[Speaker 2] (5:44 - 8:28)
Good evening. If all town meeting members could proceed into the hall and take their seats, please. Thank you.

Before we begin, I have a couple of administrative comments, one of which is to remind you what you heard last night about the Pride Road Race, a 5K run on June 3rd. I am also given some new information that should create an added enticement. I'd like to understand that the selectmen, along with members of their select board, sorry, old habits, select board members and family, as well as the town administrator and family, will be taking part in the race, so think of this as your opportunity to watch them run.

You can chase them all you want. Secondly, just an administrative note, we do have a number of articles to get through tonight. If we are unable to complete this warrant this evening, we do have this room tomorrow night.

If we are unable to draw a quorum for tomorrow night, we also have this room for next Monday, so please consider your calendars and block out time accordingly. Just to reiterate, we have this room Wednesday, tomorrow, and this coming Monday. At this point, I would like to look for a motion to take Article 13 from the table.

Do I have such a motion? Is there a second? Hoping there's no need for discussion, all those in favor of taking Article 13 from the table and reactivating our debate, all those opposed?

Article 13 is now on the table. While we get Mr. Spellios, you were the last speaker, do you have anything else to add? Is there further discussion or debate on Article 13 extending the time for use of the Hawthorne property to December 2025?

All those in favor of Ms. Dreeben's motion to so extend the time limit for the usage of the Hawthorne, please signify by raising your hands. All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously.

Moving on to Article 16, Capital Projects, as we have dispensed with Articles 14 and 15 in the consent agenda last night. Ms. McNerney, when you are ready.

[Speaker 12] (8:33 - 8:46)
Senator McNerney, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member and a member of the Finance Committee. The finance, am I to read this whole recommendation, the whole motion now?

[Speaker 16] (8:47 - 8:47)
Yes, please.

[Speaker 12] (8:48 - 10:13)
The Finance Committee recommends that the Town vote to appropriate $5,540,500 for the purposes identified in Article 16 of the Printed Warrant as shown in the column heading Finance Committee recommended in said Article 16 with the following exceptions, $1.2 million be appropriated for pedestrian safety traffic improvements, Project No. 5, and the word hybrid be struck from the title of Project 11. To meet this appropriation, the Treasurer, with the approval of the Select Board, is authorized to borrow $4,785,500 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or pursuant to any other enabling authority.

Said appropriation will be supplemented by transfers of funds from completed or abandoned capital projects totaling $295,000 for Projects No. 10, 11, 23, 27, and 28 as outlined in the pink handout. Furthermore, said appropriation will be supplemented by grant funding in the amount of $100,000 for Project No.

9, $70,000 for Project No. 17, $40,000 for Project No. 29, $200,000 for Project No.

31, and Cemetery Perpetual Care funds in the amount of $50,000 for Project No. 3. I move the recommendation of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 2] (10:13 - 10:16)
Is there a second? Ms. McNerney.

[Speaker 12] (10:18 - 12:12)
So if you picked up the pink page at the front desk, you can see on the front where it lists all the different projects by number, on No. 11 you can see the word hybrid has to come out. That kind of a snow plow requires a much stronger vehicle that can accomplish that.

So it's been recommended that word come out. And on Item No. 5, Finance Committee recommended, that's one of the other exceptions, to add $200,000 to that authorization to accommodate speed bump pillows throughout town.

As you've probably seen information about already, there'd be 20 of them around town, and that can be talked about some more. And those are the only other changes. On the back of this page, you can see basically the sources and uses of monies under the Finance Committee recommended.

It says $3,835,500 on the pink worksheet. That would be plus $200,000, so that would be $4,035,000. It adds up in that same column at the top of the page to $5,540,500 if we add that $200,000.

And of that, we would be asking for bonding. We are asking for bonding in the amount of $4,785,500. On the back of the page, also at the bottom of this, you can see the transfers from unexpended proceeds from prior bond issues or abandoned projects.

These are the monies that are being applied toward the cost of the projects on the front. That's basically a summary.

[Speaker 2] (12:12 - 12:36)
Thank you, Mr. McNerney. A couple of notes before we proceed to debate. Similar to the budget, each of these line items is an individual appropriation.

We can debate them as a whole. We will vote them as a whole, but they each represent an individual appropriation. Secondly, I'd like to hear from the Capital Improvements Committee, just to confirm that you all have, by charter, reviewed and made recommendations on this.

[Speaker 4] (12:38 - 16:52)
Thanks, Mr. Moderator. I'm Ryan Hale, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 2, Chair of the Capital Improvement Committee and member of Renewable Energy. The Capital Improvement Committee does support the same set of projects that Cinder listed out under the Finance Committee recommended column on your sheet.

I also wanted to just address the Town Meeting regarding the Capital Improvement Plan and process and the letter on page 28. There's some sort of forward-looking comments there about how we're making some tweaks to the capital improvement process going forward. I think I've been fortunate to participate on the committee for the past couple cycles and just assumed the chair position over the summer and noticed a couple things that I think we can build upon the success in prior years and improve the process.

Our role as the committee is to help vet these projects for you so that you don't have to have the same depth of research and basically put the same level of scrutiny on each of these projects that we do. That's what I see our role is, is to provide the due diligence that all of us as taxpayers would expect. We as a committee noticed a few things that we could improve around the process that we're following, and I wanted to speak to that today just in the spirit of transparency so that I can stand here today and you can hold me accountable to seeing these changes next cycle.

The first one is around timing. I hate cramming for tests. I hate doing my work the night before it's due, and we've gotten into a pattern of trying to slam in capital improvement requests in the hours and days before town meeting, and we can do better.

So we're going to be meeting monthly going forward. We're going to be inviting the department heads, the town administrator, and the select board to think about capital as an ongoing part of running the town, not as something that we do in the couple days before we have to send the warrant to the printer. The second thing we can do better is learning from previous year's projects.

As Cinder pointed out, we have a large amount of tailings or unspent funds from previous years. To me, this is an indicator of how far we missed our ability to forecast an accurate amount to execute these projects, and in my experience on the committee, we haven't done retrospectives to learn from those projects. All of us have to make decisions with limited information.

We don't have a time machine to go back and change what we knew at the time, but we can look back and see what we learned about scoping the projects, sourcing materials, sourcing labor, whatever it takes to execute the project, and things that we would like to do differently. So we need to apply that mindset of sort of a blameless retro and learn from those things to apply to future years. And the last part is that if anyone's attended capital improvement committee meetings or listened to the riveting replays, you can see that the process that we follow to vet these projects is not the same as what's written on the template.

We have a template that we got from, I forget the name of the group, but we put together a template. That's not actually what drives our decisions. We have kind of a narrative that we ask the same set of questions to each of the project sponsors, so we're going to change the process so that we just ask those questions and we don't fill out a form that doesn't necessarily drive the decision that we're making.

So again, I'm speaking to you today in the spirit of transparency so that you can see the role that the capital improvement committee plays to vet these projects so that you have confidence that the funds of the town are being invested in a way that supports the priorities of our community. If you have questions about any of the line items tonight, about how we came to a conclusion to approve or not, that's why we're here, to speak about those things. But I want you to feel confident that these things have been fully vetted and do represent the themes for what we need to invest in as a community to make it stronger.

Thanks.

[Speaker 2] (16:52 - 17:08)
Thank you, Mr. Hale. With that, the floor is open for questions and debate on the several capital items. Any questions for Ms. McNerney, Mr. Hale? Sir, Mr. Russo.

[Speaker 6] (17:18 - 18:03)
Hi, Lenny Russo, Precinct 4 town meeting member. Just a couple of quick questions, thank you. So one question was, it looks like we are borrowing most of the money for capital improvements, and I don't know if that's because of the nature of the timing of the forecast of those.

And I see that we're trying to do a better job planning for the future and looking out multiple years. I saw that in the agenda. Is one of the goals to, I see the debt servicing number being very high for the town budget.

Is one of the goals to try to self-fund some of these capital improvement projects, or will it usually be going toward a borrowing process? That was kind of question one.

[Speaker 2] (18:07 - 18:11)
I'm happy to have Ms. McNerney or the town treasurer address that.

[Speaker 12] (18:11 - 18:49)
I couldn't quite hear all of the question, but if the question is, you know, are we trying to do something other than to bond it? Most of these projects has a useful life, and usually it's bonded over the term of that useful life or up to that useful life so that everybody who's benefiting from the capital project is paying a fair share of it. It's a way to avoid trying to pay for more than we can absorb in the annual operating budget by extending the term.

It's like buying a house, you know, you would not pay cash for a house unless you really had the wherewithal. You'd take out a mortgage and you'd do it. The bond is just like a mortgage in a way.

[Speaker 6] (18:49 - 18:50)
Sure. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (18:50 - 18:52)
Ms. McNerney, would you like to?

[Speaker 6] (18:52 - 19:15)
Well, just to follow up on that, no, I understand that you can borrow over time and that's good, but if it continues to build, and I see there's some large capital improvement projects, my concern is that we're building up more debt services, you know, as we go forward. And I was just wondering if there's somewhere in the oversight if we can look at trying to self-fund more of the projects in some other way. And you don't have to answer that now.

I know this is a project.

[Speaker 12] (19:15 - 19:25)
The comment I'll make is that most of the largest projects the town has have needed to be done with the debt exclusion from Prop 2.5, you know, and raised it through taxes that way.

[Speaker 6] (19:26 - 19:26)
Okay.

[Speaker 12] (19:26 - 19:39)
Great. And if you notice, there are a lot that the top part of the back of this pink sheet shows the other sources of funds. The town's been aggressive at going after different kinds of federal and state grants to cut into the cost of what we have to then fund.

[Speaker 6] (19:40 - 19:53)
Sure. Thank you. And just my second question is, I see one of the larger items is pedestrian safety traffic improvements.

Is there any more clarity on what the million dollars is and where that would be spent? Sure. Mr. Hale?

[Speaker 4] (19:54 - 20:36)
Yeah. Thanks for that question. So I think the primary focus for that spend is around the new school.

So we identified a number of points in terms of accessing the school drop-off and pick-up and encouraging people to get to school without a car, whether they're walking or cycling, that we need to make some improvements to the roadway and the sidewalks and the intersections around the new school site. So of the 1.2 million, a million is earmarked for intersections surrounding the new school the new elementary school location. And 200,000 is earmarked for safety improvements to intersections in other parts of town.

[Speaker 2] (20:37 - 20:38)
Loosely called Speed Pillows, I believe.

[Speaker 4] (20:39 - 20:40)
Sorry?

[Speaker 2] (20:40 - 20:41)
The Speed Pillows.

[Speaker 4] (20:41 - 20:42)
Speed Pillows, yes.

[Speaker 2] (20:42 - 20:50)
Thank you, Mr. Hale. Are there other questions for the CIC of the Finance Committee? Sorry, Mr. Berdoff, and then to his right.

[Speaker 13] (20:57 - 21:28)
Aaron Berdoff, Precinct 5, town meeting member, affordable housing trust member as well. I think my question is for Ryan Hale. No complaints overall.

Nice work, guys. But I'm picking up on the thread that was just popped up about the intersection improvements. What is the best way to follow along and see how those are being prioritized?

Is there going to be a listing of the intersections, where they're at, and the status of that? Or do we just need to show up to the capital improvement meetings?

[Speaker 2] (21:30 - 21:47)
Thank you for that question. I think it's a great one. I can either turn it to Max or Gina.

I also note that for large projects, we do have a town project section on the website. But let's see what our Facilities Director can add to that.

[Speaker 19] (21:49 - 22:17)
Thanks, Mike. Max Casper, Facilities Director. The projects have been largely designed and are at a midpoint in design, but we are anticipating neighborhood feedback and want neighborhood feedback.

So we're going to be planning a neighborhood meeting. We don't have a date certain yet, but probably within the next month, we're going to be pinning down a community meeting relative to these projects. So look for information on that.

[Speaker 2] (22:17 - 22:18)
Great. Thank you.

[Speaker 19] (22:18 - 22:18)
Thank you, Max.

[Speaker 2] (22:19 - 22:22)
Thank you, Mr. Berdoff. And again, yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 23] (22:33 - 22:45)
Bonnie Levine, Precinct 6. And my question is regarding seawall repairs. What is the plan, given what's happened recently?

And is $250,000 enough?

[Speaker 2] (22:46 - 22:56)
Thank you, Ms. Levine. I think to answer that question, I will probably defer to the Town Administrator. And I know you may have an expert on hand who can address it in even further detail.

[Speaker 13] (22:57 - 23:49)
Sure. Thank you for that question. As everybody knows, on May 4th, we had a collapse of a seawall in Swampskip at Mission on the Bay.

That was not the town's seawall. That is a private seawall. The town has hired a company, engineering company, to do a structural analysis of our seawalls and to prepare a report and to give us a plan if there's any repairs that are needed.

We have gone out and we've done a preliminary assessment. But over the next few weeks, we'll be looking at the town's seawall. Over the last few years, we have spent a significant amount of money repairing the seawalls at Kings Beach through the Capital Improvement Plan.

It's our intention to work with the Department of Conservation and Recreation to have a number of meetings to see if they will resume ownership of that portion of the seawall.

[Speaker 23] (23:50 - 24:12)
Do you feel that a lot of the work has been deferred since we pulled away from the MDC and we're not part of the succession of that program? I know there's a differentiation between the seawall and the beach and the riprap and the bulkhead-esque stuff around Mission and going all the way around the corner.

[Speaker 13] (24:12 - 24:46)
Absolutely. I think the Select Board has directed me to send a letter to the Department of Conservation and Recreation and work with our legislative delegation to really get in sync. It doesn't make sense when you're driving down Humphrey Street to see one section of the seawall falling apart and the other perfectly in a status of good repair.

We want everybody to enjoy that beach and we think it would be best if the state funded that through a capital improvement program off the broad-based tax base of the Commonwealth.

[Speaker 23] (24:46 - 24:52)
Are we now playing catch-up instead of what we should be doing?

[Speaker 13] (24:52 - 25:08)
Yes. We've been bringing our walls back up to a status of good repair so when we have the conversation with DCR we can say, look, you will not have to repair these walls for the next 20 or 30 years and we'd like you to take ownership of these walls.

[Speaker 2] (25:10 - 25:18)
So insofar as Ms. Levine's question has to do with this capital project, is $250,000 an adequate amount at this point?

[Speaker 14] (25:18 - 25:19)
It is.

[Speaker 13] (25:19 - 25:39)
At this point we have, this will wrap up a section of Kings Beach. There likely will be future capital projects for other areas of town that will be identified as we continue to look at a status of good repair for the remaining seawalls in town.

[Speaker 2] (25:40 - 25:47)
I believe if you look at the capital plan in the back of the warrant there are a number of $250,000 increments over the coming years.

[Speaker 12] (25:48 - 25:49)
That's right. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (25:49 - 26:01)
Thank you, Ms. Levine. All the way in the back. I see two of you right behind each other.

So I think, is that Ms. Grian? Yes. Go ahead.

[Speaker 29] (26:05 - 26:23)
Hi, Kate Grian, town meeting member of precinct 4. I have a question on two of the line items. Just really want to get more information on what it entails.

Line 24 which is the high school auditorium upgrade at $400,000 and then line 34 which is the Vennon Square planning at $100,000.

[Speaker 26] (26:24 - 26:28)
So whoever could explain those a little bit more, I'd appreciate it.

[Speaker 2] (26:28 - 26:29)
Thank you very much, Ms. Grian.

[Speaker 4] (26:29 - 26:30)
I'll take the first one.

[Speaker 2] (26:31 - 26:34)
Sure. Mr. Hale. Thanks for that question.

[Speaker 4] (26:34 - 28:56)
I think probably a two part answer. First is that we're going to need to make periodic improvements to update the systems in all of our buildings that are upgraded by the town. It could be heating and cooling.

It could be plumbing. It could be AV systems, whatever the auxiliary systems are. So this is just one of those systems that is now quite dated and needs to be brought current.

The second, that's sort of the downside reason of why this project is in here. The upside is we see this as a chance to invest in our facilities to make Swamps Got a More Attractive Place for events outside of the school calendar. So obviously the direct benefit will be to the schools and the performances that happen here that are put on by the students and the school community.

But it also gives us a chance to bring in performances from artists outside of Swamps Got and make an attempt to sort of attract people to come here outside of school hours to enjoy a concert or a performance and socialize. So we had a very thoughtful proposal by Mr. Duet for the scope of sort of what would be ideal. We took a phased approach.

So the first year will be kind of the most essential repairs and replacement of outdated equipment, which will get us to the point where we can pilot the idea of bringing in performances from outside and see what we learn from that. Right. We can see what the attendance is like.

We can see what sort of revenue we generate from that. We can see what kind of spillover effect that having people come here for a performance will provide to the restaurants and bars and other businesses in town. And that will inform the timing and the amounts of any additional investment in those systems.

So I'm quite excited to try this out. I think it's kind of a Goldilocks solution to make sure that the school has the equipment that they need to keep this building in good repair and provide a great experience for the students and also give us a chance to experiment in a controlled way with bringing in performances and driving up sort of the cultural enjoyment of the town.

[Speaker 2] (28:56 - 29:05)
Thank you, Mr. Hale. As to the second question, Mr. Town Administrator, can you speak to the planning?

[Speaker 13] (29:05 - 29:54)
Sure. I think, you know, many of us, I think, experience quite a bit of concern about traffic through Vinnin Square. We're going to see some development with the Glover property being redeveloped.

It's important for us right now to really work with the Department of Transportation to think about how that roadway system really will meet the town's needs now and into the future. So this gives us a chance to really get ahead and start planning and really thinking about what is the right alignment for that roadway system and the traffic that runs through that area. It's an often point of concern in terms of pedestrian safety and crash data, and so we want to really focus on that roadway system.

[Speaker 2] (29:55 - 29:58)
Thank you, Ms. Fitzgerald. All the way in the back, ma'am. Thank you for your patience.

[Speaker 31] (30:01 - 30:48)
My name is Martha Caesars. I'm from Precinct 5. My question is kind of a general question that has to do with Article 16 and also with the Capital Improvement Plan.

For the last several nights, I've been going over previous warrants, and I'm having a hard time tracing when this amount of money put in one year, it doesn't always show up the next year in terms of a plan. So, for example, the Clark School renovation is $200,000 this year that we're voting on now, and in the future, it's listed as $450,000 and then $6 million. I'm wondering, are these real figures?

Are they placeholders, or can you just explain how I could trace the capital plan?

[Speaker 2] (30:49 - 30:52)
Thank you very much. I'm sure, Mr. Hale, you can speak to that at length.

[Speaker 4] (30:53 - 32:07)
Yeah, thanks for that question. Come on down and join us at the next meeting. We'd love to have you participate.

So it's basically a rolling capital plan that spans multiple years. Today, it's a rolling five-year plan. We aspire to extend that out to maybe 10, 15, 20, or longer, as far as we can reliably forecast.

And the vote that we take here in town meeting is to sort of lock the appropriations for the coming fiscal year, and then we adjust kind of the forecast for the out years every year. So the sort of binding part is the upcoming fiscal year, and so that's why you'll see amounts change as we adjust the project sort of placeholders that we have for the out years. We're trying to solve for keeping our borrowing within range and prioritize based on the different themes and priorities that we have in a town, and also adjust to unforeseen circumstances.

Right? If a building fails or a system fails earlier than we expect, then we're going to have to pull the money forward to address that, and that may adjust the timing of some of the other projects. So if you think about it as kind of a rolling plan, that's why you'll see everything in year two and beyond will shift a little bit.

[Speaker 31] (32:07 - 32:13)
Right. So the vote we take today does not impact any of those amounts in the future? Exactly.

[Speaker 2] (32:13 - 32:28)
No. The vote you're taking today is on this year's capital projects. The capital plan is there to show A, that we have a plan in place, and B, to give you some predictability, again, with a relatively hazy crystal ball about next year and the year beyond.

[Speaker 31] (32:28 - 32:34)
Okay. So we can't tell whether it's going to be a $6 million project in two years?

[Speaker 2] (32:34 - 32:40)
Well, let's take that one in specific. How did the committee arrive at a $6 million number for the Clark School?

[Speaker 4] (32:41 - 32:51)
I was working with the school board and the facilities director to estimate the size and timing of those projects. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (32:51 - 32:56)
Thank you. Thank you. Further?

Go ahead, Mr. Schutzer.

[Speaker 11] (33:07 - 33:54)
Good evening. Ken Schutzer, Precinct 6. This should be a relatively simple question, and hopefully I'll have a relatively simple explanation.

Article 16, as I see it, deals with capital projects. And 34, unless I misconstrue what a capital project is, is money to be used for a planner, be it a consultant or otherwise. How do we capitalize a project for which we are investing in the services of an individual?

I was just wondering, because that seems to dovetail with our planning concept, and this deal clearly is planning, why that got put into a capitalized article?

[Speaker 2] (33:56 - 33:57)
Thank you, Mr. Schutzer.

[Speaker 12] (34:00 - 34:39)
We can't capitalize anything, planning that doesn't relate to something that could turn into a capital project. Those are the only way that you can capitalize. So you capitalize planning costs.

So, for example, in Venice Square, we can capitalize the planning cost for five years. To the extent it leads to a project that we planned with those funds that can go out for 20 years, those planning costs can be amortized over 20 years along with the construction payback. But you can't just...

It would have to be in the operating budget for a regular planning cost, a planning consultant. That's an operating cost.

[Speaker 11] (34:40 - 34:45)
Because it's involving, ultimately, a project.

[Speaker 12] (34:45 - 34:45)
Correct.

[Speaker 11] (34:45 - 34:52)
Therefore, the preliminary cost associated with trying to determine what needs to be done gets capitalized.

[Speaker 12] (34:52 - 34:59)
Exactly. It can be, and it can go out the term of whatever the project is if, in fact, that ultimately gets authorized. If it doesn't, you're stuck with five years.

[Speaker 2] (35:00 - 35:05)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schutzer. Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 26] (35:15 - 35:36)
Barry Atkin, town meeting member from Precinct 6. I have a question about whether there is a capital improvement plan for Phillips Beach to reconstruct the damage that was done in the New Easter, or whether that's in the operating budget. And if so, how much?

[Speaker 2] (35:39 - 35:55)
I would have to refer to one of the town staff to see if there are plans to do any remediation work on any of the beaches. But I have not heard of that. Do you have this in your capital plan, Mr. Town member?

[Speaker 13] (35:55 - 35:55)
We do not.

[Speaker 4] (35:57 - 35:58)
That's not in the capital plan today? No.

[Speaker 2] (36:02 - 36:05)
Thank you. Yes, Mr. Rubano.

[Speaker 5] (36:13 - 36:15)
Christian Rubano, Precinct 2.

[Speaker 9] (36:16 - 36:53)
I think technically I'm supposed to say that I'm a lawyer, but I'm not representing anybody. The question I have is line item 2, level grade field at Phillips Park. Of course, one of my loves is Bloxwich Field, being an All Blue Foundation member of the Athletic Field Study Committee from way back when.

And so this is great to see. I just don't know what the breadth and depth of the grading is. I was just curious, very simply, how much and what part of Phillips Park we're going to grade?

[Speaker 2] (36:55 - 36:59)
I think Mr. Cresta can help us with that. Thank you, Mr. Rubano.

[Speaker 11] (37:05 - 37:26)
Geno Cresta, Public Works Director, Town Meet member, Precinct 1. Chris, the field we're referring to, most people refer to it as the JV Soccer Field, which is perpendicular to the turf field. The hope is to grade that out.

It's going to be a joint venture with U Soccer. They've committed some money. How much, we're not sure right now, but it's going to be a joint venture with U Soccer.

[Speaker 2] (37:27 - 37:37)
Thank you, Mr. Cresta. Having coached youth lacrosse on that field, having it level would be a great improvement. Sorry, before I get to you, Ms. Atkin, I did see Ms. Spaulding up there.

[Speaker 21] (37:44 - 38:08)
Shane Spaulding, Precinct 3. I had a question about, well, last night we passed the climate resiliency plan for the town. I had a question about how you're going to consider our priorities around climate resiliency and the capital improvement projects going forward, making sure it's not just an aspiration, but that actually we put our money where our mouths are.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (38:08 - 38:24)
Thank you. While not entirely on topic, I do note that Mr. Hale has a background with the Renewable Energy Committee. So I think he does bring ample background to that.

So if you could briefly discuss, but I'd like to stay on topic.

[Speaker 4] (38:24 - 39:26)
Sure. Just a quick preview. I think of the Climate Action Plan as a framework set of guardrails that we now need to operate in.

So the Capital Improvement Committee does not propose projects. We simply evaluate those that are brought forth by the Select Board, by the town administrator, and by the department heads. So now that the town meeting has sort of adopted the Climate Action Plan, that now imposes a set of targets and guardrails that the town government now needs to sort of stay within.

So it's a bit of a multi-step process that we should now expect the people who propose those projects, the Select Board, the administrator, and the department heads, to now think of ways to achieve the targets and the kind of timing that we've now adopted. So eventually those will make it to the desk of the Capital Improvement Committee and then appear in the plan for the out years.

[Speaker 33] (39:27 - 39:28)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (39:28 - 39:34)
I think it's a great question, great discussion. But I do want to keep us on topic of the current capital projects. Ms. Atkin.

[Speaker 26] (39:40 - 40:02)
Thank you. I've sat down before the full answer was in, and I realized I only got half an answer. So my understanding is, as far as Philip's speech goes, there is no capital improvement plan for the damage that was done during the Northeastern.

Is there anything in the operating budget to fix any of the damage?

[Speaker 2] (40:03 - 40:08)
Mr. Town Administrator, do you have operating funds dedicated to beach repairs?

[Speaker 13] (40:09 - 40:36)
We don't have anything specific for Philip's speech, but I'm happy to work with our Director of Public Works and Assistant Town Administrator and take a look at the damage and follow up with a report to see if there is something that we can do with the operating budget. We have a very limited amount of funds for maintenance, but certainly if there's some damage there may be some grants that are available, and so we're happy to look into that.

[Speaker 26] (40:37 - 40:37)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (40:37 - 42:10)
Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Perry, and then yes, in the lovely coral shirt. Sorry, I can't recognize you in the dark.

Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry is calling the previous question. For those of you who weren't here last night who are new to this process, that is a motion that would end debate and move to an immediate vote.

It is non-debatable, but it does require a two-thirds vote to halt debate and force a vote on Ms. McNerney's original motion to adopt the capital projects. All those in favor of Mr. Perry's motion to end debate, to call the previous question, please signify by raising your hands. All those opposed?

It passes by two-thirds. We'll move now to a vote on Article 16, the motion by Ms. McNerney to adopt the capital items with the changes noted on the pink handout that you should have in front of you. All those in favor, and this requires a two-thirds vote because we are borrowing.

All those in favor of Ms. McNerney's motion, please signify by raising your hands. All those opposed? It carries unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hale. Thank you, Ms. McNerney. We come now to Article 17, a zoning bylaw amendment. Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 3] (42:18 - 43:16)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Angela Ippolito, town meeting member of Precinct 5, chair of the planning board. So I'm just going to get a lot of zoning information here.

I just want to get to the article. Let's see. We're at Article 17.

It says the select board recommends that the town vote to amend the Zoning bylaw section 5.11.0.0 accessory apartments and section 2.2.0.0 use regulations by deleting the language shown in the striped through and adding the language shown in red, as shown on the blue handout, entitled Appendix D, revised. I move the recommendation of the select board.

[Speaker 2] (43:17 - 43:22)
Thank you, Ms. Ippolito. Before we proceed, the planning board has held hearings on this topic?

[Speaker 3] (43:23 - 43:28)
The planning board held hearing on the accessory dwelling units on May 1st.

[Speaker 2] (43:28 - 43:28)
And?

[Speaker 3] (43:28 - 43:31)
Voted unanimously to recommend favorable action.

[Speaker 2] (43:31 - 43:34)
Thank you very much. I understand we have a video that many of you may have seen.

[Speaker 3] (43:34 - 43:56)
Oh, yes. If whoever hasn't seen the video, we are Mike and I, Mike Procia and I, my fellow planning board members, made a few videos to help inform the public about these bylaws. And after this plays, I will introduce Mike Procia to continue to present the article.

Thank you.

[Speaker 33] (44:04 - 44:05)
All right.

[Speaker 3] (44:05 - 45:12)
So the first article we'll be discussing this morning is Article 17, which deals with accessory dwelling units. I'll read the language that appears in the warrant. Article 17, a proposal to amend the zoning bylaw to allow for accessory dwelling units.

It reads, to see if the town will vote to amend the Swampscott zoning bylaws, Section 5.11.00 Accessory Apartments, by inserting the language shown in red and deleting the language shown in red, strikethrough, as set forth in Appendix D. So the zoning bylaws currently permit interior accessory apartments. We will be changing the definition of accessory apartment to accessory dwelling unit.

And Mike is going to help me discuss exactly what accessory dwelling units are and why we're proposing this bylaw. So, Mike, why don't you give us just an overview of what is an accessory dwelling unit or an ADU?

[Speaker 5] (45:12 - 46:03)
Well, as you said, accessory apartments were already allowed in town. An ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, is a dwelling unit that's a subsidiary to the principal dwelling unit on a property, hence the accessory part, right? The way the bylaw contemplates it is that the accessory dwelling unit is secondary in every way.

It shares utilities. Its entrances are subsidiary to the main entrances of the dwelling. It's a smaller dwelling in size.

It can only be 900 square feet or less in size. And so the ADU really is an opportunity for folks in town to create a more flexible type of housing that may not exist just with single-family zoning that exists now.

[Speaker 3] (46:03 - 46:11)
So how would someone include an accessory dwelling unit on their property? Can they add it to their house, or how does that work?

[Speaker 5] (46:11 - 46:31)
So the way that this bylaw contemplates it is you can apply to create an accessory dwelling unit either as an addition to your house, which would be attached, or a pre-existing detached structure at the time this bylaw is created, if it's voted by town meeting on May 15th.

[Speaker 3] (46:31 - 46:46)
So in other words, if I had a garage next to my house that was detached, or a carriage house as may be the case with some of the houses in town, I could convert that existing garage, is that correct?

[Speaker 5] (46:47 - 47:04)
That is essentially correct, right. You would be able to convert that garage to an ADU or your carriage house, potentially if you lived in a historic district. Or like I said, you could build an addition onto your house as long as it met the other guidelines within the zoning bylaw.

[Speaker 3] (47:04 - 47:09)
What about utilities? Do they share one utility bill, one tax bill?

[Speaker 5] (47:09 - 47:18)
They do share one utility bill, yes, for electric, gas, sewer, trash. There's no additional trash barrels that we're contemplating as part of this, for example.

[Speaker 3] (47:18 - 47:24)
And what about owner-occupied? Does the owner have to live in one of the units?

[Speaker 5] (47:24 - 47:34)
Yes, yes, we talked about this, and that's exactly how it would work. Owner-occupancy for either the ADU or the principal dwelling unit.

[Speaker 3] (47:34 - 47:39)
So I understand that this use is by right. What does that mean in terms of permitting?

[Speaker 5] (47:40 - 48:16)
Right, so initially the accessory apartments were not by right. Now these new ADUs will be by right, but that's just the use. So the structures still have to be reviewed by the building commissioner as part of any building permit process.

And if you're building something new, if you're building a new attached structure to your house, that has to go get reviewed by the building commissioner. And so oftentimes, as you see in town, there's certain deficiencies that you're not meeting per the zoning code, and so you'll have to go before either the planning board or the zoning board of appeals for that as well.

[Speaker 3] (48:17 - 48:45)
Great. So it sounds like the purpose of this bylaw would really give people an opportunity to create an additional unit for either a child who's moving home and needs a place to live, for an elderly parent that can no longer stay in their own home, or to rent out as a hopefully more affordable unit to an individual or a small family.

[Speaker 5] (48:45 - 49:22)
We like to call it little a affordable, right? It's not affordable in the strict sense of Section 8 vouchers or something, but it allows for housing choice and flexibility so that you may age in place potentially. There are some folks, large contingent of folks in town that would like to remain in their current homes, and this may allow them to move into the smaller, accessible building unit on their site.

That may be a slightly more accessible means of living for them, and it may also be able to provide them with some income to rent this thing out.

[Speaker 3] (49:23 - 49:24)
What about parking?

[Speaker 5] (49:25 - 49:32)
Well, we did contemplate parking as part of this bylaw, and there is one space that will be required per ADU that is created.

[Speaker 3] (49:33 - 49:50)
Sounds good. Well, I hope that if there are any other questions, you will feel free to forward any inquiries to the Community Development Department directly. We look forward to seeing you at town meeting to answer any other questions you may have on ADUs.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (49:50 - 50:08)
Thank you very much for producing it. I think it was extremely helpful. Before we proceed, I have two things.

One, I've had a question from certain town meeting members. Could you give a brief distinction, definition, by right versus special permit?

[Speaker 3] (50:09 - 50:47)
Yes. So the by right process, which is what we are recommending, how we are recommending this be adopted tonight, is a simple majority, would be a simple majority vote of town meetings, so 51% essentially. If it were by special permit, it would need a two-thirds vote.

The difference is that the by right is allowed by law because this ADU zoning by law, as presented, complies with the state template and it complies with all the regulations that are recommended be adopted by the state.

[Speaker 2] (50:48 - 50:58)
And so specifically for people who aren't zoning experts, myself included, by right means you are able to do it without having to seek a special permit.

[Speaker 3] (50:59 - 51:15)
You don't have to seek a special permit. You do have to have a plan, an application, and you bring it to the building department and you review it with the building commissioner and you are granted a permit to build the ADU from the building commissioner. That's correct.

[Speaker 2] (51:16 - 51:44)
Thank you. That helps. So I just want to underscore what Ms. Ippolito just said. Normally a zoning by law amendment requires a two-thirds vote, but because of legislation that was passed, Chapter 358 of the Acts of 2020 allows certain zoning by laws to be adopted by simple majority, and in this case, both town council and planning board have opined that this would be eligible for a simple majority. With that said...

[Speaker 3] (51:44 - 51:56)
With that said, I'd like to request that my fellow colleague, Mike Procia, come to the stand and answer any other questions and update you on whatever we've missed so far.

[Speaker 2] (51:56 - 52:03)
Mr. Procia from the planning board and from a telegenic presentation just moments ago.

[Speaker 5] (52:04 - 55:31)
Hi. Mike Procia, Precinct 1, planning board member. I've been on the planning board since 2019, and that was the most painful thing I've ever done.

It's really hard to watch yourself. So what I'll say is we said a lot of it in the video, and I just want to expand on a couple of key points. The first is I'm really proud of the process that we've done.

We've been working since December, January of the last year, this year. We've had several public forums about this topic with the senior center at B129 over here where we actually brought in someone who builds ADUs, someone who advocates for ADUs, and someone from AARP to talk about ADUs to the public. That presentation was produced and put online and had good attendance from the town.

We had a public hearing on this topic, and we voted unanimously as a board to recommend favorable action on this article. So I feel very proud of the process and for everyone's engagement. That's reached out to me or Angela or anyone on the board, so thank you very much for being engaged on this.

Another thing I want to point out is the by right special permit thing. So actually in here, in the text of the bylaw change, if you go to 511.6, or I guess 511.4, it's called now, application requirements. So that lays out what you have to present to the building commissioner when you apply to build an ADU, and I just want to say that the use is by right.

So oftentimes you see in town it's difficult to build things to the zoning regulations, and one of the things that it says here is that you also have to go, what does it say exactly, a copy of any recorded relevant special permit or finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals. So if your lot is deficient in some other way to build an addition onto your home as you would normally do in town when you're building an addition, you'd still have to go before the Zoning Board to get that built. There's also, after our discussion with the Historic District Commission, there is a line in here about certificates of appropriateness or certificate of non-applicability.

I'm not an expert on the Historic District Commission, but they do have to review these things as well in the Historic District. So just wanted to make those two notes. And finally, as a question that we so often get is, well, how many ADUs can we anticipate in town as to creation of this change in the bylaw?

And there's actually a Pioneer Institute study on how many ADUs have been created in the past. We already have an accessory apartment bylaw that this is updating in town, and in the past, I think it's three years as of the date of that study, there were only three accessory apartments created in town. So what this wants to do is expand on that a little bit, but in peer communities where this has been expanded, you haven't seen, I'll call it a huge influx of ADUs that have been created.

What you have seen is the ability for folks to have flexibility in the housing options that they can provide beyond a single family home. So with that, I'll stop my little spiel and there you go. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (55:31 - 55:49)
Thank you, Mr. Groschuk. Are there questions or debate? Yes, Mr. Barden. And then Mr. Baker. And then Farmer Robinson. Thank you.

Mr. Barden.

[Speaker 11] (55:51 - 55:57)
Gary Barden, Precinct 3. Are there any restrictions if I want to use my ADU for short-term rental?

[Speaker 5] (55:58 - 56:31)
That's a great question. So we have been thinking about short-term rentals on the planning board for some time now. We didn't want to wrap up a discussion about short-term rentals into this discussion and try to conflate the two and confuse the two.

I think there's a desire in town to talk about short-term rentals, and we intend to do so at the planning board soon. I'll say it's probably one of the next things we want to tackle. But it's not tackled as part of this as of yet.

[Speaker 2] (56:31 - 56:32)
Thank you, Mr. Groschuk.

[Speaker 5] (56:33 - 56:33)
Mr. Baker.

[Speaker 2] (56:35 - 56:40)
Mr. Barden. Okay, thank you, sir. And Reverend Farber Robinson.

[Speaker 32] (56:58 - 57:57)
Thank you. Anita Farber Robinson, Precinct 4, town meeting member. I think this is fabulous.

I think anything that creates more options for people to be able to live in this wonderful town is to be supported. But the one thing that I heard on that little video that gave me a little concern was the small comment about only one trash barrel. Now, I know that people have been very upset about the numbers of trash barrels allowed.

I personally only use about a quarter of my trash barrels, so it doesn't bother me personally. But I want to know what the suggestion is, because realistically it will create an additional need for some trash. So what's your proposal of how to manage that?

[Speaker 5] (57:58 - 58:00)
Thank you for your question.

[Speaker 2] (58:00 - 58:02)
Thank you, Reverend Farber Robinson.

[Speaker 5] (58:03 - 58:25)
Mr. Groschuk, if you're prepared to discuss that, that's fine. Well, I have an answer that is that I do tend to, I can misspeak, and I misspoke that one word because utilities are separate. They cannot be sold separately from each other, the ADU or the principal dwelling unit.

But trash is regulated by the Board of Health, so that's not part of the bylaw, specifically the trash portion.

[Speaker 2] (58:26 - 58:30)
Thank you, sir. Yes, Mr. Jerma.

[Speaker 8] (58:36 - 59:59)
Mr. Jerma, town meeting member, Precinct 3. I want to speak in support on this. This is something that has been very successful in other communities in the Commonwealth.

It is something that has been very successful nationally. It is something that leads to choices for aging in place, for multigenerational family, and for creating housing that is everywhere in town. So as we're looking at affordable options and rental properties and all of that, this is something that's really good to have in our portfolio.

I did have a couple of quick questions on it. At this point in time, I'm curious, when we are looking at properties, I've seen some language change in here. Properties that are not single family, that we're taking on accessory apartments, the language has been changed so they're dwelling units now.

So if there are multiple unit buildings that have existing accessory buildings, is that covered in this so a two- or three-family house could convert a carriage house or a garage over into an ACU? Thank you, Mr. German. And that's a partial question.

[Speaker 5] (59:59 - 1:00:24)
I have a couple more on that. Right. So this actually came up in the Marblehead discussion.

Marblehead actually had an ADU discussion at their town meeting as well. I think the answer to this question is one ADU can be created per lot. Is that how it's written?

So I don't think it's respective of the number of family units on there. So if you had a three-family, you can't create three ADUs, for example.

[Speaker 8] (1:00:24 - 1:01:28)
I think a three-family could create one ADU on that lot. So one of the things I didn't identify myself, I am also a member of the Historic District Commission. This is a really good preservation tool also.

A lot of the carriage houses that exist in the Olmsted District are sized beyond the function of when we don't have horses and we don't have carriages, we don't really need a barn the size that a lot of folks have. So this is a great tool and an opportunity where homeowners can actually be motivated to restore. And we have some really amazing carriage houses, and some of which are falling into disrepair because they're not used.

So this is a great opportunity to come at a very sort of a backdoor into historic preservation. And I'm really glad to hear that it is not for only single-family houses because there are a number of our most amazing carriage houses that are attached to multi-family units. So, great.

That answered my questions. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 2] (1:01:28 - 1:01:35)
Thank you, Mr. Jermon. Yes, sir. I can't see you in the back, but...

[Speaker 9] (1:01:35 - 1:02:53)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. John Jantas, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, also a member of the School Committee. So my question, I know we said that you didn't want to conflate the short-term dwelling issue with what we're talking about tonight.

But I did want to raise a couple of concerns about the short-term dwellings just because it's something that we've had to deal with, with an Airbnb right next door to us. That was put in maybe three years ago. And it's been problematic.

And we've gone to the town and asked, you know, how do we deal with these negative consequences? And what we've basically been told is, well, there's really not that much we can do. There's really no procedure we can look to.

At least that's what we've been told. So I think there should be a commitment coming out of here tonight. I think that this should be a high-priority issue to deal with if Airbnbs do result from this, which I think Nahanda's had some issues with this as well, with these short-term dwellings.

There should be a commitment coming out of here that this is a high-priority, and there will be a commitment to have a process to address community concerns with these short-term dwellings.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:54 - 1:03:07)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gentes. Mr. Prosha, obviously it's not before us this evening, but if you can envision having this on a future agenda, I think Mr. Gentes and others would enjoy attending.

[Speaker 5] (1:03:07 - 1:03:45)
Absolutely. And I did want to say one thing, and that's the requirement of this bylaw that's in here. I'm not going to quote you the section, but it says the owner must live on site, either in the ADU or the principal dwelling.

So while it doesn't say no short-term rentals, it's sort of a catch to say, look, the owner's going to be there on this property somewhere, and that's going to cut down a little bit, in theory, on some potentially rowdy Airbnbs renters. That's the idea behind that portion of this bylaw.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:45 - 1:03:49)
Thank you, Mr. Prosha. All the way in the back, ma'am.

[Speaker 26] (1:03:54 - 1:04:22)
Diana Kaplan, Precinct 5. Not to belabor the trash and receptacle issue, but the wording, I think, is incorrect. It says the ADU is further not permitted neither in additional trash nor recycling receptacle.

Two negatives make a positive, so therefore you are permitting the trash and the recycling receptacle.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:22 - 1:04:39)
Let me confirm first that you're looking at the blue handout, appendix D, revised, and then let me ask the members of the planning board to confirm that the correct language exists in the revised handout. I'm sorry. That's okay.

It's a lot of paper.

[Speaker 5] (1:04:46 - 1:04:52)
While we're looking, if you're looking, and you can point out to us where it says that, I thought we struck that actually from this.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:56 - 1:04:58)
Perhaps while we look for that, sir, in the corner.

[Speaker 16] (1:05:08 - 1:05:41)
Duncan Page, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 1. Not to, again, belabor the point about short-term rentals, but I would also like to point out that short-term rentals could also help or prevent the goal of affordable housing as they essentially take away that option for housing and turn it into a vacation area, and I worry that with these short-term rentals, it would affect the housing market in Swampscott and make it unaffordable to live here.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:41 - 1:05:42)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:42 - 1:05:51)
Fair point. Thank you, Mr. Page. I'm sure that the planning board will take that up.

I'm awaiting an answer on the previous question.

[Speaker 3] (1:05:52 - 1:05:53)
Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (1:05:53 - 1:06:08)
Have we located the text in the question? The portion of the bylaw in your actual bound book is the old version. You should be looking at the blue version.

That trash portion is not in the blue version.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:09 - 1:06:21)
Okay, so I refer you all to make sure that you're looking at the blue version. I saw Mr. Russo. I saw Mr. Iannacone. I saw Mr. Schutzer. Mr. Russo, go ahead.

[Speaker 6] (1:06:24 - 1:06:25)
I just want to make a motion to end debate.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:26 - 1:06:27)
I'll look to the mic.

[Speaker 6] (1:06:28 - 1:06:34)
That's all right. Len Russo, Precinct 4, Town Meeting Member. I just want to make a motion to end debate, and we'll forward with a vote.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:34 - 1:07:38)
So Mr. Russo has moved, as Mr. Perry did before, to end debate on this topic. Is there a second? Second.

This is a two-thirds vote. All in favor of ending debate and moving to immediate vote? All those opposed?

The motion carries. We now move to a vote on Ms. Ippolito's original motion to adopt the amendments to the zoning bylaws as found, this is important, in the blue handout. Appendix D revised.

Now, as I've mentioned before, there is new legislation that enables a simple majority to pass this. So for the benefit of Town Council and the Town Clerk, I am going to move directly to a standing vote. Could I please have the following tellers come down and see me?

Ms. Arrington, Mr. Kraft, Mr. Urbano, Ms. Titcom, Ms. Goldman, and Mr. Burdoff. While they are coming down here, I ask all those in favor of Ms. Ippolito's motion to rise and remain standing.

[Speaker 33] (1:11:08 - 1:11:09)
Congratulations.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:11 - 1:16:57)
Thank you. Please be seated. All those opposed, please stand.

Thank you for your patience. By a vote of 199 to 10, Ms. Ippolito's motion passes. Brings us to Article 18.

Article 18, dealing with site plan special permits. Excuse me, Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:01 - 1:17:38)
Let's see. Oh, there it is. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. The Planning Board recommends that the Town vote to amend the Swamp Scots Zoning By-law Sections 5.2.2.1, 5.3.1.0, and 5.4.3.0 by deleting the language shown in strikethrough and adding the language shown in red, as shown in Appendix E of the printed warrant. That's this purple-colored appendix.

I move the recommendation of the Planning Board.

[Speaker 2] (1:17:38 - 1:17:44)
Is there a second? Second. Thank you.

I want to make sure everyone's referring to the purple handout. Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:02 - 1:20:43)
So we're going to skip the video on this one. I know you're all disappointed. So the purpose of this amendment is to revert the site plan special permit process back to the Planning Board.

Back in 2009, a Zoning By-law Review Committee had, in attempts to streamline the permitting process, had split the role of the site plan special permit granting authority. So the Planning Board only did site plan special permit granting when that was the only permit requested. But if someone had an application requesting a site plan special permit and they needed some other kind of zoning relief, the whole thing went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but not until the Planning Board had met, conducted site plan review, written the recommendation, submitting it to Zoning, and then it became.

So we tried it for many years. In 2012, we tried to make this change then, to go back to the old way of doing things. But it was recommended that we give it some more time.

So we've given it a lot more time. And I am requesting that this body vote to make the Planning Board, the site plan special permit authority in all cases, and, of course, the Zoning Board of Appeals is the permit granting authority in all other matters, such as any kind of dimensional relief, use special permit variances, and all other issues to which one would go to a Board of Appeals to appeal the zoning. So it clarifies the roles.

It provides one point of contact. And it would certainly alleviate many of the problems and confusion with different projects that we've had over the years. I could easily name five off the top of my head right now, but I'm not going to do this.

This change is supported, of course, by the entire Planning Board. It's also supported by the current chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the former chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the building commissioner, and the community development department. I ask that that town meeting vote to approve this article.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:43 - 1:20:50)
So in brief summary, the elected Planning Board would become the special permit site plan review body. Right.

[Speaker 3] (1:20:50 - 1:21:37)
And that's traditionally the role for all Planning Boards. In fact, you can't find another city or town in Massachusetts where a Planning Board, an elected Planning Board, isn't the site plan special permit granting authority. The fact that we had our permit granting authorities split for so many years has created just a domino effect of problems, confusion of errors happening, and it's also been a very, it's been, it has not had a, we haven't had a clear process in terms of chain of custody of petitions and things that should have been approved at the very get-go.

So, yes.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:38 - 1:21:38)
Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:38 - 1:21:39)
So that's what we're requesting.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:39 - 1:21:43)
Any questions or discussion? Mr. Schutzer, I believe.

[Speaker 11] (1:21:52 - 1:25:56)
Ken Schutzer, Precinct 6, Caucus Chair, Precinct 6, an attorney who wished to speak in opposition. I applaud the work that the Planning Board has done, and I don't want this to become an issue of personalities because it isn't. But I think there's a little bit of misinformation, and it may be inadvertent.

The Planning Board previously had what was called site plan review. Town of Swanska did not have site plan special permits until the introduction of site plan special permits, which was incorporated, I believe, in 2012, and that designation and that authority was then given to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The history of how this evolved was because it was a chaotic process by which an individual would be going to the Planning Board, they would get site plan review with certain modifications because under site plan review, it was not a question of yes or no, it was a question of a conditional yes.

And the only time it could be denied is if the application was incomplete or they didn't meet the criteria. Now, that didn't happen too frequently, so there were modifications. It required, therefore, the applicants to make changes in their plan to go back before the Board of Appeals.

The Board of Appeals may have taken exception, it would go back to the Planning Board. So even though, arguably, the process was not vetted to the same degree, it made the process simpler. And that was the motivation in 2012 when the Zoning By-law was reviewed and changed.

I have no difficulty, but I do want people to understand that the process now will become more difficult. It will now require, because it's a site plan special permit, I believe, four votes, a supermajority from the Planning Board as well as the supermajority in the dimensional requirements from the Board of Appeals. All I've heard over the years is how difficult it is to get projects through.

It's my impression, even though this may arguably vet the best project, it will make the procedure so much more difficult and so much more time-consuming and arguably more expensive. That's why I speak. I don't know if I identified myself as an attorney.

I do a lot of work before the local boards. I respect the work they do. I think it has worked as well as it could under the current procedure where one board has the authority to make both the site plan special permit approval or disapproval as well as the dimensional requirements.

And I would ask that it be kept that way because I haven't sensed, other than hearing from the Planning Board, that they've taken exception. And I understand why, because even though they will give opinions on the site plan special permit, they don't necessarily have the final say, and that's made by the Board of Appeals. And that causes a little friction.

I didn't hear, by the way, that the entire Zoning Board of Appeals endorsed this. I heard that the current chairperson did, and the current chairperson has been the current chairperson for a very short period of time. I also heard that the prior chairperson did, and if they wish to speak on that, I think that would be very helpful.

I think the current procedure, as currently followed, is working, and I think it's working well. I think the Planning Board has the authority to give their opinion. Just one last bit of information.

When does this even apply? Because that's helpful as well. It applies primarily for any addition to any single-family home of over 800 square feet.

So we aren't even getting into the issue unless that occurs, or it's new construction over 3,000 square feet. So that's the trip. That's what provides the requirement that they seek a site plan special permit.

I would ask that it not be amended, it not be changed, and it be left the way it is. Thank you very much for your time.

[Speaker 2] (1:25:56 - 1:26:04)
Mr. Schuster, before you sit down, thank you. According to our bylaws, you are required to disclose that you're an attorney...

[Speaker 11] (1:26:04 - 1:26:05)
I just said that.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:06 - 1:26:08)
...representing something in front of town.

[Speaker 11] (1:26:08 - 1:26:15)
No, I'm not representing anybody. No, no, I have no current matters, and I would have disclosed that had I. Great.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:16 - 1:26:22)
It went through fast, and I want to make sure people understood that he is disclosing based on our bylaws requiring that. Thank you.

[Speaker 11] (1:26:23 - 1:26:24)
Mr. Spellios.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:28 - 1:27:12)
Peter Spellios, town meeting member, Precinct 3 member of the Select Board. I'm standing far away from Angela. You would think because I'm going to oppose you, but I'm not.

I'm going to support you. In 2009, I was one of the principal drafters of the rezoning that she's made mention of, and I know it would shock you to hear me say this, but we got it wrong, and what you're doing tonight is correcting a procedural thing that at the time seemed like a right idea, but you are correct, and I do value the fact that the former chair and the current chair of the zoning board, two of the smartest people I know, support this and the commissioner, and frankly, your support means a lot, but you are, in my opinion, as one of the principal drafters back in 2009, correcting something that's long overdue to be corrected, so thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:12 - 1:27:13)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:16 - 1:27:32)
Further questions or discussion on Ms. Ippolito's motion? Seeing none, this does also require a two-thirds vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand.

All those opposed? Passes unanimously.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:33 - 1:27:33)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:35 - 1:28:40)
Moving on now, we had tabled Article 12 until Article 19 did come up. Article 19 is now before us. I would welcome a motion to take Article 12 from the table.

Is there a second? Assuming no need for discussion, could I please see a show of hands in favor of taking Article 12 up? All those opposed?

Article 12 is now before us. I would also welcome a motion, Mr. Schneider, to consider Article 12 and Article 19 together for the purposes of debate. Could I get such a motion?

Thank you. Is there a second? All those in favor of considering these two articles, which both have to do with the Hadley property, together, please raise your hands.

All those opposed? We are now considering Article 12 and 19 together for the purposes of debate. In order to facilitate this, Mr. Schneider, I will take your motion now and we will have Ms. Ippolito's motion ready when we are done with the vote on yours.

[Speaker 5] (1:28:42 - 1:28:46)
Eric Schneider, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 5, member of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 13] (1:28:47 - 1:28:53)
The Finance Committee recommends that Article 12 be approved as printed in the warrant. I move the recommendation of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:53 - 1:29:16)
Is there a second? Thank you very much. So we have before us two articles having to do with Hadley.

One is the disposition of the land and one is the creation of the overlay district. I have both Ms. Ippolito and Mr. Schneider available to answer questions, hear discussion, etc. Mr. Spellios has the presentation.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:34 - 1:47:00)
I have a lot of stuff here. Peter Spellios, Precinct 3, Town Meeting Member, Select Board. I want to thank you very much.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about the process that we went through ultimately culminating in the recommendation of the Select Board to proceed with this article asking Town Meeting's approval for us to proceed with the evaluation and hopefully the selection of a hotel use for the reuse of the Hadley School. But as a precursor to this, I wanted to take upon a few minutes from what we talked about last night because it's really important to continue this. We talked a lot about planning and I already admitted that I thought it was one of the best conversations of Town Meeting and I loved it.

What have we gotten since 2004 when we started with a planner in this town? The truth is, we've gotten a lot since 2004. Tonight, you have articles on four different parts of our town.

What you're seeing tonight is all those things coming to fruition. Our master plan, our open space plan, our housing production plan, our reuse committee plan for Hadley, and you're also seeing our harbor and waterfront plan. There's another plan that's not showing up at the moment here, but is also a 2013 MAPC study that the chair of the planning board back in 2013 was working on, Vennon Square.

You'll hear more about that later on. Why does that matter? It's because each of these projects that we're talking about tonight has been directed.

We have a playbook. We have a book that we are following. This is not out of nowhere.

This is not out of left field. These ideas all stemmed from somewhere and it was the planning initiatives that the town supported and the planners worked to do this. So the master plan, the housing production plan, the Hadley reuse plan, the open space plan, the harbor plan.

Sorry, this is not even the right presentation, so Pete, you're going to need change. I knew there was something wrong with it. Let's try the one that says Hadley.

There we go. Look at this. There is that extra one.

All right. We're going to get this. So that takes me to Hadley Reuse.

This is really the culmination of quite a long process. If you remember several years ago, we came to town meeting. Sorry, let me get ahead of myself here.

Bear with me. A couple years ago, we came to you and asked town meeting to create a reuse committee, recognizing that it was only a matter of time until the Hadley school was going to be vacant. If you know something else, if you have a memory of any sort, you also know that we don't do very well with vacant school buildings.

The last time we had vacant school buildings when we opened up the high school, we let the Mashon School and the Greenwood Middle School sit vacant for over 10 years. If you didn't hear me, we don't do well with vacant buildings. One of my first votes, and actually working with Naomi Driven when I got on the board, was to start trying to figure out how we fix that, how we remedy the situation, the liability, frankly, these buildings can quickly become.

Part of this was, as soon as we knew the new school was moving forward, was come to town meeting and say, we need your help. We need to create a committee. We created, with your support, a 20-person committee made up of representatives of all the committees you've been hearing from tonight.

Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Historic District Commission, Affordable Housing Trust, on and on and on to make sure there was representation there. I believe the town moderator got to appoint four people, the select board appointed three people, and they began to meet ad nauseum over a many month period, and they did open houses, they did community meetings, they created subgroups of different interests, and they studied a lot of things. There were two things, though, that were given as parameters to them when they started, though, in the negative.

The select board, at that time, and I still think currently, didn't want them to propose market rate housing. Look at other things in market rate housing. We know market rate housing.

We've seen it a lot here. And then secondly, we want to see if we can use the existing, the historic, the original portion of the Hadley School, not the annex, but save that and reuse it and keep that part of our town. So with this instruction, the Hadley Reuse Committee went through a complete process and ultimately came to town meeting, came to the select board, and the Hadley Reuse Committee made three recommendations to us.

This is out of order now, but empty buildings, no empty buildings. They came with three scenarios to the town. They didn't prioritize the scenarios.

They said, these are the three scenarios that we think have potential that should be explored further. Scenario one being civic and mixed use, scenario two being affordable housing, and scenario three being a hotel. In the reuse report, and if you haven't had a chance to look at it, please look at it.

It's really one of the best reports the town has created, and the committee is just masterful in what they did in the report, is they break down each scenario in narratives and graphics to help us understand what each scenario could be. The first one was, how do we maintain the public use of the Hadley School? And the ideal being, look, is there a way that we can maintain a certain part of it ourselves, but then maybe get some arts groups or maybe some small businesses or maybe some micro-businesses to come in and do the other part?

That way, we would still have some community use there, but we'd also have some other dynamic uses there. For each one of the analysis, they did a SWOT analysis. They went through analysis, and what you're seeing there is their analysis, what they went through, and what they gave to us, to you, to review for each option here.

The select board similarly has had conversations about this to narrow this down. What I'm going to tell you is the biggest reason we passed on this one is really the lack of funding sources. The reality is this, the second the school closes and the second that we open it up to another use, we have significant ADA compliance issues, we have significant asbestos issues, and we have significant code compliance issues.

Said differently, it is likely that we would have to renovate the entirety of that building for public use. The town would love to be a partner. We didn't feel the town was in a financial position to make that commitment with any credibility at this time, so this option was not on the top of the list.

The second one is an option that's near and dear to me. As a matter of fact, today I'm excited because we closed a loan with Mass Housing to do, in my private life, 50 units of affordable condominium. I talk with Kim Martin Epstein a lot about our mutual businesses on affordable housing, and it means a lot to me.

Naomi and I and others worked closely on the Michon School, and making the decision at the time, what happens with the Michon School, and ultimately doing an RFP and having that be senior housing, 39 one-bedroom units at the Michon. This does have a funding answer. There is a clear path, there's clear programs out there, tax credits, other state subsidies, federal subsidies, that you actually could do this.

And so I want to be clear about this. It can be done. In the select board conversations, though, we recognize the need for affordable housing, we recognize the town's commitment to affordable housing, we recognize the financial viability of doing this, meaning that the town wouldn't have to pay for the capital upgrades, that a non-profit would, through state grants and state tax credits, do it.

But really, we looked holistically at the downtown, and I think, and my colleagues can shake their head if I'm misrepresenting it in any way, really this was an anchor to Humphrey Street, and felt very strongly that we needed to look at the Hadley School as an extension of Humphrey Street, and really as a lifeline for Humphrey Street, and to create activation, to create disposable income, to create opportunity.

And so for that reason, not happily, we began to be very interested and curious about the hotel. Now, none of us know anything about hotels. I stay in them.

That's it. But we know nothing else about hotels. So what we did is we went ahead and we got permission with the town administrator to hire Pinnacle Advisors out of Boston, who's the premier hotel consultant in the greater New England area, to come up here, to visit Hadley, to do analysis, to tell us what the market possibly could be for a hotel up here.

Because this option, unlike the others, we really didn't have a sense for ourselves. We needed outside help to come to us and tell us what is the opportunity. So they came back and did the marketability study.

That is also on the town webpage as well for you to see. And the study came back and said, there's a good opportunity here for a 40, 50 door key, is what they call it in the hotel industry, hotel. A boutique hotel that would have food and beverage, but a boutique hotel.

Not a Holiday Inn, not a Marriott Bonvoy. It's going to be a boutique hotel. Maybe I'll have a Salem hotel in Salem the Lark.

Right? Or if you think of the Liberty Hotel in downtown Boston, which is the old Salem, Suffolk County Jail. That type of boutique hotel.

We took it another step though, and we actually asked Group One. Group One is an architecture firm that has probably designed 80% of the hotels that have gone up in Boston in the last decade. And the principal, Harry Wheeler from Group One, upon a promise of a popover from Hawthorne, came up graciously and spent time with us touring the building to see what the physical attributes of this building.

Can this building be converted? Is there the potential to do this? And he ultimately came back to us and said, yes.

There are opportunities to do things. There is space to meet the program that Pinnacle told us there could be potential for. So I'm being really careful when I talk about what Pinnacle said.

I'm using words like they said there's a good opportunity, there's potential. Because really the biggest weakness from our standpoint is we actually don't know what's going to happen if we go to the market on this. And I can't sit here today and tell you that we're going to be successful because the market is fickle.

The market today can be totally different a week from now and much different again six months from now. So we don't know what it's going to be. What we do know is that we have assembled the right team in Pinnacle Partners and Group One.

I believe the board's intention is to retain a consultant, likely Pinnacle Partners, to actually run the RFP process for us so that we will be actively out in the market. We won't be sitting waiting for people to respond to us. We will be out in the market with one of the best soliciting the right types of investors, sponsors who have a history, success track record of doing these in different communities.

So what does this mean going forward for process? Because we have a lot of process still to go because I'm sitting here telling you tonight the select board would like permission to move forward with this. And I'm going to talk about a couple of things that we need from you to move forward with it.

But we don't know what the success is going to be or not. So tonight, in addition to the permission to go out and do an RFP, we're also asking you about the zoning. And what the zoning does in passing the zoning is it sends a clear message to the investors, to the sponsors who will be asked to invest 20, 25 million dollars in this venture.

It gives a clear message then that the town of Swampsgeta said, we welcome you here. What a hotel investor is not going to want to do, or a sponsor, someone that's going to invest that type of money, is want to come into a community, propose a boutique hotel in a community that they don't know if they're welcome. They are going to spend 50 to 100 thousand dollars just responding to our RFP response.

How do I know that? I spend a good part of my life responding to RFP responses. I try and do it a little cheaper than that.

But by the time you do the architecture and the design and the wow pictures in the RFP responses, it's very expensive. It's important to us to do the zoning tonight as well so that we make clear that the welcome mat is out to them. But it's not a welcome mat without parameters.

It's a welcome mat with parameters. And the zoning contains those parameters. It holds true to the value that we want to keep the historic portion of the Hadley School.

It holds true to the value that we want to minimize the amount of buildable space, so the annex is most likely going to be taken down, and likely only about 10,000 square feet added in total. And that's for stairwells, that's for elevators, that's for things that in the existing building either don't exist or are wildly inefficient and won't exist. We put size limitations.

We're not looking to have a 100-room hotel here. We're looking to see if there's an opportunity for a boutique hotel with meeting space, with restaurant space, so that they can get secondary revenue. About 50% of the revenue of a boutique hotel comes from food and beverage and meeting.

I know this because Pinnacle told us this. I didn't know this until Pinnacle told us this. And so the zoning tonight before you has those parameters and creates a process which makes clear if town meeting elects to go through and follow up on this process with us that we look forward to having them here with the hope that we do get proposals and the select board then can have a public process of reviewing the proposals and ultimately negotiating an arrangement, not unlike we did with B'nai B'rith at the Michon School, which is a ground lease. When we went through the RFP process for the Michon School for B'nai B'rith, we, once we got the RFP responses, we interviewed the different respondents, we weighed the pros and cons, we picked B'nai B'rith in part because B'nai B'rith for senior housing actually had a much better track record with senior housing. They provided more services than the other respondents did relative to senior housing.

And that type of track record, that type of sponsor history, that type of financial backing are the type of things that we're going to look for again here at the Hadley. And then when we find that person, we'll be negotiating a ground lease. The town will still retain ownership like it does the Michon School, but it will no longer have any of the financial obligations that go with that building.

And those financial obligations are significant. Once that happens, they will submit and go through a public process with the planning board and have to do what any project in the town of Swampscott would. Go through a site plan process, go through design requirements, design review, talk about mitigation.

I'm sure those in the neighborhood say, well, doesn't a hotel create traffic concerns? Sure, it will. We can compare it to the existing school, but once the school's gone, the comparison doesn't matter.

The hotel has to stand on its own. Is the hotel a good idea? How do we mitigate that?

Where are they parking? How are they parking? Is it screened?

How is lighting dealt with on it? Where is sound going to emanate from? The other parameter that I skipped over that I should have made clear about is that in every one of these scenarios, but most especially the hotel, Linscott Park will never, ever be touched.

It is protected by a conservation restriction. It is not available for use. It will not be proposed to be used.

It will not be activated by this use. It will still be 100% belonging to the residents of Swampscott for public use by the residents of Swampscott. Tonight we have this proposal for you with a timeline that we think puts us in the best shape to not have an empty school building.

Now, are we going to have an empty school building? Yeah, we're going to for a while because it's going to take time for us to prove if the RFP is successful to approve it, to go through design, get building permits and construct it. We are, but we're going to have a partner.

Unlike the Michon School and unlike the Greenwood Middle School where we didn't have a partner for 10 years, we're going to have a partner soon before, hopefully, the Hadley ever closes its doors, which we think is of paramount importance. We spent some time talking tonight about the capital plan. You won't find the Hadley School anywhere on the capital plan, not in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years.

I will tell you that the Hadley School until we figure this out is one of the biggest liabilities that we have. The Greenwood Middle School cost over $2 million how many years ago now? Eight years ago to demolish.

Right? Now, we don't want to demolish the Hadley School. We want to keep the Hadley School.

The cost of keeping it is exponential to the cost of demolishing it. That's not sitting in our capital plan, so it's important that we take action here. We know that there are those that would like to have seen us pursue affordable housing.

We know there's those that would like. One of our colleagues on the Select Board, Katie Phelan, has passionately spoken about community space. We know that those needs are out there.

We think as though we're identifying multiple opportunities to do multiple things around town. Pine Street with affordable veterans housing, ADUs, doing something here that's different, so that we are trying to spread the interest of the town and make investments into the place. But given the opportunity to bolster Humphrey Street, to bring disposable income to Humphrey Street to help the restaurants, which ironically have been so helped by COVID.

Ironically, ironically, the outdoor dining and the things we're doing in Marsey, Galaska, tonight I'm going to say I love you because you're responsible for the fact that we're building permanent wide sidewalks on Humphrey Street for restaurants. These businesses need this help. And this, of the options that were presented to us from a committee of your peers and you, from the Select Board standpoint, is the best option moving forward.

So we would ask for your support and I'm happy, together with Angela and Eric, to answer any questions you may have.

[Speaker 2] (1:47:01 - 1:47:04)
Thank you, Mr. Spellius. Sir?

[Speaker 17] (1:47:14 - 1:49:18)
Robert Shire. I'm in Precinct 4, a town meeting member. I question whether a hotel would provide more support for local businesses than affordable housing.

It seems like the best support for local businesses is folks living close to those businesses full-time. A hotel will be busy sometimes, it will be less busy sometimes. In addition, it's always been my understanding that if a developer sees commercial potential for a property, they will go to their own expense to develop a proposal and then come to a town asking for the necessary changes to the zoning, you may know better.

It feels, though, like the Select Board has already decided what they want and that we're being presented here with a fait accompli. I feel like this should really be up to the voters, which of course it is here, but I question if this is the best use of this property. I feel like for the values of the town, I feel like affordable housing is a higher-up priority that would do at least as much to support the local businesses, so I respectfully recommend a no vote on the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:18 - 1:49:22)
Thank you, Mr. Shire. Ms. Martin-Epstein.

[Speaker 7] (1:49:28 - 1:56:11)
Kim Martin-Epstein, town meeting member, Precinct 3, chair of the Affordable Housing Trust. Of course it will come as no surprise to anybody that I'm speaking, but I wanted to first thank you, the previous speaker, because you just did like half of my job, so this will be shorter. I wanted to let everybody know that the Affordable Housing Trust actually voted specifically for me to stand here and speak on behalf of the trust and strenuously recommend a no vote on both of these articles, so I'm going to go through what I was going to say because this is important affordable housing trust business, although I suspect that other people will agree.

I think there are two categories of problems with these articles. The number one is process, and while I really appreciate the description of the process that was vetted apparently all these years after the Hadley Reuse Committee put out their report, I think many people feel the same confusion that I felt and that the trust felt that there was still supposed to be some public discussion about multiple uses before we were presented with articles that appear to be a done deal.

Number two is the substance, and this is what the trust really wants me to talk about. This hotel use, in our opinion, is the least feasible of all the three, and in fact the report does talk about affordable housing in combination with ground floor commercial and or community space, which would actually attend to multiple interests and needs that were vetted in the report. But the trust and many other people in town I think really want to talk about the use of Hadley, not just as affordable housing, but as senior affordable housing.

We've been in constant discussion about extending town resources on things that benefit Swampscott and residents. We spoke yesterday, you asked me, about local preference on the Pine Street project, and we said yes, we know that's a concern. The only benefit to Swampscott in the Hadley being a hotel is what I think, I feel like is a theoretical trickle-down economic value of phantom income, then this is a little bit off.

Meanwhile, let's talk about actual Swampscott people and their needs. Swampscott's senior residents and other housing advocates have been asking for more attention to senior affordable housing, and in particular as the next use of the Hadley School. In addition, many Swampscott residents have parents who would like to live in Swampscott, but can't afford to in their retirement.

In addition to staggering wait lists with the Swampscott Housing Authority and at Michon due to high demand and very little turnover, we have some very specific local information regarding need, and I thank the Council on Aging for giving me some information. In 2019, the Swampscott Council on Aging conducted a needs assessment survey. The survey was done by mailing it to homes in Swampscott with someone over the age of 55, so this is really targeted information.

And here are a few data points from that assessment. 85% of the respondents reported that they wanted to remain in Swampscott. Over 30% of homeowners with and without mortgages, and 60% of renters reported that they were cost-burdened, which means they spend more than 30% of their income on rent and utilities.

22% of households headed by someone aged 65 and older reported household incomes of under $25,000. 17% of respondents expressed that they didn't have adequate resources to meet financial needs, including home maintenance, personal health care, and other important basic expenses. You want to have a direct and positive impact on people in Swampscott in need, here you go.

In a previous town meeting, we voted that this parcel could specifically not be market-rate housing. Why? Because at the time we inferred that high-priced condos or the like on that site would not be in the best interest of the town.

This body discussed right then that the better result would be for housing that would be affordable and designed for seniors. We spoke of commercial facilities and community space. I don't think we implemented a permanent deed restriction on that property so that it would be zoned for a hotel.

At least market-rate housing is housing, and it tends to an actual need. Now, even though we know we have a housing shortage in almost all income categories, there's a proposal to go down the hotel path. And who will this benefit?

Not Swampscott families. I don't know, visitors to Salem in October. Hadley Reuse Committee spent a year fleshing out several potential combinations of housing, community, and commercial space.

So now I want to know why we're creating a zoning overlay that doesn't say uses to include hotel and multifamily housing and commercial. It just says hotel. That doesn't sound like an RFP that's generated to create open and interesting potential feasibility.

I understand that there is a pastoral and idyllic thinking that leads to wanting a hotel on this site, and I too would love for there to be a place for my visitors to stay, but it's going to be a while before that site is viable for that kind of enterprise. The culmination of economic development in town, beach cleanup, et cetera, the need for senior affordable housing is urgent and very much now. Not down the road after we burn up valuable time and effort evaluating an option that is likely infeasible.

On behalf of the Affordable Housing Trust, our recommendation, and what we believe is the best way to get this property on the tax roll, attend to an identified housing need, and keep the property in full and constant use all year round, senior affordable housing in combination with some community and or commercial ground floor use. Passing these articles sends the message that the conversation about other uses, about what Swampscot needs, is over. I think many town meeting members not only agree that a hotel is the least feasible option, but that we're now sending a message that we're not even exploring anything else.

Let's not shut the door on generating a good selection of feasible and meaningful proposals for the site and being able to entice qualified developers to do something truly helpful for the town. Seniors need affordable housing now. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:12 - 1:56:30)
Thank you, Ms. Martin-Epstein. I see Mr. Bopre, Ms. Cassidy Driscoll, and then Mr. Perry. And I saw...

I think that may be a bit out of order since we've only had two speakers so far. Mr. Bopre.

[Speaker 18] (1:56:30 - 1:58:54)
Yes, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Larry Bopre, town meeting member of Precinct 6, and also a member of the Hadley Reuse Committee, so I do have a bit of a personal stake in this, if you will. I am here to speak in favor of the motion, and please allow me to say I am completely in favor of increasing our affordable housing stock.

I know it is an important issue in the town, and I have supported the Michon School being turned into senior affordable housing. We voted last night on Pine Street for veterans. That was a great step forward.

We're working on the General Glover redevelopment. That is another great step forward. But when you have properties that become available in the town, which don't happen all that often because we are a fully developed community, I think you have to look at the best and highest value use of each of the properties.

And the Hadley School building sits at the very linchpin of our downtown area. And for years since I have lived here, we've had Vinnon Square as the strip mall district, but the downtown area has been just sort of limping along. You have not had the commercial draws to get people down to the harbor, which is gorgeous, get people walking along Kings Beach.

When the Hawthorne by the Sea is redeveloped, you're going to have another jewel down there. My view of the highest use of this property was to be a draw for people to come downtown. The hotel has the advantage of being paid for by a developer, and I understand what people are saying.

Maybe it won't fly, because if there was a big need for a boutique hotel, maybe we would have one by now. But let's get the proposal out there, make Swampscott a friendly destination for people to consider it. It doesn't necessarily mean that's ultimately what we're going to do, but it keeps us in the game, and it's looking at a high value use of a very valuable piece of property in the heart of our town.

So I urge a yes vote on this proposal. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:58:54 - 1:58:59)
Thank you, Mr. Beaupre. I got Ms. Cassidy Driscoll, then Mr. Perry.

[Speaker 21] (1:59:07 - 1:59:31)
Tara Cassidy Driscoll, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member. I just wanted to point out, really, regardless of what we do at the schools, that we do have a playground there as well, and I'm just wondering if it's been given any thought to, is that playground going to be recreated somewhere for the local children? It's been there for a long time, and I know over the years, when my kids were younger, I used it as well.

So, just I want to throw that out there.

[Speaker 2] (1:59:32 - 1:59:39)
Thank you, Ms. Cassidy Driscoll. I did note on one of the drawings, there was an indication of a playground. I don't know if that would be a subject of the RFP.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:39 - 1:59:44)
Yeah, no, that's something the RFP would discuss with, and put that in to make sure that that was part of the RFP process.

[Speaker 2] (1:59:45 - 1:59:48)
Thank you. Mr. Perry. Then Mr. Spritz.

[Speaker 15] (1:59:50 - 2:03:00)
And Mr. Lorber. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jerry Perry, Precinct 1.

I rise in support of the motion made by Mr. Spellios and Ms. Ippolito. I want to talk a couple of financial stuff, if I may, with your permission. The concept of having this hotel there will generate revenue for the town.

I think that's well understood. Not only will it generate taxation as I understand it, but also meals and rooms, occupancy tax if we're successful, if the select board goes forward with that. So, from a financial perspective, I think it's a really wise decision.

I have been talking, and we may talk in another article shortly here, about the cost benefit of housing. It's interesting I hear from we have a housing crisis. We need affordable housing.

But not every single project should be affordable housing. We have to kind of have some common sense, in my view, to understand that some things, it can't be all housing. Residential property values, based on my professional experience, is very stressful to the budgetary process of any municipality.

It's difficult, because you have things like whether it's children, you have public safety needs, you have traffic issues, the list is endless. And it gets very difficult when you constantly put residential properties on the tax rolls. On top of that, we have a policy here, which I think has been discussed a little bit, this 2% plus new growth thing.

If we continue that, while we simultaneously expand our residential, the economics and the finances just don't make sense. We're going to have to revisit that. I think in fairness to the Finance Committee, they discussed that stuff, and I appreciate that.

But the bottom line to it is this. It's going to be more stressful to continue doing housing and think you can raise your tax levy by 2% on an annualized basis. And then the final comment I make, I keep hearing this stuff about the Swampskate residents want to move up.

And that's true, I'm sure to some degree. But I'm right across the street from the Michon School. And I keep hearing that.

I've gotten to know a lot of these people. Very nice people. They're neighbors.

They're part of our neighborhood and all that stuff. And I'm here to tell you that quite a few residents that have moved in there are not Swampskate residents. I'm okay with that.

I mean, I have no real problem. But don't articulate, people try to articulate that Swampskate people want to move up when the reality is if we make this a housing, I'm guaranteeing you, it's not going to be all Swampskate residents. I have no idea what the percentage is, but it's unfair to try to argue that Swampskate people are going to move in there when the reality is it's not going to be true.

Bottom line, it makes financial sense to do this. I think it's a wonderful idea. And they may fail.

The select board may fail in this. But I think we would be remiss as town meeting members, give them a shot. Let's see if they can make it happen.

Let's see if they can make it work. If not, maybe we'll visit housing. I don't know the answer to that, but I urge my colleagues here, I know I plan on voting for it, and I hope the rest of town meeting will vote for it as well.

[Speaker 2] (2:03:00 - 2:03:08)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Mr. Spritz, then Mr. Lorber, and then Mr. Norton.

[Speaker 16] (2:03:10 - 2:03:40)
Wayne Spritz, Precinct 3, town meeting member. I stand in support of Mr. Perry's previous comments with the addition of a more structural question. I saw in the presentation there was a 6% hotel tax, seeing as that we have no hotels, haven't had a hotel since Captain Jack's was leveled.

Is that something that's already embedded within the bylaws in terms of taxation and including the restaurant food tax? Thank you, Mr. Spritz.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:40 - 2:04:50)
Yeah, so let me, I'm going to take a stab at this and then you can correct me if I say anything wrong. So we've actually as a town already approved the local option on hotel tax. So the hotel tax is a 6% state tax.

It is actually the only use which the community gets to get a direct tax based on revenue with the exception of the 0.75% we get from meals. Here we get 6% of the gross for that. I appreciate Mr. Perry's support and his comments about revenue. I do want to stress that I didn't lead purposely with revenue. I led with what we believe for community building is really important. Revenue is there.

Revenue is an opportunity. I also want to be realistic about the fact that these deals are hard to do and we may have to partner with the deals a little bit to deal with real estate taxes and things of that nature. But the hotel tax alone based on revenue projection is in excess of $200,000 a year for hotel tax.

That is something that the town receives. The state also gets its own tax. So that's a funny thing.

When the state gives us tax, you guarantee that they already got theirs. So they will also get tax as well as a result of this.

[Speaker 16] (2:04:50 - 2:05:29)
Thank you. I think you have one additional comment if that's okay Mr. Moderator. So I just in terms of my comment towards the importance of having a hotel in that from a historic standpoint, Swampscotter was known for its hotels.

We haven't had a hotel in the longest time. It's always, every time I talk with folks around town, it's always I got to send my loved ones to a different town. It would be really nice to have that here.

I would also I would also stand I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Spritz.

[Speaker 2] (2:05:30 - 2:05:30)
Mr. Lorber.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:31 - 2:05:34)
Mr. Moderator. Yes Mr. Schneider.

[Speaker 14] (2:05:34 - 2:05:36)
Please Mr. Schneider.

[Speaker 13] (2:05:36 - 2:06:04)
Not to add anything. What he said about the tax is correct. What we discussed as a finance committee is that at this point, this project, these articles are only allowing the use.

It's not prescribing a use. It has no financial impact on the town at this time. It is our understanding that if a project were to come forward and we were considering an RFP, that we would be consulted again on the status.

[Speaker 33] (2:06:04 - 2:06:05)
Is that right?

[Speaker 13] (2:06:05 - 2:06:08)
If not, then that is wrong.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:11 - 2:07:26)
Come with me. That actually is not correct. Tonight before you is asking for Town Meeting to give us the authority to go out and do an RFP.

There will be a public process in reviewing the RFP process and doing the interviews so that there will be more public process. We will, under this article, not have to come back to Town Meeting for the approval of the RFP. I just want to stress why that is.

We want to go out to the market and we're going to work the market because we think it's that important to work the market and go find those investors. People that have the wherewithal to do it, whether it's a passion investment, a Wall Street type investment, whatever it is. The people that can do this, that have done this.

We want to bring them here and do this. I think we can all look a little bit in the mirror and realize that the history of Swampscot, if you Google us, and developments and projects is a little bit hairy. We are trying to make clear by asking you permission tonight and by passing zoning tonight so that we can, to this hotel community, to these investors that are going to be making upwards to a $25 million investment in our community, potentially, to let them know that the welcome mat is out for them.

It's a very important element of why the question, the warrant article, is the way it is tonight before you.

[Speaker 2] (2:07:27 - 2:07:28)
Thank you, Mr. Spalios.

[Speaker 14] (2:07:29 - 2:09:10)
Mr. Lorber, then Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Good evening, Terry Lorber, Precinct 5.

Yeah, there have been a lot of opinions expressed this evening about this article. First of all, I'd like to share my same feelings as Mr. Spalios about the conversation yesterday about the planning position. One of the great takeaways from last night was the hard work our town employees do putting together a budget and the negotiations to make that budget work.

Thank you also to our elected officials who are volunteers and all of you who volunteer on our town committees. As far as opinions go, we've heard a lot of opinions. The plan, the review of those three options, those were all opinions.

There are no numbers there. Tonight was the first time I heard that it would be $20 to $25 million for a developer to create a hotel at this site. I also hear that maintaining a building is exponentially more expensive than selling it off.

Yeah, I guess so at some gigantic time scale, but if we're true at the human time scale, then the $400,000 we just approved for this auditorium would be more likely $40 million. Again, lots of opinions. I do have a question.

Has the school committee voted Hadley to be in surplus at this time? I don't believe that has happened yet.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:10 - 2:09:14)
They have not. This is on the presumption that they will declare the surplus.

[Speaker 14] (2:09:15 - 2:09:19)
Is the schedule for opening of the new school still planned for September of 2023?

[Speaker 1] (2:09:20 - 2:09:25)
It is, as a member of the school building committee. Sorry, 24.

[Speaker 14] (2:09:25 - 2:12:34)
Okay, so we have lots of opinions and not great numbers. I'm glad we are not happily coming to this position of considering a hotel. I am happy that we are thinking about being expedient.

I moved to town in 2007. Excuse me, I became a taxpayer in 2007. And I think that was the year that the Masham was closed and maybe Greenwood was already shuttered at that point.

And it's a shame, really, that we lost that public property, Greenwood, to market-rate housing. The Masham was salvaged, I'd say, for affordable housing for our seniors in cooperation with a non-profit corporation. I'd like to see something better than what is being offered now for the Hadley site.

I continue to be of the opinion that it is best for public school students, but we've already passed that point. What is it that our businesses need? Do they need more parking?

Yeah, probably. Do people come here because there's parking, or do they come here because there's a beach? Are we coming to a boutique hotel, or are we coming here to go to the beach that might have a hotel?

These are hard questions. I do think the widening of the sidewalk is a boon to our businesses and is a great benefit to them. People want to eat outside.

That's an infrastructure change that helps our businesses. I can think of a business that needs a seawall right now more than it needs parking. I guess, lastly, I'll end with another private company that operates on a ground lease in our town.

It's the local cannabis company. In case you didn't know, it's local. That's why they have a mountain in their logo.

I think of mountains when I think of our town. If you trace through the ownership of local cannabis through the Cannabis Control Commission and the Secretary of State, you end up with addresses in Canada and California. No offense against those locations, but this is not locally owned by any stretch of the imagination.

By the way, they're selling in inserts in the daily item. I don't know how well this business is doing. I don't know their numbers, but I don't suspect they're doing that well.

How we got here is not unlike what we're about to do now in changing zoning to sweeten the deal, to attract a particular developer to do a particular thing. If we want to attract the best deal for our community, we need to allow them through the free market to offer us the best deal. We shouldn't be giving away public property to private developers without giving us a fair shake first.

Thank you. I'd like to call the question.

[Speaker 2] (2:12:36 - 2:12:39)
I'm sorry, I did recognize Mr. Rodriguez first.

[Speaker 25] (2:12:43 - 2:14:20)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Adrian Rodriguez, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 5, member of the Finance Committee, member of the Hadley Reuse Committee. I'm actually speaking as a small business owner on Humphrey Street.

I stand in support of the motion for the hotel. You've all noticed recently several businesses have been shuttered. The Hiccup, Zest Friends.

I... My wife and I have been very, very honored to, in the arts, be supported by the community. But being an artist and selling art is not necessarily always a get-rich-quick scheme.

Probably quite the opposite. What I see when I leave work in the evenings is a lot of businesses are closed. As the restaurants are closed, as I already mentioned, my friends, Zest Friends and Hiccup recently had to shutter.

I think opening the opportunities for that corridor are important. Bringing people in, tourists, that will go to the antique store, that will selfishly maybe buy some art, is a good thing. And go to the beaches, yes.

I don't necessarily feel equating the cannabis company to a hotel as equivalent. I don't see that. Thank you.

I appreciate it.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:20 - 2:14:53)
Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. I did interrupt Mr. Lorber, who had the floor. If you would still like to call the question, I'm sorry, I'd already recognized Mr. Rodriguez by name. If we do want to continue the debate, all we need to do is defeat his motion. Mr. Lorber, are you still here? Is that still a motion?

Thank you, ma'am. I hear you. If this is defeated, we will continue the debate.

We also still have the next motion to get to. Yes, Mr. Lorber.

[Speaker 14] (2:14:53 - 2:14:54)
Yeah, I call the question.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:57 - 2:15:06)
Is it a point of order or personal privilege, Ms. Cameron? I don't know. Do you have a point of order?

[Speaker 21] (2:15:06 - 2:15:17)
I just want to ask one little question about on 12, it says Hadley's at 20 Reddington Street, but being the newly retired elementary secretary from Hadley, we've been put in 24th for 100 years.

[Speaker 2] (2:15:17 - 2:15:45)
I will make sure that that's noted. Thank you. Anybody else have a point of personal privilege or a point of order?

Mr. Lorber is asked to call the question. Is there a second? If we want to continue debate, all we need to do is defeat this motion.

All those in favor of Mr. Lorber's motion to end debate, raise your hand. All those opposed? The motion fails.

We continue. Ma'am, please.

[Speaker 10] (2:15:53 - 2:19:48)
Sorry to get testy. Thank you for hearing me. Kim, thank you for bringing up those important points.

I'm sorry, ma'am, could you please identify yourself? My name is Laura Lau. I'm in Precinct 3.

I appreciate being heard. Kim, thank you for bringing up those important points. I do think that the reuse committee had a great procedure to it.

The three options are fantastic. I do think that if we are voting tonight on just the hotel, there are some things in the language that I'd like to address and add. I do want us to recognize the location of Hadley.

I know on the May 9th meeting, Peter used the word anchor property and I couldn't be more agreeable with that language. It is the anchor to the town. It is an anchor to the walking area of the town.

It's a school and a school just represents community. It's where a lot of our kids started their life in Swampscott. I think the spirit of that start and that spirit of the school needs to be really mindful if this does become a hotel.

I would, like Ms. Phelan, love to see it used as a community space. I think we are willfully lacking in community space where even we could have other meetings in town operate. I think those are important things to consider with the spirit of the fact that it sits right next to Linscott Park.

With that in mind, let me go to Article 12 first. I do think that I would like to see the need for us to come back to town meeting to make a decision. This is stirring a fair bit of interest, thankfully.

I think just leaving it in the hands of the select board to make all of the decisions moving forward would be a miss. I do think that more eyes should be on the project. I think that more opinions need to be heard.

I do think that I understand affordable housing, specifically for seniors, would be a great benefit. If we do move forward in a hotel capacity, could we look at denying 12 so that we have to come back to town meeting and then on the appendix F, could we look, Angela, on purpose and add in the very last line where we get to this bylaw is meant to establish development that protects historic and cultural resources and foster a connection between the Hadley School building, the natural built environment that considers proximity to Linscott Park, so that language is in there, so that there is some consideration that let me continue built environment that considers proximity to Linscott Park and its use as primary open space for community engagement, period. Additionally, an interior community space shall be included in any establishment created. That's my proposal.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:49 - 2:20:11)
Thank you, Ms. Lau. We don't have a motion on Article 19, though we will shortly please leave that writing with the town clerk. I'm trying to find some people who haven't spoken yet.

Mr. Powell, is that you raising your hand? And then Mr. Norton and I'm sorry, yes.

[Speaker 24] (2:20:12 - 2:22:10)
Go ahead, Mr. Powell. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Bob Powell, precinct 4, chair of the Council on Aging, co-chair of the Swampscot for All Ages, and board member of the Swampscot Retirement Board.

I'm here neither to speak for or against this hotel, but I want to give a little bit of background. I had served on the master plan committee where it was identified that we did want Swampscot to become a destination for tourists and that a hotel would be a nice thing to have as part of that master plan. Fast forward to the Swampscot for All Ages needs assessment where we identified a tremendous need for affordable housing.

Many people want to age in place, age in community. Many people are leaving because of the high cost of their housing. Most of our housing is not age-friendly stock, and so that need for affordable housing still persists.

The ADUs, I think, go a good way towards solving that problem, but not the only thing. The Hadley Reuse Committee, as everyone knows, proposed three uses for that property, and in a survey in that document, it ranks hotel as fairly low as a community desire, and I think that should be noted that the Hadley Reuse Committee did not necessarily say that the hotel was ranked high, and my hope here is that all three uses would be given a fair shot at having them be proposed and having developers or whomever come forth and say that the viable option could be any one of these three, but for us to unilaterally decide that this is the only viable option to me seems like it rules out unnecessarily the two uses that were proposed by the Reuse Committee, and so that would be my hope, is that the other two uses, whether they're viable or not, be given the sunshine to determine that, so thank you.

[Speaker 2] (2:22:10 - 2:22:20)
Thank you, Mr. Powell. Mr. Norton and Mr. Lehman, and I... Mr. Pielot, after that, I'm trying to recognize people who haven't spoken yet.

[Speaker 30] (2:22:24 - 2:23:00)
Kent Norton, Precinct 3. This actually relates to what Mara Lau is proposing. I have an amendment to Article 12.

Insert the language after the last paragraph ending with thereto. The new language is as follows. Including a stage facing Linscott Park, this stage will be used by the town only to show movies and or bands only during the summer months.

This shall be from June through August. And I have my name in Precinct 3.

[Speaker 2] (2:23:01 - 2:27:47)
Okay, thank you, Mr. Norton. If you please share that with the town clerk, I'm just going to confer with town council for a moment as to the legality of this amendment. Thank you for your patience during that review with council.

Mr. Norton's amendment to require any developer proposing a hotel to also include a stage on what I believe is the west facing portion of the historic building. Is there a second to that amendment? The amendment to the initial motion by Mr. Schneider is now on the floor. Is there anyone who would care to discuss to ask questions or debate? Is there any comment from Mr. Schneider, Mr. Spalios or Ms. Ippolito? Seeing no further debate, Mr. Spritz.

[Speaker 16] (2:27:56 - 2:28:32)
Wayne Spritz, Precinct 3. So regarding Ken's amendment, so I've been a major advocate of having a stage over in the new development across the street on the Anthony's property. I'm just, maybe Ken if you want to speak to this.

I'm confused why this is a large issue if one of the major of all three of the proposed entities over across the street were going to have a stage. Is there a feeling that you wanted to have a stage here knowing that there would be a stage across the street as well?

[Speaker 2] (2:28:34 - 2:28:39)
Thank you Mr. Spritz. Mr. Norton, if you are going to reply, I appreciate it but you do need to use a mic.

[Speaker 30] (2:28:51 - 2:29:20)
Ken Norton, Precinct 3. No, I did not know about the stage being built across the street. With the discussion initially with proposals A, B and C, 1, 2 and 3 there was discussion about a stage being built adjacent to Linscott Park, facing Linscott Park so movies, they could have family night when we have Friday night movies.

We have the concerts. They could use that stage and utilize the park.

[Speaker 2] (2:29:22 - 2:29:43)
Thank you Mr. Norton. Further discussion of Mr. Norton's proposed amendment? Seeing none.

I'm sorry. Ma'am. That is just a dark corner back there.

I apologize. It's Ms. Levine. Yes.

[Speaker 23] (2:29:47 - 2:31:03)
Bonnie Levine, Precinct 6. Town meeting member. Okay.

I think all the issues are now getting confused. I am getting an impression that a decision has been made on the Hawthorne by the Sea property that has not been made yet. A decision has been made on the use of the Hadley School property which by the way is in a great neighborhood and no discussions are being made about the long view for the town and the residents of the use of that property to our best interest, not the interest of people from New York or Vermont or Lynn or anywhere else.

And I think we're in the make up for all the other bad stuff mode right now and I think we need to step back and I think this is something that needs to be taken to the town. And if these articles that we're now voting on become the rule of law for the town and the select board to make decisions and take things out of our hands, I'm not happy. And that's all I have to say.

[Speaker 2] (2:31:03 - 2:31:16)
Thank you Ms. Levine. Mr. Jerma and I think that might be Mr. Jantus speaking to Mr. Norton's amendment.

[Speaker 8] (2:31:18 - 2:32:18)
So I just have a quick question on Mr. Norton's amendment. This seems incredibly specific where what we're discussing is actually something much more general. So I'm just sort of curious if this is the type of thing that you want to insert onto this.

Because this is a very specific planning move. It's locating an object on a site where everything up to this point is actually more general and not as specific in nature. So I think that would be my question on why we would want to tag this on.

And then the only other piece of this is is there a way on this to instead of be addressing the RFP only being for a hotel just keeping an RFP open to explore what comes in. I do think that that is a sound movement instead of getting so specific.

[Speaker 2] (2:32:20 - 2:32:27)
Thank you Mr. Jerma. Mr. Jantus I believe you had your hand up. Again to Mr. Norton's amendment.

[Speaker 9] (2:32:28 - 2:32:48)
Thank you Mr. Moderator. John Jantus, Precinct 4, town meeting member, school committee member. This is not directly to Mr. Norton's proposed amendment. I did have a couple of thoughts. If you want me to hold until we dispose of this particular issue I'm happy to do that.

[Speaker 2] (2:32:48 - 2:33:04)
Let's see if we can come to a decision on this amendment then we can come back to the main motion as amended. Anybody else wish to speak on the topic of Mr. Norton's amendment? Okay, this is a simple I'm sorry, Ms. Lau.

[Speaker 10] (2:33:12 - 2:33:48)
Mar-a-Lau, Precinct 3. So kind of speaking directly to Ken, I do think it is too specific for the intentions in the language. I do.

I do hope still that in the spirit of Article 12 that we will consider the fact that to proceed with a hotel that it does need to go back to town meeting. And my understanding from reading the article is that that would be that we would the vote would fail on Article 12 in order for that to happen. Am I correct, Mr. Moderator?

[Speaker 2] (2:33:49 - 2:34:00)
If the motion that has been proposed under Article 12 with or without the amendment passes, you are empowering your select board to exercise their powers.

[Speaker 10] (2:34:00 - 2:34:40)
Okay, great. So I would respectfully request that Mr. Norton maybe considers removing the specific language I intentionally with my piece on 19 left it broad just to kind of convey the spirit of the fact that it is a community space and adjacent to a community space without specifics. One, I think specifics actually get more tricky to support.

And the intention here I think is the point. So that would be my respectful request.

[Speaker 2] (2:34:40 - 2:35:28)
Thank you, Ms. Lau. Further discussion on Mr. Norton's proposed amendment. This is a simple majority vote.

All those in favor of the amendment to require a stage on the western face of the existing historic building for use by the town, and I paraphrase, but I believe I have the sense of this correctly for use in public events whether it be movies or other performances. All those in favor of Mr. Norton's amendment please raise your hand. All those opposed.

The motion fails. We now return to the main motion as proposed by Mr. Schneider. I see a number of hands.

Ma'am.

[Speaker 22] (2:35:35 - 2:37:34)
I appreciate that we went through the proposed uses that the Hadley committee came up with, but I feel that we sort of quickly went over the affordable housing options and the negatives. I didn't think that the negatives listed were necessarily specific to that option. Density could be a problem with a hotel.

Or it may not be a problem for either option. It may just be a feature of it. I agreed with the very first speaker that having people living in that building could provide support for businesses on Humphrey Street.

I think it goes to a broader question about what the role of the select board was in looking at the plan. Was it to pick one option and move forward and bring a proposal? That's a possibility, but I think another option could have been to take two options, which both had upsides and maybe some downsides, and bring them to us to consider.

In my mind, we've taken a lot of public properties over time and given them away to developers. And then in recent years, we've come to realize we did that, and we've had some regrets about it. And I guess when I walk by Michon's school, I feel really proud that I made a decision to make that into affordable housing for elders.

And I would feel proud to do that for this property as well, to let older people who don't have much income live in a nice building. I'd feel more proud to do that than to, even if the town retained the property, to give it to a corporation to create a hotel for wealthy people.

[Speaker 2] (2:37:36 - 2:37:45)
Thank you, Ms. Honig. Sir, we haven't heard from you yet. Mr. Lehman, I'm sorry, I did not get to you.

[Speaker 17] (2:37:51 - 2:38:17)
Mike Bryson, Precinct 4. I'd just like to consider the fact that we're talking about a residential neighborhood adjacent to a community park and adjacent to a historic district. I don't think you put two-story garages in that kind of area, and that's really all I wanted to say.

[Speaker 2] (2:38:17 - 2:38:30)
Thank you, sir. Mr. Lehman, and then I will begin to touch on other folks in the back and just in front of Mr. Lehman. And Mr. Pielot.

[Speaker 20] (2:38:31 - 2:40:45)
Jonathan Lehman, Precinct 6. I want to speak in support of this motion. I'm also on the Historical Commission, and I'm also very much in favor of affordable housing.

I appreciate everything that's been said tonight about affordable housing, and I know that we're taking care of that, certainly in several areas of town. I have to say that I was pleased with the Michon School. The Historic Commission went through that and made some recommendations for preservation of certain elements that were listened to, and it's just a wonderful place.

But one of the earlier speakers, Larry, I think it was mentioned, that consider the area in town where this is, and I think that's the consideration that went in for recommending a hotel. Swamp Scott at one time had 20 hotels, and some of you might have seen the exhibit that the Historical Commission put together. It's in Town Hall right now.

You can see all of those 20 hotels in Town Hall, but you can't see them when you walk around town, because none of them are here. We do not have a single hotel in Swamp Scott. If Swamp Scott could support 20 hotels at one time, we can certainly use one boutique hotel.

Some examples of boutique hotels have been given. The Hotel Marblehead has been on Pleasant Street under different names for many, many years. They've redone it.

It's beautiful, and there are other places, and I think Peter mentioned the Hotel Salem, also a boutique hotel. I think it's a great idea for that location. I know that there's consideration for other areas of town, but I think we just need to consider that the town could use one hotel, and probably if we gave it some thought, we could all think of one relative that we would send to that hotel if it opened up tomorrow when we're visiting.

[Speaker 2] (2:40:48 - 2:40:57)
Thank you, Mr. Lehman. Mr. Pilot, we haven't heard from you yet. And then ma'am, just in front of Mr. Lehman.

[Speaker 28] (2:40:58 - 2:41:58)
Dennis Pilot, Precinct 4. I guess one of the things we talked about last night with some of these things where we have a really good effort being made by a lot of people to put these documents together to really look and research this stuff. And last night we talked about how we really need to keep doing that and really pay attention to the work that these folks have done.

So I just want to kind of really highlight that there's a master plan for a lot of different things. We all have different things we all want, but there needs to be an overall balance, and I think we've tried really hard to get that balance, and really kind of paying attention to that. I really think it's a good idea.

The only question that I have on this is just, I don't know if we can get an update around Stacey Brook and Kings Beach. I have a hard time just wrapping my head around somebody dumping $20 million to put a hotel on one of the most polluted beaches in Massachusetts. So that's the only problem I have with it.

But other than that, there's some great work and just applaud, and I think we really need to not minimize some of the work and really pay attention and really give you some of that value.

[Speaker 2] (2:41:59 - 2:42:05)
Thank you, Mr. Pilot. I suspect the answer is the market will tell us, but I invite you to comment if at all.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:05 - 2:42:06)
I'm sorry, say that one more time.

[Speaker 2] (2:42:06 - 2:42:10)
I apologize. The market will tell us if the state of the beach is a challenge.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:10 - 2:42:15)
The market will tell us. For some reason, hotels found success on the Boston Harbor for many years.

[Speaker 2] (2:42:17 - 2:42:23)
Fair enough. Yes, ma'am. And then all the way in the back next to Mr. Jantus.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:26 - 2:42:29)
Mr. Moderator, whenever appropriate, I have some responses to some things.

[Speaker 29] (2:42:29 - 2:43:13)
Certainly. Hi, Maria Kerr, Metzopolis Town Meeting Member, Precinct 1. I just want to recall that the Reuse Committee presented a thoughtful SWOT analysis of all of the options at the beginning of this discussion.

And I feel that a hotel would actually elevate the community, and for people that think that we wouldn't use it, think about the last time you wanted to have a retirement party or a bridal shower. Where can you go in town? The event space, as they also mentioned, is a major driver of their revenues, not just the hotel rooms, it's the restaurant, the catering, business meetings, etc.

So I just wanted to speak out in support of that and remind the community that it is a community space when you can use it for those events.

[Speaker 2] (2:43:14 - 2:43:26)
Thank you, Ms. Kerr, Metzopolis. Sir, in the back, and then I believe there was a question from, there was a response from Mr. Spellios, Mr. Deese, I see you, Mr. Jantus, go ahead, sir. Yes.

[Speaker 19] (2:43:32 - 2:44:44)
Damon Damati, I'm in Precinct 6, town meeting member, so I'm wondering, I think there are a lot of weaknesses to the hotel, I don't think it's a good idea. One of the prior speakers brought up how the beach, well, first of all, the beach goes away at high tide and it's pretty dirty right now. The other thing is, I can't imagine myself staying in a hotel for four months out of the year, you can probably guess which months those are, December through March.

It's winter. I just don't see it. The other thing Mr. Spellios said about this, plenty of hotels in Boston, that's because Boston's 700,000 people, it's a major city, it's the biggest city in New England. I think that if we were a destination town, like this Porta Hotel, maybe Captain Jack's wouldn't have closed. That was a boutique hotel. It closed, it got torn down, and now we have million dollar condos there, which I was in favor of.

But I don't think we're a destination town anymore, I think we're a seaside town. And I don't know if we can really support being this big a destination town. I mean, what's going to happen when that hotel closes?

If the hotel's built and then it closes, then we're going to have an empty commercial property sitting right there. So I don't have a perfect answer for what it should be. I just think a hotel is not a good idea.

[Speaker 2] (2:44:45 - 2:44:53)
Thank you, sir. Mr. Spellios, then I will come back to some more comments from Mr. Dooley.

[Speaker 1] (2:44:56 - 2:44:58)
Mr. Spellios. Sorry, Hannah's getting up.

[Speaker 2] (2:44:59 - 2:44:59)
Okay, then.

[Speaker 27] (2:45:04 - 2:46:16)
Hi, I'm Hannah Sharpless. I am in Precinct 3 now. They shuffle me around.

I generally feel conflicted about these kinds of events, a.k.a. a town meeting, because I'm like, how am I supposed to be making decisions like this? And this is one that feels particularly big and sort of sudden, I'll be honest. My question is not like, I'm not going to say, you should do this or you shouldn't do that.

I just have one question, maybe a couple questions. What is the percentage of affordable housing that we have versus the state mandate right now? What is the percentage that we will have once the Pine Street and potentially Vinnon Square or Glover's Landing housing units are online?

I know that the state mandate is, I believe, 10%. I believe we are at about 1% right now. So my concern is not that we will have an overabundance of affordable housing.

And I just also want to state, I am unequivocally undisturbed if the people who use our affordable housing are not from Swampscott. That should not be our primary concern. People who need affordable housing are the people who should be using affordable housing.

[Speaker 2] (2:46:17 - 2:46:32)
Thank you, Ms. Sharpless. If we can, Tony, I see you. There was a specific factual question that I do not have the answer to.

I will defer to either the town administrator or to...

[Speaker 1] (2:46:32 - 2:46:36)
We're getting it. Just give us a minute.

[Speaker 2] (2:46:36 - 2:46:37)
I'm sorry, say it again, sir.

[Speaker 1] (2:46:38 - 2:46:40)
We're getting it. Just give us a minute and we'll have that answer.

[Speaker 2] (2:46:40 - 2:46:50)
We'll have an answer for you in a moment. Ms. Banderwitz, Mr. Dooley. Again, trying to recognize people who have not spoken yet.

[Speaker 21] (2:46:52 - 2:47:23)
Tony Banderwitz, town meeting member and precinct four. I just had a question on clarification because I know you said it would be a ground lease so we would retain the property, but as I read this, does that... It seems that we are voting to authorize the select board to convey a parcel of land for a hotel, blah, blah, blah, on such terms and conditions as the select board deems appropriate.

Is there an assurance that it will be a ground lease in this language that we're voting on?

[Speaker 1] (2:47:23 - 2:47:56)
So we asked town council that that's standard language for conveyance language for us to do. It's the exact same language that we did for the Michon School, which was a ground lease. I'm telling you that the select board is intentioned to do a ground lease.

Now, that being said, if the market came back and we had four proposals and they all said they want fee instead of ground lease, fundamentally, and we're now going to get into real estate a little bit, the ground lease concept is more theoretical than it is real. We did affordable housing. We did 39 units of affordable housing at the Michon School in a 99-year ground lease.

Anybody really think about what happens in year 100?

[Speaker 21] (2:48:01 - 2:48:02)
When I'm around you...

[Speaker 1] (2:48:03 - 2:48:32)
I'm being quite serious about this. Communities do this, but the reality is the ground lease gets extended and it gets extended and it gets extended because you're never going to displace anyone. You're never going to take someone.

And so it continually gets extended. So in truth, we may own the fee, but in a ground lease, you don't have control. You have a lease that dictates, in this case, a land development agreement that really creates all the rules, but in reality, besides those rules, which will be perpetual, we really have no other rights.

[Speaker 21] (2:48:32 - 2:48:38)
So the potential is that the select board could sell the property, including...

[Speaker 1] (2:48:38 - 2:48:51)
Well, consistent with the article for the uses prescribed here, yes, but again, I'm telling you this is the exact same language that Michonne was approved by this town meeting and we chose to do the ground lease.

[Speaker 21] (2:48:52 - 2:48:58)
And the second just quick question is, is there a cut-off point when you realize the hotel isn't going to be feasible?

[Speaker 1] (2:49:00 - 2:49:23)
Yeah, no, a great question. I'm going to remind myself what I put on the slide here, but I think what we said here is that we would have staff spend, consultants spend June and July putting together an RFP for issuance, spend August for putting the RFP out there and giving tours, and giving until the end of October for responses. So by the end of October, we will have a deadline by which we will understand what the response to this will be.

[Speaker 21] (2:49:24 - 2:49:26)
And a decision would be made thereafter?

[Speaker 1] (2:49:27 - 2:49:32)
Yeah, November, December area, in terms of the time period on the RFP responses.

[Speaker 21] (2:49:32 - 2:49:41)
And would there be like a plan B ready to go? Because one of the other concerns I heard was you don't want to keep the building empty for a period of time.

[Speaker 1] (2:49:41 - 2:58:38)
Yeah, so that's a really great question, and I was going to respond a little bit to that in a minute, but let me answer that now. The answer is sure, there's going to be a plan B. I can't tell you what that plan B is.

Select board voted or took the consensus of the board 4-1, the fifth member can say they feel differently tonight, but 4-1, not just for the hotel, but that we actually didn't believe given its location and the indirect benefits of it, or indirect non-benefits of it, that Hadley should be used as senior affordable housing. So I'm just being candid about the fact that we didn't even put senior housing as the number two. We, if there's a plan B, will probably reopen completely to be creative here because we are deeply concerned about Humphrey Street.

Someone a few minutes ago asked about the Hawthorne, and I think she made some great comments about the Hawthorne. We are absolutely thinking about the connectivity of these two things. We're absolutely thinking about the connectivity of these two things, and it matters what happens here.

Revenue is not driving our decision directly from this property. None of the options throw enough revenue that that should be the dictator of this. None of them do.

The affordable housing doesn't throw off enough revenue. The hotel doesn't throw off enough revenue. It's really about supporting and anchoring our primary downtown and those businesses there.

We have few tools left to help those businesses. There is not enough sidewalk for us to extend. There's not enough liquor licenses for us to give.

We went to the legislature years ago asking for more liquor licenses. Guess what? We have every single one of those liquor licenses still.

Wouldn't it have been great if we didn't? But we have them, and there's a reason we have them. And there's a reason that Adrian Rodriguez gets up and talks about Miramar and things of that nature.

We see that. We don't see the other opportunity on Humphrey Street to help Humphrey Street because the reality is it's not going to be significantly different 20 years from now. So rest assured we're thinking about the Hawthorne, too, because if the Hadley isn't that opportunity to support the downtown, as much as I stood up and told town meeting I'm 100% open space on the Hawthorne property, because I believe that to my core, but I also have to recognize that we don't have the luxury of just supporting one thing.

We've got to support them all. And I'm just being candid about my own views. I'm now going to say, well, wait a minute.

If it's all 100% open space, how are we then helping the businesses and downtown? Because it matters. Look, I love Adrian's business, but I'm not so much worried about Adrian doing fine for himself.

I hope you hit it out of the park. Don't get me wrong. But I'm selfish about the fact that I love walking downtown.

I love the fact that COVID brought restaurants out into the street. I love the fact that we have people like Adrian and Hiccup. Of course, Hiccup's not here anymore.

But I love that. Because what we're getting is mortgage brokers, nail salons, dog salons. I mean, we are the best coiffed, best looking, sharpest looking dogs on the North Shore.

And we've just got to think about that. And lookit, we don't have the answer, so I really appreciate your question, because we do have to think about plan B. But I also want to be candid about the fact that we did start talking about that.

And I just want to let those that are thinking about senior affordable housing, we just do not see this as the location, which is why we're supporting Pine Street, which is why we're making the single biggest investment in affordable housing. You're not going to find another community putting $1.7 million into land to do affordable housing. You're not going to find it.

Find it. Call us up. Let us know.

Right? And so, I just don't know what the answer is, but yes, it's our responsibility. And I want to spend a second talking about our responsibility, because people asked about the role of the Select Board.

So technically, Article 9 of the special town meeting in 2020 actually did have this committee reporting back to the Select Board. That's the article that we all approve reports back to the Select Board. But the committee did a whole bunch of public hearings.

The committee did a whole bunch of public meetings. The committee actually showed up to town meeting and gave you a presentation about the options. There's been a lot of process, and I understand that sometimes when we're not in support of something, we make a process argument, right?

The process has failed. It always can be better. And I am the most impatient person in the world, so it always can be better.

But here is one where, and frankly, I think all the articles tonight, because of these plans that were on the screen, this is literally a roadmap that we've been following. This is not novel. It's sad that we haven't talked about it that much, because for years in this town, we didn't talk about anything.

Well, let's do planning, and we did it, but then the master plan just sat. Well, we're bringing the master plan to life. We're bringing the housing production plan to life.

We're doing these things. It is the role of the Select Board to bring these really tough decisions to you all. You, though, have the control.

You can say yes. You can say no. If you say no, I'll be honest with you, it's less stress for me, because I'm going to be the one working really hard with my colleagues on the hotel RFP, because I'm not going to want to come back and tell you it didn't work.

I'm going to want to show you it did work. But it is our role, and it is actually our role to be the ones executing these decisions, which is why you elect us. It's why you elect the Planning Board, because it's their role to make judgment calls about developments.

If you don't like it, kick them out. If you don't like what we're doing, kick us out. But I think as though we have, with this administration and several of us on the board, a track record now.

We showed you what we did with the other schools. Are they perfect? No, they're not perfect.

It would have been great if Michon could have been a park. Condominiums at Greenwood, it's not awesome, but it's not bad. We haven't gotten a phone call in six years about traffic on Greenwood, by the way.

It's not perfect. We are faced with a whole bunch of imperfect decisions. Last night, our new state rep, who I hope you guys noticed, she stayed the entire night, which is crazy that she did that.

Our state rep used the word audacious, and that word struck me, and I hope it struck you, that you can be audacious without being reckless. You can be audacious without being irresponsible. We are setting something that will be in place for a very long time.

I find it funny for a long time, people, especially me, since I do development, whether it's affordable development or market rate development, people always say, oh, you're changing the character of our town. This is the first time you can't say that to me. I'm actually asking to go back to our character of the town.

We appreciate everything people have said about the seasonal use. Pinnacle took that into consideration, and the economic performers that they've given us take into consideration that this is seasonal. I appreciate the conversation about this being a primary residential neighborhood.

Of course, five years ago, this board, this town meeting voted to include this property in the Tourist Overlay District. So this town meeting has actually already considered that question and recognized its role by including it in the Tourist Overlay District. I appreciate the comments about numbers.

We can always have more numbers. We can have our own opinions, but we can't have our own facts. I ask people that want to see the numbers to go back and look at the reuse report, and you will see numbers.

It is your decision. It's okay, whatever decision you make. We are willing to do the hard work to pound the pavement to do the best things.

We are also neighbors to this property, too. We have a planning board that's going to be in charge, an elected planning board of five people who's going to be in charge of reviewing every detail, scrubbing every detail in addition to our review. Same process we went through, different board, but same process for the Michonne, for the Greenwood Middle School.

We had our own negotiations with the developer for the land development agreement and said, you have to do this, you have to do this, you have to do this, you have to do this, and then they went to the zoning board, and the zoning board said, you have to do this, you have to do this, you have to do this. We have systems in place here. I personally don't support coming back and asking the town meeting again for permission because I believe you will handicap greatly the process, and I believe that we will predestine a less likely outcome, and I would rather just not have us go run a fool's errand as opposed to trust us to do what I think we've done well previously, not perfect, and if you voted no on those things and those things happened, you may not have liked them at all, but you all supported them, and we all executed them, and so I'm asking you to trust us to go do this because I'm going to finish where I started. We don't want vacant buildings, and we believe this to be the best opportunity, and give us a chance in the market to find that out.

[Speaker 2] (2:58:39 - 2:58:55)
Thank you, Mr. Spellios. I think I I had identified Mr. Deese, Mr. Dooley, and Ms. O'Connor. I have recognized Mr. Deese. Perhaps that is what he has in mind.

[Speaker 16] (2:58:56 - 2:59:25)
I don't want to belabor the point. I think, you know, Mr. Spellios did a good job of bringing us back to the beginning of this, which is a strong recommendation that we take the hotel route. I mean, if you look at the timeline here, it's it's hardly, you know, two seasons.

Just go to the beach for a while, and we'll find out if it worked or not, and so you know, I just kind of wanted to speak to the sentiment of, like, we've had a lot of people consider this, and we've done a robust process, and it feels like it's time to just commit to that, but I will call the question. I think it's a good idea.

[Speaker 2] (2:59:28 - 3:00:27)
Much as I prefer not to have a speaker call the question, that is still allowed under our bylaws. Is there a second to Mr. Deese's motion? This will end debate on Mr. Schneider's original motion under Article 12, then we will take up a motion under Article 19. All those in favor of ending debate on the motion on Article 12, raise your hands. All those opposed? It is unanimous.

We now move directly to a vote on Mr. Schneider's motion, which would adopt the language under Article 12. All those in favor of Mr. Schneider's motion, raise your hand. All those opposed?

The motion carries. We now move to Article 19. I'm hopeful that we have discussed it in great deal, perhaps not exhaustively, but Ms. Ippolito, would you please?

[Speaker 3] (3:00:28 - 3:00:47)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Article 19, the Planning Board recommends that the Town vote to amend the Swampscot Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map as shown on the yellow handout, entitled Appendix F and Appendix G. I move the recommendation of the Planning Board.

[Speaker 2] (3:00:48 - 3:00:51)
Is there a second? Thank you. Ms. Ippolito?

[Speaker 3] (3:00:54 - 3:01:39)
I'm not quite sure what else I need to say, except this zoning creates an overlay district for the Hadley School property, which would enable and control the development of a boutique hotel. I would mention that this is a use that's already allowed under our bylaw of the Humphrey Street Overlay District and the Tourist Overlay District, but by creating a zoning overlay, we have a more predictable and controlled process for the Town and for any potential investor. I move the recommendation of the Planning Board.

Oh, I think I already said that, so I think we can go ahead.

[Speaker 33] (3:01:43 - 3:01:44)
Thank you, Ms. Ippolito.

[Speaker 2] (3:01:45 - 3:03:19)
I know we have an existing proposed amendment by Ms. Lau. If you prefer, I will read it back to you, since it was quite some time ago. No, we have dispensed with 12.

We should be looking at 19 now. Thank you. She would move to amend the motion under Article 19, which refers to the handouts for, I believe it's F and G, by modifying the section 4.11.1.0 after the words Town of Swampscott striking the last sentence and adding instead, this bylaw is meant to establish development that protects historic and cultural resources and foster connection between the Hadley School building, the natural built environment that considers proximity to Linscott Park and its use as primary open space for community engagement and interior community space shall be included in any establishment created. Do I have a second to Ms. Lau's motion to amend? Thank you.

Seeing Mr. Spellios offering a second, do either of you two wish to comment on this?

[Speaker 3] (3:03:19 - 3:03:24)
I can say that I'm very much in support of adopting that language.

[Speaker 2] (3:03:24 - 3:03:58)
Very good. Is there further discussion on Ms. Lau's amendment? Seeing none, all those in favor of Ms. Lau's amendment to extend the language to incorporate recognition of the historical nature and the cultural qualities as well as require a community space?

All those opposed? It is unanimous. Further discussion on Ms. Ippolito's motion as amended by Ms. Lau? Mr. Germa.

[Speaker 8] (3:04:04 - 3:05:22)
Chair Germa, Precinct 3, member of the local historic district commission. I have a question on the reuse and preservation of the existing building. 41160 on the yellow sheet.

One of the things that I find interesting is that we talk about preserving the existing Hadley School building. Alterations shall be permitted as a right, so as long as those alterations comply with applicable dimensional regulations and fully executed land development agreement. I'm not terribly comfortable with the fact that that doesn't seem to hold protections as to what the aesthetic historic nature of the building is.

This building is cited in a way in which it is the backdrop of Linscott Park. It is established as one of the three masonry buildings that sort of frame what has become our town square. So I'm curious if there is somewhere else in here that any adherence to a restoration and what those outlines look like or how those protections might be picked up later when looking through proposals.

[Speaker 2] (3:05:25 - 3:05:26)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Ippolito?

[Speaker 3] (3:05:27 - 3:05:45)
Thank you. We would deal with those particular issues under the site plan process. There will be design guidelines for the overlay district, and we would certainly welcome the contribution of the Historic District Committee in making sure that those are exactly where they should be.

[Speaker 8] (3:05:46 - 3:07:20)
And then I also wanted to jump back. This was brought up earlier by Mr. Bryson. A parking structure not to exceed 15 feet in height may be constructed.

One of the things in looking at the planning that was done for this hotel is I was looking at the parking suggested, and with the addition of something like this, the drawings themselves were actually illustrating ground parking, and this would be increasing that significantly. I have great concerns about the adjacencies of both residential neighbourhoods and Linscott Park, and also the requirements of lighting and creating a safe environment there, and what that impact would be on light pollution in a residential neighbourhood. And one of the things that I do want to point out, with many boutique hotels, different parking solutions come up.

There are many hotels that are constructed that do not contain their own parking, and I can point to restaurants in the town of Swampscott that have been built or possibly overbuilt with zero parking. So I do think that there are ways to look at this where we're not creating a dense, paved, over-lit area that is serving a single building or even expanding parking when I don't really feel with the number of hotel rooms you have in there, there wouldn't be other types of valet parking or off-site parking options.

[Speaker 2] (3:07:21 - 3:07:27)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Germa. I know some of that was discussed in the select board meeting.

Mr. Spellius, do you have a comment?

[Speaker 1] (3:07:28 - 3:08:40)
Yeah, I appreciate Mr. Germa's comments, and I stand by the planning board's chair regarding design guidelines, and I think that's an appropriate response as to how that will be dealt with. Let me just speak quickly about parking. All the potential concerns can be mitigated as well with good design, and that's why we have an elected planning board to make sure of that.

I want to speak, though, about parking, and I want to speak about something that if you read it carefully and maybe twisted your eyes a little bit, you thought about parking, and you're like, wait a minute, why do we need parking there? The hotel needs parking, but I'm going to be honest with you. There's also the opportunity for us to invest with to get town parking and to think about that, and I say that because if town parking's not happening there, where's plan B?

So there it is. So the point is, we're just keeping the options open for doing this here, and so that language there will allow us to do the flexibility to be able to include that and, again, perhaps take pressure off these other places where people may not want parking or on properties that we don't own, as the case may be.

[Speaker 2] (3:08:41 - 3:08:52)
Thank you, Mr. Spelios. Further discussion? Yes, Mr. Spelios. Mr. Jantus, thank you for your patience. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.

[Speaker 9] (3:08:52 - 3:12:58)
John Jantus, Precinct 4, town committee member, school committee member also. Just some context from what I think is important to appreciate some of my comments that I'm going to make. I am a direct abutter to Hadley.

I live directly across the street, and I don't know how many times a day we hear recess. It's probably 12 times a day we hear the kids come out for recess. All good, but we are directly across the street, so we are particularly interested in this discussion, and I agree with a lot of what I've heard from Mr. Lorber, Ms. Martin Epstein, Mr. Powell, I'm sorry, the gentleman who talked about the garage in the neighborhood, all very good comments. There was also a lady who talked about the baseball field, and maybe a lot of folks here don't know how many kids use that field. I'd say from the end of March until the end of October, kids are there constantly. Again, all good.

My wife and I, who's also a town committee member, we love seeing the kids over there. It's a great spot for them. As a matter of fact, a baseball hit our house tonight before we came over here, so they're using it all the time, and it's a great thing, and I'd hate to see that opportunity for them to gather and play go away or not be replaced in some fashion here in town.

A couple other points. I heard Mr. Speleo's talking about, I think you had said we want to have a welcome mat with parameters, and I couldn't agree more with that concept. I think parameters are very important.

Reading through the article and the appendix, I noted the term as of right throughout that, and I kind of got a little concerned. I'm not a real estate attorney. I'm an attorney, but that's not my area of specialty, but when I see things like that, as of right, again, as a direct of butter, I get concerned about where is my voice in this process?

Is my voice going to be heard, or because it's as of right? My voice has now been ... Yeah, it's basically already been factored in, and no more discussion.

Mr. Germercraft talked about light pollution. Very good point. Noise pollution is a very good point.

Before the mission closed every single summer, we hear the band on the roof of the mission very clearly where we are, so we have to tolerate that all summer. The traffic issues, we'd like to have a voice in that, and so would the neighbors. The Blaney area has been notoriously challenging with traffic issues since we've been here, and the number of hours noted in the appendix seems very open-ended.

Again, I'm not sure where the community voice comes in on that, but again, it's just concerning when I see as of right scattered throughout this thing, and I wonder, and I'm sure others wonder who are in the neighborhood, where we get to plug in and voice our concerns. So, again, as far as, I think as far as a question, I would like to know as I said, that language as of right, what that means as far as abutters, community neighbors, where we get to plug in and voice our concerns as this process unwinds if this does move forward. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (3:12:59 - 3:13:10)
Thank you, Mr. Gentis. Perhaps either Mr. Spellios or Ms. Ippolito, I heard you comment earlier about all the different boards that we'll have to weigh in on this, but maybe you could discuss.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:10 - 3:14:08)
Yeah, no, I'm happy to do it, and in addition to permits, right, there's an extra layer here since the town controls the property and the town controls the RFP, there's a whole different layer that we don't get when our neighbor does something or a private business does something, which is we negotiate those parameters, right, as the town select board, and if you go back and look at the Michon RFP and you look at the Greenwood RFP and you look at the land development agreement, it's a separate contract above and beyond permits. It's actually more regulated, more restricted than even the permits were in terms of all those details, Mr. Gentis, that you just talked about, and so there's going to be, and all that happens and it's a public dialogue about those things. The as of right language there, the planning board chair mentioned earlier, really just relates to the vote of the planning board and what the vote requirement is with the planning board there. Again, it is purposely there to, again, have that welcome mat there, but I want to assure you, just like we did at the Michon, just like we did at Greenwood Middle School, those parameters are going to be robust and they're going to be included in multiple places.

[Speaker 2] (3:14:09 - 3:14:14)
Thank you, Mr. Spelios. Further conversation? Yes, Mr. Russo.

[Speaker 6] (3:14:19 - 3:18:54)
Sorry, I'm losing my voice just sitting there. Lenny Russo, Precinct 4. Firstly, I would like to say I'm glad we're having this discussion and debate.

This is the spirit of what this town's about, so thoroughly vetting all of these options is key to the process, and I've talked to a few members of the board and they came up with a good saying, hey, there is no perfect solution, but we're trying to find the best solution, and I agree with that, trying to move forward. So I am in support of the hotel concept, and I know it's not going to be a slam dunk, and it may not happen, and we may not attract interested people to this project, but I'm hoping we do, and that we don't limit ourselves. I'd like to see the restaurant, the meeting space, and potentially even some shops in there, and I think it would be great for the town to have that as an anchor.

But for those of us that live in this town, I saw the SWOT analysis that went with this as well, and it talked about traffic and parking. Those have to be the two biggest issues for us right now. I've walked down and talked to some of the businesses along Humphrey Street that are going out, and they talk about two things.

Number one is support of the town for those businesses with publicity, signage, and the other thing they talk about is parking. If anybody has tried to go get a haircut over at Rosa Brothers or try to go to a restaurant around town, you know that there's no parking in this town. And these businesses can't survive.

It's not like a strip mall where there's plenty of parking. There is some foot traffic, but they need additional parking. Expanding these sidewalks is great, and I applaud that, but that's also going to limit parking.

St. John's, we come up with all these solutions. St. John's doesn't want to give up their rights to that parking. They use it.

Those sound like great alternatives, but they're not really good alternatives. We need to come up with parking in this town, and if you're driven through there or try to go out to work in the morning, you know that traffic is already horrendous. When we go to try to develop the Hawthorne property, we're going to be drawing more people in.

I just, when I look at this amendment to change the zoning, I just don't think .3 parking spaces per room is going to be adequate. People are going to be driving to these places, so one parking spot for every three rooms probably isn't going to cut it. And I believe nobody wants to see a big parking garage put up on that site, but there aren't a lot of alternatives.

The one thing I will point out on when it talks about 4.11.5.0, it says that additional parking beyond the minimum required may be provided on the lot. Does this mean that possibly whoever goes and develops this property would not put a parking garage there? And the other question I have, is this big enough?

We're putting a 65-foot building there, but we're afraid of a 15-foot parking garage? We need parking in this town. Parking is ugly, but I don't want to see it over on the waterfront either.

So you know, I think I researched this a little bit, and the average height of a parking level is 11.5 feet. So I don't know how much parking you're going to get in a 15-foot structure, but I don't think it's going to be a lot. And I'm questioning whether this is enough parking and there's enough teeth in this proposal to create additional parking that we need.

The second part is, is there any thought to the other SWOT analysis on traffic? It's a pretty small lot to have all this on there, a parking structure, a hotel, and have access in and out of that property. It's pretty congested now, and you can see the way we've changed one-ways there on Reddington and other places.

How are we going to handle the traffic for the waterfront redevelopment and for the Hadley? Is there any thought to that, or is that part of this process?

[Speaker 2] (3:18:55 - 3:19:04)
Thank you, Mr. Russo. I know that you did at one point during your select board meeting discuss Pinnacle's point of view on necessary parking.

[Speaker 1] (3:19:04 - 3:20:58)
Mr. Russo, you present some really good, thoughtful points and all things that we've thought about as well and talked with Pinnacle about in terms of parking ratios. The parking ratio is there because that's what the consultants' metrics say for a suburban. Most people are going to be using other means, whether it's an Uber coming from the airport or other things, and not having a car.

But it also, this language does provide the flexibility for us to recognize if more parking is needed. I'm perfectly comfortable with what the parking parameters are, including the dimensions of a garage if a garage ever happened, because I'm not afraid of it, but I think, frankly, one-level parking structure is ample and we should be able to accommodate that. And in terms of traffic, of course you know I'm going to say that we currently house almost 400 kids in the Hadley School, not to mention the ones that are now over at the Blaney School, so I'm confident you'll see an improvement there.

But if you've been paying attention to the Select Board, I think you've heard a lot of frustration about traffic enforcement and speed enforcement and just pedestrian safety generally. And I'm grateful for you all tonight supporting the capital article with the $200,000 for that, because you will see the difference when we start. Redington Street is one of the 20 locations that have been identified by the Police Department for one of these, I hate speed pillows, can we just call them speed humps?

Speed humps. But we'll start seeing the difference there. So we are very acutely aware of the traffic thing and trying to balance enforcement versus traffic calming measures to make sure that we are dealing with that, to make sure that we still recognize no matter what we do in this town, we are a pedestrian town, we are a three-square mile town, our kids will always be walking to school, we will always be walking downtown, and that has to be a core part of everything we do.

[Speaker 6] (3:20:58 - 3:22:08)
Oh, I appreciate that, and I realize that when school is out, it's a lot easier to get around, but there's only two ways in and out of town, and that's one of them, and it's a very busy corner, and we're talking about putting more things there, not less. And I will tell you that pedestrian safety is also a concern. Slowing down is fine, but it's not going to limit the amount of cars that go across there, and I recognize that .3 is good for a Boston hotel where people are coming from the airport, but if you look at some of the other hotels, like the Hawthorne Hotel in Salem, who is a boutique hotel, they have a parking lot next to it, and they still have a parking problem. And with all due respect, I don't want to say a huge parking structure, but I think that putting more teeth in here and putting more parking in place is going to help our businesses, because right now they're struggling, and we can't keep businesses on Humphrey Street. And I think parking has been raised over and over and over again. So we're adding more stress, and I just wish that we would look at this with the eyes of adding more parking and not being afraid of it.

[Speaker 2] (3:22:09 - 3:22:20)
Thank you, Mr. Russo. Thank you. Mr. Dooley. Ted Dooley, Precinct 4, also a member of the Planning Board.

[Speaker 19] (3:22:20 - 3:22:49)
Parking was something that came up at our public hearing on May 8th when we reviewed this, and I think this might be helpful to clarify. The 15-foot guidance here for parking structures would be a one-story building with parking covered on the first floor with potential for second floor uncovered parking on top of that. So just for context, I think it would be more than just one floor of parking to be helpful.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (3:22:49 - 3:22:54)
Thank you, Mr. Dooley. Is there further discussion in the back?

[Speaker 33] (3:22:54 - 3:23:02)
Yes. Hi.

[Speaker 10] (3:23:03 - 3:23:47)
Justina Oliver, Precinct 4, member of the Swampscot Historical Commission, and honored to be on the Hadley Reuse Committee. I just wanted to see if we should be clarifying that we want to preserve the original Hadley School building, not existing Hadley School building. And I also wanted to ask if the alterations section or wording right now, the Historical Commission oversees any major alterations on buildings over 75 years of age, and we worked really well with B'nai B'rith, with Mashon, and the outcome was beautiful.

And I would love to see Hadley have the same result, and if that, we could be able to consult with whoever comes forward with any alterations on the Hadley School would be nice.

[Speaker 2] (3:23:48 - 3:23:52)
Thank you, Ms. Oliver. I believe the intent is to preserve the original.

[Speaker 1] (3:23:52 - 3:24:03)
Yeah, so if we can deem that a ministerial change, I'm happy to put the original, add the word original, because when it says Hadley School building, it is meant to be the original portion, not the annexed building.

[Speaker 3] (3:24:03 - 3:24:17)
Right, we typically, and correct, we typically refer to that original building is what we call Hadley School, the other part of it we call the annex, but we can certainly make that change, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (3:24:17 - 3:24:21)
I hear that perhaps original 1912?

[Speaker 3] (3:24:22 - 3:24:22)
1910?

[Speaker 1] (3:24:22 - 3:24:25)
I'm the one that said 20 Redington Street, so don't listen to me.

[Speaker 2] (3:24:27 - 3:24:45)
We'll deem that as a ministerial addendum to your motion. Sir, in the back. My name is Tom Peleria, I'm a live in Precinct 6.

[Speaker 19] (3:24:46 - 3:25:01)
Everyone's been debating here, this body for the last two days, very vigorously. I had a procedural question, I wanted to see if it would be appropriate to make a motion to adjourn for the evening, knowing that we have a number of articles to tackle when this group reconvenes.

[Speaker 2] (3:25:02 - 3:26:43)
I'm sorry, sir. Again, and a little slower. Would it be appropriate to make a motion to adjourn for the evening, so that this body can reconvene and finalize the articles on another day?

That certainly is available to us to make a motion to recess now. I intended to seek one after we have a vote on this, but Mr. Peleria has made a motion for us to recess. I'm okay to wait until after this vote, but after this vote I'd like to make that motion if that's possible.

Thank you. Mr. Perry. Yes, Mr. Perry has moved, and perhaps I hear a second to call the question and end debate on this motion. All those in favor of ending debate, please raise your hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. We move now directly to a vote on Ms. Ippolito's motion as amended by Ms. Lau, inclusive of the ministerial change to insert the word original before the word Hadley Building in the historical preservation section. I remind you we are voting on the yellow handout for appendix F and the original map appendix G found in your printed warrant. With that said, all those in favor of Ms. Ippolito's motion, please signify by raising your hand. This does require a two-thirds vote.

All those opposed, it is practically unanimous. All right, I would at this point accept a motion to recess until 7 p.m. tomorrow evening. Is there a second?

All those in favor? All those opposed? This meeting stands recessed until 7 p.m. tomorrow.