The proposed renovation of the property at five Hiron Street, represented by attorney Anthony Valardi, involved adding a second story and attic to the existing structure, which is over 75 years old. The property is located in an A4 zoning district, which permits multiple units, but the project required several special permits due to its unique circumstances, including parking, landscaping, and floodplain variations.

The attorney explained that the current bungalow-style house is one of the few single-family homes in an area dominated by multifamily residences. The proposed changes would not alter the house’s footprint but required special permits due to parking and floodplain concerns. The attorney clarified that the two existing parking spaces, one paved and one grassy, met the requirements for single-family homes but sought permits to ensure compliance with any additional concerns for a two-family conversion.

One of the most intricate aspects of the discussion was the recent inclusion of the area around Hiron Street in FEMA’s updated floodplain maps. Although the attorney argued that the area had rare instances of ponding rather than flooding, the project faced challenges due to these new designations. They opted not to appeal to FEMA, choosing instead to seek solutions through the local zoning board, supported by a flood zone analysis prepared by Valardi.

The board members expressed skepticism regarding the clarity and intent of the permits being requested. While the attorney insisted the current focus was on securing approval for the necessary exterior work, members were concerned about the potential for bypassing proper procedures for converting a single-family home into a two-family residence. They debated whether the request for exterior modifications was a way to facilitate future occupancy without undergoing the full conversion process immediately.

There was a debate about the legality and appropriateness of proceeding with exterior changes without securing a use permit for the second unit. The attorney emphasized that their approach was transparent and in line with regulatory compliance. However, the board remained wary of setting a precedent that might allow similar projects to circumvent established processes.

The board also deliberated on a related proposal involving a two-family residence in a flood zone, raising questions about the accuracy of flood zone maps and potential regulatory circumvention. References were made to a similar two-step approach taken with a property on Humphrey Street, sparking concerns about setting precedents. The board debated the legitimacy of existing parking arrangements, which did not meet zoning requirements for tandem parking.

Participants discussed the balance between parking needs and housing demands, particularly given the property’s proximity to public transportation.

Concerns about the implications of circumventing FEMA regulations were voiced, with some participants stressing the importance of ensuring legality and transparency in the process. The board acknowledged the need for verification and examples of similar approaches in other towns to substantiate the proposed method.

In another segment of the meeting, the board addressed a zoning application for a property on Puritan Road. The petitioner sought to improve access and parking by modifying the front entrance. Discussions focused on the property’s design, with participants debating the aesthetics of window placement and potential modifications to enhance visual appeal. Ultimately, the board reached a consensus to support the application, with conditions for possible window modifications in line with historical commission standards.