[Speaker 12] (2:31 - 2:32)
I'm glad to show up.

[Speaker 3] (2:32 - 2:32)
There he is.

[Speaker 12] (2:33 - 2:43)
Nice of you to join us. Must be nice. You want to mute us, please?

[Speaker 9] (2:43 - 2:44)
Ready to go.

[Speaker 12] (2:45 - 2:47)
Super. Where are we going? You want to mute us, please?

[Speaker 9] (2:48 - 2:49)
That's all him. It's all him?

[Speaker 3] (2:49 - 2:49)
All me.

[Speaker 9] (2:50 - 2:51)
Great. It's all me. You can go.

[Speaker 3] (2:52 - 3:06)
Hold on. I think we're muted on. No, it's fine, as she said.

OK. We're good? OK.

All right. Welcome to the April 24th Select Forum meeting. Before we get started, if you'd please join me in a pledge of allegiance.

[Speaker 11] (3:09 - 3:20)
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[Speaker 3] (3:23 - 6:14)
Great. Thanks, everybody. Before we get started on our agenda, we've got to open it up to public comments.

If folks are on Teams and have a public comment, they can raise their hand. Anyone in the room, please raise your hand to provide public comment. And also, if people are at home, I would like to send public comment to email.

It's nduffy at swamps.ma.gov. That's N-D-U-F-F-Y. No public comment in the room. I'm not seeing any hands raised on Teams.

So I think we'll move on to the agenda. We've got just a couple agenda items tonight. Before we start, the main agenda item is the town meeting warrant.

We need to close the warrant tonight to send it out for printing tomorrow. But the first agenda item is something we discussed last week, which is a discussion and possible vote on new mooring fees. We received a memo from the harbormaster last week to raise the mooring fees from $3.50 per foot to $5.50 per foot and from $6.00 per foot to $8.00 per foot for non-residential moorings. This would be the first increase since the current harbormaster started working, which was in 2016, but we think maybe even prior to that. And then there's also a proposal for transient moorings. We've been able to acquire four transient moorings.

Sorry, I'm reading from the memo that he sent last week. And they'd like to place in the harbor to allow guests to visit our harbor and businesses on Humphrey Street. After reviewing fees from other communities, the harbormaster is proposing a fee of $50 per night as well as a set fee of $35 for stays up to four hours.

Last week when we discussed it, we wanted to see some more information from other towns. I know that we received something today with some of the fees from other towns, as well as a member of the yacht club had sent us some information prior to the weekend.

[Speaker 1] (6:14 - 6:22)
Do you mind just, I'm sorry, say it again, what the proposed increase is on the per foot and resi and non-resi?

[Speaker 3] (6:22 - 6:38)
Yeah, so the per foot is going from, for residential, is going from $3.50 per foot to $5.50 per foot. And then non-residential is $6.00 per foot to $8.00 per foot.

[Speaker 1] (6:40 - 6:59)
So, Mr. Chairman, I know we're going to have discussion, but I would make a motion to approve the increase of the mooring fees from $3.50 a foot to $5.50 a foot for residential fees, $6.00 a foot to $8.00 a foot for non-residential fees, and to allow a transient overnight fee of $50 and a four-hour fee of $35.

[Speaker 3] (7:00 - 7:01)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (7:08 - 7:09)
This would lead to the mooring conversation.

[Speaker 3] (7:09 - 7:12)
Yep. All right.

[Speaker 6] (7:16 - 7:24)
I just don't know who to have this question answered by, though. Why is it we don't go by feet instead of?

[Speaker 4] (7:25 - 7:27)
It's the standard in the.

[Speaker 6] (7:27 - 7:34)
Like, up to a certain fee is X amount of dollars. Excuse me. I mean, up to a certain fee is X amount of dollars, and then greater than is more.

[Speaker 11] (7:35 - 7:35)
More.

[Speaker 6] (7:35 - 7:48)
We've looked on that. I know some towns handle boats that way. I think most of the boats in the harbor are relatively smaller on the smaller side, so I just wondered if that was why.

[Speaker 4] (7:51 - 8:13)
You know, I don't know exactly, but I will tell you that my personal experience, my professional experience, is that many of the communities charge mooring fees based on the size of the boat, and it's just, you know, the bigger the boat, the more room, the more of a burden it has in terms of the mooring field.

[Speaker 6] (8:14 - 8:44)
No, I agree. That's why, like, at Newburyport, they charge up to 17 feet is $5.00 a foot, and then greater than 19 feet is $10.00 a foot, so I was just thinking because our harbor is less protected, there's less likely that we're going to have probably larger-sized boats in our harbor if we wanted to create a system where that was more expensive to make more money off larger boats. I don't know.

Just an idea. I just didn't know what the rationale was behind that.

[Speaker 5] (8:45 - 9:53)
I mean, just from my perspective, I thought it was really eye-opening, the memo that we received from Ted Dooley, which really spelled out and provided us with a lot of quantitative information that we didn't have previously, and I think, you know, what he said made a whole lot of sense was, you know, we don't have a whole heck of a lot of amenities. So, you know, until we have those amenities, increasing fees, to me, it seems that we're putting the cart before the horse. I have no issue with a transient fee of $50.00 a night. I have no problem with up to four hours for $35.00. I may even be persuaded by, you know, for non-residents to pay a little more, but I don't see raising the fees for Swampscot residents at this time, just given the fact that we don't have the amenities that other neighboring harbors do. It just doesn't exist, and therefore, it doesn't make sense to charge more.

[Speaker 4] (9:56 - 11:21)
I certainly understand, and I appreciate the concern about, you know, ensuring that we keep Swampscot affordable. I think at $3.50 per foot, I think we are at the anemic low end of fees that we would charge, even though we have few amenities. I do think raising a few additional dollars to help offset some of the costs and investments that we're making in the Harbor Master's function, helping to support more programs.

We've talked about having more boating programs and having more initiatives that would help teach boater safety. I think it all kind of falls into an incremental step. I think the recommendation to increase it incrementally brings it even below Salem and Manchester-by-the-Sea and below Ipswich and really, you know, right in line with significantly under Marblehead.

We're still going to be very competitive in a, you know, marina environment, and I do think, you know, this will generate some additional revenue to help support the overall general fund of the town.

[Speaker 7] (11:24 - 11:31)
David, is it your worry that we're going to lose people if we go to $5, $6 a foot?

[Speaker 5] (11:31 - 11:40)
It's my worry that we're charging someone, we're charging a, we're charging more money and we're providing less of a service.

[Speaker 6] (11:41 - 11:57)
Well, I don't think the increase has anything to do with the services that are provided. I think the increase has to do with the fact that we haven't increased the mooring fees in a decade. So in 1995, I paid $3.50. Okay, so two decades, three decades.

[Speaker 1] (11:57 - 12:05)
I think we were actually in the gold standard back then. I think we actually had the dollar at that point. It was shillings.

[Speaker 6] (12:08 - 12:44)
I don't necessarily buy the rationale that we have to have the services before we have the increase. How are we ever going to get the services if we can't afford to provide them? If we don't have investment into the waterfront, then how is that ever going to happen?

So I don't disagree with an increase. I just, I guess I just would have liked a little bit more information if that argument was going to be made as to what these other sites have as amenities. Because what does Nahon offer for $4 a foot?

What does Salem offer for $7 a foot? That would have been information that would have been more helpful to go down that road. I just don't see the data there right now.

[Speaker 1] (12:46 - 13:37)
My suspicion is I'd be interested to get feedback is that people are in the Swampscot Harbor because of convenience. Top of the list. They're here because they can come roll down the street and within 20 minutes be on their boat.

And we don't have so many moorings that that's not the case. But that being said, I would welcome my colleague to make a motion as to what he thinks it should be. I've stated last week that I feel as though between mooring fees, the use of the pier, the use of the yacht club, the use of boat parking and trailer parking and whatnot, that my feeling is the town of Swampscot heavily subsidizes the boating community, which if that's what as a policy we want to do, that's fine.

But at the same time, I appreciate the fact that we have a harbor master that's focused on it finally. And frankly, we'd like to respect his request because that gives him tools to do things. But no one seconded my motion.

So that's OK.

[Speaker 7] (13:38 - 13:40)
I would second your motion again if it came up.

[Speaker 1] (13:40 - 14:00)
If I made it again. So I'd make I would make a motion to make to increase the per foot cost for residents from 350 to 550 for non-residents from six to eight to have a transient overnight fee of fifty dollars and to have up to four hours for thirty five dollars an hour.

[Speaker 6] (14:00 - 14:00)
Second.

[Speaker 3] (14:01 - 14:04)
OK. Is there further discussion?

[Speaker 6] (14:05 - 14:14)
Yeah, I actually thought people might suggest a higher dollar amount, to be honest, which is why I didn't second the motion. But obviously, people are good with where it is.

[Speaker 4] (14:14 - 14:47)
It's helpful. We did have quite a bit of a discussion about increasing it up to the highest amount. And Harbormaster actually thought over the next couple of years, each year will have an incremental increase and really get it up to what we thought would be a peer representation.

So I think you'll hear more from the Harbormaster over the next few years as we try to celebrate the harbor and continue to make investments in the waterfront.

[Speaker 7] (14:48 - 15:21)
So I do want to say that we had a meeting Wednesday. Information hadn't been provided to us prior to Wednesday. Anything detailed.

I asked if we could get this information before the weekend. We didn't get the information from the town. Mr. Dooley did send some information. It's very hard to come to these meetings and not have information in advance. And, you know, I'd like to see information in advance so we could really do a better job making decisions.

[Speaker 6] (15:22 - 15:27)
I would agree. I didn't have time today in my normal work schedule to view any of this.

[Speaker 1] (15:27 - 16:00)
Right. I think it's very fair that any time that we're being asked to change policy, that there needs to be a reasoning behind the change of policy. And it can't just be someone says that they want to change it.

It needs to be documented. And if it's not ready to be documented, respectfully, then it shouldn't be before us. I agree completely on that.

But that being said, we are where we are now. We appreciate that you need to send out mooring bills. Right.

So I think my motion is intending to respect the fact that we got to send out mooring bills. But that's just ‑‑ it's bad form.

[Speaker 5] (16:01 - 16:21)
So we are where we are. And I came to my decision based upon the information that was provided to me from our previous conversation, as well as detailed information that was provided by Ted Dooley. So that's where I'm coming from.

That's how I'm making my decision.

[Speaker 3] (16:22 - 16:23)
Okay.

[Speaker 10] (16:25 - 16:27)
I agree with everything everyone said.

[Speaker 1] (16:29 - 16:31)
Which means you're for and against it. That's right.

[Speaker 6] (16:31 - 16:33)
Everyone's right.

[Speaker 3] (16:33 - 16:33)
That's right.

[Speaker 1] (16:33 - 16:34)
Everyone's right.

[Speaker 3] (16:34 - 18:03)
If there's no further discussion, all those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Opposed? No. Okay.

Mooring fees pass. Moving on to our only other item on the agenda tonight, which is the warrant town, FY2024 town meeting warrant. Last week we went through everything that we could.

I suggest tonight that we go through similarly where we think our goal tonight is to close the warrant and not necessarily to be deciding on our support or lack of support for these articles. I think that's probably the best way to do it, given where we are, where some of these articles are, and what time it is. I'm just trying to get through the meeting and page turn.

We've gotten some different versions. I have some various notes. So bear with me, and please feel free to stop me or tell me if I missed something or we need to go back, because we're going to do a similar kind of page turn exercise.

And I'll try to go through this quickly and skip the things that we've already done.

[Speaker 9] (18:04 - 18:05)
When did we leave off?

[Speaker 3] (18:08 - 18:11)
I actually, Pete, is Pete with us on?

[Speaker 9] (18:13 - 18:14)
Yep, that's his screen.

[Speaker 3] (18:16 - 18:27)
I'm here. Okay. God.

The voice of God. I actually, Pete, had, I think you caught a couple, but I noticed a couple things in the FINCOM letter.

[Speaker 1] (18:31 - 18:37)
That's fine. I would just move on. That's an administrative thing.

We don't control the FINCOM letter. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (18:38 - 18:47)
All right. I mean, it's not substantive. It's just like spelling mistakes.

Yeah, no, I think we can make those.

[Speaker 1] (18:48 - 18:50)
I think we have license to make spelling mistakes.

[Speaker 3] (18:50 - 18:50)
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (18:50 - 18:51)
Yeah, yeah. Right, but don't.

[Speaker 3] (18:52 - 18:54)
We don't need to talk about it. So, Pete, are you ready?

[Speaker 11] (18:55 - 18:55)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (18:56 - 19:31)
On the paragraph, I think it's the first paragraph on the second page of that where it says the town also has underfunded. Right there. The sentence that starts, we have much work to do.

I think it should be we have much work to do to bring or to fund this. Not to bring this fund, this liability. I think it's meant to say we have much work to do to fund this liability.

Makes sense to me.

[Speaker 10] (19:40 - 19:56)
All right. I think that was. I think you caught the other things I saw there.

[Speaker 3] (20:00 - 20:34)
Did anyone have anything? We got the room numbers, so I think I'm assuming those are correct for the caucus meetings. Yeah.

We're all set with article one. Article two. We didn't recommend any action.

You guys have received the final climate action plan. Action resilience plan. I'm not sure if people are ready to make any recommendation on this tonight.

[Speaker 1] (20:35 - 20:36)
I suggest we move on. We move on.

[Speaker 3] (20:37 - 20:53)
OK, so slight portable report. OK. We did three.

We did four, right? Yep. Before we're just going to report then.

[Speaker 11] (20:54 - 20:54)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (20:58 - 20:59)
Article four of the budget.

[Speaker 10] (21:02 - 21:02)
Sorry.

[Speaker 3] (21:09 - 21:12)
Special education reserve fund.

[Speaker 1] (21:13 - 21:15)
That will report as well.

[Speaker 3] (21:16 - 21:18)
Everyone OK with that? Yep.

[Speaker 7] (21:19 - 21:21)
I'm OK with it. But why are we waiting till then?

[Speaker 1] (21:21 - 21:36)
Because I actually want to have more of a conversation with the town administrator about the letter that he and the superintendent personally just understand where the 425 or 450 number came from on the circuit breaker. We just had a very short conversation. I didn't feel like we really.

[Speaker 7] (21:37 - 21:38)
Should we have that conversation out here?

[Speaker 1] (21:39 - 21:58)
Well, I think that we have a month between now and time meeting of the conversation. I'd rather have it in a more relaxed environment to actually figure out. My gut is I would rather that number be lower personally.

And so I just I'm open to it. But I just tonight doesn't seem like the time to happen to have that conversation.

[Speaker 4] (21:58 - 22:04)
It was my initial position that I thought the numbers should be lower. The superintendent helped me think.

[Speaker 1] (22:04 - 22:11)
And I'm totally open to it. I just want to give the space for us to have that conversation for you to educate us with what the superintendent perhaps educated you with.

[Speaker 3] (22:15 - 22:59)
Article six is stabilization fund for opioid settlement payments. We recommend a favorable action on that. There was a change in language.

Everyone's OK with that. And the comment is the source of funds. Seven and eight are water and sewer enterprise funds.

We're good there. Favorable action. Transport.

Article nine is transportation infrastructure. We're good on that. Favorable action.

Article 10. Anyone have any comments on this language? Should we just still be reporting, I guess?

[Speaker 1] (23:00 - 23:35)
Yeah. So I'm not sure that 10 New Ocean Street covers what we intended to cover with. And so, Pete, I'm just interested in kind of what your research was just with 10 New Ocean Street, because I believe we're only seeking permission to convey that which isn't subject to a lease to Calix.

And I don't think this language limits that. I think, arguably, this language could be more than that. And so I just want to make sure it's not, because I don't want people to believe we're trying to convey the portion that's subject to the lease with Calix, because I don't think that's what this board has talked about.

[Speaker 8] (23:37 - 24:19)
Sorry, I'm just noticing that I amended the title on Article 10 when it was supposed to be on Article 11. So on Article 11 is the one that includes 10 New Ocean Street. In the Appendix C, we do identify a plan, a portion of the property that does not include Calix.

We can be more specific that it cannot supersede the standing lease agreement with Calix.

[Speaker 1] (24:21 - 24:43)
No, I think I'm fine. I appreciate your clarity. You're right.

Article 11 says it better. So I think I'm fine with this language in your Appendix C. I believe it gives us enough scope that if for some reason we need to tweak it at town meeting, we've created the four corners wide enough to be able to do that.

And I understand why it's not in 10, so I appreciate your clarity on that.

[Speaker 3] (24:47 - 24:53)
So you're just saying to change the title for Article 10?

[Speaker 5] (24:54 - 25:04)
It should be actually changed. So I would move that the Select Board recommend favorable action on Article 10. I second that.

[Speaker 7] (25:04 - 26:00)
I'll wait for the question. So the question I have on that, it's to provide a need for the community. And so I know I asked this at two Select Board meetings before, if it's going to be a 70-30 split similar to what it was supposed to be at Michon.

70% swamp scout residents, 30%. That was the understanding at Michon. But at Michon, we currently have less than 25% residents filling the rooms at Michon.

We have nine swamp scout residents out of the 38. So what I just want to get is a clear understanding of how we fill the need in the community and how do we get to the point of where we do have 70% swamp scout veterans, seniors, whatever, and 30% outside. Because this is a large investment.

[Speaker 1] (26:01 - 26:04)
Yeah, let me ‑‑ I can explain the state process.

[Speaker 7] (26:04 - 26:04)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (26:04 - 26:06)
And maybe that helps, but I don't know that's going to answer your question.

[Speaker 7] (26:07 - 26:07)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (26:07 - 26:40)
So the state process is the state limits us to a preference max of 70% for local residents, right? I can't speak specifically to the Michon, but I'm going to hypothesize that they didn't have enough swamp scout residents filing applications that qualified. And so that allowed them to go below the 70% preference because once you don't have enough applicants through the lottery system, there is a regimented date that you have to submit by, a date that you have to do the lottery by, a date then you do your processing of applications, right, to make sure you financially qualify.

[Speaker 7] (26:41 - 26:41)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (26:41 - 27:15)
And so sometimes out of that, and again, I know nothing about the Michon specific situation, sometimes out of that you don't have enough preference, so you fall below. And then that allows them, instead of having vacancy, it allows them then to say, okay, well, if there wasn't 70% swamp scout financially qualified individuals, we can now rent to others. We just need to give the preference to the swamp scout qualified individuals.

So perhaps that is what happened at Michon. The state is the one that monitors those things. And so I'm guessing we can find out the actual answer on Michon, if we want the actual answer on Michon.

[Speaker 7] (27:15 - 27:15)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (27:16 - 27:44)
But here we should have, again, unless the state changes the rules, my expectation is the state is going to have the same zip code, let's just call it for lack of a better phrase, zip code preference restriction. And we can certainly ask for an exemption to go greater. I just previously in our conversations didn't express optimism that we would get an exemption for it just because of fair housing law considerations.

But we can certainly ask for it.

[Speaker 7] (27:45 - 27:53)
I'm not even asking for greater. It's just right now if our numbers at the Michon are under 25%, I don't want to be in that.

[Speaker 1] (27:53 - 27:59)
No, no, our number is not under 25%, meaning we have – sorry, say again what Michon is currently?

[Speaker 7] (27:59 - 28:07)
Is under 25% of the rooms at Michon are Swampscot, past Swampscot residents.

[Speaker 1] (28:08 - 29:08)
So you're saying under 25% are Swampscot residents. Correct. So that should be a question that we should be asking DHCD to confirm because we approved a Swampscot resident.

And the reason I'm pretty focused on that is after I made that vote, candidly, I would have voted differently. I wouldn't have supported it in that project a Swampscot preference. That's a different conversation for a different day.

So I'm very focused on that. But we did. We did approve it with a Swampscot preference.

I find it very hard to believe, but it could be the marketing, right? And, frankly, that could actually be a shortcoming of – I mean this without actual criticism. The town itself could have done a better job working with B'nai B'rith to market to Swampscot residents.

I don't know what happened there, but that's very hard for me to believe that less than 25% of the residents in Michon are Swampscot residents. But I don't doubt what you're saying. I'm just saying that we should figure that out.

But that being said – I mean they didn't go over there and knock on everybody's door. No, no, no.

[Speaker 7] (29:08 - 29:20)
That's information from, you know, town officials. So I just think that whatever we're doing, I just want to make sure it's really clear. And my preference is to make sure that Swampscot residents are taken care of.

[Speaker 1] (29:20 - 30:08)
So I think why don't we then put language in, again, 10 and or 11 that just says, and to request the maximum preference allowed under state regulations slash law. And that way we are telling town meeting that we're committed to doing that. Here, I'm okay with it on the VFW.

As I mentioned before, in Michon I would have done it differently. But that's a different conversation. But we can put actual language in here because that's the conversation we had with the VFW, was that we would seek the maximum preference, veterans plus Swampscot.

But we also need to understand that that doesn't predetermine that Swampscot veterans are going to be the residents. It just doesn't. The state's giving us all the money.

They get to have some of the rules, if you will. But I'm fine adding some language here to make that explicit.

[Speaker 7] (30:08 - 30:30)
I would like something where it would be senior veterans preference. My worry is we don't have enough veterans to fill that number. And it goes to seniors.

It goes to Swampscot seniors. But the preference is of a veteran filling it with veterans first. Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (30:31 - 30:37)
I mean, look, with the 38 units at Michon, all of those residents are Swampscot residents.

[Speaker 11] (30:38 - 30:38)
Now.

[Speaker 5] (30:39 - 31:18)
I mean, they are. But I hear you. So, you know, I talked to Jeffrey Blonder, who's the commander of the DAV.

He indicated more or less there are 500 veterans in Swampscot today. So 500 out of 15,000. He says there's a need.

Patrick Burke, commander of the VFW, says that there is certainly a need for this. So I think working in concert with those individuals, as well as Mike Sweeney, I'm pretty confident that we're going to be able to find Swampscot residents. So why don't we do this?

[Speaker 1] (31:18 - 31:47)
Let me just suggest, just given where we are tonight. I believe this language just puts it in the warrant between now and let's hold off on our recommendation. Between now and time meeting, we'll work on motion language.

That would be the floor motion that maybe clarifies the concern that you're going after. That gives you comfort. Because I think we're all substantively in the same place.

But tonight, let's hold off on the recommendation. But then we will work on language to create the preference in a way that we can also take the time to verify with the state that we're doing it in a way that complies with what the state would be okay with.

[Speaker 5] (31:47 - 31:55)
I'm good with that. Okay. So we could have conversations with DHTD between today.

Yeah. I can reach out to them and get that clarity. All right.

Yeah.

[Speaker 11] (31:56 - 31:56)
All right.

[Speaker 3] (31:58 - 32:00)
So no changes, no vote on that motion.

[Speaker 1] (32:00 - 32:15)
Except in Article 10, we're deleting the phrase, and 10 New Ocean Street from the title and adding it to Article 11. Or maybe we say, sorry, and disposition is going to be a portion of. I'm sorry.

I'll wait until 11. We get to 11.

[Speaker 3] (32:16 - 32:17)
I think we're there.

[Speaker 1] (32:17 - 32:26)
So Pete, for 11, I would suggest it says, and a portion of 10 New Ocean Street. Just so people understand.

[Speaker 6] (32:27 - 32:30)
Being a portion of that property located at 10 New Ocean Street.

[Speaker 1] (32:31 - 32:32)
Right. I'm just fixing the title because.

[Speaker 6] (32:33 - 32:33)
Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1] (32:33 - 32:36)
Relying on the fact that some people may not get beyond the title.

[Speaker 7] (32:36 - 32:40)
Gotcha. So we're removing 10 New Ocean Street out of 10 completely?

[Speaker 1] (32:41 - 32:42)
Yes. Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (32:42 - 32:43)
Correct. We don't have to acquire it.

[Speaker 1] (32:43 - 32:44)
Because we already own it.

[Speaker 8] (32:47 - 32:53)
Is the board going to take a vote on Article 10's recommendation? That's just the acquisition.

[Speaker 1] (32:55 - 33:17)
No, because I think let's just keep 10 and 11. We'll report at town meeting. Okay.

That way we can decide. Well, because we can decide if we want the preference language in both. Or who knows.

Let's just talk to DACD. I want to make sure that we do it and it complies with what DACD would allow us to do. So we're not giving false language here.

Fair enough.

[Speaker 3] (33:19 - 33:32)
Okay. So that's 10 and 11. 12.

We're reporting on. Does anyone have any comments or changes to 12?

[Speaker 1] (33:32 - 33:42)
Yeah. I mean, I do. I mean, it says for general municipal purposes, including but not limited to, hotel and accessory.

But that's not a municipal purpose. I'm not even quite sure where the general municipal purpose language came from.

[Speaker 11] (33:43 - 33:43)
Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (33:44 - 33:55)
That came from town council. That was a recommendation. And should allowing a broader definition and allowance should something happen where.

[Speaker 1] (33:55 - 34:13)
Yeah, I don't. I think our commitment. We still haven't decided on the hotel.

But I think our commitment is if it's not a hotel, then we're going back to town meeting and correcting it. And we're not asking for a license to sell for an undisclosed purpose. Excuse me, purpose.

Okay. I'm saying it to my colleagues to see if they agree. Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (34:13 - 34:18)
I don't think we are asking for general language that covers all sins. We're going to.

[Speaker 1] (34:18 - 34:35)
So I think it's for hotel and associate associated accessory uses. And then only other thing I'd put in there is including public parking. Yep.

Because if we do parking in the parking is not just for the hotel, but also for the public. That's an accessory use.

[Speaker 6] (34:42 - 34:44)
Does it have to mention a restaurant?

[Speaker 1] (34:45 - 34:46)
That's, I think, accessory.

[Speaker 3] (34:47 - 34:48)
That's an accessory to the hotel.

[Speaker 6] (34:49 - 34:49)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (34:51 - 34:51)
Good question.

[Speaker 3] (34:53 - 35:29)
Okay. So for hotel and associated associated accessory uses and public parking. 13.

Yeah, I think we're recommending favorable action on this already. Yeah. The dates changed.

I'm fine with the change. Everyone's good there.

[Speaker 6] (35:29 - 35:30)
Sure.

[Speaker 3] (35:30 - 36:06)
Article 14 is revolving fund. We recommend a favorable action on that for council on aging 15. We're good there.

That's chapter 90. 16. Capital.

Have income and CIP CIC. John has been calm. Yeah.

So they've recommended favorable action. And CIC is also recommended favor.

[Speaker 1] (36:06 - 36:11)
Yeah, I think that we were since we haven't actually had a conversation. I think we were going to hold our recommendation.

[Speaker 3] (36:11 - 36:32)
Hold on. Okay. 17.

We're good with. That's the ministerial changes for the clerk. Earth removal.

Okay. I have some notes here. If you bear with me for a second.

Is this app to.

[Speaker 1] (36:33 - 36:44)
So, so Pete, just to confirm in 18. The limited the number of blast language didn't exist. So you just deleted reference to it, correct?

Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 7] (36:44 - 36:47)
Wait, can you just. Hold on a minute.

[Speaker 3] (36:59 - 37:13)
So. Let me see if I can find. In the.

What is it? 14. In the language.

[Speaker 1] (37:14 - 37:15)
I'm sorry, where are you?

[Speaker 3] (37:15 - 37:24)
Yeah. Okay. For earth removal, Pete.

Which sorry, I'm looking at like multiple. Warrants here.

[Speaker 6] (37:25 - 37:27)
48. I think in the current one.

[Speaker 3] (37:28 - 37:28)
47.

[Speaker 8] (37:31 - 37:32)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (37:32 - 37:32)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (37:34 - 37:35)
Section 14.

[Speaker 3] (37:36 - 37:51)
Yeah. So where it says, I just had a question. About this.

I think it may be a dumb one, but. Earth removal procedure, section three. And then.

[Speaker 10] (37:52 - 37:55)
Where is it? Hold on. Sorry.

[Speaker 3] (37:59 - 38:25)
Sorry. No. Earth removal advisory committees to 14.

When it talks about the committee and who's appointing who. About the. The fourth line.

It says one member shall be chosen by and from the conservation commission to serve a one-year term. Two members shall be appointed by the board. Select board.

Yeah. What board?

[Speaker 1] (38:26 - 38:29)
I think as though in the bylaw boards. Previously defined. Go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (38:30 - 38:31)
Where.

[Speaker 6] (38:34 - 38:35)
It's not giving you the whole bylaw.

[Speaker 3] (38:37 - 38:41)
It's just giving you the changes to the bylaw. Okay. Gotcha.

Okay.

[Speaker 8] (38:43 - 38:44)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (38:44 - 39:02)
Got it. Yeah. Okay.

Thanks. That's that's what I need. Thanks.

Sorry about that. All right. Are we good then?

On that. Yeah. In terms of.

Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (39:03 - 39:10)
Oh, I. So I would make a motion to. Recommend favorable action on article 18.

Second.

[Speaker 3] (39:11 - 39:19)
Is there further discussion on this one? All those in favor. All right.

All right.

[Speaker 1] (39:20 - 39:34)
19 is the wildlife. 19. I would make a motion to remove our favorable recommendations.

Say that we'll report. We'll report it to a meeting since it's changed. And I just candidly haven't.

I'm fine with conceptually the idea, but I haven't looked at the language.

[Speaker 10] (39:34 - 39:36)
Yeah. Second.

[Speaker 6] (39:36 - 39:37)
Yes. Second.

[Speaker 3] (39:38 - 39:42)
All those in favor of changing our. Language to reporting a town meeting.

[Speaker 7] (39:44 - 39:44)
Hi.

[Speaker 3] (39:45 - 39:46)
Hi. Great.

[Speaker 7] (39:46 - 39:48)
Is this the new language though, that we need to be reading up on?

[Speaker 1] (39:48 - 39:52)
I think so. John, is this RP? Is this the language now?

[Speaker 7] (39:52 - 39:53)
The entire appendix.

[Speaker 1] (39:53 - 39:53)
Yes.

[Speaker 7] (39:53 - 39:53)
Yes.

[Speaker 8] (39:54 - 39:56)
The version tonight has this language.

[Speaker 7] (39:59 - 40:01)
And has the animal control officer recommended this?

[Speaker 4] (40:03 - 40:09)
The animal control officer has worked on this and is in support of it. Good.

[Speaker 6] (40:12 - 40:13)
As amended.

[Speaker 4] (40:13 - 40:14)
As amended.

[Speaker 5] (40:14 - 40:17)
And is the animal control officer the one who is enforcing?

[Speaker 4] (40:18 - 40:24)
There are several enforcement agents, including the ACO, the director of health.

[Speaker 1] (40:25 - 40:26)
Police department health agents.

[Speaker 4] (40:29 - 40:29)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (40:33 - 40:59)
Okay. Article 20 is the gas powered leaf blowers. We recommended favorable action on that last time.

Yeah. 21. Is.

Plastics and styrofoam. There's been added language for styrofoam on this. So I certainly don't think we can recommend favorable action on this.

[Speaker 1] (40:59 - 41:06)
Yeah. So I think I'd make a motion to that. We'll just report or whatever.

Include it, but we'll report at town meeting. Gives us more time to have conversations.

[Speaker 3] (41:08 - 41:09)
Does everyone agree with that?

[Speaker 7] (41:10 - 41:14)
I don't. I just, I want to hear what the solid waste committee has to say.

[Speaker 4] (41:16 - 41:32)
I've agreed to attend their meeting on Thursday. So I think, you know, I've had several communiques with the chair of the committee. And certainly encourage them to support this.

But certainly I'm sure we'll hear back from them.

[Speaker 3] (41:37 - 41:42)
Okay. So that's 21. 22 is 80 years.

[Speaker 1] (41:45 - 41:50)
I would make a motion to recommend at town meeting.

[Speaker 3] (41:51 - 41:52)
Yeah. Report a town meeting, right?

[Speaker 1] (41:52 - 41:54)
Yeah. Sorry. Report a town meeting.

[Speaker 3] (41:55 - 42:00)
Everyone's good with that. 23 is the.

[Speaker 2] (42:00 - 42:06)
Is there a public hearing on this? Yes. The public hearing will be on May 1st.

[Speaker 3] (42:17 - 42:21)
Site plan, special permit. I think we'll report.

[Speaker 1] (42:22 - 42:24)
I would make the same motion that we'll report at town meeting.

[Speaker 3] (42:26 - 42:56)
Is there a second? Second. All those in favor.

Aye. I just had a quick, just little. I caught a couple of things on this one, Pete.

Hold on. Not that anyone's probably reading. What appendix is this?

It's in the appendix H. Sorry.

[Speaker 6] (42:56 - 42:57)
It's on 59.

[Speaker 3] (42:57 - 43:47)
59? Yeah. Thanks.

So five. Section five, four, three procedures. It's a spelling thing.

It's not a. It's. Sorry.

Second paragraph. Seven. Seven copies is copies is spelled wrong and are required to be filed.

Not files with the planning board. Did you get that, Pete? You did.

All right. Thanks. All right.

Where were we? That was a special permit. Article 24 Hadley School overlay district.

[Speaker 1] (43:47 - 43:59)
I would just recommend or suggest the same change that we made previously regarding Hadley that after the phrase accessory uses and public parking. And again, we will report at town meeting.

[Speaker 3] (44:03 - 44:06)
Okay. Everyone's good with that.

[Speaker 6] (44:08 - 44:12)
Should it be associated accessory uses as it is in Article 12?

[Speaker 1] (44:13 - 44:13)
It should be accessory.

[Speaker 6] (44:15 - 44:16)
It's Article 12 not.

[Speaker 1] (44:17 - 44:20)
So, Pete, make sure you use accessory in Article 12. It sounds like maybe we missed.

[Speaker 6] (44:20 - 44:25)
No, there is just as associated. We hear it just as accessory. So I just didn't.

[Speaker 1] (44:26 - 44:27)
Associated accessory.

[Speaker 6] (44:27 - 44:29)
Do you want it to marry each other, Pete?

[Speaker 1] (44:29 - 44:30)
Yes, we wanted to marry each other, Pete.

[Speaker 3] (44:38 - 44:40)
All right. So that's 24, right?

[Speaker 1] (44:41 - 44:46)
Mr. Chairman, if we can skip 25, I'm recuse of that. So we can just finish and then I can leave the room for 25.

[Speaker 3] (44:47 - 44:50)
Okay. 26.

[Speaker 1] (44:53 - 45:03)
I would recommend that we whatever makes report a town meeting. Excuse me.

[Speaker 2] (45:03 - 45:15)
I just want to interject. Does anyone have any questions about these? I mean, I don't know whether it would be helpful for me to answer anything for your benefit.

If you don't, that's fine. We can go back to town meeting and talk about it, but it's fine.

[Speaker 1] (45:15 - 45:19)
Well, I think we will. If we don't make recommendations tonight, we'll have a conversation in the next month.

[Speaker 2] (45:19 - 45:20)
That's fine with you.

[Speaker 1] (45:20 - 45:23)
But this includes it in the warrant for tonight.

[Speaker 2] (45:23 - 45:24)
Very good.

[Speaker 3] (45:26 - 45:45)
And if people do have questions for Angela, please. Thanks, Angela. So is everyone.

Everyone's good with reporting a town meeting for this article 26. Just remind me to go back to 25. 27.

I do have one quick question.

[Speaker 7] (45:45 - 45:47)
Yeah. Did the planning board look at this language?

[Speaker 2] (45:55 - 46:11)
I can't. I read through it quickly a while ago. I don't know if it's changed since then.

It's a simple rezoning of parcels that were not rezoned. And we did a rezoning of this particular area. Okay.

Did you have a specific question about it?

[Speaker 7] (46:11 - 46:14)
My only question is, is the planning board good with this language?

[Speaker 2] (46:14 - 46:25)
Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Okay.

It was essentially a zoning map error that didn't get included in a sweeping change of that entire district. So we're just fixing it.

[Speaker 3] (46:31 - 46:38)
27 for an easement. National grid easement. We're good on that.

28.

[Speaker 1] (46:39 - 47:15)
Can I just say 27 still says FinCom recommends. So Pete, what's 27 going to say for FinCom? Favorable action.

I don't have a report on that one. So if you can just. I think they did favorable action on that is my recollection.

But if you can just confirm with Amy. But I think that should say favorable action. And same with.

Well.

[Speaker 6] (47:17 - 47:18)
28.

[Speaker 1] (47:19 - 47:29)
We have the same issue, but I actually don't remember them taking up Saturday's legal holiday. I don't actually remember that one. So you need to confirm with whatever it is.

It is either they're reporting a town meeting or they recommended something.

[Speaker 3] (47:30 - 47:31)
Or do they even report, though?

[Speaker 1] (47:31 - 47:33)
They might not even report.

[Speaker 3] (47:33 - 47:33)
I don't even think.

[Speaker 8] (47:33 - 47:34)
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (47:36 - 47:47)
Just just maybe check with Amy because they. I think there's an ongoing debate with FinCom as to what has financial implications and what doesn't. And so they sometimes are not clear on what they report on.

Sure.

[Speaker 3] (47:51 - 47:56)
And then 29 is the changing the state flag.

[Speaker 1] (47:56 - 48:00)
I think as though that's we'll select where to report.

[Speaker 9] (48:00 - 48:02)
Yeah. We don't know.

[Speaker 1] (48:02 - 48:23)
We do report. We actually reported. We are.

Our charter actually requires us to report on every bylaw. More an article. And so we have in the past reported on citizen petitions.

And we've asked FinCom when their financial citizen petitions. This one presumably is not a financial one.

[Speaker 3] (48:28 - 48:41)
So everyone's good with that. Yeah. And then 28 were just.

All right. Just to go back to 28. We flew by that.

We recommend a favorable action. That is the comment language. I just want to make sure everyone's good with that.

[Speaker 9] (48:45 - 48:55)
Amy has a comment. Sorry, we're having a problem with our speaker, but she just texted me and asked me to let you know that FinCom should be removed from both of those previous articles.

[Speaker 3] (48:55 - 48:56)
OK.

[Speaker 7] (48:57 - 48:59)
So because there's no financial implications. Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (49:01 - 49:05)
Do you hear that, Pete? 27 and 27 and 28. OK.

[Speaker 1] (49:08 - 49:14)
All right. So, Mr. Chairman, before you go back to Article 25, can I just mention a couple of things? Sure.

[Speaker 8] (49:16 - 49:22)
Oh, do you mind? I'm 29. Is the board making a recommendation or are you going to report a meeting?

[Speaker 1] (49:23 - 50:57)
Report a board meeting. All right. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to I actually had a conversation with the planning board chair, but since our last meeting and she expressed an opinion of that to ask that articles 22 through 26 actually appear before Article 17 to 21. Notwithstanding one of the articles I'm recusing myself on. I want to speak generally as to why she asked it and why I agree with it, which is the zoning bylaw changes tend to have more substantive impact, including financial impact on the town of Swampscott than general bylaws, including without limitation bylaw change. A general bylaw change that allows the clerk to make typo changes or ministerial changes to bylaws.

And so by by elevating those, again, generally speaking, zoning bylaw changes, which have everything to do with the financial status of our town to before the general bylaws. In this case, in this example, articles 22 through 26 would go before articles 17. And I just wanted to generally profess my support for the idea of zoning articles being before general bylaw changes, just because there is a perceived importance of the ordering here.

And the zoning bylaws are by far much more substantive and and I think reflect the importance we should be putting on planning and the planning board's actions on zoning. I agree with that. Me, too.

[Speaker 6] (50:57 - 50:59)
Yeah, me as well. Absolutely. All right.

[Speaker 1] (50:59 - 51:52)
And then the only and then I'm going to excuse myself, but we're going to move on. We're moving. That was 22, 23, 24 and 26.

And we'll discuss 25 on your own. But I want to I just want to say again for the record that I'm recusing myself from any involvement with the zoning article 25. Just so the minutes reflect in 2021, an affiliate of my company purchased property in Framingham, Massachusetts, from one of the several property owners that's impacted by this warrant article.

In addition, principals of that same company and I have they've reached out to me and sought my advice relative to the potential for the planning board to implement zoning changes consistent with the MBTA 3A zoning or other purposes. And for those reasons, I've elected to recuse myself from consideration of this article. And I'm going to excuse myself from the room.

[Speaker 3] (51:54 - 52:03)
All right. And Pete, you got that reordering of the articles, right? OK.

[Speaker 6] (52:04 - 52:09)
So we should also reorder article 25 then.

[Speaker 3] (52:09 - 52:37)
Yeah, everyone agrees that article 25 will be part of that reordering. Right. Yes.

OK. So you got that, Pete. And then so in terms of article 25, I mean, I'm assuming that we will report on this as we are reporting on all the other ones at town meeting.

Does anyone have any questions about this for Angela? Any substantive questions or detailed questions about this?

[Speaker 2] (52:38 - 57:53)
Happy to explain why it's being done. But yeah, that would be great. Angela.

OK. You wouldn't mind. OK.

So we have a B4 zone currently in Vinence where it's the Stop and Shop property. We zoned it as a B4 so that it could be developed as a mixed use building if that opportunity ever came along. It hasn't to date.

Stop and Shop was doing that with some of their properties and they have not. Meanwhile, we are looking at how we can, you know, revive and sort of re-envision strip malls, which are across the probably across the nation, but definitely in our neck of the woods here. This 1970s era strip mall is not a viable financial model any longer.

We really struggle or I should say the owners of these malls really struggle with getting high quality tenants in there who will take on long term leases at full rent. Therefore, it's less money for them, less money for the town. Everything begins to devolve.

The newest model, the type of retrofitting, if you will, of strip malls has been modeled pretty well in places like Woburn that have taken an aging strip mall and been sort of converting it to different types of development where they can, first of all, mixed use development where you take a first floor retail commercial space and you put residential on top of it. This is a model that's working really well nationwide. And in addition to that, it also envisions walkability and it's creating a neighborhood.

Putting housing in a place where we already have the infrastructure, where we already have parking, where we already have public transportation easily accessible, where we can create, reduce the amount of these expanses of concrete, make sort of more streets, streetscapes, open spaces, pedestrian connectivity. So that's the goal. This happens to also segue with the zoning or rather merge or integrate nicely with the 3A zoning, which is the MBTA community zoning.

Marzi and I have been and Marissa have been working with Euler Engineering, who's our consultant that we hired with Mass Housing Partnership money to look at, to help us with the mapping of this, of Swampscott for the 3A zoning, which will most likely overlap many parts of Vennon Square. So fast forward to why we're looking at zoning here. It's to, because we're not, we will not be implementing the 3A zoning until May of next year, 2024.

We're looking at what can we do now? Are there opportunities for us to pursue this kind of development, to not miss out on any opportunities that may be available for the town through the respective owners of properties and retailers and so forth? Where we could create some, or we could update the zoning of the B4 district to allow for mixed use residential in a way that would, that would meet all the goals of the 3A zoning.

And also really fit into this vision for retrofitting, rethinking retail strips and how they become more functional. It's also, I will say, a very sustainable way to go when you are, when you're, when you envision new development in a place that's already developed. It is much less, has much less of an impact on, on the land where it's going than it would have to develop land somewhere where there has been no, nothing developed there before.

We have the infrastructure, we have the size, and we, you create, we end up creating neighborhoods, which is very much the way people are living now. So, that's essentially what this zoning does. In working with Bullitt Engineering and just kind of checking on the mapping and the, knowing the 3A zoning code, and the sample zoning is to the extent that I do right now, there is no conflict between what we're proposing.

In fact, we think they will overlap very nicely because we're in a good position with the 3A zoning right now in terms of where we envision our compliance. And this particular type of development is a, it's a great opportunity for the town. It's a great, and we will be way ahead of any other community in terms of creating housing here.

So, I, I very strongly support it, and I think it's the right thing to do, especially, even if we weren't doing 3A, this would be the right, the right move to make in terms of how do you begin to, to re-enliven, to reinvigorate a strip mall. So, I request that you vote favorable action towards this article.

[Speaker 5] (57:53 - 58:14)
So, so Angela, couple, couple questions. So, from, from a commercial perspective, what does this do to our commercial tax base? Are we, are we going to gain commercial properties?

Are we going to lose commercial properties? You know, and how many units of, of residential housing and affordable housing will, would be created?

[Speaker 2] (58:15 - 58:55)
So, the way, I don't, we don't have any kind of plans for this right now. I mean, I haven't seen a plan. This is, this is conceptual.

Well, I can give you a good idea of what I think would, would, would happen. Let's, let me address the retail piece of it first. The retail piece of it would require that any property that's being developed in the manner suggested here with being a mixed use with retail on the ground floor and residential above would have to, if it's replacing an existing chunk of retail.

So, I'm just going to throw this out there and don't, this is, this is just an example.

[Speaker 11] (58:56 - 58:56)
Sure.

[Speaker 2] (58:56 - 1:02:29)
Let's say I'm just taking the gap and somebody has, is going to put a one building on top of the gap. That's not at all what we're talking about. I just want to be clear.

So, the, they would only have to replace 75% of the size of the existing gap store, but they do have to replace 75% of the retail. It just doesn't have to be as many square feet. All right.

So, if they're, that's essentially what we're talking about. The reason for that, at the Swampscott Mall is, well, there are a couple of reasons. First of all, the retail that's there right now, if you're looking at Bertucci's or the gap, if any of you were here, I know you were, Mary Ellen, when the Swampscott Mall was built, you remember what that looked like.

It was a mall. You walked inside, there was a corridor down the middle, and there were little shops on either side. When that was redesigned and redeveloped, whenever that happened, and all the stores just became single stores with faces on the parking lot, those stores were now double deep.

They went through the corridor and all the way through the store and back of it. So, now you've got these very long, very big stores that, because of the cost of retail, are expensive. They're expensive to rent.

They're excessive in terms of their size for the type of retail they, I mean, even restaurant. I mean, Bertucci's is bigger than it needs to be, for example. I'm just throwing out some examples there.

So, that's one of the reasons. The other reason is that we want to be sure that we include retail in a way that it's not, so if we're going to develop a residential structure, let's say it's four flights, four stories of residential sitting on top of retail, you want to be able to make that retail trim the edge of the building so that you could have, say it's a freestanding building, for example, where it's three sides. You want to be able to actually have retail that surrounds the building, and that's not necessarily a paint store.

No offense to the paint store, but it's actually a more interactive type of retail. In Swampscott, restaurants do very well. It might be some other type of eating establishment or, you know, I'm not going to speculate on what else could possibly go there, but something that you could see in other areas that seem to thrive and have a lot of interaction with the public because this will be much more like a neighborhood in a community.

We do require, however, that there would be 75% of the retail, and that would allow any multifamily building that was developed to go up to 30 units per acre, which essentially, when you think about it, that's as a lot, so we're looking at this as one very large lot, which is why the Stop and Shop is included. You're looking at that entire length of the building, so the actual frontage of that lot that we're rezoning would be on Essex Street, so it's a very large lot when we say up to 30 units an acre, so you can kind of extrapolate from there how many units we could possibly have. Because of 3A, we have a lot more flexibility in, you know, really being able to put the right size building with the appropriate amount of retail at the parking in a place where it will fit.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:31 - 1:02:50)
Can I ask why these particular parcels in B3 are moving, but not some of the, like why not capture all the B3, you know, like there are other B3 parcels that are above B4, like why wouldn't we?

[Speaker 2] (1:02:50 - 1:03:26)
Well, right now, we're looking at it as a, this is, you know, a specific opportunity with the owner of this portion. It's a large commercial swath. It's, we have, we do have multiple owners for properties like this in Swampscott, and again, we're still working on our 3A zoning, so we're really kind of moving a little carefully to make sure that what we put in place is the right thing for that particular area.

And that it, it's, you know, it meets all the standards that we need it to meet.

[Speaker 11] (1:03:27 - 1:03:27)
Okay.

[Speaker 7] (1:03:27 - 1:03:31)
Why say 75% retail? Why not say 80 or 85% retail?

[Speaker 2] (1:03:32 - 1:05:18)
Essentially, again, it's, it has a lot to do with the amount of retail per, so for example, if we were to, let's say there's a freestanding building, just for the argument's sake, in the middle of the, you know, a huge swath of parking lot, let's just, for argument's sake. Let's say we have retail on the bottom. Most likely, there'd be parking on the inner core, like the retail would be sort of wrapped around some parking, and then there would be, the retail now does not go floor through.

It ends up lining itself up around the edges of the building. There's parking on the inside, and the residential goes above. Unless you had like a superstore or some kind of a huge box store, you couldn't possibly get 100% retail underneath a building that size.

It just doesn't make any sense. The other piece of that is that we're going to, you know, look to put parking in appropriate places for any kind of new structures. We'd hope to have some parking enveloped in the structure itself, and it's just essentially looking at a formula of how much gross floor area you could devote to strictly commercial and not have anything else under there, such as, you know, trash collection, storage for the building, anything else.

I mean, we've got to look at all the other needs of space in a residential building like that. You know, entrance to the building, access to the building, you know, mail, shipping, loading areas, everything else that might be also needed on that floor while still maintaining a very healthy portion of retail space.

[Speaker 7] (1:05:19 - 1:05:29)
Do we have specifications on the height restrictions that are going to come in with the building? Yeah, there are. In B4, there are height restrictions.

Is it in an appendix? Yeah, there'll be.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:31 - 1:07:22)
So certain structures can go up to seven stories. Essentially, they can go up to seven stories, but they need to be sort of stepped back and terraced back. Otherwise, it would be a five-story limit as well for structures that did not have the frontage.

So if there's a 175-foot setback from the property line, which would be the Essex Street or any major street, for example, we're going to look to create streets going right through the middle of the plaza as well. Anything that's just sitting on a street would not have that kind of frontage. So it could only go up to five stories, which would be retail plus four.

First floor retail plus four stories. And anything that does have the 175-foot setback, which would be sort of part of that very long chunk of buildings and would essentially sort of back up to some of the states, could possibly go up to seven stories. There would be six floors of residential and one floor of retail.

We also would have design standards. Even though this use would be by right, there would be very much like what we did with the general Glover property, Glover Multifamily Overlay District. The use was by right.

As you know, over six months, we went through a very vigorous and rigorous site plan review process to make sure that we met all the design standards that we set forth. We're working on design standards now that are specific to this property, which we plan to submit with the zoning.

[Speaker 6] (1:07:23 - 1:07:26)
So that's the nuance between SP and SPR, correct?

[Speaker 2] (1:07:27 - 1:07:39)
Site plan review is just that right. It does not require a special permit. It's just a review.

However, it is a site plan. It is approval. So we do have to approve a plan.

It just doesn't require a special permit.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:47 - 1:08:02)
And I know it's happening next year, but the 3A, I mean, I know there's a focus on Benning Square, but have the conversations been about the 3A? What we do for that will also be, are we talking about the railroad area as well?

[Speaker 2] (1:08:02 - 1:08:28)
Oh, absolutely. In fact, the current map we're looking at is about six acres. So we're required to have a total of 20 acres in Swampspot as a rail rapid transit community.

And we have about, the way the mapping is going right now, and it's not final, we have about six and a half acres at the train station, and the rest of it is in the Benning Square area. It overlays some of the housing that exists, and it will overlay part of the commercial Benning.

[Speaker 11] (1:08:29 - 1:08:29)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (1:08:29 - 1:08:38)
How does this work with the zoning bylaw that we passed last time about banks?

[Speaker 2] (1:08:40 - 1:09:49)
It's the same. Nothing's different. So this will apply to this area then?

Right. Exactly. Okay.

That doesn't, that's the underlying zoning and it doesn't, that does not change. The use table is the same, except that I think we took out retail by special permit and just said retail, I mean, pardon me, restaurants by right. We did have, as you recall, at last year's town meeting, we talked about not wanting to, not to go after just banks, but that happened to, that's what triggered the whole issue, was to say that we didn't want to, we can't say we don't want to have any more banks, but banks used to be allowed by right, and now it's a special permit, like many other uses.

We do allow that on the second story or above, so if one building had, let's say there was, you know, a building that had a first floor of retail, you know, sort of restaurant type of retail, they can still put on their second floor, if they want to, you know, rent out half of it to offices or something, they certainly could do that. Although, most likely that wouldn't happen in this scenario. It could, but I don't think it would.

[Speaker 3] (1:09:55 - 1:09:58)
Any other questions about Article 25?

[Speaker 2] (1:10:00 - 1:10:05)
Feel free to, you know, you all have my number, if you have any other questions, please feel free to reach out.

[Speaker 3] (1:10:06 - 1:10:09)
Angela, thanks so much to you and the planning board.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:09 - 1:10:10)
Oh, thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:10:10 - 1:10:10)
For all your work.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:11 - 1:10:11)
You're welcome.

[Speaker 3] (1:10:11 - 1:10:20)
There are some very impactful zoning bylaws. Yeah, I think so, too. It's great, and I appreciate all the work you guys are doing.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:21 - 1:10:24)
Master plan's starting to come alive, so.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:25 - 1:10:32)
Yeah, it has been for a while. It really looks, lately, it's really, it's really. Plan the work and work the plan.

You got it.

[Speaker 3] (1:10:32 - 1:10:33)
Appreciate it.

[Speaker 9] (1:10:33 - 1:10:34)
Can I get Peter back in?

[Speaker 3] (1:10:35 - 1:10:36)
I guess so.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:37 - 1:10:38)
I just texted him.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:38 - 1:10:41)
Are you taking a disposition on this, or?

[Speaker 7] (1:10:42 - 1:10:49)
We are reporting. Reporting at 10. You know, while we're talking about planning, how are we doing with hiring a planner?

[Speaker 4] (1:10:50 - 1:10:51)
You know, we.

[Speaker 7] (1:10:51 - 1:10:52)
Now that they've done all the work.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:52 - 1:11:14)
Yeah. It's an easy job for somebody. We should have an update next week.

You know, we have had several interviews with candidates. And I'm just waiting to hear back from our community development director and our HR director. Still, you know, several conversations that have happened.

[Speaker 7] (1:11:20 - 1:11:21)
So we don't know.

[Speaker 3] (1:11:26 - 1:11:48)
All right. While we are waiting for Peter to come to close the warrant. Are there any other questions on any of the zoning articles?

With Angela here.

[Speaker 7] (1:11:49 - 1:12:01)
Oh, I do have one question on the public meetings. Are there going to be public meetings on each one of the articles? Yes.

And then will they be on different dates?

[Speaker 2] (1:12:01 - 1:12:43)
Yes. And I'll be happy to tell you about that. So we're planning to do the public hearing on the accessory dwelling units.

The site plan special permit. And the A2 to the A4 on May 1st. We're planning on doing the public hearing for the Vinton Square rezoning.

The B4 that I just discussed with you. And the Hadley on May 8th. And those are scheduled.

And I believe one of the ads is already running. And in fact, they both might be running already. Because their legal notices have to go out.

Just talk with Marissa. She can give you all the information you need.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:48 - 1:12:58)
All right. Anything else on the warrant? I think we've gotten through it all.

At least to be able to close it.

[Speaker 6] (1:13:00 - 1:13:02)
I'll make a motion to close the warrant.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:04 - 1:13:10)
There's a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor?

[Speaker 7] (1:13:10 - 1:13:10)
Aye.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:11 - 1:13:12)
Great.

[Speaker 7] (1:13:12 - 1:13:18)
This will go out electronically. This will be available electronically when? Tomorrow?

I believe so. Yeah. Peter?

Pete?

[Speaker 5] (1:13:19 - 1:13:20)
Yeah. Thank you, Angela.

[Speaker 9] (1:13:21 - 1:13:24)
The town warrant will be on the website tomorrow, right?

[Speaker 8] (1:13:25 - 1:13:30)
Correct. We'll be sending it to the publisher tomorrow. And then publish it on site.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:32 - 1:13:38)
If you could also forward it to the moderator. Because he has the ability to share it with all town meeting members tomorrow.

[Speaker 11] (1:13:39 - 1:13:39)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:40 - 1:13:40)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:43 - 1:14:03)
Okay. Consent agenda. We have a one-day liquor license for Benton Water Brewing.

Benton Water at the Beach. Saturday, July 15th, 2023. 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. rain date. Sunday, July 16th, 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. at Fisherman's Beach.

[Speaker 5] (1:14:03 - 1:14:05)
Motion to approve the consent agenda.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:06 - 1:14:11)
Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

[Speaker 11] (1:14:12 - 1:14:12)
Aye.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:13 - 1:14:14)
All right.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:15 - 1:17:27)
Town Administrator's Report. I'll just keep it brief. You know, we continued to meet to develop a coyote management plan last week.

I had several discussions with town staff and Deb Newman, a Swampskate resident that has spent quite a bit of time researching coyote management plans. We've got a draft of the plan. Our ACO has been busy working with regional and state wildlife officials to ensure that we have a public engagement strategy, but also a number of public conversations in the works.

We continue to coordinate hiring plans for both the Police and Fire Department. Last weekend, I want to thank everybody that signed up. We had over 66 people signed up in our second annual Townwide Earth Day.

This is another cleaner and greener way for us to just get rid of things that we otherwise would have thrown out and really want to thank our rec department and staff for coordinating such a successful event. We do have an annual Earth Day on Saturday, April 29th, due to school vacation week, so we will be doing a cleanup on Archer Street, and there will be activities and bicycle sale to benefit the rail trail. Rain date is May 5th.

We have an absolutely terrific event planned for this Wednesday at 6 p.m. at the high school cafeteria to get an update on the Hawthorne Visioning Session. This is a chance for Swampskate residents really to share some ideas about what they would like to see at the Hawthorne site. And our last event had over 400 residents, so don't be shy and come down and really share some thoughts.

Health Department is rolling out a Narcan distribution program. This is a program that is intended to save lives. Just as a follow-up to last week's select board meeting, there are regulatory standards to really be a partner.

Our health team is really reaching out throughout the community to ensure that we have this medication readily available. Certainly, we'll follow up with additional information for the board, but would encourage anybody that would like to be a partner and help distribute some Narcan, please reach out to our health department or town hall, and we certainly will put you in touch with our health department. Lastly, we are coordinating a Memorial Day event with our veterans agent and VFW, and we have an updated flyer of activities for decorating graves on May 10th, a field of heroes from May 27th to May 30th, Memorial Day on May 29th.

That's my report.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:28 - 1:17:30)
Thanks, Sean. Any questions for Sean?

[Speaker 6] (1:17:30 - 1:17:53)
Can you just clarify in the public safety section some of these dates? I think I'd be wrong, or maybe I'm wrong. So the primary entrance exam was held on April 8th or will be held on May 8th.

On the first paragraph, see what I'm talking about?

[Speaker 5] (1:17:54 - 1:17:59)
Yeah, because the exam results would have been here already. That's already happened.

[Speaker 6] (1:18:01 - 1:18:10)
And then it says that you accommodated a small number on April 1st. That's right. So that's before the other exam.

[Speaker 4] (1:18:11 - 1:18:17)
Yeah, we had a number of individuals that weren't able to take the test, so we gave them an additional date.

[Speaker 6] (1:18:18 - 1:18:21)
And this is just with regards to the fire department, not the police department?

[Speaker 4] (1:18:21 - 1:18:22)
It's not.

[Speaker 6] (1:18:22 - 1:18:26)
So there was a secondary exam from the police department, was there not?

[Speaker 4] (1:18:26 - 1:18:28)
There was a secondary physical exam.

[Speaker 6] (1:18:28 - 1:18:35)
Correct. And then what is the update? Do we have a similar update for the police?

[Speaker 4] (1:18:35 - 1:18:40)
I do. Chief Cassata has been out, so I'll have that for you next week.

[Speaker 11] (1:18:40 - 1:18:40)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:51 - 1:18:52)
Anything else for Sean?

[Speaker 6] (1:18:53 - 1:19:05)
Sorry, I just have one more clarification question. So just from the timing perspective, on the fire department, you expect the exam results within two weeks of which exam date?

[Speaker 4] (1:19:07 - 1:19:16)
On February 28th. But because we had a makeup exam on April 1st, you know, it was two weeks after that as well.

[Speaker 6] (1:19:16 - 1:19:18)
So we have the results then?

[Speaker 4] (1:19:18 - 1:19:23)
We do. I haven't received an update from the chief, though. I think he's still reviewing the results.

[Speaker 6] (1:19:27 - 1:19:36)
So are you expecting within six weeks to be done with this process? I just want to be able to understand so that we can come back to you in a reasonable amount of time and meet expectations.

[Speaker 4] (1:19:37 - 1:19:51)
It is. You know, I would kind of add just a couple weeks in here just because of some schedules. But, you know, we're on track, and I think we're following a critical path to get these individuals through a process.

[Speaker 7] (1:19:54 - 1:19:59)
Great. How many openings are there for this fire?

[Speaker 4] (1:20:00 - 1:20:00)
We have two.

[Speaker 7] (1:20:01 - 1:20:07)
And then is there also a process for advancement for their promotion?

[Speaker 4] (1:20:07 - 1:20:17)
Yes. Certainly happy to provide you an update on that timeline as well.

[Speaker 3] (1:20:25 - 1:20:31)
Anything else for Sean? Select board time.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:33 - 1:26:40)
I have a couple of things. I just want to reiterate what the town administrator just talked about, which is Wednesday evening at 6 o'clock, the continuation of the conversation about the Hawthorne property. I've had a chance to preview what HDR, the consulting firm that has been retained by the town, to work on this is going to be sharing with the community.

And if what you want is imagination and creativity and things to bring out ideas and to elicit reaction, I think Wednesday night will be very fulfilling to, again, not with specificity, nothing that will be shown Wednesday night is a specific done thing. It's merely designed to say, here are the categories, here are potential things that can happen in those categories. Which direction are you excited about?

What direction are you not excited about? And I think it would be a very, very, very good use of time of residents to join us on Wednesday night to give that feedback. Not as exciting as being in the Hawthorne for the meeting.

We'll be in the cafeteria in the high school, but I will tell you, I think the presentation materials actually make up for the change of venue considerably. So I would encourage everyone that can join us on Wednesday night at 6 p.m. here at the high school to join us because I think it's really important. My second thing is not to...

I don't know if our chairman intends to say anything tonight, but I'm going to say something. Tonight is the last meeting of Neil Duffy on the select board, and I wanted just to share my perspective, and my guess is it has a lot of similarity with other people's perspectives. But like David and like Mary Ellen and like Katie, you know, I didn't know Neil, but in passing before he joined the board, and frankly, like Naomi Driven, like Polly Tickham, like Laura Spathanus, like John Callahan, like Matt Strauss, right?

Most of us don't know each other before we sit on boards with each other. And what's interesting is the public meeting law kind of makes it an interesting way to get to know people because we do it all in front of a camera, and we have to figure out our chemistry, if you will, in front of cameras with the people. It's not that we don't have opportunities to talk on the side about non-deliberative things, but to talk about families and to learn about each other.

And my experience in three years, let me start by saying, Neil and what he's doing professionally right now and the change that he made and the dedication of his life to continuing that is one of the most honest pursuits that I've seen professionally of someone who lives, drinks, and breathes sustainability and resiliency. I got to know him when he was the chair of the Renewable Energy Committee. If you sat in his meetings, his meetings were incredible.

The committee did amazing things every year, presenting huge grants to the town, really being our social conscience before we all caught up to them. And we had to catch up to them. And Neil was on the forefront of that.

And now, professionally, he's made a decision to change careers and to really oversee the resiliency efforts for the city of Salem, one of the most forward-thinking communities in the Commonwealth. And for him to have that position is not only a credit to his just background and smarts, but also his dedication. And I know it was really hard for him to decide to do that, understanding that it was an opportunity cost.

It would cost him the flexibility and the ability to continue on this board. And that says so much about his character and his personality. On the board, I've had the opportunity to sit with a lot of people in my eight years, taking nothing away from the people I'm sitting with now or anybody else in the past.

I will tell you that Neil has been one of the most caring, compassionate, earnest, and hardworking people that I've sat with on the board. He agonizes about making sure what we do is forthright and transparent and comprehensive. And just like all of us, he's been subject to ridicule and scorn as recently as this morning or yesterday, I think probably on one of the social media tags, by individuals who have had the luxury of sitting in their Barker lounger with an iPad and without good, clear perspective about the things that Neil has sacrificed for our town and sacrificed personally.

And when we leave these meetings here, I know for a fact that Neil doesn't stop thinking about this and agonizing over it. He is the guy that worries about every last detail. And this town is so much better for his three years.

And I have been maybe slow to the take, but I've come to appreciate him so much for the town of Swampscott. And I'm sad. I'm not sad for me personally because I've now created a friendship, but I'm sad for us as a town because I'm sure there are good people running to fill his seat.

But frankly, I don't believe anybody can feel what Neil has done. So I'm eternally grateful for what you've done. And I'm so grateful that you're now taking it to the city of Salem.

And because I'm assuming if you figure out the resiliency in Salem, you'll kind of be helping Swampscott. Not quite sure how that works, but we'll see. But I'm really grateful for you.

And I'm sorry to see you leave, but I am grateful to have you in my life now as a friend and just grateful for everything you did. Thanks, Peter. That's very nice.

[Speaker 5] (1:26:43 - 1:28:06)
Neil, your final meeting, the minutes drag and the years fly. But time flies when you're getting stuff done. And we got a lot of stuff done the last three years.

So, you know, from one COVID select men to another, you know, thank you for your service to the town. You know, Peter was much more eloquent than I will be. But, you know, I thank you for everything that you've done.

We've, you know, we're in a much better place today than we were three years ago. And that's a result of this board's efforts and yours specifically. And, you know, you've taught me so much just about being a board member and about being, you know, a kind and empathetic human being.

And I think I'm going to continue to learn those lessons from you. And, you know, I just think that there are so many people who sit on boards for years and decades and they don't accomplish what you accomplished and what we've accomplished in these three short years. We got a lot done.

Your work mattered. It did. It mattered to me.

I think it mattered to our fellow board members and it mattered to the 15,000 residents of the town of Swampscott. So, from the bottom of my heart, thank you. Thank you for your service.

Thanks.

[Speaker 7] (1:28:09 - 1:28:13)
Are you having second thoughts? You want to be a write-in candidate? Yeah, that's right.

[Speaker 3] (1:28:13 - 1:28:15)
I'd like to announce my...

[Speaker 7] (1:28:15 - 1:28:17)
You're going to announce your run now?

[Speaker 3] (1:28:17 - 1:29:52)
Yeah. No, thanks, Peter and David. It's very nice.

And I don't have a lot to say that I didn't say when I announced that I wouldn't be running. I mean, I just thank you all for everything you're doing for the town, for your friendship, for teaching me things about myself and about the town that I didn't know, as well as past board members. I definitely want to just thank Sean.

I've learned an awful lot from Sean about municipal government, about service in the last three years and feel like I've developed a good friendship with him as well. And now that we're municipal colleagues, I think we'll keep that friendship. Commiserate together.

Exactly. And just want to really just thank all the other volunteers in town and all the employees who just wear so many hats and do so much for us and make everything that we want to do possible. I think it's...

I don't think anyone understands how hard it is to get anything done in municipal government more than employees and just the service and their dedication to our town, even if they don't live here, is really incredible. So thanks, everybody.

[Speaker 4] (1:29:55 - 1:31:57)
Neil, thank you. I do think, you know, it's just important to kind of reflect on, you know, public service. You know, years ago, it used to be one of the biggest honors to be elected to a board or a commission.

Rooms would be filled with hundreds of people to watch local government officials help support democracy. Your mannerisms, the way you treat everybody, the standard of service that you reflect is the highest I've seen. You're always respectful.

You're always civil. I think, in a very simple way, you've made Swampskip better. You've made government better.

And there are elected officials that somehow they get into office and they think their highest calling is to criticize everything or to point out where everything, you know, is failing. But you've worked to really make things better and help inspire a whole generation of individuals to say that public service is honorable and worthy. I'm proud of the work you've done.

I certainly don't envy any of the elected officials that started during the pandemic. I think it was like serving three or four terms in one. And certainly grateful that you've chosen to continue on in public service.

Resiliency is our greatest responsibility. It's our greatest challenge, and it heartens me to know that somebody like you would dedicate their life to that type of service. We need more of that, and certainly I hope that there are ways that we can collaborate regionally through your leadership.

[Speaker 10] (1:31:58 - 1:31:58)
Thanks, Sean.

[Speaker 3] (1:32:01 - 1:32:17)
And I'm not going anywhere. I'll probably see you all on Wednesday. I can't believe there's a meeting on Wednesday night.

I'm like, great. And Thursday night. I'm like, there goes my first Wednesday off.

But, yeah, if there's nothing else, then motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 7] (1:32:17 - 1:32:27)
Wait, wait. I just want to thank Ethan Runsteadler and Nathan Kent for their hard work tonight putting this great show on. Thank you.

[Speaker 11] (1:32:28 - 1:32:29)
Great.

[Speaker 7] (1:32:29 - 1:32:31)
Motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 3] (1:32:31 - 1:32:33)
Second. All those in favor? Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:33 - 1:32:44)
Thank you. Thanks. All right.

Thank you. Good job. Man.