Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals — May 26, 2026

Video: -JjTy_RoLZo. Metadata date field reads 2026-05-08 but the meeting itself opens with “we’re here for the Tuesday, May 26, 2026 meeting” — the meeting date is May 26, 2026 (a Tuesday). HUMAN-REVIEW: metadata.json date field for this video.

Section 1: Agenda

00:17:27 Opening / call to order — hybrid meeting, after 7 p.m.
00:17:50 Approval of past meeting minutes — three sets of prior minutes voted as a single batch.
00:17:56 Petition 26-04, 11 Eulo Street (Jeff Tucker, petitioner) — relief to permit modifications to an existing dwelling to expand attic space (~902 sq ft third-story area; over the bylaw’s 50%-of-floor-below half-story cap by ~200 sq ft). Continued to June 16, 2026.
00:36:36 Adjournment.

The Planning Board had already approved this petition on May 11, 2026 (oCzHlDFipaI) conditioned on the ZBA granting relief from the 2.5-story limit. The petitioner came in seeking that relief; the board’s substantive question for the night turned out to be whether such relief is even available by special permit, or only by variance.

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

The ZBA roster in the political-context snapshot (2026-05.md) is thin: Heather Roman (Chair); Michelle Graham; associate member Anthony Sanchez. No other members are corpus-attested, and individual ZBA member names are not stated on-tape during this meeting. Attributions below combine role context, voice-of-the-chair patterns, and the petitioner-side self-identifications.

[Speaker 1]: ZBA Chair, likely Heather Roman. Opens the meeting, calls the petition, runs the motion-and-vote sequences, and at the close says “I can count on one hand in the twenty years I’ve been on this board, how many variances we’ve given. Probably about five” 00:30:32 — placing this speaker as the senior/chairing member. Roman is corpus-attested as ZBA Chair as of Feb 2026 (2026-05.md line 115); identity inferred from role rather than self-introduction. HUMAN-REVIEW: confirm Speaker 1 = Roman.
[Speaker 2]: ZBA member, name not stated. Drives most of the substantive zoning-bylaw discussion — quotes the bylaw definition of “story” verbatim from the text [00:23:50–24:13], proposes the unusual “add 400 sq ft to the second floor to make the third-story area legally compliant” workaround, and self-flags a hearing issue at 00:26:32. The most procedurally-fluent voice in the room. Possibly Michelle Graham or another sitting member; unidentified on tape.
[Speaker 3]: ZBA member, name not stated. Practical / cost-aware voice (“Just added 150,000 to their project” 00:27:32; “go around the perimeter and trim a couple of feet here and there” 00:22:02).
[Speaker 4]: Jeff Tucker (architect / petitioner), joining remotely. Self-identifies functionally when addressed as “Jeff” at [00:18:44–18:48] and refers to “my office” sending Emily Baron in person. Speaks intermittently as the audio holds; some short utterances may be artifacts of remote audio. (Tucker also surfaces as Speaker 6 — see below.)
[Speaker 5]: Emily Baron (Tucker’s office), presenting in person. Walked the board through the project: “what we came up with was to raise the ridge a bit and add some dormers to get some more functional space on the attic floor … our proposed plan is 902 square feet, so we are asking for relief for … the extra two hundred” [00:19:21–19:50]. Identified at 00:19:01: Tucker said “I think Emily Baron is there for my office.”
[Speaker 6]: Jeff Tucker. Self-identifies “This is Jeff Tucker” at 00:22:33 when interjecting on the by-right scheme exercise. Tucker appears as both Speaker 4 (remote audio) and Speaker 6 (in-room or second mic) — likely a diarization artifact splitting the same speaker.
[Speaker 7]: Planning/zoning staff coordinator — confirms petition deadlines, the June 16 next-meeting date, and the building-commissioner’s <400 sq ft administrative-approval authority. Identity not stated; functionally the staff support for ZBA hearings (in the Planning Board corpus this role is filled by Krista Lambert in Community & Economic Development — likely the same person here, but unconfirmed). HUMAN-REVIEW.
[Speaker 8]: brief utterances, name not stated. Single contributions (“Living area, heated windows … that’s a design” [00:25:54–26:01]). Could be a board member or the petitioner-team’s third voice; insufficient evidence to attribute.
[Speaker 9]: Julie Callum (the homeowner / Tucker’s client), likely. Speaks from the petitioner side about cost (“we did look at a smaller plan and honestly it doesn’t save any … we don’t save any money” [00:27:41–27:49]) and about the existing roof / skylights (“It does need modification and I was gonna take out the skylights anyway” 00:27:55). The PB minutes from May 11 (oCzHlDFipaI) name Callum as Tucker’s client, who had “just landed from overseas”; the first-person “I was gonna take out” register fits the homeowner more than the architect. Inferred — not stated on tape.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Opening and prior-minutes approval 00:17:27

The chair opened the May 26, 2026 hybrid meeting just after 7 p.m. and moved to approve three sets of prior meeting minutes as a single block. The motion was made and seconded (specific names not enunciated on tape). All in favor, unanimous 00:17:54.

Petition 26-04 — 11 Eulo Street (Jeff Tucker, petitioner) 00:17:56

The chair read in the petition: relief to permit modifications of an existing dwelling unit to expand the attic space. Tucker joined remotely; he indicated that Emily Baron from his office would present, with Tucker available for questions.

00:19:21 Project description (Baron). The proposal raises the existing roof ridge and adds dormers to gain functional attic floor area. The bylaw cap for a half story is 50% of the floor immediately below — calculated by the design team at 702 sq ft. The proposed plan is 902 sq ft, so the applicant is seeking relief for the extra ~200 sq ft.

[00:20:05–20:42] Headroom-exclusion check. A board member (Speaker 2) noted that under the state building code, attic area under 7 feet (7’-3” referenced later) does not count as livable area and would not enter the half-story calculation. Baron and Tucker confirmed they had already excluded that area from the 902.

00:20:44 The dispositive procedural question. A board member (Speaker 3) asked “What vehicle do we have to give them dimensional relief for that?” The board member with the strongest grasp of the bylaw (Speaker 2) answered: the ZBA does not have a mechanism to give dimensional relief from the third-story limitation by special permit. The only available vehicle is a variance — “an extraordinarily hard burden to meet” [00:20:47–21:11].

The board then surfaced two paths to compliance that would avoid needing a variance:

[00:21:29–21:42] Shrink to 702 sq ft. “I don’t even know if you need zoning relief for the 702 … 702 can be done as of right” — possibly with only a building-inspector finding. The 200 sq ft above the cap is the only piece that triggers ZBA jurisdiction.
[00:24:32–25:23] Add ~400 sq ft to the second floor. The counterintuitive option: by enlarging the floor below, the 50% cap rises proportionally, and the proposed 902 sq ft attic area would then sit within bylaw. The board observed the property is generously sized, conforming on all setbacks except lot area, and would tolerate the additional second-floor mass. Tucker noted the existing second-floor kitchen-addition section is on a full foundation, which would simplify a vertical addition there. Open porches flanking the building were discussed as a possible enclosable area; the board clarified those would need to be enclosed (heated/cooled not strictly required, but enclosed) to count as living area.

00:27:32 Speaker 3 (dryly): “Just added 150,000 to their project.” Tucker and Callum confirmed they had previously studied a smaller plan and “honestly it doesn’t save any money” because the roof is being torn off either way.

[00:29:31–30:48] The chair’s framing on why a variance is not viable. The chair (Speaker 1) stated they see this as a variance rather than a special permit; that the board has granted “probably about five” variances in twenty years; and that the standard requires an unusually shaped lot or other hardship, which a generously-sized conforming lot does not present. Tucker noted that the team’s initial conversation with the building commissioner had given them the impression this was a special permit, not a variance — the board disagreed on that read. Speaker 4 (Tucker) added: “When I reviewed all this before, I was struggling to come up with a way to say yes” [00:29:39–29:44].

00:31:39 Cornice/overhang and dark-skies-adjacent question (Tucker). Tucker asked whether the unusually deep cornice overhang (in excess of 18”) could buy back square footage over the porches. The chair answered no — the calculation is of living area below; enclosing one of the porches as a screen porch would be the simplest fix, and would not require heating or cooling 00:32:21.

[00:32:30–33:11] Planning-Board-back-coordination. Baron asked whether changes to the second floor would require returning to the Planning Board (the May 11 site-plan special-permit approval was conditioned on ZBA relief; an enlarged second floor changes the project). Speaker 7 (staff) said she would confirm; the chair indicated additions under 400 sq ft can typically be approved administratively by the building commissioner without a return to the Planning Board.

[00:33:51–34:39] The chair’s “next-door precedent.” The chair noted that the house next door to her on Frone Road (transcription — likely Crown / Crone / similar; spelling not corroborated) was permitted to have a half story by using steep dormers where much of the upper area is under 7’-3” and therefore excluded. Sloping the dormers to drop area below the headroom threshold was offered as a third path to compliance.

00:34:43 Logistics for June. Staff (Speaker 7) reported two petitions already on for the June meeting; today was the petition deadline. The next ZBA meeting is June 16, 2026.

[00:35:21–36:11] Public-hearing procedure clarification. Brief confusion between the chair and Speaker 7 about whether to open and immediately close the public hearing for noticing purposes. The chair clarified that the public hearing would remain open and the matter continued to June 16; if the applicant returns having found a way to comply without relief, they can simply withdraw at that meeting, otherwise the board takes up the relief request with the hearing already open.

00:36:14 Motion to continue Petition 26-04 to June 16, 2026. Made (Speaker 1); seconded (Speaker 5, somewhat reluctantly: “Finally”). All in favor — Aye 00:36:22. Tally not enunciated individually; the chair recorded the vote as approving.

Adjournment 00:36:35

Staff prompted: “motion to adjourn.” Motion to adjourn made (Speaker 1), seconded (no name on tape). All in favor — Aye 00:36:42.

Notes for the corpus

Petition number. Transcript reads “petition 2604”; rendered above as Petition 26-04. The corresponding Planning Board petition for the same project is 26-08 (oCzHlDFipaI). HUMAN-REVIEW the numbering against the official ZBA agenda packet if it surfaces.
Street name. Transcript renders “Eulo Street”; the PB record renders “Eula Street.” Same address either way. HUMAN-REVIEW the canonical spelling.
ZBA roster gap. Only the chair (Heather Roman, inferred) is associated with corpus-attested role context in this meeting. The political-context snapshot’s note that Michelle Graham + Anthony Sanchez serve is not corroborated here. The full sitting roster at this hearing is not on-tape.
Substantive load-bearing finding. The chair’s “five variances in twenty years” estimate is a useful quantitative data point on ZBA practice — half-story / third-story relief sits in the no-variance / no-special-permit gap, so the ZBA’s working answer to projects of this shape is structurally: redesign to comply rather than seek relief. No news idea on its own, but may be a useful anchor for any future zoning-practice piece.

2026-05-26: Zoning Board Of Appeals