Maintenance done. Here are the minutes.

Zoning Board of Appeals — July 21, 2026

Meeting minutes (SCTV recording, show 3771 — sctv-3771-zba-2026-07-21)

Diarization note. This is a hybrid meeting with recurring remote-audio problems (“can you hear me?”), and the automatic [Speaker N] tags drift badly — the appellant, the Chair, and individual members each appear under multiple tags, and single tags switch person mid-passage. Attributions below lean on named/self-identified moments (self-introductions, addressing-by-name, the roll call) and role context, not on the raw tag numbers. Where a tag can’t be tied to a person, the minutes say so.

Section 1: Agenda

00:00:06 Call to order; approval of prior meeting minutes. (Motion referenced; disposition not clearly captured on tape.)
00:00:41 Petition 26-07 — Thomas Bogacz, appeal of the Building Commissioner’s determination (denial of a request for zoning enforcement) regarding the two-family addition at 24-28 Ingalls Terrace, near the harbor / “40 Steps” public stairway.
- 00:02:46 Appellant’s presentation (slideshow).
- 00:19:59 Board/Building Commissioner exchange on nonconforming-structure law, setbacks, and scenic-view jurisdiction.
- 00:30:36 Chair’s questions to the Building Commissioner on story/height calculations and inspection timing.
- 00:34:38 Owner/builder identification (Doug Dubin).
- 00:34:52 Public comment (supporters and view-concerned residents).
- 00:50:52 Developer’s counsel — timeline, notice, and jurisdiction argument.
- 01:01:35 Motion to close the public hearing.
- 01:01:47 Motion to deny the appeal; findings read into the record.
- 01:05:12 Roll-call vote.
- 01:06:04 Post-vote: decision to be written and filed with the Town Clerk; appellate rights explained.

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Roster reference (ZBA _committee.md + July 21 agenda masthead, id 794; 2026-05 snapshot): Chair Heather Roman; members Marc Kornitsky, Esq., Michelle Graham, Esq., Andrew Rose, Anthony Sanchez, AIA; associate members Susan Sinrich, Paula Pearce. Building Commissioner Richard (“Rich”) Baldacci. (Masthead also historically prints Daniel Doherty, Esq. as Vice Chair, but he is not attested in any 2026 attendance line — see _committee.md reconciliation.)

Because of tag drift, identities are given by person rather than by a stable speaker number:

ZBA Chair — Heather Roman (inferred). Opens the meeting, frames the board’s narrow jurisdiction at the outset (“this is strictly where the as-built somehow differs from what was approved… the appeal period for that has passed” 00:01:26), runs public comment (“state your name and address for the record” 00:34:52), delivers the extended scenic-views-are-one-factor explanation, and conducts the closing roll call. Her voice appears under Speakers 1, 2, and 3 at different points. Chair role corpus-attested; specific utterances matched by role context, not self-introduction.
Marc Kornitsky, Esq. — ZBA member (“Mark”). The board’s lead legal voice. Runs the nonconforming-structure / setback exchange with the appellant (00:19:59–00:29:38), and moves the denial with detailed findings (01:01:47). Confirmed as “Mark” by the roll call: when the Chair says “Yes, Mark,” he answers “Aye. Yes.” 01:05:52. Appears mainly under Speaker 1 in the motion/vote portion. (The developer’s attorney’s reference to “Mr. Grudysky” at 00:55:24 appears to be a garbled “Kornitsky.”)
Thomas (“Tom”) Bogacz — appellant/petitioner (Petition 26-07). Self-introduces: “My name is Tom [Bogacz]” 00:02:46 (rendered “Rogatz”/“Bogatz”). Homeowner near the project; presents the slideshow arguing the addition obstructs public scenic views from the 40 Steps stairway. His voice migrates across Speakers 1 and 2.
Richard (“Rich”) Baldacci — Building Commissioner. Present and speaking. Author of the enforcement-denial being appealed. The Chair addresses him (“I have a couple questions for Rich” 00:30:36); he explains framing-inspection timing and the story/height calculation method. (Referenced by counsel as “Mr. Fair” 00:55:05 — a transcription error for Baldacci.)
Doug Dubin — owner/builder. Self-introduces: “Doug Dubin and McNulty Eastman LLC, we’re the owner, we’re the builders of this, I built it” 00:38:38. (Co-owner Emmett McNulty is named in the related record but does not clearly speak.)
Developer’s counsel — likely Matthew Wolverton, Esq. (attorney for the owners; name not stated on tape). Delivers the closing legal argument (00:50:52–00:58:16): recites the permit timeline, defends notice as statutorily proper, and asks the board to deny the appeal. States he “wasn’t the applicant’s attorney at the time of the hearing before the planning board” but reviewed the decision and tape. Identity inferred from the related January 12 Planning Board record (HJCUboW_HLM), which names Wolverton as the owners’ attorney — flag as inferred.
A co-appellant / abutter (name garbled; 25 Ingalls Terrace household). Appears under Speaker 4 (00:42:54, 00:48:29, 00:59:15). Raises the notice failure — bought/moved in Aug 2025, never notified of the Jan 12 Planning Board hearing because the GIS layer wasn’t updated. Name rendered variously (“Tom Sassman”); not reliably identified — treat as “a co-appellant abutter.”
A view-concerned resident (female; name not taken cleanly). Emotional public-comment turn (00:39:12–00:41:00) about lost harbor views and “what makes Swampscott special,” referencing a prior project (“57… did a beautiful job”). Under Speaker 1.
A knowledgeable supporter of the appellant (00:36:31–00:38:44) who engages the board on the average-grade / half-story calculation and says he faced the same height issue with his own architect (“I’m a supporter of the [Bogacz] family”).
Additional supporters who stated only support and an address (e.g., “60 King Street” 00:35:57; a “Sixth Street” resident 00:35:43).
Voting members named in the roll call 01:05:12: “Mark” (Kornitsky), “Tony” (Anthony Sanchez, inferred), “Susan” (Susan Sinrich, inferred), “John” (name stated but not on the July 21 masthead — flag; possibly a mis-transcription of Andrew Rose or another sitting member), plus one member whose name is garbled at the start of the roll (“city of County”). The Chair conducts and is separate from the five names called.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Opening and framing of jurisdiction 00:00:06

The Chair opened the July 21 meeting and took up minutes (a motion is referenced; the disposition is not clearly captured). She then called Petition 26-07, the appeal by Thomas Bogacz of the Building Commissioner’s determination on the addition at 24-28 Ingalls Terrace.

00:00:59 Before the presentation, the Chair set the scope tightly: the board would not reopen the Planning Board’s site-plan review — “those plans have already been approved… the appeal period for that has passed” 00:01:26 — and would consider only whether the as-built construction differs from the plans the Planning Board approved, which is the question the Building Commissioner had answered (“our building commissioner said no”). A member agreed the Chair “summed it up perfectly” 00:02:06.

Appellant’s presentation — Bogacz 00:02:46

Bogacz introduced himself and framed his concern around public access to scenic views from the “40 Steps” stairway down to the harbor/beach. His central claim: although the new structure’s ridge height matches the legacy structure (he cited ~33.8 ft 00:04:49), the redesign replaces the original triangular gable with a horizontal ridge across both sides, adding mass that obstructs harbor views from the stairway landings — “the biggest… change” visible from the second and fifth landings 00:12:58–00:13:29.

He argued the governing bylaw requires construction to “minimize the obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations” (cited variously as §5.4.3.3 / §5.4.8.3) 00:06:19, and that “minimize” is an ongoing permit condition, not a one-time box-check — obstruction is impermissible where it is “not reasonably necessary” 00:08:03. He asked the board to direct the Building Commissioner to evaluate the project against that standard.

Bogacz raised several specific deficiencies he wanted measured rather than assumed:

No as-built survey certifying foundation location and ridge/building height per the zoning definition had been provided 00:10:33.
A discrepancy in open-space / lot-coverage figures — the plot plan showed one number and the application another, a difference he estimated at ~444 sq ft 00:16:46–00:18:37.
A front-setback question (existing vs. proposed) and how the legacy nonconforming setback governs 00:18:47–00:19:54.
A story-count question — whether the structure is 2½ stories or effectively three, turning on the basement’s exposure and the average finished grade 00:21:03, 00:24:40–00:25:25.

He closed by stressing his appeal “is really not anti-development… they have a right to build two townhouses here” — his issue was the added mass and view impact 00:29:55.

Board / Building Commissioner exchange on nonconforming structures 00:19:59

A member (Kornitsky) and the Building Commissioner explained the applicable law repeatedly:

Setback compliance for an addition is judged by the addition’s own setback, not the whole structure 00:19:59.
Under state case law, a nonconforming structure whose addition conforms to setbacks and doesn’t encroach further than the existing structure does not require ZBA relief 00:27:26–00:28:30. Because the third story didn’t encroach on any setback more than the existing building already did, no zoning relief was needed for it.
The project came before the Planning Board (not the ZBA) only because the addition exceeded the site-plan special-permit square-footage threshold (~500/800 sq ft under §4.5.4.2.2), a size trigger — not a use or dimensional-relief trigger 00:26:03, 00:27:47–00:28:01.

Bogacz pressed on §2273A/B (alteration of a structure encroaching on required yards) and whether an average-grade determination was required; the board and Commissioner held those questions were either satisfied by the Planning Board’s review or premature.

Chair’s questions to the Building Commissioner 00:30:36

The Chair asked “Rich” (Baldacci) about the 2½-story / third-floor calculation and whether it existed in the submitted plans. Baldacci explained:

He had not yet done the framing inspection, which occurs after roof, siding, and windows are on and after rough plumbing and electrical 00:31:09.
Half-story vs. full-story is set by the interior wall location (“50% of the story”), so it cannot be determined until the walls are framed; if it comes in as a full third story, the builder can move the walls to comply, or he would issue an enforcement order 00:49:45–00:50:35.
Height is measured from average grade (measured at the foundation, not where the ground slopes away); the maximum is 35 ft, measured halfway between the ridge and the sill, not to the top of the ridge 00:36:52, 00:37:37.
The submitted plans gave basement dimensions but not a story count 00:32:27; the board could not itself make that determination now — “that will happen during the inspection” 00:33:25.

Owner/builder identification 00:34:38

Doug Dubin identified himself and McNulty Eastman LLC as the owner/builder, stating he built the project 00:38:38. The Chair deferred his fuller comment until after public comment.

Public comment 00:34:52

The Chair opened comment, asking supporters to simply state support and everyone to give name and address, and repeating that the only live question was whether the construction differs from the approved plans.

Several supporters of the appellant spoke briefly, some giving only an address (e.g., “60 King Street” 00:35:57).
A supporter worked through the average-grade / half-story math with the board, saying he had hit the same height limit on his own project 00:36:31–00:38:44.
A view-concerned resident (00:39:12–00:41:00) gave an emotional plea about permanently lost harbor views and neighborhood character — “when you get to the top of the steps and it’s gone, it’s going to be for good” — while also praising the building itself. The Chair and a member responded that the board has no jurisdiction over the view under this appeal; scenic-view protection was the Planning Board’s to weigh when it granted the permit 00:40:37–00:40:53.
A co-appellant / abutter (00:42:54) raised the notice failure: they were not notified of the January Planning Board hearing because the town GIS layer does not sync to the Assessor’s database. They had moved in August 2025, and the Assessors updated ownership December 18, 2025 — four days before the January 12 hearing — yet notice went to the prior owner, then to the post office 00:59:15–00:59:59. A member acknowledged the notice “just didn’t come to your name” although it “was mailed to your address,” and agreed the underlying GIS/assessor mismatch is a real problem (“they can’t admit it’s not even accurate right now” 01:00:10).

Throughout, board members (Chair and Kornitsky) reiterated the two-part limit on their authority: (1) the 40A appeal window on the Planning Board permit had lapsed, and (2) scenic-view protection is one of several Planning Board site-plan factors — “preserving useful public ways, not private views” 00:48:23 — and “not preserve scenic views at all costs” 00:45:56. Because the project is conforming (no dimensional relief sought), the board noted a compliant project is given more latitude on view impact than one seeking setback relief 00:46:06–00:46:37.

Developer’s counsel — closing argument 00:50:52

The owners’ attorney (likely Matthew Wolverton, Esq.) laid out the timeline and asked the board to deny the appeal:

Application filed December 2025; Planning Board hearing January 12, 2026; site-plan special permit granted unanimously; decision filed January 29; appeal period expired March 9; decision recorded at the Registry March 10; building permit granted March 17; the permit’s appeal period expired April 17 00:52:26–00:53:16.
On notice: he “checked with Kristen McCall”; statutory notice goes to the owner as assessed as of January 1, and it went to the property address of record — “there are no procedural defects” 00:53:56–00:54:11.
On height: the owner voluntarily hired a surveyor and the measured height was 33.3 ft — lower than what was permitted — and the Building Commissioner submitted that to the board 00:54:52–00:55:12.
On jurisdiction: the view issue “is over” — the Planning Board considered views, made findings, and unanimously granted the permit; nothing before the ZBA shows the Building Commissioner erred or that the build exceeded the permit. He asked the board to “vote in the negative against the applicant’s request to overrule the determination of the commission,” calling the appellant’s points “suppositional” 00:57:02, 00:58:07.

A public speaker attempted to enter a petition of ~56–57 signatures opposing the project and to show photographs; the Chair and a member declined to review the photos and kept the record to the jurisdictional question 00:51:24–00:52:03.

Motion, findings, and vote

00:59:40–01:00:13 The board and a co-appellant briefly discussed asking the town to add “or current resident/occupant” to notice mailings to prevent a repeat of the notice gap; a member said “we’ve been discussing that… that would help” 01:00:14.

01:00:33 A member asked how the board formally disposes of an appeal of a Building Commissioner decision. Kornitsky explained it is a de novo review: the board “stands in the commissioner’s shoes,” the burden is on the applicant/petitioner, and four votes are needed to overturn 00:00:47–01:00:58. Standing was treated as established without dispute 01:01:24–01:01:33.

01:01:38 Motion to close the public hearing — made and seconded; the hearing was closed.

01:01:47 Motion to deny the appeal (Kornitsky), with findings read into the record:

The appeal arises under G.L. c. 40A §8, allowing appeal to the permit-granting authority by a person aggrieved 01:02:06.
The board conducts a de novo review, standing in the commissioner’s shoes on the evidence and facts presented, and may affirm, reverse, or modify — this is not an abuse-of-discretion standard but the board’s independent determination of compliance 01:02:13–01:02:51.
The scenic-view standard (§5.4.8.3) is outside the board’s jurisdiction on this appeal — it was for the Planning Board to consider 01:03:01–01:03:15.
The petitioner has standing as a person aggrieved 01:03:28.
On the evidence (or lack of it), there is no inconsistency between the approved plans and the as-built at this time; no as-built plan yet exists, and no facts show a deviation from the plans the Planning Board approved 01:03:44–01:04:14.
The board makes no findings on whether there is a third floor / half-story or anything above — those are outside its purview at this stage (pending the Building Commissioner’s framing inspection) 01:04:25–01:04:37.
Applying the de novo standard to all materials submitted, the application to overturn the Building Inspector should be denied 01:04:48–01:05:04.

01:05:12 Roll-call vote (to deny). The Chair conducted the roll; each member confirmed a “yes” is a vote in favor of the motion to deny. Members called: [name garbled], Tony, John, Susan, Mark — all voted yes. The appeal was denied unanimously.

Post-vote 01:06:04

Kornitsky noted a written decision will be prepared and filed with the Town Clerk, after which the petitioner has a further right of appeal to court within the statutory window; the board would provide a copy of the decision to the appellant on filing 01:06:04–01:06:25.

Corpus maintenance performed this run: added a confirmation/notice-failure bullet to data/political_context/2026-05.md (the 2026-08-18 block already anticipated this transcript); appended a ⚡ news idea on the GIS↔Assessor notice desync to data/news/IDEAS.md; added spelling variants for Kornitsky, Baldacci, and Bogacz to data/swampscott_dictionary.yaml. No prior minutes records required correction.

2026-07-21: Zoning Board Of Appeals