[Speaker 30] (9:35 - 9:36)
Good evening.

[Speaker 1] (9:39 - 10:43)
If you could make your way to your seats, please. Thank you. I first of all like to start out by thanking everyone for their patience here in our home away from home.

I am reliably informed that Swanscot High School Auditorium is this close to being ready for us for annual town meeting in May. Before I begin, I need to ask to make sure that all town meeting members have checked in. There was a possibility that some of you came in one of the doors that didn't have a check-in near, but you do want to make sure that you have been recorded.

Secondly, if I can have all the visitors, all the non-town meeting members sitting in that section closest to the cafeteria, that will help when it comes to voting. While I am waiting to call the meeting to order, I'm going to recognize Heidi Weir for a brief announcement. Diane, if you can bring up that ...

[Speaker 26] (10:52 - 12:02)
Hello. Hi, everyone. I'm Heidi Weir, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 5, but also Director of Aging Services for the town of Swanscot.

I've been given just a minute to tell you about a conference that we're holding this Saturday. We are the Swanscot for All Ages Committee, and we've put together a conference for folks who are maybe five to ten years out before retirement. We call that the red zone, or people who are, in fact, retired.

The conference will address issues like financial issues of retirement and what to do to make your life whole and feel good about retiring, how to be whole when you retire, and then finally any questions you have on Social Security and Medicare. The cool thing about this one is that you won't be at a sales pitch from some financial advisor. This will be the real thing.

They're from further down south. They're coming up to talk to us like real people, so you can ask any question you have. The conference is free.

It's Saturday, and it's at the Senior Center, so give us a call to reserve your space. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (12:03 - 14:05)
Thank you, Ms. Weir. Before we begin, I would like to ask a couple of things. One, caucus chairs, if you met and you took any votes, please bring your minutes up to the clerk.

Secondly, any new town meeting members who have not been sworn in since their election, in case you missed a couple of the past sessions, please come see the clerk. Finally, I've had a robust conversation with people over the past week or so, so I have quite a list of people who have already asked to speak. If you wish to speak, I have a sign-up sheet I'm going to leave over here.

While we get all those administrative pieces in order, please come up and leave your name. So I take that there are no caucus chair minutes. There are no new town meeting members.

Oh, here comes one. Thank you. I think it would be appropriate, given the topic of this evening, if I could actually ask all those present who are veterans, who can, to rise, and let's give some recognition to the folks that have put a lot at risk for us.

Thank you. And with that, with a quorum present, I do call this town meeting to order. What is your point that you rise to, sir?

Okay. Wait, please.

[Speaker 28] (14:05 - 14:30)
Wait, please. Try. My name is Tom Peleria, Precinct 6.

I've seen various legal rulings regarding the legality of the article on the table tonight, and I wanted to get a point of information on whether or not the outcome of this warrant article, depending how it's voted, is legal and would be bounding, and if this is something that the town can actually vote for.

[Speaker 1] (14:30 - 14:49)
I appreciate the interest. I have already spoken with town council, and he will be making a brief statement. Thank you.

So, with that, I'm sorry, sir. Please come state your point.

[Speaker 15] (15:08 - 16:11)
Mr. Moderator, it is my opinion that, as a matter of law, that you should recuse yourself from participation in this town meeting because of the information that you sent out, which prejudiced the people in this meeting. A lot of people count on you to be fair and honest and true, and you didn't do it when you sent that out, knowing you signed the petition for this meeting, you whacked the selectmen in the newspaper, and then you sent out the information. The last thing you sent out with the veterans thing was tepid compared to the other violation, and I'd ask you to get an opinion of town council whether, in fact, you are in legal conflict of interest and ask that you appoint someone to replace you.

You are a town meeting member. Come down and speak your piece like you did when you signed the petition and you helped the yes vote. Thank you.

[Speaker 30] (16:12 - 16:13)
Thank you, Mr. Demento.

[Speaker 1] (16:17 - 17:00)
I will briefly address your comments and then issue a ruling on that point of order. I would like to explain that my passion around citizen petition is absolute. Whether or not I am in support of or not in support of the matter under the petition, I will absolutely go to bat for each and every one of you.

Any resident in this town has the right to ask to be heard by this body. This is a remedy that is sacred in our democracy, and if you can't tell the difference between that, I have already consulted with council, and we agree that there is nothing in bylaw, charter, or mass general laws that covers what you are talking about.

[Speaker 15] (17:00 - 17:02)
Are you asking me if I can tell the difference?

[Speaker 1] (17:03 - 17:04)
No. I'm actually not.

[Speaker 15] (17:04 - 17:06)
Thank you. I didn't think so.

[Speaker 1] (17:08 - 17:51)
Therefore, that point of order has been dismissed. That brings us to Article I, citizen petition. Ms. Arrington, we have nothing on the floor. I understand that you have no motion on the floor. I understand that you have something to share during this debate. Would you like to make a presentation in general without arguing to whatever motion is about to be made, or would you like to speak during it?

[Speaker 4] (17:51 - 18:02)
I would inform the body that you agreed that I was on the schedule, and it is my understanding that town meeting presentations come before the rest of the business. That's it.

[Speaker 1] (18:04 - 18:25)
So briefly, we do not have an Article I, as we usually do, for reports of committees. It was given to my understanding that you wanted to speak to the motion under the article. If you would like to make a presentation now, ex-discussing the article, and you just want to share information from the Affordable Housing Trust, I invite you to.

[Speaker 4] (18:31 - 18:32)
Where should I do that?

[Speaker 1] (18:35 - 18:43)
Excuse me? Diane will help you run this. It's probably best if you use that mic.

[Speaker 26] (18:47 - 18:48)
Teamwork here.

[Speaker 4] (18:59 - 26:56)
Should I use this microphone? There's two. There's one after this, and then there's two after this.

Don't worry about it. Sorry for the interruption. Hearing the Warren article is my understanding that presentations from committees usually precede that business.

I'm Kim Martin Epstein. I'm the chairperson of the Affordable Housing Trust, and I'm here to make a presentation. Thank you for giving me your time to do this.

The Affordable Housing Trust met recently, and we voted to have you make the presentation to give some information that might be helpful regarding affordable housing and the project that we're hoping will go forward. We come to understand that there's been some confusion, misinformation, even maybe disinformation about what exactly the development entails with regard to housing restrictions and preferences and veteran space and supportive services. So I'm here on behalf of the Affordable Housing Trust to help correct that.

As you may know, the Affordable Housing Trust voted some time ago to allocate $300,000 in trust funds to the development of 40-plus units of income and age-restricted veterans' preference supportive housing on Pine Street, and we did so after understanding that the town would acquire a parcel of land from a private owner which was adjacent to town-owned land, and combining those parcels would enable a developer to produce a reasonable proposal for a financeable development project to achieve the town's housing goals as an income-restricted, age-restricted housing with on-site supportive services for veterans and with a veterans' and local housing preference. Noting the fact that there's an existing VFW post sitting on the town-owned land, the request for proposals necessarily required an acknowledgement that any resulting project would have to include a VFW post, likely a replacement for the post that's there. B'nai B'rith Housing Corporation of New England was the only party that submitted a proposal in response, and that only one qualified developer responded is not an unusual result in these kinds of situations as the requested development would be costly and complicated and require a lot of public subsidy, and most developers just don't do this.

So B'nai B'rith already has developed affordable housing in Swampscott, knows the town, also has extensive expertise in this type of supportive housing. And as a side note, Soldier On, a veteran supportive housing organization, had considered putting in a response as well, but instead opted to partner with B'nai B'rith and lend their expertise and support that way. So B'nai B'rith's early and ongoing proposals included a four-story project with the existing post untouched or a shell of a new post with no interior development, and then as well as a three-story project which would require the post to be relocated.

To be clear, no one proposed to eliminate the post from the development plans. But the fact of the matter is that from day one there could never be housing dollars spent on the development of the canteen, so it was always in the mix that the post, the canteen, could be relocated and paid for in conjunction with the development by the town in order to achieve all the goals of the original discussions, the vote of town meeting, and the veterans who were involved in discussions at many points in time.

This is a rendering of the three-story project. Many of you have seen this before. The project at this scale has the support of the neighborhood, is clearly going to be an aesthetic benefit, and will provide 41 units of housing plus on-site supportive services such as clinical care, food security, one-on-one support, home health aids, visiting nurse appointments, medical screenings, group educational programming, wellness programming, group fitness, money management, financial literacy education, and intergenerational programming. This project, the one on that screen, will require that the town's commitment to a VFW post be fulfilled by moving the post to another location.

The location that's currently on the table is 89 Burrell Street, the former location of Recharts. The post, whether it is on-site or at 89 Burrell, does not provide the breadth of services that a subsidized housing project can provide like the ones I just listed. Moving on to the issue of housing restrictions and preferences.

At the top of that screen, B'nai B'rith provided a draft preference statement at my request, actually, since their draft affirmative fair housing and marketing plans have not been submitted for approvals by the state yet. So this statement guides how B'nai B'rith, Peabody Properties, their management agent, Soldier On, and other partners will seek to maximize the qualified veteran applicants. You can read it for yourself, but the bottom line is that this is an affirmation of the commitment to finding the people who need to be in this housing rather than sitting back and hoping that applicants will just appear.

Other partnership organizations include the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, Edith Norris Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Resilience Behavioral Health, and Veterans Northeast Outreach Center. Funding shepherded by B'nai B'rith, Soldier On, and other partners will provide the on-site services that I mentioned. At the bottom, it's a little small, but I'm going to tell you what it says.

You can see how the housing applications are managed once received. First, there's income qualification. This is a restriction that covers the entire project.

This is where all the money comes from to build this. Also, by the way, there will be income restrictions baked into the 40B comprehensive permit. Then you have an age restriction.

Choosing to do this as an age-restricted project aligns with the needs of the town and the target population, and thus the design of the building, i.e., smaller units, one-bedrooms, helps fulfill this requirement. Next, you have veterans and local, meaning Swampscot, preference. It's a preference.

Applicants who income qualify and age qualify, including couples where one person age qualifies, is the first tier preference. If not filled by income and age-qualified Swampscot veterans, income and age-qualified non-Swampscot veterans have the next tier of preference. If not filled by veterans, then it goes to income and age-qualified Swampscot residents who are not veterans.

Yes, it will be possible to fill 41 units with veterans. Is it possible that there will be veterans who currently live in other towns and cities? Yes.

Is it possible that there will not be enough veterans to apply and qualify? Yes, it's possible. The work of Rene Brith and their partners will reduce that chance as much as possible.

So that's the project. Let me be clear in closing. If this body is, in fact, authorized to overturn the agreements regarding the project so far, we're going to talk about that, then the project is effectively dead.

That's my opinion. That's the opinion of the trust. This is one of the rare instances where what we want, the housing, support for veterans, and the law are aligned.

You will hear shortly, that's the opinion of outside counsel, that town meeting doesn't have the authority. But if we're going to vote anyway, and I know we've all received letters and phone calls and information to sway today's vote, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Affordable Housing Trust, if you balance the equities, you get this project, and the post has other support to relocate the building just up the street. And the bottom line is if we get hung up on a comma or a political battle, we get nothing.

No housing development, no supportive services, and nothing but reputational and monetary liability. I thank you for your interest.

[Speaker 1] (26:58 - 27:12)
Thank you, Ms. Martin-Epstein. Insofar as those remarks were clearly substantive, I urge town meeting members to keep them in mind as we begin to put the motion on the floor. Ms. Arrington. Thank you.

[Speaker 16] (27:18 - 27:34)
Article 1. To see if the town will vote to rescind all authority granted to the Swampscot Select Board pursuant to Article 11 of the 2023 Swampscot Annual Town Meeting, I move the article as printed in the warrant.

[Speaker 1] (27:34 - 27:35)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 16] (27:35 - 27:36)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (27:36 - 27:37)
Ms. Arrington.

[Speaker 16] (27:38 - 30:48)
Good evening, town meeting. I am Katie Arrington, precinct 1 town meeting member and a member of the Finance Committee. Tonight, however, I am speaking only as a town meeting member, as the daughter of Jerry Murphy, a Navy veteran, and as a friend to many veterans in Swampscot and inland.

I suspect many people want to speak tonight, so I will keep my remarks brief. At the 2023 Annual Town Meeting, we were told that the project would include both veterans' affordable housing and a new VFW post. At the 2023 Annual Town Meeting, we were told that town meeting support would bring life to the town's and VFW's shared vision for a project that included both veterans' affordable housing and a new VFW post.

At the 2023 Annual Town Meeting, we were told that a yes vote meant that we could have both veterans' affordable housing and a new VFW post. Tonight, you will be asked to forget 2023, and you will hear very different things. Tonight, you will be told that your vote at the 2023 town meeting did not require that the select board ensure the project including both veterans' affordable housing and a new VFW post.

Tonight, you are going to be told that your vote will not change anything. What's done is done. Tonight, you will be told that a yes vote means you do not support affordable housing for veterans.

How is it that a majority of our select board decided to unilaterally renege on promises made to our veterans? How is it that a majority of our select board is relying on a contorted, grammatic argument that a missing comma in the 2023 warrant language allows them to breach the promises made to town meeting and to our veterans? Tonight, the only question for town meeting is did the select board do what it said it was going to do or did it exceed the authority it asked for and got from town meeting?

It is not town meeting's responsibility to fix the problem or to play Solomon. It is the select board's responsibility to make this right. Voting yes to rescind the authority granted by the 2023 town meeting will send an unmistakable message to the select board.

Town meeting matters. Our veterans matter. Our promises matter.

With the permission of the moderator, I would like to turn this over to Nelson Leon, the commander of the VFW post 1240. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (30:49 - 30:50)
Is Commander Leon here?

[Speaker 9] (31:09 - 36:38)
Good evening, town meeting members. My name is Nelson Leon, and I am the commander of Joseph L. Stevens' VFW post 1240 in Swampscar.

I am an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran. I was an Army corporal, and in my six years in the National Guard, four of them were spent on active duty between deployment and duty station Fort Bliss. I was a combat medic and an instructor.

I am grateful to all of you for being here tonight. My comments will be brief. I, like many of you, do not wish to be here tonight, but I have no choice.

I have to be here to ask your help to ensure that the select board lives up to the promise it made to the VFW and town meeting at the May 2023 town meeting. That promise was simple. If the VFW supported the select board's plan before town meeting, the select board would ensure the redevelopment of the VFW would include both affordable housing for veterans and a new VFW post.

Our discussions with the select board started early 2023 when select board members David Grishman and Peter Speleos, with the support of their colleagues, asked to meet with us to discuss the future of the VFW and the possible creation of veteran affordable housing. During those discussions, Dave and Peter asked for the VFW's trust and support. After many long conversations, the VFW decided to trust the select board's express commitment that any redevelopment of the VFW post would include both affordable housing for veterans and a new VFW.

On May 15th, 2023, David Grishman stood before town meeting and, with the blessing of the VFW, conveyed our support to redevelop the property into both affordable housing for veterans and a new VFW post. With the VFW's support in hand and in just a little over 20 minutes of discussion, Swanscott Town Meeting unanimously approved this request of the select board. In September 2023, the town received a proposal to redevelop the property with 42 units of affordable housing for veterans and a new VFW post.

Over the next 14 months, there were no public updates from select board. Instead, the select board held at least 25 non-public executive sessions where the project may have been discussed. In October of 2024, at the request of the select board, myself and VFW offices met with the select board members, Marilyn Fletcher, David Grishman, Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald, Community Development Director Margie Golasco.

We were told good news. The select board had voted in a non-public executive session to approve a plan that would allow the VFW to remain in its current building and allow the new affordable housing to be built entirely on the adjacent parcel. Fast forward to December 2024.

Without any further discussion with the VFW, the select board changed its vote and voted 3-2 to move forward with the Veterans Affordable Housing Project that excludes a new VFW post. The same three board members also announced at that time the intention to relocate the VFW to the Reach Arts Building on Burrill Street. To say we were surprised and upset about the sudden turn of events would be an understatement.

Nevertheless, at the request of David Grishman and in the spirit of cooperation, we entertained a possibility of relocating the Reach Arts Building. In December, we toured the Reach Arts Building with the contractor and architect to better understand the needed modifications and expense associated with converting the Reach Arts Building into a VFW. Their feedback was unambiguous.

Converting Reach Arts into an accessible VFW building, including compliance with current ADA electrical and public safety codes, would be a huge and costly endeavor, well more than a million dollars. To the neighbors of the Reach Arts Building, I am sorry there was no discussion with you prior to the select board announcing its plan. It is not our idea, and for many reasons, we do not believe the VFW should be relocated to your neighborhood.

Finally, I suspect you will hear arguments tonight that your vote has no meaning. You will be told that town meeting cannot undo an action of the select board. I'm not going to pretend I understand the law.

I will leave that to our lawyer. But there is one thing I do know for certain as a veteran. Your word is your bond.

The select board gave its word to the VFW that the project would include both affordable housing for veterans and a new VFW post. Your word is your bond. If we don't have that, we don't have much.

For over 100 years, Joseph L. Stevens' VFW Post 1240 has served as the most significant support network for veterans in the greater Swampscott and Lynn area. Our current VFW Post was constructed with private funds and has served as home for the VFW members, American Legion Post 57, Disabled American Veterans Chapter 64, Marine Corps League, and our very active VFW Post 1240 Auxiliary.

This is our home, and we literally and figuratively cannot afford to lose it. Everybody loves their soldiers until they're done fighting. At least that's what it seems like.

We have fought enough already, but we will continue our legal fight after tonight if necessary. But I truly hope that town meeting joins us in demanding the select board keep its word to town meeting and my fellow veterans. I ask you for a yes vote tonight.

Thank you.

[Speaker 30] (36:39 - 36:40)
Thank you, Mr. Leon.

[Speaker 1] (36:51 - 37:03)
At this juncture, as has been alluded to by previous speakers, there are some legal opinions that I'm going to turn to counsel to explain. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.

[Speaker 7] (37:03 - 42:13)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. So the question that was posed is whether or not town meeting has the ability to revoke or rescind the authority that was granted to the select board under Article 11 of the 2023 Annual Town Meeting. In my opinion, the answer is no at this time because rights have vested in a third party, in this case BBH, as a result of the execution of the LDA, which was approved by the select board at an open meeting on December 18th of 2024.

As you know, under Article 11 of the 2023 Annual Town Meeting Warrant, it authorized the select board to convey two pieces of property, 12 to 24 Pine Street, and a portion of 10 New Ocean Street, for affordable housing purposes with a preference for veterans and the inclusion of a new VFW post and such other purposes as the select board shall determine. In my opinion, the language of Article 11 indicates a preference as opposed to a mandate for the inclusion of the VFW post, and that opinion is consistent with the RFP that the town solicited in 2023. There's language in multiple sections of the RFP which provide that proposals that included a VFW post would be looked at most favorably.

Specifically, it said that proposals would be given most favorable ratings that included 100% affordable units, veterans housing with a local preference. There would be an additional preference if it provided for 55 and over restrictions, as well as the inclusion of a new 3,000 square foot VFW post. The minimum submittal requirements that were specified in the RFP did not specifically indicate that anyone had to include the VFW post as part of the development, and the evaluation criteria specifically provided that if you included a VFW post, your proposal would be ranked as highly advantageous, and the failure to include a VFW post would be scored as least advantageous.

So by not including a VFW post in the development, you weren't excluded from being a bidder on the project or being a successful proposer. Instead, you would be scored lower than other proposers who did include that in their proposal. Pursuant to the authority that was granted to the select board under the Warren article in 2023, the board proceeded to sign the LDA.

Once the LDA was signed, it created a binding contract between the town and BBH, thereby vesting rights in BBH. As a result, because those rights are vested under well-established case law and legal principles, town meeting cannot now rescind or revoke the authority that was granted by the board and already executed resulting in the vesting of rights in BBH. Under the land development agreement that was signed, there's no authority for the town to simply refuse to proceed or to terminate the LDA because at this point town meeting has indicated a different preference in terms of how they'd like the board to proceed.

The LDA provides for very specific reasons why the select board could terminate, and they're basically due to lapses of BBH with respect to their obligations under the agreement. In short, if the town or if the select board sought to terminate the LDA at this point and failed to proceed with the ultimate execution of the ground lease and proceeding with the project, BBH would have rights under the terms of the LDA to seek damages, including specific performance as well as monetary damages against the town, as well as attorney's fees. There's a provision in the LDA which provides for a fee-shifting measure.

So in short, because the select board exercised its rights that were granted by the town meeting in 2023 to proceed with the signing of an LDA, the LDA was signed and vesting rights now in BBH. It's essentially too late for town meeting to revoke or rescind that authority. So any vote here, in my opinion, essentially would just provide a sense of the meeting.

It would essentially just inform the select board what the folks who attended tonight's town meeting feel about this particular issue. But in my opinion, it's not binding. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (42:14 - 42:31)
Thank you, Councillor. Now that we have that out of the way, I would like to turn to the Finance Committee for their report. I do note that the select board has voted three to two to favor indefinite postponement.

Mr. Hartman.

[Speaker 22] (42:33 - 44:19)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Eric Hartman, Precinct 1 town meeting member, chair of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee deliberated for quite a while in this article, and there were many varying opinions and a lot of emotions in the discussions.

But as part of our deliberations, we did read and receive an opinion from town council, and I'm going to paraphrase some statements from that. But basically, we received a written opinion for the potential impact of a yes vote or a no vote on today's article. To quote the opinion we received, quote, as such, in our opinion, the LDA contractually obligates the town to execute the ground lease as provided in the LDA, regardless of the ultimate vote of the citizen's petition at town meeting.

Accordingly, it is our opinion that town meeting may not now rescind the rights granted to the select board under Article 11 of the 2023 annual town meeting, as rights have vested in B.B.H. by virtue of the execution of the LDA. So our interpretation of this opinion generally means that a yes vote will not have an opinion, an impact on the project per the LDA. And similarly, a no vote would also have no impact on the project or LDA.

We recognize, though, that there are a myriad of potential risks that could develop through other actions that have the potential to cause financial harm to the town, such as lawsuits, losses due to the vacant property, or potential actions by the federal government regarding our ARPA funds. But these are all hypothetical and not yet quantifiable. So for all these reasons, the Finance Committee voted to not make a recommendation for favorable or unfavorable action on this warrant article.

[Speaker 1] (44:20 - 44:44)
Thank you, Mr. Hartman. All right. I'm going to begin with the list of people who have asked to speak.

What is your point? I did list your vote. I have one of your members up next to speak, if you want to speak instead.

I will speak first.

[Speaker 21] (44:53 - 46:49)
Hello, and thank you for being here tonight. My name is Mary Ellen Fletcher, Precinct 4. I'm the chair of the Select Board and the daughter of a Korean War veteran, Mike Fletcher.

Tonight, the Select Board voted 3-2 to not support this article for the following reasons. On November 20th, December 4th, and December 18th, following resident comments, the Select Board held extensive and thorough debates on the issue. On December 18th, the majority of the Select Board voted to enter into binding contract with B'nai B'rith to secure up to 42 units of affordable senior housing with the veterans' preference not to exceed three stories in height.

This decision was made to minimize the impact of an already densely populated neighborhood. The plan includes building a three-story structure on the two lots and relocating the post to original American Legion building at 89 Burrell Street, approximately 600 feet from the original location. The majority of the Select Board believed that this approach was the most balanced way to secure ARPA funding and guarantee the success of the project.

Based on legal opinion of town council, KP Law, Tom McNerney, the special town meeting does not have the authority to revoke or to rescind an already binding contract. Additionally, a second opinion from a well-respected municipal law firm, Murphy, Hesse, Toomey, and Lehane, concludes that town meeting does not have the authority to revoke the original vote as it is a binding contract. I respectfully ask the moderator to allow Katie Phelan to come up and to summarize the opinion of independent council, Murphy, Hesse, Toomey, and Lehane.

And again, thank you very much. The majority of the Select Board asks you to vote no. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (46:55 - 46:57)
Ms. Phelan, do you have comments to add?

[Speaker 20] (47:04 - 49:08)
Good evening. Katie Phelan, Precinct 3, Vice Chair. I am an attorney, but I am not speaking in a legal capacity on behalf of the town tonight.

So I want to disclose that. My purpose is to discuss the paperwork which you all received on your walk-in, which is the second opinion which we received, which reflects a similar outlook. I mean, I could read it, but you all could read it also.

The gist of it is similar to what Mr. McNerney said, that it is well established that when rights become vested under a vote of town meeting, the inhabitants of town meeting may reconsider their formal vote at a subsequent meeting. The intervention of a right of some third party, however, forecloses a rescission of the earlier action, meaning because we have signed the LDA and rights have vested in BBH, that we now currently do not have the ability to revoke the rights that were given to the Select Board to enter into that agreement. Town Council also spoke on the feelings of whether or not the Select Board could go forward with the exclusion of a VFW post in the LDA.

So that legal opinion was discussed. We again asked this council to opine on that as well. And they concluded in their opinion, it says, nor in my opinion is the LDA rendered invalid or unenforceable by virtue of its omission of the language requiring a VFW post 1240 facility.

To the contrary, in their view, Article 11 in the authorizing vote reasonably may be construed as not mandating that the property feature a VFW post 1240 facility. So I wanted to share that we received a second opinion which reflects town council's opinion. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (49:09 - 49:18)
Thank you, Ms. Phelan. Resuming now with a list of people who've requested to speak. Mr. Burke.

[Speaker 5] (49:25 - 56:33)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Scott Burke, town meeting member, Precinct 6. I'm also a lawyer, but I'm not representing any client and have no financial interest in the outcome of this.

So we've been told that town council has an opinion that the Select Board, having executed this contract, we have no authority to rescind our prior vote. That might be correct if the Select Board had the authority to begin with to enter into the contract. Let me say that again.

If the Select Board had the authority by town meeting to enter into the contract, town council might be right. But if the Select Board did not have that authority in the first place, then the contract becomes invalid. Then it's like your neighbor signing a deed to sell your house.

They didn't have the authority to do that. And whether the Select Board had the authority under the town meeting vote in 2023 comes down to the language, supposedly to this missing comma. Now, note that town council hasn't said that our vote was clear as to whether a housing preference for veterans, the language preference applied to both housing and the VFW post.

Town council's opinion is you could interpret it either way. So town council is basically saying to the Select Board, you can interpret the vote of town meeting to allow you to exclude the VFW. He wasn't opining that they had to.

Now, this is the language from our Article 11, 2003. We approved a development for affordable housing with a preference for veterans and inclusion of a new VFW post 1240. Now, to me, that language was very clear.

Preference for veterans modifies the housing. You didn't need a comma to make that clear. We all understood what was going on.

But if you're going to believe town council, you could pull out for veterans and this clause would still make sense. So let me read that clause to you without the words for veterans. A development for affordable housing with a preference for inclusion of a new VFW post.

That makes no sense. Clearly, the word preference is modifying the housing. The VFW post has nothing to do with the housing.

It was a separate, promised, incorporated piece of this project. And there's no other way to interpret that without torturing the language. So my opinion as a lawyer is, if you read the black letter language of our town meeting vote, the select board was not authorized to do what they did.

And there is no vested interest. And therefore, we can withdraw that authorization. The second point, though, that I want to make is that if it's ambiguous, as town council has suggested, the law tells us what to do.

The law tells the courts what to do. The instruction is, you go back and you look at the legislative history. And courts do that all the time.

You go back to see what the legislators said when they passed the act. The courts will read the transcript. And you've heard this in the news.

When people try to interpret the U.S. Constitution, people talk about what the framers said in Philadelphia when they were arguing about our Constitution. Courts do it all the time. I doubt town council went back to listen to the video of our meeting in 2023 that started at the third hour of our first day.

I went back and listened to that. You listen to that, there's no doubt what we intended. There's no doubt that the VFW post was separate from the preference for veterans.

In fact, one member of town meeting, and Mr. Driscoll, I hope you don't mind me calling you out on it. But you asked, can we make it mandatory housing for veterans and for Swampscott residents? And the response by the chair of the Affordable Housing Trust was, we have to use the word preference because of federal fair housing laws.

The discussion about preference was all about the housing for veterans, not about the VFW post. And if you have any doubt about that, I urge you to go back to the third hour of day one on YouTube to watch that. The select board was told by town council in its opinion that because of this ambiguity, quote, the select board could, of course, still decide to seek town meeting to amend the article to further clarify this issue if it wishes to do so.

This was the same opinion about the comma. Town council tells the select board you can go back to town meeting. That was before they signed the contract.

They didn't come back to town meeting. At best, it's ambiguous, and I don't think it's ambiguous. But at best from their point of view, it's ambiguous.

They should have come back to us. We don't get to vote on that much stuff that's meaningful and important, right? And this one we were excited about.

We were excited about it because we heard from Mike Sweeney. I'm not sure if he's still the director of veteran services for Swampscott. We heard from Mike Sweeney, and he talked about and Mr. Blounder talked about how awesome it was going to be to have a VFW post under the same roof of where veterans are living. So services can be provided. The canteen can be in the same place. We were all excited about that, and to have the wool pulled out from under us at this point is very, very disappointing.

You're going to hear tonight from the other side, and you already heard some comments about this, better to go forward with something, right? Well, we heard that in 2014 about the new school proposal. Yeah, building the elementary school in the bowl behind the middle school, it's not perfect, but if we don't do it, we'll never have a new elementary school.

The Mass School Building Authority will never give us money. We'll never get an architect who will want to work with us if we reject this. Well, we rejected that proposal, and I haven't heard a single person say when they come to this building, I wish we built in the bowl.

Let's reject our authority from 2023, and let's get this right. Yes, perfection is the enemy of good, but for me, it's a no-go if the VFW post is not in this building. Thank you.

[Speaker 30] (56:34 - 56:35)
Thank you, Mr. Burke.

[Speaker 1] (56:39 - 56:42)
Next I have Ms. Friedlander.

[Speaker 18] (56:53 - 1:00:22)
Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Debbie Friedlander, Precinct 6.

I am not a lawyer, although I do defer to legal opinions. So I'm a resident of Swampscott, and I'm a very proud daughter of a proud Korean War veteran. May he rest in peace.

I don't think this is a discussion of who loves veterans more. I think that everyone in this room knows that we owe a great national debt to our veterans. I know I do, to my dad.

So I'm going to speak to all of us that are homeowners, and you have a project, and maybe you hire an architect, and you get quotes from lots of developers, and eventually, or contractors, they've got to come to your home, and they have to look at the site, and they've got to look at all your mechanicals, and your dream that your designer put on paper is something that they really can't execute. And they can't because there's a retaining wall, and you don't have the extra $50,000 to put that up, or you need a beam in the ceiling, or it's really impossible because we all live in pretty old homes to move plumbing and electrical at a cost that you can afford. That's how I see this.

The Select Board, in my humble opinion, again, not a lawyer, did enter into an agreement, and I did read the RFP, which did allow for some changes. So one person, one company, excuse me, answers the RFP. They make site visits, and they determine that because this site is in a flood zone, they can't put the mechanicals in the basement, which is typically where we all have our mechanicals, and instead, they've got to go up, and as that causes a change in design, which makes the building taller, which no longer fits into the neighborhood, and quite frankly, the residents, in my opinion, again, had every right to say, hey, this isn't right for us. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but as I read, they do have the right to take in new data.

They do have a right to have some meetings in private, especially when it comes to real estate. I read the MassGov law on that. And they say, okay, wait a second, we still want our affordable housing.

We did make a promise to our veterans. What can we do? And a building is available.

Now, the veterans had already, and again, I'm not a veteran, and I also know that there's some long history with the town of Swampscott. They already knew they were going to make a move, and yes, it would have been great if we could incorporate it, but unfortunately, I know we've got some developers in this audience and contractors in this audience. It just wasn't feasible.

And so a different solution came up. So I admittedly was part of a group that put together a document. We did a lot of research, and I do urge you to vote no on this, and thank you, Mr. Moderator, for giving me time.

[Speaker 30] (1:00:22 - 1:00:28)
Thank you, Ms. Friedlander. Mr. Grishman.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:34 - 1:00:38)
I don't think a motion to call the question is in order at this point. We've barely been here an hour.

[Speaker 3] (1:00:41 - 1:01:00)
David Grishman, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member Select Board. There have been many questions and comments about Warrant Article 11 from the annual town meeting for May 2023. I don't think we need to debate what was said or what was heard.

We can just listen to it again tonight. Mr. Moderator.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:00 - 1:01:37)
Thank you for your patience as we work through the technical issues in this new location.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:40 - 1:09:42)
Yep. Affordable Housing Trust, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member Select Board. In April of 23, subject to the approval of this body, the Select Board signed a purchase and sale on 12 to 24 Pine Street using ARPA funds.

The plan is to provide 30 to 40 units of veterans' affordable housing and rebuild the VFW Post 1240 to ensure services can be brought in to provide the highest level of care and support to our veterans. This idea to invest over $1.7 million is by far the largest investment the town has ever made in veterans or veteran services. Article 10 was unanimously supported by the Select Board, unanimously supported by the Affordable Housing Trust, was supported 5-0 by FinCom and is supported by VFW Post 1240 leadership.

Commander Patrick Burke from the VFW cannot be here this evening, but it should be noted that he has advocated tirelessly for all veterans, including the VFW, the American Legion, and the DAV and provides his unwavering support for this article. With your support tonight, we have an opportunity to start the process to create 30 to 40 units of veterans' affordable housing in conjunction with providing a new fully ADA accessible post that will allow services to support our veterans' community. Mr. Blonder, we hear you. We listen to you every year, and this is a great opportunity for the town of Swampscott and this body here to do right by its veterans. The master plan of the town, as well as the town's housing production plan, cite the need for the creation of affordable housing. The Pine Tree Project will focus on veterans' affordable housing.

Based upon conversations with our VSO and VFW leadership, veterans' affordable housing and veterans' services are much needed within the town. And we look forward to continuing to collaborate with all stakeholders of all veterans' organizations in the coming months. As stated previously, there's no request for public dollars this evening.

The purchase price of the property is $1.725 million funded from ARPA. And it's important to stress that upon approval by town meeting, the town will make a $100,000 deposit of which $40,000 is nonrefundable. And will be applied to holding costs of the property owner, again, using ARPA funds.

The town will conduct all the required due diligence on the property, including environmental and geotechnical studies. And upon approval of town meeting this evening, we will have these consultants engaged and work towards positioning the property to close on or before July 17th of this year. This is a great opportunity, a once in a generation type of opportunity that we town meeting have to show veterans of Swampscott and quite frankly, all veterans, that the town of Swampscott is serious in its commitment to truly supporting our veterans, as well as taking decisive action.

That's article 10. Article 11 is obviously connected to article 10. And again, was unanimously supported by the Affordable Housing Trust, the Select Board 5.0 by FinCom, and is also supported by VFW Post 1240 leadership. The plan of this article is to allow the Select Board to issue an RFP and eventually select a respondent, which will allow for the redevelopment of the combined property to provide affordable housing for veterans with a local Swampscott preference, as well as construct a new canteen and a fully ADA accessible area, which will allow for considerable veteran services to be provided to our veterans community.

It's the intention of the town to work collaboratively and in conjunction with the Swampscott Affordable Housing Trust to work together on an RFP, with the plan to issue an RFP in late summer, early fall, select a developer by October or November of this year. This is a tentative plan. And with the hope of seeking funding as early as January of 2024 for the construction.

Our veterans have done so much for us as a country and so much for us as a town. And now they need you, Swampscott Town Meeting, to provide your support by supporting article 10 and article 11 this evening. Thank you, Mr. Grishman. Okay, with that presentation and a little more than 15, maybe 20 minutes of discussion, Swampscott Town Meeting unanimously voted to allow the select board to lease or sell the VFW property and an adjacent parcel for redevelopment in 30 to 40 units of affordable housing with veterans preference and a new VFW post. Hard stop. Town Meeting spent two hours last year talking about pickleball courts.

Do any of us really doubt what Town Meeting approved in 2023 related to the VFW? Without the inclusion of the new VFW post, there would have been absolutely zero support for this project from the veterans, which would have made the Warren article dead on arrival at the May 2023 annual Town Meeting. We've heard from town council and others that our votes tonight, the votes of Town Meeting don't matter, but they do.

Your votes matter. They always matter. Here's why.

Without Town Meeting support, this affordable housing project will not be supported by our state delegation. And as such, the project will not be funded at the state level as competition is fierce for affordable housing projects in the Commonwealth. Your vote matters.

It matters a lot. I want to be clear. I support the affordable housing project and our veterans support this affordable housing project.

With the support of our other select board colleagues, previously, Peter Spellios and I met with VFW leadership for almost one year to work to reestablish a trusting relationship between our veterans and our town government. Through those discussions, we worked hard and reestablished some trust, and the VFW volunteered to be a partner in creating new veterans' affordable housing that also included a new VFW post. Tonight, our veterans, and they're in the back there, the veterans are just asking us to stand by the promises the select board made to them and made to Town Meeting.

A no vote tonight does nothing but maintain the status quo. It leaves this project in limbo with fractured political support and forces the VFW to sue the town and make us, the select board, live up to the clear and unambiguous promises the select board made to them and made to you, Town Meeting. A yes vote tonight sends an unmistakable message that Town Meeting wants the select board and the developer to get back to the negotiating table and to do what the select board told Town Meeting it was going to do, to do what Town Meeting approved in 2023, and to do what B'nai B'rith proposed in its original response to the RFP, create 30 to 40 units of affordable veterans' housing and a new VFW post.

Town Meeting, if you don't hold us, the select board, accountable, then who will? Town Meeting, you are the chief legislative body in the town of Swampskate. The select board cannot just do what it wants, even if they think they are righteous in doing so.

There are rules. There are laws. And if we turn a blind eye tonight to the overreach, when we like what the select board is doing, please know you will not be able to stop overreach later when you don't like what the select board is doing.

Allowing the select board to exceed its authority with impunity is a dangerous and very slippery slope. Please join me tonight in resetting this discussion, in resetting this project, and in resetting our relationship between the select board, our veterans, and Town Meeting. Please vote yes.

Thank you.

[Speaker 30] (1:09:42 - 1:09:44)
Thank you, Mr. Grishman.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:48 - 1:09:52)
Mr. Spritz, I believe you wanted to make some comments.

[Speaker 28] (1:09:55 - 1:10:14)
What is your point of order, sir? Tom Peleria, Precinct 6. As you alluded to earlier, there's many people that want to speak tonight.

I would ask the moderator to enforce time limits on the speakers. You have at your discretion to offer them extensions, but so that everybody has a chance to speak tonight, I would ask you to enforce the time limits on speakers.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:14 - 1:10:27)
I appreciate your opinion, sir. Mr. Spritz, what motion do you have to offer?

[Speaker 16] (1:10:27 - 1:10:33)
At the conclusion of discussion, I would like to institute a roll call vote.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:34 - 1:11:09)
Okay. A motion to fix the method of voting to be roll call would require 29 other people to rise now, seeing 33 at least. The method of voting shall be a roll call vote.

Mr. Spritz.

[Speaker 11] (1:11:12 - 1:15:54)
Hi. Good evening, town meeting. My name is Wayne Spritz, Precinct 3.

I appreciate you all being here tonight. This is not something that I think any of us are here that feel great about. This is not a fight that we want to have.

This is not a question of do we love our veterans or hate our veterans. It's not any of that, and I just want to have this all kind of lower the temperature a bit, and I am guilty maybe myself of raising the temperature, but some of you may have received some of the letters that have been sent out. The goal has been to provide as much information as possible, and of course you're going to make up your own mind tonight about that.

So I see this framed as in a couple of different ways. One, is it a legal argument? Two, it's obviously an emotional argument, right?

But at the end of the day, is this about maybe to what David, to your point, maybe it is about is it extension of authority by the select board or is it something that is indeed perfect, can be the enemy of good? And that's the way I feel about this at this moment. I think that the project that we have on board and ready to go is a fabulous project.

I think that it's going to provide services. I, unfortunately, I don't feel great. I don't think anyone feels great that the last proposal that was voted on had to move the Veterans Post itself.

I don't think anybody feels great about that, but I think this is one of those things in design that sometimes there are immovable objects, and in those immovable objects you have to make unfortunate concessions. I think, my personal opinion, I'd rather see 41 units of housing for veterans and be able to have the post still have a home. I think this town is committed to having the post have a home.

However, they were, the plan was to move. Did it matter whether or not it's 590 feet away? I suppose that's up for debate.

I'm not here to judge one way or the other, but I think it seems to be a reasonable solution. As for whether or not, is it, you know, David, to your point, was it something that we all agreed on? I think we all agreed upon no one's looking to kill the post at all.

And the RFP that was put out, while under your and Mr. Spolios' leadership, actually the RFP, if you look at it, it's a recommendation. You guys gave the authority to the project proposals to have provided that. So to come back to town meeting seems challenging at best.

And that's maybe, that's the part where I stand clear on. And look, I hope we can change the discussion to a more positive discussion, get the impact and the feedback. We haven't had a veterans commission.

I know, David, you had suggested this. I'll give it to your credit. You've given this suggestion in the past.

I'd like to see a veterans commission. I'd like to see the voices of veterans from our town to be able to decide what happens next. If they have to move, maybe we have a once-in-a-generational opportunity to really get it right, whatever we have to do.

But I do think 41 beautiful, you know, two weeks ago I didn't have any more information than people walking in here. I asked a lot of questions. I sought out the individual legal documents and tried to make sense of it.

And this is the sense I made out of it. Look, there may be other information out there. I totally appreciate that.

And I would welcome you to voice your opinion. But as far as I can see, my preference is I don't want to destroy this project. I do not, in my gut, feel that there is another opportunity to get this project done.

There may be people that feel otherwise. I am not a real estate developer, and I am not a lawyer. But this makes no sense to me at this point, to try to destroy this project as is.

If we thought we could do it with five stories, my understanding is there was a previous development opportunity that the neighborhood did not really, the neighborhood didn't want. And maybe we should have some neighbors speak to that. Maybe that's a distraction.

I don't know. But that's my viewpoint on it, and I urge you to save the current Veterans Housing Project and in support of the veterans to make this right. If they do have to move, that we do it right.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:55 - 1:16:01)
Thank you, Mr. Spritz. Mr. Bierman, did you wish to speak?

[Speaker 14] (1:16:05 - 1:19:59)
Hi, Jack Bierman, Precinct 6, town meeting member. I am an attorney. I'm not representing anybody, and I don't mean to give a legal opinion, especially in disagreeing with one of my students, my former students.

But I just want to say more focused on the process, because I remember how exciting it seemed that we were going to have the opportunity to have this new affordable housing with a veteran's preference in the same building as the VFW. I have no doubt in my mind that that's what we voted on, and I really don't think we would have voted in favor of this had the proposal not included the VFW post. At least some definite arrangement for something equivalent.

So with that understanding, it's a shame that we're so divided about this. We already had a vote. It was unanimous.

This is what we wanted to do. And now we're here in this contentious meeting where the select board has had one after the other, three to two votes. People seem to be upset at each other about it, and we didn't have to be in this position because the select board could have come to us when they first decided there was a problem with the proposal that Ben Eberth came back with, which had a smaller-than-hoped-for VFW post included.

And for some reason that I don't understand, the select board decided that they didn't want to come back to town meeting, that they just wanted to do it on their own. And I think that, you know, I understand that they have to make adjustments very often in between town meetings. They're the day-to-day governing body of the town when we're not in session.

But they could have come back to us, and they decided not to. And that's what I really don't understand. And I think that given how important including the post was to the original vote, that if they go ahead with what they plan to do, this town meeting, it's going to just show terrible distrust by the town meeting of anything that the select board has given authority to do.

And, you know, so there may be good reasons for the change, but it shouldn't have been made without consulting us. How can we ever trust the select board in the future if what we put in a warrant and what was important in the warrant can just be discarded and then enter into a binding contract which could have negative consequences for the town if we try to get out of it? I mean, I don't know.

The veterans seem to be on both sides, so I don't know whether, but I think it's really important based on the consensus among the veterans when we ask them to accommodate the housing by allowing their post to be destroyed and then put back into that building. I think we show a lack of respect for them also if we go forward with the project as planned right now. And there's nobody in the world that deserves more respect than the veterans of the United States Armed Forces, so I think we ought to show them as much respect as going on.

And I don't understand... I don't understand why we couldn't have gone back to the original proposal. Maybe the post was a little bit smaller, but I'm guessing that between a smaller post on the site and the almost impossible-to-make-usable former American Legion building across from the old police station, I think the veterans probably would have gone for the smaller post.

Now, I just want to say one last thing. You know, we're really lucky. We live in one of the greatest towns in the Commonwealth, maybe one of the greatest places in the world.

We're all privileged to be in this great place. And if this article fails or if it has no effect and it ends up being that the veterans have to move to a different place or whatever happens, I hope that we'll all just remember how lucky we are to be here, and no one will sue anyone or go crazy on anyone, and we'll just move forward and make the best of what we have without causing the town even more headaches. Thank you.

[Speaker 30] (1:19:59 - 1:20:01)
Thank you, Mr. Bierman.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:04 - 1:20:14)
Is there an Alicia McCarthy from Pine Street here? Ma'am, if you would approach the microphone and introduce yourself, please.

[Speaker 13] (1:20:17 - 1:24:24)
Hi, my name's Alicia McCarthy of Pine Street, Precinct 3. Good evening. I stand before you today with a heavy heart, not because I oppose supporting our veterans, a cause I hold dear, but because I must also stand up for what is right for our community and our environment.

I must express my concern regarding a large five-story building, which is being considered if the VFW post stays at its current location, which has a well-documented history of poor sewer and drainage management. Our sewer lines are often full, especially during high tides, heavy rain, or snow melt. I've personally experienced the inability to flush one of my toilets when the system is overwhelmed.

Adding more housing and a larger building to this area will only worsen an already dire situation. The sewer and drainage systems are not equipped to handle additional loads, and we risk further backups, potential health hazards, and pollution. The drainage issues in this area directly contribute to contamination at Kings Beach.

Many of our beaches have already been closed to swimming due to high bacteria counts largely stemming from runoff and poor drainage. Adding a large five-story building to this site will exacerbate these problems, contributing more pollution, and making it even harder to enjoy beaches, which are meant to be safe and clean for all of us, especially for our children. I want to be very clear.

I have an immense love and respect for veterans and fully support efforts to provide them with affordable housing. It breaks my heart to even raise these concerns as it may seem as though I am opposing veterans. That is not the case.

I am deeply uncomfortable and saddened to be put in a position where I have to fight for what is right for our neighborhood, the residents, and for my children. I do not want to appear as though I am standing against those who have served our country. But as a mother and a homeowner, I have to speak out for the future of our community.

I don't understand why our town and the residents of my neighborhood specifically are being asked to give up so much. We are being asked to sacrifice sunlight, privacy, the value of our homes, and the safety of our children with increased traffic and busier roads. All of these would become far worse with a large five-story building.

From what I have been told, the VFW Post membership is comprised mostly of individuals from outside of our Swampscott community. It concerns me that their needs are taking precedence over the concerns of taxpaying residents who live here and are directly impacted by this development. I've spoken in the past about safety concerns and inconveniences in our neighborhood that have been ignored.

Recently, the MBTA has been busing passengers from Swampscott, and despite complaints to the MBTA, the bus company, and the police, the buses continue to park and idle in front of our houses. They are noisy, polluting, and block a busy street. Additionally, the condominium project on Boynton Street has made the sidewalk unusable during school hours, forcing children to walk in the street around the construction.

My children have become so accustomed to this that they no longer stop to check for traffic. These are just two examples of how the town has failed to address our concerns. I just heard Mr. Grishman say that he spent several hours over a year speaking to the members of the VFW, but he has repeatedly ignored requests to speak with concerned residents of our neighborhood. When you vote tonight, I urge you to vote no for the residents to help keep a balance among being able to keep the affordable housing for the veterans and keep our neighborhood safe for all.

[Speaker 30] (1:24:27 - 1:24:28)
Thank you, Ms. McCarthy.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:31 - 1:24:38)
Although he couldn't be there in 2023, is Patrick Burke, the former commander, present?

[Speaker 19] (1:24:54 - 1:27:57)
Hello. Mr. Burke. Good evening.

My name is Patrick Burke, Precinct 1. Prior commander at the VFW. A little bio, 27 years military service, Marine Corps, Air Force, five deployments, last one with the Army.

Raised four kids in this wonderful town. So I get deep roots in this town. I appreciate everybody showing up in the care for veterans.

It's really overwhelming. Actually, it's emotional. I won't go into all the details about how we ended up here, but we're here.

And the fact that we're here is a little disheartening because I sat with those meetings with the town leaders, and they looked us in the eyes and said, you will have a home. And we said, no, you're going to find a way to get us out. And guess what happened?

Here we are. To my fellow veterans, I apologize. I thought we could trust our town leaders, and now they're hanging this on a comma or whatever.

It's very disheartening to me. I would just say that other groups in the town, remember this, because it could be the police department, it could be the fire department, it could be the DPW where they're looking for a comma to change things. They made a promise to us.

Those words are important to military members. They might not be important to all of you, but when you promise somebody, you look them in the eye, they mean something. So apparently they don't mean anything, but here we are.

I'm not going to go on forever, but to the voters who are going to go and decide this tonight, thank you for being here. I know you voted for this before 100%. I hope tonight you'll just vote yes just to reset this conversation.

We are very blessed. I've seen some of the worst places on this planet, including two tours in Afghanistan. We are blessed.

There's enough resources in this town to figure it out. The VFW going to Borough Street isn't going to work. There's simply not enough parking.

We all know that. It's wonderful they want to give money and have it rehabbed. There's not parking.

It's not feasible. So just vote yes tonight. Reset the conversation.

There's a lot of smart people. Go back, figure it out. There's more than one developer.

That piece of property, if you don't want five, wait until the MBTA gets in there and says I'm going to put 12 in there. So just vote yes tonight. Reset the conversation.

Because words matter. Promises matter. The board in this town, and you voters, voted for us to stay there.

So I know there's an election coming up, and members need votes, but if it could happen to us, veterans, it can happen to any group in this town. So please, vote yes tonight. It will get developed.

It will get done. But let's just reset it and do it right. Thank you.

[Speaker 30] (1:27:59 - 1:28:00)
Thank you, Mr. Burke.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:02 - 1:28:08)
Mr. Patsios, did you wish to speak? Excuse me. Please state your point.

[Speaker 27] (1:28:20 - 1:28:49)
Anita Farber, Robertson Precinct 4. I'm curious to know that, if this goes forward the way it's been signed, does the town have the freedom to seek other sites besides Burroughs Street if we find a more appropriate site for our veterans post, or are we locked into the Burroughs Street site?

[Speaker 1] (1:28:49 - 1:29:06)
I appreciate the question. I don't think it's germane to this conversation, but I know we'll hear from more members of the select board if they wish to address that topic while they are speaking. I certainly welcome it.

Mr. Patsios, I will get to raised hands after I get through the list of people who have already given me the names.

[Speaker 17] (1:29:08 - 1:32:51)
Hi, my name is Charlie Patsios, Precinct 5 town meeting member, chair of the Housing Authority, one of your assessors on the Water and Sewer Committee. I've taken my town very seriously, and I've put my time and energy into helping the town. I'm also a member of the American Legion Post 57.

Everyone has spoken tonight about what the select board did and what town council has said, but I don't think I've heard any clarity on what the submitter, B'nai B'rith, said to us. So yes, there was one respondent, and I think we can all agree to that. I've taken the time to read their submission to the town.

In that submission, they presented a post being built on the property. They didn't say they didn't want to do it. They told us they wanted to do it.

Why? Because the grading that the select board looked at in determining if they wanted to award it, even if there's only one they could still have said no, was that they were going to build a post. That's what we asked for.

That's what they selected. It seems now that B'nai B'rith has done something. To me, it looks like a bait and switch.

Someone's done something that, in my opinion, doesn't meet the smell test. I don't like it. The town has moved us a few times.

You've heard that there was parcels of land that the post owned up near the high school, which was sold by the town, and in exchange for that, the post was moved to its present location. Yes, we did build that structure. We expected a long-term lease.

We trust the town. We continue to trust the town. Now we're going to verify that those things are actually being done.

I believe that even though we've heard that voting in opposition to this thing moving ahead doesn't really have an effect, I believe it does have an effect. I believe that what we say tonight to the select board is we're not happy with the way this was done. We can do better than this.

I think we need to say that. I think our votes need to indicate that. But in my heart of hearts, as a veteran and as a volunteer in a few different capacities here, this is beneath the town.

This is not what we've represented by our vote a few years ago, and we've had this quiet period where nothing has happened, and now we're here tonight. I don't think there's an option for us. We have to reaffirm the vote that we had then by saying the same thing tonight.

So I don't know how anyone else can feel differently about that. We want to create veterans' housing, but we want to eliminate the VFW post from where it is. It is true.

You don't want to have a post there. The fact of the matter is the location that you want to move us to was actually owned by the American Legion. We owned it.

I can only imagine that we started with owning land to being on leased land to be taken from the land that we built our home at to now be moved to a home that we used to own that now you own and that we don't want. This is almost like what's happened to the American Indian. It's ridiculous.

[Speaker 30] (1:32:53 - 1:32:54)
Thank you, Mr. Patzios.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:57 - 1:33:09)
Ms. Leonard wanted to speak at your convenience.

[Speaker 8] (1:33:12 - 1:39:41)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, everybody, for coming tonight. I'm Danielle Leonard.

I'm sorry, my back is to some of you. I am not a town meeting member. I am just a Select Board member who has been in this role for the past year.

And the best way I can describe it is trying to put a round peg in a square hole, right? And that's kind of what we're dealing with tonight. I am one of the people that voted that changed her vote, right, from the initial 4-1 decision to the 3-2 decision, and I think some people here were questioning tonight why that happened.

I think Mr. Bierman had some questions. So when I got on the Select Board May 1st of last year, I was kind of in the middle, right? I entered into this process without having the benefit of knowing really what happened in 2022-2023.

And right as soon as I did, I was involved in discussions with the Select Board, with the former town administrator, regarding this project. I didn't support this project in 2023. I wasn't part of that decision-making authority.

But I jumped right in, and I listened and I listened and I listened. I listened to the residents of Pine Street. I listened to members of the planning board.

I listened to legal opinions that the town has relied on for years in terms of town council. I am not a lawyer. That is not my wheelhouse.

I'll be the first to admit that. So when that's the case, I rely on what we consider to be the experts. I have never worked harder to try to make a situation work for multiple stakeholders.

Some of my colleagues on the Select Board are solely focused on the members of Post 1240, and I commend them for that, but they are not the only stakeholders in this game. We have residents on Pine Street. We have 15,000 people here who allocated $1.7 million in ARPA funds for this project. That was a big question for me. What happens? What happens if we don't move forward, and what do we do with that money?

No one could tell me conclusively that the residents of this town won't have to pay that money back. No one could say conclusively that we won't lose that money that we allocated if we go ahead and vote yes and pass up this project. Then the other piece of me just could not understand what the harm is in building 41 or 42 units of veterans' housing.

The biggest hang-up we have here is because there's not enough parking for a canteen for members of Post 1240. That's not enough for me. That's why I voted the way I voted, primarily when I listened to the people on Pine Street, and they tell me and they call me and tell me what they go through and what they would go through with a five-story building or a four-story-plus mechanical on top and how that would hinder their lives and the difficulty that they face.

That stuff mattered to me. It resonated with me. The 15,000 people or the 2,000 people that voted for me last year are the people that I answer to, right?

The 15,000 residents that live here matter to me. So every single one... No one matters more than the other, but it's not as simple as saying just the veterans of Post 1240.

They're just... And I have nothing but respect for veterans. I am the niece of two Purple Heart Marines.

So for anyone to say that I'm not interested or we're not interested in veterans and we want to throw the veterans out is complete BS, for lack of a better term, right? That is not what this is about. This is about compromise.

This is about a not-perfect plan, right? This is not a perfect solution. I'll be the first to tell you that.

But does it check boxes? Yes. It gets us affordable housing.

It gets us housing for veterans who badly need it. Do they also need a canteen? Yes.

They need a nice place that they can call their own. No question about it, right? Are we committed to doing that?

Yes. We have said that we will renovate and pay whatever it costs to renovate the former Reach Arts building to make it what they want it to be, right? That's compromise.

That's reality, right? This is not unilateral thinking. This is not tunnel vision thinking of just one specific group with one way about it.

No. I look at it as, how can we make as many people comfortable with this imperfect process, right? So that is why I voted the way I did.

Never, never would I have voted with trying to take away former town meeting or having no respect for town meeting members' decision-making. None of that. Commas mean nothing to me.

This isn't about commas. This is about people. This is about all the people in this town, right?

It's not just one group. So when I have to listen to Ms. McCarthy say, who consulted the residents of Pine Street? Who got their consensus?

Who actually sat down with every single veteran from Swampscot and said, what do you guys want? How often did we incorporate all of those people? No, we're focusing exclusively on the VFW Post 1240 membership, but they're not the only stakeholders here.

They certainly are a piece of it by far. But there are many other things that we had to consider. Me personally, I'm telling you exactly how I considered it, and that's the best I can do.

That's the best explanation I can give is to honestly say, yes, when faced with building a smaller, a less tall, soaring building on two parcels, yes, that mattered to me. That mattered to me because the residents of Pine Street have faced a lot, right? They have dealt with a lot that's really unspoken here, that people aren't mentioning, right?

So if we listen to them a little bit and we listen to the Veterans Post of 1240, there's got to be a compromise in the middle, and that's what we're trying to find here. It's not easy, but the right thing never is, right? We can't just say, we're only going to do this, we're only going to look at this angle, we're only going to go, you know, in this direction because these people have been persecuted for years.

They have, and that's horrible, and I feel badly for that, but I so badly want everybody to have an equal opportunity here to have this thing be right. And it's not perfect, but it's the best that I felt we could do.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:43 - 1:40:07)
Thank you, Ms. Leonard. On the... Thank you, Ms. Leonard. On the question of the ARPA funds, I'd like to turn to our interim town administrator and explain the disposition of those funds as well as any point of view you have on this project.

[Speaker 31] (1:40:08 - 1:40:23)
Actually, I'm going to defer to Tom. You can give it back. Oh, you didn't...

All right, I'll explain it to the best of my ability. The $1.7 million would still be available if we were going to use it for veterans or affordable housing.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:25 - 1:40:33)
Thank you, Mr. Preston. Mr. Spellios, did you still wish to speak?

[Speaker 12] (1:40:51 - 1:44:07)
Good evening. Peter Spellios, Precinct 3 town meeting member, and very happily not on the select board. I was quite literally in the rooms where it happened.

So tonight I want to talk about the rooms, because it's multiple rooms. But first I want to start with commending those that are standing up for town meeting. In the last decade, we've done a lot of things in Swampstead.

I dare anybody who's been here for 50, 60, 70 years to find any decade in which we did more. Not perfect, but we did a lot. And every single one of those things went through you.

You didn't actually do it. Some of you did, some of you volunteered. But when the select board came and said that they were going to do something, they made the argument, you had the debate, and almost without exception, you gave the select board the authority to go do it.

And without exception. Until tonight, the select board did it. I'm going to tell you the one time that you actually said no, and you said no to me.

If you remember five years ago, I got up here and I said, you know, I don't know why we own a liquor store. And we should sell a liquor store, C&L Liquor. It's now a pot shop.

We now own a pot shop. But I came and I made a case for the fact that the town really shouldn't be a landlord, that we're not really good at collecting rent, as evidenced by the fact that at that time, over a year in uncollected rent was outstanding with C&L Liquor, but yet no one had ever asked C&L Liquor for it. So I made the argument that that parcel where C&L Liquor is sits on the same parcel as the VFW.

And I shorthandedly, mistakenly, just was careless. And I got to town meeting, and boy did I get a tongue lashing from a 50-year town meeting member who's a veteran. I disrespect veterans.

I don't care about veterans. We lost that night. The town owns a pot shop.

The room's where it happened. The irony of me having to be one of the two select board members that then goes and meets with the VFW. Right, they probably were pissed for me apparently trying to sell the VFW a few years earlier.

But we sat, and as a board, David and myself were designated. As a board. Full, complete, five-member board.

David and I were designated. We spent a year. Trust us.

Trust us. Patrick Burke is not telling you a fib that he actually said, why should we trust you? Why are you not going to pull the rug out from under us?

He's telling you the truth. We sat for a year. The other rooms where it happened are the select board.

Between the time we started talking with Patrick Burke and the VFW leadership until December of 18, the select board held 25 different executive sessions where this matter was or could have been discussed. I was in the room for many of those. So before I go any further, Mr. Moderator, can I just ask a point of inquiry?

[Speaker 1] (1:44:08 - 1:44:09)
What is your point, sir?

[Speaker 12] (1:44:09 - 1:44:26)
Because I was in the room in executive session, I'm constrained by what I'm able to say about what was said in executive session if the select board has not released minutes from those executive sessions. So can I just ask whether for any of the 25 executive sessions where Pine Street was discussed, has the select board released any of the minutes publicly?

[Speaker 1] (1:44:27 - 1:44:30)
Have the minutes from the executive sessions discussing Pine Street been released?

[Speaker 12] (1:44:30 - 1:44:35)
Thereby freeing me up to be able to speak freely about what the select board talked about during those meetings.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:36 - 1:44:43)
Have any of those been released? I would take that as none of those has been released.

[Speaker 12] (1:44:44 - 1:45:04)
So none. 25 meetings, a signed agreement, nothing to hide. We're telling town meeting everything, but not a single meeting minute of the 25 executive sessions has been released.

I'm not on the select board, so I can't release them.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:10 - 1:45:13)
So... Mr. Smelios, you have the floor.

[Speaker 12] (1:45:13 - 1:45:50)
So that being said, in conclusion, in conclusion is I cannot tell you what was said, but I can tell you what wasn't said. That I can tell you. What wasn't said was the conversation that you're hearing tonight about three stories versus four stories.

That wasn't said in executive sessions. You know what also wasn't said? Actually, I'm sorry, I can't say that, because it was said.

Let me remember the things that I'm not allowed to say in this meeting, because I think it's important, because the select board is saying, the select board is saying to you guys that you know everything.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:50 - 1:45:53)
I am going to extend Mr. Smelios' time if you continue to interrupt him.

[Speaker 12] (1:45:54 - 1:46:23)
The select board, the select board... Mr. Kennedy, was that you? I've missed you.

I've missed you. The select board says that they're telling you everything, but yet they haven't released it. I am telling you, they are not telling you everything.

Send this back, bring them back to the table, bring them back to the table, and have them negotiate a fair deal...

[Speaker 22] (1:46:23 - 1:46:23)
There will be order.

[Speaker 12] (1:46:24 - 1:46:37)
Bring them back to the table, have them negotiating a fair deal with the veterans. We gave the word. If the word to the veterans and the word to you means nothing, do not be surprised when the Hawthorne and other things don't turn out the way you think they're going to.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:43 - 1:46:46)
Thank you, Mr. Smelios. Ms. Dalton, did you wish to speak?

[Speaker 25] (1:46:59 - 1:48:08)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. My name is Marsha Dalton. I'm in Precinct 3, town meeting member, and I'm also, I live on Pine Street.

I'm not going to repeat a lot of what's been said tonight, because a lot of what I was going to say has been said. The only thing I do want to stress is that the Pine Street residents have conceded many things. We know there's going to be problems with parking, and I'm not even going to go into that.

The only thing we wanted was a three-story building, and even a three-story building would have another half-story because the mechanical equipment has to go on the roof because it's a flood zone and nothing can go in the basement. And I also want to say that the Pine Street residents do not hate the veterans. We have nothing but respect for the veterans.

We want the veterans' housing to be built, and thank you for your service, and really that's all I have to say because everything else has been said and I'm not going to waste your time. So thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:09 - 1:48:17)
Thank you, Ms. Dalton. Brevity is the soul of wit. Ms. Wright, do you still wish to speak?

[Speaker 10] (1:48:27 - 1:50:19)
I'm Suzanne Wright, sorry, precinct 3 town meeting member. I'm not speaking here as a school committee member or as a school building committee member. The letter mailed to our homes earlier this week said if I'm in favor of veterans' housing, I must vote no tonight.

I'm 100% in favor of veterans' housing, and I'm 100% in favor of more affordable housing in Salmscott. I'm voting yes tonight. Every day it seems like our federal government is subverting processes.

It's enacting bygone laws. They're contorting themselves to get to an end goal. I go to bed probably like some of you, completely overwhelmed.

I feel helpless to stop the destruction that's happening at our national level. But I don't feel helpless here in Salmscott. Salmscott is where we can be better.

It's where we can do better. It's where we can continue to hold our government accountable to protect our institutions, our laws, and our norms. That's the beauty of this body, of town meeting.

Like we're essential to our local government. What we say matters. In all my years as a town meeting member, I can only think of one other time when the select board so brazenly did what it wanted, regardless of what it told town meeting.

In 2005, town meeting was asked to allow the board of selectmen to enter into an agreement to buy the original Temple Sherat Haim. That's like, some of you might not know, but it's between Atlantic and Humphrey on a triangle piece of land. It's Atlantic Crossing now.

Oh, sorry, Temple Israel.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:20 - 1:50:24)
The Temple was Temple Israel. The transaction was with Congregation Sherat Haim.

[Speaker 10] (1:50:24 - 1:53:37)
Oh, sorry. Town meeting was asked to authorize $3.75 million to purchase the Temple property, and we did. We voted yes.

But within months of that town meeting, we all learned that $3.75 million didn't buy the Temple property. It only bought 2.5, or it only bought 70% of the property. Undisclosed at that town meeting was that the selectmen knew that the town was only going to have enough money to be able to buy 2.5 out of the 3.4 acres. The remainder of the land was going to be sold by the Temple to a neighbor. You might know that parcel. It's the one on Atlantic that has the wrought iron gate and the broken basketball court.

Town meeting was up in arms over this decision. I mean, they were ranting about the secret deal and disrespecting and deceiving, and they were outraged over the lack of transparency. Now, I share this story because there's some members...

I share this story because the letter we got earlier in the week was penned by some people that were actually on town meeting in 2005. They were the same people that were crying foul and deceit and deception and disrespect and the lack of transparency by the Board of Selectmen. Apparently, the lack of transparency is only important when it stops you from getting what you want.

We voted yes in 2023 to buy the Pine Street property and to develop affordable veterans housing and a new VFW post, only to have the plan changed without further town meeting vote in private executive sessions and without the veterans okay. It's bad history repeating itself. Tonight isn't about the veterans or affordable housing.

Town meeting voted in 2023 that we want them both. It's not about contortions over a comma, although the amount of discussion in gymnastics around this punctuation marks lets us know that it's not really a genuine argument. Discussions about the right plan for affordable housing and the VFW post for veterans, the neighbors, and for all of us will start again when we vote yes to hold our elected officials accountable to our town meeting votes.

We might not be able to do much nationally, but in Swampscott, our leaders don't get to turn a blind eye to the laws or to the votes of town meeting. In Swampscott, we do the right thing, and when needed, like tonight, town meeting should remind the select board of this. I'll sleep easier tonight once town meeting votes yes to hold our select board accountable to our established rules and our norms.

Oh, and one thing, one final thing. The town sold the Temple property in 2023 for a loss of $1.4 million. Perhaps that should tell us something about the consequences of overreach of our town government.

I encourage you to vote yes tonight. Thank you.

[Speaker 30] (1:53:37 - 1:53:38)
Thank you, Ms. Wright.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:41 - 1:53:47)
All right, we've heard from four of our select board members. I'm going to go collect the whole set. Mr. Thompson, do you still wish to speak?

[Speaker 6] (1:54:16 - 1:54:40)
Doug Thompson, Precinct 5, select board. So as others have said, many of us wish we weren't here. So I'm going to offer an amendment to the motion.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:41 - 1:54:43)
Your amendment is, sir?

[Speaker 6] (1:54:46 - 1:54:55)
I shall read it. I've presented it to the town moderator and to town council. I've also provided an electronic version if you wish to display it.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:56 - 1:55:03)
Have you provided the electronic to me or to? Yes. All right, let me find that.

But please, go ahead, sir.

[Speaker 6] (1:55:04 - 2:01:18)
So before I read the motion, I just want to summarize a couple things. The pamphlet that some of our town meeting members distributed, I'll be generous and say that it was certainly not the whole truth. Most of what the chair of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund shared earlier was true.

I was not, even though I'm on that committee, I was not part of the vote to make the statement that was presented here tonight. It was presented as though the post being on that site was optional. It was not part of our vote when we initially supported it as the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

So in order to try to bridge the divide we have here and to adhere to the spirit of the motion as it was presented, I think we all want to, virtually everybody, wants to support the Affordable Housing for Veterans. I believe just about everyone would love to honor the commitment that was made to the post, which, yes, is not all veterans, but the post was a separate piece of this agreement. I believe the vast majority of people want to continue to work with Benebrith to see this housing development become a reality.

And I believe we all want to do as right as possible as we can for the neighbors. The select board, by three to two voters you know, arrived at one solution. There were several different solutions discussed, several that were endorsed by Benebrith, one of which is the one that was supported by the majority, a couple others they also supported, which kept the post on Pine Street, New Ocean, and had 41 units of housing.

Some of those options were four floors with mechanical on top. Other options that we were in the midst of discussing until those conversations were truncated were possibilities about three floors. So the amendment I'd like to make, I haven't delayed long enough to get it on the screen, is to add the following language at the end of the motion that's in front of you.

So still rescinding the select board's authority, as it's stated there, but then adding the following. Further, that the town vote to authorize the select board this is all going to sound pretty familiar, to convey certain property as follows. A, a parcel of land containing 0.360 acres, more or less, and all improvements thereon located at 12 to 24 Pine Street, identified as assessor's tax map 3-4-0, and described in a deed recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 40542, page 4. You can just read the original article if you happen to have it. It's going to sound very similar. Page 4.

And B, a parcel of land and all improvements thereon being a portion of that property located at 10 New Ocean Street, identified as assessor's tax map 3-3-0, and described in a deed recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 1555, page 45. Said parcel shown on a sketch plan as set forth in Appendix C on file with the town clerk. So far I haven't said anything different than Article 11 from two years ago.

Here I will try to bring an abundance of clarity to the vote that we all made, those of us that were here two years ago, for both affordable housing with a preference for veterans, comma, and inclusion of a new VFW post 1240, and such other purposes as the Select Board shall determine, and on such terms and conditions as the Select Board shall deem appropriate, and to authorize the Select Board to enter into all agreements and take any and all actions as may be necessary or convenient to accomplish the foregoing purposes or take any action relative thereto.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:21 - 2:01:38)
Is there a second? Thank you, Mr. Thompson. You've spoken at length to it, but do you have other remarks?

Just a couple. I did hear a second. May I see a hand for a second?

I see a hand for a second. I see several.

[Speaker 6] (2:01:42 - 2:01:43)
The intention here.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:47 - 2:01:53)
Mr. Driscoll? Can you do that in the middle of my speech? Point of order.

Would interrupt.

[Speaker 29] (2:01:54 - 2:02:19)
I just have a question, Ms. Marder, and town council. When special town meetings called on basically a citizen's petition, the way this was, it was presented with four corners on the article for this specific reason, for this specific vote. How can we vote on that amendment?

Again, I don't know the answer, but I'd like some clarification.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:20 - 2:02:39)
I understand the question. In my opinion, because this refers directly to the language that is seeking to be rescinded, it is within the four corners of the article. Now, Mr. Thompson. Mr. McInerney.

[Speaker 7] (2:02:49 - 2:03:17)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. In response to the question, as you may know, a petitioned warrant article has to go on the warrant exactly as it's been presented by the petitioners.

However, once this petitioned article is on the warrant, it is susceptible to a motion to amend as any other article would be, and ultimately determinations with respect to whether or not an amendment falls within the scope of the article lie squarely with the moderator in his sole discretion.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:19 - 2:03:20)
Thank you, Mr. McInerney.

[Speaker 6] (2:03:21 - 2:05:04)
Mr. Thompson. Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Driscoll. So hopefully it's clear what the intention is here, and hopefully this resolves a couple issues that people may have concerns with, the technicalities around the rescinding issue and the fact that the anxiety that I know a lot of people have expressed with wanting to vote yes but not wanting to derail the project.

The intention here is to ensure that you all as town meeting members know that with this vote you will be sending not only the message that things went a little astray, but most importantly that we will proceed with this project. We will get veterans housing. We will get a VFW post on that site, and for those of you that are taxpayers and we have a budget season coming up, this offers the most economical, financially advantageous path forward because right now we are on a course with a perfectly good VFW post that the VFW wants to stay in, and we're spending money to tear one down and basically build another one.

So for multiple reasons, this amendment is offered to you to try to move forward productively in this situation.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:05 - 2:05:46)
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. We turn now to debate on a proposed amendment. Yes, I'm working right now to get that displayed.

The amendment would seek to add at the end of Ms. Arrington's motion, which would pass the language as printed in the warrant, the exact language from 2023 with the insertion of both the word both and a comma so as to clarify what seems to have perplexed many. Dr. Robertson.

[Speaker 27] (2:05:57 - 2:06:20)
Anita Farber, Robertson Precinct 4. I am curious about what this implies for, because part of what we're discussing is a contract is already signed and we are already legally obligated to that contract. So I don't understand how this amendment impacts that.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:21 - 2:07:00)
Thank you, ma'am. The way that it impacts it is if that forestalls a party seeking a lawsuit to clarify whether town council's opinion is what a judge would find would be the effect. If the VFW were to bring suit to figure out whether or not town council's opinion is in fact a matter of law, we would have to go down that road.

If we instead take this road, perhaps that forestalls that outcome. I'm listening to Ms. Robertson.

[Speaker 27] (2:07:05 - 2:07:13)
I don't understand how voting this gives us permission to break that contract.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:15 - 2:07:41)
I understand your point. I've heard points to the opposite. So I appreciate that there is some difference of opinion.

The gentleman from Florida, please. I say it with the deepest respect, similar to your respect for me.

[Speaker 15] (2:07:50 - 2:08:56)
First of all, I do respect you because people make an error, and when you sent Amy Saro's thing out, you made an error. But I've always respected you. Your point of order, sir.

Point of order is when a point of order is raised, it takes precedence, first of all. The second point is I don't think you're a lawyer, and I think Peter Spellios was referring to me. I've only been in this town meeting 53 years, and I did represent C&L Package Store, and the argument was, and I thanked him five years ago for withdrawing, doing in the VFW.

Most of everything they said in the VFW was true. But when someone asks a legal question, I think town meeting time instructs the moderator, he really shouldn't try to answer it when he's got a lawyer sitting beside him representing the town. And I just ask you, please, please follow the rules.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:57 - 2:08:58)
Your point of order being?

[Speaker 15] (2:08:58 - 2:10:31)
The point of order is you didn't do it. I ask the town council what he says to that interpretation, because I accept what Doug Thompson said in very good faith, and I think this has been a very informative, instructive meeting where there's been a lot of good intake. If that is true, and if what Gino said is true, that $1.8 million that we spent, it changes a lot of things, because all of what they did for that December 18th was because of that fear of the loss of the $1.8 million. And Gino's saying it's not there. I don't know what the other people are saying it is. I don't know.

But if his amendment, gee, that would be a perfect thing if it's possible. But the question was asked, what is the impact? And that was my immediate thought.

And I'd like to hear from the town council if that's true. I mean, is this a viable amendment? And the answer to that is, are we no different, or is there room to do that?

Everyone wants to see this veterans post. As a veteran, I want to see it. Everyone wants to see it.

Is there room? And I think that's a legal question and not one for the town moderator to answer. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:31 - 2:10:37)
Thank you for your opinion. Mr. McAnany, would you care to opine further on your opinion?

[Speaker 7] (2:10:38 - 2:11:12)
Certainly, Mr. Moderator. Thank you. Again, the question is whether or not town meeting has the authority at this time to revoke or rescind the authority that was previously granted.

And we have opined, as has a separate attorney that the town solicited an opinion for, that no, because rights have vested in BBH as a result of the execution of the LDA, town meeting does not have the authority to rescind or otherwise modify at this point the authority that was previously granted. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:12 - 2:11:21)
Thank you, Mr. McAnany. We return to discussion of Mr. Thompson's amendment. Mr. Burke.

[Speaker 5] (2:11:27 - 2:12:07)
So I support the amendment, but I think there's a Scribner's error, and hopefully it can be handled as a Scribner's error as opposed to a motion to amend. Mr. Thompson's language from the original article includes the words, said parcel shown on a sketch plan as set forth in Appendix C on file with the town clerk. Appendix C refers to the old warrant book.

So my suggestion is because grammar is so important that we strike that clause or refer to Appendix C from the 2023 warrant report.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:07 - 2:12:23)
Mr. Thompson, would you submit to a friendly amendment to insert the words in the 2023 printed annual town meeting warrant? Very good. Returning now to discussion.

Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 23] (2:12:37 - 2:14:18)
Okay. Andrea Moore, Precinct 3. I know it's getting late.

I want to ask a clarifying question. I learned some information from David, I believe, your point this evening that in the RFP that presumably your select board created, in that RFP there was a rank order of there was the highest priority for a developer who would include the VFW post within the development itself. And the lower priority was building the affordable housing without the VFW post on that particular site.

And so I am personally just confused how if you guys told the VFW there's 100% with certainty going to be a VFW on that site, then why did you create a ranking system by which to assess whether or not a developer was fit to be the one to have the project? Shouldn't that have been, therefore, a mandatory piece of that? Because it feels to me like the select board acted within their rights.

They happened to only get one response to the RFP, but that response fit within the ranking order of what you described. So it sounds to me like the select board is within the rights of how they acted because of that ranking order. So let me know if I'm misunderstanding.

But from my perspective, that's what I see.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:20 - 2:14:29)
Thank you, ma'am. Further discussion on Mr. Grishman?

[Speaker 3] (2:14:30 - 2:14:55)
To Ms. Amor's point, if there was a ranked order that was most advantageous with the post, okay, there was. But to the same effect, you could make the same argument about the housing. You don't need affordable housing.

It's most advantageous to have affordable housing, least advantageous to have market-rate housing. Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:56 - 2:15:01)
Thank you. Mr. Kraft.

[Speaker 24] (2:15:09 - 2:16:24)
Rick Kraft, Precinct 3, town meeting member. I would like to respond to what the town council said. I do not at all doubt the technical correctness of what he said.

We've also heard tonight that B'nai B'rith is open to working with us. And my sense here is that the amendment that Mr. Thompson has provided will both send the message that I think many people want, that select board has overstepped its bounds and needs to follow what town meeting says, but also opens up the door to work with B'nai B'rith to alter the development as necessary to get both the VFW post and the affordable housing. And things will need to be adjusted, but we've heard that there were other proposals, possibilities.

It seems like this is not the only thing that's out there, and therefore, to me, Mr. Thompson's amendment seems like the best option.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:25 - 2:23:05)
Thank you, Mr. Kraft. Excuse me? Ms. Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan would like to call the question on Mr. Thompson's amendment. This requires a two-thirds vote. We would move immediately to a vote on the amendment.

Then we would return to the initial motion as amended. All those in favor of calling the question, please raise your hands. All those opposed?

It is nearly unanimous. All right. We come now to a vote on Mr. Thompson's amendment. It is now shown on the screen, but I will restate that it inserts the language from 2023 with the inclusion of reference to Appendix C in that warrant, as well as the word both and a comma where it has proved troublesome. All those in favor of Mr. Thompson's amendment, please raise your hands. All those opposed?

Okay. We'll go to a standing vote. All those in favor of Mr. Thompson's amendment, please rise. Could I please have Mr. Quinn, Mr. Perry. I'll also take Ms. Cameron and Ms. Jackson. Thank you.

You may be seated. Those opposed, please rise. You may be seated.

Thank you. Please order by a vote of 126 in favor and 91 against. The motion to amend carries.

We now turn to discussion on the motion as amended. I'm going to return to my list. Mr. Chasen, are you still here?

Mr. Perry?

[Speaker 32] (2:23:10 - 2:23:20)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Jerry Perry, Precinct 1. I think in light of everything that's been said, given the amendment we just voted, Mr. Moderator, I call the question.

[Speaker 30] (2:23:21 - 2:23:22)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (2:23:25 - 2:24:09)
Again, this is a two-thirds vote to close debate and move directly to a vote. If you want to keep speaking this evening, vote against Mr. Perry's motion to call the question. All those in favor, please raise your hand.

All those opposed? The motion carries. We now come to a vote on the motion as amended.

I'm going to ask the petitioner if she wants to retract her motion for a roll call vote. Okay. We'll move to a roll call vote.

The clerk will call the roll. We are voting on the original motion as amended.

[Speaker 33] (2:24:13 - 2:24:14)
Testing.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:14 - 2:30:22)
Okay. Thank you. A yes vote will adopt the language that would rescind the action of 2023's town meeting and instead insert the language amended, added by Mr. Thompson, which clarifies the word both and the comma. Ms. Arrington, I'm sure the body appreciates not going through a roll call vote at this point. This is a simple majority. All those in favor of Ms. Arrington's motion as amended by Mr. Thompson, please raise your hands. All those opposed? Okay. We will stand again.

May I have the tellers? All those in favor of the motion as amended, please stand. You may be seated.

All those opposed, please rise. It's not enough to overcome the tie, so I'm not going to cast the vote. Thank you.

You may be seated. By a vote of 107 in favor and 109 against, the motion fails. If you have now risen again to ask for a roll call vote, if 29 additional people ask for it, we will proceed to a roll call vote.

Seeing over 30, the clerk will call the roll.

[Speaker 2] (2:30:27 - 2:30:50)
Hello? I will ask that instead of saying yea or nay, please say yes or no. It's easier to hear up here.

Precinct 1, James Andrews. Catherine Arrington.

[Speaker 33] (2:30:51 - 2:30:51)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:30:52 - 2:30:54)
Sean Atcherly.

[Speaker 12] (2:30:54 - 2:30:54)
No.

[Speaker 2] (2:30:56 - 2:31:13)
Richard Baldacci. No. Lee Bartlett Genest.

Yes. Bradley Bombardier. Yes.

Jorge Briones.

[Speaker 33] (2:31:13 - 2:31:14)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:31:15 - 2:31:30)
Ronald Burgess. Yes. Krista Burke.

Yes. Claire Callahan. Yes.

Joseph Callahan. Yes. Michael Contreras.

[Speaker 33] (2:31:30 - 2:31:31)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:31:33 - 2:32:06)
Sydney Cresta. No. Gina Cresta.

No. Jan DiPaolo. John DiPaolo.

Ann Driscoll. No. Michael Dunn.

No. Ralph Edwards. Yes.

Was that a yes? Yes. Tara Gallagher.

No. Rebecca Green. No.

David Grishman.

[Speaker 3] (2:32:06 - 2:32:06)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:32:07 - 2:32:12)
William Hancocks. Yes. Eric Hartman.

[Speaker 30] (2:32:13 - 2:32:13)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:32:14 - 2:33:08)
Linda Hayes. Yes. Cynthia Hellman-Flatt.

Was there a vote? Joan Hilario. Yes.

Mary Alice Johnson. Yes. Maria Kara Metzopoulos.

Yes. Elizabeth Knudson. Yes.

Nelson Knudson. Yes. Anna Lanzilli.

Yes. Lisa Ledbury. Yes.

Colin Loggins. Yes. Sean McGovern.

Yes. Debra Newman. Yes.

Diane O'Brien. Yes. Reggie Pagan.

[Speaker 33] (2:33:09 - 2:33:09)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:10 - 2:33:15)
Duncan Page. Yes. Gerald Perry.

[Speaker 32] (2:33:16 - 2:33:16)
No.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:18 - 2:33:19)
John Piccarello.

[Speaker 32] (2:33:20 - 2:33:20)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:21 - 2:33:50)
David Pitcher. Yes. Sally Powell.

Yes. Marianne Pulaski. Yes.

Alicia Redden. Yes. Michael Serino.

Yes. Michelle Serino. Yes.

Lauren Shaw. Yes. Frank Smith.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:50 - 2:33:51)
I stand for yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:53 - 2:36:02)
Marianne Speranza Hartman. Yes. Danielle Strauss.

Yes. Matthew Strauss. Yes.

Polly Titcom. Yes. Suzanne Tweed.

Yes. Michael Wood. Yes.

Precinct Two. Yes. Robert Bartolomeo.

Cindy Blonder. No. Jeffrey Blonder.

No. Waldemar Bogdan Swieritz. Yes.

Rebecca Brant. Yes. Derek Brum.

Yes. Susan Buonapane. Carla Butters.

No. Jeffrey Butters. No.

James Cassetta. Yes. Eden Clark.

Yes. Amy Critch. No.

Virginia Cronin. No. Shauna Delano.

Brian DeMatteo. Yes. Mary Doherty.

Yes. I'm sorry. Shauna Delano.

Yes. Yes. Okay.

Barbara Epstein. Yes. Haley Farrar-Moore.

Yes. Jennifer Gallagher. No.

Susan Gambale. Ryan Hale. Suzanne Hale.

Maximilian Hanlon. No. Nancy Hanlon.

No. Virginia Harley. Thomas Healy.

Dana Hoffman. Yes. Lorene Jackson.

[Speaker 33] (2:36:02 - 2:36:03)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:36:05 - 2:36:06)
Isabel Key.

[Speaker 33] (2:36:06 - 2:36:06)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:36:08 - 2:37:19)
Matthew McDonald. Yes. Corinne Marshall.

Yes. John Marshall. Sidney Marshall.

Gregory McDonald. No. Donna McHugh.

Neil Montague. No. Carol Monterio.

Matthew Moran. No. Terry Morgan.

Jennifer Murphy. No. Glenn Pastor.

Deborah Rubin. David Santino. No.

Anne Rubin. Geraldine Steffen. Dana Swanstrom.

Natalie Swanstrom. Amy Tatum Bannister. Christian Urbano.

[Speaker 30] (2:37:20 - 2:37:21)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:37:23 - 2:37:32)
Francis Weiner. Weiner, yes. Weiner, I'm sorry.

Christian Urbano, your vote was no?

[Speaker 30] (2:37:33 - 2:37:34)
It was yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:37:34 - 2:37:43)
Yes. Andrea, oh, Precinct 3. Andrea Amore.

No. Gary Barden.

[Speaker 33] (2:37:43 - 2:37:43)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:37:45 - 2:37:46)
Mark Barden.

[Speaker 33] (2:37:46 - 2:37:46)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:37:47 - 2:42:02)
Deborah Boggs. No. Caitlin Bova.

Janelle Cameron. Yes. Connie Carmen.

Molly Connor. Gargi Cooper. Martha Curry.

Yes. Charlotte Dahur. No.

Marsha Dalton. No. Susan Deal.

No. Joe Dulette. Naomi Dreeben.

Lawrence Duffy. Yes. Sarah Ewing.

Richard Franklin. Colleen Hitchcock. Yes.

Craig Hitchcock. Yes. Jennifer Honig.

Yes. Nancy Hughes. Yes.

I'm sorry? Yes. Lisa Julianne Hayes.

No. Jer Jerma. No.

Martha Kelleher. Yes. Richard Kraft.

Yes. Mara Lau. Yes.

Loring Lincoln Jr. Yes. Christopher Mancini. No.

Kimberly Martin Epstein. No. Roberto Mastroianni.

Yes. Edward Mulvey. Yes.

Kenneth Norton. Yes. Catherine Phelan.

No. John Phelan. No.

Sydney Pierce. Yes. Don Pinkerton.

Yes. Gail Rosenberg. Yes.

Scott Saunders. Yes. Nancy Schultz.

Yes. Willis Jackson Schultz. Yes.

Hannah Sharpless. No. Lori Spathanis.

Yes. Shane Spaulding. Yes.

Peter Spellios. Yes. Rebecca Spellios.

Yes. Wayne Spritz. No.

Rachel Tardash. No. Cynthia Tennant.

Yes. Rebecca White. Yes.

Mark Wilinski. Yes. Suzanne Wright.

Yes. Sheila Yang. Yes.

Joseph Young. Yes. Precinct 4.

Yes. George Allen. Tanya Bandrowicz.

Yes. Michael Bryson. Gary Callahan.

Yes. Lisa Caran... Yes.

Carangelo. Yes. Anne Cotalesa.

Yes. Tori Cummings. Yes.

Martha Danstill. Terence Danstill. No.

Thomas Dolly. Yes. Kathleen Day.

Yes. Mary DiCillo. No.

Joseph Demelowitz. Yes. Edward Dooley.

Yes. Nicole Dooley. Yes.

Timothy Dorsey.

[Speaker 6] (2:42:02 - 2:42:02)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:42:05 - 2:43:54)
Justin Epley. Mia Fasella. Yes.

Anita Farber-Robertson. No. Mary Ellen Fletcher.

No. Jennifer Ford. No.

Joseph Ford. No. John Giontis.

No. Wayne Godfrey. Brendan Gordinas.

Kathleen Grian. Yes. Merle Hyman.

No. Steven Iannacone. No.

Richard Jackius. Yes. Anne Johnson.

Yes. Michael Kelleher. Yes.

Edward Kennedy. Yes. Amine Larizi.

Tanya Lilick. Gary Lord. No.

Nancy Lord. No. Michael McClung.

I will vote only if it is an exact tie. Cynthia McInerney. Casey Mohan.

Sarah Munoz. I'm sorry, Sierra Munoz. I'm sorry?

Yes. Mary Nevels. Yes.

Justina Oliver. No. Albert Pica.

[Speaker 30] (2:43:54 - 2:43:55)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:43:57 - 2:44:08)
Dennis Pilote. Yes. Maura Pilote.

Yes. Anne Potts. Yes.

George Potts.

[Speaker 33] (2:44:08 - 2:44:08)
No.

[Speaker 2] (2:44:10 - 2:44:19)
Amy Powell. Yes. William Quinn.

Yes. Kevin Rogers.

[Speaker 6] (2:44:19 - 2:44:19)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:44:22 - 2:45:13)
Leonard Russo. Yes. Robert Shire.

Yes. Neil Sheehan. No.

Rachel Smullen. Yes. Precinct 5.

Yes. Aaron Burdolph. Deborah Caniff.

Diana Caplan. Anthony Serra. Martha Cesar.

Clifford Charney. Loretta Conley. Rupert Deese.

Yes. Mark Ficken.

[Speaker 19] (2:45:13 - 2:45:13)
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 2] (2:45:14 - 2:46:12)
Laura Goodman. Maurice Greenbaum. Barry Greenfield.

Stephanie Greenfield. Doreen Hodgkin. No.

Angela Ippolito. No. Glenn Kessler.

Amy Kyle. Monica Lagerquist. Terry Lorber.

Peter Masucci. Stephanie Newman. Anna O'Brien.

Thomas O'Neill. Harry Pass. Charles Patsios.

[Speaker 17] (2:46:12 - 2:46:12)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:46:14 - 2:47:03)
Paulina Patsios. Jeannie Pats. No.

Neil Pearlstein. No. Greg Green.

Gregory Racky. Adrian Rodriguez. Heather Roman Masucci.

Alfred Rose. Shelly Sackett. Yes.

Eric Schneider. Yes. Jenna Sheridan.

Yes. Joseph Simons. Lynette Simons.

James Smith. No. Jill Sullivan.

[Speaker 33] (2:47:03 - 2:47:03)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:47:07 - 2:47:12)
Jill Susare. Roger Talkov.

[Speaker 6] (2:47:12 - 2:47:12)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:47:14 - 2:47:15)
Doug Thompson.

[Speaker 6] (2:47:16 - 2:47:16)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:47:17 - 2:48:21)
Stephanie Tucker. David Van Dam. Tasia Vassilo.

Bruce Weir. Heidi Weir. Andrew Whitman.

Karen Whitman. Maria Williams. Stephen Williams.

Jacqueline Wilson. Irma Zerinsky. Keiko Zoll.

Precinct 6. Barry Atkin. Robert Baker.

Laurie A. Bupre. Jack Beerman.

[Speaker 33] (2:48:22 - 2:48:22)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:48:24 - 2:48:27)
Cameron Burke. Yes. Scott Burke.

[Speaker 33] (2:48:28 - 2:48:28)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:48:29 - 2:49:56)
Seth Kaplan. Tara Cassidy Driscoll. Damon Damade.

Claire Dembowski. William Demento. No.

Thomas Driscoll. No. Norman Erlich.

Scott Philenworth. Hillary Fouts. Yes.

Debbie Friedlander. No. Marzi Golaska.

No. Elizabeth Gallo. Donald Giard.

Yes. Ann Gold. No.

Kelsey Henry. Trevor Henry. Yes.

Lisa Hickey. No. Mark Kornitsky.

Yes. Irene Lehman. Yes.

Jonathan Lehman. Yes. Cheryl Levinson.

Yes. Bonnie Levine. Robert Levine.

Judith Locke.

[Speaker 34] (2:49:56 - 2:49:56)
No.

[Speaker 2] (2:49:58 - 2:50:32)
Nancy Maloney. No. Mary Marshall.

Marianne McDermott. Tara Jo Myslinski. Yes.

Matthew O'Connell. No. Amy O'Connor.

Who's that, a present? Present. Mary O'Hare.

Thomas Peleria.

[Speaker 28] (2:50:32 - 2:50:32)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:50:33 - 2:51:26)
Sarah Plymate. Brendan Reen. No.

Amy Reese. Rice. Kim Rotner.

Philip Rotner. No. Alexis Runstadler.

Yes. Ethan Runstadler. Joel Sapp.

Yes. Carol Schutzer. No.

Kenneth Schutzer. No. Jill Simmons-Wetmore.

No. Allison Stewart. Matthew Weinberg.

Jeffrey Wilson. Christopher Winter. Yes.

David Zucker.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:26 - 2:57:56)
Yes. That concludes the vote. Okay, the body may stand recessed for a brief moment.

If you would please come to order. Thank you. By a vote of 104 in favor, 114 opposed, the motion fails.

This dispenses with all of the business under this special town meeting. I would welcome a motion to adjourn. All those in favor?

We stand adjourned.