[Speaker 1] (0:00 - 0:06)
41 veterans and elderly and people who are eligible for this housing.

[Speaker 1] (0:06 - 0:15)
I can't speak strongly enough in the 54 years that I've been a member of this town meeting,

[Speaker 1] (0:15 - 0:22)
this is one of the most important things I have ever addressed before you.

[Speaker 1] (0:22 - 0:24)
I strongly suggest.

[Speaker 1] (0:25 - 0:29)
that the Capital Improvements Committee is wrong,

[Speaker 1] (0:29 - 0:34)
they're very wrong because they're not looking at the human side of it.

[Speaker 1] (0:34 - 0:35)
They're into the numbers.

[Speaker 1] (0:35 - 0:37)
I know they're a Capital Improvement Committee.

[Speaker 1] (0:37 - 0:39)
They're worried about procedure.

[Speaker 1] (0:40 - 0:42)
Why are they worried about procedure?

[Speaker 1] (0:43 - 0:45)
Can't they see what's trying to happen?

[Speaker 1] (0:46 - 0:49)
The veterans need some place to go.

[Speaker 1] (0:50 - 0:54)
Will this satisfy those who are against it?

[Speaker 1] (0:55 - 1:05)
By killing the whole project and ending up with nothing on the site and having this another Temple Israel fiasco, which it was,

[Speaker 1] (1:07 - 1:09)
aren't we worried about the Hawthorne by the sea?

[Speaker 1] (1:10 - 1:13)
There's so many good things that can be done.

[Speaker 1] (1:13 - 1:15)
This needs to move forward.

[Speaker 1] (1:15 - 1:20)
We need to move forward to try to help the veterans.

[Speaker 1] (1:20 - 1:21)
How much it would cost.

[Speaker 1] (1:22 - 1:25)
You don't know, but this is money that will find that out,

[Speaker 1] (1:25 - 1:26)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:26 - 1:26)
Hale.

[Speaker 1] (1:26 - 1:28)
This is money that will find it out.

[Speaker 1] (1:29 - 1:31)
What do we need to do to that building?

[Speaker 1] (1:33 - 1:36)
I was here when that was an American Legion building,

[Speaker 1] (1:36 - 1:40)
and I went into the building as a member of the American Legion,

[Speaker 1] (1:40 - 1:42)
not as anything else.

[Speaker 1] (1:44 - 1:48)
The veterans who were in the American Legion were very happy. They were there.

[Speaker 1] (1:49 - 1:49)
Unfortunately,

[Speaker 1] (1:50 - 1:52)
it was at a time when there was a dip in veterans.

[Speaker 1] (1:54 - 2:01)
We have fewer than 0.7% veterans in this country now.

[Speaker 1] (2:02 - 2:06)
That's a horrendous number when you consider World War II,

[Speaker 1] (2:06 - 2:07)
Vietnam,

[Speaker 1] (2:07 - 2:08)
Korea,

[Speaker 1] (2:08 - 2:09)
Afghanistan.

[Speaker 1] (2:10 - 2:11)
the Iraqi war,

[Speaker 1] (2:11 - 2:13)
all of those things.

[Speaker 1] (2:14 - 2:17)
Elderly veterans need somewhere to go.

[Speaker 1] (2:18 - 2:25)
The little discussions that you have before town meeting talked about the old people.

[Speaker 1] (2:25 - 2:28)
I'm one of those old people and I'm grateful to be one of those old people.

[Speaker 1] (2:28 - 2:34)
And I'm also grateful to the fact that I won't qualify for one of these units,

[Speaker 1] (2:34 - 2:36)
but I know a lot of people that do.

[Speaker 1] (2:36 - 2:39)
A lot of people that live in this town and would love that.

[Speaker 1] (2:40 - 2:51)
This is no time over the small amount of money that we said someone said the 130,000 for the school committee last night was such a small amount.

[Speaker 1] (2:52 - 2:58)
I kind of think they were right saying it is a small amount with the size of a $33 million budget.

[Speaker 1] (2:58 - 3:00)
This process

[Speaker 1] (3:02 - 3:12)
should not be railroaded, and I mean railroaded, to stop it because of this amount of funds. It needs planning.

[Speaker 1] (3:12 - 3:13)
It should be done.

[Speaker 1] (3:14 - 3:17)
If they find out it can't be done,

[Speaker 1] (3:17 - 3:28)
as far as the veterans post itself as it is, we're still in the same battle. Do we want veterans housing?

[Speaker 1] (3:29 - 3:32)
or a veteran's canteen the way it is now.

[Speaker 1] (3:33 - 3:38)
That's not a difficult question for me. I want veterans housing.

[Speaker 1] (3:38 - 3:40)
I want any kind of housing.

[Speaker 1] (3:41 - 3:46)
And I don't need people to talk about building density. We need housing for people.

[Speaker 1] (3:46 - 3:51)
And the elderly that Bob Powell talked about last night,

[Speaker 1] (3:51 - 3:52)
he's right.

[Speaker 1] (3:52 - 3:53)
They're vulnerable.

[Speaker 1] (3:54 - 4:01)
So I'd appreciate it. I think please move forward with this project with a small amount of money.

[Speaker 1] (4:01 - 4:02)
Thank you.

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

[Speaker 2] (4:04 - 4:04)
DiMento.

[Speaker 2] (4:08 - 4:09)
Is there further discussion?

[Speaker 2] (4:09 - 4:10)
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 3] (4:19 - 4:24)
Hi, Chris Mancini, Precinct 3 town meeting member. Just a question of clarification following Mr.

[Speaker 3] (4:24 - 4:25)
Demento's commentary.

[Speaker 3] (4:25 - 4:36)
Does a vote on this item affect the timeline of the housing? My understanding was this was for design and planning for the outreach arts building.

[Speaker 3] (4:36 - 4:37)
Is that connected?

[Speaker 3] (4:37 - 4:45)
Is having design and planning for the outreach arts building connected to the progress that the Pine Street project will make?

[Speaker 2] (4:46 - 4:50)
Thank you, Mr. Mancini. I'd turn to Mr. Cresta, a member of the select board.

[Speaker 4] (5:02 - 5:03)
In essence,

[Speaker 4] (5:03 - 5:03)
oh,

[Speaker 4] (5:03 - 5:05)
Katie Phelan, Precinct 3.

[Speaker 4] (5:06 - 5:06)
Chair of the select board.

[Speaker 4] (5:07 - 5:08)
In essence, to answer your question,

[Speaker 4] (5:08 - 5:09)
yes,

[Speaker 4] (5:09 - 5:20)
the LDA requires us notification from Binet when they get to a certain point in the project to give them the site tenant free so they can develop the project.

[Speaker 4] (5:21 - 5:29)
The eligibility for them to be able to obtain the site vacant free would necessitate exploration into where the tenant would go.

[Speaker 4] (5:29 - 5:36)
So any delay in the build out could be a delay of offering the site tenant free.

[Speaker 2] (5:38 - 5:39)
Thank you, Ms. Phelan.

[Speaker 2] (5:40 - 5:41)
Other questions?

[Speaker 2] (5:41 - 5:42)
Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 5] (5:50 - 5:53)
Andrea Amor Precinct 3.

[Speaker 5] (5:53 - 6:08)
I also want to understand is the entirety of 89 Burrell Street designed or is the purpose going to be the VFW post or is it a mixed-use purpose?

[Speaker 2] (6:10 - 6:13)
I am certainly a member of the town staff.

[Speaker 6] (6:14 - 6:15)
Can everyone hear me?

[Speaker 1] (6:16 - 6:16)
Yes.

[Speaker 7] (6:17 - 6:26)
Yes, the entirety of 89 Barrel will be for the VFW and for the upper floors they will be able to rent that or use that for their own space.

[Speaker 4] (6:27 - 6:27)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (6:28 - 6:28)
Thank you, Ms. Sarah.

[Speaker 2] (6:29 - 6:30)
Other questions?

[Speaker 2] (6:35 - 6:36)
Mr. Hale.

[Speaker 2] (6:40 - 6:45)
Thanks. I just want to make two initial points that were discussed at the...

[Speaker 2] (6:45 - 6:49)
capital improvement committee that in response to a couple items that were brought up by previous speakers.

[Speaker 2] (6:50 - 6:58)
The capital improvement committee and I personally agree that we have a need for senior housing in town and the recommendation on this

[Speaker 8] (6:59 - 7:27)
warrant article has nothing to do with with that that need it has to do with the timing of the spend and the uncertainty that we face in town between now and what will likely be a December town meeting we're going to have a new town administrator we're going to have hopefully a master plan or or some something you know preceding a master plan and we're going to have more clarity as to the resolution of potential disputes over the use of

[Speaker 8] (7:27 - 7:28)
89 Berle.

[Speaker 8] (7:28 - 7:44)
So we understand that in order for the town to develop 89 Berle to make it a more useful property for whichever facet of our community will use it is going to require a design. It's going to require a study.

[Speaker 8] (7:44 - 7:46)
It's going to require a significant renovation.

[Speaker 8] (7:47 - 7:53)
I think the placeholder in the capital plan is way smaller than it will turn into be, turn up.

[Speaker 8] (7:53 - 8:22)
turn into but we won't know till we do a design. So our recommendation from the committee is that we do not spend this money now, we do not appropriate the money on a design now. But we uh make that decision as town meeting in the fall when we have a permanent administrator, when we have a master plan, when we have more clarity as to the timing and the use of that building. And we feel that at that point the funds will be a better use uh and that our capital dollars can either be

[Speaker 8] (8:22 - 8:31)
be retained for future use and reduce our debt service in the upcoming fiscal year or redirect it. So again,

[Speaker 8] (8:32 - 8:42)
our opposition to this article is based on the timing of the spend and not the amounts or the need for housing for our seniors.

[Speaker 8] (8:42 - 8:43)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (8:43 - 8:44)
Thank you, Mr. Hale.

[Speaker 2] (8:46 - 8:47)
Ma'am in the back there,

[Speaker 2] (8:47 - 8:48)
is that Ms.

[Speaker 2] (8:48 - 8:48)
Newman perhaps?

[Speaker 9] (8:57 - 8:59)
I'm Shauna Ghidisi,

[Speaker 9] (8:59 - 9:01)
Precinct 2 town meeting member.

[Speaker 9] (9:03 - 9:06)
As an artist and musician,

[Speaker 9] (9:06 - 9:11)
it's very frustrating that there's not a center for the arts.

[Speaker 9] (9:11 - 9:15)
And I'm wondering if the town was thinking about that as well,

[Speaker 9] (9:16 - 9:21)
where a displaced rich arts would be.

[Speaker 2] (9:25 - 9:26)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 2] (9:26 - 9:26)
Quadisi.

[Speaker 2] (9:31 - 9:32)
Yes, Ms Goodman?

[Speaker 7] (9:32 - 9:44)
Yes, Lara Goodman, Precinct five. I'm wondering if we could if she's here if we could hear from Ms Martin Epstein about how this would affect the housing plan.

[Speaker 2] (9:45 - 9:48)
I haven't seen her yet this evening, but if she's here, I

[Speaker 2] (9:49 - 9:50)
she is not here this evening.

[Speaker 7] (9:50 - 9:51)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (9:58 - 9:59)
I I'd is

[Speaker 1] (10:15 - 10:16)
then sorry Miss Glasgow

[Speaker 2] (10:21 - 10:26)
Okay, so I have an email from Ms. Kim Martin Epstein from the Affordable Housing Trust.

[Speaker 2] (10:26 - 10:28)
She's not able to attend tonight,

[Speaker 2] (10:28 - 10:37)
so she writes, I understand there may be a discussion about how the town will fund renovations at Pearl Street for the VFW Post and how that affects funds.

[Speaker 2] (10:38 - 10:41)
for the intended Binet birth development project at Pine Street.

[Speaker 2] (10:41 - 10:47)
As you know, the affordable housing trust allocated $300,000 for the housing development at Pine Street.

[Speaker 2] (10:47 - 10:50)
The requirement for the use of those funds is for the housing project.

[Speaker 2] (10:51 - 10:59)
BBH has drafted and will continue to hone a development budget that shows a $300,000 developmental source coming from the Swamp Scott affordable housing trust.

[Speaker 2] (10:59 - 11:05)
They will also have a wide variety of other soft sources from the state as well as tax credits.

[Speaker 2] (11:06 - 11:08)
equity and a construction loan.

[Speaker 2] (11:08 - 11:13)
When the financing of the project closes in over a year from now,

[Speaker 2] (11:13 - 11:17)
it is my understanding that a certain amount of funds will be owed back to the town under the LDA.

[Speaker 2] (11:18 - 11:27)
BANAE's budget incorporates the town's acquisition costs of the property and the LDA requires the project to repay some or all of that acquisition cost.

[Speaker 2] (11:27 - 11:30)
When some of that comes back to the town at that time,

[Speaker 2] (11:30 - 11:33)
the town can use that for whatever the town decides.

[Speaker 2] (11:33 - 11:42)
It is a payment due to the town under the LDA and BANAE will use one or more development sources at closing to make the payment pursuant to the requirement of each of those funding sources.

[Speaker 2] (11:43 - 11:49)
It is not accurate to say that affordable housing trusts are being used for the renovations at Burrell Street.

[Speaker 2] (11:49 - 11:54)
In fact, it's most important that the funds are clearly accounted for in the housing development budget for the project.

[Speaker 2] (11:54 - 11:57)
It is more accurate to say that the Swampscott Affordable Housing Trust funds,

[Speaker 2] (11:57 - 11:58)
along with other sources,

[Speaker 2] (11:58 - 12:02)
will be used to fund various costs of the project, including acquisition.

[Speaker 2] (12:03 - 12:04)
She wanted to make that clear.

[Speaker 2] (12:04 - 12:07)
That's Kim Martin-Epstein's comments.

[Speaker 2] (12:07 - 12:07)
However,

[Speaker 2] (12:07 - 12:12)
I will tell you once the funds come back to us, similar akin to the UU church settlement,

[Speaker 2] (12:12 - 12:14)
we fronted the UU church settlement.

[Speaker 2] (12:15 - 12:19)
And then when the school received funds back related to tax incentives,

[Speaker 2] (12:19 - 12:24)
that money was given back to the town and will go back into free cash to replenish those funds.

[Speaker 2] (12:25 - 12:29)
We can make an investment to this building so that we can move this project along,

[Speaker 2] (12:29 - 12:36)
but it will not be an investment we won't see back at the time we close on the construction with B'nai B'rith.

[Speaker 1] (12:38 - 12:39)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 1] (12:39 - 12:40)
Phelan. Ms.

[Speaker 1] (12:40 - 12:40)
Glasgow?

[Speaker 3] (12:42 - 12:44)
Good evening, Marcy Golaska,

[Speaker 3] (12:44 - 12:45)
town meeting member,

[Speaker 3] (12:45 - 12:47)
precinct six and community development director.

[Speaker 3] (12:47 - 12:54)
I just wanted to share with this body that to date the town has had several meetings with the leadership of the VFW.

[Speaker 3] (12:55 - 13:08)
We met with them at the facility at 89 Borough Street for them to be able to look at the facility to find out what are the needs or what would they require in order to be able to relocate into the facility.

[Speaker 3] (13:08 - 13:16)
We have not concluded our discussions or the plan for the rehabilitation right now.

[Speaker 3] (13:16 - 13:20)
These funds, we are hopeful to use them as a match for grant funding.

[Speaker 3] (13:20 - 13:26)
A lot of you probably know that the lower level of 89 Borough Street is accessible,

[Speaker 3] (13:26 - 13:29)
but the upper floors are not.

[Speaker 3] (13:29 - 13:35)
And our goal is to seek funding through the Mass Office of Disability and other entities.

[Speaker 3] (13:35 - 13:37)
to be able to secure the funds,

[Speaker 3] (13:37 - 13:38)
grant funding,

[Speaker 3] (13:38 - 13:48)
that will be necessary to bring the building up to the habitability standards and to the standards that are required by the VFW and the membership.

[Speaker 3] (13:48 - 13:49)
So our goal is to,

[Speaker 3] (13:49 - 13:54)
again, seek funding and use these funds as a match for this project.

[Speaker 1] (13:55 - 13:56)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 1] (13:56 - 13:56)
Golaska.

[Speaker 1] (13:56 - 13:57)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (13:57 - 13:58)
Ransky, did you wish to rise again?

[Speaker 4] (14:02 - 14:03)
Thanks so much again,

[Speaker 4] (14:03 - 14:04)
Chris Mancini, Precinct 3.

[Speaker 4] (14:05 - 14:09)
I'm only belaboring this because I think the Capital Improvements Committee made a really solid point,

[Speaker 4] (14:09 - 14:12)
but I want to understand,

[Speaker 4] (14:12 - 14:13)
Katie,

[Speaker 4] (14:13 - 14:21)
per your point, so that the space is connected to the housing because they need to provide that. Mr.

[Speaker 4] (14:21 - 14:22)
Hale just said...

[Speaker 4] (14:23 - 14:30)
We will, you know, if that timeline, it's about a six month, it would be about a six month delay before we could vote on this again to approve that.

[Speaker 4] (14:30 - 14:37)
How would a six month delay, is that a significant enough delay to derail this timing of the project as it stands?

[Speaker 4] (14:38 - 14:46)
Or if we voted again in six months, would it, would it or would it not affect the timeliness of the Pine Street project? Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (14:46 - 14:48)
Thank you, Mr. Mancini.

[Speaker 1] (14:48 - 14:49)
Ms.

[Speaker 1] (14:49 - 14:49)
Phelan.

[Speaker 2] (14:52 - 14:55)
I think the timing relates more to the funding,

[Speaker 2] (14:55 - 14:57)
the grant funding that Marcy was just speaking about.

[Speaker 2] (14:57 - 15:02)
So without the matching grant funding, I don't know if we would be able to apply for those grants.

[Speaker 2] (15:02 - 15:04)
Marcy, maybe you could speak to that.

[Speaker 2] (15:04 - 15:07)
But as far as the LDA is concerned,

[Speaker 2] (15:08 - 15:18)
it depends on when B'nai B'rith receives their funding from the state and other sources to give an honest answer on whether or not six months would delay them.

[Speaker 2] (15:18 - 15:20)
If they were awarded in this cycle,

[Speaker 2] (15:20 - 15:25)
we could see a repercussion without being able to give them the site vacant-free.

[Speaker 2] (15:25 - 15:28)
If it was not this cycle but a future cycle,

[Speaker 2] (15:29 - 15:33)
then no, I don't think that that delay would cause an issue,

[Speaker 2] (15:33 - 15:37)
but I can't say whether the state will fund them or not.

[Speaker 1] (15:37 - 15:39)
Thank you, Ms. Phelan.

[Speaker 1] (15:39 - 15:40)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (15:40 - 15:41)
Blonder and then Mr.

[Speaker 1] (15:41 - 15:42)
Spritz.

[Speaker 5] (15:45 - 15:47)
Jeffrey Blonder, town meeting member,

[Speaker 5] (15:47 - 15:54)
precinct two. Uh would eighty nine borrow street be used exclusively if the VFW with other veterans group be allowed to use it?

[Speaker 1] (15:57 - 16:02)
Uh uh the question is who else would get to use 89? Uh mr Cresta?

[Speaker 4] (16:05 - 16:06)
Tests.

[Speaker 5] (16:08 - 16:08)
Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (16:08 - 16:16)
I was just made aware that American Legion Post 57 as well as VFW Auxiliary 1240 would also be transferring into the proposed location.

[Speaker 1] (16:18 - 16:19)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (16:19 - 16:19)
Cresta.

[Speaker 1] (16:19 - 16:20)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (16:20 - 16:21)
Spritz and then Ms.

[Speaker 1] (16:21 - 16:21)
Smith.

[Speaker 6] (16:24 - 16:26)
Wayne Spritz, Wayne Spritz Precinct 3.

[Speaker 6] (16:26 - 16:31)
So one thing that is kind of staring at me is the from the

[Speaker 6] (16:33 - 16:37)
from the capital improvement committee is FY 27,

[Speaker 6] (16:37 - 16:42)
a $600,000 applied to fix this particular building,

[Speaker 6] (16:43 - 16:45)
particularly for accessibility and fire protection, right?

[Speaker 6] (16:45 - 16:55)
So I guess what I'm a little confused about is that the nature and incentive considering we had such a deep dividing conversation not just a few months ago.

[Speaker 6] (16:57 - 16:57)
Sure.

[Speaker 6] (16:57 - 16:58)
Sorry.

[Speaker 6] (16:59 - 17:08)
Seeing as though we had such a difficult conversation just a few months ago and that there's $600,000 set aside in FY27,

[Speaker 6] (17:08 - 17:25)
I'm really confused, I guess, as to why the CIC wouldn't, would make this more of a process issue than it is of the fact that it's going to be required one way or the other. I think the town expects.

[Speaker 6] (17:25 - 17:49)
for the veterans as a whole to move into a new facility and I would further add relative to the previous question of who is going to move there I would insist that before we make that choice that we have a veterans a live working veterans committee of veterans from Swampscott to help make that help advise and make those decisions thank you

[Speaker 1] (17:50 - 17:51)
Thank you, Mr. Spritz.

[Speaker 1] (17:52 - 17:53)
Ms. Smith.

[Speaker 7] (17:58 - 18:01)
So I have a few process-related questions.

[Speaker 1] (18:01 - 18:02)
Just to introduce yourself,

[Speaker 7] (18:02 - 18:03)
Oh,

[Speaker 1] (18:03 - 18:03)
please.

[Speaker 7] (18:03 - 18:03)
sorry,

[Speaker 7] (18:03 - 18:04)
Liz Smith,

[Speaker 7] (18:04 - 18:05)
Precinct 3.

[Speaker 7] (18:05 - 18:06)
To Mr.

[Speaker 7] (18:06 - 18:08)
Hale's point about process.

[Speaker 7] (18:09 - 18:10)
Process is important.

[Speaker 7] (18:11 - 18:13)
It's not always the most important thing,

[Speaker 7] (18:13 - 18:14)
but I think in this instance it is.

[Speaker 7] (18:14 - 18:23)
I would like to know how and when the decision to move the VFW to 89 Beryl Street was made.

[Speaker 7] (18:23 - 18:25)
Were there any other locations considered?

[Speaker 7] (18:27 - 18:29)
Was there a vote taken? Was there a public discussion?

[Speaker 7] (18:29 - 18:31)
Have the neighbors been talked to?

[Speaker 7] (18:33 - 18:36)
What do the veterans and the VFW really think about this?

[Speaker 7] (18:36 - 18:37)
Can we hear from them?

[Speaker 7] (18:38 - 18:43)
There are a lot of questions to be answered I think before making a decision about this.

[Speaker 7] (18:43 - 18:43)
Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (18:43 - 18:44)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 1] (18:44 - 18:44)
Smith.

[Speaker 1] (18:46 - 18:57)
Is there anyone from the town who would care to elucidate, to add any color in terms of the other places that were looked at,

[Speaker 1] (18:57 - 18:58)
if any?

[Speaker 5] (19:04 - 19:09)
I know there was at least one other building was looked at, and that was the Italian American Club on Burpee Terrace.

[Speaker 5] (19:10 - 19:16)
And really, it doesn't compare to the, other than the parking issue with 89 Borough.

[Speaker 1] (19:17 - 19:18)
Thank you, Mr. Creston.

[Speaker 1] (19:21 - 19:22)
Mr. Lorber.

[Speaker 1] (19:25 - 19:27)
Mr. Lohr would like to call the question.

[Speaker 1] (19:28 - 19:36)
I will recognize his motion if seconded and vote on that unless there is no one else who wishes to speak at this point.

[Speaker 1] (19:38 - 19:42)
I'll take that as the ability for us to move on to this vote,

[Speaker 1] (19:42 - 19:45)
which is already going to be a two-thirds vote. Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (19:45 - 19:47)
Lohr, if you'll allow me to move on to the vote.

[Speaker 1] (19:48 - 19:50)
I think you've prodded the body sufficiently.

[Speaker 1] (19:51 - 19:54)
This will require a two-thirds vote. All those in favor of...

[Speaker 1] (19:56 - 19:57)
please raise your hand.

[Speaker 1] (20:00 - 20:01)
All those opposed.

[Speaker 1] (20:02 - 20:04)
The motion carries.

[Speaker 1] (20:06 - 20:08)
This brings us to Article 17,

[Speaker 1] (20:08 - 20:15)
the pink sheet and the recommended capital projects found in your printed warrant.

[Speaker 1] (20:16 - 20:16)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (20:16 - 20:17)
Schneider.

[Speaker 2] (20:20 - 20:41)
The Finance Committee recommends the town vote to appropriate $8,626,292 for the purpose and in the amounts identified in the pink handout entitled FY26 Capital Projects under the column heading Finance Committee recommended and to meet this appropriation.

[Speaker 2] (20:42 - 21:01)
authorize the treasurer with the approval of the select board to borrow $8,626,292 under general law chapter 44 paragraph 7 or 8 or any other enabling authority to pass costs of all other capital projects included in said handout including

[Speaker 2] (21:02 - 21:03)
As applicable,

[Speaker 2] (21:03 - 21:16)
equipping of capital items to be acquired and all incidental and related costs, each numbered items to be considered as separate appropriation with the budget amounts to be spent only for the stated purpose.

[Speaker 2] (21:16 - 21:18)
I move the recommendation of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 1] (21:19 - 21:20)
Thank you. Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (21:21 - 21:22)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (21:22 - 21:23)
Schneider and then Mr.

[Speaker 1] (21:23 - 21:23)
Hale.

[Speaker 2] (21:30 - 21:30)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 3] (21:32 - 21:36)
So I do want to recognize the other committee members for their hard work.

[Speaker 3] (21:36 - 21:54)
We do have a really capable and engaged Capital Improvement Committee right now that reflects a range of professional backgrounds and interests around the town. So I really do feel proud of my committee members for how they represent the interests of the town and help us to ensure that our tax money is spent wisely.

[Speaker 3] (21:55 - 21:58)
As you've seen in the letter in Appendix A that...

[Speaker 3] (21:58 - 22:18)
Um you know our our intention is to make sure that every year uh we thoroughly vet the projects that are are brought to us. Uh so for anyone who's new to the town meeting or are not familiar with the process, uh the capital improvement committee does not propose uh to spend money. We just evaluate the merits of projects that are brought to us and uh we have uh worked to streamline.

[Speaker 3] (22:19 - 22:41)
Uh the administrative process of that staff need to follow to to bring those requests to us. Uh we understand how busy they are and and we want them to be uh as as sort of streamlined as possible in terms of bringing the information to us. Uh we also make sure that um we we consider the balance of our spending each year towards the the needs of the community. So spanning public safety,

[Speaker 3] (22:41 - 22:41)
education,

[Speaker 3] (22:42 - 22:44)
community engagement, uh resiliency,

[Speaker 3] (22:45 - 22:45)
open space,

[Speaker 3] (22:45 - 22:48)
uh the different priorities that we have we want to make sure that

[Speaker 3] (22:48 - 22:54)
make sure that our capital spending is allocated as evenly as we really can across those priorities.

[Speaker 3] (22:55 - 22:59)
And the last point I want to make here is just to make sure that

[Speaker 3] (22:59 - 23:05)
You understand that we are trying to pick up the headlights and look out a number of years.

[Speaker 3] (23:05 - 23:12)
We have significant infrastructure needs in the coming years in this community.

[Speaker 3] (23:13 - 23:19)
We have a desire to increase our top line and revenue by making smart developments in town.

[Speaker 3] (23:19 - 23:26)
And all of those things are going to require significant capital investment that's going to put a strain on our...

[Speaker 3] (23:26 - 23:28)
our debt service and our operating budget.

[Speaker 3] (23:28 - 23:38)
So this coming year is a relatively light amount of spending when you compare that to the future years.

[Speaker 3] (23:38 - 23:47)
And there has been significant discussion about the timing of these investments and our ability as a town to execute multiple projects successfully.

[Speaker 3] (23:48 - 23:53)
As you all know from our discussion last night, we have an open position for the planner role.

[Speaker 3] (23:54 - 24:03)
that we think will help that the town staff manage multiple projects concurrently and our demands over the next few years between the schools,

[Speaker 3] (24:03 - 24:07)
the renovations and improvements we want to make to town-owned property,

[Speaker 3] (24:08 - 24:13)
the investments we'll make in renewable energy to offset our operating expenses,

[Speaker 3] (24:13 - 24:16)
they're all big dollar projects that are coming.

[Speaker 3] (24:16 - 24:21)
So if anyone has questions about the line items in the upcoming FY26.

[Speaker 3] (24:22 - 24:49)
um we have a lot more detail about those projects and as a previous speaker mentioned there are placeholders in the in the out years. Uh we tried to um differentiate between projects that have already gone through a round of of planning and and we have a little more precision around the spend. Um those are in in normal face type and the ones that are basically a plug or an estimate are are italicized. So uh the purpose of the discussion tonight is is really around the the FY 26 spend.

[Speaker 3] (24:49 - 25:11)
spend, but we we want to uh the committee wants to encourage all town meeting members to look ahead, uh to it to participate, uh we meet uh monthly, we take a couple months off in the summer, but we we meet monthly uh and we welcome uh participation from anyone in town who uh is curious or or has perspective to share to help us all make more informed decisions about where our capital dollars go. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (25:11 - 25:12)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (25:12 - 25:14)
Hale. Before we proceed,

[Speaker 1] (25:14 - 25:15)
I just want to clarify

[Speaker 1] (25:16 - 25:19)
There is a T.B.D. in the Finance Committee recommended column.

[Speaker 1] (25:20 - 25:22)
This was printed before their vote,

[Speaker 1] (25:22 - 25:25)
including the hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the elementary school solar, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (25:25 - 25:31)
Schneider. Uh in addition, the delta between the number that is proposed,

[Speaker 1] (25:31 - 25:33)
eight million six two six two nine two.

[Speaker 1] (25:34 - 25:46)
And the printed CIC recommended number reflects line 47 where an additional $140,000 grant looks like it will be available and it needs to be appropriated.

[Speaker 1] (25:47 - 25:54)
I know there's some late changes and I appreciate everyone's flexibility keeping track of all the moving numbers.

[Speaker 1] (25:55 - 25:56)
Anything to add,

[Speaker 1] (25:56 - 25:56)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (25:56 - 25:57)
Schneider?

[Speaker 2] (25:57 - 25:57)
No, that's correct.

[Speaker 1] (25:57 - 25:58)
Great.

[Speaker 1] (25:59 - 26:02)
Now, much as we did with the operating budget,

[Speaker 1] (26:02 - 26:08)
this is a series of appropriations assembled into essentially a consent agenda,

[Speaker 1] (26:08 - 26:14)
each of which can be debated individually and voted in total.

[Speaker 1] (26:15 - 26:17)
Is there discussion or debate on Mr.

[Speaker 1] (26:18 - 26:20)
Schneider's recommendation as to the capital plans?

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

[Speaker 1] (26:23 - 26:24)
Iannacone.

[Speaker 4] (26:32 - 26:33)
Steve Anacone,

[Speaker 4] (26:33 - 26:35)
Precinct 4,

[Speaker 4] (26:35 - 26:36)
tell me you need me to remember.

[Speaker 4] (26:36 - 26:44)
I just want to clarify what's been said about the Finance Committee recommended amount,

[Speaker 4] (26:44 - 26:47)
which is to be determined here,

[Speaker 4] (26:47 - 26:49)
but I don't see,

[Speaker 4] (26:49 - 26:53)
I haven't heard exactly what that determined amount is.

[Speaker 4] (26:53 - 26:57)
I might have missed it, I'm not saying I didn't, but could you repeat it if you would?

[Speaker 2] (26:58 - 27:00)
Yes, it's a hundred and fifty thousand.

[Speaker 2] (27:01 - 27:03)
The same amount as the Capital Improvements Committee.

[Speaker 2] (27:09 - 27:12)
In in the in thirty four you're asking about the line

[Speaker 4] (27:12 - 27:12)
No,

[Speaker 2] (27:12 - 27:13)
or the

[Speaker 4] (27:13 - 27:17)
I'm talking about the the bottom of where it says Finance Committee at the far right

[Speaker 2] (27:17 - 27:18)
Eight.

[Speaker 4] (27:18 - 27:27)
column says to be determined and then it says to be determined up top as well. I'm just looking for the final to be determined number.

[Speaker 2] (27:28 - 27:42)
The amount in the upper TBD in line 35 is 150,000 and in the line where it says project totals, that amount is 8,626,292.

[Speaker 4] (27:43 - 27:44)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (27:47 - 27:51)
Further discussion or debate of Mr. Schneider's, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (27:51 - 27:52)
Beaupre.

[Speaker 5] (28:01 - 28:02)
Yes, Larry Beaupre,

[Speaker 5] (28:02 - 28:04)
Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member.

[Speaker 5] (28:04 - 28:14)
Could you just walk us through exactly what happened with the solar canopy appropriation for the elementary school?

[Speaker 1] (28:16 - 28:17)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (28:17 - 28:17)
Casper.

[Speaker 2] (28:17 - 28:19)
Max is the guy.

[Speaker 3] (28:25 - 28:27)
Thank you, Max Casper, the Facilities Director.

[Speaker 3] (28:27 - 28:31)
There's two solar projects planned at the elementary school.

[Speaker 3] (28:31 - 28:39)
There's a rooftop solar project which is already predominantly funded that hopefully will be advancing this summer.

[Speaker 3] (28:39 - 28:47)
And then there's a canopy project which we've done design on and are still hoping to advance. The reason it's...

[Speaker 2] (28:48 - 28:57)
withdrawn at this time is that it is with National Grid. National Grid is still reviewing it. There's some infrastructure issues that they are working through.

[Speaker 2] (28:57 - 29:01)
So we're waiting for clarity from National Grid.

[Speaker 2] (29:01 - 29:09)
We're not positive on the timing and impact of National Grid studies. So we think it would be more appropriate to bring it up at a future date.

[Speaker 5] (29:10 - 29:11)
May I ask a quick follow-up question,

[Speaker 1] (29:11 - 29:12)
Certainly,

[Speaker 5] (29:12 - 29:12)
Mr. Montero?

[Speaker 1] (29:12 - 29:13)
Mr. McBride.

[Speaker 5] (29:14 - 29:19)
Is the canopy project that's undergoing further study,

[Speaker 5] (29:19 - 29:23)
is that partially going to be funded still with federal funds,

[Speaker 5] (29:23 - 29:26)
and if so, if there is a delay,

[Speaker 5] (29:26 - 29:34)
given what is happening with federal funding and tariffs for equipment that could have to be sourced from China,

[Speaker 5] (29:34 - 29:37)
what is the risk to the project of this delay?

[Speaker 3] (29:38 - 29:44)
So there is federal funds available for both solar projects through the Inflation Reduction Act.

[Speaker 3] (29:44 - 29:49)
There's a roughly 25% reimbursement that the town gets like we have done with.

[Speaker 1] (29:51 - 29:54)
That's a reimbursement so you have to complete the project,

[Speaker 1] (29:54 - 29:56)
file a tax return and receive it.

[Speaker 1] (29:57 - 30:01)
We've asked that very question about like the level of risk.

[Speaker 2] (30:01 - 30:01)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1] (30:01 - 30:09)
It's important to understand we can never seek those funds until the project is implemented which I explained why there is a delay in that.

[Speaker 1] (30:10 - 30:13)
We believe the risk is low. It would take an

[Speaker 1] (30:13 - 30:17)
take an act of Congress to repeal the IRA so

[Speaker 3] (30:17 - 30:19)
Oh, thank

[Speaker 1] (30:19 - 30:21)
we're hoping that doesn't happen.

[Speaker 1] (30:24 - 30:25)
You're welcome.

[Speaker 4] (30:25 - 30:26)
Thank you, Mr. Beaupre.

[Speaker 4] (30:26 - 30:29)
Thank you, Mr. Casper. Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 5] (30:34 - 30:37)
Debbie Friedlander, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member.

[Speaker 5] (30:37 - 30:40)
I'm wondering on page 17,

[Speaker 5] (30:40 - 30:42)
underline 24,

[Speaker 5] (30:42 - 30:44)
library controls and electrical,

[Speaker 5] (30:44 - 30:56)
the administrator recommended 100,000 and then it's zeroed out, and I'm asking why their amount was zeroed out and no one else's when they have a need to

[Speaker 4] (30:56 - 30:56)
Mr.

[Speaker 5] (30:56 - 30:57)
upgrade their electrical.

[Speaker 4] (30:57 - 30:57)
Hale?

[Speaker 5] (30:57 - 30:58)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (30:58 - 31:01)
That project was pushed into the FY 27.

[Speaker 4] (31:03 - 31:04)
Thank you, Mr. Hale.

[Speaker 4] (31:05 - 31:07)
Yes, uh Ms. Atkin.

[Speaker 6] (31:15 - 31:17)
I haven't grown since last night.

[Speaker 6] (31:22 - 31:23)
Since the largest amount

[Speaker 4] (31:23 - 31:23)
Again,

[Speaker 6] (31:23 - 31:24)
here

[Speaker 4] (31:24 - 31:25)
please introduce yourself for

[Speaker 6] (31:25 - 31:25)
sorry,

[Speaker 4] (31:25 - 31:25)
everybody's

[Speaker 6] (31:25 - 31:26)
Barry

[Speaker 4] (31:26 - 31:26)
sake.

[Speaker 6] (31:26 - 31:26)
Atkin,

[Speaker 6] (31:26 - 31:27)
Precinct Six.

[Speaker 6] (31:28 - 31:29)
Town meeting member.

[Speaker 6] (31:31 - 31:38)
The largest item here appears to be for the sewer rehabilitation.

[Speaker 6] (31:39 - 31:47)
And could someone explain what the sewer main rehabilitation is and why there's a difference in the amount recommended?

[Speaker 4] (31:48 - 31:49)
Certainly. Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 4] (31:49 - 31:50)
Atkin.

[Speaker 4] (31:50 - 31:51)
Mr.

[Speaker 4] (31:51 - 31:53)
Cresta or... certainly.

[Speaker 7] (31:58 - 31:59)
I'll have to get a signal to fall on.

[Speaker 7] (32:00 - 32:07)
So we applied for a 3.5 state revolving fund loan and 3.25 was approved.

[Speaker 7] (32:08 - 32:14)
The state did not approve the engineering work or the testing. So that's the difference.

[Speaker 7] (32:14 - 32:19)
We need the other 254 testing and engineering.

[Speaker 4] (32:20 - 32:22)
Thank you, Mr. Cresta. Ms.

[Speaker 4] (32:22 - 32:23)
Etkin, please.

[Speaker 4] (32:24 - 32:24)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 6] (32:32 - 32:35)
The first part of my question was, what does this do?

[Speaker 4] (32:37 - 32:38)
Fair enough.

[Speaker 4] (32:38 - 32:38)
Mr.

[Speaker 4] (32:39 - 32:41)
Crested, perhaps you could just give a brief overview.

[Speaker 4] (32:41 - 32:43)
I know that many of us have been through the

[Speaker 7] (32:43 - 32:44)
Very brief.

[Speaker 7] (32:44 - 32:49)
We're under a consent decree from the EPA to clean up the discharge onto Kings Beach.

[Speaker 7] (32:50 - 32:51)
This would be phase 2B.

[Speaker 4] (32:52 - 32:53)
Thank you, Mr. Creston.

[Speaker 4] (32:54 - 32:57)
Further discussion or questions?

[Speaker 4] (32:59 - 33:01)
Seeing none, this requires a two-thirds vote.

[Speaker 4] (33:01 - 33:13)
All those in favor of Mr. Schneider's motion to accept the printed warrant capital projects as amended for line 35 in the amount of $86,262.92.

[Speaker 4] (33:14 - 33:14)
My apologies.

[Speaker 4] (33:14 - 33:16)
Please raise your hand.

[Speaker 4] (33:17 - 33:18)
All those opposed?

[Speaker 4] (33:18 - 33:19)
It is unanimous.

[Speaker 4] (33:21 - 33:23)
Moving on to Article 18,

[Speaker 4] (33:24 - 33:27)
the Community Preservation Committee Bylaw,

[Speaker 4] (33:27 - 33:27)
Mr. Thompson.

[Speaker 3] (33:36 - 33:39)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Doug Thompson,

[Speaker 3] (33:39 - 33:40)
Precinct 5,

[Speaker 3] (33:40 - 33:42)
Select Board member.

[Speaker 3] (33:43 - 33:55)
I rise to voice the select board recommending the town approve article 18 as set forth in the printed warrant.

[Speaker 3] (33:55 - 33:58)
I move the unanimous recommendation of the select board.

[Speaker 4] (34:04 - 34:05)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (34:07 - 34:07)
So

[Speaker 4] (34:07 - 34:07)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (34:07 - 34:07)
because

[Speaker 4] (34:07 - 34:08)
Thompson.

[Speaker 1] (34:08 - 34:08)
we specifically

[Speaker 3] (34:09 - 34:25)
Okay, so last year at the ballot we approved Community Preservation Act here in Swampscott and as a next step in the process we are required to seat a Community Preservation Committee.

[Speaker 3] (34:26 - 34:30)
As described in detail in Appendix C in your warrant,

[Speaker 3] (34:30 - 34:36)
there are certain factors that need to be taken into consideration when we do this,

[Speaker 3] (34:36 - 34:39)
including the number of committee members,

[Speaker 3] (34:39 - 34:40)
the length of their terms,

[Speaker 3] (34:41 - 34:43)
whether or not there be any at-large positions,

[Speaker 3] (34:43 - 34:47)
and other responsibilities of the committee,

[Speaker 3] (34:47 - 34:48)
which,

[Speaker 3] (34:48 - 34:52)
as I said, are described in detail in Appendix C. Probably the most...

[Speaker 3] (34:55 - 34:57)
At our disposal for decision,

[Speaker 3] (34:57 - 35:01)
many of these items are required under the law,

[Speaker 3] (35:01 - 35:07)
but we do have some flexibility in terms of the committee members,

[Speaker 3] (35:07 - 35:10)
the first five of which are required,

[Speaker 3] (35:11 - 35:12)
Conservation Commission,

[Speaker 3] (35:12 - 35:13)
Historic Commission,

[Speaker 3] (35:13 - 35:14)
Planning Board,

[Speaker 3] (35:14 - 35:16)
Housing Authority,

[Speaker 3] (35:16 - 35:19)
and Open Space and Rec Commission.

[Speaker 3] (35:20 - 35:31)
And then the select board discussed and recommended after reviewing what many other communities do to add four other seats,

[Speaker 3] (35:31 - 35:34)
one of which is the Affordable Housing Trust,

[Speaker 3] (35:35 - 35:37)
another is the Capital Improvement Committee,

[Speaker 3] (35:37 - 35:48)
the Finance Committee, and then an at-large seat recommended by the select board to keep it kind of current with the changing.

[Speaker 3] (35:50 - 35:52)
views expressed by the voters on the Select Board.

[Speaker 4] (35:56 - 35:58)
Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

[Speaker 4] (35:58 - 36:02)
Are there questions or debate regarding the CPA bylaw?

[Speaker 4] (36:03 - 36:06)
All those in favor of Mr. Thompson's motion?

[Speaker 4] (36:06 - 36:08)
All those opposed?

[Speaker 4] (36:08 - 36:09)
The motion carries.

[Speaker 4] (36:11 - 36:12)
Article 19,

[Speaker 4] (36:13 - 36:15)
Earth Removal Advisory Committee,

[Speaker 4] (36:15 - 36:16)
Mr. Grisham.

[Speaker 3] (36:23 - 36:25)
David Grishman, Precinct 1,

[Speaker 3] (36:25 - 36:34)
select board recommends the town approve Article 19 as set forth in the printed warrant.

[Speaker 3] (36:34 - 36:36)
I move the recommendation of the select board.

[Speaker 4] (36:36 - 36:37)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 4] (36:37 - 36:38)
Mr. Grishman.

[Speaker 3] (36:38 - 36:39)
Thank you.

[Speaker 8] (36:41 - 36:55)
Yeah, basically we're just looking to amend the Town of Swamps, whose general bylaws, article 12, section 14A for the Earth Removal Advisory Committee by striking the language shown in the strikethrough and inserting the language shown in bold as set forth in Appendix B,

[Speaker 8] (36:55 - 36:59)
which can be found on page 32 of your warrant.

[Speaker 8] (37:00 - 37:01)
So just a quick read.

[Speaker 8] (37:02 - 37:04)
The committee shall consist of five voting members,

[Speaker 8] (37:04 - 37:08)
all residents of the town of Swampscott. One member shall be chosen by the Board of Health,

[Speaker 8] (37:08 - 37:12)
one member shall be chosen by and from the Conservation Commission to serve a one-year term,

[Speaker 8] (37:12 - 37:18)
and three members shall be appointed by the select board for a three-year term.

[Speaker 8] (37:18 - 37:25)
This was supported by the planning board and is supported by the select board.

[Speaker 4] (37:26 - 37:29)
Thank you, Mr. Grishman. Is there a discussion or debate on Mr.

[Speaker 4] (37:29 - 37:31)
Grishman's motion? Ms. Dreeben.

[Speaker 5] (37:34 - 37:36)
Naomi Dreeben, Precinct Three.

[Speaker 5] (37:37 - 37:42)
I'm just curious why, why the change is being proposed.

[Speaker 5] (37:42 - 37:43)
I think I

[Speaker 4] (37:43 - 37:43)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 5] (37:43 - 37:43)
wonder,

[Speaker 4] (37:43 - 37:44)
Grishman.

[Speaker 5] (37:44 - 37:44)
yeah.

[Speaker 4] (37:44 - 37:49)
Is there someone on the select board who would care to speak to that? Mr. Grishman perhaps or?

[Speaker 4] (37:52 - 37:52)
Ah, Mr. Dooley.

[Speaker 8] (37:54 - 37:58)
Thank you. Ted Dooley, Precinct 4, Town Meeting member, Chair of the Planning Board.

[Speaker 8] (37:58 - 38:02)
This is something the Planning Board requested late last year.

[Speaker 8] (38:02 - 38:05)
In working through leadership with the Earth Removal Advisory Committee,

[Speaker 8] (38:06 - 38:07)
we found it made sense.

[Speaker 8] (38:07 - 38:11)
I've been representing the Planning Board on the ERAC for the last four years.

[Speaker 8] (38:11 - 38:21)
And the intent of the involvement is for any private development to take place that crossed the threshold in our bylaws to require an Earth Removal permit.

[Speaker 8] (38:21 - 38:21)
permit.

[Speaker 8] (38:22 - 38:24)
Seek that in conjunction with planning board review.

[Speaker 8] (38:24 - 38:26)
In the four years I've been on ERAC,

[Speaker 8] (38:26 - 38:33)
we have not had one private development project that's triggered that requirement for Earth removal permit.

[Speaker 8] (38:33 - 38:43)
So we found that it was prudent for us to take a step back from that and therefore allowing the select board to have another representative on the committee that can have a broader scope of their involvement.

[Speaker 4] (38:43 - 38:45)
Thank you, Mr. Dooley.

[Speaker 4] (38:45 - 38:49)
Other questions or comments on Mr. Grishman's motion?

[Speaker 4] (38:50 - 38:51)
Seeing none,

[Speaker 4] (38:51 - 38:53)
all those in favor of Mr. Grisham's motion,

[Speaker 4] (38:54 - 38:55)
all those opposed,

[Speaker 4] (38:55 - 38:56)
the motion carries.

[Speaker 4] (38:57 - 38:58)
Move to Article 20,

[Speaker 4] (38:59 - 39:00)
Uses of Lands,

[Speaker 4] (39:00 - 39:01)
Parks and Fields.

[Speaker 4] (39:02 - 39:07)
I'm given to understand that there is no positive motion to be made on this.

[Speaker 4] (39:11 - 39:15)
Is there anyone with a positive motion to make under this article?

[Speaker 4] (39:18 - 39:19)
Going once, twice.

[Speaker 4] (39:20 - 39:26)
We may move on to Article 21, to establish a fall town meeting. Ms. Phelan.

[Speaker 5] (39:33 - 39:37)
Move the recommendation of Article 21 as detailed in your warrant,

[Speaker 5] (39:37 - 39:41)
establishing a town fall meeting.

[Speaker 5] (39:41 - 39:42)
Sorry.

[Speaker 4] (39:44 - 39:44)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (39:44 - 39:44)
I'm

[Speaker 2] (39:44 - 39:44)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (39:44 - 39:45)
new to the motion.

[Speaker 2] (39:46 - 39:49)
And you move the recommendation to the select board. Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (39:49 - 39:50)
That's right.

[Speaker 1] (39:51 - 39:51)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (39:51 - 39:52)
Please, Ms. Valen.

[Speaker 1] (39:52 - 39:52)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (39:53 - 39:53)
Um,

[Speaker 1] (39:53 - 39:59)
so this was brought forward for our consideration by us to establish,

[Speaker 1] (39:59 - 40:00)
um,

[Speaker 1] (40:01 - 40:02)
a fall town meeting.

[Speaker 1] (40:03 - 40:03)
Um,

[Speaker 1] (40:04 - 40:08)
in prior years, we've always had a fall town meeting.

[Speaker 1] (40:09 - 40:20)
It's become normal course for us and setting the cadence would allow folks to know well in advance when the fall meeting would take place and allow for folks to plan ahead of time so that the meeting is well attended.

[Speaker 2] (40:22 - 40:23)
Thank you, Ms. Phelan.

[Speaker 2] (40:23 - 40:26)
Are there questions or debate on Ms. Phelan's motion?

[Speaker 2] (40:30 - 40:31)
Seeing none,

[Speaker 2] (40:31 - 40:32)
all those in favor?

[Speaker 2] (40:33 - 40:34)
All those opposed?

[Speaker 2] (40:35 - 40:36)
The motion carries.

[Speaker 2] (40:38 - 40:39)
Article 22,

[Speaker 2] (40:40 - 40:45)
a setting of a minimum write-in vote threshold for town meeting members.

[Speaker 2] (40:45 - 40:45)
Ms.

[Speaker 2] (40:45 - 40:45)
Phelan.

[Speaker 1] (40:50 - 40:55)
The select board recommends the town approve article 22 as set forth in the printed warrant.

[Speaker 1] (40:55 - 40:57)
I move the recommendation of the select board.

[Speaker 2] (40:57 - 40:58)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 2] (40:59 - 40:59)
Ms.

[Speaker 2] (41:00 - 41:00)
Phelan.

[Speaker 1] (41:00 - 41:00)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (41:01 - 41:13)
Article 22 was again brought forward, sponsored by the town clerk, to establish a minimum of five votes required for a write-in for a town meeting member to be voted into that position.

[Speaker 1] (41:14 - 41:22)
There are some precincts which one or two write-in votes make them in some years eligible for town meeting membership.

[Speaker 1] (41:25 - 41:34)
potential town meeting members do not always know they're being written in and therefore do not always want to participate in the democratic process that we all are participating in tonight.

[Speaker 1] (41:35 - 41:35)
And therefore,

[Speaker 1] (41:36 - 41:46)
the town clerk, in order to alleviate that, suggested perhaps we discuss a minimum number of votes that would need to be established in order to have folks join us on these evenings.

[Speaker 2] (41:47 - 41:47)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 2] (41:47 - 41:55)
Phelan. I can verify that I have had to chase down numerous people with one write-in vote who are astonished to learn that they have been elected.

[Speaker 2] (41:57 - 42:00)
Are there discussion or comments on Ms.

[Speaker 2] (42:00 - 42:00)
Phelan's motion?

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

[Speaker 2] (42:03 - 42:03)
Peabody,

[Speaker 2] (42:03 - 42:05)
and then Ms. Goodman, I think it was.

[Speaker 3] (42:11 - 42:13)
Dennis Peeler, Precinct 4.

[Speaker 3] (42:13 - 42:14)
Again,

[Speaker 3] (42:14 - 42:15)
very supportive of this.

[Speaker 3] (42:15 - 42:18)
The only question that I have is that, and again,

[Speaker 3] (42:18 - 42:20)
just really thank for everyone who went for town meeting.

[Speaker 3] (42:21 - 42:33)
I think this year more than other years we've had almost a full slate in most of the precincts and even more people wanting to be town meeting member and I think that's just a real tribute to everybody in this room and just everybody in the community wanting to be more involved.

[Speaker 3] (42:33 - 42:39)
So I just wanted to recognize that and applaud the interest and the care that the community is showing to be part of this body.

[Speaker 3] (42:39 - 42:42)
There are some precincts that don't always do it.

[Speaker 3] (42:43 - 42:50)
Would this process in any way affect the ability to add on a town meeting member during caucus if there is an opening at that time?

[Speaker 2] (42:51 - 42:54)
My understanding is no, but I will turn to the clerk and town council.

[Speaker 4] (42:55 - 42:58)
No, this does not affect anyone's ability,

[Speaker 4] (42:58 - 43:00)
if they are interested in becoming a town meeting member,

[Speaker 4] (43:00 - 43:03)
if there is an open seat in the caucus,

[Speaker 4] (43:03 - 43:06)
it works the same as it has always, show up to the meeting,

[Speaker 4] (43:06 - 43:12)
get a majority of the caucus goers to vote for you and you can still join this august body.

[Speaker 2] (43:13 - 43:17)
With a quorum of a precinct being 27,

[Speaker 2] (43:17 - 43:19)
that is more than five write-in votes,

[Speaker 2] (43:19 - 43:21)
a majority of that being 14.

[Speaker 2] (43:22 - 43:24)
And Ms. Goodman, did you have a point? No,

[Speaker 2] (43:24 - 43:25)
thank you. Others?

[Speaker 2] (43:28 - 43:28)
Mr. Jenta.

[Speaker 3] (43:34 - 43:35)
John Chantas,

[Speaker 3] (43:35 - 43:37)
Precinct 4 School Committee member.

[Speaker 3] (43:38 - 43:41)
Apologies, I did have to step out right at the beginning of this,

[Speaker 3] (43:41 - 43:43)
but I guess my,

[Speaker 3] (43:43 - 43:44)
sorry,

[Speaker 3] (43:44 - 43:45)
my question is.

[Speaker 3] (43:47 - 43:49)
Why this change?

[Speaker 3] (43:49 - 43:59)
I'm really not understanding the rationale for this. If someone gets a couple write-in votes and wants to serve, why can't they serve?

[Speaker 3] (43:59 - 44:04)
I'm not sure why we need to establish a minimum threshold of five in a small town like this.

[Speaker 3] (44:05 - 44:05)
Again,

[Speaker 3] (44:06 - 44:14)
it just struck me as really odd that we would do that if someone actually was written in and there was a slot for them.

[Speaker 5] (44:14 - 44:21)
Why couldn't they serve? If they would be elected with one vote, why not? That's kind of my read. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (44:21 - 44:22)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 2] (44:22 - 44:22)
Jantas.

[Speaker 2] (44:25 - 44:27)
In the back, and then Mr.

[Speaker 2] (44:27 - 44:27)
Pinkerton.

[Speaker 6] (44:44 - 44:45)
Joe Callahan,

[Speaker 6] (44:45 - 44:46)
Precinct 1,

[Speaker 6] (44:47 - 44:48)
town meeting member.

[Speaker 6] (44:50 - 44:52)
I've been elected a couple times by one vote.

[Speaker 6] (44:53 - 45:06)
And I don't think that the rest of the people who are in my precinct should deny a person who gets a vote to serve.

[Speaker 6] (45:07 - 45:08)
It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Speaker 6] (45:10 - 45:11)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (45:11 - 45:11)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 2] (45:12 - 45:12)
Callahan.

[Speaker 2] (45:13 - 45:14)
Um,

[Speaker 2] (45:15 - 45:17)
I'm sorry, Mr Pinkerton, that's correct.

[Speaker 5] (45:20 - 45:27)
Uh good evening, Don Pinkerton, Precinct Three, thank you. Um I'm just wondering if there is what we know about best practices amongst other

[Speaker 3] (45:28 - 45:40)
cities and towns in the Commonwealth and also is this a practice that violates any sort of election process established by the general court or you know what are the legal ramifications thanks

[Speaker 2] (45:40 - 45:41)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 2] (45:41 - 45:46)
Pinkerton. I'll turn to the clerk and or council to opine thereon.

[Speaker 2] (45:46 - 45:48)
I believe there was some research done on this matter.

[Speaker 5] (46:00 - 46:01)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 5] (46:01 - 46:01)
Moderator.

[Speaker 5] (46:01 - 46:06)
There's really no standard across the state. Some towns do have that requirement.

[Speaker 5] (46:07 - 46:12)
Others don't, so with respect to towns that have representative town meetings.

[Speaker 5] (46:12 - 46:16)
So there's no real specific standard that would apply.

[Speaker 5] (46:17 - 46:17)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (46:18 - 46:19)
Thank you, Council.

[Speaker 2] (46:20 - 46:20)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (46:20 - 46:21)
Iannacone?

[Speaker 7] (46:29 - 46:35)
I appreciate the clerical problems that this might provide to the town.

[Speaker 7] (46:36 - 46:39)
But an election is an election.

[Speaker 7] (46:40 - 46:43)
People get write-in votes,

[Speaker 7] (46:43 - 46:46)
and they encourage other people to write for them.

[Speaker 7] (46:46 - 46:47)
They may not get five,

[Speaker 7] (46:47 - 46:48)
they may get four,

[Speaker 7] (46:48 - 46:50)
they may get three.

[Speaker 7] (46:51 - 46:58)
What is our reason for determining that those people who get less than five shouldn't be able to serve?

[Speaker 7] (46:59 - 47:01)
They got their name on the ballot,

[Speaker 7] (47:01 - 47:04)
they had people sign, write them in,

[Speaker 7] (47:04 - 47:08)
and I don't see any reason why they couldn't serve.

[Speaker 7] (47:09 - 47:10)
Yes,

[Speaker 7] (47:11 - 47:15)
it may require some clerical work, and it's difficult,

[Speaker 7] (47:15 - 47:15)
maybe.

[Speaker 7] (47:16 - 47:40)
follow through on all of it but it's an election it's right there you can write people in you can write yourself in and if you are one who is no one else wrote someone in and you were the one who signed in why shouldn't you serve i don't get the point of this at all to be honest it's an election let it happen

[Speaker 2] (47:41 - 47:43)
Thank you, Ms. Diana Coney.

[Speaker 1] (47:43 - 47:46)
Mr. Moderator, if I may make a point of clarification.

[Speaker 2] (47:46 - 47:47)
Ms. Phelan, yes.

[Speaker 1] (47:47 - 47:50)
So this is applicable only to write-in votes.

[Speaker 1] (47:50 - 47:59)
So I just want to be clear that if you go through the process to get your name on the ballot through the normal form of getting your signatures and coming forward to the town clerk and putting your name on the ballot,

[Speaker 1] (47:59 - 48:07)
you can still win by less than five votes if you have one vote and that's the winning threshold that does not prevent you from serving.

[Speaker 1] (48:07 - 48:09)
This is only for write-in candidates.

[Speaker 2] (48:10 - 48:17)
Thank you, Miss Phelan. Uh behind Ms. Levinson and then in the back. That Ms. Jackson?

[Speaker 4] (48:21 - 48:32)
Sean Atcherly, Precinct one town meeting member. Um if the argument is that someone might get two hypothetical votes but not want to be here,

[Speaker 4] (48:32 - 48:34)
couldn't they just not come?

[Speaker 2] (48:37 - 48:38)
They certainly could and they

[Speaker 1] (48:38 - 48:38)
They they do.

[Speaker 2] (48:38 - 48:39)
often do.

[Speaker 2] (48:40 - 48:47)
Which makes our quorum less than 161, 163.

[Speaker 2] (48:47 - 48:48)
Yes, Ms.

[Speaker 2] (48:48 - 48:48)
Jackson.

[Speaker 7] (48:50 - 48:51)
Laurie Jackson,

[Speaker 7] (48:51 - 48:52)
town meeting member of Precinct 2.

[Speaker 7] (48:53 - 48:56)
I speak in support of this article.

[Speaker 7] (48:57 - 49:00)
I've been a town meeting member for about 25 years,

[Speaker 7] (49:00 - 49:04)
and if you want to run for town meeting,

[Speaker 7] (49:04 - 49:06)
you can take out the papers before the deadline.

[Speaker 8] (49:07 - 49:09)
If you don't make that deadline,

[Speaker 8] (49:09 - 49:12)
if you don't know five people who could write you in,

[Speaker 8] (49:12 - 49:15)
I'm not sure you're representing your precinct.

[Speaker 8] (49:16 - 49:17)
So I...

[Speaker 8] (49:20 - 49:31)
I still think that if you wanted to get written in and you didn't get five people and your precinct still has vacancies, you can come to caucus and get voted in then.

[Speaker 8] (49:32 - 49:38)
So it's not like you would never have a chance to get into town meeting if you didn't get five write-in votes.

[Speaker 1] (49:39 - 49:40)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (49:40 - 49:40)
you, Ms.

[Speaker 2] (49:40 - 49:40)
Jackson.

[Speaker 2] (49:41 - 49:42)
Mr. Perry?

[Speaker 3] (49:43 - 49:45)
Moderator, a follow-up question.

[Speaker 2] (49:47 - 49:53)
There is a second to Mr. Perry's motion to call the question and debate on this topic.

[Speaker 2] (49:53 - 49:55)
This requires two-thirds vote. All those in favor?

[Speaker 2] (49:57 - 49:59)
All those opposed to ending debate?

[Speaker 2] (50:02 - 50:05)
I'd really rather not count two-thirds for this.

[Speaker 2] (50:05 - 50:06)
I'm going to say that that motion fails.

[Speaker 2] (50:07 - 50:09)
Who else would like to speak on this?

[Speaker 2] (50:10 - 50:10)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (50:11 - 50:13)
Spritz and then Mr. Norton.

[Speaker 4] (50:16 - 50:20)
Wayne Spritz, Precinct 3, point of clarification,

[Speaker 4] (50:20 - 50:20)
Mr.

[Speaker 4] (50:20 - 50:22)
Moderator, just for everybody.

[Speaker 2] (50:22 - 50:24)
Just if you have a question, please state it.

[Speaker 4] (50:24 - 50:25)
So...

[Speaker 4] (50:26 - 50:31)
If the, if you have, 324 is the full number, right?

[Speaker 4] (50:31 - 50:32)
So just for clarification,

[Speaker 4] (50:32 - 50:36)
if you only have 318 people,

[Speaker 4] (50:36 - 50:37)
right,

[Speaker 4] (50:37 - 50:40)
does that affect the new acceptable quorum count?

[Speaker 4] (50:41 - 50:42)
That's where a little bit of the confusion is.

[Speaker 2] (50:42 - 50:43)
Okay, seated members.

[Speaker 4] (50:43 - 50:44)
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 2] (50:46 - 50:47)
And yes,

[Speaker 2] (50:47 - 50:47)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (50:47 - 50:47)
Norton,

[Speaker 2] (50:47 - 50:48)
then Ms.

[Speaker 2] (50:48 - 50:48)
O'Connor.

[Speaker 3] (50:56 - 50:57)
Ken Norton.

[Speaker 3] (50:58 - 51:00)
Ken Norton, precinct three.

[Speaker 3] (51:01 - 51:03)
I got in by five votes.

[Speaker 3] (51:04 - 51:06)
But we have people,

[Speaker 3] (51:06 - 51:07)
member up there,

[Speaker 3] (51:07 - 51:08)
precinct one,

[Speaker 3] (51:08 - 51:10)
they got him to one.

[Speaker 3] (51:10 - 51:11)
They're here tonight.

[Speaker 3] (51:12 - 51:13)
We have people that got written,

[Speaker 3] (51:13 - 51:15)
that took the papers,

[Speaker 3] (51:15 - 51:16)
got nominated,

[Speaker 3] (51:16 - 51:17)
aren't in.

[Speaker 3] (51:17 - 51:18)
They're not here tonight.

[Speaker 3] (51:19 - 51:21)
Those people aren't here.

[Speaker 3] (51:21 - 51:29)
I stand against this because that gentleman is here with one vote, when we had people that had multiple votes are not here.

[Speaker 3] (51:29 - 51:30)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (51:30 - 51:31)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 2] (51:31 - 51:31)
Norton.

[Speaker 2] (51:32 - 51:33)
Ms.

[Speaker 2] (51:33 - 51:33)
O'Connor.

[Speaker 1] (51:38 - 51:40)
Amy O'Connor, Precinct 6.

[Speaker 1] (51:40 - 51:41)
I have a question.

[Speaker 1] (51:41 - 51:46)
Have there been multiple people with one vote who have been?

[Speaker 1] (51:47 - 51:54)
given the opportunity and you don't have enough space for them. In other words, how do you make a determine determination if they're five

[Speaker 4] (51:54 - 51:54)
So I think

[Speaker 1] (51:54 - 51:54)
people?

[Speaker 4] (51:54 - 51:56)
the question is how do you handle a tie,

[Speaker 4] (51:56 - 51:57)
regardless

[Speaker 1] (51:57 - 51:57)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (51:57 - 52:01)
of whether it's one vote or 100 votes, the clerk can address that.

[Speaker 5] (52:03 - 52:15)
If there was a tie in a precinct or a tie, let's say three years ago when everyone in this party was up for re-election, there was a meeting of the Board of Registrars and there is a drawing of lots.

[Speaker 5] (52:17 - 52:23)
for that they go into a hat and names get pulled.

[Speaker 4] (52:24 - 52:27)
I've been there and witnessed it. It's very very official.

[Speaker 4] (52:29 - 52:30)
Uh, Ms. Goodman.

[Speaker 6] (52:37 - 52:39)
Lyra Goodman, Precinct Five.

[Speaker 6] (52:39 - 52:44)
Um I wanna say that by voting for this article, you make town meeting more exclusive.

[Speaker 6] (52:45 - 52:49)
And as someone who myself I think we should have an open town meeting,

[Speaker 6] (52:49 - 52:55)
I would like to see people vote against this to make town meeting a less exclusive body.

[Speaker 6] (52:56 - 52:56)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (52:56 - 52:57)
Thank you, Ms. Goodman.

[Speaker 2] (53:00 - 53:01)
Ms. Vasilio.

[Speaker 4] (53:10 - 53:10)
Hi,

[Speaker 4] (53:10 - 53:12)
Tasia Vasilio, Precinct 5.

[Speaker 6] (53:13 - 53:32)
I just want to say the alternative that's offered to this is that you can go to your caucus meeting and if there are twenty seven members there you can be voted in. However, I don't remember the last time I went to a caucus meeting where there were twenty seven members of my precinct there. So that doesn't seem like a feasible alternative.

[Speaker 2] (53:34 - 53:34)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 2] (53:34 - 53:35)
Cecilia.

[Speaker 2] (53:36 - 53:40)
Further comments? Yes, sir. Sorry, I can't see who that is.

[Speaker 4] (53:44 - 53:45)
Dave Santino,

[Speaker 4] (53:45 - 53:46)
Precinct 2.

[Speaker 4] (53:47 - 53:50)
I moved here three years ago with my family.

[Speaker 4] (53:51 - 53:56)
I've been just as involved in this town as probably many other people in this town.

[Speaker 4] (53:56 - 53:57)
When I moved in,

[Speaker 4] (53:57 - 53:59)
I didn't know five people in this town.

[Speaker 4] (54:00 - 54:04)
There's so much apathy in our democracy,

[Speaker 4] (54:04 - 54:07)
not just in this town, but across the country.

[Speaker 3] (54:08 - 54:13)
We should be making it easier for people to be involved and not harder.

[Speaker 3] (54:13 - 54:14)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (54:15 - 54:16)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 4] (54:16 - 54:16)
Santino.

[Speaker 4] (54:17 - 54:18)
Mr.

[Speaker 4] (54:18 - 54:18)
Pinkerton.

[Speaker 4] (54:21 - 54:21)
Mr.

[Speaker 4] (54:21 - 54:22)
Pinkerton has called the question.

[Speaker 4] (54:22 - 54:23)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 4] (54:24 - 54:26)
All those in favor of ending debate on this topic?

[Speaker 4] (54:27 - 54:28)
All those opposed?

[Speaker 4] (54:28 - 54:29)
The motion carries.

[Speaker 4] (54:31 - 54:33)
With that, we move directly to a vote on Ms.

[Speaker 4] (54:33 - 54:34)
Valen's motion.

[Speaker 4] (54:34 - 54:38)
All those in favor of the motion to amend our,

[Speaker 4] (54:38 - 54:41)
I think this is a charter change,

[Speaker 4] (54:43 - 54:47)
the minimum town meeting write-in vote quantum of five.

[Speaker 4] (54:47 - 54:49)
Please raise your hand in favor of that motion.

[Speaker 4] (54:50 - 54:51)
All those opposed?

[Speaker 4] (54:51 - 54:53)
The motion fails.

[Speaker 4] (54:54 - 54:56)
Moving to Article 23,

[Speaker 4] (54:56 - 54:58)
discharges in sanitary sewers, Mr.

[Speaker 4] (54:59 - 54:59)
Grishman.

[Speaker 4] (55:07 - 55:09)
David Grishman, Precinct 1, Select Board,

[Speaker 4] (55:09 - 55:12)
Article 23.

[Speaker 4] (55:12 - 55:17)
The Select Board recommends the town approve Article 23 as set forth in the printed warrant.

[Speaker 4] (55:17 - 55:19)
I move the recommendation of the Select Board.

[Speaker 2] (55:19 - 55:20)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 2] (55:21 - 55:21)
Mr. Grishman.

[Speaker 4] (55:22 - 55:22)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (55:24 - 55:37)
Basically, we're just looking to see if the town will vote to amend the town of Swampscott's general bylaws by inserting a new bylaw entitled prohibited discharges to sanitary sewers as set forth in Appendix D on page 34 of your packet,

[Speaker 4] (55:37 - 55:44)
and to authorize the town clerk to assign appropriate numbering thereof, or take any action relative thereto.

[Speaker 4] (55:44 - 55:47)
And this was sponsored by the Water Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Committee.

[Speaker 2] (55:47 - 55:49)
and supported 4-0 by the select board.

[Speaker 4] (55:50 - 55:51)
Thank you, Mr. Grisham.

[Speaker 4] (55:52 - 55:57)
Questions or comments, debate on Mr. Grisham's motion to amend Ms. Draven?

[Speaker 7] (56:01 - 56:02)
Naomi Draven,

[Speaker 7] (56:02 - 56:09)
Precinct 3. I'm not understanding a sanitary sewer terminology,

[Speaker 7] (56:09 - 56:14)
so I don't understand how we're going to be able to prevent

[Speaker 7] (56:15 - 56:22)
prohibit the discharge of all of these things to the sewer, if you could just explain the technical way it works.

[Speaker 2] (56:22 - 56:24)
I'm sure that I can turn to Mr. Cresta for a definition.

[Speaker 8] (56:26 - 56:28)
There are different types of drains,

[Speaker 8] (56:28 - 56:32)
sanitary and storm water. Sanitary is wastewater,

[Speaker 8] (56:32 - 56:37)
basically that comes out of your toilet, and a drain water is runoff or clean water.

[Speaker 2] (56:40 - 56:42)
Thank you, Mr. Cresta. Thank you for that question, Ms. Drieben.

[Speaker 4] (56:43 - 56:46)
Are there other questions regarding Mr. Grishman's motion?

[Speaker 4] (56:47 - 56:47)
Mr. Germer.

[Speaker 2] (56:55 - 56:56)
I have music to walk down.

[Speaker 4] (56:56 - 56:57)
You have

[Speaker 2] (56:57 - 56:57)
I love your that.

[Speaker 4] (56:57 - 56:58)
own entrance music. I love it.

[Speaker 2] (56:59 - 57:00)
That's awesome.

[Speaker 2] (57:00 - 57:00)
Chair,

[Speaker 2] (57:00 - 57:02)
Germa, Precinct 3,

[Speaker 2] (57:03 - 57:04)
Town Meeting member.

[Speaker 2] (57:04 - 57:10)
Just a question on clarification with this. Is this for existing systems or new systems?

[Speaker 2] (57:13 - 57:14)
I would turn to Mr.

[Speaker 2] (57:14 - 57:15)
Grishman or to Mr. Cresta.

[Speaker 8] (57:16 - 57:17)
Both.

[Speaker 2] (57:19 - 57:20)
One more question.

[Speaker 2] (57:20 - 57:33)
What would the process be if this passed? Um I don't know of houses that have this, but if there are houses or businesses that currently are draining into the sanitary sewer, what is the procedure to rectify that?

[Speaker 8] (57:36 - 57:37)
There's multiple options.

[Speaker 8] (57:38 - 57:42)
Dry well or if you have drainage on your street, you can tie it into the drainage system.

[Speaker 2] (57:44 - 57:45)
Thank you, Mr. Cresta.

[Speaker 2] (57:46 - 57:47)
Mr. Hale.

[Speaker 4] (57:54 - 57:57)
Ryan Hale, town meeting member precinct two, capital improvement committee.

[Speaker 4] (57:57 - 58:01)
I'd just like to hear more about our plan for inspection and enforcement if this were to pass.

[Speaker 4] (58:01 - 58:01)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (58:02 - 58:03)
Thank you, Mr. Hale.

[Speaker 2] (58:04 - 58:04)
Mr. Cresta.

[Speaker 8] (58:05 - 58:05)
Okay.

[Speaker 8] (58:06 - 58:12)
Public Works is currently inspecting the systems when somebody transfers their home. We have to go in to do a final water read.

[Speaker 8] (58:13 - 58:16)
If we find out that they're tied into the sanitary system,

[Speaker 8] (58:16 - 58:19)
we don't give them the final read until they make the correction.

[Speaker 8] (58:19 - 58:22)
This is just to give us a little bit more enforcement power.

[Speaker 2] (58:24 - 58:25)
Thank you, Mr. Cresta.

[Speaker 2] (58:27 - 58:28)
Any further discussion or debate?

[Speaker 4] (58:29 - 58:30)
Mr. Chensas.

[Speaker 8] (58:35 - 58:36)
John Chancis,

[Speaker 8] (58:36 - 58:38)
Precinct 4 school committee member.

[Speaker 8] (58:38 - 58:40)
This is more of a clarification question,

[Speaker 8] (58:40 - 58:46)
so if what I'm hearing here is accurate,

[Speaker 8] (58:47 - 58:52)
the water coming off my roof through a gutter.

[Speaker 8] (58:52 - 59:10)
and into the yard or maybe onto the sidewalk that's okay or if I wash my car that's okay or if there's water that accumulates on a pool cover and I drain it that's okay this the sounds like some of the

[Speaker 8] (59:11 - 59:21)
older houses that were directly linked in into the into the sewer system where the drain from the roof ran right in. Uh that sounds like what we're talking about. Is that correct?

[Speaker 3] (59:21 - 59:22)
That's correct.

[Speaker 8] (59:22 - 59:27)
Okay so all of those things I mentioned that don't won't be affected by this.

[Speaker 3] (59:27 - 59:29)
They don't get into the sewer system.

[Speaker 8] (59:29 - 59:30)
Okay thank you.

[Speaker 2] (59:30 - 59:32)
Thank you, Mr. Gentis.

[Speaker 2] (59:33 - 59:34)
Yes ma'am, Ms. Freelander.

[Speaker 3] (59:39 - 59:41)
Debby Friedlander, Precinct 6 town meeting member.

[Speaker 3] (59:42 - 59:43)
When would this take effect?

[Speaker 3] (59:44 - 59:50)
Obviously the homeowner would be responsible then to have this fixed. Would DPW do the work?

[Speaker 3] (59:51 - 59:52)
or outside,

[Speaker 3] (59:52 - 1:00:15)
uh or would there be fines? And I would also think um in the sale of a home, you know, you're obviously not gonna give then uh a certificate that they could do that. Would the homeowner be allowed to pass that on to the new owner, you know, like buy it as is, you're gonna have to get this fixed? Um just how would it work?

[Speaker 2] (1:00:18 - 1:00:19)
Thank you, Mr. Friedlander. Mr. Cresta?

[Speaker 4] (1:00:20 - 1:00:22)
So I guess they could transfer it over.

[Speaker 4] (1:00:22 - 1:00:29)
We'd give them a thirty, sixty day period of time to correct the issue, and then would inspect it and

[Speaker 2] (1:00:29 - 1:00:36)
And in terms of taking effect, uh it would have to be approved by the Attorney General even though we already have uh which article number is it?

[Speaker 5] (1:00:39 - 1:00:47)
Um, Mr. Moderator, in the town general bylaws it's Article 18 which governs illicit discharges into the storm water system.

[Speaker 5] (1:00:47 - 1:00:56)
This bylaw would govern is illicit discharges into the sewer system, as Mr. Creston indicated they're two separate systems. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:00:56 - 1:00:57)
Thank you, Councillor.

[Speaker 2] (1:01:01 - 1:01:05)
I don't see a fine enumerated in the bylaw. That would be up to

[Speaker 2] (1:01:06 - 1:01:09)
the select board to propose to this body?

[Speaker 5] (1:01:12 - 1:01:12)
Sure.

[Speaker 2] (1:01:12 - 1:01:13)
Council?

[Speaker 5] (1:01:13 - 1:01:14)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 5] (1:01:14 - 1:01:14)
Moderator.

[Speaker 5] (1:01:14 - 1:01:18)
Under Article 1, Section 4 of the town's general bylaws,

[Speaker 5] (1:01:18 - 1:01:25)
in the absence of any specific provision in a specific bylaw to the contrary,

[Speaker 5] (1:01:25 - 1:01:28)
the fine is $50 per violation.

[Speaker 5] (1:01:29 - 1:01:34)
It would also be enforceable, in my opinion, through injunctive relief as well. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:01:34 - 1:01:35)
Thank you, counsel.

[Speaker 2] (1:01:37 - 1:01:39)
In the back and then Mr. Germer.

[Speaker 2] (1:01:40 - 1:01:41)
Nope? Yeah,

[Speaker 2] (1:01:41 - 1:01:42)
you,

[Speaker 2] (1:01:42 - 1:01:42)
ma'am.

[Speaker 6] (1:01:43 - 1:01:45)
Um, if you had,

[Speaker 2] (1:01:45 - 1:01:46)
And just introduce yourself,

[Speaker 6] (1:01:46 - 1:01:46)
oh,

[Speaker 2] (1:01:46 - 1:01:46)
if you please.

[Speaker 6] (1:01:46 - 1:01:47)
Mary O'Hare,

[Speaker 6] (1:01:47 - 1:01:48)
Precinct 6.

[Speaker 6] (1:01:48 - 1:01:55)
If you had a French drain or a sump pump and that was going into the

[Speaker 6] (1:01:56 - 1:02:01)
Drain, would that be, would you have to remedy that to sell your house?

[Speaker 4] (1:02:02 - 1:02:04)
Not if it's going into the storm drain,

[Speaker 4] (1:02:04 - 1:02:05)
only the sanitary drain.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:06 - 1:02:09)
And the reason we're doing it, we're not trying to be punitive here.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:09 - 1:02:09)
As most of you know,

[Speaker 4] (1:02:09 - 1:02:13)
we send all our wastewater over the lynn and we pay per gallon we send over there.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:14 - 1:02:16)
So there's no need to treat clean water.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:17 - 1:02:18)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:18 - 1:02:18)
Christa.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:18 - 1:02:19)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:19 - 1:02:20)
Chirma and then Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:20 - 1:02:21)
Barton.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:24 - 1:02:26)
Chairman, Precinct three.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:26 - 1:02:29)
I do want to speak in support of this.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:29 - 1:02:45)
One of the things, this is a very common law in many places. I believe the state of California is a state law that you don't tie into the sanitary sewers. Beyond just paying money for it.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:45 - 1:02:50)
It is also the fact that when you have significant weather events,

[Speaker 2] (1:02:50 - 1:02:53)
you can overtax the sewer system,

[Speaker 2] (1:02:53 - 1:02:57)
which means that that sewage needs to keep moving,

[Speaker 2] (1:02:57 - 1:02:59)
and in order for that to keep moving,

[Speaker 2] (1:02:59 - 1:03:01)
it spills over into the environment.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:01 - 1:03:02)
So environmentally,

[Speaker 2] (1:03:02 - 1:03:04)
even though it sort of seems like, well, why can't it tuck in,

[Speaker 2] (1:03:05 - 1:03:08)
it is a really logical act, both financially and environmentally.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:10 - 1:03:11)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:11 - 1:03:11)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:11 - 1:03:11)
Barton.

[Speaker 7] (1:03:11 - 1:03:13)
Gary Barton, Precinct 3.

[Speaker 7] (1:03:13 - 1:03:24)
It's not that I'm against it, I'm all for this, but I'm pretty sure there's a state of Massachusetts bylaw that prohibits stormwater in your wastewater system.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:28 - 1:03:29)
Council?

[Speaker 5] (1:03:30 - 1:03:32)
Yes. Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 5] (1:03:32 - 1:03:36)
Moderator. Yes, there are regulations referred to as the MS4 regulations,

[Speaker 5] (1:03:36 - 1:03:41)
which basically require the separation of stormwater from sewage.

[Speaker 5] (1:03:42 - 1:03:43)
And so,

[Speaker 5] (1:03:43 - 1:03:44)
as I previously mentioned,

[Speaker 5] (1:03:44 - 1:03:54)
the town does have a bylaw already on the books relating illicit discharges into the stormwater system.

[Speaker 5] (1:03:54 - 1:03:57)
This intends to address the sewage system.

[Speaker 5] (1:03:57 - 1:03:58)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:58 - 1:03:59)
Thank you, Council.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:00 - 1:04:02)
Yes, Ms. Levin.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:09 - 1:04:10)
Bonnie Levin,

[Speaker 3] (1:04:10 - 1:04:11)
town meeting member,

[Speaker 3] (1:04:11 - 1:04:11)
Precinct 6.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:12 - 1:04:17)
This is sort of an off-the-question question.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:17 - 1:04:25)
We've had problems with the outfall and sanitary water going into the beaches in various locations in town.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:25 - 1:04:29)
How does this impact that?

[Speaker 3] (1:04:29 - 1:04:35)
Is this just for a very specific issue that will be addressed later,

[Speaker 3] (1:04:35 - 1:04:40)
or is it just for home issues tying into the sanitary that shouldn't be,

[Speaker 3] (1:04:40 - 1:04:44)
but all of this ultimately ends up in the Atlantic at our front door.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:44 - 1:04:46)
So the question is,

[Speaker 3] (1:04:46 - 1:04:47)
what's the impact?

[Speaker 8] (1:04:48 - 1:04:49)
of this on that.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:49 - 1:04:50)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:50 - 1:04:57)
Levine. I believe Mr. Cresta addressed this, but if you would like to restate the purpose of the

[Speaker 4] (1:04:57 - 1:04:58)
Exactly what Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:04:58 - 1:05:00)
Germain said. If here it's a heavy rain,

[Speaker 4] (1:05:00 - 1:05:01)
i.e.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:01 - 1:05:14)
inflow and infiltration, it taxes the system. The more inflow and infiltration, it can happen if you're carrying both the wastewater and rainwater, they can overtax the system, which causes it a sewer system overflow.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:16 - 1:05:17)
Thank you, Mr. Cresta.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:18 - 1:05:24)
Any further comments or questions on Mr. Grishman's motion?

[Speaker 2] (1:05:25 - 1:05:26)
Seeing none.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:26 - 1:05:32)
All those in favor of Mr. Grishman's motion prohibiting discharge of sanitary sewers, all those opposed,

[Speaker 2] (1:05:32 - 1:05:33)
the motion carries.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:34 - 1:05:36)
Article 24,

[Speaker 2] (1:05:37 - 1:05:40)
the inspection of sewer laterals at the time of transfer.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:40 - 1:05:55)
I note that there was something of a misprint in the warrant, that a portion of the intended material was not included. I also think that therefore I am told that there will be no positive motion on this article at this time.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:55 - 1:05:58)
Is there anyone who rises to make a positive motion on this article?

[Speaker 2] (1:06:01 - 1:06:01)
Once,

[Speaker 2] (1:06:02 - 1:06:02)
twice.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:02 - 1:06:05)
Seeing none, moving to Article 25,

[Speaker 2] (1:06:05 - 1:06:10)
to amend the zoning bylaw with regard to accessory dwelling units. Mr. Dooley.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:18 - 1:06:22)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Ted Dooley, town meeting member,

[Speaker 2] (1:06:22 - 1:06:24)
Precinct four, chairman of the planning board.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:25 - 1:06:26)
Diana, I believe we have

[Speaker 2] (1:06:27 - 1:06:28)
some information on this.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:30 - 1:06:32)
I think you've I'm sorry, through you, Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:32 - 1:06:37)
Moderator. Yep, that's fine. So I need to know, planning board has held public hearing.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:37 - 1:06:43)
Mr. Moderator, yes, the Planning Board has held a public hearing on April 28th, 2025,

[Speaker 2] (1:06:43 - 1:06:47)
and voted to recommend favorable action on Article 25.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:48 - 1:06:50)
Thank you. And his motion has been seconded.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:50 - 1:06:50)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:51 - 1:06:51)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:51 - 1:06:51)
Dooley.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:52 - 1:06:53)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:53 - 1:06:58)
So this article in front of you seeks to amend our local zoning bylaws.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:59 - 1:07:14)
two that which were passed at 2023 town meeting to be compliant with the zoning bylaws the zoning laws that were signed into law by Governor Healy in August of 2024 we can move over to the next slide please

[Speaker 2] (1:07:16 - 1:07:44)
Uh August of twenty twenty four Governor Healy signed into law the Affordable Homes Act, which amended the state uh building code to allow accessory dwelling units of up to nine hundred and square uh nine hundred square feet to exist by right in any zoning district that allows by right construction of a single or two family home. Um the purpose of of doing this is to bring the local by-law, which as I mentioned, town meeting adopted in twenty twenty three, to be compliant with the language set forth uh by the updates the governor made in

[Speaker 2] (1:07:44 - 1:07:45)
in 2024.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:45 - 1:07:54)
The reason in doing so is the planning board felt strongly that since town meeting in Swampscott was ahead of the curve and we authorized ADUs before the state,

[Speaker 2] (1:07:54 - 1:08:02)
we wanted to ensure our local bylaw was consistent with the language and read consistently with anything that could be adopted and preempted by state law.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:03 - 1:08:04)
Next slide please.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:05 - 1:08:14)
The proposed changes, many of which are preempted by state law and one of which we have local control over, are summarized here.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:14 - 1:08:20)
We're eliminating all off-street parking requirements that are proposed for ADUs that are located within half a mile of any transit station.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:20 - 1:08:27)
Transit station by state law are defined in Swampscott as the commuter rail station and all of our bus stops.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:27 - 1:08:32)
So we had Marissa here from the Office of Community and Development do a map of Swampscott.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:32 - 1:08:38)
And there's about 18 addresses in Swampscott that are not within half a mile of either the train station or a bus stop.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:38 - 1:08:44)
So pretty much every ADU in Swampscott will be able to exist with no parking requirements.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:45 - 1:08:54)
It also removes any design standards that do not exist on any singular two-family home and removes the owner occupancy requirement which was what was adopted in 2023.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:55 - 1:09:06)
The article also prohibits the rentals of accessory dwelling units for any period of less than 30 consecutive days, and this is a provision of local control that the state law allows each town to adopt.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:06 - 1:09:10)
The Planning Board felt strongly that it was to keep in spirit with the spirit of the law,

[Speaker 2] (1:09:11 - 1:09:12)
which was to provide housing choice,

[Speaker 2] (1:09:12 - 1:09:13)
more housing options,

[Speaker 2] (1:09:14 - 1:09:18)
that prohibiting short-term rentals was something that Swampscot should consider adopting.

[Speaker 9] (1:09:21 - 1:09:22)
I now open it up to town meeting for any questions.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:22 - 1:09:23)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 9] (1:09:23 - 1:09:23)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:23 - 1:09:25)
Dooley. Questions or comments?

[Speaker 2] (1:09:26 - 1:09:26)
Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:26 - 1:09:26)
Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:31 - 1:09:32)
More good summer.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:32 - 1:09:33)
I have a little voice problem.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:33 - 1:09:34)
Town meeting member,

[Speaker 2] (1:09:34 - 1:09:35)
Precinct 2.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:36 - 1:09:41)
Whenever I see something like housing within half a mile of a train station,

[Speaker 2] (1:09:42 - 1:09:43)
transit-oriented development,

[Speaker 2] (1:09:43 - 1:09:49)
I always picture how the writer took their two children to the grocery store,

[Speaker 2] (1:09:50 - 1:09:53)
bought groceries and came home that half a mile,

[Speaker 2] (1:09:53 - 1:09:57)
especially if it was rainy or snowy. I wonder how...

[Speaker 2] (1:09:58 - 1:10:03)
Someone got to church or synagogue when the transit station doesn't take you there.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:04 - 1:10:11)
I wonder how they get to grandma's house for dinner when the transit station doesn't take you there.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:12 - 1:10:25)
As someone who had many years without a car living in Boston who taught children to the grocery store on the bus with the groceries and the children came back with a little one on my back.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:25 - 1:10:28)
because they got tired of all the walking.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:29 - 1:10:35)
I sometimes think this is a little bit bogus. When I see a young single person on a bicycle who says,

[Speaker 2] (1:10:35 - 1:10:39)
hey, you're within half a mile of a transit station,

[Speaker 2] (1:10:39 - 1:10:49)
and I say, but you can't get to church or synagogue or your friend's dinner party or your children's school through the bus or the train,

[Speaker 2] (1:10:49 - 1:10:55)
it doesn't make sense for many areas of life, particularly anyone who's older.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:56 - 1:11:02)
Keep in mind there's a couple of mega trends in our country related to housing.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:03 - 1:11:12)
One of is investment groups that buy up thousands of houses and rent or sell them at whatever price they want.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:12 - 1:11:18)
And in some communities around the country that is what's raising the cost of housing.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:19 - 1:11:22)
This also says less than 30 days.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:22 - 1:11:28)
As we know, there are many places in the country where people are buying up housing.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:29 - 1:11:31)
for Airbnb kinds of housing,

[Speaker 2] (1:11:31 - 1:11:33)
nothing against that,

[Speaker 2] (1:11:33 - 1:11:49)
but there are places where housing shortage is particularly in cities specifically because so much housing has become short-term rentals. So these are kind of mega trends that are affecting housing,

[Speaker 2] (1:11:49 - 1:11:54)
and I don't want to see us go in that direction. The owner occupancy requirement

[Speaker 2] (1:11:55 - 1:12:04)
was intended to keep the housing as ADUs, accessory dwellings, to the homeowner's dwelling.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:04 - 1:12:08)
Once you take out the owner occupancy requirement,

[Speaker 2] (1:12:08 - 1:12:11)
it's not really an accessory dwelling unit,

[Speaker 2] (1:12:11 - 1:12:13)
it's a two-family house.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:13 - 1:12:16)
So I just wanted to share those thoughts.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:16 - 1:12:17)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:17 - 1:12:17)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:17 - 1:12:17)
Sommer.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:18 - 1:12:27)
mr. Dooley could you please clarify for me and thus for the body in the audience at home which of these requirements are state mandated

[Speaker 3] (1:12:27 - 1:12:34)
Certainly. So the first three bullet points are already in effect by state law and preempt our local control.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:34 - 1:12:40)
The only option for local control here is the prohibition of rentals for less than 30 consecutive days.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:41 - 1:12:42)
So in practice, Mr.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:42 - 1:12:42)
Moderator.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:43 - 1:12:48)
The first three bullets are already in effect regardless of the effect of our local zoning bylaws.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:48 - 1:12:52)
The only thing that's not in effect yet is the prohibition of rentals for 30 consecutive days.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:53 - 1:12:54)
Thank you, Mr. Dooley.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:55 - 1:12:56)
Other comments or questions?

[Speaker 1] (1:12:57 - 1:12:59)
Yes, Ms. Tidcom.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:05 - 1:13:26)
Polytechnic um precinct one. Um I do sympathize with public transportation, but I also live in a very busy area that's less than a half a mile from the train station and is really close to a n giant new development. Um where one of the concessions made was there's a resident permit parking sticker um which we don't have stickers, but hopefully that's forthcoming.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:27 - 1:13:43)
So I'm wondering how this impacts. Do we have discretion to enforce those resident permit parking stickers only on like Elm Place and other residential streets that are within a half a mile of a train station?

[Speaker 3] (1:13:44 - 1:13:54)
I believe any resident of an ADU would be able to register to vote at the ADU, so therefore they would be eligible for any residential preference for things like voting or parking.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:56 - 1:14:12)
And I do think that falls outside the question of the the zoning bylaw change, but it's a fine question to raise to the select board about how they intend to manage uh areas that are resident stickered.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:13 - 1:14:15)
Okay, I just didn't know if this overrides that.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:15 - 1:14:17)
But it's something for an

[Speaker 1] (1:14:17 - 1:14:17)
It's

[Speaker 4] (1:14:17 - 1:14:17)
outsider,

[Speaker 2] (1:14:17 - 1:14:17)
the Aww.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:17 - 1:14:17)
Austrie

[Speaker 4] (1:14:17 - 1:14:18)
so okay,

[Speaker 1] (1:14:18 - 1:14:23)
parking requirement that's in question, but it's no longer in question.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:24 - 1:14:24)
Oh, sorry, Mike.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:24 - 1:14:25)
Thanks to the state.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:25 - 1:14:25)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:29 - 1:14:29)
Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:38 - 1:14:38)
Hi.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:38 - 1:14:41)
Maria Karamitsopoulos, Precinct 1.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:41 - 1:14:51)
Just had a clarifying question because one of the trends we've also heard about are these tiny homes that you can put in your yard if you have a decent-sized yard and could fit a couple.

[Speaker 5] (1:14:51 - 1:14:59)
of those tiny homes and then move to a warm climate and rent them all out, including your home. Is that possible?

[Speaker 5] (1:15:00 - 1:15:01)
Asking for a friend.

[Speaker 3] (1:15:08 - 1:15:11)
Thank you. So as written,

[Speaker 3] (1:15:11 - 1:15:12)
the

[Speaker 3] (1:15:13 - 1:15:19)
If you would be allowed to, if someone were to propose building an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard,

[Speaker 3] (1:15:20 - 1:15:28)
they would be allowed to buy right for a single accessory dwelling unit. For any additional accessory dwelling units, they'd have to seek permission to do so through the local zoning board of appeals.

[Speaker 3] (1:15:28 - 1:15:30)
In terms of rental of such things,

[Speaker 3] (1:15:30 - 1:15:34)
that would be if this amendment is passed tonight,

[Speaker 3] (1:15:34 - 1:15:38)
as you can see, there would be a prohibition of rentals for less than 30 consecutive days.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:39 - 1:15:40)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:40 - 1:15:43)
Dooley. Yes, in the back, and then Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:43 - 1:15:43)
Berdov.

[Speaker 6] (1:15:48 - 1:15:56)
George Brown is precinct one. I'm curious if these ADUs are restricted by any of the current setback requirements.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:59 - 1:16:03)
Mr. Dooley, any thoughts on the conformance with existing requirements?

[Speaker 3] (1:16:03 - 1:16:11)
Yes. Accessory dwelling units are required to meet all of the existing dimensional requirements set forth in the zoning bylaws as currently written.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:12 - 1:16:13)
Thank you, Mr. Dooley and Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:13 - 1:16:14)
Berdof.

[Speaker 6] (1:16:28 - 1:16:29)
Aaron Burdoff Precinct 5,

[Speaker 6] (1:16:30 - 1:16:33)
I just want to rise in support of this article,

[Speaker 6] (1:16:33 - 1:16:42)
mostly because we are in a housing shortage and we need all of the housing we can get because we have lack of supply. That is primarily what is driving up the price.

[Speaker 7] (1:16:45 - 1:16:51)
Big companies can come in and swoop in and buy up places because there's not enough supply and they have cash.

[Speaker 7] (1:16:51 - 1:16:53)
So we build more units,

[Speaker 7] (1:16:53 - 1:16:59)
we get rid of a lot of those issues that we have with that.

[Speaker 7] (1:16:59 - 1:17:11)
The reason why I like the new state requirements is this makes it so much easier for someone to build an ADU for their grandmother, for their kid who just graduated college.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:11 - 1:17:38)
uh for i don't know if they're they're close to divorced spouse maybe they can work that out uh it'd be a little difficult in the backyard but who knows that'll work square but again it makes it easier for people to do something that they want would you say someone stand up and say can we get a tiny home can we get something else we need more housing under diversity in swamp scott because i have to remind you the vast majority of housing in swamp scott single family homes and you

[Speaker 7] (1:17:38 - 1:17:40)
and you can only build that.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:40 - 1:17:43)
This just lets you put a little backyard cottage in there.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:43 - 1:17:45)
That this isn't changing the character,

[Speaker 7] (1:17:45 - 1:17:46)
this isn't changing anything.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:47 - 1:17:52)
I would love to have bus circulation that actually took you to places where you need to go, definitely.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:53 - 1:17:55)
But we can't do that without demand.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:55 - 1:17:59)
And so we need to add some of these in there and maybe we'll start getting demand,

[Speaker 7] (1:17:59 - 1:18:04)
maybe we'll get changes to our bus routes to take us to the places where we want to go so we don't have to

[Speaker 7] (1:18:04 - 1:18:05)
We don't have to drive everywhere.

[Speaker 7] (1:18:06 - 1:18:06)
So anyway,

[Speaker 7] (1:18:06 - 1:18:08)
please vote yes on this one.

[Speaker 7] (1:18:08 - 1:18:08)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:09 - 1:18:09)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:09 - 1:18:09)
Brudoff.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:11 - 1:18:12)
Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:16 - 1:18:18)
Judy Locke, Precinct 6.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:18 - 1:18:22)
I would like to make an amendment to this article.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:22 - 1:18:28)
You said that the first three bullet points are state mandated, so we can't, doesn't matter.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:29 - 1:18:38)
The last one, I would like to prohibit the rental of the ADUs for a period of less than 120 days.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:41 - 1:18:43)
Okay, do you have that amendment in writing for

[Speaker 5] (1:18:43 - 1:18:43)
I

[Speaker 1] (1:18:43 - 1:18:43)
me?

[Speaker 5] (1:18:43 - 1:18:44)
will put it in writing, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:45 - 1:18:46)
And is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (1:18:48 - 1:18:58)
Okay, while we wait for Ms. Locke to bring that down here, there's a motion to amend Mr. Dooley's initial motion to revise the

[Speaker 1] (1:18:59 - 1:19:04)
period of rental restriction from thirty to one hundred and twenty days.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:06 - 1:19:09)
I'm gonna confer with Council just for one moment.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:30 - 1:19:34)
And then I'll recognize you to speak on your motion to amend.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:06 - 1:20:07)
Go ahead, Ms. Locke.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:14 - 1:20:17)
Would you like to speak to your motion to amend?

[Speaker 2] (1:20:18 - 1:20:23)
A lot of places do use B&Bs for 30 days.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:23 - 1:20:25)
You know, you go to Florida,

[Speaker 2] (1:20:25 - 1:20:29)
you go down for a month. I don't want all these ADUs.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:30 - 1:20:31)
to be for rental,

[Speaker 2] (1:20:31 - 1:20:38)
I want them to be for what they should be and that's for children to move into an area where they can't afford,

[Speaker 2] (1:20:38 - 1:20:51)
you know, seniors to live in the neighborhood that they lived in for so many years and that's why I'd like to change it so that renting for 120 days is a little excessive.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:53 - 1:20:54)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:55 - 1:20:59)
Thank you, Ms. Locke. Before we proceed to a discussion on that,

[Speaker 1] (1:21:00 - 1:21:00)
Council,

[Speaker 1] (1:21:01 - 1:21:04)
can you please opine on the legality of that?

[Speaker 3] (1:21:06 - 1:21:27)
Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. So under the applicable statute that regulates ADU use, municipalities have the ability to prohibit short-term rentals. Short-term rentals are defined under Massachusetts law as rentals for less than, for 30 days or less essentially.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:29 - 1:21:52)
By statute, I think you'd have a problem if this goes up to the Attorney General's office in terms of their review if you were to seek to prohibit rentals for a period of anything other than less than 30 days. So by imposing a restriction saying that you cannot rent to somebody for less than a 120-day period, in my opinion,

[Speaker 3] (1:21:52 - 1:21:54)
it appears to be in violation of the.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:55 - 1:22:00)
applicable statute and likely would have a problem when reviewed by the Attorney General's office.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:01 - 1:22:01)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:01 - 1:22:02)
Thank you, Council.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:03 - 1:22:06)
With that in mind, Ms. Locke, with my apologies,

[Speaker 1] (1:22:06 - 1:22:08)
I'm going to rule the motion to amend out of order.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:09 - 1:22:11)
I saw another hand over there.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:12 - 1:22:16)
Anybody else discussion of Mr. Dooley's Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:16 - 1:22:17)
Spritz?

[Speaker 1] (1:22:19 - 1:22:20)
Wayne Spurs Precinct 3,

[Speaker 1] (1:22:20 - 1:22:29)
is there a been or can you share any knowledge of how many existing properties this would affect with the change to 30 days?

[Speaker 4] (1:22:31 - 1:22:37)
So what I do know is since town meeting adopted the accessory dwelling unit bylaw in 2023,

[Speaker 4] (1:22:37 - 1:22:48)
since then there's been six ADUs that have been built, three have been required to come before either the zoning board of appeals or the planning board, and three were dimensionally compliant were able to be built by right.

[Speaker 4] (1:22:48 - 1:22:52)
So in the last two years we've had six ADUs that have been constructed.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:53 - 1:22:54)
Thank you, Mr. Dooley.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:55 - 1:22:57)
Other questions or comments?

[Speaker 1] (1:22:59 - 1:23:12)
Seeing none, all those in favor, and this under state law currently does not require two-thirds amendment, but out of an abundance of caution, if we do achieve two-thirds, I will announce it as such. All those in favor?

[Speaker 1] (1:23:14 - 1:23:15)
All those opposed?

[Speaker 1] (1:23:16 - 1:23:17)
It is unanimous.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:18 - 1:23:20)
Moving to Article 26,

[Speaker 1] (1:23:22 - 1:23:25)
amending the zoning by-law regards to floodplain. Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:25 - 1:23:25)
Dooley.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:26 - 1:23:27)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:28 - 1:23:30)
So as mentioned before,

[Speaker 4] (1:23:30 - 1:23:41)
the Planning Board held a public hearing on Article 26 on April the 28th and voted to recommend favorable action on Article 26, excuse me.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:42 - 1:23:44)
So what this article

[Speaker 1] (1:23:44 - 1:23:44)
So

[Speaker 4] (1:23:44 - 1:23:44)
is

[Speaker 1] (1:23:44 - 1:23:46)
you are moving through

[Speaker 4] (1:23:46 - 1:23:48)
So I move the recommendation of the Planning Board.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:48 - 1:23:49)
And you second?

[Speaker 4] (1:23:50 - 1:23:51)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:57 - 1:23:59)
Should be two more pages after that.

[Speaker 4] (1:24:03 - 1:24:04)
In short,

[Speaker 4] (1:24:04 - 1:24:07)
we'll have a presentation on that in a moment.

[Speaker 4] (1:24:08 - 1:24:11)
What this bylaw seeks to do is to update.

[Speaker 4] (1:24:11 - 1:24:13)
It does two things importantly.

[Speaker 4] (1:24:13 - 1:24:21)
One, it updates what is currently our coastal flood area overlay district, which is mostly our coastal flood areas, which seems to feel like most of town.

[Speaker 4] (1:24:23 - 1:24:36)
It updates the regulations that are set forth in those districts as well as it adopts the 2025 flood insurance rate maps as designated and created by the Flood, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[Speaker 4] (1:24:37 - 1:24:47)
This bylaw was created in compliance and through our work with the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the state agency to develop the model language for this bylaw.

[Speaker 4] (1:24:48 - 1:24:53)
And as mentioned before, since Swampscott is a town that participates in the National Flood Insurance Program,

[Speaker 4] (1:24:53 - 1:25:00)
it brings us to compliance with that program through adopting the new rate maps which go into effect on July 8th of this year.

[Speaker 4] (1:25:02 - 1:25:03)
And as you can see,

[Speaker 4] (1:25:03 - 1:25:13)
it brings us into compliance with the new standards and properly distinguishes our wetlands with our flood plain areas. So there's two distinct areas that are subject to flooding and it clarifies language,

[Speaker 4] (1:25:13 - 1:25:17)
keeps them consistent between the two, and also with our state and federal law.

[Speaker 4] (1:25:17 - 1:25:18)
Go to the next slide.

[Speaker 4] (1:25:20 - 1:25:25)
Some of the most important parts of this, as I mentioned, a Brink swamps got into compliance with the Department of Conservation,

[Speaker 4] (1:25:25 - 1:25:28)
Recreation and the Federal Emergency Management Agency standards,

[Speaker 4] (1:25:28 - 1:25:38)
establishes the town's floodplain administrator. So that's a local administrator who we have established as Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:25:38 - 1:25:40)
Cresta, should this pass,

[Speaker 4] (1:25:40 - 1:25:46)
that will oversee the floodplain administration of this bylaw. It also removes jurisdiction from the local board of appeals.

[Speaker 4] (1:25:47 - 1:25:54)
When you seek relief under this proposed zoning bylaw, you'll no longer be able to go to the local ZBA,

[Speaker 4] (1:25:54 - 1:25:58)
you'll have to appeal it to the state building codes board of appeals.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:00 - 1:26:05)
It updates the district and some of the linguistics to accurately reflect floodplain areas.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:05 - 1:26:10)
We now are finding much of our floodplain areas are not only along the coast but also inland.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:10 - 1:26:16)
So we've taken the steps to update the language so we're not just reflecting our coastal areas but some of the inland areas that are prone to flooding.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:17 - 1:26:27)
And it renames the district to distinguish between this and our wetlands protection overlay district which are both topographically different and have different enforcement mechanisms.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:27 - 1:26:49)
The takeaway from this is this is something that as a community since we participate in the federal flood insurance program we are required whenever there is new maps to adopt those new maps and to adopt the zoning language that is reflected through our local agency DCR to ensure continued compliance in these programs.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:49 - 1:26:54)
What that does if you're a home that requires flood insurance as many private

[Speaker 4] (1:26:54 - 1:27:15)
private homes require if you're in a flood plain it brings us eligible for you to get flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program so it is the recommendation of the Planning Board that we adopt this bylaw this evening to ensure we're able to continue in compliance with the participation in the National Flood Insurance Program

[Speaker 1] (1:27:16 - 1:27:16)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:16 - 1:27:17)
Dooley.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:17 - 1:27:21)
Are there questions or comments on Mr. Dooley's motion regarding this bylaw?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:24 - 1:27:29)
Seeing none, this does require a two-thirds vote. All those in favor of Mr. Dooley's motion?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:30 - 1:27:31)
Wait,

[Speaker 1] (1:27:31 - 1:27:32)
wait, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:32 - 1:27:34)
I need to clarify before we vote.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:35 - 1:27:39)
The printed warrant only identifies Section 4.1.00,

[Speaker 1] (1:27:40 - 1:27:46)
but the appendix correctly identifies 4.1.00 and 4.2.00.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:46 - 1:27:47)
Therefore,

[Speaker 1] (1:27:47 - 1:27:48)
all in favor of Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:48 - 1:27:54)
Dooley's motion to adopt the bylaw as printed in the appendix which includes both of those sections,

[Speaker 1] (1:27:54 - 1:27:55)
please raise your hand.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:56 - 1:27:57)
All those opposed?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:58 - 1:27:59)
It is unanimous.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:00 - 1:28:02)
Thank you for your indulgence.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:03 - 1:28:08)
Article 27 to amend the zoning bylaw with regard to site plan special permit.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:08 - 1:28:08)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:08 - 1:28:08)
Dooley.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:09 - 1:28:10)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:10 - 1:28:10)
Moderator.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:11 - 1:28:19)
The planning board held a public hearing on April the 28th and voted to recommend favorable action on article 27.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:20 - 1:28:23)
I move to recommend article 27.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:23 - 1:28:25)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (1:28:26 - 1:28:27)
Thank you. Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:27 - 1:28:27)
Dooley.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:28 - 1:28:34)
Thank you. So our current zoning bylaw establishes criteria in which any new construction or any addition,

[Speaker 4] (1:28:34 - 1:28:42)
renovation in Swampscott needs to come before the planning board to seek a site plan special permit or site plan review.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:42 - 1:28:50)
And we're seeking tonight to update the bylaw to change the trigger requirements that would incur a site plan to be reviewed by the planning board.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:50 - 1:28:51)
Next slide.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:55 - 1:29:00)
So currently our proposed criteria for a single or two family structure is 800 square feet.

[Speaker 4] (1:29:00 - 1:29:04)
So if you're doing a 799 square foot addition to your property,

[Speaker 4] (1:29:04 - 1:29:12)
you would not need to come before the planning board for site plan review unless you would have to go to the zoning board for dimensional relief that you may need.

[Speaker 4] (1:29:12 - 1:29:14)
Otherwise you wouldn't have to come before the planning board.

[Speaker 4] (1:29:15 - 1:29:19)
One of the changes in tonight's proposed bylaw amendment is to change that from 800 square feet.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:22 - 1:29:25)
Additionally, we currently in the bylaw as written,

[Speaker 1] (1:29:25 - 1:29:41)
any new construction of a single or two family home that's in excess of 3,000 square feet would have to come before the board for site plan review and we're proposing to eliminate that entirely so any new construction regardless of its size would be required to come before the planning board for a site plan special permit.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:42 - 1:29:56)
Additionally we would request that all additions regardless of their size and new construction that is within the flood zone which we discussed in the last amendment be subject to site plan review and again is these are some of the most

[Speaker 1] (1:29:57 - 1:30:18)
climate vulnerable sections of our community and we feel that site plan review for some of these properties regardless of their size is important to give neighbors and abutting properties a better understanding not only of how this will impact them but also applicants to go through the process to ensure that their projects are meeting the standards set forth in all of our climate regulations and zoning bylaws.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:19 - 1:30:20)
Thank you Mr. Moderator.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:20 - 1:30:21)
Thank you, Mr. Dooley.

[Speaker 3] (1:30:22 - 1:30:26)
I have been informed there is an amendment proposed by Mr. Schutzer.

[Speaker 3] (1:30:48 - 1:30:52)
Can I shift to Precinct 6, town meeting member,

[Speaker 3] (1:30:52 - 1:30:53)
an attorney,

[Speaker 3] (1:30:53 - 1:30:55)
practicing attorney in the town of Swampscott.

[Speaker 3] (1:30:55 - 1:31:02)
I currently have no clients that are directly impacted by the amendment that I propose.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:03 - 1:31:04)
My thinking,

[Speaker 3] (1:31:04 - 1:31:06)
and I just want to digress for a moment,

[Speaker 3] (1:31:06 - 1:31:12)
I just want to thank the planning board for reviewing this particular provision.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:12 - 1:31:16)
It's a provision that was created a number of years ago.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:17 - 1:31:20)
when there was a concern about these homes being so large,

[Speaker 3] (1:31:21 - 1:31:23)
tearing down smaller homes and building larger homes.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:24 - 1:31:34)
And the number of 3,000 square feet was identified at that time as a determined to be a larger home and we wanted some oversight over that and I applauded that.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:34 - 1:31:40)
Similarly, they decided that 800 square foot addition also required site plan review,

[Speaker 3] (1:31:40 - 1:31:41)
which is a process by which

[Speaker 3] (1:31:42 - 1:31:45)
An applicant has to make an application. There's a $450 fee.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:46 - 1:31:48)
They have to appear before the planning board.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:48 - 1:31:51)
They've now determined it is a site plan special permit.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:51 - 1:31:54)
Therefore, it requires a fourth fifth super majority vote.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:55 - 1:31:56)
It is somewhat onerous.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:57 - 1:31:59)
My suggestion is slightly different,

[Speaker 3] (1:31:59 - 1:32:03)
because as far as the new construction is concerned,

[Speaker 3] (1:32:03 - 1:32:05)
and I'll speak directly to the amendment,

[Speaker 3] (1:32:05 - 1:32:07)
I don't know whether it can be.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:08 - 1:32:10)
put on your um okay

[Speaker 3] (1:32:10 - 1:32:14)
I have your amendment in writing. I don't have it in any other format, sir,

[Speaker 4] (1:32:14 - 1:32:14)
then

[Speaker 3] (1:32:14 - 1:32:16)
so you'll need to read it to the body.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:16 - 1:32:33)
I shall do that um as far as as new construction is concerned, instead of being the three thousand square feet, which is an arbitrary number, the planning board has suggested zero. So that means that every new construction has to go through this process. I thought that was onerous.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:34 - 1:32:56)
I thought that that a number closer to say nine hundred square feet, which was the size of an A_D_U_ which wouldn't require uh uh the site plan special permit criteria would be a number that would be closer to the concerns that were raised, it's still s small enough but yet it would capture the larger homes.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:57 - 1:33:01)
Similarly, as far as the square footage going from eight to five,

[Speaker 4] (1:33:01 - 1:33:08)
I thought that was arbitrary and what I tried to do was I looked at other towns and in particular I looked at Marblehead.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:08 - 1:33:19)
And Marblehead has a proportionality provision which says that if you increase the size of your home by an addition by 10% then it would require,

[Speaker 4] (1:33:19 - 1:33:21)
site play a special permit,

[Speaker 4] (1:33:21 - 1:33:25)
it would require that there be an observation and a review.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:25 - 1:33:35)
a determination made by the permitting board of its being appropriate and would give the residents an opportunity to opine as to whether they thought it was a good idea or not.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:36 - 1:33:39)
The proportionality concept is this.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:39 - 1:33:53)
Adding a 500 or 800 square feet to a home in a A4 or A3 district could be very large. The home itself could be very small and we know that the lot itself is very small.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:54 - 1:33:58)
Now you take a home in an A1 which is a 30,000 square foot lot,

[Speaker 4] (1:33:58 - 1:34:04)
has larger homes, and the five or 800 square feet makes the addition less concerning.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:05 - 1:34:08)
But if we had a proportionality, we have a percentage,

[Speaker 4] (1:34:08 - 1:34:12)
be it the 10% that I propose or 15% or whatever it is,

[Speaker 4] (1:34:12 - 1:34:25)
we have a much better opportunity for the neighbors to determine what type of addition and the size of the addition that might be proposed and would be viewed by the planning board.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:25 - 1:34:27)
So that was my thinking,

[Speaker 4] (1:34:27 - 1:34:31)
you know, and it's not to suggest that what was proposed by the planning board.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:31 - 1:34:32)
is incorrect.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:33 - 1:34:35)
But I think we can refine it.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:35 - 1:34:36)
I think we can make it better.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:36 - 1:34:42)
And we're always trying as best we can not to look back and say if we had an opportunity to do it again,

[Speaker 4] (1:34:42 - 1:34:44)
would we do it this way?

[Speaker 4] (1:34:44 - 1:34:45)
It's a suggestion.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:45 - 1:34:50)
I'm not standing here and saying that if we adopt the planning board's recommendation,

[Speaker 4] (1:34:50 - 1:34:50)
we'll make a mistake.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:51 - 1:35:02)
I just suggest that we can do it in a way that is more proportionally appropriate and we give less opportunity for all new construction to have to go through this process.

[Speaker 4] (1:35:01 - 1:35:30)
of a site plan special permit so what I've done is I prepared an amendment I will just read it briefly under section 5 422 and that's one of the sections of site plan special permit review it's not part of the warrant article but it's part of the appendix it will now read as follows residential edition and I read as follows construction exterior alteration or exterior expansion

[Speaker 4] (1:35:31 - 1:35:34)
Of a single or two-family residence that either,

[Speaker 4] (1:35:34 - 1:35:35)
one,

[Speaker 4] (1:35:35 - 1:35:43)
increases the gross floor area by more than 10 percent, or two, increases the height of the building by more than 10 percent, or three,

[Speaker 4] (1:35:44 - 1:35:50)
increases the size of any lateral dimension by more than 10 percent of the aggregate lateral dimension.

[Speaker 4] (1:35:50 - 1:35:52)
So I'm taking percentage,

[Speaker 4] (1:35:52 - 1:35:57)
I want this to then be used as a criteria dependent on the house itself.

[Speaker 4] (1:35:58 - 1:36:00)
rather than on a finite number.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:01 - 1:36:02)
Secondly,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:02 - 1:36:03)
under 5423,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:04 - 1:36:05)
under residential new,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:05 - 1:36:08)
where they proposed that zero is the number,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:09 - 1:36:16)
I have any new construction of a single or two-family residence involving more than 900 square feet of gross floor area.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:16 - 1:36:23)
So that would be the trigger. Not zero, not 3,000, but 900. That would include the...

[Speaker 4] (1:36:24 - 1:36:26)
a larger new construction,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:26 - 1:36:28)
but not make it zero,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:28 - 1:36:31)
which would then mean that any new construction of a single family,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:31 - 1:36:34)
and I was thinking of ADUs when I wrote this,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:34 - 1:36:37)
would require some type of additional scrutiny,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:37 - 1:36:38)
which I didn't want to see.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:39 - 1:36:40)
So that was my thinking,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:40 - 1:36:45)
and I just appreciate very much the opportunity to express it.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:45 - 1:36:51)
I'm not standing here, and I really don't want anyone to think that it's either my way or my suggestion is any better than any others,

[Speaker 4] (1:36:51 - 1:36:56)
but I think it would in fact refine what I believe the planning board is trying to do.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:57 - 1:36:59)
And I thank you all very much for your time and consideration.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:01 - 1:37:02)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:02 - 1:37:05)
Schutzer. Is there a second to that motion to amend?

[Speaker 3] (1:37:08 - 1:37:11)
Okay, we come now to discussion on Mr.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:11 - 1:37:13)
Schutzer's motion to amend Mr.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:13 - 1:37:14)
Dooley's original motion.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:15 - 1:37:17)
I'll first turn to the planning board or to Ms. Meany.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:19 - 1:37:20)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:22 - 1:37:28)
We had a robust conversation as a planning board on this, and I think we came down for a number of different reasons.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:29 - 1:37:37)
Having differing viewpoints, ultimately a majority of the board voted for the language you saw tonight, but as I mentioned that was not unanimous.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:37 - 1:37:44)
With that being said, from a practical perspective how I look at this personally as a member of the planning board,

[Speaker 1] (1:37:44 - 1:37:50)
10% for a lot of houses is not very big.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:50 - 1:37:55)
It's a small mudroom or a modest addition to your home.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:55 - 1:37:59)
and requiring a, I own a 1500 square foot home,

[Speaker 1] (1:37:59 - 1:38:06)
requiring a 150 square foot addition to go through site plan while I'd be happy to do it of course,

[Speaker 1] (1:38:06 - 1:38:15)
but to go through that, that additional regulatory burden to me is onerous on what I would consider personally to be a small construction project.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:16 - 1:38:18)
As a town and as a board,

[Speaker 1] (1:38:18 - 1:38:24)
I feel it is important to encourage people to invest in their homes, and to incentivize them to make their homes better,

[Speaker 1] (1:38:24 - 1:38:27)
more comfortable for themselves and for whoever might live there in the future.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:27 - 1:38:41)
And I would be reticent to adopt anything that would be onerous, more onerous than necessary in my opinion, to go through additional regulatory burdens than needed. As far as the new construction,

[Speaker 1] (1:38:41 - 1:38:41)
I...

[Speaker 1] (1:38:42 - 1:39:03)
There will come any reduction from the three thousand square feet as we initially proposed. Um but I I there were other opinions on our board um from members who are not here this evening but I would be um absent if I didn't mention their opinions um that felt that any prohibition or any additional regulations on new construction would not be

[Speaker 1] (1:39:04 - 1:39:14)
keeping in in line with trying to incentivize housing production writ large so that was much of the conversation of the board I know there are other members of the planning board here this evening

[Speaker 2] (1:39:18 - 1:39:18)
Thank you,

[Speaker 1] (1:39:18 - 1:39:18)
Thank

[Speaker 2] (1:39:18 - 1:39:18)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:18 - 1:39:19)
you, Dooling. Mr. Moderator.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:19 - 1:39:22)
If possible,

[Speaker 3] (1:39:22 - 1:39:23)
I could just very briefly respond.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:24 - 1:39:24)
Would that be appropriate?

[Speaker 2] (1:39:25 - 1:39:26)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:39:26 - 1:39:26)
Schutzer.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:28 - 1:39:30)
When we lower the number to zero,

[Speaker 3] (1:39:30 - 1:39:33)
therefore every single new construction

[Speaker 3] (1:39:34 - 1:39:37)
of a single-family home will require your oversight.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:37 - 1:39:44)
To suggest that you don't want to make it more onerous seems inconsistent with what I believe your hope is,

[Speaker 3] (1:39:44 - 1:39:46)
which is to encourage new development,

[Speaker 3] (1:39:46 - 1:39:47)
not to slow it down.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:48 - 1:39:50)
I'm of that same mindset.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:50 - 1:39:51)
You and I agree on that.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:51 - 1:39:54)
I think we just agree on it in a very different way.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:54 - 1:40:00)
I think less governmental involvement may necessarily not be a bad thing.

[Speaker 3] (1:40:01 - 1:40:09)
And in this particular case, to encourage growth and encourage people's willingness to invest in their homes,

[Speaker 3] (1:40:09 - 1:40:14)
that additional time frame going through the additional fee,

[Speaker 3] (1:40:14 - 1:40:18)
going through the waiting and the appeal period,

[Speaker 3] (1:40:18 - 1:40:19)
sometimes it's unnecessary.

[Speaker 3] (1:40:20 - 1:40:22)
And I just wanted to address that.

[Speaker 3] (1:40:23 - 1:40:26)
And that's really my last comment. And once again, thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:27 - 1:40:27)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:28 - 1:40:28)
Schutzer.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:29 - 1:40:29)
Ms.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:29 - 1:40:29)
Mee?

[Speaker 5] (1:40:31 - 1:40:32)
Just one small clarifying.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:32 - 1:40:33)
Just if you would introduce

[Speaker 5] (1:40:33 - 1:40:34)
Oh,

[Speaker 1] (1:40:34 - 1:40:34)
yourself.

[Speaker 5] (1:40:34 - 1:40:34)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 5] (1:40:34 - 1:40:35)
Marissa Meaney,

[Speaker 5] (1:40:35 - 1:40:38)
Land Use and Development Planner in the Office of Community and Economic Development.

[Speaker 5] (1:40:40 - 1:40:41)
Ted and I had looked,

[Speaker 5] (1:40:41 - 1:40:47)
had done a two-year look back of building permits that were pulled for any new construction,

[Speaker 5] (1:40:47 - 1:40:51)
and we had six permits issued for new construction.

[Speaker 5] (1:40:51 - 1:40:58)
Four of those came for review before the planning board, so that left us with two that were issued by right by the building department.

[Speaker 5] (1:40:59 - 1:41:10)
And the reason the board and myself felt that new construction should just be subject to site plan review regardless of the size of the house is because when we do see new construction in town,

[Speaker 5] (1:41:10 - 1:41:28)
it's not very likely that it is being built by a resident. We typically have developers coming into town and tearing down pre-existing, even sometimes historic structures and building much larger structures in their place or they are building structures on what little virgin land we do have left.

[Speaker 5] (1:41:27 - 1:41:28)
of left in town.

[Speaker 5] (1:41:28 - 1:41:36)
So we believe it makes a little more sense to have the board provide some additional scrutiny into that site plan,

[Speaker 5] (1:41:36 - 1:41:42)
look at the potential impacts that will be on that site and in the surrounding neighborhood in general.

[Speaker 5] (1:41:42 - 1:41:46)
And so for maybe a couple of more site plan reviews.

[Speaker 5] (1:41:47 - 1:41:59)
Every other year doesn't seem like it's much more of a burden on the planning board and hopefully not a burden on the developers who are very used to going before other municipal boards as well.

[Speaker 4] (1:41:59 - 1:42:00)
Thank You Miss Meany.

[Speaker 4] (1:42:00 - 1:42:01)
Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:42:01 - 1:42:01)
Germain?

[Speaker 6] (1:42:13 - 1:42:16)
I'm going to come up to this mic so I can face you. Gergerma, Precinct 3,

[Speaker 6] (1:42:16 - 1:42:22)
Historic District Commission Vice Chair and Planning Board member.

[Speaker 6] (1:42:24 - 1:42:29)
I've been on the Planning Board for a short period of time, and before I was on the Planning Board,

[Speaker 6] (1:42:29 - 1:42:33)
when the conversation came up to about like a special site review,

[Speaker 6] (1:42:33 - 1:42:36)
et cetera, didn't really know what that entailed.

[Speaker 6] (1:42:37 - 1:42:43)
One of the things that I've come to realize is it has a lot to do with the adjacent neighbors,

[Speaker 6] (1:42:43 - 1:42:48)
thinking about the impact of the buildings on the community itself,

[Speaker 6] (1:42:49 - 1:42:53)
and in many ways guaranteeing the value of

[Speaker 6] (1:42:54 - 1:43:10)
life around what's being built but also the value of the properties around it what can happen very easily in construction is that something can come just under the required trigger but then when it's built

[Speaker 6] (1:43:11 - 1:43:37)
There's there's a drawing that happens in architecture called an as-built drawing and an as-built drawing is really showing what got built because very often the as-built drawing and the actual construction documents aren't the same because things grow a little bit they shrink a little bit somebody somebody does something very very minor things but it can really really trigger it and I know that we've had houses come in new construction that were

[Speaker 6] (1:43:38 - 1:43:43)
brought into the building department under the 3,000 foot limit.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:44 - 1:43:46)
And then they came to be over,

[Speaker 6] (1:43:46 - 1:43:48)
and there was no site review.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:48 - 1:43:51)
What we're really looking to do is to clean that up.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:51 - 1:43:59)
But the other thing I want to point out is there is a lot of diversity in our town as to what the site conditions are.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:00 - 1:44:05)
There are houses that would never be built on the size lots they're on,

[Speaker 6] (1:44:05 - 1:44:07)
and they've been there for 100 years.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:08 - 1:44:10)
And they're next door to houses that are...

[Speaker 6] (1:44:10 - 1:44:13)
are also wouldn't be allowed to be built on the lots.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:13 - 1:44:16)
I mean, show your hands if your house is on a tiny lot.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:18 - 1:44:19)
Okay, good percentage.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:20 - 1:44:33)
What we really want to think about is when we write a rule like this, 900 square feet in ADU, we're entering something that I do completely support in the idea of the ADU.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:33 - 1:44:40)
But I know a lot of people are nervous about the ADU when it's landing in the yard next to their house or behind their house.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:41 - 1:44:45)
And in many of our situations, it could be in front of our houses the way that...

[Speaker 6] (1:44:45 - 1:44:46)
way that the town is laid out.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:46 - 1:44:51)
This really allows a way for us to be looking at

[Speaker 6] (1:44:51 - 1:45:17)
the construction that's coming in that's greatly altering even if you're using the setbacks you can still fit a structure in that is going to impact but it's also looking at how drainage is working in reviews that we've done we've made discoveries that parking and driveways were angled in ways that would be problematic we've encouraged changes to be made that really protect the neighbors around it

[Speaker 6] (1:45:17 - 1:45:24)
So I highly support as we're looking at new construction the zero mark that we came in with.

[Speaker 6] (1:45:24 - 1:45:28)
I want to jump back to the 10% on the houses.

[Speaker 6] (1:45:28 - 1:45:43)
I actually was the person that felt we should be doing percentages, not be doing square footages because of the vast differences in the sizes of the houses here. It does seem that if we were keeping in.

[Speaker 6] (1:45:44 - 1:45:47)
proportion to what the existing structure is,

[Speaker 6] (1:45:47 - 1:45:53)
it would be more effective in how things might or might not overpower the neighbors.

[Speaker 6] (1:45:53 - 1:45:56)
So in looking at Ken's suggestion,

[Speaker 6] (1:45:56 - 1:46:00)
I would stick with our original position on the zero.

[Speaker 6] (1:46:00 - 1:46:06)
I don't know if we can make amendments to amendments, but when it comes to the overall site review,

[Speaker 6] (1:46:07 - 1:46:12)
having it really be here for everyone to be protected in the building of ADUs.

[Speaker 6] (1:46:12 - 1:46:15)
It was I think it's a really good a good gesture.

[Speaker 6] (1:46:15 - 1:46:16)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:16 - 1:46:16)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:17 - 1:46:18)
Chairman. To answer your question,

[Speaker 4] (1:46:18 - 1:46:21)
if you'd like to move to amend Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:21 - 1:46:21)
Schutz's motion,

[Speaker 4] (1:46:21 - 1:46:23)
you may do so.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:23 - 1:46:25)
Two amendments can be on the floor at the same time.

[Speaker 6] (1:46:27 - 1:46:28)
So I would make an amendment

[Speaker 6] (1:46:29 - 1:46:45)
To remove the addition of the 900 square feet and keep it at any new construction when it came to special site permit, but I would also retain the 10%. I

[Speaker 4] (1:46:45 - 1:46:47)
Is there a second to Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:47 - 1:46:48)
German's motion to amend Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:49 - 1:46:50)
Schutzer's original amendment?

[Speaker 4] (1:46:52 - 1:46:56)
If you care to speak more to it, but I think you've covered it adequately.

[Speaker 6] (1:46:57 - 1:46:58)
usually cover it.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:01 - 1:47:09)
Okay, we come now to a debate and discussion on Mr. Germa's motion to amend Mr. Schutzer's motion to amend Mr. Dooley's motion.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:09 - 1:47:16)
Mr. Germa's motion would strike Mr. Schutzer's language that would strike Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:16 - 1:47:26)
Dooley's language regarding residential new and would retain the requirement that any new construction of a single or two-family residence be subject to the site plan.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:27 - 1:47:30)
Is there discussion or debate on Mr. Germa's motion to amend?

[Speaker 4] (1:47:33 - 1:47:34)
Ms. Rosenberg.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:37 - 1:47:39)
Ms. Rosenberg then Mr. Schutzer.

[Speaker 7] (1:47:40 - 1:47:41)
Does that, wow,

[Speaker 7] (1:47:41 - 1:47:42)
sorry.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:42 - 1:47:43)
Good mic technique.

[Speaker 7] (1:47:43 - 1:47:45)
Gail Rosenberg, Precinct 3.

[Speaker 7] (1:47:45 - 1:47:52)
Does that 10% apply to renovations or additions as well? Because there are a lot of...

[Speaker 7] (1:47:52 - 1:47:53)
Small houses.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:53 - 1:47:56)
It is specific to renovations and additions.

[Speaker 7] (1:47:56 - 1:47:56)
Okay.

[Speaker 7] (1:47:56 - 1:48:07)
Well, then a 1,200 square foot house would only be able to have a 119 square foot addition without

[Speaker 4] (1:48:07 - 1:48:09)
I believe that's the way that I would read that, but Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:09 - 1:48:10)
Dooley.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:10 - 1:48:11)
That's that's

[Speaker 7] (1:48:11 - 1:48:12)
the

[Speaker 1] (1:48:12 - 1:48:12)
correct.

[Speaker 7] (1:48:12 - 1:48:13)
special permit.

[Speaker 7] (1:48:13 - 1:48:13)
Sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:13 - 1:48:20)
That's correct. And it may be helpful if I clarify just what a site plan review is in terms of single and two family.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:20 - 1:48:26)
residential structures to give people context of what may or may not happen after this.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:26 - 1:48:29)
When you're required to go to the planning board for a site plan review

[Speaker 1] (1:48:30 - 1:48:56)
say plan special permit as our bylaws refer to it you're required to come in with things like a survey of your property a survey of your property post construction architectural drawings architectural renderings in certain cases will require landscape plans single and two family homes we don't typically require lighting plans we'll ask for statements about lighting used on the exterior of the home so we can ensure that it doesn't have adverse effect on neighboring properties and we go through

[Speaker 1] (1:48:56 - 1:49:06)
All of the aspects of the structure that's being proposed and typically like to look at everything from materials all the way to design and everything in between.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:08 - 1:49:09)
Hearings are public hearings.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:18 - 1:49:19)
The planning board will review that,

[Speaker 1] (1:49:19 - 1:49:21)
we'll take public comment, we'll work with the applicant,

[Speaker 1] (1:49:21 - 1:49:22)
their architect,

[Speaker 1] (1:49:22 - 1:49:28)
their counsel when that happens and go back and forth on the different aspects of the plan that we'll review.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:28 - 1:49:31)
Sometimes we review them, we vote on them that evening.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:31 - 1:49:33)
Other times...

[Speaker 1] (1:49:33 - 1:49:37)
It may take another meeting or whatnot after that.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:38 - 1:49:42)
But that's kind of what a site plan special permit hearing entails.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:43 - 1:49:45)
And they,

[Speaker 1] (1:49:45 - 1:49:51)
I believe, also require a $450 permit fee for a new application fee, excuse me, for a new apply.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:52 - 1:49:53)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:53 - 1:49:53)
Dooley.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:53 - 1:49:54)
I heard Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:54 - 1:49:55)
Schutzer has to be recognized.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:05 - 1:50:06)
Will you accept it as a friendly amendment?

[Speaker 2] (1:50:07 - 1:50:11)
Okay, thank you. We can forego discussion,

[Speaker 2] (1:50:11 - 1:50:13)
a vote on Mr. Germain's amendment,

[Speaker 2] (1:50:13 - 1:50:14)
therefore,

[Speaker 2] (1:50:14 - 1:50:15)
and Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:15 - 1:50:32)
Schutzer's amendment as revised to only encompass the concept of a 10% constraint on additions as opposed to any changes to the residential new language under 5-4-2-3.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:33 - 1:50:35)
Now we come back to the discussion,

[Speaker 2] (1:50:35 - 1:50:36)
Ms.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:36 - 1:50:39)
Amour, of the amendment offered by Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:39 - 1:50:49)
Schutzer to change the residential addition requirements instead of 500 square feet instead to include 10 percent of various dimensions as stated.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:49 - 1:50:52)
So I wanted to ask a clarifying question first,

[Speaker 3] (1:50:52 - 1:50:54)
Andrea Moore Precinct 3.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:56 - 1:51:01)
Does this mean that this would get triggered, for example, if somebody wanted to dormer?

[Speaker 1] (1:51:02 - 1:51:02)
um all

[Speaker 3] (1:51:02 - 1:51:10)
like their existing roof line and like build out or is it only if we're affecting like the ground level site okay

[Speaker 2] (1:51:10 - 1:51:11)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:11 - 1:51:20)
right sorry through you mr moderator um it's only if you're changing a footprint if you're if there's something already within an existing footprint basement attic whatever that's not subject to site plan

[Speaker 3] (1:51:25 - 1:51:26)
Okay, understood.

[Speaker 3] (1:51:27 - 1:51:35)
I think my feedback here in general would be that, you know, there I would say a vast majority of the homes in Swamp Scott are somewhere around 2000 square feet.

[Speaker 3] (1:51:35 - 1:51:42)
And so if we think about 10%, that's 200 square feet, which is a very small room to the point made earlier,

[Speaker 3] (1:51:43 - 1:51:43)
that's like a mud room,

[Speaker 3] (1:51:44 - 1:51:50)
maybe a laundry room, an entryway, something that's, you know, it's not going to be very substantial.

[Speaker 3] (1:51:51 - 1:51:53)
So it does feel perhaps a little bit

[Speaker 3] (1:51:53 - 1:52:15)
limiting especially if we consider the the general trend towards staying in place given high interest rates giving you know that people are enjoying being in our town um so i don't necessarily want to make an amendment but i i do think it's worth considering that that is a very restrictive requirement and perhaps something like

[Speaker 3] (1:52:16 - 1:52:22)
20% may be a more appropriate number because that actually would encompass like a significant room size.

[Speaker 3] (1:52:22 - 1:52:24)
So just some food for thought.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:25 - 1:52:25)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:25 - 1:52:26)
Amour.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:26 - 1:52:26)
Ms.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:27 - 1:52:29)
Meany, any further thoughts? I just wanted to clarify,

[Speaker 2] (1:52:29 - 1:52:29)
I know that Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:29 - 1:52:35)
Schutzer's language incorporated a measurement of the gross height of the building.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:36 - 1:52:41)
A dormer should not increase the height of the building, in which case it's called something else, I'm not an

[Speaker 4] (1:52:41 - 1:52:41)
May

[Speaker 2] (1:52:41 - 1:52:41)
architect.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:41 - 1:52:42)
I please ask Mr.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:42 - 1:52:44)
Schutzer for clarification on that,

[Speaker 4] (1:52:44 - 1:52:48)
particularly with what he meant by a lateral extension of more than 10%?

[Speaker 2] (1:52:54 - 1:52:57)
The people at home cannot hear you if you do that.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:59 - 1:53:01)
Well, that is an entirely different question.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:08 - 1:53:21)
I just want to give you a little oversight. I took this language directly from a town that has adopted this language which has been in existence now for as long as I've been practicing,

[Speaker 5] (1:53:21 - 1:53:22)
which is the town of Marblehead.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:23 - 1:53:25)
I thought it made all the sense in the world.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:25 - 1:53:28)
So I'm not going to take any ownership of either the good or the bad.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:28 - 1:53:34)
I just thought a percentage proportionality made a lot more sense than a hard number,

[Speaker 5] (1:53:34 - 1:53:38)
which makes a huge difference from a small house to a large house.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:38 - 1:53:43)
And I thought the concept that they adopted proportionality as a trigger made more sense.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:43 - 1:53:46)
It need not be 10%. It could be 15%.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:47 - 1:53:48)
But it needs to be a percent.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:48 - 1:53:54)
And I was hoping that tonight's discussion would lead people to think about that concept,

[Speaker 5] (1:53:54 - 1:53:56)
because I think it's an excellent concept.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:57 - 1:54:02)
I also think that maybe I haven't involved myself sufficiently,

[Speaker 5] (1:54:02 - 1:54:04)
and maybe further time would be necessary.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:04 - 1:54:13)
All I know is how difficult it is after we jump from something which has been in effect for 30 years that we can't give it another.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:14 - 1:54:17)
six months to work out the details.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:18 - 1:54:21)
I think that once you increase the size of your house,

[Speaker 5] (1:54:21 - 1:54:25)
it really depends on the size of your house and the size of the lot.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:25 - 1:54:27)
I felt comfortable with that concept.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:28 - 1:54:33)
That's the concept that I would ask this assemblage to adopt.

[Speaker 2] (1:54:33 - 1:54:35)
So before you surrender that mic, sir.

[Speaker 2] (1:54:36 - 1:54:42)
I heard the question for clarification for your technical terms of building height and lateral dimension.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:42 - 1:54:47)
Yes, I was talking about height as well, and lateral dimension.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:47 - 1:54:52)
I was talking about all of them, because all of them have an impact.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:52 - 1:54:53)
as Mr.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:53 - 1:54:54)
German said on your neighbours.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:54 - 1:54:59)
So there's really a balancing act between the rights of the homeowner,

[Speaker 5] (1:54:59 - 1:55:00)
the rights of the neighbours.

[Speaker 5] (1:55:00 - 1:55:02)
I think that the concept,

[Speaker 5] (1:55:02 - 1:55:07)
and I really believe that the involvement of the planning board is incredibly helpful,

[Speaker 5] (1:55:08 - 1:55:18)
but I just thought that by putting in a hard number you were taking out some that should be involved and you were including some that shouldn't.

[Speaker 5] (1:55:18 - 1:55:20)
And I thought by putting a percentage,

[Speaker 5] (1:55:20 - 1:55:23)
we would be better suited for addressing that concern that I had.

[Speaker 5] (1:55:24 - 1:55:25)
Whether it's

[Speaker 2] (1:55:25 - 1:55:25)
So

[Speaker 5] (1:55:25 - 1:55:30)
a concern that's globally adopted by those in this assemblage, I'm not sure.

[Speaker 5] (1:55:30 - 1:55:38)
I thought it was something from my experience that was worthy of my getting up, making this amendment, and putting it before this board for its consideration.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:39 - 1:55:39)
As

[Speaker 5] (1:55:39 - 1:55:39)
I thank

[Speaker 2] (1:55:39 - 1:55:39)
we're putting

[Speaker 5] (1:55:39 - 1:55:39)
you.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:39 - 1:55:42)
this technical terms into the bylaw, Ms. Meany,

[Speaker 2] (1:55:42 - 1:55:44)
do you have clarity on what's being proposed?

[Speaker 4] (1:55:44 - 1:55:51)
No. So my question is, and perhaps I'll give an example. If the lateral dimensions of my house are 60 feet in length,

[Speaker 4] (1:55:51 - 1:55:53)
if I'm to add an additional...

[Speaker 4] (1:55:53 - 1:55:54)
until six feet onto my house,

[Speaker 4] (1:55:54 - 1:55:56)
does that trigger site plan review?

[Speaker 4] (1:55:58 - 1:55:59)
According to the bylaw,

[Speaker 4] (1:56:00 - 1:56:00)
that's the way it seems.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:01 - 1:56:05)
So if my house is 60 feet in length and I want to add an additional six feet,

[Speaker 4] (1:56:05 - 1:56:06)
the

[Speaker 5] (1:56:06 - 1:56:07)
Well, your point,

[Speaker 4] (1:56:07 - 1:56:07)
length of one basketball

[Speaker 5] (1:56:07 - 1:56:08)
well,

[Speaker 4] (1:56:08 - 1:56:08)
player.

[Speaker 5] (1:56:08 - 1:56:12)
you know, it's a fascinating question and I don't, can't, kindly don't know the answer.

[Speaker 5] (1:56:13 - 1:56:16)
I thought when I read it, if you interpret it differently,

[Speaker 5] (1:56:16 - 1:56:21)
then maybe we need to further review and come up with something that is.

[Speaker 5] (1:56:23 - 1:56:24)
clearer and more the consensus,

[Speaker 5] (1:56:24 - 1:56:27)
which I believe it is of one member of your planning board,

[Speaker 5] (1:56:28 - 1:56:39)
that involving a percentage would include those homes of different size on different size lots.

[Speaker 5] (1:56:40 - 1:56:41)
I'm, I'm, I'm, that

[Speaker 2] (1:56:41 - 1:56:44)
I'll take that as answered as best can,

[Speaker 2] (1:56:44 - 1:56:44)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:44 - 1:56:45)
Kraft,

[Speaker 5] (1:56:45 - 1:56:46)
that is true.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:46 - 1:56:46)
then Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:46 - 1:56:46)
Beaulieu,

[Speaker 2] (1:56:47 - 1:56:49)
and then you, ma'am,

[Speaker 2] (1:56:49 - 1:56:50)
and I think I see, is that Mr.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:50 - 1:56:51)
Sapp in the back?

[Speaker 5] (1:56:55 - 1:56:57)
Recraft Precinct 3 Town Meeting member.

[Speaker 5] (1:56:58 - 1:57:04)
I think this points out that this just needs more discussion and study.

[Speaker 5] (1:57:04 - 1:57:10)
And I think the Planning Board has come up with a reasonable step to take here,

[Speaker 5] (1:57:10 - 1:57:13)
and I think there are some valid points that Mr.

[Speaker 5] (1:57:13 - 1:57:14)
Schutzer is bringing up,

[Speaker 5] (1:57:14 - 1:57:17)
but I think it has a disproportionate impact on smaller houses,

[Speaker 5] (1:57:17 - 1:57:20)
and I think there needs to be some...

[Speaker 5] (1:57:21 - 1:57:28)
Some further adjustment in the formula so it does not unduly impact small houses whereas,

[Speaker 5] (1:57:28 - 1:57:32)
you know, maybe now it's unduly impacting other houses.

[Speaker 5] (1:57:33 - 1:57:38)
I would suggest that we postpone Mr.

[Speaker 5] (1:57:38 - 1:57:39)
Schutzer's amendment,

[Speaker 5] (1:57:39 - 1:57:42)
send it back for further discussion,

[Speaker 5] (1:57:42 - 1:57:43)
he can work with the planning board,

[Speaker 5] (1:57:43 - 1:57:48)
let's vote for the planning board, the motion that was originally proposed.

[Speaker 5] (1:57:49 - 1:57:52)
as maybe an interim step that gets further refined down the road.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:53 - 1:57:54)
Thank you, Mr. Craft.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:55 - 1:57:57)
Yes, I had Mr. Bopre.

[Speaker 6] (1:58:06 - 1:58:07)
Yes, thank you.

[Speaker 6] (1:58:07 - 1:58:08)
Larry Bopre,

[Speaker 6] (1:58:08 - 1:58:09)
Precinct 6.

[Speaker 6] (1:58:09 - 1:58:15)
Just a question. If I put an addition on my home.

[Speaker 6] (1:58:16 - 1:58:27)
that otherwise complies, but say I violate the setback requirement that's on the lot going to my neighbors or to the street,

[Speaker 6] (1:58:27 - 1:58:33)
don't I end up having to go before you as well or no?

[Speaker 1] (1:58:34 - 1:58:35)
Mr. Moderator,

[Speaker 2] (1:58:35 - 1:58:36)
Mr. Dooley.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:36 - 1:58:36)
no,

[Speaker 1] (1:58:36 - 1:58:46)
the zoning board of appeals would handle any dimensional regulations that you may need a permit to go into your setback, for example, that does not come before the planning board.

[Speaker 6] (1:58:46 - 1:58:47)
Right,

[Speaker 6] (1:58:47 - 1:58:49)
but I do need to go before a town board.

[Speaker 6] (1:58:49 - 1:58:50)
I can't just start.

[Speaker 6] (1:58:51 - 1:58:51)
nail

[Speaker 1] (1:58:51 - 1:58:51)
Correct.

[Speaker 6] (1:58:51 - 1:58:53)
in stuck together

[Speaker 1] (1:58:53 - 1:58:54)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:54 - 1:59:00)
You need to go through zoning who has a different provisions to review a project by our bylaws than we do.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:00 - 1:59:02)
So yes, you would have to go to zoning,

[Speaker 1] (1:59:02 - 1:59:04)
but it's a different review process and it's for a different scale.

[Speaker 2] (1:59:06 - 1:59:13)
So it seems to me that we already have some protections in place about crowding.

[Speaker 2] (1:59:13 - 1:59:17)
A lot, which I think is a very valid point that's put up,

[Speaker 2] (1:59:17 - 1:59:33)
and I agree frankly with the point just made by the other speaker that this does need some further study because there just are a lot of issues and I don't think we've entirely thought through proportionality yet. Thank

[Speaker 3] (1:59:33 - 1:59:33)
Thank

[Speaker 2] (1:59:33 - 1:59:33)
you.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:33 - 1:59:33)
you, Mr.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:33 - 1:59:33)
Mopri.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:34 - 1:59:35)
I had a hand back here before,

[Speaker 3] (1:59:35 - 1:59:35)
Mr.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:35 - 1:59:35)
Sapp.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:36 - 1:59:37)
Yes, ma'am, there you are.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:45 - 1:59:46)
Good evening, Alex Smolin,

[Speaker 4] (1:59:46 - 1:59:47)
Precinct 5.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:47 - 1:59:52)
I just have a question related to the two amendments and the fact that it was a friendly amendment.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:52 - 1:59:55)
They're actually two completely different things.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:55 - 2:00:08)
So we're really at a situation where we have an amendment with a friendly amendment where you could agree with one and not the other. And I'm just wondering as a point of procedure whether we could actually address those two pieces separately.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:09 - 2:00:12)
The motion on the floor is now Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:12 - 2:00:13)
Schutzer's motion to amend.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:13 - 2:00:19)
as revised through his own accession to mr.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:19 - 2:00:19)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:19 - 2:00:22)
German I'm sorry now I've lost track

[Speaker 3] (2:00:24 - 2:00:28)
the removal of the constraint on new construction. So Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:28 - 2:00:32)
Shooter's motion to amend is on the floor but it only deals with the addition section,

[Speaker 3] (2:00:33 - 2:00:41)
5.4.2.2 and the 10% restrictions on, as I understand it, gross footage,

[Speaker 3] (2:00:41 - 2:00:43)
linear dimension and height.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:45 - 2:00:49)
So the part about all new construction.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:49 - 2:00:54)
It is not on the floor. That is still as Mr. Dooley's original motion states it.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:54 - 2:00:55)
Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:56 - 2:00:57)
Now Mr. Sapp.

[Speaker 5] (2:01:02 - 2:01:02)
Joel Sapp,

[Speaker 5] (2:01:03 - 2:01:04)
Precinct 6.

[Speaker 5] (2:01:05 - 2:01:08)
So I just wanted to add a little piece,

[Speaker 5] (2:01:08 - 2:01:10)
which was he was talking about the lateral.

[Speaker 5] (2:01:11 - 2:01:36)
increase or the square footage so in your example let's say your house is 60 feet by 10 just so the numbers are simple and you add 10% to the length so the 66 that is a 10% increase still in your square footage I don't know about the height piece because it wouldn't necessarily be an increase in your square footage at that point

[Speaker 5] (2:01:37 - 2:01:41)
But, like, if you just wanted to make your top floor a little higher so,

[Speaker 5] (2:01:42 - 2:01:43)
you know, maybe you had lower,

[Speaker 5] (2:01:43 - 2:01:46)
you know, on your third floor or second floor or something like that.

[Speaker 5] (2:01:47 - 2:01:52)
But, so I think it still works for the most part,

[Speaker 5] (2:01:52 - 2:01:56)
but I wouldn't have any issue if we did push this back until,

[Speaker 5] (2:01:56 - 2:01:57)
I guess,

[Speaker 5] (2:01:57 - 2:01:58)
December.

[Speaker 5] (2:01:58 - 2:02:00)
We voted on coming back in December.

[Speaker 5] (2:02:00 - 2:02:01)
Christmas party,

[Speaker 5] (2:02:01 - 2:02:02)
maybe?

[Speaker 5] (2:02:03 - 2:02:04)
Anyway, thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:02:05 - 2:02:06)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:02:06 - 2:02:06)
Sapp.

[Speaker 3] (2:02:06 - 2:02:06)
Ms.

[Speaker 3] (2:02:06 - 2:02:07)
Ipplito.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:13 - 2:02:14)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:14 - 2:02:16)
Moderator. Angela Ipplito,

[Speaker 4] (2:02:16 - 2:02:17)
town meeting member,

[Speaker 4] (2:02:18 - 2:02:18)
precinct five,

[Speaker 4] (2:02:19 - 2:02:20)
and member of the planning board.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:21 - 2:02:26)
I just want to address the general confusion in the room right now.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:27 - 2:02:34)
I believe that, first of all, I'd like to say that this has been studied extensively by the planning board for the past couple of years.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:35 - 2:02:38)
We have been studying site plan.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:38 - 2:02:44)
We have seen, without pointing out any particular projects,

[Speaker 4] (2:02:44 - 2:02:48)
there have been multiple projects within the last year.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:49 - 2:03:02)
that have had errors on them and have caused problems for neighbors and are built in a zone where they could be threatening to other properties.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:03 - 2:03:07)
Without getting into a lot of detail about where these are exactly,

[Speaker 4] (2:03:07 - 2:03:09)
it's all online and public record,

[Speaker 4] (2:03:09 - 2:03:15)
I would like to say that this is something that has been very thoroughly reviewed by the board.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:15 - 2:03:18)
We have looked at what Marblehead does,

[Speaker 4] (2:03:18 - 2:03:24)
and for the exact reasons why this discussion is going on,

[Speaker 4] (2:03:24 - 2:03:25)
it's very confusing.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:26 - 2:03:27)
And it sounds like, well, what do you mean?

[Speaker 4] (2:03:27 - 2:03:29)
Is it a footprint?

[Speaker 4] (2:03:29 - 2:03:32)
Is it, what's six feet on my house? And what's going,

[Speaker 4] (2:03:32 - 2:03:35)
well, what about the roof? And does that make me have to come in?

[Speaker 4] (2:03:35 - 2:03:38)
It's very confusing to do it that way.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:38 - 2:03:50)
And at this point, you know, we've had challenges having full-time building inspector for the, I know that's been resolved at this point, but all the same.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:51 - 2:03:53)
It's been an issue for some time.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:53 - 2:04:18)
I mean, it's very challenging to get someone to do all the math and then have to come in and figure something out when we arrived at the decision to require site plan special permit for all new primary residence construction and to require a site plan special permit for any kind of addition over 500 square feet.

[Speaker 4] (2:04:18 - 2:04:27)
that was a deliberate and well-considered choice because based upon the statistics of what we've seen in Swampscott.

[Speaker 4] (2:04:27 - 2:04:29)
Over the past number of years,

[Speaker 4] (2:04:29 - 2:04:32)
and as I said, there were specific examples that are very recent,

[Speaker 4] (2:04:33 - 2:04:37)
we believe that this was the right move to make for our community.

[Speaker 4] (2:04:37 - 2:04:38)
It's simple.

[Speaker 4] (2:04:39 - 2:04:40)
It's not confusing.

[Speaker 4] (2:04:40 - 2:04:56)
We can review this, be happy to come back to town meeting next May and give you a full report on what happened and how many site plans we've reviewed and exactly what that looked like. But I'd like to reassure.

[Speaker 4] (2:04:56 - 2:04:59)
for town meeting that this idea,

[Speaker 4] (2:05:00 - 2:05:03)
this proposal has been very well thought through.

[Speaker 4] (2:05:03 - 2:05:03)
Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:04 - 2:05:05)
Thank you, Ms. Zappolito.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:06 - 2:05:09)
Is there further discussion of Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:09 - 2:05:11)
Schutzer's amendment as revised?

[Speaker 3] (2:05:13 - 2:05:14)
Seeing none,

[Speaker 3] (2:05:14 - 2:05:16)
all those in favor of Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:16 - 2:05:26)
Schutzer's amendment which would change the requirements under 5.4.2.2 to apply only under the case of an increase of 10% in the building's height,

[Speaker 3] (2:05:27 - 2:05:28)
the building's lateral dimensions,

[Speaker 3] (2:05:28 - 2:05:30)
and the building's square footage.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:30 - 2:05:31)
In favor,

[Speaker 3] (2:05:31 - 2:05:32)
please raise your hand.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:33 - 2:05:34)
All those opposed.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:35 - 2:05:38)
The motion is defeated. We return to Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:38 - 2:05:41)
Dooley's original motion as stated. Is there further discussion?

[Speaker 3] (2:05:42 - 2:05:44)
on Mr. Dooley's original motion.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:47 - 2:05:48)
Seeing none,

[Speaker 3] (2:05:48 - 2:05:50)
this requires a two-thirds vote.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:50 - 2:05:53)
All those in favor of Mr. Dooley's original motion?

[Speaker 3] (2:05:54 - 2:05:57)
All those opposed? It carries unanimously.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:59 - 2:06:00)
We come to Article 28.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:01 - 2:06:12)
Article 28 is a citizen petition, as you know. Citizens can insert an article into the warrant with ten signatures by the first Thursday in February.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:12 - 2:06:20)
I have been informed that the petitioner, the lead petitioner, Mr. Greenfield, was unable to be with us tonight.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:22 - 2:06:30)
Unless there is another signatory to the petition which is to get up and make a positive motion under the article,

[Speaker 3] (2:06:30 - 2:06:31)
Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:31 - 2:06:33)
Greenfield has given me leave to pass over his petition.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:34 - 2:06:38)
Is there anyone who would like to rise with a positive motion?

[Speaker 3] (2:06:41 - 2:06:42)
Seeing none,

[Speaker 3] (2:06:42 - 2:06:45)
I will take a motion to dissolve. Oh, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:45 - 2:06:45)
You're getting,

[Speaker 3] (2:06:45 - 2:06:46)
I thought you were getting up to leave,

[Speaker 3] (2:06:46 - 2:06:47)
Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:47 - 2:06:47)
Duffy. Come on down.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:50 - 2:06:52)
You put your coat on after all.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:57 - 2:06:58)
Sorry everybody. That's all right.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:59 - 2:07:08)
Didn't take my coat off actually but um I'm one of the signers of the petition as is a polytech I'm Neil Duffy precinct 3.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:11 - 2:07:15)
I move favorable action on article 28.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:16 - 2:07:19)
to amend the town of Swampscott bylaws to limit fees,

[Speaker 3] (2:07:19 - 2:07:33)
change the charter of the Swampscott residents by the town of Swampscott in connection with requests for public documents to see if the town will vote to amend town of Swampscott bylaws by adding a new article 4 section 19 as it reads in the warrant.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:34 - 2:07:35)
Thank you. Is there a second?

[Speaker 3] (2:07:36 - 2:07:37)
Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:37 - 2:07:42)
Duffy, would you please feel free to speak to the Sure. motion?

[Speaker 1] (2:07:43 - 2:07:45)
I wasn't planning on speaking tonight,

[Speaker 1] (2:07:45 - 2:07:47)
but since the sponsor's not here,

[Speaker 1] (2:07:47 - 2:07:50)
I think it's important to have this conversation and hopefully to pass this bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:51 - 2:08:02)
The reason for this article is to promote transparency within town government such that if residents want to.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:02 - 2:08:08)
receive public information, public records from the town as long as they're not abusive in those actions,

[Speaker 1] (2:08:09 - 2:08:13)
that they're allowed to do so without being charged fees excessive or otherwise.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:14 - 2:08:25)
This is for residential request and not commercial requests and the hope is that it will allow for the free flow of information from the town to the residents.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:27 - 2:08:27)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:27 - 2:08:28)
Duffy.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:28 - 2:08:30)
Is there a debate or discussion on Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:30 - 2:08:34)
Duffy's motion under the citizens petition sponsored by Mr. Greenfield?

[Speaker 3] (2:08:36 - 2:08:36)
Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:36 - 2:08:38)
Pastor and then Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:38 - 2:08:40)
Berdov and then Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:40 - 2:08:40)
Harbin.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:43 - 2:08:43)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:43 - 2:08:44)
Moderator.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:44 - 2:08:45)
Glenn Pastor,

[Speaker 1] (2:08:45 - 2:08:45)
Precinct 2,

[Speaker 1] (2:08:45 - 2:08:46)
school committee member.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:46 - 2:08:48)
Does this affect the school district?

[Speaker 3] (2:08:52 - 2:08:53)
Are you subject to, are

[Speaker 2] (2:08:53 - 2:08:55)
Yes, are we subject to this?

[Speaker 3] (2:08:55 - 2:08:55)
no,

[Speaker 3] (2:08:56 - 2:08:58)
are you subject to information requests?

[Speaker 2] (2:08:59 - 2:09:06)
Okay, so with this, this is kind of a, it may be a problem for the school department.

[Speaker 2] (2:09:07 - 2:09:13)
I'm not sure of the law regarding any of this, but as an example, if,

[Speaker 2] (2:09:13 - 2:09:16)
I guess I need to,

[Speaker 2] (2:09:16 - 2:09:18)
from the body,

[Speaker 2] (2:09:18 - 2:09:18)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (2:09:18 - 2:09:22)
Duffy, can you just explain like what the genesis of this is?

[Speaker 2] (2:09:23 - 2:09:30)
Can you give some examples of specifically what would trigger this particular article,

[Speaker 2] (2:09:30 - 2:09:34)
and then I can make my comment regarding anything from the school side.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:36 - 2:09:37)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:37 - 2:09:37)
Pastor.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:37 - 2:09:38)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:38 - 2:09:39)
Duffy, if you have commentary,

[Speaker 1] (2:09:39 - 2:09:40)
I welcome it.

[Speaker 3] (2:09:41 - 2:09:42)
Yeah,

[Speaker 3] (2:09:42 - 2:09:47)
I mean, I defer in terms of if it applies to the school district, I defer to the town council.

[Speaker 3] (2:09:47 - 2:10:06)
I would say the genesis of this is that at least one of the reasons I signed the petition is that I think there were some public information requests of the town over the last year where residents were charged what I think were arbitrary fees and quite high fees for the information they were requesting.

[Speaker 3] (2:10:07 - 2:10:08)
And

[Speaker 1] (2:10:08 - 2:10:08)
Thanks.

[Speaker 3] (2:10:08 - 2:10:13)
that's not something that I was accustomed to on my time on the select board or prior to that.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:14 - 2:10:15)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:15 - 2:10:15)
Duffy.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:15 - 2:10:17)
Do we know what those fees are?

[Speaker 1] (2:10:20 - 2:10:23)
I'll, sure,

[Speaker 1] (2:10:23 - 2:10:23)
yes,

[Speaker 1] (2:10:23 - 2:10:25)
the town clerk,

[Speaker 1] (2:10:25 - 2:10:25)
please.

[Speaker 4] (2:10:28 - 2:10:31)
Every municipal entity is subject to open...

[Speaker 4] (2:10:32 - 2:10:39)
To public records law, uh the school committee falls under the municipality and is subject to the twenty seventeen update to the public records law.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:42 - 2:10:43)
I had Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:43 - 2:10:44)
Berdof, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:44 - 2:10:45)
Hartman, and then Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:45 - 2:10:46)
Demento. And Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:46 - 2:10:46)
Pastor,

[Speaker 1] (2:10:46 - 2:10:49)
did you have a further comment?

[Speaker 2] (2:10:51 - 2:10:52)
I'm sorry, Mr. Moderator.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:52 - 2:10:55)
I understood that you asked what the fees may have been. I don't know.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:55 - 2:11:00)
Yeah, so I guess I'll just say this because it's just very unclear.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:00 - 2:11:02)
From the school point of view, we do oppose this.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:02 - 2:11:08)
While most requests are easy and fulfilled for free, there are some times that are very onerous requests.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:08 - 2:11:13)
And by the way, just onerous I don't mean in a negative way, just a lot of documents.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:14 - 2:11:17)
We charge the least amount possible at the lowest amount.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:17 - 2:11:18)
um a lowest amount pay scale,

[Speaker 2] (2:11:19 - 2:11:21)
which is approximately about twenty five dollars an hour.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:21 - 2:11:43)
I just wanna be very careful that you know I I don't know if I agree nor disagree, but from a school point of view we just need m we need much more data than than this, because some of the things that you know people may ask of us via uh a foyer or anything else could be thousands of pages and we run pretty lean, so that just may it it just

[Speaker 2] (2:11:44 - 2:11:49)
It just may be this is a challenge so that from the school point of view while say we we oppose this.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:49 - 2:11:50)
Thank you,

[Speaker 1] (2:11:50 - 2:11:50)
Thanks,

[Speaker 2] (2:11:50 - 2:11:50)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:50 - 2:11:50)
Mr.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:50 - 2:11:50)
Moderator.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:50 - 2:11:51)
Pastor.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:51 - 2:11:52)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:52 - 2:11:52)
Berdoff.

[Speaker 5] (2:11:59 - 2:12:21)
Aaron Burdoff, Precinct Five. Uh I also want to rise in support of this particular uh article. And the reason is because uh I have paid money to the town, to the police department actually, to get a record request. Uh last year I I'd just asked for the crime stats, the uh list of crimes that uh have occurred in Smomscot with the arrests,

[Speaker 5] (2:12:21 - 2:12:25)
the citations, etcetera. Stuff that you would think

[Speaker 5] (2:12:25 - 2:12:26)
should already be public.

[Speaker 5] (2:12:27 - 2:12:30)
And I could see the point that this is really, again,

[Speaker 5] (2:12:30 - 2:12:39)
not resolving the issue at hand, but I hope it does encourage all of the town departments to

[Speaker 5] (2:12:40 - 2:12:42)
work to resolve the problem at hand.

[Speaker 5] (2:12:42 - 2:12:53)
The problem is we don't have great information systems. The police department did not charge me twenty five dollars because they hate me and they said Aaron I don't want you to have any of our data.

[Speaker 5] (2:12:54 - 2:12:56)
They charge me twenty five dollars because it just takes man hours.

[Speaker 5] (2:12:57 - 2:13:00)
They have horrible systems. They have horrible information systems to pull data,

[Speaker 5] (2:13:01 - 2:13:06)
even to just input data. Their work is made difficult by that and alone.

[Speaker 5] (2:13:07 - 2:13:32)
Captain Cable over there sitting there a couple years ago pulled all the police log records from the past five years his computer kept crashing like every half hour just to pull the records it's a difficult process to the school committee's point but hopefully we can make some investments in that in the future as we need to and make some of this information already public that should be public to begin with so let's make it free yes

[Speaker 5] (2:13:33 - 2:13:38)
But let's work towards making sure these departments can do that efficiently as well.

[Speaker 5] (2:13:38 - 2:13:38)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:38 - 2:13:39)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:39 - 2:13:39)
Bernoff.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:40 - 2:13:40)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:41 - 2:13:41)
Hartman.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:47 - 2:13:49)
Air Carbon Precinct 1, Chair of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:49 - 2:13:54)
This wasn't really an article that FinCom is expected to talk about, but it does have some financial impact,

[Speaker 1] (2:13:54 - 2:13:56)
so we did discuss it.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:56 - 2:14:01)
Our concern is that, you know, we're concerned about when there are significant requests for a lot of data,

[Speaker 1] (2:14:01 - 2:14:07)
that it does create a drain on our already limited town resources. It can take a lot of time and effort,

[Speaker 1] (2:14:07 - 2:14:09)
never mind printing costs.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:10 - 2:14:13)
We understand that the fees that are charged are defined by general...

[Speaker 1] (2:14:13 - 2:14:21)
are by mass general laws. So it should not be any kind of arbitrary amount. It's already defined that it's it should be consistent statewide.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:22 - 2:14:32)
We also understand the town staff will typically work with somebody who's requesting the information where they might just say give me this large blanket of information and having some fee structure

[Speaker 1] (2:14:32 - 2:14:54)
can lead to a conversation to say, well what is it you're really trying to get at? Do you really need every invoice for the last six years? And when they have that discussion, oftentimes town staff can work with the person and figure out what they truly need because there's a desire to reduce the fee, and that leads to the person getting what they need and not having such a burden on town staff. So the uh FinCom actually took a kind of state of the committee

[Speaker 1] (2:14:55 - 2:14:58)
feel and and we voted to not support this article.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:58 - 2:14:59)
Thank you, Mr. Hartman.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:00 - 2:15:01)
Mr. Demento.

[Speaker 6] (2:15:14 - 2:15:17)
Bill Demento, Precinct Six town meeting member.

[Speaker 6] (2:15:18 - 2:15:24)
I have been known to request file some requests for public records.

[Speaker 6] (2:15:25 - 2:15:28)
So that Jared and I are pretty much on a first-name basis.

[Speaker 6] (2:15:29 - 2:15:34)
And I think the law works fine the way it is.

[Speaker 6] (2:15:34 - 2:15:40)
And this looks to me dangerous and possibly expensive to the town.

[Speaker 6] (2:15:40 - 2:15:44)
And I'd just like to immediately vote it down and get out of here.

[Speaker 6] (2:15:44 - 2:15:45)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:46 - 2:15:46)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:46 - 2:15:47)
Demento.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:48 - 2:15:48)
Ms.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:48 - 2:15:50)
Tidcombe, did I see you want to rise?

[Speaker 7] (2:15:52 - 2:15:54)
Clarify quickly the state

[Speaker 1] (2:15:54 - 2:15:54)
I'm

[Speaker 7] (2:15:54 - 2:15:54)
law.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:54 - 2:15:55)
sorry, just

[Speaker 7] (2:15:55 - 2:15:55)
Oh, got to

[Speaker 1] (2:15:55 - 2:15:56)
get on the mic.

[Speaker 7] (2:15:56 - 2:15:57)
hold this because I'm short.

[Speaker 7] (2:15:58 - 2:15:58)
So.

[Speaker 7] (2:15:59 - 2:16:01)
I think it's just looking,

[Speaker 7] (2:16:01 - 2:16:10)
you know, the town is currently silent on the issue, so it defers to the state law referenced in the article. But so just to clarify,

[Speaker 7] (2:16:10 - 2:16:13)
chapter 66.10(d)(i) just refers to we can,

[Speaker 7] (2:16:13 - 2:16:20)
the town is able to charge fees for printing and like actual physical resources for doing so.

[Speaker 7] (2:16:20 - 2:16:28)
It just doesn't allow for charging as the state law does for two hours or four hours of.

[Speaker 7] (2:16:27 - 2:16:55)
of work by an employee. I can understand why the state has that because of the number of residents that the state has to respond to and the amount of resources that would be in theory devoted to that but as compared to a town especially as small as ours with the added precaution of three records requests being within a year if it's more than that it becomes burdensome that's an exception it seems to me that it would be fair given the size of our town and that limitation.

[Speaker 7] (2:16:55 - 2:17:02)
that charging only for the cost of production and not for time is reasonable.

[Speaker 7] (2:17:02 - 2:17:13)
I mean, I know it's burdensome, but all public government is burdensome and we have a right to the information. So it seems that this would, this provision makes sense. Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:13 - 2:17:15)
Thank you, Ms. Tidcombe.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:19 - 2:17:22)
Ms. Sarah, can you shed some light on any of the numbers in question?

[Speaker 8] (2:17:25 - 2:17:26)
Hi.

[Speaker 8] (2:17:26 - 2:17:28)
For FY25,

[Speaker 8] (2:17:28 - 2:17:32)
the town received 230 public records requests already,

[Speaker 8] (2:17:32 - 2:17:36)
of which 13 of those had to go to legal.

[Speaker 8] (2:17:37 - 2:17:39)
So for FY25 alone,

[Speaker 8] (2:17:39 - 2:17:50)
the town has paid over $27,000 in legal costs to review these very few, less than eight public records requests.

[Speaker 8] (2:17:52 - 2:18:00)
So that is kind of the nexus that we're talking about. So it's not, you know, people submitting more than three requests.

[Speaker 8] (2:18:00 - 2:18:16)
It's people submitting one or two very large requests that are requiring legal to review them and the town is incurring over $27,000 of legal costs just for that portion for those few people requests.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:19 - 2:18:19)
Thank you, Ms. Sarah.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:20 - 2:18:23)
Is there further discussion on Mr. Duffy's motion,

[Speaker 1] (2:18:23 - 2:18:24)
Mr.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:24 - 2:18:24)
Duffy?

[Speaker 3] (2:18:26 - 2:18:32)
Can I just ask then what were the fees then that you charged for those $27,000 worth of legal requests of legal fees?

[Speaker 8] (2:18:33 - 2:18:38)
The town has received $1,637.50 in

[Speaker 8] (2:18:38 - 2:18:42)
fees from the people who requested the information.

[Speaker 3] (2:18:42 - 2:18:47)
Okay, so you're offsetting $27,000 with $1,000 of resident money,

[Speaker 3] (2:18:47 - 2:18:49)
probably one or two residents.

[Speaker 8] (2:18:49 - 2:18:53)
We are, yeah, we are capped in what we can request.

[Speaker 3] (2:18:53 - 2:18:54)
Okay,

[Speaker 3] (2:18:54 - 2:18:54)
so I...

[Speaker 2] (2:18:54 - 2:19:01)
Okay, so I would just reiterate my view is I think access to the information is more important than $1,000.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:03 - 2:19:04)
Thank you, Mr Duffy.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:06 - 2:19:10)
Any further debate or discussion on Mr Duffy's Mr Aniccone?

[Speaker 4] (2:19:18 - 2:19:19)
I just want to clarify one point.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:19 - 2:19:20)
And again, just...

[Speaker 4] (2:19:20 - 2:19:22)
Steve and I in the Coney Precinct 4,

[Speaker 4] (2:19:23 - 2:19:28)
I do want to clarify one point from what Ms. Arrow was saying,

[Speaker 4] (2:19:28 - 2:19:35)
that the cost was $27,000, but what was paid was $1,000 or so.

[Speaker 4] (2:19:36 - 2:19:41)
So it's still a cost to the town to provide the service,

[Speaker 4] (2:19:41 - 2:19:44)
and I think people should kind of be aware of that,

[Speaker 4] (2:19:44 - 2:19:46)
even if they aren't paying the entire amount.

[Speaker 4] (2:19:46 - 2:19:59)
cost that they pay a portion I don't know again I don't know every single request so I but I don't see this as being unreasonable that people would pay a portion thank you

[Speaker 3] (2:20:00 - 2:20:01)
Thank you, Mr. Head County.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:02 - 2:20:04)
Yes, sir, Mr. Contreras.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:06 - 2:20:07)
And then Ms. Smith.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:07 - 2:20:11)
Hello, Michael Contreras, Precinct 1 school committee member.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:12 - 2:20:15)
I just have a clarification question is,

[Speaker 2] (2:20:16 - 2:20:25)
is there a fee that we charge per hour of researching and compiling of any of the information that we're collecting for those requests?

[Speaker 1] (2:20:29 - 2:20:35)
So if, depending on the request, an estimate is sent by the town clerk to the requester,

[Speaker 1] (2:20:35 - 2:20:39)
indicating the estimate of time that it would take,

[Speaker 1] (2:20:39 - 2:20:50)
if it exceeds a certain amount of hours, it does trigger for the lowest cost employee to complete that work capped at $25 an hour regardless of that employee's pay.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:51 - 2:20:51)
Okay,

[Speaker 3] (2:20:51 - 2:20:54)
thank you. And I'm sorry, Council,

[Speaker 3] (2:20:54 - 2:20:55)
if you could clarify and then...

[Speaker 3] (2:20:56 - 2:20:56)
Mr. Clerk.

[Speaker 5] (2:20:58 - 2:21:09)
Uh I will also say there was a provision within the law that uh states it's twenty-fi if it's any more than twenty-five dollars that it must go before the secretary of the commonwealth for approval,

[Speaker 5] (2:21:09 - 2:21:17)
so there is an approval process to that, and the town is never charged more than seventy-five dollars per for legal counsel even though the

[Speaker 5] (2:21:17 - 2:21:21)
or or I_T_ uh which is um

[Speaker 3] (2:21:25 - 2:21:25)
Thank you, Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:21:25 - 2:21:25)
Clerk.

[Speaker 3] (2:21:26 - 2:21:27)
Ms. Smith.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:31 - 2:21:33)
So I have a question about, sorry,

[Speaker 1] (2:21:34 - 2:21:34)
Liz Smith,

[Speaker 1] (2:21:34 - 2:21:35)
Precinct 3.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:35 - 2:21:37)
The $27,000 in legal fees,

[Speaker 1] (2:21:37 - 2:21:43)
were those resident requests or commercial requests or what percent of each?

[Speaker 3] (2:21:44 - 2:21:45)
Ms.

[Speaker 3] (2:21:45 - 2:21:45)
Sarah,

[Speaker 3] (2:21:45 - 2:21:46)
go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:48 - 2:21:51)
These were specifically denoted as resident requests.

[Speaker 3] (2:21:54 - 2:21:54)
Thank you, Ms.

[Speaker 3] (2:21:54 - 2:21:55)
Serra.

[Speaker 3] (2:21:55 - 2:21:56)
Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:21:56 - 2:21:56)
Perry.

[Speaker 5] (2:22:00 - 2:22:00)
Move.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:00 - 2:22:00)
Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:00 - 2:22:03)
Perry has called the question. Is there a second?

[Speaker 3] (2:22:04 - 2:22:07)
This is a two-thirds vote to end debate on this topic.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:07 - 2:22:08)
All those in favor?

[Speaker 3] (2:22:09 - 2:22:10)
All those opposed?

[Speaker 3] (2:22:10 - 2:22:12)
The question has been called. We now move to a vote on Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:13 - 2:22:16)
Duffy's motion under the citizen petition article for Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:16 - 2:22:17)
Greenfield.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:17 - 2:22:19)
All those in favor of Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:19 - 2:22:21)
Duffy's motion, please raise your hand.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:22 - 2:22:23)
All those opposed?

[Speaker 3] (2:22:24 - 2:22:25)
The motion fails.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:26 - 2:22:28)
Having dispensed with all the articles,

[Speaker 3] (2:22:28 - 2:22:32)
I will welcome a motion to dissolve.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:32 - 2:22:34)
Do you have a point of order? Hold on,

[Speaker 3] (2:22:34 - 2:22:34)
Mr.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:34 - 2:22:35)
Barton, do you have a point of order?

[Speaker 3] (2:22:38 - 2:22:39)
What is your question,

[Speaker 3] (2:22:39 - 2:22:39)
sir?

[Speaker 3] (2:22:47 - 2:22:49)
I will make sure to get you an answer to that.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:49 - 2:22:53)
I have taken a motion to dissolve the 2025 annual town meeting.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:53 - 2:22:55)
All those in favor,

[Speaker 3] (2:22:55 - 2:22:57)
please get home safely.