Here are the minutes.

Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals — June 16, 2026

Video ID: SD_0lm-eUOQ. (Pipeline metadata lists the date as 2026-05-28; the meeting is internally identified as the “June meeting” and references a May 11, 2026 appeal filing and a vehicle “registered today,” so it post-dates mid-May. Title date — June 16, 2026 — used here.)

Transcription caveat: Automated diarization reassigned speaker tags heavily throughout this meeting. The appellant, the building inspector, and several board members each appear under multiple tags, and single tags (e.g., Speaker 1, 2, 3, 4, 8) are shared by different people across the hour. Attributions below are best-effort inferences from content continuity, addressing-by-name, and self-introductions, with uncertainty flagged.

Section 1: Agenda

Call to order; approval of prior meeting minutes 00:04:34
Petition 2604 — withdrawal 00:04:50 — motion to allow withdrawal without prejudice
Petition 2606 — James Weber (taken out of order, heard first) 00:05:23 — request for a special permit / finding to build a dormer on a non-conforming (setback) house
Petition 2605 — Charles Wilkinson 00:09:28 — appeal of a determination of the building commissioner (storage-structure classification, unregistered vehicle, and fines)
- a. Appellant’s presentation 00:09:47
- b. Board’s threshold jurisdiction discussion 00:13:17
- c. Motion to bifurcate; finding on jurisdiction (classification time-barred; fines/vehicle timely) 00:36:12
- d. Public comment 00:44:42
- e. Motion to close public hearing 00:49:35
- f. Motion to remand the fine issue to the building inspector; uphold the determination 00:50:58
Adjournment 00:51:56

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Roster reference (2026-05 snapshot + prior ZBA minutes -QJQ60nQJrI, pYN6Ew5VhQE): ZBA Chair Heather Roman; members Mark, Tony, Susan, Michelle (Graham); counsel Paul Haverty, Esq. Names below are matched to that roster where transcript evidence supports it.

[Speaker 1] / [Speaker 4] — Heather Roman (ZBA Chair). Opens the meeting (“welcome to our June meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals”), runs all votes, and manages public comment (takes commenters’ names). Chairing duties appear under both tags due to tag drift; a few [Speaker 4] lines (e.g., “has the Weber matter been approved?” at 00:10:05) may be a different member confirming for the record.
[Speaker 2] / [Speaker 3] (in the Wilkinson portion) — a long-serving board member with a litigation background. Delivers the jurisdiction analysis (“I’ve been on this board a long time… been through appellate process from here… land court or the superior court… 30 days”), the de novo / right-to-appeal explanation, the criminal-law-career anecdote (“25, 30 years ago when I did criminal law work”), and makes both the bifurcation/jurisdiction motion and the remand motion. Name not stated in transcript. Plausibly Tony (the only named male member besides Mark, fully participating on this petition), but this is inferred, not established — treat as “the board’s lead legal voice.”
[Speaker 6] — likely Mark (ZBA member). Makes the timeline split (Sept 3, 2025 determination vs. April 13, 2026 fine letter; “partial jurisdiction on the unregistered vehicle”), asks the acreage question (“>5 acres”), and offers the parking-ticket analogy. The lead legal voice says “I agree with Mark” 00:29:06 while endorsing exactly this split, which points to Speaker 6 = Mark. Inferred.
[Speaker 5] — a board member experienced with findings. Moves the withdrawal of Petition 2604 and the “Bolata”-case finding on Petition 2606; offers to help a less-experienced member draft a motion; seconds the jurisdiction motion. Name not stated.
[Speaker 8] — appears as two different people. (a) Early: “Steve,” James Weber’s contractor/designer, who explains the attic’s 71 sq ft above 7’3” 00:06:44; (b) Late: a board member who says “I agree with Susan” and supports remand-and-close 00:43:42. Different individuals, same tag.
[Speaker 10] / [Speaker 11] — board members. Speaker 11 is a less-experienced/newer member who is talked through making a motion on Petition 2606 00:08:09 and later confirms the bylaw “is only for unregistered or registered vehicles” 00:48:17. Speaker 10 offers to make a motion on 2606 and (later) asks the inspection/operability question — note Speaker 10 also tags the public commenter Robert Alpert; treat with care.
[Speaker 12] — a board member who seconds the Petition 2606 finding. Name not stated.
“Tony” (ZBA member) — named but not cleanly tagged. Excluded from the Petition 2606 vote (“the board’s going to be everyone except Tony for this one,” 00:08:04); participates on Petition 2605.
“Susan” (ZBA member) — referenced (“I agree with Susan,” 00:43:42); favored remand-and-close. Specific tag not isolated.
[Speaker 7] — James Weber (Petition 2606 applicant). Self-identified (“Hi there”; “we wanted to build a dormer to gain access to the third floor”). Online/remote.
“Steve” — James Weber’s contractor/designer ([Speaker 8] early). Addressed by name by Weber (“Is that right, Steve?”).
[Speaker 13] → [Speaker 3] → [Speaker 1] → [Speaker 6] → [Speaker 4] — Charles Wilkinson (Petition 2605 appellant). Self-frames as the appellant (“Thank you to the board for hearing my appeal”). Referred to as “C.P. Wilkinson” by Pat Sullivan and possibly addressed as “Rich” (see below — ambiguous). His voice migrates across many tags; he raises the “point of order” objections during public comment.
The building inspector / building commissioner — present tonight; not consistently tagged. Author of the September 3, 2025 and April 13, 2026 determinations; name rendered variously Balducci / Baldacci / Bodaci / Padachi / Vodace (transcription variants of one surname). The Chair proposes to “ask Rich… if he’s interested” in reconsidering fines on remand 00:40:01, and a board member later cites “the building inspector’s comment here tonight that he will consider the discussion” 00:50:35 — so the inspector appears to be in the room and signaled willingness. “Rich” is inferred to be the building inspector’s first name; flag. (Also referenced: “Marcy Galaski,” a town staffer on the email chain — spelling uncertain.)
[Speaker 9] — Pat Sullivan, president of the White Court Condominium Association board of trustees. Self-introduced; accompanied by trustees Kathy Healy and Janet Godheb (spelling uncertain).
[Speaker 10] — Robert Alpert, resident of 35 Littles Point Road. Self-identified (name spelled out on the record: “Alpert… Robert”).

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Opening business 00:04:34

The Chair (Heather Roman) opened the June meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item was approval of the prior meeting’s minutes; a member moved, another seconded, and the minutes passed by voice vote 00:04:45.

Petition 2604 — withdrawal 00:04:50. The Chair noted Petition 2604 had been withdrawn. A board member ([Speaker 5]) moved “to allow the motion to withdraw petition 2604 without prejudice”; seconded 00:05:19; passed by voice vote.

Petition 2606 — James Weber (dormer) 00:05:23

The Chair took this item out of order and ahead of Petition 2605. The petition (James Weber) requested a special permit / finding to build “a small dormer” on a house that is non-conforming because it sits in the setback 00:05:23. Weber, appearing remotely, said the goal was to gain access to the third-floor attic for more usable space, with possible future conversion to livable space; “for now we just want to make sure we can get good access up there” 00:05:58.

The Chair asked about the 71 sq ft figure on the plans. Weber’s designer, Steve, clarified it represents the area above 7’3” down the middle of the attic, with sloped ceilings on either side adding space; “basically the access is through the middle of the attic” 00:06:44.

The Chair characterized the request as a straightforward Section 6 / “Bolata” finding — relief for an existing structure in the setback where the change “doesn’t create a new nonconformity” and is “not more detrimental than the existing encroachment” 00:07:12. No board questions; no public speakers. Two letters of support from neighbors were noted 00:07:42.

00:08:04 The Chair stated the voting board for this petition would be “everyone except Tony.” A less-experienced member ([Speaker 11]) was walked through making the motion, with help from [Speaker 5], who articulated the finding 00:08:25: a finding on Petition 2606 that the proposed modifications/addition to the attic space present “all conforming changes that are no more detrimental than the existing non-conformities,” that under the Bolata case the relief is permitted “essentially with a finding,” and approval conditioned on the work being done in compliance with the submitted plans. Seconded 00:09:17. Approved by voice vote (ayes) 00:09:18. The Board confirmed the applicant was “all set” and that the decision would be filed within the next couple of weeks 00:10:13.

Petition 2605 — Charles Wilkinson, appeal of building-commissioner determination 00:09:28

The Chair introduced the appeal. The appellant, Charles Wilkinson (29 Littles Point Road), distributed a brief and photographs of his property boundaries, noting digital copies were not yet available [00:09:47, 00:10:29].

Appellant’s grounds 00:10:50. Wilkinson asked the Board to review the building inspector’s determination on three lines:

Classification of the storage structures. The September 3, 2025 letter said the inspector “did not see any dumpsters” but “counted two storage sheds.” Wilkinson argued that if they are sheds, the bylaw’s temporary-storage-container rules (cited as Town Bylaw 2.2.3.0 — non-permanent, no foundation, ≤ ~90 days) should not apply. His structures, he said, are “anchored to the ground by helical ground anchors,” rest on “compacted gravel or earth foundations,” and are “in permanent accessory use” — “storage sheds and tool sheds, not temporary storage containers” 00:12:17.
Factual basis / procedure. He sought an explanation of how the inspector’s conclusions were reached and stated that a September 16, 2025 clarification request after the joint site inspection went unanswered, so “these fines were issued based on unresolved classifications” 00:12:52.
Parcels treated as one. He asserted three legally distinct, separately taxed parcels (combined “greater than six and a half, approaching seven acres”) were treated as a single parcel in the determination [00:11:10, 00:15:50].

Threshold jurisdiction discussion 00:13:17. The Board’s lead legal voice ([Speaker 2/3]; possibly Tony) raised a threshold concern: the ZBA’s jurisdiction over building-inspector appeals is narrow, and an appeal must be filed within 30 days of a determination, or “that jurisdiction” is lost. He said the September 2025 letter’s classifications (storage containers; separate lots) were not timely appealed, so the Board’s analysis should focus on the April 2026 letter, which imposed the fines [00:13:43–00:14:46]. He emphasized this is “not a de novo hearing”; the Board’s role is to determine whether the building inspector “exceeded his authority or made some error” — not to re-receive all evidence 00:20:17.

A second member (likely Mark, [Speaker 6]) developed the timeline split: the September 3 letter concluded the structures were prohibited storage containers and that the parcels were separate lots; that classification appeal was untimely. But the Board has partial jurisdiction on the unregistered vehicle, because the September letter only restated the bylaw (owner represented the vehicle would be sold/garaged within six months), while the April 13 letter reinspected and imposed fines for non-compliance beyond six months — making the vehicle appeal timely [00:17:43–00:18:58].

Unregistered vehicle exchange 00:19:07. Asked what was incorrect about the determination, Wilkinson questioned the factual basis for the unregistered finding — whether photos were taken, whether the registry (RMV) was checked, and whether anyone entered his property without notice, since registration “is not observable unless you are on my property” [00:19:17, 00:22:21]. He confirmed the vehicle was unregistered at the joint September site visit and “would not have been registered” on April 13, but said it was “officially registered today” 00:21:28. The lead legal voice said that, given the inspector had no evidence of registration at the time, he saw no error in the determination 00:21:39. He proposed that the appropriate path was a remand: now that the vehicle is registered, the inspector could reconsider whether to keep or waive the fines — “his determination, not ours” [00:23:18–00:24:04].

Wilkinson added that the vehicle is garaged at 27 Littles Point Road, not 29 Littles Point Road (the address on the determination), arguing this raised a procedural problem 00:24:04. The Board responded that, because he owns/controls all three parcels and had notice of the alleged violation, the address point was not his strongest argument; the remand-for-fine-reconsideration was [00:24:34–00:25:00]. Wilkinson also complained that neither the inspector (“Mr. Bodachi”) nor “Marcy Galaski” replied to his requests for procedural guidance on how to remedy the issue or file an appeal [00:25:25–00:26:00]. The Board noted the determination letters provided notice of the violations and of appellate rights, and that the town has no affirmative obligation to give procedural/legal advice [00:26:00–00:26:30].

Fines / classification 00:26:45. Wilkinson argued the two structures should be a single violation, not two, which would reduce the fines. The Board distinguished: he is untimely as to the classification question but timely as to the fines. A member read the bylaw definition (storage container “shall include but not be limited to” storage container box, portable warehouse, box trailer), while Wilkinson countered that the definition’s “and must be used for temporary storage purposes” is a conjunctive requirement that is “legally deterministic,” and his permanent accessory structures don’t meet it [00:28:15–00:28:49]. The Chair and lead legal voice held that the classification dispute had been determined in September and was time-barred here; Wilkinson asked what body could review the classification if not the ZBA, and was told his recourse is an appeal to court, which could challenge “everything” — the Board’s jurisdiction ruling, the classification, and the underlying determination — likely on de novo review (the legal voice noting he was “not positive about that”) [00:29:28–00:32:06].

A member ([Speaker 4]) raised a further procedural point: the September 3 letter (re: “29 Littles Point Road”) read as a response to complaints rather than a clear determination, whereas the April letter was explicitly a determination with fines 00:32:15. The legal voice pointed to the September letter’s penultimate sentence (“if you are aggrieved by my determination… you have the right to appeal”) as fixing it as the operative determination on classification, and concluded the appellant was untimely as to classification but timely on the fines [00:32:54–00:33:50].

Motion to bifurcate and finding on jurisdiction 00:36:12. The lead legal voice moved:

To bifurcate the ruling, addressing jurisdiction separately from the remaining issues;
A finding that the Building Commissioner’s September 3, 2025 letter was “the operative determination” classifying the structures as storage containers and directing their removal; that the owner had actual notice (the September 16, 2025 response disputing the classification); and that the April 13, 2026 letter “did not materially alter the legal interpretation or impose new container violations” but “enforced the prior determination and assess[ed] penalties for continuing noncompliance”;
Accordingly, the appeal filed May 11, 2026 is untimely as to the storage-container determination (cited as “Mass General Law Chapter 48 Section 15” — almost certainly M.G.L. c. 40A §15; flag as likely transcription/misstatement);
The Board has jurisdiction over whether the vehicle violation and the container fines raised by the April 13, 2026 letter present appealable issues.

Seconded 00:37:40. Passed by voice vote (ayes) 00:37:45.

Public comment 00:44:42

The Chair opened comment, repeatedly cautioning that it must be limited to the live issue — the fines for the unregistered vehicle and the two structures, and the proposed remand — and not the classification, which the Board had ruled outside its jurisdiction [00:43:54–00:44:21].

Pat Sullivan, president of the White Court Condominium Association, with trustees Kathy Healy and Janet Godheb, voiced concern that the storage structures and unregistered vehicles affect White Court property values, noting White Court is “a hundred million dollar property” and substantial taxpayer 00:44:42. He raised a 200-year easement and the shared boundary as residents enter their property past Wilkinson’s vehicles 00:46:07. Wilkinson interjected with two points of order, disputing the easement characterization — “there is no specific easement from Blythwood to White Court or vice versa… the easements in question are from the respective properties to the town” 00:46:18. The Chair redirected, noting the easement dispute was not before the Board; Sullivan said the association had no further questions and understood the matter “has to be legally dealt with” 00:47:26.

Robert Alpert (35 Littles Point Road) asked whether the bylaw reaches vehicle inspection/operability, as in states that require both registration and inspection 00:47:49. The Board ([Speaker 11] and Chair) confirmed the bylaw addresses registration only; inspection is a state-level matter [00:48:09–00:48:25]. Alpert added that the vehicles have been there “many, many months,” “appear to be inoperable and abandoned,” and create “an eyesore,” offered “for informational purposes”; the Chair noted that was outside the Board’s jurisdiction [00:48:32–00:48:51]. (Wilkinson twice asked that speakers “identify [themselves]”; Alpert’s name and address were taken for the record.)

Motion to close the public hearing 00:49:35: moved by the Chair, seconded, passed (ayes) 00:49:37.

Remand of the fines; final motion 00:50:58

In board discussion, the Chair and the lead legal voice agreed the goal of the bylaw fines is compliance, not punishment, and that remanding would let the inspector reconsider rather than leave a “punitive problem” running on [00:49:41–00:50:35]. The lead legal voice stressed the remand does not overturn the determination — “totally within the Building Inspector’s discretion whether to waive any fines, to keep all the fines, [or] continue to fine” 00:50:10. A member ([Speaker 4]) also flagged a wording discrepancy in the letters: the original cited “up to three hundred dollars per day” without clearly stating “per violation,” while the actual assessment was per violation (~$900/day) — a further reason a remand for review was fair [00:40:12–00:41:00]. The appellant indicated he would “strongly consider” removing the structures and replacing them with a compliant structure during a remand period, but maintained he believed the structures are “technically compliant” [00:42:19–00:42:45]. The Board discussed whether to remand-and-keep-open (return in a month) or remand-and-close; consensus favored remand and close, with any further dispute returning as a new appeal [00:43:09–00:43:52].

Final motion 00:50:58 (lead legal voice): to remand the fine issue as presented in the April 2026 letter (timely appealed) to the building inspector to consider whether “to keep, to compromise, to waive… or to continue to fine”; and a finding upholding the determination of the building inspector (the Board is not overturning any decision). Seconded 00:51:45. Passed by voice vote (ayes) 00:51:47.

Adjournment 00:51:56

Motion to adjourn, seconded, passed (ayes) 00:51:58.

Note added to data/news/IDEAS.md: an evergreen civics-explainer idea on the narrow door of a building-inspector appeal (30-day clock, ZBA jurisdiction limits), anchored on this meeting and the Littles Point / White Court neighbor dynamic.

Flags for the corpus:

The MGL citation spoken in the jurisdiction motion (“Chapter 48 Section 15”) is almost certainly M.G.L. c. 40A §15 (the statute governing ZBA appeals and the 30-day limit). Recorded as spoken; flagged as a likely misstatement/transcription error.
The building inspector’s surname appears in five transcription variants (Balducci/Baldacci/Bodaci/Padachi/Vodace) and may have the first name “Rich.” Not added to the dictionary pending a cleaner attestation — HUMAN-REVIEW if a canonical spelling is wanted.
Board-member tag attributions (lead legal voice → possibly Tony; timeline-splitter → likely Mark) are inferences from content continuity and the “I agree with Mark”/“I agree with Susan” cross-references, not from self-introductions. Treat names as provisional.

2026-06-16: Zoning Board Of Appeals