Board approves 333 N. Swinton renovation, demolition of roof and variance for rear addition after contractor shoring plans provided

The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board voted to approve a renovation and rear addition at 333 North Swinton Avenue, including a demolition request to remove roof structure for vertical elevation and a variance reducing the required rear setback, after the applicant presented engineered shoring and drainage plans and the board added a condition to coordinate fenestration/articulation of the east elevation with staff.

Why it matters: The property is a contributing 1946 masonry vernacular residence in the Old School Square Historic District. The project proposes to raise parts of the structure to meet current floodplain (FEMA) requirements, rebuild and reinforce roof and floor structures to meet current building codes, and construct a one‑story addition to the rear. Because the work includes removal of a roof and substantial structural work, the request triggered a relocation/demolition application and public notice.

Staff and applicant presentations: Planner Michelle Hewitt summarized the staff review and noted the application asks for a 1,005‑square‑foot rear addition, exterior modifications, ground improvements and a variance to reduce the 10‑foot rear setback to 8 feet to accommodate the required 2‑foot alley dedication. She described proposed changes including new standing‑seam metal roofing, raised stucco base to maintain visual proportion to the new finish floor, and larger modern window openings required for current egress and impact glazing.

Architect Pablo Solis and architect Steve Siebert explained the design and structural approach. Solis said the property sits within a narrow 50‑foot lot and that the two‑foot alley dedication plus a 10‑foot setback would remove usable buildable area; the requested 8‑foot setback plus 2‑foot dedication would yield a 12‑foot distance from the alley. The team presented flood‑adaptation work and described exfiltration trenches and pervious paving to handle on‑site stormwater. Siebert described a planned method to preserve existing exterior walls while pouring a new slab and installing a continuous tie beam, temporary shoring, and step‑by‑step roof reconstruction to meet modern wind and structural codes.

Several members of the public spoke. A nearby neighbor expressed concerns about increased runoff, privacy and neighborhood traffic; the architect and applicant explained the drainage design (swales and exfiltration trenches) and a mitigation/landscaping plan to replace a failing tree. Staff and the applicant also confirmed that driveway reconstruction and appropriate setbacks will be reviewed and enforced by the city engineer at permitting.

Board discussion focused on structural safety of removing and rebuilding the roof, the scale and fenestration of the addition relative to the existing house, and the acceptability of proposed materials (metal standing seam roof, casement/impact windows). Board members asked the applicant to demonstrate how historic character and distinct details (for example the corner window and stucco plinth) will be catalogued and reconstructed. Several commissioners noted the project will be intensive and may look like a near‑full demolition during construction, and required the applicant to demonstrate contractor shoring methods — the applicant had engaged a contractor and provided shoring examples.

Motion and condition: The board voted to approve the COA, demolition request and variance with an explicit condition that the applicant work with staff to add additional articulation/fenestration on the east (alley) elevation to reduce the visual expanse of blank wall facing the alley. The motion passed in roll call (Ezra Craig, John Miller, Peter Dwyer, Chris Cabeza, Vlad Dumitrescu, Carol Perez and Jim Chard all voting yes).

Clarifying technical points from the hearing: staff characterized the proposed finished floor elevations and changes as necessary to meet FEMA and Florida Building Code requirements; applicant representatives described the proposed finished floor elevation relationships and the need for a new interior slab, tie beam and reconstructed roof framing; applicant provided drainage design using exfiltration trenches and permeable paving; applicant stated the new windows will be impact‑rated and meet modern egress code (which alters muntin/mullion patterns compared with original windows).

Next steps: The applicant will revise drawings per the board’s direction on east elevation articulation and submit revised materials to staff for TAC/permitting review; the board’s approval is conditioned on the plans presented and compliance with city permitting and engineering requirements, including the driveway reconfiguration and stormwater solutions at building permit review.