application favorably, as it suggested the property did not pose a significant flood risk.

The potential impact of approving a variance on the city’s flood rating was a critical consideration. While individual variances might not immediately affect the rating, a pattern of frequent approvals could have long-term consequences. The board engineer provided insights into the regulatory considerations for flood variances, emphasizing that the property was not located in a high-risk velocity zone.

Ultimately, the board moved to interpret the situation such that a variance was not initially required based on the information presented. However, they included a provision to grant a variance if it was later deemed necessary by the floodplain manager or other authorities. The motion to revise the previous resolution and avoid requiring a variance unless absolutely necessary was unanimously approved.

The meeting also addressed other routine zoning matters, including the approval of resolutions for separate properties on Roseman Lane and New York Avenue, both of which were passed without dissent. Additionally, several applications, such as those for Michael Mortimer and Perry Street LLC, were postponed, with clarifications on public notice requirements provided to attendees.