[Speaker 4] (6:55 - 7:48)
Good evening, having been informed by the town clerk that a quorum is present, I'd like everyone to file into the room, find a seat, and we will be called to order in 60 seconds as I see the number of people still looking for seats. Thank you, welcome. As I mentioned, we do have a quorum, so I'd like to call this special town meeting of the town of Swampscott June 14, 2022 to order.

I would ask the town clerk to read the return on the warrant.

[Speaker 20] (7:52 - 8:06)
I go to section 2 of the bylaws of the town of Swampscott that a special town meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 14, 2022 beginning at 7 p.m. in the Swampscott High School Auditorium, 200 Essex Street, Swampscott.

[Speaker 4] (8:08 - 8:22)
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. For all those who are not here in May, could you please rise so that you may be sworn in. No shame.

[Speaker 20] (8:24 - 9:04)
Do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and impartially perform all the duties imposed upon me by my election as town meeting member in the town of Swampscott according to the laws of the Commonwealth and the bylaws of the town of Swampscott. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (9:05 - 15:08)
Thank you everyone, please be seated. Before we get to tonight's business, one of the distinct pleasures of this office is being able to take a moment and recognize people who have been truly outstanding in their contribution to this town. I have one such person I'd like to recognize tonight.

If you'll indulge me for a minute. I first met this person when I was appointed the Finance Committee Liaison to the Town Building Study Committee in 2007. She had already been on town meetings since 2000 and was serving a term on the Planning Board.

She then won a seat on the Select Board and proceeded to serve there for six years, including serving as Chair and has since served on the Finance Committee for seven years. And I am just so pleased to have been able to get to know her, to work with her. She has been tireless in the work that she's done for the town and all this while earning a PhD and moving on to be a teacher and as a change of career.

It's an impressive history. We are all indebted to her, and I would like to recognize Jill Sullivan for the Outstanding Citizenship Award. Thank you for your indulgence, and thank you, Ms. Sullivan. I will dispense with most of the history and context for town meeting just to remind you that we are part of a long tradition of participatory democracy. I'll go through a few procedural items for those of you who are not here in May and may be new. Speaking this evening, if you wish to speak, simply raise your hand.

I will do my best to recognize everybody who wishes to speak. Town meeting members should expect to be recognized. Of course, I may choose to recognize people who have not spoken recently or at all.

We also have a number of visitors here this evening, and registered voters may also address this body as of right, and I will do my best to recognize them as well. A predecessor of mine was fond of saying that full and fair debate is not the same thing as endless debate, so I'm going to ask you all to keep your remarks succinct as well as observe decorum and be polite to your fellow speakers. Please direct your comments and questions through me.

This is not a debate or cross-examination. This is a parliamentary procedure. I will do my best to find the answer, the person best suited to answer questions if you have them.

Also, if someone has just made the comment that you're about to make, it is perfectly fine to say, I agree with the previous speaker. If you are looking to make an amendment to a motion on the floor, I require that in writing, and the town clerk has forms for your convenience. Finally, a quick note from last time that I neglected to make.

When you are speaking, approach the microphone as close as I am, because otherwise if you are over here, it's very hard to hear what you are saying, and we have people at home who are watching and they cannot hear what's going on. So please, if you need to adjust the height of the microphone, the angle of the microphone, just make sure that you're up close enough to it that they don't have to turn the sound up loud enough that we get the feedback that we had last time. As far as voting goes, I will ask for a show of hands, or in some instances, I may decide to hold a standing vote.

The standing vote will be yeas, stand, I will appoint tellers, they will count, and we'll consult with the town clerk. Then the nays will stand, we'll count, and I will announce the results. If, after I declare a show of hands vote, seven members rise immediately to demand a standing vote, we will have one as well.

Further, if 30 members rise immediately, you can force a roll call vote in which the clerk will call the entire roll, and we will hear people say yay or nay. We also have an obscure provision for a secret ballot, but that requires two-thirds of this body to vote that we should hold a vote by secret ballot. And as elected town meeting members, as opposed to an open town meeting, I think this is not exactly in keeping with the role that you have as an elected official representing your precincts.

With that, I will ask one last announcement. I want to thank Jim Pierce and Eddie Rovey of the High School Performing Arts Department for allowing us to share their stage and clearing instruments away prior to tomorrow's fundraiser for the Performing Arts, 7 p.m. here tomorrow. I'm sure they would love your support.

It's a great group of students, theater, music, etc. So I encourage you all to join that. With that, if I can have, did I lose Diane?

Standby. There we go. And advance.

We will come to Article 1, Article 1, Treating with the Acquisition of Land. Mr. Dorsey.

[Speaker 3] (15:22 - 19:40)
Let's see. How's that? Can you hear me?

Tim Dorsey, town meeting member, Precinct 4, and chairman of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee recommends that the town vote to authorize the select board to acquire by gift, purchase, or eminent domain a fee simple interest in the properties located at 1, 149 through 169 Humphrey Street, Swampscott, commonly called the Hawthorne property, which is comprised of Assessor's Tax Map 2-185-0, containing 1.38, or excuse me, 1.378 acres, more or less, and Assessor's Tax Map 2-189-0, containing 0.95 acres, more or less, and described in deeds recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 8716, page 373, and Book 40062, page 545, together with all improvements thereto, and that personal property included therewith, such property to be used only, A, for its current use in the existing building and for school and public parking within the existing parking lot, each use for a period of time not to extend beyond December 31st, 2023, without further approval by a vote of a majority of town meeting, and B, for any other purposes authorized by a future vote of town meeting after a public process to solicit input from the town residents as to other potential purposes, provided, however, such future purposes shall in all cases include public access to the portions of the property adjacent to the coastline. Two, real property located off Archer Street, Swampscott, Massachusetts, known as Assessor's Tax Map 7-1-0, containing 5.033 acres, more or less, and described in a deed recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 33363, page 547, together with all improvements located thereon, if any, and all appurtenant rights thereto, such property to be used for open space and conservation purposes only, to be evidenced by a conservation restriction on the property. And three, real property located off Archer Street, Swampscott, Massachusetts, known as Assessor's Tax Map 7-213 through 7-248, inclusive, and Assessor's Tax Map 7-250 through 7-255, inclusive, which in total contain 4.5 acres, more or less, together with all improvements located thereon, if any, and all appurtenant rights thereto, such property to be used for open space and conservation purposes only, to be evidenced by a conservation restriction on the property. As funding for said acquisitions, all legal fees, design costs relating to potential future uses of the properties, and other incidental and related costs to authorize the treasurer, with the approval of the select board, to borrow the sum of $8.875 million under General Laws C44, Clause 44, Sections 7 and 8, and or any other enabling authority, and to issue bonds or notes of the town therefore, and to authorize the select board to apply for, accept, and expend any sums that may be provided by the Commonwealth or other public or private sources to defray all or a portion of the costs of said acquisition, and further, to authorize the select board to enter into all agreements and execute any and all instruments on behalf of the town as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate said acquisitions. I move the recommendation of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 4] (19:41 - 19:43)
Is there a second? Hearing a second, Mr. Dorsen?

[Speaker 3] (19:46 - 29:31)
So I thought I would start tonight with a brief discussion of, you know, in order to sort of solidify our recommendation and provide the rationale for our recommendation, I thought it made sense to start by highlighting some uncertainties and potential risks associated with the investment under discussion tonight. First of all, there are uncertain costs and revenue benefits from future revenue, from future uses, excuse me, in particular with respect to the Hawthorne property. As to uncertain costs, as you heard in the motion, the motion contemplates that we will have a public input process for the whole town and a future town meeting vote to discuss the potential uses of the Hawthorne property.

It's possible that those uses will be expensive. We don't know. There is confidence, based on ongoing conversations with state and federal officials, that grants will be available to support certain open space uses, if that's what the town decides.

But there's no guarantee that the grant funding will be available for all of the uses that the town decides upon and or that the full cost of the desired uses will be covered by grants. As to potential revenue and the fact that we're uncertain as to what the revenue benefits are from potential future uses, we don't know what they are until we have those public processes. Our recommendation assumes no revenue.

Our recommendation to approve this motion stands with zero revenue coming from all three of the properties. Of course, the other two properties, as you heard in the motion, are restricted to open space and conservation uses, and so we don't anticipate any revenue associated with those properties. We are supportive of the current Article I language, which leaves the final decision to town meeting after ideas are generated in a townwide public input process.

And it provides flexibility for potential uses such that open space and revenue-generating uses may be considered loan or in combination at the Hawthorne property in particular. Risk number two, foregone revenue. There are uses of the Hawthorne property that could generate significant revenue for the town.

We know that the development of a property by a private owner would generate more revenue than all or partially open space uses. Using the estimated taxes that will be paid upon full occupancy at the White Court property, just as a comparison point, a reasonable range of property tax revenue that could be gained if a similar development were built at Hawthorne is between $700,000 and $800,000 per year. And the third risk I wanted to highlight is one of the Archer properties, the four-plus-acre property, is not yet under agreement.

And tonight's motion authorizes the town to acquire the property by agreement or by eminent domain uses, the use of eminent domain. There's always a risk of litigation associated with taking a property by eminent domain if that's what happens with that Archer Street property. During our deliberations on this article, the town finance team and select board have indicated that it is their desire and their efforts will be focused on reaching mutual agreement with that landowner.

And they're confident that the dollars that are authorized tonight will be sufficient for the acquisition of all three properties in all circumstances. So everything is not perfectly buttoned up in advance and risks need to be managed. Knowing this, we recommend favorable action as we find that this investment is financially viable for the town and a unique opportunity.

And if I could, do you have the clicker or do I have the clicker? Oh, you can. Okay, thank you.

So, again, what I want to share here are just two quick slides to really walk through the rationale for our recommendation. I mentioned that it's a unique opportunity. We recognize that the proposed investment is an opportunity to acquire potentially the most unique piece of property in Swampscott, certainly one of the premier properties in Swampscott at its assessed value.

And it allows us to acquire two other properties that will promote the town's open space goals. And as we all heard back at the annual town meeting, there aren't a lot of these properties remaining in Swampscott to allow for such uses. So it's a unique opportunity.

The town's total outstanding debt after this investment, and including all of the existing and current investments, including the recently approved elementary school, will remain under $100 million, which is well below our statutory limits on debt that can be incurred by the town. And to give you a sense, we did look at, with the help of our town's treasurer, we looked at initially ten potential financing scenarios. I shared three here tonight to give you a feel for what the cost would be associated with this debt.

And in particular, what we're looking at is if we assume 20-, 25-, or 30-year debt, and we assume that it's going to be level debt financing. So that means you pay the same debt service, both principal and interest, each year over the term as opposed to paying. So level debt financing assumes that you'll pay the same amount of debt service over the full term as opposed to often you'll see projects funded with heavier payments early on and lower payments later.

This is a flat payment of the debt service. You get a sense of the size of the debt service that would hit our operating budget each year under the different scenarios. So it ranges from $528,000 per year of additional debt service under the 30-year term down to 20 years, which raises the debt service up to $645,000 per year.

And, again, I think this is an area where the treasurer, with support and review with the finance committee, will be looking over the next several months to determine the optimal financing structure, given all of the projects on the books and anticipated over the next several years, to determine how to position the town best to move forward if we approve this investment. And, again, so the other piece that we've looked at in our reviews over the last month or so, we obviously looked at the tax impact of this investment. And based on a set of assumptions and scenarios, the town is estimating between $83 to $110 impact on the median single-family tax bill prior to the use of any reserves.

But reserves are available to mitigate the tax impact. With the use of reserves, the impact can be reduced to approximately $75 to $100 under the sample financing scenarios. So this equates to, just to give a sense, approximately a $12.70 to $17 impact per $100,000 of home value. Reserves are projected to be available to mitigate this risk, both from the General Stabilization Fund, even after accounting for the proposed use of reserves from the General Stabilization Fund that we talked about in connection with the new elementary school, and from the Capital Stabilization Fund, such that we can mitigate the tax impact over the next 12 to 13 years as other projects roll off from debt service. And after such projected uses of reserve funds, both funds would remain at levels within the range called for by our financial guidelines.

I just want to be clear on that. When we talked about the new elementary school, we talked about using excess reserves from the Stabilization Fund. Those were amounts above the range that we have in our financial guidelines.

This use would take those funds over the next 10 to 12 years within the range, still within our financial guideline range, but it's not all excess reserve funds. So in summary, we recognize the opportunity and the potential here. We support that the decision for the sites, and in particular the Hawthorne site, should be up to the town as a whole, acting through the town meeting.

And we believe that from a financial perspective, the cost of the properties is reasonable and can be managed by the town without compromising the town's credit or ability to manage prioritized additional capital investments down the road, as long as we remain committed to the financial policies and practices and principles that have guided our town over the past several years. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (29:31 - 29:40)
Thank you, Mr. Dorsey. I'm going to offer the Select Board and the Planning Board a chance to address the body and then turn it over to debate. Mr. Spellios.

[Speaker 1] (30:06 - 45:36)
Michael, can you just show which one? Sorry. Good evening, everyone.

Peter Spellios, member of the Select Board and Precinct 2. Tonight is your turn to decide what and how you want to deal with these properties. And I think you're going to hear from our Planning Board Chair shortly.

And I've listened to her speak at some recent meetings, and she so profoundly speaks about her history. And I suspect you're going to hear a little bit about her history again tonight from her. But how often do we get a second chance is a phrase that she's used more than once.

And tonight, in certain respects, is a second chance, a second chance that hopefully our kids, our grandkids, your neighbors' kids, grandkids, their kids will enjoy for generations from now to see the fruits of what you did here tonight to protect something forever, to keep something available, something that was envisioned over 150 years ago, was contemplated in town reports as something that should have been saved, that was recommended to be saved, but the town didn't take that action back then. And the town might not have been in a position to take that action back then. But the town is in a position now to take that action.

And the ultimate decision is with you all tonight of whether or not we take that action. Give me a second. We're going to see if this is going to pop up here.

Wow, that's great. All right, next. All right, I'm going to fly through some slides that you saw.

I promise you no videos and no music. But I'm going to fly through them because there are people that asked who weren't here previously at the last meeting. You saw them.

They were standing by themselves getting sworn in earlier. But there's also people at home watching who wanted to hear a little bit more about these properties. So I'm going to go really quickly through this.

Next slide, please. I mentioned at the Maytown meeting that there's only 19 acres of land left in Swamscott that's both buildable and undeveloped. It's a remarkable number.

It's 1.2% of our entire town. That is all that remains of buildable and yet undeveloped land. Next, please.

Next, please. The first two parcels I'm going to talk about, which are the second and third in Article 2, so I'm doing it in a different order, are approximately 9.5 acres of land located off of Foster's Road, located near Archer Street, Vaughan Place. These two parcels represent in and of themselves 50% of the remaining undeveloped buildable land.

But in truth, what these parcels have shown that they're undeveloped for a reason. They're really challenging. They're really topographically challenged.

The access is really difficult. Over the last decade and a half, we've seen multiple failed attempts to try and develop one or both of these properties. Our conversation as a town, as a select board, started 18 months ago talking about open space.

Before any 40B projects were proposed for these properties, before any current schemes were, recognizing that about a decade ago, one of these two properties was approved for some development but never built. Our conversation was about looking across the town and finding parcels of land on all sides of town that were worthy of us prioritizing and maintaining as open space. Next slide, please.

Next slide, please. The first property is the 5.0233 acres approximately parcel. This property, we have a purchase and sale agreement.

The residents, the owners of the property live in the great state of Arizona, and we're very gracious to engage the town in a conversation about preserving this property and preserving it in perpetuity for open space for the benefit of you all, our kids, our grandkids, and onward. This property, we have a purchase price of $400,000 for. If you've been on the property or you've seen the property, it's completely unbuilt.

There's no improvements on the property, but it's a wonderful blank canvas for perhaps some trails, perhaps for people to do nature walks. And most spectacularly, I mentioned before, there's an incredible ledge on the Salem line of the property, a piece of ledge that's about 20 feet tall that you stand up on top and you look down not only on a ball field and seeing kids play ball, but you're able to see the Lynn Horizon and the mountains behind it. It's frankly a view that I've never seen in the town of Swampscott until I went on this property.

The use, as indicated tonight, is for open space and conservation purposes, and with your approval tonight, we will be placing a conservation restriction on this property, which, again, forever protects it for open space and conservation purposes. This property would close in September. Assuming a favorable vote by a town meeting, the town will do due diligence to make sure that we understand all the things about the property, and assuming that goes well, the property will close in September.

The next property is the 4.5-acre property. This is the one that Mr. Dorsey referenced that the town does not yet have an agreement to purchase. We view this property as a vital and important part.

To be able to assemble almost 10 acres of community land together for trails, for outdoor space, for nature, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, especially in a town like Swampscott where 9.5 acres of vacant land doesn't exist. We are committed to continue to work with the property owner to see if we can reach a mutual agreement on this property. The town administrator has been engaging in conversations, and our hope is that agreement is reached.

But as Mr. Dorsey said, we're asking tonight that even if agreement is not reached, that you allow the town to acquire this property. We think it's an important part of this assemblage. Again, just like the 5.033-acre parcel, this would be maintained for open space and conservation purposes with a conservation restriction put on it to maintain this property forever as conservation and open space. Next, please. The next property, the Hawthorne Pier 4 property. We have a purchase-and-sale agreement that assuming the vote goes favorably tonight, the select board will be meeting tomorrow night to take a vote to execute the purchase-and-sale agreement.

It has already been executed by the owner of the property. This property has a purchase price of $7 million, which is, as you can see from the screen, pretty much the assessed value of the property. It's the result of a prolonged negotiation discussion with the Athenas family.

I would be remiss if I didn't take this moment to again comment and thank the Athenas family for coming to the table when we called and staying at the table and taking part in what at times were difficult discussions, challenging, complex discussions, but every step of the way, the Athenases responded. They picked up the phone, and they stayed at the table to allow this conversation to unfold. So I'm grateful, and the board is grateful to the Athenas family for that.

Under this purchase-and-sale agreement, we're obligated to close by October of this year. The Hawthorne-by-the-Sea Restaurant has a use-and-occupancy agreement that will allow them to continue occupying the property for one year after the closing. Your warrant in front of you tonight talks about uses, and so I want to talk with you a little bit about uses and the process going forward here.

Next slide. You're really good at this, Amy, since you've never seen this. Through December 31st of 2023, the only uses that will be allowed on the Hawthorne property are the existing use and the existing building.

Secondly, public parking and school parking, subject to further agreements with the Athenas family. I want to put another caveat here and talk about this for a second. The town has reached out to the Athenas family, knowing that the Blaney School is going to start being used as elementary schools this upcoming school year, and asked them if they would be amenable during the day to allow school parking.

We have to work out final details with the Athenas', but they are receptive to us, and again, we appreciate that, and we think this is an important opportunity given that both the Hadley School and the Blaney School are in such close proximity, both of which with no off-street parking. So this will be a huge benefit to the teachers and those at the school. After December 31st, the use is going to be decided by you.

This is consistent with what we did several years ago about Greenwood. This is consistent with what we did several years ago about the Michon School when we decided that to be senior open space, and it's consistent with what we will also be doing for the Hadley School. You all get to be the final deciders, the final arbiters of what the future of these buildings are going to be.

In this case, you will make the decision about what the future uses of the Hawthorne will be. The language does include a provision that talks about public access to portions of the property adjacent to the coastline. I want to stop here and make a specific point.

The Select Board feels very strongly that open space be a primary focus for this property. It does not mean that we shouldn't go through a very robust community process for people to entertain and bring forth other ideas. But you should know the Select Board, just like the Finance Committee, made the decision, made the recommendation to do this, assuming we would have no revenue from these properties.

So we are not asking you to support this under the premise, under the idea, under the romantic notion that these properties are going to be anything that will generate money. These are properties that are going to generate memories, not money. Now, if Town Meeting, through a robust community process, comes back with some ideas and want to do things, and Town Meeting ultimately approves those things, then we can make the change, and that, again, will be Town Meeting's voice.

But I did want to share the view of the overwhelming majority of the Select Board on this. You may remember in May, in May, I showed you quickly this graphic, which is just one visual of what could end up being thousands of visuals through the public process of us creating. This one happens to create a park, creates 28 parking spaces and has maybe a 1,000-square-foot building that could be facilities, it could be restrooms, it could be a small restaurant, it could be any number of things.

But this is, again, one of what could be thousands of ideas. I want to share it with you again, because I think that's a good lead-in to saying, so what are we going to do after tonight if things go well and you all support these articles tonight? So tonight, here we are, June 14th, we're going to have Town Meeting approval, assuming that goes well.

Tomorrow night, the Select Board meets, as I mentioned, and we're going to vote to execute the purchase and sale agreement. October 31st, we close on the Hawthorne-by-the-Sea property and become the official owners. You all become the official owners of the Hawthorne-by-the-Sea property.

And then one year later, the lease expires, and the building and what the future will be hopefully will be known through a process that I'm now going to go through. In July and August of this year, the appropriation that you are being asked to support includes money to allow us to engage designers and planners to help facilitate a robust community process. In July and August, town staff will do the requisite work to identify a designer or facilitator, a planner, to work with the town and to moderate and facilitate forms over the next many months.

From September through April, we'll go through that robust process. That process will include community forums. That process will include charrettes.

That process will include planning studies, will include zoning studies, will include revenue studies if revenue is being considered. We'll be talking about parking. We'll be talking about all the things that this community wants to talk about, such that at the annual town meeting next year, the hope is that that request, the future of the Hawthorne, the uses of the Hawthorne, will be brought before this body for you all to decide on the future of the uses.

I'm going to stop here. I'm sure there's plenty of questions. I'm sure there's going to be other topics that I haven't touched upon that you'll all want to touch upon, but I want to finish by saying this.

We didn't get here by accident, and so many of you are responsible for why we're here. I was thinking today, when I started getting involved in 2000, there was a planning board chair by the name of Gene Barden, and Gene Barden had been the planning board chair for 30 years, and, man, Gene Barden would love to debate me, but he was the beginning of a consciousness for me. He was the beginning of a consciousness for so many people.

His sons sit here as town meeting members and active residents in our town. We have an open space planning committee who have become the open space consciousness of our town that tirelessly meet, and have been talking about open space, have been prioritizing open space, have been trying to be creative about it. Frankly, one of the most organized committees if you ever want to watch a really good committee.

They have a great tracking system. Tanya Lillick is the chair, and the whole committee is filled with amazing people. We have a conservation commission, and this is not going to be the only time you're going to hear me mention Tony Bandewitz.

There'll be multiple times for Tony Bandewitz's name, who are just passionate about what they do, and care so deeply. The outgrowth of that social consciousness is groups like the Swamp Scrap Conservancy, which, again, is just an increasing of our voice about that social consciousness, about raising that idea, raising those ideals for our community, something that I think in years and decades past had been missing. We have a planning board chair, Angela Ippolito, who spends countless hours and is so passionate about it, and I love it, because even when she agrees, she talks to me as though she's convincing me of something.

We have a town employee who just came back for his third stint with the town of Swamp Scrap, Peter Kane, who was our first planner. I don't know if Peter's in this room or not yet, but he was really our first foray into thinking about what was possible on things. And this town made an investment in planning, and you would have thought that we had just moved heaven and earth when we appropriated $35,000 for a part-time planner.

A decade on, look where we are now. People like Peter Kane, people like Mars Igalaska, people like our planning staff, people like our financial team are making this possible. And so I would be remiss if I just didn't use this moment to recognize that this, tonight, is the culmination of an increase of our social conscience and our social responsibility, not by accident, but because of all these people and your stories that I may not know about, but your contributions being here tonight and hopefully your vote tonight.

With that, thank you, and I look forward to answering questions. Thank you, Mr. Speleos.

[Speaker 4] (45:41 - 45:42)
Ms. Ippolito?

[Speaker 2] (45:49 - 54:22)
Good evening, everyone. Angela Ippolito, Precinct 5 town meeting member and chair of the planning board. I'm here tonight to tell you that the planning board overwhelmingly and enthusiastically supports the acquisition of these properties.

It's hard to overstate how important this is for our town and how it speaks to our ability to start connecting the dots and see where we've been and where we're going. When I started on the planning board many years ago, I could never have predicted the kind of development, the extent of the development, the density and the traffic and the continuous encroaching on space and the ever-present building and developing. Clearly, people have private property rights and we're going to continue to build, and it's hard to just be able to use zoning to control what happens, but this is an opportunity for us to really control what happens.

And looking back over time, I realize that these were efforts that were put in place over 100 years ago. In 1893, when the state of Massachusetts created the first Metropolitan Commission for Parks, and this was on the heels of the work that Olmstead had done in New York City before he came up to Massachusetts, and it was a time after the Civil War when people were worried. People then were worried about open space disappearing because there was such a rush to build and create more and more and more space.

And in Swampscott, our entire identity is tied to the sea. It's how and why our population landed here and began. It's how we grew.

And the Parks Commission at that time, which was the first regional park system in the country, was called the Metropolitan Parks Commission, and they recommended that the 36 communities in and around Metropolitan Boston, which included Swampscott at the time, that they set out plans to acquire open space. And it actually allowed cities and towns at that time, by law, to acquire open space, park space, by eminent domain. Their recommendation for the town of Swampscott was that we acquired the land of Kings Beach.

From Kings Beach all the way to the Fish House. So that includes all the land from not just the beach, but it includes the small park next to Mission-on-the-Bay, would include the Mission-on-the-Bay property, the Hawthorne property, and all the houses along Humphrey Street all the way through to Blaney Beach and the Fish House property. Well, the town decided at the time that they would take Kings Beach, but they were very concerned about all the little fishing shacks that were sitting on Fisherman's Beach, so they decided, no, it's more important, we're just going to, right now we can't, we shouldn't do it, and we don't really need that right now, and we'll just take Fisherman's Beach and Blaney Beach, and that led to them knocking down all those little fishing shacks on Fisherman's Beach and building the Fish House.

Fast forward 50, 60 years later, and in the town reports, don't worry, I only brought a few to show you. I have, I worked on the Historic Archives years ago, and I have all kinds, and you all have access to these too, all of our historic annual reports, which are fascinating, but the annual reports of the time lament the fact that we never acquired the space, and over the years, we've continued to lament the fact that we never acquired the space. In 1960, the town established the Conservation Commission for the first time, and their goal at the outset was to look around and desperately try to find protection for parks and public land that had no protection at the time.

It was because of the Conservation Commission and their efforts and their work with the Swampscott Foundation that the people who had purchased the land that we now know as Linscott Park, after the Chick Estate was demolished, that they offered it to the town as a park for a certain amount of money, and the town, which I can actually point out to you, this is in 1962, at town meeting, which the whole warrant is right here, in here, but in, oh, excuse me, this was actually in, pardon me, 1962 was the report from the Conservation Commission about acquiring land. This was in 1972, where the town had voted to accept the land from the Swampscott Foundation, and that was Article 49 at the town meeting, which was approved, and the following article, the following article, Article No. 50, was a zoning change on that exact property to allow eight feet of height and extraordinary density on that exact site, and over, you know, if you want to take a look at annual report from 1972, pages 58, 59, 60, 61, you'll see the entire article, which describes in detail the massing and the tall apartment buildings that were envisioned for that site.

Fortunately, the Swampscott Foundation quickly redid their deed and put the land in a conservation restriction and gave it back to the town, but it's deeded in perpetuity as open space, and thank God, because what would Swampscott look like now? You know, we got the chance to look backward and connect those dots. What would Swampscott look like now?

So we never get to look back and go back in time. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance, so this isn't just a nice-to-have, this isn't a, you know, 50-year, won't-it-be-great, type of building. This is something that is a lifetime investment.

It's forever. It's a one-time-only opportunity. We're not going to get this again.

It's a one-lifetime-only opportunity, and we will have the chance to look back and connect those dots. We'll be able to see the whole picture once we have a public park on the ocean, and you may say, oh, there are other parks around there. We are, Swampscott is an ocean community.

That's who we are. That's where our livelihood first came from. That's how our town came to be.

We don't have any public accessible parks on the ocean. They may have a nice view, but we don't have any oceanfront parks. This is something that we get to do once, and I fully recommend with all my heart, and I have the pleasure of saying that the entire planning board supports this with the same amount of enthusiasm that I do, and I wish that all of you would vote yes on Article I.

Thank you very much.

[Speaker 4] (54:31 - 54:53)
Thank you, Ms. Zippolito. I would like to now open the floor to members and or visitors. Ms. Driscoll. House left front, please.

[Speaker 5] (54:54 - 54:55)
What? There you go.

[Speaker 4] (54:55 - 54:58)
Please identify yourself and...

[Speaker 5] (54:58 - 55:07)
Ann Driscoll, Precinct 1 town meeting member. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. To fall on the heels of Angela, who spoke so eloquently...

[Speaker 4] (55:07 - 55:08)
If you can just approach the mic a little more.

[Speaker 5] (55:09 - 55:10)
Can you hear me?

[Speaker 4] (55:10 - 55:11)
That's better.

[Speaker 5] (55:11 - 1:01:03)
Okay. Thank you, Angela. On July 26, 1895, the three members of Swampscott's first park commissioners who were elected in 1894 met with landscape architect Charles Elliott, who later founded the Trustees of the Reservations in Massachusetts.

Charles Elliott was an apprentice of Frederick Law Olmsted, who designed Central Park, Boston's Emerald Necklace, and eventually our own monument area. And when Elliott visited Swampscott, he was shown the shoreline as possible public parklands. Both Elliott and Olmsted were part of a movement that saw public park spaces as the great equalizers, enabling all citizens, no matter income, education, or ethnicity, to enjoy nature and beauty.

Elliott was impressed by Swampscott's shoreline and strongly urged commissioners to secure both King's Beach and what was then called Blaney Beach and now known as Fisherman, as well as the driveway along the edge of Blackwills Cliff, what we now know as the property of Hawthorne-by-the-Sea and the parking lot for St. John... Excuse me, the Evangelist Church. As envisioned by Elliott and others, this walkway along Blackwills Cliff was intended to connect the beaches of King's and Blaney's, a.k.a. Fisherman's. Blackwills Cliff is a historic place in its own right, as it was the home of Poquanam, a Native American chief or sachem, also known as Duke William or Blackwill. He sold Blackwills Cliff and Ahant to a man named Thomas Dexter for two stone pestles, a jaw harp, and a suit of clothes, although the town would later null and void that sale. When the first European settler of Swampscott, Francis Ingalls, arrived in 1629, he found Native wigwams extending from Blackwills Cliff along the whole North Shore and soon built a log cabin at the corner of Burrell and New Ocean Street and the first tannery in 1632 in New England.

There are numerous references to Blackwills Cliff throughout Swampscott's history, including a fisherman who described Blackwills Cliff as his church, where he would sit in a chair every Sabbath looking at sea and land and, quote, worship all creation. A little girl once remarked to him, what do you do for singing? He replied, I have sparrows and crickets.

And the girl remarked, I suppose the waves are your organ. In the summer of 1855, the artist Joseph Ames lived in the house of the historian and author Waldo Thompson that was situated over his store and the post office on Blackwills Cliff. During the same period, A.R. Bunting, who was a selectman during the late 1800s, had a cottage on Blackwills Cliff, which was rented to W.E. James. The town's ability to take property by eminent domain for the purposes of turning it into public park space dates back to at least Massachusetts Park Acts of 1882 and 1890, which Angela talked a lot about. Swampscott State's Metropolitan Park Commissioners were petitioned in 1893 after a town-wide survey and 250 local townspeople asked for the first public beach at Fishman's Beach, which is arguably America's first public beach, believed to have been established before Riviera Beach. Although Swampscott was promised state funding from the Metropolitan Park Commissioners to fund the taking of the properties, the funding had been expended, and so initially the town went forward without state assistance in its commitment to create a public beach and amenity to be dedicated to fishing, boating, and bathing, enjoyed by all in perpetuity.

By the second year, Swampscott Park Commissioners' term, there had been a formal application to the Metropolitan Park Commissioners for Kings Beach to be taken. In any case, despite the enthusiastic recommendations of Charles Elliott, the vision of Swampscott's first park commissioners, and the will of the local citizens, for whatever reason, Black Will's Cliff ended up remaining private property, becoming home to a neighborhood of private residences, rooming houses, restaurants, a bank, and for a time, the post office. 125 years later, we now have a singular opportunity to finally realize the vision that was first contemplated more than a century ago.

Swampscott's best asset has always been its shore. Let's not lose this chance to take this piece of shoreline out of the pocket of private enterprise and put it back into the hands of the public for everyone to enjoy. We can look to the example of Linscott Park that was once two private estates and now is a public park with a gazebo and ocean views to be enjoyed in perpetuity.

Let us be as wise as our forefathers once were and deliver today on their hopes of 125 years ago to create a public space at Black Will's Cliff, a church where we can, like that fisherman, worship all creation, where the sparrows and crickets can be the song and the waves can be the o'er again. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:01:04 - 1:01:17)
Thank you, Ms. Driscoll. Thank you. Other debate topics?

Yes, Mr. Dembowski?

[Speaker 32] (1:01:22 - 1:01:50)
Henry Dembowski, Precinct 6. With all the enthusiasm that I'm hearing about parks and open space and the beautiful slide of a park, I have a question as to why the Hawthorne property does not have attached to it open space conservation only, where you put that with the Archer Street property. It makes me suspicious that maybe later there's going to be something else brought up.

I'd like to know why that wasn't put on, Article 1, for the Hawthorne property.

[Speaker 4] (1:01:51 - 1:01:57)
Thank you, Mr. Dembowski. I turn that... You could ask Mr. Dorsey.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:05 - 1:03:06)
I am speaking... There we go. I will speak as to the Finance Committee deliberations on that point.

We thought it was appropriate for the town, given how important the Hawthorne property is, how central it is, all of the reasons just built on further by that discussion, that it made sense for the entire town to have a chance to have input to the use of the property. And we felt very comfortable with the fact that the final use will be determined by the town meeting after that process. There's nothing suspicious about it in our public meetings.

Certainly, as was stated by Mr. Spellios before, the Select Board's been very clear in their desire of what that should be, but we felt that, given the importance of this piece of property, that it was very appropriate to allow the entire public to have some input on this.

[Speaker 4] (1:03:08 - 1:03:21)
Thank you, Mr. Dorsey. Perhaps Mr. Spellios can speak to some of the conversations with the Select Board regarding the broader language.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:22 - 1:05:17)
Thank you. Peter Spellios, Select Board, Precinct 3. Mr. Domowski, don't be suspicious. If you had listened to Select Board meetings recently, which you might have, you, I think, would have heard an overwhelming sentiment, a chorus, almost, of saying it should be open space. In Massachusetts, though, there's a quirky constitution that includes an article that says once we dedicate something to open space, we have to go back to the legislature and get two-thirds of the legislature and the governor to agree that we can do something else with it. And because of the severity of that and the fact that the taxpayers of Swampscot are the ones buying the property, not the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that to go through the process that Mr. Dorsey talked about, that I talked about, and give the residents a chance to go through a robust dialogue and come to what conclusion this town meeting will come to seemed like the appropriate process. I will speak for myself, and I think, again, if you were listening to the Select Board meetings, I'm an evil real estate developer.

I do not think we should be doing or partaking with development on this property. I'm open-minded to be convinced about something that will be good for our community, but I also recognize how incredibly difficult it is. And the town has already shown itself unable to do it, and most communities have shown themselves unable to do it.

So that's one man's opinion here. So I don't want you to be skeptical or cynical about it. I think what we've done is we've put adequate constraints on the language to make sure that the town couldn't do things that the town did in the past that people didn't like.

We can't all of a sudden change the use without you knowing and you approving. We can't all of a sudden build something without you knowing and you approving, and we can't sell the property without you knowing and you approving. So what we've done is we've basically said, hey, give us until the end of 2023 to go through this public process and come back to you and get your blessing for whatever it is that you all think that we should do with the property.

Thank you, Mr. Spellios.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:18 - 1:05:24)
APPLAUSE In the back, I'm sorry. With the mask, I can't.

[Speaker 10] (1:05:29 - 1:05:47)
I did have a question. I wanted to know whether or not the purchase of the Hawthorne-by-the-Sea property... On the mic.

A little more. Thank you. My apologies.

Is the purchase of the Hawthorne property contingent upon our approving the change in zoning for the General Glover property?

[Speaker 4] (1:05:48 - 1:05:51)
Very good. Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich. Yes.

[Speaker 10] (1:05:54 - 1:08:35)
All right, that's a simple answer, but I think it complicates matters. I am not opposed to the purchase of the Hawthorne property. I listened to the May 25th joint committee meeting, and it was stated there that we had underinvested in open space in our town throughout history, and this is a one-time opportunity to control the destiny of this parcel, which is right on the ocean and spectacular.

And I understand that, and I can appreciate that. The problem that I have is, if you're increasing the large development ability from the present zoning of 68 units in Swampscott and 44 units in Marblehead to 96 units in Swampscott, that's a 40% increase, as it was stated that there would be one-and-a-half parking spaces for each unit. You're talking about 150 cars.

My office is in Salem, and I travel along Salem Street to get to my office, and if you go there during the day, it's not very busy. But if you go there from 7.30 to 9 o'clock during rush hour, it backs up. So if you're going to throw another 150 cars of those possible residents going to work, it's going to be a nightmare.

So I don't think it's quite as simple as that, and I think it's somewhat, with all due respect, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that the town is interested in preserving open space when, in fact, what you're going to allow is a mega project on Salem Street... at its intersection with Tedesco. And I don't think it's as simple as you make it out.

If they weren't tied into each other, I'd be all for the purchase of the Hawthorne property. But if, in fact, you're going to increase it so that you're going to have 140 units at this congested area, I'm not in favor of it. So rather than this being a...

I think the town administrator at that May 25th meeting said it was nice to have. I think, Mr. Spellios, you said it is a must-have project. I think it's a...

You don't need to have if it's going to have such a negative effect. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:08:35 - 1:08:43)
Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich. Mr. Iannacone, and then I see one of our visitors in the back.

[Speaker 11] (1:08:54 - 1:09:06)
Stephen Iannacone, Precinct 4. I want to propose an amendment to this article. Is that possible to do now?

[Speaker 4] (1:09:06 - 1:09:10)
Yes, if you'd like to move to amend the motion, you may.

[Speaker 11] (1:09:11 - 1:09:54)
What I'd like to do is to insert into the warrant the following after Section B and entitled now Section C, that 90% of the parcel be guaranteed use as a recreational park and or open conservation space. And none of the land leased or sold or allowed use by a private entity. Nothing considered private or public, residential, or commercial development in the current sense or future sense of development will be allowed on the property.

[Speaker 4] (1:09:55 - 1:11:34)
Do you have this amendment in writing? Yes, I have it in writing. Is there a second?

For the clarity of our members, I will reread your amendment. Adding a Section C immediately following Section B in the first paragraph describing the Humphrey Street property. Such property be used only.

C, that 90% of this parcel be guaranteed use as a recreational park and or open conservation space and none of the land leased or sold or allowed use by a private entity. Nothing considered private or public. I'm sorry, I need your help on that word.

Sorry, nothing considered private or public, residential, or commercial development in the current sense or future sense of development will be allowed on the property. All right, the amendment does seem to be in order and you have a second if you'd like to address the body. If you are comfortable taking your mask down briefly, you don't have to, but it will make your remarks more audible.

[Speaker 11] (1:11:35 - 1:13:37)
To all the members of the Select Board, all the Finance Committee, and all other town meeting members, why do I do this? First, when this presentation was made by Mr. Spilios at the last town meeting, everyone, including myself, could not have been more excited about the possibilities that were engaged in having the Hawthorne as a park, a recreational area. And when the change has been, since the change has been made to open the door, I believe, to a development of the property, which in the future may be sold as a way to pay for town matters, such as the school.

We have a lot of school issues and more of park and recreation maintenance. My concern is that this property should be allocated the same way that the two other properties are allocated. That is, for open conservation and recreation use only, to assure that despite all of the possibilities that might accrue afterwards, that there is a park there and not with more development.

This town has suffered from development. I see it almost daily. What's going to happen in Precinct 3 in particular is a problem.

But what we want and what I think the town needs to have is an assurance that the property will remain, after purchase, as a park or recreation area. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:38 - 1:13:41)
Thank you, Mr. Anacone. Mr. Dorsey.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:44 - 1:14:42)
Just quickly, just kind of to reiterate, the Finance Committee perspective on this was that we believe that the public process is a worthwhile process for everyone to give input to. During the last month, during various public meetings and outreach by citizens, there were questions around why we would be restrictive right out of the gate and not hear a variety of different town points. So I think ultimately, though, what made us comfortable as a Finance Committee was that the final vote comes back to this town meeting.

There's no... Unless town meeting approves some of the things that were just mentioned as possible outcomes, it doesn't happen. So that's...

We thought the public input process, a rigorous one, combined with the fact that you all ultimately make the final decision, was appropriate.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:43 - 1:14:59)
Thank you, Mr. Dorsey. Any further discussion of Mr. Anacone's amendment? Mr. Kraft...

Mr. Germa, sorry. You guys are... With those masks on and the same hair do I have?

I'll tell you.

[Speaker 13] (1:15:04 - 1:17:27)
I am going to take my mask down. I'll talk without spittle. Jared Germa, Precinct 3 town meeting member.

I'm also on the Historic District Commission and I was on the Historic District Study Committee. And one of the things that I want to talk about tonight really quickly when it comes to this is the importance of process. And it is a case right now where this opportunity is great.

I absolutely feel this is something that we need to move forward with. But at this point in time, we can't be coming in with a percentage restriction on this. The town needs to speak to this.

The adjacency that this is to our Main Street is very, very important. A number of years back, this body actually went through and approved the Humphrey Street overlay, and that Humphrey Street overlay is about rebuilding Humphrey Street. This is actually in reaction in many ways to what happened when Hawthorne-by-the-Sea was built.

When Hawthorne-by-the-Sea was built, this was considered the optimal construction. And so this was a modernization of Humphrey Street. One of the things it did was it actually took the density of retail space and it took it down below the level that the street could survive.

And the street that we have now struggles because we do not have enough rental space along the street. That property could function to actually do two things. Give us a beautiful waterfront park.

Give a building that's both a gateway to that park and restitches Humphrey Street back together and allows it to thrive. So we really need to use the talent we have in this town to come together in forums and charrettes, in discussions, and think about the fact that we're at a historic moment to do two things. One is to address the open space, the incredible park opportunity, and one is to repair the fabric of Humphrey Street and get it to be a destination for all of us to utilize.

[Speaker 4] (1:17:28 - 1:17:38)
Thank you, Mr. Germa. Further discussion of Mr. Anacone's amendment. Mr. Lorber.

[Speaker 24] (1:17:49 - 1:18:11)
Hello, Terry Lorber, Precinct 5. In the language in the proposed amendment, how does that differ from the impact of the similar language on the other two parcels, I quote, for open space and conservation purposes only to be evidenced by a conservation restriction on the property? I guess that's a question for Town Council.

[Speaker 4] (1:18:11 - 1:18:51)
Sure, thank you, Mr. Lorber. I'll stand for one moment. I'm consulting Town Council.

There's no language in the amendment that would create a conservation easement. It would potentially still trigger the Article 97 restriction, and it legislates 90% of the land to be held in that manner.

[Speaker 24] (1:18:51 - 1:19:22)
Okay, thank you. I would recommend voting no on this amendment. I would be interested in seeing all parcels being treated equally, and so if we put a conservation restriction on one parcel, we should do it on all of them.

It is our prerogative, and that's what's being offered here, in fact, is town meeting deciding what to do with these properties. Whether you do it tonight or in the future, you decide. Or let's engage in a public process for all three of the properties.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lorber.

[Speaker 4] (1:19:23 - 1:19:51)
Further discussion on Mr. Iannacone's amendment? Just trying to make sure I'm not missing anybody. Seeing none, all those in favor of Mr. Iannacone's proposed amendment, please signify by raising your hand. All those opposed to the amendment? The amendment fails. We return now to discussion of the main motion.

Looking for anyone else who would like to speak. Is that Ms. Schutzer in the back?

[Speaker 14] (1:20:06 - 1:21:37)
Good evening, everyone. Carol Schutzer, Precinct 6. I just have a question.

I know I brought it up before, but I still don't really understand it. I hope you can clarify it tonight. It's on the issue of the eminent domain on Archer, that one property, and I think you addressed it, Mr. Dorsey, but I don't exactly have it, and I'm just trying to figure out how we can be responsibly paying for all of this. Because if we go to eminent domain, what if it's more than the $450,000? I believe, Mr. Spellios, you mentioned at the last town meeting. What if it's $1 million?

What if it's $2 million? I heard that I think you told me that it would have to come back to town meeting, but then in the last five days people have been discussing this, as I guess you would hope we would have, and there have been a lot of other things said beside that. So I just wanted to have some clarification as to a blank check for how much money, $8,870,000 is one thing, but what if it's another $3 million on top of that?

How do we handle that, or how do we pay for that, Mr. Dorsey, to cover whatever eminent domain? I just would feel more comfortable supporting this if I knew that there was a plan in place, if the numbers are not exactly what we're anticipating. So if you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate that clarification.

[Speaker 34] (1:21:37 - 1:21:39)
Certainly, Mr. Dorsey.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:39 - 1:22:20)
So in the discussions we've had with the select board, and I'll let Mr. Spellios from the select board chime in after this, there's confidence that the amount that is being requested for authorization tonight will be sufficient in either approach to acquiring the land. Again, the hope is that it will be acquired by mutual agreement and negotiation, but there is confidence from the town finance team and the select board that the total authorization here is sufficient under both scenarios. I'll let the select board talk a little bit more about that confidence.

[Speaker 4] (1:22:22 - 1:22:33)
Certainly. Welcome, Mr. Spellios, if you have any thoughts on it. But the authorization we are seeking your approval on tonight is for $8,875,000.

It is not a blank check.

[Speaker 14] (1:22:34 - 1:22:46)
I'm sorry. And so if the eminent domain number goes above, I mean, you talked about a risk, so that's what kind of got me a little nervous about it. What does that mean?

That's all.

[Speaker 4] (1:22:47 - 1:22:55)
I think that's a more clear question. So in the event that we are unable to reach an agreement inside of that number.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:57 - 1:23:36)
And excuse me if I say things that are already known to you, but just to be clear, in the eminent domain context if it comes to that, the town takes the property and purchases it and pays what it believes the fair market value is to the owner of the parcel. And the risk is associated with litigation questioning whether that was the appropriate amount, whether that did represent the fair market value of the property. And, again, I'll hand it over on the question around the confidence of why the $8,875,000 is appropriate.

[Speaker 14] (1:23:36 - 1:24:11)
So let me just ask you, Mr. Dorsey, I'm sorry, one more question. So if we take that risk and it turns out that we do have to pay more than whatever we're confident with, I mean, I think all of us in buying a house run into these kind of issues. Is there money for us?

I guess that's what I'm just asking. It's a risk, but do we have the money in our town budget or does the finance committee feel comfortable that if the risk is there, that somewhere the money, I mean, do we have to allocate that at town meeting or is that in our budget available to pay for it? I guess that's what I'm asking.

[Speaker 4] (1:24:12 - 1:24:20)
Procedurally, it would have to come back to town meeting. But, Mr. Spalios, if you wanted to speak to the discussions you've had about the contingencies.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:21 - 1:26:39)
Happy to, Mrs. Schuster. Thank you for the questions. As we said before, your question is a very good question.

Our hope is that we reach agreement like we have been successful in other cases to reach agreements here. A couple of thoughts. Number one, before the town could exercise its eminent domain authority, the town needs to complete an appraisal of the highest and best use of the property.

That appraisal is not a public appraisal, but it's something that the statute requires municipalities to do just to make sure that they are being good financial stewards and they've carefully analyzed the value of the property so they understand going in what the relative risks are. I'm not going to talk too much about the ongoing discussions and the strategy, but I want you to have great comfort that we have a very clear understanding of what the value of the property is and what the relative risks are for that. There are no guarantees.

You are correct. We may not. There is room within the 8.875 appropriation to allow for a robust negotiation that will get us to agreement. I've said this before in select board meetings. I'll say it here now. We, as a town, should be willing to pay a premium for certainty on certain things.

If we reach an agreement, we may end up paying a little bit of a premium. Why? Because we have certainty.

We don't have that risk, and frankly, when you're dealing with something like this, a little bit of premium goes a long way in terms of allowing everyone here and in the town to sleep easy here. So we don't know for certain where it will end up, but we are confident, and we have done the diligence to stand here tonight and to share, and we have brought the finance committee and CIC up to speed on that so they also can have the information that we have to also establish their own confidence that we're going through the process correctly here. In the alternative, if we don't pursue this property now, it is my belief that it is a lost property.

They are actively going through a process and actively looking to do something else. That is a decision for town meeting and a decision for them to decide to continue that process. But I am keenly aware, and I think my colleagues on the select board are keenly aware of that, if we had more time and we felt like we had more time, we would have taken more time and finalized it, but we believe this is an inflection point relative to this property and this 4.5 acres.

[Speaker 14] (1:26:41 - 1:26:42)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:42 - 1:27:14)
Thank you, Mr. Spellius. Thank you, Ms. Schritzer. Before I proceed, I've been asked by a couple of people to remind folks that if you are not speaking at the microphone or actively consuming a drink of water, which is really the only thing you're supposed to have in here, could you please make sure to wear your mask properly?

That is covering both your nose and your mouth the entire time. Thank you. I did see a hand or two in the back there.

I'm sorry. I can't with the mask on. Yes, please.

[Speaker 18] (1:27:14 - 1:27:29)
Thank you. I'm not that short. Okay.

You're a little higher. Good evening. Thank you.

I'm Barry Atkin, Precinct 6.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:29 - 1:27:34)
So, Ms. Atkin, remind me, are you a town meeting member?

[Speaker 18] (1:27:34 - 1:27:34)
I am.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:34 - 1:27:35)
Okay.

[Speaker 18] (1:27:35 - 1:27:35)
A new one.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:36 - 1:27:36)
Thank you.

[Speaker 18] (1:27:36 - 1:28:34)
A new one, yes. I have a question to follow up on a prior speaker's comments about Vinton Square. The Glover property, if this goes through and then, as I understand, there's 96 units in Swampscott and another 40-some in Marblehead and one and a half cars per unit.

So a lot of additional traffic in Vinton Square. Vinton Square is currently a mess, even without our beloved Vinton turkey there anymore. Are there any plans as part of this whole process to do something about the traffic flow, congestion, lights, and so on in the whole Vinton Square area?

Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:35 - 1:28:42)
Thank you, Ms. Atkin. Mr. Spelios, you referenced some work being planned. I'm not sure if it's by the state.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:42 - 1:30:02)
I am, Mr. Moderator, and obviously we'll talk in much more detail in Article 2, but since multiple people have raised it here, it may be appropriate just to give it a little color. MassDOT, Mass Department of Transportation, you might already be witnessing it, has started scratching earth, if you will, in the area between Whole Foods and the intersection with Loring Avenue and Tedesco. That's a long-planned improvement for turning lanes, bike lanes, and re-signalization of that intersection to deal with a lot of things that you're mentioning here tonight.

So that project is going to... It was supposed to have started some time ago. It's off to a slow start.

My guess is it takes most of the spring, summer, and fall to finish here, but those improvements are underway. And that's a MassDOT-sponsored project. I'm going to take the moment just to...

There's been a lot of conversation about trees. I do want to acknowledge that the original plans by MassDOT, MassDOT acquired by Eminent Domain, construction easements and permanent easements to expand and make bike lanes and do certain things, that would have resulted in the loss of a lot of mature red maple trees and other trees that I think if they weren't there, we would all notice their absence. Thanks to adjacent property owners in MassDOT, the plan's been revised, so the sidewalk is going to go behind some of the trees.

So the vast majority, the overwhelming majority of those trees are going to remain on Eminent Square.

[Speaker 4] (1:30:03 - 1:30:11)
Thank you, Mr. Spalios. Ms. Adkin, one moment. Can I have House Right up?

Go ahead, ma'am.

[Speaker 18] (1:30:12 - 1:30:30)
So that's great news that there's going to be hopefully improvements in Eminent Square, but clearly that's from before this new development happens. Does MassDOT know anything about what we're planning here, what's being considered or presented?

[Speaker 4] (1:30:31 - 1:30:47)
Thank you, Ms. Adkin. I don't know if anyone can opine on the inner workings of MassDOT, but I do know that this parcel is currently zoned for high density as a 40R. Mr. Pielot.

[Speaker 29] (1:30:57 - 1:31:26)
Dennis Pielot, Precinct 4. Just two quick questions. One, if this is tied into the Glover, should we be doing the zoning vote first before we do this, considering that it's conditional?

And the other thing is earlier on you mentioned the risk of, and again, obviously an estimate comparing to white quarters on $700,000 to $800,000 in lost revenue. Do we have any kind of ballpark of what the revenue would be with the Glover properties that would kind of offset some of that or just, again, ballpark?

[Speaker 4] (1:31:27 - 1:31:46)
Thank you, Mr. Pielot. Procedurally, if the vote on Article 2 fails, the vote on the subsection 1 of this motion would be null and void unless something else could be worked out. I don't know if the town financial staff has a firm estimate.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:46 - 1:31:47)
We do. We talked about this.

[Speaker 4] (1:31:47 - 1:31:48)
There you go. Mr. Dorsey, thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:50 - 1:32:20)
But the town treasurer can make sure I express it precisely. There's obviously taxes being paid currently on that property, that blighted property. So when you think about the net tax growth from the new development, it was estimated at around $250,000 a year of net tax growth on top of what's already being paid there.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:21 - 1:32:30)
Thank you, Mr. Dorsey. I see Mr. Spritz. Please, sir, and then one of our visitors back there.

Go ahead.

[Speaker 28] (1:32:31 - 1:33:10)
Wayne Spritz, Precinct 3 town meeting member. Just a quick clarification question about the document itself. There was an e-mail that was sent out by you, Mr. Moderator, correct, that had an updated Article 1, and this is just to make sure we're all literally and proverbially on the same page. So the amendment was added in the number and a couple of other clarifications. I don't believe what's being projected there represents what you e-mailed out, and is there the amended physical paper floating around the room? Because I don't think everybody got it.

We were just talking amongst ourselves.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:10 - 1:34:04)
Those are some great questions. Here is the explanation. What you see on the screen is the article.

The article is not the motion. The motion is made under the article and may differ slightly in wording. The motion that was read is the exact language that was sent out last night to town meeting following the Finance Committee meeting.

I apologize to anyone who doesn't have an electronic copy. You may come see me now, and I'll get an electronic copy to you. There is a piece of printed matter going around that are technical corrections to the document that I sent out over the weekend, which includes the red line of the zoning that we are not yet discussing, except sort of we are.

However, don't mistake that for what we're voting on now. We will need it shortly, however. With that, yes, Mr. Spritz.

[Speaker 28] (1:34:07 - 1:34:13)
So to be clear, what was in the email was not an amendment to the article itself. The article as itself still stands?

[Speaker 4] (1:34:14 - 1:34:36)
One does not amend an article. The article is as printed always. One makes a motion under the article, and it's the motion that we are debating and voting on.

Which is the one as delivered in the email? Last night, correct. Okay, thank you.

And I followed along. Mr. Dorsey read it verbatim. I'm sorry, Ms. Martin-Epstein. Yes, is that?

[Speaker 6] (1:34:36 - 1:34:36)
That's me.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:38 - 1:34:39)
I'll just do this.

[Speaker 6] (1:34:42 - 1:34:43)
I'm not that tall.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:45 - 1:34:46)
Viewers at home, thank you.

[Speaker 6] (1:34:48 - 1:35:39)
Kim Martin-Epstein, Precinct 3 town meeting member. I think it would be really helpful if you could perhaps clarify from the May town meeting the exact sort of arrangement that led to where we are, because I think there may be, unless I'm misunderstanding. My understanding is if we don't agree to this, the Glover site still gets purchased by the developer that's planning on developing it.

It still gets developed. This is not a town project. This is a private agreement between Leggett-McCall and the Athanas family, and so does the Hawthorne site.

We either do one or Leggett-McCall does both. Unless I'm mistaken, if you could just clarify that, because it makes it seem like we have choices around what happens if we don't agree to do the purchase, and I don't know that we have choices around Glover at that point.

[Speaker 4] (1:35:40 - 1:35:43)
I believe you're correct, but I'll allow Mr. Dorsey.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:43 - 1:36:10)
Yeah, I think you stated it correctly. If Article I is rejected, then the purchase and sale agreement for the Hawthorne property that the developer who is developing Glover had previously entered into for the Hawthorne property would come back into, would breathe again, I guess I would say.

[Speaker 6] (1:36:11 - 1:36:17)
And Glover still becomes a dense property developer.

[Speaker 3] (1:36:17 - 1:36:20)
That doesn't change the outcome of Glover. It would have to go through the zoning.

[Speaker 6] (1:36:20 - 1:36:21)
Less dense, slightly less dense.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:21 - 1:36:26)
Slightly less dense, with 28 fewer units? Right, the 40 are dense.

[Speaker 6] (1:36:26 - 1:36:30)
40 considerably less dense, but Hawthorne also.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:30 - 1:38:16)
If you don't mind, Mr. Moderator, I think... Please, Mr. Spelios. Ms. Martin-Epstein, you're asking a good question. Let me give you a slightly different answer. The 40-R district has been there for... What year did we do it?

16? Pete, what year did we do it? 16?

2016. It's been there for six years, and nothing has happened. The only thing that's happened is that you guys, thankfully, allowed us to do a blighted by-law for commercial properties.

And it's a good idea, but all it did was allow us to accrue $220,000 of fines. It didn't change the blight. It didn't change that we have a fire department that doesn't want to respond to fires there because of unsafe conditions.

It didn't change the condition there. And so I can't sit here and tell you that if this fails, that they're going to go forward with the 40-R. They can always go forward with conventional zoning.

Under conventional zoning, there is no limit to the amount of units they can ask for. They go to the zoning board. Under the 40-R, there is a limit.

But they haven't sought to use the 40-R. No one has sought to use the 40-R. But they could come back, and they can use the underlying zoning, which, again, allows them to go forward and ask the zoning board for any number of units, and then the zoning board gets to use its discretion in deciding how many units are there.

So I just wanted to give a little bit greater clarity there. I don't sit here comfortably believing that they're going to all of a sudden do the 40-R district, something that hasn't gotten a lick of attention, despite good intentions to try and spur something happening there. It just didn't work.

So now we're finding something that will work. That is a bit of a compromise, but I just don't want people to think that all of a sudden, magically, the blight of Glover is going to go away if we don't pass these articles tonight.

[Speaker 4] (1:38:17 - 1:38:33)
Thank you, Mr. Spelios. I did see a hand in the back. Striped shirt.

I apologize. It's a little shadowed back there. Please, I'm assuming you're a visitor, as that's the visitor's section.

Use the microphone and introduce yourself and where you're from.

[Speaker 8] (1:38:34 - 1:43:23)
My name is Bonnie Levine. I'm in Precinct 6. I am not a town meeting member, and I am part of the peanut gallery, which is incredibly small, and disappointingly so.

I misunderstood the entire process here, clearly, and it's very disappointing to me to feel like I am the Debbie Downer and there is nobody else here that's going to speak the way I'm going to speak. At this point, I'm going to quote Mr. Spelios. Assuming town meeting approval tonight.

How did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln? That's the way I feel right now. I love this town.

I've spent 41 years here. My children were born here. They went to public schools.

Unfortunately, they don't live in the area anymore, but such is life. The tax dollars that we have given this town over the years have, in my estimation, been misused. The beaches, the open spaces we have, including Linscott Park, have not been cared for well.

And aside from our community spirit and ourselves and a great school system, those are the things that draw people. To walk along those beaches, to sit in that gazebo, to go to our fields, and to take... just take in the air.

Even if you go to Iseman's Beach, something that has not been cared for in at least the 40 years that I've been here, the broken benches from the old hotel are still there. Where is our town spirit then? And at this point, my feeling is that we need tax revenue.

And this isn't that I do not want to honor the historic idea of walking along sheer cliffs. I would love to, and I do at other places. But I feel that we are now being compromised and that the decision has been made.

This is a quorum. I don't know what the actual total of town member meeting would be if everyone could be here, and I know that's not always possible. But there's a town of registered voters who have no say here.

And I understand that you vote for your town meeting members, but I have yet to have anyone in my precinct say, Hey, kids, let's get together and talk about what's on the town warrant. And again, that's my naivete. So all I have to say is that I don't want this to be a make-up call for all the other projects that we didn't do or sort of did and did a bad job.

And that starts with Sautelle Brothers. That was the beginning when we first moved into town. I'd like to see something that's mixed-use, and I'd like to see something that brings in revenue to the town.

You know, the Athenas family has been in this area and in Boston as restaurateurs and whatever for the entire time I've been up here. What have they done for this town? Aside from having the Board of Health almost shut the restaurant down because they hadn't kept it clean and hadn't maintained it, and then we had to, as Mr. Spellios, Mr. Dorsey said, find the Glover because it's a mess. To what end? I don't think they should be rewarded by us. If Leggett-McCall wants to reward them somehow, let them.

But if we're going to dive or take a deep dive here, let's think about all the other things that are important to this town. Maintaining what we have, building these new schools, and doing that. I feel that almost $9 million for this, for an historic dream, is just that.

And I wish that there was a way to bring this to a town vote, and I naively now understand that is not possible. But at least I have the ability to air my grievance and to tell you exactly how I feel right now. And I have done so.

And I thank you for your time.

[Speaker 4] (1:43:24 - 1:43:29)
Thank you, Ms. Levine. Mr. Barden.

[Speaker 17] (1:43:43 - 1:45:25)
Thank you, Jill. Mark Barden, Precinct 3. Peter, I promise I'm not here to debate you.

I have two questions. First of all, the previous speaker, I just wanted to explain, in this country, in this town, we have a democratic republic. Now, we have a vote of people that enter a town meeting.

So you did have a chance to vote for the people that represent you. If you didn't want to vote for those people, then you wouldn't have. I have two questions from some things that Mr. Spelios spoke about earlier. One, if he could expand on the Blaney Street building that's going to be a school. And the other is, from the time that we, the town, if this happens, purchase and sell the Hawthorne property, and a year later, when we assume the Hawthorne property, can you expand on that lease? Is that money that's coming into the town?

Is Athena essentially renting the property from the town for a year? Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:45:25 - 1:45:27)
Thank you, Mr. Barden. Certainly, Mr. Spelios.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:27 - 1:47:04)
Moderator. Thank you, Mark, for the questions. Question number one was the Blaney School.

A few months back, the superintendent announced that the town had entered into a sublease for the Blaney School, which is currently being leased by the YMCA for a before and after school program. And it's owned by the archdiocese. The town has negotiated a sublease through, frankly, the kindness of the YMCA, who were willing participants to come to the table, to allow the Blaney School to be a temporary school, continue.

It's a school, but to be used as we are dislocating children that are in the Stanley site as this new elementary school will be built at the Stanley site. So for the next two calendar years, the Blaney School will be the home, I believe, for all students on the Stanley site except for kindergarten. And kindergarten will be blended at the Hadley site.

So the Blaney School will be joining the neighborhood in Hadley. And I know that there's a lot of concern about traffic and parking. So hence the request to the Athanasis to work with us on some accommodation to use that parking lot.

The second question had to do with the lease back. I didn't identify economics in the lease back because I didn't want you to rely on it. It's $2,000 a month for a year.

It's $24,000. So they are paying for something. But most importantly is they assume full responsibility for the care and maintenance and upkeep of the property for that year.

So the town doesn't have any financial obligation to do that. So I hope that answers your question.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:04 - 1:47:09)
Thank you, Mr. Spelios. In the middle, in the back, ma'am.

[Speaker 27] (1:47:20 - 1:48:11)
I'm Judy Bevis, Precinct 6, town meeting member. The Hawthorne property is not an empty lot. It has a big building on it.

It has a parking lot. And what are the costs to demolish that building, get rid of the parking lot? Because I don't think it's a little bit of money.

I think it's a lot of money. I think that should be on the table. And the other thing is having a park on a cliff has a lot of issues about danger and falling off the cliff.

I think we have to think that out as well, of taking on a property that's on the edge of a cliff. Well, I don't know. I think that should be talked about.

I also think the cost is not going to be insignificant on buying a property that has an old building on it and a big parking lot. And I wonder if you had looked at the cost of any of that.

[Speaker 35] (1:48:12 - 1:48:13)
Thank you, Ms. Bevis.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:16 - 1:48:32)
Go ahead, Mr. Spelios. We went out and got information about the demolition of that building. We estimate a half million dollars to be the cost to demolish that building.

And there's a premium associated with that because it is located near cliffs, so the demolition needs to be done a little bit more meticulously than if you had land on all four sides.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:33 - 1:48:34)
Thank you, Mr. Spelios.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:34 - 1:48:36)
Mr. Patsios.

[Speaker 7] (1:48:44 - 1:49:14)
Charles Patsios, Precinct 5 now. Charles Patsios, Precinct 5. One thing that wasn't mentioned about the Glover site, which I'm surprised no one brought up, is that we actually get, I think, 17 affordable housing units there, which I think is a big deal because we haven't done any of that.

Is that correct, Peter, 17 units?

[Speaker 35] (1:49:14 - 1:49:15)
That is correct.

[Speaker 7] (1:49:15 - 1:53:40)
Great. Thank you. I am concerned about the traffic.

However, I think that everybody realizes that if that were developed in any fashion other than the one that we've got, we're still going to get traffic there. I think people might be surprised that I'm saying these things, but they're true. Are we going to collect the blight tax or fee that is outstanding?

That is going to come to the town? Fantastic. Let's talk about the Hawthorne.

I love that restaurant. I think the view is great, and maybe it looks. You can tell I enjoy it there.

We get about $200,000 worth of taxes there right now. If you take in the $155,000 and about the $40,000 in meals tax that we won't get, that's a negative. I always thought that that was going to be developed into something that had the same footprint of the restaurant that's there now and probably four or five stories of residential condominiums or apartments above it.

That's my prediction. But I did like the idea of the park, and I was surprised that the amendment failed at that restriction. I thought maybe that Ms. Iaconi might have said that the amendment should have been something like the existing footprint, nothing greater than the existing footprint, but height is a negotiation tool that makes sense. But what's in front of us right now is either an all or nothing, and I wish it were broken up so that we can vote on these things individually, but that's not the case. I'm in favor of the Glover being done for one real reason. It's 17 units of housing we didn't have before that is affordable, and I think that that's a low bar, but at least we did it.

The Hawthorne, though, I'm struggling with, but if that's the best that we can do and it's up to the town as a whole to come back and vote on it later, the only thing, and I might not be popular by saying this, but if I need medical help, I go get the very best medical help that I can get. And if we are going to be programming something that's in the town, I would like the people that are voicing their opinions have some experience in what it is that they're recommending and so that we get the very best planner that we can possibly get for the site, because not all of us are qualified to make those recommendations that we certainly have a voice to. And I always like to tell people, make sure your brain is engaged before you put your mouth in gear.

I'm guilty of that sometimes. I've got to be careful. But we have an opportunity to do something here.

I believe it's not going to be what people think it's going to be. I don't think it's going to be a public park to the extent that we saw a picture of, or that would have been in front of us tonight. It's not in front of us tonight.

But I think that we can come up with something that is better than what we've got, both financially, because we need to underwrite our expenses. If we really need a first class school system, which I believe we do need, we need to fund that. And so we need to make some conscientious decisions.

Open space is basically beautiful. Oh, and by the way, we've heard about all the deficiencies in the town, that we're a small square community with just a few square miles of land. But we, compared to Nahant, compared to Linn, compared to Marblehead, have more beaches than them.

I think hands down, we don't even need to measure it. We're winners there. Our waterfront, though, I think that we need to concentrate a little bit more on that.

And I think that if we look at some of the resources that are coming in financially to us, we should be looking at our waterfront. I know Sean might be shocked at this, but I know he has a plan for that, and I'd like to see it because I could support something like that if it's real and tangible. So call the question.

That's what I heard. Anyways, thank you for your time.

[Speaker 3] (1:53:41 - 1:54:10)
Thank you, Mr. Patzios. Mr. Moderator, just quickly, if I could. Certainly, Mr. Dorsey. I think Mr. Spillers can speak to the comment on the planner and the expertise of the planner, but I just want to make sure it was super clear in what you said in terms of the town as a whole deciding. The town as a whole will be part of the public input processes. It will be open to every citizen in town to provide the input, but the motion reads that the final decision will be this town meeting.

Just want to make sure that's clear.

[Speaker 4] (1:54:10 - 1:56:19)
Thank you, Mr. Dorsey. Mr. Perry, then Mr. Demento. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Is there a second? So for new town meeting members that have not been here in May, Mr. Perry's motion would end debate and we would move directly to a vote on Mr. Dorsey's original motion. This requires a two-thirds vote to end debate.

All those in favor of Mr. Perry's motion to call the previous question and end debate? All those opposed? The motion carries.

We now move directly to a vote on Mr. Dorsey's original motion. In order to facilitate this, I am going to decide to hold a standing vote to facilitate an actual count. So I would like to have Mr. Lorber, Ms. Runstatler, are you still here? Mr. Giard, Ms. Goldman, Mr. McDonald, and Ms. Munoz, could you come down here and be my tellers, please? Momentarily, I will ask all the yeas to stand and the tellers will count. Then we will have the nays stand.

And recess for 90 seconds. All those in favor of Mr. Dorsey's motion, please stand. Remain standing while the tellers count.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:46 - 1:59:15)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:15 - 2:00:54)
Please be seated. All those opposed, please rise. Tellers, please count the opposed.

And by a count of 214 to 3, the motion carries. Moving to Article 2. Mr. Dorsey and then Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:57 - 2:01:35)
Tim Dorsey, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4, Chair of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee recommends that the Town vote to amend the Town of Swampscott Zoning Bylaws and the Zoning Map of the Town of Swampscott prepared under the direction of the Planning Board as set forth in the handout entitled Proposed Warrant Article for Town of Swampscott Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map Amendment that was distributed to the Town meeting. I move the motion of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 4] (2:01:35 - 2:01:37)
Is there a second? Mr. Dorsey.

[Speaker 3] (2:01:38 - 2:01:44)
I'm going to hand it off to Ms. Ippolito. Ms. Ippolito. Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 2] (2:01:46 - 2:02:02)
Thank you, Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Moderator. Angela Ippolito, Precinct 5, Town Meeting Member, Planning Board Chair. The Planning Board recommends favorable action on Article 2.

I move the recommendation of the Planning Board.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:03 - 2:02:09)
Okay, thank you. Is there a second to that supplementary motion? You have held a public hearing on this matter?

[Speaker 2] (2:02:09 - 2:02:29)
We held a public hearing last night. It was also duly advertised two times prior to the public hearing as required by Mass General Law and it was posted in Town Hall. All the abutters were noticed including the abutting towns and DHCD, etc.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:29 - 2:02:30)
Thank you very much. Please proceed.

[Speaker 2] (2:02:33 - 2:13:05)
So, zoning bylaws. They are mechanisms to guide us when considering how we're going to use land. The Glover property, which, oops, we're going to move on from that.

We'll move on to the slide that has a chart on it. So, several years ago, as Mr. Spellios mentioned, the Planning Board presented Article 1st, Mark Growth 40-R District over the Glover property. The underlying zoning at the Glover property is B1.

It's a business district. So that underlying zoning still exists. We're going to call that the base zoning.

We created a 40-R overlay district for a few reasons. First of all, we hadn't been able to make anything happen at the property, which I think has been mentioned earlier. And we thought that the development of this type of proposed zoning would help to spur development.

40-R smart growth zoning has principles that are based on compact design, affordable housing, variety of housing options, mixed use, green space, and it has to be located near ample transit and have the appropriate infrastructure in place, all of which the Glover has. That was approved by the state. 40-R is a provision that you apply for with the state.

The property has to qualify and be eligible for high-density housing. It has to be eligible in terms of the infrastructure. It has to be eligible in terms of the ability for residents who may live there to literally be able to walk out their door and get to public transportation.

In addition, it should be located in a commercial zone where there are ample amenities available to whomever lives there. The zoning that we're proposing tonight, obviously we never got any kind of response on the 40-R zoning. It never did trigger any kind of interest in developing the property.

And as Mr. Spellios also mentioned, the property has been blighted for, well, it's been abandoned for 20 years and it's been blighted for many years. So the Glover Multifamily Overlay District is modeled on the 40-R smart growth zoning. That's why if you looked through the lengthy zoning article that you may have seen in the warrant, you'd notice many strikethroughs and essentially it's, with very few changes, it's identical to the zoning that was voted on by town meetings several years back, which is the 40-R district.

Again, it allows high-density zoning. In this particular case for the Glover Multifamily, it allows 96 units by right. But like the smart growth zoning, it also is subject to all of the design provisions of the smart growth overlay district design standards, which were also adopted with the smart growth zoning.

So the Glover Multifamily Overlay District, if you will note in the copy that you have in the warrant, indicates that it is also subject to all of the design standards that appear in the smart growth 40-R overlay district design standards that were adopted by town meeting. Looks like we're still looking to find that chart, and it's simply a chart that shows what kind of use is allowed at the property under the base zoning, which is currently a B1 commercial zoning, what kind of use is allowed under the 40-R zoning, and what kind of use would be allowed under the proposed Glover Multifamily Overlay District zoning. So, as you can see, under the B1 district, which is the first column, you'll see going down the left-hand side it says allowed uses, density, height, off-street parking, affordable housing, additional payment, and approval process.

Those are the areas in which the Glover Multifamily Overlay District differs from the base zoning and in the ways it differs from the existing 40-R overlay district. So, we'll look first at allowed uses. Under the existing zoning in B1, all uses are allowed.

And as was mentioned earlier, any kind of multifamily units of untold density, whatever the Zoning Board of Appeals would be willing to grant, is allowed at that site. It's also subject to, of course, any 40-B proposals that may come along. Under the existing overlay zoning, which is the 40-R Smart Growth District, multifamily zoning and mixed use is allowed.

And, of course, under the proposed overlay zoning, it's strictly multifamily. As far as density goes, under the existing base zoning, B1, it's subject to a special permit from the ZBA unless, of course, it was a 40-B project and it would still be subject to a permit, but it would be a comprehensive permit, as many of you are probably familiar with at this point. Density allowed under the current 40-R overlay district is 68 units in Swampscott and up to 44 units in Marblehead.

I will mention that although our proposed zoning by-law in Swampscott cannot control any zoning use in Marblehead, I will tell you that when we zoned the 40-R in Swampscott, we did so with Marblehead so that our zoning was identical, and currently Marblehead has eliminated their underlying zoning so the only zoning they have on their part of the property is 40-R, which allows 44 units by right. And then under the proposed overlay zoning district at Glover Multifamily, we would allow 96 units. As far as the height goes, the current allowed height under the existing base zoning is 35 feet or 2.5 stories. Under the 40-R, it's 42 feet, and under the proposed overlay zoning Glover Multifamily, it's 50 feet, which is four stories for the building that we would be looking at. So four stories for a multifamily unit includes having utilities both underneath the building and having some of the utilities such as HVAC and so forth on the top. The off-street parking for existing base zoning, it's 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, which is fairly standard for the existing overlay district 40-R. It was one space if it's a one-bedroom, two spaces if it was between two and four bedrooms, and then one space if there was mixed use there, like a retail store, it would be one space per 300 square feet of anything non-residential. Under the Glover Multifamily, it's 1.5 spaces. For affordable housing, under the existing base zoning, the B-1 district, it's 10% of however many units are built, and that is essentially enforced through our inclusionary zoning, which mandates that 10% of any multifamily units that have more than, I believe it's eight or ten units in them, must be affordable, so it's only 10%.

Under the 40-R, it would, with the maximum units being 68, we would have 25% of those units would have to be affordable, and under that scenario in 40-R, that equates to 17 units. Under the proposed Glover site, it would be 17 affordable units. So we were able to commit to the exact same number of affordable units as we would have in the best-case scenario under a 40-R.

In terms of additional payment under the B-1 underlying zoning, there is none. Under the existing overlay zoning, the 40-R district, there would be a payment of $279,000 that DHCD would make to the town upon completion of all of the 68 units. Under the proposed Glover multifamily district, there would be, the $279,000 would be paid to the town of Swampscott as basically broken down as a fee that would be applicable towards each of the 17 affordable units.

And the approval process for the existing base zoning under B-1, it's site plan special permit and other special permits or variances from the ZBA, and that would require that the planning board would review the site plan ahead of time. Under the existing overlay zoning, it's reviewed by the planning board, and under the proposed Glover multifamily zoning, it's reviewed by the planning board. The reason it's reviewed by the planning board under the overlay districts is because of the mandated adherence to the smart growth overlay 40-R district design standards that must be followed in order for review to take place and for any kind of permit to be granted.

And that's all I have.

[Speaker 4] (2:13:05 - 2:13:26)
Thank you, Ms. Ippolito. Is there discussion on the recommendation of the finance committee as moved by Mr. Dorsey? Seeing one.

Yes, sir. Is that Mr. Bertoff?

[Speaker 26] (2:13:34 - 2:14:21)
My name is Aaron Bertoff, precinct 5, and I would just like to thank the planning board for bringing this together. I know we were all excited about the previous article about purchasing open space, and one of the comments made was that we want our children, our grandchildren, to enjoy this open space, which we should. However, with housing prices, your children are moving away.

And I promise for most of you it's not because they don't like you. It's because they can't afford to live here. Some of you, it's because they don't like you, but that's okay.

So I genuinely want to ask people to vote positively on this particular article and any that come up like it because this allows people in future generations to be able to afford to live in Swampscott, and everybody deserves that.

[Speaker 4] (2:14:21 - 2:14:27)
So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bertoff. Sir.

[Speaker 31] (2:14:32 - 2:15:02)
Hi, Rupert Deese, precinct 5. Just with regard to the off-street parking requirement, I notice that that's a minimum, and I'm curious if there is any reasoning from the people who are putting this together about whether it would be good to set a maximum. Just following sort of discussions around creating walkable communities and encouraging reducing a community's dependence on cars, I understand that that's sort of a trendy thing to do these days, and I'm just wondering if it was considered.

[Speaker 4] (2:15:03 - 2:15:04)
Thank you, Mr. Deese.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:05 - 2:15:32)
I'm going to take that question. That's a really great question. Our bylaw currently doesn't have a maximum parking ratio, but that is increasingly the trend that communities are putting in maximum parking ratios.

On this property, I can tell you the parking number you see there is the parking number that they'll be able to build because they won't otherwise be able to meet the requirements. So even though it doesn't effectively say maximum by the time they meet the design guidelines and meet this 1.5 per dwelling unit requirement, they won't be building extra parking.

[Speaker 4] (2:15:33 - 2:15:37)
Thank you, Mr. Spalios. In the back, sir.

[Speaker 25] (2:15:43 - 2:16:29)
Waldemar Schwartz, precinct 2. I have a question because it looks like the proposed column shows the increase by one floor more of apartments, but there is no other changes, really. So does town get more money when we vote for it?

That's why we vote for it. And then because there will be more people, there will be also more kids, so does school have increased capacity to support additional families, fire department and police department? Do they have increased capacity to support this increase in cars and families?

Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (2:16:30 - 2:16:31)
Thank you, Mr. Schwartz.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:33 - 2:17:05)
Mr. Moderator, the payment I think the member is referring to is the $279,000 payment that under the 40-R district was to be paid to the town by the state. We negotiated as part of the overall affordable housing percentage, making sure that in lieu of more units still having them provide a payment to the town, and the negotiations settled on the same amount that previously the state would give us for those same 17 units. So it's a negotiated number.

[Speaker 4] (2:17:06 - 2:17:11)
Thank you. Further discussion? Yes, Ms. DiCillo.

[Speaker 23] (2:17:19 - 2:18:10)
I'm Mary DiCillo from Precinct 4. I was looking at the number of 10% and wanted to know how the 10% was arrived at and also what this does to reaching our goal for affordable housing. And the last comment is in terms of housing choice initiative and what's coming down the pike with that, that housing choice is by right where developers can come in and do 40B projects with no permit.

So we need to get up to the 10% threshold. Where are we in terms of the threshold? And that seems, at least to me, 10% seems very low given the ratio in other projects.

[Speaker 4] (2:18:11 - 2:18:15)
Thank you, Ms. DiCillo. I'm not sure who Mr. Spillius.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:15 - 2:19:18)
Yeah, so, Mr. DiCillo, just to let you know, this is 18% of the total number of units is what this project is providing, 17 units of 96 is 18%. So this is above the baseline zoning there. I wanted to spend a second with your indulgence, Mr. Moderator. Mr. DiCillo is referencing the housing choice legislation, which you are going to hear a lot about in the next year, and that's legislation that the governor sponsored and pressed for for years to basically force MBTA communities, both train and bus communities, to create as-of-right multifamily districts within proximity to public transit. And the goal there is to spur more housing and therefore make housing more affordable. Part of that process, and the planning board has already started really thoughtful conversations, is we have to, within a short period of time, create a housing choice 3A district, it's called, and that will have to come back to town meeting for approval, but there are deadlines that have been established by the legislation, so you will be hearing a lot more about what Ms. DiCillo just mentioned in the coming months.

[Speaker 4] (2:19:19 - 2:19:20)
Thank you, Ms. DiCillo.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:20 - 2:19:56)
I would just add, excuse me, Mr. Moderator, I would just add that in terms of that MBTA zoning, MBTA communities, there will be a robust public process in terms of us getting together committees and groups of people to help us figure out where the actual zone should be and also to make sure that we include as many people in the community as possible so everyone's aware of what's happening. We are supposed to be getting final guidance from the state this month, so hopefully soon.

[Speaker 4] (2:19:57 - 2:19:59)
Thank you, Ms. Ippolito. Mr. Powell.

[Speaker 30] (2:20:08 - 2:20:38)
Member, Swampscot Retirement Board, Council on Aging board member, and tri-chair of the Swampscot for All Ages Committee. One of our mandates for the Swampscot for All Ages Committee is affordable housing, so for my perspective as a member of the All Ages Committee, I fully support this. And just as a point of clarification, if you could, Mr. Moderator, remind folks what the average affordable housing income numbers might be.

[Speaker 4] (2:20:39 - 2:20:46)
Thank you, Mr. Powell. That's a great point. Do you have that number to hand, Ms. Ippolito?

[Speaker 2] (2:20:47 - 2:22:00)
I have to find it in my files, but I do. So the way that number is calculated is it's the median income for our region. We are part of the Boston, Cambridge, Quincy, Mass, metro area, and let's see.

I think the—let me take a look at that. I have different—the median family income for this area is $140,200. For a family of four, the 80% income limit would be $111,850.

I do have an entire chart here going through a low, medium, and very low income, and it also breaks it down into how many people are in the family. So this information is available. It's quite dense.

It's quite a bit of information that comes from the state, and I'd be happy to have it posted to the town's website so anyone can see what those numbers are.

[Speaker 4] (2:22:01 - 2:22:10)
Thank you, Ms. Ippolito. You're welcome. Further questions?

Yes, sir, in the back. That's Mr. Serra, yes?

[Speaker 22] (2:22:13 - 2:22:42)
Anthony Serra, Precinct 5. I just want to note that there's a discrepancy between the number of units allowed in your allowable uses table. The words say 90 and the numbers say 96.

That's on page 5 under 4.10.5.0. And so it does.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:44 - 2:22:51)
Mr. Chairman. Or Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Spalios, will you accept that? Mr. Moderator, can you treat that as a Scrivener's error?

[Speaker 4] (2:22:51 - 2:22:59)
We'll treat that as a Scrivener's error, and the motion that encompasses this document There are three other typos that we are waiting for you to correct.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:00 - 2:23:00)
Anybody?

[Speaker 4] (2:23:01 - 2:23:07)
shall be read as 96, not 90. Thank you, Mr. Serra. Ms. Martin-Epstein.

[Speaker 6] (2:23:11 - 2:26:57)
I think I need to turn up. Kim Martin-Epstein, Princeton 3 Town Meeting Member. Also, I'm speaking as the Chairperson of the Affordable Housing Trust.

In our Affordable Housing Trust monthly meeting last night, the Affordable Housing Trust voted to allow me to speak officially in this capacity with the assumption that this conversation would lead its way to here. And so I just wanted to make a few comments related to affordable housing, and in particular about the Affordable Housing Trust's role or lack of role. I just think it's really important to reiterate that the Glover site development, we understand it was a private arrangement that is subject to existing zoning or perhaps, if we pass this tonight, some new zoning.

This had nothing to do with an affordable housing project that any developer ever brought to the town, to the Affordable Housing Trust. So we really appreciate the fact that at this point we are, through the efforts of the Planning Board and the Select Board and hopefully Town Meeting, we're getting the maximum amount of affordable units that we would get anyway. I don't think we can do better than this under the circumstances.

Obviously, we've been hoping that someday this site would be a more robust affordable housing development, but that wasn't to be, and that's the way it is, unfortunately. So that's part one. I want to commend the town for doing what we can do.

Seventeen units is better than zero. I don't know what the depth of the affordability will be at the end of the day, but it'll be more than zero. The other points that I wanted to mention were that the payment, we're hoping that the payment will be channeled to the Affordable Housing Trust so that we can spend the money in the ways that we're empowered to spend it.

But I do want to mention that $279,000 is not enough under any of the DHCD, the Department of Housing and Community Development's Qualified Allocation Plan calculations about what it takes to actually develop a unit of affordable housing. According to the last probably five years, that number's up almost $500,000 per unit. So what we're talking about is a payment that is going to be used, we hope, to leverage additional units.

It helps developers leverage other dollars from the state, perhaps leverage other dollars of debt, and put together a project that will have some really robust affordable housing. There might be smaller projects that we might be able to use housing choice, but that's not a lot of money to build affordable housing. It will create some leverage, and we're really thankful for whatever leverage we can create.

We have some really great ideas. We'd love to work with the town and the other committees that do this. We really need to be at the table for this, and so I just want to point out that that's going to be part of the process.

And finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that as far as parcel swapping and give-and-take, there was a really, really important committee that was empowered by this town meeting to explore the uses, the financeable and feasible uses, of the Hadley School, when and if the Hadley School were to become available. And now that we know that the Hadley School is going to become available, I will say out loud, and I think that the Hadley Reuse Committee would agree, that the most feasible, financeable option for the Hadley School is senior affordable housing, and we should be pushing for something like that to compensate for the way that we are, you know, essentially being forced to use these different parcels, and that outcome would be a nice compendium to what we are doing tonight. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (2:26:57 - 2:28:11)
Thank you, Ms. Martin Epstein. Any further? Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Given a second, this would end debate. It takes a two-thirds vote.

All in favor? All opposed? Mr. Perry's motion to call the end of debate has passed. We move directly to a vote on Mr. Dorsey's original motion, moving the amendment, the recommendation for the amendment to the zoning by-law and the zoning map. All those in favor of Mr. Dorsey's motion, please signify by raising your hand. All those opposed?

Under the latitude given me by the state law, I declare the vote is unanimous. Congratulations. Moving to Article III, we take up the proposed capital items from May that were postponed so that we could have this conversation in the context of the overall capital plan.

Ms. McNerney.

[Speaker 12] (2:28:14 - 2:29:36)
The Finance Committee recommends that the town vote to appropriate $4,318,101 for the purposes and in the amounts identified in Article III of the printed warrant as shown under the column heading Finance Committee recommended in said Article III with the following exceptions. This is on page 2 of the warrant right now. The exceptions are Project No.

6, the DPW Street Paving Finance Committee recommended amount is to be reduced from $465,000 to $415,000. Project No. 61, Facilities, Metco, Room Improvements, the Finance Committee recommendation is a $25,000 amount.

And Project No. 62, just below it, Facilities, VFW Appropriation, the treasurer with the approval of the select board is authorized to borrow $4,318,101 under Chapter 44 of the general laws or pursuant to any other enabling authority. Said appropriation will be supplemented by grant funding in the amount of $35,000 for Project No.

12 and grant funding in the amount of $150,000 for Project No. 22. I move the recommendation of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 4] (2:29:36 - 2:29:39)
Is there a second? Ms. McNerney?

[Speaker 12] (2:29:40 - 2:31:09)
When we were here a month ago, we delayed action on this and the Finance Committee at the time had recommended favorable approval with the exception of the changes that I just recommended as approved by the Finance Committee for this warrant. The reduction in the paving is a reduction of $50,000 and the additions in No. 61 and 62, those two Facilities lines, is another $50,000.

We felt strongly that given that we were going to come back for Article I and ask for the $8 million number for the properties, that it would be inappropriate to increase this $3 million appropriation for town meeting. But we were presented with these new priorities and we had originally budgeted excess money for the paving, so we felt that we could reduce the paving, still have excess over what had originally been recommended, and accommodate the new priorities as listed in Articles 61 and 62. We did also feel that on top of the cost of the land acquisition monies that were appropriated tonight in Article I, that it was more than affordable to continue with the regular capital improvement plan, which included this list of priorities as shown in Article III.

So that's the backup.

[Speaker 4] (2:31:10 - 2:31:23)
Thank you, Ms. McNerney. Mr. Raymond or Mr. Hale, could you speak briefly? I know your recommendation is already printed in the warrant, but if you could remind town meeting members the Capital Improvement Committee's process.

Mr. Hale, thank you.

[Speaker 16] (2:31:27 - 2:32:19)
Hey, folks, Ryan Hale, town meeting member in Precinct 2 and member of the Capital Improvement Committee. I just want to make sure that everyone's aware that we've thoroughly vetted the additions here. I think the discussion in our meetings recently, we wanted to reinforce that we wanted to keep the total expenditure the same, I think there was some discussion as well as making sure that we have better foresight into these recommendations that come in sort of later in the process.

So I want to make sure we assure the town meeting members that we're looking to improve the preparations that we get for next year's cycle. We support these additions at the recommendation of the town and hope that you can vote in favor of the article tonight. Thanks.

[Speaker 4] (2:32:20 - 2:32:40)
Thank you, Mr. Hale. Discussion on the recommendation of the Finance Committee to adopt the capital plan as shown with the amendments, reducing Line 6, the street paving, by $50,000 and including Project 61 and 62 at $25,000 each. Is that Mr. Barton?

Yes.

[Speaker 34] (2:32:50 - 2:33:05)
Gary Barton, Precinct 3. Two quick questions. Line number 11, what is a cleaning machine and what are we cleaning?

And line number 60, what is the Calgon Station and what are we demolishing?

[Speaker 4] (2:33:07 - 2:33:10)
Thank you, Mr. Barton. Mr. Hale.

[Speaker 16] (2:33:11 - 2:33:53)
Thank you for those questions. The cleaning machines are for indoor floors for the buildings like the school buildings and the administration buildings, and the Calgon site is over by the C&L Liquors on New Ocean Street. I would describe it as a pump house.

Maybe that's not the right technical term for it, but it's to basically improve the site and prepare that very small kind of island for future use. So we're basically taking care of the remediation of the property and then that land would be open for a new use in the future. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Hale.

[Speaker 4] (2:33:54 - 2:33:56)
Yes, sir. Mr. Blonder.

[Speaker 21] (2:34:03 - 2:34:38)
Jeffrey Blonder, Precinct 2, Commander of the EF Gilmore Disabled American Veterans Chapter. I rise to support number 62. This is something the veterans have been talking about for several years, and we wholeheartedly support it.

I just have a couple of questions. Since the veterans do not have a lease on the property, who will own the equipment? Since the town is buying it, is it owned by the town, or will the veterans own the equipment?

[Speaker 4] (2:34:40 - 2:34:42)
Thank you, Mr. Blonder. Mr. Grishman.

[Speaker 33] (2:34:50 - 2:35:03)
David Grishman, Precinct 1, Town Meeting Member, Select Board. Just to address Mr. Blonder, I just want to let you know the Select Board and the town are working on a lease for the VFW, and we hope to have that to you very soon.

[Speaker 21] (2:35:04 - 2:35:17)
But how about the equipment, the telehealth equipment? Will that be owned by the town? Yes.

So the town will own the equipment? So the veterans will not own the equipment?

[Speaker 33] (2:35:17 - 2:35:19)
The town will own the equipment. We're appropriating the funds.

[Speaker 21] (2:35:19 - 2:35:30)
And will there be any input from the veteran community of what the facility improvements are or is the town going to decide what the equipment will be?

[Speaker 33] (2:35:30 - 2:35:36)
Mr. Blonder, we hope that it's a collaborative process between the town and the Veterans Crossing.

[Speaker 4] (2:35:36 - 2:35:37)
Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 33] (2:35:37 - 2:35:38)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (2:35:38 - 2:35:46)
Thank you, Mr. Grishman. Thank you, Mr. Blonder. Further discussion about the recommendation of Mr. Patzios?

[Speaker 7] (2:35:53 - 2:36:11)
Charles Patzios, Precinct 5. On the VFW equipment, is it going to be only exclusively used by veterans or is it open to anybody from the town using the telehealth system that's described here?

[Speaker 4] (2:36:12 - 2:36:27)
If there are other members of the town that are at the VFW, I suppose it would be open to discussion with the veterans as to whether they were using it. Further discussion about the capital plan? Ms. O'Connor.

[Speaker 9] (2:36:34 - 2:40:06)
Amy O'Connor, Precinct 6, School Committee. I rise to support this article but with a caveat. At our last meeting here, I spoke about funding technology and how it's changed over the last few cycles.

Several budget cycles back, the town administrator decided to not fund technology spending via capital requests. The schools agreed to this at a deference to our colleagues and their process. In May, it was suggested that funding technology is the modern equivalent of funding pencils and papers.

And while this is true in some ways, it's also very different as technology stretches out across learning, across the buildings themselves, and certainly has a shelf life of longer than any pen or paper. A very thorough district technology plan can be found on our school website, a plan that we're all very proud of. Many districts and towns continue to fund this kind of spending through capital.

So while Swampscot has chosen to work differently, this isn't necessarily right or wrong. The rub is this. As I mentioned last month, despite removing it from capital requests and recognition that it is an ongoing cost in the running of the district, there was no one-time allocation bump in our operating budget to account for this change.

Instead, as has been asked of us, the district has used our federal COVID monies to subsidize operational expenses, a funding source that dries up next year. We can delay these decisions until next year, but the request will appear larger than normal because of a few years without funding. I bring this up now during a discussion of capital because of the school committee's dissatisfaction with this process.

The list of capital projects here is different from the one that would have come before you in May because there are new priorities. At some point between the last meeting and a week ago, Town Hall decided to include money for lounge furniture at the high school without any discussion with our superintendent. Will we gladly take that money?

Of course. The building's over 10 years old, and we can certainly use some furniture updates. Would this have been our planning priority with any kind of discussion?

No. And while raising my concerns about the process behind the scenes, particularly because it relates to all of our planning, a select board member countered that it was rigid thinking to get hung up on process at the expense of good ideas. Well, I couldn't disagree more, especially when those same rules are used to not support other requests that the district has made.

Tonight, I'm going to vote yes for these line items because I'm assuming that capital has gone through all of these requests. I assume that the Capital Improvements Committee has vetted them, ranked them appropriately, which is why they're before us. But I do so with dissatisfaction in the way that the process and procedures are followed only when convenient.

It's now three times in as many years that the school requests have been declined to be even considered. We considered each event at the time to be small enough not to warrant any argument on town floor. But they've added up.

And I'm sure whoever has chosen to have the last word on all of this might make light of these remarks or point out with nothing less than a hard declaration that these issues are somehow incorrect or different or maybe that the past is the past, but it isn't. And process matters, especially in governance. Thank you, Ms. O'Connor.

[Speaker 4] (2:40:08 - 2:40:09)
Mr. Spellios.

[Speaker 1] (2:40:18 - 2:42:11)
Thank you, Peter Spellios, member of the Select Board, Precinct 3. I appreciate the Chairwoman's comments about process, and I'm sure that she remembers the years where things came up on facilities that weren't even on capital plans and all of a sudden the town was asked to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund things. Things happen.

What I'm very proud about is two things. Number one is that we have a superintendent that has made the METCO program incredibly strong in this town and has shown a commitment to the METCO program, the second to none. Second, what I'm proud about is that the town is making the decision to take some of the town capital dollars and invest it because we know the METCO program, because of space needs in the high school, has been moved multiple times, which is obviously disruptive to a program, but necessary.

So there's an opportunity to invest in those, and we're not taking it away from the school money. The school capital is the same. We're actually reducing it from the town side because it being an important goal.

We will figure out the capital. We will figure out the technology. We do.

We've had a very collaborative, and I believe the school has been a direct beneficiary of an incredibly collaborative environment over the last five years. I believe the funding for the school in our town has been twice X what the funding for the general government is, and that is just a fact, so I want you to be confident. There's a reason that all happened, and it's a reason this town meeting consistently funded that, and education is a priority for the select board, is a priority for the town administration, and we're happy to support.

We understand, given all the capital needs that you have, that this wouldn't have been a top priority because there's other things you have to do. We get that. We're also pleased that, given the disruption and the relocations of rooms, that we're able to do it on the town side and contribute some of our town capital.

But here the commitment for the town to continue working with the school committee, and we look forward to the school committee and the superintendent continuing to work with the town administrator and the select board.

[Speaker 4] (2:42:12 - 2:42:19)
Thank you, Mr. Spelios. Mr. Serra.

[Speaker 22] (2:42:25 - 2:42:50)
Anthony Serra, Precinct 5. Mr. Moderator, I don't see anything in the appropriation this year of the capital projects for the Stacy Brook project, and I don't see anything in the outgoing in the plan for the follow-on years out through 2027 for funding that water pollution remediation issue. Could someone address how we're funding it or where we're funding it?

[Speaker 4] (2:42:50 - 2:43:01)
Certainly. I know we've had a punctuated plan, but perhaps, Mr. Fitzgerald, you can speak to some of the recent developments.

[Speaker 19] (2:43:02 - 2:44:15)
Thank you for the question, Mr. Serra. I don't think there's many people in Swampskate that don't really appreciate the importance of Stacy Brook. Over the last several years, the town has strenuously argued and worked with our state and federal delegation to get $5 million worth of funding that both Lynn and Swampskate will be using to help continue to mitigate the infiltration and inflow into Stacy Brook.

We have a capital plan, and over the last six years, we have spent millions of dollars to help address the infiltration and inflow. We will continue to invest in the infrastructure, but we need $50 million in state and federal funds. It's not fair to Swampskate that we shift all these costs to the local tax base when we have all of the other priorities.

We've just received a $5 million investment from the state. I believe that more will come, but we are working every week to try to address these issues. Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald.

[Speaker 4] (2:44:16 - 2:44:27)
Any further comment on the motion, the recommendation, the finance committee, and the capital projects? In the very back there, ma'am.

[Speaker 15] (2:44:35 - 2:44:49)
I'm a Lanzilli Precinct 1. I have a question in regards to that line 61 for the Metco improvements. Has the town looked into any funded grants for those improvements or that project?

[Speaker 4] (2:44:51 - 2:45:12)
Thank you, Ms. Lanzilli. I turn to anybody who knows. I know that when we do get grants, you see that they are in the motion, particularly the grant for Project 12 and the grant for Project 22.

So if it were available in this case, it would be listed. If there's any additional commentary?

[Speaker 15] (2:45:15 - 2:46:41)
So if I can just continue. So I currently looked at the state fiscal year 23 budget, and these grants for improvements are available. There's a particular grant that's used for low school district costs incurred as a result of the participation of the Metco students and for supplemental services that will contribute in a measurable way to enhance educational opportunity and academic achievement as well as enrichment to these students.

I also spoke to Sylvia Lamb. She's the strategic initiative specialist who handles the grants for Metco. She was so excited when she heard that we're looking into doing this project, and she said that currently this grant is available.

She sent me the link, and she said that our representative for the Metco program did receive this application. Can you hear me? Sorry.

So according to Ms. Lamb, she said that if the town members do approve this and we apply for the grant, that they will allocate the money to line number 61. So I just think if we have the opportunity in getting this money as a participating district, that we should definitely seek this route. So I'm not sure if I'm looking for an amendment, but I'm just looking for a funding source that we do apply for this grant rather than allocate the $25,000 from the town.

Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (2:46:41 - 2:48:19)
Thank you very much. I'm sure if you reach out to the town administrator's office, you'll be able to coordinate with the school district and facilitate that. Mr. Pastor, did you have a comment?

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Demento. I recognize Mr. Demento, but Mr. Domilovitz, I will come to you next. I believe the two of you are of the same mind. I will take one of you as the second and one as the mover.

Therefore, all those interested in ending debate and moving directly to a vote, raise your hand. All those opposed. It is unanimous.

We now move to a direct vote on the motion by Ms. McNerney to accept the Finance Committee's recommendation of the printed capital plan in the warrant with the changes to lines 6, 61, and 62. All those in favor of Ms. McNerney's motion. All those opposed.

It is unanimous. Before we look for a motion to adjourn, I'd like to take a brief moment and congratulate all of you on the multi-generational change that you voted in favor of for this town that will affect us, our children, and our children's children. With that, is there a motion to adjourn?

Is there a second? I declare this special town meeting adjourned.